[00:00:01]
GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
[Board of Adjustments: Panel B on August 21, 2024.]
I'M SHERRY GABO AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS THE VICE CHAIR OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND PRESIDING OFFICER OF PANEL B.TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21ST WITH THE TIME OF 1:05 PM AND I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING OF THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT PANEL B TO ORDER FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING, BOTH IN PERSON AND ON HYBRID VIDEO CONFERENCE.
A QUORUM, WHICH IS A MINIMUM OF FOUR OR FIVE OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS IS PRESENT, AND THEREFORE, WE CAN PROCEED WITH THIS MEETING.
UM, TODAY REPRESENTING THE PANEL IS MYSELF, SHERRY GABO.
WE HAVE SARAH LAND, JOE CANNON, AND ANDREW FINNEY.
UH, WE ALSO HAVE, UH, STAFF PRESENT.
WE HAVE MATTHEW SAPP, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY BRYANT THOMPSON, OUR SENIOR PLANNER AND BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, DR.
OUR CHIEF PLANNER IS ATTENDING VIRTUALLY DIANA BARUM, OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIALIST AND PROJECT COORDINATOR CAMBRIA JORDAN, OUR SENIOR PLANNER, NORA NDA, OUR SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER, SARAH ARI, OUR SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER JASON POOL, OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICE ADMINISTRATOR, MARY WILLIAMS, OUR BOARD SECRETARY OF MEETING MODERATOR, AND DAVID NAVAREZ, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER.
UM, BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE WAY WE, IN, IN WHICH, IN THE WAY IN WHICH THIS HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL.
WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR THIS TIME.
WE OPERATE UNDER CITY COUNCIL APPROVED RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE.
NO ACTION OR DECISION SETS PRECEDENT ON A CASE.
EACH CASE IS DECIDED UPON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED EACH USE IS PRESUMED TO BE A LEGAL USE.
WE HAVE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY STAFF PRIOR TO THIS HEARING AND HAVE ALSO REVIEWED A DETAILED DOCKET WITH WHICH EXPLAINS A CASE AND WAS POSTED SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY OF THE CASES THAT WE WILL HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD'S SECRETARY WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED.
THIS EVIDENCE MUST BE RETAINED IN BOARD'S OFFICE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.
APPROVALS OF A VARIANCE, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR REVERSAL OF A BUILDING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL DECISION REQUIRES FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, UM, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU MUST HAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THIS PANEL IN ORDER TO GET A VARIANCE OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR REVERSAL.
UM, 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, BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING AND WILL BECOME A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.
AND FINALLY, ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES, OR WHEN A SPECIFIC CASE IS CALLED FOR ITS PUBLIC HEARING FOR A MAXIMUM OF FIVE.
ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON ANOTHER VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
THERE'LL BE NO TELECONFERENCING, WILL BE NO TELECONFERENCING WILL BE ALLOWED ON THE WEBEX.
ALL COMMENTS ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN ORDER.
AND WITH THAT, WE WILL, UM, GET STARTED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
UM, I GUESS THE MODIFIED MINUTES, WHICH I'VE NOT SEEN, UM, DID WE GET THOSE EMAILED TO US, MARY, THE MODIFIED MINUTES? NO, THOSE WERE WE, UM, REVISED AND, AND SEND TO YOU.
SO WE'LL, WE'LL APPROVE THOSE AT THE NEXT MEETING.
UM, UM, YOU CAN VOTE ON IT AND, UM, AFTER WHATEVER MODIFICATIONS WE CAN UP YOU OR IF I MAY, UM, NO.
UM, SO I THINK, UM, WE REVIEWED THE MINUTES.
THERE WERE A FEW ERRORS IN TERMS OF WHO IT PRESENT AND WHO VOTED IN LAST, UM, MEETING HEARING, WHICH IS IN MAY OF 2024.
UM, I THINK SOME SUGGESTIONS ON CHANGES ON THE MINUTES WERE MADE DURING BRIEFING, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO MAKE AN ADDITIONAL CHANGE.
I I THINK YOU CAPTURED ALL OF THOSE WITH THE, I THINK SHE GOT ALL OF THOSE.
NO, BECAUSE HE SAID HE WAS PRESENT.
CORRECT, BUT NO, SHE, I EMAILED.
UH, MR. UH, PHIL SA AND DR. GLOVER WERE PRESENT AND, UH, UM, MS. LAMB AND MS. UH, MR. NOTAL WERE ABSENT AND MS. CHAIR GABO LEFT.
SO I'D MIGHT MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD OVER APPROVING OF THE MINUTES UNTIL THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING.
YES, BUT IF ANYBODY WANTS TO, I SECOND THAT MOTION.
LET'S AT THE NEXT MEETING THEN, UM, DO WE HAVE ANY, UM, PUBLIC TESTIMONY TODAY? NO REGISTER SPEAKERS.
AND, ALRIGHT, WELL THEN WE CAN START OUR, UM, START THE AGENDA.
WE'LL START WITH OUR UNCONTESTED CASES.
UM, SO WE'LL START WITH OUR UNCONTESTED DOCKET.
[00:05:01]
DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET? MS. LAMB? I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS 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, THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE AS APPLICABLE TO WIT, UH, BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 9 4 APPLICATION OF ROB BALDWIN.FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE OPACITY REGULATIONS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE FOR OPACITY AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED.
THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SITE SUBMITTED SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
BDA 2 3 4 DASH NINE FOUR APPLICATION OF ROD BALL ROB BALDWIN FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION REGULATIONS IN DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE TO THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS IN REGARDS TO THE PORTION, UH, IN VIOLATION OF THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION TRIANGLE ARE REQUIRED.
BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 0 2 APPLICATION OF JENNIFER PRIMO FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DEFENSE HEIGHT.
REGULATIONS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED, UH, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE TO HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SMITH AND SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND THAT MOTION.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE MS. LAMB? AYE.
SO OUR FINAL THREE CASES OF THE DAY, UM, UH, HAVE ALL ASKED FOR, UM, EXTENDED TIME.
UM, WE WILL BE HEARING THOUGH BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 9 7 61 21 EAST LOVE LANE.
UM, SO I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS, UM, THE CASE ON, ON THE TWO CASES ON KELSEY ROAD AND, UM, I'D LIKE TO, UM, GET A MOTION FROM THE FLOOR ON BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 9 6, UM, 53 25 KELSEY ROAD.
UM, WE CAN, UM, HEAR THIS CASE OR WE CAN HOLD THE MATTER OVER UNTIL SEPTEMBER.
QUESTION IS WE HAVE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE IN REGARDS TO, WE HAVE TWO CASES ON, ON KELSEY.
WE HAVE TWO CASES ON KELSEY AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE, UM, APPLICANTS AND, UM, PEOPLE HERE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE TODAY.
THIS CASE WERE THE OTHER, I BELIEVE BOTH CASES ARE Y'ALL FOR BOTH CASES? CORRECT.
UM, MY QUESTION IS, IS THE APPLICANT HERE TODAY? IS THE APPLICANT IN THE ROOM TODAY OKAY.
UM, I MEAN, I I THINK SINCE WE HAVE BOTH THE APPLICANT HERE AND PUBLIC THAT WE AT LEAST HEAR THE CASE, WE CAN DETERMINE, UM, ONCE WE HEAR IT HOW WE WANNA PROCEED.
UM, IF, IF WE HEAR BOTH SIDES THE CASE WE DETERMINE MAYBE MORE TIME IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC INPUT OR FOR THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORS TO WORK TOGETHER, THEN WE CAN MAKE THAT DECISION AFTER HEARING, UH, THE CASE.
THERE'S, THERE'S BEEN A REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT TO HOLD OVER THE CASE TILL SEPTEMBER.
WE ALSO HAVE THE PUBLIC THAT'S COME TO SPEAK IN REGARDS TO THE CASE AND WE HAVE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION.
SO IT'S IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW TO DETERMINE DO WE, DO WE GRANT THE, THE REQUEST TO HOLD OVER TILL SEPTEMBER OR DO WE HEAR THE CASE, UM, GIVEN THAT THERE'S PUBLIC HERE AND THE APPLICANT'S HERE, WE DON'T NEED A MOTION TO DECIDE THAT.
I THINK WE JUST NEED TO DECIDE IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO HOLD IT OVER OR IF WE'D LIKE TO HEAR THE CASE.
I'M, UM, WE DID NOT, I, I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE HEAR, UM, UM, BOTH THE 53 25 KELSEY ROAD AND THE 53 22 KELSEY ROAD BEFORE WE HEAR THE LOVER'S LANE CASE, UM, JUST TO, UM, MAXIMIZE EV EVERYBODY'S TIME AND WE'LL DO THOSE BACK TO BACK VERSUS WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA.
WELL, IF, UM, WE CAN HEAR FROM, UM, THE APPLICANT AT 53 25 KELSEY ROAD, BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 9 6, PLEASE SWEAR IN, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE PROCEED
[00:10:27]
MS. LIAM.SO WHAT KIND OF, UM, WE SAW SOME LETTERS HERE AND THINGS HAVE OBVIOUSLY CHANGED FOR BOTH THESE CASES, BUT HOW MUCH OUTREACH HAVE YOU MADE TO THOSE, UM, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE REPORTINGS OF THE NEIGHBORS? THERE'S QUITE A FEW NEIGHBORS HERE.
UM, AND WHAT, WHAT SORT OF CONTINUED OUTREACH WOULD YOU HAVE? UM, IF, IF YOU'RE AGREEING TO THE NEXT AN EXTENSION HERE? UM, IS YOUR MICROPHONE ON? JUST WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE, WELL, WE CAN, UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME FOLKS ONLINE CANNOT HEAR YOU, SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS DOUBLE CHECKING.
OH, NOW IT'S ON IT, IT WAS GREEN.
DO NOT GREEN AND, UH, I'M SORRY.
UM, PETER KAVANAUGH, 1620 HANLEY DRIVE DALLAS REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, CHARLES ANDERSON.
UH, PER WHAT WE JUST SAID OFF MY, UH, WE WERE REQUESTED THIS CASE BE HELD, UH, TO THE SEPTEMBER MEETING, UH, AND TO THE QUESTION THAT CAME TO ME THAT, UH, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS? OUR, OUR OWNERS, IN FACT DID GO TO DOOR TO DOOR TO NEIGHBORS AROUND US.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SUPPORT LETTERS, WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY.
UH, YOU SAW THOSE REPRESENTED ON A MAP THIS MORNING IN THE BRIEFING.
UH, BUT THERE ARE OTHER NEIGHBORS WHO GENERALLY, EXCEPT FOR TWO, I BELIEVE ARE OUTSIDE THE NOTICE AREA AND A A, SOME DISTANCE AWAY BEYOND WHERE OUR OWNERS WALKED, IF YOU WILL, TO THEIR NEIGHBORS.
UH, AND I BELIEVE THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE HERE, ALTHOUGH I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW ANY OF THE FOLKS WHO ARE HERE.
UH, WE LEARNED YESTERDAY FROM THE NEIGHBOR JUST IMMEDIATE TO OUR EAST THAT, UH, THEY WOULD BE OPPOSING THIS, THIS REQUEST AS OPPOSED TO NOT BEING THRILLED ABOUT IT, NOT SAYING ANYTHING.
UH, SO WE CERTAINLY WANT TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM AND, UH, UH, ARE, AGAIN, WE HUMBLY REQUEST THAT YOU HOLD THE CASE WHILE WE CAN VISIT WITH THEM AND SEE IF WE CAN ADDRESS ISSUES THAT, UH, THAT THEY HAVE.
WELL THEN WE WILL, UM, I GUESS WE'LL HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION.
SO IF YOU ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND YOU HAVE, AND YOU EACH HAVE FIVE MINUTES, MS. ALLEN WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT THE BOARD WITH 11 PAGES.
I MAKE, I MAKE A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE, THE RULES CONCERNING THE AMOUNT OF DOCUMENTS WE CAN HAVE AND WE'LL ACCEPT THOSE.
CAN I ASK THAT WE PASS ONE OUT TO THE A APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE AS WELL, PLEASE? MAY I HAVE A YAY OR NAY ON OUR MOTION? I, JOE CANNON YAY OR YEAH, ANDREW, YOU GIVE HER THAT? YES.
THAT MOTION PAT? SORRY, THAT, SO THE, THE TWO HAND UP ONE HAS
AND, UM, THE BOARD SECRETARY IS GOING TO SWEAR IN EVERYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, SO IF YOU ARE PLANNING TO SPEAK, IF YOU CAN STAND UP, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
DO YOU ALL SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
AND THEN WHEN YOU COME FORWARD, YOU'LL JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
[00:15:02]
MS. JULIE ALLEN.MY NAME IS JULIE ALLEN AND I LIVE AT 53 37 KELSEY ROAD.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS MY FAMILY'S OPPOSITION TO THE HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUESTED BY THE OWNERS AT 53 25 KELSEY ROAD.
WE ARE THEIR IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST.
MY FIRST HANDOUT, THIS ONE SHOWS ALL 19 HOMES ON KELSEY ROAD IN THE MAYFLOWER ESTATE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALL 19 HOMES ON KELSEY OF THE 19 HOMES ON KELSEY, FIVE HAVE FENCES AT THE STREET LEVEL AND ALL ARE AT FOUR FEET TALL NOW.
THEN IF YOU'LL LOOK AT MY SECOND HANDOUT, 53 25 KELSEY ROAD CURRENTLY HAS A FOUR FOOT FENCE WITH SHRUBS AT THE SAME HEIGHT AND TWO FOUR FOOT RIGHT IRON, SEE-THROUGH GATES AT THE STREET LEVEL AND BEHIND THE FOUR FOOT FENCE AND GATES.
THEY HAVE AN ADDITIONAL SECURITY MEASURE, WHICH I'VE HIGHLIGHTED A SIX FOOT STUCCO WALL CALLED COVERED IN IVY WITH A SOLID GATE AT LEAST SIX FEET TALL, CREATING A COURTYARD AND ADDITIONAL BARRIER BEFORE REACHING THE FRONT DOOR.
THEY ALSO HAVE ANOTHER SIX FOOT SOLID GATE LEADING TO THE GARAGE AREA.
ON BOTH SIDES OF THEIR PROPERTY, THERE IS A FOUR FOOT FENCE WITH AN IMPENETRABLE WALL OF SHRUBS, SIX TO EIGHT FEET TALL.
THEY'RE REQUESTING TO REPLACE THEIR COMPLIANT FOUR FOOT FENCE AND GATES AT THE STREET LEVEL WITH A SEVEN AND A HALF TO FIVE FOOT FENCE.
IT'S UNCLEAR IN THEIR DOCUMENTS WHICH ONE IT IS WITH AN EIGHT FOOT WITH EIGHT FOOT COLUMNS PLUS EIGHT FOOT SHRUBS BEHIND, IN ESSENCE CREATING AN EIGHT FOOT WALL.
AND THE KICKER FOR US IS THEY WANT TO ADD TWO, SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT SOLID GATES AT THE STREET LEVEL, LIKE THE ONE LEADING TO THAT GARAGE AREA.
SO ESSENTIALLY THEY'RE HOPING TO CREATE A WALLED COMPOUND THAT IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEIR BEAUTIFUL HOME WOULD LOOK VERY SIMILAR TO 1 0 2 2 7 GAYWOOD WITH ITS SOLID EIGHT FOOT TALL GATES AND EIGHT FOOT SHRUBS, WHICH YOUR BOARD DENIED WITH PREJUDICE IN MARCH OF 2023.
NOW THEN ON THE SECOND PAGE HERE OF THIS HANDOUT, IF I MAY DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE NEXT TO THIS PICTURE DOWN HERE.
THIS IS US TRYING TO PULL OUT OF OUR DRIVEWAY, AND THAT IS 53 25 KELSEY ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PHOTO WITH JUST ONE SERVICE VEHICLE, VEHICLE PARKED IN FRONT, OFTEN IT IS TWO OR MORE, WE HAVE TO INCH OUT VERY SLOWLY ONTO THE STREET AND HOPE NO CARS COMING BECAUSE WE CAN'T SEE THEM AND THEY CAN'T SEE US.
IN ADDITION TO THAT SAFETY ISSUE, IS THE CONCERN FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE WHAT IS GOING ON BEHIND A WALLED COMPOUND.
IF THERE IS A FIRE AND THE OWNERS WERE NOT HOME, WHO WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE IT? HOW WOULD EMERGENCY VEHICLES GET IN THROUGH A SEVEN AND A HALF TO EIGHT FOOT FENCE WITH EIGHT FOOT SHRUBS AND TWO SOLID SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT GATES? THIS TYPE OF STRUCTURE IS A DANGER TO THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOODS AND OUR PROPERTIES.
WE HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR SAFETY.
MANY GATED COMMUNITIES IN DALLAS OFFER TALL SECURE FENCING AND 24 HOUR MANNED NCES MAY.
FLOWERS ESTATES IS A NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT A GATED COMMUNITY, AND WE, THE ALLEN FAMILY, DO NOT WANT TO LIVE NEXT TO AN EIGHT FOOT WALLED COMPOUND.
ELIZABETH WINSLOW, I HAVE A, I HAVE A HANDOUT ALSO FOR EVERYONE
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH YOU.
I LIVE AT 1 0 1 1 1 GAYWOOD ROAD WHERE I HAVE LIVED FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS, AND I AM VERY SORRY TO HAVE TO BE HERE AGAIN.
I WAS HERE IN MARCH, 2023 OPPOSING THE EIGHT FOOT TALL SOLID BLACK GATES, WHICH WERE BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT AT 1 0 2 2 7 GAYWOOD NEAR MY HOME.
AND I JUST PASSED OUT PICTURES OF THOSE GATES.
THOSE GATES, THEIR REQUEST WAS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE HERE BY YOU.
AND YET THESE UNSIGHTLY GATES IN CONTINUE TO STAND.
[00:20:02]
NOW ANOTHER NEIGHBOR ON KELSEY ROAD IS REQUESTING PERMISSION TO BUILD TALL FENCES AND GATES.I WALK BY THIS PROPERTY ALMOST EVERY DAY, THE PROPERTY OWNER SITE SECURITY REASONS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD POLICE PATROL EVERY EVENING UNTIL ABOUT 5:00 AM THE POLICE PATROL IS COMPOSED OF DALLAS POLICE OFFICERS.
I JUST ASKED A WEEK AGO WHAT OUR CRIME RATE WAS.
OUR CRIME RATE IS VERY LOW CONSISTING PRIMARILY OF CONSTRUCTION SITE CRIMES.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CALLED THE MAYFLOWER ESTATES HAS ABOUT 150 PROPERTIES.
IT WAS NOT BUILT IN THE TYPICAL GRID FORMATION.
IT HAS CURVY STREETS AND OPEN YARDS.
IT PROJECTS AN OPEN FRIENDLY FEEL, WHICH HAS ATTRACTED MANY OF US TO BUY HOMES HERE.
IF NEIGHBORS ARE ALLOWED TO BUILD TALL FENCES AND GATES, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WILL SOON LOOK LIKE MANY COMPOUNDS AND OUR PROPERTY VALUES WILL SURELY DECREASE.
I ASK YOU TO DENY THIS REQUEST TO BUILD TALL FENCES AND GATES.
THANKS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
I ALSO WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, UM, WITH RESPECT TO THE HOUSE ON GAYWOOD, UM, YOU CAN CALL 3 1 1 AND START A TICKET.
UM, SO THAT CODE COMPLIANCE WILL COME OUT AND CITE THEM IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY DONE THAT FOR THE HOUSE THAT HAS NOT TAKEN DOWN THE GATES THAT WE RULED ON.
OH, THAT'S HOW YOU, THAT WOULD BE THE WAY TO HANDLE THAT IS TO CALL THREE ONE ONE.
YOU CAN ALSO CALL YOUR CITY COUNCIL PERSON, UH, OH, SORRY.
I AM SEEING HERE IT LOOKS LIKE, UM, WITH THAT PARTICULAR CASE, GRANTED NO CASE THAT'S PRECEDENT THAT A COMPROMISE HAS REACHED BETWEEN THE CITY AND AS LONG AS THE HOMEOWNERS, UH, LEAVE THE GATE OPEN WHERE IT'S NOT VISIBLE, THEN IT CAN REMAIN IS WHAT I'M SEEING HERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE OR NOT.
NO, I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK, NO, I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT WAS RULED.
SO IF, IF YOU WOULD, THAT GATE BASED ON THE RULING AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, IT SHOULD BE TAKEN DOWN UNLESS THERE'S BEEN A DIFFERENT AGREEMENT MADE WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
AND YOU CAN CALL YOUR CITY COUNCIL PERSON, I BELIEVE IS GAY WILLIS.
AND YOU, AND OR YOU CAN ALSO CALL 3 1 1 AND START THE PROCESS.
THEY'LL GIVE, THEY'LL GIVE YOU A CASE NUMBER AND ONCE FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE COME OUT, UM, CODE COMPLIANCE WILL COME OUT AND HELP TAKE CARE OF THAT FOR YOU.
I KNOW THE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER VERY WELL AND NOTHING HAS HAPPENED AND WE HAVE TALKED WITH GAY WILLIS AND NOTHING HAS HAPPENED.
DOES STAFF HAVE ANY, UM, ANY RECOMMENDATION FOR THE NEIGHBORS IN REGARDS TO THAT PREVIOUS BOA CASE WHEN THEY REACH OUT TO THEIR COUNCIL MEMBER AND TWO ON ONE, WHAT SORT OF RELIEF THE NEIGHBORS CAN GET? ARE YOU REFERRING TO 1 0 2 2 7 GAYWOOD? YES.
SO I SENT THE EMAIL TO JESSICA HERNANDEZ, WHO'S SHE ISSUES PER, SHE'S THE SUPERVISOR WHO ISSUES PERMITS AT THE PERMIT CENTER.
AND I ASKED HER TO TAKE A LOOK INTO IT, AND SO AT SOME POINT IN TIME THEY WILL TAKE A LOOK INTO IT, UM, AND, AND GO FROM THERE.
BUT IT HAS BEEN NOTIFIED AND SOMEONE WILL BE CHECKING.
WE'VE NOTIFIED CITY STAFF TO LOOK INTO THAT FURTHER IN TERMS OF 1 0 2 2 7 GATEWOOD.
HELLO, I'M HARRY ANN WALLENSTEIN.
MY HUSBAND DAVID AND I HAVE LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE SAME HOUSE FOR 38 YEARS.
CAN YOU STATE YOUR, UH, NAME, YOUR ADDRESS AS WELL? OH ONE, MY ADDRESS IS 1 0 1 2 2 GAYWOOD ROAD.
WE OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE TALL FENCES FOR REASONS ALREADY SPOKEN OF TODAY.
I LIVE AT 5 1 2 5 METERS LANE.
[00:25:01]
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCES AND THE GATES THAT ARE TALLER THAN CODE REQUIRES OR ALLOWS.AND, UM, MY 6-YEAR-OLD AND 4-YEAR-OLD GRANDDAUGHTER LIVE WITH ME AND I AM ON A DIFFERENT STREET AND, BUT IT, WE WALK THE NEIGHBORHOOD, EVERYBODY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WALKS THROUGH THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH CHILDREN AND DOGS, AND IT REALLY ISN'T SAFE FOR THEM WHEN THERE'S A TALL, TALLER GATE OR FENCE LIKE THE ONE THAT YOU ALL WERE TALKING ABOUT ON GAYWOOD.
YOU HAVE TO BE REALLY, REALLY CAREFUL AND WAIT AND MAKE SURE AND HOPE YOUR KIDS DON'T GET IN FRONT, IN FRONT OF YOU ON THEIR LITTLE BICYCLES BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE WHAT'S COMING OUT THAT GATE.
AND SO I LIKE EVERYBODY HERE WITH ME OPPOSED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION ACTUALLY FOR, UM, FOR YOU.
UM, HAVE APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE REACHED OUT TO YOU? NO, NOBODY HAS.
UM, DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE A HELPFUL PRACTICE, UM, IF THEY WERE TO SIT DOWN WITH YOU AND, AND THE NEIGHBORS TO DISCUSS, UM, KIND OF WHAT THIS PROJECT LOOKS LIKE FOR THEM? UM, I SUPPOSE IT COULDN'T HURT.
I, I'M ALWAYS, I ALWAYS LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, BUILD BRIDGES RATHER THAN FENCES, SO RIGHT.
YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD HURT AT ALL.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? OH, YEP.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON IN PROTEST, UH, OF THESE, OF THIS CONSTRUCTION, OF THESE REBATES.
MY NAME IS DAVID ELMQUIST, MY WIFE ALICE, AND I LIVE AT 5 3 5 1 KELSEY ROAD.
WE RECEIVED NOTICE OF IN THESE PROCEEDINGS TODAY, BECAUSE WE LIVE WITHIN 200 FEET OF EACH OF THESE HOUSES.
I, UH, EXCUSE ME, MR. KAVANAUGH INDICATED THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN EFFORT TO SPEAK TO NEIGHBORS.
DOOR TO DOOR WE'RE TWO HOUSES DOWN FROM THE ANDERSONS, BUT NO ONE AT THAT HOUSEHOLD CONTACTED US ABOUT THIS CONSTRUCTION.
LIKE OUR, MY OTHER NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE SPOKEN IN OPPOSITION TO THESE, UH, GATES THAT THE ANDERSON HAVE IN MIND CONSTRUCTING.
UH, WE ARE OPPOSED TO IT BECAUSE MAYFLOWER ESTATES IS AN OPEN NEIGHBORHOOD, MOSTLY RANCH HOMES WITH WIDE OPEN YARDS.
IT'S A, IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS OPEN AND FRIENDLY.
TALL GATES ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LOOK AND FEEL OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND IF THIS EXCEPTION IS ALLOWED, WE, WE FEEL THAT OTHER NEIGHBORS WILL BE FOLLOWING SUIT TO SEEK PERMISSION TO BUILD THEIR OWN GATES.
SO WHAT WE WILL END UP WITH IN, IN GA IN, UH, THIS, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS MANY, MANY COMPOUNDS THAT TOTALLY DETRACT FROM THE LOOK AND FEEL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD THAT NOW EXISTS.
THERE'S A REASON FOR THIS REQUIREMENT THAT GATES NOT BEING MORE THAN 404 FEET TALL, UH, THAT THIS WAS IMPLEMENTED MANY YEARS AGO AND IT, AND IT WAS DONE TO PROTECT THE VISUAL BEAUTY AND APPEAL OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND CONSTRUCT TALL FENCES AND GATES THAT THE ANDERSONS HAVE REQUESTED IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THAT POLICY, AND IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS.
THEREFORE, WE LIKE OUR, MY OTHER NEIGHBORS HERE ARE OPPOSED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE GATES AND WALLS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF THE SPEAKERS IN THAT GROUP? MR. KAVANAUGH, WOULD YOU LIKE A CHANCE TO I'M, OH, OH, IS THERE ANOTHER SPEAKER? I HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER ONLINE.
SORRY, MS. ELAINE EVERETT, CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE VIDEO AND AUDIO? I HAVE AUDIO.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, YOU HAVE TO BE, YOU HAVE TO BE ON VIDEO AS WELL.
I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH MY VIDEO.
CAN YOU SEE ME NOW? NO, WE, WE DON'T SEE.
UM, I'M GONNA HAVE TO SWEAR YOU IN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
YES, MY NAME IS ELAINE EVERETT AND I, MY ADDRESS IS
[00:30:01]
5 1 0 6 KELSEY ROAD, AND I AM, I HAVE WRITTEN YOU ALL A LETTER AND I'M, UH, DEFINITELY OPPOSED, UH, TO THIS, THIS, UH, UH, REQUEST FOR A TALL FENCE.UH, AS I FEEL THAT THIS HEIGHT OF THIS IS UNUSUAL, IT'S INCOMPATIBLE TO A 70-YEAR-OLD MAYFLOWER ESTATES.
UH, EVERYONE HAS COMPLIED WITH FOUR FOOT FENCES.
AND I WILL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
WE WERE HIT REALLY HARD BY THE TORNADO FOUR AND A HALF YEARS AGO.
AND THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET FROM US, THERE WERE FOUR OF US THAT WERE ACTUALLY BARRICADED IN BY ALL THE TREES THAT FELL.
SHE HAS A FOUR FOOT FENCE AND THE ONLY, AND WE HAD TO HELP HER GET OVER HER FENCE TO GET OUT OF HER HOME, UH, TO SAFETY.
THE, THERE'S A REASON THAT THE DALLAS POLICE AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, ASK AND SAY THAT THESE REALLY TALL FENCES AND GATES ACTUALLY HINDERED THEIR ABILITY TO RESPOND QUICKLY TO EMERGENCIES.
HAD SHE HAD A SIX OR EIGHT FOOT FENCE, IT WOULD'VE BEEN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR US TO HELP REMOVE HER TO SAFETY.
SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF, OF WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO COMPLY WITH THESE FOREFOOT FENCES.
UM, AND ALSO IN REGARDS TO WHAT HAS BEEN PRE PREVIOUSLY SAID, WE'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 35 YEARS AND WE WERE ATTRACTED BY THE BEAUTY AND THE OPENNESS OF THE FRONT YARDS, AS WELL AS THE COMRADERY AMONG NEIGHBORS.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS ALWAYS PRIDED ITSELF IN MAINTAINING AN INTERACTIVE FAMILY FRIENDLY FEEL.
THEN THIS AUDIENCE CAN EASILY BE LOST WHEN NEIGHBORS ARE ALLOWED TO WALL THEMSELVES OFF FROM EACH OTHER, CREATING A COLD UNINVITING COMPOUND.
AND AS HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY SAID, THERE ARE MANY NEIGHBORHOODS IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT, LIKE WHERE WE'RE CURRENTLY HAVING TO LIVE WITH SEVEN AND EIGHT FOOT FENCES AND GATES.
AND WHICH OH BY THE WAY, DON'T KEEP ANYONE OUT
AND, UH, BECAUSE THEY GET OVER THE FENCES NO MATTER WHAT.
AND THIS IS IN PRESTON TRAILS I MIGHT ADD, WHERE IT ALSO HAS POLICE, PATROL AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
SO ALL THESE SEVEN AND EIGHT FOOT FENCES AND GATES DO IS JUST KINDER, EMERGENCY RESPONSES.
UM, AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, WHY SHOULD TWO PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO DESTROY THE INTEGRITY AND THE COMMUNITY OF A 70-YEAR-OLD NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, AND SET OF PRECEDENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS WORKED SO HARD TO MAINTAIN? UM, IT WOULD ALSO MAXIMIZE A VISUAL IMPACT.
AND, AND, AND IT DOES CREATE, UM, BLOCKAGE, YOU KNOW, FOR NEIGHBORS WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO WALK THEIR DOGS OR WALK THEIR CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN AND, UH, AND DOWN THE STREETS.
UM, YOU KNOW, I PRIDED MYSELF, YOU KNOW, VISITING WITH MY NEIGHBORS AND IF I SEE A PAPER OR IF I SEE A PACKAGE ON THE FRONT PORCH AND I KNOW THEY'RE OUT OF TOWN, YOU CAN PICK IT UP AND TAKE IT AND PUT IT ON THEIR FRONT PORCH.
MY CHILDREN ALWAYS FELT FREE TO GO TO THE NEIGHBOR'S FRONT DOORS TO TRICK OR TREAT OR TO SELL THE RAFFLE TICKETS FOR THEIR SCHOOLS.
SO ALLOWING A FENCE OF THIS, THESE FENCES OF OVERSIZED PROPORTION WOULD NOT ONLY BE AESTHETICALLY UNAPPEALING, BUT ALSO NEGATIVE, NEGATIVELY IMPACT OUR DOOR TO DOOR INTERACTION, WHICH WE HAVE CHERISHED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
AS I HAVE STATED, I HAVEN'T BEEN THERE 70 YEARS, BUT I HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 35 YEARS.
UH, AND I KNOW THAT, AND I'VE MENTIONED THIS BEFORE, BECAUSE THE DALLAS POLICE, THEY'VE TOLD US THAT THESE FENCES ENCUMBER THEIR ABILITY, UH, FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO ENTER A RESIDENCE, UH, ALLOWING, YOU KNOW, RESPONSE TIMES TO BE, UM, NOT WHAT THEY NEED TO BE.
SO I, I IMPLORE YOU TO UPHOLD YOUR ORDINANCES.
AND, UH, THE OTHER THING I WOULD'VE ADD TOO, IT'S THAT
[00:35:01]
WE HAVE MANY NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE COMPLIED WITH THIS FOUR FOOT FENCE, VER FOUR FOOT FENCE STANDARD THAT THE CITY ESTABLISHED THAT.AND SOME OF THEM WANTED TO BILL 6, 7, 8 FOOT FENCES, BUT WERE DENIED.
SO I YOUR TIME IS, UH, VERY UNFAIR TO THESE OTHER NEIGHBORS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING TO SPEAK.
DO YOU HAVE ANYBODY ELSE? NO, THE SPEAKERS REGISTER, MA'AM.
UM, UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A REBUTTAL, MR. KAVANAUGH? UH, I WOULD JUST REPEAT THE REQUEST THAT THE CASE BE HELD, UH, AND, UH, CERTAINLY WANNA WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND, UH, THEIR, UH, UH, THEIR COMMENTS WERE EXTREMELY CLEAR.
I, I MEAN, AFTER LISTENING TO THE NEIGHBORS, UM, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THEY WANT ANYTHING OVER FOUR FEET.
DO YOU THINK YOUR CLIENT IS GOING TO AGREE TO THAT? I DON'T KNOW.
UH, WELL THE, A A VERY STRONG POINT MADE WAS MADE THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE SOLID GATES.
THERE'S NO SOLID GATES, FOR EXAMPLE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY, ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. KAVANAUGH? NO, YOU MAY NOT, UNFORTUNATELY.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 9 6 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2024.
I, JOE CANNON SECOND, THAT MOTION.
UM, I, I, UH, HEARING THE TESTIMONY AND HEARING THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TO, TO HOLD OVER, I'M HEARING THE TESTIMONY FROM THE NEIGHBORS, UM, AND SOME INPUT THAT MAYBE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD PROBABLY BE FRUITFUL.
UM, SO I I, I WANTED TO HOLD THIS OVER, UM, UNDER ADVISEMENT SO THAT MAYBE THE, THE TWO PARTIES CAN COME TOGETHER AND WORK TO MAYBE SOME COMPROMISE, UM, OR AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, HAVE THE DISCUSSION.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO INVOLVE AND INVOLVE THE NEIGHBORS HERE WHEN YOU'RE ASKING FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF HEARING.
DO I HAVE THE DATE WRONG? I SAID SEPTEMBER 18TH.
UM, I'LL BE SECONDING THIS MOTION JUST, UM, AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, THAT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S STILL SOME DIALOGUE THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, I BELIEVE THAT CAN BE ACHIEVED IN THE NEXT FOUR WEEKS.
UM, SEEMS LIKE THAT AT LEAST ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT, THERE'S SOME MEASURE OF GOOD FAITH TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
SO LOOK FORWARD TO THIS MOTION PASSES TO HEAR A RESOLUTION TO THAT, THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE.
THAT'S WHAT THE, THAT'S WHAT THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO HOLD THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER.
UM, YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, YEAH, SO I, UM, I AGREE WITH THE, THE MOTION TO HOLD OVER TILL SEPTEMBER.
UM, I, I THINK THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE PREPARED, THOUGH TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE VERY, UH, LEGITIMATE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED TODAY BY THE NEIGHBORS.
UH, SPECIFICALLY THE, THE SAFETY CONCERNS, UM, AND THE, THE, UH, THE CLEAR DEMONSTRATION THAT THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF ACCOMPLISHING SECURITY WITHOUT, UH, THE, THE CURRENT PROPOSAL.
YOU, I, I, I WILL BEGRUDGINGLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL.
I, UM, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO GET TO A FOUR FOOT FENCE.
AND WHEN I SEE THE PICTURES THAT ARE THERE AND WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE, UM, I, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW ANY NEIGHBOR WOULD EVER WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING OVER FOUR FEET.
I DON'T THINK THE APPLICANT'S GONNA GET THERE, SO I WAS MUCH MORE LIKELY JUST TO DENY.
BUT I WILL GIVE HIM A MONTH TO FIGURE IT OUT.
MR. CANNON? AYE, MR. FEENEY? AYE.
MS. LAMB? AYE MS. VICE CHAIR AYE.
MOTION TO HOLD PASSES UNTIL SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2024? SO FOR THE FOLKS THAT ARE HERE, UM, IN OPPOSITION, UM, I, I, THE, THE APPLICANT HAD ASKED FOR, FOR IT TO BE HELD, UM, WE'RE GOING TO, HOPEFULLY THERE, THERE'S A COUPLE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES.
THEY MAY COME BACK WITH EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAD BEFORE THEY MAY DECIDE TO WITHDRAW THE CASE.
I MEAN, WE DON'T KNOW, BUT WE'RE HOPING THAT YOU GUYS AND THE APPLICANT CAN WORK SOMETHING OUT.
UM, WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN HERE.
WE KNOW IT'S HARD TO COME, UM, BUT WE WILL BE HEARING THE CASE AGAIN IN
[00:40:01]
SEPTEMBER.UM, BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
UM, AND SO I GUESS NOW WE ARE GOING TO HEAR, UM, BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 9 8 53 11 KELSEY ROAD, UM, 53 22 KELSEY ROAD.
NOW THE, I THINK THERE'S A REQUEST TO HOLD THIS ONE OVER AS WELL, SO, YES, I, I, I'M, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO PULL THIS ONE OVER.
UM, I, IN, IN INTEREST OF, OF THE COMMENTS AND THE BEING THE SAME REPRESENTATIVE AND, AND THE SAME NEIGHBORS.
UM, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE, THIS APPLIES FOR BOTH.
SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION, UM, UH, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 9 8 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2024.
I, ANDREW FINN SECOND THAT MOTION.
UM, BEFORE, UM, WE NEED TO RESCIND THAT MOTION IN CASE THERE'S ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY ON THIS CASE.
SO OUR COUNSEL IS ADVISING THAT WE RESCIND THE CURRENT MOTION ON THE FLOOR SO THAT THERE ARE ANY SPEAKERS THAT WANTED TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THAT THEY CAN, UM, IF YOU'VE ALREADY SAID YOUR PIECE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY IT AGAIN EITHER, BUT, UM, SO WE HAVE RESCINDED THAT MOTION.
IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? OKAY.
BUT WE NEED TO HEAR MR. KAVANAUGH.
FIRST MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
MY ADDRESS IS 1620 HANLEY DRIVE DALLAS, UH, REPRESENTING, UH, THE HURLEYS FAMILY AT, UM, UH, AT THIS PROPERTY, UH, PD OR BDA 2 3 4 0 9 8, REQUEST THAT THE CASE BE HELD TILL SEPTEMBER 18TH.
AND IF WE CAN HAVE, WOULD YOU LIKE, YES, MR. KAVANAUGH, WE HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
UM, SO YOU'RE REQUESTING TO HOLD IT OVER.
DO YOU FEEL CONFIDENT THAT WITH THIS TIME THAT YOU COULD WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND TAKE THEIR FEEDBACK, UM, AND POTENTIALLY GET TO A DIFFERENT OUTCOME BETWEEN NOW AND SEPTEMBER 18TH IF WE WERE TO GRANT THIS EXCEPTION, UH, TO HOLD THE CASE OVER? I THINK SO.
I, I'M NOT, I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE THIS FENCE IS DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE ACROSS THE STREET.
UM, UM, BUT I WOULD RATHER VISIT WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND SEE WHAT WE CAN COME UP WITH.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION THERE, UH, FOR MR. KAVANAUGH.
I'M READING HERE IN YOUR, UH, LETTER, UH, DATED AUGUST 20TH THROUGH THE BOARD HERE, THAT, UM, THAT THERE WAS CONSENSUS FOR APPROVAL, BUT THEN THIS MORNING, UM, BUT ON THE 21ST THERE WAS THIS CHANGE.
DO YOU FORESEE AT LEAST WITH THE NEXT FOUR WEEKS THAT YEAH, I GUESS THAT'S, 'CAUSE THAT SEEMS LIKE SUCH A RAPID CHANGE FROM HAVING FULL CONSENSUS TO SOMEONE BACKING OUT LITERALLY A FEW HOURS AGO.
WELL, OUR, OUR OUR, OUR OWNERS, UH, UH, MS. HURWITZ AND MS. ANDERSON HAD GONE AROUND TO NEIGHBORS.
UH, THEY DID SPEAK, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, UH, TO THE ALLENS WHO LIVE NEXT TO, UH, AND NEXT TO THE ANDERSONS.
AND THEN, UH, MR. ELMQUIST WHO WAS ALSO HERE, UH, UH, UH, I, I DON'T, I GUESS THEY DIDN'T GET TO SPEAK TO HIM AND COULDN'T FIND HIM OR WHATEVER.
BUT FOR THE MOST PART, ALL THE OTHER NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA SUPPORT HIM.
AND YOU HAVE A LETTER FROM THOSE PEOPLE.
UM, UH, AND WE, WE JUST LEARNED YESTERDAY THAT THE ALLENS WOULD BE OPPOSING THIS AND THAT MR. QUIST WOULD ALSO, SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION FROM THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING THAT ALL OF THE, UM, UH, LETTERS IN SUPPORT FOR THIS CASE HAD BEEN REMOVED.
SO WHEN I TOOK A LOOK AT IT, UM, I MISUNDERSTOOD SOME OF THOSE, UH, THE WAY I TOOK A LOOK.
UH, SO THE WAY I TOOK A LOOK AT IT WAS THE ONE, THE LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED, A LOT OF THEM WERE OUTSIDE OF THE RADIUS.
AND SO THE ONES THAT WERE IN SUPPORT OR SOME OF THE ONES THAT ARE IN SUPPORT ARE STILL IN SUPPORT.
THERE WERE ZERO IN OPPOSITION AT FIRST.
THE ONES THAT WE RECEIVED WERE IN OPPOSITION.
AND I SPOKE WITH MR. KAVANAUGH DURING THE BREAK ABOUT THAT RIGHT THERE.
WE HAD ABOUT 10 LETTERS OF SUPPORT AND MOST OF OURS ARE ACTUALLY WITHIN THE NOTICE
[00:45:01]
AREA.AND THOSE HAVEN'T BEEN CHANGED.
THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM THE, UM, OPPOSITION.
WOULD YOU LIKE, UH, MS. ELAINE ONLINE FIRST OR, UM, SINCE SHE'S ONLINE? CHERYL, LET'S DO THAT.
HI, CAN YOU SEE ME AND HEAR ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? SWEAR THE MEN AGAIN.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND PROCEED.
Y YES, IT'S, UH, ELAINE EVERETT, 5 1 0 6 KELSEY ROAD.
I WAS NOT NOTIFIED AT ALL, SO I'M NOT SURE.
YOU KNOW, I I, AND I'M CERTAINLY RIGHT THERE ON KELSEY ROAD, SO I DON'T APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THAT WAS MISREPRESENTED.
BUT I AM IN OPPOSITION CLEARLY FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT I STATED BEFORE.
DO I, DO I NEED TO RESTATE THAT? NO, YOU DO NOT.
THANK, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
AND, UM, BUT I CERTAINLY AM HOPING THAT YOU'LL DENY THEIR REQUESTS WITH PREJUDICE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.
MS. MS. JULIE ALLEN, I'LL GET YOU.
MY NAME IS JULIE ALLEN AND I LIVE AT 53 37 KELSEY ROAD.
MY FAMILY LIVES ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE HOUSE AT 53 3 22 KELSEY ROAD.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO EXPRESS MY FAMILY'S OPPOSITION TO THEIR FENCE VARIATION REQUEST.
THIS IS A REALLY DIFFICULT OPPOSITION TO MAKE BECAUSE THE OWNERS OF THIS HOME ARE TRULY THE KINDEST NEIGHBORS.
AND THE LAST THING WE WANT TO DO IS BE AT ODDS WITH THEM.
MY HUSBAND AND THEIR HUSBAND MET FOR COFFEE YESTERDAY AND UNFORTUNATELY WE DO NOT FORESEE A COMPROMISE.
THEY ARE INSISTENT ON A SIX AND A HALF FOOT FENCE WITH TWO MATCHING SIX AND A HALF FOOT DRIVE THROUGH GATES AND A SIX AND A HALF FOOT PEDESTRIAN GATE.
THEIR GATES AT THE STREET LEVEL.
I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE DESIGN OF THEIR GATE WILL BE BEAUTIFUL TOO.
THERE IS JUST NO REASON FOR IT TO BE SIX AND A HALF FEET TALL.
THE FOREFOOT VARIANCE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE LONG BEFORE THEY BUILT THEIR HOME AND MOVED IN.
THEN ALSO, UM, THAT REP, THAT HANDOUT I GAVE, THE 11 PAGE HANDOUT I GAVE EARLIER, IT HAS ALL THE HOMES ON KELSEY ROAD AND COLOR.
NO HOUSE ON KELSEY ROAD HAS A FENCE OR GATE TALLER THAN FOUR FEET.
WHY ARE A SIX FOOT FENCE AND THE GATES NECESSARY? I ALSO PROVIDED YOU WITH A LIST OF CRIME ACTIVITIES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FROM 2023 AND 2024 AS GIVEN TO US BY THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
A FRIEND OF ONE OF THE TEENAGE CHILDREN LIVING AT THIS HOUSE HAD A CAR STOLEN FROM THEIR DRIVEWAY, AND THAT IS AWFUL.
AND MOST CERTAINLY NOT THE NORM IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IN THE 20 YEARS THAT WE HAVE OWNED OUR HOME.
I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY OTHER CARS BEING STOLEN.
THE UM, OFFICER, THE POLICE REPORT THAT THEY'VE ATTACHED DID NOT STATE WHETHER THE CAR WAS LOCKED OR UNLOCKED WHEN IT WAS STOLEN.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, A FOUR FOOT FENCE AND GATE WOULD'VE WORKED AS EFFECTIVELY AS A SIX AND A HALF FOOT GATE TO KEEP THE CAR FROM BEING STOLEN.
AND LOOKING AT THIS ONE LAST HANDOUT OF THE FAMILY'S HOME, IF SECURITY IS SUCH A PRIORITY, ONE CAN'T HELP BUT QUESTION THE SOARING DOUBLE PANED SOLID GLASS FRONT DOOR AND THE LACK OF SECURITY AND PRIVACY IT PROVIDES.
CLEARLY, MOST OF US ALL FEEL SAFE WITH A FOUR FOOT FENCE OR NO OFFENSE.
[00:50:01]
US KEEP THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT ALLOW A SIX AND A HALF FOOT FENCE AND GATES ON OUR STREET WHEN ALL THE OTHER NEIGHBORS WITH FENCES CAN COMPLY WITH A FOUR FOOT ORDINANCE.TWO NEW HOUSES HAVE BEEN BUILT FROM THE GROUND UP ON KELSEY SINCE THE HOMEOWNERS BUILT THEIR HOME.
ONE HAS A FOUR FOOT FENCE AND FOUR FOOT GATES, AND THE OTHER HAS NO FENCE AND NO GATE.
WE ASK THAT OUR NEIGHBORS LIVE WITHIN THE FOREFOOT FENCE AND GATE ORDINANCE SO THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND STREET CAN MAINTAIN, CAN MAINTAIN AN INVITING FUEL.
AND THERE'S JUST ONE NOTE I WAS GONNA MAKE ON THE CRIME AT THE TOP AND THE BOTTOM.
THEY'RE THE SAME CRIMES JUST ON THE TOP, ON THE FAR RIGHT HAND SIDE.
IT GIVES A MORE DESCRIP A A BETTER DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE THEFT ISSUE WAS.
BUT THEY'RE JUST, IT'S NOT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
IT'S JUST ONE HAS THE TOP ONE HAS MORE DETAILS.
ELIZABETH WINSLOW, 1 0 1 1, 1 GAYWOOD ROAD WHERE I'VE LIVED FOR 40 YEARS.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT MY NEIGHBORS AND I HAVE BEEN HERE THREE TIMES.
WE WERE HERE IN 2015 FOR THE HOME DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME, AND THEY WANTED TO BUILD A SEVEN FOOT GATE.
THEY NOW HAVE A FOUR FOOT GATE, WHICH IS LOVELY.
LAST YEAR WE WERE HERE FOR THE GAYWOOD PROPERTY, 1 0 2 2 7 GAYWOOD, AND THOSE UNSIGHTLY GATES REMAIN.
AND THEN NOW WE'RE HERE FOR THE TWO PROPERTIES WHO ARE ASKING FOR TALL GATES AND FENCES.
I THINK IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS TO MAINTAIN OUR OPEN, FRIENDLY FEEL WITH FOUR FOOT GATES AND FENCES, IF ANY.
WE HAVE MADE THAT AS CLEAR AS WE CAN.
AND I KNOW THAT NO DIALOGUE WITH ME ABOUT SIX, EIGHT FOOT, SEVEN FOOT EIGHTS OR FENCES IS GOING TO CHANGE MY MIND.
THANK YOU, MS. HARRY ANN STEIN.
I LIVE AT 1 0 1 2 2 GAYWOOD ROAD IN DALLAS.
AS I SAID BEFORE, UM, MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE LIVED IN THIS HOUSE FOR, IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 38 YEARS.
AND, UH, WE AGREE WITH THE OPPOSITION, UM, POINTS THAT WERE MADE EARLIER.
AND, UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. TERRY LA HI, I'M TERRY LEGON AT 5 1 2 5 METERS LANE.
AND, UM, I OPPOSE THE, THE TALLER GATES AND FENCES AT THIS HOUSE ALSO FOR THE SAME REASONS I STATED.
I DON'T, I I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY DIALOGUE WILL HELP.
I'M NOT GONNA CHANGE MY MIND ABOUT IT.
AND IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE ANYBODY WHO'S HERE WITH ME TODAY IS GOING TO CHANGE THEIR MIND ABOUT EITHER OF THESE, EITHER.
AND, UM, I'M SORRY IF EVERYBODY JUST HAS TO COME BACK DOWN HERE AGAIN AND DO IT AGAIN.
BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. DAVID ELMQUIST.
DAVID ELMQUIST, UH, I AND MY WIFE RESIDE AT 5 3 5 1 KELSEY ROAD, WHICH IS CATTYCORNER TO THE HUR RESIDENCE.
WE'RE WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE HURLEY'S HOME.
WE DID NOT HEAR FROM, UH, MR. OR MRS. HURWITZ ABOUT, UH, THEIR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THIS SEVEN FOOT FENCE.
SIX, SIX AND A HALF FOOT FENCE.
UH, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD'VE MADE A DIFFERENCE SINCE WE WOULD'VE OPPOSED IT, BUT AT LEAST WE WOULD'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT IT.
UH, MY OPPOSITION IS FOR THE REASONS, UH, ALREADY STATED ON THIS RECORD.
I ALSO DID SEND IN A LETTER, UH, TO THE BOARD IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST.
I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS REQUEST AND THIS HEARING UNTIL THE NOTICE, UH, I RECEIVED IN THE MAIL BECAUSE WE ARE WITHIN 200 FEET.
UH, MS. ALLEN HAD INFORMED ME THAT THERE WAS, UH, GOING TO BE A HEARING, BUT I DIDN'T
[00:55:01]
KNOW THE TIME AND PLACE UNTIL I WOULD SEE THAT NOTICE.SO AGAIN, BECAUSE WE'RE WITHIN 200 FEET OF THESE RESIDENCES, THE THE ISSUE REMAINS THE SAME.
THESE NEIGHBORS WANT TO CHANGE THE LOOK AND FEEL THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BY CONSTRUCTING TALL FENCES.
WE NEIGHBORS ARE OPPOSED TO THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE AN OPEN, FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE FENCES IN COMPLIANCE WITH CODE AND WE LIKE TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.
SO I'M, WE'RE OPPOSED TO THIS REQUEST.
CAN I ASK YOU ONE QUICK QUESTION? UM, THERE ARE QUITE A FEW FOLKS THAT LIVE RIGHT AROUND THESE TWO HOUSES THAT SIGNED A DOCUMENT THAT THEY ARE IN SUPPORT.
HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO ANY OF THOSE NEIGHBORS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR THINKING IS? UH, I HAVE NOT BECAUSE I WASN'T AWARE OF THIS UNTIL RECENTLY.
SO I I HAVE NOT REALLY, NOR DID I KNOW WHICH, WHICH NEIGHBORS HAD SENT A LETTER, UH, IN SUPPORT OF JUST CURIOUS.
I WAS CERTAINLY AWARE OF THE ALLEN'S, UH, OPPOSITE.
AND MR. CAVANAUGH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A REBUTTAL? UH, NO COMMENTS.
OKAY, MS. LIAM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH NINE EIGHT TO HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2024.
UM, YOU KNOW, I I HATE TO TO MAKE THESE MOTIONS WHERE WE HOLD IT OVER, BUT FOR ME, IF WE WERE TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY, I FEEL LIKE WE'D BE CREATING CONFLICT WITHIN IN THE COMMUNITY.
I'M HEARING THAT THE APPLICANT, UM, AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE WANTS TO SIT DOWN WITH THOSE OF THE NEIGHBORS.
AND I'M HEARING SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS SAY THAT THEY WEREN'T COMPLETELY REACHED OUT.
UM, AND, AND ADDRESS ON THIS MATTER.
I WANNA SIT THERE AND COME TO A CONCLUSION WHERE AT LEAST ALL PARTIES ARE INFORMED OF, HAD A CHANCE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION.
'CAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT'LL MAKE FOR BETTER NEIGHBORS EVEN IF THE OUTCOME IS, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT IS AND, UM, NEXT MONTH.
BUT I THINK THAT BY HOLDING THIS OVER, IT ALLOWS A CONVERSATION TO CONTINUE.
UM, AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL KIND OF, UM, SMOOTH OUT SOME OF THE TENSIONS BASED ON THESE APPLICATIONS.
SO IT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE MAY COME TO AN, UH, AN OUTCOME THAT, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT NEIGHBORS OR, OR SUPPORT THE APPLICANT NEXT WEEK, NEXT PERIOD.
UM, BUT I WANNA GIVE THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND THE APPLICANT TO SIT DOWN, UM, AND HOPEFULLY COME TO EITHER SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT.
UM, MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN MAKE SOME CHANGES TO SATISFY THOSE, UH, COMPLAINTS AND THOUGHTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
BUT WE WON'T KNOW THAT, UM, RIGHT NOW.
SO I THINK GIVEN, UM, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCOURSE, I THINK WOULD BE POSITIVE HERE.
IT IS OUR DUTY AS A PANEL TO TAKE ALL THE EVIDENCE TODAY, ALL THE TESTIMONY, AND TO CARRY IT ON TO THE CASE WHEN WE HEAR IT, UM, NEXT MONTH.
SO EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAID TODAY WILL BE WEIGHED EQUALLY, UM, NEXT MONTH AS IF YOU WERE TO SAY IT AS, AS YOU SAID IT TODAY? THAT'S RIGHT.
AND SIMILAR TO MADAME VICE CHAIR GABO, I WAS VERY TEMPTED TO DENY THIS REQUEST, UH, OUTRIGHT.
UM, BUT I THINK THAT THE, THE, THE FACT THAT BOTH PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE REQUESTED TO, UH, POSTPONE THIS, UH, UNTIL NEXT MONTH SHOWS A WILLINGNESS TO AT LEAST MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE HAS, UH, UH, BEEN HEARD.
UM, AND UM, SO, UH, I ECHO MY COLLEAGUE SENTIMENTS FULL CALL VOTE.
MOTION PASSES FOUR TO ZERO TO HOLD UNTIL SEPTEMBER 18.
WE ARE GONNA TAKE A THREE MINUTE RECESS FOR A BATHROOM BREAK BEFORE WE START THE AO APPEAL.
SO IT'S 2 0 4, WE'LL RECONVENE AT 2 0 7 BREAK.
WE WILL RECONVENE THE MEETING AT 2 0 8, UM, AND WE ARE GONNA START OUR, UM, CASE FOR BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 9 7 61 21 EAST LOVE LANE.
AND, UM, THIS HEARING, THIS PART OF THE HEARING IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR TODAY.
SO I'M GOING TO READ, UM, THE, THE RULES AND HOW THIS CASE WILL WORK.
SO, UM, THE APPLICANT'S CASE WILL LAST FOR
[01:00:01]
20 MINUTES.THE APPLICANT MAY GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT, CALL WITNESSES AND OFFER EVIDENCE.
HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT CALLS A WITNESS.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IS ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THAT WITNESS FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES, AND THAT DOESN'T ACCOUNT AGAINST THE TIME LIMIT.
SUBSEQUENTLY, THE APPLICANT MAY CONDUCT A REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF THEIR WITNESS FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES, AND THAT DOESN'T COUNT AGAINST A TIME LIMIT.
THE APPLICANT MAY SUBMIT DOCUMENTS TO THE BOARD'S SECRETARY AS LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RULES SET FORTH IN THE BOARD'S RULES OF PROCEDURES.
UM, THE BOARD MAY ASK QUESTIONS AT ANY TIME BOARD MEMBERS, UM, BUT WE ARE PROBABLY GOING WELL, WE ARE GOING TO HOLD OUR QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER THE ENTIRE CASE HAS BEEN PRESENTED.
UM, BUT ANY QUESTIONS THAT WILL BE ASKED ARE NOT COUNTING AGAINST THE, THE TIME LIMIT, BUT WE WILL, WE WILL KIND OF GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCEDURE BEFORE WE ASK QUESTIONS.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS CASE WILL LAST FOR 20 MINUTES.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL MAY GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT, CALL WITNESSES AND OFFER EVIDENCE.
HOWEVER, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CALLS AND WITNESS THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE THAT WITNESS AND UP FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES.
AND THIS WILL NOT COUNT AGAINST THE TIME LIMIT.
SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL MAY CONDUCT A REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF THEIR WITNESS AGAIN FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES, WHICH WILL NOT COUNT AGAINST THE TIME LIMIT.
UM, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL MAY SUBMIT DOCUMENTS TO THE BOARD SECRETARY LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RULES SET FORTH IN THE BOARD'S RULES OF PROCEDURES.
AND AGAIN, WE'LL TRY AND HOLD OUR QUESTIONS UNTIL THE END.
THE APPLICANT WILL BE RE ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABOUND A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT.
LASTLY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT AND A MOTION WILL BE REQUIRED TO EITHER AFFIRM OR REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
UM, AGAIN, IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE, UM, REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, UM, THE SARNO'S, UM, YOU WILL HAVE TO HAVE A FOUR.
ALL FOUR OF US WILL HAVE TO AGREE FOR THAT TO BE APPROVED.
UM, ALL RIGHT, SO I GUESS WE WILL BEGIN WITH DO WHAT? OH, AND, UM, MR. SAPP WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR US.
SO THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL IS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED IN ISSUING THE BILL, THE BUILDING PERMIT.
UM, AND WE'LL START WITH A 20 MINUTE PRESENTATION FOR THE, UM, APPLICANT, UM, THE SARNO AND, UM, THEY MAY CALL WITNESSES IF THEY ARE SO INCLINED.
UH, JUST A, A CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE 20 MINUTE TIME LIMIT.
IS THAT SHARED AMONGST US? IF SHE HAS SOME SO BAD? OKAY.
SO DO WE WANNA DO THE, UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU, SINCE YOU MIGHT BE TESTIFYING SOMEWHAT ON YOUR OWN BEHALF, WE NEED TO SWEAR EVERYBODY IN AS WELL.
SO IF YOU WANNA DO THAT, THAT'D BE GREAT.
DO YOU ALL SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES.
MR. POOLE, WOULD YOU GO AHEAD AND YES, THANK YOU.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
I LIVE AT 6 1 1 4 TOWN HILL LANE IN DALLAS, TEXAS.
UH, I WANNA START OFF BY ADDRESSING THE, UH, PERMITS ISSUED ZION FOR THE BUILDING OF THE 4,500 SQUARE FOOT GAME AND BASKETBALL COURT FACILITY.
AS AN ADDED ACCESSORY USE A MERE 30 FEET FROM OUR PROPERTY.
UH, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, CITY OFFICIALS AIRED IN, IN, UH, ISSUING THIS PERMIT BECAUSE THIS FACILITY, WHEN IN USE IS INTENDED, WILL FREQUENTLY AND EXCESSIVELY BE IN VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 51, A ARTICLE SIX NOISE REGULATIONS.
AND AS A STRUCTURE EXCEEDING 12 FEET SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE PART OF THE FULL FLEDGED ZONING PROCESS THAT ENCAPSULATES THE CONCURRENT IMPROVEMENTS BEING MADE TO THE PROPERTY.
IN ADDITION, THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE OF ITS OWN, UH, PLAN DEVELOPMENT, UH, HAVING ALREADY SIGNIFICANTLY, UH, BUILT THE, UH, GAME COURT WITHOUT A PERMIT.
UH, THAT IS WHY WE, WE WILL BE SHOWING THAT THE, UH, CITY OFFICIAL AIRED IN, UH, ISSUING THIS PERMIT.
UH, I'M GONNA GIVE A SORT OF A HISTORY, UH, SORT OF A TIMELINE, BUT NOT QUITE EXCLUSIVELY CHRONOLOGICALLY.
UH, I'M GONNA START WITH, UM, AND I'M GONNA SHARE MY SCREEN HERE.
THESE ARE GONNA BE EXHIBITS OR AT LEAST, UM, PART OF THE OVERALL EXHIBITS THAT WERE, UH, PROVIDED, UH, PRIOR TO THIS HEARING.
[01:05:02]
OKAY, THIS FIRST EXHIBIT, LEMME SEE IF I CAN, THIS IS, UM, CAN YOU ALL SEE THIS? OKAY, THIS IS, THIS IS, UH, EXHIBIT WITH BATES NUMBER H 0 0 2, PART OF THE PACKET THAT I SENT.AND I JUST, I DUNNO IF YOU CAN SEE THE CURSOR HERE, BUT I'M POINTING OUT THIS, UH, AREA LABELED EXISTING SCHOOL GARDEN.
UH, AND I WILL EXPLAIN WHY THAT'S RELEVANT, UH, LATER ON.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO POINT IT OUT.
I WANT, I WANT, I'D LIKE THE BOARD TO TAKE NOTE OF THE SHAPE OF IT AND THAT THIS GARDEN HAS BEEN HERE SINCE 2019, AT LEAST MAYBE BEFORE THAT.
BUT IT WAS CERTAINLY HERE BEFORE THE PANDEMIC, UH, AS WE LIVE RIGHT HERE IN THE BLUE BOX AREA ON THIS, UH, DIAGRAM.
UM, AND SO WE BELIEVE THIS COURT WAS PLANNED WELL BEFORE OTHER THINGS.
BUT AGAIN, WE'LL GET TO THE RELEVANCE OF THAT LATER.
UH, DESPITE EVIDENCE THAT THE GAME COURT WAS PLANNED, IT DID NOT MAKE IT AS A DEVELOP DEVELOPMENT PHASE IN THE ADDITION OF THE, UH, $5 MILLION COMMUNITY OUTREACH CENTER OR GYMNASIUM WITH ITS OWN GAME COURT OPTIONS PERMIT APPLICATION, THAT THAT REQUIRED THE FULL ZONING PROCESS, WHICH WAS APPLIED FOR I BELIEVE IN, IN MAY OF, UH, MAY OR MARCH OF 2021.
UH, ZION, AS THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, STARTED BUILDING THE GAME COURT ON FEBRUARY 9TH, 2023, ZION STARTED BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT.
MY WIFE AND I PUT ZION ON NOTICE THAT THE CHAP, UH, CHAPTER 52 OF THE CODE REQUIRED A PERMIT.
UH, AT THAT TIME, UH, WE CONTACTED APPROPRIATE CITY DEPARTMENTS TO STOP THE UN PERMITTED POURING OF THE CONCRETE.
HAVING TALKED TO THE SITE SUPERVISOR, CITY ARRIVED 10 MINUTES TOO LATE ON FEBRUARY 16TH.
UH, CONCRETE WAS POURED, BUT CONSTRUCTION WAS STOPPED BY THE CITY BECAUSE A PERMIT WAS ACTUALLY NEEDED.
UH, AFTER THAT POINT, MULTIPLE EMAILS WERE SENT TO ZION BOARD MEMBERS REGARDING OUR CONCERNS OVER HOW CLOSE THIS COURT IS TO OUR PROPERTY.
UH, OUR CONCERNS MAINLY ABOUT NOISE, UH, BUT WE WERE, UH, COMPLETELY IGNORED.
UH, NO RESPONSE TO THOSE EMAILS.
UH, CITY OFFICIALS DECIDED THAT THE COURT, AFTER DECIDING IT NEEDED A PERMIT, WOULD FALL UNDER THE MINOR AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER CHAPTER 51 A OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
UH, WE FOUGHT THE ZONING AMENDMENT AND GATHERED, SIGNED DECLARATIONS FROM SEVERAL NEIGHBORS REQUESTING THAT CITY PLANNERS CONSIDER POTENTIAL NOISE PRODUCTION FROM SUCH A FACILITY.
NOW, MOST NEIGHBORS WERE NOT AS CONCERNED AS, AS OURSELVES AND OUR NEIGHBOR TO THE LEFT, UH, NOT BEING WITH THE COURT BEING SO CLOSE TO OUR PROPERTY AND NOT AS CLOSE TO THEIRS, UM, AND THAT WE WOULD LIKELY BEAR THE BRUNT OF PROSPECTIVE NOISE VIOLATIONS.
UM, AND I'M GONNA MOVE MY EXHIBIT TO, UH, THIS IS, UH, EXHIBIT BATES NUMBERED, UH, F 0 0 8.
THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE BASKETBALL COURT AS POURED FROM OUR PROPERTY ON JULY 23RD, 2023.
IF I CAN ZOOM IN ON THIS, BUT YOU GUYS, YOU GUYS HAVE THIS IN YOUR PACKET.
UM, THE NEXT PICTURE WAS PART OF THE COVER OF THE PACKET THAT WE SUBMITTED, THAT IS WITH THE BACKBOARDS AND, AND HOOPS ADDED TO THE, UM, UH, ARMS OF THE, OF THE BASKETBALL POLLS.
UH, YES, THIS IS ALSO TAKEN FROM OUR PROPERTY, UH, SOMETIME I BELIEVE IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR.
UM, REGARDING THE, UH, CONVERSATIONS I'VE HAD WITH VARIOUS CITY OFFICIALS, THE THERE IS AN EXISTING, UH, PLAYGROUND FACILITIES ON, AT, ON ZION, AND THAT IS LOCATED HERE IN THE GREEN BOX.
UH, AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT, THAT THIS, THE USE OF THESE FACILITIES, UH, WERE ALREADY CONSISTENTLY AND, AND FREQUENTLY VIOLATING ARTICLE SIX, ARTICLE SIX AFTER 51, A ARTICLE, SIX NOISE REGULATIONS AT LEAST FOUR TO SIX TIMES PER DAY FOR AT LEAST 30 MINUTES AT A TIME.
AND WITH, WITH SOME OF THOSE, UH, UH, DOCUMENTS THAT I SUBMITTED TO, UM, THE CITY.
I INCLUDED LINKS TO RECORDINGS OF THE NOISE ALONG WITH NOISE METER READINGS.
UH, I'M HAPPY TO SHARE ONE OR MORE WITH YOU GUYS IF YOU WANT TO, BUT I DON'T WANT TO USE MY TIME UP AT THIS POINT.
UM, THIS NEW FACILITY WOULD BRING ADDITIONAL USERS NOT ONLY TO THE WORK AND SCHOOL DAY, DURING THE WORK AND SCHOOL DAY, BUT ALSO DURING THE WEEKEND.
WE'VE ALREADY OBSERVED PEOPLE USING
[01:10:01]
IT DURING THE WEEKEND, AND ONE GROUP BROUGHT SPEAKERS TO PLAY THEIR MUSIC WHILE THEY PLAYED BASKETBALL.UH, AND BY THE WAY, WE CAN HEAR CONVERSATIONS ON OUR PATIO FROM THIS, THIS COURT LOCATION.
UM, THE COURT COULD BE USED FOR MULTIPLE GAMES, INCLUDING PICKLEBALL, DESPITE THE FACT THAT PICKLEBALL USE WAS CROSSED OUT ON THE MINOR AMENDMENT APPLICATION BY ZION, AND THE FACT THAT REPRESENTATIVES FOR ZION STATED THEY INTENDED TO USE THE COURT FOR PICKLEBALL AT THE CPC HEARING.
I BELIEVE I HAVE, UH, THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE MINOR AMENDMENT APPLICATION.
UH, IT'S HARD TO SEE HERE, BUT IF YOU HAD THE PAPER, YOU COULD SEE THAT THE, UH, THIS, THIS AREA HERE CROSSED OUT, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THROUGH IT.
UM, AND NONETHELESS, AT THE HEARING, THEY, THEY STATED THEY INTEND TO USE IT POTENTIALLY FOR PICKLEBALL.
UH, AND THAT IS, UH, PART OF EXHIBIT H 0 9 6, UH, LINE SIX AND SEVEN.
UH, MR WENT, A BOARD BOARD MEMBER SAID BASKETBALL POSSIBLY, AND POSSIBLY PICKLEBALL AND WHATEVER OTHER CHILDREN'S GAMES, YOU KNOW, UH, THAT GAMES CAN CHILDREN PLAY ON A HARD SURFACE.
UH, AND THIS IS A HARD SURFACE COURT COMPARED TO TURF, WHICH BOUNCES SOUND.
UH, WE'VE MADE THAT STATEMENT, UH, TO THE CTCI BELIEVE THE NEW COURT WILL DRAW IN COMMUNITY USERS OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL HOURS.
AND IN FACT, THERE'S ALREADY EVIDENCE, I ALREADY READ THAT.
THIS WAS, THIS WAS, UH, THE WEEKEND OF AUGUST 3RD, AND THIS WEEKEND, THE, THE TEMPERATURES OUTSIDE WERE AT LEAST 99 DEGREES.
SO WE, YOU KNOW, INSPECTED WHEN THE, UH, WEATHER GETS A LITTLE NICER, AND IT WILL BE AN EVEN BIGGER DRAW.
UM, IN THE MEETING WITH, UH, CITY COUNSELOR BLACKMAN, UH, WHO I BELIEVE WAS IN ATTENDANCE WITH ONE OF THE CITY ATTORNEYS AND MR. JASON POOLE, THE NOISE ISSUES WERE, WERE, UH, CONVEYED.
AND IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE FACILITY WAS ESSENTIALLY BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT.
MS. BLACKMAN'S RESPONSE WAS THAT SHE WAS NOT INCLINED TO MAKE ZION TEAR OUT THE COURT NOW, AND THAT ZION WAS JUST ADDING PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT.
THAT'S A QUOTE, ADDING PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, EMAILS TO VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING INDIVIDUALS, ALSO RAISED THE ISSUE OF NOISE, YET THERE WAS NO CONSIDERATION OF PROSPECTIVE NOISE.
AND HERE'S AN, UH, PART OF EXHIBIT F 0 0 3, AN EMAIL I SENT TO MR. POOLE, BASICALLY ASKING TO ADDRESS THE NOISE.
I NEVER REALLY GOT A RESPONSE ON THAT ISSUE.
THIS IS F THIS IS AN, THIS IS NOT PART OF YOUR EXHIBITS.
THIS IS AN EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN MYSELF AND PLANNER MORMON, UH, WHERE I, WHERE WE, WE WERE ASKING ABOUT THE NOISE, AND SHE SAID THEY CAN'T AFFORD NOISE STUDIES.
AND I SUGGESTED, WELL, WHAT ABOUT THE DECISIONS THAT THE CITY MAKES WITH RESPECT TO HOW CLOSE A COURT IS WHEN YOU BUILD A NEW PARK? UM, I DIDN'T GET A RESPONSE AFTER THAT, BUT, UM, BUT I THINK IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, RELEVANT TO THIS 'CAUSE.
NO, I DON'T BELIEVE NOISE WAS CONSIDERED AT ALL, AND IT CERTAINLY SHOULD BE PART OF A ZONING DECISION.
OUR CASE WAS PRESENTED TO THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WHILE WE WERE VILIFIED BY ZION BOARD MEMBERS AND OTHERS ACCUSED OF BEING AGAINST THE STUDENTS OF ZION.
THAT'S NOT, NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
ZION ARGUED BEFORE THE CPC THAT SAFETY CONCERNS WARRANTED MOVING THE COURT FROM THE SCHOOL PARKING LOT, 90 FEET CLOSER TO OUR PROPERTY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE STUDENTS HAVE BEEN PLAYING ON THAT ON PARKING LOT COURTS FOR AT LEAST 10 YEARS.
I'VE BEEN IN MY HOME SINCE 2001, AND THEY'VE BEEN PLAYING THERE EVER THE WHOLE TIME.
YET, THE COURT WAS NOT PART OF ANY PREVIOUS PERMIT APPLICATION, INCLUDING THE 2021 APPLICATION FOR THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH CENTER, WHICH WE BELIEVE WAS DECEPTIVELY SOLD TO NEIGHBORS, MERELY AS A GYMNASIUM.
ALTHOUGH WE GOT FIVE VOTES FROM THE CPC, UH, UH, QUORUM, IT WASN'T ENOUGH.
AND THE MINOR AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED BY THE CPC ON APPEAL.
CITY COUNCIL ALSO RULED IN ZION'S FAVOR.
ADDITIONAL PROCEDURAL FACTS EVIDENCING A VIOLATION OF THE CITY'S ZONING PROCESS, SPECIFICALLY STRUCTURAL HEIGHT ISSUES REQUIRING A FULL ZONING AMENDMENT.
SINCE THE 12 FOOT STRUCTURE HEIGHT OF THE BASKETBALL HOOPS PRECLUDES THE BUILD FROM BEING A MINOR AMENDMENT UNDER CHAPTER 51 A WERE ALSO PRESENTED TO MULTIPLE PERMITTING OFFICIALS, INCLUDING THE DIRECTOR, UH, MR. ESPINOZA, UH, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT.
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S PART OF YOUR EXHIBITS, BUT LET ME, UH, UH, FOCUS IN ON THAT.
UH, THIS IS THE PERMIT, UH, APPLICATION ITSELF.
UH, IT DOES MENTION IT DOES, THERE'S A LINE HERE, TALKED ABOUT 4,500 SQUARE FOOT CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE FOR BASKETBALL COURT.
UH, THIS IS AN EMAIL TO TANISHA LESTER,
[01:15:01]
UH, MINA STANDER.DANIEL T. MOORE IS AN ATTORNEY, UH, CASEY BERG AND, AND, UH, ANDY ESPINOZA.
UH, I DIDN'T EVER GET A RESPONSE ON THAT.
THIS IS THE MEASUREMENT OF THE BACKBOARD, THE, THE LINE MARKS WHERE THE, THE BEGINNING OF THE TAPE IS, THAT'S MEASURED AT 12 FEET.
UH, WE TOOK THAT MEASUREMENT, UM, AGAIN, IT'S, IT IS OVER TO 12 FEET HEIGHT, UH, THRESHOLD.
UM, AND ALSO ZION WAS ISSUED A PERMIT.
THE CITY ALSO ISSUED THE PERMIT TO ZION, WHILE ZION WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, WHICH STATES THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, THIS IS, THIS IS A QUOTE, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL SHALL NOT ISSUE A PERMIT, A BUILDING PERMIT, THE AUTHORIZED WORK OR SEARCH OR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE.
THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE CONSTRUCTION CODES, AND ALL OTHER ORDINANCES, RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY.
AND THIS IS, UH, EXHIBIT H BATES NUMBERED H 0 2 1.
IT'S PART OF THEIR PLAN DEVELOPMENT, THE RELEVANT PART.
UH, AND IT'S, UH, WELL, IT'S ON THE LAST PAGE.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE THE, UH, YEAH, SECTION 51 P DASH 0 1 0 5, 3 0.115 B, THAT I'VE ALREADY READ IT TO YOU, BUT IT'S, IT'S THERE.
UM, ADDITIONALLY, I DON'T HAVE IT IN HERE, BUT IT'S PART OF THE APPLICATION.
THE APPLICATION ITSELF SEEMED TO INDICATE THAT THIS WAS JUST GOING TO BE, UH, A, A PAVED PORT.
UH, THOSE STRUCTURES ARE IN THE CONCRETE.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE PART OF, THEY'RE FIXTURES, AND THEY'RE, THEY ARE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE PART OF THE, THEY'RE PART OF THE BUILD.
UM, AND IT'S THIS DISCUSSION OF A NEED FOR A PERMIT WAS ALSO PART OF THE CPC HEARING.
AND, UH, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T INCLUDE IT IN THIS FOCUSED EXHIBIT PACKET, BUT IF YOU REFER TO BATES NUMBER H 0 9 9, IT'S THE DISCUSSION OF NEED FOR A PERMIT.
IT'S KIND OF, UH, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY THEY, THEY DID SAY THAT IT WAS, UM, IT WAS NECESSARY, UH, AND WHY, WHY THEY BUILT IT WITHOUT A PERMIT.
THAT'S THE PART THAT'S KIND OF CONFUSING, BUT YOU CAN READ IT FOR YOURSELF.
UM, ANYWAY, ALL THESE FACTS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN IGNORED, WHICH BRINGS US TO THE CURRENT APPEAL.
SUBSEQUENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL'S VOTE, WE COMMISSIONED A PROSPECTIVE NOISE STUDY BY CREDENTIALED NOISE EXPERTS WHO SPECIALIZE IN GAME COURT NOISE.
UH, AND SO THAT IS, UH, I WILL BE INTRODUCING SOME OF THE AR THE EVIDENCE FROM THAT.
UH, SO SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS HERE, THE COURT WAS FORESEEN BY ZION AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH CENTER APPLICATION PROCESS.
THAT'S WHAT WE BELIEVE, UH, THAT THEY TRIED TO SKIRT THAT BY BUILDING IT WITHOUT A PERMIT.
NOISE CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD CERTAINLY BE PART OF ANY ZONING AND PLANNING, UH, PROCESS.
BUT THE CITY OF DALLAS DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE POTENTIAL NOISE ISSUES AT ALL IN ITS ANALYSIS OF THE OVERALL PLAN.
AND WHETHER OR NOT THE NOISE COULD POTENTIALLY BE INTRUSIVE ON ONE OR MORE NEIGHBORS, THE NOISE ISSUE WAS NOT EVIDENT AND DID NOT PRE PRESENT ITSELF UNTIL AFTER THE PANDEMIC.
AND BOTH MY WIFE AND I STARTED WORKING FROM HOME.
BUT THE CURRENT NOISE LEVELS ARE LOUD ENOUGH TO GET INTO MY REM SLEEP.
ESSENTIALLY, IN MY DREAMS, I'M DREAMING OF KIDS SCREAMING DESPITE ALL THE WINDOWS AND DOORS TO OUR HOUSE BEING SECURELY SHUT.
IT ALSO HAS A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON OUR ABILITY TO FOCUS AS WE WORK REMOTELY FROM HOME.
NOW, THIS GAME COURT WILL AT LEAST DOUBLE THE FREQUENCY OF NUISANCE LEVEL NOISE PRODUCED BY ZIONS AS THE NEW USERS, STUDENTS, PRESUMABLY TOO OLD FOR THE PLAYGROUND REPRESENT, WHICH REPRESENT PROBABLY ABOUT HALF THE STUDENT BODY WILL NOW BE, UH, UH, USING THIS FACILITY EVEN CLOSER THAN THE, UH, ALREADY, UM, VIOLATIVE PLAYGROUND.
UM, THE COURT, GIVEN ITS HARD SURFACE AND PROXIMITY TO OUR HOME WHEN USED BY ZION STUDENTS, WILL BE EVEN LOUDER, AT LEAST THREE DECIBELS ON AVERAGE PER THE NOISE STUDY OF THE PLAYGROUND, WHICH IS ALREADY WELL IN EXCESS OF ARTICLE FOUR SIX NOISE THRESHOLDS.
AND THE NOISE STUDY IS IN YOUR PACKET.
I'VE TAKEN FROM A PAGE, A PAGE FROM IT THAT, UH, IT'S THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, LINE FIVE, UH, 65 VERSUS 62 DECIBELS.
UH, NOW I WANNA POINT OUT THAT THIS IS AN AVERAGE.
SO EVEN THOUGH THE, THE ENGINEER HERE, UH, REFERS TO IT AS CONTINUOUS NOISE, IT IS OF SORTS, BUT IT'S ALSO INCLUDES SPIKES.
AND THAT'S WHEN FULL THROATED SCREAMS ARE PART OF THAT, YOU KNOW, ONCE, TWICE, THREE TIMES A MINUTE.
UH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHEN THE NOISE LEVELS, 'CAUSE I'VE TAKEN NOISE READING SPIKE, UH, UP BEYOND 70 IN SOME CASES.
AND IT, YOU KNOW, CAN BE HEARD THROUGHOUT THE HOME, INCLUDING IN MY OFFICE, WHICH IS AT THE FRONT OF OUR HOME.
[01:20:01]
SHUT.UM, AND NOW THIS COURT WILL LIKELY DRAW OUTSIDERS OUTSIDE OF THE STANDARD WORK AND SCHOOL HOURS, WHICH IN THE SUMMERTIME CAN EXTEND UNTIL NEARLY 9:00 PM AT NIGHT.
GIVEN THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST SOME EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT ACTIVITIES ON THE PLAYGROUND ON THE PLAYGROUND FACILITY WERE REGULAR, REGULARLY VIOLATING ARTICLE SIX NOISE REGULATIONS, THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE MOVED TO EXPAND THIS NON-COMPLIANCE UNDER CHAPTER 51, A 6.107 B.
AND I INCLUDED THAT WITH, UM, WITH, UH, MY, UH, CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE CITY.
BUT THIS IS PART OF THE, THE CODE, AND I'VE HIGHLIGHTED IT HERE.
YOU HAVE ABOUT THREE MINUTES LEFT.
I JUST WANTED OKAY, THANK YOU.
IT'S ACTUALLY AT THE BOTTOM OF, OF THE PAGE, AND THIS IS BATES NUMBER H 0 2 4.
WHILE THE GAME GAME COURT IS ARGUABLY, ARGUABLY BENEFICIAL TO Z ZION STUDENTS, AND EVEN THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE, THE LACK OF SUCH A COURT DOES NOT CREATE A HARDSHIP FOR ZION OR THE COMMUNITY.
THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF DISD MIDDLE SCHOOLS THAT DO NOT HAVE SUCH A COURT ON SITE BASED ON A SURVEY OF ALL DISD MIDDLE SCHOOLS.
UH, I DID A SURVEY, UH, AND THAT IS PART OF YOUR PACKET AT E 0 0 1.
REGARDLESS OF THE REASON FOR ITS BILL, IT WAS NOT THE ONLY LOCATION ON THE PROPERTY THAT THIS COURT COULD HAVE BEEN BUILT.
THERE ARE SEVERAL AREAS WHERE IT COULD HAVE BEEN BUILT WITHOUT DEPRIVING THE ADJACENT HOMEOWNERS OF THE QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY.
WHILE A RULING AGAINST ZION COULD BRING HARDSHIP IN SO FAR AS THE COST TO REMOVE OF THE COURT, THIS HARDSHIP, UH, IS SELF-INFLICTED AS ZION WAS MADE AWARE OF THE POTENTIAL PERMITTING ISSUE PRIOR TO POURING THE CONCRETE, THE ARGUMENT THAT I BOUGHT A HOUSE NEXT TO A SCHOOL DOES NOT WORK WITH NOISE LEVELS THAT NOT ONLY GREATLY EXCEED CITY CODE THRESHOLDS, BUT ALSO SEVERELY AFFECT OUR ABILITY TO REASONABLY ENJOY OUR HOME DURING THE SCHOOL AND WORKDAY, AND HAVE AN EFFECT ON OUR HEALTH AND WELFARE.
THE STRUCTURE HEIGHT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FACTORED IN BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND PRECLUDED FROM THIS, FROM BEING ONLY A MINOR AMENDMENT REQUIRING A FULL ZONING PROCEDURE.
HAD ZIONS COURT BEEN DEEMED TO REQUIRE A FULL ZONING AMENDMENT, WE WOULD AT LEAST HAVE BEEN ABLE TO AVAIL OURSELVES OF THE GOOD NEIGHBOR PROGRAM, UH, AND PERHAPS GET SOME CONSIDERATION SUCH AS AN EFFECTIVE NOISE BARRIER FENCE BUILT BY ZION.
UH, RESERVE FOR CLOSING ARGUMENT.
AND NOW THERE IS A OPPORTUNITY FOR A CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE, UM, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
UM, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES FOR THAT.
SHOULD WE BE MORE, UH, THE BOARD COMMITTEE TO ATTORNEY? I, I THINK OKAY.
I THINK THE BOARD WOULD BE BEST CHARGED TO WAIT UNTIL OUR, WELL, HE JUST RAN INTO THE BATHROOM.
LET'S GIVE HIM JUST A SECOND TO COME BACK.
UM, MR. SARNO, I WAS JUST CURIOUS, IS THE COURT IN USE NOW CURRENTLY, OR NOT YET? THEY'VE JUST STARTED USING IT, YES.
SO THEY, THEY STARTED AFTER THE, UH, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED AND FINAL MINOR AMENDMENT? N NO, UH, NO.
WELL, THE PERMIT HAD NOT BEEN ISSUED AT THAT POINT.
THEY, THEY, AND THEY HADN'T PUT THE BACKBOARDS UP UNTIL, UH, I THINK LATE JULY OR, OKAY, SO IT'S PRETTY RECENT.
AND SO IN YOUR, UM, BRIEFING FOR THIS APPEAL, YOU DOCUMENTED NUMEROUS NOISE COMPLAINTS RELATED TO ZION WEEK AND NOISE COMING FROM THE PLAYGROUND, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND SO ALL OF THOSE NOISE COMPLAINTS, THOSE RUN THROUGH, UH, APRIL OF THIS YEAR.
SO ALL OF THOSE NOISE COMPLAINTS OCCURRED BEFORE THEY STARTED USING THE NEW SPORT COURT, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
AND WITH RESPECT TO THOSE FIRST, FIRST THREE HERE, THREE OR FOUR IN APRIL OF 23, THE OLDEST ONES, UM, THOSE COMPLAINTS WERE BASICALLY THE NATURE OF THOSE COMPLAINTS WAS THAT THE NOISE FROM THE CHILDREN AT THE PLAYGROUND VIOLATED CHAPTER 30 NOISE ORDINANCE, CORRECT? UH, WELL, 30 IS, UH, VERY SOMEWHAT SUBJECTIVE.
30 JUST DEALS WITH WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A REASONABLE RIGHT, UH, VIOLATION.
UH, BUT, UH, THEY CERTAINLY VIOLATE, UH, CH UH, 51 A CHAPTER, UH, CHAPTER SIX, ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, PERFORMANCE OF THAT REGULATION.
BUT THOSE, THOSE FIRST COMPLAINTS, YOU, YOU HADN'T DONE ALL THE DECIBEL READING AND STUFF TO ESTABLISH THAT YOU, WHAT YOU PURPORTED LATER, THE VIOLATION OF THE NOISE REGULATIONS IN 51 A, THOSE FIRST
[01:25:01]
ONES WERE JUST, I THINK THIS VIOLATES CHAPTER 30.UH, I'M NOT SURE IF I HAD DONE ANY, ANY, UH, UH, NOISE READINGS AT THAT POINT.
I MEAN, THE, THE ISSUE STILL, YOU KNOW, I'M IN MY FRONT OFFICE AND, AND I, YOU KNOW, I CAN HEAR AND CLEARLY, UH, MAKING NOISE FROM THE PLAYGROUND, WHICH IS, WHICH IS FURTHER AWAY KIND OF
AND SO, UH, TO BE CLEAR, NONE OF THOSE NOISE COMPLAINTS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH, UH, LIKE BASKETBALL RELATED NOISE.
IT WAS JUST A PLAYGROUND, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND AS YOU MENTIONED, THE, THE STANDARD UNDER CHAPTER 30 IS JUST NOISE THAT'S OFFENSIVE TO ORDINARY SENSIBILITIES OF A REASONABLE PERSON.
IT'S KIND OF A REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD FOR THAT, FOR CHAPTER 30, RIGHT? I BELIEVE SO.
THERE, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY, ANY, UH, UH, SPECIFIC, UH, DECIBEL LEVEL THRESHOLD IN CHAPTER 30.
AND PURSUANT TO THOSE EARLY COMPLAINTS, WERE ANY CITATIONS ISSUED, RESIGNED WITH HIM? UH, NO.
I MEAN, I GOT SOME RESPONSES FROM, UH, CODE COMPLIANCE.
UH, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD PULL IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE IN SOME CASES, UH, AND, YOU KNOW, OPEN THEIR WINDOW AND SAY, ALL I HEAR IS, YOU KNOW, KIDS PLAYING.
UM, I DID GET, I BELIEVE HIS NAME WAS IO, I DON'T REMEMBER HIS LAST NAME.
HE DID, UH, ACKNOWLEDGE THIS, THAT IT WAS AN ISSUE, UH, AND, YOU KNOW, SUGGESTED HE WAS GONNA DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, BUT NOTHING EVER, UH, GOT DONE.
AND THE LATER CALLS TO 3 1 1 WERE, UM, YOU KNOW, AFTER I HAD DONE SOME NOISE READING AND SAID, HEY, COME OUT HERE AND DO A NOISE READING, AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, IT GREATLY EXCEEDS ARTICLE SIX, WHICH, OKAY.
UM, SO THOSE, THOSE COMPLAINTS THAT CITE TO 51 A, THE NOISE REGULATIONS IN 51 A AFTER YOU'D DONE THE READINGS, UM, THOSE START A LITTLE LATER.
THOSE START IN NOVEMBER, ABOUT ABOUT NOVEMBER.
DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT? I, I'M NOT SURE WHICH COMPLAINTS, YOU KNOW, WHICH, AT WHICH POINT I'D STARTED DOING NOISE.
IN FACT, I THINK I ACTUALLY DID NOISE READINGS IN JANUARY.
UM, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID IN, IN MY TESTIMONY, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAD REAL, ONCE THE PANDEMIC, JAN, JUST TO BE CLEAR, JANUARY, JANUARY, 2023? NO, JANUARY, 2023.
I THINK I, I THINK I HAD, UM, TAKEN SOME NOISE READINGS, UH, WITH A LEVEL ONE METER, UH, OUT ON MY, UH, UH, PATIO.
I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE DOCUMENTATION OF IT.
IS THAT, IS THAT LEVEL ONE METER, UH, THE ONE THAT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE, UH, DECAL METER AND 51 A, IS THAT YOUR CELL PHONE APP, OR NO, THAT'S, THE CELL PHONE APP IS A LEVEL TWO METER, WHICH DOES ALSO COMPLY WITH 51 A.
UH, THIS WAS A METER THAT I BOUGHT ON, UM, AMAZON.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, I WAS KIND OF TESTING IT OUT.
I THINK I ENDED UP, UH, RETURNING IT, BUT I DID, UH, BECAUSE I WANTED SOMETHING THAT MIGHT GO TO MY COMPUTER AND DIDN'T HAVE THE FUNCTIONALITY THAT I HAD OWED FOR, BUT IT DEFINITELY SHOWED THE SAME TYPE READERS.
WE, WE HAVE REACHED FIVE MINUTES FOR THE QUESTIONS.
UM, AND NOW, MR. SARNO, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
UH, NORMALLY IT WOULD BE A REDIRECT OF THE WITNESS, BUT YOU'RE THE WITNESS, SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO REDIRECT YOURSELF, YOU CAN DO THAT.
IF YOU HAVE SOME FIVE MINUTES, YOU WANNA SAY SOME THINGS ABOUT THOSE QUESTIONS OR, UH, NO, I JUST, I BELIEVE THAT THESE, THESE, UH, NOISE VIOLATIONS ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, WOULD VIOLATE 30 AND CHAPTER SIX OF 51 A, I MEAN, IT, IT'S LOUD AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S A SCHOOL.
UM, BUT, BUT I WOULD ARGUE THE PLAYGROUND FACILITY IS TOO CLOSE TO RESIDENCES.
I MEAN, IT'S BASICALLY RIGHT THERE ON THE, ON THE EDGE OF THEIR PROPERTY.
THERE IS NOT EVEN A SETBACK FOR THAT.
UM, AND, UM, YEAH, THE BASKETBALL COURT WILL BE LOUDER PER THE NOISE STUDY, UM, AND, UM, AND CLOSER.
SO, BUT NOISE ISN'T OUR ONLY, UH, ARGUMENT AGAINST THE, UH, ULTIMATE DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY PERMITTING OFFICIAL.
WE ALSO HAVE THE FACT THAT THE, UH, UH, ZION WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE UNDER THEIR P UH, PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO THAT THE, UM, THE STRUCTURE, UH, HEIGHT WAS NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL.
UM, AND NOW YOU HAVE, UH, 20 MINUTES.
UM, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL TEAM HAS 20 MINUTES TO, UM, STATE THEIR CASE.
UM, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE BOARD, MY NAME'S RYAN CROCKER.
I'M AN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, AND I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IN THIS APPEAL AND TO REQUEST THAT THE BOARD AFFIRM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION TO ISSUE THIS PERMIT.
[01:30:01]
UM, AS YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT, THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEAL IS THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT AUTHORIZED ZION LUTHERAN TO BUILD A SUPPORT COURT ON ITS SCHOOL GROUNDS.AND, UH, QUICKLY BEFORE TURNING TO THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL, I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY, UH, GO OVER THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS.
UM, THIS IS ACTUALLY ON MY PDF.
I HAVE A PDF OF ALL THESE EXHIBITS, OR I'VE GOT, UH, HANDOUTS FOR YOU GUYS.
SO IT'S JUST, UH, EXHIBIT, EXHIBIT ONE.
ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE, THERE WE GO.
OH, YEAH, THE, UH, SO THIS IS PRETTY TINY TO READ, BUT, UM, BASICALLY THE, THE INITIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, THIS, IT'S BEEN QUITE A LONG JOURNEY TO GET TO A FINAL APPROVAL FOR THIS BUILDING PERMIT.
THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS FILED MARCH 30TH OF LAST YEAR.
UM, AND AS MR. SARNO MENTIONED, THERE WAS A STOP WORK ORDER ISSUED IN APRIL TO ALLOW FOR THE MINOR AMENDMENT PROCESS, UH, TO OCCUR.
AND SO THEN IN, IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR, AS ZION FILED THAT APPLICATION FOR THE MINOR AMENDMENT TO ITS DEVELOPMENT PLANNER, AND THAT SITE MAP INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE SPORT COURT AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE DIMENSIONS, BUT ALSO IT INCLUDES THE, UH, BASKETBALL GOALS ARE DRAWN AND INDICATED CLEARLY ON THAT, A AMENDED SITE MAP.
UM, SO FAST FORWARD TO FEBRUARY, WE GO TO CPC HEARING FOR A VOTE ON THE MINOR AMENDMENT, AND THAT WAS APPROVED.
THEN IN APRIL, UH, CITY OF COUNCIL AFFIRMED THAT DECISION, UH, ON APPEAL.
IN, IN MAY OF 21ST OF THIS YEAR, THE FINAL BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED.
AND SO, UH, PURSUANT TO DALLAS CITY CODE, THE DEADLINE TO FILE THIS APPEAL WOULD'VE BEEN 20 DAYS LATER, WHICH WOULD BE JUNE 10TH.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, APPLICANT FILED THIS APPEAL TWO WEEKS AFTER THAT DEADLINE.
SO OUR FIRST, FIRST POINT IS THAT, UH, THIS APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY, AND WE BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE DENIED ON THAT GROUNDS.
BUT WITH THAT SAID, I WILL TURN TO THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL.
UM, MR. SARNO RAISES THREE POINTS OF ERROR, WHICH I'LL ADDRESS IN TURN.
FIRST ISSUE IS THE BASKETBALL GOALS.
UM, SO HERE MR. SARNO CLAIMS THAT THE ORIGINAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION WAS FLAWED BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBE THE INSTALLATION OF THE BASKETBALL GOALS IN THE SCOPE OF WORK IN THE APPLICATION.
AND THEREFORE, THE PERMIT AT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE BASKETBALL GOALS.
HOWEVER, WE WOULD POINT OUT THAT THE APPLICATION DID, UH, CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE SLAB WAS FOR A SPORT COURT, A BASKETBALL COURT, UM, AND SO, UH, THE PERMIT DID CONTEMPLATE THOSE USES, INCLUDING VOLLEYBALL AND OTHER HARD COURT RELATED GAMES.
UM, AND SO OUR POSITION IS THAT, UH, THAT THE PERMIT ACTUALLY DID AUTHORIZE, UM, THE STRUCTURES NECESSARY FOR THOSE PURPOSES.
SO GAMES SUCH AS VOLLEYBALL AND BASKETBALL, UM, BADMINTON WOULD ALLOW YOU TO ERECT A NET OR A GOAL AS NEEDED.
UM, STEPH, IS IT POSSIBLE TO ZOOM IN ON THIS? WE'RE HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING THIS TIMELINE.
I ALSO DO HAVE, UM, DO YOU HAVE A HARD COPY OF THAT? I HAVE HARD COPY, YEAH.
UM, WOULD YOU MIND PROVIDING TO, UM, YES.
SO, UM, SO FURTHERMORE, EVEN ASSUMING THAT APPLICANT'S READING OF, OR APPLICANT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE SCOPE OF WORK AUTHORIZED BY THE PERMIT WAS ONLY GRADING AND PAVING, AS HE, AS HE INDICATES, THIS ARGUMENT DOES NOT ACTUALLY CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE PERMIT TO INSTALL THE CONCRETE SLAB ITSELF, WHICH IS THE ONLY SUBJECT OF THIS APPEAL.
RATHER, THIS ARGUMENT SIMPLY ALLEGES THAT THE BASKETBALL GOALS WERE INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT.
[01:35:01]
FACT, THE, THE ARGUMENT CONCEDES THE POINT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PERMIT AUTHORIZED THE SLAM.OKAY? SO EVEN IF THE, EVEN IF THE BOARD AGREED WITH THE APPLICANT IN THIS LINE OF ARGUMENT, AT MOST IT WOULD REQUIRE ZION TO PULL THE PERMIT FOR THE BASKETBALL GOALS, UH, WHICH AT THIS POINT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO APPROVE.
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE SITE MAP AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAVE BEEN AMENDED.
SO IT DOES CONFORM WITH THE, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS AMENDED BECAUSE THOSE BASKETBALL GOALS ARE INDICATED CLEARLY ON THE NEW SITE MAP.
AND AGAIN, JUST TO REITERATE, NONE OF THIS WOULD BE GROUNDS TO INVALIDATE OR REVOKE THE BUILDING PERMIT AT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL, WHICH IS THIS, THE, UH, LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF THE COURT ITSELF, THE PERMIT AUTHORIZING THE COURT TO GO.
NEXT ISSUE IS THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, AND HERE APPLICANT CHALLENGES THE HEIGHT OF THE BASKETBALL GOALS, CLAIMING THAT BECAUSE THEY EXCEED 12 FEET IN HEIGHT, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED.
AND NOTABLY, TO FOLLOW UP ON THE LAST ARGUMENT, THIS ARGUMENT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE FIRST ARGUMENT BECAUSE IT PRESUMES THAT THE BASKETBALL GOALS WERE INDEED AUTHORIZED BY THE PERMIT SAYING IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BECAUSE THEY WERE 12 TOO, TOO TALL.
OKAY, SO OUR FIRST POINT HERE IS THAT THERE IS NO 12 FOOT HEIGHT RESTRICTION ON BASKETBALL GOALS AS THE APPLICANT, UH, SUGGESTS, OR A PERTINENT STRUCTURES AS THE APPLICANT SUGGESTS.
UM, IF, IF THAT WERE THE CASE, PRETTY MUCH ALL STANDARD BASKETBALL GOALS WOULD BE DISALLOWED BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT A 10 FOOT RIM, AND THEN THE BACK BOARD'S GONNA EXTEND MORE THAN TWO FEET ABOVE THAT.
AND SO, UM, THAT'S JUST NOT A RULE.
HOWEVER, THERE IS A RULE WHICH APPLICANT CITES IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENT THAT INCLUDES THE 12 FOOT LIMITATION, BUT THAT RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO BUILDING PERMITS.
IT APPLIES TO SPECIFICALLY TO MINOR AMENDMENTS.
AND THE RULE IS IN, UH, EXHIBIT THREE HERE, I TOTALLY BLEW PAST EXHIBIT TWO, BUT WE'LL GO TO EXHIBIT THREE.
SO, UM, THIS RULE IS, SAYS THAT AN INCREASE IN A HEIGHT SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY MORE THAN 10% OR 12 FEET, WHICHEVER IS LESS, UM, IS NOT ALLOWED FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT.
SO IT SAYS ANY MINOR AMENDMENT, UM, CANNOT INCREASE IN EXISTING HEIGHT MORE THAN 10% OR 12 FEET, WHICHEVER IS LESS.
OR IN OUR CASE, THE ONLY, UH, HEIGHT SHOWN ON THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS 30 FEET.
SO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WOULD'VE BEEN 33 FEET.
THE 12 FOOT RULE DOESN'T EVEN APPLY.
UH, SO THIS REALLY RELATES TO INCREASING EXISTING HEIGHTS, STRUCTURAL HEIGHTS, NOT TO, UH, NEW STRUCTURAL HEIGHTS ABOVE GRADE, WHICH IS, WOULD BE THE, THE ISSUE HERE WITH THE PERTINENT STRUCTURES, THE BASKETBALL RULES.
SO EVEN IF THAT RULE DID APPLY, WHICH IT DOESN'T IN THIS CONTEXT, AGAIN, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, A BUILDING PERMIT, NOT A MINOR AMENDMENT, THE MINOR AMENDMENT ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN FINALIZED.
UH, AND HE'S EXHAUSTED ALL OF HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES WITH RESPECT TO THE MINOR AMENDMENT.
UH, EVEN IF IT DID APPLY, IT, IT, IT, THE STRUCTURES COMPLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T VIOLATE THE, THIS RULE.
AND NOTABLY, IN BOTH THE CPC HEARING AND THE CITY COUNCIL HEARING, THIS ISSUE DIDN'T EVEN COME UP BECAUSE IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WEREN'T, UH, VIOLATED HERE.
THIRD AND FINAL ISSUE IS THE ISSUE OF NOISE.
AND HERE MR. SARNO ARGUES THAT THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN ERROR BECAUSE THE PROJECT VIOLATED THE NOISE REGULATIONS FOUND IN CHAPTER 51, A SPECIFICALLY, APPLICANT ARGUES THAT THE NEW COURT QUOTE, ENLARGED OR REMODELED A PREEXISTING USE THAT BASICALLY VIOLATED THE 56 DECIBEL MAXIMUM THRESHOLD IN A MANNER THAT WOULD MAKE THE NON-COMPLIANCE WORSE.
SO THIS, TO UNPACK THIS AS A COUPLE OF ELEMENTS WOULD HAVE TO BE SHOWN HERE FIRST, IS THAT THERE WAS A PREEXISTING NOISE VIOLATION, UH, THAT WAS IN ENLARGED OR REMODELED WITH THAT USE WAS ENLARGED OR REMODELED.
SO THE FIRST QUESTION IS, WHICH USE IS BEING ENLARGED OR REMODELED? AND, UH, OUR POSITION IS THAT IT'S THE BASKETBALL USE, THE, THE SPORT COURT USE, UH, WHICH PRE-EXISTED IN THE PARKING LOT.
THEY HAD A PARKING LOT PORT THAT WAS CLOSER TO THE INTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY.
AND, UM, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO INDICATION OTHER THAN ACTUALLY NO INDICATION THAT THE, UH, PRE-EXISTING USE OF THAT PARKING LOT COURT VIOLATED THE 56 DECIBEL THRESHOLD.
UM, ALL OF ALL OF THE APPLICANT'S EVIDENCE RELATES TO NOISE EMANATING FROM THE PLAYGROUND.
[01:40:01]
AND THIS NEW BASKETBALL COURT DID NOT ENLARGE THE PLAYGROUND.IT MOVED THE LOCATION OF THE BASKETBALL COURT TO A SAFER, MORE SUITABLE LOCATION.
SO IT DID NOT ENLARGE OR MODIFY IN ANY WAY THE THE EXISTING PLAYGROUND.
UM, AND IT'S NOT CLEAR, BY THE WAY, EVEN IF, EVEN IF YOU WANT TO USE THAT BASELINE, IT'S NOT EVEN CLEAR THAT THE NEW COURT WOULD EXACERBATE THE NOISE LEVELS FROM THE PLAYGROUND YARD.
AND AGAIN, THE KEY POINT HERE IS THAT IN ORDER FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO RELY ON THIS PROVISION AS A BASIS FOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT, UH, WHICH BY THE WAY YOU'LL HEAR HAS NEVER HAPPENED, THE OFFICIAL WOULD HAVE TO HAVE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF A PREEXISTING USE THAT A PRE-EXISTING USE VIOLATED THE NOISE REGULATIONS.
AND THAT EVIDENCE WOULD'VE TO BE BASED ON A FORMAL NOISE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED, UH, BY CODE COMPLIANCE WHO MAINTAINS THE, THE, UH, EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO DO THE MEASUREMENT.
IF WE GO TO, UH, EXHIBIT, LET'S SEE, WE GO TO EXHIBIT FIVE, IT WILL SHOW THAT A SOUND LEVEL METER THAT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN STANDARDS ASSOCIATION MUST BE USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LEVEL OF NOISE VIOLATES THIS SECTION, WHICH MR. SARNER WILL ARGUE WHO HAS, BUT THE IN INSTRUMENT MUST ALSO BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD WORKING ORDER, IN A CALIBRATION CHECK SHOULD BE MADE PRIOR TO AND FOLLOWING ANY NOISE INVESTIGATION.
AND THIS, THIS TYPE OF NOISE INVESTIGATION IS CONDUCTED BY CODE COMPLIANCE.
AND SO IN ORDER TO DEFINITIVELY DETERMINE WHETHER 51 A HAS BEEN VIOLATED, WE NEED AN INVEST, WE WOULD NEED AN INVESTIGATION BY CODE COMPLIANCE, UM, PRIOR TO THE BUILDING PERMIT BEING, UH, DENIED OR APPROVED ON THE, ON THE GROUNDS.
CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? I KNOW I SAID WE WERE GONNA HOLD PROCESSING WHAT YOU, YEAH.
SO BASICALLY IN ORDER FOR BUILDING, UH, FOR, FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AS IT'S CALLED NOW FOR THEM TO USE THE PROVISION THAT HE CITES, WHICH IS THIS, UH, WHAT IS IT? 51? YEAH.
FOR, FOR, FOR BUILDING, UH, UH, FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, TO USE THIS PROVISION AS A GROUNDS TO DENY A BUILDING PERMIT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE REALLY CLEAR EVIDENCE COMING FROM CODE COMPLIANCE AFTER PURSUANT TO A NOISE INVESTIGATION, UH, THAT, THAT THERE WAS A PREEXISTING, UH, NOISE VIOLATION.
AND FURTHERMORE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THE BASKETBALL USE ITSELF WAS, WAS BECAUSE OF THAT, UH, NOISE VIOLATION EXCEEDING THE 56 DECIBEL THRESHOLD.
UM, AND THAT HASN'T OCCURRED IN THIS CASE.
AND BASICALLY, THEREFORE, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAD NO BASIS TO DENY ZION'S PERMIT UNDER 6.107 B.
FOR THESE REASONS, APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO MEET HIS BURDEN, UH, TO SHOW, UH, FACTS THAT WOULD, UH, BASICALLY WARRANT A FAVORABLE DECISION, AND THIS APPEAL SHOULD BE DENIED ON THE MERITS.
UM, AND IN CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE OUR POSITION THAT THIS APPEAL SHOULD BE DENIED REGARDLESS, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT TIMELY FILED.
UM, WE'RE, WE'RE NOW AT THE POINT WHERE WE CAN DO A CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE APP, UM, BY THE APPLICANT.
I, I WOULD, UH, THAT WOULD NOT COUNT AS PART OF YOUR TIME, BUT CAN I, UM, WE, WE DO NOT HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL HERE AT THE MOMENT.
UM, I WAS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE HAD LEGAL COUNSEL ONLINE WITH THERESA FA, BUT IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT SHE'S ONLINE.
AND, UH, MR. SAP IS, UM, NOT AVAILABLE.
AND I FEEL A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE PROCEEDING WITHOUT HAVING LEGAL COUNSEL HERE.
UM, I CAN GIVE MS. PAM, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
SORRY, IF WE CAN JUST, JUST TO, LET'S SEE HOW LONG IT TAKES HER TO GET ONLINE.
[01:45:01]
A REAL QUICK, AND NOW YOU, SO YOU ARE, YOU'VE DONE YOUR, UM, 20 MINUTE AND YOU MAY CALL A WITNESS, AND THAT WITNESS IS NOT COUNTING, IT'S YOUR 20 MINUTES, SO YOU'RE FINE.BUT YOU HAVE ABOUT SIX MINUTES LEFT TOO, APPROXIMATELY, ACCORDING TO WHAT? YES, I BELIEVE SO.
MS. THE CITY SECRETARY MIGHT CONFIRM THAT FOR ME.
YOU HAVE A QUICK QUESTION? UH, YES.
DO I HAVE THE ABILITY TO, YOU WILL, YES.
DO, UM, WE CAN JUST SAY, WHY DON'T WE JUST RECESS FOR ABOUT FIVE MINUTES JUST WHILE WE KINDA OF THAT.
UM, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUICK RECESS.
WE THOUGHT WE MIGHT NEED TO TAKE A LITTLE BREAK AND DISCUSS SOMETHING, BUT WE DO NOT.
WE ARE ALL SET, SO WE WILL PROCEED.
WE, WE WERE, AND WE HAD, OUR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL WAS WORKING ON HIS 20 MINUTES.
HE HAD ABOUT SIX MINUTES LEFT TO GO AND HE WAS GETTING READY TO, UM, DO HIS CROSS EXAMINATION OR HE WAS GONNA ASK A WITNESS, UM, SOME QUESTIONS, I BELIEVE IS WHERE WE WERE.
NO, HE HAD, WELL, HE'S CONTI HE WAS 14 MINUTES AND 28 SECONDS INTO HIS 20 MINUTES, AND HE PAUSED, UM, TO ASK IF HE COULD HAVE SOME TIME TO, UM, EXAM CROSS-EXAMINE A WITNESS, OR EXAMINE A WITNESS.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, CORRECT.
AT THIS TIME THE, WE BUILDING OFFICIAL WOULD LIKE TO CALL JA MR. JASON POOLE.
SO, UH, MR. POOLE, CAN YOU JUST, UH, EXPLAIN WHAT YOU DO FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ARE NOW PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AS IT'S GONE? SURE.
I'M CURRENTLY THE, UH, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND INTERIM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE.
AND AND YOUR DEPARTMENT HANDLES, UM, NEW BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND, UH, BASICALLY ANALYZES WHETHER OR NOT THOSE PERMIT APPLICATIONS COMPLY WITH THE ZONING AND USE REGULATIONS FOUND IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE? THAT'S PART OF THE JOB, RIGHT? UH, WE DO HAVE ONE DIVISION THAT DOES THAT, YES.
AND WHAT OTHER, UH, CODES DOES, DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT APPLY WHEN THEY'RE ASSESSING A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION? SO WE, WE DO, UH, HAVE, UH, THE BUILDING CODE, UM, ENERGY CODE FIRE, ALL THE, ALL THE INTERNATIONAL CODES AS WELL AS, UH, ZONING CODE.
AND WHEN A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED, THERE'S, THERE'S TWO BUILDING PERMITS, TECHNICALLY A MASTER AND A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THIS ONE PROJECT.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT WHAT THOSE TWO? SO YES, WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A, A BUILDING PROJECT, WHICH, UH, ALLOWS FOR MULTIPLE PERMITS TO BE ISSUED UNDER IT.
UM, IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS A BUILDING PROJECT AND THEN A MASTER PERMIT, WHICH IS THE ACTUAL PERMIT NUMBER THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT WILL RECEIVE WHEN THE PERMIT'S APPROVED.
SO BASICALLY THAT PROJECT ALLOWS MULTIPLE PERMITS TO BE GENERATED UNDER IT.
AND THAT'S HOW GENERALLY PERMITS ARE, ARE, ARE SET UP, UNLESS THEY'RE JUST A SINGLE TRADE, UH, WHERE, WHERE JUST A, A PERMIT IS ISSUED FOR ONE SPECIFIC THING.
BUT GENERALLY WHEN IT'S A A JOB SITE, WE'LL ISSUE A, A BUILDING PROJECT AND THEN MASTER PERMITS WILL COME UNDER THAT, WHICH THIS ONE HAS BOTH A BUILDING PROJECT AND A MASTER PERMIT.
AND THE, THE PROJECT ITSELF THAT, UH, THAT THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED FOR WAS A BASKETBALL COURT, WAS A CONCRETE SLAB, 4 4500 SQUARE FEET FOR USE AS A BASKETBALL COURT AND AS SPORT COURT, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND IS, IS THAT A PERMISSIBLE ACCESSORY USE FOR A SCHOOL? SO BEING THAT, UH, YES IT IS.
BUT BEING THAT, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS AMENDED TO SHOW THE LOCATION AND SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT A SPORTS COURT, IT IT, YES.
AND IN FACT, ZION LUTHERAN WAS ALREADY USING HIS PROPERTY FOR THAT USE PRIOR TO THIS BUILDING PERMITTED, THEY HAD A BASKETBALL, UH, BASKETBALL GOALS IN THE PARKING LOT, RIGHT? THAT, YEAH.
UH, ALSO THE AREA THAT WAS, WAS, THAT WAS ALLOWED FOR THE, THE, THE SPORTS COURT TO MOVE TO WAS, WAS INDICATED AS A PLAYGROUND AREA PREVIOUSLY ON THE, ON THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
I'D LIKE TO ASK A FEW QUICK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, UM, HEIGHT RESTRICTION,
[01:50:01]
I THINK COVERED THIS, BUT, UM, AND THE BASKETBALL GOALS, ACTUALLY, I WANT TO ASK ABOUT THAT.THE, THE, WHEN YOU GET A PERMIT THAT SAYS WE'RE USING THIS SLAB FOR A SPORT COURT, UM, ARE, DO YOU TYPICALLY REQUIRE AN EXTRA PERMIT OR A DESCRIPTION THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE GOALS OR VOLLEYBALL NETS OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE? DO YOU REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT OR HOW DOES THAT WORK? NO, THAT WOULD GENERALLY BE ALL IN, IN THE, THE PERMIT THAT WAS APPLIED FOR, LIKE, THOSE WOULDN'T BE EVALUATED SEPARATELY.
AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE, UM, NOISE REGULATIONS FOUND IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, SPECIFICALLY SECTION 6.102, THAT THERE'S DISCUSSION ABOUT, UH, HOW THE SOUND LEVEL IS, IS MEANT TO BE MEASURED TO DETERMINE DEFINITIVELY WHETHER IT VIOLATES THE SECTION, AND, UH, UH, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING THAT CODE? SO THAT IS CODE COMPLIANCE.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT CODE IS APPLIED ONCE THE USE IS IN PLACE AND HOW THAT USE IS OPERATED.
UM, I, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY INSTANCE WHERE THAT'S USED TO ACTUALLY APPROVE A PERMIT.
UM, THE ZONING DICTATES THAT USE IS ALLOWED.
WE ISSUE THE PERMIT, THEN THE REST OF THE ORDINANCE DICTATES HOW THAT USE IS, IS CONDUCTED UNDER THAT PERMITTED USE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
SO IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THIS PROVISION USED TO DENY A PERMIT, A BUILDING PERMIT? NO, I HAVE NOT.
AND TO ELABORATE ON THAT A LITTLE BIT, WE, WE DO HAVE OTHER AVENUES, UM, FOR USES THAT MIGHT BE MORE INTRUSIVE.
UM, WE DO HAVE SUVS SPECIFIC USE PERMITS THAT, UH, WHENEVER, WHENEVER USE MIGHT BE, UH, MORE INTRUSIVE TO, TO A NEIGHBOR, THEY ARE FURTHER EVALUATED UNDER THIS SUP AND, AND REEVALUATED, DEPENDING ON THE TIMEFRAME.
UM, MANY SCHOOLS HAVE AN SUP DEPENDING ON WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED.
UM, WE, WE DO HAVE THAT PROCESS, UH, AS WELL AS SINCE THIS IS A PD AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS THERE, UM, THAT IS KIND OF AN EXTRA ADDED LAYER FOR HOW THE, HOW, HOW THIS, THIS USE FITS INTO THE SURROUNDING USES.
AND DO YOU KNOW OF ANY FORMAL NOISE INVESTIGATION, UH, TO MEASURE THE DECIBEL LEVELS, UH, PRIOR TO THIS BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION THAT, YOU KNOW, DID CODE COMPLIANCE CONDUCT ANY SUCH INVESTIGATION HERE? UH, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
AND SO, GIVEN THOSE FACTS, DO YOU, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAD A BASIS TO DENY THE BUILDING PERMIT, UH, FOR THIS COURT USING THAT PROVISION? UM, UNDER 51 A? NO.
UM, SO OUR APPLICANT NOW HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS, MR. POOL.
UM, YOU ALSO HAVE FIVE, I'M GONNA ASK FOR LEGAL HELP ON THIS.
UM, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO DO THAT, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO CROSS EXAMINEE IN GENERAL.
UM, IS THAT CORRECT? FIVE EXAMIN WITNESS.
HE HAS FIVE MINUTES TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS.
THE WITNESS IN THIS CASE IS MR. POOL.
UH, EARLIER IT WAS ALLOTTED CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS BY MR. CROCKER OF MR. SARNO BECAUSE CORRECT, MR. SARNO WAS HIS OWN WITNESS.
HE, HE HAS FIVE MINUTES TO CHECK CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS, WHICH IS MR. POOL.
SO FIVE MINUTES TO CROSS-EXAMINE MR. POOL AND MR. SAP, DO I ALSO HAVE, UH, THE ABILITY TO CROSS EXAMINE MR. CROCKER? HE DID, HE DID, HE DID ELICIT TESTIMONY.
SAYS TO CONSULT BECAUSE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS A QUASI BOARD, JUDICIAL BOARD.
WE'RE NOT TO ADHERE TO THE, UH, STATE RULES OF EVIDENCE.
AND SO THE RULES THAT WOULD APPLY TO A COURT WOULDN'T APPLY HERE.
I'M NOT SURE OF THAT SPECIFIC, UM, REQUEST.
SO GIVE ME, IF I COULD REQUEST A, A FIVE MINUTE RECESS SO I CAN CONSULT AND, UM, COME UP WITH A MORE CLEAR ANSWER.
WE'LL, WE WILL ADJOURN FOR IT'S THREE 11.
[01:55:01]
WE'LL ADJOURN FOR FIVE MINUTES.UM, AND I'M GONNA LET MR. SAPP EXPLAIN THE PROCESS HERE.
SO WE LOOKED AT THE RULES AND WE'RE STEADFAST IN OUR INTERPRETATION THAT, UM, MR. CROCKER, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES? NO, WAIT, YOU JUST DID YOUR DIRECT.
PARDON? MR. SARNA, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO DIRECT CROSS EXAMINEE THE WITNESS.
AND THEN AT THAT POINT, MR. CROCKER, YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO REDIRECT THE WITNESS.
UH, MR. S SARNO, YOU WILL NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE COUNSEL.
HOWEVER, YOU WILL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL FIVE MINUTES TO REBUT, UH, ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING, AND YOU CAN ADDRESS ANY STATEMENTS MADE BY COUNSEL OR THE WITNESS AT THAT TIME.
PARDON? YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO REBUT THAT.
UM, AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS FROM COUNSEL OR THE WITNESS AT THAT TIME.
SO YOU MAY CROSS-EXAMINE MR. POOLE AT THIS TIME.
UH, MR. POOLE, THE, UH, THE PERMIT APPLICATION, AS I POINTED OUT, UM, INCLUDES THE MENTION, UH, OF A BASKETBALL COURT.
UH, AND YET WE, UH, HEARD TESTIMONY TODAY THAT THE, THAT THE PERMIT WAS JUST FOR THE, THE, UH, THE PAVEMENT PAVED COURT.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE, UH, UH, SAYING TODAY? SO THE, THE WAY THE PERMIT WAS WORDED IS IT WAS A SLAB FOR A BASKETBALL COURT, THEN IT WAS LOOKED AT AS SUCH.
WHICH, UM, DO YOU AGREE THAT THAT WOULD ENVISION, UH, UH, POLES AND, AND BACKBOARDS AND HOOPS FOR PLAYING BASKETBALL? YES.
SO THAT'S PART OF THE, THE BUILD HERE, THAT'S PART OF THE OVERALL PROJECT.
UH, REGARDING THE NOISE, YOU SAID NO ONE CONSIDERED THE NOISE, UH, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PERM OF THE PERMIT.
AND IS THAT THE PROCESS IN ALL? I MEAN, WHEN IS THAT NOT THE PROCESS? I MEAN, IF THEY GO, I MEAN, IS THERE A TIME WHEN YOU WOULD CONSIDER THE NOISE? SO IN ISSUING A PERMIT, IF NOTHING'S BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION TO, TO BRING US OUTTA THAT PROCESS IN ANY WAY, THEN, THEN NO.
IF THE USE IS ALLOWED PER CODE, THEN, THEN WE ISSUE THE PERMIT.
AND THEN, LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE, UH, THE NOISE REGULATIONS ARE INVOLVED IN HOW THAT USE IS OPERATED WHILE IT'S IN USE.
UM, IT DOESN'T DETERMINE WHETHER WE ISSUE A PERMIT OR NOT.
SO WHEN, UH, SOMEONE WHO'S IN, WHO'S IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THIS PROPOSED BUILD, UH, MAKES YOU AWARE OF CONCERNS THAT OF NOISE CONCERNS AND HAS TAKEN NOISE READINGS AND SENT THOSE TO VARIOUS CITY OFFICIALS, UH, THAT'S IGNORED.
SO THOSE ARE HANDLED BY CODE COMPLIANCE.
UM, BUILDING INSPECTIONS DOESN'T, DOESN'T EVALUATE THOSE.
I BELIEVE IT WAS PART OF MY EXHIBITS.
UH, SO YOU JUST IGNORED IT WHEN I ASKED YOU WHAT ABOUT POTENTIAL NOISE? SO I KNOW FROM WHAT I REMEMBER AT THE TIME, UH, IT WAS GOING THROUGH A MINOR AMENDMENT AND THAT WOULD'VE BEEN SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE MINOR AMENDMENT PROCESS.
BUT AT THE TIME, WE WEREN'T ISSUING THE PERMIT AND COULDN'T ISSUE THE PERMIT BECAUSE IT WASN'T SHOWN ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE FACTORED IN WHEN THE ORDINANCES ARE PUT IN PLACE.
BUT IN, IN TERMS OF PERMITTING, IT'S, IT'S BEEN ASSUMED THAT ALL THAT'S BEEN TAKEN CARE OF.
AND WE GO STRICTLY BY WHAT'S, WHAT'S IN THE ZONING CODE AS FAR AS THE USE GOES, AND IS IT ALLOWED OR IS IT NOT? AND THAT'S WHAT WE BASE OUR, OUR DECISION ON IN, IN TERMS OF ISSUING A PERMIT.
SO YOU JUST BASICALLY IGNORED MY EMAIL.
SO I DID DEFER IT TO, UH, MS. MORMAN AND WE HAD CONVERSATIONS, BUT AT THAT POINT IT WAS BEYOND MY LEVEL TO ANSWER.
AND, AND I THINK WE HAD ALREADY TALKED TO MS. MORMON AND I HAD, I HAD PUSHED YOU TO THE CURRENT PLANNING SIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT.
SO AT THAT POINT, I, I, I DO APOLOGIZE.
I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER THAT I COULD OFFER.
AND DID YOU MAKE THE DECISION TO, UH, TO DETERMINE OR, OR LABEL THE, THE, UH, UH, PROJECT AS A, AS A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE, UH, ZION'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN? SO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AT THAT TIME COULD NOT MAKE THAT, UH, THAT DECISION.
ALL WE COULD DECIDE IS THAT AN AMENDMENT WAS NEEDED TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THEN CURRENT PLANNING AND CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD MAKE THAT DETERMINATION WHETHER IT
[02:00:01]
WOULD BE MINOR OR NOT BASED ON CODE.FROM WHAT I COULD TELL, IT LOOKED TO BE A MINOR AMENDMENT.
BUT AGAIN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CANNOT MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
SO LET ME ASK YOU, IF THE, IF ZION WANTED TO BUILD, AND OBVIOUSLY HYPOTHETICAL, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT, WHAT WOULD IT WOULD CONSIST OF, BUT IF ZION WANTED TO BUILD A, A NOISE FACTORY THERE, THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, IF NO ONE DOES ANY KIND OF QUESTIONING WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS GONNA CREATE AN INTRUSIVE NOISE TO ANY NEIGHBORS, UH, IT HAPPENS.
AND THEN THE NEIGHBORS ONLY RECOURSE IS TO CALL 3 1 1 AND ASK THAT, UH, NOISE STUDY BE DONE.
WHICH IF THEY HAD DONE THAT MULTIPLE TIMES AND NOTHING WAS DONE, IT KIND OF DOESN'T MATTER.
BUT IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN? NOISE FACTORY? WOULD YOU'D HAVE TO GO AFTER THE FACT? YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING TO, TO, UM, YOU KNOW, TO ASSESS THE, THE POTENTIAL NOISE ISSUE UPFRONT.
SO IN, IN ZION'S CASE, SINCE THERE'S NO NOISE FACTORY ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, UH, WE WOULD SEND THEM TO CURRENT PLANNING TO AMEND THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH WOULD GO THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, AND THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE FEEDBACK ON WHETHER A NOISE FACTORY COULD BE ALLOWED ON THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
IF CITY PLAN COMMISSION APPROVED A NOISE FACTORY ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THEN WE WOULD BE FORCED TO ISSUE A PERMIT ON A NOISE FACTORY, PROVIDED THAT IT MET THE CONDITIONS IN THE PD AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
SO WHAT JUST, I MEAN, UH, WITH RESPECT TO A BASKETBALL COURT AND I'M SHARE MY SCREEN, I THINK CAN I DO THAT? YOU ARE AT FIVE MINUTES.
SO I'M DONE THEN WITH, WITH THE CROSS EXAM.
UM, MR. CROCKER, YOU HAVE, UH, FIVE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL OR FOR REDIRECT? I'M SORRY.
JUST QUICKLY, UH, MR. POOLE, UM, ONCE THE MINOR AMENDMENT TO PD 10 50 THREE'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS APPROVED BY CPC, AND THEN THAT DECISION WAS AFFIRMED BY COUNSEL.
THE NEW SITE MAP INCLUDED THE SPORT COURT LO LOCATED, WHERE IT'S CURRENTLY SITS, THE DIMENSIONS CLEARLY LABELED THE, THE BASKETBALL GOALS ON EITHER END, RIGHT? YES.
AND ONCE THAT MINOR AMENDMENT SHOWED THAT, UH, THE SUPPORT COURT THERE, UM, WERE YOU OBLIGATED TO ISSUE THE PERMIT? YES.
YOU NOW HAVE A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
AND THEN YOU WILL HAVE A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT, AND THEN, UM, MR. PROCER, YOU'LL HAVE A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT, AND THE BOARD WILL HAVE QUESTIONS.
AND SO, MR. SARNO, WOULD YOU PREFER TO HAVE SIX MINUTES TOTAL FOR JUST KIND OF CLOSING STATEMENT AND REBUTTAL, OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO BREAK THOSE INTO TWO, THREE MINUTE? UH, YEAH, I THINK THE, LIKE THE SIX MINUTES.
SO IS IT, MY, MY, OKAY, UH, I WANNA RESPOND, FIRST OF ALL TO A COUPLE OF THE, UH, STATEMENTS MADE BY, UH, MR. CROCKER.
UM, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, IT'S JUST A REBUTTAL STATEMENT.
UM, HE, HE, FIRST OF ALL, HE, HE POINTED OUT ON THE TIMELINE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE TIME TIMELINESS OF OUR APPEAL.
AND I DON'T WANT TO WASTE MY TIME ON THIS 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK IT, I MEAN, YOU GUYS ACCEPTED THE APPEAL, SO I THINK WE'RE OKAY THERE.
BUT WE, WE WERE THERE TO SUBMIT IT ON JULY 5TH.
UH, AND I HAVE A WITNESS WHO, UH, ACTUALLY IS THE PERSON I SENT TO GO SUBMIT IT.
SO, UH, THAT WAS WITHIN ANY TIMEFRAME THAT I KNOW OF.
WITH RESPECT TO THE RULES, SIR.
SORRY, WHAT DATE DID YOU SAY JULY 5TH OR JUNE 5TH? JUNE 5TH.
UH, REGARDING THE, THE STATEMENT THAT THE, UM, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE, THE CHAPTER 51 A ON THE MINOR AMENDMENT, THAT IS ACTUALLY, UH, A WAY YOU CAN GET SOMETHING IN THAT IS DETERMINED TO BE MINOR THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE A ZONING AMENDMENT.
AND I DISAGREE WITH MR. CROCKER'S STATEMENT THAT IT'S 12 FEET IN ADDITION TO THE HIGHEST THING.
I BELIEVE IT HAS TO DO WITH THAT PARTICULAR, UH, BUILD.
UH, AND I HAVE THE, UM, SECTION, UH, IT'S UNDER, UH, 51, A 4.702, I THINK IT'S SUBSECTION H UH, AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF HE READ IT, BUT I'M GOING TO READ IT.
UH, THE, THE STARTING AND THEN THAT PARTICULAR, UH, ELEMENT, THE MINOR AMENDMENT PROCESS ALLOWS FLEXIBILITY
[02:05:01]
AS NECESSARY TO MEET THE CONTINGENCIES OF DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS.THAT MINOR AMENDMENT, MINOR AMENDMENT MUST BE, UH, PROCESSED AS A ZONING AMENDMENT.
MINOR AMENDMENTS ARE LIMITED TO MINOR CHANGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT OTHERWISE, UH, PD OR PLAN OTHERWISE PD ORDINANCE AND DO NOT INCREASE THE HEIGHT SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY MORE THAN 10% OR 12 FEET, WHICHEVER IS LESS PROVIDED THERE IS NO INCREASE IN HABITABLE STORIES OR PARKING LEVELS ABOVE GRADE.
HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE? FOUR MINUTES.
UM, AND REGARDING THE ADDITION OF THE COURT, THIS IS THE PLAYGROUND WAS THE, THE PLAYGROUND WAS ITS OWN SEPARATE FACILITY AND THERE'S ACTUALLY, UH, PARTS OF 51 A THAT WOULD SORT OF, UM, LEND CREDENCE THAT THEY ARE SEPARATE FACILITIES WHERE IT'S LISTED AS AN ITEM ON A LIST, PLAYGROUND FACILITY OR PLAYGROUND GAME COURT PLAYING FIELDS.
THEY'RE ALL LISTED SEPARATELY.
I WOULD ARGUE THAT THIS WAS PURELY TURF BEFORE THE BASKETBALL COURT BUILD.
UH, IT WILL DOUBLE THE USERS CLOSER TO OUR HOUSE, UH, AND, AND INCREASE THE FREQUENCY BY PROBABLY ALSO DOUBLE, UM, BECAUSE OF THE DOUBLING OF THE USERS.
UH, THE PARKING LOT COURT, WHILE IT WAS BEING USED FOR BASKETBALL, WAS, WAS JUST A, UH, A POST WITH A BASKETBALL NET ON IT.
AND IT WAS PROBABLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOISE REGULATIONS BECAUSE IT'S 90 FEET FURTHER AWAY.
UM, WE ASKED CODE COMPLIANCE TO DO MULTIPLE ON MULTIPLE TIMES TO DO NOISE READINGS, INVITING THEM INTO OUR BACKYARD TO DO THAT.
I THINK THERE, I SENT EVIDENCE TO ONE OF THE, RON WILLIAMS, I BELIEVE WAS HIS NAME, UH, WITH WHERE I DID THE ACTUAL NOISE READINGS, AND I CALIBRATED THE METER BEFORE AND AFTER I DID IT EXACTLY AS THE, AS THE CODE REQUIRES.
AND THAT IS CERTAINLY EVIDENCE CODE COMPLIANCE, BUT NO ONE EVER DID IT.
AND THEN NOW HE WAS MOVED TO A DIFFERENT AREA, AO AS WELL.
HE WAS GONNA DO, I THINK HE WAS WORKING ON IT.
HE AGREED THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE, BUT THEN HE WAS MOVED TO A DIFFERENT AREA.
SO I I, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE YOU CAN NEVER STOP SOMEONE FROM BUILDING THAT NOISE FACTORY OR THE BASKETBALL COURT.
THAT'S A MERE 10 YARDS FROM OUR PROPERTY, AND YOU HAVE TO RELY ON CODE COMPLIANCE AFTER THE FACT, WHICH DOESN'T WORK.
HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE LEFT? TWO MORE MINUTES.
UH, THIS GANG COURT IN ITS PRESENT LOCATION, SO CLOSE TO OUR HOME, CANNOT BE USED WITHOUT SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 51 A NOISE REGULATIONS.
YET, DESPITE REASONABLE EVIDENCE THAT COULD ONLY BOLSTER WHAT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS THAT THIS COURT WILL CREATE NOISE ISSUES FOR THE APPLICANT, THE CITY TURNED A BLIND EYE AND MADE NO ATTEMPTS TO RECOGNIZE THE ISSUE.
IN ADDITION, THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF REQUIRES THAT THE FULL ZONING PROCESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED.
THE PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED STATED THAT IT WOULD BE FOR PAVEMENT ONLY, WHICH IS NOT CONTEMPLATED STATED INTENDED USE AS A BASKETBALL COURT.
UH, IN ADDITION, THE, THE BUILD WAS, IT WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT, AND THIS WAS CLEARLY VIOLATED OF, OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT RULES, AND THEREFORE, A PERMIT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED BEEN ISSUED ON THAT BASIS.
FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS, WE ASK THAT YOU RULE THAT THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN ERROR AND SHOULD BE DENIED.
AND, UM, WE NOW HAVE A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
UM, I'D JUST LIKE TO REITERATE THAT THE, UH, HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS RELATED TO A MINOR AMENDMENT, UH, ONLY ONLY APPLY TO STRUCTURAL HEIGHTS SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AND IT, IT MEANS THAT THE ORIG, A STRUCTURAL HEIGHT SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN CANNOT BE INCREASED BY MORE THAN 10% OR 12 FEET, WHICHEVER'S LESS.
THE 12 FOOT RULE DOES NOT APPLY UNLESS THE BUILDING IS OVER 120 FEET.
UM, EVERYTHING UNDER 120 FEET WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE, TO THE 10% RULE.
AND HERE THE ONLY STRUCTURAL HEIGHT SHOWN ON THE PRE-EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS 30 FEET.
SO THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR A STRUCTURE WOULD BE 33 FEET USING, APPLYING THE 10%, UH, CAP THERE.
UM, ALSO WITH RESPECT TO THE, THE FACT THAT, UH, UH, MR. SARNO ALLUDED TO, UH, A POSSIBLE PERMIT BEING ISSUED BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS AMENDED, UM, AND THAT THE, THAT THIS REDDIT AT THE SLAB WAS BUILT BEFORE THE PERMIT FINALLY WAS
[02:10:01]
ISSUED AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS AMENDED.AND, UH, THAT GRIEVANCE HAS BEEN, UH, ADDRESSED AND IS NOW MOOT BECAUSE THE, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS INDEED AMENDED TO REFLECT THAT LOCATION AND SIZE OF THE SPORT COURT.
AND SO AT THIS POINT, REQUIRING, YOU KNOW, ZION LUTHERAN TO RIP OUT THE, THE COURT AND A APPLY FOR A NEW PERMIT THAT'S JUST GONNA TURN AROUND AND BE ENFORCED AND BE, UH, APPROVED WOULD BE POINTLESS.
AND SO, UH, FOR THAT REASON, THE, UH, THAT ARGUMENT ACTUALLY, UM, IS UNVEILING.
NOW, THE REASON FOR THE TIMELINESS, UH, CHALLENGE IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THIS APPEAL WAS RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON JUNE 24TH.
THAT'S THE DATE THAT THE APPEAL IS STAMPED.
AND SO THAT WAS MORE THAN, THAT WAS BASICALLY TWO WEEKS AFTER THE DEADLINE.
ACCORDING TO THE 20 DAY DEADLINE, UM, I THINK THE FINAL PERMIT WAS ISSUED MAY 21ST, AND THAT WOULD'VE, UH, MADE THE DEADLINE, I THINK, UH, JUNE 10TH.
THIS APPEAL WAS FILED JUNE 24TH.
AND FINALLY, WITH RESPECT TO THE NOISE REGULATIONS, THOSE REGULATIONS, YOU KNOW, MR. SARNO VOICED HIS OPPOSITION TO THE PLANNING AMENDMENT, TO THE, UH, UH, MINOR AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF THE CPC HEARING.
AND THEN ALSO, UH, REPEAT REPEATED THAT ARGUMENT IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL ON APPEAL.
AND BOTH, ON BOTH OCCASIONS, THE CITY VOTED, UH, HEARD THOSE NOISE ARGUMENTS AND VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE MINOR AMENDMENT.
AND, UM, AT THAT POINT, THE MINOR AMENDMENT BECAME FINAL.
UM, AND BUILDING, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WAS REQUIRED AT THAT POINT TO APPROVE THE BUILDING PERMIT.
UM, SO RIGHT, AND YOUR TIME IS UP.
QUESTIONS FOR FOLKS? OKAY, MS. LAMB.
UM, I THINK THAT THE FIRST HURDLE I NEED TO GET PAST TOO IS, UM, THIS, THIS DEADLINE TO FILE.
UM, I'M, UH, FROM BOTH OF YOU, UM, FROM THE APPLICANT.
YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT ATTEMPTING TO FILE THE APPEAL ON JUNE 5TH, IF YOU COULD PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION TO THAT NOTE.
UM, AND THEN FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S OFFICE, I SEE A TIMELINE HERE, BUT DO WE HAVE ANY SORT OF FILING, UM, THAT HAS A DATE OF JUNE 24TH? UH, YES.
CAN WE PROVIDE THAT PLEASE? UH, I, GO AHEAD.
UH, I DON'T HAVE, I MEAN, I WOULD HAVE TO GET AFFIDAVITS.
I MEAN, I, I COULD GET MY FRIEND ON THE PHONE WHO WENT DOWN THERE AND, AND SPOKE TO CERTAIN PEOPLE AT THE PLACE.
THEY TAKE THESE, THESE APPEALS, THEY, YOU KNOW, IT WAS THERE TO, TO BE PRESENTED.
IT WAS WHAT WE, YOU KNOW, HAD TO FILE AND IT WAS NOT TAKEN IN.
SAID WE HAVE TO CONSULT WITH OUR ATTORNEYS.
I MEAN, IT WAS, WE WERE READY TO FILE IT ON JUNE 5TH, AND I BELIEVE WE LEFT IT WITH THEM, BUT IT DIDN'T GET, THEY DIDN'T, THEY CAME BACK TO US AND SAID THAT, OKAY, YOU, YOU CAN FILE THIS APPEAL.
SO THEN YOU DIDN'T PERSONALLY FILE ON JUNE 5TH, YOU HAD A REPRESENTATIVE FILE ON YOUR BEHALF? MY PAR MY PARALEGAL, YES.
UM, SO DO WE HAVE ANY, WAS THERE ANY, ANY EMAIL OF SUBMITTAL OF PRELIMINARY APPEAL THAT'S DATED ON JUNE 5TH? DO YOU HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION FROM YOUR PARALEGAL? UM, I, I DON'T KNOW.
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THIS WAS, YOU KNOW, I ALSO DIDN'T EXPECT THIS TO BE AN ISSUE, SO I'M NOT PREPARED TO, TO PRESENT THIS AS AN ARGUMENT OR BECAUSE I DIDN'T, DIDN'T, IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS, UH, KNOWN THAT IT TO ME THAT IT WAS AN ISSUE.
UM, UH, MR. SAP, UH, I NEED TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION FLYING STATEMENT THAT, UM, THE QUESTIONS REGARDING TIMELINESS, UM, I FEEL ARE MOOT BECAUSE, UH, THE APPEAL WAS PROCESSED AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.
IF IT WASN'T PROCESSED, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE.
RIGHT? SO IT WAS ACCEPTED, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE FURTHER, THAT THOSE QUESTIONS DON'T GO, DON'T GO TO THE SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED.
BUT, BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS SHOULD WE, IT'S, SHOULD WE EVEN BE HEARING THIS CASE IF THEY DIDN'T FILE? AND I GUESS THE QUESTION IS FOR, IF, FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN IF WE WERE TO HEAR A CASE AND THEY DIDN'T PRO PUT PROPER SIGNAGE.
IF WE DETERMINE THAT PROPER SIGNAGE AND THE PUBLIC WASN'T PROPERLY NOTIFIED, WE COULD DISMISS THE CASE ON THAT MERIT.
[02:15:01]
WAS, THAT WOULD BE A NOTICE ERROR.THIS IS A TIMELINESS ERROR, AND I WOULD, BUT IF THERE WAS A TIMELINESS ERROR, THEN IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PROCESSED AND BROUGHT TO US, IT IS MADE IT TO OUR DOORSTEPS.
THAT QUESTION ISN'T RELEVANT TO THE QUE THE, THE STANDARD OF WHETHER THE BUILDING WILL, WELL THEN I GUESS I HAVE A LEGAL QUESTION ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD THAT I THINK WE PROBABLY NEED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR.
NO, I, I, I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE TO EXECUTIVE SHIFT SESSION BRIEFLY.
MS. WILLIAMS, DO WE HAVE A ROOM TO HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION IN? YES, MA'AM.
SO IT IS 3:38 PM ON 8 21 20 24.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WILL NOW GO INTO A CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 5 5 1 0.07, ONE OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT TO RECEIVE ADVICE FROM AND CONSULT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THE FOLLOWING MATTER DESCRIBED ON TODAY'S AGENDA, BDA 2 3 4 DASH NINE SEVEN.
SO WE ARE GONNA LEAVE FOR THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT'S GONNA BE.
WE'LL TRY AND MAKE IT AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE.
UM, IS IT ALL RIGHT IF I GO PUT MONEY IN THE METER? WELL, I'LL SEND HER OH, THANK YOU.
SO, SO, UH, MR. UH, TYPICALLY THOSE DO NOT GO TO CITY COUNCIL MINOR, MINOR PLAN AMENDMENTS OR MINOR, UH, DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS.
DO NOT GO TO CITY COUNCIL UNLESS THEY'RE APPEALED.
AND THEN ONCE IT WAS APPEALED TO CITY COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE MINOR AMENDMENT? CORRECT.
AND THEN YOU ISSUED PERMITS BASED ON, BASED ON THE APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL AND ALSO THE MINOR AMENDMENT BEING APPROVED BY ITS CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, CORRECT.
UM, CITY COUNCIL, UH, LIKE, LIKE A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL, CITY COUNCIL UPHELD THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION'S DECISION.
AND THUS IT WAS, IT WAS OVER, OR IT WAS, IT WAS ALLOWED TO PROCEED.
AND THEN AS A RESULT, WE WERE ABLE TO ISSUE PERMITS OFF OF THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT.
WHAT, WHAT TYPE OF CASES? UM, LIKE, LIKE THIS WOULD REQUIRE A FULL AMENDMENT, THE ZONING.
SO ACCORDING TO 51, A 4.702, ANYTHING THAT ALTERS THE BASIC RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
[02:20:01]
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY, UM, INCREASE A HEIGHT SHOWN.AND THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING, INCREASE A HEIGHT SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY MORE THAN 10% OR 12 FEET, WHICHEVER IS LESS PROVIDED THERE'S NO INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF HABITABLE STORIES OR PARKING LEVELS ABOVE GRADE, UM, TO DECREASE, SORRY, I'M CLARIFYING TO MAKE SURE THESE ARE EXCEPTIONS OR ALLOWANCES.
SO IT SAYS, UH, MINOR AMENDMENTS ARE LIMITED TO MINOR CHANGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT OTHERWISE COMPLY WITH THE PD ORDINANCE AND DO NOT, AND A ALTER THE RELATIONSHIP.
B UH, CHANGE THE HEIGHT OF ANY, ANY, UH, ANY WRITTEN HEIGHT ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
MORE THAN 10% OR 12 FEET, DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF OFF STREET PARKING PLACES SHOWN ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SO AS TO CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR TRAFFIC CONGESTION OR FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING OR REDUCE THE BUILDING SETBACKS AT THE BOUNDARY OF THE SITE SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AND THEN WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF IMPROVEMENT ON THIS PROPERTY AS IT CURRENTLY SITS? UH, I BELIEVE THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPECIFIED 30 FEET.
UM, TYPICALLY PDS WOULD AMEND HEIGHTS, UM, OF BASE ZONING, WHICH IS WHY THEY HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT IN THERE.
UM, IT, IT RESORTS BACK TO BASE ZONING UNLESS THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT SAYS OTHERWISE, WHICH WOULD BE INDICATED ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
SO IF THEY, IF IF THE SCHOOL WERE TO CONSTRUCT, FOR EXAMPLE, A BASKETBALL HOOP THAT WAS A PERMANENT STRUCTURE THAT WAS 34 FEET, THEN THAT WOULD, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO IN AND AND SEEK A FULL ZONING AMENDMENT? CORRECT.
BECAUSE, BECAUSE IT'S OVER 10% OF THE CURRENT HEIGHT STRUCTURE.
I'M NOT SURE BASKETBALL GOALS GOALS WOULD FALL INTO THAT.
BUT IF ANY, IF IT WAS, IF IT WAS ANY STRUCTURE THAT EXCEEDED THAT HEIGHT, YES.
BUT SINCE THE STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS 12 FEET, IT DID NOT EXCEED THE 10% OVER THE, UH, PRIMARY STRUCTURE'S HEIGHT.
SO MY QUESTION PERTAINS TO THE, UH, NOISE ELEMENT OF, UM, AND THIS IS MORE JUST CLARIFICATION TOO FOR OUR, UM, OUR OFFICIALS HERE.
BUT WHEN, AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE PREEXISTING NOISE VIOLATION, UM, I'M GONNA USE THE WORD BASELINE HERE.
SO IF, LET'S JUST SAY BEFORE THIS PROPERTY WAS MODIFIED, IF THE BASELINE OF WHAT'S THIS, 56 DECIBELS, IF THAT HAD BEEN RECORDED OVER SOME TIME, AND THEN THIS NEW, THIS IMPROVEMENT WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT.
IS THAT, IS, I GUESS, CAN YOU JUST PUT IT IN LAYMAN'S TERMS AS FAR AS THE PRE-EXISTING CONDITION OF THESE NOISE VIOLATIONS? AND I KNOW YOU ALL WENT THROUGH IT, BUT JUST KIND OF GIVE IT TO ME SIMPLE.
IS IT, IF THIS PLACE WAS ALREADY NOISY AND NOW WE'RE MAKING IT NOISIER, THAT'S, BUT YOU HAD TO HAVE THE, THAT BASELINE DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT NOISY, QUOTE UNQUOTE WAS IN THE BEGINNING.
THAT'S ALMOST OUTSIDE THE PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS BEING THAT LIKE ZONING WOULD ESTABLISH WHEN THE ZONING'S ESTABLISHED THAT THAT IS EVALUATED WHEN A USE IS ESTABLISHED, THAT THAT SOUND GETS EVALUATED.
AND THEN WHEN IT'S PUT TOGETHER, ALL THAT IN COMBINATION SHOULD, SHOULD PLAY OUT WHEN THE ZONING IS ESTABLISHED.
BEING THAT THIS WAS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, THE COMMUNITY DID HAVE INPUT IN THAT, AND THIS, THIS WOULD'VE BEEN A FACTOR WHEN THAT WAS PUT IN AS IT WAS A FACTOR WHEN THE, WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS AMENDED.
SO FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AT THE TIME, OR FOR THE PERMITTING DIVISION FOR PLANNING DEVELOPMENT TO GO IN AND INVESTIGATE SOUND WOULD BE, WOULD BE EXTREMELY REDUNDANT IN THAT PROCESS.
UM, WE WOULD, WE WOULD ASSUME THAT THAT WAS ALL DONE WHEN THE ZONING WAS PUT INTO PLACE.
SO, UM, THE, THE, THE NOISE PIECE IS, I, I GUESS I MEAN IT, AND I, I CAN SEE THE TIMELINE.
UM, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT STARTED THEIR COMPLAINTS ON OCTOBER 23RD, UM, WHICH WAS JUST A FEW MONTHS AFTER THE BUILDING PERMIT ACTION WAS FILED.
AND AT NO POINT DID, WHEN THEY CALLED 3 1 1, WHEN THEY PROVIDED THEIR STEP, AT NO POINT DID ANYBODY GO OUT THERE AND CONFIRM ANY OF THOSE STUDIES.
AND I MEAN, AND I THINK WHEN YOU'RE ISSUING A PERMIT THAT IS FOR A BASKETBALL GOAL OR A PLAYGROUND OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT THERE SHOULD BE, AND I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S NOT, ESPECIALLY WHEN I LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, THE BACK OF THE DISD MIDDLE SCHOOL COURT SURVEY THAT SHOWS THAT MOST OF THESE ARE 357
[02:25:01]
FEET AWAY AND THEY'RE 10 FEET AWAY.BUT THERE WASN'T ANYTHING THAT WAS CONSIDERED IN THAT.
I, I, I JUST, I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS WENT TO CPC AND CITY COUNCIL AND WENT THROUGH A BUILDING PERMIT.
I I, I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT HAPPENS AT THE CITY.
AND SO I'M, HOW DO YOU GET TO THAT POINT? LET ME, LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
SO YOU'RE, I, I MEAN, I HEARD YOU SAY EARLIER WHEN YOU WERE BEING INTERVIEWED OR EXAMINED THAT, THAT, THAT UNLESS THERE IS A COMPLAINT THAT YOU DON'T CONSIDER NOISE.
UM, IT LOOKS TO ME THAT, THAT THE APPLICANT STARTED COMPLAINING IN OCTOBER OF 23.
THEY ASKED FOR SOME NOISE STUDIES, THEY ASKED FOR DIFFERENT THINGS.
AT NO TIME DID THE CITY COME IN AND FOLLOW UP 3 1 1, DID NOTHING, PERMITTING, DIDN'T DO ANYTHING.
NO, NO ONE DID ANYTHING FOR THE, FOR THE PERSON THAT WAS COMPLAINING.
AND YET IT WENT TO CPC AND WAS APPROVED.
IT WENT TO CITY COUNCIL, WAS APPROVED, AND THEN YOU ULTIMATELY ISSUED A PERMIT.
AND THIS BASKETBALL COURT IS 10 FEET FROM SOMEONE'S BACKYARD.
I DON'T, I I, I WOULD EXPECT THE CITY AT SOME POINT, THE CPC, THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE PERMITTING OFFICE, YET THREE POINTS ALONG THE ROAD TO SAY, WOW, WE'RE GONNA PUT A BASKETBALL COURT 10 FEET FROM A NEIGHBOR.
JUST COMMON SENSE SAYS TO ME, I DON'T, I, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, HOW, HOW DOES THE CITY GET TO THAT POINT THAT IT CAN GO THROUGH THREE LAYERS? AND NO ONE EVER QUESTIONED THAT A BASKETBALL COURT WAS 10 FEET FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S BACKYARD.
I, I CAN'T CONFIRM THAT THAT WASN'T QUESTIONED BEING THAT THESE, THOSE WERE ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS.
I, I DON'T SEE WHY IT WOULDN'T BE QUESTIONED AS FAR AS ISSUING THE PERMIT.
IF IT'S IN THE ZONING WE'RE REQUIRED TO ISSUE THE PERMIT, UM, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE INVESTIGATE.
THAT WOULD BE CODE COMPLIANCE.
AND IT WOULD TAKE SOMETHING MASSIVE TO GET US TO, LIKE SOMETHING FROM CODE COMPLIANCE SAYING, DO NOT ISSUE THIS PERMIT IN ORDER TO BREAK THAT CYCLE.
AND WHAT WAS THERE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BEFORE, WAS A PLAYGROUND.
IT, SO IT'S HARD TO TRACK NOISE AHEAD OF SOMETHING BEING CONSTRUCTED AND BEING UTILIZED, UM, WHEN THE EXISTING WAS A, WAS A SIMILAR USE, BUT DIFFERENT USE, BUT AN ALLOWABLE USE.
SO WHETHER, I MEAN, IT WAS CONCERNED, BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY WITHIN OUR PARAMETERS TODAY BECAUSE THERE'S FUTURE, THERE'S COMPLAINTS ON SOMETHING AHEAD OF ACTUALLY BEING CONSTRUCTED IN TERMS OF NOISE.
'CAUSE WHAT WAS, THERE WAS A PLAYGROUND.
AND WHAT WHAT WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE NOW IS A ALLOWABLE USE, SIMILAR USE, BUT IT IS A BASKETBALL COURT, SO YOU CAN'T REALLY DO A, A SOUND STUDY ON SOMETHING THAT HASN'T BEEN CONSTRUCTED YET OR DEVELOPED OR, OR DELIVERED.
AND, AND I, AND I KNOW THAT OUR QUESTION AT HAND IS, WAS THIS PERMIT ISSUED INCORRECTLY? AND MY, MY QUESTION IS, DO WE NOT HAVE ANY COMMON SENSE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS TO SAY WHETHER IT'S A PLAYGROUND OR A BASKETBALL COURT OR A NOYCE FACTORY OR WHATEVER, IF IT IS 10 FEET FROM SOMEONE'S PROPERTY LINE, WHERE DOES THE, WHERE DOES THE BUCK STOP? I MEAN, I, I'M ASTOUNDED THAT IT WENT THROUGH THREE SEPARATE SYSTEMS. AND, AND AGAIN, I HAVE TO FOCUS ON WHAT THE QUESTION IS, BUT I DO NOT KNOW HOW THE CITY WOULD APPROVE SOMETHING THAT IS 10 FEET FROM A NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY LINE, WHETHER, I MEAN, A BASKETBALL COURT OF COURSE IS GONNA HAVE NOISE.
THIS IS JUST A QUESTION ABOUT HEIGHT PER THE ORDINANCE.
THIS IS A, WAS ISSUED CORRECTLY YEAH.
BASED ON HEIGHT, NOT NECESSARILY USE.
IS THAT CORRECT? ARE WE LOOKING AT USE HERE OR HEIGHT OR BOTH? IS THERE, IS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN THE ORDINANCE BETWEEN A PLAYGROUND VERSUS A BASKETBALL COURT IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE? UH, THERE IS A SECTION UNDER, UH, USES, RECREATION USES, UH, THAT, THAT DELINEATES THOSE ITEMS. GAME COURT PLAYING FIELD SWIMMING POOLS, AND, UH, GAME COURT.
DID I SAY GAME COURT ALREADY AND PLAYGROUNDS.
AND SO, UH, IT'S NOT IN THAT SECTION, BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY, IT'S IN A COURT OF LAW, ONE WOULD SAY, OKAY, IT'S IN A LIST.
AND SO, SO IS IT LISTED WITH, UH, WITH A PLAYGROUND, A GAMING COURT? OR IS IT A SEPARATE, I'M SORRY, WHAT IS YOUR, I I'M, I'M JUST SAYING THAT PLAYGROUND AND GAME COURT ARE, ARE DIFFERENT.
THIS PARTICULAR AREA OF THE PROPERTY WAS JUST TURF PLAYGROUND IS TO THE IS IS TO THE LEFT OF WHERE THE COURTS, IT'S NOW.
UH, AND PLAYING FIELDS ARE TO THE RIGHT.
THIS WAS, THIS WAS, UH, JUST TURF AT THE TIME BEFORE THE COURT WAS BUILT.
UH, THEY DID HAVE THE PARKING LOT COURT, BUT THAT WAS NOT A GAME COURT.
THAT WAS JUST A, SORRY, DID I SEE ON A MAP THAT THIS WAS, WAS LABELED AS A PLAYGROUND BEFORE
[02:30:01]
IT WAS PART OF THE PLAY FIELD? SO LIKE THERE, THERE WAS A SOCCER FIELD.IT WAS A FULL SIZE SOCCER FIELD.
UH, JUST, I GUESS IT WOULD BE TO THE, TO THE WEST OF THE CURRENT SPORT COURT LOCATION.
AND I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT AS MR. SARNO JUST INDICATED, SPORT COURT AND PLAYGROUND ARE TECHNICALLY, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT USES.
THERE IS A PREEXISTING BASKETBALL USE ON THE, ON THE PARKING LOT.
AND THIS SPORT COURT MOVED THAT, UH, USE TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAT WAS MORE SUITABLE FOR THE KIDS' SAFETY, ET CETERA.
AND IT DID NOT ENLARGE THE PLAYGROUND.
THE PLAYGROUND IS THE ONLY, UH, PREEXISTING USE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLAINED OF, NOT THE PRIOR, THE PREEXISTING SPORT COURT USE OR THE PREEXISTING BASKETBALL USE OF THE PARKING LOT.
AND SO THE PLAYGROUND ACTUALLY GOES NOT JUST 10 FEET, BUT IT GOES TO THE LOT LINE.
THE, THE SPORT COURT GOES, UH, IS NOT AS CLOSE AS THE EDGE OF THE PLAYGROUND.
SO IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT THE SPORT COURT WOULD EXACERBATE THE, IF THERE IS ANY NON-COMPLIANCE.
IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT THE SPORT COURT WOULD EXACERBATE THAT.
SO WHAT IS BEING DONE ABOUT THE PLAYGROUND? I MEAN, LIKE, WHAT, WHAT IS, WHAT, HOW IS THE, IS THE CITY HANDLING THE PLAYGROUND NOISE THAT'S CLEARLY IN VIOLATION? ARE WE STOPPING THE PLAYGROUND? WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE PROCESS THERE? I'M, I REALIZE THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY PERTINENT TO THE QUESTION AT HAND AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED INCORRECTLY, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW THE CITY DEALS WITH NOISE.
THIS IS AN ONGOING PROBLEM AROUND THE CITY.
SO I GUESS I'M KIND OF LOOKING AT IT FROM A, I I I'M CURIOUS AS TO HOW YOU'RE GONNA HANDLE THAT.
I, I DON'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER FOR THAT AT THE MOMENT.
I KNOW THE PLAYGROUND HAS BEEN THERE FOR QUITE A WHILE.
UM, IT'S HAD VARIOUS ITERATIONS THROUGHOUT, UM, TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND HOW THAT PER THAT PLAYGROUND HAS BEEN UTILIZED.
UM, AS FAR AS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WE, WE, WE ISSUE PERMITS, UM, CODE COMPLIANCE ENFORCES HOW, HOW THOSE USES GET, GET, GET USED IN THE LONG RUN.
AND ALL OF THESE ARE, ARE PUT INTO PLACE THROUGH PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS WHERE THE PUBLIC GETS FEEDBACK.
AND I MEAN, I THINK THERE ARE LOTS OF PLACES WHERE THINGS BUTT UP TO NEXT, NEXT TO OTHER THINGS.
AND THAT'S JUST PART OF, PART OF THE PROCESS OF LIVING IN A CITY.
UM, SO THIS QUESTION'S FOR EITHER MR. CROCKER OR MR. POOL, WHOEVER FEELS MOST QUALIFIED.
UM, SO LOOKING AT, UH, ONE OF THE SLIDES THAT YOU PASSED AROUND TO US, UH, ON NONCONFORMANCE WITH NOISE REGS.
UM, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, AND FORGIVE ME IF I'M ASKING YOU TO REPEAT YOURSELF.
SO THE, THE PLAYGROUND IN THE SPORT COURT ARE E EITHER ONE OF THOSE, A NON-CONFORMING USE.
WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE DEFINITIVE DATA ON WHETHER THEY ARE OR NOT BECAUSE CODE COMPLIANCE NEEDS TO DO A FORMAL INVESTIGATION, NOISE INVESTIGATION WITH PROPERLY CALIBRATED EQUIPMENT.
WE CANNOT DEPEND ON MR. SARNO'S READINGS.
EVEN IF THEY ARE, UH, AS HE CLAIMS, UH, SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE METER, THE DECIBEL METERS REQUIREMENTS IN 51 A, WE HAVE TO HAVE, UH, VERIFICATION OF THAT.
SO I WOULDN'T SAY THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT EVEN THE PLAYGROUND IS VIOLATIVE OF, UH, THE NOISE REGULATIONS IN 51 A, BUT EVEN IF IT WERE, THAT IS NOT THE USE THAT'S BEEN REMODELED OR ENLARGED.
IN THIS CASE IT WAS THE BASKETBALL USE.
AND, AND SO AGAIN, A FORMAL INVESTIGATION WOULD INCLUDE, UH, SENDING CODE COMPLIANCE OUT TO DO THEIR OWN, UH, MEASURING OF SOUND, UH, OF THE, OF THE CURRENT CONDITIONS.
UM, THAT DOESN'T, IT, IT'S, IT'S IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS, UH, CONFORMING BEFORE IT WAS RELOCATED.
WELL, THAT'S ACTUALLY THE KEY.
WE'VE GOTTA PROVE THAT IT WAS NONCONFORMING BEFORE THE NEWPORT AND THEN WE HAVE TO SHOW THAT HE HAS TO SHOW THAT IT WAS ENLARGED OR REMODELED IN A WAY THAT MADE THAT WORSE, MADE THE NONCOMPLIANCE WORSE.
THE FIRST STEP IS TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS A PRE-EXISTING NONCOMPLIANT USE.
SO YES, THAT, THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST STEP.
SO WITHOUT THE PREEXISTING NON-CONFORMING USE, UM, IF CO COMPLIANCE WENT OUT TODAY AND FOUND THAT IT IS NONCONFORMING, WHERE, WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US? I KNOW CODE COMPLIANCE HAS A PROCESS.
[02:35:01]
NOT FAMILIAR WITH ALL OF THEIR PROCESS, BUT THERE WOULD BE, UH, NOTICES OF VIOLATION WARNINGS ISSUED AND THINGS THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY DONE TO MEDIATE THAT SOUND.BUT I, I DON'T HAVE A DEFINITIVE ON HOW CODE COMPLIANCE PROCESSES WORK.
MY QUESTION IS TO STAFF TO STAFF, UM, SEPARATE FROM, FROM HERE.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THEY HAD A PREEXISTING NON-CONFORMING U USE AND THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? WITH WITH THE SPORTS COURT AND THE
WAS IT NON-CONFORMING BEFORE OR WAS IT IN COMPLIANCE? I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS NON-CONFORMING AND I'D HAVE TO DO RESEARCH, SO I'M REALLY NOT COMFORTABLE ASKING.
BUT THEY DID HAVE TO, I THINK BECAUSE OF THE ISSUE THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, BROUGHT UP, THEY HAD TO GO GET THE, UM, THE AMENDMENT TO THE, TO THE PLAN.
SO, BUT THE, THE AMENDMENT WAS MORE FOR THE JUST THE, I GUESS OKAY.
MY QUESTION IS, IS LIKE IF IT WAS CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING, WHICH I GUESS WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT NOW, IF YOU MOVE IT BUT YOU DON'T EXPAND IT, IS MOVING IT CONSIDERED AN EXPANSION? I DON'T BELIEVE UP.
THERE WEREN'T ADDING TO IT IF THEY WERE JUST MOVING IT.
I, I REALLY, LET ME LOOK INTO THAT BEFORE I ANSWER, BECAUSE I IF I COULD JUMP IN.
YEAH, THE, THE, THE SIR, GO AHEAD.
THE LANGUAGE IN THE CODE IS, IS REMODELED OR ENLARGED IN A MANNER THAT MADE THE NON-COMPLIANCE WORSE.
SO WE, YOU KNOW, REMODELED COULD INCLUDE RELOCATING THE USE.
HOWEVER, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE USE OF BASKETBALL.
AND SO WE'VE GOTTA LOOK AT THE PREEXISTING BASKETBALL USE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT USE WAS VIOLATIVE OF THE 56 DECIBEL THRESHOLD.
WE HAVE NO DATA TO INDICATE THAT THAT WAS THE CASE.
BUT LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, IF THIS WAS A RESIDENTIAL AND THEY HAD A NON-CONFORMING, YOU KNOW, SETBACK AND THEY PICKED UP THE HOUSE AND MOVED IT, I MEAN WE WERE LOOKING AT IT LIKE, WELL, WE, YOU'VE MOVED THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE NOW CHANGED, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE NOW RELOCATED IT A NON-CONFORMING USE AND POTENTIALLY COULD BE SEEN THAT, SEEN THAT RELOCATING COULD BE CONSIDERED EXPANDING OF A NON-CONFORMING POTENTIALLY, HOWEVER, THEY WOULD'VE GONE THROUGH A ZONING CHANGE TO DO THAT, WHICH WOULD'VE MADE IT CONFORMING.
WE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SAY THAT THIS BASKETBALL COURT COURT IS NON-CONFORMING.
WITH, WITH THE ZONING CHANGE THAT MADE IT CONFORMING IN, IN TERMS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL, WE, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING I SEE THAT SAYS THIS IS NONCONFORMING.
SO, AND YEAH, BECAUSE IF IT WAS, OKAY, YEAH, BECAUSE IT WENT THROUGH, IT WENT THROUGH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN CITY COUNCIL, SO THEY BECAME COMPLIANT THROUGH THE MINOR AMENDMENT, UH, ZONING THROUGH CPC, WHICH WILL PUT THEM IN COMPLIANCE.
SO THEREFORE, THE NON-CONFORMING IS NOT A COMPONENT HERE BECAUSE THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE.
IF I MAY ADD, I, I, I DISAGREE THAT THE USE IS JUST LIMITED TO THE SINGLE USE OF BASKETBALL OR WHATEVER, A USE.
IT SAYS A USE THAT IS NON-CONFORMING.
THEY ARE, THEY HAVE OTHER USES.
THEY HAVE A MAIN USE AS A SCHOOL OR AS A CHURCH, I BELIEVE IS THEIR MAIN USE.
UH, AND I BELIEVE SCHOOL BY RIGHT.
SO IT, IT CAN BE A, A BROADER USE.
ANY USE THAT IS NON-CONFORMING, UH, TO NOT BE EXPANDED UPON OR, UH, REMODELED, ENLARGED, REMODELED.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT, UM, THAT APPLIES TO IT MYSELF.
I THINK IN THIS CASE, THE, THE USE CAN OPERATE IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE, BUT TO BE CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SHOW THAT.
AND JUST TO, TO, TO BEAT IT AT HORSE, EVEN IF WE DID HAVE DATA TO SHOW THAT IT'S NON-CONFORMING, WE DON'T HAVE DATA TO SHOW THAT IT'S MADE THE NON-CONFORMING WORSE THAN IT WAS BEFORE.
'CAUSE WE HAVE NO DATA OF HOW NON-CONFORMING IT WAS BEFORE.
AND SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO RULE IT BEING A NON-CONFORMING USE, WHICH MEANS IT'S ALLOWED TO EXIST.
UM, AND, AND BASICALLY IT, IT'S ALLOWED TO OPERATE IN VIOLATION OF THE SIGN OR, OR THE, UH, THE, THE NOISE ORDINANCE, WHICH, AND I SUPPOSE IF IT WAS TRULY NON-CONFORMING, IT WOULD'VE ENDED UP HERE IN THE FRONT OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
UM, SEPARATE FROM THE APPEALS CASE.
BUT I THINK WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.
CAN IT OPERATE IN VIOLATION OF THE NOISE ORDINANCE? NO.
IF I MAY ADD MY, MY UNDERSTANDING, THERE ARE SOME LIMITATION AS TO BRINGING SOMETHING THAT IS NON-CONFORMING CURRENTLY TO THIS BOARD.
UH, THERE'S SOME STATE, UH, GUIDELINES THAT KIND OF RESTRICT THAT OF SORT OF TAKEN THAT OFF THE TABLE.
[02:40:01]
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S STILL THE CASE, BUT THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.UH, OTHERWISE I MIGHT HAVE BROUGHT SOMETHING.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS, AND IT'S, IT'S ON THE CITY OF DALLAS WEBSITE THAT SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T, UH, IT'S THE AMORTIZATION PROCEDURE OR WHATEVER NONCONFORMING USE, UH, I BELIEVE, UH, THAT, THAT THAT'S NOT AN OPTION CURRENTLY.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HAVING FULLY REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 9 7 ON APPLICATION OF JOSEPH AND AL, UH, SARNO, AND HAVE EVALUATED THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY AND HEARD ALL TESTIMONY AND FACTS SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE, OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
I ENTER FOR ANY SECOND THE MOTION.
UM, I DIDN'T FEEL THAT THE APPLICANT HAD MADE A CASE, UM, RE REGARDING, UM, AND THE, THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, UM, MADE AN ERROR IN, UM, IN GIVING A BUILDING PERMIT.
UM, I FELT THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DID, UM, RIGHTFULLY, UM, GIVE THE BUILDING PERMIT, UM, BASED ON, UM, THE FACT THAT IT WAS IN COMPLIANCE BASED ON CPC AND CITY COUNCIL.
AND THEN THERE WAS NO INCREASE IN HEIGHT BASED ON, UM, 51 A.
AND I ECHO THE SENTIMENTS, AND I THINK IT'S ALSO CLEAR THAT THERE'S NO DATA, UH, UH, RE RELATED TO THE NOISE REGULATIONS, TO, TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM THAT IT IS, UH, IS OR WAS NONCONFORMING AND TO WHAT DEGREE.
SO WANNA ADD A POINT OF DISCUSSION TO THIS, UH, SEPARATE THAN MY COLLEAGUES.
THE, UM, I WILL SUPPORT THIS MOTION, UM, FIRST AND FOREMOST, BUT, UM, IT SEEMS THAT OVER THE PERIOD, AT LEAST STATING FROM MARCH OF 2023 THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST BY THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY OWNER TO, UH, GO THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS, WHICH INCLUDED A, UH, MINOR AMENDMENT THROUGH CITY PLAN COMMISSION, WHICH CITY PLAN COMMISSIONS THAT IS REALLY ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY.
SO THAT, AND THEN THE FACT THAT IT WAS APPEALED AND CITY COUNCIL UPHELD IT, I BELIEVE THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS THAT WOULD'VE MADE, UM, IF THIS WERE IN ANY VIOLATION OF ANY SORTS, WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AND REVIEWED BY MULTIPLE CHANNELS.
UH, WE HAVE THREE BODIES, THE CPC CITY COUNCIL, AND NOW THE, UH, OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HERE.
SO I WILL BE, AND GIVEN ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY, UM, I CANNOT, UM, I CANNOT STATE, I CAN, I CAN'T AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ERRED IN ISSUING THIS PERMIT.
I THINK WITH ALL THE PARAMETERS THAT THE, UM, BUILDING OFFICIAL HAD TO GRANTED PERMIT THAT THEY DID.
I ALSO, UM, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DECISION, AS MUCH AS I HATE TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DECISION, I FEEL LIKE, UM, I, IT, IT BLOWS ME AWAY THAT IT CAN GO THROUGH THOSE THREE STEPS, BUT I DO NOT THINK THAT THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN ERROR, UM, BASED ON ALL THE THREE STEPS THAT THEY WENT THROUGH.
I HOPE THAT ZION CHURCH WILL WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO PUT SOME SORT OF NOISE BARRIER IN.
I HOPE THAT, UM, THE CITY WILL WORK WITH THE SARNO'S TO PUT SOME SORT OF, UM, SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN, UM, AND PUT THAT AS AN OVERLAY ON TOP OF THE PD SO THAT THEY CAN'T BE PLAYING PICKLEBALL ALL DAY SUNDAY AFTERNOON AND SATURDAY.
'CAUSE I THINK IT'S A HUGE TRAVESTY.
I THINK IT'S REALLY, UM, UNFAIR THAT THEY ARE 10 FEET AWAY.
UM, BUT, UM, I DON'T THINK I, UNFORTUNATELY OUR BOARD IS SUCH A NARROW, UM, WE CAN ONLY LOOK AT THE ONE QUESTION.
WE CAN'T MAKE A RULING ON EVERYTHING ELSE.
AND, UM, AND BECAUSE OF, BECAUSE ALL THE, THE BOXES WERE FOLLOWED, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN ERROR.
WHILE I PROBABLY AGREE THOUGH THAT THINGS FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED, BUT I'M HOPING THAT THERE CAN BE SOME HELP FROM THE CITY.
I HOPE THAT WE CAN HELP THEM WITH THAT.
THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 4:28 PM THANK YOU MEMBERS.