[Board of Adjustments: Panel A on September 17, 2024.]
[00:00:03]
WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
I AM DAVID NEWMAN, AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND PRESIDING OFFICER OF THIS PANEL, PANEL A.
TODAY IS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2024, WITH A TIME OF 1:00 PM AND I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A TO ORDER FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING, BOTH IN PERSON AND HYBRID VIDEO CONFERENCE.
A QUORUM MINIMUM OF FOUR OR FIVE OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS IS PRESENT, AND THEREFORE WE CAN PROCEED WITH MEETING.
FIRST, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE, UH, VOTING MEMBERS OF PANEL A.
AGAIN, MY NAME IS DAVID NEWMAN, AND I'M CHAIRMAN TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT IS KATHLEEN DAVIS, RACHEL HAYDEN, JAY NER, AND MICHAEL OVITZ.
TO MY IMMEDIATE RIGHT IS MATTHEW SAPP, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, DR.
KAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF PLANNER, BRIAN THOMPSON, SENIOR PLANNER, DIANA BARKUM, DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIALIST AND PROJECT COORDINATOR SARAH AT, AT BARRY SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER.
UM, WE HAVE OUR BOARD SECRETARY MARY WILLIAMS. WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, MARY, BECAUSE THESE, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PERSON FOR THOSE THAT ARE IN THE CHAMBER TODAY TO BE ABLE TO CONNECT WITH IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK OR GIVE US ANY EVIDENCE.
WE HAVE JASON POOLE, OUR, OUR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, UH, FOR PLANNING AND, UH, DEVELOPMENT.
WE ALSO HAVE OUR SOON TO BE BOARD ATTORNEY, UH, THERESA CARLISLE.
UH, SHE'S IN THE FAR RIGHT CORNER, UM, WITH US AND WE'RE VERY GLAD THAT SHE IS COMING TO US.
OKAY, BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE WAY THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE GIVE HER 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 ON A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT.
EACH CASE IS DECIDED ON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
EACH USE IS PRESUMED TO BE ILLEGAL USE.
WE'VE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY OUR STAFF PRIOR TO THIS HEARING AND HAVE ALSO REVIEWED A DETAILED PUBLIC DOCKET, WHICH EXPLAINS THE CASE AND WAS POSTED SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO TODAY, UH, ON THE CITY WEBSITE.
ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY OF THE CASES THAT WE HEAR BEFORE US TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO, SUBMITTED TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED MARY, WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND AGAIN, THIS EVIDENCE MUST BE RETAINED IN THE BOARD'S OFFICE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.
APPROVALS OF A VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR REVERSAL OF A BUILDING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL DECISION REQUIRE A 75% OR FOUR OF OUR FIVE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES.
ALL THEIR MOTIONS REQUIRE JUST THIS SIMPLE MAJORITY LETTERS TO THE BOARD'S.
ACTION TODAY WILL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING AND WILL BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.
ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING A PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES WHEN A CASE IS IS SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING OR BACKUP PUBLIC TESTIMONY, UH, WE'LL START WITH IS FOR EACH SPEAKER A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR, UM, A SPECIFIC CASE, YOU HAVE UP TO FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK AFTER THE APPLICANT SPEAKS.
ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON THE VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
NO TELECONFERENCING WILL BE ALLOWED VIA WEBEX.
ALL CONFERENCE ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO MYSELF AS THE CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDING OFFICER WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER.
WE DO HAVE TWO APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL DECISIONS ON OUR DOCKET TODAY.
I WANNA REMIND THOSE THAT ARE, UH, HERE IN CITY HALL AS WELL AS THOSE THAT ARE, UH, WATCHING US ONLINE, THAT IN THAT SETTING THE SPEAKING RULES ARE DIFFERENT IN THAT THE PUBLIC CAN ATTEND, BUT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK DURING THE HEARING.
IF YOU WANNA SPEAK AS IT RELATES TO THOSE TWO BUILDING OFFICIAL APPEALS, YOUR TIME TO SPEAK IS THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO GO TO IN A MINUTE.
THIS, THE, THE HEARING FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL APPEALS, UM, ARE BY THE APP APPELLANT AND THEN THE CITY RESPONDING.
SO I HOPE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT CLEARLY.
UM, LET'S PREVIEW OUR AGENDA PLEASE.
UM, WE'RE ABOUT TO DO PUBLIC TESTIMONY NEXT AND THEN WE'RE GONNA REVIEW AND APPROVE OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM FROM AUGUST 20TH AT THE HEARING.
AT THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, WE DECIDED TO, TO LEAVE TWO CASES ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET, UM, AND ONE MOVE TO THE REGULAR DOCKET.
WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO FIRST AFTER WE DO THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, THEN WE'RE GONNA DO THE MEETING MINUTES, THEN I'M GONNA, UH, INQUIRE.
[00:05:01]
DENY A CASE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AND THE STAFF IS ASKED TO WITHDRAW.SO WE GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY.
SO WE'RE GONNA DEAL WITH THE MEETING, THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, THEN MEETING MINUTES.
THEN WE'RE GONNA DO 2 3 4 1 0 8, WHICH IS 56 0 1 URSULA LANE AND SIMPLY DISPOSE THAT AS A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
'CAUSE THERE'S, THEY'RE BEING REFUNDED THE FEES AS WE'RE ADDED TO IT.
AFTER THAT WE'LL DO THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET, WHICH IS 2 3 4 1 0 5 AND 1 0 9.
AFTER THAT, THEN WE'LL GO TO THE HOLDOVERS 1 0 1 AND 1 0 1 FEE.
UH, THE BO APPEAL PLUS THE FEE WAIVER.
THEN WE'LL GO TO THE MORELL, WHICH WAS THE UNCONTESTED CASE THIS MORNING.
THAT'LL BE MOVED TO THE INDIVIDUAL DOCKING.
AND THE LAST BUT NOT LEAST, 65 29 VICTORIA AVENUE FOR THE CASE.
DID I CONFUSE YOU? WELL, OKAY.
THE IDEA IS TO GET THINGS OFF THE AGENDA AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
UM, EVERYONE WAITING TILL THE END OF THE DAY.
ALRIGHT, BOARD SECRETARY, MS. WILLIAMS, UM, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY? I HAVE, UM, TWO, POSSIBLY THREE IN PERSON AND TWO ONLINE.
OKAY, SO, UM, WE WILL NOW START PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE SUCH THAT THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL YOUR NAME, YOU'LL COME DOWN TO THE, TO THE, UH, WE'LL DO IN PERSON FIRST AND YOU'LL GIVE US YOUR NAME, YOUR ADDRESS.
THEN YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD.
OUR RULES ARE THAT YOU CAN SPEAK ONLY ON THE ISSUE THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA ONLY ON ISSUES ON THE AGENDA.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY IN PERSON FIRST.
I WANNA MAKE SURE YOU'RE IN FRONT OF THE MIC.
ZACH THOMPSON, 47 15 WEST UNIVERSITY, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 9 IN HISTORIC ELM THICKETT NORTH PARK.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, Y'ALL ARE THE FRONT LINES TO ENSURING THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS NEVER MAKES THESE TYPE OF MISTAKES AGAIN.
WE KNOW YOU THOROUGHLY LOOKED AT THIS, BUT WE'RE OPPOSED TO 60, UH, TO 68 0 1 TYREE.
AND THE REASON WHY IS THAT ON FOUR SEPARATE VIOLATIONS, THE DUPLEX IS BEING BUILT ON A SITE MEANT FOR SINGLE FAMILY USE.
THE DUPLEX HAS A FLAT ROOF DESIGN.
THE MAXIMUM HIGH HEIGHT OF THE DUPLEX EXCEEDS 30 FEET AND THE DUPLEX LOCK COVERAGE EXCEEDS 40% AS A LIFELONG RESIDENT.
BORN AND RAISED, AND I POINTED THIS OUT BEFORE, MOVED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS FROM LOVEFIELD AIRPORT, WHICH WAS CARVER COURT INTO ELEM THICKETT, WE WERE TOLD TO GET OUT.
WE MOVED INTO THIS AREA, $6,000 HOUSE THAT'S NOW WORTH 500,000.
WE'VE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE AS AFRICAN AMERICANS.
BUT THE LAST PIECE ON THERE, WE'VE SEEN A FURTHER REDUCTION IN HOME OWNERSHIP IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
AND IT'S BECAUSE OF THESE SOLO BUILDERS WHO COME IN AND DISREGARD THE RULES AND REGULATION.
BUT THE LAST PIECE ON THE CITY OF DALLAS, AND I CAN'T LET THEM OFF ON THIS, THERE IS NO WAY PERMITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN LET OUT.
OLD MAP, SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE READ THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION THAT APPROVED THE NEW REZONING.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS PAOLA OR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY NEEDS TO LOOK AT THIS.
I DON'T SEE HOW ANYBODY COULD MISS THE FACT THAT THESE PERMITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LET OUT.
SO THEY NEED TO ARGUE THIS IN COURT AND WORK THAT OUT AND TEAR THE HOUSES DOWN THAT EXIST.
THOSE BUILDERS CAN REBUILD AND DO IT AND PUT IT IN A BASIC PLAN THAT IS APPROVED BY PD 67.
NEXT SPEAKER, MS. BOARD SECRETARY MS. AMELIA PARIS.
STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
MY NAME IS AMELIA PEREZ AND I LIVE AT 78 11 MORTON STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 9.
ON BEHALF OF MY NEIGHBORS OF SAVE ON THICKETT, WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU PLEASE DENY THE APPEAL FOR CASES BD 2 3 4 DASH 1 0 1 AND CASE BD 2 3 4 1 1 1.
ON THE BASIS THAT THIS IS A SELF-INFLICTED HARM AND THAT, UH, ISSUING THESE, UH, UH, REVOKING THE STOP WORK ORDERS WOULD CAUSE HARM TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
BOTH PROPERTIES ARE NON-CONFORMING
[00:10:01]
AND VIOLATE THE HEIGHT ROOF TYPE LAND USE AND LOT COVERAGE FOR THE CHANGES OUT OF PD 67.IN THE CASE OF BDA 2 3 4 1 0 1 68 0 3 TYREE THE LOT COVERAGE CURRENTLY IS AT 45.7%.
THE OLD LOT COVERAGE UNDER THE OLD PD 67 WAS 45%.
THE LOT COVERAGE CURRENTLY IS 40%.
SO THAT BUILDING IS VIOLATES THE OLD PD AND THE NEW PD.
FURTHERMORE, MR. MAGNEY ADMITTED THAT HE KNEW ABOUT THESE CHANGES TO, TO THE PD 67, BUT CHOSE TO BUILD A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE.
HE CHOSE TO BUILD A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE.
THIS IS A SELF-INFLICTED HARM.
UH, AND SO WE OPPOSE IT AS FOR BDA 2 3 4 1 1 1 65 29.
VICTORIA, THE BUILDER, DANNY LEE AND HIS F 80 CAPITAL CO-FOUNDER REMLEY HAD TO CORRECT THE ROOF HOME, HAD TO CORRECT THE ROOF ON A HOME THEY WERE BUILDING ON TYREE STREET, JUST ONE STREET OVER, UH, FROM THEIR VICTORIA, UH, UH, SITE BECAUSE THE ROOF WAS NON-CONFORMING.
LOUIS RIO OF VALERIO HOMES, WHO'S BUILT THE MOST HOMES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, SAID THE ELM THICK AND OVERLAY WENT INTO EFFECT ON OCTOBER 13TH, 2022.
IT WAS A VERY WELL PUBLICIZED DECISION BY THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL.
WHILE THERE ARE SOME CULPABILITY OF THE CITY ISSUING PERMITS, IT IS ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUILDERS AND THE DEVELOPERS TO KNOW THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS.
WHEN BUILDING IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS TO KNOW THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
THE REINSTATEMENT OF THESE PERMITS WOULD CAUSE AN UNMITIGATED HARM TO THE THE ELM THICKETT NORTH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, A HISTORIC FREEDMAN'S COMMUNITY.
WE, THE RESIDENTS OF ELM THICKETT DID EVERYTHING THE CITY ASKED US TO DO TO GET THESE BUILDING STANDARDS CHANGED AND THEN WE DID EVERYTHING THE CITY ASKED US TO DO TO SHARE THAT THESE BUILDING STANDARDS WERE ENFORCED.
WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO NEW CONSTRUCTION, BUT THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION NEEDS TO CONFORM TO THE NEW BUILDING STANDARDS TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF LM THICKETT.
ON BEHALF OF SAVE ON THICKETT MEMBERS, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THESE APPEALS BE DENIED AND THAT ALL NEW STRUCTURES BUILT IN LM THICKETT NORTH PARK CONFORM TO THE NEW BUILDING STANDARDS.
ANYTHING LESS WILL FURTHER ERODE THE LEGACY AND CHARACTER OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
SELF INFLICTED HARM IN BOTH CASES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY NEXT SPEAKER MS. ISHA.
IF YOU CAN PLEASE DO, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER IN-PERSON SPEAKERS? UM, MR. GUS PEREZ IS NOT HERE YET.
HE HAD A ALRIGHT, WAIT FOR A HANDICAP PARKING SPACE.
HE'S ON HIS WAY OUT TO THE SCOOTER.
UM, THIS IS GU BENNETT, UH, BUILDING, HOLD ON A SECOND.
SO, UH, WE'LL CONTINUE ON WITH THEIR SPEAKERS.
UH, WE WILL LET HIM SPEAK, UM, ONCE HE GETS HERE AS LONG AS IT'S, IT'S DOESN'T INTERRUPT THE FLOW OF THE HEARING 'CAUSE WE WANT EVERYONE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
SO DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS THAT ARE PRESENT IN THE CHAMBER AT MS. WILLIAMS? NOT IN PERSON, SIR.
MS. WILLIAMS. UM, MR. PEREZ, CAN YOU PROVIDE VIDEO? WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SEE YOU, RIGHT? OKAY.
CAN YOU GO? YES, I AM RIGHT OUTSIDE THE COUNCIL CHAMBER DOOR.
IF YOU CAN, UH, THIRD, IT WILL BE ON THE COUNT FLOOR.
I'M GONNA BE GOING INTO THE BOTTOM OF THE, UH, COUNCIL FLOOR.
I'M OUTSIDE THE DOOR AND I'M ON THE WAY IN.
TURN OFF THERE IF YOU'RE GONNA COME SPEAK TO US LIVE.
[00:15:01]
ONE SECOND.I DON'T WANT YOU TO SPEAK FROM THE CORNER.
UM, OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL COME UP AND ASSIST YOU TO BE ABLE TO, ONE OF THE SPOTS.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN GET TO THE CHAIR OR IF YOU, OKAY.
AND I DO HAVE SOME HANDOUTS FOR THE, UH, MEMBERS HERE.
SO IF, UH, I CAN HAND THEM TO SOMEBODY, TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY, SHE'LL COME AROUND IN ONE SECOND.
AND ARE YOU GONNA, ARE YOU GONNA SIT, ARE YOU GONNA DO SEATED OR AT THE PODIUM? UH, I CAN BE AT THE, WELL MAYBE SEAT.
IT'S A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MIC.
WE CAN MOVE THE, MOVE THIS CHAIR HERE AND THEN THAT WILL WORK.
AND THIS IS FOR THE, UH, THE BOARD MEMBERS.
AND YOU GUYS SHOULD HAVE A, UH, COPY OF SOME HANDOUTS.
IF, IF YOU WANNA WAIT ONE SECOND YOU BET.
LET OUR BOARD SECRETARY GIVE THAT TO US SO THAT WAY WE'RE, UM, ABSORBING WHAT YOU HAVE FOR US.
I APPRECIATE IT AND THANK YOU FOR ACCOMMODATING ME.
UH, WITH MY DISABILITY AND ALL, BUT, UH, APPRECIATE, JUST HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
IS THERE ENOUGH MS. WILLIAMS FOR YOU TO HAVE A COPY FOR THE RECORD? OKAY.
ALRIGHT SIR, IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS THEN YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
UH, MY NAME IS GUS PEREZ AND I LIVE AT 78 11 MORTON STREET.
UH, AND I LIVE WITHIN PD 67 FOR THE RECORD.
AND THAT'S GUSS PEREZ, P-E-R-E-Z.
WHAT'S THE ADDRESS AGAIN ON MORTON STREET? 7 8 1 1 MORTON STREET.
DALLAS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS.
UH, MY NAME IS GUS PEREZ AND I LIVE AT 78 11 MORTON STREET.
I'M HERE TO VOICE MY OPPOSITION TO THESE APPEALS AT 68 0 1 TYREE STREET, BDA 2 3 4 1 0 1 AND 65 29 VICTORIA AVENUE B BDA 2 3 4 1 1 1.
WHAT I HAVE NOTICED AT BOA AS THE BO OA HAS DISCUSSED THIS PREVIOUS CASES, UH, IS YOU ASK IF THIS ISSUE IS A SELF-INFLICTED HARM, UH, AND THIS AND WILL THIS HARM THE NEIGHBORHOOD? ALLOW ME TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU IN REGARDS TO THE PROJECTS ON TYREE STREET AND VICTORIA AVENUE.
THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING YES.
MR. MAGNEY WITH THE 68 0 1 TYREE PROJECT ADMITTED TO A NEWS REPORTER THAT HE KNEW OF THE UPDATED ZONING REGULATIONS, BUT FILED A NON-CONFORMING PLAN ANYWAY.
HE EVEN VOTED AGAINST THE NEW ZONING REGULATIONS ON MAY 30TH, 2022 WITH TWO OTHER PROPERTIES HE OWNED AT THE TIME.
THE PROOF HE KNEW IF THE NEW OF THE NEW ZONING IS IN THE HANDOUT I PROVIDED TO YOU TODAY.
THE SECOND BUILDER HERE TODAY FOR THE 65 29 VICTORIA PROJECT WAS ALSO AWARE OF THE NEW ZONING REGULATIONS ON JANUARY 22ND, 2024.
SAVE ELM THICKET CONTACTED THE PDD ABOUT AN F 80 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION SITE AT 67 14 TYREE WITH A NON-CONFORMING ROOF TYPE SHOWN IN AN ILLUSTRATION ADVERTISING WHAT WAS TO BE BUILT BY FEBRUARY 25TH, 2024.
THE ROOF TYPE WAS CORRECTED TO HIP AND GABLE.
CLEARLY THE CITY NOTIFIED FAD CAPITAL FIX THE NON-CONFORMING ROOF TYPE.
THE BEFORE AND AFTER PICTURES OF THE CONSTRUCTIONS AND MODIFICATIONS ARE ALSO PROVIDED.
IN THE HANDOUT I GAVE YOU THE PICTURES CLEARLY SHOW MR. DANIEL LEE AND MR. REN LEE AS THE BUILDERS, UH, AT THE BUILDERS IN QUESTIONS AND THE ROOF TYPE BEING CORRECTED.
BEING FORCED TO CORRECT THE ROOF TYPE ON A PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE ALERTED THEM TO THE NEW ZONING REGULATIONS BEFORE BUILDING ANOTHER ONE THAT WAS EVEN MORE OUT OF COMPLIANCE.
THIS APPEARS TO BE A CASE OF TWO BUILDERS WHO THOUGHT THEY COULD SNEAK THIS NON-CONFORMING CONSTRUCTION PASS US.
BUT AFTER BEING CAUGHT, THEY'RE NOW ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE BOARD TO CLOSELY CONSIDER HOW THESE PROJECTS WILL HARM THE HISTORIC FREEDMAN'S COMMUNITY.
PLEASE LOOK AT THE LETTERS AND EMAILS IN OPPOSITION.
THESE ARE RESIDENTS AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE A CONNECTION WITH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THESE NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES BEING COMPLETED.
NOW, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO NEW CONSTRUCTION, BUT ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD CONFORM TO THE NEW BUILDING STANDARDS.
IT WAS TO PREVENT NEW CONSTRUCTION LIKE THIS THAT HARMS THE LEGACY AND CHARACTER OF THIS HISTORIC FRIEDMAN'S COMMUNITY.
AT LAST MONTH'S MEETING, I CLEARLY REMEMBER HOW A HOMEOWNER WAS ADMONISHED WITH PERMIT, PERMIT PERMIT FOR NOT FILING A PERMIT FOR A NON-CONFORMING FENCE.
I WANT TO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER HARSHER TREATMENT FOR SOMEONE WHO FILES A BUILDING PERMIT THEY KNOW IS BREAKING THE LAW.
I THINK OUTRIGHT DECEPTION IS WORSE THAN IGNORANCE.
I ASK FOR THIS BOARD TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND REJECT THESE APPEALS BECAUSE DALLAS DESERVES
[00:20:01]
BETTER BUILDERS.AGAIN, ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND ALL MY NEIGHBORS I HAVE WHO HAVE VOICED OPPOSITION TO THIS APPEAL, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION ON THIS MATTER.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. PEREZ.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE, UH, OTHER HE'S IN HERE SO HE'S OUR LAST IN-PERSON.
MS. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON, CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE VIDEO AND AUDIO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES MA'AM.
I LIVE AT 73 14 KEN STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 9.
I'M HERE IN OPPOSITION TO CASES BD 2 34 1 0 1 AND BD 2 34 1 1 1.
IT'S DEEPLY CONCERNING THAT THESE CASES, ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS IN ELM THICK AT NORTH PARK, HAVE BEEN AND CONTINUE TO BE BROAD.
BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO BYPASS THE ZONING REGULATIONS IN PD 67, THE BUILDERS HAVE FOUND A LOOPHOLE IN THE ZONE IN THE ZONING PROCESS THAT CONSISTENTLY COME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
THE BUILDERS HERE TODAY WERE WELL AWARE OF THE UPDATED PD 67 AND THE RESULTING CH IN RESULTING ZONING CHANGES THE FIGURE THAT IS EASIER TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS THAN PERMISSION BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN IT.
THE RESULTING ISSUES FACED TODAY ARE SELF-INFLICTED AND A DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR BLATANT DISREGARD FOR THE ZONING REGULATIONS.
FOR THOSE BUILDERS WHO CLAIM THAT TO BRING THE STRUCTURE INTO CONFORMITY WOULD CREATE A FINANCIAL BURDEN OR LOSS.
EVERY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SHOULD BE BONDED TO MITIGATE FINANCIAL LOSS IN CASE THE PROJECT ISN'T BROUGHT TO COMPLETION.
SECOND, HOW IS FINANCIAL LOSS OR BURDEN DETERMINED IF AN EXCEPTION ISN'T GRANTED? IS THERE A REQUIREMENT TO SHOW FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND TAX RETURNS BOTH PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL? IS THERE AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BUILDER'S ACTUAL FINANCIAL POSITION? MANY BUILDERS USE LLCS TO ISOLATE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND TO PROTECT THEIR FINANCES.
SO I ASK HOW IS THIS SUPPOSED FINANCIAL BURDEN DETERMINED AND PROVEN? AND WHAT ABOUT THE FINANCIAL BURDEN IMPOSED ON THE EXISTING ADJACENT RESIDENCE WHOSE PROPERTY TAXES SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED BECAUSE OF THE VALUE OF THESE LARGE NON-CONFORMING HOMES AND THE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE THEY INCUR WHEN LIVING NEXT TO THESE LARGER HOMES, INCLUDING FLOODING AND FOUNDATION ISSUES? DOES ANYONE CONSIDER THEIR FINANCIAL HARDSHIP FOR THOSE BUILDERS WHO CLAIM THEY WEREN'T AWARE OF THE PD 67? I HAVE TO SAY THAT IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE.
IN BOTH OF THESE CASES, BUILD THE BUILDERS.
WERE AWARE IN ANY JOB WE PERFORM, WHETHER IT'S AN OFFICE JOB OR A CONSTRUCTION JOB, YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE YOU POSSESS THE APPROPRIATE SKILLSET, ARE AWARE OF THE JOB'S OBLIGATIONS, AND YOU MUST DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND CURRENT PROCESSES AND STANDARDS.
THAT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IF YOU'RE GOING TO FILL THAT JOB ROLE.
THESE CASES ARE NO DIFFERENT AS A BUILDER, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE YOU KNOW THE ZONING IN THAT AREA AND TO ABIDE THESE ZONING RULES.
THE NEW ZONING WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN OCTOBER, 2022.
AS THE RESULT OF YEARS OF RESIDENT ADVOCACY AIMED TO EASE THE IMPACT OF NEW OUT OF SCALE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO ALLOW THIS DEVELOPMENT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DISREGARD THESE ADOPTED REGULATIONS AND THE WORK OF RESIDENTS, COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND MANY OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
I ASK THAT THE BOARD DENY THESE CASES AND REQUIRE THE BUILDERS TO DEVELOP CONFORMING STRUCTURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW UPDATED PV 60.
IF YOU WOULD GO AHEAD AND FINISH YOUR THOUGHT.
JUST GO AHEAD AND FINISH YOUR THOUGHTS.
I JUST ASK THAT YOU NOT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT TO THIS INCOME SEGREGATION AND MINORITY DISPLACEMENT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY AND ITS ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS TO CHOOSE ITS RESIDENCE AND THEIR SUPPORT FOR THRIVING NEIGHBORHOODS OVER BUILDERS.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND BEING WITH US TODAY.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY, NEXT SPEAKER FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
NO OTHER SPEAKERS SIR, NO OTHER SPEAKERS.
IS THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKER IN THE, IN THE CHAMBER THAT, THAT HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK? OKAY.
UH, ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TODAY ON ANY OF THE ZONING CASE ON ANY OF THE CASES WE HAVE HAS TO HAVE FILLED OUT A BLUE SHEET OF PAPER AND TURNED INTO THE BOARD SECRETARY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE REGULAR CASES, NOT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CASES.
UM, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY HAS COMMENTED TO ME THAT THE HANDOUT THAT WAS GIVEN TO US DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY NEEDS TO BE RETRIEVED.
WOULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY? THANK YOU CHAIRMAN.
[00:25:01]
UH, SO AO APPEALS ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS AND THE BOARD NEEDS TO LIMIT THEIR CONSIDERATION TO WHAT IS PRESENTED AS A PART OF THE APPEAL.AS SUCH, YOU CANNOT, UH, CONSIDER THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE LIKE TAKE A COURT FACTORING IN PUBLIC OPINION INTO YOUR DECISION.
SO WE CAN LISTEN TO THE, THE FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC, BUT WE JUST CAN'T RETAIN ANY DOCUMENTS THEY GIVE US.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? MR. BOARD ATTORNEY? UM, YOU SHOULDN'T RETAIN THE DOCUMENTS.
THAT'S WHAT I MEAN, BUT ALSO THE, UH, THE, YOU SHOULD LIMIT YOUR CONSIDERATION TO WHAT IS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE OPPOSING, UH, PARTY IN THE ACTUAL HEARING.
THE, THE, THE DOCUMENTS ARE BEING RETRIEVED BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT OBSERVATION.
UM, THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
THE NEXT, NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM AUGUST 20TH.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING IN AUGUST BE ACCEPTED.
A MOTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO, UH, APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM AUGUST 20TH, 2024 OF PANEL A.
DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
FIVE TO ZERO MEETING MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
AS I MENTIONED THIS MORNING OR A FEW MINUTES AGO, WE'RE GONNA DO A LITTLE NAVIGATING ON OUR AGENDA.
THE NEXT ITEM I'D LIKE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER IS, UH, BDA 2 3 4 DASH 8 2 3 4 DASH EIGHT.
THIS IS AT 5 6 0 1 URSULA LANE.
WE WERE ADVISED DURING OUR PUBLIC BRIEFING THIS MORNING THAT UM, THE STAFF HAS COMMUNICATED TO THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER THAT THE APPLICATION WAS NOT NECESSARY AND THE STAFF IS REQUESTING THAT THE, THE APPLICATION BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND THE STAFF IS COMMITTED TO REFUNDING THE FEES SO THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH ZERO EIGHT ON APPLICATION OF JEFF BOY DENY THE VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LIT, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD NOT RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.
IT'S BEEN MOVED IN 2 3 4 1 0 8 TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
AS I MENTIONED TO THE BOARD, UM, THE STAFF HAS INDICATED US THIS MORNING THAT THIS APPLICATION IS NO LONGER NECESSARY AND SO THEY'VE REQUESTED US TO WITHDRAW THIS BY VIRTUE OF MO OF MOVING TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE STAFF HAS COMMITTED TO PROMPTLY REFUND THE FEES.
OKAY, WE'LL CALL FOR A VOTE IN TWO THREE FOUR ONE ZERO EIGHT MS. BOARD SECRETARY MS. DAVIS.
MOTION PASSES 5 2 0 IN THE MATTER 2 3 4 1 0 8 AT 5 6 0 1 URSULA LANE.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY BY A VOTE TO FIVE TO ZERO DENIES THE REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
UM, YOU'LL GET A, YOU'LL GET A LETTER FROM THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND HOPEFULLY A REFUND CHECK QUICKLY.
NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE TWO ITEMS OF THREE THAT WERE ON THE ORIGINAL UNCONTESTED CASE.
THIS IS 2 3 4 1 0 5, WHICH IS AT 8 3 4 0 PLAINVIEW DRIVE AND 2 3 4 1 0 9, WHICH IS AT 1 0 3 3 5 LENNOX LANE.
THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD THIS MORNING WAS THESE TWO ITEMS, UM, COULD REMAIN ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET AND IF SO, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE TESTIMONY IN THE, IN THE AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MR. HOP, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS LISTED ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICATION SATISFY ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE AS APPLICABLE TO WIT BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 0 5 APPLICATION OF MARTHA DUREN FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT
[00:30:01]
CODE.IT'S GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 0 5 APPLICATION OF MARTHA DURAN FOR A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 0 5 APPLICATION OF MARTHA DURAN FOR VARIOUS TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE REGULATIONS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
IT'S GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED AND BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 0 9 APPLICATION OF HOOMAN
COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED AND I APOLOGIZE IF, IF I MESSED ANYONE'S NAME UP.
UH, THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY MR. KOVICH IN 2 3 4 1 0 5 TO GRANT THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS, UH, THE REAR YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS AND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE.
THOSE WERE THREE SEPARATE REQUESTS AND THREE SEPARATE APPROVALS IN THE MOTION AND ALSO 2 3 4 1 0 9 TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DEFENSE HEIGHT IN 2 3 4 1 0 9.
THAT MOTION IS ON THE TABLE BY MR. KOVI.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN.
THIS IS THE CONSENT AGENDA WHICH PRECLUDES THE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO HAVE, UH, TESTIMONY DI DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION SEEING NO DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL MO CALL A VOTE ON TWO THREE FOUR ONE ZERO FIVE FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUEST, REAR YARD SETBACK REQUEST AND MAXIMUM ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE REQUEST.
AND FOR 2 3 4 1 0 9 UM, SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE HEIGHT REQUEST.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY MS. DAVIS.
MR. NARY? AYE MR. CHAIRMAN? AYE.
MOTION PASSES FIVE TO ZERO, UH, IN 2 3 4 1 0 5 AND 2 3 4 1 0 9.
YOU'LL GET A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY.
THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TODAY IS, UM, 2 3 4 1 0 1.
UH, THIS IS AT 6 8 0 1 TYREE STREET, 2 3 4 1 0 1 6 8 0 1 TYREE STREET.
THIS IS A HOLDOVER FROM OUR PREVIOUS MONTH'S, UM, AGENDA.
UM, THIS IS A, UH, APPLICATION OF AQUA AQUA MC MCNA.
I APOLOGIZE FOR MISPRONOUNCING TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
IS THE CITY THE, IS THE BILL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL HERE? I, I REPRESENT.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE BOTH HERE.
SO DID UM, I WANNA, I MENTIONED IN THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING AND I'LL MENTION TO YOU ALL NOW, UM, IS TO MAKE SURE THAT EACH ONE OF YOU RECEIVED, UH, A COPY OF OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE AS IT RELATES TO APPEALS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
DID EACH ONE OF YOU RECEIVE, RECEIVE THAT YOU DIDN'T COME ON MR. CATHERINE.
OKAY, WELL I KNOW I'VE DONE THIS BEFORE.
VERY GOOD THEN YOU'RE CONSIDERED RECEIVED.
ALRIGHT, SO IF YOU'D COME FORWARD WITH THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD PLEASE.
I'M GONNA READ VERY BRIEFLY FROM OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE SO THAT IT'S, IT'S CLEAR TO, UH, THE APPLICANT AND YOU CAN SIT SIR, UH, TO THE APPLICANT AND ALSO TO THE UM, THE ABILITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
THE APPLICANT'S CASE WILL LAST 20 MINUTES.
THE APPLICANT MAY GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT, CALL WITNESSES OR OFFER EVIDENCE IF THE APPLICANT CALLS A WITNESS.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IS ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE THAT WITNESS FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES.
THAT DOESN'T COUNT AGAINST THE TIME LIMIT.
SUBSEQUENTLY, APPLICANT MAY CONDUCT A REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS UP TO FIVE MINUTES.
THAT ALSO DOES NOT COUNT AGAINST THAT THE APPLICANT MAY SUBMIT DOCUMENTS TO THE BOARD SECRETARY.
SO, SO LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH OUR DOCUMENT EVIDENCE, THE BOARD MAY ASK QUESTIONS AT ANY TIME.
BOARD MEMBERS QUESTIONS WILL NOT COUNT AGAINST THE 20 MINUTE TIME LIMITATION.
I WILL TELL YOU FOR THOSE IN THE CHAMBER AND ONLINE LISTENING, THIS IS A VERY INTERACTIVE PROCESS.
I ENCOURAGE BOARD MEMBERS TO, UM,
[00:35:01]
WITH THE CONSENT AND THE RECOGNITION OF THE CHAIR TO ASK QUESTIONS AS WE GO.SO JUST GET MY ATTENTION AND I WILL GENTLY INTERRUPT YOU WITH THE QUESTION 'CAUSE I LIKE THE QUESTION BEING ASKED WHEN THE ISSUE IS RAISED.
UM, AND I WILL, I WILL BE GENEROUS WITH YOUR TIME, UM, 'CAUSE I DON'T WANT YOU TO LOSE ANY OF YOUR 20 MINUTES STATED TIME WITH QUESTIONS THAT COME BACK AND FORTH AFTER THE APPLICANT FINISHES.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CASE WILL LAST 20 MINUTES.
LIKEWISE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL WILL GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT.
CALL WITNESSES OFFER EVIDENCE.
IF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CALLS A WITNESS, THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE THAT WITNESS FOR WITNESS FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES.
THAT AGAIN, ALSO DOES NOT COUNT AGAINST THEIR TIME.
SUBSEQUENT SUBSEQUENTLY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL MAY CONDUCT A REEXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES.
THAT ALSO DOES NOT ACCOUNT AGAINST THEIR TIME.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL MAY SUBMIT DOCUMENTS TO THE BOARD SECRETARY SO LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH OUR EVIDENTIARY RULES.
THE BOARD MAY ASK QUESTIONS AT ANY TIME.
BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS WILL NOT COUNT AGAINST THE TIME LIMITATION AT THE CONCLUSION THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL AND A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT.
LASTLY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL WILL BE ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT AT THE END OF THE HEARING ON BOTH SIDES.
A MOTION BY A BOARD MEMBER IS REQUIRED TO EITHER AFFIRM OR REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
I'M GONNA READ SOMETHING ALSO INTO THE RECORD.
UM, THAT GOES TO THE STATED POWERS OF THE BOARD IN CITY CODE 51 A FOUR DASH 7 0 3.
IT SAYS THE BOARD MAY REVERSE A ORDERED REQUIREMENT DECISION OR DETERMINATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL INVOLVING THE INTERPRETATION OR ENFORCEMENT OF ZONING CODE.
THE BOARD SHALL HAVE ALL THE POWERS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL ON THE ACTION APPEALED.
THE BOARD MAY IN WHOLE OR IN PART AFFIRM REVERSE OR AMEND THE DECISION OF THE OFFICIAL MAY AFFIRM REVERSE AMEND THE DECISION OF THE BUS BUILD, OF BUILD OF THE OFFICIAL IN, IN WHOLE OR PART.
UM, ALRIGHT, SO IF YOU WOULD, WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US THE DOCKET THAT WAS PROVIDED BY YOURSELF AS THE SUBMITTAL AND THEN A RESPONSE BY THE, UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY.
YOU NOW HAVE 20 MINUTES TO PRESENT YOUR CASE AND WE'LL TRY TO FOLLOW THE TIMING AS REASONABLY AS POSSIBLE.
AND, UH, THAT'LL BE KIND OF A TAG TEAM BETWEEN MS. WILLIAMS AND I ON TIME.
BUT I WILL BE, I WILL ENDEAVOR TO BE FAIR.
UH, HONORABLE, UH, CHAIR, UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DALLAS, CATHERINE 2201 MAIN STREET.
I'M REPRESENTING ER, ANI IN BDA 2 3 4 1 0 1.
UM, IS AN APPLICANT ACTING IN THAT CAPACITY TO BE SWORN IN? I DON'T THINK SO.
A WITNESS WOULD BE, BUT NOT A PRESENTER BECAUSE I DOUBT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S GONNA WANT TO BE SWORN IN.
WELL, YOU GOTTA STAND ON THE RECORD.
I I MEAN CITY ATTORNEYS GENERALLY DON'T LIKE TO BE SWORN IN.
'CAUSE THEY'RE ACTING IN THEIR CAPACITY AS COUNSEL.
UM, IF HE CALLS A WITNESS, THE WITNESS HAS TO, DOESN'T HE? CERTAINLY THE WITNESS WOULD NEED TO BE, UM, SWORN IN.
BUT I THINK WE'RE FINE TO MOVE FORWARD.
SO WE'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT SWEARING IN YOUR TIME'S RESET TO ZERO.
UM, I'VE DONE THIS FOR A LONG TIME, MAYBE LONGER THAN I, LIKE, PROBABLY LONGER THAN CERTAINLY SOME PEOPLE WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO HAVE DONE IT.
UH, THERE AREN'T A LOT OF THESE AND, AND YOU KNOW, I, I HEARD DURING THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, THIS WAS A LONG CONTENTIOUS ZONING CASE.
UH, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES.
THAT'S THE WAY ZONING CASES WORK.
AND THERE ARE CERTAINLY SENTIMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT WHAT'S APPROPRIATE AND PROPER.
AND NONE OF THAT REALLY MATTERS.
I MEAN, IT CERTAINLY MATTERS, BUT NOT FOR WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO TODAY.
UH, YOU KNOW, MY CLIENT IS A HOME BUILDER AND THEY BUILD HOMES.
THEY'RE NOT AN EXPERT ON WHAT THE CITY CODE IS.
THEY'RE NOT AN EXPERT ON WHAT BUILDING INSPECTION.
MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, MR. HOPKINS.
I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, ARE WE TO CONSIDER THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HEAR FROM EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE TO BE AS IF IT WERE SWORN TESTIMONY OR AS HEARSAY? WELL, UH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I'M LOOKING AT OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.
YOUR TIME WILL BE RESET TO ZERO AGAIN, MR. CORAN, I'M LOOKING AT OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE AND IN OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, SECTION 11, PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND PUBLIC HEARINGS.
IT SAYS ALL APP NUMBER H ALL APPLICANTS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OR WITNESSES WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING
[00:40:01]
A PUBLIC HEARING SHALL BE SWORN IN IT'S PAGE 12 OF OUR RULES.MR. KOVICH, ALL APPLICANTS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OR WITNESSES WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING A PUBLIC HEARING SHALL BE SWORN IN.
SO I READ THAT TO BELIEVE ALL MM-HMM.
SO, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT'S ALL ACCORDING TO OUR RULES.
I'M GONNA GOES TO, THAT GOES TO HIS QUESTION.
I'M GONNA, UH, RESTATE MY EARLIER POSITION AND WE SHOULD PROBABLY GO AHEAD AND, AND SWEAR THIS GENTLEMAN IN, UH, IN THE EVENT THAT HE IS QUESTIONED BY COUNSEL OR BY THE BOARD.
HIS TESTIMONY WILL BE SO WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA DO THAT.
SECRETARY, YOU WERE RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR POINT OF ORDER.
MR. HVE, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, WOULD YOU SWEAR IN THE APPLICANT? MR. CRAN, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN, PLEASE.
THAT WASN'T THAT HARD, BUT WE WANT TO GET IT RIGHT.
I'VE DONE IT HUNDREDS OF TIMES.
SO, AND A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE OR THE MICROPHONE CLOSER TO YOU, PLEASE.
SO I THINK I WAS AT MY CLIENT'S A HOME BUILDER.
YOU KNOW, HE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY FIDUCIARY AND, AND, AND SAFETY WISE TO THE CUSTOMER WHO BUYS THE HOME OR THE INVESTOR THAT BUYS THE HOME.
BUT HE'S NOT AN EXPERT ON BUILDING INSPECTION OR ON BUILDING CODES OR THE FIRE OR ANY OF THESE OTHER THINGS.
HE'S A CUSTOMER OF THE CITY OF DALLAS.
HE PAYS A FEE FOR A SERVICE THAT INVOLVES BUILDING INSPECTION.
UM, AND IN THIS INSTANCE, AND IN ABOUT 20 OTHERS, THE CITY OF DALLAS FAILED THE CUSTOMER.
SO, YOU KNOW, I I WOULD SAY THAT WHEN, WHEN I MAKE A MISTAKE, I TRY TO APOLOGIZE.
UH, AND I TRY TO FIX IT WHEN MY KIDS MAKE A MISTAKE, WHICH I DON'T ENJOY.
BUT WHEN MY KIDS MAKE A MISTAKE AND GET INTO TROUBLE, THEY MAY BE PUNISHED.
THEY'RE THE ONE THAT MADE A MISTAKE.
I DON'T PUNISH SOMEONE ELSE'S KID, UH, THAT WOULDN'T BE APPROPRIATE.
WHEN A RESTAURANT SERVES TAINTED FOOD TO ITS CUSTOMERS, IT'S NOT THE CUSTOMER'S FAULT.
THEY'RE NOT AN EXPERT ON MAKING THE FOOD.
AND IT'S NOT THE CUSTOMER'S FAULT, AND THEY'RE NOT THE ONE THAT GETS PUNISHED.
THE RESTAURANT WOULD BE THE ONE THAT GETS PUNISHED.
AND WHEN A DOCTOR MAKES A MISTAKE WITH THEIR CUSTOMER, IT'S MALPRACTICE AND THEY'RE THE ONES THAT GETS PUNISHED.
BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, MY CLIENT IS THE ONE THAT PAID THE FEE TO THE CITY TO BUILDING INSPECTION.
A PERMIT WAS ISSUED, AND NOW MY CLIENT IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE THE ONE THAT GETS PUNISHED AND IS THE ONE THAT'S GONNA HAVE TO FIX THE AIR.
AND, AND HERE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, AND I'VE, I'VE SEEN THESE BEFORE.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, HOW DO I, CAN I CALL UP? OH, HERE.
UM, MY EXHIBITS, HOW DO I MOVE IT FORWARD? YEAH.
YOU SPEAKING ABOUT YOUR POWERPOINT HERE.
THIS HOUSE HAS NEVER BEEN OCCUPIED.
UH, WENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
UH, IT, IT'S BEEN THERE 10 YEARS.
I TOOK THIS PICTURE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, MAYBE A MONTH AGO.
IT'S NEVER BEEN OCCUPIED THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD MADE A DETERMINATION.
WHAT HAPPENS IN THESE THINGS IS, IS THAT THE BOARD MAKES SOME SORT OF DECISION.
IF YOU WIN, MAYBE THE HOUSES OR THE DUPLEX GETS COMPLETED AND IT GOES INTO THE MARKET.
BUT OTHERWISE WHAT HAPPENS IS PEOPLE DEFAULT ON THAT AND THEY MOVE ON, AND THEN IT SITS THERE AND THE BANK ENDS UP WITH IT AND IT SITS THERE.
AND THE CONDITION THAT'S IN UNTIL IT DEGRADES TO A POINT THAT THE CITY HAS NO OTHER OBLIGATION THAN TO GO THROUGH THE COURT.
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS, WHICH IS, IT'S BECOME A NUISANCE.
AND THEN IT GETS ABATED DOWN TO THE SLAB AND IT JUST SITS THERE.
SO IN THE END, IN MY MIND, THAT'S WHERE POTENTIALLY WE'RE HEADED.
YOU KNOW, MY CLIENT WOULD DEFAULT ON THIS.
AND, AND IT GOES BACK TO THE LENDER.
UH, EVENTUALLY THE LENDER FINDS SOMEBODY MAYBE WILLING TO BUY SOMETHING THAT IS SO BADLY WOUNDED, BUT AT A REALLY LOW PRICE.
UM, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS TO SIT THERE WITH THIS FOR, IN THIS CASE, MANY YEARS.
SO IT'S NOT MY CLIENT'S FAULT.
AND HE CERTAINLY, WHETHER HE KNEW OR DIDN'T KNOW, HE CERTAINLY KNEW, AND I'VE TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THIS MANY TIMES, HE KNEW THERE WAS HIS ZONING CASE.
I, I'VE SAT HERE IN THIS CHAMBER WITH, I MEAN, NAME YOUR LUMINARIES IN DALLAS,
[00:45:01]
RAY HUNT, OR JAVIER OR WHOEVER YOU WANT TO PICK.THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON ON ALL THE INSIDE BASEBALL.
THERE'S TOO MANY THINGS GOING ON.
OFTEN THE ORDINANCE SEASON ISN'T EVEN FINISHED AND THE, THE SAUSAGE GETS MADE RIGHT BEFORE YOU.
SO I SIT HERE AND I HAVE CLIENTS SOMETIMES THAT HAVE NO IDEA IF THEY WON OR NOT.
YOU HAVE TO TELL THEM, HEY, BE EXCITED WE'VE WON.
THERE WERE SOME THINGS READ INTO THE RECORD AT THE END THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE ONLY WON HALF OF IT.
SO WHAT HE MAY HAVE SAID IS NOT A REFLECTION ON WHAT HE KNEW NOR WHAT HAPPENED.
WHEN HE WENT TO BUILDING INSPECTION, HE WENT TO BUILDING INSPECTION.
AND WHAT WE SAY AT MASTER PLAN, PAY YOUR MONEY, TAKE YOUR CHANCES.
YOU KNOW, YOU PAY YOUR MONEY, YOU ASK FOR BUILDING INSPECTION TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS.
HAD THEY REVIEWED THEM IN A TIMELY AND ACCURATE MANNER AND RETURNED IT TO HIM AND SAID, IT'S TOO TALL.
THERE'S TOO MUCH COVERAGE, IT CAN'T BE THIS OR THAT.
THOSE ARE THINGS MUCH EASIER TO REMEDY THAN WHEN YOU HAVE A STRUCTURE.
THIS IS NOT ADVANCING WHAT I THINK MS. OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR'S GONNA BE YOUR CLICK.
JUST LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE READY TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
I GUESS WE HAVE A QUESTION, MS. DAVIS IS A QUESTION.
SO YOUR CLIENT UNDERSTOOD THE RESTRICTIONS? NO, MY CLIENT.
I I THOUGHT YOU JUST SAID THAT HE FELT FILED A PERMIT KIND OF RISKING WHETHER OR NOT NO, HE KNEW.
HE KNEW THERE HAD BEEN A ZONING CHANGE.
HE DID NOT KNOW WHEN IT TOOK IN EFFECT OR WHAT ALL THE PARTICULARS WERE.
HE WENT TO BUILDING INSPECTION AND FILED A BUILDING PERMIT.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE'LL, WE'LL WORK ON, OUR FIRM WILL WORK ON HUNDREDS OF BUILDING PERMITS A YEAR.
AND THE CITY'S MOST ILLUSTRIOUS ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS AND PEOPLE THAT WORK ON THESE, THEY ALL, THEY MAKE MISTAKES ON ALL THESE BUILDINGS.
I MEAN, THAT IS A COMMON PART OF THE PROCESS.
YOU TURN IN A SET, YOU GET COMMENTS BACK.
IT'S AN ITERATIVE PROCESS LIKE THIS.
AND SO HE TURNED IN A SET OF PLANS AND DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE EFFECTIVE ORDINANCE STATE WAS.
AND EVEN IF HE DID KNOW, THAT'S NOT, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT YOUR PURVIEW IS HERE.
HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT HAD OCCURRED.
HE, NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE TRIGGERS ON THESE THINGS ARE.
THERE WAS A 20 YEAR PERIOD OF TIME WHERE THOSE HU THOSE CAR LOTS WERE, UH, THEY WERE ALLOWED.
AND THEN EV EVENTUALLY THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED ANYMORE.
MR. CATHERINE, LET'S GO BACK TO MS. DAVIS'S QUESTION.
I'M NOT SAYING RIGHT OR WRONG, I WANNA UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.
SO YOUR CLIENT UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE, THERE WAS A ZONING CHANGE.
BUT HE, DID HE KNOW, HE DID NOT KNOW WHEN THAT TOOK PLACE.
HE KNEW WHEN THE ZONING TAKE, BUT NOT WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS EFFECTIVE OR ALL THE PARTICULARS ABOUT IT.
SO HE KNEW A ZONING CHANGE HAPPENED, BUT HE DIDN'T KNOW WHEN IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE.
OR I DON'T THINK HE KNEW ALL THE, ALL THE INS AND OUTS OF IT EITHER.
TO ME, I MEAN, I WOULD, I WOULD THINK THAT'S COMMON SENSE TO KNOW.
WANT TO KNOW WHEN THAT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE.
ISN'T THAT THE FIRST QUESTION THAT YOU WOULD ASK WHEN THERE'S A CHANGE? WOULD YOU SAY, OKAY, WELL WHEN IS THE DATE FOR THIS BECAUSE I'VE GOT AN UPCOMING PROJECT? WELL, I MEAN, THE CITY STAFF ALSO GOT IT WRONG TOO FOR MONTHS, FOR MULTIPLE ONES.
SO I DON'T THINK IT IS COMMON SENSE.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S COMPLICATED.
MM-HMM,
I MEAN, 'CAUSE SOMETIMES IT'S IN THE FUTURE.
SOMETIMES IT'S NOW, SOMETIMES IT'S, YOU KNOW, I GOT MY THING IN AHEAD OF THE TIME.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, BUILDING INSPECTION AND I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT.
BUILDING INSPECTION STILL HAD THE OLD ORDINANCE.
THEY THOUGHT THAT THAT'S WHAT IT WAS.
WE WOULDN'T BE HERE IF, AND I DON'T MEAN THAT LIKE, UH, NO, AND WE'LL BE ASKING THE OTHER SIDE QUESTIONS AS WELL.
I, BUT I DON'T, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE'D BE HERE IF IT MADE, IF IT WAS COMMON SENSE.
DID, DID HE ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AT THIS JUNCTURE? YES.
THIS IS NOT GOING AGAINST YOUR TIME.
YOU USED, YOU USED FOUR MINUTES.
UM, MARY, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.
YOUR POSITION IS, IS THAT A BUILDER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR FULLY UNDERSTANDING THE ZONING LAWS AND BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS OF SOMETHING THEY'RE CONSTRUCTING.
IT'S NOT, IT, I THINK IT'S GOOD IF THEY DO, BUT EVEN IF YOU ARE AN EXPERT, AND I'D LIKE TO THINK HAVING DONE THIS MANY YEARS, I'M SOMETHING OF AN EXPERT ON ZONING.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN I'LL GET A BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED.
WELL, I'M, I'M ASKING YOU, ARE YOU SAYING THAT IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A BUILDER TO KNOW THESE THINGS? I, RIGHT.
I MEAN, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK I HAVE A SINGLE HOME BUILDER THAT'S AN EXPERT ON ENERGY REVIEW.
[00:50:01]
I MEAN, THEY MAY KNOW THINGS ABOUT IT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE AN EXPERT.THAT'S WHY THE CITY HAS A PROCESS TO DO THIS.
DO THEY EMPLOY EXPERTS TO, FOR THAT PURPOSE? BUILDERS GENERALLY NOT.
TYPICALLY THEY OUTSOURCE MOST OF THOSE THINGS.
SO YOUR, YOUR TESTIMONY IS, IS THAT A BUILDER BASICALLY DOESN'T NEED TO KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE LAWS REQUIRED TO BUILD A HOUSE BECAUSE AS LONG AS THE CITY GIVES THEM A PERMIT, I DIDN'T SAY THAT.
I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE TO KNOW, UH, EVEN IF THEY ARE AN EXPERT ON ALL THE SETBACKS AND, AND ALL THAT, I DON'T THINK THEY ARE, THEY DON'T PRACTICE IT FOR A LIVING.
THEY HIRE PEOPLE LIKE ME AND MY COLLEAGUE HERE.
UM, YOU KNOW, TO DO THAT, THEY NEED TO BE AN EXPERT ON CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, YOU KNOW, BUDGETING, PROJECT MANAGEMENT, HIRING THE RIGHT SUBCONTRACTORS.
THAT'S WHAT HOME BUILDERS TYPICALLY DO, IS THEY MANAGE THE PROCESS.
THEY RELY ON THE CITY'S EXPERTISE FOR ALL THESE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY, THAT THEY, THE CITY'S GONNA REVIEW.
IF A BUILDER HIRES A SUBCONTRACTOR OR THE SUBCONTRACTOR, UH, DOES SOMETHING THAT'S NOT WITHIN ESTABLISHED, UH, PROCEDURES, DOES THE BUILDER HOLD THE SUBCONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT? THE BUILDER, LIKE LET'S SAY IN, IN, IN MY, I THINK THIS IS WHERE YOU'RE HEADED.
I MEAN, MAYBE IF YOU'RE AN ELECTRICIAN, THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE TRADES ARE GONNA PULL THEIR OWN PERMITS BECAUSE THEY ARE AN AN EXPERT.
THEY HAVE A STATE CERTIFICATION AS A MASTER PLUMBER OR AS AN ELECTRICIAN OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
THEY PULL THEIR OWN PERMITS 'CAUSE THEY ARE AN EXPERT.
AND THAT'S WHY THE BUILDER DOESN'T, THEY DON'T HAVE, THEY'RE NOT A TRADE EXPERT.
SO LET'S GET OUT OF AREAS WHICH REQUIRE, UH, SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE.
BUT ELECTRICIANS AND SO FORTH, PLUMBERS, THAT'S, LET'S AGREE.
THAT'S A, A HIGHLY SPECIALIZED AREA.
SO IF YOU HIRE A CONSTRUCTION CREW, GENERALLY LIKE A FRAMER.
THAT'S IN YOUR BA THAT'S IN YOUR REGULAR BUILDING.
IS IS THE PERSON WHO IS, WHO IS THE PERSON WHO IS IN CONTROL OF THOSE FRAMERS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT THE FRAMERS DO? THEY SHOULD BUILD IT TO PLAN THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER APPROVED.
I'M ASKING YOU AS A MATTER OF LAW, SHOULD THEY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT THE PEOPLE THEY EMPLOYED HAVE DONE? THEY'RE NOT EMPLOYING THEM.
THEY'RE THEIR, THEY'RE THEIR AGENT.
WHAT HE'S TRYING TO GET AT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND OR PERSON WHO'S APPLIED FOR A PERMIT AND THE END RESULT AND WHETHER THERE IS RESPONSIBILITY ON THE PART OR NOT.
AND HE'S TRYING TO GET, HE'S TRYING TO GET AT ZERO I THINK, OR A HUNDRED PERCENT.
I THINK THINK THAT, I THINK THAT'S WHAT MR. HO IS TRYING TO GET TO.
I I IT'S SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN THAT.
WELL THEN THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT RESPECTFULLY HE'S TRYING TO GET YOU TO SPEAK TO.
THE A HUNDRED PERCENT IS SOMEONE THAT'S AN EXPERT AND IT STILL DOESN'T ISSUE THE PERMIT.
YOU KNOW, UM, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT HE BEARS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT.
IT, IT DOESN'T HELP ISSUE THE PERMIT.
I MEAN THAT, THAT THE CITY DOESN'T EVALUATE WHAT MY CLIENT OR DOES OR DOESN'T KNOW.
AND IN FACT, MOST OF THE SUBMITTALS ARE DONE NOW ELECTRONICALLY WHERE THE ONLY THING MATTERS ARE THE PLANS.
YOU KNOW, WHICH IS MAYBE A FAIR WAY, LIKE HOW A TEACHER GRADES A LAW SCHOOL EXAM, AN ENGINEERING GRADE, HEY, I ONLY KNOW WHAT'S IN THE BLUE BOOK.
UH, WHAT, WHAT IS ON THE PLAN IS WHAT THE CITY'S REVIEWING.
THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT OKAY.
I'M, I'M GONNA LET YOU SPEAK TO THAT, UH, AS PART OF YOUR TIME, NOT AS PART OF HIS QUESTION.
HIS QUESTION AGAIN, WAS THE LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN THE APPLICANT, THE PERMIT HOLDER, UH, THE OWNER, THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND THE END PRODUCT.
AND AS FAR AS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF, OF THE LEGALITY OF THE, THAT THAT'S WHAT HE WAS GETTING TO.
SO DID YOU HAVE AN ANSWER ON THE PERCENTAGE OR YOU DON'T WANNA GIVE AN ANSWER ON THE PERCENTAGE THAT'S YOUR BUSINESS AND THEN YEAH, I'LL, I'LL GO BACK TO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU SHOULD HAVE.
IF NOT, WE'LL GO BACK TO YOUR PRESENTATION.
I MEAN, I, I GUESS I'LL SAY THAT, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, A THIRD OF MASTER PLAN'S BUSINESS IS BUILDING PERMIT EXPEDITING WHERE WE OF ALL DIFFERENT TYPES, COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL, I MEAN, THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN BUSINESS.
THEY OUTSOURCE IT TO US TO INTERACT WITH THE CITY PARTLY BECAUSE WE'RE MORE EXPERT THAN THEY ARE.
AND I WOULD ARGUE THAN THE CITY IS.
DID THAT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE? NO.
DID THE APPLICANT HIRE MASTER PLAN? THEY ONLY WE'RE ONLY WORKING ON THE APPEAL.
SO DID THE APPLICANT HIRE ANYONE TO BE THE I'M DID THE APPLICANT ASK, ANSWER, HIRE ANYONE TO BE THEIR EXPERT IN THE INTERFACE WITH THE CITY? NO.
THEY JUST MADE THE REGULAR SUBMITTAL.
SO THEY SUBMITTED IT ON THEIR OWN.
AND I, I WOULD SAY I, I'M NOT JUDGING THE GOOD OR BAD.
[00:55:01]
JUST, YEAH.WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING TO, IF THERE WAS EXPERTISE BROUGHT TO BEAR, I I GUESS YOU CAN COUNT THIS AGAINST MY TIME.
NO, I'M NOT JU YOU'RE ANSWERING MY QUESTION.
WELL, I WOULD SAY ON, ON OUR PERMIT EXPEDITING BUSINESS, IT WOULD BE VERY UNUSUAL FOR US TO WORK ON A PROJECT UNLESS THE HOME IS OVER $2 MILLION AND TYPICALLY IT'S 5 MILLION OR MORE WHERE IT'S, UM, LIKE A REAL COMMERCIAL SCALE PROJECT.
I MEAN THE, THE PROCESS SHOULD BE SPEAK, SPEAK TO MY, MY QUESTION, MY QUESTION IS EXPERTISE YOU SAID NO, THE APPLICANT DID NOT.
'CAUSE I'M DIVIDING THE TIME BETWEEN YOUR FREE TIME ON YOUR 20 MINUTES YEAH.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TO THIS CHECK, MS. HAYDEN, BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA ENJOY THIS INTERACTIVE PROCESS.
MS. HAYDEN ARE WE AND OUR OF COURSE WE ARE.
AND THAT OUR RULES SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT THE BOARD CAN ASK QUESTIONS AT ANY TIME.
MS. HAYDEN, UH, AS A FOLLOW UP TO MR. H'S QUESTION, UM, A GENERAL CONTRACTOR HIRES SUBCONTRACTORS RIGHT, TO DO THE, THE SPECIALIZED WORK, THE TRADES, UM, BUT A GENERAL CONTRACTOR DOES HAVE TO GET A LICENSE TO BUILD A HOME IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? THEY HAVE TO BE RE THE HOME BUILDER HAS TO BE A REGISTERED BUILDER WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS.
I DON'T, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE.
I DON'T, I DON'T THINK IT'S THE SAME AS LIKE COMMERCIAL ONE, BUT, BUT YES.
IS THAT A STATE REQUIREMENT OR A CITY REQUIREMENT? IT'S A CITY REQUIREMENT THAT ANY, ANY GENERAL TO BUILD A HOME IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LICENSE.
YOU HAVE TO GO FILL OUT A, A FORM WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS AND GET APPROVED TO BE A GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
AND, AND OUR FIRM IS, AND WE'RE, WE DON'T BUILD ANYTHING.
I MEAN, TO TO THAT IT'S SOMETIMES IT'S JUST A MEANS OF BEING ABLE TO PULL BUILDING PERMITS.
UM, ANY QUE OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME? ALRIGHT.
I, I'M ANXIOUS YOU'VE ONLY USED FOUR MINUTES.
I'M ANXIOUS TO HEAR ABOUT THE TIMELINE OF THE APPLICANT FROM INCEPTION TO REVOCATION, BUT I DON'T WANT TO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER IT NOW, BUT I, THAT'S WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN BECAUSE I'M GONNA ASK THE SAME THING OF THE CITY IS WHAT WAS THE TIMELINE BETWEEN WHEN THE ORDINANCE CHANGED AND WHEN THEY REVOKED IT? SO AS IT RELATES TO YOUR APPLICANT, YOU REPRESENT THE APPLICANT.
THAT'S WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN.
BUT I BUT YOU CAN SPEAK TO IT NOW.
NO, I, OR YOU CAN, YOU CAN 'CAUSE I 'CAUSE I WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE YOUR PRESENTATION.
WOULD YOU, COULD WE GO TO THIS ONE? THE, THE ONE THAT'S THE TIMELINE? 'CAUSE I THINK THIS IS THE PERTINENT, MANY OF THE OTHER THINGS IN THERE WERE, I DON'T KNOW.
YOU MAY HAVE SEEN THEM LAST MONTH TOO.
SO, AND, AND, AND THIS IS WHERE, YOU KNOW, UM, SO WHEN, WHEN, WHEN SOMEONE GOES TO BUILDING INSPECTION AND MAKES AN APPLICATION ON A RESIDENTIAL, ON, ON KIND OF SIMPLE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, I MEAN, THERE WAS A TIME NOT THAT LONG AGO BEFORE COVID THAT GOT TURNED AROUND IN TWO DAYS, SOMETIMES THE SAME DAY SOMEHOW.
NOW WE'VE GONE TO A SYSTEM WHERE BUILDING INSPECTION CAN TAKE TWO TO SIX MONTHS ON A RESIDENTIAL, UH, PROJECT.
I'M NOT SURE HOW WHY THAT IS, BUT IT, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
UM, SO, UM, IT'S AN ITERATIVE PROCESS.
I HAVE TO TURN IN ALL THESE THINGS.
IT HAS TO BE REVIEWED AND, AND, AND IT COULD BE, UM, SENT BACK TO YOU FOR ANY KIND OF ERROR LIKE SETBACKS, HEIGHT, COVERAGE, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, ANY OF THOSE THINGS.
BAD, BAD CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES.
UH, THE ROOF PITCH IN A PD DOESN'T MATCH.
SO WE APPLIED, YOU KNOW, THE ZONING PASSED IN, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW IN IN NOV IN, UH, OCTOBER OF 22.
WE APPLIED FOR A PERMIT IN, IN NOVEMBER.
UM, NOW MY CLIENT MAYBE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT AND IT MAYBE SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMMON SENSE, BUT HE DIDN'T.
AND NO ONE AT BUILDING INSPECTION WHO ARE THE EXPERTS TOLD HIM YOU MISSED YOUR WINDOW.
YOU SHOULD HAVE FILED IT ON 10 11.
HAD WE BEEN REPRESENTING HIM ON THAT, WE WOULD'VE MADE SURE TO MAKE A FILING TO VEST OUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OLD ORDINANCE.
AND HE DIDN'T HIRE US UNTIL HE WAS ALREADY IN THIS, IN THIS SITUATION, OR WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY.
HE, HE TURNED IT IN AND THEN THE PERMIT WAS APPROVED BECAUSE BUILDING INSPECTION STILL WAS USING THE OLD ORDINANCE, AND THEY LOOKED AT IT, AND MAYBE THEY SHOULDN'T, ONE THAT PERSON SAID TODAY, EVEN UNDER THE OLD RULES, IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
THAT HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, AND, AND THE CITY'S PROCESS FOR THIS IS THEY HOPE THAT SOMEONE ON INSPECTION WHEN THEY'RE OUT THERE DOING FIELD INSPECTIONS WOULD CATCH IT SUBSEQUENTLY, YOU KNOW? UM, AND HE DIDN'T DO IT.
I, I, I, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN SOMEBODY'S HEART, BUT I'VE TALKED TO MY CLIENT,
[01:00:01]
HE TURNED THIS IN LIKE HE DID OTHER ONES AND WAITED FOR THE CITY TO TELL HIM IT'S RIGHT OR IT'S WRONG.IT'S NOT IN THE, IN, IN HOME BUILDERS BEST INTEREST TO DO THAT.
AND I, YOU KNOW, WHETHER DALLAS DESERVES BETTER, HOME BUILDERS ARE NOT.
I ACTUALLY THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A PRETTY GOOD STRENGTH.
WE HAVE A LOT OF GOOD HOME BUILDERS HERE.
UM, UH, THEY DON'T ALWAYS DO WHAT THE NEIGHBORS WANT.
THEY EXECUTE THE HOMES THAT TYPICALLY THEIR CLIENTS WANT THEM TO BUILD.
SO THE PERMIT WAS APPROVED, THEN HE GOT ANOTHER GREEN TAG, YOU KNOW, ON, UH, ON, ON TEN FOUR TWENTY, TWENTY THREE, AND ANOTHER GREEN TAG AND ANOTHER ONE.
SO I'M, THIS IS, DOESN'T COUNT AGAINST YOUR TIME.
UM, UM, I'M JUST LOOKING AT DATES.
SHOULD I BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE GAP IN TIME HERE? I, I MEAN, I, I MEAN, IT PROBABLY IS A FACT THAT HE'S GOTTA HAVE A LENDER, YOU, YOU KNOW, MARKET CONDITIONS.
I MEAN, I, I MEAN, I MEAN, MY, MY QUESTION IS, SHOULD I BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE GAP IN TIME? I DON'T THINK SO, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, THE PERMIT TO APPROVAL WAS, UH, I LOOK AT THAT, THAT'S WHAT, 32 DAYS? MM-HMM.
IT'S NOT TWO DAYS, LIKE YOU SAID IT WAS ONCE.
NO, IT'S, BUT ITS A PRETTY TO GAME.
UM, 32 DAYS AND THEN IT'S, WE'RE TALKING 11 MONTHS.
THEY'RE GOOD, THEY'RE GOOD FOR, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, HUN A HUNDRED, NO, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG A PERMITS, BUT YEAH.
ALRIGHT, SO YOU'RE SAYING I DON'T, I MEAN, IT'S NOT, YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT UNUSUAL TO GO 11 MONTHS IT BEFORE A FIRST INSPECTION? I THINK IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHO HIS END CUSTOMER IS.
THIS WAS AN INVESTMENT PROPERTY.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE ALL NEED TO KNOW WHAT MR. MA'S, YOU KNOW, I, I'M NOT GOING, THERE IS A BUSINESS CONSIDERATION.
WHAT I THINK, I, I'M NOT GOING THERE.
I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE TIMELINE THAT YOU PUT INTO EVIDENCE.
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION EITHER.
I MEAN, I DID NOT, I DID NOT THINK IT WAS UNUSUAL IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION OF HOW LONG IT TAKES TO GET PROJECTS STARTED.
I MEAN, ALRIGHT, SO THE FIRST GREEN TAG INSPECTION WAS ON OCTOBER OF 23.
AND SO IN THE DOCUMENT THAT WE WERE PRESENTED WAS A BUNCH OF SCREENSHOTS.
NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS FROM THE, THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR IF THAT WAS YOUR SIDE.
IT GETS SUBMITTED, THESE SCREENSHOTS AND I STARTED MAPPING THEM, THIS IS NOT AGAINST YOUR TIME.
STARTED MAPPING THEM TO SAY, OKAY, WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? OCTOBER 4TH OF 23.
THEN I'VE GOT FEBRUARY OF 24, THEN ANOTHER FEBRUARY OF 24.
THEN ON MARCH OF 24, DID YOU SUBMIT THE SCREENSHOTS OR IS THAT THE, THE, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? I THINK THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DID.
WE HAVE 'EM TOO, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW THE SCREENSHOTS HERE WITH THIS TIMELINE.
ALRIGHT, SO CONTINUE ON, MR. SO THE FIRST GREEN TAG WAS MR. CHAIRMAN? YES.
UH, IF I COULD JUST ASK A QUICK QUESTION IN ONE SECOND.
UH, THE FIRST SCREENSHOT, I'M STILL ASKING MY QUESTION.
THE FIRST GREEN, THE FIRST GREEN TAG WAS IN OCTOBER OF 23? YES.
SO DURING THIS WHOLE TIMELINE, OR IS THERE ANOTHER PAGE? I'M WONDERING HOW MANY GREEN TAGS WERE THERE? I THINK WE, WE GOT, YOU KNOW, FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES WE GOT GREEN TAGS.
SO YOU, YOU WERE GREEN TAG FIVE TIMES IN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS? YES.
AND, AND, AND, AND THEN WE ALSO GOT THE PERMIT ISSUED.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU COUNT THAT, BUT THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED AND THEN FIVE MORE TIMES THAT, YOU KNOW, REALLY IDEALLY, MR. CHAIR, I, I THINK YOU WOULD'VE LIKED IN THAT 30 DAY REVIEW PERIOD FOR THIS TO HAVE BEEN CAUGHT AND SAID, YOU CAN'T DO THIS HERE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, AND HERE'S HOW YOU REMEDY IT.
WELL, THAT, THAT, YOU JUST WALKED RIGHT INTO MY QUESTION.
'CAUSE I'M WONDERING WHAT, WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE TIME BETWEEN DECEMBER OF 22 TO OCTOBER OF 23? THAT'S 11 MONTHS NOW, I'M NOT A BUILDER.
I DON'T, I DON'T PRETEND TO BE AN EXPERT.
I WAS HOPING FOR WHAT HAPPENED DURING THAT TIME PERIOD ON BOTH SIDES.
I COULD, I WILL GET TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ON THEIR SIDE, BUT YOU'RE IN FRONT OF ME NOW.
AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING, WOULDN'T THAT BE A NATURAL TIME TO COME UP TO SPEED ON WHAT IS AND IS NOT ONE, IS IS NOT LEGAL BEING INSPECTED, THAT'S CHANGE IN ZONING, ALL THOSE THINGS THAT MY CLIENT BECOMES A, YEAH, NO, I DON'T THINK SO.
HE'S PROBABLY GOT 10 OTHER JOBS HE'S DOING IN A JURISDICTIONS AND, AND YOU KNOW, THAT'S, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT, AND, AND I DON'T THINK THIS CLIENT'S DIFFERENT THAN OTHERS.
UH, ALTHOUGH WE DIDN'T HANDLE THE PERMITTING, MOST OF MY CLIENTS DON'T THINK ABOUT THE BUILDING PERMITTING PROCESS.
I MEAN, WE'RE GONNA DO A HUNDRED RAISING CANES NEXT YEAR IN 90 JURISDICTIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY,
[01:05:01]
RAISING CANES JUST WANTS THEIR STORES TO OPEN ON TIME.LET'S START, I'M GONNA GO BACK TO YOUR TIME IN A SECOND, BUT YOU'VE ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
MR. HAVIS HAS A QUESTION, THEN WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO YOUR PRESENTATION.
UH, I ACTUALLY HAVE, UH, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS PLEASE.
UH, SO THAT WE CAN EVALUATE OR DIFFERENTIATE WHAT YOU, UH, WOULD HAVE MORE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF.
WHEN WERE YOU HIRED BY THE CLIENT? BY YOUR CLIENT? I'LL GET YOU AN EXACT DATE.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EXACT DATE COMMENCEMENT WAS.
ROUGHLY AFTER HE F WHAT? JULY.
WAY, WAY AFTER, YOU KNOW, I MEAN THE TIMELINE.
AND MY, MY SECOND QUESTION IS, I'M NOT A BUILDING EXPERT.
THE GREEN TAG RECEIVED IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR FOR THE FOUNDATION INSPECTION.
WOULD THAT, WOULD I BE CORRECT IN, IN ASSUMING FROM THAT, THAT AT THAT POINT IN TIME THE CONSTRUCTION, WAS THAT THE FOUNDATION ST STAGE? I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION THAT THERE WAS NO FRAMING OR ANYTHING DONE AT THAT POINT.
ONLY THE FOUNDATION AND THE UNDERLYING, UH, UTILITY WORK AND SO FORTH HAD BEEN DONE.
SO ALL THE CONSTRUCTION THAT TOOK PLACE AFTER MARCH, ALL, ALL THE CONSTRUCTION SUBSEQUENT TO A FOUNDATION BEING POURED WAS AFTER MARCH OF THIS YEAR? YES.
WAS YOUR CLIENT AWARE IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR THAT HIS PLANS MAY NOT BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT ZONING LAWS? NO.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WELL, THE TWO ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
SO I'M ASKING YOU, WAS HE AWARE THAT THERE HAD BEEN A CHANGE IN THE ZONE? NOT AT THAT POINT.
I THINK THE FIRST TIME HE WAS AWARE IS WHEN THE CITY, YOU KNOW, TOLD HIM HE HAD A PROBLEM IN WRITING.
I MEAN, THAT'S, I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S THE, I MEAN, I BET HE WAS AWARE IN JUNE WHEN WE GOT HIRED IN JULY OR IN JULY WHEN WE GOT HIRED.
I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S THE NATURE OF THESE THINGS.
SO MR. CHOR, I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE YOU AN EARLY READ.
I'M NOT A BUILDER, BUT I'M FOLLOWING A TIMELINE HERE AND I'M SAYING, HMM.
SO THE FOUNDATION APPROVE, THERE ARE FIVE GREEN TAGS.
BUT ALL THIS TIME IT'S PASSED BY AND NO GUT CHECK TO SOMETHING'S CHANGING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE'S NO REALITY CHECK TO, AM I DOING SOMETHING CONSISTENT OR INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS APPROPRIATE OR WHAT IS LEGAL CONSISTENT WITH ZONING.
IT JUST, I, I'M, I'M WAITING TO HEAR SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT I'VE HEARD THUS FAR.
WHY I'M WAITING TO HEAR THAT WAS NOT AWARE, UH, AND TOOK STEPS IN A WAY THAT, UM, SHOWED THAT.
AND IT'S ALMOST INDIFFERENCE IS WHAT I'M STARTING TO HEAR.
AND I'M JUST SHARING TO YOU, WE'RE AHEAD OF THE DECISION, BUT IT'S ALMOST INDIFFERENCE BY THE APPLICANT.
SO I'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THAT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S INDIFFERENCE THEY RELY ON THE CITY.
YOU KNOW, I MEAN THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME ON EVERYTHING.
WELL, I MEAN, PEOPLE CALL COMPLIANCE MR. CONMAN RESPECTFULLY.
IF IT HAPPENED ALL THE TIME, THERE'D BE A ZILLION CASES OUT THE DOOR WITH THAT.
SO LET'S NOT SAY IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.
ROUTINELY PEOPLE CALL BUILDING INSPECTION OR CODE ENFORCEMENT ON A PROJECT THAT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM AND IT COULD BE LIKE LOADING IN THE STREET HOURS OF OPERATION.
AND SO THERE IS, AND SOMETIMES THERE'S MISSES, BUT THERE, YES.
GOES BACK TO MR. KO'S QUESTION ABOUT WHAT'S THE PERCENTAGE OF AWARENESS THAT YOU SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT HAVE.
I GUESS, I GUESS THAT'S WHERE WE DIFFER.
I MEAN, AND, AND I, SO HOLD ON MR. CATHERINE.
SO YOU'VE USED SEVEN MINUTES OF YOUR TIME THUS FAR.
QUESTIONS ARE DONE FOR RIGHT NOW.
I WHAT YOU SAY IS 17, QUESTION SEVEN.
I'M SAYING THAT OUT LOUD FOR YOUR BENEFIT AND OUR BOARD SECRET.
SO YOU MAY PROCEED WITH YOUR PRESENTATION.
I TO, AND, AND I GUESS WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS 'CAUSE IT SEEMS RELEVANT.
I JUST DON'T THINK WHAT, WHAT MY CLIENTS KNOW, AND THEY COME FROM A WIDE SPECTRUM OF PEOPLE WHO DO JOBS IN DALLAS.
THERE ARE PEOPLE LIKE BECK, YOU KNOW, A LARGE COMPANY, AND THEY STILL HAVE TO GET THROUGH THE BUILDING IN PROCESS AND GET A PERMIT ISSUED BY THE CITY.
UH, YOU KNOW, THE SAME AS MY SMALL HOME BUILDERS.
AND TO, TO, TO THINK THAT MY SMALL HOME BUILDER THAT'S BUILDING IN A BUNCH OF JURISDICTIONS, UH, WOULD KNOW THE SAME AS A LARGE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
UM, AND, UH, I, I DON'T THINK THAT MY CLIENTS HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, MANY OF OUR CLIENTS AREN'T EVEN BASED HERE.
[01:10:01]
DOING BUSINESS.AND MOST CITIES DON'T MAKE MISTAKES LIKE THIS, NOR DO THEY TAKE SO LONG TO DO IT.
I MEAN, AND SO THE PROBLEM WE HAVE HERE IS THAT WE'RE ASKING MY CLIENT TO BE THE ONE TO HAVE THE EXPERTISE.
IT'S LIKE THE DINER WHO EATS THE TAINTED FOOD.
THE CITY HAS FAILED HIM ON THIS.
AND NOW HIS ONLY CHOICE IS TO COME TO HERE AND ASK FOR SOME, UH, OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE THE HOME BECAUSE THE PUNISHMENT IS TOO SEVERE.
I MEAN, THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CORRECT THIS IS BY TOTAL DEMOLITION.
AND THAT'S MORE EXPENSIVE THAN JUST WALKING AWAY FROM THE PROJECT.
SO IT, IT JUST, AND IT'S NOT HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE, UH, YOU KNOW, TO, TO ISSUE THE PERMITS OR TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE PERMITS.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING.
AT THE SAME TIME WE HAVE THIS GOING ON, DALLAS HAS COME UP WITH A NEW SELF-CERTIFICATION PROGRAM FOR THIRD PARTY REVIEWERS TO BE ABLE TO ISSUE PERMITS, UM, HOPEFULLY MORE QUICKLY AND, AND MORE ACCURATELY.
UM, SO NOW THOSE THIRD PARTY VENDORS, UH, WILL HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO IT, RIGHT? OR THEY DON'T HAVE THE CITY'S ABILITY TO JUST SAY, OH, WE MADE A MISTAKE, BUT WE ARE IMMUNE TO THAT MISTAKE.
UH, AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO TAKE THE PUNISHMENT.
I GUESS THAT'S SORT OF, MR. CHAIR, MY CONCERN ABOUT THAT ZERO TO 100, YOU KNOW, THAT CONTINUUM, MY CLIENT IS GONNA BEAR 100% OF THE RESPONSIBILITY TO, UM, FIX THE PROBLEM, WHICH LIKELY WILL BE, YOU KNOW, A TOTAL LOSS ON THE PROJECT.
AND YET THEY DON'T, I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE A 100% OBLIGATION ON THE PERMITS.
THEY HAD TO PAY A FEE AND THEY'RE, THEY DON'T GET TO ISSUE IT THEMSELVES.
SO THAT'S, MAYBE THAT'S WHERE WE, WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, AND I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, BUT I SEE YOUR POINT ABOUT SORT OF ON THAT CONTINUUM.
WHAT DID THEY KNOW? HOW MUCH DO THEY NEED TO KNOW? THE CITY DOESN'T PUBLISH THAT.
THEY DON'T REQUIRE IT, THEY DON'T HAVE ANNUAL TRAINING, UH, FOR THAT IN THIS INSTANCE.
NOW THAT I'VE BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION, THAT MIGHT BE PRUDENT.
ALL WE KNOW IS THAT THE CITY APPROVED A PERMIT AND FIVE SUBSEQUENT GREEN TAGS AND THE HOUSE CONTINUED TO MOVE ON THROUGH THE PROCESS.
AND NOW WE'RE STUCK WITH A, I THINK YOU CAN SHOW A PICTURE.
THERE'S SEVERAL TO SHOW MAYBE.
OF COURSE, THE FRONT, UH, UH, NO, NOT THAT'S A HOUSE OF A NEIGHBORING ONE.
I MEAN, THIS IS WHAT, THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND ALL THAT GOT INSPECTED IN THE FIELD AND GOT GREEN TAGGED FOR, AND NOW WE'RE KIND OF LIKE STUCK IN, IN TIME WITH THIS ALBATROSS THERE.
I MEAN, HE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO HIRE ME AND WANTED TO FINISH THE HOUSE.
UM, AND IT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
I KNOW THEY WORKED HARD TO GET THIS PD PASSED.
THE CITY'S THE ONE THAT MADE THE ERROR AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
YOU'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO FIGURE OUT.
I'VE BEEN IN, IN, NOT ON THE BOARD, BUT I'VE BEEN ON DALLAS BOARDS WHERE YOU HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT'S FAIR.
WELL, THE FAIR ONLY COMES ONCE A YEAR IN DALLAS.
I'M HOPING THAT IT COMES EARLY IN SEPTEMBER HERE.
AND THAT YOU, I I WOULD PROFESS TO YOU THAT WE ENDEAVOR TO BE FAIR, I KNOW EACH AND EVERY MONTH WHEN WE SIT IN JUDGMENT OF A REQUEST AND WE THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.
AND I, SO I FIGURED OUT, I I THINK WE, I THINK I'M BEING A LITTLE SELF-SERVING.
I THINK THE BOARD IS VERY FAIR AND YOU'RE FACTS.
I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE, AND I'LL MAKE THIS LAST COMMENT AND THEN BE QUIET.
UH, I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF CASES THAT ARE SUSTAINED ON APPEAL, THAT TELLS YOU HOW FAIR WE ARE.
I MEAN, I, I THINK I'VE MADE MY CASE.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THIS IS UNFORTUNATELY FAIRLY SIMPLE.
WE MADE A SE, YOU KNOW, WE PAID A FEE.
UM, WE, WE, THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT BEFORE THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED, AND IT WASN'T.
AND THEN THE CITY HAD MANY, MANY, MANY MONTHS, MORE THAN A YEAR AND MANY FIELD INSPECTIONS TO FIX IT.
AND YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT MY CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO, YOU KNOW, TO IN MY MIND, HOPEFULLY YOURS TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
UH, AND LIKE I SAID, I MEAN, THE, THE ONLY WAY THAT THIS GETS FIXED IS TO TEAR ALL THAT DOWN.
I DON'T THINK THAT I, I KNOW HE CAN'T DO THAT AND START OVER.
I KNOW HIS LENDER WON'T ALLOW THAT.
AND THIS WILL SIT THERE IN WORSE CONDITION
[01:15:01]
THAN THE ONE ON HENDERSON THAT STILL HADN'T BEEN.SO, YOU, YOU BROUGHT UP HIS LENDER.
I WASN'T GONNA BRING IT UP, BUT NOW THAT YOU'VE BROUGHT IT UP AND I, I'M JUST ASKING, I DON'T, I, AREN'T THERE REQUIREMENTS THAT A LENDER HAS THAT YOU, YOU COMPLY WITH LOCAL LAWS AND ORDINANCES? THE LENDER JUST LENT THEM THE MONEY? I DON'T, I I DON'T KNOW IF I KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
I, I, I'M JUST, I'M, I'M WONDERING THERE, AND, AND THE OTHER THING I'D SAY, UH, WELL, I'LL KEEP THAT COMMENT TILL LATER.
I MEAN, YOU MENTIONED LENDER, SO I'M THINKING OF WOULDN'T THAT BE PART OF THE PROCESS OF, OF, OF MAKING A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO COMPLY? WELL, I, I HEARD THAT, I THINK IN THE PEST, IN THE, IN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, SOMEBODY SAID THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO REQUIRE THE HOME BUILDER TO FINISH OR TO DO THIS OR THAT.
I MEAN, THE, THE CITY CAN REQUEST OR MAY MAYBE PUNISH THEM AND SAY, YOU CAN'T BUILD THIS.
THEY CAN'T REQUIRE HIM TO COMPLETE THE HOME.
AND THE LENDER HAS ISSUED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY.
YOU CAN BE FOR SURE FOR THIS SET OF PLANS.
IT DIDN'T, THERE'S NOT A, THEY'RE NOT GONNA, I JUST, AND I DIDN'T TALK TO THE LENDER MAYBE ON PURPOSE.
UM, UH, AND I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD'VE TALKED TO ME.
THAT'S NOT REALLY THE PROCESS IN MY EXPERIENCE.
BUT THE LENDER'S NOT GONNA LEND MORE ON THIS.
I MEAN, THIS THING IS NOT GOING TO PENCIL.
IF HE COULD HAVE FIXED IT AND NOT HIRED ME AND NOT GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS, THAT HE WOULD'VE ALREADY DONE THAT.
'CAUSE THAT WOULD'VE BEEN MUCH MORE TIME EFFECTIVE AND MORE, YOU KNOW, COST EFFECTIVE.
AND I'VE JUST SEEN THIS HAPPEN IN MY CAREER TOO OFTEN WHERE, UM, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, MISTAKES ARE MADE AND, YOU KNOW, THE CITY ISN'T THE ONE HAS TO PAY THE PI MEAN, AND, AND IT'S WORSE THAT IT'S ABOUT 20 HOMES.
I MEAN, Y'ALL ARE GONNA GET A FREQUENT FLYER MILES ON THIS ISSUE.
UM, AND IT'S WHAT, 19 OR 20 DIFFERENT ADDRESSES WHERE THE SAME MISTAKE WAS MADE BY THE SAME PEOPLE OVER AND OVER WITH, OVER A YEAR TO FIX IT.
UM, AND I MEAN, I GUESS THAT'S AT THE HEART OF WHAT I THINK IS SO EGREGIOUS ABOUT THIS.
IF, IF IT WAS SUCH A WELL-KNOWN ZONING CASE AND, AND THAT EVERYONE KNEW, THEN WHY DID THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT GET THAT DOCUMENT TO BUILDING INSPECTION IMMEDIATELY? I KNOW WE DO THAT REGULARLY.
WE ASK FOR, FROM THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE, A COPY OF THE ORDINANCE, AND WE FURNISH IT WHEN WE TURN IN PLANS AT BUILDING INSPECTION WHERE WE'RE WORKING ON THE ENTIRE PROCESS.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY DID THIS ON PURPOSE.
I MEAN, I, I I, I, THIS IS JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS.
UNFORTUNATELY, MY CLIENT'S, THE ONE'S THE ONLY ONE THAT'S GONNA PAY THE, THE PENALTY ON IT.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR OR APPROPRIATE.
AND WE WOULD ASK YOU GUYS TO PROVIDE SOME RELIEF FROM HIM TO BE ABLE TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT.
UM, UH, YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN TAKE A TOTAL LOSS.
I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS MORE INJURIOUS TO THE NEIGHBORS THAN THIS SITTING THERE AND THE LENDER WAITS AND WAITS AND WAITS FOR SOMEBODY.
OR THE CITY ENFORCES THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS.
THAT WON'T BE A BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME.
I MEAN, THAT'S A A A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME TOO.
THE FASTEST THING TO RESOLVE THIS IS, YOU KNOW, MOVE FORWARD.
AND I THINK ON ALL 20, I MEAN, REALLY, TO BE HONEST, THE RIGHT FIX IS A POLITICAL ONE ON THIS.
THEY SHOULD HAVE PASSED A CORRECTING ORDINANCE AND SAID, THE COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE AND SAID, WE NEED, YOU KNOW, EIGHT MORE MONTHS OR MAKE THE EFFECTIVE DATE FURTHER.
AND INSTEAD YOU FIND VOLUNTEERS THAT GET A BOX LUNCH ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO FIX THIS.
AND I FEEL BADLY FOR YOU, BUT YOU DON'T.
I I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND, UH, INTEREST IN THIS AND VOLUNTEERING, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF HOME BUILDERS.
THEY'RE GONNA TAKE A TOTAL LOSS ON THESE HOMES.
THESE ARE VERY SMALL BUSINESS PEOPLE.
UM, AND DALLAS HAS A HOUSING SHORTAGE.
MAYBE NOT EXACTLY LIKE NEIGHBORS WANT.
UM, UH, SO THIS IS A HARD ONE.
I'VE HAD, YOU KNOW, I'VE DONE THIS A LONG TIME.
THIS IS ONE THAT LITERALLY HAS KEPT ME UP AT NIGHT.
UM, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTION IS.
AND I'VE TOLD MY CLIENT THAT IN MY EXPERIENCE, THE CITY ISN'T LIKE A CHILD OR THE DINER.
UM, YOU KNOW, OR, OR THE PATIENT.
UM, THE CITY JUST DOESN'T REALLY APOLOGIZE.
IT JUST MAKES THE MISTAKE AND PASSES ON THE PUNISHMENT TO OTHERS.
I DON'T THINK THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SHOULD DO THAT.
I THINK THE BOARD SHOULD SAY THE CITY DEFINITELY HAS A GREATER RESPONSIBILITY THAN MY CLIENT DOES, TO KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE AND TO TALK TO THEIR CUSTOMERS ABOUT IT.
HE PAID A FEE, A FEE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FROM THE CITY TO BE RENDERED.
[01:20:01]
INSTEAD, THE CITY MISSED ON THIS THING SIX TIMES.AND, UM, YOU, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT OR FAIR.
AND, AND THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.
I MEAN, I KNOW MY CLIENT NOW IS AN EXPERT AND WON'T DO THIS AGAIN.
HE UNDERSTANDS A LOT MORE ABOUT WHAT THE PROCESS IS AND HOW TRICKY IT IS.
UM, BUT HE WASN'T IN THE TIME.
AND SO WE'D ASKED FOR SOME MERCY.
AND I APPRECIATE THE ITERATIVE PROCESS.
'CAUSE I THINK IT MADE IT GO FASTER, ACTUALLY, NOT SLOWER.
UH, YOU HAVE USED UP 18 MINUTES OF YOUR TIME.
SO YOU, I WILL, I WILL GRANT YOU TWO MINUTES IN YOUR POCKET, SUPER.
UM, DO WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? OF COURSE.
MR. KOVI, SORRY TO MAKE YOU COME BACK DOWN.
FIRST OF ALL, UH, WITH RESPECTS TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY, SHE PROVIDES US WITH AN EXCELLENT LUNCH EVERY MONTH.
UM, AND DINNER, MAYBE SOMETIMES, SOMETIMES IN, IN, IN THE, IN THE CASE OF YOUR THEORETICAL RESTAURANT, IF I'M THE OWNER OF THE RESTAURANT.
UM, DO I HAVE ANY RECOURSE AGAINST THE SUPPLIER THAT SOLD ME THE TAINTED FOOD
I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, BUT COULD, COULD BE.
I GUESS, UH, WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED OF YOUR CLIENT? DO YOU KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED OF YOUR CLIENT TO BRING THAT STRUCTURE INTO COMPLIANCE? WE, WE'D HAVE TO TEAR.
I MEAN, WE HAVE TO TEAR IT DOWN TO START OVER.
WE, I MEAN, WE GOT, WE, WE GOT WE, IT, THERE'S NOT A WAY TO REMODEL IT INTO WHAT ASPECTS OF THE, OF THE BILL OF THE STRUCTURE ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
WELL, IT'S GOT TOO MUCH COVERAGE.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S, I MEAN, IT, UH, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT WOULD BE, I MEAN, IT, WE'D HAVE TO HAVE A WHOLE NEW SITE PLAN, UH, WHICH IS IN, IN EFFECT A WHOLE NEW BUILDING.
AND THAT WOULD'VE BEEN FINE IF WE HAD FOUND THAT OUT DURING, DURING, DURING THE PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS.
WE JUST WOULD'VE DRAWN A NEW SET OF PLANS.
AND THAT WOULD'VE COST, I DON'T KNOW, A FEW THOUSAND BUCKS.
AND YOU, YOU'RE, YOU JUST LOST SOME TIME AND A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY NOW THOUGH, BECAUSE WE'VE BUILT A STRUCTURE, WE WE'RE, WE'RE, THAT WE HAVEN'T EVEN FINISHED.
WE CAN'T REMODEL IT INTO, INTO, UM, COMPLIANCE, UH, OR, OR NOT VERY EASILY.
I MEAN, IF THAT WAS THE QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE STUDIED THAT.
IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE BOARD, HOW CLOSE COULD YOU GET? AND, AND YOU WOULD APPROVE THAT? WE WOULD GO BACK AND STUDY THAT.
I MEAN, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT ALL OR NOTHING LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU HA WE EXPECT THIS.
I MEAN, IF, IF, IF THE WILL OF THE BOARD WAS TO COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF COMPROMISE, WE WOULD INVESTIGATE THAT.
I HAVEN'T, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT STRUCTURALLY HOW DO WE GET INTO COMPLIANCE AND HOW DO YOU REMODEL IT AND WHAT DOES IT COST TO DO THAT? AND COULD WE STILL EFFECTIVELY, IS IT A VIABLE PROJECT? AND WOULD OUR LENDER THINK IT'S OKAY? BUT THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
UM, YOU, YOU, YOU MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY A FEW TIMES ABOUT HAVING PAID FOR A PERMIT FROM THE CITY, UH, UH, FOR THEIR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.
UM, SO I GUESS I'M WONDERING, UH, WOULD YOUR CLIENT HAVE NO OTHER RECOURSE THAN TO TEAR THE BUILDING DOWN TO ADDRESS HIS GRIEVANCE? WELL, OR DO SOME KIND OF MASSIVE, LIKE I SAID, SOME KIND OF MASSIVE, UH, REBUILD.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WHICH I DON'T THINK AT THIS POINT IS AS EFFECTIVE AS TEARING IT DOWN.
I MEAN, I, I BELIEVE HIS BEST COURSE ACTION IS JUST TO WALK THE JOB AND HAND THE KEYS BACK TO THE LENDER.
I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S, HE'S GONNA, HE'S GONNA LOSE A LOT OF MONEY ON THAT AT THIS POINT, UNLESS WE CAN FIGURE OUT EITHER A COMPROMISE OR A PERMIT.
IT'S JUST A FUNCTION OF HIM, OF FIGURING OUT HOW DO I LOSE THE FEWEST DOLLARS.
IT'S A VERY UNPLEASANT, UH, CHO SET OF CHOICES.
AND WHAT IS, IT'S THE, UH, DO YOU, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE CITY HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS ACTIONS IN, IN LAW? OH, I DEFINITELY THINK THE CITY HAS RESPONSIBILITY.
I, I DON'T THINK THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, I THINK STATE LAW MAY MAKE THEM IMMUNE TO THAT, TO, TO, TO IT.
BUT I THINK THAT THEY HAVE A OBLIGATION TO ALL THE CITIZENS AND TO ALL THE EMPLOYEES FOR THAT MATTER, AND TO THE COUNCIL TO DO A BETTER JOB.
I THINK THAT CITIES SHOULD PERFORM AT A HIGH LEVEL.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WILL OR HOW IMPORTANT IT IS.
SO YOU'RE NOT SURE IF THERE'S RE IF THERE, THERE COULD BE OTHER AVENUES OF RECOURSE THAT YOUR CLIENT HAS AGAINST THE CITY? NO.
I MEAN, MY, HIS CHOICES ARE YOU GUYS GRANTHAM SOME LENIENCY OR HE TAKES A HUGE LOSS ON THIS? HE DOESN'T HAVE THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE OPPORTUNITIES I THINK THE CITY
[01:25:01]
HAS.I MEAN, THERE, THERE AREN'T ANY FOR HIM.
I MEAN, HE EITHER HAS TO BUILD, GET A, GET, GO BACK AND GET A NEW BUILDING PERMIT.
I WOULD IRONICALLY BET THE CITY WOULD CHARGE THEM ANOTHER FEE.
UM, SO NO, HE DOESN'T HAVE, HE DOES NOT HAVE GOOD, GOOD CHOICES.
AND FOR THAT MATTER, THE, THE, THE, THE NEIGHBORS DON'T HAVE GOOD CHOICES.
BOTH THE NEIGHBORS AND MY CLIENTS HAVE MORE IN COMMON THAN IMPOSED.
THEY'RE BOTH A PINATA BEING BATTED AROUND AND JUST WANT A DECISION, I WOULD SUSPECT.
AND, AND ALL THE OUTCOMES ARE KIND OF BAD.
ANYTHING ELSE AT THIS TIME? YOU STILL HAVE TWO MINUTES LEFT? NO, I'LL, I'LL SAVE THEM.
ALRIGHT, YOU, IS THAT IT? THAT'S IT FOR NOW.
TWO MINUTES LEFT FOR THE APPLICANT.
UH, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL MAY COME FORWARD.
MR. CHAIRMAN, DO I GET TO CROSS EXAMINEE THE, THE APPLICANT? OH, UM, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN CROSS EXAMINEE.
THE APPLICANT, YOU CAN CROSS EXAMINE IF THEY CALLED A WITNESS.
SO THEY DID NOT CALL A WITNESS.
SO I DON'T THINK OUR RULES ALLOW THAT.
JUST LIKE, I DON'T THINK THEY CAN CROSS EXAMINEE YOU.
NOW, IF YOU CALL A WITNESS, THEN THEY CAN CALL, THEY, THEY WANNA TESTIFY.
SO WE DON'T OPPOSE, WE'RE NOT, OKAY.
WELL, YOU HOLD ON A SECOND, MR. CATHERINE.
I DON'T LIKE SHOUTING FROM THE RAFTERS.
SO IF YOU, IF THEY CALLED A WITNESS, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINEE.
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINEE THE APPLICANT.
LIKEWISE, THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINEE YOU.
NOW, IF YOU'D LIKE TO CALL WITNESS, WHETHER IT BE SOMEONE ON THEIR SIDE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO THAT, UH, WITHIN YOUR TIME.
AND THEY CAN CROSS EXAMINE THAT WITNESS.
SO ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH YOUR TIMETABLE? WE'RE GONNA DO THE SAME 20 MINUTES.
SO HOLD ON A SECOND, MR. CHAIRMAN.
SO IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME, PLEASE, MR. CHAIRMAN, MY NAME IS JUSTIN ROY.
JUSTIN ROY, THE DALLAS CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
ALRIGHT, SIR, YOU HAVE 20 MINUTES TO PRESENT YOUR CASE AND, UH, UH, FOLLOW THE, UM, OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.
OKAY? BE PREPARED FOR QUESTIONS SWORN OH, YOU, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SWORN IN.
MS. HAYDEN, MS. BOARD SECRETARY.
MR. ROY, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, PLEASE PROCEED.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE, THE BOARD.
UM, I REPRESENT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HERE TODAY.
UM, WE, WE ACKNOWLEDGE OBVIOUSLY THAT MISTAKES WERE MADE.
UM, THE, I THINK THERE WAS AN ASSERTION THAT, UM, AND I'M GONNA GET MY NOTES.
I'M A LITTLE BIT ALL OVER THE PLACE, BUT THAT THE CITY ISN'T TRYING TO ADDRESS THIS.
AND, AND THERE HAS BEEN A PROCESS SINCE THESE ISSUES POPPED UP AND THE CITY IS TRYING TO ADDRESS THIS.
BUT IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, UM, THE, AND I I WOULD LIKE FOR THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
I KNOW THE APPLICANT WENT THROUGH THE TIMELINE, BUT I WANT TO ADD A FEW MORE DATES SPECIFICALLY ON JULY 27TH, 2022.
THE LAND USES FOR THE SPECIFIC LOTS.
UM, WERE LOCKED IN AS OF THIS DATE WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN OCTOBER, 2022.
AND THE WHAT DOES LOCKED IN MEAN MEAN? SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE PROCESS WAS THERE WAS IN JULY OF 2022, THERE, UM, STAFF FROM UM, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WENT THROUGH THE PLAN, WENT THROUGH THE PD AND DETERMINED WHAT THE USES WERE FOR EACH LOT AND FOR THE LOT SUBJECT TO THIS APPEAL, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IT WAS SINGLE FAMILY AT THE TIME.
SO, AND SO THE QUES MY QUESTION WAS, AND I'LL REPEAT IT, WHAT DOES LOCKED IN MEAN? THAT'S WHAT I ASKED.
[01:30:01]
IN MEAN? THEY DETERMINE, I DON'T KNOW IF I USED THE RIGHT PHRASE, BUT READING FROM YOUR POWERPOINT, RIGHT? SO MAYBE I DIDN'T USE THE RIGHT PHRASE, BUT IF THEY DETERMINED THAT THE USE AT THE TIME WAS SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX, TH THAT IS WHAT THE USE WAS DESIGNATED ON THE USE MAP, WHICH IS 67 A, WHICH IS THE EXHIBIT TO, UM, THE ORDINANCE TO PD 67.SO WHEN DOES THAT MEAN SUB SUBSEQUENT TO THAT THE USE CANNOT CHANGE? THAT'S RIGHT.
AND, AND, AND IF YOU LOOK AT 67 A, UM, AND I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, AND I DON'T FORGET, I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT LANGUAGE, BUT UPON PASSAGE OF PD 67, THE, THE NEW ORDINANCE THAT PASSED IN OCTOBER OF 2022, THE USES THAT THEY DETERMINED WERE IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME IN NOVEMBER OF 22 BECAME THE, UM, THE USES ON THAT USE MAP.
SO, OKAY, SO THIS TIME DOESN'T, THIS QUESTION, THESE QUESTIONS DON'T GO AGAINST YOUR TIME.
SO I'M READING YOUR POWERPOINT.
IT SAYS JULY OF 22, THE LAND USES OF SPECIFIC LOCKS WERE LOCKED IN.
RIGHT? AND YOU'RE SAYING AT THE TIME JULY OF 22, THE USE WAS SINGLE FAMILY FOR TYREE, FOR THE, FOR ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WELL, WHAT I'M WONDERING ABOUT IS THIS PROPERTY.
SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE TESTIFYING THAT THE USE FOR THAT LOT AT 68 0 1 TYREE WAS AS OF JULY 27TH, SINGLE FAMILY.
THERE WAS A SINGLE FAMILY, SMALL STRUCTURE ON THE LOT AT THE TIME.
SO HOW IS IT THAT IT'S LOCKED IN PRIOR TO A CHANGE IN ORDINANCE? HOW DOES THAT WORK? UM, I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THE TERM LOCKED IN BEFORE.
WELL, I, I USED THAT LANGUAGE BECAUSE THAT'S HOW I THOUGHT IT, BUT OKAY, SO THE, AND I USE THAT TERM BECAUSE I, I I'VE HEARD IN THE PRESS THAT WE DOWN ZONED PD 67, MEANING WE REDUCED SOME LOTS USES AND THAT FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOT, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT'S THE CASE.
WE BELIEVE THAT IT WAS SINGLE FAMILY IN JULY OF 2022.
SO WHEN THE ORDINANCE PASSED SEVERAL MONTHS LATER, THAT USE GOT LOCKED IN.
AND THAT WILL BE THE USE UPON PASSAGE OF THE ORDINANCE IN OCTOBER.
IF THAT WAS THE CASE, HOW DID BUILDING INSPECTION OR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES EVER ISSUE A PERMIT FOR A DUPLEX? BECAUSE THEY WERE, THEY WERE USING THE ORDINANCE FROM, BUT YOU SAID THAT ON JULY OF 22, THE LOTS WERE LOCKED IN WITH A SPECIFIED USE.
SO SOMEWHERE THAT SOMETHING'S TELLING YOU THAT THAT PROPERTY, THIS PROPERTY, 68 0 1 TYREE WAS SINGLE FAMILY.
YET SUBSEQUENTLY, WHEN THE APPLICANT WENT TO GET THEIR BUILDING PERMIT, WHICH WAS ON NOVEMBER OF 18, ISSUED ON THE 20TH OF DECEMBER, IT WAS DUPLEX.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WENT SINGLE FAMILY TO DUPLEX BACK TO SINGLE FAMILY.
THE, WHEN, WHEN THE APPLICANT APPLIED AND WENT THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS FROM, FROM NOVEMBER TO DECEMBER OF 2022, THE PLAN REVIEWER WAS USING THE OLD ORDINANCE AND NOT THE NEW ORDINANCE WITH THE NEW MAP.
BUT YOU, YOU SAID IN JULY IT WAS SINGLE FAMILY, AND YET AT THE TIME THAT A PERMANENT WAS ISSUED IN DECEMBER OF 22, IT WAS DUPLEX.
AND, AND NOW IN JULY, IN AP IN JUNE OF 24, IT'S REV REVOKED BECAUSE IT WAS SINGLE FAMILY THE WHOLE TIME YET.
SO WHERE, WHERE WAS THE SOURCE OF THE PLANNER? THE PLAN REVIEWER TO SAY A DUPLEX WAS OKAY.
AND WHY WOULD THE APPLICANT THEY THINK THAT THEY COULD APPLY FOR DUPLEX UNLESS SOMEONE TOLD THEM THEY COULD? I, I'M TRY, I'M CONFUSED ON YOUR TIMELINE.
I CAN'T, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT, WELL, I'M TALKING TO, TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE I THEAND BUILDING OFFICIAL.
I UNDERSTAND THE PLAN REVIEWER WAS USING THE ORDINANCE PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE OCTOBER, 2022 ORDINANCE.
BUT THAT ORDINANCE, SO DID THAT ORDINANCE ALLOW FOR A DUPLEX?
[01:35:01]
YES.BUT THEN IF THAT'S THE CASE, HOW COULD THE JULY 22ND, 27TH LAND LOT BE LOCKED IN? IF YOU'RE SAYING THEY WERE USING THE ORDINANCE FROM BEFORE, WHICH ALLOWED FOR THE DUPLEX, YOUR LOGIC DOESN'T HOLD YOU.
YOU COULD HAVE WHAT WAS EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME WAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
AND UNDER THE OLD ORDINANCE, YOU COULD BUILD, YOU COULD EITHER HAVE A DUPLEX OR A SINGLE FAMILY.
SO IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WAS EXISTING.
THE, THE QUESTION BECOMES PROPERTY RIGHTS.
WHAT WERE THE PROPERTY RIGHTS ON THAT PROPERTY? AND SO WHAT YOU SAID IN, YOU SAID IN DECEMBER OF 22, WHEN THE PERMIT WAS APPROVED, THE PLAN REVIEWER, I'M USING YOUR WORDS PLAN REVIEWER, USED THE OLD ORDINANCE AND THE OLD ORDINANCE DIDN'T ALLOW FOR, DID ALLOW, IT DID ONLY ALLOWED FOR, ALLOWED FOR DUPLEX OR DIDN'T ALLOW FOR DUPLEX.
IT ALLOWED FOR DU IT ALLOWED FOR DUPLEX.
THEN THIS, THEN THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, BUT AM I, AM I READING? SO YEAH, SO I, SO THE, SO, SO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DID THEIR AUDIT OF THE PD IN JULY OF 2022.
IN OCTOBER OF 2022, THE NEW ORDINANCE PASSES, I'M SORRY,
THE, WITH THE NEW ZONING MAP THAT DESIGNATED THE PROPERTY USE AT THE TIME AS SINGLE FAMILY.
BECAUSE WHEN THEY DID THE AUDIT IN, WAIT, HOLD ON.
AND THEN THE FOLLOWING, I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THAT AN ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN OCTOBER OF 22.
AND THAT ORDINANCE HAD MANY CONDITIONS, ONE OF WHICH SAID THAT THE OLD ORDINANCE THAT, NO, I'M NOT TALKING THE OLD ORDINANCE, THE NEW ORDINANCE.
AND THE NEW ORDINANCE SAID THAT IT COULD ONLY BE SINGLE FAMILY, COULD NOT BE DUPLEX.
AND THEN YOU SAID A MINUTE AGO THAT WHEN THE REVIEWER APPROVED A PERMIT IN DECEMBER OF 22, THEY USED THE OLD ORDINANCE, WHICH ALLOWED DUPLEX.
YET YOU SAID IN JULY THE LAND USE WAS LOCKED TO SINGLE FAMILY FOR, FOR THE, THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED IN OCTOBER OF 2022.
SO I AM TOTALLY CONFUSED, MS. MS. DAVIS.
SO WAS THE DECISION MADE TO CHANGE EVERYTHING ON JULY 22ND AND THEN IT WAS APPROVED ON OCTOBER 12TH? 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY JULY 22ND EVEN LISTED IN HERE.
SO LET ME, THE JULY 27TH, IT, IT FROZE THE USES THE WAY THEY WERE.
AND IT'S, IT'S NOT REALLY THE USE WHERE THEY'RE, JUST FOR THE RECORD, YOU'VE ONLY TAKEN TWO MINUTES OF YOUR TIME
SO WHAT, WHAT I'M REACTING TO AND MS. DAVIS IS REACTING TO IS THE, CAN I CALL POWERPOINT YOU HAVE HERE, CAN I CALL JASON POOL TO, TO, IS THAT WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO DO? OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO BACK TO YOUR PRESENTATION? I, I WOULD LIKE JASON TO, TO ANSWER QUESTION.
MR. POOLE, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
SO TO, TO CLARIFY THE LAND USE MAP, IT WAS ESTABLISHED, UH, IN JULY THAT BASED ON A A SITE VISIT, ALL USES WERE FROZEN WHERE THEY WERE.
AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THE STATE THAT THEY EXIST IN RIGHT NOW, THAT'S WHAT STATE THEY'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD IN WITH THIS NEW ORDINANCE CHANGE.
NOW THE, THE, UH, LAND USE MAP WAS ESTABLISHED THEN, DO YOU MEAN WHAT WAS ON THE GROUND OR WHAT WAS BY RIGHT, YES.
WHAT WAS ON THE GROUND? 'CAUSE IT WAS ON THE GROUND IS DIFFERENT BY RIGHT THAN BY, RIGHT? CORRECT.
SO IN THIS NEW LAND USE MAP, WHAT USED TO BE A DUPLEX LABELED LOT IN THE OLD PD IS NOW SINGLE FAMILY ONLY IN THIS NEW PD BECAUSE WHAT WAS OBSERVED ON THE SITE WAS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
DOES THAT CLARIFY? SO I, MS. HAYDEN WANTS TO ASK A QUESTION, BUT I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT FAIRNESS HERE.
IS THAT FAIR TO TELL A PROPERTY OWNER YOU CANNOT DO ANYTHING WITH YOUR PROPERTY BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN AND IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES A CHANGE IN ZONING? WOW.
REALLY? I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT BEFORE.
[01:40:01]
60 DAYS ALMOST THAT YOU'RE FREEZING A PROPERTY OWNER'S RIGHT.SO I REALLY THAT THAT IS LEGAL.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THE ACTUAL USE WAS FROZEN.
WELL, YOU JUST SAID IT WAS THE NEW ADOPTED ORDINANCE DIDN'T COME INTO EFFECT.
AND SO ANYTHING BEFORE THE 12TH OF OCTOBER IS NOT BINDING TRUE.
THIS, THIS MAP WAS ESTABLISHED IN JULY BASED ON WHAT WAS ON THE GROUND IN JULY.
SO WHAT IT WENT INTO EFFECT IN OCTOBER.
YEAH, BUT THAT'S NOT BINDING UNTIL OCTOBER.
AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S SAYING THAT.
IT'S, SO THEN WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT JULY? THAT WAS WHEN THE USED MAP WAS ESTABLISHED.
MS. HAYDEN, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH.
SO, UM, SO WALK ME THROUGH THIS.
I'M A CONTRACTOR, I OWN LAND OR I'M PURCHASING A LAND AND I WANNA KNOW WHAT THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR THAT PROPERTY.
RIGHT? UM, SO WHERE DO I GO TO GET THAT INFORMATION? IS THAT LAND USE MAP THAT YOU MENTIONED, IS THAT AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR ANYONE TO, TO LOOK AT? OR HOW, HOW DOES A CONTRACTOR KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS ZONING? SO WE HAVE A PUBLIC LAND USE MAP THAT SHOWS, OR, OR EXCUSE ME, ZONING MAP THAT SHOWS ALL THE ZONING FOR THE ENTIRE CITY.
NOW YOU TYPE IN YOUR PROPERTY ADDRESS, IT SHOWS UP ON THE MAP, YOU CLICK ON IT AND IT WILL TELL YOU ALL THE INFORMATION WE HAVE ABOUT THAT PROPERTY.
THE, THE ZONING, IT TELLS YOU, UH, ANY OVERLAYS THAT ARE IN EFFECT.
UM, IT, IT'LL SHOW YOU SOME OF THE, THE TAX PARCEL INFORMATION.
AND BASICALLY YOU TAKE THAT INFORMATION AND WHEREVER, LIKE FOR A PD, THIS WOULD IDENTIFY AS, AS PD 67.
YOU WOULD GO AND FIND THE CITY ATTORNEY SITE THAT HAS ALL THE PDS LISTED ON IT, WHICH YOU WOULD GO AND FIND PD 67.
IT WOULD HAVE ALL THE CONDITIONS FOR PD 67 AS WELL AS ANY EXHIBITS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE LAND USE MAP.
SO TO HER QUESTION, TO HER QUESTION, IS THERE A PLACE THAT A CONTRACTOR CAN GO TO AND GET ACCURATE, TIMELY INFORMATION ON HER LOT THAT SHE'S THINKING ABOUT EITHER DEVELOPING OR PURCHASING? THERE IS A, THERE IS A ZONING MAP THAT CONTAINS THIS INFORMATION AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S SITE WOULD CONTAIN THIS INFORMATION.
WHAT WE RAN INTO HERE IS IT WASN'T UPDATED AND THAT'S THAT, THAT WAS OUR ISSUE.
UM, WE DO ALSO OFFER CONSULTATION SERVICES, WHICH THEY COULD REACH OUT TO US DIRECTLY AND WE CAN WALK THEM TOGETHER.
BUT THE CITY, AND I'M THEN I'M GONNA GO BACK TO MS. HAYDEN THEN MR. NERI.
BUT THE CITY GAVE, UH, THE CITY COMMUNICATED TO THE PUBLIC THAT THIS IS THE PLACE WHERE THE PUBLIC WAS TO GO TO GET ACCURATE PUBLIC LAND USE MAP THAT'S AVAILABLE ONLINE.
THIS, THEY, THEY ADVERTISED THIS IS THE PLACE? YES.
AND I THINK YOU ANSWERED THIS, UM, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UM, THIS PD, IF, IF A HOMEOWNER OR A CONTRACTOR WERE TO GO ONLINE AND GO AND CLICK ON THIS PD AND CLICK ON THEIR, THEIR HOME IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ON TYREE STREET, UM, BEFORE OCTOBER 12TH, IT WOULD'VE STILL SAID, YEAH, YOU CAN BUILD A DUPLEX, BUT AFTER OCTOBER 12TH, IT WOULD'VE SAID, IT SHOULD HAVE SAID, IT SHOULD HAVE SAID, NO, YOU CAN'T.
AND HERE, WELL, ONCE YOU GO TO THE ACTUAL PD THAT'S CORRECT.
AND AND AT WHAT POINT WAS THAT ACTUALLY UPDATED IN THE SYSTEM? I BELIEVE, UH, I'D HAVE TO CHECK MY RECORDS, BUT IT WAS SOMETIME IN MARCH OF 2023.
MM-HMM,
AND IT NEEDS TO BE AN ABSOLUTE, LET, LET ME GRAB MY NOTE.
IT NEEDS TO BE AN ABSOLUTE DATE ON THE RECORD, MR. POOLE.
DON'T YOU THINK? DON'T YOU THINK MS. HAYDEN? SURE.
SO AS A, AS A FOLLOW UP TO THAT, THEN A LOT OF PERMITS WERE ISSUED OR A LOT OF GREEN TAGS WERE ISSUED, UM, AFTER THAT WAS UPDATED ON THE ZONING MAPS.
SO I GUESS I'M TRYING TO FOLLOW WHY ALL THE GREEN TAGS WERE ISSUED AFTER THIS WAS ALL UPDATED IN THE SYSTEM.
SO, SO THE CITY ATTORNEY SITE WAS UPDATED ON MARCH 30TH, 2023.
UH, TYPICALLY WITH A LOT OF THESE PDS, THEY DO GET COMPLICATED AND REVIEWERS WILL MAKE A COPY OF THIS PD WITH A PRINTED COPY ON THEIR DESK THAT THEY HIGHLIGHT AND SHOW THEM EXACTLY HOW TO REVIEW IT WITH THE COMPLEXITY.
NOW, IF, IF THEY WERE NOT MADE AWARE THAT THIS HAD CHANGED, THEY WOULD STILL BE USING THOSE OLD COPIES.
AND I, I BELIEVE THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
UH, IN TERMS OF AFTER THE DATES, UM,
[01:45:01]
WE BECAME AWARE MUCH LATER THAT THAT PD HAD NOT BEEN UPDATED FOR A TIME.AND WHEN WE DID BE, WHEN WE DID FIND OUT, WE, WE LET OUR, OUR REVIEWERS KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT CORRECT INFORMATION IN ANY RECORDS YOU HAVE, YOU NEED TO, TO CHANGE THEM.
SO WE'RE GONNA GO TO MR. N, BUT BEFORE YOU SAID MARCH 30TH, 2023, YET HERE WE ARE IN SEPTEMBER OF 24.
LIKE I SAID, SO ARE, ARE YOU SAYING THERE WERE NO PERMITS ISSUED IN ERROR AFTER 20 MARCH 30TH, 2023 BECAUSE THE SYSTEM'S UPDATED? NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT LIKE, BUT THE SYSTEM'S UPDATED.
SURE, BUT THEY HAVE NOTES THAT THEY USE.
THAT'S WHAT I'M, BUT THE SYSTEM'S UPDATED.
SO I'M CONFUSED IS IF YOU POINT PEOPLE TO THIS PLACE TO GET AUTHORITATIVE VACUUM INFORMATION AND IT WAS UPDATED ON MARCH 30TH, 2023, HOW IS IT BUILDING INSPECTION? ISN'T BUILDING INSPECTION RELYING ON THAT SAME PUBLIC LAND USE MAP? YES.
SO IT REALLY WASN'T UPDATED MARCH 30TH OR 23 IF THEY KEPT ISSUING PERMITS IN ERROR.
AGAIN, TO, TO CLARIFY, THEY WERE USING THEIR RECORDS THEY HAD ON THEIR DESK THAT THEY BEEN THROUGH.
IS THIS AN AD HOC SYSTEM, MR. POOLE? YOU SAID THERE WAS A SPECIFIC PLACE, MS. HAYDEN'S ANALOGY, IF SHE'S A CONTRACTOR EITHER WANTS TO DEVELOP HER PROPERTY OR SHE'LL BUY IT, WHAT WAS THERE A PLACE FOR HER TO GO AND YOU SAID A PUBLIC LAND USE MAP AVAILABLE ONLINE.
SO THAT'S THE PLACE, AND YOU SAID IT WAS UPDATED MARCH 30TH, 2023, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THE CITY STILL ISSUED PERMITS AFTER THAT DATE IN ERROR BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN SIDE SYSTEM? I WOULDN'T CALL IT A SIDE SYSTEM, BUT YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
WELL, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? WHAT ARE YOU CALLING IT? IT'S, IT'S REVIEWER RECORDS THAT THEY, THEY KEEP THAT, HELP THEM DO THESE QUICKLY BECAUSE WHOA, WE WOULD LIKE TO GET THEM OUT QUICKLY.
I'VE GOT MORE ON THAT, BUT I'M GONNA DIGEST MR. NARY.
YEAH, MY, MY QUESTION KIND OF DOVETAILS WITH WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING.
MY QUESTION WAS, HOW OFTEN AFTER A THE CITY COUNCIL PASSES A CHANGE OR AN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS ON OCTOBER 12TH, 2022? IS THE SITE PUBLIC SITE UPDATED? AND IN THIS CASE IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS AT LEAST FIVE MONTHS LATER.
IF, IF I'M COUNTING CORRECTLY, UM, IF YOU BELIEVE MARCH 30TH, 2023, WHICH I DON'T RIGHT, BUT I I MEAN THAT'S TO BE DECIDED OR, UH, BUT IN ANY CASE, I MEAN, IT'S MY OPINION THAT WHENEVER THE CITY COUNCIL CHANGES SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NEEDS TO MAKE PUBLIC NOTICE OF THAT, OF IT AVAILABLE.
NO, NO LONGER THAN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ORDINANCE GOES INTO EFFECT.
I MEAN, YOU THINK, OH, SO THAT, THAT WAS MY QUESTION IS WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE TYPICAL OR ROUTINE PERIOD OF TIME AFTER AN ORDINANCE PASSES OR A ZONING CHANGES MADE? IS THAT LAND USE PAGE UPDATED? I I, IS THERE A TYPICAL AVERAGE OR CAN YOU TELL ME THAT? I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION BEING THAT THAT IS A, A CITY ATTORNEY FUNCTION, SO I I DON'T HAVE THAT.
I HAD TO REQUEST THE INFORMATION ON WHEN THIS WAS UPDATED HERE SPECIFICALLY FROM IT.
UM, SO I I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
DOES THAT NOT PRESENT A RECURRING GAPING HOLE BETWEEN WHAT WE SAY THE LAW IS AND YOUR DUTY TO, THERE'S NO EXCUSE TO, FOR YOU NOT TO KNOW THE LAW AND YET YOU'RE NOT GIVEN ACCURATE INFORMATION.
IS THAT FAIR FOR A OR A HOMEOWNER OR A DEVELOPER OR, FOR YOU AND I, WE'VE TASKED OR, UH, THE CITY MANAGER HAS TASKED THE CAST SYSTEM OR THE, THE CAST TEAM TO, TO HELP US WITH THIS, UM, THIS ISSUE BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, THE PRE WE WERE GRILLING THE APPLICANT ABOUT HIS DUTY BETWEEN ZERO AND 100%.
AND MR. HOP GENTLY, I'M NOT SO GENTLE.
GENTLY WAS SAYING, SHOULDN'T YOUR, YOUR, YOUR, UH, CLIENT HAVE THAT DUTY TO BE ABLE TO BE AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON? I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY COULD WHEN THE INFORMATION'S NOT UPDATED.
AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, THE VERY PEOPLE THAT THE, THAT YOU AND I AS HOMEOWNERS WOULD RELY ON, USE THEIR OWN SIDEBAR SYSTEM, THE SYSTEM.
IT'S NOT JUST BROKEN, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A SEPARATE WHEEL.
MR. CHAIRMAN, AND THIS IS OUR FIRST CASE OF THIS GUYS.
MR. KOVIC, IS THERE ANY PROCESS IN PLACE BY
[01:50:01]
WHICH, WHEN A, A ZONING LAW HAS CHANGED FOR ANY AREA OF THE CITY TO GO BACK AND REVIEW ANY OUTSTANDING PERMITS AND TO AS TO WHETHER THEY, THEIR COMPLIANCE LEVEL HAS CHANGED THE MATTER OF COURSE.IS THERE A, IS THERE A PROCEDURE THAT THEY WOULD KINDA LIKE AN AUDIT CHECK? LIKE AN AUDIT, YES.
THAT THEY WOULD GO BACK AND, AND AUDIT THE OUTSTANDING PERMITS FOR THIS NEW AREA, THIS NEW ZONING AREA THAT'S BEEN CHANGED, THAT THEY WOULD GO BACK AND SEE WHAT'S OPEN.
SO NOT, NOT WITHOUT A REQUEST, UM, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON QUALITY CONTROL AS, AS THIS NEW REGIME HAS MOVED IN AND MADE THAT A HIGHER PRIORITY THAN IT WAS.
UM, WE HAVE BEEN BACK AND LOOKED AT ALL OF THESE PERMITS THAT WERE ISSUED, UH, OR APPLIED FOR PRIOR OR AFTER THE OCTOBER 12TH DATE ON THESE.
BUT DO WE HAVE A, A REGULAR ONGOING SYSTEM TO LOOK AT AT THESE ISSUES? NO.
WE'RE LOOKING TO FIX THIS ISSUE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO WHERE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
AGAIN, I STILL THINK THIS BOARD, WHETHER IT'S FOR THIS HEARING OR SUBSEQUENT HEARING, NEEDS TO HEAR SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE TIME IS THAT WE CITIZENS SHOULD EXPECT THIS PUBLIC LAND USE MAP AVAILABLE ONLINE TO BE ACCURATE.
WE NEED TO KNOW IS IT ONE WEEK FROM THE ORDINANCE CHANGE, IS IT 30 DAYS? AND TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, THAT IN THAT GAP PERIOD OF TIME, PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF THAT BECAUSE OTHERWISE HOW DO YOU EXPECT THE APPLICANT TO GO FROM ZERO TO 100% OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND AWARENESS AND WHETHER IT'S THIS APPLICANT OR THE NEXT OR THE NEXT, HOW IS IT THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE AWARE OF WHAT THE LAW IS WHEN THE, THE PUBLIC LAND USE MAP AVAILABLE ONLINE IS THERE'S A LAG PERIOD AND THEN ON TOP OF IT, THE VERY PEOPLE APPROVING THE PERMITS ARE USING THEIR OWN SIDEBAR SYSTEM.
I, I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO WITH THAT.
ALRIGHT, SO MR. ROY, YOU'VE USED TWO MINUTES OF YOUR TIME.
WE'VE BEEN QUESTIONING YOU CAN, UH, UH, YOU HAVE AN, UH, YOU ASKED QUESTIONS OF MR. POOLE.
HE'S GONNA NEED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT'S CROSS-EXAMINE A SECOND.
DID YOU WANT TO CONTINUE QUESTIONING HIM? SORRY, BUT I I, LET ME JUST SAY A FEW THINGS PLEASE.
SO THE ORDINANCE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE, UM, ONLINE, BUT AT A CERTAIN POINT IT WOULD'VE BEEN AVAILABLE FROM THE CITY SECRETARY'S, UM, OFFICE.
AND CERTAINLY BY DECEMBER, I, I BELIEVE THE G THE GIS INFORMATION ON OUR MAPS WAS UPDATED THAT A NEW ORDINANCE HAD PASSED.
IT WOULD MATTER IF THE BUILDING INSPECTION PEOPLE HAVE THEIR OWN SIDEBAR SYSTEM TO APPROVE OR DENY.
WOULD IT? BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR OWN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO CALL IT, THEIR OWN POCKET SYSTEM.
AND THE SILENCE THAT I'M HEARING BACK FROM YOU IS DEAFENING.
AND I'M NOT TRYING TO-AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, I I'M NOT TRYING TO SHAME ANYONE.
NO, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
IT'S MORE OF A, A QUICK REFERENCE THAT THEY HAVE AND IT'S, WELL, THEY WERE OPERATING OFF THEIR QUICK REFERENCE, WHICH WAS CLEARLY OUTDATED.
AND A BIG, A BIG PART OF THIS IS GONNA BE MOVING TO DIGITAL.
A LOT OF WHAT WE DO IS ON PAPER AND THAT TAKES TIME TO MOVE IT FROM ONE PLACE TO THE OTHER.
AND, AND THAT IS HIGHEST PRIORITY.
WE'RE WORKING ON GETTING DIGITAL ON THIS TO WHERE WE WOULD HAVE DIGITAL CODE, DIGITAL INTERPRETATIONS AND DIGITAL DIGITAL AREAS TO WHERE THEY DON'T NEED THE SIDE NOTES IN ORDER TO BE EFFICIENT IN APPROVING PERMITS AND TRYING TO REDUCE THIS TIME THAT IT TAKES TO ISSUE A PERMIT WITH COMPLEX WITNESSES.
I I, AND WE ARE JUST RESPONDING TO THE COMMENT FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT SAYS WE HAVE A PLACE, THIS GOES BACK TO MS. HAYDEN'S QUESTION.
WE HAVE A PLACE WHERE A HOMEOWNER OR A PROPERTY OWNER OR A DEVELOPER CAN GO TO, AND THAT'S A PUBLIC LAND USE MAP AVAILABLE ONLINE.
AND IT GETS UPDATED, BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THE LAG IS.
THAT'S A QUESTION THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED.
BUT THEN WE HAVE THE SIDEBAR SYSTEM QUICK NOTES THAT REALLY DETERMINES IT'S NOT WHAT WE TELL YOU ONLINE.
IT'S NOT WHAT WE TELL YOU WHERE TO GO LOOK TO FIND THE RULE.
THERE'S A SEPARATE SYSTEM THAT DOES THAT.
SO I'M JUST REACTING TO WHAT YOU ALL HAVE TOLD US.
SO MR. ROY, YOU'VE ONLY USED TWO MINUTES.
UM, ARE YOU FINISHED CROSS OR CALLING THE WITNESS AT THE, AT THE END OF YOURS, THEN WE'LL ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO CROSS TO CROSS EXAMINE.
SO, SO CAN YOU SKIP TO THE SLIDE THAT HAS THE
[01:55:01]
APPLICANT'S PLAN DEVELOPMENT OF A DUPLEX? IT'S SEVERAL.SO MR. POOLE, UM, THE CURRENT ZONING MAP, 67 A, UM, DESIGNATES THE LOT FOR WHAT USE? SINGLE FAMILY.
AND THE PLAN FOR THIS LOT, THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS FOR DUPLEX, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THAT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT, UM, PD? THAT'S CORRECT.
CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? WHAT IS THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION FOR THE PD THAT'S APPLICABLE TO THIS LOT? 25 FEET.
AND WHAT IS THE PLANNED HEIGHT FOR THIS DUPLEX? CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? IS IT 26? 26 FOOT SIX INCHES? UM, SO, SO EDUCATE US AGAIN HERE.
WHAT IS THE HEIGHT IS VERSUS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THE ZONING ALLOWS.
SO THE, IS IT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT THAT A STRUCTURE CAN BE IN? THE PD IS 25 FEET, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO IT, IT GETS MORE COMPLEX OR IS IT AN AVERAGE BETWEEN THE TWO POINTS? IT'S, IT'S A MIDPOINT ON THE LOWEST EVE IN THE HIGHEST RIDGE WHEN IT'S A HIP AND GABLE ROOF, WHICH THE PD DEFINES AS A FOUR 12 SLOPE.
SINCE THIS IS NOT A FOUR 12 SLOPE, IT DOESN'T MEET THE DEFINITION FOR THIS PD AS A HIP AND GABLE ROOF.
THEREFORE IT'S MEASURED TO THE TOP OF THE STRUCTURE, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS 26 FOOT SIX.
IF IT WERE A HIP AND GABLE ROOF, WE COULD TAKE THE POINT OF THE STEVE AND DITCH.
KEEP US JUST TO THIS, WHAT I WROTE DOWN IS 26.6 IS THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH AT THE, THE ZONING AS APPROVED BACK IN OCTOBER OF 22 WAS 25.
THAT'S THE COMPARISON, CORRECT.
AND I WASN'T SPEAKING IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT MIDPOINT, IT'S JUST 25.
NO, I DID WANT TO SPEAK TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS PD.
THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE IT ON THE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE ZONING MAP SO EVERYONE CAN SEE IT AND HAVE THE SAME INFORMATION.
SO, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, MR. NIAN, QUICK, QUICK QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION.
SO THIS, UH, HEIGHT LIMIT OF 25 FEET THAT WAS ALREADY IN EFFECT BEFORE THE ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED IN OCTOBER OF 2022, IS THAT CORRECT? OR WAS THAT ESTABLISHED AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE CHANGE IN OCTOBER 22? I BELIEVE THAT WAS PART OF THE ORDINANCE CHANGE.
LIKE BEFORE, I BELIEVE IT WAS 30 FEET AND I CAN HAVE, UH, UH, SO PRE, SO PREVIOUS WAS 30.
I'M NOT, I'M FOR THE DISTRICT.
I'M NOT ASKING, I'M, WE'RE NOT ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE AUDIENCE.
I'M ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIALS REPRESENTATIVE.
SO IT WOULD'VE GONE BACK TO THE, THE DISTRICT WHICH WAS 36.
SO THE PREVIOUS, PREVIOUS TO YOUR QUESTION, MR. NER PREVIOUS WAS 36 FEET AND THE NEW ORDINANCE SAID 25.
I'M, I'M JUST, LET'S KEEP TO, I UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITY OF LET'S KEEP TO THIS CASE, UH, OF WHAT THIS PROPERTY IS.
DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. NEARING? OKAY.
SO WRITTEN INTO THE, NOT THE 67 A, WHICH IS THE EXHIBIT THAT HAS THE USES WAS THREE THINGS WERE WRITTEN INTO THE ORDINANCE WAS LOT COVERAGE, THE HEIGHT AND THE STYLE OF THE ROOF THAT WAS IN THE ORDINANCE FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOT, THE REGULATIONS.
SO, AND IF THEY BILL BUILD THIS DUPLEX, WILL IT BE EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT? YES.
CAN WE MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES.
MR. HAYDEN? I'M SORRY, MR. HOP, IF I COULD PLEASE I, THIS THE SCHEMATIC THAT YOU JUST HAD UP, WOULD YOU GO BACK PLEASE? ONE CLICK MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR.
AND I KNOW I'VE SEEN A PICTURE OF A STRUCTURE WITH A FLAT ROOF AND I THINK I'VE SEEN A PICTURE OF A STRUCTURE WITH IT.
IT IS A FLAT WITH AND GABLE ROOF.
[02:00:01]
WHAT IS THE CURRENT ROOF TYPE THAT'S ON THIS STRUCTURE? MR. MR. HVI, THIS WAS IN THE PACKET, SO I'M ASSUMING THIS IS IT.SO BASED ON THAT PLAN I'M LOOKING AT, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S MORE OF A BAREFOOT WALL IN FRONT THAT STICKS UP.
SO HOW IS IT MEASURED TO HIS QUESTION? IS IT CONSIDERED A FLAT ROOF OR SO, AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE PD AND THE WAY IT DEFINES IT, IT'S TO THE TOP OF, OF THAT STRUCTURE.
AND IT'S NOT, WHICH IS THIS, THIS LINE HERE? YES.
AND IT'S NOT CONSIDERED A HIP AND GABLE ROOF.
AND THAT, THAT, AT THIS POINT HERE IS 26.6 YOU SAID? CORRECT.
EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE A, WHAT YOU CALL IT A, A PARAPET? YES.
SO THAT WE'RE GONNA IGNORE, IT'S THE TOP OF THAT ROOF LINE, WHICH WOULD BE THE 26.6.
AND THIS WAS IN, IN THE DOCUMENTS IN THE DOCKETS.
HERE'S ANOTHER PICTURE, ANOTHER FRONTAL PICTURE IN THE DOCKET.
ACTUALLY, IT'D BE TO THAT PEAK OF THE ROOF, IF THAT IS A TRUE PARAT, WE COULD MEASURE TO THE PEAK BEHIND THE ROOF.
BUT YOU CAN SEE IT'S, IT'S VERY, IT, IT'S NOT MUCH LOWER THAN THAT.
WELL, I THINK, I THINK WHAT YOUR ATTORNEY IS TRYING TO DO IS THROUGH THE COMPARISON BETWEEN WHAT IS AND WHAT IS IS ACCORDING TO THE, TO THE NEW ORDINANCE.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO? SO I'M TRYING TO CHART THAT.
NOW 25 IS THE NEW RULE AND IT'S AT 26.6.
I'M JUST DOING THE WAS IS AND SHOULD.
MR. POOLE, WHAT, WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE STYLE OF ROOF THAT THE APPLICANT IS PLANNING ON BUILDING? IT'S, IT'S NOT A HIP AND GABLE ROOF.
AND, AND THE DESCRIBE WHAT A HIP AND GABLE ROOF GENERALLY, WHAT IS THAT? DESCRIBE THAT FOR US.
SO BY DEFINITION, UM, A GABLE MEANS A TRIANGULAR WALL SECTION AT THE ENDS OF A ROOF WITH A MINIMUM PITCH OF FOUR 12 BOUNDED BY TWO ROOF SLOPES AND THE RIDGE POLE, WHICH IS POSITIONED AT THE CENTER LINE OF THE TWO EAVES.
WHEREAS A HIP WOULD BE A ROOF WITH A MINIMUM PITCH OF FOUR 12 HAVING SLOPED EDGES AND SIDES.
AND WOULD THE PLANNED ROOF THAT THE, THE APPLICANT'S PLANNED ROOF, WOULD THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PD FOR THE ROOF STYLE? NO.
AND I THINK WE DISCUSSED THIS THOUGH, THE NEXT SLIDE.
SO LET'S TALK ABOUT LOT COVERAGE.
THE CURRENT PD HAS A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 40%, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THE PLANNED LOT COVERAGE FOR THE STRUCTURE IS 45.7%? THAT'S CORRECT.
MS. IS, HAYDEN HAS A QUESTION.
SO SAY THAT, ASK THAT QUESTION AND ANSWER ONE MORE TIME.
WHAT WOULD YOU SAY AGAIN, SIR? SO THE LOT COVERAGE, SO LET'S STEP BACK.
WHAT, WHAT IS LOT COVERAGE? UH, TO PUT IT AS SIMPLY AS POSSIBLE, IT'S THE, THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING VERSUS THE SITE.
SO WHAT THE FOOTPRINT, THE PERCENTAGE OF WHAT THE FOOTPRINT OF THE STRUCTURE IS ON THE LOT, MORE OR LESS? YES.
AND THE, THE, THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE FOR PD 67 AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS, IS 40%, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND THE PLANNED LOT COVERAGE FOR THE STRUCTURE IS 45.7%? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND WHAT WAS IT IN THE PREVIOUS ZONING, I BELIEVE? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE GOING 60%? WHAT'S THAT? 60%.
AND WHAT WAS THE ROOF TYPE DIFFERENCE BEFORE THERE WAS, THERE WAS NOT A ROOF TYPE DIFFERENCE.
THERE WAS NO DESIGN STANDARD FOR THE ROOF.
I'M, I'M JUST SHOWING YOU WHAT I'M DOING.
I'M CHARTING WAS, IS, AND SHOULD BE.
DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, MS. HAYDEN, OR THAT WAS YOUR QUESTION.
[02:05:03]
OKAY.CAN WE MOVE FORWARD? SO WHAT, WHAT IS THIS STAMP THAT'S ON YOUR SCREEN? UH, IT'S THE APPROVAL STAMP FOR THE PLANS.
AND THE STAMP AT THE, WHAT DOES THE STAMP SAY? AT THE BOTTOM OF, BELOW THE BELOW MS. MEYERS'S NAME.
THIS APPROVAL DOES NOT PERMIT THE VIOLATION OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE OR STATE LAW.
AND WHEN, SO WHEN THE PLAN REVIEWER APPROVES THE PLANS, SHE STAMPS IT WITH THAT STAMP, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THEN RETURNS IT TO THE APPLICANT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THAT'S TO PUT THEM ON NOTICE THAT THEY CAN'T VIOLATE, UM, A CITY ORDINANCE OR RULE? YES.
THOSE, THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS.
FOR MR. POOL, I FOUND THAT IN YOUR SUBMITTAL, THE, WHAT YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT.
AND I HAD TO SQUINT MY EYES JUST FOR THE RECORD TO SEE THAT LITTLE DISCLAIMER ON THE BOTTOM.
AND HERE I'LL SQUINT IT AGAIN, THIS APPROVAL DOES NOT PERMIT THE VIOLATION OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE OR STATE LAW OR THE PLANNED PUBLIC LAND USE MAP AVAILABLE ONLINE OR MY SIDEBAR SYSTEM.
DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS? NO, I, OKAY.
YOU CAN CONTINUE ON WITH YOUR PRESENTATION.
UM, SO I AL I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT, AND, AND I KNOW SOME OF THE SPEAKERS, UM, THAT WENT FIRST, UM, AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS HEARING SPOKE ABOUT THIS, BUT THE, THE APPLICANT, UM, I WASN'T GIVEN A CHANCE TO, TO SPEAK TO HIM, BUT HE, HE MUST HAVE KNOWN SOMETHING ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE BECAUSE HE, HE OBJECTED TO IT.
AND I THINK THAT IS IN THE PACKET THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL SUBMITTED IN THE BRIEF.
IF, IF HE HADN'T, I DON'T, I I WOULDN'T, IF HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE CONTENT OF THE NEW ORDINANCE WAS, WHAT WAS HE OBJECTING TO? SO I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT POINT.
UM, CAN YOU TAKE US TO WHERE THAT IS MS. HAYDEN? JUST A, MS. DAVIS JUST ASKED THAT QUESTION.
SO, UH, ARE YOU SPEAKING TO THE ART, THE ARTICLE THAT WAS QUOTED FROM THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS? OR ARE YOU SPEAKING TO SOMETHING ELSE IN WHICH YOU SUBMITTED? I FILED AN AMENDED BRIEF YEP.
AND I BELIEVE IT IS EXHIBIT HERE IT IS.
AND IT'S EXHIBIT D WHAT PAGE 1 66 IN OUR DOCKET, GUYS.
SO, ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE ALL ZEROING IN ON YOUR, YOUR BRIEF AND, AND SIMPLY MY POINT IS, AND I, AND I UNDERSTAND THE, THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN, IN THE LAST, YOU KNOW, 20 OR 30 MINUTES TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND I, BUT IF YOU OBJECT IN MAY OF 2022 TO THE, UM, ORDINANCE THAT IS PLANNED, AND THAT, I BELIEVE THIS WAS PROBABLY IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION, HE HAD TO HAVE KNOWN CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PLANNED TO BE PASSED IN OCTOBER OF 2022.
AND I BELIEVE WHAT HE SAID IN THE FOX NEWS ARTICLE WAS THAT HE PARTICIPATED IN THE BOARD, UM, BEFORE THE BOARD AND, AND IN, AT CITY HALL BEFORE CITY COUNCIL AND NEW, UM, ASPECTS OF THIS.
SO I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON THE BUILDING THE BUILDER TO KNOW, UM, WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS AND GET THE INFORMATION HE NEEDS.
AND THEN, UM, AND IF HE, HE CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT, HIRE A PROFESSIONAL, LIKE AN ARCHITECT TO FIGURE IT OUT.
AND THE, THE CITY ORDINANCE, THE CITY CODE REQUIRES IT, UM, THAT YOU CAN'T VIOLATE A CITY ORDINANCE.
UM, MS. HAYDEN HAS A QUESTION, MS. HAYDEN.
UM, IN WHAT CAPACITY DID THE APPLICANT OBJECT TO THE ORDINANCE? WAS IT IN WRITING? WAS IT A PUBLIC TESTIMONY? AND IN WHAT WAY DID
[02:10:01]
THE APPLICANT OBJECT TO THE TEST? TO THE ORDINANCE? THAT EXHIBIT D IS AN AFFIDAVIT THAT HE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ON JULY 18TH, 2022.AND HE SAYS, I HEREBY OPPOSE THE CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION OR BOUNDARY BEING REQUESTED IN THE ZONING MENTIONED ABOVE.
AND, UH, HE INDICATES HE'S A PROPERTY OWNER.
IT'S FOR A DIFFERENT PROPERTY, BUT IT'S THE SAME INDIVIDUAL.
AND, AND I POINT OUT THAT IT APPEARS THAT MR, THE APPLICANT HAD MORE THAN ONE PROPERTY.
SO HE, THERE, THERE WAS SOME MENTION DURING THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE PD.
I THINK HE HAD MORE THAN ONE PROPERTY.
HE HAD TO HAVE KNOWN WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE PD AND THE CHANGES THAT WERE HAPPENING, UM, AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CHANGE.
UH, AS A SIDE NOTE, AND THEN I'LL CONCLUDE AND, AND, AND PASS ON MY PRESENTATION, BUT THE, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ORDINANCES AND HOW THEY WERE PLACED ON THE CITY ATTORNEY'S WEBSITE.
THERE, THERE IS A DISCLAIMER SAYING THAT THE PDS ARE PROVIDED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY AND PUBLIC SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE FOR THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE.
AND SO, AND PEOPLE KNEW THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN OCTOBER, YOU CAN GET THE AGENDA ITEM AND THE ORDINANCE FROM THERE.
SO, AND I, I INCLUDE ON THAT NOTE, YOU GUYS STILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES LEFT, JUST SO, SO THAT YOU KNOW OF YOUR TIME.
UM, QUESTIONS AT THIS JUNCTURE FROM THE PANEL.
IF NOT, I'M GONNA GO BACK TO THE APPLICANT AND ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO CROSS-EXAMINE MR. POOL IF YOU'D LIKE OUR RULES.
SAY THAT YOU CAN TAKE UP TO FIVE MINUTES TO CROSS-EXAMINE.
COULD WE HAVE A BRIEF RECESS MR. FIVE MINUTES? OH, WHEN DOES ANYTHING EVER TAKE FIVE MINUTES.
ALRIGHT, WE'LL RECESS, WE'LL RECESS, UM, TILL, UH, 3:20 PM WE'RE GONNA TAKE A SEVEN MINUTE RECESS TO THREE 20.
DOES THAT GIVE YOU ADEQUATE TIME? PERFECT.
3:20 PM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS IN RECESS AT 3:13 PM UNTIL 3:20 PM OKAY, WE'RE GONNA COME BACK INTO SESSION.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TURN AS TECHNOLOGY BACK ON MS. UH, BOARD SECRETARY OKAY.
ALRIGHT, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN, UM, PANEL A IS COMING BACK TO SESSION AT 3:30 PM UM, ALRIGHT, WHERE WE WERE AT IS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS THE RIGHT UNDER OUR RULES TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL BROUGHT.
AND YOU HAVE UP TO FIVE MINUTES TO DO THAT.
IT'S A FIVE MINUTE CLOCK, BUT THE TIME DOES NOT GO AGAINST THE, THE EITHER OTHER.
AND MR. ROY, I TOLD YOU YOU HAD FIVE MINUTES LEFT ON YOUR ORIGINAL DEAL.
OKAY? AND I TOLD MR. COTHRAN HE HAS TWO MINUTES LEFT.
MR. CORO, FROM OCTOBER OF 22 TO OCTOBER OF 23, HOW MANY DIFFERENT RESIDENT ADDRESSES HAD PERMITS ISSUED IN ERROR? YOU JUST SAID 23 TO 23.
FROM OCTOBER OF 22 TO OCTOBER OF 23, HOW MANY DIFFERENT RESIDENCES? YOU'RE WELCOME.
HAD PERMITS ISSUED IN ERROR, I NEED TO PREPARE THAT I I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME.
WELL, CAN YOU GUESS HOW MANY OF THESE PENDING MATTERS THERE ARE? I, I ISSUED, UH, 17 LETTERS YESTERDAY TO PROPERTY OWNERS STATING THAT, UH, THEIR PROPERTIES WERE IN VIOLATION AND THEY HAD 15 DAYS TO, UH, TO SUBMIT SOME SORT OF, UH, APPLICATION EITHER TO THE BOARD OR AN ADDENDUM TO THE, UH, PERMIT DEPARTMENT, UH, IN ORDER TO REMEDY OR WE WOULD BE REVOKING THE PERMIT.
AND HOW MANY BOARD CASES ARE THERE ALREADY IN ADDITION TO THOSE 17? CURRENTLY THERE'S ONLY THESE TWO.
SO ABOUT 20 ISH, YOU KNOW, 19 OR 20.
SO THIS IS AN 18 PAGE ORDINANCE.
AND WOULD YOU AGREE IT'S REAL TECHNICAL? I WOULD.
UM, SO THE REVIEWERS AT, AT, AT OC
[02:15:01]
THEY HAD THE OLD ORDINANCE.IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THEY WERE USING THE OLD ORDINANCE AND YOU WERE, THEY WERE USING THAT FOR COMPLETING THEIR REVIEWS ON PD 67? THAT IS CORRECT.
THE ONES THAT WERE ISSUED IN ERROR AND THEY USED THAT.
I I I, I WAS TOLD YOU TOLD MY CLIENTS IN A MEETING THAT REVIEWERS USED THAT DOCUMENT UNTIL JUNE OF 23.
IT MAY HAVE BEEN UPDATED ONLINE, I BELIEVE THAT IT GAVE YOU THE RIGHT DATE.
BUT WERE, WHEN DID THE REVIEWERS QUIT USING THE OLD CRIB NOTES AND START USING THE NEW ACTUAL ORDINANCE? I AM PULLING FROM MY NOTES.
SO WE BECAME AWARE, UH, IN MAY OF 2024 TO LET ALL OF THE REVIEWERS KNOW THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE.
BE SURE WE'RE USING THE CORRECT ORDINANCE.
SO IN MAY OF 2024, WE, WE TOLD THE REVIEWERS TO USE THE NEW COUNCIL ADOPTED ORDINANCE FROM OCTOBER OF 22.
DIDN'T GET RID OF ANY RECORDS THEY HAD BEFORE SHOWING THAT IT WAS, IT WAS OF THAT.
AND SO THE OLD RECORDS SHOW THAT IT WAS ZONE DUPLEX.
SO THE LAND USE MAP PREVIOUSLY YES.
WAS, WAS DUPLEX AND THAT WAS IN FACT PERMITTED AS A DUPLEX WAY BACK WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT? YES.
I ONLY KNOW THE LAST VERSION, BUT PROBABLY, SO IT WAS BEING USED.
BUT DEFINITELY IN THE PREVIOUS VERSION IT WAS A DUPLEX.
IT HAD JUST BEEN RE WAS CURRENTLY BEING USED AS SINGLE FAMILY BEEN PERMITTED AS DUPLEX.
UH, IT WAS ORIGINALLY PERMITTED AS A DUPLEX.
IT HAD A PERMIT THAT WAS CONVERTED TO A SINGLE FAMILY LATER ON AND BECAME SINGLE FAMILY.
AND SO WHEN, UM, WERE PEOPLE THAT ATTENDED FURNISHED AN ORDINANCE? SO IF I CAME TO THE HEARING WERE I, WAS, I, WAS I GIVEN AN ORDINANCE OF SAYING THIS IS WHAT COUNCIL'S GONNA PASS OUTSIDE OF WHAT'S PRINTED IN THE AGENDA AND THE DOCKET? UH, THEY WEREN'T PHYSICALLY GIVEN A COPY, BUT IT WAS AVAILABLE IN THE DOCKET IN REGISTRAR ONLINE.
AND HOW FREQUENTLY DOES THAT DRAFT DOCKET CHANGE BASED ON WHAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS DO AT THE HORSESHOE? I KNOW IT DOES CHANGE.
I DON'T HAVE A PERCENTAGES TO HOW MUCH IT CHANGES OR IF THIS ONE CHANGED IN THAT, IN THAT SCENARIO.
BUT ALL THOSE THINGS ACCOUNT FOR THAT DELAY FROM WHEN IT PASSES HERE AT THE HORSESHOE TO WHEN IT GOES ONLINE FOR THE CITY, THAT THAT IS A FACTOR.
SO EVERYONE THAT ATTENDED, IT'S, IT'S, AND IT'S HARD TO FOLLOW.
BUT, UM, UH, DID YOU KNOW THAT, THAT MY CLIENT IN THE 200 FOOT NOTICE AREA HAD BUILT FOUR OTHER DUPLEXES WITH THE EXACT SET OF PLANS DURING ONE OF THE MEETINGS? UH, MR. NEY HAD BROUGHT UP THAT HE HAD ANOTHER PROPERTY AND ASKED US SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHEN WE CHECKED THE, THE DATE THAT IT WAS, THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED.
HE WAS PRIOR TO THE NEW ORDINANCE.
SO I WAS AWARE OF AT LEAST ONE PROPERTY.
WITH THE SAME SET OF PLANS OR DID YOU NOT? I, I DIDN'T LOOK AT PLANS.
UM, DO YOU THINK THIS IS A PD THAT LAY PEOPLE, JUST REGULAR PEOPLE COULD UNDERSTAND READILY AND BE ABLE TO GO ONLINE AND LOOK AT THE LAND USE MAP AND THEN GO TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S PAGE AND THEN GO TO THE ALL THE EXHIBITS? DO YOU THINK REGULAR PEOPLE CAN DO THAT? OKAY.
MY CASE, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SPEAK.
YOU, YOU HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE LEFT.
ANY QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW? AND THEN THE RULES, UH, CALL FOR REDIRECT BY THE, THE RULES SAY THAT THE, UM, ATTOR THE, IF THE WITNESS FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS CALL IS CROSS-EXAMINED THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO REDIRECT.
SO WE'RE GONNA GO TO QUESTION FROM MR. NARY AND THEN BACK TO THE ATTORNEY.
MR. ROY, IF YOU HAVE, UH, REDIRECT MR. NARY.
UM, CAN YOU TELL ME EXACTLY HOW MANY TOTAL PROPERTIES, UM, HE, HE OWNED IN, UH, THIS AL THICKEN NEIGHBORHOOD? HE BEING THE APPLICANT? HE BEING THE APPLICANT? YES.
IN IN WHAT TIME PERIOD? OVER IN HIS TIME
[02:20:01]
AS A BUILDER OR IN, IN, IN LIKE RIGHT HERE IN THIS, THIS EXACT SAY WITHIN, UH, THE PERIOD OF, FROM SAY 2020 TO 2024.WELL, HE DID FOUR HOMES IN THE NOTICE AREA WITHIN 200 FEET OF THIS PROPERTY IN THAT TIME SPAN.
WERE WERE THOSE FOUR FOUR OTHER PROPERTIES, DUPLEXES? YES.
AND THEY WERE CONSTRUCTED BEFORE THE CHANGE IN THIS ORDINANCE, CORRECT? YES.
SO THIS IS THE ONLY PROPERTY IN QUESTION THAT WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AFTER THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED? YES.
AND IN FACT, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I THINK THE CHAIR BROUGHT THIS UP AND I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE, THE DELAY ACCOUNTED FOR THE TENANT IN THIS STRUCTURE HAVING A LEASE THROUGH AN X DATE.
THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T BEGIN CONSTRUCTION FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, IS THE 10, SOMEONE WAS ALMOST 11 MONTHS.
SOMEONE WAS LIVING IN THAT AND HAD BEEN IN THAT, IN THAT RESIDENCE FOR 16 YEARS.
SO THAT, THAT'S PART OF WHY THERE WAS AN MAYBE A LITTLE LONGER DELAY.
SO YOUR ANSWER TO MR. NE'S QUESTION, JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, WAS THAT HE HAD DEVELOPED, PRESUMABLY SOLD FOUR OTHER PROPERTIES AND YOU SAID AND, AND JUST THIS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT HE HAS THAT'S RIGHT.
I'M SAYING THE ONE LEFT, JUST THE OTHERS HE SOLD, RIGHT? THEY'RE FINISHED.
THEY, AND YOU ADDED A, AN ANSWER TO HIS QUESTION, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S, HE HE GOT, WE GOT THE ANSWER.
YOU KEPT SAYING IT'S THE SAME PLANS.
THE PLANS EXACT SAME FLOOR PLANS.
HE, HE BUILT, HE BUILT, THIS IS THE, HE HAD ALREADY BEEN ISSUED THREE PERMITS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THIS SITE.
AND THOSE HOUSES WERE CONSTRUCTED AND PERMITTED AND ULTIMATELY GREEN TRACK TAGGED AND, AND, AND ARE OUT ON THE MARKET.
THIS WAS THE FOURTH ONE THAT HE DID AND TURNED IN AND WAS PERMITTED.
SO, AND, AND BACK TO HIS QUESTION.
ALL DUPLEX, ALL DUPLEX, ALL THE SAME PLANS? YES.
WHICH I WAS GONNA SAY FOR MY CONCLUSION 'CAUSE I THINK IT'S, WELL, YOU, YOU CAN, THAT'S YOUR BUSINESS.
THESE ARE QUESTIONS NOT, YEAH.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIALS WITNESS? NO.
THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S ATTORNEY MAY NOW REDIRECT CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES.
MAKE SURE I DON'T FOLLOW, LEMME MAKE SURE I FOLLOW THE RULES.
IT SAYS, OKAY, SUBSEQUENT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL MAY CONDUCT A REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF THEIR WITNESS FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES.
THAT DOESN'T COUNT AGAINST THE TIME.
SO YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES MR. ROY TO PILE ON MR. POOL.
UM, JUST BRIEFLY, MR. POOL, DO YOU EXPECT AS A BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD HIRE EXPERTS TO DETERMINE WHAT THE ZONING IS FOR A LOT? YES.
AND AS AN EXAMPLE, ARE ARCHITECTS RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING THE APPLICABLE ZONING FOR A LOT? YES.
SO THESE, THE APPLICANT IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION APPLIED FOR A PERMIT IN NOVEMBER OF 2022, CORRECT? YES.
AND THEN GOT THE PERMIT IN DECEMBER OF 2022 AND THEN STARTED BUILDING IN MARCH OF 2024.
MR. UM, ROY, UH, I THINK MS. DAVIS HAS A QUESTION.
SHE ASKED ME AND I SAID ASK THE WITNESS.
I'VE GOT TWO QUESTIONS, PLEASE.
THE FIRST ONE IS, HOW MANY DUPLEXES ARE IN THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CURRENTLY BUILT DUPLEXES? I, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
I CAN GET IT, BUT I I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
THE, THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS FOR IT.
SO, UM, IT ONLY ON TWO STREETS? NO, I THOUGHT THAT ANY, ANY VACANT LOT CAN BE BUILT AS SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX DEPENDING ON THE LAND USE MAP.
SO I MEAN, IT, IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BAN DUPLEXES, THIS, THIS ORDINANCE.
UM, BUT I THOUGHT, I I, I'M, I THOUGHT THE ATTORNEY SAID THAT IT'S AN ILLEGAL LAND USE AND YOUR LETTER ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT.
AND SO WHY DOES THIS LOT BAN, WHY DOES THIS LOT NOT ALLOW? BECAUSE THE LAND USE MAP DICTATES WHAT'S ALLOWED ON THOSE LOTS.
SO THIS, IN THIS LAND USE MAP THAT WAS, THAT WAS FROZEN IN JULY OF 22.
THAT IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO CHANGE OUTSIDE OF THAT.
SO ANYTHING THAT WAS, THAT WAS SHOWN IS VACANT OR A CHURCH PROPERTY COULD BE DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE AS, AS A SINGLE FAMILY OR A DUPLEX.
THIS PARTICULAR LOT WAS LIMITED TO SINGLE FAMILY BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT WAS THERE AT
[02:25:01]
THE TIME.EVEN THOUGH IT PREVIOUSLY HAD DUPLEX PROPERTY RIGHTS.
THE PREVIOUS ZONING YOU SAID HAD THE ABILITY FOR THAT PROPERTY TO HAVE DUPLEX.
BUT IT WAS USED AS SINGLE FAMILY.
SO DO WE HAVE ACCESS TO ANY PHOTOS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, VIDEOS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO, TO SEE? I, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE DYNAMIC BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT DUPLEXES WEREN'T ALLOWED AND NOW I'M HEARING THERE ARE DUPLEXES IN THERE.
SO IS IS THAT, WHO CAN ANSWER THAT? ARE WE ALLOWED TO LOOK AT PHOTOS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET A FEEL FOR? WELL, THE, THE ANSWER, THE ANSWER IS, IS THAT WE, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO RESPOND TO THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY THAT IS BROUGHT FORTH BY THE APPLICANT AND BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
WE COULD EVEN SUBPOENA AND CALL WITNESSES ON OUR OWN.
UH, I SUPPOSE MS. DAVIS, WE COULD ASK FOR THAT FROM EITHER SIDE.
UM, BUT THAT'S THEIR BURDEN TO BRING INFORMATION FORWARD.
BUT IF IT HELPS US MAKE A DECISION AND A FAIR DECISION, THEN I THINK IT'S, I'D, I'D RULE THAT IN ORDER.
MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I POINT SOMETHING OUT? UM, IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT A, I, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS ANSWERS YOUR, YOUR QUESTION MS. DAVIS, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT A TO MY BRIEF, THERE'S ONLY A PORTION OF 67 A, WHICH IS THE LOT MAP THAT HAS THE USE DESIGNATIONS FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT.
WHAT PAGE IS THAT IN THE PRESENTATION? OH NO, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THAT IT WAS, IT'S IN MY BRIEF.
WHAT? HOLD ON, I'M GONNA GET IT FOR YOU.
THIS ONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS MAP HERE? YES.
NO, THIS ONE THERE, THIS ONE THIS.
AND IF, AND IF YOU LOOK WHAT PAGE, WHAT PAGE? 1 71 70.
IF, IF YOU LOOK AT, SO THERE'S A LINE, THERE'S A BOX THAT SAYS THIS IS THE SUBJECT LOT.
UM, TYREE STREET IS, IS KIND OF IN, YOU SEE WEBSTER STREET TO THE LEFT, AND THEN ONE STREET OVER IS TYREE.
ACTUALLY THE LOT IS THE FIRST RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LOT RIGHT ABOVE TYREE WHERE THERE'S THE SHADED PORTION.
DO YOU SEE THAT? AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE WHOLE MIX OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS TO DIFFERENT, I I'M NOT SURE IF YOURS IS IN BLACK AND WHITE.
MINE IS, UM, I I MEANT FOR IT TO BE IN COLOR, BUT THAT KIND OF SHOWS THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. HAITZ WANT, UH, CLARIFICATION.
THIS IS SHOWING WHAT IS EXISTING ON, ON EACH PROPERTY OR WHAT THE ZONING IS REFLECTING.
THIS IS WHAT'S ACTUALLY, IT SAYS CURRENT LAND USE.
THIS SAYS CURRENT LAND USES OF JULY 27 OF 22.
RIGHT? SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WAS ACTUALLY EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
IT'S WHAT THE ZONING, THE, THE LAND? NO, NO, NO.
THE LAND USE WAS, LAND USE IS NOT THE ZONING, BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THIS PROPERTY A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ACTUALLY SITTING THERE.
IT, I MEAN, I'M, I'M NOT SURE, BUT THIS IS WHAT WE BELIEVED THE LAND USES TO BE IN JULY OF 2022.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I, I SORT OF OBJECT.
I MEAN, I, I I DON'T MIND IF WE TAKE A RECESS, HOLD IT TILL NEXT MONTH IF IT'S, IF IT'S IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO DECIDE HOW MANY LOT, HOW MANY DUPLEXES THERE ARE.
I BET THERE'S MORE THAN A HUNDRED.
THERE'S A LOT, UH, OF DUPLEXES OVER HERE, MR. CATHERINE.
IT, IT, HE'S DURING HIS PORTION OF OUR QUESTIONS OF HIM AND HIS REDIRECT TO HIS, SO YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
IT IS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE HAVE.
SO WE'RE STILL DIS DISTILLING INFORMATION.
MR. ROY, WHAT YOU TOOK US TO IS THIS PAGE RIGHT? YEAH.
AND TO BACK TO MR. HOP OF HIS QUESTION ON THE BOTTOM, IT'S GOT A SMART, YOU GOTTA GOT SQUINT YOUR EYES.
NEW USES, IT SAYS, USES REFLECT CURRENT LAND USE AS OF JULY 27TH, 2022.
PRIOR OPTION OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE.
PREVIOUS EXISTING LAND USE DATA HAS BEEN SUSPENDED BY THIS EXHIBIT SUPERED SUPERSEDED.
SO, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS REALLY, THIS REALLY DOESN'T GO TO MS. DAVIS'S QUESTION.
AND THIS OTHER MAP THAT I HAD PULLED UP BEFORE, UM,
[02:30:02]
THAT YOU ALL SAID IT'S NOT YET, THIS ONE HERE DOESN'T EITHER, THAT DOESN'T REALLY GO TO DUPLEXES.THAT'S THE PREVIOUS LAND USE MAP.
PRIOR TO THIS ONE BEING ADOPTED, YOU MEAN THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE THAT THE YES.
OUT OF THEIR POCKET SYSTEM OR WHATEVER SYSTEM IT WAS.
THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE USING BEFORE? YES.
SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MS. DAVIS, IT'S A, IT'S A RELEVANT POTENTIAL QUESTION FOR US TO CONSIDER ABOUT KNOWING THE, THE DENSITY OF DUPLEXES BEFORE AND AFTER.
IT, IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO ME TO HAVE AN UPDATED CHART TO SEE WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKS LIKE, WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN EACH SPOT AND WHERE THESE TWO PARTICULAR, WELL, THIS CASE WHERE THIS IS ON THE MAP.
AND ALSO JUST GOING BACK TO THE TIMELINE OF, UH, WE KNOW WHEN EVERYTHING WAS UPDATED, I, I WOULD LIKE CONCRETE DATES AND I FEEL LIKE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION TODAY.
A LOT OF, UM, CONFIRMED DATES, A LOT OF ACCURATE INFORMATION THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF GUESSING AND IT'S MAKING ME VERY UNEASY TO MAKE A DECISION.
THANK YOU, MS. DAVIS, ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU HAVE AS FAR AS YOUR REDIRECT TO YOUR WITNESS, MR. ROY? NO.
MR. CHAIRMAN, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE REDIRECT TO MR. POOLE? FOR MR. ROY? ALRIGHT.
UM, AS I SAID EARLIER, THE APPLICANT HAS TWO MINUTES LEFT.
UH, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS FIVE MINUTES LEFT AND WE WILL GO, UH, YOU, YOU'RE THE APPLICANT'S AVAILABLE NOW TO, TO USE THEIR TWO MINUTES.
DOES THAT INCLUDE CLOSING? UH, NO, I'M ABOUT TO, I'M ABOUT TO RECAP HERE.
IT SAYS THE APPLICANT WILL BE ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
ADDITIONALLY, A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT PLUS YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES LEFT OVER.
THE BUILDING OFFICIAL SAYS WILL BE ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT, AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES LEFT OVER.
SO YOU HAVE EIGHT THREE PLUS FIVE, FIVE PLUS THREE EIGHT TOTAL LEFT.
I, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL ANOTHER WITNESS.
THAT IS, COULD BE PART OF YOUR FIVE.
AND, AND I'M JUST TRYING, IT SEEMS LIKE I HAVE THREE PLUS TWO.
I HAVE THREE PLUS TWO PLUS TWO.
YOU'RE NOT SURE HOW MANY TIMEOUTS ARE ACTUALLY EXIST.
WELL, YOUR, YOUR TIMEOUTS ARE WHEN WE ASK QUESTIONS.
SO YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES FROM YOUR PRESENTATION, THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL AND THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT IS WHAT YOU AS THE APPLICANT HAVE.
SO I HAVE EIGHT MINUTES TOTAL.
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES FROM YOUR PRESENTATION? THREE MINUTES AND THREE MINUTES.
SIX IS EIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT.
MR. ROY, YOU SAID THAT, UM, YOU WANTED TO CALL A WITNESS.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CALL YOUR WITNESS? GO AHEAD.
UM, I'D LIKE TO CALL GUS PEREZ.
HE'S, SHE, SHE'S GOING TO SWEAR HIM IN.
WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE RELEVANCE OF THE WITNESS? I MEAN, HE IS NOT A, I MEAN, HE IS NOT A PLANS EXAMINER.
OUR RULE STATE THAT THE EITHER PARTY CAN CALL WITNESS AND THEN YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE AS WELL.
AND HE'S HA HE STILL HAS FIVE MINUTES LEFT OF HIS TIME.
THOSE ARE CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES.
MS. BOARD, SECRETARY, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
UH, MR. ROY, MR. PEREZ, YOU LIVED IN PD 67? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN PD? 67.
AND DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO THE IMPACT ON YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OVERTURNS THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? UH, YES, I DO.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU TELL US SURE.
THAT OPINION? UH, TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, UH, FOR THE BOARD, I WAS ON THE AUTHORIZED HEARING STEERING COMMITTEE FOR ELM THICKETT.
UH, THAT WAS A FIVE YEAR PROCESS AND I WAS THE ONE OF THE PEOPLE ON THE BOARD THAT HELPED GET THIS PD PASSED.
SO WE HAD A LOT OF MEETINGS, WE HAD A LOT OF PUBLIC INPUT.
UH, AND I LISTENED VERY CLOSELY TO OUR NEIGHBORS, OUR LEGACY NEIGHBORS, UH, WHO HAVE LIVED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR GENERATIONS, GOING BACK TO WHEN IT WAS A FREEDMAN'S COMMUNITY.
UH, THIS IS A, THIS IS A VERY HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, UH, THEY ALL SAID THAT EVERY ONE OF THESE MODERN HOMES TAKE AWAY FROM THE CHARACTER AND LEGACY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND IT REALLY IMPACTS QUALITY OF LIFE BECAUSE WE HAVE THE HISTORY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE, OF THE
[02:35:01]
HOMES, THEY WERE SMALL, MODEST COTTAGES BUILT IN 1940S, MAYBE 1950S.AND THEN YOU'D HAVE THIS GIANT, AND OF COURSE I'M POINTING TO THE WALL WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE, WHERE THE TV WAS.
BUT YOU HAVE A, A, A A 36 FOOT PARAPET PERHAPS, AND THEN A WALL NEXT TO IT BECAUSE THESE FLAT ROOF STRUCTURES, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY HAVING A 30 FOOT WALL NEXT TO YOUR HOUSE THAT'S BLOCKING YOUR VIEW, BLOCKING THE TEXAS SKY, YOU KNOW, KIND OF, AND, AND OF COURSE, TWO STORY BUILDING NEXT TO US, ONE STORY COTTAGE.
THERE WERE PRIVACY ISSUES, PRIVACY CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
BUT ESSENTIALLY WE'RE SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WORKED REALLY HARD TO BUILD THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN IT WAS REALLY IGNORED FOR, FOR DECADES.
I MEAN, WE'RE GOING BACK TO REDLINING AND SEGREGATION AND OUTRIGHT RACISM THAT THESE PEOPLE WENT THROUGH.
AND, YOU KNOW, I HAVE AFFINITY FOR WHAT THEY, WHAT THEY DID.
SO I, I VOLUNTEERED LIKE YOU GUYS DO TO BE A PART OF THE AUTHORIZED HEARING STEERING COMMITTEE.
AND THESE BUILDINGS, WE SAID THEY CANNOT BE HERE IN THE FUTURE.
NOW GRANTED, WE'RE NOT AGAINST DEVELOPING.
THE ONES THAT ARE GRANDFATHERED IN ARE FINE, BUT ANYTHING NEW, WE GOTTA PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE WERE SAYING, UH, VIA THE AUTHORIZED HEARING STEERING COMMITTEE PROCESS.
THIS IS A HARM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO LET THESE CONTINUE TO BE BUILT.
AND WE, YOU KNOW, THE MR. HORMAN SAID, YOU KNOW, HEY, IT'S A, YOU KNOW, A RESTAURANT POISONS, ITS, ITS, ITS PATRONS.
IS THAT RIGHT? WELL, THEY KNOW IT.
NO, WE'RE THE ONES BEING POISONED AND WE GOTTA MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE UPHOLD WHAT WAS PASSED UNANIMOUS UNANIMOUSLY BY CITY PLAN COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY BY CITY COUNCIL IN OCTOBER OF 2022.
AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY IS TO HAVE THE VOICE, BECAUSE I WAS A PART OF THAT PROCESS FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.
AND I LISTENED TO OUR NEIGHBORS AND THEY SAID THEY DON'T WANT THESE KINDS OF STRUCTURES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT TAKES AWAY FROM THE LEGACY, UH, OF THE, UH, HISTORIC FREEMAN'S COMMUNITY.
IT CHIPS AWAY, UH, AT OUR, OUR QUALITY OF LIFE.
SO YES, THIS IS A DEFINITE HARM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF WE ALLOW THESE PROJECTS TO CONTINUE AS IS SPEAK.
CAN SPEAK TO US BRIEFLY ABOUT WHY THE USE DESIGNATIONS IN EXHIBIT 67 A WERE IMPORTANT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, AND, AND AGAIN, THE NEIGHBORS ALL HAD A, A, A VOICE IN THIS.
UH, THEY DIDN'T WANT THE FLAT ROOF.
WE'LL START WITH THAT, RIGHT? BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU CAN BUILD STRAIGHT UP AND THEN HAVE A FLAT ROOF AND UP TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT.
UH, AND AT THE OLD STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, UP TO THE 36 FEET.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS JUST NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR A LOT OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE LIVING NEXT TO THESE THINGS.
WE WANTED TO MAKE 'EM A LITTLE MORE MODEST.
AGAIN, LARGE HOMES CAN STILL BE BUILT HERE.
I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING OF, YOU KNOW, FROM 45% DOWN TO 40 REASONABLE, UH, RECOMMENDATION.
UH, WE ALSO, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF LOT COVERAGE, YOU KNOW, JUST KNOCK 'EM DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
UH, WE ALSO HAD THE, UH, UH, IN ADDITION TO THE ROOF TYPE, WE ALSO SAID THE LAND USE IS VERY IMPORTANT AND THAT GIVE YOU A BETTER IDEA.
'CAUSE I GOTTA SEE THE OLD LAND USE MAP.
AND IT WAS A CHECKER BOARD OF DUPLEX, DUPLEX HOUSE, DUPLEX HOUSE, HOUSE, DUPLEX.
AND WE SAID, WE GOTTA CLEAN THAT UP.
AND THE NEIGHBORS VERY MUCH HAD A VOICE IN THIS AND SAID, WE NEED TO CLEAN UP THE, THE MAP.
AND WHAT WE DID, WE ACTUALLY UPZONED A LOT OF THE HEAVY THOROUGHFARE STREETS ALONG ROPER AND MABEL TO SAY, YOU CAN TAKE THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, AND IF A DEVELOPER WANTS TO BUILD A DUPLEX ON 'EM, THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE.
AND IN FURTHER, DEEPER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE NORTH OF UNIVERSITY, AND AGAIN, I'M THROWING OUT SOME DIRECTIONS HERE, THERE'S A WHOLE STRIP OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE ALLOWED FOR DUPLEX USE.
AND LOU RIO IS THE ONE THAT THAT'S OWNED THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
IN FACT, HE HAD A BIG SIGN TOO, AND I'M, I'M GONNA JUMP TO THIS IN A MINUTE, BUT HE HAD A BIG SIGN IN FRONT, UH, STOP ZONING CHANGES.
HE WAS VERY ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN FIGHTING AGAINST WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED HEARING STEERING COMMITTEE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A LOT OF DUPLEXES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TRIED TO KEEP SOME SEMBLANCE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE WE KNOW DALLAS IS GOING THROUGH SOME SERIOUS HOUSING SHORTAGE.
AND WE FIGURED DUPLEX IS A GOOD WAY TO DO THAT.
UH, IN ADDITION TO THE LAND USE, WE, IN ADDITION TO HEIGHT AND LOT COVERAGE, AGAIN, THE LAND USE THOSE FOUR AREAS IS WHAT WE, WHAT WE COVERED.
BUT GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PROCESS.
WE WENT THROUGH AGAIN, A FIVE YEAR PROCESS AND GOT IT PASSED.
THIS WAS A WELL PUBLICIZED CASE.
IT WAS IN THE NEWS, IT WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE KNEW ABOUT THIS.
MR. ROY, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION.
YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED, SO YOUR PRESENTATION TIME IS NOW COMPLETE.
AND I'M OPEN FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
MR. CATHERINE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE YOU UP TO, UH, A VIEW FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES.
WHEN THIS PASSED, WERE, WERE YOU IN THE PD DID YOU LIVE IN THE PD BEFORE IT PASSED OR DID YOU COME IN AFTER THE FACT? NO, I'VE LIVED THERE 30 YEARS.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE JUST OUTSIDE MY, MY FAULT.
WHEN, WHEN THEY SENT PROPERTY, WHEN THEY SENT NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS, DO YOU, DO YOU RECALL THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN FAVOR THAT VOTED AGAINST AND VOTED IN FAVOR? NO, I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT NUMBER.
WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU BELIEVE THAT IT WAS 800 PLUS OPPOSED AND
[02:40:01]
254? IF THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS YOU'RE SAYING THEN, THEN IT'S FACT.SO THERE THAT, WOULD YOU, IT'S FAIR TO SAY THERE ARE, THERE WAS A WIDESPREAD OPINION YOU REPRESENT THAT THIS WAS, UH, YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF THE CHANGE THAT WERE MADE, BUT THERE WERE ALSO A LOT OF PEOPLE OPPOSED.
AND IF YOU DROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WEREN'T THERE SIGNS AND YARDS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE, OF THE, OF THE STREET? OH YEAH.
BUT IT'S NOT, IT, IT WAS NOT COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY, BUT PROPERTY OWNERS, THERE WAS A, THERE WAS, IT WAS A QUITE A BATTLE, WASN'T IT? IT WAS VERY CONTENTIOUS, YES.
ARE YOU A REGISTERED APPRAISER? A LICENSED APPRAISER? NO.
DO YOU HAVE ANY TRAINING, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, AS A REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONAL OR, OR, UH, OF THOSE, OR ARE YOU JUST TESTIFYING ONLY AS A NEIGHBOR, UH, TESTIFYING AS A NEIGHBOR WHO WAS ON THE AUTHORIZED HEARING STEERING COMMITTEE? FINE.
UM, AND, AND YOU SAID YOU WORKED TO GET THIS PASSED, THE COUNCIL PASSED IT, YOU JUST SUPPORTED WHAT HAPPENED.
I WAS, UH, VOICING WHAT THE, WHAT THE NEIGHBORS WERE TELLING ME WHAT, WHAT YOUR SIDE OF THE NEIGHBORS WERE TELLING YOU.
WELL, YES, THE NEIGHBOR, THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAD A LOT OF OPEN MEETINGS.
THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT OPINIONS.
HOW MANY DUPLEXES DO YOU THINK ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? UH, I COULDN'T FATHOM TO GUESS.
I KNOW IT'S QUITE A BIT, IT'S A PRETTY GOOD PERCENTAGE.
I MEAN, LIKE HOW MANY HOMES DO YOU THINK ARE THERE TOTAL? OH, I'VE SEEN THAT NUMBER BEFORE.
UM, BUT I'M, I'M NOT GONNA GUESS, I DON'T WANNA MAKE A MISTAKE AND, UH, SAY THE WRONG NUMBER.
I DON'T WANNA MAKE A MISTAKE EITHER.
AND, AND I DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY, BUT I AGREE.
UH, YES, MS. MS. DAVIS HAS SOME QUESTIONS.
YOU CAN STAY AT THE PODIUM AND THEN, THANK YOU.
UM, WHAT PERCENTAGE WOULD YOU GUESS ARE DUPLEXES? WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD? JUST A GUESSTIMATE THIS QUESTION FOR ME.
UM, I GUESS EITHER ONE OF YOU, BOTH OF YOU GO FIRST.
PICK THE PERSON YOU WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION TO, UH, THE WITNESS PLEASE.
UH, AGAIN, I'VE LIVED THERE 30 YEARS, SO I'VE DRIVEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I KNOW QUITE A, A FEW OF THE NUMBERS.
AND I MAY BE ON THE LOW END, BUT I'M GONNA JUST BE A LITTLE CONSERVATIVE.
UM, AGAIN, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO SUPPORTED THE ORDINANCE, WHO WANTED THE ORDINANCE TO PASS COMPARED TO THE PEOPLE, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO OPPOSED IT.
WHAT IS THAT PERCENTAGE AGAIN? IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE WERE A LOT MORE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSED IT THAN SUPPORTED IT APPARENTLY.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER.
I DIDN'T SEE THE, THE, THE ACTUAL NUMBERS THAT CAME OUT FROM THE, UH, CPC OR CITY COUNCIL.
SO BALLOTS ONLY GET SENT TO PEOPLE THAT ARE PROPERTY OWNERS.
SO IF I OWN A RENT PRODUCE, BUT IN OUR LAND USE CRITERIA, IT'S PROPERTY OWNERS, IT, IT, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
SO, SO BOTH THESE THINGS MAY BE TRUE.
HE TALKS ABOUT NEIGHBORS, PEOPLE HE KNOWS AND HAS DEALT WITH.
I THINK BOTH OF OUR FACTS MAY BE ACCURATE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY REALIZED THAT THERE, THAT IT, THIS WAS NOT A, EVERYONE CAME DOWN AND HELD HANDS AND SAID, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, A GREAT IDEA.
I THINK WE AGREE ON THAT, ON THAT FACT.
I JUST WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, THE, IT'S AN UNUSUAL FACT THAT THAT MANY PEOPLE WERE OPPOSED AND IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
DID THAT ANSWER YOUR ONE SECOND.
DID DID HE ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? MS. DAVIS? THANK YOU.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS? MR. KOVI? CAN YOU, UM, GIVE US AN IDEA IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THESE 20% OR SO THAT MIGHT BE DUPLEXES AND RELATIVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? UH, I HEARD REFERENCE TO THEM BEING KIND OF IN ONE AREA OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD VERSUS SPREAD THROUGHOUT, BUT I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT.
COULD YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE DUPLEXES VERSUS THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? SURE.
I MEAN, THIS IS THE QUESTIONS FOR ME OR ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER IT.
WELL, I'LL, I'LL ANSWER IT AGAIN.
UH, WHEN WE DID THE PD AND THE LAND USE MAP, WE MADE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE NEW DUPLEXES THAT COULD BE UP ZONED FROM SINGLE FAMILY WERE ALONG THE HIGH TRAFFIC STREETS.
SO ROPER IS BEING A CONSIDERED A HIGH TRAFFIC STREET, UH, THOROUGH THOROUGHFARE THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE ALSO HAD, UH, ON MABEL STREET, WHICH, WHICH, WHICH IS RIGHT UP AGAINST LEMON AVENUE ACROSS FROM THE AIRPORT.
LET ME, LET'S GET A LITTLE CLARIFI.
MORE, SPEAK MORE GEOGRAPHICALLY IN TERMS NOT STREETS.
LIKE, LIKE MOST OF THIS AREA IS SINGLE FAMILY AND THE DUPLEXES ARE KIND OF ALL OVER HERE, KIND OF IS KIND OF WHAT I'M DUPLEX OR NOT.
IT'S ALL KIND OF ALL SPREAD THROUGHOUT.
AND I, I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE WERE CLEANING UP THE PD, THEY WERE DUPLEX, DUPLEX HOUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF
[02:45:01]
SCATTERED CHECKERBOARD THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.UH, WE WANTED THE INTERIOR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE SINGLE FAMILY BECAUSE THAT WAS THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED THERE FOR GENERATIONS AS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
UH, SO WE WANTED TO CLEAN UP THE ZONING, SO TO SPEAK, SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE CORE OF SINGLE FAMILY AND PROTECT THE SINGLE FAMILY PEOPLE WHO WERE ALREADY THERE.
UH, AND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE, THE HIGHER DENSITY, UH, DUPLEX.
SO WE EVEN HAVE A LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEX IN PD 67 THAT WAS INCLUDED, UH, AND A SCHOOL IN MANY CHURCHES THAT, ANYWAY, LONG STORY SHORT, IT'S, WE TRIED TO KEEP 'EM ON THE MORE OF THE PERIPHERY, BUT THERE IS A COUPLE OF ONES THAT WERE BUILT, UH, THAT, THAT, UH, WERE, WERE ALWAYS DUPLEXES AND THOSE WERE ONES BY LOUIS RIO.
AND IT'S A MASSIVE STREET OF DUPLEXES.
UH, BUT THEY ALL CONFORM, YOU KNOW, EVEN HIP AND GABLE, UH, AT THAT POINT.
AND, UH, JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION.
SO IN THIS CORE AREA OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WHERE IS THIS PROPERTY RELATIVE TO THAT WE'RE IN THE SCATTERED, I MEAN, THERE'S, THERE'S, IT'S, IT'S IN THE, WELL I WOULD CONSIDER THE INTERIOR THOUGH.
UH, IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE SPRAY PARK, THE BEDFORD SPRAY PARK.
IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE, THE KB POLK SCHOOL OR, YOU KNOW, VICINITY OF THAT IMMEDIATE AREA.
IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, RIGHT THERE WALKING DISTANCE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE KB POLK SCHOOL.
SO IT'S, I CONSIDER THAT A SINGLE FAMILY TYPE LOT WAS WHAT WE, WHY WE INCLUDED IT IN THE, UH, IN THE, UH, LAND USE MAP THAT WAY.
SO IT WOULDN'T, IT'S NOT IN THE AREA THAT YOU'RE CHARACTERIZING AS WHERE MOST OF THE HIGHER DENSITY IS NOT THAT AREA.
MAYBE TWO STREETS OFF, BUT AGAIN, IT'S STILL TWO STREETS OFF THERE EXCEPT WE DID FOUR DUPLEXES WITHIN 200 FEET, INCLUDING RIGHT BEHIND IT.
I WOULD TELL YOU THAT IT'S NOT, I MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, IT'S NOT EVEN ALL SINGLE FAMILY.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONAL USES.
THIS IS A, A A LITTLE BIT OF A, THERE'S SOME OPEN SPACE.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT'S NOT ALL SINGLE FAMILY RIGHT.
AND IN FACT, THE ONLY REASON WE CAN'T DO DUPLEX HERE IS BECAUSE, UM, WE, IT HAD BEEN CONVERTED AT SOME POINT IN YEARS BEFORE.
THIS WAS NEVER A, YOU KNOW, R 75.
I MEAN, THIS WAS NOT A, A SOLIDLY R PART OF THE AREA.
IT, SO IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THE ORDINANCE HOPED TO CLEAN UP IS TO PROVIDE SOME ORGANIZATION FOR THE FUTURE, BUT THIS WAS NOT AN INTACT SINGLE FAMILY PART OF THE MICRO AREA WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS CASE.
AND I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT.
DID, DID HE ANSWER YOUR QUESTION FOR YOU? MR. UM, POKOVICH? THANK YOU.
AM I NEXT? UM, HE'S OUT OF TIME.
AND SO YOU, SO NO, YOU CANNOT, UH, AND YOU'RE, YOU CROSS, YOU REDIRECTED AGAINST HIM AND SO YOU'RE DONE.
ALRIGHT, SO AT THIS JUNCTURE, AT THIS JUNCTURE, THE APPLICANT HAS TWO MINUTES OF HIS ORIGINAL TIME PLUS THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL, PLUS THREE MINUTE CLOSING.
THEN THE CITY OR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS A THREE MINUTE FINAL STATEMENT IS WHAT OUR TIME IS LEFT.
I MEAN, LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN OUT LOUD SO I'M CLEAR.
THE APPLICANT HAS TWO MINUTES LEFT.
THEN ACCORDING TO OUR RULES, THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL AND THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT.
UM, THEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT LAST, SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THE LAST WORD OF THREE MINUTES.
SO, SO HANG ON, LET ME MAKE SURE.
SO I'M UP TO BAT FOR TWO MINUTES, RIGHT? UH, YOU HAVE TWO PLUS THREE PLUS THREE.
WELL, RIGHT, BUT I WANT TO KIND OF KNOW WHAT, WHAT THE ORDER IS.
I'M GONNA DO TWO MINUTES AND THEN DOES IT THEN NOPE.
2, 3, 3, 3 OUR RULES STATE THAT.
I JUST, I JUST NEED, SO I I BASICALLY HAVE EIGHT MINUTES RIGHT NOW.
HOW USE HOW I WANT, YOU HAVE EIGHT, YOU HAVE EIGHT MINUTES, AND THEN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS THREE MINUTES TO CLOSE.
RIGHT? WE'RE GETTING TO THE END.
UM, Y YOU KNOW, THE, THE FIRST OF ALL, I THINK ONE THING I HEARD IS I DON'T THINK Y'ALL HAVE ALL THE, THE FACTS, AND I DON'T THINK I DO EITHER.
AND I THINK THAT IT JUST CAME UP THAT WE NEED MORE INFORMATION ABOUT LAND USE AND LAND USE MAPS AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY ARE AND MAYBE SOME CENSUS NUMBERS.
AND YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS.
I MEAN, I, I WAS ABLE TO PULL SOMETHING WITH MY COLLEAGUE OFF, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS ON THE AGENDA AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.
SO THERE WERE, THE MORE WE'VE DONE THIS, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S MORE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, BUT THAT'S Y'ALL'S DECISION.
YOU KNOW, WE CERTAINLY WOULD SUPPORT A DELAY, UH, BECAUSE WE WANT TO GET THIS RIGHT.
I MEAN, I'VE OFTEN FOUND IN MY CAREER THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN DO ZONING FAST OR YOU CAN DO IT.
AND USUALLY NOT BOTH OF THOSE TOGETHER.
SO THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM ONGOING FOR A LONG TIME.
I'D LIKE US TO ALL GET TO THE, THE, THE RIGHT ANSWER.
BUT THAT'S YOUR, YOUR DECISION.
[02:50:01]
MAKE NO MISTAKE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD DUPLEX ZONING.UM, THERE'S MULTIFAMILY, THERE'S NON-CONFORMING MULTIFAMILY THAT'S IN THIS PD.
UM, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S COMPLICATED.
THERE'S INSTITUTIONAL USES, RELIGIOUS USES, ET CETERA.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE DID, YOU KNOW, UH, MY CLIENT, THIS WAS THE FOURTH IN A SERIES OF DUPLEXES HE USED WITH EXACTLY THE SAME SET OF PLANS.
I MEAN, WHY WOULD HE THINK THAT THIS ONE WOULD NOT BE THE CITY BROUGHT UP THAT HE SENT IN A BALLOT OPPOSED TO THE ZONING? THAT'S WHAT HE WAS OPPOSED TO.
THE CITY SENDS OUT BALLOTS TO PROPERTY OWNERS ON EVERY ZONING CASE.
IF YOU'RE WITHIN 200 FEET, STATE LAW REQUIRES IT.
HE SENT BACK IN THAT HE OPPOSED THE ZONING.
IF YOU HAD A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WAS ZONED DUPLEX AND YOU WERE BEING REDUCED TO SINGLE FAMILY, YOU MIGHT OPPOSE IT ON THAT.
I MEAN, HE WAS OPPOSING THE ZONING CASE TO MAKE HIM THEM SOME SORT OF EXPERT ON THE BUILDING OFFICIAL PROCESS.
UM, I DON'T THINK HE HAS TO BE.
AND I THINK AFTER I HAD GIVEN MY FIRST PART OF THE PRESENTATION, AND THEN THE CITY STARTED, I THINK YOU STARTED TO SEE HOW INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED ALL OF THIS IS.
AND SO HE HAD DONE THREE DUPLEXES WITH THE EXACT SET OF PLANS IN THE SAME PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND HE TURNED IN A FOURTH ONE, AND HE SUBSEQUENTLY GOT A PERMIT AND STARTED BUILDING THE SAME SET OF PLANS WITH THE SAME CONTRACTOR.
SO TO ACT LIKE HE'S SOME SORT OF BAD BUILDER, AND IN FACT HE HAD THE RIGHTS TO 36 FEET AND BUILT 26 AND A HALF, AND HE HAD THE RIGHTS TO 60% COVERAGE, AND HE'S DOING 45.7, HE'S NOT MAXING OUT THIS LOT.
AND I WOULD MAYBE SUGGEST TO YOU THAT HE, THIS IS MAYBE NOT THE HOME BUILDER OTHER THAN STYLE WISE, AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE.
HE'S NOT OVERUSING OVERFILLING THE LOT.
UM, I ALSO WONDERED WHEN THIS HAPPENED, STATE LAW SAYS THAT THE CITY CAN'T ENFORCE THESE SORTS OF THINGS ANYMORE.
I MEAN, THE LEGISLATURE CONTINUES TO TAKE AWAY CITY'S RIGHTS OFTEN BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT USED EFFECTIVELY.
AND, UH, IT'S WHY THE LEGISLATURE LAST TIME HAS SAID CITIES HAVE TO OFFER A THIRD PARTY REVIEW PROCESS.
SO PLANS GET DONE, EXECUTED, AND PERMITS GET ISSUED FASTER AND HOPEFULLY MORE ACCURATELY IN THIS CASE, NEITHER ONE OF THOSE HAPPEN FOR MY, FOR MY CLIENT.
SO HE DIDN'T USE UP ALL HIS RIGHTS UNDER HIS OLD ZONING.
UM, UH, I THINK THE BIGGEST PROBLEM HERE IS, IS THAT THE CITY CONTINUED USING THE OLD ORDINANCE AND THE OLD LAND USE MAP UNTIL, AS MR. POOLE SAID MAY OF 2024, THEY WERE IN EFFECT GRANTING US VESTED RIGHTS.
THE FACT THAT THE CITY SENT AN EMAIL OUT TO ALL THEIR EMPLOYEES TELLING THEM, HEY, START USING THE NEW ONE IN MAY OF 24.
THAT'S WHEN THEY STARTED USING THE NEW ORDINANCE.
TO ME, THEY DIDN'T USE IT BEFORE THEN.
AND IT'S NOT MY CLIENT'S FAULT THAT THEY DIDN'T USE IT.
I MEAN, THEY SHOULD HAVE USED IT AT, AT THE, YOU KNOW, AS SOON AS IT HAPPENED, PARTICULARLY IN SUCH A CONTENTIOUS ZONING CASE.
AND, YOU KNOW, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY ASKED ABOUT THE LENDER EARLIER.
THE LENDER WOULD ASSUME WHEN THEY SEE THAT A PERMIT IS ISSUED, THE ZONING HAS BEEN CHECKED, IT'S ALL BEEN CHECKED BY THE CITY.
THAT'S WHY THEY LENT THEM THE MONEY.
AND SO EVERYONE WAS COUNTING ON THE CITY.
AND SO EVEN IF MY CLIENT SHOULD HAVE LOOKED AT THIS FOR THE FOURTH TIME AND SAID, YOU KNOW, HE WOULD'VE GONE TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND IT WOULD'VE SAID DUPLEX AND OKAY, WELL, IT'S A DUPLEX.
AND IF YOU HAD GONE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND I WILL TELL YOU THIS ISN'T EASY TO DO.
I DO THIS FOR A LIVING, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF TIMES I HAVE TO GO TO MY PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBERS THAT ARE BETTER WITH THE COMPUTER TO FIGURE OUT WHERE ALL THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE.
IT'S LIKE A, A SAVAGE OR SADISTIC SCAVENGER HUNT.
UM, IT'S NOT EASY TO FIGURE OUT.
AND THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T AGREE, A HOME BUILDER SHOULD NOT HAVE TO HIRE AN EXPERT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE ZONING IS.
I MEAN, MAYBE ON A COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT NO OTHER CITY WOULD SAY THAT.
I MEAN, A HOME DALLAS HAS A HOUSING SHORTAGE.
IT OUGHT TO MAKE IT EASY TO DO THIS.
AND SO WE WANTED TO ADD TWO DUPLEX LOTS, JUST LIKE WE HAD WITH THE SIX OTHERS TO THIS INVENTORY.
WE SHOULD REASONABLY HAVE THOUGHT WHEN WE GOT THE PERMIT THAT IT WAS CORRECT AND ACCURATE AND THANK YOU.
AND WE HAD THOSE VESTED RIGHTS.
THE CITIES WAS CITY WAS USING THAT OLD ORDINANCE LIKE IT WAS THE RIGHT ONE FOR THE EASE OF REVIEW.
WELL, NOW THEY JUST WANNA CHANGE THE RULES AT THE VERY END OF THE GAME.
THAT PREVENTS US FROM ALMOST COMPLYING, UM, YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND BUILDING INSPECTION.
WERE ALL USING THE SAME SET OF FACTS
[02:55:01]
UNTIL THAT MAY TIME PERIOD.I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE COULD BE, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT CONTINUUM WHERE WE ARE.
WE WERE ALL U EVERYBODY WAS USING THE SAME THING AND THEY ISSUED THE PERMIT AND THEY ISSUED FIVE OF THESE.
IN SOME CASES, THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE OFFICE IN THIS AUDIENCE HERE THAT GOT SEVEN GREEN TAGS AND THERE'S AT LEAST 20 OF THESE COMING.
WE JUST HAPPENED TO BE THE FIRST ONE IN LINE.
SO I WOULD IMPLORE YOU TO THINK ABOUT, AND I'M, AND, AND I ALWAYS RESPECT PEOPLE THAT ARE VOLUNTEERING AND, AND, AND I KNOW PEOPLE PUSH THE BUTTON WITH THE GOOD HEART WHEN THEY'RE VOLUNTEERING THAT THIS IS A MESS.
COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE CLEANED IT UP.
YOU'RE BEING LEFT TO CLEAN IT UP.
SO WE'D BE HAPPY FOR YOU TO HOLD THIS IF YOU NEED MORE FACTS AND DETERMINE WHAT THEY ARE.
BECAUSE THE FACTS THAT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW ARE EVERYTHING WOULD'VE INDICATED THAT WE DID ALL THE RIGHT THINGS.
WE PAID OUR FEE, AND WE DID NOT GET THE RIGHT SERVICE.
AND NOW HERE WE ARE, WE'RE THE ONE THAT'S GONNA GET PUNISHED.
THIS IS NOT THE WAY WHEN YOU MAKE AN INFRACTION, WE, HEY, WE'RE, WE'RE WILLING TO MAYBE REACH A COMPROMISE.
AND THAT'S WHAT OUGHT TO HAPPEN ON ALL 20 OF THESE IS FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN WHERE MY CLIENT DOESN'T HAVE A COMPLETE LOSS ON THIS.
MR. ROY, YOU HAVE A, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES FOR A CLOSING STATEMENT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE BOARD, MR. CHAIRMAN, UM, I JUST, I WANT TO START BY MENTIONING WHAT I BRIEFLY SAID IN MY BRIEF, WHICH IS THE, THE APPLICANT TODAY HAS THE BURDEN TO ESTABLISH FACTS THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS WRONG.
AND THE FACTS ARE THAT WHAT HE'S PLANNING ON BUILDING IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE.
IT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE HEIGHT, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTION WITH THE USE, WITH THE LOT COVERAGE AND THE STYLE OF THE ROOF.
AND HE, THEY DIDN'T ESTABLISH ANY FACTS COUNTER TO THAT.
NOW THE APPLICANT SAYS HE HAD NO, NO IDEA WHAT WAS GOING ON.
HE BUILT THREE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THIS PD DURING MR. COCHRANE'S PRESENTATION.
HE, HE MADE THE STATEMENT THAT THE APPLICANT HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE PD, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS APPLICANT WAS WELL ESTABLISHED IN THE PD.
HE, HE HAD TO HAVE KNOWN WHAT WAS GOING ON REGARDLESS WHEN, YOU KNOW, THE, THE WEBSITE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAD, UM, WHE WHETHER IT WAS UPDATED AND WHEN IT WAS UPDATED OR THE BUILDING OFFICIALS NOTES, THE KEY POINT IS, IS HE OBJECTED.
THE APPLICANT KNEW THAT THE ORDINANCE AFFECTING HIS PROPERTIES WAS GOING TO BE PASSED AND HE CAN'T CLAIM OR IGNORANCE HE, HE KNEW SOMETHING ABOUT THE ORDINANCE, OTHERWISE HE WOULDN'T HAVE OBJECTED.
UM, I JUST WANT TO BRIEFLY MENTION THE ESCO CASE, WHICH IS THE SUPREME COURT CASE THAT I CITED IN THE, UM, IN MY BRIEF.
THE MERE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT DOES NOT RENDER A CITY ZONING ORDINANCE UNENFORCEABLE, NOR DOES THE FACT THAT THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN ERROR ENTITLED THE PROPERTY OWNER TO VIOLATE THE LAW.
THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RECORD THAT THE CITY PURPOSELY, UM, IN MISLED THE APPLICANT OR INTENTIONALLY DID ANYTHING TO MISLEAD HIM.
AND AT THIS TIME I ASK THAT YOU AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
THE BEAUTY AND THE CURSE OF THIS PROCESS IS THE BOARD'S DELIBERATION IS ALL IN PUBLIC IN THE FEDERAL, THE STATE, THE COUNTY SYSTEM, AND THE JUDICIARY.
UH, YOU GO BACK IN A BACK ROOM AND THEN YOU HAGGLE OUT THINGS AND THEN YOU COME OUT WITH A DECISION IN WRITING A WEEK, TWO WEEKS, THREE WEEKS, A MONTH, TWO MONTHS LATER.
IN THIS CASE, OUR ENTIRE DISCUSSION IS RIGHT HERE BEFORE YOU.
SO, UM, I OPEN THE DISCUSSION, I HAVE MY OPINION AND A SENSE, UM, BUT, UH, I, I WANT TO HEAR FROM EACH ONE OF US
[03:00:01]
ABOUT POTENTIAL PATHS FORWARD.MR. HOP, ARE WE STILL IN A POSITION TO BE ABLE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF ANYONE? THEIR TIME IS ALL EXPIRED.
IT, I, I'LL ALLOW QUESTIONS IF YOU WANT, BUT THEN WE NEED TO, I I HAVE, I HAVE JUST ONE, THE, THE, THE CITY'S WEBSITE,
I'M WONDERING IS THERE ANY KIND OF A DISCLAIMER IN THAT WEBSITE? WELL, WELL, I BET IN THE FINE PIT OF EVERY WEBSITE THERE'S A DISCLAIMER IN SOME WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.
I'M NOT A TECHIE, BUT I, YOU KNOW, BUT I, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT.
I, I THINK THAT IS A QUESTION AMONGST A WHOLE SLEW OF QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN UNANSWERED.
SO, UM, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT RESOLUTION OF THIS? UM, I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S HANDS ARE CLEAN IN THIS.
I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF VAGUENESS THAT'S BEEN, UH, UH, PUT BEFORE US FROM BOTH PARTIES.
UM, UH, AND SO I DON'T, I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK THERE IS AN INNOCENT PARTY IN THIS, IN THIS MATTER.
SO I WOULD PREFER, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT, UM, MENTION SOME TYPE OF A RESOLUTION THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE THEM TEARING THE STRUCTURE DOWN.
SO, UH, IF THAT IS WITHIN OUR PURVIEW, I THINK WE SHOULD DISCUSS WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE SO AS NOT TO PENALIZE THE NEIGHBORHOOD TOO MUCH AND NOT TO PENALIZE THE APPLICANT TOO MUCH AND NOT TO PENALIZE WHAT APPEARS TO BE A, UH, AN ERROR ON THE PART OF THE CITY TOO MUCH AND TRY TO SEE IF WE CAN SPLIT THE BABY.
I THINK THAT IS WORTHY OF FURTHER CONVERSATION.
UM, THERE'S NO MOTION ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW.
UM, I GRABBED A QUOTE FROM THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS DATED AUGUST 9TH, 2024, AND THIS QUOTE FROM THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER, KIMBERLY TOLBERT.
WE ARE COMMITTED TO UNCOVERING WHAT LED TO THESE ERRORS AND TO RESOLVING THEM AS QUICKLY AND FAIRLY AS POSSIBLE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING REGULATIONS WHILE MINIMIZING THE DESTRUCTIVE IMPACT ON RESIDENTS AND BUILDERS.
NOW, OUR LEGAL CHARGE IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE SUSTAIN OUR LEGAL CHARGE IS TO DEAL WITH THE DECISION THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MADE TO REVOKE THE PERMITS IN THE CODE 51 AND MR. BOARD ATTORNEY, YOU'LL NUDGE ME IF I STRAY OFF THE, OFF THE, THE PATTERN HERE IN THE CODE 51 A 4, 7 0 3 DALLAS CITY CODE.
IT CLEARLY SAYS THE BOARD SHALL HAVE ALL THE POWERS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL ON THE ACTION APPEALED FROM THE BOARD.
MAY IN WHOLE OR IN PART AFFIRM REVERSE OR AMEND THE DECISION OF THE, OF, OF THE OFFICIAL REVERSE AND ORDER REQUIREMENT DECISION DETERMINATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL INVOLVING THE INTERPRETATION, ENFOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
SO I WOULD SAY TO YOU, MR. HOPKOS, I THINK THAT'S WITHIN THE BROAD SCOPE OF OUR LEGAL CHARGE ACCORDING TO THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
TYPICALLY, MY EXPERIENCE, LONG OR SHORT, HAS BEEN YOU AFFIRM OR YOU REJECT REVERSE.
YOU EITHER AFFIRM THE DECISION OR REVERSE THE DECISION.
I, I AM EMBARRASSED THAT THE CITY HAS RUN A SYSTEM WHERE THEY FAILED TO UPDATE THE VERY WEBSITE THEY TOLD PROPERTY OWNERS TO MS. HAYDEN'S QUESTION, WHERE DO I GO? WELL, YOU GO TO THIS WEBSITE AND WE STILL DON'T KNOW TO THIS MOMENT WHETHER IT'S A MONTH, TWO MONTHS, SIX MONTHS WHEN THEY UPDATE THE ZONING MAP.
AND WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR UPDATING THAT ZONING MAP.
IS IT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE? IF THE SEVENTH FLOOR IS LISTENING, IS IT BUILDING INSPECTION? IS ACH LISTENING? AND WHAT'S THE LAG TIME? AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, TO HAVE IT ADMITTED UNDER OATH, OH MY GOSH, THAT WE HAVE BUILDING INSPECTORS FOR MONTHS, IF NOT YEARS, USING THEIR OWN POCKET NOTES TO DECIDE FOR YOU VERSUS YOU VERSUS YOU.
AND WHO KNOWS WHAT POCKET NOTES THEY USE.
ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS WE HEARD TODAY WAS FROM YOU, MR. HAITZ.
[03:05:01]
WE TRIED TO DRAW OUT OF THE APPLICANT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO KNOW THE LAW.AND I SAID, ZERO TO A HUNDRED PERCENT GIVE US A NUMBER.
WELL, NO WONDER THEY CAN'T BECAUSE IT'S A MOVING TARGET.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS.
I HEARD THE ATTORNEY FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL REFERENCE THE VANCO CASE, AND IT'S ALL ABOUT SAYING THAT WE ARE NOT REQUIRED THAT, UH, TALKING ABOUT, UH, ACTIONS THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS, THAT A, THAT A BUILDING OFFICIAL TAKES AND HOW WE WE, THAT THE CITY WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO CORRECT AREAS IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS IF IT, IF WE DIDN'T REVERT BACK TO.
BUT IT BEG THE, AND THE COMMENT FROM IN THEIR BRIEFS SAYS, THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING THE RULES AND REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT OF A LOT.
HOW IN THE WORLD IS A PROPERTY OWNER? HOW IS MS. HAYDEN SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT TO DO ON THE PROPERTY SHE WANTS TO DEVELOP WHEN IT'S NOT UPDATED? AND THERE'S, EVERYONE HAS THEIR OWN POCKET SYSTEM.
I THINK WHERE WE'RE HEADED, I CERTAINLY COULDN'T SUPPORT AFFIRMING THE DECISION TO REV TO REVOKE.
ABSOLUTELY NOT ON THE OTHER HAND OF ORDINANCE WAS PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND PART OF OUR CHARGE IS TO FULFILL THE INTENT AND SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.
BUT PART OF THE INTENT AND SPIRIT ALSO IS PUBLIC AWARENESS OF WHAT THE LAW THEY CREATE.
YEARS AGO, I'VE BEEN, I'VE EXPERIENCED COUNCIL MEETINGS WHERE PEOPLE NEGOTIATE AT THE PODIUM AND THINGS CHANGE ON THE FLY.
AND HALF THE ROOM DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT WAS JUST AGREED UPON.
AND THEN TO THINK THERE'S A LAG IN THE ZONING MAP.
AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, UM, THIS POCKET SYSTEM THAT WE HEARD ABOUT TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME, I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO CALL IT.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER AS A BOARD, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN DO IT TODAY, IF WE HAVE TO HOLD THIS OVER ONE MONTH.
I THINK WE HAVE TO CONSIDER KIND OF THIS GRID CHART, GRID SHEET THAT WE STARTED ON OF THE LAND USE QUESTION, DUPLEX VERSUS SINGLE FAMILY.
THE STRUCTURE HEIGHT, WHETHER IT'S 36, 25, OR 26.5, 26.6, THE ROOF TYPE, WHETHER IT'S HIP AND GABLE OR FLAT, THE LOT COVERAGE, WHETHER IT'S 60%, 40%, OR 45.7.
I JUST TRIED TO WRITE DOWN THOSE THINGS.
THIS IS AGAINST MR. POOLE'S REVOCATION LETTER AND TRY TO THINK, OKAY, WHAT IS IT THAT WE'RE, WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US? WHAT IS IT THAT THE BASIS OF THE, THE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT AND HERE THEY ARE.
AND SO NOW I'M APPLYING WHAT THE CODE SAYS WE CAN DO AND POTENTIALLY CUT AND PASTE.
'CAUSE I CANNOT FIND FOR THE APPLICANT AND I CANNOT FIND FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
THAT'S MY OPINION AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
LIKE I SAID, WE'LL GO TO MS. DAVIS NEXT, THEN.
MS. HAYDEN, LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE THE JOY OF DELIBERATING IN PUBLIC.
I THINK AT THIS POINT IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO FOCUS ON THE SOLUTION.
IF WE SIT AND TALK ABOUT THE BLAME AND WHAT HAPPENED, WE'RE ALL GONNA BE PULLING OUR HAIR OUT.
AND, UM, I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED JUST AT THE LACK OF ACCOUNTA ACCOUNTABILITY.
IT JUST, UM, REALLY, REALLY DISAPPOINTING.
AND I, I DO THINK BOTH SIDES ARE AT FAULT.
UH, I THINK ONE IS MUCH MORE THAN THE OTHER.
AND I HOPE THAT THOSE PROCESSES ARE CORRECTED BECAUSE THIS IS VERY, VERY EMBARRASSING FOR OUR CITY.
BUT I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS COME UP WITH A COMPROMISE BECAUSE I AGREE, WE DON'T WANNA BURDEN THE NEIGHBORS.
WE ALSO DON'T WANNA UNFAIRLY BURDEN THE BUILDER.
UM, AND I THINK WITH A LOT OF BIG DECISIONS, POLITICIANS GET IN TROUBLE BECAUSE IT'S THIS WAY OR THIS WAY.
I THINK IN THIS CASE, THERE'S A LOT OF THEM THAT WE NEED TO SAY, OKAY, WHAT MAKES THE BEST SENSE? WHAT IS THE LEAST FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THE BUILDER? WHAT, YOU KNOW, CAN CONFORM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AS BEST AS POSSIBLE.
MS. HAYDEN, UM, YEAH, THIS IS, I WISH THIS WERE BLACK AND WHITE.
UM, IT WOULD BE SO MUCH EASIER.
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE, AT OUR, OUR, UH, STANDARD FOR APPEAL, IT SAYS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY HEAR AND DECIDE AN APPEAL THAT ALLEGES ERROR IN THE DECISION MAY BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
WELL, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS, YOU KNOW, UH, AT SURFACE, AT THE SURFACE, IT'S, IT, YOU KNOW, YOU THINK, WELL, THE, THE, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL DID NOT MAKE AN ERROR BECAUSE THIS, THIS BUILDING IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT ZONING.
UM, BUT THEN YOU THINK, OKAY, WELL THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DID MAKE AN ERROR IN ISSUING THE PERMIT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
UM, ON THE OTHER HAND, THIS COMMUNITY WORKED VERY HARD TO PUT THIS PD IN PLACE AND TO MAKE THE CHANGES TO PROTECT THE CHARACTER, CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT ONE AND I, I'M HAPPY TO KNOW THAT THE CHAIR AND MY OTHER PANEL MEMBERS FEEL THE SAME.
I CAN'T SIT HERE AND VOTE ONE WAY,
[03:10:01]
YOU KNOW, FROM ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER.UM, NO ONE'S GONNA WIN IN THAT, IN THAT SITUATION.
AND, AND ALL I CAN THINK OF IS THERE HAS TO BE ANOTHER WAY TO COMPROMISE.
THERE HAS TO BE ANOTHER WAY TO, YOU KNOW, DOES THE COMMUNITY, WOULD THEY BE OKAY IF IT'S A DUPLEX? IF THEY CHANGED THE, UM, ROOF LINE, WOULD IT, WOULD, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT IS THE COMPROMISE IN THIS SITUATION? THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE TO, UM, I GUESS LESSEN THE IMPACT TO BOTH SIDES.
OTHER DISCUSSION? MR. MARY? UH, BEFORE I GO BACK TO MR. KOVI.
OKAY, MR. KOVI, UM, AS I INDICATED BEFORE, I ALSO THINK WE NEED TO FIND A MIDDLE WAY ON THIS, GENERALLY THIS BOARD.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE PRECEDENT SETTING WHAT WE DO, HOWEVER, AND IT'S NOT APPLYING A PRECEDENT 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE IS A PRECEDENT FOR THIS, FOR PARTICULAR CASE.
UM, WE DO APPROVE VARIANCES FOR PEOPLE.
AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 25 FEET VERSUS 26, 25, UH, UH, 36 VERSUS 25 VERSUS 26.6, 26.6 VERSUS 25 IS BASICALLY THE ISSUE.
'CAUSE THE 36 WAS THE OLD THING.
SO ARE WE GOING TO TEAR SOMEBODY'S HOUSE DOWN FOR AN INCH AND A HALF? I DON'T THINK WE WOULD.
IS A FOOT AND A HALF OR AN INCH AND A HALF FOOT? FOOT AND A HALF? WOULD WE TELL SOMEONE TO TEAR THEIR HOUSE DOWN FOR THAT? I DON'T THINK THIS BOARD WOULD DO THAT.
UM, 45, 40 6% LOT COVERAGE VERSUS 40.
WOULD WE TELL SOMEBODY TO TURN, TEAR THEIR HOUSE DOWN FOR THAT? I DON'T THINK SO.
UH, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A CERTAIN STYLE THAT THEY HAVE, UH, GRAVITATED TOWARDS BEING A HIP AND GABLE ROOF.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT A HIP AND GABLE ROOF WOULD REQUIRE TO BE PUT ON THIS BUILDING IF THAT WOULD MAKE IT NOW BACK TO 36 FEET, OR IF IT COULD BE DONE THAT, WHERE IT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO WHAT IT IS NOW, BUT THAT WOULD AT LEAST MAKE THE VISUAL APPEAL OF THE PROPERTY BE MORE IN LINE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND IT MAY BE IF THEY CHANGED THE ROOF STRUCTURE, THEY COULD BRING THAT FOOT AND A HALF DOWN AND MAKE IT 25.
UM, THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED, UH, THAT THEY'RE OPEN TO WORKING SOMETHING OUT.
SO, UH, TO ME, UH, THE OTHER ISSUE BEING SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS DUPLEX.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A SOLUTION TO THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT CHARACTERIZES A DUPLEX FROM A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE NECESSARILY.
MAYBE SOMEONE ELSE, UH, FROM A, FROM A CONSTRUCTION POINT OF VIEW, WHAT, WHAT MAKES ONE, ONE VERSUS THE OTHER? UM, BUT PERHAPS THERE'S A WAY THAT IT COULD BE, THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED AS WELL.
SO WE'RE JUST THROWING UP GENERAL COUNSEL.
WE'RE JUST HAVING A CONVERSATION IN PUBLIC.
SO THIS IS VERY, VERY JUST SORT OF RANDOM.
UM, I, I'VE BEEN IN COURT CASES BEFORE WHERE THE JUDGE HAS SAID, Y'ALL GO BACK AND FIGURE THIS OUT.
UH, I MEAN, I'VE HEARD JUDGES LIKE NOT EVEN LISTEN TO A CASE BECAUSE THEY WANT PEOPLE TO FIGURE IT OUT.
YOU FIGURE IT OUT AND THEN YOU COME BACK TO ME.
CAN WE DO THAT? I THINK WE'RE ABOUT TO.
BUT THAT'S THE WILL OF THE, OF THE, OF THE BOARD.
UM, I WOULD ECHO MY FELLOW PANELISTS IN THIS CASE.
UH, IT WE'RE PRESENTED WITH A CONUNDRUM THAT WE REALLY SHOULDN'T BE FACED WITH.
IN FACT, I FIND IT APPALLING THAT THE CITY ISN'T, UH, BETTER AT UPDATING THE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE WEBSITES, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO LAND USE.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE CITY GOING FORWARD.
SO THAT WE'RE, WE, WE AS A BOARD ARE NOT PUT IN THIS POSITION AGAIN.
UM, I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT, UM, NO SINGLE CASE WOULD SET PRECEDENTS.
UM, WHAT I DON'T WANNA SEE HAPPEN, BECAUSE WE'VE OBVIOUSLY GOT ABOUT 19 OTHER CASES COMING BEFORE THIS PANEL IN PARTICULAR, UH, THAT, THAT ARE, WHATEVER DECISION WE COME TO IS NOT GONNA BE A BLANKET DECISION FOR EACH OF THOSE CASES.
WE'RE GONNA HEAR EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY AND DECIDE ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.
[03:15:01]
HAVE ALREADY SAID, MENTIONED, UM, I'M NOT PREPARED TO OVERTURN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS, UH, DECISION, NOR AM I, UH, WILLING TO AFFIRM IT IN TOTAL.UM, I THINK BECAUSE THE LAW ALLOWS US TO AMEND THE DECISION, UH, I THINK WE, WE NEED TO REACH A HAPPY COMPROMISE THAT BOTH ADHERES TO THE DESIRES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE, THE NEW PD THAT WAS PUT INTO EFFECT IN OCTOBER OF 2022, UH, AS PASSED APPARENTLY UNANIMOUSLY BY COUNSEL, AS WELL AS BALANCING THAT WITH THE ISSUES, UH, FACING, UH, DEVELOPERS WHO WERE, YOU KNOW, A LONG WAY INTO CONSTRUCTION.
UH, AND, AND JUST WANNA FINISH THEIR PROJECT.
MR. POOLE, WOULD YOU COME TO THE PODIUM PLEASE? I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE REPRESENTING THE DIRECTOR OF, OF, UH, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, OR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WORKS FOR THAT PERSON, MS. LIU.
SO YOU, YOU, YOU CAN SPEAK FOR HER TODAY? CORRECT.
SO IN VERY BULLETED ITEM, VERY HIGH LEVEL, UH, ITEMS, RE REPEAT FOR ME WHAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS SAYING THAT'S IN VIOLATION AS IT RELATES TO 68 0 1 TYREE, I SEE YOUR LETTER FROM THE 25TH OF JUNE, BUT I, I WANNA MAKE SURE I'VE WRITTEN ALL OVER IT.
I WANT TO REWRITE WHAT ARE THE KEY COMPONENTS THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIALS SAYING THAT IT'S IN NON-COMPLIANCE, PLEASE.
THE USE IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT USE BEING DUPLEX VERSUS SINGLE FAMILY.
UH, THE HEIGHT IS IN VIOLATION HEIGHT.
THE LOT, THE LOT COVERAGE IS IN VIOLATION NEXT, AND THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN REFERENCE TO THE ROOF ARE IN VIOLATION.
YOUR LETTER ONLY REFERENCES THREE.
IT SAYS ILLEGAL LAND USE STRUCTURE EXCEEDS HEIGHT AND NON-COMPLIANT ROOF TYPE.
SO IT DOES NOT MENTION LOT COVERAGE.
WE UNCOVERED THE LOT COVERAGE LATER AFTER THAT LETTER WAS WRITTEN.
SUBSEQUENT, THE LAND USE, THE LAND USE IS WHAT TRIGGERED EVERYTHING SUBSEQUENT.
NOW, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A, THAT ALMOST COMES ACROSS AS A SUCKER PUNCH, AND THAT'S JUST NOT FAIR.
GOSH, ALMIGHTY, THAT IS NOT FAIR.
THAT'S NOT HOW, HMM, OKAY, I'LL BITE MY TONGUE.
SO WHAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS SAYING IS THERE'S AN ISSUE ON, ON LAND USE, WHICH IS DUPLEX VERSUS SINGLE FAMILY.
THERE'S AN ISSUE ON HEIGHT, THERE'S AN ISSUE ON LOT COVERAGE AND THE ISSUE ON DESIGN STANDARDS AS RELATES TO THE ROOF.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? BECAUSE I'M NOT, WE'RE NOT ADDING TO THE LIST.
NO MORE SUCKER PUNCHES? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO I ASKED THAT QUESTION 'CAUSE I WANT TO ELEVATE THOSE FOUR ISSUES TO THE BOARD.
I'M GONNA PROPOSE THAT WE HOLD THIS ITEM OVER.
I'M JUST, WE'RE JUST DISCUSSING, HOLD THIS ITEM OVER TO OCTOBER 22ND, 2024.
THAT'S OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING.
UH, THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY ASKED FOR AND CONSENTED TO THAT.
BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, I WILL PULL A CA, UH, MS. DAVIS AND SAY, YOU GUYS COME UP WITH A POTENTIAL INTERPRETATION OF THOSE.
AND THEN WE AS A BOARD MAY CODIFY THAT IN A MODIFIED ORDER.
WHAT DOES EVERYONE THINK OF THAT? WHERE THIS IS A DISCUSSION, A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION? MS. DAVIS? I, I LOVE IT AND I'LL, I'LL ALSO REITERATE WHY YOU ALL SHOULD LOVE IT, BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T COME UP WITH SOMETHING, WE'RE GONNA COME UP WITH SOMETHING YOU'RE, SHE'S RIGHT ABOUT THAT.
SO YOU MAY COME UP WITH SOMETHING WHERE, AND THIS IS JUST, YOU MIGHT CHANGE THE ROOF AND THAT MIGHT MAKE YOU HAPPY AND YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO IT OR MAYBE KEEP THE LOT COVERAGE THE SAME.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S CRITICAL TO YOU TO, TO YOU, BUT IF YOU DON'T COME UP WITH SOMETHING, WE WILL COME UP WITH SOMETHING AND YOU MAY NOT LIKE WHAT WE COME UP WITH.
AND HONESTLY, WE'RE NOT QUALIFIED TO COME UP WITH IT.
Y'ALL ARE IN A MUCH BETTER PLACE TO TALK TO EACH OTHER, BUT WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY IN THE END.
SO I, YES, BUT WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY IN THE END, SO, OKAY.
AND THERE NEEDS TO BE A LOT OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
SO IF YOU COME BACK AND YOU HAVEN'T ENGAGED WITH THE OTHER SIDE, THEN THAT REALLY HURTS YOUR CREDIBILITY.
SO THIS NEEDS TO BE A SINCERE EFFORT IF THIS IS THE WAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE MOVING FORWARD.
WHAT OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT YOUR CHAIRMAN'S SUGGESTION, MS. HAYDEN? I AGREE WITH HOLDING IT OVER, BUT I HOPE THAT AS, AS, UH, MS. DAVIS SAID THAT WE HAVE SOME BETTER CHOICES, I GUESS WHEN WE GET BACK TOGETHER NEXT MONTH, AND THAT WE'RE NOT IN THE SAME BOAT, JUST IN THIS
[03:20:01]
CIRCULAR PATTERN OF NEVER BEING ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS.SO, UM, I WOULD ENCOURAGE, UM, BOTH PARTIES TO, TO WORK TOGETHER AND PRESENT SOMETHING TO US THAT WE CAN HAVE IN GOOD CONSCIOUS, UH, VOTE ON AND, AND FEEL OKAY ABOUT ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION OTHERWISE, MR. MR. HAITZ, UH, JUST ONE OTHER COMMENT.
I WOULD ADD THAT, UM, I THINK WHAT IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE LISTENING TO WHAT WE'RE SAYING, THE TWO SIDES NEED TO COME BACK AND SAY, WE ARE BOTH AGREEABLE TO THIS RESOLUTION.
SO IF THAT'S NOT CLEAR, IT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR.
AND, AND I WOULD ALSO SAY JUST FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, JUST BECAUSE THE TWO SIDES COME TO AGREEMENT DOESN'T MEAN THE BOARD ADOPTS IT.
SO THE BOARD STILL HAS THE, AND HAS THE, THE AUTHORITY AND THE DISCRETION, UH, TO, TO ACT.
AND SO, UM, I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE SOME MORE FACTS ABOUT THESE TIMELINES AND ABOUT WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WEBSITE UPDATING AND THE INFORMATION FLOW, UM, AND MORE DEFINITIVE.
THIS JULY OF 22ND ON HOLD THING REALLY THREW ME FOR A LOOP AS TO WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS.
THEN I HAVE, UH, 36 25, THEN 26.6 AT RATE, UH, WE, WE WANT TO DO IN FACT.
SO THAT BEING SAID, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH ZERO ONE HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 22ND, 2024.
I'M MAKING THE MOTION FOR THE BOARD NOT TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, BUT TO COMMUNICATE TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND TO THE APPLICANT WHAT OUR CONCERN IS.
YOU'VE HEARD NOT ONE PERSON ON THIS PANEL THAT'S GONNA VOTE EITHER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WHICH MEANS NEITHER SIDE'S GONNA WIN RIGHT NOW.
SO I THINK, I THINK THIS IS A PROCESS THAT CAN WORK.
UM, AND I THINK I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY.
SO CHAIRMAN, YES, MR. HOPKINS, YOUR MOTION APPLIES TO BOTH, AS BOTH ASPECTS OF THIS CASE.
YOU TALKING ABOUT THE FEE WAIVER AS WELL AS THIS? YES.
UH, YEAH, BUT WE COULD DO THE FEE WAIVER TODAY, BUT WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL POSTPONE BOTH OF 'EM.
I'LL HAVE TO DO A SEPARATE MOTION FOR THE FEE WAIVER.
YES, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE INTENTION, EITHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
UM, I DON'T LIKE HOLDING CASES OVER AS ONE MEMBER AND I ONLY HAVE ONE VOTE, SO I DON'T PLAN ON HOLDING IT OVER NEXT MONTH.
AND, UM, I HOPE THAT, UH, AS YOU'VE HEARD HERE, WHAT I HOPE YOU CAN SELL US, SELL EACH OTHER AND SELL US BECAUSE IT'S JUST 'CAUSE YOU SELL EACH OTHER DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE GONNA SELL US.
SO SELL EACH OTHER AND SELL US.
ALRIGHT, ANY DISCUSSION? THE MOTION HEARING NONE, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE ROLE.
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO HOLD BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 0 1, UH, UNDER ADVISEMENT TO, TO OCTOBER 22ND, 2024.
IS THAT A GOOD DATE, BY THE WAY? IS THAT OUR NEXT HEARING DATE? 22ND? YES.
MOTION PASSES TO HOLD UNTIL OCTOBER 22ND.
WHEN DID WE MOVE? IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE 22ND.
WELL, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE 22ND AND, HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
IS IT NOT THE 22ND? IT IS THE 22ND.
YEAH, IT IS, BUT IT'S THE 22ND.
IN THE, IN THE MATTER 2 3 4 1 0 1.
THE BOARD IS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED A FIVE TO ZERO TO HOLD THIS ITEM UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 22ND, 2024.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, UM, IS THE FEE WAIVER REQUEST FOR THIS CASE.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO HOLD OVER MR. KOVI.
UH, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO READ FROM, SO, UH, DO YOU WANT ME TO READ IT? WOULD YOU PLEASE, UH, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH ZERO ONE FR ONE HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT TO OCTOBER 22ND, 2024.
WE'LL CALL THE ROLE MS. BOARD SECRETARY MS. DAVIS.
[03:25:01]
AYE.MOTION TO HOLD UNTIL OCTOBER 22ND PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 0 1 FR ONE.
WE ARE MO VOTED FIVE TO ZERO UNANIMOUSLY HOLD THE ITEM UNTIL OCTOBER 22ND, 2024.
NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH TEN TWO THREE FOUR DASH ZERO.
THIS IS AT 1 7 1 0 AVENUE IS THE APPLICANT HERE.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING, IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME BACK UP.
UH, OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN FIRST, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
MY NAME IS REINHART SCOTT HANSON, JR.
I LIVE AT 9 9 2 5 LAKE DALE DRIVE.
SIR, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HEARD OUR PRESENTMENT, THE, THE STAFF BRIEFING THIS MORNING? I DID, YES.
SO YOU HEARD SOME OF, A LITTLE BIT OF THE CONFUSION.
WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION.
ONE OF OUR MEMBERS, MS. HAYDEN, YOU KNOW, ZEROED IN ON SAYING, OKAY, IT'S A TREE.
WHERE'S THE TREE? WHAT'S THE ISSUE WITH THE TREE? AND, AND WE TRIED TO FIND IT IN THE MAP AND ALL THAT SORT OF DEAL.
I SEE WE HAVE A POWERPOINT HERE.
IS THAT WHAT'S COMING TO US? UH, YES SIR.
HASTILY WALKED OUT IN AN EFFORT TO ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS POTENTIALLY.
ALRIGHT, SO YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TO PRESENT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, HE IS, HE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD SEVEN, SEVEN PAGES, PLEASE? YES.
LET HER PASS THAT BEFORE WE WE DO THAT.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS CASE? NO, JUST THE APPLICANT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
I'M THE FOUNDER OF SMART LIVING RESIDENTIAL, A DEVELOPER OF HIGH QUALITY WELL-DESIGNED HOUSING THAT PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY AFFORD.
WE INVEST PRIMARILY IN SOUTHERN DALLAS AND ARE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON A 153 UNITS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MORELL AND CORINTH.
WE'RE THE FIRST NON-TAX CREDIT MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED IN DISTRICT FOUR.
I'M HERE REQUESTING THE BOARD APPROVE AS AN ADDITIONAL MEANS OF MITIGATION UNDER SECTION 51 A 10 DASH 1 35.
THE COST OF WORK WE HAVE PERFORMED TOWARD CONSERVING TREE NUMBER 8 8 3 3, A SIGNIFICANT 47 INCH PECAN TREE, A TREE SO LARGE, IT'S UNLIKELY EVEN TWO PEOPLE COULD LINK THEIR ARMS AROUND IT.
CURRENTLY WE ARE PREPARED AND IF YOU WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD, MR. THOMPSON, YOU COULD SEE A, A VISUAL OF THAT.
CURRENTLY WE ARE PREPARED TO MEET THE REQUIRED MEANS OF MITIGATION BY ONE, REPLACING 192 CALIPER INCHES ON OUR DEVELOPMENT SITE, AND TWO, PAYING $163,000 INTO THE REFORESTATION FUND, WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF 843.8 CALIPER INCHES.
IF I MAY BE CLEAR, WE ARE NOT SEEKING A WAY TO SKIRT THE REQUIRED MITIGATION SUCH THAT OUR CONTRIBUTION WOULD BE LESS THAN THE STANDARD CITY HALL, OR EXCUSE ME, THE CITY HOLDS ALL DEVELOPERS.
WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING THOUGH, IS THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER AS AN ADDITIONAL MEANS OF MITIGATION UNDER SECTION 51 A DASH 10, SPOT 1 35.
THE COST OF WORK WE UNDERTOOK ABOVE AND BEYOND THE MINIMUM REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 1 36 TO PRESERVE TREE 8 8 3 3.
THE NET EFFECT BEING A REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED PAYMENT INTO THE REFORESTATION FUND FROM THE 163,000 AS CURRENTLY CALCULATED TO 100, OR EXCUSE ME, TWO 69,853.
THE TWO BIGGEST ASSETS OF THE CEDAR CREST COMMUNITY AS TOLD BY HIS RESIDENTS, AND I KNOW BECAUSE I'M A MEMBER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ARE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS QUIET AND IT'S FLUSH WITH BEAUTIFUL TREES.
THE TREES ARE ONE OF THE BIGGEST ASSETS OF SOUTHERN DALLAS, PERIOD BY REAL ESTATE.
UH, BUT REAL ESTATE BY ITS NATURE IS DESTRUCTIVE WITH MOST DEVELOPMENT RESULTING IN THE CLEAR CUT OF LARGE SWATHS OF LAND TO MAKE WAY FOR PROGRESS.
SECTION 10, SPOT 1 35 CREATES AN OFFSETTING BALANCE TO REAL ESTATE'S DESTRUCTION, THOUGH THROUGH REPLANTING REQUIREMENTS IN THE REFORESTATION FUND.
BUT NEITHER OF THESE CAN REPLACE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AN OLD GROWTH TREE.
AND WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY, OPPORTUNITY TO CONSERVE A TREE OF STATURE IS PRESENTED SUCH AS THE ONE THAT WE DISCUSSED HERE TODAY, WHICH HAS LIKELY BEEN AROUND SINCE THE CITY'S FOUNDING, I BELIEVE I AS A DEVELOPER AND
[03:30:01]
WE AS A CITY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK TOGETHER FOR ITS CONSERVATION.RECOGNIZING THIS 47 INCH PECAN TREE SIGNIFICANCE, WE UNDERTOOK EXTENSIVE CONSERVATION EFFORTS CONSIDERABLY ABOVE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY CODE SECTION 10, SPOT 1 36 IN THE FORM OF NUMBER ONE, WORKING WITH THE CERTIFIED ARBORIST TO BRACE STEAK FERTILIZE, PERFORM SELECTIVE PRUNING AND EXCAVATE TO EXPOSE ITS ROOT FLARE FOR A COST OF $22,000.
NUMBER TWO, REQUIRING OUR RETAINING WALL ENGINEER TO REDESIGN THE ADJACENT RETAINING WALLS, PRESERVING THE TREE'S ROOT SYSTEM, AND GIVING IT AMPLE ROOM FOR CONTINUED GROWTH FOR AN ADDED COST OF ROUGHLY $8,300.
AND LASTLY, INCURRING ADDITIONAL DRILLING FEES TO INSTALL SECTIONAL CASED PIERS NEAR THE TREE BECAUSE THE LESS EXPENSIVE STANDARD PIER IN THE REQUIRED EQUIPMENT FOR THAT INSTALLATION WOULD'VE RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT PERMANENT DAMAGE TO THE TREE'S CANOPY.
AND THAT COST US AN ADDITIONAL $63,000.
AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE HANDOUTS AND ON THE SCREEN IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO FLIPPING THROUGH.
UM, THE ADDITIONAL EFFORTS THUS FAR HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN CONSERVING THE TREE AND I'VE PROVIDED THE BOARD WITH PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF SUCH.
AND, UM, THE AERIAL IS DATED WHEN THE PHOTO WAS ACTUALLY TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 9TH, OR EXCUSE ME, SEPTEMBER 12TH.
CONSIDERING SOME OF THE BOARD'S CONCERNS EARLIER ABOUT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS, UM, WE ARE INCREDIBLY HOPEFUL THAT IT WILL SURVIVE OVER THE LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND WE'LL BE IMPLEMENTING, IMPLEMENTING A LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE PLAN ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE.
THE MORE ECONOMICALLY PRUDENT DECISION, THOUGH, WOULD'VE BEEN TO EITHER ONE, NOT DO ANYTHING THEREBY SAVING SIGNIFICANT BUDGET DOLLARS, BUT LIKELY PERMANENTLY DAMAGING THE TREE AND LEAVING IT TO DIE SLOWLY.
OR TWO, REMOVE THE TREE ALTOGETHER, WHICH WOULD'VE ONLY COST US $9,000 INTO THE REFORESTATION FUND.
HOWEVER, WE INTENTIONALLY CHOSE TO CONSERVE THE TREE DESPITE THE SIGNIFICANT COST OF APPROXIMATELY $93,000 OF UNBUDGETED EXPENSES.
AND DESPITE OUR INVESTMENT AND EFFORTS, THE TREE STILL MIGHT NOT SURVIVE.
IT'S A LIVING AND GROWING ORGANISM THAT WILL LIVE BASED ON ITS OWN, YOU KNOW, DECISION.
WE DID THIS THOUGH BECAUSE WE BELIEVE A TREE OF SIGNIFICANCE IS PART OF THE CHARACTER OF CEDAR CREST IN OUR DEVELOPMENT AND PROVIDES SIGNIFICANT VALUE TO OUR FUTURE TENANTS AND CONTRIBUTES TO BOTH COMMUNITIES.
WE BELIEVE WE'VE OPERATED IN THE SPIRIT OF TREE CONSERVATION, HONOR THE INTENT BEHIND SECTION 51, A 10 DASH ONE 30 URBAN FOREST CONSERVATION AND HAVE GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND TO CONSERVE THIS TREE.
WE HAVE SPENT A DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL EXCEEDING THE MINIMUM CONSERVATION METHODS AND BELIEVE THE ADDITIONAL MEANS OF MITIGATION PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS HEARING ARE WORTHY OF APPROVAL.
OUR CONSERVATION EFFORTS HAVE BEEN SOCIALIZED AND WELCOMED BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.
WE HAVE VETTED THESE EFFORTS WITH THE CITY'S CHIEF ARBORIST AND DISCUSSED THIS REQUEST WITH COUNCILWOMAN CAROLYN KING ARNOLD, WHO WROTE A LETTER OF, UH, OF SUPPORT IN OUR APPLICATION.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE BOARD'S APPROVAL AS AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF COMPLIANCE UNDER SECTION 51 A DASH 10 SPOT 1 35, THE COST OF THE ADDITIONAL WORK PERFORMED TOWARD CONS CONSERVATION OF TREE 8 8 3 3 IN THE AMOUNT OF $93,000.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT MR. NER? THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE HANDOUT THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL IN GIVING US AN IMPROVED VIEW OF THE, OF THE TREE IN QUESTION.
UM, I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY, UH, OTHER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
IT, IT SOUNDS TO ME FROM YOUR PRESENTATION THAT YOU'VE REALLY DONE YOUR DUE DILIGENCE ON THIS AND, UH, HAVE COME UP WITH A, WITH A DECENT SOLUTION IN MY, MY MIND, SO THANK YOU.
MS. HAYDEN, I'M NOT SURE THIS IS RELEVANT, BUT DID YOU SAY THAT THIS IS THE FIRST NON-TAX CREDIT, MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN DISTRICT FOUR? BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE OF DEVELOPMENT, BOTH CURRENT IN THE PAST, YES, MA'AM.
SO, UM, I, IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU DID HAVE TO REMOVE SOME TREES OBVIOUSLY, TO, FOR THE PROJECT TO GO FORWARDS, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE IN THIS SITUATION FOR TREE MITIGATION.
AND THE DOLLAR VALUE, BUT IT DOES LOOK LIKE YOU'VE KEPT A, A NICE BUFFER OF TREES, AT LEAST FROM THE AERIAL PHOTOS YOU PROVIDED.
UM, THERE'S A VERY NICE BUFFER OF TREES AROUND THE CREEK AND THEN EVEN ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY.
SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT AS WELL.
THANK YOU MS. HAYDEN DISCUSSIONS FOR OR QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR A MOTION? UH, BEFORE I, I DON'T HAVE EITHER, BUT I DO HAVE A, A QUESTION FOR STAFF YES.
MR. IRWIN, I NOTICED IN, UM, ON PAGE 79, THERE WAS A, UH, UNDER TREE MITIGATION, THE EQUIVALENT STORE STORY.
VALUE AT, UH, UH, 193 DO $193 PER DIAMETER INCH.
IS THAT A, IS THAT A GENERIC STANDARD OR, I WAS, I WAS JUST CURIOUS AS TO HOW THAT VALUE WAS ASCERTAINED AND IS IT
[03:35:01]
FOR LIKE A HISTORIC OR SIGNIFICANT TREE, OR DOES THAT APPLY FOR TREES IN GENERAL ACROSS THE CITY? WELL, IN THIS CASE, IT'S APPLIED ACROSS THE POPULATION OF TREES.UH, SO ESSENTIALLY WHEN THE, THE TREE SURVEY WAS DONE, THE TREES WERE CLASSIFIED BY WHETHER THEY'RE SIGNIFICANT LIKE THIS TREE IS, OR CLASS TWO OR CLASS THREE, UH, OR EVEN CLASS ONE IF THEY'RE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN AND WE DETER.
AND BASICALLY 1 93 IS THE BALANCE OF, OF WHAT IT WOULD BE PER INCH, UH, WHEN YOU PUT AFTER THE CLASSIFICATION OF TREES.
SO IT'S JUST, IT'S A, IT'S THE NUMBER THAT WE CAN USE TO CALCULATE, UH, THE DOLLAR VALUE, REFORESTATION VALUE.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS AS TO HOW THAT NUMBER WAS DERIVED.
SO THE, IT SAYS 67 NEW TREES AT THREE INCHES PER TREE.
UM, WHAT, WHAT TYPES OF TREES? IT'S HARD TO SEE THE, FROM THE PLANS, WHAT KINDS OF TREES YOU'RE PLANTING, BUT THE THREE INCHES, THE THREE INCH DIAMETER TREE TREES THAT YOU'RE USING FOR THE MITIGATION, WHAT TYPES OF TREES ARE THOSE JUST GENERALLY? SO, UM, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
I UNFORTUNATELY CAN'T SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO ALL THE TREES.
I DO KNOW THAT NUMBER ONE, WE DO HAVE A LOT OF CEDAR ELMS, UM, THAT ARE ON OUR REPLANTING PLAN.
THERE'S SOME OTHER LIKE CHINA BERRIES, UM, IN THAT AS WELL.
I DO KNOW THAT EACH OF THE TREES THAT WE ARE REPLANTING, UM, MEET THE CITY ARBORIST RECOMMENDATION AND, AND CODE REQUIREMENTS.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
SORRY, I WANNA MAKE SURE I HAD THE RIGHT 1, 2, 3 4 1 1 0 Y.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH HUNDRED 10 AND APPLICATION OF REINHARDT HANSEN JR.
GRANT THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE TREE CONSERVATION REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 10 OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED FOR A REDUCTION OF REQUIRED TREE REPLACEMENT OF 482 DIAMETER INCHES OF PROTECTED TREES AFTER PLANTING ON THE PROPERTY.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT ONE, STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ARTICLE WILL UNREASONABLY BURDEN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND TWO, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
AND THREE, THE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IMPOSED BY A SITE-SPECIFIC LANDSCAPE PLAN APPROVED BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. NRI IN BDA 2 3 4 DASH HUNDRED 10 TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, AT 482 DIANA INCHES.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
AS STATED EARLIER, I, I THINK YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB.
I THINK, UH, YOU'VE DONE, UH, A LOT OF RESEARCH AND DUE DILIGENCE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE EXPLAINING THE BENEFIT.
UM, I'M PERSONALLY IMPRESSED THAT YOU, THAT YOU MADE THE EFFORT TO TRY TO PRESERVE THIS TREE, WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIAL IN NATURE AND, UH, THAT'S THE REASON WHY I, I MADE THE MOTION.
MS. HAYDEN, I AGREE WITH MR. NARY THAT THE INFORMATION THAT YOU JUST PROVIDED WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHS WAS VERY, VERY HELPFUL, UM, IN THIS DECISION.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, $94,000 IS A LOT OF MONEY, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE EFFORT THAT YOU WENT TO, ESPECIALLY WITH THE RETAINING WALL AND SOME OF THE OTHER, UM, THINGS THAT YOU PUT INTO PLACE TO PROTECT THE TREE, I, I CAN SEE YOU EASILY HITTING THAT $94,000 MARK.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MR. HAITZ? UH, JUST A QUESTION.
UM, DOES THE WORDING OF THE MOTION ENCOMPASS THE MONETARY COMPENSATION TO THE CITY LANDSCAPE COM? UH, FUND BY VIRTUE OF THE 4 82, IT EQUATES BACK.
IS THAT MR. CORRECT, MR. BORDER ATTORNEY? THAT'S CORRECT.
HIS 4 82 ENCOMPASSES THE 84,000 OR RIGHT THAT 4 82.
THE EQUIVALENCE IS THE, BASICALLY IT'S THE EQUIVALENT IS, UH, DIAMETER INCHES VERSUS THE MONETARY REPRODUCTION, SAME THING.
BUT DOES OBLIGATE HIM TO MAKE THAT, THAT PAYMENT TO THE CITY.
UH, HE IS OBLIGATED TO DO ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE.
UH, THE PROJECT IS STILL UNDERWAY AND BEFORE THAT'S COMPLETED, ALL THE MITIGATION BE RESOLVED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO GRANT MS. BOARD
[03:40:01]
SECRETARY PROCEED WITH A VOTE.MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF 2 3 4 1 1 0.
UH, THE BOARD GRANTS THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE TREE CONSERVATION REGULATIONS.
LAST, OR TWO, TWO LAST ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA TODAY.
UH, BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 1 2 3 4 DASH ONE.
THIS IS AT 6 5 2 9 VICTORIA AVENUE.
IS THAT LIGHT ON? HELLO? YES, THERE YOU GO.
ALRIGHT, SO, UM, I ASKED THIS QUESTION IN OUR BRIEFING THIS MORNING, AND I'M GONNA ASK AGAIN NOW.
DID YOU, UH, GET THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AS IT RELATES TO THE SPEAKING TIME IN THE HEARING AHEAD OF THIS MEETING? YES, I DID.
SO FOR EVERYONE'S REFRESH, WE START WITH THE APPLICANT 20 MINUTES.
UM, AND ANY, ANY WITNESSES YOU WANNA CALL, IF YOU CALL WITNESS THE, THE BUILDING OFFICIALS ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THAT THE QUESTIONS THAT COME FROM THE BOARD ARE NOT COUNTED AGAINST YOUR 20 YOUR 20 MINUTE TIME.
UM, AFTER YOU DO YOUR 20 MINUTES, UM, THEN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, UH, HAS 20 MINUTES OF TIME, IF THEY CALL ANY WITNESSES.
YOUR SIDE HAS THE ABILITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THEM UP TO FIVE MINUTES.
IT DOES NOT COUNT AGAINST YOUR TIME.
UM, AT THE END AS THE APPLICANT, YOU GET A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL AND A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT, AND AT THE END THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL GETS A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT.
SO IF YOU WOULD GIVE US, UH, FIRST OF ALL, GO GET SWORN UNDER BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
MR. LEE, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
UH, DANIEL LEE, 1 0 8 NORTH, UH, MONISE DRIVE, GARLAND, TEXAS.
VERY GOOD SIR, YOU MAY, YOU MAY BEGIN.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS AND STAFF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
UH, MY NAME IS DANNY LEE, OWNER OF, UH, 6 5 2 9 VICTORIA AVENUE.
UM, SORRY I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS.
YEAH, THERE'S SO MUCH AT STAKE FOR ME AND MY FAMILY.
NONE OF US ARE HURTFUL EXCEPT MR. OVITZ
UH, I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK YOU TO REVERSE MY PERMIT VERIFICATION, UM, TO ALLOW ME TO CONTINUE BUILDING MY HOUSE.
UM, I'M NOT BUILD BIG BUILDER BY ANY MEANS.
UM, I'VE BEEN IN TEXAS FOR TWO YEARS AND VICTORIA'S ONLY THE THIRD HOUSE THAT I'VE BUILT.
AND THIS ONE I'M ACTUALLY BUILDING FOR MY FAMILY.
UM, MY, MY KIDS AND MY PARENTS.
UM, I GOT OUTTA THE NAVY IN 2016, UH, DISABLED AND NOTHING TO MY NAME.
MY PARENTS CAME HERE AS REFUGEES FROM THE VIETNAM WAR ALSO WITH NOTHING.
UH, THE NAMES ARE HAILEY, KAYLA, AND JACKSON.
UM, WE SOLD OUR HOUSE IN BOSTON ONCE WE GOT THESE PERMITS APPROVED.
AND, UH, THEY'RE ALL LIVING IN AN APARTMENT NOW AND WAITING FOR ME TO FINISH THIS HOUSE SO THAT THEY CAN COME DOWN AND JOIN ME.
UM, SO I SEARCHED THE ZONING ON, UH, THE ZONING WEB.
UM, I SEARCHED THE ZONING INFORMATION ONLINE.
UH, I PHYSICALLY WENT DOWN TO THE BUILDING OFFICE IN THE, UH, ZONING OFFICE.
I ASKED FOR WHAT THE ZONING WAS AND THAT THEY TOLD ME, UM, THAT IT WAS 35 FEET, 45% LOCK COVERAGE AND IT WAS NOTHING, UM, UM, ABOUT THE ROOF.
AND THAT'S WHAT I DESIGNED THE HOUSE AROUND.
AND, UM, THAT'S WHAT I SUBMITTED THE PERMITS FOR.
AND, UM, IT, IT ULTIMATELY GOT APPROVED, UM, THROUGHOUT THE COURSE.
UH, I WAS INSPECTED SIX TIMES.
NOBODY SAID ANYTHING UNTIL NOW WHERE I'M $600,000 IN THE HOLE BETWEEN BUYING THE PROPERTY AND BUILDING IT UP.
AND, UM, IN TERMS OF, UH, FAIRNESS, I DON'T BELIEVE I DID ANYTHING WRONG.
UM, I WORK TOO HARD TO LOSE EVERYTHING LIKE THIS.
SO, UM, PLEASE DON'T PUNISH ME FOR SOMETHING YOU KNOW, THAT I HAD NO CONTROL OVER.
AND, UM, THIS IS MISTY VENTURA.
UH, SHE'S A VOLUNTEER LAWYER, UM, HERE TO SPEAK TODAY, UH, ON THE, UH, LEGAL ISSUES ON MY BEHALF.
IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN BE SWORN IN BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY? YES, SIR.
MISTY VENTURA, 94 0 6 BISQUE BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 8 ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, DANNY LEE, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, MA'AM.
CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I'M
[03:45:01]
HERE TODAY TO REQUEST, SORRY.I'M HERE TO REQUEST ON BEHALF OF DANNY LEE, THE APPLICANT THAT THE PROP AND PROPERTY OWNER FOR 65 29 VICTORIA, THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REVERSED THE WRONGFUL DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL TO REVOKE DANNY'S PERMITS AND REINSTATE THOSE PERMITS SO THAT HE MAY COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF HIS PARTIALLY BUILT DUPLEX LOCATED AT 65 29 VICTORIA AVENUE.
THIS CASE IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE LAST CASE THAT YOU HEARD.
IN THIS WAY, THE USE THE DUPLEX IS ALLOWED BY WRIGHT, ALLOWING DANNY TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX ON A LOT THAT HAS BEEN VACANT SINCE 2005.
IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS DOES NOT CHANGE THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISPLACE RESIDENTS EVEN IF SUCH CONSTRUCTION IS SLIGHTLY HIGHER, FIVE FEET AND COVERS SLIGHTLY MORE OF THE LOT 5% THAN WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE IN INAPPLICABLE OCTOBER, 2022 PD AMENDMENTS.
REVOKING DANNY'S PERMITS BASED ON INCOMPLETE INFORMATION AND INSUFFICIENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE APPLICABLE LAW IS NOT SUPPORTABLE.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY ASKING YOU TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
THE INTERPRETATIONS MADE THAT THE PRIOR ZONING, THE ZONING THAT IS APPLICABLE, THE ZONING THAT WAS IN EFFECT PRIOR TO OCTOBER, 2022, IS EVIDENCED BY CITY STAFF'S ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS AND BY CITY STAFF'S INSPECTION OF THIS PROPERTY, NOT ONCE BUT SIX TIMES THE PROPERTY WAS SITTING VACANT.
THE CITY OF DALLAS DEMOLISHED A DUPLEX ON THIS PROPERTY JANUARY 12TH, 2005, 2005.
DANNY IS TAKING A PIECE OF UNDEVELOPED VACANT PROPERTY AND BUILDING A DUPLEX FOR A MULTI-GENERATIONAL FAMILY HIMSELF.
HIS WIFE, HIS THREE CHILDREN, AND HIS PARENTS.
THE ZONING THAT WAS ADOPTED OCTOBER 12TH, 2022 IS INVALID.
NOT ONLY BECAUSE DANNY HAS VESTED RIGHTS, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THERE ARE NOTICE DEFECTS RELATED TO THE ZONING THAT MAKE IT VOID.
THE ZONING THAT'S REFERENCED IN THE BUILDING OFFICIALS BRIEF TO THIS BOARD REFERENCES AN ADDRESS AND AN OWNER THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE OWNER ON THE DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORDS AND THEREFORE IT WAS INADEQUATE.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, AS A LEGAL MATTER, I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT A PD ZONING ORDINANCE THAT DEFINES NEW CONSTRUCTION BY A DATE IS EVIDENCE OF SPOT ZONING, WHICH IS ILLEGAL IN TEXAS.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TIMELINE FOR THIS PROJECT, THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED JANUARY 3RD, I'M SORRY, APPLIED FOR JANUARY 3RD, 2023.
ARE YOU WANTING SOMEONE TO MOVE THIS POWERPOINT OR IS IT MEANT TO BE JUST THIS PAGE? UM, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR A FEW MINUTES OF COURSE, AND THEN IT'S YOUR TIME.
AND THEN WE CAN GET TO THE POWERPOINT JUST AS THE SUMMARY AT THE END IF YOU WOULD INDULGE ME.
IT IT'S YOUR 20 MINUTES AND, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
SO WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE TIMELINE FOR THIS PROJECT, THE FIRST PERMIT WAS ISSUED JANUARY.
THE, THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED JANUARY 3RD, 2023.
THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED APRIL 27TH, 2023.
THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY DANNY JUNE 4TH, 2024.
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THIS PANEL MAY ASK IS, WELL, IF HE GOT HIS PERMIT IN APRIL OF 2023, WHY DID HE CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY A YEAR LATER? THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE HE NEEDED TO GET FINANCING AND A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE CLOSING OF HIS LOAN WAS THAT PERMITS BE ISSUED AND HE WAS PREPARED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION.
SO THAT EXPLAINS THAT TIME DELAY BETWEEN THE TIME HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY ON JUNE 4TH, 2024 AND STARTED CONSTRUCTION UNDER HIS MASTER PERMIT.
HE HAD SIX INSPECTIONS BETWEEN JUNE 4TH AND JUNE 28TH.
HE POURED A FOUNDATION, IT WAS INSPECTED, HE FRAMED IN THE HOUSE, IT WAS INSPECTED.
HE CONTINUED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH CONSTRUCTION UNTIL THE PROJECT WAS PUT ON HOLD BY THE CITY OF DALLAS, JULY 26TH, 2024.
ON AUGUST 7TH, DALLAS SENT VIA EMAIL A NOTICE, REVOKING THE PERMITS, AND ON THE SAME DAY DANNY APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUESTING THAT THAT PERMIT REVOCATION
[03:50:01]
BE REVERSED.WE ARE ASKING YOU TODAY BECAUSE OF THE FAIRNESS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CASE AND BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING LEGAL ISSUES THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT FOR YOU THAT YOU REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DETERMINATION.
THIS PROJECT JURISDICTIONALLY IS GRANDFATHERED, IT'S GRANDFATHERED TO THE RULES IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THE OCTOBER 22 ZONING THAT IS VOID RELATED TO THIS LOT BECAUSE OF A LACK OF NOTICE AND BECAUSE OF THE SPOT ZONING, DANNY HAS CONSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS THAT ARE VESTED AND PROTECTED.
HE DID NOT RECEIVE FAIR NOTICE OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING.
ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT THIS BOARD HAS FOCUSED ON DURING PRIOR COMMENTS IS HOW DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE? I CAN TELL YOU THE FIRST PROJECT I DID IN DALLAS WAS IN 1998 AND THE RULES HAVEN'T MUCH CHANGED SINCE THEN.
DALLAS OFTEN ADOPTS COMPLICATED PD ZONING ORDINANCES THROUGH A PARAMETERS RESOLUTION THAT THEN GETS NEGOTIATED WITH THE APPLICANT AND STAFF ULTIMATELY GETS SIGNED AND THEN GETS PUBLISHED.
IT DOESN'T GO INTO THE CODIFICATION CHAPTER 51 A OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH BY THE WAY HAS A DISCLAIMER THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT RELY ON THE ONLINE INFORMATION UNTIL MUCH LATER THAN THAT OFTEN ONLY TWICE A YEAR.
IF YOU REALLY WANNA KNOW WHAT THE ZONING IS ON YOUR PROPERTY, YOU FIRST GO TO THE ONLINE AND THEN YOU FIGURE OUT UNDERNEATH THE CODIFICATION WHAT THE ORDINANCE NUMBERS ARE.
THEN YOU DO AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST TO THE CITY OF DALLAS AND YOU ACTUALLY GET COPIES OF THOSE ORDINANCES AND THEN YOU USE THOSE DATES TO REFERENCE BACK TO CITY AGENDAS AND LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE CITY AGENDA TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOUR PROPERTY HAS BEEN REZONED.
AND THEN YOU ASK FOR THOSE ORDINANCES PURSUANT TO AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST.
SO IF WE HAD MORE TRANSPARENCY AND WE HAD MORE INFORMATION READILY AVAILABLE, THE TYPES OF HONEST MISTAKES THAT STAFF MADE ON THIS CASE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE.
I DON'T IMPUTE ANY ILL WILL TO ANYONE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS, BUT IT IS, AS YOU ALL WELL KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE COMPLICATED AND NOT ALWAYS FAIR WITH RESPECT TO THE FAIRNESS, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL BECAUSE IT'S THE FAIR THING TO DO.
IT'S THE FAIR THING FOR DANNY BECAUSE OF THE ZONING FAILURES.
IT'S THE FAIR THING FOR THE CITY BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE GRANDFATHERED STATUS OF THIS PROJECT.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BEFORE ANY NEW ZONING WAS APPLIED TO THIS PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY PRESERVATION ACT CODIFIED AT TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 2007, THE ANTI-RETRO ACTIVITY PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE ONE SECTION 16 OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION.
AND LAST BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST, CHAPTER 3000 OF THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH WAS A PREEMPTION STATUTE ADOPTED IN 2019 THAT PROHIBITED CITIES FROM REGULATING THROUGH ZONING MATERIALS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION, WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT A CITY FROM REGULATING ROOF PITCHES IN THE MANNER THAT'S DESCRIBED IN PD 67.
SO FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS WE'RE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT YOU REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION TO REVOKE DANNY'S PERMITS.
DALLAS STAFF AFFIRMATIVELY SIGNAL TO DANNY THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO DEVELOP HIS PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, WHICH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, THOSE THAT WERE ONLINE AND IN EFFECT THAT APPLY TO HIS PROPERTY.
HE'S A RULE FOLLOWER BY NATURE.
HE FOLLOWED THE RULES, THEY JUST WEREN'T THE RULES THAT WERE ADOPTED IN OCTOBER OF 2022 BECAUSE THOSE RULES DID NOT APPLY TO HIS PROJECT.
SO WITH THAT WE CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS.
ACTUALLY, LET ME JUST, IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME, CAN YOU CONFIRM HOW MUCH TIME WE HAVE LEFT? UH, YOU STARTED AT FIVE AND IT'S FIVE 12, SO YOU HAVE EIGHT MINUTES LEFT.
IN THOSE EIGHT MINUTES, I WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED BY THIS PANEL DURING THE LONG DAY THAT I KNOW YOU HAVE ALL HAD AS VOLUNTEERS.
I WAS HERE WITH YOU WHEN THE MEETING STARTED AT NINE O'CLOCK.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FOCUSING ON A SOLUTION, PLEASE BE REMINDED THAT FOR DANNY, THERE IS NO USE PROBLEM.
[03:55:01]
ENTITLED BY WRIGHT UNDER THE PRIOR ZONING THAT IS APPLICABLE TO HIS PROJECT AND THE CURRENT AMENDMENT TO PD 67 THAT WAS ADOPTED IN OCTOBER OF 22 TO BUILD A DUPLEX.HE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX.
SO WHAT ARE THE THREE THINGS WHERE DANNY DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE OCTOBER 22 REGULATIONS THAT WE WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU ARE IN INAPPLICABLE.
ONE IS THE HEIGHT, HIS BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED.
HE'S ALREADY FRAMED INTO 30 FEET.
THE NEW PD 67 REQUIRES 25 FEET, A FIVE FOOT DIFFERENTIAL.
HOW DO YOU TAKE OFF FIVE FEET FROM AN ALREADY FRAMED BUILDING? EXPENSIVE, DIFFICULT.
I THINK A SAW WAS A SUGGESTION HERE.
NOT A FAIR SUGGESTION, BUT A SUGGESTION.
THE NEXT VARIANCE OR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OCTOBER 22ND REGULATIONS AND THE RULES IN EFFECT AS EVIDENCED BY DANNY'S APPROVED PERMIT WERE RELATED TO COVERAGE.
THE OLD RULE WAS 45, THE NEW RULE IS 40.
AND LAST, THE RUTH PITCH IS INCONSISTENT WITH REGULATIONS THAT I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU OR PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW AND THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE, DANNY WANTS TO FINISH THIS HOME FOR HIS FAMILY.
AND YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PERMIT THAT TODAY BY RECOGNIZING THAT THE CITY HAS THE HIGHER DUTY WHEN THE CITY PUBLISHES INFORMATION ISSUES, PERMITS, INSPECTS IMPROVEMENTS, AND OWNERS FAMILY MEN LIKE DANNY WORK HARD TO FOLLOW THE RULES AND DO THE RIGHT THINGS TO BRING HOUSING AND HIS FAMILY TO DALLAS.
AND SO WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU HONOR THE PERMIT AND REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND ALLOW DANNY TO COMPLETE HIS HOME.
AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO STAND FOR QUESTIONS.
OKAY, YOU'RE AT FIVE, YOU'RE AT, UM, 15 MINUTES OF YOUR 20.
WHAT QUESTIONS DOES, DOES THE BOARD HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? MS. HAYDEN, DO YOU HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE CURRENT, UH, STATE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE, OF THE HOME? I DID NOT BRING ANY, BUT I THOUGHT THERE WAS ONE IN THE BRIEFING PROVIDED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT SHOWED THE HOME FRAMED IN AND THE POWERPOINT THAT YOU HAD UP.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE NEED TO SEE IN THERE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
SO THE POWER A A LET'S USE THE POWERPOINT FOR THE CONCLUSION BECAUSE IT'S A SUMMARY OF THE LAW.
BECAUSE REMEMBER I, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU ASKED ONE OF THE FORMER FOLKS WAS HOW, OKAY, HOLD ON A SECOND, THIS IS QUESTION TIME.
SHE ASKED IF THERE WAS A PICTURE.
LET'S, LET'S FOCUS IN ON, DO YOU HAVE A PICTURE? OKAY, LET'S STICK WITH THAT QUESTION RIGHT NOW.
OTHERWISE IT GOES INTO YOUR PRESENTATION TIME.
SO THIS IS QUESTION TIME, SO JUST HOLD FOR A SECOND.
OH, THIS WAS FROM YOUR BRIEFING THIS MORNING? YES.
CAN I HAVE A PICTURE? EXCELLENT, THANK YOU.
WELL, WE COULD USE OUR AERIAL MAP THAT'S IN THE PACKET, BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT THAT'S, THAT'S PROBABLY BEING UPDATED BY THE SAME PLACE, SAME PEOPLE THAT UPDATE THE OTHER, THE LAND USE MAP
SO THE PICTURE TO THE RIGHT, UM, AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IT AGAIN OVER.
THIS WAS TAKEN AT THE MOST TWO WEEKS AGO.
UH, SO THIS IS THE CURRENT STATE AND UM, YOU CAN CONFIRM THAT THIS IS NOTHING ELSE HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST TWO WEEKS, CORRECT? YES.
MS. HAYDEN, THIS, THIS IS TO YOUR QUESTION THAT ANSWER MY QUESTION.
I JUST WANTED TO SEE THE PICTURE.
MR. NE YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR TWO OR THREE? UH, JUST, I JUST ONE INITIALLY.
UM, YOU SAID THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE YOUR HOME, A MULTI-GENERATIONAL HOME, AND I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHY YOU ELECTED TO BUILD A DUPLEX VERSUS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
UM, I NEEDED FOUR BEDROOMS BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT OF KIDS AND MY PARENTS AND YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I'M A DISABLED VETERAN, SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, WORK MIGHT BE HARD.
UM, I WANTED TO RENT OUT THE OTHER SIDE TO HELP, UM, PAY FOR THE MORTGAGE.
SO, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOURS, YOUR FAMILY'S JUST GONNA
[04:00:01]
BE LIVING ON ONE SIDE AND YOU'RE GOING TO RENT OUT THE OTHER.IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
WOULD OTHER QUESTION, UH, MR AND, AND JUST ONE MORE COMMENT, EXCUSE ME.
I'D LIKE, WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, THE MILITARY.
OKAY, SO I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS.
UM, TAKE US THROUGH THE TIMELINES OF, AND WHAT I, I GRABBED IS THREE DATES AND IT SAYS THE PERMIT, YOU SAID THE PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR ON JANUARY 3RD OF 23.
THEN THE PERMIT WAS APPROVED ON APRIL 27TH OF 23.
THERE ARE TWO CONFLICTING DATES ON THAT.
IN THE BUILDING OFFICIALS BRIEF, IT STATES THE PERMIT WAS APPROVED APRIL 27TH, 2023.
IT SAYS THE PERMIT WAS APPROVED MAY 2ND, 2023.
SO I WENT WITH A MORE CONSERVATIVE APRIL 27TH DATE.
OKAY, SO YOU'RE SAYING APRIL 27TH, BUT APPROVED PERMIT, YOU SHOULD HAVE A DOCUMENT WITH A DATE ON IT.
YOUR CLIENT SHOULD HAVE A DOCUMENT WITH A PERMIT, WITH A DATE.
DO YOU HAVE THAT? I DO NOT HAVE IT WITH ME.
I RELIED ON THE CITY'S ONLINE INFORMATION TO PULL THOSE DATES AND THE BRIEF IN THE COUNT IN THE PANEL'S PACKAGE.
SO I THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT? YES, SIR.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING OF YOU.
ALRIGHT, SO YOU'RE SAYING THE PERMIT WAS APPROVED ON APRIL 27TH? UH, THAT'S THREE MONTHS.
THAT BEGS THE QUESTION, UM, WHAT WERE THE DATES OF THE SIX GREEN TAGS? THE SIX GREEN TAGS STARTED, UM, LET'S SEE, THE LAST GREEN TAG WAS RECEIVED JUNE 28TH.
UM, THE UTILITY SERVICE GREEN TAG WAS JUNE 10TH.
THE PLUMBING INSPECTION GREEN TAG WAS JUNE 11TH.
THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION GREEN TAG WAS JUNE 12TH, THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION, SECOND INSPECTION WAS JUNE 26TH.
THE FOUNDATION INSPECTION WAS JUNE 27TH.
THERE WAS A PIER FOUNDATION AND EXCAVATION INSPECTION ON JUNE 28TH.
AND THAT WAS THE DATE OF THE LAST GREEN TAG.
SO I HAVE WHAT YOU FORMED, YOU JUST SAID THE 10TH, THE 11TH, THE 12TH, THE 26TH, 27TH, 28TH.
UH, LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
IN THE LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED A COPY FROM THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, UH, HE STATED THAT THE PROP, THE THE, THE PROPERTY HAS THREE NON-COMPLIANCES.
ONE WAS MAXIMUM HEIGHT, IT WAS AT 30 WHEN THE, THE NEW ZONING IS 25, THE SECOND.
IS THAT CORRECT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? YES SIR.
THE NEXT ONE IS LOT COVERAGE WAS, UH, WAS 45 WHEN THE ZONING SAYS 40.
AND THE LAST WAS NONCOMPLIANT ROOF TYPE.
AND YOU JUST SAID STATE LAW PREEMPTED.
WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF YOUR ROOF TYPE VERSUS WHAT THE CITY'S SAYING? NONCOMPLIANT, ARE YOU TALKING? SO CHAP, CHAPTER 3000 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODES AS A CITY MAY NOT REGULATE THROUGH ZONING MATERIALS OR METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION THAT COMPLY WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES.
SO ANY ROOFTOP ALLOWED BY AN INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT WAS APPROVED WITH THESE PLANS IS ALLOWED BY WRIGHT.
IN ADDITION, LET ME JUST MAKE, HOLD ON, HOLD ON.
SO WHAT YOU'RE ESPOUSING IS THAT WHOLE SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE IS, IS UNCONSCIOUS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW? YES, SIR.
OBVIOUSLY MR. BUILDING OFFICIAL ATTORNEY, I'M GONNA ASK YOU THAT QUESTION.
SO YOU'RE JUST SAYING STRICTLY IT'S A STATE LAW PREEMPTION PERIOD? YES, SIR.
WE GOT THE POINT THAT YOU SAID IT'S A DUPLEX BY RIGHT.
UH, YOU MADE THREE OTHER POINTS THAT I WANT TO RE UNDERSTAND.
YOU SAID IT'S THE GRANDFATHER JURISDICTION.
TELL ME HOW IT'S GRANDFATHERED YOU.
THE PROPERTY WAS FIRST PLATTED IN, LET ME GET THE DATE RIGHT SINCE WE'RE BUILDING A RECORD HERE.
MAY 11TH, 1899, MAY 11TH, 1899.
MAY 24TH, 1976 WAS THE FIRST TIME PD 67 WAS AMENDED.
THE LAST TIME IT WAS AMENDED BEFORE OCTOBER OF 2022 WAS AUGUST 13TH, 2003.
[04:05:01]
HE ISSUED THE PERMIT, MADE THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE THEN APPLICABLE REGULATIONS WERE AS AMENDED THROUGH MAY 20, AUGUST 13TH, 2003.SO YOU'RE SAYING WHEN YOUR CLIENT WENT IN AND APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT ON JANUARY 3RD, 2023, THE PERMIT APPROVED ON APRIL 27TH, 2 23 REFERENCES THE ZONING FROM AUGUST 13TH, 2003, THE RIGHTS DATE BACK? YES, SIR.
THE WHAT? THE VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT.
AND, AND YOU GOT AND THAT WAS VERBALLY COMMUNICATED TO YOU OR WAS THAT GIVEN TO YOU IN WRITING? NEITHER.
I BELIEVE IT'S A MATTER OF STATE LAW CHAPTER 2 45 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
YOU'RE JUST, YOU'RE ASSERTING THAT YES SIR, I AM ASSERTING THAT.
ALRIGHT, MR. UM, JUST A SECOND, MR. UH, BUILDING OFFICIAL ATTORNEY.
THAT'S GONNA BE ANOTHER QUESTION THAT, UH, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT'S ASSERTING THAT THEIR PROPERTY'S GRANDFATHERED BACK TO AUGUST 13TH, 2003.
WOULDN'T THAT MEAN ALL PD 60, 67 IS GRANDFATHERED? NOT NECESSARILY.
SO WHY IS YOUR PROPERTY GRANDFATHERED AND OTHERS ARE NOT? BECAUSE THERE WAS AN OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION BY THE CITY OF DALLAS WHEN THEY ISSUED THE PERMIT, WHICH WAS NOT ISSUED IN ERROR ON APRIL.
DO YOU HAVE THAT IN WRITING THAT YOU CAN SHOW US? I DO NOT, BUT YOU, SIR, HAVE REFERENCED IT AS THE POCKET NOTES THAT THE FOLKS AT JEFFERSON STREET HAVE BEEN USING TO ISSUE PERMITS.
BUT WHAT YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE ASSERTING IS THAT THEY USED THEIR INTERPRETATION AND GRANDFATHER THAT.
SO IN ORDER TO COME OUT AND SAY YOUR PROPERTIES GRANDFATHERED, I'M LOOKING FOR SOMETHING IN WRITING BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S A HECK OF AN INTERPRETATION.
ISN'T THERE SOMETHING IN WRITING THE PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE SIX, SO SHOW ME THE PERMIT WITH THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE ON IT AND THEN I'LL, THEN I'LL THEN I WILL SAY, WOW, YOU ACTUALLY WERE GIVEN A PERMIT WITH A CONDITION ON GRANDFATHER.
SO PERMITS ARE NOT ISSUED WITH A GRANDFATHERING CONDITION BECAUSE THE CONDITION IS IMPOSED BY STATE LAW UNDER CHAPTER 2 45 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
SO YOU JUST SAID A MINUTE AGO THAT WHEN THE PERMIT WAS APPROVED, THAT THE PERSON USED THEIR POCKET NOTES AND SAID THAT YOU, YOUR PROPERTY WAS GRANDFATHERED.
I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME EVIDENCE OF THAT, PLEASE.
LET ME CORRECT THE RECORD BECAUSE IF I SAID THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE YOU DID BESTED RIGHTS ARE A LEGAL MATTER AS CODIFIED IN STATE LAW, CHAPTER 2 45 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
AND WHAT CHAPTER 2 45 SAYS IS THAT THE RULES IN EFFECT AT THE TIME A PERMIT IS ISSUED ARE THE RULES APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT.
AND YOU CREATE VESTED, SO YOU'RE ASSERTING THAT, THAT THE TIME THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED, CHAPTER 2 45 SAYS THERE'S VESTED RIGHTS BACK TO AUGUST 13TH, 2003.
THAT'S YOUR, THAT'S YOUR PREMISE THAT YOU'RE GIVING US TODAY? YES.
AND YOU'RE GIVING THAT TO US VERBALLY? YES.
UM, DID YOU, DO YOU HAVE WITH YOU TO PROVIDE TO US THE TEXT OF THE STATE LAWS THAT YOU'RE ASSERTING OR APPLICABLE TO THIS? I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF IT, BUT I'M HAPPY TO EMAIL IT TO YOU TOO LATE AND I BET LATE TOO LATE THE HEARING IS NOW AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
BUT I WOULD EXPECT THAT ALL THE GOOD CITY ATTORNEYS HERE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THESE STATE LAWS.
WELL, TO MR. KOVICH COMMENTS, WHAT WOULD BE CRITICAL TO US WOULD BE FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS TO HAVE THAT YES.
SINCE WE'RE THE ONES THAT ARE MAKING A DECISION ON IT.
I, I'M TRYING TO FOLLOW YOUR LOGIC.
THAT'S WHY I WAS WRITING DOWN THE TIMING OF THE PERMIT, ALL THAT AND THE GREEN TAGS AND THE THE IS AND THE, THE THREE THINGS THAT ARE IN COMPLIANCE OR NOT IN COMPLIANCE AND THEN THOSE YOU'RE ASSERTING, I'M SAYING THAT LEAVES A UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM.
NOW THE, YOUR THE OTHER SIDE WILL ADDRESS THAT AND DEBUNK IT OR CONFIRM IT OR OTHERWISE.
YOU SAID THAT YOUR CLIENT WAS HAD LACK OF NOTICE.
LACK OF NOTICE FROM WHAT? FOR THE ZONING CHANGE.
SO SO HOW WAS IT THEY HAD LACK OF NOTICE THE ZONING CHANGE IS IN INAPPLICABLE
[04:10:01]
BECAUSE THE NOTICE FAILED TO FOLLOW STATE LAW.HOW DID IT FO FOLLOW, HOW DID IT FAIL TO FOLLOW STATE LAW? SO CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, YOUR ZONING ENABLING STATUTE REQUIRES NOTICES TO BE MAILED WITHIN THE 200 FOOT NOTICE BAN TO THE OWNERS ON THE TAX ROLL AT THE TIME THE NOTICES WERE MAILED.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORDS, AT THE TIME THAT THE NOTICES WERE MAILED, IT SHOWS A DIFFERENT OWNER THAN IS LISTED IN THE BRIEF.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIOR TO THE OCTOBER 12TH, 2022 CITY COUNCIL HEARING? YES, SIR.
ALRIGHT, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE D AD LISTING WAS INCORRECT? YES SIR.
NO, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE D AD LISTING DID NOT MATCH THE NOTIFICATION THAT WENT OUT BY THE CITY OF DALLAS.
IS IT NOT A PART OF OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE IN THE CODE THAT WHEN WE HAVE A, UM, A CASE, WHETHER IT BE CPC CASE CITY, DALLAS CA, OR COUNCIL CASE OR OURS, THAT WE UTILIZE THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF THE DCA LISTING AS THE DEFAULT NOTIFICATION PROCESS? I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT.
SO, UM, WE CAN'T SECOND GUESS THAT WE GO BACK TO A STANDARD.
AND THE STANDARD IS THAT, SO YOU'RE ALLEGING RESPECTFULLY THAT THE CITY DID NOT NOTIFY THE NAME ON THE DAC HEAD LIST FOR THAT PROPERTY? FOR THIS PROPERTY, YES.
IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN HIS NAME, BUT IF IT WAS DE ON THE DAC AD THAT'S OUR, THAT'S THE NAME.
YOU'RE ALLEGING THE COUNCIL AND OR PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT PROPERLY NOTIFY.
SO DO YOU HAVE PROOF OF THAT PLEASE? YES, SIR.
ON FEBRUARY 14TH, 2022, FONG DVU, ONE OF THE THEN CURRENT OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED IT TO THE TRUTH ENTERPRISES, THE MAY 11TH, 2022.
DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING IN WRITING THAT SHOWS THESE TRANSFERS AND THE DCA ON THE DATE IN QUESTION VERSUS THE DCA NOW? 'CAUSE WE NEED TO SEE THIS IN WRITING, DO YOU NOT AGREE BOARD MEMBERS? SO A LETTER WAS SUBMITTED IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING.
IT WAS ONLY SUBMITTED YESTERDAY BECAUSE I WAS ONLY ASKED TO HELP WITH THIS CASE ON SEPTEMBER 13TH.
AND THAT LETTER INCLUDES THIS INFORMATION.
UM, AND I HAVE EXTRA COPIES IF THAT'S HELPFUL.
YOU TALKING ABOUT THIS LETTER THAT WAS GIVEN TO US THIS MORNING? YES SIR, I AM.
THE PROBLEM THAT HAPPENS IS WHEN WE GET EVIDENCE AT THE LAST MINUTE, HOW DO YOU EXPECT THE BOARD TO ABSORB THE EVIDENCE GIVEN THAT THIS WAS POSTED WEEKS AGO? OKAY, THAT'S, THAT'S A FAIR CRITICISM.
I WAS RETAINED ON SEPTEMBER 13TH AND SO THE VERY BEST COULD, I'M JUST THE FACT WE CAN'T CONTROL WHEN YOUR APPLICANT I RETAINED YOU OR NOT.
WE JUST DEAL WITH WHAT'S PRESENTED TO US.
UM, ALRIGHT, SO WHERE IN HERE AM I LOOKING FOR THAT SHOWS THE LACK OF NOTICE.
SO ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE TWO IN THE CHRONOLOGY? YEP.
IT REFERENCES A DATE MAY 11TH, 2022.
AND IT REFERENCES FROM THE OFFICIAL'S BRIEF, WHICH IS IN YOUR RECORD, THE LABEL THAT WENT OUT NUMBER ONE 60 TO THIS ADDRESS TO THE PRIOR OWNER.
AND AT THE TOP OF PAGE THREE IS A SNIP FROM THE DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORDS SHOWING THAT THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY FOR THE 2022 LISTED OWNER WITH THE LABEL THAT WENT OUT IN THE STAFF PACKET.
WELL, I CAN'T TESTIFY TO WHAT WAS ON THE STAFF PACKET OR THE LABEL.
I CAN JUST SEE WHAT YOU'VE GIVEN HERE.
I'M GONNA PASS THIS DOWN THE ROAD TO, TO OUR BOARD MEMBERS.
UM, MR. SO MR. CHAIRMAN? YEAH.
CAN I POINT SOMETHING OUT? I, WELL THIS IS, THIS IS REALLY QUESTIONS OF HER, SO IF YOU WOULD HOLD THAT QUESTION, YOU'RE GONNA GET YOUR CHANCE, I PROMISE.
THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTIONS FOR RIGHT NOW.
UM, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE MR. HOP?
[04:15:01]
UH, THIS IS QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.UH, WHEN DID MR. LEE ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY? HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY ON THE CLOSING DATE JUNE 4TH, 2024.
BUT HE HAD BEEN WORKING WITH THE OWNER, HIS PREDECESSOR, ENTITLED SINCE 2022 TO GET THIS PROPERTY PERMITTED AND PLANNED FOR DEVELOPMENT.
HE COULD NOT CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY UNTIL HE GOT HIS ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION LOAN AND A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THAT LOAN WAS GETTING THE PERMITS.
I I I WAS TRYING TO FOLLOW YOU MADE A LOT OF POINTS.
HE PURCHASED THE, THE PROPERTY IN 2024 IN JUNE OF 2024.
FROM WHOEVER OWNED THE PROPERTY IN 2022.
AND SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, IS THAT THE PERSON WHO OWNED THE PROPERTY IN 2022 OR THE ENTITY THAT OWNED IT WAS NOT WHO WAS SENT THE NOTICE OF THE, OF THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE.
BUT YOU, UH, I MEAN, UH, DO WE, DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT OR DO YOU HAVE ANY IT'S INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT IN, IN THE BUILDING OFFICIALS BRIEF, I THINK AT A FOOTNOTE, BUT IT IS INCLUDED.
WELL, I AM TOO, FOR YOUR SAKE, BECAUSE THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT AND SO THE BURDEN'S ON THE APPLICANT AND WE'RE DIGGING JUST TO GET TO FACTS, MR. OVITZ AND TO, TO BE FAIR, I'M PRESENTING POINTS OF LAW FOR THE PANEL TO CONSIDER AS THEY MAKE THEIR DECISION AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND YOU'RE COUNSEL ON THE OTHER SIDE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THAT.
SO, SO YOU'RE SAYING, SO I'M FINALLY SEEING HERE, TRUTH ENTERPRISES LLC WAS NOT THE OWNER IN 2022.
SO TRUTH ENTERPRISES, LLC WAS THE PREDECESSOR IN TITLE.
BUT THEY'RE NOT WHO THE NOTICES ADDRESS WENT TO.
SO LABEL ONE 60 STEPPED UP THE CHAIN AND WENT TO THEIR PREDECESSOR AND TITLE, WHO WAS FG DVU.
AND WHEN WAS, WHEN DID THE PROPERTY TRANSFER FROM THAT PERSON TO TRUTH ENTERPRISES? FEBRUARY 14TH, 2022.
AND SO AROUND THE SAME TIME, THE NOTICES ACCORDING TO THE STAFF REPORT WENT OUT MAY 11TH, 2022, SO AROUND THE SAME TIME? YES, SIR.
OKAY, THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR RIGHT NOW.
UM, UM, I THINK YOU HAD, I'M TRYING TO THINK HOW MANY MINUTES YOU HAD LEFT.
I THINK YOU HAD FIVE MINUTES LEFT, I THINK, BUT, BUT I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND GO TO THE YES, YOU HAD FIVE MINUTES LEFT.
ALRIGHT, WE WILL NOW GO TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
YOU HAVE 20 MINUTES TO PRESENT.
I'M ANXIOUS TO HEAR YOU RESPOND TO SEVERAL OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE, MR. CHAIRMAN, LADY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE, THE BOARD.
UM, I WAS GONNA POINT OUT TO YOU, I HAVEN'T SEEN THE BRIEF THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT'S.
I RECEIVED THE POWERPOINT FROM THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY, UM, LAST NIGHT AT 4 45.
WELL, WE GOT ONE PAGE OF THE POWERPOINT IS ALL WE SAW THUS FAR.
BUT THE, THE POWERPOINT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE GIST OF THE POWERPOINT FROM THE APPLICANT'S WAS ABOUT, UM, SUBSTANTIVE, UM, WAS ABOUT SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND VESTED RIGHTS.
THESE OTHER STATUTES, UM, THAT SHE'S RAISING.
I'VE NEVER, I'VE, I'VE READ SECTION 2 45 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
[04:20:01]
IF IT APPLIES OR NOT.I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
UM, I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN, I'M, I'M BEING TOLD I ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE, UM, HOW TO RESPOND TO THE, THE GOVERNMENT CODE TO SECTION 3000.
BUT, AND ALSO I WANTED TO RAISE THE ISSUE THE, THE APPLICANT TESTIFIED I, I BELIEVE I WOULD HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM.
YES, THAT'S WITHIN YOUR RIGHT.
WHETHER YOU WANNA DO IT NOW OR LATER IN YOUR PRESENTATION, I'LL DO IT.
UM, BUT I'LL, I'LL BEGIN WITH MY PRESENTATION PLEASE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.
UM, BUT I AM A LITTLE BIT BEHIND ON SOME OF THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT IS MAKING JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE I JUST HEARD THEM GUESS WHAT WE ARE TOO.
SO THIS PROPERTY IS THE, THE APPLICANT IS CORRECT.
THE, THE PROPERTY IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT FROM THE, THE LAST HEARING.
THE USE, UM, ISSUE IS NOT PRESENT ON, ON THIS CASE.
UM, CAN, CAN I GET TO THE NEXT SLIDE? SO WE KNOW THIS, UM, WE'VE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE FIRST SLIDE.
CAN WE MOVE IT ON TO THE NEXT ONE? SO THE APPLICANTS APPLIED ON JANUARY 3RD, 2023.
I BELIEVE THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED ON APRIL 27TH, 2023.
THE, THE, THE PERMIT THAT I HAVE DOESN'T ACTUALLY HAVE A DATE ON IT, SO, UM, I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS MAY OR APRIL THAT THE, THE PERMIT WAS, WAS ISSUED AND WE DID REMOVE, YOU'RE NOT GIVING ME CONFIDENCE COUNSEL BECAUSE I, I, I WANT MY ATTORNEYS TO KNOW WHAT THEIR ADVOCATING, BUT OKAY.
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT THE, THE POSSE NOTES IN INDICATE THAT THE, THE PERMIT WAS, WAS ISSUED ON APRIL 27TH, 2023.
I'M GONNA CALL MR. POOLE AS A WITNESS.
UM, MR. POOLE, CAN YOU, UM, EX CAN YOU LET US KNOW WHAT DATE DID THE APPLICANT'S APPLY FOR A PERMIT? SO YOU'RE CORRECT ON THE DATE THEY APPLIED.
UM, THEY APPLY FOR A BUILDING PROJECT.
THE BUILDING PROJECT IS REVIEWED AND AS, AS PROJECTS COME THROUGH, MASTER PERMITS ARE ISSUED AS A RESULT OF THE BUILDING PROJECT.
SO WHEN YOU ACTUALLY GET A PERMIT, THE PERMIT DOCUMENT IS FROM THE MASTER PERMIT, BUT IT'S REVIEWED UNDER A PROJECT AND THERE COULD BE SEVERAL MASTER PERMITS COME OUT OF ONE APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PROJECT.
SO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE DATES, THE APPLICATION, OR EXCUSE ME, THE BUILDING PROJECT WAS APPROVED ON APRIL 27TH.
THE PROJECT OR THE, UH, THE MASTER PERMIT THAT WAS, THAT WAS APPROVED AND ISSUED WAS ON ON MAY 2ND.
SO IT'S A TWO PART PROCESS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
SO WHAT DATES WERE THEY ISSUED? SO THE ACTUAL PAPER PERMIT WOULD'VE BEEN MAY 2ND.
AND THEN YOU SENT A LETTER OUT ON AUGUST 7TH, 2024 REVOKING THE PERMIT, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
WE HAD A MEETING AND I, I DIDN'T ACTUALLY SEND A LETTER, I JUST PRINTED IT OUT AND HANDED IT TO MR. LEE, BUT WE HAD A MEETING THAT DAY TO GO OVER OPTIONS.
UM, HE DECIDED THAT, UH, HIS BEST OPTION WAS TO TRY AND APPEAL AND SO PER HIS REQUEST, WE REVOKE THE PERMIT SO THAT HE COULD APPEAL.
SO LET'S, LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW THE PROPERTY IS IN VIOLATION OF THE CURRENT PD.
SO THE, IS THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION OF 25 FEET IN EFFECT FOR THIS LOT? YES.
AND IS THE PLAN FOR THIS DUPLEX, UM, TO EX EXCEED 25 FEET? YES.
CAN YOU SKIP TO THE NEXT SLIDE? DO THE PLANS INDICATE THAT THERE ARE PLANNING TO BUILD TO 35 FEET
[04:25:01]
NINE INCHES? YES.AND THAT WOULD EXCEED THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION BY A LITTLE OVER 10 FEET, CORRECT? YES.
CAN WE MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE? SO THERE ARE CERTAIN DESIGN FEATURES THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED TODAY, UM, REGARDING HIP AND GABLE FEATURES.
DOES THE ROOF STRUCTURE COMPLY WITH THE HIP AND GABLE ROOF? NO.
AND WHY IS THAT? UH, THERE ARE NO PORTION OF THE ROOF IS HIP AND GABLE.
IN FACT, IT HAS A BUTTERFLY FEATURE? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND DOES THAT COMPLY WITH THE PD WITH PD 67? NO, IT DOES NOT.
CAN WE MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE, YOUR HONOR? SO WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE IS 40% FOR THE PD, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND THE PLAN TO COVER LOT COVERAGE IS 45%, CORRECT? FOR THE CORRECT.
AND THAT'S IN VIOLATION OF PD 67? YES.
CAN WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE? AND THIS IS THE, DO YOU SEE THE STAMP ON THE SCREEN? YES.
AND IS THAT THE STAMP THAT WAS PLACED BY THE PLAN REVIEWER, UM, ON THE APPLICANT'S UM, BUILDING PLANS? YES.
AND DOES IT SAY THAT THE APPROVAL DOES NOT PERMIT THE VIOLATION OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE OR STATE LAW? IT DOES.
I AM GONNA PASS THE WITNESS OR, ALRIGHT, THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS.
UH, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS AND 5 44, IT'S SEVEN MINUTES.
YOU USED TO HAVE SEVEN MINUTES OF YOUR TIME.
I WAS GONNA ASK YOU JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS RELATED TO YOUR TESTIMONY.
YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE OCTOBER, 2022 ZONING HAS A HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR THIS LOT OF 25 FEET, BUT THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEEN FRAMED IN IS 35.9 FEET.
IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? YES.
CAN YOU IMAGINE A WAY OF TAKING, WAIT, DO THAT AGAIN HERE.
I I THOUGHT THE HEIGHT MAXIMUM IS 25 AND IT'S 30.
YOU'RE SAYING IT'S MORE THAN 30 'CAUSE OF THE PITCH.
WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE HEIGHT THAT IT'S CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED AT? 35 30? YOU SAID 30, SOMEONE SAID 34.
WELL, WHAT'S THIS MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED? IT SAYS IT WAS BUILT AT 30.
WHERE DO YOU SEE THE APPLICANT'S LAWYER? YOU? YES MA'AM.
YOU SAID IT WAS 30, THE CODE'S 25.
NOW I'M HEARING IT'S DIFFERENT THAN 30.
WHAT IS THE HEIGHT THAT THE BUILDING IS CURRENTLY BUILT AT THAT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S IN VIOLATION? SURE.
THE PLANS SHOW 35 FOOT 9 35 FOOT NINE INCHES.
THEN IT'S NOT 30 FEET, YOU HAD SAID 30 EARLIER? YES, SIR.
SO IT'S 35 9 35 FEET, NINE INCHES.
AND THE, THE CURRENT, THE THE ZONING, YOU'RE SAYING MR. POOL IS 25? CORRECT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO TRACK NUMBERS SO WE KNOW WHAT NUMBERS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO KNOWING THAT THE BUILDING IS FRAMED IN, CAN YOU IMAGINE A PRACTICAL WAY TO TAKE THAT BUILDING FROM THE 35.9 FEET IN THE PLANS TO THE 25 FEET? NOT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERING THE, THE STRUCTURE ON THAT.
WITH RESPECT TO THE LOT COVERAGE, I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE PLANNED AND CONSTRUCTED LOT COVERAGE IS 45%, BUT THE OCTOBER, 2022 ZONING LIMITS THE LOT COVERAGE TO 40%.
IS THAT FAIR? THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
AND THE SAME TYPE OF QUESTION, IS THERE A WAY TO TAKE THE BUILDING THAT'S ALREADY CONSTRUCTED THE FOUNDATION POURED IN A GREEN TAG ISSUED FOR, AND ALTER IT IN A MANNER THAT REDUCES IT FROM 45% TO
[04:30:01]
40%? NOT WITHOUT REMOVING PART OF THE STRUCTURE.AND WITH RESPECT TO THE LAST VARIABLE, THE ROOF DESIGN, IS THERE A WAY TO TAKE THE BUTTERFLY ROOF DESIGN THAT'S ALREADY FRAMED IN AND ALTER IT TO A, I'M MISSING THE WORD, SOMETHING GABLE
IS THERE A WAY TO ALTER THE BUTTERFLY ROOF DESIGN TO A HIP AND GABLE ROOF DESIGN WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATION OF WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN CONSTRUCTED? NO, YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD HAVE TO ALTER WHAT'S BEEN CONSTRUCTED.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS.
ALRIGHT, WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
YOU'RE SEVEN MINUTES IN ON YOUR 20 I AM SEVEN MINUTES IN, YES.
AND THEN YOU STILL HAVE YOUR THREE MINUTES AT THE END.
SO THERE, IN RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT CODE 3000.2, AND IT PREEMPTS THE CITY REGULATIONS ON ROOF TYPE.
UM, 3000.2 C FIVE SAYS THAT THE PREEMPTION DOESN'T APPLY TO A BUILDING IN A PLACE OR AREA DESIGNATED FOR ITS HISTORICAL OR CULTURAL OR ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT PD 67, 1 0.1 0.1, UM, THE CITY DESIGNATED THE ELM THICKET AS A PLACE OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE SO THAT, UM, EXEMPT PREEMPTION WOULD, WOULD NOT APPLY SECTION 2 45.
THE, THE VESTED RIGHTS FOR A PERMIT WOULD APPLY FOR WHEN THE PERSON APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT, WHICH IS IN THIS CASE JANUARY 3RD, 2023.
THAT'S WHEN THEY APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT.
AND THEY'RE SAYING THEY, THAT'S WHEN THEIR, THEY'RE SAYING IT GOES BACK TO AUGUST OF 2003.
WELL, I DON'T, I DON'T, THEY THEY DIDN'T OWN THE PROPERTY THEN THEY, THEY OWNED THE PROPERTY IN JUNE OF 2024.
THEY, ANOTHER OWNER APPLIED FOR A PERMIT IN JANUARY OF 2023.
THE, THE VESTED RIGHTS STATUTE IS WHEN YOU APPLY FOR THE BUR THE BUILDING PERMIT AND, AND THAT'S WHEN THEY APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT.
SO I DON'T, I MEAN MAYBE WE NEED TO BRIEF THE ISSUE MORE, BUT I, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE WHATEVER HAPPENED BACK IN 2000 VESTS, THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER WITH, WITH VESTED RIGHTS, UM, IF HE GAINED OWNERSHIP IN JUNE OF 2024, IT, I I'M NOT SURE IT MAKES SENSE.
UM, SO I DON'T THINK THIS IS MY POWERPOINT ANYMORE.
NO, I, WE, I HAD HIM TO PUT JUST THE PICTURE UP.
SO YOU, YOU'RE, WE, HE'LL GO BACK TO HIS POWERPOINT I GUESS.
CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? I THINK WE'VE COVERED EVERYTHING IN MY POWERPOINT.
SO, AND I, I DIDN'T GO OVER THIS BEFORE, BUT IT'S IN OUR, IT'S, IT'S IN THE BRIEF, BUT THE DALLAS CODE PROVIDES THAT ALL ORDINANCES ARE FINAL UPON PASSAGE.
AND IN THIS CASE, THE, THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN OCTOBER OF 2022.
THE DALLAS CODE PROVIDES THAT THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT OR APPROVAL OF PLAN SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE A PERMIT FOR OR AN APPROVAL OF ANY VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THE CODES OR ANY OTHER ORDINANCE.
AND THAT, THAT LEADS INTO THE ESCO DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD EARLIER WHERE WE WE'RE ENTITLED TO ENFORCE OUR, IF, IF THERE'S AN INVALID PERMIT THAT IS ISSUED, WE THE CITY CAN GO BACK AND ENFORCE OUR, AND, AND IN YOUR BRIEF IT REFERENCES THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING THE RULES AND REGULATIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOT.
BUT THE APPLICANT ALSO IS ALSO DUE TO BE PROPERLY INFORMED BY THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY OF WHAT THE LAWS OR THE ZONING AND IT, AND WE SEE THERE'S A PROB A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM IN, IN PLACE.
[04:35:02]
I I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER.IT'S UM, YOU HAVE NINE MINUTES LEFT IF YOU WANT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME? ALRIGHT, SO YEP, YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, MS. HAYDEN.
SO, UH, MR. LEE, AT ANY TIME OR OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AT ANY TIME, DID YOU KNOW THAT THE ZONING CHANGES WERE, WERE GOING TO TAKE PLACE? DID YOU HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING, ANY HINT FROM ANYONE THAT THE ZONING CHANGES WERE TAKING PLACE ON THE PROPERTY THAT YOU OWNED? NO, I DID NOT.
UM, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DIDN'T TELL ME.
UM, ZONING PAST INSPECTION DIDN'T TELL ME.
AND THE ONLY FIRST TIME I KNEW ABOUT IT WAS WHEN THEY STOPPED THE PROJECT.
THANK YOU MR. N THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
AND, UH, SO AT NO POINT IN TIME DID THE SELLER OR THE ENTITY FROM WHICH YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, UM, THEY DID NOT DISCLOSE TO YOU THAT A ZONING CHANGE OR A NEW ORDINANCE HAD BEEN RECENTLY PUT INTO EFFECT? NO, I WAS IN PREVIOUS, UH, NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PREVIOUS OWNER TO BUY THE PROJECT CLOSE ON THE PROJECT AFTER I'VE GOTTEN PERMITS.
I WANTED TO DO MY DUE DILIGENCE AND MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING I CROSSED MY, YOU KNOW, CROSSED MY EYES, YOU KNOW.
BUT MY QUESTION WAS, AT NO POINT IN TIME DID THE ENTITY OR THE SELLER FROM WHICH YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, THEY DID NOT DISCLOSE TO YOU THAT AN, AN ORDINANCE CHANGE HAD BEEN MADE? NO, THEY WERE NOTIFIED THEMSELVES BECAUSE THE CITY HAD MAILED THE LETTERS TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER BEFORE THEM.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE AT THIS JUNCTURE? MR. KOVI? UM, MR. LEE, UH, AND YOU ARE UNDER OATH.
DID, DID WE SWEAR HIM IN MS. WILLIAMS, DO YOU RECALL? WELL, WE'LL DO A QUICK RETRO AND DID YOU SWEAR IN UNDER OATH MR. LEE? I DID, YES.
MR. HOG, UH, AT WHAT TIME, UH, DID YOU HAVE YOUR PLANS DRAWN UP? IT WAS AROUND NOVEMBER, OCTOBER, END OF OCTOBER, BEGINNING OF NOVEMBER WHEN I DROPPED OF, OF WHICH YEAR? OF 2022.
BUT YOU DIDN'T BUY IT UNTIL JAN, JUNE OF 24? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO, AND YOU KNEW ALL THE WAY BACK THEN AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT ANY OF THESE ZONING CHANGES? NO, NOBODY TOLD ME THE ENTIRE TIME.
I EVEN CHANGED THE BUILDING PERMIT OVER TO MY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, UM OKAY.
LATE MAY AND NOBODY SAID ANYTHING EITHER.
I STILL HAD A PERMIT TO, TO, TO ME IT WOULD BE MATERIAL TO KNOW, UH, MORE PRECISELY.
WHEN YOU ENGAGED, DID YOU HAVE AN ARCHITECT DRAW THESE PLANS UP? YES, I DID.
WHEN YOU ENGAGED THE ARCHITECT, UM, YES, THAT WAS, THAT WAS AROUND THE SAME TIME OCTOBER OF 2022.
I I, I'M, I'M SAYING IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW MORE SPECIFICALLY, SINCE THE ZONING LAW CHANGE TOOK EFFECT IN OCTOBER OF 2022, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW EXACTLY IF MORE SPECIFICALLY IF YOU ENGAGED THE ARCHITECT IN NOVEMBER OR OCTOBER.
WELL, I HAD WENT TO THE ZONING DEPARTMENT AND I GOT A LOT RESTRICTIONS, THE HEIGHT, EVERYTHING.
AND THAT'S WHAT I TOLD THE ARCHITECT TO DESIGN HOW TO DESIGN THE PROPERTY.
UM, HE WA HE'S, ALL THEY DO IS DRAW REALLY.
UM, JUST REFERENCING THE EARLIER CASE, THE, THE, THE STATEMENT WAS MADE THAT, UH, ARCHITECTS ARE GENERALLY ARE AWARE OF ZONING LAWS WHEN DESIGNING NO, THE COMMENT WAS GENERAL CONTRACTORS, SORRY, I THINK MS. HAYDEN REFERENCED GENERAL CONTRACTORS.
UM, SO YOU OBTAINED THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND YOU GAVE THEM TO THE ARCHITECT? YES.
I TOLD 'EM THE LOCK COVERAGE, THE HEIGHT, YOU KNOW, HOW I WANTED IT TO BE DESIGNED.
YOU KNOW, I NEEDED FOUR BEDROOMS, I NEEDED MORE BATHROOMS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, YOU KNOW, I DESIGNED THE PROPERTY MYSELF.
BUT YOU DIDN'T DRAW THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS UP? NO, I DREW IT ON EXCEL AND GAVE IT TO 'EM.
AND SO, UH, AGAIN, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THAT TOOK PLACE WHEN YOU ENGAGED THAT AND GAVE THAT TO THAT ARCHITECT.
[04:40:04]
THANK YOU MR. HAITZ.MR. NEWMAN, UM, CAN I, CAN I GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINEE MR. LEE AT SOME POINT? YES.
THANK YOU MI MR. LEE AND I AND I, I WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TOO.
UM, AND, AND I'M SORRY WE'RE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE.
UM, SO YOU JUST SAID THAT IN OCTOBER OF 2022 YOU RETAINED AN ARCHITECT? YES, A DRAFTER.
SO THAT WAS THE SAME MONTH THAT PD 67 GOT AMENDED, CORRECT? YES.
AND DID YOU KNOW THAT AT THE TIME I DID NOT.
BUT YOU WERE LOOKING AT THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY ON VICTORIA THAT LOT TO DEVELOP? YES.
AND AT THAT TIME, IN OCTOBER OF 2022, UM, TRUTH ENTERPRISES OWN THE PROPERTY? THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
SO YOU OWN A COMPANY NAMED F EIGHT CONSTRUCTION INC.
THAT CORRECT? YES, I'M PARTNERS IN THAT.
AND THEY ARE THE ONES CURRENTLY ON THE PERMIT? YES.
BUT THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED TO THIS TRUTH ENTERPRISES IN FEBRUARY OR INITIALLY IN MAY OF 2023? YES.
AND D AD IS SHOWING A COMPANY NAMED 65 29 VICTORIA, LLC PRESENTLY OWNS THE PROPERTY? THAT'S MY ENTITY, YES.
SO YOU OWN F 80 CONSTRUCTION AND 65 29 VICTORIA? YES, I'M THE OWNER AND BUILDER.
AND YOU PURCHASED IT IN JUNE OF 20 OF THIS YEAR? THAT'S CORRECT.
WHEN DID YOU, WHEN DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF AS BEING THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY? LIKE WHAT DATE DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT STARTED SINCE OCTOBER, 2022.
WE SUBMITTED THE PERMITS UNDER THE PREVIOUS OWNER BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IF I DIDN'T CLOSE, THEY STILL HAD THE PERMITS AND THEY CAN STILL BUILD IT THEMSELVES.
SO WHAT'S YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TRUTH ENTERPRISES? NO RELATION.
BUT YOU WERE, THEY OWNED THE PROPERTY IN OCTOBER OF 2022, CORRECT? YES.
SO, AND YOU WERE INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING IT AND THEN FOR A YEAR, WHAT WAS YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TRUTH ENTERPRISES? NOTHING, THEY WERE JUST ASKING ME WHEN I WAS GONNA CLOSE.
I TOLD 'EM I HAD TO SELL MY HOUSE IN BOSTON, BUT I NEED TO RENOVATE FIRST.
SO I RENOVATED MY HOUSE, I SOLD IT AND THAT'S HOW I GOT THE MONEY TO CLOSE ON VICTORIA.
SO WHAT, SO THEY THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR YOU OR? NO, THEY BOUGHT IT FOR THEMSELVES.
IT WAS LIKE 10 MONTHS AFTER THEY BOUGHT IT THAT I ENGAGED THEM AND SAID, HEY, YOU KNOW, I, YOURS IS A DUPLEX LOCK.
CAN I, YOU KNOW, CAN I GET PERMITS AND CLOSE ON IT? OKAY.
AND DO YOU THE PRINCIPLES OF TRUTH THE TRUTH ENTERPRISES, DO YOU KNOW THOSE FOLKS? UH, ASHA, UH, IS ONE OF THE, UH, OWNERS OF IT, I'VE SPOKEN TO HIM.
THAT'S THE PERSON WHO PULLED THE PERMIT.
AND, AND WHEN HE SOLD IT TO YOU IN JUNE, 2024, DID YOU ASK HIM WHAT THE ZONING WAS FOR THE PROPERTY? NO.
'CAUSE I ALREADY HAD THE PERMITS.
I TRANSFERRED THE PERMITS OVER.
DO YOU GET A, DID YOU GET A FILE FROM HIM OR, I MEAN, OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY? WHAT, WHAT DID YOU GET FROM HIM? A CLOSING DISCLOSURE? I MEAN, I, I CLOSED WITH A LENDER TITLE COMPANY, EVERYTHING LEGITIMATELY, YES.
BUT HE, HE HAD THE TRUTH, ENTERPRISES HAD NO PLANS TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY? NO, IT WAS ALL ME.
DID YOU, DO, YOU DESCRIBED HOW YOU WENT AND GOT SOME, SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE ZONING, CORRECT? YES.
AND, AND WHAT, REMIND ME AGAIN WHEN THAT WAS, THAT WAS AT THE SAME TIME, UH, THAT I DESIGNED THE PLANS AND SUBMITTED FOR PERMITS IN 2023 BETWEEN IN 2022, BETWEEN OCTOBER AND JANUARY OF 2023.
DID YOU DO ANY, UM, INDEPENDENT
[04:45:01]
REVIEW OF PD 67 ON YOUR OWN? ANY RESEARCH ON YOUR, ON YOUR OWN ABOUT IT OTHER THAN GOING AND SPEAKING TO THE FOLKS AT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT? UH, I DID.UM, I, I RELIED ON THE INFORMATION THAT THE CITY GAVE ME DOWN HERE AT THE BUILDING OFFICE.
SO WHO IS, WHO IS ROSSEN DESIGN? EXCUSE ME? ROSSEN DESIGN.
IT'S ONE OF THE ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS.
AND, AND THEY DESIGNED IT SO YOU GAVE THEM A GENERAL IDEA OF WHAT YOU WANTED TO BUILD? YES, A FLOOR PLAN, ROUGH SKETCH.
THEY KIND OF DREW IT UP AND I SAID, HEY, YOU KNOW, CAN YOU JUST MAKE THIS, THIS SIZE AND, YOU KNOW, COMPLY WITH THE ZONING.
AND PART OF THEIR REVIEW WASN'T TO DETERMINE WHAT THE ZONING WAS? NO, IT'S NOT, NOT UNLESS I HIRE THEM.
SOME, SOME OF THESE ARCHITECT FIRMS ARE JUST DRAFTERS.
IN JUNE OF 2024, THE PD INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY ATTORNEY'S WEBSITE.
DID, WHEN YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, DID YOU GO AND LOOK AT THE PD? I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T THINK I NEEDED TO.
DO YOU, DO YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE FROM THE CITY PURPOSELY DECEIVED YOU IN ANY WAY IN THIS PROCESS? I DO.
AND WHAT, WHAT DO YOU, WHAT DO YOU BASE THAT ON? I WAS TOLD ONE THING.
I DESIGNED EVERYTHING AROUND IT AND NOW I'M TOLD A DIFFERENT THING.
AND IT HAD CHANGED AND NOBODY KNOWS WHEN IT WAS CHANGED.
BUT DO YOU BELIEVE THOSE STATEMENTS WERE PURPOSELY DE DECEITFUL? NOT PURPOSELY.
I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF MISCOMMUNICATION INVOLVED.
UM, I JUST HAPPENED TO BE THE ONE TAKING YOUR FIVE MINUTES OF CROSS EXAMINATION ARE ABOUT UP, SO YOU NEED TO WRAP UP.
I DON'T LIKE TO CUT PEOPLE OFF, BUT I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THEY KNOW WHEN THEY'RE ENDING THEIR, THEIR CYCLE TIME.
UM, WE WILL LOSE OUR QUORUM AT SIX 15 TODAY.
AND THEN MOST LIKELY WHAT I'M GONNA ASK THE BOARD TO DO IS HOLD THIS OVER TO NEXT MONTH BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA LOSE THAT QUORUM, BUT I'M GONNA LET YOU PROCEED.
WE HAVE 10 MINUTES LEFT UNDER FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND.
MR. RORY, YOU STILL HAVE NINE MINUTES OF TIME AND UM, MA'AM, YOU HAVE, WHERE'S MY SHEET MA'AM? I THINK I SAID YOU HAD FIVE MINUTES LEFT PLUS THREE MINUTES TO CLOSE.
SO, UM, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, UM, DID YOU WANT, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES LEFT, YOU HAVE NINE MINUTES LEFT AND THEN THREE MINUTES AND THREE, AND YOU HAVE 5, 3, 3, YOU HAVE NINE AND THREE.
BUT WE ARE GONNA HOLD THIS OVER TO NEXT MONTH BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA LOSE OUR QUORUM AT SIX 15 IN NINE MINUTES.
SO YOU COULD, YOU COULD, YOU COULD KEEP SPEAKING OR YOU COULD HOLD THAT THOUGHT TO THE NEXT TIME.
'CAUSE I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION HERE MOMENTARILY.
I I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER.
AND I'M GONNA MAKE A SUGGESTION TO BOTH ATTORNEYS.
AS A MATTER OF POINT OF ORDER, PLEASE, IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A HOLDOVER UNTIL OCTOBER 22ND, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN REQUESTED? OH BOY.
UM, AND I'M JUST ONE MEMBER AND, UM, MR. NRI HAD TO DEPART AT SIX AND WE'RE LOSING ANOTHER MEMBER HERE AT SIX 15.
AND SO I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE BOARD.
I I THINK I CAN, BUT I'M, I'M CAREFUL ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT REQUIRES A MAJORITY VOTE REQUIRES FOUR VOTES TO OVERTURN THE BUILDING OFFICIALS REVOCATION.
IT REQUIRES A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE TO POSTPONE.
UM, WHAT I WOULD SAY TO BOTH OF YOU IS I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD OVER TO OCTOBER 22ND AS SOON AS I GET MY SHEET OF PAPER IN FRONT OF ME.
UM, AND I WOULD ONE REQUEST THAT YOU BOTH SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD, YOU'VE HEARD WHAT BOTH HAVE PRESENTED TODAY.
YOU'VE HEARD WHAT WE'VE QUESTIONED AS IT RELATES TO WHAT THE ACTUAL HEIGHT IS VERSUS WHAT THE ZONING IS.
THE SAME THING WITH THE LOT COVERAGE.
SAME THING WITH THE ROOF TYPE.
[04:50:01]
I'VE HEARD DIFFERENT LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT IT IS VERSUS NOT.UH, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU PUT THAT ALL IN WRITING IN A SUCCINCT WAY FOR US TO DIGEST AND DO THAT IN ADVANCE.
SO WE GET OUR AGENDA SEVEN DAYS IN ADVANCE SO THAT WAY WE HAVE TIME TO DISTILL LAST MINUTE.
IT'S VERY HARD TO DIGEST, I'M BEING HONEST WITH YOU, UM, AS WELL AS THESE LEGAL ISSUES THAT BOTH COUNSELS HAVE BROUGHT UP.
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, UM, I, I THINK BOTH PARTIES NEED TO THINK ABOUT WHAT A REALISTIC OUTCOME COULD BE FOR HERE BECAUSE THE BOARD'S CHOICE IS GOING TO BE TO, UH, AFFIRM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION TO REVOKE, WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE TO TEAR IT DOWN OR COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR NUMBER TWO OR REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIALS POSITION AND THEN YOU CAN OPERATE AS IS.
NEITHER ONE OF THOSE I THINK IS A VIABLE OPTION RIGHT NOW, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE VOTES.
I THINK THE THIRD OPTION, QUITE HONESTLY, IS TO LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT TO UNDER THE GREEN TAGS AND UNDER THE PERMITS VERSUS WHAT THE EXISTING ZONING IS.
I'M, I'M NOT SAYING WHAT YOU SHOULD END UP AT.
I'M SAYING YOU SHOULD LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF THIS AND CONSIDER THAT.
AND THEN THE BOARD WILL HEAR MORE TESTIMONY AT THE AUGUST, THE OCTOBER 22ND MEETING, AND WE'LL DECIDE TO AFFIRM, REVERSE OR MODIFY THE ORDER FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THE CHAIR, UH, THE CHAIR HEREBY MOVES IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 11 TO HOLD THIS ITEM UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 22ND, 2024.
UH, WE LOSE A QUORUM MOMENTARILY, NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO IS I'VE EXPRESSED, I THINK BOTH PARTIES NEED TO LOOK AT WHERE THEY'RE AT VERSUS, UH, WHERE THE OTHER SIDE IS.
I'M NOT SAYING YOU HAVE TO, I'M SAYING YOU SHOULD CONSIDER, UM, I DON'T YEAH.
AND THEN COME BACK WITH FULL FILLING THE RECORD, UH, MORE THOROUGHLY, ESPECIALLY YOU MA'AM, BECAUSE A LOT OF THINGS YOU VERBALIZED, BUT WE NEED TO SEE PROOF OF.
BUT AS WELL AS YOU, SIR, AS FAR AS RESPONDING TO THE OTHER, YOUR OTHER COUNSEL'S APPOINT.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION? MS. HAYDEN? I JUST HAVE A COMMENT.
UM, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME TO SEE WHAT THE COST OF COMPLIANCE WOULD BE FROM A PROFESSIONAL.
UM, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE TO CHANGE THE ROOF LINE, IF YOU WERE TO COMPLY WITH THE LOT COVERAGE, IF YOU WERE TO COMPLY WITH DIFFERENT THINGS, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN MY DECISION MAKING IF I WERE TO SEE, UM, WHAT THOSE, WHAT THAT COST COULD POTENTIALLY BE FOR THE HOMEOWNER.
DID YOU WANT THE COST OF SAY, REDUCING THE HEIGHT OR REDUCING THE LAW COVERAGE? RIGHT.
ALL, ALL THREE JUST TO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU, IF YOU JUST GET A COST OF COMPLIANCE ON EACH OF THOSE ITEMS AND BECAUSE, UH, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE HAVE THE, THE ABILITY TO MODIFY, SO IT WILL HELP US MAKE THAT DECISION WHETHER OR NOT WE APPROVE, DENY, OR MODIFY.
IT'S REDUCING THE, THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING.
I WOULD LOSE THE BEDROOMS ON THE THIRD FLOOR.
BUT I'M, I'M JUST LOOKING FOR A PROFESSIONAL.
UM, REMEMBER THERE'S CHOICES HERE.
OUR CHOICE IS TO AFFIRM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION AND REVOKE THE PERMIT, PERIOD, THE END, OR TO AFFIRM REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR TO TRY TO FIND SOME MODIFICATION IN, IN WHOLE OR PART I'M READING BACK FROM WITH THE CODE.
SO, SO WHO WOULD I BE NEGOTIATING WITH TO TRY TO MODIFY AND MAKE IT WORK? I, I HATE TO USE THE TERM NEGOTIATING
UM, BUT YOU HAVING, I'M JUST LOOKING AT A COST OF YES.
NOT, NOT NEGOTIATING ANYTHING.
SHE, SHE'S ASKING FOR JUST A PROFESSIONAL OPINION ON WHAT IT WOULD TAKE.
THAT'S WHAT SHE'S ASKING FOR, RIGHT? INSTEAD OF YEAH, JUST WHAT I, YES.
WHAT I'M ESPOUSING IS HAVING FURTHER CONVERSATIONS WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
NOW I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE TWO OF YOU CAN DANCE OR NOT.
YOU MAY COME UP WITH SOME SOLUTION AND WE MAY NOT LIKE IT.
YOU MAY NOT COME UP WITH A SOLUTION AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TO CHOOSE HOW WE PROCEED.
SO EACH CASE IS HANDLED SEPARATELY.
NONE SETS A PRECEDENT AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
WE'RE TRYING TO LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO US AND THEN GO FROM THERE.
OKAY? UH, MR. KOVI THEN MS. DAVIS.
YEAH, I THINK I WOULD ALSO BE INTERESTED IN SEEING SOMETHING DOCUMENTARY AS TO UH, 'CAUSE IT SEEMS THERE'S QUITE A LARGE PERIOD OF TIME WITH INTERACTIONS WITH THIS TRUTH.
ENTERPRISES, SOMETHING DOCUMENTING THE THINGS YOU'RE SAYING TOOK PLACE OVER QUITE A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, UH, SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEIR RELATIONSHIP
[04:55:01]
TO THE PROPERTY IS, WHAT THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOU IS, UM, AND SO FORTH.YEAH, I ABSOLUTELY, I THINK THAT'S ESSENTIAL IS YOU HAVE A BURDEN AND YOUR BURDEN IS TO CONVINCE US WHAT'S WHERE, WHEN IT STARTED AND WHEN IT ENDED, WHAT HAPPENED FROM THIS DATE ALL THE WAY TO TODAY.
AND I'M GONNA TELL YOU, YOU HAVE NOT DONE THAT BURDEN AT ALL TODAY.
IF WE WERE TO TAKE A VOTE TODAY, YOU'D LOSE POTENTIALLY, BUT WE'RE POSTPONING NOW THAT DOESN'T MEAN MY OPINION IS GONNA CHANGE, BUT YOU HAVE NOT MET THAT BURDEN YET.
MS. DAVIS, JUST A, A QUICK QUESTION.
NOPE, MS. DAVIS, UM, SUGGESTION TO, TO NOT ONLY, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT THOSE MODIFICATIONS AND TALK TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, I WOULD ALSO ENGAGE WITH YOUR COMMUNITY, WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE DONE THAT YET, MA'AM, PLEASE DEFINITELY JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE DOING THAT OUTREACH BECAUSE THAT AFFECTS OUR DECISIONS.
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO HOLD THIS ITEM OVER TILL THE OCTOBER 22ND MEETING.
WELL, SHE SEEMS TO WANT TO ASK ME A QUESTION.
OTHERWISE I LOSE A QUORUM HERE.
WITH RESPECT TO THE DOCU, WITH RESPECT TO THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR AN AFFIDAVIT FROM TRUTH OR ARE YOU LOOKING FOR COPIES OF THE DEEDS IN THE CHAIN OF TITLE? BECAUSE I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE RIGHT INFORMATION.
I'M, I'M LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT IS MORE THAN JUST Y'ALL SAYING IT.
SO TAKE THAT FOR WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THAT AS, BUT WE'RE LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE NOT YES SIR.
ALRIGHT, WE'LL CALL THE ROLE MS. BOARD SECRETARY MS. DAVIS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GONNA SAY AYE AND WE WILL NOT HOLD IT OVER PAST OCTOBER, SO BETTER COME PREPARED.
MOTION PASSES FOUR TO ZERO IN THE MATTER BDA, UM, UH, OOH, BDA 2 3 4 DASH 11.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY HELD OUT OVER FOUR TO ZERO UNTIL OCTOBER 22ND, 2024.
WE HAVE ONE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA AND THAT IS THE REQUEST FOR FOOD FEE WAIVER.
I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 11 FR ONE, HOLD THIS MATTER OVER TO ADVISEMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 22ND, 2024.
DISCUSSION ALL, UM, CALL THE ROLL PLEASE, MS. DAVIS.
ALRIGHT, THAT CONCLUDES OUR AGENDA FOR TODAY.
OUR NEXT MEETING AS A BOARD IS OCTOBER FOR PANEL A.
IS OCTOBER 22ND, 2024, UH, CONSISTENT WITH THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE BOARD THIS MORNING.
UM, I WILL BE REACHING OUT TO PANEL MEMBERS BASED ON CASES THAT COME TO US IN ORDER TO SCHEDULE SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS TO HANDLE ISSUES THAT COME FROM PD 67.
UH, SO OCTOBER 22ND IS PANEL A WHILE YOU'RE HERE GONNA BE A LOT.
OCTOBER 29TH IS THE FULL BOARD MEETING.
ALRIGHT, WITH THAT BEING SAID, AT 6:15 PM ON, UH, SEPTEMBER 17TH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS HEREBY UH, ADJOURNED.