[00:00:03]
OKAY, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND BEGIN.
[Board of Adjustments: Panel A on October 22, 2024.]
GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.UH, MY NAME IS DAVID NEWMAN AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND ALSO THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THIS PANEL A.
TODAY IS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22ND, 2024, WITH A TIME OF 1:00 PM AND I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A TO ORDER FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING FOR BOTH IN-PERSON HYBRID VIDEO CONFERENCE, A QUORUM, WHICH IS A MINIMUM FOUR OR FIVE MEMBERS OF THIS PANEL IS PRESENT, AND THEREFORE WE CAN PROCEED.
WE HAVE FIVE OF OUR FIVE PANEL MEMBERS PRESENT, SO A QUORUM IS IN PLACE.
FIRST, LET ME ALLOW TO INTRODUCE ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
AGAIN, MY NAME IS DAVID NEWMAN AND I'M CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL BOARD AND PRESIDING OFFICER OF PANEL A.
TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT IS PHIL SAUK, RACHEL HAYDEN, MICHAEL OVITZ, AND JOINING US I'M ONLINE IS JANE N UH, TO MY RIGHT AS STAFF.
FIRST, WE'LL START WITH THERESA CARLISLE, BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, DR.
KAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR CHIEF PLANNER, MR. BRIAN THOMPSON, SENIOR PLANNER, DIANA BARUM, OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIALIST, PROJECT COORDINATOR, SARAH I, SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER AND NORA CASTA, UH, SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER.
IN ADDITION, OUR, UH, ASSISTANT, UM, DIRECTOR JASON POOLS WITH US, AND ALSO MARY WILLIAMS, OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
UM, BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO READ A FEW THINGS INTO THE RECORD.
UM, A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT HOW, WHAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS AND THE WAY WE'LL CONDUCT THIS, THIS HEARING THIS AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BEFORE I CONTINUE, MARY IS VOLUME OKAY? VOLUME? OKAY.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
UM, WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL CO COMPENSATION FOR THAT TIME.
WE OPERATE UNDER CITY COUNCIL APPROVED RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE.
NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT.
EACH CASE IS DECIDED UPON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED EACH USE IS PRESUMED TO BE A LEGAL USE.
WE HAVE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY OUR STAFF PRIOR TO THIS HEARING THIS MORNING AT A 10 30 BRIEFING AND REVIEWED A DETAILED PUBLIC DOCKET, WHICH EXPLAINS THE CASE AND WAS POSTED SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO TODAY, TO TODAY, UH, REGARDING THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY OF THE CASES THAT WE WILL HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD SECRETARY, WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED AGAIN, MARY, WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND? ANY AND ALL INFORMATION NEEDS TO GO THROUGH OUR BOARD.
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 REQUIRED 75% OR FOUR VOTES, FOUR AFFIRMED VOTES OF A FULL MEMBER PANEL.
ALL, ALL, ALL OTHER MOTIONS REQUIRED JUST A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.
ACTIONS TODAY WILL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, UH, SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING AND WILL BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.
ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES.
WHEN A CASE, UH, OR WHEN A CASE IS CALLED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A MAXIMUM OF FIVE MINUTES, ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
NO TELECONFERENCING ON WEBEX WILL BE ALLOWED.
ALL COMMENTS WILL BE DIRECTED TO MYSELF AS THE PRESIDING OFFICER WHO MAY AT TIMES MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER.
UH, I'M GONNA PREVIEW OUR MEETING AGENDA THAT WAS POSTED, UM, OCTOBER 11TH WITH THE CITY SECRETARY AND WAS ON OUR WEBSITE, UH, SEVEN DAYS PRIOR.
UH, WE HAD OUR BRIEFING THIS MORNING.
WE WILL IN A MOMENT DO PUBLIC TESTIMONY AFTER PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
WE WILL REVIEW AND HOPEFULLY APPROVE OUR MEETING MINUTES.
THEN WE HAVE EIGHT ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA TODAY, UH, FOUR THAT WERE ORIGINALLY ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET AND FOUR THAT ARE ON THE HOLDOVER DOCKET.
UM, AFTER THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, THE CONSENSUS OF THE PANEL WAS TO, UH, GRANT ONE TO PUT ONE ON THE CONSENT DOCKET, UM, AND THREE OTHER CASES ON THE INDIVIDUAL DOCKET.
SO THE FIRST CASE WE WILL DEAL WITH TODAY WILL BE 2 3 4 1 1 7 2 3 4 1 1 7.
THIS IS AT 6 2 1 8 WALNUT HILL LANE.
AFTER THAT, WE WILL GO TO 11 7 17 CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY.
43 36 LIVELY LANE, TEN TWO TWENTY FIVE DI DI DIARRHEA, RAY DRIVE.
THEN WE'LL GO TO THE FOUR HOLDOVER CASES, 68 0 1 TYREE STREET, AND THEN A FEE REQUEST ON 68 0 1 TYREE STREET.
[00:05:01]
EXCUSE ME, 65 29 VICTORIA AVENUE.AND THEN THE FEE REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT ON 65 28.
65 29, EXCUSE ME, THAT'S THE ORDER IN WHICH WE'RE GONNA HANDLE CASES TODAY.
THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
MS. BOARD, SECRETARY, UM, WHO DO WE HAVE THAT IS REGISTERED FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY? MR. PARIS, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
I'LL GO HAVE A, UH, POWERPOINT SLIDE THAT, THAT'LL BE ONLINE.
SO THE WAY I HANDLE TIMING IS THE BOARD SECRETARY KEEPS TIME.
UH, AND THEN I AM REASONABLY GENEROUS WITH WHEN YOU, WHEN YOUR TIME EXPIRES TO WHAT I LIKE TO SAY, FINISH YOUR SENTENCE.
SO, BUT LET'S, LET'S KEEP THIS ALL AT THREE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS.
OKAY? HOW'S THAT? THAT SOUNDS JOB.
IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES AND I'M OKAY.
MARY, I DON'T HAVE A DIGITAL CLOCK HERE, SO YOU'LL YOU'LL KEEP ME HONEST ON THE THREE MINUTES AND THEN WE'LL COME CONCLUSION TONY, MYSELF.
WELL, UH, BUT MY, MY NAME IS, IS THE MIC ON? CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? IS THE MIC OKAY? AND WE'RE IN AN ECHO ROOM TODAY, SO I'M, YOU'RE GONNA HEAR ME SAY THIS QUITE OFTEN, WHETHER 'CAUSE WE WANNA MAKE SURE NUMBER ONE, THOSE ONLINE HEAR THIS AS WELL AS THE RECORDING THAT'S PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD AND ALSO EVERYONE IN THE ROOM.
SO AS ASSUMING ALL THAT, I THINK YOU'RE OKAY.
AND I'M JUST CONFIRMING AS WELL, SINCE I HAVE A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, EVERYONE CAN SEE THE SLIDE CLEARLY.
I THINK THE MEDIA IS CHANGING MICROPHONES.
MUCH BETTER THE, UH, THE PRESS PEOPLE TO HERE IN CHANCE TO, UH, GET MICS ON HERE.
LET ME FIRST ASK BEFORE YOU START, UH, MS. WILLIAMS, HOW MANY PEOPLE DO WE HAVE REGISTERED FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY? NOT CASE TESTIMONY, JUST PUBLIC.
AND I, AGAIN, BEFORE THE TIMER STARTS, I WANT TO CONFIRM THAT EVERYONE HAS GOT, CAN SEE THE, THE POWERPOINT SLIDE.
CLEARLY WE HAVE IT UP ON OUR LAPTOPS A ACCORDINGLY.
AND IT'S ALSO ON THE SCREEN HERE IN FRONT OF US.
UH, PARTY, SIR, IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, OKAY? YES.
UH, MY ADDRESS IS 78 11 MORTON STREET, AND I I DO LIVE WITHIN PD 67 FOR THE RECORD.
DO WE NEED TO BE AN OATH TO SWEARING IN? NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS NOT CONSIDERED TESTIMONY.
IT'S NOT CONSIDERED, UH, UNDER OATH PER SE.
IF IT'S ON A SPECIFIC CASE, WE ASK FOR SWEARING IT.
BUT THIS IS, I REMEMBER THAT FROM LAST TIME.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
UH, WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
THESE ARE THE ZONING RESTRICTIONS IN PD 67.
UH, TO SAY THAT THIS ZONING CHANGE IS TOO COMPLICATED FOR MR. NEY TO UNDERSTAND IS RIDICULOUS.
MORE THAN 90% OF THE OTHER BUILDERS WHO FILED THEIR, THEIR PLANS SINCE OCTOBER, 2022, UH, UNDERSTOOD THE ZONING.
ALSO, I DON'T FALL FOR THE SMOKE AND MIRRORS HERE.
MR. MAGNEY WAS SOMEONE WHO STAYED ON TOP OF THE ZONING AND CHANGE ENOUGH TO COME DOWN TO CITY HALL AND KEEP UP WITH THE CASE AND SIGN TWO AFFIDAVITS OF PROTEST.
THIS IS NOT SOMEONE WHO WAS OUT OF THE LOOP AND DIDN'T KNOW THE DETAILS.
COMMON SENSE TELLS ME THAT MR. MAGNEY FILED A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING PLAN, HOPING THE PLANNING AND DEPAR DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, WHICH EVERYONE KNOWS WAS A MESS IN 2022 WOULD ISSUE A PERMANENT ERROR.
LET ME BE CLEAR, MR. MAGNEY GAMBLED AND LOST AND HIS COMPROMISE TODAY IS TO CONTINUE BUILDING A STRUCTURE THAT STILL VIOLATES TWO OF THE FOUR PD 67 PROVISIONS CONCERNING LOT SIZE AND LAND USE.
NOW LET'S LOOK AT F 80 CAPITAL.
MR. DANNY LEE AND MR. REMLEY ARE CO-FOUNDERS.
AND MR. REMLEY SPOKE IN FAVOR OF MR. MUG'S APPEAL BACK IN AUGUST.
HE SAID DANNY LEE AND HIS, UH, WAS HIS FRIEND AND PARTNER.
MR. REMLEY STATED THAT HE HAD TO CUT DOWN ON MY ROOF AT 67 14 TYREE, WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT THIS? I'LL SHOW YOU.
SOMEONE IN THE BUILDING PERMIT OFFICE HAD THE CORRECT POCKET NOTES ON THE CURRENT PD 67 REQUIREMENTS.
REMEMBER HOW THE CITY WAS SLAMMED AT THE LAST MEETING BECAUSE THEY WERE USING OUT OF DATE POCKET NOTES.
THE BUILDING PERMIT OFFICE CONTACTED F 80 CAPITAL ON DECEMBER 21ST, 2023, AND TOLD THEM THE ROOF TYPE AND LOT SIZE FOR THE PROPERTY.
AT 67 14, TYREE HAD TO BE CORRECTED.
LET ME ZOOM IN SO YOU CAN SEE IT A LITTLE BETTER.
MR. REMLEY UH, CORRECTED THEIR PLAN BY JANUARY 5TH, 2024.
AND AS NOTED, PD 67 WAS CALLED OUT BY THE CITY STAFF AS THE REASON FOR THESE CORRECTIONS.
THIS PROVES WITHOUT A DOUBT THAT F 80 CAPITAL KNEW OF THE CURRENT PD 67 ZONING A FULL SIX MONTHS BEFORE THEY BEGAN CONSTRUCTION AT 65 29 VICTORIA, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
NOW REMEMBER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT F 80 CAPITAL AND NOT JUST THE CO-FOUNDER DANNY LEE.
[00:10:01]
THIS COMPANY KNEW THAT PD 67 APPLIED TO A PROPERTY ABOUT ONE BLOCK AWAY.UH, AND YOU WOULD THINK CO-FOUNDERS WHO HAPPENED TO BE FRIENDS WOULD AT LEAST TALK TO EACH OTHER ABOUT WHY THEIR COMPANY HAD TO SPEND MONEY ADDING A HIP GABLE ROOF TO A PROPERTY DOWN THE STREET.
THIS COMPANY KNEW A PD 67 AND STILL CHOSE TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT VIOLATES EVERY ASPECT OF THE LAW, INCLUDING A STRUCTURE MORE THAN 10 FEET HIGHER THAN WHAT THE ZONING ALLOWS.
OH, AND IF MR. DANNY LEE IS CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE HIS FAMILY SHOULD LIVE, LIVE, LET ME POINT OUT, AT F 80 CAPITAL IS CURRENTLY BUILDING 30 TOWN HOMES HERE IN DALLAS.
BOTH OF THESE BUILDERS KNEW OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS BEFORE THEY BEGAN CONSTRUCTION AND IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NEVER A GOOD EXCUSE, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU KNOW THE LAW AND EXPECT OTHERS TO PAY FOR YOUR LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY.
PLEASE HAVE THE COURAGE TO FOLLOW YOUR MISSION STATEMENT AND DENY THESE APPEALS.
GOOD AFTERNOON IS GOOD AFTERNOON.
IS THIS GOOD? I THINK THE MIC LOOKS SATISFACTORY.
SO IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, THEN YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
MY NAME IS AMELIA S PEREZ AND I LIVE AT 7 8 11 MORTON DRIVE, UH, MORTON STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS.
UH, I AM RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT YOU UPHOLD THE STOP WORK ORDERS FOR 65 29 VICTORIA AND 68 0 3 TYREE.
THE ELLEN THICKETT NORTH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD IS ONE OF DALLAS'S FEW REMAINING FREEDMAN'S COMMUNITIES.
ELLEN THICKETT FOUGHT FOR THE CHANGES OF TO PD 67 TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER AND HISTORY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN THIS ENTIRE MESS.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE ONLY ONE WHO DID EVERYTHING RIGHT.
PD 67 PASSED CPC AND CITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY.
AND WHEN THE CITY TOLD US IT WOULD BE UP TO US TO MONITOR THE HOMES BEING CONSTRUCTED, WE DID THAT AS WELL.
THE SOUL CRUSHING FACT THAT MY NEIGHBORS LIVE WITH ON A DAILY BASIS IS THAT WE ALL KNOW THAT IF THESE SAME STRUCTURES HAD BEEN BUILT IN PRESTON HOLLOW UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES, THOSE STOCK WORK ORDERS WOULD'VE BEEN UPHELD AT THAT FIRST MEETING.
BUT WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS WHAT ALWAYS HAPPENS.
THE MARGINALIZED BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES, OUR VOICES ARE NOT HEARD.
REPUTABLE BUILDERS KNOW THEY CAN VIOLATE PD 67 AND THEN ASK US FOR FORGIVENESS FROM YOU.
BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE JUST A MARGINALIZED GROUP OF BLACK AND BROWN NEIGHBORS, AND OUR VOICE HAS NO SAY WHILE YOU, THE BOA WHO IS SUPPOSED TO UPHOLD THE LAW, AREN'T SURE ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO.
THESE BUILDERS KNEW YOU'VE BEEN SHOWN PROOF THAT THEY KNEW THE CITY CANNOT COMPROMISE BECAUSE THESE STRUCTURES ARE A VIOLATION OF THE LAW THAT YOU ARE CHARGED TO UPHOLD.
THESE STRUCTURES NEED TO CONFORM TO PD 67.
ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO ELLEN THICKETT WHAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN DONE TO EVERY HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITY? ARE YOU GONNA HAVE THE COURAGE TO DO WHAT IS WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW AND UPHOLD THESE STOP WORK ORDERS? WHAT SIDE OF HISTORY ARE YOU GONNA BE ON THESE STOP WORK ORDERS WERE ISSUED CORRECTLY? BECAUSE THESE STRUCTURES VIOLATE PD 67.
AGAIN, ELM THICKETT AS A HISTORICAL FRIEDMANS COMMUNITY.
IF THE BOA FAILS TO UPHOLD THESE STOP WORK ORDERS, THEN YOU'LL CONFIRM.
WHAT WE'VE ALWAYS KNOWN IS BECAUSE OF COWARDLY OFFICIALS IN DALLAS'S HISTORY THAT THIS CITY HAS NO SOUL.
IT GETS SOLD TO DISREPUTABLE BUILDERS WHO ONLY CARE ABOUT PROFIT.
FOR A CITY TO HAVE A SOUL, IT NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE AND PROTECT ITS HISTORY AND ITS NEIGHBORHOODS.
IF YOU FAIL TO DO THAT IN THESE CASES, THEN SHAME ON ALL OF YOU.
NEXT SPEAKER, GO TO
[00:15:06]
MY NAME IS JONATHAN MAPLES AND I RESIDE AT 65 25 OREO DRIVE IN THE HISTORIC ELM THICKETT NORTH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD.I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE ELM THICKETT NORTH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, I CAME TO THIS BODY A FEW MONTHS BACK AND EXPLAINED THAT SOMETHING WAS AMISS IN THE ZONING.
NOW IT HAS COME TO PASS THAT WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
WE FOUGHT FOR YEARS TO HAVE OUR VOICES HEARD AND WON THE LARGEST DOWN ZONING CASE IN DALLAS HISTORY.
UNANIMOUSLY, ANYONE THAT SAYS THEY DIDN'T KNOW IS LYING AND THE REPRESENTATION IS LYING.
HOW DO I KNOW? SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE MEDIA ATTENTION IT GOT AND DESERVED.
AS A VETERAN OF THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, I UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT HOME OWNERSHIP IS, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT FOLLOWING THE LAW IS.
WE DON'T LIVE BY THE CREED OF LAWS FOR ME AND NOT FOR IT FOR THEE.
THE BUILDING OFFICIAL RIGHTLY ISSUED A STOP WORK ORDER WHEN THE PERMITS WERE DISCOVERED TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN ERROR.
THE BOARD'S ROLE IS TO ASSESS WHETHER THE BUILDING OFFICIAL REVOCATIONS WAS IN ERRORS.
IT WAS NOT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ACTED CORRECTLY, AND YOU MUST PLEASE DO THE SAME.
THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT WHOSE PRESIDENT IS BINDING UPON THIS BOARD QUOTING DALLAS VCO IN 2006, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT RULING COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR.
IN THIS ZONING CASE, WE DETERMINE WHETHER A CITY CAN ENFORCE A ZONING ORDINANCE AGAINST A PROPERTY OWNER OWNER WHO SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED NEW HOME, HAS BEEN BUILT IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE EVEN THOUGH THE CITY HAD GIVEN PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR THE OWNER BUILDING PLANS.
WE NEED YOU GUYS TO DO THE RIGHT THING BECAUSE WE WORK LONG TIRELESS HOURS DOTTED EVERY I CROSSED EVERY T AND AS IT'S BEEN SAID, THIS IS HOW BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE GET TREATED.
THIS IS HOW IT ALWAYS HAPPENS.
AND I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I'M ON EVERY TYPE OF CITIZEN GROUP THROUGHOUT THE CITY, FROM OAK CLIFF TO EAST DALLAS TO WEST DALLAS.
AND WE ARE SEEING THE SAME THING.
THE BUILDERS DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND THEN THEY BELIEVE IN THE OLD SAYING FORGIVENESS OVER PERMISSION.
AND WE'LL BE BACK BECAUSE THERE'S 17 MORE CASES BEHIND THIS.
IN ELM PICKETT, THE CITY IS WATCHING.
AND LET ME, LET ME JUST SAY LASTLY, NO DECISIONS FOR ELM PICKETT NORTH PARK.
NO DECISIONS FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS AS IT AS IT RELATES TO OUR HOMES SHOULD BE MADE WITHOUT US AND OUR INPUT.
NOW, THE LAST MEETING YOU ASKED THE CITY ATTORNEY, SIR, AND THE BUILDER TIME HAS EXPIRED, BUT YOU CAN FINISH YOUR SENTENCE.
OKAY, THE LAST MEETING YOU ASKED THE CITY AND THE BUILDERS, THE BUILDERS TO COME UP WITH A RESOLUTION THAT WON'T WORK BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT INCLUDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, NEXT SPEAKER.
AFTERNOON CHAIR NEWMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
COULD YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN YES, SIR.
JOANNA HAMPTON, 5 4 0 8 SWISS AVENUE.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE 2 3 4 DASH 1 1 1 AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE 2 3 4 DASH ZERO ONE, UM, WHILE I SERVE ON THE CITY BOARD.
I'M HERE TODAY AS A 30 YEAR RESIDENT OF OLDIE DALLAS AND A RESIDENT WHO'S APPEARED BEFORE THIS BODY ON BEHALF OF MY COMMUNITY.
I'M HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING.
OFFICIAL NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGHOUT OUR CITY RELY ON ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY OF NEW CONSTRUCTION, PARTICULARLY IN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE INCREASES IN HEIGHTENED SCALE OF NEW PROJECTS FROM THE ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
THESE PROTECTIONS PROVIDED BY ZONING ARE EVEN MORE VITAL.
SIMILAR TO ELM THICKETT NORTH PARK, OLDIE DALLAS RELIES ON THESE PROTECTIONS.
AS OUR COMMUNITY CONTINUES TO REDEVELOP.
MY COMMUNITY HAS ALSO EXPERIENCED ISSUES OF BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN ERROR.
I HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THIS BOARD ON OTHER CASES REGARDING RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY, SOAP VIOLATIONS, SETBACK VIOLATIONS, PARKING.
WHILE EACH PROJECT BY THIS BOARD IS
[00:20:01]
CONSIDERED BASED ON THE ESTABLISHED STANDARDS.THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ROLE IN THESE CASES IS CLEAR.
THEY MUST REVOKE THE PERMITS THAT WERE ISSUED IN ERROR.
WHILE THERE WILL BE COST FOR THE PROJECTS TO BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE, THERE ARE ALSO COSTS FOR THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
AND THOSE WHO HAVE FOLLOWED THE RULES ESTABLISHED WITHIN PD 67 FROM INCREASES IN DRAINAGE AND RUNOFF TO PROJECTS WHICH WILL LOOM OVER THE LEGACY RESIDENCES.
THE COST IMPOSED ON THOSE WHO FOLLOW THE RULES IS AN EQUALLY IMPORTANT FACTOR.
I ASK THE BOARD TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE BILLING OFFICIAL AND DENY THESE REQUESTS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
MY NAME IS ROBERT BOLTMAN AND I ALSO LIVE IN ELM THICKETT.
WHEN MY WIFE AND I MOVED BACK AFTER 30 YEARS OF WORKING IN WASHINGTON DC, WE WANTED TO LIVE IN A MIXED NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE CITY.
UM, OUR LEGACY NEIGHBORS AND OUR NEW NEIGHBORS.
AT YOUR LAST HEARING, YOU ASKED THE BUILDER AND THE CITY TO COME UP WITH A COMPROMISE.
WELL, THE CITY ALREADY CAME UP WITH A COMPROMISE.
COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT A COMPROMISE BUILDING STANDARD.
THAT'S, THAT'S OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS COMING UP WITH THAT COMPROMISE.
AND THAT'S THE COMPROMISE THAT NEEDS TO BE UPHELD.
IF YOU WATCH THE CHANNEL FOUR INTERVIEW THAT HE DID, HE SAYS, AND I QUOTE, YEAH, WE WERE DEFINITELY PART OF THAT ONE.
WE KNEW IT AND WE PARTICIPATED.
HE KNEW HE KNEW WHAT THE RULES WERE.
IT'S SPECIOUS TO BLAME THE PLANNING STAFF WHEN HE HAD FULLY ADMITS THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THE NEW RULES.
THE CITY ATTORNEY TOLD YOU AS, UH, PENULTIMATE SPEAKER BEFORE ME SAID THE APPLICANT, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING THE RULES AND REGULATIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOT.
YOU DON'T SEE A RIO HERE, YOU DON'T SEE ALEXANDER HUNT HERE.
YOU DON'T SEE HUNT BUILDERS HERE.
THEY KNEW THE RULES, THEY FOUGHT THEM, BUT THEY'RE COMPLYING WITH THEM.
AND I DISAGREE WITH YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WHAT YOU DO HERE WILL NOT SET A PRECEDENT.
IT MOST CERTAINLY WILL SET A PRECEDENT.
IF YOU GRANT THESE EXCEPTIONS AND DON'T REQUIRE THESE BUILDINGS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE, YOU'LL BE REWARDING BAD BEHAVIOR, KNOWN BAD BEHAVIOR.
WHAT DID WE LEARN? RAISING CHILDREN.
IF YOU REWARD BAD BEHAVIOR, YOU GET BAD BEHAVIOR IN RETURN.
COUNSEL, OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS SET THE STANDARD.
IT'S YOUR JOB TO UPHOLD THAT, NOT MAKE NEW LAW.
LA WHAT DID YOU SAY LARRY? LARRY FUT.
DR. THOMPSON, 27 15 WEST UNIVERSITY, HISTORIC ELM THICKETT, NORTH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD NUMBER ONE.
PEOPLE ARE STANDING IN LINE TO VOTE FOR A PRESIDENT AND THE MOST POWERFUL BOARD TODAY IS RIGHT HERE.
AND WE DON'T EVEN VOTE FOR Y'ALL.
AND SO WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE.
AND SO THE COMMUNITY, I'M A LIFE LONG RESIDENT OF ELM THICKETT NORTH PARK.
AND I'VE STATED HERE BEFORE, WE WERE KICKED OUT BY THE CITY OF DALLAS AND WE HAD TO MOVE FROM COVERAGE COURTS INTO ELM THICKETT NORTH PARK.
WHO KNEW THEN THAT THIS SAME PROPERTY THAT WAS SOLD FOR $6,000 IS NOW WORTH 500,000.
AND SO WE AS LEGACY HOMEOWNERS, WE'VE DONE THE RIGHT THING.
WE'VE KEPT OUR PROPERTY, WE PAID OUR TAXES, AND WE ASKED YOU TO MAKE SURE THOSE BUILDERS WHO DON'T FOLLOW THE COMPLIANCE, THAT THE STOP ORDER STAYS IN PLACE.
NOW, NUMBER ONE, ARE WE LOOKING AT ONE THING? IS THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE BUILDERS IN COLLUSION TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN? THIS NEVER SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN TO THIS POINT.
AND SO HOW DID IT PASS THE CITY OF DALLAS
[00:25:01]
STAFF THAT THEY WOULD ALLOW THESE BUILDERS TO GO ON AND STERILE FIVE BUILDERS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED THAT HAD NO BUILDING PERMIT.HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? AND SO THE QUESTION IS, AND THEY STATED TO ME YEARS AGO THAT EVERYONE ALWAYS WANTED ELM DIG AND NORTH PARK TO REMOVE THE AFRICAN AMERICAN, REMOVE THE HISPANICS THAT WERE THERE.
AND SO TODAY, ARE YOU GONNA STILL HAVE THE SAME MINDSET THAT THEY HAD IN 1966? THIS IS 2024.
I WOULD ASK THAT MOST OF YOU HAVE BEEN AROUND CITY OF DALLAS, UH, POLITICS AND YOU'VE SEEN WHAT THIS AREA HAS GONE THROUGH.
AND TO ALLOW SOMEONE TO BE TOLD BY RENEGADE BUILDERS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO THESE INDIVIDUALS 'CAUSE WE DIDN'T LISTEN TO 'EM.
AND YOU COME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE AND YOU DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.
AND THAT'S WHY HE WENT AHEAD AND BUILT.
UH, IF I WASN'T BORN HERE, I'D MOVE AWAY.
I'LL BE HONEST, BECAUSE THIS IS RIDICULOUS.
GET THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS IN ORDER, REQUIRE THE CITY TO GET THEIR HOUSE IN ORDER.
AND THAT'S BY YOU DOING THE STOP ORDER.
YOU'RE SAYING SHE IS MS. WILLIAMS OR SHE SHOULD BE
MS. KAISHA RICHARDSON, PLEASE PROVIDE VIDEO AND AUDIO
CAN YOU HEAR ME? LITTLE BIT LOUDER.
GIVE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS THEN YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
MY NAME IS KAISHA RICHARDSON AND I LIVE AS 73 14 KEN WELL STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 9 TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
I'M SPEAKING TODAY IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPEALS AT 68 0 1 TYREE AND 65 29 VICTORIA.
AS WE ARE ALL AWARE BY NOW, THE SITUATION PRESENTED IN THESE TWO APPEALS ARE NOT UNIQUE OR ISOLATED, BUT THE DECISIONS MADE TODAY WILL DEFINITELY SET A PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE CASES AND APPEALS TO BE BROUGHT FORTH FROM THE, UM, THINK AND NORTH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S ROLE WHENEVER A PERMIT IS DISCOVERED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN ERROR IS TO IMMEDIATELY ISSUE A STOP WORK ORDER AND REQUIRE THAT THE PROPERTY COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE DALLAS CITY CODE AND ZONING LAWS.
AND THAT IS WHAT THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DID.
SO IN THESE CASES, THE BOARD'S ONLY ROLE IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WAS IN ERROR.
THIS PROCEDURE HAS BEEN REVIEWED ALL THE WAY TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT WHOSE PRECEDENCE IS BINDING UPON THE BOARD QUOTING FROM THE CITY OF DALLAS VERSUS ESCO.
THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT RULING IS CLEAR.
IN THIS ZONING CASE, WE DETERMINE WHETHER A CITY CAN ENFORCE A ZONING ORDINANCE AGAINST A PROPERTY OWNER WHO HAS SUB SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED.
NEW HOME HAS BEEN BUILT IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE.
EVEN THOUGH THE CITY HAD GIVEN PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE OWNER'S BUILDING PLANS, WE CONCLUDE THAT IT CAN.
THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THESE APPEAL APPEALS IS WHETHER THE ZONING WAS VIOLATED AND NOT WHETHER BRINGING THE STRUCTURE INTO CONFORMITY WITH CAUSE OF FINANCIAL BURDEN OF LOSS.
ULTIMATELY, THE BUILDER SHOULD FORM HIS DUE DILIGENCE AND ENSURE THAT THE BUILDING IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING LAWS.
IF THE ZONING LAWS ARE TOO COMPLEX, THEN IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO GET ASSISTANCE TO NAVIGATE THE ZONING LAWS IF THEY INTEND TO BUILD OR BE A BUILDING.
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE.
MANY OTHER BUILDERS HAVE BUILT IN COMPLIANCE OR MODIFIED PLANS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.
BUT IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN THESE SITUATIONS, THE HARM WAS SELF-INFLICTED.
THE BUILDER AT RETIREE KNEW ABOUT THE ZONING CHANGES THROUGH HIS OWN ADMISSION, AND THE BUILDER OF VICTORIA HAS A STRUCTURE THAT IS MORE THAN 10 FEET TALLER THAN ANY RESIDENCE OR NEIGHBORING BUSINESSES FOR MILES.
ALLOWING THESE NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES WOULD CAUSE FURTHER HARM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN VIOLATION OF PD 67, WHICH WAS TO GIVE A MORE CONSISTENT LOOK AND FEEL IN THIS HISTORIC FREEMAN'S COMMUNITY.
THE ZONING CHANGE WAS MEANT TO BE MORE RESPECTFUL OF THE EXISTING TRADITIONAL HOMES HOMES AND TO EASE THE IMPACT OF NEW OUTSCALE CONSTRUCTION THAT CONTINUES TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE TRADITIONAL HOMES THAT ARE SUFFERING FROM DRAINAGE AND RUNOFF ISSUES, MINIMAL SUNLIGHT AND NO PRIVACY.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UPHOLD THE BO UH, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DECISION
[00:30:01]
AND NOT FURTHER EXACERBATE LOT USAGE DISCREPANCIES IN MINORITY DISPLACEMENT.PLEASE SHOW THAT OUR RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORHOODS MATTER.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN UPHOLDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE ENACTED BY THE CITY LEGISLATION.
OUR BOARD SECRETARIES INDICATED US THERE ARE NO OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKERS.
THE AGENDA IS OUR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS. IT'S THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 17TH.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING.
MINUTES FOR PANEL A FROM SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2024.
MS. HAYDEN, UH, HAS MOVED TO APPROVE, UH, THE PANEL A MEETING MINUTES FROM S SE SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2024.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY MR. HAITZ DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION.
I WANNA MAKE SURE ALSO, MR. NER, YOU CAN HEAR US AND SEE US? YES.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION AND AGAIN, WAIVE TO GET MY ATTENTION.
HEARING, NO, UH, ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING OUR MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED FROM SEPTEMBER 17TH.
THOSE OPPOSED PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
FIVE TO ZERO MEETING MINUTES ARE APPROVED AS PRESENTED.
NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE ONE ITEM THAT WE AT THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING SUGGESTED TO BE LEFT ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET.
THIS IS AT 6 2 1 8 WALNUT HILL LANE, 6 2 1 8 WALNUT HILL LANE.
UM, IS IT STILL THE INTENTION OF THE BOARD TO LEAVE THIS ON THE CONSENT DOCKET OR DO YOU WANNA PULL THIS OFF FOR A REGULAR HEARING? THERE'S, I'D LIKE TO PULL IT OFF.
IT'S BEEN, THAT'S BEEN PULLED UP.
ALRIGHT, SO WE, THAT'LL BE A, UH, SO WE WILL YOU, SO ALL FOUR OF THE ITEMS ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET ARE GONNA BE ON THE REGULAR DOCKET FOR TODAY.
SO THAT BEING THE CASE, UM, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS WE'RE GONNA START OFF WITH 1 1 7 1 7 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY.
THAT IS 2 3 4 DASH 1 15 2 3 4 DASH 1 1 5.
SO LET ME PULL THAT UP ONE SECOND.
2 3 4, UH, DASH ONE 15, UH, AT 1 1 7 1 7 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY IS THE APPLICANT HERE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
UH, OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR GAVE US THE COPY OF THE MEMO THAT WAS PROVIDED BY MR. IRWIN AR ARBORIST TO EACH OF THE PANEL MEMBERS.
WANNA MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THAT.
HOW ARE YOU? DOING WELL, HOW ARE YOU? VERY GOOD SIR.
UM, OUR PROCEDURE IS THAT AS THE APPLICANT, YOU'RE ALLOWED FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT.
AND THEN IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING, THEY GET TO SPEAK IN FAVOR.
IF THERE'S ANYONE IN OPPOSITION, THEY GET TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION.
UH, AND THEN YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES REBUTTAL.
AND WE ARE PLUS OR MINUS ON TIMES, I WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY WHAT THEY WANNA SAY.
UH, BUT WITHIN KEEPING IT WITH A REASONABLE, UH, FRAMEWORK, UH, WE HAD A BRIEFING THIS MORNING AND WE BRIEFED YOUR CASE AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER EIGHT CASES AND THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP.
AND SO THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT YOUR REQUEST AND ANSWER QUESTIONS.
SO IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, THEN OUR BOARD SECRETARY'S GONNA SWEAR YOU IN BEHIND YOU.
I'M WITH BOWLER ENGINEERING 2,600 NETWORK BOULEVARD, FRISCO, TEXAS.
IF YOU TURN AROUND, MS. WILLIAMS WILL SWEAR YOU IN, SUPPOSED TO PUT YOUR HAND UP.
NEVER KNEW YOU'D HAVE TO TURN AROUND TO GET SWORN IN, BUT WE'RE AT CITY HALL.
BUT I'LL, WE, WE WILL DO PLUS OR MINUS.
ALRIGHT, MR. CARDWELL, PROCEED.
SO I DON'T HAVE A FORMAL PRESENTATION, BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS JUST EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE PROPERTY.
I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT IT THIS MORNING.
UM, BUT THE APPLICANT HERE TODAY IS THEY'RE REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE PLANTINGS ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE.
UH, THE FRONTAGE IN QUESTION IS ALONG NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY, IT'S CURRENTLY IMPROVED AND INCLUDES A LANDSCAPE AREA WITHIN THAT RIGHT OF AWAY.
IT HAS SHRUBS AND TREES THAT ARE WITHIN THAT RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, THE REQUEST ON OUR SIDE IS THAT WE PUT STREETSCAPE PLANTINGS IN.
THE CHALLENGE IS THERE'S NO SPACE WITH WHICH TO PUT THAT.
WE HAD APPROACHED, UM, TECH STAFF ABOUT THAT RIGHT OF WAY, ASKING THEM IF WE COULD
[00:35:01]
PLACE PLANTINGS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.THEY WERE AGREEABLE TO DOING IT.
HOWEVER, THERE'S A WATERLINE IN THE WAY AND THERE'S ALSO AN ISSUE WITH THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY AND TDO AND US AND EVERYBODY ELSE IN BETWEEN.
UM, SO LONG STORY SHORT, THAT DIDN'T COME TO FRUITION, BUT IT'S NOT OUR INTENTION TO NOT CREATE PLANTINGS.
AND IN FACT, WE HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CITY'S REQUIREMENT OF ARTICLE 10 WITHIN THE SITE.
UM, WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE AS MANY OF THE TREES AS WE CAN WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW BUILDING AND THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE.
AND THEN IN ADDITION, WE'RE ALSO ADDING PLANTINGS WITHIN THE SITE SITE, UM, BOTH TREES, SHRUBS, AND OTHER THINGS ALONG THE BUILDING AND AROUND THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE.
AND I KNOW WE DO HAVE THE REQUIRED 15 CREDITS PER ARTICLE 10.
SO AT THAT POINT IT'S, WE'RE JUST, THE REQUEST AT OUR SIDE IS JUST, WE'RE TRYING TO KIND OF DO THE RIGHT THING, BUT WE WANNA BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S GOING ON ALONG THAT ROADWAY AS WELL.
UM, 'CAUSE BOTH PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH HAVE A SIMILAR CONDITION TO OURS.
AND SO WE WANT TO JUST MAINTAIN THAT SAME STRIP OF LAND THE WAY IT EXISTS TODAY.
UM, AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE IN RELATION TO THAT.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. HAKO, THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN.
UM, ARE YOU THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? I AM NOT, NO.
I AM THE ENGINEER REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
IS IS THAT APPLICANT THE SAME PERSON WHO, UH, HAS THE PRESENT STRUCTURE THAT ON THE PROPERTY? IS HE, IS HE ACQUIRING THIS FROM SOMEONE ELSE? YES.
HE ALREADY HAD THIS PROPERTY? YES.
AND BOTH REPRESENTATIVES ARE HERE.
UM, WHAT'D YOU SAY? BOTH WHAT? BOTH OF THE REPRESENTATIVES ARE HERE.
BOTH THE PERSON PURCHASING AND SELLING.
SO DO, ARE YOU AWARE OF WHO, UH, THE QUESTION, IF YOU HEARD WHAT WE HAD TO, TO SAY THIS MORNING? MM-HMM.
SO, UM, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU CAN, UH, ENLIGHTEN US WITH ABOUT THAT? UM, OBVIOUSLY IT'S HARD FOR US.
WE DON'T HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH TO TO DO A MAINTENANCE OF THAT PROPERTY.
UM, BUT I DO KNOW THERE IS AN EXISTING MAINTENANCE THAT IS OCCURRING.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF YEAH, HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO IT MORE DIRECTLY 'CAUSE HE'S KIND OF HANDLING THAT SIDE OF IT.
SO WAS HE GONNA FILL IN B******T BEFORE YOU, BEFORE YOU SPEAK? JUST HOLD ON A SECOND.
DID HE ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? HE, HE DIDN'T.
SO HE'S ASKING SOMEONE ELSE TO COME UP TO ANSWER, RIGHT? SURE.
SO WE'LL JUST HOLD FOR ONE SECOND AND YOU, YOU'LL BE CALLED, WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? SO WHAT I, I WANT TO ZERO IN.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT TODAY, SO YES SIR.
WE COULD FIRST CORRECT YOU MR. SITE.
IS THERE ANY AGREEMENT ONGOING, UH, WITH THE NEW OWNERS TO MAINTAIN THE SHRUBBERY AND THE TREE ON ALONG CENTRAL THAT I'M GONNA SAY IT'S A LEASE.
IT'S NOT A PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY.
SO THEY'RE LEASING THE PROPERTY, BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER, HE COULD SPEAK TO THAT.
SOMEONE'S GONNA NEED TO ANSWER THAT, SO.
WELL, SO WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL GO, WE'LL GO TO HIM IN A MINUTE HERE.
I, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME? OKAY.
UM, THIS GENTLEMAN CAN COME UP.
HE'S GONNA HAVE TO FILL OUT A BLUE SLIP.
LIKE MONTY HALL USED TO SAY, COME ON DOWN.
IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME, BOB, AND ADDRESS BOB BARKER.
WHAT IS IN MONNIE HALL? MONTY HALL, LET'S MAKE A DEAL.
UH, FRANK BULLOCK RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS IS, UH, 55 55 WEST UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD, DALLAS 7 5 2 0 9.
YOU'RE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? NO, I, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS ESSENTIALLY THE HENRY S. MILLER COMPANY IN A PARTNERSHIP.
I AM THE DIRECTOR OF REAL, UH, RETAIL REAL ESTATE FOR THE HENRY S. MILLER COMPANY IN THE EXCLUSIVE LEASING AGENT OF THIS PROPERTY.
THEY LEASED THIS PARCEL, WHICH WAS A BOSTON MARKET BUILDING P AND BUILDING TO POEO CAMPERO.
AND THIS GENTLEMAN IS AN, UH, CONSULTANT WITH OKAY.
AND THE LADY WITH POEO CAMPERO IS HERE ALSO, WHO IS OUR GROUND LEASE TENANT.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING ALL THAT.
SO, SO THAT'S WHY HE DIDN'T KNOW SOME OF THE ANSWERS.
THIS IS ALL VERY GOOD BLUE COLOR.
I WILL TELL YOU, HOLD ON A SECOND.
DID DID HE, DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS? I, I'M STILL WAITING FOR I THINK HE, MY QUESTION.
SO AS REPRESENTING THE HENRY S. MILLER COMPANY, HAS THAT COMPANY BEEN DOING THE MAINTENANCE
[00:40:01]
OF THE RIGHT OF WAY? YES.WE, WE IN TERMS OF LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, MOWING, YES.
MAKING IT LOOK NICE BECAUSE IT'S, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A PART OF A SHOPPING CENTER, RIGHT? YES.
PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S TECH DOT.
SO, SO SINCE THE, UM, PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE OPENING THE NEW BUSINESS, THERE ARE LESSERS NOT REGISTERS.
IS HENRY S. MILLER COMPANY GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT MAINTENANCE? YES.
THAT'S PART OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT IS THAT WE'RE IN CHARGE OF ALL COMMON AREA IN THE SHOPPING CENTER.
AND THEN OF COURSE WE, WE BILL THEM A CERTAIN FEE FOR THAT.
NOW YOU GET A CHANCE IF YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING.
THIS IS MY PERSONAL COMMENTS SINCE THAT'S NOT HOWEVER YOU WANNA SAY IT.
I WANT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT CAME HERE FIRST.
UH, BECAUSE IN, IN LEASING THIS PROPERTY OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS, WHICH I'VE DONE PERSONALLY WITH PARTNERSHIP, THERE'S BEEN AN INCREASED AMOUNT OF, UH, HOMELESS SLASH RESIDENTIALLY CHALLENGED PEOPLE THAT ARE AT THE CORNER OF FOREST LANE AND CENTRAL.
AND SO EVERYTHING THAT WE DO, INCLUDING HELPING THE CITY TO GET A, A FENCE UNDERNEATH THE TEXAS U-TURN TO HELP MITIGATE THAT PROBLEM WAS IN, WAS INITIATED BY OUR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PEOPLE.
BECAUSE IT'S A SIGNIFICANT ASSET AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN A HIGH DEGREE OF BEAUTY AND SAFETY AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO HAVE TREES OUT, TREES, NOT GOOD LOOKING SHRUBS THAT ARE FOUR FEET TALL OR WHATEVER, NOT, NOT AN ARBORIST, BUT TO HAVE TREES IN THAT RIGHT OF WAY WOULD DEFINITELY IMPAIR THE VISIBILITY JUST TO THE POEO CAMPO AS WELL AS THE OTHER TENANTS IN THE SHOPPING CENTER.
AND IT MAY TAKE TWO YEARS OR FIVE YEARS OR 10 YEARS, BUT THE TREES CONTINUE TO GROW.
AND THAT, THAT WOULD BE A NEGATIVE, I THINK TO, TO THE, NOT JUST THE SHOPPING CENTER, BUT POTENTIALLY CREATING, I'M GONNA SAY A SHADY AREA BECAUSE OF THE TREES.
YOU THINK IT'LL PEOPLE TOGETHER.
OH, YOU THINK IT'LL DRAW MORE PEOPLE TO MOER? IF, IF THERE'S, IF THERE'S A TREE THAT IS CASTING OFF SHADE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SUMMER, THEY'RE HEADING TO A TREE, THEY'RE HEADING TO SHADE.
AND WE, WE DON'T, WE LOVE BEAUTY, WE LOVE THAT, BUT LET, LET'S JUST DO BUSHES AND WE'RE WILLING TO DO SHRUBS OR WHATEVER THE TERM IS.
SO, UH, WE'RE HERE TO WORK WITH THE CITY AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THESE FOLKS OPEN FOR BUSINESS.
AND, UH, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S A VACANT BUILDING AND VACANT BUILDINGS CAUSE PROBLEMS AND JUST THEY'RE UNSIGHTLY.
ARE YOU TEARING DOWN THE BUILDING OR ARE YOU JUST RENOVATING THE BUILDING AS IT'S, THE BUILDING WILL BE TOTALLY TORN DOWN.
CONSTRUCTIVE POEO CAMPERO WILL BE BUILT BRAND NEW, BUILT BRAND NEW, BEAUTIFUL EXPENSIVE BUILDING.
WE HEARD FROM OUR ARBORIST THIS MORNING.
AND HIS, HE WAS IN FAVOR OF THE, THE, THE DISCUSSION THAT OCCURRED BETWEEN HIS TEAM AND YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND THAT SORT OF THING.
HIS CONCERN, AND I'M NOT GONNA SPEAK FOR MR. IRWIN, I'LL JUST TRY TO IMPROVISE.
HIS CONCERN WAS THE, THE, THE RELIANCE OR ENFORCEABILITY OF THE MAINTAINING OF THAT VERY GREEN SPACE HE'S CONSENTING TO.
AND SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S CONTRACTUAL, THAT YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE WITH THE WHOLE SHOPPING CENTER, IT WOULD INCLUDE THAT AREA? YES, IT WOULD.
'CAUSE WE'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR THE PAST 15.
I WOULD THINK IT'S IN YOUR SELF-INTEREST TO MAKE SURE.
'CAUSE YOU, YOU WANT PEOPLE TO, TO WANT TO COME TO YOUR SHOPPING CENTER.
WE WANT THE GRASS TO BE GREEN AND IRRIGATED.
OUR, OUR CHALLENGE IS WHEN WE APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE A, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST LIKE THIS, UH, WE HAVE ONE SHOT AT THE APPLE AND SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE IF WE GRANT THIS, IT'S DONE WITH THINKING IN MIND THAT IT'S GONNA BE HONORED, WHATEVER THE DEAL IS THAT WAS PRESENTED HERE.
AND THAT'S WHY YOU HEARD THE QUESTIONS, IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS GONNA BE HONORED.
WELL, WE WILL MAINTAIN THAT PROPERTY.
I MEAN, 'CAUSE WE HAVE BEEN, AND IT'S, I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT IT'S REALLY TO OUR BENEFIT TO MAKE IT LOOK NICE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I ASK THAT YOU GIVE US THE VARIANCE YOU SHOULD ALWAYS ASK FOR THE SALE.
UH, WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS FOR THE REQUEST? NO OTHER SPEAKERS.
ANY SPEAKERS AGAINST NO OTHER SPEAKERS.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
UM, MR. SAIK, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN APPEAL NUMBER BD 2 3 4 115 ON APPLICATION OF ALAN TAYLOR.
GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE
[00:45:01]
LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 10 OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT ONE, STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ARTICLE WILL, WILL UNREASONABLY BURDEN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.TWO, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
AND THREE, THE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IMPOSED BY SITE SPECIFIC LANDSCAPE PLAN APPROVED BY THE CITY COM COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE VALS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED TO THE LINE OF SHRUBS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY ALONG THE STREET.
FRONTAGE MUST BE MAINTAINED AND RESTORED TO THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR SCREENING OF OFF STREET PARKING UNDER ARTICLE 10 IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 15.
MR. SUK HAS MOVED TO BRAMPTON REQUEST.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. KOVI.
MR. SAUK? UM, I, UH, SUPPORT THE MOTION.
I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST.
UH, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WILL, UM, GREATLY ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
MR. KOVI, I'LL ALSO BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AND, UM, I APPRECIATE THAT THE, ALL THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THIS, UH, FAIR ENOUGH ABOUT IT TO COME DOWN AND, AND BE AVAILABLE TO US TODAY.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH HUNDRED 15 WAS THE MOTION TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.
UM, HEARING NO OTHER DISCUSSION, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL FOR A VOTE.
IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 15, THE BOARD VOTES FIVE TO ZERO UNANIMOUSLY TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A LANDSCAPING SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH SEVEN BDA 2 3 4 DASH SEVEN.
THIS IS AT 6 2 1 8 WALNUT HILL LANE.
PLEASE COME FORWARD TWO PAGES.
WE'LL BE WITH YOU IN ONE SECOND.
OH, MAKE SURE THAT IT'S THE MIC ON OR IS THAT YEAH, THERE YOU GO.
ALRIGHT, SO SHRINK DOWN FOR IT.
UH, IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN TURN AROUND AND OUR BOARD SECRETARY SWEAR YOU IN.
DARIEN COR 1 0 2 3 0 MARSH LANE, DALLAS, TEXAS.
ALRIGHT, SIR, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, PLUS OR MINUS TO PRESENT YOUR REQUEST.
UM, AND, UH, THEN WE'LL ASK FOR ANY OTHER SPEAKERS, UH, THAT, THAT ARE HERE IN FAVOR, ANY OTHER SPEAKERS AGAINST.
AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY OF A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL IF YOU SO CHOOSE A NEED TO.
AND PLUS OR MINUS, WE WANT YOU TO HAVE TIME TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT WHAT YOU ARE REQUESTING AND ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE AS WELL.
UH, SO WHEN WE ACQUIRED THIS, UH, PROPERTY A FEW YEARS AGO, UH, WE DESIGNED THE PROPERTY BASED ON THE, UH, STRUCTURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT SINCE THEN, UH, THERE, UH, HAVE BEEN SEVERAL HOUSES, UH, AROUND, UH, THE SAME ROW.
YOU KNOW, THE, THAT, UH, WERE COMPLETED BEFORE.
UH, WE COMPLETE, UH, THIS ONE AND ALL OF 'EM, UH, HAVE, UH, UH, SIX FOOT OR HIGHER, UH, FENCE IN THE FRONT.
UH, WE DIDN'T READ, UH, TOO MUCH INTO IT.
UH, WE FINISHED THE PROPERTY, PUT IT, UH, ON MAR ON THE MARKET.
UH, THE FIRST, UH, PROSPECTIVE BUYER CAME IN.
THE FIRST THING THEY ASKED, WHERE IS THE FENCE? THE SECOND ONE CAME THE SAME THING.
WHERE IS THE FENCE? BEFORE EVEN THEY WALK IN, I WANT TO LOOK AT THE HOUSE.
SO AGAIN, ME NOT WANTING GO THROUGH, YOU KNOW, ALL THE, UH, EFFORT AND WORKING WELL.
[00:50:01]
DECIDED, YOU KNOW, UH, NOT TO TAKE ANY ACTION, BUT AGAIN, UH, OTHER BUYERS CAME IN ON THE SAME ISSUE.SO BASICALLY IT DEEMED THE PROPERTY NONS SELLABLE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF ALL THESE OTHER PROPERTIES NEXT TO IT.
IT BASICALLY BECAME THE STANDARD FOR THAT SEARCH OF THE STREET.
AND SO HENCE I APPLIED FOR, UH, THE VARIANCE AND THE, UH, FRONT FENCE, UH, TO BE, UH, IN LINE WITH THE, ALL THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS, UH, ON THAT STREET.
ANYTHING ELSE? UH, NO, THAT'S IT.
VERY GOOD QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR THE APPLICANT, MS. HAYDEN.
SO THE, THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU TOOK, THAT YOU INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, WERE THOSE HOMES THAT WERE ALONG THE SAME STREET FRONTAGE AS THE HOME THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE REQUESTING? YES.
OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE APPLICANT? MR. HAITZ, YOU'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE? YES.
AND THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT FOR THE FRONT FENCE, CORRECT? FOR THE, YES.
MS. WILLIAMS. IS THE MIC'S OKAY? THE VOLUMES ARE OKAY.
I DON'T, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE CAN ALL HEAR.
AND SO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING, WERE YOU THE BUILDER ON THOSE PROPERTIES? NO, NONE OF THEM.
SO, BUT ELSEWHERE ON WALNUT HILL? YES.
JUST, JUST, JUST NOT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT? YES, IT IS LIKE A MILE AND A HALF, UH, OR MAYBE TWO, UH, TWO MILES, UH, TO THE, UH, WEST.
DID YOU, UH, SO YOU, YOU, THE HOUSES THAT ARE ADJACENT THAT HAVE THE FENCES, YES.
THOSE WERE COMPLETED WHEN YOU STARTED TO BUILD THIS HOUSE, OR WERE THEY STILL BEING BUILT? NO, THEY STARTED ACTUALLY AFTER US.
THEY JUST FINISHED IT REALLY QUICK.
UM, AND YOU CHOSE WHEN YOU BUILT THE HOUSE TO PUT NO FENCE IN? YES, BECAUSE I LOOKED AROUND, THERE WAS NOTHING.
WE GO WITH WHAT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT THAT POINT.
AND DID ANY OF THESE BUYERS INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE INTERESTED IN A CONFORMING FENCE, MEANING FOUR FEET, A FOUR FOOT FENCE? UH, BASICALLY WHAT THEY'RE INDICATING, YOU KNOW, UH, THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY COME FROM BOTH SIDES.
THEY SEE, YOU KNOW, THESE, UH, FENCES AND THEY SAY WE WANT THE SAME, YOU KNOW, IT'S BASICALLY, ARE YOU, UM, DO YOU HAVE OTHER PROPERTY THAT YOU'LL BE DEVELOPING ALONG THE HILL? UH, NO.
UM, SO I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS AND THEN AFTER WE'LL GO TO THE OTHER, ARE THERE ANY OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKERS, BY THE WAY, MS. WILLIAMS FOR OR AGAINST? NOPE.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HEARD IN THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, IF YOU DID, GREAT.
IF YOU DIDN'T, I'LL REPAY REPLAY A LITTLE BIT FOR YOU.
THE CONCERN ABOUT, UH, WITH THE VIDEOS THAT WE SAW IN THE PICTURES AND SO FORTH ABOUT WALLED STREETS, SIX FEET TALL, SOLID WALLED STREETS AS OPPOSED TO SIX FEET TALL, SEE-THROUGH, UM, FENCES IN FRONT.
DOES THAT CONCERN YOU ALONG AT ALL ALONG WALNUT HILL? MM-HMM.
BECAUSE IT SEEMS AS THOUGH TO THE EAST OF YOU, I FORGET MY COMPASS SCREEN, THE EAST OF YOU, IT'S HOUSE AFTER HOUSE, AFTER HOUSE HAS SOLID WHITE WALLS RIGHT AT THE PROPERTY LINE.
UH, SO TO THE EAST, YES, THERE ARE TWO AND THEN TO THE WEST, AND THERE ARE TWO OLDER HOUSES, BUT AGAIN, THERE ARE FOUR OF THEM IN A ROW.
AND DOES THAT CONCERN YOU HAVING WALLED SIX FEET HIGH SOLID FENCES ALONG WALNUT HILL? I AM NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY THE, THE TUNNELING EFFECT, THE FEELING OF THAT, THAT THE, THE STREET'S GONNA BE WALLED UP THAT YOU DRIVE BY IN A, IN A TUNNEL WITH WALLS ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER SIDE.
DOES THAT, THAT THE WHOLE REASON THIS COMES TO US IS WE ARE SUPPOSED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO SAY, HMM.
DOES THIS REQUEST CREATE ANY SORT OF ADVERSE NEGATIVE EFFECT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES? UH, AT THIS POINT I DON'T THINK SO BECAUSE I AM IN THE MIDDLE OF A BUNCH OF 'EM.
SO THIS ONE IN THAT, THAT, THAT'S PRECISELY WHY I'M ASKING YOU.
[00:55:01]
THEM AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S PROLIFERATING.SO YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T VIEW THAT AS A CONCERN? NO.
UM, I WILL TELL YOU, UH, YOU DID A VERY GOOD JOB IN PROVIDING US WITH LIVE PICTURES OF YOU AND ALSO THE WALLS.
UM, AND YOU DID A VERY, AND, UH, IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A GREAT WAY OF TELLING ANOTHER APPLICANT HOW TO PREPARE TO THE BOARD TO SHOW LIVE ACTION OF YOU AND ALSO, AND WITH THE MEASURE TAPE THAT YOU'VE GOT HERE, UH, AS WELL AS I WILL TELL YOU, IT'S DEMONSTRATIVE TO THIS ONE BOARD MEMBER.
THE FACT THAT TWO ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU TWO NEXT DOOR TO YOU AND ONE BEHIND YOU ARE ALL IN SUPPORT.
THAT'S VERY, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S VERY STRATEGIC.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S CONCLUSIVE, IT'S JUST STRATEGIC.
ANY OTHER? YES, MR. HOFF, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO BUILD A FENCE THAT WAS NOT SOLID, THAT HAD, THAT YOU COULD SEE THROUGH? UH, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, I DIDN'T WANT A FENCE THERE AT ALL.
I WANT TO BE JUST IN ACCORDANCE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND IT.
YOU KNOW, BASICALLY I'M BOXED INTO THIS.
IT IS NOT, WAS NOT MY CHOICE TO BEGIN WITH.
SO IF I PUT ANYTHING ELSE, BASICALLY IT'S NOT GONNA PRODUCE, UH, THE RESULT.
AND I'M IN THIS SITUATION BECAUSE ALL THESE, I DUNNO, SEVEN, EIGHT, YOU KNOW, OTHER HOUSES GOT PERMITS FROM THE CITY AND BUILT ACCORDING TO THE PERMITS FROM THE CITY.
AND NOW I'M IN A SITUATION THAT I CANNOT SELL MY HOUSE.
WELL, I DON'T THINK THE CITY PROHIBITED YOU FROM SELLING THE HOUSE.
YOU'RE JUST SAYING THE PRICE THAT YOU'RE ASKING VERSUS WHAT THE MARKET'S WILLING TO PAY HASN'T SOLD THE HOUSE.
MY, UH, MIGHT NOTE IF, UH, YOU CAN PULL IT UP ON REALTOR, THE PRICE OF THIS HOUSE BY FAR, EARTH SQUARE FOOT IS LOWER THAN ANYTHING IN THAT ZIP CODE BY FAR.
BUT, SO I'VE TRIED, AS FAR AS THE PRICING GOES, I'VE TRIED THAT AND UNDERSTAND OUR CRITERIA IS THE SPEC, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
THAT'S WHY THIS MEMBER PRESSED YOU ABOUT THE FEELING, THE SENSE OF PROPERTIES ALONG THE STREET BECOMING SIX FEET WALL SOLID FENCES LEFT AND RIGHT.
SO I'M JUST EXPRESSING AGAINST THE CRITERIA THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FOLLOW.
SO, ALRIGHT, MS. HAYDEN, UM, IS WALNUT HILL LANE IN THAT AREA? IS IT FOUR LANE DIVIDED, SO TWO LANES IN EACH DIRECTION, OR SIX LANE DIVIDED, OR IT'S SIX, SIX LANE DIVIDED.
SO IT'S A VERY WIDE RIGHT OF WAY.
I GUESS THAT MY QUESTION IS KIND OF ABOUT YOUR TUNNELING EFFECT BECAUSE THAT REALLY COMES INTO PLAY WHEN YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT NARROWER.
I AGREE, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A, TO ME, YOU HAVE A WIDER RIGHT OF WAY.
I'M JUST ECHOING WHAT WE HEAR A LOT OF TIMES FROM MR. NERI.
I'M STEALING YOUR THUNDER, MR. NRI, UH, ABOUT THE TUNNELING, AND I'M SENSITIVE TO THAT, THAT ISSUE.
NOW, IN THE BRIEFING HE MENTIONED AGAIN, IT'S SIX FEET, IT'S SIX LANES DIVIDED, SO YEAH, THAT, THAT HAS A DIFFERENT ATTITUDE TO IT.
ALL RIGHT, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. RY? ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, SIR.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MS. HAGEN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH HUNDRED SEVEN ON APPLICATION OF DARIEN CARR GRANT THROUGH REQUEST TO THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN A SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS IS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SU SUBMITTED PLANS IS REQUIRED.
MS. HAYDEN IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH SEVEN HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.
MR. SITE, MS. GI DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION JUST GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT IS A, A VERY WIDE RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, I'M NOT AS CONCERNED AS THE, WITH THE HEIGHT AND THE LACK OF OPACITY OF THE FENCE AND THE FACT THAT THE NEIGHBORS, UM, ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY ALL HAVE SIMILAR FENCES.
UM, ALSO I DO APPRECIATE THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO GET LETTERS OF SUPPORT
[01:00:01]
FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS BECAUSE AS, AS THE CHAIRMAN SAID, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT THE, IT IT'S NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, BUT IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE LOOKING TO, UM, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.MR. SAUTE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? UH, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING, UH, MS. HAYDEN SAID, UH, VERBATIM AND IS THE REASON WHY I SECONDED THE MOTION.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS IN BDA 2 3 4 DASH 107 IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A SIX FOOT HIGH SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
IN THE MANNER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 107, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY FIVE TO ZERO GRANTS YOUR REQUEST FOR A SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE SPECIAL EXCEPTION NEXT MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH HUNDRED SEVEN ON APPLICATION OF DAIRY AND CAR GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN A FENCE WITH THE PANEL HAVING LESS THAN 50% OPEN SURFACE AREA LOCATED LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT LOT LINE, AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SURFACE AREA, OPENED THIS REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH OPACITY AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS IS REQUIRED IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH SEVEN.
MS. HAYDEN HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE A LESS THAN 50% OPACITY, UH, OPEN SERVICE AREA.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.
MR. SAUK HAS SECOND THE MOTION DISCUSSION ON THE, ON THE MOTION.
MS. HAYDEN? UM, I VOTED IN FAVOR OF THIS, UH, FOR THE SAME REASONS AS THE PREVIOUS, UM, MOTION MR. SAY, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SAME REASON.
EITHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
UM, I'LL NOT BE SUPPORTING, UM, THIS MOTION.
I DO THINK THAT, UM, A SOLID FENCE IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER SOLID FENCES, UM, SOMEWHAT TO ME, UH, NOT A VERY, UH, GOOD ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I, I THINK YOU'D BE ABLE TO SELL THE HOUSE WITH A FENCE THAT PEOPLE COULD SEE THROUGH AND STILL PROVIDE THE HOMEOWNERS WITH PROTECTION AND, UH, STILL ENHANCE THE LOOK OF THEIR HOME DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
I, I, I'M, I'M OF THIS, UH, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE DOES THIS STOP? I, I DIDN'T, I DON'T KNOW THE COUNT OF THE NUMBER OF POEMS THAT HAVE THE FENCE WALL, BUT IT'S MORE THAN A FEW.
AND, UM, UH, SO I'M UNDECIDED.
MR. WOULD YOU SHARE YOUR OPINION? UM, MY GENERAL, UH, APPEALING AS I'VE ALREADY STATED ON, ON THESE, UH, TYPES OF CASES.
UH, UH, WELL, I DON'T LIKE A SOLID FENCE AT ALL.
I DO UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE FOR ONE, ESPECIALLY ON HEAVILY TRAFFICKED THOROUGHFARE SUCH AS THESE, UH, SIX LANE DIVIDED MAJOR STREETS.
UM, WHERE I'M REALLY OPPOSED TO THEM IS IN THE INTERIOR SIDES OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT REALLY JEOPARDIZES THE FEEL OF A NEIGHBORHOOD INTERNALLY BUT FOR PROPERTIES SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, A BUTT, A MAJOR STREET OR, UH, THE NORTH, THE TOLLWAY, CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS.
NORTHWEST HIGHWAY WOULD BE ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE.
UM, I, I CAN KIND OF UNDERSTAND THE, THE DESIRE AND, AND NEED FOR A SOLID WALL.
BUT MR. NERI, WHERE DOES IT STOP? UM, YOU ADD THIS ONE, THE NEXT ONE.
THE NEXT ONE, THEN IT'S GONNA BE A WHITE WALL UP AND DOWN THE STREET.
WELL, THAT, THAT, I MEAN, THAT'S A VALID POINT AS WELL.
UM, UH, AND I, I DON'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER TO THAT, QUITE FRANKLY, BUT, UH, UH, BUT THAT'S, YOU ASKED FOR MY OPINION AND THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF
[01:05:01]
I JUST, I'M THINKING, I SEE YOUR POINT AS WELL, THE NEXT AND THE NEXT, AND THEN IT'S ALL OF A SUDDEN, BECAUSE THE FIRST ONE DID, THEN THE SECOND ONE DID, THEN THE THIRD ONE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TOWN IS.
AND, AND IS IT THE FIRST, FIRST ONE GETS IT, THEN EVERYONE ELSE GETS IT.
OKAY, LET ME, LET ME JUST ADD, WHEN YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE OUT OF FOUR IN A STRETCH OF HOMES THAT, YOU KNOW, IS ASKING FOR WHAT THE NEIGHBORS GOT.
I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK AT THE BLOCK FACE AND IT'S CONTIGUOUS TO WHAT'S GOING ON ON THAT BLOCK.
I DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE THE WALL DEFECT, BUT ON WALNUT HILL, IT'S A WIDE THOROUGHFARE.
YOU KNOW, ALL OF THESE SIX LANES THAT GO EAST AND WEST AND NORTH AND SOUTH, UH, YOU KNOW, IN NORTH DALLAS.
I MEAN, IT'S COMMONPLACE TO HAVE, WHETHER IT'S A WALL OR, YOU KNOW, OR SHRUBS, IT'S STILL A TUNNEL, YOU KNOW? SO IT'S KIND OF THE REALITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I GUESS, IN A LOT OF WAYS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY I, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT MY PREFERENCE, BUT I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
OTHER, OTHER DISCUSSION? YEAH, SOMETHING, UH, ACTUALLY NOT, WE, WE WE'RE, WE'RE IN, UH, DEBATE NOW, BUT THANK YOU.
SO WE'RE, WE, WE, WHEN DOES IT END? AND THEN THE NEXT ONE COMES, THE NEXT ONE COMES, THE NEXT ONE COMES.
AND I GET THE, I GET THE, THE SIX LANES.
AND IT'S NOT NARROW, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, A YEAR FROM NOW WE'RE GONNA HAVE FIVE MORE OR FOUR MORE.
AND, AND, YOU KNOW, SO BUT ISN'T THAT A ZONING ISSUE THEN? UH, NO.
THAT'S WHY, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE AND MAKE ZONING ALL THE FOUR FOOT FENCE.
THE BY RIGHT IS WHAT YOU CAN DO.
SO IT'S, IT'S NOT LESS THAN 50% OPAQUE.
SO YOU'D SEE THROUGH, IT'S A DIFFERENT FEELING.
I UNDERSTAND THE SIX, THE SIX FEET.
AS DID I, UM, JUST THINK AT SOME POINT, YOU, YOU JUST, UM, ALMOST, IT, IT JUST, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DISP WHAT WORD TO USE.
JUST IT LOOKED, DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD ANYMORE.
WELL, IT'S BECOMING A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD BY VIRTUE OF THE, THE WHITE WALLS.
AND, UH, THERE ARE OTHERS DOWN WALNUT, THE HILL THAT ARE STRETCHES AND STRETCHES OF THAT.
AND IT'S CLEAR THAT OBVIOUSLY THE MARKET, THEY TORE DOWN HOUSES AND THE NEW HOUSES BUILT UP WITH ALL WALLS, AND IT'S ALL SOLID WALLS AND IT'S RIGHT AT THE PROPERTY LINE.
PRESUMABLY THEY GOT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
BUT THAT'S NOT OUR CASE TODAY.
SO THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF HOUSES, THE OLD HOUSES THAT HAVE NO FENCE, THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE THE FOREFOOT FENCE.
WELL, WE SAW IN THE VIDEO THIS MORNING A HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET THAT HAD A, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A FOREFOOT OR OTHER, A NICE FENCE THAT YOU COULD SEE THROUGH IT.
IT LOOKED TASTEFUL AND ALL THAT SORT OF DEAL.
I'M NOT IN, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE IN THE FENCE ARTISTIC BUSINESS.
I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY WHAT, WHAT'S THE, WHAT I WOULD ANTICIPATE NEXT.
SO OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION.
OKAY? REMEMBER, IT TAKES FOUR VOTES TO APPROVE MS. BOARD, SECRETARY CALL VOTE.
MR. NTY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, OR NO? NO.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY CALL THE VOTE.
AYE NAY, MR. RY? UM, I KIND, I'M TORN ON THIS.
UH, I'M GONNA SAY, AYE, SINCE THERE'S NO OPPOSITION, I, I, I HOPE I DON'T REGRET THIS DOWN THE ROAD WITH OTHERS THAT BE, THIS BECOMES WALNUT HILL WHITE WALL.
IN THE MATTER OF BD 8 2 3 4 DASH SEVEN, THE BOARD ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE GRANTS, THE REQUEST OF, FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR FENCE PANEL, LESS THAN 50% OPEN SURFACE AREA.
I LISTENED TO WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY.
AND YOU, MRS. YOU GOT NOT CUTTING YOU OUT,
ALRIGHT, NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 1 8 2 3 4 DASH 108 IS THE APPLICANT HERE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
[01:10:09]
GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.SO IF YOU COULD GIVE US, UH, HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
I'M PASSING FEEDBACK THAT WE SAW AT THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING.
AGAIN, IF YOU WANNA LOOK AT 'EM AGAIN, UH, 2 3 4 DASH 1 1 8 IS 4 3 3 6 LIVELY LANE.
IF YOU'D GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, THEN OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN.
UH, MY NAME IS LARRY KLINGHOFFER.
MY ADDRESS IS 3 9 3 0 GASPAR DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 0 3 9 3 0 GAS POWER.
UH, MS. WILLIAMS, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS CASE? OKAY, VERY GOOD.
ALRIGHT, SIR, AS THE APPLICANT, YOU'RE GIVEN FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TO PRESENT YOUR CASE.
UM, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE QUESTIONS THAT THAT'LL COME FROM THE PANEL.
UM, BUT AGAIN, AMPLE TIME TO PRESENT.
UM, IF YOU NEED MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES, THAT'S FINE.
REASONABLE TIME IF YOU PROCEED.
JUST TO GIVE YOU A BACKGROUND, THE UH, ADDRESS IS 43 36 LIVEVIEW LANE.
IT'S AN 8,600 SQUARE FOOT ESTATE PROPERTY, UH, AIR CONDITIONED, UH, SPACE.
THE, UM, THE BUILDING IS AT 1200 SQUARE FOOT.
THE ADDITIONAL PROPERTY, THE 1200 SQUARE FOOT, UH, PROPERTY AS A FITNESS AREA, AND TO BE USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR FITNESS.
UM, AT PRESENT, UH, THE HOME, WHICH IS THE 88 8,000 PLUS SQUARE FOOT HOME HAS A 400 AMP ELECTRIC SERVICE.
IT'S NOT SUFFICIENT TO HANDLE THE ELECTRICAL LOADS FOR THE NEW FITNESS AREA.
IT DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO ADD TO THE EXISTING ELECTRICAL PANEL FOR THE NEW ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE, FOR THE FITNESS CENTER.
UM, WHAT'S NEEDED IS JUST A STANDARD 200 AMP METER, WHICH WOULD BE ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE NEW BUILDING FACING THE REAR FENCE WITH 30 FEET OF EX OF WITHIN 30 FEET OF THE EXISTING POWER POLE SOURCE FOR THE HOME.
THE ONLY REQUIREMENTS, UH, THAT WE'RE GONNA NEED THAT CANNOT BE HANDLED, UM, AT PRESENT WOULD BE FOR THE HOT WATER HEATER, THE HVAC AND THE DRY SAUNA THAT ARE GONNA BE IN THERE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE FITNESS.
AS I MENTIONED, THERE'S, UH, THE, IT'S VERY CLOSE TO THE BUILDING.
EVERYTHING IS UNDERGROUND AND THERE'S, THERE'S NO VISUAL DOWNFALL TO THE PROPERTY AT ALL.
THE ARCHITECTURE IS DESIGNED TO MATCH EXACTLY THE PRESENT STRUCTURE, AND IF ANYTHING, IT ADDS TO THE VALUE OF THE, OR THE VIS VISU OF THE PROPERTY.
THE LOT SIZE IS 125 FEET, UM, ACROSS BY 230 FEET DEEP, WHICH IS A TOTAL OF 28,750 SQUARE FEET.
THE INQUIRY, THE, THE TOTAL BUILDING STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE NEW 1200 SQUARE FOOT FITNESS AREA, UM, COMES TO 8,782 SQUARE FEET.
THE ALLOWABLE ON THAT PROPERTY, ACCORDING TO BUILDING AND ZONING, UH, THE CITY IS 12,881 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS 45% OF THE TOTAL, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT.
SO WE'RE LESS THAN 25% LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE ON THE LOT.
UM, NOW I JUST WANT TO ADD QUICKLY THAT THERE ARE MANY ESTATE HOMES IN DALLAS THAT HAVE CABANAS FOR POOLS THAT ARE SEPARATE ENTITIES THAT USE SEPARATE METER AND ALSO, UM, FOR FITNESS AREAS THAT IS SUCH AN EXPENSIVE HOMES, UM, SUCH AS THIS.
THE, UM, ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I, I HEARD, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS AN ISSUE AS ONE OF THE TWO, UH, WRITTEN OBJECTIONS, WAS ABOUT DRAINAGE.
WELL, IF YOU, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PLAN, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE IS NO DRAINAGE, UM, ISSUE.
THE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN CALLS FOR ENGINEERING EXCAVATING TO MINIMIZE THE FLOW OF WATER OFF OF THE PROPERTY, RATHER, EVERYTHING ON THE PLAN SHOWS WATER GOING FROM THE REAR OF THE HOUSE TO THE REAR OF THE YARD WHERE THE ALLEY IS.
THIS IS EXCAVATED SO THAT THE WATER FLOWS WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF WATER FLOW DIRECTLY TO THE LEFT AND DIRECTLY TO
[01:15:01]
THE RIGHT.AND THERE IS NO, WE'VE NEVER HAD A WATER PROBLEM IN THAT AREA.
STARTED BUILDING THIS APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS AGO.
WE TALKED TO NEIGHBORS PRIOR TO BUYING THE PROPERTY.
THERE IS NO FLOOD AREA IN THAT BACK BACKYARD.
SO IF THAT IS A CONCERN, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT COULD BE CONCERNED.
AND ADDING THIS SMALL BUILDING THAT WILL BE USED FOR AN HOUR OR TWO A DAY IS NOT GONNA ADD TO THE, UH, TO ANY WATER, WATER FLOW IN THERE.
UM, I HEARD ALSO MENTIONED ABOUT A KITCHEN.
UH, WE DESIGNED THAT INTENTIONALLY SO THAT IT COULDN'T BE, UM, PERCEIVED AS A, AS A RESIDENCE.
ALL THERE IS IS AN UNDER COUNTER REFRIGERATOR AND A HAND SINK.
THERE IS ANOTHER HAND SINK IN THE BATHROOM RIGHT BEHIND IT.
AND IF IT'S A PROBLEM, WE'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE AWAY THAT OTHER HAND SINK IN THE, UM, UH, ADMITTING OR IN THE, UH, LOBBY AREA.
SO, UM, ALSO, THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH ONLY ALLOWS ONE FAMILY TO OCCUPY PREMISE ON THE PROPERTY.
FIRST OF ALL, BESIDES THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO KITCHEN, THERE'S NO REAL, UM, BEDROOM, ALL OF, UH, THE FLOORING IN THE HOUSE IS RUBBER MATTING FOR THE FITNESS AREA.
THEY COULD NOT RENT THE PROPERTY OR USE THE PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AND SLEEPING PURPOSES 'CAUSE IT'S NOT ZONED FOR THAT.
AND IF, IF THE CITY EVER FOUND OUT ABOUT IT, THEY WOULD BE, UM, EITHER THEY WOULD, THEY'D NOT BE FOLLOWING THE LAW.
THEY'D HAVE TO PAY WHATEVER THEY'D HAVE TO PAY IN TERMS OF, OF WHAT THEY'D HAVE TO DO TO THE HOUSE TO CONFORM.
SO, AND THEY'D HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO TURN THAT INTO A, A RENTAL PROPERTY.
UM, I, I HESITATE TO SAY THIS, BUT THESE ARE VERY SUCCESSFUL PEOPLE, AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THEY'RE NOT GONNA TURN THIS LITTLE INTO A RENTAL PROPERTY.
WELL, THEY WANTED STRICTLY FOR HELP AND FITNESS.
UM, SO, UM, AS I MENTIONED, IT'S JUST A 1200 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAN, YOU'LL SEE IT'S ALL DESIGNED STRICTLY FOR FAN FOR FITNESS.
THERE IS NO BEDROOM AREA OR KITCHEN AREA.
AND SOMEBODY BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IF THEY ADDED ON LATER ON TO MAKE IT INTO THAT? I MEAN, THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO SAY THAT THEY WOULDN'T DO.
BUT IF THEY DID, THEY'D HAVE TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CITY IF THE CITY FOUND OUT.
SO IN NO WAY IS THIS THING BEING BUILT IN ORDER TO HAVE A, IN-LAW APARTMENT OR ANYTHING STRICTLY FOR THE FITNESS OF THE THIS, UH, COUPLE WHO BOUGHT THE HOME.
UM, I TOLD YOU THE, UH, THE I, THE, I GAVE YOU THE LOT SIZE AND, AND, AND THAT KIND OF THING.
AND I THINK THAT I THINK ANSWERS, UH, SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP IN THE EARLIER MEETING.
BUT IF NOT, UH, I'D LOVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ABOUT THE PROPERTY.
I DON'T KNOW IF I DID MENTION THIS, I'M SORRY.
THAT, UM, DID THINK I SAID THE HVAC, THE DRY SAUNA AND THE HOT WATER HEATER WOULD BE THE, UH, REQUIREMENTS THAT THE OTHER HOUSE COULD NOT HANDLE ON, ON THIS LITTLE BUILDING.
WE'LL NOW GO THROUGH SOME QUESTIONS.
SO IT'S TO HANG, HANG RIGHT THERE.
WHAT QUESTIONS DOES THE BOARD HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? MS. HAYDEN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FROM THE ELECTRIC COMPANY OR FROM A ELECTRICAL ENGINEER THAT, THAT STATES THAT THE 400 AMP SERVICE WON'T, WILL NOT HANDLE THE NEW LOAD FROM THE NEW BUILDING? WE HAVE OUR, OUR ELECTRICIAN, WHO'S, WHO WON'T, WON'T DO THE BUILDING BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT CAPACITY.
'CAUSE WE HAD ENCORE COME OUT.
AND WE MET WITH THEM AND THEY WERE PERFECTLY FINE WITH THIS.
AS LONG AS WE'RE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, SOME DOCUMENTATION TO THAT EFFECT WOULD BE RECOGNIZ.
I COULD GET A LETTER FROM THAT.
BUT THEY WANT A LETTER FROM YOU GUYS STATING THAT IT'S OKAY IN ORDER FOR IT TO PROCEED WITH IT.
BUT YES, I CAN GET THAT FOR YOU.
400 AMP OR 200 AMP, WHICH WOULD WE TALKING ABOUT? NO, WE HAVE THE, THE MAIN HOUSE HAS A 400 AMP.
THE, THE, THE SMALLER, UH, FITNESS CENTER JUST REQUIRES A STANDARD SMALL 200 AMP SERVICE TO HANDLE JUST THOSE THREE THINGS.
I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ELECTRICITY, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THE HOUSE PLUS THIS NEW, NEW STRUCTURE REQUIRES 600 AMP METER.
YOU CAN'T GET REALLY A 600 AMP THESE TYPE OF, JUST SO YOU KNOW.
AND THEN I'M GONNA GO TO MR.
THESE ORDER REQUESTS ARE RARE AND THEY'RE RARE BECAUSE IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS GENERALLY THIS IS AN INDICATION OF RENTAL OR ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S EVERYONE'S HESITATION.
LET ME, LET ME NOW IN A MINUTE, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA, AFTER MR. HOPKOS, I'M GONNA ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE NEIGHBOR SAID, BUT I'M JUST SAYING 600 AMP WOW.
[01:20:01]
THAT.WE, I DO NOT DO BILL JOBS ANYMORE.
I'M TIRED OF RIPPING OUT CABINETS AND FLOORING.
THEY'RE, THEY ARE VERY EXPENSIVE SPECS.
UM, THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL HOMES, BUT WE DON'T DO IT.
SO WE DON'T ANTICIPATE, NORMALLY SOMEBODY IS GONNA REQUEST A FITNESS AREA.
WE DO IT WITH BIG POOLS AND THE AMENITIES THAT REQUIRE SIX OR $7 MILLION HOUSE.
BUT WE DON'T ANTICIPATE A FITNESS CENTER.
BUT SOMEBODY WHO BUYS THAT QUALITY OF THEIR HOME, NORMALLY THEY'LL WANT A CABANA FOR THEIR POOL BUILT, OR IN THIS CASE A FITNESS CENTER, WHICH IS, I DON'T THINK AN OUTRAGEOUS SIT FOR A ELDERLY COUPLE WHO WANTS TO KEEP IN SHAPE AND, AND, UM, UH, WANTS A FITNESS AREA.
AND THERE IS NOTHING DESIGNED IN THE, IN THE HOME AS BIG AS IT IS OKAY.
SO THAT'S WHY IT WASN'T BUILT WITH IT.
OTHERWISE WE COULD HOW, HOW OLD IS THE HOME? HOW OLD IS THE HOME? UH, YEAR AND A HALF.
MR. KOVI THEN, MRS. UM, MR. HOME HAVE A POOL? YES.
UH, SO MS. HAYDEN ASKED YOU, UH, YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FROM AN ELECTRICIAN THAT SAYS THAT THE ELECTRICAL PANEL IN THE HOUSE CANNOT BE, UH, MODIFIED TO ACCOMMODATE.
I CAN GET THAT MESSAGE TWO HOURS, BUT NO, I DON'T, MY ELECTRICIAN DIDN'T COME HERE.
BUT CARPENTRY, UM, CARPENTER ELECTRIC DOES ALL OF OUR HOMES, AND HE'S THE ONE THAT TOLD US, BELIEVE ME, WE WOULD'VE LOVED TO HAVE DONE IT AND ADDED IT TO THE, TO THE HOUSE.
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF DIGGING THE DITCH.
BUT HE SAID HE WON'T HANDLE IT.
AND ENCORE ALSO SAID THE SAME THING.
WHAT, UM, WHAT'S THE LARGEST HOME YOU BUILT? UH, 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
DID THAT REQUIRE TWO METERS? UM, YES.
THAT WAS ON HATHAWAY, ONE OF THE RACKS.
BECAUSE OF A SEPARATE BUILDING.
SEPARATE ATHLETICS COURT AND THEN BUILDING.
UH, I ALSO FIND IT UNUSUAL FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO REQUIRE SUCH A, UH, MM-HMM.
UM, IF WE COULD HAVE DONE IT, IT WOULD'VE BEEN REALLY, REALLY LESS EXPENSIVE TO DO IT.
UM, SO THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO ROOM IN AN 8,600 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE FOR AN EXERCISE AREA.
WELL, THEY HAVE A HUGE MOVIE THEATER UPSTAIRS, WHICH IS NORMALLY THE GAME ROOM, WHICH PEOPLE USE AS A FITNESS AREA, BUT THEY JUST USE IT AS, AS A MOVIE THEATER.
UM, SO NOW I I, I DO WANNA BE A HUNDRED PERCENT CLEAR AND HONEST HERE.
THIS CAN BE BUILT WITHOUT THAT, WITHOUT THE, THE ELECTRIC.
THE REASON WE'RE GOING FOR THE ELECTRIC METER, INSTEAD OF GOING GAS.
'CAUSE WE COULD PUT IN A GAS HOT WATER HEATER AND A GAS HVC, BUT IT'S SO COST PROHIBITIVE BECAUSE THERE'S A POOL.
THE, THE GAS LINE IS ALL THE WAY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
YOU HAVE TO COME OVER 200 FEET TO COME UP WITH A GAS LINE, GO ALL THE WAY ACROSS AND TIE IT IN.
SO THE HOUSE IS, IS PERMITTABLE, BUT WE WANTED TO DO IT SO THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY ANOTHER $150,000 TO, TO UPON ALSO UPON THE COST OF THE FITNESS AREA.
SO MY ELECTRICIAN, FRANK CARPENTER, SUGGESTED JUST GET A SMALL METER HERE, GO TO THE CITY AND EXPLAIN THE SITUATION.
SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE TELLING US THE ESTIMATE OF RUNNING A GAS LINE IS $150,000? WELL, BETWEEN 125 AND 150, YOU'RE GOING 200 SQUARE, 200 FEET AND RIPPING OUT THE WHOLE AREA OF THE POOL WHERE THE, THE, UH, COOL DECK IS AND, AND THE CHAIRS AND, AND ALL OF THAT.
AND REDOING IT AND DOING ALL THE LANDSCAPING AGAIN, THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN OUT AND PUT BACKING AGAIN.
SO I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT YOUR COMMENTS ARE RELATING TO WHAT THE NEIGHBORS SURE.
DO YOU WANT THAT NOW OR DO YOU WANT TO KEEP GOING ON THIS LINE OF QUESTIONS? UM, WE CAN COME BACK TO THAT.
MR. SAUK, UM, YOU BUILT THE HO DID YOU BUILD THE HOME? YES.
AND HOW MANY OF, WOULD YOU SAY THESE FITNESS CENTERS HAVE YOU BUILT SIMILAR, UM, IN THE PAST TWO YEARS, FITNESS CENTERS IN LABELING 'EM AS FITNESS CENTERS? NOT MANY OF, I'VE DONE THEM WHERE I USED TO BUILD IN KANSAS CITY, BUT I'VE BUILT CABANA HERE THAT REQUIRED, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL WORK, ADD-ONS, BUT NO FITNESS CENTERS.
AND I INITIALLY TOLD THE PEOPLE THAT WE CANNOT DO IT WHERE IT COULD POSSIBLY BE USED AS A RESIDENCE.
'CAUSE ZONING JUST WON'T ALLOW ANYTHING THAT CAN BE USED FOR ADDITIONAL FAMILY MEMBERS OR ANYBODY TO LIVE IN.
[01:25:01]
CABINETS, WITHOUT ANY OF THE THINGS THAT BE CONSTRUED AS, UH, RESIDENCE.UM, I'D LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD, CAN I ASK THE BOARD STAFF A QUESTION? SURE.
UM, 'CAUSE THIS MORNING THE DISCUSSION WAS THAT THERE WAS A KITCHEN.
SO I'D JUST LIKE TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
SO THE CITY'S DEFINITION OF A KITCHEN IS GONNA BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE, UM, LAYMAN TERMS. SO A PLACE TO PREPARE FOOD.
AND SO IF YOU HAVE, UH, THE SINK, THE REFRIGERATOR, THE PLACE TO PREPARE FOOD, WHICH COULD BE A COUNTERTOP, RIGHT? IT COULD.
SO OURS IS VERY VAGUE ON WHAT A KITCHEN IS.
SO WHAT YOU SEE ON THIS PLAN, WE WOULD IDENTIFY THAT AS A KITCHEN.
YOU, YOURSELF, YOU MAY WALK INTO THAT.
YOU MAY CALL IT A KITCHENETTE.
YOU MIGHT NOT EVEN CALL IT, YOU MIGHT CALL IT A NOOK.
NEVERTHELESS, BY OUR DEFINITIONS, WE IDENTIFY THIS AS A KITCHEN.
CAN I BUT THAT, THAT IS WHAT IS THERE THAT YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU SAID WAS A KITCHEN.
THE ABSOLUTELY A SINK REFRIGERATOR IN A PLACE HAS A COUNTERTOP.
CAN I COMMENT ON THAT? SEND IT TO MR. IS THAT OKAY? YOU'LL HAVE TO ASK THE CHAIR.
YOU'RE GONNA MISS, UH, BOARD ADMINISTRATOR.
YOU'RE GONNA SEND US A SET OF PLANS.
YOU CAN READ AGAIN AND I CAN READ THE OFFICIAL DEPOSITION.
MAKE IT GET TO THAT IN A SECOND.
A AGAIN, OUR CRITERIA HERE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTIES.
AND NOT USED TO CONDUCT A, A USE NOT PERMITTED IN THE DISTRICT.
THOSE ARE THE THREE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE.
I, I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT, I WISH WE HAD A LETTER FROM AN EXPERT THAT WOULD TELL US THAT THIS SORT OF REQUIRES THIS SORT OF EXTRA METERING.
I CAN HAVE
I'M GONNA SEND THIS DOWN TO MS. HAYDEN AND MS.
WHILE THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE PLANS HERE, UM, PART OF OUR CRITERIA IS NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
AND WE HAVE TWO OPPOSITION LETTERS FROM THE NEIGHBORS BEHIND YOU TO THE RIGHT AND TO THE LEFT, CORRECT? YES.
AND THEY'RE MAINLY, ONE IS WORRIED ABOUT CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE OTHER IS WORRIED ABOUT WATER AND VENTING WATER.
SO ARE, WERE YOU AWARE THAT, THAT THERE, THAT THE NEIGHBORS THINK THERE'S WATER VENTING OUTTA YOUR PROPERTY INTO THE ALLEY OR INTO THEM? 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE STATING HERE.
NO, I, I'VE NEVER, ON OCTOBER 21ST, I'VE NEVER EVER HAD A COMPLAINT ABOUT WATER COMING BACK INTO THE ALLEY.
WE'VE HAD THE CITY, UM, AFFECTS OUR DRAIN.
IT SAYS IT'S CREATING POOLS OF STANDING WATER BEHIND THE MANY OF THE NEIGHBOR NIG, NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS POOLS OF STANDING WATER.
NEVER, NEVER HEARD THAT SAYS THIS INCREASE MOSQUITO BREEDING GROUND.
I'M JUST GIVING YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO SURE, SURE.
UH, WITHIN THE 200 FEET NOTIFICATION AREA IS, UH, IS PART OF THE STATE STATUTE THAT SAYS WE NOTIFY CHANGES IN, IN ZONING.
AND IT GIVES PEOPLE SURROUNDING ERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT.
UM, THIS OTHER FEEDBACK WAS JUST WORRIED ABOUT THE CHANGE OF THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK THAT THIS OTHER PROPERTY OWNER'S WORRIED ABOUT ADDING ADDITIONAL BUILDING IN THE BACKYARD VIA THIS AND, AND, AND THE ELECTRIC METERS CREATING THE CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER.
HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT? OKAY.
WELL, FIRST, WITHIN THREE OR FOUR BLOCKS YOU CAN GO AND YOU'LL SEE FIVE OR SIX HOMES THAT HAVE ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS IN, IN THE, IN THE BACKYARD, FURTHER DOWN ON, UM, BROOKVIEW PARK.
THERE'S SEVERAL HOMES IN A SEVEN, $8 MILLION CATEGORY, WHICH THIS HOME IS, THAT HAVE ADDITIONAL CABANAS IN THE BACKYARD OR OTHER BUILDINGS OR WHATEVER THEY'RE USING FOR, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT IT'S NOT UNUSUAL IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AT ALL.
I THINK, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, AND YOU HAVE TO CHECK WITH THE CITY.
I THINK SOMEBODY TALKED TO THE CITY ABOUT WATER BEING IN THE BACKYARD AND SOMEBODY CAME OUT FROM 3 1 1 OR THE WATER DEPARTMENT.
AND THAT REPORT SHOULD BE WITH THE CITY, THE CITY, UH, WATER DEPARTMENT.
[01:30:01]
THERE.I'M NOT SAYING THERE'S NOT ONE WHEN THERE'S A RAINSTORM, WATER DOESN'T COME IN, BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN STANDING WATER THERE.
IF THERE WAS STANDING WATER, IT'S VERY EASY TO, TO JUST REGRADE THAT, THAT BACK TO HAVE IT MOVED AWAY.
BUT I'VE NEVER HEARD A COMPLAINT ABOUT IT.
'CAUSE IT DOES FALL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE, MR. SE? IS THE HOUSE CURRENTLY OCCUPIED? YES.
HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN OCCUPIED? UM, A LITTLE UNDER A YEAR.
OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. H? SO, UM, IT'S ALSO A COMMENT OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT, UM, CURRENTLY THERE'S AN EXCEPTIONALLY, UH, LAW LAW, UH, HIGH AMOUNT OF BRIGHT LIGHTS AND NOISE COMING FROM AUDIO VISUAL EQUIPMENT, PROBABLY ON A BACK PATIO, OUTDOOR VIEW TV AREA OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
UM, THIS IS A 70-YEAR-OLD COUPLE, AND I DO, I SHOW YOU THEY DO NOT RUN DIDDY PARTIES
WE, WE CAN'T GO BY WHAT SOMEONE TELLS US.
I, WELL, I I I'M NOT SAYING IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
I I'M, YOU JUST SAID DIDDY DIDN'T UHHUH, SO I HAD TO REPEAT THAT.
UM, NO, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WASN'T AN OCCASION WHERE THAT I'VE NEVER HEARD OF IT BEFORE.
AND THIS IS AN ELDERLY COUPLE, VERY SHAPED ELDERLY COUPLE, EXCUSE ME.
AND I HOPE THEY WOULDN'T GET MAD AT ME FOR SAYING THAT, BUT NO, I'VE NEVER EVEN KNOWN THEM TO HAVE ANY PARTIES IN THE BACKYARD.
SO WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU TELL US, UM, AS REGARDS TO STANDING WATER YES.
THAT YOU HAVEN'T, YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THAT? NOT STANDING WATER, NO.
BUT YOU DON'T LIVE THERE? NO, BUT I'M THERE A LOT.
I MEAN, I BUILT THE HOUSE AND IT WAS UNOCCUPIED FOR MONTHS AFTER WE FINISHED IT, BEFORE IT WAS SOLD.
BUT YOU DON'T, BUT YOU DON'T LIVE THERE.
SO, I MEAN, IT COULD BE GOING ON AND YOU'RE NOT THERE EVERY DAY TO OBSERVE SUCH THINGS.
WELL, IF SOMEBODY CALLED ME AND TOLD ME THAT IT WAS GOING ON AND IT WAS, WE'D, WE'D FIX THE SITUATION.
WE JUST GRADE IT SO THAT THE WATER FLOWED.
IF THERE'S ANYTHING HOLDING THE WATER BACK, WE JUST GRADE IT OUT.
SO YOU DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE COMPLAINED TO THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVING IN THE HOME? I REMEMBER THE CITY DEPARTMENT, THE CITY WATER DEPARTMENT COMING AT ONE TIME CALLING US, WANTING TO COME TO SEE THE ALLEY THAT THERE WAS A CALL, AND I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABOUT WATER, BUT THERE WAS NO WATER BACK THERE.
AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THE NAME, BUT YOU COULD CONTACT THE WATER DEPARTMENT SEEING THEIR RECORD, WHO THAT WAS.
BUT THERE WAS NO STANDING WATER.
IT, IT'S, IT'S REALLY NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE TO DO THAT.
UM, I, I JUST HAVE NO OTHER WAY OF PROVING TO YOU THAT I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT OR HEARD THAT, ESPECIALLY FROM MY CLIENTS WHO, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU AREN'T THERE OFTEN ENOUGH TO HAVE SEEN IT, SO YOU WOULD'VE HAD TO HAVE HEARD IT FROM THE PEOPLE LIVING THERE SINCE THEY BOUGHT IT.
WHICH WAS A YEAR AND A HALF AGO.
UH, A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO, I BELIEVE.
UM, HAVE YOUR, HAVE THE, HAVE YOUR CLIENTS, HAVE THEY EVER SAID ANYTHING TO YOU ABOUT THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE NEIGHBORS? NEVER ANY ISSUES.
THEY LOVE THE HOUSE AND THEY LOVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I, ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU MR. HAVIS.
MR. SA, UM, WHERE'S THE ACCESS FOR THE CAR CARPORT GARAGE OF THE HOUSE? IT IS, IT'S ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE IS A THREE CAR GARAGE, TWO CAR, AND THEN ONE CAR.
AND YOU ACCESS FROM LIVELY? YES.
AND THEN WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF WHAT GOES ON IN THE ALLEY BEHIND THE HOUSE? UM, JUST GARBAGE PICKUP.
DOES ANYONE TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE HAVE ACCESS CAR ACCESS TO THEIR GARAGES FROM THE ALLEY? OR IS THAT ALL? NO, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY GARAGES ON THAT STREET.
OR ALLEY ACCESS TO GARAGES? NOT THAT I KNOW OF, NO.
I DON'T IMAGINE THAT THERE'S ANY HOUSE ON THAT STREET WITH AN ALLEY GARAGE.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. NER? ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER 2 3 4 DASH 18 ON APPLICATION OF LARRY KLING HOPPER.
DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, GIVES OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATION WILL BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND OR WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND OR THE ADDITIONAL METER WOULD BE USED TO CONDUCT A USE NOT PERMITTED IN THE DISTRICT WHERE THE BUILDING SITE IS LOCATED IN THE MATTER OF BD 8 2 3 4 DASH ONE 18.
A MOTION'S BEEN MADE BY MR. KOVI
[01:35:01]
TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION.HOLD ON, LET ME, I'M GONNA READ MY LANGUAGE FOR AN ADDITIONAL ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICE METER.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? I'LL SECOND.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN.
THE MOTION WAS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THE DIFFERENCE IS, DENYING WITH PREJUDICE MEANS YOU CAN'T COME BACK FOR TWO YEARS.
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MEANS YOU CAN COME BACK TOMORROW, YOU HAVE TO FILE AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING.
IF IT'S APPROVED, IF IT'S, IF IT'S DENIED, THAT'S IT.
AND THE MOTION THAT'S PENDING RIGHT NOW IS DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
MR. HAITZ, UM, THIS IS NOT TO CAST ANY ASPERSIONS ON YOUR TESTIMONY OR YOURSELF.
THAT THE PANEL IN THE HOME COULD NOT BE MODIFIED TO ACCOMMODATE THIS.
UH, I'D ALSO LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING REGARDING THE NEIGHBOR'S COMPLAINTS ABOUT DRAINAGE.
UM, THE FACT THAT YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT, YOU DON'T LIVE THERE.
SO I MEAN, IT COULD BE GOING ON.
AND THE ADDITION OF THIS ADDITIONAL PROPERTY WILL RUN ADDITIONAL WATER THROUGH THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE'RE PUTTING THE STRUCTURE, THE, THE DESTRUCTION, WHICH WOULD PRESUMABLY ALSO VENT TO THE ALLEY.
UH, IF THERE IS A DRAINAGE ISSUE, THIS WILL ONLY EXACERBATE THAT ISSUE.
AND, UH, THERE ARE, UH, OBVIOUSLY TWO DERS THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IT, UM, WHICH GIVES ME PAUSE TO, TO ELECTRICIAN, UH, JUST TO PROVE THIS REQUEST WITH NO, UH, EXPERT EVIDENCE ON EITHER OF THE MATTERS, EITHER THE DRAINAGE ISSUE OR THE ELECTRICAL ISSUE.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M MOVING TO DENY THIS.
AND BECAUSE YOU CERTAINLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK BY DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE, YOU HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY, UH, TO GATHER THAT, UH, EXPERT EVIDENCE TO COME BACK TO US, UH, AND ASK AGAIN, CAN I ASK YOU SOMETHING? HOW CAN I PROVE TO YOU THAT THERE'S NO WATER PROBLEM IN THE BACKYARD WHEN NOBODY'S EVER COMPLAINED ALL THE HOMES IN THAT BACK ON THAT STREET? HOW CAN I PROVE THAT, SIR? SOMEBODY HAS COMPLAINED.
SO MAYBE, MAYBE YOU, MAYBE YOU SHOULD TALK TO THE PEOPLE THAT COMPLAINED.
WELL, I FIND OUT WHAT THEIR, WHAT THEIR PROBLEM IS, AND THERE ARE, AND THERE ARE DRAINAGE EXPERTS WHO CAN TALK ABOUT THE DRAINAGE OF THAT PROPERTY.
ALRIGHT, UH, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
UH, SO THE DOCUMENTATION THAT SINCE THIS, THIS REQUEST IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL ELECTRIC METER MM-HMM.
SO ANY KIND OF DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE THAT SAYS THAT THAT'S WARRANTED AND THAT'S NECESSARY, LIKE YOU MENTIONED FROM ENCORE, FROM YOUR ELECTRICAL ENGINEER OR CONTRACTOR, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL IN THIS DECISION.
AND I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I'M VOTING TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS WELL IS, IS, UM, YOU KNOW, WE DID RECEIVE TWO LETTERS IN OPPOSITION AND NO LETTERS OF SUPPORT.
SO, YOU KNOW, BUY-IN FROM THE NEIGHBORS AND, AND CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORS IS ALWAYS REALLY HELPFUL BECAUSE IT, ONE OF THE, THE TWO OF THE CRITERIA, UH, ONE IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
SO THOSE ARE TWO CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE.
UM, BUT ANYTHING THAT, UH, CAN DOCUMENT BENEATH FOR AN ADDITIONAL SERVICE WILL BE VERY HELPFUL.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. SAIK? OH, AND THEN I'VE GOT MR. N, AFTER MR. SA, UH, I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION.
UM, I DON'T, UM, I DIDN'T REALLY SEE ANY, ANYTHING IN THE LETTER AND AFTER THE TESTIMONY THAT, UM, WOULD LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS ANY VALIDITY THERE.
UM, ALLEYS IN MY OPINION, ARE FOR GARBAGE.
AND, UM, DRAINAGE, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, UM, IT IS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND A LOT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF FOLKS DO NOT USE IT TO ACCESS THE GARAGE, WHICH IS SEEMS TO BE THE CASE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
I, UM, I WOULD'VE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN A LETTER FROM THE ELECTRICIAN, UM, YOU KNOW, AND, UH, THAT WOULD'VE CLEARED UP A LOT.
BUT, UM, I WAS CONVINCED BY THE, BY THE PLANS, BY THE TESTIMONY, UH, THAT YOU PROVIDED THAT,
[01:40:01]
UM, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS NOT YOU, THEY WERE NOT GOING DOWN THE ROAD OF MY FEAR OF THIS BEING SOME, YOU KNOW, UNFORESEEN RENTAL UNIT OR, UH, ACCESSORY DWELLING OR SECOND, UH, RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY.SO, UH, FOR THAT REASON, I'LL VOTE, BE VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION.
MR. NERI, UH, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
YEAH, I AGREE WITH THE MAKER AND, AND SECOND OF THIS MOTION, UH, FOR THE REASONS THEY ALREADY STATED.
UM, I, I TOO WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME DOCUMENTATION EITHER FROM ENCORE OR AN ELECTRICIAN, UH, BEFORE THE PANEL.
AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE HIM AS THE BUILDER TO, UH, GET TOGETHER WITH THE OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY AND SEE IF THEY CAN'T MEET WITH THE TWO, UH, ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO SEE IF THEIR CONCERNS CAN'T BE ASSUAGED IN SOME, SOME MATTER.
UM, THAT, THAT EFFORT, UM, WOULD ALSO, UH, LEAD ME TO, UH, TO GRANT THIS.
BUT RIGHT NOW, I'M, I'M GONNA BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
UM, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH A MOTION.
ONE VOTE, REACH EACH ONE VOTE.
I GET, I'M GONNA TELL YOU AGAIN, THIS IS FEW AND FAR BETWEEN THAT WE GET THESE TYPE OF REQUESTS.
UM, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN, UH, THE CONCERN OF THE NEIGHBORS AND THE OBLIVIOUSNESS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.
AND YOU'RE HERE REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER.
SO THE OBLIVIOUS OF WHAT'S GOING ON, WHETHER IT BE NOISE OR LIGHTS OR WATER, DRAINAGE, UM, AND THAT SORT OF THING.
NOW, I WILL TELL YOU IN MY EXPERIENCE, JUST BECAUSE THERE'S OPPOSITION DOES NOT MEAN I VOTE WITH THE OPPOSITION.
AND NOR WOULD I SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES, IT TEMPERS US.
IT GIVES US PAUSE TO SAY, OKAY, IS THERE MERIT OR NOT? AND THEN WE BALANCE, AND YOU DO THIS OFTEN ENOUGH, YOU LEARN HOW TO BALANCE WHAT YOU HEAR, WHAT YOU SEE VERSUS THE, THE STATING OF OUR CRITERIA.
UH, AND THEN WE IN THE END MAKE A JUDGMENT CALL AND THEN MOVE ON.
UM, I, I DON'T KNOW IF MR. HOP PERMITS WILL AGREE, BUT IF THE, IF THE BOARD WOULD CONSIDER HOLDING THIS OVER TILL NOVEMBER TO GIVE THE APPLICANT TIME TO FOLLOW UP AS TO WHAT MS. HAYDEN SUGGESTED.
ONE, GETTING SOMETHING FROM THE ELECTRIC COMPANY AND OR THE, UH, ELECTRIC, WHAT'D YOU CALL IT? ELECTRIC SERTA ELECTRIC ELECTRICIAN.
SOMEONE THAT IS A LICENSED WITH A STAMP AND ALL THAT SORT OF GOOD STUFF.
LICENSED ELECTRICIAN THAT SAYS SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE AND SPECIFIC TO THAT SORT OF THING.
AND THEN THERE'S SOME EFFORT OF AN OUTREACH TO THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE GOT.
I DIDN'T SAY PACIFY BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
SOMETIMES PEOPLE WON'T ANSWER THE DOOR, OTHER TIMES PEOPLE WILL RESPOND DIFFERENTLY.
SO, UH, THAT'S NOT ALL CONCLUSIVE, BUT SOME EFFORT IN THAT WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.
SO MY REQUEST WOULD BE, AND I HESITATE HOLDING OVER MS. GOSH ALMIGHTY, UH, BUT I DON'T THINK WE LOSE ANYTHING IN THE HOLDOVER BECAUSE THIS IS ISOLATED.
UH, WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING FOR TWO REAL ISSUES.
ONE IS LICENSED ELECTRICIAN SLASH CONTRACTOR AND ENCORE, AND THEN OUTREACH TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITH THOSE SPECIFIC TYPE CONCERNS.
AND I THINK THAT CAN BE LOCALIZED IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.
SOMETIMES WE HESITATE HOLDING OVER ONE MONTH BECAUSE THE STAFF HAS TO GET INFORMATION IN A SHORT PERIOD IN ORDER TO MAKE THE NEXT HEARING DATE.
OUR NEXT HEARING DATE IS NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER 19TH.
UM, BUT THIS IS THE, THE BOARD HASN'T SPOKEN YET.
THIS IS JUST THE CHAIRMAN I GOT ASKING A MEMBER IF HE WOULD CONSIDER HOLDING.
OH, IF, IF WE DENY IT, YOU HAVE TO START ALL OVER AND REFILE ON ALL THOSE SORT OF THINGS.
I DON'T THINK THE STAFF'S GONNA HAVE TO DO ANY ADDITIONAL WORK ON THIS, MIKE.
IF THEY'RE JUST CHASING THESE ISSUES THAT MS. HAYDEN CORRECT.
AGAINST MY INFORMATION YES, CORRECT.
SO WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT I'M AGREEABLE TO THAT? OKAY.
SO THE CHAIR WOULD ASK YOU TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION.
AND, AND THE SECOND, I'LL WITHDRAW MY SECOND.
THE MOTION, UH, TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER, MR. HAITZ.
AND THE SECOND, SO THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A NEW MOTION.
MR. HAITZ, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH ONE 18 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 19TH, 2024.
IS THAT A CORRECT DATE? MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR FOR US.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO BE SPECIFIC TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.
[01:45:01]
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS, AND IT TAKES FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES TO PASS.IT'S SOMETHING FROM A PROPERTY LICENSED ELECTRICIAN REGARDING THE NECESSITY OF THE METER.
CAN I GET ELECTRICAL, UH, ENGINEER, JUST TO GIVE YOU A LETTER? IS THAT ENOUGH, RACHEL? OKAY.
AND I'LL GET THE ELECTRICIANS AND, AND FROM ENCORE AS, AS WELL, YOU SAID ENCORE SAID THAT WAS OKAY WITH ENCORE? YEAH.
UM, I'M SURE THEY'LL GIVE YOU SOMETHING, UH, BASED ON WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE TODAY.
UM, AND, AND SPECIFICALLY TO, TO FIND OUT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE NEIGHBORS BECAUSE THERE'S SOME, EITHER THEY'RE MAKING IT ALL UP OR THERE'S SOMETHING YOU'RE JUST NOT AWARE OF.
SO, SO, UH, UH, SO I HEAR THAT, AND I WANT KEEP THIS CONTAINED.
OUR CRITERIA IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
YOU'RE ASKING THAT BECAUSE YOU, YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IT AFFECTING A DRAINAGE ISSUE.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IT BEING CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
THAT'S WHY YOU'RE MAKING THAT REQUEST.
I'M JUST PUTTING IT IN THE FRAMEWORK.
I'M NOT TRYING TO TALK OVER YOU.
I'M JUST SO THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERYONE ELSE.
I'LL, I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING AND YOU KNOW, I'LL LISTEN FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY IF I'M MISSPEAKING, BUT ISN'T THAT THE BURDEN OF THE APPLICANTS, THE OWNERS TO SAY THAT THERE'S A WATER ISSUE? YOU'RE ASKING 'EM TO PROVE THAT THERE'S NOT AN ISSUE FOR WHICH WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY PROOF THAT THERE IS A WATER ISSUE, RIGHT? I MEAN, AM I MISSING SOMETHING? UM, WHAT, WHAT I'M GONNA SAY IS I DON'T, OUR CRITERIA GOES BACK TO NOT TO BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
THERE IS A CONCERN YOU'VE HEARD VERBALIZED THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IT BEING CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND CON NOT ADVERS A ADVERSELY AFFECTING PROVINCE.
I CAN'T, AND I DON'T THINK YOU WANT SOME SORT OF GUARANTEE THAT THERE'S NOT DRAINAGE OR NOT.
I THINK YOU WANT TO HAVE THESE CONCERNS AT LEAST ADDRESSED.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I MEAN, I, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING AND THAT IS WITHIN THE FRAME FRAMEWORK OF WHAT OUR CRITERIA IS.
I MEAN, I, TO, TO ME, RESOLUTION IS THAT IS EITHER, IT'S JUST FOR ME NEIGHBORS SAYING IT'S BEEN RESOLVED AND IT'S NO LONGER AN ISSUE TO THE NEIGHBORS.
UM, OR, OR SOME RESOLUTION IF IT TURNS OUT THERE IS AN ISSUE RELATED TO THIS CIVIL ENGINEER AND THAT WORKS WITH THAT TO DO A STUDY.
THANKFULLY, SIR, I, I'M NOT NECESSARILY, I'M, I'M NOT ASKING FOR THAT.
I THINK THAT'S TOO, THAT'S TOO MUCH OF AN ASK MIKE.
DON'T YOU AGREE THAT'S FOR A CIVIL ENGINEER? YES, I DO THINK SO.
IT IS REQUIRED OR IT'S NOT? IT'S NOT REQUIRED.
THERE, THERE'S AN ALLEGATION OF A DRAINAGE ISSUE THERE EITHER IS ONE OR THERE ISN'T ONE.
SO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING THERE IS ONE, I WOULD SUGGEST SOMEBODY RE RELATE REPRESENTING EITHER YOUR, EITHER YOUR CLIENTS OR SOMEONE REPRESENTING YOUR CLIENTS.
FIND OUT WHAT THEIR PROBLEM IS.
UM, BECAUSE THERE, THERE'S, THERE'S SOME ISSUE SOMEWHERE THERE, MS. HAYDEN.
SO I, WE A LITTLE BIT VOTING ON MIKE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU'RE HEARD WE'RE VOTING ON A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR AN EXTRA ELECTRIC METER.
I MEAN, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE SOME, A COUPLE OF OPPOSITION LETTERS WITH SOME OTHER ALLEGATIONS OF DRAINAGE, BUT I FEEL LIKE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY SHOULD JUST BE FOCUSED ON THE ELECTRIC METER.
AND WHETHER OR NOT WE, UM, WE THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR AN ELECTRIC METER.
UM, AND PART OF THAT IS OUTREACH TO YOUR NEIGHBORS BECAUSE WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT AVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BY ALLOWING THEM TO HAVE AN EXTRA ELECTRIC METER, RIGHT? YES.
NOW, YES, MR. NER, YOU'RE HEARING WHAT I'M SAYING ON THIS? YES.
THAT IS, THAT, THAT IS, THAT IS THE SCOPE OF WHERE WE'RE AT.
NOW, IF, IF A INDIVIDUAL MEMBER EX BROADENS THEIR DECISION MAKING CRITERIA, THAT'S HIS OR HER CHOICE, BUT I WOULD, I WOULD CAUTION THE BOARD THAT THAT IS THE FRAMEWORK BY WHICH WE'RE ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE.
I'D LIKE TO SPEAK, BUT EV OF COURSE, BUT EVERY MEMBER ON THEIR OWN DETERMINES WHAT THEY VIEW IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST OR NOT A ADVERSE AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
SO, UM, I'M TRYING TO KEEP THIS FRAME.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
[01:50:01]
THE APPROVAL OF THE ELECTRIC METER IS, UH, AS APPLIED FOR, IS A REQUIREMENT TO BUILD THE ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE.THEY NEED THE ELECTRICAL METER TO BUILD THE ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE.
COULD WE STOP BEING TOLD THAT? YES, MS. DIANA, THE PERMIT IS ACTUALLY IN REVIEW RIGHT NOW AND IT'S IN CUSTOMER TIME BECAUSE THEY NEED THE APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD FOR THE SECOND ELECTRICAL METER.
THE, THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS, IS ALLOWED.
SO THAT PERMIT COULD BE APPROVED IF THEY DID NOT REQUEST THE SECOND METER, THE SECOND METERS, WHICH REQUIRE, WHICH CREATING THIS REQUEST TODAY.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH, NOT THE BUILDING, NOTHING NEW STRUCTURE.
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE, NOTHING, THE REGIONAL NOTHING.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE APPLIED IT FOR THE GAS, THEY WOULD CORRECT EVERYTHING ELSE.
IT'S JUST FOR A SECOND ELECTRICAL.
SO I I I WILL ACCEPT THAT AND WITHDRAW.
YOU, YOUR, YOUR, YOUR OPINION IS VALUED.
AND I, I WANNA JUST TAKE THE BOARD BACK TO THE WAY MS. HAYDEN, UH, TRIED TO, TO FRAME THIS MM-HMM.
AND THAT, UH, IT IS ABOUT A SECOND ELECTRIC METER AND THE CRITERIA OF THAT GOES TO THE NON-COUNTRY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ANY OF YOUR PROPERTIES.
SO, AND WE ALL NEED TO WEIGH THE FEEDBACK WE GET AND WE WEIGH IT DIFFERENTLY.
AND SOME WEIGH IN HEAVILY, SOME NOT.
AND IF THE STRUCTURE CAN BE BUILT WITHOUT THE ELECTRICAL, WITHOUT THE ELECTRICAL METER BEING THERE, WHICH APPARENTLY IT CAN BE, UH, THEN THAT YOU'RE RIGHT.
THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE THAT TO BE ADDRESSED WITH THIS REQUEST.
I THINK THE SMART MOVE IS JUST TO BE ABLE TO GET A OID OF YOUR NEIGHBORS TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON.
BECAUSE WHEN YOU COME BACK ON THE 19TH OF NOVEMBER, THAT IS GONNA BE A QUESTION.
THE, THE QUESTION WILL BE HAVE YOU REACHED OUT TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS TO GET FEEDBACK? BECAUSE THAT'S THE, THE SYSTEM THAT WE GO THROUGH.
SO, SO I WILL, I WILL WITHDRAW MY REQUEST TO HAVE ANYTHING OFFICIAL RELATING TO DRAINAGE.
BUT I THINK THE ELECTRICAL, I THINK IT, YEAH, I THINK THE ELECTRICAL IS, IS KEY AND FOCUSED HERE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 18 TO HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 19TH, 2024.
AND YOU'VE HEARD OUR FEEDBACK.
IS, UH, DO YOU THINK YOU CAN GET THAT INFORMATION TO OUR STAFF? GIVE US A DEADLINE.
NINTH, UH, BY THE 9TH OF NOVEMBER BACK TO WHO WAS THE PLANNER ON THIS? UH, TO MS. MS. CAMIA JORDAN.
SO TO MS. JORDAN, WHOEVER THAT YOU SUBMITTED THE INITIAL PLANNER ALRIGHT.
IN THE ADDRESS, SO I KNOW EXACTLY YOU'LL TALK TO THE STAFF OFFLINE AFTERWARDS.
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO MOVE, UH, HOLD THE ITEM UNDER ADVISEMENT TILL NOVEMBER 19TH, 2024.
THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
A AYE IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 18, WE ARE UH, VOTED FIVE TO ZERO UNANIMOUSLY HOLD THIS ITEM, UH, UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 19TH, 2024.
HOPE YOU'VE GOT SOME GOOD FEEDBACK FOR US AND NARROW THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT.
CAN, CAN THE APPLICANT GET COPIES OF THESE? AREN'T THESE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS? YES, I THINK IT JORDAN SENT THEM TO HIM THIS MORNING.
DID SHE SEND YOU TWO UM, LETTERS OF OPPOSITION THIS MORNING VIA EMAIL? YEAH.
OR MAYBE THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE THAT IN.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAD THAT, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT LEAVE BLANK TO KNOW.
YEAH, WE SENT IT TO HIM ALREADY.
ONE OF THEM WAS FOR DRAINAGE AND ONE OF 'EM WAS FOR THEIR CONCERN ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M JUST
WE'LL SEE YOU ON THE 19TH OF NOVEMBER.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, UM, IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 23 2 3 4 DASH 1 23.
[01:55:01]
1 0 2 2 5 DAIRY DRIVE.UH, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE FOR THIS CASE? JUST THE APPLICANT.
IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND HER ADDRESS.
JENNIFER HIROTO, 1 0 2 3 3 EAST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY.
YOU DON'T KNOW HOW THAT, DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE, THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
HOW ABOUT THAT? THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I SAW TELEVISION, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? TEAMWORK.
I I SWORE IN, UH, MARY, WE SWORE IN SOME.
ALRIGHT, SO YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TO UH, PRESENT.
UM, UH, HOPEFULLY YOU LISTENED TO SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THIS MORNING.
UH, AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THOSE QUESTIONS AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE.
UM, THIS IS FOR A FENCE HEIGHT AND AN OPACITY REQUEST.
UM, IT'S, UH, TEN TWO TWO FIVE DARIA DRIVE.
UM, I WANTED TO ORIENT YOU ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, I KNOW THE STAFF WENT OVER THIS, UH, THIS MORNING, BUT THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF OTHER CONTEXT.
A THIS PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED IN RED IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UM, IF YOU'LL NOTICE, WE ARE, UM, BASICALLY A BLOCK IN FROM THE TOY, UM, THAT IS RECESSED IN THIS AREA, BUT THE, UH, PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, UM, DOES NOT HAVE THE TWO FRONT YARD SITUATION THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS.
UM, YOU'LL ALSO NOTICE THAT WE'RE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SCHOOL.
I BELIEVE IT'S AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
UM, YOU HAD TALKED EARLIER ON OTHER CASES ABOUT THE, UH, CANYON EFFECT THAT WALLS CAN SOMETIMES CREATE.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S GONNA BE THE CASE HERE.
UH, FOR A FEW REASONS, THE SCHOOL ACROSS THE STREET IS NOT GONNA HAVE A, A SOLID FENCE.
SO EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A NARROW NON THOROUGHFARE SORT OF STREET, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE THAT EFFECT.
NO, IT'S SHOWING ON OUR SCREEN, BUT IT'S NOT REFLECTING ON, BUT IT'S HERE.
UM, THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE PLAT.
UM, OH, SO THE, THE THING I WAS ABOUT TO SAY WAS THE, THE PROPERTIES HAD FENCING ALONG METERS.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING SINCE THE, IT WAS FIRST DEVELOPED, THIS PLAT IS FROM, UH, 1958 OR SO.
AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS TWO PLATTED BUILDING LINES.
SO IT REALLY DOES HAVE TWO FRONT YARDS AND, UM, THE PROPERTY IS ALWAYS ORIENTED TOWARDS ARIAS, SO THAT WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY FUNCTIONS AS A BACKYARD.
UM, SO LIKE I SAID, THIS IS A REPLACEMENT SITUATION.
THE SITE PLAN, I COLORED UP THAT IT DOES WRAP AROUND BECAUSE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK DOES GO THE WIDTH OF METERS, UM, FOR THESE FENCE REGULATIONS, THE FENCES PROPOSED ON THE PROPERTY LINE, THE YELLOW, UH, AND EIGHT, UM, YELLOW AND ORANGE ARE EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCES.
THE GREEN, I CAN SEE THAT CORRECTLY IS, UH, THE SIX FOOT PORTION THAT'LL CONNECT TO THE AIDING FENCE, UM, AREA FOR THE PRIVATE STREET.
UM, THE, THIS NEXT SLIDE IS THE FENCE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR OUR NEIGHBOR THAT'S AT THAT SOUTHEAST CORNER ACROSS DARIA.
UM, THEY WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN A FENCE HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET, UM, THAT'S SHOWN ON THIS APPLICATION FORM.
SO THAT'S WHAT THAT PROPERTY HAS.
SO EIGHT FEET HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED WITH RECENT PERMANENT ACTIVITY AND THE PROPERTIES, UM, EXISTENCE OF PREVIOUS FENCING.
UM, SO THIS IS LOOKING, UM, AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TOWARDS THE, THE GATED STREET OF DIA LANE, DARIA DRIVE, UM, AND JUST KIND OF WANTED TO SHOW THAT EXISTING CONDITION.
THE PROPOSED FENCE WILL BE ON THE PROPERTY LINE AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'LL BE ROOM IN THE PARKWAY FOR PLANTING.
THAT IS OUR INTENTION IS TO CONTINUE, UH, TO HAVE A LANDSCAPES, UH, EXPERIENCE ON THE STREET SIDE OF THE, THE PROPOSED FENCE.
JUST, UH, MORE PHOTOS SHOWING THE PARKWAY.
UM, AND THEN THIS IS THAT FAR, UM, NORTHWEST CORNER, THE PROPERTY YOU CAN SEE IN THE NEXT SLIDE THAT, UM, THERE IS EXISTING FENCING THAT IS, HAS NOT BEEN REPLACED YET, AND THAT IS I BELIEVE, EIGHT FEET TALL.
[02:00:02]
UH, NEXT SLIDE.I DON'T WANNA INTERRUPT YOUR PRESENTATION, BUT IF YOU GO BACK ONE CLICK THIS WILL, THERE, THERE WE GO.
SO THIS, ANOTHER PICTURE CLOSER.
SO BEHIND THOSE TWO OUTHOUSES, IS THAT THE EXISTING FENCE? YES.
AND THAT'S HOW MANY FEET? UH, THAT'S EIGHT FEET TALL.
AND THAT'S A WOODEN FENCE? UH, YES.
AND IS THAT ALONG DARIA? SO THIS IS ALONG METERS.
UM, SO, UM, THE, THE TREE IS SORT OF YOUR REFERENCE POINT WHEN YOU OH, THAT'S WHAT I MEANT.
SO WHEN YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, I THINK THAT IS FROM THE NEIGHBORS SORT OF VANTAGE POINT.
UM, BUT YOU DON'T SEE THE FENCE THERE, RIGHT? SO THERE'S, THERE'S LANDSCAPING ON BOTH SIDES.
IT, AND, YOU KNOW, I HAD TO KIND OF MANIPULATE THE PHOTOS TO KIND OF LIGHTEN THEM UP SO YOU COULD SEE WHAT, WHAT'S GOING ON.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, THIS IS, UM, AN EXISTING CONDITION AND THAT'S WHY THE NEIGHBORS ARE OKAY WITH IT.
THE PROPERTY OWNER, UM, HAS LIVED HERE SINCE 2000.
HE PERSONALLY MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS THAT WROTE IN LETTERS, I BELIEVE HAD SIX OR SEVEN OR SO.
UM, AND, UM, THE NEIGHBORS SUPPORT THE REQUEST, UM, AND THEY FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON.
UM, THE LAST THING I WANNA MENTION IS THAT I BELIEVE WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE FENCING ALONG METERS SO THAT DARIA REMAINS SECURE.
THIS IS THE, UH, PRIVATE STREET FOR, UH, FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH.
HE LIVES FURTHER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO SECURE THE PROPERTY.
SO I THINK THAT'S IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
WE HAVE SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
I BELIEVE WE'VE ANSWERED YOUR OTHER QUESTIONS.
SO, UM, WHERE THE SIX FOOT, UM, HORIZONTAL FENCE IS GONNA GO ALONG, UH, METERS, UH, IS PART OF IT IS THAT FENCE REPLACING PART OF THAT IS EXISTING EIGHT FEET RIGHT NOW? DOESN'T THAT EIGHT? IT LOOKS LIKE THE EIGHT FOOT WOODEN FENCE STRETCHES PAST THE, THOSE TWO, UM, OUTHOUSES.
SO THAT THE, THAT LAST PICTURE THAT I SHOWED WAS ON THE WESTERN CORNER.
THE PRIVATE STREET IS ON THE, UH, EASTERN NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.
SO THAT, THAT NEW SIX FOOT SECTION IS CONNECTING TO THE PRIVATE STREET GATES.
AND THAT TRANSITION POINT IS A, UM, IS WHERE THE DRIVEWAY GATES ARE AND THAT MEET MEETS THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE.
SO, SO THAT'S WHERE, AND THE, BUT THERE'S, IT'S, YOU'RE, YOU'RE REPLACING EIGHT FOOT FENCE WITH A SIX FOOT OPEN FENCE.
AND ALL OF THIS IS OPEN, CORRECT? IS THIS ALL OPEN FENCING ALONG MATTERS? UM, IT'S, UM, I'M SORRY.
BROAD IRON? NO, IT'S ASKING FOR A PANELS.
AND WHAT'S THE MATERIAL ON THE FENCE? UH, I BELIEVE IT'S ALUMINUM.
THE STUCCO WALL WILL ALSO BE WITHIN THAT FIVE FOOT ZONE.
AND THEN THAT REAR, UM, WESTERN NORTHWESTERN CORNER IS ALSO IN NOT FIVE FOOT ZONE WHERE OPACITY MATTERS TO THE QUESTION FOUR.
I, I'M, I'M PONDERING RIGHT NOW I WANT TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE IMAGES, BUT GO AHEAD.
I'VE GOT MR. HAITZ AND THEN MS. HAYDEN.
UM, JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND, SO THERE'S AN EXISTING EIGHT FOOT WOODEN FENCE.
AND THE, THERE WAS ALONG METERS.
UM, THERE WAS A, UM, I HAVE PICTURES FROM GOOGLE STREET VIEW THAT GOES BACK ONLY TO 2012.
BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS, ALL OF THE FENCING THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE HAS BEEN THERE SINCE 1957 OR EIGHT WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS FIRST DEVELOPED.
UM, STREET VIEW SHOWS THAT TO BE A SIX FOOT SOLID BRICK WALL WITH EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING, OVERGROWN LANDSCAPING.
SO THERE WAS ALWAYS FENCING THAT WAS SOLID AND THERE WAS ALWAYS FENCING THAT WAS TALLER THAN FOUR FEET.
SO I'M, I'M ASKING ALONG DARIA, ALONG DARIA, THERE'S NO FENCING PROPOSED THAT'S WITHIN THE PRIVATE STREET STREET, BUT THE GATE IS THE, THE, THE GATE IS WITHIN THE PROPERTY.
IT COMES OFF OF THE CIRCLE DRIVE OFF ARIA.
AND IT CONNECTS AT THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE.
AT THE CORNER OF THE FACE OF THE HOUSE.
DID YOU, DID YOU GET THAT? SHE'S TALKING ABOUT RIGHT HERE.
RACHEL, WOULD YOU SHOW HER ZEROING IN YES.
[02:05:01]
ON MATTERS THOUGH.I'M SORRY, I GOT MY STREETS MIXED UP.
SO, UM, ALONG MEADOW, COME BACK.
THERE CURRENTLY IS A FENCE, THERE'S A CONSTRUCTION FENCE, BUT YES, PRIOR TO THAT THERE WAS A SOLID, IT LOOKS LIKE SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL.
SO IN THE, IN THE PICTURE, THE WOODEN FENCE, THAT THE WOODEN FENCE THAT'S STILL THERE, THAT, UM, IS EIGHT FEET TALL.
IT, IT'S WITHIN THE MEADOW'S FRONT YARD SETBACK.
SO IT'S THAT NORTHWEST CORNER.
SO WHEN, WHEN I, SO PART OF IT IS EIGHT, PART OF IT IS EIGHT FOOT NOW.
AND PART OF IT IS SIX FOOT MASONRY WAS YES, SIR.
THANK I, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD.
AND THE, UM, I'M SORRY, DR. HOPKINS, IF YOU CAN TURN TO THE STREET VIEW SLIDE, THE, THE DENSE LANDSCAPING WAS WAY TALLER THAN SIX FEET.
UM, THAT, UM, YEAH, THAT ONE THERE, SO THERE WAS LANDSCAPING ON BOTH SIDES AND IT WAS OVERGROWN.
AND SO THE, THEY, THEY'VE ALWAYS HAD A VERY OBSCURED BACKYARD SITUATION.
SO IS THE LAND, THE LANDSCAPING GOING TO BE REMOVED TO PUT THE FENCE IN? UH, CORRECT.
SO NEW LANDSCAPING WILL COME IN AND IT'LL BE DONE TO MATCH THE, THE HOME.
WILL THAT BE TALL, UH, AS WELL? NOT THAT I BELIEVE.
I, I, I DON'T THINK YOU GUYS ENTERTAIN LANDSCAPE PLANS WITH FENCE CASES ANYMORE, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY, MS. HAIGHT.
SO ON THE, THEN I'VE GOT MS. MR SITE, MR. MS. HAIGHT, ON THE OLD PLATH THAT YOU SHOWED, IT SHOWED A TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS, ONE ALONG MATTERS AND ONE ALONG DARIA.
BUT THEN IT LOOKS LIKE THE FENCE THAT WAS SIX FEET, THAT'S NO LONGER THERE WAS WITH, WAS OUTSIDE OF THAT SETBACK.
IT WAS BUILT IN THE SETBACK, RIGHT? YOU SAID IT WAS ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE? YES, IT WAS.
SO WAS THAT PERMIT, WAS IT PERMITTED TO BE BUILT LIKE THAT OR WHAT'S THE, ARE WE NOT THE, THE HISTORY OF THAT IS SUPER HARD TO FIND.
UM, THAT'S, I MEAN, REGULAR PERMITS ARE HARD TO FIND, BUT FENCE PERMITS, UM, YOU KNOW, THE OWNER IS, I BELIEVE THE SECOND OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, AND HE WAS TOLD THAT THE FENCING ON THE PROPERTY WHEN HE BOUGHT IT WAS ORIGINAL TO THE HOME WHEN IT WAS BUILT IN THE 1950S.
SO THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF THEN.
SO THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE, AS FAR AS WITHIN THE SETBACK, IT'S OKAY.
ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE HEIGHT AND OPACITY, CORRECT? NOT THE LOCATION OF IT.
SO THE LOCATION ISN'T AN ISSUE, RIGHT.
SO THAT OLD SETBACK THAT THEY HAD, THOSE PLANS IS NO LONGER VALID THEN I GUESS THE HOME CONFORMS TO THE BUILDING LINES.
MRS. AND IS THE STUCCO WALL HERE, WHICH IS THE ENTRANCE TO THE GARAGE AREA, IS THAT IN COMPLIANCE? AND IT'S JUST THIS, THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR PERMISSION ON OPACITY AND HEIGHT.
SO ARE, ARE WE APPROVING ANYTHING ALONG THIS STUCCO WALL? UH, AND SWING GATES AT THE DRIVEWAY, OUR FOCUS IS ON METERS LANE.
SO IT'S ONLY WHERE YOU SEE THE XS THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT HEIGHT AND THE SQUARES AND EL PASS? YES.
SO YEAH, WE'RE ONLY FOCUSED ON LEADER RANK.
WHERE THIS IS, IT IS AT THE 50 FOOT BILL LINE, WHICH THEY GOT BILL BY, RIGHT? YES.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. H, THIS COURT SECTION? YES, SIR.
IS THIS A STREET? THAT CHAIR? NO, THAT ABUTS THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
TWO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
ALRIGHT, SO WHAT WE'RE FOCUSED ON IS TWO REQUESTS.
ONE REQUEST WAS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE HEIGHT.
YOU'RE ASKING FOR EIGHT FEET? YES, SIR.
UH, EIGHT FEET, AND THEN IT GOES DOWN TO SIX FEET, WHICH ATTACHES TO THE FENCE FOR THE STREET.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU CALL THAT.
WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT? YES, THAT SOUNDS GREAT.
UH, THAT'S THE, AND THEN THE OPACITY.
AND SO IS IT A SOLID FENCE? IS THAT A HUNDRED PERCENT OR IS IT 0%? IT'S COMPLETELY SOLID.
UH, AND THE PORTION ON, IF I UNDERSTOOD EVERYONE SAYING THE PORTION ON DARIA, ACCORDING TO STAFF, YOU'RE BUILDING BY RIGHT AT THE BUILDING LINE, THE STUCCO WALLS.
[02:10:01]
OF THE WAY THE SETBACKS AND THE FIVE FOOT WORK IS THAT IT'S, THEY'RE BASICALLY LIKE VANS THAT EXTEND ACROSS THE FRONTAGES.SO WE HAVE TWO FRONT YARDS, AND SO WE HAVE THE, THE BUILDING LOT, THE PLOTTED BUILDING LINE BANDS THAT ARE ESTABLISHING OUR FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS THAT LIMIT OUR FENCE HEIGHT.
AND THEN I UNDERSTAND THE FIVE FOOT BAND ALONG THESE STREET FRONTAGES IS FOR THE OPACITY.
SO I THINK YOU, YOU'RE CORRECT ABOUT THE FIVE FOOT OPACITY THAT I PUT ME WITH.
THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS ANYTHING THAT IS PERPENDICULAR TO THE STREET WITHIN THAT FIVE FOOT ZONE IS ALSO UNDER YOUR CONSIDERATION.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS THE STUCCO WALL THAT IS PARALLEL TO DELLE DRIVE.
AND YOU'RE BUILDING THAT AT THE BUILDING LINE.
RIGHT? SO PORTIONS THAT ARE BEHIND THE BUILDING LINE, IT'S ARE, ARE NOT, IT'S BY, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
BUT I BELIEVE THERE ARE PORTIONS THAT ARE WITHIN THAT PLATTED BUILDING LINE.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I MOVE, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 23 ON APPLICATION OF JENNIFER HI MOTO GRANT, THE REQUEST THAT OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT HIM OR MAINTAIN AN EIGHT FOOT HEIGHT FENCE IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHTENED FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED ON THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
IT'S BEEN MOVED IN THE CA IN THE APPEAL BDA 2 3 4 DASH 23 BY MS. HAYDEN TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.
SECONDED BY MR. SAUTE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MS. HAYDEN? SO THE, UM, SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT, UM, WE HAVE TO SHOW, OR, OR THE APPLICANT HAS TO SHOW THAT IT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
I THINK THE, UM, NEED FOR SECURITY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, IN ADDITION TO THE BUY-IN THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT THAT YOU RECEIVE FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS HELPS TO, UM, UH, REFLECT THAT THIS DOES NOT, WILL NOT AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY ADVERSELY.
MRS. UH, I AGREE, UH, WITH THAT RATIONALE FOR SUPPORTING AND SECONDING THE MOTION.
OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I WILL AGREE.
I THINK THAT YOU'VE DONE THE JOB OF, OF NOT ONLY GETTING THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY, UH, SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNER SUPPORT.
UM, I WAS AT, EXCUSE ME, WITH THE BOARD, WE'RE DELIBERATING IN ADDITION, AND I'M HESITANT ON ANYTHING THAT'S EIGHT FEET THAT IS TOWERING, UM, THAT'S TOWERING.
AND, UH, BUT GIVEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I THINK IT'S REASONABLE.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I, AS ONE MEMBER WILL SUPPORT ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION.
BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 23, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY FIVE TO ZERO.
GRANTS THE REQUEST FOR AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
MS. HAY, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 23 ON APPLICATION OF JENNIFER HI MOTO.
GRANT TO CUS REQUESTED THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN FENCE WITH PANEL HAVING LESS THAN 50% OPEN SURFACE AREA LOCATED LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM FRONT LOT LINE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SURFACE AREA OPENNESS REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
'CAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, UH, ALL OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH OPACITY AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS IS REQUIRED.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MS. HAYDEN IN BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 23 1 23 TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR LESS THAN 50% OPEN SERVICE AREA.
[02:15:01]
I'LL SECOND.SECONDED BY MR. KOVICH DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
MS. HAYDEN? UM, FOR THE REASONS I GAVE BEFORE, THE NEED FOR SECURITY IN THIS AREA, AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT THERE'S A SCHOOL ACROSS THE STREET THAT HAS AN OPEN YARD AND NO HIGH FENCE TO CREATE THIS TUNNELING EFFECT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
UM, UH, THAT'S THE REASON THAT I VOTED IN FAVOR, OR I'M VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS.
UH, GIVEN THAT THE, THERE IS AN EXISTING WALL THAT IS OPAQUE, UH, AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE HERE IS, IS A HEIGHT ISSUE.
UH, I'M AGREEABLE THAT IT'S, IT'S NOT, UH, HARMFUL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION? THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS 2 3 4 1 2 3 TO GRANT, UH, WITH, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR LESS THAN 50% OPEN SURFACE AREA.
THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
IN THE MATTER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 23, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ON A FIVE TO ZERO VOTE GRANTS YOUR REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OPEN SURFACE AREA LESS THAN 50%.
ALRIGHT, HOLD ON A SECOND HERE.
ALRIGHT, THAT CONCLUDES OUR, UH, REGULAR AGENDA.
WE HAVE, UH, FOUR CASES REMAINING ON A HOLDOVER AGENDA.
UH, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A 15 MINUTE RECESS.
SO IT IS, IT IS CURRENTLY 3:16 PM WE WILL RECONVENE AT 3:30 PM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UH, PANEL A ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22ND AT 3:16 PM IS RECESSED.
GO AHEAD AND TURN YOUR VIDEOS OFF.
I THOUGHT IT WAS, I'M LOOKING ON MY, UH, ON MY LAPTOP HERE.
IT IS 3:31 PM 3:31 PM ON THE 22ND OF OCTOBER, TUESDAY.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS HEREBY CALL BACK TO ORDER.
THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS BD 2 3 4 DASH 1 6 8 0 1 TYREE STREET.
THIS IS A HOLDOVER APPLICATION TO APPEAL THE DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
SO, UH, THE BOARD LAST MONTH ON SEPTEMBER 17TH, HEARD THIS CASE, UM, AND AT THE CONCLUSION DECIDED TO HOLD IT UNDER ADVISEMENT.
UM, THERE'S ONE DIFFERENT MEMBER HERE TODAY THAN THERE WAS LAST MONTH.
SO TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, UM, UH, I WANNA MAKE SURE WE CREATE A PROPER P PAROLE RECORD.
UM, OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE AS IT RELATES TO APPEALS FOR BUILDING OFFICIAL OR OFFICIAL APPEALS OF DECISIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE OUTLINE SPECIFIC PROCESS.
UH, WHAT I'M GONNA DO TODAY IS, UH, WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE THE HEARING.
IT'S GONNA BE 10 MINUTES LEFT FOR EACH SIDE OF PRESENTATION.
UM, AND, UH, THE CHAIR WILL, UM, ALLOW SOME ELASTICITY OF THAT IN ORDER FOR, FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO ASK QUESTIONS AND FOR YOU TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS.
UH, FOR, FOR THE PUBLIC THAT'S HERE, UH, THIS IS A HEARING THAT ONLY THE PERSON THAT'S APPEALING THE DECISION AND THE, AND THEN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ARE PART OF THE PUBLIC.
OBVIOUSLY CAN, CAN WATCH AND LISTEN, BUT YOU CAN'T DIRECTLY PARTICIPATE.
THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.
UM, THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED BY OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE TO ASK QUESTIONS AS WE GO.
AND ALSO MY STYLE OF LEADERSHIP AS I LIKE TO ENGAGE PEOPLE AS WE GO.
SO, UM, WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF A ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT FROM THE APPLICANT AND I'M GONNA MISPRONOUNCE IT.
I APOLOGIZE IF I MISPRONOUNCED IT.
WE ARE, UH, WE RECEIVED YOUR ADDITIONAL FILING.
WE ALSO RECEIVED ADDITIONAL FILING FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
WE HAVE THAT, UH, I'VE WRITTEN A BUNCH OF MY GREEN NOTES ON THAT SORT OF THING.
I KEPT EVERY BIT OF PAPER FROM LAST TIME WITH ALL MY NOTES AND COMMENTS OUT, THAT SORT OF THING.
UM, SO WHAT I'M GONNA BRING IS THE APPELLANTS
[02:20:01]
TO THE, WHOEVER'S WANTS TO SPEAK FOR THE APPELLANT.MARY, WE'RE GONNA TRY TO KEEP TRACK OF THIS AS A 10 MINUTE BLOCK.
IT'LL PROBABLY BE MORE, BUT JUST YOU'LL KEEP ME SOME SORT OF, I'LL KEEP A, SOME TIMING AS WELL.
I WANNA GIVE BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL REPRESENTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, PRESENT THEIR CASE AND, UM, RESPOND.
WHO'S HERE TO REPRESENT THE APPLICANT? DALLAS CATHERINE.
WE HAVE SOME, HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.
ANYONE TESTIFYING HAS TO BE SWORN IN.
MS. WILLIAMS WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT BEHIND YOU.
I, WE HAVE, UH, SOME MORE MATERIALS WE'D LIKE TO HAND OUT TO YOU, BUT IT'S MORE THAN YOUR FIVE PAGE RULE IS IF MISS, UH, SOME OF THEM ARE SUPPORT LETTERS WE ONLY RECEIVED RECENTLY.
I, I'M FINE WITH ACCEPTING MORE INFORMATION.
IS THE BOARD FINE? UH, I MOVE THAT WE SUSPEND THE RULES TO ACCEPT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT.
IT'S BEEN SECOND MINISTER SAUK.
A, A THOSE OPPOSED APPROVED PROCEED.
MAY I ASK A SEAT QUESTION? ONE SECOND.
ALRIGHT, SO THAT'S, THAT OUR RULES ARE SUSPENDED TO ALLOW IT.
I'M ASSUMING IT'S IN ADDITION TO WHAT YOU ALREADY FILED.
'CAUSE I HAVE QUESTIONS ON WHAT YOU SENT US TOO.
COULD, COULD I SAVE ALL MY TIME FOR A REBUTTAL? UH, I'M GONNA GIVE YOU FIVE MINUTES REBUTTAL ANYWAY.
AND I WILL, I WILL, I'LL DO EQUAL TO BOTH SIDES.
AND JUST FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO, UH, AFTER WE THANK YOU, MARY, AFTER WE ADJUDICATE BDA 2 3, 4 1 0 1, WE WILL TAKE ANOTHER BRIEF BREAK AND THEN GO TO THE, THE FINAL CASE FOR THE DAY.
SO, ALL RIGHT, MR. CORO, MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU.
UM, YOU, THERE WERE A LOT OF COMMENTS MADE FROM THE PUBLIC.
UM, YOU KNOW, TODAY, YOU KNOW, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT MY CLIENT IS ALSO A PERSON OF COLOR.
HE'S AN IMMIGRANT TO THIS COUNTRY.
HE'S A CITIZEN OF THE CITY OF DALLAS AND HE'S CHOSEN TO BE A SMALL BUSINESS PERSON HERE.
AND, YOU KNOW, AT GREAT WRIT, HE'S THE ONE THAT, IT'S AT GREATEST RISK RIGHT NOW.
SO THERE WAS A LOT OF TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT HE KNEW AND WHAT HE DIDN'T KNOW.
HE, HE SENT IN HIS BALLOT AGAINST THE ZONING CASE.
THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO.
RALEIGH, REALLY, WITH WHAT WE'RE HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT.
WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE BUILDING PERMIT ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.
AND I, I'LL TALK ABOUT THIS IN, IN IN MY POWERPOINT, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, WHAT YOU HEARD FROM NEIGHBORS IS, IS HE, HE WAS AWARE AND OPPOSED THE ZONING CASE.
I DON'T THINK THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
HE IS NOT AN EXPERT ON BUILDING PERMITS, NOR CAN HE GRANT THEM.
SO, I, I REDID THE TIMELINE BASED ON THE TESTIMONY AND I YOU HAD THIS IN YOUR PACKET.
IS THIS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE HAVE HERE? NO, IT'S, IT'S THE SAME.
LOOKS LIKE YOURS IS BLACK AND WHITE.
BUT THAT'S, 502 DAYS HAVE TRANSPIRED.
THAT'S LESS TIME THAN IT TAKE FOR THE, FOR THE UNITED STATES TO ENTER WORLD WAR I AND WIN IT.
WHAT IS THE 502 DAYS YOU'RE REFERRING TO? FROM, FROM, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE ZONING WAS APPROVED TO WHEN WE GOT THE STOP WORK ORDER, AND YOU HAVE ALL OF THESE INSTANCES WHERE THE CITY COULD HAVE INTERVENED, BUT THEY CONTINUE TO USE THAT OLD DOCUMENT, WHICH I BELIEVE, AND YOU'LL HEAR IN THE NEXT ONE, CREATED SOME VESTED RIGHTS.
SO THE CITY CONTINUED TO USE THAT AND, AND ISSUED THAT PERMIT.
I ALSO AM AM VERY INTERESTED, AND I HOPE YOU'LL ASK THE, THE, THE CITY ATTORNEY AND STAFF.
WHEN DID THE CITY ACTUALLY KNOW THAT THEY WERE USING THE WRONG ORDINANCE? I SUSPECT IT WAS MUCH EARLIER.
AND EVERY DAY THAT OCCURRED AFTER THAT CAUSED MORE INJURY TO MY CLIENT.
HE IS NOW AT $468,000 OF CONSTRUCTION COST ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, PLUS $250,000 ON THE DIRT.
SO EVERY DAY THE CITY DELAYED IN ISSUING A STOP WORK ORDER, UH, COST HIM.
AND SINCE THE BUILDING OFFICIALS NO LONGER HERE AND HAS BEEN FIRED, I WONDER WHAT, WHAT, WHO KNEW WHAT AND WHEN AND COULD IT HAVE BEEN CORRECTED EARLIER? 'CAUSE EVERY DAY AFTER INJURED MY CLIENT, IT ALSO PROBABLY INJURED THE NEIGHBORS.
I DON'T DISAGREE, THEY'VE BEEN INJURED IN THIS.
BUT MY CLIENT, HIS CHOICE HERE IS REALLY, HE HAS FILED AN APPEAL.
'CAUSE HE WILL GO OUT OF BUSINESS ON THIS.
AND I KNOW MAYBE NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE A LOT OF SYMPATHY, BUT $700,000 LOSS FOR A HOME BUILDER
[02:25:01]
IS A COMPLETE DISASTER.HOW WILL HE EVER GET ANOTHER LOAN? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, HE THI THIS IS REALLY TRAUMATIC AND THERE ARE OTHERS THAT ARE IN THE SAME SITUATION.
I'M GONNA ASK EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE PLEASE TO BE RESPECTFUL TO BOTH SIDES OF THE CONVERSATION.
I'VE, THIS IS, THIS HAPPENED MORE THAN ONCE TODAY.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE TIMELINE, THERE HAVE BEEN ALL SORTS OF INSTANCES WHERE THE CITY COULD HAVE INTERVENED AND, AND DIDN'T.
AND NOW WE'RE FURTHER DOWN DOWN THE ROAD.
SO GO BACK, KEEP ON THAT SLIDE.
SO WHEN I GOT THIS AND PREPARED FOR THIS, I TOOK THE DATE THAT IT WAS PERMITTED ON THE 20TH OF DECEMBER, AND I COMPARED THAT WITH A STOP WORK ORDER ON FIVE 15.
YEAH, I I'M JUST, NO, I DIDN'T SAY FROM THE ZONING APPROVAL, I'M SAYING WHEN IT WAS APPROVED, PERMIT WAS APPROVED WAS 521 DAYS.
I THAT SEEMS RIGHT MR. CHAIRMAN.
502 DAYS FOR THE US TO ENTER AND WIN WORLD WAR I, WE CAN'T GET A DUPLEX SCORE.
AND I ALSO NOTICED ON THIS CHART, THIS IS, THIS CHART'S IN OUR DOCKET NEW, IT ALSO BETWEEN WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS APPROVED ON THE 12TH OF OCTOBER.
OCTOBER, AND WHEN THE CITY UPDATED THE ZONING MAP, IT WAS 169 DAYS.
AND THEY COULD, WE KNOW FROM TESTIMONY THEY CONTINUE TO USE THAT.
AND I WILL SAY I APPRECIATE THAT MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ANSWERED THINGS HONESTLY AND TRUTHFULLY IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS BEEN VERY PROFESSIONAL AND I APPRECIATE THAT WE CAN BE DISAGREE ON THIS IN AN, IN, IN A COLLEGIAL WAY.
UM, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S ANY LESS SERIOUS.
AND, AND THAT THE, YOU KNOW, WE NEED, YOU KNOW, THAT THIS IS SORT OF THE MERCHANT OF VENICE, THAT, THAT WE NEED JUSTICE HERE AND, AND MERCY, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS AND WE DID NOT SUBMIT SOMETHING IN ERROR.
THIS IS THE SAME SET OF PLANS THAT WERE USED FOUR TIMES.
I MEAN, HE HAS OTHER DUPLEXES ACROSS THE STREET, YOU KNOW, IN RIGHT IN THIS AREA THAT WERE PERMITTED.
WHY WOULD HE THINK THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN? I MEAN, THERE'S NO TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO THAT, THAT HE THOUGHT THAT IT WASN'T A GOOD SET OF PLANS.
OKAY, THIS IS, THIS WAS IN THE ORIGINAL PACKET TOO.
THIS IS THE CITY MANAGER'S MEMO.
AND I'VE HIGHLIGHTED A COUPLE OF THINGS AND THIS WAS THEN PUT OUT IN THE EARLY PART OF AUGUST WHEN CITY MANAGEMENT WANTED TO ADDRESS THESE CHANGES.
AND IT'S, AND, AND I'LL JUST READ THE HIGHLIGHTED PART ABOUT THE CITY WANTED TO CORRECT THIS ERROR.
IN ADDITION TO RESOLVING THESE SPECIFIC ELM THICKET, NORTH PARK PERMITTING AREAS, STAFF IS LOOKING AT LARGER SYSTEMIC CHANGES TO ENSURE THIS TYPE OF ERROR DOES NOT OCCUR IN THE FUTURE TO DATE THEIR SOLUTION.
THE CITY CONTINUES TO OFFER IS MY GUY CONFORMS TO THE LAW, TEARS DOWN THE STRUCTURE AND STARTS OVER.
I MEAN, WE'RE BETTER JUST DEFAULTING AND LEAVE AND, AND JUST WALKING AWAY.
I MEAN, WE'RE NOT GONNA CONTINUE TO SPEND MONEY TO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST NOT AN OPTION.
UM, AND THEN THE MEMO GOES ON TO SAY THE CAST, WHICH IS AN ACRONYM THAT, YOU KNOW, CITY LOVES, LOVES THOSE.
THIS WILL ALSO CONSIDER PROCEDURAL CHANGES SUCH AS ALLOWING A SHORT DELAY BETWEEN ORDINANCE APPROVAL AND THE IMPLEMENTATION TO BUILD IN TIME FOR STAFF TRAINING AND SYSTEM UPDATES.
SO THE CITY IS NOW CONSIDERING THAT AFTER COUNCIL PASSES AN ORDINANCE, THERE WILL BE SOME KIND OF WAITING TIME.
SO THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
OTHER CITIES DO THIS, MANY CITIES HAVE A SECOND READING OR EVEN A THIRD READING SO THAT THEY MAKE SURE IT'S RIGHT.
DALLAS DOESN'T HAVE THAT, BUT THEY NOW ARE SAYING IT.
CITY MANAGEMENT ON THE ONE HAND SEEMS TO BE SAYING IN THE FUTURE WE'LL MAKE CHANGES.
BUT FOR NOW, OUR ONLY ANSWER IS THAT MY CLIENT, YOU KNOW, TAKES A TOTAL LOSS ON THIS PROJECT AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO WORK.
WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THIS CASE, THE CITY ATTORNEY REACHED OUT TO ME, WE'RE VERY NICE, AND THIS IS WHAT THEY SUGGESTED, AND THEY SENT THIS TO ALL THE APPLICANTS NEXT SLIDE, WE COULD SUBMIT ANOTHER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE AND PAY ANOTHER FEE AND ADDRESS THE HEIGHT AND COVERAGE ISSUES.
AND THEN ALSO SUBMIT A COMPANION ZONING CASE.
OKAY, NEXT SLIDE HERE IS A MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT OF WHAT WE BELIEVE BASED ON OUR 40 YEARS OF BUSINESS OF DOING THOUSANDS OF ZONING CASES, HOW LONG A ZONING TAKE CASE TYPICALLY TAKES IN DALLAS AND IT'S EIGHT TO 10 MONTHS OR LONGER IN SOME CASES.
SO WE WOULD THEN ADD ANOTHER, LET'S CALL IT EIGHT MONTHS, YOU KNOW, UM, THAT SEEMS LIKE A REALLY LONG TIME.
[02:30:01]
TO HAVE TO COME BACK AND REFILE AND PAY ANOTHER FEE AND COME BACK TO YOU GUYS ON TWO OF THESE AND THEN DO A ZONING CASE THAT ALSO IN THE ZONING CASE, AND THIS IS REALLY INSIDE BASEBALL IN DALLAS, ANYONE IN THE NOTICE AREA CAN PAY $150 TO DELAY IT 30 DAYS AT PLAN COMMISSION AND 30 DAYS AT COMMISSION AT, AT THE PLAN AT THE COUNCIL.SO THAT EIGHT MONTHS COULD EASILY BE ANOTHER YEAR.
WE CAN'T WAIT THAT IF WE LOSE, IF WE WAIT THROUGH THE WINTER, THIS HOUSE WILL RUIN POTENTIALLY.
SO THAT FEE TO PAY THE UM, ZONING CHANGE IS $1,935 PLUS ZERO SIGNS.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND TO WAIT ANOTHER YEAR, I, I JUST, I DON'T THINK THAT I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD INTENDED IN TERMS OF A, A COMPROMISE.
SO NEXT SLIDE, UM, WE HAVE COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT WE WOULD SOLVE THE ROOF PITCH PROBLEM.
SO THAT ADDS TO THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION ABOUT 18.8 ADDITIONAL 18 8, 18 0.8% ADDITIONAL COST.
WE WOULD DEMOLISH SOME OF THE STRUCTURE AND DO A ROOF PITCH THAT CONFORMS WITH THE NEW REQUIREMENTS OF PD 67.
AND THAT'S THE ESTIMATE THAT FROM A CONTRACTOR TO DO THAT WORK.
IS THAT WHAT YOU SUBMITTED TO US? CORRECT.
THAT'S JUST A CLIPPING OF THAT.
AND THAT'S WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
SO WE WOULD CONFORM AND, AND I THINK IT LOOKS LIKE OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S, YOU KNOW, I MEAN IT WOULD BE STILL A DUPLEX, UH, AND IT STILL WOULD BE SLIGHTLY OVER ON COVERAGE.
A AGAIN, I I'M GONNA GIVE PEOPLE, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T, YOU OR THE CITY ATTORNEY DOESN'T, UM, UH, FILIBUSTER, THERE'S GONNA BE PLENTY OF TIME.
SO THE ISSUES AS IT RELATES TO THIS CASE RELATES TO WHAT ARE THE FOUR ITEMS, THE USE, MR. CATHERINE, I'M LISTENING.
I'M, I'M TRYING TO, I'M TRYING TO TAKE HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF WHICH, UH, SORRY.
THE USE OF DUPLEX VERSUS NON DUPLEX, CORRECT? RIGHT.
THE, THE SHEER HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE.
WHAT IS THE CURRENT HEIGHT AS BUILT? 86 POINT? YEAH, I THINK IT'S 26 8 NOW, OR SEVEN.
WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE NEW PD 67 CALL FOR? 25.
WHAT WE'RE SHOWING YOU HERE IS, WELL COME ON ROOF.
WHAT IS THE ROOF? IS IT IT, THE ROOF ON THE LEFT IS THE, IS THE, WE'RE 24 11 AND A QUARTER? NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT HEIGHT.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE TYPE OF WORLD, THE PITCH, THE PITCH PITCH PITCH.
THE PITCH CONFORMS. THE PITCH CONFORMS ON BOTH.
WE, WE, NO, NOT ON THE, WHAT WE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED, BUT ON OUR COMPROMISE WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
AND THEN LOT COVERAGE, WE WOULD NOT.
OKAY, WELL WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE LOT COVERAGE THAT'S BUILT? 45%, RIGHT? 45%.
WHAT'S THE LOT COVERAGE THAT PD? 67.
AND I'M DOING THIS FOR EVERYONE'S CONSUMPTION HERE.
THE USE IS DUPLEX VERSUS WHAT? SINGLE FAMILY? CORRECT.
AND WHAT IS THIS? UH, IT'S IN A PD, SO IT'S NOT AN R FIVE OR R SEVEN FIVE, IT'S, OH, THE DUPLEX WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT ON THE STRUCTURE.
AT SOME POINT, I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN IN THE EIGHTIES MAYBE OR SOMETHING.
IT WAS CONVERTED TO SINGLE FAMILY.
SO IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT AS DUPLEX.
IT, THE UNDERLYING ZONING BEFORE COUNCIL CHANGE DU WAS DUPLEX.
AND THEN NOW IT IS COULD CHANGE BACK TO SINGLE FAMILY.
SO SINGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX, HEIGHT, 26, 8 VERSUS 25, ROOF TO PITCH.
I DON'T KNOW ALL THE TERMS. I READ IT HERE.
GABLE VERSUS A MODIFIED LAB COVERAGE 45 VERSUS 40.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND, AND BY DOING THIS, IT, HOLD ON.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BOARD MEMBERS.
I'LL, I'LL GIVE IT TO YOU IN A SECOND.
SO, SO JUST, THAT'S WHAT THIS COMES DOWN TO.
YES, MRS. SO THE LOT HAS ALWAYS UP UNTIL THE, THE PD, UH, 67 CHANGE CAME INTO EFFECT WAS ZONED FOR A DUPLEX.
[02:35:01]
THE EIGHTIES BUILT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME? NO.A DUPLEX WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT ON A DUPLEX LOT AND WHOEVER LIVED IN IT, CONVERTED IT FOR WHATEVER REASON TO BE SINGLE FAMILY.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT AS A DUPLEX.
AND IF YOU LOOK IN THAT PACKET, YOU CAN SEE THE TWO WATER METERS THAT I SUBMITTED PICTURES OF, RIGHT? OH, THAT SHOW? YES.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY A, A DUPLEX.
SO THEY JUST CONVERTED THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
JUST KNOCKED THE HOLE IN THE WALLS BETWEEN THE TWO POTENTIALLY.
I DON'T KNOW, BUT THAT'S MY GUESS.
SO AND SO IT STILL HAD TWO WATER METERS THAT WERE ACTIVE YES.
AND, AND SINCE HE WAS NOT HERE LAST TIME, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAUSED A LONG TIME FOR US TO START CONSTRUCTION AND A TIME LONG SHOWS THAT A TENANT WAS IN THAT, IN THAT AND, AND DIDN'T VACATE IN, UH, PER THEIR LEASE TERMS. THAT'S WHY WE WAITED TO BUILD IT.
WE NOT, DO YOU LOSE RIGHTS OF A DUPLEX IF IT'S A BEING OCCUPIED AS A SINGLE FAMILY? HOW DOES THAT WORK? I, IT'S VERY UNUSUAL, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT THE CITY BACK ZONED OR DOWN ZONED THE, THE, THE PROPERTY.
I MEAN, IT WAS UNTIL PD 67 WAS CHANGED, WE HAD DUPLEX RIGHTS.
THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT WAS, IT, IT, IT CHANGED TO OKAY.
I DON'T REMEMBER THE, THE, THE, THE, THE, WHAT WAS THE TERM YOU USED THAT YOU REGRETTED LATER? THE THE LOCKED IN.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, UH, THANK YOU.
UH, SO WITH THIS, THIS IS WHAT WE BELIEVE.
THIS IS THE, THE COMPROMISE WE CAN MAKE IS WE WILL SPEND ANOTHER $88,000.
WE WILL CERTAINLY LOSE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY ON THIS HOME.
BUT WE WILL STAY IN BUSINESS BY DOING THAT.
THAT'S, THAT'S HOW, I MEAN, THAT'S THE BEST WE CAN DO.
AND I'LL SHOW YOU WHY WE CAN'T MAKE OTHER CHANGES.
WE JUST CAN'T MAKE THE OTHER CHANGES.
BUT WE WOULD BECOME INTO CONFORMANCE ON THE ROOF PITCH AS MR AS THE CHAIRMAN SAYS.
SO OF THE FOUR THINGS, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD BE, WE WOULD COME INTO CONFORMANCE ON TWO.
AND WHEN YOU GO BUY IT, YOU WOULD LARGELY THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT THINGS IN PD 67 SHOULD WE'RE THE RIGHT HEIGHT, WE'RE THE RIGHT ROOF PITCH.
UH, I GUESS POTENTIALLY YOU COULD SEE THERE'S MORE THAN ONE DOOR AND THERE'S TWO SETS OF GARAGES, BUT THERE'S NO, UH, YOU SEE HOW THERE'S NO, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, THERE'S NOTHING PREVENTING MORE GARAGE SPACES.
WHY CAN'T WE CONFORM ON THE OTHER ONES? KEEP GOING, PLEASE.
I THINK SHE IS, IT'S JUST DELAYING.
UH, OUR LENDER SAYS HERE, VERY, AND THIS WAS IN YOUR PACKET, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE TO CONVERT, WE WOULD BE IN DEFAULT OF OUR LOAN.
YOU KNOW, THEY GAVE US A LOAN, UH, TO BUILD THIS DUPLEX.
OUR LENDER DOES NOT WANT US TO CONVERT TO SINGLE FAMILY.
MAYBE THAT'S SELF-INFLICTED, BUT EVEN WORSE.
OUR STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, YOU HAVE THE FULL REPORT.
NOW, THE, YOU KNOW, THE, WE CANNOT MODIFY THE GRADE BEAM AND THE FOUNDATION AND THE WALLS.
THEY'RE ALL STRUCTURAL IN NATURE.
AND WE HAVE A GIANT FIREWALL RUNNING DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE BUILDING.
SO IF WE GO IN AND TRY TO, ACCORDING TO OUR STRUCTURAL EN ENGINEER, IF WE GO IN AND TRY AND CHANGE IT TO SINGLE FAMILY, WE NO LONGER WILL HAVE A, YOU KNOW, A, A BUILDING THAT IS STRUCTURALLY SOUND.
WE ALSO WON'T BE ABLE TO PASS ON THE TWO 10 HOMEOWNER WARRANTY THAT ALMOST ANY NEW HOME BUYER WANTS TO HAVE.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE.
WE'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, UH, HOPING WE CAN FIND A BUYER OR RENT IT IF WE CAN COMPLETE THE HOUSE.
NONE OF THE, OUR, OUR SUGGESTED CHANGES, NONE OF THIS IS GOOD FOR US.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO NOT GO OUTTA BUSINESS O ON ON THIS FOR A MISTAKE WE DIDN'T MAKE.
AND I KNOW I HEARD ONE GENTLEMAN TODAY SAY, YOU KNOW, THAT IT'S LIKE PARENTING.
WELL, I BROUGHT THAT UP LAST TIME TOO.
WHEN MY KIDS MAKE AN ERROR, I PUNISH THEM, NOT OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS.
MY, MY CLIENT PAID A FEE OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR THE CITY TO REVIEW THE PLANS.
AND I KNOW THE CITY WISHES THEY HADN'T MADE THE ERROR, BUT AT THIS POINT, IT SEEMS LIKE ONLY MY CLIENT IS THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO PAY THE PENALTY.
AND THE PENALTY'S GONNA BE, HE'S GONNA LOSE 700, $12,000 HE'S ALREADY SPENT.
AND LIKELY IT'LL BE HARD FOR HIM TO, IN THE FUTURE HAVE LENDERS.
I MEAN, THIS IS A, A TOTAL LOSS IN DISASTER.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE REPORT GOES ON TO SAY, IN ORDER FOR
[02:40:01]
THE HOMES TO BE STRUCTURALLY SOUND, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDITIONAL EXCAVATION WORK DONE ON THE REMAINING SLABS.SO WE CAN'T CHANGE THE COVERAGE.
ALL THOSE WALLS ARE STRUCTURAL WALLS ON THE OUTSIDE AND IN THE MIDDLE.
THIS THING IS JUST NOT CONVERTIBLE LIKE THE OLD HOME WAS, WHERE WE JUST POKE A HO A HOLE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT, UH, AND AND CUT OFF 5% IN THE BACK.
WE CAN'T DO THAT AND HAVE A STRUCTURALLY SOUND HOME.
AND YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER SAYS YOU REALLY HAVE TO TAKE IT ALL APART AND START OVER.
WELL, WE JUST, THAT'S JUST NOT AN OPTION.
I KNOW THE NEIGHBORS SEEM, AND THE CITY SEEM TO THINK THAT THAT'S, THAT'S A GOOD OPTION.
BUT HE'D SPEND EVEN MORE MONEY AND HE DOESN'T HAVE A LENDER THAT'S WILLING TO DO THAT.
TWO OF THE FOUR THINGS WE HAVE AGREED, WE WILL GO AT GREAT COST TO CONVE CON TO TO CHANGE AN ERA THAT, THAT WAS NOT OURS.
I THINK THAT SHOWS GOOD FAITH.
THE OTHER TWO, WE SIMPLY CAN'T DO.
IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE UNWILLING.
OKAY, NEXT, THIS IS ACTUALLY OUTER FROM THE CITY PACKET.
UH, YOU KNOW, THE CITY SAYS THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD OF DIVERSITY AND THIS IS THE HOUSING STOCK.
WELL, THERE ARE PLENTY OF FLAT ROOF HOMES ALREADY.
WE'RE GONNA MEET THE NEW REQUIREMENTS AND WE'RE GONNA BE UNDER THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT.
THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE LAND USES ARE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA.
AND, AND IF YOU LOOK, IT IS A REAL MIX MASH OF LAND USES AROUND TYREE.
THERE ARE DUPLEX, INCLUDING THIS ONE AND FOUR OTHERS MY CLIENT HAS BUILT.
UM, THERE ARE COMMERCIAL THINGS.
THERE'S A GIANT MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT.
THAT POINT WHERE YOUR, YOUR PROPERTY IS? NO, YOUR PROPERTY.
YES, THE END OF THE BLUE OR AROUND TYREE.
WE'RE COMING UP HERE AND DO IT.
I'M HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING ALL HAVE MY EYE GLASSES ON EITHER FRONT.
IT'S YELLOW RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE RED.
YES, THE GREEN RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE GREEN PART.
THAT'S AN INSTITUTIONAL USE RIGHT THERE.
WHO'S THAT ONE GOES? THERE IT IS RIGHT THERE.
SO IF YOU LOOK ACROSS THE STREET, WE HAVE A, ACROSS EACH STREET WE HAVE A CHURCH WITH A PARKING LOT.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE SCHOOL NORTH OF THE SCHOOL UP HERE.
WE HAVE A LARGE MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX THAT MASTER PLAN DID MANY YEARS AGO.
UH, YOU'VE GOT JACKSON'S, UM, HOME AND GARDEN HERE THAT INCLUDES THESE RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
SO YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL ON THIS STREET, AND THEN YOU HAVE A, UH, A NUMBER OF OTHER, UH, HERE'S COMMERCIAL OVER HERE.
YOU HAVE NON-CONFORMING PARKING HERE FOR A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION WITH THE PARKING ACROSS.
WHAT PORTION IN THIS COLORED MAP THAT YOU HAVE HERE THAT WE SEE ON OUR SCREEN IS DUPLEX? THESE WERE ALL DUPLEXES IN ALL THESE WERE, NOW THEY'RE NOT.
WHAT ARE THEY? DUPLEX? WHICH ONES ARE DUPLEXES? YES.
OH, I DON'T SEE, I DON'T SEE ANY PINK.
SO I MEAN, I, I REALLY SHOW THIS.
I, I THINK AS MUCH AS ANYTHING ELSE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A LARGE PD AND, AND IN THIS LITTLE MICRO AREA, THERE ARE A VARIETY FOR THE DOMINANT LAND USES INSTITUTIONAL USES, WHETHER THERE CHURCHES OR SCHOOLS, THAT'S THE MOST COMMON, UH, YOU KNOW, USE.
IT'S NOT GOING TO INTERRUPT THE BLOCK FACE.
I MEAN, ACROSS THE STREET ISN'T EVEN ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
I MEAN, IF, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT.
SO, UM, AND, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S A BIG, BIG PART OF THIS, BUT IT CAME UP LAST TIME AND I THOUGHT I WOULD AT LEAST PROVIDE THE MAP.
'CAUSE WE, WE, WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T HAVE IT.
UM, MR. MR. HOPKINS HAS A QUESTION.
AND DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THAT IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
IS IT CHURCH, BUT HAS COMMERCIAL ZONING? CHURCH.
YES, IT HAS COMMERCIAL ZONING.
AND FURTHER DOWN, TYRA, THE THE STREET, YOU HAVE MORE CHURCH, DIFFERENT CHURCH WITH COMMERCIAL PARKING ACROSS THE STREET.
THAT WOULD NOT BE LEGAL TODAY.
[02:45:01]
WOULD NEED TO BE ON THE SAME LOT AS THE MAIN USE.SO, YOU KNOW, ALL, ALL ALONG THIS BLOCK FACE, THERE ARE SOME UN ANOMALIES.
IT, IT'S, YOU KNOW, MY, I GUESS MY INTENT OF SHOWING YOU THIS IS, IT'S NOT ALL SINGLE FAMILY HERE.
SO ON TYREE SOUTH OF FED BIRD, I SEE RED, WHICH MEANS IT'S COMMERCIAL.
I, I'M JUST, I'M, I'M, I'M GOING TED TEDFORD BEDFORD, AND THEN GO DOWN ON TYREE AND I SEE A BIG RED BLOCK.
AND THAT'S THE COLOR CODE SAYS COMMERCIAL, RIGHT? CORRECT.
SO, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE, WE TRIED TO LISTEN.
UM, I, I, YOU KNOW, AND I, I UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBOR'S ATION, MAYBE THAT'S NOT A HARD ENOUGH WORD THAT THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY ARE TAKING A VERY LITERAL INTERPRETATION THAT WE SHOULD CONFORM.
AND, AND RESPECTFULLY, WE JUST CAN'T DO THAT.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE JUST, IT IT PUTS HIM OUTTA BUSINESS.
WE HAVE ADDRESSED THE TWO ISSUES THAT WE CAN, AND WE'RE GONNA LOSE MONEY ON THIS AND JUST, JUST MOVE ON.
I BELIEVE THE HOUSE WILL LOOK LIKE IT'LL BE THE RIGHT HEIGHT.
IT WILL HAVE THE RIGHT ROOF PITCH.
AND WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME IN MY PREVIOUS PACKET POINTED OUT, YOU KNOW, DALLAS HAS, YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS THE CITY OF DALLAS SAYING THIS, THAT IT HAS A SHORTAGE OF HOUSING.
NOW THIS IS JUST ONE MORE UNIT.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GONNA SOLVE THE HOUSING PROBLEM HERE, BUT, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE ADDRESSING IT.
UH, AND, AND WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T NOT BE A DUPLEX AND WE CAN'T DECONSTRUCT THE HOME.
I DON'T, WE, THIS WE DID EVERYTHING WE CAN TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING TO CORRECT AN ERROR THAT WE DIDN'T MAKE.
I MEAN, I, I, YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW THE CITY ATTORNEYS GONNA SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, HE SHOULD KNOW.
WELL THEN WHY IS BUILDING INSPECTION EXIST? THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ISSUED PERMITS.
AND THEY HAD SO MANY TIMES THEY COULD HAVE CORRECTED THIS IF THEY HAD CORRECTED IT WHEN WE WERE OUT THERE.
UH, BUT WHEN THEY CHECKED THE SLAB, BOY, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN A LOT EASIER.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN FOR 50,000 OR A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, BUT NOW WE HAVE A, ESSENTIALLY A COMPLETED HOME.
WE JUST NEED TO FINISH OUT THE INSIDE.
SO I MEAN, UM, THE, THE, AND THIS IS A DIFFICULT DECISION.
I SAID THIS, I, I, I DON'T ENVY YOU.
I MEAN, AND THIS IS LARGELY A POLITICAL DECISION, BUT I THINK THE FACT THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S MEMO SPEAKS TO, THEY ARE PLANNING FOR THIS RENU PERIOD IN THE FUTURE.
SO THERE'S NOT CONFUSION IS AN ADMISSION BY THE CITY THAT THEY MADE AN ERROR AND THAT IT'S CONFUSING FOR STAFF.
I MEAN, I WOULD ASK YOU IF YOU, YOU, YOU HEARD A LOT OF IGNORANCE.
WELL, IS ISN'T THAT IGNORANCE ALSO EVEN MORE TELLING AND REQUIRED FOR CITY STAFF? WHY WOULD MY CLIENT WHO'S PAYING THE FEE HAVE TO BE THE EXPERT? THE CITY STAFF SHOULD BE THE EXPERT AND THEY, IT'S NOT HARD FOR THEM.
AND, AND IF THERE WAS SO MUCH MEDIA COVERAGE, WHY DID THE CITY STAFF NOT KNOW THAT THERE WAS ANY ORDINANCE? I MEAN, YOU'LL SEE IN THE CITY'S MATERIAL THAT YOU SHOULD GO TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AND GET A STAMPED COPY OF THE ORDINANCE.
MAYBE IF YOU'RE A ZONING CONSULTANT.
I KNOW TO DO THAT AND MY COLLEAGUES KNOW TO DO THAT.
BUT I KNOW OF NO HOME BUILDERS AND WE REPRESENT MANY OF THEM.
THAT IS NOT A REASONABLE EXPECTATION, UH, IS THAT, THAT THEY SHOULD KNOW TO DO THAT.
AND THAT IS NOT HOW BUILDING INSPECTION HAS WORKED IN MY 30 ODD YEAR CAREER OF WORKING ON A VARIETY OF USES.
UM, THE CITY CHARGES A FEE, UH, AND DELIVERS DISTURBANCE.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE STARTING TO REPEAT YOURSELF.
I'VE BEEN GENEROUS WITH YOUR TIME.
DO YOU WANNA SUMMARIZE SOME, I WE'RE OPEN TO ANY REASONABLE COMPROMISE THAT DOESN'T RESULT IN, IN COMPLETE, YOU KNOW, WE, THE, THE END OF HIS BUSINESS.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE ARE WILLING TO FINISH THE PROJECT.
YOU, YOU'VE SAID THAT, WELL, THIS, THIS IS, I SUSPECT HE'LL ALSO NOT BE THE ONLY ONE.
I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AND, AND I, AND GIVEN THIS A FAIR HEARING LAST TIME AND THIS TIME, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
SO I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE CITY ATTORNEY A MINUTE AND WE MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL OR THE ATTORNEY FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
UM, SO I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE TIMELINE THAT YOU PROVIDED US IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL, UM, PACKAGE.
UH, I PRINT OUT BLACK AND WHITE.
UM, AND I'M DRAWING SOME CONCLUSIONS, BUT WHAT CAME UP LAST TIME AND WAS THE, WHAT WAS DISCONCERTING BY SEVERAL, UM, OF THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS SOME OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS WAS, IT'S
[02:50:01]
THE OLD ADAGE.WHAT DID HE KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT? WHAT DID THE PROPERTY OWNER KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT? UM, WE'RE TRYING TO DISCERN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WENT THROUGH.
UM, AND I'VE TAKEN NOTES ON SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE PROCESS.
THE MEMO THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING TO IS AUGUST 2ND.
THE CITY MANAGER'S MEMO AUGUST 2ND.
'CAUSE I'VE BEEN TRACKING THIS WHOLE ELM THICKET DEAL.
IT'S AUGUST 2ND WHERE YOU SAID THAT.
BUT MY QUESTION GOES TO WHEN DID YOU, AS THE APPLICANT, WHEN DID ANYONE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT KNOW ABOUT THE CHANGE AND WHAT, TO WHAT EXTENT DID HE KNOW? HE KNEW THAT THERE WAS A ZONING CHANGE.
HE DID NOT REALIZE THAT IT TOOK EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
I MEAN, THAT IS REALLY THOSE, AND, AND THE CITY MANAGER'S MEMO SORT OF SEEMS TO INDICATE THEY COULD UNDERSTAND THE CONFUSION.
IT TOOK THEM A YEAR TO ALSO FIGURE IT OUT.
SO, UH, MY CLIENT BELIEVED, WELL, I'LL SUBMIT THE SAME PLANS THAT I HAD PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED ON FOR THE SAME DUPLEXES, AND HE GOT A PERMIT, AND THEN HE, HE THEN WAITED A YEAR BECAUSE THERE WAS STILL TENANT THERE.
THE CITY COULD HAVE FOUND OUT ANY OF THOSE TIMES.
I MEAN, IT'S, YOU KNOW, AS THE CHAIRMAN SAYS, IT'S 500 PLUS DAY, IT TOOK 496 DAYS TO BUILD THE PENTAGON.
SO, AND WE, THE CITY COULDN'T.
MR. CATHERINE, I'VE BEEN GENEROUS WITH YOUR TIME.
PLEASE DON'T, LET'S NOT DO HYPERBOLE.
I DON'T THINK, I'M NOT VERBALLY AT ALL IN THIS INSTANCE.
I, I DO THINK IT'S LET, LET'S STICK TO THE DISAGREE.
LET'S STICK TO THE, TO THE FACTS OF WHAT YOU'VE SUBMITTED AND WHAT YOU'VE SAID TODAY AND WHAT QUESTIONS COME FROM THE BOARD.
I'VE GOT MR. S YOUTH NEXT, SO I'M TRYING TO ZERO IN AGAIN ABOUT THE CONVERSATION THAT CAME UP LAST TIME AND THAT WAS PRESENTED ABOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPLICANT AS IT RELATES TO THE CHANGES ZONING.
WHAT DID HE KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT? HE KNEW THERE WAS A ZONING CHANGE AND HE OPPOSED IT.
HE SENT IN A BALLOT AS OPPOSED, THAT'S A SEPARATE PROCESS FROM, UH, THE, UM, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IN ALL CASES THERE NEEDS TO BE ADEQUATE NOTICE WHERE THE RULES ARE STATED AND THEN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULES.
AND, UH, BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE STILL NOT REALLY ZEROING IN ON WHEN DID HE KNOW AND WHAT DID HE KNOW? HE KNEW WHEN HE GOT A STOP WORK ORDER THAT YOU KNOW, THAT YOU'RE SAYING HIS FIRST KNOWLEDGE, PER SE, WAS OF MAY 15TH OF THIS YEAR.
WELL, HE HAD ALL THESE OTHER INTERIM STEPS WHERE THEY GAVE HIM GREEN TAGS.
WHY WOULD HE THINK THAT IT'S NOT OKAY? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, HE KNEW HE HAD A DUPLEX AND LIKE THE CITY MANAGER'S MEMO SAYS, YOU KNOW, HE'S NOT AN EXPERT ON ZONING.
THEY COULD HAVE TAKEN IT AWAY, UH, ANY TIME BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE, WHEN THE, BUT BEFORE THE, WHEN THE TENANT VACATED, THERE WAS A LONG PERIOD THERE FOR THE CITY TO CORRECT THEIR ERROR.
AND I THINK THAT'S A, YOU KNOW, THE, WHAT THE, THE, THE SAME QUESTION COULD BE ASKED OF WHAT THE CITY, AND THAT DIDN'T COME OUT.
AND PARTLY THAT'S 'CAUSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS NOT HERE ANYMORE.
I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHEN DID THE CITY KNOW THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR AND WHAT DID THEY DO TO CORRECT IT? I'LL PUT THAT DOWN.
I'M, I'M BE ASKING THAT OF THE THANK YOU, UH, ATTORNEY TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
OKAY, MR. A QUESTIONS FOR THE APPELLANT, MR. EK? OKAY.
UM, THE CITY COUNCIL VOTED TO CHANGE THE, THE ZONING IN OCTOBER OF 22, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND PRIOR TO THAT, IT WAS BEFORE CPC PROBABLY, CORRECT? CORRECT.
HOW LONG WAS THIS BREWING OUT IN THE PUBLIC AND EVERYONE WAS AWARE THAT THIS WAS GOING ON? CAN SOMEONE ON STAFF GIMME A TIMELINE ON HOW LONG HAS, DID THIS DRAG OUT BEFORE THE COUNCIL VOTED ON IT? IT MAY BE MS. UH, THE, THE QUESTION WOULD GO TO THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR FIRST, AND THEN YOU CAN DECIDE WHO YOU WANT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
MONTHS, YEARS, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
OKAY, MS. JASON, DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION? THESE DECISIONS JUST DON'T HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, IN ONE COUNCIL MEETING, CORRECT? I DON'T HAVE THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT WENT TO COUNCIL, BUT I BELIEVE THIS DID TAKE MULTIPLE YEARS FROM OBLIGATION TO ACTUAL, UH, YEAH.
AND HOW MANY HOMES DALLAS HAS YOUR CLIENT BUILT IN THIS AREA IN PD 67 AND IT'S PREDECESSOR BERG? HOW MANY? FIVE.
NO MORE THAN, OH WAIT, HOW MANY FROM THE, JUST TELL ME IN THE WHOLE LIFE OF IT, SINCE YOU, SINCE YOU'VE MOVED TO DALLAS, HOW MANY HAVE YOU BUILT?
[02:55:01]
15 TO 20 IN THIS, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, 15 TO 20.AND SO IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, MORE IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS.
BUT HE WAS INTIMATELY AWARE THAT THIS ISSUE WAS BREWING WITH CITY COUNCIL WITH CPC THAT SOMETHING WAS GONNA HAPPEN AND CHANGES WERE GONNA HAPPEN, CORRECT? YES.
THE PROBLEM IS HE DID NOT REALIZE THAT IT, IT TOOK PLACE LITERALLY THE SECOND THAT COUNCIL PASSES IT.
I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, AND I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
WHEN THE COUNCIL PASSED THE DIGITAL BILLBOARD ORDINANCE, UH, TO, TO, FOR THE FIRST DIGITAL BILLBOARDS, OUR STAFF MEMBERS, THEY, IT, IT ONLY ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF 50 SIGNS.
OUR STAFF MEMBERS AT MASTER PLAN WERE THERE AT BUILDING INSPECTION AND MADE 30 SUBMITTALS ABOUT TWO MINUTES AFTER, SO THAT WE, THAT OUR CLIENT CLEAR CHANNEL SOAKED UP MOST OF THEM, ONLY IF YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND THE RULES.
UH, AND WE WERE NOT HIRED AT THAT POINT.
I WAS NOT HIRED UNTIL AFTER HE HAD FILED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE.
HE DID NOT UNDER, MAYBE HE SHOULD HAVE, BUT HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS IS ALSO TIED TO THE ZONING PROCESS.
UM, AND I THINK THE FACT THAT THE STAFF WAS CONFUSED AND DIDN'T CHANGE IT OR UPDATE IT, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S A, YOU KNOW, STAFF CONTINUED TO USE THE OLD ORDINANCE UNTIL, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, WE SAID THAT IN THE LAST HEARING.
WHAT WAS IT? MAY I MEAN, A ALONG, ALONG, YOU KNOW, A YEAR AFTERWARDS, I MEAN, STAFF WAS STILL USING THEIR, THEIR CRIB NOTES AND THE OLD ORDINANCE.
SO THEY, THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE REVIEWING IT ON.
AND WHY WOULD HE BE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN WHAT THE CITY WAS? I MEAN, IF, IF SO, THEN WHY HAVE BUILDING INSPECTION ISSUE PERMITS? WHY NOT JUST HAVE THE BUILDERS CERTIFY THEIR FOLLOWING THE RULES? BECAUSE HE'S GOT AN INVESTMENT IN IT AND HE'S GOT HIS LIVELIHOOD RIDING ON MAKING RIGHT DECISIONS AND MAKING SURE THE CITY ISN'T SENDING HIM DOWN A PATH OR NOT.
I MEAN, THAT'S HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW WHAT HE CAN AND CANNOT DO, NOT TO SEE WHAT I CAN GET BY WITH, YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S, I'M, WHAT I'M TAKING AWAY FROM THIS IS THAT HE KNEW FOR SEVERAL YEARS, OR AT LEAST A YEAR, OR AT LEAST SIX OR EIGHT MONTHS, WHICH IS PROBABLY BEFORE THERE WERE ANY PLANS DRAWN UP THAT THIS WAS COMING DOWN THE ROAD.
IT, BUT THERE WERE THINGS READ INTO THE RECORD THAT DAY AND, AND YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT AS E LIKE THERE ARE TIMES WHERE I'M DOING THE ZONING CASE.
WAS HE AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WHEN THEY VOTED ON IT? I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS OR NOT.
WERE YOU AC THEY DID ATTEND THE HEARING, BUT THERE ARE TIMES THAT I ATTENDED THE MEETING AND I DON'T KNOW JOHN, WHAT PASSED.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPELLANT? MR. HAVI? UM, THE LETTER FROM HARMONY BANK? YES.
MR. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION COMING UP? OKAY, I'LL HAVE YOU AFTER MR. H.
UH, IT SAYS, ANY ATTEMPT TO ALTER THE STRUCTURE OR ACCOMMODATE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF HARMONY BANK WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE LOAN DOCUMENTS.
HAVE THEY BEEN ASKED FOR PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT? YEAH.
AND THEY WILL, THEY WILL NOT, WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T CONVERT THAT, UH, IN A COST EFFECTIVE MANNER OR A SAFE ONE ACCORDING TO THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO, YOU KNOW, UH, I'M, I'M ASKING IF THEY SAID THEY WOULD NOT PROVIDE IT.
THIS, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT, THIS IS NOT WHAT THE LETTER SAYS.
SO I'M, I'M, YES, THEY, THEY, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE THAT.
WE CAN'T, WE ALSO CAN'T DO IT.
WE CAN'T JUST GO AND GET A REMODEL PERMIT.
WE'D HAVE TO TAKE THE WHOLE THING DOWN.
WE, IT'S, IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT A AS EASY AS, I MEAN, IT'S DONE.
I, I, UH, UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT EASY.
UH, I'M, I'M ASKING IF THEY HAVE BEEN ASKED.
THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LET HIM CON CONVERT OR THEY'RE NOT GONNA CONTINUE WITH THE LOAN ON, THEY'LL DEFAULT TO.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT I READ THAT TO SAY.
UM, I READ IT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY.
I, ONE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU, AND YOU'LL FORGIVE ME.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF CASES WE ARE LOOKING AT.
I BELIEVE THE LAST IMAGERY I SAW OF THIS PROPERTY, IT WAS FRAMED.
IT WASN'T THE WALL, THERE WEREN'T WALLS UP YET.
AND WE HAVE, WE, YOU KNOW, IT'S COMPLETELY FRAMED.
I MEAN, AND, AND THERE ARE WALLS UP.
I MEAN, WE'RE, YEAH, WE HAVE TO, THAT'S WHY THAT BID FOR 88,000 IS SO EXPENSIVE IS WE HAVE TO DO DECONSTRUCTION.
AND, YOU KNOW, FIRST WE'RE FINISHED.
I MEAN, NOT, I MEAN, LIKE, LARGELY FIT, COMPLETE.
[03:00:01]
UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF THIS, UH, BUILDER, DEVELOPER, UH, IN QUESTION, UH, CARRIES, UM, BUILDER'S RISK INSURANCE OR COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION COVERAGE.
MR. HAITZ, DOES THAT INSURANCE THAT HE HAS COVER LAW AND ORDINANCE, DOES IT COVER THIS CITY ERROR? NO.
I'M ASKING IF IT COVERS LAW AND ORDINANCE CHANGES.
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT RIGHT NOW? JUST, NO, I JUST CLARIFY.
LAW AND ORDINANCE COVERAGE COVERS YOU FOR CHANGES IN LAWS AND ORDINANCES MM-HMM.
THE POINT AM I ASKING A QUESTION? I UNDERSTAND.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, THANK YOU.
YOU'LL BE GIVEN A CHANCE FOR REBUTTAL.
YOU'LL HAVE TO REINTRODUCE YOURSELF IF YOU, IF YOU WOULD SO KINDLY SURE.
AND THEN GET I DO A SWEAR IN FOR OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
JUSTIN ROY WITH THE DALLAS CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, 1500, MARIA, 70, AND DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 1.
MS. WILLIAMS. I DO, I WILL BE EQUALLY GENEROUS WITH TIME FOR YOU AND LET YOU, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T FILIBUSTER, THAT'S THE SAME THING I SAID TO THE APPELLANT.
I DID PREPARE A POWERPOINT SLIDE AND, UM, MR. POOLE AND I ARE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS WE GO.
AND FEEL FREE TO STOP US AT THE END OF MY POWERPOINT.
I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T PREPARE A POWERPOINT.
I I THOUGHT I SAID I DID, BUT OH, NO PROBLEM.
I DID BRING IT ON, PREPARE A POWERPOINT, AND, UH, MR. CORAN DID COVER A LOT OF THE STUFF THAT I'M GONNA COVER.
BUT I, I WANT TO FIRST BEGIN BY, CAN YOU BRING UP THE FIRST SLIDE? AND, AND MR. CORAN, UM, COVERED THIS, BUT I WANNA PUSH BACK ON A LITTLE BIT OF THE NOTION THAT IT, THIS IS ALL ON THE CITY, AND HIS CLIENT HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY.
HIS CLIENT HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW THE LAW.
UM, THAT HAS BEEN THE LONGSTANDING JURISPRUDENCE OF THE STATE FOR A LONG TIME.
IT'S RECOGNIZED IN THE ESCO CASE THAT THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHERE THE CITY CAN GO BACK AND CORRECT ERRORS.
UM, THERE ARE ZONING CASES THAT, YOU KNOW, CHARGE YOU WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE CITY ORDINANCES AND IGNORANCE OF THE LAWS, UM, IS NOT AN EXCUSE AS IN VARIOUS CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES.
UM, THERE IS A RESPONSIBILITY.
THIS IS A, GO ONTO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS IS A PROCESS WHERE WE EXPECT OUR, UM, APPLICANTS TO, IT'S A, IT'S AN INTERACTIVE PROCESS, I BELIEVE, WHERE THEY'RE, THEY'RE CHARGED WITH KNOWING THE LAW AND IT, IN THIS CASE, I THINK THE APPLICANT DID KNOW THAT THERE WAS A ZONING CHANGE.
AND IF HE DIDN'T KNOW WHEN IT CAME INTO EFFECT, THEN HE SHOULD HAVE, UM, DONE A SEARCH TO FIGURE IT OUT.
UM, THERE, GO ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
SO OUR WEBSITE, THE WEBSITE THAT CONTAINS OUR ORDINANCE, UM, WHERE WE HAVE THE PDS IS, IS A CONVENIENCE, AND THIS IS THE SAME THING.
I, I WENT AND I LOOKED AT OTHER CITIES IN TEXAS, CITY OF AUSTIN, CITY OF HOUSTON, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, THEY ALL USE, USE SIMILAR SITES WITH THEIR ORDINANCE POSTED.
THERE'S SAME EXACT DISCLAIMER ON THERE THAT THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT APPEAR ON THIS SITE MAY NOT REFLECT THE MOST CURRENT LEGISLATION ADOPTED BY THE MUNICIPALITY.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, WHY, WHY PROVIDE A CONVENIENCE THAT'S INACCURATE? BECAUSE IT, IT TAKES TIME
[03:05:01]
TO UPDATE ON A WEBSITE.BUT ISN'T THAT, AREN'T YOU ASKING FOR A DISASTER? AREN'T YOU ASKING FOR NO, BECAUSE FOR ASKING FOR SOMEONE TO NO, IT, IT SAYS CLEARLY THAT ON THIS CLAIM WHERE IT SAYS THE MOST ACCURATE WAY TO GET THE ORDINANCE IS TO GO TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE, AND YOU DON'T NEED TO GET IT CERTIFIED.
YOU CAN JUST, YOU CAN GET THE UPDATED ORDINANCE FROM THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
IT SAYS IN HERE A CERTIFIED COPY.
WELL, YOU CAN JUST GET A COPY FROM THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
I YOU CAN ASK THEM FOR A NON-CERTIFIED COPY.
WHAT'S THE TYPICAL TIME BETWEEN, AND YOU SAY YOUR WEBSITE, YOU MEAN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WEBSITE? WELL, IT'S, IT, IT'S ON THE CITY ATTORNEY'S WEBSITE, BUT IT, SO WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR UPDATING THAT AND KEEPING IT ACCURATE? I, I BELIEVE THE CITY IS, NO, THE CITY HAS 13,000 EMPLOYEES.
WHO, WHAT DEPARTMENT WITHIN THE CITY'S RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THIS CONVENIENCE ONLY WEBSITE ACCURATE? UM, I BELIEVE IT'S CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE CITY'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS, WITH, WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND, AND THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF, WE DON'T HAVE WEB DESIGNER, SO, OKAY, GO AHEAD.
SO THE, THE APPLICANT HAD A RESPONSIBILITY.
HE COULD HAVE FOUND OUT ABOUT IT.
IT TAKES MORE THAN, UM, MERE, UM, JUST RELYING ON THE CITY.
SO I WANNA MOVE ON TO WHAT WE HAVE, AND, AND MR. COTHRAN IS CORRECT.
WE, I'VE HAD VARIOUS DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM.
I THINK TWO OR THREE DISCUSSIONS WHERE WE, THE OPTIONS AND THE, THE HEIGHT ISSUE CAN BE RESOLVED BY A VARIANCE, AS CAN THE LOT COVERAGE ISSUE.
UM, THE, THE APPLICANT HAS THE ABILITY TO SEEK A VARIANCE AFTER THIS HEARING.
UM, WE'VE DISCUSSED CHANGING THE ORDINANCE WITH HIM, WHICH WOULD TAKE CITY COUNCIL ACTION JUST AS TO HIS LOT, MR. COCHRAN'S DISCUSSING A YEAR.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD TAKE A YEAR.
I THINK IT WOULD TAKE LESS THAN EIGHT MONTHS.
YOU TALKING AS IT RELATES TO USE OR AS IT RELATES TO BLACK.
THE USE ISSUE WOULD BE RESOLVED BY, OR COULD POTENTIALLY BE RESOLVED BY, UM, CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON A ZONING AMENDMENT.
SO, SO YOU SAID THE HEIGHT IS, IS, COULD BE SUBJECT TO A VARIANCE.
THAT COULD BE A REMEDY FOR THAT PART.
AND LOT, LOT COVERAGE COULD BE SUBJECT TO A VARIANCE REMEDY.
UH, SO THAT LEAVES USE AND ROOF PITCH AND, AND ROOF PITCH.
I, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS A PLAN FOR THAT.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE DOWN TO, YOU KNOW, THREE ISSUES.
THE USE ISSUE REALLY IS THE HARDEST ISSUE TO RESOLVE.
UM, AND YOU'RE, I WAS GONNA GO THROUGH THE VARIANCE STANDARD AND YOU GUYS ARE VERY WELL FAMILIAR WITH THE VARIANCE STANDARD 'CAUSE I THINK I HEARD, JUST HEARD IT.
SO, UH, CAN WE SKIP AHEAD A FEW SLIDES TO THE, THE LAST KNOWN USE THIS, THIS JUST DEMONSTRATES THAT THE LAST, UM, KNOWN USE OF THE THE PROPERTY WAS SINGLE FAMILY AFFORDING MR. POOLE, THIS IS FROM MR. POOLE AND HE CAN DISCUSS IT, BUT HE DID RESEARCH TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS THE LAST USE OF THE PROPERTY ACCORDING TO OUR FILES IN THE RECORD WITH THE PERMIT DEPARTMENT.
AND IT APPEARS THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS CON CONVERTED TO SINGLE FAMILY IN 1989.
IT MR. POOL, IS THAT, WAS THAT IN OUR PACKET? THIS, I REMEMBER SEEING THIS BEFORE.
[03:10:01]
AND WE CAN SKIP AHEAD TO, UM, TO THE TIMELINE AND IF, IF, IF YOU GUYS, SO JUST BY CROSSING THIS OUT, IT CHANGES THE USE.I, I'M, THIS IS THE DOCUMENT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE, WE KNOW THAT THE USE WHEN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WENT OUT AND LOOKED AT THE PD FOR THAT PROPERTY WAS SINGLE FAMILY IN JULY OF 2022.
AND THAT IS CORROBORATED BY THE, THAT APPLICATION TO CONVERT THE PROPERTY TO SINGLE FAMILY FROM 1989.
AND MR. POOLE AND I, WE, I HAVE A SLIDE FURTHER ON.
I DON'T THINK THIS CASE IS ABOUT DUE FORCE OF LAW.
SO I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, AND MR. SAIK HAS A QUESTION.
SO FROM 1989 TO 2022, WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL TOOK ACTION, THIS LOT WAS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY.
NO, IT WAS BEING USED AS SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, BUT IT WAS STILL ZONE DUPLEX.
AND SO WHERE DOES THIS USE STATUS SHOW UP? IS IT JUST KIND OF HIDDEN OR IS THIS IN PUBLIC DOMAIN? I, I'M SORRY, I DON'T, WHAT'S THE RELEVANCE OF THIS? THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU PRESENTED THAT SHOWED A USE CHANGE FROM 89 TO 2022.
WELL, I DON THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET.
WELL, I DON'T, I DON'T, I THINK THERE WAS A HANGUP AT THE LAST HEARING.
I DON'T THINK, QUITE FRANKLY, I EXPLAINED IT VERY WELL AND IT MIGHT REQUIRE MR. POOLE TO COME BACK ON AND THAT'S
BUT IN JULY OF 2022, WE WENT AND LOOKED AT WHAT WE BELIEVE THE USES WERE OF THE PROPERTIES.
SO WE COULD MAKE 67 A, WHICH WAS IS THE USE MAP THAT'S ATTACHED TO, TO PD 67.
AND WE DETERMINED THAT THAT LOT WAS SINGLE FAMILY.
AND, BUT AFTER THE LAST HEARING, BECAUSE OF WE, WE WANTED TO EXPLORE ALL THE ISSUES, MR. POOL DID HIS DUE DILIGENCE AND SAID, WELL, I'M GONNA GO BACK AND I'M, I'M GONNA FIND THE PERMITTING HISTORY.
AND THE EXHIBIT THAT MR. COTRAN ATTACHED WAS THE WORK OF MR. POOL WHO FOUND THAT IT WAS DUE, YOU TALKING ABOUT THE COLOR CODING? NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE 1961 OR 62 PERMIT FOR A DUPLEX.
AND MR. POOLE FOUND THAT, AND THEN HE ALSO FOUND THE, AND WE PROVIDED IT TO MR. COTHRAN ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW, 12 OR 13 DAYS AGO.
AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE THIS, THAT WHAT YOU SAW, WHICH INDICATES THAT IT WAS SINGLE FAMILY.
SO THE ISSUE GOES TO JULY OF 2022 WHEN WE WERE MAKING THAT MAP AND WE BELIEVED IT WAS SINGLE FAMILY.
AND THAT'S HOW THAT LOCK BECAME DESERT.
WHEN IT WAS PASSED INTO LAW IN OCTOBER OF 2022.
AND THAT'S HOW IT BECAME SINGLE FAMILY UHHUH
AND THERE WERE FIVE TO 10 LOTS THAT WERE DUPLEX STILL IN THIS SLIVER OF, I DON'T KNOW, THAT 67 IT LOOKED LIKE ON THE MAP TO ME.
ARE THOSE GRANDFATHERED IN OR WILL THOSE BECOME, WHEN, IF THEY'RE TORN DOWN, DO THEY THEN BECOME SINGLE FAMILY OR THEY'RE STILL DOTTED WITH SOME DUPLEXES IN THAT PD 67? I THINK IF, IF, IF THAT MAP INDICATES THAT YOU CAN, THAT THEY'RE DUPLEX, THAT YOU CAN BUILD DUPLEX AND UNTIL IT'S CHANGED OR AMENDED, YOU'RE ABLE TEAR DOWN THE DUPLEX.
AND WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE IF THERE'S QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ABOUT MM-HMM,
UM, JASON AND I ARE HAPPY TO TRY THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
MR. CHAIRMAN MI MR. HOP HAS A QUESTION.
IT JUST HADN'T MADE IT THERE
I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON THE PRIOR QUESTION.
SO THESE, THESE, THESE LOTS THAT ARE DESIGNATED AS DUPLEX CURRENTLY OKAY.
[03:15:01]
OKAY.BUT TODAY THERE, THERE ARE, THERE, UH, DUPLEX ZONE RIGHT NOW THERE ARE SOME LOTS THERE.
THEY PRESUMABLY HAVE DUPLEXES ON THEM IF THEY'RE, IF THERE'S CONSTRUCTION ON THEM.
IF ONE OF THOSE DUPLEXES IS TURNED, IS TORE DOWN AND A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, CAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME BE BUILT ON IT? AND IF IT IS, DOES IT NO LONGER QUALIFY TO EVER HAVE A DUPLEX ON IT AGAIN? UM, I, JASON, SO, SO YES, IT CAN BE TORN DOWN.
THEY CAN BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY BACK.
THE INTENT OF THIS LAND USE MAP IN JULY WAS TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS OUT THERE AND PUT IT IN THE NEW LAND USE MAP TO UPDATE THE LAND USE MAP.
SO IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BAN DUPLEXES IN, IN GENERAL OR, OR CHANGE ANYTHING THAT WASN'T ALREADY ON THE GROUND.
SO IT'S BASED ON WHAT WAS ON THE GROUND IN JULY OF, OF 2022.
SO, SO THAT, THAT LOT, THAT HAS A DUPLEX ON IT TODAY, IF THAT IS TORN DOWN AND A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS BUILT, DOES THAT THEN BECOME A SINGLE FAMILY? NO, I THINK, NO.
IT'S ALL ACCORDING TO THIS LAND USE MAP THAT THAT IS THE ZONING IS WHATEVER IT IS ON THIS LAND USE MAP.
THAT'S THE USE THAT'S DESIGNATED FOR THAT PROPERTY.
WELL, WOULDN'T THE LOGIC THEN HOLD THAT IF IT WAS DUPLEX BEFORE BUT THEN HAD A SINGLE FAMILY ON IT WOULD RETAIN THE DUPLEX RIGHTS? YES.
I MEAN, SO THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DUPLEX ALL ALONG.
SO AT THE TIME THE LAND USE MAP WAS MADE, THIS WAS A SINGLE FAMILY USE.
THAT'S WHY THEY UPDATED THE LAND USE MAP TO STATE THAT THIS WAS A SINGLE FAMILY LOT.
BUT IT WAS A DUPLEX DESIGNATION.
BUT WHEN COUNCIL ADOPTED THE NEW ZONING MAP OR THE NEW LAND USE MAP UNDER THE AMENDMENT, IT BECAME A SINGLE FAMILY MAP BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A SINGLE FAMILY, BUT IT REALLY HAD DUPLEX RIGHTS.
IT DID PRIOR, BUT BASED ON THAT PERMIT FOR IT BEING CONVERTED TO A SINGLE FAMILY, IT BECAME SINGLE FAMILY.
I THINK THAT IT'S POSSIBLY BECAUSE CITY COUNCIL DIDN'T HAVE ALL OF THE FACTS.
I APPRECIATE EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE CHEERING AND ALL THAT.
LET, LET'S LET THE BOARD BE THE ONE DIGESTING THIS SO THAT EVERYONE'S TREATED FAIRLY.
USING THE ANALOGY THAT MR. HFI JUST GAVE YOU AND YOU RESPONDED TO, TELLS ME THAT THIS LOT HAD A X PERCENTAGE CHANCE OF BEING DUPLEX AND STILL IS, BUT MAY HAVE BEEN LABELED SINGLE FAMILY OUT OF SOMEONE'S EYEBALL ON IT AS A SINGLE FAMILY YET YOU JUST SAID WHAT YOU SAID.
I DON'T SEEK, I DON'T SEEK CLARITY FOR A BUILDING OFFICIAL TO MAKE A DECISION HERE, BUT, OKAY.
SO YOU HAD THE, DO YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, MR. MR. HOPKINS? THE FLOOR, FLOOR? I'M, I'M JUST INTERRUPTING AS I NO, YOU, THIS, THIS IS TO, TO GET BACK UP AND IT'S LIKE ENLIGHTENING.
THIS IS ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION.
SO YOU'RE ON YOUR KEY DATES, RIGHT? ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE FOCUSED ON IS WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE NOW ZEROING IN ON WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE.
WELL YOU'RE FREE TO ASK ONCE, WELL YOU JUST HEARD US DISCUSS OUT LOUD AND OUR SUS SUSPICION THAT THIS PAYMENT BEEN DUPLEX ALL ALONG.
I'M GONNA, I'M I'M GONNA CALL AND ASK JASON TO ADDRESS THE TIMELINE'S.
ACTUALLY JASON'S, SO I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU.
SO YOU SAID THAT AT THE TIME THE MAP WAS CREATED IN JULY 22 AND THE COUNCIL ADOPTED IN AUGUST OF, OR OCTOBER OF 22.
IT, THEY CREATED A MAP BASED ON WHAT THEY SAW.
THE QUESTION IS, DID THEY HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION? SO THAT WAS A DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OF WHAT IT WAS, OF SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS DUPLEX.
THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND OR HIS STAFF.
HER STAFF INTERPRETED SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS DUPLEX.
I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA MURKY THIS ANYMORE, BUT WE WERE TWO DEPARTMENTS AT THE TIME.
THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT PLANNING IN URBAN DESIGN PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN AND THAT SENIOR PLANNER AT THE TIME WOULD'VE DETERMINED FOR THAT LAND USE MAP.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE TASK AS PART OF THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING TO ESTABLISH THIS NEW LAND USE MAP.
AND WHAT WAS IN PLACE ON THE GROUND OFFICIAL, I'LL SAY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
THAT IS THE BROADER OUR DEFINITION IN OUR RULES ADMINISTRATOR IN THE CO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL COVERS ALL, BUT, BUT MY POINT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, WHETHER IT'S
[03:20:01]
A JUNIOR PLANNER, SENIOR PLANNER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTOR, ASSISTANT, CITY MANAGER, OR CITY MANAGER, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL MADE A JUDGMENT.WELL, IT'S LOOKS LIKE IT'S SINGLE FAMILY.
THEY DIDN'T NECESSARILY KNOW, GO BACK TO VERIFY THE VERACITY OF DUPLEX VERSUS SINGLE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE MURKY ABOUT.
NOW, MR. POOLE, SO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AT THE TIME THAT DETERMINED THE LAND USE MAP, THE SENIOR PLAN, THAT THAT WOULD BE WHO YOU'RE REFERRING TO? THE SENIOR PLANNER? YES, BUT WE BUT YOU PRESENT TO US AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
WE DON'T KNOW NECESSARILY WHERE IN THE ORGANIZATION KIM TOLBERT DOWN TO PERSON X.
MR. H, THE DOCUMENT THAT WE LOOKED AT JUST SHORTLY AGO SHOWING THE, THIS ONE THE CHANGE YES, YES.
SHOWING THE CHANGE FROM DUPLEX, A SINGLE FAMILY IN 1989, THAT HOUSE REMAINED WITH TWO WATER METERS.
WHEN WAS THAT HOUSE, WAS THAT HOUSE, THE HOUSE THAT WAS TORN DOWN TO BUILD THIS PROJECT? YES, IT WAS.
SO SOMEONE WENT OUT TO LOOK AT THAT HOUSE TO LOOK AT TO, TO GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD AND LOOK AT EACH LOT AND THE SIDE.
BUT IT WAS, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
IF SOMEONE LOOKED AT THIS, I GUESS THEY MUST HAVE LOOKED AT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, NOT THE REAR, WHERE THERE ARE TWO WATER METERS AND SAID SINGLE FAMILY.
THAT'S, AND AND THAT'S THE ENTIRE SOURCE OF IT BEING SINGLE FAMILY AND IS THAT MOMENT THAT'S CORRECT.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE DETERMINATION FOR THE LAND USE MAP FOR PD 67 WAS DONE ON A VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I, LET'S LET THAT SOAK IN FOR ME.
THAT, MR. NAR, DID YOU CATCH THIS? THEY'RE SPEAKING TO THE TWO WATER METERS, THE VISUAL INSPECTION BY A SENIOR PLANNER OR SOMEONE WITHIN THE MA CITY MANAGER STAFF.
I'M, I'M LOOKING AT YOUR KEY DATES HERE AND ON IT SAYS D WHAT DOES DSD STAND FOR? DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT? THIS WAS PRIOR TO THE MERGE.
SO IT SAYS ON APRIL 7TH, DSD WAS NOTIFIED OF 68 0 1 TYREE VIOLATIONS.
BUT THEN THE STOP WORK ORDER WASN'T UNTIL, LET'S SEE, REVOKED.
LOOKS LIKE IT WAS MAY 15TH, SO 24TH LATER.
BUT THAT'S, BUT DSD WAS NOTIFIED OF 68 8 0 1.
AND THEN IT SAYS D UH, DSD BECAME AWARE OF ADDITIONAL REVIEW ISSUES AND PD 67 ON APRIL 19TH.
SO WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG FOR ALL THESE THINGS TO COME INTO EFFECT? YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE ISSUE, IT SEEMS LIKE THE VIOLATIONS, AND IT TOOK TWO MONTHS FOR, FOR THE CITY TO GO OUT AND NOTIFY THESE, THESE BUILDERS THAT THEY WERE IN VIOLATION.
WE, WE NEEDED TO CONFIRM THOSE VIOLATIONS AND MAKE SURE THEY WERE THERE AND THAT WE WERE IN THE RIGHT BEFORE WE STOPPED ANY CONSTRUCTION.
WE, WE DON'T WANNA STOP CONSTRUCTION UNLESS WE'RE 100% SURE.
SO, SO RATHER THAN STOPPING CONSTRUCTION TILL YOU GET IT RESOLVED, YOU LET SOMEBODY CONTINUE TO PUT MONEY INTO A PROJECT.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT DOES, BUT IF THERE'S NO ERROR, WE DON'T WANNA STOP ANY CONSTRUCTION.
THIS, THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS AS WELL.
BUT UP UNTIL OCTOBER 12TH, 2022, WHEN COUNCIL TOOK ACTION, THE LOT IN QUESTION WAS ZONED FOR A DUPLEX, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
THE OLD LAND USE MAP WAS FOR DUPLEX.
AND IF COUNCIL HAD BEEN AWARE OF IT AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE ZONING FOLKS HAVE BEEN AWARE THAT THAT IS WHAT IT WAS ZONED, IT WOULD REMAIN ZONED AS A DUPLEX IN THE NEW PD 67.
PRESUMABLY, I, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THAT, BUT PRESUMABLY, PRESUMABLY.
[03:25:01]
I DON'T HAVE OKAY.ANY MORE PRESENTATION, YOUR HONOR.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, UH, WILL GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPELLANT TO REBUTTAL AND THEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL MR. COHOR? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
YOU KNOW, THE POINT I MADE EARLIER IS, AND, AND I DIDN'T COME TO THIS UNTIL, YOU KNOW, THE APPEAL PROCESS, THIS PD AND IF, AND IF YOU WATCH COUNCIL MEETINGS, I REALLY DO MEAN THERE ARE OFTENTIMES THINGS GET READ INTO THE RECORD.
THIS PD HAD NINE EXHIBITS AND IS 20 PAGES.
MY CLIENT PAID FOR DUPLEX RIGHTS, GOT A LOAN FOR DUPLEX RIGHTS, HAD TWO WATER METERS, AND BUILT FOUR OTHER DUPLEXES.
YOU HAVE TO BE AN EXPERT ON ZONING AND LIKE ALL OF US DO THIS AND THERE'S STILL A LOT OF LACK OF CLARITY.
SO WHETHER HE SHOULD KNOW SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, HE, HE, THIS IS A HIGH LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE.
THIS IS NOT, THE SPEED LIMIT IS 20 IN A SCHOOL ZONE.
THIS REQUIRES REAL EXPERTISE THAT MY CLIENT LACKS.
AND OBVIOUSLY THE STAFF DID TOO.
'CAUSE THEY LA IT LASTED SO LONG FOR THEM TO CORRECT THE ERROR.
I STILL DON'T THINK WE GOT TO THE QUESTION ABOUT WHEN DID THE CITY KNOW AND WHEN DID THEY CORRECT.
UH, BUT, AND MAYBE THAT'S NOT KNOWABLE 'CAUSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S NOT HERE IN ANY LONGER.
BUT I THINK YOU CAN UNDERSTAND NOW, MY CLIENT KNEW HIS ZONING TAKE CHANGE WAS TAKING PLACE, BUT IT'S REASONABLE THAT HE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HE'S LOSING HIS DUPLEX RIGHTS.
WE ARE RESOLVING THE OTHER THINGS THAT MAYBE HE COULD HAVE AND SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THE ROOF PITCH AND THE HEIGHT.
THE OTHER THINGS LIKE NOW WE'RE JUST TOO, WE'RE TOO FAR ALONG IN THE PROCESS TO CORRECT IT.
WE'RE CORRECTING THINGS THAT MAYBE OUR TEAM SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT AND WE'RE DOING IT AT GREAT EXPENSE.
SO I, I WOULD HOPE THAT'S GOOD.
KEEP IN MIND THERE ARE 1800 PROPERTIES HERE.
THEY COULD HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB ON MORE THAN A VISUAL INSPECTION.
A GOOD VISUAL INSPECTION MIGHT HAVE REVEALED LIKE I DID THAT THERE'S TWO WATER METERS THERE.
I MEAN, AND, AND REALLY DRILL DOWN ON ARE THESE DUPLEXES, SHOULD THIS AREA CONTINUE TO HAVE DUPLEX RIGHTS? 'CAUSE IT IS CRAZY THAT I MIGHT HAVE A DUPLEX NOW AND IT'S OLDER AND I TEAR IT BOUND AND BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
AND IN 50 MORE YEARS I CAN COME BACK AND BUILD A DUPLEX BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED NOW, UM, KEEP IN MIND THAT 1989, THAT'S WHEN THE CITY WENT FROM CHAPTER 51 TO CHAPTER 51 A IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.
YOU KNOW, I WOULD POINT OUT TOO, AND I APPRECIATE THAT THESE GUYS, WHEN THEY FOUND EVIDENCE, THEY SENT IT TO ME VERY QUICKLY, VERY PROFESSIONAL.
BUT IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE FIRST HEARING THAT THE STAFF DUG AND FOUND ALL THAT STUFF.
THEY, IT WOULD'VE BEEN GREAT IF THEY HAD DONE THAT AS PART OF THE PLANNED COMMISSION RECORD.
THEN MY CLIENT MIGHT HAVE KNOWN, HEY, I NEED TO HIRE SOMEBODY.
IT'S BEYOND MY KNOWLEDGE AS THE HOME BUILDER.
WE WOULD ASK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME ERROR IN THIS POTENTIALLY WE'RE SOLVING THAT AT ANOTHER 88,000.
BUT WE WOULD ASK YOU TO, TO THINK THE CITY DID ERROR HERE SOME, AND WHY SHOULD MY CLIENT BE THE ONLY ONE TO PAY THE PRICE? UM, HE'S WILLING TO MAKE A COMPROMISE AND, YOU KNOW, CHANGE THE ROOF PITCH.
IT WILL BE GENERALLY IN NATURE.
HE'S NOT THE ONLY DUPLEX OVER THERE.
I MEAN, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DUPLEXES AND MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL.
SO IT'S NOT SOME SPOT ZONING THAT IT'S STICKING OUT.
IT WILL LOOK LIKE THAT HOUSING STOCK.
THIS SEEMS LIKE YOU ASKED FOR A COMPROMISE.
WE ARE THE PARTY WHO HAS, HAS, HAS PROVIDED SOME AMOUNT OF COMPROMISE AND WE DIDN'T MAKE THE ERROR.
WHAT MIGHT, IT SEEMS LIKE WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON WHAT MY CLIENT SHOULD KNOW AND WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN IT.
BUT I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE CITY STAFF IS THE PARTY THAT HAS THE HIGHER BURDEN LEVEL AND THAT IS PAID, YOU KNOW, BUILDING INSPECTION RUNS ON FULL COST RECOVERY.
THEY PAID FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE THAT DID HIM GREAT INJURY.
I KNOW THE CITY DIDN'T DO IT ON PURPOSE, BUT, UM, WE'RE TRYING TO HELP THE CITY MITIGATE THE, THE, THE RESULT.
AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY ANGELS CAN FIT ON THE PINHEAD.
IT'S, IT'S, THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION.
UM, WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE DOING OUR PART TO SOLVE IT.
I I, I APPRECIATED WORKING WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE AND YOU GAVE US A FAIR AND LENGTHY HEARING, BUT NONE OF THIS SHOULD OCCUR.
[03:30:01]
PROBLEM IS BUILDING INSPECTION CONTINUES TO BE PROBLEMATIC.AND LOOK AT THE MANAGER'S MEMO.
THE FACT THAT THEY PLAN TO POTENTIALLY CHANGE HOW ORDINANCES WORK IN DALLAS IS EVIDENCE THAT THEY KNOW THIS IS MURKY AND TRICKY POTENTIALLY.
UH, AND NOT SOMETHING THAT REGULAR PEOPLE KNOW.
UM, SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.
THANK YOU MR. CATHERINE AND, AND YOUR SERVICE.
MR. ROY, UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, I, I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO ASK ONE QUESTION OF MR. COMAN, HIS AND HIS CLIENT.
UM, AND THAT IS WHEN HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.
I FORGOT FROM THE LAST HEARING, I THINK I KNEW, BUT I I DON'T HAVE THE D AD RECORDS WITH ME BECAUSE WHAT, WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS DID HE KNOW WHEN HE LOOKED AT WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED, THESE CLOSING THIS STAGE HERE IS CLOSING ARGUMENTS.
I FORGOT WHEN, WHEN HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, BUT IF HE, UM, PURCHASED IT, PURCHASED IT BEFORE, UM, THE Z THE ZONING CHANGED IN OCTOBER OF 2022, THE MAP, UM, HE COULD HAVE LOOKED AT THE MAP AND SAID, WELL, WAIT A SECOND, I'M BUYING A DUPLEX LOT.
AND HE COULD HAVE MENTIONED THAT TO COUNCIL.
UM, THE MAP WAS AVAILABLE AND, AND AS WE'VE SAID BEFORE, I THINK IT, IT'S AN INTERACTIVE PROCESS.
THE, THE APPLICANT SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, UM, OR WHEN THE LAW CHANGED AND HE COULD HAVE FOUND THAT INFORMATION OUT.
WE, WE PUT IT ON OUR WEBSITE THAT THE CITY SECRETARY IS THE PROPER PARTY TO FIND THE, UM, MOST UPTODATE LAW.
AND, UM, THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT AND WE, UM, WE ASK THAT YOU AFFIRM THE, UH, DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, UM, TO, WITH REGARD TO THE STOP WORK ORDER.
UH, THIS HAS BEEN VERY ENLIGHTENING.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WE TOOK A QUARTER OF THE TIME TODAY VERSUS LAST MONTH, BUT IT WAS FOUR TIMES MORE VALUABLE IN MY OPINION AND MAY HAVE BEEN THE FACT, THE FACT THAT, UH, WE HAVE A CUMULATIVE EFFECTIVE INFORMATION.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR BOARD ATTORNEY.
I'M ABOUT TO MAKE A MOTION AND, UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO, UM, UH, HANDLE THIS AS IT RELATES TO, UH, WHAT I WANNA ACCOMPLISH FROM WHAT I, UH, AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE WILL OF THE BOARD.
UM, I'M, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION.
UM, BUT I WANT TO, THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE ISSUE OF VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT OR VARIANCE FOR LACK COVERAGE SHOULD BE SEPARATELY HANDLED, OR THIS COULD BE HANDLED COMPREHENSIVELY WITH THIS.
WELL, I JUST WANNA GO OVER THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD FIRST.
SO STATE LAW AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION OR CHAPTER TWO 11 SAYS THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD IS THAT COHERENT AND DECIDE AND APPEAL THAT ALLEGES ERROR, AN ORDER REQUIREMENT DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IN ENFORCEMENT OF THE SUB-CHAPTER OF ORDINANCE ADOPTED UNDER THE SUB CHAPTER.
SO THE BOARD MAY REVERSE OR AFFIRM AND FULL OR IN PART OR MODIFY THE ADMITTED ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS ORDER.
UM, AND FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE BOARD HAS THE SAME AUTHORITY AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
AND CASE LAW, UH, STATES THAT SHELTON VERSUS THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION SAYS THAT BOARD ACTS AS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY HAVING NO STATUTORY POWER TO LEGISLATE.
SO IT'S RESTRICTED IN ITS DECISIONS TO THE POWERS VESTED IN THE, IN, UH, BY THE LEGISLATURE AND CITY COUNCIL.
IT CANNOT MATERIALLY ALTER THE SPECIFIC INTENT AND EXTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS THAT IS THE POWER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
BUT ISN'T THE EFFECT OF THE BOARD REVERSING THE ORDER? EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID YOU ARE, ISN'T THAT THE EFFECT? THE BUT THIS BOARD, THE PURPOSE OF THESE APPEALS TODAY IS TO DETERMINE IF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED IN THEIR DECISION OF REVOKING THE BUILDING PERMITS AND THE CODE PROVIDES THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MUST REVOKE A PERMIT, ISSUED AN ERROR.
IF IT IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OF THE CITY CODES, WE KNOW THAT.
SO WHAT THE BOARD IS TO DETERMINE TODAY IS WHETHER THE PLANS PRESENTED ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODES THAT WERE IN EFFECT WHEN THEY APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT.
[03:35:02]
TO GRANT A VARIANCE.THAT IS NOT WHAT, THAT'S NOT AN, THAT'S NOT AN APPROPRIATE ACTION OF THE BOARD TODAY.
IT'S JUST DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY OFFICIAL AIRED IN SAYING THAT THEY, THE PLANS PRESENTED WERE IN VIOLATION.
IT SAYS, I'M READING THE CODE REVERSE AN ORDER REQUIREMENT DECISION REDETERMINATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FISH INVOLVING THE INTERPRETATION, ENFORCING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND IT SAYS, UM, MAY IN PART IN WHOLE, OOPS, PUT MY, TO MY LANGUAGE, THE BOARD SHALL HAVE THE POWERS, THE ADMITTED OFFICIAL THAT THE BOARD MAY IN WHOLE OR IN PART IN WHOLE OR IN PART REVERSE AFFIRM OR AMEND.
THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN WHOLE OR IN PART AFFIRM REVERSE OR AMEND.
AMEND MEANS CHANGE THE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT THOUGH.
SO I GUESS, AND, AND BOARD MEMBERS, UH, WE HAVE TO DETERMINE, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ONE VOTE, TWO VOTES, THREE VOTES, OR FOUR VOTES OR FIVE VOTES FOR WHAT I'M PROPOSING.
UM, I IN MY OPINION, FEEL THAT THE BUILDING FISHER MADE AN ERROR FIRST AND FOREMOST WHEN THEY INTERPRETED AS A SINGLE FAMILY.
SO THAT IN THAT OPINION, THAT'S AN ERROR.
RIGHT? AND THAT ERROR, WHETHER IT WAS MADE BY THE SENIOR PLANNER OR THE CITY MANAGER, IS AN ERROR.
AND THAT'S THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, UH, THE ISSUE OF THE HEIGHT, THE ROOF PITCH LOT COVERAGE.
SO THAT'S THE ISSUE OF THE YOUTH ISSUE.
IN OTHER WORDS, I'M SAYING THAT I, MY INTERPRETATION, IT STILL WAS A DUPLEX USE.
SO WE DON'T HAVE A VIOLATION OF DUPLEX ON A SINGLE FAMILY MEMBER.
THEN THE OTHER QUESTION COMES TO THE ISSUE OF HEIGHT, ROOF PITCH, AND LOT COVERAGE.
SO I'M ASKING THE QUESTION, IF I READ THE AUTHORITY THAT THE CODE GIVES THE BOARD, THE BOARD MAY IN WHOLE OR IN PART AFFIRM REVERSE OR AMEND THEM THE DECISION.
I READ THAT IF WE VOTED TODAY TO REVERSE THE DECISION, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, WHAT FURTHER ACTION DO WE NEED TO TAKE? OR ARE WE REVERSING THE, THE DENIAL OF THESE PERMITS BY VIRTUE OF THIS ACTION? I BELIEVE YOU'RE REVERSING THE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT.
AND SO THE HEIGHT AND THE PITCH ALLOWED THEN AS IT STANDS TODAY, WOULD BE ALLOWED BECAUSE WE'RE REVERSING IF WE MAKE THE DECISION THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MADE AN ERROR AND WE IDENTIFIED WHERE THAT ERROR WE THINK TOOK PLACE, AND I'M GOING TO CASE LAW, I'M GOING TO CASE LAW THAT THE APPEALS COURT JUST SPOKE ABOUT.
AS IT RELATES TO ESTABLISHED A STANDARD REVIEW AND A CONSISTENT ANALYSIS THAT, THAT THE BOARD USES, IF REASONABLE MINDS COULD HAVE REACHED THE CONCLUSION THE BOARD'S DECISION MUST BE OF HELL IS WHAT PAL'S BOARD SAID.
SO ANYWAY, SO, UM, I'M OF THE OPINION BOARD MEMBERS AND WE HAVE THE MOTIONS NOT ON THE FLOOR YET, BUT I'M OF OPINION WE NEED TO REVERSE THE DECISION.
THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT THE OPINION OF THE PANEL? WELL, MY OPINION IS, YOU KNOW, THE FOUR, THE USE DUPLEX VERSUS SINGLE FAMILY.
CLEARLY IT'S BEEN DUPLEX ALL ALONG AND THAT WAS THE OVERSIGHT.
UM, THE HEIGHT, YOU KNOW, IS IT PRE OR POST PD 67? THE PITCH, SAME QUESTION.
SO HOW DO WE REMEDY THIS? TWO OF THEM WERE REMEDIED.
YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A RE THERE WAS A REMEDY ON THE TABLE.
YOU KNOW, UM, I GUESS I WAS MORE CONCERNED REALLY ABOUT THE USE SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS DUPLEX IF, BUT NOW THAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED, IT'S LIKE I'VE COMPLETELY SWUNG FROM WHAT I THOUGHT COMING IN AND HEARING.
SO THAT'S WHAT I'M KIND OF HUNG UP ON IS I LIKE THE HEIGHT AND PITCH FIX.
I THINK THAT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE.
THE LOT COVERAGE, I JUST DON'T KNOW OF WHAT WE CAN DO.
BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS DUPLEX, YOU KNOW, DO THE RIGHT THING.
THESE OTHERS, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THESE? THIS, I DON'T THINK WE REALLY HAVE ANY LEEWAY, OTHER OPINIONS.
UM, SO MY, MY MAIN QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT 1922, UH, SORRY, 2022, DECISION INTERPRETATION, INTERPRETATION, OBVIOUSLY IT WAS AN ERROR, BUT IS THAT SUBJECT
[03:40:01]
TO WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW? BECAUSE THE, THE, IT, IT, IT WAS PUT DOWN AS A SINGLE FAMILY, WHETHER THAT WAS AN ERROR AND I THINK IT WAS WHETHER THAT WAS AN ERROR.I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DECIDING ON.
WELL, IT, A DECISION BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WAS MADE BASED ON THAT INTERPRETATION SAYING THAT THE USE IS NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE IT SHOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY.
THAT'S WHAT WAS IN THE ZONING.
WAS IT IT WAS USED AS SINGLE FAMILY IF I INTERPRETED, BUT IT WAS DUPLEX AND WHEN THEY CREATED THE MAP, THAT'S WHEN WE ARE DEDUCING.
THERE WAS A POTENTIAL ERROR IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT MAP.
YEAH, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT WAS DESIGNATED.
SO WHEN THE PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR, THAT'S WHAT IT WAS DESIGNATED.
BUT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ZONING AND USE.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ZONED FOR A DUPLEX WHEN IT WAS USED.
I MEAN, THEY COULD HAVE USED IT TWO WATER, A DOG KETTLE UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, TWO WATER METER FOR ALL THAT MATTERS, YOU KNOW, THAT IS IRRELEVANT.
AND THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S THE HIDDEN EVIDENCE IN ALL OF THIS, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S THE KEY IN THE ANSWER TO ALL OF THIS IS THAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN, YOU KNOW, A DUPLEX SINCE, YOU KNOW, THE BEGINNING OF TIME.
SO THEN THAT LEAVES US WITH THE HIGH PITCH AND COVERAGE, WHICH THAT WHOLE QUESTION OF APPARENTLY WE DON'T HAVE A MECHANISM.
WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA ABOUT TO GO THERE.
I WANT TO VENTILATE EVERYONE'S OPINION, MS. HAYDEN.
SO TODAY WE'RE LOOKING AT REVOKING THE BUILDING OFFICIALS.
NO, REVERSING, REVERSING THE BUILDING OFFICIALS STOP WORK ORDER.
AND WHAT I REALLY WISH WE WERE DOING IS REVERSING THE BUILDING OFFICIALS PERMIT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE O OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T GO BACK IN TIME AND DO THAT, BUT WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT
UM, SO IT'S, IT'S VERY CHALLENGING.
I THINK WHAT I'VE HEARD TODAY HAS BEEN ENLIGHTENING ON HOW THIS LAND USE MAP WAS USED TO COME UP WITH THE FUTURE ZONING AND THE PD.
UM, THAT IT WAS A VISUAL INSPECTION OF PROPERTY.
UM, AND THEN THE, THE HEIGHT, IT'S NOT FAR OFF.
THE APPLICANT HAS CHANGED THE ROOF PITCH TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.
AND THEN YOU'RE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE LOT COVERAGE.
SO I GUESS MY OPINION WHEN I CAME INTO THIS MEETING TODAY HAS CHANGED A BIT BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD.
SO I APPRECIATE ALL THE INFORMATION EVERYONE HAS BROUGHT FORWARD.
UM, SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF REVERSE REVOKING REVERSE IF, IF I MAY, THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT, IT SAYS, THIS LETTER SERVES AS AN OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION THAT PROJECT 2 2 1 1 1 8 1 0 3 9 AND MASTER PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW DUPLEX AT 6 8 0 1 TYREE DALLAS, TEXAS, WERE ISSUED AN ERROR BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND ARE HEREBY REVOKED.
SO IT'S PERMIT THAT IS REVOKED.
AND, AND THAT'S WHAT IS THE QUESTION? OKAY.
WHETHER OR NOT THEY AIRED IN REVOKING THE PERMIT.
SO IS THE PITCH BEING FIXED? IS THAT A DUNT OR NO? WELL, IT, IT, IT'S A, I I WANNA GO TO MR. NRI FOR FEEDBACK AND THEN I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA ASK THE QUESTION OF, BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING, THE FEEDBACK, WHAT'S THE BEST WAY MOVING FORWARD? MR. NRI COMMENTS? WELL, I I I'M REALLY KIND OF IN, IN A CONUNDRUM HERE, UM, HERE.
SO, SO THE BUILDING OFFICIALS STOP ORDER WAS SOLELY BASED ON THE PERCEPTION OF THE EXISTING ZONING AT THE TIME AS OPPOSED TO THE USE, IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, MY, WHAT WE HEARD WAS THAT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY DUPE DUPLEX, THAT IT WAS INTERPRETED AS SINGLE FAMILY BECAUSE IT WAS OCCUPIED AS SINGLE PAD FAMILY, EVEN THOUGH WE HAD TWO WATER METERS.
AND WE WE'RE SENSING THAT THAT'S WHERE THE BEGINNING OF THE ERROR AND CLASSIFICATION OF USE AND THAT PART OF THE, THE REVOCATION OF THE PERMITS THAT IS ON THE TABLE IS A FUNCTION OF DUPLEX USE.
WHEN THE BUILDING OFFICIALS SAYING IT CAN'T BE DUPLEX USE, IT HAS TO BE SINGLE FAMILY.
SO, UM, AND, AND OF COURSE WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE SENIOR PLANNER WAS THAT DID THE INSPECTION, OTHERWISE WE'D SUBPOENA THEM AND, AND HAVE THEM COME AND TESTIFY IF THEY'RE PROBABLY WITH THE CITY ANYMORE, THE BUILDING OFFICIALS NOT WITH THE CITY ANYMORE.
UM, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD, MR. ING.
NO, I, I JUST, IT IS JUST, UH, THIS, THIS PROBABLY ONE OF THE TOUGHEST CASES I'VE, I'VE, UH, HEARD,
[03:45:01]
YOU KNOW, IN THE SEVERAL YEARS I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD.SO I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.
SO WE JUST LOOK, I'M ABOUT TO GO THERE.
HERE FROM, FROM WHAT THE BUILDING OFFICIALS LETTER.
AM I LOOKING AT YOUR JUNE 25TH, MR. POOL? AM I, IS THAT THE ONE I'M LOOKING AT? YES.
IT'S THE, THIS LETTER SERVES THE OFFICIAL OF THE PROJECT AND MASTER PERMIT CONSTRUCTION, SO FORTH, WE'RE ISSUED AN ERROR AND ARE HEREBY REVOKED.
SO THAT'S A BUILDING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS DETERMINATION.
ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE SAYING ONE IS ILLEGAL LAND USE.
ONE THING IS WE'RE SAYING NO, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL LAND USE.
STRUCTURE EXCEEDS MAXIMUM HEIGHT.
THAT STILL IS A QUESTION 26 8, 25 ROOF TYPE, THE PITCH TYPE.
NOW IN THIS LETTER, MR. POOL, IT DOESN'T REFERENCE LOT COVERAGE.
I'M TALKING ABOUT YOUR JUNE 25TH LETTER.
DID YOU SEND THEM A SUBSEQUENT LETTER OR WAS IT VERBALLY? WE DID NOT, IT WAS JUST VERBALLY AFTER THAT.
THE PERMIT WAS ALREADY REVOKED, SO WE DIDN'T, OKAY.
SO I THINK WHAT I'M INTERPRETING FROM YOU, MS. BOARD ATTORNEY, IS THAT OUR ACTION TODAY CANNOT GRANT A VARIANCE FOR THESE TWO OTHER AREAS.
MR. COTHRAN, PLEASE, I, IF I OPEN UP TO YOU, I OPEN UP BOTH SIDES HERE.
WE'RE, WE'RE IN OUR DISCUSSION.
OKAY, SO WE, WE CAN'T TODAY ISSUE A VARIANCE.
WE DID NOTICE OF VARIANCE, SO WE CAN'T DO THAT SORT OF THING.
SO WHAT'S THE EFFECT IF THAT WE REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? TELL ME WHAT'S THE PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THAT.
CAN I TAKE YOU A SECOND JUST TO, WE CAN TAKE A RECESS JUST TO CORRECT.
YOU WANT TO CHECK UP ON SEVENTH FLOOR PLEASE? OKAY.
SO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL EIGHT IS AT, UM, 5:02 PM WE'LL RECESS TILL, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED? YOU WANT FIVE? YOU WANT FIVE 15? FIVE 20? TELL ME 15.
UH, OKAY, WE'LL RECESS TILL 5:20 PM YEAH, OF COURSE.
THING SEEMS LIKE MAYBE IT WAS PROCESS DROVE BY.
WHAT'S THAT? OUR MIKE SAW? YEAH.
IT'S US HARD TO CONVERT, BUT I JUST, HEY, WE'RE ON A RIGHT.
I HAVE ANOTHER CASE HERE THAT'S IN
[04:03:15]
[04:03:16]
OKAY.[04:03:16]
DO WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY? OKAY, THANK YOU.UH, WE GOTTA GET MR. NERI BACK ON TOO.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22ND BACK IN ORDER.
IT IS, UH, 5:18 PM SORRY FOR THE ADDITIONAL DELAY.
UM, THE CASE IN FRONT OF US IS TWO BDA, 2, 3, 4, 1 0 1.
UM, WE'VE HAD TWO SEPARATE DAYS OF HEARINGS.
UM, UH, I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION.
MAY I RESPOND TO YOUR EARLIER QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN? WHAT, WHAT QUESTION IS THAT? WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE EFFECT OF, IF YOU WERE REVERSE AND THEN I ASKED FOR A BRIEF RECESS SO I CONTINUE.
IF YOU REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FIRST, YOU WOULD HAVE TO FIND THE FINDING EFFECT OF HOW THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED ON THE THREE.
WE'VE NEVER DONE THAT BEFORE ON THE THREE USES, WHICH ARE THE, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? IT'S ON.
SO IF YOU REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A, ANY EFFECT OF WHY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED ON THE THREE POINTS THAT WERE PROVIDED IN THE LETTER, WHICH WERE THE ILLEGAL LAND USE, THE STRUCTURE EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND THE ROOF TYPE LOT BECAUSE
[04:05:01]
LOT COVERAGE WAS NOT PART OF THIS LETTER.IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED RESOLVED ARGUMENTS.
UM, HELLO? HE, WE HAVE, IS THIS ON HERE? THIS ONE? YEP, THIS IS ON.
CAN YOU HEAR ME MARY? THE VOLUME NEEDS TO BE TURNED UP ON ALL OF THIS.
SO IF THE, IF THIS BOARD REVERSES THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION, IT CAN ONLY BE REVERSED ON THE THREE ISSUES THAT WERE PROVIDED IN THE LETTER WITH THE FINDING EFFECT OF HOW THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED.
SO IT CAN ONLY BE ADDRESSING THE ILLEGAL LAND, USE THE STRUCTURE EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND THE ROOF TYPE BECAUSE LOT COVERAGE WAS NOT PART OF THIS LETTER.
UM, SO ESSENTIALLY IF YOU'RE REVERSING, YOU HAVE TO ALLEGE HOW THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED BASED OFF OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS IN EFFECT WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS FILED.
AND IF YOU REVERSE IT, THEN YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING YES TO THE LAND USE TO THE HEIGHT AND TO THE ROOF PITCH AND IT'S ALL OR NOTHING.
OR CAN YOU TAKE IT
YOU CAN MODIFY, YOU CAN SAY THAT YOU'RE ARE REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ON THE LEGAL LAND USE, UM, BUT AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HEIGHT AND THE ROOF PITCH.
BUT IF YOU ARE AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HEIGHT AND THE ROOF PITCH, THEN YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING, YES, I STILL REVERT BASED OFF OF THOSE ISSUES.
BUT YOU'RE LETTING THE LEGAL LAND USE SCOPE AND THAT WOULD FORCE THE HEIGHT AND THE PITCH TO BE ADDRESSED IN SOME WAY, IN SOME WAY MOVING FORWARD AFTER THE, OKAY.
IT WORKS HAVING FULLY REVIEWED THE, OOPS.
MARY, CAN YOU HEAR ME? THERE WE GO.
HAVING FULLY REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS AND APPEAL NUMBER BD 8 2 3 4 DASH 1 0 1, AN APPLICATION OF AKUR HANNEY AND HAVING EVALUATED THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY AND HEARD ALL TESTIMONY AND FACTS SUPPORTING THIS APPLICATION, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OF, OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WANT ME TO BE SPECIFIC TO THE 1, 2, 3 AND FOUR OR ONE? IT WOULD JUST BE ONE, TWO, OR THREE BECAUSE LOT COVERAGE WAS NOT PART OF THE LETTER.
SO THAT'S NOT A, A FACTOR TO CONSIDER.
IT'S JUST THE LAND USE THE HEIGHT AND THE ROOM TIME.
BUT, BUT HOLD ON AND I'LL FINISH THE MOTION A SECOND, BUT HOW IS THAT REASONABLE IF THE APPLICANT, IF THE APPELLANT RECEIVED THE LETTER? I'M GOING BACK TO YOUR LETTER MR. HOVE ON JUNE 25TH.
UM, SO WHAT HAPPENS TO THE ISSUE OF THE LOT COVERAGE? IS IT HANG IN THERE? I MEAN, WHAT, AND THERE NEVER WAS A LETTER, THERE WASN'T EVER A LETTER.
SO, SO I MEAN, WHAT'S WHAT I MEAN, WHAT AT A LATER TIME THE APPLICANT CAN ADDRESS THAT WITH THE CITY.
THAT'S BUT THAT WE CANNOT ADDRESS THAT HERE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL LETTER.
DID THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ACT ON THE VERBAL STOP ORDER ON THE LOT COVERAGE ISSUE, DID THEY, THEY ACT ON IT.
DID THEY, DID THEY COMMUNICATE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM TO THE APPLICANT THAT THERE'S A LOT COVERAGE ISSUE SO THEREFORE IT IS RELEVANT? HE'S NODDING AS SAID.
YES, BUT IN WRITING OR VERBAL? THAT'S NOT IN WRITING.
WELL GUYS, WHY ARE WE DOING THIS STUFF VERBALLY? BECAUSE WE WERE PROVIDING NOTICE TO THE CITY AND IT, IT'S ALL IN WRITING AND PART OF THE RECORD.
WELL, PART OF THE PROBLEM IN ALL DUE RESPECT IS THE CITY DID A HORRIBLE JOB OF NOTICE ALL ALONG HERE.
WELL, IT'S, OKAY, SO THOSE THREE POINTS, SO HOLD ON MY, MY, MY MOTION.
SO IF I MAKE THE MOTION AND WE APPROVE A, A REVERSAL OF THE LAND USE DETERMINATION, WHAT HAPPENS ON THE HEIGHT AND THE PITCH? YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION IF YOU'RE REVERSING OR AFFIRMING BASED OFF OF THOSE.
CAN WE HOLD THOSE OVER IN ANTICIPATION OF THE APPLICANT? UH, UH CAN WE JUST HOLD THOSE OTHER TWO COMPONENTS OVER? NO, YOU CAN'T.
IT'S ALL PART OF ONE APPLICATION.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WERE TO ADDRESS ALL FOUR POINTS IN OUR MOTION.
THE RECOURSE WOULD BE TO APPEAL OUR DECISION.
[04:10:01]
THE CITY COULD APPEAL US LIKE THEY DID IN TEXAS COURTHOUSE.SO I WOULD SUGGEST WE LET WHOEVER WANTS TO APPEAL OUR DECISION AND WE HIT ALL FOUR.
YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, TO ADDRESS, TO ADDRESS THE LOT COVERAGE.
THAT THAT'S WHY THEY APPEAL IT.
IT SAYS TO IT, IT IT, IT CLEARLY SAYS HERE THE BOARD SHALL HAVE ALL THE POWERS AND THE BOARD MAY WHOLE OR PART AFFIRM REVERSE OR AMEND THE DECISION OF THE OFFICIAL THE DECISION OF THE OFFICIAL WAS BASED OFF OF THREE POINTS PURSUANT TO THE LETTER ON JUNE 25TH.
SO LEGAL LAND USE THE HEIGHT AND THE ROOF PITCH.
WE'RE THAT'S WHAT HE JUST SAID.
BUT HE SAID FOURTH, WHICH YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LOT COVERAGE, BUT BE, THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE LOT.
HOW IS THE, HOW IS THE APPELLATE SUPPOSED TO DEFEND HIMSELF ON SOMETHING THAT WAS VERBAL, NOT IN WRITING AND NOW YOU'RE HANDCUFFING OUR ABILITY TO RESPOND TO THAT JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE AS DENIED CAN ASK FOR FORGIVENESS.
YEAH, BUT IT'S NOT GIVEN, IT'S NOWHERE IN THE PAPER TRAILER.
WELL, SO IT DOESN'T THAT IN EFFECT IT DOESN'T EXIST.
WELL, BUT IT DOES BECAUSE HE SERVED NOTICE THE BUILDING OFFICIALS SERVE NOTICE ON THE APPLICANT VERBALLY.
THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY ALLEGEDLY VERBALLY.
SO CAN WE NOT JUST REVERSE THE LAND USE AND LEAVE THE HEIGHT, THE PITCH UNADDRESSED? NO, THAT WE ARE HERE TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT THE PERMIT SHOULD BE REVOKED BASED OFF OF WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED IN HIS DECISION.
SO IF YOU ARE REVERSING BASED OFF OF LAND USE, YOU CAN REVERSE AND MODIFY THE DECISION THAT WE'RE REVERSING THE REVOCATION AND ESSENTIALLY ISSUE THE PERMIT FOR THE LAND USE.
BUT YOU CAN AFFIRM THE DECISION TO REVOKE OR TO A PULL, UPHOLD THE DECISION THAT THEY REVOKED BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT, BECAUSE THEY WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE HEIGHT AND THE ROOT PITCH.
SO WE COULD SAY WE'RE GONNA REVERSE LAND USE BUT NOT REVERSE HEIGHT AND PITCH.
AND ESSENTIALLY YOU WOULD BE AFFIRMING IF YOU DON'T ADDRESS IT, IT'S STATUS QUO.
SO THE COURT'S DENIED WHICH, WHICH MEANS YOU'RE AFFIRMING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION BASED OFF OF THOSE TWO FACTORS.
RIGHT? BUT THEN THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPEAL THE HEIGHT AND PITCH THROUGH.
THEY COULD COME BACK AND APPEAL THE HEIGHT AND THE PITCH.
THEY HAD TO GO TO DISTRICT COURT.
OR WOULD THEY GO BACK AND GET A NO, THEY COULD APPLY FOR A VARIANCE APPEAL.
THEY COULD APPLY FOR A VARIANCE.
BUT THEY CAN APPLY FOR A VARIANCE FOR A LATER TIME, RIGHT? CORRECT.
WHICH MEANS NEXT WEEK THEY CAN FILE FOR HE AND PITCH A VARIANCE.
SEE THE VARIANCE FOR THE PITCH ISSUE? WHAT'S THAT? YOU CAN'T SEE THE VARIANCE FOR THE PITCH ISSUE.
I, I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT HAD ALREADY VOLUNTEERED TO CHA ADJUSTING THE, THE PITCH.
COULDN'T WE JUST SUBMIT? I WANT TO KNOW.
COULDN'T WE JUST SUBMIT FOR A BUILDING PERMIT SHOWING THE REDUCED HEIGHT AND THE NEW PITCH? AND, AND AND, AND I I DON'T UNDER WE WERE HAVING A LITTLE SIDEBAR.
IF YOU'RE FINDING THAT IT'S A DUPLEX YES.
THAT'S WE'RE DUPLEX COVERAGE WAS 60% NOT THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE NORMAL DUPLEX COVERAGE IS 60%.
SO I, I DON'T WANT, I MEAN I, I I, THAT'S WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
I JUST WANNA KNOW WHAT WE'RE AGREEING TO FOR STAFF.
WHAT IS DUPLEX COVERAGE IN PD 67? CURRENTLY IT'S 40%.
IT WAS 60 FOR DUPLEX OR I THINK, UM, MS. UH,
IT WAS 60 WHERE? 40% AND IT WAS 60.
AND BY REVERTING THE LAND
BUT WHAT IS, WHAT IS DUPLEX NOW UNDER PD? IT'S 40% FOR RESIDENTIAL, RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES FOR EITHER DUPLEX.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THE CODE IS.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE ISSUE OF HEIGHT FIVE? IT'S 25 NOW.
WHAT WAS IT BEFORE 6 36? IT WAS 36 WITH THE PREVIOUS DUPLEX ZONING.
THIS IS WHERE, THIS IS WHY GUYS IN THERE 26.8.
THAT'S WHERE IT'S LIKE, SO IF WE MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MADE AN ERROR IN CLASSIFYING THIS AS A SINGLE FAMILY AND IT'S A DUPLEX ALL
[04:15:01]
ALONG MM-HMM.IF WE THEN EX EXTRA EXTRAPOLATE THE LOT COVERAGE ISSUE, IF IT'S DUPLEX THAT'S 60%.
BUT WE'RE NOT DOING THAT TODAY.
WELL, WE, THAT'S NOT ON THE TABLE.
BUT, BUT WHAT HAPPENS TO, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE STATUS QUO? I SUGGEST WE MAKE A DECISION WHAT WE THINK IS A PROPER RESOLUTION TO THIS MATTER.
AND IF SOMEONE DOESN'T LIKE IT, WHO'S A PARTY TO IT? LET THEM APPEAL IT.
UM, WELL MY ORIGINAL INSTINCT WAS TO REVERSE ALL.
THAT'S WHAT MY, MY INSTINCT WAS BECAUSE WE'RE GOING BACK TO WHAT, GOING BACK TO THE SOURCE OF THE AIR.
THE SOURCE OF THE AIR WAS A PERSON IN THE CITY WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION THAT IN INCORRECTLY CLASSIFIED THIS AS SINGLE FAMILY WHEN IT WAS DUPLEX.
AND SO THEREFORE YOU IDENTIFY AND YOU TAKE THAT CLASSIFICATION FORWARD.
TWO WATER METERS, GUYS, TWO WATER METER.
WE ALSO, WE ALSO HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO HELP MAINTAIN THE LOOK OF THE COMMUNITY.
AND, AND SO WE CAN TAKE ALL THOSE FACTORS INTO ACCOUNT IN DECIDING WHICH ASPECTS OF THAT TO REVERSE AND WHICH ASPECTS TO NOT REVERSE.
IS THAT MY OPINION OR NO? RIGHT.
THERE'S THREE THINGS THAT YOU CAN JUST, THAT YOU CAN MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER TO REVERSE OR REVERSE.
SO IF YOU'RE REVERSING ON THE LAND USE AND AFFIRMING THAT THE OTHER TWO THAT IS AFFIRM SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN DO AS WELL.
IF YOU FIND THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DID NOT ERR THE OTHER TWO, THEN YOU WOULD BE AFFIRMING THE BUT LIKEWISE WE COULD REVERSAL.
CORRECT? IF YOU FIND THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DID AIR YEP.
I I HAVE TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE FLOOR.
IF, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT, I WOULD ASK YOU TO DO IT IN THREE SEPARATE MOTION ROOM.
OR IS IT ALL ONE? IT'S ESSENTIALLY ONE.
'CAUSE IT'S A REVOKING, IT'S A REVOCATION OF A PERMIT.
BUT YOU CAN MODIFY THE REASONS OF WHAT YOU ARE REVOKING IT FOR.
SO YOU COULD BE REVOKING IT FOR NOT THE LAND USE.
'CAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE REVERSING ON THAT POINT.
BUT IF YOU THINK THAT IT'S IN VIOLATION OF THE HEIGHT AND THE ROOF PITCH, THEN YOU WOULD STILL BE REVOKING IT BECAUSE THEY ISSUED AN ERROR.
UM, UH, HAVING REVIEWED THE DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS CITY OF DALLAS AND APPEAL BDA 2 3, 4 1 0 1 OF THE APPLICATION ACT BY MC MCNA AND HAVING EVALUATED THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY AND HEARD ALL THAT TESTIMONY AND FACTS SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REVERSE THE DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
THAT'S ALL YOUR LANGUAGE TELLS US.
SO IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT, THEN YOU'RE REVERSING ON ALL THREE CASES, CORRECT? I AM.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.
THE MOTION'S BEEN MADE BY, UH, CHAIRMAN NEWMAN, SECONDED BY MR. SAUK DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
IT WAS EXTREMELY LIGHTLY TODAY TO HEAR THAT A STAFFER INTERPRETED BY VISUAL IN SOME WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS SINGLE FAMILY WHEN IN, IN REALITY IT WAS DUPLEX ALL ALONG TWO WATER METERS.
AND THEREFORE I CORRELATE AND, UH, UH, EXTRAPOLATE THOSE COMPONENTS TO EACH ONE OF THESE OTHER COMPONENTS.
AND THERE'S BEEN A SUCCESSIVE AMOUNT OF EXCESSIVE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ERRORS BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OF OFFICIAL THROUGH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THROUGH THE ZONING MAP, THROUGH THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS.
UM, AND 351 DAYS BETWEEN NOTIFICATION BETWEEN THE PERMIT BEING GRANTED, SUBSEQUENT GREEN TAGS BEING ISSUED AND A MAY 15TH STOP ORDER.
UH, I CANNOT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE ASK A HOMEOWNER TO TAKE MORE THAN 50% OF THE RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS.
THE CITY DID NOT FULFILL ITS 50%.
UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY I MADE THE MOTION DISCUSSION, MR. SEIG.
UM, I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION BECAUSE I THINK EVERYTHING FELL APART WITH THE SIMPLE TASK OF LOOKING UP.
IF THIS WAS AN EMPTY LOT, THEY WOULD'VE GONE AND LOOKED UP ON PAPER.
WHAT THIS LOT WAS ZONED TO FIGURE OUT IS THIS SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE IT, IT ALL FELL APART AND THAT'S WHAT I, YOU KNOW, I FULLY SUPPORT THE INTENTION OF PD 67 AND WHAT IT'S TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
[04:20:01]
TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.AND I DON'T TAKE LIGHTLY REVERSING A CITY OFFICIAL.
AND I'VE SAID THAT BEFORE, YOU KNOW, IN THESE HEARINGS THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I TAKE LIGHTLY.
UM, BUT IN THIS CASE, THAT IS WHERE I THINK ALL OF THIS FELL APART AND THAT BECAME CLEAR AS THE CASE UNFOLDED AND, AND I ASKED QUESTIONS.
AND WHEN THAT WAS CLARIFIED, THEN I THINK EVERYTHING ELSE JUST FALLS WITH IT.
UM, I WISH THE HEIGHTENED PITCH WERE CORRECTED OR MODIFIED, BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
UH, YOU KNOW, BUT THEY'RE STILL BY RIGHT.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS A DUPLEX LAW.
THIS IS A, THIS IS SUCH AN INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT DECISION.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S A PAINFUL DECISION REALLY.
AND IT'S, IT'S FRUSTRATING THAT THE, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ISSUED A PERMIT THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND THAT THEIR PROCESSES WEREN'T IN PLACE TO KEEP THIS FROM HAPPENING AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY CONTINUE TO PROVIDE GREEN TAGS FOR A PROJECT THAT WAS UNDERWAY.
SO THAT'S A, A DISAPPOINTING, UM, UH, THINK FOR OUR CITY, IT'S ALSO, YOU KNOW, PUTS US IN A DIFFICULT POSITION BECAUSE HERE WE ARE HAVING TO BE, YOU KNOW, THE BAD GUY, RIGHT.
MAKING THE DECISION THAT IS, IS ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER.
UM, SO, UM, I'LL, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION, BUT IT'S, IT'S, LIKE I SAID, IT'S NOT AN EASY DECISION FOR ME.
MR. KOVI, THERE'S A REASON I ASKED YOU TO BREAK IT INTO THREE MOTIONS.
I'M GONNA FIND THAT I'M NOT ABLE TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF YOUR MOTION.
I DO BELIEVE THAT THE USAGE SHOULD BE CHANGED.
UH, HOWEVER, I THINK IN THE MATTER, IT'S A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST TO HELP MAINTAIN THE CURRENT CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE AND THE HEIGHT AND THE ROOF WOULD'VE HELPED THAT STRUCTURE FIT IN MORE.
THE BUILDER WAS WILLING TO DO IT AND BASICALLY, UM, BY WITHDRAWING ALL THREE OF THE, OF THE ITEMS, UM, THEY HAVE NO FURTHER INCENTIVE TO TO DO THOSE CHANGES.
AND I THINK THAT IF WE DIVIDED IT UP, WOULD YOU SUPPORT IT? I WOULD SUPPORT THE, I WOULD, I WOULD SUPPORT THE CHANGE IN THE USAGE, THE LOT COVERAGE IN THE LAND USAGE.
I WOULD, THE LOT, THE LOT COVERAGE WERE NOT DOING WELL.
I, I'M GONNA D DIFFER ON THAT AGAIN, BECAUSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, WHERE'S MR. POOL? THE, UM, BUILDING OFFICIAL COMMUNICATED, I WOULD SUPPORT THE COVERAGE.
SO I THINK THAT'S WITH, I'M GONNA INTERPRET THAT'S WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION.
I WOULD SUPPORT THE LOCK COVERAGE AND I WOULD SUPPORT THE USAGE.
I THINK THAT THE ROOF HEIGHT AND THE ROOF, THE HEIGHT AND THE ROOF SHAPE, I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR THOSE.
WOULD YOU GO FOR THAT? WELL, I OR YOU THINK I'M ALL IN ON THE USE THE HEIGHT AND THE PITCH I HAVE MIXED EMOTIONS ON SO I CAN SUPPORT, UH, THAT MOTION.
THE COVERAGE WAS VERBALLY COMMUNICATED.
I CANNOT SUPPORT, I CAN'T EVEN, I CAN'T VOTE.
I'LL HAVE TO VOTE AGAINST ANYTHING FOR LIKE LOT COVERAGE.
BUT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ADMITTED THAT HE DID THAT.
BUT IT'S, WHERE'S IT IN WRITING? BUT HE TESTIFIED THAT HE, HE COMMUNICATED THAT IS THAT I'M LOOKING TO LEGAL ON THAT.
NO, AND YOU CANNOT CONSIDER LOT COVERAGE.
IT WAS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL LAW.
SO HOW DOES THE APPLICANT GET A FAIR DAY IN COURT FOR THAT? THEY CAN AT A LATER TIME APPLY FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE LOT COVERAGE? THE CITY HAS TO PUT THAT IN WRITING FIRST OF ALL, THAT THERE'S A VIOLATION.
WHY DID THE BUILDING OFFICIAL NOT PUT IT IN WRITING? WE DIDN'T KNOW AT THE TIME.
AND BECAUSE HE SAID BECAUSE IT WAS SO FAR ALONG, THEY DIDN'T PUT IT IN WRITING BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY IN THIS CONUNDRUM.
THEY, THEY DON'T, THERE'S NO, THEY HAVE NO YEAH.
OBLIGATION TO PUT IT IN WRITING.
WELL, DO THEY HAVE TO? WE ARE NOW HANDCUFFED, RIGHT.
WELL LET, LET'S KEEP GETTING A FEEDBACK ON IT.
ALL RIGHT, MR. MR. NRI? UM, YEAH.
I AM AGREEING, UH, IN THE LINE OF THOUGHT OF MR.
THE PERMITS WERE ISSUED AN ERROR BASED ON THE CITY'S MISINTERPRETATION OF A POORLY GRANDFATHERED ZONING MAP BASED ON, UH, VISUAL ASSESSMENT.
BUT I, LIKE MR. HOROWITZ, AM NOT WILLING TO ALLOW ALL ERRORS, UH, AND VIOLATIONS TO GO FORWARD.
[04:25:01]
AS SUBMITTED, I WOULD, I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION.THAT'S THREE, TWO, SO THAT'S NOT, SO I'M HEREBY WITHDRAWING MY MOTION.
I, ARE YOU TELLING ME BASED ON THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, MS BOARD ATTORNEY, THAT WE CANNOT ACT ON COMMUNICATION FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT LOT COVERAGE VI VIOLATION? THAT IS CORRECT.
NOT AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME BECAUSE IT'S NOT PART OF THE RECORD.
SO WHAT OR WAS A PART OF, SO WHAT IS THE RECOURSE FOR THE APPLICANT? WHAT CAN THEY, WHAT CAN THEY DO IN ORDER TO ADDRESS WHAT THEY WERE TOLD BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? THEY CANNOT DO.
HOW, HOW ARE THEY? THEY'VE BEEN IN LIMBO FOR TWO MONTHS BASED ON WHAT THEY WERE VERBALLY TOLD OVER TWO MONTHS AGO.
I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO DEFER THAT QUESTION, BUT THAT'S NOT FAIR TO THE APPLICANT.
THAT'S NOT FAIR TO ANYONE THAT THAT SHOULD BE ALREADY, THAT, THAT, THAT IT COULD COME FORWARD WITH VARIANCE TO LOT COVERAGE.
SO AND HEIGHT AND PITCH AND HEIGHT AND PITCH.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE PITCH CAN BE THE PITCH.
THERE'S, IT'S RIGHT, THE CODE ONLY SAYS YOU CAN GET A VARIANCE TO LOT COVERAGE.
BUT WHY DID PITCH EVEN COME INTO THE CONVERSATION IF IT'S NOT, THEY MODIFIED IT, RIGHT? BUT IT NEVER WAS.
SO I'M STILL CONFUSED AS TO WHY IT WASN'T FLAT, WHY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL STOPPED THE HOME, THE THE HOMEOWNER.
BUT NOW THE HOMEOWNER CAN'T GET REDRESS, CAN'T GET HIS DAY IN COURT ON THE LOT COVERAGE BECAUSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FAILED TO PUT IT IN WRITING.
AND NOW SO BECAUSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FAILED TO PUT IT IN WRITING.
SEE, THAT PUTS THE HOMEOWNER IN, IN LIMBO.
SO THE CITY HAS TO ISSUE A VIOLATION ON LOT COVERAGE, BUT I THOUGHT HE ALREADY DID NOT IN WRITING.
AND THEN THAT CAN START THE APPEAL PROCESS.
MISS CITY, ATTORNEY AND I CORRECT.
THERE'S NOTHING IN WRITING THAT.
IT WAS JUST VERBALLY SAY THAT YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE LOT COVERAGE.
BUT ABSENT THAT BECOMES HEARSAY.
IF BOTH PARTIES AGREED THAT THEY HAD A CONVERSATION, WHICH THEY DID.
EVERYONE, EVERYONE ADMITS THE FACT THAT HE'S NODDING HIS HEAD.
HE WAS NOTIFIED AND HE COMMUNICATED.
SO THAT'S, AND HE REPRESENTS THE, THE OWNER AND HE REPRESENTS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
WHAT ELSE? WHAT ELSE? WELL, WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO ABOUT THE LOCK COVERAGE THEN? WELL, WE, WE'RE GONNA REVERSE IT.
WE'RE GONNA REVERSE BECAUSE IT GOES BACK TO THE DUPLICATE DU DUPLEX ZONING THAT WE SAID WAS FOUND IN ERROR.
IT WASN'T AN OFFICIAL DECISION.
HE, HE COMMUNICATED THAT AGAIN.
IT WAS, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE IN WRITING.
I WOULD, I WOULD SUGGEST IF WE MAKE IT A DECISION THAT IS AN ERROR.
THERE WAS AN APPEALS PROCESS THAT PEOPLE CAN DO YES.
I, IT'S MY OPINION, WE HAVE TO BE FAIR TO AND EQUITABLE TO EVERYONE THAT COMES BEFORE US.
SO I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA MAKE MY MOTION AGAIN IN PD 2 3 2 3 4 DASH ZERO ONE, HAVING FULLY REVIEWED THE DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN CITY DALLAS AND APPEAL NUMBER 2 3 4 DASH ZERO ONE ON APPLICATION ACT, BARB ANI AND HAVING VALUE OF THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY AND HEARD ALL TESTIMONY, FACTS SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION.
I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AS IT RELATES TO LAND USE AND LOT COVERAGE.
IS THERE, ARE YOU SECONDING? I'M SECONDING THE MOTION, THE MOTION'S BEEN SECONDED.
I WOULD PREFER TO REVERSE SMALL.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S A FOUR VOTE CONSENSUS FOR THAT.
SO I'M, SO WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE OTHER TWO? WELL, WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE OTHER TWO? WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA VOTE TOO.
WE'RE, WELL, WE'LL HAVE TO SEPARATELY VOTE, VOTE ON THE FIRM.
WELL, WHY CAN'T WE VOTE SEPARATELY ON THE COVERAGE? 'CAUSE I DON'T WANNA VOTE FOR THAT.
I'M WITH THE YOU DON'T FEEL THAT THEY COMMUNICATED THE LACK COVERAGE? NO, IT'S NOT IN WRITING.
BREAK IT INTO FOUR AND LET'S, I THINK WE'RE IN AGREEMENT.
IT'S JUST ON FOUR AND I MAY BE THE ONLY ONE.
MR. NER, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON LACK COVERAGE? DO YOU FEEL THAT THE, THE CITY COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT AS IT RELATES TO THE LOT COVERAGE VIOLATION? YEAH.
UM, I, I THINK IT WAS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS COMMUNICATION OF THAT VIOLATION, WHETHER IT WAS IN WRITING.
THAT'S, THAT SEEMS TO BE THE CRUX OF THE MATTER, BUT
[04:30:01]
I DEFINITELY WANT THE HEIGHT, UH, AND THE ROOF TO BE ADDRESSED IN SOME FASHION.BUT IF THE BOARD ATTORNEY IS TELLING US THAT WE CAN'T CONSIDER THAT BECAUSE IT WASN'T IN WRITING ISN'T NOT WHAT WE, I HAVE TO ALWAYS WITH MY ATTORNEY.
WELL, BUT, BUT I DON'T TAKE THAT LIGHTLY.
I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY
MY MOTION, FIRST AND FOREMOST IS TO REVERSE FOR AS IT RELATES TO LAND USE.
I AGREE TO THE CHANGE IN YOUR MOTION.
YEAH, I'M JUST SAYING IT TO LANDING USES.
DISCUSSION ON REVERSING THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL FOR LAND USE.
BOARD SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLE ON THE FIRST.
ON A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UNANIMOUSLY REVERSES THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AS IT RELATES TO ITS INTERPRETATION OF LAND USE, UH, LAB COVERAGE.
I'M STILL OF THE OPINION THAT COMMUNICATION IN GOOD FAITH WAS GIVEN FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE ACKNOWLEDGES IT.
UM, I'M SURE THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIALS REGRETTING RIGHT NOW, NOT PUTTING IT IN WRITING, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S A MANAGEMENT ISSUE THAT IS NOT A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ISSUE.
UH, YOU KNOW, THEY SAY A CONTRACT IS A MEETING OF MINDS.
THE TWO PEOPLE HAVE A MEETING OF MINDS AS IT RELATES TO AN ISSUE, AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY RE THEY THEY HAD A MEETING OF MINDS IF WE, WE JUST DETERMINED THAT IT IS, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN VIEWED AS A DUPLEX, DUPLEX ALL ALONG.
SO I HEREBY MOVE IN BDA 2 3 4 101 TO REVERSE THE DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, UH, AS IT RELATES TO LAP COVERAGE.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. KOVICH DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
YES, I HAVE, I HAVE DISCUSSION.
ARE WE, ARE WE, ARE WE GOING TO, UH, CONSIDER, UH, A MOTION ON THE HEIGHT OF THE ROOF AS WELL AFTER THIS? WE'LL DO THAT.
WE'LL DO THAT SEPARATELY, YES, JAY.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THE MOTION HEARING NONE WILL GO TO A VOTE.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY, PLEASE VOTE.
IN THE MATTER OF, UH, BDA 2 3 4 1 0 1, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE REVERSES THE BUILDING OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS DETERMINATION ON LIVE COVERAGE.
OKAY, SO WHAT'S DOWN, WHAT'S, WHAT'S LEFT IS THE HEIGHT AND THE PITCH.
SO OUR CHOICES ARE TO, OUR CHOICES ARE OH, SURE.
CORRECT? THE, THE CHOICE IS TO, UH, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, AFFIRM, REVER, OR AMEND.
MM-HMM,
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HEIGHT AND, AND WORD AND PITCH BOTH TOGETHER? YES.
THE APPLICANT REVISED THEIR DESIGN, RIGHT? THEY, THEY SAID THEY WOULD.
THEY DIDN'T, IT'S NOT BEEN SO WE CAN'T CONSIDER THAT WE
SO WE HAVE TO CONSIDER WHAT WAS PERMITTED.
SO THEY CAN REVISE THEIR PLANS AND APPLY FOR A VARIANCE, I THINK.
AND THAT'S WHAT, THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP.
NOT FOR ROOF PITCH, YOU CAN'T APPLY FOR MAINTENANCE FOR ROOF PITCH, BUT HEIGHT WE CAN FOR HEIGHT, CORRECT.
UH, BDA 2 3 4 1 0 1 ON APPLICATION ACT BAR MCNAY, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
UM, I HEREBY MOVE TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AS IT RELATES TO HEIGHT AND ROOF PITCH.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION BOARD.
SECRETARY, PLEASE TAKE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE YES.
NO, IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 0 1,
[04:35:01]
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND A VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE AFFIRMS THE BILL, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL'S OPINION ON MAC ON HEIGHT AND ROOF PITCH.NEXT, NEXT ITEM IS, UH, BDA 2 3 4 1 0 1 FR ONE.
UH, I MOVE ON THE APPLICATION OF ACBAR MCCONNEY.
GRANT, THE REQUEST TO REIMBURSE OF THE FILING FEES TO BE PAID AND ASSOCIATED WITH THE REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT BECAUSE OUR ACTION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FRIENDSHIP FOR THE APPLICANT.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY.
MOTION PASSES FOUR TO ONE IN THE MATTER BD 8 2 3 4 DASH ZERO ONE FFR ONE.
THE BOARD, UM, APPROVES FOUR TO ONE THE GRANTING OF THE REIMBURSEMENT OF FILING FEES.
UM, AS YOU HEARD OF TO THE APPLICANT, YOU, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU FILE A CASE AS IT RELATES TO, UH, THE HEIGHT ISSUE AND A VARIANCE THAT'S WOULD BE HANDLED SEPARATE AND ASIDE.
YOU WANT THE BATHROOM TAKE? IF YOU WANT A BREAK BETWEEN OR YOU STAY FIVE MINUTES.
UH, WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA RECESS UNTIL 6:00 PM IS THAT ENOUGH? NINE MINUTES.
IT'S 5:51 PM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS RECESSING UNTIL 6:00 PM THANK YOU.
YOU KNOW WHAT I'M GONNA SAY THAT WAS GOOD DECISION.
IT WAS, BUT I COULD, I FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT, BUT I COULD SUPPORT.
UH, IT IS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22ND.
UH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, UH, AT 6:02 PM IS RECONVENED.
WE HAVE TWO REMAINING CASES ON THE AGENDA.
UM, VDA 2 3 4 DASH 11 AT 6 5 2 9 OF VICTORIA AVENUE.
UM, I'M GONNA TRY TO HANDLE THIS IN A, IN A SAME BUT UNIQUE WAY AS THE PREVIOUS.
AND THAT IS I WILL GIVE THE APPELLATE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT 10 MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS, AND THEN THE BUILDING, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS ATTORNEYS TO RESPOND OR TO GIVE THEIR PRE PRESENTATION.
AND THEN I WILL ALLOW EACH FIVE MINUTES, UM, CLOSING SLASH REBUTTAL AND THAT SORT OF THING.
UM, OF COURSE, INTERACTIVE WITH QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS.
I WILL TELL YOU, WE'VE LOST ONE OF OUR FIVE MEMBERS.
J MR. NERI, WHO WAS ONLINE, HAD TO DEPART AT SIX O'CLOCK, BUT WE STILL HAVE A QUORUM.
THIS IS A, UH, A REQUEST TO APPEAL THE DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL BUILDING PERMIT, UH, FOR STRUCTURE EXCEEDING HEIGHT, ONE LOT COVERAGE TWO AND ROOF TYPE.
AM I CORRECT? THOSE ARE THE THREE THAT ARE OF ISSUED STATE BLOCK COVERAGE.
WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF THE SE SIX SECOND SUBMITTAL, THE, OF THE SUBMITTAL FOR THIS, THIS HEARING.
UM, AND THE APPELLATE CAN COME FORWARD.
IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR, IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE OUR BOARD SECRETARY SWEAR YOU IN.
UH, YEAH, SO THAT'S REALLY FOR HIM.
UM, UH, GOOD EVENING, UM, MEMBERS AND STAFF OF THE BOARD.
UM, SO FOR THIS PAST MONTH, UM, I'VE GATHERED, I'VE GATHERED ALL THE EVIDENCE AND, UM, UH, JUST ALL MY NOTES PROOF THAT YOU GUYS REQUESTED LAST TIME I WAS UP HERE.
WE, WE, WE HAVE TO DO A REFRESH, BUT THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
[04:40:01]
A REFRESH OF, UM, MY CASE HERE.UM, I, I'M FULLY FRAMED UP AT 6 5 2 9 VICTORIA BUILDING A DUPLEX.
UM, I WAS ORIGINALLY SHUT DOWN BY THE CITY, UM, FOR NON-CONFORMING USE, SAYING THAT I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO BUILD A DUPLEX.
BUT, UM, NOW I'M OVER HEIGHT, UM, OVER LOCK COVERAGE AND MY ROOF PITCHES FROM, UM, YEAH, I WENT, SO, UM, MR. IS IT OOK? SAUK.
SO, MR. BUT YOU'RE ADDRESSING YOUR COMMENTS TO THE CHAIRMAN.
UM, YEAH, SO JUST A BRIEF RECAP.
UM, I WAS, UM, I WENT DOWN TO THE CITY.
I ASKED THEM WHAT THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND EVERYTHING WERE.
THEY GAVE ME THE REQUIREMENTS.
I DESIGNED THE HOUSE AROUND THE OLD DUPLEX PLANS.
UH, I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED, UH, OF THE ZONING CHANGE.
AND, UM, SO THAT'S, UH, HERE, I, THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY.
UM, I DID, AM I CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT YOU REC, I'M READING THE BRIEF THAT JANUARY 3RD OF 23 IS WHEN YOU GOT YOUR PERMITS ISSUED.
UM, SO YEAH, I, I DID GO AROUND AND KNOCK ON EVERY DOOR, UM, TRACK DOWN ALL THE OWNERS OF ALL THE, UM, THE NEIGHBORS, UH, WITHIN A 200 FOOT RADIUS.
AND I DID GET A HUNDRED PERCENT SUPPORT AND I HAVE ALL THE SIGNATURES THAT I SUBMITTED TO.
YOU HAVE, HAVE YOU SUBMITTED THAT TO US YET, OR YOU HAVE IT NOW? I DID.
AND YOU COULD GIVE THAT TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
UM, YEAH, SO I DID GET ALL THE COST ESTIMATES OF REPLACING THE ROOF AND, UH, YOU KNOW, TEARING IT DOWN, REBUILDING IT ALL, AND IT'S JUST NOT FEASIBLE.
UM, I DID GET SOME, UM, I DID GET, UH, PLANS DESIGNED TO CHANGE THE ROOF AS WELL.
UM, DO YOU GUYS, I DIDN'T, I WASN'T ABLE TO SUBMIT IT IN TIME BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY LIKE A TWO WEEK PERIOD WHERE I COULD SUBMIT THE EVIDENCE.
UH, DO YOU WANT THE PHYSICAL COPIES OF IT, MR. CHAIRMAN? UM, YES.
SO IS THIS ONE ORIGINAL? YES, IT, YES.
ALRIGHT, SO I'M, I'M, I'M RESPONDING TO, UH, WHAT YOU GAVE US, LIKE I'M RESPONDING TO WHAT YOU GAVE US.
THIS IS PETITION IN SUPPORT OF DANNY LEE AND IT'S GOT ADDRESSES AND IT SAYS RESIDENT TIME PERIOD.
AND YOU SAID ALL YOUS ON AREA EIGHT.
NEXT FOUR TO YOU ACROSS THE STREET.
YEAH, SO EVERYBODY, HE BLOCKS AWAY.
SO EVERYBODY WITHIN ON THAT, UM, THE 200 FOOT, UH, RADIUS THAT WAS NOTIFIED, ALL THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS, THERE WERE LIKE POPEYES, UH, SEVEN ELEVENS AND STUFF THAT I DIDN'T, I WASN'T ABLE TO TRACK OVER.
ACCORDING TO OUR REPORT IT WOULD BE 26, UH, ALL THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS, NOT THE COMMERCIAL.
IT SAYS HERE WE NOTIFIED, UH, YES, 2027, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED BY OKAY, THAT'S FINE.
YEAH, SO I THINK 13 OR 14 OF THEM WERE ALL WERE COMMERCIAL.
AND THEY, THERE WAS, UH, ABOUT, I CAN'T REMEMBER, BUT EVERYBODY THAT WAS, UM, RESIDENTIAL I WAS ABLE TO GET A HOLD OF.
UM, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO GIVE US? UH, NO, THAT'S IT.
THIS IS MY REP, UH, REPRESENTATIVE OF MR. ROBERT MIKLOS.
MS. WILLIAMS, DID YOU GET SOMETHING HE GAVE YOU? SO, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MY ADDRESS IS 2,500, UH, DALLAS PARKWAY, SUITE 600, PLANO, TEXAS 7 5 0 9 3 OH, THERE SHE IS.
OH, HE'S LEADING TO BE SWORN IN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUST? MA'AM? I DO.
ARE, ARE YOU SPEAKING TO THIS DOCUMENT? IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT US TO PAY ATTENTION TO OR TO LISTEN TO YOU TELL ME WHAT, NO SIR, I'M ACTUALLY GOING, UH, UH, PAST THAT ISSUE AND ARGUING, WELL, ARGUING, DISCUSSING WHY THE REVOCATION SHOULD BE REVERSED.
AND DON'T WORRY, YOU GOT PLENTY OF TIME.
SO WHAT YOU JUST GAVE US OR WHAT MR. LEE JUST GAVE US, I I, YOU NEED TO TELL US WHAT IT IS.
I CAN SEE WHAT IT IS, BUT I WANT YOU TO TELL US WHAT IT IS I OR HE THAT IS AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE ROOF PITCH.
WE HAVE LOT COVERAGE, WE HAVE HEIGHT AND ROOF PITCH.
AND SO THIS IS AN ATTEMPT AT A COMPROMISE, WHICH IS FOR DID ASK US TO GO AND ATTEMPT TO TRY AND MAKE A COMPROMISE WITH THE CITY, UH, WHICH IS WHY YOU POSTPONE THE CASE FROM LAST TIME TO SEE IF WE COULD WORK IT OUT.
AND SO THIS IS, THE STRUCTURE IS TOO FAR ALONG TO COMPROMISE ON LOT COVERAGE OR HEIGHT.
IT WOULD BE A TOTAL LOSS OF THE STRUCTURE.
[04:45:01]
UH, BUT THE ROOF PITCH, WE CAN, IT, IT WILL COST US MONEY, BUT THAT'S OUR ATTEMPT TO DO THAT.WE ALSO TALK, AND I'LL STOP BECAUSE THAT'S ALL YOU ASKED ME.
YOU WANT OUR ATTENTION AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS, SO WE'RE NOT GONNA NECESSARILY PAY ATTENTION.
SO WHAT YOU'VE GIVEN US IS A DOCUMENT SAYING 177,000 COST TO CURE ROOF HEIGHT AND LOCK COVERAGE.
I THINK IT'S REBUILD, IT'S JUST A ROOF PITCH, RIGHT? NO, THE CURE ROOF ONLY IS 19,373.
YOU SURPRISED ME AT THE 1 77 NUMBER.
I THOUGHT IT WAS 20,000 JUST FOR THE ROOF PITCH.
SO I'M SUBMITTING THAT, WE'RE SUBMITTING THAT JUST FOR THE ROOF PITCH AMOUNT.
IT'S 20 GRAND TO, TO CURE THE ROOF.
UM, AND CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THIS IS A DIFFERENT FACT PATTERN, A DIFFERENT SETUP THAN WHAT YOU HAD LAST TIME.
UH, THAT, UH, UH, WE HAD A YEAR AND A HALF AFTER ISSUANCE OF OUR BUILDING PERMITS BEFORE WE EVEN FOUND OUT WE WERE RUNNING A FOUL WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, UH, STRUCTURE, UH, UH, GREAT EXPENSE FRAMING ALL OF IT UP TO AUGUST WHERE WE HAD OUR BUILDING, UH, PERMITS REVOKED.
AND THE THREE BASES IS OUR ROOF PITCH LOT COVERAGE AND BUILDING HEIGHT.
UM, SO ORIGINALLY THEY WERE TALKING TO US ABOUT A PROBLEM WITH USE, BUT THAT WENT AWAY.
AND THE REASON THAT WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT WE'RE GOOD WITH USE IS THAT IN 2005 THIS WAS A VACANT LOT AND A STATE OF VACANT LOT.
AND THERE'S, IT'S REALLY HARD TO MISTAKE A VACANT LOT.
AND WE AND THE CITY AGREE THAT A VACANT LOT AND TRACK THREE, WHICH IS OUR USE, IS ALLOWED TO HAVE A DUPLEX USE.
SO WE'RE NOT ARGUING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A USE THROUGH A VACANT LOT IS SUPER IMPORTANT FOR HOW WE INTERPRET AND HOW THE ORDINANCE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED GOING FORWARD.
NOW IF I COULD, IS SOMEONE CONTROLLING THE SLIDES THERE OR, OR AM I ABLE TO OKAY.
ADVANCE IT TO WHERE WE HAVE THE MAP.
'CAUSE I WANNA DO THAT FIRST AND THEN WE'LL, THERE YOU GO.
SO IF YOU SEE WHERE WE HAVE THAT, UM, BOX PART THERE, IT IS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ATTACHED TO PD 67 AS A VACANT LOT IN TRACK THREE.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD A DUPLEX ON WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE A VACANT LOT.
THE VACANT LOTS ARE, ARE PURPLE, RIGHT? EXACTLY RIGHT.
AND OUR LITTLE RED SQUARE THERE IDENTIFIES OUR PARTICULAR LOT.
THIRD ONE, THIRD ONE FROM THE CORNER.
AND SO WE'VE GOT CHURCH USES TO THE NORTH OF US GREEN AND MORE VACANT LOTS TO THE SOUTH OF US.
UH, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANT, BUT, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO A DUPLEX USE.
NOW IF WE COULD BACK IT UP, UH, TWO SLIDES.
WE'LL GET TO THAT ONE IN A MINUTE.
THIS IS SUPER SIGNIFICANT AND THIS IS WHY IT'S A DIFFERENT FACT PATTERN THAN YOUR PREVIOUS CASE.
SO WE ARE IN TRACK THREE AND YOU CAN READ WORD FOR WORD WHAT THIS SAYS.
BUT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS INTERPRETING THIS ORDINANCE TO SAY THAT ALL USES IN TRACK THREE.
EVERY SINGLE USE IN TRACK THREE THERE, IF YOU CAN HEAR ME, ARE SUBJECT TO THE DECREASED NON DUPLEX HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE.
THAT THERE ARE NO USES THAT WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THOSE DECREASED NEW STANDARDS.
WHEN MR. LEE ORIGINALLY REQUESTED HIS BUILDING PERMIT, I'M ADVANCING THE ARGUMENT NOW THAT IT'S NOT RELEVANT WHETHER THEY WERE LOOKING AT THE OLD ORDINANCE OR THE NEW ORDINANCE, AND THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT, BUT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, VERY, VERY IMPORTANT ON, ON THIS MATTER.
THE OLD ORDINANCE WOULD'VE ALLOWED HIS HEIGHT, ALLOWED HIS LOCK COVERAGE, AND WOULDN'T HAVE HAD A SPECIFIC ROOF PITCH REQUIREMENT.
SO IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S ARGUMENT IN HOW TO INTERPRET THIS ORDINANCE, THEY'RE SAYING THE WORDS ACCEPTANCE PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, IN THIS SECTION, ALL THESE USES HAVE TO CONFORM TO THE LOWER HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR A SPECIFIC ROOF PITCH.
THAT IS NOT HOW THIS ORDINANCE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED.
[04:50:01]
AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY.AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT AS TO WHY, BECAUSE MISSY VENTURA WAS DOING THIS LAST MONTH AND SHE ASKED ME TO JUMP IN.
AND THAT'S THE FIRST THING I READ WAS WERE THESE ORDINANCES AND THE CONCLUSION I GOT TO, AND NOBODY SAID A WORD TO ME, IT'S DIFFERENT.
AND WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT PROPERTY AND THE REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF A DIFFERENT SECTION, SECTION 51 P DASH 67 1 0.
SO HANG ON WITH ME FOR A SECOND.
SO A VACANT LOT IS NOT UNDER THIS SECTION.
IT HAS HAS A SPECIFIC, AND THIS IS FOR TRACKS 1, 3, 4, AND FIVE, WHERE THEY ALL DEFAULT VACANT LOT DEVELOPMENT ALL DEFAULTS TO THE NEXT SECTION.
67 1 1 OH, WHICH SAYS THE REQUIREMENTS OF D DUPLEX DISTRICT, NOT DEEP DUPLEX DISTRICT IS MODIFIED BY THESE OTHER SECTIONS, APPLY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT AREA AND REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING STRUCTURES.
SO AT THIS TIME, THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, WHEN YOU ARE DEVELOPING A VACANT LOT, NUMBER ONE, AND WE'RE AGREEING WITH THE CITY AND THE CITY'S AGREEING WITH US, YOU CAN DEVELOP A DUPLEX LOT, BUT ALSO YOU GO TO DUPLEX STANDARDS.
NOW YOU MAY GO, WELL, HANG ON MR. MLO, OBVIOUSLY THAT EXCEPTION AND THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL ARGUE THIS, MODIFIES ALL THAT, BUT IT DOESN'T.
AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY BECAUSE, AND IN THEIR BRIEF THEY SAID, YOU HAVE TO IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, READ ALL WORDS TO HAVE MEANING.
IF YOU COULD BACK THIS UP ONE TO 1 0 7, I'LL EXPLAIN WHAT I'M SAYING.
IF YOU READ IT THE WAY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS READING IT, THEN IT'S COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY TO SAY.
AND THE RE UH, AND THE REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51 P DASH 67 10.
'CAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY PUT DUPLEXES AS A DUPLEX DISTRICT, YOU'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED WITH THAT.
AND YOU MODIFY EVERYTHING PER THOSE SECTIONS.
AND IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING ME, I HOPE YOU'RE FOLLOWING ME.
THOSE ARE NONSENSE, UNNECESSARY WORDS ACCORDING TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S INTERPRETATION.
AND 67 DASH ONE 10, DETERMINING HOW YOU WOULD DEVELOP A VACANT LOT IS COMPLETELY POINTLESS AND MEANINGLESS.
NOW WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? BECAUSE IT'S A NASTY, NASTY TRAP.
EVEN IF THE CITY HAD PUBLISHED ITS ORDINANCE, WHICH IT HADN'T, EVEN IF THEY HAD NOTIFIED MR. LEE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONING, WHICH THEY NEVER DID, THEY NOTIFIED THE PREVIOUS OWNER NEVER KNEW ABOUT IT, NEVER HAD IT, NEVER SAW IT.
BUT EVEN THEN I WORKED AS THE CITY OF DALLAS FOR 10 YEARS.
I DRAFTED ORDINANCES JUST LIKE THIS.
AND IF I'M READING IT AND I'M HA AND I READ IT IN A CERTAIN MANNER, EVEN IF I WAS LIKE, MAN, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT, I BETTER GO TO SOMEONE AND GET AN INTERPRETATION.
WELL, WHO WOULD THAT BE? THAT WOULD BE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
WE GO TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, WE SAY, WE'D LIKE OUR PERMITS, PLEASE, HERE ARE THE RELEVANT ORDINANCES.
WE RELY ON THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO GIVE US AN INTERPRETATION.
THEY LET US SPEND $600,000 ON A HOME.
AND AS YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE PREVIOUS CASE, THEY JUST KEEP LETTING YOU BUILD UNTIL THEY FINALLY FIGURE OUT THAT THEY WANNA REVOKE YOUR PERMITS.
AND HERE WE ARE IN A SITUATION.
SO WHERE DOES THAT PLACE US? UH, SOME PEOPLE WERE THROWING OUTCO, VANCO WAS ACTUALLY A VARIANCE REQUEST WHERE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SITTING RIGHT OVER THERE REFUSED TO ALLOW THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO EVEN CONSIDER THAT THE, UH, UM, UH, PERMITS HAD BEEN ISSUED IN ERROR.
SAID, WELL, THE CITY ISSUES IT IN ERROR ALL THE TIME.
YOU CAN'T USE THAT TO GRANT A VARIANCE.
SO THE STATE LEGISLATURE WENT AND AMENDED CHAPTER TWO 11 TO ALLOW THOSE SORT OF CONSIDERATIONS TO GRANT A VARIANCE.
THE LEGISLATURE ACTUALLY HAD TO OVERTURN VANESSA IN THAT MATTER BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS VERY ROOM.
IN FACT, I WAS HERE WHEN THEY HAD VANESSA, I WAS ON ANOTHER CASE.
UM, THERE'S A WHOLE LINE OF CASES ON ESTOPPEL,
[04:55:01]
RELY ON.WELL, IT'S A GOVERNMENT FUNCTION.
WE CAN REVOKE YOUR PERMITS IF THE CITY COMES WITH UNCLEAN HANDS, IT'S CALLED THE UNCLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE.
NOW THEY FIGHT WITH THE CITY GETS TO MAKE MISTAKES AND IT GETS TO ENFORCE ITS ORDINANCES ALL THE TIME.
BUT IF THERE WAS EVER A SET IN A SITUATION WHERE THE CITY WAS WALKING IN WITH UNCLEAN HANDS THROUGH CONSISTENT CONSTANT BEHAVIOR, THIS WOULD BE IT.
AND BECAUSE YOU HAVE, AND, AND THANK YOU CHAIRMAN FOR BRINGING UP THAT, JUST THAT RECENT CASE WHERE THE CITY WAS REVERSED WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AT THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS OUT IN ROCKWALL, THEY SAY THAT IF A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION CAN BE MADE DIFFERENTLY, THIS BOARD CAN FOLLOW THAT AND THE COURTS HAVE TO GIVE CREDENCE TO THAT.
NOW, DANIEL LEE IS NOT SOME BIG DEVELOPER.
AND THE CITY WON'T EVER ESTABLISH THAT HE HAD AN IDEA HE WAS BUILDING, SUBMITTING, SPENDING, GOING THROUGH ONLY TO HAVE THESE PERMITS REVOKED.
I'VE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE CITY'S INTERPRETATION IN REVOKING THESE PERMITS IS INCORRECT.
THAT FOR VACANT LOTS, WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO IS COME UP WITH A CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT SCHEME FOR VACANT LOTS.
THAT'S WHY TRACK ONE, THREE AND FOUR ALL DEFAULT TO 1 1 0, WHERE YOU DEFAULT TO THE NORMAL DUPLEX, UH, USE REGULATIONS WITHOUT THE MODIFICATIONS FOR HEIGHT.
AND WE CAN SEE WHY, BECAUSE THOSE VACANT LOTS ARE NEAR EACH OTHER AND NEAR THE CHURCH USES.
SO IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE THAT THAT'S HOW THEY WOULD CONSISTENTLY HAVE MADE THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS.
BUT WHAT'S MORE ONE 10? I THINK I HAVE 1 0 7 ALSO IS FOR TRACK FIVE.
AND TRACK FIVE DOESN'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE MODIFYING HEIGHT, UH, LOT COVERAGE AND ROOF PITCH REGULATIONS SWITCH TO 1 1 0 ON THE OTHER SLIDE PLEASE.
ANY VACANT PROPERTY MAY BE DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION ING FOR THE PROPERTY.
THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUPLEX OR APPLIED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT AREAS AND REDEVELOPMENT EXISTING PROPERTY INDICATES VACANT OR CHURCH ON EXISTING LAND USE MAP.
WHICH THIS WAS, IT DOESN'T SAY SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT'S IN CI DON'T THINK.
ALRIGHT, SO I'M ABSORBING THIS THEN.
YOU NEED TO WRAP UP BECAUSE YOU'VE HIT YOUR 10 MINUTE MARK HERE ALREADY.
UH, UM, SO IF I LOOK AT THESE TWO, IF I'M TRYING TO INTERPRET THESE TWO YES SIR.
UH, ONE OH SEVEN'S POINTING TO 1 1 0, CORRECT? YES.
SO AT THE TIME THAT YOUR, YOUR CLIENT BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, WAS IT A VACANT LOT? YES.
SO THEREFORE ON THE INFAMOUS SURVEY THAT WAS, THAT WE'VE HEARD DONE BY THE CITY, BY SOMEONE DEEP IN THE BOROUGHS OF THE CITY, IT WOULD'VE BEEN VIEWED AS A VACANT LOT, WHICH MEANS IT WOULD'VE RETAINED ITS DUPLICATE DUPLEX ZONING RIGHTS.
SO THE PREVIOUS ONE POINTS TO THIS ONE SAYING THAT IT'S THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DUPLEX DISTRICT APPLIED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT AREA AND REDEVELOPMENT EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THE PROPERTY INDICATES HE'S VACANT OR CHURCH ON THE EXISTING LAND USE MAP.
AND BECAUSE IT DOESN'T, BECAUSE ONE 10 DOESN'T MODIFY ROOF, UM, UH, BUILDING HEIGHT LOG COVERAGE OR ROOF PITCH, BUT DEFAULT STRAIGHT TO D DUPLEX USE, THE ORIGINAL PERMITS WERE ISSUED, AND BOY, I HATE TO EVEN SAY THIS, BUT THEY WERE ISSUED CORRECTLY.
ONLY THE REVOCATION WAS DONE IN ERROR.
AND I'M ASKING YOU TO REVERSE THE REVOCATION.
SO UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF D PARENTHESES, A DUPLEX DISTRICT APPLIED, WHAT IS THE LOT COVERAGE FOR A D UH, DUPLEX DISTRICT? 60%.
WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU AT? UH, 42.
WHAT IS THE D DUPLEX DISTRICT? 36 AND HE IS AT 35.
AND ROOF TYPES? HE DOES NOT HAVE, IT'S SILENT.
IT'S IT, D DUPLEX IS SILENT TO ROUGH PITCH, BUT IN OUR ATTEMPT TO COMPROMISE, WE WERE OFFERING TO DO THE $20,000 TO DO THE ROOF PITCH.
IF IT'S, IF IT'S SILENT, WHY ARE YOU COMP, WHY ARE YOU THROWING $20,000? UM, BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A BETTER LOOK TO LOOK LIKE, NUMBER ONE, WE TRIED TO DISCUSS WITH THE VARIANCE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND
[05:00:01]
GOT SHOT DOWN AND THAT WE WERE TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THE SPIRIT OF WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED.WE DON'T WANNA JUST COME IN AND KICK THE DOOR IN.
WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND, AND SUMMARIZE AND UM, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS.
UM, SO IT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID EARLIER.
UM, EITHER UNDER THE OLD ZONING OR UH, PD 67, THE PERMITS WERE ISSUED PROPERLY, THE REVOCATION WAS IMPROPER AND SHOULD BE REVERSED.
AND I'LL SIT DOWN FOR, I'LL WAIT, I'LL STEP BACK FOR QUESTIONS.
WHAT QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPELLANT, MR. HOPKINS? IS THIS, IS THIS THE END OF YOUR PRESENTATION OR IS THERE MORE TO IT? WELL, HE'S RIGHT OUT OF TIME.
I'M JUST ASKING, DO YOU HAVE MORE ON THIS? I, I'M GOOD.
SO WHO WAS GONNA GIVE YOU MORE TIME?
I I KNOW IF IT'S, BUT SOMETIMES WHAT YOU GET MAY HURT YOU.
I'M JUST ASKING IF YOU'RE UNWILLING.
SO WHEN MR. LEE WAS HERE LAST MONTH, THIS QUESTION CAME UP ABOUT THE NOTICE FOR, FOR THE NEW ZONING CASE.
UH, BEING SENT TO THE PRIOR OWNER, IT WAS, AND UM, IT CAME OUT THAT THE, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE COMPANY, THE THUNDERCLOUD? NOPE.
THERE WAS A, I'LL LOOK IT UP HERE.
THERE WAS A COMPANY THAT WAS INVOLVED, THE CORPORATION THAT HELD THE PROPERTY VACANT APPARENTLY FOR MR. LEE FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
UH, WHICH, UH, I FOUND TO BE SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL.
AND I ASKED MR. LEE, WHAT IS YOUR RELATION TO, TO, TO, TO EXPLAIN WHAT HIS RELATIONSHIP WAS, WHY THAT COMPANY WOULD SIT ON A VACANT PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR THE BENEFIT OF MR. LEE.
BUT I'M STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER TO THAT.
ON BETTER STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES.
UH, SO IN THE PACKET THAT I SUBMITTED, IT WAS A LETTER OF INTENT THAT I ORIGINALLY, UH, AGREED UPON WITH THE SELLER AS WELL AS AN AFFIDAVIT, UH, THAT THEY, THAT SHE WROTE, UM, TO FOR THIS MEETING.
BECAUSE I I'M, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I'M ASKING WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THAT COMPANY? THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP.
NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER? NO, I DON'T, I DIDN'T KNOW THEM.
PRIOR TO THIS BEING WHAT? UH, PRIOR TO THE PURPOSE? TO THE PROPERTY? YEAH.
PRIOR TO PURCHASING THE PROPERTY.
BUT THEY NOTIFIED YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, BUT THEY SENT THE NOTICE, THE NO, NO.
SO THE, THE, THE TRUTH ENTERPRISES OWNED THE PROPERTY BEFORE THAT I GOT THE TRUTH.
AND THEY WERE NOT NOTIFIED OF THE ZONING CHANGE 'CAUSE THE, THE NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE OWNERS PRIOR TO THE TRUTH ENTERPRISES.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
SO THEY WERE NEVER, THEY WERE NEVER NOTIFIED AND YOU WERE NEVER NOTIFIED? NO, THEY WERE NOT NOTIFIED.
WHAT ARE QUESTIONS? WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPELLANT? OKAY.
I'M SURE THERE'LL BE MORE LATER.
I, I'M, I'M CONFUSED ABOUT MR. LEE'S TIMELINE, QUITE FRANKLY.
AND I I'VE GOT THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE LAST HEARING AND, AND HE TESTIFIED THAT IN OCTOBER OF 2022 WHEN THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED, HE CONSIDERED HIMSELF THE DEVELOPER.
THEN THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN ON JANUARY 1ST, 2023 TO THE TRUTH ENTERPRISES.
AND THEN MR. LEE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN MAY OF 2024.
AND I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THE TESTIMONY THAT MR. PEREZ POINTED OUT THIS MORNING, WHICH IS THERE IS ANOTHER COMPANY CALLED F 80 CAPITAL.
I SAW THAT IN HERE, THAT MR. LEE IS APPARENTLY ASSOCIATED WITH AND DEVELOPED OTHER PROPERTIES AND GOT A ROOF CORRECTION BACK IN DECEMBER OF 2023.
SO MR. LEE TESTIFIED THAT HE OWNED F 80 CONSTRUCTION, WHICH IS THE CURRENT COMPANY THAT'S CONSTRUCTING THE PROPERTY.
HE TESTIFIED THAT THE CURRENT COMPANY
[05:05:01]
THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY IS 65 29 VICTORIA.AND THEN HE'S ALSO SOMEHOW ASSOCIATED WITH F 80 CAPITAL, WHICH HAS DEVELOPED OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE PD AND HAD A ROOF CORRECTION.
AND HE TESTIFIED HE WAS DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY OR CONSIDERED DEVELOPING IT SINCE OCTOBER OF 2022 WHEN THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED.
SO I, I'M NOT SURE WHAT IS GOING ON, BUT THERE, THERE'S SOME ISSUES THERE.
UM, SO MOVING ON TO MR. MIKLOS, UM, INTERPRETATION OF 67 1 0 7, AND IT, THIS IS CLEAR, I THINK THIS IS THE APPLICANT.
I'M, I'M MOVING ON TO THE ARGUMENT THAT 67 1 10, UM, ALLOWS HIM TO DEVELOP THE, UM, PROPERTY BECAUSE IT WAS VACANT.
UM, BUT HE IS IN TRACK THREE AND IF YOU LOOK AT 67 1 0 7 A, THE FIRST THING YOU NEED TO LOOK AT IS ACCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION.
AND THIS WHOLE SECTION IS A THROUGH C AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR HE'S BUILDING A, A DUPLEX, WHICH HE'S ENTITLED TO.
AND SUBSECTION C IS, AND I I DON'T HAVE A SLIDE FOR THIS.
SO, UM, SUBSECTION C IS TITLED SYMBOL, SYMBOL FAMILY AND DUPLEX STRUCTURES.
AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A DUPLEX STRUCTURE ARE THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, THE LOT COVERAGE AND THE ROOF, UM, REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING.
SO, SO YOU'RE DISPUTING HIS INTERPRETATION OF 67 107, WHICH POINTS TO 67 1 1 0.
WHICH POINTS TO DUPLEX STANDARDS.
AND I, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WHAT HE SAID.
AND, AND IF, AND MY BRIEF, I DISCUSS THIS AND I CITE SEVERAL CASES ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, BUT THE GENERALLY YOU RESOLVE, UM, CONFLICTS IN A, IN AN ORDINANCE BY LOOKING AT THE SPECIFIC, AND YOU LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC HERE IS SUBSECTION C, WHICH APPLIES CLEARLY TO DUPLEX STRUCTURES.
AND DO YOU HAVE SOMEWHERE IN HERE THAT WE CAN READ, READ THAT? UM, I, I DON'T IF YOU HAVE THE PD, I'VE, I I DON'T THINK YOU, WE NO ONE SUBMITTED THE WHOLE PD TO US.
IT, IT'S, IF, IF I COULD BRING UP MR. NICHOLAS'S, UM, WELL, NO, THAT'S HIS PRESENTATION.
BUT HE WAS WANTING TO DO MR, GO AHEAD.
SO, UM, I'M GONNA MOVE ON TO THE FIRST SLIDE.
I, I PO I, I'M ARGUING THAT THE, THE INTERPRETATION THAT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION HAS MEANING AND SUBSECTION C RE REMAIN REGARDING SINGLE FAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX STRUCTURES HAS MEANING SO CLEARLY HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE AND ROOF ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS BILL.
UM, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE.
UM, MR. LEE HAD, UM, HE NEEDED, HE WAS REQUIRED TO KNOW WHAT THE LAWS WERE.
I'M GONNA GO OVER THIS, I'M NOT GONNA GO OVER THIS AGAIN.
I, HOW WAS HE REQUIRED WHEN HE NEVER GOT NOTICE? NOR DID THE POLICE OWNER GET NOTICE THAT HE BOUGHT THIS IN MAY OF MAY OF 2024.
HE, HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, THEN HE HAD SOME SORT OF ASSOCIATION WITH THE MEMBERS.
THE NOTICE IN THIS CASE WENT OUT TO THE CORRECT OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY.
THE, THEY WERE, THE CURRENT, THE TAX ROLES FOR THAT CURRENT YEAR, WHICH IS 2022, WERE STILL THE PREVIOUS OWNERS.
THEY, THEY ONLY MODIFIED THE TAX RECORDS ONCE A YEAR AND IF THAT'S WHAT THE TAX RECORDS INDICATED.
UM, SO WHERE THE NOTICE SHOULD GO TO.
SO WHERE, WHERE WAS THE RELIANCE OF
[05:10:01]
MR. LEE ON THE BUILDING? OFFICIAL, I MEAN, HE'S REQUIRED TO KNOW THE LAW.AND IT'S, AND THERE'S A, THERE'S A REASONABLENESS ALSO ABOUT THE CITY THAT SHOULD MAKE, SHOULD POST, PROVIDE ACCURATE, TIMELY COMMUNICATION.
WHAT THE LAW AND THE ORDINANCE IS ALSO, THERE'S A, I MEAN, KIND OF A PRIMA FAI EXPECTATION OF THAT.
AND SO IF I LOOK BACK IN THE TIMELINE, PERMITS WERE ISSUED IN JANUARY OF 23, BUT A PROJECT WAS PUT ON HOLD IN JULY OF 24.
SO THE TIME PERIOD BETWEEN THAT IS, AND HE STARTED BUILDING 581 DAYS.
AND HE STARTED BUILDING AND BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN MAY OF THIS YEAR.
I, I'M I'M TALKING ABOUT THE TIME PERIOD BETWEEN INITIAL PERMITS ISSUED PROJECTS ON HOLD 581 DAYS AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY GREEN TAGS IN THAT INTERIM PERIOD OF TIME.
SO HE, HE IS RELYING ON THE CITY IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.
I, I'M AS FAR AS GETTING PERMISSION WITH PLANS AND SO FORTH, CORRECT? YES.
BUT HE STILL NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND AND DO HIS OWN
HE COULD HAVE GONE TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE YES.
AND, AND GOTTEN AN UPDATED PD.
THESE AREN'T DIFFICULT, UM, BUILDING REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT ALL BUILDERS, ALL HOMEOWNERS GO TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE IF YOU'RE GONNA DEVELOP, YOU'RE SAYING THE CITY ATTORNEY OF DALLAS IS TELLING US THAT THAT ALL, AND HOMEOWNERS THAT DEVELOP GO TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AND THE SITE IS, WAS UPDATED BY THE TIME HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY THAT THAT HAS P UPDATED PD.
BUT WHAT, BUT HE'S GETTING, SOMEONE IS TELLING HIM THESE POCKET NOTES.
I HEARD THAT COMMENT MADE EARLIER POCKET NOTES OF WHAT THE INTERPRETATION OF I, I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU REFER TO WHAT STAFF WAS USING, UM, PRIOR TO THE WEBSITE BEING UPDATED.
SO CAN SOMEONE TELL, UH, TELL ME WHAT THE HEIGHT, THE LOT COVERAGE AND THE ROOT PITCH ARE FOR THIS SITUATION? WE DID THAT ALREADY.
COVERAGE IS 6 42 IS WHAT THEY HAVE, RIGHT.
AND 60, IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT WAS THE OLD ZONING, BUT THAT'S THE OLD WHAT'S, WHAT IS IT TODAY? WHAT IS THE PB 67 FOR LOT COVERAGE AND IS IS PITCH ROOF PITCH.
LET'S, LET'S DO LOT COVERAGE NOW.
PREVIOUS DUPLEX WAS 60, RIGHT? HE'S AT 42 PD.
HEIGHT? HEIGHT IS AT 25 FEET AND NO PART OF THE STRUCTURE CAN EXCEED 30 FEET.
HOW DO, HOW DO YOU DO THAT? SO, SO 30 FEET, I MEAN, I GUESS YOU HAVE TO CALCULATE.
SO, SO THERE IS, LIKE WE HEIGHT IS CALCULATED ON A HIP AND GABLE ROOF TO THE MIDPOINT OF THE LOWEST EVE THAT'S CONNECTED TO THE HIGHEST RIDGE.
UM, IF IT'S A FLAT ROOF, THEN IT'S THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE.
SO IN THIS PD IT SAYS THAT IT'S, THE HEIGHT LIMITATION IS 25 FEET WITH NO PART OF THE STRUCTURE EXCEEDING 30 FEET.
SO IF YOUR FLAT ROOF, YOU COULD BE 30.
SO HOW DO YOU GET TO 30? YOU CAN EXTEND, YOU CAN EXTEND WITH A PARA FIT.
THERE ARE OTHER PROVISIONS IN THERE, BUT THE HEIGHT IS 25.
ON A FLAT ROOF HEIGHT WOULD BE DEFINED AS THE, THE, THE TOP OF THAT, THAT ROOF AND ROOF TYPES.
THE ROOF TYPE, IF IT'S UH, OVER 20 FEET IS REQUIRED TO BE, UH, HIP AND GABLE, WHICH THE PD FURTHER DEFINES AS UH, A FOUR 12 SLOPE.
SO THE HEIGHT WOULD REQUIRE THAT IT BE, UM, YOU KNOW, BE A GABLE ROOF, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
IS THAT RIGHT? SINCE IT'S OVER 20 FEET.
[05:15:01]
WHAT IS IT THAT HE SAID HE PROPOSED TO GO TO, TO WHAT PD 67 IS? IS THAT WHAT THEY, THEY HAD REFERENCED AS A MODIFICATION? I, I DON'T KNOW.I'M JUST THE ROOF PITCH I THINK.
OH, THE PITCH? NOT NECESSARILY THE HEIGHT.
HE, I THINK HE'S ASSERTED HE CAN'T COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH REGARD TO THE HEIGHT.
BUT HE'S, HE'S AT 42 RIGHT NOW, CORRECT? NO.
AND THAT'S THE MAXIMUM IS IT'S FARTY BUT THE MAXIMUM IS 42.
NO, IF HE'S AT 42, THE MAX, THE PD 60 SEVEN'S AT 40.
BUT YOU, I THOUGHT HE, YOU JUST SAID, UM, THAT MR. POOLE THAT UH, IT WAS FARTY WITH THE MAXIMUM OF 42 CERTAIN WAY AROUND.
NO, ACCORDING TO THE NEW PROVISIONS, THE LOT COVERAGE IS 40% MAXIMUM PERIOD.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS OR WE'LL LET HIM CONTINUE.
MS. HAYDEN, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING OR DO YOU WANT HIM TO CONTINUE? WE CAN CONTINUE.
I'M NOT CUTTING YOU OFF MR. SE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET ALL THE FACTS LAID OUT.
SO THE, THE APPLICANT HAS THE BURDEN TO, TO SHOW FACTS THAT THE, UM, BUILDING OFFICIAL WAS INCORRECT.
HE'S, UM, ABOUT 10 FEET OVER THE HEIGHT AND THE ROOF PITCH IS WRONG AS HE IS CURRENTLY INTENDING TO PLAN THE PROPERTY.
UM, WE DID REACH OUT TO HIS REPRESENTATIVES THE SAME WAY WE DID WITH THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY AND WE OFFERED THE VARIANCE ROUTE.
UM, AND THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE HEIGHT AND THE LOT COVERAGE.
UM, SO WE, WE DIDN'T TAKE THAT AWAY.
I, I I'M NOT SURE THAT, UM, MR. MOSE, I THINK HE SAID WE, WE SHOT IT DOWN OR WHATEVER, BUT WE, WE, WE HAVE OFFERED THAT OPTION TO THEM.
UM, THEY CAN STILL APPLY FOR IT AFTER THIS HEARING.
UM, AND I, I JUST ASK THAT THE BOARD, UM, AFFIRMS THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW, KEVIN? ANY OTHER? UH, WE'LL THANK YOU SIR.
WE'LL LET YOU DO A FIVE MINUTE RECAP.
SO LET ME FIRST ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT IF HE'S ASSOCIATED WITH ANY OTHER COMPANY OR GROUP THAT'S DEVELOPING IN THIS AREA.
I, SIR, WAS THAT YOUR QUESTION? IT WAS.
HE DID DEVELOP A ONE OTHER PROPERTY, A SINGLE FAMILY USE, AND THEY SAID WHEN HE SUBMITTED HIS PLANS, HEY, YOU NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THE ROOF PITCH.
AND SO HE SUBMITTED A CHANGE PLANS BEFORE HE EVER GOT A PERMIT FOR THAT.
BUT THERE, IT'S NOT A DUPLEX USE.
THEY, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF HOW TO DEVELOP A DUPLEX.
NO ONE SAID, HEY, DO YOU REALIZE THE ZONING'S CHANGED OUT HERE? HERE'S NEW CIRCUMSTANCES.
IT WAS JUST DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
YOU'VE GOT A SINGLE FAMILY USE, WHY DON'T YOU CHANGE THE ROOF PITCH? AND HE SUBMITTED IT.
SO THAT'S THE ONLY OTHER ASSOCIATED, UH, UH, UH, PROPERTY THAT HE'S DEVELOPED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, SO DOES HE OWN ANY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR HAS HE OWNED, DOES HE OR HAS HE COME ON.
THE COMPANY OWNS ONE OTHER PROJECT.
WELL, TECHNICALLY DOESN'T OWN IT.
IT'S UM, THE CLIENT THAT HIRED US TO BUILD IT.
AND WHERE, WHERE IS THAT IN CONSTRUCT? IT'S ON TYREE STREET.
IS THAT, IS THAT PERMITTED? YES, IT'S, IT'S TO COMPLETELY DONE BUILDING.
YEAH, IT WAS ORIGINALLY THE OLD ZONING OR THE NEW, UH, THE NEW ZONING I GUESS.
UM, 'CAUSE IT'S JUST TWO STORIES.
I ORIGINALLY DESIGNED A, UH, FLAT ROOF AND SAID, IS IT A SINGLE FAMILY OR IS IT A IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY.
YEAH, IT WAS ORIGINALLY A FLAT ROOF AND THEY KICKED IT BACK WHEN I APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT, THEY SAID NO FLAT ROOFS ALLOWED.
AND THAT'S, WE ADDED THE, THE, THE PITCH TO IT.
BUT IT MEANT THE HEIGHT AND THE LOT COVERAGE.
SO IT'S JUST, UH, YEAH, THE HEIGHT STAYED UNDER.
BUT YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS A
IT'S JUST NORMAL SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.
LIKE IT WASN'T TOO TALL OR ANYTHING.
[05:20:02]
UM, I, I GUESS I'M ADDRESSING THIS TO BOTH OF YOU.UH, WHICHEVER ONE OF YOU WANTS TO ANSWER.
SO, UM, YOU DEVELOPED THE PLANS OR PLAN TO DO THIS PROJECT IN OCTOBER OF 22.
YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING UNTIL MAY OF 24? YES.
DO YOU FEEL IT'S REASONABLE THAT'S ALMOST TWO YEARS.
DO YOU FEEL THAT IT'S REASONABLE TO EXPECT SOMEONE TO MAYBE RECHECK SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS? UH, NO.
'CAUSE WE CHANGED A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ON IT IN MAY OF 2024 TO THE F 80 CONSTRUCTION.
AND I VERIFIED, I ASKED, HEY, IS THIS PERMIT STILL GOOD? AND THEY SAID, YEAH, YOU HAVE 18 MONTHS TO START.
AND I SAID, OKAY THEN, YOU KNOW, IF AS LONG AS I CAN TRANSFER THE PERMIT OVER TO THE NEW, UM, CO THE NEW CONTRACTING COMPANY, IT WAS FINE.
NOBODY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A ZONING CHANGE.
'CAUSE ON THE, ON THE, ON THE PERMITS, IT'S, UH, IT IS A DUPLEX ZONE AND IT DIDN'T MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT A PD 67 ON IT.
BUT YOU'VE DONE OTHER, YOU HAVE ANOTHER PROJECT YOU DID AT PD 67.
WHEN WAS THAT? THAT WAS IN 2023, YEAH.
AND YOU, AND YOU, YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT YOU HAD NO, NO AWARENESS OF ANY CHANGE IN THE ZONING IN THAT NO, I DIDN'T, UH, AREA, NO.
AND NOW THAT I DO KNOW, THAT'S WHY I, I, YOU KNOW, TRIED TO ADD THE PITCH TO THIS CURRENT BUILDING.
DID YOU UM, I WAS JUST DOING A LITTLE BACK OF THE ENVELOPE FIGURING, UH, BASED ON YOUR ESTIMATES THAT YOU PROVIDED, UM, OTHER THAN THE, UH, BLOCK COVERAGE THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD OBVIATE SOME OF YOUR EXPENSES IF YOU'RE GONNA USE THE, THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION? YES.
UM, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD BE, UH, A LITTLE OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS TO, UH, MEET THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
SO THE HEIGHT IN THE ROOF, MAYBE I'D HAVE TO TEAR IT OFF THE THIRD STORY.
UH, LOSE THE BEDROOM TO TWO BEDROOMS, LOSE TWO BATHROOMS. UM, AND I ALREADY TALKED TO THE LENDER AS WELL AND THE LETTER IS INSIDE, UH, THE PACKET.
AND THEY SAID IF I MODIFY THE THE PLANS, THEY WILL, UM, THEY WILL DEFAULT.
DON'T TELL US IT'S THE SAME BANK
NO, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT THE SAME BANK.
UNFORTUNATELY, UH, WE DIDN'T GET A PRINTED OUT PACKET TODAY.
AND I, UH, SO I DON'T HAVE ALL THAT TO PULL UP AND LOOK AT.
NO, UM, YOU DONE FOR NOW? IF I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF IT'S THE SAME BANK
I DIDN'T SEE A LETTER IN THE PRINTED VERSION OF THE PACKET FOR TODAY.
UM, IT DOESN'T SAY IT MR. SAK.
SO, UM, IS THIS THIS BEFORE AND AFTER? WHAT'S THE HEIGHT OF THE AFTER? IT'S STILL THE SAME.
AND IT'S JUST CORRECTING THIS WHAT I THINK WAS LIKE A SLOPED YES.
THAT'D BE $20,000 OUTTA MY POCKET.
AND BECAUSE THE BANK HAS ALREADY GIVEN ME THE MONEY TO BUILD IT SO FAR, THEY'RE NOT GONNA GIMME MORE MONEY TO TEAR IT OFF AND REDO IT.
AND SO IS THIS BINDING? UH, UH, I DON'T THINK WE CAN, I I I THINK THE ACTION BEFORE US IS TO FILL UP THIS AFFIRM REVERSED IN WHOLE OR IN PART CORRECT.
BUT THE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, THEREFORE THE, IF IF, SO THE PLAN, THIS WOULD BE A VARIANCE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS EVENING WOULD FALL UNDER A VARIANCE OR IF I COULD OR YOU NOT TELLING YOU WHAT TO WELL, I'M ASKING, BUT NOT TELLING YOU COULD REVERSE THE LOT COVERAGE AND HEIGHT ASPECTS AFFIRM THE ROOF PITCH.
AND SINCE WE'RE ALTERING THE ROOF PITCH, WE'LL BE GOOD ANYWAY BECAUSE WE'LL MEET THE ROOF PITCH REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE AND YOU'LL HAVE REVERSED, UH, THE HEIGHT AND
[05:25:01]
THE LOT COVERAGE PORTIONS AND, AND THEREFORE GET SOMETHING THAT IS AT LEAST SOMEWHAT MORE IN LINE WITH, UH, WHAT SOME PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WISH AND WANT TO BE IN OUR EFFORT TO COMPROMISE THE ROOF HAS NOT BEEN MODIFIED.BUT IF YOU DID NOT REVERSE FOR THE ROOF PITCH, WE HAVE TO DO THAT.
OTHERWISE OUR PERMITS COULDN'T GO.
AND, AND WE'RE OKAY WITH BEING FORCED TO DO THAT ON THE ROOF PITCH.
THAT'S OUR ATTEMPT AT A COMPROMISE.
SO I HAD, I HAD JUST, UM, SO IN ORDER TO MEET THE HEIGHTS REQUIREMENTS, IT WOULD ONLY BE THE TOP FLOOR OF THE, OF THE, OF THE U OF THE, OF THE STRUCTURE THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE WHOLE THIRD FLOOR COMES OFF.
AND THEN WHATEVER SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURE YOU'D HAVE TO MAKE AS A RESULT OF THAT.
'CAUSE THIS, THIS AMOUNT THAT YOU HAVE HERE THAT'S FOR TEARING DOWN THE ENTIRE THING, DEMOLISHING THE, THE FOUNDATION AS WELL AND STARTING FROM, FROM GROUND.
IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO, SO THERE IS NO, YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COST WOULD BE TO CURE THE HEIGHT ALONG WITH THE ROOF TO THE HEIGHT.
I DON'T, I WOULD IMAGINE IT WOULD BE DEMO.
UM, SO THE WHOLE FLOORING SYSTEM ALREADY PAID FOR IT AND IT'S ALREADY INSTALLED.
SO WE HAVE TO DEMO THE ENTIRE FLOORING, THE FLOORING SYSTEM, THIRD FLOOR, CURRENT ROOF, AND THEN REINSTALL A NEW ROOF ON TOP OF IT.
THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S THAT'S MUCH LESS THAN DEMOLISHING THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE.
BUT I ALSO NEED THAT MONEY FROM THE BANK.
SORRY, BUT I ALSO NEED MONEY FROM THE BANK TO DO THAT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO ESTABLISH WHAT'S INVOLVED.
SO IF I TOLD YOU, JUST AGAIN, EYEBALLING THE NUMBERS, THAT IT WOULD BE AROUND $60,000 TO DO THAT.
WOULD YOU THINK THAT'S EXCESSIVE OR NOT ENOUGH? I DON'T HAVE $60,000 NOW BEEN NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I'M, I'M ASKING YOU ABOUT THE AMOUNT.
IT'S GONNA BE CLOSE TO A HUNDRED.
I THINK, UH, WE, WE NEED TO VEER BACK TO THE CORE CRITERIA THAT WE'RE AFTER HERE.
MM-HMM,
AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE, WHY YOU'RE GOING THERE.
I JUST WANNA KEEP US BACK TO THE CORE HERE.
AND, AND IF, IF I MAY, AND I SAID THAT WITHOUT, FOR MY BOARD ATTORNEY NUDGING ME
I I I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE LINE OF QUESTIONING.
YOU'RE TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPACT OF A DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
UM, OBVIOUSLY HE SAID THAT HE JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE MONEY.
60,000, A HUNDRED THOUSAND, 500,000.
HE'S SAYING HE JUST CAN'T MAKE THOSE CHANGES.
HE DOESN'T HAVE THE FINANCING TO IT.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION AND THE WEIGHT OF IT AND THE IMPACT OF IT.
LET, LET ME REEMPHASIZE SOMETHING.
AND I, IF I DIDN'T DESCRIBE THIS PROPERLY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M SAYING THIS PROPERLY, REALLY.
AND, AND NOT TO REPEAT AN ARGUMENT, BUT TRACK FIVE, WE'RE IN TRACK THREE, BUT TRACK FIVE ALSO HAS VACANT LOTS.
AND UNDER ONE 10, A VACANT LOT HAS TO HAVE A CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARD, RIGHT? HOW HIGH CAN THE STRUCTURE GO? HOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S LOT COVERAGE, BUT TRACK FIVE'S REGULATIONS, UNLIKE ONE, THREE AND FOUR DON'T HAVE THAT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN C WHERE THEY DROPPED IT TO 25% OF THE HEIGHT AND 40% OF THE COVERAGE.
SO IF YOU READ IT AND, AND I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE ARGUING IT, RIGHT, BUT IF YOU READ IT THE WAY THEY'RE SAYING, YOU HAVE NO CLUE HOW TO DEVELOP ON A VACANT LOT IN TRACK FIVE FOR A DUPLEX.
THERE'S NO STANDARD, BUT HE'S NOT IN TRACK FIVE.
BUT THE POINT IS, IS THAT IF YOU INTERPRET IT THE WAY YOU'RE, THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO INTERPRET IT, YOU CREATE A PROBLEM IN THE ORDINANCE, THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THE WAY I'M SAYING THAT THE ORDINANCE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED WHERE VACANT LOTS AND JUST VACANT LOTS, NOTHING ELSE IN 1, 3, 4 AND FIVE ARE PULLED OUT OF THOSE STANDARDS AND JUST DEFAULT TO THE STRAIGHT DUPLEX STANDARDS, WHICH I'M ASSERTING THAT'S HOW IT ACTUALLY READS IS THE ONLY CONSISTENT WAY YOU CAN READ THIS ORDINANCE BECAUSE FOR TRACK FIVE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A SPECIFIC HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE STANDARD.
[05:30:01]
FOUR.JUST LIKE IN THREE, JUST LIKE IN ONE.
IF YOU READ IT THE WAY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S SAYING YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T, YOU HAVE A GAPING HOLE IN HOW YOU WOULD READ FOR TRACK FIVE AND YOU HAVE A TERRIBLE INCONSISTENCY WHERE I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY.
AND YOU NOTICE HOW, AND, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO ARGUE 'CAUSE I, I LIKE JUSTIN, BUT THE, THE POINT IS, IS THAT THERE'S NO POINT TO ONE 10.
WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE SECTION ONE 10 IF EVERYTHING A HUNDRED PERCENT DEFAULTS TO SECTION C AND ONE, THREE AND FOUR AND FORGIVE FIVE FIVE, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING IN FIVE FOR A VACANT LIE.
SO IF YOU READ IT THE WAY THEY'RE SAYING, YOU'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO HAVE THESE PROBLEMS, YOU'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO HAVE HOLES IN THE ORDINANCE.
BUILDING OFFICIALS NOT KNOWING HOW TO READ THIS.
IF YOU READ IT THE WAY I'M SAYING, YOU HAVE A SMACK DAD CONSISTENT PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT, ASSUREDNESS OF A BUILDING OFFICIAL BEING ABLE TO READ THE ORDINANCE, KNOW WHAT IT SAYS AND ISSUE OR NOT ISSUE A PERMIT BASED UPON WHAT'S GOING ON.
AND IF THE CITY COUNCIL DOESN'T LIKE THAT, IF THEY SAY, NO, NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE MEANT, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN IT THAT WAY.
SO THIS IS TRIPLING DOWN ON THE PROBLEM.
NOW WE HAVE A, NOW WE HAVE A FLAWED, OR, WELL IT'S NOT EVEN A FLAWED ORDINANCE, BUT WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT THE CITY IS TRYING TO READ DIFFERENTLY THAN HOW IT ACTUALLY WORD FOR WORD READS.
THE THE LOCATION OF PITCH PROPERTY, IS THAT IN TRACK THREE? YES SIR.
OKAY, SO I GO TO YOUR SUBMITTAL AND IT SAYS TRACK THREE USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
AND IT, I THINK GOES TO ONE OF THE THINGS YOU PUT UP HERE AND IT REFERENCES DUPLEX USES.
AND THEN IT SAYS SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX USE USES EXACTLY RIGHT.
DUPLEX USES, IT SAYS DUPLEX USES PERMANENT ON THE PROPERTY.
OH, IT'S REFERENCED TO ROPER STREET AND MABEL AVENUE.
THAT WHERE IT SAYS DPA, THEN IT SAYS SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPA STRUCTURES AND IT GIVES THE LIMITATIONS 25, 40% AND THEN A ROOF ISSUED.
SO ARE YOU SAYING THERE'S A CONFLICT BETWEEN WHAT IT IS AND SECTION A IN GENERAL? YES.
AND WHAT IT SAYS UNDER SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX STRUCTURES.
NO, AND I DON'T WANNA SOUND LIKE AN ATTORNEY 'CAUSE I HATE SOUNDING LIKE AN ATTORNEY, BUT I'VE BEEN ONE FOR 34 YEARS, SO IT'S NOT A CONFLICT.
WHAT IT IS, IS EVERY SINGLE FAMILY IN DUPLEX USE IN TRACK THREE GOES TO SEA EXCEPT FOR VACANT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IT SAYS EXCEPT IS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, LAND MUST REMAIN AS INDICATED ON THE EXISTING LAND USE MAP.
AND THAT'S WHAT HE'S ARGUED THAT IT SAYS THAT.
BUT THE POINT BEING IS THAT FOR A VACANT LOT, YOU'RE NOT IN THIS SECTION ANYMORE.
YOU'RE ACTUALLY DEVELOPING UNDER 51 P DASH 6,700 OH PROPERTY GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51 P DASH 67 1 OH.
WHICH REMOVES IT FROM THIS SECTION, PUTS IT IN ONE 10 AND ONE 10 ONLY SAYS DUPLEX USED.
WOULD YOU BRING THE, THE, THE, THE QUOTE ON THE ONE 10 UP AGAIN GUYS? AND SO WHAT IS THE STANDARD FOR THAT? THE 1 10, 1 51 P 67, 1 10.
I ALSO HAVE THE ORDINANCE IF YOU WANT ME TO JUST RUN UP THERE AND GIVE IT TO YOU, YOU CAN.
WELL, I WANT EVERYONE TO SEE IT, SO YES, I KNOW.
I WISH I'D MAKE COPIES, BUT, BUT IF YOU GIVE YOU, IF YOU'VE GOT IT, I'LL TAKE IT.
UH, I, I HIGHLIGHT IT IN THERE.
I KNOW, RIGHT? I'VE GOT ALL MY TEETH AT LEAST FOR NOW.
IT SAYS, ANY VACANT PROPERTY MAY BE DEVELOPED IN ACCORDS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSROOM DESIGNATED FOR THIS PROPERTY.
THE REQUIREMENTS DE DUPLEX APPLIED FOR DEVELOPED OF VACANT AREA AND READ THEM EXISTING INSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY INDICATED AS VACANT OR CHURCH ON THE EXISTING LAND USE MAP ON THAT EXISTING LAND USE MAP.
WAS IT DESIGNATED AS VACANT? YES, SIR.
WAS IT DESIGNATED AS DUPLEX? IT WAS DESIGNATED VACANT WHERE OTHER AREAS WERE DESIGNATED DUPLEX OR SINGLE FAMILY AND CHURCH.
ALRIGHT, SO WHERE ARE THE, WHERE'S THE CRITERIA FOR DUPLEX? DUPLEX D DUPLEX IS THE DUPLEX STANDARD IN 51 A, WHICH IS 60 P 60, UH, PERCENT LOT COVERAGE.
AND 35, IS IT 36 PER HIGHEST? THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
WHICH IT WAS BEFORE, WHICH IS WHY, WHETHER THEY HAD THE OLD ORDINANCE OR THIS ORDINANCE, THEY CORRECTLY ISSUED THE PERMITS ORIGINALLY AND SHOULDN'T HAVE REVOKED THEM.
I, I CAN'T READ THIS ORDINANCE ANY OTHER WAY CONSISTENTLY.
IS THAT 1 0 7 OR ONE 10? THAT'S ONE 10.
SO WHERE ON HERE DOES IT POINT TO?
[05:35:01]
OH, IT SAYS IN HERE WITH DUPLEX USES OF THERE.NOW WE'RE GONNA GET TO ONE 10.
THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE ON THAT SHEET OF PAPER.
SO WHAT YOU'RE ESPOUSING IS THAT BY VIRTUE OF IT BEING IN THE, THE LAND USE MAP AND A VACANT LOT, IT DEFAULTS TO DUPLEX.
IT, IT DEFAULTS TO GENERAL DUPLEX STANDARDS UNDER 51 A, WHICH IS 60% LOT COVERAGE AND 36 HEIGHT.
WE'RE GONNA DO A LITTLE, UH, UH, MOOD COURT.
SO DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT? I DISAGREE.
BECAUSE, BECAUSE OF THE, THE FIRST REASON IS, IS THE LAST SENTENCE GIVES THE, WHICH, WHAT SECTION ARE WE LOOKING AT? 1, 1 0 OR 1 0 7.
GIVES THE MEANING OF THAT PARTICULAR SECTION.
IT'S MEANT TO REGULATE TRACK FIVE, WHICH AS MR. POOL JUST POINTED OUT TO ME, IS A SCHOOL USE.
SO THERE, THE INTENT OF 67, 1 10 IS TO REGULATE TRACK FIVE.
IT SAYS EXISTING STRUCTURES, RIGHT? OR RE OR VACANT ON, ON THE, THE HEADER TRACKS 1, 3, 4, AND FIVE.
SO CURRENTLY TRACK FIVE IS ONLY A SCHOOL ALL OF TRACK FIVE.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT FIVE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRACK THREE.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY ONE 10 IS THERE.
BUT IN THE HEADER IT SAYS DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT AREA, YADA, YADA, YADA.
EARLIER I ASKED, WHERE IS THIS PROPERTY IN? AND YOU SAID TRACK, SOMEONE SAID TRACK THREE.
SO IF IT'S TRACK THREE, WHY ISN'T THIS CONTROLLING? BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE.
THEN YOU GO BACK TO WHAT REGULATES THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS 1 0 7.
1 0 7 SAYS ACCEPT AS PROVIDED, BUT HE'S INTENDING TO BUILD A DUPLEX STRUCTURE ON VACANT LAND.
WELL, AND THE HEADLINE SAYS DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT AREA CHECK.
AND WORDS ARE IMPORTANT AND IT'S NOT AN EITHER R IT'S, AND SO BOTH REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ON TRACKS 1, 3, 4, AND FIVE.
AND THIS PROPERTY MEETS BOTH OF THOSE IN THE HEADER OF IT'S BAKE IT AND IT'S IN TRACK THREE.
SO THEN EVERYTHING BELOW WOULD APPLY MAKES IT DUPLEX, CORRECT.
DA DUPLEX DISTRICT ONE, ONE SEC.
LET, I WANT, I WANT, I WANT TO HEAR RESPONSE TO THAT.
SO WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS, DOES THAT, DOES THE CITY AGREE THAT A VACANT OR THE GENERAL DUPLEX STANDARD, WHAT IS THE GENERAL DUPLEX STANDARD? UH, WE HEARD THAT BEFORE IT WAS 36 AND 60%.
THE LOGIC IS IT POINTS TO THIS SECTION AND IT THEN DEFAULTS TO DUPLEX DISTRICT.
I'M SORRY, BUT I MEAN IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT AN EITHER OR.
IT WOULD SAY REDEVELOPMENT OF VACANT AREA OR REDEVELOPMENT OF HIS EXTINCT.
YOU KNOW, IT'S VACANT AND IT'S IN THREE THREE.
SO IT POINTS TO DISTRICT DA DUPLEX DISTRICT.
AND WHAT ARE WE HEARING? IT'S 60% AND 36 LOT COVERAGE IN AND 36 HEIGHT AND WHAT WHAT LOT COVER OR 60 WE RIGHT.
AND YEAH, NOW IT'S SILENT ON ROOF, SILENT ON ROOF PITCH OR ROOF TYPE, SO, RIGHT.
AND WHEN IT'S SILENT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? RIGHT.
WELL, WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS IT'S SILENT.
AND WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS UNCOVER A LOT OF HOLES IN PD 67.
THIS, THIS IS NOT EXACTLY ON POINT, BUT I'LL, I'LL POINT OUT THAT IN MY BRIEF, ONE OF THE THINGS I POINT OUT IS HOW MUCH NEXT TO MR. LEE'S PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY CHURCH.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE IN, IN MY BRIEF, YOU'LL SEE HOW MUCH HIS STRUCTURE IS GONNA TOWER OVER A CHURCH.
AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NEXT TO HIM.
HE, THAT THEY SIGNED A, A CONSENT IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT.
IT, IT'S NOT ABOUT, IT'S THE INTENT OF WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE REGULATED BY THE ORDINANCE.
[05:40:01]
AND IF WE'RE KEEPING THE CHARACTER YES.OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS PROPERTY IS GONNA TOWER BY AT LEAST THE FLOOR, PROBABLY MORE OVER A CHURCH.
BUT, BUT YOU'RE INTERPRETING NOW YOU, YOU'RE INTERPRETING WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS THE INTENTION.
AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE WORDS HERE.
AND WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING, WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THINGS THAT ARE AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE.
NOT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION IS PRETTY WIDE SWEEPING AND IT'S REGULATING SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX.
AND IT POINTS TO ONE 10 AND THIS POINTS TO DA DUPLEX DISTRICT.
AND THEN I ASK THE QUESTION OF WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS FOR A DA DUPLEX DISTRICT? I THINK TO GO BACK TO THE VERY BEGINNING OF 1 0 7, IT SAYS ACCEPT THIS.
PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, LAND USE MUST REMAIN AS INDICATED ON THE EXISTING LAND USE MAP.
AND I ASKED THAT QUESTION AND YOU SAID IT WAS DUPLEX TRUE.
SO IT'S MAINTAINING THAT USE, BUT THE REST OF THE, THE REST OF THE PROVISIONS REMAIN.
AND IN A, IN THE CASE OF A VACANT LOT, THE USE CAN BE DUPLEX OR SINGLE FAMILY LAND USE MUST REMAIN AS INDICATED ON THE EXISTING LAND USE MAP.
AND IF IT'S VACANT, IT IS VACANT.
IF IT'S VACANT, THEN IT CAN BE SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX.
WELL, 'CAUSE THOSE ARE THE USES ALLOWED IN THE DUPLEX DISTRICT AND THEY, THOSE DISTRICTS.
BUT THE REST OF THE REQUIREMENTS STILL ARE, ARE IN EFFECT, LIKE I I, OTHERWISE, THE, THE, THE PD IS NOT DEVELOPMENT A VACANT PROPERTY.
IT'S GOVERNED BY PROVISIONS 51 P 6,710.
AND IT REFERENCES DA DUPLEX DISTRICT.
ANY VACANT PROPERTY, IT DOES MAY BE DEVELOPED INTO ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION DESIGNATED FOR THE PROPERTY, THE REQUIREMENTS OF DA DUPLEX DISTRICT, THE GENERAL DUPLEX STANDARDS, 36, 60% APPLIED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING STRUCTURES.
BUT THE WAY WE'VE SEEN IT IS, THE WAY WE'VE SEEN IT IS, IS THE DISTRICT PROVISIONS STILL APPLY.
THE ONES THAT AREN'T LISTED IN THE DISTRICT PROVISIONS, SUCH AS LOT SIZE AND THAT KIND OF THING, THOSE WOULD RESORT BACK TO THE DED BECAUSE THE SPECIFIC CODE HAS NOTHING ABOUT SUBVERTING BACK TO THE DEED IN HERE, THOUGH.
BUT THOSE ARE THE, THAT'S HOW A PD WORKS.
LIKE IT BUILDS ON TOP OF WHAT THE BASE LAYER IS.
IN THIS CASE, THE BASE LAYER BECOMES WHAT WE READ AND 351 DAYS, WHATEVER MY NUMBER WAS, OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL INTERPRETING IT.
AND THAT, THAT JUST STRIPS ALL CONTEXT.
SO I MEAN, YOU CAN DO THAT, BUT THAT STRIPS ALL CONTEXT OF HOW WE EVALUATE PDS AND HOW THEY'RE PUT IN PLACE.
BUT IN ALL DUE RESPECT, THE BUILDING OFFICIALS SHOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT IT.
CONTEXT KEEP GIVEN THE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE, IT WAS, WAS A WIDE RANGE OF INTERPRETATION AND CONTEXT IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA.
BUT THAT'S HOW THE ACCEPTANCE PROVIDED WORKS.
IS IT, IT FALLS BACK TO DUPLEX EXCEPT AS WHAT'S PROVIDED IN THAT DISTRICT, MR. HAITZ, UM, SOMEBODY, UH, THIS IS, I GUESS THIS IS NOT CONTEXT BUT INTENT.
THIS IS ALL THIS, THESE ORDINANCES THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING, THE, THE WHAT THE TEXT MEANS, THIS IS RELATED, THESE ORDINANCES ARE PART OF WHAT'S SAID ON THE PD 67.
IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR THE CITY TO HAVE SET UP A PD 67 WITH SPECIFIC BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND THEN SAID, OH, IF IT'S VACANT, YOU CAN PUT UP ANYTHING YOU WANT.
THAT, THAT JUST MAKES NO SENSE IF YOU'RE TRYING TO SET UP A NEIGHBORHOOD AND PRESERVE A CERTAIN CHARACTER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT, IT, IT MAY SAY THOSE WORDS ARE SAYING, BUT THE INTENT CLEARLY HAD TO BE CONSISTENCY WITH PD 67 REQUIREMENTS.
I MEAN, OTHERWISE IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL TO EVEN SET UP THE PD.
WELL, I THINK WE'RE UNCOVERING A LOT OF THINGS WITHIN THIS PD THAT DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT
BUT THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WELL, BUT I MEAN, I FULLY SUPPORT THE INTENT OF, YOU KNOW, OF THE PD IN THIS AREA.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S CREATING HEARTBURN AND HEADACHE FOR US, YOU KNOW, MAKING AND MAKING TOUGH DECISIONS.
YOU KNOW, I, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
[05:45:01]
HAVE FOR ATTORNEY? ONE OR ATTORNEY TWO? APPLICANT AND THE RESPONDENT.LET, WHY DON'T YOU GIVE, UH, UH, ANY, YES, WHY DON'T YOU SUMMARIZE? SO, UH, UM, HO HOIT, IS THAT RIGHT? UM, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
UM, UH, UH, UH, BOARD MEMBER, I I, THE, THE PROBLEM FOR US IS THAT WHEN WE WALK INTO BUILDING INSPECTION AND WE SAY WE WANT A PERMIT AND WE'RE READING A PD, AND THE PD BY ITS WORDS, SAY WHAT? I'VE JUST READ IT AND Y'ALL HAVE JUST READ IT AND IT SAYS ONE THING.
THE CITY COUNCIL MAY HAVE, IN THEIR HEART OF HEARTS, WANTED SOMETHING ELSE, SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
BUT AFTER SPENDING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND GOING OVER A YEAR, OR ALMOST A YEAR THROUGH 50 ONES, ALMOST A YEAR TO DO THAT, AND THEN TO HAVE IT REVOKED ON INTENT AND CONTEXT AND NOT THE WORDS THEMSELVES, UM, THAT'S KIND OF A DIFFICULT SITUATION BECAUSE BUILDING INSPECTION DOESN'T TELL US THE INTENT OR THE CONTEXT.
THEY HAVE THE WORDS IN FRONT OF US.
I DRAFTED THESE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR 10 YEARS.
AND I WAS, YOU KNOW, MY RIGHT EYE WAS TWITCHING.
I ALWAYS HAD TO MAKE SURE THE EXACT RIGHT WORDS WERE PUT IN IN ORDER TO HIT THAT FOR THIS VERY REASON.
BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T CATCH IT CORRECTLY, IF YOU WRITE AN ORDINANCE INCORRECTLY AND YOU DON'T CAPTURE THE INTENT, THE WORDS TRUMP THE UNDERLYING INTENT.
AND THE FACT THAT WE MADE A HUGE INVESTMENT ON THIS BASED UPON THE ACTUAL WORDS, WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
NUMBER ONE IS, AND I HATE TO SAY IT 'CAUSE I GOT A LOT OF FRIENDS IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, PROBABLY LESS THAN I USED TO, BUT THEY NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB OF WRITING THESE ORDINANCES.
AND THEN THEY NEED TO DO A WAY BETTER JOB OF ENFORCING THESE ORDINANCES, MAKING THEM PUBLIC, WORKING WITH THE PUBLIC, MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THEM.
BECAUSE A CITY CAN'T DEVELOP IF THE WORDS SAY ONE THING, AND THEN WE KIND OF REVOKE PERMITS AFTER PEOPLE SPEND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.
AND WE'RE LIKE, WELL, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE MEANT.
I KNOW WHAT IT SAYS, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE MEANT.
AND IN THIS ONE CASE, I THINK IT'S OBVIOUS, MR. LEE WASN'T LIKE TWIRLING HIS MUSTACHE AS AN EVIL DEVELOPER AND TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING.
HE WAS JUST DOING WHAT HE WAS DOING.
HIS GUYS WERE TELLING HIM THEY DIDN'T HAVE NOTICE.
THEY WERE TRYING TO DO THEIR BEST.
EVERYBODY IS OKAY WITH WHAT HE, HE'S, HIS PLANS ARE.
IF THIS WAS A WHOLE AUDIENCE OF PEOPLE, HIS NEIGHBORS SAYING, I DON'T WANT THIS, THIS IS TERRIBLE.
UM, I THINK IT WOULD BE AT LEAST A CONSIDERATION.
THEY'VE ALL SIGNED SUPPORT FOR HIM.
THE WORDS SAY THAT HE GETS TO DO WHAT HE GETS TO DO.
AND IF THE CITY TRULY INTENDS THIS TO BE DIFFERENT, THEY NEED TO AMEND THEIR ORDINANCE.
BUT RIGHT NOW HE NEEDS TO FINISH HIS HOUSE.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING YOU TO DO.
IN THIS ONE CASE ONLY THIS CASE, EACH CASE DOESN'T SET A PRECEDENT.
AND NOW I'VE DONE MYAS PLEA PLEASE.
MR. UH, CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, YOU MAY SUMMARIZE.
I, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY.
UM, THIS HAS, THIS HAS BEEN, THESE HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT CASES AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I I DO, I DO NOT AGREE WITH MR. MICHEL'S.
UM, WE, WE'VE TAKEN, THE CITY HAS TAKEN ITS LICKS ON LOTS OF THINGS IN THIS, IN THESE CASES.
BUT THE, THE INTENT, THE, THE LANGUAGE OF THIS CODE IS, IS STRAIGHTFORWARD
AND I'LL, I BROUGHT UP THE, UM, THE ORDINANCE 51, A 2.101 INTERPRETATIONS, WHICH IS HOW TO INTERPRET THIS THING.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT SUBSECTION SIX B, THE USE REGULATIONS CONTROL OVER THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS.
IF THERE'S A CONFLICT AND THERE'S A CONFLICT, THERE'S A CONFLICT BETWEEN HOW WE'RE LOOKING AT 1 0 7 AND 1 1 10.
SO YOU, YOU'RE ADMITTING THERE'S A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO? YEAH.
AND THE, THE, THE SPECIFIC RULES IN THAT CASE, AND THE SPECIFIC IS SUBSECTION C.
AND WHAT DOES SUBSECTION C SAY? SUBSECTION C
[05:50:01]
IS THE REGULATION FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX STRUCTURES, WHICH IS THE HIGH LOT COVERAGE AND ROOF COVERAGE THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS ENFORCING IN THIS CASE.AND I ASK THAT YOU AFFIRM THE, UM, DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WITH REGARD TO THE STOP WORK ORDER.
BUT WHAT DOES THAT SECTION SEE, SAY THE HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE? HE SAID ROOF 40% LOT COVERAGE, 25 FOOT HEIGHT.
AND UH, SOMETHING I, THE ROOF HIP ENGAGEMENT ROOFS, WHEN THE HEIGHT OF A ROOF IS OVER 20 FEET, 90% OF THE ROOF OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE MUST BE HIP.
DISCUSSION BEFORE A MOTION FOR THE FLOOR.
UH, I'M NOT SAYING THESE IN ANY ORDER.
UH, I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE CAN AFFIRM ALL THREE REVOCATIONS, WHICH IS HEIGHT, ROOF TYPE, AND LOT COVERAGE.
WE CAN AFFIRM OR REVERSE ONE OF THE THREE, TWO OF THE THREE, THREE OF THE THREE.
OR WE CAN HOLD THIS UNDER ADVISEMENT TO NEXT MONTH.
'CAUSE WE ONLY HAVE FOUR MEMBERS.
I'M, I'M MYSELF, I'M, I'M AGREEABLE FOR CERTAIN OF AFFIRMING, UH, I MEAN OF, OF NOT AFFIRMING, REVERSING ON LOCK COVERAGE, 42 VERSUS 40 JUST RIGHT.
ISN'T SOMETHING I HAVE AN QUIBBLE ABOUT.
SO I DEFINITELY WILL GO ALONG WITH AFFIRMING, I MEAN, REVERSING, REVERSING, SORRY, REVERSING THAT ONE.
IF, UH, WE'RE JUST DISCUSSING
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE JUST FOOLING OURSELVES FOR ANOTHER TOUGH DISCUSSION THAT'S GONNA BE THE SAME DISCUSSION OR NOT.
BETWEEN HIS 35 AND WHAT THIS IS 25, THAT IS CUTTING OFF 10 FEET OF A STRUCTURE, WHICH IS ALMOST ELIMINATING A STRUCTURE.
SO, SO THAT'S THE OTHER OPTION.
AS IT RELATES TO ROOF TYPES, I'M BEING ADVISED, I'M SURE THAT THAT IS NOT SUBJECT TO A VARIANCE.
SO THEREFORE THE ROOF TYPE ISSUE IS THE DECISION.
WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE A, WE'D HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION TO AFFIRM OR REVERSE, ALTHOUGH NO ROOF TYPE, HE'S, HE'S MAKING A SUGGESTION THAT HE WOULD MODIFY THAT.
SO YEAH, I DON'T, WE CAN AGREE TO AFFIRM THAT.
WE COULD AFFIRM THAT WHICH HE THEN WOULD COMPLY.
SO THEN THE QUESTION IS HEIGHT AND LAPTOP.
I MEAN, I STILL HAVE, I STILL HAVE QUESTIONS, NOT QUESTIONS THAT I CAN VERBALIZE JUST, JUST, WELL, CONFUSION IN MY, THE, THE OTHER OPTION ON THIS IS WE CAN HOLD, HOLD THIS OVER TILL THE 19TH OF FE.
I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT TOOK PLACE BEFORE THE ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY WHEN HE ACTUALLY STARTED THE BILL.
WELL, THAT'S WHY PERMITS ARE ALLOWED FOR GOOD FOR 18 MONTHS BECAUSE THAT HAPPENS.
AND IS IT RELEVANT? I, I DON'T, MICHAEL, I, I AGREE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A SMOKING GUN.
YOU'RE, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT I'M, I'M, I GUESS I'M, I'M, TO ME, IT WOULD BE REASONABLE IF I'M WAITING THAT LONG, MAYBE I OUGHT TO HAVE THINGS RECHECKED.
WELL, I MAY HAVE A VALID PERMIT FROM 18 MONTHS AGO.
UH, YOU KNOW, WHEN I OUGHT TO JUST DOUBLE CHECK THAT.
WHEN WAS THIS PERMITTED? 1, 4 23? WELL, IT WAS LIKE RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF THE 18 MONTH.
I MEAN, I, SO I, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME, BUT 1 14 23, WHEN DID THE 1, 4 23 1 4 23,
[05:55:02]
WHEN DID THE ORDINANCE TAKE PLACE? EIGHT, OR EXCUSE ME, 10.AND HE STARTED BUILDING MAY OF 24.
SO WHEN IT WAS PERMITTED, THE ORDINANCE HAD ALREADY BEEN FOUND AND THE ORDINANCE WAS ALREADY IN THE BACK, BUT IT WAS PERMITTED AS BUILT, CORRECT? NO, IT, IT, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING IT WAS PERMITTED AND BUILT AS WAS PRE ORDINANCE.
BECAUSE HE HAD RELIANT ON THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND SUBSEQUENT GREEN TAGS IN JUST LIKE THE LAST ONE.
THE SAME SERIES OF SUCCESS, SUCCESSIVE EVENTS.
THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS WE DON'T HAVE A DEBATE ABOUT USE.
SO, UH, AGAIN, I MEAN, I I, AN OPTION IS TO POSTPONE UNTIL NOVEMBER.
AN OPTION IS TO, I THINK WE HAVE CON I THINK WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON LOT COVERAGE TO REVERSE.
UH, THE QUESTION IS ON HEIGHT AND ROOF TYPES.
MS. HAYDEN, WHAT'S YOUR OPINION? I MEAN, IT'S A LOT.
I WOULD BE, WELL, THE LOT COVERAGE, I THINK I WOULD BE OKAY WITH 42% INSTEAD OF 40%.
UM, THE ROOF TYPE, THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SAID THEY'LL CHANGE THE ROOF TYPE TO FIT THE, THE NEW ORDINANCE IS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW.
DO WE ENFORCE THAT? WELL, IF YOU AFFIRM, THEN THEY LOSE THE PERMIT FOR THE ROOF TYPE, WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE TO REFILE A PERMIT FOR THE ROOF TYPE WITH THIS.
WELL, PRESUMABLY, PRESUMABLY, PRESUMABLY IT IS THE CHALLENGING CORRECT.
THE HEIGHT, BUT BASED ON HOW YOU'RE READING THE, THE ORDINANCE, YES, IT CONFLICTS, BUT BASED ON HOW, HOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT, EVERY VACANT PIECE OF LAND, A PD 67, I CAN GO AND BUILD A 35, 36 FOOT HOUSE ON THAT WAS THE OLD ZONING.
THE OLD, THE OLD PB, THE OLD OPD ALLOWED FOR THAT.
WELL, BUT THE NEW, IF IT'S VACANT, GENERAL DUPLEX IS 36.
SO I I I MEAN ALL THE VACANT PROPERTIES SUBJECT WE'RE JUST, AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO BE LOOK WHAT THE WORD SAY AND THEN DE MAKE A FAIR DECISION.
THIS IS KIND OF WHY WE'RE IN EXISTENCE BY THE WAY.
BECAUSE THIS, IT CAN, THEY CAN GO TO DISTRICT COURT AND WELL, IT'S STILL, THEY'RE AFTER US.
SO WHAT IS IT THE BOARD WANTS TO DO? I'M BEING REDUNDANT.
OH, UH, I, I THINK ONE THING WE COULD DO, SINCE I THINK YOU HAVE UNANIMITY ON THE LOT COVERAGE.
UH, BD BD 2 3 4 DASH ONE ON THE APPLICATION.
AND DANIEL LEE HAVING EVALUATED THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY HERE, ALL THE TESTIMONY AND FACTS SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION MOVE TO REVERSE THE BUILDING, THE, THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL REGARDING LOT COVERAGE.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.
SECONDED BY MR. SA DISCUSSION OR HAVE WE HAD OUR DISCUSSION? WE HAVE MS. BOARD SECRETARY CALL CALL THE, UM, UM, VOTE FOR THAT THIS FIRST MOTION.
IN THE MATTER VD 2 3 4 DASH ONE 11, THE BOARD, UH, UNANIMOUSLY FOUR TO ZERO, UH, REVERSES THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DECISION.
UM, I'M GONNA INTERPRET WHAT, WHAT MS. HAYDEN SAID, AND THAT IS, IF WE HAVE A POTENTIAL RESOLUTION HERE, THEN WE SHOULD AFFIRM AND FORCE THAT ISSUE FOR RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF BD 2 3 4 DASH 11, UH, ON THE APPLICATION OF DANIEL LEE AND BEING EVALUATED, THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY HERE, ALL THE TESTIMONY IN FACT SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION.
I MOVE THAT, UM, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL REGARDING, UH, ROOF TYPE.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND.
IN THE MATTER 2 3 4 1 1 1, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY FOUR TO ZERO, UH, AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL RELATING, RELATING TO NONCOMPLIANT ROOF TIGHT.
[06:00:06]
SO HERE'S, HERE'S THE DEAL.I'M SURE WHEN I TURN TO OUR BOARD ATTORNEY, SHE'S GONNA SAY, WELL, I DON'T KNOW.
IT SAYS WE CAN MODIFY, CAN WE SET A DIFFERENT HEIGHT THAN WHAT IS, WAS REVERSED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? NO, THAT IS LEGISLATIVE CHANGING THE ORDINANCE.
SO, BUT THEN WHY DOES IT SAY WE CAN MODIFY THEN WHY DOES IT SAY THAT WE CAN MODIFY HERE? THIS IS AN A OF THE, SO WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED IN ITS DECISION ABOUT THE HEIGHT.
SO YOU WELL, THAT WE ARE, WE'RE, WE'RE RIGHT.
BUT YOU CAN'T, BY CHANGING THE HEIGHT AND ALLOWING A DIFFERENT HEIGHT, YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY ALLOWING A VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS A IF WE REVERSED IT, WE WE DID THE SAME THING.
IF YOU'RE REVERSING IT, THEN YOU'RE SAYING YES, YOU CAN HAVE IT CORRECT.
AND THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED IN HIS DECISION.
I THINK THERE'S A CONSENSUS THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIALS AIRED HERE.
I THINK IT'S HOW YOU INTERPRET THIS BOARD NEEDS TO MAKE A FINDING EFFECT OF HOW THEY'RE INTERPRETING THE ORDINANCE.
SO GUYS, UM, THE BOARD SHALL THE POWERS OF THE VISUALLY OFFICIAL, THE BOARD MAY IN WHOLE OR IN PART AFFIRM REVERSE OR AMEND THE DECISION OF THE OFFICIAL.
I'M JUST SAYING WE CAN HOLD THIS OVER.
YOU TOLD US WE COULD DIVIDE THE THREE BEFORE YOU SAID WE HAD TO BE WITH, I SAID WITH, WITH AFFIRMING OR REVERSING.
BUT IF YOU'RE HOLDING, YOU'RE HOLDING THE WHOLE CASE, BUT YOU'VE ALREADY MADE DECISIONS ON TWO OF THE THREE.
THAT'S NO DISRESPECT, BUT WE ARE ON THIS.
SO, UM, I'LL BE A NO VOTE TO CONFIRM.
WELL THEN WE HAVE TO HOLD IT OVER 'CAUSE IF WE'RE GONNA BE DEADLOCKED REQUIRES FOUR.
WELL, I'LL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD OVER.
WELL, SHE'S SAYING WE CAN'T, BUT I'VE NEVER KNOWN.
AND WE'VE SPLIT THE, THE, WE SPLIT THESE ISSUES SEPARATELY SO WE CAN DEFER A DECISION ON ONE OF THEM A MOMENT, OR WE CAN JUST HOLD THE WHOLE THING OVER.
OR, OR THEY COULD COME BACK AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN OVERTURNING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
I'D BE MORE INCLINED FOR THAT.
I WON'T, I'M NOT INCLINED TO AFFIRM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
OH, I SHOULD HAVE VOTED NO ON THE OTHER.
WELL, I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN VOTED NO ON THAT.
IT WOULDN'T, THE PAST I IT DID ALREADY.
YES, IT WOULD'VE TO, UH, TO AFFIRM.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO, YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE A MAJORITY OF WHO, UH, TO REVERSE YOU NEED FOUR.
SO WHAT DO YOU WANNA DO GUYS? WHERE ARE YOU ON THE HEIGHT? UH, 35 DOWN TO 25.
YOU MIGHT AS WELL DESTROY THE WHOLE PROPERTY THAT, I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO I MOVE IN BDA 2 3 1 DASH 11 ON THE APPLICATION.
DANIEL LIE, HAVING VALUED THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO PROPERTY, UH, TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF ADMINIS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL REGARDING HEIGHT.
THE ALTERNATIVE, YOU HAVE TO TEAR IT DOWN, RIGHT? I, I, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
BUT THE ALTERNATIVE IS THEY COME AND ASK FOR VARIANCE.
I THINK WE'RE BACK WHERE WE STARTED.
I THINK WE'RE JUST, WE'RE WE'RE BACK WHERE WE STARTED.
NO, IT'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
PROVING A VARIANCE NOT THE SAME AS OVERTURNING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
THEY, THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS.
THE RESULT MIGHT BE THE SAME, BUT THEY ARE DIFFERENT.
THEY'RE DIFFERENT ACTIONS IN, IN MY OPINION, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED.
THAT IN MY OPINION, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED.
AND IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO STAND UP TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, UH, AND BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE.
THAT'S MY, THAT'S, YEAH, THAT'S MY, THAT'S HOW YOU SHOULD VOTE.
[06:05:01]
CALL THE VOTE.SO WHAT HAPPENS NOW? I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA MAKE ANOTHER MOTION.
BUT DID IT NOT PASS? NO, IT REQUIRES FOUR VOTES.
AND WE DON'T HAVE, I JUST ASKED YOU THAT.
YOU TOLD ME IF OH, I'M NO REQUIRE MAJORITY NO REVERSE.
TO REVERSE TOT, REVERSE REVERSE.
REQUIRE TO REVERSE REQUIRES FOUR VOTES.
IF IT STANDS, IT, IT, IT'S, UH, IF WE AFFIRM IT, THEN THERE ARE RECOURSES TO GO TO DISTRICT COURT.
UH, EITHER GO TO DISTRICT COURT TO REVERSES OR THEN FILE A VARIANCE FOR THE HEIGHT.
BUT WE'RE GONNA BE IN THE SAME DISCUSSION WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW.
TO ME IT'S A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION, BUT THAT'S JUST ME.
WHAT DO YOU WANNA DO? I JUST CAN'T.
MAKE SOMEONE TEAR DOWN A HOUSE.
EVEN IT WASN'T THEIR FAULT EVEN SPENDING 20,000.
I THINK IT'S UNCONSCIONABLY UNFAIR.
AND THAT'S WHY WE EXIST, RIGHT? YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION, MR HA HA.
I MEAN, IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IF THIS WAS, IF THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED AND IT WAS BUILT OUT OF COMPLIANCE, THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY.
BUT THE FACT THAT THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED AND MULTIPLE GREEN TAGS WERE ISSUED OVER COURSE OF SEVERAL MONTHS, IT'S JUST OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
ANYONE WANNA MAKE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
HAVING FULLY REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS IN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 11 ON APPLICATION OF DANIEL LEE AND HAVING EVALUATED THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY AND HEARD ALL TESTIMONY FACTS, ACCORDING THE APPLICATION, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
IS THERE A SECOND? DIES FOR LACK OF SECOND, JUST DIES FOR LACK OF SECOND.
WHERE IN THE CODE, WHERE IN ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER DOES IT STATE THAT WE CANNOT HOLD THIS, THIS ONE OF THE THREE OVER, OTHERWISE WE'RE GONNA DO IT.
IF YOU HOLD IT BE OUT OF ORDER.
WAIT, WHO? I'D BE THE ONE TO HAVE TO RULE IT OUT OF ORDER.
AND I'M NOT GONNA, BUT IT'S ONE AGENDA ITEM.
SO IF YOU'RE HOLDING ONE PART OF IT, WELL, THE, THE ALTERNATIVE IS WE HAVE TO HOLD THE WHOLE THING OVER UNTIL NEXT MONTH.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME? DOES THAT 'CAUSE YOU VOTED ALREADY.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE MOTIONS TO I'LL DO THAT.
ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY SURE OF THIS MR. I'M GONNA TEST THIS.
WHAT? WELL, I MAKE A SUGGESTION THAT WE HOLD OVER THE ONE ITEM.
AND IF WE, IF WE MAKE THE MOTION AND PASS IT, NO, SHE WON'T LET US SEC HOLD ONE OVER AND VOTE ON THE OTHER HAND.
AND HOW DOES SHE NOT LET US DO IT? I AGREE.
IT IS ONE AGENDA ITEM, BUT WELL, I, I'VE NEVER, I'VE NEVER KNOWN TO BE ABLE TO SPLIT WITHIN A BUILDING, A BUILDING OFFICIAL APPEAL.
I'VE NEVER KNOWN THAT BEFORE, BUT OKAY.
WE DID THAT IN THE PREVIOUS ONE.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW ANYWHERE IN THE CODE OR ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER THAT IT SAYS YOU CANNOT DO THAT.
SO I SUPPOSE WE COULD DO THAT AND JUST GO WITH IT.
UM, I MEAN IF WE'RE GONNA HOLD ONE OF 'EM, WE MIGHT AS WELL HOLD ALL THREE OVER.
RIGHT? ARM 'EM ALL AND LET 'EM GO TO COURT.
NOW I CAN TELL YOU WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
[06:10:01]
IN AGREEMENT ON THE OTHER TWO.WHY DON'T LET 'EM STAND AS THEY ARE? BECAUSE I, THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER WE CAN HOLD ON ONE AND ACT ON THE OTHER TWO ROLL OF PAPER AND LEAVE YOU IN THE ROOM.
AND THE ONLY PERSON THAT COULD RULE OUT OF ORDER WOULD BE ME.
AND THEN, THEN YOUR CHECK ON IS TO OVERRULE THE DECISION TO THE CHAIR, WHICH YOU'RE NOT GONNA DO THAT.
BUT LET'S, LET'S GO WITH THAT.
IS THAT WHAT WE DO? JUDICIAL DECISION? I THINK SHE'S CONFERRING WITH SOMEONE.
THE ALTERNATIVE IS WE HAVE TO HOLD ALL OF IT OVER AND I DON'T WANNA DO THAT.
NOT THE LAW FACT THAT MR. N ISN'T HERE IS WELL THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS.
SO WHAT DO YOU WANNA DO? ALRIGHT, I DON'T LIKE ATTORNEY TELLING WHAT TO DO.
IF WE ARE TO HOLD THE MATTER, WE HAVE TO DO IT AND IT'S ENTIRETY, YOU SAID THEN WE WOULD NEED TWO MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER YOUR PREVIOUS I UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND THEN YOU CAN THEN THE FLOOR WOULD BE OPEN FOR ANOTHER MOTION AND THEN YOU CAN HOLD IT.
BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO SOMEONE ON THE PREVAILING SIDE.
NO, THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT FOR A MOTION TO, FOR RECONSIDERATION.
WE CHANGED THE RULES TWO YEARS AGO, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S ONE FOUR THROUGH.
SO ANYONE ON THIS
SO THAT RECONSIDERATION, SAME PANEL, SAME DAY, MADE BY A SECOND BY ANY, REGARDLESS OF THE INITIAL VOTES, SIMPLE MAJORITY.
SO ANYONE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS TWO IJ.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO? HOLD OVER THE WHOLE, EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS HAVE TO HOLD THE WHOLE THING OVER, WHICH WE'RE GONNA TO, WE'LL I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO REVERSE TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS TWO MOTIONS THAT WERE APPROVED AND THEN WE'LL START ALL OVER NEXT MONTH, THEN I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD OVER.
UH, IN THE MATTER OF BD 2 3 4 DASH 11, I MOVE TO RECONSIDER THE DECISION TO REVERSE THE DEC BUILDING DEFIC DECISION.
UH, UH, GO AHEAD AND DO A RECORDED VOTE.
THIS IS A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO REVERSE THE LAB COVERAGE DECISION.
THIS IS A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
NO, HE, NO, YOU SECOND HE ASKED WHO SECONDED THE MOTION.
SO THAT'S BEEN RECONSIDERED, UH, IN THE MOTION IN THE MATTER OF 2 3 4 DASH ONE.
UH, I MOVE TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE BILLING OFFICIAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL REGARDING ROOF TYPE.
MR. SAUK, GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE.
A AYE, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BDA 2 3 4 DASH ONE 11 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 19TH, 2024.
THAT'S FOR ALL THREE COMPONENTS.
IS THERE SECOND MR. HOPKINS? I'LL SECOND.
UH, ANY, ANY DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? I'M JUST GIVING YOU HARD TIME
I'M NOT SURE I'LL, I'LL BE ABLE TO MAKE THE NOVEMBER NOTES.
AND, UH, IT WAS SECONDED BY MR. KOVICH AND THIS IS TO HOLD THE WHOLE PACKAGE OVER.
UH, GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR THE VOTE.
IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH ONE 11, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY 40 ZERO HELD HOLDING THIS ITEM, ITEM UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 9TH.
CAN WE GO AHEAD AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT STOPS US FROM APPROVING THE FEE WAIVER CORRECT.
[06:15:01]
INDEPENDENT MOTION INDEPENDENT MATTERS.UH, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL BDA 2 3 4 DASH 11 FR ONE ON APPLICATION OF DANIEL LEE.
GRANT THE REQUEST TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FILING FEES TO BE PAID IN THE ASSOCIATION OF REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS AND REQUESTED FOR THE APPLICANT 'CAUSE OUR VALUE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE RESULTS, SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP OF MOTION TO THE APPLICANT.
DISCUSSION PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ALRIGHT, UH, BD 2 3 4 1 1 1 IN ITS ENTIRETY, WE'LL BE BACK ON OUR NOVEMBER AGENDA.
UH, SORRY FOR THE SAUSAGE MAKING BUT DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.
UM, THAT BEING SAID, IT IS, UM, 7:40 PM ON THE 22ND OF OCTOBER.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS HEREBY ADJOURNED.