[00:00:03]
[Board of Adjustments: Panel B on October 23, 2024.]
GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.I'M SHERRY GABO AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR PANEL B.
TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23RD, 2024, WITH THE TIME OF 1:01 PM AND I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL B TO ORDER FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING, BOTH IN PERSON AND HYBRID VIDEO CONFERENCE.
A QUORUM, WHICH IS A MINIMUM OF FOUR OF FIVE OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS IS PRESENT AND THEREFORE WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE MEETING.
UM, BOARD MEMBERS HERE TODAY ARE MYSELF, SHERRY GABO, SARAH LAMB, JOE CANNON, DR.
EMMANUEL GLOVER, AND NICHOLAS BROOKS.
STAFF PRESENT IS THERESA CARLISLE, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, DR.
TAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIALIST AND PROJECT COORDINATOR BRYANT THOMPSON, OUR SENIOR PLANNER, NORA NDA, OUR SENIOR PLANS EXAM EXAMINER, SARAH EY, OUR SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER.
UM, MARY WILLIAMS, OUR BOARD SECRETARY MEETING.
MODERATOR DAVID NAVARRES, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND I BELIEVE THAT'S IT.
BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE WAY THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR THAT TIME.
WE OPERATE UNDER CITY COUNCIL APPROVED RULES OF PROCEDURE AND THEY'RE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE, NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE SETS TO 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 STAFF PRIOR TO THIS HEARING AND HAVE ALSO REVIEWED A DETAILED PUBLIC DOCKET, WHICH EXPLAINS A CASE AND WAS POSTED SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY OF THE CASES THAT WE HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD SECRETARY WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED.
THE 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 ADMINISTRATOR OFFICIAL'S DECISION REQUIRES 75% OR FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF A FIVE MEMBER PANEL.
ALL OTHER MOTIONS REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.
LETTERS OF THE BOARD'S ACTIONS TODAY WILL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING, IT WILL BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE CASE.
ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN, WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES OR WHEN A SPECIFIC CASE IS CALLED FOR ITS PUBLIC HEARING FOR A MAXIMUM OF FIVE MINUTES.
OUR REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
NO TELECONFERENCING WILL BE ALLOWED VIA WEBEX AND ALL COMMENTS ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER.
UM, SO WE WILL START WITH OUR, SORRY.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY THIS MORNING? NO, NO PUBLIC SPEAKER REGISTER.
AND THEN WE WILL, UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 18TH? YES.
UH, I, JOE CANNON, DO MOVE TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 18TH.
MOTION APPROVED AND WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR CASE.
WE HAVE ONE, UM, CASE ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR THIS CASE, UM, WHICH IS CASE NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH HUNDRED 16 1 0 2 3 MARSH LANE.
MS. LAMB, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION LISTED ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICANT APPLICATION SATISFIES ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE AS APPLICABLE TO WET VDA 2 3 4 DASH 116 APPLICATION OF DARIEN CARR FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DEFENSE HEIGHT REGULATION CONTAINED THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED.
THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
SECOND, MR. BROOKS, ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS CASE? NOPE.
UM, CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE MS. LAMB? AYE.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES? FIVE TO ZERO.
ALRIGHT, WE WILL MOVE AN ORDER OF THE CASES AND WE'LL START WITH BDA 2 3 4 DASH ZERO SIX, WHICH IS 1800 SOUTH HERBA STREET.
IF, UH, JERRY U CAN STEP FORWARD OR WHOEVER IS REPRESENTING THIS CASE, YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND WE WILL SWEAR YOU IN AND THEN YOU WILL HAVE, UM, FIVE MINUTES TO STATE YOUR CASE.
UM, DO YOU WANNA SWEAR IN FIRST, MARY?
[00:05:01]
ALL RIGHT, HANG ON JUST A SECOND HERE.DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH AND YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING ABOVE SINGLE 1800 SOUTH RABBE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 5.
UM, SO, UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN ANSWER? I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOU LISTENED AT THE MORNING BRIEFING, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS, YOU KNOW, COULD YOU MOVE THE PLANTERS BACK TO AVOID THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WHY YOU HAD NOT DONE THAT.
AND, UM, I THINK THERE WERE JUST ALSO SOME, I I I DON'T THINK IT REALLY MATTERS PARTICULARLY, BUT I GUESS NO ONE IS EVER GONNA PARK ON THAT PROPERTY.
AND IS THERE PARKING ON THE STREET? AND WILL THAT HINDER THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE WITH THOSE PLANTERS BEING THERE? SURE.
SO, UH, THE WAY THE CITY HAS SET UP, UH, PARKING, UH, IF IT'S UNDER 5,000 SQUARE FEET, WE DON'T NEED PARKING.
UH, THERE IS PLENTY OF STREET PARKING ON BEAUMONT AND OR VE UH, THERE'S A NO PARKING SIGN, UH, ON BEAUMONT, WHICH GOES BACK PRETTY FAR.
AND BETWEEN THAT AND THE, UH, ACCESS FOR THE, THE TRUCKS TO COME IN AND OUT, NOBODY WILL BE ABLE TO PARK ALONG THAT BEAUMONT SIDE.
IS THERE A REASON THAT YOU MOVED YOUR PLANTERS SO FAR UP AND DIDN'T PUT 'EM BACK INSIDE THE, OUTSIDE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE? WE, WE, WE HAVEN'T SET UP THE PLANNERS AT ALL YET.
WE'RE WAITING, WE'RE WAITING FOR THIS, SO I KNOW, BUT YOU HA SO YOU HAVE 'EM ON THE PLANS, BUT IS THERE A REASON WHEN YOU WERE DEVELOPING THE PLANS THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE THEM PUSHED FURTHER BACK TO ADHERE TO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE? YEAH, WELL, SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE A, A, A, ONE OF OUR FOOD TRUCKS COME IN AND PARK AND THE SETBACK JUST TAKES UP SO MUCH OF OUR REAL ESTATE THAT THE FOOD TRUCK WILL BE, UH, HINDERING SEATING OR WHATNOT.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? SO, UH, INITIALLY THIS WAS ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET.
UM, STAFF DIDN'T HAVE AN OPINION ON, ON WHETHER OR NOT, UM, ON THIS CASE.
UM, SO IT'S ON YOU TO TO, TO MAKE THE CASE OF AS TO WHY WE SHOULD APPROVE.
UM, WE WILL CERTAINLY HAVE QUESTIONS AFTER YOU MAKE YOUR CASE.
UM, I DO THINK THE REASON WHY THIS WAS ULTIMATELY PULLED OFF THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET WAS THAT THERE WAS LETTERS OF OPPOSITION.
SO, YOU KNOW, I ASK AT THIS MOMENT FOR YOU TO, UM, MAYBE SPEAK TO THAT, SPEAK TO YOUR APPLICATION AND TO MAKE THE CASE TO THIS BOARD PLEASE.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO ADD, UH, ANOTHER ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY AND, UH, TRY TO BEAUTIFY THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, ALSO, I I MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY, UH, CONTEST TO OUR APPLICATION.
THEY HAD, UH, SO MANY PEOPLE HAD CONCERNS.
IS THAT CORRECT? CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC? SURE.
AND SO WE ALSO ACTUALLY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC, UH, AND WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE CITY MAY HAVE PLANNED BECAUSE VE IS A PRETTY BUSY INTERSECTION AND THERE'S NO CROSSWALK FOR PATRONS.
UM, SO THE CONCERN THAT THEY HAD REGARDING TRAFFIC HERE WAS BASED ON, AND NOT TO SAY THAT THEY NECESSARILY OPPOSED YOUR APPLICATION WAS BASED ON IF THIS WAS TO GET THROUGH.
SO I'M GONNA PUT THIS BACK ON YOU RATHER THAN YOU PUTTING IT BACK ON THE CITY AND SAYING, WHAT'S THE CITY GONNA DO ABOUT TRAFFIC CONCERNS, THE CONCERN SURROUNDING YOUR APPLICATION AND WHAT THE IMPLICATION COULD BE ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WHEN IT PERTAINS TO TRAFFIC AND YOUR APPLICATION.
UM, I MEAN, ARE WE EXPECTED TO DRIVE THE TRAFFIC? I'M LIKE, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED HERE 'CAUSE THE, THE, THE AREA IS GROWING, WHICH IS GREAT AND WHICH IS WHY EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE INVESTED OVER THERE AND TRY TO BUILD, UH, I MEAN, WE'RE MORE THAN WILLING TO TRY TO WORK AND DO WHATEVER WE CAN ON OUR PART TO HELP DRIVE, UH, TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC PROPERLY.
I MEAN, WE'RE IN TALKS WITH VALET COMPANIES, UH, AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, PARKING OR WHATNOT TO MAKE IT MORE CONVENIENT FOR OUR PATRONS.
SO I THINK THAT SOME OF THE CONCERNS COME FROM YOUR APPLICATION IS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR, UH, VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTIONS.
AND ALTHOUGH CITY STAFF FELT THAT THERE WASN'T A SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC HAZARD WITH GRANTING YOUR APPLICATION, THERE STILL IS SOME RESIDUAL CONCERNS FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES NOT TO SAY THEY OPPOSE YOUR APPLICATION.
SO I'M PUTTING IT BACK ON YOU.
UM, YOU KNOW, DO YOU HAVE CONCERNS, HAVE YOU REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS ABOUT YOUR PROPOSED APPLICATION? UM, LIKE WHAT IS YOUR, YOUR POSITION HERE IN TERMS OF THE TRAFFIC COMPONENT AND CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORS BASED ON YOUR APPLICATION FOR THE, UM, EXCEPT SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR THE VISIBILITY
[00:10:01]
OBSTRUCTIONS? SURE.SO, UH, UP UNTIL TODAY WE DIDN'T, UH, KNOW OF ANY CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC.
UH, WE'VE SPOKEN TO, UH, A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY, EVEN, UH, THE SEARS, UH, COMMITTEE, LIKE THE ASSOCIATION AND EVERYBODY HAS BEEN REALLY SUPPORTIVE AND, UH, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO REACH OUT TO US AND, AND SUPPORT US TO TRY TO GET OPEN AS SOON AS WE CAN.
SO I, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, THE EXISTING SITE, UM, AND, AND MODIFICATIONS TO IT.
SO, UM, PRIOR TO Y'ALL COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION, THERE WERE DRIVEWAYS ONTO THIS, I GUESS CALLED PARKING AREA ON BOTH VE AND BEAUMONT, IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE SO.
AND, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION, UM, THERE WILL BE ONLY WILL BE A DRIVEWAY ONTO BEAUMONT, NOT ONE ONTO VE.
UM, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE SITE WAS BEING USED, USED PREVIOUSLY, BUT IF THERE IS, UM, LESS OF AN OPPORTUNITY FOR TRUCKS TO STOP AND HAVE TO BACK IN OFF OF VE OR TURN IN OR TURN OUT ON VE DO YOU THINK THAT MIGHT REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION, NOT HAVING TRUCKS STOPPING ON VE WHICH IS, WHICH IS THE MAIN THOROUGH FACTOR? I DON'T THINK THE CONCERN IS TRAFFIC ON BEAUMONT.
I THINK THE CONCERN IS TRAFFIC ON VE RIGHT.
THAT, UH, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE AN ENTRANCE TO, TO COME IN AND OUT OF VE AT ALL.
SO THIS MIGHT MAKE TRA MIGHT ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC A LITTLE BIT OR AT LEAST BACKUPS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY TRUCKS USING THAT VEY DRIVEWAY.
AND IF, IF I CAN ACTUALLY ASK A QUESTION, HOW CAN WE ACTUALLY GET LIKE A STREETLIGHT OR SOMETHING THERE TO HELP, UH, WITH THAT? I THINK YOU'RE IN THE RIGHT BUILDING, BUT YOU'RE IN THE WRONG ROOM.
UM, OFTENTIMES THEY COULD DO A TRAFFIC STUDY, UH, IT'S DEPENDENT UPON HOW CLOSE THE, THE TRAFFIC LIGHT IS TO, TO YOUR INTERSECTION.
THEY COULD DO A TRAFFIC STUDY AND, AND, UM, ASSESS WHETHER STOP STOPLIGHT, CROSSWALK, ALL THAT'S WARRANTED.
BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE INITIATED THROUGH YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER.
AND I DO WANNA SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
I KNOW WE UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES YOU GUYS DON'T GET THE RECOGNITION YOU DESERVE.
SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS CASE? UM, JUST THE APPLICANT AND THE REPRESENTATIVE.
UM, ALRIGHT, NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION, MS SLAM? I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 0 6 ON APPLICATION OF JERRY U. GRANT, THE REQUEST TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE 20 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE DRIVEWAY ALONG BEAUMONT STREET AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION REGULATION CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WILL NOT CONSTITUTE TRAFFIC HAZARD, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE OPPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT, UH, VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLANS IS REQUIRED.
UH, IN REGARDS TO THE, THE PORTION OF IN VIOLATION OF THE VISUAL, THIS VISUAL OBSTRUCTION TRIANGLE ARE REQUIRED IS NOT I JOE CANNON SECOND THAT MOTION.
ANY DISCUSSION? UM, SO I, I MADE THIS MOTION BECAUSE, UM, I DO SEE A LOT OF VALUE, UM, IN, IN WHAT YOU WANNA DO HERE.
THE CEDARS IS GROWING, I THINK IT'S TAKEN A LOT LONGER TO GET WHERE WE WANT IT TO BE.
UM, I DO YOU HAVE SOME SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORS? I THINK THAT THE CONCERNS THAT WERE, UH, THAT CAME FROM THE NEIGHBORS AREN'T SPECIFIC TO YOUR PROPERTY AND JUST RATHER JUST GENERIC GROWTH IN THE AREA THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO WORK THROUGH.
BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT IT'S, UH, WHAT YOUR APPLICATION AND WHAT YOUR INTENTION OF THE PROPERTY IS, IS SPECIFIC TO, UH, KINDA WHAT CONCERNS ARE.
UM, AND THEN I, I LEAN HEAVILY ON CITY STAFF HERE.
UM, THEY DID FEEL THAT, UM, THE, UH, TO, EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, THEY UH, FELT STRONGLY THAT, UM, IF WE WERE TO GRANT THESE, THEY WOULD BE NOT A TRAFFIC HAZARD WITH EITHER OF THESE APPLICATIONS.
SO FOR THAT REASON, I MADE THE MOTION TO GRANT AND I WOULD JUST SAY MY, UM, MOTION IS BEING MADE JUST BASED ON THE, UH, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING REPORT OR RECOMMENDATION, NOT RECOMMENDATION, BUT, UM, THE DATA THAT'S THERE THAT THIS IS NOT GONNA BE A NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE AREA.
BUT, UM, AS WAS SAY THAT EARLIER, UM, AS THIS AREA IS GROWING, DO REACH OUT TO CITY COUNCIL OR CITY COUNCIL PERSON AS FAR AS LOOKING AT, UM, THE GROWTH AND TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO YOUR BUSINESS AND FUTURE BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS ALONG THE WAY.
I I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION FOR THE REASONS THAT HE IS SLAMMED AND MR. CANNON HAVE SET FORTH.
[00:15:02]
ALL RIGHT.CAN WE GET A ROLL CALL? VOTE MS. LAMB? AYE.
OH, WE HAVE A SECOND MOTION ON THIS CASE.
DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR THE, UM, EXCEPTION TO THE 45 FOOT VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION REGULATIONS? AYE.
I MOVE WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 0 6 ON APPLICATION OF JE U GRANT.
THE REQUEST TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE 40 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE INTERSECTION OF BEAUMONT STREET IN SOUTH IRV A STREET AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION REGULATION CONTAINED THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE OPPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS IN REGARDS TO THE PORTION IN VIOLATION OF THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION TRIANGLE ARE REQUIRED.
SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION OR YOUR MY STATEMENTS REGARDING THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS AS WELL? ALRIGHT, ROLL.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES? FIVE TO ZERO.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING IN.
AND WE EXPECT TO SEE EVERY ONE OF YOU AT OUR SOFT OPENING.
UM, BDA 2 3 4 DASH 20 19 0 1 RAMSEY AVENUE.
IF THE APPLICANT COULD STEP FORWARD, WE'LL SWEAR YOU IN AND THEN YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
MEGAN BROWN, 1901 RAMSEY AVENUE.
DO, CAN WE PUT THAT ON THE, OKAY, GREAT.
OH BOA AND THERE ARE THREE FILES, ALL OF WHICH I'D LIKE TO PRESENT, BUT WE CAN START WITH THE PRESENTATION AND THEN IF WE NEED TO OPEN THE OTHER TWO WE CAN.
ARE YOU CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET? YOUR COMPUTER ONLY 'CAUSE THERE'S A LINK TO A VIDEO.
IT'S TOO BIG TO PUT IN THE FILE.
I THINK CHALLENGES WITH OUR INTERNET.
APPARENTLY IT'S UP AND RUNNING JUST FOR YOU.
CAN YOU TALK TO SPECTRAL ABOUT THAT? IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD? UM, OKAY.
I'LL, UH, I GUESS I'LL GO AHEAD AND START.
UM, AND BEFORE I JUMP INTO MY PRESENTATION, I DO WANNA THANK NORA CASTANEDA, UH, DIANA BARQUE AND CAMBRIA JORDAN FOR ANSWERING ALL MY QUESTIONS AND, UH, MAKING SURE THAT I'M NOT GONNA WASTE EVERYONE'S TIME HERE TODAY.
AND, UM, WITH THAT IN MIND, UM, I DO HAVE A LOT OF, UH, DATA AND PERTINENT, UM, INFORMATION TO GET THROUGH.
SO I'M PROBABLY GONNA TALK KIND OF QUICKLY, BUT PLEASE STOP ME AT ANY TIME 'CAUSE I KNOW I'M LIMITED AND I DON'T, AGAIN, WANNA GO OVER MY TIME.
SO, UM, THE FIRST SLIDE I JUST WANTED TO GIVE, UM, A VIEW OF WHERE MY PROPERTY'S LOCATED IN DALLAS.
IT IS IN OAKLEY, OH, IN OAK CLIFF, EAST OF 35 NORTH OF ILLINOIS.
YOU CAN SEE IT'S THAT RED DOT THERE.
UM, WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UM, SO I BOUGHT MY PROPERTY IN APRIL, 2021, AND IT HADN'T BEEN LIVED IN FOR 40 YEARS.
UH, THERE WAS NO ELECTRICITY TO IT, THERE'S NO WATER TO IT, THERE'S NO SEWER LINE.
UM, AND SO, UM, WHEN I BOUGHT IT AND, AND BEGAN TO, TO REHABILITATE IT, THE FIRST THING YOU DO ON A, ON A BUILDING LIKE IN THIS STATE, IS YOU WORK ON THE ENVELOPE, WHICH IS DOORS, WINDOWS, CRACKED BRICKS, ROOF.
[00:20:01]
ENVELOPE FIRST SO THAT YOU CAN THEN KEEP OUT THE ELEMENTS AND WORK ON THE INSIDE.AND AFTER FINISHING THE ENVELOPE, IT LOOKED LIKE THE PICTURE IN THE MIDDLE THERE.
UM, AND SO YOU CAN IMAGINE IF YOU'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 40 YEARS, DRIVEN BY IT, WALKED BY IT EVEN FOR FIVE YEARS, AND THEN IT USED TO LOOK LIKE THAT.
AND NOW IT LOOKS LIKE THIS, IT DOES DRAW A LOT OF ATTENTION.
AND 99.9% OF THE ATTENTION HAS BEEN SO SUPPORTIVE, SO SUPPORTIVE, UM, SO POSITIVE.
IT'S BEEN, I HAVE AMAZING NEIGHBORS AND AN AMAZING NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME BAD ACTORS.
AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE THIRD PICTURE, I'LL GO THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT THAT HAS HAPPENED.
BUT I'VE HAD TO PUT UP THESE BARRICADE, WOODEN BARRICADES, DRILL INTO MY BRICK AND PUT THEM OVER THE WINDOWS, UH, BECAUSE OF EVERYTHING I'M GONNA GO INTO.
SO IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UM, I'VE HAD FIVE BREAK-INS ON MY HOME THIS YEAR.
THIS IS ALL THIS YEAR, THREE BREAK-INS ON MY SHED.
ONE PROPERTY THEFT OUTTA MY FRONT YARD.
THAT, THAT ONE DID HAVE A GETAWAY CAR.
TWO GUYS SPRINTED GRABBED MY WORKERS' POWER TOOLS.
WE WERE IN THE YARD, UM, AND GOT IN THEIR GETAWAY CAR.
THEY HAD ANOTHER DRIVER IN THERE AND GOT AWAY.
UM, I HAD A BULLET THROUGH MY WINDOW.
THAT MAY HAVE BEEN LAST YEAR, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE HAS ALL BEEN THIS YEAR SINCE I'VE DONE THE ENVELOPE OF THE BUILDING.
AND THE, THE, THE PICTURES ARE OF THE SIX CASE NUMBERS TO THE POLICE THAT I FILED.
AND THOSE TWO ARE ONES THAT I'VE FILED ONLINE.
UM, SO THAT'S EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED IN THE LAST YEAR AND I HAVE DONE A LOT TO, UM, TRY TO GET THAT TO STOP.
IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UM, I'VE INSTALLED 19 CAMERAS, NINE FLOODLIGHTS.
I'VE PUT BARS ON THE WINDOWS THAT FACE THE ALLEY.
UM, I'VE DRILLED THE, THE WOOD INTO MY BRICK ON THE EXTERIOR.
I'VE PUT BARRICADES, INTERIORLY ON ALL MY DOORS EXCEPT THE BACK DOOR THAT'S, UM, COVERED BY A FENCE, UM, AT THE MOMENT THAT I CAN GET IN AND OUT OF.
UM, I'VE PUT IN A SHORT SIX FOOT FENCE THAT'LL SHOW YOU ON THE, UM, ON A DRAWING.
AND I'VE PUT SPIKES ON THE, THAT FENCE BECAUSE SOMEBODY BROKE IN OVER THE SIX FOOT FENCE.
UM, BUT IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE AND WE CAN GO THROUGH THESE FAIRLY QUICKLY.
THESE ARE JUST PICTURES OF THE LIGHTS AND THE CAMERAS THAT I'VE PUT UP.
UM, IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, AGAIN, 19 CAMERAS, UH, NINE FLOODLIGHTS.
THESE ARE THE BARS ON THE WINDOWS THAT FACE THE ALLEY.
UM, IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, UM, THESE ARE THE INTERIOR BARRICADES ON THE DOORS THAT I'VE PUT IN.
UM, AND ONE ON THE WINDOW IN THE UPPER RIGHT.
IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UM, SO THIS IS A DRAWING OF MY PROPERTY AND WHERE THAT RED LINE IS THAT I PUT UP A SIX FOOT FENCE THERE RUNNING THE PLANE OF MY PROPERTY AND AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE WHERE THAT BLUE LINE IS RUNNING ALONG THE ALLEY.
UM, AND IF YOU'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE IN THE LOWER RIGHT IS THAT SIX FOOT FENCE I PUT IN.
BUT LIKE I SAID, SOMEBODY BROKE IN OVER THAT FENCE.
SO I PUT IN SPIKES ON THAT FENCE AFTER I PUT IN THE SPIKES ON THE LEFT SIDE.
YOU CAN SEE MY EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THE ALLEY IS ON THE LEFT AND MY NEIGHBOR'S FENCE IS RIGHT NEXT TO IT, WHICH IS SIX FEET.
SOMEBODY BROKE OVER IN OVER HIS SIX FOOT FENCE, JUMPED THE SIX FOOT FENCE BETWEEN OUR TWO PROPERTIES TO GET INTO MY PROPERTY AND BROKE IN THROUGH MY BACK DOOR, WHICH IS THE ONE DOOR THAT WASN'T BARRICADED.
SO A SIX FOOT FENCE DIDN'T WORK TWICE.
UM, SO IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
UM, SO THROUGH ALL OF THIS I'VE MET SEVERAL POLICE OFFICERS WHO RESPOND TO MY CASES.
AND ONE OF THE FIRST OFFICERS SAID HE HAS THREE RECOMMENDATIONS, AN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE.
ONE IS GET A FENCE, GET A TALL FENCE.
UH, TWO IS PUT IN CAMERAS, IT'S A BIG DETERRENT.
AND THREE IS PUT IN LIGHTS, ALSO A DETERRENT, BUT HE SAID A TALL FENCE NUM NUMBER ONE OF IMPORTANCE.
I'VE DONE NUMBER TWO AND NUMBER THREE, TWO EXCESS.
BUT I'M, I'M ASKING TO BE ABLE TO DO NUMBER ONE TODAY.
ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER SAID IF THEY CAN SEE, SEE IT, THEY CAN STEAL IT OR THEY'RE GONNA STEAL IT.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING FOR AN OPAQUE FENCE.
UM, BECAUSE HE SAID EVEN IF YOU PUT IN A FENCE, IF, IF THEY CAN SEE, THEY'RE GONNA TRY TO FIGURE OUT A WAY, UM, TO, TO GET IN AND, AND TAKE IT IN MY SHEDS IN THE FRONT YARD.
'CAUSE WHERE MY BUILDING IS PLACED.
UM, UM, YOU'VE REACHED YOUR FIVE MINUTE LIMIT.
WOULD YOU GUYS LIKE TO EXTEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME WHERE YOU KIND OF CLOSE TO WRAPPING UP? YEAH, MAYBE, MAYBE ONE MORE MINUTE.
I'LL SKIP THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE STUFF.
UM, SO IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
UM, SO, SO SOMEBODY DID MENTION THAT IN THE DRIVING VIDEO THERE WEREN'T FENCES THAT LOOKED LIKE MINE AND EIGHT FEET, AND THAT IS TRUE 'CAUSE THE CAR WENT ONLY AROUND MY BLOCK.
[00:25:01]
THE MAJORITY OF MY PROPERTIES ON GEORGIA, 80% OF THE HOMES THAT HAVE PROPERTY ON GEORGIA HAVE A SIX TO EIGHT OR EVEN TALLER NINE FOOT TALL FENCE.ALL OF THE STUFF IN PINK IS 6 8, 9 FOOT TALL FENCES ON GEORGIA BECAUSE GEORGIA HAS MORE TRAFFIC.
BUT A LOT MORE FOOT TRAFFIC AND A LOT MORE BICYCLE TRAFFIC, WHICH IS GENERALLY WHO'S COMMITTING THE, THE BAD THINGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, IF YOU'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UM, SO THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE FOLKS WHO HAVE COME IN OFF THE STREET AND HAVE STOLEN STUFF.
IF YOU'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE JUST SHOW THE FENCES THAT MINE'S NOT OUT OF THE ORDINARY.
UM, THESE ARE ALL FENCES ALONG GEORGIA WITHIN THREE BLOCKS OF MINE.
UM, YOU CAN SEE WE'VE GOT WOODEN FENCES, WE'VE GOT CORRUGATED METAL, WE'VE GOT CHAIN LINK, UH, WE'VE GOT, UH, WROUGHT IRON.
SO THERE'S REALLY NO STANDARD FENCE TYPE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE ONE I'M HOPING TO PUT IN IS IN THE UPPER LEFT.
IT'S MADE OUT OF RECYCLED PLASTIC BAGS, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE WOOD.
IT'S A NO CLIMB FENCE, SO THERE'S NO, IT'S SMOOTH ON BOTH SIDES, SO YOU CAN'T CLIMB ON EITHER SIDE.
AND I, I LOVE MY NEIGHBORS AND I DON'T WANNA PUT THIS FENCE OUT 'CAUSE I LIKE SEEING THEM WHEN THEY WALK BY MY PLACE.
WHAT IS GREAT ABOUT THIS FENCE IS, UM, YOU CAN SHORTEN IT SUPER EASILY.
IT JUST FITS INTO SLOTS LIKE THIS.
AND YOU CAN, YOU CAN TAKE IT OUT AND MAKE IT SHORTER.
AND I DO HAVE A LETTER FROM MY NEIGHBOR, WHICH I SUBMITTED WITH MY WRITEUP.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE THAT, BUT I HAVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM LAURIE AND RONNIE WHO LIVE RIGHT BEHIND ME.
SO I HAVE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION.
UM, WHEN AN APPLICANT HAS MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS, UH, DO THEY GET FIVE MINUTES PER APPLICATION OR FIVE MINUTES TOTAL? OKAY.
BUT THIS BOARD CAN OFFER SURE.
MR. BROOKS, I, I'D BE INTERESTED IN SEEING THE LETTER OF SUPPORT.
I THINK THAT WAS, UM, IS IT, DO WE HAVE IT? DID I JUST MISS IT? IT'S ON THAT FLASH DRIVE ALSO, BUT IT WAS AT THE END OF THE WRITEUP.
I, I SUBMITTED, I DID SUBMIT IT AFTER 1:00 PM THAT DAY, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS GOT IT, BUT I KNOW SARAH MENTIONED SPIKES, WHICH MAKES ME THINK HE GOT IT.
AND IS THAT THE, UH, IS THAT THE HOUSE THAT KIND OF SITS? UM, I'D HAVE TO LOOK.
IT LOOKS LIKE AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING.
UM, THE ONE, NO, THE ONE THAT'S, UH, YOUR HOUSE IS HERE.
YOU'VE GOT ALL YOUR YARD SPACE AND THEN THERE'S A HOUSE BACK THERE.
IS THAT WHO SAID IT WAS OKAY? OH, UH, LA LARRY AND RONNIE LIVE ON SEAVERS, SO ACROSS THE ALLEY FROM ME.
BUT MY, MY NEIGHBOR, UM, PART OF THE FENCE IS GOING BETWEEN US AND HE IS SO ON BOARD.
HE TOLD ME HE ONLY WENT TO SCHOOL FOR TWO, TWO YEARS, SO HE COULDN'T, HE CAN'T REALLY WRITE.
ARE THERE, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MEGAN? SO I, WE PULLED THIS CASE, UM, UM, OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE MAKING A DECISION ON A FENCE, IT'S IS IT, DOES IT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BASED ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE, THE PICTURES THAT WE SAW, THERE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY EIGHT FOOT FENCES IN THE AREA.
UM, YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY LETTERS OF OPPOSITION, BUT THAT ALL, YOU KNOW, NOT EVERYBODY READS THEIR MAIL.
AND SO PART OF OUR JOB IS LOOKING AT THAT.
AND SO IT'S HELPFUL THAT YOU SHOWED THOSE EIGHT FOOT FENCES.
UM, 'CAUSE SAFETY ALONE IS NOT A DECISION FOR A FENCE.
IT IS STRICTLY, AND WE HAVE TO OPERATE IN THAT PURVIEW OF, IT DOESN'T ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I THINK YOU HAVE ADEQUATELY PROVEN THAT IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IN MY OPINION.
UM, YES, I WOULD ARGUE THAT BY NOT GRANTING THIS, THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
I THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IF, IF HER PROPERTY IS SECURE, THAT WOULD PROVIDE SECURITY FOR ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, JUST LOOKING AT, GRANTED THIS IS DISCUSSION, UM, YEAH, WE'LL PROBABLY, PROBABLY MAKE A MOTION.
WELL, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR APPLICANT.
UM, FROM ONE OF THE PICTURES, IT LOOKS LIKE THE, IS THE HOME STILL UNDER RENOVATION OR WHAT'S THE IT'S, SO I'M, I WOULD SAY 75% FINISHED IN LIKE REAL CLOSE, MAYBE 80.
BUT THE REASON WHY I ASK THAT QUESTION IS 'CAUSE THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT YOU WOULD STILL HAVE LIKE RAW MATERIALS THAT COULD BE STOLEN.
TRADESMEN COMING IN AND OUT IS, UM, THERE'S NO RAW MATERIALS ON ON THE PROPERTY.
IT'S LIKE CLO IT'S REAL CLOSE TO BEING FINISHED.
I I MEAN, I, I LIVE THERE, SO.
[00:30:01]
WE HAVE A MOTION? OH, UH, YOU NEED TO ASK.ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? THANK YOU.
NOW DO I HAVE A MOTION, MS. LAMB? I MOVE THAT THE BOARD, UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH ONE 20 ON APPLICATION OF MEGAN BROWN.
GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAIN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TE AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE OPPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED, THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
DO YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? UM, I THINK MY STATEMENT THAT I MADE EARLIER, UM, I THINK BY NOT GRANTING THIS, I THINK WE ACTUALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE CREATE, UH, WE'RE ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
UH, IT'S CLEAR THAT THERE'S A LOT OF CRIME, UM, CREATING SECURITY AND SAFETY FENCES HELP KEEP EVERYBODY SAFE.
UM, AND I THINK THAT YOU'VE CREATED A, A PERFECT CASE FOR THIS.
AND TRULY OUR DECISION IS BASED ON WHETHER IT HAS, UH, A POTENTIAL ADVERSE, UH, EFFECT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
AND IN, IN MY OPINION, IT DOES NOT.
I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
UM, I'M ONE THAT VOTES BASED ON DATA AND SEEMS LIKE YOU PROVIDED US WITH PLENTY OF DATA FROM THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT AS FAR AS THE CRIME IN THIS AREA, UM, THAT THIS WOULD NOT EVENTUALLY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND MY HOPE IS THAT, UM, THINGS IMPROVE THAT MORE PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF DO INVEST IN COMMUNITIES, UM, AND REHAB REHABIL TAKE THESE STRUCTURES.
SO THAT WILL BE MY POINT OF MY SUPPORT, MR. BUCK, UH, FOR THOSE REASONS I'M GONNA SUPPORT.
AND ALSO I, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL HISTORIC RENOVATION.
CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE MS. LA AYE.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO.
AND WE HAVE THREE OTHER MOTIONS FOR THIS CASE.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL NUMBER BDA 2 34 DASH 20 ON APPLICATION MEGAN BROWN GRANT THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN OFFENSE WITH 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, OPEN THIS REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES IN 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 OPPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT TO THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE, COMPLIANCE OPACITY AND FACE AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED.
THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
UH, UM, I, UH, GRANTED THIS BECAUSE I FELT THAT JUST HAVING AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THIS LOCATION IS NOT ENOUGH.
UM, I THINK THAT YOU NEED THE ABILITY TO HAVE A FULLY ENCLOSED FENCE, UM, IN ORDER FOR SAFETY AND, UM, AND TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORS.
WELL, YOUR PRESENTATION HAS GIVEN US A STRONG, UH, PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT YOUR, YOUR NEEDS ARE, AND I FEEL THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE ABLE TO BRANCH IT.
UM, I'LL ALSO BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION, UH, JUST BASED ON, UH, THE PRESENTATION.
THE FACT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT STATES THAT IF THEY CAN SEE IT, THEY'LL STEAL IT.
UM, SCARED TO THINK THAT, BUT UM, BASED ON THAT RECOMMENDATION, UH, I'LL BE SPLITING THIS MOTION.
MR. WECH, MS. VICE CHAIR? AYE.
MOTION PASSES THE BRAND FIVE TO ZERO, RIGHT? DO YOU HAVE A MOTION ON THE 20 FOOT VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION REGULATION? YES.
I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF JUSTIN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 20 ON APPLICATION MEGAN BROWN GRANT THE REQUEST TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE 20 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE DRIVE APPROACH ON RAMSEY AVENUE, AS IS SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE VIS VISUAL OBSTRUCTION REGULATION CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT CONSTITUTE TRAFFIC HAZARD, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE OPPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED COMPLIANCE TO THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLANS IN REGARDS TO THE PORTION IN VIOLATION OF THE VIS THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION TRIANGLE ARE REQUIRED.
GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT MOTION.
MR. UM, I GRANTED THIS BECAUSE YOU HAVE A IRREG REGULAR SHAPED LOT.
UM, IF YOU ARE, UH, ORDERED TO COMPLY, UM, AND BUILD, UM, OUTSIDE OF THE, UH, WITHIN THE 20, THE OUTSIDE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, YOU WOULD LOSE HALF YOUR YARD.
UH, YOU HAVE CHALLENGES BECAUSE YOU HAVE ESSENTIALLY TWO FRONT YARDS AND THEN YOU HAVE A TREE.
[00:35:01]
AND ALL THESE COMPONENTS THAT MAKE YOUR, YOUR PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY WITH ITS LONG KIND OF ALMOST BOWLING ALLEY SHAPE, ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO DEVELOP.UM, AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I THOUGHT IT WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO GRANT THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION IN ORDER TO, UH, FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO FURTHER DEVELOP YOUR PROPERTY.
NOW OUR LAST MOTION FOR THE 45 FOOT VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 20 ON APPLICATION MEGAN BROWN GRANT THE REQUEST TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE 45 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE STREET INTERSECTION OF RAMSEY AVENUE IN GEORGIA AVENUE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE VISI, THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION REGULATION CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD AND FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDIT SHOULD BE OPPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS IN REGARDS TO THE PORTION AND VIOLATION OF THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION TRIANGLE ARE REQUIRED.
THE SECOND, UH, ONCE AGAIN, I, I MOVED, UH, TO GRANT THIS FOR THE REASON I, I, I MENTIONED THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION, BUT I ALSO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT, UM, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT BY GRANTING THESE APPLICATIONS THAT IT WOULD NOT BE, UH, A TRAFFIC HAZARD TO THOSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THOSE EITHER PEDESTRIAN, UH, BICYCLE OR UH, OR VEHICLE TRAFFIC.
UM, AND THEN ALSO BECAUSE YOUR PROPERTY IS IRREGULAR SHAPE.
SO FOR ALL THOSE REASONS I MOVE TO GRANT THIS APPLICATION.
MOTION TO GRAHAM PASSES FIVE TO ZERO.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING IN.
ALRIGHT, UM, BDA 2 3 4 1 2 1 4100 SWISS AVENUE.
THE APPLICANT CAN COME FORWARD.
WE SWEAR YOU IN AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH AND YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUST? YES, I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
JENNIFER HIROTO, 1 0 2 3 3 EAST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY DALLAS, 7 5 2 3 8.
AND LLOYD DENMAN 29 28 WESTMINSTER, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 5.
UM, THIS IS A REQUEST OF 4,100 SWISS AVENUE.
UH, THIS IS A PARKING VARIANCE, UH, FOR NINE SPACES.
THIS IS FOR THE MEDICAL CLINIC, UM, THAT IS IN THIS HISTORIC BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT IN 1918 ACCORDING TO D AD.
UM, THE PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN YELLOW AND JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU SOME BEARINGS, THE VE TO THE, THE TOP LEFT IS LIVE OAK.
UH, TO THE BOTTOM RIGHT IS GASTON.
SO WE'RE NORTH OF BIG BAYLOR HOSPITAL.
SO THIS IS AN IDEAL LOCATION FOR A MIDWIFE, BIRTHING CENTER TYPE MEDICAL OFFICE.
UM, THERE'S A LOT OF SURFACE PARKING THAT YOU CAN SEE FROM THESE AERIALS.
UM, THE SEMINARY, UH, TO THE NORTHWEST IS, UM, THE NEIGHBOR WITH THE, THE GREATEST SERVICE PARKING.
UM, AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THERE'S RETAIL USES TO THE SOUTHEAST.
UM, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE ON STREET PARKING IN THIS AREA, UM, IN A MINUTE WE'RE GONNA FOCUS ON THE BLOCK THAT'S BETWEEN HASKELL AND PEAK.
THOSE ARE, UH, ONE-WAY UPTS CURRENTLY.
UM, SO THERE'S NOT ON STREET PARKING IN THIS AREA FOR THOSE, UH, STREETS.
UM, SO THIS IS A VARIANCE BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF SPACES THAT WE NEED TO, UH, HAVE RELIEF FROM THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE OUTLINED IN LIKE A BLUISH SCREEN.
IT MAY BE HARD TO READ ON THIS MAP, BUT THOSE ARE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THE SAME SUBDISTRICT THAT WE ARE IN IN THE BRYANT AREA SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT.
OUR PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 7,500 SQUARE FEET.
UH, AND THE, MY ANALYSIS THAT WAS IN INCLUDED IN YOUR CASE REPORT, UM, SHOWS THAT FOR A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS ABOUT 46,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO OUR PROPERTY HARDSHIP IS AT WORK QUITE SMALL.
UM, THE OLD BUILDING, UM, IS PART OF OUR CIRCUMSTANCE BECAUSE, UH, WE'RE ALSO IN A DEMOLITION DELAY OVERLAY.
SO IF WE WANTED TO TEAR DOWN THE BUILDING, WE WOULD HAVE TO SPEAK TO OUR FRIENDS IN HISTORIC PLANNING AND THEY WOULD NOT LIKE THAT
[00:40:01]
UM, SO THIS IS A PICTURE OF THOSE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UH, YOU CAN SEE THE SHARED DRIVE BETWEEN THESE TWO BUILDINGS.
UH, THEY'RE KIND OF LIKE SIBLINGS.
THEY'VE HAD DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL USES OVER THE YEARS.
UM, UM, I BELIEVE THE LAST USE WAS AN OFFICE.
OUR NEIGHBOR, UM, ON THE LEFT SIDE.
UM, SO THIS IS THE FLOOR PLAN.
SO THIS IS A BOUTIQUE, UH, STYLE OF, UH, MEDICAL OFFICE.
WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF VISITORS, LIKE SOME VERY BUSY MEDICAL OFFICES.
UM, THE HIGHLIGHTED ROOMS ON THE TOP OF THE PLANS, UM, THOSE ARE THE FOUR TREATMENT ROOMS. UM, THERE ARE, UM, CHECK-IN APPOINTMENTS THAT HAPPEN, UH, DURING THE DAY.
BUT, UM, THE TYPICAL PATIENT THAT WOULD STAY LONGER, UM, THOSE ARE TWO TO THREE POPS AND, UM, THOSE PATIENTS HAVE ACCESS TO PARKING IN THE REAR.
UH, JUST, UH, THIS WAS INCLUDED IN THE PARKING REPORT, IT WAS IN YOUR DOCKET TO SHOW YOU THE SURFACE PARKING THAT'S EXISTING.
UM, AND THEN THE TRASH BINS ARE NORMALLY STORED BEHIND THE BUILDING.
TRASH PICKUP IS, UM, THE BUSIEST DAY, I THINK BECAUSE OF ALL THE INDIVIDUAL CANS.
UM, OUR NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET ALSO HAVE INDIVIDUAL CANS.
SO THOSE, UM, TRASH PICKUP IS ON WEDNESDAYS, SO THAT'S WHERE IT GETS THROUGH THE MOST CHAOTIC AND MAYBE CHALLENGING FOR THOSE ON-STREET PARKING, UH, SITUATIONS.
UM, YOU MAY NOTICE ON THE DRIVEWAY ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, THERE'S A NO PARKING SIGN BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO THE CURB, I'M SORRY, THE INTERSECTION.
UH, AND YOU ALSO NOTICE THAT, UM, THESE ARE THE TOWNHOUSES.
SOME OF THOSE RESIDENTS WERE THE ONES THAT RODE IN OPPOSITION.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'VE GOT, UM,
UM, THEY ALSO HAVE SIX, UM, GUEST PARKING SPACES WITHIN THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
SO, UM, THEY HAVE WAY MORE PARKING THAN WE HAVE.
UM, AND I THINK THAT, UM, THE ON STREET SPACES ARE AVAILABLE FOR GUESTS JUST LIKE WE, UH, USE THE PUBLIC STREET FOR OUR GUESTS AS WELL.
UH, WE DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE A BURDEN, UH, FOR UH, THIS TYPE OF MEDICAL OFFICE.
UM, AND THEN I THINK THIS IS MY TRANSITION POINT, BUT UM, LLOYD WILL TALK TO YOU ABOUT HIS OBSERVATIONS FOR THE ON-STREET PARKING AND, UM, THE DEMAND FOR THIS USE.
CAN I ASK ONE CLARIFICATION QUESTION REAL QUICK? IS THIS, IS THIS ALREADY OPERATING THIS? YES.
SO OVER TWO YEARS IT'S BEEN OPERATING FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.
AND SO YOU'RE COMING FOR THE PARKING REQUEST BECAUSE, UM, THIS WHAT WE MADE THE APPLICATION PRIOR TO CO COMPLIANCE COMING AND KNOCKING ON OUR DOOR, BUT THEY HAVE KNOCKED ON OUR DOOR.
UM, SO WE ARE DEFINITELY TRYING TO, UM, GET A DECISION AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
UM, THE BUSINESS OPENED IN, UM, 2021 AND THEY HAD TREATMENT ROOMS OPEN IN 2022.
AND THE, THESE PHONES ARE ACROSS THE STREET, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S ABOUT THE TIME THAT THOSE PHONES WERE PURCHASED AS WELL.
AND, AND SO CODE COMPLIANCE KNOCKED ON YOUR DOOR PROBABLY AS A RESULT OF COMPLAINTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS? MY UNDERSTANDING IT WAS A COMPLAINT FROM A COMPETITOR BASED ON SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS.
SO IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE THE CONCERNS THAT DID ARISE FROM THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET, PRIMARILY CONSISTED OF PEOPLE PARKING TOO CLOSE TO THE STOP SIGN.
AND I WENT BACK ON STREET VIEW, YOU CAN LOOK AT THE HISTORICAL AND I SAW THAT THERE WAS A NO PARKING SIGN THERE BEFORE THE SHARED ACCESS WAS CONSTRUCTED ACROSS THE STREET.
SO IT USED TO BE NO PARKED, BUT WHEN THE, WHERE THE NEIGHBORS LIVE, LIV WHO COMPLAINED WHEN THEIR NEW HOUSING WAS BUILT, THAT SIGN WAS REMOVED AND NOT PUT BACK.
WE HAVE PROACTIVELY REQUESTED THAT THE SIGN BE REPLACED.
THERE'S AN EXISTING SERVICE REQUEST TO HAVE THAT REPLACED AND THAT SHOULD ANSWER OR UH, SHOULD RESOLVE THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS WHO DID WRITE LETTERS.
I MADE FIVE, WELL ACTUALLY EIGHT DIFFERENT SITE VISITS
[00:45:01]
TO OBSERVE THE PARKING ON SWISS.AND AT THE BUILDING, THE FIRST FIVE WERE IN YOUR REPORT AND THE THREE THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE I ADDED AS A RESULT OF THE CONCERN FROM THE NEIGHBOR.
HE SAID IT WAS BUSY DURING TRASH DAYS, SO I MADE SURE I WENT AND OBSERVED ON WEDNESDAY, WHICH IS TRASH DAY.
AND THE CLINIC ITSELF HAS A CLASS THAT THEY SPONSOR ON TUESDAYS AT NOON AND SAID THAT'S THEIR BUSIEST TIME.
SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE AND GO ON A TUESDAY AT NOON.
SO WHAT THESE NUMBERS SHOW ARE THE OBSERVED AVAILABLE PARKING.
AND YOU CAN SEE EVERY TIME I VISITED EIGHT DIFFERENT TRIPS, THERE WAS ON STREET ON THE FAR RIGHT OF THE TABLE THERE WAS ON STREET PARKING AVAILABLE BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
SO I NEVER OBSERVED SWISS WITHOUT OPEN PARKING SPACES.
AND THEN SAME WITH THE PARK, THE ONSITE PARKING, IT WAS, THESE ARE THE AVAILABLE SPACES, SO IT WAS NEVER COMPLETELY FULL ON SATURDAY.
SO ALL SIX WERE OPEN WEDNESDAY, MAYBE NO ONE HAD SHOWN UP.
I BELIEVE THE OPERATOR, ESPECIALLY IN RESPONSE TO THE CONCERNS THAT WERE MADE, ARE GONNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY UTILIZE THE SIX PARKING SPACES THEY HAVE COMPLETELY, YOU KNOW, AS, AS WELL AS THEY CAN.
THEY SAID THEY DO GIVE CLIENTS THE GATE CODE.
UM, SO, AND I THINK THAT UNLESS WE WANT TO ADD SOMETHING ELSE.
SIR, JUST WOULD YOU MIND JUST LENDING SOME COLOR AS TO YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THIS PROJECT? I WAS HIRED AS THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER TO DO THE PARKING STUDY.
AND I JUST HAVE AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION TOO.
UM, SO WHEN YOU WERE SITTING, GOING THROUGH THIS GRAPH OR THIS TABLE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS WAS SAYING LIKE, THERE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH.
IS THIS LIKE A ONE OF THE RESIDENTS ACROSS THE STREET OR IS IT THE CORRECT.
SO I'M JUST, I'M JUST CURIOUS.
I MEAN, ARE THEY LIKE ON THE CORNER UNIT WHERE THEY HAVE LIKE A 24 7 OBSERVATION VANTAGE POINT OF LIKE HOW CAN THEY, I GUESS, FACTUALLY SAY, OH, IT'S ALWAYS CROWDED.
SO THAT'S SHARED ACCESS HOUSING.
SO THEY, THEY'RE ALL INTERIOR GARAGES AND DRIVEWAYS AS YOU SAW IN THE PICTURE.
AND WHEN THE RESIDENT DID REACH OUT TO JENNIFER AND ME FIRST AND WE DIALOGUED OFFERED TO MEET WITH THE RESIDENT, I TOLD THE RESIDENT I FOUND THE NO PARKING SIGN THAT USED TO BE THERE.
BUT HE NEVER FOLLOWED THROUGH.
UM, WE DIDN'T EXCEPT FOR THE LETTER.
HE DID, HE DIDN'T DIALOGUE WITH US.
BEYOND THAT, WOULD IT BE, OH, SORRY.
AND THEN I WAS GONNA ADD, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THE BUSINESS OWNERS HAVE SAID THAT OFTENTIMES THE NEIGHBORS PARK IN FRONT OF THEIR BUSINESS, SO THERE'S PEOPLE PARKING ON THE PUBLIC STREET FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET AND THAT'S PERHAPS WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT.
AND THEN JUST CURIOUS, IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT OBSERVATION BY THE NEIGHBOR WAS FACTUAL OR SUBJECTIVE? SO I DO APPRECIATE THE OBSERVATION ABOUT IF SOMEONE IS PARKED TOO CLOSE TO THE PARK SIGN APPROACHING HASKELL, THAT CAN BE A VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION AND THAT'S WHY THE NO PARKING SIGN WAS PROBABLY THERE ORIGINALLY BUT REMOVED WHEN THEIR NEW HOUSING WAS CONSTRUCTED, WERE PROACTIVELY TRYING TO GET THAT SIGN PUT BACK.
SO I, I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT ASPECT OF IT.
OTHERWISE THERE WAS ALWAYS PARKING ON STREET PARKING AVAILABLE AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY OBSTRUCTION.
WE BOTH WENT ON TRASH DAY AND DID NOT SEE ANY OBSTRUCTION.
MM-HMM,
UM, HOW MANY PATIENTS ARE SEEN A DAY AND HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR PEOPLE TO GO IN AND OUT? UM, SO WE HAVE THE FOUR PATIENT ROOMS AND FOR THE APPOINTMENTS, UM, THEY'RE GENERALLY, UM, 30, 45 MINUTE APPOINTMENTS.
UM, AND THERE'S MAYBE 10 TO 12 ON A TYPICAL DAY.
UM, IF THERE'S A A BIRTH EVENT, YOU KNOW, THOSE FOLKS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GONNA STAY LONGER AND THEY HAVE PRIORITY FOR PARKING THEM EVERY YEAR.
UH, 'CAUSE THEY KNOW THEY'RE GONNA STAY LONGER.
UH, SO WHAT'S THE AVERAGE TIME? CAN YOU GIVE US A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE AVERAGE TIME? UM, SO FOR A, A CHECKUP APPOINTMENT, THEN THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 45 MINUTES.
UM, THEY ALSO, THEIR HOURS ARE PER THE, YOU KNOW, THEIR TYPICAL BUSINESS IS NINE TO FIVE AND I BELIEVE THEY CLOSE EARLY ON FRIDAYS.
WHERE, WHERE DO THE EMPLOYEES PARK? THERE'S SIX EMPLOYEES ON SITE AT MOST DAYS.
SO I MEAN, IF THERE'S SIX SPOTS IN THE BACK, TWO OF THE SIX CARPOOL, I THINK IT'S A MOTHER AND
[00:50:01]
DAUGHTER WE WERE TOLD.AND THEY DO PARK IN THE REAR AND IT'S RARE THAT ALL SIX ARE THERE AT ONE TIME.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS FOR THIS CASE? NO, THE SPEAKERS.
UM, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BD 2 3 4 DASH 1 21 ON APPLICATION OF JENNIFER HARIMOTO GRANT THE NINE SPACE VARIANCE TO THE PARKING REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE, OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE TO THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLAN, UH, SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
I'LL I'LL THIS, UM, I MOVED TO, UH, GRANT THIS, UM, BASED ON A FEW THINGS.
UM, THERE, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN PROVISIONS THAT WE HAVE TAKEN CONSIDERATION WHEN GRANTING A VARIANCE LIKE THIS.
UM, AND I THINK YOU MEANT ALL OF THOSE.
UM, THE FIRST BEING THIS IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, UM, INDICATED BY NOT, I MEAN THERE ARE SOME LETTERS OF OPPOSITION, BUT YOU, YOUR TRAFFIC STUDY HERE HAS PROVEN THAT, UH, YOUR DEMAND AND WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY PROVIDING IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS, IS TRULY IMPACTING.
UM, YOUR PARKING LOT AND YOUR PROPERTY IS RESTRICTED.
UM, AND IF WE TRULY WANTED TO TRY TO FIND PARKING FOR ALL, YOU'D HAVE TO DEMOLISH PART OF THE BUILDING.
UH, I COME FROM A PLACE WHERE BUILDINGS IN DALLAS THAT ARE OVER A HUNDRED YEARS OLD, WE SHOULD LOOK AT WAYS TO REIMAGINE THOSE AND USE THOSE AS SUCH.
THIS WILL NEVER BE A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY PROBABLY IN THE NEXT, YOU KNOW, DECADE OR TWO.
UM, SO BY NOT GRANTING THIS, UH, I THINK YOU, YOU END UP WITH A VACANT BUILDING WHICH WOULD PROBABLY ADVERSELY AFFECT, UH, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES EVEN MORE SO THAN HAVING A FEW, UM, UH, PATIENTS COME AND GO.
UM, AND THEN WE'RE NOT GRANTING THIS TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP.
AND SO FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, YOU MET ALL OF THOSE STANDARDS AND THAT'S WHY I WENT AHEAD AND GRANTED THIS APPLICATION.
UM, ADD INTO WHAT MY COLLEAGUE HAS SAID.
UM, I AM SUPPORTING THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE I FEEL THAT PROVIDING SOCIAL SERVICES HAS A GREATER IMPACT THAN THE PARKING SITUATION.
BUT YOU SHOULD BE AWARE ALSO THAT WHILST YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING, YOU'RE CREATING A, A PROBLEM FOR THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
HOW WE CAN GO AHEAD TO RESOLVE THAT IS TO WORK WITH CITY STAFF TO GET, FOR EXAMPLE, CALLS FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE SO THEY'RE NOT TICKETED.
'CAUSE YOU HAVE TO ALSO BE MINDFUL THAT CITY STAFF IS VERY ACTIVE WITH, UH, TICKETING PEOPLE THAT COME TO YOUR SERVICE.
SO PLEASE WORK WITH THEM TO RESOLVE THE SITUATION.
SO WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM ONCE WE ARE TRYING TO SOLVE FOR ONE VOTE.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSAGE? FIVE TO ZERO.
URSULA LANE, IF THE APPLICANT CAN PLEASE COME FORWARD AND WE'LL SWEAR YOU IN AND YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND PROCEED.
UH, THE ADDRESS IS TEN NINE THREE ZERO SWITZER AVENUE IN DALLAS.
UM, AND I'M HERE FOR, UH, 53 14 URSULA LANE.
UM, I WAS HIRED THIS SUMMER BY THE NEW HOMEOWNERS TO, UM, ERECT A FENCE AND GATE, UM, ALONG THEIR FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THEIR SIDE PROPERTY LINE, UM, SPECIFICALLY TO ALLEVIATE SOME SECURITY CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE AND HAVE HAD IN THE PAST.
UM, THE, UH, GENTLEMAN OWNER IS A PUBLIC FIGURE AND HIS TRAVEL SCHEDULE IS MADE VERY PUBLIC.
UM, AND SO THAT'S REALLY THE MAIN REASON THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO INCREASE SECURITY, UM, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY.
UM, THEY'VE GOT, UM, THEY'VE GOT EXAMPLES OF, UM, SECURITY BREACHES AT PREVIOUS PROPERTIES, PREVIOUS CITIES THAT THEY'VE LIVED IN, UM, WHERE THEY HAVE UNWANTED VISITORS, UH, PREVIOUS PROPERTY IN DALLAS THAT THEY ARE MOVING FROM REGULAR VISITORS, RINGING THE DOORBELL, MAYBE NOT EVEN RINGING THE DOORBELL, JUST TRYING TO LOOK
[00:55:01]
INSIDE.UM, AND SO THEY'RE TRYING TO BE PROACTIVE WITH THIS NEW PROPERTY ON URSULA.
AND, UM, HIRED ME TO INSTALL THE, UH, A 48 INCH FENCE AND GATE, WHICH I BELIEVE YOU GUYS, UH, SAW ON THE VIDEO.
UM, STILL WITH THAT FENCE AND GATE UP FRONT.
AND THEY'VE ALSO ADDED LANDSCAPING AS, UH, KIND OF A LARGE SCREEN IN FRONT OF THAT 48 INCH, UH, FENCE.
OBVIOUSLY, THEY DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT IN FRONT OF THE GATE, SO THAT WOULD BE KIND OF THE, THE AREA WHERE, UM, SOMEONE COULD BREACH THAT GATE RATHER EASY.
UM, UH, WE'VE GOT A VIDEO, UM, THAT WE CAN PLAY HERE, EVEN WITH THE, UM, 48 INCH FENCE, WHICH YOU'LL SEE.
THIS IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, THEY HAVE TWO VISITORS ONE EVENING THAT, UH, WITH THE GATE SHUT AT 48 INCHES TALL.
UH, BOTH DECIDED TO JUMP THE FENCE AND, UH, MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE FRONT DOOR.
UH, THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVE SECURITY CAMERAS, THEY'VE GOT LIGHTS, THEY'VE GOT ADVANCED SECURITY SYSTEMS. UM, IT'S HARD TO SAY WHAT PERCENTAGE OF UNWANTED VISITORS ARE UP TO NO GOOD OR JUST CURIOUS.
UM, THESE TWO, THERE WERE ACTUALLY, UM, THE FAMILY WAS HOME AT THIS TIME.
UM, THEY DID GO TO THE FRONT DOOR, RANG THE DOORBELL.
UH, THEY PRETENDED TO BE, UM, SOME KIND OF, UH, CONTRACTOR ASKING, UH, IF THEY WERE INTERESTED.
MAYBE IT WAS ROOF SALES OR GUTTER SALES, SOMETHING TO THAT INSTANCE.
BUT THEY, UH, ASKED FOR THE HOMEOWNER BY NAME, UH, WHICH WAS KIND OF A TELL THAT THEY WERE THERE.
UH, JUST MORE OUTTA CURIOSITY.
UM, THERE'S A SECOND VIDEO THAT SHOWS THE, UM, SHOWS THE EXCHANGE AT THE DOOR, UM, WHERE THE WIFE HAD TO BASICALLY ADDRESS THEM AND, AND TELL THEM THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE THERE.
AND IT PUTS, IT OBVIOUSLY PUTS THE FAMILY MEMBERS, WHETHER IT'S THE WIFE, UH, OR CHILDREN.
THEY'VE GOT SEVERAL CHILDREN THAT LIVE WITH THEM AS WELL.
OBVIOUSLY, UH, PUTS THEM IN A TOUGH SITUATION TO, UH, HAVE TO ADDRESS UNWANTED VISITORS AND GIVE THEM THAT, UH, TWO YOUNG MEN THAT PREVIOUSLY JUMPED THE FENCE, UH, AT NIGHT.
I BELIEVE THIS WAS AFTER DINNERTIME, UH, THE HOMEOWNER CAME TO THE DOOR AND WASN'T, WASN'T TOO FRIENDLY, UH, OF AN EXCHANGE.
AS YOU'LL SEE, THE YOUNG MEN
SO, UM, YEAH, UH, LIKE I SAID, PREVIOUS PROPERTIES, UM, PREVIOUS CITIES, THEY DEAL WITH THIS MULTIPLE TIMES A YEAR.
UM, AND SO THEY, THEY'RE TRYING THEIR BEST TO GET AHEAD OF IT, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE 48 INCH UH, GATE, UH, WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH TO KEEP, UH, PEOPLE OUT.
SO, UM, YEAH, THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT FOR YOU.
IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO, HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
UM, FIRST OFF, THANK YOU FOR THE VIDEO EVIDENCE THERE.
I'M LOOKING AT THE, UH, ELEVATIONS WE'VE GOT HERE FOR THE EAST WING AND WEST WING.
SO I WOULD UNDERSTAND 48 INCHES NOT BEING A DETERRENT, BUT OUTSIDE OF THE WING WALLS, UM, FROM WHAT I'M SEEING HERE THAT THE 48 INCH, UH, RIGHT ARM FENCES WILL STILL BE IN PLACE, BUT THERE'LL BE THIS, UH, HOLLY SHRUBS.
WHAT'S, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHY IS THE APPLICATION JUST LIMITED TO THE FENCES IF THAT 48 ISN'T A DETERRENT FOR FOLKS LIKE YOU SEE IN THE VIDEO THERE? UM, WHY WAS THE DECISION JUST AT THE GATES? 'CAUSE I WOULD ASSUME, BUT I KIND LEANING ON YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE HERE.
UM, IF I CAN'T GET TO THE GATE, I JUST GO RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YARD.
RIGHT? LIKE, BRUSHES WON'T REALLY STOP.
AND I THINK THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE PROACTIVELY INSTALLED THAT 48 INCH FENCE IN GATE IN HOPES THAT THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO DETER.
UM, AND THEN YEAH, WHEN WE SAW, UM, THE, UH, THE UNWANTED VISITORS HOPPED THE GATE, THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF OUR, OUR TELL THAT WE MIGHT WANNA TRY, YOU KNOW, RAMPING UP SECURITY AT THAT AREA.
UM, WE'D CERTAINLY BE OPEN TO INSTALLING, UH, UH, A LARGER FENCE, BUT WE WERE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, RESPECT THE, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, WHILE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF FENCES, UM, FOR THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTIES THAT, UH, GO TO SIX FEET, UM, YOU KNOW, WE WANTED TO JUST KIND OF TAKE IT AT A KIND OF STEP BY STEP BASIS.
UM, SO YEAH, I, I FOR ONE, APPRECIATE WHEN AN APPLICANT COMES IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AND ONLY ASKS FOR ABSOLUTELY WHAT THEY NEED AND THEN TRIES TO SOLVE A LANDSCAPING AND, UH, WITHIN THE, THE OPACITY STANDARDS, UM, TO TRY TO SOLVE FOR A BARRIER FOR EVENTS.
SO I I, I DO APPRECIATE THOUGHTFULNESS OF THIS APPLICATION AND I'M GETTING AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE AS WHAT'S IN LINE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
[01:00:01]
ASKING FOR JUST WHAT YOU NEED, UM, AND THEN SOLVING FOR OTHER HEIGHT ELEMENTS THROUGH LANDSCAPING WITHOUT ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? I HAVE, UH, ONE SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION.
MS. CARRA? UH, I'M SORRY, IAN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, MA'AM.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
I LIVE AT 5 3 3 0 URSULA LANE IN DALLAS, TEXAS, 7 5 2 2 9, WHICH IS DIRECTLY, UM, NEXT DOOR TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UM, I'D LIKE TO STATE, UM, AT THE OUTSET AS THE VERY FIRST SPEAKER THIS AFTERNOON DID THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE HERE, UM, WORKING FOR FREE, SO WE APPRECIATE YOU.
I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO BRYANT THOMPSON.
HE WAS VERY KIND TO ME ON THE PHONE.
I APPRECIATE HIS PROFESSIONALISM AND EXPERTISE.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT I'M INCREDIBLY UNCOMFORTABLE BEING HERE THIS MORNING.
UM, I, MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS BEAUTIFUL.
MY NEW NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS HAVE A BEAUTIFUL HOME AND I FEEL LIKE A BIG WHINER, UM, COMING HERE AND, UM, OPPOSING THEIR REQUESTS FOR, UM, A SECURITY FENCE.
HAVING SAID THAT, UM, AFTER I TALKED TO BRYANT, I WASN'T, UM, EVEN GONNA COME DOWN HERE.
BUT, UM, THEN WHEN I GOT THE NOTICE IN THE MAIL, IT SAID THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN HEARING MY OPINION.
SO HERE I AM CANDIDLY SHARING MY OPINION WITH YOU.
UM, I THINK YOU MADE AN IMPORTANT POINT SAYING THAT THE APPLICATION IS LIMITED.
UM, AND I ALSO VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT.
UM, BUT IT DOES SEEM TO DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF A SECURITY PERIMETER TO HAVE ONLY A PARTIAL SECURITY PERIMETER.
UM, I DO KNOW THAT AT THE OCCUPANTS PRIOR HOME IN DALLAS, THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY TYPE OF FENCING, UM, AT ALL.
UM, SO THIS IS DIFFERENT THAT THEY DO HAVE SOME AND WHAT THEY HAVE.
UM, THE LANDSCAPING IS BEAUTIFUL, BUT UM, AGAIN, I JUST FAIL TO SEE HOW A PARTIAL PARAMETER FENCE ADDS ANY ADDITIONAL SECURITY.
UM, THEY DO HAVE CAMERAS IN THE FRONT.
UM, WE ALSO HAVE AN EXPANDED OR EXTENDED, I CAN NEVER REMEMBER WHAT IT'S CALLED, BUT WE HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD PATROL IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, THAT HOME IS A MEMBER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PATROL.
UM, THAT OF COURSE, UM, INVOLVES AN ARMED, UNIFORMED MARKED CAR PATROLLING, UM, ARE VERY SMALL.
UM, EIGHT BLOCK, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE ARE ONLY 21 HOMES ON, UM, MY STREET.
UM, MY BIGGEST OBJECTION TO, UM, THE FENCE IS REALLY THE OPACITY.
UM, NOT THE HEIGHT, BUT, UM, JUST, THERE'S JUST NO OTHER WAY TO SAY IT, BUT A SOLID FENCE IS JUST PLAIN UGLY.
UM, AGAIN, I FEEL LIKE A WHINER BEING HERE SAYING THAT, BUT IT WOULD JUST BE A MASSIVE LITTLE TWO, ACTUALLY MASSIVE 16 AND A HALF FEET, UM, SOLID FENCES IN THE FRONT YARD.
IT'S COMPLETELY NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND JUST DOESN'T, DOESN'T LOOK NICE.
WE HAVE, UM, NO CURBS, NO GUTTERS ON OUR STREET, A VERY OPEN, UM, COUNTRY LANE FEEL.
AND, UM, A FENCE LIKE THAT, OR A SORRY GATES LIKE THAT JUST DON'T COMPORT, UM, WITH THE, UH, FIELD OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND SO FOR ME AS A NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, THOSE DO ABSOLUTELY ADVERSELY IMPACT MY USE AND ENJOYMENT OF MY PROPERTY, UM, AS SOME SORT OF COMPROMISE, UM, GIVEN THE GENTLEMAN'S OCCUPATION.
UM, HE MAY OR MAY NOT BE EMPLOYED, UM, IN THIS TOWN FOR A LONG TIME.
I HOPE HE IS 'CAUSE I REALLY LIKE HIM, BUT I THINK HE DOES A GOOD JOB.
BUT, UM, COULD WE PERHAPS, UM, AGREE THAT IF YOU ARE, IF YOU ARE OF THE MINE TO GRANT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST, COULD IT BE LIMITED SUCH THAT IF THOSE, IF THAT FAMILY DOESN'T OCCUPY THE PREMISES ANYMORE, THEN THE TALL FENCE AND THE UM, NON OPAQUE GAIT ARE REMOVED? UM, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY MAKE ME FEEL BETTER.
LIKE I SAID, I HOPE HE STAYS A LONG TIME, 'CAUSE THAT MEANS HE'S DOING A GOOD JOB, BUT HE PROBABLY WON'T LIVE THERE FOREVER.
BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S, UM, ALL I HAD TO OFFER.
AND AGAIN, I COME HERE, UM, VERY HUMBLY AND IN RECOGNIZING THAT I LIVE IN, IN A, IN A, IN A, IN A BEAUTIFUL, IN A BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I DON'T WANNA BE THAT NEIGHBOR, UM, THAT, UM, THAT COMPLAINS.
BUT SINCE YOU SAID YOU'RE VERY INTERESTED IN HEARING MY OPINION HERE I AM.
BUT THAT'S ALL I HAD TO SHARE WITH
[01:05:01]
DONALD SMITH AFTERNOON.UM, I APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN HERE AND EXPRESSING, UM, YOUR TODAY.
UM, JUST TO, TO YOUR, YOUR, UM, IDEA THAT YOU PUT OUT IN TERMS OF IT RUNNING WITH JUST THIS PROPERTY ON, UH, PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER.
UM, WHEN THE BOARD, IF THE BOARD DOES MAKE A MOTION, UM, THE MOTIONS UNFORTUNATELY, UH, RUN WITH THE LAND, UM, THAT'S THE PARAMETER PURVIEW OF OUR, UH, OF OUR ABILITY.
UM, SO ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN HERE WITH THIS PARTICULAR CASE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE DO, WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO JUST PERMIT, UH, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO AN INDIVIDUAL UNFORTUNATELY HAS TO, TO RUN TO THE LAND.
I DID A LITTLE RESEARCH HERE, THE, UH, DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IN ADJACENT OR OPAQUE.
UM, BUT ANYWAY, I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD THROW IT OUT THERE, BUT THANK YOU.
UM, WELL, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
UM, NOW HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN WITH SOME OF THE, THE GREENERY AND ALL THAT? DOES THAT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HELPS GET YOU THERE WHERE YOU'RE NOT JUST SEEING BOARD ON BOARD WHERE THERE'S SOME SORT OF LANDSCAPING? YEAH, I MEAN, AGAIN, WHAT'S THERE, WHAT'S THERE NOW IS, IS BEAUTIFUL.
UM, UH, THE, THE LANDSCAPING IS LOVELY, UM, BUT IT'S JUST THE TWO GATES THAT ARE 16 AND A HALF FEET LONG, UH, ALONG WITH THE, UM, SIX FOOT AND SIX FOOT WING WALL ON ONE SIDE AND THEN EIGHT FOOT AND EIGHT FOOT WING WALL ON THE OTHER SIDE.
HAS THE APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE REACHED OUT TO YOU AND ENGAGED WITH YOU, ENGAGED ON, ON THEIR APPLICATION? NO, I, I DON'T, I DON'T FAULT THEM FOR THAT THOUGH.
I MEAN, THE, THE, I UNDERSTAND THE FAMILY'S VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR PRIVACY.
ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY WITH, UH, WITH LIVING NEXT TO 'EM IN TERMS OF KIND OF SOME OF THE, THOSE THAT HAVE BREACHED THE PERIMETER? UM, CURRENTLY AND BEING NEXT, NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS? I DON'T LOCK MY DOOR.
I DON'T, THAT'S PUBLIC RECORD.
I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T SAY THAT, BUT I, NO
NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERN, BUT, BUT I UNDERSTAND.
I I'M NOT THEM AND, AND HE IS HIGH PROFILE.
SO, UM, I COULD ADD, JUST FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THERE IS AN EX-PRESIDENT WHO LIVES AROUND THE CORNER FROM US, AND HE HAS A GATE OVER THE CUL-DE-SAC TO HIS WHOLE YARD.
THERE IS ANOTHER VERY HIGH PROFILE INDIVIDUAL WHO LIVES, UM, AT THE END OF URSULA SOUTHWEST CORNER OF INWOOD IN, UM, ROYAL, IN A GATED COMMUNITY.
SO THIS FAMILY DID HAVE OTHER CHOICES IN TERMS OF SAFER LOCATIONS.
UM, AGAIN, I I WISH THEM EVERY BIT OF SAFETY AND SECURITY.
I'M GLAD I'M NOT A PUBLIC FIGURE, BUT NO, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE ANY SAFETY TO ZONE MYSELF.
I DON'T, I, UM, WE HAVE YOUR LETTER AND, UM, ANOTHER LETTER FROM SOMEBODY ELSE ON YOUR STREET.
DO YOU HAVE ANY INDICATION AS TO HOW THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORS ARE FEELING? UM, OBVIOUSLY THIS DECISION IS, DOES IT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORS? YEAH, SO I, I DIDN'T WANNA GO SPEAK TO ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS.
UM, I, I'M JUST NOT THAT PERSON.
UM, I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE OTHER SIDE OF ME IS, UM, VACANT AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION, UM, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS VACANT AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
SO, UM, BUT I, I WASN'T GONNA GO KNOCK ON DOORS AND START A PUBLIC CAMPAIGN.
AND, UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE OPPOSITION? AND WE HAVE, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION.
UM, YOU MENTIONED, UM, ANOTHER, UM, I GUESS FORMER PUBLIC OFFICIAL, UM, GIVEN YOUR HEIGHT, AND THIS IS JUST KIND OF A GUESSTIMATION, HOW HIGH WOULD YOU SAY THAT PERIMETER FENCE WOULD ON THAT? JUST TO GIVE CONTEXT AS TO LIKE, WHAT IS SECURITY, UM, WITHIN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD SAYING IF YOU'RE X AMOUNT BE HIGH, WOULD YOU SAY YOU COULD SEE EYE LEVEL OR YOU CAN'T SEE ABOVE IT? I'M SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
UH, YOU WERE MENTIONING THAT THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT DO HAVE FENCES.
UH, I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET A, I GUESS A NO NO.
SO THEY'RE, NO, THEY'RE ON, ON OUR, ON OUR STREET.
SO I'VE LIVED THERE FOR JUST OVER 20 YEARS.
UM, AND SINCE THE, IN THE PAST SIX YEARS, UH, THREE HOMES HAVE INSTALLED FOUR FOOT NON OPAQUE FENCING IN THE FRONT YARD.
UM, SO THAT, THAT'S NEW, BUT NOBODY HAS THIS, THIS, THIS HOME WHERE THEY LIVE, UM, AT THE SETBACK, THEY HAVE AN OPAQUE GATE THAT, UM, BLOCKS, UH, BASICALLY THEIR SIDE DRIVE OR ALLOWS ACCESS TO THEIR SIDE, DRIVE INTO THEIR BACKYARD.
BUT THERE ARE NO OTHER, UM, FENCES IN OUR, WHERE THE EX-PRESIDENT LIVES.
UM, HE LIVES ON A CUL-DE-SAC THAT HAS A GATE THAT CONTROLS ACCESS TO IT.
AND THEN THE OTHER PRO GOLFER LIVES IN A GATED COMMUNITY.
I JUST WANTED TO GET THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT YOU WERE MENTIONING EARLIER, SO THANK YOU.
UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE,
[01:10:01]
UM, THE APPLICANT CAN COME BACK UP AND DO A REBUTTAL, OR IS IT THREE MINUTES, MINUTES? I, UP TO FIVE MINUTES.UM, YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK THAT, UH, THERE'S VERY, VERY CLEAR POINTS THERE.
I WOULD HAVE TO SPEAK WITH THE HOMEOWNERS AS FAR AS, UM, DISCUSSING THE OPACITY O VAGUENESS OF THE, UH, OF THE GATE.
UM, BUT I'M SURE THEY'RE OPEN TO COMPROMISE WITH, I MEAN, BEING THAT IT'S THEIR NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR THAT HAS, UH, THE CONCERNS, UH, I'M SURE THAT, UH, WE CAN REACH A COMPROMISE TO THAT DEGREE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE, UM, AFTER THAT, BUT, WELL, THERE, THERE, THERE'S, UM, THERE'S ALSO A NEIGHBOR, UM, ACROSS THE STREET THAT IS ALSO, UM, IN OPPOSITION OF THE APPLICATION.
UM, SO, UH, ALONG THOSE LINES, I KNOW THAT YOU, UM, SPOKE TO ONE OF THE STAFF, UM, WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM YOUR, FROM THE APPLICANT'S NEIGHBOR IS THAT THE HEIGHT ISN'T THE ISSUE, IT'S THE OPACITY.
SO, AND I THINK THAT YOU'RE, WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU IS THAT THERE MAY BE SOME COMPROMISE.
UM, NOW THERE'S STILL GONNA BE SOME OPACITY CONCERNS WITH YOUR APPLICATION, SO WE CAN'T UP EITHER TODAY BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE COLUMNS, I BELIEVE THAT ARE NOT OPAQUE.
SO, UH, AND THE SITE PLAN AND ANYTHING TODAY WOULD BE TIED TO THAT.
SO ARE YOU OF THE SENTIMENT THAT MAYBE YOUR CLIENT WOULD BE OPEN TO WORKING WITH SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE TO COME BACK IF YOU WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THAT HEIGHT, UH, BUT MAYBE WORK WITH, WITH THE NEIGHBORS AROUND THE OPACITY CONCERNS? UM, YEAH.
I'M ALSO CURIOUS AS TO WHAT THE, UM, WHAT THE, THE NEIGHBOR I THINK IS ACROSS THE STREET.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY DETAILS ON THAT OR IF THEY WERE OF SIMILAR CONCERN, UM, OR IF THAT EVEN MATTERS.
WE'LL MAKE SURE YOU GET A COPY OF THE LETTER, BUT IT'S VERY SIMILAR CONCERNS OKAY.
THAT THERE ARE NO FENCES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND YEAH, THIS IS A SIX FOOT FENCE.
YOU KNOW, I, I CERTAINLY, I, I WOULD LEAVE THAT UP TO, UH, THE HOMEOWNERS THAT, THAT HIRED ME.
UM, BUT YEAH, I, I WOULD, I WOULD THINK THAT THEY CAN, IT'S A SECURITY CONCERN.
THE HEIGHT IS THEIR MAIN, UH, THEIR MAIN CONCERNS.
I BET THAT WE CAN REACH A COMPROMISE.
WOULD THAT REQUIRE A NEW APPLICATION OR IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN REVISIT? YOU WOULD JUST AMEND YOUR SITE PLAN.
AND WE WOULD HOLD OVER THE CASE UNTIL NEXT MONTH VERY WELL.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? NO, THE SPEAKERS REGISTER.
ALRIGHT, MS. LIAM, UM, I'LL TAKE A SHOT IN THE DARK HERE.
LOOKING UNDER OUR CALENDAR, UM, I MOVE WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 22, HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL, UM, UH, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20TH, 2024.
UM, THE REASON WHY I I MADE THIS MOTION IS, WELL, I, I, I HEAR KIND OF SOME SENTIMENT THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO KINDA WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
UH, I THINK THAT, I THINK Y'ALL ARE PRETTY CLOSE.
I THINK THAT HER CONCERNS ARE VALID.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOUR CLIENT DOESN'T LIVE HERE FOREVER, WHATEVER WE GRANT OR DON'T GRANT RUNS WITH THE LAND.
SO IF THERE'S A WAY THAT Y'ALL CAN, CAN WORK WHERE YOU, YOU KNOW, CAN GET TO THE, THE PLACE WHERE YOUR CLIENT FEELS SAFE AND COMES BACK WITH A SITE PLAN THAT REFLECTS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR AND COVERS THAT NEED, BUT ALSO YOU ENGAGE WITH BOTH THE NEIGHBORS, UM, AND THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT OPACITY, UM, I THINK THAT YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE SUCCESSFUL NEXT MONTH.
UM, AND SO OUR STAFF CAN, IF THIS IS APPROVED, CAN PROVIDE, UM, KIND OF THE LETTER OF OTHER LETTER OF OPPOSITION.
WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO, TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND YOUR CLIENT AND THEN COME BACK WITH A SITE PLAN, UM, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S AGREEABLE.
WHAT IS A DEADLINE FOR HIM TO SUBMIT A, A REVISED SITE PLAN IN THE EVENT THAT THIS IS APPROVED? NOVEMBER 9TH, DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT YOU COULD COME UP WITH A REVISED SITE PLAN BY NOVEMBER 9TH? YES, MA'AM.
UM, DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? I, I GAVE A SECOND TO THE MOTION.
UM, OH, DID WE ALREADY SECOND IT? YEAH, SORRY.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THIS IS, UH, ABOUT THE MOST CIVIL DISAGREEMENT OVER OFFENSE.
I, I'VE SEEN, I THINK BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE OPPOSITION ARE REALLY TO BE COMMENDED HERE.
UM, I THINK PEOPLE FORGET THAT THEIR NEIGHBORS AND, AND BAD BLOOD CAN KIND OF BUBBLE UP.
UM, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE HOLDING UNDER ADVISEMENT, BUT I WOULD JUST SAY, UM, KIND OF JUST GIVEN BOTH SIDES OF TESTIMONY, I, UM, I'M NOT CLEARLY CONVINCED THAT, UM, I KNOW WITH THE TESTIMONY THAT THIS IS A SPECIAL, UH, INDIVIDUAL HERE.
BUT JUST GIVEN THE, THE LIMITED THE SCOPE OF THE SECURITY, I AM NOT FAIRLY CONVINCED THAT THERE IS A TRUE SECURITY NEED HERE.
[01:15:01]
PARTIAL PERIMETER.UH, THE REASON, THE QUESTION I ASKED EARLIER ON IS IF IT WERE, IF THIS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE WITH THIS PROPERTY OWNER FOR MULTIPLE LOCATIONS THAT THEY HAVE, I WOULD THINK THAT THIS, THE ASK WOULD BE GREATER.
UM, AGAIN, WE DON'T WANT HIGHER FENCES THAN NEED BE, BUT THAT'S JUST A CONCERN THAT I DO HAVE.
BUT, UM, IF WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD, THEN YES, I'LL SUPPORT THE VOTING UNDER ADVISE UNTIL NEXT MONTH.
BUT AGAIN, I ALWAYS LIKE TO GO BACK ON THE FENCES.
A FENCE IS, IT'S NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
AND THIS IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE, WHEN YOU DRIVE DOWN THOSE STREETS BASED ON THE VIDEO, NO ONE ELSE HAS THIS FENCE.
AND SO I, TO ME, IT IS VERY ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IF SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IT.
UM, YOU, YOU CAN LOOK AT OUR, IN NO CASE THAT'S PRECEDENT, SO I WILL STATE THAT AS WELL.
BUT YOU CAN LOOK AT THE CASE WE HEARD EARLIER, THERE WERE CLEARLY OTHER EIGHT FOOT FENCES IN THE AREA.
UM, THE NEIGHBORS DID NOT CARE.
SHE HAD THAT INFORMATION AS WELL.
AND SO THAT, THAT IS THE ONLY, THAT'S OUR ONLY BAR FOR A FENCE, DOES IT, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF IT'S SECURITY.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, TO HIS POINT, THERE MAY BE A SAFER PLACE FOR THEM TO LIVE THAN ON THIS STREET IF THAT'S ONE OF THEIR BIGGEST CONCERNS.
SO I WILL JUST SAY THAT, BUT I WILL, I WILL HOLD THE MATTER UNDER ADVICE.
AND I AGREE WITH, UH, I'M GONNA DISAGREE WITH MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS HERE.
UH, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN ASK SOMEBODY TO UP AND MOVE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE, THEY, THE OF, OF A FENCE.
UM, I ACTUALLY APPLAUD YOU COMING IN AND ASKING FOR JUST WHAT YOU NEED.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE OPTICS OF MAYBE IN SOME PLACES HAVING JUST A FOUR FOOT FENCE, MAYBE KIND OF COUNTERINTUITIVE TO SECURITY, BUT IT'S CLEAR IN YOUR PLANS THAT YOUR INTENTIONS ARE HIGH, HIGH SHRUBS THAT WILL ACT AS A SECONDARY BARRIER.
SO I APPLAUD YOU FOR COMING IN AND ONLY ASKING FOR WHAT YOU NEED BECAUSE THE REASON WHY YOU DON'T HAVE LOUDER OPPOSITION IS BECAUSE YOUR HEIGHT IS NOT ACROSS THE BOARD.
YOU'RE NOT BUILDING A WALL, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT BUILDING A BARRICADE, YOU'VE THOUGHT, BUT A LOT OF THOUGHT IN THE LANDSCAPING.
SO FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I'M NOT ASKING Y'ALL TO MOVE.
I'VE JUST ASKED TO GO WORK IN NEIGHBORS ON THE OPACITY, UM, AND JUST COME BACK AND ASK FOR EXACTLY WHAT YOU NEED WITH WORKING WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS.
FOR ME, UM, NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST IS DOING THE WORK WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS, BUT ALSO, UM, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT YOU'RE SAFE.
BECAUSE IF, IF YOU ARE SAFE, THEN THE NEIGHBORS ARE SAFE.
SO, UM, THAT'S MY VIEW BACK TO YOU AND I I IF THIS DOES PASS, I WILL SEE YOU NEXT MONTH.
CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL? VOTE DO.
MOTION TO HOLD PASSES FIVE TO ZERO MS. CHAIR, WE'LL MOVE TO OUR HOLDOVER CASES.
BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 9 6 53 25 KELSEY ROAD.
AM I READING THIS RIGHT? THAT WE HAVE TWO MOTIONS FOR, UM, YOU GONNA LEAVE? OKAY.
AND, AND ONCE YOUR CASE IS COMPLETE, I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING ELSE.
IF YOU GUYS WANNA LEAVE, YOU CAN LEAVE.
SO IF THE, UM, APPLICANT FOR 53 25 KELSEY ROAD CAN COME FORWARD.
SORRY, YOU NEED TO SWEAR US IN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH AND YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE COURT OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
MY ADDRESS IS 1620 HANDILY DRIVE DALLAS, REPRESENTING MR. CHARLES AND MALL ANDERSON.
UH, YOU'VE SEEN US HERE PROBABLY MORE TIMES THAN YOU WANTED TO, BUT, UH, WE HAVE A SITUATION NOT ON SIMILAR TO THE ONE YOU JUST HEARD.
UH, AT THE LAST MEETING, UH, OUR NEIGHBORS AND US, IF YOU WILL, IF I'M SAYING THAT CORRECTLY, AGREED TO PROVIDE ONLY SIX FOOT OPEN GATES, UH, ON BOTH DRIVEWAYS WITH SIX FOOT, SIX INCH COLUMNS ON BOTH SIDES OF THOSE GATES.
OUR NEIGHBORS BASICALLY SAID THAT WAS OKAY.
UH, WE ALL SORT OF AGREED TO THAT, BUT YOU HELD THAT BECAUSE THE STAFF NEEDED TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE WERE, WE THOUGHT WE WERE CLEAR ON WOULD IN FACT WAS CLEAR AND THAT THE STAFF GOT TO SEE THOSE DRAWINGS.
AND WE ASSUME NOT APPROVING THEM, BUT AGREEING THAT THEY REPRESENTED PROPERLY WHAT WE PRESENTED.
AND WE CAN PUT 'EM UP ON THE SCREEN IF YOU WANT TO, BUT I WON'T DO IT UNLESS YOU ASK ME TO.
SO CAN WE PLEASE? OH, UH, THESE ARE, THESE ARE THE GATES.
[01:20:01]
PREPARED BY, UM, UH, ARMSTRONG BERGER, WELL-KNOWN, UH, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE FIRM.THE SITE PLAN REFLECTS THE LOCATION OF THOSE GATES.
ALSO THE, UH, PRO, UH, UH, VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE ON THERE OF ANY OTHER FENCES BECAUSE THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT, WHICH IS PERMITTED WITHOUT YOUR APPROVAL IS FOUR FEET.
WE HAVE A FOUR FOOT FENCE OUT THERE NOW.
UH, THERE, THERE'S THE EXISTING GATES.
EFFECTIVELY IT LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME.
UH, THEY'LL STILL BE OPEN LIKE THAT.
THEY'LL JUST BE, UH, TWO FEET TALLER.
I'M GUESSING MOST PEOPLE DRIVING BY WOULD NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
BOTH VERY, BOTH EXACTLY THE SAME.
AT THE LAST HEARING, THE NEIGHBOR, UH, JULIA ALLEN, OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR TO OUR EAST, WAS CONCERNED WHEN THIS IS HER DRIVEWAY.
BY THE WAY, WHEN YOU PULL OUT, SHE FELT LIKE SHE COULDN'T SEE DOWN THE STREET WELL ENOUGH.
SO MRS. ANDERSON HAS HAD THAT HEDGE THERE ON THE RIGHT CUT BACK, UH, IN ORDER FOR, UH, MS. ALLEN TO MORE EASILY SEE DOWN THE STREET.
AND THAT'S THE, THE PHOTO OF WHEN YOU DRIVE OUT THE DRIVEWAY, YOU CAN LOOK DOWN TO THE WEST.
BUT, BUT THAT HEDGE IS BACK WHERE, UH, WE BELIEVE MS. ALLEN WANTS THAT THING TO BE SO THAT SHE CAN CLEARLY SEE WHEN SHE DRIVES OUT OF HER DRIVEWAY.
SO ANDERSON'S DID THAT, UH, UH, UH, TO BENEFIT HER.
UH, I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.
UM, SO, UH, WE ARE TASKED WITH, UM, ALSO RECALLING THE TESTIMONY OF THOSE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE REPEATEDLY SHOWN UP MM-HMM.
UM, WHAT IS YOUR TESTIMONY IN REGARDS TO THE SENTIMENTS OF THE NEIGHBORS? UM, AND THE, AND CAN YOU, UH, ELABORATE ON THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE WITH HIM SINCE THE LAST HEARING? SURE.
WE PREPARED THE DRAWINGS AS WE DESCRIBED HERE.
WE EMAILED THEM TO BOTH MS. ALLEN, WHO'S OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, WHO HAS BEEN OPPOSED FROM THE BEGINNING, AND MR. DAVID ELMQUIST, WHO LIVES RIGHT NEXT TO HER.
WE SENT THOSE TO BOTH OF THEM.
MR. ELMQUIST DID SEND ME AN EMAIL BACK SAYING HE AND HIS WIFE WERE FINE WITH THAT.
JUST FRANKLY, I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM, FROM, UH, MS. ALLEN, UH, TALKED TO MSS ANDERSON, UH, TODAY.
SHE WAS TRYING TO BE HERE BUT COULDN'T MAKE IT.
UH, SHE HAS BASICALLY CONTACTED MS. ALLEN, BUT NO RESPONSE.
SO, UH, JUST NO RESPONSE WHATSOEVER FROM HER.
BUT I DON'T BELIEVE SHE'S HERE TODAY.
SO I, I'M GUESSING SHE'S OKAY WITH THIS.
IN FACT, AT THE LAST HEARING, SHE INDICATED SHE WAS GOOD WITH SIX FOOT GATES, OPEN, GATES, VERY CLEAR.
THAT MUST BE OPEN AND CERTAINLY ARE, UM, CAN STAFF, UH, ARTICULATE OR, UH, CONFIRM ANY THAT, HAVE WE HAD ANY ADDITIONAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR ANY WITHDRAWALS OF, OF OPPOSITION? HAS ANYTHING CHANGED FROM, FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S PERSPECTIVE THAT Y'ALL HAVE NOTICED? I THINK, UM, WHAT WE PRESENTED THIS MORNING WITH ALL, UM,
AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION TO YOU IS, UM, THE REASON, ONE OF, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE HELD THIS CASE OVER LAST TIME WAS THAT THE SITE PLAN HAD, HAD BEEN MODIFIED AND HAD ONLY BEEN SUBMITTED TO CITY STAFF THAT MORNING.
UM, WITH WHAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED, UM, IT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.
UM, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? UM, IS THAT IN LINE WITH WHAT THE REQUEST IS? YES.
SO THE, UM, PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED DOES REFLECT THE DATES AT 67, THE DATE AND THE COLUMNS.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY FOR EVERYBODY, THERE WAS ONE ADDITIONAL LETTER AND OPPOSITION FROM 53 25 KELSEY ROAD.
OH, IT DOES NOT SAY WHERE THEY'RE FROM, BUT THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL LETTER OF OPPOSITION AND THEN THERE WAS A LETTER THAT WAS IN, UM, AGREEMENT AND NOW IN OPPOSITION.
I'M JUST, WHATEVER THAT'S WORTH.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS HERE TODAY ON THIS CASE? YES.
I IS THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY.
I I THOUGHT SHE WAS IN THE AIR, BUT MAYBE SHE'S AVAILABLE TO SPEAK.
CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE VIDEO? SURE.
UM, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA, UM, FURTHER, UH, ARTICULATE MY QUESTION.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION HERE TODAY? NO OTHER SPEAKERS REGISTER.
[01:25:01]
YES.UM, DO WE NEED TO SWEAR HER IN? I BELIEVE SHE WAS ONLINE WHEN, OKAY.
BUT IF YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
UM, I'M MOLLY ANDERSON AND I LIVE AT 53 25 KELSEY ROAD.
UM, WELL, AS YOU CAN SEE, I'M JUST GONNA CUT TO THE CHASE FOR ALL OF OUR SAKES.
WE HAVE CHANGED OUR LANDSCAPE UNTIL THE LAST MEETING.
I HAD NO IDEA THAT THAT WAS EVEN A CONCERN BECAUSE I WAS ALREADY TOLD THAT THE THE GATE WOULD BE APPROVED BY THEM, MY NEIGHBORS.
AND ALSO, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I GET THAT PEOPLE DON'T WANNA CHANGE, THEY DON'T WANT THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO CHANGE.
BUT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, KELSEY ROAD HAS CHANGED METERS.
WE GOT HIT BY A TORNADO FIVE YEARS AGO.
WE, YOU COULD SEE FIVE BLOCKS BEHIND US.
WE HAD TO ERECT TEMPORARY FENCES.
WE'VE HAD SECURITY AT OUR HOUSE NOW FOR ALMOST FIVE YEARS NONSTOP.
SO, YES, DID WE WANT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE? AND DID WE WANT A SIX FOOT, YOU KNOW, GATE? BUT WE'RE TRYING TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS.
AND I HOPE THAT YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET WHAT WE CAN DONE AND, AND DO WHAT'S BEST ALSO FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT ALSO FEAR IS OBJECTIVE.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? OKAY, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES.
WAIT, NO, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 9 6 ON APPLICATION OF CHARLES ANDERSON GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AN OR MAINTAIN A SIX FOOT, SIX INCH HIGH FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR DEFENSES CONTAINED 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, IT FURTHER MOVES THAT THE FOLLOWING HERE SHOULD BE OPPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED, THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SID SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
UM, SO I, I APPROVE THIS OR I MADE THE MOTION, UM, BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD THIS CASE FOR SEVERAL MONTHS NOW.
UM, AND THAT'S NOT WHY I'M, THAT'S NOT WHY I MADE THE MOTION.
UM, IT'S, IT'S OBVIOUS THAT CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF WORK AND INPUT HAS HAPPENED WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
UM, AND ALTHOUGH NOT EVERYONE WILL AGREE, A LOT OF COMPROMISE HAS HAPPENED.
THERE'S SOME SAFETY AND SECURITY ISSUES HERE, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE COMPLAINTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS WERE BASED ON THE HEIGHT.
AND THAT HEIGHT HAS BEEN MODIFIED AND REDUCED TO SUCH THAT, UM, I FEEL LIKE, UM, IF GRANTED THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION, IT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
UH, I DO APPLAUD THE APPLICANT FOR CONTINUE TO WORK FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND MODIFY TO FIND A COMPROMISE PLAN THAT, UH, THAT SEEKS TO, UH, ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO ENJOY THE PROPERTY AS SUCH, BUT ALSO, UH, TAKES SOME CONSIDERATION, NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND, UH, HOW, HOW THEIR PLANS AFFECT THEM.
SO FOR THAT REASON, UM, AND BASED ON THE SITE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TODAY, I WENT AHEAD AND MADE THE MOTION TO GRANT THIS APPLICATION.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? APPLICANT'S NOT, SORRY, I'M, I'M AT LEAST I, I'M JUST, I AM STRUGGLING 'CAUSE I, AGAIN, I'M, I, I STRUGGLE WITH THE, YOU KNOW, ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
AND I PROBABLY TAKE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN SOME OF Y'ALL.
I FEEL LIKE, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, I DON'T KNOW, A HUNDRED HOMES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND MOST OF THEM DON'T HAVE FENCES AND THEY'RE PERFECTLY HAPPY AND PERFECTLY SOUND, AND THAT'S WHY THEY BOUGHT IT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I, UH, ANYWAYS, I'M, I'M STRUGGLING.
UM, I GUESS WE'LL PICK A VOTE AND I'LL MAKE A DECISION.
I WOULD THINK OF STRUGGLE WITH IT.
SORRY FOR, UM, I JUST KIND OF, I KNOW EACH CASE IS THEIR OWN, BUT, UM, AGAIN, I ALWAYS LIKE TO SPOKE WITH AS MUCH DATA, BUT SENSE OF SECURITY.
I THINK THIS, IT'S HARD TO, THIS IS, I, THIS IS JUST A GENERAL STATEMENT, NOT EITHER FOR OR AGAINST, BUT JUST WHAT IS SECURITY? WHAT IS A SENSE OF SECURITY FOR RESIDENTS? IT COULD BE ONE INSTANCE, IT COULD BE MULTIPLE INSTANCES.
UM, THAT'S SOMETHING I DO SHARE IN
[01:30:01]
YOUR SENTIMENT.UH, AND SHARE GABO AS FAR AS HOW, YOU KNOW, HOW CAN YOU QUANTIFY SENSE OF SECURITY FOR A RESIDENT.
UM, BUT I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR, BUT I DO SHARE YOUR SENTIMENT THAT, UM, THIS WAS NOT EASY FOR ME TO COME TO, BUT I'VE ALSO NOTICED OVER THE PERIOD OF THE LAST THREE HEARINGS HOW, UH, WE THINK HAVE CHIPPING AWAY AT THIS AND HOW THE SENTIMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORS HAS CHANGED, HAS SHIFTED, UH, FROM ONE OF COMPLETE OPPOSITION TO ONE OF COMPROMISE AND THEN TO ONE, UH, I'M NOT DISREGARDING THE SENTIMENTS AND, AND, UH, UH, OF THE NEIGHBORS BACK IN AUGUST, BUT THOSE WERE FOR A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT APPLICATION.
UM, AND I, I BELIEVE THAT WE WERE CLOSE TO APPROVING THIS APPLICATION LAST HEARING, BUT WE DID NOT HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT, UH, WAS ONE THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY TIE AN APPLICATION TO.
UM, AND SO NOW SEEING THAT WE, WE HAVE VERY LITTLE, IF NONE, UH, OPPOSITION COMPARED TO WHERE WE STARTED IN AUGUST.
UM, TO ME, THE TRANSFORMATION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD SENTIMENTS FROM OPPOSITION TO EITHER, UH, SUPPORT OR NEUTRAL, UM, IS, IS ALL I NEED IN REGARDS TO, UH, BRANDON'S SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
I THINK CONSIDERABLE WORK HAS BEEN DONE.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF COMPROMISE AS WELL, AND I DON'T FEEL THAT WE SHOULD HOLD THIS, UH, ANY LONGER.
I DEFINITELY DON THINK WE SHOULD HOLD IT.
THERE, THERE HAVE BEEN FIVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT VERSUS THREE AGAINST.
UH, USUALLY MY DECISION IS BASED ON, UM, HOW IT AFFECTS THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS.
IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THEY HAVE ANY OPPOSITION OR HAVE COME OUT TO SAY THIS REALLY IMPACTS THEIR LIFE OR USE OF USE OF THEIR PROPERTY.
SO I FEEL THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH IT.
I, I AM, I AM, I WAS VERY THANKFUL TO SEE THAT SHE HAD TRIMMED HER BUSHES FOR THE NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR.
UM, AND I WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY DO THE DRIVE-BYS, THERE'S CERTAINLY A LOT OF VERY TALL LANDSCAPING.
UM, I THINK THEY'RE GONNA KEEP THAT LANDSCAPING.
I, I JUST, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IF YOU HAVE SECURITY AND SAFETY ISSUES, THEN YOU KNOW, YOU MAY NOT BE LIVING IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
AND I, I KEEP GOING BACK TO THAT AND I, I RECOGNIZE THAT THAT'S JUST, UM, MAYBE A DIFFERING OPINION.
BUT I, I ALSO FEEL LIKE IF I WERE THE NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR AND THIS WAS CONTINUING TO COME UP AT SOME POINT, AFTER THREE MONTHS OF FIGHTING YOUR NEIGHBOR, YOU ALSO JUST GET TIRED AND GIVE UP.
AND I FEEL BAD FOR THOSE NEIGHBORS BECAUSE THEY WERE THERE FIRST AND THEY WANT THEIR NEIGHBOR TO SAY THE SAME.
AND IT'S, ANYWAYS, THAT'S JUST KIND OF WHERE I AM.
AND I'M LAST, SO I'LL MAKE A DECISION AS WE GO THROUGH
I ALSO FEEL THAT THE GOOD FAITH EFFORT THAT HAS BEEN PUT INTO SHA AND THAT SHOULD GO ALONG WITH ACTUALLY PRESENT A STRONG CASE FOR HER.
MOTION PASSES FOR CHIEF COURT TO ONE, SHALL I? UM, YEAH, THERE'S TWO MORE, UM, PARTS TO THIS ONE.
I MOVE THROUGH THE BOARD OF JUSTIN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 9 6 ON APPLICATION OF CHARLES ANDERSON.
GRANT, THE REQUEST TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE 20 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE UP IN THIS WESTERN DRIVEWAY APPROACH AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION REGULATION CONTAINED THE DALLAS THE BELLMAN CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY, THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT CONSTRUCT A TRA CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE OPPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT, UH, CODE AS AMENDED.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS IN REGARDS TO THE PORTION IN VIOLATION OF THE VISUAL OF OBSTRUCTION TRIANGLE ARE REQUIRED.
A SECOND, UM, I I GRANTED THIS, UM, BECAUSE THE STAFF HAS MADE IT CLEAR THIS IS NOT A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
UH, ALSO THE APPLICANT HAS DONE WORK TO TRY TO, UH, TRY TO AMEND, UH, CURRENT TRAFFIC HAZARDS AS IT PERTAINS TO THOSE ISSUES, BUT THIS IS, I BELIEVE, NECESSARY AS PART OF THE ENTIRE APPLICATION, UM, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT THAT THEY NEED TO.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION VOTE MR. CANNON? AYE.
[01:35:01]
AYE.WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THE THIRD, UM, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THE VISIBILITY EXTRACTION REGULATION.
THE DRIVEWAY TO, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.
UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 9 6 ON APPLICATION OF CHARLES ANDERSON GRANT THE REQUEST TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN 20 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE MOST EASTERLY DRIVEWAY APPROACH AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION REGULATION CONTAINED IN DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT.
THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED, WHICH IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS IN REGARDS TO THE PORTION IN VIOLATION OF THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION TRIANGLE, UH, REQUIRED.
UM, MY, UM, GUESS BACKING FOR THIS, UH, MOTION HERE.
IT'S, UM, ESSENTIALLY TO MIRROR THE, UM, AMENDMENT THAT, OR THE MOTION THAT WAS JUST PASSED, UM, FOR THE WESTERLY DRIVEWAY.
THINK THE CONDITIONS ALL APPLY.
UM, ENGINEERING, UM, WE PAT, UM, OUR THOROUGH REVIEW OF THIS AND I BELIEVE THAT, UM, THAT THIS MOTION, UH, SHOULD CARRY ALONG WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SITE PLAN.
CAN WE HAVE VOTE MS. LAMB? AYE.
MS. VICE CHAIR MAY MOTION PASSES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO BD 2 3 4 DASH 0 9 8 53 22.
KELSEY ROAD, PLEASE DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
MADAM CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD BY NAME IS PETER KAVANAUGH.
MY ADDRESS IS 1620 HANLEY DRIVE IN DALLAS, REPRESENTING GRANT AND CARL HURWITZ.
CARL IS HERE, AS YOU JUST SAW, UH, THIS IS VERY SIMILAR, THE LAST CASE YOU SAW, IN FACT, ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT.
UM, WE, THESE GATES WILL BE A LITTLE FARTHER BACK, OF COURSE, IF YOU, WELL, LEMME GO TO THE FIRST SLIDE.
LOCATION MAY BE A LITTLE BETTER, MORE CLEAR.
UM, THE, UH, KIND OF HARD TO SEE, BUT, BUT THE, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES ARE ON BOTH DRIVES, AS YOU KNOW, SO THAT THE GATES ARE SET BACK TO BE OUTSIDE OF THOSE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
THAT DID CAUSE OUR GATES TO BE BACK.
SO WE HAVE A GATE BACK HERE AND WE HAVE A GATE RIGHT ACROSS THERE.
THAT'S THE APPEARANCE OF THE GATES.
THAT THIS IS THE GATE IN THE MIDDLE WHERE THE PEOPLE, UH, I'M GONNA CALL THE WALKTHROUGH GATE WHERE YOU WALK FROM THE STREET.
THAT LITTLE WALL ON EACH SIDE IS ALREADY THERE.
IT'S ABOUT THREE AND A HALF FEET OR SO TALL.
THREE FEET, TWO AND A HALF FEET, SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
LITTLE, LITTLE, UH, STONE WALL.
AND THIS WILL BE THE LAST GATE ON THE OTHER DRIVEWAY.
SO WE'RE JUST, UH, BASICALLY DOING THE GATES ONLY WITH THE COLUMNS, JUST A TAD BIT HIGHER THAN THE GATES COLUMNS.
SIX FOOT, SIX GATES, SIX FEET TALL.
THIS IS A CLOSE UP OF ONE OF THOSE DRIVEWAYS THAT I JUST KIND OF SHOWED YOU ON THE BIG MAP, BUT THIS IS THE WESTERNMOST GATE.
THERE'S THE GATE IN RED, IS THAT, THAT DRIVEWAY ACTUALLY MAKES A TURN.
AND THIS'LL BE THE OTHER GATE.
THOUGHT IT WAS
WE HAVE A LITTLE, A LITTLE GATE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE STAIR.
AND, AND AS YOU MAY RECALL, THIS WAS THE HOME WHERE THEY HAD THE CAR STOLEN OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY, BASICALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY.
UH, SO WE'RE ASKING ONLY FOR SIX FOOT OPEN GATES.
THIS IS WITH THE APPROVAL WITH OF OUR NEIGHBORS, OF COURSE.
AND, UH, UH, WITH SIX FOOT, SIX COLUMNS THAT BASICALLY LOOK A LITTLE BETTER.
AND THAT'S AFTER WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
UH, THIS IS OUR OF COURSE SUPPORT MAP, BUT WE DON'T, WE'RE NOT THERE ANYMORE.
THESE ARE JUST EXISTING GATES SCENARIO WE HAD IN THE PREVIOUS DRAWING.
UH, THOSE BY THE WAY HAD FOUR FOOT FENCES WITH LITTLE BIT TALLER GATES.
UM, SO WE'RE JUST ASKING THAT YOU APPROVE.
[01:40:01]
WERE PRETTY MUCH THERE LAST TIME, BUT THE STAFF WANTED TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE DRAWINGS AND TIME TO WORK WITH THEM AND LOOK AT 'EM.SO THAT'S OCCURRED AND WE OF COURSE SENT THOSE TO OUR NEIGHBORS AND WE HAVE NO NEGATIVE OPPOSITION, NO OPPOSITION THAT WE'RE AWARE OF.
I'M GONNA ASK STAFF, ARE YOU, AFTER LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, UM, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE THAT IT MEETS WHAT, UH, IS IN LINE WITH THE APPLICATION? YOU'VE HAD ENOUGH TIME TO REVIEW IT? THAT IS CORRECT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS CASE? NO, THE SPEAKER PAUL WOULD BE HAPPY TO SPEAK IF YOU WANT TO HEAR.
I'LL JUST SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OH, CARLIN, DO YOU, IF YOU DON'T MIND SIGNING, SIGNING A CARD.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
THANK YOU FOR, FOR, CAN YOU STATE YOUR ADDRESS? SORRY.
5 3 2 2 KELSEY ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 9.
THANK YOU FOR SEEING US AGAIN.
I KNOW YOU KNOW THE STORY, BUT, UM, I, I DO APPRECIATE IT.
SINCE OUR LAST, UM, MEETING, WE HAD ANOTHER THREAT 'CAUSE, UM, THROUGH MY HUSBAND'S WORK, UM, ABOUT SOMEBODY COMING TO OUR HOUSE.
SO I HIRED SECURITY FOR THE WEEK.
I AM ALONE A LOT BECAUSE HE, HE TRAVELS, HE'S ON THE SCREEN, I BELIEVE.
BUT, UM, I, YOU KNOW, I'M ALONE AT MY HOUSE.
UM, KELSEY IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE FROM, YOU KNOW, PRESTON INTO INWOOD WITH PEOPLE SPEEDING DOWN, LOTS OF CONSTRUCTION SINCE THE TORNADO'S STILL GOING ON.
AND WHEN I WALK, I MEAN, YOU, YOU CAN WALK, YOU KNOW, ONE WAY WHERE MAYBE YOU SEE VERY MIN NOT MANY GATES.
AND I ALSO, I WALK AND BASICALLY I SEE GATES MY ENTIRE WAY.
AND THEY'RE NOT SIX FOOT, THEY'RE EIGHT FOOT, THEY'RE 10 FOOT, THEY'RE, THEY'RE SOME MASSIVE GATES.
SO IT REALLY IS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS EVOLVED.
OR I SEE GATES, BUT NOT EVERYBODY DOES.
UM, DEPENDING ON WHICH WAY YOU'RE GOING.
BUT I REALLY, FOR MY PERSONAL SECURITY, I REALLY APPRECIATE IT JUST HAVING THE HEIGHT.
I'VE HAD PEOPLE COME UP TO MY DOOR, MY DOOR, AND IT'S, IT'S UPSETTING.
I TRY NOT TO ANSWER, BUT WHEN I WAS CAUGHT WITH SOME GUY YELLING AT ME THROUGH MY GLASS DOOR, IT, IT'S A PROBLEM.
SO JUST HAVING JUST AT LEAST THE SIX FOOT, THE, UM, THEY CAN SEE THROUGH IT.
MY NEIGHBORS, I, I'M VERY FRIENDLY WITH MY NEIGHBORS, SO I THINK THEY REALLY, MOST OF THEM LIKE ME AND THEY WANT ME TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MYSELF AND FEEL SECURE.
SO, UM, I I WALK THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALL THE TIME AND I REALLY APPRECIATE, UM, YOUR CONSIDERATION.
I THINK IT'LL JUST HELP PEOPLE THAT I DON'T WANT COMING IN, BUT ALL MY NEIGHBORS ARE WELCOME TO COME IN AND THANK YOU.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 9 8 ON APPLICATION OF CAROLYN PERITZ.
GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT IN OR MAINTAIN A SIX FOOT, SIX INCH HEIGHT FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ME, BRING PROPERTY AND FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE OPPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE, COMPLIANCE, HEIGHT, AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
UM, I GRANTED THIS, UM, FOR A FEW REASONS.
OBVIOUSLY THE WORK THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DONE, UH, COMPROMISE AT SIX FOOT, SIX INCH, UH, I THINK THERE'S SOME SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERNS THAT ALSO IMPACT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, UH, THAT WOULD NOT GRANTING THIS WOULD AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
UM, IT'S REFRESHING TO SEE THAT, UH, KIND OF SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN DISARMED THROUGH Y'ALL'S WORK AND COMPROMISE.
UM, AND I KNOW KINDA THE RESIDUAL SENTIMENTS ARE FROM NEIGHBORS OF OPPOSITION ARE, IF YOU WANNA GET, YOU SHOULD GO LIVE IN A GATED COMMUNITY OR HOW IS FIRE AND AMBULANCE GONNA GET TO YOUR HOUSE WITH A GATE? AND TO ME THOSE ARE, UM, THOSE ARE LARGE ASKS TO ASK SOMEBODY TO MOVE TO A GATED COMMUNITY FOR SECURITY.
WE LIVE IN AN URBAN CORE, WE LIVE IN THE CITY.
UH, AND I I FEEL LIKE YOU'VE DONE YOUR DUE DILIGENCE, UM, AND WORKED IN THE CITY AND I FEEL LIKE, UM, YOUR PLAN AT SIX FOOT, SIX INCH, UM, NOT PASSING THAT WITH, WITH THE SECURITY THREATS AND THE, THE AUTOMOBILE THEFT WOULD ACTUALLY BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M RECRUITING THIS APPLICATION.
[01:45:02]
OKAY, WE TAKE A VOTE.MS. VICE CHAIR MAY MOTION PASSES.
WE HAVE ONE MORE CASE ON OUR DOCKET.
IT'S CASE BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 24 24 17 WEST 12TH STREET.
UM, OUR BOARD MEMBER SARAH LAMB, UM, WILL NEED TO RECUSE HERSELF FROM THIS CASE.
UM, AND MAY I REQUEST A FIVE MINUTE RECESS, UM, BEFORE WE START THIS CASE? ABSOLUTELY.
SO WE ARE GONNA RECESS, IT'S 2 46 AND WE WILL RECONVENE JUST A LITTLE AFTER 2, 2 50 ISH.
THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY'S PATIENCE.
UM, WE'RE GONNA FINISH UP OUR LAST CASE HERE, BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 24, WHICH IS 24 17 WEST 12TH STREET.
AND AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUS TO THE BREAK, UM, SARAH LAMB WAS GOING TO RECUSE HERSELF FROM THIS CASE, BUT UPON FURTHER REVIEW WITH OUR BOARD ATTORNEY AND UM, FURTHER THINKING ABOUT IT, SHE WILL NOT RECUSE HERSELF THEN I'LL LET HER MAKE A STATEMENT ON THAT BEHALF.
UM, I HAVE ADVISED WITH BOARD ATTORNEY AND THERE IS NOT A TRUE CONFLICT OF INTEREST HERE.
I DO FEEL THAT I, UM, AM ABLE TO PROCEED OBJECTIVELY WITH THIS CASE AND THERE IS NO TRUE CONFLICT HERE.
UH, SO IF, UH, DO WE WANNA SWEAR EVERYBODY IN THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CASE TO, UM, ONLINE AND I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A GOOD WAY TO, SO EVERY IT OPPOSITION AND CAN WE DO ALL OF IT TOGETHER? OKAY.
SO YOU ARE GOING TO BE SPEAKING ON THIS CASE WHETHER YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE ONLINE, IF YOU CAN TURN ON YOUR CAMERAS, IF YOU ARE IN PERSON, IF YOU CAN STAND UP.
UM, IF YOU'RE SPEAKING, I WILL DO THE SWEARING IN ALL AT ONCE.
DO YOU ALL SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
WE'LL START WITH THE APPLICANT, UM, AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR CASE AND IF YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
THE ADDRESS IS 1722 RE STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 1.
UH, WE'RE HERE TODAY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE ZONING ON A 20 BY 20 FOOT PARCEL ON A TRACK OF LAND THAT I REFERRED TO AS THE HAMPTON AND 12TH TRACK.
I WANNA MAKE CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE WE'RE ASKING FOR A REZONING AND YOU KNOW THAT BECAUSE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DOES NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO REZONE PROPERTY.
RATHER, WE'RE HERE TODAY ASKING FOR THE BOARD TO CONFIRM ZONING THAT HAS BEEN ON THAT 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK SINCE 1959 WHEN THE COUNCIL PLACED, UH, COMMERCIAL ZONING ON THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK.
AND YET THE MAP SHOWS THAT IT'S IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
SO THE MAP DOES NOT REFLECT WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL DID IN 1959 AND IT'S CLEAR THAT THE ORDINANCE CONTROLS OVER THE MAP.
SO LET ME SHOW YOU HOW WE GOT INTO THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION.
UM, IF YOU COULD GO TO SLIDE TWO PLEASE.
THIS IS AN OUTLINE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
THE RED LINE REPRESENTS THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES.
THE YELLOW AREA IS, UM, A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY THAT AT ONE POINT WAS ZONED R 0.75 ALONG WITH THIS AREA IN BLUE.
AND AS YOU'RE GONNA FIND OUT IN A SECOND, THAT WHOLE YELLOW AREA IN 1959 WAS REZONED TO COMMERCIAL, INCLUDING THE AREA THAT'S IN BLUE.
ONE NUMBER THAT YOU NEED TO KEEP IN MIND.
AND I SHARED WITH YOU A BOOKLET THAT IS, UM, EVERYTHING THAT'S EXHIBIT C, IT'S IN THERE, IT'S JUST FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE.
AND SO IF YOU WANNA PULL OUT ONE OF THE EXHIBITS AND LOOK AT IT IN HARD COPY, SOME OF THESE ARE EASIER TO READ AND HARD COPY THAN, UH, ELECTRONICALLY.
BUT ONE NUMBER THAT'S CRITICAL TO THIS CASE IS THE LENGTH OF THIS WESTERN BOUNDARY.
JUST KEEP THAT PARTICULAR NUMBER IN MIND BECAUSE IT'S CLOSING TO SEVERAL SLIDES THAT WE'LL FOLLOW.
UM, HOW DID, HOW DID WE GET HERE? THIS IS, THIS IS THE OUTLINE TODAY, BUT HOW DID WE GET TO THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY AND HOW DID WE END UP IN A SITUATION WHERE THIS AREA IN BLUE, 20 BY 20 FOOT IS IN A R 7.5 DISTRICT INSTEAD
[01:50:01]
OF A CR DISTRICT? WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO 1948.WELL, SORRY, THIS IS THE, UM, REGULATORY, THE PART OF THE ORDINANCE THAT'S IN PLAY HERE AND IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT THE CITY CAN CORRECT THE MAP WHEN THE MAP IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE.
IF I CAN DEMONSTRATE TO YOU THAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS THAT THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK IS ZONE COMMERCIAL AND THE MAP SAYS OTHERWISE, THIS SAYS THAT CHIEF PLANNER SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO CORRECT THE MAP IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT, UH, AREA IN BLUE.
THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK CORRECTLY REFLECT WHAT THE COUNCIL DID BACK IN 1959.
THIS IS THE PLAT THAT WAS FILED IN 1948.
THIS WHOLE AREA, INCLUDING TO THE RIGHT HERE IS PART OF WHAT, UH, IS OWNED BY HAMPTON IN 12TH AT THIS POINT WAS OWNED BY THE KESSLER HOUSING CORPORATION.
UM, AND IT LAID THIS OUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THE AREA THAT INCLUDES THE TRACT ISSUE HERE, UH, WAS ZONED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES.
IN 1954, THE KESSLER HOUSING CORPORATION SOLD PART OF THAT PROPERTY THAT WAS FLATTED ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, UM, TO AN INDIVIDUAL, UH, BUT WAS INTERESTING IS, AND THIS IS ANOTHER CRITICAL PART, WHAT THEY SOLD ALSO INCLUDED PART OF LOT SEVEN AND PART OF LOT EIGHT.
ALL THOSE LOTS TO THE LEFT WERE FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.
AND YET IN 1954 WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE KESSLER HOUSING CORPORATION SOLD PART OF LOT SEVEN AND PART OF LOT EIGHT AND THE PART OF LOT SEVEN AND PART OF LOT EIGHT THEY SOLD WAS EXACTLY 20 FEET WIDE.
AND AGAIN, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE BLOW UP HERE, ITS LENGTH WAS 169.5 FEET.
THAT TIES BACK TO THE OUTLINE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE CURRENT TIME.
SO REMEMBER THAT NUMBER 169.5 FEET AND THE FACT WHAT THAT TESLA HOUSING CORPORATION SOLD WAS PART OF LOT SEVEN AND PART OF LOT EIGHT.
SO THEY SOLD THIS AREA OVER HERE THAT WAS ALREADY ZONED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND PART OF LOT SEVEN AND PART OF LOT EIGHT THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.
HERE'S THE 1959 ORDINANCE THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS.
YOU CAN SEE THE PARK THAT'S BEEN BLOWN UP HERE.
UM, AND THE, AND THE STRIP THAT WAS OUTLINED ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE FROM RESIDENTIAL R 7.5 TO COMMERCIAL AND THE PART THAT WAS REZONED.
IT SAYS ATTRACTIVE LAND OUT OF CITY BLOCK 45 67, WHICH IS THE CITY BLOCK WE'RE IN.
AND IT'S, IT INDICATES IT'S 29 FEET OF THE, UM, NORTH LINE OF 12TH STREET.
IF YOU GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE FOR A SECOND, UM, JUST, I JUST WANNA GO ON RECORD AND SAY THAT YOU PAST YOUR FIVE MINUTE MARK, BUT BY NODDING AT EACH OTHER WE'RE GIVING YOU MORE TIME.
I JUST, I'LL TRY AND
I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON RECORD THERE.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF MOVING PARTS ON THIS, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
I'M SURE 12TH STREET IS DOWN HERE.
SO, UM, THE 20 FEET THAT WE SEE HERE IS ON THE NORTH LINE OF 12TH STREET.
SO THE 169 IS THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE OF THE TRACTOR WE SOLD IN 1954.
SO WHEN YOU SEE THE TRACT LAND THAT WAS REZONED, YOU SAY IT THAT THE SAME BLOCK THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IT TALKS ABOUT 29 FEET ON THE NORTH LINE GULF STREET.
THE MORE CRITICAL PART IS THE 169.5 FEET AT THE BOTTOM.
IN OTHER WORDS, IN 1959 THROUGH THIS ACTION, THAT WHOLE STRIP THAT'S 20 FEET WIDE AND 169 FEET LONG WAS REZONED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
SO IT HAD BEEN RESIDENTIAL AND WE REZONED THE COMMERCIAL CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE TRACK.
SO AT THAT POINT, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
THAT'S ALSO DEPICTED ON THIS MAP THAT WAS IN THE CITY ARCHIVE.
UM, MR. KAVANAUGH WORKED WITH ME ON THIS MATTER, UH, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME HE WAS IN THE BASEMENT ON UH, GE EAST JEFFERSON STREET TO FIND THIS PARTICULAR MAP THAT ALSO REFERENCES THE ORDINANCE DOWN HERE.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE WHAT'S CRITICAL HERE, THAT'S THE STRIP THAT WAS REZONED IN THE ORDINANCE.
[01:55:01]
I JUST SHOWED YOU A COUPLE POINTS.ONE IS IT GOES BEYOND THE LOT LINE THAT DIVIDES THIS LOT SEVEN OF LOT EIGHT.
SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE CITY MAP AT THE TIME SHOWED THIS SCRIPT, WHICH WAS REZONED TO COMMERCIAL AS CONTINUING PAST THE LOT LINE THAT DIVIDE SEVEN EIGHT.
RECALL ALSO THAT, UM, THE PLAT THAT WE SHOWED YOU THAT WAS FROM THE CITY SURVEYOR OFFICE HAD OUTLINED WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN 1954.
ALSO SHOWED THAT THE SCRIPT CONTINUED TO PASS THE LOCK LINE AT DIVIDE SEVEN AND EIGHT.
AND AGAIN, ALL OF THAT IS COMMERCIAL.
SO BOTH THE, IF YOU GO BACK A SLIDE PLEASE ONE MORE THERE BE ONE MORE SLIDE BACK.
THE ORDINANCE THEN PROVIDED THAT THAT STRIP WAS COMMERCIAL THAT WAS ON THE MAP THAT I JUST SHOWED YOU.
THE NEXT EVENT IS IN 1965, THE CITY, UM, ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVELY CHANGED ITS ZONING ORDINANCE.
UM, AND THAT WAS THE, THE LAST TIME IT WAS COMPREHENSIVELY CHANGED UNTIL 51 A WAS ADOPTED AT THE TIME THAT THAT CHANGE WAS MAY, THAT ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED THAT ZONING ON THAT PARTICULAR SCRIPT.
THERE WAS, THERE WAS NOTHING IN THAT ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ADDRESSED OR CHANGED THE ZONING ON THIS TRACK.
ALL IT DID WAS, UM, CHANGE IT FROM C ONE TO, AT THE TIME GR ALL IT DID WAS CHANGE THE NAME OF THE ZONING DISTRICT.
THE PROBLEM WAS, IS YOU CAN THINK ABOUT IT IN 1965, THE CITY WAS HAVING TO REDRAW THE MAPS.
THEY COMPLETELY DEVELOPED AN ENTIRELY NEW SET OF MAPS THAT SHOWED THE NEW, UM, THAT SHOWED THE NEW NAMES FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT, BUT WAS SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW WHAT THE COUNCIL HAD DONE PREVIOUS TO THAT.
SO THERE WAS NO, ALL THE COUNCIL ACTION DID IN 65 WAS TO SAY, OKAY, IN THIS CASE WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT FROM C ONE TO GR BUT YOU HAD TO PUT THAT ON A NEW ZONING AND I'LL SHOW YOU WHAT HAPPENED ON THE NEW ZONING MAP.
IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THIS IS THE ZONING MAP THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 1965.
YOU CAN SEE THE GR DESIGNATION THAT HAD BEEN C ONE.
AND AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THERE WERE THOUSANDS OF CHANGES THAT HAD TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE ZONING MAP TO CONFORM IT TO WHAT THE COUNCIL HAD BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST PROBABLY 30 YEARS.
WHAT HAPPENED HERE, AND THIS IS WHERE THE MISTAKE OCCURRED, BUT IT WAS NOT AT ALL APPARENT, IS THAT THEY TIED WHOEVER PUT THE MAP TOGETHER.
INSTEAD OF GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT THE DESCRIPTION FROM THE 19, EXCUSE ME, 59 ORDINANCE, IT SAID IT WAS 169 FEET AND WENT NORTH OF THE LOT.
SEVEN LINE THOUGHT THAT THE UM, PROPERTY LINE WAS RIGHT WHERE LOT SEVEN AND LOT EIGHT MEET.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, HERE IS LOT, UM, SEVEN AND LOT EIGHT.
AND SO THIS LINE LINES UP WITH THE LOT LINE THAT SEPARATES SEVEN AND EIGHT WHEN IN FACT IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE 1959 ORDINANCE, THAT PROPERTY LINE, INCLUDING THE COMMERCIAL ZONING WAS 20 FEET NORTH OF THAT.
SO THIS IS WHEN THE MISTAKE WAS MADE.
BUT THE POINT IS THAT IT'S NOT APPARENT THAT THERE, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE 20 BY CAN THAT AREA.
AND IN FACT WHAT YOU'LL HEAR FROM MR. KAVANAUGH IS THAT FROM 1965 UNTIL 2004 WHEN THE DIGITAL ZONING MAP WAS ADOPTED, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FOCUSED ON TODAY UNTIL 2004, THE CITY ALWAYS TREATED THE ENTIRE TRACK, THE ENTIRE HAMPTON AND 12TH TRACK AS BEING, UH, EITHER GR OR CR.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE BUILDING PERMITS AND THEY ASK FOR THE ZONING, THEY SAY THE UM, 20 BY 20 FOOT PARCEL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE PROPERTY IS OWNED EITHER GR OR CR.
SO THE CITY WAS INTERPRETING THE MAP AS INCLUDING THE 20 BY 20 FOOT AREA.
THERE'S NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK, UM, IS ZONED IN A WAY INCONSISTENT WITH THE 1959 ORDINANCE UNTIL 2004 WHEN THE CITY GOES TO DIGITAL ZONING MAPS.
AND IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
AND IT'S AT THAT POINT, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE ZONING MAP EXPLICITLY SHOWS THE 20 BY 20 FOOT AREA AND INDICATES THAT IT'S IN AN R 7.5 DISTRICT.
[02:00:01]
AS OPPOSED TO BEING IN A CR OR GR DISTRICT, WHEN IN FACT THAT DISTANCE IS 169 FEET AND SHOULD INCLUDE THE GR CR SHOULD INCLUDE THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK.NOW THE CITY, THIS IS SOMETHING WE GOT FROM GIS AND THEIR POSITION WAS, WELL WAIT A SECOND, THIS AREA IN BLUE WAS ACTUALLY R 7.5.
AND WHEN THIS AREA TO THE LEFT, WHICH IS ATHLETIC FIELDS FOR SUN FOOT HIGH SCHOOL, WHEN THAT WAS PUT IN A PD, THIS WAS LEFT ALONE.
THE PD FOR THE SUNSET, UH, HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD DID NOT AFFECT THIS BLUE TRACK.
BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK HAD ALREADY BEEN REZONED TO COMMERCIAL BACK IN 1959.
SO WHAT'S HAPPENED IS THAT THE DIGITAL MAP MADE APPARENT A MISTAKE THAT OCCURRED BACK IN 1965 AND ENDS UP WITH A DIGITAL MAP, NOT INCLUDING THE ENTIRE 169.5 FEET AS COMMERCIAL WAS ON.
AND, AND THAT'S THE ERROR IF, IF THIS DIGITAL MAP IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE 1959 ORDINANCE AND THE ORDINANCE CONTROLS AND THE MAP HAS TO BE CORRECTED.
WHEN 51 A WAS ADOPTED, IT DIDN'T CHANGE THAT 169.5 FEET.
ALL IT DID WAS CHANGE THE DISPARATE NAME FROM GR TO CR.
IT DIDN'T COME IN AND MAKE ANY CHANGE TO THE DECISION THAT THE COUNCIL MADE IN 1959.
SO HERE'S THE TIMELINE REAL QUICKLY.
TO SUMMARIZE, MAY, 1948 PLANNING BY KESSLER HOUSING CORPORATION, BIG HAMPTON AND 12TH TRACK THE WHOLE THING.
MARCH, 1954, IT SELLS WHAT IS NOW THE HAMPTON AND 12TH TRACK.
DECEMBER, 1959, THE PORTION OF THE HAMPTON AND 12TH TRACK IS ON R 0.75, WHICH WAS PART OF LOT SEVEN.
AND A 20 BY 20 FOOT SECTION OF LOT EIGHT IS REZONED COMMERCIAL.
AND PETER WILL GET TO THIS, A BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE ON THE AREA REZONE.
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE ON THE 20 BY 20 FOOT PARCEL 65.
ALL OF HAMPTON 12TH IS, IS ZONED GR BUT MAP USES THE LONG NORTHERN BOUNDARY.
IT IT, IT THOUGHT THAT THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE HAMPTON AND 12TH TRACK WITH THE LOT LINE DIVIDING SEVEN AND EIGHT.
AND IN FACT, THE PROPERTY LINE WAS 20 FEET NORTH OF THAT 2004.
THAT'S THE FIRST TIME THAT THE ZONING MAP CLEARLY IDENTIFIES A TINY PORTION OF HAMPTON AND 12TH AS R 7.5.
AND THERE WAS REALLY NO REASON TO INVESTIGATE THAT UNTIL FEBRUARY OF 2023.
YOU HEARD SOME TALK ABOUT, UH, REZONING EFFORTS.
UM, AND THAT WAS IN 2022, CONCLUDED IN 2023, WE DIDN'T HANDLE THAT.
THAT WAS A, A PROSPECT PURCHASER THAT WAS HANDLING THE REZONING.
UM, THAT REZONING WAS UNSUCCESSFUL.
THE PURCHASER, PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER THOUGHT IT WAS GONNA BE UNCONTROVERSIAL.
IT TURNED OUT TO BE CONTROVERSIAL.
AND SO WHEN THAT WAS DENIED, WE LOOKED AT THIS AGAIN AND SAID, WHY IN THE WORLD IS THERE A 20 BY 20? WHY, WHY ARE WE GOING THROUGH REZONING ALL? WHY IN THE WORLD IS THERE A 20 BY 20 FOOT PARCEL THAT'S ZONED R 7.5? THERE'S NO WAY IT COULD EVER BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
AND AT THAT POINT, I WAS BROUGHT IN AND THEN I BROUGHT IN MR. KAVANAUGH AND WE BEGAN AN INVESTIGATION TO FIGURE OUT WHY THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE CURRENT MAP IS R 7.5.
THAT RESULTED IN US FINDING WHAT I REFER TO AS THE ROSETTA STONE, WHICH IS THE 1959, UM, ORDINANCE THAT HAD REZONED THE ENTIRE STRIP, THE WHOLE 169.5 FEET AS COMMERCIAL.
AND BASED ON THAT, WE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH CITY STAFF, GIS AND, AND MR. BURGESS.
CASEY BURGESS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN OCTOBER AGREED THAT A MISTAKE WAS MADE.
AND THEN IN MARCH OF 2024, UM, THE STAFF CAME BACK AND SAID THEY WERE PUTTING THE CHANGE ON A HOLD.
AND THAT'S WHAT LED US TO THIS PARTICULAR HEARING TO ASK THE BOARD TO CONFIRM THE 1959 ORDINANCE INCLUDES THE ENTIRE STRIP IS COMMERCIAL, AND TO, TO DIRECT THE CHIEF PLANNER TO CORRECT THE MAP TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE, UH, DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO TREAT THAT ENTIRE STRIP AS COMMERCIAL.
SO WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A REZONING, WE'RE ASKING THE BOARD TO CONFIRM AND DIRECT THE CHIEF PLANNER TO MAKE THE MAP CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAD SAID, WHAT, 70 YEARS AGO NOW OR
[02:05:01]
THEREABOUTS.UH, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS AND ANY QUESTIONS OF ME? AND THEN MR. KAVANAUGH WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BUILDING PERMIT SITUATION.
AND IF YOU WANT A REPRESENTATIVE OF HAMPTON AND 12TH IS HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE REZONING EFFORT AND TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND ON THAT, IF YOU FEEL THAT, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TOO.
MS. LAMB, CAN WE PULL UP, UM, MAYBE AS ARIEL OR SITE PLAN OF, OF, THERE'S A BUILDING HERE, CORRECT? WE PULL, PULL UP SOMETHING OTHER THAN JUST THE SURVEY.
DO WE HAVE SOME SORT OF IMAGE OF AERIAL? YOU WANT THE AERIAL MOUNT? SURE.
AND, AND MS. LAMB, MR. KAVANAUGH WILL, WILL BE ABLE TO, I THINK, ADDRESS THAT, BUT, UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WANNA TAKE A LOOK, BUT YES.
MR. KAVANAUGH, COULD I GET MY SLIDES UP PLEASE? GIMME JUST ONE SECOND PLEASE.
AND BY THE WAY, IF THERE'S ANY, ANY OF THOSE EXHIBITS ON THE BOTTOM NOTEBOOK SLAM, IS THERE A WAY TO ENLARGE THAT SO WE CAN SEE IT? PERFECT.
UM, SO WOULD YOU MIND HELPING ME GET ORIENTED HERE? UM, YES.
SO, UM, BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE SURVEY, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS A BUILDING THAT RUNS RIGHT THROUGH THE AREA OF QUESTION.
SO THIS IS THE BUILDING THAT, THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? UM, JUST, UH, THIS IS THE AREA THAT'S THE 20 BY 20.
THAT, UH, IS HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE BASED ON THE MAP.
AND THE SITE IS KIND OF LIKE THIS SHAPE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, ON YOUR MAP, YOU SHOULD HAVE THIS AS THE CANOPY.
AND THIS IS EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THIS IS A SEPARATE SITE.
AND IS THAT A COMMERCIAL BUILDING OR A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING? THIS IS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
AND HOW AT ONE POINT IT WAS A POWER STATION.
SO WHAT ABOUT THAT LITTLE WHERE THE RED GOT COMMERCIAL? THAT'S A, THAT'S A FIRE STATION.
SO IT WAS A, UH, FULL SERVICE GAS STATION BACK IN THE DAY IS LIKE THE ACTUAL GARAGE.
UM, SO IT'S BEEN OPERATING AS A COMMERCIAL USE? YES.
FOR HOW, FOR HOW LONG? UH, AT LEAST TO 50, BACK TO THE FIFTIES.
SO IT HAS NOT CHANGED FROM A COMMERCIAL USE.
SO THE PROPERTY HAS NOT CHANGED COMMERCIAL USE SINCE THE FIFTIES.
AND NOW A TRANSITION TO, UH, MR. KAVANAUGH PRESENTATION.
UH, MY FIRST QUESTION IS THIS, MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT LOT HAS BEEN, UH, GIVEN UNDER SPECIAL USE PERMIT? NO.
UH, WHAT WAS THE LIMITATION OF THE SUP THAT WAS GIVEN? THAT'S ONE.
UH, HAS THE SUP BEEN REVOKED AND, UM, UH, WHEN DOES IT COME UP FOR RENEWAL AND WAS IT RENEWED OR NOT? THEN? SUP I'M NOT AWARE OF AN SUP.
AND, AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I'VE BEEN DOING ANY RESEARCH ON THE, UM, PROPERTY AND, AND HISTORY OF, UH, OF THE PROPERTY.
IT SAYS IN 1965, THE CITY COUNCIL REPLACED THE ZONING IN ORDINANCE UNDER WHICH THE STRIP HAD BEEN REZONED AS C ONE ORDINANCE NUMBER 5 2 3 8, WITH THE NEW ZONING IN ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NUMBER TEN NINE SIX TWO, THAT PRESERVED WITH A SPECIAL PANIC REZONING UNDER THE EARLIER ZONING IN ORDINANCE.
BY RECOGNIZING THESE REZONING AS A SPECIFIC USE PANIC AND, AND EMETT, IT'S ACTUALLY TIED TO CERTAIN NUMBER OF YEARS BECAUSE, UH, BECAUSE OF THAT, YEAH.
THAT WAS A PART OF THE, UH, APPLICANT'S PACKAGE.
YOU CAN ASK, UH, MR. KAVANAUGH OR OKAY.
ABOUT IS IT STILL IN EXISTENCE? WAS IT, HAS IT EVER COME UP FOR RENEWAL? WAS IT RENEWED TO KNOW THAT, IF I MIGHT RESPOND AND SURE.
THE, WHAT HAPPENED IN 1959 IS THAT THE ORDINANCE, THE ZONING
[02:10:01]
ORDINANCE AT THAT TIME PROVIDED A SPECIAL WAY TO A WAY TO REZONE PROPERTY THAT NO LONGER EXISTS.IT WAS NOT A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.
THE TERMS, UM, HAVE CHANGED, WHICH IS THE SPECIAL PERMIT.
IN FACT, WHEN WE MET WITH MR. BURGESS, HE WAS UNAWARE THAT THAT, UH, APPROACH EVEN EXISTED.
SO YOU HAD A UNIQUE APPROACH TO REZO PROPERTY THAT WAS CALLED A SPECIAL PERMIT IN 1965.
THE COUNCIL HAD TO DEAL WITH THOSE SPECIAL PERMITS, WHICH WERE A REZONING, AND THEY DID IT IN THREE, ONE OF THREE WAYS.
THEY EITHER INCORPORATED INTO A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OR THEY CREATED AN SUP, OR THEY SIMPLY, UM, HAD THE PROPERTY DESIGNATED CONSISTENT WITH THE USE THAT WAS THERE.
IT WAS THE THIRD APPROACH THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPTED IN UNDER THE 1965 ORDINANCE, THAT, THAT TOOK AWAY THE SPECIAL PERMIT DESIGNATION AND JUST LEFT THE C ONE IN PLACE.
AND THEN UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WAS, UM, CONNECTED TO GR ZONE.
SO THE, THE 1965 ORDINANCE RECOGNIZED THIS UNIQUE ASPECT OF THE PRIOR ZONING ORDINANCE AND TOOK CARE OF THAT BY, UM, SIMPLY PUTTING THE ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE ACTION THEY TOOK IN 1959.
AND AS PROOF OF THAT IS THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE, EVERY, THE REST OF THE STRIP WAS CONSIDERED GR.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK, UM, HAS TO FOLLOW THE REST OF THE STRIP.
AND SO THE REST OF THE STRIP, THE COUNCIL IDENTIFIED AS GR WITHOUT ANY CONDITIONS ON IT.
USUALLY SUVS WOULD HAVE RESTRICTIONS, TIME RESTRICTIONS, 10 RESTRICTIONS BASED ON THE ZONING.
'CAUSE ZONING CHANGES FROM TIME TO TIME.
HAS THIS COME UP AT ANY POINT FOR RENEWAL? NO, BECAUSE THIS WAS NEVER AN SUP.
SO THE LAND IS STILL TIED TO THAT SUP? NO, THE, THERE IS, THERE IS NO SUP, THERE WAS NEVER AN SUP THAT, THAT, AGAIN, WHAT IS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING IS UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN PLACE PRIOR TO 1965, THERE WAS SOMETHING CALLED A SPECIAL PERMIT.
IT WAS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IS NOW REFERRED TO AS AN SUP.
THERE WERE NO TIME LIMITS ON THE SPECIAL PERMIT.
IT, UH, IT WAS EFFECTIVELY A REZONING OF THAT STRIP IN THE C ONE.
IT WAS NOT, I, I CAN'T REPEAT THIS TOO MANY TIMES.
IT WAS NOT A SPECIFIC OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT THAT DIDN'T EXIST UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN PLACE PRIOR TO 1965.
IT WAS A REZONING OF THE STRIP TO COMMERCIAL WITHOUT ANY TIME.
AND THAT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN 1965.
THEY HAD TO DEAL WITH THE, THOSE SPECIAL PERMITS, AND THEY DID IT IN ONE OF THREE WAYS.
THE THIRD WAY WAS TO SIMPLY IDENTIFY THE ZONING DISTRICT CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT WAS IN PLACE BEFORE.
SO THE 1965 ORDINANCE CONFIRMED THAT THE ENTIRE STRIP WAS COMMERCIAL.
IF, IF THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THE STRIP IS COMMERCIAL, THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK HAS TO BE COMMERCIAL BECAUSE IT'S 169.5 FEET IN LENGTH.
AND THAT'S THE AREA THAT THE COUNCIL REZONED IN 1959.
CAN CITY STAFF CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A SPECIAL USE BETTER? YEAH.
STAFF WILL HAVE TO DO RESEARCH FOR THAT, BUT I THINK THE IMPORTANT FACTOR HERE IS LIKE, THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN USED AS A COMMERCIAL USE THIS PIECE THAT IT'S NOT BEEN USED AS RESIDENTIAL.
SO BASED ON THE, BASED ON THE LIMITED RESEARCH, YES, IT WAS COMMERCIAL BACK AT LEAST INTO THE FIFTIES.
SO I THINK THAT'S MORE IMPORTANT RATHER THAN WHAT IT'S BEEN USED FOR AS A UNDERLYING ZONING AND INTENTION RATHER THAN IT'S NEVER BEEN RESIDENTIAL.
IT'S ALWAYS, SO WHETHER, EVEN IF, IF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAS AN ISSUE HERE, SOCIAL USE IS JUST A PERMIT IS JUST A FACTOR OF, OF A COMMERCIAL USE.
YOU WANT TO FIND A AN SUP WITH A RESIDENTIAL.
SO I THINK IT'S MORE OF THE WHAT THE, WHAT THE USE OF THE LAND HAS BEEN EVEN BEFORE THIS, THE ORDINANCE, THE 1959 ORDINANCE MAP.
BEFORE WE, I MEAN BEFORE WE BREAK DOWN INTO DISCUSSION, WHY DON'T WE HAVE MR. KAVANAUGH COME UP JUST, AND WE'VE GOT A LOT OF SPEAKERS TODAY, SO JUST WANNA KEEP THIS ROLLING.
MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
MY ADDRESS IS 1620 HANLEY DRIVE, DALLAS.
[02:15:01]
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.UM, YOU NEED TO GIVE A BATTERY, UH, SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE ZONING IN 1959, WHICH JIM JUST DISCUSSED, IN MARCH OF 1960, THE OWNER CAME IN AND APPLIED FOR A PERMIT TO BUILD A BUILDING BACK ON THAT CORNER.
AND IN THE LOWER RIGHT, YOU'LL SEE THE, THE, UH, THE DATE, WHICH IS MARCH 16TH, 1960.
IN THE LOOKING FOR IT, LOOKING FOR IT.
BUT, BUT BASICALLY WHEN THEY APPLIED FOR THIS PERMIT, THEY DESCRIBED THE PROPERTY ON THE PERMIT SOMEWHERE THERE THAT SAYS THAT THE, UH, ZONING IS, UH, C UH, COMMERCIAL ONE AND THIS SPECIAL PERMIT IN, IN WATTS SEVEN AND EIGHT, WHICH WAS THE NEW ZONING, IF YOU WILL, AT THE TIME.
THIS IS THE SAME SLIDE YOU SAID, ALL I'VE DONE IS ENLARGED THIS, THE, THE DRAWING THAT WAS ON THAT PERMIT AND THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY'S OVER THERE ON THE RIGHT.
AND WE HAD A 10 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE NORTH END OF OUR PROPERTY AND A TWO FOOT SETBACK ON THE SIDE.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THEY ONLY REQUIRE TWO FOOT SETBACK.
AND THEN THE STREET THERE IS IS 12TH STREET.
ALL WE DID HERE WAS TURN THE, THE DRAWING SO THAT NORTH IS UP ITS SYSTEM AS YOU SEE DRAWINGS WHEN THE NORTH IS UP THE BACK.
WE'VE GOT A 10 FOOT STRIP THAT'S, UH, OUR SETBACK.
WE'VE GOT A TWO FOOT STRIP ON OUR WEST, AND THEN WE HAVE, UH, UH, 12TH STREET THERE ON THE BOTTOM.
IN, WE HAVE A, A SURVEY FROM 2004.
THAT BUILDING'S STILL STANDING, THAT IT HAS A 10 FOOT PER THE SURVEY SETBACK ON THE BACK AND A TWO FOOT SETBACK ON THE WEST SIDE.
AND YOU CAN SEE IN THIS SURVEY, OH, I FOUND IT FROM, OKAY.
UM, SO THIS BUILDING WAS BUILT IN THAT LITTLE STRIP THAT JIM JUST DESCRIBED THAT PASSED THE LINE BETWEEN LOT SEVEN.
AND THEN THIS PIECE WAS IN LOT EIGHT.
SO THEY GOT THE PERMIT FOR THE BUILDING THREE MONTHS AFTER THE ZONING WAS DONE.
SO THE BUILDING IS IN THAT PIECE THAT GOT MIXED UP IN SUBSEQUENT MAPS, BUT, BUT THE BUILDING WAS BUILT.
THIS IS THE AERIAL PHOTO TODAY.
THAT LITTLE PIECE THAT WE'RE DESCRIBING IS BACK THERE.
AND OUR BUILDING, OF COURSE, IS STILL THERE.
THIS IS JUST A PHOTO OF THE BUILDING.
THAT'S THE BUILDING IN THE BACK CORNER THAT YOU CAN'T SEE IS, IS PART OF THAT, IS IN THAT LITTLE PIECE THAT JIM DESCRIBED EARLIER.
OVER THE YEARS, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE BUSINESSES HAVE CHANGED A LITTLE BIT.
SO, UH, THIS IS A, A, UM, UH, CERTIFICATE OF OCC OCCUPANCY.
I CAN'T READ IT REAL WELL HERE, BUT A PROPERTY COURSE IS DESCRIBED AS PART OF LOT SEVEN AND EIGHT.
THE ONLY REASON THEY SAY SEVEN AND EIGHT IS BECAUSE MOST OF THAT STRIP WAS IN SEVEN.
BUT A PART OF THAT STRIP IS THAT LITTLE PIECE THAT'S IN LOT EIGHT.
UH, AND OF COURSE, THE ZONING IS SHOWN IS GR.
SAME STORY, THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS, UH, YOU CAN'T SEE IT VERY WELL, BUT THAT SAYS LOT SEVEN AND EIGHT.
AND THEN OF COURSE THE ZONING IS SH AS DATED AS GR.
THIS I BELIEVE IS 2003 CO ZONING.
NOW CR UH, AND OF COURSE THAT'S OUR SAME BUILDING EVERY FEW YEARS.
UH, OWNERSHIP OF THE BUSINESS IN THE, IN THE, IN THE PROPERTY CHANGES.
I THINK THAT'S THE LAST SLIDE.
TRY TO SEE IF THERE'S ANOTHER ONE.
OH, UH, WHAT HAPPENED WAS WE MET WITH THE CITY STAFF ABOUT JIM AND I DID WITH MR. BURGESS AND, UH, UH, UH, MS. CAMP WHO WAS THE, UH, HEAD WE THOUGHT PERSON IN, IN THE MAPPING SECTION.
AND SHE SAID, UM, UH, SHE WAS AT THE, THE, THE END OF THAT MEETING WAS THAT SHE WAS GOING TO FIX THE MAP, BASICALLY CHANGE THE MAP.
SO, UH, I, AND I'VE KNOWN RHONDA FOREVER, SO I DON'T SEND HER EMAILS.
I JUST RUN BACK AND FORTH AND SEE HOW SHE'S DOING AND SAY, HOW'S OUR DOING? IS IT
[02:20:01]
READY? IS IT READY? IS IT READY? BUT IN, IN, UH, JANUARY THE 16TH, WHICH IS THIS EMAIL I SENT TO RHONDA, I JUST SAID, HI RHONDA, ANY MOVEMENT ON THE MAP CORRECTION ON 12TH AND HAMPTON? THANKS SO MUCH.SHE RESPONDED TWO DAYS LATER, WHICH IS NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UH, HER, HER RESPONSE WAS, UH, THIS IS ON JANUARY THE 18TH, 2024.
I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO POST THIS PROPERTY.
WE'VE HAD FOUR MASSIVE CPC AND COUNCIL NOTIFICATIONS TO PROCESS AND THE ZONING MAP POSTINGS WERE NOT PUSHED OUT TO THE ONLINE ZONING PROPERLY DUE TO TIMING ISSUES.
AS SOON AS THE LAST POSTED FOURTH QUARTER ZONING ORDINANCES ARE CONFIRMED, WE CAN PUSH THE NEW ZONING CHANGES TO THE WEB.
WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN YOUR CORRECTION HAS BEEN ADDRESSED.
KINDEST REGARDS, THAT WAS IN JANUARY.
I WENT UP THERE A FEW MORE TIMES THAT, HEY, IS IT READY? IS IT READY? AND ANSWER WAS WE'RE THEY WERE OVERWHELMED WITH WORK.
RON WAS PRETTY MUCH DOING THIS BY HERSELF.
I THINK THAT'S A FAIR WAY TO SAY IT.
HAD A LOT OF ZONING CASES COME AT THE END OF LAST YEAR.
AND THEN ROUGHLY IN MARCH, AS JIM SAID, UH, THE ANSWER CHANGED.
AND, UH, SO THE ANSWER CHANGED FROM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING IT READY, WE'RE JUST BEHIND.
UH, UH, SO THE DECISION TO CORRECT THE MAP, UH, WAS CHANGED NOW TO, TO NOT CORRECT THE MAP.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
ONE OTHER THING UNRELATED TO WHAT YOU JUST SAW.
I, I KNOW I GAVE, I KNOW I GAVE YOUR OKAY.
YOUR, LET'S TRY AND WRAP IT UP IN LIKE THE NEXT 30 TO 45 SECONDS.
JUST TO STAY 'CAUSE WE'RE OVER THE FIVE MINUTES.
THE QUESTION WITH THE SPECIAL PERMIT IN THE 1950S WHEN YOU REZONED A SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY, THEY CALL IT A SPECIAL PERMIT.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMITS.
IN 1965, WHEN THE CITY REZONED THE ENTIRE CITY, THEY CAME UP WITH THE TERM SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
SOME OF THOSE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR THINGS LIKE DAYCARES AND THAT SORT OF THING BECAME SPECIFIC USE PERMITS.
BUT IN THE FIFTIES WHEN YOU, THEY WOULD JUST SAY APPROVAL IN, IN THE CASE FOR THE CITY, COUNCILMAN 59 SAYS, USED UNDER A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL.
ONE USES THE, SOME OF THOSE WERE CONVERTED TO SPECIFIC USE PERMITS.
SOME WERE CONVERTED TO PLAN DEVELOPMENTS.
MOST OF 'EM ARE JUST CONVERTED TO THE GENERAL ZONING THAT THEY REPRESENTED.
SO THAT'S THE HISTORY OF THE SPECIAL PERMITS.
NOTHING TO DO WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMITS THAT WE ALL NOW KNOW AND LOVE, SO TO SPEAK.
DO WE HAVE ANY MORE SPEAKERS FOR THE CHAIR GABO CASE? YEAH, I, I MAY HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
MR. BROOKS, UH, MR. MR. KAVANAUGH JUST HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT, UM, OUR SEVEN FIVE A ZONING.
UM, DOES R SEVEN FIVE A ZONING REQUIRE STREET FRONTAGE? I DON'T THINK SO, NO.
WOULD YOU EXPECT THE CITY TO HAVE INTENDED TO PRESERVE A TINY STRIP OF RESIDENTIAL ZONING IN A SEA OF COMMERCIAL ZONING? NO.
BUT IF THERE WAS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WAS ZONED RESIDENTIAL, IT'S IN KIND OF, I'M GONNA CALL IT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, UNLESS SOMEONE COMES IN TO ASK FOR CHANGES TO THAT TO BE CHANGED, NOBODY'S GONNA, THE CITY'S NOT GONNA INITIATE A CHANGE UNLESS SOME BODY PUBLIC BODY ASKS THEM TO DO THAT.
BUT GENERALLY, AND IN THIS CASE, THAT PIECE BEYOND THIS, THE REST OF LOT EIGHT, NO ONE HAS EVER COME TO ASK TO CHANGE THAT.
UM, IF THE CITY HAD INTENDED TO PRESERVE SUCH A STRANGE AND SMALL AREA, DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD'VE MADE A SPECIAL, UM, NOTE OF THAT IN THE ORDINANCE TO, TO TO, TO PRESERVE THIS SLIVER? WOULDN'T, WOULDN'T THE CITY HAVE SAID, I KNOW IT SOUNDS CRAZY, BUT WE INTEND THIS TO REMAIN RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE X NO, BECAUSE THE APPLICATION WAS A 20 FOOT, MAYBE 29 FOOT WIDE STRIP, 169 FEET NORTH, AND IT WENT INTO THAT LOT EIGHT, WHICH IS THE PIECE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THEY DIDN'T ACTUALLY DOES AS PART OF LOT EIGHT, BUT EVERYTHING AFTER THAT, ALL THE RECORDS INDICATE PERMITS CO WISE AND OTHERWISE, THIS PROPERTY WAS DESCRIBED AS LOTS SEVEN AND EIGHT.
SO I THINK, I'M TRYING TO AGREE WITH YOU WHAT, WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS I THINK THE CITY, IF THEY INTENDED THIS VERY ODD RESULT, THEY WOULD'VE SAID SOMETHING ABSOLUTELY.
I, MY QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF ON THIS PIECE, UM, THERE'S
[02:25:01]
THIS RESIDUAL PIECE HERE, AND I PUT FURTHER ON WHAT MR. BROOKS IS, IS, UH, QUESTION, UM, DO WE TRADITIONALLY FIND A, A RESIDUAL PIECE OF RESIDENTIAL LAW WITHOUT ANY EASEMENTS OR ACCESS TO SAID, UH, ZONING? UH, YES.AND WE TRADITIONALLY CALL THOSE LANDLOCKED.
SO, BUT WOULD THERE HISTORICALLY JUST ALLOW ZONING FOR RESIDENTIAL LANDLOCK WITHOUT ANY ACCESS? UM, THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT LANDLOCK.
BUT IN TERMS OF LIKE THIS ONE, UM, KIND OF LIKE WHAT MR. KAVANAUGH WAS KIND OF LEADING TO UNTIL SAID, OWNER COMES AND REQUEST A CHANGE, IT'S GOING TO REMAIN WHAT IT WAS.
SO THAT STRIP OF LAND, WHOMEVER OWNS IT, UNLESS THEY COME IN AND SAY, WE WANT TO REZONE THIS TO CR TO A SUP, TO WHATEVER, IT'S GOING TO REMAIN R SEVEN FIVE UNTIL SOMEONE PAYS THE MONEY TO COME IN AND REQUEST A CHANGE OF SOME SORT.
WHAT IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO BUILD ALONG THE PARAMETERS OF R SEVEN FIVE HERE, HOW WOULD THEY ACCESS IT? SO IN THIS SCENARIO, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE NECESSARY STREET FURNITURE.
SO OBVIOUSLY RESIDENTIAL DOES HAVE TO HAVE STREET FRONTAGE.
UM, AND SO IN THIS SCENARIO, THE STREET WAS REMOVED WHEN ALL THE TOM THUMB AND THE SCHOOL AND EVERYTHING THAT WAS DEVELOPED OVER THERE.
BUT AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT MADE IT BECOME LANDLOCKED.
AND SO YOU, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAVE TO NOW TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO DO ANYTHING ELSE WITH IT.
SO THAT 20 FEET THAT YOU OWN, EITHER YOU HAVE TO SELL IT TO THE SCHOOL, SELL IT TO SOME THUMB, SELL IT TO THE BURGER PLACE, KEEP IT FOR YOURSELF.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS ARE AND WE CAN'T FORCE THEM TO GO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
SO UNTIL THEY MAKE AN INITIATIVE TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT, IT REMAINS RSM FIVE.
IS IT SAFE TO SAY THAT, THAT THE INTENTION TO DO SOMETHING WITH THIS IS THE FACT THAT THERE'S A COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT SITS RIGHT ON THIS PIECE? UM, I, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT 'CAUSE I'VE HEARD VARIOUS THEORIES BEHIND THAT.
SO I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO IT.
DO WE HAVE ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS FOR, WE WERE GONNA HAVE, UM, MS. PIIT TALK TO YOU, BUT SHE WAS GONNA TALK ABOUT THE REZONING.
WHICH IS WE, THAT WASN'T US, THAT WAS A PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER.
AND WHAT THAT REZONING DID WAS BRING TO OUR ATTENTION THAT UNBEKNOWNST TO US THAT THERE WAS A 20 BY 20 FOOT PARCEL THAT WAS ZONED R 75.
BEFORE THAT WE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT.
AND THEN WHEN THE ZONING WAS UNSUCCESSFUL, IT GOT US AGAIN ASKING WHY IN THE WORLD IS IT HANGING OUT? AND THAT RESULTED IN OUR INVESTIGATION THAT LED TO US VISITING WITH YOU TODAY.
SO I DON'T, AND AND IF, AND IF YOU'RE, IF, IF THAT WAS GRANTED THAT 20 BY 20 DOES, WOULD THAT HAVE CHANGED THE ZONING DECISION BY THE CPC IF, IF THE REZONING HAD BEEN GRANTED? MM-HMM.
BUT I MEAN, IF, IF THAT LITTLE SECTION THAT IS ZONED R SEVEN FIVE HAD BEEN CHANGED TO, IF, IF THAT WAS NOT A PROBLEM, WOULD THE ZONING DECISION HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT AT THE CPCI? I'M NOT SURE I'M FOLLOWING THAT QUESTION.
IF THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER WANTED THE ENTIRE TRACK TO BE ONE ZONING, BECAUSE IT'S PROBLEMATIC IF YOU OWN A PIECE OF PROPERTY TO HAVE THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY IN DIFFERENT DISTRICTS.
SO THEY HADN'T FOCUSED ON THE FACT THAT THE MAP WAS AN ERROR.
ALL THEY KNEW IS THEY WENT TO THE CITY AND THE CITY TOLD THEM, YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH THIS R 7.5 SECTION.
THEIR KNEE JERK REACTION WAS, WELL, HOW COULD THIS POSSIBLY BE CONTROVERSIAL? THEY FILED A REZONING REQUEST THAT WOULD'VE CONVERTED IT TO CR CONSISTENT WITH THE REST THAT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL.
WHEN THAT WHY? WELL, WELL, UM, IF WE HAD
I DIDN'T HANDLE THE, THE REZONING.
ANOTHER ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER DID.
THERE, THERE WAS A CONCERN, I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE, ABOUT THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROSPECT OF PURCHASER.
AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, THERE WAS COMMUNITY OPPOSITION AND THE COMMUNITY FELT IF THEY COULD STOP THE REZONING, IT WOULD STOP THAT USE THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY NOT UNDER A CONTRACT.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROPOSED USE FOR IT.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CLEAN THINGS UP SO THAT THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO JUST ONE ZONING DISTRICT.
AND AS A RESULT OF THE UNSUCCESSFUL REZONING, PETER AND I WERE BROUGHT IN TO FIND OUT WHY.
AND THAT'S WHAT RESULTED IN US FINDING THE 1959 ORDINANCE PUTTING TOGETHER ALL THAT HISTORY.
[02:30:01]
THAT'S WHY WE'RE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.SO REALLY WHEN THEY WENT TO THE CPC, THEY WERE ASKING TO PUT X, Y, AND Z USE ON IT COMMUNITY OUT COMMUNITY FOLKS SAID, NO, NO, NO.
THE CPC RESPONDED TO THE COMMUNITY AND SAID, YES, I, AND I'M JUST KIND OF PLAYING THIS FORWARD.
I ASSUME THAT IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO TO THE CPC FOR THAT SAME THING AND THE COMMUNITY WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY NO, NO, NO.
AND THE CPC WOULD LISTEN UNLESS THAT LITTLE TRACK OF LAND WAS MAKING A DIFFERENCE FOR THE COMMUNITY.
I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO WELL, THEY, AS LONG AS THEY, AGAIN, IF, IF THE BOARD WERE TO AGREE WITH US THAT THE 20 BY 20 FOOT PARCEL CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE STRIP HAS ALWAYS BEEN ZONED COMMERCIAL, THEN THE MAP WOULD BE CORRECTED.
AND THAT 20 BY 20 FOOT PARCEL WOULD NO LONGER BE IN AN R 7.5 DISTRICT.
IF SOMEBODY CAME IN AND ATTEMPTED TO, TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FOR A DIFFERENT USE THAN WHAT'S ALLOWED IN CR THEN THE COMMUNITY WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO.
AND, AND THE, WHEN THE PERSON WENT FORWARD TO THE CPC, WERE THEY TRYING TO CHANGE IT TO A DIFFERENT USE THAN WHAT THE PROPERTY WAS ALREADY APPROVED FOR? I, I DON'T KNOW.
WHAT THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, AS BEST I CAN TELL, IS THEY ONLY WANTED ONE ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
AND THEY HAD CHECKED WITH, UM, BUILDING INSPECTION AND FOR SOME REASON THE USE THAT THEY WERE PROPOSING CREATED AN ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO 20 BY 20 FOOT PARCEL.
I, I DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT IT DID.
YES, WE DIDN'T HANDLE THE ZONING ZONE.
UM, UH, SO MY QUESTION IS TO STAFF, UM, SINCE WE'VE HAD COS ON THIS PROPERTY AND SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING IS WITHIN A A RIGHT NOW, LET'S CONSIDER A SEPARATE ZONING DISTRICT.
IS THE CURRENT COS CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING BUT COMPLIANT? HOW DOES THAT WORK? UM, MY ASSUMPTION WOULD BE YES, THAT IT'S CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING COMPLIANT.
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? ALL RIGHT, SO WE, DO WE HAVE OTHER SPEAKERS FOR THIS CASE? UH, NO, THE SPEAKERS INSTANT SUPPORT PORT.
SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR OPPOSITION AND WE'LL START WITH THE PEOPLE ONLINE.
MS. LUCY GRA, MS. LUCY GRA, IF YOU CAN PLEASE PROVIDE VIDEO AND AUDIO.
WHY DON'T WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PERSON? I SEE HER ON THERE, BUT SHE DOESN'T HAVE, WHY DON'T WE MOVE ON TO SOMEBODY? IT'S ALREADY HIGHLIGHTED.
MS. ALBERT MATA, PLEASE PROVIDE VIDEO AND AUDIO.
I DO NOT SEE THEM REPRESENTED ON THE BOARD, SO MAYBE LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ONE.
I RESIDE IN DISTRICT ONE, UH, ZIP CODE 7 5 2 2 4.
AND I AM HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST, AND I HOPE IF I GO OVER MY TIME, YOU'LL ALLOW ME THE SAME COURTESY THAT YOU'LL ALLOW THE PRESENTERS.
UM, MS. GABO GABO, I WANTED TO START BY SAYING THAT THE CPC REQUEST TO REZONE THIS SECTION WAS DENIED BECAUSE CHANGING THE SECTION, UH, WOULD ALLOW FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE IS OVERBUILDING OF THE AREA.
THERE'S A LOT OF COMMUNITY OPPOSITION, BUT BASICALLY AT THE, AT THE ROOT OF IT WAS THAT HIS CAR WASH WAS GONNA NEED TO MAXIMIZE EVERY INCH OF SPACE TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE IN THAT SPACE.
AND SO THEY ASKED TO REZONE THIS SO THEY WOULD HAVE ENOUGH SPACE FOR A HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE OR MAYBE THEIR VACUUMS. AND SO THEY WERE ASKING FOR IT TO BE REZONED SO THAT THEY COULD REALLY MAXIMIZE AND OVERBID.
AND THERE WAS A LOT OF COMMUNITY, UM, OPPOSITION.
A LOT OF US HERE WERE PART OF THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT FIRST AND FOREMOST, I SUPPORT THE CITY STAFF'S ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT ZONING AND THAT IT'S CORRECT.
I THINK WE ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER WHAT COMMERCIAL WAS IN THE 1950S AND WHAT IT IS NOW IN THE 1950S.
THESE BUILDINGS THAT YOU SEE, AND I'VE LIVED IN OAK CLIFF ALMOST AS LONG, THEY REFLECTED MOM AND POP SHOPS, GAS STATIONS, CAR WASHES WHOSE OWNERS PROBABLY LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY MAY HAVE LIVED RIGHT THERE ON THAT STREET AND NOT THE LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL USES THAT MIGHT BE ALLOWED TODAY IF YOU AUTHORIZE THIS CHANGE.
WE AS A COMMUNITY ARE RECOGNIZING
[02:35:01]
THIS.AND IT'S, IT'S AMPLIFIED BY THE FACT THAT THIS AREA IS CURRENTLY PART OF AN AUTHORIZED HEARING.
IT'S THE, UM, HAMPTON CLARENDON AND THE RECOMMENDED ZONING CHANGES UNDER THE AUTHORIZED HEARING WOULD ACTUALLY LIMIT COMMERCIAL RETAIL EVEN MORE.
AND IT WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR A DRIVE THROUGH CAR WASH AND IT WOULDN'T ALLOW FOR A DRIVE THROUGH BANKS OR, UM, UM, EVEN FOOD PLACES.
SO THERE'S A LOT MORE LIMITATIONS IF THE ZONING CHANGES, SAY FOR EXAMPLE, FROM CR TO WMU THREE.
AND THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW.
SO THERE IS SOME QUESTION THAT THIS ACTION RIGHT NOW, AT THIS TIME IS AN, IS AN EFFORT TO CIRCUMVENT THE AUTHORIZED HEARING PROCESS AND TO MAKE A FAVORABLE CHANGE FOR THE POTENTIAL SALE OF THIS PROPERTY TO SOMEBODY WHO MAY WANT TO MAX BUILD.
UM, SOME OF THE O OPPOSITION HAD TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THERE'S A SCHOOL ACROSS THE STREET.
IT'S A, IT'S A VERY BUSY INTERSECTION.
UH, THERE WAS OPPOSITION THAT WE CAN'T REALLY SUSTAIN ANY MORE TRAFFIC AT THAT CORNER.
AND THAT A CAR WASH, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THAT WAS, WOULD MEAN THAT PEOPLE WOULD END UP IN THE STREETS WAITING TO GET THEIR CARS WASHED.
THERE WAS ANOTHER CONCERN THAT, UM, WE WOULD, THAT THIS COULD RESULT IN THE LOSS OF CURRENT AND SMALL BUSINESSES THAT PROBABLY ARE MORE REFLECTIVE OF THE 1950S MOM AND POP SHOPS, WHICH INCLUDES A CAR WASH AMONGST OTHER THINGS.
UM, SO, UM, AND DURING THAT OPPOSITION PROCESS, WE HAD A, AN OR, UH, A CHANGE.ORG PETITION WITH OVER 900 SIGNATURES.
SO I'VE TRIED TO SUM UP WHAT THE OPPOSITION WAS.
I'VE TRIED TO SHARE WITH YOU WHAT I BELIEVE THE CURRENT USE OF THE SPACE IS REALLY CONSISTENT WITH PROBABLY WHAT THE INTENT OF THE 1950 ZONING WAS, IF YOU WERE GONNA SAY THAT THAT IS IS IS PREFERABLE.
BUT I ALSO WOULD SAY I AGREE WITH WHAT THE CITY STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED FIRST, UH, BASED ON THEIR EXTENSIVE RESEARCH OF, OF ALL OF THE ORDINANCES, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT THEY'RE REFERENCING IN THE 1980S.
UM, SO I RE I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR TIME AND YOUR EFFORT, AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU DENY, DENY THIS REQUEST AT LEAST UNTIL OUR AUTHORIZED HEARING PROCESS IS DONE TO SEE TRULY WHAT THE WILL OF THE COMMUNITY IS.
THANK YOU, MS. CHRISTINE HOPKINS.
I LIVE IN DISTRICT ONE AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE WEST OAK CLIFF COALITION AND THE COMMUNITY TO OPPOSE, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REQUEST THE ZONING OF R SEVEN FIVE OF THAT 20 BY 20 FOOT SQUARE IS NOT A MISTAKE.
THAT IS WHY THE OWNER AND DEVELOPER WENT TO THE CPC TO TRY TO GET IT REZONED FIRST.
THEY FAILED THERE AND NOW THEY ARE COMING UP WITH CREATIVE LEGAL ARGUMENTS, LOOKING AT HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS, TRYING TO, UH, GLEAN AN INTENT FROM THEM.
BUT I WOULD NOTE THAT WHAT HAPPENED BACK IN 1959, THE CITY COUNCIL BACK THEN WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE WERE SPECIAL CONDITIONS PLACED ON THOSE C ONE COMMERCIAL USES AND THAT IT WAS A SPECIAL PERMIT THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT TO ME THAN THE CITY COUNCIL IN 1959 DECIDING TO PERMANENTLY CHANGE THE ZONING AND ALLOW IT NO MATTER WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE OR WHAT THE USES WERE.
THEN IN 1965, HOLLAND AND KNIGHT'S LETTER TO, IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION ACTUALLY ADMITS ON PAGE THREE THAT IN 1965, THAT 20 BY 20 FOOT LOT WAS NOT REZONED TO GR IT WAS IN FACT LEFT AS R SEVEN FIVE ON THE OFFICIAL MAP AT THAT TIME.
SO THERE WAS NO ZONING CHANGE TO GR BACK IN 1965.
AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL IS, UH, CITY STAFF, SORRY, IS CORRECT IN THEIR MEMO THAT WHAT IS CONTROLLING IS WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL DID IN 1989 WHEN CHAPTER 51 A OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE WASN'T ENAC ENACTED AND BOUNDARIES WERE SET AT THAT TIME.
THE BOUNDARIES WERE SET AT THAT TIME FOR THAT 20 FOOT BY 20 FOOT PARCEL AS R SEVEN FIVE.
UM, THE COMMUNITY IS ALSO CONCERNED THAT THERE IS A MEMBER WHO FELT SHE HAD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND WAS GOING TO RECUSE HERSELF AND DECIDED NOT TO AND IS NOW SEEMINGLY A PROPONENT OF THE APPLICANT, UM, IN THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEING ASKED.
AND THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT CONFLICT OF INTEREST WAS OR WHETHER IT WAS OR WAS NOT A BONAFIDE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BUT THE FACT THAT A MEMBER FELT THAT THEY WERE GONNA RECUSE THEMSELVES AND THEN DIDN'T IS VERY CONCERNING TO THE COMMUNITY.
UM, WE DO NOT, UH, BELIEVE THAT THIS IS 20 FOOT BY 20 FOOT, UH, R SEVEN FIVE ZONING THAT ANYTHING CAN BE, BE, UM, GLEANED
[02:40:01]
INTO THE INTENT OF THE PAST CITY COUNCIL'S ACTIONS OTHER THAN WHAT WAS ACTUALLY ON PAPER.AND WHAT IS ON PAPER IS BACK IN 1959, THERE WERE SPECIAL CONDITIONS PLACED ON IT.
IN 1965, IT WAS LEFT AS R 75 AND IN 1985 IT WAS LEFT AS R 75.
AND WHEN THEY SAY THAT THE MISTAKE BECAME APPARENT IN 2004, WELL IN 2010, THERE WAS A PD PROCESS WHERE THEY COULD HAVE GOTTEN THAT CORRECTED AND THEY DIDN'T.
SO IT REMAINS R 75 TO THIS DAY AND CITY STAFF IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ABOUT THAT IN THE MEMO THAT THEY WROTE.
I I MAY HAVE MISSED IT, BUT WHAT IS THE MEMO THAT CITY STAFF WROTE ON THIS? I DON'T THINK Y'ALL SEE, HAVE Y'ALL SEEN IT? I CAN.
I SEE THAT MEMO THAT CITY STAFF WROTE IT WAS A PART OF THE PACKAGE, BUT BRITTANY TER IS ONLINE AND SHE ACTUALLY DID THE MEMO AND SHE CAN BRING IT UP AS WELL.
SO THAT WOULD BE SUPER HELPFUL.
I DON'T, SHE'S AVAILABLE ONLINE.
I DON'T HAVE I MISSED THAT MEMO.
UM, CAN WE CALL THE NEXT SPEAKER? IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS SO FAR THAT WE HAVE ONLINE? YES, I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
THIS WAS FOR THE FIRST SPEAKER.
AND FORGIVE ME FOR, UM, NOT HAVING YOUR NAME DOWN HERE, UH, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IT WAS MENTIONED ABOUT THE 19, UM, IS MISS, UH, ALAMEDA THERE, YOU WERE MENTIONING ABOUT THE, THE COMMERCIAL CONTEXT OF THE 1950S.
WHERE ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE YOURSELF AND THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS WERE WANTING TO KEEP THIS PARCEL IN CONTEXT WITH THE COMMERCIAL CONTEXT OF THE 1950S? DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY? UM, WELL I GUESS MY POINT IS THAT IF, IF WE LOOK BACK, 'CAUSE WE'RE REFERENCING WHEN THIS ZONING WAS CREATED BACK THEN, YOU KNOW, WE HAD AUTO SHOPS AND OIL CHANGE SHOPS AND CAR WASHES, BUT THEY WEREN'T THE HUGE, THEY WEREN'T A, A COMMERCIAL LIKE A A TODAY, A 19 20 24 CAR WASH THAT HAS TO USE EVERY SINGLE INCH OF THAT PROPERTY IN ORDER TO BE WITHIN CODE.
AND SO MY POINT IS THAT THE, THE BUILDINGS THAT WERE BUILT IN THE FIFTIES THAT ARE THERE NOW, UM, ARE MORE, ARE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE USE THAT MEETS THE COMMUNITY'S NEEDS.
UM, AND ALSO AS A RESULT OF AUTHORIZED HEARING RIGHT NOW, I BELIEVE WHAT WE'RE ALREADY HEARING FROM THE COMMUNITY IS THAT WE WANNA KEEP THINGS SMALLER SCALE AND WE DO WANT TO AVOID LARGE BOX COMMERCIAL ENTITIES.
YES, YES, THAT CLEARS UP MY QUESTION.
AND THEN THE QUESTION FOR MS. HOPKINS, YOU SAID THE ORGANIZATION THAT YOU'RE WITH IS THE WEST OAK CLIFF? I DIDN'T QUITE CATCH THE TITLE.
AND THEN, UM, DOES THIS, DOES THIS SECTION OF THE CITY, DOES THIS FALL UNDER WHERE THE, THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN WAS PUT INTO PLACE MAYBE LIKE A YEAR OR TWO AGO? OR IS THIS A DIFFERENT, UM, ORGANIZATION? YES, IT IS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN AND ONE OF THE AUTHORIZED HEARINGS THAT'S COMING OUT OF THAT, WHICH IS THE CLAMPTON HERNDON HAMPTON CLARENDON AUTHORIZED HEARING IT IS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THAT AUTHORIZED HEARING AS WELL.
UM, CAN WE HAVE CITY STAFF, A PARTICULAR BOARD ATTORNEY, UH, CLARIFY EXACTLY WHAT PARAMETERS THAT THIS PANEL HAS TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHEN IT COMES TO THIS? UH, IT, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S KINDA A SENTIMENT THAT THIS FEELS LIKE IT'S A ALMOST LIKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND, AND THIS IS A REZONE CASE, BUT I WOULD, CAN YOU CLARIFY EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT WE ARE, UH, HERE TO DETERMINE AND WHAT THE STANDARD IS, IF ANY, AS TO THE DECISIONS WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US? YES, YOU ARE TO DETERMINE WHAT YOU'RE INTERPRETING THE ZONING MAP OF WHAT THE ZONE IS, WHETHER IT'S R SEVEN FIVE, SINGLE FAMILY OR CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT, AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SHALL DETERMINE THE BOUNDARY BY INTERPRETING THE OFFICIAL ZONING DISTRICT MAP AND ORDINANCES AMENDING THE MAP.
SO IT'S, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE MAP AND THE ORDINANCES TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
SO, UM, I GUESS MY OTHER QUESTION IS THEN DO WE TAKE IN CONSIDERATION SOME OF THESE OTHER, LIKE I I JUST, THERE'S OTHER KIND OF LIKE A WEST OAK CLIFF PLANS AND, AND TENSIONS OF KIND OF A GREATER AREA MAP.
ARE THOSE THINGS WE CAN TAKE IN CONSIDERATION? WHAT IS, WHAT IS OUR SHEER FOCUS HERE? NO, IT'S THE ZONING MAP AND THE ORDINANCES AMENDING THE MAP BECAUSE PLANS ARE JUST PLANS.
IT'S LIKE IT SERVES AS A GUIDING DOCUMENT, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT CITY COUNCIL ULTIMATELY MADE A DECISION ON.
IT'S THE ORDINANCES THAT WERE PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL THAT ZONED THAT PROPERTY.
SO THERE IS A DISCREPANCY OF WHAT ORDINANCE TO USE.
THE ONES THAT ARE, WERE PRESENTED IN THE TODAY'S STAFF MEMO OR THE ONES THAT WERE PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT.
UH, WHAT YOU THINK YOU, HOW YOU SHOULD INTERPRET THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY BASED OFF
[02:45:01]
OF THOSE ORDINANCES ARE THE PAST AND THE MAPS THAT WERE SHOWN, THERE'S A REQUEST FROM ONE OF THE SPEAKERS FOR US TO POTENTIALLY HOLD THIS OVER WHILE THEY DETERMINE A ZONING PLAN OR A RETAIL PLAN FOR THIS CORRIDOR.IS THAT IN OUR PURVIEW? IS THAT SOMETHING WE NEED TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION? I GET PLANS ARE DIS GUIDING DOCUMENTS.
THEY'RE NOT ORDINANCES THAT WERE PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL THAT ESTABLISHED THE ZONING FOR THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
I THINK WE DEFINITELY NEED TO SEE THE STAFF MEMO, WHICH I HAVE NOT SEEN.
UH UH, IT'S JUST KIND, SHE'S BRINGING IT UP NOW.
UH, WE WENT TO THE NEXT, UH, PRESSING ONLINE, BUT SHE'S AVAILABLE.
I CAN, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE MEMO.
YES, SHE HAS, BRITTANY HAS EVERYTHING WE CAN JUST, I MEAN I JUST, I HAVEN'T, DID Y'ALL SEE IT? DID I, AM I COMPLETELY PAGE THREE 18 OF THE DOCKET? IT'S WHAT PAGE THREE 18 OF THE DOCKET IS, IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND A MEMO TO BE.
AND LIKE I SAID, BRITTANY IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS TO THE DOC DOCUMENTATION PRESENT.
AND I GUESS LET ME, CAN I, CAN I TAKE A MOMENT AND READ THIS BECAUSE I SOMEHOW MISSED THIS.
CAN I, I'M GONNA TAKE A RECESS FOR JUST A FEW MINUTES AND READ THIS.
I SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER DID NOT SEE, THIS DID NOT FEEL LIKE I WAS BRIEFED ON IT.
SO I'M, OR IS THAT OKAY? ONE TO 12 OR FIVE MINUTES? I'M GONNA CALL A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.
SO WE WILL RECONVENE THE MEETING AT 4 0 2.
UM, I THINK FOR, FOR ME, I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE FOR BRITTANY TO KINDA GIVE US A REVIEW OF THIS MEMO AND SOME OF HER THOUGHTS.
UM, AND THEN WE CAN GO BACK TO THE UM, APPLICANT AND I KNOW MS. LAMB WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY, UM, THE RECUSAL PIECE.
SO WE'LL START WITH THAT AND THEN WE'LL CONTINUE TO GO THROUGH THE OPPOSITION IF Y'ALL ARE OKAY WITH THAT.
OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR FROM BRITTANY BEFORE WE HEAR THE REST OF THE OPPOSITION? YES, I WOULD WANT SOME CLARIFICATION FROM BRITTANY OR, BUT BEFORE WE FINISH THE OPPOSITION'S, UM, STATEMENTS, I'M OKAY EITHER WAY, ALTHOUGH LISTEN, OKAY, SO WE'LL HEAR FROM SARAH TO CLARIFY HER RECUSAL, WE'LL HEAR FROM BRITTANY TO GIVE THE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE AND THEN WE WILL FINISH WITH OUR OPPOSITION.
SO IF YOU GUYS CAN JUST HANG TIGHT, I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT ALL THE INFORMATION.
UM, AS A BOARD MEMBER, I TAKE MY JOB VERY SERIOUSLY.
UM, AND I ALWAYS APPROACH CASES OBJECTIVELY.
UM, I HAD ADVISED I HAD PUT INITIALLY THOUGHT THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, UM, AND I ADVISED OUR BOARD ATTORNEY AND WE CAME TO THE AGREEMENT THAT THERE WAS NOT IN FACT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
AND SO THAT IS WHY I AM REMAINING HEARING THIS CASE.
I DO FEEL LIKE I CAN, CAN AND WILL HEAR THIS CASE OBJECTIVELY.
AND THAT'S ALL I'M GONNA SAY ON THIS MATTER.
AND BRITTANY, IF YOU ARE ONLINE, IF YOU CAN KIND OF WALK US THROUGH YOUR MEMO AND SOME OF YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS, WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
OUR CULTURE, I'M THE GIS ANALYST, UM, BRITTANY, CAN YOU PROVIDE OH, OKAY, I SEE YOU.
UM, SO I'M A GIS ANALYST THREE WITH THE, UH, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
AND I, UM, LOOKED INTO THIS MATTER AND WROTE A MEMO TO, UM, MY OTHER STAFF MEMBERS, UH, WHO ARE QUESTIONING IT THAT, UH, WHAT I FOUND IS THAT THE ONLY ORDINANCE, THE THE MOST RECENT ORDINANCE IS THE CHAPTER 51, A ESTABLISHING ORDINANCE, UH, WHICH I WENT AND GOT A COPY OF AND PROVIDED A COPY OF THAT MAP, UM, SHOWING THE SUBJECT SITE TO THE APPLICANT.
AND WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE TO ME IS THAT THE LINE, THE DISTRICT LINE BETWEEN, UM, WAS FOLLOWING THAT, THAT LINE BETWEEN LOT SEVEN AND EIGHT, IT WAS STRAIGHT ACROSS AND IT DID NOT GO UP ANY TO REFLECT THE 20 FOOT.
UM, AND PRO ZONING LINES DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW PROPERTY LINES.
UM, ALL OF THESE LINES WERE HAND DRAWN BY MAP, UM, WITH NO OFFICIAL MEETS AND BOUNDS EXHIBITS, UM, TO SPECIFY DISTANCES OR ANYTHING.
UM, SO ALL I HAVE TO GO OFF OF IS THE MOST RECENT ORDINANCE, UM, WHICH AMENDED THE ZONING DISTRICT LINES, WHICH WAS THE ORDINANCE WHICH, UM, ESTABLISHED CHAPTER 51 A, IT'S THE MOST RECENT ORDINANCE FOR THIS SITE.
[02:50:01]
HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING ELSE SINCE THEN.SO THERE SHOULD, THERE ARE NO ZONING CHANGES TO BE REFLECTED ON THE LINES AND I FELT LIKE THE WAY THAT THE LINES WERE DISPLAYED ON THE CURRENT GIS MAP LOOKED THE SAME AS THEY DID ON THE CHAPTER 51 A MAP.
SO LIKE WHERE THE, UM, I GUESS THE AUTO MECHANIC SHOP IS THAT'S, IT'S OBVIOUSLY BUILT INTO THAT 20 BY 20 PARCEL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IS THAT WHY THERE WAS A SPECIAL PERMIT ISSUED TO ALLOW THAT BUILDING TO BE, UM, BACK IN, I GUESS IT WAS 1959? IS THAT, UM, IS THAT, IS THAT HOW THAT BUILDING CAME TO BE IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA WITH THAT SPECIAL PERMIT FROM WAY BACK WHEN? I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
DO DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR BRITTANY? YES, I DO.
UM, YOU, UM, SO JUST, UM, BASED ON YOUR MEMO BRITTANY, AND THEN ALSO WHAT YOU JUST SAID, I'M STILL TRYING TO JUST GET JUST AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE AND PLEASE EXPLAIN IT TO ME IF I'M MISSING THE POINT HERE.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE REFERENCING THE CHAPTER 51 A AND THEN ALSO IN YOUR MEMO YOU, UM, STATED ORDINANCE 19 4 5 5, THAT IT IS ENFORCING CURRENT BOUNDARIES, THAT'S THE MOST RECENT THAT WE HAVE ON RECORD.
SO IS THAT SHOWING THAT THE, THAT THE, THE CURRENT ZEROING THAT WE DO SEE IS THAT OF THE R 7.5 A? YES, IT SHOWED THE R 7.5 A FOLLOWING THE LOT LINES OF LOT SEVEN AND EIGHT, NOT THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES.
YEAH, SO I'M LOOKING AT THE, UH, ONE OF THE SURVEYS HERE.
SO LOT SEVEN EIGHT, THAT'S ONE THAT RUNS AT LEAST FROM THE PLANT HERE THAT RUNS EAST WEST.
YEAH, WE'RE, I GUESS IT IS, IT'S KINDA LIKE CLEAR AS MODEST RIGHT NOW.
SORRY, THAT'S, UM, MAYBE YOU CAN ELABORATE.
I GUESS YOUR QUESTION IS, IS IT DOESN'T ALIGN WITH LOT SEVEN AND EIGHT.
IT, IT EXTENDS ABOVE WHERE LOT SEVEN AND EIGHT WOULD BE RIGHT BY 20 FEET BY 20 FEET.
THE, THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES DO THE, THE WAY THAT THE LINE WAS DRAWN ON THE MAP APPEARS AS ONE STRAIGHT LINE FOLLOWING DO EAST, THERE'S NO FOLLOWING THE LOT LINES HERE, THEN UP 20 FEET THEN ACROSS, IT'S JUST FOLLOWING STRAIGHT ACROSS.
THAT'S HOW I INTERPRETED THE ZONING MAPS.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS HOW DO WE GET A COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON THERE ON AN R SEVEN FIVE LOT? I, THIS IS NOT A NEW BUILDING.
I GUESS I, I MEAN I, I TRULY, I'M CURIOUS BECAUSE I I UNDERS, I MEAN I'M LOOKING AT THE OLD MAPS, I'M LOOKING AT THE DIGITAL MAPS.
THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN HERE SINCE THE FIFTIES WE'VE BEEN GIVING COS I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF, IF THIS WAS ALWAYS SUPPOSED TO BE R SEVEN FIVE, HOW DO WE HAVE A COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON HERE? YEAH.
IS THAT, IF THAT'S A QUESTION FOR ME, I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RESPOND TO THAT.
I AM NOT, UM, I DON'T WORK IN PERMITTING.
I AM ONLY THE STEWARD OF THE ZONING MAP, SO I DON'T KNOW IF AN OTHER STAFF MEMBER CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
AND I I FOR ME, JUST TO CLARIFY, OH, GO AHEAD.
SO ONE EXPLANATION, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS THE EXPLANATION.
ONE EXPLANATION WHICH WE'VE SAID, UM, THROUGHOUT IS ZONING LINES DO NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW PROPERTY LINES.
AND SO IN THIS SCENARIO, UM, THE ZONING LINE IN THIS CASE COULD IN FACT, UH, CUT ACROSS A PROPERTY, CUT THROUGH A HOUSE, CUT THROUGH A PROPERTY, UH, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
SO THAT ZONING LINE, DEPENDING ON WHERE IT FALLS, DOES NOT NECESSARILY ALIGN WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP LINES.
AND THOSE ARE TWO INDEPENDENT SITUATIONS.
AND SO THAT KIND OF COULD, COULD SOMEWHAT ANSWER WHY THE LINES WERE DRAWN BACK IN THE SIXTIES.
I WAS, I WASN'T BORN TO THE SEVENTIES, SO I CAN'T, THAT WASN'T MY PREVIOUS LIFE THAT I WAS A PEN DURING THAT TIME PERIOD.
BUT, UH, BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION THEN IS WHAT IF, IF THE R THE ZONING ON THAT PIECE WAS R SEVEN FIVE OR EQUIVALENT BACK WHEN THIS BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED, IS IT IN YOUR OPINION THAT THE, THE CITY OF DALLAS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO CONSTRUCT A COMMERCIAL USE ON A RESIDENTIAL ZONING? I, I, I WOULD NOT ANSWER HOW PERMITS WERE ISSUED OR NOT ISSUED BACK
[02:55:01]
IN THE SIXTIES BECAUSE MINDSETS AND PROCESSES WERE DONE TOTALLY DIFFERENT PRIOR TO THE WAY THAT WE HANDLE LAWSUITS TODAY.AND SO PEOPLE DID HANDSHAKE DEALS BACK THEN THAT WERE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU WOULD DO TODAY.
SO IT WOULD BE, UM, NOT FAIR TO EITHER SIDE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION TO SAY THAT I GUESS WE'RE JUST, I MEAN THE, THE QUESTION BEFORE US HERE IS THE MAP, HOW IT WAS DRAWN, WHETHER WHEN WE HAD THE HARD MAP AND THEN IT MOVED TO DIGITAL, WHETHER THERE WAS AN ERROR IN HOW IT WAS INTERPRETED.
UM, AND THEN I GUESS WE ALSO HAVE TO USE WHAT IS ON THE PROPERTY AS MAYBE POTENTIALLY INTENTION OF, OF TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS IN REGARDS TO WHAT THE INTENT OF THIS PARCEL, THIS 20 BY 20 PIECE IS.
AND THEN THIS IS JUST A WRAP UP MY QUESTION.
I THINK I'VE GOTTEN TO THE POINT OF CLARIFICATION AND UM, BRITTANY KIND OF COMING BACK TO YOU AND ALSO, YES, THIS WAS BEFORE MY LIFE.
I WAS HAD A PREVIOUS LIFE BEFORE THIS TOO, BUT, SO IF WE'RE USING THE ORDINANCE OF, UH, 9 1 9 4 5 5, THEN WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, AND I COMPLETELY AM UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE ZONING LINES SO THAT THESE ZONING LINES SAY R 7.5 A, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT WAS MY INTERPRETATION.
AND THEN THE ORDINANCE THAT'S IN PLACE NOW IS SAYING THAT THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE THE PROPERTY LINES THAT WE GO BY AS OF 2024.
THE ZONING LINES, NOT THE PROPERTY LINES.
THAT'S, THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS.
THERE HAVE BEEN, THERE HAVE BEEN NO ADDITIONAL ORDINANCES AMENDING THIS SPECIFIC, UM, LINE SINCE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CHAPTER 51 A.
I'M, UM, OKAY, SO NOW WE WILL, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR BRITTANY? OKAY, SO LET'S CONTINUE TO MOVE ON THROUGH OUR OPPOSITION SPEAKERS.
AND I KNOW YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP, BUT WE CAN'T TAKE QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE.
YOU CAN SPEAK YOUR PIECE WHEN YOU COME UP TO, YEAH.
MR. ALBERT MATA, IF YOU CAN PLEASE PROVIDE VIDEO AND AUDIO.
HEY, CAN YOU SEE ME? YES, PLEASE PROCEED.
MY NAME IS ALBER MARTHA, I LIVE AT 1 0 1 WEST DAVIS STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS.
UM, I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OF THIS AND I KNOW THERE'S LOTS OF TECHNICALITIES AND, UM, THE APPLICANTS MAY PROPOSE AND IT MAY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS NOT TECHNICALLY IS ZONING CHANGE AND THAT MIGHT TECHNICALLY BE CORRECT, BUT IN EFFECT AND AN APPLICATION, IT DOES APPEAR THAT THIS WOULD BE A ZONE OF CHANGE.
UH, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I AM, UM, OPPOSED TO, TO THE SUBMISSION OF THIS HEARING.
UM, ADDITIONALLY, UM, THIS AREA IS SLATED TO HAVE ITS ZONING CHANGE VERY SOON.
IT IS, UM, SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORIZED HEARING THAT IS CURRENTLY IN PROCESS.
UH, THAT HAS BEEN, UM, GOING THROUGH PUBLIC COMMUNITY MEETINGS, UH, AT LEAST TWO SO FAR WITH MORE ON THE WAY.
AND CITY STAFF HAS ALREADY SUBMITTED NEW ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WILL IMPACT THESE LOTS AND THAT IS EXPECTED SOMETIME WITHIN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS.
SO IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE HEARING TODAY IS AN ATTEMPT TO KIND OF PREEMPT THE RESULTS OF THE AUTHORIZED HEARING AND THE RESULTS OF THE AUTHORIZED HEARING ARE DONE WITH SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY INPUT, NOT JUST THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED HEARING, BUT THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN KNOWN AS THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN AND THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE IT, ALTHOUGH IT IS A PLAN, IT IS AN AREA PLAN, IT IS AN APPENDIX TO THE CITY OF DALLAS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IT IS, AND IT WAS ADOPTED VIA ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AND IT CAN BE FOUND IN THE CITY OF DALLAS'S DEVELOPMENT CODE ACCORDING TO THE STATE OF TEXAS, UH, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, UM, TITLE VII SUBTITLE, A CHAPTER TWO 11.
UM, UM, ZONING REGULATIONS MUST COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND ACCORDING TO THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN, WHICH IS PART OF THE CITY OF DALLAS' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAKING AN EFFECT, THE CR CHANGE WOULD BE, UM, IN CONFLICT WITH THE VISION THAT HAS BEEN LAID OUT IN THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
UM, SO THESE ARE SOME OF THE REASONS WHY I AM OPPOSED.
[03:00:01]
UM, ADDITIONALLY, I, I THINK I LIKE TO REVIEW OR, OR JUST ASK FOR REVIEW OF THE 1989 MAP, UM, THAT WAS PRESENTED BY I BELIEVE MS. BRITTANY.UM, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD TAKE AN ADDITIONAL LOOK AT, BUT THAT CONCLUDES MY, MY COMMENTS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SPEAKER.
UM, MS. LUCY
VICTORIA NEAR PASS, MR. J FIGUEROA.
MY NAME IS CARO FIGUEROA, UH, 2220 WEST CLARENDON DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS.
UH, ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, MYSELF AND THE COMMUNITY FA AGAINST THE ZONING CHANGE FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE, IN THE PAST WE COLLECTED OVER 900 SIGNATURES IN SUPPORT AGAINST THIS CHANGE IN SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGING THE ZONING.
SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ZONING CHANGE WAS DENIED IN CPC.
WE KNOW THAT FOR THIS BOARD IT MIGHT SEEM LIKE A SMALL ZONING CHANGE, BUT THERE IS A HISTORY THAT THIS BOARD SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.
A SMALL, A SMALL ZONING CHANGE LIKE THIS WOULD LEAD TO DETRIMENTAL NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THIS COMMUNITY, CHANGES THAT WOULD COME WITH NO COMMUNITY INPUT.
TWO YEARS AGO, THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN WAS PASSED WITH A LOT OF COMMUNITY INPUT AND WE ARE NOW IN THE PROCESS OF THE AUTHORIZED HEARING PORTION OF THE ZONING CHANGES.
SO THIS PROPERTY WILL GO THROUGH ZONING CHANGES IN THE FUTURE, FOLLOWING STANDARDS AND DESIRES OF THE COMMUNITY.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS TODAY, ANY ZONING CHANGE TO THAT AREA SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN.
CITY STAFF HAS ALSO SAID THAT THIS PIECE OF LAND IS ZONED CORRECTLY ACCORDING TO ORDINANCES PASSED IN 1989, THAT ESTABLISHED CHAPTER FIVE ONE A OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT HAS SET THE BOUNDARIES AND REPLACED AND OVERRULED ANY PRIOR ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM THE 1950S.
SO THIS IS WHAT THIS PANEL SHOULD GO OFF OF, NOT WHAT IS CONVENIENT TO A DEVELOPER OR A LAWYER.
SUSAN, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY, WAS NOT ABLE TO BE HERE TODAY, THAT SHE DID WRITE A LETTER VERY MUCH AGAINST THIS CHANGE.
I TODAY CLOSED MY BUSINESS TO BE HERE AND COME AND SPEAK TO YOU FOLKS.
IF THIS GOES TO CPC, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT IT IS SO HARD FOR REGULAR FOLKS TO COME OUT HERE, LOSE THEIR JOB DAILY, YOU KNOW, UH, PEOPLE WHO ARE STRUGGLING RIGHT NOW.
SO IT'S VERY HARD TO COME OUT HERE.
UH, BEFORE WE WOULD LIKE YOU, UH, AND WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THE PEOPLE THAT COME OUT BEFORE AND SPOKE UP AGAINST THIS, UH, WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THIS IN YOUR DECISION.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE AND PLEASE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND DENY THIS ADJUSTMENT.
THANK YOU, MR. MARCO AMADOR, I HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
HELLO, MY NAME IS MARCO AMADOR.
MY ADDRESS IS 1207 SOUTH
AND I OPPOSE BECAUSE I OPPOSE THIS CHANGE.
UH, IN THE PRIOR, UH, OCCASIONALLY WE WERE WORKING ON THAT AND I OPPOSE IT NOW.
UH, I FEEL THAT THIS DECISION IS COMING TO A HEAD IN SIX MONTHS AND MOVING ON THIS DECISION NOW WOULD MOVE US THE PUBLIC OUT OF THAT CONSIDERATION.
JENNIFER RAN ADDRESS, 2 0 7 NORTH MOR ROCKWELL AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 1.
AND I'M ALSO HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION.
AS YOU'VE HEARD TODAY, FROM THOSE OF OPPOSITION, THERE IS A CONNECTION CORRELATION BETWEEN LAND USE PLANS AND ZONING ORDINANCES.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT A LAND USE PLAN, RIGHT, IT IS A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT.
THE DOCUMENT THEN YIELDS TO ZONING, ORDINANCE CHANGES, AND SOME OF THOSE ARE ALREADY ACTIVE IN THIS AREA.
AS WE'VE SHARED THE HAMPTON CLAREDON AREA, THAT'S A PROCESS THAT'S BEEN GOING ON AND IS, WAS USED AS A BASIS BECAUSE OF WCAP.
WCAP DID SHARE SOME INSIGHTS OF WHAT'S THE DESIRE OF THE COMMUNITY AND TO TAKE THAT DESIRE AND PROVIDE MORE CLARITY.
THERE IS AN AUTHORIZED HEARING IN MOTION WHERE THE SUBJECT, UM, PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT.
[03:05:01]
UPSETTING AND IT'S CONCERNING THAT THERE IS A DON CHANGE AMENDMENT UPDATE, WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL IT, WHAT IT IS, IT'S STILL AT THE END OF THE DAY, GOING TO YIELD ON THE MAP A ZONING AMENDMENT OR CHANGE.AND SO AGAIN, IT'S VERY, UH, DISTURBING, RIGHT? TO SEE THAT THIS PROCESS IS NOT, DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE FOLLOWING THE AUTHORIZED HEARING THAT IT'S IN MOTION AND IT IS GONNA YIELD TO ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES.
AND SO IT'S A MATTER OF FACT OF JUST ALLOWING THAT PROCESS TO BE PUBLIC, RIGHT, AND TO HAPPEN AND TO ENSURE THAT AS BEST AS POSSIBLE AS IT CAN, UM, FOLLOW THE COMMUNITY'S VISION.
AND SO THAT, THIS IS WHY I AM IN OPPOSITION, OPPOSITION TO THIS 'CAUSE THERE IS AN ACTIVE, UH, AUTHORIZED HEARING FOR THIS AREA.
SO MY QUESTION STAFF IS, UM, WHAT HAPPENS, UH, TO THIS PROPERTY? UH, EITHER WAY WE RULE, WE RULE TODAY, UM, SIX MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD, IF THIS ORDINANCE PASSES.
UM, I, I MEAN WHAT, WHAT DOES THAT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THIS PROPERTY IN TERMS OF, I'M NOT FULLY AWARE OF THE CURRENT PLANNING PROCESS.
SO I WOULD NOT BE THE ONE TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT.
I WOULD HAVE TO GET SOMEONE FROM CURRENT PLANNING IN HERE TO ANSWER THAT.
AND IF WHATEVER REASON, IF THIS, IF THIS DOES NOT PASS TODAY AND UH, AND THIS BOARD DETERMINES THAT THIS 20 BY 20 PIECE WAS IN FACT R SEVEN FIVE, COULD THIS PROPERTY STILL BE DEVELOPED OUTSIDE OF THAT PARCEL AS CR ZONING? UM, SO A PORTION OF IT, BY HAVING RESIDENTIAL TIES TO IT, IT DOES LIMIT THE DEVELOPMENT ON THAT PORTION OF LAND.
HOW, HOW SO? UM, BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN, CERTAIN, UM, USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN RS SEVEN FIVE THAT ARE, UM, I'M SORRY, CERTAIN USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN CR THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED IN RS SEVEN FIVE SUCH.
CAN YOU ELABORATE? I'M NOT ALLOWED TO PULL UP THAT.
UM, AND SO MAINLY COMMERCIAL USES, RIGHT? SO TYPICALLY IN RESIDENTIAL USES R SEVEN FIVE, THOSE ARE RESIDENTIAL USES LIMITED TO.
UM, AND SO, UM, THE PORTION OF THE LAND THAT IS RSM FIVE, AND I THINK I'M SPEAKING ON THIS CORRECTLY, THAT PORTION OF THE LAND, THE 20 BY 20 COULD NOT HAVE COMMERCIAL USE ON IT.
SO THEN, SO THEN WHATEVER COS THAT ARE THERE NOW, WHATEVER COMMERCIAL BUILDING EXISTS THERE.
NOW, WOULD THEY BE CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING BUT COMPLIANT OR WOULD THEY HAVE TO TEAR DOWN THAT STRUCTURE? WELL, I THINK UP UNTIL MORE, MORE RECENTLY THAT IT WAS JUST DISCOVERED THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE, UM, IN TERMS OF THAT STRUCTURE BACK THERE, UM, VERY SELDOM DOES THE CITY GO OUT AND MAKE SOMEONE TEAR DOWN THAT PORTION OF A BUILDING.
UM, DOES THIS, DOES THIS BUILDING AND THE CEO CURRENTLY HAVE A NON-CONFORMING BUT COMPLIANT, UH, DESIGNATION? AS OF RIGHT NOW, IT DOES NOT HAVE A NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE NO ONE HAS GONE OUT.
BUT IF SOMEONE WAS TO NOW PROBABLY TRY TO COME IN AND GET A CO, UH, RED FLAGS WOULD COME UP AND IT WOULD MORE THAN LIKELY RECEIVE A NON-CONFORMING.
UM, SO HOW COME IT HASN'T HAD A NON-CONFORMING BUT CON UH, COMPLIANT DESIGNATION ON IT BECAUSE NO ONE'S KNOWN ABOUT THIS.
SO THE CITY HAS JUST ASSUMED THAT THIS IS A COMMERCIAL ZONING USE UNTIL, UNTIL IT WENT IN FRONT OF CITY PLANNING COMMISSION? UH, YEAH, THE 20 BY 20 WAS NOT IN QUESTION UP UNTIL RECENT.
SO I GUESS THAT'S WHY I'M CONFUSED ABOUT THE 1989 ORDINANCE AND THIS PARCEL.
AND WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE THERE WITH WHAT CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN 1989 AND WHY THERE ISN'T A NON-CONFORMING BUT COMPLIANT DESIGNATION ON THIS.
SO THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT IN 1989, EVERYTHING THAT WAS BROUGHT FORTH WAS LEGAL AT THAT TIME OR NON-CONFORMING AT THAT TIME.
SO, WELL, I MEAN, UH, WE JUST DISCOVERED IT WAS NON-CONFORMING IN 20 23, 20 24.
SO IN 1989, THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT IT WAS NON-CONFORMING.
BUT IT DOESN'T CURRENTLY HAVE A NON-CONFORMING DESIGNATION.
SO YEAH, SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT AS OF TODAY, WE WOULD NEED TO GO AND TYPE IN THAT IT'S A NON-CONFORMING, BUT I'M SAYING IS THERE IS NOTHING FOR US TO GO OUT THERE AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT BECAUSE NO ONE HAS COME IN TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT FOR THAT PROPERTY.
WE DON'T JUST GO OUT EVERY DAY AND LOOK AT EACH AND EVERY PROPERTY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S RIGHT, WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT, AND THE LAST, IT DOESN'T BECOME ADDRESSED UNTIL SOMEONE COMES IN AND START A PERMIT
[03:10:01]
APPLICATION PROCESS.SO THE LAST YEAR THAT WAS ISSUED ON THIS WAS IN TWO, 2003? CORRECT.
AND, AND AT THAT TIME, NO ONE DETERMINED IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THAT PROPERTY IN, IN 2023.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE TIMELINE HERE AND, AND THE PROPERTY AND YEAH, YEAH, LIKE I SAYING, THERE'S, THIS IS NOT A, THIS IS NOT A, AND SO THE OTHER PART OF THAT TOO IS LIKE IF IT'S AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND YOU'RE DOING THE SAME USE PERMIT, SAME USE PERMITS CONTINUE.
AND SO THERE'S NO RESEARCH FOR THE MOST PART TO BE DONE ON THE SAME USE PERMIT BECAUSE IT'S JUST BEEN A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.
AND MADAM VICE CHAIR, IF I MAY, AGAIN, WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT THE MAP AND THE ORDINANCES AMENDING THE MAP, NOT THE USE, NOT THE CEO, NOT WHAT'S ON THE LAND AT THE TIME.
BECAUSE AGAIN, THE CITY CAN ISSUE ERROR PERMITS AND ERROR, BUT THAT DOESN'T INVALIDATE THE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT'S ON THE GROUND.
'CAUSE THE CITY CAN MAKE MISTAKES.
IT, I MEAN, WE'RE
SO AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO THE MAP AND THE ORDINANCES THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU.
SO I MEAN, AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS, IS THE, ARE THE DOCUMENTS LEADING UP TO TODAY FROM, FROM THE APPLICANT, CORRECT.
OR IS WHAT BRITTANY HAS SAID? CORRECT.
I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S REALLY WH WHICH ONE DO YOU FEEL IS MORE CORRECT? DOESN'T MATTER WHAT'S ON THE SITE.
IT DOESN'T MATTER ABOUT THE AUTHORIZED HEARING, IT DOESN'T MATTER, ANY OF THOSE THINGS.
IT ONLY MATTERS WHICH ONE DO YOU, AS THE PANEL MEMBER FEEL IS MORE CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
WELL, THAT, EXCUSE ME, I HAVE A QUESTION THEN.
THE STANDARD POSITION SAYS, UM, THAT WE, WE HAVE THIS POWER WHEN UNCERTAINTY EXISTS BECAUSE THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL FEATURES DIFFER FROM THOSE INDICATED ON THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP.
TO ME, ACTUAL VISIBLE FEATURES MEANS WHAT IS CONSTRUCTED ON THE LAND.
IS THAT, IS THAT NOT THE CASE? I THINK THAT WHEN IT'S TALKING ABOUT LIKE BOUNDARY LINES, THE BOUNDARY LINES ARE THOSE LINES THAT BORDER THE PROPERTY.
SO IT SAYS THOSE PHYSICAL FEATURES, LIKE THE BOUNDARY LINES ARE WHAT'S IN QUESTION HERE.
OKAY, SO TO, TO, IN, IN THIS IT'S BOUNDARY LINES ARE ACTUAL PHYSICAL FEATURES? YES.
WELL, SO LET'S SAY IT'S LIKE IT, YOU KNOW, WE DRAW A NEW MAP AND IT DOESN'T CLOSE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THAT'S WHEN ACTUAL PHYSICAL FEATURES WOULD.
ARE WE READY TO CONTINUE ON WITH OUR OPPOSITION SPEAKERS? OKAY.
ARE WE DONE WITH THE OPPOSITION SPEAKERS? WE HAVE ONE MORE.
UH, WELL, IS MR. DAVID DOCKERY YET? I DIDN'T SEE HIM ANYWHERE.
UM, OKAY, THAT'S BILLY RANELL.
MY NAME IS BILLY RANELL AND I LIVE IN 27 0 2 KELLOGG AVENUE.
AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE, THE SMALL 2020 BY 20 PARCEL IS EMPTY.
AND, UH, I OPPOSE THIS CASE BECAUSE STAFF AGREES THAT THE ZONING IS CORRECT FOR THE AREA.
THE CITY STAFF WROTE A MEMO IN RESPONSE SAYING THEY ARE WRONG, AND THE ZONING IS RIGHT BASED ON ORDINANCES THAT PASSED IN 1989.
THAT IS ESTABLISHED CHAPTER 51 A OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE SET BOUNDARIES BASED ON A SPECIFIC MAP AND REPLACED, OVERRULED ANY PRIOR ZONING BOUNDARIES.
THEREFORE, THE EQUIPPED COMMUNITY SUPPORTS THE CITY STAFF ASSESSMENTS THAT BASED ON THE 19 OR 1999 ORDINANCE, THE CURRENT ZONING IS CORRECT AND IT'S NOT A MISTAKE.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE OPPOSITION FOR BRITTANY? AND WE CAN GO BACK TO BRITTANY, SHE'S ON STAFF, BUT ARE THERE ANY, BEFORE WE BRING UP THE APPLICANT TO, FOR THE REBUTTAL, IF THE APPLICANT CAN RETURN TO THE STAND? YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.
LEMME MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS.
FIRST IS THE ORDINANCE CONTROLS THE MAP IS MEANINGLESS.
IF THE MAP IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE, THE MAP IS WRONG.
LET'S GO BACK TO THE 1959 ORDINANCE.
IT REZONED A STRIP 169 FEET LONG AS COMMERCIAL.
IT DIDN'T PUT ANY TIME LIMIT ON
[03:15:01]
THAT.THEREFORE, THE FULL 169 FEET BY 20 FEET WAS COMMERCIAL IN 1959.
THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NEVER CHANGED THOSE DIMENSIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL CANNOT CHANGE THE DIMENSIONS IN AN ORDINANCE THROUGH A MAP.
IN ORDER TO HAVE CHANGED THE 20 BY 20 FOOT SECTION OF THE 169 FOOT SECTION, THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD'VE HAD TO UNDERTAKE A REZONING OF THE 20 BY 20 FOOT AND DEFINED IT BY ITS MEETS AND BOUNDS.
THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NEVER DONE THAT.
THE DIMENSIONS IN THE 1959 ORDINANCE CONTINUE IN EFFECT TODAY.
THE, THE GIS PEOPLE HAVE THINGS BACKWARDS.
THE MAP DOESN'T DEFINE THE ZONING DISTRICT.
THE ORDINANCE DEFINES THE ZONING DISTRICT.
ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE PERSON FROM GIS IS TELLING YOU IS THAT BECAUSE THE MAP THAT WAS ADOPTED AFTER THE 51 A ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED DIDN'T INCLUDE THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK.
WHAT IS SHE SAYING IS THAT THE MAP, WHICH THE COUNCIL DIDN'T APPROVE, THE COUNCIL APPROVED THE ORDINANCE.
THAT THE MAP BY, BY IDENTIFYING THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK AS R 0.75, REZONE THAT 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK.
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE 1965 ORDINANCE OR IN THE 1989 ORDINANCE, YOU CAN SEARCH FOREVER.
THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT ORDINANCE THAT SAYS THAT THE DIMENSIONS IN THE 1959 ORDINANCE HAVE BEEN CHANGED.
THOSE DIMENSIONS 169 FEET BY 20 FEET REMAIN IN EFFECT TODAY.
AND IF THE MAP IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THOSE DIMENSIONS AND IT'S NOT, THEN THE MAP IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE THAT'S THERE.
RECOGNIZE THAT IN 1960, THE, THE, THE ZONING ON THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK AND THE REST OF THE 149 FEET WAS COMMERCIAL.
THAT'S WHY A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED AT THAT TIME.
IT WASN'T NON-CONFORMING THEN.
IT'S NOT NON-CONFORMING NOW BECAUSE THE ZONING ON THAT 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK IS COMMERCIAL.
AND ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION, IF THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK IS R 7.5, THEN WHY ISN'T THE REMAINING 149 FEET OF THAT STRIP? ALSO RESIDENTIAL.
YOU CANNOT REZONE A PROPERTY BY ADOPTING A MAP CHANGE.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A REZONING OF THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE DIMENSIONS IN 59 HAVE REMAINED THE SAME.
THE MAP IS AN ERROR AND THE MAP WAS AN ERROR FOR THE VERY REASON THAT SOMEBODY I MISIDENTIFIED THE, THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE.
THIS IS NOT A QUESTION ABOUT WHERE IS THE PROPERTY LINE.
TIS IS RELYING ON THE WRONG SECTION.
THE CODE, THEY'RE RELYING ON 51 A ONE 1.04, WHICH HAS TO DO WHEN THERE'S CONFUSION ABOUT WHERE THE LINE IS.
THERE'S NO CONFUSION IN THE, IN THE CURRENT MAP ABOUT WHERE THE LINE IS.
WE'RE NOT CONFUSED ABOUT THAT.
THAT'S WHY I DIRECTED YOUR ATTENTION TO 51 A 1.103 THAT SAYS WHEN THE MAP IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE, THAT THE MAP NEEDS TO BE CHANGED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF YOU THAT EITHER IN 1965 OR IN 1989, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CHANGED THE DIMENSIONS OF THAT 20 FOOT TRACK TO MAKE IT 20 BY 1 49 INSTEAD OF 20 BY 1 69.
AND AS LONG AS THE 20 BY 1 69 IS IN PLACE, THE MAP NEEDS TO REFLECT THAT.
AND IT DOESN'T BECAUSE THE MAP INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIES 20 FEET OF THE 169 AS, UH, BEING IN AN R 7.5 DISTRICT, THE PEOPLE TO OUR NORTH NEVER SOUGHT A REZONING OF THE R 7.5.
THIS STRIP WAS CHANGED IN 1959 AND THAT HAS NEVER BEEN CHANGED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
IT REMAINS THAT WAY WITH RESPECT TO THE PLAN AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
UH, I, I UNDERSTAND THESE FOLKS ARE AT, ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT IT AND THEY SHOULD BE.
[03:20:01]
LAND USE PLAN RESULTS IN CHANGES TO COMMERCIAL USE, THOSE WILL APPLY TO THIS PROPERTY JUST AS EVERY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE AREA.SO THE FACT THAT THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACT IS ZONE IS PROPERLY IDENTIFIED ON THE MAP IS COMMERCIAL IN NO WAY AFFECTS THAT LAND USE PLAN.
IF THE CITY CHANGES WHAT USES ARE ALLOWED IN A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, IT'LL APPLY JUST AS EQUALLY TO THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK.
IN FACT, THE MATTER IS THERE IS AN ERROR HERE.
WE'VE BROUGHT IT TO THE CITY'S ATTENTION BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE IS IN PLACE AND DEFINES THE AREAS 20 BY 1 69, NOT 20 BY 1 49.
THE MAP NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED TO REFLECT WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL DID IN 59TH.
AND THAT HAS NEVER BEEN CHANGED.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION.
UM, WELL, WHY, WHY ARE YOU APPLYING FOR THIS NOW? I I MEAN WE, THEY ARE HAVING AN AUTHORIZED HEARING.
YOU'VE BEEN TO THE CPC, YOU'VE BEEN TURNED DOWN W WHY NOW? I MEAN, I, I KNOW, I KNOW I NEED TO TAKE THE FACTS OF WHAT THEY ARE AND LOOK AT THE MAP AND COMPARE THE MAP.
I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE JUST SNEAKING INTO THIS LITTLE CREVICE BEFORE SOMETHING HAPPENS.
AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS HAS BEEN WRONG SINCE 1959.
WHY ARE WE, WHY, WHY ARE YOU, WHY ARE WE ALL IN A TIZZY ABOUT IT RIGHT THIS MINUTE? BECAUSE IT WASN'T BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION UNTIL THE REZONING CASE, UNTIL THAT REZONING CASE.
THE PROPERTY OWNER UNDERSTOOD THE ENTIRE TRACK WITH ZONE COMMERCIAL.
AND IN FACT, THE CITY AGREED WITH THAT UNTIL THE 2004 ZONING MAP WAS A, WASN'T ADOPTED UNTIL IT WAS DEVELOPED WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL NEVER AUTHORIZED A CHANGE IN THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK.
AND SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE PROP, ALL OF THE PROPERTIES CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE AND THE CITY HAVE UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE SINCE 19 AND SINCE 1959.
UM, AND IN AN EFFORT, IF SOMEBODY COMES TO, UM, PURCHASE THE PROPERTY, WE WANNA AVOID THE SITUATION THAT CAME UP THAT WE HAD TWO ZONING DISTRICTS ON ATTRACTIVE LAND WHEN WE'VE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD UNTIL THE REZONING CASE CAME UP.
AND WE, WE WEREN'T PART OF THAT.
THE, THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER THOUGHT THAT WAS THE WAY TO GO.
WE THOUGHT IT WAS UNCONTROVERSIAL.
NOBODY THOUGHT ABOUT THE FACT THERE COULD BE AN ERROR WHEN IT WAS DENIED.
AND WE STARTED LOOKING INTO IT, WE DISCOVERED THERE THAT IT WAS AN ERROR BECAUSE AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT IT, WHY WOULD THERE BE A 20 BY 20 FOOT R 7.5 TRACK? IT'S UNDEVELOPABLE AND IT HAS ADJACENCY REVIEW.
IS THAT WHY THE CPC DENIED THE CASE THOUGH? BECAUSE OF THE RESIDENTIAL LEASE? UH, THE, I I DON'T KNOW.
THE, THE, THE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS HEARING FROM THE VERY SAME PEOPLE THAT ARE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY THAT WE'RE MAKING POLICY ARGUMENTS.
THOSE POLICY ARGUMENTS ARE NOT SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION.
I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT, I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS STIRRING AROUND HERE IN THE POT AND I KNOW, I KNOW WE, WE'VE GOTTA LOOK AT IT IN A VERY NARROW PURVIEW.
I DON'T WANNA MAKE A KNEE JERK REACTION THOUGH THAT'S GOING TO HAVE RAMIFICATIONS DOWN THE ROAD.
I MEAN, WE, WE'VE BEEN LIVING WITH THIS FOR SINCE 1959.
SO I
SO ANYWAYS, UM, I MEAN THAT, THAT MADAM SURE THAT THAT'S SORT OF OUR POINT.
IT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN UNDERSTOOD.
I KNOW, BUT SOMETIMES WHEN YOU MAKE IT, I KNOW.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE? YOUR HONOR? MS, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND PULL UP THE TIMELINE AGAIN? AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS PART OF YOUR PRESENTATION OR PART OF OUR DOCKET, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS PRESENTED THAT WE HAD THE INITIAL MAP FROM PREVIOUS TO 1959 AND THEN THERE WAS KIND OF A SIDE BY SIDE OF WHEN IT WENT DIGITAL.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO, I, I JUST, I I, FOR ME, I'M VISUAL.
I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TOOL FOR US TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT AGAIN IF POSSIBLE.
MADAM CHAIR, I, I DON'T MEAN TO SOUND FRUSTRATED, IT'S JUST THAT I'M FRUSTRATED TOO THOUGH.
'CAUSE I AM LIKE I, I SEE TOO MANY THINGS IN THIS CITY WHERE WE MAKE A CHANGE AND, AND IT'S NOT FOR THE BEST.
IT'S NOT FOR THE BEST OF THE COMMUNITY.
AND THEN I UNDERSTAND, BUT I AM, I AM, I MEAN, WITH ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON IN THAT AREA, AND AGAIN, I KNOW MY, I, I KNOW I UNDERSTAND WHAT I
[03:25:01]
NEED TO RULE ON.I I GET IT, BUT I'M LIKE, DO I HAVE TO RULE ON IT TODAY WHEN WE HAVE ALL THESE THINGS IN THE POT THAT ARE STIRRING AROUND AND BUBBLING UP? I'M, I, I'M, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE URGENCY OF IT RIGHT NOW TODAY WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S GOING ON AND, AND I'M QUESTIONING AND IT, AND I KNOW THAT'S OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE DECISION.
BUT ULTIMATE ULTIMATELY THOUGH, IF, IF, IF, DEPENDING ON WHICH DIRECTION THIS BOARD GOES, UH, THIS POTENTIALLY WOULD COME BACK FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE THEY KNOW YOU HAVE A COMMERCIAL USE WITH A NON-CONFORMING USE.
AND IF YOU CHANGE USE OR THEY GO TO APPLY FOR A NEW CO IN THIS EXISTING BUILDING.
IF, IF WE DON'T MAKE A DECISION ON THIS CASE TODAY, AND WE DETERMINE THAT THE MAP AS IT SITS WITH R SEVEN FIVE IS CORRECT, THEN WHOEVER COMES IN GOES IN FOR A CO IS GONNA HAVE TO COME IN FROM US AND ASKS FOR AN EXCEPTION ON, ON EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING USE.
SO WE, WE HAVE A DUTY TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT, WHAT WAS THE INTENTION OF, TO MAP AND HOW WE INTERPRET IT TO, TO, BUT IT, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE, LIKE THE, IT'S NOT THE INFORMATION OF WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
IT'S WHAT, WHAT DOES MAP BREED? WHAT, WHAT IS, AND AND FUTURE PLANS HAVE NO PURVIEW ON THIS CASE.
MS. LAMB I THINK RAISES AN INTERESTING POINT, AND THAT IS THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN 1960.
WHAT WHAT WE'RE NOW SAYING IS THAT THE MAP IN 51 A CHANGED THE ZONING THAT THAT'S JUST NOT LEGAL.
YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE ZONING BY CHANGING THE MAP.
THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU IS THAT IF, IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH US, THEN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT 51 A SIMPLY BECAUSE THE MAP DIDN'T FOLLOW THE 1959 ORDINANCE, REZONED THAT 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK AND NOW MAKES A USE THAT WAS ALLOWED UNDER THE ZONING AT THE TIME.
AND THAT WE BELIEVE CONTINUES TO BE THE ZONING DAY NON-CONFORMING.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WOULD BE FINDING THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE A LINE ON THE MAP DOESN'T COMPORT WITH THE ORDINANCE THAT THE CITY HAS REZONED THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS OF CALLING A HEARING AND HAVING US HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY.
IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S WHERE THE BOARD COMES OUT, THEN IT WAS A STEALTH REZONE.
BUT, UM, THEY, I'M SORRY, I, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT, BUT I, I THOUGHT THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT POINT.
WE CAN GO BACK AND WOULD YOU MIND THE TIMELINE, UM, JUST THE, THE MAP, UM, THE FIRST MAP, I THINK IT WAS THE PREVIOUS ONE.
IF YOU GO BACK THAT THAT'S THE FIRST LINE, IS IT, THERE WAS AN OLDER MAP THAT HAD A REALLY THICK LINE THAT, THAT IS SIMPLY THE WHAT'S IN THE CITY SURVEYOR'S OFFICE TO DEPICT WHAT WAS SOLD IN 1953? NO, UH, UH, I THINK THERE'S THE, THE, THE NEXT SLIDE MAY BE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE 51 WAS ADOPTED IN 1965.
THIS IS THE MAP THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO IMPLEMENT THAT ZONING, RECOGNIZE THE MAPS, IMPLEMENT THE ORDINANCE AND MAPS DON'T REWRITE THE ORDINANCE.
AND SO WHAT THIS MAP REFLECTS IS WHAT A, SOMEBODY IN WHATEVER GIS WAS THEN THOUGHT WAS GR ZONE.
AND THE DIFFICULTY IS THEY'RE HAVING TO HAND DRAW ALL OF THIS BACK IN 1965, DID THAT PERSON GO BACK AND PULL THE 1959 ORDINANCE AND LOOK AT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT WAS INCLUDED, THAT 1959 ORDINANCE AND THEN TIE IT TO THIS MAP.
AND I CAN PRETTY MUCH GUARANTEE YOU THAT THEY DIDN'T DO THAT.
AND THEY JUST ASSUME THAT THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THIS TRACK IN YELLOW, THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, WAS THE LOT LINE THAT SEPARATED ALL OF THE, WHAT WAS THEN RESIDENTIAL.
IN OTHER WORDS, THAT'S WHEN THE ERROR OCCURRED.
BUT NOBODY, BECAUSE OF THE THICKNESS OF THE LINE WAS PAYING ANY ATTENTION TO THAT.
THEY THOUGHT GIVEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 20 FEET, THAT THE 20 FEET WAS WITHIN THAT LINE.
SO FROM 1965 UNTIL 2004 CITY STAFF AND MY CLIENT UNDERSTOOD THAT THE ENTIRE TRACK, ALL OF THIS YELLOW INCLUDED THE 20 BY 20
[03:30:01]
FOOT.AND WITH GR FOR WHATEVER REASON, 2004, EXCUSE ME, IN 2004 AFTER, UM, AT SOME POINT AFTER 51 A WAS ADOPTED, WHICH WAS IN 1989.
SO IT WASN'T, IT WASN'T THE ADOPTION OF 51 A, THIS MAP REMAINED IN PLACE WHEN 51 A WAS ADOPTED IN 1989.
WHAT TRIGGERED THIS WAS NOT A CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE.
THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE IN 2004.
WHAT HAPPENED IN 2004 IS INSTEAD OF USING THESE MAPS, IT WENT DIGITAL.
AND WHEN IT WENT DIGITAL AND BECAUSE THEY WERE USING THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT SITE, IT WAS THE, WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS THAT THE PROPERTY LINE WAS CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED ON THE DIGITAL MAP.
CAN WE GO BACK ONE PLEASE? SURE.
WHAT'S WHAT'S THE PARCEL? JUST, UH, MAYBE EVEN ONE MORE, IF THAT'S OKAY.
WHAT'S THE PARCEL JUST NORTH OF THAT? 'CAUSE IT, IT, IT'S A, IT'S A, UM, FROM ALDEN THAT HITS THE SITE 'CAUSE IT'S RIGHT NORTH OF THAT SO THAT THEY'RE BOTH THE SAME WIDTH.
WHAT, WHAT IS THAT PIECE? WHAT IS THE DOME? IT THIS, AT SOME POINT THIS 20 FOOT SECTION WAS ALSO SOLD TO THE PERSON THAT ABUTS US TO THE NORTH.
I, I DON'T KNOW WHEN, BUT AT SOME POINT THE KISLER HOUSING CORPORATION SOLD THIS 20 FOOT PIECE OFF TO THE OWNER THAT ABUTS IT TO THE RIGHT.
SO IT'S ALL ONE TRACK, BUT, AND THEN HOW IS THAT DEVELOPED TODAY? COMMERCIAL, BUT OKAY.
BUT THE 20, THERE'S, I DON'T BELIEVE ON THIS TRACK THAT THERE'S ANYTHING BUILT ON THE STRIP ON THE 20 FOOT STRIP BECAUSE THEY'VE NEVER GOTTEN THAT 20 FOOT STRIP REZONED THAT WE DON'T DISAGREE THAT THIS 20 FOOT STRIP TO THE NORTH IS ZONED R 7.5 BECAUSE UNLIKE THE, THE STRIP TO THE SOUTH, THERE WAS NEVER A REZONING FOR THAT STRIP.
THAT'S A, THAT'S A CRITICAL DIFFERENCE.
IN 1959, THE OWNER WENT IN AND GOT THIS STRIP REZONED COMMERCIAL, UH, TO ME, I I MEAN YOU CAN'T BUILD ON RESIDENTIAL ON, ANYWAYS, SORRY.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS, AS A RESULT OF THE 1959 REZO ZONING, THE WHOLE 169 FEET WAS COMMERCIAL.
SO THIS 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK WAS PARCEL WAS COMMERCIAL.
AS, AS PETER SHOWED YOU SHORTLY AFTER THAT REZONING, THEY GOT A BUILDING PERMIT.
AND THE ONLY REASON THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS GRANTED WAS BECAUSE THE 20 BY 20 FOOT SECTION AS WELL AS THE REST OF THE 149 FEET WAS REZONED COMMERCIAL.
SO THEY BUILT A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE ON THE 20 BY 25TH PARCEL AS WELL AS PART OF THE, THE 149 FOOT STRIP.
AND THAT WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL AT THE TIME.
AND IT, EXCEPT FOR THE 2004 CHANGE TO DIGITAL MAP, THERE'S NEVER BEEN A CHANGE IN THE, UH, LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF WHAT WAS REZONED IN 1959.
IT WAS THEN AND IS TODAY BY ORDINANCE COMMERCIAL.
NOW IT MAY BE CR INSTEAD OF COMMERCIAL ONE, BUT IT'S STILL THAT DISTRICT THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHERE THEY CHANGE THE NAME OF THE ZONING DISTRICT, BUT THEY DON'T CHANGE THE PIECE, THE, THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT.
UH, MY QUESTION IS THIS, UH, WHAT'S THE URGENCY? I BELIEVE, UH, VICE CHAIR GABO HAD ASKED THIS QUESTION, BUT UH, AN ANSWER WAS NOT PROVIDED.
AS WE SPEAK, UM, THERE'S A PENDING, UH, AUTHORIZED HEARING.
SO WHAT'S THE URGENCY? WELL, THE URGENCY IS, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR PROBABLY 13 MONTHS EVER SINCE THE REZONING WAS DENIED.
AND WE DISCOVERED THE ORDINANCE.
WE'VE BEEN MEETING WITH THE CITY IN AN EFFORT TO, UH, GET THE MAP CORRECTED.
WE GET INQUIRIES, UH, THE MAR THE, THE PROPERTY IS NOT BEING ACTIVELY MARKETED, BUT WE DO GET INQUIRIES FROM PURCHASERS AND WE WANNA BE IN A POSITION TO BE ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY.
IF WE GET AN INQUIRY WITH, WITH THE ENTIRE PROPERTY BEING UNDER ONE ZONING DISTRICT, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH WHAT WE WENT THROUGH WITH THE PREVIOUS, UH, PROSPECT PURCHASER WHO WALKED THE DEAL.
WHEN THEY DIDN'T GET THE REZONING DONE.
AND WE'RE CONCERNED THAT ANYBODY ELSE THAT APPROACHES US
[03:35:01]
TO BUY THE PROPERTY IS NOT GONNA BE INTERESTED.AS LONG AS THERE ARE TWO ZONING DISTRICTS ON THE PROPERTY.
THE R 7.5 TRIGGERS RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW FOR CERTAIN USES HAS, UM, OH, I FORGET THE NAME, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A, UM, A TRIANGLE THAT COMES UP IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT OF YOUR STRUCTURES NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL.
EVEN THOUGH THAT 25, 20 FOOT TRACK WILL NEVER BE DEVELOPED AS RESIDENTIAL, IT, IT PROVIDES A HINDRANCE TO THE REST OF THE PROPERTY THAT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO SELL.
AND WE DON'T WANNA BE IN A POSITION IF SOMEBODY KNOCKS ON THE DOOR TOMORROW AND SAYS, WE WANNA BUY THAT, THEY'RE GONNA WALK AWAY FROM THE DEAL BECAUSE OF THAT.
AND WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND USE PLAN, AGAIN, I LOVE THE PASSION ABOUT THAT.
ALL WE'RE ASKING IS THAT LITTLE PIECE BE TREATED THE SAME WAY AS THE OTHER 99%, AND IT'S STILL SUBJECT TO THE LAND USE PLAN.
THE FACT THAT YOU CORRECT THE MAP DOESN'T IN ANY WAY INTERFERE WITH REZONING THAT AREA.
THE, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A LAND USE PLAN, IT SIMPLY ENSURES THAT THE ENTIRE TRACT IS TREATED UNIFORMLY.
I I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT, UM, RESIDENTIAL ADJA ADJACENCY.
UM, IF THE BOARD GRANTS THE RELIEF THAT YOU'VE REQUESTED, IF IT'S RELIEF, IS THERE STILL A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW BECAUSE OF THAT SLIVER OF R SEVEN FIVE ABOVE? YOU SORT OF PLAN NORTH? THIS IS A REAL ESTATE QUESTION.
UM, IT'S MAYBE, BUT IT'S GONNA BE LESS OF AN ISSUE.
UM, BECAUSE IT WOULD SIMPLY BE TO THE NORTH.
SO THEY WERE ASKING THE CITY TO CHANGE THE MAP, AND I GUESS BASED ON BRITTANY'S LETTER, THE CITY DID NOT CHANGE THE MAP AND SHE, AND, BUT SOMEBODY MENTIONED THAT THERE'S A LETTER FROM CASEY BURGESS SOMEWHERE IN THE PACKET, WHICH I CAN'T FIND.
OR DID I MISS THAT TOO? DO YOU KNOW WHAT PAGE IT'S ON? I, I HAD A VERY LONG LETTER TO MR. BURGESS.
IS THERE A LETTER FROM MR. BURGESS IN REPLY? NO, BECAUSE WHEN WE MET WITH MR. BURGESS AND WITH RHONDA, I BELIEVE THAT MR. BURGESS WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH US THAT THE MAP WAS AN ERROR AND NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED.
HE AND I TALKED ABOUT THAT SINCE IT WAS A DECISION BY MS. CAMP'S SUPERVISOR, I THINK IT'S BRITTANY, TO, TO, TO CHANGE IT BASED ON HER VIEW THAT THE TOOTH, IT WASN'T 51, THE ADOPTION OF 51 A.
WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS THAT MOVING TO DIGITAL REZONED OUR PROPERTY, THAT'S HER ARGUMENT IN A NUTSHELL IS THAT WHEN THEY WENT TO THE DIGITAL MAP, IT REZONED THAT 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK FROM COMMERCIAL TO R 7.5 AND THAT THAT CAN'T, THAT CANNOT HAPPEN.
UM, AM I ALLOWED TO ASK BRITTANY TO COMMENT ON THAT? BRITTANY? CAN YOU COMMENT ON KIND OF YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT IF YOU'RE STILL OUT THERE? UH, THAT WAS NOT IN MY MEMO.
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 2004 MAP, UM, OR THE DIGITIZATION IS MENTIONED IN MY REASONING FOR LEAVING THE MAP LINES IN PLACE IN THE GIS.
CAN YOU, IN A LITTLE SUMMARY, TELL ME WHY YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE STAY IN PLACE? I MEAN, I'VE READ THE MEMO, BUT I'M NOT, I'M NOT ON STAFF.
I, I LIKE LAYMAN'S TERMS, PLEASE.
SO WHEN I LOOKED AT THE MAP, UM, FROM THE EXHIBIT, UM, WHEN CHAPTER 51 A WAS ESTABLISHED, I ALSO COMPARED IT TO THE LAST SET OF PAPER MAPS THAT WERE, UM, THAT ON FILE IN OUR OFFICE THAT WERE USED TO THEN DIGITIZED, UM, INTO OUR GIS IN AROUND 2004.
I WAS NOT THE CITY AT THE TIME.
UM, BUT THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE MAP HAD, THAT LINE HAD NOT CHANGED, AND THE LINE STILL LOOKS THE SAME AS IT DID IN 2004.
UM, AND PRIOR TO THAT ON THE PAPER MAPS AND PRIOR TO THAT ON THE, UM, CHAPTER 51 A MAPS COULD, CAN I RESPOND IF I, UM, SO IF I LOOK AT, AND I, I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THE APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT NINE, UM, ZONING CASE 59
[03:40:01]
DASH SEVEN 50.THEY'RE EXHIBIT NINE I, WHICH IS IT, IT TALKS ABOUT THAT THERE WAS A ZONING CASE NUMBER 59 DASH SEVEN 50, UM, AND IT, IT TALKS ABOUT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT A SPECIAL PERMIT IN PLACE FOR COMMERCIAL ONE USE.
UM, IT, WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD OVERRULE THE MAP? I MEAN, IS THAT, HOW DOES THAT PLAY OUT INTO ALL OF THIS? SO THAT'S THE 59, THE, THE ORDINANCE THAT HAPPENED IN 1959, I DON'T HAVE, LIKE, IT DOESN'T HAVE A DATE ON IT.
IT'S, UH, IT SAYS ZONING CASE NUMBER 59 DASH SEVEN 50, UM, EXHIBIT NINE.
YEAH, I I THINK YOU HAVE A HARD COPY OF THE WHOLE ORDINANCE IN, IN THE NOTES FOR, SO THAT'S NOT HER EXHIBIT.
I KNOW THIS, THIS IS NOT YOUR EXHIBIT IT.
SO SHE WON'T HAVE THAT APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT.
WELL, SHE HAS THE DOCKET, IT'S THE DOCK.
OH, NO, IT'S A LOT, IT'S A LOT TO PROCESS.
AND I READ IT BEFORE WE GOT HERE AND I WAS STILL I UNDERSTAND CONFUSED.
WANNA MAKE SURE WE MADAMS HERE.
I'M SORRY, MY, MY POINT WAS IF YOU PULL OUT EXHIBIT NINE FROM THE NOTEBOOK YEP.
THAT, THAT'S THE WHOLE ORDINANCE AND IT'S ACTUALLY CERTIFIED BY THE CITY SECRETARY.
THE LAST PAGE, SO THIS WAS, THIS WAS AN ORDINANCE IN DECEMBER 7TH, 1959.
IT WAS PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND THAT'S WHY WE GOT A CERTIFIED COPY FROM THE CITY.
IT'S CERTIFIED BY THE CITY SECRETARY TODAY, TODAY.
BUT IT WAS SAYING, WHICH WAS, BUT SHE WAS SHOWING IT THAT IT WAS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF ORDINANCE 8 2 8 8, WHICH WAS PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 7TH, 1959.
AND BILLY RAY WAS CERTIFYING THAT THIS WAS A TRUE COPY TODAY.
SO I GUESS, I MEAN, DOES THAT ORDINANCE, DOES THAT OVER, HOW, HOW DOES, HOW, HOW DO WE THINK ABOUT THAT VERSUS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING NOW? IT'S UP ON THE SCREEN TO ME.
YES, BRITTANY? UH, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT WAS PRIOR TO THE CURRENT DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THERE WAS NOTHING NEWER THAN THE CHAPTER 51 A MAPS.
AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE QUESTION TODAY IS THE ORDINANCE THAT IS SHOWN WAS ON THE CITY SET OF THE MAPS AT THE TIME, WHAT WAS CONSIDERED THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS AT THE TIME.
BUT THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS HAVE CHANGED WITH NEW CITYWIDE ZONING ORDINANCES.
AND THERE WASN'T ANYTHING NEWER THAN THE CHAPTER 51 A LINES.
SO WE HAVE NEW ORDINANCES AS OF 1989 THAT NO WIPED OUT ORDINANCES? NO.
I, I GUESS, I MEAN, I MEAN, I'M READING THIS AND, AND I DON'T KNOW IF A SPECIAL PERMIT IS FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.
I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE ANY, I DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO KNOW THAT.
BUT I, I MEAN, I AM READING THIS AND IT CLEARLY SAYS THAT THIS IS A COMMERCIAL ONE USE.
UM, SO I'M, BUT I'M FOR 169.5 FEET.
UM, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT IN 1989 WE PUT SOME NEW THINGS IN PLACE AND WE MADE THAT A RESIDENTIAL PIECE OF PROPERTY.
I'M SAYING THAT INTERPRETED THE LINES OR THIS EXPIRED.
I I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT AN EXPIRATION DATE, AND I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT KIND OF PERMIT WAS AT THE TIME.
I, IT'S, I THINK IT'S BEEN EXPLAINED, UH, MORE THAN I HAD UNDERSTANDING OF IT.
UM, I WAS SIMPLY FOLLOWING THE LINES, LINES ON THE MAP AND COMPARING IT TO WHAT'S IN OUR GIS AND I THOUGHT THEY LOOKED THE SAME.
THE INTENT OF THE ZONING MAP IS NOT REALLY WHAT, I CAN'T REALLY DETERMINE THAT.
THE ZONING MAP CANNOT CONTRADICT THE ORDINANCE.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. I'M SORRY.
FOR MS. TER, THE, THE, THE LINES THAT YOU'RE INTERPRETING HERE, UM, ON THE ZONING, THE DIGITAL ZONING MAP, ARE THEY, ARE THEY CORRELATED TO LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE PROPERTY OR ARE THEY A GUIDELINE? THEY WERE HAND DRAWN WITHOUT
[03:45:01]
MEASUREMENTS, WITHOUT, UM, LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS BEING WRITTEN OUT.THEY ARE GEO-REFERENCED FROM THE PAPER MAPS.
SO THEY WERE DIGITIZED AND, UM, YOU KNOW, COMPARED TO
AND THE PAPER MAPS WERE, UM, WERE MADE TO LOOK THE SAME IN THE GIS AS THEY WERE ON THE PAPER, ON THE PAPER MAP.
DOES THAT, DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I, I THINK, I THINK SO.
SO THE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE MY FEEDBACK IS COMING FROM HERE.
BUT, BUT MR. BROOKS, THAT'S A CRITICAL QUESTION.
YOU JUST HEARD HER SAY THAT WHEN THEY PUT THE, THE DIGITAL MAP WAS BASED ON THE PAPER MAP, AND THE PAPER MAP WASN'T TIED BACK TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN THE 1959 ORDINANCE.
THAT'S WHERE THE ERROR OCCURRED.
SOMEBODY ASSUMED HAND DRAWING THAT THE LOT LINE BETWEEN SEVEN AND EIGHT WAS THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY LINE FOR THE HAMILTON, OR EXCUSE ME, THE HAMPTON AND 12TH TRACK.
SO THE MAP DOESN'T MATCH THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN THE 59 ORDINANCE.
THAT ORDINANCE, YOU CANNOT REZONE PROPERTY BY JUST CHANGING A LINE ON THE MAP.
YOU'VE GOTTA GO THROUGH A PROCESS, AND IT NEVER HAPPENED HERE, BUT 59 ORDINANCE REMAINS ESSENTIALLY IN EFFECT, HAVING BEEN ADOPTED IN 65.
AND IN 89 BECAUSE IT WASN'T CHANGED.
IT, IT, IT, THERE'S JUST AN ERROR HERE.
UM, YES, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UH, MS. OLTRA THERE.
SO I IMAGINE THAT THIS, UM, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, UM, THAT THIS IS KIND OF LITERALLY IN A MARGIN OF ERROR BECAUSE THE LINE THICKNESS, UM, THAT WAS HAND DRAWN WAS SO THICK.
BUT I ASSUME THAT THIS IS NOT THE ONLY TIME BETWEEN THE TRANSLATION FROM PAPER TO DIGITAL THAT THIS KIND OF INSTANCE HAPPENED.
AND IN ASSUMING THAT CASES LIKE THIS HAVE HAPPENED, WHERE IT'S LITERALLY A THICKNESS OF LINE THAT WE CAN'T DECIPHER WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE FALLS OR THE ZONING LINE FALLS.
WHAT'S THE CITY'S, I MEAN, LIKE, WHAT WAS THE PROCESS? UM, AS FAR AS LIKE, REALLY I GUESS YOUR, YOUR QUALITY CONTROL TO SAY, HEY, HOW DO YOU RESOLVE THIS? I MEAN, I DON'T IMAGINE IT WAS ALWAYS KICKED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE HOW, UM, 'CAUSE AGAIN, THE CITY IS THIS BIG, AND WITH ALL THE PLAS THAT ARE OUT THERE, THIS CAN'T BE THE FIRST TIME THAT WE'RE HEARING A CASE LIKE THIS.
THERE WAS A PREVIOUS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UM, APPLICATION IN 2010.
UM, LIKE, LIKE WAS STATED EARLIER, WE DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW UNLESS SOMETHING IS BROUGHT UP, UM, THAT THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH WITH THE MAP.
I CAN TELL YOU THE STAFF HAS CORRECTED THE MAP IN THE PAST, AND IT HASN'T BEEN NECESSARY TO COME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
THE ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES THOSE SORTS OF CORRECTIONS.
THE STAFF HAS DONE IT AND CAN DO IT ON ITS OWN.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE THOUGHT WE WERE AFTER MEETING WITH MR. BURGESS AND WITH MS. KEMP, AND WE THOUGHT WE WERE THERE AFTER A YEAR GOING BACK AND FORTH AND TRYING TO FIND THIS, WE THOUGHT WE WERE THERE UNTIL MARCH OF 2024 WHEN WE, WHEN WE WERE TOLD THAT THE DECISION THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE HAD BEEN PUT ON HOLD.
I THEN FOR THREE OR FOUR MONTHS, WERE TRYING TO GET AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY FINALLY GOT AN EXPLANATION THAT'S BASED ON THE WRONG SECTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND APPARENT WAS BASED UPON ASSUMING THAT A MAP CAN REZONE PROPERTY.
AND THAT'S WHEN WE FILED THIS PARTICULAR APPEAL IN AUGUST, ONCE WE HAD AT LEAST SOME CLARIFICATION AS TO WHY THE DECISION THAT HAD BEEN MADE HAD BEEN PUT ON HOLD AND HADN'T ACCRUED.
UM, I GUESS WE'RE READY TO MAKE A MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 1 2 4 ON APPLICATION OF ELIZABETH RADER DETERMINED THAT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 17 WEST 12TH STREET WAS INTENDED TO BE ZONED AS A CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT.
BASED ON THE FACTS AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS
[03:50:01]
DEVELOPMENT CODE.STAFF SHALL MARK THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT MAP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION.
THIS WAS A LOT MORE DIFFICULT THAN I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE.
I THINK BOTH SIDES SHOULD BE COMMENDED IN TERMS OF HOW WELL THEY, UM, PRESENTED THE ISSUES.
IT TOOK US A WHILE TO GET THERE.
UM, I'VE BEEN AN ALTERNATE FOR SEVEN YEARS.
THIS IS THE FIRST ZONING, UH, INTERPRETATION CASE.
I, I DIDN'T KNOW WE COULD DO THIS.
UM, BUT, BUT I LEARNED SOMETHING NEW TODAY.
UM, I MADE, UH, A COUPLE OF FACTS THAT ARE SORT OF HELPING IN INFORM MY, MY DECISION HERE.
UM, IT MAKES SENSE TO ME THAT THE OWNER WENT TO CPC FIRST.
THAT'S WHERE YOU GO WHEN YOU WANT ZONING CHANGED.
I DON'T THINK PEOPLE KNOW THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN DO THIS.
LIKE I SAID, I DIDN'T KNOW WE COULD DO IT UNTIL TODAY.
UM, SO, SO THAT, THAT THEY WENT THERE FIRST.
I DON'T REALLY VIEW THIS AS AN END AROUND.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT MOST PEOPLE DO WHEN THEY WANT TO GET THE ZONING CHANGED.
UM, WITH RESPECT TO, UH, STAFFS, UM, OR THE CITY OF DALLAS', UH, MEMO, UH, SORT OF CONFIRMING THAT THEY THINK THIS LITTLE 20 BY 20, UH, SQUARE SHOULD REMAIN SEVEN FIVE A IN THE CONTEXT OF, OF HOW THEY HAD TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WOULD DETERMINE THAT.
THAT'S R SEVEN FIVE A, THE CPCA VOTING BOARD AND 900 PEOPLE JUST SAID, WE DON'T WANT THIS.
AND THEN CITY STAFF WAS ASKED TO, WITHOUT ANY BOARD OVERSIGHT, EFFECTIVELY UNDO THE DECISION OF THE CPCI.
I, I UNDERSTAND WHY CITY STAFF WOULD NOT WANNA DO THAT.
AND THEY SAY AS MUCH IN THEIR MEMO, THEY SAY THE MOST CRUCIAL JUSTIFICATION FOR DENYING THIS REQUEST IS THAT THERE'S NO BASIS IN THE CODE WHICH WOULD PERMIT CITY STAFF TO OVERTURN THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR Z TWO 12 DASH 3 45.
I KNOW WHY THEY HAD TO WRITE THIS MEMO.
I, I DON'T THINK THE MEMO IS CORRECT THOUGH.
UM, I'M, I'M CONVINCED BY THE 169.5 FOOT DESIGNATION THAT APPEARS SORT OF CONSISTENTLY.
I I UNDERSTAND THE COMMUNITY HAS SOME SERIOUS ISSUES WITH THIS.
UM, BUT I, I'M FORCED TO RENDER AN OPINION AND A DECISION BASED UPON THE STANDARD.
AND I, I THINK THE STANDARD HAS, HAS BEEN MET, AND THAT'S WHY I'M GONNA VOTE FOR THIS.
UM, I, I SECOND, UH, MR. BROOKS COMMENTS, I WILL SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
UM, I HAVE TO DEFER TO THE ORDINANCE.
AND THE ORDINANCE HERE, UH, CLEARLY SPEAKS TO, AND IT'S THIS ONE, EXHIBIT NINE, UM, THE COMMERCIAL USE, AND I THINK THE MAP WAS WRONG.
UM, I THINK IT'S ALSO OUR JOB AS A BOARD TO CLARIFY UNCERTAINTY.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF UNCERTAIN ASPECTS HERE.
UM, AND TO LEAVE A PIECE HERE THAT'S CLEARLY DEVELOPED AS COMMERCIAL, UM, WITH PERMITS AND CEOS THAT GO BACK AS COMMERCIAL FOR OVER 40 YEARS, I THINK, UH, IS OUR JOB TO, TO LEND CLARITY.
UM, I ALSO REALIZE THAT THERE'S, UM, AREA PLANS THAT MIGHT BECOME COME FORTH, BUT THAT OUR DECISION HERE TODAY CAN'T, CAN'T TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT WILL IMPACT THE AREA PLAN MOVING FORWARD.
BUT ONCE AGAIN, IT'S CLEAR TO ME BASED ON THIS ORDINANCE, UM, AND INITIAL MAPS AND ALSO THE USE THAT'S ON THIS PROJECT, THAT'S BEEN ON THIS PROJECT, UH, CONSISTENTLY SINCE THE FIFTIES, UH, THE, THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN COMMERCIAL.
SO, UM, BASED ON ORDINANCE, FOR THAT REASON, I, UH, AM GOING TO APPROVE THIS MOTION.
UM, I SECOND IT IN MR. BROOKS, UH, MOTION, WHICH I AGREE WITH BOTH MY COLLEAGUES HERE, BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S A TERM WE'VE ALL HEARD ENOUGH OF, AND GOD, LORD, IT'S, UH, MARGIN OF ERROR AND JUST GOING BY THE EXHIBITS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO US OF THESE HAND DRAWN MAPS.
UM, I DO FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THE TRANSLATION FROM PAPER TO DIGITIZATION CREATED AN ERROR IN THE, THE MAPS.
BUT THE WAY THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED, UM, FROM THE SIXTIES DOES IMPROVE OR PROVE THE INTENT THAT THIS WAS ZONED COMMERCIAL.
I DO BELIEVE THAT YES, ERRORS DO HAPPEN EVEN IN OUR DIGITIZED WORLD HERE.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT IT WOULD BE PRUDENT UPON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO SET THIS ERROR STRAIGHT AND HAVE THIS ENTIRE PARCEL ZONED AS, UH, CRR COMMERCIAL RETAIL.
UNFORTUNATELY, I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS, UH, BASED ON THE LETTER DATED DECEMBER 7TH, 2059.
[03:55:01]
USE AUTHORITY CALL FOR THE CPC, THEY HAVE BEEN BEFORE THE CPC.UM, AGAIN, UH, BUT AS A PENDING HEARING IN PROGRESS OR THERE'S A, AN AUTHORIZED HEARING THAT'S PENDING BEFORE THE CPC, I FEEL THAT WAITING TO HEAR THE FINAL DECISION FROM THE CBC CAN GUIDE US VERY CLEARLY ON WHAT POSITION TO TAKE.
AND ALSO NOT DENY THE COMMUNITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A SAY IN ALL OF THIS.
UM, I ALSO, UM, CANNOT NOT SUPPORT THE SUPPORT THIS, I DON'T KNOW THAT I FEEL LIKE IT'S AN OUTRIGHT DENIAL.
I DO NOT FEEL LIKE I HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT I NEED.
I FEEL LIKE I DON'T, I THINK WE'RE MISSING SOME STUFF FROM THE CITY.
I FEEL LIKE I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE CPC DENIED IT.
UM, I READ THE SAME DOCUMENTS THAT DR. GLOVER READ AND FEEL LIKE WITH THE CPC HAS OVERRIDDEN THAT ORDINANCE AT THIS POINT BECAUSE I, I'M JUST, I'M REALLY STRUGGLING.
SO I, I MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SUPPORT A HOLD UNTIL WE HAD MORE INFORMATION.
UM, BUT I CAN'T SUPPORT APPROVING THIS AT THIS POINT WITH ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON.
Y Y'ALL, WHATEVER HAPPENS THERE.
FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS NO PENDING TO CPC CASE FOR THE ORDINANCE.
BUT I, BUT, BUT, BUT THERE THERE'S NOT.
BUT REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS ONE 20 BY 20 PIECE, THE ORDINANCE WOULD SUPERSEDE IF IT'S PASSES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IF IT'S AN OVERLAY OR NEW ORDINANCE, NEW PD WOULD SUPERSEDE THIS PROPERTY.
WHAT WE'RE HERE SLATED TODAY IS DETERMINE WHAT THE OLD MAP INTENDED WITH ORDINANCE.
THERE'S A COMMERCIAL USE ON THIS PROPERTY.
UM, WE ARE HERE TO LEND CLARITY.
AND AT THIS POINT NOW WE'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA LEND CLARITY BECAUSE WE'RE CONFUSED.
WE HAVE A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR 60 YEARS.
SO NOW WE HAVE, NOW WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING AS OUR BOARD, THAT WE'RE OKAY WITH HAVING A NON-CONFORMING BUT COMPLIANT USE FOR A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
UM, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IMPACTS THE COMMUNITY AND THE COMMUNITY'S FUTURE DESIGN ON THIS PROJECT.
IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS IS A COMMERCIAL USE.
THERE'S A COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT'S BEEN ON THIS PIECE FOR 60 YEARS.
THAT THERE IS, THERE IS, THIS IS SO ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.
AND I THINK THAT Y'ALL ARE LETTING EMOTIONS GET INVOLVED.
THE ORDINANCE HERE SHOWS AND THE FACT THAT THIS SMALL PIECE WOULD BE CONSIDERED LANDLOCKED IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS RESIDENTIAL, THERE'S NO ACCESS TO THIS.
THERE'S NO WAY TO DEVELOP THIS SMALL PIECE IS RESIDENTIAL.
THE INTENTION HERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN COMMERCIAL.
THE ORDINANCE SAYS, SO IT'S AN ERROR WITHOUT QUESTION IN MY MIND, WITH A MAP DRAWN.
AND THERE IS NO OTHER, I MEAN, UH, TO ME IT'S, IT'S, IT'S BLACK AND WHITE AND I THINK Y'ALL ARE LETTING THE BIGGER PICTURE, SOME ORDINANCE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT COME, COME DOWN THE LINE.
IT'S OUR JOB TO GET CLARITY OF THIS PIECE.
AND WE'RE LEAVING A PIECE OF THIS 20 BY 20.
THAT'S RESIDENTIAL SIT OPEN BECAUSE IT'S OUR JOB TO CLARIFY.
NOW WE'VE MADE THIS NON-CONFORMING, BUT COMPLIANT.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.
BY NOT ACCEPTING US FROM MAKING THIS PIECE, THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN.
IT IS NOT BEEN, I'M FINE LEAVING IT, IT IS NOT BEEN.
BUT NOW THAT'S 'CAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT.
WHY? I'M FINE LEAVING IT THE WAY IT IS.
BUT NOW, BUT NOW, NOW THEY CAN'T.
NOW THIS TENANT POTENTIALLY, IF THEY WANT TO GET A NEW TENANT, WANTS TO GET A CO, NOW THEY COME IN FROM THE BOARD AND THEY'RE NOT COMPLIANT.
I THINK Y'ALL ARE NOT DOING YOUR JOB.
I THINK Y'ALL ARE KICKING THE CAN DOWN.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS A MATTER OF EMOTIONS.
THIS IS A MATTER OF LOOKING AT THE FACTS AND MAKING A JUDGMENT BASED ON THAT.
NOW WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A 60-YEAR-OLD COMMERCIAL IF YOU ALLOW ME TO FINISH RIGHT.
THE PIECE OF LAND THAT WE'RE DELIBERATING ABOUT IS UNDER SPECIAL PERMIT.
THAT IS WHAT HAS TO BE LOOKING AT.
IT'S NOT BECAUSE THE PIECE OF LAND IS A PROPERTY OF ONE PERSON.
THE ARE TWO, THE ARE TWO ZONINGS ON THAT PIECE OF LINE.
THE STAFF IS SAYING IT'S NOT UNDER SPECIAL PERMIT.
AND IT SAYS, BUT YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT UNDERSTANDING.
IT'S NOT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
THIS IS NOT A, THIS IS A PERMANENT REZONE OF THE PROPERTY OF COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS IN THE ORDINANCE.
THERE'S NO SPECIFIC USE, SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL USE.
THIS PROPERTY IS UNDER THE ORDINANCE COMMERCIAL.
THERE'S NO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.
THERE'S NO SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
IT IS A TERM THAT WAS USED, BUT THIS IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
THERE'S A COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
THE ORDINANCE SAYS COMMERCIAL.
THERE'S NO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT ON THIS PROPERTY OR SPECIAL USE.
IF YOU ARGUMENT IS THAT IT'S ZONE COMMERCIAL, THEN WHY ARE WE HERE TO START WITH? THERE IS BE, WE'RE HERE BECAUSE THERE WAS AN A IN THE DR OH NO, ON THE DRAWING OF THE MAP, THE INTERPRETATION, WHICH IS WHY THIS COMMERCIAL BUILDING WAS BUILT ON HERE 60 YEARS AGO.
SO THERE IS, THERE IS NO QUESTION THE QUESTION WE ARE HERE TO NOT TO INTERPRET A SPECIAL USE OR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT OR THE ZONING.
IT IS, WAS THE MAP IN ERROR WHEN IT WAS MOVED TO DIGITAL? AND IT'S A CLEAR GUESS BECAUSE THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN SITTING HERE FOR COMMERCIAL
[04:00:01]
USE FOR OVER 60 YEARS.SO THE, WE ARE NOT HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE'S A SPECIAL, SPECIAL, SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR SPECIAL PERMIT.
THE QUESTION IS, IS WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY TRANSFERRED THE MAP FROM THE ORIGINAL IN THE FIFTIES, THAT CORRELATED WITH THIS ORDINANCE.
THE QUESTION IS, DID THEY WITHDRAW THE MAP THAT WE SEE TODAY WHEN IT WENT DIGITAL? AND ALL OF THE EVIDENCE SAYS YES, THAT'S WHY THERE'S A 60-YEAR-OLD COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON THIS PIECE OF RESIDENTIAL LAND.
BUT WE CAN'T, I MEAN, I DID NOT AGREE.
I I MEAN I THINK AS WE TALKED EARLIER, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE LINES ON THE MAP, NOT WHAT'S ON THE, THE PLOT OF LAND THERE.
AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN 19.
THERE'S, WELL, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW IT ENDED UP THERE.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON.
AND I THINK THERE IS, WELL, IF, IF THERE, IF THERE WAS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THAT SAT ON THIS LOT AND THIS 20 BY 20 ACRE OR 20 BY 20 PIECE WAS ZONED CR, WOULD YOU SIT THERE AND SAY THAT THE INTENTION WAS CR IF THERE WAS A HOUSE ON THIS LITTLE 10 20 BY 20 LOT.
BUT WE ARE NOT, WE DO NOT NEED TO CONSIDER WHAT IS ON THE LOT.
YOU WERE CONSIDERING WHAT ORDINANCE DICTATED THE THE ZONING DOCK, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT GOVERNS THE ORDINANCE TELLS GIS HOW TO UPDATE THE ZONING MAP AND DRAW THE LINE.
SO AT THIS POINT YOU'RE SEEING WHAT ORDINANCE CHANGED THE ZONING.
BUT THAT IS WHAT GOVERNS OUR ZONING MAPS.
IT'S THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL YES.
BUT CAN WE, SINCE WE'RE THIS INTERPRETATION AT, WE'RE TRYING TO INTERPRET THE MAP AS IT WAS DRAWN IN 1950 AND THEN WHEN IT WAS CONVERTED LATER BASED OFF OF THE ORDINANCE THAT YES.
DICTATED WHAT THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY SHOULD BE, BUT ISN'T ALSO WHAT THE USE THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY HELP SUPPORT WHAT THE INTENDED ORDINANCE THAT SUPERSEDES IF, IF IT WAS RESIDENTIAL, WE WOULDN'T HAVE A COMMERCIAL PIECE.
AGAIN, THE CITY CAN ISSUE PERMITS AND ERROR.
SO I IT'S FAR BUT THEY CAN ALSO, THEY CAN ALSO DRAW MAPS AND ERROR.
SO THAT'S WHY YOU LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS IN PLACE AT THE TIME TO DICTATE HOW THE MAP SHOULD BE DRAWN.
AND WE CAN CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THE ORDINANCE OF 1989 OR YOU BELIEVE THE ORDINANCE OF 1959.
AND DID THE ORDINANCE OF 1989 SUPERSEDE THE I ORDINANCE OF 1959? CORRECT.
UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU HAVE AN ORDINANCE OF 1989 SUPERSEDE, UM, 19 80, 59 ORDINANCE WHEN THERE'S A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ON THE, ON THE BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY, THERE'S NO BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY.
DO WE NEED TO MUTE EVERYBODY THAT'S ONLINE? THERE ABSOLUTELY IS A HALF OF THIS.
20 BY 20 HAS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
WELL, I THINK WE, WE MADE A MOTION.
SO LET'S TAKE A VOTE OR WE CAN AMEND THE MOTION TO HOLD IT OVER.
IF Y'ALL FEEL LIKE THE ONLY REASON WHY YOU'RE NOT LIKE VOTING WITH A MOTION IS THAT Y'ALL DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION.
WAIT, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE A DIFFERENT MOTION YES.
UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS MOTION WILL NOT CARRY AND WE WILL JUST BE SPENDING AN EXTRA TWO MINUTES HERE BY VOTING ON IT AND THEN HAVING TO DO THE MOTION TO, UM, HOLD OVER.
UM, UH, BUT IF I MAY MAKE A COMMENT, IF WE ARE GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD OVER, I WANT THOSE THAT FEEL LIKE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO BE VERY CLEAR WHAT INFORMATION Y'ALL ARE LOOKING FOR.
IF WE'RE GONNA HOLD THIS OVER, I, I DON'T THINK I CAN, UM, ATTACH THAT CONDITION TO THE MOTION.
PROCEDURALLY, WHAT DO I DO TO CHANGE MY MOTION TO A MOTION TO HOLD OVER? WELL, I MEAN, YOU CAN JUST MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD OVER THAT IS, THAT WOULD BE IN ORDER, BUT YOU CAN'T AS PART AS, AS PART OF YOUR COMMENTS TO THE MOTIONS, YOU COULD SAY THAT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR THOSE THAT HAVE HESITATION TO, TO SAY WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR, BUT THAT'S NOT PART OF THE MOTION.
IT COULD JUST BE COMMENTS TO WHY YOU WANT TO HOLD IT.
I WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY INITIAL MOTION AND I WOULD MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 1, 2 4 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 20TH, 2024.
[04:05:01]
DO FEEL THOUGH, IF WE'RE GONNA HOLD IT OVER THAT THERE'S BE SOME THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS AND THAT ARE ASKED OF THOSE THAT HAVE HESITANCY OR NEED MORE CLARITY SO THAT, UH, BOTH CITY STAFF AND APPLICANT AND OPPOSITION COULD HAVE A CHANCE TO PROVIDE WHAT IS NEEDED AHEAD OF THE NEXT MEETING.BECAUSE IF WE'RE NOT PROVIDING CLARITY OF WHAT QUESTIONS AND NOT KNOWING ENOUGH INFORMATION, THEN HOLDING IT OVER IS, IS MOOT.
SO I MEAN, FOR ME, I THINK THE 1989 ORDINANCE OVERRIDES WHAT'S HERE.
SO THAT'S PART OF MY REASONING FOR NOT SUPPORTING THIS.
UM, AND THAT, AND THAT THE MAP THAT IS DRAWN HAS THAT, I MEAN, IT IS RESIDENTIALLY ADJACENT TO THE P SIX NORTH.
I FEEL LIKE THAT IS JUSTIFIED.
ALSO N******G AROUND IN THE BACK OF MY BRAIN, WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO THE FACTS ON THE TABLE, IS I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT WHY THE CPC DENIED WHAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR.
AND I, I, I, BECAUSE MY, MY GUT SAYS I, I MEAN I I, MY GUT SAYS THAT THERE'S SOMETHING MORE GOING ON HERE THAN WHAT MEETS THE EYE.
UM, AND I I THINK WHEN A NEIGHBORHOOD IS WORK IS, AND YOU'RE RIGHT, SO THERE'S SOME EMOTION IN THERE, SARAH, BUT I CAN ALSO, MY, I WOULD FEEL FINE DENYING IT TODAY BASED ON THE 1989 ORDINANCE THAT SUPPORTING WHAT BRITTANY HAS PUT FORWARD.
BUT MY SECOND PIECE OF IT IS THERE IS SOME EMOTION WITHOUT THAT UNDERSTANDING.
MY EMOTION IS ALSO, I, I FEEL LIKE THERE'S SOMETHING MORE GOING ON.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS WORKED TOO HARD OVER THIS 20 BY 20 PIECE OF LAND TO LET SOMETHING BE A MESS.
I DON'T, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
SO THERE COULD BE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE NEXT MONTH.
IT SHOWS ME THAT THERE'S NOT SOMETHING GOING ON.
I, I MIGHT BE PERSUADED, BUT RIGHT NOW I FEEL LIKE I'M, I'M SUPPORTING THE 1989 NATURAL.
MAY, MAY I ASK A QUESTION THEN OF THE COLLEAGUES WHO, WHO WEREN'T IN FAVOR OF, OF GRANTING MY INITIAL NOTION IS, IS IT THAT WE NEED MORE INFORM, MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD.
IS IT, IS IT BETTER JUST TO GIVE A FINAL DECISION AND, AND LET PEOPLE GET ON THEIR WAY TODAY? OR, OR DO YOU THINK THERE IS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT THAT MAY, MAY CHANGE YOUR MIND? I, I FEEL LIKE I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES AND I, AND I DON'T NEED MORE INFORMATION THAT SAID, THIS IS A CLOSE CALL.
I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE DISAGREE.
SO I DON'T WANNA, I DON'T WANT TO DENY SOME, SOME, A BUNCH OF PEOPLE CAME OUT TODAY.
I FEEL BAD TO MAKE THEM COME BACK.
I, I AM ALWAYS HESITANT TO, TO PUSH THINGS FORWARD TO, TO MOVE THINGS FORWARD.
UM, PEOPLE CLOSE THEIR BUSINESS.
I MEAN, NOT, NOT EVERYONE CAN TAKE OFF WORK ALL THE TIME.
AND THE LONGER THESE LINGER, IT SORT OF DOES ERR ON THE, IT SORT OF BENEFITS THE APPLICANT OR, OR IN THIS CASE IT'S GONNA BENEFIT THE APPLICANT.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DISPUTE TO THAT.
IF WE, IF WE WERE TO DENY TODAY, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD STILL GONNA HAVE TO COME BACK AT SOME POINT BECAUSE AT SOME POINT THE, THE FACT THAT THERE'S A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THERE WITH A CO AND WHATEVER THEY WANNA DO, THEY WANNA EXPAND OR GET A CO IN THE FUTURE OR, OR SOMETHING.
THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME IN FRONT OF OUR BOARD, WHICH MEANS THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S GONNA BE ACTIVATED ANYWAYS.
OUR JOB IS TO LEND CLARITY ON THIS SITE.
THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT ZONINGS ON THIS SITE.
WELL, BUT, BUT OUR, OUR, UM, DECISION TODAY IF WE, IF WE MAKE A FINAL DECISION, WOULD BE TO, TO CLARIFY THAT.
SO WE HAVE OPTION ONE IS IT'S ALL CR OPTION TWO IS IT'S A COMMERCIAL USE THAT HAS A, IS A LEGAL, LEGAL NONCONFORMING OR SOMETHING.
I'M NOT BEING TOTALLY LEGALLY TECHNICAL THERE, BUT, BUT MY QUESTION, DR. GLOVER AND, AND CHAIR GABO, IS IT, IS IT BETTER THAT WE JUST VOTE OR DO OR WOULD YOU GUYS PREFER PREFER A 30 DAY WAIT, I, I, I MEAN I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE THE INFORMATION I'M LOOKING FOR.
SO, I MEAN, AND, AND I, LIKE I SAID, I MEAN, I'M NOT EMOTIONALLY, I'M NOT EMOTIONALLY SAYING TO HOLD THIS, NO, I FEEL THAT THE 1989 PIECE IS CORRECT.
SO I, I MEAN I ALSO, NEW INFORMATION MAY COME TO LIGHT THAT WOULD PERSUADE ME OTHERWISE, BUT I AM PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE, UM, WITH MY VOTE TODAY AND LEAVING IT AS IS.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU DOCTOR.
I WOULD SAY THAT, OH, UM, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THAT, UM, I MEAN AGAIN, JUST FOR THE RECORD, I THINK BARRY DID SAY THIS TOO, IS LIKE, I, MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE LEGAL INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE 1989 ORDINANCE WAS APPLIED TO THE LINE.
MY VOTE IS FOR SAYING THAT THE LINE WAS DRAWN IN ERROR.
BUT THAT'S, I MEAN, OF ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED TODAY, I'M NOT BASING IT OFF OF THE CURRENT STRUCTURE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THERE TODAY.
IT'S THE, THAT IS MY INTERPRETATION AS, UM, I PERCEIVE IT.
SO I I DON'T NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
I THINK THAT WAS YOUR QUESTION.
OKAY, WELL THEN LET ME DO WHAT I'VE NOT DONE BEFORE.
I WOULD LIKE, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, I'M SORRY.
YEAH, I THINK FOR ME, I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE INFORMATION, ESPECIALLY WHY,
[04:10:01]
UH, THE CPC DECIDED TO DENY.UM, ALSO I FEEL THAT IN GOOD PAIN, UH, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE ABLE TO WAIT FOR THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE, UM, AUTHORIZED HEARING AND CONTINGENT, OR BASED ON THAT RESULT, WE CAN MAKE A FAIR DECISION MOVING FORWARD THAT WE HAVE THIS DECISION FROM CPC.
WHY I SAY THAT IS THAT THE SPECIAL PERMIT GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT WAS APPROVED BY THE CDC.
HERE'S, HERE'S THE THING THOUGH.
THE, THE PREVIOUS PREVIOUS CPC CASE REGARDING THIS WAS FOR A CAR WASH THAT'S NOT BEFORE US RIGHT NOW, I DON'T TRULY BELIEVE ANYTHING THAT VARIES IS HAPPENING TODAY.
YY YES, BUT, AND, AND THE THING IS, IS YOU ARE, YOU ARE NOW ASKING THE APPLICANT TO, TO DEFER CLARITY ON THEIR PIECE OF LAND SO THAT THAT A, A PLAN THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN POTENTIALLY COULD IN THE FUTURE IN FRONT OF CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.
IT'S NOT ASSIGNED TO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO YOU WANT CLARITY BASED ON AN ORDINANCE.
CITY STAFF HAS SAID THAT THERE'S NO CITY STAFF HAS SAID THAT THE, UH, OAK CLIFF PLAN AREA PLAN HAS, HAS, IS NOT SLATED TO GO IN FRONT OF COUNCIL AT THIS TIME OR CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO YOU WANT TO HOLD OVER, UH, INDEFINITELY UNTIL WE HAVE SOME AREA PLAN.
AND ANYWAYS, THEIR AREA PLAN, IF WE DO PASS THIS TODAY, COULD ACTUALLY THEN FACTOR IN THE ZONING OF THIS ENTIRE PARCEL RATHER THAN TWO DIFFERENT ZONINGS ON ONE PIECE.
THAT THIS PIECE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACTOR OF THE, THE AREA PLAN.
LIKE THEIR AREA PLAN COULD SIT THERE AND, AND SUPERSEDE AND, AND PERTAIN AND, AND COME TO THIS PROJECT.
SO TO SIT THERE AND DEFER THIS CASE FOR SOMETHING THAT MAY COME DOWN THE ROAD A YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF, TWO YEARS IS, IS IT'S OUR DROP IN CLARITY AND WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING THAT WE'RE GONNA LET THIS BECOME A NONCONFORMING.
AND RIGHT NOW IT'S CONFORMING.
SO I, I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING.
AND SO, I MEAN IT'S OUR, IT'S IT, THIS JOB IS NOT EASY.
WE SAID YES TO THIS JOB FOR A REASON.
I THINK EVERYBODY DESERVES CLARITY.
BUT IF Y'ALL HAVE QUESTIONS, I DON'T THINK ANYTHING NEFARIOUS HAPPENED.
I DON'T THINK THAT TRULY GETTING INSIGHT ON CPC, WE CAN'T TAKE THAT IN CONSIDERATION.
I KNOW THAT 900 PEOPLE SHOWED UP TO THAT, BUT THAT IS OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW.
AND, AND THAT'S, BUT I, AGAIN, I I'M AGREEING WITH THE CITY, I'M AGREEING WITH THE MEMO THAT THE CITY CAME.
SO, I MEAN, IF I DON'T GET MORE INFORMATION, I'M TOTAL FINE.
BUT THE CITY ALSO APPROVE LIPS.
SO THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT THEN, THEN IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WHY IN 1989 WAS THIS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY NOT PUT IN NONCONFORMING? THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WAS.
COS BACK TO THE SEVENTIES WASN'T, WASN'T THERE? THIS THERE'S A LOT WE'VE HAD COS BACK TO THE FIFTIES HERE.
I I MEAN I, I WOULD RATHER HOLD IT OVER THAN TO FOCUS TODAY.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF, AND THIS IS KIND OF GOING BACK TO I GUESS VOTING.
SO KIND OF SEE WHERE THE NUMBERS ARE GOING.
IF THIS MOTION WERE TO NOT PASS, WHAT'S PROCEDURALLY WHAT HAPPENS? SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO HOLD OVER.
SO STILL NO, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO, HE MADE THE MOTION.
SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW IS TO HOLD OVER TILL NOVEMBER 20TH.
SO IF THAT FAILS, THEN THE FLOOR IS OPEN TO ANOTHER MOTION TO UM, MOVE IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT OR TO DENY ESSENTIALLY WITH OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BUT IF NO OTHER SUBSEQUENT MOTION IS MADE, THEN IT'S DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, MEANING THAT IT WILL THE ZONE R SEVEN FIVE SINGLE FAMILY.
LEMME ASK ONE MORE CLARIFYING QUESTION.
IF, IF WE NEED 75% OF THE PANEL TO APPROVE AND WE NEED A MAJORITY VOTE TO DENY AND WE ARE NOT GONNA GET EITHER, WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THAT DEADLOCK? IS IT A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OR WITH PREJUDICE? IF BOTH MOTIONS FAIL, IF YOU MAKE A MOTION TO GRANT AND THAT FAILS AND YOU MAKE A MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND THAT FAILS, THEN STATUS QUO IS PRESERVED AND IT'S DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD HOLD IT OVER AND LET STAFF AND THE APPLICANT WORK AND DETERMINE AND GET MORE CLARITY ON THIS NINTH MEETING NIGHT DOCUMENT.
I WOULD LIKE STAFF NEXT TIME TO COME DOWN IN PERSON AND SPEAK TO THE MEMO.
UM, I I ALIGNED WITH YOU ON THIS IN THE SENSE THAT I THINK THAT THE STAFF'S INTERPRETATION WAS BASED ON MR
[04:15:01]
S SO WHEN YOU SAY STAFF, YOU MEAN CURRENT PLANNING STAFF THAT DEALT WITH THE CPC CASE? NO, NO.UM, JUST THE, THE MEMO THAT CAME DOWN.
I, UH, YEAH, BUT I THINK THAT WAS BASED ON THE CPC CASE THAT CAME FROM CURRENT PLANNING SEPARATE.
SO WHOEVER DID SEPARATE THE CURRENT ACCOUNTING CURRENT PLANNING CASE WILL PROBABLY BE SOMEONE YOU WANT TO SPEAK WITH.
'CAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE, THEY WOULD HAVE INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT HAPPENED AT CPC.
YEAH, NOT BRITTANY DEALS WITH GIS AND JUST THE LAYERING OF THE MAPS.
SO YOU WOULD BE BRINGING IN ANOTHER DEPARTMENT FOR THAT OR ANOTHER AREA.
BUT ON CPC CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, WITH THIS.
THE AUTHORIZED ZONING CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT IS BEFORE YOU.
IT'S DETERMINING AGAIN WHAT ORDINANCE YOU BELIEVE DICTATED THE, THE ZONING MAP.
SO I I GUESS SOMETHING OR THE 1989 I GUESS WHAT, WHAT CPC DID IN THEIR DENIAL HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE STANDARD FOR THIS CASE, NOR DOES THE AUTHORIZED HEARING OR ANY PLANS THAT HAVE COME SUBSEQUENT FROM THESE DATES.
IT, IT'S, AGAIN, IT'S THOSE TWO ORDINANCES THAT ARE IN QUESTION.
WHICH ONE DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE REGARDLESS OF CPC OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.
I GUESS I'M GONNA ASK THOSE THEN THAT BELIEVE THAT THE ORDINANCE FROM 1989, UM, IS THE ONE THAT YOU ALL BELIEVE IS ACCURATE.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION.
WHY I SAY THAT IS THAT, FIRST OF ALL, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION YOU MADE.
WHY I SAY THAT IS THAT THE SPECIAL PERMIT THAT GOVERNS THIS PIECE OF LAND WAS GIVEN OR APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO REFERENCE WHAT THE CPCS DECISION IS ON THE SAME MATTER AND STAFF CLARIFY TO, TO SEEK SOME RELEVANCE BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT A SPEC, A SPECIAL PERMIT.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THE, I THINK IT'S BEEN CLARIFIED AND STATED A NUMBER OF TIMES TODAY THAT THERE IS NOT A SPECIFIC USE OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT ON THIS LOT.
THAT SPECIAL PERMIT WAS A TERM THAT WAS USED IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A SPECIAL, AN ACTUAL SPECIAL USE PERMIT TIED TO THIS PIECE OF LAND.
AND AGAIN, AS UM, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY HAS STATED WHAT HAPPENED WITH CPC AND THIS UPCOMING, THE PREVIOUS CPC CASE AND THE UPCOMING AUTHORIZED HEARING CASE HAS NO RELEVANCE OR BEARING ON THE INTERPRETATION THAT YOU GUYS ARE TO MAKE A DECISION ON TODAY.
I THINK THE CONFUSION IS, IS IN EXHIBIT NINE, WHICH IS THE ORDINANCE FROM THE FIFTIES, IT SAYS CITY PLANNING COMM COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED A SPECIAL PERMIT PER COMMERCIAL USE BE GRANTED SUBJECT HOWEVER TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
SO I THINK THERE IS CONFUSION ABOUT WAS IT COMPLETELY REZONED FOR COMMERCIAL OR IS THAT A, A, A SPECIAL PERMIT THAT THEN POTENTIALLY HAS A FALL OFF.
THAT IS THE REASON WHY THIS WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD WAS FOR YOU GUYS TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION AS TO CITY STAFF DIDN'T AGREE WITH WHAT THE APPLICANT IS.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I THINK IT WAS PUT ON THE BOARD TO SAY, YES, THIS IS A COMMERCIAL LOT BECAUSE THOSE LOT LINES ARE X, Y AND Z.
OR NO, THIS IS NOT, I THINK WE NEED TO UPHOLD THIS OVER OR WHAT, JUST MOTION ON THE PEOPLE.
SO WE WANNA TAKE A VOTE ON HOLDING IT OVER.
I MEAN, I'D LIKE TO APPROVE THIS TODAY, BUT SINCE THERE'S A DEFENSE OPINION ABOUT SPECIAL PERMIT AND THE APP, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS MORE A DISCUSSION.
I'M GONNA WITHDRAW MY MOTION TO HOLD OVER.
I DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE GONNA CHANGE THEIR MINDS.
I DON'T WANT TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.
TOO MUCH TIME HAS BEEN SPENT TODAY.
WE'RE GONNA DO THE SAME THING AGAIN NEXT TIME, WHICH PROBABLY WON'T INCLUDE ME BECAUSE I'M AN ALTERNATE.
SO YOU'LL HAVE TO GET FILL UP TO SPEED.
I I THINK WE NEED A DECISION TODAY.
I IF WE, IF WE CAN, IF WE CAN GIVE ONE.
IIII CAN'T SUPPORT MY OWN MOTION, SO I'LL I'LL WITHDRAW MY MOTION, BUT SOMEONE ELSE CAN MAKE IT.
I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF NUANCES TO THIS AND I THINK THAT MAYBE, MAYBE IF, IF WE CAN'T COME TO THE DECISION TODAY THAT THE MAJORITY OF THIS BOARD HAD HAD SUPPORTED, THEN WE SHOULD HOLD IT OVER BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT MORE TO THINK ABOUT.
WE HAVE THIS MATERIAL TO THINK ABOUT.
I I I DON'T THINK IT'S MY, I I WOULD I'S OUR DUTY TO LEND CLARITY AND BY NOT DOING SOMETHING HERE TODAY, WE'RE NOT LENDING CLARITY.
[04:20:01]
I BELIEVE THAT.I FEEL LIKE THIS IS, THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION.
WE HAVE A LITERALLY 20 BY 20 PIECE OF RESIDENTIAL ZONED IN THE MIDDLE OF A COMMERCIAL PARCEL.
I BELIEVE THAT THE MAP WAS INTENDED TO DRAW THIS AND, AND WAS REDRAWN IN ERROR COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON THERE AS WELL.
I MEAN THIS, I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A MOTION.
I I MAKE THE MOTION TO HOLD OVER.
IF, IF WE CAN'T GET THERE ON APPROVAL, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE, WE'RE GONNA GET TO APPROVAL TODAY.
SO IF WE'D LIKE TO HOLD IT OVER AND I CAN HOLD IT OVER.
I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 24 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 20TH, 2024.
AND THEN WAS WERE YOU MAKING THE MOTION OR WERE MAKING I MADE THE MOTION.
WAS THAT ACTUALLY A MOTION? THAT WAS A MOTION.
CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT THE MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD THIS CASE OVER, UH, HOLD THIS CASE OVER, UH, ON ADVISEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 20TH, 2024.
I THINK WE ALL NEED TO TAKE A LITTLE BREAK FROM THIS.
COME BACK A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR.
MR. BROOKS NAY VICE CHAIR? AYE WE BOTH TURN RECORDING RIGHT? THE MOTION PASSES AND WE'LL ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 5:38 PM.