* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. MY NAME IS ROBERT [00:00:01] AGNI. I'M VICE CHAIRMAN OF [Board of Adjustment: Panel C on November 18, 2024. ] THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF PANEL C. IT IS 1:08 PM ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18TH, 2024. WE HAVE A QUORUM. THIS PANEL IS HEREBY CALLED TO ORDER. UM, AS I SAID, MY NAME IS, IS, UH, ROBERT AGNI. UH, MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR. WE SERVE WITHOUT COMPENSATION. UH, AND FREELY, I'M TOLD, UH, WE DO GET LUNCH. UM, THIS BOARD IS QUASI-JUDICIAL, WHICH MEANS THERE CAN BE NO COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE MEMBERS AND, UH, ANY, ANY APPLICANT OR OPPOSITION OUTSIDE OF, OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. UM, PRESENT TODAY TO MY LEFT IS RODNEY MILLIKEN TO HIS LEFT JARED SLATE. TO HIS LEFT ANDREW FINNEY. AND LINE, UH, ROGER SINGTON. TO MY RIGHT IS OUR BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY THERESA CARLISLE. UH, TO HER RIGHT IS DR. KAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, BOARD ADMINISTRATORS CHIEF PLANNER. AND TO HER RIGHT IS MARY WILLIAMS, WHO'S BOARD SECRETARY. IF YOU NEED ANYTHING, FOR EXAMPLE, TO TURN IN A CARD IN ORDER TO SPEAK OR TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO THE BOARD, IT IS THROUGH MS. WILLIAMS THAT YOU DO IT. SO PLEASE GET HER ATTENTION. UM, ALSO WE HAVE, UH, BRYANT THOMPSON, SENIOR PLANNER, CAMIA JORDAN, SENIOR PLANNER, DIANA BARUM, DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIALIST AND PROJECT COORDINATOR, NORA CASTANEDA, SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER, SARAH ATARI, SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER, AND SARAH MAY'S NOT HERE, WE DECIDED. OH, SHE, GEEZ, YOU GUYS. SO SARAH, SARAH MAY IS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AND ALSO WE HAVE JUSTIN, YOU WHO IS AN INTERN WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. OKAY. SO I'M MISSING HIM. I'M JUST CHECKING IF I MISSED ANYTHING. ALRIGHT, WE'RE GOOD. UM, SO, UH, MR. NAVAREZ IS NOT HERE. UM, BEFORE WE START, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THIS HEARING AND HOW WE'LL CONDUCT IT. UH, AS I MENTIONED, UM, UH, WE ARE, UH, A QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD, WHICH IN ROUGH TERMS MEANS THAT WE CANNOT HAVE COMMUNICATION WITH APPLICANTS OR OPPOSITION OUTSIDE OF THIS HEARING TODAY. UM, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, EACH USE IS PRESUMED TO BE A LEGAL USE AND NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT. WE MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES, UH, NOT PERSONALITIES. UM, WE HAVE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED EARLIER TODAY BY STAFF, UH, AND WE'VE REVIEWED A DETAILED PUBLIC DOCKET, WHICH EXPLAINS THE CASE AND WAS POSTED, WAS IT SEVEN DAYS, MARY? WAS THIS, DO WE, DO WE HAVE A HOLIDAY? OKAY. SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. UM, ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY OF THESE CASES THAT WE WILL HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD SECRETARY, MS. WILLIAMS, 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 REVERS OF A BUILDING OFFICIAL DECISION REQUIRES 75% OR FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF THE FULL FIVE MEMBER PANEL. HOWEVER, MOTIONS REQUIRE SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE LETTERS OF THE BOARD ACTION TODAY WILL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING AND WILL BECOME A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE. ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY, MS. WILLIAMS. EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PART OF OUR HEARING FOR A MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES ON ANY TOPIC THAT IS ON OUR AGENDA. AND WHEN SPECIFIC CASES ARE CALLED. UH, WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE APPLICANT'S HAVING FIVE MINUTES, OPPOSITION FIVE, AND THE APPLICANT A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL. UH, WE WILL EXTEND THAT EQUALLY. UM, OUR QUESTIONS DON'T COUNT, BUT I, UH, UH, UH, WE WON'T CUT YOU OFF IF, UH, WE'LL, WE'LL FIGURE OUT HOW TO BE REASONABLE AS DEFINED BY ME. UM, UH, ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. NO TELECONFERENCING WILL BE ALLOWED VIA WEBEX. ALL COMMENTS ARE BE, ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO ME. UM, [00:05:02] AND I MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS NECESSARY. UM, OKAY. SO THANK YOU. WE HAVE A FEW ORDERS OF BUSINESS TO BEGIN, UH, WHICH INCLUDE TWO THINGS. UH, THE APPROVAL OF OUR MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING AND ALSO THE APPROVAL OF OUR MINUTES FROM OUR FULL BOARD MEETING. UH, THAT I BELIEVE IS OCTOBER 27TH. ARE THE DATE OF OUR PRIOR MEETING IS WAS WAS OCTOBER 21ST, 2024. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MINUTES OR ABOUT EITHER MEETING THE MINUTES? ANY CORRECTIONS? NO. OKAY. MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. MR. FINNEY. UH, I I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 21ST, 2024. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. SING. OKAY. MR. FINNEY MAKES THE MOTION. MR. SINGTON SECONDS DISCUSSIONS. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? PLEASE SAY AYE. OPPOSED, PLEASE SAY NAY. IT CARRIES FIVE TO ZERO WITH FINNEY MOTION SLASHING. SECOND. DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR OUR OCTOBER 27TH MEETING? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. MR. FINNEY, UH, I MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM, UH, OCTOBER 27TH, 2024, 29TH. I'M SORRY. OCTOBER 29TH. OKAY. I, I MISLED YOU. IT WAS 29TH, I'M SORRY, OCTOBER 29TH. I MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 29TH, 2024. IS THERE A SECOND, MR. CHAIR? I SECOND. OKAY. MOTION. MR. FINNEY, UH, SECONDED. MR. MILLIKEN COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. HEARING MA'AM. MOTION PASSES. FIVE TO ZERO. FINNEY SECONDED BY MILLIKEN. ALRIGHT. UM, THERE IS ONE CASE, LET ME JUST MAKE SURE, IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST, UH, AGAINST THE CASE THAT IS BD 2 34 DASH 1 31 81 51 MILITARY PARKWAY. OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? THE BOARD IS INCLINED TO GIVE YOU EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASKED FOR. UM, IF YOU DON'T WANT THAT, NOW'S THE TIME TO RAISE YOUR HAND. OKAY. SO IS THERE A, A MOTION FOR OUR, UH, UNCONTESTED HONOR? MR. CHAIR? I HAVE A MOTION. MR. MILLIAM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION LISTED ON THE UN UNCONTESTED DOCKET BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICATION SATISFIES ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE AS APPLICABLE TO WIT BDA NUMBER 2 3 4 DASH 1 3 1 IN THE APPLICATION OF JACKSON WALKER, LLP REPRESENTATIVE, REPRESENTED BY JONATHAN VINCENT FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND. MOTION MADE BY MR. MILLIKEN, SECONDED BY MR. FINNEY. IS THERE DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? OPPOSED. PLEASE SAY NAY. MOTION PASSES. FIVE TO ZERO. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. MILLIKEN, SECONDED BY FINNEY. WE NEEDED TO DO A ROLL CALL. ISN'T THAT AT MY DISCRETION? OKAY. WE WILL DO. YOU'RE RIGHT MARY. I DIDN'T DO IT BECAUSE I FIGURED THIS WOULD BE QUICK. FURTHER, MS. WILLIAMS IS CORRECT. NORMALLY, UH, MOTIONS LIKE THAT ARE, ARE DONE BY ROLL CALL AND WE WILL GOING FORWARD, UH, SUFFICIENTLY CHASTISED. OKAY, SO THE FIRST CASE WE'RE GONNA HEAR IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 3 6 6 5 0 6 FRANKFURT ROAD, THE APPLICATION OF MOIST TRAPPER FOR THREE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE FENCE [00:10:01] HEIGHT REGULATIONS. MRS. APPLICANT HERE, ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR ON THIS CASE, WOULD YOU STAND AND BE SWORN IN BY MS. WILLIAMS? EITHER FOR OR AGAINST? EITHER WAY. MS. WILLIAMS, WE HAVE MR. MOHE CHOPPER? YES. AND MR. ELI KAUFMAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE SWEAR THEM? MA'AM, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? OKAY, THANK YOU. AS, UH, BEFORE YOU, UH, PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE YOU SPEAK. THANK YOU. IF YOU CAN TURN ON THE MIC. YEAH. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MOSHA TROPER AND I'M HERE IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT AT 6 5 0 6 FRANKFURT ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 5 2. OKAY, SO JUST TO, UH, BRIEFLY INTRODUCE MYSELF, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF TEXAS TORAH INSTITUTE. TEXAS TORE INSTITUTE IS A SCHOOL CATERING TO, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD YOUNG MEN, BOTH HIGH SCHOOL AND POST HIGH SCHOOL. WE TEACH A DUAL CURRICULUM. IT'S A COLLEGE PREPARATORY SCHOOL AS WELL AS A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL, AND WE HAVE THAT DUAL CURRICULUM AND THE BOYS ARE HERE ALL DAY BUSY WITH, UH, BOTH OF THOSE PURSUITS. SO FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU TO THE, UH, CHAIRPERSON AND THE PANEL FOR TAKING TIME OUT OF YOUR SCHEDULES TO BE HERE FOR US. AND ALSO I'D LIKE TO EXTEND THEIR GRATITUDE TO THE CITY STAFF. I'M NOT PARTICULARLY EXPERIENCED WITH THIS, BUT UH, EVERYONE OF THE STAFF THAT I'VE ENCOUNTERED HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THAT. UM, I'D LIKE TO, UH, JUST QUICKLY TOUCH ON SEVERAL POINTS WITHOUT TAKING MORE OF YOUR TIME. UM, WE'RE HERE ASKING FOR AN EXCEPTION. I'D LIKE TO GIVE A BRIEF BACKGROUND ON WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR THIS EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT STANDARD ON THE THREE SIDES OF THE SCHOOL'S PROPERTY. I THINK, UH, UNFORTUNATELY TODAY'S CLIMATE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, AND I DON'T NEED TO ELABORATE ON, YOU KNOW, THE DETAILS OF IT, BUT CERTAINLY SCHOOLS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE PAYING EXTRA ATTENTION TO THE SAFETY AND THE WELLBEING OF THEIR STUDENTS FOR OBVIOUS AND, UH, UNFORTUNATE REASONS. AND CERTAINLY OUR SCHOOL BEING A VERY PROMINENTLY RECOGNIZED AS A INSTITUTION AND PROMINENT PART OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IN THE AREA, WE FEEL THAT SCRUTINY AS WELL. ON A SECOND LEVEL, UH, THIS IMPORTANCE IS CONFIRMED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEING VERY FORWARD WITH GRANT MONEY TO HELP US WITH THIS PROJECT. THE, UH, STATE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS PROCESS AS WELL AND ALSO, UH, SEES THE NEED FOR THIS, UH, MORE LOCALLY. UH, BILL HUMPHREY, A FORMER DALLAS POLICE CHIEF, IS OUR SECURITY CONSULTANT AND IS THE ONE WHO IS GUIDING THIS PROCESS AND HAS BEEN THE, UH, PERSON WHO WAS INDICATING WHAT WOULD BE BEST FOR THE SECURITY ENHANCEMENT AT THE SCHOOL. SO THIS PROJECT IS LARGELY BASED ON HIS GUIDANCE. I DO HAVE A, UH, SECURITY ASSESSMENT HERE WITH ME FROM CHIEF HUMPHREY, IF THAT'S INTERESTING AND HELPFUL. I'M HAPPY TO, UH, SUBMIT THAT PACKET HERE. UM, CLEARLY, YOU KNOW, AS WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PARENT BODY AT THE SCHOOL TO DO OUR UTMOST TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN'S WELLBEING, AND THAT IS THE PRIMARY DRIVER BEHIND THIS EXCEPTION REQUEST. UM, WE HAVE ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED OVER THE YEARS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN TRESPASSERS ACROSS THE PROPERTY. IT'S A PROMINENT INTERSECTION. WE'VE HAD PEOPLE PULLING OFF INTO THE PARKING LOT WHERE THEIR CARS USUALLY BECAUSE THEY'VE HAD CAR TROUBLE. BUT AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE KNOW. AND THE OPEN NATURE OF THE PROPERTY AS IS HAS, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY BEEN DETERMINED TO BE A LIABILITY. UM, IN TERMS OF WHY WE WOULD LIKE TO BUILD THIS TYPE OF WALL IN THIS HEIGHT, AGAIN, OUR FAR BACK TO THE, UH, SECURITY PERSONNEL, BUT HAVING A FENCE OF, UH, REINFORCED CONCRETE AND AT THAT HEIGHT, WHICH ADDRESSES BOTH ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY AND VISIBILITY OF THE ACTIVITIES ON THE PROPERTY ARE THE TWO MAIN THINGS THAT THE SECURITY CONSULTANTS, AND AGAIN, WITH THE BACKING OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, ARE HOPEFUL WE WILL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS BY THE BUILDING OF THIS WALL. UM, IN TERMS OF THE, UH, LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS PROJECT IS TERRIBLY UNUSUAL TO WHAT IS ALREADY EXISTING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE ARE MULTIPLE WALLS BETWEEN SIX AND EIGHT FEET, CLOSE BY WITH ZERO OPACITY. THERE'S AN HOA JUST DOWN THE ROAD CALLED COVENTRY ON THE CREEK, WHICH HAS AN EIGHT FOOT WALL, YOU KNOW, A BRICK WALL OR SOMETHING LIKE BRICK WITH, AGAIN, ZERO OPACITY RIGHT ON FRANKFURT ROAD. LEVINE ACADEMY IS LOCATED RIGHT NEARBY ON FRANKFURT AND, UH, HILLCREST, THEY ALSO HAVE EIGHT FOOT WALLS WITH ZERO OPACITY ON DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE PROPERTY, BOTH ON FRANKFORT AND HILLCREST, AND OF COURSE, DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE SCHOOL ON [00:15:01] FRANKFORT ROAD AND DIRECTLY ACROSS DAVENPORT ROAD. ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THERE ARE ALSO HOA BOUNDARY IS THAT MORE OR LESS RESEMBLE WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO WITH OUR PROPERTY. UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC AND CARS IN AND OUT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE MECHANICAL NATURE OF THE GATES. SO WE'D LIKE TO, UH, FIRSTLY REASSURE WHOEVER IT MAY BE CONCERNED THAT THE CARPOOL VOLUME IN GENERAL IS SMALL. MANY OF THE STUDENTS, THE HIGH SCHOOL IS ABOUT 45 OR 55 STUDENTS TYPICALLY ARE, ARE WALKERS OR THEY'RE COMING ON SCOOTERS AND DON'T NEED TO BE PICKED UP BY CARS. THAT REDUCES THE CARPOOL VOLUME. AND ADDITIONALLY, WE PLAN TO HAVE THE GATES OPEN DURING CARPOOL TO ALLOW FOR, YOU KNOW, QUICK PROGRESS THROUGH THE GATES AND NOT TO HAVE ANY CARS PILING UP OUTSIDE ON THE STREETS. UM, OBVIOUSLY WE, WE WOULD NOT BE LOOKING TO DO THIS UNDER BETTER CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IT MAY BE ON SOME LEVEL AND INCONVENIENCE, BUT WE FEEL THAT WE'VE DONE WHAT WE CAN TO MINIMIZE THE INCONVENIENCE TO THE NEIGHBORS. UM, FOR INSTANCE, WE HAVE, UH, BROUGHT THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE BACK FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH I'M NOT QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT, BUT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT DIRECT THE, THAT MAY AFFECT THE OPACITY QUESTION. AND WE'VE ALSO DONE OUR BEST TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS FENCE SITS OUTSIDE OF ANY VISIBILITY TRIANGLES AND SHOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN ANY DIFFICULTY NAVIGATING, UH, THE STREETS NEARBY IN, IN VEHICLES. UM, I CAN'T PROVE THIS, BUT ANECDOTALLY I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THE HOME VALUES AND THE PROPERTY VALUES IN THIS AREA HAVE ACTUALLY SKYROCKETED IN LARGE PART 'CAUSE OF THE SCHOOL'S PRESENCE. THE SCHOOLS DEMOGRAPHIC IS VERY CONNECTED WITH THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEARBY HOMES ARE NOTICEABLY MORE VALUABLE IN THIS AREA THAN JUST OUTSIDE THE AREA IN OTHER SIMILAR LOCATIONS BECAUSE OF THE DEMAND FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA. AND AGAIN, THAT'S LARGELY DRIVEN BY THE SCHOOL. I THINK THAT'S THE BENEFIT OF ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS AT SCHOOL AND ITS REPUTATION FOR A SAFE AND, UH, COMFORTABLE EDUCATION FOR THE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD HAS, HAS DRIVEN THE PROPERTY VALUES UP PROBABLY BEYOND WHERE THEY WOULD BE OTHERWISE. UM, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY, UH, WHAT I WAS HOPING TO SHARE WITH YOU. AND OF COURSE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D HAPPY TO DO MY BEST TO ADDRESS THEM. I THINK THERE WAS SOME QUESTION THIS MORNING ABOUT WHAT THE FENCE WILL LOOK LIKE, ALTHOUGH WHAT'S IT MADE OF? CAN YOU SHOW US SOMETHING? DESCRIBE IT, WHAT, DESCRIBE THE CAPACITY OF THE FENCE. I'M HAPPY TO DESCRIBE IT. AND I ALSO HAVE PRINTED UP SOME PICTURES FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE FABRICATOR OF DEFENSE, WHICH I, I PRESUME THERE IS A PLAN THAT YOU'VE SUBMITTED THAT IF WE APPROVE, WE WOULD HOLD TO CORRECT. WE DID SUBMIT PLANS, YES. OKAY. OKAY. BUT IF IT'S HELPFUL, I ALSO HAVE SOME PICTURES PRINTED. YEAH, IT WOULD HELP US TO, TO, OKAY. A LOT OF TIMES THESE THINGS GET REDUCED, RIGHT? SO I'M HAPPY TO SHARE AN ACTUAL COLOR PICTURE WITH THEM IF THAT GIVES A BETTER IDEA THAN BY ALL MEANS. UM, THE FENCE IS, UH, TENDED TO BE BUILT BY A COMPANY OUT OF BRADENTON, FLORIDA THAT SERVICES MANY MUNICIPALITIES. IT'S A REINFORCED CONCRETE PRODUCT, AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY IT'S ATTRACTIVE IN THIS SITUATION IS IT'S MUCH MORE LIKELY TO RESULT IN KEEPING PEOPLE OFF THE PROPERTY, WHETHER THEY HAPPEN TO BE IN A CAR OR TRUCK OR OTHER FORM, UH, WHICH A ROAD IRON FENCE WOULD FRANKLY DO VERY LITTLE TO, TO PREVENT UNLESS A PERSON HAPPENED TO BE WALKING. UM, IT'S INTENDED TO LOOK LIKE A STUCCO FINISH. THE COMPANY DESCRIBES IT AS A SAND FINISH, BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY A CLEAN CUT LOOK AS YOU'LL SEE IN THE PICTURES. IF THERE IS INTEREST FROM VARIOUS PARTIES TO SEE OTHER FINISHES. IT'S NOT THE ONE WE SELECTED, BUT WE WOULD BE FLEXIBLE. THE COMPANY OFFERS MANY FINISHES ON THIS PRODUCT. THEY LOOK LIKE STONE, THEY LOOK LIKE BRICKS, AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE OPEN TO THAT. BUT THE ONE THAT WE'VE SELECTED AND PUT FORTH IN THE PLANS IS WHAT IS CALLED A SAND FINISH. AND IT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE A SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH. I THINK THE, THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ASK IS WHETHER, I MEAN, WHEN YOU SAY A STUCCO, WHEN YOU, I THINK OF A STUCCO WALL, I THINK OF A SOLID WALL. YES. THIS WALL THAT WE ARE PROPOSING WOULD BE A SOLID WALL. SO IS WHAT HE PROPOSED DOES, DOES IT NOT REQUIRE A, AN EXCEPTION TO THE OPACITY? GIMME ONE SECOND. IS IT FI IT IS, IS IS THE FENCE, UM, LOCATED FI BEYOND FIVE FEET? YES, IT IS. THAT'S IF IT'S BEYOND FIVE FEET, THEN IT DOESN'T REQUIRE OPACITY. WELL, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO COME FOR THE BOARD FOR AN OPACITY REQUEST. IF IT WAS SITTING ON THE PROPERTY LINE AND COMPLETELY SOLID, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE, UM, AN OPACITY REQUESTS. SO HE HAS THE ABILITY WITHOUT US OR ANYBODY ELSE TO DO THAT, AS LONG AS HE IS MORE THAN FIVE FEET OFF OF HIS LINE. YES. OKAY. UM, UH, [00:20:01] IF, IF THERE IS SOME KIND OF GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S IN OUR PACKET, I, I THINK MAYBE YOU SAID YOU HAD ONE. I'D LOVE TO LOOK AT IT. IF, IF YOU DON'T, WE'LL ROLL WITH WHAT'S IN OUR PACKET. I HAVE SEVERAL PICTURES, I THINK FIVE OF EACH COPY HERE. AND I'M HAPPY TO PRESENT THEM TO THE SECRETARY. THANK YOU. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. OKAY. EACH OF THE PICTURES IS LABELED SO THAT YOU'LL HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THE ACTUAL PROPOSAL IS AND WHAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, ALSO BE AROUND. PERFECT. THANK YOU. DO YOU KNOW, DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN YOU FILED THIS CASE AGAIN? WELL, WAS IT LATE SEPTEMBER? THAT SOUNDS VERY FAMILIAR, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER A PRECISE DATE. OKAY. THANK YOU. GIVE US A SECOND TO LOOK AT THESE. SO THIS IS A SAMPLE JUST IN A DIFFERENT PLACE. IS THIS, DO YOU KNOW? YEAH, THIS IS A SCREENSHOT FROM THE MANUFACTURER'S WEBSITE OF WHAT THIS PRODUCT WOULD LOOK LIKE. THE COLOR IS CHANGEABLE, THAT COULD BE PAINTED TO A DIFFERENT COLOR, BUT THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE WOULD PICK. SO ALL OF THESE ARE FROM THE MANUFACTURER AND NOT NECESSARILY IN THE EXAMPLES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THESE, THESE ALL SHOW WHAT VARIOUS VERSIONS. I HOPE I LABELED THEM EFFECTIVELY. YEAH, YEAH. THEY KIND OF PRINT, YEAH, WALGREENS KIND OF CUPBOARD. OH, OH, OKAY. SOME OF THIS, SOME OF THEM ARE EXAMPLES FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SOME OF THEM ARE OTHER OPTIONS FROM THE COMPANY'S WEBSITE. CREEK. THIS IS ACROSS FROM TEXAS TORAH INSTITUTE. OH, OKAY. THAT'S CUT OFF. A LOT OF THINGS ARE ACROSS FROM TEXAS. EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON HILLCREST A QUARTER MILE. SO SOME OF THESE WERE IN OUR, UH, UH, MR. CHAIR. I HAVE A QUESTION. MR. FINNEY. UM, MR. MR. CHOPPER. SO WILL THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE HAVE ANY EFFECT, UH, ACCESSIBILITY EFFECTS ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAYS? NOT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. THE, UM, OPPOSITION LETTER NOTES, GATES BEING PUT IN, UH, NO ONE IS ASKING US FOR GATES, UH, AND SPECIFICALLY NOT FOR, UH, ANY KIND OF RELIEF FROM THE REQUIRED VISIBILITY TRIANGLES BASED ON THOSE ENTRANCES. I, I I JUST MEANT THE, THE ACTUAL DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE, WILL, WILL IT, YOU KNOW, I I JUST MEANT THE, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OR THE ERECTION OF THE FENCE, YOU KNOW, WILL IT, WILL IT CAUSE ANY ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES ALONG THE THOROUGHFARE? THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING. WE DON'T INTEND TO ASK FOR ANY STREET CLOSURES OR BLOCK ANYBODY'S RIGHT OF WAY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. THANK YOU. UH, ULTIMATELY THESE PICTURES NEED TO REMAIN FOR THE BOARD, UH, RECORDS. ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? VERY MUCH SO. OKAY. YOU'LL PART WITH THE PICTURES . OKAY. UM, ROGER, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THIS, EXCEPT THAT'S NOT GONNA HELP YOU. UM, OKAY. ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS? IF IT'S HELPFUL, I CAN REFER ROGER TO A WEBSITE THAT WILL SHOW OVER WE'RE INTENDING TO, UH, IMPLEMENT. WE OKAY WITH THAT? I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO THAT. KIM, I'M ASKING MS. CARLA, YOU SAID IT'S THE PLANNER, PLANNER STAFF. I TRUST, I TRUST YOUR, I TRUST YOUR, YOUR, YOUR GUYS'. UM, UM, JUDGMENT. OKAY. SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU DON'T NEED IT. IS THAT WHAT BY OR DO YOU TRUST OUR JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER YOU'RE OKAY? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YEAH, I, I MEAN, I TRUST YOU TO REVIEW THE, THE INFORMATION THAT'S PROVIDED IN PERSON AND MAKE, UM, A, A BEST DECISION. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. [00:25:01] MY OTHER QUESTIONS ARE, ARE DIRECTED TO THE STAFF, BUT, UH, IT'S POSSIBLE THE APPLICANT MAY WEIGH IN. DOES, DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, THE FENCE TO THE APPLICANT? SO IT OKAY. WHEN YOU APPLY FOR A FENCE, DO YOU NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE PRETTY SPECIFIC SPECS? WE ASK THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE ELEVATIONS BUT NOT MATERIALS WITH THOSE ELEVATIONS. THEY SPECIFY THE MATERIAL AND ALL OF THAT ON THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS. SO OF THESE PICTURES, WHICH IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MATERIALS, YOU INTEND TO USE THE ONE THAT SAYS SAND FINISH ON IT. AND I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT WE ILLUSTRATED ON THE ELEVATIONS. OKAY. UM, AND GUYS, TECHNICALLY SINCE IT'S FIVE FEET OFF, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE SAY ON EVEN THE OPACITY TO THE EXTENT YOU, YOU DECIDE A FENCE LIKE THAT HAS A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. OF COURSE, THAT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A, THAT'S AN OPINION QUESTION. BUT DOES, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I, I BEGIN ASKING ABOUT THE, THE LETTER THAT, SO WE RECEIVED A LETTER THAT'S FAIRLY DETAILED. UM, UH, IN MANY CASES I THINK HE SPEAKS ABOUT A VARIANCE, NOT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. UM, YOU KNOW, HE, HE DOES SAY THAT HE RECEIVED HIS NOTICE ON FRIDAY. HE STATED HE RECEIVED HIS, UM, NOTICE ON FRIDAY. WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHEN THEY RECEIVED THE NOTICES, BUT YOU PUT IT IN. SO OUR STANDARD REQUIRES THAT IT BE DAYS MAILED 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. AND YOU HAVE THOSE STAMPS. YES, YOU DID IT. OKAY. YOU HAVE, AND IT WAS A HOLIDAY. SO WHAT, WHAT ARE OUR RULES REQUIRE? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE FOLLOWED OUR OWN RULES. I MEAN, I MEAN THEY, YOU, YOU HAVE A STAMP AND, AND I DON'T, WELL, WHAT IF SOMEBODY, THE LETTER THAT HE RECEIVED SHOULD HAVE HAD A POSTMARK A POST THE, THE, THE STAMP ON THERE. OKAY. OKAY. IT'S, UH, POSTMARK, WHICH INCLUDES ALL THAT. MR. MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. FINNEY, UM, ON THAT SUBJECT. SO THEN WHAT EXACTLY IS THE REQUIREMENT? IS IT 10 BUSINESS DAYS OR IS IT JUST 10 DAYS? HOW SPECIFIC IS IT 10 DAYS? 10 DAYS CALENDAR DAYS? YES, CORRECT. THE CODE SAID THE NOTICE MUST BE GIVEN NOT LESS THAN 10 DAYS BEFORE THE DAY SET FOR THE HEARING BY DEPOSITING THE NOTICE PROPERLY ADDRESSED IN POSTAGE PAID IN THE UNITED STATES MAIL TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AS EVIDENCED BY THE LAST APPROVED CITY TAX RULE. SO BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SPECIFY THAT IT'S BUSINESS DAYS, WE ASSUME IT'S CALENDAR DAYS. THANK YOU. AND YOU ALSO PUBLISH IN THE MORNING NEWS HOW FAR IN ADVANCE? SO 10 DAYS BEFORE, THIS IS SOMEWHERE IN THE MORNING NEWS AS WELL? YES. THAT IS ALSO A REQUIREMENT THAT THE DIRECTOR SHALL GIVE NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER OF THE CITY AT LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING. AND YOU ALSO PUT SIGNS UP 14 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF APPLICATION. AND IN THIS CASE, YOU, YOU LOOKED AND THEY WERE UP. SO IF THE APPLICATION IS SEPTEMBER 30, YOU KNOW, THEY FROM OCTOBER 14 TILL TODAY, AND PRESUMABLY THEY'RE STILL UP. OKAY. SO, OKAY. UM, THAT COMPLETES MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. ARE THERE SPEAKERS IN, UH, OPPOSITION? NO OTHER SPEAKERS REGISTER, SIR. OKAY. UM, YOU ARE TECHNICALLY ALLOWED TO REBUT YOURSELF UNLESS YOU HAVE EXTRA TEST. I, I THINK UNLESS YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO TELL US. OTHERWISE, I'LL ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE NOT CHANGED YOUR MIND IN THE LAST MINUTE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. TIME, BUT NOT TODAY. THANK YOU, . OKAY, THAT MEANS, UH, I NEED A MOTION BEFORE DISCUSSION. MR. CHAIR. [00:30:01] I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. MR. FINNEY. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 36 ON APPLICATION OF MOS MOTION DROPPER GRANT THE REQUEST THAT THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE ALONG DAVENPORT ROAD AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED. 'CAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL ILL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED. IS THERE A SECOND VICE CHAIR? AGNI? UH, JARED SLATE WILL SECOND SECONDED. SO, MR. FINNEY'S MOTION SECONDED BY MR. SLADE DISCUSSION. MR. FINNEY? UH, WELL, I THINK, UH, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT, UM, THAT THE PROPOSED FENCE MEETS THE, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, HE, THERE, THERE'S A VERY CLEAR REASON FOR THE FENCE. UM, UH, THERE'S ONLY ONE LETTER OF OPPOSITION. UM, AND THERE'S, UH, PLENTY OF PRECEDENT IN THE AREA FOR SIMILAR FENCES. SO IT MADE THE DECISION PRETTY SIMPLE. UH, VICE CHAIR SIMPLY PUT, BASED ON WHAT WE SAW, PARTICULARLY WITH THE DRIVE AROUND AND EVERYTHING ELSE, I DON'T THINK THE PROPOSED FENCE, UH, ADVERSELY AFFECTS NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. I AGREE. I'D LIKE TO TAKE A QUICK SECOND AND ADDRESS, UM, MR. SHIVERS, UH, LETTER, WHICH IS DETAILED AND, AND I APPRECIATE, I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY A FEW THINGS. THESE ARE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTS. SO THE STANDARD IS IN THE OPINION OF THE BOARD, WHICH IS WHY STAFF DOES NOT GIVE RECOMMENDATIONS. WHERE IN A VARIANCE, UH, THE STAFF WOULD GIVE A RECOMMENDATION. BUT THE, UM, WE DON'T ASK THE STAFF TO TRY TO, UH, DEFINE OUR OPINIONS. UM, SO THAT, THAT'S WHY ON THE WEBSITE, THE STAFF DID NOT PROVIDE AN OPINION. AND WHY ON THE WEBSITE THEY DO SOMETIMES PROVIDE OPINIONS. UM, I MENTIONED THAT IT IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, NOT A VARIANCE. A VARIANCE IS WHAT REQUIRES HARDSHIP. A SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT. UM, THE CONTROLLED GATES HE'S ASKED FOR ARE OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW. THEY ARE LEGAL. UM, SO, UH, THOSE THREE THINGS I THINK MAY ANSWER THE, THE BULK OF THE CONCERNS YOU BROUGHT UP. SO I'LL BE VOTING FOR IT. MS. WILLIAMS, WILL YOU CALL THE, CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. OH, I'M SORRY. MR. SINGTON, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? NO. WILL YOU CALL THE VOTE MR. SLATE? AYE. MR. SINGTON? AYE. MR. MILLIKEN? AYE. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. VICE CHAIR? AYE. MOTION PASSES TO GRANT FIVE TO ZERO. MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. FINNEY OR DID YOU AND SECONDED BY MR. SLATE APPROVES FIVE ZERO OH. THAT'S TRUE. WE, WE DO HAVE THREE SEPARATE MOTIONS, ALTHOUGH THEY SHOULD BE THE SAME. CAN'T DO THAT IN ONE MOTION. OKAY, MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MEAN, MAKE A MOTION. UH, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 34 DASH 1 36 ON APPLICATION OF MOSHE TRAVER GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE ALONG FRANKFORT ROAD AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED 'CAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHTENED FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED. MOTION BY MR. FINNEY. IS THERE A SECOND VICE CHAIR? JARED SLATE. SECOND. MR. SLADE SECONDS I ASSUME NO COMMENTS. IS THERE A A PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. MR. SLADE. AYE. MR. MILLIKEN AYE. MR. ASHTON AYE. MR. [00:35:01] FINNEY AYE. MR. VICE CHAIR AYE. MOTION TO GRANT PASSES? FIVE TO ZERO. MOTION WAS, UH, MR. FINNEY SECONDED BY MR. SLADE? FIVE TO ZERO. OKAY. THIRD MOTION. MR. FINNEY, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 1 3 6 ON APPLICATION OF MOSHE TRAPPER GRANT THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND, AND OR MAINTAIN AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE ALONG WIND PIPER DRIVE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED 'CAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT VIRTUALLY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS OR REQUIRED. MAYOR SECOND VICE CHAIR, AGNI. I'LL SECOND MR. SLADE. SECOND. MR. SLADE SECONDS DISCUSSION, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL MS. WILLIAMS? MR. MILLIKEN? AYE. AYE. MR. STON AYE. MR. SLADE AYE. MR. FINNEY AYE. MR. VICE CHAIR AYE. MOTION PASSES TO GRAND FIVE TO ZERO. MR. FINNEY SECONDED BY MR. SLADE. OKAY. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. UH, YOU WILL GET A LETTER QUICKLY AND, UH, GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THANK YOU. I SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, SO I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU, . THANK YOU. UH, OKAY. MANY PIECES OF PAPER. NEXT CASE WE HEAR. NEXT CASE WE HERE WILL BE, UH, BDA 2 34 DASH 12 6 52 51 RAVINE DRIVE. IT IS AN APPLICATION OF ROB BALDWIN FOR FIRST A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS. SECOND, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE OPACITY REGULATIONS. AND THIRD, FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE 20 FOOT VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION, REGULATIONS AT DRIVEWAY APPROACHES. ANYONE WHO IS HERE TO SPEAK ON ANY FOR OR AGAINST, IS IT JUST YOU? WOULD YOU PLEASE BE SWORN IN? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH AND YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, I DO. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. VICE CHAIR. UH, GENTLEMAN OF THE BOARD, ROB BALDIN, 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS. I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS REQUEST. UH, UH, 52 51 RAVINE DRIVE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. IT'S UP IN PRESTON HOLLOW, UH, PROPER, UH, JUST, JUST SOUTH OF PARK AND, UH, JUST WEST OF THE TOLLWAY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UM, IT'S ON RAVINE DRIVE. AS YOU SEE, RAVINE CONNECTS PARK TO MEADOWBROOK IN THIS SECTION, UH, SHORT STREET, KIND OF NARROW, VERY RESIDENTIAL. AND WE DO, UM, THE INTERESTING THING IS OUR NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST, UH, THEIR PROPERTY LINE IS A SIDE YARD, BUT WE HAVE A FRONT YARD. SO AS YOU'LL SEE IN MY SLIDES, OUR NEIGHBOR JUST TO THE, THE WEST OF US, UM, THEY HAVE A, A NINE FOOT FENCE, A SOLID FENCE, BUT THAT'S ALLOWED 'CAUSE THAT'S A SIDE YARD AND NOT A FRONT YARD. SO, UM, YOU'LL SEE THAT IN A SECOND. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS THE PROPERTY. IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION. UM, IT'S GOING ALONG NICELY. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, THIS IS, THIS SLIDE SHOWS THAT, UH, FENCES ARE COMMON IN THIS AREA. FENCE IS TALLER THAN FOUR FEET. EVERY HOUSE HAS A FENCE OF SOME SORT, BUT EVERYTHING IN THE CYAN COLOR IS OVER FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT. UH, OUR NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET DOES HAVE A FENCE, UH, UP AT THE PROPERTY LINE. IT'S LESS THAN FOUR FEET AND SOLID, BUT, UM, WE'RE ASKING FOR A FENCE THAT, UH, A MAXIMUM OF SEVEN FOOT SIX. BUT MOST OF THE PANELS, AS YOU'LL SEE, ARE SIX FOOT SIX. BUT THERE'S TOPOGRAPHY ON THE SITE AND THERE'S SOME COLUMNS THAT REQUIRE THE WAY THE, THE CITY MEASURES HEIGHT FOR RESIDENTIAL, YOU MEASURE ON THE INSIDE OF THE FENCE AND THE OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE. AND THE HIGHER ELEVATION GIVES YOU, UH, THE FENCE HEIGHT. SO ALTHOUGH OUR FENCE IS MOSTLY SIX FOOT SIX, WE HAD TO ASK FOR SEVEN FOOT SIX JUST BECAUSE THE TOPOGRAPHY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THERE'S THREE THINGS WE'RE ASKING FOR. WE'RE ASKING FOR A FENCE TALLER THAN FOUR FEET IN A FRONT YARD. WE ARE ASKING FOR A PORTION OF THE FENCE TO BE SOLID, UH, WHICH WILL BE BRICK TO MATCH THE HOUSE, AND A SLIGHT ENCROACHMENT AND SIGHT AND VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. AND I'LL GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THESE JUST QUICKLY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE CYAN COLOR, AGAIN, THE AREAS IN BLUE ARE THE SOLID PORTION OF THE FENCE. ALL IN ALL, IT'S ABOUT 12% OF THE TOTAL LENGTH OF THE FENCE WOULD BE SOLID. THE INTERESTING THING IS, AND YOU'LL SEE IN THE NEXT SLIDE, [00:40:01] ABOUT ONLY 6% OF THE FENCE IS ACTUALLY WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE. SO I'M SHOWING YOU ALL OF, ALL OF THE, THE SOLID PORTION, BUT ONLY SIX, 6% GIVE OR TAKE IS SUBJECT TO THE OPACITY REQUIREMENTS BEING WITHIN FIVE FEET OF A FRONT YARD. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THE FENCE LOOKS LIKE. AS YOU CAN SEE, DECORATIVE IRON PICKETS OPEN. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THAT'S THE, THE SIDE YARD, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE RETURNS AND THIS IS THE FRONT YARD. UM, GIVEN THE SCALE OF THE HOUSE AND, UH, THE SETBACK OF THE FENCE, YOU'LL SEE ON MY NEXT SLIDE, MOST OF THE FENCE IS SETBACK ABOUT 20 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY, NOT FROM PROPERTY LINE, BUT FROM THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT, ABOUT 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. AND THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THIS FENCE, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THAT I THINK THE OWNER DID A VERY, UH, GOOD JOB ON THIS. INSTEAD OF HAVING A FENCE ALL ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, UH, YOU KNOW, IT WAS A, YOU KNOW, KIND OF DELINEATING THE PROPERTY LINE. THIS FENCE IS A SERIES OF STAIR STEPS, WHICH GIVES MORE PLANTING AREA AND IT JUST, UH, SOFTENS THE FENCE FROM THE ROAD. AS I SAID, MOST OF THE FENCE IS PUSHED BACK ABOUT 20 FEET FROM THE, THE PAVEMENT LINE. AND THIS EXHIBIT, EVERYTHING IN CYAN IS OPEN. EVERYTHING IN GREEN IS THE, THE SOLID PORTION. AS YOU CAN SEE, ESPECIALLY AS YOU GET TO THE, THE NORTHERN PLAN NORTH OF THIS, THOSE PANELS ARE SET BACK MORE THAN FIVE FEET. SO THEY'RE TECHNICALLY NOT SUBJECT TO IT. BUT I WANTED TO SHOW YOU WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING. UH, THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND THIS IS A SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE ORANGE AREA IS THE ONLY PORTION OF THE FENCE THAT IS IN A SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, WHICH IS MEASURED 20 FEET FROM THE FENCE TO THE, UH, THE CURB AND OUT ALONG THE CURB. SO THERE'S JUST A VERY SLIGHT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE GIST OF OUR REQUEST. AND NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THESE ARE PHOTOS OF, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON ON RAVINE NEXT, PLEASE. BUT AS YOU SAW FROM, UH, THE EXHIBITS THIS, THIS MORNING, FENCES ARE COMMON. THIS IS HEADING TOWARDS OUR PROPERTY. WE HAVE FENCES TALLER THAN FOUR FEET ALONG RAVINE DRIVE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THAT'S THE SIDE YARD FENCE THAT ABUTS OUR PROPERTY. UH, SOLID WOOD, BUT IT'S A SIDE YARD, SO IT'S ALLOWED TO BE THERE. NEXT SLIDE, SLIDE PLEASE. THAT'S OUR, UH, NEIGHBOR JUST TO THE SOUTH SOUTHWEST. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THIS IS THE NEIGHBOR RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, AS YOU CAN SEE THIS SOLID FENCE AND COLUMNS, BUT THEN IT OPENS UP INTO DECORATIVE IRON AS YOU GET IN CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY. SO THAT'S OUR REQUEST. I HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS. I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST. LIKE I SAY, I THINK THAT THE, THE OWNER AND THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DID A GREAT JOB OF STAIR STEPPING THE FENCE. SO IT'S JUST NOT A BARRIER RIGHT ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. IT ADDS A SOFTNESS AND ALLOWS FOR LOTS OF PLANTING BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE FENCE. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, MR. GOLDMAN. MR. FINNEY, UH, FIRST OF ALL, I'D JUST LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR, UH, ANSWERING MOST OF MY QUESTIONS BEFORE I HAD A CHANCE TO ASK THEM. YOU HAD A VERY THOROUGH PRESENTATION, UM, AND WE APPRECIATE THAT. UM, I WAS JUST CURIOUS. SO THERE IS ONE LETTER OF OPPOSITION, UM, AND I WAS WONDERING IF YOUR CLIENT HAD A CHANCE TO DISCUSS THIS WITH THAT NEIGHBOR? HE DID, YOU KNOW, AND WE SENT LETTERS TO ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE NOTIFICATION AREA RIGHT WHEN HE FILED IT BEFORE THE SIGNS WENT UP. NEVER HEARD FROM THE GENTLEMAN. MY PROPERTY OWNER HAS SPOKEN WITH HIM AND, UH, THE GENTLEMAN'S BEEN THERE FOR ABOUT 60 YEARS AND JUST LIKES THE WAY IT IS AND DOESN'T WANT TO SEE ANYTHING CHANGE ACCORDING TO MY CLIENT. OKAY. SO THERE WAS NOTHING THAT YOUR CLIENT COULD HAVE OFFERED TO NO. APPEASE HIM. OKAY. UH, HE, YEAH, IT WAS A CORDIAL BUT NOT A FRIENDLY CONVERSATION IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU MR. SA. OKAY, MRS. MR. SLAVE. UM, WOW. SO I ASSUME THAT THERE, THERE IS A REASON GIVEN THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST A FEW FEET WITHOUT EVEN HAVING TO TALK TO US AND SOMETHING, WHY NOT JUST PULL IT RIGHT BACK AND THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH DEAL CAPACITY FOR OPEN FENCE PANELS, UHHUH AND, AND FRANKLY, WHERE THE, WHERE THE VISIBILITY IS? I MEAN, IT'S, UM, TINY BECAUSE THE, THE, THE WAY THE, THE LOT IS IN THE HOUSE. [00:45:01] THE HOUSE IS ACTUALLY CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN MOST HOUSES IN, UH, THE ESTATE DISTRICT HERE. UH, IT MEETS THE SETBACK, BUT THE HOUSE IS KIND OF BIG AND IT, IT IS CLOSER TO THE, THE STREET THAN MOST HOUSES THAT ARE SET BACK FARTHER. AND IT, IT'S JUST A, A PROPORTION SCALE. I MEAN, IF I'M LOOKING AT IT, IT'S LIKE TWO FEET, RIGHT? LIKE IT IS NOT MUCH. RIGHT. LIKE, I'M JUST CURIOUS WHETHER THERE WAS YEAH. GEOGRAPHICAL OR A TOPOGRAPHICAL REASON. YEAH, IT'S, UH, IF YOU, I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK TO THE SLIDE AGAIN, BUT, UH, ON ONE OF MY SLIDES IT SHOWS THE TOPOGRAPHY AND, UH, HOW IT WAS MEASURED. BUT ALL IN ALL, IT'S, IT'S ABOUT SIX RIGHT AT SIX FEET. AND THEN THE TOTAL HEIGHT OF THE FENCE AFTER WE'RE ALL SAID AND DONE, THE, THE VERY TALLEST PART IS SEVEN FOOT SIX, BUT MOST OF IT'S SIX FOOT SIX. SO IF THIS IS APPROVED IN A YEAR, DO YOU THINK IT'S POSSIBLE I WOULD FIND SOMEONE ABOUT TWO INCHES SHORTER THAN THE SIX FOOT SIX FENCE WALKING AROUND WHO MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE PRETERNATURAL COURT VISION? I'M SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. DOESN'T MATTER. . SORRY. YOU DID CYAN. SO I'M ASSUMING, OH, THIS, THIS PERSON MAY OR MAY NOT YEAH. BE A HALL OF FAMER WITH PRETERNATURAL COURT VISION AND LIVES IN DALLAS. YEAH, BUT FAIR ENOUGH. UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? BUT YOU, YOU DID THROW ME A CURVE BALL BY DOING THE CYAN AND EVERYTHING, BUT OH, NO, I WAS, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO SHOW MY, UH, I, I'M HIP WITH THE KIDS BY KNOWING IT'S DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCION AND LIGHT BLUE. YOU KNOW, IT'S, UH, WELL THAT MAKES ONE OF US AND THAT'S GOOD. I'M GLAD YOU . WELL, ILL HAVE TO ORDER MY OWN OFFICE SUPPLY SO I, I KNOW WHAT SCION IS NOW. . OKAY. ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS? DID I HEAR MR. SINGTON? DID I GET KICKED OUT OF THE MEETING? YEAH, YEAH. MR. SINGTON, GO AHEAD. AM I KICKED OUT? NO, I'M WONDERING, I'M SORRY. UH, YEAH. SO, MR. MR. BALDWIN, CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES, SIR. UM, HOW YOU DOING? GREAT. IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU. QUICK QUESTION ON, ON THE TOPOGRAPHY. UM, ON THE INSIDE YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S ABOUT FIVE, I THINK YOU MENTIONED ABOUT 5% OF, UM, FENCE THAT IS ACTUALLY ABOVE, UM, MORE THAN THE, THE, UM, THE, THE SIX FOOT, UM, UH, HEIGHT BECAUSE OF TOPOGRAPHY. DID YOU, DID YOU PROVIDE ANY, UM, YOU TYPICALLY WILL, WILL BRING IN SOME PICTURES THAT, THAT IDENTIFIES THAT, UH, THOSE LOCATIONS THAT ARE, UH, YOU KNOW, HIGHER THAN BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY. DID YOU, DID YOU PROVIDE ANY OF THOSE THIS TIME? UH, WHAT I WAS SAYING IS THAT THE, THE, YOU CAN'T TELL FROM THIS SLIDE. I WAS ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT THE, UH, OPAQUE FENCE PANELS IS ABOUT 6%. SO IF YOU CAN GO TO THE, THE PLAN VIEW, UH, SEE THIS, YEAH, RIGHT HERE, ANYTHING THAT'S IN GREEN IS SOLID. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT A LOT OF THE GREEN, I'M SORRY, MR. BALDMAN DID, DID WE JUST LOSE MR. SINGTON? SO ON MINE, I DON'T SEE HIS PICTURE. YOU'RE, YOU SEE HIM? I, I, SO COMMISSIONER SACHIN, WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS THE, THE AREAS THAT ARE SHADED GREEN, ESPECIALLY UP ON THE NORTH, ARE BACK BEYOND FIVE FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINES. SO EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE SOLID, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BE SOLID THERE. BUT I WANTED TO IDENTIFY 'EM SO YOU COULD SEE WHAT THE, THE, THE FULL EXTENT OF THE SOLID PORTION OF THE FENCE WOULD BE. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M CLEAR NOW. THANK YOU MR. BALL. YOU'RE WELCOME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, SO JUST TO, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT SOLID LINE IN THAT GRAPHIC WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT IS THE FIVE FOOT LINE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, UH, THAT I DIDN'T PREPARE. THE GRAPHIC THAT WE JUST LOOKED AT. THIS IS THE STAFF'S PRESENTATION. OH, OH, OKAY. ON, IF YOU GO TO, ON MY PRESENTATION WITH THE COLORS, THE, THE BLUE AND THE GREEN, UH, YOU'LL, YOU'LL SEE THE PROPERTY LINE. AND THEN THERE'S SOME, SOME CALL OUTS ON THE FENCE, WHICH IS HARD TO SEE IN THIS, BUT THAT THIS ONE HERE, SO THE, UM, THE RED LINE IS THE PROPERTY LINE, THE, THE LINE WHERE IT HAS THE, THE WORDS, THAT'S THE ACTUAL PAVEMENT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? WHERE, WHERE'S THE LINE WITH THE WORDS? I'M SORRY. OH, NOT THE LINE, BUT YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A SHADE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE, BETWEEN THE, THE WORDS AND THE RED LINE. OKAY. THAT'S WHERE THE PAVEMENT IS. OKAY. SO THAT SHOWS THE GRASS AND THEN THE PAVEMENT IS, UH, WHERE ALL THE, UH, THE WORDS ARE. GOTCHA. OKAY. [00:50:08] THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN FAVOR? NO, NO OTHER SPEAKERS REGISTERED? UH, SO JUST FOR, FOR THE RECORD THERE, ARE THERE SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? NO, THE SPEAKERS REGISTERED. OKAY. MR. BALDWIN, I'M NOT GONNA THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, IS THERE A MOTION MR. CHAIR? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. MR. FINNEY, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 26 ON APPLICATION OF ROB BALDWIN GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN A SEVEN FOOT SIX INCH HIGH FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED. 'CAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT. THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED. IS THERE A SECOND VICE CHAIR? AGNI, JARED SL WILL SECOND MR. SLADE SECONDS. MR. FINNEY'S MOTION DISCUSSION, MR. FINNEY? WELL, I THINK THE MAIN CRITERIA IS WHETHER OR NOT THIS WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT, UM, ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND PROPERTY OWNERS. AND I THINK IT, UH, MR. BALDWIN MADE A PRETTY CLEAR CASE THAT IT, IT WILL NOT. UM, AND IN FACT THEY, THEY, THEY SEEM TO HAVE BEEN TO VERY THOUGHTFULLY, UH, ACCOMMODATED THE CODE TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY WITH ONLY, UH, I BELIEVE 6%, UM, ACTUALLY, UH, REQUIRING, UH, THE, THE VARIANCE. UM, SO, UM, YEAH, I THINK THAT'S JUST MADE IT A VERY SIMPLE DECISION. UH, SO THIS WAS THE HEIGHT MOTION. UM, I HAVE MADE COMMENTS ON THE, UH, RIGHT, THE VISIBILITY, BUT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE HEIGHT, UM, I KNOW THE AREA, THERE'S LOTS OF FENCES. THIS IS BY FAR, THIS IS FAR FROM OBNOXIOUS RELATIVE TO THE AREA. SO, AND, AND I I ALSO APPRECIATE THAT YOU DIDN'T GO FOR BROKE. I THINK IT'S A GIVEN, GIVEN THE FACTS. IT, IT, IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT JUST COMES FOR THE HEIGHT. OKAY? UH, PLEASE CALL THE, OH, MR. SINGTON, ARE YOU OKAY? I'M GOOD, THANK YOU. OKAY. THANKS MS. WILLIAMS. WILL YOU CALL THE VOTE MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. SLAVE? AYE. MR. SINGTON? AYE. MR. MILLIGAN? AYE. MR. VICE CHAIR? AYE. MOTION TO GRAHAM PASSES. FIVE TO ZERO FINNEY SLATE. MR. FINNEY, IS THERE A SECOND MOTION? YES. UH, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 26 ON APPLICATION OF ROB BALDWIN GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT OR MAINTAIN A FENCE 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 OPENNESS REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. 'CAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. COMPLIANCE WITH OPACITY AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED. IS THERE A SECOND VICE CHAIR? AGNI? ALL SECOND MR. SLADE SECONDS. MR. FINNEY'S MOTION DISCUSSION, MR. FINNEY? YES. SO MY, MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS WERE MEANT FOR THIS MOTION. UM, BUT I, BUT I THINK THE, THE SAME LOGIC HOLDS, IT CLEARLY, UM, IS NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTING HIS NEIGHBORS. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, AND THE, THE BRIEFING, I THINK IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARILY OUT OF CHARACTER WITH, UH, SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. SO AGAIN, I THINK A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD DECISION. OTHER COMMENTS, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE VOTE, MR. MILLIGAN? AYE. MR. SLADE? AYE. MR. SACHIN? [00:55:04] AYE. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. VICE CHAIR? AYE. MOTION TO GRANT PASSES? FIVE TO ZERO. THE GREAT FINNEY SLATE LAW OF 2024 IS ALMOST THERE. IS THERE A THIRD MOTION? YES. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. MR. CHAIR. MR. FED, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 26 ON APPLICATION OF ROB BALDWIN GRANT THE REQUEST TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE 20 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE DRIVE APPROACH AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION REGULATION CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED. 'CAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD AND FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FALLING CONDITION BE IMPOSED 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 AS REQUIRED. THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND VICE CHAIR? I SECOND. MR. MILLIKEN THROWS A CURVE BALL. OKAY, MR. FINNEY'S MOTION SECONDED BY, UH, MR. MILLIKEN. MR. FINNEY? YES. SO THE, THE OBSTRUCTION IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE WAS VERY MINIMAL. UM, THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERS SEEM TO AGREE WITH THAT. UM, AND AGAIN, I THINK I, YOU KNOW, I REALLY APPRECIATE IT WHEN OUR CLIENTS DO MAKE EFFORTS TO TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE OPPOSED TO WHAT THEY'RE, WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO. UM, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT AND IT COMMUNICATES TO US THAT, UM, THAT THEY'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEEDS OF THEIR NEIGHBORS AND, AND CLEARLY THE APPLICANT DID ALL THOSE THINGS. SO, OTHER COMMENTS? I I ONLY SAY THAT, THAT IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, WHEN I SEE THE POSSIBILITY FOR TRAFFIC HAZARDS, UH, I LOOK PRETTY HARD BECAUSE THERE'S OBVIOUSLY PLENTY OF ROOM TO, TO, UH, TO, TO MANEUVER. UH, IN THIS CASE I LOOKED AND IT'S SO TINY THAT, THAT I, I DON'T SEE THAT THAT PARTICULAR PROTRUSION HAS ANY MARGINAL, CONTRIBUTES ANY MARGINAL INCREASE TO A, A TRAFFIC HAZARD THAT IT WOULDN'T BE IF IT WERE A FOOT BACK. SO, SO I'LL SUPPORT IT'S ALL SUPPORTED. MR. SINGTON? MR. SLADE? NO, I'M GOOD. THANK YOU MS. WILLIAMS. OKAY, MR. SINGTON? AYE. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. MILLIKEN? AYE. MR. SLATE? AYE. MR. VICE CHAIR? AYE. MOTION TO GRAHAM PASSES FIVE TO ZERO. UH, THIS IS FINNEY. MILLIKEN. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR CYAN. UM, OKAY. ANYONE WANT A QUICK BREAK OR SHOULD WE KEEP GOING? KEEP GOING. ALRIGHT. UH, BDA 2, 3, 4 CHAIR. MR. SINGTON CHAIR? YEAH, VICE CHAIR AGNI. UM, I SENT YOU A MESSAGE A LITTLE WHILE AGO, UM, JUST WANTED TO BE SURE THAT YOU SAW IT. I HAVE NOT, BUT I SUPPOSE IT PROBABLY OUGHT TO BE ON THE RECORD. SO IT MEANS YOU HAVE TO DROP AT TWO 30, SO WE BETTER YES, YOU DROP WHEN YOU HAVE TO. WE'LL, WE'LL GET AS FAR AS WE CAN, UM, SEE WHAT HAPPENS. SORRY. NO, I, I, UH, ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO. ALRIGHT, SO, UM, BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 3 2 1000 NORTH RIVERFRONT BOULEVARD, APPLICATION OF ANDREW HOOPER, REPRESENTED BY MIKE DAVIS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE PARKING REGULATIONS. IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK, UH, EITHER FOR OR AGAINST ON THIS, WOULD YOU PLEASE BE SWORN IN, SPAMMED, AND BE SWORN IN BY MS. WILLIAMS? HE MAY NOT WANNA SPEAK, UH, ONLY IF YOU SPEAK REPRESENTATIVE. OKAY. PLEASE BE SWORN IN. AND WHEN YOU'RE DONE, SIR, IF YOU CAN PLEASE, UH, FILL ONE OF THE BLUE CARDS BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE YOUR NAME ON RECORD SHOULD BE ON THERE. UH, REPRESENTATIVE SHOULD, DID YOU, DID YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK? THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU ARE DONE SPEAKING, IF YOU CAN FEEL ONE OF THOSE BLUE, BLUE CARDS. THANK YOU. I'M GONNA SWEAR YOU IN. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES. [01:00:01] OKAY. PLEASE MAKE SURE THE LIGHT IS ON, ON THE MICROPHONE. SO WE, WE HAVE TWO DISTINCT ISSUES AT THIS POINT. I'D LIKE TO FOCUS THIS PART AND THEN WE'LL RESTART. I'M SORRY. IS, IS THE LIGHT ON? YES. OKAY. NO, NO, NOW IT'S ON. OKAY. MAKE MAKE SURE YOU SPEAK. TESTING. THERE YOU GO. OKAY. WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE YOUR ADDRESS? YES. YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE? YEAH. MIKE DAVIS, 1837 WONDERLIGHT LANE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 8. MIGHT AS WELL GIVE YOUR NAME JUST FOR THE RECORD AGAIN, MIKE DAVIS. OKAY. MR. DAVIS, I'D, I'D LIKE TO SPLIT THIS INTO TWO DISCUSSIONS. THE FIRST HAVING TO DO WITH NOTICE, UM, WHICH IS IN QUESTION. SO LET'S, IF YOU'D SPEAK TO THAT FIRST AND SECONDLY TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, AND LET US GO THROUGH QUESTIONS AND, AND MAKE A MOTION ON, ON THAT BEFORE WE MOVE ON. OKAY. AND YOUR QUESTION ON NOTICE. WELL, I, I'D LIKE YOU TO, YOU, DID YOU HEAR THIS MORNING'S BRIEFING? YES. OKAY. SO I THINK YOU, YOU'VE HEARD THE, UM, CONCERNS THAT THE STAFF HAS RAISED? YES, BRIEFLY. I HEARD THAT, BUT I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO, TO GET THE DETAIL. OKAY. SO IF I, UM, MR. THOMPSON, CORRECT ME IF I MESS THIS UP. UM, THIS APPLICATION WAS FILED IN LATE SEPTEMBER, SOMEWHERE LIKE THE 30TH. WE DECIDED AGAIN, I BELIEVE, AND MR. THOMPSON INITIALLY EVALUATED THIS PROPERTY ON 31 OCTOBER. MR. THOMPSON? YES. IT WAS OCTOBER 31ST. AND ON THE 31ST OF OCTOBER, HE DID NOT SEE SIGNS ON ALONG RIVERFRONT. HE TESTIFIED THAT HE REACHED OUT TO YOU OR TO THE OWNER, AND THAT WHEN HE WAS THERE THE NEXT DAY, THE SIGNS ALONG RIVERFRONT WERE UP, RIGHT? YES. AND THAT ON THE 14TH OF NOVEMBER, HE DROVE THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO DO THE VIDEO THAT WE SAW THIS MORNING AND, AND NOTICES WERE NOT THERE. SO NOTICES HAVE TO BE POSTED 14 DAYS AFTER THE APPLICATION DATE AND HAVE TO REMAIN PROMINENTLY POSTED UNTIL A DECISION IS MADE. CORRECT. SO THE, THE, UH, THERE ARE SEVERAL DATA POINTS, UH, WHERE, UH, THE WERE NOTICE WAS, WAS NOT GIVEN, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS. UNDERSTOOD. SO COULD YOU GIVE ME TESTIMONY AS TO WHO PUT WHAT UP WHEN? SURE. LET ME, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN DID THEY FIRST GO UP? SO THEY, THEY FIRST WENT UP. UH, I CAN ACTUALLY PROVIDE THAT TO YOU SHORTLY, MR. VICE CHAIR. UM, BUT I, I HAVE NOT, JUST FOR THE RECORD, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED, UH, ANY COMMUNICATION RELATING TO THE NOTIFICATION DIRECTLY TO MYSELF. UM, IF THAT COMMUNICATION WENT TO SOMEONE, UH, I WAS NOT NOTIFIED. UM, I HAVE RECEIVED TWO CALLS FROM THE, UH, FROM OUR NEIGHBORS. UM, BUT BOTH OF THOSE CALLS WERE IN SUPPORT, AND IT WAS OUR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO SEE, UM, WHAT TO EXPECT. UH, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WE, WE DID NOT HAVE, AS FAR AS WE UNDERSTOOD AT THAT TIME, WE DID NOT HAVE ANY, UM, ANY OPPOSITION FROM OUR NEIGHBORS AT THAT TIME. BUT LET ME, LET ME PULL THAT UP REAL QUICK. YOU KNOW, I'M JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE WE CONFIRM EXACTLY THE DATE. YEAH. SO MY RECORDS INDICATE THAT WE, WE, UM, WE DID HAVE THE SIGNS IN PLACE, UH, ON, UH, SEPTEMBER 27TH. UH, AND THE RECORD HERE CONFIRMS THAT AT, UH, [01:05:01] FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27TH, UH, 2024 AT 12:00 PM UH, AND LIKE I SAID, FOR THE RECORD, I DID NOT, UH, RECEIVE ANY COMMUNICATION, UH, EITHER BY PHONE OR IN WRITING THAT THE NOTIFICATION MAY HAVE BEEN IN QUESTION. I AM WAITING ON THE INFORMATION FOR THOMPSON. OKAY. HE CAN FORWARD IT TO ME. SO I GUESS ONCE YOU HAVE IT, YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS BECOMES A, UH, PART OF OUR RECORD. SO INFORMATION WAS SENT, CORRESPONDENCE WAS SENT TO THE APPLICANT ON NOVEMBER 14TH AT 12:56 PM UM, WHO IS ANDY HOOPER, AND HE RESPONDED THAT HE WOULD SEND SOMEONE OVER AND GET THE SIGNS BACK UP ASAP. UM, ON WHICH DATE, SORRY? UM, NOVEMBER 14TH. OKAY. MR. FINNEY. UM, SO THERE WERE TWO INSTANCES WHERE IT WAS DISCOVERED. THE SIGNS WERE NOT THERE, SO SHE JUST, SO, I'M SORRY, LET ME GO BACK. SO NOVEMBER 1ST AND NOVEMBER 14TH. RIGHT. AND THEN THE CORRESPONDENCE, SO THE FIRST NOTIFICATION WAS SENT ON NOVEMBER 1ST THAT THE SIGNS WERE NOT UP TO, FROM MR. THOMPSON? YES. TO AND YES. ANDREW HOOPER. YOU KNOW WHO THIS PERSON IS? ANDREW HOOP? YEAH. ANDREW HOOPER'S, THE RESTAURATEUR, THE PERSON THAT'S PUTTING THE RESTAURANT TOGETHER. UM, LIEUTENANT, JUST FOR THE RECORD, UH, MR. HOOPER, UH, HAD NOT, UH, BEEN IN ANY TYPE OF DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH STAFF, UH, PRIOR TO THIS TIME. AND THIS IS ACTUALLY, UH, THE FIRST TIME THAT I'VE, I'VE BEEN MADE AWARE OF THIS, THESE COMMUNICATIONS, UH, DIANA AND I MADE ALL THE COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO THIS PROJECT. UM, AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE, IT WOULD'VE BEEN HE'S LISTED AS THE APPLICANT, CORRECT? UH, SO LET, LET'S GO THROUGH THAT. ARE, ARE YOU THE BROKER? NO, I DO HAVE THE BROKER WITH ME, BUT ARE, SO ARE YOU WOOD BUYING? NO. WOODMONT IS IS THE BROKER, UH, GRANT GARY, THAT'S HERE. I'M MIKE DAVIS, THE REPRESENTATIVE ON OF THE APPLICATION, THE OWNER IS WOOD BUYING TRUE OR IS THAT TRUE? CORRECT. OWNER IS WOODMONT, RIGHT? YES. WOOD. I'M SORRY. WOODMONT, YES. OKAY. AND OKAY, SO YOU REPRESENT WHAT THE WILL WOULD BE TENANT? SO I AM REPRESENTING THE OCCUPANT, WELL, I'M REPRESENTING THE APPLICATION AND THE WOODMONT COMPANY, WHO IS THE PROPERTY OWNER? ANDREW HOOPER IS GOING TO BE THE TENANT AND THE TECHNICAL, SOMETIMES WE HAVE THE, THE, SURE. I LOOKED AT THIS BEFORE, BUT NOW I'M THE TECHNICAL APPLICANT BECAUSE WE, WE HAVE APPLICATIONS FROM TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE, AT LEAST IN OUR, IN OUR PACKET. YEAH. SO THE, THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT CAME UP. THERE WAS SOMEHOW, UM, AN ERROR GENERATED THAT LISTED A NAME OF, UH, GRANT SLIK. MM-HMM. . DID YOU NOTICE THAT? SO WHO IS THAT? THAT IS NOT A, A, A PERSON. I DO HAVE HERE PRESENT THOUGH, MR. GRANT, GARY, WHO IS REGISTERED AS THE SEC DOCUMENTS, WOULD, WOULD VERIFY STEVEN COSICK IS HIS, UH, BUSINESS PARTNER AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE WOODMONT COMPANY. UNDERSTOOD. UH, BUT THAT WAS AN INITIAL ERROR THAT WAS CAUGHT. UH, AND DIANA AND I WORKED THROUGH, UM, THAT AND RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT THAT THAT INFORMATION WASN'T ERROR. SO THAT MEANS GO AHEAD. YOU ARE THE APPLICANT. JUST SO WE'RE ALL STRAIGHT, RIGHT? I AM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICATION. THE APPLICANT IS ANDREW HOOPER AND HE'S THE REPRESENTATIVE ANDREW HOOPER, RIGHT? YES. AND THAT'S WHO MR. THOMPSON CORRESPONDED WITH? YES. SO IN SOME WAYS WE'RE TALKING TO MR. HOOPER. OKAY. SO MR. HOOPER DIDN'T COMMUNICATE WITH YOU AND, AND I, I, HE'S NOT HERE. AND, UH, OKAY. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE GONNA SAY, YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT NOTICE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO, TO NOTICE, UH, HOWEVER I'D, YOU KNOW, BEEN IN, LIKE I SAID, I'D BEEN IN TOUCH WITH CITY STAFF ON THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, UH, THROUGHOUT. AND THERE HAD BEEN, PRIOR TO THIS NO CORRESPONDENCE WHERE AN ANDREW HOOPER WOULD HAVE BEEN THE POINT OF CONTACT UNDER UNDERSTANDING THAT HE IS THE APPLICANT. BUT THERE HAD BEEN NO PREVIOUS RECORD OF ANY COMMUNICATION PRIOR TO THE 1ST OF NOVEMBER. CORRECT. AND, AND THAT IS BECAUSE HE IS OUTTA STATE? HE IS. DID HE SEND YOU THE REGISTERED IN HENDERSON COUNTY, UH, NEVADA? THE, THE EMAIL WAS SENT TO ANDREW HOOPER AND HE RESPONDED THAT HE WOULD GET THE INFORMATION TO, SO THIS PROBABLY SHOULD BE PART OF THE RECORD, RIGHT? [01:10:01] THIS EMAIL BACK AND FORTH, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT. I MEAN, IT COULD BE CANOPY. MM-HMM. . SO IS IT POSSIBLE WE CAN READ IT? I MAY BE THE ONLY ONE WHO'S, I CAN SHARE MY SCREEN. MS. MS. CARLISLE, YOU TELL ME. SHE CAN SHARE SCREEN. IF YOU CAN SHARE THE SCREEN, THAT'S GREAT. THEN JUST MAKE SURE IT GOES INTO THE BOARD'S RECORDS AS EVIDENCE. IS THERE NOT A, IS THERE A MIC THAT CAPTURES YOU UP HERE? NO, I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING SUBSTANTIVE CONVERSATIONS OFF THE MIC, BUT WE'LL CONTINUE. MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION. MR. MILLER? UH, I'M SORRY. MR. FINNEY. UM, MR. DAVIS? YES. UM, SO I'M CURIOUS, WHO FILLED OUT THIS APPLICATION FOR THE VARIANCE? WAS IT YOURSELF OR WAS IT, WAS IT MR. HOOPER OR SOMEONE ELSE ON THE TEAM? WELL, SO WHAT THEY HAD REQUESTED WAS, AND THE REASON WHY THAT CAME INTO QUESTION IS, AS YOU MENTIONED, THE DOCUMENTS REFERRING TO GRANT SLIK. MM-HMM. , IT WAS ACTUALLY GRANT GARY WHO HAD TO SIGN THOSE DOCUMENTS, UM, ON BEHALF OF THE WOODMONT COMPANY. UH, SO THERE WAS AN ERROR THAT WAS INITIALLY CAUGHT BY CITY STAFF. AND SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION MORE DIRECTLY, UH, NO. ANDREW HOOPER DID NOT, UH, ACTUALLY PUT FORTH THE APPLICATION HIMSELF. I PUT FORTH THE APPLICATION IN PERSON AND GRANT GARY'S THE ONE THAT SIGNED THOSE DOCUMENTS. OKAY. AND SO WHEN YOU FILLED OUT THE APPLICATION, DID YOU PUT YOUR OWN CONTACT INFORMATION? YES. OKAY. SO HOW, HOW DID THE CITY STAFF GET MR. HOOPER'S CONTACT INFORMATION TO BEGIN WITH? SO, GO AHEAD. I'LL LET DIANA ANSWER. HI, I AM SORRY. I WANNA JUMP IN ON THIS ONE. SO, UM, MR. COOPER IS, OR NOT MR. COOPER, MR. DAVIS IS, UM, CORRECT. HE'S THE ONE THAT'S APPLIED FOR THIS PERMIT. BUT AS A REPRESENTATIVE, ANDREW HOOP COOPER IS THE APPLICANT, BUT HE IS BEING REPRESENTED BY MR. UM, DAVIS. SORRY, , THESE NAMES ARE GETTING MIXED UP. SO, YES. SO, UH, MR. UH, BRYANT SENT THE EMAIL OUT TO THE APPLICANT FROM THE APPLICATION, BUT IN THE, UM, IN OUR SYSTEM, HE, MR. UM, DAVIS IS THE REPRESENTATIVE. SO HE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE EMAIL AS WELL. UM, THEY DIDN'T COMMUNICATE, UM, SO WELL, IT'S WORTH NOT AT THIS POINT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT, THAT THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO GO DOUBLE AND TRIPLE CHECK FOR THE APPLICANT. I, I, I'M, I'M GLAD THAT YOU DO, BUT IN TERMS OF, THIS ISN'T A SITUATION WHY THEY DIDN'T TELL ME. I MEAN, I TOLD YOU WHEN YOU APPLIED THAT YOU HAVE TO DO IT, PERIOD. RIGHT? YEAH. AND I, I GUESS I WAS JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT, UM, THIS, THAT THE CITY HAD THE CONTACT INFORMATION OF BOTH THE APPLICANT, MR. ANDREW HOOPER AND HIS REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DAVIS. UM, SO BOTH, BOTH, YES. BOTH PERSONS CONTACT INFO WAS, WAS ON THAT APPLICATION? YES. ON THE APPLICATION. WE DID HAVE THE INFORMATION, UM, MR. HOOP, MR. SORRY. IT'S ALRIGHT. MR. DAVIS IS THE REPRESENTATIVE THOUGH. UM, BUT HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE EMAIL. IT WAS MR. HOOPER THAT DID. OKAY. BUT THEN MR. HOOPER THEN TOLD THE CITY STAFF STAFF HE DID NOT YEAH. THAT THAT, THAT IT WAS GONNA BE, BE, WOULD THAT HE WOULD PASS ALL THAT INFORMATION TO HIS TEAM, OKAY. CORRECT. YES. AT THAT POINT IT'S OUT OF OUR, OUT OF THE CITY'S HANDS, RIGHT? CORRECT. THE CITY HAS DONE ITS JOB TO COMMUNICATE TO THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT, YES. OKAY. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT APPEARS THAT ON SEPTEMBER 26TH OF THIS YEAR, UM, UM, MR. GRANT GARRY AUTHORIZED ANDY HOOPER AND MIKE DAVIS AS REPRESENTATIVES TO APPLY. THEN ON SEPTEMBER 24TH OF 24, ANDREW HOOPER APPLIED FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF MINIMUM PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS FROM 72. WELL, THIS IS 72, 2 22 SPACES. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEAN, BUT THAT'S IN THE APPLICATION. MR. VICE CHAIR. I WILL QUALIFY. LIKE I SAID, THERE WAS A, THERE, WHAT I'M THINKING SOUNDS LIKE THERE MAY BE A DOCUMENT, UH, SOME DOCUMENT MISCOMMUNICATION THERE. AS YOU CORRECTLY NOTED THERE, GRANT GARRY IS THE ONE THAT HAD TO SIGN THE DOCUMENTS. THEREFORE, WHEN WE RESUBMITTED THOSE APPLICATIONS BASED UPON THE CITY'S RECORDS OF WHO SHOULD BE ON THERE [01:15:01] AS THE APPLICANT, IT SHOULD HAVE REFLECTED THE PERSON WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENTS, WHICH IN THIS CASE TECHNICALLY WOULD'VE BEEN GRANT GARRY. SO THE BASIC IDEA IS THAT I SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO COME HERE AND GET A RIGHT TO BUILD A HIGHER, A FENCE ON YOUR PROPERTY. THAT'S HIGHER BECAUSE, SO NO APPLICATION IS ACCEPTED WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE, THE PERSON ON, ON THE DEED WHO OWNS IT. CORRECT. SO THAT'S WHY, AND IT APPEARS TO ME THAT I HAVE, I MEAN, IT, IT GOES THROUGH A STEP, BUT IT APPEARS TO ME I HAVE THE NAME OF THE PERSON ON THE DEED. THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. AND I HAVE THE NAME ON THE, THE PERSON, THE NAME ON THE DEED HERE, UH, PRESENT FOR THE RECORD AS WELL, MR. GRANT, GARY. OKAY. OKAY. SO THIS ALL, YOU KNOW, COMES DOWN TO IT, BUT THE QUESTION IS WHEN WERE NOTICES UP OR NOT UP, AND I, I THINK AT SOME POINT I'M GONNA GET A COPY OF THAT EMAIL JUST TO UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT A FUNCTION OF THEM GIVING NOTICE. UM, THE, THE APPLICATION WAS SEPTEMBER 26TH, RIGHT? SO HE'S GOT 14 DAYS. YES, 14 DAYS FROM THE 26TH OF SEPTEMBER. OF MAY 24TH. 24TH OF SEPTEMBER. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE 8TH OF OCTOBER. SO FROM THE 8TH OF OCTOBER UNTIL TODAY, THOSE NOTICES SHOULD BE UP. AND MR. THOMPSON IS SAYING THAT ON THE 31ST OF OCTOBER, THEY WERE NOT UP? THAT IS CORRECT. AND THEN I THINK HE SAID THEY WERE UP ON THE 1ST OF NOVEMBER. I'M SORRY. NO, AND THEN THEY WEREN'T ON THE 14TH. OKAY. SO HERE'S THE EMAIL WHERE MS, UH, MR. THOMPSON SENT THAT MR. THOMPSON SENT TO MR. HOOPER. OH, LET'S SEE IF I MAY VICE CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU CAN QUALIFY FROM, WHICH I HAVE NOT SEEN THESE BEFORE, BUT YOU, I CAN SEE BRIEFLY THERE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURES, ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES HERE IS THAT THIS IS AN ACTIVE, UH, CONSTRUCTION SITE. UH, AND THEY ARE, UH, ACTIVELY WORKING ON THE DAYS THAT, UH, MR. THOMPSON LIKELY VISITED THE PROPERTY. IT WOULD'VE BEEN CLEAR THAT, THAT THIS WORK WAS IN PROGRESS. AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE VISITS POSSIBLY OCCURRED DURING WORKING HOURS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO QUALIFY IF THERE IS SOME CONCERN THERE WITH, UH, THE PLACEMENT OR, OR WHERE THE SIGNS MAY HAVE BEEN AT THE TIME. UM, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO QUALIFY THERE. I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS BEFORE, BUT JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT'S FOR THE RECORD, THAT'S MR. THOMPSON. WHEN YOU WENT BY AND, AND THERE WAS AN ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND YOU DECIDED THAT THERE WERE NO SIGNS, DID YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT IT'S POSSIBLE THERE WAS A CAR OR A SITE BETWEEN YOU AND THE BUILDING? UH, YES. SO I ACTUALLY WALKED THE SITE AND THERE WAS NO SIGN VISIBLE ON THE RIVERFRONT BECAUSE INITIALLY, UM, YES I DID. THERE WERE, UM, THE SCISSOR LIFT, ALMOST THE, UH, THAT WAS ON SITE. UM, BUT I DID NOT SEE A SIGN, WHICH IS WHY I REACHED OUT TO WHO I THOUGHT THE POINT OF CONTACT WAS. HE IMMEDIATE, ALMOST IMMEDIATELY RESPONDED. AND WHEN I WENT OUT THE NEXT DAY, THE SIGN WAS UP. SO WHEN I CAME BACK OUT TO DO THE VIDEO, NOT SEEING THE SIGN AGAIN, MY ASSUMPTION WAS IT WAS JUST DOWN OR KNOCKED DOWN. AND SO I LITERALLY GOT OUT, WALKED THE SITE. UM, IT WAS AROUND LUNCHTIME BECAUSE THE GUYS THAT WAS WORKING WERE ON LUNCH. I ASKED THEM WHO'S IN CHARGE SO THAT I COULD TRY TO GET THE SIGN UP, UM, SOMEWHAT OF A LANGUAGE BARRIER. SURE. SO I SAID, THAT'S FINE, I'LL JUST CONTACT ANDREW AGAIN. UM, AND AT THAT POINT, AGAIN, IT'S THE 14TH, TODAY'S THE DATE, SO, SURE. BUT WHEN I WAS OUT, I DIDN'T PHYSICALLY SEE THE SIGNS ALONG RAILROAD FRONT, BUT LIKE, EXCEPT FOR NOVEMBER THE FIRST WHEN I WAS OUT THERE, WHICH LIKE I SAID, I JUST WANNA QUALIFY THAT THERE'S NO CONFLICT THERE. JUST WANNA QUALIFY THAT. I BELIEVE THE REASONING WOULD'VE BEEN JUSTIFIED IN THE SENSE THAT THAT IS A WORK AREA THAT IS TYPICALLY WHERE THE FENCING IS REMOVED SO THAT THE WORKERS ARE ALLOWED TO MANEUVER THE, UH, THE THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND SO FORTH. AND, AND I, I'LL SAY THIS SITE IS ACTUALLY WHAT MADE ME COMMENT, UM, TO MR. FEENEY EARLIER ABOUT, UH, FROM RIVERFRONT TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY ALONG RIVERFRONT, IT'S ALL PARKING, SO IT'S ALL CONCRETE. SO THAT'S WHAT MADE ME THINK ABOUT IF YOU WAS TO SAY THAT FIVE FEET HAVE TO, THE FIRST FIVE FEET HAVE TO BE FOR [01:20:01] A SIGN, RIGHT? IT WAS NO WAY FOR YOU TO PUT FIVE FEET INTO THAT BECAUSE THERE IS NO DIRT OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN AROUND THE UTILITY POLE ON THE CORNER. CORRECT. TO TRY TO PUT IT, BUT IT WAS JUST NOT VISIBLE ANYWHERE ON SITE. UNDERSTOOD. ALONG RIVERFRONT, UNDERSTOOD. THE ONE ON PAIN HAS BEEN THERE. NO PROBLEM. MR. CHAIR, MAY I ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF? YES. MR. MILLIKEN? I'M SORRY? UH, MR. THOMPSON. OH YEAH, HE PROBABLY STAYED THERE FOR A MINUTE. CAN YOU JUST ANSWER FOR ME ON THAT VISIT WHEN YOU WENT BACK AFTER, ON THE FIRST, THAT'S THE DAY THAT YOU WALKED THE PROPERTY, CORRECT? I WALKED IT ON THE 31ST, THE FIRST AND THE 14TH. OKAY. SO ON THE DAY THAT YOU WENT BACK AND YOU DIDN'T SEE IT, UM, DID YOU SEE THE SIGNS AT ALL AND THEY JUST WEREN'T PROPERLY PLACED? LIKE MAYBE THEY WERE JUST LEANING AGAINST THE BUILDING OR AGAINST A CAR? I DIDN'T SEE THE SIGN ALONG. RIVERFRONT, LIKE I SAID, THE ONE ON PAIN HAS BEEN PROPERLY POSTED AND STANDING. SO IT'S NOT LIKE A SITUATION WHERE, UM, THEY TOOK A SIGN AND MOVED TO RIVERFRONT, TOOK A PICTURE AND MOVED THE BACK. , OR WHEN I CAME OUT THERE, IT WAS MOVED OVER THERE. THAT WASN'T THE CASE. IT WAS THE ONE ON PAIN HAS BEEN LITERALLY IN THE EXACT SAME SPOT, WIND OR NO WIN, THE ONE ON RIVERFRONTS, THE ONE DUE TO CONSTRUCTION GUYS, WHETHER IT'S CONSTRUCTION, PEOPLE MOVING AND WIND MOVING AND WHATEVER. IT WAS NOT VISIBLE WHEN I WAS THERE. TWO OF THE THREE VISITS. AND WE'D HAVE TO SAY AT THIS POINT THAT RIVERFRONT WOULD BE THE MOST HIGH TRAFFIC. I WOULD AGREE. ROAD AT THIS POINT I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR FOR STAFF THAT RELATE TO NOTICE? OKAY. UH, LET ME ASK OUR ATTORNEY JUST TO BE VERY SURE. SO AT THIS POINT, YOU WOULD ASK US TO MAKE A MOTION TO DETERMINE WHAT, WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 51 A DASH 1.106. ISN'T THERE A GOOD FAITH CAVEAT TO THAT? THAT IS, BUT IT'S ONLY IN RELATION TO IF THE SIGNS WERE LOST, STOLEN, OR VANDALIZED. UM, LET ME READ THE PROVISION. IT SAYS AN APPLICATION AN APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIRED POSTING OF NOTIFICATION SIGNS IF ANY LOST, STOLEN, OR VANDALIZED NOTIFICATION SIGNS ARE TIMELY REPLACED. AND THE APPLICANT HAS MADE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO KEEP THE NOTIFICATION SIGNS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS, THIS SECTION. SO THAT'S IN RELATION TO IF THEY WERE LOST, STOLEN, OR VANDALIZED. I, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WILL HAPPEN. BUT OUR NEXT MEETING IN DECEMBER IS ROUGHLY 30 DAYS FROM NOW, BUT NOT, UM, STRIKES ME AT, AT ANYBODY KNOW DECEMBER 16TH. DECEMBER 16TH. OKAY, SO IT'S OVER, OVER. WELL, ALRIGHT. SO IF THE BOARD DECIDES THAT NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN, WE THEN DIRECT THE APPLICANT TO NOTIFY IF THIS BOARD DETERMINES THAT THE APPLICANT FAILED TO COMPLY, UM, IT SHALL TAKE NO ACTION ON THE APPLICATION OTHER THAN TO POSTPONE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS. OR YOU CAN DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WITH OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE TODAY. SO IS OUR NEXT MEETING IN FOUR WEEKS? I ASSUME FOUR WEEKS EQUALS 28 DAYS, BUT I DON'T KNOW. USUALLY CONTRACTS MEAN DAYS. I, I I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER HEARD IT IN WEEKS. IT'S EXACTLY 28 DAYS. OH, IT'S, IT'S MONDAY. IT'S FOUR MONDAYS FROM NOW IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. ALRIGHT. AND IS IT AT LEAST OR OVER AT LEAST. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO IF THE BOARD DECIDED THAT THEY DID NOT MEET THEIR NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, WE COULD POSTPONE IT, DENY IT WITH PREJUDICE, DENY IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. I BELIEVE STAFF'S POLICY NOW IS THAT IF WE POSTPONE SOMETHING, YOU RE-NOTICE THE 2200 FOOT AREA. IS THAT RIGHT? [01:25:01] I'M SORRY. IF WE POSTPONE SOMETHING, YOU NOW RE-NOTICE THE 200 FOOT. YEAH, IT'LL BE RE-NOTICE YOU'VE RE-NOTICE IT. MM-HMM. . OKAY. SO MR. FINNEY, UH, SO THEN PLEASE, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND POSTPONING IN TERMS OF HOW IT AFFECTS THE CLIENT? A NEW, THE APPLICANT NEW FILING FEE, AND IT PROBABLY TAKES A LITTLE LONGER WHICH ONE HAS THE NEW FILING FEE? IF WE WERE TO DI IF WE DENIED IT WITH PREJUDICE, IT'S DONE RIGHT. IF WE DENIED IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND THEY CAME BACK, THEY WOULD NEED A NEW FILING FEE. IF WE POSTPONE IT, WE JUST POSTPONE IT. OKAY. AND I SUSPECT THAT IF WE POSTPONED IT, LIKE IF, IF WE DENIED IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, I DOUBT IT WOULD GET HERE IN TIME FOR NEXT MONTH JUST BECAUSE OF THE TIME IT TAKES. RIGHT. IF WE DENIED IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND THEY SAID WE'RE REAPPLYING HERE IT IS, IT WOULD TAKE, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T HEAR IT IN DECEMBER. RIGHT? RIGHT. IT WON'T BE HEARD IN DECEMBER IF YOU DID NOT. SO WE COULD POSTPONE IT AND HEAR IT IN, IN DECEMBER. OKAY. SO WHAT WOULD BE THE DATE FOR THAT? IF WE WERE TO, WHAT IF WE WERE TO POSTPONE IT UNTIL DECEMBER 16TH? DECEMBER 16TH. OKAY. AS AN ALTERNATE, I WOULDN'T BLAME YOU IF YOU WANTED TO HEAR IT. SO I, 'CAUSE I CAN'T GUARANTEE, UH, OH WAIT, I MIGHT BE ABLE TO, I PRESUME YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO BE HERE THAT DAY. YES. OKAY. UM, OKAY. SO THE QUESTION AT HAND, I NEED A MOTION THAT YOU, YOU HAVE IT RIGHT. YOU GAVE US TWO MOTIONS. ONE WILL AFFIRM THAT WE BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS MET HIS NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. THE OTHER WOULD SAY WE DO NOT, AND THEN DECIDE HOW TO DISPOSE OF IT. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, MR. FINNEY, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 32 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 16TH, 2024, WITH THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTIFICATION SIGNPOST REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 51 A DASH 1 0 6 OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT IS THERE A SECOND MR. CHAIR? I SECOND MR. MILLIKEN. SECOND. MR. FINNEY'S. MOTION? MR. MILLIKEN? SECOND. MR. FINNEY? YEAH, I MEAN, I, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, MR. DAVIS, YOU'VE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT Y'ALL, UM, YOU'RE VERY ORGANIZED AND THERE WERE, THERE WERE, UH, SOME MISCOMMUNICATION ISSUES. UM, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE NOTIFICATION IS PROBABLY THE MOST CRITICAL PART OF WHAT WE DO HERE. UM, WITHOUT PROPER NOTIFICATION. UM, YOU KNOW, WE CANNOT LEGALLY DEFEND THAT YOUR NEIGHBORS HAVE HAD OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THEIR CONCERNS. AND SO, AND THAT THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL TO THE PROCESS. SO, UM, YES. SO I THINK WE'VE ALL BEEN ON THE RECEIVING END OF BAD COMMUNICATION THAT WE HAD NO CONTROL OVER EVEN WE WERE TOTALLY TOGETHER. UM, SO I CERTAINLY SYMPATHIZE WITH YOU. UM, BUT, UH, IT'S, UH, IN THE BEST INTEREST OF, UH, ALL STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED TO POSTPONE. THANK YOU MR. MILLIKEN. YEAH, I, I ECHO, UH, MR. FINNEY. VERY MUCH SO. I THINK IN ALL FAIRNESS, THAT ALL, UH, THE STAKEHOLDERS AND ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE TO HAVE A VOICE IN THIS, UH, BECAUSE IT DOES AFFECT THEM. UM, SO I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROPERLY SIGNED AND, UH, IT TO WHAT I SEE, I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE WERE SIGNED PROPERLY. IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE APPLICANT'S FAULT, UH, BUT AT THIS POINT WE, WE DO NOT KNOW. SO TO BE FAIR TO EVERYONE, I THINK WE JUST NEED TO GO BACK AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROPERLY SIGNED AND GIVE EVERYONE THE SAME CHANCE. MR. SLADE? WELL, LET ME GET ONE SECOND. IS MR. SINGTON WITH US OR NOT? OKAY. RECORD SHOW. MR. SINGTON IS NOT WITH US AT 2:38 PM WE STILL HAVE A QUORUM. I WOULD ONLY ADD TWO SILVER LININGS. I THINK FOR THE APPLICANT. SILVER LINING ONE, UH, BEING DOWN IN MEMBER WOULD MEAN YOU WOULD NEED UNANIMITY, UH, IN SUPPORT OF WHAT YOU'RE SEEKING AS OPPOSED TO HAVING ONE VOTE THAT COULD GO THE OTHER WAY. THE OTHER BIT IS, UH, IT SEEMED LIKE SINCE OUR, THIS MATTER HAD BEEN ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET BEFORE, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE MAYBE SOME NEIGHBORS HADN'T COMMUNICATED THEIR DISAGREEMENT WITH THE APPLICATION BEFORE. UM, NOW HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE COPIES OR CAN SECURE COPIES OF THOSE COMMENTS TO BE ABLE TO POTENTIALLY ADDRESS THAT [01:30:01] IN ADVANCE OF THE NEXT HEARING OR, AND OR ALTERNATIVELY, UM, PULL TOGETHER INDIVIDUALS WHO SUPPORT THE POSITION THAT YOU'RE TAKING AND WHY IT WOULD NOT NE NEGATIVELY IMPACT, UM, THE SORT OF NEIGHBORHOOD TO, TO LET YOU ARM YOURSELF A BIT BETTER. AGAIN. SORRY. BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE THE WHERE WE'RE AT. I'LL ADD NOR I GENERALLY TAKE THE POSITION THAT IT IS. I, WELL, IT'S THE APPLICANT'S JOB TO POST IT. I'M NOT GONNA ASK THE APPLICANT TO GO OUTSIDE EVERY DAY, TAKE A PICTURE AND PROVE IT TO ME. UH, IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE A NON-INTERESTED PARTY WHO, WHO'S BEEN OUT SEVERAL TIMES AND, UH, THERE, YOU KNOW, FOR WHATEVER REASON THERE, THERE ARE, UM, ENOUGH QUESTIONS TO WHERE I'D RATHER TIGHTEN IT UP AND DO IT, DO IT WELL, I, MR. SLATE IS CORRECT. I WOULD ADD THAT IT ALSO GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOME KIND OF PARKING ANALYSIS OR TRAFFIC BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE REALLY UP AGAINST FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS. AND FROM AN OUR STANDARD IS, DO YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU? I'LL HAVE THIS, THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE QUESTION WE HAVE TO ANSWER AND THE ONLY ONE WE HAVE TO ANSWER FOR, TO APPROVE WHAT HE'S ASKING, NOT JUST IN THE, TO APPROVE HIS, HIS REQUEST FOR A PARKING REDUCTION. UM, THE BOARD MAY GRANT A SPECIAL, SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO AUTHORIZE THE REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF PARKING OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED UNDER THIS ARTICLE. IF THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE PARKING DEMAND GENERATED BY THE USE DOES NOT WARRANT THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED, AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON ADJACENT OR NEARBY STREETS. SO ESSENTIALLY WE HAVE TO DECIDE THAT IT'S NOT GONNA PUT PEOPLE IN DANGER OR UNDULY BURDEN NEIGHBORS BY VIRTUE OF DOING SO. OFTENTIMES WE SEE A TRAFFIC STUDY OR A PARKING ANALYSIS AND, UH, AND ACTUALLY IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SO MANY CROSS, IT WOULD PROBABLY HELP TO KNOW, I, I DON'T WANT TO GET IN TO ALL OF THE MERITS, BUT SURE. BUT IF WE'RE GONNA PUSH IT OFF, AT LEAST GIVES YOU A, A CHANCE TO, UH, YOU KNOW, TO, TO AT LEAST GET THE CHANCE TO HEAR SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WE'RE ASKING. ABSOLUTELY. UM, I WILL SAY THIS TO QUALIFY AS WELL, UH, FOR 18 MONTHS, WE, WE ACTUALLY GAVE THIS TO CITY STAFF, UM, TO LOOK AT THIS AND DETERMINE THIS PARTICULAR PARKING ARRANGEMENT. SO THIS WAS ACTUALLY, UH, DESIGNED AND, UH, CONSULTING AND DESIGN BY TRANSPORTATION IN COORDINATION WITH THE ZONING TEAM, UH, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE. UM, NOT ONLY DID THEY, UH, WORK HAND IN HAND WITH US ON IT, BUT UM, THEY ACTUALLY CONFIRMED THE COUNT, WENT THROUGH ALL OF THE, THE STEPS AND WE GAVE THIS TO THEM, UH, LIKE I SAID LAST YEAR. SO FROM A COMFORT LEVEL, WE FEEL, WE FEEL PRETTY COMFORTABLE ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THE, UH, ITEM ON, ON, ON THE DOCKET HERE IS A NEIGHBOR, A NEIGHBORLY, UM, OPTION TO, UH, OBTAIN THAT PARKING FROM ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS SO THAT IT WOULD BE KIND OF A WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WORKING WITH EVERYBODY THAT'S RIGHT THERE, HOPEFULLY COMPLIMENT THE AREA. AND THEN HOPEFULLY IN TURN, KIND OF BOOST THE EXPECTATION OF FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THE DESIGN INDUSTRY. HAVE YOU SEEN THE PUBLISHED DOCKET THAT, DID YOU SEE, HAVE YOU SEEN WHAT WE LOOKED AT WHEN, UH, FOR OUR PREPARATION? YES, I HAVE SEEN WHAT YOU LOOKED AT. YOU'VE SEEN IT. SO JUST KNOW THAT IF IT'S NOT IN THAT OR IT WASN'T IN THE STAFF'S PRESENTATION FORM, WE DON'T KNOW IT. SO IF THERE'S A STUDY THAT WASN'T INCLUDED, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT AND I'M NOT ALLOWED TO GO FIND IT. SURE. MR. VICE CHAIR, IT WAS ACTUALLY OUR EXPECTATION THAT DAVID NAVAREZ WAS GONNA BE, UH, PRESENT, UH, FOR TODAY'S MEETING. IS THAT, IS WAS THAT CUSTOMARY? UM, USUALLY WHEN HE'S INVOLVED IN A CASE. HE WAS HERE THIS MORNING, BUT YEAH. AND HE'S ONLINE. IS HE HERE? OKAY. SO, AND IF, IF, I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S ABLE TO SPEAK, BUT HE COULD CONFIRM. LIKE I SAID, UM, I KNOW, I KNOW WE, WE WENT THROUGH THIS, WE SPENT, LIKE I SAID, 18 MONTHS. OKAY. UH, REVIEWING IT AND ALLOWED CITY STAFF TO OKAY. TO WEIGH IN DIRECTLY. I, I APPRECIATE, UH, MS. CARLISLE WAS RIGHT THAT THE, THE MOTION IS, HAS TO DO WITH NOTICE, BUT I WAS THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP SURE. HEY, HERE ARE THINGS YOU COULD DO. SO I, UM, YEAH, I DON'T, I I PRESUME WHEN WE HEAR THIS AGAIN, IF WE DO THAT, THAT WE CAN HAVE ALL OF THE NECESSARY PARTIES THERE AND I DON'T, YEAH. I [01:35:01] DO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE CONFUSION THAT APPEARS TO BE ON THE APPLICANT VERSUS THE SIGNATURES IN THE APPLICATION AND HOW STAFF WOULD PURSUE NOTIFICATION, UH, IN THE FUTURE. THERE IS ALSO THEN GONNA BE TIME FOR YOU TO ADDRESS THAT RIGHT HERE WITH THEM AFTERWARDS. 'CAUSE I AGREE YOU SHOULD. I, I, I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT. OKAY. 'CAUSE I'M NOT IN THE, NOR AM I SUPPOSED TO BE IN THAT CHAIN OF COMMUNICATION, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU GUYS BE ABLE TO DO IT RIGHT. AND THAT WE HAVE DOTTED OUR I'S LEGALLY 'CAUSE. SO YOU, YOU GUYS COULD SPEAK, I MEAN, IF YOU NEED SOMETHING ELSE FROM HIM, LET HIM KNOW IF IT'S AN AFFIDAVIT, IF IT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IT TAKES. YES. SO WHATEVER, UM, GOING FORWARD, MR. THOMPSON WILL INCLUDE YOU ON THE, UM, IN THE CORRESPONDENCE AND NOT JUST MR. HOOPER. I THINK THERE WAS, UM, AN OVERSIGHT WITH YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS NOT BEING ON THE APPLICATION. IT WAS JUST CONTACT INFORMATION OR EMAIL INFORMATION FROM MR. HOOPER. OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE DEFINITELY WANTED TO, TO WORK THROUGH. 'CAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE FOR THE RECORD, THERE WERE NO PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MR. HOOPER. AND WHEN IT CAME TIME TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT AND THE NOTIF NOTIF NOTIFYING PARTIES, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT GRANT GARY WAS ACTUALLY THE ONE THAT NEEDED TO SIGN THE DOCUMENTS. AND THAT'S WHAT WE PRESENTED. SO I BELIEVE THERE MAY BE A NEED TO CHANGE THE, UH, THE APPLICANT OF RECORD. MY SUGGESTION IS YOU TALK WITH THE STAFF AND THEN CONFIRM IT IN WRITING AND CONFIRM WITH MS. BARKUM OR WHOEVER IT IS THAT WE DON'T NEED ANY LEGAL CHANGES IN THE AFFIDAVITS OR, OR WHATNOT. SURE. UH, SO THAT IT'S ALL CRISP IN THERE. THAT'S BY THE WAY, WE HAVE, I'M MAKING, WELL, I'M, I'M COUNTING, BUT, BUT, UH, NOT TO COUNT BEFORE WE VOTE, SO THANK YOU. LET'S JUST, ARE, ARE THERE, WELL, IT WOULDN'T REALLY BE SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION, WOULD IT? MS. CARLA, I KNOW YOU ALREADY HAD A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, SO IT'S JUST DISCUSSION. OH, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. SO DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION. I THINK WE'VE TALKED UNLESS MR. UH, MR. TON'S NOT HERE. WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE VOTE? SO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. FINNEY, SECONDED BY MR. MILLIKEN, AND THE MOTION IS TO POSTPONE UNTIL DECEMBER 16TH, 2024. MR. MILLIKEN. AYE. MR. SLATE? AYE. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. VICE CHAIR AYE. MOTION TO HOLD UNTIL DECEMBER THE 16TH PASSES FOUR TO ZERO. FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE RECORD, DO WE NEED TO SOMEHOW STATE THAT THE REASON WE DID IT WAS BASED ON NOTICE, NOT ON THE MERITS. THE MOTION TOOK CARE OF THAT. IT DID IT, THE MOTION JUST SAID POSTPONE. RIGHT. DID IT SAY POSTPONE BECAUSE IT'S BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTIFICATION SIGNING POSTING REQUIREMENTS. MS. WILLIAMS, WHEN YOU WRITE UP THE MINUTES, THAT THAT'S PART OF NOT JUST WHAT THE MOTION IS, BUT WHY? OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO IT'S PAST FOUR TO ZERO. I DON'T LIKE CONFUSION LIKE THIS EITHER, BUT I I WOULD, WE'RE WE'RE ALL HERE IN A ROOM, SO THIS IS A PERFECT CHANCE TO BE DONE WITH CONFUSION. SURE. AND YOU CAN CERTAINLY FOLLOW UP WITH DETAILS WITH AN EMAIL, UH, THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE. AND, AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU GUYS ADD IT TO THE, UM, TO THE DOCKET FOR NEXT MONTH. THAT WAY WE, WE UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON. THANK YOU. UM, THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO MORE CASES. UH, 16 DECEMBER. DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT CASE COUNT? WE, WE, WE HAVE, WE HAVE BEEN CALLED TO, UH, MEET IN JANUARY BECAUSE OF EXPECTED CASE COUNT. IF THAT CHANGES, IT GOES DOWN. WE WILL FIND A WAY TO, TO ALLOW PANEL. IT'S IT'S VACATION. UM, BUT APPARENTLY THERE ARE A LOT OF CASES 18 EACH MONTH FOR PLUS, PLUS THE WHOLE. UM, SO THANK YOU. HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO EVERYBODY. DON'T COUNT ON THE COWBOYS. UH, UH, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. ANY ANYBODY ELSE WANNA MAKE, UH, OFFHAND COMMENT. GOOD, SMART. UH, IT IS 2:48 PM ON MONDAY. UH, NOVEMBER 18TH, 2024. [01:40:02] BOARD OF ADJUSTED PENALTY IS ADJOURNED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.