[00:00:01]
[Board of Adjustments: Panel A on November 19, 2024.]
GOOD AFTERNOON.WELCOME TO, UH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
I'M DAVE NEWMAN AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND PRESIDING OFFICER OF ITS PANEL A.
TODAY IS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19TH, 2024.
WITH THE TIME OF 1:00 PM I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL EIGHT TO ORDER FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING FOR BOTH IN-PERSON AND HYBRID VIDEO CONFERENCE.
A QUORUM, WHICH IS MINIMUM FOUR OF FIVE OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS IS PRESENT.
AND THEREFORE WE CAN PROCEED WITH OUR MEETING, UH, MEMBERS, IF YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND TURN YOUR, YOUR SCREENS ON.
UM, FIRST ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
AGAIN, MY NAME IS DAVID NEWMAN AND I'M CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND PRESIDING OFFICER OF THIS PANEL.
A TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT IS KATHLEEN DAVIS, RACHEL HAYDEN, JANE NER, AND MICHAEL HOP.
OVITZ TO MY IMMEDIATE RIGHT ARE OUR THREE BOARD OFFICERS, THERESA CARLISLE, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, UM, DR.
KAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF PLANNER, AND MARY WILLIAMS, OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
BEFORE WE BEGIN, I'D LIKE TO, UH, 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, WHICH ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE.
NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT.
EACH CASE IS DECIDED UPON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED EACH USE IS PRESUMED TO BE A LEGAL USE.
WE'VE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY OUR STAFF PRIOR TO THIS HEARING THIS MORNING AND HAVE ALSO REVIEWED A DETAILED PUBLIC DOCKET, UM, WHICH EXPLAINS THE CASE AND WAS POSTED SEVEN DAYS AGO ON OUR WEBSITE.
ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY CASES THAT WE HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO OUR BOARD.
SECRETARY, MS. WILLIAMS, RAISE YOUR HAND.
UH, WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED, THIS EVIDENCE MUST BE RETAINED IN THE BOARD'S OFFICE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOR PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE, APPROVALS OF A VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR REVERSAL OF A BUILDING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL REQUIRES 75% OR FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF THE FIVE MEMBER PANEL.
ALL THEIR MOTIONS SIMPLY REQUIRE SIMPLE MAJORITY LETTERS TO THE BOARD'S.
ACTION TODAY WILL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE BOARD ADMINISTERS SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING AND WILL BE PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.
ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR A MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES OR WHEN A SPECIFIC CASE IS CALLED FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
NO TELECONFERENCING IS ALLOWED.
ALL COMMENTS ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO MYSELF AS THE PRESIDING OFFICER WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER.
ANYONE IN THE CHAMBER THAT IS WISHING TO SPEAK TODAY, EITHER DURING THEIR PUBLIC TESTIMONY OR DURING A CASE, SHOULD HAVE ALREADY FILLED OUT A BLUE SHEET OF PAPER.
MARY, WOULD YOU JUST HOLD THE BLUE SHEET OF IF YOU HAVEN'T FILLED OUT A BLUE SHEET OF PAPER, PLEASE GRAB ONE.
IT'S AT THE PODIUM AND GET THAT TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
THAT IS THE BASIS BY WHICH SHE KNOWS WHO TO CALL FOR, UM, A OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY, BOARD MEMBERS, UH, AND THE PUBLIC.
UM, LET ME PREVIEW OUR AGENDA.
UH, THE FIRST THING WE'RE GONNA DO, UH, TODAY IS PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
AFTER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, WE WILL DO OUR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS, WHICH IS REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF OUR PANEL, A MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 22ND, AND THEN REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE FULL BOARD MEETING MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 29TH.
THEN WE HAVE ONE CASE THAT CURRENTLY IS ON CONSENT, WHICH IS 94 10 ALVA COURT.
WE HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL ITEM CASE AT 46 40 NORTH LYNDHURST AVENUE, AND THEN WE'VE GOT TWO HOLDOVER CASES.
THE NEXT CASE WE'LL HANDLE IS 4 3 3 6 LIVELY LANE, AND THE LAST CASE TO BE HANDLED TODAY WILL BE 65 29 VICTORIA AVENUE.
SO MEETING MINUTES, ALVA COURT, LYNN HURST, LIVELY LANE.
THEN VICTORIA AVENUE IS THE ORDER BY WHICH WE WILL PROCEED QUESTIONS ON THE AGENDA.
SO FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, UH, FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING IS PUBLIC TESTIMONY BOARD SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS? YES, SIR.
WE HAVE, UH, FOUR, UH, PUBLIC SPEAKERS.
WE'LL DO THE SPEAKERS THAT ARE IN THE CHAMBER FIRST.
MR. PARIS, IF YOU'D COME FORWARD.
[00:05:01]
OKAY.MR. PARIS, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
CAN YOU HEAR ME FINE? YES, SIR.
I LIVE AT 78 11 MORTON STREET.
LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU GUYS ARE READY.
LET ME START OFF BY DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
I'VE SPOKEN TO THIS BODY FOR FOUR STRAIGHT MONTHS AND I FEEL I HAVEN'T BEEN HEARD.
SO I'M NOW GONNA ASK YOU TO STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND LOOK ME IN THE EYE SO YOU KNOW, YOU HEAR ME, PLEASE.
UH, I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPERTY BEING BUILT AT 65 29 VICTORIA, AND I WANNA MAKE SURE YOU KNOW A FEW THINGS, UH, BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION.
FIRST, LET'S NOT CONFUSE MR. DANNY LEE AS AN INDIVIDUAL SEEKING AN ADJUSTMENT.
HE'S THE CO-FOUNDER OF F 80 CAPITAL, WHICH IS BUILDING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
I HAVE MET HIM, HE'S A NICE GUY, AND I THANK HIM FOR HIS SERVICE, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.
SECOND, F 80 CAPITAL WAS MADE AWARE OF THE CORRECT, LET ME REPEAT THAT.
THE CORRECT PD 67 REQUIREMENTS ON A PROPERTY THEY WERE BUILDING JUST ONE BLOCK AWAY IN DECEMBER OF 2023, WHICH IS A FULL SIX MONTHS BEFORE THEY BEGIN CONSTRUCTION AT THE PROPERTY AT 65 29 VICTORIA AVENUE.
IF YOU SAW MY PRESENTATION LAST MONTH AND READ MY EMAIL WITH THE SCREENSHOT OF THE CITY BUILDING PERMIT NOTES, YOU WOULD SEE PROOF THAT F 80 CAPITAL KNEW OF THE CORRECT PD 67 REQUIREMENTS.
IF YOU WANNA SEE A COPY OF THOSE NOTES, I HAVE THEM HERE TODAY.
THIRD, I'M ASKING YOU NOT TO ACCEPT EVIDENCE WITHOUT PROOF.
YOU DID THAT AT THE LAST MEETING AND I WAS THOROUGHLY DISGUSTED, SPECIFICALLY WHEN MR. ROY SAID THE STRUCTURE BEING BUILT WITH TOWER OVER THE CHURCH NEXT DOOR.
CHAIRMAN NEWMAN DECLARED THE CHURCH SUPPORTED THE PROJECT AND PROCEEDED TO BULLY THE REST OF THE BOARD INTO BELIEVING HIS LIE.
IT SUITED MR. NEWMAN'S NARRATIVE, DECIDE WITH THE BUILDER.
SO WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING AT THE LETTERS, MR. LEE PROVIDED, HE SAID THE CHURCH SUPPORTED THE CONSTRUCTION.
THE CHURCH DOES NOT SUPPORT THE BUILDER.
HERE IS A LETTER FROM THE PR PASTOR OPPOSING THIS MONSTROSITY TOWERING OVER HIS CHURCH.
HE OPPOSES THIS NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND HE WANTS THE CITY STOP WAR ORDER UPHELD, ALLOWING MR. NEWMAN TO CLAIM THAT THE CHURCH SUPPORTS THIS CONSTRUCTION IS A LIE.
HE WANTS TO GRANT THE BUILDER WHATEVER DISPOSITION THEY WANT, AND AN UNWILLING OR EITHER YOU ARE ALL UNWILLING OR TOO COWARDLY TO STAND UP TO HIM AND ACTUALLY FOLLOW YOUR MISSION STATEMENT.
I'VE BEEN TOLD THIS, THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS A SHAM MEANT TO BENEFIT BUILDERS AT THE EXPENSE OF NEIGHBORHOODS.
I DO NOT WANT, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS WORSE.
THE FACT THAT THE CHAIRMAN IS WILLING TO INVENT EVIDENCE SO HE CAN RAM ROD HIS AGENDA TO TO, OR HIS FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS WOULD JUST ACCEPT WHAT HE HAS TO SAY WITHOUT QUESTION.
THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIM IGNORANCE AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT THAT IS NOT A CREDIBLE EXCUSE TODAY BECAUSE YOU NOW HAVE THE EVIDENCE, THE PROOF THE BUILDER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MESS HE CREATED.
SO ON BEHALF OF ELLEN THICKETT, NORTH PARK AND ALL MY NEIGHBORS WHO WANNA PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF OUR HISTORIC FREEDMAN'S COMMUNITY, WE ASK YOU TO AFFIRM THE CITY STOP WORK ORDER.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE ARE ASKING YOU TO DO YOUR JOB AND ACCEPT AND DO NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SAY AT FACE VALUE.
UH, MI MS. WILLIAMS, DO WE NEED TO MODIFY THE, THE VOLUME SLIGHTLY? THAT'S NOT A REFLECTION OF THE, THE SPEAKER.
IT'S A REFLECTION OF OUR PERFORMANCE AND THE AMLI AMPLIFICATION HERE IN THE CHAMBER.
MR. POOLE, CAN YOU OR ARE SOMEONE GONNA ASK THEM TO MODIFY THAT VOLUME SLIGHTLY? USUALLY IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND, BUT, OKAY.
MS. WILLIAMS. MR. SACK THOMPSON, PLEASE.
MR. THOMPSON, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UH, YOU, IF YOU TURN THE MIC ON, PLEASE.
ZACH THOMPSON, FORTY SEVEN FIFTEEN WEST UNIVERSITY LEGACY HOMEOWNER,
[00:10:01]
BORN AND RAISED IN THE HISTORIC L OLYMPIC AT NORTH PARK.FIRST OF ALL, YOU'VE HEARD THE FACTS AND SO I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR.
WE'RE OPPOSED TO PDA 2 34 DASH 1 65 29 VICTORIA AVENUE.
IN 1966, THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE ALL WHITE CITIZEN COUNCIL MOVED MY FAMILY INTO ELLUM THICKETT IN 2024.
I'M STANDING BEFORE AN ALL WHITE PANEL MAKING THE DECISION ABOUT AN AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORIC COMMUNITY THAT WE LOVE, THAT WE PAY TAXES, A HIGH AMOUNT OF TAXES, THE LOTS ITSELF, NOT THE HOUSE.
THE LOTS ARE SELLING FOR $450,000 OR MORE.
SO THE QUESTION IS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
ARE YOU GONNA REPEAT WHAT THEY DID IN THE 1960S AND PUT A NAIL IN THE COFFIN ON ELM NOR PARK RESIDENTS ARE SELLING, RESIDENTS ARE BEING FORCED OUT.
AND THIS BUILDER, LET'S BE VERY CLEAR, THIS BUILDER KNOWS WHAT PD 67 WAS PUT IN PLACE.
I FIND IT AMAZING THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT PD 67 WAS THE CITY OF DALLAS PERMITTING STAFF, BECAUSE IN THAT CASE, THIS BUILDER NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED A PERMIT.
SO THE QUESTION REMAINS, ARE YOU GOING TO DO WHAT THE RACISTS DID IN 1960, MOVE BLACK PEOPLE OUT OF AN AREA AND YOU'RE GONNA ALLOW IT IN 2024? WE'RE IN A BLUE COUNTY AND I'M STANDING BEFORE YOU AND YOU DON'T EVEN SEE THAT.
THESE BUILDERS WERE TOLD BY PREVIOUS BUILDERS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO BLACK PEOPLE.
THEY CAME INTO THIS COMMUNITY DURING THE CRACK EPIDEMIC, STOLE THESE PROPERTIES FOR 10 AND $20,000.
AND SO NOW THEIR ONLY RELIEF IS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
SO I ASK Y'ALL TO STAND UP, FORCE THEM AND THE CITY TO WORK IT OUT.
THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THE CITY OF DALLAS IS GOING TO EVER GET IT RIGHT.
BUT THE LAST PIECE ON IT, YOU RUNNING AFRICAN AMERICANS AND BROWN PEOPLE OUT OF THE CITY OF DALLAS, THE ONLY TWO AREAS YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IS KESLER PARK AND PRESTON HOLLOW.
GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ELM THICKETT NOR PARK.
I WAS UP MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
MY NAME IS ROBERT BOLTMAN, MY WIFE AND I LIVE AT 73 15 ROBIN ROAD, 7 5 2 0 9 IN THE ELM THICKET NEIGHBORHOOD.
I RISE TODAY SEEKING THE SAME CONCERN AND COMPASSION YOU SHOWED LAST MONTH REGARDING 62 18 WALNUT HILL IN WHICH YOU WAS EXPRESSED ESTE AESTHETIC AESTHETIC CONCERN.
OVER AN EIGHT FOOT WALL FACING A SIX LANE BOULEVARD.
YOU PRAISED MR. CARR FOR OBTAINING SUPPORT FROM HIS NEIGHBORS AND GRANTED THE REQUEST, I SEEK THE SAME CONCERN AND COMPASSION YOU EXPRESSED LAST MONTH REGARDING 43 36 LIVELY LANE, TELLING MR. KLINGHOFFER TO ADDRESS HIS NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNS ABOUT WATER IN THE ALLEY BEFORE YOU GRANTED HIS SECOND ELECTRICAL PANEL.
WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUES IN ELM THICKET, IT'S CLEAR THAT A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE FAILED TO DO THEIR JOB.
THIS FAILURE RESULTED IN THE ONGOING DISPUTES OVER THE PROPERTY ON TYREE AND VICTORIA.
AND WHILE I DISAGREE WITH YOUR ACTIONS LAST MONTH, THAT'S WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE I SEEK TODAY TO PREVENT COMPOUNDING THE ISSUE ANY FURTHER.
SPECIFICALLY, I SEEK YOUR COMPASSION FOR THE NEIGHBORS, NOT JUST THE DEVELOPERS.
I SEEK WHAT MR. MAGNEY, THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY PROPOSED TO BRING THE ROOF HEIGHT DOWN AND THE DESIGN INTO COMPLIANCE.
THIS SHOULD APPLY TO THE VICTORIA AVENUE HOUSE OR STRUCTURE AS WELL.
NEITHER DEVELOPER HAS OBTAINED ANY LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THEIR NEIGHBORS.
IN FACT, I MAY BE THE CLOSEST THEY GET TO A SUPPORTER IN ELM THICKET.
WE RELY ON DEVELOPERS TO KNOW THE CODE AND THE REGULATIONS, EVEN IF THEY CHANGE, YOU WOULD NOT EXEMPT SOMEONE FROM THE FIRE CODE OR THE ELECTRIC CODE IF THOSE CHANGED,
[00:15:02]
BUT WE HAVE TO RELY ON DEVELOPERS AS WELL AS THE CITY TO KNOW WHAT THE CODES ARE AND TO BUILD ACCORDINGLY.IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT A CITY EMPLOYEE FAILED TO DO HIS JOB.
PLEASE DON'T COMPOUND THE ISSUE.
BY ALLOWING THE NON-CONFORMING RUBES AND HEIGHTS TO CONTINUE TO DO SO WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, SIR.
NEXT SPEAKER, MS. WILLIAMS. UM, MS. KISHA RICHARDSON, IF YOU'RE ONLINE, CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE VIDEO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN.
UM, MY NAME IS KAISHA RICHARDSON AND I LIVE AT 73 14 KENEL STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 9.
UM, AND JUST LET ME KNOW WHEN I CAN START.
I AM SPEAKING TODAY IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPEAL AT 65 29 VICTORIA AVENUE.
AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE DECISIONS MADE TODAY WILL MOST DEFINITELY SET A PRECEDENTS FOR FUTURE CASES AND APPEALS THAT ARE ALREADY SCHEDULED AT LEAST THREE THAT WE KNOW OF TO BE BROUGHT FORTH FROM THE ELM THICKETT NEIGHBORHOOD, AS THEY ALL WILL USE THE SAME ARGUMENT.
TO GET YOU TO OVERTURN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DID ACT APPROPRIATELY AND ISSUING A STOP WORK ORDER.
ONCE HE DISCOVERED THAT THE PERMIT HAD BEEN ISSUED IN ERROR AND REQUIRED THAT THE PROPERTY COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE DALLAS CITY CODE.
THE BOARD'S ONLY ROLE IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WAS IN ERROR AND NOT THE ZONING ITSELF.
HOWEVER, THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE BOARD SO FAR TO OVERTURN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION SHOW GREAT SYMPATHY AND COMPASSION TOWARDS THE BUILDER AND NO SYMPATHY TOWARDS THE VICTORIA AVENUE NEIGHBORS OR THE ELM THICKEN NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THE FINANCIAL BURDEN TO THE BUILDER, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FINANCIAL BURDEN TO THE NEIGHBORS ON VICTORIA AVENUE? THE PROPERTY LOCATED NEXT DOOR TO 65 29 VICTORIA AVENUE IS A CHURCH AND IT WILL ALSO FACE SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL BURDEN IF IT'S NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IS ALLOWED TO BE BUILT.
THAT CHURCH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW, IT IS MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS OLD.
AND THE COMPLETION OF THIS STRUCTURE, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARDS TO IT BEING 36 FEET IN HEIGHT, WILL CAUSE IRREPARABLE PROPERTY DAMAGE, INCLUDING FOUNDATION AND OTHER STRUCTURAL ISSUES FROM WATER RUNOFF.
IT WILL PROVIDE NO PRIVACY TO ITS PARISHIONERS AND SEVERELY LIMIT THE SUNLIGHT ON THE CHURCH GARDEN.
ALL OF THESE ISSUES DIRECTLY IMPACT THE CHURCH'S ABILITY TO FUNCTION AND WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT ITS ATTENDANCE AND FINANCIAL POSITION IN AN ACTIVE DUE DILIGENCE.
A FEW NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING MYSELF, HAD A CONTRACTOR WHO ALSO BUILDS HOMES, REVIEW THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AT 65 29 VICTORIA AVENUE, AND HE STATED THAT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE TORN DOWN TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE HIGH DEPARTMENT.
THE BUILDER WAS AWARE OF THE ZONING LAWS AND HE CHOSE TO IGNORE 'EM WHEN HE GOT CAUGHT, HE CAME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CLAIMING HE DIDN'T KNOW BECAUSE HE KNEW THE LIKELIHOOD OF HIS APPEAL WOULD BE GRANTED BASED ON YOUR PAST RECORD THAT HEAVILY FAVORS BUILDERS.
BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S THE BUILDERS MUST PERFORM ITS DUE DILIGENCE AND ENSURE THAT THE BUILDING IS IN COMPLIANCE.
IT'S IF THE ZONING LAWS ARE TOO COMPLEX, THEN IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO GET AT, TO GET ASSISTANCE TO NAVIGATE THE ZONING LAWS, ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STRUCTURE TO BE COMPLETED AS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF PB 67 AND WHICH HIS PURPOSE WAS TO GIVE A MORE CONSISTENT LOOK AND FEEL IN THIS HISTORIC COMMUNITY.
ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ELM THICK NEEDS TO CONFORM TO THE NEW BUILDING STANDARDS.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UPHOLD THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DECISION AND WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE ONLY TWO BOARD MEMBERS IN THE LAST MEETING WHO EVEN MENTIONED THE CONCERN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
NEXT SPEAKER, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, MR. JONATHAN MAPLES.
IF YOU'RE ONLINE, PLEASE PROVIDE VIDEO AND AUDIO.
[00:20:04]
NO OTHER SPEAKERS.ALRIGHT, THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC TESTIMONY SECTION OF THE AGENDA.
UH, NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS OUR MEETING MINUTES.
UM, WE HAVE TWO SETS OF MEETING MINUTES FOR THE, THE BOARD TO CONSIDER.
UH, FIRST ONE IS OUR OCTOBER 22ND MEETING.
I'M GONNA RECOGNIZE, UH, MS. HAYDEN, PLEASE, UM, I NOTICED A CORRECTION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE.
IT'S ON PAGE FIVE OF OUR DOCKET, UM, IN THE MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS, THE MOTION TO APPROVE PANEL, A SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES.
UM, MY NAME IS LISTED TWICE IN THE EYES AND WE LOVE THE FACT WE COULD HAVE TWO MS. HAYDENS, BUT I GUESS WE CAN ONLY COUNT I'M VOTE COUNT ONE.
SO ARE, ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THAT CORRECTION? YES.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THAT CORRECTION.
IT'S, UH, A MOTION'S BEEN MADE BY MS. HAYDEN TO APPROVE OUR OCTOBER 22ND MEETING.
MINUTES OF PANEL A, UH, DELETING THE SECOND MENTION OF RACHEL HAYDEN IN THE MISCELLANEOUS ITEM SECTION.
THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE TO ZERO AS AMENDED.
NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS A MEETING MINUTES FROM THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF OCTOBER 29TH.
THE PROCEDURE IS THAT, UM, EACH, IF EITHER THE FULL BOARD NEEDS TO APPROVE ITS MEETING MINUTES OR EACH OF THE THREE PANELS NEED TO APPROVE ITS MEETING MINUTES OR ACTIONS, UH, BY A MAJORITY VOTE.
UH, SO IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU HAVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 29TH, UH, FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING.
THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE BOARD MEETING MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 29TH FULL BOARD MEETING.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. NER.
THOSE OPPOSED MEETING MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
THESE NOW GO ON TO PANEL PANEL B, WHICH MEETS TOMORROW.
NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS, UM, BDA 2 3 4 DASH 28 BDA 2 3 4 DASH 28.
THIS WAS AT THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, UH, BY STRAW VOTE RECOMMENDED TO BE KEPT ON THE TO, ON THE UN, THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET.
UH, THE CHAIRMAN WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MS. HAYDEN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION LISTED IN ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE 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 WIT.
BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 28 APPLICATION OF FEIL RA FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE HEIGHT REQUIRES REQUIREMENTS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS IS REQUIRED IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 28.
MS. HAYDEN HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. OVITZ DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST, UH, FOR, UH, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DEFENSE HEIGHT REGULATIONS.
DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THIS MS. HAYDEN? UM, I, I, UM, AM FOR GRANTING THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION BECAUSE THE FENCE IN QUESTION IS IN LINE WITH THE OTHER FENCES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT ALSO HAS A GREAT DEAL OF OPACITY AND IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
MR. HAVI, THE FENCE THAT'S PROPOSED IS ESSENTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE FENCE THAT'S THERE AND BEING REPLACED.
I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THEM DOING THAT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION HEARING? NO DISCUSSION.
THE BOARD'S SECRETARY WILL CALL FOR A VOTE.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 28.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY I HAVE VOTE FIVE TO ZERO.
GRANTS THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
YOU'LL GET A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 29 2 3 4 DASH 29.
THIS IS AT 4 6 4 0 LYNDHURST LINDHURST AVENUE.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT MR. JEFF HOWARD? YES, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
[00:25:09]
GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.AFTERNOON, YOU TAKE YOUR HAT OFF PLEASE.
UH, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD AND THEN WE'LL ASK QUESTIONS OF YOU.
UH, UH, WE HAD A BRIEFING ON IT THIS MORNING AND THERE WERE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED BY THE BOARD AND SO, UH, IT WAS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT ITEM SO THAT WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM YOU.
UM, IF YOU FIRST GIVE US YOUR NAME, YOUR ADDRESS, THEN YOU'LL BE SWORN IN.
THAT WORK? JEFF HOWARD ADDRESS IS 5 0 8 DOOLEY COURT IN GRAPEVINE, TEXAS 7 6 0 5 1.
UM, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES.
I WAS AT THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING.
I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE A FEW QUESTIONS.
IS DO YOU WANT ME TO GO THROUGH THE FULL SCOPE OF WORK OR JUST ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? UH, THAT'S ENTIRELY UP TO YOU.
THE FIVE MINUTES IS FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS IS YOURS TO SPEAK TO.
UM, AND WHAT YOU DON'T SPEAK TO OR WHAT YOU SPEAK TO, IT MAY ELICIT SOME QUESTIONS.
IT'S, IT'S YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO CONVINCE AT LEAST FOUR OF US OKAY.
THE SCOPE OF WORK IS ADDING A NEW FENCE AT 46 40 NORTH LYNDHURST.
THE FENCE ITSELF IS FIVE AND A HALF FOOT TALL.
THE COLUMNS ARE SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT TALL.
THE UM, I KNOW FROM A QUESTION EARLIER, THE SURVEY DID HAVE GREEN X MARKS ON IT THAT WAS REQUESTED BY YOU GUYS TO JUST NOTE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE FENCE.
A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE.
PULL THAT MICROPHONE CLOSER TO YOU.
I I WANNA MAKE SURE WE HEAR EVERYTHING.
SO THE GREEN XS WERE JUST TO DENOTE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE FENCE.
IT WAS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SHRUBS.
'CAUSE WE HAD THOUGHT THIS MORNING IT WAS THE SHRUB, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S THE FENCE THAT'S WHERE THE FENCE LINES IS PROPOSED? THAT'S CORRECT.
I WAS REQUESTED BY YOUR OFFICE TO NOTE ON THE SURVEY APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE, THAT.
SO KUDOS TO YOU, MS. THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, YOU INTERPRET THAT CORRECTLY.
AS FOR THE SHRUBS, THE INTENT BY THE OWNER IS TO LEAVE THE SHRUBS AS IS EXCEPT FOR WHERE IT'S REQUIRED TO REMOVE TO PUT THE COLUMNS IN.
NOW IN THE FUTURE, I DON'T WANNA LOCK HIM IN.
I DUNNO IF HE WANTS TO CHANGE UP THE TYPE OF LANDSCAPING OR ANYTHING THAT HE HAS THERE, BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, THE INTENT IS TO BUILD THE FENCE BEHIND THE SHRUBS TO KEEP HIS PRIVACY AND ALSO HIDE THE FENCE ITSELF.
ANYTHING ELSE? UNLESS YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE SCOPE OF WORK.
I THINK THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING WAS PRETTY CLEAR ON WHAT WE WERE PLANNING ON DOING.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION EITHER TO THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR OR THE APPLICANT IS THE, WE SAW THE LARGE VERSION OF THE PLANS AND WAS THAT, WAS THE DELINEATION OF THE FENCE ON THE LARGE PLANS OF WHICH BUILDING INSPECTION WOULD USE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO ENFORCE IF WE APPROVE THIS? YES.
SO WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR DOCKET IS NOT REALLY THE DO THIS.
IS THIS THE, THE VERSION THAT BUILDING INSPECTIONS WOULD USE AGAINST OR THOSE, UM, THE ACTUAL SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS THEY'LL USE, I THINK ALL OF THIS INFORMATION WILL BE INCLUDED THAT THEY'LL HAVE YES.
UM, ACCESS TO THE, THIS INFORMATION.
BUT THE SURVEY HERE, UM, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THEY MAY HAVE USED THEIR SURVEY AS A SITE PLAN.
SO WHERE IT SHOWS THE, UM, INDICATION OF THE FENCE, THEY'LL BE ABLE TO VERIFY OR, OKAY.
QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, MS. HAYDEN? SO WHEN I, THERE WAS NO DIMENSION ON THIS, ON THE PLANS THAT WE HAD THAT SHOWED, THERE WAS NOTHING SHOWN ON THE PLANS THAT SHOWED THE DISTANCE OF THE PROPOSED FENCE FROM THE FENCE TO THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT OF THE STREET.
SO I SCALED IT AND IT APPEARED TO BE 12 FEET IF THE DRAWING IS, IS TO SCALE.
IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S VERY CLOSE TO THAT.
I WENT AND DOUBLE CHECKED MEASUREMENTS TODAY AFTER THE BRIEFING.
AND IT IS CURRENTLY FROM THE STREET.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY NINE, NINE AND A HALF FOOT TWO.
THEY'RE EDGING, WHICH IS MADE OF STONE AND THEN ABOUT 12 AND A HALF, 13 FOOT TO THE CENTER OF THE EXISTING SHRUBS.
AND WE WILL BE PLACING THE FENCE RIGHT BEHIND THAT.
SO APPROXIMATELY 13 TO 14 FEET.
AND THE SECOND QUESTION, UM, FROM, FROM THE INFORMATION IN OUR PACKET, IT WAS A LITTLE FADED AND HARD TO READ, BUT WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE LARGE DRAWING, IT WAS EVIDENT THAT, UM, THE, THE GATES ARE SET BACK ENOUGH SUCH THAT THEY ARE NOT WITHIN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE FOR THE TWO DRIVEWAYS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT AS WELL? THAT IS CORRECT.
THERE'S ONE SIDEWALK AND ONE DRIVEWAY.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
[00:30:01]
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 29 ON APPLICATION OF ALEC LANG REPRESENTED BY JEFF HOWARD GRANT.
THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN A SEVEN FOOT SIX INCH HEIGHT FENCE HAS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS IS REQUIRED IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 29.
MS. HAYDEN HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
SECOND, UH, MS. DAVIS DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO GRANT AND BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 29.
SO THE CRITERIA WE LOOK, WE LOOK AT IS THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
UM, THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IN ADDITION, WHEN WE SAW THE VIDEO OF THE, OF THE 360 IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE WERE OTHER NEW HOMES WITH SIMILAR FENCES BEING CONSTRUCTED.
ALSO, THE FACT THAT THIS DOES NOT IMPEDE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AND IT'S ALSO SET BACK AT LEAST 12 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT WAS A DECIDING FACTOR FOR ME.
MS. DAVIS, I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.
I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION TO APPROVE YOUR REQUEST.
IN THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER THE BOARD SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, OR OTHERWISE, UH, CONDITION THE FENCE ON THE, UH, LANDSCAPING IN FRONT OF THE FENCE.
UH, I THINK THE CONSENSUS IS WE'RE NOT GONNA REQUIRE IT.
UM, BUT WE WOULD STRONGLY URGE YOU REPRESENTING THE OWNER TO KEEP IT BECAUSE IT, IT MINIMIZES THE NARROWING OF A INTERIOR NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND FROM THE PICTURES THAT WE SAW AND THE, AND THE VIDEO THAT WE, THAT SORT OF THING.
UH, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S TASTEFULLY DONE NOW AND IT'S TOO BAD THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO PUT A FENCE IN.
THAT'S THEIR RIGHT, UH, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL.
BUT I'M JUST ON THE RECORD ENCOURAGING THAT TO BE MAINTAINED.
UH, THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHERS I THINK WE LOOKED AT THAT HAD A SIMILAR THING WHERE THE FENCE IS ACTUALLY HIDDEN BEHIND THE, THE VEGETATION AND WE DON'T WANNA BE THE JUDGMENT OF WHAT TYPE OF LANDSCAPING PER SE, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO, UH, MAINTAIN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL THERE BASED ON THE COMPARISON.
SO I'LL SUPPORT THE MOTION, BUT I WANT IT ON THE RECORD THAT WE DISCUSSED THAT AND DECIDED I THINK WE DECIDED NOT TO MAKE A CONDITION.
SO ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION BEFORE THE BOARD IN 2 3 4 1 2 9 IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST.
THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MANNER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 29.
THE BOARD AN UNANIMOUS FIVE ZERO VOTE.
GRANTS THE REQUEST FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
YOU'LL GET A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 18 2 3 4 DASH 18.
THIS IS AT 4 3 3 6 LIVELY LANE.
WE'RE BEING HANDED SOMETHING FROM OUR BOARD SECRETARY THAT PRESUMABLY CAME FROM YOU, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THE, THE BIG PODIUM THERE UNLESS YOU WANNA SIT, BUT THAT'S FINE.
GIVE US ONE SECOND IF YOU WOULD.
UH, I, I'M GONNA READ, I'M GONNA GIVE US A MINUTE TO ABSORB WHAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN HERE.
[00:35:23]
MS. WILLIAMS, YOU KEPT ONE FOR THE RECORD.SO AS IS OUR CUSTOM, UH, FEEDBACK THAT WE GET VIA EMAIL OR IN WRITING TO THE STAFF COMES TO US BY VIRTUE OF THIS YELLOW FOLDER.
AND SO I'M GONNA PUT THIS, THESE, THIS FEEDBACK, THIS WAS HANDED DOWN THIS MORNING.
UM, UH, UM, I, I'LL SEND THIS AGAIN IF YOU WANTED, IF ANYONE WANTS TO SEE IT AND THAT SORT OF THING.
ALRIGHT SIR, IF YOU WOULD GIVE US, UH, IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN BE SWORN IN BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
LARRY KLINGHOFFER, 39 30 GASPAR DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 0.
UH, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
DO I NEED TO BE SWORN IN? I APOLOGIZE.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
OUR, OUR OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE SAYS THAT ANYONE THAT SPEAKS TO THE BOARD OTHER THAN PUBLIC TESTIMONY HAS TO BE SWORN IN.
NOW, PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS SWORN.
SO YOU HAVE NOW BEEN SWORN, SO YOU NOW CAN PROCEED.
AT THE LAST MEETING I WAS ASKED TO, UH, THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE WHO WROTE LETTERS OF OBJECTION TO THE, UM, TO HAVING THE SECOND METER ON THE NEW, UM, FITNESS AREA AT 43 36 LIVELY LANE.
UH, ONE WAS FROM MR. AND MRS. UH, PODOLSKI, AND THE OTHER WAS FROM MR. HEMINGWAY.
AND ALSO I WAS ASKED TO HAVE A LETTER SENT BY A STAMPED, UM, ELECTRICIAN OR ENGINEER SHOWING THE NEED FOR THE SECOND MEETING AND METER AND, AND THE, UH, THE REASON FOR IT.
AND I SENT IN AND EVIDENTLY FOR SOME REASON IT DIDN'T, IT DIDN'T GET IN.
BUT, UM, MS. WILLIAMS NOTIFIED ME AND, AND, AND WE HAVE, UH, COPIES OF THOSE, UM, THOSE LETTERS I SENT IN A LETTER ON THE 7TH OF NOVEMBER, UM, EXPLAINING THAT I DID MEET WITH THE TWO HOMEOWNERS.
ONE WAS MR. AND MRS. UH, PODOLSKI, WHO LIVES TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF 43 36, UM, YARD IN THE REAR.
AND THEN MR. HEMINGWAY, WHO DID NOT WANNA MEET WITH ME PERSON, BUT MET, I HAD A THIRTY FIVE, FORTY MINUTE CONVERSATION, TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH HIM.
HE LIVES ADJACENT TO THE LEFT OF THE PROPERTY OF 43 36 LIVELY LANE.
UM, MR. AND MRS. PODOLSKY'S, UH, CONCERN WAS THAT THIS BUILDING WAS GONNA BE A, COULD BE A SECOND RESIDENCE AND THAT ADDITIONAL PEOPLE COULD LIVE ON IT.
UM, AFTER I EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT FIRST IT DID NOT MEET THE ZONING OR THE CODE FOR SECOND RESIDENCE.
THAT ZONING IS ONLY FOR ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
AND THAT THERE WOULDN'T, THERE COULD NOT BE ANOTHER RESIDENT, ANOTHER BUILDING THAT WOULD BE USED AS A RESIDENCE ALSO.
UM, SO THE, THE CITY WOULD NEVER ALLOW IT.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO, TO BRINGING THAT UP BEFORE YOU BEFORE THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED.
UM, UM, ALSO, I'M SORRY, I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT FOR A SECOND.
UM, LET ME SEE HERE WHAT THEY SAID.
WELL AS SOON AS I EXPLAINED THAT TO THEM AND ALSO THAT THE BUILDING WAS NOT GOING TO BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESIDENCE.
THERE'S NO KITCHEN, THERE'S NO BEDROOM, UH, IT WOULD NOT PASS ANY BUILDING CODES FOR THAT BESIDES THE FACT THAT ZONING BUILDING AND ZONING WOULD NEVER ALLOW IT.
SO AT THAT POINT THEY SAID, WELL, THEY, THAT WAS THEIR CONCERN.
AND BEING THAT THAT WAS THE CASE THAT, UM, I COULD CONVEY TO YOU, ALTHOUGH THEY DID WRITE A LETTER TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SAYING THAT THEY, UM, TOOK AWAY THEIR OBJECTION, THEY HAD NO PROBLEM.
I ASKED 'EM IF THERE WAS ANY OTHER PROBLEM OR ANYTHING THAT THEY SAW AS A RESULT OF THIS SECOND METER AND THEY SAID NO, THAT WAS THEIR ONLY, ONLY OBJECTION.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT'S, UM, EXPRESSED TO YOU IN THAT LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO THE BOARD FROM, UM, MR. PODOLSKI
[00:40:01]
OR DR.UM, UH, AS I EXPRESSED, I SENT IN THE LETTER, UH, FROM THE, UM, LICENSED, UM, ELECTRICIAN SHOWING THE NEED, THE, THE REASON FOR THE NEED FOR THAT SMALL SECOND METER AS FAR AS MR. HEMINGWAY GOES, WHICH WAS THE OTHER HOUSE WHO WROTE THE LETTER OF OBJECTION.
HIS CONCERN WAS THE WATER THAT, UM, ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THIS BLOCK WAS CAUSING A WATER PROBLEM.
I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT ANY BUILDING THAT'S BUILT ON THIS BLOCK HAS TO, HAS TO BE FED THE STORM WATER HAS TO BE FED ACCORDING TO LAY OF THE LOT, THAT IF HE WANTED THE WATER ALL BROUGHT TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY TO THE STREET.
AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT, THAT THERE WAS TWO PROBLEMS WITH THAT.
ONE, IF PEOPLE BROUGHT WATER TO THE FRONT, IT WOULD BRING WATER RIGHT TO THE HOUSE AND CAUSE A WATER PROBLEM TO THE FOUNDATIONS AND AROUND THE FOUNDATIONS, THAT WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE FRENCH DRAIN, UM, AROUND THE HOUSE.
AND UM, AN ENGINEER WOULD HAVE TO BE INVOLVED.
AND IT'S JUST NOT, IT'S NOT NORMALLY DONE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
I ALSO EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT 95%, IF NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THOSE HOUSES ON THAT STREET, ALL HAD THEIR WATER GOING OUT TO THE BACK ALLEY.
ONE OF THE GOOD REASONS WHY THE ALLEY WAS THERE.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT, UM, THERE'S NO CONCRETE OR THERE, IT'S JUST DIRT IN THE BACK ALLEY, BUT THE WATER IS DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE ALLEY.
SO, UM, I SAID THERE WAS REALLY NOTHING THAT WE COULD DO BECAUSE THE CITY REQUIRES, I DON'T WANNA GET TOO TECHNICAL, BUT ANY FOUNDATION IS REQUIRED.
THE, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT IS IT HAS TO MAKE, MAKE THE MEAN HEIGHT OF THE HOUSE TO THE LEFT OF IT AND TO THE RIGHT OF IT.
AND THAT SETS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE NEW HOUSE.
SO THE FOUND, WHEREVER THE FOUNDATION OF THAT NEW HOUSE IS, THAT CAUSES A SLOPE OF THE LOT AND THE LOT SLOPES TO THE REAR AS IT DOES ON THE OTHER LOTS.
SO WATER IS BROUGHT TO THE, TO THE FRONT, ON THE FRONT PART AND TO THE REAR, UH, ON THE REAR OF THE HOUSE.
'CAUSE THAT'S THE SLOPING OF, OF THE HOUSE.
SO THAT'S THE NORMAL SITUATION.
ALSO, THE CITY REQUIRES US TO PUT A WATER PLAN, THE STORM WATER PLAN IN WITH OUR PLANS AND THEY APPROVED IT.
THEY LOOK AT IT AND THEY APPROVE IT.
AND SO IF THAT WAS GONNA CREATE A WATER PROBLEM, THE CITY WOULD NEVER ALLOW IT.
SO WHEN THEY REVIEW YOUR PLANS, THEY LOOK AT THE, AT AT YOUR FLOW OF YOUR STORM WATER AND THEY ALLOW IT BASED ON THAT.
I ALSO TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO 'EM THAT THIS SMALLER BUILDING WOULD ALLAY MORE WATER COMING OUT TO THE ALLEY.
'CAUSE RIGHT NOW THE WHOLE LOT SLOPES TO THE BACK.
SO ALL THE WATER ON THE WHOLE LOT ON THIS HOUSE, ON STORM WATER, IT ALL RUNS TO THE LOT.
THIS PORTION OF THE BUILDING WOULD STOP THAT.
IT WOULD HIT THE BUILDING AND THEN BE VENTED OUT TO ONE OF THE CORNERS.
SO ALL THE WATER FROM THAT LOT, BASED ON THE WAY IT'S GONNA BE EXCAVATED, ALL THE WATER IS GONNA COME OUT TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE, WHICH WILL NOT AFFECT HIM AT ALL BECAUSE THE WATER DRAINS DRAINS TO THE RIGHT.
UM, SO I ASKED HIM IF HE WOULD PLEASE WALK THE ALLEY WITH ME 'CAUSE I WAS GONNA SHOW HIM UP AND DOWN AND I TOOK SOME PICTURES.
BUT, UM, SHOW HIM THAT THE WATER AFTER A RAIN OR WATER DISTRIBUTION FROM THE OTHER LOTS, THAT THE LOTS EACH HAD AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF WATER.
IT WAS DISPERSED EQUALLY THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE ALLEY.
HE DID NOT WANT TO MEET WITH ME.
HE DID NOT WANT TO WALK THE ALLEY WITH ME.
HE SAID THAT IN HIS MIND IT WAS GONNA CREATE A, A PROBLEM AND THEREFORE EVEN AFTER THE 40 MINUTES OF TALKING, AND HE WAS A GENTLEMAN ABOUT IT AND THAT WAS HIS POSITION.
AND THEN I TRIED TO EXPLAIN OUR POSITION AND HE SAID, WELL, I'M STILL GONNA HOLD MY OBJECTION.
SO THAT WAS THE RESULT OF THE, OF THE TWO MEETINGS.
UM, WHAT QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE A OH, BACK UP.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS, MS. WILLIAMS? NO, NO.
THOSE SPEAKERS FOR OR AGAINST? NO, NO.
WHAT QUESTIONS DO WE AS A BOARD HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. HAITZ, HAVE YOU SEEN, UM, THE, THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT HAVE SINCE COME IN, UM, OF THE ALLEY SENT BY THE NEIGHBOR? UH, NO.
CAN HE BE SHOWN THOSE OR I WANNA REMIND THE BOARD THAT WHAT IS BEFORE US IS A REQUEST FOR A SECOND ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICE METER.
UH, OUR CRITERIA I WANNA REMIND THE BOARD IS WE ARE TO DECIDE TO GRANT OR NOT BASED ON
[00:45:01]
IF IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, IF IT WOULD BE, IF IT WOULD, IF IT WOULD NOT BE ADVERSELY AFFECTING BERING PROPERTIES AND IF IT WOULD NOT BE USED TO CONDUCT A USE NOT PERMITTED IN THE DISTRICT.SO THOSE ARE OUR CRITERIA THAT WE NEED TO JUDGE AGAINST.
SHOULD I WALK THIS DOWN THERE OR YOU CAN, YOU CAN HAND IT OVER THERE IF YOU WANT TO, BUT, BUT I, I, I CAN HAVE YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION THERE IF YOU'RE GONNA HAVE, HE HAS TO BE AT THE MIC AND YOU HAVE TO DO THE MIC SO YOU CAN PICTURES HERE.
GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT.
WHO'S PUTTING THE PICTURES IN? IS THAT, OH, THANK YOU MS. JORDAN.
SO IS THIS FROM THE EMAIL OR FROM THE, WAS GIVEN HERE OR DID THAT, DID YOU, UH, DID YOU OBTAIN WHEN YOU WENT TO THE PROPERTY FROM, FROM THE EMAIL.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ADDRESS? UH, YES.
I'D LIKE YOUR COMMENTS ON THAT.
THE, THE FIRST THREE PHOTOS THAT I'M LOOKING AT SHOW THAT THE LOT SLOPE IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS TO THE STREET.
SO WHEN WATER COMES OUT ON THE STREET, YOU'LL SEE THERE'S HOLES IN THE GUTTER THERE WITH PIPES COMING OUT.
SO ALL OF THAT WATER COMES OUT THE SAME AS IT DOES IN THE REAR THROUGH THE SAME KIND OF PIPES THAT ARE PUSHED OUT TO THE BACK.
AND THEN IT HITS A PAVED STREET AND IT FALLS OFF.
AND THE OTHER, UH, PIECES THAT YOU SHOWED ME FROM THE REAR OF THE YARD, IF YOU LOOK DOWN THE ALLEY, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT, THIS WATER THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ALLEY.
AND THEREFORE WATER IS COMING FROM THE LOTS ACROSS THE ALLEY AND IT'S ALSO COMING FROM THE EXISTING BUILDING.
SO WHAT HE'S SHOWING YOU IS WATER THAT HE FEELS IS, IS THE RUNOFF, BUT THAT'S THE EXISTING BUILDING BECAUSE THERE IS NO, UM, OTHER BUILDING YET BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN BUILT.
SO IF ANYTHING, THIS NEW BUILDING WILL STOP THE PART OF THE FLOW ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE LOT FROM COMING OUT EVENLY DISPER, UH, DISPERSED IN THE ALLEY AND WILL BE CHANNELED TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ALLEY WHERE THE GARBAGE TO THE RIGHT OF WHERE THE GARBAGE CANS ARE SHOWN IN THAT PICTURE.
SO IF ANYTHING, FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN PUT THE WATER TO GO ANYWHERE BUT THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S ACCORDING TO THE CITY OF DALLAS, THAT'S WHAT THEY APPROVED.
IT'S GOTTA GO WITH THE SLOPE UNLESS WE PUT IN A WHOLE CISTERN.
AND, UH, THAT WOULD COST AN A, A LOT OF MONEY TO DIVERT WATER OUT TO THE FRONT OF THE STREET.
AND THEN THAT WATER AGAIN WOULD GO OUT TO THE HOUSE AND THEN YOU'D HAVE TO CHANNEL ALL THAT WATER AROUND THE HOUSE.
IT, IT TRULY IS NOT DONE UN UNLESS IT'S, UM, SOMETHING THAT'S BUILT INTO THE, UH, AS A REQUEST OF THE HOMEOWNER FOR SOME REASON THAT THEY WANT ALL THE WATER GOING OUT TO THE STREET.
BUT THAT CAUSES A PROBLEM BECAUSE THEN IT POOLS IN FRONT OF OTHER PEOPLE DRIVEWAYS.
IF THE, IF THE STREET DOESN'T FLOW TO THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT, THEN ALL THAT WATER THAT COMES OUT ON THE, ON THE, UH, FRONT OF THE YARD POOLS THERE.
AND IT POOLS IN FRONT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S DRIVEWAYS AS WELL.
DID HE ANSWER YOUR QUESTION OR DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? UM, WELL, I ASKED HIM FOR HIS COMMENTS ON THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW SOMEONE COULD CONSIDER THIS TO BE, UH, ADVERSELY AFFECTING THEIR
YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THIS COULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTING THEM, NOT BY CODE? NO, NO, SIR.
UM, I'M, I'M ASKING YOU AS A, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, DO YOU SEE HOW SOMEONE COULD CONSIDER THIS TO BE ADV AN ADVERSE SITUATION TO THEIR ENJOYMENT OF THEIR, OF THEIR PROPERTY? WELL, I, I CAN SEE THEIR CONCERN.
YES, I CAN SEE THEIR CONCERN ABOUT IT, BUT IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S NOT A, A, A, A PROBLEM CAUSED BY SOMEBODY BUILDING A HOUSE THAT'S ILLEGALLY ALLOWED TO BE BUILT.
IT'S THE WAY THE ALLEYS ARE, ARE SITUATED.
LET ME INTER INTERJECT JUST FOR A SECOND.
MR. KOVI, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR.
UH, IS IT A CORRECT ASSUMPTION THAT THE CITY, UM, ENCOURAGES, REQUIRES, ALLOWS DRAINING TO THE ALLEY AS OPPOSED TO LOT TO LOT?
[00:50:02]
I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE ALLEY, BUT I DO KNOW WE DON'T, WE CAN'T DO LOT TO LOT DRAINAGE OKAY.INTO THE MIC SO WE CAN HEAR YOU.
I'M NOT HUNDRED PERCENT SURE ABOUT BEING ABLE TO DRAIN INTO THE ALLEY, BUT I DO KNOW WE DON'T ALLOW LOT TO LOT DRAINAGE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO TAKE WHAT HE HAD SAID AGAINST YOUR QUESTION AGAINST THE NEIGHBOR'S PICTURES.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS LOT TO LOT DRAINAGE GO ON, BUT I WANT TO TAKE US BACK AGAIN TO WHAT'S BEFORE US IS THE METER REQUEST FOR THE SECOND METER, UM, AND OUR CRITERIA.
SO KEEP GOING MR. KOVICH, AND THEN I'VE GOT MS. DAVIS NEXT.
CAN I MAKE ONE, ONE COMMENT ON, ON THAT? UM, IS THAT WHEN WE TURN IN OUR PLANS FOR THE BUILDING, THE THE STORM WATER IS SHOWN EXACTLY WHERE IT GOES OUT TO THE BACKYARD.
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT RESIDENTIAL REQUIRED A STORM WATER PLAN.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS JUST COMMERCIAL.
BUT NO, YOU HAVE TO SHOW ON THE PLAN, ON THE SITE PLAN THE DIRECTION OF WHERE THE WATER GOES.
IS THAT, IS THAT TRUE? BOTH COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIALS REQUIRED THAT WOW.
I THOUGHT IT WAS ALWAYS CO COMMERCIAL 'CAUSE OTHERWISE IT COULD CAUSE A PROBLEM IF YOU'RE PUTTING WATER IN AND IT'S GONNA CAUSE A PROBLEM TO THE NEIGHBORS.
'CAUSE I KNOW YOU CAN'T DO LOT TO LOT.
SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE, UM, THE STRUCTURE TO BE SERVED BY THE ELECTRIC METER.
I'M, I'M, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT, HOW THAT WATER DOESN'T END UP ACCUMULATING AT THE FOUNDATION OF YOUR NEW STRUCTURE.
OKAY, LET ME, LET ME TRY AND EXPLAIN THAT.
THE ENTIRE BACKYARD FROM THE HOUSE TO THE BACKYARD, WATER FLOWS OUT THE WHOLE YARD.
THAT GOES FROM THE HOUSE TO THE ALLEY.
BY PUTTING THIS BUILDING IN THE RIGHT HAND CORNER.
WHEN YOU SAY IT'S FLOWING ALL THE WAY TO THE ALLEY YES.
IS IT FLOWING THROUGH SOME SYSTEM OF, OF VENTING OR IS IT JUST FLOWING ACROSS THE YARD? NATURALLY IT FLOWS ACROSS THE YARD AND IN, AND THEN WHERE THE YARD, IF THERE'S ANY, UH, PLACES ON THE YARD WHERE THE YARD RAISES AND IT'S HIGHER AND IT DOESN'T FLOW OUT, THEN WE PUT IN A FRENCH DRAIN.
SO THEN THAT PORTION OF THE WATER GOES OUT TO THE BACKYARD THROUGH THAT FRENCH DRAIN.
UM, SO WHEN WE PUT THE BUILDING ON THE BACK RIGHT HAND SIDE, WE ENGINEER IT SO ON BE ON OUR BUILDING PLAN.
WE ALSO HAVE TO DO A STORM WATER DEAL WHEN WE PUT IN OUR, OUR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION ON OUR PLANS HAS TO SHOW WHERE THE STORM WATER GOES AND IT WILL SHOW, IT DOES SHOW THAT THE WATER COMES UP TO THE BUILDING AND IT'S EXCAVATED SO THAT ALL STORM WATER THAT, THAT HITS THIS BUILDING AT ALL IS ALL VEERED OFF TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
I HEARD THAT BEFORE WE HEARD THAT.
SO I'M GONNA KEEP US MOVING FORWARD HERE.
WHAT OTHER THE QUESTION DO YOU HAVE MR. KOVI? UH, NOTHING ELSE RIGHT NOW.
I'M NOT TRYING TO BE RUDE AND CUT YOU OFF.
I THOUGHT I WAS ANSWERING QUESTION.
THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS OF COURSE.
AND HE MAY COME BACK WITH MORE QUESTIONS AND THAT'S OKAY.
MS. DAVIS, I JUST HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.
WHAT YEAR WAS THE HOUSE BUILT? TWO YEARS AGO.
AND I JUST WANNA CONFIRM THAT IT, IT'S YOUR ASSERTION THAT, THAT YOU COMPLIED WITH ALL OF THE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT AND THAT ANY FUTURE BUILDING WILL COMPLY WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
AND THE CHALLENGE NOW IS VERY POOR DRAINAGE.
BUT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT A RESULT OF THE BUILDING ON THE HOME, IT'S A RESULT OF THE FACT THAT EVERYBODY'S DUMPING THEIR WATER INTO THE ALLEY? WELL, EVERYBODY'S CONTRIBUTING THAT.
BECAUSE ALL THE WATER COMES IN.
THAT'S JUST WHAT I WANTED TO CONFIRM.
AND I, I, I COMPLETELY GET THAT.
I WOULD BE VERY FRUSTRATED TOO.
UM, BUT IT'S JUST MY OPINION THAT I I AGREE.
I DON'T THINK IT IS BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU, YOU HAVE DONE ON THAT PROPERTY.
UM, WHICH IS UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE THAT HAS TO BE RESOLVED SOMEHOW.
BUT I ALSO DON'T THINK THAT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
AND THEN MY, JUST MY LAST QUESTION.
I I, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU SUBMITTED A, A SHEET FROM YOUR ELECTRICIAN BASICALLY STATING THAT YOU NEEDED ANOTHER 200 AMPS FOR THAT OTHER BUILDING.
WHICH WILL NOT BE RENTED, WHICH WILL BE USED AS AN EXERCISE ROOM.
IS THIS THE ONLY, UH, OPINION THAT YOU GOT JUST FROM THIS ONE ELECTRICIAN? THAT'S ALL I WAS ASKED TO.
I APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION AND I'M GONNA ZERO RIGHT IN ON THE LETTER THAT YOU PROVIDED US TODAY.
IT SAYS WE NEED A SEPARATE 200 AMP ELECTRICAL, ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO POWER THE BUILDING.
I'M, I'M NOT GONNA JUDGE THAT, BUT IT GOES ON TO SAY NEITHER PANEL HAS THE CAPACITY
[00:55:01]
TO POWER THE 1200 FOOT EXERCISE BUILDING.WE ASKED YOU AT THE LAST HEARING, WHY DON'T YOU JUST TO ADD ANOTHER PANEL AND YOU SAID YOU NEEDED ANOTHER METER.
THIS, THIS SAYS NEITHER PANEL HAS THE CAPACITY TO POWER THE EXERCISE BUILDING.
WELL, THAT'S THE CONCLUSION WE DREW LAST MONTH.
IT'S NOT GOING TO THE ISSUE OF ENCORE OR A LICENSED REGISTERED ENGINEERING ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR THAT SAYS IT'S, THEY'RE SPEAKING TO PANELS.
THEY'RE NOT SPEAKING TO METERS.
YOU CAN'T PUT ANOTHER PANEL IN THE HOUSE.
SO ALL, ALL THE ELECTRICAL STUFF IS ALREADY
IT'S THAT YOU CANNOT PUT ANOTHER PANEL IN IN THE HOUSE 'CAUSE THERE'S NO SPACE FOR A THIRD PANEL.
HENCE YOU NEED PANEL AND METER ELSEWHERE.
IS THAT THE REQUEST THEN? BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT LAST MONTH.
IT DOESN'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO ADD THE ADDITIONAL ELECTRICAL POWER THAT'S REQUIRED IN ORDER TO RUN THE EQUIPMENT AT THE, AT THE FINISH CENTER.
IT JUST NEEDS A SMALL 200 AMP AND WE CAN'T, IF WE COULD, THAT WOULD BE THE SIMPLEST SOLUTION.
IT JUST ADD IT TO THE, TO THE EXISTING HOUSE TO ADD A PANEL NEXT TO THE OTHER PANELS AND THEN RUN THE ELECTRICITY OUT TO THE RIGHT.
THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM FOR IT.
BUT IT JUST, WE CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY OKAY.
I'M, I'M ASTONISHED THAT A HOUSE THAT IS TWO YEARS OR LESS BUILT MM-HMM.
BUT THAT'S NOT MY PLACE TO JUDGE, THAT'S JUST MY PLACE TO OBSERVE.
AND, AND UNFORTUNATELY IT'S ALMOST UNCONVINCING ALMOST, BUT I'M JUST ONE VOICE AND ONE VOTE.
WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS? JUST WANT, I'LL COME BACK TO YOU AFTER ANYONE ELSE HAS A COMMENT OR A THING.
SO LET'S KEEP FOCUSED ON THE PANEL.
SO THERE'S ROOM, THERE'S ROOM FOR ANOTHER PANEL IN THE HOUSE.
THERE'S PHYSICAL ROOM FOR ANOTHER PANEL.
AND ALL OF THE ELECTRICITY THAT WOULD RUN THROUGH THAT PANEL IS INTENDED FOR THE NEW BUILDING.
I'M, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
THE, THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF AN ADDITIONAL PANEL WOULD BE TO POWER THE, THE EXERCISE AREA.
IF YOU COULD DO NOT ANY OF THE HOUSE, IF YOU COULD, NO, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HOUSE.
SO WHY, I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE PANEL CAN'T BE PUT IN THE HOUSE ON THE EXISTING METER AND JUST RUN THE ELECTRICITY OUT TO YOUR LOCATION THAT YOU WANT.
I CAN ONLY TELL YOU THAT THE ENGINEER AND ALSO THE ELECTRICIAN SAID THAT IT CANNOT BE DONE WELL.
AND MY ENGINEER HAS BEEN WITH ME FOR 16 YEARS AND MY ELECTRICIAN HAS BEEN WITH ME FOR THAT ABOUT 14 YEARS.
I'M, I'M NOT READING, I'M NOT READING THAT IN THE LETTER THAT YOU PROVIDED.
IF YOU WANT, I CAN GET YOU THAT LETTER, BUT I ASSURE YOU IT CANNOT BE DONE BECAUSE ALL THE ELECTRICAL, UM, ALL THE ELECTRICAL POWER, THE, THE AMOUNT OF, UH, ROOM FOR ELECTRICAL PANELS, ALL THE ELECTRICIAN, EVERYTHING THAT'S WIRED, THAT'S ALREADY RUN, YOU CANNOT ADD TO THAT FOR WHATEVER THE REASON IS.
I'M NOT AN ELECTRICIAN, BUT I'VE BEEN TOLD BY PROFESSIONALS, THAT WAS MY FIRST QUESTION.
THE BOLT SAID IT CANNOT BE DONE ACCORDING TO BUILDING CODES OR, OR ELECTRICAL CODES.
YOU CAN'T ADD IT TO AN EXISTING HOUSE THAT ONLY HAS A METER THAT SIZE, THAT RUNS THAT MUCH.
THAT THE HOUSE IS 10,000 SQUARE FEET AND IT REQUIRES A SIZE OF A METER TO RUN THAT, THAT AMOUNT OF HOUSE.
SO IT DOES NOT HAVE ROOM FOR THE DIFFERENCE FOR THE
WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS MR. HOPKIN? I'VE GOT MS. DAVIS.
SO IF I'M HEARING WHAT YOU JUST SAID, THE REASON THAT THEY CAN'T RUN THE OTHER PANEL THROUGH IS 'CAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE AN UPGRADE TO THE EXISTING METER.
NO, YOU CAN'T ADD AN ANOTHER PANEL.
YOU CAN'T ADD ANY MORE ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS TO THE TWO PANELS THAT ARE IN THE HOUSE.
SO YOU CAN'T ADD, OR YOU CAN'T PUT IN ANY ADDITIONAL PANEL IN THAT HOUSE THAT WILL HANDLE THE ELECTRICITY FOR THAT SMALL BUILDING.
IF WE COULD, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE WOULD DO.
I GUESS, I GUESS WHAT I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT WOULD JUST BE THE LOCATION OF THE PANEL.
I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY THAT THE, IF YOU'RE GONNA LOCATE ANOTHER PANEL, WHY IT CAN'T BE, WE'RE NOT GONNA, YOU, YOU ASKED ME IF, IF WE HAD THE ROOM TO PUT IN A PANEL, WE HAVE THE ROOM TO PHYSICALLY PUT IN A PANEL, BUT YOU CAN'T WIRE IT.
YOU ASKED ME IS THERE ROOM TO PUT ANOTHER PANEL AND I, MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD YOUR QUESTION.
[01:00:01]
A THREE CAR GARAGE.I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN ALWAYS PUT ANOTHER PATH, BUT YOU CAN'T WIRE IT.
MY MY QUESTION REALLY WASN'T ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS ROOM IN THAT LARGE HOUSE FOR ANOTHER, OH, I'M SORRY.
PHYSICALLY YOU CAN PUT A PANEL ABOUT ABILITY TO INSTALL IT RUNNING THROUGH THE EXISTING METER.
THAT I WAS HOPING TO GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM AN ELECTRICIAN ABOUT NO, YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T ADD IT.
THAT WAS OUR FIRST QUESTION AND I I VERIFIED THAT IT CANNOT ADD ANOTHER METER TO THAT.
I'VE GOT ANY MORE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
I'VE GOT MS. HAYDEN THAN MS. DAVIS.
SO HERE'S HOW I'M INTERPRETING THIS.
THE EXISTING ELECTRIC SERVICE TO THE EXISTING HOUSE THAT STANDS NOW DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO SERVE ANY MORE ADDITIONAL ELECTRICAL PANELS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO, TO UH, SERVICE THE NEW STRUCTURE.
SO YOU HAVE TO PUT IN A NEW METER AND A NEW ELECTRIC SERVICE.
IS THAT WHAT THAT MEANS? IT WOULD HANDLE THE LIGHTING.
IT WILL NOT HANDLE THE, THE, UM, SAUNA, UH, THE HVAC.
IT WILL HAND IF YOU JUST HAD LIGHTS IN IT.
WE HAVE ENOUGH ROOM IN THAT, IN THAT SECOND PANEL TO DO THAT.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE IT TO DO THE FITNESS.
SO WHEN YOU SAY ROOM, I THINK EVERYBODY THINKS OF IT AS SPACE.
BUT WHEN YOU SAY ROOM, YOU MEAN CAPACITY? YES.
SO IT'S NOT A MATTER OF SPACE, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT ELECTRIC SERVICE CAN, I'M SORRY.
HOW ARE BOTH BUILDINGS? THAT'S, AND IT CAN'T.
I I I KNOW THAT YOU WERE EXPLAINING IF THE ELECTRICITY IS NOT, THE ADDITIONAL ELECTRIC METER IS NOT APPROVED, THAT THE OWNERS WOULD OPT FOR GAS INSTEAD.
IS THAT CORRECT? WE WOULD'VE TO PAY FOR A GAS LINE THAT RUNS AROUND THE WHOLE, THE WHOLE HOUSE.
THE EXCAVATION IS A POOL BACK THERE.
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DECK WOULD HAVE TO BE PULLED UP AND, UM, RUN.
BUT IT COST AN, AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THEM TO DO IT WITH GAS BECAUSE IT'S OVER A HUNDRED FEET AWAY.
AND IT WOULD CAUSE EXCAVATION AND LOSS OF, UH, LANDSCAPING AND EVERYTHING WOULD BE A MAJOR JOB.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 18 ON APPLICATION OF LARRY KLINGHOFFER GRANT, THE REQUEST TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN AN ADDITIONAL ELECTRIC METER ON THE PROPERTY IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY REGULATIONS AND THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT BE USED TO CONDUCT A USE NOT PERMITTED IN THE DISTRICT WHERE THE BUILDING SITE IS LOCATED IN THE MATTER.
IN THE MATTER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 18 MS. DAVIS HAS MOVED TO GRANT A REQUEST, UH, FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? I'LL SECOND.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN.
I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION BECAUSE I, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
I THINK THE ISSUE WITH THE DRAINAGE IS, IS BORN BY SOMETHING ELSE.
I ALSO THINK THAT IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS, THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT MORE THINGS THAT'LL BE DUG UP AND CONSTRUCTION COULD BE PROLONGED.
UM, AND IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THE, THIS NEW, UM, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, WHICH WE'RE NOT, WE ARE NOT VOTING ON TODAY, WE'RE ONLY JUST VOTING ON THE PANEL.
BUT IT IS, BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ELECTRICITY FOR THIS NEW BUILDING, THAT THAT BUILDING WILL NOT BE USED FOR.
UM, A USE THAT IS NOT PERMITTED.
THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
THANK YOU, MS. DAVIS, MS. UH, DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION, MS. HAYDEN? UM, I AGREE WITH MS. DAVIS AND, UH, WE, WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE DRAINAGE BECAUSE, UH, THE DRAINAGE DOES ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, HOMEOWNERS ONLY OPTIONS ARE TO DRAIN TO THE STREET OR TO THE ALLEY, TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALLOWED, HOMEOWNERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DRAIN TO THEIR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
UM, SO WHEN THERE'S PONDING IN THE ALLEY OR PONDING IN THE STREET, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE, UH, UH, RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY IS TO ADDRESS THOSE DRAINAGE ISSUES.
UM, SO GOING BACK TO THE METER, UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE ALWAYS ARE CONCERNED WHEN SOMEBODY ASKS FOR A SEPARATE METER.
UM, MOSTLY BECAUSE IF IT IS NOT, IF YOUR PROPERTY IS NOT ZONED FOR A SECOND DWELLING UNIT, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S NOT THE INTENT.
I THINK IT'S BEEN VERY CLEAR AND IT'S BEEN STATED ON THE RECORD THAT THAT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THIS.
WE HAVE IT IN WRITING IN SEVERAL LETTERS.
UM, WE HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORS, FROM THE MAJORITY OF THE NEIGHBORS.
SO IN MY OPINION, IT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT BE USED TO CONDUCT A USE NOT PERMITTED, UM, IN THE DISTRICT WHERE THE BUILDING'S LOCATED.
OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?
[01:05:01]
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.I'M A LITTLE HESITANT 'CAUSE I'M SCRATCHING MY HEAD.
A HOUSE THAT'S TWO YEARS OLD DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH CAPACITY TO HANDLE AN ADDITIONAL UNIT AND ADDITIONAL POWER THAT JUST, JUST, BUT, AND THE LETTER IS NOT VERY CONVINCING TO THIS ONE MEMBER.
'CAUSE IT'S TALKING ABOUT PANELS.
IT'S NOT TALKING ABOUT THE, UM, UH, THE NEED FOR TWO METERS.
SO, BUT I'LL SUPPORT THE MOTION BECAUSE IN THE END, AS MS. HAYDEN JUST REITERATED, I DON'T THINK IT'S CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
I DON'T THINK IT'S ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
UM, I'M GONNA LOOK BEYOND THE DRAINAGE ISSUES.
AND THAT'S IS BEAT UP ON YOUR CITY COUNCILMAN OR COUNCIL PERSON TO GET THE CITY OUT TO, TO WORK ON THE ALLEY.
UM, AND THAT MAY BE USED AND THAT WOULD BE INCUMBENT UPON THE PERSON WHERE THE WATER'S COMING FROM.
SO, UH, BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE FROM WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY.
AND SO I'M TRYING TO KEEP FOCUSED ON THE ISSUE WHERE TODAY I'M HOPEFUL IF THE BOARD SEES FIT TO APPROVE THIS, THAT YOU COMMUNICATE BACK TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THAT BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND MAKING SURE THAT THOSE, THAT ONE'S ACTION DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH A, A COMMON AREA LIKE AN ALLEY, RIGHT? UH, IS, I MEAN, 'CAUSE THAT'S JUST PART OF BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION? THANK YOU, MR. HAITZ.
MY, UH, MY, MY OBVIOUS INCLINATION WAS NOT TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, HOWEVER, I THINK, UM, YOU'VE REMOVED MY, MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE RUNOFF FROM THIS ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE.
UM, AND SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. NARY? THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
YEAH, I CONCUR WITH, WITH WHAT? UH, YOU SAID, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN ABOUT THE DRAINAGE ISSUE.
UM, I AM RELUCTANTLY IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION 'CAUSE I THINK IT IS NEEDED.
UM, HOWEVER, I DO IN, IN THE WHOLE, UH, THEORY OF BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR, IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME THAT THIS ALLEY DOES NEED TO BE PAVED BY THE CITY.
AND I HOPE THAT YOU GOOD LUCK AND THE OTHER, AND THE OTHER NEIGHBORS WILL WORK JOINTLY, UH, TO TRY TO GET THAT DONE TO ASSUAGE THE DRAINAGE ISSUE.
'CAUSE, 'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY, I MEAN, IT'S A BIG MUD PUDDLE BACK THERE, BASICALLY.
THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BD 8 2 3 4 18.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY WITH A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO GRANTS THE REQUEST TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN AN ADDITIONAL ELECTRIC METER AND A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
YOU'LL GET A LETTER FROM OUR, UH, BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY.
YES, PLEASE REACH, THAT HAS TO COME BACK TO OUR YELLOW FOLDER FOR OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
OKAY, THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TODAY IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH ONE ONE.
UH, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A BRIEF RECESS, UM, PRIOR TO HEARING THIS CASE.
UM, BUT BEFORE WE GO TO THE BRIEF RECESS, I WILL FORESHADOW WHAT, HOW I'M GONNA HANDLE THIS.
AND GIVEN THAT THIS HAS BEEN HELD OVER FROM THE PREVIOUS MONTH, I'M GONNA ALLOW EACH SIDE 10 MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS.
AND I'M GONNA ENCOURAGE SOME SORT OF, UM, SUMMARY TIME TIMELINE OF THE DISCUSSION THAT'S OCCURRED FROM EACH SIDE, UH, TO BEGIN WITH.
UM, AND THEN BECAUSE WE, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THE BOARD FULL BOARD IS BRIEFED AS TO WHAT YOU HAVE SAID IN THE PAST, UM, AND RESPONDED TO, UH, TO KIND OF BRING THE, THE BOARD FORWARD WITH INFORMATION.
I'M NOT TELLING YOU HOW TO DO THAT, I'M JUST SAYING A BRIEF SUMMARY.
UM, AND THEN I'LL GIVE, GIVE TIME FOR BOTH, BOTH PARTIES AND THEN THE BOARD WILL ASK QUESTIONS.
AND THEN HOPEFULLY WE'LL COME TO SOME DECISION TODAY.
SO IT IS 2:10 PM ON THE 19TH OF NOVEMBER.
WE'RE GONNA RECESS FOR, UH, 15 MINUTES.
WE'LL COME BACK AT 2:25 PM I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE YOU TIME TO PREPARE BASED ON MY CHARGE TO YOU OF WHAT WE DO WHEN WE COME BACK AT 2:25 PM UH, NOVEMBER 19TH AT 2:10 PM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS RECESSED UNTIL 2:25 PM THANK YOU.
IT IS 2:25 PM ON THE 19TH OF NOVEMBER.
[01:10:01]
ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS HEREBY CALLED BACK TO ORDER.UH, OUR LAST AGENDA ITEM FOR TODAY IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 11.
THIS IS A, AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL DECISION REGARDING 6 5 2 9 VICTORIA AVENUE.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS HEARD THIS CASE TWICE BEFORE, UH, SPECIFICALLY ON SEPTEMBER 17TH AND THEN AN OCTOBER 22ND.
AND THEN NOW TODAY, THE NOVEMBER 19TH, IT IS WITHIN THE BOARD'S, UH, AUTHORITY TO, IN A BUILDING OFFICIAL CASE OR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CASE TO AFFIRM REVERSE AMEND THE DECISION OF THE OFFICIAL IN WHOLE OR IN PART THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH 51 A 7 0 3 OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE TO YOU, UM, THAT I'M GONNA GIVE EACH SIDE 10 MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TO SPEAK.
UH, THIS IS A UNIQUE TYPE OF, UH, APPEAL.
IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING PER SE BECAUSE THE PUBLIC CANNOT SPEAK UNLESS ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER CALLS THEM AS A WITNESS.
UM, SO I'M GONNA GO TO MY RULES OF PROCEDURE FIRST.
AND IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, IT TALKS ABOUT, UH, THE APPLICANT SPEAKS FIRST, THEN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL RESPONDS.
AND ORIGINAL RULES ARE 20 MINUTES AND 20 MINUTES.
SO I'M GONNA FOLLOW THAT SPIRIT AND FIRST GO TO THE APPLICANT.
UM, AND I'M GONNA TRY TO KIND OF HYBRID THIS TO ALLOW FOR, UM, 10 MINUTES ON EACH SIDE AND I WILL, I WILL BE GENEROUS IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE EACH SIDE GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR CASE.
I'M GONNA ASK EACH SIDE TO GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF A RECAP OF WHAT THEY SAID BEFORE.
UH, IT IS YOUR TIME TO SPEAK, BUT I'M GONNA ALSO, SINCE I'M NOT GONNA BE PRECISE ON 10 MINUTES, I'M GONNA ASK YOU, I MAY GUIDE YOU AS TO AVOID REPEATING YOURSELF AS YOU AS WE GO.
UM, SO, UM, OUR BOARD SECRETARY INFORMED ME THAT THERE, THE APPLICANT HAS A HANDOUT FOR US.
SO IF MS. BOARD SECRETARY, YOU CAN GO GIVE THAT TO US.
AND I, I ASSUME, MARY, YOU'RE KEEPING ONE FOR YOUR RECORDS.
OH, YOU NEED ONE FOR THE RECORDS.
SO, UH, BEFORE WE BEGIN, LET US ABSORB THIS AND THEN I'LL LOOK UP AND THEN WE'LL BEGIN.
I NEEDS TO TURN THEIR SCREENS ON TOO, GUYS.
BOARD MEMBERS, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT? ALRIGHT, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND BEGIN.
UH, IF YOU WOULD, UM, WHAT'S THAT? OF COURSE, I'M, I'M GONNA PASS OUR APPLICANT, I MEAN, OUR LETTERS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE BOARD.
UM, I'M GOING TO COMMUNICATE TO YOU THE SAME WAY I'LL COMMUNICATE TO THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
AND THAT IS, UH, ASSUME THAT WE ALMOST KNOW NOTHING AS IT RELATES TO THE TWO PREVIOUS CASES, THE PREVIOUS HEARINGS.
YES, THERE'S A CUMULATIVE INFORMATION, BUT, UH, UH, SO,
[01:15:01]
UH, IF YOU'D GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN YOU WILL PROCEED.MISTY VENTURA, 94 0 6 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 8.
VOLUNTEER ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
DANIEL LEE VENTURA, VENTURA, V AS IN VICTOR, E-N-T-U-R-A.
ALRIGHT, AND AGAIN, I'M GONNA BE REASONABLE, GENEROUS, BUT SUB SUBSCRIBED AS FAR AS TIME, SO YOU MAY PROCEED.
BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, THIS CASE CAME BEFORE YOU AFTER A BUILDING PERMIT WAS REVOKED ON AUGUST 7TH, AND THIS APPEAL WAS FILED.
THE APPEAL IS ASKING THAT THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF PD 67 IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.
COULD YOU HOLD ON ONE SECOND? THANK YOU.
OUR, MY BOARD ATTORNEY, UH, ASKED ME A QUESTION, UH, THAT EVERYONE THAT'S GOING TO SPEAK TODAY NEEDS TO BE SWORN IN CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES.
SO IF EVERYONE IN THE CHAMBER THAT'S GONNA SPEAK TODAY WOULD, WOULD PLEASE STAND SO WE CAN SWEAR YOU IN.
ANYONE ELSE IN THE CHAMBER THAT'S GONNA SPEAK ON OTHER SIDES? OKAY, SO I'VE GOT THREE PEOPLE.
MS. BOARD, SECRETARY, OH, MR. POOL.
MS. WILLIAMS, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
THANK YOU FOR THE CATCH MS. BOARD ATTORNEY.
UH, I'VE RESET MY TIME CLOCK, SO YOU'RE FINE.
STARTING FROM THE TOP ON AUGUST AND, AND REMEMBER THIS IS INTERACTIVE.
SO AS I SEE A BOARD MEMBER THAT HAS A QUESTION, I'M GONNA GENTLY INTERRUPT YOU AND I'LL GENTLY INTERRUPT YOUR, UH, OTHER ATTORNEY AND, AND, AND BECAUSE IT'S DESIGNED TO BE INTERACTIVE.
ON AUGUST 7TH, THE PERMITS ISSUED FOR 65 29 VICTORIA LANE WERE REVERSED, WITHDRAWN.
THE APPLICANT, DANNY LEE, IS REQUESTING THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE PERMITS BE REVERSED BECAUSE OF INTERPRETATION ERROR IN PD 67 AND THE PERMITS BE REINSTATED DURING THE SEPTEMBER PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH WAS THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR THIS CASE, THE BOARD CHAIR ADMONISHED ME AS I WAS PRESENTING THAT I FAILED TO MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPLICANT WAS ENTITLED TO A REINSTATEMENT OF HIS PERMITS BECAUSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION HAD BEEN REVERSED.
SO BETWEEN THE SEPTEMBER PUBLIC HEARING AND IN THE OCTOBER PUBLIC HEARING, A LARGE VOLUME OF INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD AND MEET THAT BURDEN OF PROOF.
AS PART OF THAT SUPPLEMENTATION, IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF INTERPRETATION IN PD 67 AS IT WAS AMENDED, THE CITY WAS RELYING ON SECTION 67.107 TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN ERROR FOR THREE REASONS.
ONE LOT COVERAGE BEING 45%, HEIGHT BEING 35.9 FEET, AND RUTH PITCH BEING INCONSISTENT WITH THE AMENDMENTS.
IN CONTRAST, THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THE GOVERNING REGULATIONS ARE THOSE APPLICABLE TO VACANT LOTS CONTAINED IN 67.110 OF THE AMENDED PD 67.
THAT VACANT LOT PROVISION ALLOWS FOR THE USE OF THE DUPLEX DISTRICT STANDARDS, WHICH WERE MET WHEN THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED AND CONTINUE TO BE MET.
TODAY, THOSE STANDARDS ALLOW FOR A HEIGHT OF 36 FEET, A COVERAGE OF 60% AND NO RE REGULATIONS RELATED TO RUTH B***H.
SO BASED ON THAT, MY COLLEAGUE ROBERT MLO PRESENTED DURING THE OCTOBER PUBLIC HEARING AND THERE WAS MUCH DEBATE ABOUT THOSE THREE METRICS AND WHAT APPLIED TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THIS IS A SENTENCE DIAGRAMMING EXERCISE.
IF YOU FOCUS ON SECTION 67.107, YOU SEE IN A, A VERY LONG SENTENCE THAT BEGINS WITH ACCEPTANCE PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION AND THEN HAS TWO DEPENDENT CLAUSES WITH THE WORDS AND COUPLING THEM TOGETHER, FOLLOWED BY AN INDEPENDENT CLAUSE AFTER
[01:20:01]
THE THIRD.AND IN THAT SENTENCE, THE CITY'S INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE ACCEPT IS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION IS CONTROLLING, AND THEREFORE THE 67.107 REGULATIONS APPLY.
I BELIEVE THAT INTERPRETATION IS IN ERROR BECAUSE THAT INTERPRETATION LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NONE OF THE VACANT LOT PROVISIONS APPLY BECAUSE THE THIRD AND IS FOLLOWED BY AN INDEPENDENT CLAUSE THAT FOCUSES YOU ON SECTION 67.110.
THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT ARE THE DUPLEX DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND THE PROJECT MEETS THOSE STANDARDS AS A RESULT.
WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY, RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT YOU REINSTATE THE PERMITS THAT WERE REVOKED IN ERROR ON AUGUST 7TH, THE INFORMATION THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE REMARKS OR SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION THAT THE APPLICANT DANNY LEE PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS THAT THIS BOARD ASKED OF HIM DURING THE OCTOBER MEETING.
AND HE'S AVAILABLE TO DISCUSS OR PRESENT THAT INFORMATION AND ANSWER QUESTIONS TO THE EXTENT THIS BOARD HAS QUESTIONS.
OKAY, I'M GONNA STOP YOU THERE A SECOND.
UH, THE PREVIOUS ATTORNEY THAT WAS HERE LAST TIME REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT DID REFERENCE 50 67 1 0 7 AND 67 1 1 0.
UM, AND I'M, I'M TRYING TO FOLLOW YOUR LINE OF THOUGHT OF WHAT YOU'VE SAID TO US.
UM, AND IN THAT 67 1 0 7 2 SECTIONS DOWN, IT SAYS SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX STRUCTURES HEIGHT, 25 FEET LOT COVERAGE, 40%, AND IT REFERENCES ROOF WHERE IN THE PD 67 DOES 1 1 0 0.2.
SO IF YOU START AT 67.107 A YES, THE GENERAL STATEMENT BEGINS EXCEPT AS, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION AND THEN HAS TWO DEPENDENT CLAUSES.
I I HEARD YOU, BUT I'M, YOU'RE SAYING THAT BECAUSE IT SAYS THE WORD ACCEPT AS IT EXEMPTS THE VACANT.
IS THAT WHAT YOUR PREMISE IS? YES.
I'M SAYING THAT IF YOU GO TO THE THIRD AND IN THAT HOUSE, SO WHERE, WHERE DOES IT REFERENCE IN THIS PD? I'M TRYING TO FOLLOW YOUR LINE OF THOUGHT.
TAKE ME WHERE AND HERE REFERENCES VACANT LOTS.
SO THE FIRST PLACE IT REFERENCES VACANT LOTS IS IN 67.107 A 1, 2, 3, 4, FIFTH, 1, 2, 3, FOURTH LINE DOWN AFTER THE THIRD.
AND IT WAS THE DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT PROPERTY.
AND THAT POINTS YOU TO 67.110 DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT AREA AND REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING STRUCTURES.
ANY VACANT PROPERTY MADE DEVELOPMENT ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF ZONING DISTRICT? I'M READING WHAT HE GAVE US LAST TIME.
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DUPLEX IS APPLY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT AREA AND REDEVELOPMENT EXISTING STRUCTURES.
UH, AS A VACANT ON PROPERTY INDICATED AS VACANT OR CHURCH ON EXISTING LAND USE MAP.
THAT, THAT AT LEAST I, I TIE ONE VERSUS THE OTHER.
SO YOUR CONTENTION HERE IS THIS, IS THAT THIS CONTROLS THAT INTERPRETATION CONTROLS? YES, SIR.
THAT IS MY IS IT YOUR CONTENTION THAT THAT WAS THE BASIS BY WHICH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ISSUED THE PERMITS IN THE FIRST PLACE? YES.
AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT THE PERMITS WERE STAMPED WITH THE DA DUPLEX DISTRICT REGULATION MARKER, WHICH I THINK DANNY CAN SPEAK TO WHEN HE PRESENTS THE INFORMATION THAT HE SUBMITTED.
BECAUSE THE PERMITS THAT ARE ISSUED, YOU HAVE TO REPEAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID BECAUSE THE PERMITS THAT ARE ISSUED WERE STAMPED WHAT? DA FOR DUPLEX DISTRICT.
MEANING THAT PLAN WAS STAMPED AND POINTED TO THE DA SECTION OF THE CODE CORRECT.
OF THE PD AND, AND THAT PLAN SET WAS GRADED AGAINST THOSE REGULATIONS.
YOU DID GIVE US A MOUNTAIN OF PAPERWORK OF WHICH I'M A PAPER PERSON.
I KEPT ALL THE STUFF YOU KEPT, UH, GAVE US.
UM, IN THIS MOUNTAIN, IS THERE A SET OF THAT PERMIT THAT SHOWS THAT STAMPING REFERENCING DA, CAN YOU PROVIDE US WITH THAT OR SHOW US SOMEWHERE THAT, OR IF NOT, I'LL ASK THE, THE BUILDING OFFICIALS REPRESENTATIVE, I, IF YOU, IF YOU WOULD INDULGE ME AND ASK THE BUILDING OFFICIALS REPRESENTATIVE.
IT IS A MOUNTAIN OF PAPERWORK AND I DID NOT BRING THE MOUNTAIN WITH ME.
SO I MAY FORGET OR I MIS BE MISCONSTRUED, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW
[01:25:01]
YOUR, AT LEAST WHAT YOU'RE PRESENTING YOUR LINE OF THOUGHT.MY INTERPRETATION OF THE AMENDED PD 67 IS BASED ON DIAGRAMMING THE SENTENCES IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.
NOT SO WHEN YOU SAY DIAGRAM, I THINK OF MY HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHER.
SO DIAGRAMMING FOR ME IS NOT MY STRONG SUIT, BUT THAT'S FAIR.
BUT IF YOU READ THIS VERY LONG SENTENCE, I BET YOU YOUR WORTHY OPPONENT IS GONNA HAVE A DIFFERENT DIAGRAM OF THE SAME SENTENCE, BUT YOU'LL GET THAT OPPORTUNITY.
SO, UM, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION AT THIS JUNCTURE.
SO THAT, THAT, I'LL, I'LL SAY THAT WAS, NOW I'LL OFFER THAT WAS I'LL OFFER UP THE APPLICANT TO ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS YOU ASKED OF HIM LAST MONTH.
WELL, THAT WAS ALL FOUR MINUTES I TAKE OUT MY QUESTIONS.
UM, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THIS HANDOUT THAT YOU GAVE US OR IS HE GONNA SPEAK TO THAT? THAT'S HIS HAND.
IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME.
UM, 1 0 8 NORTH BERNICE DRIVE, UH, GARLAND, TEXAS.
UM, SO ON THIS FIRST PAGE HERE, UM, I HAVE THE BEFORE AND AFTER YOU'RE REFERENCING WHAT YOU GAVE TO US.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT FOR THE PUBLIC.
AND MS. WILLIAMS, YOU'RE GONNA GET, YOU'RE GONNA MAKE SURE YOU GRAB ONE OF US BACK.
SO THIS, THIS PROPOSAL IS A ROOF STRUCTURE CHANGE.
NOT, UM, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE, UM, MY INTERPRETATION OF THE DUPLEX OR OF THE, UM, THE ZONING WAS WRONG, BUT BECAUSE OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, THAT I WANTED TO COMPLY THE BEST THAT I COULD, UM, ON MY APPROVED PERMITS OR APPROVED PLANS, IT DOES SAY DUPLEX A WHEN I DID GO DOWN TO THE CITY, THEY DID TELL ME IT WAS DUPLEX A AND IN REFERENCE TO THE OTHER PROPERTY THAT I DID BUILD IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT PERMIT SET SAID PD 67.
UM, SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE SPEAKING TO WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US? YES.
SO, UH, I I'M NOT GONNA STEAL YOUR THUNDER, I'M JUST GONNA ASK, OR IT SAYS BEFORE AND AFTER.
SO THE LEFT SIDE IS WHAT WAS APPROVED AND ON THE RIGHT SIDE IS WHAT I, THE PLANS THAT I DREW UP, THAT I SUBMITTED TO, UM, THE BOARD LAST AT, UH, THE LAST MEETING.
AND THE DIFFERENCE IS THE ROOF STRUCTURE.
SO I'LL, I'LL JUST GO DOWN THE CHECKLIST.
WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE HEIGHT THAT WAS PRE-APPROVED? WHAT'S THE HEIGHT THAT YOU'RE NOW PROPOSING? UH, THE HEIGHT WAS 35.
THE LOCK COVERAGE IS THE SAME.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE, UM, THE, THE ROOF STRUCTURE.
I HOW DO YOU GET 35 AND 35? I'M JUST PUTTING MY EYEBALL, UH, THE TOP OF THE ROOF.
OH, IS THAT A, IS THAT A STRUCTURE IN THE TOP OR IS THAT A LINE THAT'S A STRUCTURE.
IT WAS 43 AS WAS ORIGINALLY PERMITTED.
AND YOU'RE PROPOSING 43? I BELIEVE SO, YES.
IT WOULD CHANGE, WHICH IS, UH, UM, LIKE A BUTTERFLY ROOF, WHICH IS NOW WILL BE, UH, HIP AND GABLE.
AND IS THE, THE, THE AFTER ROOF CONSISTENT WITH PD 67? YES.
CAN YOU KEEP GOING CHAIR AS A POINT OF INFORMATION, THE ROOF PITCH THAT WAS APPROVED THAT DANNY JUST DESCRIBED AS A BUTTERFLY ROOF PITCH IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DUPLEX STANDARDS.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE AFTER OR THE BEFORE? THE BEFORE IS IN COMPLIANCE, IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DUPLEX STANDARDS.
IN THE AMENDED PD DURING THE SEPTEMBER PUBLIC HEARING, DANNY WAS ASKED WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO CHANGE THE ROOF TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE NON VACANT LOTS.
AND SO DANNY WENT OUT AND GOT A COST ESTIMATE AND DRAWINGS TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO THE BOARD.
AND I REMEMBER THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHERE I HAVE IT IN HERE, BUT I REMEMBER YOU GAVE IT TO US.
UM, WELL, WE'LL FIND IT EVENTUALLY SOMEWHERE.
SO KEEP GOING THROUGH WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT YOU GAVE US.
UM, SO IN MY LAST MEETING, MR. OVITZ, UM, WANTED SOME MORE INFORMATION ON, YOU KNOW, WHY IT TOOK SO LONG FOR ME TO START CONSTRUCTION ON THIS HOUSE.
UM, 20 22, 20 23 WAS A REALLY TOUGH TIME.
UM, WE DEALT WITH A LOT OF, UM, YOU KNOW, SUPPLY CHAIN SHORTAGE.
UM, INFLATION AND INTEREST RATES JUST STARTED GOING UP AND
[01:30:01]
IT NEVER CAME DOWN.SO MY END GOAL FOR THIS HOUSE WAS TO REFINANCE WHAT I WAS DONE AND TO MOVE MY FAMILY IN RENT THE OTHER SIDE.
UM, SO THIS NEXT, UH, PAGE HERE SHOWS, YOU KNOW, IN 20 21, 20 22, THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, HOW MUCH IT'S GONE UP, HOW MUCH THE SUPPLY CHAIN, UH, SHORTAGES WERE BASICALLY EVERY CATEGORY, YOU KNOW, WINDOWS.
WE WERE WAITING SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR TO GET WINDOWS.
UH, LUMBER COSTS WERE UP ALMOST 40, 50% AT ONE POINT.
UM, IT WAS JUST A REALLY UNCERTAIN TIME FOR ME.
AND ONCE THOSE COSTS WENT UP, IT WAS, I NEEDED TO COME UP WITH MORE MONEY.
UM, SO THE FOLLOWING PAGE AFTER THAT IS THE ACTUAL IMPACTS, UM, ON MY FINANCES.
UM, THAT IN 2022, THESE WERE THE NUMBERS THAT I ORIGINALLY ESTIMATED TO BUILD THIS HOUSE AND HOW MUCH MY MORTGAGE WOULD BE WHEN I COMPLETED IT.
BY THE TIME THAT I STARTED BUILDING IN 2024, IT WAS A $300,000 DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF HAVING TO PAY FOR INTEREST IN TERMS OF, UM, HAVING TO PAY FOR THE EXTRA CONSTRUCTION COST MATERIALS, EVERYTHING.
AND IT TOOK ME A WHILE TO FINALLY COME UP WITH THAT MONEY.
AND I, EVEN NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M GONNA BE ABLE TO FINISH BECAUSE I, I'VE BEEN PAYING INTEREST ON THIS LOAN FOR THE LAST FOUR MONTHS AND WE HAVEN'T BEEN DOING ANY CONSTRUCTION.
UM, DO YOU NEED ME TO WALK YOU THROUGH THIS? UM, YOU, YOU CAN SPEAK TO ANYTHING YOU WANT, BUT YOUR TIME IS FLEETING, SO.
I DON'T REALLY HAVE THAT MUCH MORE STUFF.
UM, SO YEAH, BASED ON, UM, I, I ALSO GOT AN APPRAISAL DONE ON THE PROPERTY.
IF I WERE TO TEAR OFF THE THIRD FLOOR, LOSING THAT, THE, THE TWO BEDROOMS AND THE TWO BATHROOMS ON THE THIRD FLOOR AND THE VALUE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE 300,000.
SO, UM, ONCE I FINISHED, IF I WOULD, IF I WOULD'VE HAD TO TEAR DOWN THIS THIRD FLOOR, I WOULD'VE SPENT MORE MONEY BUYING AND CONSTRUCTING THIS PROPERTY THAN THE HOUSE IS WORTH.
NO LENDER, NO BANK IS GONNA BE ABLE TO GIMME A LOAN TO REFINANCE THIS HOUSE.
WHEN I'M DONE, I CAN FINISH BUILDING IT, BUT I WON'T BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT AFTERWARDS.
I WON'T BE ABLE TO LIVE IN IT.
I'LL CONSIDER THAT THREE MINUTES.
UH, ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. KOVI? UM, MR. LEE, THE LAST PAGE OF YOUR CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE, MR. KOVI, PLEASE.
THE LAST PAGE OF YOUR HANDOUT YES.
IS THAT, ARE THIS, IS THIS INFORMATION AS FAR AS THE, THE FIRST LINE WITH THE BEDROOMS AND BATHROOMS AND SO FORTH, IS THAT EACH SIDE OR IS THAT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE? THAT'S EACH SIDE, YES.
UM, AND THEN, UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOUR ATTORNEY.
UM, SO YOU'RE DISCUSSING THE PARSING OF, OF THE WORDING OF THE, OF THE REGULATIONS.
AND, UM, HERE'S, HERE'S WHERE I'M TROUBLE.
THE CITY COUNCIL INTENDED SOMETHING BY PASSING THE ZONING CHANGE.
UM, AND IN THE, IN THE REGULATION THERE'S DUPLEX STANDARDS BEFORE AND DUPLEX STANDARDS AFTER THE DUPLEX STANDARDS BEFORE, UM, WHICH YOU'RE SAYING SHOULD APPLY TO VACANT PROPERTIES, UH, IS IS AT LEAST IN TERMS OF, UM, UM, THE HEIGHT OF THE, OF THE STRUCTURE IS VERY OUTTA WHACK WITH THE NEW, WITH THE NEW, UH, LIMIT, ACTUALLY IN ALL THE MEASUREMENTS, THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OLD DUPLEX STANDARDS AND THE NEW DUPLEX STANDARDS.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? THE PD 67 AMENDMENTS THAT APPLY TO NON-VA LOTS DESCRIBED IN ONE SEVEN.
I I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE ASSERTING THAT.
I'M, I'M JUST, I'M ASKING YOU THE, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DUPLEXES BETWEEN THE BEFORE AND THE AFTER ARE QUITE DIFFERENT.
IT GOES, THE HEIGHT GOES FROM 35 FEET, NINE TO 25 FEET, FOR EXAMPLE.
SO THE DUPLEX STANDARD FOR HEIGHT IS 36 FEET.
THE AMENDED HEIGHT IS 25 FEET, 11 FOOT DIFFERENTIAL.
WHAT'S LOST IN THAT INTERPRETATION IS THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT THIS CITY WENT INTO INVENTORYING AND PROVIDING AN EXHIBIT THAT IDENTIFIED VACANT LOTS.
AND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED EXPRESS REGULATIONS RELATED TO VACANT LAWS.
THEY WENT INTO THIS AREA OF TOWN MM-HMM.
[01:35:01]
FOR BUILDING THERE TO, TO PRESERVE SOME ASPECTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.HISTORICALLY, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF VACANT LOTS THERE.
I'M HAVING A HARD TIME BELIEVING THAT THE INTENT, THE INTENT WAS THAT THOSE VACANT PROPERTIES COULD BE BUILT WITH THE OLD STANDARD 10 FEET PLUS HIGHER 20 FEET, 20% MORE LOCK COVERAGE.
THAT, THAT THEY WERE, THE CITY COUNCIL INTENDED THAT A PRETTY GOOD NUMBER OF LOTS WHICH WERE DEEMED VACANT LOTS, SHOULD NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD ARE FREE TO PRETTY MUCH GO WITH THE OLD STANDARDS AND NOT CONFORM.
I HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING WHY THEN THEY WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS OF CHANGING THE ZONING IN PD 67 TO EXCLUDE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF LOTS AND SAY IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THEM.
I, I I'M TALKING ABOUT THEIR INTENT, NOT PARSING, NOT PARSING WHAT THE WORDS WERE, BUT THE INTENT.
SO TO ME, THE INTENT HAD TO BE THE NEW DUPLEX STANDARDS WOULD APPLY BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE WHOLE POINT OF CHANGING THE ZONING LAW MAKES, IT MINIMIZES THE WHOLE IMPACT OF MAKING THE CHANGE AT ALL.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IF THE INTENT WAS FOR THE NEW STANDARDS TO APPLY TO EVERYTHING, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CODIFIED THE REGULATIONS IN 67.110.
THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LOTS AND REFERENCE THE DUPLEX STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THEM.
SO IF THE INTENT, AND I, I WASN'T A PART OF THE ORIGINAL CASE, SO I REALLY CAN'T SPEAK TO THE INTENT, BUT I DO A LOT OF ZONING WORK AND WE ALL RELY ON THE REGULATIONS AS THEY'RE CODIFIED.
AND THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS INCLUDE THIS SECTION.
AND I HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT COUNCIL WANTED THAT TO MEAN SOMETHING.
AND IF COUNSEL WANTED ALL OF THE LOTS TO BE 25 FEET, THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THAT AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO.
ALRIGHT, UH, OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YOU, YOU, YOU HAVE TIME RESERVED.
UM, THE, UH, ATTORNEY FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.
UM, JUST FOR THE RECORD, JUST FOR THE RECORD, UH, GO AHEAD, GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF AGAIN PLEASE.
AND THEN I'M GONNA MAKE, UH, JUSTIN ROY WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, UM, 1500 MARIA DRIVE 70 AND DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 1.
I I, I SAY THIS JOVIALLY, UH, I RAN, MR. ROY AND I RAN, RAN INTO EACH OTHER AT A MEDICAL OFFICE.
WAS IT TWO WEEKS AGO, THREE WEEKS AGO, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I BELIEVE IT WAS THE DAY AFTER THE LAST YEAR.
AND YOU WERE ON YOUR WAY OUT AND I WAS ON MY WAY IN WITH MY WIFE.
WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THE CASE, WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN OH, HI.
AND HE, HE WENT TO THE ELEVATOR AND I WENT IN WITH MY WIFE.
SO THAT'S JUST FOR DISCLOSURE.
THERE'S NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHATSOEVER.
AND IT WAS IN PLAIN OF ALL PLACES IN HERE WE'RE, WE'RE IN DALLAS, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
SO YOU ASKED FOR A BRIEF OUTLINE OF, HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
UM, MY ABLE BOARD ATTORNEY, UM, POINTED OUT THAT CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES, THAT EACH PARTY IS ABLE TO CROSS EXAMINE A WITNESS THAT COMES FROM THE OTHER PARTY.
UH, DID YOU WISH TO DO ANY QUESTIONING OF MR. LEE? I I DO NOT.
I I WILL, I WILL PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO DO THAT IF YOU SO CHOOSE AND I'LL, I'LL PRESERVE THAT RIGHT.
IF YOU LATER ON TO DECIDE TO, 'CAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES.
SO AT THIS TIME YOU'RE, YOU'RE OPTING NOT YES, MR. CHAIRMAN AT THIS TIME? YES.
AND, AND I, AND, AND I'LL BEGIN BY ADDRESSING THAT.
I, I THINK THE ISSUE COMES DOWN TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TWO SECTIONS IN THE CODE, SO, VERY GOOD.
SO FOR PURPOSES, SO FOR PURPOSES OF MY COMMENT AND MY NUDGE FOR MY BOARD ATTORNEY IS AT THIS TIME, YOU'RE NOT CHOOSING TO CROSS-EXAMINE MR. LEE.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MR. LEE.
SO WE, WE ARE HERE, THE BUILDING OFFICIALS POSITION
[01:40:01]
IS THAT THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AS IT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED, IS IT IN VIOLATION OF THREE PROVISIONS OF 67 1 0 7 THAT PERTAINS TO ITS HEIGHT, ITS LOT COVERAGE AND ITS ROOF STYLE.AND IF HE PLANS TO BUILD IT AS HE INTENDS TO, HE'S GONNA BE APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET OVER THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION.
HE'S GONNA BE APPROXIMATELY 5% OVER THE LOT COVERAGE AND THE ROOF STYLE.
AND, AND HE'S GRACIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, SAID HE WOULD CURE THE, THE ROOF STYLE ISSUE.
SO THE APPLICANT HAS MADE PRINCIPALLY THREE ARGUMENTS IN ITS BRIEFING AND I THINK WE'RE DOWN TO ONE.
THE FIRST ONE IS THIS ISSUE OF HOW WE INTERPRET 67 1 0 7 AND 67 1 10.
THEY'VE ALSO MADE ARGUMENTS WHICH THEY HAVEN'T ARGUED OR PUT FORTH HERE TODAY ABOUT, UM, WHETHER THE BUILDING OFFICIALS ACTIONS VIOLATED THE RETROACTIVE LAW PROVISION OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION AND THEN THE VESTED RIGHTS OR THE DUE COURSE OF LAW.
UM, AND I'LL RELY ON THE CITY'S, UM, BRIEFING ON THOSE ISSUES AND, AND HEAD BACK TO THE INTERPRETATION OF 67 1 0 7.
UM, I FIRST WANT TO LOOK AT MY, MY SECOND SLIDE, WHICH IS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL CAN SEE THAT, BUT I BELIEVE, OKAY, SO I THINK THIS TRACT LAND IS GONNA BE REGULATED BY 67 1 0 7 A PRINCIPALLY.
AND THIS SECTION AND WHAT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION MEANS IS THAT B AND C HAVE MEANING AND REGULATE DUPLEXES AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
AND THOSE ARE THE HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE AND ROOFS.
SO THE APPLICANT IS ARGUING THAT THE REST OF THE SENTENCE HAS MEANING TOO.
AND I, I AGREE WITH THAT BY THE WAY.
HOWEVER, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION MEANS THAT THOSE ONLY, THOSE THREE REGULATIONS APPLY TO THAT LOT AND THAT'S HOW THE TEXAS, UM, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION CASE LAW, UM, INSTRUCTS YOU TO DO IT.
IF THERE ARE TWO CONFLICTING PROVISIONS OR THINGS THAT CONFLICT, YOU GO TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS.
UM, CAN YOU SKIP AHEAD TO, TO THREE TO SLIDE THREE? THE NEXT ONE, I'M SORRY, SLIDE FOUR.
SO, AND, AND I BROUGHT THIS UP BRIEFLY, BUT I DIDN'T HAVE THE ACTUAL SLIDE.
51, A DASH 2.101 IS THE INTERPRETATION SECTION.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT SUBSECTION SIX, IF THERE IS A CONFLICT, SUBSECTION B, THE USE REGULATIONS CONTROL OVER THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS IN THIS CHAPTER.
SO I, THE APPLICANT CAN BUILD THE DUPLEX PER THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BUT THOSE THREE PROVISIONS IN 67, 1 0 7 SUBSECTION C APPLY BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, MEANING ALL THE OTHER DISTRICT REGULATIONS APPLY TO THAT DUPLEX.
BUT THOSE THREE APPLY BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY THE ORDINANCE READS IT, IT ACCEPTS THE FIRST SENTENCE, THE FIRST CLAUSE OF THAT SENTENCE, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE REST SUBSECTION B AND C APPLY.
BUT THEN, BECAUSE THIS IS A VACANT LOT THAT THE GENERAL DUPLEX DISTRICT REGULATIONS APPLY AND
[01:45:01]
IF YOU SKIP FORWARD TO SLIDE SEVEN OR OR SIX, I'M SORRY, I'M GONNA BRING UP ONE CASE.IT'S THE BOEING VERSUS STORMS AIR INC.
CASE OUT OF FORT WORTH THAT SAYS WE ARE REQUIRED TO RECONCILE AND HARMONIZE APPARENTLY CONFLICTING STATUTORY POSITION PROVISIONS IF IT IS REASONABLY POSSIBLE SO THAT EVERY ENACTMENT MAY BE GIVEN EFFECT.
IF YOU IGNORE WHAT'S IN SUBSECTION C OF 1 0 7, THEN YOU ARE NOT GIVING EFFECT TO THOSE THREE PROVISIONS.
AND THAT IS WHY I ASK THAT YOU AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND YOU DENY THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT.
SO I, I'LL ASK A RE RHETORICAL QUESTION.
I HEARD YOU JUST SAY THAT THERE IS CONFLICTING, I HEARD YOU JUST SAY THAT THE LANGUAGE IS CONFLICTING AND THAT IF IT'S CONFLICTING, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GO TO ANOTHER AREA OF, OF THE CODE.
I I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S CONFLICTING.
I THINK YOU ARE HARMONIZING TWO SECTIONS THAT SEEMINGLY AREN'T SAYING THE SAME THING AND GIVING EFFECT TO THE SPECIFIC, WHICH IS THE WAY TEXAS STATUTORY INTERPRETATION CASE LAW SAYS YOU EVALUATE THIS AND THE WAY THE ORATE, THE 51 A SAYS YOU SHOULD INTERPRET IT, YOU, YOU GO TO THE SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS, NOT TO THE GENERAL UNDERSTOOD.
I, I'M JUST WRING MY HANDS AND FRUSTRATED AT THE NUMBER OF CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS THAT WE'VE HEARD NOT ONLY TODAY, BUT AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING AND THE PREVIOUS HEARING AND THE GREEN TAGS AND THE, THE PERMITS THAT ARE ISSUED.
WE CONTINUE TO BE ON A TRAIN OF CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS AND ALRIGHT, I'M JUST ABSORBING YOUR, YOUR COMMENT NOW IS, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS.
OKAY, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE? MR. NRI? MR. NRI, THANK YOU.
UM, YEAH, I JUST HAVE A FEW POINTS OF CLARIFICATION.
CAN YOU, UH, REMIND THE BOARD EXACTLY WHAT THE DATE OF THE ZONING CHANGE THE AMENDMENT TO PD 67 TOOK PLACE? UH, I, ON MY LAST SLIDE, I BELIEVE I DO HAVE A, A TIMELINE.
UM, SO OCTOBER 12TH, 2022, PD 67 WAS AMENDED BY COUNSEL.
WHERE, WHERE, WHERE IS THIS? OH, OCTOBER 12TH.
UM, DOES THIS ALSO, I'M SORRY, I'M TRYING TO LOOK THROUGH THIS.
UM, DO WE HAVE THE DATE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION STARTED ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY? MR. LEE CAN DISCUSS IT, BUT I THINK AT THE END OF MAY OF THIS YEAR TO THE BEGINNING OF JUNE OF THIS YEAR.
UH, I SEE MAY, MAY 2ND LOOKS LIKE WAS WHEN THE PERMITS WERE ISSUED.
IS THAT RIGHT? NO, THE, I SEE JANUARY 4TH, 23.
THE PERMITS WERE ISSUED JANUARY 3RD, 2023 OR THEY, THEY APPLIED IN ON JANUARY 3RD, 2023 AND THEY WERE APPROVED ON THE FOURTH.
THE DAY FOLLOWING, IT SAYS PERMIT THREE THROUGH 2 3 0 1 0 3 1 1 2 1 WAS APPROVED ON JANUARY 4TH, 2023.
AND WHAT ABOUT TO HIS QUESTION AS IT RELATES TO CONSTRUCTION STARTING, UM, MR. POLL, DO YOU WELL, WE CAN ASK THAT OF THE APPLICANT.
WE CAN ASK THAT OF THE APPLICANT.
[01:50:01]
THANK YOU SIR.WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE MS. HAYDEN? I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE TIMELINE.
WHY DID IT TAKE A MONTH FOR, UM, THE CITY TO ISSUE THE STOP WORK ORDER IF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT WAS NOTIFIED OF THE VIOLATIONS ON JUNE 24TH? UM, THE STOP WORK ORDER WASN'T ISSUED UNTIL A MONTH LATER IN JULY.
I'M GONNA CALL MR. POOLE TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION.
SO I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DAY WE DETERMINED THAT THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY WAS IN VIOLATION, BUT WE DO MAKE SURE AND RE-REVIEW EVERYTHING BEFORE WE ISSUE A STOP WORK ORDER.
WE DON'T WANT TO STOP WORK ON A JOB SITE UNLESS WE'RE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THERE'S AN ISSUE THAT CANNOT BE RESOLVED UNLESS WE STOP THE PROJECT ALTOGETHER.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S MORE THAN LIKELY THE TIMEFRAME THERE IS, IT TAKES A LITTLE LONGER TO DETERMINE THAT INFORMATION.
I'M GONNA ASK THE ATTORNEY THE QUESTION OF WHEN DID CONSTRUCTION START? UH, LET'S, I WANNA GO BACK THROUGH DATES.
WHAT WE JUST HEARD A MINUTE AGO IS THE ZONING CHANGED ON OCTOBER 12TH, 2022.
UH, A PREVIOUS STAFF WRITEUP THAT WAS, UM, FROM OUR OCTOBER REPORT SAID THAT THE PERMITS WERE ISSUED ON JANUARY 4TH OF 23.
DOES THAT CORRESPOND TO YOUR RECORDS? IT, IT DOES.
AND THEN, AND THEN THE QUESTION AND YOU CAN, AND THEN MR. RE'S QUESTION WENT TO WHAT WAS THE DATE THAT CONSTRUCTION STARTED AND IF YOU COULD SPECIFY FOR BOTH WHEN THE FOUNDATION WAS POURED AS WELL AS WHEN THE FRAME STARTED.
AND, AND I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION, BUT WE DO HAVE THE GREEN TAGS IN THE RECORD THAT CONFIRM WHEN THE FOUNDATION WAS INSPECTED AND WELL, YOU CAN GIVE US THAT DATE.
I CANNOT, IT WAS IN THE PREVIOUS, UM, IT WAS IN THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION, BUT I DON'T HAVE IT.
WELL, DO YOU HAVE THOSE DATES FOR THE GREEN TAGS? THANK YOU.
MR. POOL, ARE YOU LOOKING UP FOR DEFINITIVE ANSWERS? I AM.
AND I ASSUME THE INFORMATION YOU'RE PULLING FROM IS THE CITY'S SYSTEM, NOT YOUR NOTES OR SOMEONE ELSE'S NOTES? THAT'S CORRECT.
I'LL I'LL GIVE YOU THE DATE WE DON'T NEED IN INSPECTIONS HAPPENED.
WE DON'T, WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE POCKET NOTES.
I WROTE DOWN A BUNCH OF DATES ON MY PAPERWORK THAT WE DID FOR OUR FIRST HEARING.
UM, AND SO, BUT I DON'T WANT TO QUOTE THEM BECAUSE THAT'S ME, MY INTERPRETATION.
I'D RATHER HEAR FROM THE SPECIFIC, BUT I KEPT ALL MY ORIGINAL NOTES 'CAUSE I'VE GOT SOME DATES THAT'LL GO BACK TO MR. NE'S QUESTION.
UH, WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS MR. POOL'S LETTER ON AUGUST 7TH THAT REVOKES THE PERMITS AND THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE, THE LAST DATE, AUGUST 7TH.
AND THEN, AND IT REVOKED IT FOR HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE AND ROOF TYPE.
WERE THE THREE COMPONENTS THAT HE NOTED.
CHAIR, IF YOU REVIEW THE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED, IT BEGAN WITH A CHRONOLOGY.
AND IF YOU START WITH IT AUGUST 7TH DATE AND MOVE UP, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU GAVE US THIS TIME OR IN THE PREVIOUS HEARING? BOTH.
I HAVE THOSE DATES WHEN YOU'RE READY.
THE ROUGH AND FOR THE FOUNDATION BELOW FLOOR WAS JUNE 12TH.
UH, THAT WAS WHEN WE STARTED THE INSPECTION, EXCUSE ME, JUNE 10TH WAS WHEN A TEMPORARY POWER POLE WAS PUT OUT.
UH, THE 12TH WAS WHEN WE STARTED THE ROUGH BELOW THE FLOOR.
UH, AND THEN THE ER, WHICH IS THE, UH, POWER RUNNING BENEATH THE FOUNDATION WAS DONE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, BUT WAS GREEN TAGGED ON THE 27TH AND THE FOUNDATION WAS PASSED ON THE 28TH OF JUNE.
WHAT YEAR ARE YOU SPEAKING TO? 24? YES, THIS YEAR, 2024.
AND WHAT WAS THE LAST ONE YOU SAID? UH, THE FOUNDATION.
[01:55:02]
SO WHAT'S THE JUNE 12TH FOUNDATION? THE JUNE, JUNE 12TH WAS WHEN THEY STARTED DIGGING IT AND, AND GETTING THE, THE, UH, SO MR. NER, TO YOUR QUESTION, IT LOOKS LIKE THE WATER AND SEWER LOOKS LIKE JUNE 12TH WAS WHEN THEY, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY DO FOOTERS OR I DON'T KNOW ALL THE LANGUAGE.SO IT WAS JUNE, JUNE 12TH, 24.
THAT BEGS A NATURAL QUESTION AGAIN, IS TO THE DELAY TIME PERIOD BETWEEN WHEN THE PERMITS WERE APPROVED, UM, AND WHEN CONSTRUCTION BEGAN.
WHY IS THIS THIS LONG TIME PERIOD? BECAUSE IN MY NOTES FROM THE HEARING THAT WE HAD BACK IN SEPTEMBER, I HAVE, UM, COUNCIL CHANGED IT IN OCTOBER OF 22, PERMIT APPLIED IN JANUARY OF 23 APPROVED.
AND THEN, UM, NOW THE GREEN TAGS IN 24.
SO WHAT IT'S FOR, FOR THOSE OF US THAT AREN'T CONSTRUCTION PEOPLE WERE WONDERING WHY IS THERE SUCH A SPACING AND TIME? WHAT DOES THAT TELL US OR DOES IT NOT TELL US? DANNY CAN BETTER SPEAK TO THAT.
BUT I BELIEVE THE INFORMATION THAT HE PROVIDED WAS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE TIMELINE.
AND, AND MS. DAVIS JUST POINTED VERY APPROPRIATELY TO THE HANDOUT IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES AND THAT SORT OF THING.
THAT MAY BE ASKED AND ANSWERED.
SO MR. NE, DOES THAT HELP YOU WITH SOME OF THE DATES THAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR? OKAY.
UM, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE BUILDING OFFICIALS REPRESENTATIVE? MR. OVITZ? YES.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, UM, MR. POOL OR MR. ROY? MR. ROY.
MR. ROY? UH, WELL HE MAY CHOOSE TO DEFER OKAY.
UM, SO WE'VE HEARD, WE'VE HEARD, UH, THE APPLICANT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE, THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE, OF THE ZONING, UH, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN THAT ARE IN CONFLICT AND THEY'VE GIVEN THEIR INTERPRETATION AND YOU'VE GIVEN YOUR INTERPRETATION.
UM, I'LL ASK YOU THE, THE SECTION THAT, THAT THAT MAINTAINS THE OLD STANDARDS, THE OTHER THAN AS ACCEPTED IN THIS SECTION OR WHATEVER, THAT THAT PART OF IT THAT THEY'RE SAYING APPLIES IN RULES THAT THE OLD STANDARD, THE 35 POINT 35 FEET, NINE INCHES, THE THE 60 FEET LOCK COVERAGE, THAT PART THAT THEY, THAT THEY'RE SAYING THAT THAT PART IS APPLICABLE BECAUSE OF THAT SECTION.
MY QUESTION, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHAT DO YOU THINK, HOW DO YOU THINK THAT PART OF THAT CODE, WHERE IS THAT APPLICABLE? ANYWHERE? I THINK THAT CODE SECTION IS AC APPLICABLE EXCEPT FOR THE PROVISIONS OF 67 1 0 7.
SO CAN YOU GIVE ME A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF A TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE IN PD 67 THAT WOULD, THAT THAT OLD, THOSE OLD STANDARDS WOULD BE APPLICABLE OFFHAND? I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THE GEN GENERAL DUPLEX REGULATIONS.
I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHER, UM, REGULATIONS OTHER THAN HEIGHT AND ROOF TYPE AND LOT COVERAGE.
NO, I MEAN THE TYPE OF, THE TYPE OF A OF A, OF A STRUCTURE, A COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR EXAMPLE OR A OR A NO BECAUSE A FOURPLEX OR THAT IS THE GENERAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR A DUPLEX.
SO THERE MUST BE SOME OTHER REGULATIONS THAT REGULATE OTHER ASPECTS OF A DUPLEX OTHER THAN HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE OR WHAT'S THE
OTHER, OTHER BUILDING REQUIREMENTS, NOT OTHER TYPES OF STRUCTURES.
THANK YOU MR. KOVI QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES LEFT.
HE HAS THREE MINUTES LEFT, SO TAKE YOUR THREE MINUTES AND THEN HE GETS HIS THREE MINUTES.
I'M TRYING TO BE FAIR AND EQUAL TO BOTH SIDE.
UH, ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU DO THAT.
WHAT'S THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT? 50%.
[02:00:01]
RESPECT TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REGULATIONS, THIS BODY AS THE CHAIR ANNOUNCED AT THE BEGINNING FOR THE STANDARD OF REVIEW, MAY REVERSE THE OFFICIAL'S DECISION BASED ON AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.I BELIEVE THE CITY'S INTERPRETATION RELIES ON A FLAWED ASSUMPTION THAT THERE'S A CONFLICT.
THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE TWO PROVISIONS.
THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO VACANT LOTS WERE INTENTIONAL AND DO NOT CONFLICT WITH SECTION 1 0 7.
IN CONCLUSION, WE WOULD ASK THAT THIS BOARD REINSTATE THE PERMITS SO THAT DANNY MAY COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS DUPLEX IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE AMENDED SECTION 67.110 OF THE AMENDED PD 67 DANNY'S PERMITS WERE REVOKED IN ERROR BECAUSE THE IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDED PD.
DANNY HAS A RIGHT AS A PROPERTY OWNER AND A PERMIT HOLDER TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY IN THE MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S PERMISSIONS.
THE PERMITS THAT WERE REVOKED IN ERROR REVOKING DANNY'S PERMIT VIOLATED THE DUE COURSE OF LAW AND PROVISIONS.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS THAT JUSTIN ROY CITED RELATED TO RETROACTIVITY.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AIRED IN REVOKING DANNY'S PERMITS AND REINSTATE HIS CONSTRUCTION PERMITS.
ALLOWING ONE MORE DUPLEX IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WILL NOT HARM ANYONE.
FAILING TO REINSTATE THESE PERMITS, DRAMATICALLY HARMS THIS APPLICANT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS CASE.
UH, AT THE PREVIOUS TWO HEARINGS, UH, YOUR, YOU AND OR YOUR ROBERT MLO, A FRIEND OF MINE YES.
I'LL SAY YOU REPRESENTING THE ATTORNEYS AND MR. LEE IS THE APPLICANT YES.
HAD STATED THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGE IN THE ZONING, THE ZONING REGULATIONS.
I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT THAT'S WHAT I RECALL.
IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK THAT IS A FAIR STATEMENT.
IF YOU, IF YOU DID HAVE KNOWLEDGE THIS I, MAYBE IT'S A QUESTION TO YOU, BUT YOU CAN DEFER TO HIM.
IF YOU WERE AWARE OF THE CHANGES IN THE ZONING IN THIS DISTRICT, WOULD YOU HAVE CONTINUED ON WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT AS A LAWYER? YES, BECAUSE I WOULD'VE READ THE REGULATIONS TO HARMONIZE THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO VACANT LOTS AS A NON-LAWYER, I'M NOT SURE.
SO WITH RESPECT TO THIS IS THE THING THAT I THINK IS FRUSTRATING FOR ALL DEVELOPERS AND WHY I OFTEN HAVE CLIENTS THAT HAVE CONCERNS LIKE THE ONES PRESENTED HERE AS THE CITY PRESENTED IN THE OCTOBER HEARING.
YOU CAN'T RELY ON THE INFORMATION ONLINE.
YOU HAVE TO ASK FOR A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE TO BE MONITORING ALL OF THE AGENDAS TO KNOW THINGS ARE CHANGED BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN INDIVIDUALIZED NOTICE.
AND WHEN YOU ADMONISHED ME AFTER THE SEPTEMBER HEARING TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD BECAUSE WE FAILED TO MEET OUR BURDEN OF PROOF, I STARTED DOING OPEN RECORDS REQUESTS TO THE CITY THAT STILL HAVE NOT BEEN RESPONDED TO TWO MONTHS LATER.
SO I THINK IT'S VERY HARD FOR ANY APPLICANT TO ASSURE THEMSELVES THAT THEY'VE GOT THE THEN CURRENT REGULATIONS.
BUT THAT'S IRRELEVANT BECAUSE IT'S LIKE SPEEDING, RIGHT? YOU'RE IMPUTED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW.
I I BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE LAW, IF I HAD KNOWN WHAT THESE REGULATIONS SAID, I WOULD'VE STILL MADE THE SAME INTERPRETATION THAT I'M MAKING BEFORE YOU TODAY, WHICH IS THE DUPLEX PROVISIONS CONTROLLED DANNY'S LOT.
'CAUSE THOSE VACANT LOT REGULATIONS MEAN SOMETHING.
I THOUGHT FOR SURE YOU WOULD SAY THE OTHERWISE.
SO I'M SURPRISED THAT YOU WOULD, I WOULD'VE, AGAIN, I'M NOT IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS THAT IF I SAW THAT THE ZONING RULES CHANGE AND I WOULD STOP, I'D FREEZE, I'D GO, OOP, WHAT WHAT'S GOING ON? I'M, I'M, I AS ONE MEMBER AM TRYING TO GO TO THE VERACITY OF THE APPLICANT AS IT RELATES TO KNOWLEDGE.
WE'VE BEEN TOLD MANY TIMES BY YOUR WORTHY OPPONENT, I DON'T WANNA SAY OPPONENT, THE OTHER COUNSEL, THAT THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT.
THERE'S NO DISPARAGING UH, THE BURDEN'S ON THE APPLICANT.
SO, UM, AND SO I'M TRYING TO ZERO IN ON WOULD AN APPLICANT STOP IF THEY WERE, BECAME AWARE OF A CHANGE IN THE RULES OF WHICH THEY WERE PERMITTED ON.
AND THEN I'M GOING BACK TO ALL THESE GREEN TAG
[02:05:01]
DATES AND SO I'M TRYING TO RATIONALIZE THAT, THAT SEGMENT THERE.UM, MAY I SPEAK, MAY I SPEAK TO THAT? I THINK ANY APPLICANT WHO HAS BEEN ISSUED A PERMIT AND ISSUED MULTIPLE GREEN TAGS WOULD ASSUME PERHAPS AN ERROR, BUT WOULD ASSUME THAT THE GOOD FOLKS ISSUING THOSE PERMITS AND PROVIDING THOSE GREEN TAGS KNEW THE RULES.
AND SO IF YOU THOUGHT THE RULES WERE THE SAME OR CONSISTENT WITH THE PERMITS YOU WERE GETTING AND THE GREEN TAGS YOU WERE GETTING, WHAT WOULD MAKE, WHAT WOULD MAKE AN APPLICANT QUESTION THAT? WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT.
SO, WELL THERE WAS A LOT THERE.
SO THAT WERE RAISED LOTS OF ISSUES AND THE FIRST, YOU KNOW, MR. LEE HAS A RIGHT TO BUILD HIS DUPLEX, BUT IT IS SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE CITY AND THE CITY PROCEDURAL RULES FOR BUILDING WHAT IS STAMPED ON HIS PLANS.
AND WHAT THE CASE LAW SAYS, WHICH ISCO AND SEVERAL SUBSEQUENT CASES SAY IS, IS THE CITY CAN CORRECT ERRORS IN ITS PERMITTING PROCESS.
IT'S, IT'S NOT A PERFECT PROCESS.
AND I, I, AS, AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, WE'VE, WE'VE, WE'VE ACKNOWLEDGED OUR MISTAKES, UM, BUT I'M HERE TO DEFEND THE ORDINANCE.
UM, MOVING ON TO MR. LEE'S KNOWLEDGE.
I'M, I I I ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER MR. PEREZ, THE, THE CITIZEN THAT HAS SHOWN UP TO ALL THESE HEARINGS HAS SUBMITTED VARIOUS FILINGS ON WHAT HE CONSIDERS MR. LEE'S KNOWLEDGE.
I ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THOSE SUBMISSIONS.
UM, AS TO THE LAST ISSUE, WHICH I THINK IS THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE.
I'VE, I'VE, I'VE SPOKEN ABOUT IT, BUT THE, I THINK THE, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, LANGUAGE IS CLEAR.
SUBSECTION C APPLIES TO THE, THE APPLICANT'S DUPLEX.
AND I ASK THAT YOU AFFIRM ON ON THAT THE ACTION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ON THAT BASIS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? OKAY.
WE HAVE THREE ITEMS OR THREE ISSUES BEFORE THE BOARD.
ONE IS THE REVOCATION OF, UM, A PERMIT FOR HEIGHT.
SECOND IS REVOCATION OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE AND THE THIRD IS A NON-COMPLIANT ROOF TYPE.
THOSE ARE THREE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ON AUGUST 7TH.
I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE LETTER THAT WAS IN THE RECORD.
UM, HAVING FULLY REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS IN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH ONE ONE ON APPLICATION OF DANIEL LEE AND HAVE EV AND HAVING EVALUATED THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY AND HEARD ALL TESTIMONY AND FACTS SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION.
UH, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE ACTIONS REVERSE THE, BUILD THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIALS AS IT RELATES TO HEIGHT, REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIALS AS IT RELATES TO LOT COVERAGE AND AFFIRM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AS IT RELATES TO ROOF TYPE ISO MOVE.
THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY CHAIRMAN NEWMAN AND HAS BEEN SECONDED BY, UM, MS. DAVIS.
LET ME BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THE RATIONALE FOR MY, MY, UH, MOTION.
WHAT WE HAVE HERE IN FRONT OF US ARE INTENTIONS, GOOD INTENTIONS, BUT INTENTIONS.
I DON'T KNOW WHO IN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DEPARTMENT OPERATED
[02:10:01]
AND UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY THEY OPERATED IN USING WHAT I HAVE CALLED POCKET NOTES.UH, AND THIS WENT ON FOR TWO YEARS.
UM, OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS SOME LEVEL OF BUILDING OFFICIAL CONCURRENCE COMPLIANCE, UM, APPROVAL BECAUSE THIS WENT ON WIDESPREAD AND FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, THE APPLICANT, IN MY OPINION, MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO APPLY FOR, TO OPERATE ON PERMITS THAT WERE ISSUED, RESPOND TO GREEN TAGS ISSUED, AND TO BUILD IN THEIR HOME A DUPLEX FACILITY WITH HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE AND ROOF TYPE.
IN MY OPINION, UM, IN ASKING OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL BACKUP, IN MY OPINION, IN ASKING OF THE APPLICANT.
AND THEN AGAIN, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, IT IS CLEAR THERE'S CONFLICTING LANGUAGE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT INTERPRETING THE INTENT OF A MAP WHEN THERE'S UNCERTAINTY EXISTS.
IT IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD TO HAVE AN OPINION WHEN THERE'S A CONFLICT.
THE BUILDING OFFICIALS REPRESENTATIVE ADMITTED AND SAID, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A CONFLICT FIRST, HE SAID, YES, THERE ARE CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS.
THEN WHEN I PRESSED, HE SAID, I DON'T REALLY KNOW IF THERE'S CONFLICT INTERPRETATIONS, WHICH TELLS ME THEY'RE CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS.
UH, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL RESPECTFULLY, PROFESSIONALLY ADMITTED TO THE CITY OF DALLAS'.
AND THAT'S PLURAL 'CAUSE THIS IS MORE THAN ONE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW HIGH UP IN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES THIS WENT.
AND WE STILL NEVER HEARD, WAS IT A SUPERVISOR? WAS IT A MANAGER, WAS IT AN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, WAS IT A DIRECTOR? WAS IT AN ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER? WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS AFFIRMATIVE COMPLIANT AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF, OF ACTION OF AFFIRMING POCKET NOTES.
BUT THIS WENT ON FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME OF INTERPRET EITHER INTERPRETING THE CODE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, OR LOOKING THE OTHER WAY AS FAR AS THEIR POCKET NOTES.
NUMBER THREE, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, WHETHER IT'S THE LOW LEVEL PERSON OR THE DIRECTOR ISSUED THE PERMITS AND CONTINUED ISSUING GREEN TAGS.
AND AS MS. HAYDEN INQUIRED AND SHE INQUIRED THIS LAST MONTH OR THE MONTH BEFORE, WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG TO RESPOND? THE INTERPRETATION AND THE CONFLICTING NATURE OF 1 0 7 VERSUS 1 1 0 UM, LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT FAIRNESS AND EQUITY HERE FALLS ON THE SIDE OF THE APPLICANT.
AND WE TRY TO, TO DEAL WITH CASES THAT COME TO US BASED ON THE FACTS IN FRONT OF US.
AND THAT'S WHY I KEPT TRIED TO KEEP EVERY BIT OF COMMENTS AND NOTES TO TRY TO PULL THIS BACK TOGETHER.
AND THERE ARE MANY, MANY TIMES IN OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE WHERE WE HAVE CONFLICTING DEALS AND THAT'S GUYS WHY WE HAVE A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT BECAUSE IT'S PART OF OUR JOB TO TRY TO BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND, AND, AND MAKE A A FINDING.
SO THAT IS THE BASIS OF WHAT MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD TODAY.
I THINK THE LANGUAGE IS VERY CONFLICTING.
I FEEL, UM, THAT THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY, UM, MADE SOME REALLY RELEVANT, UM, RELEVANT COMMENTS AND THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL.
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT ALSO HAS MADE AN EFFORT TO DO WHAT HE CAN DO AND HE'S MODIFIED THAT ROOF DESIGN TO BE MORE COMPLIANT AND I APPRECIATE THAT AND UH, IT'S, THIS IS NOT AN EASY DECISION, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE MOST EQUITABLE DECISION.
SO I CONCUR WITH CHAIRMAN NEUMAN ON THIS AND I SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? MR. KOVI? THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'M, UM, SUPPORTIVE OF TWO ASPECTS OF YOUR MOTION DEALING WITH LOT COVERAGE AND ROOF TYPE.
I DISAGREE WITH THE CHAIRMAN AND I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION BECAUSE OF THE RECOMMENDATION TO REVERSE ON HEIGHT.
AS, AS EVERYBODY HAS ACKNOWLEDGED, THIS IS AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT
[02:15:02]
SITUATION.IT, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ROOM FOR A DECISION THAT IS EQUITABLY FAIR TO EVERYBODY INVOLVED.
HOWEVER, I STILL COME BACK TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT, OF THAT, UM, RULE AND FIND, UH, CHECKING AGAIN THE SUBDIVISION MAP THAT THERE ARE, UH, THEY'RE HARD TO COUNT THEM ON THAT SMALL MAP, BUT NORTH OF TWO DOZEN, MAYBE EVEN THREE DOZEN VACANT LOTS IN THE AREA.
WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE ABOUT ARBITRARINESS.
I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY ARBITRARY FOR US TO SAY, MR. LEE CAN HAVE A 35 FOOT DUPLEX, BUT NO ONE ELSE, IF ANY OF THOSE VACANT LOTS CAN, BASED ON AN INTERPRETATION THAT THE, THAT THE, THE WAY THAT THE REGULATION APPLIES IS THAT THERE CAN BE A 35 FOOT HIGH DUPLEX.
SO WHILE WE TALK ABOUT NO CASE SETS A PRECEDENT, I THINK THIS IS PERHAPS THE EXCEPTION THAT PROVES THE RULE BECAUSE I DON'T SEE HOW WE INTERPRET IT ONE WAY TODAY AND ANOTHER WAY TOMORROW WHEN THE NEXT PERSON WHO HAS A VACANT LOT STARTS TO PUT UP A 35 FOOT PROPERTY, UM, FOR US TO DECIDE IT MEANS ONE THING TODAY, AND IT MEANS THE EXACT OPPOSITE TOMORROW WOULD BE VERY UNFAIR.
UM, AND UNCHARACTERISTIC FOR WHAT? FOR WHAT OUR CHARGE IS.
UM, SO FOR THAT REASON, AND I THINK IT DEFEATS THE INTERPRETING IT THAT WAY, DEFEATS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE PD 67 ZONING CHANGE, UM, WOULD NOT HELP PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND SO, UM, I'M, I CAN'T INTERPRET IT IN ANY, ANY OTHER WAY THAT, THAT, THAT THE REGULATIONS WERE INTENDED TO BE APPLIED WITH THE NEW STANDARDS.
SO THERE'S VERY LITTLE, UH, DIFFERENCE IN THE LOCK COVERAGE.
I, I HAVE NO PROBLEM AGREEING WITH THE LOCK COVERAGE THAT MR. LEE HAS, AND HE'S AGREEABLE TO CHANGING THE ROOF.
SO MY, UH, MY DIFFERENCE IS ON THE HEIGHT.
AND SO FOR THAT PURPOSE, I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING YOUR MOTION.
YES, I AGREE WITH MR. HOP'S POSITION, UH, ALMOST ENTIRELY.
I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING HE SAID.
UM, IN ADDITION, I'D LIKE TO ADD A, A FEW ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
UM, THE, THERE WAS A PERIOD OF ALMO ALMOST EXACTLY EIGHT MONTHS TO THE DAY FROM THE TIME THE CITY COUNCIL CHANGED AND AMENDED PD 67 TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
WHILE ONE CAN ARGUE WHETHER THERE IS A, UM, THAT A, A DEVELOPER HAS A DUE DILIGENCE REQUIREMENT TO CONTINUALLY RESEARCH, UM, CITY CODE ON A MONTHLY BASIS, UH, I WOULDN'T EXPECT IT, UH, IF IT WAS SAY, 30 OR EVEN POSSIBLY 60 DAYS, UH, FROM A, FROM A CHANGE.
BUT THIS WAS A PERIOD OF EIGHT MONTHS IN WHICH, UM, THE MEDIA, THIS CHANGE BECAUSE IT AFFECTED AN ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPERS WERE, WERE WANTING TO BUILD.
UH, THIS RECEIVED SOME MEDIA ATTENTION AND WAS COVERED IN THE MEDIA.
YES, THE CITY PERMITTING OFFICE AIRED, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WAS CORRECT IN REVOKING THE PERMITS WITH REGARD TO INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHANGED TO PD 67.
UM, I CAN, I WOULD BE, UH, WILLING AND AMENABLE TO REVERSING LOT COVERAGE.
UM, I DO, UM, APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO MODIFY THE ROOF STYLE, BUT I ALSO HAVE AN, UH, SERIOUS ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE HEIGHT OF THIS PARTICULAR CONSTRUCTION.
AND, UH, SO I WOULD AFFIRM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION WITH REGARD TO HEIGHT.
OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION, MS. HAYDEN? SO THE, THE QUESTION THAT WE HAVE TO ANSWER IS, DID THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AIR IN HIS DECISION TO REVOKE THE BUILDING PERMIT, UM, FOR THOSE THREE ITEMS, THE LOT COVERAGE, THE BUILDING HEIGHT AND THE ROOF PITCH? AND, YOU KNOW, I'LL BE HONEST, IT'S, IT'S NOT, SOUNDS LIKE A SIMPLE QUESTION, BUT IT OBVIOUSLY IS NOT.
UM, AND I, I THINK WHEN I, WHEN I FIRST READ ABOUT THE CASE AND, AND READ ALL THE, THE BACKUP INFORMATION, I THOUGHT, WELL, NO, HE DIDN'T AIR, HE NEVER SHOULD HAVE ISSUED
[02:20:01]
THE PERMIT IN THE FIRST PLACE.SO HE DID NOT AIR IN, IN REVOKING THE, THE PERMIT.
BUT AFTER HEARING ALL OF THE FACTS AND THE CONFLICTING INFORMATION, UM, WITH THE, WITH THE BUILDING CODE, I CAN'T HELP IT SAY, WELL, I AGREE THAT HE ERRED IN REVOKING THE PERMIT BECAUSE IT IS SO UNCLEAR,
SO, UM, IN THAT, IN THAT REGARD, I WILL BE, UM, SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
OTHER DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION, MS. DAVIS? UH, A FEW ITEMS. I JUST WANNA, UH, NOTE, I KNOW THAT WHEN WE HAD OUR FIRST MEETING IN SEPTEMBER, WE ASKED THE, A APPLICANT TO GO BACK AND COME UP WITH A COMPROMISE BECAUSE WE SAID WE WEREN'T GOING TO APPROVE THE DESIGN AS IS, AND HE DID JUST THAT.
NUMBER TWO, UM, I COMPLETELY AGREE.
I THINK IF YOU'RE GETTING A, A BUILDING PERMIT AND YOU'RE GETTING, UH, THE GREEN SLIPS, THERE'S NO REASON WHY YOU WOULD QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE ABLE TO PROCEED.
SO I, I DON'T FIND FAULT WITH THE APPLICANT HERE WHEN HE HAD EVERYTHING THAT HE NEEDED TO PROCEED WITH BUILDING, AND AGAIN, HE CAME BACK AND IS OFFERING TO CHANGE THE DESIGN OF THE ROOF TO COMPLY A LITTLE BIT MORE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, AND I WANNA BE CLEAR, THIS ISN'T FAIR TO ANYBODY.
IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE APPLICANT.
IT, IT'S A BIT OF A MESS AND WE ALL, WE ALL KNOW THAT, BUT TO CHANGE THE DESIGN AND TO, YOU KNOW, RIP OFF THAT THIRD FLOOR WOULD BE ENORMOUSLY EXPENSIVE.
AND THAT BUILDING THAT STRUCTURE COULD JUST SIT ON THAT LOT FOR MONTHS OR YEARS, WHICH IS NOT GOOD FOR ANYBODY.
THAT IS NOT AN EQUITABLE SOLUTION WHEN THE APPLICANT ALL ALONG DID WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO AND WAS GETTING EVERYTHING THAT HE NEEDED TO DO TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT.
SO THAT IS WHY I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION, AND I ENCOURAGE MY FELLOW PANELISTS TO PLEASE SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
UH, A QUESTION FOR MR. POOL, UM, AND THAT FEEDS INTO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HEIGHT.
IS IT CORRECT THAT THE, UH, CITY MANAGER AT ALL MEANS, WHICH MEANS MAYBE THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OR THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OR WHOEVER THE DEPUTY, UH, UH, DIRECTOR HAS MODIFIED THE INTERPRETATION ON HEIGHT TO NOW INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF A VARIANCE REQUEST? SO LET ME CLARIFY.
A, A VARIANCE REQUEST ALWAYS INCLUDED HEIGHT.
WHEN LOOKING AT THIS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT WHEN THE ROOF TYPE IS, WHICH IS A DESIGN STANDARD IS BEING CONSIDERED, SINCE IT IS TRIGGERED BY HEIGHT, THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A VARIANCE REQUEST.
SO ON THIS SURGICAL PROPERTY, AN APPLICANT COULD REQUEST A VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT.
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DECISION THAT WE MAKE TODAY ON THE APPEAL TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS DECISION, THAT IS CORRECT.
ANYTHING WE DECIDE TODAY DOESN'T PRECLUDE AN APPLICANT FROM COMING BACK AND ASKING FOR A VARIANCE ON HEIGHT? NO.
THOSE ARE STATE MANDATED RIGHTS.
I UNDERSTAND, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE ONE DOESN'T FORECLOSE ANOTHER, RIGHT? IT DOES NOT, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.
I'M NOT CAPITULATING, I'M JUST HAVING A CLARITY ABOUT, ABOUT THE RELATION OF HEIGHT.
UH, I, I WOULD SAY AGAIN, AND THIS IS WITH RESPECT TO MR. NER AND MR. HKA, HIS HESITATION ON HEIGHT, UM, THE ISSUE OF CONFLICTING INTERPRETATION OF THE PD 67 AND THE POCKET NOTES IN MONTHS AND MONTHS, AND I KNOW I HEARD YOU SAY EIGHT MONTHS, MR. MARY.
WELL, HE EXPLAINED, THE APPLICANT EXPLAINED PART OF THE REASON WHY THAT, BUT, AND, AND NONE OF US ARE DEVELOPERS, SO WE CAN'T NECESSARILY APPRECIATE PUTTING CAPITAL IN PLACE AND THEN TRYING TO EXECUTE ON A HOME BECAUSE THIS IS ANALOGOUS TO SOMEONE'S HOME, UH, AND GETTING PERMISSION OVER AND OVER ON MAKING IT TO BUILD A HOME.
AND THEN AFTER THE FACT BEING TOLD, WELL, ALL THE THINGS WE TOLD YOU WE'RE REINTERPRETING OTHERWISE IS JUST SHOCKING TO ME.
[02:25:01]
MUCH RESPECT THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD.YOU DON'T NEED TO SHAKE YOUR HEAD.
I VERY MUCH RESPECT, JUST LIKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD I LIVE IN, THAT EACH OF US LIVE IN, WE ARE PART OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THAT IS PART OF THE STRENGTH.
ALL THIS FOUR DALLAS TALK WAS A FEAR OF NEIGHBORHOODS.
WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN TO SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO I VERY MUCH AM, AM AN ADVOCATE FOR THAT, BUT I'M ALSO AN ADVOCATE FOR FAIRNESS AND MY GOODNESS, HOW MANY TIMES DOES THE CITY HAVE TO SAY YES UNTIL YOU BELIEVE THEM SEVEN GREEN TAGS? AND, AND, AND TO HEAR, I'M SPEAKING TO MY PANEL TO HEAR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE SAYING, WELL, THE ONLY OFFICIAL WAY IS TO GO TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AND GET A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDINANCE AND A LAND USE MAP.
WAIT A MINUTE, AT OUR FIRST HEARING, WE HEARD THAT THE LAND USE MAP IS ONLY UPDATED ONCE A QUARTER.
WHAT? SO YOU'RE WHAT? AND THE TIMING OF HOW AVAILABLE ORDINANCES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE OR NOT, HOW IN GOODNESS GRACIOUS IS THAT FAIR AND REASONABLE TO SOMEONE BUILDING A HOME AND BUILDING A HOME AND BUILDING A DUPLEX IS THE SAME THING.
I, I JUST, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET THE, THE, THE WRITING OF ONE 10 VERSUS 1 0 7, BUT I ALSO, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET WHEN A, WHEN A BUILDING OFFICIAL GIVES ME A PERMIT AND THEN SUBSEQUENT GREEN TAGS OVER AND OVER AND OVER, AND AGAIN, I DO, I, AS, AS A HOMEOWNER, IF I WAS BUILDING A HOME, I WOULDN'T KNOW WHETHER I'M SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT SOMEONE'S POCKET NOTES OR SOMEONE'S LISTING OF THE CODE AS WRITTEN OUT OR ON THE COMPUTER.
BUT CLEARLY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR MONTHS, IF NOT NOW, YEARS CONSISTENTLY AUTHORIZED A SERIES OF BUR PERMITS.
AND GOD FORBID IF IT'S ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY THAT WE JUST DON'T KNOW ABOUT YET.
BUT WHAT WE'RE FOCUSING ON, ON IS THIS PROPERTY TODAY.
I STILL URGE MY COLLEAGUES THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA SAY YES, WE AGREE WITH THE ISSUE AND INTERPRETATION OF LOT COVERAGE, THE SAME THING APPLIES TO HEIGHT.
MR. N THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
UM, GOING BACK TO A POINT THAT YOU RAISED EARLIER, YOU SAID THAT THIS, UH, IF WE DO DECIDE TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, THAT THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THE APPLICANT FROM COMING BEFORE US AND SEEKING A VARIANCE WITH REGARD TO THE HEIGHT OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, IF WE REVERSE THE BUILDING DECISIONS OFFICIAL AND THE PERMIT IS RE REINSTATED, THE APPLICANT IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO DO SO.
WE'RE BASICALLY GIVING THEM THE GREEN LIGHT TO PER TO CONTINUE AND COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION AS TO THE ORIGINAL HEIGHT, WHICH I HAVE, I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH.
OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? MS. DAVIS? I GUESS, I GUESS I'LL JUST, ONE OTHER COMMENT THAT I'LL MAKE TO THE AUDIENCE ONLINE OR IN PRESENT, UH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARS CASES IN THE PUBLIC EYE AND DEBATES CASES IN THE PUBLIC EYE.
WE DON'T GO IN THE BACK ROOM AND LIKE FEDERAL OR STATE JUDGES AND HAVE A CONVERSATION THEN COME OUT ISSUE OUR DECISION.
SO WHAT YOU'RE HEARING LIVE IS WHAT OUR DECISION MAKING PROCESS IS, HOW WE AGREE OR DISAGREE.
THIS IS ALL PROFESSIONAL BASED ON EACH MEMBER'S PERSPECTIVE, BASED ON THE FACTS PRESENTED.
I'M SORRY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE NO CLEAR THAT THIS IS VERY NORMAL.
UH, I JUST WANNA GO BACK TO ADDRESSING MR. N'S CONCERN ABOUT THE HEIGHT.
COMPLETELY GET IT, BUT AGAIN, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN ARGUE WITH THE FACT THAT THE LANGUAGE IS VERY CONFUSING AND THAT THE APPLICANT THOUGHT HE WAS DOING THE RIGHT THING THE ENTIRE TIME.
SO HE GOT THE PERMIT, HE GOT THE GREEN TAGS, HE WAS DOING EVERYTHING THAT HE COULD DO.
SO JUST FOR A MOMENT, PUT YOURSELF IN THAT SITUATION.
THAT'S NOT AN EQUITABLE SOLUTION TO HAVE HIM TEAR DOWN THE THIRD FLOOR.
AND IF HE'S NOT ABLE TO DO THAT, TO HAVE THAT BUILDING SIT VACANT IN THAT, IN THAT DEVELOPMENT FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT AN EQUITABLE SOLUTION, I BELIEVE THAT APPROVING REVERSING THE BUILDINGS, UH, THE BUILDING, SORRY, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION IS THE EQUITABLE AND THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
AND THANK, THANK YOU MS. DAVIS AND I RESPECT THAT OPINION, UH, A GREAT DEAL.
I TOO BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT IS ACTING IN GOOD FAITH AND DID EVERYTHING THAT THEY COULD.
[02:30:01]
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THIS INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER HAS TO WEIGH BOTH THE CONCERNS OF THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE INTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.SO THANK YOU MR. JANNER COMMENTS.
MR. KOVICH, THEN I HAVE MS. DAVIS.
UM, I WOULD JUST SAY AS IT RELATES, I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK ALL OF THESE ARE I'S ONE OR ONE OR, UH, ONE OR NONE OR ALL OR NONE, WHICH IS WHY THERE ARE THREE, UH, THREE PROPOSALS ON THE TABLE IN THE MOTION.
UH, ONE IS EACH ASPECT OF THE BUILDING, THE LOCK COVERAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER THE NEW CODE AND WHAT MR. LEE HAS BUILT IS REALLY A VERY NOMINAL DIFFERENCE.
THE HEIGHT COVERAGE IS NOT A NOMINAL DIFFERENCE.
AND SO I DON'T, I DON'T FEEL IT'S, UM, I DON'T FEEL BY, BY AGREEING TO A LOT COVERAGE.
UM, IT'S REVERSING THE LOT COVERAGE, UM, THAT THAT REALLY, UH, MEANS THAT I'M, UH, NOT BEING EQUITABLE IN, IN ON THE HEIGHT ISSUE BECAUSE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CODE VERSUS WHAT HE HAS BUILT IS VERY DIFFERENT BETWEEN THOSE TWO STANDARDS.
AND, AND RESPECTFULLY, THAT'S WHAT HE WAS GIVEN A PERMIT FOR AND REINFORCED WITH, WITH GREEN TAGS OVER AND OVER.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE APPLICANT DID SOMETHING INDEPENDENT OF CONSISTENT POCKET NOTES BUILDING OFFICIAL.
AND WHO KNOWS WHAT THE LAND USE MAP SAID OR DIDN'T SAY, BECAUSE WE KNOW ALREADY THAT REALLY CAN'T BE COUNTED ON THIS LAND USE MAP.
UM, MS. DAVIS, YOU HAD A REQUEST AND THEN I'M GONNA GO TO MR. NERI.
UM, JUST ONE OTHER ITEM OF NOTE, UH, FOR MR. N'S COMMENT, BECAUSE I, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE TORN AND IT IS VERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT THE COMMUNITY, YOU'VE GOT THE APPLICANT.
BUT I DO WANNA POINT OUT THAT, UM, IN THE NOTIFICATION ZONE, THERE WAS SUPPORT FOR THIS.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS BROADER THAN THAT, BUT THAT'S KEY TO WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT WHEN WE'RE EVALUATING THESE CASES THAT YOU DID HAVE THAT SUPPORT IN THAT NOTIFICATION ZONE, MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, COULD YOU PULL THAT MAP BACK UP? AND, AND JUST AS POINT OF CLARIFICATION, I, I DO RECOGNIZE THAT AND THAT I HAVE TAKEN THAT UNDER CONSIDERATION.
I ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT WHERE THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS IN REGARD TO COMPLETION.
UM, I, I LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD NOT FAR FROM ELM THICKETT AND, UM, FREQUENTLY DRIVE BY, UH, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY AND HAVE SEEN THAT ONLY THE FRAMING IS, IS UP AT THIS TIME.
AND I JUST DON'T FEEL THAT IT WOULD BE THAT MUCH OF A BURDEN TO TAKE DOWN SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE HEIGHT FRAMING.
I THINK THE PROJECT COULD STILL BE COMPLETED WHEN I'M REQUESTING THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR DO, IS TO BRING UP THE, THE NOTIFICATION MAP THAT HAD GREENS AND REDS ON IT.
IT'S NOT CONTROLLING, IT'S JUST ANOTHER PIECE OF INFORMATION.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IT.
THANK YOU, MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, UM, MS. DAVIS, THEN MR. HOPKINS, ARE YOU STILL ON HERE? YOUR LIGHT'S ON? OKAY, MS. DAVIS.
SO I'M GOING BACK TO MR. NRI AGAIN.
UM, I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL COST TO, I, I GET THE FACT THAT IT IS JUST, YOU KNOW, YOU JUST SEE THE WOOD RIGHT NOW AND YOU SEE THE FRAMING, BUT MY GOODNESS, TO REDESIGN AND TO COME BACK AND TO TRY TO GET FINANCING TO CUT OFF BASICALLY THE THIRD FLOOR OF THAT HOUSE AND REDESIGN IT, YOU'D HAVE TO GET ANOTHER ARCHITECT IN ANOTHER DESIGNER.
THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT COST, AND THAT IS GONNA TAKE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TIME.
AND AGAIN, IF THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO MOVE FORWARD, IT IS GONNA SIT VACANT.
YOU'RE GONNA HAVE HOMELESS PEOPLE COME IN THERE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TEENAGERS COME IN THERE AND IT'S NOT GONNA BE GOOD FOR ANYBODY.
AGAIN, THIS IS NOT, I'VE SAID THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN, THE, UM, THE 200 FEET NOTIFICATION LETTERS THAT WE SENT OUT IS BY STATE STATUTE THAT SAYS WE'RE JUST SUPPOSED TO NOTIFY OF A HEARING AND GIVE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE FEEDBACK.
IT'S NOT CONTROLLING, THIS IS JUST PART OF THE INFORMATION FLOW.
UM, AND IT'S OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE.
SO, UH, I MAY HAVE, I MAY BUY INTO SOME OF YOUR CONCERN, BUT I ONLY SEE TWO RED DOTS AND I, THE REST I SEE GREEN.
AND SO, MR. KOVI, UM, YEAH, IT'S, IT'S VERY, IT'S VERY EASY TO BE
[02:35:01]
SYMPATHETIC FOR MR. LEE.UH, HE'S BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE.
UM, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY, ANY ARGUMENT THAT THAT OBVIATES MY MAJOR CONCERN, WHICH IS THERE'S LOTS OF VACANT LOTS AND, UH, I DON'T SEE HOW THIS BOARD COULD COME BACK AND TELL SOMEBODY ELSE WITH A VACANT LOT THAT FOR YOU, WE'RE GONNA INTERPRET THAT DIFFERENTLY THAN WE INTERPRETED IT FOR, FOR THEM, OR WHICH INTERPRETATION WE AGREED TO ACCEPT.
UM, AND SO I THINK THE, THE, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO COME IN THERE AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT, UM, REALLY WOULD COMPLETELY BE AT ODDS WITH THE WHOLE REASON THEY DID THE PD 67 ZONING CHANGE.
SO, UM, UH, I, I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THAT INTERPRETATION WAS THE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE NO SENSE THAT WAY TO ME.
I'M GONNA GO TO MS. DAVIS NEXT.
I, I LOOK AT THE INTENT OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND ISSUING THE PERMIT AND ALL THE GREEN TAX FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS.
AND I, I MEAN, AND I, I'M TRYING TO BE FAIR, JUST EQUITABLE AND, AND TRYING TO BALANCE, AND I GO, I LISTEN TO MS. DAVIS'S COMMENT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF IT SITS IDLE AND THOSE SORT OF THINGS.
I'M NOT GONNA BE AFRAID OF THAT, BUT I WONDER, IS THAT REALLY WHAT PD 60 SEVEN'S ABOUT EMPTY BUILDINGS, HALF BUILT BUILDINGS? I DON'T KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE IT IS BUILT OR NOT.
I'LL HAVE TO TAKE THE APPLICANT'S ON FACE VALUE AT 50%.
UM, I DON'T KNOW MS. DAVIS, UH, REGARDING, UH, REGARDING YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE VACANT LOTS, UH, THOSE, THOSE PERMITS HAVEN'T BEEN ISSUED.
AND ALL I CAN HOPE IS THAT WITH THE EXTENSIVE MEDIA COVERAGE AND THIS ATTENTION, THIS WHOLE DEBACLE HAS GOTTEN THAT THE CITY HAS LEARNED THEIR LESSON AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE VERY DILIGENT WITH THOSE NEW PERMITS THAT THEY'RE ISSUING.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT IS A CONCERN.
I THINK RIGHT NOW WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS CASE AND AN EQUITABLE SOLUTION FOR EVERYBODY IS LET HIM CONTINUE TO BUILD THE PROPERTY.
HE'S ADJUSTING THE ROOF, HE'S COME BACK WITH A MODIFICATION THAT RE WE REQUESTED B******T.
AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM.
MARY, WOULD YOU MAKE SURE YOU TURN OFF? THAT'S SOMEONE ONLINE? I DON'T WANNA KNOW WHO ONLINE.
JUST TURN OFF ALL THE ONLINE VOLUME IN AGAIN, I DON'T WANNA KNOW WHO VOLUNTEERS, PEOPLE I KNOW.
YEAH, THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE IN THIS, UH, SETTING.
I'M SORRY MS. DAVIS, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT INTERRUPTION.
I'VE GOTTA, I'VE GOTTA RE TRAIN OF THOUGHT I HAVE.
YEAH, SO AGAIN, I, I, I THINK MY POINT WAS, UM, I DON'T THINK THOSE FUTURE LOTS SHOULD BE A CONCERN BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PERMITTED, THEY'RE NOT BEING BUILT ON.
THIS IS A CASE WHERE CONSTRUCTION IS ALREADY HALFWAY COMPLETE AND IT IS GOING TO BE AN ENORMOUS COST TO THE APPLICANT TO GO THROUGH AND TRY TO REVISE THIS.
IT'S GONNA PROLONG CONSTRUCTION.
IT COULD PUT OFF CONSTRUCTION, NOT APPROVING THE REVERSAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION IS NOT AN EQUITABLE SOLUTION FOR ANYBODY.
AND I REALLY URGE THE TWO OF YOU TO PLEASE SUPPORT THIS MOTION SO THAT THIS, THIS APPLICANT CAN GET ON WITH HIS LIFE AND CONTINUE BUILDING HIS HOME.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IN BDA 2 3 4 DASH 11 WAS TO REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S, UH, REVOCATION ON HEIGHT, REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S REVOCATION ON LOT COVERAGE, BUT AFFIRM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S, UH, REVOCATION ON ROOF TYPE.
THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL, UH, THAT'S WHAT THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS.
THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE, MOTION FAILS THREE TO TWO AS, AS I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING OF, OF THE DAY, UH, FOR ANYTHING FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO APPROVE IT REQUIRES FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES.
UH, THE MOTION 2 3 4 1 1 1 AS I SPECIFIED, UH, WAS THREE
[02:40:01]
TO TWO IN FAVOR, BUT FAILED, UH, TO GET THE FOUR VOTES, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.MR. HAITZ HAVING FULLY REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS IN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 1 1 ON APPLICATION OF DANIEL LEE, AND HAVING EVALUATED THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY AND HEARD ALL TESTIMONY AND FACTS SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AS TO HEIGHT, REVERSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AS TO LOT COVERAGE AND AFFIRM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AS TO ROOF SHAPE IN THE MATTER.
UH, MR. HOP KOVICH HAS MOVED TO, UM, VER AFFIRM HEIGHT, REVERSE LOT COVERAGE, AFFIRM ROOF TYPE REVOCATIONS.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. NERI.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. KOVI? I I THINK THE CITY HAS OPENED UP AVENUES FOR MR. LEE IF HE WISHES TO, UH, RECONSIDER HIS PLANS AND SEEK A VARIANCE AS TO HEIGHT.
PERHAPS THERE'S SOME COMPROMISE HEIGHT THAT COULD BE REACHED THAT WOULD NOT BE AS EXCESSIVE AS THE ONE HE HAS CURRENTLY.
UH, NONETHELESS, HE, HE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND APPLY FOR A VARIANCE ON THE HEIGHT.
UM, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE HIM TO DO THAT IF HE WANTS TO CONTINUE WITH HIS CURRENT PLANS.
THANK YOU MR. KOVICH DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. NRI? WELL, I BASICALLY CONCUR, UM, WITH, UM, REGARD TO THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO US EARLIER TODAY.
WE LEARNED THAT, UH, THE APPRAISAL VALUE ON EACH SIDE OF THE DUPLEX WAS 1.7 MILLION, AND TO DEMOLISH THE THIRD FLOOR WOULD DECREASE THE TOTAL VALUE OF $300,000 PER SIDE, I BELIEVE.
SO, UM, YOU'D BE LOOKING AT, UH, 1.4 MILLION WITH A LOSS OF THAT THIRD STORY, UH, BUT IT ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT EVEN, EVEN THOUGH THE, UM, IT MIGHT NOT BE EXACTLY, YOU KNOW, WHAT HE WANTED TO BUILD.
I WILL BE OPPOSING THIS MOTION.
AS I SAID ORIGINALLY, UH, I DO NOT FEEL BACK UP.
I FEEL THERE WAS GOOD FAITH, UM, ON THE PART OF, UM, THE APPLICANT.
STRANGELY ENOUGH, I THINK THERE WAS ALL, I ALMOST COULDN'T BELIEVE THERE'S GOOD FAITH IN THE PART OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT THIS WENT ON FOR SO LONG, THAT CERTAINLY THIS HAD TO BE INTENTIONAL.
HOW COULD SOMETHING GO ON THIS LONG IF IT WASN'T INTENTIONAL AND OUT OF GOOD FAITH? AND THAT STILL HAS NOT BEEN DISCOVERED.
WHO HAS FINGERS ARE ON THIS? AND I'M NOT POINTING FINGER AT ANYONE HERE OR ANYONE THERE, BUT IT JUST BEGS THE QUESTION.
SO I WILL BE OPPOSING THIS MOTION BECAUSE, UH, I THINK THIS IS NOT FAIR AND EQUITABLE GIVEN WHAT WE'VE HEARD IN OUR THREE HEARINGS.
OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION, MS. DAVIS? I TOO WILL BE OPPOSING THIS MOTION.
I THINK IF, IF, UH, ANYBODY, ANY OF US SET UP HERE AND WE HAD GONE THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS, UH, I THINK WE'D, UH, I, I THINK YOU REALLY NEED TO CONSIDER IF THIS HAD BEEN YOU IN THAT SITUATION OR SOMEBODY THAT YOU KNOW IN THIS SITUATION, WHEN HE WAS DOING THE RIGHT THING, HE CONTINUED TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES THAT HE WAS GIVEN AND BUILD THE WAY HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BUILD, TO NOW COME BACK AND SAY, YOU'VE GOTTA TEAR DOWN YOUR THIRD FLOOR.
IT'S NOT FAIR, IT'S NOT EQUITABLE, IT IS NOT RIGHT.
MS. HAYDEN, I WILL ALSO BE OPPOSING THIS MOTION FOR THE REASONS PREVIOUSLY STATED.
AND I TRIED TO BEFORE GET SOME CLARIFICATION TO SEE IF THAT INDEED
[02:45:01]
WAS A PATH AND I GOT CONFIRMATION FROM THE STAFF.I'M NOT NECESSARILY RECOMMENDING THAT, HENCE MY OPINION.
BUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THE SOLUTION IS FOR THE APPLICANT IS TO GET A VARIANCE FOR THEIR HEIGHT.
WELL, I ACTUALLY SUGGESTED HE RECONSIDER HIS PLANS TO PERHAPS MODIFY THE HIGH SO THAT IT'S NOT AS EGREGIOUSLY ABOVE THE, THE CODE.
UM, I'M, I'M NOT, I'M NOT EXPRESSING AN OPINION OF HOW I WOULD VOTE IF HE CAME BACK FOR VARIANCE.
I AGREE THAT I'M NOT PUTTING YOU IN THAT BOX.
I, BUT I, BUT, BUT, UH, HE DOES HAVE THAT RIGHT AS WE HAVE ASCERTAINED TO DO THAT, TO COME BACK AND DO THAT.
UM, UM, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD THEN THROW THE, THROW THE MATTER INTO A DIFFERENT CRITERIA, CRITERIA THAT WE WOULD BE EVALUATING AGAINST.
UM, I, I HAVEN'T THOUGHT ALL THAT THROUGH TO GIVE YOU AN OPINION.
WHAT I REALLY, YOU KNOW, COULDN'T TELL YOU WHAT, I'M NOT GONNA PREJUDGE IT IF HE DOES UNDERSTOOD THAT CASE, THAT REQUEST OR CASE IS NOT BEFORE US, BUT, BUT THERE WOULD BE A DIFFERENT STANDARD APPLICABLE TO THAT AND, UM, AND WOULD, WOULD NOT BE RELYING ON THIS, UH, INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE THAT I, THAT I JUST SIMPLY DISAGREE WITH.
OTHER COMMENTS IN THE MOTION? THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY MR. KOVI, SECONDED BY MR. NRI IN 2 3 4 1.
ONE IS TO AFFIRM THE HEIGHT REVOCATION REVERSE THE LOT, UH, COVERAGE REVOCATION AND AFFIRM THE ROOF TYPE.
THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
OKAY, MS. HAYDEN, I THINK I'M GONNA CHANGE MY, UM, PREVIOUS, UM, UH, DECISION ON THIS ONE.
UM, AND, AND I THINK I DO AGREE WITH THIS.
UH, I JUST BECAUSE, UM, IF THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK FOR A VARIANCE, WHEN YOU STATED THAT THE CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE IS DIFFERENT THAN THE CRITERIA FOR REVERSING THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL'S ORDER, IT, IT, IT REMINDED ME THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HIM TO COME BACK.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT'S FAIR, NONE OF IT'S FAIR.
UM, BUT I, I WOULD RATHER GO THIS ROUTE THAN JUST DENY EVERYTHING.
I'M GONNA CONFER WITH MY BOARD ATTORNEY ABOUT, UH, THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THIS VOTE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
SO HOLD ON ONE SECOND OF THE
SO WHAT THE BOARD ATTORNEY, UH, JUST ADVISED ME IS SHE'S RECOMMENDING THAT I AS CHAIRMAN, UH, DIVIDE THE QUESTION BETWEEN THE THREE COMPONENTS BEFORE I, AS I'M CONSIDERING THAT, I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION OF THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR.
WOULD YOU PLEASE READ INTO THE RECORD THE CRITERIA AND THE CODE STATES FOR VARIANCE? YEP.
WELL, I KNOW YOU GOTTA PULL IT UP HERE.
THAT WAS THE TEST YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO KNOW OFF, OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD.
AND I, I CAN'T, I CAN'T READ IT EITHER, SO DON'T FEEL BAD.
THIS GOES TO MS. HAYDEN'S COMMENT AND MR. HOP'S COMMENT ABOUT THE VARIANCE AND I DID NOT RUN OFF OUR BOARD ATTORNEY
SO THE, UM, CLOSE TO THE MICROPHONE READING VERBATIM FROM THE CODE, UM, PLEASE, AS IT RELATES TO THE THREE STANDARD VARYING STANDARDS, YES.
WITH THE FIRST ONE BEING NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHEN OWING TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A ARY ENFORCEMENT OF THIS CHAPTER WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND SO THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DONE.
THE SECOND STANDARD IS NECESSARY TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIFIC PARCEL OF LAND THAT DIFFERS FROM OTHER PARCELS OF LAND BY BEING OF SUCH A RESTRICTIVE AREA, SHAPE OR SLOPE THAT IT CANNOT BE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER COMMENSURATE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT UPON OTHER PARCELS OF LAND WITH THE SAME ZONING AND SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP, NOR FOR FINANCIAL REASONS.
AND THE LAST STANDARD IS NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE ONLY NOR TO PERMIT ANY PERSON A PRIVILEGE IN DEVELOPING A PARCEL OF LAND NOT PERMITTED BY THIS CHAPTER TO
[02:50:01]
OTHER PARCELS OF LAND WITH THE SAME ZONING.ISN'T THERE THE, ALSO THE 50% RULE? YES.
I'M NOT TRYING TO TEST YOU, I'M JUST RIGHT.
50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE, IF IT'S MORE, IF THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE MORE THAN 50% APPRAISED VALUE, THEN IT TRIGGERS MOTION OUT.
I'M ASKING HER TO READ THAT ALSO.
OF COURSE, SHE'S IN THE PROCESS OF PULLING IT UP SO SHE CAN READ IT VERBATIM.
IT SAYS IN EXERCISING AUTHORITY UNDER SUBSECTION, THE BOARD MAY CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING AS GROUNDS TO DETERMINE WHETHER COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE AS APPLIED TO A STRUCTURE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE AS SHOWN ON THE MOST RECENT APPRAISAL ROLE CERTIFIED TO THE ASSESSOR FOR THE MUNICIPALITY UNDER SECTION 26.01 OF THE TEXAS TAX CODE.
AND AGAIN, FOR, FOR THE BOARD'S PERSPECTIVE AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC, I'M JUST WANTED TO HEAR SPECIFICALLY FROM STAFF AS IT RELATES TO WHAT THE CODE STANDARD FOR VARIANCES.
SO, 'CAUSE IT WAS BEEN BROUGHT UP SEVERAL TIMES, MYSELF AND OTHERS, THAT WELL, THERE'S ALSO A VARIANCE OPTION, UH, DEPENDING ON HOW THIS OUTCOME GOES ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
UM, I'M GONNA RE I'M GONNA REQUEST MR. HOPKOS THAT YOU WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION AND UNLESS DIVIDE THE QUESTION, IT'S BEEN ADVISED BY THE BOARD ATTORNEY, THAT WOULD BE EASIER TO JUST DIVIDE THE QUESTION AND WE TAKE EACH ITEM SEPARATELY.
THAT'S THE REQUEST THAT MY BOARD ATTORNEY HAS MADE OF ME.
THAT JUST DIVIDES THE VOTE AND WE TAKE IT SEPARATELY.
SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE MOTION BE SPLIT INTO THREE PIECES OR THAT THAT'D BE WITHDRAWN? UM, YOU CAN DO IT ANY WAY YOU'D LIKE.
YOU, YOU, I WE ARE FRIENDLY HERE.
UH, I I'M, I'M HAPPY TO, I'M HAPPY TO MAKE IT THREE SEPARATE MOTIONS.
YEAH, YOU, LET'S JUST MAKE IT THREE SEPARATE MOTIONS.
SO IF I'M ASKING IF YOU AND MR. NE SINCE HE'S SECONDED, IF YOU WOULD WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION AND THEN THE CHAIR WILL RECOGNIZE YOU TO MAKE A NEW MOTION AND, UH, WE'LL JUST GO FROM THERE.
MR. HOP HAS WITHDREW HIS MOTION.
MR. RY, DO YOU CONCUR? CONCUR.
THE MOTION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
UM, FOR THE RECORD, THAT'S A VERY, UH, I APPRECIATE THE ADVICE OF MY BOARD ATTORNEY.
ALRIGHT, THAT HASN'T CHANGED THE VOTE.
IT JUST WE'RE, WE ARE BEING CLEARER ABOUT IT.
ALRIGHT, NOW I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU MR. HGAVE FOR 2, 3, 4, 1, 1 1.
CAN I MAKE ALL THREE AT THE SAME TIME? JUST IN THE, UH, WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON SEPARATELY.
HAVING FULLY REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS IN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 11 ON APPLICATION OF DANIEL LEE AND HAVING EVALUATED THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY AND HEARD ALL TESTIMONY AND FACT SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AS TO ROOF AS TO BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE MATTER.
MR. HOP KOVI HAS MOVED TO AFFIRM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S REVOCATION IN TERMS OF HEIGHT.
IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECONDED TO AFFIRM THE BUILDING OFFICIALS REVOCATION AS IT RELATES TO HEIGHT.
DO WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION OR DO WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW? OKAY.
THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE ON AFFIRMING THE HEIGHT REVOCATION.
JUST FOR WE KNOW, UH, IT ALL THIS REQUIRES IS A MAJORITY.
AM I CORRECT MS. BOARD SECRETARY OR BOARD ATTORNEY? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
MS. MS. BOARD SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE FOR AFFIRMING THE HEIGHT REVOCATION.
[02:55:01]
FAILS.MOTION CARRIES THREE TO TWO IN THE MATTER.
THE BOARD ON A VOTE OF THREE TO TWO AFFIRMS THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DECISION TO RE REV, UH, REVOKE THE PERMIT AS IT RELATES TO HEIGHT.
MR. KOVICH? NO, I IT WAS TWO MS. DAVIS AND I VOTED NO, NO I VOTED NO, IT'S THREE TO TWO.
SO AGAIN, FOR CLARITY IN THE MATTER OF HEIGHT, THE BOARD JUST VOTED THREE TO TWO TO AFFIRM THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DECISION TO REVER TO REVERSE ON H TO, TO AFFIRM ON HEIGHT.
I'M SORRY, WE NEEDED THREE TO TWO OR WE NEEDED FOUR TO ONE TO, TO REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IT REQUIRES 75% OR FOUR VOTES TO REVERSE.
TO AFFIRM ALL IT REQUIRES IS A SIMPLE MAJORITY.
THE REASON THAT THE BOARD ATTORNEY AND AND I CONCURRED WITH TO DO THIS IS TO PUT IT IN THE AFFIRM TO PUT IT IN THE POSITIVE, NOT HAVE NEGATIVE MOTIONS.
I WANT, EVEN IF WE DISAGREE, IT NEEDS TO BE IN A POSITIVE.
SO, SO THE BOARD JUST AFFIRMED THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DECISION TO REVOKE HEIGHT.
MR. AHHA COVE HAVING FULLY REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS IN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 11 ON APPLICATION OF DANIEL LEE AND HAVING EVALUATED THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY AND HEARD ALL TESTIMONY AND FACTS SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION MOVE THAT THE BOARD AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AS TO ROOF SHAPE IN THE MATTER.
MR. OVITZ HAS MOVED TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AS IT RELATES TO ROOF TYPE.
ROOF SHAPE IS THE WORD SHAPE OR TYPE OR STYLE? WHAT DO YOU, WHAT DO YOU SAY IT IS? TYPE IS IT TYPE? WE'RE GONNA GET IT'S TYPE.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. KOVICH, SECONDED BY MR. ARY TO AFFIRM THE REVOCATION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ON ROOF TYPE.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION NECESSARY? OKAY.
UH, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE FOR THE VOTE.
MS. HAYDEN WAIT, WAIT A SECOND.
MOTION PASSES MR. KOVI IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 1 1 1.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UM, UNANIMOUSLY AFFIRMED THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE PERMIT ON ROOF TYPE HAVING FULLY REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS IN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH ONE 11 ON APPLICATION OF DANIEL LEE AND HAVING EVALUATED THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY AND HEARD ALL TESTIMONY AND FACT SUPPORTED THE APPLICATION, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REVERSED THE CITY OFFICIAL AS TO LOT COVERAGE IN THE MATTER.
2 3 4 DASH ONE MR. KOFI HAS MOVED TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AS IT RELATES TO LOT COVERAGE.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. NARY DISCUSSION.
MS. WILLIAMS, PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE.
MOTION PASSES FIVE TO ZERO AND THE MATTER BDA 2 3 4 DASH ONE 11 THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UNANIMOUSLY REVERSES THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AS IT RELATES TO LOT COVERAGE.
THAT IS THE LAST ITEM FOR OUR AGENDA TODAY.
UH, I WILL MAKE, UH, TWO COMMENTS, UM, AS IT WAS COMMUNICATED, UM, AND CONFIRMED BY, UH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR POOL, UH, IT IS WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF THE APPLICANT TO FILE FOR VARIANCE AS IT RELATES TO, UH, THEIR PROPERTY.
UM, AND YOU GO THROUGH THE NORMAL COURSE PROCESS, OUR RULES OR PROCEDURE AS SUCH THAT THE ISSUE WOULD COME BACK TO THIS PANEL AND WE DEAL WITH CASES, WE DEAL WITH ISSUES OF CASE BY CASE BASIS, NO ONE IS PREDISPOSED.
UM, BUT THAT IS WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS AS A, AS THE PROPERTY OWNER.
UM, THE LAST OTHER THING I'D MENTION TO THE BOARD IS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL, A MEETING IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER.
I'M CURRENTLY WORKING THAT OUT WITH THE STAFF TO TRY TO CONFIRM A DATE WHEN ALL OF US CAN ATTEND AND UM, 'CAUSE WE HAVE I THINK SIX OR SEVEN TOTAL CASES
[03:00:01]
QUEUING UP FOR PANEL A.AND SO I APPRECIATE YOU NOT TAKING OFF DECEMBER.
UH, IT IS 4:15 PM ON THE 19TH.
UH, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN AURN, IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. HAVI.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. DAVIS.
MOTION CARRIES THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AT 4:15 PM IS ADJOURNED.