[Board of Adjustments: Panel B on November 20, 2024.]
[00:00:03]
GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
I'M SHERRY GABO AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR ITS PANEL B.
TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20TH, 2024, AND THE TIME IS ONE OH FOUR AND I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER, UM, A QUORUM, WHICH IS A MINIMUM OF 4 0 5 OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS IS PRESENT.
AND THEREFORE WE CAN PROCEED WITH THIS MEETING.
WE HAVE SARAH LAMB, JOE CANNON, DR.
EMMANUEL GLOVER, AND NICHOLAS BROOKS.
SERVING ON OUR PANEL STAFF MEMBERS INCLUDE TERESA CARLISLE, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
HOSKINS WILL BE WITH US IN A FEW MINUTES.
THAT'S OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF PLANNER.
WE HAVE RIA JORDAN, UM, SENIOR PLANNER BRYANT THOMPSON, SENIOR PLANNER, LAURA CASTA, SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER.
SARAH J OH MY GOODNESS, I'M TIRED.
ER UM, SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER, JASON POOLE, DEVELOPMENT SERVICE ADMINISTRATOR, AND MARY WILLIAMS, OUR BOARD SECRETARY AND MEETING MODERATOR.
UM, BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND THE WAY THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL.
WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR THAT TIME.
WE OPERATE UNDER THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE, NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE THAT'S 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 STAFF PRIOR TO THIS HEARING AND HAVE ALSO REVIEWED THE DETAILED DOCKET, WHICH EXPLAINS THE CASE AND WAS POSTED SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY OF THE CASES THAT WE SHALL THAT WE HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD'S SECRETARY WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED.
THIS EVIDENCE MUST BE RETAINED IN THE BOARD'S OFFICE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH USE.
APPROVALS OF A VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR REVERSAL OF A BUILDING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL DECISION REQUIRES 75% OR FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTE VOTES OF THE FULL FIVE MEMBER PANEL.
ALL OTHER MOTIONS REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.
LETTERS OF THE BOARD'S ACTIONS TODAY WILL BE MAILED TO THE, TO OUR APPLICANT BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING AND WILL BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.
ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE WITH OUR SECRETARY.
EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES OR WHEN A SPECIFIC CASE IS CALLED FOR ITS PUBLIC HEARING FOR A MAXIMUM OF FIVE MINUTES.
ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
NO TELECONFERENCING WILL BE ALLOWED BY A WEBEX AND ALL COMMENTS ARE BE DIRECTED TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER.
UM, WE NEED TO APPROVE SOME MINUTES, UM, BEFORE WE GET STARTED.
SO WE HAVE OUR PANEL B MINUTES FROM, UM, LAST MONTH, AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO CHANGE TO THOSE.
YEAH, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION, UM, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE SPECIAL SESSION HELD ON OCTOBER, WHAT, NINTH OR 30TH? 2024.
THANK YOU, MR. CAN AND MS. LIAM, UM, MAY WE, UH, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
UM, WE ALSO NEED TO APPROVE OUR FULL BOARD MEETING MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 29TH, 2024.
UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION? UH, I HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 29TH, UM, MEETING.
CAN I, CAN I MAKE A MOTION ON SOMETHING IF I WASN'T PRESENT? OR DO I ABSTAIN? LIKE I WASN'T THERE FOR THAT MEETING? OH, I THINK JUST ABSTAIN FROM VOTING.
UM, SO ALL IN FAVOR? UH, JUST VOTE.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY AND WE WILL START WITH OUR CASES.
UM, AS MENTIONED IN THE BRIEFING, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE UP BDA 2 3 4 DASH 22 53 14 UR LANE TO THE TOP OF THE AGENDA.
AND THEN WE WILL GO THROUGH, UM, AN ORDER, UM, THAT WAS THERE.
SO IF I CAN HAVE THE APPLICANT, UM, FROM 53 14 URSULA LANE, STEP FORWARD, CAN WE HAVE AN UN HAVE ONE NON CONTESTED? UM, WELL, WE'RE GONNA GET THIS ONE DONE AND THEN WE'LL, WE DON'T DO UNC WANT, I GUESS, SHOULD WE DO
CAN YOU PLEASE TURN THE MIC ON? AND WE NEED ALSO NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN.
CAN YOU SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? YES.
UH, THE, UH, MA HOME ADDRESS IS 4,004 BARNES BRIDGE ROAD IN DALLAS, TEXAS, 7 5 2 2 8.
MARY, YOU WANNA, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, MA'AM.
UM, WELL THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
THANK YOU FOR MOVING US UP TO THE FRONT.
HOPEFULLY THIS WON'T TAKE TOO LONG.
UM, THE REASON FOR THAT IS, UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAD
[00:05:01]
A HOLDOVER CASE AND, UM, WE HAD TWO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION FROM NEIGHBORS.UM, AND CERTAINLY THOUGHT AFTER OUR LAST MEETING THAT COMPROMISE WAS, UM, RELATIVELY CLOSE ON THE, UH, ON THE GATE AND WING WALLS SITUATION.
UM, AND YEAH, CERTAINLY, UH, HAVE MADE ATTEMPTS AT BOTH NEIGHBORS.
WE'VE, UM, SHARED EMAILS, CONTACT INFORMATION, UM, RENDERINGS, AS WELL AS, UM, ASKING GENERAL QUESTIONS ON WHAT COMPROMISE THERE IS.
UH, AND AT THIS POINT WE HAVEN'T REACHED COMPROMISE, BUT I THINK WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS.
UM, SO, UM, MY ATTENDANCE HERE TODAY IS JUST SIMPLY TO ASK FOR, UH, ANOTHER HOLDOVER POTENTIALLY TO DECEMBER BASED ON KIND OF JOHN'S VALUES.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? NOPE.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? DO WE NEED TO ALLOW ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS? THANK YOU.
DO I HAVE A MOTION SLAM? OH, OH, SORRY I DIDN'T SEE YOU IN THE BACK THERE.
WE NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN ANY NEED TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDAGE TO THE RECORD.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES MA'AM.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND PROCEED.
I LIVE AT 5 3 3 0 URSULA LANE, UH, DIRECTLY THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND, UH, PLEASE STEP CLOSER TO THE MIC PLEASE.
UM, KARA GUILLEN 5 3 3 0 URSULA LANE DIRECTLY TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND I NOT OPPOSED TO, UM, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO HOLD THIS OVER AGAIN.
I MOVE WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 22 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 18TH, 2024.
ANY DISCUSSION? I THINK WE'RE GOOD MR. BROOKS.
CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE DR. GLOVER? AYE.
AND THIS, UH, A QUESTION FOR MS. CARLISLE AND THE MOTION PASSES I THINK, UM, BUT THERE'S A, THERE WERE TWO PARTS OF IT, BUT IF WE HELD OVER THE CASE, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO FOR BOTH PARTS, CORRECT? CORRECT.
IF YOU'RE HOLDING ONE, YOU'RE HOLDING ALL CORRECT.
NOW, UM, WE WILL MOVE ON TO, UH, THE MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 'CAUSE WE'RE JUST GONNA GO IN ORDER OF THE, AND OUR MISCELLANEOUS ITEM IS, UH, BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 55 9 2 9 BROOKWOOD DRIVE.
IF THE APPLICANT WILL STEP FORWARD, ARE THEY HERE? THE APPLICANT IS ONLINE.
OKAY, MR. LEY, LAR, IF YOU CAN PLEASE PROVIDE VIDEO AND AUDIO.
MR. LAR, I DON'T SEE HER NAME, YOU GUYS.
UM, I WAS JUST TRYING TO ACTUALLY GET THIS, UH, ONE SECOND.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH AND YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
UM, BENJAMIN LAR, 9 2 9 BROOKWOOD DRIVE, UM, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 4.
THAT'S ACTUALLY, UH, THE PROPERTY THAT I'M ACTUALLY SPEAKING ON TODAY.
BUT, UH, DO YOU NEED ME TO STATE MY, UH, PERSONAL ADDRESS? YES.
72 0 1 STACY ROAD, MCKINNEY, TEXAS SEVEN FIVE.
UM, WELL, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
I ACTUALLY, UM, AM UH, WANTING TO REQUEST
[00:10:01]
A, UM, UH, IN ORDER TO GET A, A WAIVER FOR, UM, WHAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY COST TO, UH, HEAR MY REQUEST FOR, UM, THE, UH, EXCEPTION REQUEST AND THE, UM, ALSO THE, UM, I'M SO SORRY.THE, UM, UH, IN REGARDS TO THE, UH, HEIGHT RESTRICTION OF THE IRON FENCE AND, UM, AND IN ADDITION TO THE, UH, WHAT IS IT, THE, UM, UH, RETAINING WALL ACTUALLY STILL BEING IN THE, UH, UH, WHAT IS IT, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
SO IN REGARDS TO THAT, THAT REQUEST, AS FAR AS, UH, GETTING THAT WAIVER, UM, I AM ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH A, A, A VERY BAD FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
UM, I WAS ACTUALLY LAID OFF OF MY JOB IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR AND, UM, I STILL HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND EMPLOYMENT IN THE SPECIFIC SECTOR OF THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY THAT I CURRENTLY, UH, NORMALLY WORK IN, IN COMPLIANCE.
UM, SO IT'S GOTTEN MORE DIFFICULT, UM, TO WHERE I'VE USED PRETTY MUCH ALL OF MY, UM, SAVINGS AND I'M STILL SEARCHING FOR, YOU KNOW, EMPLOY EMPLOYMENT AS WE SPEAK.
BUT, UM, THE REASON WHY I'M REQUESTING THIS WAIVER AS WELL IS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN I WILL FIND EMPLOYMENT.
SO WHEN I DO, I DIDN'T WANT, UM, THE BILL TO BE, UH, HELD UP WHEN WE ARE ABLE TO START THE CONSTRUCTION FOR, UM, ON THE, THE LOT THAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF TODAY.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANTED TO ACTUALLY JUST BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD, UM, AFTER I DO GAIN EMPLOYMENT AND ARE ABLE TO, UH, PAY FOR, UH, OTHER SOFT COSTS AS IT RELATES TO, UM, THE NEW BUILD THAT WE PLAN ON DOING, UM, UH, NEXT YEAR.
UM, HOW LONG DOES A WOULD A FEE WAIVER LAST? AND, AND IF THEY CAME AND GOT THE APPROVAL FOR WHATEVER THEY'RE PUTTING IN FORWARD, HOW, I MEAN, YOU ONLY HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO USE THOSE THINGS, RIGHT? LET ME, UM, LET ME CONFIRM.
I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT LENGTH OF TIME OR IF THERE IS AN EXPIRATION DATE ON ME.
DEFINITELY AN EXPIRATION DATE ON US APPROVING SOMETHING AND, UH, MAKE GETTING BUILT.
'CAUSE I'VE HEARD CASES A COUPLE.
IT'S 180 DAYS, SO IF WE, BUT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE FEE WAIVER.
UM, SO I GUESS WE NEED TO GET THAT ANSWER.
'CAUSE I MEAN, I WOULD HATE TO, I WOULD HATE TO GRANT A FREE WAIVER ONLY FOR IT TO EXPIRE.
I MEAN, AND THEN, BUT ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OTHER WHAT, WHAT'S, WHAT DO, WHAT IS THE FEE? HOW MUCH DOES IT COST? HOW MUCH DOES EACH COST? SO $600 PER OKAY.
REQUEST, SO $1,200 EACH AND THIS TECHNOLOGY FEE, WHICH IS ABOUT $15, AND THEN THE COST OF THE SIZE, AND DEPENDING ON THE LOCATION, WHETHER OR NOT THE, DEPENDING ON THE STREET FRONT DETERMINES HOW MANY SIGNS AND THE LENGTH OF THEIR PERMIT.
UM, AND THE FEE WAIVER IS IN FURTHERANCE OF GETTING, I GUESS A FENCE AND VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION REGULATIONS AT THIS, UH, LOT.
IS IT DEVELOPED CURRENTLY? NO, IT'S NOT.
SO IT'S A NEW BUILD THAT REQUIRES SOME FENCE SITE REGULATION AND VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION, REGULATION RELIEF, I GUESS, AS, AS CONTEMPLATED IN A SITE PLAN? YES, THAT'S CORRECT BECAUSE THE, THE LOT THAT WE ACTUALLY PURCHASED IT ACTUALLY, UM, SLOPES, UM, A LOT.
SO WE, UH, ACTUALLY BUILD, UM, A VERY HIGH, UH, LIKE A EIGHT FEET, EIGHT AND A HALF FEET, UH, RETAINING WALL WITH THE IRON FENCE OF LIKE, UH, WITH THE MAX HEIGHT OF LIKE SIX FEET, SIX INCHES.
UM, SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE, UH, WANTED TO ACTUALLY BUILD WITH THIS, UH, RETAINING WALL OF DESIGN FENCE.
UM, WELL, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
SO I, I'M, I'M USUALLY PRETTY, PRETTY EASY ON THESE REQUESTS.
I'M FINDING SOME ISSUES WITH THIS ONE.
UM, HOW DOES A $1,200 FEE, WHICH WHICH PAYS FOR STAFF AND AND THINGS LIKE THAT, CONSTITUTE A HARDSHIP WHEN
[00:15:01]
THE INTENT IS TO DEVELOP THE ENTIRE LOT INTO A NEW HOME? UM, AT, AT A COST OF SOMETHING THAT I THINK WOULD EXCEED, YOU KNOW, 100 X OF, OF $1,200, 200 X PROBABLY.YEAH, NO, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
WELL, WHAT I STATED IN THE BEGINNING IS THAT, UM, THE $1,200, YES, IT MAY SEEM LIKE IT'S A SMALL COST COMPARED TO WHAT THE CONSTRUCTION BILL ACTUALLY MAY, WILL COST.
BUT THE THING IS, IS THAT, UM, THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL DISPLAYS ON EVEN STARTING THE BUILD BECAUSE OF THE JOB LOSS THAT ACTUALLY WOULD COVER, UM, LIKE I SAID THE, THE SOFT COST IN, UM, BEFORE EVEN PROCEEDING TO ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, START THE CONSTRUCTION.
SO IT, WHAT I WANTED TO DO, YOU KNOW, WHILE UH, I AM STILL SEEKING APPOINTMENT IS TO STILL TRY TO DO WHAT I CAN OR WITHIN, YOU KNOW, UH, MY ABILITY, UM, UH, OR DO WHAT I CAN RIGHT NOW, UM, WHILE WAITING ON EMPLOYMENT TO ACTUALLY GET THAT, THOSE ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO PAY FOR SOFT COSTS BEFORE WE ACTUALLY PROCEED WITH, UM, THE CONSTRUCTION BILL.
BECAUSE AGAIN, IF, YOU KNOW, LET'S JUST SAY THIS WAS, THIS REQUEST WAS DENIED AND I CAN'T ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, MOVE FORWARD WITH, UM, UH, WITH THE BOARD ACTUALLY REVIEWING MY REQUEST AS IT RELATES TO THE, UM, UH, THE RETAINING WALL AND THE IRON FENCE.
UM, THEN ONCE I DO GAIN EMPLOYMENT, UNLESS JUST SAY THAT'S JANUARY OR FEBRUARY TO BE PUT BACK ON THE LIST TO UH, UH, PRESENT MY CASE IN REGARDS TO THE RETAINING WALL, UM, THEN THAT PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE UNTIL LIKE MARCH OR I DON'T KNOW, POSSIBLY APRIL, WHICH WILL CAUSE THE DELAY, ANOTHER DELAY FROM US ACTUALLY SUBMITTING ALL OF OUR PLANS TO, UH, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH THE CITY IN ORDER TO GET THOSE PLANS APPROVED SO WE CAN ACTUALLY PROCEED WITH THE BILL.
SO THAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
SO RIGHT NOW IT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO, UH, YOU KNOW, AS WE SPEAK.
'CAUSE I JUST DON'T WANNA SIT AND NOT DO ANYTHING, UM, UNTIL THE BUILD.
I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF HIT THE GROUND RUNNING, UM, AND ALREADY OUT THE WAY WITH THAT APPROVAL.
I, I I, I, I GOT IT MORE THE SECOND TIME AROUND.
I, I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION.
MM-HMM,
WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING A GLIMPSE OF WHAT THESE POTENTIAL REQUESTS WOULD BE.
UM, WHEN YOU DO EVENTUALLY FILE, SINCE THIS IS UNDEVELOPED LAND, IS THERE A WAY TO DEVELOP THE LAND AND SUCH THAT YOU DON'T NEED TO COME IN FRONT OF THE BOARD FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR EITHER FIGHT DEFENSE HEIGHT REGULATION OR VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION REGULATION? UM, IT'S NOT BECAUSE, UM, I ALREADY SPOKE WITH, UM, JAMES, I FORGOT HIS LAST NAME IN THE PLANNING, UH, DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
AND UM, THAT'S WHEN HE ACTUALLY SEEN THAT, UH, IN REGARDS TO THE RETAINING WALL.
HE SAID THAT THERE MAY BE AN ISSUE WITH THE RETAINING WALL BEING IN, WITHIN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, UM, BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE WITHIN THE, THE RIGHT OF WAY AT ALL, BUT WITHIN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AND BECAUSE OF THAT SLOPE, THAT'S WHAT'S CAUSING THAT AS WELL.
BECAUSE IF IT, THAT WASN'T THE CASE, UM, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, I GUESS BUILD THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE OR, OR INCLUDE THAT, I MEAN NOT THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, BUT THE RETAINING WALL AND THE IRON FENCE.
BUT WE WANTED TO ELEVATE THAT AND ACTUALLY MAKE THAT EVEN, UM, IN ORDER TO, BECAUSE THE HOME IS ACTUALLY GONNA BE SITTING BACK AND IT IS GONNA BE AT THE TOP OF THE, BASICALLY THE TOP OF THE, THE SLOPE.
SO, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
BUT YEAH, I'VE ALREADY TRIED TO, UM, SPEAK WITH THEM IN REGARDS TO THAT AND THAT'S WHEN THEY REFERRED, UH, ME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, I MEAN I'VE, I'VE ONLY SEEN THIS, UH, REQUEST COME IN AS A REIMBURSEMENT, NOT A, A WAIVER REQUEST ON THE FRONT END.
UM, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE HEAR THE CASE? IS THERE A WAY IF WE DETERMINE WHEN HEARING THE CASE? 'CAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DON'T KNOW TO THEN REAPPLY A FEE OR THIS IS, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GOING IN BLIND, BUT I KNOW THIS IS JUST ABOUT THE FINANCIAL IMPACT.
THIS IS JUST ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE NEEDS TO PAY THE FEE AND WHETHER OR NOT IT, WHAT IS IT? IT'S THE ISSUE OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
SO THAT'S ALL THAT YOU NEED TO BE CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT THE FEE OF $1,200 IS A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT WHEN
[00:20:01]
WE'RE NOT GETTING INTO THE MERITS OF WHAT THE ACTUAL CASE IS.IT'S JUST WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A, IT'S A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
IF YOU'RE WAIVING MSFE, THEN HE CAN FILE THE APPLICATION.
AND WE CAN'T RETROACTIVELY SAY, OH NO, YOU HAVE TO FILE A FEE.
I, I, AS I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS MORE, I, I THINK IT'S PERHAPS THIS WILL NOT BE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IN THE FUTURE, BUT I THINK WE'RE JUDGING IT NOW.
UM, AND THE EVIDENCE OF THE RECORD IS THIS GENTLEMAN DOES NOT HAVE A JOB AND $1,200 IS A LOT OF MONEY FOR SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE A JOB.
YES, BUT ESPECIALLY IF YOU DON'T HAVE A JOB,
AND I THINK THE IDEA HERE IS TRYING TO MAKE SOME MONEY BY DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY.
SO I, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY, I'M GONNA, I'M INCLINED TO GRANT THIS REQUEST, UM, UPON SORT OF MR. MR. LA'S TESTIMONY.
DO WE HAVE AN ANSWER ON, THERE IS NO EXPIRATION.
MY, MY QUESTION IS, IS, IS THE THIS, IF THIS IS GRANTED, IS THIS ONLY GRANTED TOWARDS THIS PARTICULAR PARTY OR IS IT GRANTED TO THE LAND? IT'S FOR THIS PARTICULAR ADDRESS, THIS APPLICANT AND THIS ADDRESS.
SO IF SOMEBODY ELSE COMES TO FILE OR REPRESENTATIVE ON HIS BEHALF, WILL THEN THIS TERMINATE OR DOES THIS THEN TRANSFER TO SOME OTHER PARTY? SO HE'LL, HE WILL BE THE APPLICANT AS HE OWNS THE PROPERTY, BUT HE CAN HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE THAT GOING TO, BUT IT'S DIFFERENT COPIES PATENT THINK THE CORRECT.
SO THIS IS TIED JUST TO THIS GENTLEMAN OR, OR THE PARTY THAT OWNS THE LAND.
HOW DOES THAT WORK? JUST THE APPLICANT.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT'S THE APPLICANT.
SO IF HE HAS A SPOUSE THAT THAT'S ONLY TIED TO HIM.
IF THERE'S OTHER PARTIES THAT LIKE ARE, ARE SUBJECT TO THIS PROPERTY OF OWNERSHIP, ARE WE JUST LIKE, I, I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY IF IT'S AN LLC FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT'S AN LLC FOR EXAMPLE, WE'RE GRANTING THIS THEN DOES THE LLC HAVE THE ABILITY TO, WE LIKE TO ENJOY THIS FEE WAIVER IF WE GRANT THIS OR PRESUMABLY YES, BUT THIS IS THE APPLICANT AND THERE'S ONLY ONE PERSON LISTED AS THE APPLICANT FOR THIS CASE.
AND THAT IS MR. CLARK SUFFICE SAY.
SO IT'S TO HIM MAKE THE APPLICATION AS YOURSELF WHEN YOU COME BACK HERE.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? DO WE, OH, ARE, IS THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS CASE? NO, THE SPEAKERS.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, DO I HAVE A MOTION? MR. I HAVE A MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 1 5 5 FR ONE ON APPLICATION OF BENJAMIN LAR GRANT, THE REQUEST WAY OF FILING FEES TO BE PAID IN ASSOCIATION WITH REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DEFENSE HEIGHT REGULATIONS AND VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION REGULATIONS AS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICATION APPLICANT BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.
A NOTHING BEYOND SORT OF WHEN I MADE MY PITCH DURING, UH, QUESTIONS.
UM, CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE MR. BROOKS? AYE.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES? FIVE TO ZERO.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO THE UNCONTESTED DOCK, WHICH, OH, THIS MAKES, OH, UM, UNDER THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET.
AND WE HAVE ONE CASE ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET, WHICH IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 3 8 14 15 CORTO DRIVE.
UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION LISTED ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET 'CAUSE IT APPEARS FROM MY 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 WHAT, UH, BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 38 APPLICATION OF LARRY PAAL FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FROM THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION REGULATIONS AT THE DRIVEWAY APPROACHES, THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, WHICH IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS REQUIRED.
ANY DISCUSSION? UH, I MEAN STAFF PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THEN ALSO THE FACT THAT IT, UH, THERE, IT DOESN'T CONSTITUTE TRAFFIC HAZARD, UH, FOR ALL THE REASONS WHY I MOVED TO GRANT THIS OBLIGATION.
CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE MR. CANNON? AYE.
[00:25:01]
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES.AND WE WILL NOW DO BD 2 3 4 DASH 1 3 3 34 34 BALTIMORE DRIVE, UM, APPLICATION OF MICHAEL BERGEY, REPRESENTED BY ELSIE THURMAN.
UM, IF THE APPLICANT CAN STEP FORWARD.
ELSIE THURMAN 9 4 0 6 BISCAY BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 8.
UM, YES, MR. BRIAN ORSINI, ARE YOU ON LINE? YES.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, MR. ARSI? I DO.
OKAY, MS. ELSIE, UM, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
UM, I HAVE SO MUCH TO SHARE WITH YOU.
I TOOK A TON OF NOTES DURING BRIEFING AND UM, CAN YOU GET CLOSER TO THE MIC PLEASE? I DON'T USUALLY GET TO DO SOMETHING THIS UNIQUE KIND OF BIGGER THAN MYSELF AND IT TOOK A LOT OF ITS OWN, SO I HAVE A LOT TO SHARE.
WE STARTED THIS OVER A YEAR AGO BY WORKING WITH PERMITTING AND ELECTRICAL.
I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE MORE LIKE A CELL TOWER AND I COULD POSSIBLY BE EXEMPT BY THE HEIGHT.
THE SITE IS 50 PLUS ACRES, THE WIND TURBINE IS 96 FEET.
IN DECEMBER, 2023, WE HAD A PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETING.
AND THE CONCLUSION WAS TO REQUEST AND APPLY FOR A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE HEIGHT.
ANYONE WHO HAS EVER WORKED IN DISTRICT EIGHT KNOWS THAT, UM, YOU HAVE TO CONSULT AND TALK TO THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MEMBER, WHICH IS BLAIR.
SO I BROUGHT THIS TO HER AND SAID, HEY, I'D LIKE TO GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITH THIS.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? SHE WAS AS EXCITED AS I WAS.
I MEAN, TO BE ABLE TO CREATE A SIGNIFICANT SHIFT IN ENERGY KNOWING THE OUTCOME WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY, WAS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY'S BEEN TRYING TO DO.
AND I BELIEVE THIS IS THE FIRST ONE IN, UM, NORTH AMERICA FOR, UM, L'OREAL.
AND WE ALL WANTED TO BE A PART OF IT.
SO WE GOT IN CONTACT WITH ALL THE L'OREAL FOLKS, WE WENT OUT TO THE SITE, WALKED THE SHOWROOM, THE WAREHOUSE, AND THEN WE WENT OUT AND LOOKED AT WHERE WE'RE GONNA, WE WANTED TO PUT THE PROPOSED WIND TURBINES, UM, COMMISSIONER
UM, SOME OF THE THINGS I LEARNED ABOUT ENERGY THAT WAS, UM, REALLY EXCITING TO ME IS WIND ENERGY IS ONE OF THE LARGEST SOURCES OF CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY IN THE UNITED STATES, MAKING IT ESSENTIAL TO A FUTURE CARBON FREE ENERGY SECTOR.
WIND TURBINES DO NOT RELEASE EMISSIONS THAT POLLUTE ARE AIR OR WATER, AND THEY CAN BE BUILT WITH MINIMAL IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT OR LIVELIHOOD OF NEARBY RESIDENTS.
PROMOTES DOMESTIC ECONOMIC GROWTH, COMBATS CLIMATE CHANGE.
THOUGH WE DON'T HAVE THE NORMAL HARDSHIP OF, UNLESS WE DO THIS, WE CAN'T DO THAT ISSUE.
WE DO HAVE A DEFINITE NEED NEEDED RESOURCE TO HAVE A DEFINITE, UM, TO HAVE A BARRIER.
I'M SORRY, LEMME SAY IT AGAIN.
UNLESS WE, UM, UM, WE DO HAVE A DEFINITE BARRIER TO OUR DEVELOPMENT AND FOR A NEEDED RESOURCE THAT ONLY YOU CAN REALLY GRANT US.
AND THOUGH WE APPRECIATE STAFF'S CONCLUSION, WE ARE HOPING THAT YOU WILL SUPPORT THE VARIANCE FOR LOYAL TO ACHIEVE AND IMPROVE ENERGY AT THIS FACILITY.
WE WENT BACK AND FORTH FOR OVER A YEAR ON HOW DO WE DO THIS? AND THERE WAS NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO COME HERE.
AND THEN DURING THE BRIEFING, I KIND OF GOT THE IMPRESSION YOU GUYS ARE, WELL, WHY ARE THEY EVEN HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? THIS IS WHERE WE HAD TO GO.
WE DID TRY TO HIKE 'CAUSE IT'S ELECTRICAL.
BUT THIS IS SOME ONE OF THE MOST UNIQUE PROJECTS THAT I'VE DONE IN YEARS AND JUST CAN'T SEE NOT DOING SOMETHING THIS GOOD FOR THE CITY.
I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, ON ITS MERITS, THIS IS A GREAT IDEA.
UM, I FIND IT A LITTLE SILLY THAT IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING YOU COULDN'T BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
UM, SO, UH, BUT, BUT WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE BOUND BY IS OUR, OUR FACTORS HERE.
AND THE ONE I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT IS, UM, WHETHER THIS PARCEL IS OF A RESTRICTIVE AREA, SHAPE OR SLOPE, THAT IT CAN'T BE DEVELOPED IN AIR COMMENSURATE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF OTHER PARCEL OF LAND OR THE SAME ZONING.
WE GOT ANY SLOPE ISSUES ON THIS? ANY ANY AT ALL? IS IT? NO, WE DON'T.
IT'S FLAT AS IS FLAT AS A PANCAKE PAN.
[00:30:01]
THAT FLAT.IT, IT, IT KIND OF, I I KNOW THEY WENT OUT THERE AND LOOKED AT IT SO IT'S SET WAY BACK.
'CAUSE YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE AMAZON HERE AND YOU HAVE L'OREAL HERE.
I'M TRYING TO MY MEMORY, PUT YOUR FOLDER, THE TREE HERE AND IT KIND OF DOES THIS.
AM I RIGHT? I THINK I'M, THAT'S KIND OF A SLOPE HERE, RIGHT HERE.
SO, UM, A PRETTY GOOD SIZE SPACE YEAH.
IS THIS LIKE A LOWER LYING AREA? LIKE LET'S SAY YOU GUYS WERE ON TOP OF A HILL, YOU MIGHT NOT NEED THE 97 FEET, LIKE 96.
BUT I'M SAYING, BUT LET'S SAY, LET'S SAY THAT INSTEAD OF BEING AT 100 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL, YOU ARE AT 150 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL.
MAYBE A SHORTER, I I'M JUST, I'M LOOKING, I'M, I'M TRYING TO FIND A REASON WHY I KNOW YOU GUYS CAN MEET, BE HERE AND, AND MAYBE THE OTHER SPEAKERS CAN, CAN SPEAK TO IT.
LET'S HEAR FROM THE NEXT SPEAKER.
OH, ACTUALLY DO HAVE A QUESTION.
SO JUST, I MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, I ADMIRE THE, THE EFFECT OF TRYING TO THANK YOU USE GREEN ENERGY SOURCES, BUT, AND I'M SURE THIS PROBABLY CAME UP IN PLANNING, BUT WHY WIND AS OPPOSED TO LET'S JUST SAY LIKE SOLAR ENERGY TO GENERATE, THEY HAVE SOLAR TO, IF, IF THEY WORKED IN CONJUNCTION WITH EACH OTHER, THEY, THEY COMPLIMENT EACH OTHER.
I, UM, AT LEAST FROM THE PLAN OR THE IMAGES WE HAVE, IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THE I, YEAH.
THERE, THERE'S SOLAR OUT THERE.
MC QUESTION TO THE NEXT, UH, SPEAKER THEN.
AND I, I DID SUBMIT THE SLIDES.
UM, SO IF YOU COULD BRING THOSE BACK UP PERHAPS.
HAVE WE GOTTEN YOUR ADDRESS? YEAH.
I LIVE AT 45 21 RIDGELINE DRIVE, UH, NORMAN, OKLAHOMA, 7 3 0 7 2.
UH, SO I'VE DRIVEN UP, UH, DOWN FOR THE DAY.
UM, GO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SO I'LL JUST, UM, JUST INTRODUCE MYSELF.
UH, UH, I'VE BEEN IN THE INDUSTRY FOR 50 YEARS.
UH, IN THAT TIME I'VE SERVED AS PRESIDENT OF OUR MAJOR, UH, TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS, MECHANICAL ENGINEER BY TRAINING, AND, UM, BEEN, UH, PRESIDENT OF THE NORMAN OKLAHOMA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
KIND OF THE NEXT SLIDE AND THE NEXT SLIDE.
SO THE, THE COMPANY THAT MY FATHER AND I ESTABLISHED 47 YEARS AGO, UH, IN NORMAN, OKLAHOMA, UH, WHERE HE WAS A PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, UM, IS THE NATION'S LEADING SUPPLIER OF SMALL WIND TURBINES.
WE'VE PRODUCED OVER 10,000 SYSTEMS. THEY'VE BEEN INSTALLED IN ALL 50 US STATES, INCLUDING TEXAS.
UM, QUITE A FEW IN TEXAS ACTUALLY.
UM, AND, UM, UH, SOME OF THOSE SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN RUNNING FOR OVER 40 YEARS.
WE HAVE SUPPLIED TURBINES TO WALMART, THE VOLVO, A NUM, A NUMBER OF CAR DEALERSHIPS.
UH, AND, UM, UM, THIS IS, UH, THE FIRST TIME THAT WE'LL BE SUPPLYING ONE, HOPEFULLY, UH, TO L'OREAL.
COULD I HAVE THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE? SO THE TURBINE, UH, THAT WE, UH, PLAN WOULD HOPE TO INSTALL IS A 15 KILOWATT, 32 FOOT ROTOR DIAMETER.
AND THAT COMPARES TO THE HUGE TURBINES THAT YOU ARE USED TO PROBABLY DRIVING PAST THAT ARE OVER 400 FEET TALL.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S ONE 200, THE SIZE OF THOSE TURBINES.
UM, AND THIS IS A PARTICULARLY ADVANCED TURBINE.
IT'S THE MOST ADVANCED SMALL TURBINE IN THE WORLD.
UH, IT WAS DEVELOPED, UH, BY OUR COMPANY WITH A SUPPORT IN THE US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND, UH, 30% MORE EFFICIENT THAN THE LAST GENERATION AND REDUCES THE PAYBACK PERIOD BY MORE THAN 50%.
AND THAT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO COMPETE WITH IMPORTED SOLAR.
UH, AND, UM, SO DRIVING THE COST DOWN HAS BEEN VERY IMPORTANT.
KIND OF THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
I WON'T BORE YOU WITH THE, UH, TECHNOLOGY, BUT IT'S GOT ADVANCED AIR FOILS, ADVANCED DIRECT DRIVE, PERMANENT MAGNET, UH, ALTERNATOR, UH, POWER ELECTRONICS.
THERE'S A LOT OF HIGH TECH, UH, IN THE SYSTEM.
IT'S CERTIFIED, UM, UH, TO THE NATIONAL STANDARDS AND QUALIFIES FOR ALL OF THE FEDERAL TAX INCENTIVES.
UM, SO WHY ISN'T 70 FOOT HIGH ENOUGH? WELL, OF COURSE, THE 70 FOOT NEVER
[00:35:01]
ANTICIPATED, UH, THE INSTALLATION OF A WIND TURBINE THAT IS, WAS NOT, UH, A THING BACK THEN.UH, WIND SPEED INCREASES WITH HEIGHT ABOVE THE GROUND.
SO YOU WANT TO GET UP WHERE YOU HAVE A GOOD SHOT AT, AT THE RESOURCE.
AND I HAVE THE NEXT SLIDE, RUTH.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOU HAVE A LOT OF TURBULENCE CLOSE TO THE GROUND.
TURBULENCE IS ROUGH AIR, UH, YOU'VE, YOU'VE EXPERIENCED ON YOUR AIRLINE FLIGHTS AND IT, IT, UH, REDUCES THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE BLADES AND REDUCES PERFORMANCE, UH, AND ADDS TO WEAR AND TEAR.
SO WE WANT TO GET THE SYSTEM UP HIGH ENOUGH TO AVOID THAT TURBULENCE.
UM, TYPICALLY THESE SYSTEMS, THE MOST COMMON HEIGHT FOR THIS TURBINE IS A HUNDRED FEET.
WE ASK FOR AN 80 FOOT TOWER HERE AND A TOTAL 97 FOOT TO THE TIP OF THE TOWER IN THE VER OF THE BLADE IN THE VERTICAL POSITION, JUST TO REDUCE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 70 FOOT EXISTING.
AND, UM, AND YOU KNOW, WHAT WE COULD GET AWAY WITH, IF WE TRIED TO PUT IT WITHIN THE 70 FOOT LIMIT, IT WOULD BE A 40 FOOT TOWER.
WE'VE NEVER INSTALLED ONE OF OUR TURBINES ON A 40 FOOT TOWER.
WE JUST WOULD NOT, WOULD NOT DO THAT FOR A CUSTOMER.
THE SAYING GOES, PUTTING A WIND TURBINE ON A SHORT TOWER IS LIKE PUTTING A SOLAR SYSTEM IN THE SHADE.
SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF, OF ADVANTAGES FOR THE, FOR THE OWNERS, FOR BUSINESSES, OF COURSE.
THEY RECEIVE, THEY HAVE, UH, ENERGY BILL SAVINGS.
THEY REDUCE THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT, UH, PROVIDES, UM, AN ICON OF THEIR STEWARDSHIP.
THE VISIBILITY IS ACTUALLY, UH, UH, VALUED BY THE, UH, COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS.
UM, IT COMPLIMENTS SOLAR ON BOTH A DAILY AND SEASONAL BASIS.
UM, IT USES MUCH LESS SPACE THAN SOLAR.
UM, AND SO THEY'RE QUITE OFTEN, UH, BOTH INSTALLED.
AND, UM, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I, I'M PROUD OF, IT'S MADE IN AMERICA, IS POSED TO 85% OF THE SOLAR, WHICH IS IMPORTED MOSTLY FROM CHINA.
SO, UH, RESPECTFULLY, WE WOULD ASK THE, THE BOARD TO ALLOW L'OREAL TO MAKE GOOD ON THEIR SUSTAINABILITY PROMISE.
UM, WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS FULLY IN, IN, UH, UH, UH, COMPLIES WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF DALLAS' COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, WHICH SPECIFICALLY ENCOURAGES PRIVATE SECTOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY.
AND IT, UM, COMPORTS WITH THE, UH, EMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR, SPECIFICALLY FOR WAREHOUSE SECTOR, UH, PUBLISHED BY THE DALLAS OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND SUSTAINABILITY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR, FOR YOUR TIME.
AND I URGE YOU TO VOTE IN SUPPORT OF OUR, UH, REQUESTS.
I'D BE, AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
SIR, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
UM, WHAT IS YOUR, YOUR DYNAMIC WITH, UH, EITHER THE PROPERTY OWNER, I DON'T KNOW IF LORE OWNS A PROPERTY OR THEY LEASE IT.
ARE YOU LEASING THE SMALL PORTION OF LAND TO PUT YOUR WIND TURBINE ON? WHAT DOES, WHAT DOES THIS LOOK LIKE? NO, SO, SO THIS IS CALLED BEHIND THE METER.
UH, L'OREAL WILL PURCHASE THE SYSTEM AND, AND BENEFIT FROM THE ENERGY SAVINGS, ENERGY PRODUCTION AND, AND UTILITY BILL SAVINGS THAT THEY'LL HAVE OVER THE LIFE OF THE SYSTEM.
AND SO, SO IF L'OREAL GOES AWAY, IT STAY, IT STAYS WITH THE PROPERTY, BUT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A, THAT WOULD BE, THAT'S A, A A SECONDARY ATTACHMENT TO THE TIED TO THE THE ACTUAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY.
UH, THAT WOULD BE BETWEEN L'OREAL AND THE, THE, UM, COMPANY THAT THEY LEASED THE FACILITIES FROM.
I, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND 'CAUSE IT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER WE DECIDE HERE RUNS WITH THE LAND.
UM, AND I LOOK AROUND AND YES, WE KNOW WHAT'S EXCITING AND, AND, AND SUPPORTING THE ENVIRONMENT NOW AND, AND ALL OF, ALL THOSE GREAT THINGS.
BUT I ALSO LOOK AROUND THE CITY AND I SEE PROBABLY SIMILAR CASES WHERE WE INSTALLED GIANT RADIO TOWERS OR CELL PHONE TOWERS AND NOW THEY PEPPER OUR SKYLINE AND THEY'RE THERE, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY FOREVER.
AND I DON'T KNOW IN 70 YEARS WHAT THIS AREA IS GONNA BE, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD RUN WITH THE LAND.
I ALSO ASK STAFF, UM, IS THIS A FACTOR OF, I MEAN, THEY HAD INITIALLY COMMENTED THAT, UM, LIKE A RADIO TOWER OR CELL PHONE TOWER WOULD BE, IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT.
UM, BUT THEN THEY HAVE TO COME IN AND GET A, A VARIANCE ON HEIGHT FOR THE WIND TURBINES.
IS THERE, IS THERE A SITUATION WHERE THEY COULD GO AND REZONE THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW FOR THIS USE OR WORK WITH LIKE THIS ZONING WITH, WITH THE, WITH THE CITY TO EXPAND AND ALLOW THIS USE
[00:40:01]
IN THESE INDU LIKE IN THESE INDUSTRIAL ZONES? I MEAN, I FEEL LIKE THESE SHOULD BE TIED WITH THESE INDUSTRIAL ZONES.THE PROBLEM IS, IS IF THIS INDUSTRIAL FACILITY GOES AWAY, WE'RE STILL GRANTING THIS VARIANCE.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THIS IS GOING AWAY.
SO IF THIS BECOMES RESIDENTIAL, THERE COULD BE FOREVER A WOODEN TURBINE HERE THAT'S NOT TIED TO THE USE.
AND SO THIS IS, THIS IS WHERE I'M HAVING AN ISSUE.
I CAN ANSWER I, THE, THE HYPOTHETICALS ABOUT THE FUTURE.
I CAN'T ANSWER, BUT I CAN SAY THAT THE ANCHORING SYSTEM WE PUT IN IS CONCRETE LESS.
THEY CAN BE UNSCREWED AND EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE UNDERGROUND WIRING, UH, CAN BE REMOVED.
WHAT'S THE EXPECTED, I'M SORRY, JUST ONE QUESTION AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THAT AS IS THE LIFE SPAN OF THIS THREE TO 75 YEARS.
OKAY, SO YEAH, UH, THE, UM, UH, THAT'S GOOD.
THAT'S THE ANSWER PROJECTED IS, IS, IS 40 TO 70 YEARS.
UM, I WAS THIS SARAH, MAY I, I NEED TO INTRODUCE MYSELF.
I SHOULD DO THAT MORE REGULARLY.
UM, UH, SO THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS OF CHAPTER 51 A.
IT'S LIKE 4.408 AND IT SAYS STRUCTURES ERECTED FOR UTILITY AND PUBLIC SERVICE USES AND INSTITUTIONAL USES, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
UM, MAYBE ERECTED TO ANY LEGAL HEIGHTS.
SO THAT WOULD BE BEYOND WHAT THE DISTRICT REGULATION LIMIT THE HEIGHT TO BE.
UM, SO IF IT WAS A, UM, A CELL TOWER OR A, UM, LIKE AN AN ELECTRICAL TOWER TO TRANSMIT ELECTRICITY OR PUBLIC UTILITIES, UM, THOSE CAN BE ERECTED TO ANY HEIGHT.
UM, ALSO IT HAS TO BE COMPLIANT WITH FAA REGULATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE.
SO, UM, UTILITY STRUCTURES HAVE A SPECIAL PROVISION THAT GET THEM OUTTA HEIGHT, UM, REGULATIONS.
BUT I, UM, MIGHT NEED SOMEONE ON THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WHICH IS NOW PART OF OUR DEPARTMENT SIDE.
BUT IT SEEMS AS IF, UM, SINCE THE WIND TURBINE IS BEING USED TO GENERATE POWER FOR A NON-UTILITY USE, LIKE IT, IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL USE OF SOME VARIETY.
I THINK MAYBE IT'S JUST AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR THAT LAND USE.
SO IT'S NOT A UTILITY AND PUBLIC SERVICE LAND USE, BUT IT OPERATES SIMILARLY.
SO THEY, THEY DON'T GET TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT PROVISION FOR UTILITY USES.
LIKE FOR, UM, DWU IN A WATER TOWER GETS TO, YOU KNOW, IT, IT DOES RUN THE LAND.
BUT LET ME ASK YOU THIS THEN STAFF.
SO IF WE GET, APPROVE THIS AND SAY 30 YEARS FROM NOW THAT WE WE'RE GROWING SO MUCH THAT SOMEBODY COMES IN AND, AND BUYS THIS AND PUTS THIS AS RESIDENTIAL, IF WE PROVE THIS, IT'S TIED TOWARDS SUBMITTED PLANS.
SO IF THEY TAKE AWAY THAT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, THEN DOES THIS THEN TERMINATE AS WELL? BECAUSE THIS IS A FACTOR OF THE SITE PLAN.
IF, IF THEY CHANGE THE BUILDING AT SOME POINT, BECAUSE THIS, IF WE APPROVE THIS, IT'S TIED TOWARDS ALL SUB SUBMITTED PLANS, THEN DOES, DOES THIS, DOES THIS, UH, VARIANCE GO AWAY? BUT IT, IT TECHNICALLY RUNS WITH LAND, BUT WE'RE SITTING HERE SAYING LIKE IT'S TIED TO A, A BUILDING AND A SITE PLAN.
BUT IF THEY EVER CHANGE THE THE STRUCTURE, THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS? AND THEN HOW, HOW DO WE THEN ENFORCE THAT BECAUSE THIS, THIS RUNS WITH A LAND.
AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S TIED TO A SITE PLAN, IF THEY, IF IT'S, IT'S A 52 ACRE PERSONAL LAND, IF SOMEBODY COMES IN IN 30 YEARS AND SAYS, I WANNA CHANGE THIS TO TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING, BUT THIS THIS, THIS VARIANCE IS TIED TO THE LAND AND THE SITE PLAN DOES, IF THE SITE PLAN CHANGES AFTER IT'S ALREADY BEEN CONSTRUCTED, DOES THAT, DOES IT TERMINATE THE VARIANCE? I IF I MAY, SO IT RUNS WITH THE LAND IN THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO OWNS THE LAND, ANY OWNER OF THE LAND COULD USE IF IT'S GRANTED THE VARIANCE OF THE HEIGHT.
BUT TYPICALLY HEIGHT VARIANCES ARE CONDITION TO A SITE PLAN DAY AND ELEVATION.
THAT'S, SO THAT'S MY CONCERN TOO.
SO, BUT HERE THE ELEVATION WOULD SHOW THE WIND TURBINE, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
SO IT SAYS HERE, SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
I GUESS WE COULD EVEN TI WE COULD TIGHTEN IT UP A LITTLE BIT MORE AND MARRY IT TO ELEVATIONS AS WELL.
BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING THOUGH, IS WE ARE STILL GRANTING A A 27 FOOT VARIANCE, WHICH IS ALLOWING AN EXCEPTIONAL AMOUNT OF HEIGHT HERE.
SO, YOU KNOW, IF, IF, IF AT SOME POINT THE BUILDING STRUCTURE CHANGES,
[00:45:01]
WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS, AND TYPICALLY IT'S ONLY LIKE THE CONDITIONS ARE ONLY TIED TO THE, THE VARIANCE THAT WAS GRANTED.SO FOR THE, FOR THE PORTION THAT EXCEED THE LIMIT OF THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, THAT'S WHAT IS, YOU KNOW, CONDITIONED UPON THE APPROVAL.
SO THEY, THEY CAN BUILD, THEY CAN EXPAND SOMETHING THAT COMPLIES WITH MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND, YOU KNOW, ADD DOORS, RE REDO EVERYTHING THAT WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE AREA OF THE ZONING DISTRICT.
BUT ANYTIME THEY WANT TO GO BEYOND AT THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH WHATEVER Y'ALL AGREE.
SO IF THEN IF THEY COME AT SOME POINT AND WANNA EXPAND, SAY EXPAND THE ACTUAL INDUSTRIAL USE, WOULD THEY HAVE TO COME BACK AND ASK FOR AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE? BUT IF THEY'RE NOT CHANGING HEIGHT, THAT THAT, THAT, THAT STAYS, THIS WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME WITH IS WE'RE GRANTING A POTENTIALLY GRANTING A 27 FOOT VARIANCE THAT IS TECHNICALLY TIED TO A SITE PLAN.
UM, AND POTENTIALLY ELEVATIONS DEPENDING ON HOW WE, HOW WE MAKE THIS MOTION HERE.
BUT IF THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE HEIGHT TO EXCEED THIS VARIANCE, THEN THAT THERE'S NO REASON THAT THEY, THEY WILL STILL BE IN COMPLIANCE, WHETHER IT'S TIED TO A SITE PLAN OR NOT.
UN UNLESS, UNLESS I'M MISUNDERSTANDING.
I MEAN WE'RE MAKING A POTENTIALLY LIKE A 40 TO 75 YEAR COMMITMENT HERE.
SO I, WE GOTTA GET THIS RIGHT.
AND TO ME, I FEEL LIKE THIS SHOULD BE TIED TO INDUSTRIAL USE AND RATHER THAN JUST A VARIANCE ON THIS, A PROPERTY AND A SITE PLAN THAT MAY CHANGE.
BUT IF, IF THEY DON'T CHANGE THE SITE PLAN ABOVE THIS VARIANCE, THEN IT POTENTIALLY COULD JUST, IT COULD JUST RUN WITH THE LAND IN PERPETUITY.
ARE, ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT YOU COULD BUILD ANYTHING THAT'S 27 FEET ABOVE THE GROUND? I'M CONCERNED ABOUT? NO.
WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS WE'RE COMMITTING TO SOMETHING FOR 45 TO 75 YEARS.
WHAT IF, WHAT IF THIS BUILDING CHANGES, BUT YET THEY STILL HAVE THIS VARIANCE.
SO, SO THEN WE HAVE THIS 90 SOMETHING TALL WIND TURBINE AND THE INDUSTRIAL USE GOES AWAY, BUT THEY STILL HAVE THE VARIANCE.
SO THEY COULD STILL KEEP THIS WIND TURBINE AND, AND IT'S, IT'S A REALLY GOOD USE AND A VARIANCE FOR THIS INDUSTRIAL USE.
BUT IF THIS INDUSTRIAL USE GOES AWAY, WHAT ARE THE PROTECTIONS HERE THAT ARE TIED TO THE VARIANCE? SO WHEN THEY SELL THE LAND, AND LET'S SAY THEY TORE DOWN THE BUILDING AND MADE IT RESIDENTIAL OR SOMETHING, WOULDN'T THE PERSON THAT OWNED THE LAND TEAR DOWN THE WIND TURBINE? THE, IT'S, THEY'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO, BUT THEY, BUT I WOULD THINK IF THEY WANTED TO BUILD SOMETHING RESIDENTIAL, THEY WOULD, BUT, BUT WE HAVE, WE HAVE TO.
IT'S OUR, THIS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE CAN I OFFER A THOUGHT? HOLD ON.
UM, THIS IS WHERE I FEEL A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS BEING ALMOST LIKE A PD OR, OR TIED TO ZONING RATHER THAN RUNNING WITH A LAND AND A SITE PLAN.
BECAUSE THIS REALLY IS A SUPPORTIVE USE TO THE ZONING.
AND SO I, I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF WE HAVE A DIFFERENT LAYER OF PROTECTIONS HERE.
LIKE IF, IF WE PUT IN THAT IT'S, IF WE DO APPROVE THIS, IT'S, IT'S TIED TO LIKE SITE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS.
IF I WAS ASSURED THAT THE, THE STRUCTURE DIDN'T CHANGE, LIKE IF THE STRUCTURE CHANGED AT ALL, THEN THIS WOULD BE TERMINATED.
RIGHT? BUT WE'RE NOT TYING IT TO THAT.
WE'RE GIVING ESSENTIALLY A VARIANCE.
WE'RE NOT TYING IT TO ANY USE.
SO THIS, THIS IS, THIS IS THE PROBLEM I HAVE.
I FEEL LIKE, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS ALMOST LIKE WRONG WINDOW.
I KNOW THAT YOU NEED TO BE HERE TO GET THIS 'CAUSE YOU NEED THE VARIANCE, BUT I FEEL LIKE THIS NEEDS TO BE TIED TO AN INDUSTRIAL ZONING.
I FEEL LIKE THIS IS ALMOST LIKE A PD CHANGE OR AMENDMENT OR A REASON OR SOMETHING WHERE Y'ALL ARE WORKING WITH THE CITY TO START ALLOWING THESE ENERGY USES AS TIED TO, TO THESE INDUSTRIAL.
BECAUSE IF, IF THIS BUILDING GOES AWAY, YOU STILL HAVE THIS 27TH OF VARIANCE.
I WILL JUST ADD THAT FOR THE SECOND PART OF A VARIANCE STANDARD, IT SAYS THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FROM A DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIFIC PARCEL OF LAND THAT DIFFERS FROM OTHER PARCELS OF LAND OF BEING OF SUCH A RESTRICTIVE AREA, SHAPE OR SLOPE THAT IT CANNOT BE DEVELOPED IN A MANUAL COMMENSURATE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT ON OTHER PARCELS OF THE LAND WITH THE SAME ZONING.
SO YES, YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT IT COULD CHANGE IN THE FUTURE, BUT YOU ARE CHARGED WITH THE ZONING THAT'S IN PLACE NOW.
AND, AND, AND IT'S JUST THE LAND THAT YOU'RE COMPARING WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANY, BUT WHETHER IT'S RESTRICTIVE FOR JUST THAT PIECE OF LAND AND NOT NECESSARILY TO THE USE.
WE HAVE A LOT OF RESPONSIBILITY HERE.
UM, HOW FAR AWAY IS THE NEAREST, UM, LIKE RESIDENTIAL AREA? LIKE HOW BIG IS THIS INDUSTRIAL TRACK VERSUS CAN WE SEE THE MAP AGAIN OF WHERE IT IS?
[00:50:01]
WELL, WHILE THEY'RE GETTING THAT MAP, CAN I ACCIDENT QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT HERE? UM, FOR THE, I'M LOOKING AT THE, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THIS, THIS IS KINDA LIKE A TWO PART QUESTION.SO IT'S, THERE'S THE WAREHOUSE ITSELF AND THEN THERE'S UM, THERE'S AN EXPANSION MARK A HAS THAT EXPANSION, IS THAT PLANNED OR HAS IT BEEN COMPLETED? AND THEN SECOND PART TO THAT QUESTION IS, WOULD THERE BE A FUTURE NEED TO ADD MORE OF THESE SMALL WINDMILLS TO, I GUESS, SUPPLEMENT POWER TO THAT EXPANSION IF THERE WERE EITHER IF IT, IT'S NOT COMPLETE NOW, BUT WERE TO BE BUILT IN THE FUTURE? UH, AS FAR AS I KNOW, UM, L'OREAL ONLY PLANS TO DO ONE.
UH, AND UM, UH, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT A, AN EXPANSION HAS NOT BEEN ANY CONSTRUCTION IN THE FOUR YEARS THAT WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS.
UM, UM, ON THE OTHER QUESTION OF, OF WHAT HAPPENS IN 30 OR 40 YEARS, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF IT WAS REZONED AS RESIDENTIAL, YOU PROBABLY HAVE A 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT ON THAT 37 OR 35 PLUS 27 IS FAR LESS THAN 97.
IT WOULD NOT BE COMPLIANT AND WOULD HAVE TO EITHER GET A NEW, UM, UH, VARIANCE OR BE REMOVED.
WELL THAT'S, THAT'S ONLY IF THE BUILDING CHANGES BECAUSE WE'RE, IF WE GRANT YOU THIS, IT STAYS WITH THIS PARTICULAR, SO I WAS DOING DOESN'T IT BECOME A NONCONFORMING USE THOUGH? LIKE PLENTY OF TIMES WE'RE ASKED TO DETERMINE IF THERE'S A PRIOR NON STANDING IT.
THERE'S LIKE THE, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN A BAR FOREVER.
IT GOT REZONED AS YOU KNOW, OR A LIQUOR STORE FOREVER AND IT'S GOTTEN REZONED AS RESIDENTIAL AND THEN AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME IT COMES BEFORE US.
WE, WE DON'T HAVE ONE OFTEN, BUT IT DOESN'T, THE USE DOESN'T HAVE TO CHANGE FOR IT TO COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD.
BUT, BUT I THINK CHAIR GAM BO'S COMMENT IS THE CORRECT ONE, WHICH IS IF THIS INDUSTRIAL PARK IS REZONED AS RESIDENTIAL AND PURCHASED AND THE PROPERTY OWNER DECIDES NOT TO DEMOLISH THE WIND TURBINE, THAT'S THEIR CHOICE.
MAY MAYBE THEY WANNA KEEP IT AND PUT IT NEXT TO A, A CLUBHOUSE.
BUT I, I GUESS LOOKING MORE THAN FIVE YEARS IN THE FUTURE I THINK IS, IS TOO FAR.
UM, CAN, CAN I ASK A LEGAL QUESTION?
IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A HARDSHIP ON THE LAND.
SO ADDING A ZONING COMPONENT IS NOT A, A REASONABLE CONDITION.
YOU COULD ADD THE OTHER PARTS OF ELEVATIONS, BUT BECAUSE THAT'S ALREADY SUBMITTED, THAT IS PART OF THE, ALL THE PLANS.
SO, UM, I HAVE A, I HAVE A GI HAVE THE GIS MAP PULLED UP AND UM, WHAT YOU SEE IN YELLOW IS THE, THE LI BASE ON AREA.
SO THIS IS HOW BIG THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA ISS PRETTY LARGE AND THEN BACK TOWARDS THIS WAY, I BELIEVE IT'S ACROSS, I THINK IT'S DOW PARKWAY.
THIS STREET HERE, THERE'S LIKE WHAT 3 42 IS BACK WHERE YOU SEE THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
AND THOSE ARE ALL RESIDENTIAL OVER THERE.
THIS IS RESIDENTIAL OVER HERE.
UM, WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO SEE THE WIND? A LOT OF THEM ARE.
WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO SEE THE WIND TURBINE? NO.
UM, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH STREET.
OH, I'M LIKE, WHERE IS IT? I DON'T EVEN KNOW THE STREET NAME RIGHT HERE, BUT IT'S A, IT'S A BUSY STREET SO THEY CAN'T SEE ACROSS THAT STREET AREA, SO NO, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE.
SO AGAIN, THE SUBJECT SIDE IS HERE.
IS THERE A WAY FOR THIS APPLICANT TO GET THIS DONE THROUGH OTHER AVENUES THROUGH, UH, PD ZONING CHANGE,
[00:55:01]
ALL THAT FUN STUFF? I SUPPOSE THEY COULD GO THROUGH AND GET HIS, TRY TO GET A PD TO HAVE THIS MAXIMUM HEIGHT CHANGE THAT COULD BE A POSSIBLE AVENUE.THAT QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
HAVE YOU GUYS TALKED ABOUT CREATING A, WHAT'S THE ACRONYM PD, WHAT THAT MEAN? PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS BASICALLY LIKE STAFF DON'T GET MAD AT ME OR YOU KIND OF GET TO MAKE UP YOUR OWN ZONING RULES AS LONG AS IT GETS APPROVED.
HAVE YOU GUYS TRIED TO DO THAT? WE WORKED WITH PERMITTING.
PERMITTING IS KIND OF LIKE THE GATEKEEPER WHERE YOU GET, UM, A REFERRAL LETTER, HERE'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO, HERE'S HOW WE WANNA DO IT.
WE ALREADY HAVE THE CORRECT ZONING, WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE HEIGHT.
EVEN IF I WANTED TO DO A PD, I DON'T, I FEEL YOU HA IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE A SUPPORTIVE COUNCIL.
I HAVE A FEW CHALLENGES HERE IS BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S TIED WITH THE LAND AND NOT NECESSARILY THE USE.
UM, AND WE'RE REALLY RESTRICTED WHAT WE CAN DO HERE.
UM, I'M ALSO HAVING A HARD TIME 'CAUSE YOU HAVE 50, ALMOST 52 ACRES.
UM, SO YOUR, YOUR PERSONAL LAND IS, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT DIFFERS IN, IN SLOPE OR SIZE OR SCALE, YOU KNOW, BASED ON OTHER LIKE ZONING? UM, I MEAN I I LOVE WHAT Y'ALL ARE TRYING TO DO HERE.
LIKE IF WE GRANT THIS, IT'S SOMETHING THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND AND WE'RE MAKING A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS, WE HAVE A LOT OF RESPONSIBILITY HERE.
UM, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THAT COMPONENT.
I DO FEEL LIKE EVEN THOUGH THE ZONING WILL ALLOW THIS, I FEEL LIKE IF YOU WERE TO WORK WITH YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER THAT'S SUPPORTIVE, UM, AND CREATE A PD THAT WILL ALLOW THIS PARTICULAR HEIGHT FOR THIS PARTICULAR USE, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING I, I DON'T KNOW.
I'M JUST THINKING OUT LOUD AND I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL HAVE ACTUALLY MADE THE CASE THAT, THAT THIS LAND, UM, AS UNDEVELOPABLE, RIGHT? I MEAN THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL.
I MEAN THE PROBLEM IS, IS WE COULD LOVE THE USE ALL DAY LONG, BUT OUR PARAMETERS ARE BASED ON VERY STRICT, VERY NARROW MARGINS OF, OF STANDARDS THAT YOU HAVE NOT QUITE MET YET.
BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO PROBABLY OPEN, I MEAN WE ALSO HAVE TO OPEN UP THIS CONVERSATION TO OTHER PEOPLE.
RIGHT? DO WE NEED TO TAKE A RECESS? UM, LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT CHAIR GABO STEPPED OUT ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE MINUTES AGO.
UM, BUT WE STILL HAVE A QUORUM SO WE CAN STILL CONTINUE.
WELL, I MEAN I CAN, CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO RECESS? OKAY.
WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND DO THIS.
UM, I MAKE A MOTION TO RECESS TILL, UM, LET'S DO FIVE MINUTES TO 2 0 6.
I WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S GONNA BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO YOU TO HAVE ALL MEMBERS HERE TO HEAR THE ENTIRE CASE BECAUSE YOU NEED, UH, I BELIEVE FOUR OUT OF FIVE VOTES FOR APPROVAL.
UM, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT SHE HAS, I'M SURE SHE HAS QUESTIONS.
UM, SO WHY DON'T WE TAKE A RECESS TO 2 0 7 AND AND I'M BACK AT THAT POINT.
[01:02:21]
YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT.YEAH, GET MORE WARRIORS IN HERE.
WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH I GUESS, BUT LIKE WE UPSIDES, WE YEAH, IT'S PROBABLY FIVE O'CLOCK.
YEAH, I THINK, IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE FOUND? SORRY, WE'RE ALL SPUN UP.
[01:05:01]
YEAH.UM, YOU KNOW WHAT, SINCE WE'RE A LITTLE BIT PAST THE STATE AT RECESS, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND EXTEND THE RECESS UNTIL JUST TO BE SAFE TILL 2:20 PM OKAY.
[01:11:02]
[01:16:04]
OKAY.I MAKE, UH, CHAIR GABO IS LEFT.
I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPOINT SARAH LAMB AS THE, UH, CHAIR FOR, UH, THIS PANEL OF, UH, B OR WHATEVER WE'RE I SECOND.
UM, BARRY, WOULD YOU MIND TAKING A, A ROLL CALL? VOTE PLEASE.
ON THE MOTION THAT'S IN FRONT OF US, MR. BROOKS? AYE.
UM, WE, UH, CALL THIS MEETING BACK IN ORDER AT 2:20 PM UM, AND WE WILL RESUME, UM, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? NO.
WE WILL INVITE YOU NEED TO START OVER.
UM, FOR THE RECORD, UM, MS. GABO HAS, UH, EXCUSED HERSELF FOR THE REST OF THE HEARING.
UM, IT IS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY THAT I, UM, RESUME AS, UM, INTERIM VICE CHAIR.
UM, AND WE HAVE JUST CALLED MEETING BACK TO ORDER AT 2:21 PM UM, I'VE OPENED UP DISCUSSIONS AGAIN, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS EITHER FOR OR AGAINST? I THINK WE HAVE A GENTLEMAN ON ONLINE THAT'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS CASE.
BRIAN ORSINI, I COME TO YOU FROM OUR NORTH AMERICA HEADQUARTERS IN, UH, 1 75 TERMINAL AVENUE, CLARK, NEW JERSEY, 0 7 0 6 6.
UM, L'OREAL GROUP, THE GLOBAL COMPANY HAS SOME AMBITIOUS SUSTAINABILITY GOALS, BOTH FOR 2030 AND 25, REDUCING OUR C TWO EMISSIONS AS WELL AS HAVING A HUNDRED PERCENT RENEWABLE ENERGY BY 2025.
UM, THIS PROJECT BEFORE YOU IS ONE THAT'S BEEN IN THE WORKS, NOT JUST IN THE LAST YEAR, BUT SEVERAL YEARS.
UM, AND THIS WOULD LARGELY HELP US REACH THAT 2025 GOAL, A HUNDRED PERCENT RENEWABLE ENERGY, UH, WITH THE START AT THIS DALLAS DISTRIBUTION CENTER.
UM, THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST WIND TURBINE, UH, NOT ONLY FOR NORTH AMERICA, BUT FOR THE GLOBAL COMPANY.
UM, AND CERTAINLY WOULD BE A HALLMARK FOR US AS AN ORGANIZATION.
AND SO WE WOULD BE PRIVILEGED TO HAVE THIS BE IN THE THE DALLAS AREA AS WELL.
THIS IS, UM, OUR, THE START OF A CAMPAIGN OF RENEWABLE ENERGY IMPLEMENTATION.
UH, WHAT WOULD COME NEXT IS AS SOME OF THE, THE GROUP HAS MENTIONED, UH, CONSIDERATIONS FOR SOLAR PANELS.
UM, BUT WE WANT TO CERTAINLY PROVE THIS CONCEPT OUT FIRST.
UM, ONE JUST BECAUSE OF, UH, COST SIZING, BUT ALSO TWO, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IT, IT MAKES SENSE.
UM, SO WE CERTAINLY WANNA, UM, YOU KNOW, ENCOURAGE THE SUGGESTION BEHIND THIS AND, UH, WOULD GREATLY IMPROVE, UM, YOU KNOW, US AS A, AS A CORPORATION, BUT ALSO, UH, CUSTOMER FACING.
UM, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU AND, UH, I'LL BE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? OKAY.
UM, ANY OTHER SPEAKERS EITHER FOR OR AGAINST? NO.
I WILL INFORM THE APPLICANT THAT, UM, A YES VOTE WILL REQUIRE A FULL FOUR OUT OF FOUR, UM, SINCE WE ONLY HAVE FOUR MEMBERS INSTEAD OF FIVE.
UM, AT THAT POINT I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION, UM, BEFORE A MOTION IS CONSIDERED, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK STAFF ONE MORE QUESTION IF
[01:20:01]
POSSIBLE.SO READING THE, UM, THE, THE CODE THAT WE'RE, THAT'S GOVERNING THIS CASE HERE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDED NILE BASED ON 51, SAY PART B, WHICH IS THE NECESSARY TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT BASED ON RESTRICTIVE AREA SOAP AND, UH, RESTRICTIVE AREA SHAPE AND SLOPE.
UM, SEEING THAT THESE ARE TWO DIMENSIONAL TERMS AND THE CASE BEFORE IS, YOU KNOW, SPEAKING TO THE THIRD DIMENSION, WHICH IS THE, THE HEIGHT.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE, BASED ON THE LANGUAGE THERE, ARE WE JUST APPLYING THIS IN THE TWO DIMENSION OF WHAT'S THIS? THAT'S WHAT ARE WE NOT CONSIDERING THE HEIGHT OR THE, JUST WHAT THE THREE DIMENSIONS OF THE SITE IS? YEAH, YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER ALL OF IT WITH HEIGHT INCLUDED.
AND THEN WITH THE, AND THEN JUST READING DOWN HERE, WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL BEING IS THAT THIS WAS BASICALLY DENIAL ON TWO DIMENSIONS, SO THE LENGTH AND THE WIDTH OF THE SI OR LENGTH AND DEPTH OF THE SITE.
I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE I FOLLOW YOU.
THE RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OR WHY THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IS DENIAL IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT THERE IS, THERE'S ENOUGH SPACE BETWEEN THE LENGTH AND THE DEPTH OF THE SITE THAT THIS, THIS WIND TURBINE COULD BE PLACED ANYWHERE.
BUT WHAT, AND THIS IS KIND OF GETTING INTO GEOMETRY HERE A LITTLE BIT, BUT WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS MORE LIKE THE THIRD DIMENSION, WHICH IS, WHICH COULD PRESENT A RESTRICTION BASED ON THE HEIGHT OF THE AIR OR THE AREA OF THE, THE VERTICAL HEIGHT OF THE SELECT THE SITE.
IT'S BASICALLY THE STAFF IS SAYING THERE'S PLENTY, THE RECOMMENDATION FORNELL IS LIKE, THERE'S NO RESTRICTION BECAUSE THERE'S PLENTY OF SPACE ON THE SITE, CORRECT.
AND SO IN ORDER FOR STAFF TO HAVE RECOMMENDED A FULL, THEY HAVE TO MEET NOT ONE, NOT TWO, NOT THREE, BUT ALL THREE OF THOSE STANDARDS.
THAT'S, THAT WAS JUST, JUST CLARIFICATION BEFORE, UM, OKAY.
UM, I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION HERE.
UM, HERE, UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT I THIS RIGHT, UH, IN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 33 ON APPLICATION OF MICHAEL BERGE, REPRESENTED BY ELSIE THURMAN, DENY THE VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICATION, THIS APPLICANT, UH, WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE FISCAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD NOT RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.
UM, MR. CANNON OR MR. BROOKS, ANY ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? YES.
SO THIS IS, UM, I MEAN, ESSENTIALLY JUST THE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE.
THE REASON WHY I ASKED THE CLARIFYING QUESTION, UH, WAS TO REALLY CLEAR.
I MEAN, THIS IS THE, THE PARAMETERS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS TO WORK WITH.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THE, THE, THE GOAL AND THE INTENT OF THE APPLICANT TO HAVE A SUSTAINABLE SITE OR SUSTAINABLE WAY OF, UM, ENERGY PROJECTION, BUT IT'S, I MEAN, THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE THAT IS, I THINK THAT THERE CAN BE OTHER WAYS THAT, UM, L'OREAL OR THE APPLICANT CAN MEET SUSTAINABILITY GOALS.
THAT THE HEIGHT OF THIS, UM, STRUCTURE IS, I BELIEVE THAT THAT CAN BE PROBABLY WORKED THROUGH OTHER CHANNELS, UM, OUTSIDE OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
AND THAT WAS, UM, THOSE ARE THE REASONS WHY I'M VOTING IN DENIAL WITH, UM, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
MR. BROOKS? YEAH, I, I AGREE WITH MR. CANNON.
I, I TRIED TO FIND A WAY TO VOTE FOR THIS, BUT ON B, LIKE THE NECESSARY TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE LAND, IT'S THE, THE RATIONALE JUST WASN'T THERE FOR ME.
UM, I, I DO THINK THERE ARE OTHER AVENUES TO PURSUE.
I I DON'T THINK THAT, UM, VERY CONFIDENT THERE ARE OTHER AVENUES TO PURSUE THIS.
UM, AND, AND I WOULD'VE LIKED TO SPEND A LITTLE MORE TIME ON THAT ELEMENT B, UM, FROM THE APPLICANT, DR. GLOVER, ANY COMMENTS? UM, I WILL ALSO, UH, BE VOTING, UH, WITH A MOTION, UM, WHEN IT COMES TO A VARIANCE.
UM, BECAUSE OUR QUASI-JUDICIAL, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF LEEWAY AND THERE ARE, UM, THREE STANDARDS THAT ALL OF WHICH HAVE TO BE MET IN ORDER TO PASS.
UM, WE DON'T, WE AREN'T REALLY GIVEN MUCH ROOM A WIGGLE ROOM HERE.
NOW, YOU, YOU MET TWO OF THE THREE STANDARDS, UM, WHICH STAFF CLEARLY DEFINED AN OUTLINED IN THE RECOMMENDATION.
[01:25:02]
UM, YOU DID MEET THE STANDARD THAT IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, AND I THINK THAT'S THE PIECE THAT WE WERE ALL REALLY LEANING TOWARDS AND LEANING WITH.YOU ALSO MET THE STANDARD THAT IT'S NOT A SELF-CREATED, WE'RE NOT, WOULD NOT BE GRANTING THIS TO, UH, TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP.
THE ONE PIECE IS THOUGH THIS IS, UM, A, UH, ALMOST 51 ACRE PARCEL.
YOUR LAND IS NOT ONE THAT IS, UM, ABNORMAL SLOPE OR, OR, OR SIZE OR SCALE IN WHICH YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TO DEVELOP IT, UM, WITH LIKE ZONING OR PARCEL SIZES.
SO FOR THAT REASON, BECAUSE THE STANDARD IS SO STRICT, I AM NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO APPROVE THIS TODAY.
NOW, UM, DEPENDING ON HOW THIS MOTION GOES, UM, THE RECOMMENDATION HERE OR THE MOTION IN FRONT OF US IS TO DENY WITHOUT A, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO COME BACK, UM, AT ANY POINT IN TIME.
REFILE AMEND YOUR APPLICATION, UM, AND COME IN FRONT THIS BOARD AGAIN.
UM, IF, IF YOU DO CHANGE YOUR SITE PLAN OR HAVE OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO, UH, SUPPORT THE, UM, A, UH, AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE.
SO WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
UM, THE NEXT CASE WE WILL HEAR ON OUR DOCKET IS, UM, THE CASE.
UM, IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL, INDIVIDUAL CASE THAT WE'VE HELD OVER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 24.
AND THAT IS, UH, 2 4 1 7 WEST 12TH STREET.
UM, IF THE REPRESENTATIVE OR THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH NOW, UM, WE DO DO REALIZE THAT THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE BRIEFING.
UM, YOU NOW HAVE ONLY FOUR MEMBERS INSTEAD OF FIVE.
UH, DO APPRECIATE THAT YOU WILL NEED ALL FOUR VOTES IF YOU DO CHOOSE TO WANT TO MOVE FORWARD THIS CASE TODAY, UM, AND THAT THE BOARD, UM, ALSO WISHES TO MOVE FORWARD, PLEASE, PLEASE, UH, PROCEED.
UM, I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO TALK WITH THE CLIENT.
WE WOULD, UM, APPRECIATE IT IF THE BOARD WOULD HOLD THIS OVER, UM, TO THE NEXT MEETING.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE ALL FIVE PEOPLE HERE.
THERE'S A LOT OF COMPLEXITY WITH THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE AND, UM, UH, I'D LIKE TO HAVE ALL FIVE FOLKS HERE.
UH, AS YOU CAN APPRECIATE GETTING ALL FOUR VOTES.
UM, IS, IS GETTING THREE VOTE, GETTING FOUR OF FIVE VOTES IS DIFFICULT ENOUGH.
GETTING FOUR OR FOUR VOTES IS EVEN MORE DIFFICULT.
IF THE BOARD DOES, UH, DECIDE TO HOLD US OVER, YOU DO REALIZE THAT WE AT THIS TIME ONLY HAVE THREE PERMANENT MEMBERS AND WE HAVE TWO ALTERNATES.
SO YOU WILL BE COMING IF THIS IS HELD OVER IN FRONT OF THIS PANEL, BUT THE PANEL MAY LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
IT MAY, I ALSO UNDERSTAND THERE'S SOME DISCRETION IN ALLOWING ALTERNATES TO, TO SIT BACK ON THE BOARD.
JUST APPRECIATE ANY DISCRETION THAT YOU ALL MIGHT BE ABLE TO USE THIS AS A COMPLEX.
I WAS HOPING TO MAKE IT LESS COMPLEX AND, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE STATEMENT I MADE EARLIER, BUT, UM, IN THE POWERPOINT THAT I CAN ALSO PROVIDE TO MS. WILLIAMS, THERE ARE THE MAPS THAT THE CHAIRPERSON WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR THAT I THINK WILL BE HELPFUL AND YOU MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THOSE BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING.
WE, WE DO, UM, APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT.
DO WE HAVE TO ENTERTAIN PUBLIC? OKAY.
SO WE WILL HAVE TO, TO MOVE FORWARD AND, AND THERE ARE SEVERAL PEOPLE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS THAT POINT.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE'LL LET THEM SPEAK AND IF YOU WANNA MAKE COMMENTS, UM, WE DO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.
WE DO REALIZE THAT IT IS HARD ENOUGH, UM, YOU KNOW, GETTING, UH, A VOTE, UM, WITH FIVE MEMBERS THAT WE WILL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION YOUR REQUEST.
BUT WE DO, UM, BASED ON, UM, UH, ROBERT TOOLS, WE HAVE TO ALLOW OTHERS THAT HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, TO SPEAK.
NO, AND I'LL, I FULLY APPRECIATE THAT.
I'LL, WE'LL DEFINITELY GIVE YOU A MOMENT TO, TO, UM, SPEAK AFTER THE PUBLIC POE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THIS.
CAN WE GO AHEAD AND CALL THE FIRST, UH, MEMBER THAT'S HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS, UM, THAT'S HERE ONLINE, UH, IN PERSON, PLEASE.
LET'S, LET'S START WITH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
LET'S START WITH, UM, SPEAKERS HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT, PLEASE.
MR. KAVANAUGH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? UM, MR. KAVANAUGH IS YOUR, YOU, YOU ARE OPTING NOT TO SPEAK, BUT DO YOU ALSO, SINCE YOU'RE UH, PART REPRESENTATIVE, DO YOU ALSO WISH TO HOLD THIS CASE OVER? YES.
MS. GINA, UH, EWZ, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? NO, THE SPEAKERS IN FAVOR.
AND THEN WE WILL NOW ENTERTAIN THOSE, UH, SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION THAT ARE HERE IN PERSON.
[01:30:03]
YES.SUSAN, YOU MAY APPROACH MS. PASS.
UM, AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE EVERYBODY THAT WANTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION BEING SWORN AT THE SAME TIME AS SOON AS, UM, THE SPEAKER MAKES IT TO THE FRONT.
UM, OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU ALL IN.
CAN I HAVE EVERYBODY THAT SOME OF YOU SPEAK IN OPPOSITION STAND AT THIS TIME? PLEASE.
SO YOU'RE OPTING NOT TO SPEAK TODAY, OKAY? OKAY.
I HAVE, UH, TWO SPEAKERS ONLINE.
IF YOU CAN PLEASE PROVIDE AUDIO AND VIDEO, I MEAN VIDEO AND SOUND.
AND I, I JUST LIKE VACATION, SO I JUST, I'M SORRY, MA'AM.
MA MA'AM MA'AM, CAN YOU PLEASE MUTE YOUR MICROPHONE FOR JUST A MOMENT? OKAY.
UH, WE ARE GONNA, MA'AM, WE'RE GONNA SWEAR YOU IN AT THIS TIME.
THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN.
DO YOU ALL SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? DO I DO? OKAY.
UM, MS. NEPA, YOU CAN PROCEED.
CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? UM, MY NAME IS DR.
MY, UH, OFFICE IS AT 24 0 7 WEST 12TH STREET IN DALLAS, TEXAS, 7 5 2 1 1.
CAN YOU, UM, REACH OUT THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE CLOSER TO YOU? MY OKAY, YOU CAN MOVE IT IF YOU LIKE.
I'M, I'M DOING PRETTY GOOD TODAY,
UH, MY HOME IS AT 1639 CEDAR HILL AVENUE IN DALLAS AND 7 5 2 0 8.
AND, UH, MY PROBLEM WITH THE CHANGING THE ZONING OF 24 17 WEST 12TH STREET IS THAT THE 20 FOOT BY 20 FOOT LAND ALSO EXTENDS IN BACK OF, UM, THE COUNTRY BURGER.
ANOTHER, IT'S ALSO, UH, 20 FEET, BUT THE WHOLE LENGTH THAT GOES ALL THE WAY TILL, UM, TOM THUMB AND, UH, IT IS, IT HASN'T EVER BEEN A PROBLEM.
MY DAD BOUGHT THIS BUILDING THAT WAS AN OLD FIRE STATION NUMBER 13 IN 19, UH, 66 FROM THE CITY, AND HE WAS THERE UNTIL 1990.
AND THEN I'VE BEEN THERE SINCE 1990 AND I'M STILL WORKING.
I MAY LOOK BAD, BUT I'M STILL WORKING.
AND, UH, UH, THE, THE WHOLE THING IS, IS THAT THEY WANT TO INSTALL A TUNNEL CAR WASH.
AND, UH, THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM FOR ONE THING WITH MY BUSINESS, BECAUSE THIS IS A MEDICAL FACILITY AND, UH, I HAVE BEEN TO CAR WASHES THAT, UH, IT WOULD, YOU KNOW, MY PATIENTS WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ALL THE NOISE AND, AND COMMOTION IT GOES ON AT, AT A CAR WASH.
AND, UH, THEY ALSO, FROM WHAT I'VE HAVE DONE SOME RESEARCH, THEY CAN'T PUT A CAR WASH, ESPECIALLY A TYPE OF CAR WASH, LIKE THE TUNNEL TYPE WITHIN, UH, 200 FEET OF A REEN RESIDENTIAL AREA.
WELL, SOMEHOW AT ONE POINT IT WAS A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND PART OF THE PARK THAT'S THEY'RE TRYING TO GET CHANGED IS STILL THE 20 BY 20.
BUT, UH, IT'S, IT'S CAU CAUSING THE PROBLEM FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY WANNA PUT THE TUNNEL CAR WASH IN.
AND, UH, I'M CONCERNED TOO, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN THERE A LONG TIME SINCE I'VE HELPED MY DAD START THIS SINCE I WAS 13 YEARS OLD.
I HELPED HIM AND I KNOW THAT USED TO BE A, UM, UH, SERVICE STATION THERE.
AND, UH, THEY HAVE HAD, I KNOW PROBLEMS WITH, IT'S NOT A SERVICE STATION ANYMORE.
THEY'VE HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE LEAKING OF THE OLD GAS TANKS THAT WERE DOWN UNDER THE GROUND.
AND FOR YEARS IT'S LEAKED ALL THIS.
AND THE EPA NEEDS TO BE WARNED OF THIS BECAUSE ALL THEY DID WAS POUR OVER CONCRETE OVER IT.
AND, UH, AND IF THEY START DIGGING UP EVERYTHING TO PUT ONE OF THOSE TUNNEL CAR WASHES,
[01:35:01]
I'M GONNA HAVE PROBLEMS WITH, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR ONE THING BECAUSE, UM, THEY HAVE TO DIG WAY DEEP TO PUT THE TUNNEL CAR WASH, UH, UH, IN, AND, UH, IT'LL AFFECT NOT ONLY THE ENVIRONMENT, BECAUSE THERE'S A SCHOOL NEXT TO MY OFFICE, LIGHT IDAHO ELEMENTARY.AND, UH, AND THEN THE DESIGN THAT THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED, UH, THEY, PEOPLE ENTER ON HAMPTON AND THEN THEY EXIT ON 12TH STREET.
AND THAT'S ALWAYS CONGESTED WITH KIDS BEING PICKED UP FROM SCHOOL.
AND, UH, I CAN JUST SEE SOME POOR CHILD BEING RUN OVER BY SOMEBODY THAT'S EXITING THE A CAR WASH.
AND, UH, BUT THE WHOLE THING IS, IS THAT IT JUST IS CAUSING IT, IT WILL CAUSE A PROBLEM ALSO WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THIS IS MORE OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, UH, PEOPLE, UH, COME TO THE PLACES NEXT DOOR TO ME, WHICH HAVE ALWAYS BEEN NICE PEOPLE THAT I HAVE, YOU KNOW, COME TO LOVE.
AND NOW THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT TEARING EVERY THEY THING OUT AROUND ME AND THEN MAKING IT INTO A GIANT CAR WASH THAT IS GONNA TAKE AWAY ALL THESE PEOPLE'S LIVELIHOOD, YOU KNOW? AND, UH, THERE'S, THERE'S, UH, I THINK AT ONE POINT WE FIGURED OUT THERE WAS ABOUT 18 PEOPLE AT LEAST THAT WOULD LOSE THEIR JOBS.
AND, UH, ANYWAY, THE WHOLE THING IS AS I FILLED THE ZONING CASE IS UNWANTED AND UNNEEDED.
AND AT ONE POINT WE HAD A, THE LAST TIME WE HAD THIS SITUATION, WE GOT, UH, PEOPLE TO SIGN WHAT TIME IS UP PETITION.
SO YOU CAN, UH, I'LL GIVE YOU 10 MORE SECONDS IF THOUGHT.
IT, THEY, THEY SIGNED A PETITION TO SAY THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT IT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND WAITING FOR A MOMENT.
UM, I THINK YOUR NAME IS ON THERE.
WE'RE GONNA CALL AN ORDER AND WE DO NEED TO HOLD UP.
UH, WELL THEN IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND FILLING OUT A BLUE FORM, UM, OKAY.
IF YOU COULD JUST HAND IT TO THE BOARD SECRETARY, AND THEN WHEN YOUR NAME IS CALLED, UM, WE'LL SWEAR YOU IN AND YOU CAN SPEAK WELL, THERE'S PLENTY OF TIME.
WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY WANTS TO SPEAK CAN.
WHO DO WE HAVE NEXT? MR, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND PROCEED.
UH, THANKS TO THE BOARD FOR TAKING TIME TODAY.
I LIVE AT 1 0 1 WEST DAVIS STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS, 7 5 2 0 8.
UM, THE LAST TIME THIS PANEL MET AND DECIDED TO HOLD OVER THIS DECISION, UH, THERE WAS CONCERN AS TO HOW PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE TIME OUT OF THEIR DAY AND SHOW UP AGAIN.
UM, THAT WAS A CONCERN EXPRESSED BY SOME MEMBERS OF THIS BODY.
I THINK A CONCERN THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
UM, I AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE COME TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION HAVE TAKEN TIME OUT OF OUR WORKDAY.
UH, I CANNOT SPEAK AT THESE MEETINGS ON COMPANY TIME, SO I'M OBLIGATED TO TAKE TIME OFF.
UM, THIS IS MY SECOND TIME TAKING TIME OFF TO SHOW UP TO THIS MEETING, AND ALL THE SPEAKERS HERE ARE DOING THE SAME.
AND I SAY THIS BECAUSE I SEE THAT THIS BOARD IS GIVING MUCH CONSIDERATION TO THE APPLICANT UNDER REPRESENTATIVES, AND I ASK THAT YOU GIVE US THE SAME CONSIDERATION AND THAT YOU CONSIDER THE INCONVENIENCE THAT IT WOULD BE FOR US TO SHOW UP HERE, TAKE TIME OUT OF OUR DAY AGAIN, OR A THIRD TIME.
I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE, UM, CASE AT HAND.
IT DOES APPEAR TO ME THAT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT CONFUSION AND QUESTIONS STILL REGARDING THIS CASE.
UM, THERE'S BEEN SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT, HUNDREDS OF PAGES SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC'S RECORD ABOUT THIS CASE, AND WE STILL LACK CLARITY.
AND I WOULD SAY THIS LACK OF CLARITY
[01:40:01]
IS NOT GOING TO BE RESOLVED WITH MORE TIME.UM, AND I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THIS BOARD CANNOT LEND OR PROVIDE CLARITY TO THE APPLICANT.
IT'S NOT EQUIPPED TO DO IT BECAUSE ITSELF DOES NOT HAVE THE CLARITY, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT IT IS ON THE APPLICANTS AND THE REPRESENTATIVES HAS BEEN SATISFIED.
THEREFORE, I DO ASK THAT THE BOARD REJECT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP.
AND I YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME.
CAN WE CALL THE NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE? MS. YOLANDA ALAMEDA.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND PROCEED.
WE WILL NEED YOU TO PRESENT YOURSELF ON I YOLAND.
MA'AM, WE WILL NEED YOU TO PRESENT YOURSELF ON VIDEO IN ORDER TO, UH, SPEAK.
AND YOU GUYS DO ME? YES MA'AM.
SAY YOUR PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND PROCEED.
YOLANDA ALAMEDA, 1607 SOUTH ISLAND 7 5 2 2 4.
I AM ON A PLANE AND SO I'M HOPING NOT TO BE LOST BEFORE I FINISH, BUT THIS IS HOW IMPORTANT IT'S FOR ME THAT I'M ACTUALLY TRYING TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING AGAIN IN SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I HAVE A SLIDE TO SHARE, ALTHOUGH I'M NOT SURE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES I CAN.
UM, I WANNA SAY THAT I CONCUR WITH WHAT MR. MATA SAID.
WE'RE MAKING GREAT EFFORTS TO COME AND SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY, AND WE HOPE THAT THE BOARD WILL, UH, UH, UM, CONSIDER THAT.
SORRY, CAN YOU SEE ME? NO, WE CAN'T.
YOU CAN, UH, NOW WE CAN SEE YOU.
SO I HAD A SLIDE THAT I SHARED WITH MS. WILLIAMS WHO'S THE BOARD SECRETARY, AND IT WAS FORWARDED TO BRIAN THOMPSON.
I WANTED TO POINT OUT, JUST FOR THE RECORD, TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR, THERE IS A GIS MAP THAT SHOWS THAT THIS IS NOT LIMITED TO THE 20 BY 20 FOOT SECTION FOR THIS APPLICANT, BUT IT DOES EXTEND TO THE PROPERTY BEHIND THE COUNTRY MERGER.
AND I FEEL THAT THAT'S RELEVANT.
SO IT'S NOT THAT IT WAS JUST THIS SMALL PIECE THAT'S IN QUESTION, BUT THERE IS A LARGER PIECE THAT DIDN'T GET, HAS NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED.
UH, I CONCUR WITH MSTA THAT THERE ARE ISSUES THAT ARE NOT GONNA BE RESOLVED TODAY BECAUSE THERE IS CONFUSION AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW SOMETHING TO GO THROUGH THAT IS NEBULOUS.
SEASON MENTIONED, COULD IN THE LONG TERM HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACTS FOR THE COMMUNITY.
AGAIN, I THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE.
I THINK EVERYBODY THAT SHOWED UP IN PERSON AND ONLINE, I'M VERY RESPECTFUL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT I THINK THAT WE'RE, WE CANNOT TRY TO, TO MAKE A RULING ON THIS WHEN THERE ARE SO, SO MANY OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS.
THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS HAPPENING THAT IMPACT THIS.
I YIELD MY TIME, I RESPECT YOUR TIME, AND I REQUEST THAT YOU GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD ON THIS ISSUE TODAY.
THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING ON THIS TODAY.
COULD YOU GO AHEAD AND CALL THE NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE? MR. RADO FIRO.
SIR, I DO BELIEVE WE NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
UH, MY NAME IS HER GERALDO FIGUEROA, AND MY ADDRESS IS 2220 WEST CLARINET DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS.
SO FIRST I'D LIKE TO SAY, PLEASE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE TIME THAT BOTH PARTIES GAVE UP TODAY TO BE HERE AND NOW GIVE THE APPLICANT A LIMITED TIME TO SPEAK LIKE THE PRIOR MEETINGS.
AND PLEASE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OUR TIME AND TAKE A VOTE TODAY.
I CLOSED MY BUSINESS TO BE HERE TODAY TO BE IN FRONT OF THIS PANEL.
TWO YEARS AGO, MYSELF AND THE COMMUNITY FOUGHT AGAINST HIS ZONING CHANGE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
IN THE PAST, WE COLLECTED OVER 900 SIGNATURES IN SUPPORT AGAINST THIS CHANGE.
AND PUBLICLY THE ZONING CHANGE WAS DENIED IN CPC.
WE KNOW THAT FOR THIS BOARD IT MIGHT SEEM LIKE A SMALL ZONING CHANGE, BUT THERE IS A HISTORY THAT THIS BOARD SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.
A SMALL ZONING CHANGE LIKE THIS COULD LEAD TO DETRIMENTAL NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THIS COMMUNITY, CHANGES THAT COULD COME WITH A, WITH NO COMMUNITY INPUT.
TWO YEARS AGO, THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN WAS TASKED WITH A LOT OF COMMUNITY INPUT AND WE ARE NOW IN THE PROCESS OF THE AUTHORIZED HEARING PORTION OF THE ZONING CHANGE.
SO THIS PROPERTY WILL GO THROUGH ZONING CHANGES IN THE NEAR FUTURE, ALLOWING STANDARDS
[01:45:01]
AND DESIRES OF THE COMMUNITY.DURING YOUR BRIEFING TODAY, SOMEONE ASKED WHY NOW? WHY CHANGE IT TODAY? WELL, I'LL TELL YOU WHY.
WHEN THE AUTHORIZED HEARING GOES INTO EFFECT, YES, EVERYTHING WILL BE ZONED COMMERCIAL, THAT THEY WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO BUILD A GIGANTIC DRIVE THROUGH CAR WASH.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE REQUESTS OF THE COMMUNITY IN THE WEST OF CLIFF AREA PLAN.
AND ANY ZONING CHANGE TO THIS AREA SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT OF THAT PLAN.
THIS AREA IN QUESTION IS NOT AN ISO IS NOT ISOLATED.
THIS RESIDENTIAL ZONING ALSO APPLIES TO THE NEXT PROPERTY AND WILL IMPACT THEM AS WELL AS THEY ARE NOT HERE TODAY, BUT THEY WERE HERE IN OPPOSITION AT CPC CITY STAFF HAS ALSO SAID THAT THIS PIECE OF LAND IS OWNED CORRECTLY ACCORDING TO ORDINANCES PASSED IN PAST 2 0 1 8 0.
IN 1989, IT ESTABLISHED CHAPTER FIVE ONE A OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE HAS SET THE BOUNDARIES AND REPLACED, OVERRULED ANY PRIOR ZONING BOUNDARIES OF THE 1950S.
DURING YOUR BRIEFING, YOU ALL AGREED THAT WHEN IN DOUBT, CURRENT ZONING SHOULD BE WHAT THIS PANEL GOT GOES OFF OF AND NOT WHAT IS CONVENIENT TO DEVELOPERS OR LAWYERS.
STAFF SAYS THEY ARE RELYING A LOT ON THE APPLICANT'S RESEARCH, WHICH IS ALL BASED ON 60 TO 70-YEAR-OLD INFORMATION MISTAKES AND EXTRA BIG PENS AND MARKERS.
THIS PROPERTY WENT IN FRONT OF CPC STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL IN THE 1950S AND SIXTIES.
THEY GAVE THEM A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TWICE THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE IT THEN BOTH THOSE TIMES TO COMMERCIAL THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY DECIDED NOT TO GIVE IT TO THEM.
AND A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, CPC DID NOT MAKE A MISTAKE AS WELL.
THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE HAD 60 YEARS TO CORRECT THE THINK ABOUT IT, 60 YEARS.
LIKE I SAID BEFORE, IT IS HARD TO COME TO SPEAK TO YOU FOLKS TODAY.
IF THIS GOES TO CPC, IMAGINE HOW HARD IT WOULD BE FOR REGULAR FOLKS TO COME OUT.
UH, THEY SPOKE OUT BEFORE A CPC AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THOSE PEOPLE THAT CAME OUT.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE AND PLEASE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AND DENY AND PLEASE VOTE ON THIS TODAY.
UM, I'LL GIVE THE APPLICANT FIVE MINUTES.
DO YOU WANNA SWEAR ME IN? JIM HARRIS? YES.
22 RUTH STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 1.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
UH, JUST REAL QUICKLY, UH, ON THE ZONING ISSUE IS, IS THE PANEL IS WELL AWARE.
WHAT'S BEFORE YOU IS NOT, THIS IS A GOOD IDEA OR BAD IDEA, WAS WHETHER A MISTAKE WAS MADE AND NOBODY IN, IN EITHER TODAY OR IN THE LAST MEETING HAS BEEN ABLE TO CONTRADICT OUR POSITION THAT IN 1965, A MISTAKE WAS MADE.
I CAN GO INTO MORE DETAIL IF THIS THING IS PUSHED, BUT THE QUESTION YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF IS WHY IN 1965 WOULD THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION? THE CITY COUNCIL ONLY REZONE 149 OF 169 FEET? THAT MAKES NO SENSE.
THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN WILLING TO GIVE UP 20 FEET AND THERE'S NO LEGITIMATE REASON WHY THE CITY WOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT.
THE ONLY EXPLANATION MISTAKE THAT'S BORN OUT IN THE, THE LAST LETTER WE GAVE YOU.
LET ME ALSO SAY QUICKLY ABOUT THE ZONING CASE.
CPC NEVER VOTED ON THE SUBSTANCE.
IT WAS WITHDRAWN BEFORE A VOTE WAS TAKEN.
AND THEREFORE, UM, THE MATTER WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THE REASON IT WAS WITHDRAWN WAS BECAUSE OF THE SIGNIFICANT NEIGHBOR OPPOSITION TO A CAR WASH.
THERE ARE NO PRESENT PLANS FOR ANY CAR WASH.
THE PROBLEM WE'RE RUNNING INTO NOW IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE 20 FOOT STRIP, IT IMPEDES ANY PARTICULAR PURCHASER COMING IN AND WANTING TO BUY IT.
UM, AND IN, IN THAT RESPECT, THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR A CHANGE IN THIS REGARD.
AND IT'S ONLY AS TO THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK.
EVERYBODY AGREES THAT THE 20 FOOT STRIP TO THE NORTH IS R 7.5.
THEY NEVER GOT A SPECIAL PERMIT IN 1965.
THEIR TRACK WAS NOT IDENTIFIED AS BEING COMMERCIAL ZONING.
FINALLY, IT HASN'T TAKEN US 60 YEARS FROM 1965 UNTIL 2003.
THE CITY CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE TRACK TO BE COMMERCIAL.
EVERY PERMIT THAT WAS SOUGHT, THE STAFF IDENTIFIED THE ENTIRE TRACK AS BEING COMMERCIAL.
IT WASN'T UNTIL 2003 FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN THE CITY WENT TO A DIGITAL MAP INSTEAD OF A HAND DRAWN MAP THAT THE 20 BY 20 FOOT SECTION WAS IDENTIFIED.
THAT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE OWNER'S ATTENTION.
THE, THE OWNER WAS TOTALLY UNAWARE THAT THE DIGITAL MAP CHANGED THE HAND DRAWN MAP BECAUSE NO ACTIONS THAT WERE TAKEN GENERATED ANY OPPOSITION.
IT WAS, IF ANYTHING WAS DONE IN THAT
[01:50:01]
PERIOD OF TIME, IT WAS TREATED AS THOUGH IT WAS COMMERCIAL OR IT WASN'T BEING IMPACTED.THE VERY FIRST TIME WE DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK WAS IN 2022 WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION BY A PURCHASER.
THE PURCHASER LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY, LOOKED AT THE DIGITAL MAP AND SAID, DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE A 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK THAT'S ZONED OUR 7.5? WE'RE LIKE, WHAT THE, THEN PURCHASER SAID, YOU KNOW, THIS SHOULD BE A NO BRAINER.
LET'S JUST GO TO THE PLAN COMMISSION.
THAT PURCHASER, WHEN I TALKED TO THE ATTORNEY THAT HANDLED THE REZONING, I DIDN'T HANDLE THAT, FELT IT WAS GONNA BE A STRAIGHTFORWARD CASE.
UM, BUT THEY RAN INTO ALL SORTS OF COMMUNITY OPPOSITION.
I APPRECIATE THE PASSION OF THE PEOPLE IN THAT COMMUNITY.
CAR WASH IS NOT ON THE TABLE AT THE CURRENT TIME.
THE ONLY THING THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU IS, WAS A MISTAKE MADE IN 1965 WHEN THE MAP WAS DRAWN WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE VERY SPECIFIC DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT WAS REZONED C ONE IN 1959.
I CAN GO, I, UH, BEING PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH MY POWERPOINT, WE CAN SHOW EXACTLY HOW THE MISTAKE WAS MADE, WHY IT WAS MADE, AND WHY IT SHOULD BE CORRECTED.
I WOULD ASK, HOWEVER, THAT THE FULL BOARD, UM, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT INFORMATION AND ASK ME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, UM, IN ORDER TO GET A DETERMINATION FROM THIS BOARD THAT A MISTAKE WAS MADE.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UM, TO ANYBODY THAT HAS SPOKE ON THE RECORD REGARDING THIS? UM, NOT TO THE APPLICANTS, BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTIONABLE STAFF, BUT WE, WE TAKE THAT AFTERWARDS.
UM, SO THERE'S A, THERE'S A FEW WAYS WE COULD APPROACH THIS.
THE APPLICANT HAS ASKED TO HOLD OVER THE CASE.
WE HAVE HEARD, UH, COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND FROM THE APPLICANT.
UM, WE EITHER NEED TO DECIDE WHETHER WE HEAR, HEAR THE CASE, UM, OR, OR HOLD IT OVER.
UM, SO IF, IF, IF THAT'S, IF WE'RE GONNA HEAR THE WHOLE CASE AND, AND, AND THEN DETERMINE WHETHER WE'RE GONNA HOLD IT OVER, THEN WE SHOULD LET THE APPLICANT PRESENT HIS POWERPOINT PRESENTATION.
BUT THE APPLICANT HAS ASKED IF WE WANNA HOLD OVER.
SO, UM, I WILL, THIS, I I ACTUALLY WILL ASK, UM, ONE OF THE, UM, SPEAKERS A, A QUESTION, AND THIS IS FOR MR. MATA, I BELIEVE, UH, YOU'RE ONLINE STILL ON? YES, SIR.
SO, UM, YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR, YOUR STATEMENT TO US THAT IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S YOUR, YOUR BELIEF OR DESIRE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH GETTING A RESOLUTION ON THIS CASE.
DAVE, MY QUESTION FOR YOU AND THOSE THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION HERE, I MEAN, DO YOU ALL FULLY UNDERSTAND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF IF WE WERE TO VOTE TODAY THAT IT WOULD NEED A, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOWN ONE BOARD MEMBER.
SO THAT'S, I JUST WANTED TO ASK THAT QUESTION JUST TO ENSURE THAT ALL PARTIES ARE AWARE THAT IF, UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE DO TAKE THE ROUTE OF HEARING THE POOL CASE TODAY AND A DECISION IS MADE, IT WOULD NEED THE ENTIRE, UM, FOUR MEMBERS, I BELIEVE.
SO I THINK, UH, WE UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS ON, ON THE VOTING.
I JUST WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION.
UH, YES, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
MY QUESTION HAS ALWAYS BEEN WHY NOW? AND, UH, THE OWNERS HAS ALWAYS BEEN ON YOU TO BE ON TOP OF YOUR, SO I THINK, I THINK AT THIS TIME, IF WE'RE GONNA MOVE IN THIS DIRECTION, WHICH I THINK IT'S PROBABLY A FAIR QUESTION, I THINK THAT I'M, I WILL ASK THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE MAKE ANY DECISION TO PLEASE IF YOU'D MOVE FORWARD WITH SHOWING YOUR POWERPOINT.
WE'LL GIVE YOU FIVE MINUTES, UM, TO PRESENT, MAKE YOUR, MAKE YOUR CASE.
UM, AT THIS TIME, THERE'S QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
UM, I KNOW THAT THERE'S A REQUEST TO HOLD OVER, BUT IF, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ASKED OF YOU, I THINK PROCEDURALLY IT'D BE APPROPRIATE, UM, IF, IF YOU SHOULD GO AHEAD AND, AND HAVE YOUR FIVE MINUTES AND, AND, UM, GIVE YOUR PRESENTATION.
UNLESS THERE'S A BOARD MEMBER THAT'S GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD IT OVER.
I, I DON'T WANNA, I DON'T WANT TO CLOSE THE APPLICANT HERE.
SO LIKE, LET'S DO AN INFORMAL STRAW POLL HERE.
OKAY, SHERRY, WELL, WHY, WHY DON'T WE, WHY DON'T WE DO THIS? UH, WE, I THINK WE NEED TO DO THINGS BY THE BOOK.
SO IF SOMEBODY HAS A MOTION RIGHT NOW THAT THEY WANNA HOLD OVER, THEN I ENCOURAGE THAT TO, TO BE PUT FORTH.
IF THERE ISN'T A MOTION RIGHT NOW TO HOLD OVER, THEN WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD PROCEDURALLY
[01:55:01]
AND GIVE THE APPLICANT HIS FIVE MINUTES TO MAKE THE CASE.AND THEN WE ASK QUESTIONS AND THEN WE DETERMINE WHETHER WE HOLD OVER.
UH, WE, WE APPROVE OR BE DENIED.
ALRIGHT, SO IF THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE NOW, I WILL GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN IT, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE'S PUBLIC TESTIMONY THAT HAS ALL OF THE WANTED TO SPEAK, SHE'LL SPEAK.
UM, THEN I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO, UM, I WOULD SAY TO PROCEED IN HEARING THE CASE TODAY.
SO THE, IS THE APPLICANT'S WISH TO HOLD OVER.
SO HOW DO WE DECIDE THAT? WHERE PROCEED.
SO, SO I GUESS PROCEED AT THIS POINT.
UM, IF, IF, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO, TO SUBMIT A MOTION RIGHT NOW TO HOLD THIS OVER, THEN THEY NEED TO MAKE A FORMAL MOTION.
IF THERE'S NOT A MOTION RIGHT NOW TO HOLD OVER, UM, AND NOT A SECOND, THEN WE MOVE FORWARD PROCEDURALLY WHERE WE HEAR THIS CASE AS IS.
AND THEN ONCE ALL TESTIMONY BEEN HAD, UM, AND WE'VE DONE ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AND THEY'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REBUTTAL, THEN WE CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD OVER THIS CASE UNTIL DECEMBER 18TH.
I'LL SECOND FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION.
LEVER, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? UH, YES.
I THINK IT'S JUST FAIR THAT, UM, BOTH PARTIES HAVE A FAIR REPRESENTATION WHERE A MAN SHORT ON THE BOARD RIGHT NOW, I UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY AND HOW IT AFFECTS EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEES THAT HAVE TO TAKE TIME TO COME HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST OR FOR THE MOTION.
I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I ALSO FEEL THAT IT'S ALSO FAIR TO HAVE A FULL BOARD SO THAT, UM, NOTHING COMES BACK TO BITE.
UM, I WILL SUPPORT THIS MOTION BECAUSE, UM, WE ARE NOT LIKE CPC, UM, WE ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL.
THE ONLY WAY TO APPEAL A DECISION IS, UH, THROUGH, UH, DISTRICT COURT.
UM, CPC, UH, IF DECISIONS ARE MADE, THEY HAVE COUNSEL THAT THEY CAN APPEAL TO.
SO I LIKE TO DO THINGS STRICTLY BY THE BOOK TO ENSURE THAT WHICHEVER WAY WE DETERMINE A CASE THAT IT HOLDS UP, UM, WITH THE MERITS AND WE'RE, WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS AND BEST INFORMED, UM, AND THAT THERE'S NO CHANCE OF APPEAL, THAT WE MAKE A VERY THOROUGH DECISION.
I FEEL LIKE THAT IS BEST DETERMINED WITH A FULL BOARD.
I FEEL LIKE BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE PUBLIC GET A, UH, GET A FULL BOARD AND FULL DECISION AND DISCUSSION WITH THAT.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I WILL, UM, I'LL BE SUPPORTING A MOTION TO HOLD OVER UNTIL DECEMBER 18TH, BUT WE'LL CONTINUE TO ENGAGE DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER.
YEAH, E EVEN THOUGH I SECONDED THIS, I I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT IT.
LAST TIME I SAID WE SHOULD VOTE THIS TIME, I THINK WE SHOULD VOTE.
PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN TIME AWAY FROM WORK.
WE'VE BEEN BRIEFED ABOUT THIS A LOT.
THIS IS NOT A FENCE HEIGHT CASE.
UM, I THINK CONTINUING TO ASK EVERYONE TO COME DOWN HERE IS TOUGH.
YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO GET FIVE, WE HAD FOUR A LOT A LONG TIME AGO.
UM, BUT WE USUALLY HAVE FIVE BOARD MEMBERS HERE, SO YOU CAN LOSE A VOTE.
UM, YOU'RE NOT ALWAYS GUARANTEED FIVE.
I THINK WE HAVE TO STOP ASKING PEOPLE TO COME DOWN HERE.
SO I, I I SECONDED FORVER OF DISCUSSION.
UM, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
UM, JUST FOR CASES OF, I THINK TODAY, UM, OUR, WE STILL AS OF RIGHT NOW HAVE QUORUM.
I BELIEVE THAT THE BOARD CAN MAKE A DECISION AND BASED ON THE OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF DATA EXHIBITS THAT WE WERE SEEING BOTH FROM THE APPLICANT AND THEN ALSO FROM CITY STAFF, THAT, UM, WE ARE WELL VERSED IN THIS CASE TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY.
AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AN UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCE WITH, UH, US LOSING ONE OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS.
BUT THE SAME THING CAN HAPPEN IN DECEMBER.
SO I WOULD SAY LET'S LET THE BUCK STOP HERE.
SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO HOLD OVER.
I, UH, DO, I WILL, UH, REITERATE THOUGH THAT, UM, ALL EVIDENCE WHETHER IT WAS PRESENTED IN OCTOBER NOW FOR US TO HOLD OVER, UM, IS, IS CARRIED FORWARD.
SO ANY TESTIMONY THAT HAPPENED IN OCTOBER THAT HAPPENED TODAY WOULD ALSO BE FACTORED IN FOR NEXT HEARING IF WE WERE TO HOLD OVER.
SO ALTHOUGH THERE IS A, A COMPONENT OF PUBLIC COMING BACK AND TESTIFYING, THERE'S ALSO THEIR TESTIMONIES IS, IS STILL A, A, A FACTOR IF WE HOLD IT OVER, UM, THAT W IT DOES NOT DIMINISH WITH IT WITHHOLDING OVER CASE.
SO, UM, THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, UM, WE WILL TAKE THE MOTION, UM, TO HOLD OVER THE CASE.
[02:00:01]
TAKE A VOTE.SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? OKAY, SO AT THIS POINT THE MOTION FAILS.
SO, UM, AT THIS POINT, UM, WE DON'T NEED TO ENTER.
I I THINK WE THEN MOVE, WE'RE GONNA OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GIVE, UM, ALL THE APPLICANTS, UM, TIME TO, UH, THE APPLICANT, TIME TO FIVE MINUTES EACH.
UM, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I DO WANNA TO, TO REMIND, UM, THE, THE PUBLIC, UH, THE APPLICANT AND THIS PANEL THAT ALTHOUGH THIS MOTION FAILED NOW, WE DO STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HOLD OVER ONCE WE HEAR THE BOTH CASE IF WE, SO, IF WE SO CHOOSE.
SO AT THIS TIME, UM, I WILL ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO, UH, FIVE MINUTES IN THE PRESENTATION, UM, TO, UH, TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD THE CASE.
YEAH, I, I JUST WARNED YOU, I'M NOT SURE I CAN GET THROUGH IN FIVE MINUTES.
I'VE TRIED TO, UM, GET THIS AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE, BUT AT ANY RATE, UH, LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND.
IF YOU COULD MOVE TO THE SECOND SLIDE PLEASE.
UM, THIS DRAWING IS TAKEN FROM THE CITY PLANT RECORDS.
WHAT I'VE IDENTIFIED HERE IS WHAT WAS GOING ON IN 1954.
1954, THE KESSLER HOUSING CORPORATION, WHICH OWNED THIS GREEN AREA AND EVERYTHING TO ITS WEST, IT WAS A PUBLIC HOUSING CORPORATION, DECIDED TO SELL SOME LAND THAT WAS COMMERCIAL, UM, TO, UH, TWO INDIVIDUALS.
THE INDIVIDUAL THAT BOUGHT THIS LOT DOWN HERE WAS JH CALDWELL IN 1954, THE TIME THAT HE BOUGHT THE AREA IN YELLOW WAS C ONE.
THE AREA IN GREEN WAS RESIDENTIAL.
HE ACTUALLY BOUGHT A PORTION OF LOT SEVEN AND A PORTION OF LOT EIGHT.
THE REASON FOR THAT, WE THINK IS IF YOU LOOK OVER HERE, THE CITY WAS ASKING FOR SOME ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY OFF OF HAMPTON.
AND IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THEY GOT THE FULL AMOUNT OF LAND THAT KESSLER HOUSING CORPORATION DECIDED TO SELL THEM PARTS OF LOT SEVEN AND EIGHT, WHICH WERE ALREADY OVERSIZED.
THAT RESULTED IN SPLIT ZONING AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME, WHICH APPARENTLY DIDN'T BOTHER EITHER OF THESE OWNERS UNTIL 1959.
LET ME GO THROUGH THAT REAL QUICKLY.
IN 1959, THE OWNER OF THE LOT OUTLINED IN RED, THAT WAS MR. CALDWELL DECIDED HE WANTED TO MAKE USE OF THE AREA IN GREEN.
AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THE CITY HAD WHAT'S CALLED SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS THAT ALLOWED YOU TO COME IN AND GET WHAT AMOUNTS TO TODAY, I THINK A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
HE CAME IN AND THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL AGREED THAT THIS AREA IN GREEN COULD BE USED FOR ALL COMMERCIAL USES, ALL C ONE USES.
THEY EFFECTIVELY REZONED THE GREEN AREA, THE C ONE WITH SOME CONDITIONS, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS TODAY IN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
YOU'LL HAVE MULTIPLE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED ON A TRACK.
YOU HAVE A PLAN OR A SITE PLAN THAT'S APPROVED.
IT DIDN'T PREVENT HIM FROM MAKING ANY USE OTHER THAN AUTOMOTIVE.
IT WASN'T LIMITED TO AUTOMOTIVE.
AND THEREFORE, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THE WHOLE TRACK COULD BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
THEN IN 1965, SO WHAT HAPPENS IN 1965, IN 1965, THE CITY DECIDES TO REPLACE THE 1951 ZONING ORDINANCE WITH AN ENTIRELY NEW ZONING ORDINANCE AND RENAMES, WHOLE BUNCH OF ZONING DISTRICT, THE C ONE DISTRICT WAS GOING TO BE TRANSFORMED INTO A GENERAL RETAIL DISTRICT.
SO THE CITY HAD TO, UM, REMAP THE ENTIRE CITY BY HAND.
AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IT WAS CLEAR AND WE PROVIDED SOME, UM, STATEMENTS FROM THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS OF COUNCIL PEOPLE AT THAT POINT IN TIME THAT THE CITY WAS NOT INTENDING TO TAKE ANYBODY'S ZONING AWAY IN 1965.
WHAT THE CITY WAS DOING WAS SIMPLY UPDATING ITS MAP AND PUTTING IN SOME NEW ZONING DISTRICTS AS WELL AS RENAMING OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS.
ALL THEY DID HERE WAS RENAME A C ONE DISTRICT TO A GR DISTRICT.
SO THE CITY WAS FACED WITH THE PROSPECT, WHAT DO WE DO WITH THIS SPECIAL PERMIT? HOW DO WE HANDLE THAT IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE ZONING RIGHTS AWAY? AND WHAT THE CITY DECIDED TO DO, UH, BASED ON THE DRAWING, WAS TO REZONE.
AND EVERYBODY'S IN AGREEMENT ON THIS THAT THEY, THAT NOBODY DISPUTES THAT OF THIS STRIP THAT'S 169 FEET LONG.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY THE LENGTH THAT WAS REZONED IN THE SPECIAL PERMIT, 169 FEET.
BUT FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE UM, CITY, AT ANY RATE, THE, THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE MAP, NOBODY DISPUTES THIS REZONED 149.5 FEET OF 169 FEET AS COMMERCIAL.
WHY WOULD THE CITY DO THAT? THERE IS NO RATIONAL REASON FOR THE
[02:05:01]
CITY TO ONLY REZONE 149 OF 169 FEET AS COMMERCIAL AND LEAVE 20 FEET OUT THAT, THAT THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULDN'T ASK HAVE ASKED FOR THAT.AND THE CITY AND ACTING HAD NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO DO THAT OUT.
THE ONLY EXPLANATION IS THAT A, UH, MISTAKE WAS MADE.
IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, AND PART OF THE REASON IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE IS THIS IS THE 2003, 2004 ZONING MAP WHEN THE ERROR OR THE MISTAKE WAS FIRST REVEALED.
AND YOU CAN SEE THERE, THERE'S JUST A 20 FOOT SECTION THAT HAS BEEN ZONED R 7.5, THE, THE R 7.5 TO THE NORTH REMAINS THE SAME.
WHATEVER YOUR DECISION IS TODAY, IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE PART TO THE, THE NORTH.
AND THERE IS PART OF THE BUILDING, THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT PART OF THE BUILDING IS IN THAT 20 BY 20 FOOT SECTION.
SO AGAIN, IN 1965, WHY WOULD THE CITY REZONE IT IN A WAY THAT LEFT PART OF THE BUILDING IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING? IT WOULDN'T UNLESS THERE WAS A MISTAKE.
UM, SO LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE ZONING MAP.
UM, AND THIS JUST SHOWS THAT THE BUILDING IS A AERIAL THAT SHOWS THE BUILDING IS A PART OF THE BUILDING IS IN THE 20 FEET.
THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT 20 FOOT CONTINUES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO WEST 12.
SO THIS HOLT LA, THE WEST 20 FOOT OF THAT BUILDING, UM, IT WA WAS ALSO IN THE STRIP.
AND THE ONLY REASON IT'S OKAY IS BECAUSE, SO, SO YOUR FIVE MINUTES HAS EXPIRED.
I WILL GO AHEAD AND GET, EXTEND YOUR TIME BY ONE MINUTE.
OKAY? IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE JUST REAL QUICKLY SKIP OVER THAT IN THE NEXT SLIDE.
THIS IS WHAT THE ZONING MAP LOOKED LIKE IN 65, 87 AND 89.
IT'S BEEN THE SAME IN EACH OF THOSE YEARS.
THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN 89 TO THE MAP ITSELF.
ALRIGHT, WHAT I'VE DONE HERE, AND THIS IS WHAT I THINK THE CHAIRPERSON WAS ASKING FOR, I'VE OVERLAID THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES IN YELLOW WITH THE ZONING MAP.
AND THAT IS THAT THE ZONING LINE DOESN'T CHANGE THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND IF YOU LOOK TO THE LOT TO THE NORTH, THE ZONING LINE IS NOT EVEN ON THE LOT.
LINE IN 1965, AND THIS IS IN THE PACKET I GAVE YOU, THE 65 ORDINANCE SAID THAT THE MAP WAS SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW PROPERTY LINE FIRST.
IT WAS SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW PROPERTY LINES AND SECONDLY, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW LOT LINE.
AND THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE MISTAKE.
IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
IF YOU TRAIN, IF YOU MOVED THE ZONING LINES OVER TO THE LEFT AND YOU HAVE THE NORTH ZONING LINE FOR CR ON THE LOT LINE, LOOK WHAT HAPPENS DOWN HERE.
THAT WHOLE AREA IS CLEARLY WITHIN CR.
THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT ON THE MAP THEY EXTENDED THE LOT LINE BETWEEN SEVEN EIGHT DIRECTLY ACROSS IN ERROR BECAUSE UP HERE IS THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE 65 MAP, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW THE PROPERTY LINE.
IF THE THIS LINE HAD FOLLOWED THE LOT LINE AND THE EAST WEST LINE HAD FOLLOWED THE PROPERTY LINE, EVERYTHING WOULD BE IN CR, THE 20 FOOT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT.
THE ONLY EXPLANATION IS THAT WHOEVER WAS DOING THE HAND DRAWING DIDN'T REFER BACK TO THE ORDINANCE THAT SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT 20 FEET BY 169 FEET FOR THE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR C ONE ZONING WAS JUST EYEBALLING IT AND ASSUMED THAT THE LOT LINE CONTINUED ON AS A PROPERTY LINE.
AND AS A RESULT, THIS 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK WAS LEFT OUT IN 65.
THAT ERROR WAS SIMPLY CARRIED FORWARD IN 87 AND 89.
'CAUSE IF YOU GO BACK TWO SLIDES, THE MAP IN 65, 87 AND 89 IS IDENTICAL.
I GIVEN THE 59 ORDINANCE AND GIVEN WHAT I'VE JUST SHOWN YOU, I DON'T CARE IF IT'S REASONABLE DOUBT, OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, EVERYTHING THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU, EVERY FACT THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU SUPPORTS A DECISION THAT WAS MADE.
AND ALL WE'RE ASKING IS THAT MISTAKE IN 65 BE CORRECTED TODAY TO COMPORT WITH THE 59 ORDINANCE AND THE INTENT OF A 65 REZONING.
I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT IN 87 IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE CITY WAS SAYING THERE WERE NO CHANGES THAT THEY WERE MAKING TO THE ZONING.
I'M PROBABLY THE ONLY PERSON IN THIS ROOM THAT WAS HERE IN 85 AND 87, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE WAS A HUGE OUTCRY THAT PEOPLE WERE NOT GONNA LOSE THEIR ZONING RIGHTS AND TO THE EXTENT THAT WAS NECESSARY, I I'VE GRANTED YOU QUITE A BIT OF TIME.
I'M, I'M OPEN TO EXTENDING MORE.
I DO NEED, YOU KNOW, COMMENTS FROM FROM THE BOARD.
[02:10:01]
MUCH TIME HAVE WE GIVEN SO FAR? IT'S EIGHT MINUTES.UM, IF WE, IF WE NEED TO EXTEND FURTHER, I'VE I'VE, I'VE HEARD ENOUGH.
UM, SO WE WON'T, WE WON'T NEED YOU FOR, FOR QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE, UH, THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN, IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION? MR. KAVANAUGH, ARE YOU, UH, AND I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.
SO JUST YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RECORD PLEASE.
PETER CA AND I DO, WE DO WE DO FIVE MINUTES, WE DO EIGHT.
HOW DOES THAT WORK? PROCEDURALLY SPEAKING? FIVE.
PETER KAVANAUGH, 1620 HANDLEY DRIVE DALLAS.
I'M THE CHARACTER THAT WENT TO THE BOWELS OF THIS BUILDING TO FIND THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN NOVEMBER OF 1959.
SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN DECEMBER OF 1959.
UM, THE WHAT MR. UH, UH, WHAT MR. HARRIS HAD JUST SAID BASICALLY IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE FOUND, UH, IN THE RECORDS.
SO AN ORDINANCE WAS APPROVED, THE ORDINANCE WAS PUT ON A MAP AND WE DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINAL HANDWRITTEN MAP IN FRONT OF US, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY IN THE RECORD.
IT'S KIND OF A LITTLE RED PIECE THAT GOES UP INTO LOT EIGHT.
UH, UH, THE, THE DESCRIPTION, UH, OF THE PROPERTY WAS LOT PART OF LOT SEVEN, WHICH IS THIS LOT.
AND PART OF LOT EIGHT, WHICH WAS THIS LITTLE SMALL PIECE RIGHT HERE.
THIS LITTLE 20 FEET BY 20 THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WAS ALWAYS CONSIDERED PART OF LOT EIGHT SUBSEQUENT TO THE ZONING THAT WAS APPROVED IN DECEMBER OF 1959.
IN MARCH OF 1960, WHICH WE SHOWED YOU AT THE LAST HEARING, THE OWNER CAME IN AND GOT A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A STRUCTURE THAT'S BASICALLY RIGHT HERE.
THAT STRUCTURE IS SET BACK FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE 10 FEET.
SO 10 FEET OF THE NORTH END OF THIS BUILDING WAS IN AND IN THE PERMIT IT DESCRIBES IT AS LOT EIGHT.
SO THIS WAS ALWAYS CONSIDERED, UH, PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT WAS THE UNDERSTOOD TO BE ZONED.
THE BUILDING WAS BUILT SUBSEQUENT TO THE, TO THE REZONING.
THERE WERE SUB SUBSEQUENT COS ON THAT BUILDING FOR OVER THE YEARS.
THERE IS NE TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S BEEN NO INDICATION THAT THIS WAS EVER ANYTHING BUT COMMERCIAL OR C ONE ZONING PER THE ORDINANCE.
I THINK I'D STOP HERE AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, BUT WE CERTAINLY HAVE, UH, RESEARCHED THIS VERY, VERY HEAVILY AND CAN, UH, ANSWER ABOUT ANY KIND OF A QUESTION.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE ONLY SPEAKING ABOUT THIS LITTLE 20 FOOT BY 20 FOOT THAT WAS PART OF A ZONING THAT STRETCHED FROM HERE TO HERE.
THE DISTANCE PER THE ORDINANCE WAS 169.5 FEET.
AND THAT'S THE DISTANCE FROM HERE TO THE OWNERSHIP LINE THAT THE PEOPLE OWNED AT THE TIME AND THAT OUR CURRENT CLIENT, OF COURSE, OWNS TODAY.
STOP HERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
I WILL ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS FROM MS PANEL, UH, FOR EITHER MR. KAVANAUGH OR MR. HARRIS.
UH, YES, I'LL ASK A QUESTION MR. KAVANAUGH.
SO, UM, EARLIER ON, UM, WITH OUR STAFF BRIEFING, WE WERE, WE DISCUSSED THE 1959 ORDINANCE.
AND, UM, FROM MY NOTES HERE IS THAT THE LAND, UM, IN QUESTION WAS ZONED R 7.5.
HOWEVER, A SPECIAL PERMIT, UH, WAS ADOPTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHOP THAT'S THERE.
CAN YOU SPEAK MORE TO THAT? UM, SURE.
THE ORDINANCE ITSELF SAYS THAT THE, THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED FROM R SEVEN FIVE TO SPECIAL PERMIT FOR C ONE USES.
THAT WAS KIND OF THEIR WAY OF SAYING WE'RE GONNA GIVE YOU C ONE ZONING, BUT THERE'S CONDITIONS AND THERE WERE SOME CONDITIONS AND YOU HAD THAT ORDINANCE CONDITIONS WERE LIKE MAYBE A, A FENCE ON THE WEST SIDE, I BELIEVE, AND, AND SOMETHING ABOUT A DRIVE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT, BUT IT CLEARLY SAYS ON THE ORDINANCE, AND I'VE ACTUALLY GOT IT BEHIND ME SOMEWHERE HERE THAT SAYS IS SPECIAL PERMIT, WHICH WAS A TERM WE NO LONGER USE, WAS IT SAID SPECIAL PERMIT FOR C ONE USES.
AND THE REASON THEY SAID SPECIAL PERMIT IS 'CAUSE THERE'S SOME CONDITIONS NOW, WE WOULD JUST DO A PD OR AN SUP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHY NOW, UH, SINCE 2003, YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVISIT YOUR, UH, DEED AND ALL RESTRICTIONS, UH, THAT APPLIED TO IT.
[02:15:01]
WELL, THE DEED DOESN'T SPEAK TO ZONING.SO THE, THE DEED TO THE PROPERTY DOESN'T SPEAK TO ZONING, JUST SAYS YOU, YOU BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY, WHICH THEY IN FACT DID IN 19 EARLY SIXTIES, I BELIEVE IS WHEN OUR OWNER, CURRENT OWNER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, UM, AND DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS UNTIL A POTENTIAL BUYER CAME ALONG THREE OR THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO AND SAID, WE'D LIKE TO BUY THIS PROPERTY.
THEY MADE HIM SOME KIND OF AN AGREEMENT, AN AGREEMENT ENOUGH THAT THE POTENTIAL BUYER CAME TO THE CITY AND SAYS, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO? THE CITY SAID YOU'RE GOOD TO GO.
AND THEN SOMEBODY DISCOVERED, WAIT A MINUTE, A CORNER OF OUR PROPERTY APPEARS TO BE ZONED R SEVEN FIVE.
SO THEY GO TO STAFF, STAFF SAYS, WELL, SURELY NO ONE'S GONNA CARE.
AND ONE OF THE SLIDES IS ACTUALLY MR. UH, HARRIS HAD UP HERE, UH, IS IS THE STAFF REPORT, IF YOU WILL, FOR THAT BOARD, THAT CITY PLAN COMMISSION HEARING.
IT'S A 20 FOOT BY 20 FOOT PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THE VERY BACK CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.
NOBODY LOOKING AT THAT WITHOUT KNOWING, APPARENTLY THE POLITICAL ISSUES WOULD THINK THAT ANYBODY WOULD CARE ABOUT CORRECTING A ZONING MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE ON THE MAP.
SO THEY SAID, WELL, THE EASIEST, FASTEST TO GO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT SHOULDN'T BE, IS A NO BRAINER.
AND, AND THE STAFF REPORT IS ONE ABOUT THE THIRD OR FOURTH SLIDE UP HERE.
LET ME, LET ME JUST ADD THAT JUST TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.
20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK WAS ZONED R 7.5 UNTIL 2022.
WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION BY A PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER, WE THEN SOUGHT TO GET A REZONING.
WE DIDN'T, THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS SOUGHT TO GET A REZONING THAT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL.
WE IMMEDIATELY, AFTER LOOKING INTO IT, AND PETER GOING DOWN TO THE BOWELS OF EAST JEFFERSON, DISCOVERED THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWED C ONE USES.
AT THAT POINT, WE APPROACHED STAFF IN ORDER TO GET THE MISTAKE CORRECTED, WHICH THEY COULD DO.
THAT TOOK AT LEAST EIGHT MONTHS.
AND IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIVING AN EXPLANATION FROM THE STAFF AS TO WHY THEY WOULDN'T CORRECT THE MISTAKE, WE IMMEDIATELY SAW A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL.
WE HAVE NOT SAT ON OUR HANDS, WE HAVE BEEN ACTING ON THIS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS SOON AS WE FOUND OUT THAT THE PROBLEM HAD EXISTED.
WHY WAS THIS DENIED AT CPC? IT WASN'T DENIED IN THAT SENSE.
AGAIN, IT WAS WITHDRAWN AT THE TIME THAT THEY WERE GONNA GO TO THE HEARING.
THE PROSPECT OF PURCHASER, THEY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE COM THEY DIDN'T WANNA GO AGAINST THE COMMUNITY OPPOSITION, SO THEY WITHDREW THE REZONING REQUEST.
THE, AND SO AS A RESULT OF THAT, THE ONLY ACTION THAT CAN BE TAKEN AT THAT POINT IN TIME IS EITHER A DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE OR DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIVE CONSIDERATION BY CPC OF THE MATTER.
IT WAS WITHDRAWN, IT WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SHORTLY AFTER THAT, I WAS RETAINED TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHY THIS 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK WAS ZONED RESIDENTIAL.
I BROUGHT MR. UM, KAVANAUGH ON BOARD, AND TOGETHER WE DISCOVERED THE 1959 ZONING ORDINANCE.
WE THEN TOOK THAT UP WITH STAFF BECAUSE WE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS WAS A MISTAKE.
WE THOUGHT THE STAFF WAS WITH US.
YOU, YOU'VE SEEN THE, THE MEMOS THAT WE SENT IN EMAILS WHERE THE STAFF ORIGINALLY WAS WITH US, AND THEN THE STAFF DECIDED TO CHANGE ITS MIND.
WHEN WE GOT THE EXPLANATION, THAT'S WHEN, UM, WE APPLIED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
SO IT, IT, THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIVE DECISION ON WHETHER IT SHOULD BE REZONED OR NOT.
AND I WOULD NOTE THAT THE STAFF WAS, I I I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE STAFF THINKS THEY'RE BEING INCONSISTENT BY AGREEING TO THE MISTAKE.
THE STAFF ON THE REZONING REQUEST WAS IN FAVOR OF THE REZONING.
THEIR POSITION WAS, IT WAS SILLY TO HAVE A 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK THAT COULDN'T BE USED PRODUCTIVELY.
AND THEY POINTED OUT IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION FROM MR. BROOKS AT THE LAST MEETING, THAT THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY IMPACTED THE REST OF THE TRACK.
SO, EXCUSE ME, I KNOW, I KNOW THAT THIS IS, UH, A QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED OF THE PANEL TO THE APPLICANT, BUT, UM, AS BRIEFED IN BRIEFING BY BOARD ATTORNEY, WE CAN'T FACTOR IN WHAT HAPPENED AT CPC.
WE ONLY HAVE TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION THIS MAP.
SO ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED AT CPC IS SOMETHING THAT IS FACTORED IRRELEVANT HERE.
UM, THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO DETERMINE IS, WAS THIS MAP CORRECTLY OR INCORRECTLY, UH, UH, DECIPHERED WHEN, WHEN TAKEN FROM, UH, WRITTEN MAP TO DIGITAL.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S OUR PURVIEW TODAY.
SO ALTHOUGH, UM, IT'S, IT'S, UH, THERE'S A DESIRE TO KINDA REACH BACK AND FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED, UM, WITH CPC, WHATEVER HAPPENED, THERE IS NOT A FACTOR OR RELEVANT IN THIS PARTICULAR HEARING.
[02:20:01]
I DO HAVE TO SAY THOUGH THAT THAT LAST SLIDE WAS VERY HELPFUL, UM, FOR ME AT LEAST, UM, IT, IT IS REMARKABLE TO SEE HOW BIG THE LINES ARE COMPARED TO ACTUAL THE, THE NEW, THE NEW MAPS AND, AND LAYING IT OUT.WITH THAT BEING SAID, I DO THINK THAT THE STAFF DID, UH, PULL OUT FROM, FROM LARGER SCALE MAPS THAT I THINK WOULD BE PERTINENT FOR THIS PANEL TO REVIEW BRIEFLY.
AND THEN I THINK WE SHOULD REVIEW 'EM AND THEN COME BACK AND, AND RESUME S FOR THE APPLICANT.
CAN WE GO AHEAD AND PULL THEM UP? SO, SO LET'S GO.
SO, SO WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE FOR TRANSPARENCY.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND PULL IT UP ON THE BIG SCREEN.
AND IF WE NEED TO AT THAT POINT, UM, LOOK AT IT ON, ON A HARD COPY, THE, THE PANELISTS WILL GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY THAT'S HERE IS LOOKING AT EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE SEEING.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO SEE.
IF WE NEED TO, TO GET IN AND LOOK AT THE MORE, UH, NUANCE OF IT, THEN, THEN THE PANELISTS WILL, WILL TAKE A STEP BACK WITH THE HARD COPY.
UM, OKAY, SO LET'S, I GUESS GO AHEAD AND FOLLOW UP WITH THE, UH, THE NINTH.
I THINK WE SHOULD START FROM THE BEGINNING, IF THAT'S OKAY.
I THINK WE SHOULD START WITH THE 1959 MAP.
SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE, UM, OUR GIA, UH, STAFF, UH, SPEAK TOWARDS WHAT MAPS THEY WERE ABLE TO PULL, UM, HARD COPIES UP.
SO
AND SOME OF THESE MAPS WERE ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE APPLICANT'S, UM, PACKET, AND THIS IS THE 1965 AS AMENDED, AND THE DATE IS 1971 ON THIS MAP, WHICH THIS SAME MAP WAS INCLUDED IN THE, UM, APPLICANT'S INFORMATION AS WELL.
SO, SO THIS MAP WAS CONSIDERED EXHIBIT 11 IN THE PACKET, IS THAT CORRECT? I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T.
UM, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE THE 1959 MAP.
WE DID NOT HAVE, CITY STAFF DID NOT HAVE TIME TO GO GET THAT IN, MAKE A COPY IN BETWEEN THE BRIEFING AND THE HEARING, BUT IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE APPLICANT'S EVIDENCE.
SO I FEEL LIKE THAT, THAT THE CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE IS THE 1959 MAP AND THIS MAP AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT'S IN QUESTION.
SO NOT HAVING THE 1959 MAP, WHAT PROVE TO BE CHALLENGES.
SO WE'RE SAYING THAT THAT 1950 MAP, UH, MAP IS IN THE, UM, THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO US LAST MONTH.
DO WE HAVE ONE OF THOSE BINDERS ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW? UM, SO, UH, IT WAS PART, IT WAS, I BELIEVE WHAT STAFF IS SAYING IS IT WAS, UH, PART OF THE EVIDENCE PACKET AND THE BRIEFING TODAY.
SO IF WE COULD PULL UP THE 1959 MAP, UM, AS PART OF THE, THE DOCKET, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
ARE YOU SAYING THOUGH, THAT WE HAVE THIS, UH, 1965 MAP, UM, HERE? THE ONE YOU JUST SHOWED? THE THE ONE THAT WENT WHEN, WHEN THEY REDREW, I HAVE A PHYSICAL COPY.
[02:25:01]
OKAY.BUT WE DON'T BUT WE DON'T HAVE A PHYSICAL COPY OF THE 1959.
IS THIS THE ORIGINAL MAP OR IS THIS A COPY? IT'S A COPY.
UM, IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE HARD TO, I'LL, I'LL UP.
I THINK IT'S STILL GONNA BE HARD IF IT'S A COPY WITH THE ENOUGH.
I, I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT 10 IN LIKE EXHIBIT, I DON'T KNOW, NO 10 MR. THOMPSON WAS IN OUR EXHIBIT C OR D OR E IT WAS IN OUR PACKET.
SO THIS IS WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE IS WHAT YOU WERE ABLE TO PULL FROM THE ORIGINAL 1959 C ONE ZONING MAP.
IS THAT CORRECT? MR. MR. KAVANAUGH DID, YES.
SO WILL YOU, WILL YOU SPEAK TO THIS FOR US? SURE.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU CAN MAKE IT OUT, BUT DOWN AT THE BOTTOM HAS SPECIAL PERMIT C ONE.
THAT'S HOW WE'RE ABLE TO GET THE ORDINANCE.
THIS, THIS MAP IS, IS BOTH ACCURATE AND INACCURATE.
IT'S ACCURATE IN THE SENSE THAT IT SHOWS THE 169 FEET GOING UP PAST THE LOT LINE BETWEEN SEVEN AND EIGHT.
THE, THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT TO THE WEST AS FAR AS IT SHOULD BE.
UM, AND IT'S, THAT'S, IT'S NOT COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE ORDINANCE.
YOU'VE GOT TO START WITH THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN THE ORDINANCE, AND THAT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE AREA THAT C ONE INCLUDED THE 469 FEET, WHICH WAS ALL OF THE 20 FEET IN LOT SEVEN AND 20 FEET, UH, OF THE STRIP IN LOT EIGHT.
IT ALSO DOESN'T OUTLINE, AND GRANTED WE'VE SAID THIS OVER AND OVER, ZONING DOESN'T FOLLOW PROPERTY LINE, BUT IT ALSO DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T LAY OUT YOUR PROPERTY LINE ENTIRELY EITHER.
THIS MA EXHIBIT 10, THE RED LINE AT THE NORTH LINE DOES COMPORT WITH OUR NORTH BOUNDARY LINE.
AND AGAIN, THE 65 ZONING ORDINANCE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE MAP, THE BOUNDARIES FOR ZONING DISTRICTS WERE SUPPOSED TO IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, FOLLOW PROPERTY LINES.
YOU DO NOT WANT MAP AS IT DID WITH LOT OF, A LOT NORTH OF US, WHAT YOU REFERRED TO AS FOUR.
NUMBER FOUR, TO HAVE A BOUNDARY LINE THAT IS NOT TIED TO A LOT LINE OR A PROPERTY LINE.
THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF THE MISTAKES IN THE 65 MAP, IS THAT THAT LINE TO THE NORTH IS JUST DRAWN IN THE MIDDLE OF PROPERTY.
IT'S NOT ON A PROPERTY LINE OR A LOT LINE.
THAT'S PART OF WHY IT'S NECESSARY FOR YOU GUYS TO DETERMINE THIS.
YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO SHIFT THE, UM, BOUNDARY, THE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINE TO THE LEFT.
IT'S A LOT SEVEN AND LOT EIGHT.
BUT WHAT, WHAT THIS EXHIBIT DEMONSTRATES, IT BOTH REFERENCES THE ORDINANCE AND IT OUTLINES A 20 FOOT STRIP THAT'S 169 FEET LONG.
AND IF YOU COMPARE THIS MAP IN TERMS OF WHERE THE NORTH BOUNDARY IS, WHERE CAN SEE THAT IT GOES BEYOND THE LOT LINE BETWEEN SEVEN AND EIGHT.
SO THE MAP IN 65, THE MAP IN 87, AND THE MAP OF 89 IS JUST FLAT WRONG BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONSISTENT ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY WITH WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT ON EXHIBIT 10 TO OUR SUBMISSION AGAIN, THAT THE ORDINANCE, THIS MAP AND JUST THE, THE WIDTH OF THE LINES, I THINK CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE UNDER ANY BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE MADE IN THE HAND DRAWING OF THE 65 MAP THAT'S BEEN CARRIED FORWARD IN 87.
DO WE HAVE, UH, DOES THIS PANEL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER OF THE REPRESENTATIVES? UH,
[02:30:01]
YES I DO.WHO DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR? YES, I HAVE A, UM, FOR EITHER, UH, REPRESENTATIVE HERE.
UH, TAKE SO BOTH IF YOU COULD STAY, STAY UP.
SO, UM, I'M JUST PIECING TOGETHER A TIMELINE HERE.
UM, MY ONE QUESTIONS, SO, AND I'M SURE IT'S PROBABLY IN ALL THIS EVIDENCE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, BUT JUST TWO DATES.
ONE WOULD BE WHEN WAS THE SPECIAL PER, SORRY, SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED FOR THE SITE? AND THE SECOND ONE WAS, DO WE HAVE A CONSTRUCTION DATE FOR THE SHOP? THAT IS, UM, THAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE SITE, THAT'S YES.
WITHIN THE, THAT 20 BY 20 AREA, THE CITY COUNCIL, UM, APPROVED MARY, MR. KAVANAUGH HAS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR YOU.
THE, UH, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED C ONE USES ON WHAT I'VE REFERRED TO AS TO AS THE STRIP MM-HMM.
THERE WAS AN APPLICATION, EXCUSE ME, FOR A PERMIT FILED IN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF 1960.
AND THAT PERMIT REFERENCES THE C ONE ZONING AND THE SPECIAL PERMIT NUMBER AND REFERENCES THAT THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO BE WITHIN THE 20 FOOT STRIP.
IT WASN'T JUST THE 20 BY 20 FOOT TRACK THAT THE BUILDING WAS GONNA BE IN.
IT WAS GONNA BE IN, UM, A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE STRIP IS 169 FEET SOUTH.
WHAT, WHAT THEY HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS THE ACTUAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION THAT WAS FILED.
I CAN'T QUITE MAKE THAT THE DATE YOUR EYES THERE.
AND IT SHOULD BE ROUGHLY IN THERE.
DID THIS SPECIAL PERMIT HAVE AN EXPIRATION TIED TO IT? NO.
SO UNLIKE AN SUP THAT OFTENTIMES MAY HAVE AN EXPIRATION, MAYBE IT'S AN SP THAT'S AWARDED FOR TWO YEARS, FIVE YEARS, 10 YEARS, THIS, TO YOUR BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID NOT HAVE AN EXPIRATION.
AND, AND THAT WAS PART OF THE DIFFICULTY, PUT YOURSELF IN THE POSITION OF THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL PERSON IN 1965.
YOU HAVE A STRIP OF LAND 20 FEET WIDE AND 169 FEET LONG ON WHICH THERE IS AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR BUILDING.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO FACTOR THAT INTO THE NEW ZONING APP? WELL, YOU'RE NOT GONNA CREATE A PD FOR THAT.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA CREATE AN SUP.
THERE WAS NO TIME LIMIT ON THE SPECIAL PERMIT.
THERE WERE NO CONDITIONS TO THE BUILDING ITSELF.
YOU'RE NOT TAKING AWAY ANY ZONING RIGHTS.
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE ENTIRE STRIP BE GR TO COMPORT WITH THE C ONE ZONING.
THAT'S WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL DID, IS JUST SOMEBODY IN HAND DRAWING THE MAP DIDN'T RE REFER BACK TO EXHIBIT 10 FOR THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE TO HAVE IT TIED TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
THAT THAT WAS THE MISTAKE AND IT WAS CARRIED FORWARD IN 87 AND 89.
THAT'S, UH, THAT WAS MY ONLY TWO QUESTIONS.
BRINGING UP THE EXHIBIT TO SHOW THAT.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER, UH, REPRESENTATIVE? UM, I BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER SPEAKER IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION, IS THAT RIGHT? IS THE APPLICANT, UH, MS. MS P WITS IS THE, UM, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER? SHE WORKS FOR THE OWNER.
I, I THINK WE PROBABLY COVERED EVERYTHING.
SHE'D BE, UH, AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE REZONING AND THE PROSPECT OF PURCHASER, IF, IF YOU HAVE ANY, DON, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T.
WE'RE, I'M NOT SURE THAT ENTERS INTO IT AS I WAS ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ZONING.
I WELL, I THINK WE'RE GONNA TRY TO STAY AWAY FROM THE REZONING DISCUSSIONS AS IT DOESN'T PERTAIN TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? NO.
DO WE HAVE, I I I WILL ENTERTAIN IF THAT IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS THE APPLICANT OR, UH, OF STAFF OR ANY OTHER SPEAKERS, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
UH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION MADAM CHAIR.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 34 DASH 24 ON APPLICATION OF ELIZABETH RADER DETERMINED THAT THE PROPERTY LOCATED, SORRY, HOLD ON.
[02:35:02]
UM, HO UH, UM, THERE HAS BEEN A REQUEST FROM ONE OF THOSE THAT'S SPOKE IN OPPOSITION, UM, SINCE WE, UH, EXTENDED THE TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK, UM, AND, AND HAVE THE EXTENDED TIME AS WELL.UM, AND WE WILL GO AHEAD AND, UH, AND AWARD THE, UH, THE SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION, UM, AN ADDITIONAL THREE MINUTES SINCE WE AWARDED THE APPLICANT THREE MINUTES EXTENSION IF THEY SO CHOOSE.
MR. MATA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? YES.
THANK YOU FOR GRANTING ME SOME OF THIS TIME, SO, SURE.
MR. MATA, YOU HAVE THREE ADDITIONAL MINUTES.
UM, SO IS IT OKAY IF I SHARE MY SCREEN? YES, PLEASE.
UH, HOPEFULLY THIS SHOWS UP CORRECTLY.
SO WHAT I'M SHOWING YOU IS THE LANGUAGE THAT IS PULLED FROM ORDINANCE A TWO A EIGHT.
UH, THIS ORDINANCE WAS INCLUDED IN THE PREVIOUS DOCKET, SO IT IS PART OF THE EVIDENCE.
UNFORTUNATELY IT IS KIND OF BLURRY, BUT TO MY BEST OF MY ABILITY, THIS IS ME TRANSCRIBING THAT LANGUAGE.
UM, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE KEPT HEARING, UH, BY THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES IS THAT THE ZONING OF THE, THE SPECIAL PERMITS, UH, WAS GIVEN FOR A PROPERTY.
UM, AND HERE IT DESCRIBES 29 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON 12TH STREET, UH, BEGINNING AT 200 FEET WEST OF THE WEST LINE OF HAMPTON.
UH, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STANDS OUT TO ME HERE IS 29 DOES NOT ALIGN AT ALL WITH WHAT THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES HAVE BEEN SAYING WITH 20 FEET.
THIS, TO ME, IS A VARIANCE THAT MIGHT BE RELATED TO, UM, WHERE THE PRO WHERE THE WEST LINE OF WEST HAMPTON WAS AT THE TIME WHEN THIS ORDINANCE WAS, UM, APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCILS.
I THINK THERE IS SOME, UM, CONFLICTING EVIDENCE AS TO WHERE THAT WESTERN FRONTAGE WAS.
THERE HAVE BEEN COMMENTS MADE, UH, THAT HAMPTON ROAD WAS WIDENED AT SOME POINT, UM, IN THE FIFTIES OR SIXTIES.
I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH, UM, THE OWNER OF 24 0 7 WEST 12TH, AND SHE MENTIONED IN THE SIXTIES HER FATHER HAD TO MOVE THE FRONT END OF THE BUILDING THAT THEY OWNED, UM, TO ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THE WIDENING IN IN 12TH STREET OR HAMPTON.
SO IF WE THINK OF 200 FEET FROM THE WEST LINE OF HAMPTON BASED ON THIS MAP, WHERE DO WE, WHERE DO WE, WHERE DOES THAT 200 FEET START? WHERE DO WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHERE HAMPTON WAS AT THAT POINT IN TIME? I DON'T THINK ANY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROPOSED TO KIND OF, UH, GIVE CERTAINTY AS TO AS TO WHERE THAT IS.
IF WE GO WITH SOME OF THE PROPERTY LINES, AS YOU SEE HERE, THE ORDINANCE MENTIONED 200 FEET WEST OF THE WEST LINE OF HAMPTON, 200 FEET WEST OF THE WEST LINE OF HAMPTON WOULD BE, UM, STILL WITHIN THIS PROPERTY.
UM, SO ONE 50 PLUS 70 IS TWO 20.
SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT IT WOULD START HERE.
AND IF WE SAY 29 FEET, IT WILL NOT REACH UP TO THE BORDER OF THE PORTION OF LOT SEVEN THAT WAS PURCHASED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
UM, SO THERE, THERE'S JUST MORE UNCERTAINTY HERE.
THIS MAP SHOWS THAT THIS IS 20 FEET.
SO LET'S SAY THIS IS 131 AS THE DISTANCE MARKS HERE, PLUS 70, THAT'S 201, WHICH IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT THE, THE ORDINANCE SAYS.
THIS SHOWS 201, BUT IT ALSO SAYS 29 FEET.
SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE ZONING WAS, SIR, YOU, YOU'VE, YOU'VE MET YOUR THREE MINUTES AND WE'LL GIVE YOU 10 SECONDS TO WRAP UP YOUR THOUGHT.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE ZONING FOR THE C ONE PERMIT SPECIAL PERMIT WAS ALSO ADDED FOR PORTIONS OF LOSS? SEVEN, SINCE THE ORDINANCE SAYS 29 FEET, I DON'T THINK CITY COUNCIL OR THE OWNER OR THE PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD'VE WANTED SOMETHING BUILT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? OKAY, AT THIS TIME I WILL, UM, ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I WILL PICK UP WHERE ABOUT, NO, I GUESS I GOTTA RESTART.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 24 ON APPLICATION OF ELIZABETH RADER, UH, DETERMINED THAT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 4 1 7 WEST 12TH STREET WAS INTENDED TO BE ZONED AS CR COMMUNITY
[02:40:01]
RETAIL DISTRICT.BASED ON THE FACTS ON TESTIMONY PRESENTED, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER, UH, THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DAS DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS STAFF SHALL MARK THIS CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT MAP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION.
SECOND, UM, I WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP, UM, DISCUSSION.
MR. CANNON, SINCE YOU MADE THE MOTION, UH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE THE, UH, COMMENT YES.
I'M GONNA MAKE THIS AS CLEAR AND CONCISE AS POSSIBLE.
IT JUST COMES DOWN TO, UH, IT'S THREE DATES HERE.
UM, AND ME READ THIS SO THAT IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR FOR EVERYONE.
SO THE WAY THAT I AM MAKING THIS, UM, BASED ON MY MOTION IS FROM THE 1959 ORDINANCE 8 2 88, WHICH ISSUED THE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR, UH, COMMERCIAL USE FOR THIS SITE.
AND THEN WITH THE SUBSEQUENT INSURANCE OF THAT SPECIAL PERMIT, UM, IN 1960, WHICH WE SAW IN THE EXHIBIT WHERE A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS, WHICH THUS LED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING THAT'S ON THE SITE AS OF TODAY.
AND ALL THAT WAS RATIFIED THROUGH THE 1987 ORDINANCE 1, 9 4 5 5, WHICH IS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CHAPTER 51 A THAT WE USE FOR THE DALLAS, UH, DEVELOPMENT CODE TO THIS DAY.
CHANGING THE C ONE ZONING TO GR THAT IS THE, THAT'S THE PATH THAT I'M LAYING DOWN FOR BELIEVING THAT SPECIAL USE AND THE SUBSEQUENT CON CON CONSTRUCTION WAS THE INTENT THAT THIS BE A C ZONED PLOT OF LAND.
UM, FOR ME, THE CONTENTION IS THAT, UH, R 75, AFTER THE ORIGINAL LOT SIZE WAS MOVED, OR THE PATCHES, THAT SMALL BLOCK WAS NOT, UH, REPEALED OR IT WASN'T MODIFIED.
UM, I, I WILL, UH, SORRY, GO AHEAD.
I DIDN'T, UM, CLARIFY AND I JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION OR THE STATEMENT.
SO WHEN YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP, IF YOU CAN PULL THE, UH, MAP OUT THAT SHOWS, UH, LOT FOUR, UM, LOT SEVEN, LOT EIGHT, YOU WOULD, AND FROM THE, UH, SUBMISSIONS THAT WERE MADE BY THE APPLICANT, IT SHOWS THAT A PIECE OF RESIDENTIAL SPOT AND THAT IS WHAT CAUSED THEM TO HAVE MORE LAND BECAUSE THEY HAD TO SEED SOME LAND FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE ROAD.
AND THAT'S WHAT HAS CAUSED OR BROUGHT US TO THIS POINT WHERE THE TWO TYPES OF ZONINGS FOR THE AREA, WHICH IS RR SEVEN FIVE AND, UH, CR CR WAS CHANGED, BUT, UH, R SEVEN FIVE WAS NOT, I DUNNO IF I'M CONFUSED, CONFUSING MYSELF OR, OR THAT'S, UH, WHAT WE ARE ADDRESSING.
UM, THERE WAS A, THERE WAS A HIGHER, UM, SO THIS MORNING, AND BASED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS SAID, THE ORIGINAL LOT THAT WAS, UH, THE SP WAS ISSUED ON, UH, WAS ZONED, UH, WAS ZONED CR BUT WHEN THE EXTRA LOT WAS PURCHASED BECAUSE THEY SEEDED LAND TO EXPAND THE ROAD, THE LAND THAT WAS SEEDED, UH, WAS ZONED RR 75 AND UH, MAJORITY OF THE ORIGINAL R 75 ZONING WAS, WAS REMOTE BY THE ORDINANCE, BUT NOT ALL OF IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF I'M, I'M FOLLOWING, I DO, I, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT PRIOR TO 1959, UH, THE WHOEVER OWNS PROPERTY ACQUIRED A SMALL PIECE, WHICH I THINK IS A 169.5 OR WHAT HAVE YOU, SQUARE FEET OF LOT SEVEN AND LOT EIGHT.
AND AT THAT POINT, THEY COMBINED THAT STRIP AS PART OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND WERE GRANTED A SPECIAL PERMIT AND C ONE ZONING.
THAT'S WHAT I'M FINDING WITH THE MAP.
UM, I, WHAT WAS THE MOST HELPFUL TO ME WAS THE APPLICANT TAKING THE, THE MAP THAT WAS DRAWN BY HAND, UM, IN 1965 AND OVERLAID IT OVER WHAT WE HAVE TODAY.
AND THAT SHOWED SIGNIFICANT DISCREPANCIES FROM WHEN TRANSLATING THE ORIGINAL MAP TO WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY TRANSLATED IT, WHEN THE, OR WHEN THE ORDINANCE CHANGED FROM C ONE TO GENERAL RETAIL.
[02:45:02]
OKAY.WHEN WAS THAT NEW LOT ACQUIRED FROM THE OWNER OF SEVEN AND WAS IT BEFORE THE ROAD WAS EXPANDED OR, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THE ROAD WHEN IT WAS EXPANDED IS A, IS A FACTOR HERE.
IT, IT WAS THE LOT PORTION LOT SEVEN AND PORTION LOT EIGHT, WHICH MAKES UP 169.5 SQUARE FEET THAT WAS ACQUIRED PRIOR TO WHOEVER OWNED THIS PROPERTY RECEIVING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND C ONE ZONING IN 1959.
WHY THIS IS RELEVANT IS THAT A SPECIAL PERMIT WAS GIVEN, WAS A SPECIAL PERMIT GIVEN BEFORE THIS WAS ACQUIRED OR AFTER IT WAS ACQUIRED? IT, IT WAS, IT WAS GIVEN COMBINED AFTER IT WAS ACQUIRED.
THE, THE, THE PERSON WENT IN FOR C ONE ZONING SPECIAL PERMIT IN 1959 WITH THAT ENTIRE PIECE IN ADDITION TO THAT ONE A HUNDRED SIXTY NINE 0.5.
THAT PIECE WAS DEEDED PRIOR TO 1965 THAT 169.5 SQUARE FEET WAS DEEDED.
IT WAS PURCHASED BY LIKE THE, THE MAJOR LAW PRIOR TO GOING IN AND SEEKING THE CT ONE SPECIAL PERMIT.
UH, I DO NOT THINK THAT'S, SO ALL OF THAT, THAT HAS BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING OF ALL OF THIS, ALL OF THAT WENT IN MM-HMM.
THAT SMALL PIECE, WHICH MAKES IT, THE 169.5 WAS ACQUIRED BY THE MAJORITY COPYWRITER THERE PRIOR TO 1959 AND 1959.
THEY TOOK THEIR ENTIRE PIECE, INCLUDING THAT 169.5 AND WHEN, AND IMPLIED FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT C ONE ZONING TO CONSTRUCT THE AUTOMOTIVE USE.
AND THAT'S WHEN IT WAS AWARDED.
AND IF I MAY ADD, I DON'T THINK WHEN THE PROPERTY'S PURCHASED OR NOT OR DEEDED, I, THAT DOESN'T GO TO WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE WORDS OF THE ORDINANCE AND THE MAP, NOT WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY, WHAT'S ON IT.
IT'S JUST THE ORDINANCE, THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDINANCE, THE SPECIAL PERMIT IF WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THAT APPLIES TO THIS PIECE OF THIS STRIP OF LAND.
SO I WILL SIDE WITH THE APPLICANT.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE CORRECT MAP.
I BELIEVE THAT WHEN THAT, WHEN THEY WENT IN TO GET THE ORDINANCE, THE C ONE ZONING, IT ENCOMPASSED THIS ENTIRE PIECE.
I, I BELIEVE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WHEN THIS MAP WAS REDRAWN BY HAND, THE MISSED THE ORDINANCE AND THIS PIECE BASED ON WHEN WE OVERLAP IT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE MAP FROM 1965, I THINK IT WAS END UP BEING DRAWN IN 1971, EXHIBIT 11, IT, THEY ARE LARGE SWEEPING PEN STROKES.
I BELIEVE THERE WAS AN ERROR BASED ON THIS EVIDENCE AND SUBSEQUENT PERMITTING.
AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A RESIDUAL 20 BY 20 R SEVEN FIVE PIECE.
I, THAT WAS, I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS NEVER THE INTENT.
I BELIEVE THAT THE MAP WAS DRAWN CORRECTLY HERE.
AND I BELIEVE THAT WHEN THEY TRANSLATED THIS MAP BY HAND, IT WAS DRAWN IN ERROR.
SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS APPLICATION FOR THAT REASON.
AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, IF THIS DOES PASS AND THIS OWNER DOES GO TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, IT WILL NEED TO BE PRODUCT, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO GO IN THE CTC AND THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE AN ABILITY TO HAVE, GIVE TESTIMONY AND HAVE COMMENTS AT THAT TIME.
IT IS WHY, BECAUSE E THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT, THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT, THIS PROPERTY'S NEVER BEEN PLATTED.
SO IF YOU WANNA DEVELOP THE PROPERTY DIFFERENT THAN TODAY, YOU WILL HAVE TO GO AND GET A PLAT.
AND HAVE, OKAY, SO IT'S NOT BE OKAY.
IT, I DON'T KNOW, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
SO IF THEY WANT TO DEVELOP PROPERTY ANY DIFFERENT THAN IT'S TODAY, THEY WILL HAVE TO GO IN FRONT THE CPC AND GET A PLAT.
AND PUBLIC TESTING WILL BE TAKING CONSIDERATION THAT TIME.
I THINK IT'S OUR, I I BELIEVE THAT THIS MAP IS CORRECT.
I WILL BE AGREEING WITH THE APPLICATION.
DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE WILL TAKE A VOTE, UH, AT THIS POINT, SINCE WE ONLY HAVE FOUR OUT OF FIVE MEMBERS, UM, A UNANIMOUS VOTE IS NEEDED TO APPROVE THIS MOTION.
ANYTHING SUBSEQUENT WOULD RESULT IN A DENIAL.
SO CAN WE GO AHEAD AND DO A VOTE PLEASE, MR. BROOKS? AYE.
DR. GLOVER NAY MS. LAND, AYE, MOTION PASSES.
SO THE OPTIONS IN FRONT OF US ARE TWO THINGS WE CAN LET IT EITHER DIES, WHERE THEREFORE THIS,
[02:50:01]
UH, WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING THAT, UM, AT THAT POINT THAT WE BELIEVE THAT THE MAP WAS DRAWN CORRECTLY AND THAT THIS 20 BY 20 PIECE IS R SEVEN FIVE AND WE LEAD IT.UM, THE OTHER OPTION IS WE COULD HOLD IT OVER, UM, AND, AND WHICH THAT WOULD, SOMEBODY WOULD, SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT TO BE THE CASE.
BUT THOSE ARE OUR TWO OPTIONS AT THIS TIME.
I, I DON'T INTEND TO INTRODUCE ANY OF THE MOTIONS, SO I DON'T INTEND TO INTRODUCE A MOTION WITHOUT ANOTHER MOTION.
THEN THE STATUS QUO PRESERVED AND THEN THIS IS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, MEANING THEY CAN'T COME BACK.
SO THEN IF WE WANTED TO, WE, WE COULD ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION THAT WOULD ALLOW, UH, POTENTIALLY A VOTE, A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT IF THEY WERE TO FIND SUBSEQUENT OTHER MAPS OR OTHER ADDIT.
NO, IT'S NOT, IT'S, IT'S JUST DENIED.
SO THE EFFECT RIGHT NOW IS IT IS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT'S JUST, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
IF THERE IS NO OTHER MOTION, IT'S JUST DENIED.
BUT CAN YOU GIMME ONE MOMENT? SURE.
SO, SO IF THIS IS DENIED, THEN ARE WE ESSENTIALLY MAKING THIS PIECE NONCONFORMING BUT COMPLIANT SINCE THERE IS A COMMERCIAL USE ON THIS PIECE? THAT'S WOULD BE, THAT WOULD WHERE, SO IF ANOTHER MOTION ISN'T MADE, THEN STATUS QUOS PRESERVED AND THIS IS JUST DENIED, MEANING THAT THEY CAN'T COME BACK.
HOWEVER, WE CAN REWORD THIS DENIAL OR THIS LANGUAGE HERE AND SAY THAT YOU MOVE ON THIS APPLICATION AND DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DETERMINE THAT WITH THE FINDING OF FACT THAT YOU'RE DETERMINING THAT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THIS LOCATION WAS INTENDED TO BE ZONED R SEVEN FIVE A SO THEN THEY CAN REFILE TOMORROW IF THEY HAVE NEW EVIDENCE TO SHOW.
LET LET ME ASK YOU THIS THOUGH.
UM, IF, IF WITH WITH THIS MOTION, SINCE IT'S, WE NEEDED FOUR OUT OF FOUR, UM, AND, AND IF THIS STANDS, WHICH IS BASICALLY A, UM, A DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE, THEN ARE WE ESSENTIALLY, ARE WE ESSENTIALLY CREATING A NON-CONFORMING BUT COMPLIANT COMMERCIAL USE ON THIS PROPERTY? BECAUSE THERE'S A COMMERCIAL, THERE'S A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT EXISTS HERE.
WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING THAT THIS IS OUR SEVEN FIVE LAND.
SO ARE WE WITH THIS DENIAL? ARE WE CREATE, WE'RE CREATING A NON-CONFORMING USE? IS THAT RIGHT? OKAY, SORRY.
UM, SO I THINK THE, THE SITUATION WOULD BE CITY OF DALLAS STAFF RECOGNIZES OUR CURRENT ZONING MAP AS THE CURRENT LAWFUL ZONING MAP.
[02:55:01]
UM, SO SINCE THE CURRENT ZONING MAP HAS THIS PORTION OF THE BUILDING IN AN R SEVEN FIVE ZONING DISTRICT STAFF, AND SINCE WE KNOW THAT THE SPECIAL PERMIT FROM 1959 AUTHORIZED THAT, UM, AUTO, AUTO, AUTO ABUSE, AUTO, WHATEVER USE BY THAT SPECIAL PERMIT, WE COULD ASSUME THAT THAT WAS LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED IN 1960 FROM ALL THE PERMITS THAT WERE SHOWN IN THE DOCKET.SO SINCE IT WAS LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED, UM, IT IS CURRENTLY A NON-CONFORMING USE.
IT WOULD BE YES, IN THAT LITTLE 20 BY 20 R SEVEN FIVE CORNER, THAT PORTION WOULD BE NON-CONFORMING.
WOULD, WOULD STAFF HAVE GRANTED A, A COMMERCIAL USE IN A RESIDENTIAL? NO, BUT IT WAS LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED BECAUSE IT HAD THAT SPECIAL PERMIT IN 1960 AND IT WAS 1965 THAT THE ZONING MAP CHANGED.
AND THAT WAS R SEVEN FIVE ON THE MAP, THAT LITTLE 20 BY 20 AREA.
WHAT IS THE BOARD'S POSITION ON NON-CONFORMING USES AND OUR RESPONSIBILITY? I I MEAN I I I FEEL LIKE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE AVOIDING EXPANDING NON-CONFORMING USES AND ESSENTIALLY WE'RE CREATING A NON-CONFORMING USE HERE.
IT'S CURRENTLY NON-CONFORMING.
HOW COME IT WAS THEN NEVER TRIGGERED AS A NON-CONFORMING USE? UH, HAS IT ALWAYS BEEN, WHEN WAS, HAS IT ALWAYS BEEN DEEMED NON-CONFORMING? WELL, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT IS IT NON-CONFORMING, BUT, UM, IT WAS LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT TO BE A NON-CONFORMING USE, YOU KNOW, BACK IN 1960 AND THE ZONING MAP CHANGED SO THAT USE AUTO, WHATEVER IT IS, WAS NOT ALLOWED IN R SEVEN FIVE.
AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT IT'S REMAINED IN LAW, UH, COULD CONTINUED OPERATIONS SINCE 1960 AND IT HASN'T BEEN CLOSED FOR SIX MONTHS OR MORE, THEREFORE HASN'T LOST ITS NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS.
SO IT'S NOT, UM, WHAT'S BEFORE THE BOARD IS NOT DETERMINING IF IT'S A NON-CONFORMING USE OR IF IT'S EXPANDING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
YOU, Y'ALL ARE JUST THINKING ABOUT THE MAP AND IF THAT, AND IF WHENEVER WE TRANSITIONED IN 1965, IF THAT MAP WAS DRAWN IN ERROR, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I HAVE A QUESTION.
SO, UM, IF WE WERE TO HOLD OVER THEN THIS BOARD WOULD LIKELY SEE LIKE A REPRESENATION OF THIS CASE.
IS THAT, IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING? IF WE WERE TO HOLD IT, WE COULD ALSO ASK STAFF TO PRESENT THE ORIGINAL MAP, WHICH THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO PRESENT TODAY.
WHICH IS OKAY THEN CAN I MAKE A MOTION? UH, YES I WILL.
UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 34 DASH 24 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 18TH, 2024.
CAN YOU AMEND, CAN YOU AMEND YOUR MOTION TO, UH, STATE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO RECONSIDER? UH, THE MOTION THAT THE FIRST MOTION OKAY.
UH, HOLDING THE MATTER OF ADVISEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 18TH 20.
I'D LIKE, OKAY, I'D LIKE TO RECONSIDER MY FIRST MOTION AND ASK THAT WE MOVE THAT THE BOARD, THAT'S IT.
JUST A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE HOLD.
AND YOU NEED TO SECOND I WILL, I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION AND THEN TO, UH, I WILL SECOND THE MOTION BECAUSE, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS MAP FROM 1959 THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO BE, THAT THAT WAS NOT PRESENTED TO US TODAY.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO HEAR IT A THIRD TIME.
I THINK THAT THE BIGGEST PIECE OF EVIDENCE ISN'T HERE AND IT'S THE MAP FOR STAFF.
I WILL POINT A DISCUSSION HERE.
I THINK I, UM, I WOULD SAY PERSONALLY I WAS VERY CLEAR ON THE FIRST MOTION THAT I MADE, BUT THERE'S, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S NOT, I MEAN, WE HAD THE SAME ISSUE LAST MONTH WITH THIS CASES.
THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE DELIVERY, UM, THAT
[03:00:01]
WE'RE NOT ABLE, THE BOARD AS A WHOLE IS NOT ABLE TO GET ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.SO REASON WHY I'M MAKING THE, THE, THE MOTION TO HOLD THIS UNDER ADVISEMENT IS, I MEAN, IF THERE'S MORE INFORMATION THAT'S NEEDED, THEN SO BE IT.
GIVE GIVE THE TIME SO THAT THE BOARD CAN SEE EVERY DETAIL AND MAKE A CLEAR DECISION.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS MADE OVER THE PAST TWO MONTHS.
THERE'S BEEN PLENTY OF EVIDENCE, UM, PRESENTED FROM BOTH SIDES ON THIS.
BUT IF, IF FOR SOME REASON THAT'S NOT ENOUGH, THEN I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S CLEAR AS DAY WHAT THE MAP ATTENDED.
I THINK THAT, UH, MOTIONS ARE GETTING INVOLVED HERE.
THERE'S EXTRA NOISE ABOUT CPC CASES AND ALL OF THAT.
I THINK THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS, WAS DRAWN INCORRECTLY, UH, WHEN TRANSLATING THE MAP.
UM, I THINK IT'S CLEAR FROM THE PERMITS.
I THINK IT'S CLEAR FROM THE ORDINANCE.
UM, AND EVEN WHEN WE MATCH UP, UM, UH, I THINK WE'RE DOING A DISSERVICE TO EVERYBODY BY NOT CLEARLY DEFINING THE MAP AS IT WAS INTENDED IN, IN 1959.
AND IF THE CONCERN IS A CLIFF PLAN AND ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS, THIS, IF THEY EVER GO TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY AND GET IT PLOTTED, THEY WILL, THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE TESTS, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND IT WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH CD, C.
BUT I THINK THE MAP IS VERY CLEAR AND THE APPLICANT DID ASK TO HOLD OVER AND ASK FOR FIVE A FULL, FULL, FULL PANEL.
UM, I THINK, I THINK THAT THIS IS AFTER THE FACT THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE AND AS PER OUR PROTOCOL, UM, THE CT SECRETARY HAS TO SERVE WHAT THE DECISION IS AND THEN WE TAKE IT FROM THERE.
BUT TO BE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO, UM, CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS TO BE, TO BE, UH, REVISITED, UH, PUT US IN A CERTAIN WEIRD POSITION.
'CAUSE EARLIER WE, THE DECISION TO HOLD THIS OVER TILL, UH, OUR NEXT, UH, DECEMBER BUILD.
SO WHY ARE WE TRYING TO BRING IT BACK AGAIN? WELL, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A BIG PIECE, WHICH WE ASKED WITH THE, WITH THE 1959 MAP, WHICH IS THE ORIGINAL MAP THAT HAD THE SPECIAL PERMIT AND THE, THE C ONE ZONING.
BUT THE VOTE HAS BEEN TAKEN BASED ON THATS IN RELEVANCE.
I I FEEL LIKE YOU MAY HAVE MORE QUESTIONS BECAUSE WHEN YOU WERE ASKING, BUT IF YOU, THE QUESTIONS YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT THE WIDENING OF HAMPTON AND ALL THAT, I FEEL LIKE THERE'S STILL SOME THINGS THAT ARE NOT CLEAR MOTION FOR ME.
AND, UH, LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON HOLDING IT OVER.
HOW MANY VOTES? THIS IS JUST THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER BRINGING THE MOTION TO HOLD IT OVER AGAIN.
SO IT'S JUST WHETHER OR NOT WE WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER MOTION DOES, IS EVERYONE CLEAR? SO WE'RE VOTE, WE'RE VOTING ON WHETHER TO RECONSIDER A MOTION TO HOLD OVER TO HOLD OVER.
RIGHT? SO WE'RE NOT VOTING TO HOLD OVER.
WE'RE JUST VOTING ON WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO RECONSIDER THAT MOTION.
THEN WE'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER WE'RE GONNA HOLD OVER.
BUT IF THIS MOTION FAILS, I THINK THAT'S THEN STATUS QUO PRESERVED.
AND THE APPLICATION IS DENIED.
THEN I, YEAH, I'M PREPARED TO VOTE.
I THINK THIS SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE WE TOOK A VOTE.
BUT AFTER WE TAKE A VOTE AND A DECISION IS MADE, WE CANNOT RESCIND A DECISION.
THIS IS, THIS WAS WITHIN PROCEDURE.
IT DOES HAPPEN SOMETIMES AND IT USUALLY HAPPENS WHERE WE MIGHT NOT, IT, IT DOES HAPPEN.
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WITHIN THE RULES, I THINK OUR BURDEN, RIGHT? THIS IS PART OF YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE AND IT'S PROPER 'CAUSE IT'S ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.
UM, BUT IN YOUR RULES YOU ARE ABLE TO MAKE MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER ANY MOTION THAT HAS BEEN MADE.
AND IN THE PAST IT'S JUST, THIS HAS HAPPENED WHEN A MOTION TO APPROVE FAILED.
AND SO YOU HAVE A, A MAJORITY JUST UNFORTUNATE THAT THE MAJORITY IS ONLY FOUR INSTEAD OF FIVE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A FULL PANEL.
I THINK THIS HAPPENED LAST TIME, DIDN'T IT? AND, AND YES, I, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
BUT BEFORE THIS, WE MADE EVERYBODY AWARE WHETHER THEY WERE, THEY WERE OKAY WITH THE TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT AND THEY SAID YES, YES, WE GOT A YES FROM EVERYBODY AND THAT IS WHY WE MOVED FORWARD WITH THIS.
WE ALSO DIDN'T TAKE THE OBSTACLE HOLDOVER OFF THE TABLE.
WE, UH, WE WE LISTENED TO THE CASE AND THEN WOULD DETERMINED.
SO, AND THEN THERE'S TWO PEOPLE IN SUPPORT SO FAR UPHOLDING IT FROM SOBER.
WE, WE HAVE DISCUSSION OF RECONSIDER OUR OPENING FOR A HOLDOVER.
[03:05:01]
MANY? SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT 1959 VOTE.I DON'T THINK IT'S UNREASONABLE.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN? IT'S NOT AFTER THE FACT? THERE'S NOTHING IS THERE'S NOT A, A FINAL VOTE THAT'S KIND OF, WE'RE STILL IN DISCUSSION AND THERE'S DISCUSSION TO REOPEN AND HOLD OVER.
SO, SO AT HAND IS WHETHER IT IS A VOTE TO CONSIDER WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO HOLD OVER.
IS EVERYBODY READY TO VOTE ON THAT? YES.
ALRIGHT, SO AT THIS POINT THEN, UM, I WILL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, DENY THE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I WOULD, SORRY, I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT'S IN FRONT OF US TO DENY, BUT TO AMEND TO, UH, DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
UM, DO YOU WANNA READ IT SINCE YOU'VE MADE THAT ORIGINAL MOTION? ALRIGHT.
UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA TWO THREE DASH 1 24 ON APPLICATION OF ELIZABETH RADER DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DETERMINED THAT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 4 1 7 WEST 12TH STREET WAS INTENDED TO BE ZONED AS R DASH 7.5 A, UH, SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT BASED ON THE FACTS AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED.
AND FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
FROM THAT ALREADY CLEARLY MARKED STAFF SHALL MARK THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT MAP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE B BOARD'S DETERMINATION.
I AM, I'M SECONDING THIS FOR PROCEDURAL REASONS.
UM, BUT I THINK THAT GETS THE APPLICANT A BETTER RESULT THAN A DENIAL OF PREJUDICE.
UM, I I HATE THIS 'CAUSE I REALLY THINK THAT THIS, THIS CASE SHOULD BE APPROVED.
UM, I THINK ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS THERE.
UM, BUT OUT OF PRESERVATION OF CASE AND THE FACT THAT I CAN'T GET AHOLD OF HER AND APPROVAL, THIS IS MY ONLY OPTION.
I THINK THAT, I THINK WE MADE A REALLY BIG MISTAKE TODAY.
UM, YEAH, WELL, UM, I BELIEVED THAT, AND AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION I DO NOT WANNA MAKE.
I BELIEVE THAT ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS THERE.
THE FACT THAT, I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAPS FROM 1959, BUT MY ORIGINAL MOTION, THERE WAS A SURVEY THAT WAS DONE TO BUILD THE BUILDING BASED ON THE SPECIAL PERMIT.
SO WITHOUT A SURVEY THAT GETS THE GRANULAR INFORMATION OF THE PLOT OF LAND IN WHICH THAT SHOT WAS DEVELOPED, THAT BUILDING WOULD NOT BE IN EXISTENCE.
SO THIS IS VERY, THIS IS, I MEAN, I I THIS IS BLACK AND WHITE.
YEAH, I, I AM, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I YEAH, EMPHATICALLY I I I'M MAKING THE MOTION, BUT I I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT.
I WANT THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT.
I MEAN, WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT.
IS IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO SAY ANYTHING OR NO? NO.
I WAS GONNA, WE'RE HEADED TO COURT.
SO THE FIRST MOTION HONOR, MR. CANON AYE.
[03:10:01]
GLOBA NAY.YOU WANNA, YOU WANNA VOTE? THERE? THERE'S THREE VOTE.
THERE SHOULD BOTH BE THREE VOTES.
AYE AYE, I THINK THIS IS GONNA BE APPEALED WITHOUT QUESTION.
I THINK THIS WENT THE WRONG WAY.
LET'S MOVE ON TO, I'M, I'M GONNA JUMP, UM, QUICKLY.
I'M GONNA CALL BDA TWO THREE FOUR DASH 1 3 7 1 2 4 6 4 BRECKENRIDGE DRIVE, UM, APPLICATION OF BALDWIN ASSOCIATES FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FIGHT FED'S HEIGHT REGULATIONS.
UM, THAT'S, WE'RE GONNA DO THAT ONE SOMETHING 'CAUSE I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, I DO.
OKAY, MR. BALDWIN, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
UH, ROB BALDWIN 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS.
UM, I HAVE A VERY BRIEF PRESENTATION IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IT.
BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS MY CLIENT HAS A, A HOUSE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE CHURCHILL RECREATION CENTER AT VERY ACTIVE.
THERE'S EXISTING FENCE THERE NOW THERE'S ABOUT HALF, UH, OPAQUE AND HALF OPEN.
WE'RE PROPOSING TO MOVE THE DRIVEWAY AND REBUILD THE FENCE, AND THE NEW FENCE WILL BE MOSTLY ALL THE WAY OPEN.
SO IT'S A, A LESS AN INTENSE FENCE, UH, UH, AT THE SAME HEIGHT.
UM, RIGHT NEXT TO OUR PROPERTY IS A, UH, SIDE, UH, BASICALLY A BIG BRICK WALL THAT'S A, THE SIDE ENTRANCE INTO THE LAKE FOREST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
OUR FENCE IS ABOUT THE SAME HEIGHT AS THAT.
UM, LIKE I SAY, I HAVE FULL, UH, PRESENTATION IF YOU WANT, BUT I'M IMAGINE YOU GUYS ARE TIRED AT THIS POINT.
UM, IF I, I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU IF YOU, IF YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION, BUT I THINK THE STAFF DID A GREAT JOB OF, UH, SHOWING IT EXISTING FE REPLACING EXISTING FENCE, MOVING A DRIVEWAY FROM, UH, TO THE SOUTH, AND, UH, MAKING THE FENCE MORE OPEN AND MOVING IT BACK OFF THE PROPERTY LINE A LITTLE BIT.
SAME, SAME SIZE FENCE, SAME HEIGHT, SAME LOCATION.
UM, WITH THAT, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
UM, I, I THINK THAT, UH, THE, THE BRIEFING WAS, UH, PRETTY THOROUGH.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? REMIND ME OTHER LETTERS IN OPPOSITION? UH, NO LETTERS IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ONE? UH, NO.
I, THERE MIGHT BE, UM, IT'S THERE, THERE, THERE WILL BE A SPEAKER THAT WILL OPEN UP AFTERWARDS.
AND, AND THEN MR. BALDWIN WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK, BUT ARE THERE LETTERS IN OPPOSITION? UH, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A GENTLEMAN HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION.
UM, AT THE BRIEFING SESSION, THEY SAID THERE WAS A COUPLE LOADED, BUT OUTSIDE THE NOTIFICATION AREA.
I HAD SPOKEN TO SEVERAL PEOPLE INSIDE THE NOTIFICATION AREA, AND THEIR ONLY CONCERN WAS, UH, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THERE WAS A ACCESS WAY LEADING THROUGH OUR PROPERTY TO THE LAKE BEHIND IT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOME.
AND THAT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE OPEN JUST LIKE IT, IT HAS BEEN FOR, FOR YEARS.
I, I'D LIKE TO SEE A PRESENTATION, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
I THINK LET'S, LET'S GO, LET'S, LET'S RUN THROUGH IT.
IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN A LITTLE WHILE AND I THOUGHT ABOUT A LOT IN BETWEEN BRIEFING AND NOW.
UM, I'LL DO IT QUICK BECAUSE
SO THIS, THIS PROPERTY'S UP IN THE LAKE FOREST AREA, UH, KIND OF WEST OF CENTRAL, SOUTH OF 6 35, UH, BY CHURCHILL PARK.
IT'S A HOUSE IN GREEN, YOU SEE? OH, GO BACK ONE MORE SO I CAN SHOW THE AERIAL.
IT'S, UH, THE HOUSE OUTLINED IN GREEN, AS YOU SEE, IS ACROSS FROM THE TENNIS AND PICKLEBALL COURTS AT CHURCHILL PARK.
UH, IT BACKS UP TO, UH, AN HOA OR THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LAKE.
THERE IS A CURRENTLY AN ACCESS DRIVE THAT CO OR WALKWAY ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY BETWEEN US AND THE NEIGHBORS THAT BACK TO US THAT HAS BEEN OPEN AND GIVES PEOPLE ACCESS TO THE LAKE AND TO THEIR BACKYARDS.
AND THAT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE OPEN JUST AS IT IS TODAY.
THIS IS THE EXISTING HOME WITH SHOWING THE EXISTING FENCE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE EXISTING FENCE IS SOLID IN PARTS AND, UH, OPEN IN PARTS.
THE PROPOSED FENCE WILL BE ALL OPEN EXCEPT FOR AT THE GATE.
AND THE GATE WILL BE FARTHER, UH, ABOUT 20 FEET BACK FROM
[03:15:01]
THE PROPERTY.SO THE OPACITY, UH, REGULATIONS DON'T APPLY.
SO WE'RE PROPOSED SIX FOOT FENCE OPEN WITH AN EIGHT FOOT TALL SOLID GATE IN THE FRONT.
UM, AND IT'S REPLACING THE EXISTING FENCE.
THERE'S NO ENCROACHMENTS IN SITE.
THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AND THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY WILL BE RELOCATED IN, IN THIS NEW FENCE SHOULD IT BE APPROVED, BUILT THERE.
AND IT WOULD ALSO SERVE AS A BUFFER FROM THE HOME, FROM THE PICKLEBALL COURT ACROSS THE STREET.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE REPLACING SAME WITH SAME.
YEAH, EXCEPT FOR IT'S GONNA BE MORE OPEN.
UH, EVERYTHING IN BLUE OR THE SCION COLORS OPEN.
THE, THE GREEN IS ONLY PART OF THE FENCE THAT IS SOLID.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S PUSHED BACK, UH, 20 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE.
AND, UH, ABOUT 25 FEET FROM THE CURB LINE.
THIS IS WHAT THE DEFENSE PANELS WILL LOOK LIKE.
YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE OPEN SIX FEET TALL.
AND THIS IS, UH, THE ELEVATION ACROSS THIS, THE FRONT.
UM, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
UH, AND I WILL, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S SOMEONE HERE SPEAKING OPPOSITION, AND I WILL, UH, UH, PLAN ON COMING BACK INTO A REBUTTAL AFTER I HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY.
UM, MS. WILLIAMS, WOULD YOU MIND CALLING, UM, ANY SPEAKERS IN FAVOR? DO WE DO FAVOR FIRST? NO, THE SPEAKERS IN FAVOR.
UM, COULD WE GO AHEAD AND HEAR ANY, ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION THAT ARE HERE IN PERSON FIRST AND THEN WE'LL GO ONLINE IF THERE ARE ANY OF THAT APPLY.
I NEED, I NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN.
UM, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
YES, JEFF EON, 72 37 SEN BEND.
UM, WELL ABOUT NINE HOUSES DOWN AROUND THE CORNER FROM THIS HOUSE THERE, ALTHOUGH I DID NOT GET A NOTICE FOR SOME REASON.
UH, YES, SO I SAID THANK YOU THERE BECAUSE I'VE BEEN A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER FOR 30 YEARS, AND SO I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT GOES INTO Y'ALL'S JOB THERE AND MAKE, MAKE THINGS WORK.
UH, DURING THE LAST 25 YEARS, I'VE DEVELOPED PROPERTIES FROM A HOME TO A TOWN ACTUALLY PLANNING A, A TOWN AS WELL.
UH, SO I'VE SEEN A LOT OF GAMUTS, A LOT OF THESE KIND OF ISSUES THAT COME UP.
SO I'VE FAIRLY, UH, AWARE OF ANY OF THE ISSUES THAT COME UP WHENEVER I ENTER A COMMUNITY.
I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO WHAT THEY LIKE AND WHAT THEY HAVE THERE.
IT'S NOT MY ROLE TO COME IN AND TELL THEM WHAT THEY WANT OR HOW THEIR COMMUNITY SHOULD CHANGE, AND I'M VERY, VERY CONSCIENTIOUS OF THAT.
IN PARTICULAR, UM, FROM THE COMMENTS, THERE ARE ZERO ZERO FRONT YARD FENCES IN THIS ENTIRE COMMUNITY.
NOBODY HAS A FENCE IN THEIR YARD.
NOT FOUR FEET, NOT SIX FEET, NOT EIGHT FEET.
AND THAT IS ALL THE HOUSES, NO FRONT YARDS, UH, FENCES.
UM, THERE ARE NO TOWNHOUSES IN THE COMMUNITY.
THERE IS A GATED ONE UP ON HILLCREST, BUT I'VE SEEN THAT IN THE, IN THE NOTES.
UM, THE OPEN FRONT YARD IS TRADITIONAL IN THIS COUNTRY AND IS IN THIS CASE WITH MOST DESIRABLE NEIGHBORHOODS.
THEY CONVEY A WELCOMENESS TO NEIGHBORS.
THE APPLICANT IS HOPING YOU WILL GRANT THEM THE OPPOSITE RANKING.
THIS PRESIDENT WILL ENCOURAGE THE REDEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT HOUSES INTO COMPOUNDS.
WE SEE ALONG THE RICH NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND INWOOD.
THEY ARE MEANT TO KEEP NOBODY IN, NOBODY TO SEE.
THEY ARE NOT WELCOMING TO ANYBODY'S NEIGHBORHOOD.
FURTHER, NO LESS THAN 50 DOGS WALK PAST THIS HOUSE AND MOST NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSES.
AN OPAQUE GATE, HOOD AND FENCE COULD RESULT IN HARM TO THOSE DOGS BECAUSE THIS FENCE, AS YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED, IS RIGHT UP TO THE STREET.
SO YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET MUCH HEADS UP UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
THE SAME AS COULD BE SAID FOR VEHICLES ACROSS THE STREET IS A TENNIS COURT.
THERE ARE A LOT OF CARS THAT COME AND GO.
THEY MAY NOT SEE SOMEBODY COMING OUTTA THAT TILL IT'S TOO LATE.
UH, THE OWNER AWARE WAS AWARE OF THIS ALL WHEN THEY BOUGHT THIS OVER A YEAR AGO.
I'M NOT, I'VE NOT SEEN THE OWNER ON SITE.
MAYBE THIS IS A FLIP, MAYBE THEY'RE JUST SLOW.
BUT THERE IS NO INCONVENIENCES TO THIS HOUSE OWNER THAT ARE ANY DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER HOUSE IN THIS AREA.
[03:20:01]
THE RENDERINGS ARE MISLEADING.WE TALKED ABOUT HOW OPEN THEY WERE, BUT IF YOU LOOKED AT THE RENDERING, THEY HAD EVERYTHING FILLED IN BUSH OR THE FAKE LEAVES THAT WE SEE NOW.
THE, THE GATE IS EIGHT FEET TALL, EIGHT FEET TALL.
AGAIN, THIS IS A COMPOUND YOU'VE NEVER SEEN.
UH, IT'S A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S EASY TO CONVERSE PEOPLE WHEN YOU WALK BY.
UH, AGAIN, THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF THAT ENVIRONMENT.
UM, LAST THING, KIND OF, YOU MAY COME ACROSS THIS ANOTHER TIME IN YOUR LIFE.
I HAVE AN ARCHITECT WHO DID A STUDY ON WALKING NEIGHBORHOODS.
UH, I'VE LIVED IN WASHINGTON, DC THE LAST 37 YEARS.
I'VE BEEN BACK TO DALLAS FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS.
BUT A GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN YOU WALK, IT WILL ACTUALLY RELEASE DOPAMINE INTO YOUR BRAIN.
YOUR BRAIN RECOGNIZES GOOD ARCHITECTURE, A GOOD FEEL.
SOME OF THE MODERN THINGS, SOME OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WE'VE SEEN, THE CHAOTIC YOUR BRAIN FATIGUES WHEN ITS THESE CHAOS.
PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND FOR THE FUTURE DECISIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
I HAVE A COUPLE LAST COUPLE QUESTIONS HERE.
UM, SO THERE'S A CURRENT FENCE THERE RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S A CURRENT FENCE THERE.
IT IS, UH, THERE'S COLUMNS AND SO IT'S VERY OPEN.
UH, THERE IS NO TREES, NO BUSHES BEHIND THERE.
UH, SO YES, YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THERE.
AND THAT FENCE IS, UM, PROBABLY 20 FEET FROM THE CURB.
SO YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE NEW FENCE IS PUSHED FURTHER TOWARDS THE CURB THAN THE EXISTING FENCE? THAT'S WHAT THE DRAWINGS SAYS.
IF, IF THIS IS JUST A FENCE REPLACEMENT, LET'S ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THEY WANNA REPLACE THE OLD FENCE WITH SOMETHING THEY LIKE BETTER.
AND I DON'T THINK WE CONSIDER PLANTS BECAUSE WHO KNOWS, THEY COULD PLANT BUSHES IN FRONT OF 'EM RIGHT NOW.
BUT, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEIR RENDERINGS HAVE SHOWN.
THEY'VE SHOWN US WHAT THEY EXPECT IT TO LOOK LIKE.
SO, BUT, BUT IS YOUR, LET'S ASSUME THAT THE FENCE IS THE SAME AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.
LIKE HOW, HOW DOES THAT AFFECT YOUR, YOUR POSITION? IT'S, IT'S THERE.
UM, SO YEAH, I THINK CURRENTLY IT IS, IT'S SET BACK.
IT IS, IT IS, UH, VISIBLY ABLE TO SEE THROUGH IT.
UM, AND, UH, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? NO, THE SPEAKERS ARE JUST OKAY.
AND WE WILL ALLOW THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE.
UM, HOW MUCH TIME DO WE PUT ON FOR REBUTTAL? WE'LL, UH, HOLD ON.
I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT'S THREE MINUTES, FIVE MINUTES.
IF, IF, IF, UH, SNAP AND PULL UP THE, UH, SITE PLAN AGAIN, UH, THAT'D BE HELPFUL.
AGAIN, THIS IS A REPLACEMENT OF THE 16TH FENCE.
UH, AS YOU'LL SEE ON THE SITE PLAN, IT'S A PLANNED VIEW.
THE FENCE IS PARKING FOUR FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH PUTS IT ABOUT 15 FEET OFF THE CURB LINE.
UH, THE GATE, ALL THAT WHOLE FENCE IS OPEN, IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
UH, THAT THE GATE ITSELF IS SET BACK ANOTHER ALMOST 11 FEET FROM, UM, FROM THE RUN OF FENCE THAT'S PARALLEL TO BRECKENRIDGE.
AND SO THAT THE, THE GATE ITSELF IS GONNA BE 20 TO 22 FEET BACK FROM THE STREET.
THAT IS THE ONLY PORTION OF THE, THE, THE WHOLE FENCE THAT IS GONNA BE OPAQUE.
UH, THERE ARE ELEVATIONS THAT SHOW, UH, PLANTINGS IN FRONT OF THAT, BUT THAT'S THE PLANTINGS, UM, ARE NOT PART OF THE BOARD'S, UH, DISCRETION AT THIS POINT.
UM, WE THINK THIS IS A BETTER FENCE.
IT IS MORE OPEN, IT IS SET BACK, UH, FROM THE STREET AND, UM, IT'S REPLACING THE FENCE THAT'S BEEN THERE ALREADY.
SO, UM, ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED, IT GETS APPROVED WITH BASED ON A SITE PLAN AND ELEVATION.
SO WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET AND YOU CAN'T BY AND, AND CHANGE IT.
HOW FAR FROM THE FRONT OF THE FENCE TO THE STREET? I KNOW YOU SAID IT BEFORE, BUT JUST, JUST HELP ME.
SO IF YOU, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO, TO, BRIAN, CAN YOU BLOW UP THE THIS FROM THE, CAN YOU SEE IT'S FOUR FEET.
THERE'S A, A CALL OUT, FOUR FEET ON.
[03:25:02]
OKAY.UM, THERE'S, IF YOU CAN SEE THIS, THAT'S A, THAT'S CALLING OUT FOUR FEET AT THE, UM, FROM THE, THE BLUE LINE TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND THEN IT LOOKS TO ME TO BE ABOUT ANOTHER 12 FEET IF YOU, FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE CURB.
SO WE'VE GOT THE SCREEN HEDGE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE.
AND LET'S SAY THAT SCREEN HEDGE IS A FOUR FOOT DIAMETER, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER 12 FEET TO THE STREET.
AND THEN IF YOU CAN SEE, UH, ON THE INSIDE OF THE BLUE LINE, IT SHOWS 10 FOOT EIGHT.
SO THAT SHOWS THE, THE, THE GATE DEFENSE, UH, HEADS EAST AT THAT POINT FOR ANOTHER ALMOST 11 FEET AND THEN COMES ACROSS AGAIN.
AND, UM, THE, THE DEFENSE DOES NOT COME BACK ANY CLOSER TO, UH, BRECKENRIDGE AT THAT POINT.
IS THE EXISTING FENCE IN DISREPAIR? NO, IT JUST, UH, UH, IT WAS PUT UP BY A PREVIOUS OWNER AND, UH, THE, THE NEW OWNER WOULD LIKE A NEW FENCE.
AND THEN, AND RELOCATE THE DRIVEWAY.
YOU ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DON'T THINK I, DOES ANYBODY, UH, WOULD, UH, MAKE A MOTION? YOU WANNA WITNESS TO JEFF? I WILL MAKE A MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 3 0 ON APPLICATION OF ALMA OR DELOS, UH, REPRESENTED BY DOUGLAS LIUS OR MR. KENON.
UM, WOULD YOU MIND MAKING A MOTION FOR BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 3 7 PLEASE? AS I WAS READING THAT, I THOUGHT THAT'S OKAY.
UM, BECAUSE I, I THINK THAT, UH, AND I DON'T KNOW WHICH DIRECTION PAGE'S GONNA GO, BUT I BELIEVE ROYCE'S DRIVE IS GONNA BE A LITTLE BIT MORE, UH, INTENSIVE.
SO I WANTED TO GIVE US, UH, A LITTLE QUICK.
SO I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 37 ON APPLICATION OF BALDWIN ASSOCIATES GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, I FURTHER MOVE THAT FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DEV DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHTENED FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
UM, MR. CANNON, DO YOU HAVE ANY, ANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS? UH, YEAH, THIS IS JUST GONNA BE QUITE BRIEF HERE.
I'M LOOKING OVER THE, UM, THIS IS PAGE 1,160 HERE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST GIVEN THE SCALE, I MEAN IT, I, THERE'S A, THERE LITERALLY IS A SCALE FIGURE HERE.
SO I DO UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT THE, UM, WHILE THE, THE VEHICULAR DRIVE MAY SEEM IMPOSING, BUT THE, THE PEDESTRIAN FENCE IS THERE.
IT'S ABOUT SIX FEET, UM, ACCORDING TO THE SCALE HUMAN THERE.
SO I DON'T, I, FROM AN ARCHITECT'S PERSPECTIVE HERE, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD BE IMPOSING OR, UH, CREATE ANY, UH, VISUAL, UM, CHAOS, SO TO SPEAK IN THIS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO BASICALLY BASING OFF THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS HERE.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF.
UM, SPECIFICALLY, UM, WITH THIS LANGUAGE HERE, COMPLIANCE HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
THAT IS MARRYING THE ELEVATIONS, CORRECT? 'CAUSE WE'RE SPEAKING, WE'RE, WE'RE COMPLYING WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE.
IF THE ELEVATIONS WERE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PACKET, THEN YES.
IT'S, IT'S ALL OF THE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, DEPARTMENT ELEVATIONS WERE INCLUDED IN THOSE PLANS.
UM, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, UM, SW WOULD YOU MIND, UM, DOING A, UH, VOTE COUNT PLEASE? MR. BROOKS? AYE.
[03:30:01]
UM, THE LAST CASE OF THE DAY, UM, IT WILL BE BD 2 3 4 DASH THREE ZERO, UH, APPLICATION FOR 9 82 0 ROYCE DRIVE.THIS APPLICATION, UM, IS, UH, FOR A VARIANCE OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS, I'LL WELCOME, UM, THE APPLICANTS AND APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVES TO SPEAK.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND SWEAR YOU IN AND THEN YOU WILL EACH HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
IF YOU BOTH STAND, PLEASE, WE'LL SWEAR YOU IN AT THE SAME TIME.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO, IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO TELL THE TRUTH? OKAY.
PLEASE, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
WILL YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE? WOULD YOU MIND TURNING? CAN YOU PRESS THE BUTTON BUTTON RIGHT THERE? THERE.
UH, MY NAME IS DOUGLAS LIMA AND, UH, I LIVE IN TEN THREE ONE SIX VALEZ DRIVE IN DALLAS, TEXAS.
AND, UH, MY NAME IS ALMA DAVALOS.
UM, MY ADDRESS IS TEN THREE ONE SIX ELA DRIVE IN DALLAS, TEXAS.
MAY PROCEED FIVE MINUTES EACH.
UM, WE FIND OUT AFTER WE ALMOST FINISHED THE HOUSE THAT, UH, WE MISSING FOUR FEET, UH, TWO INCHES.
AND, UM, WE NEVER PUT ATTENTION ON THE, UH, SETBACK BECAUSE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE 25 FEET BACK AND, UH, WE SEE THE ARROWS ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
THERE WAS 30 FEET, BUT WE SEE THE DRIVEWAY THERE WAS 25 FEET.
SO WE, I SENT IT TO THE, UH, CONCRETE GUY AND HE WENT BASED ON THAT.
BUT, UH, I'M PRETTY SURE HE NEVER REACHED THE TOP OF THE, UH, SETBACKS.
SO THAT'S WHY WE MISS THE, UM, SETBACKS BOARD.
AND AFTER WE PASS INSPECTIONS AND WE COME TO FINALS, I MEAN, SONY, THEY NEVER SAY ANYTHING TO US ABOUT, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE, UH, PUSH IT BACK, UH, ON THE FORMS. SO I MEAN, WE GET STUCK WITH THAT AND FINALS BECAUSE WE FIND OUT, YOU KNOW, IN THE LAST MINUTE.
UM, I THINK WHAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL HERE, UM, WOULD YOU MIND READING THE STANDARD IN TERMS OF, UH, WHAT THE APPLICANT MUST PROVE, UH, IN ORDER FOR US TO GRANT A, UH, VARIANCE TODAY.
PLEASE GIVE US JUST A MOMENT PLEASE.
UM, TO GRANT VARIANCES FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS.
THE VARIANCE, UM, IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHEN OWING TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD, WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
AND SO THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DONE.
THE VARIANCE 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 THE VARIANCE IS NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP, NOR FOR FINANCIAL REASONS ONLY, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBPARAGRAPH B ROMAN ONE, NOR TO PERMIT ANY PERSON A PRIVILEGE IN DEVELOPING A PARCEL OF LAND NOT PERMITTED BY THIS CHAPTER TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND WITH THE SAME ZONING.
AND PARAGRAPH B ROMAN ONE STATES IN EXERCISING ITS AUTHORITY UNDER SUBSECTION PARAGRAPH A ROMAN TWO, 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.
ONE, 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 WHERE COMPLIANCE WOULD RESULT IN A LOSS OF THE LAW IN WHICH THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED OF AT LEAST 25% OF THE AREA IN WHICH DEVELOPMENT IS AUTHORIZED TO PHYSICALLY OCCUR.
COMPLIANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE STRUCTURE NOT BEING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE, BUILDING CODE, OR OTHER REQUIREMENT COMPLIANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE UNREASONABLE ENCROACHMENT ON ADJACENT PROPERTY OR EASEMENT, OR THAT THE MUNICIPALITY CONSIDERS THE STRUCTURE TO BE A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE.
AND DO ALL OF THOSE HAVE TO MET OR ONE IT SAYS OR SO ANY ONE OF
[03:35:01]
THOSE OKAY.COULD BE SATISFIED TO MEET ELEMENT TWO OF THE VARIANCE STANDARD.
UM, JUST WANTED YOU TO UNDERSTAND, UM, AND THEN YOU'RE, YOU MORE THAN WELCOME TO CONTINUE, UH, WHAT BASIS WE HAVE WHAT TOOLS WE HAVE TO EITHER GRANT OR DENY A VARIANCE.
SO I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT TO HEAR THERE.
UM, I THINK THE BIGGEST PIECE HERE IS TECHNICALLY ITSELF CREATED NO MATTER HOW IT'S DEVELOPED PLANS, IT'S, IT'S ON YOU TO DEVELOP FOR THE, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, BUT THE COST TO BECOME COMPLIANT IS ONE THAT MAY EXCEED THE COST OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING.
SO I, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO USE THIS TIME TO TALK ABOUT, UM, TO TALK ABOUT THAT PIECE.
UM, IF YOU, IF YOU WOULD, MAY, MAY, I, AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS IS WHAT THE TAX, UH, ASSESSOR OF THE MUNICIPALITY CURRENTLY VALUES THE PROPERTY AT.
WE HAD ASKED STAFF TO LOOK UP THAT.
SO DO WE, DO WE WANT TO DO THIS NOW OR DO WE WANNA FINISH THE PRESENTATION? OKAY, WE'LL GO, GO AHEAD.
THE CHALLENGE, THE CHALLENGE THAT THEY HAD WAS THERE'S NO IMPROVEMENT ON THE PROPERTY.
SO THAT'S WHAT IT IS ACCORDING TO DEPAY.
THERE'S NO VALUE HERE, UM, ON THE PROBLEM.
THEN THIS ELEMENT WILL BE EASY TO MEET.
NO, NOT, LET'S, LET'S, LET'S HEAR FROM, UH, BOARD ATTORNEY, UM, ON THIS PARTICULAR STANDARD.
AND IF THERE IS NO VALUE ASSESSED BECAUSE PRIOR VALUE OF THE LAND, UH, PROPERTY WAS VALUED ON JUST THE LAND, HOW DO WE ASSESS THIS SPECIFIC PIECE OF THE VARIANCE? WELL, IT JUST SAYS THAT THE FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE.
BUT IF THERE'S NOTHING TO COMPARE THAT NUMBER TO, THIS WOULD BE HARD TO MEET.
SO, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THIS APPLIES TO A VACANT LAND BECAUSE IT SAYS THE STRUCTURE AS APPLIED TO A STRUCTURE.
THERE'S NOTHING ON THE PROPERTY AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.
UH, MAYBE I, I DON'T, I I SEE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I AGREE WITH THAT INTERPRETATION, BUT HERE'S WHAT WE CAN DO IS WE CAN IMAGINE IN A YEAR WHEN THEY GET THIS THING ON THE TAX ROLL, WHAT IT'S GONNA COST.
I THINK, I THINK WE NEED TO LET THEM OKAY.
MAKE THEIR CASE AND THEN WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS AND FIGURE OUT, UH, VERY WELL.
SO IF, IF YOU WOULD, YOU BOTH, I BE, I THINK YOU'VE ONLY HAD A MINUTE OF YOUR TIME.
SO COMBINE, YOU HAVE NINE MINUTES.
UM, WHENEVER I PURCHASED THIS PIECE OF LAND, IT WAS APPROXIMATELY LIKE THREE, FOUR YEARS AGO.
UM, WE BOUGHT 98 16 ROYCE DRIVE AND, UM, THE, THE 98 16 HAD TWO LOTS, LOT NUMBER THREE AND LOT NUMBER FOUR.
SO IN LOT NUMBER THREE I BUILT MY PARENTS' HOUSE.
AND ON 98, UM, ON THE, THE OTHER LOT, LOT NUMBER FOUR, I, UH, WE BUILT THIS HOUSE AND I WENT TO THE, UM, JEFFERSON, UM, WHAT'S THE NAME, UM, OFFICE, AND GOT A NEW ADDRESS FOR LOT NUMBER FOUR, RIGHT.
UM, THAT'S THE REASON WHY THERE'S NO RECORDS BECAUSE THE CITY JUST, UM, SPLIT THE PROPERTY.
SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S NO RECORDS OF ANYTHING BECAUSE, UM, IT'S A NEW ADDRESS, BUT EVERYTHING IS UNDER 98 16 ROYCE DRIVE LOT NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS THE SAME, UM, LIKE THE SAME ADDRESS, THE SAME, UM, ENTITY.
UM, WHAT, UH, MADAM CHARIOT WAS ASKING WAS, LET'S SAY THAT TO COMPLY WITH THIS, THE HOUSE IS, I DON'T KNOW, MOVED OR DEMOLISHED IN SUCH A WAY TO REMOVE THE FIVE FEET OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE THAT IS ENCROACHING INTO THE SETBACK.
TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT A RESULT THAT I WANT.
HOWEVER, IF YOU COULD TALK TO US ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD ANTICIPATE THE COST OF THAT WOULD BE, AND LIKE THE RESULT MAYBE ON THE PROPERTY VALUE.
I'M SURE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE SOME REALLY ODDLY SHAPED ROOMS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO FIT A CAR IN THE GARAGE, IF YOU COULD EXPAND ON THAT.
SO IF WE, UH, IF WE REMOVE THE FRONT PORCH AND PART OF THE GARAGE, UM,
[03:40:02]
IT'S GONNA BE AT LEAST $60,000 TO MAKE THE ENTIRE CHANGE.WHY? BECAUSE THE GARAGE IS NOT GONNA BE A GARAGE ANYMORE BECAUSE IT'S GONNA BE TOO SMALL.
SO IN THIS CASE, WE ARE GONNA HAVE TO LIKE, RESHAPE THE ENTIRE HOUSE AND IT'S GONNA BE A LOT OF MONEY.
MONEY THAT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE.
IT'S GONNA BE AT LEAST $60,000.
AND THE HOW, HOW MUCH WAS TO CONSTRUCT THE HOUSE MAN TO BUILD A HOUSE? IT WAS LIKE TWO 50.
I THINK YOU'RE SHOOTING LOW WITH 60? I'D PUT IT AT AT LEAST 1 26.
DANGEROUS TERRITORY OVER THERE, MR.
SO IT WILL BE VERY EXPENSIVE AND THE SHAPE OF THE HOUSE IS JUST GONNA LOOK AWFUL AFTER THAT.
SO, UM, WE ONLY REQUESTED FIVE FEET.
UM, I KNOW IT WAS OUR MISTAKE.
UM, AND IT IS, YOU KNOW, WE COULDN'T, WE DIDN'T KNOW TILL WE FINISHED THE HOUSE.
UM, NOBODY STOPPED, UM, ON THE INSPECTIONS.
WE KEPT, UH, GETTING GREEN TAG AFTER GREEN TAG.
AND THEN WHENEVER WE TRY TO PASS THE FINAL INSPECTION, IT WAS WHENEVER, UH, SONY GAVE US A CALL.
UM, THE GUY FROM THE FOUNDATION DIDN'T KNOW EITHER, BECAUSE ON THE PLANS, UM, HE SHOWS 25 FEET ON THE DRIVEWAY.
SO I GUESS EVERY, EVERYBODY GOT CONFUSED AND WE THOUGHT IT WAS 25 FEET.
SO IT WAS ZONING WHO GOT CONFUSED? IT WAS, UM, US IT WAS A GUY FROM THE FOUNDATION.
UH, 'CAUSE IF YOU GO TO THE, UH, SITE PLAN, UH, YOU HAVE 25 FEET THERE.
SO EVERYBODY GOT CONFUSED AND WE DIDN'T KNOW TILL THE HOUSE WAS FINISHED.
'CAUSE THEY USUALLY STOP, YOU KNOW, THEY, UH, THEY PUT LIKE, UM, UM, THEY DON'T LET YOU KEEP GOING IF THAT PART IS NOT RIGHT.
SO, MAN, I DON'T KNOW WHY THE INSPECTORS NEVER STOPPED THE CONSTRUCTION.
AND UH, MAN, WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON THAT, ON THAT HOUSE.
AND LAST MINUTE WE WERE JUST IN SHOCK.
UM, 'CAUSE IT'S GONNA BE VERY PRICEY IF, UM, IF WE DON'T GET THIS APPROVED AND THAT AREA, YOU KNOW, IS NOT THE BEST AREA.
SO THE PROFIT ON THOSE HOUSES IS NOT GONNA BE, UM, MORE THAN 3 20, 3 30 MAX.
SO WE ARE IN A REALLY, UM, HARD POSITION RIGHT NOW.
SO THIS IS A HOUSE THAT YOU'RE DEVELOPING TO SELL? YEAH.
UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY RECEIPTS OR AN ESTIMATE IF YOU, IF THIS WAS DENIED OR TO BECOME COMPLIANT? UM, WITH, WITH THIS FRONT YARD SETBACK, HOW MUCH WOULD COST? UM, HE'S THE BUILDER.
SO IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, I CAN WRITE SOMETHING DOWN FOR YOU WITH LIKE THE BUDGET OR, SO THIS, THIS IS, THIS IS OUR CHALLENGE HERE IS THE STANDARDS OF, TO GRANT OF THIS VARIANCE.
SHE, SHE MENTIONED, UH, AND REALLY THE ONLY STANDARD THAT YOU MAY HAVE A CASE ON, BECAUSE THIS IS SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE CITY MADE AN ERROR IN AND CONTINUING TO GRANT YOU GREEN TAGS OR NOT.
ULTIMATELY IT FALLS ON THE DEVELOPER MM-HMM.
UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE TO GRANT THIS, WE'RE GRANTING BUT'S BASICALLY RELATED TO SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CREATED YOURSELF.
SO THE ONLY, THE ONLY AVENUE THAT YOU HAVE WITH THIS CASE TO BE GRANTED IS THAT IF YOU ARE ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE COST TO BECOME COMPLIANT WOULD EXCEED 50% OR MORE OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT ON THE PROPERTY.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT FOR US TO MAKE THAT CASE, UM, THAT THAT IS FOR YOU.
SO THIS IS KIND OF WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE SITTING HERE WITH AT THIS TIME.
UM, AND I, I'LL LET OTHER, UH, PANELISTS ASK QUESTIONS.
UM, I WANT TO DIG INTO, SO YOU SAID, MENTIONED EARLIER ON THAT THIS, THE LOT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, WAS DIVIDED INTO TWO MM-HMM.
WHERE CAN WE DRAW SIMILARITIES OR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HOME THAT WAS BUILT FIRST BETWEEN THE HOUSE? THAT'S NOW IN QUESTION.
IT'S A, IT'S A DIFFERENT LAYOUT.
IT'S A DIFFERENT HOUSE AND WE USE DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS.
THIS GUY, THE ONE THAT WE USE FOR THE, UH, CONCRETE, SUPPOSEDLY HE'S ONE OF THE BEST ONES IN DALLAS.
AND, UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THERE.
UH, READ, UH, NU READ, UH, LETTERS ON TOP AND UH, WE USE DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS.
[03:45:01]
OKAY.AND THEN THE, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE FLOOR PLAN IS A LITTLE, DO FOLLOW ME HERE FOR A LITTLE BIT, BUT WOULD YOU SAY LIKE THE MATERIALS IN THE HOME, WHAT WE'RE WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO IS, AGAIN, IT'S UH, IT'S THIS, THIS PART OF THE CODE OF, OF THE COST TO REMEDY.
WOULD YOU SAY LIKE THE MATERIALS MORE OR LESS THE SAME IN THE HOME? JUST TO GET JUST AN IDEA OF LIKE MAYBE COST PER SQUARE FOOT.
UM, AND THAT'S KIND OF A QUESTION FOR BOTH OF YOU ALL FOR MAN, THE, IT IS JUST MATERIAL GOT SUPER HIGH WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS AFTER COVID.
SO HOW MUCH DID THEY SPEND? IT WOULD BE LIKE 75,000 BUCKS MONTH AT LEAST WHENEVER YOU START TAKING, YOU KNOW, LIKE THAT PART OF THE HOUSE.
I MEAN A TRUCTURE, YOU HAVE TO LIKE RE ARCHITECT EVERYTHING.
OR WE HAVE TO LIKE, PUT IT TOGETHER AND JUST NOT LIKE CUT IT UP AND JUST, AND JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW, MOVE IT TO THE BACK.
LIKE WE HAVE TO REMOVE THE FLOOR, WE HAVE TO REMOVE THE LAUNDRY.
WE GONNA HAVE TO LITERALLY RESHAPE THE ENTIRE HOUSE, WHICH WOULD BE LIKE A LOT OF MONEY.
IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE VERY PRICEY BECAUSE ONCE YOU DEMOLISH THE FRONT PORCH, THEN WHERE ARE WE GONNA ADD IT? THAT MEANS THAT WE ARE GONNA HAVE TO TAKE SOME FROM THE LIVING ROOM AND JUST MOVE THE ENTIRE HOUSE.
AND THEN I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR, UH, CITY STAFF HERE.
SO WITH THE, UM, IS THERE, FOR INSPECTIONS OF THIS SORT, I'M ASSUMING, IS THERE LIKE A LOG THAT'S KEPT FROM WHEN INSPECTORS GOT TO THE FIELD THAT COULD ATTRACT DATES, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE VARIOUS PARTS OF CONSTRUCTION? OR DOES, DOES THE OWNER HAVE, I MEAN, UM, IS THAT, IS THERE A LOG THAT THAT EXISTS THAT SAYS AN INSPECTOR WENT OUT ON SUCH TO DATE, THEY INSPECTED THE FOUNDATIONS, THEY INSPECTED, YOU KNOW, THE FINISH OUTS YOU SAY, IS THERE A LOG? YES, A LOG OR A LOG LOG, LIKE JUST ENTRIES AS TO YES, BECAUSE I MEAN PART OF, YEAH, SO WE CAN LOOK IN PROJECT TO SEE WHEN THE, UM, I GUESS INSPECTION, THE RE ATTACKS WERE DONE.
AND IT'S SO CRAZY BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO THE, UM, THE SURVEY FOR THE, THE FORM SURVEY AND WE LEFT THE FORM SURVEY THERE.
SO THAT INSPECTOR CHECKED THE FORM SURVEY, HE CHECKED ALL OF THE PLANS, HE NEVER SAID ANYTHING.
AND YEAH, AND THE POINT OF THAT QUESTION, UM, AND IT ACTUALLY DOES GO TOWARDS THE, THE COST HERE IS IF THERE WERE CHECKS AND BALANCES THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO BE IN PLACE AND THEY WEREN'T OBSERVED THROUGHOUT THIS CONSTRUCTION, THEN THAT I BELIEVE WOULD ADD TO THE NCE OF WHY WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT THE COST TO REMEDY OR POSSIBLY REMEDY REMEDI THIS WOULD BE.
AND ALSO ONE THING, UM, THOSE FIVE FEET ONLY COVERS LIKE THE PORCH AND A LITTLE BIT OF THE GARAGE.
SO IT IS NOT EVEN, UM, ANY, IT IS NOT AFFECTING ANY LIVING SPACE ON THE HOUSE, WHICH IS REALLY GOOD.
IT'S JUST THE ENTRANCE OF THE PORCH AND A LITTLE BIT OF THE GARAGE.
UM, WELL MY QUESTION IS TO THE BUILDER, ARE YOU BONDED OR INSURED? IT'S YOUR COMPANY BOND TO INSURED? YES.
UH, WE HAVE A, UH,
UH, IT WILL BE LIKE A LONG PROCESS.
A LOT OF THINGS TO DO IN THE HOUSE.
WERE YOU, WERE YOU THE BUILDER FOR THIS PROJECT? YES.
WOULD YOU MIND GOING OVER, UH, VANESSA STAIRCASE PLEASE? AT THE VANESSA CASE PLEASE? AN ANISA FOUR.
UH, WOULD YOU MIND GOING OVER THE VANESSA CASE? 'CAUSE I FEEL LIKE, UH, THE VANESSA CASE EVEN KNOW NO CASE SETS PRECEDENT.
IT'S CERTAINLY IS THE CASE SET.
UH, THAT IS KIND OF GUIDE, GUIDES, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IT, THE AMOUNT OF A DALLAS HEARING SIMILAR TO THAT.
SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HEAR THIS, UM, UH, IN ORDER TO HELP GIVE US A CLARITY.
UM, WHILE SHE'S LOOKING THAT UP, I, UM, I BELIEVE YOU HAD ANOTHER COMMENT TO MAKE.
OH, THERE IS NO FIVE, I MEAN, UH, IT'S CLOSE TO FIVE FEET, BUT IT'S UH, FOUR FEET, TWO INCHES.
SO IT IS NOT LIKE TOTAL FIVE FEET.
SO WHAT WE'VE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SORT OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING THE BUILDING INTO A COMPLIANCE.
AND AGAIN, I, IT SEEMS A LITTLE LOW.
UM, I THINK YOU ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER WHAT THIS IS GONNA DO TO THE HOME'S AESTHETICS AND TO ITS FUNCTIONALITY AND HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO REDUCE THE VALUE OF THE HOME.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A NON-FUNCTIONAL GARAGE THAT'S NOT GONNA FIT A CAR.
SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO TURN THAT INTO SOMETHING ELSE.
[03:50:01]
LIKE YOU CAN'T JUST HAVE, HAVE STORAGE OR A BEDROOM OR SOMETHING.UM, IF YOU NEED A GARAGE, IF THERE'S REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING, UM, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO PUT A, LIKE, LIKE A, A GARAGE IN THE BACK.
YOU MIGHT HAVE TO PUT A PARKING PAD IN THE BACK.
UM, I, I AM, YOU KNOW, I I THINK IT'S GOING TO COST A TON OF MONEY A TON.
WHILE, WHILE WE HAVE OUR BOARD ATTORNEY LOOK UP THE VESCO CASE, I'M GOING TO RECESS FOR TWO MINUTES FOR A, A BRIEF, UH, A BATHROOM BREAK.
SO WE WILL RESUME AT 5 57, 4 57.
UM, UH, WE WILL RESUME, UH, THE HEARING AT 4:57 PM I'M GONNA ASK THAT OUR BOARD ATTORNEY READ US THE VANESSA CASE, UM, AS, UH, GUIDE.
UH, WHAT? OH, YOU, OH, SHE HAS TO PRESS WHAT? OH, SORRY, I FORGOT.
THERE'S SOME, THERE'S SOME BIRTHDAYS HERE.
WE WILL, UH, UH, RESUME OUR PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF, UM, MS. CASE AND I WILL DEFER TO OUR BOARD ATTORNEY TO READ THE VANESSA CASE, UM, AS IT, UH, OUT GIVES, UH, GUIDANCE TO THIS BOARD, UM, TO CASES VERY SIMILAR TO THIS.
SO THE CITY OF DALLAS VERSUS VANESSA CASE, UM, THIS WAS A SUPREME COURT CASE HELD IN 2006.
AND ESSENTIALLY THE SCOS WANTED TO BUILD A LARGER HOUSE 'CAUSE THEY TORE DOWN THEIR EXISTING AND BUILT A NEW ONE ON THE SAME LOT.
THE CITY APPROVED THE PLANS, BUT WHILE THE, WHILE THE HOUSE WAS BEING BUILT, THE INSPECTOR CAME OUT AND SAID, OH NO, IT'S TOO TALL.
SO THEY ASKED THEM, OR THEY DIDN'T ISSUE A STOCK WORK ORDER, BUT THEY RECOMMENDED THAT VANESSA GO TO THE BOARD FOR A VARIANCE.
UM, THE BOARD WAS DEADLOCKED, SO IT WAS STATUS QUO, IT WAS PRESERVED, IT WAS JUST DENIED.
UM, AND THEN IT WENT TO THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, UM, AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURTS
[03:55:01]
THAT REVERSED THE BOARD'S DECISION, BUT THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT.SO THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY CAN ENFORCE THE ZONING ORDINANCE AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED NEW HOME HAS BEEN BUILT IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, EVEN THOUGH THE CITY HAD GIVEN PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE OWNER'S BUILDING PLANS.
AND THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE MERE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT DOES NOT RENDER A CITY ZONING ORDINANCE UNENFORCEABLE, NOR DOES THE FACT THAT A PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN ERROR ENTITLED THE PROPERTY OWNER TO A VARIANCE IN EVERY CASE.
SO THIS CASE IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT CONCLUDED THAT A CITY CAN ENFORCE A ZONING ORDINANCE AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO HAS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED THEIR HOME, EVEN THOUGH THE, THE CITY HAD GIVEN PRIOR APPROVAL AND THAT THEY APPLIED THE VARIANCE STANDARD.
SO, UM, Y'ALL HAVE QUESTIONS, THE APPLICANT, UM, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE Y'ALL HAVE TO SPEAK ON THIS? OH, NO MA'AM.
OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T THINK SO.
UM, DO Y'ALL, DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY RECEIPTS DRINKING THAT MIGHT MAKE THE CASE FOR, UH, A HARDSHIP, UH, IN REGARDS TO BECOMING COMPLIANT WOULD BE MORE 50% OR MORE OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT ON THE PROPERTY? MA'AM, I CAN GET QUOTES FROM YOU.
UM, YOU KNOW, FROM THE, FROM EVERYBODY.
I WOULD HAVE TO ASK LIKE EACH CONTRACTOR TO SEE HOW MUCH THEY WOULD CHARGE TO MAKE A, EACH LITTLE CHANGE.
UM, AND I CAN SEND IT TO YOU GUYS, BUT IT'S GONNA BE EXPENSIVE.
UM, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE, THE COST OF THE BILL OR, OR IF YOU READ, UM, DEMO THE
SO YEAH, THAT WOULD BE EITHER YOU DEMOED IT OR IF YOU RENOVATED IT.
YEAH, WE HAVE TO GET ALL THOSE FOR THE CONTRACTORS SO THAT THEY CAN GIVE US LIKE QUOTES.
BUT WE ARE GONNA HAVE TO DEMOLISH EVERYTHING, INCLUDING THE STUCCO, INCLUDING BRICK, THE ENTIRE FACE OF THE HOUSE AND BUILT ANOTHER GARAGE IN THE BACK.
AND IT, FOR THAT GARAGE IN THE BACK, IT'S GOING TO BE AT LEAST 30 TO $40,000.
'CAUSE YOU HAVE TO REPORT CONCRETE, DO ALL THE FRAMING, TEXTURE, EVERYTHING.
SO JUST IF WE ADD A GARAGE IN THE BACK, IT'S GOING TO BE AT LEAST 30 TO $40,000.
WELL, I MEAN, CAN IT EVEN BE ATTACHED? YOU'VE GOT BEDROOMS IN THE BACK.
LIKE YOU CAN'T, YOU, YOU'D BE TAKEN OFF THE WINDOWS.
LIKE I I LOOKED AT YOUR SITE PLAN.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GONNA PUT A GARAGE.
WELL, I MEAN, THEY, UH, PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, THEY LOVE THE CORRECTION IN THE FRONT.
IS THERE, IS THERE A, IS THERE AN IMPROVED ALLEY IN THE BACK? NO, THERE'S NO ALLEY OR ANYTHING, SO, OKAY, SO YOU'D HAVE TO BUILD THE, YOU'D HAVE TO DEMO THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY, MOVE IT OVER, LOOP IT AROUND THE ENTIRE HOUSE AND PUT A DETACHED GARAGE BACK THERE? NO, I THINK WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO IS WE WOULD NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COSTS OF THEM WOULD BE TO JUST DEMO THE WHOLE HOUSE AND MOVE IT BACK INTO THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED.
Y'ALL ARE TRYING TO, OH, OKAY.
THAT'S DEFINITELY MORE THAN 2%.
Y'ALL TRYING TO COME UP WITH A WHOLE NEW SITE PLAN.
THE PROBLEM IS, IS THE SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED, THEY JUST DIDN'T DEVELOP IT AS PERMITTED.
THEY DEVELOPED IT FOUR, 4.7 FEET, FIVE FEET CLOSER IN, IN THE, UH, IN THE FRONT, THE FRONT SETBACK.
BUT THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT ON US TO PROVE LIKE THEY NEED TO, TO PROVE THE CASE, THAT THE COST TO BECOME COMPLIANT IS 50% OR GREATER OF THE IMPROVEMENT COSTS.
AND WE ARE ALSO AT THIS, THIS PLACE WHERE THERE IS FOR DCA, NO IMPROVEMENT ON THE PROPERTY.
SO THE, THE, IT IS ON THEM TO MAKE THE CASE.
I FEEL LIKE WE'RE ALL TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE.
IT'S ON THEM TO PROVIDE THESE NUMBERS TO COMPLIANT.
ALSO, KEEP IN MIND THAT THERE ARE DEVELOPERS AND IF THEY'RE DEVELOPING MORE HOUSES, THIS ISN'T JUST A HOUSE THEY'RE GONNA BE LIVING IN.
IT'S, THEY'RE DEVELOPING IT TO SELL.
SO THERE'S, THERE'S A COMPONENT OF CONSUMER PROTECTION HERE TOO.
IT'S NOT PART OF THE, OF THE CASE, BUT THIS IS, THIS IS THEIR CASE TO MAKE, NOT OURS.
IF YOU GUYS WANT SOMETHING LIKE A, WE CAN GET QUOTES AND GIVE YOU LIKE AN EXACT NUMBER, BUT IT'S GONNA BE AT LEAST A HUNDRED AND SOME THOUSAND DOLLARS IF WE DON'T HAVE TO DEMO THE ENTIRE HOUSE.
'CAUSE YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING IS GONNA CHANGE.
I I, I THINK WHAT IF THE COST OF BRINGING THE HOUSE INTO COMPLIANCE, WE DETERMINE IS THE COST TO MOVE THE ENTIRE HOUSE.
[04:00:01]
FIVE, TWO.SO WE'RE NOT ASKING TO DEMO THE FRONT FOUR FEET, TWO INCHES OF THE GARAGE AND A LITTLE BIT OF IT.
WE ARE ASKING YOU TO PICK UP THE HOUSE AND MOVE IT BACK.
WE ARE, WE ARE PLAYING IN A HYPOTHETICAL WORLD HERE.
UM, IS THERE ANY WORLD IN WHICH THAT WOULD COST? COULD, COULD YOU DO THAT? COULD YOU, I I'M GUESSING THIS IS A SLAB ON GRADE.
SO WE WOULD BE RIPPING THE HOUSE UP, POURING NEW FOUNDATION, MOVING EVERYTHING BACKWARDS, DOING ALL NEW PLUMBING, ALL NEW ELECTRICAL.
I, I THINK THIS IS ON THE APPLE BACK.
WELL, WE WE'RE DRAWING IT OUT OF THEM.
WE, WE DRAW TESTIMONY OUT OF THEM WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE ROD BALDWIN STANDING UP HERE.
SO I, I THINK THIS IS APPROPRIATE.
UM, COULD, COULD YOU DO THAT? I MEAN, I, I KNOW YOU CAN PICK UP HERE IN BEAM HOUSE.
CAN YOU PICK UP A, A HOUSE THAT'S SLAB ON GRADE? UH, YOU CAN, BUT IT'S GONNA BE AT LEAST $150,000.
AND THEN THERE'S ALL THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH REDOING THE PLUMBING AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
UM, MADAM CHAIR MAY MAKE A POINT OR MAKE A MOTION IF IT, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AND NO OTHER SPEAKERS, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 3 0 VOTE THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 18TH, 2024.
WE ARE NOT A DESIGN TEAM, WE'RE NOT CONTRACTORS, BUT YOU ALL ARE.
SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR BASICALLY IS THIS, WE NEED HARD QUOTES.
SO GO BACK TO ALL YOUR SUBCONTRACTORS TO PRESENT A CASE THAT, AGAIN, YOU ALL WILL HAVE TO GET THOSE FIGURES TO PROVE THAT A LITERAL DEMOLITION OR RECONSTRUCTION OF THIS HOUSE IS OVER 50% OF THE VALUE THERE.
SO I THINK YOU ALL, FROM WHAT YOU ALL HAVE THE EXPERIENCE IN DESIGNING CONSTRUCTION, DON'T SEE THAT BEING AN ISSUE.
BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS CASE TODAY.
THAT'S THE ONLY, THAT'S THE ONLY PARAMETER HERE THAT YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH BECAUSE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL.
BUT IF YOU COULD COME TO US WITH, WITH NOT, WITH ACTUAL RECEIPTS AND QUOTES OF WHAT IT WOULD COST YOU TO BECOME COMPLIANT, AND IF IN THAT CASE YOU MAKE THE CASE THAT IT IS OVER 50% OF THE VALUE, NOW YOU ARE ALSO GONNA HAVE TO PROVE THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY BECAUSE RIGHT NOW A DCA HAS, IT IS JUST LAND.
SO THAT WILL BE FOR YOU TO DETERMINE AND TO MAKE THE CASE.
UM, IF, UH, CONSIDERING IF THIS PASSES AT THE NEXT HEARING, UM, I'LL SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
I WOULD'VE VOTED TO APPROVE THIS TODAY.
UM, WHEN YOU COME BACK NEXT TIME, UM, I THINK Y'ALL NEED TO TAKE A LONG LOOK AT THE STANDARDS FOR REVIEW THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING.
AND THESE ARE, THESE ARE IN THE PACKET.
THIS IS ON PAGE 1, 1, 2, 5 OF THE PACKET AND IT CONTINUES ON TO THE NEXT PAGE.
UM, I THINK WHAT WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO SEE SPECIFICALLY IS EXACTLY WHAT IT COSTS TO BUILD THE EXISTING HOUSE, NOT THE LAND, JUST THE IMPROVEMENTS, AND THEN A QUOTE TO MOVE THE ENTIRE HOUSE, FIVE FEET BACK, INSURANCE OVERHEAD, LABOR, TIMING, EVERYTHING, ALL THIS STUFF.
UM, AND IF THAT'S GONNA DIMINISH THE VALUE OF THE HOME IN ANY WAY, I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WOULD, BUT DON'T FORGET TO CHIP OUT THE FOUNDATION THAT'S GONNA BE POKING UP IN FRONT.
BUT YOU GOTTA DO SOME, PUT SOME MORE IRRIGATION IN THERE.
UM, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE IS IF THE COST OF COMPLYING IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE.
SO IF YOU WANT US TO FIND IN FAVOR OF THIS SUBSTITUTE ELEMENT, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE, IT COSTS US $250,000 TO BUILD THIS AND THE COST OF COMPLIANCE IS $125,000 AND 1 CENT.
I WOULD, I WOULD LOOK AT THEM CAREFULLY.
UM, YOU NEED TO PROVE VALUE AND NEED TO PROVE THE REPLACEMENT COST THAT'S EXCEEDS 50% IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE ANY CASE HERE.
WE HAVEN'T EVEN MADE A A VOTE YET.
THEY WON'T, THEY WON'T GIVE YOU ALL THE ANSWERS, BUT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STANDARDS FOR THIS VARIANCE OF THE APPLICATION, PLEASE ASK THEM.
AND, UH, FOR THE VALUE OF THE HOUSE, DO YOU WANT ME TO, 'CAUSE I'M AN AGENT TOO, SO DO YOU WANT ME TO RUN SOME COMMS SO THAT I CAN TELL YOU LIKE I'M, UM, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
I'M NOT GONNA TELL YOU HOW TO HANDLE YOUR CASE, BUT WE WILL NEED SOME IDEA OF WHAT
[04:05:01]
THE IMPROVEMENT COST IS BECAUSE IF YOU GO TO DCA THERE IS NO VALUE.THE VALUE IS JUST IN THE LAND.
SO I NEED TO DO SOME, SO, UM, BUT IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, IF NOT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
UH, THE TIME IS 5:09 PM I, I WILL ADJOIN ADJOIN ADJOURN THE HEARING, UH, FOR THIS PANEL RIGHT NOW.