Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


GOOD AFTERNOON

[00:00:01]

AND WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

I'M DAVID NEWMAN

[Board of Adjustments: Panel A on January 21, 2025.]

AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF OUR PANEL A.

TODAY IS TUESDAY, JANUARY 21ST AND THE TIME IS 1:00 PM AND I HEREBY CALL THE BORDER THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A TO ORDER FOR PUBLIC HEARING, BOTH IN PERSON AND HYBRID VIDEO CONFERENCE AT QUORUM, UH, WHICH IS A MINIMUM FOUR OR FIVE OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS.

AND WE HAVE FIVE OF FIVE HERE IS PRESENT, AND THEREFORE WE CAN PROCEED WITH OUR MEETING.

FIRST, ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE THE BOARD MEMBER PANELS.

AGAIN, MY NAME IS DAVID NEWMAN AND I'M CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, UH, AND PRESIDING OFFICER PANEL A.

TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT IS PHIL SAUK, THEN RACHEL HAYDEN, MR. JAY NER AND MICHAEL OVITZ.

UH, THREE OFFICERS OF THE BOULDER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

BESIDES MYSELF AS CHAIRMAN IS THERESA CARLISLE TO MY IMMEDIATE RIGHT WHO'S OUR BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, DR.

KAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, WHO'S OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF PLANNER, AND MARY WILLIAMS, OUR BOARD SECRETARY AND MEETING MODERATOR.

AGAIN, I WANT TO SAY ON THE RECORD, IN ORDER TO SPEAK TODAY, YOU NEED TO FILL OUT A GREEN, EXCUSE ME, A BLUE SHEET OF PAPER AND GET THAT TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY.

BEFORE WE BEGIN, UH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS ON THE RECORD ABOUT THE WAY THIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR THAT TIME.

WE OPERATE UNDER THE CITY COUNCIL, APPROVE RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE.

NO ACTION OR DECISION OF A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT.

EACH CASE IS DECIDED ON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED EACH USE IS PRESUMED TO BE ILLEGAL USE.

WE'VE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRIOR TO THIS HEARING AND HAVE ALSO REVIEWED A DETAILED PUBLIC DOCKET, WHICH EXPLAINS THE CASE AND WAS POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE ACCORDING TO OUR RULES, SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY CASE THAT WE HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY, UH, MARY WHIMS WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED, THE EVIDENCE MUST BE RETAINED IN THE BOARD'S OFFICE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.

APPROVALS OF A VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR REVERSAL OF A BUILDING OFFICIAL DECISION REQUIRES 75% OR FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, FOUR OF FIVE OF US.

ALL OTHER MOTIONS REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.

SO AGAIN, TO GET TO GET A VARIANCE OR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVED, IT REQUIRES FOUR OF THE FIVE MEMBER PANELS HERE.

LETTERS OF THE BOARD'S ACTIONS TODAY WILL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING AND WILL BECOME A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.

ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY.

EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK, UH, DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES OR WHEN THE SPECIFIC CASE IS CALLED FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ROUGHLY FIVE MINUTES.

AND I WILL GIVE EQUAL TIME TO THE, TO THE APPLICANT AND THOSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR AND THOSE OPPOSED THE APPLICANT, HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO OUR RULES, GETS FIVE MINUTES, UH, REBUTTAL AT THE END OF THEIR PRESENTATION.

ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON THE VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AND THEY MUST HAVE REGISTERED 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE HEARING.

NO TELECONFERENCE ROOM BE ALLOWED VIA WEBEX.

ALL COMMENTS ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO MYSELF AS A PRESIDING OFFICER WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER.

OKAY, UM, LET ME FIRST PREVIEW OUR AGENDA BOARD MEMBERS.

UM, WE HAD OUR CALL TO ORDER.

WE HAD OUR STAFF PRESENTATION.

UM, THIS MORNING WE'LL START OUR PUBLIC.

WE'VE STARTED OUR PUBLIC HEARING IN A MOMENT WE'LL DO PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

UH, AND THEN WE HAVE TWO MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS OF MEETING MINUTES AND THEN A REQUEST FOR FEE REIMBURSEMENT.

THEN WE HAVE, WE ORIGINALLY HAD FOUR CASES ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET.

ALL GOT MOVED TO THE INDIVIDUAL DOCKET.

WE HAD ONE HOLDOVER CASE, INDIVIDUAL CASE.

MY PLAN OF ACTION IS TO, UH, HANDLE THE AGENDA TODAY IN THE ORDER THAT'S PRESENTED.

MEETING MINUTES FEE, REQUEST FEE, REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST, THEN BUCKNER BOULEVARD, THEN DAVIS STREET, THEN SAN LORENZO, THEN ROYAL LANE, THEN VICTORIA AVENUE, THEN SIGAL AL SITAL, S-T-I-G-A-L-L.

I APOLOGIZE IN THAT ORDER.

UH, QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD HEARING.

NO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

WILL GO TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

MS. BOARD SECRETARY, TELL ME WHAT SPEAKERS WE HAVE.

HOW MANY PLEASE? NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS.

REGISTRAR, SIR.

NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT, NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS. UH, FIRST ITEM IS THE REVIEW AND APPROVE OUR MEETING MINUTES.

UH, THE, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

HOLD ON A SECOND.

HOLD ON A SECOND.

MS. BOARD SECRETARY, I ASKED THE QUESTION, IS ANYONE REGISTERED FOR PUBLIC

[00:05:01]

TESTIMONY? NO.

FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY? NOT FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT, WE'LL CONTINUE ON.

UH, NEXT ITEM, ITEM I'M ON THE AGENDA IS OUR MEETING MINUTES.

THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MR. KOVI, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER MEETING OF PANEL A BE APPROVED.

UH, A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY MR. KOVI TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES AS PROPOSED FROM THE PANEL A DECEMBER 9TH, 2024 MEETING.

IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND.

IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY, UM, MS. HAYDEN DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION HEARING.

NO DISCUSSION.

UH, ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE.

AYE.

AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED PASSES FIVE TO ZERO.

THE MEETING MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 9TH, 2024 PANEL A'S ADOPTED AS PRESENTED.

THANK YOU.

NEXT ITEM, THE AGENDA IS BDA 2 45 0 9 FR ONE.

UM, ONE SECOND.

ALL RIGHT.

THE, THE, UH, ITEM BEFORE US IS A REQUEST, UH, IN 2 4 5 0 9 FFR ONE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF FILING FEES.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE, MR. HUAN? CHOBANI BETTER FOR HER TO SAY IT THAN ME? I'D BUTCHER IT, BUT THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT, SIR, YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT YOUR REQUEST, UM, MR. OH, YOU HAVE TO SWEAR HIM IN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH MS. WILLIAMS. I'M RUSTY HERE.

MS. WILLIAMS, YOU PLEASE GO AHEAD AND SWEAR IN THE APPLICANT.

DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? CAN YOU PLEASE PRESS THE GREEN BUTTON TO TURN IN THE MICROPHONE? JUST WAIT FOR THE, YEAH.

IS THE LIGHT GREEN? YES.

OKAY.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.

ANG GIOVANNI GIOVANNI, CONSULTING ENGINEER.

YOU CAN HOLD IT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE, SIR.

ANG GIOVANNI GIOVANNI, CONSULTING ENGINEERS.

ADDRESS IS 2121 NORTH JERSEY LANE, SUITE 200, CARLTON, TEXAS 7 5 0 0 6.

SO YOUR LAST NAME IS SHIVANI GIOVANNI SHIVANI.

VERY GOOD SIR.

YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES? YES.

THE REASON THAT, UH, WE ASKED FOR THIS IS BECAUSE, UH, WE CAME HERE SEVERAL MONTHS AGO FOR THE, UH, LANDSCAPE VARIANCE, UH, FOR THESE PROJECTS.

AND AT THAT TIME IT WAS APPROVED, BUT LATER ON THEY ASKED US TO COME BACK AGAIN BECAUSE THEY FORGOT TO ASK US TO REQUEST ANOTHER VARIANCE FOR THE BUILDING SETBACK.

UH, IT WAS, UH, THE CITIES THAT, UH, TOLD US THAT WE CAN ASK FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT BECAUSE THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE LAST TIME.

ANYTHING ELSE, SIR? THAT'S IT.

OKAY.

UM, MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR IN OUR BRIEFING THIS MORNING, SOME OF THE CONVERSATION CAME UP AS IT RELATES TO THIS.

UH, THE APPLICANT JUST TESTIFIED THAT, UH, IT WAS AN ERROR ON THE STAFF'S PART.

IS THAT THE BOARD BOARD STAFF'S POSITION? YES, SIR.

I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

YES, SIR.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

OKAY, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

SEEING NO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MS. HAYDEN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 0 9 FR ONE ON A CAP APPLICATION OF DU HA SHAM GRANT, THE REQUEST TO THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FILING FEES PAID IN ASSOCIATION WITH A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS AS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT IN THE MATTER BDA 2 4 5 0 0 9 FR ONE MS. HAYDEN HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR FEE REIMBURSEMENT.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. NRI.

DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION.

MS. HAYDEN AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE APPLICANT COULD HAVE, UH, TAKEN CARE OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST WITH HIS PREVIOUS VARIANCE REQUEST, UM, EXCEPT FOR AN OVERSIGHT ON THE STAFF'S PART.

UM, SO I DON'T FEEL THAT IT'S FAIR TO REQUEST THAT HE PAY THIS, THIS FEE TWICE.

THANK YOU MS. HAYDEN.

MR. NERI, ANY COMMENTS? UH, I CONCUR WITH MS. HAYDEN.

NOTHING FURTHER TO ADD ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO GRANT A REQUEST FOR FEE REIMBURSEMENT FOR FILING FEES PAID.

HEARING NO DISCUSSION.

THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.

MS. HAYDEN AYE.

MR. OVITZ?

[00:10:01]

AYE.

MR. N AYE.

MR. HAYE? AYE.

MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE.

MOTION TO GRAHAM PASSES 5 6 0 IN THE MATTER BDA 2 4 509 FFR ONE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ON A FIVE ZERO VOTE BRANCH OR REQUEST FOR FREE REIMBURSEMENT.

YOU'LL BE COMMUNICATED FROM OUR BOARD STAFF REGARDING THAT PROCESS, BUT THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED.

THANK YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU.

UHHUH .

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS 2 3 4 1 0 0 2 3 4 DASH ONE ZERO.

THIS IS AT 6 3 0 SOUTH BUCKNER BOULEVARD.

UH, IS THE APPLICANT HERE PLEASE COME FORWARD.

.

HOLD ON ONE SECOND.

YES, SIR.

UM, THE STAFF HAS ASKED THAT THEY BE ALLOWED TO FURTHER BRIEF THE BOARD BEFORE YOU PROCEED.

SO WHO'S DOING THAT? OKAY.

OUR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MR. POOLE IS GONNA GIVE US A BRIEFING.

SO IF YOU, ARE YOU GONNA COME FORWARD YONDER? THANK YOU MR. POOLE, IF YOU'D INTRODUCE YOURSELF PLEASE.

JASON POOLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, UH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR.

PLEASE PROCEED.

SO WE, WE WANTED TO CLARIFY A COUPLE ITEMS ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

UM, THE REQUEST IS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE IN THE REPORT, IT SPECIFIED THAT, UH, THIS, THIS USE WAS A CONFORMING USE THAT IS PARTLY CORRECT.

UH, THIS U THIS USE EXISTED BEFORE THE ZONING CAME IN UNDER THE NEW ZONING REGULATIONS.

THIS USE REQUIRES AN SUP BEING THAT THIS USE EXISTED PRIOR TO THESE CONDITIONS.

IT IS NON-CONFORMING IN THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE AN SUP AND ANY, ANY LARGE CHANGES WOULD REQUIRE AN SUP.

SO IT IS LET, LET'S SAY THAT AGAIN.

SO THE USE EXISTED BEFORE THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN SUP CAME IN, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THAT'S CORRECT.

IT IS, IT IS A LEGAL USE, YES.

SO BECAUSE OF THAT, IT'S NON-CONFORMING.

OKAY.

THAT IS CORRECT.

I THINK THE, AND THEN YOU SAID UNLESS THERE'S MAJOR CHANGES, RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? SO, SO AN EXPANSION BEYOND A A CERTAIN AMOUNT.

OKAY.

LIKE, LIKE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE.

OKAY.

SO ONCE, UH, ONCE IT DOES EXPAND, THEN THEN AN SUP WOULD BE REQUIRED AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SUP PROCESS BEING THAT THIS DIDN'T HAVE AN SUP TO BEGIN WITH IT, IT IS NONCONFORM NOW THE USE IS ALLOWED BY THE PE WITH AN SUP, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

UH, UH, I GUESS SO OUR CRITERIA IS IT, IT CANNOT PROLONG THE LIFE OF THE NON-CONFORMING USE.

IT WOULD'VE BEEN PERMITTED UNDER ZONING REG REGULATIONS AND EXISTED WHEN THE OR WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED AND IT DOES NOT HAVE ADVERSE EFFECT.

THOSE ARE THE ONLY THREE THINGS WE'RE LOOKING AT, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

NOW THERE IS A, A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY HERE BECAUSE THE EXPANSION HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.

YOU GET, YOU GET TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT THE FOOTPRINT IS GONNA BE BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S ALREADY THERE.

THEY DO HAVE NON-CONFORMING BUILDINGS BEING THAT THEY WERE BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS.

BUT THIS, THIS BOARD IS LOOKING AT THE USE IN GENERAL AND THE THE FOOTPRINT GENERATED, WHICH IS ALREADY ON THE GROUND RIGHT NOW.

OKAY.

AND THE PORTION THAT REQUIRES THE SUP IS NOT THE AUTO SALES, CORRECT? OR IT IS, IT IS THE ENTIRE USE.

THE ENTIRE, WHICH IS AUTO SALES AND DISPLAY.

CORRECT.

YOU HAVE TO SEPARATE THE STRUCTURES FROM THE USE.

AND WE'RE NOT, ARE WE, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE USE OR THE STRUCTURE, THE USE, BUT IN DETERMINING WHETHER IT ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE AREA AND, AND THEN THAT KIND OF THING.

YOU'RE GONNA LOOK AT THE, THE FOOTPRINT AND THE EXPANSION OF THE USE, WHICH HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.

OKAY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CLEAR CLARIFIES IT OR NOT MR. POOLE, TO BE HONEST FOR ME.

BUT I GUESS WE'LL FIND OUT.

I HOPE SO.

AND WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF YOU NEED IT.

I GUESS SO.

I'LL LET THE APPLICANT SINCE THE BURDEN IS ON THERES TO ENLIGHTEN US.

OKAY.

SO THANK YOU.

BUT HANG LOOSE.

ALRIGHT.

UM, IF YOU, UH, GO AHEAD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN.

JENNIFER HIROTO 1 0 2 3 3 EAST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY DALLAS 7 5 2 3 8.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM ANY TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES.

OKAY.

PROCEED.

THANK YOU.

UM, I AGREE WITH WHAT MR. POOL HAS, UM, SAID, AND I WAS PREPARED FOR THIS.

IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

UM, THE CODE DOES IDENTIFY WHEN YOU CAN LOSE YOUR NON PERFORMING RIGHTS, SO I WAS PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

THERE'S SIX ITEMS. THE FIRST ONE IS WHEN COUNSEL SETS AN AMORTIZATION DATE.

SO

[00:15:01]

WE'VE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE USE.

UM, WE'VE NOT, UM, CHANGED TO A LEGAL USE.

WE'VE NOT, UH, REMOVED STRUCTURES AND REMOVE THE USE.

SO WE'VE MAINTAINED OUR NONCONFORMING RIGHT.

NONCONFORMING RIGHTS.

UM, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.

WE HAVE A CHOICE OF GOING TO THROUGH THE SUP PROCESS OR TO SEEK YOUR APPROVAL FOR THE EXPANSION.

UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

UM, I THINK IT WAS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT THAT 2017 IS WHEN THE SUP REQUIREMENT CAME INTO EFFECT.

UM, AND YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, UH, BEFORE I GOT STARTED, UM, THOSE THREE POINTS AND THAT'S WHAT I REALLY WANNA FOCUS ON FIRST.

UM, AND THIS, YOU HAVE THIS AUTHORITY WHETHER THERE WAS A PERMIT ISSUED, UM, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

WHAT WE ARE HERE TO DO.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

UM, IS TO SEEK YOUR APPROVAL SO THAT WE CAN GET BUILDING PERMITS AND WE CAN PLAN.

UM, THERE'S, THERE ARE PERMIT RECORDS.

UM, THEY'RE VERY FRUSTRATING AND CONFUSING BECAUSE THEY'RE INCOMPLETE.

UM, BUT THE AUTO RELATED HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE 1963.

UM, AND THE AERIALS SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL EXPANSION TO THE EAST HAPPENED AT LEAST SINCE 1999.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

UM, SO, UM, THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN WILL MEET THE ZONING REGULATIONS.

WE ARE TRIGGERING THE LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS.

UM, UH, LET'S SEE, THERE WAS A PERMIT DONE IN 19 80, 89.

THE ARBOR SAID THERE WAS A LANDSCAPE TRADE THEN, BUT THERE'S NO PERMIT HISTORY BEYOND WHAT HE SAW THAT THERE WAS A LANDSCAPE TRADE ON THAT PERMIT RECORD.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO THE ARBOR STAFF PRELIMINARY APPROVED THIS PLAN.

UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY FLAT THAT WE'RE READY TO FILE.

TOMORROW IS THE NEXT AVAILABLE SUBMITTAL WINDOW.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

UM, AND WE, UH, IT WILL NOT HAVE A ADVERSE EFFECT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

SO, UM, THE TENANT IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND THEY WENT THROUGH AND GOT SIGNATURES ON, UH, FROM THESE PROPERTY OWNERS.

WANNA POINT OUT THAT THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS ACTUALLY A SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY.

UM, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, BUT, UM, THEY DID GET SUPPORT FROM THAT OWNER.

UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

UH, YOU ASKED EARLIER ABOUT OWNERSHIP AND WHO BUILT THIS WITH QUESTIONABLE PERMITS.

UM, THE CURRENT OWNER, UH, PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AT THE END OF 2020 AND PRIOR TO THAT WAS 2017.

UH, SO THERE'S BASICALLY BEEN THREE MAJOR PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE PAST 40 YEARS.

UH, NEXT SLIDE.

UH, THIS IS A TIMELINE.

WE KIND OF WENT OVER THIS.

BRIAN WENT OVER IT AS WELL.

UM, THE, THE, AND I DON'T WANNA GO TOO FAR DOWN THIS PATH OF PERMITTING.

IS THIS CONFUSING? 'CAUSE IT'S INCOMPLETE .

SO THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT WERE DONE RIGHT? THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT WERE DONE WRONG, SOME THINGS HAPPENED IN THE WILD.

AND THIS APPLICATION IS LOOKING TO GET PERMITS SO THAT WE CAN MAKE EVERYTHING WHOLE AND LEGAL.

UM, I'VE GOT SLIDES OF THE 63 PERMITS, THE FIRST CO IN THE SEVENTIES, OTHER THINGS IF YOU WANNA LOOK AT IT OR OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER, BEFORE I COME BACK TO YOU, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? MS. WILLIAMS IS, IS THE APPLICANT GOING TO SPEAK? JUST THE APPLICANT? UM, HE'S AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

OKAY.

ALRIGHT.

SO WE'LL, WOULD YOU, DO YOU NEED US LEARN THEN? NO, NO, NOT YET.

OKAY.

KEEP HIM ON ICE.

OKAY.

UM, ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? MS. WILLIAMS? NOT THE SPEAKER.

OKAY.

ALRIGHT.

UM, AND I MEANT LITERALLY ON ICE.

IT'S A LITTLE CHILLY IN HERE TODAY, BUT THAT'S OKAY.

UH, A LOT OF WARMTH OVER HERE IN THERE.

UM, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MS. HAYDEN? UM, THERE WAS A SLIDE YOU PRESENTED THAT SHOWED, UM, THAT THE TENANT WAS ABLE TO GET SIGNATURES OF, OF APPROVAL.

WERE THOSE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS OR WHAT WAS THAT EXACT? I WAS, I WAS A LITTLE UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT THAT WAS.

UM, I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS BRIAN'S SLIDE FROM THE NOTIFICATION MAP WHERE FOUR OF THE FIVE SIGNATURES WERE IN THE NOTIFICATION AREA.

SO, UM, MR. LEY WENT TO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS AND SAID, HEY, I'M HAVING TO GO THROUGH THIS EXTRA PROCESS, TRY TO GET MY CO THEY WON'T LET ME DO THIS.

I HAVE TO FIX ALL THESE OTHER PROBLEMS THAT IT'S JUST, IT CAME WITH THE PROPERTY AND, UM, HE WAS ABLE TO GET THEIR SIGNATURE OF SUPPORT.

YES.

KEEP GOING.

UM, AND THEN ON IT, IT'S, IT'S EXPANSION OR, UH, OF A, OF A NON-CONFORMING USE IS IS WHAT, WHAT EXACTLY

[00:20:01]

IS BEING EXPANDED? I'M NOT, I'M NOT REALLY CLEAR ON THAT EITHER.

YES.

SO, UM, THE PARAGRAPH OF THE CODE THAT HAS THE THREE POINTS THAT YOU'RE EVALUATING TODAY, IT SAYS WHAT A EXPANSION CONSISTS OF.

UM, WE CAN GO BACKWARD.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT SLIDE IT WAS, BUT IT TALKS ABOUT FLOOR AREA, IT TALKS ABOUT LAND AREA HEIGHTS, UM, AND THEN THERE'S A PARAGRAPH ABOUT CELL TOWERS THAT DOESN'T APPLY.

SO OUR EXPANSION IS THAT THE REAR SERVICE-BASED STRUCTURE CARPORT IS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL, UM, SITE, WHICH IS THE LOT, THE FRONT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THIS CLOUDY PERMIT HISTORY.

I'M JUST TRYING TO, I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT, BUT BIT, BUT, SO THE, THE REAR BUILDING DOES NOT HAVE A PERMIT.

SO THAT IS, UM, AN EXPANSION OF THE LAND BECAUSE THAT FRONT PARK DID GET A PLA IN 1989.

UM, SO THE EXPANSION OF THE LAND AND THE FLOOR AREA.

SO THAT WAS THE EXPANSION.

OKAY.

SO I HAVE TO VERBALIZE THIS AND I'LL ASK THIS QUESTION IF YOU MISS HI MOTO AND THEN IT MAYBE LOOK OVER AT MR POOL TOO.

YES, SIR.

SO WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO IS TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION ABOUT A NON-CONFORMING USE.

AND AGAIN, OUR CRITERIA IS NOT PROLONGING THE LIFE, NOT ALLOWING SOMETHING THAT WOULD'VE NOT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED UNDER THE EXISTING, THE PREVIOUS ZONING.

AND THAT WOULD NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT.

I ASKED THIS THIS MORNING AND I'M STILL CONFUSED.

IS IT THE, THE CARPORT THAT'S OF QUESTION.

IS IT THE DOORS OF QUESTION? IS IT THE USE OF AUTO SALES AND DISPLAY? THAT'S OF ISSUE TO CLARIFY.

SO I SAID THAT TO YOU, BUT I'M SAYING IT TO HIM TO CLARIFY IT FURTHER, IT WOULD BE THE EXPANSION OF THE USE OF THE DISPLAY DISPLAY SALES.

YES.

IT'S NOT THE STRUCTURE.

NO.

BUT THE STRUCTURES DON'T HAVE PERMITS.

CORRECT.

SO I'M CONFUSED.

YOUR, YOUR PURVIEW IS JUST THE EXPANSION OF THAT USE.

THEN IF THAT IS GRANTED, THEN PERMITS WOULD BE SORTED OUT ON THE BACKSIDE.

OKAY.

MY BOARD ATTORNEY'S TWISTING MY ARM AND IT'S HURTING.

UM, I'M JOKING.

I JUST WANNA READ FROM THE CODE OF THE ENLARGEMENT OF A NON-CONFORMING USE.

IT SAYS IN THIS SUBSECTION, ENLARGEMENT OF A NON-CONFORMING USE MEANS ANY ENLARGEMENT OF THE PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF A NON-CONFORMING USE, INCLUDING ANY INCREASE IN HEIGHT, FLOOR AREA, NUMBER OF DRILLING UNITS, OR THE AREA IN WHICH THE NON-CONFORMING USE OPERATES.

SO AREN'T WE LOOKING AT FLOOR AREA? NO.

YES, THERE'S AN UN STRUCTURE BECAUSE IT'S LIKE YOU HAVE A BUILDING THAT'S X AMOUNT OF SQUARE FEET AND YOU'RE TRYING TO EX ENLARGE THAT TO INCLUDE AN LIKE ANOTHER A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET TO THAT USE ESSENTIALLY.

SO YOU ARE JUST ENLARGING THE, THE FOOTPRINT OF THE USE.

UH, I CAN HELP.

UH, WE'RE ENLARGING, WE'RE I'M BEING ASKED ENLARGE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE USE THAT NEVER WAS PERMITTED.

IS THAT THE WAY I SHOULD VIEW IT? WELL, IT, IT HAS A VERY MUDDY PERMIT HISTORY.

I MEAN WE CAN GO DOWN THAT RED HOLE.

OKAY, SO YOUR CLIENT PURCHASED IT IN TWO, YOU SAID 2020? YES, SIR.

OH, SO HE STARTED OPERATING IT IN 2020.

UM, THIS CURRENT TENANT WENT IN TO GET A CO AND SAID TO UPDATE THE OWNERSHIP RECORDS THEY WERE OPERATING UNDER THE PREVIOUS CO, WHICH HAD THE NOTATION THAT THE REAR EASTERN PORTION WAS NOT TO BE USED.

875 SQUARE FEET.

UH, HE WAS SAID, HE WAS TOLD THAT, UM, NO, NO THAT DEAL'S NO LONGER ON THE TABLE.

YOU HAVE TO FIX EVERYTHING.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S ADDRESS THE LAND USE EXPANSION AND FLAT.

SO THAT'S HOW WE GOT HERE.

UM, SO DID HE KNOW THAT YOU'RE THE PERSON YOU'RE REPRESENTING THE OWNER, DID THEY KNOW THIS WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2020? NO, THEY DID NOT.

SO I SPOKE WITH HIM LAST NIGHT.

THEY WERE UNAWARE OF THE SUP REQUIREMENT.

THEY WERE UNAWARE OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THAT LAST CO THAT SAID YOU COULDN'T USE THAT EASTERN PORTION.

UH, THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE, THE CO FROM NINE, UH, 2019.

AND WHY WAS THE PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF THE EASTERN PORTION? I THINK PERMIT STAFF WAS BEING GRACIOUS.

I THINK THEY SAID WE CAN, WE HAVE RECORDS TO JUSTIFY THIS FRONT PORTION.

THIS BACK PART IS NOT ON A PLATTED LOT.

IT'S UNCLEAR.

WE CAN LET YOU GO FORWARD WITH THE FRONT HALF, BUT PROMISE YOU'RE NOT GONNA USE THE BACK HALF.

OKAY.

SO NOT THROWING CLEAR AS MUD.

I KNOW.

VERY FRUSTRATING.

CLEAR AS MUD.

UM, SO WE JUST WANNA SOLVE THE PROBLEM, GET PERMITS AND DO THE RIGHT THING.

OKAY.

QUESTION MR. HOP, I KIND OF PHRASE THIS.

UM,

[00:25:01]

SO THE, THIS, THIS BACK HALF OF THE PROPERTY HAS, HAS THIS PROPERTY BEEN UNDER ONE OWNERSHIP ALL THIS TIME? NO.

I MEAN THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY, HAS THAT, HAS THAT BEEN THE SIZE OF THIS BUSINESS LOCATION FOR THE WHOLE TIME? THE REAR PORTION WAS ACQUIRED IN 2008.

SO OVER LUNCH BREAK I LOOKED AT DCA AND GOT REFRESHED.

SO THAT'S WHEN THAT PORTION WAS, UH, ACQUIRED BY THAT THIRD BULLET OWNER.

SO THE, THE TWO OWNERS BEFORE US, HE ACQUIRED AND EXPANDED.

SO THE, THE CARPORT THAT WAS PUT UP WAS BY TWO OWNERS PRIOR, AT LEAST? YES.

I BELIEVE THAT, THAT, THAT OWNER THAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF OWNED IT FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

OKAY.

AND SO WHICH OWNER ENCLOSED THAT AND MADE IT INTO A ENCLOSED STRUCTURE? SO IN THE CONVERSATION LAST NIGHT WHEN THE OWNER, THEY SAID THAT THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, HOW IT IS TODAY IS WHAT IT WAS WHEN THEY BOUGHT IN 2020.

SO MY LETTER TO YOU WHEN I WAS TRYING TO MEET DEADLINES WAS PROBABLY NOT PURELY ACCURATE.

SO WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION LAST NIGHT AND HE CONFIRMED THAT THE WAY THE PROPERTY IS TODAY IS WHAT IT WAS WHEN HE BOUGHT IN 2020.

THE ONLY THING THEY'VE ADDED WAS A, UM, A GATE, A SCREENING GATE.

AND UM, THE THIRD QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS, UM, DID HE NOT, UM, WHY DID HE NOT GET HIS OWN CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, UM, WHEN HE BOUGHT THE BUSINESS? HE, UM, ONE SECOND.

THEY'LL NEED TO BE SWORN IN BY THE BOARD SECRETARY IF HE SPEAKS.

SO GO AHEAD MS. WILLIAMS. GOOD AFTERNOON.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.

OKAY.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

YES.

AND PROCEED.

YES.

MY NAME IS ALI ALIBABA.

UH, ADDRESS SIX 30 SOUTH BUCKNER BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 7.

YES.

SO, UM, I'M SORRY, THE QUESTION ONE MORE TIME.

WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE BUSINESS, UM, WERE YOU NOT OBLIGATED TO GET A CERTIFICATE ABOUT KIPPY FOR YOURSELF? THE PROPERTY OWNER, CAMERON KHAN BOUGHT IT IN 2021.

THE FIRST BUSINESS THAT THE FIRST DEALERSHIP THAT OPERATED UNDER UNDER THEY THE RENTER, THE FIRST RENTER BEFORE ME, THERE'S TWO RENTERS IS ME AND B-M-B-B-M-B WHEELS AND TIRE.

THEY GOT THEIR CEO IN 2021.

THAT'S WHEN THEY STARTED OPERATING.

AND I HAVE TAKEN OVER, I RENTED THE PROPERTY IN 2023, UM, IN JANUARY.

I OPERATED UNDER THEIR CEO UNTIL MARCH WHEN IS MY LICENSE BECAME INACTIVE.

AND I TRIED TO GET A CO UNDER ME AND THAT'S WHEN WE FACED THIS ISSUE.

THEY TOLD ME, NO, WE CAN GRANT IT TO YOU BECAUSE OF THE BACK.

UM, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THEY GRANTED A CO FOR B AND B UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS, UNDER THE SAME EXISTING BUILDING UNDER EVERYTHING.

UM, SO THAT'S WHAT'S, THAT'S WHAT'S KIND OF BEEN HAPPENING SINCE JUNE.

YES.

THANK YOU.

SO YOUR NAME IS MOHAMMED? MY NAME IS ALI ALIBABA.

MOHAMED ALBAY IS MY PARTNER.

HOLD ON, HOLD ON.

YOUR NAME IS ALI.

ALI.

OKAY.

ON THE APPLICATION IT SAYS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY PER WARRANTY DE IS CON BUCKNER PROPERTIES.

YES.

ARE YOU REP, ARE YOU AN, ARE YOU, DO YOU OWN CON BUCKNER PROPERTIES? NO.

OR ARE YOU A TENANT? I'M A TENANT.

SO DOES HE HAVE STANDING HERE AS A TENANT, SHOULDN'T THE PROPERTY OWNER BE MAKING THIS REQUEST? ISN'T THIS THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS TO TELL YOU, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS TO GIVE CONSENT OF THE APPLICATION? HAS THEY, HAVE THEY YES SIR.

YOUR BOARD INTAKE STAFF IS VERY GOOD.

OKAY.

OKAY.

OKAY.

I'M FURTHER CONFUSED.

'CAUSE YOU SAID 2023 AND I'M AND DURING YOUR PRESENTATION SHE SAID 2020.

SO I DON'T, WHAT I'M, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS PUT TOGETHER THE, THE, THE TIMELINES THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHETHER THERE WAS, THIS IS ME SPEAKING TO PUT THE TIMELINE TOGETHER TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THERE IS GOOD FAITH IN OPERATING YOUR BUSINESS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENTION AND THE RULES.

YES SIR.

THE OWNERSHIP, UH, HAPPENED IN DECEMBER OF 2020.

SO I'M, I'M ASSUMING THAT'S AN EASY CORRECT WAY TO JUST ROUND UP TO 2021.

OKAY.

OKAY.

UH, SO THE REQUEST BEFORE US IS FOR THE, THE, IS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

I'M RECORDING FOR THE USE OF AUTO SALES AND DISPLAY.

IT'S NOT FOR THE STRUCTURE.

I'M SAYING THIS FOR THE FOURTH TIME 'CAUSE I'M STILL NOT GETTING IT.

THE EXPANSION OF THE USE, THE EXPANSION OF THE USE AND THE EXPANSION IS THE, THE

[00:30:01]

CARPORTS THAT WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT.

SO HOW CAN WE APPROVE THE EXPANSION OF A USE WHEN THERE'S NO PERMIT? OR IS THAT THE WHOLE REASON THAT IDEALLY THIS WOULD BE DONE IN IN REVERSAL? I WOULD, THAT'S WHAT'S TWISTING ME.

YEAH.

SO IDEALLY YOU WOULD GET THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FIRST, THEN DO THE BUILDING.

WELL, THE BUILDING'S ALREADY HAPPENED, SO NOW WE'RE OKAY GOING BACKWARDS TO, TO TRY AND REMEDY.

I I WILL TELL YOU MS. HIROTO, THE, THE ONLY REASON I'M STILL INTERESTED IN THIS IS YOUR TENANT, YOUR PROPERTY OWNER DID THE DUE DILIGENCE AND CONTACTED THE NEIGHBORS AND GOT SURROUNDING PROPERTY PROPERTY OWNERS IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT.

THAT ISN'T, THAT ISN'T GUARANTEE IT.

BUT THAT SAYS GOOD FAITH AND MY PART OF WHAT I SAID MY CRITERIA IS, HAS THERE BEEN GOOD FAITH IN TRYING TO COMPLY? AND UM, SO ALRIGHT, WHAT QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE? SO WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO APPROVE SOMETHING THAT PROLONGS THE LIFE.

HOW DO YOU EXPAND A NON-CONFORMING USE WITHOUT PROLONGING THE NON-CONFORMING USE? ARE THEY MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE? I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION FOR MY ATTORNEY.

MAYBE NOT.

MAYBE IT'S YOU.

DO YOU SEE MY QUANDARY? WOULDN'T ONE NECESSARILY FORGET THE OTHER? IN OUR CIRCUMSTANCE WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING NEW.

WE'RE ASKING FOR WHAT'S EXISTING AND WE WANNA MAKE IT RIGHT , WE WANT TO HAVE PERMITS, WE WANNA PLA I HEAR YOU.

THE LANDSCAPE AND AGAIN, I WOULD NEED BE CONSIDERING THIS IF YOU HADN'T GOTTEN SOME SUPPORT IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

BACK TO MY QUESTION, IS EXPANDING A NON-CONFORMING USE, NOT PROLONGING IT? WELL THAT'S WHAT THIS BOARD IS TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT EXPANDING IT WOULD PROLONG THE USE.

OKAY.

THANK YOU QUESTIONS MS. HAYDEN? MR. SAUK? MS. HAYDEN? SO I HEARD EARLIER THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN USED FOR AUTO RELATED USES, UM, SINCE AT LEAST 1963.

SO, UM, ONE COULD SURMISE THAT, UM, THIS IS THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY.

IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY AND, UH, YOU KNOW, EXPANDING THE LAND AND FLOOR AREA MIGHT, WOULD NOT NECESSARILY PROLONG THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY.

IT WOULD JUST CONTINUE IT AS IS.

SO THE, THE EXPANSION OCCURRED IN 2009, IS THAT CORRECT? WE DON'T HAVE GOOD RECORDS.

SO AERIAL PHOTOS ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE.

UM, THE EARLIEST IT SHOWS UP IS 1999.

OKAY.

AND THEN THE PERMIT FOR THE ROOF ENLARGEMENT, THAT WAS FOR THE RV PARKING, CORRECT? YES.

SO THAT MADE IT EASY TO IDENTIFY.

GOT IT.

AND SO WHEN THAT HAPPENED AROUND 2009 BUT IT EXPIRED THE, THE PERMIT 'CAUSE THERE WAS NO INSPECTION THAT TOOK PLACE.

CORRECT.

SO IT WAS NOT FULLY COMPLETED, BUT IT WAS, IT WAS ISSUED APPROVED OVER THE COUNTER.

UM, AND THEN WHATEVER HAPPENED IN THE FIELD, MAYBE THEY DIDN'T CALL INSPECTIONS, I'M NOT QUITE SURE.

BUT UM, FOR THE COS THAT HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THEN, THERE ARE BUILDING INSPECTORS THAT GO CHECK FOR BUILDING PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL FOR LIFE SAFETY ISSUES.

RIGHT.

BUT FOR SOME REASON THE CITY NEVER CAME BACK OUT AND INSPECTED THE WORK THAT HAD BEEN DONE.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

OKAY, GOTCHA.

THANK YOU.

WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE, MR. HAITZ? SO LET ME ASK YOU KIND OF A REVERSE REVERSE OF A QUESTION.

IF, IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS, WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON YOUR BUSINESS? UM, MOST LIKELY, UH, EVERYTHING THAT I'VE BEEN WORKING ON SINCE, UH, THIS STARTED, UH, MY BUSINESS GONNA PROBABLY HAVE TO HALT.

I CAN'T CONTINUE, CAN'T CONTINUE BUSINESS.

UM, I, I RENTED THIS PROPERTY IN 2023 WHEN I LOOKED AT IT.

'CAUSE I NEED ALL OF THAT SPACE.

UM, THE REAR IS JUST SCREENING SERVICE FOR THE VEHICLES IN THE FRONT IS BASICALLY THE DISPLAY.

AND IF I CAN'T DO, IF, IF THE REAR IS COMPLETELY SHUT, UH, CAN'T CONTINUE OPERATING AND BASED ON THAT, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CO FOR THE WHOLE PROPERTY, THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING UNDER AND I'VE SEEN THE OPERATION.

THAT'S WHY I RENTED IT.

AND THEN WHEN I WENT TO DO IT UNDER MY NAME TO GET THE CO THAT'S WHAT I TRIGGERED ALL OF THESE ISSUES.

SO, SO I I WOULD, CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF OUR BOARD ATTORNEY?

[00:35:02]

SO IT IT BASED ON THE ANSWER THAT WAS JUST RECEIVED, DOES THAT NOT THEN EXTEND THE NON-CONFORMING USE OF THE PROPERTY? AGAIN, THAT IS FOR THIS BOARD TO DETERMINE BASED OFF OF THE TEST MAY PRESENTED, BUT DEFINITIONALLY DOES IT NOT? NO, IT, IT'S OUR CRITERIA.

I ANSWER THAT IT'S OUR CRITERIA WI WITHIN WHAT THE, THE WORDS OF THE CODE SAYS MR. SAIK.

UH, BUT MY QUESTION IS FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, ARE YOU ONLY USING THE DISPLAY AREA TO SELL AUTOMOBILES AND YOU'RE NOT USING THE GARAGES? I AM USING THE GARAGES TO SERVICE THE VEHICLES AND DO THE SCREENING IN THE BACK TOO.

OKAY.

TO EVALUATE WHAT YOU'RE PURCHASING? CORRECT.

AND THEN TO DO ANY MECHANICAL REPAIRS THAT NEED TO TAKE PLACE FOR THE SALE? EXACTLY.

OKAY.

YES.

THANK YOU.

QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, THE CHAIR WERE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

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

I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS IS REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 0 0.

UH, MS. HAYDEN HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, TO ENLARGE A NON-CONFORMING USE.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. NERI DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MS. HAYDEN.

SO ON THE, THE CRITERIA OF DOES NOT PROLONG THE LIFE OF THE NON-CONFORMING USE.

I THINK THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE WERE ALL STRUGGLING WITH.

UM, THE WAY I LOOK AT IT IS THIS, THIS SITE HAS BEEN USED FOR AUTO RELATED USES SINCE 1963 THAT WE KNOW OF.

EVERYTHING LEADING UP TO THIS POINT IS, IS MUDDY .

THERE'S NOTHING REALLY CLEAR ABOUT THE COS AND THE PERMITS AND THE, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS GRANTED AND WHAT WASN'T.

BUT MOVING FORWARD, I THINK THAT THIS IS THE MOST APPLICABLE, UH, USE OF THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN USED AS.

UM, NUMBER TWO WOULD'VE BEEN PER PERMITTED UNDER ZONING REGULATIONS THAT EXISTED WHEN THE NON-CONFORMING USE WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED.

UM, THE ASSERTION THAT THE SITE PLAN MEETS THE PD ZONING, UM, GAVE ME, YOU KNOW, HELP ME SEE THAT THIS IS OKAY IN THAT AREA, YOU KNOW, WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS AND THEN WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA.

THE FACT THAT THE TENANT GOT SIGNATURES FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE BUY-IN FROM THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS IS, IS A BIG PLUS FOR ME AS WELL.

THANK YOU, MS. HAYDEN.

MR. NRI DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? I I CONCUR WITH EVERYTHING MS. HAYDEN, UH, SAID.

UM, PARTICULARLY THE FACT THAT THIS HAS BEEN UNDER AN AUTO USE AUSPICE FOR 60 YEARS.

UM, BUT, BUT REALLY THE DECIDING FACTOR FOR ME WAS THE THIRD CRITERIA WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA.

I WAS PARTICULARLY CONCERNED WITH THE SINGLE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH.

I BELIEVE THAT YOU ADDRESSED MS. HERMO.

UH, AND SO THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING THAT.

THANK YOU FOR THANK YOU MR. JANARI.

OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION POINT OF INFORMATION? YES.

MR. HAKO, UH, WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THIS WHOLE SCENARIO GIVEN THAT THE, UM, THE BUILDINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVE NOT BEEN PERMITTED? UH, I THINK, WELL, AS MR. POOLE SAID, WE'RE DOING THIS BACK AFTERWARD, BUT, UM, WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO MAKE IT RIGHT.

THE APPLICANT SAYS THAT, UH, IT'S THE OLD, THEY CAN'T GET THE PERMIT UNLESS WE GIVE THE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE NONCONFORMING USE.

SO, UH, I I'M INTERPRETING THAT WHAT MR. POOL SAID.

SO I I WANNA, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR HIM.

I'M GONNA SAY THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT YOU SAID.

YES.

UH, I DIDN'T SEE THE BACK PASSWORD.

OKAY, SO GO AHEAD.

CAN WE, CAN WE CONDITION THIS ON, ON THAT TAKING PLACE? UM, PERMITTING BEING, YES.

AND THERE'S ANOTHER REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ATTORNEY'S ABOUT TO ASK OF ME TO INCLUDE ON THIS, BUT I WANT TO LET EVERYONE SPEAK TO THE MOTION FIRST.

OKAY.

UM, I'LL SPEAK NOW.

I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS AND I, MY COMMENTS AT THE BEGINNING WAS INTENTIONS, GOOD INTENTIONS, YOU HAVE SOUND INTENTIONS.

ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE THIS RIGHT? IT IS VERY MUDDY, BUT AGAIN, THE OWNER SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THIS WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY.

OKAY.

I MEAN, UH,

[00:40:01]

WE SEE HUNDREDS OF CASES WHERE SOMEONE SAYS, WELL IT WAS SOMEONE ELSE AND OH, IT WAS SOMEONE ELSE AND I BOUGHT THIS, BUT IT'S THAT PERSON, THIS PERSON.

WELL, WE'RE LOOKING AT ONE PERSON TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPERTY.

UM, AND SO, UM, BUT, BUT TO MS. HAYDEN'S COMMENT, THIS HAS BEEN OPERATING , IT'S AN AUTO SALES DISPLAY USE IN 63.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S A CHANGE.

IT, I'M GONNA INTERPRET THIS AS NOT PROLONGING.

I'M GONNA SAY JUST CONTINUES, IS HOW I'M GONNA INTERPRET THAT.

IF I WOULD INTERPRET IT AS PROLONGING, THEN IT'S A A, IT'S, IT WOULD KILL THE BASIS TO DO THIS.

UM, THE, UM, THE, OUR BOARD ATTORNEYS REQUESTED THAT WE ALSO CONDITION THIS TO, THAT THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO A REPL.

IS THAT THE SIMPLE LANGUAGE YOU WANT? OKAY.

ALRIGHT.

SO THAT, SO I'M GONNA ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER MAKING THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IS A SECOND ONE IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF SUBMITTED PLANS AS REQUIRED.

AND, AND ADD THE WORDS THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO AND ALSO IS CONDITIONED THAT THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO A REPL.

WILL YOU ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY YES, I ACCEPT THAT MR. NER IS THE SECOND.

YES.

OKAY.

SO THAT IS NOW PART OF WHAT'S ON THE FLOOR.

UM, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES.

DOES THAT, DOES THAT ADDRESS THE PERMITTING? NO, I'M ABOUT TO GET TO THERE.

I WAS ABOUT TO GET THERE.

ALL RIGHT.

SO THAT'S ON THE BOARD.

SO, UH, MS. BOARD ATTORNEY, DO WE NEED TO REFERENCE THE, THE ISSUE OF PERMITTING OR IS THAT INCUMBENT UPON WHAT WE DO? I WOULD THINK THAT, I WANT YOU TO TELL ME THAT WELL BELIEVE THAT'S INCUMBENT OF OF WHAT WE'RE DOING.

OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING, CORRECT? YES.

SO THEY'RE SAYING IT WOULD BE A NATURAL BYPRODUCT THAT THIS WOULDN'T HAVE ANY FORCE UNLESS THEY GET A PERMIT.

OKAY.

SO I MEAN, I I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS HE, IS, IS IT ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO USE THAT PROPERTY IF IT HASN'T BEEN DELETED? WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT'S PART OF THE WHOLE, YOU, WE ACTUALLY, FOR, IF I READ SOMEWHERE IN THE CODE THAT IF YOU ANY CODE COMPLIANCE ACTION IS PUT ON HOLD PENDING A HEARING.

SO IT'S, SO HE'S IN LEGAL USE NOW BECAUSE HE'S IN THE APPLICATION TO, TO GET THAT USE.

AM I CORRECT? YOU'RE ALLOWED THE, THE ENFORCEMENT IS SUSPENDED WHILE SOMEONE GETS, IS MAKING APPLICATION AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

THEY'RE MAKING APPLICATION.

SO I, SO I WOULD ASK, I WOULD ASK AGAIN, IS THERE A TIME REQUIREMENT BY WHICH THEY SHOULD BE? WE HAVE 120 DAYS AND OUR RULES EXPIRE.

OKAY.

IS IT 120 OR 180? 180.

SO HE HAS TO APPLY PERMIT, PERMIT, 80 DAYS PERMITS.

AND THIS, THIS ACTION DISAPPEARS.

OKAY.

SO MS. YATO, YOU'RE IRREGULAR HERE.

YOU'RE CERTAINLY NOT GONNA WANT TO COME BACK FOR THIS.

SO THIS WILL GET TAKEN CARE OF PROMPTLY.

I'M SORRY, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

WE'RE READY TO PROCEED.

YES, SIR.

PROMPTLY? YES, SIR.

OKAY.

SO WHAT'S ON THE FLOOR IN BDA 2 3 4 DASH ZERO AS MOVED BY MS. HAYDEN AND SECONDED, UH, BY MR. NER IS TO GRANT, UH, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS.

AND NUMBER TWO, THAT THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT IS SUBJECT TO A REPL.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING, NO OTHER DISCUSSION, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL FOR A VOTE.

MS. HAYDEN AYE.

MR. HAITZ AYE.

MR. N AYE.

MR. EU? AYE.

MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE.

MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER BDA 2 3 4 DASH ZERO THE MO THE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ABOUT A FIVE TO ZERO VOTE.

GRANT YOUR REQUEST.

THANK YOU.

YOU'LL GET A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTERED PROMPTLY.

NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS BDA 2 4 5 0 9 2 4 5 9.

THIS IS AT 6 0 7 WEST DAVIS STREET IS THE APPLICANT HERE.

PLEASE COME FORWARD IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, THEN YOU'LL BE SWORN IN BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY ANG GIOVANNI.

GIOVANNI, CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2121 NORTH JOSIE LANE, SUITE 200, CARLTON, TEXAS 7 5 0 0 6.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, I DO.

PLEASE PROCEED.

YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, SO HOLD ONE SECOND.

I'M NOT STARTING THE CLOCK YET.

UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ONE? NOT ON THIS CASE.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT SIR, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

YOU CAN JUST REPEAT WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER, BUT GO AHEAD.

WHAT? GO AHEAD.

I SAID RIGHT, I'M THE ENGINEER FOR THIS PROJECT IS STARTED WORKING ON THIS PROJECT LAST YEAR AND, UH, MY CLIENT, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND HIS ARCHITECT STARTED THIS IN 2022.

THEY HAD A PRE-DEVELOPMENT

[00:45:01]

MEETING OR CLEAR APPLICATIONS MEETING WITH THE CITY STAFF REGARDING THIS PROJECT.

AS WE DO ALL THE TIMES BEFORE WE STARTED THE PROJECT, WE CONTACTED THE CITY TO FIND OUT WHAT ARE THE SETBACKS, IF THERE IS ANY RIGHTAWAY, DEDICATIONS, ANYTHING SO WE CAN BE PREPARED.

SO THAT'S WHAT THEY DID.

AND AT THAT MEETING THEY TOLD THEM THAT, UH, THE FRONT SETBACKS FOR THE SITE IS ZERO EXISTING BUILDING ON THE SIDE RIGHT NOW IS AT THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF, UH, FOUR ACRE.

SO WE ASSUME THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.

THEY ASK US ABOUT FIVE AND A HALF FEET RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATIONS FOR THE SIDEWALK ALONG FOUR ACRE AND TWO AND A HALF FEET ALONG DAVIS HISTORY.

WE COMPLIED WITH THAT ONE.

WE SET THE BUILDINGS AT THE REQUEST LINES.

LATER ON, WHEN WE SUBMITTED THE PLANS, EVERYTHING WAS FINE EXCEPT THE LANDSCAPE THAT WE COULDN'T MEET THE, UH, CRITERIA.

I TALKED TO MR. UH, PHIL EVANS AND WE CAME UP WITH, UH, SOME IDEAS AND THEN WE CAME UP TO THE BOARD AS FOR THE VARIANCE, WHICH THE BOARD, UH, UH, GRANTED US THE VARIANCE.

WE SUBMITTED THE PLANS, WE SAID, OKAY, NOW EVERYTHING IS FINE.

THEN THE ZONING DEPARTMENT CAME AND SAID, NO, WE MADE A MISTAKE.

WE SOMETIMES THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU SHOULD HAVE A 10 FOOT SETBACK ALONG FOUR ACRE BECAUSE FOUR ACRE IS CONSIDERED AS A A STREET NOT ALLEY.

WELL, NOBODY TOLD US BEFORE TILL THE END.

AND WHEN WE CONTACTED THE, UH, MS. NORO AND SHE WASN'T EVEN AWARE OF IT AND SHE SAID, NO, IT SHOULDN'T BE.

AND AFTER A WHILE SHE CAME BACK AND SAID, OH, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE WHEN WE CAME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE LANDSCAPE MODEL.

SO THAT'S WHY SHE ASKED US TO GO AHEAD AND AGAIN AND ASK FOR THE VARIANCE.

WE MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS AS YOU CAN SEE, OR YOU ARE AWARE OF, OF THE, UH, DAVIS STREET.

AND INSTEAD OF TWO AND A HALF FEET, WE WENT 10 FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.

UH, SO THAT WERE BUILDINGS TO GIVE THEM MORE ROOM FOR THE, UH, LANDSCAPE OF AT THAT TIME.

SO WE REDUCED THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING TO COMPLY WITH THE, UH, LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.

BUT NOW IF THEY'RE ASKING ABOUT ANOTHER 10 FEET, THAT'S GONNA KILL THE PRODUCT BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS GONNA BE JUST ABOUT 3000 A SQUARE FEET.

THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU SIR.

QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SO I HAVE A QUESTION OR TWO FOR YOU.

SO IN WHAT YOU SUBMITTED TO US, AND I'M LOOKING AT PAGE 85, UM, WHICH IS 85 ON OUR, UH, OUR PACKETS.

OUR CONCERN AT THE LAST HEARING, IF REMEMBER, WAS THE TREES RIGHT, THE, THE FRONT END, BUT WAS THE MAIN THING WE WERE TALKING ABOUT LAST TIME WAS THE TREE ON DAVIS.

AND, AND OUR CONCERN WAS HOW TO MAKE SURE TO PROTECT THAT.

IF I LOOK AT THE TREE AT THE SAME LAND, THIS PLAN HERE THAT YOU PROVIDED, UM, IT SHOWS THERE, I THINK THERE ARE, IS THAT THREE TREES ON THE FOUR ACRE SIDE ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING? WE PUT SOME TREES ON THE FIVE AND A HALF ACRES SETBACK THAT WE HAD.

YES.

FIVE AND A HALF FEET, NOT ACRES.

FIVE AND A HALF FEET, SORRY.

YEAH.

NOT ACRES.

FIVE AND RIGHT.

FIVE AND A HALF FEET.

YES.

YES.

AND THAT IS STILL THE PLAN THAT'S ON THE PLANS? YES.

OKAY.

YES.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

YES.

OKAY.

I I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THIS HERE AND IT HAS LANDSCAPING ADJACENT TO THE NORTH SIDE OF YOUR BUILDING, WHICH IS PARALLEL TO A FOUR ACRE.

WE ARE COMPLYING WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN WHICH WAS APPROVED YEP.

BY THE BOARD.

YES.

I JUST WANNA MAKE FOR SURE WE'RE VERY CLEAR ON THAT.

OKAY.

UM, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE? OKAY.

THANK YOU SIR.

THANK YOU.

THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MR. HAITZ, I MOVE AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 0 9 ON APPLICATION OF SUHA SHA GRANT, THE 10 FOOT VARIANCE OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT.

BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION FOR THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.

I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.

MR. KOVICH HAS MOVED IN THE MATTER OF 2 4 5 0 0 9 TO GRANT THE 10 FOOT VARIANCE OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, UM, CONSISTENT WITH THE SIDE PLANS.

IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. KOVI? YEAH, NOTHING'S REALLY CHANGED WITH THIS SINCE WE, UH, EVALUATED THE SITUATION THERE

[00:50:01]

AS REGARDS TO THE LANDSCAPING PLAN AND OTHER MATTERS, UH, IN EARLIER MEETING.

UM, AND THIS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN JUST AN OVERSIGHT, UH, THAT THIS WASN'T ADDRESSED.

AND SO, UH, I SEE NO REASON NOT TO APPROVE IT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

MS. HAYDEN DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION? YEAH, I, I AGREE WITH MR. KOVI.

UM, THE THREE CRITERIA NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY LETTERS OR, UM, COMMENTS THAT ARE, UM, AGAINST THIS PROJECT NECESSARY TO PERMIT A DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIFIC PARCEL OF LAND THAT DI DIFFERS FROM OTHER PARCELS.

UM, THIS ONE DOES DIFFER FROM OTHER PARCELS BECAUSE IT HAS ESSENTIALLY TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS IF YOU CONSIDER FOUR ACRE AS A STREET.

UM, BUT WITH THE 360 UH, VIEW THAT WE SAW, IT DEFINITELY OPERATES MORE LIKE AN ALLEY THAN A STREET.

SO I FEEL COMFORTABLE, UM, APPROVING THIS DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION HEARING.

NO OTHER DISCUSSION.

THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL, UH, FOR A VOTE IN 2 4 5 0 0 9.

MS. HAYDEN AYE.

MR. OVITZ? AYE.

MR. N AYE.

MR. SAUK? AYE.

MR. CHAIRMAN? AYE.

MOTION GRAHAM PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER BDA 2 4 5 DASH ZERO NINE.

THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES GRANTS YOUR REQUEST ON A FIVE TO ZERO VOTE FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS PER SUBMITTED.

THANK YOU SIR.

YOU'LL GET A NOTIFICATION FROM OUR BOARD OF ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY.

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BDA 2 4 5 DASH ZERO TWO BDA 2 4 5 DASH ZERO TWO.

THIS IS AT 1 0 1 1 5 SAN LORENZO AVENUE.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE? SHE'S ONLINE.

OH, OKAY.

MS. MONICA HERNANDEZ, CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE AUDIO AND VIDEO? YES.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M GONNA 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 AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

MONICA HERNANDEZ, 7 8 2 1 PENNINGTON COURT, PLANO, TEXAS 7 5 0 2 5.

AND BEFORE YOU BEGIN, BEFORE YOU GET, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YOUR NAME IS MS. HERNANDEZ, CORRECT? CORRECT.

OKAY.

BEFORE YOU GET MS, UH, WILLIAMS, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS CASE? NO, THE SPEAKERS.

OKAY.

ALRIGHT, MS. HERNANDEZ, YOU MAY PROCEED.

UM, OKAY, SO I WAS SUBMITTING A VARIANCE AND A SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ON THE HEIGHT AND A VARIANCE FOR A SECOND DWELLING.

THE REASONING BEHIND THIS REQUEST WAS BECAUSE THE HOMEOWNER IS, UM, CURRENTLY STRUGGLING WITH PARKINSON'S AND HIS DAUGHTER, WHICH IS THE PERSON THAT WILL BE LIVING IN THE TINY HOME, WILL BE HELPING HIM.

SHE WAS IN SEARCH OF A RENTAL PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THE HOME, AN APARTMENT, BUT SHE COULDN'T FIND SOMETHING THAT WAS, UM, AFFORDABLE FOR HER.

AND SO THE HOMEOWNER DECIDED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR THIS, UM, VARIANT OR VARIANCE FOR HER SECOND DWELLING.

I KNOW THAT YOU GUYS HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE GARAGE BECAUSE ON THE PLANS YOU DO, WE DO SHOW A GARAGE IN THE REAR.

THAT GARAGE IS FOR PARKING FOR THAT TINY HOME OR ESSENTIALLY IT'S FOR HER TO PARK HER VEHICLES AND THAT WAY WE COMPLY WITH THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

UM, THE HOUSE IS ACTUALLY AT THE FRONT.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS ARE ABLE TO SEE THE PLANS, BUT IT'S AT THE, IT'S 64 FEET IN FRONT OF THE TINY HOME.

UH, WE WOULDN'T, THE TINY HOME WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AND WE DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A, UM, A PROBLEM FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

WE DID REACH OUT TO ALL OF THE HOMEOWNERS AROUND, WE SENT OUT LETTERS, UH, AND I BELIEVE WE ONLY RECEIVED ONE IN RESPONSE AND MR. SCOTT WAS THE ONE THAT EMAILED THE BOARD WITH THE SUPPORTING LETTER.

AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UH, WHAT WE HAVE DONE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

UM, WHAT WE'VE DONE IS ASK THE STAFF TO GIVE US THE PRINTED OUT PLANS THAT YOU PRESUMABLY PROVIDED THE STAFF IN LARGE FORMAT.

AND I'M PASSING THIS DOWN THE ROW, SEND IT THAT WAY DOWN THE ROW.

UM, SO A COUPLE QUESTIONS I HAVE.

SO, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING THE ACCESS IS TO THE ALLEY CORRECT? FOR AS FAR AS PARKING? CORRECT.

AND IS THAT ALLEY IN GENERAL USE BY OTHERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? OH, I

[00:55:01]

WOULDN'T KNOW IF IT'S USED BY OTHERS, BUT IT IS A USABLE ALLEY.

OKAY.

THAT SOUNDS LIKE A A NO AND A YES.

OKAY.

UM, ALRIGHT, SO THE TWO REQUESTS IN FRONT OF US IS ONE, THE REQUEST TO HAVE IS, IS THAT THE STRUCTURE THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS TALLER THAN THE, THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND THE OTHER IS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLER DWELLING UNIT, CORRECT? CORRECT.

WHY ARE YOU, WHY ARE YOU WANTING A STRUCTURE IN THE BACK THAT'S TALLER THAN THE MAIN STRUCTURE IT IN? I GUESS IF IT'S TO MIDPOINT IT IS TALLER.

UH, THE, THE REASON WHY IT IS A LITTLE BIT TALLER IS BECAUSE THE TINY HOME DOES HAVE SOME SORT OF A SECOND FLOOR FOR THE BEDROOM AREA, WHICH KIND OF MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT TALLER IN ORDER FOR THE PERSON TO BE ABLE TO STAND ON THAT SECOND FLOOR.

OKAY.

UH, ARE THERE OTHER SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN BACKYARDS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD? WE DID, WE DID SEE SEVERAL.

UM, I WAS NOT ABLE TO WHERE, TAKE ANY PICTURES ON THE SAME STREET SINCE THEY ARE IN THE BACKYARDS, BUT UM, AND I WASN'T ABLE TO GET ANY APPROVAL FROM ANY OTHER HOMEOWNERS BECAUSE THAT'S OF CONCERN TO ME IS THE WHOLE ISSUE OF THE WHOLE REASON THE CODE SETS THIS OUT IS KIND OF AS A, UM, IS THE CITY COUNCIL'S WISDOM, IS IT RELATES TO SINGLE FAMILY, IS SINGLE FAMILY IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

UM, SO WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS ON PAGE 96 OF OUR, OF OUR DOCKET TO LOOK AT OTHER HOUSES TO SEE IF THERE'S OTHER THINGS IN BACKYARDS.

AND OF COURSE I CAN'T REALLY TELL HERE.

BUT YOU'RE SAYING THERE ARE SOME, BUT YOU CAN'T GIVE US ANY PROOF OF THAT? CORRECT.

OKAY.

ALRIGHT.

QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MS. HAYDEN THEN, MR. OVITZ? SO THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED TINY HOUSE IS 13 FEET, THE PROPOSED HEIGHT? CORRECT.

AND, UM, THAT'S, THAT SEEMS PRETTY SHORT TO BE ABLE TO FIT IN A SECOND STORY.

I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD ONLY BE BASICALLY SEVEN FEET ON THE BOTTOM AND SIX FEET ON THE TOP PROBABLY, OR SIX AND A HALF.

SIX AND A HALF.

MY QUESTION WAS GONNA BE ABOUT THE ONE FOOT TWO INCH VARIANCE, WHY YOU COULDN'T COMPLY WITH THAT? AND IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M PROCESSING AND ANSWERING MY OWN QUESTION , BUT IN YOUR WORDS, WHY, WHY COULD YOU NOT MEET THE ONE FOOT, UH, TWO INCH? WHY, WHY COULDN'T YOU MEET THE, I GUESS, 12 FOOT, UH, HEIGHT REQUIREMENT? BECAUSE OF THAT REASON? THAT IT'S, IT, THE IT BUILDING IS SHORT IN GENERAL TO HAVE TWO STORIES AND IF I WAS TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT SHORTER, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO EVEN STAND ON THAT SECOND FLOOR WHERE THE BEDROOM'S AT.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

MR. HOVIS, UH, THE GARAGE, IS THAT AN EXISTING BUILDING OR IS THAT TO BE BUILT AS WELL? THAT ONE IS TO BE BUILT AS WELL AND IT WAS PLACED ON THE PLANS FOR PERMITTING AND, UM, IN THE DESIGN OF THE TINY HOUSE.

UM, SINCE IT'S THE OWNER'S DAUGHTER THAT'S GOING TO BE RESIDING THERE TO, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ASSIST IN IN THE CARE OF, OF THE OWNER, CORRECT.

DO I HAVE THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

UM, UH, IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT SECOND STRUCTURE CONFORMING TO CURRENT CODE, UH, THAT COULD BE DONE, FOR EXAMPLE, WITHOUT A KITCHEN FACILITY IN IT, UM, SINCE IT'S THE OWNER'S DAUGHTER, UH, JUST WONDERING WHY IT NEEDS TO BE A, A FULL ADDITIONAL, UH, DWELLING UNIT ESSENTIALLY IT IS ALSO TO PRO PROVIDE, UM, SOME SENSE OF PRIVACY FOR HER, UM, SINCE SHE WILL BE SPENDING MOST OF THE DAY WITH HER FATHER HELPING HIM OUT.

I, THIS IS AN ASSUMPTION, THIS WASN'T TOLD TO ME BY THE HOMEOWNER, BUT IN ASSUMING THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY SHE JUST WANTS TO BE IN HER OWN SPACE, BE ABLE TO COOK IN HER OWN KITCHEN, I ASSUME THAT THAT'S THE REASON WHY THEY WANTED TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING FOR HER TO BE SEPARATE FROM THE MAIN STRUCTURE, UM, THE HOMEOWNER, UH, WITH THE PARKINSON'S, CORRECT.

ARE THEY IN A, UH, IS THIS ARRANGEMENT SOMETHING AKIN TO A, A HOSPICE CARE? IS IT, ARE THEY AT AN END, END OF STAGE OF PARKINSON'S?

[01:00:01]

HE IS NOT AT AN END OF STAGE PARKINSON'S, BUT HE IS PROGRESSIVELY GETTING WORSE.

I THINK, I THINK THE REASON I THINK, HOLD ON.

WE, I THINK WE WANNA STICK TO THE LAND USE DISCUSSION, SO LET'S, LET'S NOT GO THERE.

I I THINK THAT'S NOT PART OF OUR PURVIEW.

I THINK I I I CAUTIONED THE BOARD EARLIER TODAY, AND I WILL SAY THIS ON THIS CASE OR ANY CASE, OUR DECISIONS ARE ABOUT LAND USE AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT IS THE CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE AND THE ZONING AND WITH, UH, OUR INTERPRETATION OF OUR CRITERIA.

UM, WHAT IS THE HIGHEST BEST USE FOR LAND USE? WE HAVE TO LOOK BEYOND THE CURRENT OWNER OR TENANT OR OCCUPANT.

UM, AND IT'S BECAUSE OUR DECISIONS CONTINUE ON BEYOND THE PRESENT OWNER OR TENANT OR OCCUPANT.

AND, AND MY, MY QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, WAS INTENDED TO GET TO WHETHER THIS IS A PERMANENT SOLUTION TO A TEMPORARY PROBLEM.

UH, AND I GET YOU TOTALLY, BUT I GOTTA KEEP US, I GOTTA KEEP US FOCUSED ON, UH, IS THIS INAPPROPRIATE USE WITHIN THIS R SEVEN FIVE DISTRICT BASED ON THE PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT'S CONTRARY OR NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND, AND NOT GRANTED TO RELIEF, A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP, SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP.

SO WE GOTTA LOOK AT THE LAND USE QUESTIONS, MR. SAUK? UH, YES.

UM, MS. HERNANDEZ, UH, IN YOUR STATEMENT YOU SAID THAT THE TINY HOME WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, UM, BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT OF THE HEIGHT, THE HEIGHT OF THE, UM, THE ROOF OF THE EXISTING HOME, BUT IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE IT'S PAST THE SIDELINE OF THE SIDE OF THE HOME, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT VISIBLE FROM THE SIDE ALLEY BETWEEN THE HOMES.

AM I MISSING SOMETHING? UM, THE SIDE ALLEY OR, OR THE REAR? THE, THE SIDE OF THE HOME.

THE SPACE BETWEEN, UH, THE HOME, UH, WHEN YOU'RE FACING THE HOME TO THE RIGHT, THE HOME TO THE RIGHT, THE SPACE IN BETWEEN THE