* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. 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. MS. HAYDEN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH ZERO AN APPLICATION OF MOHANED A ABBA GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO ENLARGE A NONCONFORMING USE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT ENLARGING THE NON-CONFORMING USE ONE WILL NOT PROLONG THE LIFE OF THE NON-CONFORMING USE TWO WOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED UNDER THE ZONING REGULATIONS THAT EXISTED WITH THE NON-CONFORMING USE WHEN, WHEN THE NON-CONFORMING USE WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED BY WRIGHT AND THREE WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA. 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 TWO HOMES, YOU'D BE ABLE TO SEE THE TINY HOME JUTS OUT PAST THE, THE EDGE OF THE HOME ON SAY AND LORENZO. SO YOU'D BE ABLE TO SEE IT STANDING ON SAN LORENZO AT THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. YOU'D BE ABLE TO HAVE A, YOU'D BE ABLE TO SEE TWO THIRDS OF THE TINY HOME? NO, FROM THE, FROM THE STREET FROM SAN LORENZO STANDING ON SAN LORENZO, YOU'RE GONNA SEE TWO THIRDS OF THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE IS GONNA BLOCK ONLY A THIRD OF IT. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? YEAH, SO THE REASONING WHY WE WERE ASSUMING THAT IT WASN'T GOING TO BE VISIBLE WAS BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE, UH, SIX ESSENTIALLY 64 FEET FROM THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. SO VERY, VERY VERY TOWARDS THE FACT. UM, SO THAT WAS THE REASONING WHY I SAID IT WOULDN'T BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. OKAY. AND THEN, UH, THE NEXT QUESTION, UH, MS. HAYDEN TALKED TO THE, UM, THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING AND THE FLOORS. IS THE SECOND FLOOR A FULL FLOOR, OR IS IT, LIKE, IS COMMON IN SOME TINY HOMES TO HAVE A SOMEWHAT OF A LOFT BEDROOM? IT'S MORE OF A LOFT BEDROOM. IT'S NOT THE WHOLE ENTIRE FLOOR, OR NOT THE WHOLE ENTIRE FLOOR PLAN OF THE TINY HOME. IT'S JUST A LOFT, UM, TO FIT IN A BED AND A DRESSER. OKAY. AND SO THEREFORE YOU COULDN'T STAND UP REALLY ON THAT FLOOR, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. UM HMM. THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. IF NOT, I'LL MAKE ONE, BUT GO AHEAD. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 0 9 ON APPLICATION OF, OH, I'M ON THE WRONG. 1, 2, 4, 5 0 0 2. JUST A MOMENT. OKAY. UM, OKAY. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REQUEST NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH ZERO TWO ON APPLICATION OF MONICA [01:05:01] HERNANDEZ GRANT, THE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT ON A SITE DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATIONS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, 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, SUBMITTED PLANS AS REQUIRED, THE APPLICANT MUST DEED RESTRICTIVE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO PREVENT THE USE OF ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS AS RENTAL, AS RENTAL ACCOMMODATIONS. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN BDA 2 4 5 0 0 2 BY MS. HAYDEN TO GRANT THE REQUEST TO, UH, UH, FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. SECOND BY MR. RY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MS. HAYDEN? UM, I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT THIS IS, HAS TO BE DEED RESTRICTED, UM, TO PREVENT THE USE, UH, OF THE A DU AS A RENTAL ACCOMMODATION, UM, IS, IS HELPFUL IN MY DECISION IN, IN, UH, GRANTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND ALSO THE FACT THAT, UH, UH, LETTER, UM, IN, UH, SUPPORTING THIS WAS WRITTEN, UM, STATING THAT THEY FELT THAT THIS WOULD ACTUALLY, UM, DO THE VERSE OF REVERSE OF ADVERSELY AFFECTING WOULD ACTUALLY BE A, A BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU, MS. HAYDEN. MR. NER, I CONCUR WITH MS. HAYDEN ONCE AGAIN. UM, THE FACT THAT THE OWNER WILL BE REQUIRED TO DERESTRICT TO PROHIBIT RENTAL WAS, UH, CRITICAL FOR ME. SO THAT'S WHY I SECOND THAT. THANK YOU. MR. JANNER. I WILL BE OPPOSING THIS. I DO NOT THINK THIS IS A, UH, TO THE CRITERIA THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO UTILIZE AS IT RELATES TO NOT CONTRARY PUBLIC INTEREST. UM, AND THIS, THAT THIS IS A SELF-CREATED YES, I OKAY. THE ADUS NOT TO OKAY. FOR THE A DU, UH, I'M, I'M STILL OPPOSED TO IT. I'M, I'M, AS I LOOK TO, AS I LOOK TO WHAT'S PROPOSED AND WHAT'S ON THE PLANS FOR US AND THE LOCATION OF THE, THE PROPERTY, UM, AND ITS PROXIMITY TO THE STREET, TO THE ALLEY, AND TO THE OTHER STRUCTURE, UH, I'M NOT CONVINCED. SO I'M, I'M AGAINST THE MOTION AS PRESENTED. OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION? MR. KOVI? UH, I'LL ALSO NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. UH, UH, THE APPLICANT, UM, TESTIFIED THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF OTHER ADDITIONAL LIVING UNITS ON OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT, UM, HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT, AND THAT MIGHT HAVE SWAYED ME, BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, I, I, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION. MR. SAUK? YEAH, I'M, UH, I STRUGGLE WITH THIS AND I, IF I WOULD'VE SECONDED, IT WOULD'VE BEEN PURELY TO ALLOW DISCUSSION. UM, I'M STILL STRUGGLING WITH IT. I GET THE DEED RESTRICTING IT, AND I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT BECAUSE THAT'S ALWAYS A CONCERN OF MINE. BUT WHAT I DON'T LIKE IS THE VISIBILITY OF, UM, THIS UNIT FROM SAN LORENZO. THE PLACEMENT ON THE PLOT, UM, I THINK COULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BETTER THOUGHT THROUGH. UH, AND I JUST THINK THAT IT'S, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THE WAY IT IS NOW, AND, UH, I WILL PROBABLY BE VOTING AGAINST IT. OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IN BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 0 2 IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR AN, UH, ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, THE CH THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL FOR A VOTE. MS. HAYDEN AYE. MR. OVITZ? AYE. MR. N AYE. MR. SAUK NAY. MR. CHAIRMAN, NAY MOTION FAILS. THREE TO TWO. UH, OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE SUCH, SO THE VOTE OF THE BOARD BDA 2 45 DASH ZERO TWO FOR THE REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT, UH, FAILED ON A VOTE TWO TO THREE. OUR RULES ARE SUCH THAT THAT WOULD TRIGGER A, UH, FAILURE WITH PREJUDICE, MEANING THAT THE APPLICANT CANNOT COME BACK FOR TWO YEARS. IS THAT CORRECT? ALRIGHT. SO, UH, I'M OPEN TO DENYING IT WITH WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GIVE THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK WITH DIFFERENT PLANS IF THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTED. [01:10:01] IF THE BOARD SO CHOOSES THE CHAIR TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REQUEST NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 0 2 ON APPLICATION OF MONICA HERNANDEZ DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT ON A SITE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE AS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IN THE MATTER BDA 2 4 5 0 0 2. MS. HAYDEN HAS MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. MARY DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION. UM, THE ONLY REASON I CHANGED MY MOTION WAS BECAUSE I WANTED TO GIVE THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK WITHIN A TWO YEAR PERIOD, UM, TO, UM, TO ADJUST THE PLAN SO THAT THEY WOULD BE IN, UH, A LITTLE BIT CLOSER IN COMPLIANCE AND THAT WOULD MEET WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD. MR. NEARING, I CONCUR WITH EVERYTHING MS. HAYDEN JUST SAID. OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION, MR. SAUK? UM, I'LL, UH, CONCUR WITH, UH, MS. HAYDEN THAT, UH, FOR ME IT'S, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE TO MR. HOROWITZ, UH, COMMENT ON OTHER ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTIES, UM, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADDRESSING THE VISIBILITY ISSUE. UH, AND I WOULD, UH, LIKELY BE ON BOARD, UH, GIVEN THOSE MODIFICATIONS. SO, UM, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. THANK YOU MR. SAUK. I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS I SUGGESTED, TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SO THE APPLICANT MAY COME BACK IF THEY SO CHOOSE. UM, I WOULD SUGGEST YOU, UH, THE APPLICANT CONSIDER THE COMMENTS THAT YOU GOT FROM THE BOARD. UH, IF YOU CHOOSE TO COME BACK, IT'LL COME BACK TO THIS PANEL THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. UM, UH, MY CONCERN WAS THE PROXIMITY OF THE, UH, THE, THE STRUCTURE, THE CONCERN ABOUT THE HEIGHT. MY CONCERN IS ABOUT THE ACCESS TO OR NOT ON THE ALLEY, WHETHER THE ALLEY IS AVAILABLE FOR USE OR NOT. UH, WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IS IT CONSISTENT OR INCONSISTENT? THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY, IT SEEMED TO ME IS THE WHOLE DESIGN OF THIS WAS OUT OF CHARACTER AND, AND THE BURDEN IS ALWAYS ON THE APPLICANT. THE BURDEN IS NOT ON US. THAT THE BURDEN IS NOT ON US. THE BURDEN'S ON THE APPLICANT AND THE BURDEN WAS NOT MET IN MY OPINION. SO THAT BEING SAID, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL TO VOTE. MS. HAYDEN AYE. MR. OVITZ AYE. MR. N AYE. MR. SAUK? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION TO DENY PASSES FIVE ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 4 5 0 2. UH, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY FIVE ZERO DENIED THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT ON THE SITE AS PROPOSED, UH, THE BOARD ATTORNEY. THANK YOU. YOU'LL GET A LETTER IN THE MAIL FROM OUR BOARD OF ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY. UH, THE BOARD ATTORNEY SUGGESTS THAT WE, UH, GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS THE SECOND MOTION, EVEN THOUGH IT EFFECTIVELY KILLS IT IS KILLED. SO YOU WANTED US TO MOVE THAT ON THE RECORD? YES, PLEASE. OKAY. SO, MS. MS. HAYDEN, I'D SUGGEST THE SAME. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 0 2 ON APPLICATION OF MONIKER HERNANDEZ DENY THE VARIANCE TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD NOT RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT. A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE, UH, IN BDA 2 4 2 4 5 0 0 2 TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE REQUEST, UM, FOR, UH, A VARIANCE TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS. IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MR. MARY DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION. SO OUR CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE ARE, UH, THAT IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST THAT IT'S NECESSARY TO PREVENT PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIFIC PARCEL OF LAND. I DON'T THINK THIS IS, UH, A, A PARCEL OF LAND THAT DIFFERS IN SIZE AND SHAPE TO THE OTHER PARCELS AND THAT IT'S NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP. I THINK THIS IS A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP. UM, AND THEN I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL TO HAVE SOME LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS AND SOME ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND SOME SORT OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT THERE ARE OTHER STRUCTURES, UM, ADUS IN THE, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, SO THAT THIS WOULD KIND OF FALL, FALL IN LINE WITH THOSE. THANK YOU MS. HAYDEN. MR. NEARING, [01:15:01] UH, ONCE AGAIN I CONCUR WITH EVERYTHING MS. HAYDEN SAID. DISCUSSION AND OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL A VOTE. MS IS TWO FOUR FIVE ZERO ZERO TWO TO DENY THE VARIANCE TO BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. MS. HAYDEN AYE. MR. OVITZ? AYE. MR. N AYE. MR. SAUK? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION TO DENY PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER TO BDA 2 4 5 DASH ZERO TWO. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ON A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO DENIES THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE OF THE BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE. YOU'LL GET A LETTER IN THE MAIL FROM OUR BOARD ATTORNEY. THANK YOU. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. WE'RE GONNA TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. SO IT IS 2:16 PM UH, ON THE TUESDAY, JANUARY 21ST AT TWO 16. WE'LL COME BACK INTO SESSION AT 2 21. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS IN RECESS UNTIL 2:21 PM THANK YOU. OKAY, WE'RE GONNA COME BACK IN SESSION THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TUESDAY, JANUARY 21ST. THERE WE GO. NOW WE GO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A TUESDAY, JANUARY 21ST AT 2:21 PM IS HEREBY CALL BACK TO ORDER. UH, THE NEXT CASE ON OUR AGENDA IS BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 3 2 4 5 DASH ZERO THREE. THIS IS AT 4 5 4 4 ROYAL LANE IS THE APPLICANT HERE. COME FORWARD SIR. UH, YOU'RE GONNA, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN. ALRIGHT. IT'S, UH, RICHARD POWELL AND IT'S 4 5 4 4 ROYAL LANE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 9. OKAY. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I AFFIRM. OKAY. OKAY. MAKE SURE THAT THE MICROPHONE IS ON, UH, IT'S GREEN. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. SOUNDS LIKE IT'S ON, I'M NOT SURE YOU'RE GOOD. JUST HOLD THERE A SECOND. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS CASE? NO OTHER SPEAKERS, SIR. NO OTHER SPEAKERS? OKAY, SIR. UH, YOU'RE MR. POWELL? YES, SIR. VERY GOOD SIR. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TWO. UH, TELL US OF YOUR, YOUR REQUEST. OKAY. UM, MY REQUEST IS TO PUT A EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE ON, UH, ROYAL LANE. UM, Y'ALL HAD MADE A STATEMENT EARLIER IN THE BRIEFING THAT THERE, WHY WERE WE DOING THAT? WELL, MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR AND ON DOWN THE STREET, THEY HAVE EIGHT FOOT FENCES ALONG THERE AND I'M CONNECTING TO MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR AND I'M GONNA PUT IT ACROSS THERE. BUT THE REAL REASON THAT WE'RE DOING THAT IS WE KEEP HAVING PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, COME IN OUR GARAGE AND BREAK INTO OUR AUTOMOBILES. THEY CONSTANTLY COME THERE AND KNOCK ON THE DOOR WANTING DRINKS, WANTING STUFF, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S JUST, AND MY WIFE IS SCARED TO DEATH. I I WORK OUT OF TOWN A LOT AND SHE HAS TO STAY THERE BY HERSELF AND SHE, SHE'S JUST SCARED TO DEATH BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING THERE. AND YOU KNOW, EACH, EACH AND EVERY TIME, YOU KNOW, OUR VIDEO THAT CATCHES THEM ON FILM THAT NOTIFY US, BUT, YOU KNOW, BY THE TIME POLICE GET THERE, THEY'RE GONE. YOU UNDERSTAND? AND I JUST, IT'S JUST SO IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THIS FOR SECURITY AND SAFETY REASONS. UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CONSTANTLY HEARING BY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, ALERTS, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE'S SHOTS GOING ON DOWN THE STREET, YOU KNOW, 10 SHOTS OVER HERE, SOMEBODY SHOT THIS AND SHOT THAT AND IT'S JUST, IT'S GOT HER IN A FEARFUL FACTOR MYSELF ALSO, I JUST DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, GO TO THE FRONT DOOR AND ANSWER IT AND THEN BE CONFRONTED WITH SITUATIONS LIKE THAT. AND, UH, ALSO I DID, UH, HAVE A VIDEO OF THE FENCE THAT'S NEXT DOOR. YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT, PLEASE. Y'ALL WERE PLEASE Y'ALL WERE QUESTIONING THAT. GO AHEAD. DIANE, UH, HAD IT. MS. KUMA, ARE YOU GONNA ROLL? YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY, I I JUST DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO NO, NO, YOU'RE FINE. YOU'RE FINE. SHE'S, SHE'S THE PERSON TO HELP YOU. OKAY. SO UNFORTUNATELY HE DID SEND A VIDEO OR HE'S TRYING TO SEND A VIDEO, BUT IT, WE CANNOT DOWNLOAD IT. IT'S NOT COMING THROUGH. UM, SO I DON'T HAVE THAT VIDEO, BUT YEAH, HE'S TRYING TO EMAIL IT. EMAIL. SHE DOESN'T HAVE A THUMB DRIVE OR SOMETHING, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO WE'RE, WE'RE NOT RECEIVING IT. UM, I HAVE MY PHONE THAT THEY CAN VIEW IT IF THEY'D LIKE ON MY PHONE, IF YOU LIKE. YEAH, I'M MY BOARD ATTORNEY'S ALREADY. NO, IT HAS TO BE, ANYTHING WE DO HAS TO BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS OH, OKAY. TO THE BOARD AND THAT SORT OF THING. AND YEAH, A DEVICE STILL GETS US INTO THE, INTO SLIPPERY SLOPE. SO I SEE IT EVEN SHOWS THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR'S ADDRESS TOO. AND I DID SHOW IT TO DIANA, [01:20:01] SHE SAW IT, BUT WELL, WE TRUST HER, BUT SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO TESTIFY. UNDERSTAND. WE DON'T WANNA IN THE BUSINESS OF, I UNDERSTAND. THE STAFF KNOW WHY YOU CAN'T GET IT. I'VE SENT IT, MY WIFE SENT. SO LET ME, SO LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. YES, SIR. SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT PART OF MY COMMENTS THIS MORNING WAS ABOUT ROYAL LANE AS WELL AS OTHER STREETS THAT HAVE A LOT OF FENCES AND HOW, HOW DO WE DEAL WITH, WITH DALLAS AND STREETS THAT HAVE FENCE UPON FENCE UPON FENCE? ARE WE CREATING ALLEYS, STREETS THAT BECOME ALLEYS BECAUSE OF FENCES? UM, ARE ARE YOU SAYING THAT ALONG YOUR STRETCH IN ROYAL LANE, UH, THERE ARE FENCES TO YOUR RIGHT, TO YOUR LEFT ACROSS THE STREET AND OTHERWISE? YES, SIR. SO ARE YOU, YOU MENTIONED A MINUTE AGO THAT YOU'RE PLANNING ON CONNECTING YOUR FENCE AND I'M BOARD MEMBERS. I'M LOOKING AT PAGE 1 25 IN OUR PACKET, UH, WHICH, WHICH IT SHOWS THE SCHEMATIC OF THE FENCE. YOU'RE PLANNING ON CONNECTING THAT TO THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR TO THE, TO THE LEFT OF US ON THE WEST SIDE TO THE LEFT, WEST SIDE. WHAT ABOUT TO THE RIGHT? UH, THERE'S NOT A FENCE ALONG THERE, BUT WE ARE PUTTING ONE ALONG THAT AREA. HE HAS ONE UP TO THE BACK OF HIS HOUSE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TO THE, LET'S SEE, THERE'S THE NORTH. OKAY, SO, UM, OH, THE NORTH IS THE NORTH IS THE FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE, RIGHT? YES. YOUR HOUSE FACES NORTH? YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. SO IF YOU'RE FACING NORTH, SO ON THE EAST AND THE WEST SIDE OF YOUR HOUSE, IS THERE A FENCE? UH, THERE IS ON THE WEST SIDE, BUT NOT ON THE EAST SIDE. ALRIGHT, SO CAN'T SOMEONE JUST WALK AROUND THE NO, SIR. NOT WHEN I PUT MINE DOWN BECAUSE HE, HIS FENCE COMES UP TO THE NORTH SIDE OF HIS HOUSE. ON YOUR WEST SIDE, ON THE EAST SIDE. I THOUGHT YOU SAID THERE WASN'T A FENCE ON THE EAST SIDE. THERE IS UP TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. UP TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. OH, HERE. SEE, SEE MY HOUSE IS LIKE, THIS IS THE NORTH OF HIS, AND THIS IS THE NORTH OF MINE. HIS JUST COMES UP TO HERE, BUT, BUT FROM THERE UP TO, TO THE STREET, THERE'S NO FENCE. OKAY. AND I'M GOING TO RUN A FENCE FROM THERE BACK TO HIS OH, YOU'RE GONNA RUN THE FENCE FROM ROYAL LANE TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE PROPERTY LINE AND YOUR HOUSE. YES SIR. ON THE EAST SIDE. YES SIR. OKAY. UM, IT'S A MISCONCEPTION THAT PEOPLE USE SAFETY, SECURITY AS A BASIS FOR OFFENSE. I'M NOT SHAMING YOU, I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT OUR ATTORNEYS TELL US. JUST MINUTE, WHAT OUR ATTORNEYS TELL US, THAT WE CANNOT USE THAT AS PART OF OUR CRITERIA. UM, EVEN THOUGH THAT IS, WE HEAR IT ALL THE TIME AND IT'S AN HONEST, AND IT'S A, UH, IT'S A HONEST, AND IT'S A TRUE STATEMENT, BUT FOR OUR CRITERIA, IT IS SIMPLY A SPECIAL EXCEPTION THAT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THAT IS OUR CRITERIA. START, START, STOP AND START. UM, FROM WHAT I'VE DEDUCED, THERE WERE, UM, THERE WERE 11 PEOPLE WERE NOTIFIED. THIS IS THE 200, 200 FEET AREA AND ONE PERSON RESPONDED, YOUR NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST SAID YES. YES. UM, HAVE YOU HEARD ANY NEGATIVE FEEDBACK FROM ANYONE? NO SIR. NONE WHATSOEVER. OKAY. EXCEPT FOR MY WIFE. AND, AND I CHALLENGE YOU TO BE IN DIVORCE COURT WITH ME. NO, NO, I DON'T GET THIS. LET'S NOT, LET'S NOT DO THAT. NO, LET'S, LET'S, SHE'S THROWING ME A FIT. NO, NO. LET'S, LET'S STICK TO THE ISSUE HERE THAT HAS, OKAY, LET'S STICK TO THE ISSUE HERE. SO MY QUESTION AGAIN TO YOU WAS, WHAT I SAID WAS, I WAS THROWING YOU A SOFTBALL AND YOU THREW A HARD BALL BACK AT ME. OH, I'M SORRY. SO LET'S, LET'S GO BACK TO MY QUESTION. ALRIGHT. WHAT I SAID TO YOU WAS THE STAFF CONSISTENT WITH STATE STATUTE CONTACTED 11 PROPERTY OWNERS VIA LETTER. OKAY. AND WE RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE AND IT WAS FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST AND IT'S HOUSE NUMBER SIX, WHICH IS JOHN CIO. YES SIR. AND HE WAS IN FAVOR. NO ONE ELSE RESPONDED. DID YOU HEAR ANY OTHER NEGATIVE RESPONSE? NO, SIR. BASED ON THE SIGN IN YOUR YARD AND THE LETTUCE? NO SIR. NONE WHATSOEVER. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. REMEMBER, OUR CRITERIA IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. SO, ALRIGHT. HOLD THERE. WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE? I'VE GOT MR. SAE, THEN MS. HAYDEN. MR. SAIK? UH, YEAH, MR. POWELL. UM, WHAT MATERIAL IS THE FENCE? WHAT'S THE IT'S GONNA BE WR IRON. AND SO IT'LL BE VISIBLE THROUGH OH, YES, SIR. OKAY. ALL THE WAY THROUGH MM-HMM . OKAY. THANK YOU. SO IT'S EIGHT FEET TALL. IS THAT AT THE, AT THE INTERSECTIONS OR AT THE, THE WHOLE, THE PERIMETER, I MEAN AT THE POSTS ARE EIGHT FEET. WELL, I, I THINK THEY ARE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ACTUALLY 10 FEET, BUT 2, 2, 2 FEET AND SOMETHING GO DOWN IN THE GROUND. OKAY. SO THEN, HOLD ON A SECOND. SO WHAT IS THE, THE YOU 10 FEET TOTAL? THE TOTAL HEIGHT IS EIGHT FOOT FROM THE GROUND. YEAH. BUT BY, RIGHT, YOU CAN DO FOUR FEET. RIGHT. BUT YOU'RE ASKING FOR FOUR ADDITIONAL FEET, WHICH IS EIGHT FEET. YES SIR. YES, SIR. AND [01:25:01] ARE YOU ASKING THAT FOR THE LENGTH OF EIGHT FEET ACROSS OR ARE YOU ASKING THAT AT YOUR GATES TO BE EIGHT FEET OR IS IT ALL EIGHT FEET, OR IS THERE 10 FEET AT THE GATES AND EIGHT FEET THE REST? NO, SIR. THEY'RE ALL EIGHT FEET, FEET, ALL EIGHT FEET THE WAY ACROSS THE FRONT AND THEN DOWN THE SIDE. OKAY. HOLD THAT THOUGHT. MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, IS THAT THE STAFF'S INTERPRETATION? EIGHT FEET, THE WHOLE LENGTH ON THE RECORD, PLEASE. YES, SIR. OKAY. THE REASON WHY I ASK THAT IS TYPICALLY NOT ALWAYS IN CASES THAT COME TO US, WE HAVE FENCE REQUESTS AND THEY'RE SIX FEET AND THEN TWO FEET MORE AT THE GATES BECAUSE THEY'RE DECORATIVE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT YOU'RE TESTIFYING AND THE STAFF IS SAYING IT'S, IT'S NO HIGHER THAN EIGHT FEET ANYWHERE. RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU MS. HAYDEN. SO I'M HAVING A, A DIFFICULT TIME JUSTIFYING THAT, UM, OR, OR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. DO YOU HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS? I KNOW YOU SAID YOU HAD A VIDEO, UM, BUT IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL FOR ME TO SEE SOME PICTURES OF SOME OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, UM, ON YOUR SIDE OF THE STREET OR ACROSS THE STREET JUST TO SHOW THAT THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE SIMILAR OFFENSES. UM, IN ADDITION, IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO HAVE ADDITIONAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT, UM, ESPECIALLY WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND THOSE ACROSS THE STREET. UM, THAT IT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD HELP ME JUSTIFY THAT. IT, IT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT, AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW I WOULD, HOW WOULD I GO ABOUT GETTING THE ADDITIONAL PEOPLE, UH, JUST GOING TO 'EM AND ASKING THEM, OKAY. UH, OTHER PEOPLE THAT WE'VE HAD BEFORE US. WELL, THEY'LL JUST GO KNOCK ON THE DOORS OF THEIR NEIGHBORS, MAYBE PUT A NOTE ON THEIR DOOR. OKAY. UM, , I COULD FORWARD SOME PICTURES TO YOU WITH THE, LIKE THE GUY NEXT DOOR ON THE WEST SIDE, YOU CAN SEE HIS IN THE VIDEO. AND ARE YOU, AND I BET I CAN TAKE SOME PICTURES AND SEND THOSE TO YOU AND ALL ALONG THE STREET, LIKE, UH, WELCH IS RIGHT HERE BY US. AND FROM THAT HOUSE FORWARD, IT'S GOT EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE. THE ONES ACROSS THE STREET DO NOT, THEY HAVE, UH, THEY HAVE PROBABLY, IT LOOKS LIKE SIX FOOT, SIX FOOT HIGH FENCES OVER THERE, BUT I'M TRYING TO MATCH MY NEIGHBORS. YOU SURE? TO MAKE IT LOOK, YOU KNOW, PROPER AND YOU KNOW, ALL THE WAY AROUND. THAT MAKES SENSE. BUT YEAH, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO HAVE SOME NEIGHBORS. YES, MA'AM. SO MS. HAYDEN, UM, WAS ENCOURAGING TO REACH OUT TO YOUR NEIGHBORS. OKAY. THAT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT, BUT THAT HELPS US GET TO OUR CRITERIA. SURE. THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN CREATING THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, ELEMENT IS ENCOURAGING PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE COMMUNICATIVE WITH PROPERTY OWNERS SO THAT THERE IS A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. SURE. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HARMONY OR UNIT UNIT, UNANIMITY. UNANIMITY, BUT THE IDEA IS OUTREACH. THERE ARE MANY TIMES WE'LL PROVE SOMETHING, EVEN IF THERE'S SOME OPPOSITION. WE'LL WONDER WHY. UM, UH, SO I'VE GOT MR. SAUK AND THEN, UM, AND THEN THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR WANTS TO PULL UP, OH, YOU ALREADY PULLED UP GOOGLE MAPS. YOU DO YOU WANT TO ASK YOUR QUESTION NOW OR BE, ALRIGHT, SO GO AHEAD, MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR. SO HERE'S A GOOGLE IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE, A GOOGLE IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE. I JUST THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD JUST BRING MR, THIS IS HIS FRONT YARD CURRENT? YEAH, THIS IS HIS FRONT YARD. UM, I ASSUME THIS IS THE NEIGHBOR HE MAY BE TALKING ABOUT, BUT GOOGLE LOOK DOESN'T SHOW A CURRENT PICTURE OF THEIR, UM, YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. ON THE, ON THE EAST SIDE THERE IS NO FENCE, BUT IF STREET, THERE'S A FENCE. BUT IF YOU COME ACROSS THAT, ACROSS THE STREET, LOOKS FOUR FEET. YEAH, IT DOES. BUT RIGHT BEHIND IT FENCE. WELL, THAT'S THE FRONT FENCE. THAT'S THE VERY FRONT THAT GOES. THEY'VE GOT LIKE A DRIVEWAY IN BETWEEN THAT AND THE OTHER FENCES BACK BEHIND THERE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THEY, THEY TURN DOWN AND DRIVE, DRIVE DOWN THAT AREA THERE. SEE THERE'S A STREET IN BETWEEN THAT FENCE AND THE OTHER FENCE OVER THERE. OKAY. THAT COULD BE A FOUR FOOT FENCE ON THE VERY FRONT OF THE ROAD, BUT BACK BEHIND THEM IT'S, YOU KNOW, HIGHER. IT WAS WELCH. IS THAT WELCH THERE? YEAH. MM-HMM. WELL, THIS IS RO IN THIS INTERSECTION. WAS WELCH SOUTH? YES. MM-HMM . [01:30:03] THAT'S, THAT'S THE PROPERTY NEXT TO ME RIGHT THERE. BUT THERE'S THE BIG HIGH FENCES RIGHT THERE NEXT TO ME. AND IT'S ALL DOWN THROUGH THERE. ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THAT HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. MR. SITE, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? UM, NOW I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT I WAS GONNA . OTHER QUESTIONS. MR. HAITZ, THE NEIGHBOR'S FENCE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CONNECT TO JOIN TO CONNECT TO, IS THAT A RAW IRON FENCE AS WELL? YES SIR. YES SIR. AND THAT'S AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE? YES, SIR. THAT ONE IS, UH, THE ONE ON THE EAST SIDE IS, UH, WOOD. YEP. AND I'M JUST GOING UP TO HIS, UH, WOOD FENCE RIGHT THERE. AND THAT'S, I'M STOPPING RIGHT ON THE EAST SIDE. THAT'S BASICALLY LIKE A BACKYARD FENCE. YES, SIR. YEAH. YES SIR. THANK, THANK YOU, MR. SAY. OKAY. UM, THE GOOGLE MAPS, THE GOOGLE MAPS TRIGGERED WHAT I THOUGHT I HAD SEEN IN THE PICTURES DURING THE BRIEFING. THAT, THAT, THAT SLIP STREET AND THE BRICK WALL, UH, YOU KNOW, WHICH KIND OF CREATES THAT TUNNELING EFFECT. BUT WHAT IS YOUR NEIGHBOR, MR. MITOS? UM, TO THE WEST. WHAT, WHAT IS THE FENCE IN FRONT OF HIS PROPERTY? IT'S A WR IRON, BUT HE HAS, UH, BUSHES ON THE OUTSIDE AND ON THE INSIDE AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE SO HIGH YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THROUGH HIS, THAT'S PRETTY GOOD . AND, UH, OKAY. I THOUGHT MAYBE IT WAS RIGHT. HE HAS SLIDING LOCK GATES AND EVERYTHING. I MEAN, EVERY HOUSE DOWN THROUGH THERE HAS THEY, IT ALL LOCKS OFF AND THEY HAVE TO HAVE A CODE TO GET IN. GOT IT. RIGHT. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. SAIK, THIS IS . UH, YEAH. OKAY. 2 4 5 0 0 3. OKAY, I MOVE, UH, THE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 0 3 ON APPLICATION OF RICHARD POWELL. GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES 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 THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE WITH THE HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED IN THE MATTER OF B BDA 2 4 5 0 0 3. UH, MR. OKE HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, FOR A EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE. IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? SECOND. SECONDED BY MR. N. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MR. SAUK? UM, I LIKE THE FACT THAT, UM, UNLIKE SOME OF THE FENCE REQUESTS, THIS IS WROUGHT ON, IT'S OPEN, IT'S VISUAL, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IT DOESN'T CREATE THAT TUNNELING EFFECT, UH, THAT BECOMES KIND OF ANNOYING AND, UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA ADVERSELY AFFECT, UH, NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. UH, UH, IN PARTICULAR YOU SEE FENCES AND WALLS ALL UP AND DOWN. UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE SAW IN THE VIDEO AND IN THE BRIEFING AND, UM, I THINK THIS WAS A, YOU KNOW, A GOOD COMPROMISE, UH, FOR THE FABRICATION OF THE, OF THE FENCING. THANK YOU, MR. SAUK. MR. NRI? UM, I WOULD AGREE WITH THOSE COMMENTS. UM, IN MY BELIEF, I I BELIEVE THIS WILL NOT LEAD ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. WHILE NONE OF OUR DECISIONS, UH, SET PRECEDENTS. UM, AND I'M GENERALLY OPPOSED TO BIG FENCES AS THE CHAIRMAN KNOWS IN THE INTERIOR OF NEIGHBORHOODS. I DO BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE OFTEN WARRANTED, PARTICULARLY ON BUSY, THOROUGH AFFAIRS LIKE INWOOD, WALNUT HILL ROYAL, ET CETERA. UM, I ALSO LIKE THE FACT THAT IT'S OPEN, UH, AND WROUGHT IRON AS WELL AS OPPOSED TO A SOLID MASONRY WALL. SO THAT'S WHY I'M IN FAVOR. THANK YOU MR. NERI. A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UM, NOW MIND YOU, IN OUR, IN OUR BRIEFING PACKET, UH, THINGS HAVE TO BE REDUCED TO EIGHT AND A HALF BY 11 SIZE AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO SOMETIMES WE LOSE OUR VISION IN BEING ABLE TO SEE THINGS. UM, BUT I, I JUST WANT YOU TO ASSURE US ONE, THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT DIMENSIONS IN THE STAFF'S POSSESSION THAT [01:35:01] ARE, THAT FOLLOW HIS REQUEST. THAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION. DIMENSIONS. 'CAUSE I CAN'T SEE DIMENSIONS ON THIS, BUT I, SO IS THAT A YES? YES. YES. YOU'VE GOT SUFFICIENT DIMENSIONS FOR, FOR BUILDING INSPECTION TO HONOR OUR APPROVAL OR, OR DISAPPROVAL, RIGHT? YES. AND NUMBER TWO, THAT THERE'S BEEN A COMMENT ABOUT COMPOSITION BEING WROUGHT IRON. IS THERE SUFFICIENT COMPOSITION OF THE TYPE OF FENCE ALSO? SO THE PLANS DOES SHOW DECORATIVE METAL, BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHAT DOES DECORATIVE METAL? THAT THAT IS A WIDE OPEN TERM. IT'S OPEN. OPEN, YOU CAN SEE OPEN. OKAY, SO I'M GONNA TAKE A QUICK LOOK. TODAY'S BEEN A DAY OF SQUINTING MY EYES ON PLANTS. ON EIGHT AND A HALF ISLAND. OH, OKAY. WELL I'M GONNA SHOUT AND I'LL SEND IT DOWN. I KNEW. SEE I JUST HAD THE CREEPY FEELING YOU'D SAY SOMETHING. I KNOW YOU WERE OKAY. ALRIGHT, SO, UH, I HAVE THE ENLARGED PLAN SO I DON'T HAVE TO GET NEW GLASSES, THINGS. I'M GETTING NEW GLASSES, BUT THESE ARE PLANS DATED NOVEMBER 20TH, 2024. MY TWO QUESTIONS WERE, DOES THE STAFF HAVE SUFFICIENT PLANS THAT SPECIFY ELEVATIONS AND THEN THE COMPOSITION OF DEFENSE? SO MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, THIS IS EIGHT FOOT HIGH DECORATIVE METAL FENCE. AND IS THAT SUFFICIENT FOR WHAT YOU NEED FOR BUILDING INSPECTION IF WE APPROVE EIGHT FEET? YES, SIR. OKAY. NOW THE NEXT QUESTION IS, IT SAYS DECORATIVE. UM, DOES IT, DOES IT NEED ONE SECOND, SIR. DOES THIS, UM, DOES THIS NEED TO SPECIFY THE, THE, THE, THE PLANKS OF THE WR IRON? OR IS THIS THE VISUAL SUFFICIENT, CONSISTENT WITH WHAT BUILDING INSPECTION WOULD INSPECT? WAIT, I THINK THE VISUAL OF THE OPENNESS, I'M SENDING THE PLANS DOWN TO EACH MEMBER. OKAY. THAT'S MY KEY THING BECAUSE REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE THINK AND WHAT WE DO, IT'S GOTTA BE ENFORCEABLE. MM-HMM . ALRIGHT. YOU HAD A COMMENT? UH, WELL, WHEN IT MEANS DECORATIVE, UH, WE ADDED THE ZEROS RIGHT AT THE TOP AND IT GOES OFF ABOVE THE EIGHT FEET. OH, WITHIN THE EIGHT FEET? NO, NO, THAT'S WITH THE, WITHIN THE EIGHT FEET. THAT WAS A TRICK QUESTION ON MY PART. YEAH, YEAH. IT'S, IT'S ALL WITHIN THAT AND THE ZERO GO ACROSS, STRAIGHT ACROSS. AND THERE'S NOTHING ABOVE THE EIGHT FEET? NO, SIR. OKAY. WELL, OTHER THAN THE FALS, BUT THAT'S THE EIGHT FEET. OH, OKAY. EVEN TO THE TOP OF THE FALS. OKAY. HOLD THAT. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR ME? YEAH. AND SO, WELL, HE, HE ADDED SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. SO IN BETWEEN THE TOP HORIZONTAL WRONG THAT RUNS THE FULL LENGTH MM-HMM . AND THE TIPS OF THE WR IRON, YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE ADDING LIKE THE BROAD IRON CIRCLES ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE TOP? YES, SIR. UH, OKAY. THIS, THIS IS, THIS IS THE WAY IT'S SET UP. IF, IF, IF I CAN RECALL, UH, THE FENCE IS LIKE SIX FEET. OKAY. THE VERY BOTTOM, BOTTOM PART OF IT. SIX FEET. AND THEN THE NEXT PART IS, UH, UH, ONE FOOT NINE UHHUH, AND THEN THE PENIAL MAKES IT FINISH EIGHT FEET. OKAY. GOT IT. OKAY. IF THAT MAKES SENSE. OKAY. GOT IT. THANK YOU. I NEVER REPEAT MYSELF, I ALWAYS DO . I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE AS MANY, MANY TIMES SURE. WE GET FENCE REQUESTS AND SEE IF SOMEONE SAYS EIGHT FEET AND WELL IT'S REALLY NINE BECAUSE THEY DO SOMETHING ABOVE THAT. ALL RIGHT. SO IT, THIS THE, FROM WHAT WE SEE IN THESE PLANS, IT'S EIGHT FEET AND IT'S WROUGHT IRON. IT'S WR IRON PLANKS. YES, SIR. THAT'S VISIBLE. OKAY. MR. KOVI, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I DID. MR. CHAIRMAN MORRIS, MORE COMMENT PLEASE. UM, WITH THIS, THIS DISCUSSION BRINGS TO, BRINGS TO BEAR THAT BECAUSE WE GET A LOT OF THESE AND WE NEVER, UM, ACTUALLY AT LEAST WHAT WE, WHAT WE'RE PRESENTED WITH NEVER ACTUALLY DESCRIBES THE EXAMPLE. THE, IT'S GONNA BE A METAL POST SERIES OF METAL POSTS. WHAT'S THE WIDTH OR THICKNESS OF THOSE POSTS? IT DOESN'T REALLY GO INTO THOSE KIND OF, UH, MATTERS. I THINK THE GATE HOLD, HOLD ON A SECOND, SIR. HOLD ON A SECOND. I'LL, OKAY, I, I, I AGREE WITH YOUR CONCERN, MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, [01:40:02] WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE, UM, WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS THAT BUILDING INSPECTION NEEDS IN ORDER TO ENFORCE A DECISION THAT WE MAKE? SO THEY GO OFF CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE. THEY GO BY THE SUBMITTED THE MOST RECENT SUBMITTED SITE PLANS. AND I WILL SAY THAT, UM, WHEN WE HAVE THOSE FENCE REQUESTS, THE ELEVATIONS DO TYPICALLY TELL WHAT TYPE OF FENCE IS WHAT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY WHAT TYPE OF FENCE? YOU MEAN THE, THE PLANKS YOU MEAN? YES. IT SAYS THESE DO NOT, IT SAYS CEDAR. I MEAN DECORATIVE METAL, IT SAYS METAL FENCE. AND THAT'S SUFFICIENT. YES. BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PROHIBITIVE, IT'S NOT A PROHIBITIVE MATERIAL AND IT'S OPEN. SO MY, MY QUESTION IS, A METAL POST THAT GOES INTO THAT FENCE COULD BE THIS THICK OR IT COULD BE THIS THICK, THIS BIG AROUND. IT DOESN'T REALLY DESCRIBE WHAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF FENCE IS IN, IN, IN THAT KIND OF A DETAIL. SO THE, THE QUESTION FOR STAFF IS IF, UH, WHAT IS, WHAT'S THE LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY THAT THE BOARD SHOULD PROVIDE IN ORDER FOR BUILDING INSPECTION TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE INSPECTING AGAINST? I THINK AS IT RELATES TO THE BOARD AND WITH OUR PURVIEW, IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS, IT IS JUST GONNA BE STRICTLY REGARDING THE FENCE HEIGHT. NOW ONCE IT GETS TO BUILDING INSPECTION, IF THE, THE THICKNESS IS NOT WHAT IT IS, THEN THE BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT WILL DEAL WITH IT. BUT AS FAR AS THE BOARD, WE ARE ONLY CONCERNED WITH THE FENCE HEIGHT OR THE MATERIAL IF IT'S A PROHIBITED MATERIAL. HOW DO YOU KNOW METAL IS PROHIBITED OR NOT JUST AS METAL? WELL, THE CODE, UM, PROHIBITS CORRUGATED METAL. OKAY. WHICH IS SHEET METAL. YES. YEAH, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL OF THOSE. OKAY. MR. SKE HAS A QUESTION. DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. HOPKIN? PROBABLY NOT. I'M JUST SAYING I'M A LITTLE BIT, BUT AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO GET TO MAKE SURE THAT TO WHAT LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY, SPECIFICITY SHOULD WE AS A BOARD COMMUNICATE TO BILLING, INSPECTION MS. BOARD ATTORNEY OR IS THAT CASE BY CASE? I BELIEVE THAT'S CASE BY CASE. AND LIKE DR. HOS MILLER HOSKIN SAID IT'S USUALLY ON THE ELEVATIONS AND THIS EVENT IT'S NOT, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT BUILDING INSPECTION NEEDS TO APPROVE IT. SO I WOULD DEFER THAT BACK TO STACK. YES. I'M STACK WOULD YOU LIKE TO WEIGH IN FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTION FRONT OF YOU? THERE'S PARTICULAR, SIR, THERE'S PARTICULAR MR. POWELL, THERE'S PARTICULAR SENSITIVITY ON THE BOARD'S PART. UH, NOT SPECIFIC TO YOUR CASE, BUT BECAUSE OF A TREND LINE OF THINGS THAT UH, EITHER THE CODE SPECIFIES AND THEN INSPECTORS INTERPRET AND OR THE BOARD APPROVES AND THE FINAL PRODUCT IS DIFFERENT. AND THEN WE SCRATCH OUR HEAD AND SAY, HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? DIDN'T WE SAY THIS? OR THE SAME THING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE CITY COUNCIL. AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS DO A BETTER AND BETTER JOB OF MAKING SURE THAT WHAT WE INTERPRET IS WHAT THE CODE IS AND IS ALLOWED TO, THAT IS ACTUALLY IMPLE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FIELD ON YOUR PROPERTY AND OTHERS. SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. RIGHT. MR. THOMPSON, UM, SPEC OR NOT REQUIRED AT THE BUILDING PERMIT TIME. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU TOLD US THAT YOU WAS DOING THE EIGHT FOOT WATER HOUR FENCE, THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH INFORMATION. IT DID NOT HAVE TO TELL US TO DIAL SIZE. UH, THE SPACING BETWEEN THEM WE'RE NOT THAT SPECIFIC WHEN IT COMES TO ISSUING A PERMIT FOR THAT DETAILED INFORMATION. THE ONLY TIME THAT THEY WOULD PROBABLY REQUIRE SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES AND IT'S REALLY DEALT WITH IN THE FIELD, IS WHEN IT COMES TO DEALING WITH A SWIMMING POOL AND THEN WE COMES BECAUSE THEREFORE YOU DON'T WANT, YOU KNOW, THE FOUR INCH GAP IN BETWEEN. SO THAT'S THE ONLY TIME THAT WE DEAL WITH THOSE SPECIFIC WHEN IT COMES TO THAT, WHEN IT JUST COMES TO A PERIMETER FENCE, WE'RE NOT THAT SPECIFIC. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT PRESUMES THAT IT'S MORE THAN 50% TRANSPARENT. RIGHT, BECAUSE IF IT'S LESS THAN 50% OPAQUE OR I'M SCREWING UP MY NUMBERS, OPAQUE MEANS SOLID. RIGHT. SO IF IT'S MORE THAN 50% OPAQUE, THEN IT FALLS INTO A DIFFERENT CATEGORY. CORRECT. AND THEN AGAIN, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE ON ALL PLANS FIELD VERIFIED BECAUSE AGAIN, SOMEONE CAN PROVIDE SOME DRAWING TO US AND GO OUT THERE AND BUILD SOMETHING ELSE. THAT'S WHY I SAYS FIELD VERIFIED SO THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO COME BACK IN AND RESUBMIT [01:45:01] THE CORRECT DRAWINGS. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. SAUK. OKAY. UM, MY QUESTION KIND OF TOUCHES ON WHAT, UM, UH, MR. NEWMAN, UH, JUST TOUCHED ON, IF, IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH OPACITY, WE WOULD BE ADDRESSING THAT AS ANOTHER EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE SIDE, CORRECT? CORRECT. CORRECT. OKAY. SO THIS MEETS THE OPACITY. YES SIR. IT DOES. REQUIREMENTS. THANK YOU. DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER FINAL COMMENTS? UH, YES SIR. I DID. I JUST WANTED TO LET THE BOARD KNOW THAT, UM, THERE, UH, TWO BY TWO POSTS THAT GO IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FENCE, BUT AT THE GATE THERE ARE FOUR BY FOURS AND THERE'S CERTAIN GAUGES THAT THEY HAVE TO USE TO MAINTAIN, YOU KNOW, THE WEIGHT OF THE FENCE AND THE STRENGTH OF THE FENCE. AND WHAT THEY'RE USING IS 14 GAUGE AND IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S USING, THEY'RE, NOT ONLY ARE THEY USING THAT, BUT THEY SPRAY IT WITH A CERTAIN PAINT TO KEEP IT FROM RUSTING AND STUFF SUCH AS THAT, YOU KNOW, TO KEEP IT LOOKING NICE AT ALL TIMES. SO I'M NOT GONNA USE THIS AGAINST YOU 'CAUSE I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF YOUR REQUEST, BUT I ALMOST WISH YOU PUT THAT ON YOUR PLANS. IT DOESN'T SHOW THAT. OH, OKAY. WELL IT DIDN'T SHOW THAT, BUT LET'S THE, THE CODE GUIDE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE LOSING ALTITUDE, SO LET'S NOT LET YOU LOSE ALTITUDE. THE CODE GUY DIDN'T TELL ME. WELL, I, I'M JUST, FOR US, WE HAVE SENSITIVITY. THAT'S RIGHT. FOR US, WE HAVE SENSITIVITY TO HEIGHT AND TO OPACITY, YOU KNOW, SEE THROUGH OR NOT. AND YOU'VE HEARD SEVERAL COMMENTS. PEOPLE ARE SUPPORTING IT 'CAUSE THEY CAN SEE THROUGH IT. RIGHT? SO IT MINIMIZES THE TUNNELING BECAUSE MANY OF US ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT TUNNELING EFFECT. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT'S, IT'S A SIX LANE DIVIDED, YOU KNOW, THREE AND THREE. SO, UM, I JUST WISH MAYBE THAT WAS ON YOUR PLANS AND THAT WOULD ELIMINATE A LOT OF THIS DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE WONDERING. 'CAUSE ONCE WE APPROVE THIS, WE MOVE ON AND THEN IT'S BUILDING INSPECTION THAT WE ASSUME WILL CARRY OUT OUR WISHES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? A MOTION ON THE FLOOR WAS BY MR. NER, I BELIEVE, AND MR. EU SECONDED BY MR. NER TO GRANT THE REQUEST. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THIS IS 2 4 5 0 0 3. MS. BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE. MS. HAYDEN? AYE. MR. OVITZ? AYE. MR. N AYE. MR. SAUK? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER. BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 0 3. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY FIVE TO ZERO GRANDER REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR UH, EIGHT FOOT FENCE HEIGHT. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND MAY THE LORD BLESS Y'ALL AND KEEP ME OUTTA DIVORCE COURT, . OH NO, NO, DON'T BE GETTING INTO THAT DOWN HERE. THIS IS MUNICIPAL. WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT IN, IN THAT, IN THAT PART OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. OKAY. THANK YOU SIR. OH MY GOSH. OKAY, THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 56 2 3 4 DASH 56. THIS IS A HOLDOVER CASE, UM, AT 6 5 2 9 VICTORIA AVENUE IS THE APPLICANT HERE. PLEASE COME FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, OUR BOARD, UH, SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN AFTER YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. YES, DANIEL LEE. UH, 1 0 8 NORTH BERN EAST DRIVE, GARLAND, TEXAS. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES. OKAY. PROCEED. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. ALRIGHT. YES. FIVE MINUTES. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. ALRIGHT. UM, MS. BOARD, SECRETARY, UH, HOW MANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE? WE HAVE FOUR. TWO IN PERSON, TWO ONLINE. OKAY. WAIT A MINUTE. UH, HOW MANY SPEAKERS IN FAVOR? JUST THE APPLICANT OR OTHERS? JUST THE APPLICANT. OKAY. ONE IN FAVOR, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT. ALL RIGHT THEN HOW MANY IN OF OPPOSITION WE HAVE? FOUR. FOUR, TWO AND TWO. CORRECT. OKAY. SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS WE'RE GONNA TAKE, UM, YOUR PRESENTATION, UH, AND I'LL GIVE YOU FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS IF YOU NEED TO TAKE MORE, I'LL GIVE YOU MORE. WHATEVER I GIVE YOU, I GIVE ANYONE ELSE THAT SPEAKS. SO IT'S EVEN TIME. SO YOU NEED TO TAKE THE TIME NECESSARY TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION. UH, THEN I WILL GO TO THE TWO SPEAKERS THAT ARE PRESENT TO, TO THAT WANNA SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, THEN THE TWO SPEAKERS THAT ARE REGISTERED ONLINE IN OPPOSITION. AND THEN I WILL GIVE YOU FIVE MINUTES REBUTTAL TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SO I'M BASICALLY GIVING YOU UN YOU KNOW, YOU'RE UP AT FIRST. I'M BASICALLY GONNA GIVE YOU UNLIMITED TIME TO START WITH, BUT I HAVE TO MATCH THAT TIME FOR EVERYONE ELSE OTHER THAN YOUR FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL TIME AT THE END. 'CAUSE THAT'S FIVE MINUTES. IS FIVE MINUTES. OKAY. [01:50:01] ALRIGHT. YEAH. MR. BRYANT, CAN I, UM, PUT MY SLIDES SHOW UP FROM THE LAST ONE? YEAH, PLEASE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOOD. SORRY. SO MY NAME IS DANNY LEE. THIS IS MY SIXTH TIME I BELIEVE IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD IN A, IN, IN A ROW. UM, MY REQUEST IS FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR 6 5 2 9 VICTORIA AVE. UM, TO THE LEFT IS, UH, WHAT I WAS PERMITTED FOR, WHAT I BUILT AND TO THE RIGHT IS TO CHANGE THE ROOF STRUCTURE, BUT TO KEEP TO BUT TO KEEP THE SAME HEIGHT. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UM, I PLAN ON MEETING, UH, ALL THREE CRITERIA OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTS. UM, A IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, I DID GET ALL, UM, NEIGHBORS, ALL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS TO SIGN OFF ON, UH, THE BILL TO KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS, BUT, UM, BECAUSE UH, THERE IS NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION, I, UM, CHAIN MODIFIED THE PLANS TO MEET THE, UM, THE ROOF REQUIREMENTS. UM, UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO WITHIN A HALF MILE RADIUS, THERE'S A LOT OF DUPLEXES IN THAT AREA THAT ARE GOING UP, UM, THAT COMPLIED WITH DUPLEX A REGULATIONS. THEY ARE 36, UH, PEATON HEIGHT, 60% LAW COVERAGE. UM, I WAS PERMITTED ORIGINALLY TO BUILD, UM, TO, TO FOLLOW THOSE, UH, PARAMETERS, UM, ONLY TO GET SHUT DOWN. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THIS IS A COUPLE STREETS OVER THERE ARE ALSO 36 FEET IN HEIGHT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, SO THERE MIGHT BE POTENTIAL, UM, UH, OPPOSITION TO MY BUILD, WHICH IS, UH, THERE'S A CHURCH NEXT DOOR. UM, AND REGARDLESS OF I BUILD A TWO STORY OR A THREE STORY, I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF, UH, VISIBILITY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. UH, THE SUN, UH, ARISES AND SETS, YOU KNOW, WEST TO EAST AND THERE'S NO SHADOW ON THE SET ON THAT CHURCH NEXT DOOR. THERE'S NO DRAINAGE ISSUES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT TYPE OF PROPERTY THAT BUILD NEXT DOOR. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, SO THE SECOND STANDARD REVIEW FOR VARIANCE IS, UM, NECESSARY TO PER PER PERMIT, UH, DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIFIC PARCEL OF LAND. UM, I, THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO ME, BUT, UH, I PLAN ON MEETING IT, UH, ON THE NEXT SLIDE. SO THERE'S A SUBSTITUTE, UH, FOR ELEMENT TWO. UM, THE FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND IN 2024, THE UH, DCA VALUE OF MY PROPERTY WAS $0. UM, IF YOU GO BY, UM, COST SECURE, HOW MUCH IT'S COST COSTING ME, UM, I SPENT A TOTAL OF $106,000 ON FRAMING SO FAR. AND TO CHANGE THIS WOULD BE, IT WOULD COST ABOUT $60,000, WHICH IS OVER THE 60, UH, THE 50%. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THIS IS THE SCOPE OF DEMOLITION. IF I WERE TO COMPLY, I WOULD HAVE TO TEAR DOWN PRETTY MUCH ALMOST HALF OF THE BUILDING TO BUILD IT BACK UP. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THEN THE NEXT, THE LAST, UM, STANDARD OF REVIEW IS, UH, NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP. I BELIEVE, UM, I DIDN'T CREATE THIS. I BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, I WAS PERMITTED IN ERROR AND YOU KNOW, I'M JUST TRYING EVERYTHING I CAN TO FIX, TO DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO FIX THIS. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THE CITY, THEY CONFIRMED, I WENT DOWN TO THE CITY, THEY CONFIRMED THAT I COULD BUILD, UM, ON 60% LAW COVERAGE. UM, I'M WELL UNDER THAT SIT 36, UM, FEET IN HEIGHT. AND THERE WAS NO ROOF RESTRICTIONS. UH, THE PLANS WERE SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND STAMPED BY THE [01:55:01] CITY AND PERMITTED BY THE, THE CITY. AND THAT WAS ISSUED SIX GREEN TAGS THROUGHOUT, UH, THE PROCESS AND ONLY TO BE STOPPED AT THIS POINT. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THIS IS A LETTER FROM MY LENDER STATING THAT IF, YOU KNOW, IF THEY, YOU GUYS DON'T ALLOW ME TO CONTINUE BUILDING, THEY'RE GONNA FORECLOSE ON THE HOUSE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU SIR. UM, DOES THE BOARD WANNA ASK QUESTIONS NOW OR LET ALL EVERYONE SPEAK? I'M GONNA LET, I'M GONNA LET EVERYONE GO AHEAD AND SPEAK AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU WITH QUESTIONS. UM, THANK YOU. WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU. THANK YOU. THERE'S QUESTIONS COMING. ALRIGHT, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, YOU SAID THERE ARE TWO SPEAKERS PRESENT THAT WANNA SPEAK IN OPPOSITION AND TWO SPEAKERS ONLINE. ALRIGHT, SO THEY'LL BE GIVEN MAXIMUM OF FIVE MINUTES EACH. IF YOU GO AHEAD AND CALL THE SPEAKERS THAT ARE PRESENT FIRST, MR. SACK THOMPSON. ZACH THOMPSON, 47 15 WEST UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 9. ONE SECOND PLEASE. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES. OKAY. PLEASE PROCEED. HELLO, I'M THINKING NORTH PARK IS SHOWING OPPOSITION TO BDA 2 3 4 DASH 15 SIX FOR ANY TYPE OF VARIANCE. WE BELIEVE TWO THINGS. ONE, THAT THE BUILDER AND THE CITY WERE DEFINITELY NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES. THE CITY SHOULD HAVE NEVER ISSUED A PERMIT THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED. THE BUILDER HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE IT KNEW THE RULES, BUT YET STILL TRIED TO BUILD A HOUSE NON-CONFORMING TO PD 67. AND SO WE'RE ASKING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO AT LEAST FOLLOW WHAT THE COMMUNITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL AND ALL OF US HAVE FOUGHT FOR, FOR THIS HISTORIC AFRICAN AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, HE'S BEEN DOWN THERE SIX TIME, WE'VE BEEN DOWN THERE SIX TIME. IT APPEARS THAT, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, EVERY TIME WE TALK, WE DON'T FIND ANY TYPE OF RESOLVE ON YOUR END. YOU BATTLE AND SUPPORT THE BUILDERS. SO WE WOULD HOPE THAT FINALLY YOU WILL LISTEN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, SOMETIME IN YOUR CHAIRMANSHIP. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. UH, NEXT SPEAKER. MR. JONATHAN MAPLES. I, UH, WHEN I FILLED OUT THE PAPERWORK, UM, I DIDN'T, I DON'T THINK I PUT THE CA THE FILE, THE CASE NUMBER ON THERE SO I GOT IT, SIR. OKAY. SO I'M IN OPPOSITION OF BOTH CASES THIS ONE HAD IN THIS, OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT, CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND I WILL SWEAR YOU IN. OKAY. JONATHAN MAPLE, 65 25 OREO, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 9. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO. OKAY. PLEASE PROCEED. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. SO I, I WANT TO ECHO, UH, WHAT ZACH JUST SAID. UH, MR. LEE SAYS HE IS BEEN DOWN HERE SIX TIMES. WE'VE BEEN DOWN HERE SIX TIMES IN, IN ONE WAY, SHAPE OR ANOTHER. BUT THE IRONIC PART ABOUT THIS IS, IS WE'VE BEEN AT THIS FOR SEVEN YEARS. SEVEN, NO, ACTUALLY IT'S 20, 25, 8 YEARS, EIGHT YEARS AGO, THE COMMUNITY OF ELM THICKER CAME TOGETHER AND DECIDED WHAT WE WANTED OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO LOOK LIKE GOING FORWARD. SIMPLY HAVE A SAY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THOSE WHO ARE GONNA BE THERE. AGAIN, FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW, I DON'T THINKING NOR PARK IS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS A PART OF A FREEDMAN'S COMMUNITY. AND IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH A FREEDMAN'S COMMUNITY, IT'S WHERE BLACK PEOPLE WERE TOLD THEY COULD GO LIVE. NOW, EL VICKI ONCE SET BESIDE LOVEFIELD AIRPORT, BUT WITH THE EXPANSION OF LOVEFIELD AIRPORT AT THAT TIME, THEY SAID, OH, YOU GOTTA GO ON THAT SIDE OF LIMIT. SO WE'VE ALREADY BEEN DISPLACED ONCE, SO SOMEWHERE, SOMEHOW WE WANT TO BE IN M VT. BUT IF YOU ARE SPENDING THE TYPE OF MONEY THAT WE'RE SPENDING IN TAXES NOW WE SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN WHAT THAT COMMUNITY LOOKS LIKE. WE'RE NOT TELLING MR. LEE HE CAN'T BUILD IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. HELL HE BOUGHT PROPERTY, SO IT'S HIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOO. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE IS A LAW AND THE LAW IS JUST NOT FOR ME. IT'S FOR THEE. MEANING ALL OF US HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE LAW. AND IF NOBODY'S GOING TO ABIDE BY THE LAW, WHAT IS ZONING FOR? IF ALL THE BUILDERS [02:00:01] IN THIS CITY COME TO THE UNDERSTANDING THAT, OOPS, I MADE A MISTAKE, LET ME ASK FOR FORGIVENESS OVER PERMISSION, THIS BODY WILL NEED 10 OTHER BODIES JUST LIKE IT BECAUSE THAT'S THE END GAME. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN ELM THICKETT. THE FIRST TIME I CAME BEFORE THIS BODY, I EXPLAINED TO YOU GUYS, EVERY MONTH YOU'RE GOING TO SEE ANOTHER CASE COMING FROM ELM THICKETT. YOU'RE GONNA SEE A NEW ONE. THE NEW ONE NOW IS STEGEL. THERE'LL BE ONE FOR NEWMORE, THEN WE'LL BE BACK TO HOPKINS, THEN WE'LL BE ON ANOTHER STREET. IT WILL NEVER EVER END UNTIL WE DO WHAT THE CITY OF DALLAS CITY COUNCIL DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE. WE GOT THE BALLS TO START SUING PEOPLE AND WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. WE DON'T WANNA SUE OUR NEIGHBORS BECAUSE THAT CREATES AN UNCOMFORTABLE SITUATION TO KNOW WHEN YOU WALK YOUR CHILD THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT HALF THE PEOPLE YOU SEE MAY HAVE SUED YOU. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE ASKING TO DO. WE'RE JUST SAYING, HEY, COMPLY, COMPLY. IT'S THE LAW. DID THE CITY MAKE A MISTAKE? ABSOLUTELY. THE CITY MADE A MISTAKE. BUT AGAIN, THERE IS NO BUILDER OR REALTOR IN THE CITY OF DALLAS THAT DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE RULES WERE IN ELM THICKETT BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH A HIGH PROFILE CASE. THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING. PLEASE FOLLOW THE LAW AND BUILD THE WAY YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BILL. AND WELCOME TO ELM THICKETT HISTORICALLY BLACK NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WELCOMES ALL I'M A UNITED STATES MARINE, I'VE BEEN AROUND THE WORLD. I KNOW WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES LOOK LIKE THAT WE ARE WELCOMING, BUT WE WANT EVERYBODY TO ABIDE BY THE LAW, WHATEVER THAT IS. WHETHER IT'S THE BUILDING OF YOUR HOUSE TO WHERE YOU PARK YOUR CAR, TO HOW LOUD YOU PLAY YOUR MUSIC, TO WHETHER TO WHATEVER IT IS, THE LAW IS THE LAW AND WE ALMOST ABIDE BY IT. AND I'M ASKING YOU GUYS TO FOLLOW THE LAW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. UH, WE HAVE TWO MORE SPEAKERS. MS. THE BOARD SECRETARY. RIGHT. MS. KAISHA RICHARDSON. CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE VIDEO AND AUDIO? YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES MA'AM. YES. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND I WILL SWEAR YOU IN. OKAY. MY NAME IS KAISHA RICHARDSON AND I LIVE AT 73 14. KEN WELL STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 9. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, PLEASE PROCEED. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. YES. UM, AT TO THE OTHER COUNTER NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN. YES, I AM HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE HYDE VARIANCE REQUEST AT 65 29 VICTORIA AVENUE. AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THIS BUILDER WAS AWARE OF THE ZONING CHANGES THROUGH HIS OWN ADMISSION AND ALLOWING A STRUCTURE WITH THE HEIGHT OF 36 FEET GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING INTENDED WITH PD 67. COMPARING THIS DUPLEX TO OTHER DUPLEXES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THOSE PROPERTIES THAT WERE GRANDFATHERED IN, OF WHICH THERE WERE ALMOST A HUNDRED DIFFERENT PROPERTIES GRANDFATHERED IN BEFORE PD 67 WENT INTO EFFECT. YOU HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED THIS BUILDER TO HAVE MORE THAN THE ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE. WE ASK THAT YOU NOT ALLOW. THE HEIGHT VARIANCE TO THIS ISSUE WAS SELF-INFLICTED BECAUSE HE KNEW ABOUT THE ZONING CHANGES. THE STRUCTURE IS NOT MORE THAN 50% COMPLETE AND WOULD NOT REQUIRE COMPLETE TEAR DOWN TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. THE BUILDER HAS TALKED ABOUT THE COST TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE, BUT THAT'S NOT A FAIR COMPARISON WHEN THE MARKET VALUE OF THIS DUPLEX PROPERTY THROUGH HIS OWN ADMISSION IS GREATER THAN $3 MILLION. THROUGH YOUR PREVIOUS ACTIONS AND COMMENTS, THIS PANEL HAS GIVEN THE BUILDERS THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT AND BELIEVES THAT THEY HAVE ACTED IN GOOD FAITH. HOWEVER, THE CITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD HAS NOT BEEN EXTENDED THIS SAME COURTESY. SO YOU'VE GIVEN THE BUILDER EVERYTHING HE IS ASKED FOR WITH COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING LAWS. WHY DOES THIS BUILDER NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH PD 67 WHILE MANY OTHER BUILDERS HAVE HAD TO COMPLY? WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THE DEC DEC WE'RE PRETTY SURE WHAT THE DECISION WILL BE BASED ON THE TRACK RECORD OF PREVIOUS CASES BROUGHT FORTH FROM THE ELM THICKETT NORTH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, IN WHICH YOU HAVE NOT DENIED ANY BUILDER AS EVIDENCED BY THE CONTINUING VOTE UNTIL ALL BUILDER REQUESTS WERE GRANTED OR WERE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE SO THAT IT CAN BE BROUGHT BACK AT A LATER DATE. BUT WE WILL CONTINUE TO SPEAK ON [02:05:01] BEHALF OF THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE LAW AND REQUEST THAT THIS VARIANCE BE DENIED TO BREAK THE PRESIDENT'S YOU HAVE ALREADY SAID BECAUSE IN THIS CASE, THE CITY CAN'T SHOULDER ALL OF THE BLAME. THE BUILDER SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. NEXT SPEAKER. MR. S PEREZ, PLEASE PROVIDE VIDEO AND AUDIO. YES SIR. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE? UH, MY NAME IS GUS PEREZ AND I LIVED AT, I LIVE AT 78 11 MORTON STREET IN THE ELM THICKET NORTON PARK NEIGHBORHOOD. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO. YOU CAN PROCEED. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, RIGHT? AWESOME. UH, I AM HERE, UH, TO SPEAK AGAINST THE VARIANCE REQUEST, UH, AT SIX 20 VICTORIA AVENUE. THIS IS B 2 3 4 1 5. IF THIS PROPERTY IS GRANTED A VARIANCE, IT WILL CAUSE A HARM TO THE HISTORIC FREEDMAN'S COMMUNITY OF ELLUM PICKETT. YOU HAVE A LETTER FROM SUPERINTENDENT AND PASTOR CHARLES PALTRY OF THE GREATER NORTH PARK CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST. IN THAT LETTER IT SAYS THAT IT IS 100 AND 4-YEAR-OLD CHURCH WILL BE HARMED IF THIS PROPERTY IS BUILT AT A PROPOSED HEIGHT RIGHT NEXT DOOR. PASTOR FERY IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER RUNOFF THAT MAY DAMAGE THE CHURCH FOUNDATION, THE BLOCKING OF SUNLIGHT OVER THE CHURCH GARDEN AND THE LACK OF PRIVACY FOR HIS CONGREGATION. BUT HE IS ESPECIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THIS PROPERTY AND THAT IT WILL HAVE IF IT DRIVES AWAY PEOPLE FROM ATTENDING HIS CHURCH. MR. LEE, OF COURSE SAYS THIS BUILDING WILL NOT HARM THE CHURCH NEXT DOOR, BUT NONE OF YOU HAVE SEEN OR HEARD ANY EVIDENCE OF THE CONTRARY. THE DUPLEX MR. LEE WISHES TO BUILD IS MASSIVE AND THERE IS A REAL CONCERN HERE. I CHALLENGE MR. LEE TO SHOW ENGINEERING REPORTS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR WATER RUNOFF FROM A HUGE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR TO THIS CHURCH. MY NEIGHBORS HAVE HAD THESE TYPES OF GARGANTUAN STRUCTURES BUILT NEXT TO THEM AND THEY'VE EXPERIENCED DAMAGE TO THEIR HOUSES. WE DO NOT SEE ANY DIFFERENCE HERE, BUT EVEN WITH NO WATER RUNOFF, THE STRUCTURE IS SIMPLY TOO TALL AND IS A SLAP IN THE FACE FOR THOSE WHO FOUGHT FOR OUR CURRENT ZONING TO PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. PER THE ZONING, THE MAXIMUM ROOF HEIGHT IS 25 FEET AND THIS PROJECT SOARS TO MORE THAN 34 FEET PER THE DRAWING SUBMITTED. AND THE CURRENT ZONING LIMITS THE MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT TO 30 FEET. AND THIS STRUCTURE COMES IN AT JUST UNDER 36 FEET. I CAN SAY WITH CONFIDENCE THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A MONSTROSITY. AND AT THE NOVEMBER HEARING, YOU HEARD PUBLIC DURING PUBLIC INPUT THAT SOME INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS REVIEWED, THE THIRD STORY CAN BE TAKEN OFF WITHOUT DESTROYING IT. I CHALLENGE YOU ALL TO ASK THE BUILDER TO PROVIDE PROOF TO THE CONTRARY AND JUST DON'T TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT. THIS IS THE SAME BUILDER THAT KNEW OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND BUILT THIS MONSTROSITY, PROBABLY HOPING TO SEE IT COMPLETED BEFORE ANYONE NOTICED. I PROVIDED PROOF AT SEVERAL PREVIOUS BOARD MEETINGS AT F 80 CAPITAL. REMEMBER THAT NAME, F 80 CAPITAL WAS MADE AWARE OF THE CORRECT ZONING REGULATIONS AT THE PROPERTY, AND THEY WERE BUILDING ABOUT A BLOCK AWAY. IF YOU REALLY RESPECT EVIDENCE, THEN LOOK AT THE PROOF OF F EIGHTY'S KNOWLEDGE OF PD 67 IN A DOCUMENT I PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED. THIS IS NO DOUBT A SELF-INFLICTED HARM REGARDLESS OF WHAT MR. LEE SAYS. ONE LAST THING FOR YOU TO KNOW. MR. LEE CLAIMS 100% SUPPORT OF HIS NEIGHBORS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH AND NEARBY BUSINESSES. I ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT HE PROVIDED AND SEARCHED DECAB, AND HALF OF THOSE WHO PROVIDED SUPPORT ARE ABSENTEE LANDLORDS AND INVESTORS WHO DO NOT LIVE AT THOSE ADDRESSES. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN AT ODDS WITH THOSE WHO JUST WANNA SWOOP IN AND MAKE A QUICK BUCK AT THE EXPENSE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHY SHOULD THEY CARE? THEY DON'T LIVE HERE. THERE IS ONLY ONE NEIGHBOR THAT REALLY MATTERS HERE, THE 100 AND 4-YEAR-OLD GREATER NORTH PARK CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST. YOU SHOULD TAKE THEIR OBJECTIONS INTO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THEY ARE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THIS MONSTROSITY BEING BUILT. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT A VARIANCE ON THIS PROPERTY HARMS ALL OF US IN ELM PICKETT BECAUSE IT'S A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND DOES NOT REFLECT THE CHARACTER OF THIS HISTORIC FREEMAN'S COMMUNITY THAT THE ZONING WAS MEANT TO PROTECT. AND HOW DO I KNOW THIS? I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I WAS ON THE ELM THICKET AUTHORIZED HEARING STEERING COMMITTEE THAT CREATED THESE ZONING RULES BASED UPON PUBLIC INPUT. THE LONGTIME NEIGHBORS WHO LIVED HERE WERE SEEING HOMES COME IN AND ESSENTIALLY ERASING THE LOOK AND FEEL OF A COMMUNITY THAT THEIR ANCESTORS WHO WERE FORMER SLAVES CREATED. THEY WANTED NEW HOMES TO FIT IN WITH THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THIS ZONING PROVIDED THAT MEASURE OF RELIEF. LET ME END ON THIS NOTE. I BELIEVE THE CHAIRMAN HAS HIS OWN AGENDA TO PUSH THESE CASES IN FAVOR OF THE BUILDERS. WHY ELSE WOULD HE MAKE UP EVIDENCE AND EVEN WASTE OUR TIME BY MAKING SURE A [02:10:01] VARIANCE THAT WAS DENIED BE DECLARED WITHOUT PREJUDICE? I SAID IT BEFORE AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. I AM DISGUSTED WITH THIS ENTIRE PROCESS, BUT THAT DISGUSTED I FEEL, SHOULD FALL SQUARELY AT THE CHAIRMAN'S FEET. HOWEVER, I AM CHALLENGED ALL THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS TO FOLLOW THE EXAMPLE SET BY MR. NARY AND MR. HVI AT THE NOVEMBER MEETING AND STAND YOUR GROUND AND NOT CRUMBLE UNDER THE BULLYING AND STRAW MARING TACTICS OF THE CHAIRMAN TO CHANGE YOUR VOTE. I'M ASKING THOSE WHO HOLD THIS PROCESS AS A DUTY TO SERVE AND TO SERVE OTHERS TO DO WHAT YOU KNOW IS THE RIGHT THING AND PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BY DI BY DENYING THIS VARIANCE REQUEST BECAUSE THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT AND THEY HAVE FAILED TO MEET THAT BURDEN UNEQUIVOCALLY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE ANY, UM, OTHER SPEAKERS REGISTERED? NO, THE SPEAKERS REGISTER. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, YEAH. OH, WHAT, ALRIGHT, SO WE WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? CORRECT. OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, UM, UH, CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES, MR. LEE, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES FOR REPLY. UM, UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO REPLY NOW OR DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD BEFORE YOU HAVE YOUR CHANCE TO REPLY? SURE. I CAN ANSWER QUESTION ANSWER QUE. ALRIGHT, SO I'LL START, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU BRING UP THE, THE POWERPOINT THAT YOU, YOU HAD MR. THOMPSON, ARE YOU NEED THE LOADER PLEASE? I AM HAVING THIS COME BACK UP BECAUSE YOU WENT THROUGH IT THOROUGHLY BUT QUICKLY. YES. AND I WANT, I WANNA, AND I WANT THE BOARD TO ABSORB WHAT YOU PREPARED HERE. SO I'M GONNA PROBABLY GO PAGE BY PAGE AND ABSORB AS WELL AS ASK QUESTIONS. AND IT'S OPEN FOR OTHER QUESTIONS THAT COME FROM THE, THE BOARD. OKAY. CAN YOU ENLARGE THAT FULL SCREEN, MR. THOMPSON? THANK YOU. YOU'RE AHEAD OF ME. OKAY. SO ON THIS, ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE JU WE'RE GONNA CLICK THROUGH PAGES AND IF BOARD MEMBERS YOU HAVE A QUESTION AS I'M GOING THROUGH THIS SO WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH IT A SECOND OR THIRD TIME, JUST GRAB GRAB MY, MY ATTENTION THAT WAY YOU CAN ASK AS WE GO. SO, UH, WHAT I'M GONNA DO IS DO SOME DISSECTING OF WHAT YOU'RE PRESENTING US. OKAY? ALRIGHT. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE IS THAT YOUR ORIGINAL REC, YOUR ORIGINAL PERMITTED CONSTRUCTION WAS THE LE THE BEFORE YES. THAT WAS PERMITTED AND GREEN TAGGED? YES. OKAY. AND WHEN YOU SAY AFTER, YOU MEAN WHAT? UH, THAT'S MY PROPOSED PLANS. YOUR PROPOSED PLANS? YES. ALRIGHT. SO IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME, SO BEFORE IT WAS A SQUARE TOP ROOF. I DON'T, I'M NOT IN CONSTRUCTION, SO I DON'T KNOW VERSUS NOW IT'S GABLED OR IS THAT THE PROPER TERM? YES. ALRIGHT. SO WHEN I SEE THAT FAINTED LINE ON THE TOP RIGHT BELOW, THE WORD AFTER THAT IS A ROOF LINE? THAT IS A ROOF LINE? YES. OKAY. IT'S A ROOF LINE THAT'S HAS TWO OTHER LOWER ROOF LINES. SO IT'S THE SAME HEIGHT, BUT IT'S JUST A, HAS A GABLE LOOK? YES. IS THAT WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO INTERPRET? YES. ALRIGHT. THIS BOARD PREVIOUSLY APPROVED THE, UM, OR THROUGH THE REVERSAL, PARTIAL REVERSAL, BUILDING OFFICIAL YOUR LOT COVERAGE. SO THAT'S NOT IN QUESTION. ALL WE'RE IN QUESTION HERE IS THE TOTAL HEIGHT PLUS THE HEIGHT AT THE MIDPOINT, IF I'M CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO I'M LOOKING, WE NEED QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE. MR. SAUK HAS A QUESTION, SO IF YOU GUYS DON'T MIND, WE'LL GO THROUGH THIS SO THAT WAY WE ONLY HAVE TO GO THROUGH IT ONCE. MR. SAUK, SO THE AREA ON THE AFTER, UH, IS THAT AN ACTUAL GABLE BUT FURTHER BACK ON THE UNIT? UH, YES. SO [02:15:01] IT'S JUST THE GABLE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HOUSE. RIGHT. AND THE FRONT HAS TWO SMALL GABLES IN THE FRONT. OKAY, GOTCHA. THANK YOU. SO IT, IT REQUIRES A FOUR 12 PITCH IN THE, UH, THE NEW ZONING. SO THAT'S, UM, THAT WAS DESIGNED TO MEET THAT. AND, AND HOW TALL IS THIS BUILDING THEN? UH, IT WAS 36 AND IT'S STILL 36 AND, AND PROPOSED PLANS. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY, NEXT ONE. ALRIGHT, SO IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE IS GOING THROUGH THE THREE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE, CORRECT? YES. NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, NECESSARY DEVELOPMENT, AND NOW GRANTED SELF, SELF-CREATED. OKAY. NO QUESTIONS HERE. GO AHEAD AND CLICK. ALRIGHT. SO, UM, DID YOU GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF CONTACTING WHO WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS? I SHOULD SAY IT THIS WAY. WHO WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF CONTACTING THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS? I DID. OKAY. DID YOU CONTACT THE TENANTS OR THE PROPERTY OWNERS? I ASKED FOR THE OWNERS OF THE HOUSE AND I WAS ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN TO WHERE THEY LIVED, WHERE THEY WORKED, AND, AND THAT'S WHERE I GOT MY MOST OF MY SIGNATURES. OKAY. JUST FOR THE EDIFICATION OF THE PUBLIC, THE CRITERIA ACCORDING TO THE CODE IS THE PROPERTY OWNERS? IT'S NOT THE TENANTS OR THE RENTERS, IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNERS. IT THE, UH, BASED ON THE MOST RECENT DE LISTING. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO I SEE GREEN SHADED HERE. UH, WHAT I DON'T SEE GREEN SHADED IS YOUR IMMEDIATE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH OR THE SOUTH. DID YOU APPROACH THEM? UH, THOSE ARE CHURCHES, COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. UM, SMOKE SHOP, SEVEN 11, UM, LA FITNESS, UM, LIKE GAS STATION, THIS LIQUOR STORE. THERE'S A, THERE'S A LOT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AROUND. OKAY. SO YOU SAID BEFORE YOU HAD ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, SO YOU'RE TESTIFYING TO US THAT ALL THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE 200 FEET NOTIFICATION AREA, YOU'VE GOTTEN A, A FAVORABLE RESPONSE FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER? YES, A HUNDRED PERCENT. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS HERE, GUYS? MR. EK HAS ALL, YEAH. UM, Y YOU ARE THE, THE DARK GREEN LOT, CORRECT? YES. THE DARK GREEN IS, UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. OKAY. AND TO THE NORTH OF YOU, THE LARGE LOT IS THE CHURCH? YES. AND THEN ACROSS, UH, ACROSS FROM THAT, THE LARGE PLOT, IS THAT THE CHURCH OR THE SMALL SLIVER? UH, THE TOP RIGHT IS ALSO A CHURCH. OKAY. AND IN IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH OF YOU IS A, A GREEN LOT. WHAT IS THE, THE NEXT LOT DOWN? IT'S, UH, COMMERCIAL VACANT LOT. OKAY. THAT'S VACANT. AND THEN THE NEXT ONE DOWN IS, IT'S ALSO A VACANT COMMERCIAL LOT, AND THAT'S OWNED BY CHURCHES. UH, ONE IS OWNED BY A CHURCH, ANOTHER ONE I'M NOT, I THINK IT'S A POPEYE'S THAT OWNS IT. RIGHT. WHICH IS, WHICH IS OKAY. WAS ONE IN THE SAME AT ONE POINT. SO THAT EXPLAINS THAT. OKAY. UM, THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. AND THEN DO YOU HAVE ANY, YOU SAID YOU'VE CONTACTED THESE AND YOU'RE ASSERTING THAT THESE ARE ALL IN SUPPORT. DO YOU HAVE ANY, DO WE HAVE A LETTERS FROM THESE? YES, IN THE RECORD. I, I THINK WHAT THE STAFF HAD GIVEN US WAS A GRAPH GRAPHIC IN THE, IN THE PRESENTATION, THE BRIEFING. AND SO WE HAVE ALL OF THOSE ACTUAL PROPERTY OWNERS. MM-HMM . GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. UH, MS. HAYDEN, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS, ON THIS MAP OR O OTHERWISE YOU CAN GO AHEAD PLEASE. UM, SO YOU KNOW WHAT'S LISTED ON THE, ON THE PRINTOUT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR YOUR, THE PROPERTY YOU'RE REPRESENTING 65 29 VICTORIA IS AN LLC CALLED 65 29 VICTORIA, LLC. ARE YOU A HUNDRED PERCENT OWNER OF THAT LLC? YES, I AM. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND NOT TO BE RHETORICAL, BUT FOR PROCEDURE, EVERY PERSON THAT TESTIFIES BEFORE THE BOARD OF EV IS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TESTIFYING UNDER OATH THAT THAT'S NOT A SHOT. THAT'S JUST, THAT'S IT'S JUST THAT'S PART OF OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. YES. OKAY. YEAH. TO GET AND TO GET A CONSTRUCTION LOAN, THEY REQUIRE IT TO BE LOANED TO A BUSINESS. SO I HAD TO CLOSE THE I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. YOU CAN CLICK TO THE NEXT ONE, MR. THOMPSON. ALRIGHT. SO YOU REFERENCED THESE OTHER PROPERTIES AND YOU SET THESE IN, UH, I WHAT'S THE PROXIMITY OF THESE PROPERTIES USED TO YOUR PROPERTY? LESS THAN A QUARTER MILE. LESS THAN A QUARTER MILE. UM, WE HEARD FROM OTHER NEIGHBORS THAT THESE WERE GRANDFATHERED OR ASSERTED THAT THEY MAY BE GRANDFATHERED. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE GRANDFATHERED OR NOT? UM, I'M NOT SURE THAT'S, UM, I GUESS MY POINT WAS TO SHOW THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF DUPLEXES IN THE AREA THAT MEET THE 36 FOOT HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. UM, TO ME, I FEEL LIKE FOR A DU FOR A VACANT LOT TO BE DEVELOPED INTO A DUPLEX FOLLOWING [02:20:01] THE NEW ZONING, IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE MOST OF THESE LOTS ARE ABOUT SIX TO 8,000 SQUARE FEET. AND IF YOU HAVE 40% LAW COVERAGE, YOU BASICALLY HAVE A GARAGE AND A KITCHEN ON THE FIRST FLOOR. OKAY. SO IT IS NOT OUR PURVIEW TO JUDGE THE CITY COUNCIL'S CALCULATION THEREOF OF WHAT YOU JUST ASSERTED. OUR ROLE AS CREATED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND CODIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IS TO CONSIDER REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, UM, AND HANDLE NON-CONFORMING USES AND THEN CONSIDER APPEALS TO BUILDING OFFICIALS. YES, SIR. SO THAT CALCULATION YOU SPOKE TO IS NOT PART OF OUR OKAY. PART OF WHAT WE ARE CONSTITUTED FOR. OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. SO I'M, I'M NOT CUTTING YOU OFF, I'M JUST SAYING WE HAVE TO STAY SPECIFIC TO WHAT OUR CHARGE IS. OKAY. UM, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THESE SIX HOUSE, SIX DUPLEXES THAT YOU PICTURED ARE WITHIN A QUARTER MILE AND THEY'RE 36 FEET? YES. HEIGHT? YES. OKAY. QUESTIONS, UH, ON THIS SLIDE FROM ANYONE, MR. EK AND THEN MR. NRI AFTER. OKAY. UM, DO YOU HAVE, UH, DID YOU ACTUALLY MEASURE THESE OR YOU'RE JUST ASSUMING THAT THEY'RE 36 FEET? SO AS A BUILDER, I CAN LOG INTO THE, UM, DEVELOPMENT WEBSITE AND PULL THE PERMITS OF EVERY ADDRESS THAT HAS AN ACTIVE PERMIT. AND I WENT THROUGH, YOU KNOW, I DROVE DOWN THE, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I WROTE DOWN THE ADDRESSES AND I PULLED THEIR PERMITS AND IT SHOWS THEIR PLANS. AND THEN ALL THOSE PLANS WERE 36 FEET AND, AND UNDER DUPLEX A STANDARDS. AND WHEN WERE THESE PERMITTED? THESE WERE ALL PERMITTED 2021. 2020 THAT LAST COUPLE YEARS. OKAY. UM, AND THEN YOUR STRUCTURES, HOW MANY, IT'S ALSO ALSO 36 FEET? UH, NO. HOW MANY STORIES IS YOURS? THREE STORIES. AND HOW MANY STORIES ARE THESE? SOME ARE THREE, SOME ARE TWO. OKAY. WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE, WHICH ONE, WHICH ARE THREE AND WHICH ARE TWO? THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAS THREE STORIES AND A ROOFTOP DECK. UM, THE BOTTOM MIDDLE IS A TWO STORY WITH AN ATTIC SPACE, AND THEN, UH, BOTTOM LEFT IS A TWO AND A HALF STORY WHERE THERE IS A ROOFTOP DECK AS WELL. SO YOU CAN GO UP TO THE THIRD FLOOR AND KIND OF OVERSEE THE AIRPORT. UM, THE OTHER TWO JUST HAVE REALLY TALL GABLES UP TO 36 FEET, BUT THEY'RE ALSO 10 FEET, 11, 12 FEET CEILINGS. MINE IS ONLY NINE FEET CEILINGS IN ORDER TO GET UNDER THE THREE, THE 36 FEET. OKAY. SO THERE'S ONLY ONE EXAMPLE HERE IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT? THAT'S THREE STORIES? THREE STORIES, YES. THE REST OF THEM HAVE 12 FOOT CEILINGS PLUS A 10 ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO GET. AND THEN, UH, AS FAR AS THE DEPTH AND WIDTH OF THESE LOTS, WHAT ARE THOSE LOTS COMPARED TO YOUR LOT? UH, ALMOST IDENTICAL. THEY'RE 50 BY ONE 60 AND, AND IN DEPTH. SO YOU COULD HAVE BUILT A TWO STORY UNIT WITH A TALL ROOF, UH, BUT OR WITH A ROOF THAT WAS IN COMPLIANCE THEN? UH, YES, I GUESS I COULD HAVE, BUT WHEN I WENT DOWN TO THE CITY TO ASK WHAT I COULD BUILD, THEY TOLD ME I COULD BUILD THREE STORIES, WHATEVER IT WAS, 36 FEET IN HEIGHT. AND THAT'S WHAT I DESIGNED THE PLANS AROUND. I WASN'T EXPECTING TO, YOU KNOW, NOT BE IN, IN CODE. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. NERING. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. YEAH. IN SPECIFIC, IN REFERENCE TO THIS SLIDE, YOU MENTIONED THAT THESE PROPERTIES WERE PERMITTED IN 2020 OR 2021. WHAT, PLEASE REMIND ME THE DATE THAT, UH, THE PD 67 WAS REVISED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IT WAS OCTOBER OF 2022, I BELIEVE. SO THESE, THESE PARTICULAR PROPERTIES WERE EITHER COMPLETED OR WERE UNDER CONSTRUCTION BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CHANGED THE PD, IS THAT CORRECT? SOMEWHERE. SOMEWHERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND ALSO, UM, YOU, YOU KNOW, O OBVIOUSLY ALL OF THESE HAVE A GARAGE, UM, AND YOU MENTIONED THAT AS A POSSIBLE RESTRICTION. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, A GARAGE IS NOT NECESSARY. THAT'S, THAT'S A FEATURE OF A PROPERTY. UM, ALSO, UH, MS. HAYDEN ASKED YOU EARLIER, UM, IF YOU WERE THE SOLE OWNER OF THIS LLC, DO YOU OR YOUR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OWN ANY INTEREST IN ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD UNDER THIS NAME OR ANY OTHER NAME? YES, I OWN ANOTHER ONE. I BUILT ANOTHER ONE ON, UM, ON TYREE STREET. UH, 6 7 1 4 TYREE STREET, 6 7 4 1. OKAY. AND IS THAT PROJECT UH, BEING BUILT NOW OR IS IT COMPLETED? IT'S COMPLETED. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND WHEN WAS THAT BUILT? UH, IT FINISHED [02:25:01] END OF LAST YEAR. OKAY. END OF 24. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, GO AHEAD AND CLICK TO THE NEXT FRAME. OH, I'M SORRY MR. OVITZ, GO BACK. ONE CLICK MR. THOMPSON. GO AHEAD. MR. HOPS. AND, UM, 67 41 TYREE WAS, WHEN WAS THAT? I WAS HIRED TO BUILD THAT ONE. IT WAS A COST PLUS MODEL THEY OWN. THE OWNER SAID, HEY, CAN YOU BUILD ME A HOUSE? I SAID, YES. UM, THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION, BUT THAT'S FINE. UM, WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THAT HOUSE IN TERMS OF THE SIZE AND THE HEIGHT AND IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY AROUND 35, 3400 SQUARE FEET. AND HOW HIGH? UM, I THINK IT'S 30 FEET. TWO STORY. TWO STORY. YES. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD AND CLICK TO THE NEXT ONE. THIS IS JUST SPEAKING TO 36 FEET, UH, UNDER, UH, THE SUBSECTION. A ZONING. OKAY. CLICK THE NEXT ONE. CHURCH, NEXT DOOR. SINGLE STORY IN THERE. SOME DIRECTION, RIGHT? EAST TO WEST? NO SHADOW CASTING THE CHURCH. IT'S BECAUSE YOUR PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE CHURCH IS FACING EAST? YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. OKAY. NEXT ONE. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PICTURE HERE, THE, THOSE WINDOWS ARE NOT OPERATIONAL. THERE'S REALLY NO SUNLIGHT COMING IN ANYWAY. YOU KNOW, NOBODY'S LOOKING OUT THOSE WINDOWS. THERE'S NO FRONT DOOR. THE FRONT DOOR IS ERASED. THERE'S, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE COMING. SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS TO THE NORTH OF YOUR PROPERTY. YES. OKAY. SO MY PROPERTY WOULD BE ON THE LEFT AND THAT CHURCH IS ON THE RIGHT IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE STREET. OKAY. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET MY COMPASS. OKAY. MR. JO SAUK HAS A QUESTION. SO I THINK, UH, IN THE OPPOSITION IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE CHARGE HAS A GARDEN. UH, DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT GARDEN IS LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY? IT'S JUST GRASS ON MY SIDE. AND IS, ARE WE LOOKING AT THE, THIS IS, THIS SHOT IS TAKEN FROM YOUR LOT? YES. SO THIS IS WHAT YOU SEE AND THE LOT IS RUNNING THIS WAY, CORRECT. . OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. NEXT CLICK TO YOUR CREDIT OR YOUR DETRIMENT. I'M JUST SAYING YOU, YOU, THIS IS EXTENSIVE ENOUGH, THAT'S WHY I'M TAKING US BACK THROUGH IT. SO WE ABSORB IT. YES. OKAY. UH, YOU SAID THIS WOULDN'T BE APPLICABLE 'CAUSE YOU USE THE UM, UH, THE OTHER CATEGORY THAT THE ELEMENT TWO SUBSTITUTE, CORRECT? YES. I'M USING A SUBSTITUTION TO SATISFY. SO IT MOVE THE NEXT CLICK, WHICH IS THIS TWO THAT SPEAKS TO MORE THAN 50%, CORRECT. 20 MORE THAN 50% OF THEIR APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE. CORRECT. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE STRUCTURE ITSELF. GOT YOU. YEAH, I KNOW IT EXCLUDES LAND. YES. OKAY. NEXT CLICK. IF I'M GOING TOO FAST, ANYONE LET ME KNOW. ALRIGHT, THIS IS THE 2024 CERTIFIED VALUES. THE IMPROVEMENT IS ZERO. WE IGNORE THE LAND FOR PURPOSES OF THIS, THIS STATE, UH, SUBSTITUTE ELEMENT. OKAY. SO IT SAYS ZERO. OKAY, NEXT. CLIFF. OH, WAIT, I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. HOLD ON. SO THIS SAYS FRAMING COST TO DATE. THIS SAYING YOU'RE, YOU'RE TESTIFYING TO SPEND 106,000 PLUS OR MINUS. YES. OKAY. UM, AND COST OF CURE, YOU'RE SAYING IS I'M SQUINTING. OH, IT'S OVER HERE. SO 60,000? YES. OKAY. AND COST OF CURE, MEANING TO, UH, TO TAKE IT TO THE LOWER, LOWER HEIGHT, BOTH IN THE PITCH AS WELL AS THE TOTAL HEIGHT? YES. OKAY. OKAY. NEXT CLICK, SCOPE OF DEMOLITION. OKAY. ONE SECOND. MR. KOVI, UH, ON THE PRIOR SLIDE. OKAY, GO BACK AND CLICK. THERE YOU GO. MR. KOVI. SO, UM, WHY WOULD OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE, IN THE COST TODAY? EXCUSE ME. OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION? UH, THAT'S ALL I FRAMED TO DATE. I HAVEN'T DONE WINDOWS. I'VE ORDERED WINDOWS. I UNDERSTAND, BUT YOU HAVE A, YOU HAVE A FOUNDATION, YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE PLUMBING AND SO FORTH, UH, IN A SLAB. UH, WHY, WHY ARE THOSE COSTS NOT APPLICABLE? BECAUSE I FIGURED IT WOULD APPLY TO BOTH TOP AND BOTTOM. IS THAT NOT RIGHT? SURE. I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT THE, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE SAYING THIS IS THE VALUE OF WHAT'S SITTING THERE TODAY MM-HMM . I WOULD EXPECT IT WOULD INCLUDE EVERYTHING THAT'S SITTING THERE TODAY. BECAUSE IF WE WERE TO TEAR IT DOWN, I FIGURED IT WOULD, UM, IF WE WERE TO TEAR THE, THE STUDS DOWN TO THE FOUNDATION, IT WOULD BE, IT WOULDN'T BE ANOTHER COST TO REPORT THE FOUNDATION BECAUSE I ALREADY RECEIVED THE, UM, THE VARI THE VARIANCE, VARIANCE FOR THE, UH, LOCK COVERAGE ALREADY. I, I'M SORRY TO BELAY THIS AND KEEP GOING HERE, BUT [02:30:02] ARE YOU COMPARING THE COST TO CURE AGAINST THE COST YOU HAVE IN IT? YES, BUT JUST THE FRAMING. UM, I FIGURED THE FOUNDATION IS ALREADY A COST THAT ALREADY BEEN, UM, HAS ALREADY BEEN SPENT. AND IF I HAD TO CHANGE THE STRUCTURE, I WOULDN'T TOUCH THE FOUNDATION. I UNDERSTAND, BUT THAT'S STILL PART OF WHAT YOU HAVE INVESTED IN THE PROPERTY, IS IT NOT? IT IS, YES. SO SHOULD IT NOT BE A PART OF THE BASE OF THE BASIS, HE'S ACTUALLY, HE'S ACTUALLY HELPING YOUR CALCULATION MM-HMM . BECAUSE WELL, 'CAUSE IT'S AGAINST THE ZERO. IT'S AGAINST ZERO. THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE LAND. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE COST OF THE FOUNDATION. I KNOW IMPROVEMENT, IMPROVEMENT ON DCA IS ZERO. SO THAT'S THE COMPARISON THAT ANY COST INCURRED IS AGAINST THE, THE ZERO DENOMINATOR. THAT'S WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS. YES. ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE IT SAYS THAT WE, I WENT TO REFER TO THE, THE PREVIOUS YEAR, UM, UH, VALUE IN DCA IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR ZERO. SO REGARDLESS WHAT HE SPENT ON IT, SO, SO BECAUSE IT WAS JUNE THEN YOU HAD NOTHING THERE AT THAT POINT? IT YES, IT, IT, THE STATUTE JUST SAYS THE PREVIOUS DCA AND IT'S THE LAND, IT'S THE IMPROVEMENT, NOT THE LAND PORTION. OKAY. UH, BUT HE IS RIGHT. YOU COULD INCLUDE THOSE OTHER COMPONENTS, BUT IT WOULD JUST INCREASE THE, YOUR POSITION BEING OUTTA WHACK MAKE YOU MORE ELIGIBLE FOR EL SUB, UH, SUBSTITUTE ELEMENT TWO. YES. MS. HAYDEN? YEAH, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MR. LOVITZ. UM, BUT IF HE HAD THE, IF HE INCLUDED THE FOUNDATION COST IN THE, IN THE FRAMING UNDER THE, WHAT HE HAS INTO IT TO DATE COSTS, HE WOULD ALSO PUT IT IN THE COST OF CURE HEIGHT OR COST OF CURE HEIGHT. UM, BECAUSE IT'S A, IT WAS A COST THAT HE INCURRED BEFORE, BUT IT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE THINKING HE'S GOING TO DESTROY THE WHOLE THING, IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S EITHER BOTH OR NONE. I WAS SIMPLY ASKING THE QUESTION. YEAH, I, I MEAN I GUESS THAT'S THE WAY I, I'M TRYING TO INFER ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR. I WAS SIMPLY ASKING WHY THE ENTIRE COST WAS NOT THERE. YEAH. AND I THINK THAT'S, I I MEAN I'M ASSUMING THAT'S THE REASON IS YOU WOULD PUT IT IN BOTH PLACES. YES. I JUST FIGURED THEY WOULD CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT. EITHER WAY WE'RE COMPARING TO ZERO. OKAY. NEXT ONE, PLEASE. PLEASE. OKAY. THIS IS JUST, UH, THE, THE PORTION THAT, THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE'D NEED TO DEMOLISH? YES. IF I WERE TO FOR STRICT COMPLIANCE, YES. IF THIS WAS TO NOT GET APPROVED, THE AREA IN RED IS WHAT I WOULD HAVE TO TEAR DOWN. OKAY. NEXT ONE. THIS IS THE THIRD COMPONENT. NEXT ONE. NEXT ONE. THIS IS FROM YOUR LENDER? YES. NEXT ONE. IS THAT IT? OKAY. THAT'S IT. OKAY. UH, I, IT WAS HELPFUL FOR ME AND I THINK HOPEFULLY FOR THE BOARD FOR US TO GO THROUGH THAT SO WE COULD SEE THAT IN DEPTH AND ASK QUESTIONS AGAINST THAT. OKAY. SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS I'M GONNA ASK ARE QUESTIONS THAT I'VE ASKED YOU BEFORE IN PREVIOUS HEARINGS, BUT SINCE, UH, WE HELD THE CASE OVER, I WANNA ASK QUESTIONS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO, UM, TO REFRESH EVERYONE'S MEMORY. UH, DID YOU KNOW OF THE CHANGES TO PD 67 DURING YOUR CONSTRUCTION? NO. UH, DID YOU CONSPIRE WITH ANYONE WITHIN THE CITY OF DALLAS BUILDING INSPECTION OR OTHERWISE TO, UH, OBTAIN PERMITTING OR GREEN TAGGING GREEN TAGS FOR YOUR, YOUR PROJECT? NO, I DID NOT. OKAY. THOSE ARE HARSH QUESTIONS, BUT I HAVE TO ASK THEM. YES SIR. IT'S STILL UNKNOWN TO THIS DATE. WHO, WHERE AND WHAT HAPPENED THROUGHOUT THIS AREA? I UNDERSTAND. STILL UNKNOWN. IT'S DISGUSTING. UM, ONE SECOND. WHAT'S THE TOTAL INVESTMENT THAT YOU'VE MADE IN THIS PROJECT THUS FAR? IT'S ABOUT 600,000, INCLUDING BUYING THE LAND AND CLOSING COSTS. OKAY. ALRIGHT, THAT'S MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW. OTHER QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT. MR. HAITZ, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TO BE OF COMPLETED AS CURRENTLY, UH, PLANNED? AS CURRENTLY PLANNED? 1.6 MILLION 800,000 ON EACH SIDE. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. UM, [02:35:02] YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, UH, ACCORDING TO OUR RULES, TO GIVE A FIVE MINUTE REPLY. YES. SO THE FLOOR IS YOURS. SO I JUST WANTED TO DEFEND MY, UM, MORALITY IN, IN A SENSE. UM, YOU KNOW, I SERVED MY COUNTRY. I WAS IN THE NAVY FOR FOUR YEARS. I RANKED UP SIX RANKS. I WAS IN E SIX BY THE TIME I GOT OUT. I FELL OFF THE SIDE OF AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER. I GOT INJURED. UM, I'M A HUNDRED PERCENT DISABLED TILL THIS DAY. YOU KNOW, I, FOR, I MEAN, MY TWINS WERE, UM, CONCEIVED OR IVFI DIDN'T THINK I WAS GONNA BE ABLE TO WALK FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. AND HERE I AM. IT'S A MIRACLE. UM, WE SOLD A HOUSE IN, IN MASSACHUSETTS. MY FAMILY, MY KIDS, UM, EVERYBODY'S LIVING IN A RENTED APARTMENT NOW. ALL THE MONEY THAT WENT FROM THE SALE IS IN THIS HOUSE. AND I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO TELL THEM. IF THIS DOESN'T GO IN MY FAVOR, I, IT'S ALL THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE WANT IT TO BE A RESIDENT OF DALLAS BECAUSE OF THE TAX, UM, UM, THE TAX BENEFITS, REAL ESTATE TAX, BECAUSE I'M PAYING A LOT. I WAS PAYING A LOT IN DAWSON. UM, AND I'M, I'M TRYING MY BEST HERE. YOU KNOW, I I AM NOT A BIG DEVELOPER. I'M NOT. I HAVE UNLIMITED SUPPLY OF MONEY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. AND IT'S ALL IN THIS HOUSE. I TOOK OUT A LOAN AGAINST IT. I, I'M BUILDING. I GOT SHUT DOWN. IT'S BEEN SIX MONTHS. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THIS HOUSE IS EVEN STILL STABLE. IT'S BEEN SITTING OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, EXPLOSIVE ELEMENTS FOR THE LAST SIX MONTHS. I REALLY DON'T KNOW, BUT I HOPE YOU GUYS HELP ME OUT HERE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BD 2 3 4 DASH 56 ON APPLICATION OF DANIEL LEE. GRANT, THE EIGHT SIX VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AT REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT. BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERS, THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT, WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT. I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE OPPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE OF THE INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS AS REQUIRED. I SO MOVE. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY CHAIRMAN NEWMAN, SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN. UH, DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION. MANY THINGS. UM, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WAS CREATED BY THE TEXAS STATE LEGISLATURE AND CODIFIED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS. AND OUR CHARGE IS NOT TO CHOOSE CASES OR APPEALS NOT TO GO OUT INTO THE CITY, COMMUNITIES, NEIGHBORHOODS AND SEEK CONTROVERSY OR ACRIMONY. OUR JOB IS AS INDEPENDENT MINDED CITIZENS FROM THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING MONTH AFTER MONTH AFTER MONTH, AND DO SO IN GOOD CONSCIENCE AND BALANCE BASED ON THE CRITERIA THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE SET FOR A VARIANCE, NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST NECESSARY TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIAL PARCEL OF LAND OR ITS ELEMENT SUBSTITUTE AS IT RELATES TO THE, UM, RELATING TO THE DIMENSION, THE FI, THE FI FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE GREATER THAN 50% AND THREE, NOTRE NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE ITSELF CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP. THAT IS OUR CHARGE. I'VE ASKED, AND THE STAFF PUTS IT IN EVERY SINGLE CASE THAT COMES BEFORE THE BOARD, WHAT IS OUR STANDARD? AND YOU WILL HEAR OVER AND OVER MEMBERS SAY, THIS IS WHAT OUR CHARGE IS, AND WE TRY TO STICK TO THAT CHARGE. AND YOU'RE RIGHT, THE LAW IS THE LAW AND THE PART OF WHAT THE LAW IS. THE LAW CREATED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO CREATE A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS THAT WILL TRY TO UNTANGLE AND CREATE FAIRNESS WHERE THERE'S UNFAIRNESS TO THIS DAY. AND TODAY IS THE 21ST OF JANUARY, 2025. WE STILL DO NOT KNOW THE ORIGIN AND THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS MORASS OF INCOMPETENCE BY CITY STAFF IN BUILDING INSPECTION. I ASKED THE APPLICANT UNDER OATH, DID YOU KNOW OF THE CHANGES IN PD 67? DID YOU CONSPIRE WITH ANYONE WITH CITY STAFF OR OTHER BUILDERS IN PERMITTING OR INSPECTION? AND [02:40:01] WE LISTEN TO CASES EVERY MONTH OVER AND OVER, AND WE HAVE TO DEDUCE IN SHORT ORDER, DO WE BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE? AND IF WE BELIEVE WE MOVE ON, IF WE DON'T BELIEVE WE ASK QUESTIONS TO TRY TO SHAPE THAT DECISION. I WOULD LOVE TO GET TO THE BOTTOM AND THE SOURCE OF THE ERRORS THAT OCCURRED IN THIS COMMUNITY, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'RE HERE RIGHT NOW TO SPEAK SOLELY TO THIS PROPERTY AT 65 29 VICTORIA AVENUE. WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER STILL AS TO WHY A CITIZEN BUILDING A HOME SPENDING $600,000. THAT'S REAL MONEY WITH PERMISSION OVER AND OVER A PERMIT PLUS GREEN TAG. I THINK I SAW SIX GREEN TAGS AND THEN TO BE SUDDENLY ISSUED A STOP WORK ORDER. WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY BEFORE THAT THE APPLICANT STOPPED THE WORK ORDER WHEN ORDER TO, I'VE MOVED APPROVAL ON THIS BEGRUDGINGLY BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO HARM A NEIGHBORHOOD. WE EACH LIVE IN NEIGHBORHOODS WHEN THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT COMES TOGETHER TWICE A YEAR. I ALWAYS ASK THE QUESTION, TELL EACH, EACH MEMBER, DON'T TELL ME WHAT DISTRICT YOU LIVE IN, TELL ME WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD YOU LIVE IN. AND THAT IS WHAT'S RELEVANT. WE ALL COME FROM DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS, SO I PROMISE YOU, WE ARE SENSITIVE TO NEIGHBORHOODS. WE ARE HERE. YOU'RE HERE POSITION SOME EGREGIOUS MISTAKES MADE BY THE CITY STAFF. I HAVE NOT HEARD YET OF ANY POINT BLANK MISTAKES MADE BY THE APPLICANT. IF THERE WERE, I WOULD RESPOND TO IT. MS. HAYDEN. UM, NO, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID ALSO. UM, I, I FEEL LIKE MR. LEE HAS DONE EVERYTHING RIGHT. HE SAT DOWN WITH THE CITY BEFORE STARTING ON HIS PROJECT. HE OBTAINED, UH, APPROPRIATE AT THE TIME WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS AN APPROPRIATE BUILDING PERMIT. HE OBTAINED GREEN CARDS THROUGHOUT THE, THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION. AND, UM, I, IT'S, IT'S A TRAVESTY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, IT, IT'S, IT'S A HORRIBLE THING. AS, AS MR. NEWMAN SAID, CHAIRMAN NEWMAN SAID. UM, BUT I, I DON'T FEEL, UM, THAT MR. LEE HAS ACTED, UM, IN ANY WAY, UH, DISHONESTLY, UH, UH, HIS TESTIMONY SEEMS HONEST TO ME, AND ALL WE CAN TAKE IS HIS WORD. HE'S, HE IS TESTIFYING UNDER OATH. UM, I BELIEVE THAT HIS, HIS ABILITY TO GET, UM, LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS IS COMMENDABLE. UM, I BELIEVE HE SHOWED THAT HE, UH, THE COST TO COMPLY IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE. AND THAT THIS, THIS HARDSHIP WAS DEFINITELY NOT SELF-CREATED. THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY, UM, BUILDING, UH, DEPARTMENT CREATED. SO, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I'M VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS. THANK YOU, MS. HAYDEN. MR. SAUK. UM, I CONCUR WITH, UH, BOTH MS. HAYDEN AND MR. NEWMAN. UM, AND I TOO FEEL THAT MR. LEE, UNLIKE A LOT OF CASES WE HEAR, ASKED FOR PERMISSION FIRST. UH, AND HE IN GOOD FAITH WILL LISTEN TO WHAT THE CITY TOLD HIM. UH, AND ONCE AGAIN, UH, YOU KNOW, WE FIND THAT HE WAS GIVEN ERRONEOUS INFORMATION. UH, I, LIKE MR. NEWMAN SAID, LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T LIKE, UM, DISRUPTION TO THE HOME AND THE LIFESTYLE THAT I BOUGHT, UM, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, WHETHER IT'S A RENTAL UNIT COMING IN OR, UM, A STRUCTURE THAT, UH, DESTROYS THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD EITHER. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WE ALL RELY ON THE CITY BEING THERE TO PROTECT US AND TO PROTECT OUR INTERESTS AND OUR INVESTMENT. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE CITY, UH, FAILING US ALL. NOT JUST THE RESIDENTS OF ELM THICKETT, BUT THEY HAVE FAILED, YOU KNOW, EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE CITY WHEN THEY MAKE THESE KINDS OF MISTAKES. UH, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. THANK YOU MR. SAUK. MR. N THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UM, IN PARTICULAR ON PAGE NUMBER 1 47, THE ZONING LANGUAGE CONTAINED THEREIN, I BELIEVE IT'S TRACK THREE, AND THEN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE IT'S TRACK FOUR. CAN SOMEONE [02:45:01] DEFINITIVELY TELL ME IF THIS WAS THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN EXISTENCE IN ELM THICKET, OR IS THIS THE NEWLY REVISED PD 67 LANGUAGE AS OF OCTOBER, 2022? MR. MARY, YOU'RE SPEAKING ON PAGE 1 47. CORRECT. AND YOU'RE SPEAKING THE, THE LOWER SECTION I IN SPECIFICS, I, I WANT TO KNOW WHEN THIS LANGUAGE WAS IMPLEMENTED, WHETHER IT WAS EXISTING LANGUAGE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL REVISED PD 67 OR IF THIS IS THE ACTUAL, UM, REVISION TO PD 67 THAT THE CITY COUNCIL PUT IN PLACE IN LATE 2022. AND SPECIFIC. UM, OBVIOUSLY, UH, UNDER PARAGRAPH, UH, C TO SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX STRUCTURES, MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT IS 25 FEET. NO PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE MAY BE GREATER THAN 30 FEET ABOVE GRADE. I BELIEVE THAT'S, UH, TRACK THREE. UH, I DON'T HAVE THE TOP OF THE PAGE. UM, BUT THEN, AND THEN AT THE BOTTOM, UNDER TRACK FOUR, IT ALSO HAS THAT, UH, PROVISION SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX STRUCTURES HEIGHT, MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT IS 25 FEET. NO PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE MAY BE GREATER THAN 30 FEET ABOVE GRADE. SO MY QUESTION IS, WHEN WAS THIS LANGUAGE PUT INTO PLACE, MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, THAT LANGUAGE WAS A PART OF THE NEWLY REVISED PD 67, WHICH WAS, UM, PASSED OR IMPLEMENTED IN OCTOBER OF 2022. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. JANE. MR. HAKO, I THINK EVERYONE, UH, WHO'S SITS ON THIS BOARD IS PROBABLY IN TROUBLE BY ALL THESE CASES AND WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON WITH THEM. UM, I CERTAINLY AM, AND AT SOME POINT IN TIME YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHERE YOU, WHERE YOU FALL ON IT. AND THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT NOW. UM, I THINK, UH, I, I SYMPATHIZE GREATLY WITH MR. LEE. HOWEVER, I THINK THAT THE PROXIMITY OF HIS, OF HIS CONSTRUCTION TO A, A GATHERING PLACE OF THIS COMMUNITY BEING IN AN ADJACENT LOT, UH, DOES CAUSE ME TO WONDER WHETHER THIS IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. UM, IT'S NOT SHORT TERM IMPACT. IT'S GOING TO BE THERE AS LONG AS THAT HOUSE SITS THERE IF IT'S FRUIT AND FINISHED. AND SO, UM, UH, IT'S MY, IT'S MY CONSIDERATE OPINION THAT IT IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE OF THE, OF THE PROXIMITY TO A, A GATHERING PLACE FOR THAT COMMUNITY. I WILL BE NOT SUPPORTING THE MOTION. THANK YOU MR. KOVI. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MR. RY? UM, YEAH, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS, UM, I LIKE MR. HAITZ. UM, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. UM, HOWEVER, I'M ALSO VERY CONFLICTED BECAUSE OF THE, UH, STATE LEGISLATURE'S PROVISION OF THE, UH, 50%, UH, HARD FINANCIAL HARDSHIP REQUIREMENT THAT MUST ALSO BE CONSIDERED AS WELL. I BELIEVE IT WAS ABOUT AROUND A 57% COST TO CURE, UH, THE, THE EXISTING FRAME, UH, AS TO WHAT, WHAT'S INVESTED IN THE MONEY. SO IT'S, UM, IN MY, I GUESS SEVEN YEARS SERVING ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, I CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT THIS CASE IS PROBABLY THE MOST DIFFICULT FOR ME TO DECIDE. UM, AND FRANKLY, I DON'T KNOW WHICH WAY I'M GONNA VOTE ON THIS, BUT, UM, I DO THINK THAT MR. LEE ACTED IN GOOD FAITH. UM, AND, UH, I JUST AM EXTREMELY SORRY THAT, UH, THIS, THIS HAS BEEN HELD, HELD OVER AGAIN AND AGAIN. SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN COME TO SOME RESOLUTION. THANK YOU, MR. N ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MOTION IN THE TABLE? I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S, UM, ON THE BOARD'S DILIGENCE IN THOUGHT PROCESS HERE. AND WE EACH COME FROM DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY AND DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THAT'S THE DESIGN, THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL FOR A VOTE. MS. HAYDEN AYE. MR. KOVI NAY. [02:50:01] MR. NARY RELUCTANTLY. AYE. MR. SAUK? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FOUR TO ONE IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 46, EXCUSE ME, 1 56 THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND A VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE GRANTS, THE REQUEST FOR AN EIGHT SIX INCH VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS. NEXT MOTION. UH, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE PD IN THE PBDA 2 3 4 DASH 56 ON APPLICATION OF DANIEL LEE. GRANT THE SIX THREE INCH VARIANCE TO THE OVERALL HEIGHT BUILDING REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT. 'CAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT A PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT. I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE OPPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND THE INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED. I SO MOVE. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. SAUK. UH, I'M NOT GONNA REPEAT MY COMMENTS BEFORE. UM, WHAT I WILL SAY IS, AS MS. HAYDEN SPOKE TO, UH, THE COMPONENTS OF OUR VARIANCE, I THINK ARE MET THE GOOD FAITH ON THE APPLICANT'S PART IN BOTH ASKING PERMISSION, GETTING PERMISSION, COMPLYING WITH GREEN TAGS, AND THEN HONORING THE STOP WORK ORDER. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MONTHS AGO HAVE SHOWN GOOD FAITH FROM START TO FINISH. AND SO, UH, THAT IS THE BASIS BY WHICH, UM, I'M MAKE THIS MOTION. MR. SAUK, UH, I'M NOT GONNA REPEAT WHAT I SAID PREVIOUSLY, BUT THE ONLY THING I WILL ADD IS, UH, I CAN'T FIND ANY INCIDENT WHERE MR. LEE AIRED IN THE STEPS THAT HE TOOK. THANK YOU, MR. SAUK. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, MR. NRI? UM, I, YEAH, I JUST WANNA REITERATE THAT MY DECISION ON THIS, UM, IS REALLY A, A STRICTLY A RESULT OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE, UH, MANDATING THAT, UH, IF THE COST OF CURE IS, WAS ABOVE 50%, UM, AND IN THIS CASE IT APPEARS TO BE, AND THAT IS THE ONLY REASON WHY GONNA BE VOTING IN FAVOR. THANK YOU MR. NERING DISCUSSION. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. MS. DEN AYE. MR. OVITZ NAY. MR. MARY AYE. MR. SAUK? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FOUR TO ONE IN THE MATTER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 56, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE GRANTS, THE REQUEST FOR A SIX THREE INFERENCE, THE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS AS REQUESTED, YOU'LL RECEIVE A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR IN THE MAIL. THANK YOU SIR. OUR LAST CASE FOR TODAY IS BDA 2 4 5 0 1 1 2 4 5 0 1 1. THIS IS AT 4 5 1 1 SITAL STREET. I HOPE I'M PRONOUNCING THAT CORRECTLY. STEGEL, I APOLOGIZE. I AS IN E MY, MY APOLOGIES. 4 5 1 1 STEGEL STREET. HE'S THE APPLICANT HERE. PLEASE COME FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. NOT A PROBLEM. UM, I WILL ASK YOU TO, UH, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN OUR BOARD, UH, SECRETARY WILL WILL SWEAR YOU IN. UH, TRACY JORDAN, 3 8 0 9 PERRY AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 6. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM IN YOUR TESTIMONY, UH, TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. UM, THANK YOU MS. BOARD SECRETARY, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE FOR 2 4 5 0 1 1? I HAVE ONE OTHER SPEAKER AND, UH, SUPPORT AND I HAVE FOUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. TWO IN PERSON TWO ONLINE. OKAY. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. ARE THE TWO SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT HERE OR ONLINE? ONE MORE SPEAKER IN PERSON. OKAY, SO WE HAVE TWO, UH, FOUR AND FOUR AND TWO AND TWO AS FAR AS OPPOSED? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. SO SIR, UM, I'M BEING REDUNDANT, BUT THIS IS, EACH CASE IS HANDLED SEPARATELY. OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE CALL FOR THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK FIRST. I WILL GIVE YOU AS MUCH TIME AS YOU NEED IN ORDER TO MAKE YOUR CASE. UH, THE TIME THAT I GIVE YOU, I WILL GIVE EQUALLY TO ANYONE ELSE THAT SPEAKS IN FAVOR OR ANYONE ELSE THAT SPEAKS IN OPPOSITION. AT THE END OF THAT, YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL. UH, [02:55:01] QUESTIONS WILL COME FROM THE, FROM THE BOARD, UH, PROBABLY AFTER YOU SPEAK OR AFTER EVERYONE SPEAKS. AND THEN SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS CASES, THEN YOU'LL GET QUESTION, THERE'LL BE QUESTIONS ANSWERED. BUT AT THE END OF THAT, YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL. IS THAT OKAY? YES SIR. ALRIGHT. UM, PROCEED SIR, I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE FOR THREE AND A QUARTER OF AN INCH. SAY THAT AGAIN. HOW MUCH? THREE INCHES AND A QUARTER. OKAY. TO A CONSTRUCTION THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS. UM, THE THREE INCHES THAT I'M ASKING FOR, IS IT, IS THAT THE MIDPOINT? IT'S NOT TOTAL BILL HEIGHT. WE COMPLY WITH ALL THE CITY APPROVED PLANS AND COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT. I WENT OUT WITH CITY INSPECTORS TO DO MEASUREMENTS AND WE DID COME BACK WITH THE THREE AND A QUARTER INCH OVER ON THE MIDPOINT, BUT NOT THE TOTAL BILL HEIGHT. WE ARE STILL UNDER THE 30, BUT BILL HEIGHT, THIS PROBLEM WAS NOT CREATED BY THE BUILDER. I THINK IT WAS CREATED BY PLAN REVIEW THAT WAS MISSED AND WE ARE COMING BACK TRYING TO STRAIGHTEN IT OUT. SO I AM ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR THAT THREE INCHES. UM, SO THE CONTRACTOR CAN SELL AND NOT GO INTO FORECLOSURE AND FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY. SO HE'S GOING THROUGH A LITTLE HARDSHIP BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION. AND THE SITUATION IS NOT A ADVERSE EFFECT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE YOU DON'T EVEN SEE THE MIDPOINT IF YOU LOOKING AT IT. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR TODAY. THANK YOU SIR. UM, WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU FOR QUESTIONS. ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR? YES, ERICA HALL. HELLO, GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN. YES, MY NAME IS ERICA HALL. ADDRESS IS 200 NORTH HENDERSON AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 6. I'M SORRY, 7 5 2 1 4. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, PLEASE PROCEED. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. SO I AM HERE TODAY IN REPRESENTATION OF LAND OF AMERICA INCORPORATED. THE ADDRESS IN REFERENCE IS 45 11 STEGEL HERE IN DALLAS, TEXAS. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR THE FOUR INCH VARIANCE OF THE MIDPOINT HEIGHT, WHICH WILL MAKE THE MIDPOINT 25 FEET, FOUR INCHES. THIS DOES NOT AND WILL NOT GO OVER THE 30 FOOT MAXIMUM BILL HEIGHT AT AVERAGE GRADE. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME FOR THE ABOVE ADDRESS WAS SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 6TH, 2024. THIS HOME IS NOT ONLY A, NOT ONLY BEAUTIFUL, BUT IT ALSO ADDS VALUE TO THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH IT IS IN. I AM REPRESENTING A COMPANY THAT IS STIMULATING SU STIMULATING SUPPLY, I'M SORRY, OF SUBCONTRACTORS FOR EMPLOYMENT IN DALLAS. IT WILL COST A CONTRACTOR, UM, $400,000 TO GO BACK AND CORRECT THE FOUR INCHES, WHICH WILL CAUSE THE COMPANY TO GO POSSIBLY GO BANKRUPT. I'M LOOKING FOR A FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION FOR THIS MATTER. THANK YOU. GIVE ME YOUR NAME ONE MORE TIME. YES, IT'S ERICA HALL. ERICA HALL? YES. OKAY, ONE SECOND. LET ME WRITE THIS DOWN. OKAY. AND YOU'RE REPRESENTING LAND OF AMERICA, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OWNER? YES. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE MAY COME BACK THROUGH THE QUESTIONS IN A MINUTE. ALRIGHT, THOSE ARE THE TWO SPEAKERS IN FAVOR. UH, WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS IN THE, IN THE, UH, HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST. GO AHEAD, MR. SACK THOMPSON. ZACH THOMPSON, 47 15 WEST UNIVERSITY. I'VE ALREADY BEEN SWORN IN. IF YOU'LL NEED TO, WE'LL CONSIDER YOU SWARM. PLEASE SHOW US AN OPPOSITION TO 46 11 STEGEL STREET VARIANCE. UM, YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD A LOT OF SAD STORIES HERE TODAY, AND I'M GONNA MENTION ONE SAD STORY THAT I HAD PERSONALLY IN THE 1960. THEY CAME OVER TO VER COURTS IN LOVE FIELD AND THEY TOLD MY FAMILY TO GET OUT AND WE WENT AND WIND UP IN ELEM THICKETT NORTH PARK. AND I MADE A PROMISE THAT I NEVER RENT ANOTHER PROPERTY IN MY LIFE. AND ELM THICKETT HAS BEEN A, AN AREA THAT I GREW UP IN THAT I MAINTAINED. AND FROM THAT I WENT ON AND BOUGHT OTHER PROPERTIES, SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK, CENTRAL TEXAS, ALL IN BLACK NEIGHBORHOODS. AND I'M SAY I'VE NEVER SEEN [03:00:01] SUCH DISRESPECT ABOUT AFRICAN AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT ONLY IN THE PROPERTIES, IN THE AREAS THAT I OWN. AND SO I SURMISED THIS IS THAT EITHER MR. CHAIRMAN AND I JUST REALLY GOTTA FOCUS ON THE CHAIRMAN, EITHER YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH AFRICAN AMERICAN AND NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE THEY'RE OUT OF COMPLIANCE PD 67, WE FOLLOWED THE LAW, WE FOLLOWED THE CITY COUNCIL, WE DID ALL THE NECESSARY WORK THAT WAS REQUIRED. NOW, IF IT'S A MISTAKE BY THE CITY AND THE CITY AND THE BUILDER SHOULD HAVE WORKED THIS OUT, Y'ALL SHOULD HAVE KICKED THIS BACK AND LET THEM WORK IT OUT. NOT YOU MAKE A DECISION TO OVERRIDE AN AFRICAN AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THIS SURMISED TO ME THAT ONLY IN N****R LAND DO WE HAVE TO ALWAYS RUN INTO THIS TYPE OF PROBLEM. SO I ASKED YOU, WE'VE ASKED YOU SIX TIMES IN THIS CASE, I GUESS IT'S THE FIRST TIME, BUT OVER AND OVER AGAIN WE'RE SAYING, SEE WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASKED IN PD 67. HAS ANYONE BEEN SUBMITTED FOR PROSECUTION IN THE CITY, PERMITTING FOR MAKING THIS MISTAKE? THAT'S NUMBER ONE. QUESTION NUMBER TWO, DO Y'ALL FILE A FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR BEING A PART OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTING? AND SO WHAT THIS TELLS US IS THAT WE ARE TIRED OF COMING DOWN HERE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WE DID RIGHT? AND NOW YOU ARE TAKING OUR RIGHT AND MAKING IT WRONG AND THEN ALLOWING THE BUILDERS TO BE RIGHT. SO EVERYBODY GOT A SAD STORY. I CAN'T GET ANY MORE SADDER THAN IN FACT YOU GREW UP POOR. AND NOW WHAT I OWN, I COULD SELL, BUT I CHOOSE NOT TO BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN THE COMMUNITY. I'M GONNA ALWAYS BE A HOMEOWNER AND A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE COMMUNITY. AND SO FOR YOU TO TAKE THE STANCE THAT YOU TAKE, IT'S JUST UNACCEPTABLE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, NEXT SPEAKER. MR. JONATHAN MAPLES. WE'LL CONSIDER YOU SWORN FROM THE PREVIOUS THANK YOU, UH, JONATHAN MAPLES, 6 5 2 5 OREO. AND YOU KNOW, LIKE PRE, LIKE IT WAS PREVIOUSLY SAID BY THE, UH, OTHER GENTLEMAN, UM, I'M A UNITED STATES MARINE AND IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE BRANCHES OF SERVICE, THERE IS ANYTHING, ANYTHING GREATER THAN A UNITED STATES MARINE AS IT RELATES TO DEPEND DEPENDABILITY, LOYALTY. AND I COMMEND ZACH FOR EVERYTHING HE SAID BECAUSE I CAME IN WITH AN, WITH AN OPEN MIND AND SOMETIME MY PASSION TAKES ME TO A WHOLE NOTHER PLACE. BUT FOR SEVEN YEARS WE WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND NEIGHBORS JUST TO HAVE A SAY IN WHAT ELM THINKING NORTH PARK WOULD LOOK LIKE. AND THE DAY WE CAME DOWN THE COUNCIL, MY NEIGHBORHOOD WAS SPLIT IN HALF WHITE FOLKS OVER HERE, BLACK FOLKS OVER HERE. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU TOLD ME WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. SO JUST LIKE DENNIS TOLIS, MR. LEE WILL BE SERVED COURTESY OF ELM THICKETT. WE HAVE NO OTHER REPERCUSSION BECAUSE THE CALVARY IS NOT COMING FOR ELM THICKETT. SO ELM THICKETT MUST DO WHAT ELM THICKETT MUST DO. WE MUST PLAY BY THE SAME RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT GOVERN YOU, THAT GOVERNS CORPORATE AMERICA, POWER AMERICA, SUE THE HELL OUT OF 'EM UNTIL SOMETHING HAPPENS. AND WHY IS IT THAT EVERYBODY THAT COMES BEFORE THIS BOARD USES THE SAME EXCUSE? IF I DON'T GET THAT VARIANCE, OH MY GOD, WE'RE GOING TO BE BANKRUPT. REALLY? YOU DIDN'T THINK ABOUT BEING BANKRUPT BEFORE YOU WENT AND GOT THE LOAN. AND IF YOU'RE BUILDING HOUSES IN OTHER NA IN OTHER, ON OTHER STREETS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS? AND JUST FOR, JUST FOR JUST JUST FOR YOUR KNOWLEDGE, TYREE SITS ONE STREET OVER FROM VICTORIA IN ELM PICKETT. SO LITERALLY YOU COULD SEE ONE HOUSE TO THE OTHER HOUSE. I KNOW THAT CASE WAS HAS ALREADY BEEN DE DECIDED, BUT I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW BECAUSE I NEEDED TO GET THAT OFF OF MY CHEST. HE KNEW. AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE ANY OF US WILL BE IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS, BUT I'LL STILL BE IN ELM PICKETT BECAUSE I LOVE ELM PICKETT. JUST LIKE ZACH AND I WILL FIND YOUR EMAILS AND I WILL TAKE A PICTURE OF THAT HOUSE THAT'S BEING BUILT ON VICTORIA AND [03:05:01] SHOW YOU THAT THEY DON'T LIVE IN THAT HOUSE ANYMORE. THAT NAVAL GUY CAME IN HERE AND LIED TO YOU. LAW. LAW. THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW. AND SOMEBODY, THE CITY, IF THE COUNCIL DECIDED TO CREATE THIS BOARD, THE COUNCIL HAS THE POWER TO DISSOLVE THIS BOARD. EVERYBODY'S RUNNING SCARED. OH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IS QUASI-JUDICIAL. WELL WHAT ABOUT THE DAMN TAX PAYING CITIZEN? NOBODY HERE IS REPRESENTING ELM V. IT'S THE CITY LISTENING TO A BUILDER. WE COME UP HERE AND RUN OUR MILES AND YOU MAY OR MAY NOT LISTEN TO WHAT WE SAY FOR FIVE MINUTES. AND THEN THE BUILDER GETS TO TALK AND THEN THE BUILDER GETS TO TALK, THEN THE BUILDER GETS TO EXPLAINED AND THEN YOU DECIDE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO. AND THEN YOU GO HOME TO YOUR HOUSES. THE ONLY WEALTH THAT'S CREATED FROM ALL OF THIS IS OUR TAX BASE. LET'S RUN THESE NEGROES OUT OF THIS CITY. LET'S RUN THESE NEGROES OUT OF ELM THICKETT. BUT I WANT YOU ALL TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING. THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE HERE AND ELM THICKETT ARE THE DECISIONS YOU'LL MAKE IN THE BOTTOMS IN OAK CLIFF IN WEST DALLAS. BECAUSE YOU SEE ALL OF THIS LOOKS LIKE US. THE PRESIDENTS YOU'RE SETTING WILL BE CARRIED OUT BY BUILDERS AND ATTORNEYS ACROSS THIS CITY BECAUSE THEY'LL REFER BACK AND SAY, YOU REMEMBER THEY DON'T THICKETT CASE. WELL, THAT'S WHY WE CAN DO THIS. REMEMBER THE M THICKETT CASE? WELL, THAT'S WHY WE CAN DO THAT. AND I HOPE IT HAUNTS YOU FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE THAT THIS IS THE WAY YOU TREAT IT. THIS IS THE WAY WE GOT TREATED. IT'S COLONIZATION. THEY CALL IT GENTRIFICATION, BUT IT'S COLONIZATION BECAUSE WHEN ALL THESE BUILDERS CAME DOWN ON THICKETT, WE WERE THERE AND ALL WE SAID WAS WE WANNA SAY IN WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKS LIKE. COME ON, WE, WE WANNA SAY IN WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKS LIKE. AND WE WORKED. WE CROSSED EVERY T WE DOTTED EVERY I WE WORKED WITH OUR COUNCIL PEOPLE. WE WON A UNANIMOUS VOTE AT CITY PLANNING. WE, WE WON A UNANIMOUS VOTE AT COUNCIL. AND THEN HERE IT IS. SOMEBODY SAYS, OH, WE FORGOT TO IMPLEMENT THE SYSTEM. WE FORGOT TO PUT IT IN THE DATABASE. IF I WASN'T STANDING BEFORE THIS BODY, I'D BE CURSING TO BE HON TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, BECAUSE THIS IS THE BIGGEST BUNCH OF BS I'VE EVER SEEN. IT'S ONE THING TO TELL ME THAT YOU ARE APPROVED. IT'S ANOTHER THING TO SAY, HEY, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. 'CAUSE THEY'RE GONNA OVERTURN EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE ALL, ALL THE WORK YOU'VE DONE HAS BEEN OVERTURNED. EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GIVE IT ALL BACK. SO WHAT AM I TO LEAVE MY GRANDCHILDREN? BUT AGAIN, WE KNOW WHAT TO DO AND UNFORTUNATELY MR. LEE'S HOUSE SIT THERE FOR SIX MONTHS. WELL, HELL, WE'RE GONNA ASSUME IT, IT MAY SIT THERE SIX MORE MONTHS. LET'S SEE IF THE BANK COMES FOR HIS HOUSE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ANY OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKERS, MS. BOARD, SECRETARY, MR. GUS PEREZ. AND YOU GUYS SEE AND HEAR ME? WE CAN SEE YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN SEE YOU AND HEAR YOU, YES. PERFECT. OKAY. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. OKAY. UH, NAME IS GUS PEREZ, UH, LIVE AT 78 11 MORTON STREET IN THE ELM THICKET NORTH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD. LEMME KNOW WHEN I'M READY TO GO. WELL SOON YOU CAN GO AHEAD. OKAY. I'M HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE VARIANCE REQUEST AT, UH, 45 15 STEGAL DRIVE, UH, BDA 2 4 5 0 1 1. UH, I'M NOT GONNA REALLY GO INTO A LOT OF THE STUFF THAT I HAD WRITTEN DOWN BEFORE BECAUSE IT'S REALLY MOOT HERE. UH, THIS PROPERTY'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING AND WE ARE JUST ASKING FOR THE ZONING TO BE UPHELD, BUT THAT REALLY MEANS NOTHING TO YOU GUYS. UH, I'D LIKE TO SEE IF THE BUILDER CAN BRING THE STRUCTURE IN THE COMPLIANCE. HE'S TALKING ABOUT 0.3, YOU KNOW, OR, YOU KNOW, THREE INCHES, THREE QUARTER INCHES. UH, YEAH, THERE'S MAYBE A COST TO DO SO, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT COST IS. IF IT IS REALLY PROHIBITIVE OR IF THE BILLER IS SIMPLY BEING LAZY AND HOPING NOT TO SPEND MORE MONEY ON A PROPERTY ORIGINALLY LISTED FOR JUST UNDER $1.4 MILLION. UH, ASK HIM IF HE CAN FIX IT AND PUT IT INTO COMPLIANCE. THAT'S THE LEAST WE CAN ASK. UH, BECAUSE THE ZONING IS, THAT'S WHAT THE ZONING STATES, UH, SPENDING MONEY TO FIX. IT TAKES AWAY FROM SOME PROFIT THOUGH. I MEAN THAT, THAT'S THE, THE BOTTOM LINE HERE. UH, I'M GONNA REALLY STATE HERE WHAT I STATED IN MY LAST SPEECH. I CERTAINLY BELIEVE THE CHAIRMAN HAS HIS OWN AGENDA TO HAVE THE BBOA RULE IN FAVOR OF THE BUILDERS REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS OR WHAT THE EVIDENCE WE PRESENT. AND LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN. WE PREVENT PRE [03:10:01] PRESENTED EVIDENCE THAT F 80 CAPITAL KNEW ABOUT PD 67 AND MS. DANNY LEE JUST SAID, OH YEAH, F 80 CAPITAL. HE WAS CONTRACTED TO BUILD THAT PROPERTY ON TYREE. HE KNEW ABOUT 3 6 7 BEFORE, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. EVIDENCE IS NOT CLEAR. AS LONG AS THE BUILDER LIES TO YOU, THAT'S ENOUGH APPARENTLY FOR THIS BOARD. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT CHAIRMAN'S MOTIVATION IS TO SOMETHING CLEARLY MOTIVATING HIM TO SUPPORT BUILDERS AT THE EXPENSE OF NEIGHBORHOODS. AND THAT IS WHAT HAS DISGUSTED ME THESE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. AGAIN, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO, THIS IS A MESSAGE FOR ALL THE BUILDERS OUT THERE. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LIE TO THE BOA AND YOU'LL GET WHAT YOU WANT. BOTTOM LINE, THIS PROCESS HAS SHOWN TO BE A SHAM AND ALL OF THE DALLAS NEIGHBORHOODS WILL UNDER THREAT LIKE OURS SHOULD BE DISCUSSED AS WELL. AND I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO SAY BECAUSE I KNOW HOW YOU'RE GONNA VOTE AND IT'S, IT JUST, AGAIN, COMPLETELY DISGUSTED ME FOR WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING THESE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. NEXT SPEAKER, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, I, I BELIEVE MS. RICHARDSON HAS GONE OFFLINE. SHE'S NOT ONLINE ANYMORE. ALRIGHT, ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS THAT ARE REGISTERED? MS. BOARD, SECRETARY? NO OTHER SPEAKERS REGISTERED. OKAY. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? ARE I, I HAVE A FIRST QUESTION. UH, YOUR NAME IS MR. JORDAN, CORRECT? YES SIR. SO WHAT IS YOUR ROLE IN RELATION TO THE THE PROPERTY? I'M JUST A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUILDERS. THEY COULDN'T YOU'RE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUILDERS? YES. AND, AND MS. HALL IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER? YES. OKAY. SO I'M LOOKING AT THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. THEY'RE THE SAME PEOPLE. OKAY. HOLD ON. THE, IT SAYS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS LAND OF AMERICAN? YES. THAT'S THE BUILDER AND THE OWNER? YES. OKAY. SO I I'M ASK AGAIN. SO SHE REP, SHE SAID SHE WAS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF LAND OF AMERICAN? YES. AND YOU ARE AS WELL, OR NO? YES SIR, I AM. YOU'RE, SO YOU'RE BOTH REPRESENTING LAND OF AMERICAN? YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. COUPLE QUESTIONS. I WROTE DOWN AS YOU, YOU SPOKE. YES, SIR. YOU SAID THIS PROPERTY WAS COMPLETED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY? YES SIR. IT WAS. OKAY. IN, ON THE, IN THE DOCKET THAT WAS PREPARED BY THE STAFF. MM-HMM . ON OUR PAGE 1 97, IT SAYS AN ERROR WAS MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION AND THE BUILDING WAS BUILT 25 FEET, THREE AND A QUARTER INCHES AT THE MIDPOINT. SO WHO MADE THE ERROR IS MY QUESTION? UH, IT WAS MADE IN PLAN REVIEW. OH. IT IS CLEARLY ON THE PLANS. THE MIDPOINT IS SUPPOSED TO BE 2025, BUT ON THE PLANS IS 25 AND THREE QUARTERS. SO WE HERE TO RECTIFY THAT THREE AND A QUARTER OF INCH. OKAY. SO HOLD ON. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT, IF I HEARD YOU SAY MM-HMM . YOU'RE SAYING THAT PLANNING REVIEW YES, SIR. ARE ARE THE ONES THAT MADE THE ERROR HERE. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY PERMITTED WITH THE WRONG HEIGHT. YES, SIR. IS THAT MISS, MISS, UH, BOARD ADMINISTRATOR? IS THAT CORRECT? FROM YOUR UNDERSTANDING ON THE RECORD? I WOULD LIKE MR. POOLE TO COMBINE THAT. OKAY. MR. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR. I'M, I, I WROTE THAT WAS THE FIRST THING THAT YOU SAID? YES, SIR. YOU SAID COMPLETED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY? YES, SIR. AND SO WHEN I, AND THEN IN THE WRITEUP IT SAYS AN ERROR WAS MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION AND THE BUILDING WAS BUILT 25 FEET, THREE AND QUARTER INCHES. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT THREE AND A QUARTER OF AN INCH ON ANY BUILDING MATERIAL THAT, THAT THEY MAKE IN THIS COUNTRY. OKAY. I HAVE NO CLUE. SO IF YOU'LL GIMME, JUST TRYING, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET TO THE FACTS. MR. POOLE, IF YOU'LL GIMME ONE MOMENT. I'M LOOKING UP THE PLANS. THANK YOU. IS THAT TWO BY FOUR? IT SHOULD HAVE FOUR SETS OF BALL PLANS THAT I BOUGHT DOWN HERE ALSO. SO DID SOMEONE ACTUALLY GO OUT AND MEASURE FOR THE MIDPOINT? YES. WE, YEAH, WE ALL WENT OUT AND MEASURED WITH A CITY INSPECTOR, ZONING INSPECTOR, AND WE CAME UP WITH THE THREE AND A QUARTER OF AN INCH THAT VERIFIED ON THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED. AND WHAT PERCENTAGE COMPLETE IS THE, IS THE PROPERTY? IT'S, IT WAS COMPLETED BACK IN SEPTEMBER, SIR. SO, OKAY. IT WAS COMPLETED IN SEPTEMBER. YES. YET YOUR VARIANCE REQUEST WAS ACCEPTED BY STAFF SUBMIT YOU ON DECEMBER 2ND? YES. SO WHY THE DELAY? I'M CONFUSED. 'CAUSE WE WERE NOTIFIED THAT WE HAD SOME ISSUES WITH HEIGHT. SO [03:15:01] WHEN WE CAME BACK, WE WAS WONDERING WHY WE HAD ISSUES WITH HEIGHT, BUT WE NOTICED ON THE, ON THE PLANS THAT IT WAS 25 AND THREE QUARTERS, WHICH INTERFERES 25 AND THREE QUARTERS. SO IT CAN'T BE ON THE PLANS 25 AND THREE QUARTERS TO BE PASSED. IT CAN ONLY BE 25, BUT IT WAS PASSED. SO WE HERE TO CORRECT THE THREE AND A FOUR OF . OKAY. SO THIS PARTICULAR SITE HAS JUST BEEN SITTING SINCE SEPTEMBER. WE HAVE ALL INSPECTIONS PASSED. PLAN REVIEWS PASSED. WE BUILT ACCORDING, SO IT WAS PERMITTED, IT WAS PERMITTED BY THE CITY. YES, SIR. IT WAS GREEN TAGGED AT EACH OF THE STAGES. YES, SIR. OKAY. AND WE, WE, UH, AS A REPRESENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THIS COMPANY, THEY DON'T BILL TO BE DISRESPECTFUL TO NO PD OR NO CITY PLANNER. WHATEVER YOU GIVE THEM, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GONNA BILL. IF YOU TELL 'EM NO, THEY'RE GONNA MAKE ACCOMMODATIONS TO BILL WHAT IT EXACTLY, WHAT NEED TO GO IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THEY WEREN'T AWARE OF PD 67 AND THE ISSUES THAT WERE GOING ON. THEY'RE LOOKING AT PLANS ONLINE. I'M GONNA KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS. YES, SIR. SO, UM, AS PART OF OUR CRITERIA, IT TALKS ABOUT NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST NECESSARY TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PARCEL OF LAND. AND IT HAS AN ELEMENT TWO SUBSTITUTE THAT SAYS THE FINANCIAL COST AND COMPLIANCE IS GREATER THAN 50%. UM, ON THE LAST PAGE OF WHAT WAS SUBMITTED TO US, IT SAYS 174,750. YES. THAT'S MINIMUM COST. AND TELL ME WHAT THIS REPRESENTS. THAT REPRESENTS MINIMUM COST OF 10 ENTIRE ROOF DOWN WHILE IT'S COMPLETED. YOU HAVE TO REDO AC INSULATION, STUCCO, EVERYTHING. THAT'S JUST MINIMUM COST ONCE YOU START CREATING, GOING IN IT AND DOING DEMO AND COMING BACK TO, SO YOU'RE SAYING IT'S 174,000, SEVEN 50, THAT'S JUST AN ESTIMATE. THAT'S JUST A MINUTE. THAT'S, THAT'S A MINIMUM ESTIMATE. AND WHAT IS THE D AD VALUE ON THE MOST RECENT? DA, UH, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT COMPARES. SUPPOSED TO COMPARE IT TO. UH, I'M NOT FOR SURE. I DON'T WANT TO SAY SOMETHING THAT I'M NOT FOR SURE OF. OKAY. WELL, WE'LL, WE WILL ADDRESS THAT. MR. POOLE. DO WE HAVE AN ANSWER OR WE DON'T? YEAH. OKAY. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE ANSWER NECESSARILY, UH, WELL, IT, IT'S INFORMATION. THAT'S WHAT IT IS, IS MS. MS BARKUM IS PULLING UP THAT PLAN ONLINE. UM, THERE WASN'T A DIMENSION INDICATING THE BID POINT ON THE STRUCTURE. WHAT THEY DID IS THEY PUT WAS NOT, THERE WAS NOT, SO THEY PUT A NOTE ON THERE THAT THE MAX HEIGHT IS 25 FEET AND CAN'T EXCEED THAT ON THE PLAN. OKAY. SORRY. WHAT WAS THE, WHAT WAS THE LAST PART OF WHAT HE SAID? I'M CONFUSED. THE, THE VERY LAST PART OF WHAT YOU SAID, THEY, WHO PUT 25 FEET WHERE THE REVIEWER PUT THAT NOTE ON THE PLAN, THEY HAND WROTE IT ON THERE AS PART OF THE APPROVED SET OF PLANS. OKAY. IT SAYS, I'M LOOKING AT WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN. WHO, WHO PROVIDED THIS? IS THIS FROM YOU MS. BARKLOW? OKAY. I'M READING MR. POOL. WOULD YOU READ THIS FOR US? SO IT'S IN THE RECORD. IT SAYS MAX HEIGHT. YEAH. MAX HEIGHT. 25 FEET ZERO INCHES. NO PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE MAY BE GREATER THAN 30 FEET ABOVE GRADE. ALL RIGHT. SO WHY IS THERE A DIFFERENCE OF FIVE FEET? IT'S, WELL, THE, THE HEIGHT GRADE MEANING THE GROUND, THE HEIGHT, YES. THE HIGHEST POINT. SO THAT FIVE FEET WOULD BE FOUNDATION. RIGHT. THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE STRUCTURE CAN EXCEED 30 FEET, UH, FROM THE GROUND. RIGHT. OKAY. AND THE MAXIMUM OR THE, UH, MAXIMUM HEIGHT AS DEFINED BY THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS TO THE MIDPOINT, CAN'T BE OVER 25 FEET. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO, UH, I'VE GOT MR. SAUK AND THEN MR. UH, KOVI. SO THE FIVE INCHES DIFFERENCE WOULD BE THE FOUNDATION FROM GRADE TO WHERE THE STRUCTURE MAINTEN STRUCTURE PLATE, POSSIBLY THE THREE AND THREE QUARTER OR THE THREE AND A QUARTER INCHES? NO. YEAH. OKAY. GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. SO IT'S JUST THREE AND THREE AND A QUARTER INCHES. YES. AND MY, MY GUESS WOULD BE THAT THEY SCALED OFF OF THIS PLAN ACCORDING TO THE SCALE, TO HIT THE MIDPOINT AND SCALED IT AT 25 AND THEN WROTE THAT ON THERE. YEAH, BUT THEY, THAT 25 IS A MAX HEIGHT. WE ARE TALKING MIDPOINT HEIGHT. YOU WROTE THE ORDINANCE DEFINES HEIGHT, THAT THAT'S WHAT IT'S TALKING ABOUT ON THE MAX HEIGHT. NOW IT JUST SAYS IN THE ORDINANCE THAT NO, UH, NO POINT IN THE STRUCTURE CAN EXCEED 30 FEET. NOW HEIGHT IS DEFINED ON A HIP AND GABLE STRUCTURE AS THE MIDPOINT. AND THAT'S HOW THE ORDINANCE DEFINES HEIGHT. RIGHT. I THINK JUST AS A CLARITY, WE REFER TO IT AS MIDPOINT HEIGHT. JUST SO AS CLARITY [03:20:01] HERE, IT'S, IT'S NOT MAX HEIGHT. NO, IT'S NOT. MAX HEIGHT'S 30, NOT HEIGHT. IT'S 30. SO THIS IS INCORRECT. THIS SAYS MAX HEIGHT. NO, MAX HEIGHT, ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE IS 25. OKAY. WITH NO PART OF THE STRUCTURE EXCEEDING 30 FEET. THAT'S THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WORDED. THE DEFINITION OF HEIGHT IS FOR A HIP AND GABLE STRUCTURE. IT'S TO THE MIDPOINT OF THE, UH, LOWEST EVE AND HIGHEST, UH, RIDGE. YEAH. RIDGE IN THAT, THAT INTER, THOSE HAVE TO INTERSECT. OKAY. SO YOU TESTIFIED MM-HMM . AND YOU REITERATED MM-HMM . THAT IT WAS AN ERROR BY THE PLAN REVIEW PEOPLE. YES. SO WHERE'S THE ERROR? I, BECAUSE I YOU'RE IMPLYING THAT THEY APPROVE SOME, THEY IMPROVE MM-HMM . THE 25 FEET THREE ONE QUARTER? YES. WHEN THIS SAYS 25, WELL, WE HAD 25 3 AND A QUARTER ON OUR PLAN. UH, WHAT WE HAD 25 DURING THE QUARTER AS A MIDPOINT. AND THOSE WERE THE PLANS THAT I BROUGHT BACK WHEN I CAME TO THE ADJUSTMENT TO FILL THE APPLICATION OUT. AND THAT'S WHAT WAS MEASURED OUT IN THE FIELD. OKAY. THESE ARE THE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED, AND THEY'RE IN OUR SYSTEM. OKAY. OKAY. SO I'M CONFUSED, BUT WE WON'T CHASE THAT QUITE YET. YEAH. MR. SEK, YOU HAVE A QUESTION THEN? I THINK I'M MR. KOVI. SO THE, THE FIVE FOOT DIFFERENCE WOULD BE FROM THE MIDPOINT TO THE, THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE ROOT BEING 30 FEET. RIGHT? THE MIDPOINT BEING 25. SO THEN THERE'S FIVE FEET FROM THE MIDPOINT TO THE PEAK OF THE ROUTE, CORRECT. OR THE TOP OF THE HEIGHT. SO I BELIEVE THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE WAS 29 FOOT. UM, THAT'S HARD TO TELL. I THINK 29 FOOT SOMETHING, AND YES, IT'S FROM THAT HIGHEST RIDGE. AND THEN TO THE LOWEST CONNECTING EVE THERE. AND THE MIDPOINT BETWEEN THOSE TWO, THAT HAS TO BE 25 FEET. I'M READING IN FROM THE PD 67. IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HEIGHT, MAXIMUM RESIDENCE STRUCTURE HEIGHT IS 25 FEET. NO PORTION OF THE RESIDENCE STRUCTURE MAY BE GREATER THAN 30 FEET ABOVE GRADE. YEAH. SO QUESTION, UH, FOR OUR STAFF, WHAT WAS APPROVED WAS A RENDERING, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, OF THE HOUSE, NOT ACTUAL ARCHITECTURAL, UM, FRAMING OF IT. CORRECT. THERE IS A FRAMING PLAN. THIS IS JUST THE ELEVATION SHOWING ALL THE HEIGHTS. OKAY. AND DO WE KNOW WHAT THE FRAMING PLAN SHOWED ON HERE? OR DOES IT MATCH WITH THE HEIGHT OF THIS? I'M, I'M HAVING TROUBLE SEEING IF THERE ARE HEIGHTS ON THIS. UH, IT'S SO SMALL, BUT ARE THERE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS ON THAT? I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE, WHERE THE ERROR COULD HAVE HAPPENED. UH, YOU KNOW, WAS IT THAT THE CITY APPROVED SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT ACCURATE, UM, OR AS INTENDED? UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE FACT THAT IT'S, IT'S HANDWRITTEN IN THERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S EXPLICIT ENOUGH, BUT, UM, EVEN IF THE RENDERINGS WERE WRONG, IT'S STILL INCUMBENT UPON THE BUILDER TO MAKE SURE THAT IT FITS INTO THE HEIGHT, CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. AND SO DO WE KNOW WHAT THE, WHAT THE FRAMING PLAN SHOWED US AND IS, AND IS THAT EVEN GONNA BE ON THE PLAN? BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THIS WAS NOT, WAS LACKING, YOU KNOW, CALL OUTS OF DIMENSIONS. UM, THE CITY OF DALLAS DOESN'T REQUIRE FRAMING PLANS, SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE THOSE. UM, IF THEY PROVIDE 'EM, WE'D REVIEW 'EM, BUT IF WE DON'T REQUIRE THEM, UM, BUT DR. CAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS HAS THE, UM, THE PLANS THAT HE SUBMITTED. I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION IS. THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE US PLANS FOR THE BOARD WITH THE THREE AND A QUARTER INCH SHOWING, BUT THE PLANS THAT, UM, MR. POOLE IS SHOWING ARE THE ONES THAT THE CITY APPROVED. SO WHAT ARE THE PLANS THAT HE SUBMITTED TO YOU COMPARED TO, SO HE'S ACTUALLY CALLING OUT THE 25 AND THREE FOUR INCHES ON HERE, ON THE PLANS THAT HE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD. SO I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION WHEN HE WAS SAYING THAT, UM, THERE WAS AN ERROR ON THE CITY WITH THE DRAWING. THE, THE PLANS THAT MR. POOLE WAS SHOWING ARE THE PLANS THAT THE, THAT WERE INITIALLY SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY. HOWEVER, THE PLANS THAT HE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD SHOWS THE MIDPOINT AT THE 25 3 [03:25:01] INCHES. OKAY. SO THE QUESTION IS, WHAT IS IT THAT THEY, A PROP, UH, A BUILDER, A PROPERTY ORDER HAS TO GET APPROVED BUILDING PLANS, AND THEY WOULD HAVE DIMENSIONS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE ZONING ALLOWS. RIGHT. SO WHERE IS THAT DOCUMENT? DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF WHAT, WHAT YOUR COMPANY, LAND OF AMERICA OR WHATEVER THE BUILDER HAVE, HAVE APPROVED PLANS? NO, I DON'T HAVE IT ON ME. I HAVE IT IN MY BOND. THAT SAME EXISTS. THOSE PLANS ARE THE PLANS THAT MR. POOL WAS SHOWING WITH THE CITY APPROVED. YEAH. WELL, WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS THE SETUP YOU SAID AT THE BEGINNING WAS COMPLETED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY. YES. AND YOU SAID 25 AND 3 25 FEET. THREE AND A QUARTER INCHES. THREE AND, AND A QUARTER INCHES. YES, SIR. OKAY. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO VERIFY THAT. YES. SO SHOW ME A DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS THAT I DON'T HAVE THAT DOCUMENT WITH ME, SIR. WHY NOT? THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON YOU'RE HERE. YEAH, BECAUSE I THOUGHT THE CITY HAD ALL THESE PLANS ALREADY. THERE WAS APPROVED IN THE SYSTEM ALREADY. I DON'T HAVE 'EM WITH ME, BUT WELL, IF THE BURDEN IS ON YOU, SIR, I UNDERSTAND THAT. JUST, I MEAN, OKAY. I MEAN, THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT. MR. KOVICH, THEN MR. SAIK. SO THE PLANS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE HERE AT SOME, AT SOME POINT, THERE WAS SOMEBODY ON THE PROPERTY SUPERVISING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT HOME? YES, SIR. THEY WERE WORKING OFF OF PLANS. YES, SIR. ARE THOSE THE PLANS YOU'RE REFERRING TO? YES, SIR. BECAUSE THOSE SHOULD BE SHOWING EXACT DIMENSIONS OF EVERYTHING THAT WAS PUT INTO THE HOUSE. IT NOT, YES, SIR. OKAY. AND WE PUT EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THOSE PLANS, THE SEAL, THE CORRECT CEILING HEIGHT, THE TRUSS HEIGHT, THE NEXT CEILING HEIGHT AND THE ROOF PITCH ALL MATCHES THOSE PLANS AND, AND AN ARCHITECT THROUGH THOSE PLANS UP. YES. DID THE ARCHITECT KNOW IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE 25 FEET? NO, THE ARCHITECT DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL WE GOT NOTIFICATION THAT THE PD WAS, WAS DIFFERENT. SO WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU WERE BUILDING THE HOUSE YES, SIR. YOU, IT WAS PLANNED TO BE 25 FEET? YES. SO THE ARCHITECT KNEW WHEN HE WAS DRAWING THE, THE PLANS MAX HEIGHT IS 30, BUT THE, THE THE HIGHEST POINT CAN BE 30. YES. AND THE MIDPOINT CAN'T BE GREATER THAN 25. THE ARCHITECT WOULD'VE KNOWN THAT, WOULD THEY NOT? HE WOULD'VE KNOWN THAT. BUT THIS PD WASN'T A 25 FOOT MAX HEIGHT. IT WAS 20. IT WAS, I THINK IT WAS 25 AND THREE QUARTERS AT THE TIME ON ALL PLANS. YEAH, I DON'T THINK SO. YEAH. BUT AGAIN, I'M GONNA GO BACK TO WHERE IS THE PLANS THAT YOUR COMPANY HAD APPROVED BY THE CITY? I DON'T HAVE A MOMENT, SIR. WELL, I, IT'S HARD FOR US TO CONSIDER SOMETHING. YEAH, I'M, GO AHEAD MR. HOPKOS. SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE HIGHEST POINT IN THE HOUSE HERE? NO, NO, WE'RE NOT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MIDPOINT MID POINT BETWEEN THE HIGHEST POINT ON THAT ROOF LINE, THAT RIDGE LINE, AND THE LOWEST POINT. YES. SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY. LET'S JUST SAY FOR EXAMPLE, I WENT UP ON THE ROOF WITH A PIECE OF, UH, I'M, I'M BEING A LITTLE FACETIOUS, BUT ONLY A LITTLE. IT'S, IT IS, OKAY. I WENT UP ON THE ROOF WITH A SIX FOOT PIECE OF CARDBOARD, TOOK IT TO THE LOWEST POINT IN THE ROOF AND STAPLED IT ONTO THERE TO EXTEND THE LOWEST POINT ON THE ROOF LINE ON THAT RIDGE LINE WITH, WITH A PIECE OF CARDBOARD. MM-HMM . NOW THE LOWEST POINT AND THE HIGHEST POINT WOULD BE 25, WOULD IT NOT? NO, SIR. THAT'S NOT HOW YOU CALCULATE IT. YOU GO HALF THAT DISTANCE TO THE HORIZONTAL PLANE AND THAT GIVES YOU THE MIDPOINT. RIGHT. BUT IF YOU EXTEND THE LOWEST POINT MM-HMM . THEN THE, THE, THE MIDPOINT MOVES DOWN. IS IT NOT? YES, THAT MOVES DOWN. OKAY. YES. SO WHY WOULD IT BE A HUNDRED AND SOMETHING THOUSAND DOLLARS TO EXTEND THE LOWEST POINT ON THAT ROOF LINE A FEW INCHES? IT IT TAKES MORE THAN THAT TO EXTEND THAT, THAT LONG. IF YOU, YOU GOTTA GO HALF THE DISTANCE OF THAT RIDGE TO THE LOWEST POINT. CORRECT. ONCE YOU GO TO HALF THAT DISTANCE, YOU ADD THAT TO THAT. SO YOU, SO THAT WOULDN'T CORRECTLY GIVE YOU THAT TOP PLATE HEIGHT TO MAKE THAT DIFF THAT DIFFERENCE. SO YOU'LL HAVE TO COMPLETELY CHANGE CEILING HEIGHT AND THE ROOF PITCH TO DO THAT. UM, I'M NOT FOLLOWING THAT. I'M NOT A BUILDER. WELL, UM, YOU'RE FOLLOWING A, A LINE ON THE TOP OF THE ROOF OR YOU NOT NO, IT'S, IT'S NOT A LINE, SIR. IT'S HALF THE DISTANCE OF THAT LINE TO THAT HORIZONTAL PLANE THAT YOU HAVE TO FIND THE DIFFERENCE OF THAT MIDPOINT HEIGHT. RIGHT. SO IF YOU GO TRY TO MAKE THE EVEN LOWER, YOU, YOU WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE STUD HEIGHT AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE PITCH ON THE ROOF TO CORRECTLY MAKE THOSE ENGINES UP. THAT'S WHY THE PRICE IS THAT HIGH. I DON'T QUITE FOLLOW THAT, BUT, UM, I'LL ACCEPT THAT ANSWER FOR RIGHT NOW. I, WE HAVE A SENIOR PLANNER BACK THERE. I THINK HE CAN EXPLAIN IT. THANK YOU MR. HO. I'VE GOT MR. EK, UM, DR. HOSKINS, UM, MILLER, UM, [03:30:01] THE, UM, IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT THE CITY AIRED IN, IN ISSUING THE PERMITS IN, UH, IN ANY STEP OF THE WAY? BASED UPON THE PLANS THAT I'VE SEEN? I DON'T THINK THE CITY MADE AN ERROR IN APPROVING THOSE PLANS. THANK YOU. I I WISH YOU HAD WOULD HAVE PLANS, SIR. THE ONLY THAT YOU, I, LET ME FINISH. OKAY. I WISH YOU'D HAVE PLANS THAT WE COULD SAY DEFINITIVELY IT WAS APPROVED ON DATE X AND THIS IS HOW WE BUILT IT. IT KIND OF GOES BACK TO MR. HKA. IT'S COMMENT ABOUT THE ARCHITECT. HE DREW 'EM. NOW YOU GO BUILD THEM. AND THE PRESUMPTION, IS IT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE RULES. NOW, AT THE SAME TOKEN, I QUESTION THESE HANDWRITTEN THINGS ON DOCUMENTS IS WHEN WAS THAT WRITTEN? THAT WRITTEN YESTERDAY ON IT? WAS THAT BEFORE? UM, IT DOESN'T HAVE, I DON'T SEE THE APPROVED STAMP ON IT. IT'S RIGHT THERE BELOW THE DRAWING. THAT RED STAMP THAT SAYS SUBJECT TO, WHAT DOES THAT SAY? SUBJECT TO FIELD INSPECTOR APPROVAL MEAN? DOES THAT MEAN TO BUILD? YES. THESE ARE, THESE ARE WRITTEN ON BY THE REVIEWER AS PART OF THE REVIEW. THEY'RE RED LINES. PART OF THE PART OF THE TIMEFRAME IS TO GET THESE AS FAST AS WE CAN. SO THEY, THEY WROTE THOSE IN THERE AS PART OF THE APPROVAL THAT THAT MIDPOINT OR THE MAX HEIGHT CAN EXCEED 25 FEET. AND THAT, THAT COMES WITH THEIR, THEIR SET OF PLANS. THESE WERE ALL PAPER PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED. THEY SUBMITTED SO MANY COPIES AND A COPY WAS GIVEN BACK WITH THE APPROVED PERMIT. THERE. LOOKS LIKE THE ARCHITECT, IT'S DAVID WINCHESTER IF I READ THAT ON THE, ON THE, ON THE SIDE. UH, OKAY. AND SO WHAT THIS SAID, THERE IT IS. THANK YOU. UH, WHAT THIS SAYS IS MAX HEIGHT 25 FEET. SO THAT'S MAX HEIGHT, OR IS THAT THE MIDPOINT MAX? TELL ME WHAT THAT MEANS. THIS, THAT'S THE MIDPOINT HEIGHT. SO IT'S NOT MAX HEIGHT ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE, IT'S MAX HEIGHT. THE, THE WAY ORDINANCE OR THE WAY HEIGHT IS DEFINED IN OUR ORDINANCE. AND I'LL, I'LL PULL IT UP IF THAT. I'VE GOT IT RIGHT HERE. MAXIMUM RESIDENCE STRUCTURE HEIGHT IS 25 FEET. NO PORTION OF THE RESIDENCE STRUCTURE MAY BE GREATER THAN 30 FEET. NO, YOU HAVE TO FALL BACK TO THE DEFINITIONS IN 51 A FOR THE DEFINITION OF HEIGHT AND THAT THAT'S HOW PD IT OVERLAYS AND RELIES ON THAT DEFINITION. WHICH, LET ME PULL THAT AND I'LL READ IT. SO BACK TO YOU, SIR. THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT. YES, SIR. TO PROVE THAT THERE IS A, THAT YOUR REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THAT YOUR REQUEST IS NOT SELF-CREATED AND THAT YOUR REQUEST IS EITHER TO RELIEVE, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT FOR A PARCEL OF LAND THAT HAS AN UNUSUAL SHAPE, SLOPE, OR AREA, OR THAT THE COST FOR COMPLIANCE IS GREATER THAN 50%. AND THAT COST OF COMPLIANCE IS AGAINST THE DCA VALUE OF WHICH YOU DID NOT HAVE TO PRESENT TO US TODAY IN COMPARISON TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING YOUR COST TO HERE IS. SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE BURDEN THAT EACH AND EVERY APPLICANT HAS IF THEY COME TO THE BOARD, AND THAT'S OUR RULES. WE FOLLOW OVER AND OVER AND OVER. OKAY. I, I UNDERSTAND YOUR RULES, BUT I DON'T HAVE, I DIDN'T BRING THE PLANS BECAUSE THIS ALSO HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND IT WAS SUBJECT TO FIELD INSPECTOR APPROVAL, WHICH WAS EVERYTHING WAS APPROVED ON IT. SO A FIELD INSPECTOR APPROVED IT? YES, EVERYBODY DID. IT'S COMPLETED. WELL, JUST 'CAUSE IT'S COMPLETED DOESN'T MEAN IT WAS APPROVED BY A FIELD INSPECTOR. YES. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT SHOWS THAT IT WAS IN INSPECT APPROVED BY A FIELD INSPECTOR? YEAH, WE HAVE A LETTER OF COMPLETION. WHERE, WHERE IN YOUR SYSTEM? IN POSSIBLE WHERE IT'S FINALED OUT. WHERE? SEPTEMBER 6TH. OKAY. HOLD ON. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY. 'CAUSE NOW I'M GONNA GO AND TRY TO PROVE IT. IS THERE A MINUTE AGO, YOU SAID IT WAS APPROVED AT 25 AND THREE IN ONE QUARTER AND WE HAVEN'T FOUND THAT APPROVAL YET. SO MR. POOL? SO YES, THE HOUSE HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND PASSED ALL INSPECTIONS. OH, THAT'S WHAT I'M, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE CITY BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVED IT WITH THE FINAL GREEN TAG, MR. POOL? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY, HERE WE GO AGAIN. SO IS THERE A, IS THERE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THEN YOU DON'T NEED FOR RESIDENTIAL? WE HAVE A LETTER OF COMPLETION. OKAY. LETTER COMPLETION. IT ISSUED LETTER, LETTER OF COMPLETION. ONCE YOU HAVE A BUILDING PLAN, WAS THE LETTER OF COMPLETION ISSUED? YES. SO HOW, HOW DID THIS GET BEFORE US THEN? SO WHEN, UH, WHEN WE STARTED THE INVESTIGATION, WE WENT OUT AND REEXAMINED EVERY PERMIT WE'VE GOT IN ELM PICKETT AND LOOKED BACK, [03:35:01] I, I BELIEVE THERE WAS 172 SITES THAT WE LOOKED AT. THIS WAS ONE THAT WE REEXAMINED. UH, DURING THAT PROCESS, WE DISCOVERED THAT, UH, SOME OF THESE HOUSES WERE EXTREMELY CLOSE. SO WE HIRED A, I'D SAY THREE AND QUARTER INCHES. MAKE IT CLOSE. SURE. SO WE HIRED A, UH, THIRD PARTY TO DO SURVEYS AND MAKE SURE WE, WE DIDN'T MISS ANYTHING. SOME OF THESE WERE CLEARED UP. THIS ONE WAS FLAGGED. SO WE WENT OUT AND REMEASURED AND, AND, AND MADE SURE. AND THAT'S HOW WE CAME ACROSS THIS ONE. SO LET ME ASK A QUESTION, AND IT, YOU KNOW, MIGHT NOT BE IN YOUR PURVIEW TO ANSWER, BUT IN THIS TIME FROM WHEN THE CITY WENT BACK AND STARTED THIS WHOLE, UH, FORENSIC EVALUATION, UH, COULD THIS HOME HAVE BEEN SOLD AND A FAMILY LIVING IN IT? YES. YES. AND, AND THEN WHAT WOULD'VE HAPPENED? THE, THE SAME, THE SAME STEPS. IT WOULD JUST BE THAT MUCH HARDER BECAUSE A PROPERTY OWNER HAS, HAS MOVED IN OR THAT SOMEBODY HAS BOUGHT THE HOUSE. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF I HAD BOUGHT THIS HOUSE AND UH, MY FAMILY WAS LIVING IN IT AND IT SUDDENLY DISCOVERED THAT IT'S THREE INCHES OFF, THEN I'M LEFT HOLDING THE BAG ON THIS? YES. LIKE WE WE'RE, WE'RE SUBJECT TO THE, THE ZONING. AND WHEN WE MAKE A MISTAKE THAT YES. OKAY. WELL, I'M, I'M NOT ON THE RECORD GONNA SAY WHAT I WOULD BE DOING, BUT YEAH. YEAH. MR. HOP HAITZ, I MEAN, THE CASE OF A, OF A, OF A PERSON WHO BOUGHT THE HOUSE AND MOVED INTO IT, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THAT WAS SELF-INFLICTED OR NOT. OKAY. TO THE PEOPLE WHO BUILT THE HOUSE WITHOUT THE PLANS TO SEE WHETHER THE PLANS WERE FOLLOWED. WE DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS A SELF-INFLICTED SITUATION OR NOT, BECAUSE IF THE PLANS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ONE THING AND THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER DID SOMETHING ELSE, THEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE IS A SELF-INFLICTED WOUND IF IT ISN'T THE BUILDER DOING IT TO THEMSELVES? WELL, WELL, I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE, . I, I I AM HORRIFIED THAT WE'RE DOWN NOW TO CASE NUMBER 1 72 AND WE'RE AT THREE INCHES, THREE AND A QUARTER INCHES WITH A LETTER OF COMPLETION AND GREEN TAGS AND A PERMIT. I, I JUST, I'M EMBARRASSED THAT THIS HOUSE WAS COMPLETED. WHEN, WHEN WAS THE DATE OF THE LETTER COMPLETION? UH, SEPTEMBER 6TH, SIR. 2023. SO WE HAVE SEPTEMBER 6TH AND TODAY IS JANUARY 21ST. OKAY. MR. HOPKINS, OR EXCUSE ME, MR. SA, AND, AND SO, BUT IN BETWEEN THAT PERIOD THERE WOULD'VE BEEN INSPECTIONS ON THIS PROPERTY, CORRECT? NO, THEY YOU'RE DONE. WE DONE. RIGHT, BUT SO THEY COMPLETED ON THE SIXTH OR IS THAT WHEN THE LETTER, WAS THAT THE LETTER, WHEN WAS THE HOME COMPLETED? SEPTEMBER 6TH, SIR. SEPTEMBER 6TH OF LAST YEAR. 2023. YES. A COUPLE MONTHS AGO. 2024. 2024. YEAH, A COUPLE MONTHS AGO. AND THEN WHEN WAS THE LETTER ISSUED? THE SAME DAY. ONCE YOU GET A BUILDING FINAL, THAT IS AUTOMATICALLY, IT WAS ISSUED THAT DAY? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVIDED, SO I'M GONNA ASK STAFF TO, SINCE WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO OUR OWN RESEARCH, CAN BOARD ATTORNEY SHAKING YOUR HEAD, CAN WE GET THE DEC A VALUE ON THE PROPERTY FOR THE, THE IMPROVEMENT? YES. I HAD TO PULL IT UP, PLEASE. THAT'S RELEVANT AS IT RELATES TO ELEMENT NUMBER TWO, SUBSTITUTE. OH, WE'RE GONNA SHOW IT TO EVELYN. OKAY. I I CAN'T SQUINT YOUR THAT SAYS 4 66 9 58. OKAY. SO WAS AT THE TIME, THIS WOULD BE JANUARY 1ST, 2024, WAS THE HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS OF WHEN? JANUARY 1ST, 2024? NO, SIR. IT WAS COMPLETED SEPTEMBER 6TH OF LAST YEAR. OKAY. WAS THE HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION JANUARY ONE? NO, SIR. 2024? NO SIR. IT WAS COMPLETED. IT WAS COMPLETE, NO, JANUARY 21ST. I'M GONNA SAY AGAIN, WAS THE HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON JANUARY 1ST, 2024? NO SIR. IT WAS COMPLETED. [03:40:01] NO, IT HADN'T STARTED YET. WHEN WELL THEN HOW CAN YOU HAVE A IMPROVEMENT? IT STARTED, IT STARTED IN JULY OF 2024. YES. HOW CAN YOU HAVE AN IMPROVEMENT, PATTY? YES. SO THIS WAS A DEMO THAT WAS TORN DOWN AND REBUILT IN JULY AND FINISHED IN SEPTEMBER. SO THAT'S NOT, YES. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'D APPLY THAT. UH, WOW. OKAY. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD BE APPLY OR NOT. OKAY. WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? OTHERWISE WE'RE GONNA LET THE APPLICANT, UH, DO HIS, THE, I I, I APPRECIATE THE STAFF BRINGING UP WHAT THEY SHOW US BUILDING PLANS, BUT I'M SORRY, IT'S VERY SUSPECT TO THIS ONE MEMBER WITH THE HANDWRITTEN STUFF ON IT WITHOUT DATES AND THAT SORT OF DEAL. AND UNFORTUNATELY, BUILDING INSPECTIONS CREDIBILITY IS ZIPPO. SO I DON'T HAVE A CLUE OF WHO WAS INVOLVED WHEN AND WHAT, AND DOESN'T HAVE A PERSON'S NAME AND ALL THAT. SO THAT, THAT DOESN'T HELP ME. UM, I WISH YOU WOULD'VE HAD BROUGHT US PLANS AND THAT SORT OF THING. UH, AND I'M SORRY FOR THAT. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS MY FIRST BOARD MEETING, SO IF I'D HAVE KNOWN THAT I'D HAD DCA UH, PLANS, I WOULD'VE HAD EVERYTHING. WELL, WELL, WE JUST DISCOVERED THE DCA WAS FOR THE PREVIOUS HOUSE THAT YOU'RE SAYING WAS DEMOLISHED, SO THAT'S NOT, IT'S YEAH, BUT I WOULD'VE HAD EVERYTHING THAT YOU NEEDED, SO, YEAH, I, I HEAR YOU. BUT OKAY, SO YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES FOR, UH, UH, UH, UH, REPLY. OH, THE REPLY, YEAH. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES OF YOUR TIME ON YOUR OWN DAY TO SAY WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO SAY, BUT I JUST WANNA REPLY THAT I'M JUST LOOKING FOR THIS MUCH VARIANCE. THAT'S ALL, THAT'S NOT EVEN VISIBLE TO NOBODY ON A HOUSE THAT'S BEING COMPLETED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY. ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S IT, SIR. THANK YOU. THAT YOU AND YEAH, ONE MORE THING. AND I THINK, UM, THE DISRESPECT BY OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKERS ON THE PLATFORM THAT REPRESENT THE HOUSE THAT I'M REPRESENTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO HERE. SO THEY WERE DISRESPECTFUL TO Y'ALL. I APOLOGIZE FOR WELL, , WE GET PAID THE BIG BUCKS FOR THIS. YEAH. WE, WE DON'T GET PAID. WE GET ICED TEA AND, AND COFFEE AND, AND CHIPS. YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE DON'T DO THIS FOR THE GLORY, LET ME PROMISE YOU THAT. ALRIGHT. SO, UH, WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION OR WE CAN PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. GO AHEAD MR. TILL, MR. I DO. WELL THEN GOING, NO, SO I, I, I THINK WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH, EVEN THOUGH I KNOW THREE AND A QUARTER INCHES IS NOT A LOT, IT'S A TINY BIT. UM, WE STILL HAVE TO GO BY THE CRITERIA FOR STANDARDS OF REVIEW FOR A VARIANCE. AND SO WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS, IS THAT I DON'T FEEL LIKE ANY OF THE THREE CRITERIA WERE REALLY MET AND THE BURDEN OF, OF PROOF IS ON THE APPLICANT, BUT I THINK THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I WOULD STILL PREFER TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO MEET THOSE CRITERIA IF POSSIBLE. UM, SO MY, MY THOUGHT IS THAT I, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M LEANING TOWARD DENYING IT, BUT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AGAIN. AND IS THAT RIGHT? OR A HOLDOVER? WHICH ONE IS IT? UH, SO MAYBE IT IS IN A YEAH, YOU, YOU ARE, I, YOU KNOW, AND I, I THINK THREE INCHES, THREE AND A QUARTER INCHES RIDICULOUS. AND, UH, I WE'RE FACING THE LETTER OF COMPLETION FROM THE CITY AND GREEN TAGS. AND SO, BUT WHAT'S MISSING IS NOT CONTRARY PUBLIC INTEREST. AND WHETHER THE APPLICANT DO, DID ANY DUE DILIGENCE TO HIS, HIS OR HER, WHATEVER, SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE 200 FEET NOTIFICATION AREA, SO FORTH, SO FORTH, SO FORTH, UM, I THINK IT WOULD, IT WOULD QUALIFY FOR THE ELEMENT TWO SUBSTITUTE. UM, AND IT'S DEBATABLE ON THE ISSUE OF THE SELF-CREATED OR NOT, GIVEN THAT THE PLANS WERE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND LETTER COMPLETION WAS APPROVED AND SO FORTH, SO FORTH. SO, YEAH. ALRIGHT. TO YOUR QUESTION, MS. HAYDEN, UH, WE COULD DO EITHER, WE COULD, WE COULD APPROVE, WE COULD DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WHICH TELLS THE APPLICANT THEY HAVE TO START OVER, OR WE COULD HOLD OVER AND GIVE THE APPLICANT 30 DAYS OR 60 DAYS TO RETHINK THEIR PRESENTATION. THAT'S, THOSE ARE THE OPTIONS. SO WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION. [03:45:01] MR. SAUK, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BECAUSE IF THEY'VE BEEN GIVEN, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN INSPECTED, IT'S BEEN APPROVED, THEY'VE BEEN GIVEN THIS LETTER ON SEPTEMBER 6TH, ISN'T THAT A DONE DEAL? THEY'RE DONE. YEAH. SO I MEAN, WHY I, MY QUESTION AGAIN IS WHY IS THIS EVEN BEFORE US IF THEY'VE BEEN GIVEN APPROVAL ON THE CONSTRUCTION? I, I WOULD AGREE, BUT IT IS RIGHT. BUT BUT THEN STILL, HOW DOES THAT THEN COME BEFORE US ? I KNOW THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, LIKE, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS GOT BEFORE US IF IT WAS APPROVED. I MEAN, IT, THIS IS, THIS IS ALMOST LIKE AN APPEAL OF A ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL DECISION BECAUSE AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT ISSUED A LETTER OF APPROVAL AND NOW YOU'RE REVOKING, ARE YOU IN ESSENCE REVOKING THAT, THAT GOES TO YOUR QUESTION? AND I KNOW YOU SAID THAT IT'S BECAUSE YOU ALL WENT BACK AND REEVALUATED AND DID THIS FORENSIC, UH, EXPLORATION, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S, WHEN DID THAT START? AND THIS WAS COMPLETED IN SEPTEMBER, SO NOW THEY'RE DONE. WELL, CAN YOU IMAGINE IF IT WAS SOLD TO SOMEONE? YES, THAT'S WHAT I SAID. YEAH. MR. HOPKINS. WELL THE ONE, THE ONE THING I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO KNOW IT IS A SOMEWHAT TRIVIAL DIFFERENCE, THE THREE AND A QUARTER INCHES. UH, HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THE ERROR OCCURRED, WHOSE ERROR IT WAS THAT CAUSED THAT BUILDING TO NOT TO, TO BE AT THE WHERE IT'S AT. OKAY. THAT CAN BE SAID 172 TIMES. UH, WELL IT'S NOT 172. IT'S, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S THE NUMBER? IS IT 25, 23 IN THE END? WELL, NO, IT'S MORE THAN THAT. 'CAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE CHANGE THEIR PLANS. SO DO WE EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT LARGE NUMBER IS YET? YOU DON'T WANT TO QUOTE IT. HAVE YOUR NAME TIED TO THAT. YOU DON'T WANT TO. I DIDN'T THINK SO. THIS IS MY POINT. THIS IS MY POINT. THIS IS DIFFERENT MR. CHAIRMAN. NO, NO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, THE, THE LARGE SCALE FUP IS YEAH. IS GOT A LOT OF NUMBERS IN IT. IT'S NOT THE 1 72 THAT'S THE UNIVERSE, BUT IT'S NOT 20, IT'S SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN. AND THAT'S, AND THAT STILL HASN'T BEEN SOLVED, MR. OPITZ. WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHO, HOW AND WHY. WELL, THERE'S THE, THERE'S THE APPROVAL AND THERE'S WHAT'S SITTING ON THE GROUND. SOMEBODY BUILT THAT HOME WITH A YES. WITH GREEN TAGS AND PERMITS AND PLANS. YEAH. SO I WANNA KNOW IF THE PLANS SHOW 25 FEET AND THEY, THE, THEY MADE AN ERROR BUILDING THE HOME ON THE GROUND OR THE, THE ERROR WAS IN THE PLANS. CAN I ASK, WHEN DID ALL THIS IMPLODE AND YOU ALL START GOING BACK AND LOOKING AND DIGGING? UM, HAS THAT BEEN LIKE SIX MONTHS AGO? TWO YEARS AGO? 2023 AFTER THE PD WAS APPROVED, I THINK NOVEMBER OF 23, RIGHT? IT WAS, IT WAS APPROVED IN OCTOBER OF 2022, I BELIEVE WE STARTED GETTING COMPLAINTS IN JANUARY OF 2024, WHICH WE DID A YEAR LATER. WE DID A HUGE INVESTIGATION STARTING PROBABLY APRIL, MAY-ISH. AND THAT'S WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT ALL THESE, THIS PARTICULAR ONE BASED ON THE PLANS I I I SHOWED EARLIER, IT DIDN'T INDICATE ANYTHING THAT, THAT WOULD SAY THAT IT COULDN'T BE APPROVED, WHICH IS WHY THEY WROTE THAT NOTE ON THERE. RIGHT? BUT THIS IS ONE WHERE ALL THE PLANS AND EVERYTHING WERE SUBMITTED, APPROVED AFTER THE PD WAS, YOU KNOW, ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL. AND SO CLEARLY THE MISTAKE IS THREE INCHES OFF, CORRECT? YES. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TALKING ABOUT. OKAY. SO LIKE MR. MOROWITZ, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THIS ERROR CAME INTO BEING, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE THE BUILDER MISREAD, BUT THEN THE CITY APPROVED THE MISTAKE AND ISSUED A LETTER. SO WHAT DO WE DO? SO I, I'M JUST CURIOUS. THIS, THIS, 'CAUSE I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW THIS WORKS. THIS IS ON EVERY HOUSE THAT'S BUILT THE CITY GOES AND ACTUALLY MEASURES THESE. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. AB I'M GONNA SAY ABSOLUTELY NOT. [03:50:01] I MEAN, THEY CONFIRM THE PLANS, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S PART OF THE, THAT'S PART OF THE INSPECTION, BUT THEY DON'T ACTUALLY CONFIRM THE COMPLETED PRODUCT. THERE'S NO WAY YOU GUYS DO COME ON, ON ALL THESE ASPECTS. WHAT'S THAT? I BUILT ONE, ONE HOUSE IN DALLAS AND THEY NEVER MEASURED MINE. BUT ANYWAY, NOT THAT I KNOW OF. NO ONE EVER SAID, WELL, I'VE, I'VE BILLED TWO AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO MEASURED WHAT BECAUSE I, I HAD A BUILDER AND I BOUGHT IT FROM THEM. SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST OPEN BOX. OKAY. UH, UH, BOARD MEMBERS, UH, WE HAVE A COUPLE OPTIONS. UH, WE CAN MOVE TO APPROVE, WE CAN HOLD OVER TILL FEBRUARY OR HOLD OVER TILL MARCH AND GIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE APPLICANT OR WE CAN DENY WITH OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO THE WAY WE NEED TO DO IT NOW IS THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FEBRUARY 18TH. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANNA DO? OKAY, MS. HAYDEN, UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH ZERO ONE HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL FEBRUARY 18TH, 2025. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN THE CASE OF BDA 2 0 2 4 5 0 1 1 TO HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL FEBRUARY 18TH, 2025. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. SECONDED BY MR. NRI. MS. HAYDEN GIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE APPLICANT. SO, UH, THE REASON I'M REQUESTING A HOLDOVER OF THIS IS I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW FOR A VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET AND THE APPLICANT HAS TO, HAS TO SHOW US, UM, THAT THE, UH, THE PROJECT THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AND HOW DOES THE APPLICANT DO THAT? TYPICALLY, UM, GET BUY-IN FROM THE NEIGHBORING, UH, THE NEIGHBORS. UM, THE, ESPECIALLY WITHIN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS, THERE ARE 29 OF 'EM. UM, AND JUST TO, TO GET LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS OR JUST SHOW AN EFFORT THAT, THAT YOU'VE, UM, YOU'VE GONE TO THE EFFORT OF GETTING SUPPORT FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS. UM, THE SECOND ONE IS NECESSARY TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIFIC PARCEL OF LAND THAT DIFFERS FROM OTHER PARCELS. WELL, THAT ONE DOESN'T REALLY APPLY IN THIS CASE, BUT YOU CAN SUBSTITUTE THAT THE COST TO COMPLY IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE ON THE MOST RECENT D AD. SO WE'RE GONNA INTERPRET THAT AS ZERO 50. YEAH. SO THE COST TO COMPLY HAS TO BE GREATER THAN THE, AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE BACKUP INFORMATION TO, TO SHOW THAT. AND THEN THE THIRD ONE IS THAT IT'S NOT GRANTED TO REALLY LEAVE A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP, IN WHICH CASE THAT WOULD SAY THAT THE, YOU KNOW, YOU'D HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS, UM, ACTUALLY APPROVED THE FINAL CONSTRUCTION OF THIS AND GAVE YOU A LETTER OF COMPLETION. SO THOSE ARE THREE OF THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO SEE, UM, AND THAT WE NEED PROOF ON. AND THAT STILL DOESN'T MEAN THAT NECESSARILY THIS, THIS PANEL WILL VOTE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. IT'S JUST THOSE ARE THE, THOSE ARE THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW FOR A VARIANCE THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT. MR. SI UH, MR. NERI COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? UH, I SECOND EVERYTHING THAT MS. HAYDEN HAS SAID THAT WE WE NEED TO SEE IN FEBRUARY. SO THE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IS, DO YOU THINK YOU CAN, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE FEEDBACK FROM THE BOARD? I UNDERSTAND IT. AND DO YOU THINK YOU CAN ACHIEVE THAT BY THE FEBRUARY 18TH HEARING DATE? YES, SIR. OKAY. YES. MS. HAYDEN, AND IS THE CITY STAFF AVAILABLE FOR TO ASSIST THE, THE APPLICANT, UM, WITH THE CRITERIA TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY KNOW WHAT THE CRITERIA ARE? YES. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY, SO CONNECTING WITH OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR. OKAY. OKAY. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE MS. HAY. AYE. MR. KOVI? AYE. MR. MARY AYE. MR. SAUTE? AYE MR. CHAIRMAN AYE MOTION TO HOLD TO FEBRUARY 18 PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER BDA 2 4 5 DASH ONE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UNANIMOUSLY ON A FIVE ZERO VOTE, UH, DECIDED TO HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT TILL FEBRUARY 18TH, 2025. I HOPE YOU LISTENED TO OUR FEEDBACK AND OUR QUESTIONS AND CAN BE PREPARED TO PRESENT ACCORDINGLY. THANKS SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT, THANK Y'ALL. [03:55:02] ANYTHING ELSE ON THE AGENDA TODAY? I DON'T SEE ANY, UM, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL. A UH, IS HEREBY ADJOURNED AT 5:00 PM ON JANUARY 21ST, 2025. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OUR NEXT MEETING IS FEBRUARY 18TH, 2025 AT 10:30 AM. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.