* 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. [00:00:03] ON GUYS. [Board of Adjustments: Panel A on November 18, 2025.] UH, MY NAME IS DAVE NEWMAN AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF ITS PANEL A. TODAY IS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17TH, EXCUSE ME, TO NOVEMBER 18TH, NOVEMBER 18TH. AND THE TIME IS 1:00 PM I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PENALTY BACK INTO ORDER FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, BOTH IN PERSON AND HYBRID VIDEO CONFERENCE. A QUORUM CO, ACCORDING TO OUR RULES, IS A MINIMUM OF 4, 5, 5 PANEL MEMBERS IS PRESENT, AND THEREFORE WE CAN PROCEED WITH A MEETING, UH, AGAIN. SO ALLOW ME TO DO SOME INTRODUCTIONS. AGAIN, MY NAME IS DAVE NEWMAN AND I'M CHAIRMAN. UH, TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT IS KATHLEEN DAVIS, RACHEL HAYDEN, AND MICHAEL OVITZ. STAFF PRESENT TODAY IS THERESA CARLISLE, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, DR. KAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF PLANNER, AND MARY WILLIAMS, OUR BOARD SECRETARY AND MEETING MODERATOR. BEFORE WE BEGIN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE WAY THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR THE TIME WE OPERATE UNDER THE CITY COUNCIL. APPROVE RULES OR PROCEDURES WHICH ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE CONSISTENT WITH THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT. EACH CASE IS DECIDED UPON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. THE APPLICANT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH THE NECESSARY FACTS TO WARRANT FAVORABLE ACTION OF THE BOARD. AGAIN, THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT. UH, WE'VE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY THE STAFF PRIOR TO THIS HEARING AND HAVE REVIEWED A DETAILED PUBLIC DOCKET, UH, WHICH EXPLAINS THE CASE AND WAS POSTED SEVEN DAYS PRIOR ON OUR WEBSITE, SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THIS PUBLIC HEARING. ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION IN ANY OF THE CASES THAT WE HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED. THIS EVIDENCE MUST BE RETAINED IN THE BOARD'S OFFICE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE APPROVAL OF VARIANCES. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR REVERSAL BUILDING OFFICIAL DECISIONS REQUIRE 75% OR FOUR FURMAN VOTES OF THE PANEL FOR TODAY. THAT MEANS EVERY VOTE HERE, 1, 2, 3, 4, TO TO APPROVE A VARIANCE OR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. ALL THEIR MOTIONS REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE. LETTERS TO THE BOARD'S ACTION TODAY WILL BE, WILL BE MAILED OR EMAILED TO YOU BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY. EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR A MATTER ON THE AGENDA FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES. A SPEAKER MAY ALSO SPEAK WITH A, WHEN A SPECIFIC CASE IS CALLED FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR A MAXIMUM OF FIVE MINUTES. ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. NO TELECONFERENCING WILL BE ALLOWED. ALL COMMENTS ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO ME AS THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND I'LL, I CAN MODIFY TIMES AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER. ANYONE THAT IS HERE TODAY AT CITY HALL, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK EITHER DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY OR ON A SPECIFIC CASE, YOU NEED TO FILL OUT A BLUE SHEET OF PAPER. OKAY. IF YOU FILLED IT OUT, MARY, WOULD YOU, OKAY. SO ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK TODAY ON A SPECIFIC CASE NEEDS TO HAVE FILLED OUT A BLUE SHEET OF PAPER. OKAY? AND THEN WHEN YOU, AFTER YOU COMPLETE IT, UH, GET OUR BOARD SECRETARIES AND SHE WILL, UH, ASSIST ME IN CALLING SPEAKERS FOR THE HEARING. OKAY? SO, UH, THE BALANCE OF OUR AGENDA TODAY IS THAT WE'RE GONNA BE REVIEWING AND APPROVING MEETING MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 4TH AND THEN OCTOBER 28TH. THEN WE HAVE, UM, UH, BACKUP. FIRST THING WE'RE GONNA DO IS DEAL WITH GREEN TREE LANE AND THE REASON WHY IS WE HAVE A, UM, MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE IN THE PROCESSING OF IT. SO WE'RE GONNA DEAL WITH GREEN TREE LANE FIRST, THEN WE'RE GONNA REVIEW AND APPROVE MANY MINUTES FOR THE NOVEMBER 4TH AND OCTOBER 28TH. THEN WE'RE GONNA DO THE BIBLE LINK CASE, WHICH, UH, THERE'S IT'S UNCONTESTED AND THE CONSENTS OF THE BOARD IS IT DIDN'T NEED A FULL PUBLIC HEARING OR A SPEAKERS AT A PUBLIC HEARING. THEN MEADOW WOOD DRIVE, THEN MERCEDES, THEN AVENUE I. THAT'S THE ORDER WE'RE GONNA GO IN. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AGENDA. OKAY. SO, UM, MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, WOULD YOU PLEASE, UM, ADVISE US ON 2 5 0 0 0 0 5 9? UM, 7 1 8 1 GREENTREE? YES. SO BILL 8 2 5 0 5 9 8 7 1 8 1. GREENTREE WAS, UM, NOTED, UM, INCORRECTLY, SO THEREFORE FOR YOU'RE ASKING US TO DO WHAT? TO, UM, POSTPONE. OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR BOA 2 5 0 0 0 0 5 9? THE APPLICANT? [00:05:01] THEY WEREN'T HERE, BUT AFTER UM, SPEAKING WITH THEM, THEY LEFT. OKAY. SO SO THEY WERE OF THE MIXER . ALRIGHT, SO THE ISSUE WAS IS THAT THEY, WHEN THE CASE WAS BROUGHT IN, IT WAS TOLD IT NEEDED ELNA THREE FOOT OR TWO FOOT SETBACK, EXCUSE ME, THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WHEN REALLY THEY NEED A, AN EIGHT FOOT, EIGHT FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION. OKAY. SO UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE IT'S A GREATER PORTION THAN WAS ADVERTISED, WE HAVE TO POSTPONE AND OUR NEXT HEARING IS A PANEL NOT UNTIL JANUARY. OKAY. WHAT IS OUR JANUARY PANEL A MEETING DATE? JANUARY 21ST. JANUARY 21ST. OKAY. SO BEFORE WE TAKE ITEM ON THIS, IF THE APPLICANT, UH, I ONLY SPEAK FOR ONE VOTE HERE, BUT BECAUSE WE'RE INCONVENIENCING THE APPLICANT BECAUSE OF A STAFF ERROR, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO ASK FOR A FEE REIMBURSEMENT OR WAIVER. OKAY. BUT THAT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT. PLEASE COMMUNICATE THAT TO THE APPLICANT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 5 9. MS. HAYDEN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 2 5 0 0 5 9 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL JANUARY 21ST, 2026. IT'S ACTUALLY THE 20TH JANUARY 20TH CORRECTION. OKAY, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 0 5 9 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL JANUARY 20TH, 2026. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MS. HAYDEN TO HOLD ITEM BO A 2 5 0 5 9 UNTIL JANUARY 20, 20, 26. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY MS. DAVIS DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. AGAIN, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST A FEE REIMBURSEMENT GIVEN THAT THEY'RE HAVING TO LET WAIT TWO MONTHS BECAUSE OF AN ERROR. OKAY. YOU'RE STANDING FOR A REASON, SIR. OH, WELL, OKAY. UM, ALRIGHT, SO HOLD, SO HOLD THAT THOUGHT. THANK YOU. HE HAS A RIGHT TO SPEAK, CORRECT. MS. CARLISLE, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT. MY APOLOGY. THAT IS HE HAS A RIGHT TO SPEAK, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, BUT THIS PANEL SHOULDN'T ASK QUESTIONS INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 'CAUSE TECHNICALLY WE CAN'T HEAR IT, BUT HE, IT'S ON THE AGENDA, SO WE HAVE A RIGHT TO HEAR FROM A SPEAKER. OKAY. WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION? MS. HAYDEN , I CAUGHT YOU MID BITE. JUST, UM, JUST I WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION. MS. DAVIS, WILL YOU WITHDRAW YOUR SECOND? I WITHDRAW MY SECOND. OKAY. THE MOTION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. MY APOLOGIES, SIR. AGAIN, PLEASE COME FORWARD. ALRIGHT, MS. WILLIAMS, DO WE HAVE ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR BOA 2 5 0 0 0 0 5 9? UM, UH, ONLY MR. PETER MARTOS. THERE YOU GO. WELL, THERE YOU ARE. ALRIGHT, SIR, IF YOU WAIT ONE SECOND, UM, IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN SHE WILL SWEAR YOU IN. THANK YOU MR. NEWMAN. UH, GO AHEAD, MAKE SURE THAT MICROPHONE'S ON. YES, MY NAME IS PETE MARKETOS. I RESIDE AT 71 89 GREENTREE LANE IN DALLAS, TEXAS. I AM THE, UH, IMMEDIATE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR OF THE APPLICANT. UH, I'M MISS MS. WILLIAMS, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO. OKAY. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. HOLD ONE SECOND, SIR. JUST HOLD ONE SECOND. OKAY. UH, I, I, WE HAVE WHAT YOU HAD SUBMITTED IN NOVEMBER 18TH. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW WE HAVE IT YES, SIR. UH, WITH EMAIL, WITH SOME PICTURES. SO I'M GONNA RECIRCULATE THIS AGAIN AND LET YOU GO AHEAD AND SPEAK. SO, PROCEED, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE TOO MUCH TIME BECAUSE I REALIZE NOW I'M SPEAKING TO A PANEL THAT WON'T ADJUDICATE THE MERITS AS I UNDERSTAND IT. WELL, WHAT, OKAY, SO WE, THE APPLICANT MADE APPLICATION, UH, THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN THE HANDLING IT BY THE STAFF. THIS, THE, OUR LEGAL COUNSEL BOARD ATTORNEYS ADVISED US, BECAUSE THE REQUEST IS FOR EIGHT FEET, SHOULD BE FOR EIGHT FEET, AND ACTUALLY HAS BEEN FILED FOR TWO FEET SINCE IT'S GREATER THAN WAS ADVERTISED. WE CANNOT MAKE A DECISION TODAY. SO THE CASE WILL BE READVERTISED, ASSUMING THE BOARD ACTS TODAY TO POSTPONE IT, AND WE WILL HAVE A, A, A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 20TH OF JANUARY FOR THE MERITS. BUT BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN ADVERTISED, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEAK. UM, [00:10:01] AND SO I APOLOGIZE AGAIN THAT I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE THAT YOU WERE HERE. NO, NO PROBLEM, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU. SO I THINK I'LL, SO YOU CAN SPEAK NOW AND SPEAK AGAIN IN JANUARY. YES. THANK, THANK YOU, SIR. SO I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT BRIEF FOR THAT REASON. I, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE, UH, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CORRECTED. THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY FIRST POINT WAS THAT IT'S BEEN ADVERTISED AS A, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE OF THE SETBACK WHEN IN FACT THE SETBACK IS 10 FEET IN A, UH, R ONE HALF, UH, ACRE. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. IT'S, IT'S, IT'S 20. I ASSUME THAT THE BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT IT'S 20 FOR, UH, UH, FOR OTHER STRUCTURES, BUT THAT THIS IS A, UH, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND THEREFORE IT ADHERES TO THE HOME. THE, THE ACTUAL, UH, MAIN RESIDENCE SETBACK IS, IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND. SO THAT WOULD BE 10 FEET. AT ANY RATE, UM, WE OPPOSE, AND I BELIEVE IF YOU CHECK THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT, I SUSPECT THAT THEY'RE ALL FORM LETTERS THAT WERE HAND DELIVERED BY, UH, AND, AND I SUSPECT THAT THEY'RE ALL THAT CONTAIN THE SAME LANGUAGE. THEY WERE, UM, OBTAINED DOOR BY DOOR BY, UH, ONE OF THE APPLICANTS AND, UH, OBTAINED SIGNATURES AFTER IT WAS TOLD TO THE, UH, OTHER NEIGHBORS THAT THIS WAS ABOUT THE PRESERVATION OF A TREE, NOT A ZONING VIOLATION, UH, PERTAINING TO A SETBACK. I I SAY THAT, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, BECAUSE THERE ARE NEIGHBORS WHO, UH, WOULD BE VERY UPSET AND I, AND I KNOW THAT ARE ACTUALLY ATTENDING, UH, THIS HEARING VIRTUALLY RIGHT NOW IF THEY LEARNED THAT, UM, THERE WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF A SETBACK FOR THIS PURPORTED REASON. BUT LET ME BE VERY, VERY BRIEF ABOUT THIS. I, IF I CAN, UH, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TREE. THIS WAS ORIGINALLY, AND I, AND, AND YOU'LL, YOU'LL SEE THIS, THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANTS BUILT IN THEIR BACKYARD, TWO LARGE PAGODAS, ONE COVERING A FIRE PIT, ONE COVERING A OUTDOOR, UH, KITCHEN, ALONG WITH REDOING THEIR POOL, PUTTING IN A PICKLEBALL COURT, UH, AND A NUMBER OF OTHER ITEMS OVER THE COURSE OF A TWO YEAR BACKYARD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. I FIRST LEARNED ABOUT THEIR INTENT WHEN THEY WERE BUILDING, UH, AND THEIR BUILDERS WERE SITTING ON THE FENCE TO CONSTRUCT WHAT IS INCHES OFF OF MY FENCE, UH, A A NUMBER OF STRUCTURES. I HAVE A POWERPOINT, BUT I'LL SAVE IT FOR LATER, SIR, YOU CAN GIVE IT TO US. ABSOLUTELY. ALRIGHT, I'LL, I'LL HAVE TO EMAIL IT MR. MR. NEWMAN BECAUSE I, UM, PUT IT TOGETHER AFTER THE BRIEFING SESSION AND I HAVE IT ELECTRONICALLY. AND SO I DON'T KNOW HOW I WOULD CONNECT. UM, YOU, IF YOU HAVE A THUMB DRIVE, I CAN EMAIL IT TO PERHAPS THE SECRETARY IF YOU, IF YOU WANT TO. WE'LL, ABSOLUTELY. I'LL DO THAT. DO THAT NOW. I'LL DO THAT. I KNOW THERE ARE OTHERS. I DON'T WANT PROPERTY FIND. LET ME, LET ME, IF I CAN, I'LL, I'LL EMAIL IT AND I'M SURE IT'LL TAKE A MINUTE TO GO THROUGH BECAUSE IT HAS A NUMBER OF PICTURES OF IT. BUT THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF IT IS AS FOLLOWS. I I BROUGHT THIS TO MY, UH, NEIGHBOR'S ATTENTION TWO, ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO IN NOVEMBER, AND TOLD THEM ABOUT THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. VERY FRIENDLY IN A NEIGHBORLY FASHION, NOT MY INTENT TO UPSET WITH THEIR BUILDING IN THEIR BACKYARD. THEY IGNORED ME MONTHS LATER. I POINTED TO HIM TO THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS AND HE TOLD ME THAT IT, THERE WAS A CARPORT EXCEPTION, CARPORT EXCEPTION FOR THIS, RIGHT? THIS IS A PATIO COVERING FOR AN OUTDOOR GRILL. I TOLD HIM THIS DOESN'T FOLLOW A PATIO, A, A A, A CARPORT EXCEPTION. IF YOU ARE BUILDING A PATIO COVER, IT MUST MUST BE OUTSIDE THE SETBACK. YOU WROTE TO ME, UH, IN RESPONSE, UH, ON JULY 23RD, 2 20 24, AND TOLD ME THAT HE HAD OBTAINED ALL OF THE PERMIT . UH, FOR I QUOTE, THE TWO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE WITHIN CODE CODE COMPLIANCE CONFIRMED BY THE CODE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND BY THE CITY CODE COMPLIANCE REPRESENTATIVE THAT CAME TO THE HOUSE. HE RECITING ME FOR THE RULE ON PARKER ON JULY 23RD, 2024. AND HE SAID, AND THIS WAS BEFORE HE HAD FINISHED. I WARNED HIM ABOUT THIS BEFORE HE'D FINISHED CONSTRUCTED. THIS IS NOT MERELY A CARDBOARD. IT IS A, IT IS A, A LARGE STEEL STRUCTURE THAT IS RUSTED METAL AND METAL, METAL STEEL THAT GOES INTO CEMENT WITH PIERS AND GAS AND ELECTRIC RUNNING INTO IT IS NOT A SMALL OPERATION. AND HE SAID, WE WILL BE FINISHING THE STRUCTURES TO COMPLETE THE AESTHETIC, BUT WILL NOT BE MOVING THEM. NOTHING ABOUT A TREE, NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING TO DO WITH AN ARBORIST. SO I APPOINTED HIM TO THE RULE AND THE CODE AND DIDN'T HEAR FROM HIM AGAIN FOR SEVERAL MONTHS. AND THEN AS AFTER I FOLLOWED UP, HE, HE WROTE AGAIN ON MARCH 23RD, 2025, [00:15:02] THE STRUCTURES ARE APPROVED AND PERMITTED BY THE CITY WITH MR. RYAN FISHER. WE WILL NOT PAY FOR A SOLUTION BUT CAN SHARE IN THE COST. THIS WAS TO BUILD A FENCE TO TRY TO HIDE IT. SO HE HAD INFORMED ME THAT THE STRUCTURES HAD BEEN APPROVED AND PERMITTED BY THE CITY. I KNEW THAT NOT TO BE TRUE. NOW, WE WERE, THAT IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF ZONING. THEY WENT OUT AND THEY DETERMINED THAT THE BUILT IT IN VIOLATION. SO THESE ARE BUILT S SCULPTURES, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE, I AND I HAVE MORE PICTURES. THIS, THIS BUILT IT DRILLS IN, CEMENTS IN THE FIRE PITS ARE IN. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS IN FLUX. HE BUILT IT WITHOUT A PERMIT. ZONING, GAVE HIM A NOTICE OF VIOLATION AFTER COUNCILWOMAN, PAULA BLACK BLACKMAN GOT INVOLVED AND WE NOTIFIED MR. UH, MR. HARRIS AND MR. HERRON, UH, AND THEY ISSUED HIM A NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS THAT THAT'S IN MY MATERIAL AS WELL. AND NOW IT APPEARS AS IF HE'S APPEALING THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION, BUT DOING SO BY REQUESTING AN ENCROACHMENT FOR AN EXCEPTION BASED ON TREE PRESERVATION THAT HE DIDN'T OBTAIN TO BEGIN WITH. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. HIS APPEAL SAYS HE'S APPEALING. HE, HE'S APPEALING AND ASKING FOR AN ENCROACHMENT. HE DIDN'T ASK THE DALLAS ZONING COMMITTEE FOR AN ENCROACHMENT. SO WHAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED NOW IS WHERE IS THIS ARBORIST THAT A PURPORTEDLY TOLD THEM THEY HAD TO? WHAT HE'S SAYING, I THINK, IS TO MOVE THE STRUCTURE, HE WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE IT IN A POSITION THAT WOULD DO HARM TO THE TRUTH. AND THAT THAT'S OF COURSE NOT THE STANDARD, RIGHT? YOU OTHERWISE, YOU COULD BASICALLY SAY, I CAN PUT ANYTHING WHEREVER I WANT IN THE BACKYARD, SETBACKS REGARDLESS. AND IF I CAN SHOW THAT THERE'S A TREE IN MY WAY, I CAN MOVE WHATEVER I WANT TO BUILD INTO THE SETBACK. AND THAT'S CLEARLY NOT THE STANDARD. UH, HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE ON WHAT IT WOULD DO TO MY PROPERTY VALUE. I CAN, AS AN OWNER IN TEXAS, I CAN ATTEST TO THE, UH, DECREASE IN MY PROPERTY VALUE THAT WOULD OCCUR IF, IF THIS WERE PERMITTED. AND IN FACT, HE AND I BOTH CONTACTED REALTORS AT THE OUTSET OF THIS. I SUGGESTED SO THAT HE WOULD LEARN IT WOULD HURT THE VALUE OF MY HOME. AND, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DETERMINED. IF THERE'S A VIOLATION OF A SETBACK OR AN ENCROACHMENT LIKE THIS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE WAY THIS LOOKS, IT WILL HURT THE VALUE OF MY HOME BETWEEN TWO TO 5%. FINALLY, THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HE HASN'T EVEN ATTEMPTED TO DEMONSTRATE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALLOWS FOR AN ENCROACHMENT LIKE THIS. THERE ARE HOMES SPREAD FAR APART. THERE'S, THESE ARE HALF ACRE LOTS. I HAVE, I'M FORTUNATE TO HAVE TWO OF THEM, UH, PUT TOGETHER. AND THE HOMES ARE FAR APART PUTTING A STRUCTURE LIKE THIS WITHIN INCHES OF THE FENCING. UH, IT'S GOING TO HURT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NOBODY ELSE HAS IT. NOBODY ELSE HAS DONE IT. AND I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY. AND I'VE LOOKED, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OTHER ENCROACHMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED, UH, WITHIN THE SETBACK IN OUR, IN OUR COMMUNITY. AND, AND THEN FINALLY, IT'S TO PRESERVE A TREE. WELL, THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S REQUIRED TO PRESERVE THE TREE. IF YOU REMOVE THE STRUCTURE, REMOVE THE COVERING, WHAT ARE YOU HAVING TO PRESERVE? WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE HE'S SAYING IS IF I REMOVE IT AND THEN MOVE IT WHERE I WANT TO MOVE IT TO WITHIN THE SETBACK OR OUTSIDE OF THE SETBACK, THAT MAY HURT THE TREE. WELL, THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD. UH, BUT HE'S NOT PRESERVING ANY TREE BY PUTTING, UH, THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY SOMEWHERE ELSE. I KNOW I'VE TAKEN, UH, TOO MUCH OF YOUR TIME, UM, ALREADY, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. AND THEN OF COURSE, I WILL SUBMIT ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND COMMUNICATIONS I'VE HAD WITH THIS PARTICULAR AREA. THANK YOU FOR COMING BEFORE US TODAY. WE'VE BEEN ADVISED BY OUR BOARD ATTORNEY BECAUSE THIS WAS NOTICED INCORRECTLY BECAUSE OF A STAFF ERROR. WE CANNOT CONDUCT A FULL PUBLIC HEARING TODAY. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO COME SPEAK AS IS ANYONE CAN AND YOU AND YOU, WE HAVE ALLOWED THAT. UM, UM, WHAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO IS PUT THE 20TH OF JANUARY AT 10 30 IS THE BRIEFING, AND AT 1:00 PM IS THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND THIS WILL BE DEPENDING ON WHAT THE BOARD DECIDES MOMENTARILY, POTENTIALLY ON THE HOLDOVER AGENDA WHERE YOU WILL BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND PRESENT VIDEO OR OTHERWISE WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID TODAY. OR IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT. OUR RULES TYPICALLY ARE THE APPLICANT GETS TO PRESENT THAN ANYONE ELSE WHO SUPPORT SPEAKS THAN ANYONE IN OPPOSITION SPEAKS. THEN THE APPLICANT COMES BACK WITH A REBUTTAL, AND THAT'S OUR PROCEDURE. THEN WE MAKE A DECISION. IT REQUIRES FOUR OR FIVE VOTES TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. SO I'M JUST GIVING YOU THE FRAMEWORK. UH, WE'VE HEARD WHAT YOU'VE SAID. WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND [00:20:01] WE HOPE TO SEE YOU ON THE 20TH OF JANUARY. CHAIRMAN NEUMAN AND THE, UH, REMAINDER OF THE BOARD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME FOR THAT. THANK YOU. THE, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MS. HAYDEN. ONE MORE TIME. , I, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 5 9 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL JANUARY 20TH, 2026. IT'S BEEN IN THE MATTER OF BO A 2 5 0 0 0 0 5 9. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MS. HAYDEN TO HOLD IT UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL JANUARY 20TH, 2026. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. BEEN SECONDED BY MS. DAVIS. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION DURING NO DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION, THE BOARD'S SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. MR. HOCK. MS. HAYDEN AYE. MS. DAVIS? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION TO HOLD PASSES FOUR TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 0 5 9. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ON A VOTE OF 40 ZERO AS MOVED TO HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISING TO JANUARY 20TH, 2026. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 4TH, 2025. THE CHAIRMAN TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. HOPKINS, MR. CHAIRMAN, I, I MOVE FOR, WE ACCEPT THE, UH, MINUTES OF THE MEETING FROM NOVEMBER 4TH, 2025. IT'S BEEN MOVED. AS SUBMITTED. AS SUBMITTED. THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. KOVICH TO APPROVE THE MEETING. MINUTE MEETING MINUTES OF PANEL A FROM NOVEMBER 4TH, 2025 AS SUBMITTED. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. SECOND BY MS. HAYDEN. DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION HEARING? NO DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED MEETING MINUTES ARE APPROVED. 40 ZERO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, UH, REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR OUR FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. AS I MENTIONED, THE FULL BOARD MET ON THE 28TH OF OCTOBER. WHEN THE BOARD DOES NOT MEET IN FULL, EACH PANEL CAN APPROVE THE ACTIONS OF THE, AS LONG AS EACH, THE MAJORITY OF EACH PANEL APPROVES THE ACTIONS. IT'S THE SAME THING AS THE FULL BOARD MEETING, UH, YESTERDAY. PANEL C APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES. TODAY, IT'S UP TO PANEL A TOMORROW. PANEL B THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE FULL BOARD MEETING MINUTES. UM, WAS IT OCTOBER 24TH, 28TH. 28TH AS SUBMITTED, IT'S BEEN MOVED, UH, BY MS. DAVIS. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND BY MR. HOCK TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FROM OCTOBER 28TH AS PRESENTED. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING? NO DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. A. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FOUR TO ZERO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ONCE PANEL B TOMORROW APPROVES THAT, THEN THE MANY MINUTES ARE OFFICIAL, OFFICIALLY APPROVED. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, ONE SECOND. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS BO A TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 6 0 AT 6 5 1 1. BOB LINK DRIVE. THIS IS AN ITEM THAT THIS MORNING, THE CONSENSUS WAS TO LEAVE ON THE CONSENT, THE UNCONTESTED, UH, DOCKET. UM, HAS ANYONE CHANGED THEIR MIND ON THAT HEARING? NOT THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MS. HAYDEN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION LISTED ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICATION SATISFIES ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE AS APPLICABLE TO WIT BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 6 0 APPLICATION OF JACOB BRADY BISHOP FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS IS REQUIRED. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN THE ITEM OF BO A 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 0 TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MS. HAYDEN, SECOND BY MS. DAVIS. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MS. HAYDEN? I I THINK THE FACT THAT THE, UM, EXISTING STRUCTURE ITSELF, THE LOCATION IS, IS COMPLIANT AND IS NOT CHANGING AND THEY'RE JUST ADDING GARAGE DOORS, UM, IS, IS, UM, MAKES ME IN FAVOR, . YEP. I'M NOT HAVING, I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH THE WORDS. UM, UH, I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS BECAUSE OF THAT REASON. FURTHER DISCUSSION MS. DAVIS, I AGREE WITH MS. HAYDEN'S COMMENTS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE OF THE BOARD, UH, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL TO VOTE. MS. HAYDEN AYE. MR. KOVI AYE. DAVIS. [00:25:01] AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN? AYE. MOTION TO GRANT PASSES. 40 ZERO. OKAY. THANK IN THE MATTER OF BO OA BO, A 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 0. THE, THE BOARD APPROVED GRANTED THE VARIANCE REQUEST ON A VOTE, A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF 40 ZERO. YOU'LL GET A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD, UH, ADMINISTRATOR, UH, VERY SHORTLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS, UH, BO, A 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 4. THIS IS AT 4 6 6 5 MEADOW WOOD ROAD. IS THE APPLICANT HEARING PLEASE COME FORWARD. HOLD ON ONE SECOND SIR. OKAY. SO, UH, MS. FORD SECRETARY, WHAT, WHAT SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE FOR THIS CASE TODAY? UM, I BELIEVE IT'S ONLY THE APPLICANT. THAT'S CORRECT. JUST THE APPLICANT. NO ONE IN OPPOSITION SPEAKING THAT HAVE REGISTERED. HAS ANYBODY REGISTERED FOR THIS ? NO. UH, NO SIR. OKAY. JUST THE APPLICANT. ALRIGHT, SO HOLD ON ONE SECOND. ALRIGHT. UM, IF YOU'D GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN OUR BOARD'S BOARD, UH, SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN. OKAY. MY NAME IS RANDALL KEENIS. MY ADDRESS IS 7 1 2 2 WILD GROVE AVENUE, DALLAS, 7 5 2 1 4. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, PLEASE PROCEED. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. PROCEED. YOU CAN TAKE AS LONG AS YOU WANT TO SPEAK, SPEAK TO YOUR CASE. SO, UM, I WAS ON THE ZOOM CALL THIS MORNING. UM, SO IT'S GOOD TO MEET EVERYBODY IN PERSON. UM, I THINK THAT BRIAN DID A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING WHAT OUR INTENT IS. UM, I JUST WOULD WANNA DRIVE HOME THE POINT THAT THE FENCE AND WALL ARE, THEY'RE NOT EIGHT FOOT TALL ALL THE WAY. THERE'S SEVERAL SECTIONS THAT ARE FOUR FOOT, SIX FOOT, SEVEN FOOT. SO BECAUSE THE ELEVATION CHANGES, UH, WE JUST HAVE VARYING HEIGHTS. UM, SO THERE'S VERY LITTLE FENCE OR WALL THAT IS AT EIGHT FOOT. EVERYTHING IS BELOW THAT. UM, UH, THE OTHER ITEM THAT, UH, YOU GUYS WERE DISCUSSING AS THE, THE PLANTING MATERIALS IN FRONT OF THE FENCES AND HOW THAT WAS GOING TO LOOK, UM, THE RENDERINGS THAT ARE PROVIDED ARE DONE BY THE GARDEN DESIGN GROUP WHO ALSO DID THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE. SO THESE ARE VERY MUCH WHAT IS GOING TO BE ON SITE WHEN WE ARE FINISHED. UH, THIS IS NOT JUST SOMETHING WE GREW OUT THERE DRINKING BODY. WE, WE ARE PLANTING WHAT YOU SEE IN THIS RENDERING, UM, THE SHRUBS BEHIND THE ROT, IRON SECTIONS. UH, SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO TO A PLANNED VIEW, BUT TO THE, I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE TO THE SOUTH. UH, WE ARE, WE'RE ACTUALLY BEHIND THE FENCE WITH THE LARGER SHRUB. AND SO THOSE WILL GROW UP AND KIND OF GROW THROUGH THE ROD IRON AND DISGUISE IT. SO AESTHETICALLY IT LOOKS ABOUT THE SAME AS IF IT WERE ON THE OUTSIDE. UH, SEVERAL HOMES IN THE AREA HAVE THE, THE SAME LOOK, UH, IN FACT THE SAME GARDEN DESIGN GROUP HAS DONE MANY HOMES, UH, IN THAT IMMEDIATE AREA. UM, OTHER THAN THAT, UH, I MEAN I, I FELT LIKE THOSE WERE YOUR MAIN CONCERNS. UH, WE DID STEP BACK THE WALL TO FIVE FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THE CAPACITY. UM, AND WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CERTAINLY WILLING TO HEAR WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE TO SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO. UH, WE FEEL LIKE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA. AND, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I GOT. QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. MR. OVITZ, PLEASE? UM, MR. KEEN KEENEST. KEENEST. YES. KEENEST. YES. THANK YOU. UH, I WAS STRUCK BY ON THE VIDEO THAT WE SAW, UM, ALBEIT YOU'RE SEEING A LOT OF, UM, LANDSCAPING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BEHIND THE LANDSCAPING THAT WE'RE SEEING, BUT WE'RE SEEING NOTHING LIKE WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN TERMS OF FENCE THAT THAT IS AS EXPANSIVE. UM, WITH THE MIXED [00:30:01] CONSTRUCTION AND ALL THAT THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING. DID YOU JUST ADDRESS WHAT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE OTHER NEIGHBORS HAVE THAT MUCH FRONTAGE? WE DIDN'T SEE FENCES THAT LOOKED LIKE WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, BILL AT ANY OF THE NEIGHBORING HOUSES THAT ON THAT DRIVE THROUGH. THERE'S DIFFERENT, UH, SIZES OF HOMES ON THAT STREET, OBVIOUSLY. AND THERE ARE MANY WITH LARGE FRONTAGES VERY SIMILAR TO THIS. THESE ARE ALL ACRE PLUS LOT. THIS PARTICULAR LOT IS 1.8 ACRE. UH, IT IS ON A BEND, SO IT DOES HAVE A LOT OF FRONTAGE. UM, OVER 300 FEET I BELIEVE. BUT THERE ARE SIMILAR ONES. IN FACT, WHEN YOU COME IN OFF OF, UH, WALNUT HILL IMMEDIATELY TO THE LEFT, THE NEW HOME IS JUST REMODELED. UM, IT IS IT EVERY BIT OF THE SAME AMOUNT OF FRONTAGE AS YOU COME FROM WALNUT HILL ALL THE WAY AROUND THE CORNER. AND I WOULD SAY SIMILAR FENCE HEIGHTS PLANTING IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT, UM, THE HOUSES DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET HAVE A LOT OF FRONTAGE, A LOT OF FENCING, UM, MAY NOT BE QUITE AS MUCH, BUT WHEN YOU DRIVE THROUGH THERE, UM, THIS DOESN'T STAND OUT. UH, LIKE THE OTHER ONE, I THINK IT, IT STANDS OUT MORE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE TORN DOWN EVERYTHING TO REBUILD. SO YOU'RE SEEING A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION FENCING WITH NOT ATTRACTIVE. WE'VE SEEN ALL THAT WIND SCREEN AS YOU KEEP GOING AND IT SEEMS LIKE FOREVER, UH, IN THE VIDEO EVEN, I WISH, I GUESS IT EVER GONNA END . UM, SO IT, IT LOOKS WORSE THAN IT IS. I FEEL LIKE IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO EVERYTHING AROUND IT DOESN'T, DOESN'T LOOK. YEAH, I MEAN AS I, AS I SAID, WE COULDN'T SEE WHAT WAS BEHIND OR WITHIN THE LANDSCAPING OF THE OTHER HOMES. UM, I I WASN'T REFERRING TO THE CONSTRUCTION FENCES, BUT TO THE DESIGN DRAWING THAT WE WERE SHOWN. WELL, SO WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THERE, RIGHT? WE, I'VE BUILT THE HOME AND NOW WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE VARIANCE WHERE WE CAN BUILD A FENCE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE OTHER NEIGHBORS HAVE FOR SECURITY ZONE AND SO FORTH. SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THEIR PROPERTIES IS MATURE LANDSCAPING IN FRONT OF, OR DIRECTLY BEHIND SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE. AND SO IT'S, UM, JUST LOOKS MORE MATURE, MORE LUSH AND GREEN AND BEAUTIFUL. RIGHT? YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT CONSTRUCTION FENCE, SO YOU JUST WOULD DRIVE BY IT BECAUSE IT'S BEAUTIFUL , WHICH IS WHAT WE IN INTEND TO PROVIDE AS WELL. UM, I, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF WE, IF THERE'S ANY WAY WE CAN PULL UP, I MIGHT HAVE TAKEN A PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY THAT I WAS REFERRING TO. UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME, THERE'S OTHER FENCES THAT ARE SET BACK A LITTLE MORE THAT ARE SIX, EIGHT FEET TALL. THEY'RE SOLID STUCCO, JUST A WHOLE FENCE AND SOLID STUCCO, UM, UH, RIGHT AROUND THE CORNERS. UM, LET'S SEE HERE. YEAH, THE, I MEAN THE NEWEST ONE THAT, THAT I KNOW OF IS THE SOOTH RENEWAL PROPERTY THAT JUST COMPLETED AND THAT'S BACKING TO WALNUT HILL ON THE CORNER OF MEADOW WOOD. DO YOU HAVE ANY GRAPHICS THAT YOU CAN SHARE WITH US? UH, 'CAUSE WE'RE I, I'LL, I'LL TAKE MR. HOP OF THIS QUESTION AND CONCERN ONE STEP FORWARD. I VOICED THIS MORNING, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT EIGHT AND A HALF FEET AND NARROW STREETS AND EIGHT AND A HALF FEET. AND I STILL, AT THIS MOMENT, I'M LOOKING AT THE PRINTED, SIR, I'M LOOKING AT THE PRINTED DOCKET WE HAVE AND I'M SQUINTING TO SAY, WHERE IS THE FENCE? EIGHT AND A HALF VERSUS FOUR VERSUS SIX VERSUS EIGHT VERSUS EIGHT FEET, FOUR INCHES. AND I'M NOT COMPELLED TO SUPPORT SOMETHING 'CAUSE I CAN'T SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. AND AS YOU ANSWERED HIS QUESTION, I STILL DON'T SEE HOW YOU'RE ANSWERING HOW THIS COMPARES BECAUSE WE CAN'T SEE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW. OKAY. UM, I UNDERSTAND AND, AND VERY RESPECTFULLY THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT. OKAY. WELL I'VE PROVIDED ELEVATION AND 3D RENDERING. OKAY. DO WE HAVE THEM? I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THEM. ABSOLUTELY DO, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THEM HERE. OKAY. WELL I PROVIDED THEM. OKAY, WELL I WAS JUST EXPOUNDING ON YOUR , MR. CHAIRMAN. THERE, THERE WAS A 3D RENDERING IN THE PRESENTATION I'M TALKING ABOUT IN OUR DOCKETS. YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT. OKAY, GO AHEAD. UM, THERE WAS A 3D RENDERING AND WHEN WE ASKED ABOUT THAT [00:35:01] THIS MORNING, WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER A A AND AS REGARDS TO, OH, THIS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YES. THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT WAS REALLY NOTHING WE COULD COUNT ON BECAUSE IT CORRECT. IT'S, IT'S ARTISTIC. IT'S, IT IS JUST ARTISTIC. IT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT ANYONE IS BOUND BY. UM, YEAH. AND, AND WE ALSO DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT AS CURRENTLY AS THE REQUEST IS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED, THE LANDSCAPING PLANS THEY MAY HAVE, UH, ARE NOT IN ANY WAY REQUIRED IF WE APPROVE DEFENSE UNLESS WE ADD THAT AS A ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT TO THE APPROVAL, MS. HAYDEN. SO THE STANDARD FOR THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS THAT IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. SO WE AS, AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, HAVE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. SO WHAT HELPS US IN THAT IS WHEN WE HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT SHOW, HEY, HERE'S A, HERE'S AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. I'M STANDING NEXT TO IT, I HAVE A, A TAPE MEASURE UP TO IT SO I CAN PROVE THAT THERE ARE OTHER NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES RIGHT NEXT DOOR, RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. AND THAT HELPS US MAKE THAT DECISION AS TO, UM, WHETHER OR NOT THIS DOES AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. AND I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE, THE LENGTH OF A, OF A FENCE THAT IS THAT TALL AND SOLID. SO IT'S AT, AT THIS POINT. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT SHOWS THAT, DO YOU HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF TALLER FENCES WHERE YOU SHOW THE, THE HEIGHT OF IT WHERE WE CAN JUST KIND OF, IT IT, IT, IT JUST REALLY HELPS US MAKE A DECISION ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS? YES, MA'AM. I DO. AND ACTUALLY BRIAN SHOWED YOU SOME THIS MORNING WHERE THE FENCE POSTS WERE EIGHT FEET TALL, THAT'S DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET AND THE FENCE IS SLIGHTLY LOWER. WE'RE PLANTING IN FRONT OF IT. THAT IS OUR NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET. AND I DO HAVE A PICTURE OF IT THAT YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN THAT THE FENCE WAS QUITE A BIT LOWER THAN THE EIGHT FEET, QUITE A BIT. IS IT? YEAH, IT WAS A FOUR FEET FENCE. THE POST WAS EIGHT, SO IT WASN'T A LITTLE BIT LOWER. THE THE FENCE IS LOWER, BUT IT'S NOT FOUR FEET. THE FENCE IS FIVE TO SIX FEET. ARE YOU HEARING THE HESITATION HERE? WELL, I'M JUST, I I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE THE APPLICANT, YOU'RE GETTING FEEDBACK. I UNDERSTAND. AND, AND I'M TRYING TO GUIDE YOU GUYS BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE CONCERNED IF YOU, IF YOU GO TO THIS GARDEN DESIGN GROUP PLANS THAT I SENT THAT STARTED WITH THE RENDERINGS AND THEN IT SHOWS 2D OF THE TENNIS SPORTS AND THE FENCING AND IT'S, IT'S LABELED A, B, C, D. AND YOU START, SO IT'S SECTION A IS WHERE THE NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY. THAT'S RIGHT. RIGHT THERE. SO IF YOU LOOK OVER IN THE CORNER, THE FAR RIGHT IT SAYS FOUR FOOT NINE, THAT IS THE HEIGHT 30. WHERE IS THIS IN RELATION TO THE PROPERTY? THIS IS IF YOU'RE FACING THE PROPERTY FAR RIGHT FROM NORTH, NORTH END. OKAY. AND THAT IS FOUR FOOT NINE AND HEIGHT. THAT'S WHERE WE START BECAUSE THAT'S THE HIGH END OF THE STREET. AND THAT WHOLE SECTION OF FENCE, WHICH IS THEY'RE NOT . HOLD ON. YES SIR. IT, IT'S ALL, IT'S BASICALLY THE WHOLE RUN OF THE TENNIS SPORT IS THAT ENDS AT SIX FOOT EIGHT. SO THAT WHOLE SECTION GOES FROM FOUR FOOT NINE TO SIX FOOT EIGHT ONLY. THAT'S A THIRD OF, OR 25 TO 30% OF THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE FRONT THERE. UH, THE NEXT SECTION, YOU KNOW, IT, IT GOES FROM THE SIX FOOT EIGHT AND IT PICKS UP ON SECTION B. IT GOES FROM SIX FOOT EIGHT AND IT FINISHES AT EIGHT FOOT. THAT'S THE TALLEST SECTION IN THE FRONT. SEE THAT RIGHT THERE WHERE THE DCO END? YEAH, THAT'S EIGHT FOOT RIGHT THERE. AND THEN IT STEPS DOWN ONE FOOT NINE TO SIX THREE AND IT GOES FROM SIX FOOT THREE. AND THAT KEEPS ON CARRYING ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE END OF THAT SECTION THERE THAT IT'S SHOWING. THEN YOU GET MORE TOWARDS THE FRONT DRIVE GATE. IT GOES FROM SIX THREE BACK DOWN TO FOUR SIX AGAIN. AND THAT'S DIRECTLY IN THE FRONT WHERE YOU'RE GONNA DRIVE IN. IT'S FOUR FOOT SIX FALL TO SEVEN FOOT FOUR FALL MAX HEIGHT. AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE ELECTRIC GATE, IT WAS SEVEN FOOT FOUR. SO TECHNICALLY SMALLER . SO THE, SO YOU'RE, SO THE FENCE LINES, THE HIGHEST OF THE FENCE IS SEVEN FEET, FOUR INCHES. YES, SIR. OF THE FENCE. FENCE. YES SIR. AND WHAT'S THE LOW, WHAT'S THE, UH, SHORTER HEIGHT OF THE FENCE OF NOT RUN BY THERE? SO SEVEN FEET, FOUR INCHES DOWN TO [00:40:01] FOUR FOOT SIX IN THAT SECTION. FOUR AND FOUR FEET YOU CAN DO BY RIGHT. FOUR FEET. YOU DON'T EVEN NEED TO TALK TO US. RIGHT. SO YOU, SO IT'S, SO THERE'S A FOOT ABOVE THE HIGHEST PORTION OF THE FENCE, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU'RE ASKING FOR EIGHT FEET, FOUR INCHES TOTAL. WELL, BECAUSE, AND I WENT TRIED TO MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR WHEN WE WERE APPLYING, BUT YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE FENCES. WE UNDERSTAND THAT ONE SECTION THAT'S EIGHT AND THE REST COULD BE FOUR FOOT TWO. WE UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WE WOULD, WE, WE WILL RESPOND TO THE GRAPHICS THAT YOU GIVE US. AND WE ARE AWARE THAT THE FENCE POLE TYPICALLY, OR A GATE TYPICALLY IS HIGHER THAN THE REST OF THE FENCE. AND WE MAY BE GRANTING EIGHT FOOT FOUR, BUT WE'RE NOT GRANTING EIGHT FOOT FOUR FOR THE WHOLE FENCE LINE. YOU ARE NOT, WE'RE JUST GRANTING IT FOR THE TOP PORTION AND THEN WE TIE OUR DECISION TO THE GRAPHICS THAT ARE GIVEN. MY, WHERE I'M LOST IN THIS IS I CAN'T SI CAN SEE THAT, BUT I CAN'T SEE IT ON THE PROPERTY. SO IF, IF WE GO BACK TO THE RENDERINGS, I CAN WALK ME THROUGH THAT. MY HESITATION ON ANY TIME WE GO BEYOND FOUR FEET IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, NO MATTER WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD WE'RE IN, IF YOU HAVE NARROW STREETS AND TALL FENCES, IT CREATES A FURTHER NARROW, THAT IS MY CONCERN. AN EIGHT FEET, FOUR INCHES, OR EVEN SEVEN FEET, FOUR INCHES IS A TALL FENCE. UM, SO THAT'S MY HESITATION. AND THE, THE, IN THE VIDEOS THAT WE WERE GIVEN THIS MORNING BY OUR STAFF, I DIDN'T SEE A LOT OF EIGHT FOOT FENCES. I SAW OPEN, I SAW MAYBE THE GATE OR THE PILLAR THAT WAY, BUT I DIDN'T SEE SEVEN FOOT. AND YOU SAID YOUR, YOUR PEAKS AT SEVEN FOUR INCHES. THAT'S MY HESITATION. BUT AGAIN, AS MS. HAYDEN SAID, OUR CRITERIA IS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONAL, NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT OUR GUIDEPOST IS. SO, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE KEEP SAYING OUR FENCE IS EIGHT FOOT NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I SAID SEVEN FOOT FOUR INCHES IS WHAT YOU SAID, BUT WELL, WE HAVE SECTIONS THAT ARE EIGHT FOOT WE HAVE OF THE FENCE. SURE. YOU DIDN'T TAKE A MINUTE AGO I ASKED YOU WHAT WAS THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE FENCE AND YOU SAID SEVEN FOOT FOUR INCHES. NOW YOU'RE SAYING IT'S EIGHT FEET. WELL, WE HAVE FOUR DIFFERENT SECTIONS. OKAY. THIS IS MY CONFUSION BECAUSE NOW I'M TRYING TO IMAGINE THIS ABSTRACTLY AND ON OUR DOCKET. YES, SIR. AND I, I I I I'M MAKING, I CAN ONLY GO THROUGH THE ELEVATIONS THAT WE PROVIDED SYSTEMATICALLY AND SHOW YOU AND FROM ONE SECTION TO THE OTHER, I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE FENCE HEIGHT IS. IT VARIES FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER. SO IF IT GO, IF IT STARTS AT FOUR NINE ON ONE END AND ENDS AT SIX FOOT EIGHT, WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE? WELL, YOU MINUTE AGO SAID IT WAS EIGHT FEET. THERE IS A SECTION THAT YES, I I UNDERSTAND. I I I FEEL LIKE WE'RE, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE WE KEEP STOPPING. I JUST WANT TO LOOK AT ONE SECTION AT A TIME AND EXPLAIN WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. WE DON'T HAVE JUST ONE HEIGHT, WE HAVE A DIFFERENT HEIGHT AND IT JUST KEEPS STEPPING DOWN. SO WE DON'T LOOK LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. NOPE. WE WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP IT CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AESTHETICALLY PLEASING. WE UNDERSTAND. AND THE PEOPLE THAT DESIGN THIS, LIKE I SAID, THEY'VE DONE SEVERAL PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY, THEY'RE DESIGNING CONSISTENT. THERE'S NOT ONE NEIGHBOR WHO'S OPPOSED, NOBODY IS WRITTEN INTO SUPPORT. NONE. BUT NOBODY OPPOSED IT EITHER. WELL, SO WE DON'T KNOW ABSENT BOTH SIDES. WE CAN'T DRAW THE CONCLUSION. I'M, I I I'M JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS OPPOSITION, THEY WOULD BE HERE AND THEY'RE NOT. THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE EXPENSIVE PROPERTIES AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOTICING, SIR, WE, WE, THE BOARD IS DRAWN FROM THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THE CASES THAT ARE PRESENTED TO US, OUR DECISION IS REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOUR PROPERTY IS INEXPENSIVE OR EXPENSIVE. SO BEING AN EXPENSIVE PROPERTY IS NOT, IS NOT PART OF OUR CRITERIA. UNDERSTOOD. SO SECTION A AT THE TENNIS COURT GOES FROM FOUR FOOT NINE TO SIX FOOT EIGHT. IT IS A WROUGHT IRON FENCE SECTION. THE ENTIRE RUN IS WROUGHT IRON, FOUR FOOT NINE TO SIX FOOT EIGHT. THAT'S ON THE FAR NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY. OKAY. [00:45:02] SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT HEIGHT YOU WANT TO CALL THAT. WE CALLED IT OUT AS FOUR FOOT NINE ON THE, ON THE LOW END AND SIX FOOT EIGHT AT THE HIGHEST POINT. SO YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE AVERAGE OF THAT, I GUESS IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT A HIGH. YES. SO STARTING FAR LEFT ON YOUR SCREEN AT THE, AT THE TENNIS BOARD AND ALL THE WAY TO WHERE IT, IT TURNS YELLOW THROUGH THE YELLOW WALL SECTIONS. SO THAT'S WHERE IT STARTS AT, AT UH, FOUR NINE TO SIX FOURTH. NOW THEN YOU GO TO THE YELLOW SECTION, WHICH IS SOLID WALL. IT'S A STUCCO WALL THAT PICKS UP AT SIX FOOT EIGHT AND IT ENDS AT EIGHT FOOT. THAT IS OUR HIGH POINT ON THAT SECTION. MS. HAYDEN. SO THAT WALL SECTION, I THINK I REMEMBER SEEING ON THE ELEVATION THAT THAT WALL ENDS AT EIGHT FOOT FOUR INCHES. IS THAT WELL, SO YOU ARE CORRECT. THERE IS ANOTHER SECTION THAT DOES THAT, BUT THAT'S ALL THE WAY DOWN AT THE SOUTH. OKAY. OKAY. YEAH, IT WAS JUST UNCLEAR I GUESS WHICH GOES WITH WHICH. RIGHT. SO THINK OF IT LIKE STARTING AT THE TENNIS COURT. IT GOES A, B, C AND SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SECTION B. SO THE HIGHEST WALL IS EIGHT FEET, FOUR INCHES. THE HIGHEST SECTION OF WALL IS EIGHT FOOT FOUR. AT JUST A MINUTE AGO YOU SAID IT WAS EIGHT AND BEFORE THAT YOU SAID IT WAS SEVEN FEET. FOUR. I'M CONFUSED, SIR. THAT WAS THE SECTION WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. , I CAN'T TALK ABOUT, I HAVE TO TALK ABOUT EACH SECTION. OKAY. OKAY. SO YOU'RE, THE WALL ITSELF THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING IS ANYWHERE FROM EIGHT FEET, FOUR INCHES, FOUR DOWN TO FOUR FEET, FOUR INCHES. YES, SIR. OKAY. THAT IS, AND MY QUESTION I ASKED YOU BEFORE WAS WHAT IS THAT THE HIGHEST PORTION OF THE WALL THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING VERSUS THE LOWEST PORTION? SO YOU'RE SAYING IT'S EIGHT FEET, FOUR ALL THE WAY DOWN TO FOUR FEET. FOUR, YES. AND BY, RIGHT, YOU CAN DO FOUR. YES. OKAY. THAT, THAT HELPS CLARIFY THAT. NO, I'M SORRY. IT'S CONFUSING. THERE'S, I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF STEP DOWNS AND ELEVATION CHANGES AND SO WE'RE, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DO OUR BEST TO PAINT A PERFECT PICTURE. THAT'S WHY WE SPENT THE MONEY TO HAVE THE RENDERING. BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S HARD FOR YOU GUYS TO LOOK AT RENDERING, YOU KNOW WHAT FENCE GOES WHERE. SO IT'S A LOT AND IT'S A LOT OF FENCE. BIG PROJECT. AND WHILE THE RENDERING WAS USEFUL, IT'S NOT BINDING IN ANY WAY. IT'S NOT PART OF THE PLAN. IT SUBMITTED THE AUTISTIC RENDERING AND WHAT IT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE. THAT THAT IS, IT'S INTERESTING, BUT IT'S NOT ANY WAY BINDING ON ANYTHING THAT, THAT, UH, THE INFORMATION THAT'S IN THERE IS NOT BINDING ON ANYTHING. I MEAN, I, WE SUBMITTED IT AS PART OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND WE INTEND TO DO THAT. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU, TO US IT'S BINDING. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. I'M SWEARING WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. WELL, YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE PLANS. THOSE ARE NOT PLANS. THOSE ARE, THAT'S A RENDERING, THAT'S NOT AN ARCHITECTURAL PLAN. SO THOSE RENDERINGS ARE AN EXACT REPRESENTATION OF THE OVERHEAD VIEW OF THE PLAN YOU WERE LOOKING DOWN AT. SO IF YOU WERE TO GO TO THE FIRST PAGE, LIKE RIGHT THERE, AND YOU'RE LOOKING DOWN WHERE YOU SEE GRAVEL AND THE CARS PARKED THERE, AND YOU, AS YOU GO OUT TO THE FRONT THERE, YOU SEE THE, THE TREES THAT'S REPRESENTED ON THE, ON THE RENDERING, ALL THAT IS THERE. THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE DRAWN IN OR RENDERED WHAT WE HAVE ON THE PLAN, THE LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT YOU SEE IN 2D OR, OR WHAT YOU SEE IN THE RENDERINGS, WHICH ARE HARD TO FOLLOW, LIKE BRIAN SAID THIS MORNING, LIKE YOU'RE JUST LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, BLACK AND WHITE 2D, IT'S HARD TO SEE ANYTHING. SO IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE FLOWER BEDS IN THE SECTIONS OF WALLS FROM THE OVERHEAD VIEW, YOU WOULD SEE LITTLE PLANTING AREAS IN FRONT OF YOU. IF YOU LOOK AT THE RENDERING, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SAID YES, SIR. I'M, I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU, AND, AND I COULD BE, I COULD HAVE THIS WRONG. THE LANDSCAPING PLAN IS, IS IF WE APPROVE WHAT YOU'VE SUBMITTED AS SUBMITTED, YOU COULD GO BUILD YOUR FENCE AND NOT PUT A SINGLE PIECE OF LANDSCAPING IN AND [00:50:01] MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT WE HAVE APPROVED. SO WE'RE DEALING WITH WHAT THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF AN APPROVAL IS. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. WE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE WANTING TO DO. WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET YOU TO UNDERSTAND IS NONE OF THAT'S BINDING ON THE DECISION WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO MAKE. SO WHILE IT MAY BE, IT MAY BE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING TO, TO LAY IT OUT THERE, IT'S, IT'S, YOU, YOU, YOU COULD GO DO WHATEVER YOU WANTED AS FAR AS THAT'S CONCERNED. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO. UNLESS, UNLESS WE MODIFY OUR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL MODIFY IT IN SUCH A WAY AS TO REQUIRE THAT LANDSCAPING, THEN YOU COULD DO NO LANDSCAPING AT ALL AND BE IN COMPLIANCE. THAT'S MY ONLY POINT. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD TYPICALLY DOES? UM, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME TO DO THIS. I, SO I MEAN, I'VE BEEN BUILDING 30 YEARS NOW. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD. WE WILL MAKE IT BINDING IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM THAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO HEAR, SIGN A DOCUMENT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T GET INTO, YOU KNOW, ARE, ARE YOU GUYS GONNA PICK THE PLANTS? YOU KNOW, LIKE WE CAN'T GET INTO THAT, RIGHT? SO LET, LET'S STEP BACK A SECOND. THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES THE POLICY AND ORDINANCES ON FENCES AND ON FENCE HEIGHTS AND LOCATIONS. AND THEY, IN THEIR JUDGMENT HAVE DECIDED THAT BY RIGHT, YOU CAN BUILD A FENCE IN A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT UP TO FOUR FEET IN THE FRONT YARD, SETBACK, ANYTHING BEYOND THAT, YOU HAVE TO COME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND PRESENT AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF. THIS IS THE CITY COUNCIL POLICY. YOU COME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT LIKE THE OTHER PEOPLE BEFORE YOU AND THE OTHER PEOPLE BEHIND YOU. AND YOU HAVE A BURDEN OF PROOF OF, OF PRESENTING WHY YOU NEED MORE THAN FOUR FEET. IT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS IF IT'S THE FOUR FEET. 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHED. UM, AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. IF YOU PRESENTING A, A, A CASE AS TO WHY YOU'RE WANTING TO PUT A FENCE MORE THAN FOUR FEET AND OUR CRITERIA IS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. SO HOW DO WE COME UP WITH A DECISION BASED ON WHAT I JUST SAID, ONE, WE'RE SAYING, OKAY, WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. AND SO WE GET A VISUAL TOUR FROM OUR STAFF AND THE APPLICANT GIVES US PICTURES OF OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. THAT BECOMES EVIDENCE FROM YOU AS THE APPLICANT. WE LISTEN TO THE STAFF, BUT THAT'S THEIR JERK. THEIR JOB IS NOT TO SELL. AND A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS IN THE OPINION OF THE BOARD, NOT OF THE ATTORNEY, NOT OF THE BOARD SECRETARY, NOT OF THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATOR, BUT IN THE OPINION OF THE BOARD PERIOD. THAT'S CITY COUNCIL POLICY. SO WE LOOK TO THE APPLICANT TO GIVE US EVIDENCE OF WHAT IS IN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THE OTHER WAY WE GET EVIDENCE IS TO SEE FEEDBACK FROM PROPERTY OWNERS. THE CODE, THE STATE OF TEXAS SAYS THAT 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, THE STAFF, OUR BOARD SECRETARY SENDS A NOTICE OUT TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. IN THIS CASE 13 PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED AND THEY'RE GIVEN THE SAME FORM AND TOLD WHAT'S COMING BEFORE US AND THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. WHAT HAPPENS IN MANY CASES IS THE APPLICANT GOES AND KNOCKS ON DOORS AND SAID, I'M WANTING TO DO THIS. CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR SUPPORT? THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. AND SOME PEOPLE RESPOND, SOME PEOPLE DON'T. WHEN AN APPLICANT COMES TO US WITH NO GRAPHICS, THAT WE CAN GET OUR HANDS AROUND WHAT ELSE IS GOING IN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND WE DON'T HEAR FROM OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS, WE'RE IN LIMBO. AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. THAT IS CITY COUNCIL POLICY. SO I PROVIDED RENDERINGS, ELEVATION, EVERY POSSIBLE THING THAT WE CAN PROVIDE ON OUR PROPERTY. THIS IS NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I CAN WALK UP AND KNOCK ON BOARD. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. WE, THEY ALL HAVE GATES AND FENCES LIKE LEO REQUESTING CAN'T DO THAT. 'EM HAVE SECURITY PARTS. RESPECTFULLY, SIR, I JUST WALKED YOU THROUGH A TYPICAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE BASED ON THE POLICY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CREATED AND THE TOOLS THAT THE BOARD USES THREE TIMES A MONTH, EVERY MONTH TO EVALUATE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND VARIANCES. AND IN THIS CASE, AGAIN, THE SPECIAL [00:55:01] EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. SO WE'RE TRYING TO SAY, OKAY, WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? LET'S GET A HANDLE OF THAT. HOW WOULD THIS, HOW WOULD EIGHT FEET FENCES SOME SOLID, SOME OPEN AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES? ARE THERE OTHER EIGHT FOOT FENCES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? AND WE'RE GRASPING FOR EVIDENCE IS WHAT WE'RE GRASPING. AND IT'D BE GREAT IF WE HAD THREE LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR FOUR LETTERS OF SUPPORT, BUT WE DON'T HEAR ANYTHING. SO YOU CAN'T NECESS AS OFTEN AS WE DO THESE CASES, YOU CAN'T DRAW A CONCLUSION OF ABSENCE OF FEEDBACK. IT MEANS CONSENT. IT JUST MEANS NOTHING. I HAVE ONE NEIGHBOR, UH, HOLT LUNDBERG, WHO EMAILED ME AND SAID HE WOULD NOT OPPOSE IT. AND SO THAT'S SUPPORT. WELL, I I'M WALKING YOU THROUGH THE STEPS BASED ON THE CODE AS IT RELATES TO WHAT THE EVIDENCE WE'RE LOOKING FOR. SO I WOULD POINT BACK TO THE HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET AS EIGHT FOOT FENCE DUCT. SO THAT MEANS THEY WERE APPROVED FOR AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. WE DON'T KNOW THAT YOU WOULD BE AMAZED AT THE NUMBER OF FENCES BUILT ILLEGALLY. WE DON'T WANNA ASK OUR STAFF TO ASK IF IT WAS PERMITTED OR NOT BECAUSE THEN YOU JUST OUTAGE YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD . RIGHT. SO I'M NOT ASKING THE STAFF TO CHECK TO SEE WHETHER THAT WAS PERMITTED OR NOT. SO THEN I GUESS TO KEEP IT SHORT, WE ARE ASKING FOR A FENCE HEIGHT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH EVERY OTHER NEIGHBOR IN THE AREA THAT IS OVER FOUR FOOT. OKAY, THANK YOU. WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE ANIMAL, MR. HAKO? THAT'S MORE OF A COMMENT. JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT WE NORMALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN A COMPLETELY UNRELATED CASE, WHICH WAS DELAYED SEVERAL TIMES, PUT OFF DECISIONS ON, UH, EVENTUALLY THE APPLICANT CAME IN WITH PHOTOS OF THEMSELVES STANDING IN FRONT OF NEIGHBOR'S FENCES WITH MEASURING STICKS SHOWING HOW TALL THOSE THINGS WERE. UM, AND THAT'S HOW WE WERE ABLE TO, THAT'S THAT'S ACTUAL THAT EVIDENCE, VISUAL EVIDENCE, NOT JUST YOU'RE TELLING US THAT THE NEIGHBOR'S FENCE IS EIGHT FEET TALL ACROSS THE STREET, YOU STANDING IN FRONT OF IT WITH AN EIGHT FOOT MEASURING STICK SHOWING US THAT IT IS, IS EVIDENCE. SO I'LL JUST POINT OUT TO YOU THAT WHEN WE SAY WE'RE LOOKING FOR, FOR EVIDENCE OF THAT, WE'RE LOOKING FOR ACTUAL VISUAL PROOF OF THAT, NOT JUST YOUR WORD. RIGHT. NOT SUGGESTING YOU'RE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH. I'M SAYING WE'RE LOOKING FOR ACTUAL CORROBORATION. YES, SIR. AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND AND WOULD'VE BEEN HAPPY TO DO THAT. I WOULD'VE JUST HAD TO WALK ACROSS THE STREET I'M THERE EVERY DAY. I HAD NO IDEA THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. WE THOUGHT WHAT WE WERE SHOWING ON PAPER WAS WHAT WAS EXPECTED. LIKE I SAID, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME I, I BELIEVE I I REALLY DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL OR WE CERTAINLY WOULD'VE DONE IT. UM, I ALSO THOUGHT THAT THE BOARD WOULD KNOW WHAT THEY HAD GRANTED PREVIOUSLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. LIKE THEY HAD DONE FIRE EXCEPTIONS FENCES THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NO, WE, WE, WE NEVER HAD THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US WHEN THAT WOULD'VE BEEN APPROVED. IT WAS OBVIOUSLY JUST AND ENTIRELY DIFFERENTLY COMPOSED SET OF PEOPLE SITTING UP HERE HEARING THAT CASE IF IT WAS HEARD. UM, IT'S ALSO A LITTLE BIT, UH, DAUNTING IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SUCH A, AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF FRONTAGE, WHICH WE DON'T NORMALLY ALSO HAVE TO TRY TO ABSORB THE IMPACT OF OOD. THANK YOU, MR. HOPKIN, MS. DAVIS, I, I THINK THERE ARE SOME BOARD MEMBERS THAT, THAT NEED OTHER VISUALS. UM, I I'M GONNA PROPOSE THAT YOU CONSIDER ASKING FOR, UM, AN EXTENSION OR, OR PUSHING THIS BACK TO JANUARY. I THINK WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US, NUMBER ONE WOULD BE TO SEE THAT SUPPORT. YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WASN'T ANY NEGATIVE SUPPORT. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT FOR US, WHEN WE SEE THE SUPPORT THAT THAT MATTERS BECAUSE IT REALLY SPEAKS TO US ABOUT WHETHER THE NEIGHBORS BELIEVE THIS WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I THINK THAT'S ONE THING WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE. AND THE OTHER ONE, UH, PER MR, PER MR. VIC'S SUGGESTION, JUST LOOKING AT THOSE FENCES THAT ARE CLOSE BY, WE SAW THEM VERY QUICKLY ON THE VIDEO. IF THERE'S ANY WAY, I'M NOT TELLING YOU TO TRESPASS, BUT IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO GET AN IDEA OF YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT IS AROUND [01:00:01] AND TRY TO GET SOME FEEL, I THINK THAT WOULD ALSO BE HELPFUL. AND THEN THE LAST THING I JUST WANNA MENTION, JUST BECAUSE THERE'S AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ACROSS THE STREET, I DON'T KNOW WHO APPROVED THAT. IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER, EVEN IF THIS PANEL WOULD'VE APPROVED IT. WE DON'T, THERE'S NO PRECEDENT SET. SO JUST FOR INFORMATION, RIGHT, I UNDERSTAND. I THINK I'M LYING HERE TODAY. I I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT YOU REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER, YOU'RE BUILDING IT TO SELL OR YOU'RE BUILDING TO, TO RESIDE IT. UH, I'M BUILDING IT FOR SOMEONE FOR, OKAY, I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S INVESTING IN THE, IN THE STRUCTURE AND IN THE FENCING AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING. BUT FOR THIS ONE BOARD MEMBER, AN EIGHT FOOT PIPE FENCE WHEN FOUR FEET BY, RIGHT? THAT'S DOUBLE WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL SAYS IS YOU CAN DO BY, RIGHT? THAT'S DAUNTING TO ME ON A NARROW STREET. IT'S DAUNTING. AND AS MR. KOVI SAID, FOR THAT LARGE AMOUNT OF FRONTAGE, SO I'M EACH ONE OF US, WHEN WE HEAR, SEE A CASE IN THIS CASE, YOU'RE STARTING TO TRYING TO IMAGINE, OKAY, WHAT IS THIS FENCE GONNA LOOK LIKE ON THIS LONG CURVE AND HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE SENSE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? WE DON'T LIVE THERE. WE HAVE FEW PICTURES. WE DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THIS AFTERNOON. UM, GOING BACK TO THE COMMENTS YOU'VE HEARD, WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE COMPARABLES. WHAT ELSE IS, WHAT ELSE IS POSITIVE OR I'M TRYING TO BE, THE DOUBLE NEGATIVE IS WHAT ELSE IS AFFECTING OTHER NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. UM, BUT EIGHT FEET, UH, COMPARED TO FOUR FEET BY RIGHT IS A SIGNIFICANT JUMP. SO HENCE OUR HESITATION. SO I WILL SHOOT VIDEO OF OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE SIMILAR, UH, THAT I KNOW THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. TAKE PICTURES, STAND THERE, SHOW HEIGHTS. I CAN SHOW THE HEIGHTS OF THE COLUMN VERSUS THE WROUGHT IRON FENCING THAT'S LOWER, RIGHT? LIKE THERE WERE SOME SECTIONS WHERE WE HAVE TALLER POSTS AND THEN LOWER FENCING. I'LL GET BOTH OF THOSE HEIGHTS SO WE UNDERSTAND. NOW, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE BOARD. IF, IF EIGHT FOOT SEEMS CRAZY AND WE TALK TO NEIGHBORS, UH, THAT AREN'T SUPPORT OF US, UH, BUT THEY SAY, WELL WE, YOU KNOW, WE'D REALLY LIKE IT TO STAY AROUND SEVEN MINUTES, RIGHT? IF WE WANTED TO CHANGE THAT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO AVOID THE PROBLEM, HOW WOULD THAT HAPPEN? SO IN ALL CASES, YOUR PROPERTY OWNER NEEDS TO DO WHAT IS IN HIS OR HER BEST INTEREST. WE ARE NOT IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A ZONING CASE. YOU NEGOTIATE THE PODIUM AND YOU GO THROUGH ALL THAT. THIS IS ABOUT OUR STANDARD OF THE SPECIAL, EXCEPTIONAL NON-AD, ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THAT'S OUR CRITERIA. YOU'VE HEARD SEVERAL TOOLS THAT WE USE MONTH IN, MONTH OUT ON HOW TO MEASURE THAT YOUR PROPERTY UNDERNEATH DECIDE WHAT HE OR SHE WANTS TO DO FOR THEIR PROPERTY AND THEN GO LOOK AT WHAT'S, WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND MAYBE YOU'LL COME BACK AND SAY YOU WANNA DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU PROPOSED AND HOPEFULLY YOU'LL GET SOME OTHERS THAT WILL SUPPORT YOU IN WRITING. UM, SO THAT WE HAVE A BASIS OF COMPARISON. WHAT YOU'RE HEARING ARE CITIZEN APPOINTEES FROM ACROSS THE CITY THAT ARE TRYING TO MEASURE, OKAY, IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, ON THAT STREET, HOW IS THIS FENCE ALONG THAT LONG FRONTAGE GONNA, WHAT'S THE EFFECT ON THAT AREA? BECAUSE THAT'S OUR CRITERIA. WE WANT YOU TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY. WE'RE FINE WITH A FENCE. THIS ONE PERSON SAYS, WOW, EIGHT FEET IS DAUNTING. THAT DOESN'T MEAN PROHIBITIVE, IT JUST MEANS DAUNTING. AND TODAY YOU NEED FOUR VOTES, AND THAT'S STATE STATUTE. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMAL FOUR VOTES TO GET A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. SO THAT'S UP TO YOU TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU WANT CEPT 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, OR 7, 6, 5, 4. I'M NOT, I'M NOT GONNA, NOR OF ANYONE. THEY'RE GONNA TELL YOU HOW TO DO WHAT'S IN YOUR CLIENT'S BEST INTEREST. UM, OKAY. MS. DAVIS, UH, I'M JUST GONNA KIND OF ADD ON TO THAT. SO WHEN WE GET, WHEN WE GET SOMETHING THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE STANDARD IS FOUR FEET AND YOU'RE PROPOSING EIGHT FEET. WHEN THERE'S THAT LARGE OF A VARIANCE, OUR FIRST REACTION IS, WHOA. THAT, THAT'S BIG. RIGHT? SO, AND, AND WE CAN ASK YOU WHY YOU WANT THAT. MAYBE IT'S SECURITY, BUT THAT DOESN'T REALLY, THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THAT'S NOT PART OF THE CRITERIA. BUT I WILL TELL YOU, WHEN THERE'S THAT LARGE OF A VARIANCE, WE'RE REALLY GOING TO LOOK HARD. IF IT'S TWO FEET, WE'RE STILL GONNA LOOK. BUT THAT'S A BIG ASK. SO I KNOW A LOT OF APPLICANTS COME IN AND THEY ASK FOR ALL THIS, AND THEN THEY KIND OF SOMETIMES COME BACK TO A MORE REASONABLE ASK. BUT I'M JUST TELLING YOU THAT'S HOW I APPROACH IT. AND I THINK THAT'S HOW, HOW A LOT OF THE OTHER MEMBERS APPROACH IT. MR. [01:05:01] HAITZ, I THINK I'M READING BETWEEN THE LINES HERE. . YEAH. I, I, I THINK I, IF I CAN, I THINK TO RESPOND DIRECTLY TO, I THINK WHAT YOUR QUESTION WAS, UM, IF WE, IF WE, IF YOU REQUEST AND WE AGREE TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME, UM, YOU CAN SUBMIT MODIFIED PLANS BETWEEN NOW AND THEN. YOU DON'T HAVE TO STICK WITH WHAT WAS IN THIS HEARING. IS THAT CORRECT MR. CHAIRMAN? I WOULD SAY, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO SUBMIT WHAT THEY FEEL IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST, BUT THEN THEY NEED TO BE PERSUASIVE IN YOUR CASE. RIGHT. BUT MY MY POINT IS, THEY CAN, HE, THEY CAN CHANGE WHAT WAS SUBMITTED. ABSOLUTELY. YES. ABSOLUTELY. AND I DON'T, DON'T WALK AWAY TODAY THINKING IT'S A NO, BUT IT'S NOT A YES YET. HOW'S THAT? AND PART OF THE STATE STATUTE THAT CREATES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF TEXAS IS TO GET PRIVATE CITIZENS THAT DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT REAL ESTATE TO LISTEN TO A PROPERTY OWNER AND JUDGE MAKE A JUDGMENT BASED ON EVIDENCE. AND SO, UH, I THINK WHERE WE'RE HEADED IS WE'RE GONNA POSTPONE TO JANUARY, JANUARY 20TH, WHICH WILL GIVE YOU TIME TO MAKE A DECISION OF WHAT YOU WANT AND SOME PROCESS. OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, ADMINISTRATOR IS VERY CAPABLE OF WORKING WITH YOU. AND I SAY HER, HER OR HER TEAM IN SAYING THESE ARE THE SORT OF THINGS THAT CAN BE PERSUASIVE TO A BOARD. UM, AND I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND SOMETHING MORE THAN THIS LITTLE THING THAT I HAVE TO QUI MY EYES TO. 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, SIR. THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. AND EACH TIME YOU WENT DOWN THIS GRAD, I'M, I'M OVER HERE DOING THIS. LITERALLY, I'M A I BIFOCAL. SO I'M DOING LIKE, OKAY, WHAT IS HE DOING HERE? SO HOW DO, SO, SO HOW DO I DO THAT? NEXT TIME YOU'LL WORK WITH THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND OR HER STAFF, AND THEY WILL SAY, TYPICALLY, IN A CASE LIKE THIS, THESE ARE THE ELEMENTS OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU CAN BRING, PUT A VIDEO ON OR BRING US LARGE SCALE PLANS THAT WE CAN SEE AND OR, OH, YES. SO WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT EIGHT AND A HALF BY ELEVENS. OKAY? UM, OR I'M GIVING YOU ALL THE TOOLS. THESE ARE THINGS THAT OUR ADMINISTRATOR WILL GIVE YOU HELP ON. IT'S NOT HER JOB TO PROVE YOUR CASE, BUT IT IS HER JOB TO ASSIST THE APPLICANT TO GET THE INFORMATION. AND THEN IT'S UP TO YOU TO DETERMINE WHAT YOU WANT AND THEN HOW TO BE PERSUASIVE. THAT'S NOT NEGATIVE, THAT'S THE PROCESS. ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. UM, JUST NO, WE'RE ABOUT TO MAKE A MOTION. SORRY. I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE. NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT HELPS US GET CLARITY BECAUSE THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORT, WE THINK, WOO. ARE WE OUT THERE ON OUR OWN APPROVING SOMETHING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES FEEL, IT COULD BE AFFECTING THEIR PROPERTY? THAT'S OUR CRITERIA. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY SQUARE. WE'RE GONNA GO TO A MOTION AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON. MR. HOPKOS? YEAH, I I WOULD JUST ADD THAT, UM, MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT IS NOT DISPOSITIVE. THAT THAT AUTOMATICALLY REQUIRES US TO GO ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. IT'S, IT'S JUST ANOTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE WE CONSIDER. IT DOES. IT'S NOT, NOT DECISIVE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. IF YOU WALKED IN HERE WITH RIGHT EIGHT PEOPLE THAT LOVED IT, IT DOESN'T MEAN NECESSARILY WELL, LISTEN CAREFULLY. IT'S VERY TRUE. UM, SO JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND, IT HELPS US UNDERSTAND THE FEELING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE US TO VOTE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. SO IF ALL THE NEIGHBORS SAID THEY LOVE EIGHT FOOT FENCING, IT DOESN'T MATTER, , IT'S NOT GONNA MAKE YOU VOTE. YES, I GOT IT. YES, SIR. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO GIVE US? WE TOOK A PINT OF BLOOD OUTTA YOU, BUT YOU, UH, MR. MR. ES. ES? YES, SIR. IT TAKE, IT TOOK A PIN OF BLOOD OUT OF US TOO, I PROMISE YOU. BUT YOU DON'T WANT US TO LOSE BLOOD ON THIS. 'CAUSE THE MORE BLOOD WE LOSE, THE LESS WE VOTE. YES. DO YOU SEE THAT? I'LL TRY TO BRING SOME BLOOD BACK THERE. YOU GOOD? ALL RIGHT, MR HOP, THEN I'M GONNA MOTION, I'LL JUST THROW OUT THERE, UM, IF YOU NEED, IF YOU FEEL LIKE JANUARY WOULD NOT GIVE YOU ENOUGH TIME, PLEASE SPEAK UP. YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT JANUARY. NO, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. THANK YOU, SIR. NOW WE WANT IT QUICKLY AS WELL. A MOTION. THE CHAIRMAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BOA DASH 25 DASH 4 0 4 9. WAIT, WRONG ONE. HANG ON, HANG ON. I'M FINDING THE RIGHT ONE. GOODNESS. I'M LOOKING, I'M LOOKING HERE. GOODNESS. SORRY ABOUT THAT. ALL RIGHT. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BOA DASH 25 DASH 4 0 6 4 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL JANUARY 20TH, 2026. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN [01:10:01] BO BO, OA 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 4 BY MS. DAVIS TO HOLD THIS MA MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL JANUARY 20TH, 2026. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND. SECOND BY MS. HAYDEN. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION MS. DAVIS, I AM MOVING TO, UM, POSTPONE THIS AND MOVE IT TILL JANUARY 20TH IN THE HOPES THAT THE APPLICANT WILL COME BACK SHOWING US SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND POSSIBLY, UM, ANY OTHER PHOTOGRAPHIC MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE THAT WOULD HELP US MAKE A VERY STRONG DEC DECISION. MS. HAYDEN? UM, I I JUST THINK THAT THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO WORK A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO CONVINCE US THAT THIS DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NOT TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE, BUT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. AND, UM, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, YOU KNOW, WE SEE THE DRIVE THROUGH AND DON'T SEE A LOT OF TALL, LARGE FENCES IN THAT DRIVE. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TO GO ON RIGHT NOW. SO IF YOU CAN PROVIDE MORE EVIDENCE TO THAT, THE BOARD WILL CALL THE VOTE BOARD SECRETARY MS. DAVIS. AYE. MS. HAYDEN AYE. MR. HAITZ? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION TO HOLD PASSES 4 2 0 IN THE MATTER OF BO 8 2 5 0 0 0 6 4. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY 40 ZERO, UH, HOLDS THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL JANUARY, 2026 HOPING THAT THERE'LL BE A BLOOD DELIVERY. I WAS JOKING ABOUT THAT, BUT YOU GET MY POINT. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THE NEXT CASE FOR US IS BO, A 2 5 0 0 0 0 4 9 2 5 0 0 0 0 4 9 IS THE APPLICANT HERE. PLEASE COME FORWARD. THIS IS AT 5 9 0 0 MERCEDES AVENUE. MS. BOARD SECRETARY, WHAT SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE? THE APPLICANT. JUST THE APPLICANT. UM, MR. BLACK? CORRECT? THERE IS ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP? UM, MA'AM ARE YOU SPEAKING? OKAY. WOULD YOU BE SPEAKING? I WILL BE. OKAY. OKAY. JUST ONE SPEAKER THEN? CORRECT. OKAY, VERY GOOD. SIR, IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN. CHRIS BLACK. UH, THE ADDRESS IS 5,900 MERCEDES AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 6. GREAT. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO. PLEASE PROCEED. UH, WE SUBMITTED A SLIDESHOW. I THINK IT'S RIGHT THERE. OKAY. IS UM, SOMEBODY, SOMEBODY CONTROLLING? I MISS. OH, RIGHT HERE. THIS GENTLEMAN HERE WILL CONTROL. ALRIGHT, SO SIR, YOU HAVE AS MUCH TIME AS YOU WANNA TAKE. HOW ABOUT THAT? OKAY. JUST DON'T BE REDUNDANT. OKAY? I'LL CUT YOU OFF WHEN YOU'RE REDUNDANT, BUT PROCEED. THANK YOU. AND DID YOU, UH, DID YOU, WERE YOU HERE FOR THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING? UH, I WAS ONLINE. OKAY, GOOD. SO YOU HEARD QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP THAT JUST, THAT'S THE BEST WAY OF AS AN APPLICANT IS TO EITHER SHOW UP OR LISTEN TO THE BRIEFING. 'CAUSE YOU'RE GONNA HEAR THE QUESTIONS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE. SO IS IT BENEFICIAL TO ME TO GO THROUGH THIS SLIDE SHOW OR ADDRESS? ABSOLUTELY DO BOTH. OKAY. GO THROUGH YOUR SLIDESHOW AND THEN HOPEFULLY ADDRESS QUESTIONS YOU HEARD THIS MORNING AND THEN YOU'LL GET MORE QUESTIONS FOR US MOMENTARILY. PROCEED, SIR. SO WE'VE GOT TWO DIFFERENT VARIANCES THAT WE'RE REQUESTING CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE, TWO DIFFERENT VARIANCES THAT WE'RE REQUESTING, UM, AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL FOR TWO DIFFERENT VARIATIONS. NEXT SLIDE. UM, THE NUMBER ONE, A SPECIAL EXEMPTION FOR FENCING HEIGHT WITHIN THE 20 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. AND NUMBER TWO, A VARIANCE OF THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE STRUCTURAL SUPPORT POST. WE FEEL THAT THESE REQUESTS ARE MINOR IN NATURE. WE BELIEVE THAT THEY MEET THE INTENT AND SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WHILE MAINTAINING PUBLIC SAFETY AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTENCY. UM, THIS PROPERTY SITS ON A SMALL CORNER LOT AND THEN CREATES LIMITED OPTIONS FOR LAYOUT AND REQUIRING ADDITIONAL PRIVACY FOR THE HOMEOWNERS. THE EXISTING SITE LAYOUT RESTRICTED THE PLACEMENT OF THE NEW STRUCTURE, THEREBY ALSO LIMITING PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS AND FENCING TO SECURE THE PROPERLY PROPERTY ADEQUATELY WITHOUT COMPROMISING FUNCTION AND SAFETY. NEXT SLIDE. OUR PLANS FOR THE DETACHED A DU AND COVERED CARPORT, PROVIDING MUCH NEEDED SPACE FOR THE HOMEOWNERS AND PROVIDING SECURE COVERED PARKING FOR TWO VEHICLES RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM BOTH THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. NEXT SLIDE. IF I FIRM, IF I FIRST MAY, ADDRESS OUR SPECIAL EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR FENCING HEIGHT WITHIN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. THE INTENT OF THE FENCE ADJUSTMENT [01:15:01] IS TO PROVIDE SECURE AND FUNCTIONAL USE OF THE REAR YARD WHILE MAINTAINING A VISUALLY COHESIVE DESIGN. WE FULLY RECOGNIZE THAT THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REQUIREMENTS ARE DESIGNED TO ENSURE DRIVER AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. THE SECTION OF FENCE IN QUESTION IS ADJACENT TO THE ALLEY BETWEEN MERCEDES AVENUE AND MONTICELLO AVENUE DIRECTLY OFF OF DELMAR STREET. PRIVACY AND SCREENING ARE NECESSARY DUE TO DIRECT VISIBILITY FROM PASSING VEHICLES AND HEADLIGHTS AT NIGHT. THE PROPOSED EIGHT FOOT HEIGHT ALLOWS US TO ACHIEVE A SAFE ENCLOSED SPACE FOR HOMEOWNERS WITHOUT ENCROACHING PROPERTY OR OBSTRUCTING TRAFFIC MOVEMENT WHILE MATCHING THE EXISTING FENCE HEIGHT. NEXT SLIDE. IN REVIEWING THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WITHIN THE ROUGHLY ONE QUARTER MILE RADIUS OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED MULTIPLE HOMES THAT ALREADY INCORPORATE THE SAME FENCING CONFIGURATION. WE ARE PROPOSING 59 47 MERCEDES AVENUE. THIS IS LOCATED ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE SAME ISLAND, 58 46 MONTICELLO AVENUE. THIS IS LOCATED THE NEXT STREET, 50. NEXT SLIDE. UH, 59 47 MORNINGSIDE LOCATED ONE BLOCK OVER THESE EXISTING CONDITIONS DEMONSTRATE THAT OUR REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORHOOD APPROVING AND NEIGHBORHOOD APPROVING. THIS VARIANCE WOULD THEREFORE MAINTAIN RATHER THAN ALTER THE PRECEDENT THAT ALREADY EXISTS. NEXT SLIDE. TO FURTHER ADDRESS VISIBILITY AND SAFETY, WE ARE PROPOSING THE SECTION OF FENCING AND GATE LOCATED WITHIN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE TO BE MADE FROM WROUGHT IRON TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE VISIBILITY FROM VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS IN THE AREA. NEXT SLIDE. THESE PROPOSED FENCING MATERIALS AND FINISHES WILL MATCH WHAT IS ALREADY PRESENT ON THE PROPERTY AND THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO COMPLIMENT THE SURROUNDING HOMES. THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION DOES NOT ALTER THE STREET SCAPE IMPEDE ACCESS OR DIMINISHED VISIBILITY FOR ANY NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE. WE HAVE EXPLORED THE ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS SUCH AS LANDSCAPING OR A SWINGING GATE CONFIGURATION, BUT DUE TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, THIS HIGHER FENCE WITH A ROLLING ACCESS GATE IS THE ONLY EFFECTIVE AND DURABLE SOLUTION. NEXT SLIDE. TO RECAP, OUR DESIGN HONORS THE INTENT OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE CODE TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY. IT MAINTAINS SITE LINES, ENSURES DRIVER VISIBILITY AND ENHANCES PROPERLY PROPERTY SECURITY. THIS IS A MINOR SITE SPECIFIC ADJUSTMENT THAT DOES NOT UNDERMINE THE BROADER GOALS OF THE CODE OR SET AN UNREASONABLE PRECEDENT FROM FUTURE REQUESTS APPROVING THIS VARIANCE WOULD MAINTAIN RATHER THAN ALTER THE PRECEDENT THAT ALREADY EXISTS. NEXT SLIDE. SECONDLY, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE VARIANCE THAT WE ARE REQUESTING FOR THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE CD 11 CV. THIS REQUEST ARISES FROM UNIQUE AND UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THIS STRUCTURE HAS BEEN APPROVED BY BOTH THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND THE CITY, AND HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN RELIANCE ON THOSE APPROVALS. ONLY AFTER THE FOUNDATION WAS COMPLETED AND FRAMING WAS WELL UNDERWAY, DID THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTIFIES THAT CHANGES ON THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE REQUIRED? OUR PLANS WERE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CBN CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. OUR WORK STARTED ONLY AFTER WE RECEIVED CITY'S CONFIRMATION TO PROCEED. NEXT SLIDE. ALL WORK HAD BEEN PERFORMED IN COMPLETED IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE PERMITTED DRAWINGS. WE PASSED OUR FOUNDATION AND FOUNDATION ZONING INSPECTIONS ON AUGUST 29TH. THE FOUNDATION WAS POURED AND THE FRAMING COMMENCED ON SEPTEMBER 2ND. NEXT SLIDE. WE WERE THEN NOTIFIED BY THE CD THAT A VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED ON 9 12 25. THIS DIAGRAM SHOWS THE OVERLAY OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND THE DRIVEWAY IN RED AND THE NEW STRUCTURE IN DRIVEWAY IN GREEN. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR THE SINGULAR SUPPORT POST IN THE CORNER, CIRCLED IN PURPLE, THE CD REQUIRING REDESIGN AND RECONSTRUCTION. A REVERSAL OF THEIR PREVIOUS APPROVAL PLACES PLACES AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN ON THE HOMEOWNERS WHO RELIED IN GOOD FAITH ON THE CITY'S OWN REVIEW AND APPROVE. NEXT SLIDE. TO CORRECT THE ISSUE NOW WOULD REQUIRE DEMOLISHING A PORTION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE RE-ENGINEERING ROOF AND CEILING SUPPORTS AND RECONSTRUCTING THE CARPORT AREA ENCOURAGE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL COST, TIME AND DISRUPTION. THE HARDSHIP DID NOT RESULT FROM ACTIONS TAKEN OUTSIDE THE APPROVED PLANS. IT AROSE FROM INCONSISTENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PLANS AFTER CONSTRUCTION HAD ALREADY BEGUN. BURDEN IS NOT SELF-CREATED AND MEETS CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE. NEXT SLIDE. THE CD 11 CD GUIDELINES EXPLICITLY STATE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE MAY BE BUILT AT THE SAME REAR ART SETBACK AS THE ORIGINAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. IN THIS INSTANCE, THE ORIGINAL GARAGE ESTABLISHED A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING REAR SETBACK LINE THAT ALIGNS WITH THE POSITION [01:20:01] OF THE SUPPORT ELEMENT IN QUESTION. NEXT SLIDE. SOME EXAMPLES OF SIMILAR STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR YARD SETBACK EXIST AT 6,000 MONTICELLO AVENUE AND 6,001 MERCEDES AVENUE. BECAUSE OUR NEW STRUCTURE MAINTAINS THE SAME SETBACK AND FOLLOWS THIS ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. THIS REINFORCES THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATED STANDARDS. NEXT SLIDE. THE SUPPORT POST IN QUESTION DOES NOT ALTER THE SCALE OR VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE STRUCTURE. IT DOES NOT COMPROMISE SIGHT LINE DRAINAGE OR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. IN FACT, MAINTAINING THE EXISTING FRAMING PRESERVES THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE A DU AND HONORS THE OVERALL GOALS OF THE CD TEARING DOWN AND REBUILDING THE STRUCTURE. SOUND COMPONENT IS NOT ONLY FINANCIALLY BURDENSOME BUT ALSO ENVIRONMENTALLY WASTEFUL. DRAINING THE VARIANCE PREVENTS UNNECESSARY DEMOLITION, MATERIAL DISPOSAL AND DUPLICATION OF WORK ALIGNING WITH THE BROADER CITY'S SUSTAINABILITY PRIORITIES. THE SITUATION HIGHLIGHTS AN UNFORESEEN ADMINISTRATIVE INCONSISTENCY RATHER THAN ANY DISREGARD FOR CODE GRANTING. THE VARIANCE RESTORES PREDICTABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN PERMITTING PROCESS AND REINFORCES PUBLIC TRUST THAT HOMEOWNERS WHO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE WILL NOT BE PUNISHED FOR DOING SO. NEXT SLIDE. BOTH OF THESE REQUESTS ARE BASED ON UNIQUE PROJECT CONDITIONS AND NOT PERSONAL PREFERENCES. THE FENCE HEIGHT DOES NOT CREATE A SAFETY HAZARD OR VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION AND PROVIDES NECESSARY SECURITY. THE STRUCTURE AND FENCING DESIGN ENHANCE THE PROPERTY AND MAINTAINS NEIGHBORHOOD HARMONY CONSISTENT WITH THE REGULATIONS AND IDEALS OF THE CITY. THE REQUESTS ARE THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE HARDSHIP CREATED BY THE PROPERTY SITUATION. FOR THESE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THE BOARD TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST, THESE REQUESTS ALLOWING THE EXISTING SUPPORT COLUMN TO REMAIN WITHIN THE REAR YARD SETBACK AND ALLOWING A CONSISTENT FENCE, HIGH FENCE HEIGHT AROUND THE PROPERTY, THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY OF 5,900 MERCEDES AVENUE. WE BELIEVE THE BOARD'S APPROVAL REPRESENTS THE MOST FAIR, REASONABLE, AND COMMUNITY MINDED SOLUTION TO THIS UNIQUE SITUATION. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE, SIR? NO, THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH IT. OKAY, VERY GOOD. UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MS. DAVIS? COULD COULD YOU SHOW THE DIAGRAM OF THE, THE COMPLETED THE I I'D LOVE TO SEE THE PROPERTY AND WHERE THE FENCE IS GOING RIGHT IN THE BACK. SO I'D LOVE TO SEE THE, THE STRUCTURE OF THE CARPORT, THE, UM, THE LITTLE PAVEMENTS AND THEN WHERE THAT PROPOSED FENCE IS GOING. I THINK MR. THOMPSON'S CLICK CLICKING AND CLICKING. YEAH, THAT WOULD BE SLIDE 12. OKAY. SO THIS IS THE COMPLETED STRUCTURE? YES. ALLEY IS TO THE RIGHT, BUT THE DRIVEWAY IS COMING OUT TO THE MAIN ROAD. IT ACTUALLY TEES INTO THE SIDEWALK. AND THEN THAT'S DELMAR THE SIDE SIDE STREET THERE? YES. OKAY. AND YOU'RE PROPOSING THAT THE FENCE CONTINUES THAT WOODEN FENCE, BUT YOU'RE GONNA MAKE IT ROD IRON CONTINUES ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY AND THEN TOWARD THE ALLEY ALIGNING WITH THAT POLE. RIGHT. SO THE WOOD FENCE ON THE LEFT MM-HMM . WON'T GO ANY FURTHER. IT'S A WR IRON ROLLING GATE TO THE RIGHT OF THAT. SO IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE, UH, ROD IRON ROLLING GATE, THAT HITS A ROD IRON FENCE THAT GOES FROM THAT CORNER TO THE POST THAT'S IN THE SETBACK. AND THEN IT'S SOLID FENCE FROM THE POST, UH, COVERING THAT OPEN AREA TO THE OUT. OKAY. SO THAT'S GONNA BE SOLID. DID DID YOU CONSIDER PUTTING THE ROD IRON BRINGING THAT IN? JUST BECAUSE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES ARE, THAT'S A DIFFICULT ASK. VERY DIFFICULT ASK. AND EVEN WITH A WROUGHT IRON FENCE, IT'S STILL ONLY 50% VISIBILITY. SO I WON'T BE CONVINCED THAT THAT'S SAFE. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED TAKING INSTEAD OF GOING THIS WAY OUT AND IN, GOING IN FOR THAT FENCE, THAT'S WAY, THAT WAY YOU'RE STILL PROTECTING YOUR YARD, BUT THERE'S NO FENCING THAT'S GOING TO PREVENT, UM, ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR ACCIDENTS OR NOT SEEING A LITTLE CHILD RUNNING DOWN THE STREET OR A BICYCLE, ET CETERA? OH, WE DID CONSIDER THAT THE CLIENT WISHES. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS YOU'VE CUT OFF THAT AREA OF THE DRIVEWAY IS NOW NOT PART OF THE BACKYARD. SO YOU BASICALLY MADE A GIANT BOX THAT CUTS OFF MOST OF THEIR BACKYARD. THEY WANTED, THAT'S WHY THEY WANTED THE OPEN STRUCTURE. THEY WANTED TO DEBRIS. THEY'RE SMALL LOTS. THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, 150 FEET DEEP, 50 FEET WIDE, AND ONCE YOU START FENCING EVERYTHING OFF, NOW YOU JUST CUT OFF A THIRD OF [01:25:01] THEIR BACKYARD. THAT WAS THEIR INTENT. BUT WE DEFINITELY DID LOOK AT POSSIBLY, UH, PUTTING THE FENCE UP AGAINST THE LEFT SIDE THERE IN A GATE ACROSS THE FACE WALL. OKAY. WELL YOU, YOU HAVE A BOARD MEMBER THAT IS NOT CONVINCED THAT, WELL, LISA, THE ONE THAT, THAT'S, I'M SURE, YEAH. THAT IS NOT CONVINCED THAT THAT'S GONNA BE SAFE. SO, UM, I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW THAT'S, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I WOULD CONSIDER APPROVING QUESTION, SO MAYBE I MISSED IT HERE. MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, THE APPLICANT IS SAYING THAT HE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE REPRESENTING THE OWNER, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER IS SAYING THAT THEY GOT A PERMIT TO BUILD THIS STRUCTURE WE SEE RIGHT HERE WITH THAT POLE THAT'S IN THE BACK OF THE REAR YARD SETBACK. AND THAT WAS INCORRECTLY ISSUED. IS THAT CORRECT? I'M GOING TO DEFER TO VERY SMART OF YOU GO THE CONSERVATION. OKAY. ALRIGHT. YES. SO, SO DO I NEED TO ASK MY QUESTION AGAIN OR DID YOU NO. DO YOU GET IT? NO. SO, SO WE APPROVED IT AND IT WASN'T UNTIL THEY, UM, APPLIED FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THE FENCE THAT WE REALIZED THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE. AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE SURVEY THAT WE HAD TO VERIFY THE DIMENSIONS FOR THAT ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT, THE SURVEY WASN'T SCALING CORRECTLY. SO WE WERE ALL YOU'RE SAYING IT WAS THE APPLICANT'S, DOES THE APPLICANT PROVIDE IT'S AN INACCURATE SURVEY? NO, IT'S, IT'S MORE LIKELY THE SYSTEM. WHAT HAPPENS IS IF YOU UPLOAD A SCAN, DEPENDING ON THE PAGE SIZE, IT CAN, IT CAN ALTER THE WAY THAT THINGS SCALE. SO SOMETIMES THINGS ARE HEAR YOU SCALE CORRECTLY. MY QUESTION TO MY BOARD ADMINISTRATOR WAS DID THE CITY ISSUE THE PERMIT IN ERROR? YES, BUT WE, YEAH, WE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT IT WAS AN ERROR UNTIL THE VARIANCE WAS SOUGHT FOR. OKAY. BOY, BOY. PUT UP YELLOW STICKUM ON OUR HEAD. SO THE CITY ISSUED THE PERMANENT AND ERROR. SO HOW DO WE, HOW SHOULD THE BOARD RESPOND WHEN THE CITY ISSUES A PERMANENT ERROR? THEY WILL GO AHEAD AND BUILD IT. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND. SO, SO IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS, UH, PORTION OF THE CARPORT WAS PART OF THAT ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT WHEN WE APPROVED. THAT'S WHY WE APPROVED IT, BECAUSE OF THAT SETBACK ALLOWANCE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO MAINTAIN, UH, THAT EXISTING SETBACK. SO WE WERE APPROVING IT BASED ON SOMETHING IN, IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WE THOUGHT WAS ACCURATE PRESENTATION. I SAW THE SECTION TALKING ABOUT, UH, BRIAN, WILL YOU GO BACK TO THAT PAGE THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT? UM, THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER? NO, NO, NO, NO. CLICK THE, WITH THE, THE NOTATION WITHIN THE CD IT TALKS ABOUT REPLACING, YOU'LL GET TO IT IN A SECOND. THERE IT IS. THERE IT IS. A REPLACEMENT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE MAY BE BUILT IN THE REAR YARD, THE SAME LOCATION AS ORIGINAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, EVEN IF IT DOES NOT COMPLY. SO YOU'RE CLEARLY, THE STRUCTURE IS CLEARLY MEETING THAT, WHICH IS UNBELIEVABLE TO ME, BUT OKAY. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. SO THAT'S CITY COUNCIL POLICY. WE DON'T SET POLICY HERE. OKAY. SO WHAT THE STAFF SAID IS THAT POLE YOU DID NOT, YOU THOUGHT THAT THAT POLE THAT WE SAW THERE GO TO THAT OTHER PICTURE AGAIN? YES. OR ORIGINALLY. WELL, IS THAT IT? THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN THAT THEY HAD PROVIDED THE CARPORT WAS ACTUALLY FURTHER OUT. YEP. AND WE HAD TO PULL THEM OUT OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. YEP. WELL, THAT WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT SEPARATELY. RIGHT. WE THOUGHT THAT WHEN WE HAD PULLED THAT BACK ENOUGH THAT THAT HAD ALIGNED WITH THAT ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHY WE APPROVED. WE THOUGHT THAT WE WERE STILL IN THE ORIGINAL, IT'S VERY HARD FOR THIS BOARD MEMBER TO, UH, TO HOLD A TAXPAYER TWICE IN JEOPARDY WHEN THEY GOT A PERMISSION ORIGINALLY AND THEN, AND THEN GO THROUGH THIS. THAT'S JUST VERY HARD. OKAY. SO I WON'T TALK ABOUT THAT ANYMORE, MR. HAITZ. I JUST, UH, WANNA CLARIFY ONE THING WHEN YOU, AND I MAY HAVE HEARD WRONG. WHEN YOU WERE SWORN IN, YOU GAVE YOUR ADDRESS AS 5,900 MERCEDES AVENUE? I BELIEVE THE CLIENT'S ADDRESS. OKAY. THE, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING BECAUSE YOU GAVE THAT AS YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS. OH. WHEN YOU WERE SWORN IN, YOU GAVE US 5,900 MERCEDES AND THEN STARTED REFERRING TO YOUR CLIENT. I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR SOME CLARIFICATION OF THAT. YEAH, IT WAS CONFUSING WHEN I SIGNED UP FOR THIS APPLICA APPLICANT OR WHAT WAS THE OTHER OPTION? YOU COULD SIGN UP AS REPRESENTATIVE. REPRESENTATIVE. SO I DON'T KNOW. I APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT, SO I THOUGHT I'M THE APPLICANT AND THE ADDRESS IS 5,900 MERCEDES. THAT'S NOT YOUR ADDRESS. YOU DON'T LIVE IN THAT HOME. WELL, THEY SAID YOUR ADDRESS, I THOUGHT THEY WERE REFERRING TO THE ADDRESS OF TALKING. UH, I'M I'M ASKING YOU, DO YOU LIVE IN THAT HOME? NO, I DON'T LIVE IN THAT HOME. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO CLARIFY. OKAY. WELL, I'M LOOKING AT HIS APPLICATION. ON PAGE ONE 13 OF OUR DOCKET, IT SAYS LOCATION 59 IN MERCEDES [01:30:01] IS APPLICANT IS CHRIS BLACK. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. SOMEONE, UH, THE NEXT CASE IS, UH, MS. JENNIFER REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. SO, AND WE DID ASK HIM. HE DOES, HE SAID HE'S REPRESENTING THE HOME. OH, WELL THAT'S OKAY. WE, WE GET YOU. WHERE'S YOUR, WHERE'S YOUR, WHERE'S YOUR ADDRESS? NOT 5,900, BUT WHERE'S YOUR ADDRESS? OH, MY HOME ADDRESS OR BUSINESS ADDRESS? YOU CAN GIVE EITHER, UH, 4 8 4 9 GREENVILLE AVENUE SUITE 1330. OKAY. BECAUSE SHE HAS TO PUT THAT IN THE MINUTES. OH, OKAY. THAT, THAT'S, YOU'RE COMING SPEAKING AND IT'S YOUR NAME AT AN ADDRESS. IT GOES IN THE RECORD. GOTCHA. SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT. THAT'S OUR WORK ADDRESS. MR. YES, IF YOU CAN PLEASE FILL OUT A NEW, UM, OH, BLUE SHEET PLEASE. WHEN YOU, UH, WITH YOUR CORRECTED ADDRESS WITH CORRECT. OKAY. SO YES, YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN. MR. DR. HOPKINS, YOU'RE AT 4 9 4 8 4 9 GREENVILLE AVENUE? YES. OKAY, GOOD. OKAY, MS. SATTON, UM, MR. THOMPSON, COULD YOU PULL UP THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE, UM, WR IRON FENCE, THE KIND OF ONE THAT LOOKS LIKE A CAGE WHERE YOU CAN KIND OF SEE BOTH SIDES? THE YEAH. UM, THAT THIS ONE'S FINE. EITHER ONE'S FINE. YEAH. UM, YEAH, GO BACK TO THE OTHER ONE. I LIKE THE . SO ON THIS ONE, UM, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT WHERE THE GATE WILL BE, COMES OUT OUT, IS THAT JUST ADJACENT OR PRETTY MUCH ADJACENT TO THE SIDEWALK THEN THAT, THAT CROSSES THROUGH THERE? HOW FAR IS THAT GATE FROM THE SIDEWALK? I'M HAVING TROUBLE. IT'S TWO FEET FROM THE SIDEWALK. SO, SO THERE'S A, AND THE GATE, WHERE DOES THE GATE SLIDE? DOES IT SLIDE TO THE LEFT? YES. IT, IT GOES BACK INTO THE BACKYARD. THEIR BACKYARD. OKAY. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WOOD FENCE, BUT IT'S, IT'S LITERALLY TWO FEET FROM A SIDEWALK. YEP. OKAY. AND THEN, YEAH. YEAH. AND I, AND I THINK GOING BACK TO, UM, MS. DAVIS'S QUESTION, YOU SAID THAT THE REASON THEY DIDN'T WANNA PUT THE GATE UP ADJACENT TO THE CARPORT, SO BASICALLY BETWEEN THOSE TWO COLUMNS ARE ESSENTIALLY THERE WHERE THE HARD FENCE IS ON THE RIGHT. UM, IS BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO KEEP THAT LITTLE CONCRETE AREA AS PART OF THEIR BACKYARD. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY, THANKS. OH, AND HOW, HOW, HOW FAR IS THAT DISTANCE BETWEEN THAT EVE OF THAT CARPORT AND THAT GATE? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT DISTANCE IS? IS IT EIGHT FEET? EIGHT FEET. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU, YOU, UH, I'LL GET TO YOU ONE SECOND. MR. OVITZ. UH, YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS LIMITED OPTIONS DUE TO IT BEING A CORNER LOT. WELL, I WOULD SAY WHEN YOUR CLIENT BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, THE HOUSE WAS THERE, THE LOT WAS THERE. THE ALLEY WAS THERE. DID THEY NOT KNOW THE SIZE OF THEIR PROPERTY? I'M SURE THEY DID, BUT YOU SAID IT HAS LIMITED OPTIONS DUE TO BEING A CORNER LOT. WELL, BUT WE, WE GET LOTS OF CASES AND PROPERTY OWNERS, ABSOLUTELY THEY'RE RIGHT. IF THEY WANT YOU TO TRY TO PUT EVERYTHING IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THEY'VE GOT, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T EXCEED THE, THE LOT COVERAGE AND THOSE SORT OF THINGS, UM, LIMITED OPTIONS DUE TO A CORNER LOT. WELL, IF THEY WERE ONE PROPERTY OVER, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. BUT THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GETTING WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. I DOUBT THEY KNEW THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE RULE. WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY KABI MTOR I OR BEWARE. I KNOW. THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. I HEAR YOU. I HEAR YOU. OKAY, MR. H, PLEASE. UM, COULD WE GO BACK TO HIS PRESENTATION PLEASE? UH, MR. BRIAN, UH, MR. MR. FINE. UM, SLIDE, I THINK SLIDE THREE. WHAT IS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT? THAT'S THE OLD GARAGE. THAT'S THE, THAT'S THAT WAS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY THERE? YEAH. OKAY. AND, OKAY. I JUST WASN'T CLEAR ON THAT. UM, YEAH, THE COMMENT WAS MADE EARLIER [01:35:01] THAT, UM, IN THE MORNING MEETING THAT THE GARAGE WASN'T TORN DOWN. IT WAS REMODELED. IT WAS COMPLETELY TORN DOWN. I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR ON THAT. I LIKE THIS PICTURE. THIS IS BEFORE, YES. WELL, THERE'S YOUR ANSWER. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. SO I'M, UH, WHAT WAS BUILT IN ITS PLACE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN TORN DOWN. WHAT WAS BUILT IN ITS PLACE WAS BUILT ON THE SAME FOOTPRINT? CORRECT. SO AT THAT POINT, THEY OPENED UP THE SIDE TOWARDS THE ALLEY AND THAT BECAME A CARPORT? YES. OKAY. UM, ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DID THAT COMPLETE YOUR QUESTION? ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, SO I'M GONNA ASK A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF. MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, UM, THE CITY INCORRECTLY ISSUED A PERMIT FOR THIS, CORRECT? THE POLE, IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE ISSUED THE PERMIT FOR THIS POLE IN THE BACK TO BUILD IT WITHIN THAT THREE FOOT, THREE FOOT, THREE FOOT VARIANCE IN THE BACK. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. I'M NOT POINTING A FINGER. WE DEAL WITH THIS ALL THE TIME. SO WHAT ARE THE REPERCUSSIONS IF WE PROVE THAT VARIANCE? THE POLE STATE, THE POLE STATE, ANY OTHER REPERCUSSIONS? DOES THE POLE CREATE A VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION? NO, I CAN'T HEAR YOU. PLEASE. NO, IT DOES NOT. OKAY. AGAIN, WHAT ARE THE REPERCUSSIONS IF WE APPROVE THAT POLE THAT WAS PERMITTED ORIGINALLY AND THEN HAS BEEN TAKEN BACK? SO IF YOU APPROVE THE VARIANCE, THE POLE? YES. OKAY. AND THAT'S IT. THAT'S IT. IF WE DIDN'T APPROVE THE VARIANCE, THE STRUCTURE, WE DON'T SEE IT HERE, BUT THAT WE HAD, WOULD HAVE TO COME DOWN. 'CAUSE IT WOULDN'T BE A SOUND STRUCTURE, RIGHT? WELL, NOT NECESSARILY. THEY WOULD HAVE TO MOVE THE POLE OUT OF THE SETBACK, BUT THEY ARE ALLOWED UP TO THREE FEET OF EVES INTO A SETBACK. SO TECHNICALLY WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? SO TECHNICALLY WHERE THE GABLE IS OF THE CARPORT THAT COULD, THE GABLE BEING THE TOP POINT? YES. SO THAT ROOF STRUCTURE PORTION COULD STILL OVERHANG BY UP TO THREE FEET. UM, IT'S JUST THE POLE THAT WOULD HAVE TO MOVE. BUT WHEN I DISCUSSED THAT WITH THEM AFTER THE FACT, IT CAME TO LIGHT THAT STRUCTURALLY THAT WOULD NOT, I'M, I'M NO ENGINEER, BUT I CAN'T IMAGINE IF YOU PULL, TAKE THE POLE OUT, THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE SOUND, BUT I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT WHAT ARE THE REPERCUSSIONS OF OUR DECISION. NOW THE CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. IT IS NECESSARY TO PERMIT OF DEVELOPMENT OF A PARCEL THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM OTHERS ARE NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP. THAT IS THE CRITERIA FOR THAT THE STAFF IS RECKONING A DENIAL MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, CORRECT. ON THE VARIANCE? YES. CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. TWO, TWO ITEMS IN FRONT, IN FRONT OF US. WE HAVE THE VARIANCE FOR, I'M GONNA SAY FOR, FOR EASE, EASE THE POLE, AND THEN WE HAVE THE WORK SPECIAL EXCEPTION ON THE TRAFFIC, ON THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION CRITERIA IS, WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD. OKAY. WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. HOVI? UM, I, I DON'T THINK THIS IS NECESSARILY FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT, UM, LET'S THROW IT OUT THERE. THE, THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL GARAGE? YES. THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL GARAGE. AND WHERE THAT GARAGE ON THE ALLEY WHERE IT ENDS, THAT WHOLE SIDE OF THAT GARAGE IS NOW OPEN AND THERE'S A POLE INSTEAD OF THAT WHOLE SIDE OF THE GARAGE. IS THAT ACCURATE? YES. SO IF ANYTHING, THE VISIBILITY WAS ENHANCED BY THE CHANGE BECAUSE A WHOLE SIDE OF THE GARAGE WAS SOLID. NOW THAT'S OPEN. THERE'S JUST THE POLE. NO, THEY'RE GONNA CLOSE. THEY'RE, THE VISITING TRIANGLE IS FROM THE EDGE OF THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE TRIANGLE IS. YOU GOT THE SUPERIMPOSED TRIANGLE TOWARDS, I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT, I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THE, UM, THE SIDE YARD VARIANCE, THE SETBACK. OH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE THREE FOOT VARIANCE, THE THREE FOOT STEPBACK. SO THEY'RE SEPARATE ISSUES? YES. I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THE SETBACK. OKAY. SO WHAT IS, WHAT IS THERE NOW CONTRARY TO WHETHER IT WAS PERMITTED PROPERLY OR NOT, OR, UH, PERMITTED, UH, WHETHER THE PERMIT WAS PROPERLY ISSUED BY THE CITY IS [01:40:01] BETTER VISIBILITY THAN WHAT IT WAS? UH, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. WELL, THERE'S A CARPORT THERE INSTEAD OF THAT WHOLE SIDE OF THE GARAGE FACING THE ALLEY THAT'S SOLID THERE. SO IS THE NEW POLE EXACTLY WHERE THE END OF THAT GARAGE USED TO BE? NO, THAT'S THE, WHAT'S THAT? NO, THEY BROUGHT ONE SECOND. WE'RE TALKING OVER EACH OTHER. IS THE NEW POLE AT THE END OF THAT GARAGE WHERE IT IS THERE NOW? IT'S NOT. IT'S FARTHER CLOSER TO THE STREET, CORRECT. SO NO. OH, OKAY. SO WHAT'S THERE? IT'S FARTHER BACK. SO, SO THE THERE BEFORE DID NOT HAVE A VISIBILITY. THE ENCLOSED PART OF THE GARAGE IS WHAT'S IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT, NOT THE ENTIRE PARKING STRUCTURE WITH THE A WITH THE AWNING? NO, WITH THE CARPORT. WELL, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT IT BEING OPEN FROM THE ALLEY BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S A CARPORT. WE WILL BE PUTTING A SOLID FENCE ALONG THAT PARTICULAR SECTION. SO KIND OF A WASH. OKAY. WELL YOU'RE WANTING TO PUT IT IN A SOLID FENCE. THAT'S THE, THAT'S A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. IT'S NOT WITHIN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. NOT WITHIN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT WAS CONFUSING FOR ME. ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO PRESENT TO US, SIR? UH, OUR RULES SAY THAT THE APPLICANT PRESENTS, THEN OTHER PEOPLE SPEAK, AND THEN YOU HAVE REBUTTAL. I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU AMPLE TIME. YOU CAN SEE THE ANGST IN FRONT OF YOU. YEAH, NO, I, I I, I UNDERSTAND. UM, THE HOMEOWNER'S INTENT WAS TO GAIN MORE OF THEIR SPACE IN THEIR BACKYARD. THAT WAS THE REASON FOR, WE KNOW WHAT WE WERE UP AGAINST, AND THAT'S WHY WE PROPOSED A OPAQUE FENCE, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, A WROUGHT IRON FENCE THAT YOU CAN SEE THROUGH, UM, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE 50% VIEW. I MEAN, THEY'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HALF INCH RODS THAT ARE SPACED SIX INCHES APART. TO ME, THAT'S NOT 50%. UM, IT IS OPEN, YOU CAN SEE ALL THE WAY THROUGH IT. AND FURTHERMORE, IT'S NOT ALL THE WAY OUT AT THE ALLEY. IF I'M PULLING OUT OF THAT ALLEY, I'M GOING TO THE END OF THE ALLEY AND LOOKING AROUND ME. YOU KNOW, I'M WANNA SEE TO MY RIGHT IS A SIDEWALK AND I'M GONNA SEE A SIDEWALK TO MY LEFT. UNLESS YOU'RE DRIVING SOME CAR WITH A 20 FOOT HOOD. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE FENCE IS GONNA IMPACT YOUR VISION, BUT THAT'S MY OWN 2 CENTS. BUT THAT WAS THE HOMEOWNER'S INTENT. WE DO HAVE, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT OPTIONS WITH THEM. THEY WANTED TO ENJOY MORE OF THEIR BACKYARD. THAT'S WHY WE BUILT AN OPEN STRUCTURE SO THAT THEY, THEY DIDN'T CLOSE OFF THEIR BACKYARD TO THE SIDE OF THE GARAGE. AND WE APPLAUD THAT. JUST LIKE IN THE PREVIOUS CASE THAT YOU HEARD, WE SAID WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY, BUT THE CITY COUNCIL SETS POLICY AS IT RELATES TO FENCING AND VISIBILITY TRIANGLES AND SETBACKS. NOW, THIS IS NOT HAVING TO DO WITH HEIGHT OR OPACITY. THIS HAS TO DO WITH A, OUR, OUR, OUR CRITERIA. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT CONSTITUTE TRAFFIC HAZARD. THAT'S OUR CRITERIA. UM, I'LL, I'M BEING, OH, KAMIKA'S NOT HERE. ALL RIGHT. I'LL WAIT FOR HER TO COME BACK. UM, SHE'S NOT OKAY. UM, SO I DON'T KNOW. I'M, AND, AND I HAD ONE MORE THING TO SAY ABOUT THE, THE COLUMN. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S STILL ON THE TABLE. THE INTENT OF THAT WHOLE FRONT SIDE OF THE GARAGE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE HAS THAT EXACT SAME PATTERN. AND WE TRIED TO MIMIC THAT. THIS WHOLE STRUCTURE, JUST AS FAR AS THE SEQUENCE OF HOW THINGS WENT WHEN WE GOT THE PERMIT, IT HAD BEEN ENGINEERED. UH, WE DIDN'T JUST THROW THIS TOGETHER. WE HAD AN ENGINEER DESIGN IT. UM, WE HAD THE SLAB BOARD. WE HAD THE FRAMING PACKAGE, INCLUDING THOSE TRUSSES, WHICH WERE, UM, BUILT WITH, WITH SHOP DRAWINGS FROM THE ENGINEER. UH, ALL THAT WAS ON SITE AND FRAMING WAS UNDERWAY BEFORE WE WERE NOTIFIED THAT THAT COLUMN WAS IN JEOPARDY, WHICH CHANGES EVERYTHING. IF THAT WAS, WAS AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP BEFORE WE EVER WENT TO PERMIT. AND WE COULD HAVE DESIGNED AROUND IT, BUT IT WAS TOO LATE. AT THIS POINT, WE'RE NOT, OUR INTENT IS NOT TO TRY TO, UM, MESS WITH THE PERMIT. WE, THIS IS THE REASON WHY WE DID WHAT WE DID, WENT THROUGH ALL THE PROPER CHANNELS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT SO THAT WE KNEW WHEN WE BUILT THIS THING DESIGNED IT, PRICED IT, WROTE ALL THE CONTRACTS FOR EVERYTHING THAT IT COULD BE BUILT THAT WAY. OKAY. WE'RE ABOUT TO GO TO A MOTION. UH, OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR'S NOT HERE RIGHT NOW. SARAH, CAN YOU, CAN YOU COME UP AND ANSWER, ANSWER A QUESTION FOR ME, PLEASE? IT'S A HYPOTHETICAL. I ONLY SPEAK FOR ONE FOURTH OF THE BOARD TODAY. SO I THINK WHERE WE'RE GOING IS WE'RE GONNA CLOSE OUR EYES AND APPROVE THE VARIANCE BECAUSE THE CITY ALREADY ISSUED A PERMIT THEN REVOKED IT. BUT I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING. TELL ME WHAT PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THAT IS. POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, OR NEUTRAL. THE PRACTICAL EFFECT. THE POST, UH, LEAVING THAT GRANTING THAT LE LEAVING THAT IN GRANT. THEN THEY COULD JUST, I KNOW, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, FROM [01:45:01] A PROFESSIONAL STAFF PERSPECTIVE. IS IT NEGATIVE, POSITIVE, OR NEUTRAL? I DIDN'T SAY DENIAL OR APPROVAL. I'M SAYING I'LL GO WITH NEUTRAL. OKAY. THAT'S, I JUST WANTED TO HEAR FROM A PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVE. UHHUH, , WHAT'S YOUR, WHAT'S YOUR OPINION? IS THAT SURE. OKAY. SO, UH, CHAIR WILL, WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE VARIANCE. WAIT, BUT THE ONE IS THE VERY, THE OTHER NO ONE IS THE TRIANGLE. ONE IS SPECIFICALLY, YEAH. MOTION. MOTION. YOU WANT GO OUTTA WATER? YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GONNA DO MOTION TWO OF TWO. FIRST OTHER QUESTION, SARAH. OKAY. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE BOARD, I DON'T KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE VOTES ARE YET. HE'S HAVING HARTFORD OVER THERE. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE BOARD APPROVES THE VARIANCE AND REJECTS THE VISIBLY TRIANGLE? THAT'S STILL VIABLE STRUCTURE. THEY JUST CAN'T MM-HMM . PUT THE FENCING IN THAT VISIBLY TRIANGLE. THAT'S CORRECT. THEY COULD, UM, FIND ANOTHER CONFIGURATION THAT FENCING WORKS FOR THEM THAT COMPLIES WITH THE CODE. UH, IF YOU DENY IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THEY CAN REAPPLY WITH ANOTHER SITUATION. OKAY. I THINK HE HAS, HE'S ANGST OVER HERE. SO I'M GONNA LET HIM SPEAK BEFORE YOU DO YOUR MOTION. I'M SORRY. I, OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO HEAR THE PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON IT. MR. HKA, IF WE APPROVE THE POLL. WELL, THE VARIANCE FOR THE SETBACK. WELL, WELL, IT WAS ALSO SAID, WELL, NO, THEY COULD STILL BUILD A FENCE FROM THE, FROM THAT POLE BACK PARALLEL TO THE ALLEY. ARE THEY, IS THAT NOT THE INTENTION? NO. WELL, I SEE IT'S NOT JUST THE POLE. OKAY. HE'S RIGHT. SO VERIFY THIS FOR US SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IT'S NOT JUST THE POLE, IT'S ALSO THE SOLID FENCE FROM THE POLE BACK TO THE STRUCTURE, CORRECT? NO, NO. YES. NO. SO THAT, THAT PORTION OF THE FENCE WOULD BE COMPLETELY OUT OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THAT POINT. AND THERE ARE, AND 'CAUSE IT'S A REPLACEMENT, THEY CAN DO THAT. WELL, THERE ARE NO SETBACKS FOR FENCES. YOU CAN PUT THEM DIRECTLY ON THE PROPERTY LINE. ON THE PROPERTY LINE, EXCEPT WHERE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES COME INTO PLAY. GOTCHA. SO THAT'S A NON, ALRIGHT, SO THANK YOU. MOTION TWO OF TWO. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA 2 5 4 0 4 9 ON APPLICATION OF CHRIS BLACK GRANT, THE THREE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS 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 PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS 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 IN THE MATTER BO A 2 5 0 0 0 0 4 9. MS. DAVIS HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE THREE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK. IS THERE A SECOND? A SECOND. SECOND BY MS. HAYDEN DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MS. DAVIS, I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION, UM, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD, WOULD RESULT IN UN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE CITY APPROVED IT AND THEN CAME BACK AND DENIED IT. SO THAT IS WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. MS. HAYDEN, I AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS THAT MS. DAVIS MADE. I AGREE WITH HER COMMENTS AND I ALSO APPRECIATED MS. MAY GIVING IT WHAT SHE GOES. ALRIGHT. JUST, WELL, I I WANTED TO HEAR NOT OPINION, BUT YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION AS POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, OR NEUTRAL. AND I CAN SWALLOW NEUTRAL. I'D HAVE A HARD TIME IF YOU SAID NEGATIVE, BUT YOU SAID NEUTRAL AND I DIDN'T SET YOU UP FOR THAT. YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE QUESTION WAS COMING TO YOU. OKAY. SO I'LL SUPPORT THE MOTION AND SHAME ON OUR CITY. OH, WE GOTTA BE MORE CAREFUL ABOUT THIS. WE CANNOT TORTURE OUR PROPERTY OWNERS. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? I WOULD ADD THAT WE CAN'T TORTURE OUR BOARD MEMBERS EITHER , BECAUSE WE WANNA DO WHAT'S RIGHT AND SO, OKAY. THE FIRST TIME. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THE MOTION HEARING NONE. THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE, THE WHAT'S ON THE FLOOR IS BO, A 2 5 0 0 0 0 4 9. UH, MS. DAVIS'S MOTION TO GRANT THE THREE FOOT VARIANCE THE YEAR REAR YARD SETBACK MS. DAVIS. AYE. MS. HAYDEN? AYE. MR. OVITZ? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION TO PASSES FOUR TO ZERO IN THE MATTER BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 0 4 9. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ON A FOUR TO ZERO VOTE. GRANTS THE REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT VARIANCE AND WE'RE APOLOGIZING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY FOR SCREWING IT UP THE FIRST TIME. SO, [01:50:01] BUT, OKAY. SECOND. MOTION. MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BO A DASH 25 DASH 4 0 4 9 ON APPLICATION OF CHRIS BLACK DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE VISI VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE DRIVE APPROACH WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD IN THE MATTER BO A 2 5 0 0 0 0 4 9. UM, A MOTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY MS. DAVIS TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. SECOND. AND BY MS. HAYDEN, MS. DAVIS, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION BECAUSE I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANY FENCE, EVEN IF IT'S WR IRON, IF IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, HAS, HAS THAT IT'S, IT'S NOT COMPLETELY SOLID. I JUST DON'T TRUST IT. I THINK IT'S VERY DANGEROUS. AND BECAUSE OF THAT REASON, I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. MS. HAYDEN, I AGREE WITH MS. DAVIS AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT PROVED, IN MY OPINION, THAT THIS WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD. DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION, MR. KOBI, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. UM, WHERE THIS AREA IS LOCATED IN THE M STREETS IS VERY HIGHLY TRAFFICKED WITH PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC AND I THINK THERE WOULD BE A DEFINITE HAZARD. AS YOU'VE HEARD TODAY, THIS MORNING AND OR THIS AFTERNOON, THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT THAT'S STATE STATUTE CITY CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES OF PROCEDURE. THE BURDEN'S ON THE APPLICANT, IN MY OPINION, AS MS. HAYDEN JUST SAID, UH, THE APPLICANT, YOU DID NOT PROVE THAT THIS WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD. THEREFORE WE HAVE TO BELIEVE IT HAS THE RISK OF BEING A TRAFFIC HAZARD. THEREFORE, I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION. UH, THE MOTION WAS MADE TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO TOMORROW APPLY. AGAIN, I DOUBT IT'S SMART TO APPLY FOR THE SAME THING AGAIN 'CAUSE YOU'LL PROBABLY THEN GET DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. BUT A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE ALLOWS YOU TO APPLY TOMORROW WITH MAYBE A DIFFERENT SCHEMATIC. IF WE MADE THE MOTION TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE YOU COULDN'T COME BACK FOR TWO YEARS SO YOU CAN COME BACK TOMORROW WITH ANOTHER PLAN THAT'S UP TO YOU. YOU'VE HAD THE BENEFIT OF THE FEEDBACK. IF YOU PLAN TO SUBMIT ANOTHER SET OF PLANS, IT WILL COME BACK TO THIS PANEL. NOW WE MAY NOT REMEMBER EVERYTHING, BUT WE'RE GONNA HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF, OH YEAH, THAT GUY, THIS CASE, THESE WERE OUR CONCERNS BEFORE. WHAT IS THE NEW EVIDENCE? 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR. THE EVIDENCE AND OUR CRITERIA IS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD. SO THAT'S JUST PARTING THOUGHTS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, MS. BOARD SECRETARY MS. DAVIS. AYE. MS. HAYDEN AYE. MR. KER AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN AYE. MOTION TO DENY PASSES 4 2 0 IN THE MATTER OF BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 0 4 9. UH, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ON A FOUR TO ZERO VOTE. DENIES THE REQUEST FOR SPECIAL QUESTION, UH, FOR VISIBILITY TRIANGLE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AND WE DENIED IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. YOU'LL GET A NOTIFICATION OF OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR. THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY, THANK YOU. WE WANNA TAKE A BRIEF BREAK AND THEN WE'LL DO THE LAST CASE. THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. A BRIEF BREAK. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL COME BACK TOGETHER AT THREE O'CLOCK. IT'S 2:54 PM ON THE 18TH OF NOVEMBER, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A WILL RECESS UNTIL 3:00 PM THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I [01:59:25] OKAY. VIDEO IS BACK ON. GOOD AFTERNOON. IT'S 3:00 PM ON THE 18TH OF NOVEMBER. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS HEREBY CALLED BACK TO ORDER. UH, WE HAVE ONE LAST CASE TODAY. UM, BOA 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 1. THIS IS AT 3 1 0 AVENUE I 3 0 1 AVENUE I. SO, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, WHAT SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE REGISTERED FOR THIS CASE? THE APPLICANT AND REPRESENTATIVE. OKAY, SO THAT'S MS. HIROTO AND THE APP AND THE [02:00:01] APPLICANT IS, IS IT THE SAME OR, UH, WHAT'S THE OTHER PERSON'S NAME? THE PROPERTY OWNER? YES. WHAT'S HIS NAME? MR. FREDERICK. TERRY. FREDERICK WHAT? TERRY. TERRY, THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, THOSE ARE IN FAVOR. IS THERE ANYONE HERE REGISTERED IN OPPOSITION? NO, THE REGISTERED SPEAKERS. OKAY, THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, OUR RULES OR PROCEDURES ARE ONE IN WHICH THE APPLICANT IS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THAN ANY OTHER OTHERS THAT WANT TO, UM, COMMENT CAN PRESENT AND THEN ANYONE IN OPPOSITION CAN PRESENT. AND THEN THERE'S A REBUTTAL. SO THERE'S NO ONE IN OPPOSITION HERE TO, TO SPEAK. SO WHAT I'LL SAY IS WHAT I'VE SAID TO OTHERS. AND THAT IS I'LL GIVE YOU AS MUCH TIME AS YOU WANNA SPEAK, JUST DON'T BE REDUNDANT, AND THEN WE'LL GIVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME, UH, TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. UM, HOPEFULLY YOU LISTENED TO THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING AND HEARD COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS. UM, BEFORE WE SWEAR YOU IN, I'M GONNA PASS 61. I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN WRITING HERE FOR THIS. THAT'S OKAY. UM, IF YOU WOULD BOTH GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, 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, SIR FREDERICK TERRY, THREE 10 AVENUE I, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 5. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM IN YOUR TESTIMONY, UM, TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? OKAY. ALRIGHT, SO, UM, MS. YATO, YOU MAY PROCEED. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UM, THIS IS A THREE-PART REQUEST. UM, WE'RE REQUESTING, UH, FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR AN A DU THAT WILL BE USED FOR, UH, RENTAL PURPOSES. UM, AND THEN TWO VARIANCES, ONE FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND THE OTHER TO THE HEIGHTS. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UM, THE REQUEST HAS, UM, STRONG NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT. UM, MR. TERRY WENT BY AND PERSONALLY SPOKE WITH HIS NEIGHBORS, GATHERED SIGNATURES ON HIS PETITION. UM, HE APPROACHED EVERY HOMEOWNER IN THE NOTIFICATION AREA. SOME DECLINED TO PARTICIPATE, UM, WHICH IS FINE. UM, SOME, UM, I BELIEVE THE NEIGHBOR WAS DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH, UM, IS A RENTAL PROPERTY. UM, SO THEY DID NOT SIGN IN SUPPORT. UM, BUT WE HAVE TOOK THE SUPPORT. UH, SO IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. WE HAVE A SOMEWHAT IRREGULARLY, UH, SHAPED LOT AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT SLOPED. UM, THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT IN SCALE FOR OTHER STRUCTURES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, I HAVE SLIDES FOR TWO OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT APPEAR TO BE TALLER THAN THE MAIN STRUCTURE. UM, AND THEN ON THE CRITERIA, UM, THE SECOND SET OF CRITERIA THAT YOU HAVE CONSIDER VARIANCES. UM, ONE OF DISCUSS TWO SCENARIOS. IF THE PROJECT WAS BUILT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONE, UM, IF WE WERE TO ATTACH THE GARAGE AND SECOND FLOOR TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE THAT, UM, UH, WALL THAT IT WOULD BE ATTACHED TO IS CURRENTLY TWO BEDROOMS. BEDROOMS REQUIRE EGRESS DIRECTLY INTO THE YARD, AND THEREFORE THOSE BEDROOMS WOULD BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE. UM, THEY WOULD NOT NO LONGER MEET THAT REQUIREMENTS, AND THEN THAT WOULD TURN THIS THEIR MAIN HOME INTO A ONE BEDROOM HOME, WHICH IS NOT DESIRABLE AT ALL. UM, THE SECOND SCENARIO TO BE BECOMING COMPLIANCE WOULD TO BE TO BUILD A SECOND STORY ON THE MAIN STRUCTURE. UM, AND NEXT SLIDE THAT WOULD EXCEED 50% OF IMPROVEMENT VALUE WITH THE MAIN HOME. UM, THIS IS THE SECTION OF THE CODE THAT WAS IN YOUR REPORT THAT TALKS ABOUT THESE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NUMBER ONE AND OF THREE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, DEC AD LISTS THE PROPERTY VALUE, UM, FOR THE STRUCTURE, THE IMPROVEMENT VALUE AT APPROXIMATELY 187,000. UH, ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE IS, UM, ONE OF SEVERAL PROPOSALS MR. TERRY RECEIVED FOR THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE. AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S GREATER THAN THE IMPROVEMENT VALUE OF HIS PHONE. I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE, UH, ASSUMPTION THAT IN ORDER TO BUILD A SECOND STORY ON HIS HOME SO THAT THERE'S NOT A HEIGHT ISSUE, IT WOULD BE AT LEAST AS MUCH AS BUILDING THIS, UM, UH, DTAP STRUCTURE OF TWO STORIES, UH, BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR HAVING THE FOUNDATION TO ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE SECOND FLOOR. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UM, [02:05:01] THIS IS, YOU KNOW, AN R FIVE LOT. UM, IT'S SLIGHTLY LARGER, BUT THE ADDITIONAL AREA IS IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY WHERE WE CAN'T BUILD ANYWAY. AND THE REAR OF THE HOME, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF OPTIONS TO RECONFIGURE A GARAGE, UM, AND, AND MAKE THE, AND VEHICLES TO BE ABLE TO MANEUVER IN A REASONABLE MANNER. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UM, SO THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE HAS BEEN REMOVED. THIS IS THE FOUNDATION. UM, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED, UM, AS PART OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THE TWO STORY UNITS, UH, AND GARAGE. UM, AND NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. YOU CAN SEE THE WINDOWS THAT ARE AT THE REAR OF THE HOME FOR THE BEDROOMS. AND THE NEXT SLIDE IS JUST LOOKING AT THE DRIVEWAY TOWARDS THE STREET. AND THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, JUST, UH, ANOTHER LOOK AT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UM, AND THEN THIS IS ONE OF TWO, UH, BOTH PROPERTIES APPEAR TO HAVE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT ARE TALLER THAN THE MAIN STRUCTURE ON AVENUE J. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UM, IT'S HARD TO SEE, BUT THERE IS, UM, IT APPEARS TO BE A ROOF DECK ON TOP OF THE DETACHED STRUCTURE, UM, AND IT APPEARS TO BE TALLER THAN THE MAIN STRUCTURE. SO THAT WAS THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO CONVEY HERE. UM, MR. TERRY WILL RESIDE IN THE HOME, UH, WITH THE, UH, RENTAL UNIT. UH, HE'S INTENDING TO RENT TO COLLEGE STUDENTS, TRAVELING NURSES, UH, OR SIMILAR, UM, LOW IMPACT TENANTS, IF YOU WILL. UM, THERE'S ALSO A REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO BE COMPATIBLE IN THESE, THE STYLED ELEVATION. UM, THAT'S WHY A PITCH ROOF IS REQUIRED. IF WE WERE TO, UM, USE A FLAT ROOF, IT WOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE, BUT IT MAY HAVE BEEN A LESSER HEIGHT VARIANCE ASKED. UM, AND, UH, WE THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST. I THINK WE'VE GOT, UM, STRONG NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT AND, UH, ADDITIONAL CRITERIA REGARDING WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. UH, I BELIEVE WE NEED THAT TEST TO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE PROPERTY PARTNERSHIP. UM, AND WITH THAT, UM, I'D LIKE MR. CHAIR TO COME UP AND SEE FELT, UM, HIS ARGUMENTS FOR THE PROPOSAL TO FIX. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU. THANK YOU TO THE BOARD. UM, THIS MEETING TODAY, I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE HAD MY, MY INFORMATION FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, BUT THIS IS A CULMINATION ME ABOUT THREE AND A HALF YEARS FROM ME. UM, AND WHERE I'D LIKE TO START, AND I'M GONNA BE BRIEF BECAUSE I REALIZE I'M STANDING IN THE WAY ABOUT SPENDING THIS THING TODAY, BUT I'M GONNA BE BRIEF, BUT I DO HAVE FOUR POINTS THAT I WANNA MAKE. UM, AND I'M GONNA START OUT, FIRST OF ALL BY SAYING, UM, THE HOUSE THAT I LIVE IN AT THREE 10 AVENUE, I, UH, I PURCHASED IN IN 2022. UH, BUT I PURCHASED IT FROM MY PARENTS' ESTATE. UH, MY PARENTS BOUGHT THE HOUSE IN 1963, UM, AND WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE HOUSE IN 1963, DAD, HE, HE SAID, WE MOVED IN THREE MONTHS TO THE DAY BEFORE THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION. SO WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 62 YEARS. MY PARENTS AND NOW, AND NOW ME. UM, I LEFT DALLAS IN THE MID NINETIES AND WAS GONE FOR LIKE 24 YEARS AND JUST MOVED BACK AFTER I BOUGHT THE HOUSE. BUT I WILL SAY THAT EVERYTHING THAT'S GOOD ABOUT DALLAS, EVERYTHING THAT I KNOW THAT'S GOOD ABOUT THE CITY, IT BEGINS AT 13 AVENUE AVENUE. SO I'M NOT DOING THIS BECAUSE I'M SOME SPECULATOR AND I'M NOT AN INVESTOR. I'M SOMEONE WHO IS, UM, INVESTED IN THE WELLBEING OF THAT PROPERTY AND THE WELLBEING OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. EVERYTHING THAT'S GOOD ABOUT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. MY DAD AND MY MOTHER HAD THE REPUTATION OF BEING KNOWN AS PILLARS OF THE COMMUNITY. I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT ABOUT THAT. YEAH. AND I WANT NOTHING LESS THAN THAT. SO WHAT I'M DOING HERE TODAY IS NOT, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I'M, I'M DOING, UM, AS A PROFIT, AS A MONEYMAKING, SO OF MONEYMAKING OPERATION. AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I'M GONNA DROP INTO OCCASIONALLY TO SEE HOW THINGS ARE GOING. AS JENNIFER SAID, I AM GONNA LIVE ON THE PROPERTY. UM, SO THAT'S, SO THE FIRST THING IS I'M GONNA LIVE ON THE PROPERTY. I MEAN, THE FIRST THING IS, UH, THE HISTORY OF THAT. THE SECOND IS I'M GONNA LIVE ON THE PROPERTY. THE THIRD IS THAT, UM, JENNIFER MENTIONED THAT I DID HAVE, UH, STRONG SUPPORT IN THE COMMUNITY. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SPECIFIC. I'M GONNA SPEAK TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SPECIFICALLY BORDERING MY PROPERTY [02:10:01] TO THE SOUTH. UH, MS. ROBINSON, UH, IS AT THREE 16 AVENUE. I, UH, ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SHE'S GONNA BENEFIT FROM THIS IS WE'RE GONNA GET A NEW PRIVACY FENCE. AND I CAN SHOW YOU WHAT THE EXISTING FENCE, LIKE IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED LOOKING AT, UH, SHE'S GONNA GET A NEW PRIVACY FENCE. AND WE'RE GOING TO, SHE'S, SHE WANTS A STRUCTURE TORN DOWN ON HER PROPERTY. I'VE AGREED TO DO THAT AT NO COST TO HER. UM, MY NEIGHBOR TO THE L UH, TO MY EAST, UH, TERRY, ME STATE, UH, OOH, I CAN'T THINK OF HIS LAST NAME. BUT ANYWAY, HE'S AT THREE 11 AVENUE J HE'S ALSO GOING TO GET A NEW PRIVACY FENCE AT HIS PROPERTY. AND MY NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH AT, UH, 20 25 0 7, UH, 11TH STREET. UM, HE HAS A PRIVATE DEFENSE, BUT WE'RE GONNA, WE'LL HAVE, UH, DUAL PRIVACY FENCES. BUT, UM, WE'VE AGREED THAT WE'RE GOING TO, UH, WORK ON ERADICATING, UH, THE POISON IVY THAT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN OVER, OVER THAT AREA. SO ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS SPAN THE BENEFIT FROM WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. AND LIKE I SAID, FOR MY NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH AND THE EAST, I'M DOING THIS AT, AT, UH, NO EXPENSE TO THEM. I JUST THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. UH, AND THEN LASTLY, THE LAST THING THAT I WANNA SAY, UM, IS THAT I LOOKED AT THE HISTORY OF THE, THE VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY. UH, SO IF YOU, IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE DALLAS APPRAISAL DISTRICT, UH, UH, MARKET VALUE, LOOKING AT THE YEAR 2000, IN THE YEAR 2000, THE LAND WAS VALUED AT $2,250. AND THE, THE IMPROVEMENT FOR 12,350, THAT'S A TOTAL OF 14,006, 14,600 FOR THE, FOR THE TOTAL LAND AND IMPROVEMENT. 25 YEARS LATER IT'S 90,000 FOR THE LAND, WHICH IS A 3900% INCREASE. IT IS 187,004 60 FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH IS A 1418% INCREASE. AND THE TOTAL IS AN 1800% INCREASE IN THE YEAR 2022, THE YEAR THAT I BOUGHT THIS, UH, PROPERTY, UM, THE INCREASE IN THE, IN THE IMPROVEMENT OVER THE LAND. AND I HADN'T DONE, I HADN'T STARTED THE, THE IMPROVEMENTS AT THAT TIME. UH, THE CITY CAME BACK WITH 171% INCREASE IN THE IMPROVEMENT OVER FROM 21 TO 22 WITHOUT ANY WORK THAT GOT DOWN. AND THEN THE LAND, THE LAND INCREASED BY 45% IN THAT SAME YEAR, OR 21 OVER 22 OR 22 FOR A TOTAL INCREASE OF 117%. I'M ONLY TELLING YOU THIS BECAUSE THE CITY HAS MADE A DETERMINATION. IT APPEARS THAT NOW THIS, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS STARTING TO APPRECIATE AND NOT JUST, I MEAN, WHETHER I, WHETHER YOU'RE DEVELOPING OR NOT, THE LAND IS ALL 90,000 NOW. LOOKED AT ALL OF THE NUMBERS AND, AND, AND OF COURSE I'M GONNA APPRECIATE THE VALUE OF THE LAND BY MOVING UPON IT. BUT THE, BUT THE CITY HAS DECIDED THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO, AND I ACCEPT THAT. BUT IN ORDER FOR ME TO MEET MY TAX OBLIGATION, THIS IS ONE OF THE WAYS THAT I FEEL IS BEST TO DO. UM, A LOT OF THIS MONEY THAT I WOULD BE GETTING IN RENT WOULD GO BACK INTO MAKING SURE THAT I PAY MY TAX AND KEEP MY OBLIGATION. IT IS MY PLAN, AND IT IS MY HOPE THAT WHEN I'M NO LONGER HERE, THAT ANOTHER TERRY WILL LIVE AT THIS PROBLEM. THIS IS LEGACY. THIS ISN'T, THIS IS AN INVESTMENT IN. SO THOSE ARE THE FOUR THINGS THAT I JUST WANTED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS. UM, I GUESS JENNIFER AND I WILL BOTH ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. AND I, AND BEFORE I FINISH, I DO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. THANK YOU MS. OTTO. UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE A COUPLE, BUT I'LL, I'LL WAIT TO GET 13. I MOVED. I'LL GO AHEAD AND START. OKAY, GOOD. ALRIGHT. UH, I'LL GO TO MS. HERMO TO FIRST. SHE'S YOUR HIRED GUN. UH, THAT WAS A COMPLIMENT. IT'S A COMPLIMENT. UH, JUST MAKE SURE SHE'S FIRING BULLETS, NOT DUDS. THERE YOU GO. ALRIGHT. SO WHAT'S BEFORE US IS AN A DU FOR RENT. YES, SIR. THAT'S A HARD PILL. IT'S A HARD PILL BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCIL SAYS THAT BY RIGHT. YOU CANNOT DO IT. BUT THERE'S AN EXCEPTION PROCESS. AND THE EXCEPTION PROCESS IS COME TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND MAKE A CASE ABOUT ACCESSING DWELLING UNIT, WHICH WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. YES, SIR. SO THAT'S OUR CRITERIA. YES, SIR. UH, MY GOOD BOARD ATTORNEY SITTING DIRECTLY TO MY RIGHT. AND THERE'S A REASON WHY THE ATTORNEYS SIT NEXT TO PRESIDING OFFICERS. UM, UH, [02:15:01] I REPEAT THAT ON EVERY CASE, WHAT THE CRITERIA IS, AND I'M GONNA GO TO THE OTHER TWO IN A SECOND. SO I'M TRYING TO ZERO IN ON, UM, THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. I, I DON'T HAVE A BIAS FOR OR AGAINST, BUT I HAVE A HESITATION FOR HOW'S THAT. SO TELL ME AGAIN WHY THIS IS NOT GONNA ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. I BELIEVE IT WILL NOT BECAUSE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE. YES, SIR. UM, BECAUSE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT, BECAUSE OF MR. TERRY'S INVESTMENT AND CONVERSATION WITH HIS NEIGHBORS AND HIS INVESTMENT AND HIS, THE PROPERTY THAT HE WAS AT, UM, THE, UM, THIS IS PROVIDING A HOUSING OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE WHERE WE'RE IN A CA CITY WITH A DESPERATE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING UNITS. UM, AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE RIGHT NOW. UH, IN THE SLIDE DECK THAT YOU GAVE US, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE'RE ABOUT HEIGHTS. WE'RE GONNA GET TO THE HEIGHT ISSUE IN A SECOND. AND I CAN'T REMEMBER IF YOU SAID THERE ABOUT THE HEIGHTS OR OR OTHER, BUT YOU SAID APPEARS TO BE, YOU KEPT SAYING, APPEARS TO BE, AND YOU SAID APPEARS TO BE OTHER ADUS OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES APPEARS TO BE, OR YOU KNOW, OF THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. UH, UM, MR. CHAIR, UH, CAN SPEAK TO ONE OF THEM. UM, AND I WAS OBSERVING, UH, STRUCTURES THAT ARE TALLER THAN THE MAIN STRUCTURE. OKAY. UM, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STRUCTURES ARE. THEY COULD BE GARAGES, RIGHT? CORRECT. OR STORAGE SHEDS. CORRECT. AS OPPOSED TO THESE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. UM, AND I BELIEVE MR. TERRY HAS A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NEIGHBOR THAT, UM, THAT IS DIRECTLY BEHIND HIM THAT HAS THE DWELLING UNIT, THIS, UM, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANY HISTORY INTO HOW THAT CAME TO BE. UM, WHAT THE A DU NEXT TO HIM? CORRECT. OKAY. UM, BUT, UM, I THINK ON YOUR PREVIOUS QUESTION, I, I THINK THE CITY COUNCIL WAS NOT COMPLETELY CONVINCED TO ALLOW ADUS BY, RIGHT? OH NO, THEY HAVE NOT. UH, YES. AND THEY CREATED AN A DU OVERLAY THAT A NEIGHBORHOOD CAN IMPOSE UPON THEMSELVES TO GIVE THEM AN EASIER PATH. UM, I DO NOT BELIEVE MANY NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE ELECTED TO DO THAT. I, I WOULD THINK NOT. AND, AND THE REASON WHY DO YOU THINK, WHY DO YOU THINK THE COUNCIL CREATED THAT, NOT OVERLAY, BUT CREATED THE POLICY OF THE REQUIRE SPECIAL EXCEPTION? AND WHY DO YOU THINK NOT MANY NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE ELECTED TO USE THE OVERLAY? I DON'T THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE READ ZONE CODE. UM, JUST TO BE HONEST, I DON'T THINK THEY KNOW THAT IT'S AVAILABLE. UM, I, I KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WOULD LIKE TO DO THIS IN THEIR BACKYARD AND THEY SEE THIS PROCESS AS A BURDEN OR TOO DIFFICULT. UM, I THINK MR. TERRY'S DONE A FANTASTIC JOB WORKING WITH HIS NEIGHBORS AND HAVING THAT RELATIONSHIP. UM, I, I KNOW THAT THERE'S A DEMAND FOR THIS KIND OF HOUSING THROUGH OUR GARAGE APARTMENTS. YOU CAN SEE IT ON NEIGHBORHOOD FACEBOOK PAGES ON NEXT DOOR. UM, AND I, I THINK THERE'S APPREHENSION. I DON'T THINK EVERY LOT CAN DO IT. I WOULD AGREE. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A UNIVERSAL THING. SO I THINK THE CASE BY CASE, AND QUITE HONESTLY FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN, AND AGAIN, WE'RE NOT TAKING PREVIOUS CASES TO THIS, IT JUST, EVERYTHING THAT DEALS ON ITS OWN, THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED A LOT OF NEIGHBORS ABSOLUTELY. AGAINST IT BECAUSE THEY CORRECT FEAR, CONGESTION, TRAFFIC, ALL THESE OTHER THINGS THAT, THAT COME WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING IN IT. OKAY. TALK TO ME ABOUT THE PARKING. HOW IS IT THE PARKING, GO AHEAD. OKAY, GO AHEAD. YOU HAD ASKED EARLIER DURING THE, OR YOU WERE TALKING EARLIER DURING THE SESSION ABOUT WHERE THE, THE, THE, UH, TENANT WOULD PARK. THAT'S WHAT I'M JUST GOING TO NEXT. I WELL, WELL, WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE. UM, I, THAT, THAT WOULD BE A TWO CAR GARAGE. THEY'LL PARK IN THE GARAGE. I HAVE A WHERE DO YOU AS THE HOMEOWNER PARK? SO I HAVE A PICKUP TRUCK RIGHT NOW. UH, AND I'M, AND ONCE I GET THROUGH, IF I BUILD THIS, ONCE I GET THROUGH WITH THAT, I MAY GET RID OF THE TRUCK AND GET SOMETHING, SOMETHING DIFFERENT. IF I DO GET A SMALLER VEHICLE, I'LL PARK BACK THERE. IF NOT, I'LL PARK IN, IN THE, IN THE, UH, CIRCLE DRIVEWAY. BECAUSE THE CODE SAYS IF A MINIMUM OF ONE ADDITIONAL OFF STREET PARKING SPACE IS NOT PROVIDED, YOU'RE SAYING THE GARAGE IS FOR YOUR TENANT? YEAH, WELL, THE GARAGE, I MEAN, ONE, ONE OF ONE OF THE SPACES WOULD BE FOR THE TENANT, ONE BE PERMITTED IN THE GARAGE. YEAH. TWO CAR GARAGE. MM-HMM . ALRIGHT. AND, AND, AND I STILL HAVE THE, I STILL HAVE THE PARKING TRUCK . I I GOT YOU. I I THINK THE, HE, THE, THE CONCERN THE CITY COUNCILS HAD IS THEY DON'T WANT CARS FOR AN A DU ON THE STREET. THAT CREATES TRAFFIC THAT CREATES, THAT CREATES THE VERY THING ABOUT AVOIDING ADDITIONAL OFFICER, UH, ON STREET PARKING. OKAY. UM, ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GONNA HAVE TO NOODLE ABOUT THAT. SO YOU DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT THERE'S OTHER ADUS, YOU JUST THINK THERE IS NO, THERE'S A BUILDING. IF I'M LOOKING AT THREE 11 AND I LOOK, UH, TO MY [02:20:01] SOUTHEAST, THE NEXT HOUSE OVER HAS A BUILDING IN THE BACK OF IT. AND IT'S, AND IT'S NOT ATTACHED. IT IS A, IT IS, I MEAN, I GUESS BY DEFINITION TO A U NOW THAT, I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T SEE, I CAN'T SEE IF THEY LIVE THERE. BUT IT'S A, IT IS A TWO STORY. I MEAN, I COULD, NOW THAT THE TREES ARE, NOW THAT THE TREES ARE NOT LEAKED OUT, I COULD TAKE A PICTURE OF IT AND SEND IT TO YOU. YEAH, I'M, I'M NOT, I DON'T NEED THAT QUITE YET. ALRIGHT. IN YOUR PRESENTATION, MS. YATO, YOU SAID YOU, YOU HAD A GRAPHIC TALKING ABOUT IF YOU ATTACHED THE, THE ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE TO THE HOUSE, SOMETHING ABOUT THE BEDROOMS, I MISSED THAT. UM, YES. SO THERE'S, UH, BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENT. THE BEDROOMS NEED A, A WINDOW OR DOOR TO HAVE DIRECT EGRESS, OH, A WINDOW OR DOOR. AND THE, UM, THOSE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA YOU CAN CONSIDER IT, YOU CAN CONSIDER IF THE COMPLIANCE OPTION WOULD MAKE, UM, A PORTION OF THE STRUCTURED NON-COMPLIANT TO ANOTHER CODE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT. SO, UH, BY, IF YOU GOT THE A DU OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION, IF YOU COULD BUILD AN A DU NOT MORE THAN THE HEIGHT OF THE HOME. CORRECT. IS THAT THE, IS THAT THE STANDARD I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS WHY ARE YOU ASKING FOR 13%, 38% MORE OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND 24 FEET, SIX INCHES MORE, EXCUSE ME, NINE FEET, SIX INCHES MORE THAN THE HEIGHT? UM, I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE STANDARD THAT, UM, IS IN THE 80 DU OVERLAY. UM, MR. TERRY DESIGNED A STRUCTURE THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE A TWO CAR GARAGE AND A, A DWELLING ABOVE IT. UM, SO THAT IT, IT IS OF A REASONABLE SIZE, UM, IN AN 80 U OVERLAY, I BELIEVE THE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS STILL THAT 25% RATIO OR 750 SQUARE FEET. SO THERE IS SOME CRITERIA THAT THAT'S, AND YOU'RE AT 7 92. RIGHT. SO WE'RE IN THE BALLPARK OF WHAT THE CODE SAYS IS IN A REASONABLE SIZE FROM A DU. IT IS HARDER WITH THESE OLDER HOMES, UH, AND SMALLER HOMES TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH FLOOR AREA. UH, IS THERE A LIMIT OF LOT COVERAGE PERCENTAGE ON THE LOT? UM, 45. WHAT WOULD THIS, WHAT WOULD THIS TAKE THE LOT COVERAGE TO? UH, RIGHT. UM, SO THE MAXIMUM IS 45%. UM, THIS WOULD, WE'RE CURRENTLY AT 30%. UM, AND IT'LL GO TO 41. UH, 30 IS WITH THE GARAGE REMOVED. WELL SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME. YES. UM, THE CURRENT LOT COVERAGE IS, IS 30 30% BECAUSE THERE'S NO DETACHED GARAGE. OKAY. OH, 'CAUSE THAT'S BEEN TORN DOWN. YES, SIR. UM, AND THE PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE IS 41%, SO WE'RE STILL UNDER THE MAXIMUM 45. THE 45% YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S FOR ALL, THAT'S FOR OUR FIVE ZONING. YES, SIR. OKAY. OKAY. UM, ALRIGHT. I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL WAIT FOR A LITTLE BIT OTHER QUESTIONS, MS. DAVIS. AND THEN MR. HOVI A, A LEGAL QUESTION. IF, IF, IF THIS WAS APPROVED FOR RENT, DOES THAT MEAN THAT FOR ETERNITY, WHOEVER MOVES INTO THIS PROPERTY WILL BE ABLE TO RENT THAT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT? IF, IF THERE IS A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP? YEAH, I GUESS SO. WE'RE PROVING FOR THAT, FOR THAT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO BE USED FOR RENT. LET'S SAY THERE'S A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP, SOMEBODY ELSE YES. SOMEBODY, SOMEBODY ELSE COMES IN, YOU SELL YOUR PROPERTY, SOMEBODY ELSE COMES IN. IS THAT PERSON NOW ABLE TO RENT THAT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT? YES. THESE, EXCUSE ME. THIS RUNS WITH THE PROPERTY, NOT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THE VARIANCES AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. AND THAT, AND IT WOULD BE DEED RESTRICTED. SO THE NEW OWNER WOULD HAVE TO KNOW THAT THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO REGISTER ANNUALLY AND DEED RESTRICT TO REQUIRE THAT THE OWNER, UH, UH, OCCUPIES PREMISES AS WELL. EXTEND THAT. SO IF THIS GENTLEMAN, IF WE APPROVE THIS AND THIS GENTLEMAN DID WHAT HE WANTS TO DO, IF, IF, AND IF HE'D HAVE TO DEED, I'M READING ON OUR OUR DEAL, HE'D HAVE TO DEED RESTRICT RESTRICTED SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE OWNER OCCUPIED. IF HE THEN SOLD THE PROPERTY, WOULD THE NEW OWNER HAVE TO LIVE IN THE HOUSE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE A DU IN THE BACK OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE BACK, RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. HE COULDN'T SELL IT AND HAVE SOMEONE ELSE LIVE IN THE FRONT. THE NEW OWNER WOULD HAVE TO LIVE IN THE FRONT AND THE LEASE WOULD HAVE TO BE WITH THE NEW OWNER. CORRECT. IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO YEAH, SO LONG, I'M SORRY TO CLARIFY. SO LONG AS THE OWNER IS LIVING ON THE PROPERTY, WHETHER OR NOT, WHETHER IT BE IN THE MAIN HOUSE OR IN THE BACK HOUSE, THE OWNER HAS TO LIVE ON THE PREMISES SOMEWHERE. [02:25:02] THEY LIKE FOOT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE MS. DAVIS? UH, I GUESS THIS IS MORE OF A COMMENT. I MEAN, I LOVE THE STORY. I LOVE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT MAY I AM I JUST REALLY HESITATE WITH THE RENTAL, ESPECIALLY THAT FUTURE OWNERS WOULD BE ABLE TO RENT THIS PROPERTY. I, IT, IT APPEARS YOU HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT, BUT IT'S A PETITION. SO D DOES EVERYBODY ON THAT LIST REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE RENTING THIS UNIT? BECAUSE I MEAN, I MEAN, I, I'M REALLY, I I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THIS CURRENTLY. AND PROBABLY FOR ME TO REALLY TRUST THIS, I'D PROBABLY NEED TO SEE LETTERS FROM THESE PEOPLE SAYING, I KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. I KNOW WHAT HE'S DOING. IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T TRUST YOU, BUT IT'S JUST THIS IS A HARD ASK FOR US TO APPROVE AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR RENT. SO, UM, CAN I, CAN I SPEAK TO THAT? SO, I DON'T KNOW, I I THINK MAYBE ABOUT 60% OF MY NEIGHBORS NOW, OR HISPANIC. UM, WE DID THIS IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH. I MEAN, I HAD A NOTE IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH SAYING, THIS IS WHAT I'M BUILDING AND THIS IS WHAT I'M BUILDING IT FOR, BUT I'M GONNA READ WHAT YOU PROVIDED US. MM-HMM . IT SAYS, I HAVE REVIEWED THE VARIANCE REQUESTS AT THREE 10 AVENUE. I AND I SUPPORT THIS REQUEST. OKAY. GOOD PHONE. I'M TELLING YOU WHAT YOU SUBMITTED TO US. OH, WELL I UNDERSTAND THAT. WHAT I'M SAYING IS I HAD A, I HAD TO HAVE A NOTE IN, I HAD A SEPARATE DOCUMENT THAT I HAD IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH. IT SAYS IN SPANISH AT THE TOP A OF ITY. OH, I'M GONNA BUTCHER MY SPANISH, BUT , BUT WELL, WHAT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE HEARING, MS. HI, MOTU HIRED GUN A COMPLIMENT. UH, THIS DOESN'T SAY THAT. I UNDERSTAND. HE'S GONNA HAVE AN ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE THAT'S GONNA BE TALLER AND MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THEN FRONT STRUCTURE, AND IT'S GONNA BE FOR RENT. THIS JUST SAYS, I'VE REVIEWED THE VARIANCE OF REQUESTS AT THREE 10 AVENUE. I AND I SUPPORT THIS REQUEST. SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST HESITANT IS WHAT YOU'RE HEARING. IS THAT CORRECT? UM, AND THIS IS ON PAGE 1 59 OF OUR DOCKET. RIGHT? SO, UH, MR. TERRY HAD IN-DEPTH CONVERSATIONS WITH HIS NEIGHBORS TO GET THE SIGNATURES. UM, I STATED PREVIOUSLY THAT SOME PEOPLE HE SPOKE TO DID NOT WANT TO SIGN, UM, FOR WHATEVER REASON. WELL, THAT HAPPENS AND THAT HAPPENS. UM, BUT I THINK THERE'S MAYBE A GREATER TOLERANCE FOR GARAGE APARTMENTS AND FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE IN, UM, THESE SORT OF MIXED NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE TRANSITIONING. THERE'S DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE COMING. I, I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE HOUSING TYPE, UM, THAT, THAT IS IN DEMAND. UM, I'VE PROVIDED A COUPLE OF ARTICLES WITH MY MATERIALS, UM, HOPEFULLY THAT MADE IT TO YOUR DOCKET. THIS IS A TREND THAT DEMOGRAPHICALLY SPEAKING, MOST HOUSEHOLDS ARE SINGLE PEOPLE. ONE PERSON. AND IS IT OUR DOCKET? THERE'S A DALLAS MOORE NEWS ARTICLE. YES, SIR. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING AND A METRO TEXT ASSOCIATED REALTORS ARTICLE? YES. I JUST WANTED TO DEMONSTRATE THERE IS DEMAND FOR THIS TYPE OF HOUSING. UM, IT IS, UM, A NATIONWIDE TREND TO PROVIDE, UM, THESE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES TO SQUEEZE THEM IN WHENEVER, YOU KNOW, IN A GENTLE WAY THAT'S COMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHBORHOODS. UM, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, UM, PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT INCOME LEVELS LOOK FOR. AND I THINK THAT PEOPLE, UM, UH, PEOPLE NEED HOUSING AND I THINK THIS IS A, A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR FOLKS TO PROVIDE. UM, MR. TERRY'S WILLING TO MAKE THIS REQUEST, AND I, I THINK IT'S, UM, I THINK HE'S DONE THE HOMEWORK TO SHOW THAT THIS WOULD FIT IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD. OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT, MR. HAITZ? THE, UM, PRESENTATION THAT YOU SHOWED, THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS OF HOMES THAT YOU, UM, INDICATED THAT YOU OBSERVED THAT YOU BELIEVED HAD, UM, MULTI-STORY, UH, PROPERTY, UH, BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY. UM, MY, MY FEEDBACK ON THAT IS I COULDN'T SEE THOSE IN THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, SO, OH, I'M SORRY, BECAUSE OF TREES OR WHATEVER THAT WERE BLOCKING THE VIEW. I REALLY COULDN'T MAKE OUT WHAT WAS THERE EITHER IN EITHER OF THE PHOTOS. UM, I BELIEVE THAT MR. UH, THOMPSON ALSO OBSERVED AT LEAST ONE OF THE STRUCTURES ON HIS SITE VISIT. I'M NOT SURE IF HE PRESENTED THAT, BUT, UM, AND, AND MR. TERRY HAS, UH, TESTIFIED THAT THIS THERE. YES, SIR. YEAH. UM, MR. TERRY, UM, THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR THAT YOU SAID HAS, UM, A TWO STORY. YOU SAID IT WAS NEXT DOOR. IT HAS A TWO STORY, IT'S RENTAL. SO IF YOU LOOK AT, IF YOU, IF IF YOU'RE STAYING IN MY BACKYARD AND YOU'RE LOOKING DIRECTLY TO THE EAST, THAT'S THREE 11 AVENUE J THAT'S THE BACKYARD OF THREE 11 AVENUE J. THE HOUSE THAT'S DIRECTLY TO ITS RIGHT. OKAY. HAS THE, HAS THE [02:30:01] TWO STORY. OKAY. BUT YOU, BUT YOU, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE USE OF THAT IS? I DON'T, AND I TRIED TO GET, AND I KNOCKED ON THAT PERSON'S DOOR AT LEAST THREE ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS TO TRY TO GET THEM TO SIGN. I GOT THEIR RING CAMERA AND I LEFT THE MESSAGE EACH TIME. SURE. AND THEY NEVER GOT BACK TO ME. RIGHT. I'M JUST TRYING, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S USED FOR. OKAY. NO SIR. NO SIGN. AND THEN, UM, ALSO IN YOUR PRESENTATION REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE, AS FAR AS WHY YOU DIDN'T WANT TO DO OR WAS NOT OPEN, UH, WHY IT WASN'T LOOKED AT TO GO UP ON YOUR HOME, UM, WAS, UH, DALLAS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND A 50% IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENT. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THAT IS WE'VE DONE, DEALT WITH IT, IS THAT THAT'S ON THAT BEING IMPOSED ON SOMEONE TRYING TO IMPOSE SOMETHING ON YOU TO FIX SOMETHING. AND IF IT'S MORE THAN 50% OF THE IMPROVEMENT VALUE, THEN WE CAN'T MAKE YOU DO IT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A RESTRICTION ON THE PROPERTY OWNER AS TO WHAT THEY CAN ADD ON TO THEIR HOME AS LONG AS IT MEETS OTHER ZONING REQUIREMENTS. IS THAT, DO WE KNOW, IS THAT, IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT? THAT THAT'S, UM, THAT'S A RESTRICTION ON, ON SOMETHING BEING IMPOSED ON THE PROPERTY OWNER, NOT RESTRICTING THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR MAKING CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY COST MORE THAN A CERTAIN AMOUNT. UH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SECTION 51 A 1 0 2 D, 10 B OR I SAID THAT GREAT. THE FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE IS SHOWN. RIGHT. THAT'S A RESTRICTION ON SOMETHING BEING IMPOSED ON THE HOMEOWNER. I THINK SO. NOT ON THE HOMEOWNER DOING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. IS THAT I GOT THAT CORRECT. I, THE CITY ISN'T TELLING YOU, YOU CAN'T ADD ONTO YOUR HOME MORE THAN 50% OF THE VALUE OF IT. UM, WE PRESENTED THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION ON PREVIOUS CASES TO OTHER, OTHER SITUATIONS OF WHAT IT WOULD COST TO BRING A STRUCTURE INTO COMPLIANCE FOR WHATEVER IMPROVEMENT THAT IS DESIRED. SO, UM, I THINK YOU'RE THINKING THAT IT'S ONLY IN RESPONSE TO LIKE, UM, A CODE ISSUE OR SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN BUILT WITHOUT PERMISSION. I, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT, IT DOESN'T SAY, THE CITY DOESN'T TELL YOU HOW MUCH YOU CAN PUT INTO YOUR HOME TO IMPROVE IT. I, THE STATE OPENED THIS UP, UH, SEVERAL YEARS AGO TO EXPAND THE VARIANCE CRITERIA. UM, AND I, I THINK THERE WERE, BECAUSE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IS TRADITIONALLY NOT IN THE STANDARD VARIANCE CRITERIA, I THINK THIS WAS AN ATTEMPT TO OPEN THE DOOR SLIGHTLY TO CONSIDER MORE FACTORS FOR PROPERTIES. OKAY. SO I'LL, I'LL, I'LL ASK AGAIN THAT THAT'S NOT A RESTRICTION ON THE HOMEOWNER TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS ON A HOME OF WHATEVER TYPE THEY WANT, WHATEVER COST THEY WANT, AS LONG AS IT MEETS OTHER ASPECTS OF THE CODE, THE BUILDING CODE. SO THE, IF WE WERE TO FILE A PERMIT THAT WAS IN COMPLIANCE, IT WOULD, THESE TWO ITEMS THAT I RAISED WOULD, UM, MEET THOSE CRITERIA, BUT IT'S MORE THAN 50% OF IMPROVEMENT VALUE AND THAT IT'S, UM, WOULD PREVENT THE BUILDING CODE FROM RECOGNIZING THOSE BACK ROOMS AS BEDROOMS IF IT WAS AN ATTACHED SITUATION. SO I'M TELLING THE, I THINK THE POINT IS TO ADDRESS OTHER CODE ISSUES THAT A DEVELOPMENT HAS TO BALANCE, UM, IN ORDER TO MAKE THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT WORK. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE CODE AND THE CRITERIA. OKAY. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR ANSWER IS. UM, I ALSO, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKED LIKE, UH, JUST HOW HOME AFTER HOME OF FAIRLY SMALL ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, THAT IT STRUCK ME THAT, UM, THERE MAY BE ONE ON, ON AVENUE 11 AVENUE. I, UH, BUT YOU'RE ON AVENUE. I YOU SAID THE IT WAS BEHIND YOU WAS WHERE, WHERE THE OTHER ONE WAS THAT YOU WERE, WAS ON THE STREET BEHIND YOU YES. WAS, YEAH. IT WAS NOT ON YOUR STREET. IT IT WAS ON THE STREET BEHIND YOU. OKAY. UM, IT DIDN'T REALLY LOOK LIKE THERE WAS REALLY MUCH BEYOND SMALLER SINGLE FAMILY ONE STORY HOMES. THE, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT IS OBSERVED IS APPEARS TO ALL BE TWO STORY. SO AS THIS IS R FIVE, I THINK TO BE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND DEVELOPMENT WORK, THEY'RE GOING UP TO TWO STORIES. YEAH, I SAW THE CONSTRUCTION. YEAH. UM, AND THAT APPEARED VERY OUT OF PLACE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO ME, TO, TO THIS, THIS OBSERVER. UM, IT MAY BE THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING, BUT UM, IT DID SEEM TO BE OUT OF THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS. I WOULD SUGGEST, UH, SIR, THAT THE, THE, THE WAY THAT THEY'RE BUILDING NOW, THAT IF YOU THINK THAT'S OUTTA CHARACTER, THE CHARACTER'S CHANGING THEN BECAUSE [02:35:02] THE, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION IS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY VERTICAL. AND I, AND NOT JUST ALL, I MEAN ALL OF THOSE STREETS ARE ALPHABET STREETS. I COULD SHOW YOU SOME OTHER STREETS OUTSIDE OF WONDER. I MEAN, UH, OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FOOT RADIUS. BUT THEY'RE BUILDING VERTICAL AND NOT JUST THERE, BUT IN THE, IN THE BOTTOM DISTRICT, WHICH IS NEARBY. ALL OF THAT'S VERTICAL. YES. ONE OTHER QUESTION, UH, FOR YOU, MR. TERRY. UM, IS IT, IS IT YOUR, I GUESS IT'S YOUR BELIEF, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE A RENTABLE DWELLING UNIT BACK THERE, YOU NEED TO HAVE THAT FIRST STORY GARAGE. W WELL, IF I DON'T HAVE A GARAGE, THEN I'M GONNA HAVE TO BUILD. SO I'VE GOTTA HAVE SOMEWHERE WHERE THE, THE, THE TENANT CAN PARK. SO I'M GONNA HAVE TO MAKE SOME ACCOMMODATIONS TO THAT. WON'T, I WON'T, WON'T UNDER, ISN'T THERE A DRIVEWAY THAT GOES AROUND THERE? I MEAN, THERE'S A DRIVEWAY. YEAH, IT GOES AROUND TO THE BACK. YES. BUT DON'T, DON'T, AREN'T, THEY DON'T, AREN'T THEY SUPPOSED TO HAVE A COVERED PARKING? I DON'T, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T WANNA GET INTO, I DON'T WANNA, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S REQUIRED OR NOT. I, I'M, IT'S WHY I'M ASKING. THE REQUIREMENT IS NOT FOR A COVERED OR PROPOSED PARKING, BUT IT'S JUST ONE OFF STREET PARKING. UM, BUT IF YOU WERE TO BUILD A ONE STORY, UM, UH, A DU, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD A CARPORT BECAUSE THE LOT COVERAGE IS ALREADY AT 41%. SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE ENOUGH LAND THAT WOULDN'T WORK OUT TO HAVE A COVERED SPACE PLUS. AND THAT'S REQUIRED TO HAVE THE COVERED SPACE. IT'S NOT REQUIRED, BUT IT'S, UM, MARKET RATE KIND OF IMPROVEMENTS. I UNDERSTAND. NOT TO MENTION, IF WE, IF WE BROKE THIS INTO TWO, UH, TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO NAVIGATE THAT BACKYARD. YOU JUST COULDN'T, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PUT THE BLOCK. AND AND THEREIN LIES MY HESITATION. ONE OF MY MANY. THE LOT IS WHAT IT IS. THE HOUSE THAT'S THE, THAT'S ON THE STRUCTURE IS WHAT IT IS. YOU'RE GOING FROM 30% TO POTENTIALLY 41%, WHICH ABUTS RIGHT UP TO 45%. I ABSOLUTELY RESPECT A PROPERTY OWNER UTILIZING THEIR PROPERTY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT YOU'VE SAT THROUGH THIS MORNING, THIS AFTERNOON. OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WANTING CERTAIN THINGS ON AN ALLEY ON A FENCE AND ALL THESE SORT OF THINGS. BUT THEY'RE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL SETS AS POLICY. AND THE CITY COUNCIL SET THIS POLICY IN PLACE THAT AS A GENERAL RULE, YOU CAN'T HAVE, UM, ACCESS RENTABLE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS UNLESS YOU PROVE A, YOU GET A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. UM, AND THEN THEY TALK ABOUT TRAFFIC HAZARDS AND PARKING. SO BE CAREFUL ABOUT GETTING RID OF THE GARAGE. 'CAUSE THEN YOU HAVE A TRAFFIC HAZARD ISSUE. BUT A LOT ONLY CAN ABSORB SO MUCH. AND, UH, I THINK IT'S, I THINK YOUR STORY IS VERY, UH, IMPACTFUL AND, UM, BUT I'M TRYING TO IMAGINE, OKAY, DOES THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, DOES THE LARGER NEIGHBORHOOD, IS IT THE RIGHT THING TO DO TO PUT AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR RENT? DOES THAT CHANGE THE CHAR THAT CHANGES THE CHARACTER OF THINGS? IT JUST DOES. UM, AND I, I DON'T, I WANNA BE VERY CAREFUL TO NOT SAY, PUT MY JUDGMENT AHEAD OF YOURS. 'CAUSE I RESPECT PROPERTY RIGHTS A LOT, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO BALANCE TO WHY THE COUNCIL JUST DIDN'T SAY YOU CAN DO IT WHEREVER YOU WANT. THEY DIDN'T, JUST A MINUTE THEY DIDN'T. UM, AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, YOU'RE WANTING SOMETHING HIGHER THAN WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS. AND YOU'RE WANTING SOMETHING WITH MORE SQUARE, SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE CODE ALLOW. SO YOU'RE ASKING ALL THESE THINGS, WHICH I DON'T BLAME YOU, YOU MIGHT AS WELL TRY. BUT EVERY ONE OF THESE THINGS, THERE'S ONE STEP THEN. NOW NOT ONLY DO YOU WANT ACCESSOR DWELLING FOR RENT, THEN YOU WANT ONE THAT IS TALLER THAN THE CODE AND ALSO BIGGER THAN THE CODE. HUH. THAT'S LIFT ONE, TWO, AND THREE. I DON'T BLAME YOU, BUT I'M WONDERING, IS THAT ALL TOO MUCH FOR THAT LOT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? AND THAT'S WHAT'S GOING THROUGH MY MIND RIGHT NOW. I'M JUST ONE OF THE GROUP MS. HAYDEN'S NEXT. OKAY. OKAY. MR HOP, ITS, AND MS. HAYDEN, IT'S ACTUALLY FOR ATTORNEY, FOR BOARD ATTORNEY. UM, I WASN'T REAL CLEAR. MAYBE I GET SOME CLARIFICATION WHERE THAT, WHERE THAT WAS, WAS THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DEED RESTRICTION THE DEED RE BE RESTRICTED TO THE OWNER LIVING ON THE PROPERTY, UH, A REQUIREMENT OF HAVING A RENTAL UNIT? OR WHERE, WHERE DOES THAT REQUIREMENT COME FROM? YES, THAT IS A REQUIREMENT PROVI PROVIDED FOR IN OUR CODE WITH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. AND IT'S, IT'S EITHER WAY, RIGHT? MS, BOARD ATTORNEY, IT'S EITHER THE MAIN OR THE A DU RIGHT? OR ACCESSORY, RIGHT? CORRECT. COULD BE EITHER, BUT IT HAS TO BE ON THE PREMISES. YES. THE CODE SAYS IN GRANT [02:40:01] A SPECIAL EXCEPTION UNDER THIS SUBPARAGRAPH, WHICH IS FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR RENT. THE BOARD SHALL OR REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO ONE DEED RESTRICT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PROPERTY TO REQUIRE OWNER OCCUPANCY ON THE PREMISES. IT DOESN'T SAY WHICH HOUSE, IT JUST SAYS ON THE PREMISES, BUT YOUR INTERPRETATION IS EITHER CORRECT AND ANNUALLY REGISTER THE RENTAL PROPERTY WITH THE CITY'S SINGLE FAMILY, FAMILY, NON-OWNER OCCUPIED RENTAL PROGRAM. SO IT'S A REQUIREMENT OF THE CODE. SO, AND THIS IS PROBABLY A QUESTION FOR YOU AS WELL. THE, DOES THIS RESTRICT IT TO LONG-TERM RENTALS OR ARE SHORT, SHORT-TERM RENTALS INCLUDED IN THAT? I MEAN, ASSUMING THOSE ARE LEGAL IN THE CITY OF DALLAS OR IN THE STATE OR WHATEVER IT IS, WHOEVER MAKES SENSE THAT IT DOES NOT SPECIFY TIME EITHER. YES, I'LL SAY EITHER. SO CAN THE PROPERTY BE DEED RESTRICTED TO ALSO INCLUDE THAT IT'S ONLY LONG-TERM RENTALS OR ONLY WE CANNOT DO THAT? WHAT'S OR, OR THAT'S IT HAS TO MEET WHATEVER'S LEGALLY ALLOWED IN THE CITY OF DALLAS AT THE TIME, WHICH RIGHT NOW IS SHORT TERM RENTALS TOO. RIGHT. SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE BOARD ATTORNEY TO INTERPRET THE CODE. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S WHY SHE'S HAS . I'M STALLING FOR YOU, MS. CARLA. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ADD IT BE LONG-TERM OR SHORT TERM. WE HAVE A DIFFERENT SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROGRAM IN WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR THAT. UM, THIS IS JUST, I BELIEVE, ANNUALLY REGISTERING THE RENTAL PROPERTY IS A CHAPTER 27 PROGRAM. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION WHILE YOU'RE THAT UP, PLEASE CONTINUE, MS. HAYDEN. UM, SO THE, THE VARIANCES, SO THAT'S THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS FOR THE USE RIGHT, FOR THE RENTAL. BUT THE VARIANCES ARE, ARE FOR, YOU KNOW, THE CRITERIA THERE ARE NOT CON CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, UH, DIFFERING SHAPE, SIZE OF LOT NOT SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP. SO COULD YOU GO THROUGH THOSE, MS. OTTO, THE, YOUR, YOUR, UM, RATIONALE ON ALL THREE OF THOSE POINTS? BECAUSE AGAIN, LIKE I'VE I'VE SAID BEFORE, THOSE ARE THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT AND WE HAVE TO MAKE OUR DECISION BASED ON. SO I WANNA SEE IF THERE'S ENOUGH, UM, INFORMATION THERE WHERE I CAN MAKE AN EDUCATED DECISION. UH, SURE. SO, UM, IT'S NOT CONTRACTED PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE THE EXTENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH AND HAVE SUPPORT. UM, THE PROPERTY HAS SOME IRREGULAR SHAPE. UM, THE, BUT EFFECTIVELY IT'S A STANDARD LOT. THERE IS SOME SLOPE TO THE PROPERTY. UM, THE, THE, THE SLOPE TO THE PROPERTY IS NOT A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP. HOWEVER, THERE ARE THE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA THAT IS IN YOUR CODE ABOUT THE, UM, RELATIONSHIP OF IMPROVEMENT TO THE, UM, THE DEC A VALUE AND THE, UH, BUILDING CODE THAT I RAISED. I, I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT, UM, IS HOW WE NEED THE TEST. AND I, I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD INCORPORATE. UM, MAY I ANSWER, UH, CHAIR NEWMAN'S PROMISE EARLIER? UM, OKAY, THANK YOU. YES. UM, THE CURRENT CODE, UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS PROBABLY ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO, WAS EXPANDED PREVIOUSLY THE ONLY SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT REQUIRED THAT YOU, UH, PROVIDE D RESTRICTIONS THAT IT WAS NOT PRINTED. SO THE COUNCIL, WHEN THEY TOOK A LOOK AT THIS AGAIN, UM, THEY DID OPEN UP FOR RENTALS. SO I, I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT. UH, OUR FIVE ZONING ALLOWS FOR TWO STORY STRUCTURES. WE HAD SOME MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 30 FEET. UM, THE LOT COVERAGE WOULD ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 5,600 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA IF YOU WERE TO BUILD A NEW CONSTRUCTION AT TWO STORY OF THIS PROPERTY. SO I DON'T THINK YOU'RE OVERDEVELOPING, UM, THE PROPERTY, THE ANGLE OF THE LOT, I THINK IS WHAT MAKES IT A LITTLE TRICKY FOR THE GARAGE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE MANEUVERING AND IT HAS JUST ENOUGH MANEUVERING. IT DOES NOT HAVE A LOT OF EXTRA. AND I'VE LIVED IN A 1940 HOUSE THAT HAS, YOU KNOW, THE SIMILAR NARROW DRIVEWAY IN HERE DOING THE AUSTIN POWERS OUT BACK TO THE STREET. SO I, I THINK THIS IS TYPICAL FOR AN R FIVE SIZE LOT. I HOPE THAT HELPS. UH, THEY'RE STILL LOOKING FOR, TO [02:45:01] ANSWER MR. KO'S QUESTION. ALRIGHT, MS. OTTA, YOU JUST, MS. HAYDEN ASKED YOU ABOUT THE VARIANCE CRITERIA THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL. YES. YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WAS BECAUSE I WAS PARTY, I'M SORRY, I WAS TARDY IN PROVIDING INFORMATION TO THE BOARD. OH, OH, I I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT I'M, WHAT I HAVE HERE. YES, SIR. AND MY BOARD ADMINISTRATOR HAS BEEN TOLD ME THEY'VE CHANGED THEIR RECOMMENDATION. CORRECT. UH, BUT IT SAYS HERE THAT PART OF THE REASON DENIAL IS THE PROPERTY 7,040 SQUARE FEET, YET IT'S AN R FIVE ZONING, WHICH IS 5,000, WHICH MEANS THERE'S MORE THAN 2000 SQUARE FEET ABOVE THE FIVE R FIVE TYPICAL LOT. YES, SIR. AND THE BULK OF THAT IS IN THE FRONT YARD. IT'S IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE, THE LOT IS SHAPED. SO WE'RE NOT ASKING TO, TO ENCROACH INTO SETBACKS. UM, AND IF YOU, IF YOU WERE TO S SQUARE OFF THE LOT PAST THE FRONT OF THE HOME, IT NARROWS DOWN TO 50 FEET IN THE REAR, WHICH IS PRETTY STANDARD. AND, AND THIS GOES TO THE ISSUE OF, OF I RESPECT FOR A PROPERTY OWNER WANTING TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY, BUT AN R FIVE ONLY HAS SO MUCH CAPACITY, JUST LIKE AN R SEVEN FIVE OR ONE ACRE HALF ACRE, AND YOU GO UP EACH TIME THAT A PROPERTY OWNER IS TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THE USE OF THEIR PROPERTY. NOW WE GET THAT THAT'S TOTALLY SEPARATE FROM THE WHOLE A DU ISSUE OF WHETHER, UM, IT'S NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTING AVERY PROPERTY. SO YES, SIR. OUR, OUR TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PROPOSED IS 2,900 SQUARE FEET. SO, UM, IT, IF IT WAS A SMALLER LOT, A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, I, YOU COULD BILL GREATER THAN THIS 2,900 SQUARE FEET WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF R FIVE. OKAY. WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APP, MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF? NOT ON THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION BECAUSE YOU DON'T GIVE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THAT, BUT ON THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR HEIGHT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE, DO YOU WANNA ELABORATE ANY FURTHER ABOUT YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL? GIMME ONE SECOND. OF COURSE. SO I WAS JUST GONNA GO BACK OVER THE, UM, OVER MS. THOMPSON'S RATIONALE, WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE TO, I JUST AM GIVING YOU AN OPPORTUNITY, JUST LIKE I DID, UH, MS. MAY ON THE PREVIOUS DEAL. SO IN THE RECORD THAT WE GOT THE STAFF ON THE VARIANCES ARE RECOMMENDED DENIAL, THE TWO, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, YOU DON'T GIVE AN PINATA BECAUSE THAT IS IN THE OPINION OF THE BOARD. THAT'S CORRECT. SO I'LL LET MR. THOMPSON SPEAK TO THE, UM, DENIAL. THAT'S WHAT YOU'D LIKE. PERFECT. THANK YOU MR. THOMPSON. YEAH. SO, UM, PER ANY CASE, WE'RE KINDA LIMITED TO NOT OUR OPINION, BUT FACTS. AND SO IT KIND OF DEALS WITH THE SECOND ONE, NOT SO ONE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE THIRD ONE BEING, UH, NOT SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP. SO NOW WE TYPICALLY FOCUS ON THE MIDDLE, WHICH DEALS WITH THE SHAPE, SIZE, AND SLOPE. SO BEFORE YOU GO THERE, WHY IS THIS NOT SELF-CREATED? IT'S IT THEY'RE ASKING FOR USE AND A SQUARE FOOTAGE AND A HEIGHT BY THEIR OWN CREATION. SO PER OUR ATTORNEY SELF-CREATED IS NOT, WE ARE, WE ALWAYS, WE CAN'T FIGURE THIS, THIS ONE OUT THE SELF-CREATED THING. OH YEAH, THE SELF-CREATED PER ATTORNEYS OR DEALING WITH THE ACTUAL LOT ITSELF. AND SO I GET ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS TO BETTER EXPLAIN THE SELF-CREATED, BUT THAT'S NOT YOU REQUESTING TO VIOLATE THE CODE ALWAYS IS GONNA BE SELF-CREATED. SO OTHERWISE WE WOULD NEVER BE HERE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. UM, THAT THAT'S TRUE. BUT, UH, WE WOULD NEVER BE HERE. BUT, UH, THE SELF-CREATED, UM, DEALS WITH LIKE, IF I PURCHASED A LOT AND IT HAD SOME ISSUES ALREADY ON IT, I DID NOT CREATE THOSE ISSUES, UH, ON THE LOT. UM, YES, WE BROUGHT UP THE ARGUMENT OF, UM, EVEN LIKE WHEN SOMEONE BUILD SOMETHING WITHOUT A PERMIT, IS THAT SELF-CREATED? RIGHT? UM, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR DEFINITION FROM OUR [02:50:01] ATTORNEYS HAVE BEEN AS TO SELF-CREATED. SO MI MS, UH, BOARD ATTORNEY WERE, UH, I ASKED THE QUESTION, HE WAS ABOUT TO GO TO THE NUMBER TWO NECESSARY DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY. AND I ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT, WELL, WHAT ABOUT THE SELF-CREATED NATURE OF A REQUEST? THEY'RE ASKING FOR GREATER HEIGHT THAT'S SELF-CREATED, THEY'RE ASKING FOR MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT'S SELF-CREATED. HOW CAN, HOW CAN, HOW DOES THE, HOW DOES AN APPLICANT, LET ALONE THIS ONE GET OVER THOSE HURDLES? AND HE THREW IT TO DETER ON . AND THEN, YEAH. SO DO YOU WANNA RESPOND TO THAT? HE, HE, HE TRIED TO GIVE EXAMPLES OF THAT. WELL, AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE LOT CONFIGURATION WITH THESE VARIANCE STANDARDS. WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, WHETHER IT'S RESTRICTIVE AREAS, SHAPE OR SLOPE, THAT IT CAN'T BE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER OF COMMENSURATE WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THE SAME. RIGHT. AND THE VARIANCE IS NOT GRANTED TO CREATE A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP, MEANING THE SLOPE WASN'T SELF-CREATED THAT THEY, THAT THE RESTRICTIVE AREA BECAUSE OF AN EASEMENT, THEY DIDN'T PUT THE EASEMENT THERE. SO THAT WASN'T SELF-CREATED AND THAT IT'S SO THEREFORE IT CAN'T BE AND BUILT IN A MANNER BECAUSE THAT'S RIGHT. BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T CREATE THAT. RIGHT. I'M GONNA COME BACK TO YOU IN NUMBER TWO IN A SECOND. MS. HAYDEN. CAN, CAN YOU GUYS PUT THE, CAN SOMEONE SHARE THE, UM, THE PLAN VIEW OF THE PROPERTY, LIKE THE SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE, UM, THE ENTIRE PROPERTY WITH THE PROPOSED GARAGE ON IT THAT SHOWS THE KIND OF THE SURVEY WITH THE PROPERTY LINES? I DON'T KNOW WHERE. THANKS. IT'D BE PAGE DOESN'T HAVE IT HERE. UM, IT'S THIS ONE. I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THAT ONE, RIGHT? THAT ONE. IT COULD BE BEFORE AND AFTER. YEAH, IT, I DON'T SEE A PAGE ON IT. MR. THOMPSON. I THINK IT'S THIS ONE THAT'S, THAT'S GOT THE STACKED. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE THINKING WHILE HE'S PULLING THAT UP? I THINK AN EXAMPLE, WELL, MULTIPLE, AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE IF YOU REGRADED YOUR LOT AND THEN CLAIMED YOU COULDN'T DO SOMETHING BECAUSE OF THE GREATER THE LOT THAT WOULD BE SELF, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE SELF-CREATED. OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO IS IF, OKAY, HERE YOU GO. UH, YOU WANT THAT ONE? YEAH, THAT ONE. IT'S ZOOMED IN A LITTLE BIT MORE. UM, SO I'M LOOKING AT THE SHAPE OF THIS LOT AND IT IS TRUE THAT YOU HAVE A HUGE SETBACK IN THE FRONT, WHICH IS WHERE THE BULK OF YOUR LOT WIDTH IS, UM, IS ON THE FRONT SIDE, BUT YOU CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING IN THAT SECTION. SO I GET YOUR POINT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THIS LOT SIZE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT LESS THAN 5,000 FEET, IT DOES HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A, OF A DISADVANTAGE IN THE, IN THAT THE BUILDABLE AREA IS THE NARROWER AREA AT THE BACK. UM, WAS THERE ANY THOUGHT GIVEN TO DOING A ONE STORY APARTMENT ACROSS THERE? I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THAT YEAH, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO A GARAGE, BUT YOU WOULD STILL HAVE A DRIVEWAY POTENTIALLY WITH A PARKING SPACE ON IT. UM, YOU KNOW, WITH A ONE STORY UNIT ACROSS, I, I'M JUST, I'M JUST THROWING THIS OUT THERE JUST BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYONE UP HERE IS STRUGGLING WITH THE, THE TWO VARIANCES AND THAT THEY'RE VERY SIGNIFICANT, BOTH OF 'EM AND, YOU KNOW, SO I'M JUST, I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION AS TO WERE, WAS THERE SOME REASON THAT YOU DIDN'T GO THAT ROUTE? I THOUGHT BUILDING A GARAGE WOULD ENHANCE THE VALUE OF THE HIGH, AND THERE'S, AT LEAST IN THIS MEMBER'S OPINION, THERE'S A LOT TO BE SAID ABOUT DOING THE GARAGE, BUT THEN IT BECOMES A BIGGER ISSUE WHEN YOU'RE ASKING FOR GREATER HEIGHT, GREATER SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND A FULL RENTAL IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I I I GRANT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT IT, THE IMPROVE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY BUILDING A NEW GARAGE. BUT THE, THE THREE OTHER ASKS MAKE IT A STRETCH. SO THE SINGLE FAMILY DESIGNATION DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY'RE OWNER OCCUPIED. OUR NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY THROUGH THE NORTH IS A RENTAL. UH, HOME. I, I DID, I DIDN'T SPECIFY OWNER OCCUPIED. I JUST SAID SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. YES SIR. I DIDN'T SAY OWNER OCCUPIED. I GET THAT. YES SIR. YEAH, RENTALS ARE, YEAH, THAT'S, YEAH. I SAID I AM SURROUNDED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE RENTING HOUSE AND THEY DO THAT BY, RIGHT. NO. AND SO, AND I RESPECT THAT AND THAT'S UNDER THE CODE AND WE FOLLOW THAT SO FORTH. OKAY. WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? HMM. OKAY, SO WHAT [02:55:01] QUESTION ARE WE IN? WE ON THE RENTAL ISSUE OR MR. THOMPSON, DID YOU WANNA DID THAT? DID YOU WANNA FURTHER, I KNOW, LET'S GO BACK TO MY QUESTION TO THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND THAT WAS TO EXPLAIN FURTHER IF THEY COULD, IF SHE COULD THROUGH YOU THE TWO DENIALS. NO OPINION ON THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, BUT THE TWO DENIALS TO YOU, MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR OVER TO MR. THOMPSON. I'LL PULL IT UP. HE'S, WHILE HE'S DOING THAT, MS. HARIMOTO AND THEN MR. TERRY, UM, ON PAGE 1 59 OF OUR DOCKET, YOU HAD SUBMITTED THIS, THIS, UM, SUPPORT DEAL. WHAT BEGS THE QUESTION HERE IS DO THESE INDIVIDUALS THAT SIGNED THIS, NUMBER ONE, ARE THEY TENANTS OR PROPERTY OWNERS? BECAUSE NO DISRESPECT, BUT TENANTS DON'T, ARE AREN'T, DON'T HAVE STANDING NUMBER TWO. IT JUST SAYS I'VE REVIEWED IN ER'S REQUESTS. IT DOESN'T SAY, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS, THIS PERSON IS GONNA PUT A TALLER AND BIGGER FOR, UH, ADDITION AND I HAVE A RENTER IN IT. UH, TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION, I HAVE, I ONLY GOT, UM, PALMER'S SIGN. OKAY. OWNER OWNERS AS OPPOSED TO TENANTS? YEAH, ONLY I ONLY, YEAH, THE TENANTS, I DIDN'T ASK JUST A HOMEOWNER AND I EVEN WROTE LETTERS TO SOME WHO DON'T LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO, TO GET THEIR SIGNATURE. GOTCHA. THE FIRST PART. SO THE SEC, WHAT WAS THE SECOND QUESTION? I'M SORRY. THE SECOND QUESTION WAS THE CLARITY OF THE REQUEST ON THE PETITION. WE GET PETITIONS ALL THE TIME. EITHER WE DON'T GET ANYTHING OR WE GET SOMETHING THAT IT, IT DOESN'T TAKE US TO THE SUBJECT. IT JUST IS A, AND THEN WE GET SOME THAT ARE VERY ARTICULATE SAYING, UH, WE'RE FOR, WE'RE AGAINST THIS WALL THAT'S THIS HEIGHT, THAT'S THIS COLOR AND THIS CHANGE OF USE IN THIS PARTICULAR THING HAS GOT EIGHT PEOPLE ON IT. BUT IT JUST DOESN'T SAY WHAT THE REQUEST IS. IT DOESN'T SAY FOR A RENTAL THAT'S TALLER AND MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN IS ALLOWED. AND, AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, I ACTUALLY HAVE A SEPARATE PARAGRAPH IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH. I JUST DIDN'T BRING IT. I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T THINK TO BRING IT, THAT THAT EXPLAINS WHAT WE WERE DOING. AND THEY, THEY READ THAT PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH AS FIRST LANGUAGE, I GAVE THEM THE PARAGRAPH, THEY READ IT, THEY SIGNED, AND I HAD SOMEONE WHO SPOKE SPANISH EDITED FOR ME TO MAKE SURE IT WAS, IT WAS MR. HOPKINS COHERENT. UM, REQUEST NUMBER TWO AND THREE WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED IF THIS WAS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL USE AND NOT RENTAL. IS THAT CORRECT? UM, THE FIRST IS FOR TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY FOR RENT REQUEST TWO IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE THIRD IS FOR HEIGHT. SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS YES, BUT THE FIRST IS WITHOUT THE FIRST, WELL, YOU COULD DO THE SECOND AND THIRD, BUT IT COULDN'T BE FOR RENT. OH. BUT YOU'D HAVE TO STILL DO A, A ACCESSORY USE FOR FOR NON-REAL. YEP. YEP. MR. THOMPSON OR MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, DID YOU WANNA OPINE? I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THE STAFF'S PROFESSIONAL DECISION MAKING PROCESS. YES. SO IF YOU LOOK AT NUMBER TWO, UH, ON THE SCREEN, UH, THIS IS WHAT WE BASE ALL OUR BEARINGS ON. UM, SO OBVIOUSLY THE FIRST ONE, LIKE I SAID, DEALT WITH UM, PUBLIC INTEREST. THE THIRD ONE, LIKE I SAID, DEALS WITH THE SELF-CREATED. SO NUMBER TWO DEALS WITH THE VARIANCE OR NECESSARY TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIFIC PORTION OF LAND THAT DIFFERS FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE LAND BY BEING SUCH RESTRICTED AREA, SHAPE OR SLOPE THAT IT CANNOT BE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER OF COMMENCEMENT WITH DEVELOPMENT UPON OTHER PARTS OF THE LAND WITH THE SAME ZONING. [03:00:01] SO WHEN WE'RE TAKING A LOOK AT OUR CASE, AND THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR, I'M LIMITED TO LOOKING AT THIS LOT SIZE AND THIS LOT SHAPE AND THIS LOT AREA. AND SO IS IT RESTRICTIVE? UM, AND COMPARE IT TO OTHER LOTS THAT ARE R FIVE. THAT'S WHAT I'M LIMITED TO. NOT MY OPINION, NOT MY BELIEF. I'M LIMITED TO IS IT RESTRICTIVE? IS IT A RESTRICTIVE SHAPE, IS IT A RESTRICTIVE SLOPE? AND SO WHEN I DEALT WITH THE SLOPE SIDE OF IT, I MEAN I FELT LIKE THERE IS A SLOPE, HOWEVER, THERE'S A RETAINING WALL THERE. SO THEREFORE IT NOT RESTRICTING IT FROM BEING A BUILDABLE AREA, UM, NOT GOING TO GO INTO ANY PARTICULAR CASE, BUT WE'VE SEEN CASES WHERE THE LAND SLOPES OFF SO MUCH WHERE IT DROPS 10 FEET, LIKE THAT'S A RESTRICTIVE SLOPE, YOU KNOW. AND THEN WE HAVE SOME IRREGULAR SHAPES WHERE IT GOES IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION WHERE IT'S NOT 60 FEET IN THE FRONT AND 49 IN THE BACK, IT'S 49 IN THE FRONT AND 12 IN THE BACK. I MEAN, SO I JUST WAS LIMITED TO WHAT I COULD AND COULD NOT RECOMMEND. AND THEN THE AREA IS 7,000 SQUARE FEET. UM, YEAH. AND AGAIN, LIKE THE THING, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, 7,000 SQUARE FEET, I CAN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, AREA R FIVE ZONING FRONT YARD SETBACKS ARE 20 FEET. BUT IN THIS AREA, THIS HOUSE IS SETBACK 24 FEET. SO THAT EXTRA FIVE FEET ALONG THAT, THAT'S AREA THAT YOU CAN'T REALLY BUILD IN FRONT OF THAT FIVE FEET AND DO NOTHING WITH IT. BUT FOR WHATEVER REASON, WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT AND THIS AREA WAS DEVELOPED, THEY PUT IT BACK AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET. BUT THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE'RE LIMITED TO AND IT'S NOT VERY EXPANSIVE FOR US. IT'S JUST VERY LIMITED INFORMATION. AND I HAD TO KIND OF BASE IT OFF THAT I WHAT ABOUT RELATING TO THE HEIGHT? UH, THE HEIGHT, AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S A TWO STORY STRUCTURE. UM, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS, THE MAJORITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS ONE STORE. AND I, AGAIN, I HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT IS THE MAJORITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S WHY I POINTED OUT DURING MY SITE VIDEO, THE TWO STORY STRUCTURES THAT WERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, AND TO THE HOMEOWNER'S POINT, ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA IS GOING UP BECAUSE WHAT WAS BUILT IN 19 40, 19 50, 19 60 IS NOT WHAT'S BEING BUILT IN 20 23, 20 24, 20 25. IT'S, IT'S IS SOMEBODY HAS TO BE THE FIRST TO TRANSITION THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YEP. SO WHAT'S THE, IN R FIVE ZONING, WHAT'S THE HEIGHT LIMITATION? 30 FEET MAX HEIGHT. 30 FEET. YES. AND WHAT'S THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED SECONDS? 24. 24 6. SO, SO IT, THE, THE ADDITIONAL NINE FOOT SIX INCHES IS ONE, IT'S RELATION TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE. THAT'S THE ISSUE. IT'S ONE STORY. YEAH. NOT THE FACT THAT IT'S TOO HIGH. CORRECT. BUT IT'S IN RELATION TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE, WHICH, WHICH AGAIN, THAT THEREIN THEREIN FALLS ARE, CREATES OUR HESITATION. NOT ONLY IS IT MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT ALSO IT'S HIGHER AND THEN IT'S ALSO AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. OOPS. FOR RENT ALSO. AND THOSE ARE THE STAIR STEP BARRIERS THAT YOU SEE US STRUGGLING WITH. AND HOW DO I SAY THIS? I DON'T THINK WE'RE AGAINST, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE FOR, AND SO THERE WE ARE. RIGHT. I THINK THESE TYPE OF BARRIERS ARE WHY YOU DON'T SEE MORE OF THESE REQUESTS, ESPECIALLY IN THESE SMALLER LOTS BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S A DIFFICULT, UH, YOU KNOW, CRITERIA TO MEET. WE DON'T SET THE CRITERIA CITY COUNCIL DOES. AND THEN THERE'S THE PART TWO, THE THE FINANCIAL AND THE OTHER CODES FOR YOUR OPINING ON THE STAFF'S, UH, APPROACH ON HEIGHT AS WELL, SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND THEY RECOMMENDED DENIALS. OKAY. QUESTION. SO THEY A SO I KNOW MY BOARD ATTORNEY, AS SOON AS I TURN MY BACK TO HER, SHE'S GONNA SAY I WOULD PREFER A MOTION ON THE FLOOR BEFORE WE DEBATE. OH, YES YOU CAN. THANK YOU MS. CARLISLE. MS. BOARD ATTORNEY. SO YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT A CONDITION FOR LONG-TERM OR SHORT-TERM RENTAL. AND SHORT-TERM RENTAL ISN'T AN ALLOWED USE IN THIS DISTRICT. UM, IS NOT, WE HAVE SHORT-TERM RENTAL WATCHING, WHICH IS A FULL OR PARTIAL RENTAL RENTABLE [03:05:01] UNIT CONTAINING ONE OR MORE KITCHENS. ONE OR MORE BATHROOMS AND ONE OR MORE BEDROOMS THAT IS RENTED TO OCCUPANTS FOR FEWER THAN 30 CONSECUTIVE DAYS PER RENTAL PERIOD. AND, UM, THE DISTRICT'S PERMITTED BY RIGHT, DO NOT INCLUDE A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. SO THEY COULDN'T RENT FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE FOR A PERIOD OF LONGER THAN 30 DAYS. SO THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE A CONDITION BECAUSE THAT IS ALREADY PART OF THE CODE AND THAT YOU STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL PARTS OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE. SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO, UM, RENT FOR A PERIOD OF LONGER THAN 30 DAYS. UM, AND WE, WE ARE STILL IN LITIGATION WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS. SO THE CODE COULD CHANGE AND THAT COULD, UM, BUT I, I RECOMMEND NOT PUTTING A TIME PERIOD OF, OR A LIMIT AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME JUST TO KNOW THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THIS 30 DAYS OR MORE. THANK YOU. NOW MY OTHER COMMENT WAS YOU WOULD PREFER A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AS OPPOSED TO WAS DEBATING? YES, I WAS GIVING YOU THAT WAS A SOFTBALL. YES. YES, THAT WAS A SOFTBALL TOUR. 'CAUSE I THINK WE'RE SIDEWAYS RIGHT NOW OF NOT KNOWING WHERE WE'RE GOING AND WE COULD CONTINUE HAVING CONVERSATION, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING, JUST SPEAKING FOR 1 0 4 HERE THAT I LOOK AT OUR FACES. SO, ALRIGHT, YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL, MR. MOTO FOR OUR RULES. I I DON'T WANT TO TORTURE THE BOARD. WE ARE TORTURED RIGHT NOW, BUT I'M NOT SAYING IT'S YOUR DOING, IT'S JUST, YEAH. UH, THE, I WISH THE CODE WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR ON HOW THEY WANTED ADUS TO BE TREATED. UM, IT IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WHICH DOES GIVE US AN EASIER TEST ON THE DWELLING UNIT RATHER THAN A VARIANCE. UM, THE, THE SECOND PART OF THE VARIANCE CRITERIA IS, IS WHAT I'M HANGING MY HAT ON TO MAKE THE STRUCTURE MAKE SENSE. UM, AND STAFF DIDN'T SPEAK TO THAT BECAUSE WE DID NOT BRING THAT INFORMATION IN EARLIER. WE JUST BROUGHT IT IN TODAY. SO I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S FAIR. UM, BUT WE, WE THINK THIS IS A GOOD USE FOR THE PROPERTY. WE THINK THE NEIGHBORS UNDERSTAND WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING. UM, WE THINK IT IS A CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR, FROM THE RENTAL PERSPECTIVE AND THE SCALE, UH, AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE HOME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION OR WE COULD JUST DISCUSS IT AND, AND HAVE HER BEAT ON MY SHOULDER SAYING, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A MOTION OF THIS MONKEY . I'M JUST PLAYING BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT YOU WANT ME TO DO. UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO, GUYS. OKAY, THAT GETS SOMETHING ON THE FLOOR. YEAH. AT LISA. GOOD? YES. UM, OKAY. WAIT, THAT'S THIS ONE. YES. YEAH. UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REQUEST NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 4 0 6 1. AM I THE RIGHT ONE? YES. ON APPLICATION OF JENNIFER HUMO, DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR RENT ON A SITE DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE AS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT BRINGING THE APPLICATION WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IN THE MANNER BO A TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 0 6 1, MS. DAVIS HAS MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR RENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. THE MOTION'S BEEN SECONDED. UH, NOW, NOW WE GO TO DISCUSSION. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MS. DAVIS, THEN MR. KOVI, I JUST CAN'T GET BACK. I I CAN'T GET PAST THE FOUR RENT THAT IT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND THAT WE ARE ALLOWING FUTURE TENANTS TO DO THE SAME THING. THANK YOU MS. DAVIS. MR. KOVICH DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I I DON'T, I'M NOT SEEING WHERE THIS IS ADDING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, IT'S NOT IN CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT THE EVIDENCE THAT WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED. UM, AND SO I CANNOT SUPPORT IT. OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MS. HAYDEN? UM, YOU KNOW, I STRUGGLE WITH THIS ONE BECAUSE I PERSONALLY DON'T FEEL THAT IT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. I MEAN, I I KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER RENTAL PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, AND THAT'S BEEN TESTIFIED TO. AND THE FACT THAT THE HOMEOWNER HAS TO LIVE ON THE PREMISES IF THEY DO RENT IT, UM, I'M NOT SURE. I'M, I'M NOT, [03:10:01] I DON'T FEEL THAT IT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES TO CREATE A WILLING UNIT THAT'S A RENTAL. I, I'M JUST UNCONVINCED AS I SAID BEFORE, I'M NOT FOR IT, BUT I'M NOT AGAINST IT. AND IF I'M NOT FOR IT, BUT NOT AGAINST, THAT MEANS I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TO BE FOR IT. AND SINCE THE CITY COUNCIL HAS CREATED A STANDARD THAT WE HAVE TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THAT MEANS I HAVE TO, I HAVE TO BE CONVINCED BEYOND MY HESITATION IN THE NEGATIVE. SO THAT SOUNDS LIKE DOUBLE TALK. IT'S NOT THE, UH, WE'VE SAID ALL DAY LONG AND WE SAY, OR EVERY TIME WE MEET THE BURDEN'S ON THE APPLICANT. UM, UH, I WOULD AGREE WITH, UM, YEAH, SO THAT, SO I, SO I CAN'T YET SUPPORT, I CAN SUPPORT THE MOTION BECAUSE I CAN'T SUPPORT THE REQUEST. YES. MR. HAPI, UM, IN VOTING ON MOTION ONE, ARE WE VOTING PURELY ON THE ISSUE OF A, OF A RENTAL UNIT? ARE WE VOTING ON THE ISSUE OF A RENTAL UNIT AS HAS BEEN REQUESTED IN THIS, IN, IN THE ENTIRETY OF THIS CASE? WHAT IS BEFORE US AND WHAT, WHAT IS BEFORE US AS THE FIRST OF THREE REQUESTS IS A REQUEST TO HAVE AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR RENT. THAT'S CORRECT. AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR RENT. THAT IS WHAT'S BEFORE US. AM I CORRECT? THAT'S, THAT'S SIMPLY IT. I WON'T DESCRIBE IT ANY FURTHER. THAT'S THE REQUEST. UM, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THE SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATIONS, WHICH GOES TO THE EXCESSIVELY DWELLING FOR RENT. SO I, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FROM OTHER PANEL MEMBERS. SO WHAT'S YOUR RATIONALE? WHY DO YOU FEEL THAT IT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WHEN OTHER PROPERTIES ARE BEING RENTED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I GUESS I, I'M, I WANNA UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU GUYS ARE COMING FROM ON THAT. I GUESS MY QUESTION TOO WOULD BE HOW MANY OTHER PROPERTIES ARE RENT? HOW DO WE KNOW HOW, HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT PROPERTIES ARE RENTING? HOW DO WE KNOW IF THAT IS THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY? SO IT'S JUST, AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST THAT FUTURE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST SAYING, OKAY, THIS CAN BE RENTED, YOU KNOW, IN PERPETUITY. AND IT'S JUST, IT'S A LOT OF RISK FOR ME BECAUSE I, I HAVEN'T, THE CASE HASN'T BEEN PROVEN THAT THIS IS GOING TO POSITIVELY OR THIS, THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN THAT IT WILL NOT NEGATIVE NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE PROPERTIES. MY MY MY OPINION OF THAT IS, UM, THE OTHER HOMES THAT ARE THE OTHER PLACES THAT ARE FOR RENT, THEY'RE RENTING THE PRIMARY SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE, ON THE LOT'S. NOT A A A, YOU CALL IT, THIS IS BASICALLY AN APARTMENT THAT'S GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED. IT'S NOT THE HOUSE THAT'S ON THE LOT. AND THE MA THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAY HAVE A LOT OF RENTAL PROPERTIES, BUT THEY'RE RENTING THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY. BUT TO ME THAT'S, THAT'S A, A MATERIAL DIFFERENCE AND WHETHER IT'S SIMILAR TO THE OTHER LEVEL. DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, MS. HAYDEN? YEAH, SO I GUESS KIND OF ALONG THE SAME LINES, IF THEY WERE TO BRING IN SOME OTHER NEIGHBORS TO TESTIFY, UM, TO THE, YOU KNOW, OTHER NEIGHBORS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IF THEY, IF THEY WERE, IF, IF, IF, IF MR. TERRY WERE TO HAVE BROUGHT IN SOME NEIGHBORS SAYING, HEY, YOU KNOW, I OWN THIS PROPERTY, IT'S BEEN RENTED, MR. TERRY'S FAMILY HAS BEEN IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE THE SIXTIES. WE KNOW HIS INTENT IS GOOD, HE'S NOT GONNA DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT HIS PROPERTY. I MEAN, IF THAT WERE, OR IF THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY TESTIFIED AND IN LETTERS, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD SWAY YOUR OPINION ON THAT? I GUESS? IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT WOULD PUT YOU OVER THE EDGE? I KNOW IT'S A HYPOTHETICAL, BUT I'M JUST, I'M JUST CURIOUS. UH, I'LL GO, UM, I, I THINK IT WOULD GIVE MORE CLARITY, BUT I'D ALSO WANNA KNOW SPECIFIC, I MEAN, I'D WANNA LOOK AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HOW MANY OF THEM HAVE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS? HOW MANY OF THEM ARE TWO STORY? I MEAN, I REALLY WANT A VERY DEEP DIVE INTO THAT. AND THEN I'D ALSO WANNA KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE RENTING THEIR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND HAS IT ADVERSELY AFFECT THEIR PROPERTIES. SO I GUESS I'D WANT THOSE THREE THINGS. SO YES, THE PETITION'S NOT ENOUGH FOR ME TO THINK THAT THERE'S NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT, SO THAT'S ONE OF THEM. AND THEN I'D WANNA KNOW WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YEAH. FOR ME, I MEAN, UM, AT MOST, UH, AT MOST IT'S, THERE'S BEEN ASSERTION OF 1 1 2 STORY, A DU THAT MIGHT BE BEING RENTED. THE REST OF THE RENTALS THAT HAVE BEEN REFERENCED ARE ALL, AGAIN, THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY. NOT AN A D NOT A, NOT AN A DU IS THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE OF THE PROPERTY. UM, SECONDLY, [03:15:02] YOUR QUESTION ABOUT CHARACT, UH, MR. MR. TERRY'S CHARACTER CERTAINLY IS NOT PART OF ANY OF THIS, BUT AS HAD BEEN MADE CLEAR TO US MANY TIMES, THESE DECISIONS ARE ON THE PROPERTY. MR. TERRY MIGHT LIVE THERE ANOTHER 50 YEARS. GOD LOVE YOU LIVE AS LONG AS YOU CAN LIVE. UM, HE MAY A SITE TO SELL IT NEXT WEEK, YOU KNOW, SO IT'S, IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT MR. TERRY'S CHARACTER AT, AT ALL. I MEAN, UH, I'M SURE HE'S, HE SEEMS TO BE A VERY FINE CHARACTER AND OF SINCERE MOTIVES. SO THAT'S NOT REALLY PART OF WHAT'S FACTORING INTO MY DECISION AT ALL, BECAUSE AS HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR TO US MANY TIMES, WE'RE DECIDING ON ADD FINITE FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD TIME ON THAT PLOT OF LAND. WHAT, WHAT'S ALLOWED, MS. HAYDEN, SO IF I, IF, IF THE THREE OTHER, SINCE WE ONLY HAVE FOUR, IF THREE OF YOU WERE TO APPROVE THIS, AND IF, IF THREE WERE TO APPROVE AND ONE WERE TO DENY, THAT MEANS THE MOTION DENIES. AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS, UH, CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, CITY COUNCIL, APPROVE ORDINANCE AND OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND VARIANCES REQUIRE 75% APPROVAL OF A PANEL OR MINIMUM OF FOUR VOTES. IF A MOTION IS MADE THAT IS LESS THAN FOUR WITHOUT ANY SUBSEQUENT MOTION IS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. NOW WHAT IS USUALLY HAPPENS, AND THIS BORDER ATTORNEY DOUBLE CHECKING RIGHT NOW, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THAT, UH, WHAT USUALLY HAPPENS WHEN A MOTION IT FAILS, IT GOES THREE TO ONE OR WHATEVER, UM, IS A MOTION IS MADE JUST TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO THAT ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK. BUT OUR DEFAULT ON A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT FAILS IS IT'S DENIED WITH PREJUDICE IF IT DOESN'T MAKE FOUR VOTES AND THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. AM I, AM I, ONE SEC. AM I CORRECT? I'LL ABIDE TO CLARIFY WHAT THE CHAIRMAN SAID IS CORRECT, HOWEVER, THAT IS, IT'S TO DECIDE IN FAVOR OF AN APPLICANT. SO THAT WOULD BE TO GRANT WHAT REQUIRES FOUR. BUT THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE FOUR VOTES. IT JUST REQUIRES MAJORITY. SO THAT WOULD BE THREE VOTES SHE WAS SPEAKING. TWO, IF IT DIDN'T GET FOUR VOTES, IF IT WAS A THREE TO ONE VOTE RIGHT. BUT BECAUSE THIS IS A DENIAL, THEN IT WOULD PASS AND IT WOULD BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I'M ASSUMING THESE ARE THREE SEPARATE ISSUES. THE FIRST ISSUE IS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A FOUR RENT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THE SECOND IS WHETHER A STRUCTURE IS ALLOWED ON THAT LOT WITH THAT HEIGHT AND A STRUCTURE WOULD BE ALLOWED ON THAT PROPERTY WITH THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE. RIGHT? IT'S REGARDLESS OF, OR DOES ONE KILL THE OTHER TWO? NO, IT DOES NOT. OKAY. SO IT THEY'RE ALL SEPARATE. ALL SEPARATE. OKAY. IT'D BE KIND OF STRANGE THOUGH BECAUSE WE'RE WE, IF WE DENIED THE FIRST AND APPROVED THE SECOND AND THE THIRD, WHAT ARE WE APPROVING? THERE'S NO, YOU, YOU RIGHT. YOU CAN BUILD IT TO THE PLAN. YOU CAN BUILD IT HIGHER AND BIGGER. YOU JUST CAN'T RENT IT. BUT DON'T YOU STILL NEED ACCESSORIES FOR ESPECIALLY WITHOUT RENTAL OR NO. IS THAT RIGHT? FOR RIGHT. AND R FIVE DOESN'T HAVE ALL THREE. IT HAS ALL THREE, WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE TO HAVE PERMISSION FOR IT. RIGHT. SO YOU COULDN'T DO IT BY RIGHT. IF IT HAS ALL THREE COMPONENTS. RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO WE'LL CROSS SEPARATION. ALRIGHT, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR DEBATE FOR DISCUSSION IS, UH, THE MOTION BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 1 IS A MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THIS IS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR RENT. THAT IS WHAT'S ON THE TABLE. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MS. BOARD SECRETARY? THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. MS. BOARD SECRETARY. CALL THE VOTE. MS. HAYDEN. AYE. MR. OVITZ, WAIT A MINUTE. HOLD ON. HOLD ON A SECOND. STOP A SECOND. YOU SAID MS. HAYDEN, CORRECT? MS. DAVIS ANSWERED . OKAY, LET'S START OVER. BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE FOR BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 1. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR RENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THAT'S WHAT THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS. NOW LET'S START OVER. [03:20:01] MS. HAYDEN. WHAT, MS. DAVIS OR HAYDEN? I COULD HAYDEN GO TO THE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE. MARY, PLEASE. MS. HAYDEN , UM, NAME MR. OVITZ? AYE. MS. DAVID? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN. AYE. MOTION FAILS THREE TO ONE. PASSES. PASSES, SORRY. PASSES THREE TO ONE IN THE MATTER, BOA 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 1. UH, THE BOARD APPROVES ON A VOTE OF THREE TO ONE A MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. OKAY? YES. CAN I JUST CLARIFY THE QUESTION WAS ASKED IF WE APPROVE THE NEXT TWO, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU APPROVE THE NEXT TWO? THEY CAN BUILD BIGGER AND LARGER. THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO REMOVE EITHER THE KITCHEN, BATHROOM OR THE, WELL, THEN WE CAN'T DO APPROVE SOMETHING WITHOUT DIFFERENT PLANS. RIGHT, BUT YOU'RE JUST APPROVING, YOU'RE NOT APPROVING WHAT'S IN THE INSIDE. YOU'RE JUST APPROVING THAT IT CAN BE HIGHER AND WOW. LARGER. WELL, THAT STICKY WICKED IS, IS WHAT THAT IS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UH, THE NEXT ITEM, UH, WE HAVE TWO MORE MOTIONS. TWO MORE ISSUES. THE NEXT ONE IS A VARIANCE TO THE FLOOR AREA FOR THE STRUCTURE SQUARE FOOTAGE. UH, THE CHAIRMAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 4 0 6 1. HANG ON, ON THE APPLICATION OF JENNIFER. HI MOTO. GRANT, THE 265 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE FLOOR AREA FOR A STRUCTURE ACCESSORY TO THE SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATIONS. BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LIT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE WAIT YES AS 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 SUB SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY MS. DAVIS IN BO A 2 5 2 0 0 0 0 6 1 IS A MOTION TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR 265 265 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE, THE FLOOR AREA, FLOOR AREA, UM, AS REQUESTED. IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? I'LL SECOND. IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MS. DAVIS? I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WILL, UM, HURT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. MS DATE MS EIGHT. SO THE THREE CONTR CRITERIA, NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. UM, KIND OF BACK TO WHAT I SAID BEFORE, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. UM, THE FACT THAT IT ISN'T KIND OF AN IRREGULAR SHAPED LOT AND THE EXISTING HOME SITS BACK 25 FEET FROM THE SETBACK ON THE LARGEST PART OF THE BUILDABLE AREA, MAKES IT CHALLENGING TO CREATE A, A STRUCTURE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S FOR THE SAME REASON. UH, THE SHAPE OF THE LOT AND THE SETBACK AND THE, THE BUILDABLE AREA BEING SO SMALL IN THE BACK, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S A SELF THAT THAT'S SELF CREATED. THANK YOU MS. HAYDEN. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO GRANT THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 200 CT FIVE SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE. MR. HA, MR. HOP, GRIFF, I GUESS WE'RE PAST HAVING, BEING ABLE TO ASK A QUESTION APPLICANTS. NO. OH, YOU COULD ASK QUESTION. I WANNA UNDERSTAND EXACTLY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS MOTION PLEASE. THE 265 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE THAT'S BEEN ASKED FOR IS BASED ON THE LIVABLE AREA OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED OR DOES IT INCLUDE THE GARAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE? MISS BOARD ADMINISTRATOR? CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? UM, I'LL ASK IT A DIFFERENT WAY. DOES THE 265 SQUARE FEET APPLY TO THE ENTIRETY OF THE TWO STORIES OR, OR JUST THE LIVABLE AREA ON THE SECOND STORY? JUST THE LIVABLE AREA. OKAY, THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION. I, I'M SORRY. SO I, I AM I AM THIS DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? YES. SO, SO, UM, UM, MR. TERRY MAY DECIDE HE WANTS, WANTS MORE SPACE IN HIS HOUSE TO LIVE IN, BUT CAN'T ADD ONTO THE HOUSE FOR WHATEVER REASON, MAY WANT TO HAVE A ADDITIONAL SPACE IN THE BACK OF HIS HOUSE WHERE HE CAN, UH, FOR ADDITIONAL LIVING AREA FOR HIMSELF. I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT. OKAY. SO WALK ME THROUGH AGAIN, THE [03:25:01] REQUEST IS TO BUILD A STRUCTURE THAT IS 265 FEET MORE THAN THE 25% OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE. RIGHT. ALRIGHT. SO, AND BASED ON THE PLAN SUBMITTED, 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE APPROVING, RIGHT? HAS TO BE THE PLAN SUBMITTED. THEN I HEARD THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SAY, BUT IS IT THREE ITEMS? AND, AND I HEARD YOUR STAFFER, MR. THOMPSON SAID YES, IT'S THREE. THEN YOU SAID THEY'D HAVE TO CHANGE THE PLANS TO TAKE ONE OUT. SO I'M CONFUSED. WE WERE DISCUSSING, UM, THE DIFFERENTIATE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE VERSUS AN A DD, AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT. SO RIGHT NOW THEY'RE DOING, THEY WERE REQUESTING BASICALLY AN A DU, WHICH THE CODE REQUIRED BASICALLY AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR RENT, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE HERE. BUT WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE HERE. BECAUSE THEY HAD THREE COMPONENTS, CORRECT? BRIAN? THREE COMPONENTS. SO IF THEY WERE PROPOSING A, AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT ONLY HAD A KITCHEN AND A BEDROOM OR A BATHROOM AND A BEDROOM, THEN IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE BOARD APPROVAL. THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE TO COME HERE FOR THE HEIGHT AND THE FLOOR AREA RATIO. BUT IF THIS MOTION PASSES, IF, IF IT PASSES, WE'RE GIVING THE APPROVAL FOR THE HOMEOWNER, THE PROPERTY OWNER, TO BUILD A STRUCTURE THAT'S 265 FEET MORE THAN THE 25% OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE. THAT'S CORRECT. ARE ARE WE SAYING ANYTHING IS TO THE USE? NO. WHICH MEANS THEY CAN USE IT ANY WAY THEY WANT OTHER THAN FOR RENTAL. CORRECT. AND THAT'LL BE ADDRESSED WHEN THEY GO FOR ACTUAL PERMITTING DURING THEIR BUILDING PLAN WOULD BE FOR PERMITTING. AND THAT THAT SAME THOUGHT PROCESS IS APPLIES TO THE HEIGHT. IF THE BOARD WAS TO APPROVE THE NINE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT, WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHOEVER HE OR SHE MAY BE TODAY OR TOMORROW, CAN BUILD A STRUCTURE THAT'S NINE FEET, SIX INCHES HIGHER THAN WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS. CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S NOT TALKING ABOUT THE TYPE OF USE. I MEAN, IT'S NOT GIVING ANY LICENSE TO RENTAL, CORRECT? IT'S NOT GIVING ANY YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. DISCUSSION. AND THE MOTION, THE MOTION, SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO APPROVE, UH, THE VARIANCE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE STRUCTURE. I, MY COMMENT WOULD BE, OKAY, LET ME THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A SECOND. UH, YOU REALLY THINK THE LOT, THE LOT HAS A DIFFERENT SLATE OR SHAPE SLOPE WHEN IT'S 2000 SQUARE FEET LARGER THAN A TYPICAL 5,000 R FIVE 2000 SQUARE FEET MORE. BUT YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS HAVE AN INTERPRETATION OF , THE AREA SHAPE AND SLOPE, THE SETBACK. OH, I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN. IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S A LARGER LOT, BUT IT'S MORE TAKEN UP BY THE 25 FEET. OKAY. OKAY. YES, MS. DAVIS AND BE, I MEAN, WE'RE APPROVING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY PROVING THE ROOF, SO, OKAY. THE HEIGHT. THANK YOU. SO, IN MY OPINION, SOMETHING WITHOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE NEXT MOTION IS GONNA BE APPROVED. I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD HURT NEIGHBOR PROBLEMS. AND IT GIVES HIM THE EXTRA SPACE THAT HE NEEDS TO USE FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE HE WANTS TO. OKAY. I'LL SUPPORT IT UNDER THAT VERY HOSPICE, WHICH HE JUST SAID. BUT IF YOU WAIT TILL THE NEXT ONE COMES. ALRIGHT, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSION. THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. THE VOTE IS ON BO A 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 1. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO GRANT A 265 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE OF THE FLOOR AREA RATIO FLOOR AREA, PERIOD. MS. DAVIS . AYE. MS. HAYDEN AYE. SO ARTICULATE. MR. HAITZ. . AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN? AYE. MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FOR THE ZERO. OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. UM, [03:30:01] LAST ITEM. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A NINE FOOT SIX INCH VARI TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT. MS. DAVIS. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 4 0 6 1 ON APPLICATION OF JENNIFER HERE MOTO, DENY THE VARIANCE TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT FOR STRUCTURES ACCESSORY TO SINGLE FAMILY USE 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 IN THE MATTER OF BO OA. 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 1 A MOTION BY MS. DAVIS HAS BEEN MADE TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE BUILDING A VARIANCE TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY MR. OVITZ DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION BECAUSE I, I, I THINK IT VERY WELL COULD AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. I'D WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOW MANY ARE, UM, TWO FEET HIGH, OR, SORRY, TWO STORIES HIGH. AND I, I HAVEN'T BEEN, AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT, JUST THAT THIS IS NOT ENOUGH FOR ME TO REALLY TRUST THAT THE NEIGHBORS TRULY UNDERSTAND WHAT'S, WHAT'S GOING ON OR WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN THAT PROPERTY. THANK YOU, MS. DAVIS. MR. OVITZ, UM, IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENT, I SAW NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S SUBSTANTIAL ANY SUBSTANTIAL REPRESENTATION OF TWO STORY STRUCTURES, UM, SITTING BEHIND ANY, ANYBODY, ANY OTHER PROPERTY THERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I, I WILL BE IN FAVOR OF DENYING THIS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THE MOTION, MS. HAYDEN? I AGREE WITH DENYING THIS ONE FOR THE SAME REASONS. UM, ALMOST 10 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT IS, IS EXCESSIVE TO ME AND I FEEL THAT THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE TO ADDRESS THE HEIGHT ISSUE, UM, AND KEEP IT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN CHARACTER WITH, WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. I WOULD AGREE. MS. BOARD SECRETARY CALL THE ROLE. ARTICULATE THE RULE. MS. DAVIS. AYE. MS. HAYDEN? AYE. MR. HLU? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN? AYE. MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE PASSES FOR IN THE MATTER OF BO 8 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 1. THE MOTION TO DENY THE BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE HAS BEEN APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY A VOTE OF 40 ZERO. YOU'LL GET CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. THAT IS THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA. UM, HOLD ON A SECOND. NINE. NINE. UM, SO WE ARE OFF IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER. OUR NEXT PANEL A MEETING IS JANUARY 20TH. JANUARY 20TH, 2026. UH, SEEING NOTHING ELSE IN THE AGENDA, UM, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AT FOUR 30 OF THE, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOVE TO ADJOURN. IT'S BEEN MOVED. I SECOND AND SECOND. AND ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED THE BOARD, UH, UNANIMOUSLY. VOTES TO ADJOURN AT 4:34 PM ON THE 18TH OF NOVEMBER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. * 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.