[00:00:03]
ALL RIGHT, WELL, IT'LL TAKE ME A MINUTE TO READ THE SPEECH.
[Board of Adjustments: Panel B on January 21, 2026.]
SO GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.I'M PARKER GRAHAM AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS THE TEMPORARY PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR ITS PANEL B.
TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21ST, 2026, WITH A TIME OF 1:00 PM AND I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL B TO ORDER FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING, BOTH IN PERSON AND HYBRID VIDEO CONFERENCE.
FOUR OUT OF FIVE OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS IS PRESENT, AND THEREFORE WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE MEETINGS.
THE PANEL MEMBERS PRESENT TODAY INCLUDE ME, PARKER GRAHAM, MICHAEL QUINT, STUART CAMPBELL, ANDREW FINNEY, AND THAT'S IT FOR NOW.
STAFF PRESENT INCLUDE THERESA CARLISLE, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, DR.
KAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF PLANNER, MARY WILLIAMS, BOARD SECRETARY AND MEETING MODERATOR.
BEFORE I 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 THAT TIME.
WE OPERATE UNDER CITY COUNCIL APPROVED RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE.
NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT.
EACH CASE IS DECIDED UPON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED EACH USE IS PRESUMED TO BE ILLEGAL USE.
WE'VE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY STAFF BEFORE THIS HEARING AND HAVE ALSO REVIEWED A DETAILED PUBLIC DOCKET, WHICH EXPLAINS THE CASE AND WAS POSTED SEVEN DAYS BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY CASE THAT WE WILL HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD SECRETARY WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED.
THIS EVIDENCE MUST BE RETAINED IN THE BOARD'S OFFICE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD IN EACH CASE, APPROVALS OF A VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION, OR REVERSAL OF A BUILDING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL DECISION REQUIRES 75% OR FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF A FULL FIVE MEMBER PANEL.
ALL OTHER MOTIONS REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE LETTERS TO THE BOARDS OF THE BOARD'S.
ACTIONS TODAY WILL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING AND WILL BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.
ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK BEFORE TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY, MS. WILLIAMS. EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES OR WHEN A SPECIFIC CASE IS CALLED FOR ITS PUBLIC HEARING FOR A MAXIMUM OF FIVE MINUTES.
ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
NO TELECONFERENCING WILL BE ALLOWED VIA WEBEX.
ALL COMMENTS ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE ORDER.
FIRST, UH, MS. WILLIAMS, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS REGISTERED? NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS REGISTERED, SIR.
THEN WE'LL START BY TAKING, UH, THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR DOCKET, WHICH WHICH IS APPROVAL OF OUR NOVEMBER 19, 20, 25 MINUTES.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? HEARING NONE WILL TAKE A VOICE VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR, UM, OF MR. CAMPBELL'S MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, SAY AYE.
THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES PASSES FOUR TO ZERO.
THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR DOCKET IS APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES OF PROCEDURE.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THAT ISSUE? MOVE TO ADOPT THE ADMITTED RULES OF PROCEDURE? IS THERE A SECOND? I, ANDREW FINN SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALRIGHT, THEN WE'LL DO A VOICE VOTE ON MR. CAMPBELL'S MOTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDED RULES OF PROCEDURE.
MR. CAMPBELL'S MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDED BO OA RULES PASSES FOUR TO ZERO.
NEXT WE HAVE, UH, CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 0 9 4.
THAT'S FOR THE FEE WAIVER OF $1,200 AT THE PROPERTY AT 1151 RIDGEWOOD LANE.
MS. WILLIAMS, ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS ON, UH, ON THAT CASE? THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
AND AND HER NAME IS MS. APRIL ERIA.
ALRIGHT, MS. RENTERIA, ARE YOU HERE? GREAT.
IF YOU'LL PLEASE COME ON UP TO THE PODIUM AND MS. WILLIAMS IS GONNA SWEAR YOU IN AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT?
[00:05:02]
CAN YOU TURN THE MICROPHONE ON? YES.CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE? MY NAME IS RIA AND MY ADDRESS IS 1 1 5 1 WESTWOOD DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 1 7.
UM, I AM HERE TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, MY FAMILY AND I DID MOVE IN THERE AND A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MIC, PLEASE.
WE DID MOVE IN THERE AND YOU CAN MOVE IT CLOSER IF YOU 2005.
UM, WE DID ADD THE ADDITION OR THE STORAGE SHED IN 2007.
UM, ONE OF MY FAMILY MEMBERS DID COME TO CITY HALL.
SHE DID SAY SHE DID PAY A FEE ON IT, UM, BACK IN 2005.
I'M NOT SURE IF THE UM, BUT, BUT HAS CHANGED THROUGHOUT.
I DO WANNA SAY IN 2014 THE PROPERTY TITLE WAS CHANGED TO MY SISTER.
WELL, SHE'S THE OWNER AND WITH THOSE CHANGES WE DID BELIEVE THAT EVERYTHING WAS IN COMPLIANCE AND UP TO DATE.
UM, HOWEVER, IN 2005 WE WERE NOTIFIED BY THE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER THAT THE ADDITION DID NOT HAVE A PERMIT.
UM, EVER SINCE WE HAVE BEEN, UM, WITH, UM, THE JEFFERSON TO TRY TO BE UP IN THE COMPLIANCE AND SEE WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO IN ORDER TO BE UP TO CODE.
UM, IN 2000, I'M SORRY, 2022, MY MOTHER DID PASS AWAY, SO WE DID MOVE HER BELONGINGS TO THE STORAGE.
I BROUGHT MY LITTLE DOGS WITH ME AND WE'VE BEEN USING IT FOR A SHIFT FOR OUR DOGS, UM, FOR LIKE HARD, UM, SORRY, I'M NERVOUS.
UM, WE DO USE IT FOR LIKE HARD STORMS, HEAT, UM, HARD RAINS FOR MY DOGS TO NOT BE OUTSIDE.
UM, WE WERE NOTIFIED SINCE THEN AND WE HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY, UM, UH, JEFFERSON CITY OF UM, HALL, WHICH IS HERE TO TRY TO SEE IF WE'RE ABLE TO BE UP TO CODE OR ANY, UM, UM, WHAT IS THE FEES THAT WE NEED TO PAY AND THAT IS A LITTLE BIT OF THE BACKGROUND ON THE PROPERTY.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YES.
UH, FIRST THANK YOU FOR COMING HERE TODAY.
I REALLY APPRECIATE HEARING FROM YOU.
MY NAME'S STUART CAMPBELL AND UH, JUST TO CLARIFY, SO THE ADDITIONS THAT ARE IN QUESTION TODAY WERE ADDED IN 2007, IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? YES.
SO IT'S BEEN ROUGHLY 19 YEARS SINCE THEN? YES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE OH, I'M SORRY.
SO NO, UM, HELP, HELP US UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS GONNA BE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP FOR YOU.
UM, CURRENTLY I AM TAKING A PART-TIME JOB.
UM, I WAS LEFT WITH MY LITTLE BROTHER TO TAKE CARE OF HIM.
UM, I AM EXPECTING, SO THOSE APPOINTMENTS DO COME IN AND I'M NOT ABLE TO WORK A LOT AND THEN MY WAGE DOESN'T REALLY COVER MUCH.
DOES YOUR SISTER STILL OWN THIS HOUSE? SHE DOES, BUT SHE DOESN'T LIVE THERE.
SO YOU'RE LIVING IN THE HOUSE, YOUR SISTER OWNS IT? YES.
AND, AND YOU'RE PAYING RENT TO YOUR SISTER? NO.
IT'S JUST THE BILLS OF LIKE THE WATER OR LIKE THE LIGHTS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? JUST ON THE QUESTION OF THE FEE WAIVER? ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION? UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE FEE WAIVER AT, UH, 1 1 5 1 RIDGE, I MOVE, UH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IN, UH, BO OA 25 0 0 0 9 4 F1 ON APPLICATION OF MS. RIA TO GRANT THE REQUEST DELAY THE FILING FEES TO BE PAID IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE OF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT STRUCTURES.
UM, UH, SINGLE FAMILY, UH, SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATIONS AND REQUEST VARIANCE FOR THE FLOOR AREA AND STRUCTURE OF ACCESSORY TO THE SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATIONS AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT AND FEE WOULD RESULT AND THAT SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IS APPLICANT.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR MR. CAMPBELL'S MOTION? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.
ANY DISCUSSION ON MR. CAMPBELL'S MOTION? YEP.
THE REASON I MOVE FOR THIS IS BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS BOTH TESTIFIED TO AND THEN ALSO SUB SUBMITTED TO,
[00:10:01]
UH, THIS PANEL IS THAT SHE'S WORKING A PART-TIME JOB EXPECTING, AND, UH, THIS IS A LOT OF MONEY FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE IN CONFLICT SITUATIONS LIKE, UM, LIKE THE APPLICANT HERE, IN ADDITION TO THAT CONSIDERATION THAT THIS, THIS STRUCTURE HAS BEEN IN THIS NONCONFORMING WAY FOR 19 YEARS AND IT LANDS UPON THIS APPLICANT HERE, AGAIN, THE NON-OWNER TO PAY IT, UM, I YOU THINK IMPOSE A, A SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.UH, SO THAT'S WHY I MADE THE MOTION AND I'LL ADD, THE REASON I SUPPORT THE MOTION IS, YOU KNOW, AS MR. CAMPBELL'S POINT, IT'S A, A STRUCTURE THAT TURNS OUT IT DOESN'T MEET CODE AND IT'S BEEN THAT WAY FOR A LONG TIME AND THE PROPER WAY TO GET IT FIXED AND IT'S NOT EASY, BUT YOU HAVE TO COME DOWN HERE, COME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND WE'LL ACTUALLY HEAR THE CASE, MAKE SURE THAT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS WHAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO CONSIDER UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THEN MAKE A DECISION.
AND I DON'T WANT THAT $1,200 FEE TO BE A BARRIER TO SOMEBODY COMING DOWN HERE AND DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY AS OPPOSED TO NOT HAVING THE CASE HEARD BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND JUST SORT OF BEING IGNORED.
SO I, I THINK THE APPLICANT'S DOING THE RIGHT THING TO TRY TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO GET THIS FIXED AND END THIS THING THAT'S BEEN OUTTA COMPLIANCE FOR 19 YEARS.
I DON'T WANT $1,200 TO STAND IN THE WAY OF THAT.
AND I DO THINK WE HEARD, UM, I THOUGHT WE HEARD CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AND THAT THE APPLICANT, UM, DOES NEED THE FEE WAIVER.
WE HAD NO TESTIMONY AND OPPOSITION.
I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S GONNA BE ANY TESTIMONY AND OPPOSITION.
SO THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT MR. CAMPBELL'S MOTION TO GRANT THE FEE WAIVER OTHER, UH, DISCUSSION ON MR. CAMPBELL'S MOTION.
RIGHT IN THAT CASE CAN WE PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL? VOTE MR. QUINN? I'M, I'M FOR IT.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES? FOUR TO ZERO.
YOU'LL GET A LETTER IN THE MAIL FROM OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
NEXT UP ON OUR UNCONTESTED DOCKET, WE HAVE CASE NUMBER BO A 25 DASH 0 0 8 9, WHICH IS FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AT 5 1 4 1 NORTH HAVEN LANE.
MS. WILLIAMS, ARE THERE ANY, IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE SOME SPEAKERS, BUT DO WE HAVE REGISTERED SPEAKERS ON THAT ONE? I'LL WAIT JUST A SECOND, BUT I SHOULD ASK, ARE, ARE Y'ALL IN FAVOR OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR AGAINST IT? YES.
UM, THIS IS ACTUALLY ON OUR UNCONTESTED DOCKET.
SO, UM, I'M THE HOMEOWNER, I'M COOKING PALMER TEST, AND THEN MY FATHER, I THINK IS ON THE LINE BY PALMER.
AND, AND MR. PALMER IS IN SPORT AS WELL? YES.
SO THIS CASE IS CURRENTLY ON OUR UNCONTESTED DOCKET, WHICH MEANS THERE WERE NO, THERE WAS NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION.
THERE WERE NO LETTERS IN OPPOSITION.
SO TYPICALLY WE DON'T HEAR, UM, FROM ANYONE IN SUPPORT SINCE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO SPEAK HAVE BEEN SUPPORT.
SO IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT WITH YOU ALL, THAT'S HOW WE'RE GONNA PROCEED.
I'M GONNA ASK ONE LAST TIME TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NOBODY HIDING OUT THERE THAT'S IN OPPOSITION.
NO, BUT IN THAT CASE WE'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND VOTE.
ONE LAST TIME, JUST MAKING SURE NO ONE'S IN OPPOSITION, UH, TO THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AT 5 1 4 1 NORTH HAVEN.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS CASE? I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION LISTED ON THE CON UNCONTESTED DOCKET BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICATION SATISFIES ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE AS APPLICABLE TO WIT DOA 20 DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 8 9 APPLICANT OF CHRISTINA PALMER.
SHE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE HANDICAPPED TO A SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN DALLAS CITY CODE FOR GRANTED.
[00:15:01]
MORE, OH, GRANTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH RECENT VERSION, ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.ANY DISCUSSION ON MR. QUINT'S MOTION TO GRANT? THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION? THIS IS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE FOR THE PANEL, I GUESS IS, UH, DO WE WANNA THINK ABOUT THE CONDITION OR IS THAT ALREADY IN HERE? THE CONDI, THE CONDITIONAL USE, UH, ON THE EX ON THE NOT FOR ON THE, YES.
ON THE PER ON IF THE INDIVIDUAL WITH THE FHA, UM, ISSUE VACATES TO NO LONGER RESIDE AT THE PROPERTY.
OKAY, I'M GONNA AMEND MY MOTION.
UM, 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.
THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION EXPIRES WHEN THE HANDICAPPED PERSON NO LONGER RESIDES ON THE PROPERTY.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION AS AMENDED? I'LL SECOND THAT.
ANY DISCUSSION ON MR. QUINN'S MOTION AS AMENDED? ALRIGHT, IN THAT CASE, COULD WE PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE MR. CAMPBELL? AYE.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES? 4 2 0.
YOU'LL GET A LETTER IN THE MAIL FROM OUR BOARD SECRETARY THAT'LL, UH, GIVE YOU THE OFFICIAL APPROVAL.
NEXT ON OUR DOCKET IS CASE NUMBER BO A 25 DASH 0 0 8 6 5, OR PARDON ME, 4 5 4 4 ISABELLA LANE.
MS. WILLIAMS, ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS ON THAT MATTER? IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS THE APPLICANT.
SEE, TO GET STARTED, MS. WILLIAMS IS JUST GONNA SWEAR YOU IN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ACCURATE.
JENNIFER RETO, 1 0 2 3 3 EAST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY.
UM, THIS IS, UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
IT'S, UH, CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YEAH, WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE.
DO YOU MIND JUST PULLING THE MIC, MICROPHONE CLOSER TO YOU? I, THIS HAPPENS.
UM, SO THIS IS A TWO PART REQUEST.
UM, WE'RE ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT FOR A FRONT YARD FENCE.
UM, AND WE'RE ASKING FOR SOLID PANELS THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE FIRST FIVE FEET OF THE, THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
UH, THE PURPOSE OF THOSE SOLID PANELS, UH, IS TO SCREEN THE VEHICULAR GATE WHEN IT'S OPEN.
UM, DID A GREAT JOB CLARIFYING THE, UM, DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF THE HEIGHT THAT WE'RE REQUESTING.
UH, OUR CONVERSATION WITH THE NEIGHBORS, UM, ROUNDED DOWN TO FIVE FOOT FIVE AS OUR MAXIMUM HEIGHT.
UM, IT'S FIVE FOOT FIVE AND SOME CHANGE ON THE ELEVATIONS, AND SO STAFF WAS RIGHTLY ROUNDING UP TO FIVE SIX.
UM, BUT WE ARE COMMITTED TO THE ELEVATIONS THAT WE'VE SHOWN THE NEIGHBORS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO IMPRESS UPON YOU TODAY.
UM, I MAILED, UH, LETTERS TWICE, UH, BECAUSE, UM, HOLIDAYS INTERVENED, UH, WHILE WE WERE WAITING FOR THIS HEARING.
UM, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER ALSO REACHED OUT TO NEIGHBORS.
UM, THE GREEN DOTS ARE THE SUPPORT LETTERS THAT YOU RECEIVED.
UM, THE TWO THAT ARE ON THE FAR SIDE OF WELCH, I BELIEVE ARE OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA.
UH, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DID RECEIVE THEIR SUPPORT.
I MAPPED OUT THE OPPOSITION JUST TO SHOW YOU THAT THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
UM, WE DEFINITELY RESPECT THEIR OPINION, UM, BUT WE JUST THINK THAT WE'RE DIFFERENT THAN THOSE BLOCKS.
UM, SO, UM, PART OF MY ROUTINE WITH FENCE APPLICATIONS IS TO INCLUDE A SURVEY.
UM, SO I WENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND MEASURED FENCES.
[00:20:01]
SO NEXT SLIDE AND PUT THEM ON A MAP.SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF BOARD HISTORY ON THE BLOCKS OF ISABELLA LANE, UM, IN THIS AREA.
UM, SORRY, THIS MAY BE HARD TO READ, BUT I BELIEVE STAFF GAVE YOU A, A HARD COPY THIS MORNING.
UM, SO THE, THERE WAS ONE PROPERTY THAT'S TWO HOUSES DOWN ON THE WEST.
UM, THEY DO NOT HAVE A FENCE, BUT THEY EFFECTIVELY DO LIKE SOLID DENSE LANDSCAPING.
UH, STAFF DID A GREAT JOB BRIEFING THIS MORNING.
UM, OUR WESTERN FENCE LINE, UH, THE PORTION THAT'S IN OUR FRONT YARD, WE HAD PREVIOUSLY SHOWN IT AT THE SAME HEIGHT AS AS THE, THE FIVE FOOT PANELS, THE FIVE FOOT SIX STUCCO COLUMNS, UM, AND, UH, CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR.
WE HAVE REVISED THAT TO BE A FOUR FOOT WROUGHT IRON FENCE, UH, WITH NO COLUMNS.
SO I WANNA MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR.
THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THAT AGREEMENT WITH OUR NEIGHBOR.
UM, SO IF YOU ARE INCLINED TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST, UM, IF YOU'D LIKE TO STATE THAT, THAT THE OF ANY APPROVAL DOES NOT INCLUDE, UH, THE SIDE YARD FENCE, WE WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
UH, THAT'S JUST A CLOSEUP OF THAT AREA THAT I WAS SPEAKING TO.
AND THEN THE GREEN ARROW POINTS TO THE ELEVATION THAT HAS THAT FIVE FOOT FIVE, SOME CHANGE COLUMN THAT WE WERE INTENDING.
UM, JUST TO SHOW YOU THE, THE FENCES THAT I DID OBSERVE IN THE AREA.
UM, THIS IS THE PROPERTY TWO DOORS DOWN TO OUR WEST WITH THE SOLID, UH, HYDRO.
UM, TO OUR NORTHWEST, SORRY, NORTHEAST.
UH, SO THIS WAS THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ISABELLA AND WELCH.
UM, THEY HAVE, UM, GATES, UH, THAT ARE TALLER THAN FOUR FEET.
WE HAVE VARIED DENSE LANDSCAPING, UM, THAT EFFECTIVELY SERVES AS A FENCE.
UH, THIS IS OUR, UH, NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST, SO THERE ARE ALSO A CORNER LOT.
UM, AND THEN LOOKING, UM, ACROSS RIGHT, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
UM, WHEN YOU CLOSE OVER WELCH, UM, THESE LOTS ARE A LITTLE BIT LARGER, BUT THEY, UH, EFFECTIVELY HAVE TALLER FENCES FROM HERE UNTIL LENNOX.
UM, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THIS INTERSECTION.
AND THEN THE NORTHEAST CORNER.
UH, THAT'S AGAIN THE, THE NORTHEAST CORNER.
SO THIS IS THE LOT THAT IS ONE END FROM THAT SOUTHEAST CORNER.
SO, UM, WE BELIEVE THAT WE MEET THE CRITERIA THAT, UM, WE HAVE A NEIGHBOR SUPPORT AND THAT THIS IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THESE TWO BLOCKS OF ISABELLA.
MEAN, UH, RESPECTFULLY, PROFESSOR APPROVAL.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UM, YES, I I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, MR. FINNEY.
UM, SO MS. HERTO, UM, YOU SAID THAT, UM, WHEN, WHEN YOU WERE SHOWING US THE MAP WITH THE SUPPORT AND THE OPPOSITION, YOU POINTED OUT THAT THE OPPOSITION IS ON A, IS A BLOCK OVER.
UM, AND THEN YOU MADE THE STATEMENT THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT Y'ALL'S YOUR STREETS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER STREETS.
UH, HOW ARE Y'ALL DIFFERENT? I'M CURIOUS, OUT OF THE 16 LOTS THAT ARE THE TWO BLOCKS OF ISABELLA, UH, EIGHT OF THOSE HAVE EITHER A FENCE THAT THE BOARD APPROVED, UH, OR, AND OR LANDSCAPING THAT EFFECTIVELY SERVES AS A FENCE.
UM, I THINK PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE THE, THERE'S BEEN NEW HOMES THAT ARE HAPPENING ON ISABELLA AND I'M DON'T THINK THAT'S HAPPENING NECESSARILY ON THOSE OTHER BLOCKS.
SO IT MAY BE OLDER HOMES AND RESIDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME AND THEY ARE NOT WANTING THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD TO CHANGE WITH THEIR BLOCKS, BUT I DO BELIEVE WE ARE GOOD FRIENDS.
UM, AND SO HOW MANY OF THE, UM, THE, THE, THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU SHOWED US AND THE PROPERTIES YOU POINTED OUT, UM, HOW MANY OF THEM HAVE SOLID LANDSCAPING AS YOU DESCRIBED? UM, THE LOT THAT IS TWO HOUSES TO THE WEST, UM, THEY MADE A BOARD REQUEST AND WERE
[00:25:01]
DENIED SO THAT THIS IS THE, WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO BY, RIGHT? MM-HMMUM, THE PROPERTY THAT IS AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER HAS A COMBINATION OF THOSE TALLER GATES AND DENSE LANDSCAPING.
UM, AND THEN I BELIEVE THAT THE, THE OTHER BLOCK, THE EASTERN BLOCK OF ISABELLA, I BELIEVE THOSE ARE ALL FENCES WITH VERY BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPING.
AND THEN I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
UM, YOU SAID THAT Y'ALL CHANGED SOMETHING IN YOUR DESIGN AND MADE IT SO THAT IT'S A BOUGHT IRON FENCE WITH NO COLUMNS ON A CERTAIN SECTION OF IT.
UH, I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED 'CAUSE I SAW COLUMNS OR PILES.
SO, UM, THE FRONT ELEVATION, WE ARE ASKING FOR THE, UM, EIGHT FOOT FIVE AND SOME CHANGE STUCCO COLUMNS WITH THE FIVE FOOT WROUGHT IRON PANELS ON THAT WESTERN PROPERTY LINE.
UH, ONLY FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT, ONLY WR IRON, NO STUCCO COLUMNS.
AND WHAT IS, WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT THE WESTERN EDGE? UM, MR. EVERSON IS HERE WITH US TODAY.
UM, HE DIDN'T, UH, NECESSARILY NEED TO SPEAK BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN SPEAKING WITH HIM EXTENSIVELY THE PAST FEW DAYS.
UM, THIS HELPS MAINTAIN AN OPENNESS VIEW, UH, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
UM, SO THAT IT'S, UM, LESS OF AN IMPACT TO, TO HIS ENJOYMENT OF HIS FRONT YARD.
SO HE'S YOUR NEIGHBOR? YES, SIR.
SO YOU WORKED WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR ABSOLUTELY.
TO MAKE SURE THAT HE WAS HAPPY? YES, SIR.
THAT'S ONE THING THAT WE REALLY LOOK FOR, UM, WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE CA CASES IS HOW DID YOU INTERACT WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS? UM, WERE YOU WILLING TO COME TO A COMPROMISE? UM, SO WE APPRECIATE THAT.
SO THAT, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, LOOKS LIKE MR. CAMPBELL.
FIRST OFF, EXCELLENT PRESENTATION.
I REALLY APPRECIATE MAPPING OUT THE SURVEY.
UH, UH, BUT IN REGARDS TO WHAT WAS JUST ASKED IN THE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION, THOUGH THEY ARE OUTSIDE THE, THE ZONE IN WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO GET FEEDBACK, UM, THEY ALL GENERALLY CITE THE SAME IDEA, CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOOD.
DID YOU GET ANY, DID DID YOU SPEAK WITH THESE, ANY OF THESE HOMEOWNERS AND OR INDIVIDUALS THAT SUBMITTED THIS, THESE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION? AND, AND IF SO, WHAT WERE THOSE CONVERSATIONS LIKE? OR ARE THEY ONGOING? UH, NO SIR.
I'M NOT AWARE IF, UH, I DID NOT SPEAK WITH ANYONE OR, OR REACH OUT TO THOSE FOLKS.
UM, I'M NOT SURE IF THE PROPERTY OWNER DID, WE REALLY FOCUSED ON WHAT THE TEST WAS IN THAT SURROUNDING AREA.
UM, BUT I, I DO KNOW THAT THEY, UM, HAD CONCERN ABOUT FENCES IN THE PAST, UM, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT WAS ON THEIR BLOCKS.
UM, SO I BELIEVE THIS IS A, A BELIEF THAT THEY HOLD.
AND, UM, IN REGARDS TO THE SURVEY THAT YOU'VE PROVIDED, HOLD ON, I'M GETTING MY PAPERS MIXED UP.
UH, HOW RECENTLY WERE, WAS THE MOST RECENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION GRANTED, ACCORDING TO YOUR SURVEY THAT YOU PROVIDED? SORRY, I MISPLACED MINE.
I, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANSWER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
THEY WERE AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET, SO THAT'S, I WAS ABLE TO FIND 'EM SEARCHING THE ADDRESS AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS REGISTERED IN FAVOR? SEEING A HAND, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE GO IN ORDER, WE, WE'VE GOTTA DO THE FOLKS IN FAVOR AND THEN THE FOLKS IN OPPOSITION ARE, ARE YOU IN THE, ARE ARE.
AND, AND WHAT'S YOUR NAME SIR? MY NAME IS CRAIG EGGLESTON.
THEN JUST TO START, MS. WILLIAMS IS GONNA SWEAR YOU IN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE PROCEED LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
UM, I AM HERE AS AN ADVOCATE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD HARMONY AND UH, I WANNA SAY FIRST OF ALL THAT I DO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I REINFORCE THAT WE VERY
[00:30:01]
MUCH WANT YOU TO PUT IN YOUR ORDER THAT THERE IS NO VARIANCE GRANTED AS TO THE SIDE ELEVATION BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH A PLAN IN THE FUTURE.IF OUR NEIGHBOR SHOULD SELL PROPERTY, WE ASK YOU THAT.
SECONDLY, AS TO THE FRONT, I HAVE AGREED NOT TO OPPOSE THAT POINT.
I AM NOT, I'M BASICALLY TRYING TO BE NEUTRAL.
I RESPECT EVERYBODY'S OPINION.
I WOULD SAY ONLY THE FOLLOWING AND NOT TO ARGUE.
AND THE ONLY REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS I DO THINK YOU SHOULD RESPECT ONE THING THAT I MIGHT BE ARGUING LATER.
THERE ARE THREE STREETS IN OUR SUBDIVISION, WHICH ARE CUL-DE-SACS AND CUL-DE-SACS ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF WELCH ROAD.
FAST TRAFFIC, STOPLIGHT CONTROLLED PEOPLE ALONG WELCH ARE DIFFERENT.
THEY NEED TO HAVE A VISUAL BARRIER.
AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE OTHER NEIGHBORS ARE SAYING.
I WAS UNAWARE WHETHER THEY WERE GOING TO BE OPPOSING OR NOT.
THAT PUTS US IN A DIFFICULT POSITION.
I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THAT IS.
I'M AN ADVOCATE FOR AGREEMENT ACROSS THE BOARD.
THOSE STREETS ARE JUST LIKE ISABELLA IN HAVING LOTS OF NEW HOUSES.
THEY'VE HAD DENIED REQUESTS FOR HEIGHT ELEVATIONS AND I RESPECT THEIR OPINION AND I HOPE YOU DO TOO, AS I HOPE YOU RESPECT THE OPINION OF THE BURS, WHICH WE'RE TRYING OUR BEST TO WORK WITH.
AND ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS WITH THAT? ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN FAVOR? NO, THE SPEAKERS.
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION? NO SPEAKERS.
I JUST THEN UNDER RULES, THE APPLICANT DOES GET A CHANCE TO REBUT.
I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO SAY, BUT I, I DO RESPECT MR. OLSON'S.
HE HAS A MORE DIRECT DATE OF THE OPINION OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE AGENT, THE HOLMES OF, IF I MISSPOKE ON ANYTHING, I I DO APOLOGIZE.
AND THEN BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO A MOTION, I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT HOW WE WOULD, HOW WE WOULD ADDRESS THE MOTION IF THE SIDE IS GONNA BE SEPARATE 'CAUSE AS WRITTEN, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S, IT'S BOTH OF THE MOTIONS ARE TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN A FIVE FOOT, SIX INCH FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
IF WE WANTED TO DO THE, OH, WE DON'T EVEN, OKAY.
UM, WE'RE, WE'RE SP SPEAKING OF THE FOUR FOOT FENCE ON THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE UHHUH, IT'S WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
SO IS IT NOT PART OF THE APPLICATION? IT, IT WAS, BUT UM, IT'S NO LONGER BECAUSE WE REVISED OUR PLAN.
OH, SO THE FACT THAT WE WOULD, THE MOTION WOULD BE DENIED OR GR GRANITE, BUT THEN IT'S RESTRICTED TO COMPLIANCE WITH ALL SITE SPECIFIC PLANS AND THE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN IS NOW FOUR FEET? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO IT'LL BE FIVE FEET IN, IN THE FRONT AND ON THE SIDE SIDE IT WOULD BE FOUR.
RIGHT? WE, WE WOULDN'T REALLY REGULATE THIS SIDE BECAUSE IT'S NOT ACTUALLY IN QUESTION OF REQUEST.
IT'S FOR THE FRONT YARD, UM, ALONG IT'S A BUILDING.
OKAY, BUT IN THE SIDE YARD BY RIGHT, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO GO UP TO ABOUT NINE FEET YES.
BEHIND THE, THE FRONT SETBACK LINE? YES.
BUT WE DID CHANGE THIS PORTION.
I'M NOT TRYING TO CONFUSE, UM, BUT THERE, THERE'S A PORTION OF THAT WESTERN SIDE FENCE THAT IS IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, BUT IT'S NOT PART OF THE APPLICATION.
SO WE COULD, WE WOULD BE RULING ON THE, THE PART ALONG ISABEL LAND AND, AND NOT THE SIDE YARD.
BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS PART OF THE FRONT, IT'S STILL CONSIDERED THE FRONT YARD.
SO IT THE, YOU'RE NOT SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE WESTERN SIDE FENCE, CORRECT? ONLY THE FRONT YARD ALONG VISTA VALLEY.
ONLY THE PORTION PARALLEL TO THE STREET.
I THINK THAT'S THOROUGHLY ON THE RECORD, BUT YOU THINK THE MOTION HOWEVER YOU WANT.
[00:35:01]
I YEAH, THAT'S, I MAY BE CONFUSED.IS THAT BECAUSE BY RIGHT, THEY CAN DO NINE FEET.
DID I, DID I ON THE SIDE YARD BY RIGHT? DID I, DID I HEAR THAT AND IS THAT ACCURATE? IS THAT MY CORRECT SPEAKING.
UM, I I WAS JUST GONNA CLARIFY THAT THE DEFINITION OF A FRONT YARD, UM, IS AN A PORTION OF A LOT THAT BEGINS AT THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE WHERE THE STREET IS AND EXTENDS ACROSS THE WIDTH OF THE LOT, YOU KNOW, BACK HOWEVER MANY FEET OF FRONT YARD SETBACK IS.
SO IN THIS CASE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S UH, THERE'S A PORTION OF THE FENCE THAT'S PERPENDICULAR TO THE STREET, THAT PORTION THAT'S IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, YOU KNOW, LOT TO LOT, UM, THAT'S RESTRICTED TO FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH ALL ARE DECIDING ON IS IF THEY'RE ALLOWED TO GO ANY HIGHER THAN FOUR FEET WITHIN THAT SETBACK AREA.
SO BEHIND THAT SETBACK AREA, THEY CAN GO UP TO SIX FEET WITHOUT A PERMIT.
THEY CAN GO UP TO NINE FEET WITH A PERMIT, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UNLESS THEY WANT GO ABOVE NINE FEET OUTSIDE OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
WELL, I, I THINK SO EXCEPT, I MEAN, AS TO MR. EGGLESTON'S CONCERN ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT, WELL THE APPLICANT IS SAYING THEY HAVE A DEAL RIGHT.
TO KEEP IT AT FOUR FEET ON THE, AND THEN MR. EGGLESTON'S CONCERN AND HIS TESTIMONY IS MAKING SURE THAT THAT GETS MEMORIALIZED AND, AND THAT HAPPENS THE WAY THEY SAY IT'S GONNA HAPPEN, WHICH IF THAT'S WHAT THE SITE PLAN SAYS AND ANY MOTION REQUIRES COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CURRENT SITE PLANS, THEN HAVE WE SUFFICIENTLY, UH, I MEAN HAVE WE MADE SURE THAT'S HOW IT'S GONNA PROCEED? THAT'S MY QUESTION, I GUESS.
AND, AND, AND I WOULD ANSWER THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD IS LIMITED TO WHATEVER THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T SAY, WELL, IN THE BACK YOU GOTTA HAVE A WROUGHT IRON FENCE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT PART OF, YOU KNOW, THE CASE.
THE CASE IS ABOUT THE, IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
SO WE CAN'T REALLY ENFORCE ANY ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS IN THE SIDE OR REAR IN THE SETBACK, YOU KNOW, BUT WE CAN ENFORCE THE, THE MATERIALS AND THE HEIGHT AND THE DESIGN IN THE FRONT YARD.
AND IT WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO WHATEVER THEY HAVE IN THEIR SITE PLAN.
AND SINCE THE APPLICATION ONLY SEEKS THE FRONT, WE WOULD ONLY BE GRANTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITH RESPECT TO THE FRONT.
WHICH I THINK WOULD ADDRESS THE WITNESS'S CONCERN.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT THE, THE, UH, SITE PLAN BACK UP ON THE SCREEN? WE'LL SEE.
[00:40:31]
OKAY, SO I THINK, CAN WE GET, IF I'M RIGHT ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE WHERE YOUR CURSOR IS, THAT'S THE FENCE, IT'S LESS THAN SIX FEET TALL OR IT'S ABOUT FOUR FOOT TALL.ARE THE COLUMNS ANY TALLER THAN FOUR FEET OR NO? OH, OKAY.
SO THAT FENCE ON WHERE SHE'S POINTING IS COMPLIANT WITH THE CODE RIGHT NOW.
BUT WE CAN CONDITION THE APPROVAL BASED ON THE DESIGN.
I THINK THE BOARD IS TRYING TO CLARIFY HOW MUCH OF THIS THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW WOULD BE ENFORCEABLE WITH THIS REQUEST.
AND IT SHOWS THAT ON THE SIDE YARD IT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE, WHERE THE STRUCTURE BEGETS.
BUT WE CAN ONLY, WE'RE ONLY REGULATING WHAT'S IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD.
SO IT'S ALL WHERE MISSED, WHERE DR. MILLER HOSKINS CURSOR IS, IS WHERE, UM, IS AS MUCH AS WE CAN ENFORCE.
SO ALL ALONG THE FRONT AND WHERE HER CURSOR ENDS IS WHAT THIS, THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD BE TIED TO WHEN WE GO TO PERMITTING.
SO UP TO WHERE HER CURSOR IS ON THE SIDE YARD, IT HAS TO BE FORTH, BUT WELL, WHATEVER IS BEHIND IT, THE APPLICANT CAN DO AS SHE WISHES AT, UM, AS A, AS A RIGHT I GUESS.
BUT UP TO WHERE HER CURSOR IS, IS HOW MUCH WE WILL, UM, TIE THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST TO WITH SITE PLAN AND, AND IF WE DO THE STANDARD MOTION THAT SAYS WE REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL SITE SPECIFIC PLANS AND EVERYTHING FROM THE RED TO THE CURSOR WOULD HAVE TO BE FOUR FEET, IF I MAY, FROM THE STREET TO THE CURSOR? YES.
WHY, WHY IS IT FROM THE STREET? THE CURSOR NOT FROM THE STREET TO THE RED LINE? THE RED LINE IS THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
THAT MEANS, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, EVERYTHING BETWEEN THE RED LINE, WHICH IS THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE, UH, AT THE VERY FRONT OF THE PROPERTY IS THE FRONT YARD.
SO THAT WOULD MEAN THAT EVERYTHING BETWEEN THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND THE RED LINE IS COVERED BY THIS.
UM, MAY I ANSWER THE, UH, THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 40 FEET FOR THE SONY DISTRICT.
THE RED LINE IS MUCH FURTHER BACK.
UM, WHICH IS THE CONFUSION, UH, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT NOTES THAT AND PUTS IT AS A RED LINE BECAUSE IT'S, HE SAYS THAT IT'S PER THE DEED.
SO THERE, I HAVEN'T PUT MY FINGERS ON THAT, BUT THAT MAY BE A PRIVATE RESTRICTION, BUT THAT IS WHAT WE'RE HONORING.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE THE ACTUAL FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 40 DEED 40 FEET.
BUT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, ALL PERMIT APPLICATIONS.
THERE'S A BOX OF IS THERE PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS AND, YOU KNOW, WE COULD PROVIDE A COPY OF THAT SO THE CITY COULD REVIEW IT.
MAY I ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY A QUESTION? UM, WOULDN'T, BECAUSE THE VERBIAGE OF OUR MOTION SAYS COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS IN THIS SUBMITTED PLAN.
THIS NOTE POINTS TO THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED, UM, LINE AND SAYS FOUR FOOT HEIGHT WITH, UH, WHATEVER WR IRON FENCE.
UM, IT DOESN'T HAVE A 40 FOOT LINE INDICATING THAT THAT STOPS LIKE THE, THE HIGHLIGHTED YELLOW EXTENDS ALL THE WAY BACK.
SO IT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT STATEMENT, COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS WERE REQUIRED SATISFIES MR. OLSON'S CONCERNS THAT THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF FENCE WOULD BE FOUR FEET BECAUSE THE CODE LIMITS THE
[00:45:01]
HEIGHT OF THE FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD, WHICH IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT IS A, UM, WHAT IS THIS? THE ONE ACRE R DASH ONE ACRE, WHICH LIMITS, UM, THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD TO FOUR, FOUR FEET.AND THE FRONT YARD FOR THIS ZONING DISTRICT IS 40 FEET.
SO IT'S A, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A 40 FOOT SETBACK AND WHATEVER IS IN THAT 40 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE WIDER WAY 40 FEET BACK HAS TO BE FOUR FEET.
AND IN THIS INSTANCE, THIS BUILDING I BELIEVE IS SET BACK TO 75 FEET.
SO WE'RE NOT CONCERNED WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING FROM 40 FEET BACK TO 75 FEET.
'CAUSE THAT'S NOT PART OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATION WHERE IT'S FOUR FEET, THEY CAN BE, I BELIEVE IT'S SIX FEET IN HEIGHT.
SO THEY'RE ONLY GONNA A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THIS FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 40 FEET FOR THE HEIGHT REGULATION.
'CAUSE YOU CAN ONLY HAVE FOUR FEET IN THE 40 IN THE FRONT 40 FEET.
BUT OUR PER OUR, UM, MOTION LANGUAGE, WE HAVE A CONDITION, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE ATTACHING THAT SAYS COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBMITTED PLANS, WHICH SHOWS ALL OF IT.
SO THAT, DOES THAT NOT OVERRIDE? IT DOES NOT, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT PART OF THE SUR REQUEST.
IT'S ONLY FOR THE FRONT 40 FEET BECAUSE THAT IS THE CODE VIOLATION.
THAT'S THE CODE PROVISION THAT THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF FURTHER THAN THE 40 FEET IS MORE OF A SIDE YARD FENCE.
AND THEY ARE NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE SIDE YARD FENCE.
SO THEREFORE THEY WOULD NOT NEED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
SO THEN IT WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THIS BOARD TO REQUIRE, UM, THE SITE PLAN TO BE TIED TO THE, THE SIDE YARD THAT'S OUT OUTSIDE THE 40 FEET.
I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UM, AS THE WITNESS JUST, UH, OR THE APPLICANT JUST TESTIFIED TO, THERE'S A RESTRICTIVE DEED COVENANT THAT, THAT MAKES THAT SETBACK FOR THEM REQUIRED AT 75 FEET AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT WAS TESTIFIED TO.
AND I GUESS IT WAS DETAILED ON THE APPLICATION AS WELL.
IS THAT CORRECT? UM, AND SO LEGALLY, HOW DOES THAT FIT IN? BECAUSE I MEAN, FOR ALL INSTANCE AND PURPOSES IT LOOKS LIKE A FRONT YARD.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT SMELLS LIKE A FRONT YARD.
I UNDERSTAND THE CODE REQUIRES THAT 40 FOOT SETBACK FOR THE ZONING AREA, BUT BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTED COVENANT THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW, HOW DOES THE CITY ORDINANCE, WHAT, HOW DOES, HOW DOES IT IMPACT THAT? THAT IS, THAT IS A PRIVATE DEED RESTRICTION, WHICH THE CITY IS NOT A PART OF.
SO IT WILL NOT FACTOR INTO THIS CASE.
WE ARE ONLY FOCUSING WITH WHAT THE CODE PROVIDES AND WHAT WE ARE A PART OF WHICH WOULD BE THIS, UM, FOUR FEET IN THE FRONT YARD.
ANY FINAL QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO A MOTION? HEARING NONE.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST ISSUE ON BO OA 25 DASH 0 0 0 8 6, WHICH IS THE, UH, APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OR DEFENSE? I HAVE A MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 8 6 ON APPLICATION OF JENNIFER HARIMOTO GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN A FIVE FOOT SIX INCH HIGH FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
ANY DISCUSSION STARTING WITH MR. FINNEY? YES.
I THINK MS. HERMO DEMONSTRATED A WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH HER NEIGHBORS, UM, WHICH, UH, DEMONSTRATES, UH, THAT IT IS NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
I THINK SHE CLEARLY, SHE HAD AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION WHERE SHE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE CHARACTER OF HER STREET, UM, AND SO, UH, THAT IS WHY I MADE THIS MOTION.
ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? I AGREE.
I I THINK THE PRESENTATION WAS FANTASTIC.
I, UH, BASED OFF WHAT WAS, WHAT WE WERE BRIEFED ON AND ALSO WHAT WAS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT, UH, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND SO THAT REASON I SUPPORTED THIS MOTION.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? AND I WOULD JUST BRIEFLY ADD, UH, I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE 'CAUSE IT TOOK ME A MINUTE TO FIGURE IT OUT.
[00:50:01]
I DID WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE, GIVEN THAT MR. EGGLESTON TOOK THE TIME TO COME DOWN AND TESTIFY THAT, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE YOU COMPROMISING WITH THE NEIGHBORS.I UNDERSTAND YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S DOCUMENTED CORRECTLY AND I THINK WE'VE GOT TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT.
SO I'M, I'M GLAD THAT WE DID AND THAT'S WHY I'M ALSO SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
UM, WITH THAT, IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER COMMENTS, WE'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON MR. FINNEY'S MOTION TO GRANT THE FIRST SPECIAL ACCEPT.
MOTION TO GRAHAM PASSES FOUR TO ZERO.
THEN THE SECOND, UH, ISSUE WE HAVE ON THIS SAME CASE NUMBER BO A 25 DASH 0 0 8 6 IS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE SURFACE AREA OPEN MISS REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 86 ON APPLICATION OF JENNIFER HI MOTO GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN A FENCE WITH THE PANEL HAVING LESS THAN 50% OPEN SURFACE AREA LOCATED LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT LOT LINE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SURFACE AREA OPENNESS REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
'CAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH OPACITY AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON MR. FINNEY'S MOTION? I THINK MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS STAND.
ALRIGHT, WITH THAT, WE'LL PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE MR. QUINN.
YOU'LL GET A, A LETTER IN THE MAIL WITH OUR FORMAL DECISION.
AND THEN OUR LAST CASE, UM, IS CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 5 5.
IT IS TWO TWO SEPARATE VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY OR FOR THE APPLICATION OF RYAN HOUSTON.
MS. WILLIAMS, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, SPEAKERS IN FAVOR? THIS IS THE ONE I I THINK THEY INDICATED THEY DON'T WISH TO PROCEED.
SO, UM, THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE.
I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY IN PAPER RIGHT.
ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION TO THE UM, TO THE, TO THE VARIANCES AT THE PROPERTY AT 6 9 6 4 WAKEFIELD STREET? I HAVE, UM, ONE OPPOSITION ONLINE.
IS THE RENA RIVERS, IF YOU CAN PLEASE SHOW VIDEO AND AUDIO.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
MY NAME IS BRENNA REVA AND I LIVE AT 7,006 WAKEFIELD STREET.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO STATE MY OPPOSITION TO THE SECONDARY EDITION THAT THEY ARE, THAT THEY'VE PROPOSED.
UM, WE'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD 23 YEARS.
UM, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'VE PROPOSED THIS TWO STORY BACKYARD STRUCTURE AS A PLACE FOR, UM, THE GRANDDAD TO LIVE THERE.
UH, I THINK GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT'S A COMPLETELY SEPARATE STRUCTURE, IT'S CURRENTLY A ONE STORY, ROUGHLY FOUR, LIKE 1500 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE.
WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD IS A TWO STORY 1400 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE.
SO IT'S HAVING TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON ONE SINGLE FAMILY
[00:55:01]
LOT.UM, WE HAD THE SAME ISSUE THAT THEY DID.
WE NEEDED MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE, SO WE ADDED ONTO OUR HOUSE.
THAT'S WHAT MOST PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD DO.
THEY ADD ROOMS ONTO THE BACK, ADD A SECOND STORY.
HAVING A COMPLETELY SEPARATE STRUCTURE OF THIS SIZE OF THIS HEIGHT IS OVERWHELMING TO THE LOT.
IT JUST STANDS THERE AND SCREAMS AT YOU.
OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT ONCE THEY MOVE OUT, 'CAUSE IN THE LAST 20 YEARS WE'VE HAD FIVE DIFFERENT NEIGHBORS IN THAT HOUSE.
UM, WHAT HAPPENS THEN? LIKE IT'S A PERMANENT STRUCTURE.
OUR FEAR IS THAT IT'S GONNA BE USED AS A RENTAL.
WE WILL HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RECOURSE OVER WHAT GOES ON THERE.
UM, THEY'RE PROPOSING A SECONDARY DRIVEWAY THAT COMES IN FROM AN ALREADY VERY NARROW ALLEY.
IT, IT JUST, IT WILL COMPLETELY CHANGE THE ENTIRE DYNAMICS OF OUR INTERSECTION, OF OUR BLOCK.
IT'S, UM, AS THEY'VE PROPOSED IT, IT'S JUST OVERWHELMING IN SIZE.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO ONE THING THAT MAY BE NOT PARTICULARLY RELEVANT IN TERMS OF THEIR VARIANCE, BUT IT'S IN TERMS OF HOW THEY'VE INTERACTED WITH US AS NEIGHBORS.
UM, THEY'RE VERY NEW TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAD A GREAT RELATIONSHIP, CHATTED ALL THE TIME, PUT THIS FORWARD AND THEY GROSSLY MISREPRESENTED IT TO ALL OF US ACROSS THE BOARD IN WRITING.
UM, AND AS SOON AS THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WERE NOT IN FAVOR, THEY'VE CEASED ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH ANY OF US.
UM, THERE'S BEEN NO EFFORT TO COMPROMISE.
THEY WON'T, THEY WON'T ENGAGE WITH US IN ANY WAY TO COME TO SOME KIND OF RESOLUTION TO HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR PLANS ARE.
SO, UM, I JUST WANTED THAT TO BE NOTED.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS? UH, YES.
MI MS. RIVAS, UM, IF THE APPLICANT HAD ATTEMPTED TO REACH OUT TO YOU AND REACH A COMPROMISE, WHAT, WHAT KIND OF COMPROMISE WOULD YOU HAVE BEEN WILLING, UH, TO ACCEPT? I THINK ADDING ONTO THAT HOUSE WOULD BE FANTASTIC.
UM, THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW, WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, THERE'S THIS BIG BACK PATIO THAT THEY HAVE ON THE PLANS THAT SAYS IT'S STONE.
THERE'S LIKE A SUNKEN IN THING UNDERNEATH IT WHERE A PREVIOUS OWNER LIKE TRIED TO PUT A POOL.
UM, AND SO THEY'VE DECKED OVER IT AND THE STRUCTURE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING SITS ONLY THREE FEET FROM THAT.
SO LIKE TO US AS NEIGHBORS, IT'S LIKE, WHY NOT TAKE THAT OUT AND ADD ON TO THE HOUSE? I MEAN, IT'S ARCHITECTURALLY, IT'S PERFECTLY SUITED FOR THAT.
IT WOULD MATCH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S HAPPENING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT ADDING THIS LIKE BIG THING IN THE BACK THAT'S TOTALLY DETACHED WITH A SEPARATE DRIVEWAY, A SEPARATE GARAGE, A SEPARATE, EVERYTHING IS WHERE WE'RE CONCERNED WITH.
I, I DON'T QUESTION THEIR CURRENT INTENT FOR USE.
MS. RUDIS, UH, THANK YOU FOR APPEARING HERE TODAY.
SINCE NOVEMBER, HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE APPLICANTS OR THE APPLICANT'S FAMILY REGARDING THIS ISSUE? NO, THEY WON'T SPEAK TO US.
THEY NO LONGER RESPOND TO TEXT MESSAGES.
ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS? ALRIGHT.
AND UH, MS. WILLIAMS, ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON UH, THIS CASE NUMBER? NO, THE SPEAKERS REGISTER, SO.
ALRIGHT THEN BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION, I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
UM, FOR MS. CARLISLE, CAN YOU REMIND US LIKE AS FAR AS DENYING WITH PREJUDICE VERSUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ESPECIALLY IN A CASE WHERE I GUESS WE'RE NOT, THEY'VE SORT OF WITHDRAWN IT.
CAN YOU REMIND ME OF THE STANDARD ON THE WITH PREJUDICE MEANS THAT THEY CANNOT COME BACK FOR TWO YEARS UNLESS THEY COME BEFORE THIS BOARD TO GET A WAIVER AND THEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE MEANS THEY CAN REFILE TOMORROW WITH A DIFFERENT, UM, APPLICATION AND THEY WOULD ALSO COME TO THE SAME PANEL FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
IF, IF THEY, WHENEVER THEY DO DECIDE TO REFILE, IF THEY CHOOSE TO, IF, WELL REGARDLESS IF YOU DO WITHOUT OR WITH ALSO ON THE, WITH VERSUS WITHOUT.
UH, IF IT'S WITH PREJUDICE, CAN THEY CHANGE THE APPLICATION? 'CAUSE TECHNICALLY IT'S A DIFFERENT, THEY CAN FOR, CAN I GIVE AN EXAMPLE? SO SAY FOR EXAMPLE, THEY ALTER
[01:00:01]
THIS APPLICATION NOW AND NOW IT'S, THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN ACTUAL A DU, RIGHT? IF ALL THE FACTORS THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN AN A DU, WOULD THAT BE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT APPLICATION, THEREFORE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO PREJUDICE? RIGHT.IF THEY APPLY FOR AN A DU, THAT'D BE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT APPLICATION.
SO THEN THEY COULD COME BACK WITHIN THE TWO YEAR TIME PERIOD.
CAN I SAY SOMETHING REALLY QUICKLY? SURE.
I THINK THERE ARE OTHER NEIGHBORS THAT ARE ONLINE THAT WERE REGISTERED TO SPEAK.
SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER FOLKS REGISTERED TO SPEAK.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE HIM.
YES, HE PICTURE HE'S ONLINE, BUT HE DID NOT REGISTER TO SPEAK.
YOU MA'AM, YOU CAN REGISTER IF YOU LIKE.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S, UM, WHILE SHE'S SPEAKING IS THE INDIVIDUAL WHO'S ONLINE ABLE TO REGISTER AS WELL SINCE HE'S HERE? I MEAN, YEAH.
WHAT I THINK I'D LIKE TO DO IS, SINCE THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROCEEDING ON THIS ANYMORE, SEEMS TO ME WE'RE HEADED TOWARDS THE DENIAL.
UM, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK HAS THE OPPORTUNITY AND, AND SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT, WE'RE HAPPY TO HEAR IT.
BUT I DO THINK SINCE THERE'S NO APPLICANT PUSHING THE APPLICATION ANYMORE, WE'RE PROBABLY HEADED TOWARDS THE DENIAL.
I WILL SAY, ALAN JUST, UH, LET ME KNOW THAT THE REGISTRATION LINK IS NOT WORKING SO HE'S NOT ABLE TO REGISTER.
YEAH, THE, THE DEADLINE PASSED.
UM, BUT IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO HEAR HIM, I DON'T THINK SO SINCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED FOR FOLKS ONLINE AND BECAUSE I THINK, LIKE I SAID, I, I THINK WE'RE ABOUT TO HEADED TOWARDS A DENIAL.
SO IF THEY'RE AGAINST, I I THINK WE'VE HEARD THAT MESSAGE FOR SURE.
UM, BUT FOR THE, ALL RIGHT, MA'AM, PLEASE COME ON UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND MS. WILLIAMS WILL SWEAR YOU IN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE.
I HAVE A VERY STRONG VOICE, SO I MIGHT NOT NEED IT ANYWAY.
I, WELL AT 6 9 5 6 WAKEFIELD STREET, WHICH I AM DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO THIS, UM, THIS POSITION OF, UH, THIS, UH, I GUESS, UM, THING THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED HERE.
UM, I THINK I HAVE THE MOST, THE, THE PROPERTY THAT'S WOULD BE MOST AFFECTED BY IT BECAUSE IF THIS IS COMING UP WITHIN LIKE EIGHT, EIGHT FEET OF THE FENCE WHERE I AM, THEN IT'S JUST GOING TO BE VERY OBTRUSIVE.
UM, I THINK ZONING DECISIONS, UH, HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR LONG-TERM IMPACTS, NOT JUST FOR THE PRESENT ASSURANCES.
STRUCTURES ARE PERMANENT OWNERSHIP CHANGES, FUTURE USE CAN'T BE REGULATED BY GOOD INTENTIONS ALONE.
AND ONCE THE SECOND, UM, RESIDENCE EXIST, THERE'S NO PRACTICAL RE FOR RECOURSE FOR NEIGHBORS IF IT BECOMES ANYTHING OTHER THAN JUST A HOME FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN RESIDENCE.
JUST AS A FOOTNOTE, A A A CLOSING THING THAT I WOULD SAY NO MEMBER OF THE FAMILY HAS CONTACTED ME PERSONALLY TO SIGN ANY FORMS TO EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THE INTENTIONS ARE.
ALL OF THE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS HAS COME FROM THIS COMMITTEE AND ALSO FROM MY NEIGHBORS.
UM, MAYBE BECAUSE I'M OLDER, I'M 80 YEARS OLD, MAYBE THEY THINK THAT MY OPINION DOESN'T MATTER, BUT I THINK THAT MY VOICE NEEDS TO BE HEARD AND I, I JUST, IT IT APPEARS
[01:05:01]
THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE TWO HOUSES THERE.AS MS. REVA SAID, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO EXPAND YOUR FAMILY, THEN GO UP ADD TWO, BUT DON'T HAVE THIS HUGE, UH, UH, STRUCTURE IN THE BACK THAT'S GOING TO CREATE TO ME MORE PROBLEMS. ENTRANCE FROM THE ALLEY SECOND, UM, GARAGE, SECOND HOUSE.
I JUST, I JUST AM VERY MUCH NOT IN FAVOR OF IT AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
AT THIS POINT I'M GONNA ENTERTAIN A MOTION, UH, ON THE FIRST ISSUE OF, UH, WHETHER TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO THE FLOOR AREA FOR A STRUCTURE ACCESSORY TO SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATION.
DO IS SOMEONE HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION.
MR. FINNEY, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO A DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 5 5 ON APPLICATION OF RYAN HUSTON DENY THE VARIANCE TO THE FLOOR AREA FOR A STRUCTURE ACCESSORY TO THE 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.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION STARTING WITH MR. FINNEY? YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, UM, IN, YOU KNOW, MEETING WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS AND, UM, SHOWING A WILLINGNESS TO, TO COMPROMISE, UH, ON AREAS WHERE THEIR NEIGHBORS, UH, HAD CONCERNS.
UM, AND I THINK THAT EVERY APPLICANT DESERVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECONSIDER THEIR APPROACH WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS.
AND WE ALWAYS HOPE TO SEE, UM, UH, OUR APPLICANTS, YOU KNOW, GO BACK AND, UH, RE-ENGAGE.
AND SO, UM, THAT'S WHY I DID, UH, MADE A MOTION TO NOT JUST DENY, BUT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, MR. CAMPBELL, I WOULD, UH, OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO DENY IT WITH PREJUDICE.
UM, I CAN SPEAK TO THAT IF YOU'D LIKE.
UH, THEN I THINK ON THAT WE'D HAVE, SO QUESTION IS, IS THERE A SECOND TO MR. CAMPBELL'S MOTION TO MODIFY THE MOTION TO MAKE IT WITH PREJUDICE THEN THE MOTION FAILS? NO, NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.
I MEAN, I GUESS I JUST WANT TO, I WOULD I JUST ASK, UH, YOU KNOW, WITH OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE, I GUESS I CAN EXPLAIN WHY I WAS NO, I WAS LEANING THAT WAY JUST SO THE BOARD UNDERSTANDS WHY I WAS LEANING THAT WAY.
I WAS LEANING WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S PORTIONS ES ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE TESTIMONY THAT WE WERE GIVEN IN FROM THE APPLICANTS AND AND THEIR WITNESSES IN NOVEMBER WHENEVER WE FIRST HEARD THIS, THAT MADE ME QUESTION THE VERACITY OF THE APPLICATION ITSELF, UH, AND WHAT THE USE WAS GOING FOR, WHICH IS WHY I WAS IN SUPPORT OF BARRING THEM FROM REAPPLYING UNDER THE SAME APPLICATION BY, UH, A MOTION OR, SORRY, BY A, UH, DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE.
'CAUSE I, AGAIN, I, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE VERACITY WAS, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, BASED OFF THE TESTIMONY, I UNDERSTAND THAT NOT EVERYONE ON THE PANEL WAS HERE FOR THAT.
UM, THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE, AT THE HEARING LAST TIME.
MADE ME QUESTION AGAIN, THE ACTUAL INTENDED USE OF THE, OF THE PROPOSED, UH, ACCESSION ALSO BACKED UP BY THE TESTIMONY THAT WE RECEIVED JUST TODAY WHERE MS. RIVAS TESTIFIED THAT SHE WAS TOLD THAT THE, THAT WOULD BE USED TO HOUSE THE ONE OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS, WHICH AGAIN, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES IS AN A EU, NOT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I WAS LEANING TOWARDS WITH PREJUDICE AS OPPOSED TO WITHOUT.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION FAILED.
JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN AND ALL I WOULD SAY, UM, MY ONLY THOUGHT IS WE DIDN'T END UP ACTUALLY HEARING THIS CASE TOTALLY ON THE MERITS.
THE APPLICANTS DIDN'T SHOW UP 'CAUSE THEY HAD WITHDRAWN IT.
AND SO I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID ABOUT YOUR RECOLLECTION OF NOVEMBER, BUT I THINK BECAUSE WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY HEAR IT, WE SHOULDN'T DENY IT WITH PREJUDICE.
UM, NOW MAYBE WE WOULD DENY IT IF IT CAME BACK BEFORE US BASED ON THE EVIDENCE LATER, BUT I JUST THINK, UM, I AGREE WITH MR. FINNEY.
SO, UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON MR. FINNEY'S MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITH THAT THEN COULD WE PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE
[01:10:02]
MR. KIMBALL.MOTION TO DENY PASSES THEN THE LAST ISSUE ON OUR DOCKET TODAY IS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO GRANT A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE BUILDING HEIGHT FOR STRUCTURE ACCESSORY TO A SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATION IN THE SAME CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 5 5.
THE APPLICATION OF RYAN HOUSTON.
IS THERE A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 0 5 5 ON APPLICATION OF RYAN HUSTON DENY THE VARIANCE TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT FOR STRUCTURE'S ACCESSORY TO SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
'CAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD NOT RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.
ANY DISCUSSION ON MR. FINNEY'S MOTION? I THINK MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS STILL EQUALLY APPLY.
AND I JUST WANT TO THANK OUR WITNESSES FOR COMING BEFORE THE BOARD, UH, TODAY AND ALSO THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WEREN'T ABLE TO SIGN UP ON TIME.
UH, THANK YOU FOR STICKING AROUND, BUT YOUR TESTIMONY WAS INCREDIBLY VALUABLE, SO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, CAN WE PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL? VOTE ON MR. FINNEY'S.
MOTION TO DENY MR. QUINN? AYE.
MOTION TO DENY PASSES OR TO SEAT? THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING DOWN, HAVING NO OTHER BUSINESS SEEING NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL B IS ADJOURNED AT 2:12 PM THANK YOU VERY MUCH.