[00:00:01]
GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
[Board of Adjustments: Panel C on April 13, 2026.]
UH, I AM JARED SLID.I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS A TEMPORARY PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS PANEL C.
TODAY IS MONDAY, APRIL 13TH, 2026, AND THE TIME IS 1:00 PM AND I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL C, THE ORDER FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, WE HAVE A FORUM, ALL FIVE OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT AND THEREFORE WE PROCEED WITH THE MEETING FOR BRIEF INTRODUCTIONS.
UH, I AGAIN, I'M JARED SLAY, A TEMPORARY PRESIDING OFFICER OF TODAY'S BANK SEAT.
UH, TO MY LEFT IS MELINDA GARDA.
YOU KNOW IT TO HIS LEFT IS ELIA BRICKS AND ROGER SASH IS JOINING US.
UM, STAFF PRESENT INCLUDES STARTING AT MY RIGHT, TERESA CARLISLE, BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
HER RIGHT IS DR. MILLER HOSKINS, BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND PLANNER.
IF HE'S NOT, SHE WILL BE HERE IN A MOMENT.
UH, AND, UM, TO HER VACANT SEATS, RIGHT IS MARY WILLIAMS, BOARD SECRETARY LEADING
UH, BEFORE WE BEGIN, I HAVE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS SHARE ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE WAY THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL.
WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR THAT TIME.
THOUGH WE ARE PROVIDED A COMPLIMENTARY LUNCH.
WE OPERATE UNDER THE CITY COUNCIL, PROVE RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH ARE POSTED TO OUR WEBSITE CONSISTENT WITH THE DE DEVELOPMENT CODE.
NO ACTION OR DECISION ON BASE SETS OF PRESSING.
EACH CASE IS DECIDED UPON ITS OWN MERITS CIRCUMSTANCE.
THE APPLICANT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH THE NECESSARY FACTS OR FAVORABLE ACTION FILE.
UH, WE HAVE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY STAFF PRIOR TO THIS HEARING.
I'VE ALSO REVIEWED A DETAILED PUBLIC DOCKET, WHICH PLAINS CASE AND WHICH WAS POSTED SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY OF THE CASES BEFORE US THAT WE'LL HEAR TODAY, WILL 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 PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR REVERSAL OR BUILDING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL DECISION REQUIRES 75% OR AT LEAST FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES.
ALL OF THEM MOTIONS REQUIRE
A DECISION LETTER OF THE BOARD'S ACTION TODAY WILL BE EMAILED TO THE APPLICANT BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY WITHIN TWO DAYS AFTER TODAY'S HEARING, A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD BREACH CASE.
IN ADDITION, THE BOA WEBSITE PENDING FEES LOG PAGE WILL BE UPDATED.
ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY MUCH REGISTER IN ADVANCE OF OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
EACH REGISTRY SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR A MATTER ON OUR AGENDA FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES.
SO WITH UH, REQUEST WE CAN EXTEND THAT.
A SPEAKER MAY ALSO SPEAK WHEN A SPECIFIC CASE IS CALLED FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR A MAXIMUM OF FIVE.
AGAIN, OUR QUESTIONS TO ANY SPEAKER DO NOT COME OUTSIDE AGAINST THAT ARE ALL REGISTERED ONLINE.
SPEAKER MUST BE PRESENT ON VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
NO TELECONFERENCING WILL BE ALLOWED VIA WEBEX.
ALL COMMENTS ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO ME AS THE TEMPORARY OFFICER WILL MODIFY STATE DEFENSE AS NECESSARY.
UM, OUR AGENDA TODAY LISTED, UH, APPROVAL OF OUR MARCH 16TH, 2026 MINUTES.
UM, THREE CASES THAT STARTED ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET AND ONE HOLDOVER ITEM, UH, ONE OF THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET CASES EMPLOYEES PULLED, UH, THE ADDRESS RIGHT OUR CASE.
WE WILL TAKE THEM IN ORDER, UH, OF THE REMAINING UNCONTESTED ITEMS, UH, WHICH IS DOA 2 6 0 0 0 0 10 DOA 2 6 0 0 0 1 7.
AND WE WILL PROCEED TO BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 0 6 HOLLOWAY ROAD AND THEN CONCLUDE WITH, UM, THE HOLDOVER ITEM BO, A 2 5 0 0 0 2 1 7.
UM, THE FIRST ITEM THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO ADDRESS AT THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, UM, MS. GARNER HAD IDENTIFIED THAT THERE WAS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, UH, THAT THAT REFLECTED I HAD BEEN LAST MONTH'S PRESIDING OFFICER, WHEREAS OF COURSE RODNEY MILLIKEN.
SO, UM, WE WOULD ASK THAT THAT ALL REFERENCES TO MR. SLATE IN THOSE MINUTES BE ADJUSTED TO MR. MILLIKEN.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER EDITS OPPOSED TO THE MARCH 16TH, 2026, FIFTH? SEEING NONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE? MOTION, MS. GAR? MR. CHAIRMAN, UM, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MARCH 16TH, 2026 PANEL C MEETING MINUTES.
UH, DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING MINUTES? AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? FROM HERE ON FORWARD, WE WILL HAVE VOICE VOTES FOR RECORDING.
[00:05:01]
THAT WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON OUR UNCONTESTED DOCKET.DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION TO ADDRESS THOSE ITEMS? MS. GARNER, PLEASE.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS LISTED ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICATION SATISFY ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE AS APPLICABLE TO WIT BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 1 0 APPLICATION OF ROBERT BALDWIN FOR A VARIANCE TO THE LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED BO A DASH 26 0 0 7 APPLICATION OF AND SHORT FOR A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS CONTAIN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT VOTE? I'LL SECOND THANK PEREZ.
ANY DISCUSSION NECESSARY? SEE NONE.
SECRETARY WILLIAMS, WOULD YOU PLEASE FOLLOW VOTE MS. PEREZ? AYE.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES? FIVE TO ZERO.
UM, THE NEXT CASE FOR US TO HEAR IS BOA 2 6 0 0 0 0.
ONE SECOND AN APPLICATION, JENNIFER ITO 4 1 0 0 0 6 HOLLOW WAY ROAD.
UH, MS. ITO, UH, AS YOU KNOW, WOULD YOU MIND BRIEFLY INTRODUCING YOURSELF AND SHARING YOUR, UM, WORK ADDRESS SO THAT YOU CAN SWORN IT BY? YES.
UM, GOOD AFTERNOON, JENNIFER HIROTO, 1 0 2 3 3 EAST MEMPHIS HIGHWAY IN DALLAS.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, I DO.
I HAVE THE PRESENTATION, MR. JOHNSON
CAN I GO AHEAD AND ASK THE QUESTION WHILE THAT'S COMING UP? YES.
DID, UH, THE CURRENT OWNER, YOUR CLIENT, PUT IN THIS FENCE OR DID IT, WAS IT THERE WHEN THEY THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
THE WALNUT MILK FENCE WAS THERE.
AND, UM, WE CAN START FROM THE FIRST SLIDE.
UM, THE, UM, WE CAN GO TO THE SECOND.
SO THIS HOUSE WAS, UM, BEGAN CONSTRUCTION IN, UM, 2022.
IT'S, SO THIS HAS BEEN A VERY LONG PROCESS.
UM, THE FENCE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ERROR.
UM, THEY DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF A PERMIT.
UM, AND IT'S, UM, THEY WERE THOUGHTFUL, HOWEVER THEY LOOKED AT WHAT WAS EXISTING IN THE AREA.
UM, THE HOUSE THAT'S ACROSS TO THE NORTHWEST, UM, IT HAS WHAT'S ROUGHLY A FOUR-ISH FOOT, UH, FENCE WITH, UM, COLUMNS AND PANELS.
THAT IS APPROXIMATELY WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING HERE.
THE FIVE FOOT THREE, UM, THE PANELS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING ARE FOUR FOOT NINE, AND YOU SAW ON THE PHOTOS THAT THEY'RE OPEN AND THIS LANDSCAPING, UH, IS COMPLETED.
UM, SO IT DOES HELP SCREEN, UM, THE, THE FENCE.
UM, SO THERE ARE FOUR FENCES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED, UM, IN THIS VICINITY.
AND I FOCUS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF, OF WALNUT HILL BECAUSE I THINK THE HOMES IN THE, THE NOVA AREA THAT ARE SOUTH OF WALNUT HILL JUST HAVE A DIFFERENT CHARACTER SINCE THEY'RE ON A THOROUGH FAIR.
UM, THE HOME, LET'S SEE, WE'RE GONNA GO, UM, COUNTERCLOCKWISE.
SO IT'S STARTING TO THE NORTH.
UM, THAT FENCE HEIGHT IS EIGHT FOOT, SORRY, SIX FOOT EIGHT FOR THE COLUMNS.
UH, NORTH OF THAT THEY WERE APPROVED FOR NINE FOOT, SEVEN FOOT COLUMNS, NINE FOOT SEVEN INCHES COLUMNS, UM, CIRCLING AROUND UP TO THE WEST
[00:10:01]
SIDE OF THE STREET.NUMBER THREE, UM, THAT HOUSE WAS A, WAS BUILT IN 1987 ACCORDING TO THE PERMIT RECORDS I COULD FIND.
THAT'S THE HOME THAT HAS THE, THE FINS AND APPROXIMATELY THE HEIGHT THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.
UM, AND THEN DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM US, THE HOUSE THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN 2022, THEY WERE APPROVED FOR A NINE FOOT TALL STUCCO WALL.
UM, UH, AND IT DID MENTION IN THE APPROVAL THAT IT WAS ALONG THE HOLLOWAY FRONTAGE.
SO JUST KIND OF GOING THROUGH THE, THE PHOTOS OF THOSE FOUR, UH, FENCES.
SO THIS IS, UM, TWO LOTS TO OUR NORTH.
UH, THIS IS THE, THE HOME IS AT THE, THE CURB OF THE STREET, UH, THAT WAS APPROVED FOR NINE FOOT, UH, ALMOST 10 FOOT, UH, COLUMNS.
UH, THIS IS THE HOME THAT WAS BUILDING IN APPROXIMATELY 1987 THAT WE, WE MIRRORED THE HEIGHT.
UH, AND THEN THIS IS THE, THE PROPERTY THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM US THAT HAD THE MOST RECENT BOARD APPROVAL.
UM, I DID NOT SPEAK WITH THE OWNER.
WE, UM, I SPOKE WITH THE CONTRACTOR.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING.
SO SINCE OUR TEST IS, DOES THE PROPOSED FENCE ADVERSELY AFFECT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES? I MAILED LETTERS TO THE NOTICE AREA, UH, BACK IN EARLY MARCH.
UM, WE DID RECEIVE TWO SUPPORT LETTERS THAT HAVE THE GREEN DOTS ON THE MAP.
UM, I SPOKE WITH THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH OF WALNUT HILL, UM, AND THEN THE, TO THE NORTHWEST WHERE THERE'S AN E UM, THE NEXT SLIDE I'VE RECEIVED AN EMAIL.
UM, AND THEY SAY NO OBJECTION, BUT IT KIND OF GOES ON TO, UM, SAY, HEY, YOU'VE GOT SOME LANDSCAPING ALONG WALNUT HILL THAT NEEDS TO BE TRAILED.
WE'VE GOT A, YOUR IRRIGATION'S PROBABLY TIMED OFF A LITTLE BIT.
SO, UM, I DIDN'T BOTHER YOU WITH ALL THAT
UM, BUT WE HAD CORRESPONDENCE, WE'VE TRIMED THE TREES, WE ADJUSTED THE ORATION.
SO, UM, JUST ANOTHER SUPPORT FOR THE, FOR THOSE FENCE.
UM, SO WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
HAVE MS. YTO, I KNOW YOU'RE, UH, DO A LOT OF WORK IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF, HAVE YOU GENERALLY FOUND THAT, UM, IF ANYONE BELIEVED IT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THEIR PROPERTY, THEY WOULD'VE REACHED OUT TO YOU GIVEN, UH, THEY WOULD ALL THE SIGNS UP IN YOUR EXPERIENCE? YES, SIR.
THEY WOULD REACH OUT TO ME DIRECTLY TO STAFF OR THEY WOULD BE HERE TODAY.
UM, I KNOW THERE'S POCKETS, LITTLE NEIGHBORHOODS IN THIS AREA THAT, UM, SHARE A, A, A BELIEF ABOUT FRONT YARD FENCES.
UM, AND THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE AREAS.
ARE THERE OTHER, IN MY OPINION, I, UH, SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, UH, THE HOME ITSELF WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2022.
JUST SO IT STARTED IN 22 AND IT JUST WRAPPED UP.
THE FENCE THAT FACES WALNUT HILL, THEY LEFT THERE 'CAUSE IT WAS ALREADY THERE.
AND SO THIS IS THE FENCE GOING AGAINST HOLLOWAY.
UH, AND THEY PUT IT UP WITHOUT A PERMIT.
THE INSPECTOR TOLD THEM TO CORRECT IT, SO YES, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
OUR TEST IS IF WE ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
IF WHAT IF THE PROPOSED FENCE ADVERSELY AFFECTS NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT WILL? CORRECT.
SEEING HOW IS, HOW IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, A FOOT THREE INCHES HIGHER? YES, MA'AM.
I, I BELIEVE THERE ARE OTHER FENCES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE MUCH TALLER, UM, ESPECIALLY WITH THE FENCE THAT WILL BE COMING DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET AT NINE FEET.
UM, AND THEN WHEN YOU GO FURTHER INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I, THIS IS, I THINK A COMMON OCCURRENCE FOR FRONT YARD FENCES IN THIS AREA, ESPECIALLY BEING SO CLOSE TO WALNUT HILL.
I THINK IT'S THE, I THINK THE CORNER LOTS ARE SOMETIMES A LITTLE BIT MORE VULNERABLE, UM, WHEN PEOPLE JUST TURNS INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I THINK IT HELPS PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF DEFINITION BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE REALM.
UM, AND GIVES THE HOMEOWNERS A LITTLE BIT MORE SECURITY.
[00:15:03]
OKAY.WELL THE FACT, UH, THE WAY I'M VIEWING IT RIGHT NOW AND, YOU KNOW, I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO MY BOARD MEMBER TO SEE IF THEY CAN CHANGE MY MIND.
I SEE THIS AS A, AS A SELF-INFLICTED.
'CAUSE IF YOU GUYS HAD GONE AND PULLED THE PERMIT, YOU WOULD'VE SEEN, HEY, IT CAN'T BE ANY HIGHER THAN FOUR FEET.
WE WOULDN'T BE HERE RIGHT NOW.
IT, IT'S ALWAYS EASIER TO ASK PERMISSION.
UM, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S OUR TEST.
IF IT WAS A VARIANCE AND IT WAS A SELF CREATED HARDSHIP, UM, I THINK THAT COULD BE A DIFFERENT MATTER.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE HEARING NONE? UM, I WILL TAKE NOTE AND START.
UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA 26 DASH 0 0 0 16 ON APPLICATION OF JENNER JENNIFER GITO.
GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN A FIVE FOOT THREE INCH HEIGHT FENCE AS A, AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED FOR THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
UM, SO DISCUSSION AND BURDEN US, UM, I I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND ESTABLISHING SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DEFENSE HEIGHT REG REGULATIONS THAT THEY WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
UM, THERE THERE'S NO OPPOSITION AND THERE ARE SOME, UH, SIMILAR FENCES, UH, WITHIN IN THE AREA.
YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S WHERE I, I COME DOWN TO, UH, CERTAINLY TO YOUR POINT MS. PEREZ WAS THE ERROR BY THE APPLICANT ON BUILDING IT AND OR STATE LEAVING JUST NEAR LEVELS, THEY WOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH.
UM, BUT GIVEN THAT THE TESTS FOR THIS IS ADVERSE RESPECT, UM, AND IN OUR, MY EXPERIENCE AT LEAST ANY NEIGHBOR WITH ANY FALL IN THIS AREA IS VERY LIKELY TO, UH, ISSUE THAT THE CASE, UH, I DON'T THINK THAT GRANT IN THIS PARTICULAR EXCEPTION FOR AND ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK LEVEL MR. MILLER, PLEASE? YEAH, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION AS WELL.
UM, I FEEL THAT THE, UH, APPLICANT HAS, UM, HAS SHOWN THAT, UM, THE 1.3 ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, UM, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THEIR NEIGHBORS, BUT ALSO THAT THEY'RE USING A LANDSCAPE TO SOFTEN THAT.
AND SO THAT WILL MAKE IT APPEALING AND WILL ALSO SOFTEN THAT, UH, EDGE ON IT IF SOMEONE IS OFFENDED BY THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.
SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THAT MOTION.
MR. ASHTON AND MR. BRAD WOULD EITHER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK A NO, I'M GOOD.
YOU PLEASE POP UP MS. GARDNER.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES BY ZERO.
UM, THAT BRINGS US TO THE NEXT CASE.
UH,
DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT
I, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT I'M, I'M HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME HEARING YOU.
UM, WELL THAT'S UNFORTUNATE FOR OH MAN.
THERE FOR EVERYONE ELSE I'M SURE.
[00:20:01]
YOU'RE, I APPRECIATE OKAY, I WILL GO AHEAD AND TRY TO DO A BETTER JOB OF, UH, BEING CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE.MR. SASH, I'M GOING TO, I SEE IF SECRETARY WILLIAMS HAPPENS TO SPOT OUR APPLICANT.
IF SHE DOES NOT, I THINK I WILL CALL US ON A FIVE MINUTE RECESS TO SEE IF WE CAN TRACK DOWN THE APPLICANT, UM, BEFORE ADDRESSING THE CASE WITHOUT THE APPLICANT PUTTING ON ANYTHING IN COURT.
UM, THE TIME IS CURRENTLY 1:21 PM WE WILL TAKE A FIVE TO SEVEN MINUTE RESET WHILE WE TRY TO REACH OUT TO THE APPLICANT TO SEE IF THE APPLICANT WILL BE APPEARING.
AND THEN AT THAT POINT WE CAN DECIDE HOW WE WILL PROCEED.
WE WILL BE FORMALLY TAKING A EIGHT MINUTE RECESS.
WE WILL RETURN AT 1:30 PM THANK YOU.
THE TIME IS 1:30 PM THE PANEL C WILL WE CONVENE, UM, OUR NEXT CASE UP IS BOA 2 5 0 0 0 8 2 1 1 7 VAN BUREN.
UM, SINCE WE DO HAVE, UH, A VIRTUAL PRESENTER, LET'S DO A QUICK TECH CHECK.
UM, DO YOU HAPPEN TO ALSO HAVE THE AUDIO WORK? I DO.
LET ME, I'M MR. TURN, MY BACKGROUND LIGHTS OFF.
UH, MR. SACHE, I ASSUME YOU CAN HEAR ME AND THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO HEAR THE APPLICANT? UH, YES SIR.
OKAY, SO I WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL, UM, VOA 2 5 0 0 0 0 8 2 1 17.
UM, IF THE APPLICANT WOULDN'T MIND, UH, INTRODUCING HIMSELF, STATING HIS NAME, STATING A WORK ADDRESS, UH, SO THAT HE COULD BE SWORN IN SO THAT WE CAN MAKE OUR RECORD WORK.
MY NAME IS CHAD MILLS WITH 3 7 5 RESTORATION SERVICES, 1 4 7 TYLER COURT, FORT WORTH, TEXAS 7 6 1 0 8.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
SO I'M THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR THAT HAS SUBMITTED THE PERMITTING FOR THIS JOB.
UH, THE PREMISE IS THE, THE APARTMENT BUILDING, WHICH WAS A DUPLEX CAUGHT ON FIRE SEVERAL YEARS AGO.
I WAS BROUGHT IN WELL AFTER THE FACT TO CLEAN UP THE MESS OF THE OTHER CONTRACTOR AND THE BUILDING WAS DEEMED UNINHABITABLE SO IT HAD TO BE TORN DOWN TO THE SLAB.
SO WE DID THAT INITIALLY TO GET RID OF THE NUISANCE OF THE STRUCTURE BEING THERE.
IT WAS DANGEROUS, HOMELESS PEOPLE LIVING IN IT.
UM, FERAL ANIMALS, ALL SORTS OF THINGS.
SO WE TOOK IT TO THE SLAB, STARTED THE PERMITTING PROCESS, AND THEN WE RAN INTO THIS ROADBLOCK WHERE WE NEED TO ABIDE BY A NEW ORDINANCE, BRINGING THE STRUCTURE WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM THE SIDEWALK.
UM, ALL TO SAY WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY WITH A COUPLE DIFFERENT OFFICIALS HELPING US THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
IT'S OUR FIRST TIME DOING THIS PIECE.
UM, AND WHAT WE'VE LEARNED IS THERE ARE TWO TREES THAT, UM, ARE VIABLE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE CUT DOWN IN ORDER TO MOVE THE BUILDING TOWARD THE SIDEWALK UNDER THE NEW ORDINANCE.
AND THEN SECONDLY, IT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT COST INCREASE BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING SLAB, REROUTE ALL THE PLUMBING, AND THEN BUILD A NEW SLAB.
AND THEN THIRDLY, THIS IS ONE OF NUMEROUS BUILDINGS THAT IS OWNED BY MY CLIENT ON VAN BUREN.
SO IT WOULD BE THE ONLY BUILDING SITTING CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK AND OR STREET AND IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY OUT OF PLACE, UH, FROM THEIR OTHER APARTMENT BUILDINGS THAT THEY OWN.
AND FOR THE QUESTION ON THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT YOUR, UH, CLIENT OWNS, ARE THOSE ALSO WITHIN THE PD OR ARE THEY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET AND THEREFORE NOT IN THIS PD WITH THIS MINIMUM MAXIMUM SETBACK, THEY ARE ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET.
SO THEY TWO PRECEDED THE PD GOING INTO EFFECT? CORRECT.
AND REMIND ME WHAT PD STANDS FOR PLEASE? OH, I APOLOGIZE.
[00:25:02]
PLAN DEVELOPMENT.THAT'S, UH, 'CAUSE THAT'S THE OVERLAY THAT HAS THE RESPECTIVE SETBACK.
LIKE I, I JOKED WHEN WE STARTED THIS THING, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER HEARD OF SOMEONE WANTING A MORE OF A SETBACK.
UH, I'M ALWAYS, UM, BECAUSE I ANTICIPATE IT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO THE GROUP.
DO YOU HAVE A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE TREES THAT ARE, UM, YOUR CLIENT IS HOPING TO SORT OF PRESERVE IN CONNECTION WITH? YEAH, SO NOT RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THE CARDINAL DIRECTION OF THE, OF THE BUILDING, BUT IF YOU'RE FACING WHAT WOULD BE THE, FROM THE STREET LOOKING TOWARD THE BUILDING, THERE'S IN FACT A PRETTY DECENT SIZED TREE THAT'S ALMOST AS TALL AS WHAT WOULD THE EXISTING BUILDING WOULD BE ON THE LEFT SIDE TOWARD THE DRIVE LANE.
AND THEN THERE'S A, A SET OF TREES, I BELIEVE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE, UH, ALONG THE FENCE LINE OF THAT CORRIDOR.
AND I, I, MY ASSISTANT TOLD ME THAT THE, UM, THE ARBORIST FROM THE CITY HAD GONE OUT THERE AND SAID, YES, THEY ARE VIABLE TREES AND THEY, THEY CAN STAY THERE BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE THRIVING AND, AND THEY'RE NOT JUST OLD DEADWOOD.
UM, I THINK THE CITY RECOMMENDED DENIAL BECAUSE OF INDICATING THAT THE SUBJECT SITE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE RESTRICTIVE IN AREA SHAPE OR SLOPE.
UM, IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT SITE THAT YOU, UH, UH, IN ADDITION TO THE TREES THAT YOU RAISED THAT IN YOUR OPINION, UM, MAKES THIS SUBJECT SITE SOMEHOW OTHERWISE RESTRICTIVE IN AREA SHAPE OR SLOPE? YOU MEAN WHY WE SH WHY, UM, WHY I SHOULDN'T MOVE IT FORWARD OR WHY I SHOULD MOVE IT FORWARD? UM, SO THE CRITERIA THAT THE PANEL IS SUPPOSED TO ASSESS IS WHETHER IT'S CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WHETHER IT'S, UH, SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP AND WHETHER THE SUBJECT SITE IS SOMEHOW RESTRICTIVE IN AREA SHAPE OR SLOPE.
AND SO JUST TRYING TO SORT OF FIGURE OUT THE APPLICANT'S POSITION IN RESPECT OF THOSE, UM, ELEMENTS TO TRY TO, TO SEE WHAT IT IS AND MAKE SURE WE SURE THE APPLICANT POSITION WOULD, WOULD AESTHETICS FALL INTO SHAPE? AND THE REASON I ASK IS
I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S ONE THAT IS, I MEAN, IT'S GONNA BE UP TO THE PANEL AND DECIDE WHETHER THAT CARRIES THE DAY, BUT I THINK THAT'S MM-HMM
THE SORT OF IDEA BEING, I MEAN I, I APPRECIATE FROM WHAT I AM HEARING FROM YOU, IT'S THE APPLICANT GENERALLY SEEMS TO WANT TO BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THE PREEXISTING SLAB, UM, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY POURED, EVERYTHING'S ALREADY SET AND TO MAKE ANY MODIFICATION TO THAT IS GONNA BE VERY EXPENSIVE.
UM, WHICH IS UP AGAINST THE, THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE AREA THAT HAS DECIDED AND WHATEVER COLLECTIVE WISDOM THERE WERE TO HAVE, UM, PROPERTIES GET MUCH CLOSER TO THE STREET, UM YES.
AND SO I'M JUST TRYING TO ASK TO GATHER KIND OF THE BEST THE APPLICANT HAS SO THAT AS WE CONSIDER THE ELEMENTS THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO, WE'RE NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, THAT NECESSARY TO PROTECT DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIFIC PARCEL OF LAND THAT DIFFERS FROM OTHER PARCELS BY BEING OF SUCH A RESTRICTED AREA, SHAPE OR SLOPE.
UM, I REALIZE THAT IT'S A BIT OF A DEEPER LOT THAN THE TWO IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH OF IT ON, ON THE SUBJECT SIDE FROM ON THE VAN BUREN SIDE AND THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
AND, AND SO FROM, HAD THIS NOT BEEN PART OF MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON VAN BUREN THAT THE CLIENT OWNS, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE SUCH OF A BIG DEAL.
THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T CARE AND MAYBE INCUR THAT COST, BUT IT IS, IT WOULD BE THEIR ONLY BUILDING ON VAN BUREN THAT WOULD BE SITTING WHATEVER THE FEET IS OFF THE STREET AND IT JUST WOULDN'T BE AESTHETICALLY APPEALING.
AND I GET THE INTENT IN THAT AREA OF THE BISHOP ARTS DISTRICT, WHAT EVERYBODY'S DOING, BUT THEY'RE NOT PLOWING ALL THEIR BUILDINGS DOWN AND REBUILDING THEM FROM SCRATCH.
SO IF THEY WERE, THEN YES, WE WOULD ABIDE BY ALL OF THIS STUFF, BUT SINCE IT'S ONE ISOLATED BUILDING, WE WERE HOPING TO BE GRANTED THAT.
UH, AND THEN OF COURSE THE TREE SITUATION AND THEN THE SIGNIFICANT COST THAT WILL CREATE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP FOR THE CLIENT.
AND WE'RE BUILDING THE BUILDING, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE BUILDING THE BUILDING BACK EXACTLY LIKE IT WAS PRIOR.
[00:30:01]
HEIGHT, SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE.WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING, WE'RE USING THAT EXISTING SLAB FOOTPRINT AND JUST RECREATING THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS THERE PRIOR.
UH, MRS. PEREZ, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE QUESTION.
UH, JUST TO MAKE SURE, UH, I HAVE THIS RIGHT.
YOU, UH, THE BUILDING BURNT DOWN AND YOU HAD SOME TRANSIENT LIVING IN THERE FOR A WHILE AND THEN YOU GUYS COMPLETELY TOOK IT DOWN JUST TO GET RID OF THE NUISANCE, RIGHT? FOR THE NUISANCE AND, AND FOR A LIFE SAFETY ASPECT.
AND SO AT THAT TIME WHEN THAT BUILDING WAS SITTING THERE AS A NUISANCE, HOW LONG WAS THAT? OH GOSH, BY THE TIME I CAME ON BOARD, PROBABLY THE BETTER PART OF A YEAR.
THE OTHER CONTRACTOR HAD ABANDONED THE JOB AND THEY COULDN'T FIND ANOTHER CONTRACTOR TO TAKE THE JOB ON.
AND SO AT THAT TIME WHEN IT WAS, YOU KNOW, FOR THE BETTER PART OF A YEAR WHEN IT WAS A NUISANCE, UH, WAS THAT CAUSING, UH, HARM WOULD YOU SAY, TO THE NEIGHBORS OR HELPING IT HELPING NEIGHBORS IN TERMS OF, I WOULD SAY IT WAS ABSOLUTELY CAUSING HARM TO THE NEIGHBORS.
IT WAS, IT DREW MORE TRANSIENT VAGRANT TYPE PEOPLE IN THERE AND THERE WAS ALSO DISRUPTING THE TENANTS THAT ACTUALLY LIVED IN THE OTHER APARTMENTS THAT THEY OWN.
AND SO YOU SAY, UH, WHAT YOU'RE GONNA BUILD BACK IS EXACTLY THE SAME BUILDING THAT WAS THERE BEFORE PRIOR, YES.
UH, IT'LL ALL BE UPDATED, ALL NEW EVERYTHING EXCEPT FOR THE SLAB.
AND, UH, IT DOES, UH, THE OWNER PLAN TO RENT THEM OUT? YES.
UH, DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH HE'S GONNA RENT THEM FOR? I DO NOT.
WHATEVER THE MARKET RATE RENT IS GOING FOR OVER THERE NOW.
SO IF YOU'RE GRANTED THIS EXCEPTION AND YOU'RE ABLE TO BUILD THIS BUILDING BACK, WOULD THAT NEW BUILDING WITH THIS SETBACK, UH, UH, BE AN IMPROVEMENT? W WOULD IT HARM THE NEIGHBORS, UH, THE OTHER, UH, HOMEOWNERS ALONG THAT STREET? NOT WOULD IT BENEFIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I BELIEVE IT WOULD BENEFIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YES.
AND DO YOU SEE ANY HARM COMING FROM IT, THE FACT THAT YOU'D BE HOLDING ONTO TWO TREES AS WELL? I DO NOT SEE ANY HARM.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. MILLS? YEAH, ONE ONCE GOING FIVE.
IS THERE A MOTION MS. GARNER, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BOA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 0 8 2 ON APPLICATION OF CHAD MILLS GRANTS THE 12 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE ME MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT.
'CAUSE HER 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 IS AMENDED THE RESULT AND 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.
COMPLIES WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
AND JUST, UH, SO WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE AT THIS POINT.
UH, MR. MILLS, THAT MEANS WE CAN'T HEAR FROM YOU FURTHER, SO IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND MUTING YOURSELF, THAT'D BE GREAT.
UM, AND I'LL TRY TO BE REMEMBERED TO STAY CLOSE TO MY MIC.
SO, MR. SASH, AND, UH, PER USUAL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND LET THE MOVE IN BE THE FIRST ONE SPEAK AND THEN MRS. PEREZ WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MET THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
UM, WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY LETTERS OF OPPOSITION, SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
YOU KNOW, IN ADDITION TO THIS, IS THE STRUCTURE BEING REBUILT AS IT WAS, UH, IN INITIALLY BUILT? UM, AND, UH, I DON'T THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THERE WAS RESTRICTIONS TO THE LOT, BUT I CAN APPRECIATE THAT, UH, THE TREES THAT ARE THERE, UM, SHOULD BE, UM, SHOULD STAY.
AND, UM, THIS IS NOT A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP IN THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE KIND OF GOING, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE WE'RE JUST BUILDING THERE.
UM, I CAN UNDERSTAND HOW SOME CONFUSION HAD, UM,
[00:35:01]
BEEN INJECTED IN THAT SCENARIO.UM, SO I'M, I BELIEVE THAT, UM, GRANTING THIS MOTION, UM, IS, UM, PROPER.
MS. PEREZ, PLEASE IF YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO, YEAH, I AGREE.
THIS WOULD BE, UH, IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST, UH, FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE STREET.
I'M CLOSER ON THE FENCE ON THIS ONE.
UM, BUT NOTE THAT OF COURSE THE, THERE'S AN ELEMENT ABOUT THE FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE OF ALL.
WE DIDN'T GET QUITE INTO GRASS ACTS.
UH, THE TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT WAS THAT THE, THE REASON TO DO IT THIS WAY IS IN PART TO SAY THE TRUTH IN PART, TO PRESERVE AND LEVERAGE THE EXISTING SLAB, UH, THAT
SO I IMAGINE THE COST NECESSARY TO DO THAT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT.
SO I THINK I WILL BE VOTING ON PAPER.
WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON IT BEFORE WE ASK, UH, SECRETARY WILLIAMS TO CALL VOTE? SEEING NONE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK IF CHAIR WILLIAMS PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSAGE BY THANK YOU MR. MILLS FOR, UH, OVERCOMING THE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.
THANK, UM, WITH THAT, UH, THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA OF THIS PANEL C ON THIS APRIL 16TH, 2026.
THE TIME IS 1 45 AND WE ARE ADJOURN.