* 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] UM, GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME TO THE BOARD [Board of Adjustments: Panel C on June 15, 2026.] OF ADJUSTMENT. I'M JARED SLED. I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS THE TEMPORARY PRESIDING OFFICER OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS PANEL SEAT. TODAY IS MONDAY, JUNE 15TH, 2026 WITH THE TIME OF 1:00 PM AND I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING OF THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT PANEL C TO ORDER FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE A QUORUM, FIVE OF FIVE PANEL MEMBERS PRESENT AND THEREFORE WE CAN PROCEED. UM, THE PANEL C IS CURRENTLY COMPRISED OF TODAY, MYSELF, TO MY LEFT IS LINDA GARDNER. TO HER LEFT IS RODNEY MILLIKEN. TO HIS LEFT IS AMELIA PEREZ, AND TO HER LEFT IS ANDREW THINNING. UH, STAFF PRESENT INCLUDES TO MY IMMEDIATE RIGHT THERESA CARLISLE, BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. TO HER RIGHT IS DR. CAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF PLANNER. TO HER RIGHT IS MARY WILLIAMS, BOARD SECRETARY OF MEETING. MODERATOR. BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WOULD 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 CITY COUNCIL. WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION THAT WE ARE COMP, UH, LUNCH ORDERED IN FOR US FOR THAT TIME. WE OPERATE UNDER THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH ARE POSTED ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS 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, THE WARRANT FAVORABLE ACTION OF THE BOARD. WE HAVE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY STAFF PRIOR TO THIS HEARING THAT OCCURRED THIS MORNING, STARTING AT 10 30. AND WE HAVE ALSO REVIEWED A DETAILED PUBLIC DOCKET WHICH EXPLAINS THE CASE AND WAS POSTED SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY OF THE CASES THAT WE WILL HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD SECRETARY WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED. THIS EVIDENCE MUST BE RETAINED, BUT IN THE BOARD'S OFFICE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE CASE, APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR REVERSAL OF A BUILDING OR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL DECISION REQUIRE 75% OR AT LEAST FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF THE FULL FIVE MEMBER PANEL. ALL OTHER MOTIONS REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE. 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. THAT WILL BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE. IN ADDITION, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEBSITE PENDING CASE LOG PAGE WILL BE UPDATED. ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY MUCH REGISTERED IN ADVANCE WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY. EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON A MATTER ON OUR AGENDA FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES. A SPEAKER MAY ALSO SPEAK 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 PRESIDING OFFICER IDD WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER. UM, WITH THAT WE WILL PROCEED, UH, INTO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING, WHICH WAS MAY 18TH, 2026 OF THIS PANEL. C UM, I DO NOTE THAT WE AS DISCUSSED IN THE BRIEFING HAVE ONE EDIT ON THE 21 OF THAT DOCKET REFLECT, UM, THE VOTE A AND AND MADE WITH MS. PEREZ AND MS. GARNER. ARE THERE ANY OTHER EDITS TO THE MEETING MINUTES FOR LAST MAY 18? IN LIGHT OF THAT, IS ANYONE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE? THEN MS. GARNER MOVE TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 18TH, 2026 WITHIN MINUTES? I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU MS. PEREZ FOR SECOND. UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES AS MODIFIED VOICE VOTE? AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NONE. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS WHO WANNA SPEAK GENERALLY? NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS. RIGHT, MR. THANK YOU. IN LIGHT OF THAT, LET US MOVE ON INTO THE DOCKET AND JUST, UH, AS A REFRESHER FOR THE ORDER OF ITEMS, WE HAVE TWO CASES ON OUR UNCONTESTED DOCKET. THAT'S BOA 2 6 0 0 0 0 30 AT 68 0 1 WEBSTER STREET AND THEN BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 3 7 AT 8 1 2 2 R. UM, DO WE HAVE A MOTION IN RESPECT OF THE ITEMS ON THE UNDER I DOCK MS. CONN? THANK YOU MR. SLATE. UH, 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 A 26 0 0 0 3 [00:05:02] APPLICATION OF FRANCESCA JENNINGS FOR A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT 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 ARE REQUIRED. BO OA 26 0 37 APPLICATION OF MIGUEL ABREGO 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 ARE REQUIRED. IS THERE A SECOND OF THE MOTION MR. AYE, ANDREW FINNEY SECOND THAT MOTION? WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSS HEARING NONE? I'LL ASK, UH, MS. WILLIAMS ALL VOTE. MS. GARDNER? AYE. MS. PEREZ? AYE. MR. MILLIKEN AYE. MR. FEENEY? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN? AYE. MOTION TO GRANT PASSES? FIVE TO ZERO. OKAY. AND THAT ADDRESSES THE TWO ITEMS ON OUR UNCONTESTED DOCKET. THAT BRINGS US TO THE TWO INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND WE'LL TAKE THEM IN ORDER. SO I WILL CALL BOA TWO SIX ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO THREE ONE AT 6 4 5 2 WALNUT HILL LANE. PLEASE COME FORWARD, UM, FOR INTRODUCTIONS, PLEASE TO BE SWORN IN. UH, THE, THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL GIVE WILL BE TRUTH, UH, SHARE YOUR NAME, UH, WORK OR HOME ADDRESS, AND THEN, UH, YOUR LEASE FORM. EXCUSE ME. HELLO, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS FRANCESCA JENNINGS. UM, I AM THE APPLICANT FOR 6 4 5 2 WALNUT HILL LANE. UM, MY, MY, UH, AND I SHARE MY PERSONAL ADDRESS. I IF YOU WOULD PREFER NOT TO HAVE THAT IN THE RECORD. IF YOU HAVE A WORK ADDRESS, YOU CAN USE THAT. IF YOU NO WORK ADDRESS, UM, THEN PLEASE GO AHEAD AND, AND SHARE A ADDRESS FOR US ALSO. WELL THANK YOU BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, UM, ABOUT OUR, UH, PROJECT. EXCUSE ME, I'M SORRY. YEAH, PLEASE STATE YOUR ADDRESS. OH, MY ADDRESS? WELL, THE ADDRESS, THE ADDRESS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE ON RECORD. 6 4 5 2 WALNUT BUILDING LANE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 3 0. OKAY. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUST? I DO. OKAY. PLEASE PROCEED. THANK YOU. UM, I WILL WANNA START BY SAYING EARLIER TODAY I LISTENED CAREFULLY TO THE CONCERNS RAISED DURING THE BRIEFING, UH, PARTICULARLY REGARDING THE VISIBILITY AND SAFETY PRIOR TO TO THAT BRIEFING. UH, PRIOR TO THAT BRIEFING I HAD, UM, I HAD VISITED THE SITE ALREADY AND DOCUMENTED THE PROPERTY FROM MULTIPLE ANGLES AND PERSPECTIVES BECAUSE I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT A DRIVER EXPERIENCES WHEN EXITING THE PROPERTY. I HAVE PROVIDED THE DOCUMENTATION OF PICTURES AT DIFFERENT ANGLES. DO YOU GUYS HAVE THOSE? THAT'S THE DOCUMENT THAT WE JUST CIRCULATED OUT THAT HAS SPARK BACK, PLEASE. AWESOME. THANK YOU. UM, WHAT I FOUND IN THE PHOTOS IS THAT OFTEN, UM, PHOTOGRAPHS OFTEN TELL A MORE COMPLETE STORY THAN A SINGLE OBSERVATION MADE FROM ONE LOCATION. THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW THAT WHILE THE WALL CREATES A LIMITED OBSTRUCTION IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE DRIVEWAY, IT DOES NOT ELIMINATE A DRIVER'S VISIBILITY TO OBSERVE APPROACHING TRAFFIC BEFORE ENTERING WALNUT PLA. IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST PHOTO WHERE IT SAYS DRIVER'S POINT OF VIEW, THAT IS US ON THE APPROACH RIGHT OUTSIDE THE WALL. IN THAT PICTURE, YOU WILL SEE THE WALL TO YOUR LEFT AND YOU CAN SEE THAT FLAT ROAD AHEAD. TO HELP EVALUATE THIS CONCERN, I PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS FROM MULTIPLE VANTAGE POINTS AS PROVIDED, UM, INCLUDING, INCLUDING PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN FROM A DRIVER'S PERSPECTIVE WHILE SEATED IN A VEHICLE. THESE PHOTOGRAPHS DEMONSTRATE THAT A DRIVER EXITING THE PROPERTY MAINTAINS VISIBILITY OF APPROACHING TRAFFIC AND CAN SAFELY ASSESS ONCOMING VEHICLES BEFORE ENTERING THAT ROADWAY ON WALNUT HILL. THE ROADWAY IN THIS LOCATION IS RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE PHOTO, ALLOWING DRIVERS TO SEE APPROACHING VEHICLES. AS YOU CAN SEE, ONCOMING VEHICLES, I WAS ABLE TO CAPTURE PICTURES WHILE ONCOMING VEHICLES ARE ON THE ROAD. UM, THIS IS NOT A BLIND INTER INTERSECTION AND THE WALL DOES NOT OBSTRUCT A DESIGNATED CROSSWALK OR CREATE A CONDITION WHERE PEDESTRIANS ARE HIDDEN FROM VIEW. THE STANDARD SHOULD NOT BE WEATHER VISIBILITY IS PERFECT. UM, IT SHOULDN'T BE WHERE, WHERE IT'S PERFECT. A FEW PROPERTIES LOCATED ALONG MAJOR ROADWAYS OFFER, [00:10:02] UM, PERFECT VISIBILITY. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER A DRIVER HAS ADEQUATE SIGHT DISTANCE TO SAFELY ENTER TRAFFIC BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS IN A PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU TODAY, WE BELIEVE THAT THE STANDARD IS MET. I WOULD ALSO RESPECTFULLY NOTE THAT CONCERNS REGARDING SAFETY SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, NO TRAFFIC STUDY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, ACCIDENT, ACCIDENT HISTORY OR SITE DISTANCE CALCULATION HAS BEEN PRESENTED DEMONSTRATING THAT THIS CONDITION CREATES AN UNSAFE SITUATION. THE WALL SERVES AS AN IMPORTANT PRIVACY AND SECURITY FUNCTION FOR A RESIDENT LOCATED ON A HEAVILY TRA TRAVEL ROADWAY WHILE STILL ALLOWING DRIVERS TO SAFELY ENTER AND EXIT THE PROPERTY. FOR THESE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE. UM, AND THAT WILL BE ALL FOR ME TODAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I THINK WE'LL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU. UM, SO I, TO START THOSE OUT, I THINK OF TRAFFIC IS INCLUDING NOT JUST SORT OF CARS GOING BY THE ROAD, BUT OF COURSE THERE'S A SIDEWALK MM-HMM . UM, AND I KNOW THAT PROBABLY PEOPLE ON BICYCLES SHOULD BE ON THE ROADWAY, BUT BECAUSE OF HOW HEAVILY TRAFFIC WALNUT HILL IS, THEY MIGHT NOT BE, ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME KIDS IN THE AREA BECAUSE OF SCHOOLS THAT APPROXIMATE THE PICTURES THAT I'M SEEING THAT, AND I APPRECIATE YOU GIVING THAT PERSPECTIVE. SUGGEST TO HAVE ANY VISIBILITY. THE PLANTS KIND OF PULL OUT ALREADY ON THE SIDEWALK MM-HMM . SO HOW SHOULD WE SQUARE THAT WITH PEOPLE MAYBE USING THAT SIDEWALK ON LIKE A SKATEBOARD OR A BICYCLE WHERE, UM, I MEAN I, I KNOW MY INSTINCT WOULD BE YOU'RE COMING ON A WALNUT HILL, TRAFFIC IS ALMOST COMING TO THE LEFT. I'M LIKELY TO TURN MY HEAD TO THE LEFT TO SEE CARS COMING, BUT THERE COULD BE PEDESTRIANS THAT ARE USING THAT SIDEWALK COMING OUT THE OTHER WAY. HOW, HELP US APPRECIATE WHAT YOUR PERSPECTIVE IS ON THAT, PLEASE. NO PROBLEM. AND EVEN WHAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, I DID TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ABOUT THE MIRRORS. WE WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO PROVIDE MIRRORS SO THAT WAY WE CAN ACTUALLY SEE THOSE PEDESTRIANS COMING DOWN. OKAY. SO THE SOLUTION WOULD BE TO ADD, TO COMMIT TO ADDING MIRRORS AS WELL? ABSOLUTELY. TO BE ABLE TO SEE BULLETS. ABSOLUTELY. ARE THERE OTHER PANELISTS THAT WOULD LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APP ON THIS ONE? UH, PLEASE MS. MELKIN OR IF YOU DON'T, YOU I I DON'T MEAN TO PUT DOWN . YEAH, MS. JENNINGS. UM, MR. SLATE ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT, UM, WHEN THE CAR IS PULLING OUT, AS, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE FIRST ILLUSTRATION, THE CAR IS APPROACHING, I GUESS THE STREET. IT'S SOMEWHAT INTO WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER THE SIDEWALK. SO IF YOU WERE LOOKING TO YOUR LEFT TO SEE IF CARS ARE COMING FROM THAT DIRECTION AND SOMEONE WAS COMING DOWN THE SIDEWALK ON YOUR RIGHT, HOW ARE WE ENSURING THAT THOSE PEOPLE COMING FROM THE RIDE ARE PROTECTED AT THAT POINT? THAT, SO THAT QUESTION WASN'T ANSWERED THROUGH THE MIRRORS. WE WILL SEE THEM FROM THE MIRRORS. SO YOUR SOLUTION IS, ARE YOU MIRRORS, ARE YOU TO ASK THE QUESTION WITHOUT THE MIRRORS? SORRY. YES. UM, WE, LET ME PULL UP THE PICTURE, WHICH IS SO I CAN VIEW IT WITH YOU. ONE SECOND. YOU SAID YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE FIRST PHOTO? YES, MA'AM. SECOND OR THE THIRD ONE. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO BRING YOU ONE OF THE COPIES BACK SO YOU'RE ON THE SAME PAGE? THAT WOULD, THANK YOU. MY OTHER QUESTION IS, WHILE YOU'RE IN PROCESS OF ADDRESSING THAT, IS, DO YOU PLAN ON PLANTING ANY VEGETATION IN THAT AREA IN FRONT OF THE FENCE? NO, WE DO NOT. OKAY. OKAY. GOT IT. LOOKING AT THE FIRST ONE, YES. LOOKING AT THE FIRST PHOTO, I'LL BE ABLE TO SEE, I GET YOU'RE ASKING BEFORE WE CALL CROSS THAT BEFORE WE GO ONTO THE DRIVE APPROACH? YES, BECAUSE IF I'M, BEFORE I GO TO THE GATE, I WILL BE ABLE TO SEE IF ANYONE'S IN THE GATE, SO SOMEONE'S IN THE DRIVER APPROACH. IF THEY'RE NOT, WE WILL JUST SLOWLY MOVE OUT. AND [00:15:01] THEN FROM UM, TWO, I COULD, I COULD SEE 'EM FROM A 20 FOOT DISTANCE. IF YOU SEE THE DRIVER LINE OF SIGHT AND THE WALL IS STILL TO THE LEFT BEFORE I, I WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THEM FROM A 20 FOOT DISTANCE. I SHOULD HAVE MARKED, UH, WHERE THAT WAS, BUT I MARKED FROM THAT EDGE, THAT'S A 20 FOOT LINE OF SIGHT. UM, I DO BELIEVE THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE PEDESTRIANS, UM, AS WE'RE APPROACHING THE DRIVER APPROACH FROM PHOTOS ONE AND TWO. THANK YOU. YES, FAR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE, AND THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THESE PICTURES. THESE ARE SUPER HELPFUL. UM, APPRECIATE THE EFFORT ON THAT. UM, THE PAGE WHERE THERE'S THREE PHOTOGRAPHS, THE DRIVER LINE OF SIGHT, UM, I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THIS IS ENOUGH BECAUSE WHAT YOU DON'T SEE IS IN THE RIGHT LANE. A SPEEDING VEHICLE, UM, WITHIN, I WOULD SAY IS THAT ABOUT 5,000 FOOT RANGE. SO IF SOMEBODY'S ROUNDING THAT CORNER AND THEY'RE SPEEDING IN THE RIGHT LANE, I, I WOULDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE HERE, UM, HAVING TO, YOU KNOW, GET SO FAR OUT INTO THE STREET TO EVEN SEE. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSAL TO, UM, TO ADD AND MAINTAIN SOME MIRRORS. UM, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW WELL THAT WOULD COVER THAT ONE LITTLE, THAT ONE BLIND SPOT. YEAH. SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE FOR MY COLLEAGUES, BUT THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THIS. THIS WAS VERY HELPFUL. NO PROBLEM. DID YOU WANT A RESPONSE? UH, SURE, SURE. ABSOLUTELY. UM, YES, YOU SAID IF THERE'S SOMEONE WAS SPEEDING, THE SPEED LIMIT IS 35. SO LET'S JUST SAY SOMEONE IS GOING 10 OUNCE, WHICH IS PRETTY AVERAGE. WE ALL GO LIKE, WELL, FINE, WE DON'T ALL GO OVER THE SPEED LIMIT. BUT, UH, IF SOMEONE WAS SPEEDING, LET'S JUST SAY THEY WERE GOING ABOUT 45. UH, IF YOU LOOK ON IT, WHERE THERE'S THREE PHOTOS ON THAT RIGHT SIDE, THAT THE LEFT, THE FAR RIGHT PICTURE, WE'RE NOT FULLY, WE'RE STILL, WE'RE BARELY TOUCHING THE DRIVER APPROACH. THE TIRES AREN'T TOUCHING THE DRIVER APPROACH. WELL, TIRES ARE TOUCHING THE LEFT TIRES, TOUCHING THE DRIVER APPROACH. WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY IN A ROADWAY. SO IF SOMEONE IS SPEEDING, WE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE ABOUT 50 FEET DOWN THE ROAD. AND THAT IS A FLAT ROAD. I DO BELIEVE THERE IS A CURVE ON WALNUT HILL. SO IF WE WERE MAYBE JUST THE, THE HOUSE LEFT OF US, UM, WE PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE THAT SAME ADVANTAGE THAT WE DO HERE BECAUSE WE DO SEE A FLAT ROAD. THE, UH, CARS COMING AROUND THAT CURVE. BUT THIS IS A FLAT ROAD. THANK YOU. UM, OH, I'M SORRY, MR. . UM, SO I HAVE, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS, MS. JENNINGS. UM, SO FIRST OFF, I'M JUST CURIOUS, UM, BEFORE THE FENCE WAS BUILT AS THIS WAS BEING DESIGNED, WERE YOU AWARE THAT THE, THE FENCE AS IT IS BUILT TODAY WAS ACTUALLY VIOLATING, UH, THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE? WE WERE NOT. YOU WERE NOT? OKAY. SO WHAT BROUGHT YOU TO THAT? WHAT BROUGHT THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION? UM, WHEN WE APPLIED FOR THE DEFENSE PERMIT, WE GOT A REFERRAL TO COME HERE THROUGH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FROM, UH, THREE 20 EAST JEFFERSON. OH, OKAY. SO YOU WENT TO RETROACTIVELY APPLY FOR FENCE PERMIT? YES. OKAY. OKAY. UM, SECOND QUESTION ON THE SUBJECT OF MIRRORS. I'M, I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING, UNDERSTANDING WHERE YOU WOULD POSITION THESE MIRRORS SO THAT YOU WOULD ACTUALLY SEE PEOPLE ON THE SIDEWALK BEFORE PULLING OUT ONTO THE SIDEWALK. YEAH. SO LET'S SEE IF I CAN FIND A BETTER PICTURE. IF WE, UH, GO TO THE BACK SIDE WHERE THERE'S ONLY TWO PHOTOS ON THE LEFT SIDE WHERE THE CAR IS, WE'LL, THERE'S A MIRROR THERE. WHERE EXACTLY, UM, ON THE LEFT CORNER. AND WOULD IT BE TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT, WOULD IT BE ON THE INSIDE OF THE FENCE? UM, YES, IT WOULD BE ON THE INSIDE. SO IF IT'S ON THE INSIDE OF THE FENCE, HOW WOULD THAT, HOW WOULD THAT SHOW PEOPLE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE? ON A SIDEWALK? IT WOULD BE LIKE A CORNER. UM, ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU HAVE A GATE. RIGHT. YOU'LL HAVE A GATE THAT WILL, THE GATE WILL NOT BE THERE. WE, WE DECIDED WE ARE NOT GOING WITH THE GATE. OKAY. OKAY. SO THE, THE MIRROR WOULD BE ON THE CORNER OF THE FENCE, RIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY. HMM. OKAY. THANK YOU. LET'S GO MS. PEREZ, THEN I'LL COME BACK TO MR. MALL. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, ARE YOU GONNA HAVE, UH, COMPANY COME VISIT YOU AT YOUR HOUSE OR AT THIS HOUSE? DO THEY ANTICIPATE HAVING COMPANY? YES. OVER. AND WHERE WILL THEY PARK? UM, THEY WILL JUST PULL IN. WE HAVE A SIDE, WE HAVE A, A THREE CAR GARAGE WITH ADDITIONAL THREE SPACES RIGHT OUTSIDE THE GARAGE ON OUR, ON THE, UH, ENTRANCE ON THE RIGHT SIDE. OKAY. [00:20:01] SO THEY WON'T BE USING THIS 'CAUSE SEE, 'CAUSE MY CONCERN IS, IS THE HOMEOWNER MAY BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO HOW FAR THEY NEED TO PULL OUT, BUT ANYONE WHO'S VISITING, THEY'RE NOT GONNA KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GONNA DO. AND THEY'RE GONNA INCH AND THEY'RE GONNA INCH AND THEY'RE GONNA INCH. AND THAT MAKES FOR A VERY DANGEROUS COMBINATION, NOT ONLY FOR CARS, BUT FOR PEDESTRIANS OR KIDS ON BICYCLES. OKAY. YOU'RE SAYING LIKE INCH OUT OF TWO? YEAH, BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA WANNA MAKE SURE THEY'RE SEEING WHAT THEY NEED TO SEE. BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THIS PICTURE RIGHT HERE, THE ONE IN THE CENTER MM-HMM . AND THEY CAN'T SEE THE WHOLE ROAD LIT, ESPECIALLY IN THAT RIGHT LANE. I, I, I SEE THIS AS BEING REALLY DANGEROUS. I UNDERSTAND NOW WITH THESE PICTURES WHY THE TRANSPORTATION FOLKS HAVE ARE RECOMMENDED DENIAL COMPLETELY ON ALL OF THEM. WOULD IT BE MORE CONFIDENT JUST SPEAKING TO ALL BOARD MEMBERS IF WE WERE TO CUT THE WALL A LITTLE BIT MORE SO THAT WAY WE HAVE A BIGGER VISIBILITY TRIANGLE? UM, I MEAN, IF THE WALL WERE CUT BACK SO THAT IT WASN'T IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, BUT YOU WOULDN'T NEED OUR, UM, PERMISSION TO, TO DO THAT IN THE SAME WAY THAT IF THE FENCE WAS NOT SIX FEET HIGH, IF IT WAS FOUR FEET HIGH, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. I CAN'T RECALL OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHAT THE OPACITY REQUIREMENT WOULD BE WITHIN THAT, UM, SETBACK, BUT, UH, BUT IT'S ONLY THE OWNER'S REQUEST TO GO PAST THAT JUSTIFIES HAVING OR REQUIRES, UH, TO SEE US TO PASS THE SORT OF BACK ROAD. UH, SO THERE'S, UM, WHILE WE OF COURSE HAVEN'T MADE A MOTION OR HAD ANY TYPE OF VOTE YET, UM, THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS. ONE IS, UH, DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE. THAT'S A REAPPLICATION TO PICK YOU OR A, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT WOULD ALLOW MAYBE AN ADJUSTMENT TO A PLAN AND COMING BACK PERIOD OF TIME. AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT IF THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE ABOUT DENIAL, WE WOULD TALK ABOUT, UH, PUBLICLY, BUT AMONGST OURSELVES AND THAT WORKS. UH, SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE IT IS. UM, PLEASE, MR. MILLER, I, THIS QUESTION WOULD BE FOR STAFF, I GUESS PROBABLY MS. CARLISLE, ON THE, UH, 200 FOOT NOTICE OF THE ADDRESS. DOES THAT INCLUDE LIKE THE SCHOOL OR CAN IT INCLUDE THE SCHOOL? SO THEY WOULD'VE BEEN NOTIFIED OF THIS, THESE REQUESTS AS WELL? YES. IF, AGAIN, SO WE HAD AN ISSUE AT A PREVIOUS MEETING WHERE I THINK YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OPT OUT OF CERTAIN NOTICES. SO IF THEY DIDN'T RECEIVE A NOTIFICATION, IF THEY'RE WITHIN THE NEXT HUNDRED, THE RADIUS, THEN THEY WOULDN'T GOTTEN. BUT ASSUMING THAT THEY HAVE NOT OPTED OUT OF RECEIVING CERTAIN OTHER PROBATION AND THEY'RE WITHIN , THEY WOULD'VE RECEIVED THE LETTER. OKAY. SO THEY COULD HAVE OPTED OUT TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE, BUT IF THEY DIDN'T, THEY DID NOT RESPOND TO IT. CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I WILL NOTE, JUST TO, TO PUT A POINT ON THAT, UH, MR. MILLIGAN, ON PAGE 79 OF THE DOCKET, IT SHOWS THAT THE DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS WITHIN AND ONE OF THE LIST OF PROPERTY ON THE, SO MR. JENNINGS, I KNOW IT APPRECIATES YOU MIGHT FEEL LIKE YOU'RE ON THE HOT SEAT. UH, SORRY ABOUT THAT. UH, CAN YOU HELP US APPRECIATE, AND I, I KNOW YOU SAID PRIVACY CONCERN, THE, THE DIFFERENCE OF THE FOUR FEET VERSUS THE SIX FEET HELP US APPRECIATE WHY THAT, UM, IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT FOR THIS PROPERTY. IT, IT IS JUST GENERALLY, UM, PRIVACY. WE HAD A COUPLE BUYERS COME BY THE HOUSES CURRENTLY FOR SALE, AND THE BUYERS HAVE, UH, TWO OF THE BUYERS OR POTENTIAL BUYERS HAVE ADS AND ONE THAT IS PRETTY LIKELY TO CLOSE ON THE HOUSE. DOESN'T WANNA CLOSE 'EM UNTIL THEY GET SIX FEET. UM, THEIR CONCERNS ARE PRIVACY. UM, AND I WAS TOLD THAT THEY'RE, I'M NOT AWARE WHO THE, WHO THE, UH, OWNER IS, WHO THE POTENTIAL OWNER IS, BUT THEY'RE SAID THAT THEY ARE, UM, HOW DO I SAY THIS? THEY'RE FEAR FOR THEIR SAFETY, [00:25:01] NOT FEAR FOR THEIR SAFETY, BUT THEY'RE, UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE KNOWN, THEY'RE WELL KNOWN PEOPLE AND THEY, THEY REALLY WANT THAT SIX FOOT WALL. OKAY. UH, SO DOES THAT MEAN, AM I RIGHT, HAVE IT THAT THIS IS A, THIS WAS A SPEC BUILD THAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE MARKET TO BE SOLD? IS THAT RIGHT? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. FINNEY, PLEASE? YES, MS. JENNINGS. UM, WAS THERE A, A SPECIFIC REASON WHY Y'ALL CHOSE, UM, TO, TO PUT THE FENCE IN THE, WITHIN THE FIVE FEET OF, OF THE PROPERTY LINE AND WHY YOU DIDN'T JUST MOVE IT BACK, UM, SO THAT THE OPACITY REQUIREMENTS DID NOT APPLY AND WOULD POTENTIALLY, UM, CLEARED OR, UH, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES? THE, UH, MAY I HAVE TO REPEAT THE, UH, SECOND QUESTION FROM YOU, BUT WITH, TO ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION, THE REASON WHY WE DECIDED TO DO IT RIGHT THERE, UM, IS JUST BECAUSE WE WANTED TO WHIP OF THE DRIVEWAY TO STAY TRUE TO THE LENGTH. IF WE WERE TO PUSH IT BACK, IT WOULD, UM, MAKE OUR DRIVE WAIT DINNER, UM, THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY DINNER. UM, AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION, UM, WELL, YEAH, IT, SAME THING. IF, IF YOU HAD PUSHED IT BACK BY FEET, IT POTENTIALLY WOULD'VE MORE EASILY CLEARED THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. GOTCHA. OKAY. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD TAKE, TAKE INTO ACCOUNT TO DO THAT MOTION. MR. SMITH, PLEASE, MS. BE, HAVE YOU GUYS CONSIDERED, UH, PUTTING IN, UH, SHRUBBERY, YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU HAVE RED TOPS, YOU COULD MOVE THEM BACK AND RED TOPS, THEY'RE PRETTY AND YOU CAN LET THEM GROW. IS THERE, THE STAFF KNOW IF THERE'S A LIMIT ON THE HEIGHT THAT YOU CAN HAVE SHRUBBERY GROW? WE, WE DON'T, WE WOULDN'T REGULATE THE VEGETATION. I MEAN, SO YOU COULD HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE OF SHRUBS AND NOT, AND YOU WOULDN'T, IT WOULD NOT BE A SOLID WALL. OKAY. AND THERE WOULDN'T BE THIS ISSUE. YEAH, THERE WOULDN'T BE THE DANGER THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW. WITH WHAT, WITH WHAT I'M LOOKING AT MS. JENNING MOMENT. 'CAUSE I APPRECIATE, UH, THERE COULD BE SOMEBODY WATCHING. DO YOU NEED TO ANSWER THE, UH, OH, NO. . OKAY. THANK YOU MR. MILLER. I SEE THAT YOU'RE, YES. UH, MS. JENNINGS, YOU HAD MENTIONED, UM, A FEW MINUTES AGO, POSSIBLY THE WILLINGNESS TO, UM, MOVE THE FENCE OR THE, UH, SETBACK BACK JUST A LITTLE BIT. WOULD YOU CONSIDER POSSIBLY, UM, AS MS. PEREZ MENTIONED, UH, POSSIBLY A DIFFERENT MAKEUP FENCE, LIKE A METAL FENCE OR AN IRON FENCE VERSUS A SOLID FENCE LIKE THIS? OH, WE WOULD, WE WOULD BE OPEN TO IT. IT WOULD STILL PROVIDE YOU THE SECURITY, BUT YOU KNOW, IT WOULD GIVE US POSSIBLY MORE VISIBILITY AS WE LOOK DOWN THE, THE ROAD MORE SAFETY. SO IT'S SOMETHING YOU MIGHT POSSIBLY BE OPEN TO. YEAH, WE'LL BE . THANK YOU. PLEASE, MS. CONNOR. THANK YOU. UM, I, I'VE GOT PJ D FIVE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA BRING THAT OUT. UM, I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE RED MARKINGS, WHICH DENOTE WHERE THE FENCE IS NON-COMPLIANT WITH THE SETBACK AND THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. UM, YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, ESPECIALLY LOOKING TO ONE'S LEFT WHEN THEY'RE EXITING IS THE MAIN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A BIG ISSUE RIGHT THERE. OKAY. UM, SO DIMINISHING THE LENGTH OF THE FENCE, WOULD, YOU KNOW, WHY WIDEN THE OPENING AND BE COMPLIANT WITH THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE? I WONDER IF A, UM, A RETRACTABLE GATE, IF IT'S CLOSED, THE AREA'S COMPLETELY CLOSED OFF AND, UH, CLOSING OFF AN AREA THAT'S WITHIN COMPLIANCE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. BUT WHEN IT OPENS, UM, I'M SORRY, WITH A CLOSED FENCE, YOU HAVE PRIVACY WHEN IT'S OPEN. UM, YOU HAVE YOUR VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. SO, UM, THIS WOULD BE JUST LIKE FLOATING IDEAS OUT THERE THAT, THAT THIS, UM, UH, WE DON'T GRANT APPROVAL. THANK YOU. NO, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. JUST A THOUGHT, YOU KNOW. THANK YOU. SO JUST REPEAT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. UH, WE'LL, UM, IF WE WERE TO MAKE THE WISH, THE LENGTH OF DEFENSE, UM, SHORTER, UH, YES, THE, THE LENGTH OF THE FENCE SHORTER, [00:30:01] BUT YOU BASICALLY, YOU BASICALLY WOULD WIDEN, WIDEN THE ENTRY AND EXIT, UM, TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. SO IF YOU HAVE A BIG LONG FENCE CLOSING, IT'S COVERED. IF IT'S OPEN, YOU CAN STILL SEE. SO JUST A THOUGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. MM-HMM . YOU'RE WELCOME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE DECIDE I UPDATE THAT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, MS. JENNINGS, ANY FINAL WORDS YOU'D LIKE TO IMPART? NO, THANK YOU ALL. UM, I DEFINITELY, UH, AGREE WITH SAFETY AND THANK YOU GUYS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. SURE. UM, I DO KNOW WE HAVE FOUR SEPARATE ITEMS OF REQUEST. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE THE FIRST MR. FINNEY, PLEASE? I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 26 0 0 0 0 REBO APPLICATION OF FRANCESCA JENNINGS DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN A SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD'VE ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND GARNER DISCUSSION? MR. FINNING, SINCE IT'S YOUR NOTION, I'LL FORWARD YOU THE RIGHT IF YOU'D LIKE IT. SURE. UM, I, I WOULD SAY OUT OF THE FOUR ITEMS, THE SIX FOOT HEIGHT SEEMED TO BE THE LEAST, UM, UM, REG LIKE VIOLATION IN TERMS OF VIOLATION OF SAFETY, IT SEEMED TO BE THE, THE ONE THAT, THAT WOULD BE MORE, THE MOST, UH, UH, YEAH, LESS EGREGIOUS. UM, BUT I THINK, UM, UH, IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE THE JUSTIFICATION FOR IT WAS SECURITY, BUT THE, THE GATE WAS DROPPED FROM THE DESIGN OF THE FENCE. SO I'M STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW A SIX FOOT HEIGHT FENCE IS GONNA MAKE, MAKE IT MORE SECURE WITHOUT GATES. UM, BUT, UM, AS FAR AS LIKE IT'S IMPACT ON SAFETY, UM, THE HEIGHT ITSELF DOESN'T SEEM TO BE, UM, YOU KNOW, VIOLATING THOSE, THOSE CONCERNS. SO, MS. HONOR, DID YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING SINCE YOU SECONDED IT? YOU DON'T HAVE? WELL, YEAH, UH, I'LL, NO . OKAY. UM, YEAH, I WAS GONNA MAKE SOME, SOME SORT OF GLOBAL POINTS AND I APPRECIATE THAT MR. FINNEY DECIDED TO MAKE THIS MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO AFFORD, UM, THE OWNER AND THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE RE CONSIDER REVISIONS TO, UM, SPECIFICALLY IN RESPECT OF THE, UH, DROPPING THE FENCE, THE CONCERN ABOUT PRIVACY I WAS USING FOR THE, THE PRIVACY'S, THE PRIVACY VERSUS SECURITY, UM, THE PRIVACY. I THINK BECAUSE OF WHERE THE LOCATION OF THE TWO GATES ARE, UM, WITH ONE OF THE TWO LOOKING STRAIGHT AT WHAT I UNDERSTAND TO BE THE BARRAGE, THERE MIGHT STILL BE PRIVACY EVEN IF THOSE DATES WERE REMOVED. HOWEVER, YOUR POINT IS VERY VALID ABOUT IT AND I THINK, UM, ALL THE COMMENTS HAVE MADE VERY GOOD IDEAS OF WAYS THAT THERE MIGHT BE A LESS OF AN RELIEF IN THIS BOARD, BUT STILL IDENTIFYING MECHANISMS TO GET THAT SAME SECURITY AND PRIVACY. WE COMBINATION OF, UH, SHORTER FENCE I COMBINED WITH ISSUE BY SORT OF OTHER THINGS JUST BEFORE THE PRIVACY MIGHT, MIGHT BE SOFT. OKAY. UM, SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AND, UH, APPRECIATE THE DOUBT, BUT ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR SHOULD WE HAVE ALL VOTE? MS. WILLIAMS, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL VOTE MS. GARDNER? UH, I'LL VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT S MR. PEREZ? AYE. MR. MILLIKEN? AYE. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION TO DENY PASSES. FIVE ZERO. IS THERE SOME PLEASE? MR. FINNEY? I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO A DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 3 1 ON APPLICATION OF FRANCESCA JENNINGS DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN FENCE WITH 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 BY THIS APPLICANT WITH PREJUDICE [00:35:01] BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND MR. PEREZ SECOND DISCUSSION. YEAH, SO I THINK THIS, THERE'S, THERE'S NOT A, A SITUATION, ANY, ANY SORT OF ACCOMMODATION THAT COULD BE MADE WHERE THIS, IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION THAT A, AN OPAQUE FENCE, UM, WOULD BE, UH, WOULD NOT BE A VIOLATION OF THE TRAFFIC SAFETY STANDARDS OF THE, THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. SO, UM, YEAH, SO I JUST, THERE THERE'S NO REASON TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK, UM, ON THE OPACITY ISSUE. MS. UH, JUST NEED CLARIFICATION WITH PREJUDICE OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE? WITH PREJUDICE. OKAY. UM, I THINK FOR THAT REASON I'LL VOTE, I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION, UM, OF THE WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE THIS IS A COMPLICATED CASE AND, UM, WANTING THE GATES ALREADY THERE OR THE WALL IS ALREADY THERE AND SO THERE'S GONNA, THERE'S A LOT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO TO GET IN COMPLIANCE AND I WOULD RATHER MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM THAT THEY WANT TO BRING THIS BACK TO THE BOARD WITHOUT PREJUDICE. AND THAT'S FAIR. AND I THINK I'M GOING TO ALSO VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION BECAUSE NO PREFERENCE BOARD WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ONLY BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT OBLIGATION OF PROPOSAL VOTE. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOUR POINT, WHICH IS IF THE PROPOSAL TO HAVE A, UH, THE OPACITY WITHOUT OPACITY IN THE, UH, 20 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. I AGREE. HOWEVER, IF SAY A PROPOSAL WOULD'VE COME BACK, IT WOULD NEED THAT RELIEF BECAUSE THEY HAVE COLUMNS IN BETWEEN, UM, IRON ROCK FENCES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AT THIS STAGE. I WOULDN'T WANT TO PREVENT THEM BEING ABLE TO EXPLORE THE, THE OPTIONS SINCE IN ANY OF THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK FOR. SO IN LIGHT OF THAT, I TOLD VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION. UH, BUT I APPRECIATE THAT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE ASK? CALL THE VOTE ON MOTION BY ON OPACITY OF LESS THAN 50%, WHICH PREJUDICE? MS. GARDNER? NAY. MS. BARRETT? UH, YES. AYE. MR. MILLIKEN? AYE. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, NAY, UM, MOTION TO DENY WITH PASSES FREE TO, TO, TO GRANT THE RELIEF. THAT'S REQUEST. IT MUST BE OTHERWISE IT. UM, THAT BRINGS US TO THE, UH, THIRD REQUEST FOR RELIEF IN RESPECT OF THIS CASE. IS THERE LIKE PLEASE I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 3 1 AN APPLICATION OF FRANCESCA DE JENNINGS DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE MOST EASTERLY DRIVEWAY APPROACH ALONG WALNUT HILL LANE WITH PREJUDICE 'CAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD CONSTITUTE THE TRAFFIC HAZARD. IS THERE A SECOND? I HAVE A QUESTION. . SO WOULD THIS MOTION BE DEAD IF THERE'S NOT A SECOND, THEREFORE THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE, WOULD JUST HAVE TO, UM, WHAT HAPPENS AT THIS MOTION? PRESUMABLY THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER MOTION THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT SINCE I HAVE NOT HEARD A SECOND THINK UNDER OUR ORDER THAT THE MOTION IS NOT TAKEN UP OTHER THAN . THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. . UM, I MOVE THAT [00:40:01] THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 0 3 1 ON APPLICATION OF FRANCESCA JENNINGS DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE MOST EASTER EASTERLY DRIVEWAY APPROACH ALONG WALNUT HILL LANE WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD. I'LL SECOND MS. GARDNER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT? UH, IS SIMILAR TO THE MOTION NUMBER TWO? I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE COMPLEXITY OF THE CASE AND ALL THE ELEMENTS, UM, YOU KNOW, BEING, HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT UNENCUMBERED AGAIN TO THE BOARD THE IDEAL FOR ANY APPLICANT. BUT I'LL AGREE WITH THAT AND THAT'S WHY I'LL VOTE. UM, TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE APPLICANT COULD BE ENGAGE WITH THE CITY, COME UP WITH A PROPOSAL THAT THE CITY STAFF DETERMINES WOULD, DID NOT HAVE AN OBJECTION TO P SEE WHAT AND I'D LIKE. YEAH, AND JUST, UM, I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS MOTION. I DON'T SEE, UH, ANY SITUATION WHERE IT WOULD BE TENABLE TO BLOCK THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES IN THIS PARTICULAR, UH, SITUATION. SO I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION. RESPECTFULLY FURTHER. ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS YOU'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE MESH CLINIC BETWEEN MS. WILLIAMS, PLEASE FOLLOW THAT. MS. GARDNER? AYE. MS. EZ AYE. MR. MILLIGAN NAY. MR. CHAIRMAN? AYE. MOTION DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE PASSES THREE TO TWO OH OH, I'M SORRY, MR. FINNEY. SORRY. OKAY, I APOLOGIZE. UH, MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE PASSES THROUGH THE TWO. YES. THANK YOU. UH, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO A DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 0 3 1 ON APPLICATION OF FRANCESCA JENNINGS DENIED THE SPECIALIST EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE MOST WESTERLY DRIVEWAY APPROACH ALONG WALNUT HILL WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANT THE APPLICATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD SL THE SECOND AND MY REASONING IS THE SAME AS THE PRIOR, UM, MOTION, WHICH IS I JUST WANNA GIVE, UM, APPLICANTS OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS, UM, SHOULD THEY DECIDE TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD. UM, I, OH, SORRY. UM, I WILL ALSO BE VOTING AGAINST THIS MOTION RESPECTFULLY TO MY COLLEAGUES. UM, 'CAUSE AGAIN, I SEE THAT NO, NO SITUATION WHERE, UM, THEY SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD, UM, SEEKING RELIEF FROM, FROM OUR VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REQUIREMENTS. UH, SO YES, UNDERSTOOD. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, MS. WILLIAMS WOULD PLEASE CALL COURT MS. GARNER. AYE. MS. PEREZ NAY, MR. MILLIKEN NAY, MR. FINNEY NAY. MR. CHAIRMAN? AYE, MOTION TO TONIGHT WITHOUT PREJUDICES THAT MOTION? OKAY, I MOVE THAT, HOLD ON. LEMME USE THE RIGHT CASE. HOLD ON. I LEAVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER VO A DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 0 3 1 ON APPLICATION OF FRANCESCA JENNINGS. DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE MOST WESTERLY DRIVEWAY APPROACH. ONE ENROLLMENT THE WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE HER EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD. [00:45:03] I SECOND THAT MOTION DISCUSSION. I, I'LL START. UM, I WANTED TO GET THE DISCUSSION GOING ON THE OPPORTUNITY, WELL, MOTION TO DENY, WHICH IS HOW I, I ALIGN WITH, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I EQUIVOCATE ON WITH OR ON WITH PREJUDICE 'CAUSE I WANNA GIVE PEOPLE OPPORTUNITIES, BUT I BROUGHT FORTH THIS MOTION, UM, TO GET SOME MOVEMENT ON THIS CASE. YEAH, AND I, UM, I EMPATHIZE WITH ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES. UH, IT'S A COMPLEX NUANCED DECISION. UM, UH, BUT AGAIN, I, I JUST, UH, CANNOT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE SEE A SITUATION WHERE IT WOULD BE, UM, TENABLE TO, UM, GRANT THIS VARIANCE IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION. UM, I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THE, UH, ANY PEDESTRIAN WALKING ALONG THIS, UH, SIDEWALK CURRENTLY AS IT'S CURRENTLY BUILT IS IN GREAT DANGER, UH, GIVEN THE, THE AVERAGE SPEED OF THE STREET. UM, AND SO YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I'M VOTING FOR THE MOTION. UM, AND I'M GONNA BE VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION ONLY BECAUSE I THINK IT'S WHY I APPRECIATE THE, THE POINTS OF COULD THERE EVER BE A SOLUTION. UM, WE'VE MODIFIED OURSELVES IN THE STREAM, SORT OF NOT, BUT WE HAVE ONE OF THE TWO DRIVEWAY APPROACHES TO NOT BE RECONSIDERED. ONE IN THEORY COULD BE PART OF THINKING THROUGH SOLUTIONS AND DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THEY DECIDED TO DO THE CHANGE, HOW THEY DID THE DRIVEWAY THROUGH BOTH OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THIRD OR OTHER OPTION. BUT, UM, I, I APPRECIATE WHERE PEOPLE ARE ON THIS RESPECTIVE VOTE, BUT JUST EXPLAIN DOWN, UM, WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR MOTION TO NONE? I'LL ASK MS. WILLIAMS VOTE. MS. GARDNER NAY MS. BAR? AYE. MR. MILLIKEN? AYE. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN? NAY. OKAY. MOTION TONIGHT WITH PREJUDICE PASSES THREE TO TWO. OKAY, SO TO SUMMARIZE, UH, BECAUSE I THINK THIS ONE WAS A LITTLE COMPLICATED, UM, THERE WERE DENIALS WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF THE FENCE HIKE AND THE FENCE OPACITY AND THE EASTERLY DRAW. SO THAT MEANS THE APPLICANT COULD COME BACK TO THE BOARD WITHIN TWO YEARS WITH, UH, A REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, A CHANGE. UM, HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT DID NOT RETURN TO A, FOR ANY RELIEF IN RESPECT OF THE WESTERLY DRIVE TO APPROACH WITHIN THE 20 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE FOR A PERIOD OF, SO, UM, SO I THINK I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RETURN WITH THEM TO VIEW BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH THE SAME MANNER. IF BOTH OF THEM IS A ON THE SAME CIRCUIT SITE, I, ONE TERESA MAY BE BEEN EXPLAINED, BUT IT SAYS AFTER A FINAL DECISION IS REACHED BY THE BOARD, NO FURTHER REQUESTS ON THE SAME OR RELATED ISSUES MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR THAT PROPERTY FOR TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECISION. AND BECAUSE THIS IS OFFENSE THAT'S ALL SAME RELATED, SAME OR RELATED ISSUES, BUT THEY CAN ALWAYS COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD TO GET A WAIVER OF THE TWO YEAR PERIOD. OKAY. IF THERE ARE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING THE PROPERTY OR IF THEY SOMEHOW WERE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY HAVE ARGUE THAT THE OTHER THINGS THAT WERE BEING CONSIDERED SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED AS BEING RELATED TO A SPECIFIC DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE AS TO THE DISABILITY FRONT ON WEST'S SIDE. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. [00:50:02] QUICK QUESTION. WHY WOULD THIS HAVE BEEN FOUR SEPARATE MOTIONS? IF IT, UM, BECAUSE EACH RELIEF REQUIRES ITS OWN VOTE. YES. BUT THE IMPACT OF OKAY, WITH PREJUDICE, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE POTENTIAL RAMIFICATION FOR ARGUMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE OF THAT, HOW THAT IMPACTS. OKAY. WHAT ELSE IS IT? . OKAY. SO, OKAY. UM, THAT BRINGS US, THAT RESOLVES, UH, CASE BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 3 1. UM, DECISION LETTERS WILL BE COMING WITHIN A COUPLE DAYS AND THAT BRINGS US TO OUR LAST CASE OF THE BANK, BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 8 5 4 1 8 MELROSE AVENUE. I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE A COUPLE SPEAKERS ON THAT. UM, HOW MANY SPEAKERS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE A SPEAKER IN FAVOR? TWO IN FAVOR. DO WE HAVE ANY WHO ARE HERE IN OPPOSITION? SO, NONE. OKAY, PERFECT. UM, THEN WITH THE TWO SPEAKERS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO, OR ALL FOUR OF YOU SPEAKING , JUST TWO. UM, WOULD YOU BOTH MIND STANDING UP, UM, SHARING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? MS. WILLIAMS WILL THEN, UM, SIGN YOU IN AND THEN WHOEVER YOU CAN GO WHATEVER ORDER YOU WOULD KIND OF LINE. OKAY. CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE? YEAH, UH, JORGE MALKI ADDRESS IS 61 19, UH, GREENVILLE AVENUE, SUITE 1 2 7, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 6. MY NAME IS AXEL AL. UH, ADDRESS SIX ONE, UH, 6 1 1 9 GREENVILLE AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS, UH, 7 5 2 0 6 AS ALL UNIT 4 2 7 AS WELL. DO YOU BOTH SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, PLEASE. OKAY. PLEASE PROCEED. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S JORGE MOKI, APPLICANT FOR CASE BO 8 2 6 0 0 3 8 AS 54 18 MILL ROAD AVENUE. UH, TO MY RIGHT, I HAVE ACTIVELY DOUBTED MY BUSINESS PARTNER. UM, WE'VE READ THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF AND I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS, UH, WHAT'D LIKE TO THAT? CAN YOU PAUSE FOR JUST ONE MOMENT? I BELIEVE YOU'VE BE KIND ENOUGH TO PASS UP SOME MATERIALS. YES. UM, BECAUSE THESE ARE COMING IN NOW, I'M GONNA ASK THE PANEL IF ANYONE HAS ANY NOTIONS TO SUSPEND OUR RULES TO ACCEPT THIS AND EVIDENCE. MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A MOTION TO, UH, SUSPEND OUR CURRENT RULES TO ACCEPT. IS THERE A SECOND CHAIR? I SECOND. I THINK MS. FINNEY BEAT MS. GARNER TO IT, SO WE'LL GIVE HIM A SECOND. I THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE FOR VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. UH, I'M GOING TO PASS THESE OUT. SORRY GENTLEMEN. GIVE US JUST ONE SECOND. THANK ONE. PASS THEM DOWN. UM, AND THEN IF YOU WOULD INDULGE US JUST LIKE MAYBE TWO MINUTES SO PEOPLE CAN JUST KIND OF FLIP THROUGH IT, GET A LITTLE BIT OF FAMILIARITY BEFORE, UM, YOU HAVE YOUR, AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S THE SAME AS THE PRESENTATION. OH, OKAY. THE PROCEED IS JUST THE OVERALL INFORMATION. OKAY, PERFECT. IN THAT CASE, I THINK, UH, THEN WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE THE TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. PLEASE GO AHEAD. OKAY. OH, WAIT, WAIT, I'M SORRY. NO, I THINK BEFORE THEY GOT STARTED I WANTED TO, UM, STATE THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED, UM, SUPPORT IN THE BOTH OF THEIR DOCUMENTS. THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU FOR FLAGGING THAT FOR US. NEAR THE BACK, THEY HAVE, UH, SIGN OFF FROM INDIVIDUALS IN SUPPORT OF THE RELIEF REFLECTFUL, PLEASE. CORRECT. ARE THESE RESIDENTS OR OWNERS? WE WILL BE ABLE TO ASK THEM AS WE, AS WE GO WHEN WE GO THERE. OKAY. OKAY. BUT I BELIEVE, UM, THE REASON, UH, OR MY SUSPICION IS THE REASON DR WAS POINTING THAT OUT TO US WAS BECAUSE EARLIER TODAY DURING THE BRIEFING, WE WERE AWARE OF FIVE LETTERS IN OPPOSITION TO THREE DIFFERENT RESIDENCES. UH, AND SO SHE WAS FLAGGING THAT THERE WAS A PRESENTATION OF SUPPORT. UH, JUST OKAY. SORRY FOR THE PROCEDURAL. UH, FUN GENTLEMEN. NO WORRIES. PLEASE [00:55:01] CONTINUE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, AS STATED, MY NAME IS JORGE MALKI OR THE APPLICANT OF, UH, UH, CASE DOA 26 0 0 0 3 8 ANO 54 8 CAME OUT OF THE, UH, WE'VE READ THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS, UH, DIRECTLY. UM, STAFF CONCEDED TWO OUT OF THREE FINDINGS, UH, FINDING D RESTRICTIVE, UH, LOT STAFF REPORTS AND AGREES. UH, STATS REPORT AGREES TO THE LOT. IT'S WELL BELOW THE 75 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM AND CAN BE DEVELOPED LIKE OTHERS ARE. LIKE OTHER R SEVEN FILES, UH, FINDING SEEK NET, ALL SELF-CREATED, UH, NOT SELF-CREATED STAFF, UH, STAFF REPORT AGREES THAT THE HARDSHIP IS NOT SELF-CREATED OR CURSOR. THIS LOT WAS SPOTTED BACK IN 19, UH, 11 AND, UH, FINDING A, THE ONLY DISPUTE IS PUBLIC INTEREST STAFF RECOMMENDS DENY ON THIS, UH, SINGLE POND REVIEWED BY THE GRANT, 2013, UH, UH, CASE PRECEDENT, PRECEDENT NEXT DOOR, UH, 12TH NEIGHBORS IN SUPPORT AND A NEW HOME THAT DROVE THAT. UH, WITH THAT BEING, UH, SAID, THE HARDSHIP IS ESTABLISHED BY STATUTE UNDER SECTION 5 1 8 3 0.102 B TEN TWO. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARD SETBACKS REDUCES MY, UH, OUR BUILDABLE FOOTPRINT BY ROUGHLY 29% ABOVE THE 25%. UH, PRESS ONE, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE BOARD TO FOLLOW ITS OWN 2013 PRECEDENT AND APPROVE OFFLOAD VARIANCES. UH, THANK YOU. UH, LET ME TURN ON MY MICROPHONE. I FEEL LIKE I'M ON ZOOM AND I'M ON MUTE. . UM, OKAY, LET ME WALK THROUGH THIS. SO I THINK THAT THE, FOR THE VARIANCE REQUESTS, YOU'RE GENERALLY SAYING, HEY, THESE SETBACKS 25 FEET ON THE FRONT, FIVE FEET ON EACH SIDE AND THE MAX LOCK COVERAGE ARE ALL CONTEMPLATING A 7,500 SQUARE FOOT LOCK IN THIS PARTICULAR ZONE. CORRECT. AND YOU FOCUSED ON THE SEALED SURVEY THAT SAYS, AND THEY'RE ROUND, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A 4,300 SQUARE FOOT WALL. YEAH. AND SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IS THE HARDSHIP, IT'S NOT PERSONAL OR SELF-RATED, BUT WE NEED THIS RESPECTIVE RELIEF TO BUILD A KIND OF COMMENSURATE PROPERTY, COMMENSURATE HOME TO WHAT WOULD WE, WOULD BE ABLE TO DO AS A MATTER OF RIGHT. WITHOUT NEEDING ANY RELIEF ON A 7,500 FOOT LOT. BUT BECAUSE OF WE'RE IN THIS SORT OF SMALLER ZONE, THAT'S WHY WE'RE YES. OKAY. RIGHT. AND THE SEALED SURVEY IS BECAUSE THE FOCUS ON THAT AND THE APPLICATION IS BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONE THAT POINTS OUT THAT IT'S 4,300 SQUARE FEET, WHEREAS THE CITY ONE CONTEMPLATES A 45 OR 4,600 SQUARE FOOT CORRECT. LOCK SIZE. OKAY. SORRY, JUST MAKING SURE I GOT THE, THE TABLE SAFES SORT OF SET UP. UM, AND LET ME ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, UM, LET'S TALK THROUGH THE, THE SUPPORT REQUEST. 'CAUSE I KNOW THAT WILL BE OF INTEREST. WE EVALUATE THE ADVERSE EFFECT OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. UM, I SEE A COUPLE ADDRESSES THAT ARE ON MELROSE. WHERE ARE THOSE LOCATED IN IN SORT OF CONTEMPLATION? ARE WERE THOSE, WERE, ARE THEY MELROSE ADDRESSES WITHIN THE NOTICE AREA FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE? YES. UH, MELROSE I BELIEVE IS A VERY SHORT, UH, STREET THAT RUNS BEHIND MADERA IN BETWEEN, UH, POLAND, POLAND AND MCIL. SO MAJORITY OF THE SUPPORT THAT WE HAVE IS, IS ON THAT. IT'S GONNA TAKE ME A MOMENT. LET SEE, WE HAVE I, OKAY, SO I CAN PULL UP THE, UH, THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE THIS. OKAY. SO JUST TO ORIENT ALL OF US, IT JUST AS WE EVALUATE PAGE 96 AND 97 IN OUR DOCKET, HAVE A LIST OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, THIS PERSPECTIVE THOUGHTS. UM, I SEE 54 11 MELROSE. I SEE. WHICH WAS NUMBER 11 ON THE NOTICE ZONE. I SEE 54 14 MELROSE, [01:00:03] WHICH NUMBER? 23? UH, 54 57, WHICH APPEARS TO BE JUST OUTSIDE THE ZONE, BUT I THINK RIGHT AROUND THERE, 2014, ALL IN THE SEE. 2014. OH OH. IS THERE ANYONE WHO HAS QUESTIONS THEMSELVES ABOUT THE, UM, PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST? MR. YES. UM, SO I, I THINK YOUR, FIRST OF ALL, YOUR PRESENTATION IS REALLY GREAT. UM, SO GOOD JOB ON DOING THE DUE DILIGENCE FOR REACHING OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS AND, UM, GETTING THEIR SUPPORT AND THEIR FEEDBACK, UM, AND DEMONSTRATING THAT CLEARLY. UM, YOU'VE PRESENTED YOUR CASE VERY CLEARLY. UH, A LOT OF EFFORT WENT TO THIS. YOU CLEARLY TAKE THIS HEARING VERY SERIOUSLY. UM, BUT I'M NOT, I'M STILL NOT CONVINCED ON THE EASTERN SIDE YARD SETBACK, YOU KNOW, SIDE YARD SETBACKS. UH, UH, ARE YOU THE ARCHITECT? IS THAT THE, THESE ARE THE DRAFT, THE DOCUMENT. YOU'RE THE DRAFTER. OKAY. SO I'M SURE YOU KNOW THAT THE SIDE AIR SETBACKS EXISTS FOR THE SAFETY OF BOTH PARTIES, NOT JUST THE PER WHOEVER ENDS UP OCCUPYING THIS PROPERTY, BUT THE PEOPLE NEXT DOOR. SO I'M, I'M STILL NOT CONVINCED THAT, UM, WE SHOULD COMPROMISE THE SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORS, UM, FOR THIS PROJECT. SO I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOUR CASE ON THAT. OKAY. SO WHENEVER WE WERE IN SIGNING HOUSE, WE CLOSED IT, UH, , UH, HEY, CAN YOU GET CLOSER TO YOUR MICROPHONE? I'M HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU. YEAH, SORRY. WHENEVER WE WERE DESIGNING THIS HOUSE, WE PUT ALL THE, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT IS, YOU KNOW, FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO HAVE THE SETBACKS SO THE PEOPLE CAN COME INSIDE WITH THE LADDER. UM, SO WHENEVER WE DESIGN THE HOUSE, WE PUT ALL THE, THE EXIT ROWS TO THE LEFT SIDE WHERE THE ALLEY IS. SO IN THAT CASE WHERE WE WERE, WE HAVE LIKE, UH, EXIT ROADS, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE ASKING. NO, IF I MAY WE MIND, UH, SAFETY AS IN THE SENSE OF WHAT, SORRY, UH, JUST TO CLARIFY. WELL, UM, TYPICALLY THE, THESE, THESE CIDER SETBACKS HAVE TO DO WITH, UH, THE PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF FIRE FROM AN ADJACENT STRUCTURE TO ANOTHER. RIGHT. UM, WITHOUT GOING INTO BUILDING CODE'S, NOT IN THE DOCKET. UM, BUT THAT, THAT'S GENERALLY THE CASE. SO I'D LOVE TO HEAR HOW YOUR, YOU'VE ACOM ACCOMMODATED FOR THAT. AND THE DESIGN OF THE EASTERN WALL, IS IT, DOES IT HAVE AN EXTRA FIRE RATING? UH, YOU, UH, DOES IT HAVE, UH, DID YOU REDUCE THE NUMBER OF, UH, PENETRATIONS IN THAT WALL? UM, I'D LOVE TO HEAR HOW YOU ACCOMMODATED FOR THAT. YEAH, YEAH. WELL, YEAH. SO ON THE FIRST FLOOR, UH, WE DIDN'T PUT A LOT OF WINDOWS, SO IT'S BASICALLY LIKE FIRE BLOCKING. AND AS YOU MENTIONED, UH, WE DESIGNED A HAND WITH FIRE BLOCKING WITH, YOU KNOW, FIRE ON THE RIGHT SIDE. NOW ON THE LEFT SIDE, IT'S THE, THE, WE REDUCE THE SETBACK, BUT ALSO WE HAVE THE ALLEY. SO ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HOUSE, IT'S NOT ADJACENT TO ANY, UH, HOUSE . UH, AND WE'RE PLANNING ON DOING A TWO HOUR WALK IN TO THAT SIDE OF A, UH, A TWO HOUR, UH, FIRE. OKAY. FIRE IS, IS THAT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN NO. NO, WE, NO. OKAY. OKAY. YEAH, SO YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S, IT'S REALLY HARD FOR US TO JUST TAKE A WORD FOR IT, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, WITHOUT THAT BEING IN WRITING. YEAH. UM, AND I THINK WE CAN SHOW IT ON THE, ON THE PLANS. YEAH. YEAH. WE CAN SHOW IT ON THE PLAN BELOW. CORRECT. WE CAN THE SUBMITTED PLANS. IS IT IN THE SUBMITTED PLANS? IS IT CALLED OUT? IT'S NOT THAT WE CAN SUBMIT AN ADDENDUM SHOWING OR STATING, YOU KNOW, THE, THE TWO HOUR BY [01:05:01] WRITING WALL. OKAY. MR. SLOT, PLEASE. THANK YOU. UH, TELL ME WHAT ATTRACTED YOU TO THIS LOT. SO WE WE'RE REPRESENTING THE, THE BUYER, WELL THE PERSON WHO, WHO OWNS THE LOT WE'RE JUST, WE'RE DRAFTING AND DECIDING TO OWN. RIGHT. OKAY. SO DO, DO YOU KNOW IF THE PERSON WHO HIRED YOU KNEW THE SIZE OF THE LOT WHEN HE BOUGHT IT? HE DID NOT KNOW. OKAY. HE KNEW IF HE KNEW THE SIZE OF THE LOT. HE DID NOT KNOW THE BUILDABLE ASPECT OF THE LOT. UNFORTUNATELY, WE CAME TO THE PICTURE LIKE AFTER HE BOUGHT THE LOT. OKAY. I'M LEANING AGAINST GRANTING THIS BECAUSE BASICALLY, UH, IT'S LIKE, HEY, I WANNA BUILD THIS HOUSE, BUT I'M GONNA ENCROACH ON THE NEIGHBORS IN ORDER TO GET WHAT I WANT. I, I'M NOT CRAZY ABOUT THAT BECAUSE YOU CAN, YOU'RE, YOU'RE EMPLOYER COULD HAVE VERY EASILY GONE TO DA AND SEEN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT TO KNOW, AM I GONNA BE ABLE TO PUT MY HOUSE ON THAT LOT? 'CAUSE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IT SEEMS LIKE IF YOU ELIMINATED THE POOL THEN YOU COULD MOVE EVERYTHING OVER AND PUT THE SIZE HOUSE ON THE LOT, BUT WITHOUT THE POOL. IS THAT CORRECT? WITHOUT THE POOL? THAT IS CORRECT. BUT OVERALL, OVERALL, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO, UH, APPLY HERE, THIS HAS BEEN PRECEDENT ALREADY ON OUR NEIGHBORING LOT. WE CAN'T TAKE PRECEDENT. 14. UH, GO AHEAD. I DIDN'T MEET THAT, THAT YOU OFF. NO, WE CAN'T TAKE PRECEDENT INTO ACCOUNT HERE. WE'VE GOTTA LOOK AT THIS CASE. OKAY. WELL, IF, IF, IF I MAY, I LIKE TO ARGUE THAT THAT POINT THAT IF WE REMOVE THE, THE WAY WE, UH, USE THE EXISTING SETBACK THAT YOU GUYS HAVE, UH, FOR R SEVEN, WHICH IS 25 ON THE FRONT FIVE, FIVE ON THE SIDES, FIVE IN THE, I WON'T BE ABLE TO HAVE ENOUGH LIVABLE SPACE ON THE FIRST FLOOR. 'CAUSE I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PUT A GARAGE THAT'S ONLY BY 22 IN ORDER THAT FIT IT. IT, AND THAT'S WHAT FITS THE MARKET IN ORDER TO NOT AN MIRROR. SO WHAT HE'S TRYING TO SAY BY, BY LIKE ADD TO THIS CONVERSATION, THE LOT IS NARROW. IT'S 98 PT, RIGHT. WITH THE 25 FOOT SETBACK IN THE FRONT, THAT LEAVES WITH ROUGHLY, UM, 56 UH, FEET OF DISTANCE, 56 PLUS THE GARAGE. THAT HAS TO BE OUT OF THE SETBACK. THAT LEADS WITH VERY MINIMUM AREA TO DESIGN A FIRST FLOOR OR, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST FLOOR OF HOUSE. THEN EVERYTHING WILL HAVE TO GO ON THE SECOND, SECOND FLOOR WITH OVERHANGS. AND THAT WILL BRING, YOU KNOW, MORE STRUCTURAL, UH, POSTS ON THE PHONES TO, TO SUPPORT THE HOUSE. THAT'S WHY WE, UH, WE DESIGN THE HOUSE LIKE, AND OKAY, SO SUBTRACTING YOUR GARAGE. OKAY. 'CAUSE THAT'S WHERE YOUR CARS ARE GONNA LIVE. THAT'S, YEAH. HIS CARS ARE GONNA LIVE. RIGHT. UH, WHAT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF HOME ARE YOU GONNA, IS GONNA BE BUILT? WELL, ROUGHLY, I MEAN, WE WOULD TRY TO HIT THE SAME AMOUNT OF SPREADER, WHETHER, WHICH IS, WHICH IS AROUND 35 MAX. RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT 30, NO, UH, 45 MAX. BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT 39 FOOT. WHICH IS WHERE, WHAT WAY? BELOW . AND SO TELL ME HOW THIS IS NOT A, WELL, I'M NOT GONNA ASK THAT. THANK YOU. SO TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, WE, WE HAD THE, THE VIDEO THAT SHOWED US KIND OF AN ERROR OF . IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WERE A LOT OF TOWN HOMES OR DUPLEXES. UM, THE PROPERTY ACROSS FROM THE ALLEY, THEIR FRONT YARD, IS IT ON MELROSE OR IS IT ON IT'S MELROSE. OKAY. SO THEIR, I I KNOW THIS PROPERTY'S FRONT IS ON MELROSE. THE PROPERTY ON JUST THIS SIDE OF THE ALLEYWAY, IS THAT THEIR, IS MELROSE THEIR SIDE YARD? UH, YES. IT'S A SIDE YARD. IT'S THEIR SIDE YARD AND THEIR FRONT YARD IS THE OKAY. SO WOULD THE FRONT YARD SETBACK THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING, WOULD THAT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST AND EAST OF YOUR SITE? YES. I, I [01:10:01] MEAN, UH, IF YOU CAN SEE THE LAST PAGE, THAT WOULD BE THE RENDER, THE RENDER OF THE HOME LOAN. WE TRYING TO AND WHENEVER WE WERE DESIGNING THIS , UH, WE TAKE EVERYTHING IN CONSIDERATION, YOU KNOW, IN THE DISABILITY PLAN THAT WITH THE DIRECT ON THE RIGHT SIDE, SO WE HAVE LIKE MORE OPENING TO THE LEFT SIDE WHERE THE TRUCK OR CARS CAN GET INTO THE ALLEY AS WELL. AND WE COMPLY WITH THE TRIANGLE. ALSO, I'D LIKE TO ADD, UH, MY, OUR CLIENT'S MAIN CONCERN IS IF WE GO, IF WE USE THE SETBACKS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE RIGHT, ARE USING THE R SEVEN, WE'LL BE FORCED TO MOVE THE GARAGE TO THE BACK, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT HE DOES NOT, UH, TO THE BACK NEAR THE ALLEY. IF HE'S NOT WANTING TO, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, PRIVACY AND SAFETY, HE'S NOT WANTING TO HAVE THE CARS IN THE GARAGE BY THE ALLEY. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE ALLEY? SEEING NONE, DO YOU HAVE ANY LAST STATEMENTS, WORDS, POINTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE BEFORE WE UH, UM, WE'VE RECEIVED THE THREE LETTERS AND , THE SAME ONES YOU GUYS HAVE. UM, AND THEY, THEY ALL MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENT. THE ARGUMENT IS THE HOUSE IS TOO LARGE, BUT HOME SIZE ISN'T A VARIANCE. UM, UH, CRITERION, UH, SETBACKS AND COVERAGE ARE, AND THE OBJECTIVES CONCE IN THEIR OWN LETTERS. THAT'S 54 14 RECEIVED THE EXACT RELIEF AND THAT MINOR SUBJECT CHANGES ARE UNDERSTANDABLE. MR. SLATE, I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. PLEASE GO AHEAD. MR. FINN. UH, DID YOU MAKE AN EFFORT TO SPEAK TO THE, UH, THE THREE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE OPPOSED TO YOUR REQUEST? WE, SO TO BE, TO BE HONEST, WE RECEIVED THESE LETTERS, UH, TODAY AS WELL. BUT WE DID, WHENEVER WE WERE GOING OUT AROUND TO, YOU KNOW, GETTING A SIGNAGE FOR THE PETITION, SO OUR NEIGHBOR TO THE LEFT OF THE ALLEY, WHICH IS, UH, CALLING YES, 2035 POLAND AVENUE. THEIR MAIN CONCERN WAS SUN, SUN BLOCKAGE FROM THE HEIGHT OF OUR HOME. BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, ARE, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE OR GOING UP ABOVE THE 30 FOOT LINE? UH, TO, TO THAT, I, I SAY WE'RE REALLY NOT BOTHERING ANYTHING, BUT WE DID SPEAK TO, TO THE HOMEOWNER AT 23RD. BUT YOU ARE ASKING FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK. YEAH. VARIANCE. ONCE WE WOULD AFFECT THE SHADOW LENGTH, RIGHT? CORRECT. MR. CAN, I'D LIKE TO ADD, UM, WE RECEIVED THOSE, WHETHER IT'S OVER THE WEEKEND, THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T GET 'EM TO TODAY, TO HAVE A CHANCE TO THANK YOU TON, UM, ON THE UH, LAST PRAY. LAST PA I'M SORRY. UM, THIRD TO LAST PAGE, OR SECOND TO THE LAST PAGE. IT'S THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT SAYS EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES. IS THAT JUST TO SHOW THE TYPE OF MATERIALS THAT YOU'RE PLANNING ON USING? UH, THAT'S TO SHOW THE FRONT ELEVATION OF THE HOME. OKAY. BUT THAT DOESN'T SHOW A FRONT GARAGE THOUGH, SO IT'S, IF YOU SEE THE FRONT DOOR, IT'S TOWARDS THE RIGHT. SO WHENEVER YOU PULL INTO THE DRIVEWAY, YOUR CAR WILL TURN RIGHT INSIDE THE DOOR. OKAY. SO THOSE TWO FRONT WINDOWS ARE THE GARAGE AND THAT'S WHERE THE GARAGE IS, CORRECT? OH, YES. SO YOU'RE PULLING, SO THAT, THAT'S YOUR DRIVE. CORRECT. SO WE, WITH THE DRIVEWAY, WE CLEAR THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, WE GO IN, TURN LEFT ON THERE, AND THEN TURN RIGHT INTO THE GARAGE. GOTCHA. THANK YOU. UH, IF I WANT, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING TO THAT AS WELL. WE DID THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE THE GARAGE DOOR TO THE FRONT AND ONLY LIKE SEVEN FEET OF, UH, FRONT UH, DRIVEWAY. THAT WAY WE PUT IT THE MINIMUM THAT IS 20 FEET DRIVEWAY. WE PUT IT ON THE SIDE SO WE HAVE PARKING SPACES ON THE DRIVEWAY AND THEN GO INTO THE GARAGE AS WELL. MS. PEREZ, PLEASE. OKAY. YES, HONOR, I WANNA MAKE SURE I GOT THIS. YES. YOUR EMPLOYER BOUGHT THIS LOT NOT KNOWING THE SIZE. OKAY. AND THEN HE BROUGHT YOU GUYS ON. NOW DID HE TELL YOU WHAT HE WANTED OR WAS THIS THE HOUSE YOU SAID, HEY, WE CAN BUILD YOU THIS HOUSE IN THIS POOL. AND HE SAID, SURE. AND THEN I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHERE I'M STUCK IS THERE'S THIS AMOUNT OF LAND. HOW DO WE GET HERE? AND YOU'RE [01:15:01] WANTING TO PUSH OUT AND ENCROACH. OKAY. HOW, AT WHAT, IN THIS PROCESS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE GONE THROUGH, NO ONE SAID, WELL, HEY, WE CAN'T PUT THIS HOUSE ON THIS LOT BECAUSE OF THE CITY OF DALLAS RULES THAT WERE MADE BY SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY STUDIED CITY PLAN DEVELOPMENT . AND NOW THE SAME CITY'S SAYING DENIAL. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS SOMETHING TO GET ME PASSED GOING. WHAT SOMEONE SMARTER THAN I AM HAS SAID NO TO BACK THEN AND NOW. SO WE, WE GOT TO THE POINT, POINT WHERE, UH, WE DESIGNED THE HOUSE, UH, BASED ON THE SETBACKS THAT WE GOT, WE WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. UH, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF SAFETY ISSUES WITH HIM, YOU KNOW, BEING THE, WITH HIS, WITH HIS, UH, WORK LIFESTYLE. HE DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE, WE ARE VERY, VERY LIMITED TO WHAT WE COULD DESIGN BASED ON THE SETBACK FOLDER AND THE 45% COVERAGE FOR THE LOT. RIGHT. UH, FOR THE 45% WHERE WE AT, UH, FOOTPRINT, I BELIEVE 23. YES SIR. YEAH. BUILDABLE FOOTPRINT AT, AT 45% SQUARE. UH, LOT COVERAGE FOLLOWING THE SETBACKS WILL BE AT 2270, WHICH TO US AS THE DRAFT MAN AND YOU KNOW, THE DESIGNERS, IT'S NOT, UH, THERE THE FLOOR LINE, THE LIVABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE FIRST FLOOR LINE. SO THEREFORE, YOU KNOW, WE GOT TO, WE GOT TO THE CONCLUSION SAYING, HEY, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE RIGHT HAVE SUBMITTED, UH, A VARIANCE OF THIS, UH, TAKE THIS TIME. UH, WHY DON'T WE TRY AND, YOU KNOW, SPEAK WITH THE CD, SEE IF WE CAN DO THIS. LET ME, UM, ASK DR. LO HOSKINS TO SPEAK TO. RIGHT. SO I WANTED TO SPEAK, SPEAK TO, UM, MS. PEREZ'S STATEMENT REGARDING STAFF DENIAL. WE ARRIVED AT OUR DENIAL BASED UPON THE OPPOSITION BECAUSE ALL THREE STANDARDS HAVE TO HAVE, THEY HAVE TO BE ALL THREE STANDARDS. HOWEVER, I CAN SAY THAT THEIR LOT, ALTHOUGH THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVIDE THOSE SETBACKS, THIS LOT IS SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER THAN WHAT THE R 75 DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR. SO THE CODE ALSO ALLOWS THEM TO PROVISION, ALLOWS THE PROVISION FOR THEM TO COME IN TO ACTUAL RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK, THEN THAT THEIR LOT SIZE DOES NOT NEED THE SEVEN FIVE, THE SEVEN 500 SQUARE FEET AS OUTLINED FOR R 75 ZONING DISTRICT. SO IT'S NOT A MATTER OF THEY PURCHASED A LOT AND WANT TO BUILD AS MUCH AS THEY CAN ON IT. IT'S JUST NOT, IF THEY HAVE TO MEET THOSE SETBACKS, IT REDUCES THEIR OVERALL BUILDABLE AREA WHEN THEY'RE ALREADY WORKING WITH A LIMITED AMOUNT BASED UPON WHAT'S DESIGNATED FOR THAT PARTICULAR ZONING LEASE TO GET. THAT MAKES SENSE? YEAH, IT DOES. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT WAS HELPFUL. AND JUST TO FLAG THAT, THAT'S, UH, PAGE 89 OF THE DOCUMENT, THE DENIAL VARIANCES BECAUSE OF THE, WHETHER IT'S CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE OF THE LETTER TO COMPOSITION, THAT OF COURSE IS BEFORE ANY EVIDENCE HAD BEEN SUBMITTED ABOUT SPORT. AND THEN AS A QUESTION, DO YOU KNOW APPROXIMATELY WHEN, UM, YOUR CLIENT PURCHASED THE LOCK? I BELIEVE IT WAS PRIOR ROUGHLY, I THINK OCTOBER. OKAY. OF LAST. SO AT THAT POINT, THE PROPERTIES TO YOUR WEST THAT HAD BEEN BUILT UP, HE WOULD'VE SEEN THOSE AS POSSIBLE THINKING, OH, I, I GUESS IF THAT'S WHAT'S THERE, MAYBE THAT'S WHAT I'M ALLOWED TO DO WITHOUT NECESSARILY REALIZING WHAT THE ACTUAL SETBACK WERE ON THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME. BUT ASSUMING THE YES. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, THE BEFORE MOTION HEARING NONE, UM, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND START US OUT 'CAUSE I'M GONNA TAKE THE MOTIONS MAYBE IN A, A DIFFERENT ORDER. 'CAUSE I RECOGNIZE THAT EACH THE SETBACKS AND DIFFERENT SIDE COULD BE TAKEN DIFFERENTLY. SO I'M GONNA START US OUT WITH THE, UM, MAXIMUM LOCK COVERAGE VARIANCE. AND I'M GONNA MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA 2 6 0 0 0 0 3 8 ON APPLICATION OF GEORGE MILWAUKEE M ALKI, EXCUSE ME, GRANT THE 8% 368.35 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM LOCK COVERAGE REGULATION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT. BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT [01:20:01] A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS ALL CODE IS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THIS APPLICANT A FURTHER MOVE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED. THE FURTHER PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE VOUS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL PLANS ARE REQUIRED. THERE A SECOND. I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION MR. FINNEY SECONDS. UM, SO THIS ONE FOR ME IS THE EASIEST OF THE BUNCH BECAUSE EVERYONE AGREES THAT THEY'RE MUCH MORE . AND SO THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY SAYING HOW THEY CAN EXPAND, BUT JUST THAT THEY COULD BE MORE THAN THE 35% AMOUNT THIS SPRINGS THEM UP TO, UH, 53% BLOCK. SO THAT PLAN, RIGHT. AND I ALSO WANT TO SPEAK AS TO YES AND I ECHO MR. SLAVE'S COMMENTS AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE 43%, UH, SAYS EVERYTHING WE NEED TO KNOW, UM, ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR MOTION. THE, THE FACT THAT THE LOT SIZES 43% SMALLER, IS THAT RIGHT? YES. UM, IS, UH, UNDISPUTABLY SHOWS UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, SO THAT'S WHY I'LL BE VOTING FOR THIS MOTION. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE LOT COVERED? SEE NONE. I'LL ASK MRS. WILLIAMS TO CALL THE VOTE ON THE MOTION. MS. GARDNER? AYE. MS. PEREZ? AYE. UM, MR. MILLIKEN? AYE. MR. FINNEY? AYE. AND, UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS IDENTIFIED A ERROR IN MY MOTION. UM, MR. FINNEY, WOULD YOU, UH, INDULGE ME IF I AM GOING TO PROPOSE AN A AMEND? UH, AND THEN WE'LL SEE WHERE IT'S, AND THE, THE, THE CHANGE WILL BE ABOUT WHETHER THE COMPLIANCE IS CONNECTED TO THE PLANS OR NOT. WE JUST VOTED THOUGH AND PRESENT THE VOTE HAS NOT YET BEEN BECAUSE I HAVEN'T BEEN CALLED IN. GOT IT. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I, SINCE THE FULL VOTE HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN, I AM GOING TO UH, SEEK TO AMEND MY MOTION AND THEN I'LL BE UP IN SPRING LAST SECOND IF OR NOT. AND THE CHANGE AGAIN WILL BE WHETHER IT IS TIED REQUIRING COMPLIANCE TO THE SUBMITTED PLAN TO REMOVE THAT CASE. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE OTHER, UH, REFLECTIVE RELEASES ARE NOT BECAUSE THEN THAT DOESN'T CREATE ANY DIRECT . SO, UM, MY AMENDED MOTION IS I MOVED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BO A TWO SIX DASH 0 3 8 ON APPLICATION OF GEORGE MOLLY YAKI. WE GET IT GRANTS THE 8% 360 8 0.35 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE OF THE MAXIMUM LOCK COVERAGE REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT THROUGH THEIR EVALUATION OF PROPERTY AND CUSTOM SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SETS THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS OF THAT HAS MEDICALLY RESULTED IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS OUT. IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION ABOUT BUCK? I UNDERSTAND HE SECOND THE MOTION ONLY THING I'LL ADD IS AGAIN, LAGGING THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT IF HE WILL NOT THEN MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH ROPER FRANK IN TERMS OF WITH THAT, I WILL ASK THIS ON THE LET'S IN THE AMENDMENT AND GOOD. THERE WON'T BE ANY CONDITION. OKAY. UM, MS. GARNER? AYE. MS. PEREZ? AYE. MR. MILLIKEN? AYE. MR. FEENEY? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION TO GRANT PASSES? FIVE TO ZERO. OKAY. UM, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION ON THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA TWO SIX DASH 0 0 3 8 [01:25:01] ON THIS APPLICATION GRANT, THE 18 FOOT VARIANCE OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT 'CAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWED OF THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, SUCH THE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISION THAT THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT. IS THERE A SECOND? I ANDREW FINNEY SECOND THE MOTION. OKAY. UM, SO FOR THIS ONE, THIS TIME I LEARNED AND DID NOT HIDE. SO GAVE ME, UH, FOR ME ON THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, AGAIN, WE WE'RE A SMALLER LOT AND WHEN WE DID THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING WITH THE VIDEO WERE, IT SEEMED LIKE THE HOUSE THAT WAS CURRENTLY THERE BEFORE WE DID WAS THE KIND OF ABERRATION TERMS OF WHAT THAT FRONT YARD SETBACK LOOKED LIKE. THOSE PROPERTIES . UH, AND IT IS NOT CREATING, IN MY VIEW, AN IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THEIR LEASE BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR SIDE YARD. YARD. AND SO THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO BE THAT FAR BACK. SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE REASON I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS IS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IS MY TAKE IS THAT THAT IS THE SETBACK THEY'RE LOOKING TO DO WITH THE KIND OF CONSISTENT UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD ON THAT SIDE. UH, AND BECAUSE A LOT OF WHY I'LL BE VOTING ATION TO LET THAT HAPPEN. ? YES. UM, AND I WILL BE VOTING FOR THIS MOTION, UM, FOR SIMILAR REASONS. I THINK THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, SIMILAR TO THE 8% VARIANCE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, IN THE SPIRIT OF PASSING THAT MOTION, UH, IT MAKES NO SENSE TO RESTRICT THEM BY AN ADDITIONAL 18 FEET , UH, GIVEN THE, AND I HAVEN'T DONE THE MATH, BUT I'M SURE THAT'S A VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE SITE, UM, WHICH ALMOST CONTRADICTS OUR FIRST MOTION THAT WE JUST PASSED. SO, UM, I'LL BE VOTING FOR THE MOTION. UM, 'CAUSE ALSO I AGREE WITH MR. SLATE'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MR. TARIFF, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, UM, REMOVING THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED BUT STILL GRANTING AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD. IF THEY DON'T, YOU KNOW IT, IF THE PLANS CHANGE THEN THEY HAVE AN 18 FOOT VARIANCE PERIOD AT THE END, CORRECT? CORRECT. YEAH. SO THAT, SO WHY NOT BILL IN FRONT OF A SEVEN FOOT SETBACK ANY MODIFIER? I ALMOST WOULDN'T. UM, AND I'M JUST THINKING OUT LOUD, GRANTING AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE AND NOT REQUIRING THE PLAN SUBMITTED, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME 'CAUSE IT, WE'RE, WE'RE SPEAKING ON THE PLANS FOR US. SO I AM INCLINED TO VOTE AGAINST GRANTING THE 18 FOOT VARIANCE IF THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED. UM, DO YOU UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THERE'S, BECAUSE IF THERE'S NOT THIS PLAN THAT WE'RE SEEING, THEN THEY HAVE AN 18 FOOT VARIANCE AND THAT LEAVES, UM, POSSIBILITIES ARE, ARE THERE? WELL, IF I MAY, UM, SURE, ABSOLUTELY. YEAH, I THINK THE, I THINK THE THINKING IS JUST IF THE NEXT TWO MOTIONS DO NOT PASS, THEN IF, IF THIS MOTION IS TIED TO THE PLANS AS THEY ARE, THEY HAVE TO CHANGE THE PLANS. BUT IF THE NEXT FEW MOTIONS DON'T PASS, THEN REALLY THIS PASSING THIS MOTION IS TO NO EFFECT REALLY. SO I VIEW IT AS WE ARE EVALUATING FOUR DIFFERENT REQUESTS FOR THEM TO TRY TO SQUEEZE WHAT THEIR CLIENT WANTS, RECOGNIZING THE TYPE REQUIREMENT GARAGE THESE OTHERS WOULD. UM, IF WE TIE IT TO THIS, THE PLAN WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO HAVE THE KIND OF INSERT OF HOW IT WOULD GO AND WHERE WE COME WITH THE STRAIGHT UP, UM, VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT YARD SET. THAT THAT IN THEORY MEANS THEY COULD COME AND HAVE A FLAT THING ALL THE WAY UP IF THAT'S WHAT THEY DO HAVE A INCENTIVE. THAT IS WHAT THERE WOULD BE THEIR, WHAT THEY GET TO PLAY WITH TRY TO GET THAT BLOCK COVERAGE, WHICH IS THE OTHER RESTRICTION THAT IS . AND CURRENTLY THEY STILL HAVE THE [01:30:01] TWO SIDE GUARD SETBACKS THAT WE WOULD BE PICKING UP AS SEPARATE OCEAN AND EITHER DENYING, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUPPORT. RIGHT. AND THEN THAT WOULD BE WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PLAY WITH DECIDE WHAT DESIGN FOR WORK WITH THOSE CONSIDERATIONS WITHOUT IT BEING FILED TO A SPECIFIC P. SO IN THE SAME WAY THAT RIGHT NOW WHEN THEY COME IN HERE, THEY'RE SAYING, OH, WE HAVE A 25 FOOT POINT YARD SETBACK, WE HAVE FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE TO PLAY WITH HERE AND A 45% LOCK COVERAGE. THESE WOULD BE BE THAT THEY WOULD . BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR POINT THAT THEY, THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE COME THAT FAR OUT IN LINE WITH THE SIDE YARD OR WITH THE PROPERTIES. SO, OKAY. SO PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, UM, LET'S SAY THIS MOTION PASSES THE 18 FOOT, UM, UH, VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IS IN EFFECT AND THEN THE OTHER TWO PATHS AND THEY'RE NOT TIED TO THE SITE PLANS. UM, THAT WOULD BE A, A CONCERN EXCEPT I HAVE A FEELING THAT IF WE GOT TO FINAL SIDE YARD SETBACK AND WE'RE CONTEMPLATING DOING PROBABLY WOULD, WHICH WOULD THEN LOCK THEM IN ON . YES. IF THAT HAPPEN. THAT'S . OKAY. I'M, THANK YOU. I NEEDED TO TALK THIS. OKAY, THANK YOU. OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR ? YOU SEE NONE. I WILL ASK MRS. WILLIAMS, MS. GARNER, MAY MS PER MAY, MR. MILLIKEN? AYE. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION GRANT FAILS. READ IT THROUGH. UM, DOES SOMEONE HAVE A DIFFERENT MOTION ON THE FRONT YARD OR WOULD YOU PREFER TO MOVE ON FROM OTHER ITEMS? I CAN DO THAT, RIGHT? YOU DON'T HAVE TO. I MEAN, JUST POLITICAL LEAVES. I DON'T THINK . OKAY. SHALL WE TABLE THEN THE REQUEST FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND MOVE THE SIDE? OKAY. DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION IN RESPECT OF EITHER OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACK? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BOA DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 3 8 AN APPLICATION OF JORGE MAKI GRANT, THE TWO FOOT VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS AT THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AS 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 DIVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT. SLAVE WILL SECOND DISCUSSION. YEAH. JUST TO MAKE SURE THE WEST SIDE IS THE ONE FOR THE ALLEY OR THE NEIGHBOR? I'M SORRY, LEFT SIDE, THE ALLEY SIDE. YEAH. SO LET MAKING SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. YEAH. THE WEST SIDE, UM, IS A, THEY'RE REQUESTING LEFT ROAD IS THE INTERIOR LOT. OKAY. WHICH IS TO THE NEXT BUILDING AND THEN THEY REQUEST MORE RELIEF CLOSER TO THE ALLEY. SO I WOULD LIKE TO RETRACT MY MOTION BECAUSE, UM, I JUST NOTICED THAT ON PAGE ONE OF THREE, THERE ARE TWO NORTH ARROWS AND THEY ARE CONTRADICTING EACH OTHER. OH. AND THE TOP RIGHT HAND CORNER IS A LARGE NORTH ARROW. WHAT IS USUALLY, UH, ACKNOWLEDGED AS A NORTH ARROW [01:35:01] IN THE ARCHITECTURAL INDUSTRY POINTING TO THE LEFT. AND THE RIGHT NEXT TO IT IS A SMALL ARROW THAT SAYS NORTH POINTING TO THE RIGHT. I WAS LOOKING AT THE LARGE ONE IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER. UM, 'CAUSE IT'S THE FIRST THING I SAW. I DID NOT SEE THE TINY LITTLE ONE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND MY MOTION IF THAT IS ALLOWED SINCE YOU WERE WITHDRAWING THE MOTION. , IS THERE A MOTION AMEND MR. FINN, DO YOU HAVE THE MOTION? YES, PLEASE. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEAL NUMBER DOA DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 3 8 ON APPLICATION OF JORGE MAKI DENY THE VARIANCE TO THE SIDEY YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS AT THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS 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 ACT. OKAY, I'LL SECOND. YES. SO, UH, I'LL JUST ECHO MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS FROM, UH, UH, EARLIER IN THE HEARING. I STILL THINK, YOU KNOW, I I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT MR. MALKI MADE ABOUT HIS NEIGHBOR BEING OKAY WITH IT. IT, THIS ISN'T ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOUR CURRENT NEIGHBOR, UM, APPROVES THIS BECAUSE YOUR CURRENT NEIGHBOR WILL NOT LIVE FOREVER AND HE WILL NOT BE THE FOREVER ODOR OF THE NEXT DOOR PROPERTY. THIS IS ABOUT THE, THE CURRENT AND FUTURE SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE, UM, WHICH INCLUDES YOUR PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THAT'S WHY I'M, UH, LIVING AGAINST THIS, UH, SIDE YARD SETBACK. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE DENYING THE REQUESTS FOR RELIEF IN RESPECT OF THE LESTER LEE SIDE DURING SETBACK. I CAN SPEAK, UM, I'M INCLINED TO VOTE AGAINST THIS, UM, MOTION AND GIVE THE APPLICANT THE ABILITY TO, TO BUILD, UM, SET BACK AS ON THIS. SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU DON'T WANNA DO IT BECAUSE THIS IS', THIS ONE, THIS MAKES THE EVIDENCE CONFUSION IS THAT NO, I I DON'T WANNA DO IT. SO YOU JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. WELL, THAT WAS WHY I'M CONFUSED. OH, I SEE. OKAY. OKAY. UM, I'M AGAINST THIS ONE BECAUSE IT, IT PUTS THE NEIGHBOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IN JEOPARDY OF FIRE, UM, OF FIREWALL. OKAY. YEAH. SO, UM, YEAH, AND THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT THEY WILL, THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT THEY WILL PROVIDE A TWO HOUR FIREWALL AS, AS THEY OKAY. THEY SAID VERBALLY. SO I THINK THEY DESERVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY EITHER CHANGE THE, THE, THE SETBACK ALTOGETHER, WHICH IS WHAT I WOULD PERSONALLY RECOMMEND, BUT OR THE VERY LEAST COME BACK IN WRITING, UH, THE SH SHOWING THAT THEY ARE, UH, INCREASING THE FIRE RATING OF THAT WALL ALONG THAT ENTIRE FACADE. UM, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE IN WRITING, SO OTHERWISE WE'RE PUTTING LIVES IN DANGER. OKAY. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. I, I GUESS I WOULD JUST BECAUSE THE LOT IS SMALL THAT I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF LEAVING IT AS IS, BUT THAT POINTING VALID. THANK YOU. AND I WILL JUST NOTE FOR EVIDENCE HERE PURPOSES, WE ARE ALLOWED TO TAKE YOUR TESTIMONY AS THOUGH WE'RE IN WRITING, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR DESIRE TO SEE SOMETHING MORE, UM, THOROUGH. ANYTHING MORE TO DISCUSS THE WEST SIDE YARD REQUEST? HEARING NONE. I'LL ASK THIS. MS. GARDNER? NA MS. PEREZ? AYE. MR. MILLIKEN NAY. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, NAY I SHOWN TO DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. YES. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL, WHAT IS OUR NEXT HEARING DATE? I'M SORRY, [01:40:04] AUGUST 17TH, 2027. SO THE RESULTS WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED BECAUSE IT WOULD BE EIGHT. SO IF YOU WERE TO SEEK TO POSTPONE TO HAVE THEM COME BACK WITH MAYBE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IF THEY NEED, BUT AFTER OR AUGUST, UM, IT WOULD BE BE CONSIDERED NEXT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. OKAY. PLEASE IF YOU HAVE MUCH. SO IT'S AUGUST 17TH 19TH. THANK YOU. ONE MOMENT PLEASE. OKAY. AUGUST 17TH. OKAY. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BOA DASH TWO SIX DASH 0 0 0 0 3 8 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL AUGUST 17TH, 2026. BECAUSE THIS IS ALL ONE REQUEST, WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED A PART OF THE APPLICATION. THEREFORE, IF WE ARE GOING TO HOLD THIS, THE REMAINING ITEMS, WE'RE GOING TO FIRST HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE LOT COVERAGE AND HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE LOT COVERAGE AND MAKE A MOTION, UH, HAVE A SECOND MAKE A MOTION ON TO RECONSIDER, THEN IT'LL BRING THAT, UM, MOTION TO APPROVE BACK TO THE FLOOR AND THEN YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD THE MATTER OVER UNTIL AUGUST SEVEN 17. OKAY. ALRIGHT. I WILL MOVE TO RECONSIDER THE REQUEST IN RESPECT OF THE MAXIMUM LOCK COVERAGE IN DOA 2 6 0 0 0 0 3. IS THERE A SECOND? THAT'S SECOND. UM, I BELIEVE WHERE MR. FINNEY IS TAKING US IS THAT THERE ARE SOME MOVING PARTS HERE THAT MAY BE HAVING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ABOUT FIRE RATINGS, UM, AND THE SETBACKS COULD HELP US APPRECIATE A BIT MORE ASPECTS OF THE REQUEST AND MAYBE SATISFY SOME ADDITIONAL CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS. UM, IT MIGHT ALSO AFFORD THE APPLICANTS AND OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE WITH THE NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE CONCERNS NOW THAT YOU ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THOSE CONCERNS ARE AND THAT SINCE THEY HADN'T TOLD YOU BEFORE, UM, TO SORT OF TALK TO THEM ABOUT THEM, WHETHER THERE'S ANY COMPROMISES OR APPROACHES THAT COULD, COULD HELP SOLVE THAT. UM, WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE FACT THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING IN JULY. ALSO, PLEASE, WE AGREED TO TABLE, BUT THAT I THINK IS THE SETUP. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO DISCUSS, UH, BEFORE WE ASK FOR VOTE ON RE CONSIDERING THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE BEFORE WE THEN POSSIBLY ENTERTAINED MOTION? I GUESS WE NEED A VOICE VOTE ON THE RECONSIDERATION. MRS. WILLIAMS, CAN YOU PLEASE CALL A MOTION ON THE, UH, VOTE ON THE RECONSIDERATION? ON THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE LOT COVERAGE MS. GARDNER? AYE MS. PEREZ? OKAY, JUST TO MAKE SURE, THIS IS TO TABLE IT TO NEXT AU UH, TO AUGUST. THIS IS RECONSIDERING THE MAX, THE, THE ONE THING WE VOTED ON SO FAR, THE MAX LOCKUP, RIGHT? WE NEED A TABULAR ROTHA BEFORE WE'RE ALLOWED ABLE TO, SO WE NEED TO UNWIND THE ONE THING ACTUALLY ULTIMATELY DECIDED SO FAR, SO THAT WE HAVE FOUR ITEMS AVAILABLE TO CONSIDER THE MATTER OF THAT. ALL OF THE, SO THIS IS THE PROCEDURAL FIRST STEP OF SAYING, HEY, ARE YOU WILLING TO RECONSIDER IT? HE WOULD SAY YES. THEN I BELIEVE MR. FOR UH, AN EXTENSION AND THEN UM, WE TO DEAL WITH WHETHER THE EXTENSION AUGUST GIVEN THE DEADLINES OR SEPTEMBER TO GIVEN THE DEADLINES. OH, THANK YOU MR. SLATE. NO, IT'S, [01:45:01] I I APPRECIATE IT. I'VE MADE THIS A LITTLE. THIS ONE'S BEEN A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED. YES. . MR. MILLIKEN? AYE. MR. PENNY? AYE MR. CHAIRMAN. AYE, RECONSIDERATION STAYS. NOW BEFORE I REQUEST AN A MOTION, WHAT WOULD BE THE DEADLINES FOR ANY RESUBMISSION BY THE APPLICANT IF WE'RE TARGETING THE AUGUST 17TH HEARING DATE? JUNE 26TH. JUNE 26TH. THAT'S NOT ENOUGH AND THAT'S A HARD DEADLINE. SO THAT'S CONSIDERING EVERYTHING HAS ALREADY BEEN WORKED OUT AND THERE READY TO . SO WHAT WOULD BE THE DEADLINE AT FIRST SEPTEMBER IF WE MOVE IT TO SEPTEMBER'S MEETING? UM, AND THAT WOULD BE HAVING PLANS AND ANY POTENTIAL REVISED PLANS? THAT'S CORRECT. AND FOR SEPTEMBER IT WILL BE JULY 4TH. UM, WAS IT, UM, AS YOU JUST HEARD, IF WE'RE TARGETING COMING BACK IN AUGUST, THAT WOULD GIVE Y'ALL 11 DAYS TO SUBMIT EVERYTHING FULLY IN FIVE ONE FOR THAT. IF WE INSTEAD TARGET THE SEPTEMBER PANEL C PERIOD, WHICH IS SEPTEMBER 14TH, UM, SEPTEMBER 14TH, YOU WOULD HAVE ESSENTIALLY ANOTHER MONTH. DO, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PREFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE DAYS? DO YOU THINK YOU'D WANT THAT ADDITIONAL TIME THOUGH? IT DOES PICK OUT, LET POSSIBLY DO. I THINK 11 DAYS SHOULD BE ENOUGH FOR THE GOTCHA. AND THAT 11 DAYS INCLUDE ANY REVISIONS BY THE 22ND. WHAT WAS THE 25TH? JUNE 26TH? IT WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPLETELY FINAL. SO THAT MEAN YOU'LL HAVE TO GET DIANA PLANS HERE WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE DAYS TO START THE REVIEW PROCESS? YEAH, AS SOON AS AFTER THIS YEAR WE'LL START, WE'LL START WORKING ON THE FENCE IN LIGHT OF THAT. UH, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY, THE APPLICANT WILL BE PRIME TO A AUGUST 17TH, ONE 26TH. IF YOU'RE CONTEMPLATING THE POSTPONE MOTION, PLEASE MOVE THE TOGETHER. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION PLEASE. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 3 8 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL AUGUST 17TH, 2026. IS THERE A SEC? MS. GARNER SAID SECOND GARNER. UM, I THINK I'VE SAID EVERYTHING I NEED TO SAY . IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE HOLDING IT UNDER ADVISEMENT? SPORADIC. UH, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT THEY PUT EVERYTHING IN WRITING SO THAT WHEN WE GO TO VOTE, WE'RE NOT SAYING WE'RE OKAY, WE'RE GONNA TRUST X, Y, Z FOR THEM TO DO IT. OKAY. OKAY. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S FOLLOWED. UH, UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO ONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK AS TO THE HOLDING THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL AUGUST 17TH, 2026, I'LL ASK MRS. WILLIAMS. CALL THAT MR. FINNEY. AYE. MR. MILLIKEN? AYE. MS. GARDNER AYE. MS. PEREZ AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN AYE. MOTION TO HOLD UNTIL AUGUST 17TH PASSES? FIVE. UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PRESENTATION. UH, AS YOU UNDERSTAND, YOU NOW HAVE UNTIL JUNE 26TH TO SORT OF RESUBMIT MATERIALS, UH, IN CONNECTION FOR THE, THIS PANEL OF C TO TAKE UP ALL OF THE REQUEST OF RELIEF. UM, IN THAT TIME OF COURSE, I BELIEVE THAT YOU WERE ENTITLED TO MODIFY, ADD, SUBTRACT AS YOU WISH, SINCE IT'LL BE CONSIDERED CAN BE A REVISED SORT OF APPLICATION FOR THAT TIME. HOPEFULLY YOU'LL TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEEN POSED, MAYBE ENGAGE WITH SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE, UH, EXPRESSED DISPLEASURE WITH THE PROPOSAL THAT YOU HAD KNOWN BEFORE AND, UM, WE'LL [01:50:01] LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING IN A COUPLE MONTHS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. WE'LL REMEMBER SOME STAFF. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. UM, AND WITH THAT, UM, THIS PANEL C OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TIME IS CURRENTLY 2:50 PM AND WE WILL ADJOURN. * 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.