[00:00:01]
[Board of Adjustments: Panel A on June 16, 2026.]
AND WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.I'M DAVE NEWMAN AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF ITS PANEL A.
TODAY IS TUESDAY, JAN JUNE 16TH WITH THE TIME OF 1:00 PM AND I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A TO ORDER FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, IT'S ACTUALLY 1:02 PM SO I'LL STAND CORRECTED ON THAT.
BUT, UM, A QUORUM AT MINIMUM FOUR OR FIVE OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS IS PRESENT.
WE HAVE FIVE OF FIVE, THEREFORE WE CAN PROCEED WITH OUR MEETING.
PLEASE ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE INDIVIDUALS ON OUR BOARD TO, UH, AGAIN, MY NAME IS DAVID NEWMAN AND I SERVE AS CHAIRMAN.
TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT IS KATHLEEN DAVIS, CASEY ROGERS II, MICHAEL DORN AND MICHAEL OVITZ.
TO MY RIGHT IS OUR BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY THERESA CARLISLE, OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF PLANNER, DR.
KAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, AND OUR BOARD SECRETARY AND MEETING MODERATOR MARY WILLIAMS. BEFORE WE BEGIN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE WAY WE CONDUCT THIS HEARING.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR THAT TIME.
WE OPERATE UNDER THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE CONSISTENT WITH THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT.
EACH CASE IS DECIDED UPON ON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPLICANT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH THE NECESSARY FACTS TO WARRANT FAVORABLE ACTION OF THE BOARD.
WE HAVE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY OUR STAFF, OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRIOR TO THIS HEARING, UH, WHICH WAS AT 10 30 THIS MORNING, AND ALSO REVIEWED A DETAILED PUBLIC DOCKET, WHICH EXPLAINS THE CASE AND WAS POSTED ON OUR, UH, WEBSITE SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY THE ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION THAT ANY OF THE CASES THAT WE WILL HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD SECRETARY WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED.
THE EVIDENCE MUST RE BE RETAINED IN THE BOARD'S OFFICE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE SPECIAL, A VARIANCE OR A SPECIAL RE EXCEPTION, UH, REQUIRES 75% OR FOUR OF THE FIVE MEMBER PANELS.
AGAIN, AN APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE OR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUIRES FOUR OF THE FIVE MEMBERS.
ALL OTHER ACTIONS ARE JUST A SIMPLE MAJORITY.
A DECISION LETTER OF THE BOARD'S ACTION TODAY WILL BE EMAILED TO THE APPLICANT BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY WITHIN TWO BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE TODAY'S HEARING AND WILL BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.
IN ADDITION, WE WILL UPDATE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEBSITE WITH OUR PENDING CASE LOG WITH OUR DECISION.
AND I'M GONNA SAY THANK YOU AGAIN, MS. WILLIAMS, FOR KEEPING THAT CASE LOG CURRENT, UPDATED FOR NEW CASES AND ON ACTIONS OF THE BOARD.
THAT'S A WAY THAT WE ARE BEING AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE.
ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY? MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY, MS. WILLIAMS, WHO RAISE YOUR HAND AGAIN.
SO ANYONE THAT'S WANTING TO SPEAK TODAY NEEDS TO HAVE FILLED OUT A BLUE SHEET OF PAPER AND TURNED IT INTO THE BOARD SECRETARY.
EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR A MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES.
AND THEN, UH, YOU MAY ALSO SPEAK ON YOUR SPECIFIC CASE FOR A MAXIMUM OF FIVE MINUTES.
I GIVE PLUS OR MINUS TIME DEPENDING ON OUR CASELOAD.
ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
NO TELECONFERENCING WILL BE ALLOWED.
ALL RAD ARE DIRECTED TO MYSELF AS THE PRESIDING OFFICER WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN ORDER.
QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NO QUESTIONS.
LET ME PREVIEW OUR AGENDA, UM, WHAT WE HAVE ON OUR PUBLIC AGENDA THIS AFTERNOON.
POSTED, UH, REVIEW AND APPROVE OUR MEETINGS FROM MAY 19TH.
TWO MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS. ONE IS A TWO YEAR WAITING PERIOD REQUEST.
AND THEN TWO ITEMS THAT ARE ORIGINALLY ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET THAT ARE NOW ON THE CONTESTED DOCKET.
DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING OTHER THAN WE TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
WE WILL HANDLE THOSE IN THAT ORDER.
MEETING MINUTES BDA 2 4 5 0 3 5 BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 83.
SO THAT'S WESTMORELAND, THEN STEVENSON STREET, THEN NORTH LAKE, THEN BONITA.
THAT'S THE ORDER OF OUR AGENDA.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA? OKAY.
FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE REVIEW OF OUR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM PANEL A FROM MAY 19TH THIS MORNING.
AT THE BRIEFING, I MENTIONED FOUR TYPOS THAT WE WANTED TO CORRECT FOR THE RECORD.
I'M GONNA, UH, MENTION THEM AGAIN.
UH, IT'S PAGE THREE OF THE MINUTES, PAGE 14 OF THE DOCKET.
THE MEETING MINUTES, SAY 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 3 SHOULD BE 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 8.
SECOND IS PAGE 13 IN THE MEETING MINUTES, PAGE 24 OF THE DOCKET, UM, WHERE THE ORDER OF THE BOARD WAS THAT WE DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, NOT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BUT WITH PREJUDICE.
SO WE'RE CHANGING THAT TO MOTION TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE.
THAT WAS A MOTION MADE BY MR. KOVI.
THE NEXT ONE IS PAGE, LET'S LOOK HERE.
[00:05:01]
IN THE MINI MINUTES.THAT IS WHERE, UM, THE MES HAD SAID THAT THE MOTION FAILED.
NO, THE MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DID PASS.
THAT'S ON PAGE 16 OF THE MINUTES 27 OF THE DOCKET.
SAME THING ON PAGE 28 OF THE DOCKET.
WE REMOVED THE WORD FAILS BECAUSE THE MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DID PASS.
AS THE, UH, AS THE ACTION OF THE PANEL, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING.
MR. KOVI, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING BE APPROVED WITH THE FOUR AMENDMENTS THAT YOU MENTIONED.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. KOVI TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM, UM, MAY 19TH WITH THOSE FOUR AMENDMENTS.
ALL IN FAVOR OR DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
FIVE TO ZERO MEETING MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, UM, IS BDA 2 4 5 0 3 5.
UH, THIS IS AT 1433 NORTHWEST MOR WESTMORELAND.
THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A WAIVER OF THE TWO YEAR WAITING PERIOD.
UH, AS I'VE BEEN TAUGHT YEARS AGO THAT ANYTIME AN AGENDA ITEM'S ON THE POSTED AGENDA, THERE IS A RIGHT FOR THE APPLICANT AND OR PUBLIC TO SPEAK.
SO, UH, THE APPLICANT IS MR. BALDWIN.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, YOU'RE WELCOME TO SPEAK.
OTHERWISE WE WILL, I THINK WE'RE GONNA GET A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF.
UM, MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR OR BOARD ATTORNEY IN LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD AT THE BRIEFING, BECAUSE THIS APPLICANT DID NOT FILE, UM, FOR A BUILDING PERMIT OR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WITH THE WITHIN 180 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE FAVORABLE ACTION OF THE BOARD, THIS REQUEST IS AUTOMATICALLY DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THEREFORE, THE REQUEST ISN'T DENIED.
THE, THE PREVIOUS, UM, APPROVALS ARE YES.
CHANGED IN OUR DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE THAT YOU'RE TALKING FROM MARCH 18TH, 2025.
SO THEREFORE, WHAT, HOW DO WE HANDLE THIS? THAT'S IN FRONT OF US, THEREFORE, THE TWO YEAR LIMITATION IS WAIVED AND THIS APPLICANT CAN COME BACK TOMORROW TO FILE AN APPLICATION AND NO ACTION IS REQUIRED OF THIS BOARD.
SO, UM, WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION OFFLINE, ONLINE WHAT WE SHOULD DO ABOUT THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN, THIS IS A MISTAKE THE WAY THIS WAS HANDLED.
THE APPLICANT HAS ADMITTED THAT THEY DID NOT TAKE ACTION ON THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL.
SO, UH, UNFORTUNATELY, UH, SO SO THE STAFF IS ADMINISTRATIVELY WITHDRAWING THIS? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE DOING? YES.
THAT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT WE ARE ADMINISTRATIVELY WITHDRAWING THIS REQUEST.
IS THERE GENERAL CONSENSUS FOR THAT? I THINK SO.
SO WE'LL CONSIDER, UH, TWO FOUR BDA 2 4 5 0 3 5 ADMINISTRATIVELY WITHDRAWN.
SO YOU HAVE, UM, YOU CAN FILE ANOTHER CASE, UM, WITHOUT ANY PREJUDICE TO WHAT YOU'VE DONE BEFORE SINCE, OKAY.
ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, GOOD.
APOLOGIES FOR THE MISDIRECTION.
NEXT CASE IS BO A 2 5 0 0 8 3 UNDER FW ONE.
THIS IS AT 2 6 1 5 STEVENSON STREET.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE BO? A 2 5 0 0 0 0 83 FW ONE AT 2 6 1 15 STEVENSON STREET IS THE APPLICANT HERE.
UH, MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, WHEN THIS APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED BY STAFF, WERE THEY ADVISED TO SHOW UP AT THE HEARING? THEY WERE OKAY.
HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING MS. WILLIAMS? NO, SIR.
UH, IN THE MATTER OF BO, A 2 5 0 0 8 3 FW ONE THE CHAIR TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, MR. ROGERS, EXCUSE ME.
NOW YOU'RE RECOGNIZED MR. ROGERS.
I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA 2 5 0 0 8 3 F1 FW ONE ON APPLICATION OF ARTHUR TERRY DENY THE REQUEST TO WAIVE THE FILING FEES TO BE PAID IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR STRUCTURES ACCESSORY TO SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATIONS AND VARIANCE TO THE FLOOR AREA FOR STRUCTURES ACCESSORY TO SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATIONS AS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THAT PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT IN THE MATTER OF BO 8 2 5 0 0 0 0 8 3
[00:10:01]
FW ONE.MR. ROGERS HAS MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE REQUEST FOR TWO FEE WAIVERS.
SECONDED BY MR. KOVICH DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. ROGERS, UM, SIMPLY THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE TO, UM, YOU KNOW, TESTIFY FOR THEIR CASE.
SO I, I BELIEVE THIS SHOULD BE, UH, DENIED.
THANK YOU MR. ROGERS DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
MR. HAITZ? UM, IF I HAD MADE THE MOTION, I WOULD'VE DONE IT WITH PREJUDICE SINCE THE GENTLEMAN WASTED THE, A LOT OF TIME OF THIS BOARD AND STAFF BY NOT SHOWING UP TO MAKE HIS CASE.
NONETHELESS, I'M HAPPY TO GO ALONG WITH, UM, WITH WHAT, UM, ARE YOU REQUESTING MR. ROGERS TO CHANGE IT OR NO? I'M NO I'M NOT.
YOU'RE JUST MAKING THE COMMENT, YOU'RE MAKING AN OBSERVATION.
I SUPPORT THE MOTION AS AS OKAY.
I WOULD, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU IN THE GENERAL CONSENT SENTIMENT.
MR. I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION.
I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU IN THE GENERAL SENTIMENT SENTIMENT.
MR. OVITZ? UM, THIS IS THE SECOND MONTH IN ROW.
WE'VE HAD A FEE WAIVER AND SOMEONE NOT SHOWING UP BUT OKAY.
AND THE STAFF SAYS THEY'VE TOLD THE APPLICANT TO SHOW, SO.
VOTE ON BO A 2 5 0 0 0 8 3 FW ONE.
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE MS. DAVIS.
MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE PASSES IN THE MATTER OF B OH A 2 5 0 0 8 3 FW ONE THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AND A FIVE TO ZERO VOTE DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE REQUEST FOR A FEE WAIVER.
THE APPLICANT WILL GET NOTIFIED FROM OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 8.
UH, THIS IS AT 1 4 9 0 1 NORTH LAKE ROAD.
PLEASE COME DOWN FOR THE RECORD.
UM, UH, I HAD ASKED I'LL, I'LL COME WITH YOU ONE SECOND, SIR.
FOR THE RECORD, I DID NOT PUBLICLY ASK, BUT I ASKED THE BOARD SECRETARY IF WE HAD ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY TODAY AND SHE SAID WE DO, WE DO NOT HAVE PUBLIC SPEAKERS, PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
SO THAT'S DISPENSED WITH, ALRIGHT SIR.
UM, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE FOR 0 0 0 0 2 8.
MS. WILLIAMS, WOULD SHE BE, UH, JUST FOR QUESTIONS? OKAY.
WELL THEN IF, IS SHE SPEAKING OR JUST YOU? JUST ME.
DOES HE HAVE A BLUE SLIP? YES.
AND DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS, OTHER SPEAKERS AND OPPOSITION FOR FA? NO SIR.
OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, MA'AM.
SO OUR RULES OR PROCEDURE ARE SUCH THAT THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
ANYONE ELSE? I SAY THIS EVERY TIME, BUT I GOTTA SAY IT.
APPLICANT'S ALLOWED FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN FAVOR IS ALLOWED.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION IS ALLOWED? FIVE.
AND THE APPLICANT'S ALLOWED A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
I'M GONNA GIVE YOU WHATEVER REASONABLE TIME YOU NEED TO PRESENT, UH, JUST AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT REDUNDANT.
HOPEFULLY YOU HEARD SOME OF THE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS THIS MORNING AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE.
UH, GOOD EVENING OR GOOD AFTERNOON BOARD.
MY NAME IS ASHTON MILLER, I AM A PROJECT MANAGER WITH ENCORE.
UM, A PLEASURE TO BE HERE THIS AFTERNOON.
MR. MILLER IS WHAT YOU SAID, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
UM, SO APPRECIATE THAT TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR OUR REQUEST.
UM, FOR AN ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, REALLY HOW THIS CAME ABOUT.
UM, IS THERE, WE ARE WORKING ON, UM, ADDING SOME ADDITIONAL ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO OUR CYPRESS WATER SWITCHING STATION, UM, THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, DIRECTLY TO OUR EAST, WHICH IS A CITY OF IRVING NEIGHBORHOOD, GOT INTO CONTACT WITH, UH, ONE OF OUR AREA MANAGERS WHO REPRESENTS THE AREA.
UM, AND THEY EXPRESSED, UM, A CONCERN WITH JUST THE LEVEL OF, UH, SCREENING THAT IS TAKING PLACE ON THE EAST SIDE OF OUR SWITCHING STATION.
UM, AND SO IN AN EFFORT TO, UM, WORK WITH THE HOA AND THE RESIDENTS THAT BACK UP TO OUR SWITCHING STATION, UM, WE HAVE PROPOSED, UM, TO, UH, INCREASE, UH, THE HEIGHT OF THE, UM, ADJACENT FENCING THAT THEY CAN SEE, UM, AS THEY ENTER AND EXIT, UH, INTO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO, UM, WHAT THE REQUEST IS FOR IS TO THE, WE
[00:15:01]
HAVE THE, THE SIX FOOT, I'M SORRY, SEVEN FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT ESSENTIALLY WRAPS AROUND OUR ENTIRE PROPERTY TODAY.UM, WHICH DOES MEET THE, UM, NERC AND, UM, THE, UH, NESC, UM, ELECTRICAL SAFETY, UM, REQUIREMENTS THAT ENCORE IS EXPECTED TO MEET.
UH, WE CAN'T EXCEED THAT MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF THE SEVEN FOOT WITH A STRAND OF BARBED WIRE ON TOP.
UM, SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING, UM, IS TO PROVIDE A 12 FOOT TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE DIRECTLY ON THE, UM, EAST SIDE OF OUR STATION.
UM, KIND OF TOWARDS WHERE YOU GET INTO THE, THE GATED AREA DRIVEWAY ACCESS INTO OUR STATION.
UM, AND THEN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER SOUTH OF OUR DRIVEWAY WILL BE A 12 FOOT TALL, UH, CHAIN LINK FENCE.
AND THEN WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING, UM, IN ADDITION TO THE CHAIN LINK FENCE IS TO PUT KIND OF THE, THE SCREENING FABRIC, UM, A ALONG THE FENCE SO THAT REALLY ANY KIND OF, UH, VISUAL THAT YOU CAN SEE, UM, FROM, FROM THE, UH, ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD IS REALLY JUST THE TOP OF ANY KIND OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, UM, THAT, UH, THAT'S THERE TODAY AND WHAT WE WILL BE INSTALLING IN THE FUTURE.
UM, SO THIS IS JUST IN AN EFFORT FOR ENCORE TO, UM, APPEASE THE RESIDENTS WITHIN THE AREA, BE GOOD NEIGHBORS, UM, AND TO, UH, MEET THE, THE ASK OF, OF THOSE NEIGHBORS THERE ON THE EAST SIDE OF OUR SWITCHING STATION.
AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT Y'ALL MAY HAVE FOR ME.
UH, OKAY, WE HAVE SEVERAL MS. DAVIS, I JUST WANNA CONFIRM.
SO CURRENTLY YOU HAVE A SEVEN FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE AROUND THE ENTIRE PROPERTY? YES MA'AM.
SO YOUR NEIGHBORS REQUESTED THAT THE FENCE BE HIGHER AND SCREENED? YES, MA'AM.
SO YOU'RE REPLACING THE SEVEN WITH 12 ALL AROUND AND YOU'RE SCREENING ALL OF IT OR JUST PART OF IT? THE, SO JUST A, A CORRECTION ON, ON THE EAST SIDE WHERE IT COMES INTO NORTH LAKE, UM, THE, WHERE OUR DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE IS, THERE'S A KIND OF AN ANGLED GATE, THEN YOU HAVE OUR GATE AND THEN IT ANGLES BACK TOWARDS THE, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND FOLLOWS ALONG THEIR BACK RESIDENTIAL FENCES.
UM, JUST THAT PORTION ALONG THE DRIVEWAY AREA.
AND THEN SOUTH OF OUR GATE WHERE IT BACKS UP TO THE RESIDENCE WILL BE A 12 FOOT FENCE.
THE REMAINDER OF OUR STATION FENCING WILL REMAIN AS A SEVEN FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE.
SO WE'RE, THERE'S SOME CONFUSION HERE.
MR. THOMPSON, CAN YOU PULL UP THE, THE, THIS GR THIS GRAPHIC THAT WE HAVE AT OUR PACKAGE BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE ANYWHERE THE TERM SCREENING.
WE DIDN'T, I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT SCREENING.
THIS IS THE FIRST I'VE HEARD ABOUT SCREENING, BUT SO WHAT I'D PREFER IS FOR THIS TO BE, HE, HE'LL BRING WHAT'S IN OUR PACKET AND THEN YOU'LL WALK US THROUGH WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING.
AND THEN WE'LL GO RIGHT BACK TO MS. DAVIS.
'CAUSE WHAT I WANNA DO IS I'M FOLLOWING WHAT YOU ALL SUBMITTED.
I WANT TO MARK EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
'CAUSE MY IMPRESSION WAS YOU WERE PUTTING AROUND THE 12 FOOT WITH THE BARBED WIRE AROUND THE WHOLE THING.
BUT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
SO I'M CONFUSED, BUT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE.
SO HE'S GONNA LOAD UP INTO THE DOCKET, PLEASE.
MR. THOMPSON, IF YOU COULD, UH, ON OUR, WE'RE LOOKING ON OUR SCREENS.
YOU'RE HEADED IN THE DIRECTION.
I'M WANTING THE OTHER DIRECTION.
I GUESS YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO FULL SCREEN IN ORDER FOR HIM TO WALK, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
I GUESS YOU COULD TAKE US, SO YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS GRAPHIC? YES, SIR.
'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE IN THE RECORD AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE MM-HMM
SO I'M SQUINTING MY EYES TO SEE WHAT THIS SAYS SO I CAN SEE IT BETTER ON MY SCREEN HERE NOW.
ALRIGHT, SO LET'S GO BACK TO MS. DAVIS.
I'D LOVE TO KNOW WHERE THE SCREENING'S GOING, WHERE THE, AND THE ENTIRE THING YOU SAID IS GONNA BE 12 FEET, BUT THEN YOU SAID SOME OF IT MAY BE SEVEN FEET.
SO IF YOU COULD GO AROUND THE PERIMETER USING THAT.
ALTHOUGH WE'RE ONLY SEEING PART OF IT NOW, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO LOOK AT THE, THE FULL SO THAT WE COULD SEE ALL OF IT.
[00:20:01]
YEP.UM, SO JUST TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE ENTIRE, SO I'LL START ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER.
SO TOP LEFT SIDE OF THE SITE PLAN, TOP LEFT, TOP LEFT, WHICH FROM A, FROM A COMPASS IS THE NO NORTHWEST WEST.
SO WE'RE STARTING FROM THE NORTHWEST.
IS THAT YOUR CURSOR, MR. THOMPSON? THANK YOU.
SO TRAVELING TO THE EAST AT THE UPWARD ANGLE LINE, THERE'S A, A CHAIN LINK FENCE.
AND THEN GOING DOWN, SO THAT HASH MARK LINE IS AN EXISTING FENCE? YES, SIR.
SO EVERYWHERE WE, THAT'S THE, THAT'S OUR PROPERTY BOUNDARY, BUT THERE, THERE IS A FENCE THERE TODAY.
SO EVERYWHERE WE SEE THAT PROPERTY BOUNDARY IS OF EXISTING EXISTING FENCE.
AND I'M NOT TRYING TO STEP ON YOU MS. DAVIS, BUT, AND ARE YOU, ARE, ARE, WOULD YOU TELL US WHAT IS THERE VERSUS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR? OKAY.
SO TODAY IS A SEVEN FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE ON THE LINE THAT IT, UH, UH, MR. THOMPSON, I BELIEVE JUST UH, HIGHLIGHTED OVER.
AND THEN TRAVELING SOUTH TODAY IS A SEVEN FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE.
AND THEN GOING TO THE EAST, FOLLOWING THAT LONG ANGLED LINE, YOU HAVE, UH, SEVEN FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE AND IT'S STAYING SEVEN OR IT'S GOING TO 12 AND IT IS STAYING SEVEN.
AND THEN TRAVELING DOWN THROUGH THE JAGGED AREA.
UM, THAT IS A SEVEN FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE REMAINING CHAIN LINK FE REMAINING SEVEN FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE.
AND IS THAT A SEVEN FOOT WITH THE, UH, BARBED WIRE ON TOP OF THE SEVEN? YES SIR.
SO DOES THE CITY VIEW THIS AS SEVEN FEET OR WITH THE BARBED WIRE? HOW DO YOU GUYS CALCULATE THAT? MISS BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, IT'S GONNA BE TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE FENCE.
SO THAT BARBED WIRE WOULD BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE FENCE.
SO WHAT DO WE, SO I GUESS IN, IN TOTAL IT'S EIGHT FOOT, THEN AN EIGHT.
I COULD CALL IT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
SO WHAT I JUST HEARD WAS THE CITY STAFF VIEWS THE MEASUREMENT WITH THE BARBED WIRE.
'CAUSE THE HIGHEST POINT, THE, THE, THE CHAIN LINK IS SEVEN BARBED WIRES ANOTHER FOOT.
SO MR. THOMPSON IS SAYING, SO BASICALLY THAT'S EIGHT.
OKAY, WELL THEN COME ON THE TELL US, TELL US YOUR DEAL PLEASE.
I SAID IF YOU LOOK ON YOUR SCREEN, YOU CAN SEE THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE THAT INCLUDES THE BARBED WIRE.
UH, SO THE BARB WIRE'S AT THE VERY TOP.
AND YOU CAN SEE, SO IT'S JUST 12, IT'S NOT MEASURING, IT'S NOT 12.
THAT INCLUDES THE BARBED WIRE 12 TOTAL.
YOU DON'T, STAFF DOESN'T NECESSARILY CARE ABOUT THE COMPONENT.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO PROVE.
SO, SO THE EXISTING EIGHT IS STAYING EIGHT DOWN THE SLOPE IS EIGHT, CROSS IS EIGHT.
SO GOING FROM SOUTHWEST TO TO NORTHEAST DOWN TO SOUTH IS EIGHT.
GOING FROM SOUTH E WEST AGAIN ACROSS TO THE NEXT WING IS EIGHT.
THEN THE ANGLE DOWN FROM NORTHWEST DOWN TO SOUTHEAST IS EIGHT.
SO I'M, I'M, I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH.
JAGGED ED, IS IT, IT THE, ON THE EAST SIDE, THE NOTCH OUT? YES.
THAT'S WHERE WE, THAT'S WHERE THE REQUEST IS, IS AT TODAY.
MR. THOMPSON, DID YOU POINT TO IT WHERE HE IS TALKING ABOUT? YEAH, THIS IS AREA THAT I HAD BLOWN UP EARLIER AND THAT'S WHERE THE 12 FEET AND SO, OH, WE HADN'T GOTTEN THERE YET.
SO MIKE, SO WHAT IS THAT PROPOSED THERE? THAT IT WILL REMAIN AS AN EXISTING EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
AND THEN TRAVELING SOUTHEAST? YES.
YOU HAVE AN EXISTING EIGHT FOOT WILL REMAIN AS AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE AND TRAVELING SOUTHWEST CORRECT.
TRAVELING SOUTH IS AN EIGHT FOOT WILL REMAIN AS AN EIGHT FOOT.
AND THEN TRAVELING EAST IS AN EIGHT FOOT WILL REMAIN AS AN EIGHT FOOT.
AND THEN TRAVELING SOUTH IS AN EIGHT FOOT WILL REMAIN AN EIGHT FOOT.
AND WHERE WE ARE PROPOSING THE 12 FOOT FENCE IS STARTING RIGHT HERE.
SO AT THE, AT THE, AT YOUR MOVEMENT WEST AS YOU, AS YOU'RE MOVING YES SIR.
THAT WILL CONNECT INTO THE EXISTING FENCE AND WILL BE A 12 FOOT FENCE AND THEN TRAVELING SOUTH.
[00:25:01]
YOU SEE ON THE MAP SQUINT IT SAYS CONNECT TO EXISTING FENCE? CORRECT.SO I'M AT THE CORNER BEFORE JAGS TO THE LEFT OR SOUTH? WEST.
SO FROM THAT CORNER IS WHEN IT TURNS INTO 12.
WHY, UH, TO, UH, BE GOOD NEIGHBORS, UH, TO THE RESIDENTS TO THE EAST.
HOW DOES FOUR FEET GIVE YOU, MAKE YOU A GOOD NEIGHBOR? UH, BECAUSE IT DOES ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, UM, ON THE, ON THE FENCE TO BETTER SCREEN ANY SORT OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT THAT THEY MAY SEE.
SO I SAY SCREEN, SORRY, LOOSELY TO, TO ADD ADDITIONAL HEIGHT TO THE FENCE.
SO IT'S STRICTLY A HEIGHT ISSUE.
'CAUSE WHEN I THINK OF SCREENING, I THINK OF THOSE THINGS YOU PUT IN A CHAIN LINK FENCE, THOSE TABS THAT, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TERM'S CALLED.
SO WE WILL BE ADDING THE FABRIC WHERE, WHERE WE'RE PROPOSING A 12 FOOT FENCE, WE WILL BE ADDING THE FABRIC MESH MATERIAL TO SCREEN.
OKAY, SO THAT'S 12 FEET THERE? YES SIR.
AND THEN, UH, TRAVELING SOUTH TO THE ACCESS GATE, RIGHT? YES SIR.
ALONG OUR ACCESS GATE, UM, OUT OUTSIDE OF OUR ACCESS GATE, WHERE THE FENCE CONNECTS INTO THE GATE WILL BE A 12 FOOT FENCE.
AND THEN TRAVELING EAST WILL BE GO FROM AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE TO A 12 FOOT FENCE.
ALONG WITH THE SCREENING FABRIC.
AND THEN TRAVELING, UM, SOUTH WILL BE A, TODAY IT'S AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE WILL BE REPLACED WITH A 12 FOOT FENCE.
SO AS SOON AS YOU MAKE THAT CONNECT TO EXISTING FENCE, IT GOES FROM EIGHT FOOT UNSCREENED TO 12 FOOT SCREENED.
I I'M, I'M, UH, WHY NOT 12 THE WHOLE WAY? I'M NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD, I'M JUST SAYING WHY NOT.
UH, THIS WAS THE REQUEST OF THE, OF THE RESIDENT.
SO TO SOLVE THE, THE IMMEDIATE REQUEST OF THOSE RESIDENTS, UM, IT'S MOST APPLICABLE TO THEM, UM, THE RESIDENTS TO THE EAST, THE RESIDENTS TO THE EAST TO UH, UPGRADE THAT FENCE FROM AN EIGHT FOOT TO A 12 FOOT AND, UH, PROVIDE THE, THE MESH FABRIC SCREENING.
UH, AND THEN TRAVELING FURTHER, UM, YOU TRAVEL JUST FURTHER DOWN SOUTH.
I MENTIONED THAT WAS GOING FROM AN EIGHT FOOT TO A 12 FOOT WITH THE MESH.
AND YOU MESH, WHEN YOU SAY MESH, DO YOU MEAN THE GREEN OR A GROUND? I MEAN, UH, I BEL I THINK THAT WE USE THE GREEN MESH COLOR.
DOES THE CITY MISS BOARD ADMINISTRATOR? DOES THE CITY CARE ABOUT WHAT COLOR MESHES WHEN AND SOMETHING LIKE THIS? NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
SO, UM, AT THE END OF THIS WHOLE THING, I'M GONNA ASK MR. THOMPSON OR THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR IS EVERYTHING HE'S TELLING US IN, IN ENFORCEABLE WITH WHAT THE PLANS WE'VE GOT.
DON'T GO THERE YET, MR. THOMPSON.
BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M GONNA ASK IN THE END.
SO WE GO DOWN TO THE CORNER AND IT'S EIGHT, GOING TO 12 DOWN TO THE CORNER.
AND THEN TRAVELING WEST ALONG OUR SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE WILL REMAIN AS AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE AND THEN UP TO THE, WITH A MESH OR NO MESH? NO MESH DID.
NOW WE'RE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER AND THEN YEP.
SOUTHWEST CORNER TRAVELING NORTH TO WHERE WE STARTED, UH, IS AN EIGHT FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE WILL REMAIN AS AN EIGHT FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH NO MESH.
SO SAY THAT, ASK THAT QUESTION.
SO YOU'RE JUST, BASICALLY THE REQUEST IS FOR THREE QUARTERS OF THE SIDE THAT'S ON THE EASTERN SIDE, IS THAT RIGHT? YES.
THAT WAS REALLY HELPFUL TO DO THAT.
HAPPY TO HELP BOTH YOU AND, UH, MR. TOM.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? HMM, MR. MR. OVITZ, HOW LONG HAS THIS WHOLE FACILITY WITH THE FENCE BEEN THERE? I THINK IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE, DON'T QUOTE ME ON THIS, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE THE EIGHTIES.
AND THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE THAT'S THERE WAS PERMITTED PROPERLY.
UH, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, I WASN'T, I WASN'T WORKING FOR ENCORE IN THE EIGHTIES.
UM, BUT UH, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, WE RECEIVED ALL, UM, REQUIRED PERMITS AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.
SO NOW I'LL ASK THE QUESTION OF STAFF.
[00:30:01]
HAS WALKED US THROUGH THIS SITE PLANS AS WE GOT BLINDED IN SQUINTING OUR EYES, BUT NONETHELESS IS EVERYTHING HE HAS SAID THAT THAT'S WHAT THE REQUEST IS IT SUFFICIENTLY DOCUMENTED FOR BUILDING INSPECTION? IN MY OPINION, YES.'CAUSE THE LAST THING IN THE WORLD WE WANNA DO IS APPROVE SOMETHING WE CAN'T ENFORCE
THERE WERE QUESTIONS THIS MORNING ABOUT WHETHER IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE PD AND WE HEARD THAT IT, SINCE IT WAS DEFAULTS TO THE AG ZONING AND IT'S RESIDENTIAL, THAT'S WHY IT REQUIRED OVER THE FOUR FEET.
UM, WE ASKED ABOUT TOMO, TOTAL PERIMETER.
WE NOW HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF IT'S, IT'S BASICALLY REALLY ALL, IT'S SOUNDS MORE COSMETIC AND OR SECURED I GUESS.
BUT IF FENCE IS 12 FEET HERE AT EIGHT FEET THERE, I GUESS YOU COULD JUMP AT THE OTHER DIRECTION, BUT YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR THE SCREENING AS OPPOSED TO THE HEIGHT DISTANCE FROM A SECURITY STANDPOINT, FROM A SECURITY STANDPOINT, THE HEIGHT IS THE MOST EFFICIENT.
AND OUR CRITERIA IS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONAL, NOT ADVERSELY NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
SO ACCORDING TO OUR STAFF, 34 PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED.
I DON'T DRAW A CONCLUSION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
IT'S TOO BAD THAT NO ONE RESPONDED.
BUT, UM, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. HOPKOS? SO WE GOT NO FEEDBACK FROM ANYONE LIVING IN THE AFFECTED AREA.
UM, WHO WERE YOU DEALING WITH A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION OR WHO WERE YOU DEALING WITH THAT MADE THE REQUEST? IT WAS THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION.
DID THEY AND WHAT DID THEY PROVIDE YOU WITH A WRITTEN REQUEST OR, I CAN'T REALLY HEAR YOU.
DID THEY PROVIDE YOU WITH WRITTEN REQUESTS? AND, AND UH, THEY GOT INTO CONTACT WITH OUR LOCAL AREA MANAGER FOR THAT CITY, WHICH IS, UH, MS. KEITA HOBBS.
UM, AND SHE UNFORTUNATELY IS OFF TODAY, OTHERWISE I WOULD'VE BROUGHT HER TO THE MEETING WITH ME.
UM, BUT THE, THE REQUEST STEMMED FROM HER.
UM, AND THEN SHE BROUGHT IT TO, UH, MY TEAM IN THE RIGHT OF WAY DEPARTMENT.
UM, AND THAT'S HOW WE GOT INVOLVED.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF WHEN WE GET TO THERE.
UM, CAN WE, CAN WE TIE APPROVAL OF THIS MOTION TO THE CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY? I I THINK HE'S GOING TO THE FACT THAT WE'VE BEEN TRAINED THAT WHEN WE GIVE LAND USE RIGHTS, FENCE FLOOR, AIR RATIO, HEIGHT, ALL THESE SORT OF THINGS, IT'S TO THE PROPERTY, NOT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE USER.
AND THIS IS AN, THIS IS AN ENORMOUS AUTHORITY TO GO TO 12 FEET.
I SO, SO THE QUESTION MR. HOP IS ASKING IS, CAN WE, CAN WE RESTRICT THE APPROVAL TO THE USE TO THE CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY AS A, AS A UTILITY SUBSTATION? OR CONVERSELY, CAN WE, CAN WE RESTRICT IT TO NOT APPLY IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BECOMES COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ARE TIED TO THE PROPERTY, NOT TO THE LAND USE.
SO THEREFORE THAT WOULD NOT BE A REASONABLE CONDITION.
THEN I'M JUST GONNA SPEAK OUT LOUD.
'CAUSE EVERYTHING WE DO IS QUOTE UNQUOTE ON THE RECORD.
RARELY DO WE DO 12 FEET FENCES ANYWHERE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER VOTED FOR A 12 FOOT FENCE.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN I WON'T, BUT 12 FEET WE'RE WE'RE SAYING THAT THIS PROPERTY, I GUESS I'M SUPPOSED TO DO THIS IN A QUESTION, THE QUESTION BEFORE THE BOARD IS WHETHER THIS PROPERTY MERITS THE RIGHT TO GO TO 12 FEET IN, AS MS. DAVIS SAID, THE EASTERN PORTION OF YOUR PROPERTY.
ONE IS, DOES, DOES, WE'RE WE WOULD TIE THIS TO A SITE PLAN AND THE SITE PLAN, DOES IT SPECIFY A MESH COVER? I DIDN'T THINK IT DID.
DOES IT NEED TO SO ALL THAT YOU, SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE NOT APPROVING A 12 FOOT WITH MESH, WE'RE PROVING A 12 FOOT AND IT'S UP TO THEM AS THE PROPERTY OWNER WHETHER THEY MESH IT
[00:35:01]
OR NOT.MR. IS THERE OPACITY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS PD? OOH, IT'S NOT, IT IT DOESN'T HAVE STREET FRONTAGE RIGHT THERE.
BECAUSE THE PORTION THAT WAS ALONG THAT STREET, I DUNNO.
THE AREA, AND THAT'S WHY I KIND OF POINTED OUT THIS MORNING, THAT AREA WHERE IT SAYS CITY OF IRVING LEAVING CITY OF DALLAS, GOING CITY.
THAT AREA BACK THERE, THE STREET FRONTAGE IS NOT, THE PROPERTY IS NOT WITHIN FIVE FEET.
THE PROPERTY LINE IS, OH, IT'S BEHIND THE FIVE FEET BEHIND.
OPACITY IS NOT AN ISSUE THERE.
SO THAT ANSWERS THE OPACITY ISSUE.
SO AS, AS WE DISCUSSED THIS MORNING, I HAVE CON I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE FUTURE USE OF THE PROPERTY AT SUCH POINT IN TIME AS IT MAY BECOME USED FOR RESIDENTIAL OR OTHER PURPOSES THAT WE, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AUTOMATIC APPROVAL FOR A 12 FOOT FENCE.
I THAT GIVES ME GREAT PAUSE THAT WE'RE CREATING A, A LAND USE RIGHT UP TO 12 FEET.
SO IF WE DO THAT, WE'RE ONLY SAYING THOUGH THAT THEY CAN DO 12 FEET ON THIS PARTICULAR SECTION.
WE'RE NOT SAYING THEY CAN DO 12 FEET ANYWHERE THEY WANT TO.
IS THAT RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO IT'S EXISTING IS EIGHT FEET ON THE NORTH SIDE, ON THE WEST SIDE, ON THE SOUTH SIDE ON A PORTION OF THE EAST SIDE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, ONE SECOND, I'LL COME BACK TO YOU.
AND OUR CRITERIA IS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
SO IT GIVES ME PAUSE BECAUSE I CAN SEE IT MAY NOT AFFECT NOW, BUT TOMORROW WHEN THE PROPERTY SOLD, WOO.
I'M NOT SAYING IT'S GOING TO BE SOLD, BUT YOU KNOW, WE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOTHING'S ALRIGHT.
WE'RE, WE'RE GRANTING A FOREVER LAND USE MR. HAITZ.
THERE'S NO APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR THEM TO SCREEN THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE THAT'S THERE.
IS THAT CORRECT? SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME.
I SAID NO APPROVAL BY US IS REQUIRED FOR THEM TO SCREEN THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE THAT EXISTS THERE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT'S NO, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT.
SO THERE'S NO OPACITY REQUIREMENT? THAT IS CORRECT.
THE APPLICANT TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS UNAWARE WHETHER, WHETHER THE EXISTING FENCE ALSO WAS PERMITTED ALL ALONG THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
IF WE APPROVE THIS, ARE WE IN ESSENCE CODIFYING THAT EIGHT FOOT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED? I WOULD THINK ENCORE IS A GOOD CITIZEN WOULD NOT DO SOMETHING WITHOUT PROPER PERMITTING.
BUT ARE WE JUST IGNORING THAT AREA SINCE THAT AREA'S NOT BEING CHANGED? MR. THOMPSON? UM, IN MY OPINION, WE'RE IGNORING THAT AREA.
WE'RE FOCUSING ON THE AREA OF THE REQUEST.
AND WE'RE GONNA IGNORE NOW THE SCREENING BECAUSE THAT'S NOT PART OF, THAT'S HE'S DOING THAT IN ADDITION TO APPEASE THE, UM, NEIGHBORING ONE SECOND NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
SO DID YOU ALL HEAR THAT IT'S HIS RECOMMENDATION THAT WE BASICALLY IGNORE THE, THE MERITS ARE NOT OF THE EIGHT FOOT AND OF ALL THE SCREENING AND JUST CONCENTRATE ON THE 12 FOOT IS THAT'S, I'M REPEATING IT TO MAKE SURE WE HEARD WHAT YOU SAID.
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. HOPKOS? WELL WE'RE, WE'RE NOT IGNORING THE SCREENING.
IT'S NOT PART OF THE REQUEST AND IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO BE PART OF THE REQUEST.
'CAUSE IT'S, IT'S SET IN FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ENOUGH TO WHERE IT'S NOT OUR BUSINESS, WHETHER IT'S SCREENED OR NOT.
IS THAT, I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD ESTABLISHED THAT THE CITY IS NOT FOCUSING ON THE SCREENING.
YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THE, THE SCREENING.
WELL I, THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED EARLIER WAS, IS OPACITY A UH, AN ISSUE RELATING TO THIS? AND THE ANSWER WAS IT'S SET IN FAR ENOUGH TO WHERE OPACITY IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE ZONING.
AND AT THAT PORTION THERE ARE NO STREET FRONTAGE.
SO OPACITY DEALS WITH THE DISTANCE FROM THE
[00:40:01]
PROPERTY LINE AND THE STREET FRONTAGE.SO IN THIS SCENARIO, WE DO NOT HAVE AN OPACITY ISSUE.
SO I WAS JUST ADVISED BY THE BOARD ATTORNEY THAT WE COULD PUT A CONDITION ON SCREENING.
I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE A, I DON'T THINK THAT'S, UM, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD REQUIRE THAT.
I THINK THAT REALLY IT'S WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US IS STRICTLY THE HEIGHT.
BUT IT, I GAVE HIM GREAT PAUSE ABOUT GOING FROM EIGHT TO 12 BECAUSE WE'RE GIVING, WE'RE CONSIDERING 12 FEET FOREVER.
SO, BUT WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, IS NO COMMENT, NO REFERENCE TO SCREENING.
NO REFERENCE TO SCREENING 12 FOOT HEIGHT AT THAT SPECIFIC LOCATION.
SO, SO HE, THE PROPERTY CAN SCREEN WHAT HE'S GOT NOW THAT'S IRRELEVANT FOR US.
IS NOWHERE ON THIS, IS IT PART OF THE OPACITY? THE FIVE FOOT FROM THE SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO HE CAN DO THAT ON HIS OWN BY, RIGHT? YES.
SO THAT'S THE REASON IN ITSELF.
WE DO, I WAS SUGGESTING WE WE DON'T BECAUSE THERE'S NO BASIS FOR WHICH TO OUR US TO MENTION IT AT ALL.
SO I'M JUST ELIMINATING THAT AS PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
SO, SO THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES, IN TERMS OF THE APPEAL TO THE NEIGHBORS IN THEIR REQUEST, THE SCREENING WILL HAPPEN PROBABLY REGARDLESS.
'CAUSE WHETHER IT'S A 12 FOOT SCREEN OR AN EIGHT FOOT SCREEN, I'M NOT SURE THAT'S SUCH A BIG DIFFERENCE THAT ANYONE'S GONNA NOTICE IF IT STAYS EIGHT.
SO I'M GONNA ASK THE BOARD ATTORNEY TO MAKE YOUR COMMENT ON THE RECORD.
'CAUSE I I THINK IT MERITS, IT MERITS, UH, SHE STARTED TELLING ME ABOUT THE, UH, WHAT WE, A POTENTIAL ORDER THAT WE WOULD MAKE AND, AND HOW IT WOULD AFFECT THIS PROPERTY OWNER AND OR FUTURE.
IF THIS BOARD WERE TO GRANT THIS REQUEST FOR A 12 FOOT HIGH FENCE, THE CONDITION WOULD BE TO TIE IT TO ALL SUBMITTED PLANS.
SO THAT MEANS THIS SITE PLAN AND THE ELEVATIONS OF WHAT IS IN THE DOCKET TODAY.
SO IF ANOTHER, IF THIS PROPERTY GETS SOLD AND ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO CHANGE SOMETHING, THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD THE FENCE TO WHAT IS HERE TODAY.
SO IF THEY WANTED TO GET ANOTHER 12 FOOT HIGH FENCE WITHOUT THE BARBED WIRE OR CHANGE THE ELEVATION OF THE FENCE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THE SPORT TO ASK FOR PERMISSION BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS SUBMITTED TODAY.
EXAMPLE ON PAGE 53 OF THE DOCKET, IT SHOWS THE FENCE AT 12 FEET WITH BARBED WIRE.
WELL
ARE ARE WE, UM, DO YOU SEE HER, HER POINT IS THIS IS PART OF THE DOCKET.
THAT MEANS THIS IS WHAT THEY HAD TO ADHERE TO.
AND IF THE PROPERTY SOLD TOMORROW, THEY'D HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THIS.
AND IF THEY DID ANYTHING OTHER THAN THIS, THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK AND THEY'D COME BACK TO THIS PANEL.
AND THAT'S I THINK THE, WHAT WE'D WANT IF THERE WAS A, IN ESSENCE, A CHANGE OF USE, EVEN THOUGH SHE'S TELLING US WE CAN'T, CAN'T BIND IT BY USE.
WE'RE PUBLICLY DEBATING, WE'RE PUBLICLY HAVING A CONVERSATION.
SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, OH, BUT STILL 12 FEET.
WELL IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL SITE GUYS.
THIS IS NOT SOMEPLACE YOU REALLY WANT PEOPLE TO GO ANYWHERE NEAR, I WOULD THINK.
WOULDN'T YOU AGREE? I WOULD AGREE.
IN FACT, I'LL BET YOU THE ACCESS TO THIS IS HIGHLY SECURED.
I'M JUST GUESSING A SUBSTATION, THAT'S WHERE THE OLD NORTH LAKE POWER PLANT WAS.
SO THIS IS A SUBSTATION IN, IN PLACE OF THAT POWER PLANT.
I'M NOT TESTIFYING, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A PLACE IN MY MIND WHERE THAT WAS.
SO I I'M ALMOST APPEASED THAT WE'RE REALLY NOT GIVING AWAY SOMETHING HERE.
WE'RE REINFORCING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, UH, FOR THEIR PERIMETER.
AND AS THE BOARD ATTORNEY SAID, IF, IF THERE WAS A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP, I DIDN'T SAY USE, I KNOW WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO AGAINST USE, BUT A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP, WHICH WOULD THEN IN
[00:45:01]
TURN USE, BUT THAT THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK TO US BECAUSE I DOUBT SERIOUSLY, ENEMY WOULD WANT BARBED WIRE ON TOP OF THEIR FENCE AS FOR SOMETHING ELSE.UNLESS IT WAS FOR COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL.
HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT? I'M SUPPOSED TO ASK QUESTIONS.
SO THAT'S MY WAY OF MAKING MY COMMENTS LEGITIMATE.
SEE HOW I DID THAT FOR YOU? OKAY.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. DORN? ON THE DIAGRAM YOU'RE CONNECT TO THE, THE SOUTH E YOU'RE REALLY CONNECTING TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EXISTING FENCE.
BUT YOUR CONNECTION IS ABOUT HALFWAY BETWEEN THAT ENTRY AND THE SOUTHEAST CORNER IS, WOULD IT NOT BE CLEAR TO PUT THAT CONNECTOR DOWN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER? SAY THAT AGAIN MR. DORN, TAKE US ON THAT.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE CONNECT TO EXISTING FENCE, IT'S ABOUT, I SEE THAT LITTLE ARROW.
YEAH, IT'S ABOUT HALFWAY AND NOT ALL THE WAY TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.
SO DO YOU SEE WHAT HE'S POINTING TO? YES.
I APOLOGIZE IF I MISSPOKE THAT IT WAS GOING ALL THE WAY TO THAT SOUTHEAST CORNER.
THE MAIN POINT IS THE RESIDENCE THAT BACK UP TO OUR SWITCHING STATION, THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THE, THE 12 FOOT FENCE.
AND THEN WHENEVER THE RESIDENTS, UH, OR THE, THE LAST HOUSE ESSENTIALLY CONNECTS INTO WHAT'S EXISTING THERE TODAY BEING THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
BUT FOLLOW UP QUESTION THEN IS IF YOU TAKE THE SITE PLAN, OH, MICHAEL PUT IT, PUT IT ON YOUR, ON THE MIC.
THE FOLLOW UP PLAN WOULD BE IF YOU TAKE THE SITE PLAN, IF THIS BLUE LINE IS THE FENCE.
SO WHAT HE'S REFERRING TO IS PAGE 43 IN THE DOCKET.
THAT CORNER IS, I MEAN IT APPEARS THERE ARE RESIDENCES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THAT CORNER.
I THINK PUTTING 12 DOWN THERE, I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE WANTING, RIGHT? NO, YES.
WELL I'M LOOKING AT, THERE'S A BLUE YES TO THAT CORNER, BUT ON HIS DIAGRAM HERE, HE'S SAYING CONNECT TO THE EXISTING FENCE LIKE HALFWAY BEFORE YOU GET TO THAT CORNER.
SO MR. THOMPSON, COULD YOU BRING IT BACK UP AGAIN PLEASE? YES, RIGHT HERE.
WE'LL ALL EXPECT A, A REFUND IN OUR ENCORE RATES NEXT MONTH.
ALRIGHT, SO WHERE ARE YOU? OKAY, I'M SEEING YOUR CURSOR.
THIS IS WHAT HE'S REFERRING TO.
CONNECT TO EXISTING FENCE ACCESS GATE.
IS THAT, IS THAT NOT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
GO NORTH IF YOU WOULD PLEASE UP.
DO YOU SEE THIS MR. MILLER? DO YOU SEE ON HERE? YES SIR.
SO I'M ASSUMING ABOVE WHERE OUR PICTURE GRAPH IS, ALL EIGHT FOOT STAYING AS IS RIGHT UNTIL IT WHERE THAT LINE SAYS CONNECT TO EXISTING FENCE, RIGHT AT THAT CORNER BEND.
CORRECT? THAT'S WHEN IT GOES TO 12, YOU'RE PROPOSING? YES SIR.
ALRIGHT, SO IT'S ALL 12 ALL THE WAY WE KEEP GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN, RIGHT? YES, CORRECT.
ALRIGHT, SO WHEN IT SAYS CONNECT EXISTING FENCE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? SO THAT'S WHERE I STAND CORRECTED.
UH, THAT'S WHERE IT WOULD SWITCH BACK FROM A 12 FOOT FENCE TO THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
OOH, THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU TOLD US BEFORE.
SO WHY WOULD YOU SWITCH BACK AND TO FOLLOW HIS POINT THAT'S CLOSEST, THAT'S CLOSEST TO THE HEART OF THE NEIGHBORS, IF I'M REMEMBERING CORRECTLY? WE DO, THERE ARE A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TREES AS WELL AS OUR OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION LINES THAT ARE WITHIN THAT AREA.
UM, AND I DO KNOW THAT, UH, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW STATE REQUIREMENT FOR SPACING REQUIREMENTS OF, OF FENCES AND ANY KIND OF, UH, TYPE OF ON GROUND INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED TO THE, UM, AS, AS LOW OR THE SAG HEIGHT OF THOSE TRANSMISSION LINES.
UH, THAT IS WHY WE'RE SWITCHING FROM THE 12 FOOT BACK TO THE EIGHT FOOT.
UM, IN ADDITION, LIKE I MENTIONED, THERE ARE A LOT OF TREES BACK IN THAT AREA.
UM, AND SO WITH WORKING WITH THOSE RESIDENTS, I THINK THAT THERE WAS NO, UM, ISSUE WITH THE 12 VERSUS
[00:50:01]
AN EIGHT.UM, SO GUYS, IF YOU LOOK ON THIS ON PAGE 52, SEE THE GREEN LINE I DREW ACROSS, THAT'S WHERE MR. DORN ZEROED TO SENT ON THAT IS WHERE IT'S SWITCHING BACK TO EIGHT FEET? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO THE PORTION, THE PORTION AT THE ELBOW TO THE TOP TO THE BOTTOM IS WHAT GOES FROM EIGHT TO 12, IS THAT RIGHT MR. MILLER? I BELIEVE SO, YES.
IF IT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE ON THE SIDE POINT, WELL, I'M ON YOUR PLANS.
WELL, ABSENT BEING THERE, I'D SAY YOU SHOULD HAVE THE WHOLE THING 12 FEET IF YOU'RE GONNA DO THAT TO SCREEN FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO DAMAGE TREES AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT ALONG THERE.
UM, I'M, I'M UNCOMFORTABLE 12 REGARDLESS, BUT OKAY.
MAYBE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO WHAT IS THE LENGTH OF A 12 FOOT SECTION? OH, THERE YOU GO.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO PULL UP THE SITE PLAN? I BELIEVE IT DOES HAVE THE LINEAR FEET LISTED, UM, FOR EACH SECTION.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, STARTING FROM THE NORTH SIDE, UH, 159 LINEAR FEET.
UH, AND THEN THERE'S A, WHERE THE ACCESS GATE IS, IT'S PROBABLY ROUGHLY 60 FEET.
IS THIS AREA THAT YOU NEED OR DID YOU NEED SOME? IS THIS WHAT YOU NEED OR YOU NEED ME TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE THAT NO, THAT'S PERFECT.
I THINK IT JUST ISN'T LOADING.
I THINK IT WAS, I THINK I SAW IT WAS LIKE 330 FEET SOUTH OF THE GATE THAT TRAVEL SOUTH.
PROPOSED 332 LINEAR FEET OF 12 FOOT HIGH FENCE.
SO MORE OR LESS FIVE TO 600 FEET OF, UH, 12 FOOT FENCE IN TOTAL.
SO IN, IN TOTAL WITH ALL OF THE DIFFERENT SEGMENTS THAT ARE GOING FROM EIGHT TO 12, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY MATH IN MY MIND, PROBABLY FIVE TO 600 LINEAR FEET OF 12 FOOT.
WELL, ON YOUR MAP HERE, IT SAYS PROPOSE 332 LINEAR FEET OF 12 FOOT HEIGHT FENCE.
THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS CORRECT IN, IN ADDITION TO WHERE IT JOGS AROUND OUR ACCESS DRIVE.
OH, THE 1 0 8 ON THE TOP MR. CHAIRMAN? YES.
IF YOU TAKE THE, IS IT 5 99 IN TOTAL? YOU ADD THE TWO TOGETHER? THREE.
SO HE'S SAYING 5 99, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
WELL, IT NEEDS TO BE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, NOT WHAT WE'RE SAYING, BUT YOU'RE SAYING YOU AGREE WITH THAT I SOUNDS RIGHT TO ME.
SO THE BOARD ATTORNEYS ADVISED US, AND I WOULD AGREE THAT WE REALLY SHOULDN'T BE CONDITIONING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION BASED ON THE USE.
WE CAN, WE CAN, UH, REQUIRE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO SITE PLANS THAT ARE SUBMITTED.
AND, UM, AND ACCORDING TO THE STAFF, THE STAFF SAID IT DOES NOT REFERENCE MESHING.
IT'S SIMPLY A HEIGHT ISSUE WITH, AS YOU CAN SEE ON PAGE 53 OF THE DOCKET AND PAGE 52 OF THE DOCKET.
WE, WE NOW HAVE GOTTEN OUR, WE NOW HAVE GOT OUR HANDS AROUND WHERE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT AS FAR AS 12 FOOT AS WELL AS WHAT THE 12 FOOT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
WOULD YOU LIKE ANY REBUTTAL OR ARE YOU OKAY? NO, JUST, I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU GUYS DO.
THANK Y'ALL FOR HEARING OUR CASE.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 26 DASH 4 0 2 8 ON APPLICATION OF LAUREN JAMES GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT IN OR MAINTAIN A 12 FOOT HIGH FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED 'CAUSE OUR EVALUATION
[00:55:01]
OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED IN THE MATTER OF BOA 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 8.
MS. DAVIS HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, FOR A 12 FOOT HIGH FENCE, UM, AS THE CONSISTENT WITH THE MOST VERSION OF ALL SITE SUBMITTED PLANS.
IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MR. DORN DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
MS. DAVIS? I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION BECAUSE THE CRITERIA IS THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
I THINK THIS WILL HELP A LITTLE BIT, UM, HAVING THAT HIGHER FENCE AND HAVING THE SCREENING.
SO I ACTUALLY THINK THAT WILL HELP NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
SO I'M GOING STRICTLY BY THE CRITERIA.
AND THEN IF THIS IS ALSO TIED TO THE SUBMITTED PLANS, IT RESTRICTS SOMEONE COMING INTO THE FUTURE AND JUST CHANGING THE ENTIRE FENCE TO 12 FEET BECAUSE THEY'D ONLY BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THAT ONE SECTION BEING 12 FEET.
MR. DORAN, UH, WOULD AGREE WITH MS. DAVIS'S COMMENTS? YOU HAVE A SQUEAKY MICROPHONE.
DORN? UH, I WOULD AGREE WITH A, WITH A REQUEST.
QUITE HONESTLY, I WOULD'VE PREFERRED GETTING FEEDBACK FROM THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS.
TYPICALLY IN A CASE WHERE WE HAVE REQUESTS FOR FENCES, UH, GIVEN OUR CRITERIA IS NOT ADVERSELY NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, WE AT LEAST I, WE ZERO IN ON, OKAY, NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
STAFF TOLD US THIS MORNING, 34 PEOPLE WERE NOTIFIED WE DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING.
THAT'S A GOOD THING ON ONE SIDE AS OPPOSED DURING OPPOSITION.
THE OTHER SIDE IS, UM, WE ALWAYS ENCOURAGE GETTING FEEDBACK FROM THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.
IT DOESN'T CONTROL THE DECISION, IT HELPS INFORM THE DECISION.
NUMBER TWO, THE FACT THAT I THINK BY LIMITING THIS DECISION, WHEW, 12 FEET.
GUYS, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT REASON I'M SUPPORTING IT'S INDUSTRIAL AS THE APPLICANT TESTIFIED, WE REALLY DON'T WANT ANYONE GOING THROUGH THERE WHATSOEVER.
UH, OR VERY LIMITED PEOPLE GOING THROUGH THERE.
UH, AND SO FROM THAT ALL AND THE FACT THAT IT'S RESTRICTED TO THESE SITE PLANS, I'LL BE ABLE TO HOLD MY NOSE TO 12 FEET AND SUPPORT THE MOTION.
MR. HAITZ? I HAVE THE SQUEAKY ONE.
IT'S NOT DORN AND I APOLOGIZE FOR CASTING ASPERSIONS UPON YOUR MICROPHONE AND YOU
UM, I'M GONNA NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION.
I, I, UM, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT APPROVING 12 FEET, UH, IN TERMS OF THE ADVERSE IMPACT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS REQUEST, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS BEING MADE AT THE REQUEST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, WHICH COULDN'T BE BOTHERED TO EVEN PRODUCE ONE LETTER TO TELL US THAT THEY WANT THIS.
UM, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, A FUTURE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND, AND RELYING UPON, UM, RELYING UPON SOMEONE TO REMEMBER YEARS AND YEARS FROM NOW THAT OH YEAH, THAT 12 FOOT WAS ONLY IF IT WAS CHAIN LINK WITH, WITH UH, BARBED WIRE ON TOP OF IT.
BECAUSE THOSE SCENES, THOSE KIND OF DETAILS TEND TO GET LOST AND THEN IT BECOMES WHERE THEY APPROVE THE 12 FOOT FENCE.
I'M NOT SEEING IN MY MIND A SIGNIFICANT SCREENING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EIGHT FOOT WITH THE FABRIC MESH AND 12 FOOT WITH THE FABRIC MESH.
UM, AND I'M, AND I'M NOT SEEING THE SUPPORT AGAIN OF THE, OF THE, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT SUPPOSEDLY, UM, WANTS THIS SO MUCH.
SO, UH, I WILL, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING IT.
I THINK EIGHT FOOT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT WITH THE SCREENING.
AND MR. THOMPSON, YOU TEST NOT TESTIFIED.
YOU ANSWERED EARLIER THAT THE PLANS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR BUILDING INSPECTION TO HONOR THE PLANS ARE SUFFICIENT IF THE BOARD APPROVED FOR BUILDING INSPECTION TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE THE LIMITED AREA OF 12 FEET.
AGAIN, GIVEN THAT I'M HEARING FROM STAFF THAT THE PLANS ARE DETAILED ENOUGH THAT WE WON'T FORGET THIS 1, 3, 5, 10, 15 YEARS FROM NOW, THAT THEY WOULD PULL THE RECORD ON THE, THE SITE AND SAY, OKAY, EIGHT IS HERE, 12 IS THERE THE ONLY PLACE THAT 12 IS ALLOWED, IS THERE, AND ON TOP OF THAT, THIS, THIS GOD AWFUL PICTURE WOULD
[01:00:01]
ALSO BE IN THE SIDE PLANTS.'CAUSE THAT'S PART OF OUR APPROVAL.
CORRECT? MR. THOMPSON? THIS IS PART OF OUR APPROVAL.
AND I DID NOTICE WHEN I LOOKED, UM, THIS LAST TIME IT SAID FABRIC TIE.
SO THAT FABRIC TIE WILL LEAD TO BELIEVE THAT UH, SOME, SOME FORM OF FABRIC WILL BE ON THERE.
SO IF YOU LOOK ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THAT DRAWING, IT SAYS FABRIC TIE, IT SAYS GATE FABRIC TO MATCH FENCE.
IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN? NO, THERE IS ONE ON THE, IT SAYS, HOLD ON.
IT, IT SAYS FABRIC TIE ON ONE AND IT SAYS CHAIN LINK FABRIC ON THE OTHER.
SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT STANDARD CHAIN LINK FENCING, UH, IS PAGE TWO OF TWO? NO, THAT'S NOT IT.
YEAH, YOU JUST, YOU IT WAS IT WAS JUST ON THERE? NO, IN A DOCKET IT'S PAGE 52 AND 53.
I WAS, OKAY, SO PAGE, THE SECOND PAGE, NOT THE SITE PLAN, BUT THE ONE THAT SHOWS THE ACTUAL FENCE.
SO ON PAGE 53 IT SAYS FABRIC TIE NEXT TO THE 12 FEET.
SO THERE'S A I SEE THAT ON THE LEFT.
SO THAT LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT IN TERMS OF THE FABRIC THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING EARLIER, UM, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AN OPTION OF PUTTING FABRIC AFTER, BUT WE'RE NOT, WE ARE APPROVING THE 12 FOOT, BUT JUST POINTING OUT THAT THAT FABRIC TIE IS THERE.
OKAY, SO YOU'VE CONFUSED ME NOW SIR.
SO WE'RE APPROVING 12 FOOT IN HEIGHT, THAT'S ALL THAT WE'RE APPROVING.
AND THIS COMBINATION, THIS FENCE WHICH HAS THE POST CAP TOP RAIL, I MEAN IT, WE'RE APPROVING THIS, THIS PICTURE RIGHT HERE.
I THINK, AND I WANNA BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS, IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO PUT THAT FABRIC ON THERE, WE WOULD NOT COME BACK AND SAY THAT THEY'RE IN VIOLATION.
UM, I'M NO BUILDING INSPECTOR, BUT I'D HAVE TO AGREE 'CAUSE I DON'T SEE FABRIC TYPE BEING SPECIFIED AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY WHAT I WOULD SEE.
BUT, BUT WHAT I DO SEE IS CHAIN LINK.
THAT'S NOT REALLY INTERPRETED.
THE FABRIC, WHETHER IT'S GREEN, PURPLE, WHATEVER IS, IS, IS NOT SPECIFIED.
SO I'M ALRIGHT, DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND THAT? DOES THAT THROW A WRENCH INTO THINGS? MR. DORAN THEN MR. HOP EVENTS, UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE IS A NOTE THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS GATE FABRIC TO MATCH FENCE.
BUT WHAT DOES THAT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, MR. THOMPSON GATE FABRIC TO MATCH FENCE? AGAIN, WE DON'T GET INTO THOSE SPECIFICS.
SO WHATEVER THEY CHOOSE, THAT'S A GATE FABRIC, THEN THEY CAN PUT IT UP THERE.
AND I DON'T THINK WE NECESSARILY WANT TO GET INTO THE FABRIC.
I THINK THAT'S, I THINK, BUT THAT'S MY OPINION.
IT ALSO SAYS, UM, IN THOSE NOTES FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE A WEBSITE.
YEAH, BUT IT, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S LIKE THEM SAYING TWO AND THREE EIGHTH INCH POST.
IF THEY PUT A FOUR INCH POST OUT THERE, WE WOULDN'T COME BACK AND SAY THAT THEY'RE IN VIOLATION.
I I DON'T DIG TOO MUCH INTO THOSE WEEDS WITH THAT.
SO LIKE IF THEY, THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE PUTTING A TWO AND THREE EIGHT INCH POST OUT AND IF THEY PUT UP A THREE INCH POST INSTEAD WE WOULDN'T COME BACK AND SAY THAT THEY'RE IN VIOLATION.
WE'RE NOT DIGGING TOO MUCH INTO THE WEEDS HERE.
'CAUSE WE'VE HAD MANY, MANY, MANY CASES WHERE THE BOARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL APPROVES ONE THING AND BUILDING INSPECTION DOES ANOTHER AKA ELM THICKET.
SO WE, WE WANNA MAKE SURE ONE MATCHES THE OTHER.
SO HENCE WHY AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS I ASKED YOU POINT BLANK WHETHER THERE PLANS WERE SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO ENFORCE, AND YOU'VE SAID OVER AND OVER.
MR. HOVIS, THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? I, I HEARD YOUR RESERVATION.
YEAH, SO I, I I CONTINUE TO HAVE MY RESERVATION.
I'LL, I'LL SPEAK A SECOND TIME SINCE EVERYONE'S HAD A CHANCE.
I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST.
UH, IT MAKES ME FEEL A LOT BETTER.
MR. MILLER, THAT ENCORE THAT YOU'RE REPRESENTING IS ONLY DOING THE 12 FEET IN A SPECIFIED AREA AS OPPOSED TO THE ENTIRE AREA.
WE HAD FIRST THOUGHT IT WAS THE ENTIRE AREA.
SECOND OF ALL, ENCORE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN A COUPLE
[01:05:01]
LETTERS FROM THE HOA AND OTHERS SAYING THAT, OH, WE LOVE ENCORE BECAUSE THEY'RE WORKING WITH US TO, TO, YOU KNOW, BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND THAT SORT OF THINGS.ANYTIME WE GRANT SOMETHING, UH, LIKE THIS, WE LIKE TO HEAR THAT CONNECTION, BUT I THINK THIS IS A UN IN TOTALITY, IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE, UH, A MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO, BY MS. DAVIS, SECONDED BY MR. DORN, IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST 12 FOOT HIGH SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS REQUIRED.
THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FOUR TO ONE IN THE MATTER BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 8.
THE BOARD ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE GRANTS, THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION SUBJECT TO THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED.
NEXT ITEM, UH, FOR THE BOARD IS BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 3 4.
THIS IS AT 5 3 0 3 BONITA AVENUE.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY, UH, WHAT SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE FOR 34? UM, HOW MANY SPEAKERS RATHER? UM, MS. KAMI MCKEE, JUST ONE SPEAKER.
UM, YEAH, THERE'S NOBODY ELSE ONLINE.
UM, IF YOU'D GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN.
MY NAME IS CAMERON CARLOCK MCKEE, RESIDENT AT 5 3 0 3 BONITA AVENUE.
ALRIGHT, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, MA'AM.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. NEWMAN AND BOARD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
AS STATED, MY NAME IS CAMERON CARLOCK MCKEE AND MY HUSBAND AND I ARE THE HOMEOWNERS AT 5 3 0 3 BONITA AVENUE.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVE BO OA DASH 26 0 0 0 0 3 4, WHICH IS OUR APPLICATION FOR A NEW FENCE WITH REQUESTED EXCEPTIONS FOR ITS HEIGHT, OPACITY, AND VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
AS YOU ARE AWARE, OUR LOT FRONTS ON BOTH BONITA AND RI AVENUES.
OUR YARD ALONG RI AVENUE IS CLASSIFIED AS A FRONT YARD AND IS SUBJECT TO FRONT YARD FENCE RESTRICTIONS, EVEN THOUGH IT FUNCTIONS AS OUR PRINCIPAL PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE, WHICH IS HOW OUR BACKYARD BACKYARD WAS DESIGNED WHEN WE PURCHASED OUR HOME FIVE YEARS AGO, AND PRESUMABLY HOW IT WAS DESIGNED WHEN IT WAS BUILT IN 2008, THE GARAGE DRIVEWAY AND THE ENTIRE EXISTING FENCE SURROUNDING OUR PROPERTY ARE AS IS AND WE'RE IN PLACES THEY CURRENTLY ARE WHEN WE PURCHASED OUR HOME.
WE ARE ONLY REQUESTING TO REPLACE THE EXTERIOR FENCE PORTION OF THE PRO OF THE FENCE THAT FACES BONITA AND LANRE AS IT IS IN WORSE CONDITION.
OUR PROPOSED FENCE IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE PRIVACY AND SECURITY FOR OUR CORNER LOT PROPERTY WHILE REMAINING COMPATIBLE WITH THE ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OF OUR SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND NOT CREATING A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
NEITHER BONITA NOR LIN ARE CONNECTOR STREETS.
THERE IS MINIMAL TRAFFIC AND THE ROD IRON PORTION OF OUR PROPOSED FENCE WILL KEEP VISIBILITY TRIANGLES INTACT.
THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPOSED FENCE WOULD BE EIGHT FEET TALL AND WOOD BOARD ON BOARD FOR PRIVACY.
AND THEN AS A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES, SIX FEET TALL AND WROUGHT IRON WITH APPROXIMATELY 85% OPEN ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY.
AND ON EITHER SIDE OF IT, THE ENTIRETY OF THE OFFENSE WILL BE SET BACK 10 OR MORE FEET FROM THE CURB, ENSURING THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES WILL REMAIN IN PLACE AND UNOBSTRUCTED PRESUMING SIGHT LINES FOR BOTH VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.
OUR APPLICATION MATERIALS INCLUDE THE FENCE, RENDERINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PHOTOS OF CORNER LOT RESIDENCES WITH FENCES AND DRIVEWAY GATES
[01:10:01]
IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FROM IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT NEIGHBORS ON BONITA LINEI, RICHARD AND MADEIRA NEIGHBORS WITH HOMES THAT FACE NORTH, SOUTHEAST, AND WEST.I CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT THE THREE NEIGHBORS WITH HOMES FACING LANRE AND CLOSEST TO OUR PROPERTY HAVE SIGNED LETTERS OF SUPPORT.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS APPROVAL AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
SO THIS IS AN AI GENERATED IMAGE.
SO WE NOTE THAT IT IS, UM, NOT CURRENTLY IN PLACE AND DEMONSTRATE IS INTENDED TO DEMONSTRATE HOW THE VISIBILITY OF OUR PROPOSED FENCE DESIGN WILL ALLOW FOR THOSE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
GO BACK TO THAT PICTURE PLEASE.
I'M GONNA MAKE A PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL EDITORIAL COMMENT.
UH, I REALLY LIKE THE LIKENESS AND SO FORTH.
IT JUST BLOWS MY MIND AWAY THAT EVERYTHING'S AI NOW
I DO, I DO SEE A SYMBOL IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER.
DOES THAT MEAN IT'S CREATED BY AI? YES, SIR.
I'M GLAD AT LEAST YOU DISCLOSE THAT AS WELL AS THAT.
AND IT SAYS IN THE BOTTOM, RENDER IS NOT INTENT, IT'S FOR VISIBILITY.
THESE DEMONSTRATE, UM, THIS IS OUR NEIGHBOR ACROSS LINEAR, I SHOULD KNOW.
UM, THE ONLY REASON WE DIDN'T OBTAIN THEIR SIGNATURE IS THEY, AS YOU CAN SEE, HAVE A FOUR FOOT, FOUR FOOT LOCKED FENCE IN THE FRONT.
SO WE WERE UNABLE TO GET TO THEIR FRONT DOOR.
AND THESE ARE EXAMPLES OF OTHER FENCES WITH DRIVEWAY GATES THROUGHOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I BELIEVE IN YOUR MATERIALS, UH, YOU HAVE THESE SIGNED SIGNATURES FROM THESE ADDRESSES.
UH, WE JUST INCLUDED THE SCAN COPIES, UH, WITH DOCUSIGN CONFIRMATION WERE APPLICABLE, UM, AS WE OBTAINED THE FINAL SIGNATURE AFTER THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT MATERIALS.
AND THAT IS THE ENTIRETY OF THE PRESENTATION SUBMITTED.
I DIDN'T WANT YOUR HARD WORK TO GO UNNOTICED.
I DIDN'T WANT YOUR HARD WORK TO GO UNNOTICED, SO THAT'S WHY I WAS LIKE, LET'S GO TO IT.
UM, AND, AND WE DID RECEIVE THEM IN OUR, IN OUR MAIL.
UM, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MS. DAVIS, THEN MR. OVITZ, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AND I SAW THE RENDERING.
SO WHEN THAT GATE IS OPEN, IT GOES TO THE LEFT.
I'M ASSUMING, IS IT COVERING THE EXISTING? IS IT GOING OKAY, HERE'S THE GATE.
IS THE GATE, WHEN THE GATE IS OPENING, IS IT OVERLAPPING ON THAT OTHER GATE TO REDUCE THAT VISIBILITY, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE 85%, BUT IF THE OPENING GATE IS IN FRONT OF THE STANDING GATE RIGHT NEXT TO THE OPENING GATE, THAT VISIBILITY GOES DOWN TO, I DON'T KNOW, 40% OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BECAUSE YOU'LL HAVE BARS ON BARS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE GATE WILL SLIDE SOUTHWARD MM-HMM
SO ALONG LINEI TOWARDS BONITA.
SO YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WOULD BE A SMALL SEMBLANCE OF MM-HMM
UM, FOR THAT PORTION, I DON'T HAVE THE APPROXIMATE FEET, UM, OF HOW LONG THAT WOULD BE.
BUT THE INTENDED GATE WOULD SLIDE ON THE INTERIOR PORTION OF THE PROPOSED FENCE.
I, I'M, I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE VISIBILITY AND I THINK THAT IS, IS REALLY GONNA HURT THE LEFT SIDE.
SO THAT IS MY MAIN CONCERN WITH THIS, UM, WITH THIS CASE.
SO, UM, YOU STATED IN YOUR PRESENTATION THAT, UM, BECAUSE OF THE WROUGHT IRON FENCING, THAT THERE IS NO VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISSUED.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE OF THE OPACITY THROUGH THE WROUGHT IRON GATE.
SO NORMALLY, UM, NORMALLY WHEN WE HAVE A, UH, A SCHEMATIC THAT SHOWS US WHAT, UM, THE LAYOUT OF THE THING, LIKE THIS ONE,
[01:15:01]
UM, IT'S GOT THE, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES ARE SKETCHED OUT THERE.IT'S PAGE, IT'S PAGE 70 OF THE DOCKET.
UH, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SEEING WHERE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES ARE.
UM, I DIDN'T NOTICE IT'S SHADED SO LIGHTLY.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT NOW.
I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER, UH, COMMENT AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
I'M, I HAVE NO, UM, UH, YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB OF ENGENDERING SURROUNDING PROPERTY, PROPERTY OWNER, UH, SUPPORT.
AS YOU MAY HAVE HEARD IN PREVIOUS CASES.
UM, THERE ARE TWO CRITERIA ON THIS REQUEST.
THE CRITERIA ON THE RELATING THE FENCE HEIGHT AND OPACITY IS WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
THE CRITERIA ON THE VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION IS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
SEPARATE ISSUES, UM, ONE FOR THE FIRST TWO REQUESTS AND THE, THE LAST ONE FOR THE THIRD REQUEST.
UM, UM, WE, WE WALK CAREFULLY WHEN IT COMES TO VISIBILITY, VISIBLY TRIANGLES FROM WHAT WE'VE BEEN TAUGHT, WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRAINED, AND WHAT WE ASK STAFF IS ANYTHING IN THAT LINE OF SIGHT WITHIN THOSE CONES THAT GO OUT IS CONSIDERED OBSTRUCTION.
UM, ON THE, WELL, WHICH DIRECTION IS THAT? IS THAT THE EAST SIDE HAS THAT BIG HEDGE THERE? YES, SIR.
THAT IS A CLEAR VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION.
AND ON THE WEST SIDE, IF I THINK THAT'S WEST, UM, IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT YOU'RE PLANNING IS TO HAVE IT RIGHT IRON FOR THE PORTION OF THAT, BUT IT'S RIGHT IRON AGAINST RIGHT ARM, WHICH FROM A STRICT CRITERIA, IT'S STILL A, A, IT'S A OBSTRUCTION.
WHEN WE SAW THE VIDEO THIS MORNING FROM OUR STAFF, UM, IT WAS CLEAR THAT RI, ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT A, YOU TESTIFIED IT WAS NOT A CONNECTOR STREET, SO I'LL TAKE THAT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A NARROW STREET.
UM, SO THESE ARE ALL THE THINGS THAT GIVE ME PAUSE.
UM, I'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THAT.
UM, RESPECTFULLY, THE HEDGES ARE ON OUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
UH, WE CAN CERTAINLY DISCUSS WITH THEM ON, UM, BEING ABLE TO TRIM THOSE BACK.
AND WITH RESPECT TO THE WROUGHT IRON CONCERN WITH OPACITY, AGAIN, BEGINNER NOT A CONSULTANT, DUNNO HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS OR WHAT YOU GUYS PREFER TO HEAR.
UM, MY HUSBAND AND I BOTH HAVE SUVS, UH, WITH REAR CAMERAS.
SO I WOULD, I HAVEN'T MEASURED HOW HIGH UP MY LINE OF SIGHT IS WHEN I'M TURNING AROUND AND BACKING UP.
I IMAGINE IT IS ABOVE THAT SIX FOOT LINE.
UM, WE HAVE TO LOOK BEYOND THE CURRENT VEHICLE AND OR RESIDENT.
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT, OKAY, ARE WE GRANTING SOMETHING TO THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WILL FOREVER NOT CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD? AM I ALLOWED TO ASK A QUESTION? OF COURSE.
SINCE I AM, THIS IS YOUR TIME,
WE'RE JUST ASKING QUESTIONS AND YOU'RE YES, PLEASE.
UM, AS I AM NOT THE FENCE DESIGNER, BUT, UM, COULD CERTAINLY DISCUSS WITH OUR, UM, CONTRACTOR, IF WE WERE TO, IN THOSE, THE CONCERNED, UH, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AREAS, INSTEAD OF IT BEING THIS, UH, FORGIVE MY LACK OF RENDERING, BUT AS PROPOSED, WE HAVE JUST THIS STRAIGHT GATE THAT WOULD JUST SLIDE ACROSS WITH VENTS ALL AT THE SAME LOCATION ALL ALONG.
RE IF WE WERE TO CUT IN THE GATE SLIGHTLY SO THAT IT WIDENS THAT LINE OF SIGHT WHEN YOU'RE BACKING OUT, UM, SIMILAR TO I GUESS THE DIRECT HOW OUR DRIVEWAY WIDENS TOWARDS THE STREET, WOULD THE BOARD BE OPEN TO A REVISED FENCE DESIGN OF THAT NATURE? AND IF SO, WHAT WOULD THAT PROCESS BE? SO, UM, UH, WE, I RECOMMEND THE BOARD GENERALLY MINIMIZE, IF NOT AVOID NEGOTIATING AT THE PODIUM.
[01:20:01]
WHAT I WILL TELL YOU IN A VERY GENERAL WAY, AND I'M JUST ONE VOTE, BUT YOU NEED FOUR OR FIVE.UM, WHAT WE SEE A LOT OF TIMES WITH COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT HAVE THIS VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, THEY BRING BACK THE GATE EXACTLY AS YOU HAD SPOKEN TO MM-HMM
SO THAT THERE IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE VISIBILITY OR TRIANGLE.
SO IN ESSENCE, YOU HAVE THE FENCE LINE AND THEN IT CURVES UP.
SO THAT, SO THAT THE FENCE IS THE OUTSIDE OF YOUR TRIANGLE.
RIGHT NOW YOU LOSE A PORTION, THAT CORNER TRIANGLE OF YOUR BACKYARD, BUT THEN, THEN IT'S, THEN YOU, THEN YOU'RE DOING IT BY, RIGHT? YOU'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCIL'S ADOPTED A STANDARD THAT SAYS THAT AT EGRESS AND INGRESS THERE NEEDS TO BE A 20%.
THERE CAN'T BE ANYTHING IN A 20%, SOMETIMES IT'S 40%.
UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU'RE HERE.
I, I'M TOTALLY SUPPORTIVE OF, OF THE BALANCE OF YOUR REQUEST ABOUT OPACITY AND FENCE HEIGHT.
I THINK, UH, BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE BLESSED WITH TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS, BUT I, I STILL AM HESITANT ABOUT THE VISIBLY TRIANGLE AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THAT IS TO THE EAST OF YOU AND THE, AND THE BUSHES.
WE CAN'T BIND THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR.
UM, I MEAN, AND IF YOU CUT A DEAL WITH THEM TODAY AND TOMORROW THEY SELL AND THE NEXT PERSON WANTS TO PUT UP TALL HEDGES, YOU KNOW,
AND THEN WHAT DID WE DO? WE JUST CODIFIED A, A POTENTIAL TRAFFIC HAZARD.
SO I TRIED TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THAT THE WAY TO DO IT IS GET, CREATE A FULL, A CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT, THEN YOU DON'T EVEN ASK OUR, ASK OUR PERMISSION.
NOW, MAYBE YOU CAN CONVINCE FOUR OF US THAT THESE VISIBLE OR TRIANGLE, UH, UH, AREN'T A PROBLEM.
BUT THAT'S WHY YOU'RE HERE TODAY.
MS. DAVIS, THIS IS FOR MR. THOMPSON.
SO HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION, LET'S VERY HYPOTHETICAL.
LET'S SAY THE BOARD APPROVES THE FENCE IN THE OPACITY, BUT WE DO NOT APPROVE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
IF SHE CHANGES HER DESIGN TO COMPLETELY STAY OUT OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES, DOES SHE NEED TO COME BACK AGAIN OR, BECAUSE THE OTHER TWO AREAS WERE PASSED, IS SHE GOOD? AS LONG AS SHE KEEPS THAT, THAT HEIGHT REQUIREMENT.
SO THE FENCE AND THE GATE, A PORTION OF BOTH.
SO YES, YOU HAVE THE GATE, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE A FENCE ON BOTH SIDES.
IT IS LOCATED IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
I, I HESITATE HOW TO ANSWER THIS, BUT, UM,
YOU'RE SAYING BOTH, YOU CAN'T USE THE GATE AS IS OR EVEN IF THE GATE WAS MOVED OUT OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE OR YOU'RE SAYING YOU COULDN'T, YOU, YOU COULDN'T BECAUSE THE GATE WOULD HAVE TO MOVE ALL THE WAY UP PRETTY MUCH TO THE GARAGE DOOR TO BE OUT.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW THE DIMENSIONS.
IT ONLY HAS GO LIKE A, A THIRD OF THE WAY, BUT THE, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS SCALE, RIGHT.
YEAH, I'M NOT SEEING, MY POINT IS THE, THE GATE, AND AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO BE AS POLITICAL AS I CAN WHEN I SAY THIS, THE GATE IS TO ALLOW FOR A CAR TO BE IN THE GARAGE, I'M SORRY, ON SITE, ON THE PROPERTY.
AND I THINK THEY HAVE PRETTY MUCH 20 FEET.
AND SO SINCE THEY HAVE 20 FEET FROM THE GARAGE DOOR TO THE PROPERTY LINE, THAT'S ENOUGH FOR ONE CAR.
IF YOU WAS TO MOVE THAT GATE IN ANY, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE A CAR TO PARK IN THAT DRIVEWAY.
SO OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGE, CORRECT.
THERE'S, IN MY OPINION, NO WAY TO DESIGN THAT.
UM, WELL WE DON'T HAVE DIMENSIONS, BUT IT, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS PUT A CAR THERE, IF YOU MOVE THE GATE FORWARD, THERE'S NO WAY THAT IT WOULD FIT.
I'M NOT GI PUTTING WORDS THAT SEEMS LIKE CORRECT.
AND I WAS TRYING TO DEADLY SAY THAT WITHOUT TRYING TO CROSS ANY LINES OF ANY WAY.
I IT JUST IN IT IS, I CAN'T THINK OF A DESIGN THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO PUT THAT GATE INSIDE AND BE OUTTA THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
SO MORE THAN LIKELY THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PUT A GATE OVER THE GARAGE, THEN THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO STOP THE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE OPEN LIKE IT IS TODAY.
[01:25:01]
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION OR KIND OF OR NOT? OR SOME OR, OKAY.I THINK WHAT MS. DAVIS WAS DO WAS DOING WAS TRYING TO SEE THE FEASIBILITY OF APPROVING TWO AND NOT THE THIRD AND WHAT HA WHAT IMPACT IT HAS.
AND I THINK WHAT OUR STAFF TOLD US, YOU COULD DO IT, BUT YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PARK A CAR THERE OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGE, WHICH KIND OF DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF A DRIVEWAY OR AT LEAST HALF OF THE PURPOSE.
THAT IS MY OPINION, MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT,
'CAUSE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO ASK QUESTIONS AT THIS GAME.
THAT'S WHY WE MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF EACH OTHER THROUGH YOU.
SO IT'S LEGITIMATE
SO THE, THE QUE THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THEY COULD MAKE WORK.
IT'S UP TO THEM TO DECIDE IF IT WOULD WORK.
IT'S NOT FOR US TO TELL THEM THAT WOULDN'T WORK.
MAYBE, MAYBE THEY'RE WILLING TO, I THINK THAT'S WHY THE USE OF THAT DRIVEWAY FOR THAT POINT.
SO IN MY OPINION, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE HERE.
BECAUSE IT WILL NOT WORK NO OTHER WAY.
SO THEY HAVE TO GET THAT VARIANCE IN ORDER FOR THAT TO WORK.
THAT'S BEST EXCEPTION FOR THAT TO WORK.
I DON'T, I DON'T, I MEAN THEY HAVE A GARAGE.
SO
I'M JUST PROVIDED A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T WANNA PARK IN THE DRIVEWAY.
SO I MEAN, YOU KNOW, UM, THEY, THEY MAY, THEY MAY WANT TO DO THAT.
SO IF THAT'S HOW IT WOULD WORK THAT YOU CAN SAY YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PARK A CAR THERE.
BUT IF THAT'S OKAY WITH THEM, IT'S THEIR HOUSE.
I MEAN, IF THEY WANTED TO DO THAT.
MS. MCKEE, IS THERE A SIDEWALK ALONG LINEAR? NO, SIR.
SO IT'S, IT'S IT'S, I'M SORRY.
GRASS ON OUR PORTION OF THE, OF LANIER? YES.
WHERE OUR PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
ALRIGHT, SO FROM BONITA GOING EAST, IS THERE ANY SIDEWALK IS MY QUESTION? OH, I'M S SO BONITA FROM BONITA, THE CORNER OF BONITA AND LANIER.
AND YOU GO, I THINK IT'S EAST, WHICH IS UP TO THE PAGE, RIGHT? THAT WOULD BE NORTH.
SO I I'M SORRY THIS THIS, THIS DRAWING DOESN'T HAVE A COMPASS HEADING.
SO IS BONITA EAST, WEST LANIER, NORTH SOUTH.
TELL ME WHAT, TELL ME WHAT DIRECTION WE ARE.
SO LANIER, NORTH, NORTH, NORTH, SOUTH.
SO GOING NORTH ON LANIER FROM BONITA.
IS THERE A SIDEWALK ALONG YOUR PROPERTY? NOT ALONG OUR PROPERTY, BUT THERE IS A SIDEWALK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF LANRE ON THE, ON THE, THIS SIDE, WEST SIDE OF LAN WEST.
IS THERE A SIDEWALK ON THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF YOU? YES.
AND THAT WAS IN PLACE WHEN WE PURCHASED OUR HOME.
DO YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING? UNFORTUNATELY THAT MEANS THERE ARE PEDESTRIANS WALKING NORTH OR SOUTH AT THAT MY HUSBAND AND I INCLUDED YES.
AT THAT INTERSECTION OF YOUR DRIVEWAY AND THERE, AND IF YOU PUT A FENCE UP THAT THAT THERE'S CREATES THE POTENTIAL OF SOMEONE BEING BLOCKED AND SEEING A PEDESTRIAN THERE.
EVEN WITH THE DRIVEWAY GATE UNBLOCK NORTH, WAIT, WAIT MINUTE, SORRY, YOU CAN'T SEE IT ON THIS RENDERING, BUT 5,300 RICHARD INCLUDED IN THE DESIGNS HA IN THE PHOTOS HAS A DRIVEWAY GATE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING.
OKAY, WAIT, WHICH WAY ARE WE? SORRY? YOUR DRAWINGS OKAY? YEAH, THERE YOU GO.
SO MY QUESTION GOES TO WHAT WE'RE, WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.
WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IS PEDESTRIAN AND OR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ALONG LANIER.
OUR OBSERVATION WAS IT'S A NARROW STREET.
TWO IS, IS THERE, IS THERE A SIDEWALK, WHICH MEANS PEDESTRIANS POTENTIALLY ALONG LANIER.
I ASKED, YOU SAID THERE'S NONE ALONG YOUR PROPERTY.
AND THEN I SAID, IS THERE ANY IN THE PROPERTY NORTH OF YOU? AND YOU SAID YES, YES.
BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS IN THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF US ON ON RE YES THEY DO HAVE A SIDEWALK, BUT THEY SO IT DEAD ENDS INTO, INTO YOUR PROPERTY.
IT DEAD ENDS INTO THEIR DRIVEWAY.
WHERE SAY THAT AGAIN? I SORRY.
SO THE, THE HOME NEXT DOOR TO OUR GARAGE TO THE NORTH OF YOU.
TO THE NORTH OF US THERE IS A SIDEWALK THAT SPILLS INTO THEIR DRIVEWAY AND THEN SO IT DEAD END DEAD ENDS INTO THEIR DRIVEWAY AND DOES NOT CONTINUE SOUTH ON LIN.
[01:30:01]
THE NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY ON RICHARD.RESPECTFULLY, SIR, THERE'S THE HOUSE HERE, THERE'S AN ALLEY AND THEN 5,300 RICHARD.
UH, OKAY, ON THIS MAP IT SHOWS THERE IS YOUR HOUSE, THEN ONE, THEN ANOTHER.
OKAY, IS THERE AN ALLEY? THERE MUST BE AN ALLEY IN THERE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO ZERO IN ON WHETHER THERE'S CHAIRMAN, IF YOU LOOK ON YOUR SCREEN.
SO THERE IS A SIDEWALK IN CLEAR SITE THAT GOES BUT STOPS AT THAT DRIVEWAY.
NOW WHAT HAPPENED, UH, ON THE PHOTO THAT WAS THERE, UM, SHOWING THE VIEW DOWN LANIER ON THE OTHER SIDE? YES.
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF YOUR FENCE.
RIGHT NOW, THAT GRASSY AREA THAT'S ON YOUR PROPERTY OR NOT ON YOUR PROPERTY? THE GRASS ALONGSIDE OUR HOUSE.
WHERE, WHERE THE CITY, I PRESUME SOME SORT OF THAT IS WHAT WE CONSIDER OUR PROPERTY.
I RECOGNIZE THAT A BUTT'S A STREET.
I DON'T KNOW IF A CITY CONSIDERS GRASS ALONG A STREET AN EASEMENT.
SO ON THAT GRASS, THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WILL PARK THEIR CARS THERE? YES.
SO SOMEONE COMING DOWN FROM BONITA DOWN LANIER, IF THERE'S CARS PARKED THERE, REALLY WOULDN'T EVEN SEE WHAT'S GOING ON IN TERMS OF PEOPLE BACKING OUT OF YOUR GARAGE AT ALL.
THEIR, THEIR VIEW WOULD PRETTY MUCH TOTALLY BE BLOCKED IF THERE WERE CARS PARKED THERE.
IF THERE WERE CARS PARKED THERE.
AND THERE ARE SOMETIMES CARS PARKED THERE SOMETIMES.
AND I PRESUME THERE'S SOMETIMES CARS PARKED ACROSS THE STREET AGAINST THE CURB.
I WOULD SAY AS THE, UM, THE BOARD NOTED THIS MORNING, THE HOME ON LANRE THAT HAS THAT PAVED AREA, THEY TYPICALLY PARK ON THAT PAVED AREA OCCASIONALLY, AS YOU SAW IN THE PHOTOS AND VIDEOS, THERE ARE CARS PARKED ACROSS ARY FROM US.
ALONG THIS CURB AS NOTED THERE WAS, THERE'S CONSTRUCTION AROUND THE CORNER.
SO OCCASIONALLY THERE ARE CARS THERE.
SO WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN LANIER IS BASICALLY A ONE LANE STREET BECAUSE OF PARKED CARS? THAT IS FAIR.
SO, UH, MR. THOMPSON, THESE ARE GOOD PICTURES.
UM, SO, UM, IN THE DRAWINGS THAT WE RECEIVED, I DUNNO IF THIS QUESTION'S GONNA BE FOR YOU MA'AM OR FOR OUR THE STAFF.
GO BACK TO PAGE, UH, WHATEVER PAGE THIS IS.
UH, GOT, IT'S GOT THIS COMMAND, PAGE 70 IN THE DOCKET THAT SHOWS THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
MY QUESTION'S GONNA GO TO WHAT'S THE LEVEL OF OF VISI VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION IS THERE WHEN IT IS TWO OPEN GATED GATES.
THAT'S THE PICTURE I'M LOOKING FOR ON THE SOUTHERN ONE.
SAY WHAT IS THE, SO CORRECT, RIGHT? YES SIR.
[01:35:01]
IS ANTICIPATING PUTTING A METAL, UH, 85% OPEN IRON FENCE LEASE AT, AT THAT PORTION OF THE VISIBLE TRIANGLE TO THE SOUTH.SO IT'S AN IRON FENCE AGAINST AN IRON FENCE.
UH, WHO KNOWS WHETHER THAT MEANS THAT THE FENCE IS LINE UP SO THERE'S ONE LINE OR IF IT'S TWO LINES WHEN THEY'RE OPEN.
SO IS THAT STILL CONSIDERED ACCORDING TO THE CITY A VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION? LUCKY YOU, YOU GET TO ANSWER, I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO DAVID NAVAREZ IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND HOW THE CITY VIEWS THAT.
I WOULD ASSUME ANYTHING IS ANYTHING THAT WE LOOK AT IT IN THE CONDITION OF WHEN IT'S CLOSED, NOT WHEN IT'S OPEN AND THEY ALIGN.
BUT YOU YEAH, I, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT OF WORST CASE SCENARIO IS HOW WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT.
UM, WELL, I'M JUST LOOKING AT YEAH, I'M WE'RE LOOKING AT THE TRAFFIC HAZARD CORRECT CRITERIA, CORRECT? YEAH.
I I DON'T WANT TO GIVE A NUMBER 'CAUSE I WILL BE OKAY.
THE OTHER SIDE, IT'S THAT BUSH, IT'S GONNA BE SOLID WOOD FENCE ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT.
SO THAT SOLID WOOD FENCE IS GONNA COVER THAT.
SO THE NORTHERN PORTION, IF I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY, IS SOLID.
SEE, THE, SO THE, THE CORRECT, THAT ONE YES.
WELL, BUT IT, IT'S NO, NO, GO ALL THE WAY DOWN.
SO THIS, SO THAT'S IRON FENCE.
SO THAT'S THE SAME TOKEN, BUT SHE TESTIFIED THAT THE GATE'S GONNA OPEN INTO THE YARD NOT TO THE OTHER SIDE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO THE, THE QUESTION THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO YES.
DOES SPECIFICALLY DEAL WITH THIS AS OPPOSED TO THIS? YES, YES, I AGREE WITH YOU.
THE ONLY ISSUE THEN TO THE NORTH, ACCORDING TO OUR PICTURES IS THE BUSHES ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
THAT ALIGNED WITH, RIGHT? YEAH.
THAT MAY CUT INTO, I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR OUT THAT, THAT AS YOU GO UP THAT TRIANGLE.
YEAH, I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR THAT THE BUSHES COME, BUT LET'S JUST SAY THAT THEY STOPPED HERE AND, AND WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T REGULATE THAT.
SO THIS, THIS, I'M I'M BACK WHERE EXACTLY IT WENT.
WHAT I TRIED TO DO MA'AM, IS WALK THROUGH.
THIS IS NOT A VISIBLY TRIANGLE.
IF ONE'S OPEN AS THE OTHER'S OPEN, I SEE IRON FENCE IN THE TOP, THE BUSH IS THERE.
AND AS MR. THOMPSON SPOKE BEFORE, IF WE, IF THE, BUT AGAIN, AS MR. HOPKIN HAS SPOKE, IT'S NOT FOR US TO REDESIGN YOUR PLANS.
BUT IF BACK TO MRS. DAVIS'S QUESTION, SOUND LIKE I'M A LOONEY TUNE HERE, BUT IF GO BACK TO MS. DAVIS'S QUESTION.
IF YOU MOVE THE FENCE BACK, WOULD IT WORK? MR. THOMPSON SAID, BUT YOU WOULD IT WORK BUT YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET OUR CAR PARKED OUTSIDE THE GARAGE? YEAH, YOU AND THE GATE CLOSE.
SORRY TO CUT YOU OFF, BUT THE KIDS WILL GO HERE.
WHERE, WHERE ARE YOU? THE SLIDING GATE WOULD GO HERE.
AND THEN IT WOULD SLIDE INTO THE YARD IN THIS DIRECTION.
THAT'D BE A REALLY STRANGE THING.
BUT THAT, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S NOT OUR, AND HEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM.
IT IS NOT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ROLE TO DESIGN, REDESIGN ON A PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY TO MAKE IT WORK.
OUR JOB IS TO TAKE ON A PROPERTY BY PROPERTY BASIS AND DETERMINE WHETHER THERE'S A SPECIAL EXCEPTION UNIQUE TO THAT PROPERTY.
SO THAT'S WHAT YOU HEARD OUT LOUD IS ME SAYING, HOW CAN WE MAKE THIS WORK? IT WON'T WORK THAT WAY.
MAYBE IT CAN WORK IN THE NORTH THEN AS HE JUST SAID, THE FENCE CATCH WOULD GO BACK INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE BACKYARD.
THAT DOESN'T SEEM, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S NOT OUR ROLE TO DO THAT.
OUR, WE, WE, WE, WE, THAT'S NOT OUR ROLE TO DO THAT.
THE QUESTION FOR US IS, IS THE FENCE HEIGHT? IS THE OPACITY, OKAY.
AND IS THERE A SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TRAFFIC HAZARD AT THIS LOCATION? THOSE ARE THE THREE QUESTIONS FOR US.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. HOROWITZ? SO DEFENSE IS THERE TODAY, NOT IN THE DRIVER, SORRY.
NO, THE, TO THE AREA THAT, THAT YOU'RE QUESTIONING IN TERMS OF VISIBILITY.
THE FENCE THAT'S THERE TODAY HAS A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISSUE, DOES IT NOT? YES.
SO, UM, I GUESS, UH, YOUR, YOUR, YOUR REQUEST IS NOT BECAUSE YOU WERE CITED FOR ANYTHING.
[01:40:01]
UM, SO I, I GUESS WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE CURRENT FENCE? IF IT, IF IT'S, SO THE VISIBILITY TO ISSUE, AGAIN, THAT FENCE WAS, UM, BUILT, NO ONE HAS CITED THEM ANY CODE VIOLATIONS.UH, THEY WOULD ACTUALLY BE REMOVING THE WOOD FENCE IN A PORTION TO REPLACE IT WITH A WRT IRON.
SO OF THE CURRENT CONDITIONS THAT BRING CONCERN, THEY ACTUALLY WOULD BE BETTERING IT.
SO IS THE, IS THE ISSUE WITH THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE NOTWITHSTANDING THE NEIGHBOR'S SHRUBS.
BUT, UH, THIS ISSUE OF THE OVERLAPPING WROUGHT IRON, WELL, I WAS TRYING TO WALK THROUGH THAT
WELL, I MEAN, IS IS THERE, IS THERE, IS THERE SOMETHING OTHER THAN THAT, THAT WOULD, WITH THIS DESIGN, CONTINUE TO CAUSE A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE? WELL, BUT WHEN THE FENCE GOES THIS WAY, IF THEY'RE LINED UP, IT'S LESS OF A, OF A, IF IT'S THIS WAY, THEN YOU CREATED ONLY A 40%.
BUT IGNORE THAT ISSUE FOR A MOMENT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO KNOW THAT.
SO WHAT I'M ASKING IS IF IT WORKED AS DESIGNED, AND PRESUMABLY IT WOULD BE DESIGNED TO LINE UP, WOULD WE STILL HAVE A VI A TRI, A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISSUE WITH THIS DESIGN? AND THAT'S WHAT I TRIED TO ASK MR. THOMPSON.
I MEAN THE, AS YOU COULD SEE WITH THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION, HOW MUCH, UM, OF THE PINK AND THE FENCE ALIGNED.
SO THERE'S GOING TO BE A PORTION OF THAT SLIDING GATE, WHETHER YOU HAVE A SLIDING GATE OR JUST A FENCE THERE, THERE'S GONNA BE A PORTION THAT'S LOCATED IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ON BOTH SIDES, BUT THEY WENT WITH A ROD IRON TO TRY TO REDUCE THE VISIBLE, VISIBLE SIDE OF IT AND PROVIDE 80% OPEN.
SO THAT'S, SO CAN YOU HAVE NOTHING IN A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE? EVEN IF IT'S, YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IT.
YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANYTHING IN A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, ANYTHING.
THERE ARE CERTAIN, LIKE ANYTHING TWO FEET AND BELOW IS ALLOWED AND ANYTHING I THINK IS SIX FEET, I THINK AND UP.
AND THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IS BASED ON SOMEONE SITTING IN A CAR OR VEHICLE.
I'M NOT GONNA SAY A CAR SITTING IN A VEHICLE.
AND WHEN YOU'RE SITTING IN A VEHICLE, YOU CAN BE ABLE TO LOOK LEFT, RIGHT.
AND SEE CLEARLY THOSE SIGHT LINES AND VICE VERSA.
PEOPLE THAT ARE WALKING, BIKING, TRAVELING ALONE CAN SEE YOUR VEHICLE COMING OUT.
SO BETWEEN THAT TWO FEET AND SIX FEET OR WHATEVER THAT IS, THOSE ARE VEHICLES COMING OUT.
AND THEN SIGHT LINES, THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
AND SO, AND, AND EVEN WITH PROFESSIONAL STAFF'S OPINION, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, IN THE END IT IS, AND I'M GOING TO THE RULE WHEN IN THE OPINION OF THE BOARD, AND WE'RE NOT EXPERTS.
WE LISTEN TO EXPERTS, WE LISTEN TO THE APPLICANT, UM, WE NEED THE OPINION OF THE BOARD.
SO, SO QUESTION MR. THOMPSON, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THE OPACITY, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THE FENCE, BUT NOT THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, HOW I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD DO THAT BECAUSE THE FENCE GOES INTO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
WELL, THE OPACITY AGAIN IS OPACITY.
THE OPACITY IS FURTHER DOWN, IT'S NOT AT THAT LOCATION.
SO OPACITY, IF WE APPROVE IT'S AN ISSUE.
THAT'S DEALING MORE WITH THE EIGHT FOOT HIGH SECTION.
WHAT IF WE APPROVE THE OTHER, BUT NOT THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE? WHAT OTHER THE VISIBILITY.
IF WE SAID NO TO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, BUT YES TO THE FENCE AND YES TO THE OPACITY.
WELL, I MEAN YOU COULD, IF YOU SAY NO TO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, NOTHING CAN BE LOCATED IN THAT TRIANGLE.
BUT THEN THESE PLANS AREN'T BUILDABLE.
I I DON'T WANT THE, I WANT, I'LL PUT IT IN THE POSITIVE.
I WANT THE BOARD TO APPROVE SOMETHING THAT IS ENFORCEABLE, NOT SOMETHING THAT CREATES CONFUSION.
UH, WE DON'T NEED MORE CONFUSION IN BUILDING INSPECTION.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE AT, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DO YOU SEE OUR DILEMMA, MS. MCKEE? YES, SIR.
AND, AND WE'RE TRYING TO BE STEWARDS OF, OF SAFETY, BUT ALSO RESPECT PROPERTY RIGHTS AND ENCOURAGE PROPERTY INVESTMENT.
BUT SO YOU CAN HEAR WHERE I'M HEADED IS THAT I'M FINE WITH THE OPACITY.
[01:45:01]
I JUST, I HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT A WAY OF BEING, UH, FINE WITH THE TRAFFIC HAZARD.MR. HOVIS ASKED YOU GENTLY AND YOU WERE HONEST, AND I APPRECIATE THAT DULY NOTED, EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE SWORN, UM, THAT, UH, THE STREET SOMETIMES IS A ONE LANE STREET WHEN THERE'S SOMEONE PARKED IN THERE AND THAT CREATES, THAT HAS THE PROPENSITY FOR A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
WHAT'S THAT? I WAS RESPECTFULLY THAT IS RARE.
I HEAR YOU AND I BELIEVE YOU, YOU'VE BEEN VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD WITH US.
SO, AND IS, AND SHE DID SAY GUYS, THAT IT'S, IT'S NOT A CONNECTOR STREET.
THAT WAS WE, THAT WAS DISCUSSED THIS MORNING.
WHETHER THIS, UH, WHATEVER THE I, THE, I'M SURE TRANSPORTATION PEOPLE HAVE A TERM FOR, BUT IT'S NOT A CONNECTOR STREET.
SO MR. DORN, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR MR. HOPKINS? WE'RE VACILLATING MR. DORN IN LOOKING AT THE DIAGRAM INTO THE MIC, IN LOOKING AT THIS DIAGRAM, YOU'RE ON PAGE 70.
IF THERE WERE A POST ON EACH SIDE JUST INSIDE OF THE, UH, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, AND IF A GATE OPEN N WORD, THAT'S AN IRON GATE THAT OPENS N WORD DOESN'T, WOULD THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF NOT BEING IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE? WELL, WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM STAFF IS ANYTHING IN THE TRIANGLES.
ANYTHING IN THE TRIANGLE, OKAY.
IF THE POST IS OUTSIDE OF THE TRIANGLE, BUT IF IT SWINGS CLOSED, IT'S INSIDE THE TRIANGLE.
NO, IF IT SWINGS CLOSED, IT'S IN THE DRIVEWAY.
UH, IT'D HAVE TO BE AT THE TOP OF THAT TRIANGLE.
IT'S A, IT'S TWO PIECES COMES IN, GOES BACK.
IT'S NEVER IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
DO YOU SEE WHAT HE'S SAYING? I DON'T OBJECT.
SO SAY THAT ON THE RECORD, MS. DAVIS.
SO I, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO PROPOSE NEW DESIGNS.
CORRECT? SO, SORRY, BUT THAT I DON'T THINK THAT'S RELEVANT
I I WOULD, I WOULD ENCOURAGE NOT TO.
YEAH, NO, I'M ASKING IF THAT WOULD BE A VISIBILITY TRAINING.
WELL, I THINK THAT'S UP TO THE APP.
I WOULD ASSUME THAT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT IF SHE WANTS TO COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT DESIGN.
BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S OUR PLACE TO NO, NO, I'M JUST TRY TO REDESIGN THIS.
I'M ASKING IF THAT WOULD BE, WELL, I, I DON'T KNOW.
I THINK WHAT WE'VE HEARD IS ANYTHING IN THE VISIBLY TRIANGLE THAT WE THEN VIEW AS A TRAFFIC HAZARD IS OKAY.
IT COULD BE IN THE VISIBLY TRIANGLE AND IF WE DON'T VIEW IT'S A TRAFFIC HAZARD, IT'S NOT.
HOW'S THAT FOR A SWINGING GATE? OKAY, MR. KOVI, UH, MS. MCKEE, DO YOU WANNA COME BACK WITH A REVISED SET OF PLANS RESPECTFULLY, MR. KOVI? UM, YES.
I THINK IN THE SAKE OF EFFICIENCY, UM, AS SOMEONE WHO WORKS FULL TIME, AS I BELIEVE YOU ALL DO AS WELL, UM, I WOULD NEED TO DISCUSS THIS, UM, AND EVALUATE, UM, MORE SO WONDERING IF I, THE APPLICANT PROPOSE HERE TODAY THAT IF WE DO HAVE TWO PIECES OF GATE WROUGHT IRON SWING IN, AND WHEN THEY'RE OPEN IN OUR DRIVEWAY, THEY JUST RUN ALONG THE DRIVEWAY LINES, UNDERSTANDING Y'ALL CAN'T PROPOSE THAT DESIGN.
BUT IF I WERE TO, I KNOW I DON'T HAVE FORMAL PLANS HERE, BUT WOULD WE BE ABLE TO PROCEED FOR THE SAKE OF EVERYONE'S TIME? I I THINK WHAT THEY'RE ASKING IS POSTPONING POTENTIALLY, AND YOU WORKING WITH CITY STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, UM, OR MINIMIZING THAT OR MINIMIZING IT.
AND I, I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO GET AT.
UM, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT STAFF COULD WORK WITH YOU ON DURING THAT TIME PERIOD THEN? YES.
I, I THINK YOU HAVE, AND YOU'VE BEEN, YOU WERE HERE AT THE BRIEFING.
ALL RIGHT, SO, SO YOU'VE, YOU'VE INVESTED THE TIME, YOU'VE HEARD COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS WE MADE ABOUT YOUR CASE AND OTHER CASES, UH, YOU CAN COUNT TO 1, 2, 3, OR 1, 2, 3, 4, OR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 3 DOESN'T GET YOU THERE.
UM, UH, HE ASKED YOU THAT QUESTION BECAUSE IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE YOUR REQUEST TO POSTPONE.
THAT'S WHY
I THINK WE WANT TO FIND A WAY NOW.
SEE, I'M VIOLATING MY OWN RULE.
I THINK
[01:50:01]
RESUBMIT OUR PLANS? OKAY, VERY GOOD.SO IF WE, UH, IF WE POSTPONE THIS FOR, UH, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GONNA GET IT DONE IN TIME IN A MONTH.
SO SHOULD WE POSTPONE IT FOR TWO MONTHS? DOES THAT GIVE ENOUGH TIME? YES, MR. ROGERS? I'M SORRY, CAN YOU, WHAT YOU NEED TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD.
MR. ROGERS, IF I DON'T MIND THAT IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE COMPONENT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO KNOW NOW BEFORE SHE DECIDES TO RE-ENGAGE? WELL, YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN EXPRESS THAT, BUT IT REQUIRES FOUR VOTES.
AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S FOUR VOTES FOR THE EXISTING PLANS.
I'M GUESSING THERE'S ONLY TWO VOTES.
SO THEN IT WOULD BE IN HER BEST INTEREST THEN NOT TO.
DO YOU SEE HOW WE'RE TALKING MUCH TO EACH OTHER THAT YOU CAN HEAR US? I THINK THERE'S ONLY POTENTIALLY TWO VOTES.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THERE'S TWO VOTES FOR THE ATE TRIANGLE.
I THINK WE GOT A DESIGNER IN THE MAKING WITH, WITH DORN,
BUT, UM, IF THERE WERE THREE, GOING TO FOUR VOTES, I COULD SEE THAT.
BUT I, I'M STILL, I THINK WE HAVE THREE MEMBERS OF THE FIVE PANEL THAT ARE HESITANT ABOUT THIS VISIBILITY TRIANGLE RIGHT NOW.
BUT IS THIS THE TIME THAT SAY MY, YOU YOU CAN.
WHO IS THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DISCUSSION, SUPPOSED TO DO THIS IN TERMS IN A, IN A QUESTION.
UH, OUR, OUR ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER SAY THAT THIS IS PART OF THE HEARING AND PART OF THE HEARING IS INTERACTING WITH THE STAFF OR THE APPLICANT, NOT REALLY WITH US.
SO YOU CAN INTERACT WITH US BY ASKING A QUESTION AND THEN, THEN, THEN WE CAN RESPOND TO THE QUESTION AND THEN IT'S ALL, ALL GOOD AND WELL.
RIGHT? CAN CAN HE, CAN HE, CAN HE ASK THE OTHER PANELISTS HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THAT? WELL, YOU CAN ASK THE APPLICANT AND DRAW ANSWER THIS WAY.
I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY WE'RE REALLY NOT SUPPOSED TO DISCUSS THE, THE MERITS OF THE CASE UNTIL THERE'S A MOTION.
WELL, THE APPLICANT AND THERE'S NOT A MOTION YET.
BUT I, BUT I'M TRYING TO ALLOW, THIS IS ALL IN THE PUBLIC, SO THERE'S NOTHING, YOU KNOW, NEFARIOUS YES.
MR. HOP, THE APPLICANT HAS MADE A REQUEST.
SO, UM, I DON'T THINK, WHEN'S YOUR NEXT SUBMISSION DEADLINE? MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR FOR AUGUST? YEAH, JULY IS TOO LATE FOR AUGUST.
WELL, IT COULD BE JULY, BUT THAT'D BE RUSSIA THAT, SO IT'D BE AUGUST.
OH, YOU GOT PLENTY OF TIME FOR AUGUST.
IT'D BE JULY 24TH AT NOON? NO, FOR AUGUST.
IT WOULDN'T BE JULY FOR AUGUST.
IF WE MOVE THE CASE AND SHE, SHE'S NOT RESUBMITTING AN ENTIRE PACKET.
SO MR. HOKA ASKED THE QUESTION, YOU RESPONDED THAT YOU WOULD REQUEST TO HOLD, HOLD OVER THAT.
OUR TERM IS HOLDOVER GIVES YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH STAFF TO LOOK AT POTENTIAL OPTIONS BASED ON THE FEEDBACK YOU GOT FROM US.
THEY CAN SAY THEIR HISTORY IS THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE WAY THE BOARD IS LOOKING AT IT.
YOU COULD GO THIS WAY OR THIS WAY.
SOME PEOPLE DO THIS AND THEY COME BACK AND SAY, I WANT IT AS WHAT I WANTED.
OR YOU CAN COME BACK AND CHANGE IT ANOTHER WAY.
I'M JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND SO THAT YES, SIR.
SO WHAT IS OUR AUGUST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE, PLEASE, MS. WILLIAMS? AUGUST 14TH.
SO IS IT YOUR REQUEST TO BE POSTPONED TO AUGUST 14TH? YES, SIR.
IS IT YOUR REQUEST THAT WE POSTPONE TO AUGUST 18TH? YES, SIR.
THE CHAIRMAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MR. OVITZ, UH, CAN I MAKE IT FOR ALL THREE? YES.
MAKE IT ON THE FIRST ONE AND IT'LL CARRY FOR ALL THREE.
UH, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA TWO SIX DASH 0 0 0 3 4 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL AUGUST 18TH, 19, UH, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 3 4.
MR. HOPKOS HAS MADE A MOTION TO HOLD THIS ITEM UNDER ADVISEMENT TO AUGUST 18TH, 2026.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY MR. DORN DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
MR. OVITZ, I, I THINK YOU'RE GETTING A SENTIMENT THAT THE BOARD IS GENERALLY IN FAVOR OF WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO DO WITH THIS ONE ISSUE BEING A PROBLEM.
SO, UM, WE WILL BE HOLDING ALL OF IT OVER, UM, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE PROCESS WORKS GENERALLY.
SO, UM, UH, BUT I THINK YOU'RE GETTING A SENSE OF WHAT OUR SENTIMENT IS ON THE SUBJECT.
THANK YOU MR. KOVICH DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. DORN THAN MS. DAVIS.
MR. DORN, NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.
'CAUSE THE MOTION'S ON THE BOARD, SO I CAN'T ADDRESS THE
[01:55:01]
APPLICANT.YOU CAN ADDRESS THE APPLICANT, OKAY.
BUT YOU'RE REALLY ADDRESSING THE BOARD RIGHT NOW.
I, I GUESS IN GENERAL, I JUST WANNA, SAME THING MR. ROGERS.
NOW YOU CAN VOICE YOUR OPINIONS.
OKAY? 'CAUSE WE'RE DISCUSSING A MOTION.
SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I AM, I'M TYPICALLY VERY HESITANT TO PROVE ANYTHING INVISIBILITY TRIANGLE BECAUSE SAFETY IS A HUGE CONCERN.
AND IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO SOMEONE, I DON'T WANT IT TO BE ON MY CONSCIENCE.
I WILL LOOK AT THE NEW PROPOSED, BUT I'M VERY, VERY HESITANT TO APPROVE ANYTHING IN A VISIBILITY VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
MR. ROGERS AND I, AND I ALSO SHARE MRS. DAVID SENTIMENTS REGARDING, UM, YOU KNOW, APPROVING ANYTHING WITHIN THE VISIBLY TRIANGLE.
THERE'S A LOT OF LIABILITY THERE, BUT AS, AS THE STATUTE, AS THE STANDARD THAT WE'RE CALLED TO, REGARDING, YOU KNOW, DOES IT OR DOES IT NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD? I THINK THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY POINTS, UM, IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT.
ONE BEING, UM, THE IN FAVOR, UH, FROM MR. NAVAREZ, THIS IS A CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER.
WE WOULD CONSIDER HIM A MATERIAL WITNESS, A PERSON OF EXPERT OPINION.
AND IN HIS EXPERT OPINION, UM, THE OBSTRUCTION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE ABOVE MR. NAVAREZ THAT WE WOULD LOOK TO FOR AN EXPERT OPINION, AND HE'S GIVEN THAT TO US.
UM, ON TOP OF THAT, THE CURRENT STRUCTURE THERE THAT THERE'S IS NOW, RIGHT? THE FENCE IS ALREADY IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AND THIS APPLICANT IS NOW OFFERING A, UH, A SUGGESTION TO INCREASE THE OPACITY FROM NONE TO 85%.
AGAIN, I, I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO NOT CONSTITUTING A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
WE BROUGHT UP THE FACT OF THE, UH, WALKABILITY, IF THIS IS GONNA BE A LOT OF SIDEWALKS AND PEDESTRIANS WALKING DOWN THE STREET.
IT'S CLEAR FROM THE AERIAL MAP OVERVIEW THAT THERE IS SIDEWALK ONLY AT THE NORTH RESIDENCE JUST NORTH OF YOUR PROPERTY.
IT DOES NOT EVEN GO PAST THE ALLEY UP TO RICHARD.
SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT NOBODY WOULD BE WALKING ON THE SIDEWALL GIVEN IT IS ONLY ON THE SIDE OF ONE HOME ON THE ENTIRE STREET THAT WE SEE IN OUR VIEW.
UM, AND SO FOR THAT REASON, FOR THOSE REASONS, UM, I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD AS FAR AS, UM, YOU KNOW, THE VISIBLY TRIANGLE AND, UM, THE ISSUES THERE.
UH, AGAIN, REALLY CALLING OUT THE FACT THAT YOU'RE OFFERING TO INCREASE THE OPACITY FROM WHAT IT IS NOW.
UH, I SEE NO EVIDENCE TO PEOPLE WALKING ON THE STREET KNOWING THAT THERE'S REALLY NO SIDEWALK, A MINIMAL SIDEWALK JUST RIGHT NEXT TO ONE HOME ON THE ENTIRE STREET.
AND THE BIGGEST POINT, I BELIEVE IS THE EXPERT OPINION FROM A TRAFFIC ENGINEER HAVING NO OBJECTIONS, UM, TO THIS.
AND, UH, IN HIS OWN WORDS, I WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR TO POSTPONE UNTIL AUGUST 18TH AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT.
UM, I THINK THIS IS A VIABLE REQUEST.
UM, I THINK WORKING WITH MR. THOMPSON OR THE STAFF GIVES YOU OPTIONS FOR YOU TO RECAST.
AND AGAIN, YOU CAN COME BACK EXACTLY AS IT IS, OR YOU COULD CHANGE IT ENTIRELY IN ONE GRADIENT THEREOF.
UM, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO BE PERSUASIVE WHEN YOU COME BACK TO SAY THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO TRAFFIC ISSUE ON THAT STREET BECAUSE X, Y, AND Z, UM, MAYBE THAT'S WHAT YOUR NEIGHBORS SAY IN WRITING.
THERE'S NO TRAFFIC ISSUES ON THIS X, Y, AND Z.
UM, FROM OUR LIMITED INFORMATION TODAY, WE THINK IT'S A NARROW STREET AND WHEN A CAR'S PARKED THERE, IT CREATES AN EVEN NARROWER STREET.
BUT THAT'S JUST OUR SUMMARY, CONCLUSION BASIS ON OUR MINIMAL INFORMATION.
I DO VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY AND YOUR HONESTY.
YOU COULD HAVE FIBBED WITH QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED OF YOU AS IT RELATES TO THE, THE STREET YOU WEREN'T, SO YOU WERE HONEST.
SO THAT GOES A LONG WAY WITH ME.
I COULD BE CONVINCED AS THE BOARD COULD BE CONVINCED THAT MAYBE THERE'S NOT A TRAFFIC HAZARD, BUT WE'RE NOT CONVINCED YET, IS, IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
UM, I APPRECIATE MR. ROGER'S SENTIMENT.
UH, WE DO RELY ON OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF, UM, BUT THE CODE IS VERY CLEAR.
IT'S IN THE OPINION OF THE BOARD, AND WAY TOO OFTEN WE'RE IN SITUATIONS WHERE, UH, WE'RE JUST NOT CONVINCED ABOUT A TRAFFIC ISSUE OR NOT.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE STILL IN THE GAME, UH, MAYBE THE SEVENTH OR EIGHTH INNING, BUT, UM, UM, SO DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME? WHEN IS THE DEADLINE FOR THE AUGUST HEARING TO SUBMIT
[02:00:01]
MATERIALS? IT WOULD BE JUNE, JULY 24TH, BUT JULY 20 YOU'LL WANT TO HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED SOMETHING PRIOR TO THAT DEADLINE SO THAT, UM, WE CAN HAVE EVERYTHING SOLIDIFIED BY THAT DATE.ALRIGHT, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IN BO OA 2 6 0 0 0 0 3 4 OH.
AND ONE OTHER COMMENT I'D MAKE BEFORE I TAKE THIS.
UM, AND THIS IS VERY MUCH ON THE RECORD, WHAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IS WE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS AND YOU HEARD ALREADY ONE OPINION VERSUS OTHERS.
IT MAY BE MR. ROGERS, UH, RESPONSIBILITY ON AUGUST 18TH TO TRY TO CONVINCE AT LEAST THREE OTHER PEOPLE TO HIS OPINION.
AND THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, CAPTAIN, ALL THE TIME.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE MAY BE OTHER OF US THAT FEEL THE OTHER DIRECTION.
SO THAT'S ANOTHER PART OF THE PROCESS GOES HERE.
NOW, WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THIS BETWEEN NOW AND THEN WE WAIT FOR THE NEXT HEARING, OKAY? UM, ALRIGHT.
IN THE MATTER OF BOA 2 6 0 0 0 3 4.
IS JULY 24TH ADEQUATE TIME FOR YOU? YES, SIR.
I, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY ISSUES.
AND THAT TIME CAN BE A LITTLE ELASTIC, A LITTLE AS LONG AS YOU'RE WORKING WITH STAFF.
WHAT THE STAFF DOESN'T WANT IS A DATA DROP RIGHT BEFORE THE HEARING BECAUSE THEN THEY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO GET IT PUBLISHED SEVEN DAYS IN ADVANCE AND ALL THOSE SORT OF THINGS.
THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO BE AMBUSHED ON A DATA DROP.
SO AS LONG AS YOU'RE COMMUNICATING, UM, AND, AND THEY'LL BE RESPONSIVE.
IN THE MATTER OF BO OA 2 6 0 0 0 0 3 4, WE, UH, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO HOLD THIS, MY, UH, MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT TO AUGUST 18TH, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
I THOUGHT MAYBE MR. ROGERS IS GONNA VOTE NO ON THE HOLDOVER, BUT, OKAY.
UM, MOTION TO HOLDOVER, UH, PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BOA 2 6 0 0 0 0 3 4.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AND A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS HOLDING THIS ITEM OVER, UH, FOR, UH, HOLDING THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT TO AUGUST 18TH, 2026.
THAT IS THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
UM, OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING IS JULY.
JULY 14TH, UM, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AT 3:04 PM ON THE 20 ON THE 16TH OF JUNE.
IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I MOVE TO ADJOURN.
AND ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
THE BOARD IS ADJOURNED AT 3:04 PM THANK YOU.