[00:00:01]
ARE[*This meeting was joined in progress.*]
[Board of Adjustments: Panel A on August 18, 2026.]
PAPER.SO I HOPE ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK HAS FILLED THAT OUT.
UH, EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY WILL BE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES.
AND PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS TESTIMONY ON AN AGENDA ITEM.
NOT SPECIFIC, BUT ANYTHING ON THE AGENDA.
UH, A SPEAKER MAY ALSO SPEAK WHEN THERE'S SPECIFIC CASES CALLED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, OF WHICH THE PRESENTATION IS NORMALLY LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES, BUT WE'LL GIVE ENOUGH ADEQUATE TIMES NECESSARY, BOTH FOR AND AGAINST FOR EACH CASE.
THAT'S, THAT'S, UM, CALLED ALL REGISTERED ONLINE.
SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
NO TELECONFERENCING WILL BE ALLOWED.
ALL COMMENT, ALL COMMENTS ARE TO BE MADE TO MYSELF AS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, AS CHAIRMAN WHO I CAN, UH, WHO I MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN ORDER.
OKAY, BOARD MEMBERS, LET'S GO THROUGH OUR AGENDA.
UH, WE ARE GONNA REVIEW AND APPROVE OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM JULY 14TH.
THEN WE HAVE A MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS FOR A FEE WAIVER REQUEST ON STEVENSON STREET.
THEN WE HAVE, UM, AN ITEM, UM, ON REV, 1204 REVEREND CBT SMITH STREET, THEN 53 0 3 BONITA, THEN 29 19 MAPLE SPRINGS BOULEVARD.
I'M JUST GONNA KEEP THINGS IN THE, IN THE STRAIGHT AGENDA ORDER.
IT'S EASY FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED.
AND YOU MAY WANT TO TURN YOUR, YOUR SCREENS AROUND.
FIRST ITEM OF YOUR AGENDA IS REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF OUR JULY 14TH MEETING MINUTES.
THE CHAIRMAN, TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE JULY 14TH MEETING MINUTES.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MS. DAVIS TO APPROVE OUR JULY 14TH MEETING.
SECOND BY MR. OVITZ, UH, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING.
THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
FIVE TO ZERO MEETING MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
OKAY, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BO, A 2 5 0 0 0 0 8 3 FW TWO AT 2 6 1 5 STEVENSON DRIVE.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? THE APPLICANT IS NOT PRESENT.
I WAS TRYING TO, OH, I APOLOGIZE.
I MISS PUBLIC, PUBLIC SPEAKERS.
MISS BOARD SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE ANY REGISTERED PUBLIC TESTIMONY? NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY SPEAKERS DODGE THAT BULLET REGISTERED AND THE EMERITUS DIDN'T EVEN CATCH ME ON IT.
ALRIGHT, CAITLYN, REMEMBER THAT I, I WHIZ RIGHT PAT, WE'LL BLAME MR. MOORE ON THAT MR. THE EMERITUS FOR NOT SAYING MR. CHAIRMAN DO THE PUBLIC.
ALRIGHT, SO NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS REGISTERED.
WE'LL DO THAT FIRST, CORRECT? OKAY.
SO IN BO, A 2 5 0 0 0 0 8 3, ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS REGISTERED? IS WHAT I SHOULD HAVE SAID, UHHUH? YES.
UM, THE APPLICANT HAD REGISTERED BUT DOESN'T SEEM REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN PERSON OR ONLINE.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MR. OVITZ, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BOA TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 0 83 FW TWO ON APPLICATION OF ARTHUR TERRY, DENY THE REQUEST TO WAIVE THE FILING FEES BE PAID IN ASSOCIATION WITH A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT REGULATIONS AND A VARIANCE OF THE FLOOR AREA FOR STRUCTURES ACCESSORY TO SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATIONS AS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
REVISED THAT WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP FOR THIS APPLICANT IN THE MANNER OF BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 0 8 3 FW TWO.
MR. HOPKOS HAS MOVED TO, TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A FEE WAIVER WITH PREJUDICE.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY MR. ROGERS QUESTION, UH, ON THE MOTION OR DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THE ISSUE OR THE MOTION? I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE NUMBERING OF THE CASE.
IF YOU GO TO THE AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET, IT'S TWO SIX.
SO ONE IS CORRECT, ONE IS NOT CORRECT.
SO THE SHEET OF PAPER ON THE AGENDA IS TWO FIVE IN FRONT OF US IS TWO FIVE.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE'S THE TWO SIX HERE.
OKAY, HOLD YOUR MOTION FOR ONE SECOND.
ALRIGHT, ON OUR POST-IT AGENDA BO A 2 6 0 0 0 8 3 ON THE PRINTOUT ON PAGE 33, IT'S TWO FIVE ON THE MOTION.
TELL US HOW WE SHOULD HANDLE THAT.
IT SHOULD BE BOA DASH 2 5 2 5.
[00:05:01]
IT SHOULD BE TWO FIVE.SO, UH, MR. BOARD ATTORNEY, DOES THAT PREVENT US FROM PROCEEDING WITH THIS, GIVEN IT'S WRONG ON THE AGENDA RIGHT HERE IT SAYS TWO SIX, WELL, IT'S TWO SIX ON THAT PAGE AND ON THE OTHER PAGE IT'S TWO SIX, WELL, NO, IT'S TWO FIVE RIGHT HERE.
SO ON THE FACE OF THE AGENDA IT SAYS TWO SIX, ALL THE OTHER DOCUMENTS SAY TWO FIVE.
SO CAN WE STILL ACT? YES YOU CAN BECAUSE UNDER THE MISCELLANEOUS ITEM THERE ON WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA THAT HAS PAGE ONE AT THE BOTTOM WHERE IT HAS THE ACTUAL, UM, UNDER MISCELLANEOUS HAS THE ACTUAL REQUEST THAT'S BEING MADE.
IT DESCRIBES IT AS BO OA DASH 25 DASH, WHAT IS THAT? 1, 2, 3 4 ZEROS 83 DASH FW.
SO BECAUSE IT'S TWO FIVE THERE, YOU CAN CONSIDER THIS ITEM TODAY.
SO THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR, SO THE CHAIR WILL RULE THAT THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR IS CORRECT.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION OR YOUR POINT OF ORDER? MR. DORN? YES.
I GOT AN UGLY LOOK FROM MS. DAVIS
WELL, MR. ROGERS CAUGHT SOMETHING EARLIER TODAY.
SO THE REST OF US NEED TO PUT OUR GLASSES ON.
ALRIGHT, DIS WE THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR 2 5 0 0 0 0 8 3 FW TWOS TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A FEE WAIVER WITH PREJUDICE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION MR. HAITZ? YEAH.
SO, UH, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS, UH, FAILED TO NOW APPEAR TWICE, BOTH FOR THEIR HEARING AND FOR THEIR WAIVER REQUEST, THAT'S THE BASIS UNDER WHICH I AM MAKING THIS MOTION TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE.
THE, THE INDIVIDUAL IS TAKING A LOT OF VALUABLE TIME OF STAFF AND, AND THE BOARD AND NOT, AND NOT SHOWING UP.
SO I DON'T SEE WHY HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME BACK TO THE TREE RIGHT AWAY.
MR. ROGERS, YOU SECONDED IT SO I SHARE MR. HAITZ.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION? ALRIGHT.
UH, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
MOTION TO MOTION TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BOA 2 5 0 0 0 0 8 3 FW TWO.
THE BOARD ON UNANIMOUSLY ON A FIVE TO ZERO VOTE, DENIES THE REQUEST WITH PREJUDICE FOR THE FEE WAIVER.
UH, THE APPLICANT WILL GET AN EMAIL FROM OUR BOARD SECRETARY WITHIN THE NEXT TWO DAYS.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA TODAY IS BOA, UH, HOLD ON A SECOND.
REVEREND CBT SMITH STREET IS THE APPLICANT HERE.
UH, I'M CALLING CASE BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 5 6 AT 1 2 0 4.
REVEREND CBT SMITH STREET IS THE APPLICANT HERE.
UH, ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS REGISTERED FOR THIS, THIS, UH, REQUEST? YES, SIR.
I HAVE A REGISTERED SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION.
AS MY EMERITUS WOULD TELL US ANYONE, ANYTIME WE HAVE A HEARING AND EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO SPEAK.
I MADE THAT MISTAKE YEARS AGO.
SO, UH, GO AHEAD AND CALL THE SPEAKER.
OKAY, MS. MARIAH PARKER, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
IF YOU WOULD GIVE US GREEN LIGHT, IF IT GIVE, IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME.
IS THE GREEN LIGHT ON DOWN THERE? YES.
IT'S OKAY IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN.
UM, I, MY NAME IS MARIAH PARKER, I'M THE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS FOR GOLDEN GATE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, WHERE OUR ADDRESS IS 11 0 1 REVEREND CBT SMITH STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 3.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
[00:10:03]
LOTS OF BUTTONS HERE.NOW THE NEXT PERSON WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO LOWER IT, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
THAT MAKES IT EASIER FOR THE MICROPHONE.
UH, BOARD MEMBERS, I'M PASSING DOWN THE SAME INFORMATION WE GOT THIS MORNING FOR ANYONE'S REFERENCE.
SO YOUR NAME IS, I APOLOGIZE, MS. PARKER? YES, SIR.
CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, UH, EACH SPEAKER IS GIVEN A MINIMUM OF FIVE MINUTES, SO YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO, I ASSUME YOU'RE THE PERSON THAT WROTE AND SENT US THIS EMAIL.
SO YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT TO US.
UM, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UH, AGAIN, MY NAME IS MARIAH PARKER AND I'M THE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS FOR GOLDEN GATE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CHURCH IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EX EXCEPTION FOR 12 0 4 REVEREND CBT SMITH STREET.
AFTER HEARING THE BOARD BRIEFING QUESTIONS EARLIER, I WANTED TO CLARIFY ONE IMPORTANT POINT.
GOLDEN GATE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5 7 1.
THE CHURCH OWNED MULTIPLE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE BOTTOM, INCLUDING 11 0 1 11 0 6 11 28, WHICH HOUSES OUR ADULT REHABILITATION MINISTRY AND 12 0 2 REVEREND CBT SMITH STREET.
THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS WELL AS SEVERAL, SEVERAL OTHER THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALTOGETHER WE OWN 31 PROPERTIES WITHIN THE BOTTOM DISTRICT.
ALL OF OUR DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5 7 1.
WE ARE NOT ASKING THE BOARD TO HOLD THIS APPLICANT TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN WE HAVE HELD OURSELVES.
WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING THAT THE STANDARDS ADOPTED FOR PD 5 71 BE APPLIED CONSISTENTLY TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS.
WE WELCOME NEW NEIGHBORS, NEW INVESTMENT AND QUALITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
OUR OPPOSITION IS NOT TO BUILD TO BUILDING A NEW HOME.
RATHER, IT IS TO GRANTING AN EXCEPTION THAT DEPARTS FROM STANDARDS INTENTIONALLY ESTABLISHED TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE BOTTOM AND MAINTAIN AESTHETIC CONT CONTINUITY WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND ESTABLISHED BUILDING PATTERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
PASTOR VINCENT T. PARKER AND THE GOLDEN SEEDS FOUNDATION WORKED ALONGSIDE RESIDENTS, PROPERTY OWNERS, BUSINESSES, COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS, AND CITY STAFF TO HELP DEVELOP THE THE BOTTOM URBAN STRUCTURE AND GUIDELINES.
COMMUNITY INFORMED PLANNING EFFORTS LIKE THE BOTTOM URBAN STRUCTURE ARE RARE.
THEY REPRESENT YEARS OF COLLABORATION.
THEY PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HISTORICALLY UNDERSERVED NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE OURS TO GROW IN A WAY THAT IS THOUGHTFUL AND VISUALLY CONSISTENT WHILE PRESERVING THE CHARACTER THAT MAKES THEM UNIQUE.
FOR THESE REASONS, GOLDEN GATE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD DENY THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
SO, IN OUR DISCUSSION THIS MORNING YES, SIR.
NOW WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH SOME QUESTIONS AND SO FORTH.
UM, BEFORE I GO ANY FURTHER, MS. WILLIAMS, THERE'S NO OTHER SPEAKERS REGISTERED, CORRECT? CORRECT, SIR.
UM, IN OUR DISCUSSIONS THIS MORNING, WE ZEROED IN ON THE UNIQUENESS OF THE PD, THE THIS 5% VARIANCE ALONG, UH, UH, VARIATION OF THE SETBACK.
UM, AND WE ALL ZERO ALL WONDERED WHETHER INDEED YOUR ENTITY THAT YOU'RE REPRESENTING OWNS THE LOT NEXT DOOR.
BECAUSE PART OF WHAT THE, THE CODE SAYS, THE PD SAYS IS THE BLOCK FACE, AND WE WERE TRYING TO LOOK AT WHO ARE THE PROPERTY OWNERS ALONG THE BLOCK FACE.
SO, UM, I'M VERY GLAD YOU'RE HERE BECAUSE WE VERY MUCH RESPECT PROPERTY RIGHTS AND, UH, YOU, YOUR ORGANIZATION CLEARLY HAS STANDING BY VIRTUE OF BEING IN THE HOOD, BEING IN THE 200 FEET AND ALSO IN THE BLOCK FACE.
SO I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE ON THAT.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE, MS. DAVIS? I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, YOU OWN ONE PROPERTY RIGHT ADJACENT? NOT BOTH.
SO YOU MAY KNOW THIS OR NOT, AND IT'S NOT DIRECTLY RELEVANT AND MY BOARD ATTORNEY MAY NUDGE ME FOR ASKING, BUT WHY WERE THESE LOTS DEVELOPED SUBDIVIDED SO SMALL? THIS WAS WAY BEFORE MY TIME.
SO, UM, THE CHURCH HAS BEEN IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR ALMOST A HUNDRED YEARS NOW.
UM, SO THOSE LOTS WERE IN PLACE EVEN BEFORE THE CHURCH BEGAN.
[00:15:01]
UM, SO YEAH.WELL IT'S, IT'S A BUILDABLE LOT, BUT IT'S A NARROW LOT.
AND IT'S NOT OUR PURVIEW TO DECIDE HOW YOU SUBDIVIDE A LOT.
THAT'S THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES THAT.
UH, WE JUST HEAR APPEALS WHEN PEOPLE WANNA DO SOMETHING BEYOND WHAT THE CODE OR THE PD ALLOWS.
UM, I WILL TELL YOU I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT THE APPLICANT'S NOT HERE.
PRESUMABLY APPLICANT PAID FOR, UH, APPLICATION BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T ALLOW THIS TO COME FORWARD.
SO THE, I I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WIDE PEOPLE DO THAT.
MAYBE THEY HEARD OUR COMMENTS THIS MORNING AND RAN FOR THE HILLS.
UM, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR ADVOCACY FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION AND BEING HERE.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE, UH, FOR THE SPEAKER? IF NOT, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MS. DAVIS, OH, HOLD ON A SECOND.
WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT OUR, OUR LANGUAGE HERE.
SO JUST FOR THE PUBLIC TO KNOW, UH, EVERY TIME WE HAVE A CASE THAT COMES BEFORE US, THE BOARD ATTORNEY PROVIDES LEGAL LANGUAGE OPTIONS FOR THE BOARD TO CHOOSE TO APPROVE, TO DENY, TO HOLD OVER, AND WHAT THE LEGAL LANGUAGE IS 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT ATTORNEYS.
UM, THE BOARD ATTORNEY DOES NOT TELL US WHAT WE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT DO.
THEY JUST GIVE US OPTIONS BASED ON WHAT DECISION WE WANT.
SO WHAT MS. DAVIS HAD JUST ASKED MYSELF WAS, OKAY, THIS PARTICULAR LEGAL LANGUAGE HAS DIFFERENT COMPONENTS THAT SHE CAN CHOOSE TO PUT IN THE MOTION OR NOT.
SO NOW SHE'S GONNA DECIDE WHAT COMPONENT SHE WANTS TO PUT IN THE MOTION.
SO THE CHAIR IS CALLING FOR A MOTION.
IS THERE A, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 2 6 0 0 0 0 5 6.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 26 0 0 0 5 6 ON APPLICATION OF ANO DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FRONT YARD.
STEPBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, THE IMPROVEMENT IS NOT WITHIN THE GENERAL BUILDING PATTERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE IN 2 6 0 0 0 0 5 6 TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
MS. DAVIS? I THINK THE MOTION'S PRETTY CLEAR.
I WENT THROUGH THE EXPLANATIONS WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
ALSO, UNFORTUNATELY, THE APPLICANT WAS NOT HERE, UM, TO GIVE US ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
THEREFORE, I AM, UM, PROPOSING THAT WE DENY THIS REQUEST.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. ROGERS? I CERTAINLY SHARE MRS. DAVIS' SENTIMENTS, UM, PARTICULARLY KNOWING THAT THE PDS ARE ALREADY TYPICALLY FLEXIBLE, UM, IN WHAT THEY ALLOW.
AND I BELIEVE INCLUDING THIS EXCEPTION, UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT DOES AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BEING THAT GOLDEN GATE BAPTIST CHURCH IS HERE, UM, AND WHAT LOOKS TO BE THE ONE OF THE LARGEST PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA.
UH, ON THE MOTION HEARING YOUR DISCUSSION, UH, THE CHAIR WILL, UH, WILL, WILL CODE TO A VOTE.
UH, WHAT'S ON THE, WHAT? THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IN 2 6 0 0 0 0 5 6 IS A MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, IS THERE ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS? NO.
SO TO BE CLEAR, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR ON 2 6 0 0 0 0 5 6, WHICH IS, UM, AT 1204, REVEREND CBT SMITH STREET IS A MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR ALL THREE OF THE REASONS, UH, ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, INCONSISTENT WITH BUILDING PATTERNS AND OUTSIDE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 5 6.
THE BOARD ON A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO, DENIES THE REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
UH, YOU'LL GET A, UH, LETTER FROM OUR BOARD SECRETARY WITHIN TWO DAYS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR COMMITMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
[00:20:08]
OKAY.UH, BOARD MEMBERS, I'VE BEEN ADVISED BY, UH, THE STAFF THAT THE APPLICANT ON THE PREVIOUS CASE, 2 5 0 0 0 83 FW TWO, THE FEE WAIVER CAVE CASE HAS NOW JOINED US.
UH, THE BOARD'S ACTION WAS IN ORDER WHEN WE VOTED, UH, TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE AT 1 0 6 WAS AT 1:06 PM UM, WE HAVE AN OPTION, WE CAN, UM, RECONSIDER THE MOTION AND THEN OPEN THE CASE BACK UP OR WE CAN PROCEED WITHOUT RECONSIDERING IT AND JUST MOVE FORWARD.
OUR RULES OR PROCEDURE SAY THAT THE BOARD CAN RECONSIDER ITS DECISION AS LONG AS IT'S DONE IN THE SAME DAY BY THE SAME PANEL.
AND WE'RE HERE AND IT'S THE SAME PANEL.
SO THE CHAIR WILL ENTER, ENTERTAIN A DISCUSSION AS TO WHAT WE WANNA DO ON 2 5 0 0 0 0 8 3 FW TWO.
MR. OVITZ, UH, AS A PERSON WHO MADE THE MOTION, I'M WILLING TO WITHDRAW IT TO REVERSE IT, UH, TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THEIR PEACE.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, I NEED YOU TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
I MOVE THAT THE, THAT THE MOTION MADE TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE THE FEE WAIVER APPLICATIONS OF ARTHUR TERRY CASE BOA TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 83 FW TWO.
UH, BE WITHDRAWN, PENDING NO TO BE RECONSIDERED, BE RECONSIDERED.
IT IS THERE A SECOND TO THE, ALRIGHT.
SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY MR. OVITZ IS TO RECONSIDER THE, THE PREVIOUS MOTION FOR BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 83 FW TWO.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. DAVIS.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S AN ORDER TO DEBATE A, A RECONSIDERATION.
SO, UH, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. OVITZ.
UM, ALTHOUGH, ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT WAS NOT HERE WHEN THE CASE WAS HEARD AND TO BE VOTED ON, UM, HE IS HERE AND I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY HIS PIECE.
MS. DAVIS DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
I THINK IT'S VERY KIND THAT, UM, MR. KOVICH IS RECONSIDERING THE MOTION.
I COULD GO EITHER WAY ON THIS.
I WANNA BE FAIR TO THE APPLICANT.
ON THE OTHER HAND, UM, I I DON'T THINK IT BODES WELL FOR THE APPLICANT THAT HE WAS A NO-SHOW AT THE LAST MONTH AND HE WAS ALSO LATE TODAY.
SO, UM, I'M WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FEEDBACK FROM THE OTHER MEMBERS.
YOU ALREADY HAD, I GOTTA GO AROUND FIRST.
I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ONE FIRST.
I WOULD AGREE WITH MS. DAVIS'S SENTIMENT.
UH, WE'RE, WE'RE OF THE PEOPLE WE'RE APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL AND SO, UH, I WANT TO BE GENEROUS, BUT I ALSO, THIS, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE'S TIME MATTERS.
SO STAFFS OURS AND THE PUBLIC'S.
SO, BUT I ALSO SUPPORT THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE MOTION, CALL THE VOTE.
THE BOARD, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO RECONSIDER THE BOARD'S DECISION IN BO A 2 5 0 0 0 0 8 3.
WHAT IS THE REQUIRED VOTE TO RECONSIDER? UH, I THINK IT'S JUST A SIMPLE MAJORITY.
IT'S A SIMPLE MAJORITY 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT GRANTING A PROPERTY.
AND SO PROCEDURAL THINGS ARE, MAJORITY PROPERTY RIGHTS REQUIRE THE 75% OR FOUR.
IS THAT A GOOD WAY OF PUTTING IT? YEAH.
SOMETHING ABOVE, BEYOND WHAT THE EXISTING CODE IS? YES.
MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MANNER OF BO A 2 5 0 0 0 8 3 FW.
TWO, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY RECONSIDERS ITS PREVIOUS, UH, DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE.
UH, AND THEREFORE WE CAN GO BACK TO THAT ITEM, UH, IN THE MATTER OF BOA 2 5 0 8 3.
FW TWO IS THE APPLICANT HERE PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THANK YES, THANK YOU ALL FOR HEARING ME.
APOLOGIZE, JOHNSON BEING LATE.
ALRIGHT, UH, IN A MOMENT I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN SHE'S GONNA SWEAR YOU IN.
[00:25:01]
ADDRESS IS 2 6 1 5 STEVENSON STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 5.DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, MA'AM.
UM, OUR RULES OR PROCEDURES SAY THAT AN APPLICANT IS GIVEN OR THERE ARE NO OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS, CORRECT? I'M GONNA REPEAT MYSELF, RIGHT? CORRECT.
SO OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE SAYS THAT AN APPLICANT IS ALLOWED FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD.
WE'LL BE FLEXIBLE TO THAT TO FORGIVE YOU SUFFICIENT TIME IN ORDER TO MAKE YOUR CASE.
UM, I WILL SAY TO YOU AS WELL AS TO THE BOARD AND THE PUBLIC, OUR CRITERIA IS THAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO DETERMINE THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.
RIGHT? ALRIGHT, FOR THE RECORD, UH, I'VE JUST BEEN GIVEN FROM THE BOARD, UH, ADMINISTRATOR THREE, WHOOPS, MORE THAN THREE SEVERAL DOCUMENTS.
THIS IS WHAT YOU JUST GAVE THE STAFF? YES.
JUST NOW? NO, I HAD SENT IT IN.
SO THIS, SO IT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN SUBMITTED BUT NOT CIRCULATED TODAY.
SO WE'RE GONNA LET YOU SPEAK AND THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO READ THIS WITHOUT IGNORING YOU.
'CAUSE I I DON'T WANNA DO THIS.
SO GO AHEAD AND THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH THIS.
WELL, I BOUGHT MY PROPERTY A FEW YEARS AGO.
I GOT IT FROM FAMILY THROUGH FAMILY, UH, AFFIDAVIT OF EARTHSHIP.
VERY SMALL PROPERTY IN SOUTH DALLAS.
UM, AND RIGHT NOW IT'S, IT'S JUST ME AND MY LITTLE GIRLS AND I'M TRYING MY BEST TO MAKE IT WORK.
AND, UM, AND QUITE HONESTLY, I WORK, BUT I DON'T THINK I MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO BE ABLE TO PAY THIS WITHIN THE TIME EFFICIENT MANNER.
I MEAN THE, THE TWO YEARS THAT I HAVE, IT'S ALREADY BEEN ABOUT TWO YEARS THAT I'VE ALREADY HAD IT BUILT AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S FINISHED, BUT THERE'S ISSUES THAT I'M DEALING WITH THAT I HAVE TO GET FIXED THAT, UM, I HAVE TO TAKE A LEGAL ISSUE IN GETTING IT FIXED, WHICH IS, WHICH IS SMALL THINGS.
SO WITHIN A TIMELY MANNER WITH PAYING THIS FEE, IT, IT JUST SORT OF CREATES A, A HARDSHIP.
THE PAPERS ARE THAT I SENT IN.
UM, I'M CURRENTLY BEING SUED FOR A PREVIOUS DEBT OF ABOUT $15,000.
I END UP JUST SETTLING FOR $10,000.
AND THAT HAS TO, I HAVE TO START MAKING THOSE PAYMENTS IN TWO DAYS.
UM, WITH EVEN DEALING WITH THIS, THIS, THIS ADDITION THAT I HAD PUT ON MY HOUSE, I HAD TO PAY, UH, $19,000 IN PROPERTY TAXES, WHICH I HAD PAID THIS YEAR.
AND IT JUST, I, IT TOOK A, A HECK OF A FINANCIAL HIT.
NOT ONLY THAT I HAD TO PAY, I HAD TO GET, UM, A TAX LIEN AGAINST MY HOUSE PAID OFF.
AND ALL OF THIS IS RECENT JUST TO SORT OF DO WHATEVER I NEED TO DO TO GET THIS, THIS TWO STORY CLEARED, YOU KNOW? AND, UH, I DON'T HAVE ANY, I DON'T HAVE ANY PAPERWORK TO PROVE IT, BUT I, I'M A FATHER OF TWO, TWO LITTLE GIRLS.
AND, AND SO THE SCHOOL, THE SCHOOL SEASON, THAT'S, THAT'S SETTING IN WITH ALL OF THAT THAT'S GOING ON.
LIKE I SAY, I'M A SINGLE FATHER AND, UM, IT'S JUST BEEN A LOT TO KEEP UP WITH.
AND I HAD JUST ACTUALLY STARTED THIS JOB PREVIOUSLY.
UH, I STARTED THIS, I'VE BEEN AT THIS JOB FOR ABOUT TWO MONTHS.
PREVIOUSLY BEFORE THAT, UH, FOR NINE MONTHS I WAS IN SCHOOL AND BECAUSE OF FINANCIAL, I HAD TO COME BACK TO WORK.
SO I HAD TO STOP SCHOOL JUST TO COME BACK AND I WAS IN SCHOOL FULL TIME AND THAT CREATED A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, WHICH IS MY, WHICH IS MY, MY ISSUE.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO SORT OF PAINT THE PICTURE FOR YOU GUYS THAT THIS, THIS, THIS HARDSHIP.
IT'LL JUST, IT JUST WON'T WORK OUT FOR ME RIGHT NOW.
I DON'T KNOW, WHATEVER I HAD TO DO, WHATEVER ELSE I HAD TO SAY.
BUT I THINK THAT'S, THAT PRETTY MUCH SUMS IT UP.
UH, THERE'S OTHER THINGS ON MY PROPERTY THAT NEED TO BE DONE.
THE HOUSE IS NOT, IT'S AN OLD HOUSE, LIKE I SAY, BUILT IN 1929.
SO MANY, UM, DAMAGES AND THINGS THAT I HAVE TO HAVE DONE.
SO I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS COULD TAKE, UM, THE FEE WORTH IN CONSIDERATION.
UM, AND LIKE I SAY, THANK YOU ALL FOR HEARING ME AGAIN.
I KNOW I HAD MISSED, I WASN'T ON TOP OF WHATEVER I NEEDED TO DO.
LIKE I SAY, LIFE, BE LIFE AND THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY.
I'VE SPENT A FEW MINUTES GOING THROUGH THIS AND I'M GONNA ASK A QUESTION OR TWO, THEN I'M GONNA PASS THIS DOWN TO GIVE EACH BOARD MEMBER AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THIS.
UM, IS THE GIST OF THIS SAYING THAT, UH, FROM WHAT I READ, IS THE GIST OF THIS SAYING THAT THESE ARE A LEGAL SETTLEMENT OF IN INDEBTEDNESS THAT YOU HAVE INCURRED AND THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO TAKE CARE OF, YOU SAID AN ILLEGAL DEBT? YES.
OR FROM WHAT I SEE, THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE GIVING US IS PAYMENT AGREEMENTS, UH,
[00:30:01]
FOR AN AMOUNT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, UH, BEGINNING IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR, GOING THROUGH NEXT YEAR.AND THIS IS THE REASON WHY YOU'RE SAYING YOU CANNOT PAY THE, THE, UH, APPLICATION FEES.
UM, WITHIN THAT, LIKE I SAY, I, I HAVE PROOF THAT I, THAT I HAD JUST PAID MY PROPERTY TAXES, THE, UM, THE TAX LIEN AGAINST MY HOUSE.
WELL, THAT'S A PRO, THAT'S A REQUIREMENT BEFORE THE STAFF WILL RIGHT, RIGHT.
ACCEPT YOUR REQUEST AND GET A PERMIT.
IS THEY'LL, THEY'LL CHECK TO SEE WITH DALLAS COUNTY WHETHER RIGHT, ALL THE TAXES ARE PAID.
BUT I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW, IT IT THAT I TOOK A HIT FOR THAT
I MEAN, THAT IS THE STANDARD CHECKLIST.
UH, AS WELL AS YEAH, I'M, AND I'M NOT BARREL BEATING YOU, I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S WHAT THEY DO.
'CAUSE THE CASE CAN'T COME HERE UNTIL PEOPLE'S TAXES ARE PAID.
ONE OF THE LAST SHEETS THAT YOU PUT IN HERE THAT YOU PUT IN, THAT YOU, THAT GAVE US WAS A SCHEMATIC OF, IS THIS THE SCHEMATIC OF YOUR HOME YES.
THAT YOU PROVIDED US? YES, SIR.
UH, AND IT SHOWS THAT YOU'RE BUILDING A STRUCTURE IN THE BACK BECAUSE YOUR REQUEST SAYS THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT REGULATIONS AND THEN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
BUT THIS IS WHAT YOUR INTENTION IS.
UM, I'M GONNA PASS THIS DOWN AND ALLOW EACH MEMBER A FEW MINUTES TO LOOK AT IT.
SINCE WE HADN'T SEEN IT BEFORE.
SO WE'RE JUST GONNA HOLD FOR A MOMENT UNLESS ANYONE HAS A QUESTION AT THIS JUNCTURE.
SO THE, I GUESS THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT YOU'RE BUILDING ON YOUR PROPERTY, IT'S, IT'S ALREADY, IT'S BEEN BUILT.
WHEN WAS IT COMPLETED? UH, JANUARY OF, NOT THE, THE YEAR BEFORE LAST JANUARY OF 2025.
SO WE WANT UP, UH, YOUR, YOUR QUESTION IS IN ORDER, AS LONG AS IT'S TIED TO THE CRITERIA THAT A PAYMENT OF $1,200 WOULD RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
SO WHAT I WOULD ADVISE BOARD MEMBERS TO ASK ANY QUESTION OR COMMENT, REFERENCE TO THAT STATEMENT, WELL THEN STAY IT THEN, THEN PUT IT.
I THINK THE GENERAL CONCERN THEN OF MINE FOR THAT QUESTION WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, WE, THERE WERE ENOUGH FINANCIAL MEANS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT AND HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE LACK OF FINANCIAL MEANS FOR THIS HARDSHIP WAIVER.
SO THAT'S WHERE THE QUESTION STEMS FROM.
I JUST WANT TO TIE YOUR QUESTION TO SAYING THOSE WORDS BECAUSE THAT, BECAUSE, UH, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY WOULD SAY, OUR CRITERIA TODAY IS, ARE WE FINDING THAT PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP? IT'S UP TO US TO DETERMINE WHAT IS FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
SO IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION THAT RELATES TO THE APPLICANT'S FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, GO FOR IT.
SO IS THE QUESTION OUT OF LINE? BECAUSE I MEAN, NO, I'M JUST TRYING TO PUT OKAY.
YOU WANNA KNOW? I CAN ADJUST THE QUESTION PLEASE, BUT I WOULD, DO YOU WANNA KNOW WHY? JUST A MINUTE.
MR. TERRY, I THINK YOU'RE, I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING WHERE I'M GOING.
RIGHT HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT $1,200 AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARDSHIP.
WE, WE SIMPLY CAN'T COME UP WITH THE $1,200, BUT I'M ASKING, YOU KNOW RIGHT.
THE TIMELINE AND THE COST AND THE EXPENSE OF THIS PROJECT.
SO AT THAT TIME, I HAD A, I HAD A DECENT JOB, A GOOD JOB.
AND HONESTLY, BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS SO SMALL, I HAVE A LOT OF STUFF THAT I, I, I NEED I FOR STORAGE.
AND SO IMPULSIVELY, I, I DID THAT AND I, I HAD IT AT THE TIME.
THERE WAS A JOB, I DID SOLAR PANELS BEFORE I DID A-D-C-A-D-T SECURITY, AND IT WAS A TEMP JOB, BUT LIKE I SAY, IT WAS, IT WAS APPEARING PRETTY DECENT AND IT SEEMS LIKE NOT SEEMS LIKE IN, IN THE CONSTRUCTION FIELD.
AND I GOT LAID OFF AND I WAS, I, AND I, RIGHT AFTER THAT, I TOOK NINE MONTHS.
I TOOK NINE MONTHS OFF TO GO TO SCHOOL.
AND WITHIN THAT TIMEFRAME, IT WAS JUST, AND THEN OF COURSE I HAD TO PAY THE PROPERTY TAXES.
LIKE I SAID, I KNOW I HAVE TO PAY THE PROPERTY TAXES, BUT THIS IS, I, I'M GONNA LET YOU KNOW THE, UM, HOW IT, HOW IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
AND SO OVER THE COURSE, I HAD MONEY SAVED UP.
THAT'S WHY I WAS ABLE TO GO TO SCHOOL.
AND LIKE I SAY, I WAS, I THINK I WAS UP AND THEN IMPULSIVELY, I BOUGHT THE EXTRA, EXTRA SPACE AND I HAD IT.
AND I DON'T, HONESTLY JUST DON'T HAVE IT AT, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? LIKE, IT JUST UPS AND DOWNS.
I THINK THAT'S SIMPLY HOW I PUT IT.
SO IF YOU HAD TO SAY BALLPARK, WHAT, WHAT WAS THE COST OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT SINCE IT'S COMPLETED NOW? BALLPARK? UH, $20,000.
[00:35:01]
CAN, CAN I ASK HIM TO REPEAT WHAT HE, THE LAST OH, ALSO, ALSO, I, I DIDN'T PAY IT ALL IN FULL.I ASKED MR. TERRY, UM, JUST BALLPARK, ROUGH COST OF THE PROJECT.
AND HE STATED 20,000, CORRECT? MM-HMM
SO, SO OUR, OUR, I, I'M GONNA AGAIN ZERO US IN ON THE REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT IS TO WAIVE THE FEE, WHICH IS 600 AND 600, $1,200 BECAUSE THE APPLICANT, AND I'M JUST STATING OUR RULES, 'CAUSE THE, A A APPLICANT IS CLAIMING THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
THAT IS WHAT THE QUESTION IS BEFORE THE BOARD.
UH, I WANT TO GIVE EVERYONE AN AMPLE TIME TO LOOK AT THIS.
'CAUSE WE HADN'T SEEN THIS BEFORE.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS UNTIL YOU GET YOUR ROUND, MR. HVI? UH, MY QUESTION'S NOT FOR THE APPLICANT.
IT'S, IT'S FOR I GUESS THE STAFF.
UM, SO IS THE UPSHOT OF THIS, WE EITHER APPROVE BOTH WAIVERS OR NO WAIVERS.
UM, THE REQUEST IS FOR $1,200 BECAUSE THIS SAYS AN APPLICATION OF MR. UH, MR. CHERRY FOR A FEE WAIVER, FOR A VARIANCE IN THE HEIGHT AND A VARIANCE OF THE STRUCTURE OF FLOOR AREA FOR A, A STRUCTURES, ACCESSORIES, SINGLE FAMILY USE.
AND IT'S THE FEE WAIVER IS WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED.
SO WE'RE BEING ASKED FOR $1,200, BUT, BUT THERE WERE TWO FEES.
SO ARE WE OBLIGATED TO EITHER APPROVE REFUNDING, BOTH OF THEM OR NONE OF THEM? IT, IT'S NOT A REFUNDING, IT'S A WAIVER.
AND, UH, MY INTERPRETATION IS GOING TO BE MR. BOARD ATTORNEY.
ARE YOU HEARING THIS? I'M ABOUT TO, I I'M, I'M NOT GONNA RULE, BUT I'M GONNA CONJECTURE IS THAT WE CAN APPROVE 1200, 600 OR ZERO.
THAT'S, THAT'S MY INTERPRETATION, MR. BOARD ATTORNEY.
IS THAT A FAIR INTERPRETATION? 1200.
600 OR ZERO? IF THE, THAT'S A FAIR INTERPRETATION.
IF THE BOARD CAN FIND THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP FOR 1200, BUT NOT $600.
LIKE IF, IF, IF THERE'S, IF THAT'S, IF THE BOARD FINDS THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT $1,200 RESULTS IN A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, BUT THAT $600 DOES NOT NO.
WHAT WHAT I'M ABOUT TO RULE IS THAT THE BOARD HAS THE DISCRETION UNDER THE CODE TO GRANT ZERO WAIVER, $600 WAIVER, OR $1,200 WAIVER.
IF WE DETERMINE THAT SOME OR ALL IS A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
I I THINK WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING, CHAIRMAN, ARE WE THAT IF, IF THERE'S, IF THE BOARD FINDS IT.
SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IS, IS IT AN ALL OR NOTHING? IT'S NOT AN ALL OR NOTHING, BUT THERE HAS TO BE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SHOW, WELL, WE HAVE VERY, THE ONLY EVIDENCE WE HAVE IS THE TESTIMONY SURE.
PLUS THE, WHAT WE WERE GIVEN IN WRITING, AND THEN WE MAKE A JUDGMENT.
AND IF, AND WE MAKE A MOTION AND WE STATE THAT IN THE MOTION AS SUCH, AND IF THE BOARD FINDS THAT THERE'S, THAT A $600, UM, FEE WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, BUT 1200 WOOD, THEN YOU CAN WAIVE ONE.
I, THAT, THAT IS MY JUDGMENT THAT THE BOARD HAS THAT FLEXIBILITY TO DO ZERO 600 OR 1200.
SO DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SORRY, MR. DORN IS LOOKING AT THE PACKAGE AND THEN WE'LL GO TO YOU AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK.
MS. DAVIS, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, SO TH THIS STRUCTURE, THIS ACCESSORY UNIT IN THE BACK OF YOUR HOUSE, YOU'RE SAYING IT ONLY COSTS $20,000 TO BUILD? YES, MA'AM.
IT HAS, OUR QUESTIONS NEED TO BE GEARED TO THE CRITERIA OF, YES, THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
SO IF YOU WANT TO ASK A QUESTION, PLEASE RELATE TO THAT CRITERIA.
I, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IF YOU'VE INVESTED THAT, THAT MUCH IN THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, WHY IS THE 1200 A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE, THAT THAT QUESTION IS IN ORDER.
'CAUSE OF THE WAY YOU PHRASED IT.
WELL, AS I WAS TELLING, UM, THE, UM, GENTLEMAN RIGHT HERE THAT AT THE TIME WHEN I GOT IT DONE, WHICH IS ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, UM, I, I WASN'T IN THE FI I DIDN'T SEEM TO BE IN THE FINANCIAL BIND RIGHT AFTER I HAD, I DID IT.
[00:40:01]
TRAVELING JOB DOING SOLAR.I HAD, I HAD SPENT TWO WEEKS AT HOME.
IT WAS FOR THE FIRST OF THE YEAR, AND AFTER THE TWO WEEKS I HAD GOT LET GO OF, THEY LET ALL OF US GO.
AND SO I WAS UP AND I WAS THINKING I WAS SECURE AND I WASN'T.
AND, AND THAT'S SIMPLY, SIMPLY PUT.
AND, AND I HAVEN'T HAD A DECENT POSITION LIKE THAT IN, IN A WHILE, YOU KNOW, SO I WAS UP AND I, I I, I DO IMPULSIVE THINGS, BUT AT, AT, AT THE, I NEEDED SPACE.
I NEEDED SPACE FOR ALL MY, MY PROPERTY.
SO JUST LET'S BE PATIENT FOR A MOMENT AND LET MR. HOP FINISH READING IT.
UM, I THINK WE'VE HAD A LITTLE, WELL, UM, GO AHEAD.
I THINK WE'VE HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU PROVIDE US.
UM, BOARD MEMBERS, WE HAVE, UM, THREE CHOICES.
WE CAN, UH, MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE TWO FEE WAIVERS, 600 AND 600, WHICH WOULD BE $1,200.
WE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
ONE OF THE TWO FEE WAIVERS WOULD BE $600, OR WE CAN DENY BOTH REQUESTS FOR THE FEE WAIVERS AND APPROVE $0.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
DID I, DID I STATE THAT SUFFICIENTLY OR YOU WANT ME TO STATE IT DIFFERENTLY? MR. BOARD ATTORNEY? I, I THINK YOU STATED IT CORRECTLY.
I THINK THE ATTORNEYS ARE, IT'S AGAIN, OKAY, SO ALL THIS ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDERS.
AREN'T WE LUCKY? ALRIGHT, MR. BOARD ATTORNEY ON THE RECORD, UH, THIS MORNING OR THIS AFTERNOON AT 1:06 PM THE BOARD MAY, UH, APPROVED A MOTION ON A FIVE TO ZERO VOTE TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
THEN SUBSEQUENTLY, UH, IT WAS ADVISED TO US THAT THE APPLICANT MADE IT INTO THE CHAMBER TO THE MEETING AND THE CHAIR ACKNOWLEDGED THAT AND ASKED THE BOARD IF WE WANTED TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS DECISION ON A MOTION OF MR. OVITZ, THE BOARD ON A FIVE TO ZERO VOTE MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS DECISION.
NOW, DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT RECONSIDERATION AGAIN? I THOUGHT THAT REVERSED THE PREVIOUS DECISION.
YOU, THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER SIMPLY BROUGHT US BACK TO THE POINT WHERE YOU HAVEN'T VOTED ON THE MOTION THAT WAS ORIGINALLY ON THE FLOOR.
THEY NEVER MADE IT TO THE FLOOR.
THE MOTION THAT WAS ORIGINALLY ON THE FLOOR WAS THE MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO THAT IS THE MOTION THAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE FLOOR.
SO I NEED TO ASK MR. KOVICH TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION.
HE CAN WITHDRAW IT, THE BODY CAN DISPOSE OF IT.
SO, MR. KOVICH, WILL YOU WITHDRAW YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION TO DENY I WITHDRAW THAT MOTION.
MR. ROGERS, WOULD YOU WITHDRAW YOUR SECOND PLEASE? I WITHDRAW.
OKAY, SO, MR. BORDER ATTORNEY, I LOVE THIS ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, SO I THAT'S FINE.
UH, SO THEREFORE NOW WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE THE CASE IS CALLED TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN.
NOW WE CAN DECIDE HOW WE WANT TO DISPOSE OF IT NOW.
NOW YOU CAN MAKE THE, THE FOUR FLOORS OPEN, THE THREE OPEN FOR A MOTION.
SO WE AS A BOARD CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE TWO $600 WAIVERS, WHICH IS $1,200.
WE AS A BOARD COULD SPLIT DIVIDE THE QUESTION AND APPROVE ONE 600 AND DENY THE OTHER 600.
OR WE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT.
SO OUR LAWYERS WOULD SAY TO ME THAT THEY REALLY DON'T WANT US TO DEBATE THE MOTION UNTIL THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
AND I SEE, FEEL THE HEATER OVER IN THE CORNER DO SAYING THE SAME THING.
SO THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION SO THAT WE HAVE A DISCUSSION.
[00:45:07]
OKAY.I MEAN, HOWEVER WE WANNA DO IT.
AND THEN WE'LL DISCUSS THE MOTION AND THEN VOTE ON IT.
AND WE EITHER DISPOSE OR MOVE FORWARD.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT A MOTION TO DENY IS SIMPLE MAJORITY A MOTION TO GRANT REQUIRES FOUR.
A MOTION TO GRANT HAS TO HAVE FOUR VOTES.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THE MOTION TO GRANT IT FAILS AND IT GOES WITH PREJUDICE UNDER OUR RULES? UNLESS SOMEONE COMES BACK AND JUST MAKES ANOTHER MOTION.
BUT WE'LL GET THERE WHEN WE GET THERE.
SO I'M GONNA ASK SOMEONE TO PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR SO WE CAN DEBATE IT AND THEN WE CAN ALWAYS CHANGE OUR MINDS.
MR. HAITZ, I'LL TAKE A SHOT, PLEASE.
OTHERWISE I WILL, UM, I'LL PUT ONE DOWN.
WHAT'S THAT? I'LL, I'LL, I'LL PUT ONE OUT TO DISCUSS IF IT DOESN'T GET PICK ONE.
OKAY, SO OUR OPTIONS ARE TO, THE OPTION IS FOR THE BOARD TO APPROVE TWO $600 FEE WAIVERS, WHICH IS $1,200.
THAT REQUIRES FOUR OF FIVE VOTES.
OUR OPTION IS TO DIVIDE THE QUESTION AND APPROVE ONE FEE WAIVER AND DENY THE OTHER FEE WAIVER.
UH, THE OPTION THREE IS TO DENY BOTH FEE WAIVER REQUESTS.
IF WE DENY ONE YES, DOESN'T THAT AUTOMATICALLY LEAVE THE OTHER? NO.
THE LANGUAGE THE ATTORNEYS TOLD ME IS TO USE THE MOTION IS TO DIVIDE THE QUESTION.
BUT A MOTION TO DIVIDE IS ONLY AN ORDER ONCE A MOTION IS ON THE FLOOR.
SO YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE MAIN MOTION AND THEN DIVIDE THAT QUESTION.
THIS IS GETTING A LITTLE BIT TOO, TOO MUCH FOR ME NOW.
NOW I'M GONNA NOT TURN MY TURN OVER TO MY ATTORNEYS ANYMORE.
I MEAN, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH.
UM, 'CAUSE NOW THIS TELLS ME IN THE FUTURE I'M GONNA TELL THE STAFF ALWAYS HAVE SEPARATE REQUESTS FOR SEPARATE FEE WAIVERS.
'CAUSE YOU WE HAVE TWO IN ONE.
THIS IS WHY THE CITY ATTORNEYS, SO DO WE ONLY NAME ONE OF THE TWO IF SO, SO YOU REALLY WANT HIM TO MAKE A MOTION FOR BOTH AND THEN DIVIDE, OR YOU WANT HIM THAT THAT IS HOW YOU DIVIDE THE QUESTION UNDER ROBERT'S RULE.
AND YOU HAVE TO DIVIDE THE QUESTION.
YOU HAVE TO, AND A DIVISION OF THE QUESTION IS IN ORDER.
ONCE A MAIN MOTION IS ON THE FLOOR, YOU CAN'T PRED DIVIDE A QUESTION WHEN THERE'S NO QUESTION.
WHY CAN'T WE JUST APPROVE A FEE WAIVER FOR ONE AND THEN THEN MAKE A MOTION A FEE WAIVER DENIED FOR THE OTHER? WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT? AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO.
I YES, THAT, THAT, THAT IS AN OPTION.
SO WHAT I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO DO IS MAKE A MOTION.
ARE YOU GUYS CHANGING YOUR MIND AGAIN? NO.
SO IF YOU DON'T WANNA DO THIS, I'LL BE GLAD TO DO THIS.
OKAY? I'LL LET YOU, YOU WHAT'S THAT? I'LL LET YOU.
2 5 0 0 8 3 FW TWO ON THE APPLICATION OF ARTHUR TERRY DENY THE REQUEST TO WAIVE THE FEE OF FILING FEES TO BE PAID IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE REQUEST WI UH, WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE TESTAMENT SHOWS THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP FOR THE APPLICANT.
IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE REQUEST FOR A FEE WAIVER.
IT'S IN MY OPINION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SHOWN DIRECT CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAPACITY TO PAY AND THE FEES INVOLVED.
THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO US SHOWS A DOESN'T SHOW THAT THERE IS A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS REQUEST.
THERE ARE OTHERS ISSUES BUT NOT RELATING TO THIS REQUEST.
MS. DAVIS? I AGREE WITH THE CHAIRMAN'S OPINION.
I ALSO BELIEVE THIS IS MORE ABOUT MONEY MISMANAGEMENT, NOT FINANCIAL HARDSHIP DISCUSSION.
AND THE MOTION, UH, IN ORDER TO APPROVE THIS MOTION, IT REQUIRES SIMPLE MAJORITY, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
BEFORE WE DO THAT, ARE THE MOTIONS THAT ARE ON THE FLOOR IN ORDER IN THE BOARD ATTORNEY'S OPINION? YES THEY ARE.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY, MS. DAVIS? AYE.
[00:50:01]
AYE.MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BO A 2 5 0 0 0 8 3 FW.
THE BOARD DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE REQUEST FOR A FEE WAIVER FOR TWO FEE WAIVERS.
THANK YOU AS, UH, DIFFICULT AS THAT PROCESS WAS.
WE WANNA DO IT FORTHRIGHTLY, OPENLY AND LEGALLY.
WE'RE LOSING OUR EMERITUS ATTORNEY AFTER THAT LAST CASE.
WE LOVE DANIEL MOORE AND ANYTIME HE WANTS TO COME, HE'S ALWAYS WELCOME.
YOU'RE GONNA MAKE OUR ANNUAL MEETING THIS YEAR.
NEXT ITEM ON THE, ON THE, UH, AGENDA IS BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 3 4 AT 5 3 0 3 BONITA AVENUE IS THE APPLICANT HERE.
OKAY, IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME BACK UP.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY ARE WHO ARE THE REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR? 53 0 3 BONITA CASE.
THE APPLICANT'S JUST THE APPLICANT, CORRECT.
IF YOU'D GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN THE BOARD SECRETARY.
SO THERE'S NO ONE ELSE REGISTERED TO SPEAK? NOT ON THIS CASE, SIR.
IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS THEN OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN.
MY ADDRESS IS 5 0 2 2 THRUSH STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 9.
OKAY, MS. BOARD, SECRETARY, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES.
SO, UM, THIS IS A HOLDOVER CASE.
UH, I DON'T THINK YOU WERE WITH US TWO MONTHS AGO WHEN WE HEARD THIS LAST.
UM, OUR RULES OR PROCEDURES, THE APPLICANT'S GIVEN FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT.
ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK GETS FIVE MINUTES.
ANY OPPOSITION GETS FIVE MINUTES, ALL THE ABOVE.
UH, THEN YOU'RE ALLOWED REBUTTAL SINCE YOU'RE, YOU ARE THE ONE AND ONLY YOU GET TO SPEAK AND THEN WE'LL ASK QUESTIONS.
PLEASE PROCEED AND GO A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE SO WE HEAR EVERY WORD.
AND IN THE MEANTIME, I'M SENDING DOWN THE AISLE THE SAME THING I DID THIS MORNING, UH, WHICH ARE COMMENTS FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
UH, AS I MENTIONED, MY NAME IS BEN FOGLER.
CAN YOU HEAR, IS THIS OKAY? THERE WE GO.
I'M THE CONTRACTOR, UH, FOR THE PROPOSED FENCE PLAN.
UH, AND CAMMIE MCKEE IS THE HOMEOWNER WHO'S, WHO'S HERE AS WELL.
UM, AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE SEEKING THREE EXCEPTIONS, UH, FOR THE FENCE RELATED TO THE HEIGHT, THE LOCATION, AND THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES NEAR THE DRIVEWAY.
UH, WE DID HAVE THE, THE BENEFIT OF LISTENING TO YOUR 10 30, UH, DISCUSSION.
UM, AND AS YOU DISCUSSED, THE NEW PLAN PROPOSED, UH, ADDRESSES WHAT I THINK WAS YOUR MAJOR CONCERN AROUND THE SOUTH VISIBILITY TRIANGLE BY THE DRIVEWAY.
SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS EXPANDED THE WIDTH OF THE SLIDING GATE, SUCH THAT WHEN IT OPENS, IT DOES COMPLETELY CLEAR THAT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, UM, SUCH THAT THERE'S, THERE'S NO OBSTRUCTION, UM, FOR ONCOMING, YOU KNOW, PEDESTRIANS OR VEHICLES FROM THE SOUTH SIDE.
UH, WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO ADD CONVEX MIRRORS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE GATE, UH, LIKE YOU WOULD SEE IN A PARKING GARAGE, SUCH THAT IT, UH, ENHANCES VISIBILITY FOR BOTH DRIVERS AND PEDESTRIANS AS WELL AS ANYONE COMING UP THE DRIVEWAY TO KIND OF SEE AROUND THE CORNERS.
UH, WE THINK THIS CREATES A VERY SAFE SETUP, UH, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL SO THAT THE, THE MCKEE FAMILY CAN ENHANCE THEIR PROPERTY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, AS WELL AS THEIR YARD FOR THEIR FAMILY.
UH, SO WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES, WHICH I THINK WERE KIND OF THE FOCAL POINT OF THE DISCUSSION IN JUNE AS WELL AS THIS MORNING, UH, OR ANY OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE FENCE.
THANK YOU MR. FO FOGLER, RIGHT? YES.
AND WHAT ARE, ARE YOU THE CONTRACTOR OR HOW ARE YOU IN RELATION
[00:55:01]
TO THIS APPLICANT OR TO THIS CASE? I'M THE CONTRACTOR.UM, BEFORE US, OUR THREE REQUESTS, ONE IS THE FENCE HEIGHT, SECOND IS THE FENCE OPACITY.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE, THE, UM, UH, THE HOW WELL YOU SEE THROUGH IT OR NOT.
AND THE THIRD IS THE VISIBLY OBSTRUCTION.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT BOARD MEMBERS.
THIS IS YOUR CHANCE, MR. ROGERS
I'M JUST GIVING ME A HARD TIME.
IF I COMPARE THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD IN THE MEETING IN JUNE WITH THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, OH, I THINK THE BOARD IS MUCH MORE AT EASE THAT YOU, THE APPLICANT YOU REPRESENT THE APPLICANT HAVE ADJUSTED THAT VISIBLY TRIANGLE.
SO WHAT WE WERE TOLD BY THE STAFF IS THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE GOES BEHIND THE WR IRON SLIDING GATE, GOES BEHIND THE FENCE.
AND SO THERE'S A CLEAR SIGHT TO THE NORTH OF THE EXIT FROM THE, UM, FROM THE DRIVEWAY.
THE GATE WILL SLIDE TO THE SOUTH TO SOUTH TO THE SOUTH.
AS YOU, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER FROM PREVIOUSLY, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE NARROW STREET CARS PARKED IN THE STREET COMING IN AND OUT THE SIDEWALK AND SO FORTH.
I'D ALSO MENTION TO YOUR CREDIT, UH, IS THERE'S A LOT OF SUPPORT THAT WAS EVIDENCED BY THE FEEDBACK WE GOT.
IT'S NOT CONTROLLING, IN OTHER WORDS IT DOESN'T MAKE THE DECISION, BUT IT HELPS US SAY THAT AS PART OF OUR CRITERIA, UM, ABOUT TRAFFIC HAZARD ISSUES AND, UM, ISSUES AS IT RELATES TO NON-AD ADVERSELY AFFECTING HAMMERING PROPERTIES.
WE ALSO SAW IN THE VIDEO, UH, THAT YOUR NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU, WHICH WOULD BE TO THE WEST, HAD A FENCE ALONG THE STREET AS WELL ON THEIR SIDE YARD.
UM, QUESTION FOR THE STAFF, FOR OUR BOARD ATTORNEY.
UH, THIS, GIVEN THIS, UM, WHAT AM I CALLING IT? UH, SITE PLAN.
THIS SITE PLAN SHOWS THE GATE SHOWS THE HEIGHT AND SHOWS THESE CONVEX SAFETY MIRRORS.
IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN LEGALLY REQUIRE OR IS THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT LISTED IN THE CODE AS A COMPONENT? IT IS NOT.
AND IF IT'S ON THERE, NOT WHAT THESE MIRRORS ARE NOT LISTED IN THE CODE.
HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE REQUIRING IT, YOU CAN ADD THAT AS A CONDITION SO LONG AS IT'S ON THEIR PROPERTY.
IF IT, IF IT UM, GOES INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY, THEY WOULD NEED A LICENSE AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULDN'T REQUIRE.
BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN OCCUR ON THEIR PROPERTY AND YOU THINK THAT WILL HELP, UM, WITH THE TRAFFIC, THEN YOU CAN UM, PUT THAT AS A CONDITION.
DO WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT IN THE LEGAL MOTION THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING US OR BY REFERENCING THE SITE PLAN? IT TIES THAT, THE ONLY REASON I'M MENTIONING THIS IS A IN THE HOUSE DISCUSSION, THE REASON I'M MENTIONING IT IS THAT WE ALWAYS WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE APPROVING THINGS THAT BUILDING INSPECTION CAN ENFORCE AND WE DON'T WANNA PROVE SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN'T CLEARLY ENFORCE.
YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO WANNA DO, WE DON'T WANNA DO ANYTHING VERBALLY.
SO BECAUSE IT'S INCLUDED ON THE SITE PLAN, IT, IT'S STAFF, IT'S ENFORCEABLE.
STAFF SAYS THAT THEY WOULD ENFORCE THE MIRRORS.
MUCH DIFFERENT CROWD THAN TWO MONTHS AGO.
I I WILL, I'LL EDITORIALIZE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES ARE THINGS THAT WE JEALOUSLY PROTECT 'CAUSE IT'S SAFETY.
IT'S THE UNKNOWN BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN ON THE STREET IN THE SIDEWALK THAT SOMEONE BACKS INTO AND IT'S, OH, WE'RE SORRY.
SO WE ARE, WE VERY JEALOUSLY PROTECT VISIBLY TRIANGLES.
I THINK YOU AS THE APPLICANT HAVE MADE A GREAT EFFORT TO TRY TO NEUTRALIZE THAT.
UH, I'M NOT BIG ON EIGHT FOOT FENCES, BUT YOU, YOUR PROPERTY IS PENALIZED BY BEING ON THE CORNER.
SO YOU HAVE TWO SIDE YARD FRONT YARDS.
EVEN THOUGH ONE REALLY LOOKS LIKE A SIDE YARD UNDER THE CODE, IT'S VIEWED AS A, A FRONT YARD.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BOA DASH 26 DASH 4 3 4 ON APPLICATION OF BEN FOGLER GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, I FURTHER
[01:00:01]
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 THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS ARE REQUIRED IN THE MATTER OF BOA 2 6 0 0 0 0 3 4.
MS. DAVIS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
MS. DAVIS, I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION, UM, BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WILL IT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY I THINK WILL BE IMPROVEMENT TO WHAT YOU CURRENTLY HAVE.
YOU ALSO HAVE GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT, WHICH WE APPRECIATE IT, UH, WHICH WE APPRECIATE.
SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS TODAY.
I SHARE MRS. DAVIS'S SENTIMENTS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE.
THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE MOTION, CALL THE VOTE.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENT FENCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO GRANT MS. BOARD SECRETARY MS. DAVIS AYE.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER BO OA 2 6 0 0 0 0 3 4 THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ON A FIVE TO ZERO VOTE.
UH, A, A GRANT YOUR REQUEST FOR AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE SPECIAL EXCEPTION MS. DAVIS SECOND MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BO A DASH 26 DASH 4 0 3 4 ON APPLICATION OF BEN FOGLER.
GRANT THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN A FENCE WITH PANEL HAVING LESS THAN 50% OPEN SURFACE AREA LOCATED LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT LOT LINE IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SURFACE AREA OPENNESS REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION 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 THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS ARE REQUIRED IN THE MATTER OF BOA 2 6 0 0 0 0 3 4 MS. DAVIS HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR LESS THAN 50% OPEN SERVICE AREA.
UM, IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MR. DORN DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION MS. DAVIS, I'M GONNA REPEAT MY COMMENTS.
YOU HAVE GREAT, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT.
I THINK THIS FENCE WILL LOOK NICER THAN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND, UM, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
DISCUSSION MR. DORN, I BELIEVE IT'S BEEN WELL SAID BY MS. DAVIS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION, MS. UH, BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
THIS VOTE ON THE FLOOR IS FOR 2 6 0 0 0 0 3 4.
THIS IS A MOTION TO GRANT, UH, A FENCE HAVING LESS THAN 50% OPEN SERVICE AREA.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY MS. DAVIS AYE.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BO 8 2 6 0 0 0 0 3 4, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AND A FIVE TO ZERO VOTE.
GRANTS THE REQUEST FOR, UH, OPEN, UH, OPEN SURFACE AREA LESS THAN 50%.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 26 DASH 4 0 3 4 ON APPLICATION OF BEN FOGLER GRANT THE REQUEST TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE 20 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE DRIVEWAY APPROACH ALONG ARY AVENUE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION REGULATION CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS IN REGARDS TO THE PORTION IN VIOLATION OF THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION TRIANGLE ARE REQUIRED IN THE MATTER OF BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 3 4.
MS. DAVIS MOVE TO GRANT THE REQUEST TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THIS 20 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
SECOND BY MR. DORN, UM, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
MS. DAVIS, I BELIEVE THAT THE CHANGES THAT YOU MADE IN THAT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DID.
THE MAYORS WILL ALSO BE OF HELP.
SO THAT IS WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
MR. DORN, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT CAME UP WITH A GREAT SOLUTION TO I WOULD AGREE.
I I WOULD SAY THAT, UH, THE PREVIOUS HEARING FOR THE APPLICANT WAS A LITTLE TOUGH, UH, BUT WE JEALOUSLY PROTECT THIS VISIBLY TRIANGLE ISSUE 'CAUSE WE DO NOT WANT, WE DON'T WANNA BE PART OF CREATING A TRAFFIC HAZARD, SO.
UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?
[01:05:01]
THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO GRANT A ITEM, A REQUEST FOR ITEMS IN THE 20 FOOT VISIBLY TRIANGLE CONSISTENT WITH THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BO OA 2 6 0 0 0 3 0 3 4.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ON A FIVE TO ZERO VOTE APPROVES GRANTS YOUR REQUEST FOR ITEMS IN 20 FOOT VISIBLY TRIANGLE.
ALL THREE UM, ITEMS YOU'LL GET AN EMAIL, UH, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM OUR BOARD SECRETARY WITHIN THE NEXT TWO DAYS.
LAST ITEM ON OUR, ON OUR PUBLISHED AGENDA TODAY IS BOA 2 6 0 0 0 0 5 3.
THIS IS AT 2 9 1 9 MAPLE SPRINGS BOULEVARD.
I IS THE APPLICANT HERE? THE APPLICANT IS ONLINE.
MS. ANAYA, PLEASE PROVIDE AUDIO AND VIDEO.
UH, THIS IS AT 2 9 1 9 MAPLE SPRINGS BOULEVARD.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY, HOW, WHAT SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE REGISTERED FOR AND AGAINST? I DO SPEAKING, UM, UM, WE HAVE ONE REGISTERED SPEAKER IN PERSON.
SO, BUT I WANT, I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW MANY WE HAVE IN FOUR AND HOW MANY AGAINST, UM, THE APPLICANT FOR YES.
THE APPLICANT'S ONLINE IN FAVOR AND THEN ONE PERSON IN PR IN THE CHAMBERS AGAINST? CORRECT.
UM, AND MA'AM YOU'RE THE APPLICANT, MS. ANYA? YES.
SO OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE SUCH THAT, UH, WHEN A CASE IS CALLED THE APPLICANT IS GIVEN FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TO PRESENT, THEN ANYONE ELSE IN FAVOR IS ALLOWED FIVE MINUTES TO COMMENT.
THEN ANYONE IN OPPOSITION IS ALLOWED TO COMMENT AND THEN THE APPLICANT'S GIVEN FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
UH, I'M GONNA BE FLEXIBLE WITH TIME.
I'M NOT GONNA CUT, I'M GONNA GIVE YOU AS MUCH TIME AS REASONABLE UNTIL YOU REPEAT YOURSELF.
AND THEN, THEN I'M GONNA SAY WE'VE MET OUR TIME, BUT I'M GONNA GIVE EVERYONE EQUAL TIME.
UM, IN A MOMENT THE, UM, BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN PLUS THE INDIVIDUALS HERE IN THE CHAMBER THAT ARE GONNA SPEAK.
IF YOU WOULD STAND, IF YOU WOULD GO AHEAD RAY.
UH, SHE'S GONNA, UH, SWEAR YOU IN.
GO AHEAD, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, YOU BOTH, UM, SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES.
SO I'M GONNA PASS DOWN THE RUN TO BOARD MEMBERS EMAILS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN FOR AND AGAINST THIS PROJECT.
AND WE DID THIS AT THE MORNING BRIEFING.
AND THE CORRECT PRONUNCIATION OF YOUR NAME MA'AM IS ANYA ANAYA.
ALRIGHT, MS. ANAYA, PLEASE PROCEED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME, UH, PANEL MEMBERS AND ALSO, UM, THE, ANY SPEAKERS THAT ARE HERE TODAY, WE ARE REQUESTING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO HAVE A 10 FOOT SIDE YARD DUE TO THE BLOCK CONTINUITY THAT WE'RE, UH, REQUIRED TO GIVE ON BRADFORD.
AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT A FEW THINGS WHY WE WOULD, UM, WE FEEL THAT IT, IT WOULD HELP US TO BE GRANTED THIS VARIANCE.
FIRST, THERE IS A EXISTING HOME THAT ACTUALLY SITS ABOUT 10 FEET AWAY, MAYBE A LITTLE LESS THAN 10 FEET.
AND WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING WOULD SET THE NEW HOME WITH A, UH, 10 FOOT SIDE YARD.
THEREFORE THERE WOULDN'T REALLY BE ANY DIFFERENCE TO WHERE THE HOUSE CURRENTLY SITS TO THE NEW ONE.
OUR CLIENT, UM, HE TRIED TO EXPLORE OTHER OPTIONS AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A REMODEL OF THAT SUCH, BUT IT JUST SEEMS TO BE MORE FEASIBLE FOR HIM TO DO A NEW CONSTRUCTION.
[01:10:01]
AND, UH, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS OTHER NEIGHBORS, UH, CLOSE BY THAT ARE ALSO LEGAL NON-CONFORMING IN REGARDS OF THEIR BLOCK CONTINUITY.I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, DIRECT YOU TO THE PRESENTATION, A FEW SLIDES THAT I'VE PROVIDED HERE.
SO, UM, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THERE, THIS IS WHAT THE HOUSE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO, IF WE ARE GRANTED THIS TO APPLY FOR, UH, FOR A BUILDING PERMIT.
AND IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE TO PAGE TWO.
SO THESE ARE, UH, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH SOME EXAMPLES THAT ARE LITERALLY JUST A FEW HOUSES DOWN FROM EACH OTHER THAT ARE NOT MEETING THE BLOCK CONTINUITY AS WELL.
SO WE HAVE 29, 27, YOU SEE THE, THE FRONT, UH, FACADE OF THE HOUSE.
AND THEN YOU CAN SEE ON THE SIDE THAT THERE, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A TWO STORY, UH, HOME THAT IS ABOUT 10 FEET AWAY.
WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE FROM, FROM, WE CAN SEE ON GOOGLE MAPS VERY SIMILAR.
YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
THERE IS 29 19, WHICH IS, I KNOW THIS IS, UM, I'M, I'M USING THE CURRENT HOUSE AS AN EXAMPLE AS WELL THAT WE HAVE ON THE LOT.
AND IF YOU COULD PLEASE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
YOU CAN SEE ON THE PICTURE ON THE BOTTOM, THEY DON'T HAVE THAT 25 BLOCK CONTINUITY.
IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
WE HAVE, UM, WHAT IS IT, 28 9 26 19.
UH, THAT IS ALSO NOT MEETING THE BLOCK CONTINUITY.
AND IF YOU COULD GO TO THE LAST SLIDE PLEASE.
AND WE HAVE, UH, THE LAST HOME HERE, UH, 26 0 3.
UH, THAT IS ALSO NOT MEETING THE BLOCK CONTINUITY.
I WOULD LIKE TO LASTLY SAY THAT WE APPRECIATE, UH, THE NEIGHBORS HAVING, YOU KNOW, VERY STRONG OPINION, UM, ABOUT THIS BECAUSE IT DOES SHOW THAT, AND I CAN SEE IT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE CAN SEE IT THAT IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT LOOKS TO BE VERY UNITED.
AND WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY WE WANNA BE COHESIVE RIGHT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, AND, AND JUST TO KIND OF THROW SOME POINTS HERE, WE ARE GOING TO MEET OUR VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
WE ARE GOING TO MEET THE HIGH, WE'RE GOING TO MEET THE LOT COVERAGE.
MAX IS ACTUALLY 45% AND WE WOULD BE PROPOSING TO HAVE 39%.
UH, WE WOULD BE MEETING THE PARKING, UH, WHICH WOULD, YOU KNOW, BE MET WITH OFFSITE PARKING BY HAVING A GARAGE, UH, ON THE PLANS, UH, AS WELL AS MEETING THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, THE SIDE INTERIOR SETBACK, THE REAR SETBACK.
AND WE KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, AS IN MOST NEIGHBORHOODS, UM, NEIGHBORS WILL HAVE PERSONAL OPINIONS OF, YOU KNOW, THE AESTHETICS AND ALL.
BUT WE WANT TO ASSURE THE ARCHITECTS WE'RE HAVING A BOARD OF VERY GOOD.
UH, THEY, THEY DO VERY GOOD DESIGNS.
UM, AND JUST AS A REMINDER TO EVERYONE, WE, WE ARE NOT IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS, BUT WE, WE ARE SYMPATHETIC AND WE DO WANNA BUILD SOMETHING THAT GOES COHESIVE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, WE DO APPRECIATE JUST PERSONALLY BY CANVASSING, TRY TO REACH OUT TO SOME, TO SOME, UH, OF THE NEIGHBORS AND, AND EXPLAIN TO THEM WHY WE ARE COMING HERE TODAY.
UH, WE GOT TO SEE DIFFERENT DESIGNS FROM MID-CENTURY, FROM, UH, OTHER MODERN, UH, ERA, MODERN HOMES, UH, TO MORE, UH, YOU KNOW, DI JUST ALL AROUND DIFFERENT TYPES OF, OF DESIGNS.
AND UH, OF COURSE WE'RE GONNA TRY TO HAVE SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, THAT'S APPEASING TO EVERYBODY THAT'S NOT AN EYESORE.
SO, UH, IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UM, I'M, I'M HERE TO ANSWER THEM.
UM, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
UM, CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES.
SO WHAT IS YOUR ROLE VIS-A-VIS THE PROPERTY? SO I AM THE APPLICANT.
I WAS HIRED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
UH, HE PURCHASED, UH, THE PROPERTY JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO.
SO I'M GOING INTO THE APPLICATION.
THIS SHOWS YOU IS THE APPLICANT WHEREAS RONELLE JOHNSON IS THE PROPERTY OWNER? YES SIR.
AND YOU'RE WITH XHO PROJECTS? YES.
AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS WITH EJS SOLUTION SOMETHING? YES.
SO IS THE PROPERTY OWNER LIVING THERE OR IT WAS BOUGHT TO TO BE REDEVELOPED? IT WAS BOUGHT TO BE REDEVELOPED.
THAT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN THEIR RIGHT.
ALRIGHT, UH, NEXT QUESTION IN THE BRIEFING THAT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HEARD THIS MORNING AT OUR 10 30 BRIEFING, THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
[01:15:01]
BLOCK FACE CONTINUITY, SPECIFICALLY ALONG BRADFORD 55 0 0 7 5 0 1 9 5 0 2 3 5 0 2 7, ALL THAT WERE ON THE SAME SIDE OF STREET.UM, AS THIS PROPERTY, WAS THERE ANY OUTREACH TO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS? 'CAUSE WE, WE DID NOT GET A RESPONSE FOR OR AGAINST, UH, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO TALK TO ANYBODY.
UH, WE DID CANVAS AND WE TRIED TO GO AFTER FIVE TO TRY TO CATCH PEOPLE AFTER WORK, POTENTIALLY GETTING MORE ANSWERS, BUT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO SPEAK TO ANYBODY FROM THAT SIDE.
UM, BECAUSE ONE OF OUR CRITERIA IS NOT TO CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST WHEN OWING TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND THAT SORT OF THING.
AND PART OF WHAT WE ENCOURAGE ALL APPLICANTS WHEN MAKING A VARIANCE CHANGE IS TO REACH OUT TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.
AS YOU MAY HAVE HEARD, IT'S NOT CONTROLLING, IT DOESN'T DECIDE THE CASE FOR US.
IT INFLUENCES THE CASE FOR US AND WE'RE, UH, WE WANT, WE WANT AS MUCH INFORMATION AS WE CAN.
UM, THAT IS OF MY CONCERN QUITE HONESTLY.
MS. ANAYA AN YES ANAYA, THAT IS MY PRINCIPLE CONCERN IS THAT BLOCK FACE ALONG BRADFORD.
I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT MAPLE SPRINGS 'CAUSE YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR A CHANGE IN MAPLE SPRINGS.
THAT SETBACK REALLY, YOU'RE ASKING FOR THAT QUARTER DOWN BRADFORD.
SO IT'S DISAPPOINTING THAT WE DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING FROM NEIGHBORS ALONG BRADFORD.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE INDIVIDUAL THAT WANTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, THEN WE'LL GO BACK, UM, TO THE APPLICANT FOR REBUTTAL.
MY QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT WOULD BE, UM, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, YOUR CLIENT WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, YOU SAID TWO MONTHS AGO, WERE THEY AWARE OF THE RESTRICTIONS UNDER THE PD 1 9 3? YES, THEY WERE.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. OVITZ? SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE CONSIDER, UH, MS. ANAYA IS, UH, WHETHER THE PROPERTY CAN BE BUILT ON AND STILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE, UM, WITH THE CURRENT, UH, RULES AS APPLIES TO THAT.
AND THE, THE, THE DATA WE RECEIVED IN OUR BRIEFING THIS MORNING INDICATES THAT A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL SIZE HOUSE COULD BE BUILT ON THAT LOT WITHOUT NEEDING THE VARIANCE.
IT SEEMS THAT THERE'S A CHOICE, UH, IT'S A CHOICE BEING MADE TO PREFER TO HAVE IT, BUT IS IT IS NOT, DOESN'T APPEAR TO THIS BOARD MEMBER THAT IT IS AN AN UNBUILDABLE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE VARIANCE.
SO I I'D LIKE YOU TO RESPOND TO THAT.
UM, WE, WHEN I DID THE MATH, WHEN WE, WELL OUR TEAM DID, UH, WE REALIZED THAT IF WE WERE NOT TO BE GRANTED THIS, IT WOULD BE A HOME THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 24 FEET, UH, LONG, WHICH, UH, TYPICALLY A GARAGE, UH, IT GETS DESIGNED ABOUT 20 FEET, SO WOULD LEAVE US ABOUT FOUR FEET.
YOU KNOW, A DOOR IS TYPICALLY THREE FEET, SO THE DESIGN WOULD ACTUALLY NOT FIT WITH WHAT WE SEE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHEN YOU SEE THE FRONT FACADE, UH, YOU, YOU GET TO SEE, YOU KNOW, WINDOWS, YOU GET TO SEE, UM, A LITTLE BIT OF A, OF A PATIO.
SO, UH, YES, IT, IT, IT, IT WOULD LEAVE US WITH 24 FEET WIDE.
UM, FROM THE FRONT, IT IT APPEARED THAT ALSO, UM, MOST OF THE HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WERE SINGLE STORY AS WELL.
SO ACT, UM, ARE, IF I MAY, I KNOW, I KNOW, UM, BRADFORD WAS MENTIONED, UH, THE HOUSE RIGHT NEXT TO IT.
SO BETWEEN BRADFORD, UM, IF I'M LOOKING AT, AT THIS PROPERTY ON THE FRONT, ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THAT HOUSE HAS A TWO STORY AND IT'S NOT MEETING BLOCK CONTINUITY.
THE HOUSE IN THE FRONT, UH, ARE ALSO TWO STORY HOMES.
SO WE FEEL LIKE IT IS COHESIVE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
MAY I ADD SOMETHING ELSE? I'M SORRY? MAY I ADD SOMETHING ELSE? MAY YOU WHAT? MAY, MAY I SAY SOMETHING ELSE? OF COURSE.
SO, UM, I, I KNOW THAT, UM, TALKING ABOUT BRADFORD, WRITE THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE RIGHT BEHIND US, UM, TECHNICALLY JUST A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION, IF WE WERE TO KEEP THAT STRUCTURE, WE COULD, UH, BY RIGHT, APPLY FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION, WHICH WOULD PUT A STRUCTURE, UM,
[01:20:01]
A BIGGER STRUCTURE THAN WHAT IS THERE NOW BY RIGHT.IT, WE COULD GO UP TO, I THINK IT'S 30 FEET.
UM, SO WHAT WE ARE ASKING IS TECHNICALLY THE SAME THING, BUT IN NEW CONSTRUCTION.
AND BECAUSE THIS HOUSE WOULD HAVE TO BE DEMOED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, IT TAKES AWAY THAT RIGHT.
THAT WE'D HAVE TO HAVE A SECOND STORY.
WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU IN A MOMENT FOR YOUR ALLOWED FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO YOU HAVE, UH, OTHER, THE OTHER SPEAKER? UM, WE HAVE AN, UM, A SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION? YES, PLEASE.
BOBBY, LIKE, OKAY, IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR, YOU CAN PULL THAT MIC DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE.
FIRST, MY NAME IS THERESA LAC RHYMES WITH CADILLAC.
AND MY ADDRESS IS 50 32 STONELEY AVENUE, DALLAS.
50 WHAT? 32 AND THE LAST, THE NAME OF THE STREET.
I'M LOOKING FOR YOU ON THE BRIDGE.
I'M RIGHT BEHIND BRADFORD'S ON THE, MY BACKYARD AND BRADFORD SET UP.
ALRIGHT, ON STONELEY, IT'S ABOUT HALFWAY UP THE BLOCK BETWEEN MAPLE SPRINGS AND CRESTVIEW.
I GUESS YOU'RE OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FEET NOTIFICATION AREA.
ALRIGHT, I WAS TRYING TO SEE IF YOU WERE INSIDE THE NOTIFICATION AREA.
AS I WAS SAYING, MY BLOCK IS ABOUT, UM, OR MY HOUSE IS ABOUT A BLOCK AND A HALF FROM, UH, BRADFORD AND FROM WHERE THIS PROPERTY WILL BE ON MAPLE SPRINGS IN BRADFORD.
AND I FEEL THAT THE, UH, REDUCED VARIANCE FROM THE STANDARD 25 FOOT TO 10 IS PUTS US ON A SLIPPERY SLOPE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, I THINK SOME OF YOU HEARD YESTERDAY FROM SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS ABOUT THE PROPERTY ON DENTON DRIVE AND
UM, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS HAVE WONDERFUL ARCHITECTS AND I THINK THAT THEY COULD PROBABLY FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO, SAY, A 15 FOOT SETBACK AND DESIGN THAT HOUSE IN A WAY.
IT'S ALL, IT'S A LOT OF CHROME AND GLASS, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE HAVE TYPICALLY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, JUST AS BEAUTIFUL AS THEY CAN MAKE IT.
THEY'RE VERY, VERY GOOD QUALIFIED ARCHITECTS.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS OAK LAWN HEIGHTS IS THE LARGEST REMAINING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD IN OAK LAWN.
UH, WE'RE ALREADY SURROUNDED BY APARTMENTS ON DENTON DRIVE, CUTOFF AND HUDNELL OVER ACROSS THE CREEK.
THERE'S A LOT OF CONDOS AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF CEDAR SPRINGS.
EVEN ON CEDAR SPRINGS, THERE'S MORE APARTMENTS THERE.
SO WE'RE SURROUNDED BY THAT AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN THIS SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, WHILE OAK LAWN HEIGHTS, IT'S ONLY TWO BLOCKS LONG AND FIVE BLOCKS WIDE.
WE HAVE AN INCREDIBLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
MY NEIGHBORS ARE ALL DIFFERENT COLORS.
WE COME IN BLACK, WHITE, BROWN, AND YELLOW.
WE'RE RELIGIOUS, AGNOSTIC, SPIRITUAL AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN.
AND SOMEHOW WE ALL MANAGED TO GET ALONG.
WE'VE GOT RETIREES, YOUNG FAMILIES, UH, FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS, AND WE HAVE OLD GROWTH TREES.
WE'VE GOT LOTS OF BIRDS AND SQUIRRELS.
UH, ONE TIME WE'VE GOT POSSUMS, RACCOONS, AND A LOT OF DUCKS.
AND ONE DAY I EVEN SAW AN ARMADILLO IN MY BACKYARD.
SO WE'RE A LITTLE BIT OF A HAVEN FOR WILDLIFE AS WELL, IF YOU CAN CALL THAT WILDLIFE IN THE CITY.
UM, I'VE LIVED IN OAKLAND HEIGHTS FOR 46 YEARS, SO THIS IS MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
I PAY A LOT OF PROPERTY TAXES.
I ADDED IT UP ONE DAY AND I ACTUALLY HAVE PAID MORE IN PROPERTY TAXES THAN MY HOME IS WORTH.
UM, I KNOW YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SETTING PROPERTY TAXES, BUT I KNOW YOU HAVE A LOT TO DO WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND THAT'S REALLY MY WHOLE POINT HERE.
[01:25:01]
HEIGHTS IS A REAL GEM AND I COULD GIVE YOU A GREAT HISTORY LESSON THAT GOES BACK OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AND IT'S VERY CHARMING, IT'S VERY ENGAGED, IT'S VERY ACTIVE, BUT I DON'T WANNA TAKE UP A LOT OF YOUR TIME.UM, WE DO HAVE, WE'VE REESTABLISHED A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND WE'VE, UM, BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN CLEANING UP THE HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS ALONG THE CREEK.
UM, AND WE HAVE PLANS TO DO CHERRYWOOD PARK THIS FALL AS SOON AS IT COOLS OFF A LITTLE BIT.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT PERFECT.
I'M NOT SAYING WE ARE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TWO MILES FROM BAGGAGE PICKUP AT LOVE FIELD AND SOUTHWEST AIRLINE FLIES OVER OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, WE'VE HAD HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS AND WE'VE BEEN OVERRUN BY, UM, THOSE DUCKS, ALL THOSE DUCKS FROM TIME TO TIME.
I'VE SEEN A LOT OF CHANGES IN THE LAST 46 YEARS, UM, AND WE'VE SOMEHOW BEEN ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE CHARM AND THE CHARACTER OF THIS UNIQUE NEIGHBORHOOD.
MY POINT IS THAT LAWN HEIGHTS IS A TREASURE AND SO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE.
AND I ASK YOU TO PLEASE HELP US PROTECT THIS UNIQUE AND ONE OF A KIND SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
SEVERAL YEARS AGO WHEN I WAS STILL WORKING, UM, NEIGHBORS MET WITH THIS BOARD TO DISCUSS ANOTHER ISSUE AND IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE HOUSE ON DENTON, UH, YOU KNOW, IT WAS QUITE A FEW YEARS AGO, OR THE GENTRY ESTATE AND SEVERAL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH OAK LAWN HEIGHTS AND THEY ENCOURAGED US TO PROTECT THAT.
AND I'M ASKING THE SAME OF YOU.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
I HOPE LUNCH WAS DELICIOUS TODAY.
AND IF I MAY, MARY, I HAVE A LETTER THAT I WAS TRYING TO READ YESTERDAY, YOU KNOW, I COULDN'T GET ONLINE, THE TECHNOLOGY DIDN'T WORK.
CAN I GIVE THAT TO YOU TO PUT IN THAT FILE? OKAY.
ALRIGHT, MS. ANYA AND ANYA, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL? YES.
WELL, FIRST I'D LIKE TO THANK MS. TERESA FOR HER TIME.
UH, I CAN TELL SHE'S A VERY DEDICATED NEIGHBOR AND LI LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE, IT IS A BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE COULD JUST TELL BY THE HOUSES AND, AND THE CANVASSING WE DID WITH SOME OF THE FOLKS WE GOT TO SPEAK, UH, JUST TO, YOU KNOW, DRIVE MY POINT AGAIN, WE, WE ARE INTENDING TO MEET EVERYTHING ELSE, COVERAGE.
UM, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, NO DESIGN STANDARDS SET FOR THIS.
IF, IF THERE WERE, WE WOULD GLADLY, UH, MAKE SURE OUR ARCHITECT METS.
AND, AND AS YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING PERMITS DON'T GET ISSUED IF ALL THOSE POINTS ARE NOT MET WITHIN A DESIGN.
AND, UH, I, WE JUST, WE, WE HOPE THAT, UH, WE'RE GONNA WORK TO, TO GET A GOOD DESIGN THAT, THAT, UM, REALLY CONTRIBUTES TO, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, UM, AGAIN, IF WE, IF WE ARE NOT GRANTED THIS, WE COULD, WE COULD REMODEL.
IT'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE, UM, VERY, UH, MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE.
BUT POTENTIALLY WE, WE, WE COULD STILL HAVE A STRUCTURE OF, OF TWO, TWO STORIES, SAME LOT COVERAGE IN THE EXACT SAME SETBACK.
UM, I, I DID WANT TO, TO CORRECT A LITTLE BIT ON SOMETHING, BUT MS. TERESA SAID I, I THINK SHE SAID WE SHOULD ASK FOR A 15 FOOT SETBACK.
WE'RE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR LESS.
UH, WE'RE ASKING FOR A 10 FOOT SETBACK.
UM, AND, AND ONE MORE POINT, I KNOW SHE MENTIONED, UM, THAT THERE WAS A CASE ON DENTON, UM, YESTERDAY, WHICH WAS GRANTED.
AND, UH, THERE SEEMED TO BE, UH, ANOTHER CASE ON DENTON YEARS AGO FOR THAT SAME PROPERTY THAT THAT GOT APPROVED.
IT, IT, IT, THE BOARD OR THE PANEL BACK THEN, UH, SEEMED TO, TO GRANT THOSE.
SO TO US IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S COHESIVE THAT THEY'RE NOT MEETING, UH, THE BLOCK CONTINUITY AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR FIVE FEET, WHICH WOULD BE A TYPICAL SIDE YARD IF WE WERE NOT IN A LOT IN, IN A CORNER LOT.
SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO BE MINDFUL AND KEEP THAT COHESIVENESS WITH THE OTHER NON, UH, CONFORMING, UM, SETBACKS.
AND, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT BY THE BOARD MI I'M GONNA PUT MS. WILLIAMS, I'M GONNA PUT THIS WITH THIS SO FOR RECORD, RIGHT? OKAY.
[01:30:01]
UM, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.IS THAT FOR ME OR THE APPLICANT? I GUESS FOR YOU STAFF PLEASE.
SO AS I UNDERSTAND, WE'RE HERE BASICALLY RULING ON THE HARDSHIP VARIANCE ALONE.
IT'S A THREE-PRONGED ISSUE, IF YOU WILL, RIGHT? UM, IT'S, IT'S NOT A HARDSHIP.
UH, I WOULD, THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW, IT'S ON PAGE 87 OF OUR DOCKET.
IT SAYS FOR US TO GRANT A VARIANCE IN THIS CASE, IT'S A FRONT YARD VARIANCE.
ONE, IT CAN'T BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
TWO HAS TO BE NECESSARY TO PREVENT THE DEVELOPMENT.
AND THREE, IT'S NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE SELF-CREATED PERSONAL HARDSHIP.
SO AS ALL THREE HAVE TO BE MET REGARDING THE SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP, MY QUESTION WOULD BE, JUST FOR MY OWN CLARIFICATION, UM, THE REPORT WOULD SAY IN AND OF ITSELF, IT'S NOT SELF-CREATED BECAUSE THE STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE FRONT YARD SET BACK REGULATIONS WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE APPLICANT DID NOT CREATE THE HARDSHIP.
BUT BECAUSE WE NOW KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT WAS AWARE, DOES THAT THEN MEAN THAT IT WAS INDEED SELF-CREATED? SO, UM, IT, A VARIANCE AND A SPECIAL EXCEPTION ARE OF THE OPINION OF THE BOARD BASED ON THE CRITERIA THAT THE CODE GIVES US.
SO IT'S UP TO YOU INDIVIDUALLY AS A BOARD MEMBER AND THEN THE PANEL COLLECTIVELY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THESE THREE ARE MET OR NOT MET.
SO IT'S YOUR, IT'S UP TO YOU TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU FEEL LIKE THIS IS SELF-CREATED OR NOT.
I THINK YOUR QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT WAS APPROPRIATE.
YOU WERE TRYING TO GO TO GO TO THE ISSUE OF LAND USE BEFORE CURRENTLY AND PROSPECTIVELY THAT'S IN ORDER.
UH, YOU DIDN'T MAKE A JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER THEY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE SOMETHING.
YOU JUST ASKED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THEY WERE AWARE PRIOR TO PURCHASING THE PROPERTY.
SO THAT, I WILL TELL YOU, MR. ROGERS, THAT COMPONENT OF THE VARIANCE CRITERIA IS THE HARDEST TO TACKLE BECAUSE ISN'T EVERYTHING SELF CREATED? I MEAN, A PERSON WOULDN'T BE HERE UNLESS THEY WERE ASKING FOR SOMETHING THAT'S IN THEIR BENEFIT.
UM, SO, BUT IT'S, THAT'S A HARD ONE TO DEFINE.
SO IN THE END, YOU INDIVIDUALLY HAVE TO DETERMINE THAT.
MR. OVITZ, CAN I ANSWER HIS QUESTION DIFFERENTLY? YOU WANT AN ANSWER? THE QUESTION THAT HE BEGGED? I WANNA ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT HE ASKED.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COMMENT, I GUESS, YES.
UM, THE APPLICANT, UH, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S CORRECT OR NOT CORRECT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THAT AND DON'T NEED TO, BUT THE APPLICANT HAS ASSERTED THAT THEY COULD ADD A SECOND STORY ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS IS, OR I GUESS I COULD REDO THE INSIDE OR SOMETHING.
BUT AS IS THE, THE EXTERIOR AS IS, UM, AND NOT NEED TO COME TO US.
I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT SHE TESTIFIED.
UM, SO TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT REQUIRES THE VARIANCE TO ME BY DEFINITION WOULD THEN BE SELF CREATED BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN OPTION TO, TO BUILD ON THE EXISTING HOME BASE.
UM, SO IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT, THAT IT IS MEETS, MEETS DEFINITELY THE CRITERIA OF BEING SELF-CREATED.
UM, IT'S UM, DOES IT SAY IN THE OPINION OF THE BOARD? NO, IT JUST SAYS THE BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY, UH, IF THE, THE THREE COMPONENTS ARE OBTAINED.
SO MS. DAVIS, THE CHAIR WOULD REALLY LIKE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR BECAUSE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO NOT HAVE FREE
I'M GONNA TURN TO THE ATTORNEY HERE IN A SEC.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO NOT HAVE FREE FORM DISCUSSION.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION BASED ON A, A TRANSACTION, CORRECT?
AND I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA, AND THEN I'M GONNA COME TO YOU NEXT.
I I'M GONNA LET THE BOARD ATTORNEY BRIEFLY REINTERPRET THE NOT GRANITE TO RELIEVE SELF-CREATED PERSONAL HARDSHIP CRITERIA.
THE VARIANCES ARE TO THE LAND, SO IT'S NECESSARY TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIFIC PARCEL OF LAND THAT DIFFERS FROM OTHER PARCELS OF LAND BECAUSE OF RESTRICTIVE AREA SHAPE OR SLOPE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER DIDN'T CREATE.
SO IT, THE HARDSHIP NEEDS TO BE ABOUT THE LAND, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS SELF-CREATED.
AND IN THIS INSTANCE IT'S BECAUSE THERE ARE CORNER LOT, THEY HAVE TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS THAT WAS NOT SELF-CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THAT IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU DETERMINE IF THAT WAS SELF-CREATED OR NOT, IF THAT'S THE HARDSHIP.
BUT I WILL REINFORCE MR. ROGERS
[01:35:01]
QUESTION.WHEN HE ASKED THE APPLICANT, WERE THEY AWARE OF THE ZONING IN PD 1 93, SUBSECTION 7.5? YES, BUT VARIANCES ARE GIVING A RELIEF BECAUSE OF SOMETHING ON THE LAND THAT'S CREATING A HARDSHIP.
OKAY, MS. DAVIS, UH, MY QUESTION IS FOR A BOARD ATTORNEY.
SO I, I THINK MR. KOVICH ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT SAID THEY COULD PUT A SECOND STORY ON THE HOUSE AND NOT COME BEFORE US.
IS THAT ACCURATE? I'M GONNA HAVE TO DEFER TO STAFF.
UH, THAT IS WHAT THE APPLICANT STATED.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S NECESSARILY LEGAL MS. BOARD ATTORNEY.
I AM NOT, UM, SURE ABOUT THAT.
THAT'LL BE A, THAT'LL HAVE TO BE A COMPENSATION THAT TAKES PLACE WITH HER AND THE RESIDENTIAL TEAM.
I'M NOT SURE OF WHAT THE PROPOSED PLANS WILL LOOK LIKE AND IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER VIOLATIONS THAT WILL BE IN PLACE.
UM, MR. THOMPSON, WOULD YOU LIKE? YEAH, TYPICALLY WAY IT WORKS IS THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS CURRENTLY LEGAL, NON-CONFORMING.
IF YOU WERE TO ADD ONTO THAT STRUCTURE, YOU WOULD STILL NEED TO MEET THE SETBACKS FOR TODAY.
SO YOU COULD ADD ONTO THE STRUCTURE, BUT ANYTHING WITHIN THAT FRONT 25 FOOT WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD.
AND WHAT TRIGGERS THAT? ANY CHANGE TO THE PROPERTY TRIGGERS THE NO, NO.
SO AGAIN, THE SETBACK IS 25 FEET.
SO IF YOU ADDING INTO THAT FRONT 25 FEET, THAT WILL MAKE THE STRUCTURE MORE NON-CONFORMING THAN WHAT IT IS.
OH, THAT'S WHAT THE CRITERIA IS? YES.
AS SOON AS YOU MAKE, AS SOON AS THE PROPERTY OWNER MAKES IT MORE CONFORM, NON-CONFORMING.
THAT'S WHAT YOU, IT REQUIRES IT, YOU LOSE THAT LEGAL STATUS.
WELL, YOU DON'T LOSE THE LEGAL STATUS, IT'S JUST YOU WOULD HAVE TO GRANT SOME RELIEF FOR THAT THEN IT REQUIRES PROVEN COMING BACK HERE.
BUT THEY COULD PUT ON THE SECOND FLOOR IF IT WAS SORT OF A, IF IT WAS PUSHED BACK BEHIND THE 25 FEET PER SE.
THE CHAIRMAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
OKAY, MR. HAITZ, MS. MS. DAVIS, MR. DOER, DO ANOTHER ONE.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 26 DASH 4 0 5 3 ON APPLICATION OF JOJO ANAYA DENY THE VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CARE AFTER TO THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD NOT RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT IN THE MATTER OF BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 5 3.
UM, MS. DAVIS HAS MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, UH, VARIANCE OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY MR. OVITZ DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
MS. DAVIS, I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION, UM, BECAUSE OF YOU HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC THE OVERWHELMING, UM, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT AGAINST THIS MOTION FROM THE PUBLIC.
SORRY, I'M NOT STATING THIS SMOOTHLY.
UM, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT MEETS THE CRITERIA THAT ARE NECESSARY TO MOVE FORWARD IN APPROVING THIS MOTION.
SO I DO BELIEVE IT'S CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS A SPECIFIC PARTIAL OF LAND THAT DIFFERS FROM OTHER PARCELS, AND I DO BELIEVE IT IS A SELF-CREATED PERSONAL HARDSHIP.
SO FOR THAT REASON, FOR THOSE REASONS, I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION, MR. OVITZ? UH, I CONCUR WITH MS. DAVIS.
UM, THE PROPERTY, UM, UH, A A NICE LIVABLE SIZED HOME CAN BE BUILT, UH, AND STAYING WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES THAT ARE, THAT ARE REQUIRED AND, UM, IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY TO BE, TO, TO MOVE THAT 15 FEET FURTHER OUT TO THE STREET.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, UH, I'LL GIVE A COMMENT.
I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION TO DENY, UH, TO ME, I'M LOOKING FOR, WHERE'S THE FEEDBACK OF SUPPORT FROM 5 0 0 7 BRADFORD FROM 5 0 1 9 BRADFORD FROM 5 0 2 3 BRADFORD FROM 5 0 2 7 BRADFORD.
THOSE FOUR THE MOST AFFECTED BY ANY CHANGE OF GROWING THE NON-CONFORMING STATUS OF THIS PROPERTY BY GRANTING ADDITIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.
AND SO THE, AS I SAID IN THE MORNING DISCUSSION, AND THE AS WELL THE BURDENS ON THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS CASE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN, IN MY OPINION.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IN 2 6 0 0 0 0 5 3 IS A MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
[01:40:01]
AYE.MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BO SIX, EXCUSE ME, BO OA 2 6 0 0 0 0 5 3.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY WITH A FIVE TO ZERO VOTE, DENIES THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
UH, THE APPLICANT WILL GET A NOTIFICATION FROM OUR BOARD SECRETARY IN THE NEXT TWO DAYS.
UH, THAT IS THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA.
OUR NEXT MEETING OF PANEL A FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15TH.
UH, WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE BOARD OF, UH, THE, UH, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN MR. CHAIR.
I SHOULD BEEN ADDED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING TODAY.
I WAS, UH, RUNNING LATE BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE TO GO.
HOLD, WE'LL HOLD OFF THE AGENDA FOR A SECOND.
UM, COME FORWARD TO THE MICROPHONE.
UM, WOULD YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME, MA'AM? MY FIRST NAME'S ELANY.
SO WE DID HEAR THE CASE BOA 2 6 0 0 0 0 5 6.
AND WE ENTERTAINED, UM, PUBLIC DISCUSSION.
WERE YOU A REGISTERED SPEAKER FOR THAT? I SHOULD HAVE BEEN.
WAS SHE A REGISTERED SPEAKER FOR THAT? MS. WILLIAMS? SHE DIDN'T REGISTER ONLINE.
SO YOU BECOME A REGISTERED SPEAKER.
EITHER BY GOING ONLINE SAYING YOU WANNA SPEAK ONLINE OR GOING ONLINE.
SAY YOU WANNA SPEAK IN PERSON.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS PERSON, YOU DIDN'T GET ANY EITHER OF THOSE RECORDS? I DID NOT.
SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY RECORD OF THAT.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE BOARD DID CALL A PUBLIC HEARING AND, UM, WE HEARD TESTIMONY, UM, NOT FROM THE APPLICANT.
WERE YOU THE APPLICANT? I WAS THE APPLICANT.
WELL, YEAH, WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
UH, WE HEARD FROM OPPOSITION THERE WAS A PROPERTY OWNER ADJACENT THAT SPOKE AND THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY FIVE ZERO DENIED THE REQUEST.
NOW I WILL TELL YOU, WE DENIED THE REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
WHICH MEANS YOU'RE ABLE TO COME BACK AND REFILE YOUR REQUEST.
UH, YOU'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THE PROCEDURES.
UM, I HAVE TO PRESUME THAT WHEN YOU FILED YOUR CASE AND DEALT WITH THE INTAKE STAFF, I'M TURNING TO YOU, MISS BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, UH, THAT THEY INFORMED YOU OF WHEN AND WHERE THE HEARING WAS.
LIKE THEY INFORM ALL PEOPLE THAT AND THEN THE BURDENS ON THE APPLICANT.
BUT IT, THE CASE WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN REFILE IF THAT'S YOUR, IF THAT'S YOUR CHOICE.
UM, NO, I GOT A LOT MORE CLARITY AS TO THE PURPOSE FOR THE BOA, WHICH WAS REALLY UNNECESSARY.
UH, YOUR, THE STAFF THAT RUNS THIS DEPARTMENT IS LOUSY.
UH, ARE YOU, DIANA? WELL, OKAY.
SO IF, IF YOU'D LIKE TO GIVE US FEEDBACK, YOU CAN COMMUNICATE TO ME, BUT I, I DON'T WANNA DISPARAGE ANY ONE STAFF MEMBER IN THAT SORT OF THING.
SO LET'S NOT, BUT I WILL TELL YOU AGAIN PUBLICLY, YOU'RE ABLE TO REFILE A CASE IF YOU WANT TO BECAUSE THE DENIAL WAS WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
ALRIGHT, THAT BEING SAID, UM, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO ADJOURN.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND IT, UM, IT'S BEEN MOVED.
AND SECOND TO ADJOURN AT 2:47 PM ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
MOTION CARRIES, UH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS ADJOURNED AT 2:47 PM OUR NEXT MEETING IS SEPTEMBER 15TH.