Oct 21, 2026 Board of Adjustment: Panel B

SO BEFORE WE JUMP INTO THE INDIVIDUAL CASES, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO MAKE OVERALL PUBLIC COMMENT.

MS. WILLIAMS, DO WE HAVE ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS TO SPEAK AT THE BEGINNING OF OUR HEARING TODAY? NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS REGISTERED, SIR.

APPROVAL OF OUR JULY 15TH, 2026 PANEL B MINUTES.

THEN WITH THAT, THE FIRST ISSUE WE'RE GONNA TAKE UP IS

[V. Miscellaneous Items]

THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I SO MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR JULY MEETING.

IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND THE MOTION.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, UM, WE'LL TAKE A VOICE VOTE ON MR. UM, QUINN'S MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE.

ALL AGAIN SAY NAY.

THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES PASSES FIVE TO ZERO.

DOCKET IS CASE NUMBER BOA-26-671431 APPLE STREET.

NEXT UP, UM, LET ME PREVIEW.

WE'RE GONNA TAKE UP TWO CASES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON OUR UNCONTESTED DOCKET.

AND I'LL GIVE YOU THE STREET NAMES BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THE CASE NUMBERS ARE GONNA RING A BELL.

SO WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT 1431 APPLE STREET AND 6406 ROYALTON DRIVE.

SO WE'RE GONNA GO TO, THROUGH THOSE TWO, BUT THEY'RE CURRENTLY ON OUR UNCONTESTED DOCKET, WHICH MEANS THE BOARD IS INCLINED TO VOTE TO APPROVE THEM ALREADY.

SO WHAT I WANNA GIVE ANY FOLKS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO WHEN WE CALL THOSE CASES IS IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, UM, OR IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK AT ALL, JUST LET US KNOW.

BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW ON THE FRONT END, THOSE TWO CASES ARE ON OUR UNCONTESTED DOCKET.

WE'RE GONNA CONSIDER THEM FIRST AND THE BOARD'S ALREADY TO INCLINED TO, TO, UH, VOTE TO APPROVE THOSE.

SO WE'LL TAKE THOSE IN ORDER.

THE FIRST CASE I'M GONNA CALL ON THE UNCONTESTED

[VI.4. 26-3303A Application of Lauren Montgomery for (1) a special exception to the landscaping regulations at 1431 APPLE STREET. This property is more fully described as Block 1/645, Lots 7-9 and Block 645, Lots 7 & 8, and is zoned PD-298, which requires mandatory landscaping. The applicant proposes to construct and/or maintain a residential development and provide an alternate landscape plan, which will require (1) a special exception to the landscaping regulations.]

ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THAT MATTER? I'M SEEING SOME NO HEAD SHAKING WITH THAT.

THE CHAIR WILL, UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MS. LAMB? I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION

[00:05:01]

LISTED ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICATION SATISFIED ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ARE CON - AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENDED OF THE CODE AS APPLICABLE TO WIT.

BOA-26-00067 APPLICATION OF LAUREN MONTGOMERY FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS CONTAINED THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING VISION.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED.

ANY DISCUSSION ON MS. LAMB'S MOTION TO GRANT? MS. WILLIAMS, CAN YOU PLEASE, UH, CALL THE VOTE? MS. LAMB? AYE.

I'M GONNA ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON CASE NUMBER BOA-26-77, UH, THE APPLICATION OF BENJAMIN CALDWELL FOR A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.

THEN AT THIS POINT,

[VI.5. 26-3304A Application of Benjamin Ryan Caldwell for (1) a variance to the side yard setback regulations at 6406 ROYALTON DRIVE. This property is more fully described as Block 8/5500, Lot 1, and is zoned R-16(A), which requires a side yard setback of 20-feet due to a platted building line. The applicant proposes to construct and/or maintain a residential accessory pool structure and provide a 5-foot 1-inch side yard setback, which will require (1) a 14-foot 11-inch variance to the side yard setback regulations.]

THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MS. LAMB? I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION LISTED ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICATION SATISFIES ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE AS.

BOA-26-00077, APPLICATION OF BENJAMIN RYAN CALDWELL FOR A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.

COMPLIANCE TO THE MOST RECENT VERSION, ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.

ANY DISCUSSION ON MS. LAMB'S MOTION TO GRANT? MS. WILLIAMS, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE VOTE? MS. LAMB? AYE.

WE WILL TAKE UP THE NEXT CASE ON OUR CONTESTED DOCKET, WHICH IS CASE NUMBER BOA-26-634525 ISABELLA LANE.

ALL RIGHT, THAT CONCLUDES OUR UNCONTESTED DOCKET.

WE'RE MOVING ON TO OUR CONTESTED CASES.

THE FIRST CASE ON OUR CONTESTED DOCKET IS CASE NUMBER BOA-26-2210011 LENOX LANE, WHICH IS THE APPLICATION OF CAMERON MALIK.

COME ON UP, PLEASE.

CAN YOU TURN THE MICROPHONE ON, PLEASE? HI.

UM, PARDON, BUT OUR PRESENTER'S NOT HERE YET.

HE'S RUNNING A COUPLE MINUTES LATE.

CAN WE PUSH TO THE NEXT ONE? THAT'S NO PROBLEM.

YEAH, WE'LL- WE'LL, UH, SKIP YOU ALL AND COME BACK.

[VI.2. 26-3289A Application of Robert Baldwin for (1) a special exception to the fence height regulations at 4525 ISABELLA LANE. This property is more fully described as Block E/5534, Lot 7, and is zoned R-1ac(A), which limits the height of a fence in the front yard to 4-feet. The applicant proposes to construct and/or maintain an 8-foot-high fence in a required front yard, which will require (1) a 4-foot special exception to the fence height regulations.]

MR. BALDWIN? GOOD AFTERNOON.

ROB BALDWIN, 3904 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS.

UM - WELL, IS THE MICROPHONE ON? THE LIGHT'S ON.

SORRY.

UH, JAMIE, COULD YOU BRING UP THE PRESENTATION, PLEASE? OKAY.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, MA'AM.

GOOD AFTERNOON WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR THIS TO COME UP.

I'M REPRESENTATIVE FROM MCGRAW, UH, WHO OWNS THE- THE PROPERTY AT 25 - 4525 ISABELLA.

WE ARE SEEKING PERMISSION TO BUILD A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD TALLER THAN FOUR FEET.

UM, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

IT- IT'S LOCATED UP IN THE PRESTON HOLLOW AREA, UH, AT HARRY LANE, WELCH, AND ISABELLA.

SO TH- THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED, UH, NORTH SIDE OF- OF IS- ISABELLA.

THE NEW HOUSE THAT JUST GOT FINISHED BEING CONSTRUCTED.

THIS IS THE- THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.

YOU SEE THERE'S LOTS OF LANDSCAPING WITH, UH, HAROLD LEIDNER, OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS HERE AS WELL, WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR HIM.

UH, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE FENCE IS PUSHED BACK FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

IT'S TWO FEET OF SOLID STUCCO MATCHING THE HOUSING ON TOP.

HAS A REALLY COOL OPEN, UH, IRON DESIGN YOU'LL SEE IN JUST A SECOND.

SO IT...

ON THE- THE FLAT PANEL THAT YOU SEE HERE, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SOLID, BUT

[00:10:01]

IT'S NOT.

IT'S OPEN AND BREATHABLE.

AND YOU SEE WE HAVE LOTS OF LANDSCAPING THAT WILL BE IN FRONT OF THE FENCE.

THIS- THIS IS THE SAME SITE PLAN THAT, UH, MR. MILLER SHOWED YOU DURING, UH, THE BREEDING SESSION.

NO ENCROACHMENT FROM ANY SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.

UH, WE HAVE TWO DRIVEWAYS, AND THEN THE- THE FENCE ALONG THE FRONT, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE, LIKE I SAID, TWO FEET OF, UH, STUCCO TO MATCH THE HOUSE AND THEN SIX FEET OF THE OPEN DECORATIVE IRON.

THIS IS A BLOW-UP YOU'LL SEE WHERE IT HAS, UH, COLUMNS AND IT CONFIRMS THAT WE ARE OUT OF ALL SITE VISIBILITY TIME.

THAT- THAT SLIDE ALSO SHOWS YOU THE FENCE IS ABOUT 20 FEET BACK FROM THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT.

SO IT'S NOT RIGHT UP TO THE STREET.

IT'S NOT TO CREATE A CANYON EFFECTIVE IN ANY, UH, STRETCH OF IMAGINATION.

UH, THIS IS THE ELEVATIONS.

LIKE I SAY, IT DOESN'T REALLY SHOW THE- THE OPENINGS, UH, ON THE- THE DECORATIVE PANELS, BUT THEY- THEY ARE OPEN.

AND THAT'S, AGAIN, THE- THE FENCE.

THIS IS THE PANEL.

AS YOU CAN SEE, YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IT.

I THINK IT'S ATTRACTIVE.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT YOUR TYPICAL DECORATIVE IRON FENCE, BUT IT DOES PROVIDE LIGHT AND AIR AND YOU CAN SEE IN, SEE OUT.

AND THAT- THAT'S THE, UH, IMPORTANT FEATURE ON THIS.

UH, UH, THE MCGRAWS WANT TO BE PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY DON'T WANT TO WALL THEMSELVES OFF AS YOU'LL SEE, AS YOU SAW, UH, IN THE DRIVE-THROUGH.

THERE'S SOME HOUSES ON THE STREET THAT HAVE BIG HEDGES THAT KIND OF, LIKE, WALL THEMSELVES OFF FROM THE STREET.

WE WANNA OPEN OURSELVES UP TO THE STREET, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, IN THIS CASE, UM, THE FAIRLY WELL-KNOWN FAMILY IN THERE, THERE ARE SOME SECURITY CONCERNS, AND SO THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A FENCE TO HELP ALLEVIATE THOSE CONCERNS.

SO IT'S AN EIGH-FOOT FENCE.

THE OPEN METAL PANELS ARE 40% OPEN, UM, SETBACK 20 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE CURB AND NO ENCROACHMENTS IN THE SIDE OF THE LAKE.

SO THIS IS LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY THAT'S DOWN THE STREET ON THE RIGHT.

AND YOU CAN SEE THESE FENCES ON THE LEFT, LARGE HEDGES ON THE RIGHT, AND AS MILLER POINTED OUT, THERE WAS A BIG FENCE BEHIND THAT.

ONE OF THE FIRST PROJECTS I WORKED WITH MR. AN EIGHT, 10-FOOT FENCE BACK OVER THERE.

THIS IS AT THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC LOOKING UP.

YOU SEE THERE'S HEDGES ON THE RIGHT.

THE PROPERTY'S ON THE LEFT, THE- THE WHITE STUCCO HOUSE.

SO THIS IS A MAP THAT I PUT TOGETHER THAT SHOWS HOUSES IN THE VICINITY THAT EITHER HAVE FENCES OR HEDGES.

WE ARE IN THE GREEN.

EVERYTHING IN THE BLUE HAS SOMETHING IN THE FRONT YARD, EITHER FENCE FOLLOWING FORCES OR HEDGES.

GO THROUGH, YOU KNOW, IT SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP.

WE'RE STILL IN THE GREEN.

THIS IS THE BLUE HOUSE AT 4563 WITH THE LARGE HEDGES.

THIS IS 4562.

UH, THERE'S A FENCE THERE AND SOME HEDGES.

UH, THIS IS ACROSS THE STREET, CATTY CORNER, UH, WITH THE HEDGE, FENCES AND HEDGES.

UH, THIS IS AT THE END ON THE OTHER SIDE OF WELCH.

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF WELCH, WE'LL GO THROUGH THESE QUICKLY BECAUSE THEY ALL HAVE LARGE FENCES AND HEDGES.

SO THIS IS INTERESTING.

UH, WE HAVE OPPOSITION ON THIS WE FOUND OUT YESTERDAY.

AND OF THE FIVE LETTERS WE HAVE THAT ARE IN NOTIFICATION AREA, UM, TWO OF THEM ARE NOT ON OUR STREET.

THEY'RE ON TO THE NORTH, AND ANOTHER TWO OF THEM HAVE FENCES TALLER THAN FOUR FEET.

UM, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO THE FENCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBOR DESIGN WILL BE SET BACK FROM THE STREET.

UH, THERE'S NO SIGHT LINE IMPACTS.

UH, IT FITS IN THE STREET'S CHARACTER AS NOT ALL HOUSES HAVE FENCES, BUT A LOT OF THEM DO, AS YOU SAW FROM MY SLIDE, UM, MATCHES THE HOME AND WE WILL BE BUILDING THROUGH THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU PROPOSED.

UM, WE HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU, MR. BALDWIN.

QUESTIONS FOR MR. BALDWIN, STARTING WITH MS. LAMB.

OF ALL, HOW MUCH CONVERSATIONS HAVE YOU HAD WITH THE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES TO UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE, WHY THEIR OPPOSITION? UM, WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE OPPOSITION LETTER YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

UM, THERE'S QUITE A FEW LETTERS OF OPPOSITION.

AS YOU SAID, SOME ARE IN THEIR POINT ZONE, SOME ARE NOT.

UM, ONE THAT STOOD OUT DID SAY THAT THEY OPPOSED THE EIGHT FOOT BUT WOULD BE OPEN TO A SIX FOOT.

SO MY QUESTION IS, IS, FIRST OF ALL, IS THAT AN OPTION, SECOND

[00:15:01]

UH, I HAVE SPOKEN WITH MR. LAGNER, SPOKEN WITH THE OWNER, AND THEY WOULD BE UP...

THEY, THEY WOULD BE OKAY WITH THE SIX FOOT PLEASE.

DO YOU THINK THAT IF GIVEN MORE TIME FROM THIS PANEL, UH, WITH A HOLDOVER, YOU'D BE ABLE TO, TO GET ANYWHERE WITH THE NEIGHBORS GIVEN THAT YOU'VE JUST NOW FOUND OUT? OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU AND THE APPLICANT WOULD WANT? YEAH, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS AND SEE IF WE CAN GET, WE CAN GET SUPPORT FOR SIX FOOT, YEAH.

UM, OKAY, THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.

ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR MR. BALDWIN? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MR. BALDWIN.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS, UH, REGISTERED IN SUPPORT? NO, THE SPEAKER'S REGISTERED TODAY.

ALL RIGHT THEN.

UM, SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATIONS AT 5425 ISABELLA.

I HAVE, UH, I HAVE TWO REGISTERED SPEAKERS, MR. SETH MILLET AND ALSO MR. CRAIG EGGLESTON.

THE FIRST ONE YOU SAID MR. MALLEY? MALAY, YES.

IS HE, IS HE HERE IN PERSON OR ONLINE? YES.

OH, WELCOME.

MR. MALLEY, COME ON UP.

MR. CHAIRMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO SWEAR THEM BOTH IN OR WOULD YOU LIKE - THAT'D BE GREAT.

THE OTHER ONE'S MR. YOU SAID EGGLESTON.

IF YOU CAN STAND, PLEASE.

SO IF BOTH OF YOU DON'T MIND STANDING UP, MS. WILLIAMS IS GONNA SWEAR YOU IN AT ONE TIME SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT SEPARATELY.

DO YOU BOTH SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. MILLET.

MR. MALLEY, YOU CAN START, YOU CAN PROCEED.

SURE.

IF, IF YOU DON'T MIND, IF YOU'LL HAND THOSE TO MS. WILLIAMS, WE'LL PASS THEM AROUND.

OH, AND, AND I'LL SAY ALSO THEY'RE IN OUR PACKET, BUT WE'LL TAKE THE COPIES ANYWAY.

THE BOARD DENIED A PROPOSED SEVEN-FOOT BROUGHT IRON FENCE AT 4515 HARRY'S, UH, JUST LESS THAN TWO, TWO YEARS AGO.

YES, PLEASE.

WELL, WHAT I'LL ASK IS WE'RE JUST GONNA GIVE EVERYONE THEIR COPIES OF THESE, AND THEN MS. WILLIAMS IS GONNA GET YOUR, UM, JUST GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, AND THEN THE TIME IS YOURS TO SPEND HOWEVER YOU'D LIKE.

OH, THERE YOU GO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UH, I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED EIGHT-FOOT FENCE, UH, SUBSTANTIALLY OPAQUE FOOT - OPAQUE FENCE INTENDED TO ENCOMPASS VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE LOT AT 4525 ISABELLA.

I OPPOSE IT BECAUSE, ONE, ITS MASSIVE NATURE IS COMPLETELY OUT OF PROPORTION AND CHARACTER FOR THIS ONE ACRE INTERIOR LOT ON THE QUIET CUL-DE-SAC.

TWO, CONTRARY TO APPLICANT'S ASSERTION, SUCH A MASSIVE FENCE IS UNPRECEDENTED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THREE, IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE LONGSTANDING R1 ACRE ZONING STANDARDS.

ISABELLA, LIKE HARRY'S IN CONTAINER LANES TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTH, IS A VERY QUIET CUL-DE-SAC WITH NINE ONE-ACRE INTERIOR LOTS.

THIS IS A UNIQUE, DISTINCTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH HOMES HAVE LARGELY MAINTAINED OPEN FRONT YARDS, GIVING THE ERA COUNTRY-LIKE CHARACTER CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CITY'S ZONING REGULATIONS.

THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE PICTURES THAT I JUST PRESENTED TO YOU.

NO FENCE SUCH AS THE ONE REQUESTED BY APPLICANT EXISTS ON ANY OF THE CUL-DE-SAC LOTS, AND ALL PREVIOUS REQUESTS TO BUILD SUCH A MASSIVE FENCE HAVE BEEN STRONGLY OPPOSED BY NEIGHBORS AND DENIED BY THE BOARD.

THIS INCLUDES A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN EIGH-FOOT FRONT YARD FENCE AT 42, AT 4512 ISABELLA, EXCUSE ME, JUST CATTY-CORNERED FROM THE APPLICANT'S LOT.

AND MORE RECENTLY,

[00:20:01]

IN SHORT, THERE'S NO SUCH MASSIVE FENCE IN CIRCLING OF PROPERTY ANYWHERE IN THE ISABELLA NEIGHBORHOOD.

YOU HAVE TO TRAVEL ABOUT HALF A MILE TO THE GRAND FORD OF 15-PLUS ACRE ESTATES ON STRAIGHT LANE, AND EVEN MANY OF THOSE ARE NOT AS ALL-ENCOMPASSING AS THE FENCE PROPOSED HERE.

THE THREE CUL-DE-SACS ON ISABELLA, HARRY'S AND KATINA, ALSO HAVE MUCH MORE IN COMMON WITH THE 31, UH, THE 30 R-1 ACRE ZONE LOTS IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF ISABELLA IN THE WOODFORD CIRCLE AREA.

IT'S OF PARTICULAR SIGNIFICANCE THAT NOT ONE OF THESE 30 LOTS EVEN HAS A NON-CONFORMING FENCE, LET ALONE ONE OF THIS SIZE.

ZONING STANDARDS SHOULD BE, SHOULD MEAN SOMETHING.

AN EXCEPTION THIS MASA SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED SIMPLY BECAUSE AN OWNER WOULD PREFER A SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER FENCE AND THE ZONING REGULATIONS ALLOW.

OURS IS AN OPEN, FAMILY-FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD AND MUST NOT BE TURNED INTO THE SITE OF AN ARENA MORE SUITED FOR A CAGE RIGHT.

DUE TO THE MASSIVE UNPRECEDENTED NATURE OF THE FENCE, IT'S INCOMPATIBILITY WITH DECADES LONG CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND STRONG OPPOSITION TO NEIGHBORS, UH, THIS REQUEST MUST BE DENIED.

TH- THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MOLLET.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MOLLAY? WE'LL START WITH MS. LAND.

UH, THANK YOU FOR COMING TODAY AND SPEAKING ON THIS.

I'M GONNA ASK YOU A QUESTION THAT I ASKED MR. BALDWIN.

UM, I- I - ONE OF THE SPEAKERS, UH, ONE OF THE LETTERS IN OPPOSITION SAID THAT THEY DON'T SUPPORT AN EIGHT FOOT, BUT THEY WOULD SUPPORT A SIX-FOOT FENCE.

UH, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU SUPPORT OR ARE YOU STRICTLY A, UH, AN OPPOSITION OF ANY FENCE ABOVE FOUR FEET HERE? WELL, I CAN'T SAY THAT I COMMIT TO A SIX-FOOT FENCE.

THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER FACTORS THAT ARE INVOLVED.

THE DESIGN THAT THEY PRESENTED, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUST A STRAIGHT LOT OF IRON PROVIDE - FENCE THAT PROVIDES A LOT OF PASS-THROUGH.

THIS, MY COMMENT FOR THE CAGE FIGHT IS THAT THIS HAS...

SOMEONE MIGHT VIEW THAT AS OPEN.

THERE, THERE'S NO FENCE CONSISTENTLY LIKE THAT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS IS LIKE A CHAIN...

LOOKS LIKE A CHAIN LINK FENCE TO ME.

THERE'S VERY LIMITED OPEN SPACE.

THIS BRINGS THE CAGE FIGHT CONCEPT TO ME WHEN I LOOK AT IT.

WELL, UH, UH - SO - AT THIS POINT - I'M SORRY.

UM, THAT...

THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 50% OPACITY, UH, WITH THAT DESIGN.

SO WE UNFORTUNATELY CAN'T SPECULATE OR DICTATE DESIGN IF THEY MEET THAT MERIT.

SO AT THIS POINT, WE'RE ONLY, UH, HERE TO CONSIDER HEIGHT.

THEY HAVE COME IN AND ASKED FOR EIGHT FOOT.

WE HAVE HAD SOME COMMENTARY ABOUT A SIX FOOT.

SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, AGAIN, I- IS...

A- ARE YOU IN OPPOSITION TO SIX FOOT AS WELL? I'M SORRY, BUT AT THIS MOMENT, THERE IS NO...

THERE IS ONE, ONE FENCE ON ANY ONE OF THESE INTERNAL LOTS ON ANY OF THESE CUL-DE-SACS OR THE 30 ADDITIONAL EIGHT SOUTH OF ISABELLA.

THERE'S ONLY ONE FENCE THAT WAS GRANTED, UH, EARLIER THIS YEAR BY THE BOARD.

THE FENCE IS FIVE FEET TALL.

IT HAS OPEN WROUGHT IRON, UH, PANELS, AND IT HAS A FIVE AND A HALF FOOT COLUMNS IN BETWEEN.

THERE IS...

THAT'S THE...

AND THAT FENCE...

AND THEN IT'S FOUR FEET FENCE HEIGHT ALONG THE TWO SIDES OF THE PROPERTIES ON THE EAST AND WEST.

THAT WAS AGREED TO BY THE NEIGHBORS AND WAS PROPOSED AND PASSED WITHOUT OPPOSITION FROM ANY OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE THEY HAD ENGAGED IN EXTENSIVE COMMUNICATION AND CONTACT WITH THOSE NEIGHBORS, AND THEY REACHED AN AGREEMENT TO REDUCE THE SIZE, SIDE AND TO ALSO CAP IT AT FIVE FEET.

THERE HAS BEEN NO OUTREACH FROM THESE APPLICANTS.

UH, THE, ONE OF THE HOMEOWNERS HAD CONTACTED A NEIGHBOR UPON LEARNING OF OPPOSITION AND SAID THAT THEY WOULD CONSIDER THEIR ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATE IT AND GET BACK.

WE NEVER HEARD BACK.

I CALLED MR. BALDWIN'S OFFICE.

HIS ASSISTANT TOLD ME THAT HE WOULD GIVE ME A CALL BACK.

GRANTED, THIS WAS YESTERDAY.

I NEVER HEARD BACK FROM HIM.

SO THERE HAS BEEN NO OUTREACH, AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A NEGOTIATION HERE WHEN THERE'S BEEN NO COMMUNICATION.

I CAN APPRECIATE THAT.

IT SOUNDS LIKE MR. BALDWIN IS WILLING, IF GIVEN THE TIME, TO, TO, TO, UH, REACH OUT TO YOU AND HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS.

AND, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I, I'M NOT PREPARED AND NO ONE ELSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AS FAR AS I KNOW, IS PREPARED TO AGREE TO THE SIX-FOOT, UH, HEIGHT.

I THINK THAT THERE COULD BE AN AGREEMENT

[00:25:01]

AT THE FIVE-FOOT HEIGHT THAT WAS ASKED AND APPROVED ACROSS THE STREET.

BUT AS I SAID, THERE ARE NO OTHER FENCES ON ANY OF THESE LOTS, AND, UH, I THOUGH IT WAS INTERESTING, EXCUSE ME, THE COMMENT ABOUT THE HOUSE, UH, CATTY-CORNER ON THIS, THAT MR. UM, THAT HAROLD HAD WORKED ON.

YES, THERE IS A FENCE ACROSS THE FRONT, BUT IT'S A FOUR-FOOT FENCE ACROSS MOST OF IT, AND YOU DID GIVE A VARIANCE FOR, UM, UH, A HIGHER GATE AND A COLUMN ON EACH SIDE OF THE GATE, BUT SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THAT FENCE IS A CONFORMING FENCE AT FOUR FEET.

IF THAT'S WHAT WAS APPROVED, WHETHER THAT'S WHAT WE TOLD, I CAN'T TELL YOU.

ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR MR. MOLLAY? ALL RIGHT.

I WOULD ALSO...

ONE COMMENT, WHICH IS, UM, MR. BALDWIN HAD NOTED AS HE WAS SHOWING THE HOUSE THAT THIS IS A NEW RECONSTRUCTIVE HOUSE.

IT WAS ACTUALLY BUILT ABOUT NINE YEARS AGO, AND THE HOMEOWNERS HAVE BEEN IN IT FOR FIVE YEARS.

SO, UH, I, I DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION OR LEAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS JUST BUILT AND THEY'RE JUST LOOKING AT IT AND DECIDING IT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

IT'S BEEN ABOUT FOUR OWNERS OF THAT HOUSE WITHOUT A FENCE, UH, THAT HAVEN'T BEEN FILED.

ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS ROLL DOWN THEIR WINDOW AND TALK TO US WHEN THEY DRIVE BY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN.

UM, NEXT, WE'LL HEAR FROM MR. EGGLESTON, WHO'S ALREADY BEEN SWORN IN.

COME ON UP, PLEASE.

THANK YOU, AND GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

IF YOU DON'T MIND, JUST START WITH YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE.

MY NAME IS GREG EGGLESTON.

THE ADDRESS IS 4530 ISABELLA, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET.

I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO YOU TODAY.

THERE IS SO MUCH THAT I COULD SAY.

I'VE GOT THREE MINUTES, SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO COMBINE THIS TO THREE POINTS.

FIRST, THERE IS NO WAY THAT WE CAN MITIGATE OR DISMISS THE ADVERSE EFFECT IT'S GONNA HAVE FROM HAVING A EIGHT-FOOT WALL DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM OUR PROPERTY.

I WANNA ADD TO THIS THE FACT THAT THE SITE PLANS, BESIDES BEING VERY UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DO, DOES NOT SHOW THE ELEVATION ISSUE.

THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT EIGHT FEET ABOVE GRADE, BUT THEY DON'T TELL US WHAT THE GRADE IS.

THE EXISTING GRADE SLOPES UP.

THEY'RE ON THE HIGH SIDE OF THE STREET.

THE PROPOSED LOCATION, WHICH ISN'T DIMENSIONED ON THE DRAWING, BUT APPEARS TO BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 15 AND 20 FEET FROM THE CURB, THAT AREA IS CURRENTLY TWO FEET ABOVE THE STREET.

IT MAY BE HIGHER IF THEY REGRADE THE PROPERTY AS THEY APPEAR TO BE DOING BASED ON OTHER PLANS THAT SHOW THEY'RE TAKING OUT LARGE TREES.

THAT WILL MEAN THAT THE TOP OF THEIR PROPOSED FENCE WOULD BE 10 FEET ABOVE WHAT WE WOULD SEE FROM OUR PROPERTY AND ANYONE IN THE STREET, A WALL.

80% OF THE PROTECTED FRONT YARD WOULD BE WALLED.

THE FENCE THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, IT'S NOT THAT YOU CAN WALK UP TO IT AND MAYBE LOOK THROUGH THE HOLES.

IT'S A VISUAL BARRIER, AND THAT'S WHAT'S INTENDED.

NOW, MR. MOLLE IS CORRECT.

THERE HAS BEEN NO NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH ON THIS.

EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE WORKED OUT, AND I WORKED OUT WITH MY NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR WHO WERE MENTIONED YOU HAVE THE FIVE-FOOT, NOT ON OUR SIDE, IN FRONT, FOUR FEET BY OUR PROPERTY.

WE WOULD NOT AGREE TO A SIX-FOOT FENCE ACROSS THE STREET BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T ACCOUNT FOR THE TWO FEET THAT IS ALREADY GONNA BE ABOVE.

AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE THERE WOULD BE SO HIGH THAT IT WOULD OBSCURE EVEN THE ROOF LINE OF THE HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET.

MASSIVE.

THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF HAVING A FRONT YARD, UH, OPENNESS IS TO PREVENT YOU FROM HAVING WALLED COMPOUNDS.

YOU DON'T WANNA TURN THE FRONT YARD INTO THE BACK.

MR. MOLEY HAS ALREADY POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO COMPARABLE PRECEDENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

MANY HAVE TRIED, ALL DENY.

WE'RE READY TO WORK WITH PEOPLE WHO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE, BUT THE KEY OF THE FOUR-FOOT HEIGHT IS THAT YOU CAN SEE IT OVER IT, NOT THAT IT BLOCKS THE EYE.

UM, AND I AM CONCERNED THAT, UM, THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR A DESERT, UH, DECISION ON THIS.

UH, WE DO VERY MUCH ASK THAT YOU DENY IT.

IF THERE'S GONNA BE DISCUSSION, GREAT.

WE BEEN THERE.

[00:30:01]

THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, UNFORTUNATELY.

WE DO TALK TO OTHER NEIGHBORS.

THERE WAS A MENTION ABOUT HEDGES AND NEXT DOOR AT 4512, THAT NEIGHBOR AND I WORKED TOGETHER.

WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT HE WAS PLANNING TO DO.

HE BROUGHT HIS CONTRACTOR THERE, WHICH HE DIDN'T HAVE TO.

WE HAD A THREE-WAY CONVERSATION.

WE REACHED SOME AGREEMENTS AND THEY AGREED TO A FOUR-FOOT HIGH EDGE.

IT'S A LITTLE HIGHER LIKE THAT, THAN LIKE THAT RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T ATTENDED TO IT.

THE UNIT HAS BEEN VACANT FOR THE YEAR.

WE HAD A LOT OF PROBLEMS. WE HAD A ROOF FAILURE, THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE GOT WATER SOAP, AND THE END OF THE LINE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S PLANNING TO DO.

HE'S A PRETTY PRIVATE PERSON AND WE LIKE HIM, BUT WE RESPECT THAT AND WE DON'T HAVE AN AUTHORITY TO TALK TO HIM.

BUT THAT IS NOT A BARRIER.

THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IS A VALUABLE LIFE.

IT NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED AND IT'S THERE FOR A REASON.

IF WE LOSE THAT, WE LOSE THE BENEFIT OF OUR ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY AND WE END UP IN A STREET THAT IS NO LONGER A FRIENDLY NAME, LANE THAT ATTRACTS PEOPLE TO IT, BUT BECOMES A SERVICE ROAD OF ALL THE STATES.

THANK YOU, MR. EGGLESTON.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? MR. FINNEY? YES, UH, MR. FINNEY.

UM, FIRST OF ALL, I'D JUST LIKE TO THANK YOU MR. ECKELSON FOR TAKING TIME OUT OF YOUR DAY TO COME TO THIS HEARING.

UM, AND I, I WAS JUST, I JUST WANTED TO ECHO A QUESTION THAT MY COLLEAGUE ASKED THE, THE LAST SPEAKER.

UM, IF, IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO COME AND SPEAK TO YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBORS, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SUPPORT A SIX-FOOT FENCE? NOT IN THIS SITUATION, UNLESS THERE WERE SOME OTHER CHANGES.

THE FIVE-FOOT FENCE THAT WE HAVE NEXT DOOR WAS A STRETCH AND IT DOESN'T SIT TWO FEET HIGHER TO BEGIN WITH.

AND IT'S VERY, VERY OPEN.

THERE ARE IRON PICKETS WITH SEVERAL INCHES BETWEEN.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FENCE, YOUR EYE IS DRAWN TO THE HOUSE BEHIND IT, NOT BLOCKED.

SO THAT WOULD BE A VERY BIG ISSUE.

WE'RE OPEN-MINDED.

WE'RE, WE'RE GOOD PEOPLE.

UH, WE LIKE OUR NEIGHBORS.

SO YOU'RE WILLING TO WORK, YOU'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR? ABSOLUTELY.

UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. BALDWIN, ACTUALLY.

IS THAT OKAY? I'LL SAY HOLD ON ONE SECOND BECAUSE AFTER THIS, I'M JUST GONNA GO BACK TO HIM FOR REBUTTAL.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. EGGLESTON? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION OF 4525 ISABELLA AVENUE? NO, THE SPEAKER REGISTERED, SIR.

ALLRIGHT, THANK YOU.

MR. BALDWIN, YOU'RE, UH, YOU'RE BACK UP FOR REBUTTAL.

UM, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH OUR NEIGHBOR, SEE WHAT WE CAN DO.

UH, MR. LADNER IS VERY GOOD AT WHAT HE DOES AND HE JUST DESIGNS FENCES.

UM, I THINK THAT WE CAN GET THERE.

UM, AND IF NOT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T LOST ANYTHING.

UH, SO IF YOU WOULD INDULGE US, YOU KNOW, FOR A MONTH TO, TO TRY TO WORK ON THIS, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

I, I THINK WE'RE NOT MEETING IN NOVEMBER, SO IT WOULD BE DECEMBER.

IF THIS CASE GETS HELD OVER, IT'LL BE 60 DAYS.

MR. FINNEY, YOU HAD A QUESTION FOR MR. BALDWIN? UH, YES.

I WAS JUST CURIOUS.

UM, DID, DID YOUR CLIENT SHARE THE SAME SECURITY CONCERNS WHEN THEY MADE THE DECISION TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY? AND DID, WERE THEY AWARE THAT THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATES THE, THE FRONT, THE FENCE HIGH FRONT, FRONT YARD FENCES? I DON'T KNOW THAT, HAROLD.

YEAH, SURE.

MARY, DO YOU SWEAR, UH, MR. LIGHTNER? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES.

WHICH HAPPENS TO BE MY CLIENT, WHICH I WAS FLABBERGASTED WHEN I SAW IT YESTERDAY, SHE HAS THE EIGHT TO 10 FOOT TALL FENCE.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS WHEN YOU PROCEED.

MY NAME IS HAROLD LIGHTNER AND I LIVE AT.

UH, 1601 SURVEYOR BOULEVARD, CARROLLTON, TEXAS.

AND, UH, UH, YES, THE, WELL, WHEN WE FIRST MET HIM, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SAY ONE THING JUST REALLY QUICKLY.

AND, UM, I'VE GOTTEN A VARIANCE FOR BOTH OF THOSE.

UH, THE TWO TALL, THE ONE FENCE THAT'S ALMOST EIGHT TO 10 FEET TALL, I AIN'T GOT THE VARIANCE FOR IT, UH, FOR THAT ONE ON ISA - ON ISABELLA.

AND DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, I GOT THE VARIANCE FOR THE ONE THAT'S OVER SIX FEET TALL.

AND THEN THERE'S A HOUSE.

SO ONE OF THE LADIES THAT OPPOSED IT,

[00:35:01]

UM, I'LL JUST, I JUST NEED TO GIVE HER A CALL BECAUSE I MEAN, I DON'T THINK SHE REALIZED WHAT WAS, SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE IT SEEMS, UH, KIND OF ODD.

AND THEN THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT, UH, THAT'S A NEW HOMEOWNER, WE, IT'S, UH, I THINK ABOUT A SIX-FOOT FENCE AND DIRECTLY ACROSS IS THAT GIANT EDGE THAT'S 20 FEET TALL, WHICH I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH.

BUT, UM, UH, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY ONE OF THE OPPOSITIONS I GOT, BUT TWO OF THE HOMES ON THERE I'VE GOTTEN TALLER THAN THE, UH, UH, SIX TO 10 FEET TALL.

SO IT'S, IT DOES EXIST BECAUSE I DID IT.

UM, THE, I DO THINK, I WILL SPEAK A LITTLE BIT JUST QUICKLY TO THE DESIGN.

THE DESIGN IS UNIQUE.

I, I'M NOT GONNA SAY IT'S NOT, BUT IT IS OPEN.

AND I DO, AND PERSONALLY THINK IT'S, IT'S SORT OF WHAT WE, WE DID, WHAT THE CLIENT WANTED.

AND WHEN, WHEN WE MET THEM, I'VE DONE ENOUGH OF THESE THAT I KNOW WHEN WE STARTED THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WANT THE SECURITY, WHICH THEY NEEDED GENERALLY FOR THEIR FAMILY, UH, IS, UH, THEY, I SAID WE HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE AND THEY WERE AWARE OF IT.

THEY, THEY ALREADY LIVED IN THE HOUSE AND I, YOU KNOW, WE, WE STARTED TO DISCUSS IT, BUT I, I KNOW, I KNOW RULES.

I WAS QUICK TO POINT OUT THAT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO GET A PERMISSION TO DO IT.

UH, SO ANYWAY.

BUT I WOULD, I WILL CLARIFY JUST ONE THING ABOUT THE GRADE THAT'S NOT QUITE RIGHT.

UH, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA GO AT A HALF AN INCH PER FOOT AND WE'RE ABOUT, LET'S SAY WE'RE 20 INCHES, 20 FEET BACK FROM THE CURB.

I MEAN, WE HAVE TO HAVE SLOPE OUT OF THAT'S 10 INCHES.

SO, I MEAN, I'M GONNA, WE'RE NOT BUILDING THE SIDE UP.

I MEAN, WE'RE GONNA, WE JUST HAVE TO GET DRAINAGE OUT OF THE, FROM THE FENCE.

IT JUST HAS TO DRAIN PROPERLY IS, IS A STANDARD SLOPE FROM THE FENCE TO THE STREET.

SO WE'RE NOT...

AND THE DALLAS CODE'S FUNNY ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT ISN'T THE INTENTION TO TRY TO SWEAT THIS INTO A.

AND I WILL SAY THEY DO WANNA WORK WITH THE FAMILY.

THEY TRAVEL A TON.

I MET WITH THEM IN MAY AND I'VE TALKED TO THEM TWICE.

THEY'VE BEEN OUT OF THE COUNTRY.

UH, THEY'RE BACK NOW BECAUSE THEIR KIDS ARE HERE, BUT THEY DO TRAVEL A LOT.

SO IT'S, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE AVOIDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY'RE JUST, I THINK THEY VERY MUCH WILL SAY THEY WANNA WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT, IT'S VERY MUCH THEIR INTENTION.

SHE IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT, SHE WANTS TO SEE OUT AND SHE WANTS PEOPLE TO SEE IN, SO THERE'S NO HEDGES GOING BEHIND OR AROUND THIS FENCE WHATSOEVER.

SO THE VISIBILITY, WHAT YOU SEE IN VISIBILITY IS WHAT YOU GET BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S, UH, IT'S A HOT SPOT FOR HER.

SHE, SHE WANTS TO ENGAGE.

SHE DIDN'T...

I MEAN, SHE MIGHT NOT HAVE SAID HELLO TO EVERYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I THINK SHE WANTS TO BE PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW.

UH, AND THAT, I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT VERY EXPLICITLY.

SO ANYWAY, THAT'S ABOUT IT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

LOOKS LIKE MR. FINNEY MIGHT HAVE A QUESTION, UH, FOR THE SPEAKER.

UH, YES.

MR. LEIDNER, IS THAT RIGHT? UM, SO YOU, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE, THE ACTUAL GRADE CHANGE IS ABOUT 10 INCHES.

WE'LL DO IT A HALF AN INCH A FOOT AND SAY, SAY THE FENCE IS ABOUT 20 INCH, YOU KNOW, 20 FEET, THAT'S, UH, 10 INCHES.

IT WOULD BE REALLY USEFUL IF, IF, IF YOU WERE TO COME BACK, IF WE WERE TO MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD THIS OVER, IF YOUR DRAWINGS CLEARLY INDICATED THE, THE GRADE CHANGE - SURE.

THAT THERE'S NO SPECULATION.

UM - WE HAVE A GRADING PLAN, SO THAT'S, IT'S EASY.

WE ALREADY HAVE THAT.

THE LESS SPECULATION, UM, THE EASIER OUR JOB IS MAKING A DECISION, SO.

SURE.

SEEING NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

YOU BET.

THAT CONCLUDES THE TESTIMONY ON THIS MATTER.

NO, SIR, I'M SORRY.

WE, WE HEAR THE SPEAKERS IN FAVOR, THEN OPPOSITION, THEN REBUTTAL, AND THEN WE MOVE TO A VOTE.

SO AT THIS POINT, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE APPLICATION OF ROB BALDWIN FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS AT 4525 ISABELLA LANE.

MR. QUINT? I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UH, UH, I, I, TO...

I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON APPEAL NUMBER BOA-26-000063 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL 12 / 16 / 26 BECAUSE WE DO NOT MEET IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER.

AND I SECOND THAT MOTION.

HOLIDAYS ARE COMING UP, I THINK THE 60-DAY PERIOD WINDOW WOULD PROBABLY BE A BENEFIT TO Y'ALL TOO.

ANY DISCUSSION ON MR. QUINN'S MOTION TO HOLD OVER THE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION TILL DECEMBER? MS. LAMB? I THINK THAT BA- BASED ON TESTIMONY ABOUT THE APPLICANT IN OPPOSITION, IT DOES SOUND LIKE THERE MAY BE SOME SORT OF COLLABORATION THAT CAN HAPPEN.

SOMETIMES THESE CASES BEING ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET, YOU DON'T REALIZE THAT THERE IS ANY OPPOSITION UNTIL YOU GET TO THE HEARING.

SO I THINK THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE ALL PARTIES WANNA COME TOGETHER AND FIND SOME SORT OF RESOLUTION, AND SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND, AND GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO DO SO WITHOUT A DENIAL.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO HOLD IT OVER, MR. QUINT? JUST TO ADD TO THAT, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DESIGN, IF THEY'RE, YOU'RE GOING BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD, THE

[00:40:01]

UH, MR. FLEMING.

FLEMING, YEAH, SAID TC.

MR. FLEMING.

UH, YEAH, I JUST, UM...

I'M AN ALTERNATE ON THIS PANEL, SO WHENEVER IT'S HELD OVER AND HEARD AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO BE HERE MOST LIKELY, BUT JUST MY TWO CENTS, I THINK THE OPPOSITION HAS AN EXTREMELY STRONG CASE.

I THINK THAT THE PHOTOS SUBMITTED REALLY CREATE A SENSE THAT THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD HERE THAT WOULD BE DISRUPTED IN CHARACTER BY THE FENCE.

UM, AND IN MY BOOK, YOU KNOW, I TAKE VERY STRONGLY THE OPINIONS OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WHENEVER TRYING TO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GONNA ADVERSELY AFFECT THEIR VALUES, WHICH IS THE ONE THING WE'RE DECIDING ON.

SO, YOU KNOW, I- IF IT'S ME, I, I'M NOT GOING TO APPROVE ANYTHING THAT HAS NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION, ESPECIALLY NOT TO THIS DEGREE OR, YOU KNOW, UH, AMOUNT.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I AM EXCITED TO SEE THE, UH, DISCUSSIONS THAT HAPPEN IN THE NEXT TWO MONTHS AND HOPE THAT EVERYONE CAN COME TO SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE FEELS GOOD ABOUT.

THANK YOU, MR. FLEMING.

ANY ADDITIONAL, UM, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, MS. WILLIAMS, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE VOTE ON MR. QUINN'S MOTION TO HOLD OVER THE CASE UNTIL THE DECEMBER MEETING? AND I APOLOGIZE.

WHO SECOND THE MOTION? IT WAS MR. FINNEY, I BELIEVE.

TO THIS CASE WE SKIPPED AT THE BEGINNING, AND I'M GONNA CALL FOR THE APPLICANT ON CASE NUMBER BOA-26-22.

MR. UH, MS. LANE? AYE.

MOTION TO HOLD OVER PASSES FIVE TO ZERO.

THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING DOWN.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

ALL RIGHT, MR. MALIK, ARE YOU ALL SET WITH YOUR S- SPEAKER? OKAY, THEN WE'RE GONNA GO BACK

[VI.1. 26-3300A Application of Kamran Malek for (1) a special exception to the fence height regulations, for (2) a special exception to the fence opacity regulations, for (3) a special exception to the 20-foot visibility obstruction regulation at the driveway approach, and for (4) a special exception to the 20-foot visibility obstruction regulation at the driveway approach at 10011 LENNOX LANE. This property is more fully described as Block C/5531, part of Lot 4B, and is zoned R-1ac(A), which limits the height of a fence in the front yard to 4 feet, requires a fence panel with a surface area that is less than 50 percent open may not be located less than five feet from the front lot line, and requires a 20-foot visibility triangle at each driveway approach. The applicant proposes to construct and/or maintain a 7-foot-high fence in a required front-yard, which will require (1) a 3-foot special exception to the fence height regulations, to construct and/or maintain a fence in a required front-yard with a fence panel having less than 50 percent open surface area located less than 5 feet from the front lot line, which will require (2) a special exception to the fence opacity regulations, to construct and/or maintain a single-family residential fence structure in a required visibility obstruction triangle at the most northerly driveway approach along Lennox Lane, which will require (3) a special exception to the visibility obstruction regulation at the driveway approach, and to construct and/or maintain a single-family residential fence structure in a required visibility obstruction triangle at the most southerly driveway approach along Lennox Lane, which will require (4) a special exception to the visibility obstruction regulation at the driveway approach. BOA-26-000022]

IT'S THE APPLICATION AT 10011 LENNOX LANE.

COME ON UP, SIR.

HI.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

UH, APOLOGIZE FOR MY PARDONS TO THE MEETING.

UM, MY NAME IS DANIEL STEWART.

I'M AT 5300 BOULEVARD IN FRISCO, AND I AM REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

I'M GOING TO SWEAR YOU IN.

SURE.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES.

IS BUILT, THE ACTUAL BUILT FENCE IS ABOUT A SIX FEET, UH, SIX-FOOT TALL FENCE.

PLEASE PROCEED.

UH, SO WITH THAT, UH, I WAS IN THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, UH, UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WAS, UH, ONE KIND OF QUESTION, UM, ABOUT THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.

UH, SO I'LL JUST KIND OF JUMP INTO THAT.

UM, AND REALLY THE, THE GOAL BEHIND THE VARIANCE REQUEST ON THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES IS TWOFOLD.

UH, NUMBER ONE, BASED ON WHERE THE DRIVEWAYS ARE LOCATED AND THE ADJACENT FENCE ON ONE END AND THE ADJACENT CORNER ON THE OTHER, THAT HAS A SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER VISIBILITY TRIANGLE THAT IS RESPECTED, UM, IN TRYING TO HONOR THOSE TRIANGLES EXACTLY, IT CREATES SOME VERY STRANGE GEOMETRY ON THE FENCE LINE, UH, THAT WOULDN'T BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MAIN PART OF THAT FENCE.

SO WE WERE TRYING TO RESPECT THAT LINEAR FASHION THAT YOU SEE ALONG THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UH, THE OTHER FROM MORE OF A TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STANDPOINT IS THAT THIS IS THE CORNER HOUSE, AND SO TYPICALLY THOSE VI- VISIBILITY TRIANGLES ARE THERE TO HELP, UH, YOU SAFELY SEE TRAFFIC COMING IN ON THE SIDE THAT YOU'RE TURNING.

AND SO BEING NEXT TO THE STOP SIGN AT WALNUT HILL, THAT S- SCENARIO IS VERY DIFFERENT.

UH, TRAFFIC IS INHERENTLY SLOWING DOWN AS YOU APPROACH THESE TWO DRIVEWAYS, SO THAT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISN'T REALLY NECESSARILY GONNA BE THE SAME AT THAT LOCATION AS IT WOULD BE AT A DIFFERENT SPOT IN THE STREET.

AND SO, UH, I KNOW THE CODE DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT YOU'RE CLOSE TO A STOP SIGN OR AN INTERSECTION OR A STREET LIGHT OR ANYTHING ELSE, BUT, UH, JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND PERSPECTIVE OF WHERE THIS REQUEST IS COMING FROM, WHY WE THINK THAT IT'S SUITABLE, UH, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UM, THAT'S WHY WE, UH, ARE MAKING THIS REQUEST.

AND I THINK THAT IS, HAS A LOT TO DO WITH WHY TRAFFIC, CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DID NOT HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, SIR.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER, UH, STARTING WITH MS. LAMB? SO THIS IS ALREADY AN EXISTING FENCE, CORRECT? IT IS, YES, MA'AM.

SO HOW DID YOU GET HERE? HOW DID, HOW DID WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU'RE COMING IN ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS RATHER THAN PERMISSION? SO THAT WAS A SITUATION, UH, I AM NOT THE BUILDER ON THE PROPERTY, BUT, UM, UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, THE FENCE

[00:45:01]

UM, I GATHER IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT WAS A CITY-WIDE STANDARD, AND SO THEY WENT IN TO BUILD IT, UM, FOUND OUT AFTERWARDS IF IT WAS, THE PERMIT WAS NEEDED, AND THAT'S WHEN WE WENT TO APPLY FOR THE PERMIT, GOT NOTIFICATION THAT WE NEED TO GO TO FOR THIS ONE.

SO, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I CAN'T, UM, GIVE YOU ANY MORE FEEDBACK THAN JUST IT WAS A MISTAKE, AND SO NOW WE ARE TRYING TO COME IN TO, UM, TO PRESENT THESE TO YOU.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT, UM, IF WE HAD DONE IT DIFFERENTLY, IF IT WAS, IF IT WAS VERSED AND WE WERE DOING MORE OF THE, THE APPROVED PROCESS, THE, THE REQUEST WOULD STILL BE THE SAME.

UH, THE, THE, THE, I THINK FOUR ITEMS THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR, UH, ARE STILL OUR REQUEST TO YOU, UH, AND SO UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, IT WAS A MISTAKE THAT, THAT IT'S A, UH, IT'S AN AFTER ASK INSTEAD OF A BEFORE, BUT, UH, IT'D STILL BE A REQUEST BACK TO YOU.

UM, WHEN WAS THIS FENCE BUILT? SIX MONTHS AGO.

I MEAN, IT WAS...

THE, THE HOUSE IS NEW.

THE HOUSE WAS JUST BUILT, SO THE FENCE WAS BUILT WITH.

HAVE THERE BEEN ANY ACCIDENTS IN, IN THE FENCE - NO.

ADJACENT NEAR THE FENCE?.

ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE SPEAKER, MR. FINNEY, MR. FLEMING, OR MR. QUINCE? QUINCE? OH, MR. FLEMING.

MR. FINNEY.

SORRY.

UM, SO, UH, FORGIVE ME IF YOU STATED THIS ALREADY.

WHEN...

SO AT WHAT POINT DID YOU FIND OUT THAT YOUR FENCE WAS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE? SO, UH, I DON'T - WHAT, WHAT TRIGGERED, WHAT TRIGGERED IT, I GUESS, IS WHAT I'M ASKING? RIGHT.

SO, UM, I, I THINK IT WAS AT SOME POINT DURING THE INSPECTION PROCESS, UM, THEY CAME OUT AND SAID, "YOU HAVE THIS FENCE TO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THE PERMIT FOR IT." THEN THAT'S WHEN WE FIGURED OUT THAT WE HAD DONE SOMETHING ERRONEOUS.

AND SO, UH, THAT'S WHEN WE HAD STARTED GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS OF GETTING THE PERMIT, GETTING THE NOTIFICATION THAT NOW THAT WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE.

UH, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH WITH THE INSPECTOR AND THE, UH, THE COORDINATOR FOR THE, THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION, UH, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYBODY HAS BEEN VERY POSITIVE, VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THINGS, BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S AN APPROVAL PROCESS TO GO TO.

SO THAT'S KIND OF WHEN THIS HAPPENED.

UM, THE, THE HOUSE IS MORE OR LESS COMPLETE, I THINK.

UM, AND SO, UH, THIS WAS AT THAT POINT WHERE WE WERE TRYING TO SAY, "YES, WE'RE DONE WITH THIS, WE'RE DONE WITH THIS," AND THEN FOUND OUT THAT WE HAD THIS, UH, THIS CONDITION TO GO THROUGH.

AND THEN JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE APPLICANT? YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T BUILD IT, SO WHAT - CORRECT.

SO, SO, UM, I AM A CIVIL ENGINEER MYSELF, UH, AND SO, UM, WHEN THEY, UH, AS THEY COORDINATED THIS APPLICATION AND GOT THE VARIANCE IN PLACE THAT WERE NEEDED, THEY CALLED ME TO SAY, "OKAY, WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHAT, WHAT IS YOUR, UH, ANALYSIS OF THIS? WHAT DO YOU, UM, WHAT CAN YOU OFFER TO, TO THIS DISCUSSION?" UH, AND SO THEY ASKED ME TO HELP COME AND SPEAK TO, TO ANSWER SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS THAT Y'ALL ARE ASKING, SO THAT IS MY RELATIONSHIP TO IT.

UM, I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE BEGINNING, UH, BUT I OBVIOUSLY DO A LOT OF PERMITTING, UH, BOTH WITH DALLAS AND OTHER CITIES THROUGHOUT THE, THE METROPLEX, AND SO I'M HERE TO HELP JUST TO ANSWER Y'ALL'S QUESTIONS AND GET YOU SOME OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION.

BUT WHY WOULD THEY SEND YOU TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IF YOUR ANSWER IS, "I'M NOT THE BUILDER"? WELL, THIS IS A, ABOUT A FENCE, RIGHT? AND SO THE, THE BUILDER THAT DID THE HOUSE ALSO DID THE FENCE, RIGHT? UM, AND SO, UH, I AM VERY ACCUSTOMED TO GOING TO PRESENTATIONS LIKE THIS, VERY ACCUSTOMED TO ANSWERING QUESTIONS, VERY ACCUSTOMED TO ANALYZING CODE AND SEEING, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE ISSUE AND WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND HOW DO WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT? DO WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT DIFFERENTLY? AND SO THAT'S WHERE I WAS COMING IN, JUST TO HELP ON THE BACK END TO SAY, "LOOK, YOU KNOW, UH, IF, IF WE HAD SOME THINGS THAT JUST DIDN'T MAKE SENSE, THEN THAT'S WHEN I SAY IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

LET'S, WE GOTTA, WE GOTTA TRY TO FIX THIS." UM, I THINK THAT LOOKING AT WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS, UM, LOOKING AT WHAT THE CONDITIONS OF THIS SPECIFIC SITE ARE, UH, I BELIEVE THE JUSTIFIED REQUESTS TO YOU GUYS.

UM, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT CONSISTENCY AND, UH, BEING COMPLIMENTARY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UH, THIS DOES SEEM TO BE VERY CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UH, THE, THE OPENNESS OF THE FENCE IS VERY CONSISTENT, UH, AND IT'S A, IT'S A REALLY NICE APPEARANCE.

UH, I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST, AND SO I'M HAPPY TO, TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE TO, IN, IN ORDER TO GET Y'ALL TO, UH, APPRECIATE THE, THE SPECIFICS OF THIS.

WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO THOSE IN OPPOSITION.

ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? UH, MS. LAMB, YOU'LL HAVE THE LAST QUESTION, THEN

[00:50:01]

SO, UH, SINCE THIS IS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED, DO YOU...

WE, WE DIDN'T GET ANY LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR IN OPPOSITION.

CORRECT.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

UM, DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW THE NEIGHBORS FEEL ABOUT IT? NOT NECESSARILY NOT GETTING ANYTHING DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY SUPPORT IT.

IT JUST MEANS THAT THEY EITHER DIDN'T BRING THEIR MAIL OR MAYBE INDIFFERENT.

IT DOESN'T SPEAK ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW THE NEIGHBORS FEEL ABOUT WHAT'S BEEN CONSTRUCTED HERE? I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE HEARD ANYTHING FROM THE NEIGHBORS.

UM, OBVIOUSLY, UM, THERE HAVE BEEN PEOPLE ON SITE, UH, FOR THE LAST YEAR OR SO, UH, WHILE THE HOUSE BEEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

AND LIKE I SAID, THE, THE FENCE HAS BEEN THERE FOR SEVERAL MONTHS NOW.

UM, WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN ANY FEEDBACK ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

UM, I CAN TELL YOU, AND I THINK YOU CAN PROBABLY SEE FROM THE PICTURES THAT, UH, THIS WILL BE ONE OF THE MORE OPEN HOUSES, UH, IN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA.

I THINK THE ONE ACROSS THE STREET HAS, UH, EIGHT FOOT EDGES.

I THINK THE ONE NEXT DOOR TO US HAS, UM, I KNOW AT LEAST THE SIDE YARD FENCE IS A CHAIN LINK WITH SOME OF THAT NETTING, UH, STUFF ON IT.

AND SO, UM, IT'S, UH, IT'S DEFINITELY, UH, CONSISTENT IN...

IT'S EITHER CONSISTENT OR MORE OPEN, UH, THAN SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS OF THIS.

BEFORE WE GO, CAN WE JUST PULL UP A PHOTO OF WHAT'S EXISTING? SURE.

IF THAT'S OKAY, THE STAFF.

I CAN, UH, YEAH.

DR.

MILLER-HOSKINS, COULD WE GET...

MS. LAMB WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PHOTO OF WHAT'S ALREADY EXISTING ON THIS CASE.

THERE'S SOME OF THE PICTURES OF THE PROJECT, RIGHT? MM-HMM.

AND WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT, MS. WILLIAMS, ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS REGISTERED IN OPPOSITION? NO, THE SPEAKER'S REGISTERED, SIR.

OKAY, THAT'S, THAT'S HELPFUL.

TO CONSTRUCT AND/OR MAINTAIN A SEVEN-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 TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADV- ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

UM, ACTUALLY, WHILE YOU HAVE IT UP, CAN YOU SHOW SOME, SOME OF THE CONTEXT PHOTOS OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES? YEAH, SO THAT'S, THAT WAS RIGHT NEXT DOOR.

UH, THAT, YEAH, THAT ONE ON THE RIGHT THERE WAS, WAS THE, THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS.

THEN AT THIS POINT, UM, THANK YOU, SIR.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

UH, AT THIS POINT, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION, AND WE'VE GOT FOUR OF THESE, SO I'LL TAKE THEM IN ORDER.

BUT THE FIRST ONE IS THE APPLICATION OF, UH, MR. MALIK FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE HEIGHT- HEIGHT REGULATIONS.

MS. LAMB? I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BOA-26-000022 ON APPLICATION OF CAMERON MALIK GRANT THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT

[00:55:01]

I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE OPPOSED TO PROVE THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE TO THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF THE SUB- SUBMITTED SITE PLAN AND OTHER ELEVATIONS ARE REQUIRED.

AND IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION ON MS. LAMB'S MOTION TO GRANT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION? UM, USUALLY I DON'T LIKE IT WHEN I HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION AND APPROVE CASES OF, OF EXISTING FENCES, BUT I THINK YOU MET A LOT OF THE REQUIREMENTS.

I LIKE THE OPACITY.

THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY NEIGHBORS SPEAKING OUT IN OPPOSITION OF WHAT'S ALREADY EXISTING IS HELPFUL, ALTHOUGH I DON'T ENCOURAGE ANYBODY TO GO AND BUILD FENCES OUTSIDE OF WHAT'S ALLOWED.

BUT, UH, I THINK IF YOU APPROVED YOUR CASE, THEN I WILL SUPPORT THIS, UH, MOTION.

ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, MR. FINNEY? YES.

UM, I ECHO MS. LAMB'S COMMENTS.

PLUS, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T LIKE, UH, BEING PUT IN A POSITION WHERE WE'RE, UH, GRANTING FORGIVENESS.

UM, I THINK THE, THE REASON I'M MOST INCLINED TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION IS THAT OUR TRANSPORTATION TEAM DID NOT LAG ANY CONCERNS WITH THE VISIBILITY, UM, AND SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.

MR. FLEMING.

YEAH, I, I PLAN TO N- NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION.

UM, I JUST, I DON'T SENSE ANY, UH, CURIOSITY FROM THE APPLICANT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS ADVERSELY AFFECTS NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

I GET FROM THAT PRIMARILY THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NO LETTERS OF SUPPORT, UM, AND ALSO JUST THE WAY THAT THIS ARRIVED AT US, I THINK, STRONGLY SUGGESTS, UH, LACK OF CURIOSITY ABOUT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND HOW THEY'RE AFFECTED BY THESE DECISIONS.

UM, I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE ONTO THE, UH, TRAFFIC TRIANGLES YET, BUT I, I JU - I'M JUST ALSO CONCERNED THAT IT'S TRAFFIC COMING OFF OF WALNUT HILL, UM, BUT I GUESS WE CAN SAY THAT.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON MS. LAMB'S MOTION TO GRANT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THE FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS? ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT, MS. WILLIAMS, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE VOTE? MS. LAMB? AYE.

MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FOUR TO ONE.

NEXT FOR, UH, THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON MR. MALIK'S APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE HEIGHT OPACITY REGULATIONS.

MS. LAMB? I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A- APPEAL NUMBER BOA-26-00022 ON APPLICATION OF GRANT THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND/OR MAINTAIN A FENCE WITH, UH, WITH PANEL HAVING LESS THAN 50% OPEN SURFACE AREA LOCATED LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT LINE AS 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 THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE OPPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE FOR CAPACITY AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF SUBMITTED SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS ARE REQUIRED.

IS THERE A SECOND FOR MS. LAMB'S MOTION? AYE, ANDREW FINNEY, SECOND THE MOTION.

ANY DISCUSSION ON MS. LAMB'S MOTION? WE'LL START WITH MS. LAMB.

I THINK THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT DID A GOOD JOB OF, OF, FOR THE MOST PART, MAINTAINING MORE THAN OR EQUAL TO 50% OPACITY OF, UH, STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS TO THE FENCE THAT ARE A LITTLE LESS, UH, CAPABLE OF BEING 50% OPA- OPAQUE, OPAQUE, SO THAT'S WHY I WENT AHEAD AND GRANTED THIS.

MR. FINNEY.

YES, AND I, I AGREE WITH MS. LAMB'S COMMENTS, AND I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT WHEN WE'RE CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT FENCE OPACITY SPECIFICALLY ADVERSELY AFFECTS NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, THE NUMBER ONE THING WE LOOK FOR IS, IS THERE OPPOSITION AND HAS THE APPLICANT MADE EFFORTS TO RECONCILE OR COMPROMISE DIALOGUE WITH THE OPPOSITION GIVEN THAT THERE IS NO OPPOSITION? I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THE OPACITY ISSUE IS NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

ALSO, UM, THE CHARACTER IMAGERY OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES SEEMS TO SHOW, UM, MUCH LESS OPACITY, I MEAN, MUCH MORE OPACITY, FORGIVING, MUCH LESS TRANSPARENCY.

UM, AND SO I THINK ACTUALLY THIS IS, UM, MORE TRANSPARENT, UH, LESS, LESS OPAQUE THAN WHAT'S, UH, SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY.

SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, MR. QUINT OR MR. FLEMING? ALL RIGHT THEN, MS. WILLIAMS, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE VOTE ON MS. LAMB'S MOTION TO GRANT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DEFENSE HEIGHT OPACITY REGULATION? MS. LAMB? AYE.

[01:00:01]

MR. GRAHAM PASSES FOUR TO ONE.

NEXT, THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON MR. MALIK'S APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE 20-FOOT VISIBILITY, UH, OBSTRUCTION REGULATION AT THE DRIVEWAY APPROACH.

MS. LEHAN.

I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BOA-26-000022 ON APPLICATION OF CAMERON MALIK GRANT THE REQUEST TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE 20-FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE MOST NORTHERNLY DRIVE APPROACH ALONG LENNOX LANE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE VI- VISUAL OBSTRUCTION REG- REGULATION CONTAINING DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT, UH, CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.

I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE OPPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.

COMPLIANCE TO THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF THIS SITE PLAN AND ON THE ELEVATIONS IN REGARDS TO THE PORTION IN VIOLATION OF THE VISUAL, UH, OBSTRUCTION TRIANGLE ARE REQUIRED.

AND THEN BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY BECAUSE I DIDN'T SAY IT ALL THE WAY.

SO RIGHT NOW WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON AND WHAT THE MOTION ON IS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE FOR THE NORTHERN DRIVERLY APPROACH.

SO I DIDN'T SAY THE WHOLE THING, BUT TO CLARIFY.

THEN ANY DISCUSSION, WE'LL START WITH MS. LAMB BECAUSE IT'S HER MOTION.

UM, I HAVE TO LEAN ON A FEW THINGS HERE WHEN GRANTING THIS.

UH, FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE CITY STAFF AND THEIR RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.

SECONDLY, UM, THAT THIS, UH, THIS REQUEST TO MAINTAIN ITEMS FROM THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IS ON LENNOX LANE AND NOT WALNUT HILL.

AND THIRDLY, THIS HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED FOR SIX MONTHS.

WE WOULD HAVE BEEN, WE WOULD HAVE A RECORD AND WE DO HAVE A RECORD OF ANY TRAFFIC ISSUES OR HAZARDS WITHIN THAT PERIOD OF TIME.

SO BECAUSE OF ALL THOSE REASONS, BECAUSE THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY ACCIDENTS THAT EITHER THE APPLICANT AND STAFF CAN POINT TO AS IT PERTAINS TO THIS INTERSECTION, UM, ALL OF THOSE REASONS LEANING ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, I, I FEEL INCLINED TO GRANT THIS.

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, MR. QUINT? MR. UH, FINNEY, MR. FLEMING.

THEN MS. WILLIAMS, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE VOTE? MS. LAMB? AYE.

MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FOR THE ONE.

ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? YES.

THEN LAST ON THIS PROPERTY, WE'LL, UH, TAKE UP AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THE 20-FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, AND THIS TIME IT'S FOR THE SOUTHERNLY APPROACH TO THE DRIVEWAY.

MS. LAMB? I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BOA-26-000022 ON APPLICATION OF GRANT THE REQUEST TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE 20-FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE MOST SOUTHERNLY DRIVEWAY APPROACH ALONG LENNOX LANE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITH VISUAL OBSTRUCTIVE REGULATION COMPARED TO DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS PROVIDED BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOW THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT CONSTITUTE TRAFFIC HAZARD.

I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE OPPOSED TO PURPOSE AND INTENT TO VALID DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.

COMPLIANCE TO THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF THE SITE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS IN REGARDS TO THE PORTION, UH, IN VIOLATION OF THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION TRIANGLE ARE REQUIRED.

IS THERE A SECOND TO MS. LAMB'S MOTION TO, UH, GRANT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION? SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? WE'LL START WITH MS. LAMB.

MY SAME SENTIMENT FROM THE PREVIOUS, UH, MOTION, UH, PERTAINING TO THIS AS WELL.

I, I THINK THE, THE APPLICANT MADE A GOOD POINT, UM, REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR, UM, REQUEST THAT THIS PARTICULAR DRIVEWAY IS SITUATED, UH, ON THE SOUTHBOUND SIDE OF LENNOX LANE AS TRAFFIC IS SLOWING DOWN, UH, TOWARD AT THE INTERSECTION OF WALNUT HILL AND LENOX.

UM, SO, UM, I, I FIRST AND FOREMOST LEAN ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF OUR TRANSPORTATION STAFF WHO HAD NO FLAGS OR CONCERNS, UM, BUT I, I THINK THE APPLICANT ALSO MADE A, A GOOD POINT AS WELL, WHICH IS WHY I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON MS. LAMB'S MOTION TO GRANT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION? THEN MS. WILLIAMS, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE VOTE? MS. LAMB? AYE.

MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FOUR TO ONE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YOU'LL GET A LETTER, UH, EMAIL FROM OUR BOARD SECRETARY.

THANKS VERY MUCH.

IS CASE NUMBER BOA-26-64,

NEXT ON OUR DOCKET

[VI.3. 26-3302A Application of Tommy Mann for (1) a special exception to the landscaping regulations at 3015 KNOX STREET. This property is more fully described as Block J/1534, Lots 13, 14, 15A, 16 and 17, and is zoned PD-193(LC), which requires landscape to be provided. The applicant proposes to construct and/or maintain nonresidential structure and provide an alternate landscape plan, which will require (1) a special exception to the landscaping regulations.]

[01:05:02]

THE PROPERTY AT 3015 KNOX STREET.

THE APPLICATION TO PHILLIP KINGSTON.

THAT MUCH I FIGURED OUT, BUT, UH, IF YOU'LL BE SPEAKING FOR THE APPLICANT, PLEASE COME ON UP.

I THINK THAT'S JUST A TYPO ON YOUR AGENDA, FYI.

PHILLIP'S NOT INVOLVED IN THIS REQUEST.

UM, HE WON'T MIND ME SAYING THAT.

UH, SO TOMMY MANN, 500 WINSTEAD BUILDING, AND I'M ACTUALLY REPRESENTING THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROJECT, WHICH IS, UH, TRAMMELL PRO COMPANY AND THEIR PARTNERSHIP WITH NSB.

THIS IS THE FORMER CHEWY SITE WE LISTED TO- TOMMY? I'M SORRY.

NO, I'M NOT LYING.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.

PLEASE PROCEED.

THANKS.

UH, SO I'M HANDING OUT JUST SOME GRAPHIC REPRESENTATIONS TO TRY AND BE RESPONSIVE TO THE QUESTIONS IN THE BRIEFING, BUT LET ME FIRST GIVE YOU THE IMPETUS FOR THIS REQUEST, HOW WE GOT A PERMIT, WHERE WE ARE.

SO KNOX STREET, THIS IS ABOUT 10 YEARS IN THE WORKS, IS BEING COMPLETELY REBUILT AS UNDER A NEW COMPLETE STREETS DESIGN.

UM, THAT HAS TAKEN A LONG TIME TO PLAN.

IT'S ACTUALLY FULLY FUNDED NOW.

IT MAY BE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION AS SOON AS BEFORE THE END OF THIS YEAR.

WHEN THAT DESIGN WAS GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS, MYSELF AND SEVERAL OTHER OF MY CLIENTS ALONG THE STREET POINTED OUT TO THE CITY AND THEY AGREED THAT THE DESIGN FOR THE STREET DOESN'T MEET PD193.

SO THE CITY ACTUALLY ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE THAT SAID THE COMPLETE STREET DESIGN WOULD TRUMP 8193.

UH, BUT FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT STOPPED AT KNOX AND MCKINNEY.

SO IT GOES ALL THE WAY FROM KATY TRAIL TO MCKINNEY.

IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THIS ONE SITE.

SO THE ENTIRETY OF KNOX FROM MCKINNEY TO THE KATY TRAIL IS ABOUT TO BE BUILT IN THE FASHION THAT WE ARE TRYING TO MATCH, UH, WITH THIS REQUEST.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'VE MADE THE REQUEST IS TO PROVIDE A COHESIVE STREETSCAPE ALONG THE ENTIRETY OF WHAT WILL BE KNOX STREET.

NOW, HOW DO WE GET A PERMIT? WE GOT A PERMIT BECAUSE WE SUBMITTED A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT IS COMPLIANT.

WE CAN MEET 8103 IF WE HAVE TO.

WHAT IT WOULD MEAN IS BASICALLY, AND PICK WHICHEVER ONE YOU LIKE TO DIVISION EASIER, THEY ALL DEMONSTRATE THE SAME POINT.

IT'S THE LEFT SIDE OF THIS PAGE.

WE WOULD HAVE TO DROP LANDSCAPE AREAS KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS SIDEWALK AREA THAT YOU SEE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THAT.

THIS IS THE COMPLETE STREET DESIGN FOR ALL OF KNOX.

IT LOSES A LANE AND BASICALLY PUTS A CHICKEN LEFT TURN LANE IN AND MAKES ALL OF THE STOREFRONTS MORE WALKABLE WITH WIDER SIDEWALKS.

UM, YOU CAN SEE ON THIS THIRD PAGE, WHICH WAS I THINK IN THE LETTER THAT WE SUBMITTED, THE THREE LITTLE GREEN BANDS, THAT'S THE LANDSCAPING ALONG KNOX THAT WE'RE ASKING TO ELIMINATE.

IF WE PUT IT IN, IT'S FINE.

IT'S JUST YOU'LL HAVE A SIDEWALK CONDITION THAT GOES FROM 10 FEET DOWN TO SIX, BACK TO 10, DOWN TO SIX.

IT'LL BE AN AWKWARD PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE BLOCK.

SO THAT'S WHY WE SUBMITTED IT.

I THINK YOU'VE GOT OUR OAKLAND COMMITTEE SUPPORT LETTER.

UH, WE PRESENTED AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING EARLIER THIS MONTH.

I WOULD ONLY NOTE ONE THING THAT YOU MAYBE DIDN'T NOTICE THE USE OF THE WORD UNANIMOUS.

UH, THEY DON'T USE THAT WORD VERY OFTEN, UH, SO THAT GIVES YOU A SENSE OF THEIR AGREEMENT WITH OUR APPROACH TO THIS BEING CONSISTENT AND BETTER EXPERIENCE FOR WHAT IS FRANKLY GONNA BE THE MOST WALKABLE STREET IN PD 193 ONCE IT'S.

UH, SO HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS FILL IN THE GAPS FROM THE BRIEFING AND APOLOGIES IF ANY OF OUR SUBMITTAL DIDN'T MAKE THAT CLEAR, BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

IS THERE ANYBODY REGISTERED TO SPEAK TODAY IN OPPOSITION OF THE, UH, APPLICATION AT 3015 KNOX STREET? NO, THE SPEAKER'S REGISTERED.

THEN WITH THAT, THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE APPLICATION OF TOMMY MANN FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS AT 3015 KNOX STREET.

MR. FINNEY.

I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BOA-26-00064 ON APPLICATION OF TOMMY MANN GRANT THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 193 OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT COMPROMISE THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 193.

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.

ANY DISCUSSION AND WE'LL START...

OH, I'M SORRY.

SECOND.

I'D LIKE TO SECOND THE MOTION.

[01:10:01]

UH, THEN ANY DISCUSSION STARTING WITH MR. FINNEY? UH, YES.

I THINK THE, THE APPLICANT, UH, SATISFIED, UM, MY CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, REMOVING LANDSCAPING, UM, AND ULTIMATELY I THINK THE, UH, THE LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE OAKLAND COMMITTEE, UH, SPEAKS VOLUMES TO, UM, WHETHER OR NOT THIS ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, SO THAT IS WHY I, UH, MAKE THE MOTION.

WE'LL GO TO MS. LAMB FIRST AND THEN TO MR. QUINN.

TOMMY, THANK YOU FOR COMING AND PRESENTING THAT.

I'M OBVIOUSLY THE ONE THAT PULLED THIS OFF THE PRESENT DOCKET.

YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY THINGS GET APPROVED IN A BUILDING AND, AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION WHEN THEY DON'T MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT ALWAYS PRIVY TO THE, THE, UH COMMITTEE MEETING.

SO THANK YOU FOR GIVING US AN VERSION OF WHAT YOU PRESENTED TO THEM AND I DIDN'T NOTICE THE WORD UNANIMOUS.

SO I JUST WANTED TO HEAR WHAT THE INTENT, THE REASON WHY, UM, YOU WANTED THIS, UM, STRAIGHT FROM, FROM YOUR MOUTH AND IT, IT MET ALL OF MY NEEDS.

I DIDN'T HAVE A SIMPLE QUESTION TO VET IT SO WELL.

SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, PRESENTATION, HARD WORK FOR THE OAKLAND COMMITTEE AND THE EFFORTS Y'ALL HAVE, UH, ON, ON MAKING THIS ONE THE MOST LAWFUL POINTS OF BALANCE.

MR. QUINN? MR. FLEMING.

IN THAT CASE, MS. WILLIAMS, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE VOTE ON MS. LAMB'S MOTION TO GRANT THE APPLICANT? OH, I'M SORRY, MR. FLEMING'S.

WHO WAS IT? MR. FINNEY, MR. FINNEY.

MR. FINNEY'S MOTION TO GRANT THE APPLICATION SECONDED BY MS. LAMB.

VERY LAST ON OUR DOCKET IS CASE NUMBER BOA-26-695043 LYNETTE LANE.

OKAY THEN.

WELL, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

LA -

[VI.6. 26-3290A Application of Bryan Foster for (1) a variance to the front yard setback regulations at 5043 LINNET LANE. This property is more fully described as Block 8/4914, Lot 6, and is zoned PD 67 (Tract IV), which requires a front yard setback of 25-feet. The applicant proposes to construct and/or maintain a single-family residential structure and provide a 21-foot-6-inch front yard setback, which will require (1) a 3-foot-6-inch variance to the front yard setback regulations.]

THE APPLICATION OF BRIAN FOSTER FOR A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS.

WELCOME, SIR.

CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? UH, HELLO.

MY NAME'S BRIAN FOSTER.

I LIVE AT 3721 COOK COURT, UH, FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76244.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.

PLEASE PROCEED.

I HAVE A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION.

IS THERE ANY WAY TO HAVE IT, UH, INCLUDED IN, IN MY - DO YOU, UM, ARE YOU, ARE YOU JOINED IN THE, INTO THE MEETING OR - NO.

DO YOU HAVE IT? CAN YOU EMAIL IT TO THE DEPARTMENT? UH, POSSIBLY.

I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE INTERNET CONNECTION.

OR, OR DO YOU HAVE, UH, UM, A USB OR...

NO, MA'AM.

IF YOU...

YOU KNOW WHAT? WHILE THEY WORK ON THAT, WOULD Y'ALL LIKE TO TAKE, LIKE, A 10-MINUTE BREAK? ALL RIGHT.

LET'S DO THAT.

LET'S RECESS UNTIL 2:25, AND WE'LL COME BACK AND, AND HOPEFULLY WE'RE GOOD ON THE POWERPOINT.

SO WE'RE IN RECESS.

IT'S 2:26 AND I RECONVENE THE MEETING.

AND I THINK WE'VE ALREADY...

HAVE WE ALREADY SWORN IN THE WITNESS? WE DID? OKAY.

I THINK WE DID.

IN THAT CASE, SIR, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

UM, AT THAT TIME, IT CAME TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE HOUSE WAS OVER THE FRONT SETBACK LINE.

SO MY NAME IS BRIAN FOSTER.

UH, I'M A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR WITH STRAND ENGINEERING.

UM, I AM THE APPLICANT.

OUR, UH, CLIENT WAS ALARIO HOMES WHO CONSTRUCTED THIS HOME, UM, AND WE WERE CONTRACTED TO PROVIDE SURVEYING, LAND SURVEYING SERVICES FOR THEM.

UH, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS.

UM, ON THE SITE PLAN, IT SHOWS THAT THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE A 25-FOOT BUILDING SETBACK LINE IN THE FRONT YARD.

THIS IS THE, UH, A COPY OF THE FORM SURVEY THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF DALLAS AS WELL.

UM, IT IS ALSO SHOWING, UH, THAT THE FORM BOARDS WERE BEHIND THE 25-FOOT MINIMUM, UH, SETBACK.

UH, THE ISSUE AROSE WHEN THE TITLE S - WHEN THE HOUSE WAS COMPLETED AND THE TITLE SURVEY WAS, UH, COMPLETED.

[01:15:01]

UM, IT WAS, UH, IN FACT, ONLY 21 AND A HALF FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.

UM, THIS LED TO THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE FORM BOARD SURVEY AND, UH, THE REALIZATION THAT THE FORM BOARD SURVEY WAS INCORRECT.

THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE AUTOCAD DRAWING, UH, WHERE THE FORM SURVEY WAS CREATED.

UM, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THAT THE LINE WORK FOR THE LOT WAS NOT PLACED ON THE MONUMENTS THAT WERE FOUND IN THE FIELD.

UM, THIS IS WHAT, WHAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM ON THE, UH, FORM SURVEY.

IT WAS, IT WAS MY, MY FAULT.

I LOOKED AT THE FORM SURVEY AT THE FACE, ON THE FACE OF THE, UH, PAPER AND SAW THE 25-FOOT, UH, IT WAS BEHIND THE 25-FOOT BUILD LINE WHEN, IN FACT, IT WAS NOT.

THIS IS FROM THE, UH, DALLAS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT SHOWING THE, UH, APPROXIMATE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, UM, AT $1.2 MILLION.

COST TO REMEDY, I REACHED OUT TO OUR CLIENT, ALARIO HOMES, AND ASKED THEM TO PREPARE A DOCUMENT, UH, SHOWING WHAT IT WOULD COST TO DEMOLITION THE HOUSE AND REBUILD IT APPROXIMATELY THREE FEET AWAY FROM WHERE IT CURRENTLY SITS.

UM, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THEIR BASE HOUSE BUDGET IS A LITTLE MORE THAN $1.1 MILLION.

AND THIS IS, UH, CONTINUING THE FURTHER, UH, LINE ITEM, UH, EXPENSES IN REBUILDING THE HOUSE.

AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR MR...

IS MR. FOSTER? YES, CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT, GREAT.

THANKS.

PLEASE.

YES, SO COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE? UM, CAN YOU JUST READ OUT LOUD THE NUMBER TO REMEDY, THE, THE FINAL NUMBER TO REMEDY? UM, THE BASE HOUSE BUDGET IS $1,125,895.83.

AND THAT, THAT'S THE COST TO REMEDY THIS, THE SITUATION? YES, SIR.

AND THEN THE, THE INITIAL COST, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE WITH THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND READ THAT OUT LOUD? OR - I'M SORRY, I DON'T FOLLOW.

UM, WELL, I THOUGHT...

SORRY.

I THOUGH YOU HAD THE COST, THE INITIAL COST OF, OF, TO BUILD THE HOME.

UH, NO, SIR.

WE DON'T HAVE THE INITIAL COST.

WELL, WHAT, WHAT IS THE, THE, THE MARKET VALUE, I GUESS, THEN? IT'S WHAT WE'VE LOOKED AT.

MARKET VALUE, ACCORDING TO THE DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT IS, UH, $1,201,240.

THE, THE STANDARDS OF, OF REVIEW FOR, FOR VARIANCE IS NOT TO GRANT, UH, IT'S REALLY THE SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP.

ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YEAH, I, I HAVE A QUESTION.

UM, SO IN OUR STANDARDS FOR, UH, OUR STANDARDS OF REVIEW, IT SAYS THAT WE ARE, UH, NOT ABLE TO GRANT TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP NOR FOR FINANCIAL REASONS ONLY.

UM, EVERYTHING I'VE HEARD SO FAR SEEMS LIKE IT'S MAINLY WOULD FALL UNDER PERSONAL HARDSHIP OR, UH, LIKE A SELF-CREATED PERSONAL HARDSHIP OR FINANCIAL REASONS ONLY.

I, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU COULD SPEAK TO.

UH, THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD SPEAK TO IS THAT I WAS, I WAS INFORMED BY A DIANA BARKUM, UH, WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT IF THE, UH, COST TO REMEDY WAS MORE THAN 60% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE, THEN, UH, A BUILDING VARIANCE COULD BE GRANTED.

I THINK THE CORRECTION THEY'RE ABOUT TO CHIME IN, I, IT'S 50% OF APPRAISED VALUE.

UH, I'LL JUST READ IT FOR THE BOARD.

SO, UM, THE...

I MEAN, CITY ATTORNEY CAN OBVIOUSLY CHIME IN, BUT WE'VE GOT TWO DIFFERENT BASES FOR WHICH WE CAN GRANT A VARIANCE.

THERE'S THE NORMAL SECTION THAT WE NORMALLY TALK ABOUT, WHICH IS, UM, 102D10.

THE OTHER OPTION THAT THE APPLICANT'S REFERENCING IS 102D - D10B, WHICH ALLOWS THE BOARD TO USE THEIR DISCRETION TO B - TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ABOUT WHETHER, UH, TO GRANT THE VARIANCE.

AND THE FIRST ONE IS IF THE FINANCIAL COST COMPLIANCE IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE AS SHOWN ON THE MOST RECENT APPRAISAL ROLE CERTIFIED TO THE ASSESSOR OF THE MUNICIPALITY.

SO THAT, THAT'S ONE OF THE LEGAL REASONS THAT WE COULD GRANT A VARIANCE.

MS. LAMB? SO MY QUESTION IS, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF

[01:20:01]

WOULD, I GUESS, MAYBE THIS IS A LEGAL QUESTION, MAYBE THIS IS FROM THE BOARD.

SINCE THE SURVEY WAS, SINCE THE, THE, THE PROJECT WAS, WAS INITIALLY DEVELOPED BASED ON THE INITIAL SURVEY, I - B - IS IT BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HIRED THE SURVEY COMPANY, THEN THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED SELF-CREATED OR THIS, OR ARE WE LOOKING AT THESE AS SEPARATE ENTITIES? LIKE THE, THE SURVEYOR PROVIDED THE, THE OWNER DEVELOPED BASED ON A SURVEY, SO THAT THEY HAD THAT THEY BELIEVED TO BE TRUE.

SO I, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THAT'S A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP THAT IF THEY BUILT, DEVELOPED ON A BAD SURVEY, BUT IS IT BECAUSE THEY HIRED THE SURVEYOR THAT THEN THAT'S A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE SURVEY WAS ESSENTIALLY INCORRECT? OR DO WE LOOK AT THOSE AS TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES, I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

UM, ONE MOMENT.

WE'LL, WE'LL DISCUSS IT.

BUILDABLE AREA IS SMALLER, DID THE OWNER PUT THE EASEMENT ON THE LAND OR NOT? UM, OR IF THERE WA...

WAIT, WHILE THEY'RE TALKING, CAN I JUST ASK TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION? YEAH.

YOU'RE ASKING IF I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER AND I BUILD IN RELIANCE ON A SURVEY - YES.

THAT TURNS OUT TO BE WRONG, WAS IT SELF-CREATED OR ARE YOU INNOCENT? ARE, ARE WE HOLDING THESE TO THESE TWO SEPARATE OR IS IT? IT'S UP TO THE BOARD TO DECIDE, UM, IF YOU DETERMINE IT TO BE SELF-DETERMINED, OR SELF-IMPOSED.

UM, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR, UM, LEGAL, UM, UH, IN-HOUSE ATTORNEYS.

UM, CAN YOU DEFINE THE TERM SELF-CREATED? ONE MOMENT.

I MEAN, I, I, I WOULD LOVE SOME CLEAR GUIDANCE FROM COUNSEL ON THIS, BUT I, IT DEFINITELY FITS MY UNDERSTANDING THIS IS SELF-CREATED.

OF COURSE.

LIKE THE, THAT IF THEY HIRE...

IT'S THEIR DISCRETION TO HIRE PEOPLE TO WORK THOSE PEOPLE DO AT THEIR DIRECTION, IF THAT WORK IS DONE INCORRECTLY, THAT'S, THAT'S STILL SELF-CREATED, RIGHT? UH, BECAUSE IF YOU GO OFF THE FIRST SURVEY THAT THE DEVELOPER BUILT WITHIN THE PROPER DEVELOP, UH, UH, BASED ON THE INITIAL SURVEY THEY HAD, IT WAS ONLY THEN THE SECONDARY SURVEY THAT CAME AFTER, AFTER THE PROPERTY WAS ALREADY DEVELOPED, BUT THEN NOTED THAT THEY WOULD ACTUALLY BUILD.

I JUST THINK THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE SELF-CREATED THING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S TAKING A LOOK AT, LIKE, IS, IS THERE, UH, IS THERE A SHAPE? IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S GOING ON? IS THERE SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE PEOPLE YOU HIRED AND THE WORK THAT THEY DID THAT IS CREATING THIS SITUATION, OR IS IT JUST THE PEOPLE - SELF-CREATED IS THAT THEY KNOWINGLY KNEW WHERE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WAS AND THEN BUILT UP IN FRONT OF IT ANYWAYS.

I SEE THAT AS BEING SELF-CREATED.

I MEAN, I, I THINK THE MAIN THING AT ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A STRUCTURE WITHIN THIS DISTANCE OF THE SETBACK, AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S NOT A DEBATE THAT THERE IS, AND THEY, THEY COULD HAVE KNOWN THE ENTIRE TIME.

LIKE, LET'S DO THIS.

LET'S HEAR FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND THEN LET'S ENTERTAIN A MOTION, AND THEN WE'LL DO A DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

SO, PLEASE.

SO, IT IS THE HARDSHIP ON THE LAND, SO IT'S IF THEY CREATE, CREATED OR DID NOT CREATE AN AR - AN ISSUE IN THE AREA, SHAPE, OR SLIP, SIZE SHAPE OR SLIP.

YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT.

YOU CAN'T JUST...

YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE STANDARD AS A WHOLE, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT THE, THE PARCEL OF LAND DIFFERS FROM OTHER PARCELS OF LAND, AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS SELF-CREATED, SUCH AS WAS...

IF THERE'S AN EASEMENT ON THE LAND, AND SO THEREFORE, YOUR

[01:25:01]

IF YOU'RE, LIKE, IN THE FLOODPLAIN, THAT WOULD, THAT COULD RESTRICT YOUR AREA, AND THAT WASN'T SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP.

SO, YOU'RE STILL LOOKING AT THE UNIQUENESS OF THE LAND AND WHETHER OR NOT WHAT'S ON THERE WAS CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, OR IF THAT WAS PART OF THE CONDITION OF THE LAND.

MS. LAND? A, A, A QUESTION FOR, FOR COUNSEL.

SO, IF FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY MAYBE MEET ONLY TWO OF THE THREE STANDARDS, BUT THEN THEY, THEY MEET SECTION 51A-3.

102 THEN DOES THAT SUPERSEDE, LIKE, THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T MEET ALL THE STANDARDS? I- IF THE COST OF REMEDY IS GREATER THAN 5% APPRAISED VALUE, THEN DOES THAT SUPERSEDE THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STANDARD, UH, THE, THE THREE PRONGS FOR THE VARIANCE? LIKE, THE...

RIGHT.

SO, IT'S...

THE CODE SAYS IN EXERCISING ITS AUTHORITY UNDER SUBPARAGRAPH A, ROMAN TWO, WHICH IS, "THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIFIC PARCEL OF LAND THAT DIFFERS FROM OTHER PARCELS OF LAND BY BEING IN SUCH A RESTRICTIVE AREA, SHAPE OR SLOPE THAT IT CANNOT BE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER COMMENSURATE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT UPON OTHER PARCELS OF LAND WITH THE SAME ZONING." SO, USING THAT, THAT 50% IS ONLY MEETING ELEMENT TWO, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO STILL MEET ELEMENT ONE AND THREE, BUT YOU'RE SUBSTITUTING, UM, ELEMENT TWO FOR THE FINANCIAL COST.

SO, JUST TO BE TOTALLY CLEAR, THE C THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP, NO, NOR FOR FINANCIAL REASONS ONLY, THAT IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE SECTION 51A3102 DB, UH, D10B? THAT IS CORRECT.

IT'S NOT AFFECTED AT ALL, RIGHT? SO, IT SAYS, "THE VARIANCE IS NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP NOR FOR FINANCIAL REASONS ONLY, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBPARAGRAPH BI, UM, B1.

THE FINANCIAL CO - WHICH IS THE FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE AS SHOWN ON THE MOST RECENT APPRAISAL ROLE CERTIFIED TO THE ASSESSOR FOR THE MUNICIPALITY UNDER SECTION 26.01 OF THE TEXAS X CODE." SO, WE BELIEVE THAT THAT COVERS BOTH THE HARDSHIP OF THE LAND AND THE SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL FINANCIAL REASON.

SO, IT, IT DOES NEGATE, OR IT CAN NEGATE C? YES.

RIGHT, THAT...

IF YOU'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE, THAT COULD SUBSTITUTE TWO AND THREE, ELEMENT TWO AND THREE OF THE REGULAR VARIANCE STANDARD.

AND I BELIEVE THAT'S THE ROUTE THAT THE APPLICANT WAS GOING TO USE THAT COMPONENT.

UM, WITH THAT, THANK YOU, MR. FOSTER, YOU CAN TAKE A SEAT.

ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE AT 5043 LYNETTE LANE? THERE'S NO OTHER SPEAKERS REGISTERED, SIR.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

THEN AT THIS POINT, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE APPLICATION OF BRIAN FOSTER FOR A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS.

MS. LAMB? I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BOA-26-00069 ON APPLICATION OF BRIAN FOSTER GRANT THE THREE-FOOT, SIX-INCH VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.

I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING COMMISSION BE OPPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE OF THE INTENT FOR DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE.

THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.

BEING OVER THE BORDERLINE AND ALL THE, ALL THE BUILD LINES, UM, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THIS.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? WE'LL START WITH MS. LAMB AND GO DOWN THE ROAD.

UM, I THINK THIS IS A VERY DYNAMIC PIECE THAT WE DON'T SEE VERY OFTEN.

UM, I DO THINK THAT THIS DEFINITELY MEETS THE REQUIREMENT, UM, IN TERMS OF, UH, THE GREATER THAN 50% APPRAISAL VALUE STRUCTURE.

UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS CREATED...

THIS IS...

APPLICATION IS HERE TO GRANT, UM, RELIEF FOR A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP.

UM, AND I DO BELIEVE THAT IF WE WANT TO GRANT THIS, UM, THAT IT WOULD BE PUBLIC INTEREST CREATING MORE OF AN IMPACT ON NEIGHBOR- NEIGHBORS AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD THAN IT IS TO- TO GRANT THIS APPLICATION.

SO FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, I WOULD GRANT THIS, UH, THIS THREE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE, THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.

ALL RIGHT, MR. QUINT? BECAUSE THERE'S NO LETTER OF THOSE OPPOSITIONS, THE NEIGHBORS ARE NOT HERE COMPLAINING ABOUT ITS, YOU KNOW, IT

[01:30:01]

MR. FINNEY? MR. FLEMING.

YEAH, I, I THINK MR. QUINT MAKES A GREAT POINT.

UM, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK BASED ON WHAT STAFF'S TELLING US AND, AND JUST MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE, ALL OF THESE RULES WORK, TH- THIS, THIS DEFINITELY FALLS UNDER SELF-CREATED, JUST IN THE SENSE THAT THE HOMEOWNER CAN GO OUT AND, YOU KNOW, TAKE A YARDSTICK AND FIGURE OUT FOR THEMSELVES THAT, UH, THIS IS DEFINITELY TOO FAR IN TO BUILD.

BUT, UH, IF, IF COUNSEL'S TELLING US THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, WE CAN CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THE FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE IS GREATER THAN 50% OF RAISED VALUE, IT CLEARLY IS.

I'M A LITTLE HESITANT TO ALLOW A SITUATION WHERE THE CODE CAN BE FLAUNTED AND THEN PEOPLE JUST COME UP AND SAY, "I DIDN'T KNOW." YOU KNOW, I, I, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S ANY CODE, YOU KNOW, AT THAT POINT.

LIKE WHAT, WHAT ARE THESE LAWS FOR? IF PEOPLE CAN JUST SAY, UH, "WELL, I DIDN'T MEAN TO." BUT, UH, THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS CASE AND I, I, I DON'T WANT TO CAUSE...

I, I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THIS HOUSE WERE TORN DOWN.

UM, SO, UH, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

MR. FINNEY? UH, YEAH.

SO I ECHO THE SENTIMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUES.

UM, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK IT'S...

THE, THE APPLICANT MADE IT VERY CLEAR, UM, THAT THE COST WOULD BE, UM, MORE THAN 50%.

UM, AND I THINK MS. LAMB MADE A GREAT POINT THAT, UM, THAT THE, THE ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE, THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT IF THE HOUSE HAD TO BE TORN DOWN OR REBUILT.

UM, BUT I ALSO THINK THE, UM...

AND ALSO, I THINK THE POINT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO OPPOSITION, UM, IS A, IS A VERY GOOD POINT.

UH, I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO JUST POINT OUT THAT THE APPLICANT MADE A PRETTY CLEAR, HE SHOWED US PRETTY CLEARLY HOW THE MISTAKE WAS MADE, UH, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE ACTUALLY SEE VERY OFTEN.

WE OFTEN HEAR A SPECULATIVE CLAIM ABOUT THE MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE, BUT WE DON'T SEE CLEAR EVIDENCE, SO I, I APPRECIATE THAT AND THAT'S, UH, WHY I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

ALL RIGHT, MS. WILLIAMS, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? OKAY.