Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:03]

SPEAKING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER, WE HAVE A QUORUM.

WE ARE HAVING SOME ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICAL ISSUES, SO I'M GOING TO CALL A RECESS TILL 6:00 PM THANK YOU.

TIME IS 6:06 PM THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

WELCOME, BOY SCOUT TROOP NINE TO THE AUSTIN CITY HALL FOR THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON JANUARY 8TH, 2024.

I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLE TOMMY YATES.

PETER, JESSICA COHEN.

I AM HERE.

MELISSA HAWTHORNE.

PRESENT.

BRIAN PETIT.

HERE.

MARCEL GARZA.

MARCEL? I'M HERE.

MAGGIE ANI? HERE.

JEFFREY BOWEN? HERE.

JANELLE VAN Z? HERE.

MICHAEL VAN NOLAN.

HERE.

YOUNG.

J KIM? HERE.

OKAY.

THAT'S 10.

WE HAVE A QUORUM.

IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? ELLIE E ELAINE? NO.

OKAY.

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

MOVING ON TO ITEM ONE, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

MOTION TO APPROVE.

OKAY.

UH, SHOULD SPECIFY THE MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 11TH, 2023.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.

SECOND.

SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER VON OLAND.

TOMMY S HERE.

OH, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 11TH.

YES.

OKAY.

JESSICA COHEN? YES.

MARCEL GARZA.

OH, GARZA.

YES.

MELISSA HAWTHORNE.

YES.

YOUNG CHEM? YES.

BRIAN PETIT.

YES.

MAGGIE ANI.

YES.

JEFFREY BOWEN? YES.

JANELLE VANDEN.

YES.

MICHAEL NELLON? YES.

ANY OF THOSE ARE APPROVED? OKAY, WE'RE MOVING ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

ELAINE, ARE THERE ANY WITHDRAWALS OR POSTPONEMENT REQUESTS? NO, MA'AM.

NONE.

OKAY.

MOVING ON TO ITEM THREE.

OR LET'S SEE, WHERE ARE WE AT ON TIME? 6 0 9.

DO WE HAVE OUR REPRESENTATIVE HERE FROM WATERSHED YET? YES.

YES.

OKAY.

SO INSTEAD OF KEEPING YOU WAITING, IF THE BOARD HAS

[6. C15-2023-0048 Stephen Hawkins for Willow Beach, LLC 1446 Rockcliff Road ]

NO OBJECTION, I'D LIKE MADAM CHAIR TO MOVE THE POSTPONED CASE.

ITEM SIX.

CAN WE SUSPEND THE ORDER OF THE DAY AND TAKE ITEM SIX FIRST? YES.

OKAY.

IS THAT A MOTION? THAT IS MY MOTION.

OKAY.

WELL, I THINK WE CAN DO A, UH, VOTE BY CONSENT ON THIS.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION? OKAY.

THEN WE'RE GONNA TAKE ITEM SIX FIRST SO WE CAN HEAR OR ASK QUESTIONS OF OUR WATERSHED, UH, STAFFER.

THIS WILL BE C 15 20 23 0 0 4 8.

STEPHEN HAWKINS FOR WILLOW BEACH, LLC 1 4 4 6 ROCKCLIFF ROAD.

IS THE APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HERE OR ONLINE? HE'S ONLINE PHONE.

OKAY.

AND DOES HE HAVE A PRESENTATION? IS IT POSSIBLE, MADAM CHAIR, THAT WE COULD, UM, ASK QUESTIONS OF WATERSHED STAFF? YES.

DO YOU WANNA DO THAT PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OR AFTER? I WOULD ASK, DO YOU WANNA DO THAT PRIOR TO PRESENTATION AND LEGAL? CAN WE HEAR A QUESTION OR CAN WE ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF BEFORE WE HEAR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.

SO YEAH, WE HAVE TO HEAR THE APPLICANT FIRST.

OKAY.

OKAY.

SO IF YOU'LL GIVE US JUST A MINUTE, WE'LL GET YOUR PRESENTATION PULLED UP.

UH, YOU'LL SEE A DELAY IF YOU'RE WATCHING ONLINE

[00:05:02]

OR ON ETXN.

BUT WHEN YOU'RE READY FOR US TO MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE IN YOUR PRESENTATION, JUST SAY NEXT SLIDE.

YOU, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

OKAY.

SO PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

YOUR PRESENTATION IS READY AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

UH, MY NAME IS JOHN .

SORRY, I'M GONNA INTERRUPT RIGHT THERE, UH, BECAUSE WE FORGOT SOMETHING REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT AND I'VE GOT A JUDGE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO'S LOOKING AT ME LIKE, WHAT HAPPENED? YOU'RE GONNA LOVE THIS JUDGE.

SO I NEED ANYONE WHO'S GOING TO BE GIVING TESTIMONY BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TODAY TO PLEASE STAND AND TAKE YOUR OATH OF AFFIRMATION.

DO DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE TONIGHT WILL BE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UH, ALSO, UH, I WAS ASKED TO TELL Y'ALL THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE WATER ON THE SECOND FLOOR, SO BATHROOMS AND WATER WILL BE SHUT OFF FROM SIX 30 TO 10.

NOW HAVING SAID THAT, BACK TO ITEM SIX.

SIR, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

AGAIN, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

OKAY.

UH, YEAH.

MY NAME IS JOHN FIXER.

I WORK WITH AQUA PERMITS.

I'LL BE DOING THE PRESENTATION.

WE CAN DIVE RIGHT IN.

UM, UH, FIRST SLIDE.

THIS PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 1446 ROCKCLIFF ROAD, CASE NUMBER C 15 2 23 0 0 4 8.

AND JOHN , THIS IS THE SECOND HEARING.

NICE TO SEE YOU ALL AGAIN.

UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

HERE IS THE SITE THAT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING AERIAL VIEW.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

OKAY.

WE ARE HERE TO SEEK A VARIANCE FROM LDC 25 2 11 76 A FIVE.

THE FOOTPRINT OF A DOCK, INCLUDING THE PORTION OF THE CUT AND SLIP ATTACHED ACCESS STRUCTURE TO THE ROOF OVERHANG, MAY NOT EXCEED 1200 SQUARE FEET OR DOCK THAT IS ACCESSORY TO A PRINCIPAL RESIDENTIAL USE.

UH, WE ARE SEEKING THAT VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 1,135 SQUARE FOOT BOAT DOCK, WHICH WILL AMOUNT TO 2,235 SQUARE FEET TOTAL MOVING.

ALL THE REASON FOR SEEKING THIS VARIANCE IS THE EXISTING BOAT DOCK AND THE PROPERTY IS INACCESSIBLE DUE TO VEGETATION AND SEDIMENTATION ACCUMULATION IN THE CHANNEL WHERE IT RESIDES.

OUR CLIENT CANNOT USE THE EXISTING BOAT, DOCK OR CHANNEL LEADING TO THE BOAT DOCK WITHOUT SUBJECTING THEIR BOAT TO RUNNING A GROUND OR HITTING TREE WREAKS AND DAMAGING THEIR BOAT IN THE PROCESS.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

UH, JUST A BRIEF RECAP OF LAST HEARING.

UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WERE AMENABLE TO THE LOCATION AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPOSED VOTE DOCK.

HOWEVER, MORE INFORMATION WAS REQUESTED REGARDING THE EXISTING VOTE DOCK, ITS CURRENT USE AND THE PROS AND CONS OF REMOVAL VERSUS REPURPOSING THE STRUCTURE.

UM, THE ITEMS TO CONSIDER HERE ARE THE EXISTING DOCK, ITS PERMITTING HISTORY AND ITS LOCATION ON THE PROPERTY.

UH, ALSO THE FOOTPRINT OF THE DOCK OVER WATER VERSUS OVER LAND.

THE CURRENT PERMITTED USE OF THE DOCK IS DRY STORAGE AND THE IMPACT OF REMOVING THE DOCK TO THE SURROUNDING ECOSYSTEM.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

UH, JUST ANOTHER AERIAL PHOTO HERE YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE DOCK IS LOCATED BACK DOWN THAT NARROW CHANNEL.

THE CHANNEL IS 150 FOOT RED LINED AREA THAT WE HAVE DESCRIBED AS BEING, UH, FILLED WITH SEDIMENT.

NEXT SLIDE.

OKAY.

THE EXISTING BOAT DOCK IS, LIKE I SAID, TUCKED AWAY AT THE END OF THIS CHANNEL SCENE HERE.

UH, NAVIGATING THE CHANNEL IS CHALLENGING, BUT THEN THE NATURAL BOUNDARIES, UH, THE ADD ABOVE SEDIMENT, COUPLED WITH THE ADVANCEMENTS OF WETLAND ENVIRONMENTS, HAS MADE IT INCREASINGLY IMPASSABLE.

UH, THE ADDITION OF THE CANOPY ABOVE POSES A RISK TO HARMING THE TREE OR THE BOAT.

AND, UH, THESE TREES, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THEY OFTEN DROP BRANCHES INTO THE CHANNEL AS WELL.

JUST MORE AND MORE BUILD UP HERE.

NEXT SLIDE.

THE EXISTING BOAT DOCK HERE IS SITUATED AT THE END OF THE CHANNEL.

UH, NOTE THE TREE CANOPY HANGING OVER THE BOAT DOCK REMOVAL OF THE BOAT DOCK WOULD POSE A DISTURBANCE TO THIS CANOPY AND THESE TREES.

UH, THE PRIOR VARIANCE HEARING FOR THIS PROPERTY DEALT PRIMARILY WITH THE ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF REMOVING THE BOAT DOCK.

AND PER THE COUNCIL'S REQUEST, WE WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THE EXISTING DOCK AND ITS CURRENT USE AND CONDITION.

WHILE THIS STRUCTURE DOES NOT HAVE MUCH USE AS A BOAT DOCK, IT DOES FUNCTION AS STORAGE FOR THIS PROPERTY.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

THIS BOAT DOCK WAS BUILT IN 2005 ALONGSIDE THE NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION USING THE SAME ARCHITECTURAL TEAM AND WAS LEGALLY PERMITTED AS BUILT BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

THIS BOAT DOCK WAS ORIGINALLY PERMITTED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT IT ALLOWS FOR ONE THIRD OF THE DOCK TO BE USED AS YARD STORAGE

[00:10:01]

AS IT WOULD HAVE IT.

THIS HAS BEEN THE PRIMARY USE OF THE BOAT DOCK SINCE THAT TIME TO DO THE DIMINISHING NAVIGABILITY OF THE CHANNEL.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

UH, HERE YOU'LL SEE THE STORAGE AREAS OF THE BOATHOUSE.

NOTE THAT THIS AREA IS COMPLETELY OVERLAND AND WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SHED IF IT WERE A FREESTANDING STRUCTURE.

UH, THE BOAT DOCKS FOUNDATION IS ALSO THE PAD FOR THE HOMES, HVAC UNITS, OTHER UTILITIES THAT'S SEEN ON THE RIGHT.

NEXT SLIDE.

THE BOATHOUSE SEEN HERE FROM AN EASTERN FACING VIEW.

YOU CAN SEE THE CONCRETE SLAB IN THE FOREFRONT.

UH, THAT LEFT EDGE DENOTES ROUGHLY THE EXTENT OF THE DOCK THAT SITS ON LAND AND NOT OVER WATER.

SO, RED LINE, NOT AT OFF.

UM, NEXT YOU'LL SEE THE INTERIOR OF THE SLIP ITSELF.

UH, THE DEBRIS PILING UP AGAIN, MORE SEDIMENTATION, ACCUMULATION LEAVES EVERYWHERE.

UM, THESE BOATS HAVE BEEN SITTING FOR SOME TIME DUE TO THE NAVIGATIONAL ISSUES.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

UM, HERE IS A GENERAL VIEW OF THE BOAT DOCK FROM NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST RESPECTIVELY.

UH, THE AREA HIGHLIGHTED IN RED IS ABOVE WATER.

HAVING THAT AREA REMAIN AS STORAGE IS OF GREAT VALUE TO THE HOMEOWNERS.

UH, THE ADDITIONAL AREA IN BLUE IS WHERE THAT HVAC UNIT IS AND ALL THE OTHER UTILITIES ARE LOCATED.

REMOVING THIS BOATHOUSE WOULD REQUIRE RELOCATING THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

UH, THE EXISTING BOATHOUSE IS NON-FUNCTIONAL.

IT'S GIVEN USE, IT'S BEEN USED AS DRY STORAGE FOR SOME TIME.

EXISTING BOAT DOCK IS TO BE RECONFIGURED AS DRY STORAGE AND WILL HAVE BOAT SLIPS DECKED OVER AS TO PROHIBIT ITS USE AS A FUNCTIONAL BOAT DOCK.

UH, DEMOLISHING THE STRUCTURES NOT BEING PROPOSED AS THE BOATHOUSE IS INTEGRAL TO THE FUNCTIONALITY OF UTILITIES FOR THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS BEING USEFUL.

STORAGE AND RECONFIGURATION OF THE STRUCTURE FROM A BOATHOUSE TO A SHED IS THE END GOAL OF THIS BUILDING'S USE.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

UM, IN SUMMARY, THE CHANNEL'S NAVIGABILITY ISSUES ARE DUE TO NATURAL CAUSES, PRESERVING THE NATURAL WETLAND ENVIRONMENT AND UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO OUR CLIENTS AND ANY DREDGING CLEARING OF THIS CHANNEL CONTROL TO DISTURB AND NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE ECOSYSTEM.

ADDITIONALLY, IT WOULD LIKELY NOT BE ALLOWED BY COA, SIR, AS THE WETLANDS ARE RIGHTFULLY WELL PROTECTED.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU A FIVE MINUTE MARK.

COULD YOU BRIEFLY WRAP IT UP WITH LIKE ONE SENTENCE? THANK YOU.

SURE.

UM, IN SUMMARY, , I THINK YOU, THE CLIENT IS PROPOSING BUILDING A NEW BOAT DOCK.

THANK YOU.

THAT REALLY IS, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE.

WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS BOARD MEMBERS.

I THINK THAT WE HAVE A WATERSHED STAFF.

WE, UH, AVAILABLE YES.

FOR ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS HERE.

WE DO HAVE A MEMBER FROM WATERSHED STAFF TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

UH, I THINK THERE WERE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS OR MAYBE IT WAS DREDGING THAT WAS DISCUSSED LAST TIME.

WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE YOU.

COULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND LET US ASK YOU QUESTIONS FOR A LITTLE BIT? YOU BET.

UH, JOHN CLEMENT WITH THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT.

I I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION SURE.

ABOUT THE, UH, ABOUT THE STORAGE SPACE THEY WANT TO KEEP ON THE OLD DOCK.

MM-HMM.

, UH, THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS BY THE APPLICANT ABOUT TEARING OUT THE OLD DOCK AND THAT IT, THAT MIGHT BE DAMAGING TO THE WETLANDS OR, YEAH.

SO CAN YOU SPEAK ON THAT A LITTLE BIT PLEASE? YEAH.

AND, AND, UH, WE'VE HAD STAFF, UH, LOOK INTO THAT AND, UH, MAKE ANOTHER VISIT TO THE SITE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS CHANNEL SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO NEW WORK PROPOSED OVER HERE.

SO ON OUR INITIAL SITE VISIT, WE WERE JUST LOOKING THE LOCATION OF THE NEW DOCK.

UM, THERE'S A FEW THINGS.

THE APPLICANT IS DISCUSSING THE ISSUE WITH, UH, NAVIGABILITY OF THE CHANNEL, BOTH IN TERMS OF USING THE BOAT DOCK.

AND I BELIEVE IN THE FIRST PRESENTATION, THE IMPACT OF TRYING TO GET BACK THERE TO DECOMMISSION THE BOAT DOCK.

UM, AND THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF HEADING ACCUMULATION IN THE CHANNEL.

UH, TYPICALLY WHAT PEOPLE DO IS THEY COME IN, UH, REQUESTING A DREDGING PERMIT UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND YOU GET TO KEEP THE OLD BOAT DOCK.

AND, UH, YOU KNOW, IF IT EXCEEDS A CERTAIN, UH, UH, VOLUME OF DREDGE, THEN THAT REQUIRES A LAND USE COMMISSION VARIANCE.

BUT THOSE ARE ALSO, UH, FAIRLY ROUTINE FOR US TO, UH, WORK THROUGH WITH THE PLANNING OR, UH, ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONS.

UM, IN TERMS OF, SO IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE CHANNEL TO BE MADE NAVIGABLE IN TERMS OF WETLANDS.

UH, AS YOU MIGHT HAVE NOTICED IN THE SLIDES, UH, THE CHANNEL IS BULKHEAD ON ALL SIDES.

[00:15:01]

UH, ACCORDING TO STAFF, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY VEGETATION IN THE CHANNEL ITSELF.

IT'S ALL BEHIND THE BULKHEADS ON THE LAND SIDE.

UH, SO IT WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED BY DREDGING OR OTHER ACTIVITIES IN THE CHANNEL.

UH, THE APPLICANT HAS CONCERNS WITH NAVIGABILITY AND ALSO ACCESS TO THE DOCK FOR DECOMMISSIONING IN TERMS OF THE OVERHEAD BRANCHES.

BUT OF COURSE THEY CAN ALSO, UH, THERE'S CODE COMPLIANT WAYS OF TRIMMING, PRUNING TREES, UH, FOR ACCESS.

SO IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT THE TREE CANOPY IS AN ISSUE FOR EITHER ACCESSING THE CHANNEL THROUGH A DREDGE PERMIT, ACCESSING THE DOCK THROUGH A DREDGE PERMIT OR THROUGH DECOMMISSIONING FOR DECOMMISSIONING OF THE UM, UH, BOAT DOCK ITSELF.

UH, THEY ALSO MENTIONED, UH, AT LEAST ONE LARGE TREE IN THE CHANNEL WHERE THE ROOTS WERE, UH, CAUSE A CONCERN FOR THE BOAT.

UM, BUT IT'S NOT CLEAR.

THAT'S OBVIOUSLY A VERY OLD TREE, HAS BEEN THERE FOR QUITE A WHILE.

UH, I DON'T SEE WHERE THEY HAVE PROVIDED ANY ARGUMENT IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL WIDTH AND THE DIFFICULTY OF IFICATION THROUGH THE CHANNEL IF THEY DID RECEIVE A DREDGE PERMIT.

UM, NOW IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, THE BASIC CODE REQUIREMENT FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF DOCU ALLOWED TO HAVE AND, UM, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW TO EXCEED THAT AMOUNT, THEY DON'T ACTUALLY EVEN NEED TO ACCESS THE DOCK FROM THE CHANNEL TO DECOMMISSION IT.

UH, ACCORDING TO AERIAL PHOTOS AND STAFF EDIT IT AND SOME OF THE PHOTOS THAT YOU SAW, UH, FROM THE APPLICANT, THE BOAT DOCK IS ADJACENT TO THEIR DRIVEWAY.

AND IT'S NOT CLEAR WHY THEY COULDN'T, UH, DECONSTRUCT THE BOAT DOCK FROM THE LAND SIDE, RATHER FROM THE WATER SIDE.

AND EVEN IF THEY NEED TO, FOR EXAMPLE, CONSTRUCT A CONSTRUCT, A COFFER DAM FOR PIER REMOVAL, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO GET IN AND CUT PIERS AT THE, UH, UM, UH, SUBSURFACE ELEVATION OF THE LAKE BOTTOM.

UH, THEN THAT IS WOULD ALSO BE, UH, PERMITTED THROUGH, COULD BE PERMITTED THROUGH THE CURRENT PERMIT.

UH, AND AGAIN, THERE MAY BE SOME TREE PER, UH, REMOVAL, UH, TREE PRUNING THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THAT AS WELL.

UM, SO HAVING DISCUSSED THIS WITH, UH, THE CASE MANAGER AND WITH THE UM, UH, DEPUTY ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS WOULD BE, UH, SPECIFICALLY REMOVAL OF ALL THE DOCK ELEMENTS THEMSELVES, UH, WHICH IT APPEARS THE DECKING THAT'S OVER THE WATER, AND, UH, THE PORTION OF THE ROOF THAT OVERHANGS THE WATER.

AND, UH, WE WOULD ALLOW, UH, KEEPING THE ENTIRE BULKHEAD AROUND THIS AREA, WHICH WOULD ALLOW KEEPING THE CONCRETE PAD THAT HOUSES HVAC AND OTHER UTILITIES.

AND WE WOULD ALSO ALLOW KEEPING THE YARD STORAGE AREA THAT THEY'VE DESCRIBED AS CURRENTLY BEING ON LAND.

SO, UH, WE WOULD REQUEST THAT ALL OF THE, BASICALLY ALL THE OVER THE WATER STRUCTURES AND IN THE WATER STRUCTURES BE REMOVED AND THE LANDSIDE ELEMENTS, UM, COULD ALL REMAIN.

UM, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO TWO ALTERNATIVES.

ONE WOULD BE DREDGING THE CHANNEL AND KEEPING THE OLD DOCK.

ALSO THEY ARE BY CODE ALLOWED TO HAVE TWO SLIPS SO THEY COULD DREDGE THE CHANNEL, WHICH AGAIN IS ANOTHER PERMIT AND MAYBE A LAND USE COMMISSION VARIANCE.

KEEP THE OLD DOCK AND REDUCE THE NEW DOCK FROM TWO SLIPS TO ONE SLIP.

SO THEY COULD IN FACT HAVE TWO DROP TWO DOCKS AND BE CODE COMPLIANT IF THEY WENT FOR A DREDGING PERMIT.

UH, SO THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, LEAST FAVORITE RECOMMENDATION, UH, UH, ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE KEEPING THE, UH, ABOVE WATER ELEMENTS OF THE, UH, EXISTING DOCK.

GREAT ANSWER.

VICE CHAIR, HAWTHORNE.

SO AFTER YOUR TALKING ABOUT THE NEW DOCK, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU MAKING TIME.

I REALIZE THAT THIS IS A LITTLE UNUSUAL.

UM, WE'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO HAVE TRAINING, BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF CONVERSATION ON THE DAIS ABOUT TRYING TO DECOMMISSION OR AS PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE VARIANCE TO TAKE THE, IN THE WATER ELEMENTS OF THE OLD DOCK OUT SO THAT THEREFORE THEY, IT, SO IT WAS A BIG CONVERSATION ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE WOULD BE A WETLANDS ISSUE AND WHAT KIND OF RESTORATION WOULD OCCUR OVER THERE.

AND, AND SO WE REALIZED THAT PERHAPS WE NEEDED SOMEONE FROM WATERSHED HERE TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A GUIDE IN, IN TERMS OF THAT.

SO IF THEY TOOK OUT THE WATER PORTIONS OF THE DOCK, THE DECKING, THE PIERS, THE ROOF OVER THE WATER, WOULD THEY THEN NEED THE VARIANCE? BECAUSE THEN THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE TWO SLIPS? THAT'S RIGHT.

AND, BUT IT WOULD BE, UM, RECOMMENDED OR WE DON'T REALLY TAKE

[00:20:01]

RECOMMENDATIONS 'CAUSE WE'RE A SOVEREIGN BOARD.

BUT IF, IF THAT WOULD BE A PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO DECOMMISSION THE DOCK AS A, A CONDITION OF THE VARIANCE, BUT THEN THEY WOULDN'T NEED THE VARIANCE.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S THE CIRCLE WE'RE IN.

YEAH.

SO AT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD, UH, WE GO WITH LAND USE COMMISSION VARIANCES.

WE SAY STAFF DOES OR DOES NOT SUPPORT THE VARIANCE.

AND IN THIS CASE, I GUESS FOR THE REASONS I DESCRIBED, STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE VARIANCE.

AND THEN, UH, THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ARE APPROACHES FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY, UH, THAT DO NOT REQUIRE VARIANCE.

AND WHAT IS THE LIMIT ON DREDGE? I DON'T RECALL, UNFORTUNATELY, SIR, IF IT'S LIKE 25 25 CUBIC YARDS.

20 CUBIC YARDS.

WHAT WAS THAT JOHN? UH, IT 25 CUBIC YARDS IS THE LIMIT.

ANYTHING BEYOND THERE REQUIRES A VARIANCE.

THANK YOU.

THAT'S, THAT'S MY QUESTION.

AND THEN THE CASE OF THIS, IT WOULD BE WELL OVER THAT.

YEAH.

SO TO GO UP THAT WHOLE CHANNEL WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE MORE THAN 25 CUBIC YARDS.

HE WOULD HAVE TO DECOMMISSION IT FROM THE LANDSIDE YES.

OR GO TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE JUDGE.

YES.

WHICH WOULD THEN BE MORE.

OKAY.

BUT THAT WOULD ALSO, I UNDERSTAND.

MAKE THE, DOES ANYBODY ELSE? I, I TRIED TO ASK QUESTIONS THAT I THOUGHT WOULD BE COVER THE RANGE OF AND, AND POOR MR. CLEMENT, WHO IS PROBABLY ON A REALLY LONG DAY TRY TO PUT HIM OUT OF HIS, UH, SETTING FREE WHILE HE STILL HAS A BATHROOM.

VIRTUAL MEMBERS ANY CAN GET QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THE GUYS? NO, I THINK I'M GOOD.

THAT WAS VERY, I THINK YOU COVERED EVERYTHING I WANTED TO KNOW AS WELL, SO, OKAY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TIME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

GO HOME.

THANKS FOR STAYING LATE.

OKAY.

SO MORE QUESTIONS, APPLICANT OR DISCUSSION? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT BOARD MEMBER BOWEN, UH, ON YOUR APPLICATION, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS IN THERE.

ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAD LAST TIME WAS WANTING TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF AN ELEVATION.

SO WHICH ELEVATION IS ACTUALLY THE CORRECT ELEVATION? THE ONE THAT'S, UH, ON SHEET THREE OF THREE C3 OR THE ONE THAT'S PROVIDED BY AQUA PERMITS? I'M SORRY, WHAT DOCUMENT ARE YOU REFERRING TO? I'M SORRY.

SPEAK UP PLEASE.

I'M SORRY.

WHICH DOCUMENT ARE YOU REFERRING TO? WELL, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE, THE ELEVATIONS WE WERE ASKING, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE ASKED LAST TIME WAS REGARDING AN ELEVATION OF THE ACTUAL DOCK AREA OF WHAT Y'ALL WERE TRYING TO BUILD.

'CAUSE WE HAD NO ELEVATIONS TO KIND OF GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING.

AND SO THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS WITHIN YOUR PACKAGE.

ONE OF THEM IS FROM AQUA PERMITS THAT HAS A SEPARATE SET OF SHEETS, BUT THEN THERE'S ANOTHER DOCUMENT WITHIN YOUR DOCUMENT, YOUR PACKAGE THAT SHOWS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ELEVATION.

AND I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY WHICH, OKAY, WHICH ELEVATION IS THE CORRECT ELEVATION? SO THE DOCUMENT THAT IS IN OUR SLIDESHOW TODAY, UM, THAT IS THE APPROVED SITE PLAN FROM 2003 OR FOUR, UH, THAT SHOWS THE EXISTING BOAT DOCK.

THE AQUA PERMITS APPLICATION IS FROM A SITE PLAN FOR A PROPOSED NEW BOAT DOCK.

SO THE ONE THAT I'VE SHOWED YOU IN THIS PRESENTATION IS THE ONE THAT IS ACTUALLY EXISTING AND THE ONE IN AQUA PERMITS IS THE ONE THAT IS PROPOSED.

OKAY.

ALRIGHT.

THANK YOU.

DOES THAT HELP? THE, THE BOOK ASSETS EXISTING, UH, WAS BUILT PER THIS PLAN SET FROM 2004.

SO INTERESTING THAT THEY APPROVED IT.

UM, WITH YARD STORAGE, YOU DON'T OFTEN SEE THAT.

SO IT'S A UNIQUE FEATURE, BUT IT WAS, UM, STAMP AND SEALED BY THE CITY BOARD MEMBER STAN.

UM, SO ONE OF THE THINGS IN THE, THE LAST TIME WE HEARD THIS CASE THAT WAS SORT OF TELLING FROM ME WAS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A PICTURE OF THE EXISTING DOC.

SO THANK YOU APPLICANT FOR SUBMITTING THAT THIS TIME AROUND.

UM, IN LIGHT MM-HMM, OF WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM STAFF.

UM, I THINK I'M SORT OF BACK TO WHERE I WAS AT THE BEGINNING WHERE IT SORT OF FEELS LIKE YOUR CLIENT WANTS TO MOVE THE DOCK, UNDERSTANDABLY.

UM, AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, I THINK I'M STILL KIND OF BACK TO YOU PROBABLY JUST NEED TO DECOMMISSION THE EXISTING DOCK FULLY, UM, IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT TRANSITION OR GO ALL IN ON THE, THE

[00:25:01]

CURRENT.

I'M NOT REALLY SEEING THE HARDSHIP NOW, EXCEPT OBVIOUSLY I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS TO, TO MAKING THESE CHANGES.

UM, BUT THAT'S SORT OF WHERE I'M AT NOW.

JUST IN TERMS OF DISCUSSION, THAT SOUNDED A LOT LIKE A MOTION.

NO, I MEAN I CAN, I CAN MAKE A MOTION.

YEAH.

SO I'LL MOTION TO, HOW DO I WORD IT TO REFUSE THE VARIANCE REQUEST? IF I WAS GOING TO WORD IT, I WOULD SAY MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT WOULD WE MOTION TO DENY AND THEN YEAH, I'M GONNA MOTION TO DENY PREPARE ON THE DOCK OR MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE OLD DOCK HAS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED.

NO, I, YOU KNOW, IT'S, MY MOTION WOULD BE BE TO DENY TOMATO OR TOMATO.

YEAH.

UM, I, I WOULD MOTION TO DENY AND THEN IT'S UP TO THEM TO FIGURE OUT, I THINK, HOW TO PROCEED.

SO I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST, FINDING THAT THERE'S NOT SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP HERE.

I'M GONNA SECOND IT.

AND LAST, LAST MONTH WHEN WE BROUGHT IT UP, I WAS LOOKING AT SOME OTHER AVENUES FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF TRYING TO REACH A, UH, COMPROMISE AND SPLIT THE BABY.

BUT AFTER HEARING FROM WATERSHED PROTECTION, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF OPTIONS THAT THEY CAN STILL EXPLORE AND SOME IN WHICH THEY WON'T EVEN NEED A, UH, AN A VARIANCE AT ALL.

UH, SO THERE'S, THEY DO HAVE SOME OTHER OPTIONS.

I THINK THAT, UH, WILL NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE.

UH, AS FAR AS SOME OF THE HARDSHIP TOWARDS KEEPING THE OTHER ONE FOR STORAGE, THEY'RE STILL, UH, BASED ON THE PICTURES THAT I SAW ON PAGE SIX OF 10, THEY CAN STILL MODIFY WHAT THEY HAVE THAT IS COVERED OVER LAND WHERE THE PAD IS THAT HOLDS THE HVAC EQUIPMENT TO HAVE ADEQUATE STORAGE.

AND SO, UH, THEY DON'T HAVE TO, THEY'LL HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF WHAT'S OVER THE WATER AS WATERSHED PROTECTION HAS INDICATED.

BUT I STILL THINK THERE'S AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO USE SOME OF THAT MATERIAL TO ENCLOSE IT SO THAT THEY HAVE AN OVER THE LAND TYPE OF STORAGE.

AND IT'S NOT GONNA MESS WITH THE PAD OR THE HVAC EQUIPMENT BECAUSE IT'S LOCATING ON A, ON A CONCRETE PAD THAT'S ALREADY ON LAND.

SO I'LL UNDER THAT PREMISE, I'LL SECOND VICE CHAIR.

ONE SECOND PLEASE.

I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT DOING IT IN THIS VICE CHAIR HONOR.

SORRY.

BOARD MEMBER VAN Z.

SORRY, I, TO BACKTRACK A LITTLE BIT, I, IT'S A NEW SYSTEM.

I HAD ACTUALLY RAISED MY HAND PRIOR TO BOARD MEMBER CHAIR TON RAISED.

YOUR HAND MISSED BECAUSE I HAD ONE QUESTION THAT I HOPE IT'S OKAY IF I COULD STILL, IT HAS TO, IT GOES TO THE HVAC EQUIPMENT.

UM, THE APPLICANT PREVIOUSLY REPRESENTED THAT THE HVAC EQUIPMENT WOULD BE NEED TO BE MOVED IF THEY WERE REMOVING IT.

AND I, I JUST WANT SOME CLARIFICATION AS TO WHY THEY BELIEVE THAT THAT IS THE CASE.

THAT'D BE A QUESTION.

SURE.

WELL, UH, SORRY.

UM, IF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD IS TO REMOVE THE DOCK ITSELF, UM, THAT CONCRETE PAD IS A PART OF THE DOCK STRUCTURE.

SO THAT WAS MY CONCERN THERE.

HOWEVER, I'M A LITTLE, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO INTERJECT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WORKED ON THE SITE PLAN WITH THE CASE MANAGER WHO, UH, BASICALLY WE HAVE EXHAUSTED ALL POSSIBILITIES UP UNTIL THIS CURRENT VARIANCE AND, UH, PROVIDED THAT WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DREDGING PLAN, IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE ANOTHER VARIANCE COMMISSION.

UM, SO REALLY, UH, I DON'T, I DON'T SEE TOO MANY MORE AVENUES OR OPPORTUNITIES, UM, FOR PURSUING THIS OUTSIDE OF ALLOWING THIS TO REMAIN AND BE DECOMMISSIONED.

I, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO WHAT THE OTHER OPTION WAS.

OKAY.

ADVISED JOE HAWTHORNE, OR SORRY, UH, BOARD MEMBER BEN, DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? NOT PARTICULARLY.

I'M, I'M, I'M NOT SATISFIED WITH THAT AS A REBUTTAL TO WHAT WAS JUST, UH, SORT OF REPRESENTED TO US.

BUT, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I I, YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

I KNOW I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

DO YOU MIND, UH, VICE CHAIR, IF WE LET BOARDMAN GO FIRST? I HAVE A CONCERN OVER GOING ABOUT THIS IN THIS MANNER BECAUSE IF WE DENY THE VARIANCE, HE CAN'T REAPPLY FOR A YEAR.

FOR A YEAR.

AND IF OUR GOAL IS FOR HIM TO DECOMMISSION IT AND DECOMMISSION ALL THE PIECES THAT ARE OVER THE WATER, HE STILL HAS THE REMAINING PORTIONS THAT ARE STORAGE THAT ARE THEN IN THIS, IN THE SHORELINE SETBACK.

SO ONCE YOU REMOVE THE DOCK, HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE THE STORAGE THERE.

SO THEN IT BECOMES ANOTHER ISSUE.

BUT IF WE DENY IT, HE CAN'T, HE CAN'T APPLY.

LIKE, I THINK WE NEED TO THINK THIS THROUGH.

IS THAT A SUBSTITUTE MOTION OF HAVING,

[00:30:02]

I THINK WE NEED TO GO ABOUT IT IN A DIFFERENT MANNER.

UM, I, THE SENTIMENT OF REMOVING OR DECOMMISSIONING THE DOCK AND JUST HAVING THE TWO SLIP DOCK, WHICH IS ALLOWED BY CODE, BUT ALLOWING THE STORAGE AND THE HVAC EQUIPMENT TO REMAIN THERE, I'M IN ALIGNMENT WITH THAT.

UM, WOULD, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER, UM, AMENDING OR YOUR MOTION OR IF YOU WANT ME TO LIFT IT, I CAN DO A SUBSTITUTE MOTION? YEAH, I'M, I'M FINE WITH THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

I JUST, YEAH, I JUST DIDN'T SEE A BETTER WAY OF DOING IT.

BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS.

GUILTY.

I'M JUST, IF HE GETS STUCK, THEN HE'D HAVE TO WAIT, UM, 365 DAYS TO BE ABLE TO REAPPLY.

AND I SEE IT IS COMPLEX ENOUGH THAT HE WOULD COME BACK.

UM, BEING THAT YOU SECONDED INTO THAT, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THIS? YES.

BUT, BUT WHAT, LET'S TAKE IT ONE STEP FURTHER, MELISSA.

'CAUSE I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BEFORE WE, WE WE GO DOWN THAT PATH.

CAN YOU ANSWER, I BELIEVE THAT THE WATERSHED, UH, GENTLEMAN FROM WATERSHED HAD, UH, HE GAVE ME A NOD, SO I KIND OF WANTED TO ASK HIM IF, IF HE HAD AN OPINION ON WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING PLEASE.

OR DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD THAT WE MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THIS? COME ON.

YEAH.

CLEMENT FROM WATERSHED PROTECTION.

UH, JOHN? YES.

OKAY.

THE, SORRY, DISCUSS, I'M STRUGGLING TO HERE A LITTLE BIT.

DISCUSS WITH THE CASE MANAGER AND WE HAD DETERMINED THAT THE, UH, ELEMENTS IN THE SETBACK COULD BE CONSIDERED EXISTING NONCOMPLIANT.

SO WE'D BE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT ALSO.

SO I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT, UH, DENYING A VARIANCE AND, UM, THE POSITION THAT PUTS THEM IN AND MAY NOT GIVE THEM ALL THE POSSIBLE, UH, ALTERNATIVES FOR MOVING FORWARD.

UH, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD INFLUENCE YOU ALL TOWARDS VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS.

AGAIN, THE CONDITIONS BEING REMOVAL OF REMOVAL OF ALL THE ELEMENTS IN THE WATER.

YEAH.

OR OVER THE WATER.

YEAH.

WHICH IS THINK THE DIRECTION I WOULD PREFER.

OKAY.

IT'S CLEANER, I THINK.

YEAH, I THINK SO TOO.

BOARD MEMBER VAN NOLAN.

SORRY.

THANK YOU, JOHN.

IF MELISSA'S PREPARED TO VERBALIZE THAT I'M ALL FOR PULLING, PULLING THE, UH, MY SECOND, MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT, I MEAN, I'M, I'M MORE FOR A POSTPONEMENT.

I KNOW WE POSTPONED IT ONCE, BUT I'M MORE FOR A POSTPONEMENT AND LET HIM AND HIS ARCHITECT OR HIS DESIGNER GO BACK AND BRING US SOMETHING AND WE CAN TELL HIM THAT CRITERIA.

BECAUSE AGAIN, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER VAN ON SHEET SIX OF 10 OF THE PRESENTATION WHERE HE IS GOT BOTH THE STORAGE AND HE HAS THE EQUIPMENT.

IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE EQUIPMENT, THERE'S AN, THAT BLACK LINE GOING ALONG THAT FENCE IS A, AN EXPANSION JOINT.

SO ANY CONCRETE BEYOND THAT CAN BE REMOVED WITHOUT AFFECTING THE EQUIPMENT, WHICH IS OVER LAND.

SO THAT'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH IT AND I SUPPORT, I CAN, I CAN SUPPORT THAT AS WELL.

I'M JUST, UH, IF YOU'RE FILLING UP TO IT WOULDN'T BE THE FIRST BARBECUE YOU'VE BEEN TO, BUT YES.

UM, AND SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM PULLING THAT BECAUSE I, IF WATERSHED PROTECTION IS OKAY WITH THE FACT THAT THEY CAN KEEP THE ELEMENTS OVER LAND, JUST DECOMMISSION THAT OTHER DOCK AND GIVE 'EM THE OTHER ONE.

IF EVERYBODY'S HAPPY, WE'LL SPLIT THE BABY.

I MEAN, THAT'S COMPROMISED.

OKAY.

SO THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR THIS WOULD BE BECAUSE THERE'S A SECOND, UH, IT BELONGS TO THE BODY AND WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS OPPOSED TO A WITHDRAWAL.

SO, SO MY CONCERN IS THAT WHAT WE'RE ASKING THEM TO DO IS BASICALLY THAT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A VARIANCE.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE, HOW DO WE EVEN WORD A VARIANCE APPROVAL? THAT'S SO TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THEY REQUESTED, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? LIKE IT WOULD, IT WOULD IF THEY WOULD NEED A VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL GONNA HAVE THE STORAGE AND EVERYTHING CLOSE TO THE LAKEFRONT.

RIGHT.

BUT THEY HAVE TO, THEY HAVE TO APPLY FOR THAT VARIANCE.

RIGHT? WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T PROACTIVELY, THAT'S ACTUALLY A GREAT QUESTION.

THAT'S ONE I WAS GONNA ASK AS WELL.

SO THEN IT BECOMES A NON-COMPLIANT STRUCTURE, RIGHT? IT'S NEED A VARIANCE NON COMPLYING STRUCTURE AND IT, AND IT PROACTIVELY GRANT THEM A VARIANCE BEFORE IT'S A SITUATION .

LIKE THAT'S, I DON'T KNOW.

THAT SEEMS, I THINK IF THEM COMES DOWN TO, I, I MEAN, IF WE TAKE AN ACTION, UH, OF DENIAL AND SOMETHING COMES UP AND THEN WORKING

[00:35:01]

ALL THESE PIECES OUT, THE DENIAL PRECLUDES THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO, I MEAN, I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH POSTPONING IT FOR SIX MONTHS AND IF HE THEN WITHDRAWS IT, UM, OR HAS TO RE NOTIFY HIM, BRING IT BACK WITH SOME DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.

I MEAN, THE DENIAL JUST IS A, IS A SHOWSTOPPER FOR ONE YEAR.

WELL, I, I SUPPORT PULL, I'LL PULL MY SECOND ON THE DENIAL.

I SUPPORT THAT ASPECT.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S, UH, IT DO WE WANT TO, BECAUSE TO, TO ADDRESS COMMISSIONER MAGGIE'S CONCERN, IF WE GIVE PASSE VARIANCE, BUT WE PASS IT WITH A CONDITION THAT THE STORAGE ELEMENTS CAN REMAIN, JUST ANYTHING OVER THE WATER HAS TO BE REMOVED AS RECOMMENDED BY WATERSHED PROTECTION, THEN THEY DON'T NEED TO COME TO US FOR A VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHING ON THE WATERFRONT BECAUSE WE MADE THAT A CONDITION OF OUR INITIAL VARIANCE BASED ON THE POSTINGS THAT WE HAVE HERE.

BUT WHAT VARIANCE ARE WE GRANTING? WE'RE NOT GRANTING A VARIANCE.

WE'RE JUST, WE'RE JUST SAYING DO SOMETHING.

'CAUSE THE VARIANCE IS FOR IMPERVIOUS COVER.

WELL THEN HE'S STILL GONNA BE MAINTAINING THAT AMOUNT OF, HE'S GONNA HAVE THAT IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FROM THE STORAGE.

NO, IT WOULD BE LESS.

SO HOW WOULD IT CALCULATE THAT? IT WOULD BE LESS CORRECT.

WHICH IS ACTUALLY A GOOD THING.

UH, WHAT'S ASKING FOR? I WOULD, I THINK I WOULD, IF I COULD JUST CHECK 1200 SQUARE FEET TO 2230.

SORRY THAT THAT WASN'T A QUESTION.

SO THE VARIANCES YES, SIR.

THANK YOU.

AND PREVIOUS COVERAGE HASN'T ANSWERED THAT YET.

DANIEL, COULD YOU, HIM, THIS IS, UM, THIS IS NOT A, THIS IS NOT A Q AND A TAM, THIS IS DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE BOARD MEMBERS.

I APOLOGIZE FOR CUTTING YOU OFF.

IT'S HARD IF'S A QUESTION WE WILL DEFINITELY ASK.

CAN WE ACTUALLY, CAN WE ACTUALLY RAISE THIS PROCEDURAL QUESTION TO LEGAL BY ANY CHANCE? ABSOLUTELY.

I'D, I'D LIKE TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S, IF PROCEDURALLY ALLOWED FOR US TO BASICALLY PASS A VER LIKE BASICALLY DO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING, WHICH IS DENYING THE REQUEST, BUT ASKING THEM TO DO SOMETHING ELSE THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE A VARIANCE.

BUT I BELIEVE THIS WOULD BE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO, TO POSTPONE TO A DATE CERTAIN.

AND THEN IF HE WITHDRAWS IT BEFORE THE DATE, CERTAIN IF NOT, THEN HE WOULD HAVE TO RE NOTIFY IF IT WERE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.

THAT WAY IF THEY, THEY GIVES THEM THE OPTION TO, UH, CHANGE THE LANGUAGE OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE REQUEST, WHICH WOULD CAUSE A REIFICATION.

YEAH.

YEAH.

UM, ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE, UM, FIRST I WANNA REITERATE THAT THE, UH, VARIANCE REQUEST THAT THEY HAVE ASKED FOR IS, UM, TO MODIFY THE CODE TO EXCEED 1200 SQUARE FEET TO 2,235 SQUARE FEET OF, OF DOCK, SPECIFICALLY OF DOCK SPACE.

YES.

RIGHT.

SO, SO THAT'S THE RELIEF THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING.

SO THAT'S THE DECISION BEFORE THE BOARD.

AND SO I'M UNDERSTANDING THERE'S THREE POTENTIAL, UM, OPTIONS OUT ON THE TABLE.

THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST, UM, WHICH AS VICE CHAIR HAWTHORN HAD SAID, WOULD MEAN THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO SEEK THE, A SIMILAR VARIANCE FOR UP TO A YEAR.

THE SECOND ONE WOULD BE FOR THE BOARD TO HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO POSTPONE THE REQUEST, UM, AND TO A TIME CERTAIN, UM, AND THEN HAVE TO RE NOTIFY IF POSSIBLE AND POTENTIALLY EITHER AMEND THE REQUEST THAT THEY'RE SEEKING OR MAYBE MEET, UM, IF FOR POSTPONEMENT MEETUP WITH STAFF TO SEE WHAT KIND OF, UM, ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS MIGHT BE AVAILABLE.

AND THEN THE THIRD ONE WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE REQUEST WITH SOME TYPE OF CONDITION.

SO AS I'M KIND OF UNDERSTANDING IT, SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN REQUEST, SO ADDING AN ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET, AND I'M JUST KIND OF SPIT BALLING, LIKE SAYING, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW UP TO 1500 SQUARE FEET WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE ELEMENTS ABOVE THE WATER BE REMOVED.

SO THEY WOULD GET THAT, THAT MEANS THAT THE EXISTING SQUARE FEET WOULD BE REDUCED SOME AND THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT THAT ELSEWHERE.

I'M NOT SURE BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S DESIGN, WHETHER THAT WOULD BE, BUT THOSE ARE THREE POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR THE BOARD RIGHT NOW.

THERE'S A MOTION THAT'S SECONDED THAT, UM, IS A MOTION TO

[00:40:01]

DENY.

SO IF THE BOARD WOULD WISH TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY, THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

RIGHT.

AND I WOULD JUST REALLY QUICK, ERICA, SORRY.

SO JUST TO CLARIFY FOR THAT THIRD OPTION, IN ORDER FOR US TO HAVE CONDITIONS ON A VARIANCE, WE HAVE TO BE GRANTING THE VARIANCE THAT THEY'VE ASKED FOR, WHICH IS AN INCREASE IN DOCK SPACE.

YES, CORRECT.

BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY INCREASE THE DOCK SPACE TO THE REQUESTED AMOUNT.

MM-HMM.

, YOU, UH, CAN'T GO HIGHER THAN WHAT WAS NOTICED.

BUT YOU COULD REDUCE IT INTO THE, THE MIDDLE, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE HIGHER THAN 1200.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MM-HMM.

IF I COULD JUMP IN THERE, UH, QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

DO YOU KNOW THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE COVERED SHED PART OF THE DOCK? THE EXISTING DOCK? THE EXISTING DOCK? BY ANY CHANCE? LEMME TAKE A LOOK REAL QUICK.

YOU HAVE A PLAN.

UM, SO ERICA, WE COULD POSTPONE TO A DATE CERTAIN, WHETHER THAT BE AUGUST, WHATEVER DAY THAT IS.

YEAH.

THERE MIGHT BE SOME RENEWS.

AND THAT WAY THEY COULD, IF THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE OUT THE WATER ELEMENTS ON THE EXISTING DOCK, THEY MIGHT NOT NEED A VARIANCE.

YES.

YOU COULD, UM, POSTPONE THE CASE TO ANOTHER TIME, CERTAIN DATE.

AND IF THEY NEED TO RE NOTIFY THEM, THEY WOULD RE NOTIFY IF IT'S PASSED A CERTAIN PAST 60 DAYS.

UM, BUT IF THAT WAS THE CA CASE, THEN I MAY SUGGEST THAT THE APPLICANT GO BACK AND MEET WITH STAFF TO SEE WHAT ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS WERE AVAILABLE.

AND THEN IF THE APPLICANT DIDN'T, WAS ABLE TO MEET WITH STAFF AND AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION WAS REACHED OR, UM, AND DID NO LONGER NEEDED TO SEEK THE VARIANCE, THEN THEY COULD JUST WITHDRAW THEIR CASE.

THAT THAT WOULD BE, IF THEY TOOK OUT ALL THE WATER ELEMENTS OF THE OTHER DOCK AND THEN IT, THE REST OF IT WAS NON COMPLYING, THEN YOU'D PROBABLY SEE A WITHDRAWAL DRAW.

THAT WOULD BE OF THE, OF THE, THE VARIANCE CASE.

BECAUSE THEN THEY WOULD BE COMPLIANT.

IS THAT JOHN AND JOHN AND I ARE HAVING A NOT, AND WE'RE HAVING A NODDING MOMENT.

IT'S NOT A OFFICIAL PART OF THE RECORD.

UH, JOHN CLEMENT WATERSHED PROTECTION.

YES.

IF THEY WERE ONLY PROPOSING, UH, TO RETAIN THE LANDSIDE ELEMENTS OF THE EXISTING DOCK, WE WOULD ACCEPT THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY AND WOULD NOT REQUIRE THE VARIANCE.

ALL RIGHT.

SO I AM SO THEN HE WOULDN'T NEED THE VARIANCE BECAUSE RIGHT.

SO HOW ABOUT IF I US MAKE A MO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THE CASE.

THE LOVELY AND TALENTED ELAINE, IT'S JANUARY.

CAN YOU PLEASE GIVE ME THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE FOR AUGUST? YES MA'AM.

THAT PORTION AUGUST 12TH WATER.

AUGUST 12TH.

AUGUST 12TH.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

OH, OKAY.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO POSTPONE THE CASE TO AUGUST 12TH, 2024 HERE AT CITY HALL.

THERE A SECOND.

I'LL SECOND IT.

BUT I, I WOULD LIKE THE, UH, MAKE A STATEMENT THAT THE APPLICANT GO TO PAGE SIX OF NINE AND THERE IS AN, UH, A BOAT DOCK PLAN THERE THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO GET THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IS OVER THE WATER OFF OF FOR WHEN THEY COME BACK IF THEY WANT TO KEEP THAT STORAGE AREA.

SO THEY CAN REWORD THEIR, OR THEY THEY CAN REQUEST LESS.

YEAH.

THEY MAY NOT NEED TO COME BACK.

HOPEFULLY.

THAT'S WHAT I'M, THAT IS MY INTENTION WITH MY MOTION IS THAT YOU GO IN PEACE AND FIGURE IT OUT.

OKAY.

SO WE DID HAVE A MOTION TO DENY MADE BY A BOARD MEMBER STAN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER VAN OLAND WITH NOW A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO POSTPONE TO AUGUST 12TH, 2024, MADE BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE, SECONDED BY A BOARD MEMBER VAN OLAND.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE POSTPONEMENT? I, I, I DON'T, I'LL VOTE FOR IT.

I STILL DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY, BUT I'LL VOTE FOR IT IF THAT'S THE BOARD'S PREFERENCE BOARD MEMBER.

KIM, I JUST WANTED TO GO OVER BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD THE MOTION VOTE.

UM, WHAT WERE THE THREE OPTIONS AGAIN THAT WE WOULD LIKELY REVISIT OR THAT'S WHERE WE LEFT OFF.

AND SO THE THREE OPTIONS WERE, AS I UNDERSTAND, AND, UH, I THINK THAT, UM, MS. LOPEZ WILL JUMP IN IF I MISSTATE ANYTHING, IS THAT WE COULD DENY THE VARIANCE, BUT IF BY CHANCE SOMETHING ODD HAPPENED AND THEY NEEDED TO COME BACK, HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR 365 DAYS BECAUSE IT BASICALLY TAKES YOU

[00:45:01]

OUT FOR A YEAR.

ONCE YOU GET A DENIAL, WE GET POSTPONE IT.

UM, AND THE EXISTING STORAGE STRUCTURES, IF THE WATER SIDE STRUCTURES WERE ALL REMOVED, UM, WOULD THEN, SO THE REASON HE'S HERE IS BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE TWO BOAT DOCKS AND IF HE REMOVED THE WATER SIDE STRUCTURES AND THE, THE LAND SIDE STRUCTURES OF THE EXISTING DOCK STAYED, THEY WOULD BE EXISTING NON COMPLYING.

SO IF THEY MOVED THE WATERSIDE PORTIONS OF IT, IT WOULD BE COMPLIANT TO BUILD A NEW DOCK.

SO IT IS, IT IS MY FOND HOPE THAT THAT IS THE EXPERIENCE THEY WILL HAVE.

AND THEN, UM, SO THIRD OPTION WOULD BE, THE MOST WOULD BE TO APPROVE IT WITH CONDITIONS OF REMOVAL OF THE DOCK, WHICH WOULD BE REDUNDANT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T NEED A VARIANCE IF HE REMOVES THE DOCK.

AND TO DO THE THIRD OPTION, WE WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE AN INCREASE IN THE, IN THE ALLOWED DOCK SPACE FROM WHAT THE CODE SAYS IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE A VARIANCE AT ALL.

THAT'S THE ISSUE.

THAT'S WHY I THINK OPTION THREE IS NOT A GOOD ONE.

THAT'S WHY I WENT, DID WE LOSE EVERYBODY OUT IN RADIO LAND? OH, THERE, THEY'RE, WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM.

HI GUYS.

YOU WENT AWAY FOR A SECOND.

IT WAS, IT WAS A TECH MOMENT.

NOW I CAN SEE YOU.

DID THAT MAKE SENSE? OKAY.

YES.

THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT, SO LET'S CALL THE VOTE AGAIN.

THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER VAN OLAND TO POSTPONE TO AUGUST 12TH, 2024.

TOMMY ES.

YES.

JESSICA COHEN.

YES.

MARCEL GARZA.

MARCEL GARZA.

YES.

MELISSA HAWTHORNE.

UH, YES.

SORRY.

WE WERE YOUNG J KIM KIND OF BEHAVING IN THE CORNER.

YES.

BRIAN POTID.

YES.

MAGGIE STAN.

YES.

RELUCTANTLY.

JEFFREY BOWEN.

YES.

JANELLE VAN ZEN.

YES.

AND MICHAEL VAN? YES.

OKAY.

THIS CASE IS POSTPONED TO AUGUST 12TH, 2024.

JUST IN CASE YOU NEED IT, THE BOY SCOUTS ARE WHOOPED AFTER THAT WHEN THEY'RE ALL GOING.

SEE, THIS WILL BE AN INTERESTING EVENING.

YOU'RE LUCKY THAT THEY'RE HAVING MERCY ON YOU AND TAKING YOU AWAY NOW.

I'M IMPRESSED.

Y'ALL MADE IT THE WHOLE HOUR.

GOOD JOB Y'ALL.

GOOD JOB.

AND COME BACK ANYTIME.

THANK YOU.

MOVING ON BOAT DOCKS.

ALL YOU EVER NEEDED TO KNOW JUST HAPPENED.

RIGHT? OKAY, SO LET'S TAKE IT BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE AGENDA.

PICK IT BACK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF WITH

[3. C15-2023-0051 Linda Sullivan for Suzanne McFayden-Smith – Lotus Management Trust]

ITEM THREE UNDER NEW VARIANCE CASES.

THIS WILL BE C 15 20 23 0 0 5 1.

LINDA SULLIVAN FOR SUZANNE MCFE AND SMITH LOTUS MANAGEMENT.

4,400 WATERFORD PLACE.

COME UP TO THE PODIUM, WE'LL PULL UP YOUR PRESENTATION.

OKAY.

WHEN YOU'RE READY TO CHANGE SLIDES, STATE NEXT SLIDE.

STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

OKAY.

CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME OKAY.

UM, MY NAME IS SUZANNE MCPHADEN SMITH AND I'M THE OWNER OF 4,400 WATERFORD PLACE.

AND I HAVE WITH ME THIS EVENING LINDA SULLIVAN, WHO'S BEEN HELPING ME, UM, WITH PROCESS ASSISTANCE AND WHO CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO.

THE PROPOSED PLAN THAT I'M STANDING BEFORE YOU WITH THIS EVENING IS TO IN, TO REDUCE THE OVERALL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE AT 4,400 WATERFORD.

BUT A PORTION OF MY LOT IS COVERED BY LAKE AUSTIN OVERLAY, WHICH THEN IMPACTS THE ENTIRE, UM, LOT.

AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT PERMITS CANNOT BE APPROVED EVEN IN THE CASE OF REDUCTION OF IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE WITHOUT A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.

UM, THE FIRST SLIDE, WHICH YOU HAVE UP, IS A SURVEY FROM FEBRUARY OF 2022.

SLIDE TWO PLEASE.

SLIDE TWO IS AN AERIAL IMAGE FROM 1997 BEFORE THE DOCKS WERE ENLARGED.

SLIDE THREE PLEASE.

THAT'S AN AERIAL IMAGE FROM 2003 AFTER PERMITTED ENLARGEMENT OF DECKS.

SLIDE FOUR, PLEASE.

[00:50:02]

UH, THIS IS, UM, THERE'S A MISSING SLIDE, BUT IT JUST SHOWS THAT THERE'S BEEN NO CHANGE IN FOOTPRINT SINCE COMPLETION OF THE PERMITTED WORK IN 2003.

THIS SLIDE THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS A PHOTO OF THE DECK.

UM, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S BEEN MAINTAINED BUT THAT IT'S IN DISREPAIR.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, LOOKING AT THE SCREEN, YOU'LL SEE SOME BOARDS THAT LOOK WEATHERED.

THOSE BOARDS HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY FALLEN OUT.

UM, SO IT IS A SAFETY HAZARD BECAUSE OF THAT.

AND ALSO THE, UM, BALLISTERS IN THE SAFETY RATE ARE MOST LIKELY NOT UP TO CODE.

SO IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, WE WANNA FIND A WAY TO DO DECK RECONSTRUCTION.

THIS IS THE ONLY EGRESS FROM THE BACK OF THE HOUSE TO THE OUTSIDE.

IF YOU STEPPED OUT FROM A DOOR WITHOUT ANY DECKING, YOU WOULD FALL ABOUT 10 OR MORE FEET AND HAVE GRAVE INJURY.

UM, SO SLIDE SIX IS A DESIRED PLAN AND UH, THE DECK IS THE HARDSHIP.

BUT, UM, WE DID HAVE A POOL AS PART OF THE OVERALL PLAN IN THE HOPES THAT THE OVERALL REDUCTION OF IMPERVIOUS COVER COVERAGE TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT 530 SQUARE FEET WOULD ALLOW THIS LOW IMPACT POOL DESIGN TO BE CONSTRUCTED.

WE'RE ONLY REQUESTING 11.4%, UH, OR 11.4 SQUARE FEET.

UM, SO WE'VE WORKED VERY DILIGENTLY ON THIS PLAN.

AND IN ADDITION, IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR RUNOFF AND GIVES MORE STABILITY TO THE LOT, WHICH IS A BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY MY NEIGHBOR, TO THE RIGHT.

UM, THIS DESIGN WAS CREATED PRIOR TO THE UNDERSTANDING THAT A VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED.

AND WE'RE PRESENTING THIS PLAN IN THE HOPE THAT SINCE THE OVERALL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IS TO BE REDUCED, THE VARIANCE CAN BE GRANTED FOR 38.28%.

SLIDE SEVEN, PLEASE.

THIS SHOWS EXISTING AND PROPOSED SLIDES, UH, SLIDE PLANS FOR A SIDE-BY-SIDE.

COMPARISON TO MORE CLEARLY SHOW THE REDUCTION OF DECK SIZE, UM, WE WOULD BE REMOVING ALL CONCRETE PATHS.

AND PRIOR TO ANY OF THIS, WE HAD ALSO REDUCED SOME, UM, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE AT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

UH, SLIDE EIGHT PLEASE.

THIS JUST SHOWS, UM, THE FINAL REQUEST FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.

THE APPLICATION REQUESTS MORE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE THAN WHAT IS NEEDED BECAUSE THE DESIGN TEAM ORIGINALLY BELIEVED THAT THEY WOULD NEED 47.4% IN THE ZERO TO 25% SLOPE.

BUT THE FINAL, UH, DESIGN REALLY ONLY REQUIRES 38.28% IN THAT SLOPE CATEGORY TO IMPLEMENT THE DESIRED PLAN.

NO INCREASES NEEDED IN THE LESS THAN 25% AREA.

AND AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THERE WILL BE AN OVERALL REDUCTION OF IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE ON THE LOT OF 529.1 SQUARE FEET.

UM, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR MS. SULLIVAN WOULD BE ALSO.

AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE.

I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS OR MOTIONS.

VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.

SO ON WHAT? I'M SORRY.

WE HAVE NEW MICROPHONES AND I'M NOT, I AM ENLARGING AND PUSHING THE BUTTON AT THE SAME TIME.

SO ON LSS 0.41, WHICH IS PAGE EIGHT OF YOUR PRESENTATION, SO YOU'RE IN THE SLOPE CATEGORY, YOU'RE LOOKING AT 38.28% REQUESTED.

IS THAT THE CORRECT NUMBER? EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICE WAS FOUR? SORRY, I'M HAVING TO GO TOO MANY TABS.

SO INSTEAD OF 47.4%, YOU'RE AT 38.28%.

YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

IS THAT CORRECT? AS, AS PER PAGE EIGHT OF THE PRESENTATION.

AND THEN YOU'RE NOT INCREASING THE 25 TO 35% MORE THAN IS EXISTING OR YOU'RE NOT, AND ALSO YOU'RE NOT TOUCHING THAT PORTION.

I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT.

YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

SO THE ONLY PORTION THAT WE'RE ACKNOWLEDGING THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING ON THE B PORTION OF THE VARIANCE, AND WE ARE GRANTING ON THE, A PORTION OF THE VARIANCE AND IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE SLOPE

[00:55:01]

CATEGORY OF 38.28%, IS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION OUTTA THAT.

I'M GOING TO ASK FOR 40 JUST TO GIVE THEM A LITTLE LEEWAY OR IF YOU WANNA MAKE IT 39 JUST IN CASE THEY NEED A FEW EXTRA INCHES, CONSIDERING THEY'VE, I'M SUCH A GREAT JOB TO, I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'RE LOOKING AT ME.

HUH? YOU'RE NOT .

I'M LOOKING AT MICHAEL.

I'M JUST CLARIFYING THE NUMBERS AND WHERE I'M GETTING THEM FROM AND NO, YOU'RE YOU'RE RIGHT.

GOT RIGHT HERE.

HE'S, HE'S OVER.

UH, I, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE WORKING IT OUT.

DID THAT ANSWER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MA'AM.

OTHER QUESTIONS? VIRTUAL MEMBERS.

NOBODY WANTS TO MAKE THE MOTION.

I WILL.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AN INCREASE OF THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER ON A SLOPE WITH A GRADIENT OF 25% OR LESS FROM 20% TO 40% AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING, UH OH, DOES IT HAVE THE EXISTING, OR, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING NONCOMPLIANT USAGE IN THE 25%, BUT NOT MORE THAN 35% VERY UP SLOPE.

DOES THAT WORK? UM, 40% IS TOO HIGH FOR ME.

YEAH, SORRY.

THEY THE 40% IS TOO HIGH.

TOO HIGH.

TOO HIGH.

TOO HIGH.

I MEAN THEY, THEY MADE A VALUE TO 30, TRY TO GET IT DOWN.

I MEAN 30, 39 'CAUSE YOU SAID 38.7.

38.28%.

OKAY.

39.

39.

I'M GOOD.

38.5, 38.5.

KILLING ME.

38.6 .

GOOD TO GO.

DO YOU WANNA, I'LL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ROCK PAPER SCIS OVER THAT? I GOT .

OKAY, SO THAT'S A SECOND.

THIS WILL BE A MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM PERUS CLEVER ON A SLOPE WITH A GRADIENT OF 25% OR LESS FROM 20% TO 38.6% MADE BY CHAIR COHEN.

SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FRIEND OLIN.

GIVE A SECOND.

I WILL GET YOU SOME FINDINGS.

UH, I HAVE IT PULLED UP RIGHT HERE.

OKAY.

REASONABLE USE THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE AN EXISTING TWO-STORY UNCOVERED WOODEN DECK WAS APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION ISSUED BUILDING PERMIT.

OKAY, WE'RE GONNA SKIP THAT PART.

THE DECK WAS CONSTRUCTED AND THE PROJECT WE HAVE NO, UH, THE ONE MOMENT.

ONE, ONE MOMENT.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE B PORTION OF THE VARIANCE, RIGHT? AND, AND THE FINDINGS FOR THE, FOR THE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO IT SEPARATE BECAUSE OF HOW IT'S LISTED NOW OR RIGHT.

YOU CAN'T, YOU HAVE TO TAKE AN ACTION ON EACH PORTION.

THIS IS A, THIS IS, CAN WE STILL DO THAT? I THOUGHT IT HAD TO BE ALL AT ONCE BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT'S ON THE AGENDA.

WELL, THE REASON, THE REASON, THE REASON WE'RE CALL I'M, WE'RE GOING BY A AND B IS BECAUSE, AND WE'RE GONNA ADDRESS THIS LATER THIS EVENING ABOUT THE AGENDA.

THIS IS ONE OF THE CRITERIA THAT ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WE HAVE THIS ISSUE WITH THE AGENDA IS BECAUSE WE GRANT VARIANCES SOMETIMES BASED UPON A, THE IDENTIFICATION B, THE DI IDENTIFICATION, AND SOMETIMES C WE DON'T EVEN GRANT.

SO WE, WE ARE IN ORDER FOR US TO, IF I TAKE A LOOK AT THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN ON, ON THE REVISED DRAFT VERSUS DRAFT, WELL, YEAH, I MEAN I KNOW HOW IT NORMALLY WOULD'VE DONE BEFORE DRAFT.

IT RUNS ON, SO ON THE ORIGINAL AGENDA, IT HAD B INCREASED MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER ON A SLOPE OF THE GRADIENT OF 25% AND NOT MORE THAN 35% FROM 10% MAXIMUM ALLOWED TO 17, 8% REQUESTED IN ORDER TO REMODEL UNCOVERED WOOD DECK IN LA AND DR LAKE AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT RESERVING ZONING DISTRICT.

I NEED YOU TO, AND IF WE DON'T TO ACKNOWLEDGE, QUALIFY THEM IN THAT MANNER, THEN I MEAN YOU CAN'T JUST BREAK UP AND IT'S GOTTA BE, I MEAN B, SO IF YOU NEED BI DO HAVE IT FROM THE ORIGINAL AGENDA.

HAVE A CHAIR AND THAT'S WHAT THE YEAH, NO, NO, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

BUT THE WAY IT'S LISTED NOW LOOK AT HERE.

I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S NO LONGER THE, THE CURRENT I KNOW AGENDA.

WE HAVE TO GO WITH WHAT'S LISTED NOW.

WELL SEE.

BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE THIS EVENING BECAUSE THIS'S THE SAME VERBIAGE.

BUT THIS IS A COMPLETE RUN ON SENTENCE, WHICH MAKES IT ONE ITEM.

ONE ITEM.

AND YOU CAN'T, AND I MEAN, SO I CAN ONLY ADDRESS

[01:00:01]

THE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR BOTH QUESTION FOR THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.

OKAY.

YOU COULD GRAB THE SEAT IF YOU WANT.

THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY ALWAYS THE FINDING OF FACT FOR, FOR EACH ONE MAY NOT ALWAYS BE THE SAME THING.

AND THIS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND NOW HOW I'M SUPPOSED TO DO THE FINDING FOR THIS.

BECAUSE IF THIS IS GOING TO BE ALL ONE PIECE OR IS IT ALL ONE PIECE? YEAH, IT'S RUN.

NO, I CAN'T.

IS IT C 2 25 2 5 51 C TWO A.

IS THAT, IS THE A SUPPOSED TO BE IS.

OKAY, I'M JUST CONFUSED MADAM CHAIR.

THE C TWO A IS THE SECTION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, RIGHT? SO YOU HAVE THREE SECTIONS OF CODE AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR, WHICH MAKES IT EVEN MORE.

SO YOU HAVE ONE CODE SECTION THAT HAS THREE DIFFERENT CRITERIA AND A B AND A C.

SO YOU'RE DOING A VARIANCE ON THAT.

IT'S NOT THE A SECTION AND BB SECTION BEFORE THIS IS AFTER CODE BOOM, THIS IS KILLING ME.

RIGHT? SO CAN I STILL READ THE FINDINGS SEPARATE, UH, TO ADDRESS THE DIFFERENT REQUESTS THEY MADE IN THE BAR? THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT ASKS IF WE'RE JUST GOING TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE SECOND ONE.

HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO READ THAT IN THE FINDINGS BASED ON THIS AS ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY? CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEAN? ACKNOWLEDGE THE SECOND ONE.

I, WE'RE GOING TO BE ACKNOWLEDGING, THAT'S THE WORD THAT I USED.

NON-COMPLIANT USE WILL CONTINUE TO BE A NON-COMPLIANT USE.

WE'RE NOT ADDING OR TAKING AWAY FROM THAT ONE 'CAUSE THEY'RE NO LONGER ASKING FOR IT.

SO YOU'RE NOT GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM 25 2 5 5 1 C TWO B THEN UH, WE ARE, YOU STILL ARE, ARE WE ARE WE'RE JUST ACKNOWLEDGING WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.

SO IF YOU'RE ACKNOWLEDGING, THEN YOU'RE GRANTING IT, RIGHT? RIGHT.

SO YOU WOULD STILL BE, SO IT WOULD BE YOU'RE GRANTING BOTH, YOU'RE GRANTING 25, 2 5, 1 C TWO A AND 25 2 5 5, 1 C, TWO B, AND YOU COULD, THERE'S A AND IN THERE SO YOU CAN TAKE 'EM UP AT THE SAME TIME AND HAVE THE SAME FINDING OF FACTS.

DO WE NEED TO, THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS THE SAME FINDING OF FACTS THOUGH.

YEAH.

THEN YOU CAN DIVIDE THE QUESTION.

DO WE, DO WE NEED TO SPECIFY IS WHY THEY, ON WHAT THE CURRENT, I I DON'T THINK IT'S CHANGED JUST BECAUSE THEY DELETED AN A AND A B IN, IN FRONT.

I I THINK IT'S STILL THE SAME PROCESS THAT YOU WOULD YEAH, IT'S JUST THE, THE, THE SLOPE CATEGORY IS VERY COMPLICATED.

AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL, AND THIS IS MAY MAKES THIS MORE COMPLICATED.

A FURTHER DISCUSSION ITEM WILL, WILL THE LANGUAGE OF, SO WOULD THE CURRENT USAGE FOR THE BE REQUEST REMAINING THE SAME OR, SO THEY'RE REQUESTING A INCREASE ONLY, ONLY FROM IN THE FIRST LOOK CATEGORY.

BUT YOU SAID THAT YOU THAT, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO ACCOMPLISH? WHAT WOULD THE BOARD, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO ACCOMPLISH FOR YOUR MOTION? SO WE'RE GONNA TO GRANT THE, MY INTENTION IS TO GRANT THE INCREASE TO UHHUH 38.6%, UH, IN THE, UH, A GRADIENT OF 25% OR LESS.

MM-HMM .

AND THEN TO ALLOW WHATEVER'S CURRENTLY IN THE GRADIENT OF 25%, BUT NOT MORE THAN 35% TO REMAIN THE SAME.

SO IS THAT GREATER THAN 10%? UH, I THINK THE ASK AND WELL, THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION FOR Y'ALL IS, IS THAT MORE THAN 10% WHAT, WHAT IT CURRENTLY IS NOW? NO, NO, IT'S NOT.

SO NO.

THEN IF IT'S NOT, DO WE NEED TO GRANT THAT AT ALL IF IT'S, I DON'T THINK WE NEED A VARIANCE FOR THAT ANYMORE.

SO YOU HAVEN'T, YOU HAVE, SO WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION, UM, EARLIER IN THE EVENING IN WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE MAINTAINING SOMETHING AS OPPOSED TO REPLACING SOMETHING, LIKE IF YOU ARE REPLACING YOUR ROOF, THERE'S A STRUCTURE UNDERNEATH IT.

SO YOU ARE MAINTAINING A