Jan 08, 2024 Board of Adjustment

MOVING ON TO ITEM ONE, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

MOTION TO APPROVE.

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.

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.

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.

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

SO INSTEAD OF KEEPING YOU WAITING, IF THE BOARD HAS

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

ITEM SIX.

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

IS THAT A MOTION? THAT IS MY MOTION.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

, 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]

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.

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.

THAT'S, THAT'S MY QUESTION.

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

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.

WHICH WOULD THEN BE MORE.

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 VERY MUCH FOR TIME.

GO HOME.

THANKS FOR STAYING LATE.

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.

ALRIGHT.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

CLEMENT FROM WATERSHED PROTECTION.

UH, JOHN? YES.

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.

OR OVER THE WATER.

WHICH IS THINK THE DIRECTION I WOULD PREFER.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

, 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.

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.

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.

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.

THAT PORTION AUGUST 12TH WATER.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

AND MICHAEL VAN? YES.

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.

ITEM THREE UNDER NEW VARIANCE CASES.

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]

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.

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

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

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.

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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

I MEAN 30, 39 'CAUSE YOU SAID 38.7.

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.

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

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]

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.

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 STRUCTURE WHEN YOU TAKE A DECK OFF AND PUT IT BACK.

YOU AREN'T MAINTAINING IT, IT WENT AWAY AND THEN WENT BACK.

SO YOU'RE REBUILDING IT.

UM, IT APPEARS BY THE SLOPE MAP IN THE PRESENTATION PACKET THAT THE AREA THAT THEY'RE AFFECTING IS THE RELATIVELY FLAT PART

[01:05:01]

OF THE SITE.

BUT I WOULD THINK THAT BECAUSE IT'S IN THE LA DISTRICT, THEY HAVE A SLOPED AREA THAT IS OF A MORE EXTREME GRADIENT AND SHE SAYS THEY'RE NOT TOUCHING IT.

BUT I AM NOT SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GO OUT THERE AND YOU START DOING STUFF, SO BETTER SAFE TO COVER IT THAN TO I WOULD SAY SO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE IT SAY SO.

UH, MAYBE THAT IT MAY BE GRANT THAT THE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER MAY BE IN THAT SLOPE CATEGORY, REMAIN THE SAME MAY BE REPLACED AS WHAT SHOWN NOT TO EXCEED ITS EXISTING CONFI CONFIGURATION OR NONCONFORMITY, SORRY.

UH, BOARD MEMBER .

I SAW YOUR HAND UP.

YEAH, I WAS JUST, I WAS JUST GONNA ADD, UM, THIS IS NOT TO THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF THE CASE, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS TO NOTE IS THAT, UM, ACCORDING TO, AND MAYBE I'M MISSING SOMETHING, BUT ACCORDING TO OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES, WE DO NOT HAVE TO LIST THE FACT SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR THE FINDING.

SO WE CAN JUST SAY WE'VE, THE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE.

THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AND NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

AND THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER.

SO WE DON'T HAVE TO ALWAYS BE INCLUDING RIGHT.

THAT FACT SPECIFIC STUFF.

SO I'M, WE'RE CHANGING THE VERY, AND THAT'S FINE.

BUT I JUST, I JUST KNOW THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SOME PEOPLE OFTEN INSIST UPON DOING AND I THINK IT MAKES IT MORE COMPLICATED WHEN THEY DON'T SPLIT IT OUT THE WAY THAT THEY'RE DOING.

YEAH, I, I THINK IT GRANTS US A, A LITTLE MORE OF A SAFETY NET IF A CASE WERE TO GO TO COURT, DISTRICT COURT, UH, BECAUSE WHAT THEY RULE ON IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT OUR DECISION WAS PROPER, BUT WHETHER WE FOLLOWED THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND LAWS SET BY THE CHARTER AND STATE CODE.

YEAH, THAT'S FINE.

I'M JUST POINTING OUT THERE BECAUSE OUR, OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT IT'S OPTIONAL TO ADD THAT NARRATIVE.

SO, OKAY, LET ME TAKE ANOTHER STAB AT THIS, KEEGAN.

SO THIS WILL BE A MOTION TO IMPROVE, APPROVE, UH, A MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS CLUBBER COVER ON A SLOPE WITH A GRADIENT OF 25% OR LESS TO 30 38 0.6% AND APPROVE, UH, NO INCREASE, UH, BUT ALLOW THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF THE CURRENT IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT IS ON A SLOPE WITH THE GRADIENT OF 25% AND NOT MORE THAN 35%.

35%.

I THINK THAT COVERS IT.

YEAH, LET'S DO FINDINGS.

REASONABLE USE.

UH, THE, THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DID NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE AN EXISTING TWO-STORY UNCOVERED WOODEN DECK WAS APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION AND NOW NEEDS EXTENSIVE RECONSTRUCTION BEYOND BASIC REPAIR MAGNETS.

THE DECK SERVES EXTERIOR DOORS IN ORDER TO REMOVE AND RECONSTRUCT THE NEW DECK.

DUE BUILDING PERMITS WOULD BE REQUIRED HARDSHIP.

THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCES REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY WERE PERMITTED AND CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO CURRENT IMPERVIOUS COVER RESTRICTIONS AND CAN NOW NOT BE MAINTAINED OR ALTERED UNDER THE CODE.

THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE DECK ON THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE CANNOT BE REDUCED, INCISED OR MAINTAINED IN A SAFE CONDITION WITHOUT PERMITS AREA CHARACTER.

THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY, AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT AND CHARACTER OF THE RESIDENCE WILL BE MAINTAINED AND NOT CHANGED IN ANY WAY FROM THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.

I'M GOING TO TIE THIS TO PRESENTATION DOCUMENTATION, UH, THREE EIGHT, AND LET'S CALL THE VOTE.

[01:10:01]

MICHAEL VANOWEN? YES.

CONGRATULATIONS.

YOUR VARIANCE IS GRANTED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE WHILE WE HASH THAT OUT.

AND IF YOU'LL JUST GIMME ONE SECOND.

THIS IS WHY I TRY NOT TO MAKE MOTIONS TOO OFTEN MOVED WITH.

ITEM FOUR C 15, 20 24 0 0 0 1.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

MOVING ON TO

[4. C15-2024-0001 Rodney Bennett for Asim Dhital 8315 Burrell Drive]

FIRST KEYS FILED IN THE NEW YEAR.

RODNEY BENNETT FOR ASIM DAL 8 3 1 5 BUR DRIVE.

WHEN YOU'RE READY, TWO MINUTES TO SLIDE.

YOU CAN SAY THE NEXT SLIDE.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU WILL HAVE ONE SEC.

UH, FIVE MINUTES.

GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS.

I'M RODNEY BENNETT.

I'M HERE TONIGHT REPRESENTING THE OWNERS OF 83 15 BURAL AND THE REQUESTED CONSTRUCTED CAR FOR CARPORT 11 FEET INTO THE 25 FOOT SETBACK MYSELF, ALONG WITH 15 RESIDENTS OF THE WOOTEN NEIGHBORHOOD.

FEEL.

THIS REQUEST IS KEEPING WITH THE AREA CHARACTER BECAUSE OF THE MANY NON-CONFORMING CARPORTS THAT EXIST ON BURR DRIVE.

FURTHERMORE, DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE IS LIMITED DUE TO THE ENORMOUS HERITAGE TREE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE LOT.

ANY NEW DRIVEWAY WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE QUARTER QUARTER CRITICAL ROOT ZONE.

AND I'LL PROCEED WITH THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THIS IS THEIR HOUSE.

UM, THE CARPORT WOULD BE MOSTLY OVER EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.

YOU SEE, UM, , I SEE A LITTLE GUY WAVING AT ME.

YOU SEE THE CARPORTS EXISTING IN THE SETBACKS ALONG THIS SIDE OF THE STREET.

AND THERE APPEARS TO BE TWO INTO THE SETBACK.

UM, NEXT SLIDE.

UH, THE REST OF THE SLIDES ARE JUST SIGNATURES FROM VARIOUS OWNERS.

UM, THE INDIVIDUAL SIGNATURES THAT YOU SEE ARE THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS.

NEXT SLIDES, YOU CAN JUST RUN THROUGH THEM.

AND THIS PRETTY MUCH CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

UM, AS YOU KNOW, I LIKE TO KEEP IT VERY BRIEF WITH Y'ALL.

UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I SHOULD BE AVAILABLE.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE.

LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS.

BOARD MEMBER BOWEN, UM, I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE, UM, THE DRAWING A DASH 1.0.

UM, YOU'VE GOT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THAT THAT'S, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S OVER, THAT'S COVERING OVER THE GROUND VERSUS OVER THE CONCRETE.

AND BASED UPON A PICTURE THAT I LOOKED AT EARLIER, UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE.

IS THE CARPORT COVERING ALL OF THE CONCRETE AND NOT EXTENDING OUT INTO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER? THE, UM, THE CARPORT WILL HAVE SOME NEW IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE TO IT.

UM, FOR THE SECOND CAR, IT LOOKS LIKE A, I DON'T HAVE MY GLASSES.

IT LOOKS LIKE ABOUT 18 FEET BY MAYBE FOUR FEET OF NEW IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.

I CONFIRMED WITH THE CONTRACTOR THAT THEY WOULD NOT NEED A VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.

ONLY THE SETBACK.

SO YOU'RE ADDING CONCRETE.

YES, SIR.

'CAUSE THAT'S, THAT WASN'T WHAT I GOT OUT OF THAT, SO THANK YOU.

A NEW DRIVEWAY AND PRETTY MUCH EITHER TAKE OUT THAT TREE OR SNAKE IT AROUND IT SOMEHOW.

BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF STAI.

UM, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE HARDSHIP.

THE HARDSHIP LISTED IS THAT IF WE, IF WE DON'T GRANT THIS VARIANCE, YOU'D HAVE TO MOVE THE DRIVEWAY TO THE OTHER SIDE, WHICH WOULD INTERRUPT A ROUTE SYSTEM.

IS THAT CORRECT? I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE LAST PART? UH, IT WOULD INTERRUPT A, A HERITAGE TREE ROOT SYSTEM.

YES, MA'AM.

IS THAT CORRECT? IF YOU RECALL THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE, UH, OWNER'S HOUSE, YOU'LL SEE A LARGE TREE TO THE RIGHT OF THE HOUSE.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO INSTALL

[01:15:01]

AND WHEN I DID MY MEASUREMENTS, I COULDN'T FIND OUT HOW THEY WOULD DO IT WITHOUT IMPACTING THE QUARTER CRITICAL ROOT ZONE.

IS THERE, IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL, UM, HARDSHIP THAT YOU WOULD NOTE? LIKE WHAT ABOUT JUST NOT HAVING A CARPORT? WHAT WOULD THE HARDSHIP BE THERE? I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO USE THAT AS, AS A HARDSHIP BECAUSE WHEN, WHEN YOU'RE IN TEXAS, YOU THINK IF I'VE GOT A CAR, I'VE GOT A SAFE PLACE TO PARK IT.

UM, I'VE USED IT IN THE PAST.

I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE I SHOULD USE IT THIS TIME, BUT I DO FEEL LIKE EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE A SAFE PLACE TO PARK THEIR CAR.

YEAH, I UNDERSTAND.

I DID HAVE A QUESTION.

UH, THERE WAS ONE LETTER OF OPPOSITION.

WAS ANY ATTEMPT MADE TO REACH OUT? AND I DID NOT SEE THAT.

I, I HAVE NO PROBLEM SPEAKING WITH OPPOSITION, BUT I, I'M SORRY, I DID NOT SEE IT.

UH, OKAY.

NO, NOT A PROBLEM.

IF YOU MOVE THE CARPORT, IF YOU SNAKED AROUND THE TREE, MOVED THE CARPORT, YOU WOULD THEN HAVE A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE LIKELY, OR AN IMPERVIOUS COVER VARIANCE IF YOU KEPT GOING TOWARDS THE BACK.

AND THE LOT IS VERY ODDLY CONFIGURED, SOME PARALLELOGRAM OF SOME KIND.

YES, MA'AM.

I WOULDN'T NEED A SIDE YARD SETBACK.

SIDE YARD OR IN, IF YOU COULDN'T GET IT ALL THE WAY BACK AND THEN YOU'D LIKELY NEED IMPERVIOUS COVER IF YOU WENT THAT FAR.

YES, MA'AM.

UM, QUESTION.

UH, SORRY.

BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF STONY, GO AHEAD.

UM, WHEN WAS THE HOME BUILT AND WHEN WAS THE, WHEN DID THE CURRENT OWNER PURCHASE IT? I COULDN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I'M SORRY.

I DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION.

BUT THEY PURCHASED IT ALREADY BUILT, YES, YES.

I'D SAY LOOKING AT THE ARCHITECTURE, MAYBE SIXTIES, PROBABLY.

I, I BELIEVE IT HAD A REMODEL PERMIT AT ONE TIME FOR A NEW FASCIA AND A NEW ROOF.

BUT THE, THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.

THE, THE REASON, THE REASON I ASK IS THAT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY SOME HOMES ARE JUST BUILT WITHOUT A CARPORT OR A GARAGE, AND SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD THAT OPTION AT THE TIME.

THEY CHOSE NOT TO, AND I'M JUST CONSIDERING THAT AS I CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT THE, IF I MAY, IN THAT AREA, A LOT OF HOMES WERE BUILT WITHOUT CARPORTS.

UM, BUT IF YOU WERE TO DO A DRIVE-BY THAT, BUT AREA, IT'D PROBABLY BE, I, I COULDN'T EVEN GUESS A QUARTER OF THEM HAVE SOME SORT OF CARPORT.

MANY OF THEM IN THE, IN THE, UH, SETBACK.

UH, I COULD SAY THAT EIGHT WHEEL SCROLLS OF GOOGLE MAPS SHOWED ME 11.

IT'S, IT SEEMS TO BE, YEAH, I MEAN IT'S CLEAR FROM THE PRESENTATION TOO.

LIKE MANY HOMES ON THE STREET DO HAVE CARPORTS.

BOARD MEMBER LIN MADAM CHAIR.

I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

UM, BUT I, I AM GOING TO REQUEST THAT THE, UH, CARPORT REMAIN OPEN ON THREE SIDES.

I'LL SECOND THAT BEFORE WE MOVE TO VOTE.

I HAD A QUESTION.

YES, YES, OF COURSE.

BOARD MEMBER KIM.

UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROPOSED, THE PROPOSED IS TO, UM, ON TO INCREASE THE CARDBOARD OR TO BUILD A CARDBOARD ONE SIDE BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE HAS A TREE AND WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID IT.

UM, THE SIDE WHERE THE CAR DRIVE CURRENTLY EXISTS, IS THERE ANOTHER TREE THERE OR NO, NO, NO MAP.

IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A TREE, BUT UNLESS IT'S AN OUTDATED IMAGE THAT'S FAIRLY LARGE AS WELL.

IT'S NOT ON THE, UH, OWNER'S LOT.

IT'S NOT ON THE OWNER'S LOT.

IT'S ADJACENT.

IT'S ON THE ADJACENT LOT.

IF THERE IS ONE, IT'S ON THE ADJACENT LOT.

DIDN'T WANT TO PUT TOO MUCH CART BEFORE THE HORSE.

I GUESS THE PLAN THAT I'M SEEING, THE A ONE, UH, DASH 1.0 DOESN'T REALLY, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE THE DRAWING OF WHERE THE TREES ARE LOCATED.

IT'S KIND OF HARD TO ASSESS.

BUT, UM, I GUESS THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONLY CONCERN I HAD WAS THERE'S A LARGE TREE AND I WASN'T SURE HOW THE WIDTH OF THE PROPOSED CARPORT WOULD AFFECT THAT OR IF EXCESSIVE ACCESS TO IT.

SO THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

I APPRECIATE, IS THAT PODIUM MIC OFF AGAIN? I, I APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTION.

UM, THE DESIGNER

[01:20:01]

THAT'S WHY IT DID INCLUDE THE PHOTOGRAPH WITH THE HOUSE THAT SHOWED THE TREE.

UM, IT WAS A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL SIZE OF TREE, SO I I THOUGHT THAT WOULD COVER THAT BASE.

HAS ANYONE SECONDED THE MOTION? YES, SOMEBODY.

IT DOES BELONG TO THE BODY.

DID YOU HAVE A SUBSTITUTE OR NO, NOT AT ALL.

I WAS JUST MAKING SURE IT WAS OUT THERE.

YES, WE DO HAVE A SECOND, UH, BOARD MEMBER.

GARZA A QUESTION BACK TO YOUNG JIM'S QUESTION.

YOU KNOW, I, I PULLING IT UP ON GOOGLE MAPS, THAT TREE THAT IS ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, I MEAN, IT SEEMS QUITE LARGE AND THAT CRITICAL ROOF WILL DEFINITELY BE, I JUST, YOU KNOW, IN THE WAY THAT THAT'S POTENTIAL SKETCH OF THE EXTRA IMPERVIOUS.

SO MY QUESTION IS TO, UH, A BOARD MEMBERS, I GUESS, UM, WOULD, I GUESS YOU'RE APPROVING IT.

WOULD, WHEN WOULD ENVIRONMENTAL CATCH IT IN? AT WHAT POINT WOULD, WOULD SOMEONE CATCH THAT AND CHECK THAT ROOT AREA? UH, IT, IT'S TO BE APPROVED FOR THE OPPOSITE SIDE.

THE, THE TREE PART WAS JUST WHY THEY COULDN'T BUILD ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOME.

NO, I, I MEAN TO, SO IF I'M LOOKING AT THE RIGHT HOUSE, AND I ASSUME I AM THE, THERE IS A TREE TO THE, UH, GUESS THE LEFT FACING THE HOUSE TO THE LEFT OF THE DRIVEWAY.

LEFT OF THE DRIVEWAY.

IT'S NOT PICTURED IN, IN THE PRESENTATION MATERIAL.

UH, YES, APPLICANT PLEASE.

HELLO, RODNEY BENNETT AGAIN.

UM, WHEN YOU SUBMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A TREE PLOT PLAN AND YOU SHOULD HAVE TO SHOW THE SIZE OF THE TREE OF THE QUARTER AND HAVE CRITICAL ROOT ZONES.

UM, AND IT IS REVIEWED BY THE CITY ARBORIST AT THAT TIME.

UM, THEY DO ALLOW SOME THINGS TO INT IMPACT, UM, LIKE FOOTINGS, THEY HAVE TO BE CERTAIN TYPE OF FOOTING.

UM, SO THERE'S WAYS TO WORK AROUND IT.

SO, SO THERE IS A MEANS OF REMAINING OFF THE 50% OR WHATEVER'S PERMITTED THERE, THERE IS A, A CITY STAFF REVIEWER THAT WILL BE ABLE TO DETERMINE IF THE POTENTIAL CARPORT WILL BACK OR NOT CORRECT AND BE OKAY.

UM, GOTCHA.

BUT THEN AGAIN, HE IS INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE APPROACH GOING IN.

THANK YOU BOARDMAN MC, MARCEL, FOR FOLLOWING UP WITH THE QUESTION.

I APPRECIATE IT.

BOARD MEMBER BOWEN, UM, BASED UPON THE, THE, THE PICTURES THAT YOU HAVE OF BOTH THOSE CARS SITTING IN THE DRIVEWAY RIGHT NOW, UH, THEY'RE BOTH SITTING THERE ON THAT ON A CONCRETE SLAB, BUT YOU, IT, IT APPEARS THAT BASED UPON YOUR DRAWING THAT YOU'RE WANT, AGAIN, I'M BACK TO THE SIZE OF THIS AND IS IT, IT'S ACTUALLY OVER THE SIZE OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE THAT 13.9 FEET THAT YOU'VE GOT, THAT GOES ALL THE WAY ACROSS THERE FROM WHERE I'M LOOKING AT THAT IS THAT YOU'RE JUST BUILDING A FLAT METAL TYPE CARPORT.

ARE YOU TYING IT BACK INTO THE HOUSE? BECAUSE THE RE THE REASON I'M ASKING IS 'CAUSE YOU'RE CHANGING THE KIND OF THE, THE WAY JUST LOOKING AT THIS PLAN, UM, AND GOING BACK TO THE SAME GOOGLE, UH, MAP THAT I LOOKED AT EARLIER TODAY, THE DRIVEWAY ACTUALLY KIND OF TURNS BACK AND BOTH CARS ARE PARKED RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, THUS NOT ENCROACHING.

SO, BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL REQUEST TALKS ABOUT 14 FEET VERSUS THE 25, BUT YOU KEEP EXTENDING IT OUT TO THE LEFT AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE HOUSE.

SO I GUESS MY, MY QUESTION, I'M REALLY KIND OF CONFUSED AS TO WHY YOU'RE ACTUALLY EXTENDING THE DRIVEWAY OR THE, THE CARPORT OVER AND I'M NOT SEEING, I'M SEEING EXISTING DRIVEWAY, BUT I'M NOT SEEING ANYTHING SHOWING THAT.

I GUESS ALL OF THAT OTHER AREA IS GOING TO BE MORE DRIVEWAY.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.

I BELIEVE THE HASHED AREA THAT YOU SEE IS PROPOSED PARKING AREA.

I DON'T THINK THE GOOGLE IMAGE SHOWS IT AS A RECTANGLE PER SE.

IT'S MORE OF LIKE A TRIANGLE, UH, TO GET THE TWO CARS IN.

UM, BUT WHAT HE IS PROPOSING IS BASICALLY A, A SQUARE, OR I'M SORRY, RECTANGLE, IT'S 17 BY 18, UM, FREE STANDING.

OKAY, SO IT'S FREE STANDING, JUST A FLAT ROOF ON IT.

NO SLOW.

YES, SIR.

TO KEEP, NO, 'CAUSE WE RECENTLY HAD ONE THAT WE HAD TO LOOK AT SOME ELEVATIONS AND DRAWINGS ON IT AND

[01:25:01]

NO, NOT THE APPROACH.

THE APRON WON'T BE TOUCHED.

I DON'T THINK IT COULD BECAUSE OF THE TREE.

LIKE WELL, YEAH, BECAUSE I'M, I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THE GOOGLE MAP THOUGH, LIKE THE STREET VIEW AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL OVERHANG RIGHT? COMING OFF THE, THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

WELL, I'M LOOKING AT THESE SHINGLES, RIGHT? YEAH.

WHEN I'M, WHEN I LOOKED AT IT EARLIER, I JUST LOOKED AT IT AS SAYING, OKAY, THEY WERE COMING STRAIGHT OFF OVER THE EXISTING CARPORT OR THE ACTUAL, NOT CARPORT, BUT THE ACTUAL DRIVEWAY WHERE THE CARS ARE PARKING.

AND I SAW WHERE IT WAS AROUND THE TREE, WHICH WAS FINE, BUT WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS MAP OR WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS DRAWING, I'M LOOKING AT A CARPORT THAT IS LARGER THAN THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY, AND YET THEY'RE ADDING CONCRETE ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACTOR, THEY WILL NEED TO ADD SOME IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE PARKING TO SQUARE IT OUT.

BUT THE, BUT THE APPROACH STAYS THE SAME.

THE APPROACH WILL STAY THE SAME.

THE APRON WILL NOT MOVE.

I'VE, I'VE, SO I THUS, THE, THUS THE QUESTION WHEN I STARTED LOOKING AT THIS GOING, YEAH, OKAY, I'M, I NO, NO, I, I GET RIGHT WHERE YOU'RE AT.

THAT'S A GREAT POINT ACTUALLY.

SO IT WILL BE EXTENDING THE, NOT NOT THE LITTLE TRIANGLE PORTION, BUT THAT YOU PRINT ABOVE THE LARGE PART OF THE, THE PARKING AREA OF THE DRIVEWAY, UH, OUT TO THE LEFT BEYOND THE OVERHANG OF THE HOUSE.

YEP.

BASED UPON HIS, HIS, UH, YEAH, THAT'S DIAGONALS THERE, HE'S EXTENDING THE, THE CARPORT BEYOND THE, THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE.

AND NOW IT TIES BACK INTO YOUNG J KIM'S AND MARCEL'S.

HOW ARE THEY GONNA DO WITH THAT, WITH THAT BIG TREE, A BIG BRANCH THERE WITHOUT TAKING A THIRD OF THE CANOPY? CORRECT.

AND, AND I ASSUME THERE WAS GOING TO BE SOME CANOPY TRIMMED WITH THAT WAS GONNA BE WITHIN THE 25% THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO TO TAKE CARE OF SOME OF THAT.

BUT I WAS, I'M BASED UPON THE PICTURES IN THIS PRESENTATION VERSUS JUST LOOKING AT, LIKE I SAID, A MAP EARLIER AND LOOKING AT THE GOOGLE VIEW OF, OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

UM, THAT'S THE REASON I HAVE THE QUESTIONS.

AND THE, AND THE CONCERNS ARE GOING, YOU'RE INCREASING IT WHEN I REALLY DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO INCREASE THE, THE CONCRETE, THE, YOUR STATEMENTS ARE, ARE, UH, ARE UNDERSTANDABLE.

UM, BUT THERE'S NOT A CARPORT THERE.

NOW, I I GOT THAT.

UM, SO THE IMPACT OF THE CARPORT TO THE TREE IS GONNA BE NEGLIGIBLE IN MY MIND BECAUSE ANY NEW IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IS GONNA BE SMALL.

I, I THINK IT'S FOUR BY, BUT YOUR DRAWING IS NOT SHOWING ME WHERE THE NEW CONCRETE IS ACTUALLY GOING EXCEPT FOR UNDERNEATH THE DIAGONAL.

IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S MY INTERPRET, IF THAT'S THE INTERPRETATION, BUT THERE'S NO TURNOUT FROM THE APPROACH AS YOU GO UNDERNEATH IT, THAT WOULD BE TURNED TO GET BACK UNDERNEATH WHERE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE NEW CONDUCT.

IT'S NOT A VERY DETAILED REPRESENTATION.

NO, IT'S NOT A VERY GOOD DETAIL AT ALL.

AND, AND WE'RE LOOKING, WE'RE HAVING TO MAKE JUDGEMENTS BASED UPON THE, EITHER THE LACK OF DETAIL OR ACTUAL DETAIL.

AND I, I, IF I WAS JUST ADDRESS THAT, I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT IT, IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO SHOW THE FLAT WORK IN THIS CASE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR, UH, VARIANCE FOR THAT.

I HATE TO DISAGREE, BUT AS A CONTRACTOR, I ALWAYS HAVE TO HAVE MY PLANS FOR PERMITTING AND THOSE TYPE OF THINGS TO WHERE IT SHOWS WHAT I'M ACTUALLY BUILDING.

I AGREE WITH THAT.

BUT AT FOR THE BOARD, WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A FULL SET OF PLANS.

WELL, BUT I NEED TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF DRAWINGS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEING DONE.

WOULD YOU NOT AGREE TO THAT? YES SIR, I DO.

I MEAN THE, THE, THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS.

THAT'S I BOARD MEMBER LIN OR SO, SORRY, SORRY.

BOARD MEMBER VAN.

I WAS LOOKING DOWN AT.

Y'ALL LOOK LEFT HUDDLED HARD BOARD MEMBER VAN AND BOARD MEMBER.

I'M A ADVANTAGE, WE ON THE CORNER GET TO KIND OF LIKE SEE THE WHOLE ROOM, RIGHT? I DIFFER.

IF I TAKE A LOOK AT I, YES, ITEM 4, 4, 2 ON THE PRESENTATION.

UH, SO I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY'RE JUST ASKING FOR A VARIANCE ON THE SETBACK THOUGH.

SO LIKE, WITHOUT REGARD TO HOW WE FEEL ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL WIDTH, THEY'RE NOT SEEKING ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER.

SO THAT'S KIND OF BEYOND OUR INQUIRY.

SO I, I THINK THE QUESTION IS, ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH THEM BEING ABLE TO HAVE THAT EXTRA 14 FEET OR WHATEVER? AND THAT'S LIKE THE FULL INQUIRY NOW WITHIN DEPTH.

I MEAN, I MAY MADAM CHAIR,

[01:30:01]

AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU, IF YOU CAN GO THERE FOR ME, BUT, UH, IF THAT, UH, I GUESS IT'S A TO, SO THE GREENISH COLOR HOUSE WITH THE LITTLE HONDA FIT, I THINK THAT'S A FIT.

THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE RESIDENCE, CORRECT? IT'S GOT THE TWO.

YEAH, I BELIEVE SO.

IT'S A STUCCO TYPE LOOKING HOUSE.

YEAH, STUCCO SORT OF GREENISH.

IT'S GOT THE GREEN FIT IN IT AND IT'S GOT ANOTHER, IT LOOKS LIKE A HONDA NEXT TO IT.

IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER BOND, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THAT CAR IS ALREADY SITTING OVER BEYOND THE HOUSE.

SO NOT TO BELAYER THE POINT, BUT IT'S NOT, YOU COULD SEE IT ON GOOGLE MAPS THAT IT'S, THERE'S ABOUT MAYBE FOUR TO SIX.

THEY'RE BOTH IN FRONT.

THEN IT'S THE ANGLE OF THE PICTURE TO THE LEFT, BECAUSE IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE IT IS.

AND I, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH AS FAR AS THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE TAKING A LOOK AT THE, UH, THE TREE THAT'S IN THIS PICTURE.

BUT THEN AGAIN, I'M LOOKING AT THIS PICTURE AT THE ANGLE AGAIN.

SO, UM, I GUESS I'LL GO BACK TO, UH, COMMISSIONER VAN ZANT.

UM, MY MAIN CONCERN IS THAT IF HE'S GONNA ADD THAT ADDITIONAL CONCRETE, THAT CONCRETE, WE MAY BE PUTTING A CART BEFORE THE HORSE BECAUSE THAT CONCRETE WILL BE IN THE, IS IS THE CONCRETE GONNA BE WITHIN THAT, UH, SETBACK AS WELL? AND IF SO, IT'S GONNA NEED A VARIANCE FOR THE CONCRETE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, COULD FOR THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, NO, UH, IT'D BEING IN A SETBACK.

WELL, I MEAN, WOULDN'T THAT BE COUNTED UNDER THE CARPORT? NOT IT, IT'S NOT GONNA BE COUNTED UNDER THE CARPORT IF, IF IT GOES THAT 14 FOOT 11 AND SEVEN EIGHTH INCHES.

'CAUSE THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE CARPORT.

AND I UNDERSTAND THE THEORY THAT YOU GOTTA GET UNDER THE CARPORT.

NO.

I UNDERSTAND THE THEORY, BUT THERE ARE 14, 11, AND SEVEN EIGHTS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE BACK TO THE CARPORT.

THAT'S WHERE THE CONCRETE'S GONNA GO.

AM I SEEING IT WRONG? UH, YEAH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

SO IS THAT'S THE CONCRETE, THAT EXTRA LITTLE, UM, I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE DANIEL FROM THE, FROM THE IS IT IS MEETING BACKUP.

COULD YOU PULL UP ITEM FOUR SIX PLEASE? IT'S THE VERY LAST PAGE IN THE BACKUP.

YEAH, THEY'RE JUST SHOWING US WHAT THE 14 FEET OH, IN THE PRESENTATION IT IS IT, YEAH, THERE IT IS.

THE SAME.

ISN'T THAT 14, 11 AND SEVEN EIGHTHS AND IS JUST THE, THAT'S JUST THE SETBACK.

THAT'S JUST WHAT IT WOULD BE WITH THE CARPORT, RIGHT? YES.

IT'S NOT SAYING THAT THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY'S GOING TO BE, IT'S THE ONE THAT LOOKS EXPANDED TO THAT POINT.

LOOKS A SCHEMATIC.

IT SHOULD BE THAT WAY.

SO IT'S GONNA BE NARROW AND THEN IT'S GONNA GET WIDER AT THAT 17 FOOT MARK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, RIGHT? CORRECT.

SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE ASKING ABOUT HERE IS THE IT'LL FUNNEL.

YEAH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

OKAY, WELL THEN I'M BACK THERE, JUST COMMISSIONER AND I'LL STILL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE.

UH, I MR. SENIOR AGAIN.

NEXT YOUR MIC ON MIKE, WHAT ATTORNEY ON FOR YOU? OH, THANK YOU .

I WILL STILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, KEEP IT OPEN ON THREE SIDES.

UM, NORMALLY WHAT WE DO, UH, ON THIS ONE, IT MIGHT BE, IT MIGHT BE AT PROPO, MR. BENNETT IS WE WILL REQUEST GUTTERS ALONG THAT ONE NEIGHBORHOOD SIDE, THAT ONE NEIGHBOR'S SIDE SO IT DOESN'T PITCH OFF INTO THEIR PROPERTY.

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE STANDARD REQUEST THAT WE'VE HAD LATELY.

SO IF I COULD, UH, UH, MAKE THE MOTION THAT IT'S OPEN ON THREE SIDES AND GUTTER ALONG THAT ONE PROPERTY LINE ON THAT ONE SIDE.

SO OPENED ON TWO SIDES, CLOSED ON THE THREE SIDES.

THREE OPEN ON THREE SIDES WITH A GUTTER ON THE PROPERTY LINE SIDE.

GOT IT.

REASONABLE USE ZONING REGULATIONS.

AND SO ARE YOU OKAY, WE CAN CALL THAT MAYBE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IF, BECAUSE JUST A CONDITION, VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE ALREADY SECONDED YOUR MOTION.

I'M OKAY WITH THIS CONDITION.

I GO TO THE PROPERTY.

UH, SORRY.

ONE, ONE SEC.

OH, WE GOT ANOTHER QUESTION.

IT SOUNDS LIKE BOARD MEMBER KIM, BUT LET, WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT THE PRESENTATION.

LET'S GET YOU PULLED BACK UP HERE.

I COULDN'T SEE THEM.

I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION WAS, AND I'M SURE IT WAS ANSWERED, BUT JUST TO CONFIRM THAT THE, THE PLAN, THE SIDE PLAN WE'RE SEEING ON A DASH 1.0 IS NOT ACCURATE BECAUSE THE DRIVEWAY IS WIDER.

WHO WAS THAT? YOU BOARD MEMBER KIM? I THINK I HEARD WHO HAD A QUESTION? I HEARD SOMEONE SAY QUESTION.

DID THEY? NO.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS THEN? CAN WE, Y'ALL READY TO CALL THE VOTE? HEY, WHEN YOU SAY PROPERTY LINES, SORRY, YOU MEAN INTERIOR? OH, IT WAS OUR STAFF LIAISON.

[01:35:02]

THE CONCRETE EXISTING CONCRETE IMPER COLOR OF THE DRIVEWAY IS WIDER THAN WHAT IS BEING SHOWN.

AND WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS PROPOSING IS A CARPORT OVER PURELY THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY.

AND IT WILL NOT BE WIDER THAN WHAT CURRENTLY IS, IS THAT CORRECT? AND WE'RE ONLY APPROVING REGARDING THE SETBACK? NO, NO.

THEY'RE, THEY'RE GOING TO BE ADDING SOME ADDITIONAL CONCRETE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY, CORRECT? CORRECT.

SO WE'D BE APPROVING COVER FOR BOTH EXIT HOLDS TWO VEHICLES.

IS THERE A REASON WHY IT NEEDS TO BE WIDE? I'M SURE IT WAS DISCUSSED, BUT MAYBE I DIDN'T PICK IT UP, BUT WHY IT'S BEING WIDENED WHEN THERE'S ALREADY TWO CARS BEING PARKED IN THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY.

WHEN I LOOKED AT IT, IT WAS NOT A A SQUARE TRIANGULAR, I MEAN, I'M SORRY, A SQUARE PARKING AREA.

SO WE'D HAVE TO FILL IN A TRIANGLE AREA.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE, THE DRIVEWAY THROAT, THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE ACTUAL FLARE.

BUT FROM THE POINT WHERE YOU HIT THE SIDEWALK, THERE'S THAT LITTLE TRIANGLE.

IF YOU LOOK ON GOOGLE, IF YOU JUST PULL IT UP ON GOOGLE STREET VIEW, THERE'S A SMALL LITTLE DIG.

THE WIDEST PORTION STAYS THE SAME.

IT'S JUST THAT THE ENTRY POINT WILL BE WIDENED.

JUST A LITTLE, JUST A, A TECHNICAL TERM SMIDGEN.

IT'S HARD TO LOOK LE BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE RIGHT-HANDED, IT IS REALLY HARD TO LOOK ON BOTH SIDES.

AND SHE'S GOT HER HAND UP.

AND I AM GONNA BE QUESTIONED.

I'M SORRY SIR.

WEB BOARD MEMBER.

STAN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

YEAH, NO KNOW MY NAME.

IT'S OKAY.

CHAIR, HUH? YEAH.

I'LL DO THAT NEXT TIME WHEN I'M I'LL DO THAT.

UM, NO, NO.

I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY 'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAD ESTABLISHED THIS, BUT NOW THERE ARE STILL QUESTIONS.

THE DRIVEWAY, IT'S FOR MOST OF THE DRIVEWAY, IT'S NOT CHANGING.

THE ENTRANCE OF THE DRIVEWAY IS NOT CHANGING, BUT THEY'RE, THEY ARE ADDING A LITTLE BIT OF CONCRETE UNDER THE DIAGONAL LINE PORTION IN THAT, IN THAT PLAN THAT IS SHOWN.

AND IT'S NOT AN ISSUE FOR US BECAUSE IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY ADD IMPERVIOUS COVER PAST THE POINT THAT THEY NEED A VARIANCE.

SO ALL WE ARE LOOKING AT TO ME IS, ARE WE OKAY WITH THE SETBACK CHANGE? AND I'M OKAY WITH THE SETBACK CHANGE.

SO ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ARE WE READY TO CALL THE VOTE? WELL, I STILL NEED TO DO FINDINGS, BUT I, IT WAS POINTED OUT TO ME THAT I NEED TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION THAT THE GUTTERS GO ON THE INTERIOR SIDE OF THE CARPORT INTERIOR.

SORRY, SAY THAT YARD SET ONE MORE TIME PLEASE.

INTERIOR, INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK, INTERIOR YARD SIDE YARD SETBACK.

SAY THAT FAST.

FIVE TIMES.

THIS IS A MOTION TO PROVE THE INTERIOR SIDE YARD.

AND, AND I'M, I'M SURE MR. BENNETT KNOWS EXACTLY.

SET BACK PLEASE.

AS WELL.

BUT JUST FOR THE RECORD.

REASONABLE USE THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT OFFER A REASONABLE USE BECAUSE IT DOES TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SPECIFICALLY THE AMOUNT OF NON-CONFORMING CARPORTS IN THE SETBACK HARDSHIP.

THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT IF THE, IF A CARPORT WERE TO BE BUILT ANY PLACE ELSE, IT WOULD REQUIRE A DRIVEWAY TO BE RELOCATED OVER CRITICAL R ZONE OF A HERITAGE TREE.

AND THERE IS ALSO THE IRREGULAR SHAPE OF THE LOT THAT LIMITS THEIR ABILITY TO LOCATE IT ELSEWHERE.

THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER CAR PORTS THAT ARE IN THE FRONT SETBACK ON BURL DRIVE AREA CHARACTER.

THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY, WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT AT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THEIR MINIMUM THREE CARPORTS ON THAT ARE ALSO IN THE SAME SITUATION.

AND SO THEREFORE THE AREA OF CHARACTER WILL REMAIN THE SAME.

SORRY, ONE MORE TIME CLARIFICATION.

SO THIS IS, YOU WANT A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DECREASE IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 14 FEET.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SIDE YARD SETBACK? OH, THEY DID.

THAT'S WHERE THE GUTTERS ARE GONNA GO.

OH, THE, THE GUTTER GOES ON THE SIDE SIDE ON THE INTERIOR SIDE YARD OPEN ON THREE SIDES WITH THE GUTTER ON THE CORRECT INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK.

[01:40:01]

CAN YOU COME BACK TO IT, PLEASE? YES, I'LL SAY YES.

MELISSA HOR? YES.

YOUNG CHEM I'M OKAY WITH BASED ON THE EXPLANATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME.

SO WE'RE ALREADY ONLY TALKING ABOUT INCREASINGLY PREVIOUS COVER FOR THE ENTRY POINT BECAUSE OF THE DIAGONAL AND THE CARPORT WILL JUST SIT OVER THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY.

JEFFREY BOW IS GOING TO ABSTAIN.

JANELLE VAN ZANT? YES.

AND MICHAEL VON OLIN? YES.

AND THEN BACK TO MARCEL GARZA.

SO WAS IT, WAS IT UNANIMOUS? YES.

NO, THERE WAS A FEW I COULD APPEAR.

THERE'S ONE ABSTENTION.

YOUR VARIANCE IS GRANTED.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND HAVE A WONDERFUL EVENING.

I'LL BRING MORE DETAIL NEXT TIME.

UH, DO, UH, WE ALREADY HAD LIKE A LONG WAY.

SO DOES ANYBODY WELL, WE CAN'T USE BATHROOMS. DOES ANYBODY NEED A SHORT BREAK? IT'S ALMOST EIGHT O'CLOCK.

NO.

ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON.

DID YOU SAY WE HAD PLUMBING NOW? DID I MISS THAT? DO WHAT? DID YOU SAY WE HAD PLUMBING NOW? OH YEAH, I ANNOUNCED AT THE BEGINNING THERE.

THERE'S A, A WATER LEAK ON THE SECOND FLOOR.

AND PLUMBING PLUMBING'S GOING TO BE DOWN FROM SIX 30 TO 10.

14 24, 18, 24, 22, 24, 28 EAST SEVENTH STREET.

NO PLUMBING.

VERNA AFTERWARDS IF YOU NEED TO USE THE BATHROOM OR IS THREE FORKS STILL OPEN? MAYBE WENT ACROSS THE STREET.

ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON.

ITEM FIVE

[5. C15-2024-0003 Richard Suttle for DC-2422, LLC 2408, 2410, 2414, 2418, 2422, 2428 East 7th Street]

C 15, 20 24 0 0 3.

RICHARD SETTLE FOR DC DASH 24, 22 LLC, 24 0 8 24, 10 24.

CAN I, I'M GONNA START AT THE END.

CAN WE GO TO THE VERY END OF THAT LITTLE PRESENTATION? INTRODUCE YOURSELF.

MY NAME'S RICHARD SETTLE.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AND I'M GONNA DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND I'M GONNA START WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH AND THEN WALK BACK FROM THERE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY THAT I KNOW OF ANY OPPOSITION TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

IN FACT, WE HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR IT.

WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS A RENDERING OF A BUILDING.

WHEN WE SAY PREVIOUS BUILDING HEIGHTS, THOSE ARE BUILDING HEIGHTS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IF WE COMPLIED WITH THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS AS THEY'RE WRITTEN TODAY, WHICH IS, WHICH ARE THE RULES THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH TODAY.

WHAT HAPPENED ON THIS PROPERTY IS THAT, UM, THE OWNERS THAT ARE GONNA OCCUPY IT WANNA BUILD A MASS TIMBER STRUCTURE.

BUILDING A MASS TIMBER STRUCTURE IS A MORE SUSTAINABLE BUILDING.

IT'S BETTER THAN THE CONCRETE AND STEEL, BUT IT REQUIRES THICKER BEAMS AND A LITTLE MORE HEIGHT.

THEY THOUGHT THEY'D GOTTEN LUCKY BECAUSE THE CORRIDOR ORDINANCE HAD PASSED, WHICH GAVE THEM THE RELIEF OF THE FIVE FEET THAT THEY NEED IN EACH ZONE TO ALLOW THEM TO BUILD A SUSTAINABLE MASS TIMBER BUILDING.

THEY'RE ALMOST THROUGH WITH THEIR SITE SITE PLAN.

THEY'RE ALMOST GOING ALONG.

NOW.

THERE'S BEEN SOME CONTROVERSY OVER THE COURT ORDINANCE AND WE'RE NOT IN THAT FIGHT.

WE WE'RE, WE DON'T TAKE A POSITION ON THAT ORDINANCE AT ALL, BUT WE'RE STUCK NOW BECAUSE WE'VE ORDERED THE MATERIALS AND THEY'RE ON THEIR WAY OVER HERE FROM EUROPE.

AND SO THE FASTEST WAY THAT WE COULD THINK OF TO TRY TO GET SOME RELIEF FROM OUR QUANDARY IS TO COME ASK YOU FOR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE IN THE VARIOUS ZONES FROM THE COMPATIBILITY.

AND THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD RESULT IN THE TRIGGERING PROPERTIES ALONG, UH, THAT, THAT TRIGGER.

THIS HAVE ALL WRITTEN US LETTERS OF SUPPORT AND, AND, AND THE NEIGHBORS ARE ALL COOL WITH IT.

SO NOW LET'S BACK UP.

CAN WE GO BACKWARDS ONE AND I'LL JUST RUN THROUGH THIS.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THE GREEN IS, IS US, THE RED AROUND US ARE IS ALL THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES UP AND DOWN SEVENTH.

WE'RE JUST ABOUT RIGHT ON THE CAPITAL METRO LINE.

NEXT SLIDE BACKWARDS.

THIS GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM SEVENTH NEXT LINE BACKWARDS.

IT'S BASICALLY A FOUR STORY BUILDING THAT STEPS BACK AWAY FROM THE TRIGGERING PROPERTIES.

THAT TRIGGER IT TRIGGERED IN TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS.

THAT ONE'S TWO MORE DETAIL.

THE TWO, THE TWO PROPERTIES

[01:45:02]

THIS IS ONE SECTION THAT IT TRIGGERS.

THAT'S THE OTHER SECTION THAT IT TRIGGERS.

THAT'S BASICALLY SHOWING THE THREE TRIGGERING, UH, PROPERTIES, A, B, AND C US.

AND THE COMMERCIAL RENT US NEXT SLIDE GOT LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM ALL OF THE FOLKS THAT ARE TRIGGERING.

THAT JUST SHOWS AN OVERALL ARIEL.

I THINK THAT'S IT.

SO THIS IS A, THIS IS A, A WEIRD ONE INTERLACED IN OUR FINDINGS.

WE TALK ABOUT THE LAWSUIT AND WE TALK ABOUT THE ORDINANCE.

REALLY THE, THE HARDSHIP THAT WE HAVE IS THAT WE STARTED OUT UNDER ONE SET OF RULES AND, AND THEY GOT TURNED AROUND ON US.

WE UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM, THAT'S FINE.

THAT'S WHY VARIANCES ARE SET UP.

WE CAN COME ASK YOU FOR A REASONABLE USE, WHICH A REASONABLE USE WOULD BE A SUSTAINABLE BUILDING IN AN AREA THAT, UH, HAS COMMERCIAL USES ALL AROUND IT.

IT'S, WE'RE UNIQUE BECAUSE WE'RE LONG AND SKINNY ALONG SEVENTH, A LARGE PART OF THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM THIS TRACK.

AND SO WHEN YOU START SETTING BACK FROM THE TRIGGERING, WHATEVER THAT WOULD BE TO THE NORTH OR WHATEVER THE TOP IS THERE, IT STARTS A STAIR STEP PROCESS.

AND WE'VE GOTTEN IT DOWN AS LITTLE AS WE CAN.

AND THAT'S THE, WE NEED FIVE FEET IN EACH STEP AND, AND THE, AND THE ADDITIONAL FLOOR.

AND THEN WE'RE THERE.

SO WHAT WE WOULD ASK TONIGHT IS WE ADOPT THE LENGTHY AND COMPLICATED FINDINGS THAT WE PUT IN THE APPLICATION.

ALTHOUGH WE COULD SLIM 'EM DOWN IF, IF YOU CHOOSE TO SEE FIT TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE, WE COULD WORK WITH YOU ON GETTING THE, THE FINDINGS DOWN.

BUT THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

SO I'LL STOP THERE AND ASK FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND THEN MOVE ON.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? I THINK THERE'S ONE.

IF YOU COULD JUST COME UP TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

HANG ON ONE SECOND.

LEMME PAUSE THIS RESET.

YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO, UH, SPEAK AND STARTING NOW.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

UM, I'M HERE BECAUSE THIS IS A LITTLE BIT MESSY.

MY NAME IS MARY INGLE AND I'M A PLAINTIFF IN THE LAWSUIT THAT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN UPDATED ON THE LAWSUIT, BUT I DO THINK IT IS NECESSARY FOR THAT TO HAPPEN WITH THE HEAD OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.

OTHERWISE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF CASES COMING BEFORE YOU.

AND I'VE SPOKEN WITH MR. SUTTLE.

I THINK THERE'S AN EASY REMEDY TO THIS CASE, BUT I DO THINK THAT YOU NEED TO MEET AN EXECUTIVE SESSION WITH ANNE KIN AND THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO DECIDE, AND I'M SPEAKING AS A PERSON, I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT I THINK THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO DECIDE WITH ALL ABOUT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN WITH ALL THOSE PERMITS THAT WERE ISSUED WHILE THIS LAWSUIT WAS PENDING.

AND I KNOW THAT THIS, THIS, UH, PERMIT WAS PROBABLY APPLIED FOR BEFORE THE LAWSUIT.

THE LAWSUIT WAS GRANTED ON DECEMBER 8TH, 2023 AND THE PLAINTIFFS WON.

SO I DO THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME EXTRA, UH, SCRUTINY AND MAYBE DIALOGUE WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THIS IS MESSY.

AND I'M HERE ABOUT PROCESS AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN AND SOLVE THIS.

UM, MR. SETTLE, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.

OR SORRY, I SHOULD ASK, IS THERE ANY OTHER OPPOSITION? NO.

SO TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.

I DON'T THINK MS. INGALLS ACTUALLY IN OPPOSITION TO OUR CASE.

SHE'S OPPOSITION INTO THE, UH, THE POSITION THAT WE'RE IN.

AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MOVE FAST.

SO WE'VE GOT THE SUPPORT FROM ALL THE TRIGGERING, TRIGGERING PEOPLE.

WE'RE TRYING TO DO A SUSTAINABLE BUILDING.

WE WOULD BE HERE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS AN ORDINANCE CHANGE OR A LAWSUIT OR WHATEVER.

BECAUSE IN ORDER TO BUILD THIS TYPE OF BUILDING, WE NEED THAT EXTRA FIVE FEET.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE AND HOPE FOR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

ALRIGHTYY.

UM, YEAH, SO A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

UH, WE'LL START WITH BOARD MEMBER ANI.

I'M GOING TO GO AFTER HER.

UH, BUT GO AHEAD.

BOARD MEMBER ANI.

[01:50:03]

UM, ONE, COULD YOU SPEAK IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ABOUT WHY THE WOODEN STRUCTURE REQUIRES MORE HEIGHT? UM, AND THEN SECONDLY, UH, YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE IF THE LAWSUIT HADN'T OVERTURNED THE COURT ORDINANCE.

UM, AND I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT.

SO IF YOU COULD SPEAK SURE.

A BIT MORE DETAIL TO THAT.

LET ME TALK ABOUT THE ORDINANCE FIRST, AND THEN IF YOU WANT A REAL ANSWER, I'LL MAKE SOMETHING UP.

BUT IF YOU WANT A REAL ANSWER, I'VE GOT ARCHITECTS HERE THAT CAN TELL YOU THE TECHNICALS OF WHY IT'S THICKER.

UM, THE ORDINANCE ALLOWED FOR THIS, THE HEIGHT THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR AS PART OF THEIR, THE SCENARIO, THE, THE COURT ORDINANCE.

UM, SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TO COME ASK YOU FOR THIS, BUT WHEN THE ORDINANCE WENT AWAY, WE HAD ALREADY DESIGNED IT TO THAT ORDINANCE.

AND LIKE MS. INGLE SAID, WE WE'D APPLIED FOR THIS BEFORE THE LAWSUIT WAS EVEN FILED.

GOT IT.

THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.

I JUST WANTED, BASED ON WHAT YOU HAD SAID EARLIER, I WANNA MAKE SURE, SO WITH THE BOARD'S PERMISSION, I'D RATHER LET THE ARCHITECT SPEAK TO THE TECHNICAL REASONS AS TO WHY A MASS TIMBER BUILDING HAS TO BE A LITTLE TALLER.

IS THAT O IS THAT OKAY? MADAM CHAIR? CAN I LET THE ARCHITECT? I WOULD.

I WOULD LIKE FOR THE ARCHITECT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT HEIGHT.

PERFECT, THANK YOU.

HOWEVER YOU WANNA GET THE QUESTION.

THAT'S WHAT, HOWEVER YOU WANNA GET THE QUESTION ANSWERED.

IT WOULDN'T BE AS GOOD.

I'M UNDER PROBABLY SOUND BETTER THOUGH.

COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD PLEASE? YES, MY NAME'S JAMES JE.

I'M THE PROJECT ARCHITECT SUPER, UH, FOR THE PROJECT.

UM, I HAVE A DIAGRAM THAT I COULD, UH, PASS OUT TO Y'ALL.

RIGHT? COULD YOU PASS THAT TO THE STAFF LIAISON PLEASE? OVER HERE, WE CAN'T TAKE THESE, IT HAS TO BE IN THE BACKUP.

IS THAT WHAT I'M THINKING? SORRY.

NEW RULES 'CAUSE WE'RE HYBRID.

THAT USED TO WORK.

NOT SO MUCH ANYMORE.

OKAY, NO WORRIES.

WE CAN TALK THROUGH IT.

UH, MORE OR LESS, UH, WHEN WE HAVE A CONCRETE STRUCTURE, FOR INSTANCE, UH, WE'D BE ABLE TO MAKE A POST TENSION CONCRETE FLAT PLATE, UH, FOR THE FLOOR AT ABOUT 10 INCHES THICK.

UH, WHEN WE'RE DOING A MASS TIMBER BUILDING, UH, WE'RE RELYING ON THE STRENGTH OF WOOD, WHICH DOESN'T HAVE THAT SAME STRENGTH.

WE CAN'T PUT STEEL INSIDE OF IT, SO WE NEED TO HAVE WOOD BEAMS EVERY SO OFTEN.

AND BECAUSE IT'S ALL WOOD, UH, THOSE WOOD BEAMS HAVE TO BE MUCH DEEPER.

SO EACH ONE OF THOSE WOOD BEAMS IS ANYWHERE FROM 22 TO 30 INCHES DEEP.

UH, AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT WE HAVE A CROSS LAMINATED TIMBER FLOOR.

SO IT'S BASICALLY LIKE TWO BYF FOURS RUNNING IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS, KINDA LIKE PLYWOOD, UH, TO SORT OF MAKE THAT FLOOR.

AND THAT'S ANOTHER SIX INCHES.

SO ALL THAT PUT TOGETHER, UH, EACH ONE OF OUR FLOORS, UH, FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE BEAM TO THE TOP OF THE FLOOR IS BETWEEN THREE AND FOUR FEET.

UM, AND SO WE'RE REALLY DEALING WITH THE HEAD HEIGHT UNDERNEATH THAT BEAM TO THE FLOOR.

UH, THAT'S OUR CEILING SPACE, WHEREAS IN A REGULAR, BUT LIKE I SAID, A CONCRETE BUILDING FOR INSTANCE, WE'D HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL THREE FEET IN HEIGHT, UH, FOR THAT HEAD HEIGHT.

SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT AVAILABLE TO US HERE.

DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES, IT DID.

FOR A, A ZONING AND PLUM AND THE ONLY TIME THEY COULD MEET WAS THE SAME NIGHT, OF COURSE.

UH, THE BOARD MEMBER POTID QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

UH, JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU HAVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM ALL THREE PROPERTIES RIGHT ON THE PRESENTATION IT JUST SHOWS TWO.

SO I WANNA MAKE SURE SEE, UH, THE TWO OF THE TRIGGERING PROPERTIES.

WE HAVE A EMAIL FROM THE SOTO PROPERTY.

SORRY, COULD YOU COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE? STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND REPEAT THAT, PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF.

HI, MY NAME'S MARK VORENBERG.

I'M THE OWNER AND UH, ALSO AN ARCHITECT ON THIS PROJECT.

SO, UH, THERE ARE THREE NEIGHBORS DIRECTLY BEHIND US, TWO OF WHICH ARE SINGLE FAMILY AND THE TRIGGERING PROPERTIES.

UH, THERE'S TWO MORE PROPERTIES THAT ARE THE GR PROPERTIES.

THEY'RE OWNED BY ONE FAMILY, THE SOTO FAMILY, AND THEN THE ONE TO THE WEST OF US IS, UH, THE SUNGA FAMILY.

AND SO WE HAVE FOUR, UH, NEIGHBORS.

WE HAVE THREE LETTERS OF PORT SUPPORT AND ONE EMAIL FROM THE SOTO FAMILY.

UM, SO WE HAVE SUPPORT FROM ALL FOUR.

BUT PROPERTY C IS ALSO TRIGGERING THE COMPATIBILITY, CORRECT? IT IS A TRIGGERING PROPERTY FROM ACROSS THE CORONADO STREET.

AND WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED WITH THEM OR HAD ANY DISCUSSION WITH THEM, HONESTLY.

OKAY, THANKS.

JUST THE DIRECT NEIGHBORS AROUND US.

IT'S THE SINGLE FAMILY STUFF THAT, DID YOU GET ANY FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? WE DID ACTUALLY, UH, I RUSHED OVER HERE FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.

UM, WE HAD ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED

[01:55:01]

UM, SO WE JUST WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND WE DID GET SUPPORT FOR, UH, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THE ZONING CHANGE.

NOW THEY DON'T, UH, APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE ON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, BUT I THINK THE DISCUSSION WAS ALL AROUND THESE FIVE FEET BECAUSE OF THE CORRIDOR ORDINANCE DISCUSSION.

IF I MAY, UH, WHAT ARE YOU GUYS REZONING TO? UH, TO ADD MU TO IT.

SO THAT THE CORRIDOR ORDINANCE, RIGHT.

THAT'S MESSY, ISN'T IT? , UH, BOARD MEMBER BENZA.

UM, I'M WONDERING, I'M LOOKING AT, UH, Y'S PRESENTATION, UH, ITEM FIVE SLASH SEVEN.

UM, AND I SEE THE REQUESTED HEIGHT SEEMS TO LIKE BE QUITE A BIT TALLER THAN LIKE WHAT'S SORT OF DRAWN UP THERE.

I'M WONDERING, DO Y'ALL NEED THE FULL LIKE FIVE FEET THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR? PULL THAT ? I COULD ALSO BE LOOKING AT IT INCORRECTLY.

I BELIEVE YOU SAID.

I BELIEVE IT'S THE SECTION.

SO IF YOU REMEMBER THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE VERY LAST SLIDES, THERE'S A FOUR STORY PORTION OF THE BUILDING AND A THREE STORY PORTION OF THE BUILDING.

AND THEN AT THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, IT STEPS DOWN TO A TWO STORY PORTION OF THE BUILDING.

SO WE STAIR STEP BACK TOWARDS THE SINGLE FAMILY BEHIND.

AND THAT'S WHY ON THE REALLY TALL PORTION OF THE BUILDING, THAT'S FOUR STORIES WE WERE UTILIZING THAT FIVE FEET.

UM, ON THE THREE STORY PORTION, IT'S THE 45 AND THE TWO STORY PORTION TOWARDS THE BACK IS THE 35.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? UNCLEAR? UM, I'M JUST, SO IF I'M LOOKING AT THAT TOP GREEN LINE REQUESTED, UM, AND IT SAYS 58 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AND THEN THE EXISTING IS AT AN ANGLE.

I AM I TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT Y'ALL'S BUILDING WILL RISE TO THAT GREEN LEVEL? EXACTLY.

THE TOP OF OUR BUILDING IS FLAT, BUT IT GOES UP, IT STARTS AT THAT 58 FEET GOING ACROSS.

UM, WILL YOU MOVE TO THE VERY LAST SLIDE? I BELIEVE THERE'S A, SO, UH, SORRY.

GO THERE.

THAT ONE.

SO THAT'S THE FOUR STORY PORTION OF THE BUILDING IN THE BACKGROUND.

WHEN WE CUT THROUGH THE THREE STORY AND TWO STORY PORTION AND DID, IF I MAY, I THINK THAT'S USUALLY DONE BECAUSE OF COMPATIBILITY.

YOU'RE GOING HIGHER WHERE YOU HAVE LESS RESTRICTION FROM COMPATIBILITY AND LOWER WHERE YOU'RE CLOSER TO CORRECT OR CORRECT.

WHERE YOU'RE MORE RESTRICTED BY COMPATIBILITY.

RIGHT? YES.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY VIRTUAL MEMBERS? DID I SEE YOUR HAND, UH, BOARD MEMBER GARZA OR WAS THAT A YAWN? I THINK I, I JUST MOVING MY HAND, BUT I CAN JUST SAY I, I APPRECIATE MASS TIMBER.

I'VE DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH INTO IT.

IT IS A LONG-TERM SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT THAT I HOPE WE CONTINUE TO BUILD WITH IN THE FUTURE.

UNFORTUNATELY, THIS ONE'S COMING FROM EUROPE, BUT I THINK AS, UH, MORE COMPANIES COME ONLINE, THERE'LL BE MORE LOCAL SOURCES FOR LOCATING THE, THE TIMBER.

BUT I THINK IT'S A, IT'S A WONDERFUL, UH, MEANS OF CONSTRUCTION VICE .

SO I HAD A QUESTION FOR LEGAL.

SO THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT THE LAWSUIT.

SO THE, THE LAWSUIT HAS BEEN LOST ON THE CORRIDOR MODIFICATIONS AND THERE IS, BUT IS NOT BEEN SETTLED.

IF WE ARE DOING A COMPATIBILITY VARIANCE, I MEAN, WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON THE SETTLEMENT OR THE LACK OF SETTLEMENT IF WE TAKE AN ACTION OR DON'T TAKE AN ACTION TONIGHT? ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.

SO THE DECISION BEFORE THE BOARD IS A VARIANCE FROM EXISTING COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS, RIGHT? 25 20.

IT IS NOT THE ORDINANCE AT ISSUE IN THE LAWSUIT.

AND NOW THEY'RE SEEKING THIS RELIEF NOW.

SO THIS IS AN AVENUE THAT THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF USING THE CITY'S STANDARD PROCESS.

AND YOU COULD DO IT BEFORE THE OTHER ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED.

AND,

[02:00:02]

UM, AND SO THEY'RE, IT'S, THEY ARE NOT SEEKING ANY RELIEF FROM THE ORDINANCE AT ISSUE IN THE LAWSUIT.

IT IS CURRENT EXISTING CODE, WHICH IS COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS.

SO THAT'S THE DECISION BEFORE THE BOARD, NOT THE, UM, UH, COMPATIBILITY ON CORRIDORS ORDINANCE THAT WAS SUBJECT TO THE LAWSUIT.

SO I MEAN, WE HAVE A CITIZEN HERE THAT IS THAT SPOKEN OPPOSITION.

I DON'T KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THEY HAVE A STRONG FEELING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER FOR OPPOSITION.

THEY'RE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE CASE AND THAT THIS, THAT WE SHOULD HAVE EXECUTIVE SESSION WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE CASE AND TAKING THIS ACTION.

AND I JUST WANT YOU TO SPEAK, OR PERHAPS THE OPPOSITION COME DOWN AND BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS INTO THE MICROPHONE.

'CAUSE I UNDERSTAND IT'S AN, OR IT, IT'S A COMPATIBILITY VARIANCE FROM 25 TO AND THAT, BUT I, I WANT THE CITIZENS' CONCERN TO BE ADDRESSED.

IS THAT A QUESTION FOR MS. SINGLE OR WELL, I THINK IT'S A QUESTION FOR MS SINGLE AND THEN, AND THEN BACK TO MS. LOPEZ.

BUT IF THE BOARD MEMBER ANI HAS, UH, A, A QUESTION ALONG THIS LINE OR A CLARIFICATION BOARD MEMBER ATTORNEY, UM, YEAH, I MEAN, FORGIVE ME IF I MISSTATE WHAT YOUR CONCERN IS, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS THAT IF WE GRANT THIS, WE'RE GONNA GONNA HAVE A BUNCH OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO ALSO APPLIED FOR PERMITS WHILE THAT ORDINANCE WAS IN EFFECT COMING FOR A SIMILAR VARIANCE.

AND WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE WE GRANT THIS ONE.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, BUT I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS NOT MADE A DECISION ABOUT WHAT TO DO OR IT WAS AT THE CASE PREVIOUSLY ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH THESE PENDING PERMITS.

THE PROBLEM I'M ALSO HAVING IS WITH THE FORM HARDSHIP AND THE HARDSHIP PART OF THE CASE IN YOUR PACKET, THE LAWSUIT IS REFERENCED.

SO IF THE LAWSUIT IS NOT RELEVANT, WHY IS IT THERE? THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING MS. I WAS WAITING FOR MADAM CHAIR TO ADDRESS ME BECAUSE WELL REMEMBER IF I NO, GO AHEAD.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO.

TWO THINGS FROM WHAT I'M HEARING HERE.

ONE, OUR WONDERFUL ATTORNEY IS ADVISING US JUST AS, MY FEELING IS IT'S ALWAYS BEEN UP HERE, IS THAT WE ARE PASSING A VARIANCE SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS PROPERTY, THIS PROPERTY ONLY BASED UPON THE COMPATIBILITY ISSUES.

MY CONCERN IS THAT THE HARDSHIPS DID STATE THE ISSUES THAT ARE REFERENCED IN THE LAWSUIT.

AND SO I'M, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

YOU GUYS HAVE DONE YOUR HOMEWORK, YOU'VE GOTTEN SIGNATURES FROM EVERYBODY.

IT'S IMPACTED, BUT I'M GOING TO MAKE A, UH, A, A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK AND REWORD YOUR HARDSHIP BECAUSE I THINK IF WE, I THINK IF WE WERE TO HAVE THE HARDSHIP WE, WE REWORDED IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT REFERENCE THE LAWSUIT ISSUES AND THE, AND THE, THE, THE, THE CORRIDOR, THEN I THINK WE CAN PASS A CLEAN, A CLEAN, UH, VARIANCE AND GET WHERE WE NEED TO BE THEN, THEN THAT WOULD THE APPLICANT'S IN AGREEMENT ON THAT.

WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE THAT OUT AND I'LL JUST TELL YOU THE STORY ABOUT THAT THE FINDINGS WERE DRAFTED BY COMMITTEE AND, AND WE TOSSED EVERYTHING IN THERE BECAUSE IT WAS A CONSIDERATION, BUT WE HEAR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR.

WE'LL TAKE IT OUT.

OF THIS SITE THAT SUPPORT GRANTING A VARIANCE AND DEMONSTRATE A HARDSHIP THAT IS WITHIN THE BOARD'S DISCRETION AND THE BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO CRAFT THEIR OWN FINDINGS, UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT HAS CHOSEN TO PRESENT THEIR CASE, UM, IN A PARTICULAR WAY, BUT THE BOARD DOESN'T HAVE TO ACCEPT ALL OF THE FINDINGS THAT THE APPLICANT HAD PRESENTED.

UH, QUESTION FOR LEGAL, IF, IF EVERY CASE WE HEAR IS CONSIDERED AN INDIVIDUAL CASE AND IT DOESN'T SET PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY, IF, SHOULD WE TREAT THIS AS IF IT'S JUST A STANDARD CASE AND IGNORE THE LAWSUIT PART EVEN THOUGH IT'S REFERENCED? OR CAN WE DO IT THAT WAY? UH, I WOULD, I MEAN, SO, UM, I THINK WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE IS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS CHOSEN TO PRESENT ARGUMENTS TO THE BOARD AND HAS GIVEN REASONS WHY, UM, THEY BELIEVE THAT, UH, THEY HAVE A HARDSHIP FOR WHICH A VARIANT SHOULD BE GRANTED.

IT IS WITHIN THE BOARD'S DISCRETION TO TAKE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE OF BOTH, UM, FOR, IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION AND DECIDE THE CASE ON THE MERITS.

AND IT'S WITHIN THE BOARD'S DISCRETION TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE OR SOME OF THE EVIDENCE BASED ON THE SPECIFIC CASE.

SO IF THERE'S OTHER, UM, SITE SPECIFIC PROPERTIES

[02:05:01]

THEY CAN TRIM IT AND IF IT MEETS THE, UM, HARDSHIP IN THE BOARD'S DISCRETION, THEN THE BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO EITHER GRANT OR DENY OR, UM, POSTPONE THE MOTION FOR THE VARIANCE.

THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.

UM, SINCE YOU HAVEN'T MADE A MOTION YET, I, I I MIGHT ASK, UH, I DUNNO, I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD MAYBE DEAL WITH THESE NOW BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE.

I MEAN, HOW MUCH MONEY ARE WE GONNA END UP COSTING FOLKS IF WE KEEP POSTPONING THIS STUFF? OR IS THIS SOMETHING WE SHOULD FIGURE OUT? IS THIS SOMETHING THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO FIGURE OUT OR THE LAW DEPARTMENT I'M ING THAT.

I, I'M, I'M HESITANT BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S WORDED.

I DON'T WANNA WRITE THEIR HARDSHIP FOR THEM.

THEIR HARDSHIP IS THAT THEY, THEY, THEY DO HAVE, I MEAN, IF SOMEBODY ELSE IS FEELING GAME, I'LL STAND THE LAW, LAW CHANGE, BUT THEIR HARDSHIP IS BASICALLY THAT THEY HAVE THREE NON-COMPATIBLE PROPERTIES THAT ARE TRIGGERING PROPERTIES AROUND THEM.

THEY HAVE SUPPORT FROM THOSE PROPERTIES FOR THE VARIANCE.

UM, UH, I WENT THROUGH THE SAME THING ON MY PROPERTY WHERE I HAD HOUSES ON THE BACKSIDE ON PACE AVENUE, BUT ON FIFTH STREET I WANTED TO GO FOUR STORIES.

I COULD'VE COME IN FOR A VARIANCE, BUT I OPTED TO LET IT GO AS IT WAS, UM, BECAUSE THOSE WERE TRIGGERING PROPERTIES, EVEN THOUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORTED IT, I JUST FELT LIKE BEING UP HERE GOT, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T WANT TO COME IN FRONT OF BOTH THE VARIANCE.

BUT IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE, THE, THEIR HARDSHIP IS THAT THEY HAVE TRIGGERING PROPERTIES RIGHT THERE, BUT THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTIES ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE, WE CAN STILL GRANT THAT VARIANCE.

I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE WRITING HARDSHIP BECAUSE THIS ISN'T, THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN ISN'T REALLY, UM, EASY TO SIT UP HERE AND CRAFT A HARDSHIP.

I, BASED ON MY FEELING AND DIRECTION OF THE BOARD, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOT SUPPORT, BUT IT'S NOT MY JOB TO WRITE HIS HARDSHIPS.

UH, MR. SETTLE, IF, IF YOU, UH, GET THE MU WILL YOU STILL NEED THE VARIANCE? YES.

IN FACT, THE MU EXCUSE ME, MR. SOTO, ONE SECOND.

KNOWING HIS INTELLECTUAL, UH, UH, LEGAL MIND THERE, IF YOU WANT TO TABLE THIS AND GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESTRUCTURE SOME HARDSHIP THAT CAN BE PRESENTED TO US BEFORE THE END OF THE MEETING, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE REST OF THE BODY FEELS, BUT I'M WELCOME TO ENTERTAIN THAT.

I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE I'M CAPABLE, EVEN THOUGH I, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

I'M CAPABLE OF MAKING THOSE HARD, THOSE, UH, VICE CHAIR HOTLINE FINDINGS.

NOW, COULD I TRY TO DO IT POORLY OR DO YOU WANT IT WRITTEN BECAUSE IT WOULD NEED TO BE WRITTEN? UH, WELL, IT DON'T HAVE TO BE WRITTEN.

I THINK I COULD SUPPLEMENT THROUGH TESTIMONY IF YOU WERE ASKING.

I BELIEVE WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST.

I, SO I GUESS THE, THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE A B, C VARIANCE THINGS.

SO YOU WOULD NEED TO BREAK IT DOWN FOR EACH OF THOSE SECTIONS.

UM, NO, NOT ON THE HARDSHIP.

BBC.

I, I MEAN, I'M A QUICK STUDY.

I COULD DO IT, BUT I DON'T, I GUESS THE, THE, THE, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS AND THAT THEY DON'T WANT ANYTHING IN THE BACKUP THAT REFERENCES THE LAWSUIT OR THE POSSIBILITY.

THE QUARTER OF THE QUARTER STUDY, I DO BELIEVE THAT WE DO HAVE A COUPLE MORE ITEMS AND THAT, UH, THERE'S A COMPUTER RIGHT OVER THERE AT 100 CONGRESS WITH YOUR NAME ON IT.

BUT, UH, OR, OR SOMEBODY, SOMEBODY'S LAPTOP THAT Y'ALL COULD PROBABLY TRIM THAT UP PRETTY QUICK.

Y'ALL KNOW IT'S BACK PAGE, BACK THE AGENDA OR SOMETHING.

THAT IS ALSO UNIQUE TO THE AREA.

YOU CAN READ INTO THE RECORD.

I, I MEAN, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S AMIC IT'S AN AMICABLE DISCUSSION OF POSTPONING OR ALTERING, UH, OR SOMEWHAT AMICABLE.

UM, SO I'M, I AM, I'M OPEN TO EITHER, UH, IF I COULD REAL QUICK THEN BEFORE I, I CALL BOARD MEMBER BRENT, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE POSTPONEMENT? I MEAN, IS THAT GONNA CAUSE ANY PROBLEMS? WE WOULD PREFER TO GET IT DONE TONIGHT IF THERE'S ANY POSSIBILITY BECAUSE THEN YOU COME UP AND THE, THE AGENDA START GETTING FULL AND THE TIME GETS LONGER AND LONGER.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT TONIGHT WHAT WE WOULD SAY IS THE HARDSHIP ON THIS PROPERTY IS THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LONG SKINNY TRACK AND OUR TRIGGERING PROPERTIES BECAUSE OF THEIR LOCATION, THEY EAT INTO THE, THE SKINNY PART OF THE TRACK.

AND SO THAT'S WHY WE, WE START TO STACK UP.

THAT WOULD BE THE HARDSHIP

[02:10:01]

SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING THAT WOULD GO, YOU ALSO HAVE THE, THE, UH, SHAPE OF THE LOT, WHICH IS IN ONE OF OUR FINDINGS FOR HARDSHIP THAT WE CAN USE AS HARDSHIP.

THE SHAPE OF THE LOT IS ALSO UNIQUE TO THAT PROPERTY IN THE CONFIGURATION OF OUR TRIGGERING.

MADAM CHAIR, I'LL MAKE, CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE? LET, LET'S, UM, LET ME GET TO, UH, BOARD MEMBER VINCENT.

OH, OKAY.

FIRST, THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU.

BOARD MEMBER VINCENT.

I I HAD TWO THINGS.

FIRST I THINK TO GO BACK TO MAGGIE'S POINT EARLIER IN THE EVENING ABOUT HOW MAKING THOSE SPECIFIC FACT FINDINGS, UM, IS OPTIONAL.

THE LAWYER IN ME SAYS BASED ON LIKE WHAT THE APPELLATE COURT'S GONNA REVIEW WHEN YOU GO INTO DETAIL, YOU CREATE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO BE OVERTURNED.

SO WE CAN JUST GRANT A VARIANCE AND LIKE SAY IT MEETS THOSE STANDARDS.

I THINK HERE THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO.

AND SECONDLY, I GET THE SENSE THAT THIS GENTLEMAN IS PREPARED TO LIKE, ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS NOW ABOUT THE HARDSHIP.

IF WE WERE TO ASK THEM TO 'EM AND MAYBE TABLING IS NOT EVEN NECESSARY OR SORRY, WELL, BOARD MEMBER , I'LL GET TO YOU RIGHT AFTER.

OR ARE YOU OKAY IF I DO, I'M, I'M GOOD WITH IT.

IF THAT'S A MOTION.

BOARD MEMBER PITCH.

WE'RE, WE'RE WANTING TO KNOW IF YOU'RE GONNA DANCE OVER THERE.

I'LL DO IT.

BOARD MEMBER.

I'M GONNA NEED SOME ASSISTANCE WITH, WITH THE, I THINK IT'LL BE USED.

THE GENERAL I WAS GONNA DO IT JUST 'CAUSE IT WAS GONNA BE DANCING, BUT I DON'T YEAH, THE HARDSHIP PART.

WE, I THINK WE'RE JUST GIVING YOU A HARD TIME NOW.

A BOARD MEMBER, PETITE, I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE AVERSION TO MENTIONING THE LAWSUIT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SAYING IF HE MENTIONED THE LAWSUIT IN OUR HARDSHIP THAT WE WILL AUTOMATICALLY GIVE A VARIANCE IN THE FUTURE.

WE'RE SAYING IF YOU MENTION THE LAWSUIT AND YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF CORRESPONDING, UH, OR TRIGGERING, UH, PROPERTIES, AND THE LOT SIZE IS WEIRD, THEN WE'LL GIVE YOU THE, THE, UH, VARIANCE.

SO I THINK THAT THE OPPOSITION WAS MORE BECAUSE THIS IS BEING TRIGGERED BECAUSE THEY WERE ORIGINALLY GRANTED A VALID CITY PERMIT, UH, TO BUILD WHAT THEY'RE BUILDING.

AND THEN WHEN THE COURT ACTUALLY, THEY, I DON'T THINK THEY WERE GRANTED THE PERMIT.

I THINK THEY WERE VERY CLOSE TO IT.

WAS IT, WAS IT VERY CLOSE OR WAS IT ACTUALLY GRANTED ALMOST THERE.

STOP.

BOARD ARRIVED AGAIN IN THE LAST COMMENT.

IT'S ON THE SIDELINE.

SO LUCY, IN THE FOOTBALL IS WHAT I'M HEARING.

UH, BOARD MEMBER CHAIR STANY.

UM, I JUST WANTED TO GO BACK AND ANSWER A QUESTION.

UM, YOU HAD RAISED, UH, CHAIR, HOW DO I ADDRESS YOU? CHAIR? CHAIR COHEN CHAIR.

CHAIR COHEN.

UM, ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD ADDRESS LIKE ALL OF THESE BUILDINGS NOW THAT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF ADDRESS THAT QUESTION NOW OF WHETHER IF YOU STARTED CONSTRUCTION OR STARTED YOUR PLANNING BEFORE THAT ORDINANCE WAS OVERTURNED.

AND I THINK I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID, THAT WE SHOULD NOT EVEN TOUCH THE LAWSUIT.

SO WE SHOULD BE, WE SHOULD BE JUST LOOKING AT OUR DISCRETION AS A BOARD.

WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THE SAME STANDARDS WE ALWAYS LOOK AT FOR THESE PROPERTIES AND LET THAT PLAY OUT AS IT WILL.

UM, I THINK WE'RE GETTING BEYOND OUR, OUR, I DON'T KNOW, OUR AUTHORITY.

I GUESS IF WE START MESSING WITH HOW ARE WE GONNA DECIDE ALL OF THESE IN THE FUTURE, I THINK WE TAKE EACH ONE ON THE MERITS AS WE ALWAYS HAVE.

WELL, THERE, THERE WAS ANOTHER TWO CASES ACTUALLY VERY SIMILAR IN THE AREA THAT WE DID A COMPATIBILITY VARIANCE FOR.

UM, ONE WAS DEFINITELY WAS THAT PSW SITE? YES.

THAT HAD THE TWO DIFFERENT THAT WAS DIVIDED.

AND THEN, UH, THAT WE'RE IN THE AREA DIRECTLY ADJACENT.

I MEAN, THIS IS, THIS IS A VARIANCE WE WOULD CONSIDER.

AND BEING THAT WE DO WANT DENSITY ON THE CORRIDOR, I WAS JUST MORE CONCERNED THAT IT MIGHT, UM, HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE END RESULT OF THE SETTLEMENT PORTION IF WE WERE INVOLVED IN THAT IN ANY WAY.

THE, WHICH IS WHY I WAS TRYING TO AVOID THE SUIT AND ANY CONVERSATION OF THE SUIT IN CONSIDERING WHAT I WOULD BE JUST A VARIANCE TO 25 2.

I, I THINK THAT APPROACH IS, I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT APPROACH.

AND I'M, I'M FOR MAKING A MOTION WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC FACT.

LIKE WE FIND THE FACTS WITHOUT THE SPECIFICS OR FINE WITH HAVING THE APPLICANT RECRAFT.

I GUESS I WILL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

MOTION TO APPROVAL.

SO MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORN.

RIGHT? IT'S GONNA TAKE ME A SECOND 'CAUSE I HAVE TO FLIP AROUND.

HAVING ALONG NARROW ANGLED CONFIGURATION

TO, IF YOU WOULDN'T TO WANT ME TO TAKE IT.

MICHAEL SAYS HE'LL DO IT.

I, I REASONABLE USE THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO, I KIND OF LOVE THAT GUY.

UH, APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY.

DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS UNIQUELY SHAPED AS A SHALLOW WEDGE.

[02:15:01]

WITH APPROXIMATELY 255.8 LINEAR FEET RUNNING EAST, WEST TO EAST ADJACENT TO EAST SEVENTH STREET IN AN AVERAGE DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 91.8 FEET, RUNNING NORTH TO SOUTH WITH A SHORT LEG 64 FEET DEEP.

THE HARDSHIP IS, WHICH A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED, IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT THIS SHALLOW WED SHAPE IS A RESULT OF VERY SIGNIFICANT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION REQUIRED BY THE CITY TO SHIFT EAST SEVENTH STREET FROM THE ORIGINAL CITY GRID OF 150 FEET DEEP TO ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION.

THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH A PROPERTY IS LOCATED, BECAUSE THE UNIQUE CONFIGURATION OF THE SITE PROVIDES VERY LITTLE ROOM FOR DEVELOPMENT.

SO THE ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET AND REMOVAL OF THE STORY LIMITATION WOULD ALLOW FOR BETTER MIXED USE PROJECT AREA CHARACTER.

THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY.

IT WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTANCE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, BECAUSE THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR ONLY FIVE ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE STORY LIMITATION.

THERE YOU GO, PONTI.

I THINK IT COVERS THE REQUEST.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY, UH, VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.

SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JUAN OLAND.

ALTHOUGH I DO SHARE THE SAME CONCERNS AS THE VICE CHAIR.

OH, YOU ARE ABSTAINING.

DO NOT SAY A SINGLE WORD.

UH, WE'RE JUST GONNA CROSS YOU OFF.

OR YOU'RE RECUSED.

UH, JANELLE VAN ZT.

AND MICHAEL VLAN? YES.

UH, SO QUICK QUESTION.

ELAINE, OR, OR MAYBE, UH, FOR LEGAL, DID BOARD MEMBER BOWEN ABSTAIN OR REUSE? HE'S RECUSED FROM THIS CASE, RIGHT? OF JUST ABSTAINED.

NEVERMIND.

THE COUNT DOESN'T CHANGE.

SO, BUT STILL GOING TO BE, UH, NINE.

UH, SO CONGRATULATIONS.

YOUR VARIANCES APPROVED.

GRANTED, GRANTED.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH US.

SORRY, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS, Y'ALL.

GREAT DESIGN, BY THE WAY.

UM, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF FIVE MINUTE RECESS BECAUSE I HAVE HAD TWO REQUESTS FOR BATHROOM BREAKS AND THE BATHROOMS ARE NOW WORKING.

SO, UH, IT IS 8:34 PM OR SORRY, EIGHT, I'M GETTING OLD.

8:24 PM WE'LL MEET BACK HERE AT EIGHT 30.

WE'RE IN RECESS.

8:34 PM I GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER.

[7. Discussion of the December 11, 2023 BOA activity report.]

MOVING ON TO ITEM SEVEN, DISCUSSION ITEMS. DISCUSSION OF THE DECEMBER 11TH, 2023 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT.

THESE MICROPHONES HAVE REALLY PICKED UP.

LOVE.

GOOD JOB.

THAT IS A VERY BEAUTIFUL REPORT.

WE APPRECIATE HOW MUCH TIME AND EFFORT IT TOOK, AND THANK YOU.

SO, SO DANIEL, SORRY TO BOTHER YOU.

UH, WE'RE ALL KIND OF AGREEING, LIKE IT'S REALLY HARD TO HEAR WHAT THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS ARE SAYING, ESPECIALLY LIKE WHEN I'VE GOT MELISSA AND MAGGIE WAY DOWN AT THE END.

I CAN HEAR IT COMING OUT THERE REAL WELL.

IS THERE ANY WAY TO ADJUST OUR SPEAKER VOLUME FOR THESE SPEAKERS? ARE THEY CONNECTED YET? THEY'RE CONNECTED.

THE REMOTES ARE LIKE, WE'VE GOT LIKE THE LOCAL PC OR THE REMOTE SCREEN, WHICH IS LIKE, HOW DO WE DO THAT NOW? THEY'RE FIXING THAT.

THERE SHOULD BE THAT PANEL.

OH, OH, SAY SOMETHING.

HE DOES ACTUALLY.

OH, THAT'S WAY BETTER.

OH, YES, THERE'S LIKE A SWEATER.

THEY CHANGED ALL THE CONTROLS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE ON THE THING.

IS THIS BETTER? THIS IS OUR FIRST, YEAH, I CAN TURN MINE UP MORE IF THAT'S A PROBLEM.

WELL, THAT'S JUST THE SPEAKER BY FOR YOU.

THE MICROPHONES MAYBE.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU PULL A LITTLE CLOSER OR OH, I SEE.

YEAH, NO, I, OH, I THOUGHT IT TURNED.

IS THERE THAT BETTER A WAY FOR THE HEARING PEOPLE WITH THE HEARING? YEAH.

THINGS TO HOOK INTO IT AS WELL.

NOT WE HAVE HAD BOARD MEMBERS THAT DID THAT.

I WAS ABOUT TO, TO ASK FOR THAT, BUT I THINK I'M GOOD NOW.

WANT TO COME UP WITH THAT? YEAH.

THE PODIUMS ESPECIALLY WAS HARD TO HEAR, BUT I, AND I DO WEAR HEARING AIDS ALSO.

HOW DO WE, YOU, YOU, UH,

[02:20:01]

SO IT'S JUST FOR, WELL, NO, WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT NEXT TIME.

I MEAN, AS, AS WELL AS THE, THE SOMETIMES TO LOOK AT THE PRESENTATION AND HAVE THE PRESENTATION ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU IS VERY HELPFUL.

IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE A LOT OF THE DETAIL, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT THE BIG ONE.

COOL.

UH, ITEM EIGHT FOR, UH, NEW BOARD MEMBER TRAINING.

AS LONG AS IT'S GONNA GET FIXED.

NOT A BIG DEAL.

AND DO YOU HAVE MY GLASSES TONIGHT? WHICH WOULD DO YOU, SO AGAIN, ELAINE AND DIANA, WHEN YOU WATCH THIS TOMORROW, THANK YOU.

YOU'RE AWESOME.

WE LOVE OUR STAFF.

[8. Discussion regarding the logistics for the upcoming BOA annual training session.]

DO WE HAVE AN UPDATE ON THAT ONE YET? NOTHING STILL.

IS IT GETTING STAFF? NO, I WILL START TO COMMIT.

OR IS IT GETTING A ROOM? NO, I, I'LL START WORKING ON THAT.

I NEED, I NEED TO DO BOTH.

I NEED TO GET A ROOM AND I NEED TO WORK WITH STAFF TO SEE WHEN THEIR NEXT AVAILABILITY.

WE'LL PUSH THAT TO THE NEXT MEETING.

UH, I THINK NINE IS GONNA TAKE A MINUTE.

SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET 10 AND 11 OUT OF THE WAY.

UH, 10.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND PUSH, BECAUSE NINE MIGHT MAKE SOME TIME.

IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, WE COULD PICK 10 UP ON THE NEXT ONE.

THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

AND THEN JUST REAL QUICK, ARE THERE ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS OR REQUESTS?

[9. Discussion and action regarding agenda posting process.]

THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND JUMP INTO NINE.

SORRY, I'M LOOKING AT THE WRONG AGENDA.

IT HELPS DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING AGENDA POSTING PROCESS THAT IS MEAN.

DOES THAT MEAN WE HAVE TO TAKE AN ACTION IT LEAVES THE POSSIBILITY FOR ACTION.

DO WE HAVE TO ADVISE US? BUT, OH, HI.

IT LEAVES THE POSSIBILITY FOR ACTION.

SO I, I THINK IT'S POSTED PROPERLY.

, I DUNNO.

UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, GOOD EVENING.

UH, CHAIR BOARD.

UM, MY NAME'S NEIL ALGO, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY AND DIVISION CHIEF FOR THE OPEN GOVERNMENT DIVISION.

UM, IT'S POSTED WITH A POSSIBILITY THAT YOU CAN TAKE ACTION.

DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO RIGHT.

ALLOWS A POSSIBILITY.

SO I THINK INITIALLY THIS WAS ADDED TO THE AGENDA BECAUSE THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THE LANGUAGE AND POSTING NOTICES.

AND THERE WAS ONE OTHER THING I'M FORGETTING THAT YOU BROUGHT UP VICE CHAIR.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT GOING ON WITH THIS THIS DAY.

UH, SURE.

UH, BOARD MEMBER, UH, FUNNEL IN MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, THE WAY THE BOARD, THE WAY THE AGENDA HAS BEEN WRITTEN HAS BEEN WRITTEN THIS WAY SINCE I'VE BEEN UP HERE, WELL OVER 15 YEARS.

AND THE REASON IT WAS THAT I UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS WRITTEN THE WAY IT USED TO BE WRITTEN, NOT LIKE THE REVISED AGENDA, IS BECAUSE OF WHAT WE EXPERIENCED TONIGHT.

WE HAVE A LOT OF, UH, WE HAVE A LOT OF, UM, UH, CASES THAT COME UP THAT SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO PIECEMEAL OUT.

WE HAVE TO TAKE, YOU KNOW, OR WE'LL, WE WILL APPROVE MAYBE ONE SECTION AND NOT ANOTHER SECTION.

WE MAY MODIFY SOMETHING.

THIS LAST CASE WAS A PERFECT EXAMPLE AS WELL.

UH, THE THE CASE, THE EARLIER CASE THAT WE HAD, UH, CASE NUMBER THREE WAS THE SAME WAY.

AND IT SEEMS TO ME, AFTER LOOKING AT THIS, AND I DID TAKE A LOOK AT 55 1 0 41 OF THE TOMA ACT AND EVERYTHING AND REVIEWED IT AD NAUSEUM.

UH, AND WHAT YOU'RE DOING I UNDERSTAND MAY BE LEGALLY OKAY BASED ON TOMO RULES.

I DO, I DID READ THE, UH, THE, UH, VERBIAGE IN THE CASES AGAINST, UH, SAN MARCOS AND DONNA IN SAN ANTONIO ON HOW THINGS ARE POSTED AND WHAT YOU'RE DOING MAY BE, UH, OKAY AND LEGAL.

BUT FROM A COMMISSIONER'S STANDPOINT, WHO HAS TO TAKE THIS INFORMATION, WHICH BY THE WAY, I'M NOT PAID.

TO BREAK IT DOWN INTO THESE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, THE WAY IT USED TO BE DONE WHEN WE HAVE AN AB AND A C AND THE WAY THEY THEY USED TO BE POSTED WAS ADEQUATE.

Y'ALL GET A SALARY.

I DON'T GET A SALARY.

NONE OF US GET A SALARY FOR ME TO HAVE TO TAKE THE ADDITIONAL TIME THAT IT TAKES ME TO BREAK THIS BABY DOWN.

AND I'M, I FEEL LIKE I'M PRETTY EXPERIENCED UP HERE.

I'M ONE OF THE OGS

[02:25:01]

YOU COULD GET ZIP IN THERE, WASTE NO TIME, GO TO IT BACK IN THE, I STILL HAVE MY BOOKS.

THE TIRE STOPS.

YOU COULD GO THROUGH IT AND FIND IT.

MY, MY, MY QUESTION IS BEFORE I GET IN, GET INTO SOME OF THE OTHER STUFF IS WHAT INSTIGATED THIS CHANGE? WHY, WHY WAS IT BECAUSE I, I GOT A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS AND COMMISSIONERS OF, SO WHY IS IT, WHY IS THE AGENDA SO DIFFERENT NOW? NO.

SO WITH REGARD TO YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT THE A, B AND CI, I CAN ADDRESS THAT IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO.

WELL, LET'S START WITH WHY THE CHANGE, WHY AFTER ALL THESE YEARS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS BEING IN EXISTENCE? AND AGAIN, I'M GONNA GO BACK AND TELL YOU, SON, I'VE BEEN UP HERE 15 YEARS.

WHY THE CHANGE NOW? UH, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT PRECIPITATED THE CHANGE? LET'S START THERE.

IN GENERAL OR WITH RESPECT TO THE A, B, C PART? NO, IN GENERAL.

SO, UM, I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU WENT AND REVIEWED THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

UM, YOU KNOW, MY RESPONSIBILITY AS AN ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY IS TO MAKE SURE, TO EMPOWER THE BOARD AND ALL THE COMMISSIONS TO BE ABLE TO CARRY OUT THEIR LEGAL AUTHORITY THROUGH THE POST OF THE AGENDA.

ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE FOUND IN THE PAST WHEN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS DO AN LIKE AN ITEM THREE, A, B, C, IS THAT IT CAUSES PROBLEMS WITH THE POSTING OF BACKUP.

SO WE ARE OPEN TO HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMISSION ABOUT HOW TO POST THAT IN A WAY THAT WORKS, BUT THAT DOESN'T HAVE SUBPARTS TO ONE AGENDA ITEM.

UM, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DOES IT IN A WAY THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO US AND THAT WORKS, THAT HAS THE SAME ISSUES THAT YOU ALL DEAL WITH VARIANCES IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF CODE.

AND SO, UM, WE'RE OPEN TO HAVING A DISCUSSION ON THAT.

UM, 'CAUSE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION IS ALSO, THAT'S AN ADVISORY COMM THAT THEY'RE COMMISSION, THEY'RE NOT A SOVEREIGN BOARD.

WE, WE DEAL WITH BOTH STATE LAW AND WE DEAL WITH CITY LAW.

SO IT'S, IT'S, WE'RE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED.

I I'M SURE YOU HEARD THE SAME THING FROM PLANNING COMMISSION TOO, BECAUSE OF THE SOVEREIGN BOARD AS WELL.

MEAN EV EVERY BOARD AND WE HAVE 70 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS IN THE CITY.

EVERY BOARD AND COMMISSION THINKS THEY'RE MORE COMPLICATED THAN THE OTHER.

YEAH, I UNDERSTAND.

BUT NOT EVERY BOARD OF COMMISSION IS SOVEREIGN SOMEWHERE AT, AT.

AND SO THIS BOARD IS A, IS A, SORRY, BOARD MEMBER.

IF I COULD INTERRUPT REAL QUICK.

THIS COURT IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL MM-HMM.

, UH, AUTHORITY.

REPORTS, UH, CAN BE REVIEWED BY DISTRICT COURT, UNLIKE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

AND THE CITY CHARTER.

AND I AM RESPONSIBLE MM-HMM.

, I MAKE THOSE CALLS SURE.

WHEN REVIEWING THE AGENDAS.

AND SO IF ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT CHANGES TO THE AGENDA THAT HAPPENED THIS LAST TIME, THAT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY.

AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE.

BUT TOOMA, BASED ON MY VIEW, AND I'M HAVING A, WELL, THIS IS A DISCUSSION NOW, MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE.

I HAVE THE FLOOR.

THIS, UH, BASED ON TOOMA LAW, WHICH IS WHAT YOU REALLY, WHAT'S OUT FOR, FOR US, THE OLD AGENDA AND THE NEW AGENDA, BOTH MET TOOMA LAW.

ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I DID HAVE WAS ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT WE HAD.

CAN I STOP YOU RIGHT THERE? YEAH.

THE, THE OLD AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING DID NOT COMPLY WITH TOOMA.

AND THAT'S WHY CHANGES WERE MADE.

AND COULD, COULD YOU, UH, POINT THAT OUT TO ME BECAUSE I COMPARED THEM AND I DIDN'T FIND IT.

WHAT I DID FIND, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, PUBLIC HEARINGS, DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING CASES.

WELL, THAT'S LIMITED IN INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC.

AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE ONES THAT ON PAGE 31 OF TOOMA, PARAGRAPH C THE GENERALIZED TERMS THAT WAS CHALLENGED BOTH BY, IN SAN MARCUS AND IN DONNA TEXAS BY A SOVEREIGN BOARD, UH, JUDICIAL BOARD, IS THAT IF THE LANGUAGE IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT DID, DID SUPPORT TWO OF 'EM, AND ONE OF 'EM, THEY DID NOT.

IF, IF IT'S AMBIGUOUS IN ANY MANNER, IN SHAPE OR FORM, THEN IT DOESN'T MEET THE TOMA REQUIREMENTS.

SO WHERE WAS IT ON OUR OLD AGENDA THAT FOR YEARS WE'VE BEEN USING, WE WERE IN VIOLATION OF TOOMA.

SO YOU'LL NOTICE ON THE FIRST AGENDA THAT WAS POSTED, YES.

THERE WAS AN ITEM TWO.

OF PUBLIC HEARING CASES POSTED ON THE AGENDA.

UM, MY RECOLLECTION, THAT'S I'M AT, YEP.

MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THAT ITEM POSTED AS A DISCUSSION OF STAFF AND APPLICANT REQUESTS FOR POSTPONEMENT AND WITHDRAWAL

[02:30:01]

THAT LANGUAGE WOULD ONLY ALLOW YOU TO VOTE ON POSTPONEMENTS AND WITHDRAWALS FOR ALL OF THE CASES.

IF IT HAD REMAINED.

IF THAT LANGUAGE HAD REMAINED, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE ALL OF THE CASES THAT YOU HAD TONIGHT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO, THERE WAS NO LANGUAGE IN THERE FOR APPROVAL.

SO JUST LIKE ON THIS ITEM, THE POSTING FOR THIS ITEM THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW, WE PUT ON THERE POSSIBLE ACTION TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THAT OPPORTUNITY IN CASE YOU CHOOSE IT.

THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE DO CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS AS WELL.

AND I'LL POINT OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE REVIEW CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS MM-HMM.

AND WE OFTEN CHANGE LANGUAGE THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED BY THE COUNCIL OFFICES.

UH, AND, AND THE CITY COUNCIL, I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE IS THE SOVEREIGN.

UM, AND SO, UH, WE CHANGE THOSE POSTINGS ALL THE TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE, UH, NOT ONLY COMPLIANT WITH TOMA, BUT CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE POST AS A CITY.

UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT WHEN POSTING AGENDAS IS THAT WITH COUNCIL AND 70 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, IS THAT THERE'S A SYSTEM OF CONSISTENCY SO THAT THE PUBLIC HAS SOME WAY TO, HAS SOMETHING TO RELY ON WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO READ THE AGENDAS.

AND, AND THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S WHY I WAS, I'M NOT, I'M NOT FIGHTING NEEDING ANY CHANGE OR NOT TO ME, REALLY.

I CAN ADJUST.

AND I, THAT'S WHY I WAS STATED EARLIER AT THE BEGINNING OF MY CONVERSATION, THAT EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE DONE IN HERE MEETS TOMA REQUIREMENTS.

AND I'M NOT EVEN A LEGAL LEGAL, BUT I CAN READ THE, THE, THE STUFF.

AND, AND SOME OF THE CHANGES WERE, WERE, IN MY OPINION, LEGAL CHANGES.

LIKE THE ITEM, ITEM TWO ISSUE TO, TO PROVIDE YOU WITH LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO WHAT YOU NEEDED TO DO.

AND SOME OF THE CHANGES WERE, UM, STANDARDIZATION CHANGES TO MAKE THE AGENDA MORE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS IN THE CITY.

AND YOU, YOU DID MENTION THAT WE COULD HAVE A DISCUSSION LATER ABOUT WHAT OUR SPECIAL NEEDS MAY BE, MAY NEED.

BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I MENTIONED, THE REASON I WENT IN THE DIRECTION I WENT IN THE BEGINNING IS BECAUSE A LOT OF FOLKS ON, ON THIS COMMISSION ARE ALSO, THEY HAVE OTHER JOBS THAT THEY DO.

AND THEN ANYTHING THAT CAN MAKE IT MORE EXPEDIENT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO JUMP DOWN AND GO A, B, C, I DID SEE HOW ON ITEM NUMBER THREE, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAD 25, 2 55, 1 C, TWO A, AND THEN IT JUST SORT OF RUNS ON.

AND THEN IT GOES, AND, AND, AND ERICA POINTED THIS OUT, YOU KNOW, 25, 2 55, 1 C, TWO B, I GUESS, AND, AND MAYBE IT'S JUST ME, YOU KNOW, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE HAVING THEM LIKE THE A, B, C, THE WAY THE OLD, THE OLDER AGENDA WAS FOR THAT SAME ITEM.

I'M JUST USING THAT SAME ITEM FOR AN, AN EXAMPLE, SEEMED TO BE MORE EFFICIENT.

IT SEEMED TO BE MORE EXPEDIENT TO BE ABLE TO GO TO THAT.

AND ACTUALLY, UH, I CAN TELL RIGHT NOW, FOR EXAMPLE, WE WERE GONNA, WE WERE GONNA APPROVE ITEM A AND MAYBE NOT B, MAYBE C WITHOUT GOING THROUGH WHAT WE WENT THROUGH HERE.

'CAUSE EVEN ON YOUR NOTES, YOUR NOTES AT THE VERY END OR THE IDENTICAL TO THE NOTES THAT WE HAVE OVER HERE, BUT OVER HERE THEY'RE BROKEN DOWN C TWO A, A, B, C.

AND OVER HERE IT'S JUST ONE BIG RUN ON CENTS.

WELL, THOSE NOTES ARE THE CODE.

THOSE NOTES ARE ACTUALLY THE CODE, THE CODE SECTIONS THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY CONSIDERING.

IT'S NOT AB IT'S IT'S NOT THEIR NOTES.

THAT IS ACTUALLY THE CODE SECTION.

IT'S CALLED NOTES DOWN HERE.

SO IT'S OUR OPINION THAT BY POSTING THE SUBSECTIONS YES.

THREE A, THREE B, THREE C, YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE SEPARATE VOTES ON EACH OF THOSE.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE INTENDING.

I THINK YOU'RE INTENDING TO TAKE ONE VOTE.

AND SO OUR GOAL IS TO HELP YOU EFFECTUATE THE THINGS THAT YOU WANT TO DO.

I UNDERSTAND.

UM, AND THAT'S WHY THE CLERK'S OFFICE, UH, MYRNA RIOS NEXT TO ME.

UH, THE CLERK'S OFFICE IS HERE.

WE'RE HERE TO HELP YOU DO THAT.

DO IT.

I'M, I'M NOT TRYING TO BEAT UP ON YOU.

I'M JUST TELLING YOU FROM THIS SIDE OF THE DAAS HOW OUR BRAINS WORK WHEN IT COMES, COMES TO SOME OF THEM BECAUSE OF THE, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE THAT WE HAVE SOMETIMES OF NOT JUST SAYING, AND IT CAME UP TONIGHT WHERE COMMISSIONER VAN Z SAID, HEY, WELL, WE CAN JUST VOTE THIS.

AND I THINK IT MEANT WHAT YOU'RE STATING.

NOW WE CAN JUST PASS THE WHOLE THING.

BUT OUR CASES AREN'T ALWAYS LIKE THAT.

OUR CASES ARE LIKE, WE MAY HAVE THIS ONE WE'RE GONNA DO UNDER A CONDITION AND THIS SECTION UNDER 25 2 5 1 BC TWO A OR WHATEVER WE'RE GOING TO ELIMINATE OR WE'RE GONNA MODIFY WITH.

'CAUSE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT, UM, CONDITIONS.

CONDITIONS, MM-HMM.

[02:35:01]

ON OUR, OUR MOTIONS.

IT SAYS APPLICANT RECOMMENDATION, STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I WAS COMING FROM.

AND, AND THAT'S WHAT ERICA IS HERE FOR, TO HELP YOU ALL DO THOSE THINGS.

WHAT MY RESPONSIBILITY IS, IS TO ENSURE THAT THE, UH, THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA COMPLIES WITH TOMA, COMPLIES WITH CITY CHARTER AND IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

OH.

IF I MAY, BECAUSE THERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS OUT OF THAT DISCUSSION.

UM, I WANTED TO ASK FIRST, YOU, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, WHICH RIGHT.

COULD I ASK WHERE YOU GOT THAT INFORMATION FROM? UM, WELL, WE HAVE A COPY OF THEIR AGENDA HERE, UM, THAT WE LOOKED AT AND THAT THE, THE CLERK'S OFFICE IS COMFORTABLE WITH AND THAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH.

UH, WHAT I WAS TOLD IS THAT THE AGENDA HAS BEEN CHANGED AFTER THE CLERK'S OFFICE KEEPS ASKING THEM TO CHANGE IT, WHICH IS WHY IT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH.

IS THAT CORRECT? THE VERSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION'S AGENDA THAT I LOOKED AT TONIGHT IS SOMETHING THAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH.

'CAUSE WHAT I WAS TOLD FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION IS THAT THEY'RE HAVING SIMILAR PROBLEMS TO PC AND BOA.

WELL, I'M, I'M NOT PRIVY TO THE CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU'RE HAVING WITH OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, BUT, BUT YOU SAID THAT THEY WERE OKAY WITH IT.

SO I ASSUMED YOU KNEW THAT, THAT THEY SOMEHOW SIGNED OFF OR ARE, YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE OKAY WITH WHAT THEY HAVE? NOT THAT THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT.

FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, THE AGENDA THAT I, FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, THE THINGS THAT I DISCUSSED, COMPLIANCE WITH TOMA, COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY CHARTER AND CONSISTENCY ACROSS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE AGENDA FROM THAT COMMISSION THAT I REVIEWED TONIGHT.

AND I'LL DEFER TO, TO MYRNA ON THE OTHERS.

SO MYRNA S I'M THE CITY CLERK.

AND, UM, I JUST WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU THAT WE'RE NOT HERE TO HINDER THE BOARD PROCESS OR BUSINESS.

OUR GOAL IS TO ENSURE THAT ALL OPEN MEETINGS, UM, MEET STATE REQUIREMENTS.

AND SO STEPHANIE HALL, ASSISTANT CITY CLERK, UM, WHO IS HERE AND THAT YOU MOSTLY WORK WITH, SENT OUT AN EMAIL, I BELIEVE IN THE SUMMER, UM, TO ALL OF THE LIAISONS AND ALL OF THE MEMBERS BECAUSE THERE WERE, UM, WE HAD AN ISSUE THAT WAS NOT TOMA COMPLIANT, MADE THE NEWS.

AND SO WE ARE TRYING TO MITIGATE ALL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO AVOID HAVING THAT ISSUE.

AND SO THIS IS NOT SPECIFIC TO JUST THIS BODY.

UM, WE HAVE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THE PC ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, UM, BUILDING AND STANDARDS POSSIBLY.

UM, THERE ARE SO MANY OTHERS.

WE REVIEW, UM, MANY AGENDAS DAILY.

WE POST AT 10 AND THREE AND, UH, BETWEEN THE LAW DEPARTMENT AND OUR OFFICE, WE MAKE CHANGES AND REVISIONS TO THE POSTING LANGUAGE SO THAT THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENT.

IT'S NOT US, UM, DOING THIS JUST DIRECTLY TO THIS BODY.

WE'RE NOT TRYING, AGAIN, TO HINDER YOU DOING ANY BUSINESS.

UM, WE'RE TRYING TO BE MORE TRANSPARENT AND MORE CONSISTENT ACROSS THE BOARD SO THAT, UM, AGAIN, WE DON'T, OR ANY BOARD OR COMMISSION DON'T END UP ON THE NEWS.

LIKE WE HAD AN INSTANCE IN THE SUMMER.

AND SO THAT'S HOW ALL THESE CHANGES CAME ABOUT.

SUPER.

SO THE NEXT PART I WANTED TO ADDRESS THEN, WHICH EITHER OF YOU CAN ANSWER, IS THAT I KEEP HEARING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT CONSISTENCY AND UNIFORMITY, WHICH I AM HUNDRED PERCENT OPEN TO.

BUT I WOULD HAVE TO ASK, ARE THERE ANY OTHER BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS WHERE EXCEPTIONS ARE MADE FOR THE TYPE OF A, B AND C CONTENT THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR? UM, NOT WITH THE A, B, AND C.

UM, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT BECAUSE OF WHAT OCCURRED IN THE SUMMER, WE, AND IN, UM, DISCUSSION WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT, UM, WE RECOMMEND, AND IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THESE ITEMS SHOULD BE LISTED AS, UM, OR AS ONE, OR MERGED AS ONE ITEM NOT LISTED SEPARATELY.

BECAUSE LIKE, UH, NEIL MENTIONED, UM, THE WAY THEY HAVE BEEN CURRENTLY LISTED OR POSTED, YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE SEPARATE ACTION.

THEY, THEY SHOULD BE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS, NOT A, B, AND C.

IT SHOULD BE THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE, FOR EXAMPLE.

UM, THE WAY WE REVISED IT ALLOWED YOU TO TAKE EITHER OF THOSE ACTIONS, THE A, B, OR C.

UM, IT'S HOW WE DO IT WITH COUNSEL.

IF YOU, UM, I BELIEVE, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT UM, I BELIEVE FOR THE ZONING CASES

[02:40:01]

IT CAN BE, WE'RE HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU.

UM, IT'S NOT A DEFINITE, WE'RE NOT SAYING, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

UM, FOR THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA, WE DID IT THIS WAY BECAUSE WE WERE UP AGAINST TIME.

BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOU AND THE LIAISON SO THAT WE CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT, MEET IN THE MIDDLE ON HOW WE MOVE FORWARD, UM, POSTING THESE ITEMS. SUPER.

I WILL TOUCH BACK ON THAT IN A MINUTE, BUT I'M LOOKING AT PLANNING COMMISSION RIGHT NOW.

AND WHILE I DON'T SEE IT ON THE JANUARY AGENDA PRIOR TO THAT, I, THE ANY CASE WHERE IT IS TWO SEPARATE ITEMS, BUT WE'RE LIKE, WE HAVE A ZONING CASE AND A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT ARE LISTED AS A AND B, IS THAT NO LONGER GONNA HAPPEN? CORRECT.

THAT WE'VE, YOU KNOW, HAD THE CONVERSATIONS.

AND AGAIN, WE, UM, WORK DIRECTLY WHEN THOSE AGENDAS COME TO OUR OFFICE, WE DO A QUICK QC REVIEW.

UM, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA, UM, STEPHANIE REVIEWED IT.

WE LET THE LIAISONS KNOW THAT THE LANGUAGE SHOULD BE REVISED.

AND SHE GAVE EXAMPLES OF MAYBE HOW THEY, HOW THEY SHOULD BE WORDED.

UM, YOU MENTIONED, YOU REPLIED THAT NO, THEY WEREN'T GOING TO BE MADE, BUT THEN AFTER, UM, HAVING THE DISCUSSION WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT, WE, IT WAS THEIR OPINION AND WE MOVED FORWARD WITH POSTING THEM AS IS.

WE DID NOT REMOVE ANY OF YOUR ITEMS. WE JUST, WE SIMPLY REWORDED THEM.

EVERY SINGLE ITEM THAT YOU HAVE ON THE ORIGINAL AGENDA IS ON HERE.

NO, IT'S NOT.

ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE LANGUAGE WAS REVISED SO THAT IT WOULD BE MORE, AND IT'S NO LONGER ITEM FLEXIBLE FOR YOU TO VOTE ON OTHERWISE.

FOR EXAMPLE, TODAY, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TAKE ACTION BECAUSE THE WAY YOU ORIGINALLY HAD IT POSTED WAS FOR A POSTPONEMENT OR WITHDRAWAL ON ALL OF THE ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA.

UM, AND SO THE WAY IT WAS REWORDED, WE REMOVED THE ITEM TWO AND IT PROVIDED MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR THIS BODY TO MAKE OR TAKE ACTION.

MADAM CHAIRMAN, POSTPONE, WITHDRAW, OR HAVE, UM, TAKE ACTION.

MIGHT I PLEASE? UH, SURE.

VICE HONOR REGARDING ITEM TWO.

SO THE INTENT, AND THIS IS DIRECTED AT YOU, SIR.

SO THE INTENT OF ITEM TWO IS, UM, AT THE BEGINNING OF TIME, SINCE MICHAEL'S BEEN UP HERE FOR, YOU KNOW, FOREVER, I'VE ONLY BEEN UP HERE HALF OF FOREVER, UM, IS THAT WE COULD HAVE TO UP TO 32 CASES.

AND AS YOU SAW, WE CAN PAINFULLY GO THROUGH THOSE THREE AND HOW LONG THAT TAKES.

AND SO IF YOU ACTUALLY GET 32 CASES IS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSION'S CONSENT AGENDA, OTHER THAN IT IS LIKE THE CONSENT POSTPONEMENT OR DIS POSTPONEMENT DISCUSSION OR WITHDRAWAL.

AND WE DON'T EVEN NEED TO TAKE AN ACTION ON THE AGENDA.

PERHAPS, UH, YOU COULD HELP US CRAFT SOME DIFFERENT LANGUAGE THAT YOU WOULD FEEL WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE.

BECAUSE WHILE IT SAYS PUBLIC HEARINGS, THOSE, THE ITEM IN PARTICULAR IS ABOUT JUST POSTPONEMENTS AND WITHDRAWALS.

AND THEN THE NEW CASES ARE POSTED FOR ACTION FOLLOWING THAT.

SO BECAUSE THEY WERE DIFFERENT ITEMS, I DIDN'T VIEW THEM THAT WAY.

BUT IF THERE'S A SLIGHT LANGUAGE CHANGE THAT COULD MAKE, UH, ITEM TWO MORE SPECIFIC TO THAT INTENT OR A, A ITEM BELOW THE VARIANCE CASES THAT SAYS, NOW ACTION OCCURS ON THESE ITEMS. SO I THINK WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH IS IF YOU HAVE 30 CASES ON THE AGENDA AND 10 OF THEM ARE GONNA BE POSTPONED, 10 OF 'EM ARE GONNA BE POSTPONED BY THE APPLICANT OR A STAFF POSTPONEMENT OR A NOTICE, LIKE THERE WAS A NOTICE ISSUE.

WE HAVE TO POSTPONE ITEMS 27 THROUGH 32 INSTEAD OF MAKING THOSE PEOPLE SIT HERE UNTIL 32.

THIS IS KINDA LIKE THAT.

WHAT OTHER PEOPLE WOULD USE LIKE AS A CONSENT, CONSENT POSTPONEMENT CONSENT AGENDA.

YEP.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AFTER THAT WE MIGHT HAVE DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENTS OR OR SUCH.

SO, AND I DISCUSSED THIS WITH CHAIR COHEN THIS AFTERNOON ON THE TELEPHONE.

MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE JUST LIKE SHE DID TODAY AT THE BEGINNING, AT THE TOP OF THE MEETING, ONCE YOU'VE DONE YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT, UM, SAY, IS THERE, ARE THERE ANY CASES FOR POSTPONEMENT OR WITHDRAWAL? IF THERE ARE, YOU CAN TAKE THOSE CASES RIGHT AWAY AT THE BEGINNING.

SO THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE AN AGENDA ITEM.

THAT'S

[02:45:01]

WHAT I, BECAUSE, BECAUSE WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD IT AS AN AGENDA ITEM.

AND YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE YOU HAVE TO TAKE AN ACTION ON EACH AGENDA.

YOU CAN'T GO HOME UNTIL YOU DO THE WHOLE AGENDA.

, YOU CAN, YOU CAN DO, LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE POSTPONEMENTS ON 10, 13 AND 15 AND YOU CAN SAY, OKAY, MOTION TO POSTPONE 10, 13 AND 15 AND YOU VOTE ON THAT.

UM, SO THE WAY THAT IT IS POSTED TONIGHT PROVIDES YOU WITH THAT FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

ONE OF THE CITY, CITY COUNCIL USED TO DO THAT.

WHAT THEY WOULD DO IS, UH, BASICALLY THEY HAD THE WHOLE AGENDA AND THEN THEY'D PULL AN AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION.

SO IS THAT, IS THAT SORT OF WHAT YOU MEAN, LIKE WOULD PULL THOSE FOR DISCUSSION FOR POSTPONEMENT OR, I MEAN, IS THAT, AM I HEARING THAT CORRECTLY OR IS WELL, I THINK AT THE, WITH WHAT, UH, THE MAYOR DOES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING IS HE GOES THROUGH AND SAYS HE ANNOUNCES CORRECTIONS AND CHANGES AND WITHDRAWALS AND, AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.

UM, SO FOR COUNSEL, IF AN ITEM IS BEING WITHDRAWN, THEY DON'T NECESSARILY VOTE ON IT AS BEING WITHDRAWN BECAUSE STAFF IS JUST WITHDRAWING IT.

IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ALL NEED TO VOTE ON THAT OR VOTE ON THE POSTPONEMENT OR WHATEVER.

SO YOU CAN JUST DO THAT AT THE TOP OF THE AGENDA BEFORE YOU GET TO ALL OF YOUR ACTION ITEMS. YOUR, WE HAVE TO ANNOUNCE THE WITHDRAWAL TO YOUR COMMENT.

YOU WOULD ANNOUNCE THEM IN CASE THERE ARE PEOPLE HERE TO SPEAK ON.

YEAH, SURE.

YOU WOULD ANNOUNCE THE WITHDRAWALS AND POSTPONEMENTS.

IT'S JUST FORMATTED DIFFERENTLY.

'CAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE, UH, MY QUESTION WAS ON, ON ITEM TWO WAS BECAUSE OF THE, IT WAS SEEMED TO ME, AND THIS IS JUST MY PERCEPTION, IS TAXPAYER LIMITED INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC.

AND THE PUBLIC WOULDN'T BE INFORMED IN WHAT THIS DISCUSSIONS WOULD PERTAIN TO.

AND SO THEREFORE THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PREPARE.

'CAUSE I, MANY TIMES OVER THE YEARS WHEN I HAD MY BUSINESS WITH THE CITY, I SPOKE IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL AND YOU ALWAYS SORT OF KNEW, SO YOU WOULD HAVE THIS INFORMATION ON WHAT TO PREPARE WHEN YOU CAME IN.

WHEN YOU CAME IN.

AND I, I SORT OF FELT LIKE JUST TO, TO GOING BACK AND MAYBE THIS MIGHT NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THE OTHER ISSUES ON THE AGENDA, BUT TO MAKE IT LESS INFORMATION OF DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING CASES.

THAT'S, IT SEEMED TO BE LIMIT THE INFORMATION THAT THE PUBLIC COULD BE INFORMED ON AND WHAT THEIR DISCUSSION PERTAINS TO.

AND IT WOULDN'T REALLY, REALLY ALLOW THEM TO BE PREPARED TO COME IN HERE ON WHAT WE'RE GOING TO, TO ADDRESS WHAT WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS IN A PUBLIC HEARING UNDER A PUBLIC HEARING SETTING.

OR TO KNOW THAT THAT ITEM TWO IS WHERE IF THEY WANNA POSTPONE IT AND THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO TALK TO OUR LIAISON, THAT THAT'S THE MOMENT IN THE AGENDA WHERE THEY COULD, THEY COULD APPROACH THE, THE DAS, THE DA AND SAY, OH, I, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T, MY PERSON ISN'T HERE.

MY, YOU KNOW, MY DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK, WHATEVER IT IS THAT ON ITEM TWO IS THAT, THAT'S WHEN THEY WOULD WALK UP.

'CAUSE A LOT OF TIMES WE DON'T HAVE FREQUENT FLYERS.

THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT'S USUALLY THEIR HOUSE.

SOMETIMES THEY HAVE AN AGENT, SOMETIMES THEY DON'T.

AND TRYING TO, BY HAVING THEM HAVE THE A, B AND C SOMETIMES HELPS THEM UNDERSTAND THAT THEY NEED TO GIVE INFORMATION FOR EACH THOUGHT THAT THEY'RE HAVING.

LIKE FRONT SETBACK OR SIDE SETBACK OR REAR SETBACK OR IMPERVIOUS COVER OR WHATEVER IT IS.

IT'S ALL ON ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY.

BUT YOU KNOW, I HAVE A TREE OVER HERE DOESN'T ALWAYS COVER, BUT THERE'S A BIG ELECTRIC POLE IN THE BACK ON THE DIFFERENT EASEMENT WHERE THERE'S NO TREE.

UH, I'M JUST, SORRY, I JUMPED IN AND I, IT'S IT'S FINE.

FINE.

THAT GOES BACK TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, MA'AM.

UM, AND I NOTICED IT TOO.

ALL THE INFORMATION ON THE REVISED AGENDA IS THE SAME INFORMATION THAT WE HAD ON THE, THE OLD AGENDA.

AND I UNDERSTAND IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR YOU, FOR YOU GUYS, AND YOU WANT THE CONSISTENCY OF HAVING CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE BOARDS.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO US ADDRESSING THE ITEMS, THE A, B, AND C, THIS INFORMATION ON ITEM NUMBER THREE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ITEM THAT WE HAVE ON THE OLD AGENDA.

AND THE, THE VERBIAGE IS THE SAME, BUT IT JUST SORT OF ALL RUNS TOGETHER.

DO YOU, I MEAN, IT JUST SORT OF LIKE ALL RUNS RUNS TOGETHER AS ONE VERSUS UH, UH, ON THE OLD AGENDA, IT WAS BROKEN DOWN TO A WAS TO, WAS ONE REQUEST THEY WERE MAKING, B WAS ANOTHER REQUEST THEY WERE MAKING AND C WAS ANOTHER REQUEST.

THEY WERE MA THEY WERE MAKING,

[02:50:01]

UM, SO IF THE, I GUESS MY QUESTION TO BOTH OF YOU ARE IS IF THE INFORMATION IS ALL THE SAME, IT'S ALL THERE.

IT'S NOT IN VIOLATION OF TOMA BECAUSE ALL THE INFORMATION IS THERE, BUT IT'S JUST THE WAY WE FORMAT OUR INFORMATION.

I'M HEARING YOU SAY THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH US ON THAT ON ABSOLUTELY.

WE WILL ABSOLUTELY.

UM, WORK THAT'S GREAT WITH YOU.

AND SEE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A, B AND C.

AND JUST TO MAKE THINGS CLEAR, YOUR DECEMBER AGENDA WAS POSTED THE WAY WE REVISED YOUR AGENDA TODAY.

UM, IT WASN'T, UM, LAID OUT IN SUBSECTIONS.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE WERE A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO WHY WE WERE BEING ASKED.

WERE DIFFERENT.

I THINK WE HAD A LITTLE KNOW THOSE WAS MUCH MORE SIMPLER CASES IN DECEMBER.

, IT WAS CHRISTMAS TIME.

THEY DON'T BRING THE BIG STUFF.

WELL, I MEAN, IT WAS DECEMBER AT THAT TIME IT WAS POSTED.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE REQUESTING.

NOW WE DID HAVE CONCERNS, THEN WE WERE GOING BACK AND FORTH AND THEN WHEN WE GOT TO THIS AGENDA, WHICH IS WHY THIS IS ON THE AGENDA, WE'RE NOT PRIVY TO THAT INFORMATION.

SO THAT'S WHERE I STAND.

HOWEVER, HAPPY HOLIDAYS WE, WE GAVE YOU THAT ONE .

UM, WE ARE ABSOLUTELY WILLING TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU.

UM, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO HINDER YOUR BUSINESS AND SO NO, AND I I DON'T FEEL THAT I I WAS JUST MYSELF PERSONALLY AND THIS IS JUST COMING FROM ME.

FOR ME PERSONALLY, IF ALL THE INFORMATION IS THERE SO THAT WE MEET TOMA AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.

ONE ON TWO, TWO, I MEAN, I DIDN'T, I'M NOT GONNA BE PETTY ABOUT TWO.

I MEAN IT'S FINE.

ITEM TWO.

IT IT'S WHAT WE, I GUESS WHAT WE TAKE IN WHEN WE HAVE TO TAKE THESE TOMA COURSES AND WE GET CERTIFIED AND WE DO MM-HMM.

, WE, AND WE, YOU KNOW, EVERY YEAR THEY MAKE US GO THROUGH IT EVERY YEAR.

UM, AND TO SEE IT CHANGE SO MUCH, IT WAS, IT WAS JUST MORE OF IS THIS THE WAY IT'S GONNA BE? OR DO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK SOMETHING OUT WITH THE CITY'S CLERK OFFICE IN ORDER TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR, FOR THE PEOPLE TO GET THE INFORMATION AND GO FIND THE INFORMATION RIGHT.

AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT, UH, THEY'RE ASKING A VARIANCE FOR.

, UH, BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT LAST CASE THAT WE JUST HAD WHERE WE HAD TO COME UP WITH RIGHT HARDSHIPS FOR WAS A VERY COMPLICATED CASE.

AND THAT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE TO WHERE BREAKING THEM DOWN.

SO IT'S NOT JUST ONE BIG RUN ON AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.

I CERTAINLY WISH WE COULD JUST SAY, HEY, PASS THE VARIANCE, MAKE A MOTION, BOOM.

GO.

BUT THEN WE WOULD NOT BE, IT WON'T BE REFLECTED IN THE RECORD APPROPRIATELY IF WE PUT CONDITIONS OR ELIMINATE CERTAIN.

AND I WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, THE RUN-ON SENTENCE, WE WERE UP AGAINST TIME.

UM, AND SO THAT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE ISSUES.

WE KNOW THAT NO INFORMATION WAS TAKEN OUT.

UM, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY WORK ON, YOU KNOW, NO RUN-ON SENTENCES AND FIND IT'S HARD KNOW A MIDDLE GROUND.

SO WE'RE WILLING TO COMPROMISE AND WE'LL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.

AND THEN IF I CAN JUMP IN PLEASE ON THAT ONE, UH, THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING I ACTUALLY DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH.

WHEN Y'ALL COME TO ME AFTER THE FIRST POSTING ON A FRIDAY MORNING WHEN WE'RE UP AGAINST THE DEADLINE FOR THE 72 HOURS AND START ASKING TO MAKE CHANGES, I HAVE A JOB.

I I I'M NOT RICH.

I HAVE TO WORK NINE TO FIVE AND I CAN'T JUST JUMP OFF TO START WORKING WITH MY LIAISON TO MAKE CHANGES.

SO LIKE IN THIS CASE, THE REASON I SAID NO, BECAUSE I REALLY DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME TO GO OVER IT, AND I, I TRUST LIAM, BUT SOMETIMES THE WORDING ISN'T ALWAYS RIGHT AND I TRY TO MAKE CHANGES OR I MAKE SUGGESTIONS.

I WORK WITH HER.

YOU'RE, 'CAUSE IT'S, IT IS, IT'S A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS AND I WANT IT TO BE TOMA COMPLIANT AND I WANT IT TO BE CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC AND I WANT IT TO MATCH THE NOTICES WE SEND OUT.

SO THESE ARE ALL THINGS I LOOK AT BEFORE I MAKE AN AGENDA.

I'M NOT JUST TRYING TO BE ARBITRARY, UH, COMING AT ME AGAIN AFTER FIVE O'CLOCK SAYING, WELL, WE MADE THE CHANGES ANYWAY.

I, I STILL WANT SOME CLARIFICATION ON HOW THAT HAPPENED SURE.

AND HOW IT WAS LEGAL.

BECAUSE I STILL SEE IT.

STEPHANIE, I I WANT LEGAL TO TELL ME THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO POST WITHOUT ME APPROVING.

UM, SO FIRST, IF, IF I MAY, I CAN, UM, WELL STEPHANIE DID SEND OUT, OR THE NOTICE ON THURSDAY, UM, THAT THE POSTING WAS INSUFFICIENT.

AND SO WE PROVIDED, UM, NOT OPTIONS, BUT GUIDANCE ON HOW IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE COMPLIANT.

UM, AGAIN, YOU RESPONDED AND SAID YOU WEREN'T CHANGING IT.

THIS WAS, I BELIEVE EARLIER IN THE MORNING, UM, ON FRIDAY.

AND THEN WE, THAT'S WHEN WE HAD COMMUNICATION WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT.

AND SO, UM, OUR OFFICE IS NOT KNOWINGLY GOING TO PUBLISH AN AGENDA THAT WE KNOW DOES

[02:55:01]

NOT COMPLY WITH TOMA.

AND SO THAT'S WHY WE WENT AND SOUGHT ADVICE FROM OUR LAW DEPARTMENT AND, UM, WE DIDN'T REMOVE ANY OF YOUR ITEMS. AGAIN, WE REWORDED SO THAT THEY WOULD, IT WOULD BE COMPLIANT AND TRANSPARENT.

UM, JUST AS YOU SAID, YOU WOULD LIKE ALL YOUR AGENDAS TO I, AND SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO, TO TRANSPARENCY TO PROVIDE YOU THE INFORMATION, HOW WE'RE ABLE TO, IT'S INSULTING THAT YOU WOULD EVEN IMPLY THAT I'M NOT, I HAVE BEEN THE MOST VOCAL PERSON ABOUT THAT ON THIS BOARD OR ANY BOARD OR IN CITY HALL OR IN ANY COUNCIL MEETING.

SO PLEASE DON'T IMPLY, WELL CHAIR THAT.

I'M NOT IMPLYING HERE, YOU SENT AN EMAIL SAYING YOU WANNA, THAT TALK ABOUT TRANSPARENCY.

DON'T LOCK YOUR DOOR.

YOU'RE GOING TO, UM, YOU SENT AN EMAIL SAYING YOU WEREN'T GOING TO CHANGE OR MAKE ANY REVISIONS.

SO WE HAD ALREADY LET YOU KNOW THAT THE ORIGINAL AGENDA WAS NOT COMPLIANT AND YOU RESPONDED AND SAID, WE'RE NOT CHANGING IT OR I'M NOT CHANGING IT.

AND THAT'S WHEN WE, I SAID WE KNOWINGLY, WE, I'M SORRY.

I SAID WE, BECAUSE IT'S MY JOB TO REPRESENT THE BOARD AS A WHOLE.

SO YOU SAID WE, BUT YOU SAID NO, WE'RE NOT CHANGING IT.

UM, AND THAT'S WHEN, AGAIN, IF I KNOWINGLY NO OR SEE THAT SOMETHING IS NOT COMPLIANT, I'M GOING TO SEEK ADVICE FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT.

AND THIS IS WHERE I'LL TURN IT OVER TO NEIL ON WHY WE ARE ABLE TO REVISE AN AGENDA, UM, WITHOUT, WITHOUT A CHAIR'S APPROVAL.

SO ANY CHAIR.

I, OH, UH, BY ALL MEANS BOARD MEMBER BOWEN.

SO I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT RUN ON SENTENCES.

WOULD YOU, WAS I GONNA I'M SORRY.

NO, GO AHEAD.

GO AHEAD.

SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE, THE STATEMENT.

UM, SO JUST LIKE WITH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, UM, THE CHAIR, YOU DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE ITEMS THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD.

YOU HELP SET THE AGENDA IN THAT MANNER.

UM, WHAT OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS, IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ITEMS THAT YOU WANT TO POST AND TAKE ACTION ON ARE POSTED IN A WAY THAT COMPLIES WITH TOMA THAT PROVIDES YOU WITH THAT FLEXIBILITY.

SO, UM, IT'S A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT REALLY.

UH, YOU DECIDE THE ITEMS THAT GO ON THE AGENDA, THE CLERK'S OFFICE REVIEWS THE AGENDA, CONSULTS WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE IT'S LEGALLY SUFFICIENT AND RECOMMEND ADVISE THE CLERK'S OFFICE ON HOW TO MAKE AGENDAS COMPLIANT.

THIS PRESENTED A UNIQUE SITUATION BECAUSE ON FRIDAY WE WERE UP AGAINST A DEADLINE OF THREE O'CLOCK AND WE NEEDED TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS AND TAKE SOME ACTIONS IN ORDER TO GET A COMPLIANT, UH, AGENDA POSTED THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU ALL TO TAKE THE ACTIONS THAT YOU TOOK TONIGHT.

SO AGAIN, WE'RE, I'M TRYING TO IGNORE THE PART ABOUT THE TIME BECAUSE MM-HMM.

, I FEEL LIKE YOU GUYS COULD HAVE CONTACTED ME A LOT SOONER IF THERE WERE ISSUES, WHICH IS WHY I DIDN'T WANNA MAKE CHANGES.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU COULD MAKE THE CHANGES, BUT HOW DOES THAT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO POST IT? WELL, BECAUSE THE OPTION HAVE BEEN, IF IF, IF THE CHAIR DIDN'T APPROVE THAT YOU JUST DON'T POST IT.

WELL, IF WE DON'T POST IT, THEN, THEN THERE'S NO MEETING.

YOU DON'T HAVE A MEETING.

ON POSTPONEMENTS AND WITHDRAWALS.

AND WE DON'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD'VE BEEN AN APPROPRIATE OPTION TO TAKE.

UM, I'M JUST GONNA REFER BACK TO WHAT WE DISCUSSED EARLIER IN THE EMAIL, UH, AUSTIN CODE OF ORDINANCES 2 1 43 WHERE IT VERY CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE CHAIR SHALL APPROVE BEFORE IT'S POSTED.

MM-HMM, WELL, I MEAN, I'M, I'M NOT ALL I I CAN SAY IS THAT WE ATTEMPTED TO DO THAT IS I'M, I'M, I'M NOT FOLLOWING THE LEGAL PART OF THAT.

SO YOU ATTEMPTED BUT DIDN'T GET APPROVAL BUT POSTED ANYWAYS.

WELL, WE DIDN'T CHANGE ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU HAD PROPO ALL THE ITEMS THAT YOU HAD PROPOSED FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY ARE ON THE AGENDA.

WHAT WE DID IS REWRITE SOME OF THE ITEMS TO GIVE YOU A COMPLIANT AGENDA THAT MEETS TOOMA REQUIREMENTS.

COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW IT DIDN'T MEET TOOMA REQUIREMENTS IN THE ORIGINAL VERSION? 'CAUSE I WOULD TRULY LIKE TO KNOW SO THAT I COULD WRITE IT BETTER IN THE FUTURE.

SO I, I MEAN WE'VE DISCUSSED IT BEFORE.

ITEM TWO, UM, DID NOT ALLOW YOU TO TAKE ACTION ON APPROVING ITEMS TONIGHT.

WE DIDN'T THINK THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU WANTED TO DO.

YOU WANTED TO TAKE ACTION ON THE ITEMS. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE REMOVED NUMBER TWO, THAT ACTUALLY BROADENED YOUR AUTHORITY TO TAKE ACTION TONIGHT.

OTHERWISE YOU JUST WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO VOTE

[03:00:01]

WOULD, IF, IF I MAY, SORRY TO INTERRUPT.

WOULD THE LANGUAGE OF DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING APPLICANT AND STAFF REQUESTS FOR POSTPONEMENTS AND WITHDRAWALS WORKED JUST AS WELL WITHOUT US HAVING TO GO INTO THE AGENDA AND PER ROBERT RULES OF ORDER PULLING STUFF FROM THE BOTTOM, BECAUSE I HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FOR THAT WITH ROBERT RULES OF ORDER.

I HAVE TO ASK IF I CAN MOVE SOMETHING FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE AGENDA OR THE MIDDLE INTO THE FRONT.

AND I MEAN, SURE THAT'S GOING TO, YOU KNOW, WE COULD DO THAT WITH A, A VOTE OF CONSENT WITHOUT HAVING TO TAKE LIKE AN ACTUAL HAND OR A, A VOICE VOTE.

BUT IT'S EXTRA TIME AND IT'S KIND OF UNNECESSARY.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE SMALL MEETINGS, SHORT MEETINGS, BUT I'VE BEEN HERE FOR NOT LIKE 32.

THAT'S JUST CRAZY.

BUT I'VE BEEN HERE FOR WHERE WE'VE HAD 1415 AND WE'RE HERE WELL PAST 11, 12 O'CLOCK.

SO AN AGENDA ITEM THAT SAYS YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE ACTION ON THE POSTED AGENDA ITEMS ISN'T NECESSARY.

UM, YOU POST THE AGENDA ITEM TO TAKE ACTION ON IT.

THAT ACTION CAN BE APPROVAL, DENIAL, POSTPONEMENT WITHDRAWAL, ANY TYPE OF ACTION.

BUT WHEN YOU PUT AN ITEM AT THE TOP OF THE AGENDA THAT SAYS POST VOTE ON POSTPONEMENT AND WITHDRAWALS FOR THE ITEMS POSTED ON THE AGENDA, YOU'VE LIMITED YOURSELF TO TAKING ONLY ACTION ON POSTPONEMENT AND WITHDRAWAL.

IS THERE, MAYBE THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING BETTER DISCUSSED WHEN WE MEET, UH, NEXT WEEK, BUT IS THERE ANY LANGUAGE WE COULD PUT THERE OR LIKE, I MEAN, YOU COULD PUT DISCUSS DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON POSTED AGENDA ITEMS, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S JUST REDUNDANT OF, UH, JUST SO WE CAN GET PEOPLE OUT OF HERE OR JUST CALL IT OUTTA ORDER.

I MEAN YOU CAN, YEAH, I MEAN YOU CAN, WHAT YOU DID TONIGHT WAS PERFECT.

YOU SAY, ARE THERE ANY ITEMS FOR POSTPONEMENT OR WITHDRAWAL? IF ANYBODY SAYS YES, YOU TAKE THOSE ITEMS, YOU VOTE ON THEM, YOU DISPOSE OF THEM AND YOU'RE DONE.

BUT I FOLLOWED THE OLD AGENDA.

THAT'S WHY I SAID THAT I WOULDN'T HAVE IF I'D FOLLOWED THE NEW ONE.

I THINK YOU CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? IS, IS, IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING WHETHER WE CAN TAKE ACTION ON AGENDA ITEMS OUT OF ORDER IF THERE'S NO AGENDA ITEMS SAYING WE'RE GONNA TAKE THEM OUT OF ORDER WITHOUT A VOTE? IT IS, IT IS AS CHAIR, IT IS YOUR PURVIEW, JUST LIKE THE MAYOR DOES TO TAKE ITEMS IN ANY ORDER THAT YOU WISH.

IT'S IT, THE MAYOR SKIPS AROUND ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA ALL THE TIME, DEPENDING UPON WHO'S HERE, WHAT TIME IT IS.

IT'S ALSO A CLUE THOUGH, FOR THE CITIZENS THAT ARE HERE, THAT THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO COME UP AND TALK ABOUT A POSTPONEMENT.

IT'S THAT, THAT IF THEY, SOMETHING HAPPENED, AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD, WE'VE ASKED THEM BECAUSE, WELL, WE DIDN'T, ESPECIALLY IN LAND, WE MAY ACTUALLY HAVE TO HEAR THE, THE REQUEST FOR POST POSTPONEMENT.

LIKE WHEN WE'RE HEARING POSTPONEMENTS, WE, WE HAVE TO HEAR THE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST FIRST.

MM-HMM MM-HMM.

LIKE A, WE DON'T JUST AUTOMATICALLY GRANT THEM TO STOP ONE.

IT IS ARE THEY AGAINST IT FOR, IT SAYS SAME AS PC.

SO WE COULD PUT SOMETHING UNDER PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT'S NOT A NUMBERED AGENDA ITEM THAT SAYS THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER POSTPONEMENTS AND WITHDRAWALS PRIOR TO TAKING ACTION ON ANY POSTED AGENDA ITEMS. THAT WOULD WORK.

I THINK THAT WOULD WORK BECAUSE I'M PRETTY SURE IT'S, IT IS JUST A CLEAR FOR, I MEAN, AGAIN, WE DON'T GET A LOT OF FREQUENT FLYER PEOPLE.

YOU, YOU HAVE PEOPLE, THEY'RE VERY NERVOUS.

THEY, THEY, THEY PUT TIME AND ENERGY.

SHE'S HELPED 'EM THROUGH IT.

UM, THEY FINALLY HAVE THEIR DAY AND SOME OF THEM ARE WOBBLY AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE, AND SO IT'S LIKE A CLUE OF SOMETHING WENT WRONG.

I NEED THIS IS, THIS IS THE, THE SPOT TO GO TO GO.

I CAN'T GO NOW.

OR YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S A, I OPPOSED TO TRYING TO RUN THE MEETING AND THEN HAVING THE CITIZEN ON TOP OF THE LIAISON AT THE SAME TIME.

UM, SO AGAIN, WHEN WE MEET TO DISCUSS THE AGENDA OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND HOW THEY'RE POSTED, WE'RE HAPPY TO DISCUSS.

JUST A POSSIBLE WAY TO REMEDIATE THAT ABSOLUTELY.

INTENT.

ABSOLUTELY.

FRIDAY AND I MEAN, WE ALL WANTED TO GO SMOOTHLY AND WE'D ALL, IT'S JUST THE PEOPLE ARE WAITING A REALLY LONG TIME TO GET THEIR CASE HEARD AND WE WANTED TO BE EFFICIENT AS WELL.

I DON'T HAVE A ISSUE WITH THAT.

I JUST THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S ALL VERY TIGHT AND WE ALL HAVE TO GET IT POSTED.

AND I THINK THAT IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THE LAST TWO AGENDAS THAT WE JUST KIND OF GET UP TO THE DEADLINE AND IT, AND IT'S, IT'S HARD 'CAUSE WE'RE MONDAY, RIGHT.

IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ON THE WEEKENDS.

I WOULDN'T BOTHER Y'ALL OVER THE WEEKEND.

SORRY.

WELL, I MEAN, I, I I UNDERSTAND IT'S

[03:05:01]

SO WE WILL SCHEDULE A MEETING HERE SOON, UM, WITH THE CHAIR AND THE STAFF LIAISONS.

UM, I WOULDN'T MIND PARTICIPATING.

I'M BETTER IN THE AFTERNOONS.

TYPICALLY.

I CAN, I CAN GET YOU OUT.

I'LL TALK TO MY COUNCILMAN CHIEF OF STAFF.

I CAN GET YOU OUT IF YOU WANNA JOIN.

UH, I HAVE, UH, I USUALLY HAVE THE WORK THING BETWEEN EIGHT AND NOON.

ME TOO.

I'M GONNA HAVE TO TAKE OFF.

I'M GONNA HAVE TO TAKE T RIGHT.

BUT MINE ARE USUALLY SCHEDULED WITH 20 PEOPLE.

THAT'S, THAT'S FAIR.

WE WILL BE SURE TO FIND A, A TIME AND DATE THAT WORKS.

UNLESS YOU WANT ME TO WORKS FOR EVERYONE ALONE WITH HER.

AND I AM LOOKING BY THE WAY, AT AN RR AND R, UH, 12TH EDITION.

IT DOES SAY THAT WE HAVE TO VOTE ON ANY AGENDA ITEM, MOVE.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF PC RULES ARE DIFFERENT, WE CAN GO SO THEY CAN PULL IN FOR THAT CONSENT AGENDA OR COUNCIL'S RULES ARE DIFFERENT.

I KNOW COUNCIL'S, UH, COUNCIL DOESN'T HAVE ANY LANGUAGE IN THE CODE AT LEAST THAT I COULD FIND SPECIFYING HOW THEIR AGENDAS ARE HANDLED, WHERE THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS DO.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT MAYBE THEY'RE THE BEST EXAMPLE.

I THINK THEY HAVE MORE LEEWAY WITH THEIR AGENDA.

I MEAN, UM, I'VE NEVER SEEN A BODY THAT FOLLOWS ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER TO A T IF WE DON'T, WE GET SUED.

UM, SO I I DON'T THINK YOU'LL GET SUED ON TAKING A AGENDA ITEM, UH, OUT OF ORDER.

AND THEN IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, HE JUST MOVES ALONG.

I THINK IN TERMS OF LEGAL, THAT IS THE GUIDANCE FROM LEGAL.

I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO, IN TERMS OF LEGAL RISK.

IN TERMS OF LEGAL, YOU'RE THE, THAT'S GONNA TO DEFEND US.

THAT'S A VERY LOW RISK.

BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WE DO FOLLOW ROBERT RULES PROBABLY BETTER THAN ANY OTHER BOARD I, SINCE I PRETTY MUCH GOT IT AND BRANDED IN THE BACK OF MY HEAD BEING PARLIAMENTARIAN FOR MANY YEARS FOR OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.

UH, BUT UH, I, I THINK BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE TODAY WAS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED A LITTLE BIT.

AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU GUYS ARE COMING FROM AND THE SAME WAY THAT YOU'RE ON THAT SIDE OF THE DAAS AND YOU'RE TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO US THAT YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR US.

WELL, WE'RE NOT UP HERE JUST TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, BEAT YOU GUYS UP OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

IT WAS SORT OF A SURPRISE TO EVERYBODY.

AND UH, OF COURSE, UH, WE DIDN'T WANT, I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT WE ALL START OUT IN A DE DEFENSIVE POSTURE BECAUSE NOTHING'S GONNA GET SOLVED.

BUT ONE THING I HAVE LEARNED HAVING SERVED ON MANY BOARDS AND AND LOCAL STATE, FEDERAL, IS THAT SOMETIMES YOU'VE GOTTA GET THE BID SESSION OUT THERE AND PASS SO THAT, SO THAT YOU CAN MOVE BACK TO RECONSTRUCTING.

AND EVERYBODY HAS TO, BLUE ZONE HAS TO SAY THE THINGS THAT, THAT UM, UH, BOTHERING THEM, EVEN THOUGH SOMETIMES IT MAY COME ACROSS BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CRASS BEFORE WE CAN ACTUALLY REPAIR THEM.

BECAUSE OTHERWISE, I, I THINK A LOT OF THE EMOTION AND A LOT OF THE, THE FEELINGS THAT, PERSONAL FEELINGS THAT PEOPLE HAVE CAN BE MISCONSTRUED AS BEING, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT OVER HERE POKING YOU WITH A STICK JUST TO POKE YOU WITH A STICK AND WE'RE NOT OVER HERE CALLING YOU ON THE CARPET TO TRY TO MAKE YOU DO A CARPET DANCE.

EITHER ME, MYSELF PERSONALLY, I WAS LIKE, WOW, AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, YOU, IF WE'VE BEEN DOING IT WRONG, WHAT THE FIRST THING COMES TO MY MIND IS WHAT ABOUT ALL THE CASES THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT? WHAT ABOUT ALL THE CASES THAT WE PASSED? I KNOW IN ALL THE YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN UP HERE, WE'VE NEVER BEEN CHALLENGED.

AND THE FEW COURT CASES THAT WE HAVE HAD BASED ON VARIANCES, WE HAVE, I DON'T THINK WE'VE LOST ONE YET.

WE HAVE ONE.

WE HAVE, WE LOST ONE INTERPRETATION.

YEAH, ONE INTERPRETATION, BUT THAT'S INTERPRETATION, NOT A VARIANCE.

SO, AND THEN ALSO, I MEAN I, AGAIN, NOT TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE, I JUST WENT BACK THROUGH SOME REALLY OLD EMAILS FROM WHEN I FIRST BECAME CHAIR AND I HAVE AN EMAIL FROM LEE WHO WAS VERY ADAMANT.

'CAUSE WE WERE HAVING A DISCUSSION.

I'M LIKE, HOW CLOSELY DO I HAVE TO FOLLOW ROBERT'S RULES? I'M LIKE, CAN I BEND THIS? HE'S LIKE, NO, CAN I BEND? I'M LIKE, I WAS TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO EXPEDITE THE MEETING BECAUSE WE STILL HAD REALLY COOL CASELOADS BACK THEN.

AND HE'S LIKE, NO, YOU NEED TO STICK WITH IT BECAUSE YOU'RE QUASI-JUDICIAL.

TREAT IT LIKE YOU'RE A JUDGE.

WHICH IS WHAT I'VE ALWAYS TRIED TO DO.

EVEN THOUGH I THINK MAYBE WITH THOSE TWO DOWN THERE, IT'S A LITTLE HARDER SOMETIMES.

SOMEHOW IT'S ALWAYS MY FAULT.

FIRST DAY BY GEORGE'S .

WELL, I MEAN ONE, YOU KNOW, ONE THING I THINK THE WAY THE MAYOR QUICKLY DISPENSES OF IT IS HE SAYS, IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO TAKING UP THESE ITEMS OUT OF ORDER?

[03:10:01]

ALL RIGHT.

MAD CHAIR YES.

IS A USEFUL THERAPY SESSION.

I THINK IT WAS.

I'LL CHARGE MY THERAPIST FOR THIS ONE.

YEAH, I THINK IT, I THINK IT WAS, AND I THINK WE CAN COME TO SOME MIDDLE GROUND.

I DID GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD AGENDA AND I MEAN THEIR NOVEMBER 15TH AGENDA HAS THE A, B, AND C AND IT, IT, IT, UH, SO I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND OR YOU KNOW, ARE WE BULLET POINTS? I MEAN WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LONG TIME AND, AND THE THE SKY HAS NOT FALLEN AND, AND, AND IT IS HARD 'CAUSE WE'RE MONDAY AND WE'RE NOT TWO STEROIDS.

THE OFFICE HAS, UM, 70 OF YOU ALL A TOTAL OF 770 BOARD, BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS TO HANDLE IT IS TRUE.

BUT HOW MANY ARE NOT APPEALABLE TO COUNCIL? SO WE, WE CATCH THEM, WE CATCH THEM AS WE CAN.

UM, UNDERSTOOD.

AND WHEN WE CATCH THEM, WE TRY TO ADDRESS THEM IN AN EXPEDITIOUS MANNER.

20 YEARS.

ARE YOU TELLING ME IT TOOK 20 YEARS TO CATCH THIS? I WILL LITERALLY PULL YOU AN AGENDA FROM 2008 RIGHT NOW AND HAVE HIM PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN 20 YEARS.

FEISTY.

HE SAID HE HAS EVOLVED IN THE, I I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

IT JUST SEEMS EXAGGERATED IT.

I WASN'T HERE 20 YEARS AGO.

WELL, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S FUNNY, WE HAD, UH, BACK THEN WE ACTUALLY HAD, UH, OUR OWN, THE BOARD HAD ITS OWN ATTORNEY AND UH, THE ATTORNEY ENOUGH TO SHARE ACTUALLY DIDN'T REPRESENT, UH, BOTH THE DEPARTMENT AND OTHER BOARDS.

IT ACTUALLY WAS THE BOARD'S.

WE HAD A SINGULAR ATTORNEY THAN SPECIALIZED.

THIS WAS MUCH SMALLER 20 YEARS AGO AS WELL.

BACK GOVERNMENT, SMALLER.

I'LL DO WHAT I CAN.

THE CASE SAYING WE HAD A LOT MORE CASES AT THAT TIME AS WELL.

I, UH, AND, AND I'M JUST GONNA GO BACK ON MS. REYNOLDS SENATE THING REAL QUICK.

IN ALL FAIRNESS, WE HAVE CONSTITUENTS OUT THERE AND ME BEING ONE OF THEM AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

IF IT'S NOT CLEAR AND CONCISE, WHERE IS THE TRANSPARENCY? SO IS THIS FOR YOU GUYS, IS THIS FOR SOME RULES OR IS THIS REALLY ABOUT, WE JUST WANNA MAKE THIS EASY AND REALLY TO HELL WITH EVERYBODY ELSE OUT THERE? THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING IS BECAUSE WHEN YOU GET SOMETHING THAT GETS REAL COMPACT AND SOMETHING CAN BE MISSED, BECAUSE WE HAD AN ELDERLY GENTLEMAN HERE LAST MONTH OR TWO MONTHS AGO, THAT WE WENT THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS OF HIM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS LAID OUT IN HIS WHOLE PROCESS.

AND I THINK THAT SOMETIMES GETS MISSED IN THE BIG PICTURE.

AND THAT DOES NOT NEED TO GET, BECAUSE WE BASICALLY WORK FOR THOSE PEOPLE OUT THERE, WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR, CONCISE ENGLISH OR SOME FORM OF LANGUAGE THAT CAN BE UNDERSTOOD BY ANYBODY UP HERE AND ANYBODY OUT THERE AND BE DAMNED WITH, WELL, WE RAN OUT OF TIME.

THAT'S THAT.

I MEAN, THAT'S, AND WE WILL HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

BUT AGAIN, I NEED TO REITERATE THAT WE DID NOT CHANGE THE LANGUAGE.

SO IF IT'S A MATTER OF SING, BUT YOU CHANGED S THE FORMATS, YOU CHANGED THE FORMAT, IT'S THE FORMATTING, BUT NOT THE LANGUAGE.

THE LANGUAGE IS STILL THERE.

IF IT'S A MATTER OF SPACING OR CREATING A NEW PARAGRAPH TO MAKE IT MORE READABLE OR, YOU KNOW, UM, WE WILL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.

SO, SO NOW I'M NOT HERE AND IT'S NOT, IT'S JUST, IT'S ABOUT FORMAT.

IF YOU HAD LISTED THE FORMATTING, HOW IT WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TO TAKE ACTION ON EACH SINGLE SUBSECTION OR SUB ITEM.

SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE WITH THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW? WE DO, BUT WE DO, WE DO.

BUT HELP MAKES ME BETTER.

I'M LOOKING AT, I'M LOOKING AT ONE OF THE ITEMS AND I'M LOOKING AT HOW THE NOTE WAS DONE HERE.

AND YOU STILL GOT YOUR, YOU STILL GOT YOUR BEES, YOU STILL GOT ALL OF THE OTHERS, AND YOU FLIP OVER TO THE ONE THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL.

AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT THEY'RE JUST KINDA LINED OUT AND SO THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE IN SOME TYPE OF AN ORDER THAT YOU CAN SEE THEM WITH, WITH SOME OTHER THINGS.

WHAT THEY DID IS THEY, THEY, INSTEAD OF IT HAVING LISTED LIKE A, B, AND C.

RIGHT? RIGHT.

IT'S UP TO THE OTHER ONE.

A LOT OF FOLKS HERE, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY.

WHAT THEY DID IS, THIS IS ACTUALLY PART OF THE CODE, RIGHT? SO THE B, THE A, B AND C IS GONE NOW.

WELL, I'M, I'M ALSO LOOKING DOWN HERE AT THE NOTES DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, HOW YOU'VE TAKEN EVERYTHING AND KIND OF RUN THOSE ALL.

THAT'S ACTUALLY IN LANE AND THAT IS THE CODE.

BUT THAT, THAT'S THE, THAT WAS BROKEN OUT.

HOW EACH CODE PERTAINED TO EACH ITEM, THAT IT JUST NEEDS TO BE TRANSPARENT SO PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND IT AND MAKE IT LEGIBLE.

THAT'S, IT'S JUST FORMATTING.

IT'S, AND UNLIKE

[03:15:01]

I'M NOT A CON CONSTRUCTION GUY OR SOMEONE WHO DEALS WITH THE PERMITTING.

SOMEONE WHO'S NOT ALWAYS IN THE LDCI ONLY KNOW BECAUSE I GO HOME EVERY WEEKEND BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AND I HAVE TO STUDY BEFORE EVERY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TOO.

I HAVE TO STUDY THESE THINGS AND IF IT READS HARD TO ME AND IT READS HARD TO ME, IT'S GONNA READ HARD TO EVERYBODY ELSE.

AND THAT'S HOW ITEM NUMBER TWO READ FOR ME.

UM, AND THAT'S WHY WE CHANGED IT.

AND SO WITH REGARD TO THE SUBSECTIONS A, B, C, I DON'T WANT TO DISMISS IT AS JUST A FORMATTING ISSUE BECAUSE FORMATTING ISSUES CAN HAVE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS.

UM, AND SO THE WAY IT WAS LAID OUT WOULD'VE REQUIRED, WOULD'VE TREATED EACH OF THOSE AS A DIFFERENT ACTION.

AND SO, UM, YOU'RE RIGHT.

WHAT WHAT THIS BOARD DOES IS VERY COMPLICATED AND TECHNICAL.

AND I HAD TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ON THE FLY ABOUT HOW TO REWORK THAT IN A WAY THAT WAS FORMATTED TO BE ONE ACTION ITEM.

WE CONSULTED WITH STAFF AND DSD, WE WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT YOUR PREVIOUS AGENDA AND WE DETERMINED THAT THAT WOULD BE THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO DO IT, GIVEN THE TIME CONSTRAINTS.

AND YOU'RE RIGHT, WE ALL WORK FOR THE PUBLIC HERE AND WE HAVE TO BE TRANSPARENT.

WE WANT TO BE TRANSPARENT.

WE WANT THEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING.

UM, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TIME CONSTRAINTS THAT WE WORK WITH.

TOMA PUTS TOMA REQUIRES 72 HOUR POSTING, AND IF WE'RE NOT POSTED WITHIN 72 HOURS, THEN YOU CAN'T TAKE ANY ACTION.

BUT BACK TO YOUR POINT AT ANN.

OH, BOARD MEMBER WENT ON TO INTERRUPT.

UH, WAS THIS ADDITIONAL QUESTION? I'M BACK 'CAUSE BOARD MEMBER BENS IN, HAD A HAND UP FOR A WHILE.

NO, NO, THAT'S FINE.

I, I'LL, I'LL DEFER TO I JUST, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP I THINK, UM, IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, OH, NO, I JUST DREW BLANK.

FIRST OF ALL, I, ONE THING IN TERMS OF LIKE THE BIG BLOCK, RIGHT? WHEN YOU LOOK AT, FOR EXAMPLE, HOW THE CODE IS WRITTEN OR GENERALLY HOW LAWS ARE WRITTEN, YOU'LL GET LIKE A ONE SEMI, RIGHT? IS THAT, IS THAT A SOLUTION THAT WE COULD APPLY HERE IS TO JUST TO LIKE SORT OF CREATE THE LARGER SUBSECTION OF LIKE THE APPLICANT OR WHATEVER THAT LIKE, IS MORE BROADLY REACHING AND THEN JUST LIKE LIST THE FIRST THING, SEMICOLON, SEMICOLON.

DOES THAT BREAK IT? WOULD THAT PREVENT IT FROM BEING THREE SEPARATE ACTIONS? POTENTIALLY.

I JUST, I, I WOULD WANNA SEE HOW IT'S TEXTUALLY LAID OUT.

, UH, THAT MIGHT BE A SOLUTION.

IT MIGHT SAY, YOU KNOW, UH, HERE'S THE APPLICANT AND CASE AND UM, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES VARIANCES UNDER THE FOLLOWING MM-HMM.

PROVISIONS OF CODE A, B, AND C.

SO MAYBE THAT I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S, IF THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE THE SOLUTION THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A MILLION WAYS TO SKIN THIS CAP, RIGHT? YEAH.

UM, AND WHEN YOU GET A BUNCH OF LAWYERS IN A ROOM AND START THINKING ABOUT IT, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, A MILLION DIFFERENT WAYS YOU COULD DO IT.

UM, BUT I WAS, I WAS PRESENTED WITH SOMETHING ON A DEADLINE THAT I HAD TO MAKE SENSE GET OF, OH, I, AND LIKE SORT OF, UH, SOMETIMES UH, PERFECTION GOES OUT THE WINDOW IN FAVOR OF LIKE GETTING A THING DONE.

'CAUSE I DO THINK, UH, THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO KIND OF PUT OUT THERE IS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE PAYING ATTORNEYS TO COME IN AND SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF AND STUFF, IT'S, IT'S A REALLY BIG DEAL IF THE MEETING DOESN'T HAPPEN BESIDES SOMETHING BEHIND SOMETHING LIKE THAT'S LIKE, I THINK LESS THAN PROCEDURAL AT THIS POINT, RIGHT? WHERE IT'S LIKE A QUESTION OF SORT OF HOW THE TEXT IS BLOCKED.

SO I SYMPATHIZE WITH THAT.

IT, IT WAS, IT CAN BE CONFUSING AND HARD TO READ BIG BLOCKS OF TEXT, BUT THE DETRIMENT OF JUST NOT POSTING IS TO SAY THAT LIKE ALL THOSE PEOPLE GET POSTPONED.

AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF A DANGEROUS, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT LIKE THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND HOW WE'RE HERE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC, MY, UH, INCLINATION WOULD BE TO SAY LIKE, THEN I EXPECT THAT I SHOULD BE PERHAPS, UH, DISADVANTAGED AT TIMES.

IF, IF THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW, HOW WE PREFER THINGS TO GO THROUGH, OR, I'M VERY PROUD TO SAY THAT WE HAVE ONLY HAD ONE CANCELED MEETING SINCE I TOOK OVER AS CHAIR.

A LITTLE ROUGH IN THE BEGINNING, BUT, BUT I'M VERY BIG ON MEETINGS ALWAYS HAPPEN BECAUSE I NEVER MISS YEAH.

LIKE, AND I FEEL THAT WAY TOO.

YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE, IT COSTS MONEY RIGHT NOW.

AND THEN A BUILDING HAS TO STOP, LIKE, WHILE WE'RE DOING THIS.

EXACTLY.

SO I IT'S A LOT OF MONEY.

I GUESS WHAT I WANNA DO IS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I, IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS WAS JUST KIND OF A STRESSFUL REALITY ACROSS THE BOARD AND LIKE, UH, DECISIONS HAD TO BE MADE AND, UH, WELL, AND THINK IT'S SOMETHING TO DISCUSS WHEN WE HAVE OUR MEETING.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, I KNEW ABOUT THIS AGENDA ON, UH, DECEMBER 22ND.

SO I I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY I WAS BEING APPROACHED WITH IT AT, UH, LITERALLY 10 48 ON A FRIDAY MORNING WHEN WE HAVE

[03:20:01]

A THREE O'CLOCK POSTING.

I I HAD ONE MORE LITTLE TIDBIT TOO.

I THINK.

AND, AND THEN THE LAST THING I WANTED TO ADDRESS IS WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, WELL, WE'VE BEEN DOING IT THIS WAY FOR 20 YEARS.

THE REALITY OF THE LAW IS THAT LIKE, LIKE EVEN WITH DECISIONS WE MAKE WHERE WE LIKE LAMENT OR WE WORRY THAT LIKE THE APPEALS, LIKE WE MIGHT GET APPEALED AND THE APPELLATE COURT MIGHT OVERTURN US.

LIKE SOMETIMES WE MIGHT GET THINGS WRONG FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.

AND THEN THE ONLY WAY TO FIND OUT THAT IT WAS LIKE NOT BEING DONE CORRECTLY IS THAT SOMEONE IS FRUSTRATED ENOUGH OR HAS THE MONEY AND THEN GRIEVES THE THING.

SO I THINK, RIGHT, LIKE OFTENTIMES BECAUSE OF LIMITED RESOURCES, THINGS GO SMOOTHLY UNTIL THEY DON'T AND THEN WE HAVE TO COME BACK AND CORRECT.

AND THAT'S JUST A FACT OF LIFE.

THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT.

THAT'S VERY MUCH SO.