* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] I CAN GET MY VIRTUAL MEMBERS TO COME ONLINE, PLEASE. THE TIME IS [CALL TO ORDER] 5:56 PM ON NOVEMBER 10TH, 2025. I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER. WE HAVE A QUORUM. AM GOING TO CALL THE ROLE. I AM JESSICA COHEN, YOUR CHAIR. I'M HERE. VICE CHAIR MELISSA HAWTHORN. HERE. TOMMY YATES. HERE. SAMIR BARING HERE. WHERE'S YOUR MIC ON HERE? JEFFREY BOWEN. HERE. YOUNG. JU KIM? HERE. BIANCA MEDINA. LEAL? HERE. BRIAN POTE? HERE. MAGGIE ANI? HERE. MICHAEL VAN NOLAN. HERE. WELCOME BACK. THANK YOU. AND BOARD MEMBER ABDULLAH IS WITH US, BUT HE IS OFF THE DI. WE'LL WAIT FOR HIM TO GET BACK BEFORE I CALL HIM IN, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? ELAINE? NO MA'AM. THERE'S NOT. ALL RIGHTY. ITEM ONE, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES [APPROVAL OF MINUTES ] FROM OCTOBER 13TH, 2025. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MADAM CHAIR, I ACTUALLY WATCHED YOUR VIDEO, UH, AND I WANNA COMMEND EVERYBODY ON WORKING TOGETHER AND HOW LONG THEY WORKED AND HOW THEY INPUT AND HOW THEY HANDLED THAT SITUATION. BUT SINCE I'VE WATCHED THE VIDEO AND IT'S THE ONLY THING IN YOUR MINUTES, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE . SECOND. WHO WAS THAT SECOND? UH, OKAY. HAWTHORNE. GOT IT. SO NOT USED TO YOU BEING VIRTUAL. SO WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY A BOARD MEMBER VON OLAND. SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE. LET'S CALL THE VOTE. TOMMY YATES? YES. OKAY. SAMIR BARING. YES. JEFFREY BOWEN. YES. JESSICA COHEN. YES. MELISSA HORNE. YES. YOUNG J KIM? YES. BIANCA MEDINA. AL? YES. MICHAEL VAN OLAN? YES. BRIAN PETITE. YES. MAGGIE ANI? YES. AND I'D LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THAT BOARD MEMBER HASI ABDULLAH HAS JOINED US ON THE DAS. COULD YOU PLEASE SAY HERE FOR THE ROLL CALL HERE WE ARE VOTING ON THE MINUTES. YES. THANK YOU. IS THAT SUFFICIENT? MS. LOPEZ? THANK YOU. OKAY. THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. MADAM CHAIR, I THINK YOU FORGOT BIANCA. DID I? NOPE. DID I CALL YOU? YEAH, I CALLED HER. WHERE? WHAT'S UNANIMOUS? ALL RIGHT, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO INTERPRETATION CASES, OR SORRY, ONE INTERPRETATION AND ONE RECONSIDERATION FOR AN INTERPRETATION. I AM GOING TO ASK IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION FROM THE BOARD, I'D LIKE TO DO SOME ADJUSTING TO THE AGENDA. I'D LIKE TO HEAR THE PREVIOUS POSTPONED SIGNED CASES AND VARIANCE CASES BEFORE WE MOVE INTO THE INTERPRETATIONS. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION, MADAM CHAIR? YES. UH, I'M NOT GONNA PARTICIPATE IN EITHER SIGNED CASE, SO I'M GONNA TURN OFF MY VIDEO AND LET YOU ALL DO THOSE. OKAY. SO WHAT WE'LL DO FIRST [3. C16-2025-0005 Jonathan Perlstein for Elizabeth McFarland 4700 Weidemar Lane] IS WE WILL MOVE A PREVIOUS POSTPONED SIGN CASE C 16 20 25 0 0 0 5 TO TOP OF THE AGENDA AND TAKE IT UP NOW WITHOUT OBJECTION. ALL RIGHT. C 16, 20 25 0 0 0 5. JONATHAN PEARLSTEIN. FOR ELIZABETH MCFARLAND, 4,700 EDMAR LANE. OH, IS THE POST. I'M GONNA STOP RIGHT THERE. AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT GOING ON TONIGHT. THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS I NEED TO ADDRESS FIRST BEFORE ANYBODY [00:05:01] CAN GIVE TESTIMONY. I APOLOGIZE, Y'ALL. UM, HAS EVERYBODY SIGNED THE SIGN IN SHEET ON THE BOARD? OKAY, GOOD. AND FOR THE AUDIENCE, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES AFTER THE CASE IS OVER. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION, PLEASE TAKE IT OUTSIDE. YOU CAN REACH OUT TO THE BOARD LIAISON TOMORROW WITH QUESTIONS VIA EMAIL OR PHONE. WHEN YOU'RE ADDRESSING THE BOARD, PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD, NOT TO THE OPPOSITION. UH, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A BREAK ABOUT EIGHT O'CLOCK, UH, ISH FOR ABOUT 10 MINUTES. UM, PARKING VALIDATION. WHEN YOU PULLED INTO THE GARAGE, YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED A, A TICKET, UH, WITH A QR CODE. THERE WILL BE A SECOND LITTLE PRINTED PIECE OF PAPER OVER HERE BY WHERE YOU WALKED IN WITH ANOTHER QR CODE. WHEN YOU LEAVE THE GARAGE, YOU SCAN THE FIRST BIG TICKET AND THEN THE SECOND LITTLE TICKET AND YOUR PARKING WILL BE VALIDATED. OKAY. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, ANYONE WHO IS GOING TO BE GIVING TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD TONIGHT, I NEED YOU TO PLEASE STAND SO I CAN SWEAR YOU IN. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE TONIGHT WILL BE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE? OKAY. THANK YOU. BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT, NOW LET'S MOVE ON. C 16 20 25 0 0 0 5. JONATHAN PEARLSTEIN FOR ELIZABETH MCFARLAND, 4,700 WEER LANE. WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT. SUPER. COME ON UP TO ONE OF THE LIGHTER COLORED TABLES. UH, HAVE A SEAT. YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PUSH THE BUTTON TO TURN THE MICROPHONE ON SO THAT IT'S GREEN. STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. JONATHAN BURSTEIN. UM, DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION? YES. OKAY, GOOD. IF YOU'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE NEXT SLIDE FOR THE PRESENTATION, JUST SAY NEXT SLIDE. SURE. OKAY. OKAY. SO THE FIRST SLIDE IS JUST AN EXAMPLE. AND AFTER CONSULTING WITH THE DESIGN TEAM, THEY, UM, THEY ALSO, CAN WE GET YOU A CLOSER TO THE MIC SO I CAN HEAR YOU? PLEASE, SIR. FEEL FREE TO GRAB IT, BEND IT, PULL IT TOWARDS YOU. . AFTER CONSULTING WITH THE DESIGN TEAM, WE ALSO WENT BACK AND, UM, THEIR MAIN, UM, FOCUS WAS, UM, ON, ON FOR THE SIGN TOO IS NOT ONLY, UM, TO MAKE IT, UM, YOU KNOW, FIT THE STRUCTURE, BUT ALSO FOR WAYFINDING AND EMERGENCY SERVICES DEFINED. UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, ORIGINAL INTENT FOR THE MULTIFAMILY, UM, SEEMS TO BE, YOU KNOW, FOR A MULTI GARDEN STYLE APARTMENTS WAS SEVERAL BUILDINGS. UM, THE FIRST EXAMPLE IS JUST HOW WITH, WITH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT THEY'RE ASKING WHAT THE SIGN WOULD LOOK LIKE. AND THE TWO SIGNS DO FACE THE MAJOR, UH, SHELBY LANE AND THE OTHER ONE FACES MEYER. SO WHEN, UM, YOU KNOW, EMERGENCY SERVICES DON'T DO COME, THEY, THEY'RE ABLE TO LOCATE THE ACTUAL BUILDING. UM, IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THAT'S, THAT'S HOW WE WOULD LIKE IT. UM, THE DESIGN OF IT. UM, SO, UH, AND I, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE AUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION 25 2 3 DEFINES THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE AS THE USE OF A SITE FOR THREE OR MORE DWELLING UNITS WITHIN ONE OR MORE BUILDINGS. UM, THE DEFINITION INHERENTLY, YOU KNOW, CONTEMPLATES SITUATIONS WITH MULTIPLE BUILDINGS. THE ONE, THE ONE OR BUILDINGS CLAUSE SUGGESTS THE SIGN REGULATION FOR THESE DISTRICTS WERE DESIGNED FOR A LAYOUT WITH POTENTIALLY SEVERAL STRUCTURES, NOT A SINGLE MASSIVE ONE. UM, THE ORIGINAL INTENT LIKELY CONSIDERED A COMPLEX WITH SEPARATE SMALLER BUILDINGS, EACH POTENTIALLY NEEDING SOME FORM OF IDENTIFICATION OR DIRECTION DISTINCT FROM THE, THE NEED OF A SINGLE, SINGLE HIGH-RISE BUILDING. UM, THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF SIGN REGULATION, AS STATED IN THE CODE, IS TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE, NOT TO ENSURE SIGNS ARE CONSI AND TO ENSURE SIGNS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICTS. UM, APPLYING THE STANDARDS DESIGNED FOR A MULTI BUILDING GARDEN STYLE APARTMENT COMPLEX, LIKELY THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT FOR THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT TO A LARGE SINGLE BUILDING STRUCTURE, A HIGH RISE WITH, YOU KNOW, MANY UNITS RESULTS IN AN OUTCOME INCONSISTENT WITH THE DISTRICT'S CHARACTER AND OVERALL PURPOSE OF THE SIGN REGULATIONS. UM, SO YEAH, THAT, AND THAT'S, UM, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT THEY, THAT THE MULTIFAMILY SIGN DISTRICT, UH, WILL REQUIRE FOR THE 35 SQUARE FEET EXAMPLE. [00:10:02] UM, AND ALSO WHEN PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO FIND A BUILDING, YOU KNOW, UH, DRIVING OR SOMETHING, IF THEY CAN'T SEE IT AND KNOW THEY STOP AND LOOK, YOU KNOW, THERE COULD BE CAUSE FOR AN ACCIDENT OR, UM, SOMETHING, UH, AND THEN WE GO TO THE NEXT ONE. THAT'S HOW WE WOULD LIKE IT. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YOU WANNA GO THROUGH THE, THIS IS YOUR TIME TO PRESENT? NO. UM, OKAY. GO TO THE NEXT SIGN. SO THAT'S, THAT SIGN IS FROM, UM, OFF BREAKER LANE AND NEAR MOPAC. AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE SIZE SIGN THAT WE WANT ON THE WE DEMAR LANE. THAT'S THE SIZE SIGN IT IS. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S, YOU KNOW, VISIBLE AS IS FROM, YOU KNOW, WAY MARKING, WAY FINDING. AND SO EMERGENCY SERVICES COULD SEE IT ON THE LARGE BUILDING, GO TO THE NEXT ONE. THEY'RE, UM, HALO LIT SIGNS. SO THEY'RE NOT VERY BRIGHT. THEY'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, BACKLIT SIGNS, VERY SOFT WHITE LIGHT. THEY DON'T, THEY WOULD NOT CAUSE ANY LIGHT POLLUTION TO THE, UM, RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. NEXT ONE THAT'S SHOWING THE LOCATIONS OF THE SIGNS GO THE NEXT ONE AND THE SIZE. AND YOU GO THE NEXT ONE, THE NEXT ONE BESIDE TWO OF THOSE IN THERE. AND THE NEXT ONE. ALL RIGHTY. UH, WRAP IT UP IN ONE SENTENCE FOR ME PLEASE. UM, WE WOULD LIKE, YOU KNOW, DUE TO THE NATURE SIZE OF THIS BUILDING FOR WAY FINDING AND EMERGENCY SERVICES, FIND THE BUILDING, WE WOULD ASK, UH, FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE UH, S SIGN. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE. LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS. BOARD MEMBER ANI. UM, COULD YOU REMIND ME, I KNOW WE HAD LOOKED AT THIS BEFORE AND YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE'S ANOTHER APARTMENT BUILDING FOR, FROM THE SAME COMPANY THAT HAS THE SIZE SIGN THAT YOU WANT, BUT YOU DIDN'T REQUIRE A VARIANCE FOR THAT ONE. CAN YOU REMIND ME OF THE ZONING DIFFERENCE? IT, IT WAS IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONE ZONING. GOT IT, OKAY. AND RIGHT, THIS ONE'S IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. YEAH, THIS ONE, UM, FACES ALL COMMERCIAL. IT JUST MF. RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBER BOWEN. OKAY. JUST AS A REFRESHER, WE STILL HAVE YOUR TWO DIFFERENT APPROACH SIGNS PLUS THE THREE ON THE BUILDING. IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? THE, THE APPROACH SIGNS? WHICH ONES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT FOR THE, WELL, THE ONES WERE AT THE DRIVEWAYS. THIS ONE IS, WE DON'T HAVE A, I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE A SIGN OF THE DRIVEWAY. OKAY. BECAUSE ONE OF YOUR DRAWINGS, UH, INDICATED THAT YOU HAD 'EM AT THE DRIVES ALSO IN, IN THE, TO THE PARKING GARAGE TO THE, WELL YOU HAVE ONE TO THE PARKING GARAGE THEN ONE, UM, CLOSER TOWARDS, I GUESS IT'S, LET ME SEE WHERE IT'S AT BECAUSE THERE'S, YOU HAVE TWO APPROACHES, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. WE HAVE THE APPROACH FROM MEYER TWO IN MEYER, BUT THERE IS NO, UM, NO SIGNAGE THERE AS FAR AS THERE, WE HAVE A SIGN FOR LIKE THE LEASING OFFICE THERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE, UM, THING, THE, THE SIGN, UH, THAT'S ON THE, IN THE VESTIBULE. THAT ONE FACES THE WE TOMORROW LANE AND THE OTHER ONE FACES SHELBY LANE. OKAY, SO YOU JUST, YOU JUST HAVE THE ONE SIGN AT THE ONE APPROACH GOING TO THE PARKING GARAGE? CORRECT. OKAY. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE AT A TOTAL OF FOUR SIGNS TOTAL. I ONLY HAVE TWO SIGNS THAT I'M ASKING FOR. VARIANCE FOR. NOPE, I'M ASKING, YOU GET FOUR SIGNS TOTAL. YOU HAVE ONE AT [00:15:01] THE APPROACH, ONE ABOVE THE LEASING OFFICE, THEN TWO ON THE BUILDING. CORRECT. OKAY. BUT YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THE TWO. I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET A GRAND TOTAL HERE. YES, SIR. OKAY. YES SIR. THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF SANI. SO I, I REMEMBER LAST TIME, MY OBJECTION TO THIS WAS, LOOK, YOU'RE STILL IN THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING. IF WE ALWAYS MADE AN EXCEPTION, JUST 'CAUSE YOU'RE ON THE EDGE OF THE ZONING DISTRICT, IT WOULD SORT OF WHITTLE AWAY. THAT'S NOT OUR ASK. OUR OUR ASK IS WE'RE, IT'S, IF WE WERE TO GO BY THE ORDINANCE ON THIS, THE ORDINANCE WAS SET UP FOR LIKE A GARDEN STYLE APARTMENTS WITH MANY BUILDINGS, RIGHT? THIS IS ONE LARGE SCALE BUILDING. IT WOULD BE LIKE PUTTING A STAMP ON THE BUILDING. SO FOR WAY FINDING FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES AND, YOU KNOW, UH, PEOPLE TO FIND THE, THE, THE PROPERTY. IT, IT'S, IT'S SCALE. I'M JUST NOT, I MEAN IT'S, IT'S SCALED TO THE BUILDING. UNDERSTOOD. I'M WITH A GARDEN STYLE APARTMENT BUILDING. YOU NEED HELP FINDING A BUILDING, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED HELP FINDING WHICH BUILDING TO DELIVER TO OR TO, YOU KNOW, MEET AN EMERGENCY NEED AT, AT ONE OF THIS HUGE BUIL. I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST NOT CONVINCED BY THE EMERGENCY SERVICES ARGUMENT. LIKE I, IF YOU, THIS IS A HUGE BUILDING. IF YOU PUT THIS ADDRESS IN, I THINK YOU'RE GONNA FIND IT. WELL IF EMERGENCY SERVICES, IF THERE'S A LARGER SIGN OR A SIGN THAT'S SCALED TO THE BUILDING, THEY'RE ABLE SIGN. SORRY, I'M GONNA INTERRUPT FOR JUST A SECOND. WAS THAT AN ACTUAL QUESTION OR WERE YOU JUST MAKING A STATEMENT? 'CAUSE I DIDN'T HEAR A QUESTION. IT'S NOT A QUESTION. IT WAS A STATEMENT. OKAY. SO THEN I WOULD WAIT JUST TO BE ON THE SAFE SIDE. I DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. SO LOOKING AT THE MAP ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS WHERE YOU WANNA PUT THE MAJORITY OF THE SIDES FACING SF TWO, WHAT KIND OF DISTANCE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? UH, LETTERING OF THE SIGNS IS CURRENTLY 41 INCHES. AND I'M LOOKING AT THE SIGN CHART. THAT SHOULD BE GOOD FOR ALMOST A QUARTER OF A MILE. SO WHO EXACTLY ARE YOU TRYING TO GET TO SEE THE SIGNS ON THE WEST SIDE? UM, WE DON'T HAVE A SIGN ON THE WEST SIDE, THE LANE SIDE, THE SIGNS FACING EAST ONLY, ALL THE SIGNS ARE GOING TO BE FACING EAST. THE OTHER ONE'S FACING EAST BEHIND, LIKE SOUTH POINT HYUNDAI. AND YES, THE ONE, THE ONE SIGN ON THE ENCLAVE THAT FACES SOUTH, WE TOMORROW FOR APPROACH COMING UP, WE TOMORROW. AND THEN THE OTHER SIGN ON SHELBY FACES SHELBY LANE ALL ON THE EAST SIDE. NOTHING'S ON THE, 'CAUSE THE, THE WEST SIDE IS ALL RESIDENTIAL, SO IT'S JUST GOING TO BE, THE SINGLE WALL SIGN IS AT THE LEASING OFFICE AND THE CIRCULAR LEASING BLADE, RIGHT? NO, AND THEN THERE'S A WALL SIGN OVER THAT 12 BY EIGHT, BUT THAT'S SMALL. THE BIG ONE IS ON THE EAST SIDE. THE, THE, THE BIG ONE'S ON THE EAST SIDE FACING WE TOMORROW SOUTH. AND I THINK I PUT A, UM, IN THE, UH, WHERE IS IT? I THINK IN THE PREVIOUS THINGS I HAD, I, IN THE PREVIOUS, UH, PRESENTATION, I APOLOGIZE, IT'S NOT IN THIS ONE. I HAD THE VIEW OF EACH ONE WHERE THEY WERE FACING. SO THEY FACE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE MAP, UM, DID IT, DID I HAVE THE MAP IN THERE OF THE ZONING MAP? UH, CAN YOU PULL UP THE PRESENTATION ITEM THREE 19 PLEASE? IT IS THE MULTICOLORED ZONING MAP. YEAH. YES. SO AS YOU CAN SEE FACING 35 THERE WEST. THE GREEN GREEN ONE IS THE SIGN WHERE THE, UM, ONE ON SHELBY LANE IS THAT ONE ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. AND THEN THE GREEN ON WE DAMARA, IT'S KIND OF IN ENCLAVE ON THE SIDE OF THE PROTRUSION FACING. WE DEMAR SOUTH, NO LIGHT POLLUTION OR ANYTHING WILL, WILL AFFECT ANY OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. [00:20:01] OKAY, THANK YOU. AND THEY CALLED ME ABOUT IT AND WANTED TO VERIFY ALL THAT. SO BOARD MEMBER VON OLAN. I'M FROM FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA BECAUSE RIGHT THERE WHERE THAT LITTLE TURNOFF IS OFF OF, UH, MEYER AND SHELBY LANE. YEAH. CAN SOMETIMES BE A LITTLE CONFUSED AND STUFF. FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH EAST SAINT ELMO, MY QUESTION IS, IS IT REALLY NECESSARY, UH, THAT'S ONE SIGN THAT YOU'VE GOT ON THE SIDE COMING UP WIMAR, I WANNA SAY MEYER, BUT WIMAR, UH, COMING UP ON THE SIDE IS 24 FEET TALL. UH, TWO STORIES BASICALLY. MM-HMM . IS IT REALLY NECESSARY TO HAVE IT THAT BIG? I MEAN, IT, IT WAS JUST SIZE FOR THE BUILDING. YEAH. I MEAN, UH, COMING FROM THERE, IT'S ABLE TO SEE, I MEAN, IF YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION THAT YOU WANT TO OR DO, YOU KNOW, I JUST THINK, YOU KNOW, AND I, I UNDERSTAND WHERE COMMISSIONER MAGGIE'S COMING FROM, THE, THE, UM, AND IT DOES FACE, I UNDERSTAND IT FACES ALL THE BACK OF THE CAR LOTS AND ALL THAT INDUSTRIAL AREA, BUT IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, WITH TODAY WITH GPS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, PEOPLE CAN PUT IT IN. IT'S MORE, IT, IT LOOKS TO, APPEARS TO ME LIKE IT'S MORE FOR ADVERTISING THE, THE UNIT, THE UNITS RATHER THAN BEING WAY FINDING, UH, BECAUSE IT'S WAY UP TOP. AND THAT'S, THAT'S PROBABLY WHY YOU NEEDED 24 FEET TALL, YOU KNOW, ON THAT, ON THE ONE SIDEWALL, THE FRONT ONE I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH, BUT THAT ONE ON THE SIDE, THAT'S TWO STORIES TALL. YEAH. AND THAT SEEMS A LITTLE BIT EXCESSIVE FOR, FOR REALLY WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE IT LIT UP AS WELL. AND THAT MOTOR MILD ON THERE THAT YOU'RE SITTING BEHIND IS LIT UP ALL THE TIME ANYHOW BECAUSE OF THE, OF THE VEHICLES THAT ARE THERE IN THE PARKING LOTS AND THE SERVICE CENTER AND EVERYTHING BACK THERE. YES, SIR. UM, MY, MY QUESTION IS, IS, IS, AND I GUESS YOU DID ANSWER IT, IT'S NOT REALLY NECESSARY TO HAVE IT AT 24 FEET. IT, IT WAS JUST, LIKE I SAID, SCALED TO THE, YOU KNOW, OTHER BUILDINGS. LIKE I SH I SHOWED YOU THE ONE THAT'S THAT SAME SIZE. YEAH. THAT'S ON BREAKER WAY DOWN OFF OFF OF 35 OFF THE OTHER SIDE. YEAH, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT JUST SO YOU CAN SEE THE SIZE OF IT FROM THERE AS IF YOU WERE COMING DOWN MEYER. UM, BUT IF YOU NEED US TO SCALE IT BACK, WE CAN DO THAT. YOU'D LIKE US TO COME BACK WITH ANOTHER WELL, YEAH, I DON'T THINK YOU, I DON'T THINK YOU, YOU NEED TO REALLY, WE NEED TO POSTPONE IT AND HAVE YOU COME BACK WITH SOMETHING UNLESS YOU JUST WANT TO HAVE THE TIME TO COME BACK. I MEAN, IF YOU CAN'T REALLY, IF YOU DON'T HAVE, I GUESS, THE AUTHORITY TO COMMIT TO A SMALLER SIGN WHILE WE'RE HERE TODAY AND YOU WANT TO COME BACK, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE IT AND LET YOU DO THAT. I, I DO. I I DO. UM, BUT LIKE I SAID, THEY JUST SCALED IT TO THE BUILDING. I GOTCHA. IT'S NO, I UNDERSTAND. YEAH, IT'S NOT, I UNDERSTAND IT'S A MASSIVE BUILDING. YEAH. YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS ANY PLACE ELSE IT IN TOWARDS TOWN AND IN THE, IN THE CITY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OR EAST AUSTIN, I'D PROBABLY CHOKE ON IT. RIGHT. BUT, UM, THE FACT THAT YOU'RE OUT THERE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN DEVELOPMENT WISE OUT THERE. THE, THE NEIGHBORHOODS BEHIND YOU ARE ALREADY ALL DEVELOPED. THE OTHER ONLY THING LEFT THAT'S OUT THERE REALLY IS THE LOTS, WHAT'S LEFT OF THE LOT THAT YOU GUYS AREN'T TAKING, YOU KNOW, SO THAT AND THAT PARCEL OF LAND THAT'S RIGHT THERE OFF OF . SO, UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW MY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS FEEL ABOUT IT. IF YOU, IF THE BOARD DOESN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE SIGN OF WHAT IF NOBODY ELSE HAS ANY REAL HEART, BUT LET'S FIND OUT. WHAT'S THAT. SO BOARD MEMBER, SHERIFF STAI, IS THERE ANY, UH, MAYBE CONDITION YOU WOULD WANNA SEE FOR THAT SIGN THAT'S FACING TOWARDS THE MOTOR MILE? THE BIG ONE, THE 24 FOOTER OR? 'CAUSE USUALLY I'M PRETTY PICKY ABOUT LIKE LUMEN LEVELS AFTER 10:00 PM BUT THOSE PARKING LOTS ARE LIT UP BY THE BIG, UH, THOSE LIKE SKYLIGHTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THE CARS TO GET BROKEN INTO. WE'RE ALREADY FIGHTING SOME PRETTY BAD LIGHT POLLUTION OVER THERE. I DON'T THINK IT'S, IT LIGHT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE, BUT WE CAN GET A PHOTOMETRIC FOR YOU. SORRY. WELL THAT IS A, THAT IS ALSO, IT'S HALO LIT RIGHT? FROM THE BACK LIT. YES. SO IT'S NOT GONNA BE YEAH. OFF THE TOP. YEAH, I THINK, I THINK MY OBJECTION SORT OF COMES FROM THE PLACE OF, I DON'T REALLY BUY THAT IT'S FOR WAYFINDING. I DON'T REALLY BUY THAT. IT'S FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES, IT'S AN ADVERTISEMENT AND THAT'S NOT A HARDSHIP TO ME. THAT'S NOT A HARDSHIP. AND SO IF, IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE HERE THAT ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER CAN CONVINCE ME OF, I, I'LL BE ON BOARD, BUT I JUST DON'T SEE ANY REAL EFFORT PUT FORTH HERE TO ACTUALLY STAKE OUT A TRUE HARDSHIP. AND I CAN'T, I'M, I'M NOT AUTHORIZED TO GRANT YOU A VARIANCE UNLESS I SEE A HARDSHIP ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PARTICULAR PLOT OF LAND. I MEAN, WE CAN READ THE APPLICATION. SORRY, WASN'T A QUESTION. LESS IS MORE. [00:25:01] WHAT IF WE DROPPED IT TO LIKE, SAY 16 FEET? WE, WE CAN IMPOSE CONDITIONS, UH, LIMITING THE OVERALL, UH, SIZE OF THE SIGN. AND MADAM CHAIR, YES, IF I MAY, AND THAT'S WHAT HE JUST SAID. RIGHT NOW HE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CUT IT DOWN. I COULD TELL THAT THERE'S SOME, UH, MEMBERS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE SIZE OF THE SIGN, WHICH STRUCK ME RIGHT AWAY, 24 FEET, TWO STORIES TALL. BUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING AND HE'S WILLING TO COMPROMISE, AND I'M ALWAYS BIG ON COMPROMISE. SO IF THERE'S A, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT GETS YOU TO A LEVEL OF COMFORT, YOU WANNA THROW IT OUT THERE AND SEE IF HE'LL SWING AT IT. AND, UH, I DON'T MIND MAKING A MOTION ON IT, BUT YEAH, I GOTTA, I GOTTA THINK ABOUT IT. GIMME A SEC. OKAY. AND IF I COULD, I'M LOOKING AT OUR LEATHER VISIBILITY CHART, OR ACTUALLY THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD QUESTION. SO HERE'S A QUESTION. DO YOU KNOW THE DISTANCE BETWEEN, UH, LIKE FROM THAT WALL TO 35 OR THE, THE ACCESS ROAD? UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS FROM WHICH SIGN ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THE BIG 1 24. THE BIG ONE IS ON THE, IT'S GONNA BE ON THE EAST SIDE FROM THAT ONE. FROM THE EDGE OF THE OTHER, THE END OF THE BUILDING? YEAH, FROM THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING. IT, YEAH, IT'S, UM, IT SHOULD BE ON THIS PAGE. IT'S, UM, I BELIEVE A HUNDRED AND 110 FEET, APPROXIMATELY 110 FEET, I GUESS. SO I GUESS MAYBE THAT'S SOME OF MY CONCERN. LOOKING AT THE CHART, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LETTER HEIGHT AND INCHES FOR, WE'LL JUST GO WITH 250 FEET IS 10 INCHES AND 43 INCHES IS RECOMMENDED FOR A THOUSAND FEET. AND THESE ARE 41, 41 INCHES, JUST THE LETTER THEMSELVES IN THAT SIGN. SO MAYBE THAT'S WHERE WE CAN MEET IN THE MIDDLE. LIKE ARE YOU, ARE YOU, YOU LOOKING AT THE FIRE, LIKE THE FIRE CODE OR JUST WHAT ARE YOU TYING IT TO? THIS IS, THIS IS A RECOMMENDED, UH, LIKE THE, THE HIGHWAY, UH, FOR TECH STOCK FOR SIGNS, LIKE FOR CERTAIN DISTANCES. YEAH. I'M LOOKING AT SOMETHING SIMILAR THAT'S, THAT'S FIRE CODE BASED, UM, LIKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOW BIG THE LETTERING SHOULD BE TO MAKE IT FINDABLE IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY. YEAH. AND THIS IS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR WAY FINDING AS OPPOSED TO ADVERTISEMENT? YEAH, I'M, I WOULD BE OKAY WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT TIED, TIED TO THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A, A NUMBER THAT YOU'RE THINKING LIKE WE CAN LIMIT THE, THE SIZE OF THE LETTERS SPECIFICALLY? YEAH, LET ME, UH, WELL YOU SAID YOU'RE LOOKING AT TEXT DOTS SPECIFICALLY EIGHT INCHES. FIRE CODE. UH, QUESTION FOR LINGO. MADAM CHAIR, EIGHT INCHES IS FIRE CODE EIGHT INCHES IS GOOD MINIMUM FOR FIRE CODE AND THEN, AND THEN ALLOW THEM TO FIT THE, THE REST OF IT AROUND IT. I HAVE THIS LETTER VISIBILITY CHART THAT CAME, WAS HANDED TO ME BY THE PAST CHAIR WHEN I GOT MY CHAIR BOOK . CAN I SHARE THIS? LIKE, I THINK IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE TRAINING PACKETS FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE. AM I ALLOWED TO? ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY? UM, THERE'S A LIMIT ON OUTSIDE INVESTIGATIONS AND MATERIALS THAT'S NOT AVAILABLE TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, INCLUDING THE VIRTUAL BOARD MEMBERS VIRTUAL. OKAY. UM, AND SINCE IT WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE RECORD, UM, OR IN SPECIFICALLY OUTLINED IN CITY CODE, I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND RELYING ON THAT. OKAY. IN ORDER TO MAKE YOUR DETERMINATION, I ALSO WANNA NOTE THAT, UM, THE, UH, APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A MODIFICATION FROM 35 SQUARE FEET TO A HIGHER STANDARD. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO LIMIT, UM, THE AMOUNT OF THE SIGN TO MAKE IT SMALLER, IF YOU COULD ALSO MAKE IT INTO SQUARE FEET OKAY. AS WELL TO MIRROR THE CODE. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THANK YOU. YEAH, I CAN DO THAT. WELL, OR THE PERSON MAKING THE MOTION WOULD DO THAT. OKAY. WHAT I'M LOOKING MADAM CHAIR. YES. WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS ON, ON A COMPROMISING IS THE, THE, THE TWO STORY SIGN IS THE ONE THAT CON CONCERNS ME. OKAY. AND SO IF THEY, IF HE WAS TO BRING THAT DOWN INSTEAD OF 24 FEET, [00:30:01] UM, I WAS LOOKING EIGHT BY 12. WELL ACTUALLY WHAT I WAS DOING WAS EIGHT. YEAH. EIGHT BY 12. CUT IT IN HALF AND THEN, THEN LET 'EM FIT THE LETTERS INSIDE IT BECAUSE THE, THE LETTERS WILL BE A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN EIGHT EIGHT INCHES FOR, FOR FIRE CODE. AND SO LIMIT SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THEN LET THEM PUT WHATEVER SIZE LETTERS THEY WANT IN IT. WELL, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THEN WOULD BE 96 SQUARE FEET. NINE, SIX. YEAH. AND WHAT'S TODAY? ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT, SIR? YOU CAN MAKE THAT WORK. MADAM CHAIR, BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. YEAH. FIRE AWAY. BOARD MEMBER COME. OKAY. SO I WAS TRYING TO, I MADE AN OBSERVATION. I WAS LOOKING AT THIS A LITTLE CLOSER. AND THE SIGN THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING THE 20 TO 24 FEET WHILE IT'S ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION, IT'S ACTUALLY FACING THE, WHAT IS THAT STREET? WAIT, UM, THE COLONIAL PARK BOULEVARD. DO YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IT'S ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION, BUT BECAUSE IT'S, UM, FACING ON THAT SECTION THAT PORTRAITS OUT, IT'S THE, THE, THE, THE LIGHT THAT'S GONNA EMIT FROM THE SIGNAGE IS NOT REALLY FACING I 30 WHITMEYER, I GUESS. UH, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY FACING COLONIAL PARK BOULEVARD WHERE THERE IS RESIDENTIAL NO, UM, DEVELOPMENT. NO MA'AM, THAT'S NOT TRUE AT ALL. OKAY. IT, IT'S NOT, IT'S, SORRY, THAT WASN'T A QUESTION. THAT WAS A STATEMENT. WHAT WAS YOUR, SO I GUESS I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE I'M SEEING THE ELEVATION AND IT'S THE LONG ELEVATION. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING. THE, THE SOUTH ELEVATION. BUT THE SIGNAGE, UM, IS NOT ACTUALLY FACING THE, THAT STREET. IT'S ACTUALLY A 90 DEGREE TURN, UM, ON THAT WALL. SO IS IT REALLY FACING THE WHITMEYER LANE OR IS IT ACTUALLY FACING THE PARK? UM, WHAT IS THAT STREET, SORRY? COLONIAL PARK BOULEVARD. IS THAT, IS, IS THAT THE CASE? AM I MISREADING THE ELEVATION DRAWING? NO, YOU'RE RIGHT. SO IT'S NOT REALLY FACING THE LARGE STREET, ACTUALLY. THE LIGHT WOULD BE ILLUMINATING TOWARDS THE RESIDENTIAL AREA WILL BE THE, THE BUILDING GARAGE BLOCKS OUT ANY OF THAT FOR THE, FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. AND, AND IT, ON THAT ZONING MAP, IT SHOWS THAT IT'S FACING MEYER AND THERE'S UP, UP TO THERE IT'S ALL COMMERCIAL PAST THAT IT DOESN'T, IT WON'T HIT ANY OF THE RESIDENTIAL AT ALL. I GUESS THE REASON I'M BRINGING THIS UP, BECAUSE THERE IS A OPPOSITION, UM, FOR THE SIGNAGE OF SOMEONE THAT IS A RESIDENT OF THAT COLONIAL PARK BOULEVARD. SO I WAS WONDERING IF, IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO THAT. UH, WE, WE TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE ON THAT AND THEY, THEY JUST DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHAT IT WAS. AND THE, THEY'RE GONNA GET MORE LIGHT POLLUTION FROM THE BALCONIES AND SUCH BASING THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. THEY, THEY'LL GET NO LIGHT POLLUTION FROM THESE SIGNS WHATSOEVER. THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALL ON THE EAST SIDE AND THE UM, THE WAY IT FACES THE GARAGE BLOCKS ANY LIGHT EMITTED FROM THE SIGNAGE AND IT IS HALO, YOU KNOW, BACKLIT NOT EMITTING. AND IF YOU NEED TO GET PHOTO ME PHOTOMETRICS, WE CAN GET THAT IF NEEDED. OKAY. BUT ON THE, UH, ON THAT ZONING MAP, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, YOU CAN SEE THE WAY IT FACES AND, UH, THE NEXT LOT IS ANOTHER COMMERCIAL LOT. WHICH ZONING MAP ARE YOU REFERRING TO? THE ONE WE WERE LOOKING AT JUST A SECOND AGO? YEAH, THE ONE WITH THE GREEN. COULD YOU PULL THAT BACK UP AGAIN PLEASE? YEAH. OKAY. SO LOOKING AT THIS ZONING MAP, CORRECT? IT'S CS, CS UH, CONP THERE, THAT'S, THAT'S THE, UH, WHERE, WHERE IT FACES THAT IT WON'T HIT ANY OF THE YELLOW THERE. THE SIGN'S BACK THERE WHERE THE GREEN LINE IS THE 24 FOOT SIGN. CORRECT. MADAM CHAIR. YES. TO MOVE THIS ALONG. UM, AND I UNDER, AND I UNDERSTAND EVERYBODY'S CONCERNS, IF WE WERE TO MAKE THAT SIGN, BRING THAT SIGN DOWN TO 12 BY EIGHT, THAT CUTS IT PRETTY MUCH IN HALF. IT'S ALSO BACK LIT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A HALO LIT AND THE, AND LOOKING, EVEN LOOKING AT THAT ZONING MAP, [00:35:01] IT'S GOT THAT BIG LOT EMPTY LOT THERE BEFORE. AND I AGREE WITH, UH, WITH COMMISSIONER KIM BEFORE IT HITS, UM, COLONIAL BOULEVARD. SO I THINK WITH US CUTTING IT DOWN AND BEING HALO BACKLIT IS PROBABLY GOING TO MINIMIZE A LOT OF THE, A LOT OF THE, UH, LIKE POLLUTION THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. SO WHAT I'M GONNA DO, UH, AND WE'LL SEE WHERE THE VOTES GO WITH IT, JUST SO WE CAN MOVE ALONG HERE, IS I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION THAT BOTH SIGNS BE, UH, UH, LIMITED TO THE 96 SQUARE FEET. SO HE'S ASKING FOR THE FIRST ONE FOR 96 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S THE OTHER ONE. AND THEN THAT ONE OF THE TWO STORY ONE, BRING IT DOWN TO 96. BASICALLY IT'S 12 BY EIGHT, YOU KNOW, SO COULD BE COMPROMISE AND GO TO A HUNDRED. I'LL ROUND UP TO A HUNDRED HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE VOTES. OKAY, LET'S, LET'S SPECIFY. BUT HEY, IF YOU DON'T TRY, YOU AIN'T GONNA KNOW, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WHAT CAN I SAY? LET'S, LET'S SPECIFY EXACTLY WHICH SIGNS WE'RE REFERRING TO. UH, IS THERE ANY DOCUMENT THAT LABELS THE SIGNS, LIKE A, B, C OR D OR 1, 2, 3 OR FOUR? UM, I THOUGHT I SAW THE WAY, ACTUALLY IT'S THE CLOSEST THAT I, I WAS ABLE TO SEE. SO MAYBE THAT, UH, IN THE PRES OR NOT THE PRESENTATION, THE BACKUP THREE 16. YEAH. AND THE ONE AND THE ONE THAT, UM, DESIGNATES THE WALL SIGN THAT 12 BY WHATEVER AND ALL THAT AND THAT, AND THEY, UM, I THINK IT'S PAGE THREE 10, RIGHT? YEAH, PAGE THREE, MM-HMM . OR THREE SEVEN, I, I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE ARE THE SAME, BUT THEY SEEM TO SHOW THE SIGNS LOCATION. I'M GONNA TRY TO, RIGHT THERE. YEAH. SOMETHING MAYBE BACK UP THREE 13. THAT'S IT. WHICH IS THE BUILDING. THAT'S IT RIGHT THERE. LAYOUT. WE HAVE LAYOUT THIS THREE 14 SHOWS THE 24 FOOT ONE AND THEN THREE 15 SHOWS THE OTHER ONE, THE, THE, UH, THE FRONT SIGN. SO THIS ISN'T THE PRESENTATION. AND THEY'RE BOTH ON THAT, THEY'RE BOTH ON THAT ONE MAP YOU JUST PREVIOUSLY HAD UP. YES. MADAM CHAIR. IS THIS THE PRESENTATION OR THE ACTUAL ADVANCED PACKET? I WAS LOOKING AT THE ADVANCED PACKET, BUT THIS WILL WORK 'CAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE THE SAME. YEAH. UH, DISREGARD THE ONE, THE WALL SIGN IS OVER THERE. YEP. ON THE MEYER LANE RIGHT SIDE THERE. THAT'S THE SMALLER ONE. AND THEN THE LARGER ONE IS IN THE ENCLAVE ON MEYER LANE. THE EIGHT BY 24. RIGHT? THAT'S FACING THIS WAY OVER LIKE RIGHT HERE-ISH. YOU, YOU HAVE OVER A THOUSAND FEET IN THE BIG LOT FACING. SO WHY DON'T WE REFER TO THAT EIGHT BY 24 AS THE ENCLAVE SIGN. AND THEN WE'VE GOT THAT 12 BY EIGHT. SO YOU WANNA LIMIT BOTH THE 12 BY EIGHT SIGN AND THE EIGHT BY 24 SIGN TO A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET. UH, WELL, THE, THE WALL SIGN OUT FRONT, HE'S AT 96. SO WE, WE CAN LEAVE THAT AT 96. THE ONE THAT I WAS GONNA GIVE HIM A COUPLE EXTRA FEET WAS THE, THE BIG ONE ON THE SIDE. OKAY. AND THEN IF ANY COMMISSIONER WANTS TO MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, I'M OPEN TO THAT TOO. JUST, WE HAVE A LOT OF CASES TONIGHT AND I DON'T WANNA SPEND OUR ENTIRE EVENING ON ASSIGNMENT. I DON'T EITHER. WELL, REAL QUICK, ON THREE 13, UH, IT SHOWS THE SIDE, IT SHOWS THE SOUTH VIEW AND IT SHOWS THAT SIGN BEING RATHER SMALLER, A LOT SMALLER THAN WHAT, THAN WHAT HE SHOWS IN THE OTHER PART OF THE PRESENTATION. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT SIZE THAT PARTICULAR THAT, BECAUSE IT'S BASICALLY SHOWING IT AS ALMOST ONE, ONE FLOOR, WHICH WOULD BE ABOUT HALF THE SIZE OF WHAT IT WAS. SO WHAT'S YOUR, WHAT'S YOUR MOTION BOARD MEMBER VAN? MY MOTION IS GONNA BE MADAM CHAIR. CAN, CAN I, SORRY, ONE SEC. WHAT ABOUT EIGHT AND NINE OF THE PRESENTATION SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR THAT IT'S ON THE SOUTH AND THE EAST AND IT HAS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THE ELEVATION ON IT. THAT, THAT SHOULD WORK. PRESENTATION ITEM THREE EIGHT AND THREE NINE. IT'S THE ONES WITH THE, WHERE IT BREAKS DOWN THE LETTERS SIZES AND SHOWS WHERE THE PLACEMENT'S GOING TO BE ON THE BUILDING. GO BACK TO THREE EIGHT AND THREE NINE. Y'ALL MAKING ME WEAR BIFOCALS. OKAY. YEAH. THREE EIGHT AND THREE NINE IS THE SAME THING. UH, THE, THE, THE ONE, THE SIGN THAT'S ON THREE EIGHT IS ALREADY, HE'S ALREADY ASKING FOR THE 96 SQUARE FEET. SO I WOULD LEAVE THAT ONE ALONE. THE ONE ON THREE ITEM THREE NINE, THAT, THAT'S THE ONE [00:40:01] THAT, UH, WE WOULD BRING DOWN TO A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET. WAIT, NO, ISN'T THREE NINE, THAT'S EIGHT BY 12. THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S 96 SQUARE FEET, RIGHT? AND THREE EIGHT IS THE LARGE ONE THAT'S 25 FEET. OH, THERE YOU, YEAH. OKAY. YEAH, I WAS GONNA SAY THAT'S THE ONE FACING WILLIAM MEYER LANE IS THE LARGE ONE, THE ONE FACING SHELBY LANE? IT'S A SMALLER ONE. IT'S A SMALLER ONE. I THINK IT'S EASIER IF, BASICALLY IF WE GO ITEM THREE 14, IT SHOWS THE DIMENSIONS AND IT SHOWS IT AT 24 FEET BY EIGHT FEET. THAT ONE WE BRING IT DOWN TO, TO A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET. IS THAT IN THE ADVANCED PACKET? YES. YEAH. AND THEN ON ITEM THREE, UH, THREE OF 15 SHOWS THE OTHER ONE THAT HE'S ASKING FOR, IT'S ALREADY EIGHT BY 12 AT 96 SQUARE FEET. OKAY. SO LIMIT THE SOUTH ELEVATION ILLUMINATED VERTICAL WALL SIGN IN ITEM ADVANCED PACKET ITEM THREE 14 TO BE AT 100 SQUARE FEET AND ILLUMINATED WALL SIGN, EAST ELEVATION. ITEM THREE OF 15 IS TO BE AT 96 SQUARE FEET. CAN WE ALSO LOWER THE SIGNAGE THAT'S ON, UM, THE PRESENTATION SLIDE THREE EIGHT. I AM OPEN FOR ANY FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS. HANG ON JUST A SECOND. BOARD MEMBER. KIM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, PULL THE PRESENTATION DOWN PLEASE. SO WE CAN GET OUR, AND THAT'S, UH, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT PLEASE? BOARD MEMBER KIM? YES. I WAS SUGGESTING IF WE COULD CONSIDER LOWERING THE, THE HEIGHT OF THE PLACEMENT OF THE SIGNAGE THAT IS SHOWN ON PRESENTATION SLIDE THREE OVER EIGHT OR THIRD PAGE. THIRD SLIDE. OKAY. IN THREE EIGHT, THERE ARE LOOKS LIKE FROM GRADE SIX LEVELS, WHICH WOULD YOU PREFER? UM, WHERE YOU MEAN? UM, YES. I WOULD LIKE FOR, INSTEAD OF STARTING THE BOTTOM EDGE AT LEVEL FOUR, TO LOWER IT TO LEVEL THREE OR EVEN TWO. IF THIS IS FOR A SIGNAGE FOR WAY FINDING, THEN IT'LL BE EASIER TO BE SEEN FROM THE STREET IF IT'S LOWER VERSUS REALLY HIGH. NOT ACCORDING TO THE FIRE MARSHAL, BUT BOARD MEMBER VAN. DO YOU, I I'M GOOD WITH THAT. LET'S BRING, LET'S BRING IT DOWN TO LEVEL THREE. I THINK THAT'S A COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE TWO. AND YOU HAVE A, UH, QUESTION. IS IT DUE TO THE LIGHT POLLUTION? THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT BOARD MEMBER BEARING. DID I SEE YOUR HAND? YEAH, I WANNA MAKE SURE THE VARIANCE IS AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, WHAT THIS SECTION OF THE CODE REQUIRE. IT JUST LIMITS THE SIZE OF THE SIDE, RIGHT? YES. IS THERE A HEIGHT LIMIT IN IT THAT HE WOULD NEED? UH, WE COULD, NO, BUT IT'S A CONDITION. IF IT'S 35 SQUARE FEET, WE, IT'S BASICALLY SAYING, RIGHT. SORRY. OH, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, IT'S BASICALLY SAYING WE'RE GONNA LET YOU HAVE A BIGGER SIGN IF YOU LOWER IT. OKAY. I WANTED MAKE SURE I, BUT YES, GENERALLY SPEAKING, NO, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT USUALLY TELLING PEOPLE WHERE THEY HAVE TO PUT THE SIGN. OKAY. THANKS FOR CONFIRMING THAT. SO THIS, SO THIS WOULD BE A CONDITION TO GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR THE, THE LARGER SIZE IS, IS WHAT THE MOTION WOULD DO. OKAY. AND THAT IS AGAIN, UH, WE'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND PUT THAT WITH ITEM THREE 14 IN THE ADVANCED PACKET, WHICH IS EXACTLY THE SAME. UH, AND THAT WILL BE BOTTOM EDGE OF THE SOUTH ELEVATION ILLUMINATED VERTICAL WALL SIGN STARTING AT LEVEL THREE INSTEAD OF LEVEL TWO AS SHOWN IN THE DIAGRAM ON THIS PAGE. SO BIGGER, LITTLE BIT LOWER. ALL RIGHT, SO YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT? LET'S GO. AND I'M FINE WITH THAT. THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE. YES, I KNOW. WE'LL GET THE FINDINGS. JUST LET ME MAKE SURE I HAVE IT RIGHT. MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VON OLIN FOR LIMITING THE SIGN. SOUTH ELEVATION SIGN SHOWN ON ADVANCED PACKET PAGE ITEM THREE 14 TO 100 SQUARE FEET [00:45:01] WITH THE BOTTOM EDGE STARTING AT LEVEL THREE SHOWN IN THE DIAGRAM, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 677 FEET. AND THEN THE SIGN SHOWN IN ADVANCE PACKET ON THREE 15 WILL BE 96 SQUARE FEET. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. SECOND. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF STA FINDINGS, PLEASE. THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARTICLE PROHIBITS ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGNAGE SIGNS ON THE SITE CONSIDERING THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE SITE SUCH AS DIMENSIONS, LANDSCAPING OR TOPOGRAPHY. BECAUSE THE LIMIT TO A 35 SQUARE FOOT SIGN WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE, UH, DUE TO THE LARGE SCALE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE, THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE, WILL NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE IMPACT UPON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BECAUSE THE SIGN WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE OR EMIT ANY LIGHT POLLUTION TO THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE BECAUSE GRADE GRADING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT IMPACT OR CONFLICT WITH ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD OR SCENIC ROADWAYS DUE TO ITS LOCATION. AND THE DISPROPORTIONATELY LARGE FACADE AND GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE NOT ENJOYED BY OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED OR POTENTIALLY SIMILAR, SIMILARLY SITUATED BECAUSE THE 35 SQUARE FOOT SIGNS WOULD BE TOO SMALL AND DIFFICULT TO SEE AND CREATE CAN CREATE A SAFETY HA HAZARD. CUSTOMERS SEARCHING FOR AN ADDRESS MAY SLOW DOWN UNEXPECTEDLY OR MISS THE ENTRANCE. THAT'S IT, MADAM CHAIR. OKAY, SO ONE MORE TIME. THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE PROVE WITH THE LARGE SIGN ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION LIMITED TO HUNDRED SQUARE FEET SHOWN ON ADVANCED PACKET ITEM THREE 14 WITH THE BOTTOM EDGE, THE STARTING LEVEL OF 3 677 0.31 FEET, AND THE SIGN FOR THE EAST ELEVATION SHOWN IN ADVANCE. PACKET ITEM THREE 15, LIMITED TO 90 SQUARE FOOT MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VON OLAND. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER ANI, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE. TOMMY YATES. YES. BEARING YES. JEFFREY BOWEN. YES. JESSICA COHEN. YES. MELISSA HBO. OH, NOPE. SHE IS ABSTAINING. SHE'S YOUNG J KIM? YES. BIANCA MEDINA. AL? YES. MICHAEL VON OLIN? YES. BRIAN PETITE? YES. HAS ABDU? YES. AND MAGGIE ANI? YES. OKAY. THAT PASSES IS 10 ZERO. YOUR VARIANCE IS GRANTED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. YOURS. NEXT ITEM WILL BE [4. C15-2025-0026 Stephen Hawkins for Red Bud Partners, LP 1750 Channel Road] ITEM FOUR. THIS IS A PREVIOUS POSTPONED KEYS C 15 20 25 0 2 6. STEVEN HAWKINS FOR RED BLOOD PARTNERS 1 7 5 0 CHANNEL ROAD. IF I COULD GET THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE TO COME UP TO THE LIGHT COLOR DESKS UP FRONT. YOU ARE, ARE YOU STEVEN HAWKINGS. YOU DON'T LOOK LIKE STEPHEN KIN. GOOD EVENING BOARD. UH, MICHELLE LYNCH WITH METCALF WOLF, STEWART AND WILLIAMS HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THANK YOU. UM, SO, UM, HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM, THIS VARIANCE, WHICH YOU HAD HEARD BACK IN AUGUST AND HAS BEEN POSTPONED, UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T USUALLY COME HERE, UH, VERY OFTEN. I TRY TO SKIP EVERY YEAR, BUT I'M HERE AS I FEEL, UM, SOME HARDSHIP IS BEING MET. UM, I DID WATCH THE VIDEO AND THE BACKUP AND I'VE GOTTEN UP TO SPEED, BUT STEPHEN HAWKINS WITH AWKWARD PERMITS IS HERE TONIGHT FOR SOME OF THE MORE TECHNICAL ITEMS YOU MAY HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THE VARIANCE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS, UH, AS READ THERE FROM 30 FEET TO 37, UH, FEET, THREE INCHES, WHICH IS A, A SHORTER DOCK THAN EXISTS TODAY. NEXT SLIDE. NEXT SLIDE. THIS SHOWS YOU THE NAVIGABLE WATERWAY, UM, IN THE BOAT DOCK THERE IN BLUE AREA, WHICH IS OVER 800 FEET. THAT WAS A CONCERN THAT WE HEARD, UM, IN AUGUST AS WELL, THAT IT WAS BOATING HAZARDS. NEXT SLIDE. [00:50:02] I THINK THIS SLIDE IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE HERE IN BLUE, UH, THE BOAT DOG IS AT 37, I BELIEVE IT'S SEVEN FEET INCHES TODAY. AND AS YOU MOVE UPSTREAM TOWARDS THE LEFT OF THE SCREEN, IT'S WHERE IT'S BECOMING MORE SHALLOW. SO WE ARE IN THAT SHALLOW AREA AND THAT IS NECESSITATING THE VARIANCE. AS YOU MOVE DOWNSTREAM. THE DOCKS ARE SMALLER BECAUSE YOU HAVE MORE OF A NAL WATERWAY. YOU DON'T NEED, UM, TO HAVE THE LONGER DOCKS TO GET OUT FURTHER WITH LESS DREDGING. UM, SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE, UM, THE DESIGN IS NECE NECESSARY FOR THIS PARTICULAR, UM, DOCK. IF YOU LOOK, IT'S KINDA HARD TO SEE THOSE NUMBERS. YOU CAN SEE, UM, UPSTREAM ON THE BRIDGE IS A DOCK THAT IS, UH, 52 FEET, I BELIEVE IT IS, OR 57. SO WE ARE PULLING OUR DOCKS BACK, UM, NOT TO 30, BUT NOT JUTTING OUT AS FAR AND NOT CAUSING ANY SAFETY CONCERNS. NEXT SLIDE. UM, IF YOU'RE LOOKING DOWNSTREAM AGAIN FROM THE RIGHT OF THAT SCREEN WE SAW LAST, UM, YOU WILL SEE THAT THIS IS AN EXISTING DOCK. OURS IS IN THE FOREGROUND. UM, AND THIS EXISTING DOCK IS, UH, LONGER THAN OUR DOG TODAY. AND WE ARE SHORTENING THE DOG IN THE FOREGROUND. SO AGAIN, WE'RE ELIMINATING A SAFETY ISSUE THERE. UH, BUT NEITHER OF THESE DOCKS, IF THEY WERE 30, IF THEY WERE 30 FEET, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE MORE DREDGING. AND THAT IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN THAT SOME OF OUR OTHER NEIGHBORS WHO ARE SUPPORTING US HAVE, UM, AND WOULD POTENTIALLY NECESSITATE ANOTHER VARIANCE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION. NEXT SLIDE. UH, WE DO MEET ALL OTHER CODES, UM, AND CRITERIA IN THE SITE PLAN REVIEW FROM A HEIGHT PERSPECTIVE. UM, IT IS GOING TO A TWO STORY DECK. UM, THIS SHOWS YOU THAT, UH, WE ARE MOVING THE DREDGING, UH, TO, I'M SORRY THAT WE HAVE DREDGING, BUT THE DREDGING IS LIMITED TO 25 CUBIC FEET. SO AGAIN, IT'S ALL ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE BALANCING THE ENVIRONMENT, UM, WITH MEETING THE CODE THAT YOU'RE REVIEWING TONIGHT. NEXT SLIDE. THIS SLIDE GETS INTO THE.DESIGN AND THE FUNCTIONALITY. AGAIN, WE MEET ALL THE CODE CRITERIA, UH, EVEN THOUGH IT'S GOING TO A TWO STORIES. NEXT SLIDE. SO AGAIN, THIS, UH, VARIANCE IS ROOTED DIRECTLY IN THE, THE DEVIATION FROM THE CODE WITH REGARD TO THE SAFETY NAVIGATION OF THE SHALLOWNESS OF THIS PARTICULAR AREA. NEXT SLIDE. UM, WE DO HAVE THE SUPPORT, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, FROM SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND WOULD LIKE TO US TO AVOID DREDGING. SO THEY ARE HAPPY THAT WE ARE PULLING THE, THE DOCK BACK, UM, BUT NOT SO MUCH THAT WE CAUSE THAT OTHER POTENTIAL VARIANCE. UM, WE DO FEEL THAT THE, WE ARE MEETING THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA FROM A REASONABLE USE AND HARDSHIP, AGAIN, WITH THE SHALLOWNESS AND THE ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE TODAY WITH TRYING TO DOCK, UM, AND POTENTIALLY RUNNING A GROUND. AND FROM AN AREA CHARACTER PERSPECTIVE, UH, WE DO NOT FEEL THAT WE ARE IMPAIRING THE USE OF OUR NEIGHBORS. UM, AS YOU NOTED IN A SLIDE EARLIER, SOME HAVE DOCKS THAT ARE LONGER THAN OURS AS WELL. SO WE, UM, WE HAVE MADE, UM, EFFORTS TO MAKE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE OPPOSITION. UM, AND, AND YOU'LL SEE IN OUR NEXT APPLIC WE HAVE THE NEXT ITEM, UM, WITH DOC FOR 1752. WE'VE ACTUALLY REDUCED THAT ONE FROM THREE STORIES TO TWO STORIES. SO WE ARE, UM, TRYING OUR BEST TO MAKE SOME ACCOMMODATION. UM, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE TONIGHT. UM, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT. ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? ALRIGHT, UH, COME UP, GRAB A SEAT AT THE MICROPHONE. YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SURE. AND YOU WILL HAVE PERSONALLY FIVE MINUTES. I AM A NEIGHBOR. IS THAT MICROPHONE GOT A GREEN LIGHT ON IT? I'M BRUCE SLATON, I'M A NEIGHBOR AND UH, WE APPRECIATE THE, FIRST OF ALL, WE APPRECIATE THEM LIMITING THE NEXT DOCK. HOWEVER, THEY HAVEN'T OMITTED THEIR SITE PLANS, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS. ANY EVENT I KEPT YOU LISTENED TO THE PRESENTATION AND WE HAVE ONE BIG PROBLEM. APPLICANTS FAILED TO PROVIDE THIS BOARD WITH THE CRITICAL INFORMATION IT NEEDS TO GRANT THESE VARIANCES. LET ME EXPLAIN PURSUANT TO BOARD PRECEDENT AND PLEASE TAKE A NOTE. VARIANCES C 15 TO 19 20 19 47 C, 15 2, 19 10. THE BOARD IN THESE SHALLOW WATER CASES LOOKS TO BALANCE COMPETING INTEREST. THE BOARD BALANCES THE BALANCES, THE COMPETING INTEREST OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PUBLIC'S NAVIGATION SAFETY PROTECTED BY LDC 25 2 11 7 4. USING THIS TEST, THE BOARD DETERMINES WHAT IS THE MINIMUM DOCK LIE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE NAVIGATION SAFETY AND REQUIRES A DREDGE VOLUME OF JUST LESS THAN 25 CUBIC YARDS. AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO PERMIT REQUIRED FOR A [00:55:01] DREDGE OF LESS THAN 25 CUBIC YARDS. AGAIN, I DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE BOARD'S PRECEDENT AT VARIANCES C 15 20 19 47 C 15 20 10. THE BOARD AND APPLICANTS RECOGNIZE THE REQUIRING OF DREDGE VOLUME UP TO 25 CIC YARDS IS NOT A HARDSHIP. APPLICANTS HAVE FAILED TO IDENTIFY THE MINIMUM DOCK LENGTHS BALANCING THESE COMPETING INTERESTS. AFTER HEARING APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION, THE BOARD IS LEFT TO WONDER WHAT ARE THE MINIMUM DOCK LENGTHS TO PROVIDE NAVIGATION SAFETY. TO BE SURE THE APPROPRIATE DOCK LINK FOR SEVEN 50 CHANNEL IS LESS THAN 37 FEET. TO BE CLEAR, THE APPROPRIATE MINIMUM DOCK LINKS ARE NOT 37 FEET AS REQUESTED. THE APPROPRIATE DOCK LINKS ARE SHORTER THAN REQUESTED. INDEED, APPLICANT'S OWN PRESENTATION PROVES OUR POINT. CAN YOU PULL UP AS YOU SEE, YOU HAD IT, IT WAS THERE AS YOU SEE, WHICH THEY DIDN'T SPEND MUCH TIME TALKING ON KIND OF GLOSSED OVER. YOU SEE THE SECOND DIAGRAM THERE ON THE BOTTOM THAT DIAGRAM IN A BOX IN THAT DIAGRAM IS THE DREDGE VOLUME. THEY'VE CALCULATED ALL ALBEIT ERRONEOUSLY 16.22 CUBIC YARDS FOR THAT DREDGE VOLUME. WELL THAT'S LESS THAN 25 CUBIC YARDS. SO THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DREDGE 16 CUBIC YARDS THAT COULD DREDGE UP TO 24, SAY LESS THAN 25 CUBIC YARDS FURTHER INTO THE SHORELINE. AND THEREFORE, THE NECESSARY DOCK TO PROVIDE LENGTH TO PROVIDE NAVIGATION SAFETY IS NECESSARILY LESS. IT'S DEFINITELY LESS THAN WHAT'S SHOWN ON HERE AS THEY PROPOSE 37 FEET. THAT'S CLEAR. MAY I INTERRUPT YOU FOR 30 SECONDS? IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'S GOING TO WANNA SPEAK IN OPPOSITION BECAUSE IT'S FIVE MINUTES TOTAL FOR EVERYONE. UM, ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE THE FULL FIVE MINUTES? I'M GONNA TAKE THE FULL FIVE MINUTES. OKAY. JUST MAKING SURE. GO AHEAD. AND, AND AND BY THE WAY, AT A POINT OF PROCEDURE, UH, MANAGER, WE HAVE ARGUED THESE PREVIOUSLY TOGETHER 'CAUSE THOSE SAME ISSUES FOR SEVEN 50 AND 7 52. SO I CAN HANDLE 'EM TOGETHER OR I CAN DO 'EM SEPARATELY, BUT OKAY, JUST I'LL, I CAN, I'LL CONTINUE. OKAY. SEVEN 50. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE SECOND DIAGRAM, YOU SEE THE DREDGE BOX STOPS AT 41 FEET AND THE REQUESTED DOCK EXTENDS PAST IT TO 46 FEET. THEY STATE THE DREDGE VOLUME IS 16 CUBIC YARDS. HENCE ACCORDING TO APPLICANTS, THEY CAN DREDGE ANOTHER EIGHT CUBIC YARDS AND STILL BE WITHIN THE 25 CUBIC YARD LIMIT. CONSEQUE, THEY DREDGE ANOTHER EIGHT CUBIC YARDS TO THE LEFT TOWARD THE SHORELINE. THAT RESULTS IN THREE THINGS. IT MOVES THE BEGINNING OF THE DREDGE TOWARD THE SHORELINE, IT MOVES THE NOSE OF THE SLIP TOWARD THE SHORELINE. IT RESULTS IN 25 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGE. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT SHORTENS THE REQUIRED DOCK LINK TO SOMETHING LESS THAN THE ARBITRARY LIEN CHOSEN THEIR OWN DIAGRAM, CLEARLY INTEREST STATES THEY'RE OVERSIZING THEIR DOCK REQUEST, THEY COULD DREDGE ANOTHER EIGHT CUBIC YARDS AND STAY IN THEIR 25 CUBIC YARDS. IN FACT, I'M ACTUALLY SPEAKING ON IN RELATION TO 7 52, MY APOLOGIES. BACK TO THE MAIN POINT. ACTUALLY, THE APPROPRIATE MINIMUM DOCK LINKS HAVE NOT BEEN DETERMINED AND NEED TO BE DETERMINED IN SOME FOLLOWING BOARD PRECEDENT. THERE IS A SWEET SPOT WHEREIN THE COMPETING INTERESTS ARE BALANCED. APPLICANTS HAVE FAILED TO PERFORM THIS BALANCING TEST OR PROVIDE THE BOARD WITH A REQUISITE RELIABLE, TRUSTWORTHY INFORMATION. SO WHAT DOES A NEW BOARD NEED AND WHO CAN PROVIDE IT? IT NEEDS A CERTIFIED STAFFED ANALYSIS BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN VARIANCE OF C 15 20 19 47 AND C 15 20 19 10. THE BOARD RELIED UPON THE STAMPED ANALYSIS OF JANICE SMITH, A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. SHE IDENTIFIED THE MINIMUM DOCK LEAVE THROUGH TO OBTAIN NAVIGATION SAFETY THAT STILL IS UNDER 25 FEET OF DRED. THE BOARD NEEDS A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TO DETERMINE AND CERTIFY THE MINIMUM DOCK LENGTH THAT PROVIDES THAT MINIMUM. DR. THE CERTIFIED ANALYSIS NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED THE USE OF MODERN COUNTY THAT REDUCED DREDGING, REASONABLE DREDGING DEPTHS AND REASONABLE DEPTH PROFILES. OKAY, I'M GONNA HAVE TO ASK YOU TO WRAP IT UP RIGHT THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT IS APPLICANT'S DUTY TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION AND THEY HAVE FAILED TO DO SO. CONSEQUENCE YOU LEFT WITHOUT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH INFORMATION. SORRY YOU ARE OUT OF TIME SIR. PLEASE STOP. OH, I'M SORRY. YOU'RE OKAY. . WE'LL GET YOU ON THE NEXT ONE, I'M SURE. [01:00:01] ALL RIGHT. UH, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES FOR A REBUTTAL. THANK YOU. UM, SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MORE OF AN ISSUE WITH THE NEXT ITEM 1752 AND WE CAN CERTAINLY TALK MORE ABOUT DREDGING THERE. UM, ORIGINALLY WHEN I WATCHED THE VIDEO, IT SEEMED LIKE THE ISSUE WAS VIEWS, UM, VIEWS BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING FROM A ONE STORY DOCK TO A TWO STORY DOCK AND THEN WAS THREE STORY AT THE TIME. UM, THAT HAS MORPHED INTO MORE TECHNICAL CONCERNS AS YOU'RE HEARING AGAIN TONIGHT. UM, BUT I STILL FEEL LIKE MAYBE THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH VIEWS. UM, AND SO WE'RE KIND OF FOCUSING ON DIFFERENT AREAS NOW. WE DO HAVE A LICENSED ENGINEER AND HE DID SEAL OUR PLANS AND THE CITY HAS SIGNED OFF ON THAT. UM, THERE MAY BE SOME VARIANCE, I'M USING THE WRONG WORD. THERE MAY BE SOME, UH, MODIFICATION IN A DREDGING CALCULATION. UM, BUT WE'RE KEEPING SOME SAFETY ZONE BETWEEN ABOUT TWO TO, TO FOUR FEET OF ONE TO TWO FEET OF, UM, YOU KNOW, VARIANCE 'CAUSE THE LAKE EBBS AND FLOWS. UH, WE DO AGAIN, WANT TO AVOID DREDGING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. I THINK EVERYBODY DOES. UM, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT ELSE TO SAY ABOUT THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OTHER THAN HE COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT. UM, BUT AGAIN, HE HAS STAMPED OUR PLANS, SO AGAIN, WE DON'T, WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE ASKING FOR A LOT OF THE VARIANCE. AGAIN, I'M FOCUSING ON 17 ITEM, 1750 ADDRESS. UM, WE ARE REDUCING BY SIX INCHES. 30 IS THE MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM REQUIREMENT. 37 IS WHERE WE'RE AT AND THE DOCKS UPSTREAM ARE EXCEEDING THAT TODAY. SO WE DO FEEL WE MEET THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA FROM THE SHALLOWNESS OF THE WATER. UM, AND I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHTY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS. WE'D LIKE TO START BOARD MEMBER BOWEN. OKAY, SO MAYBE I, MAYBE I MISSED THIS. UH, SO YOU ARE DREDGING OR YOU'RE NOT, WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID DREDGING, SO THAT MEANS NO, UH, ACTUALLY I LET THIS TECHNICAL EXPERT, WE ARE DREDGING, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID, UM, GOING BEYOND 25 FEET, 25 CUBIC YARDS. OKAY, SO YOU, SO YOU ARE, GO AHEAD MA'AM. I'M SORRY. THAT'S CORRECT. I MISUNDERSTOOD YOUR QUESTION. NO, I, I BECAUSE WHEN I GOT THIS THE LAST TIME AND THE COMMENT WAS MADE THAT YOU WEREN'T DREDGING BECAUSE IT WAS, IT WAS OVER THE, WHAT Y'ALL CONSIDERED THE, THE CUBIC FEET. AND, UM, BEING THAT I'VE HAD TO DO DIRT, DIRT TAKEOFFS IN MY PAST LIFE AND DO CONCRETE TAKEOFFS, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS, LOOKING AT YOUR BIOMETRICS OR YOUR TRICS YOUR UNDERWATER SURVEY, UH, I WENT BACK AND, AND I RAN THE CALCS. AND I'M LOOKING AT JUST FOR THE SLIP ALONE BECAUSE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT DOING THE WHOLE, THE WHOLE SIDE OR JUST THE ACTUAL PART OF THE SLIP? NOW AND I ASK THAT PRIMARILY BECAUSE, UH, PAST HISTORY AND THE FACT THAT I WAS RAISED ON THE CINDY CENTER RIVER AND BEEN AROUND BOATS FOR PART OF MY YOUNG LIFE UNDERSTAND DRAFTS AND SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES, UH, MY CALCULATIONS CAME OUT TO WHERE IF YOU PUSH IT ALL THE WAY UP TO THE FRONT, I'M SHOWING WAY LESS THAN THE 25 CUBIC YARDS JUST FOR THE SLIP ITSELF, UNLESS YOU WERE OVER EXCAVATING AND GOING FROM THERE. SO THAT, MY QUESTION IS, HOW MUCH ARE YOU ACTUALLY, ARE YOU JUST DOING JUST A SLIP ALONE OR THE ENTIRE DOCK AREA? IF YOU, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, DREDGE, UH, PLAN, WE DO START AT THE NOSE WITH THE SLIP AND NOT THE EXISTING BULKHEAD. SO, BUT I DID MY CALCULATIONS FROM THE, UH, FROM THE BULKHEAD AND I STILL CAME OUT WITH TAKING THE CALCULATIONS AND LOOKING AT THE SURVEY, I CAME OUT LESS THAN AND GIVING YOU A 20% FLUFF OF VALUE IN THERE. CAME OUT LESS THAN THE 25 CUBIC YARDS. WE'RE SHOWING 31.11 CUBIC YARDS, UM, FROM THE NOSE OF THE SLIP. IF IT, UH, IF IT STARTED AT FIVE FEET, WHICH WOULD BE 30 FEET, WHICH WOULD BE 30 FEET OUT FROM THE, UH, FROM THE, UH, SHORELINE, IF THE DOPP WERE 30 FEET FROM THE SHORELINE, WE WOULD START, I'M NOT GOING 30 FEET FROM THE SHORELINE, I'M GOING FROM THE BULK HEAD BACK. RIGHT. IF THE WHOLE THING IS PUSHED UP AND GOING FROM THERE, BECAUSE I WENT OUT TO THE 30 FEET, UM, I WENT OUT TO THE, YEAH, I WENT OUT TO THE 30 FEET AND ACTUALLY BETWEEN 25 AND 30 FEET, I HAD LESS THAN ONE CUBIC YARD. SO THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD, 'CAUSE I'M LOOKING AT ACTUAL SILT NOW. RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE WAY OFF. WE HAVE A REGISTERED ENGINEER WHO STAMPED THE PLANS, WHO DOES THESE PROJECTS ON A, UH, ON A REGULAR BASIS, HAS DONE DOZENS. I WOULD SAY 50 OR MORE OF THESE PROJECTS. AND THESE ARE THE CALCULATIONS THAT HE CAME UP WITH. [01:05:02] OKAY. SO, UM, SO THAT'S WHY I'M, I'M, I'M ASKING THE QUESTION BECAUSE RUNNING THOSE DIRT CALCULATIONS JUST FOR THE 10 FOOT WIDE AND GAVE YOU THE FULL BENEFIT OF THE 10 FOOT WIDE, NOT TAPERING DOWN AT THE NOSE. UM, EVEN WITH THE 20% SLOUGH, I CAME UP WITH 21.84 WITH THE 20%. SO I'M, MY, MY QUESTION IS BASED UPON THE FACT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP YOU GUYS CLOSER TO KEEP FROM BEING OUT BECAUSE THE SAFETY REASONS, UM, I'M JUST HAVING SOME, SOME ISSUES BASED UPON THE CONCERNS. I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU'VE LOWERED IT DOWN. THAT'S, I, UH, I'M JUST LOOKING AT MAKING SURE YOU'RE NOT OUT IN THE SAFETY AND THE SAFETY AREA. FROM THERE, IF YOU'LL GO UP A COUPLE OF SLIDES STAFF. YES. SO YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A BOARD MEMBER THAT WE ARE, WE ARE WHERE THE BLUE IS. WE ARE ALREADY FAR FARTHER BACK THAN THE EXISTING DOCKS. SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY SAFETY CONCERNS. 'CAUSE AS YOU GO UPSTREAM, DO YOU SEE THAT? NO, I GOT IT. YEAH, I GOT IT. YEAH, I'M JUST SAYING, UH, SO I JUST HAD A DIFFERENCE IN CALCULATIONS. JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. I'M SORRY, OUR ENGINEER'S NOT HERE. I'M SURE Y'ALL WOULD'VE HAD A GOOD ENGINEERING FAST. COMMISSIONER BOEING, I THINK YOUR QUESTION COMES FROM ARE, ARE THEY DOING THE ENTIRE FOOTPRINT OF THE DOCK OR FROM JUST THE SLIP? RIGHT. I MEASURED BASED ON SLIP, BE. YEAH. NOT ON THE, NOT ON THE FULL SIZE OF THE DOCK, JUST THE SLIP. MM-HMM . IT WORKS. SO DID HE DO THIS FULL SIZE OF THE SLIP? OUR CALCULATION STARTED THE NOSE OF THE SLIP AND GO BACK TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE DOCK. OKAY, SO NOT THE ENTIRE WIDTH. RIGHT. OKAY. SO JUST THE 10 FOOT WIDE OF THE SLIP, RIGHT BY THE DEPTH DOUBLE, DOUBLE SLIPS, TWO SLIPS. WELL, YEAH. OKAY. I ONLY DID THE ONE SLIP. 'CAUSE THE OTHERS ARE SUBMERSIBLE, CORRECT? MM. YOU'VE GOT FOR, FOR THIS ONE, FOR THIS ONE, YOU'RE SHOWING WHERE YOU'VE ONLY GOT ONE, BUT YOU SAID YOU JUST HAVE TWO NOW. OH, OKAY. FOR 1750 IS ONE. I'M SORRY. RIGHT. YEAH. SO BECAUSE THE OVERALL SIZE OF JUST THE, THE SIZE OF THE SLIP, YOU HAVE A 10 FOOT OPENING AND YOU HAVE LIKE TWO FEET ON EACH SIDE OF IT. SO I ONLY DID JUST THE ACTUAL SLIP IN THERE. SO THAT'S MY, MY QUESTION IS, DID HE DO THE ENTIRE SIZE OF THE DOCK OR JUST THE SLIP? BECAUSE WHAT I'M COMING UP WITH AND I'VE DOUBLE CHECKED THIS, THIS IS TWICE I'VE DONE THESE CALCULATIONS. RIGHT. IT'S TYPICAL TO DO THE, UH, THE, JUST THE SLIP. RIGHT. WHAT'S TYPICAL IN OUR YEAH. IT'D BE KIND OF WASTE OF GOING OUT THERE AND RIGHT. SUCKING UP GOOD DIRT FOR NO REASON. RIGHT. SO I, SO MY, MY QUESTION IS, I'VE GOT SOME CALCULATIONS, DIFFERENCES AND I , SORRY, BOARD MEMBER BOWEN. WHAT, WHAT EXACTLY WAS YOUR QUESTION? MY QUESTION IS, UH, I, I'D LIKE TO DOUBLE CHECK THEIR, THEIR CALCULATIONS. I MEAN, HE MAY BE A PE THAT'S FINE. BUT, UH, SOMEBODY ELSE, I'M, MY NUMBERS ARE COMING UP WITHIN, HE'S SAYING THAT HE HAS A WHOLE LOT MORE, AND I'M COMING UP A WHOLE LOT LESS AFTER MY CALCULATION. SO I, I'M QUESTIONING THE CALCULATIONS. BASED ON YOUR CALCULATIONS, IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION OF SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD COMPROMISE ON SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD? WELL, I GUESS THE, THE IDEA IS THE OPPOSITION IS SAYING THEY CAN, THEY CAN DREDGE WITHOUT PUSHING IT OUT ANY FARTHER. UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS DOCK IS, IS OUT JUST A LITTLE WAYS. CORRECT. INSTEAD OF FROM BEING RIGHT UP AT THE BULKHEAD. CORRECT. OKAY. MADAM CHAIR, BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF STAN, UM, ONE THING THAT MIGHT HELP CLARIFY, LET'S, LET'S IMAGINE THAT YOU'RE ONLY GONNA HAVE TO DREDGE THE 25 CUBIC, WHAT IS IT? CUBIC METERS? CUBIC FEET YARDS. MY APOLOGIES. I'M NOT AN ENGINEER. YARD. YARDS. YARDS. SORRY. YARDS. NO, NONE OF US KNOW. UM, AT THIS TIME, LET'S SAY THAT'S THE CASE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO, YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DREDGE MORE THAN THAT. ARE YOU SAYING YOU WOULD STILL LIKE TO PUSH IT OUT MORE TO LIMIT THE DREDGING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE? OR WHAT, I GUESS, YEAH, LIKE IT'S, LET'S, LET'S LIKE SPECIFY THAT YOU'RE NOT GONNA DREDGE MORE THAN 25. DO YOU STILL WANNA PUSH IT OUT THAT FAR? AND IF SO, WHY? UM, NOT NECESSARILY. UM, WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, 20.22 CUBIC YARDS. UM, WE COULD, IF WE MOVED IT IN, IT WOULD BE A FOOT OR TWO THAT WE WOULD GET TO 25 QUICKLY. [01:10:01] BECAUSE AT THAT, AT THAT DEPTH ON THE, UH, ON THE NOSE OF THE SLIP, WE WOULD BE, UH, WE WOULD BE REMOVING QUITE A BIT. SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU COULD REDUCE IT A FEW FEET AND GET DOWN TO THE 25 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGING? I WOULD SAY PROBABLY MAXIMUM TWO FEET MAYBE. AND WOULD THAT POSE A PROBLEM FOR YOUR NEIGHBORS WHO ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? TWO TIMES, 10 TIMES OF DEATH DIVIDED BY 27? THAT'S NOT, I DON'T, I'M NOT BUYING, YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S NOT GONNA, SO IS I THINK IT AVOIDS A VARIANCE. I THINK THAT WE WOULD, IT WOULD FEEL SECURE WITH OUR TALKING TO OUR NEIGHBOR ABOUT THAT AGAIN. UM, SO WE'RE GONNA GUESS THAT MAYBE TWO LESS FEET MIGHT NOT TRIGGER THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION VARIANCE. I SEE. HOPEFULLY . AND THAT'S THE GOAL HERE. I'M ASSUMING TO AVOID THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION VARIANCE. UM, YES. GOT IT. I'M SORRY. TELL ME YOUR NAME AGAIN PLEASE, SIR. BRUCE. SLATE. BRUCE, CAN YOU TALK TO ME LIKE I'M FIVE? 'CAUSE I AM REALLY GOOD WITH 25 TOO, BUT WHEN YOU START GETTING INTO LA ZONING LIKE DREDGING AND, AND SILT AND BATHYMETRY, LIKE IT'S A, IT'S A LITTLE OUTSIDE MY NORMAL WHEELHOUSE. UH, I STUDIED THE CORRECT LIKE THIS CASE, BUT IT'S STILL A LITTLE COMPLICATED. TELL ME WHAT KIND OF, UM, SOLUTION, WITHOUT SAYING NO, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO COMPROMISE ON OR IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE YOU COULD OFFER THAT MAYBE THEY COULD WORK WITH? I'M TRYING TO GET Y'ALL TO MEET SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE. WELL, THE, THE BOARD HAS PRECEDENT AS I'VE MENTIONED AND OUTLINED. I, LET ME JUST MADAM CHAIR REAL QUICK. PRECEDENT DOES NOT MATTER. WE DON'T, I JUST FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION, THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING. EACH PROPERTY IS TAKEN BASED UPON ITS OWN MARRIAGE. UNDERSTAND WE DON'T, WE CAN'T WORK ON PRESS. SO YOU HAVE VARIANCE GRANTED ON 1701 AND THEN ON 1702 IT WOULD BE DENIED. YEAH. PER HARDSHIP PER PROPERTY. OKAY. WELL WE JUST LOOKED AT THE HISTORY OF SHALLOW WATER CASES THAT THE BOARD HAS LOOKED AT PREVIOUSLY. AND WHAT YOU DID IN THOSE CASES DOESN'T MEAN YOU WERE REQUIRED TO DO SO HERE. BUT WHAT YOU DID IN THOSE CASES IS YOU MADE THIS BOUNCING TEST BETWEEN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN NAVIGATION AND THE LANDOWNER'S INTEREST IN SHUTTING OUT INTO THE NAVAJO WATERS. AND WHAT THAT COMPETING INTEREST BALANCING TEST WAS IS WHAT IS THE MINIMAL AMOUNT OF DOCK LENGTH REQUIRED TO ONLY DREDGE RIGHT UP TO 25 CUBIC FEET. THAT'S THE BALANCE BECAUSE 25 Q FEET, AS YOU KNOW, INHERENTLY TAKES IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT FOR 25 CUBIC YARDS THAT'S ALLOWED, YOU DON'T HAVE A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR IT. SO THE POINT IS, THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANY ANALYSIS. AND BY THE WAY, A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER HAS NOT DONE THESE CALCULATIONS. THEY STAMPED ONLY THE DESIGN OF THE DOCK. THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANY OF THE CALCULATIONS YOU'VE DONE, WE WE'VE ACTUALLY DONE THEM. AND YOU'RE CORRECT BY THE WAY. UH, THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANY ANALYSIS TO SHOW THAT. WHAT IS THAT MINIMUM DOCK LENGTH? THEY JUST JUMP OUT TO, IN THIS CASE, 37 FEET. THEY DON'T TELL YOU. WELL THEY COULD OBTAIN NAVIGATION SAFETY WITH 25 LESS THAN 25 CUBIC FEET, CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGE AT A MINIMAL DOCK LINK LESS THAN 37 FEET. AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THAT DOCK LINK IS NOT THAT DOCK LENGTH. THE COMPETING INTEREST STOCK LINK IS NOT AT THREE SEVEN FEET. IT'S LESS THAN THREE SEVEN FEET CLEARLY. SO THEY NEED TO HAVE A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER BECAUSE THESE CALCULATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO WILD ASSUMPTIONS THAT CREATE, UH, THE WRONG END RESULT. AND THEREFORE WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THEY NEED TO CALCULATE, WE'RE NOT AGAINST THEIR DOCK, BUT THEY NEED TO CALCULATE WHAT THAT MINIMUM LENGTH IS OVER POSSIBLY 30 FEET. THAT STILL GIVES THEM NAVIGATION SAFETY. THEY HAVEN'T DONE THAT. THEY JUST ARBITRARILY PICK 37 FEET WHEN NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THAT, WHY THAT NUMBER IS SPECIAL. OKAY, SO LEMME INTERRUPT YOU THERE IN JUST A MOMENT. BOARD MEMBER. SURE. SO MS. LYNCH, WHY WAS 37 FEET OR IF WHOEVER WOULD LIKE, WHICH EITHER OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER THAT. SO WHERE DID Y'ALL COME UP WITH THIS NUMBER? THAT WAS THE, THE, THE DEPTH THAT WE REACHED AT THE, AT THE VERY END OF THE DOCK WHERE WE FELT LIKE WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DREDGE CONTINUOUSLY WHERE THE, AS THE SILT AND SEDIMENT MOVED THROUGH THE AREA, IT WOULD KIND OF, UH, ALLOW US TO, UH, NOT CONTINUE TO DREDGE ON AN ANNUAL OR BI-ANNUAL BASIS. SO TO AVOID BASIC PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE. BUT THERE BINGLE YEAH, THAT'S BINGLE REALLY, BUT EVERYBODY ELSE ALONG THAT AREA, IF THEY'RE GONNA MAINTAIN A DOCK [01:15:01] OF THAT, I KNOW THAT'S NECESSARILY THAT, THAT THEY, THEY HAVE TO DREDGE THAT. THAT'S PART OF MAINTENANCE OF, OF OWNING A BOAT AND HAVING, AND GOD KNOWS I HAD BOATS AND I I LOVE THE TIME I BOUGHT IT AND I'D LOVE TO CELEBRATE IT WHEN I SOLD IT 'CAUSE I'M NOT A BOAT GUY. BUT, UM, I THINK THAT'S A, THAT'S A MAINTENANCE ISSUE PRIMARILY. AND NOW THAT IT'S STATED ON THE RECORD, IT IS PRIMARILY FOR MAINTENANCE AND TO AVOID MAINTENANCE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S REALLY A HARDSHIP FOR US TO PASS A VARIANCE. THE OTHER SECONDARY THING IS YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, WE DO TRY TO BALANCE BETWEEN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND PRIVATE INTEREST. AND I'M A BIG PROPONENT OF, UH, COMPROMISE SPLIT THE BABY. AND WE DON'T WANNA THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER. BUT I'LL, I'M, I'M A BIG PROPONENT OF COMPROMISE UP HERE AND UM, I THINK UNDER THIS CIRCUMSTANCES, UH, MADAM CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE FOR A COUPLE REASONS. ONE, THEY CAN GET TOGETHER AND TRY TO WORK SOMETHING OUT. NUMBER TWO, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE CALCULATIONS. NOW I WILL SAY THIS COMMISSIONER BOWEN HAS BEEN IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LONGER THAN I HAVE AND I HAD MY OWN COMPANY FOR 30 YEARS. AND SO I KNOW HOW TO DO A TAKEOFF ALSO CUBIC YARDS, CUBIC FEET AND EVERYTHING. AND, AND HIS NUMBERS ARE CORRECT. SO I WOULD LIKE THEM TO GO BACK AND EITHER GET AER GET, GIVE ME AN ENGINEER ALSO THAT DOES THEIR TAKEOFF THAT I WANT TO NOT JUST A STAMP. 'CAUSE HE'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. THEY STAMP THE PLANS. THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS IN OUR INDUSTRY. YOU STAMP THE PLANS. BUT I WANNA SEE SOMEBODY THAT THAT GIVES ME ALMOST LIKE A SURVEY SAYING YES, THESE ARE THE CALCULATIONS. AND I'VE HAD TO DO THIS ALSO WHEN I HAD MY COMPANY THAT HAS A ENGINEERS ON THERE. 'CAUSE HE AN ENGINEER. IF HE'S GOTTA PUT HIS STAMP ON SOMETHING, HE'S NOT GONNA BS US. HE'S NOT, I MEAN HIS LICENSE IS OUT ON THE LINE. SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE. CAN I BEFORE YOU DO THAT? YES. I HAD A COUPLE OTHER QUESTIONS FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS. OH YES, PLEASE. SO CAN YOU JUST DO THOSE REAL QUICK AND THEN WE CAN DO YOUR MOTION. WELL, YOU KNOW THE DIRECTION I'M GOING SO ANYBODY BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF? NO, THAT'S OKAY. I'LL WITHDRAW MY QUESTION. OKAY. UH, UH, VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE MICROPHONE. ALL RIGHT. YEAH, IF YOU'RE TALKING, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. SORRY, I'VE BEEN COUGHING A LOT AND I DIDN'T WANNA INTERRUPT EVERYBODY WITH UH, THIS LOVELY, UH, THING I HAVE GOING ON. SO I AM CURIOUS COMPARED TO WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. UH, SIR, WHERE IS YOUR PROPERTY LOCATED AND HOW FAR DOES YOUR DOCK STICK OUT? MY DOCK STICKS OUT 32 FEET AND I'M THREE DOORS DOWN. THREE DOORS DOWN IN YOUR UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM? DOWNSTREAM. OKAY. THANK YOU SIR. MM-HMM . WAS THAT YOUR ONLY QUESTION? VICE CHAIR? YES. YES MA'AM. THANK YOU. SORRY. UH, BOARD MEMBER CHAIR ANI. ACTUALLY I ACTUALLY WILL JUST ASK MY QUESTION. SO I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO PROPOSE A COMPROMISE NUMBER, UM, BUT I DON'T WANNA PUT YOU ALL IN A POSITION WHERE YOU'RE TRIGGERING THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION VARIANCE WHEN YOU DON'T WANT TO. SO I GUESS I'M SORT OF ASKING YOU, WOULD YOU PREFER A POSTPONEMENT OR WOULD YOU PREFER TO SHAVE SOME FOOTAGE OFF? AND I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE THE VOTES EITHER. SO , THAT'S A HARD, UH, PLACE TO BE. I UNDERSTAND. UM, I DO RESPECT, UH, BOARD MEMBER VAN OLIN'S. UM, SUGGESTION. UM, I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER WHO HAS DONE THESE DRAWINGS. I DON'T SUPPORT WHAT I'M HEARING OVER HERE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO MEET, UM, AND LEARN MORE ABOUT THAT. UM, WE DID TRY TO MEET PREVIOUSLY, WE WILL MAKE A HARDER EFFORT TO DO THAT THIS TIME AND COME BACK POTENTIALLY WITH A COMPROMISE THAT IS SOUND ENGINEERING, THAT BOARD MEMBER BOWEN WILL SUPPORT AS WELL. SO LET ME JUST ASK REAL QUICK THEN. ARE YOU OPEN TO MEETING WITH THEM? BECAUSE IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA MEET WITH THEM, THERE'S NO POINT IN POSTPONE? NO. SURE. WE'RE OPEN TO MEET WITH THEM OR THEY'RE WE'RE NEIGHBORS. WE'D LIKE TO MEET WITH THEM. OKAY. BUT SO FAR THERE'S BEEN NO REAL MOVEMENT. IN FACT, THE AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN HAPPENED WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE AND THERE'S NO SITE PLAN CORRECTION OR AMENDMENT. SO WE HAD NO IDEA THEY'VE DONE ANYTHING ON ANY OF THESE DOCS THAT IS TO TRY TO LIMIT THEIR SIZE. OKAY. BOARD MEMBER V OLAND. OH, SORRY. VICE CHAIR. GO AHEAD. YEAH, I WAS JUST, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT THAT HAPPENS IN A RESUBMITTAL AND THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T RESUBMIT UNLESS THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GETTING OR DOING. AND THAT'S WHEN THE PLAN GETS UPDATED TO BE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE VARIANCE. SO, I MEAN, I CAN UNDERSTAND, BUT I THINK IT IS BENEFICIAL IF YOU MEET. AND THEN I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, SO DO YOU WANT [01:20:01] TO GO TALK ABOUT BOTH THIS PROPERTY AND THE OTHER PROPERTY? I SEE WHERE YOU'RE HEADED. THAT'S, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. DO YOU WANNA THIS, BECAUSE WE MAY HAVE THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCE WHILE YOU GUYS GO TALK ABOUT IT. THE ISSUES ARE THE SAME. SO I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES IN THE SAME LIGHT. WE, THERE'S BEEN NO ANALYSIS BY A LICENSED REGISTERED ENGINEER DUE TO CALCULATIONS FOR DREDGE VOLUMES, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN WHAT IS THE MINIMUM DOCK LINKS TO PROVIDE NAVIGATION SAFETY, WHICH HAS HISTORICALLY, WHILE NOT BINDING, HAS BEEN, UH, USED BY THIS BOARD TO BALANCE THESE COMPETING INTERESTS BETWEEN PUBLIC NAVIGATION SAFETY AND THE LANDOWNER'S INTEREST. MADAM CHAIR BOARD, BOARD MEMBER NOTE, IF WE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO TAKE THE NEXT ONE UP WHEN IT COMES UP AND THEN I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THAT ONE YEAH. WHEN IT COMES UP. 'CAUSE WE HAVEN'T CALLED IT UP YET, SO I'M NOT GONNA GET IN TROUBLE LEGAL OVER HERE. I'VE BEEN GONE FOR A WHILE, BUT NOT THAT LONG. UM, SO I JUST, I'M ACTUALLY JUST TRYING TO ASK THE APPLICANT AS A PREEMPTIVE SURE. WHEN WE GET THERE, AND MELISSA, YOU AND I HAVE BOTH BEEN UP HERE LONG ENOUGH. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'D LIKE TO IS, UH, MAYBE WE NEED TO MENTION FROM TIME TO TIME FOR EVERYBODY THAT'S GONNA COME BEFORE THIS BOARD IS EVEN THOUGH, UM, SOCIETY CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, EVERYBODY'S IN THEIR OWN LITTLE COCOONS AND BUBBLES, IT DOES BEHOOVE EVERYBODY TO TALK TO THEIR NEIGHBORS OR ANYBODY THAT'S GONNA BE IMPACTED BEFORE THEY BRING THEIR CASE BEFORE US. BECAUSE ONE OF THE BIG THINGS IF, UH, THAT WE HAVE UP HERE IS NOT JUST THE BALANCING ACT, SIR, AS YOU MENTIONED, BUT ALSO, UH, YOU KNOW, WE, THERE'S AN OLD SAYING THAT FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS, BUT HECK, YOU KNOW, EVERY NOW AND THEN WE WANT PEOPLE TO REACH ACROSS THE FENCE BECAUSE WHAT YOU DO, YOU DON'T LIVE IN A VACUUM. ANYTHING THAT YOU DO IS GONNA IMPACT THE OTHER PEOPLE AROUND YOU AND YOUR COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. AND IT AFFECTS ALL OF OUR QUALITY OF LIFE. SO, UM, HAVING SAID THAT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE AND THIS WILL BE FOR ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE. IF I'M, NO, I CAN ONLY DO ITEM FOUR. YOU DON'T DO FOUR? YEAH. OKAY. AND THEN WHEN YOU CALL UP FIVE, I'LL MAKE THE SAME MOTION FOR FIVE. I'LL SECOND, I'LL SECOND. SO THIS WILL BE FOR ITEM FOUR THEN. OKAY. SO WE DO ONE AND YOU DO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE SORT OF LOOKING FOR MORE THAN JUST YOU GUYS TALKING TOGETHER, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TALK NOW IN THE LOBBY. THAT'D BE GREAT. OH, THAT AND THEN FOR AFTER THIS AS WELL. YOU DO YOU CLAIRE? IT'S ALL GOOD. OKAY. THEN I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE FOR ONE HOUR. SO IS THAT A SUBSTITUTE MOTION? WELL, YEAH, THAT'S, YES, BECAUSE, UH, SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO TABLE FOR ONE HOUR. WELL, YOU MIGHT WANNA ASK THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHAT IF THAT'S GONNA ALLOW THEIR CONCERNS TO BE ADDRESSED. UH, I I WOULD LIKE COMMISSIONER BOEING HAS A, HAS ISSUES WITH, I'LL SECOND THE MOTION TO TABLE FOR AN HOUR. MY ONLY CONCERN IS THE ISSUES OF CALCULATION. I DON'T THINK THAT CAN BE DONE IN AN HOUR. UM, CHAIR. SO IS IT POSSIBLE, I MEAN, WE HAVE SOME SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS, MR. BOWEN AND OTHERS, SO I I, THAT'S A CONCERN I HAVE JUST, UH, DO WE NEED A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TO GO BACK DO A THOROUGH CALCULATION? I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I I WAS JUST AGREE. I'M SORRY. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I WAS JUST SUGGESTING THAT WE NOT LEAVE THE BUILDING WITHOUT TALKING . OH NO, WE'RE HAPPY TO TALK. BUT I DO THINK WE NEED, AS I STATED, THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TO DO THE CORRECT CALCULATIONS AS UM, BOARD MEMBER OF BOWEN HAS MENTIONED, WE AGREE WITH YOUR, YOUR CONCLUSION, BY THE WAY. WELL THE ONLY REASON I DID THE CALCULATIONS WAS BASED UPON THE FIRST TIME IT, LOOKING AT IT, IT DIDN'T LOOK RIGHT. THUS THE REASON I DID THE CALCULATIONS THE FIRST TIME AND THEN IT GOT POSTPONED AND THEN I WENT BACK AND DOUBLE CHECKED THEM AND LOOKED AT 'EM AGAIN. AND I'M GOING THIS, SO WHEN YOU SAID WE WERE DOING SOME DREDGING VERSUS WHAT I HEARD THE FIRST TIME OF NOT, AND I'M KIND OF UNDERSTANDING GOING IF YOU'RE LIMITED AT JUST TO THAT PORTION. I OKAY. BOARD MEMBER BOWEN, I'M GONNA INTERRUPT. LET'S GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE ASK OF WHAT YOU WANNA SEE AT THE NEXT MEETING AND LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH THE MOTION THAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE TABLE, UH, WHICH IS TO POSTPONE TO, UH, THAT WEEK. DECEMBER 8TH. DECEMBER 8TH. EIGHTH DECEMBER 8TH. SO WHAT, WHAT DO YOU WANNA SEE SPECIFICALLY FROM THEM? I, I THINK FOR, UH, BOTH COMMISSIONER BOWEN AND MYSELF, MICROPHONE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN ENGINEER ENGINEERING LETTER, WHICH IS BASED, IS YOUR MICROPHONE ON? YES, IT'S ON. OKAY. I CAN HEAR HIM JUST FINE. UH, I CANNOT [01:25:01] GET NO, IT'S BASICALLY, UH, IN, IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, YOU CAN GET IT A LETTER ON AN ENGINEER'S LETTERHEAD STATING THAT HE HAS DONE THESE CALCULATIONS AND THEN HE PUTS A SEAL ON IT. THE REASON I'M REQUESTING THAT IS BECAUSE THEN IT ELIMINATES ALL QUESTION OR ANYBODY WHO MAY DOUBT THAT THE THINGS, THE VALIDITY OF THE NUMBERS THAT COME BACK. AND THEN THE SECONDARY ISSUE WAS TO PUT THEM TO GET TOGETHER AND SEE IF THEY CAN WORK SOMETHING OUT. IF THERE'S A COMPROMISE, GENTLEMAN'S GOT A 32 FOOT, UM, DOCK. YEAH, HE'S UP EXTREMELY. YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE SOMETHING THAT HE'S DOING THAT THEY CAN INCORPORATE IN THEIRS AND WORK SOMETHING OUT HERE. SUPER. OKAY. SO I DID MAKE A MOTION TO TIVO, WHICH WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF STAI, BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF STAI. ARE YOU OKAY IF WE PULL THAT MOTION TO PEOPLE BACK IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, I WITHDRAW THAT MOTION TO TABLE AND WE WILL PICK UP THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WHICH WAS MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VAN OLAND, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE TO POSTPONE TO DECEMBER 8TH. OKAY. SO AGAIN, MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VON OLAN, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HBO POSTPONED TO DECEMBER EVE. TOMMY AVES? YES. SIMILAR BEARING. YES. JEFFREY BOWEN. YES. JESSICA COHEN. YES. MELISSA HAWTHORN. YES. YOUNG CHEM? YES. BIANCA MEDINA. AL YES. MICHAEL VON OLAN? YES. BRIAN POIT? YES. HAS ABULA? YES. AND MAGGIE ANI? YES. OKAY. SO WE'RE GONNA POSTPONE THAT TILL DECEMBER 8TH. I'M GONNA ENCOURAGE BOTH Y'ALL TO GO OUT TO THE LOBBY AND TALK A LITTLE BIT BEFORE YOU LEAVE THE BUILDING. UH, SO MADAM CHAIR, YES. MIGHT, UM, MIGHT YOU ASK THE APPLICANT AS YOU CALL THE NEXT CASE IF, UH, WE CAN FOREGO THE PRESENTATION AND HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE? WE'RE ALREADY PLANNING ON IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO NEXT CASE [5. C15-2025-0027 Stephen Hawkins for Tom Davis Jr. 1752 Channel Road ] WOULD BE ITEM FIVE C 15 20 25 0 0 2 7. STEPHEN HAW FOR TOM DAVIS, JR 7 17 52 CHANNEL ROAD. UH, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO BYPASS THE PRESENTATION AND OPPOSITION SO WE CAN MOVE TO POSTPONEMENT? YES. OKAY. SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE ITEM FIVE TO THE DECEMBER 8TH MEETING. I'LL SECOND IT AND THAT'S GONNA BE SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HOR. THANK YOU APPLICANT. AS I AM NOT FEELING GREAT, I AM TRYING TO GET THROUGH THE MEETING. ANY OBJECTIONS? SO DISCUSSION. OKAY, LET'S CALL THE VOTE. TOMMY YATES. YES. SAMIR BARING. YES. JEFFREY BOWEN? YES. JESSICA COHEN. YES. VICE CHAIR HAWTHORN? YES. YOUNG J KIM? YES. BIANCA MEDINA. AL? YES. MICHAEL VAN OLAN? YES. BRIAN POTE? YES. HA HAS ABDULLAH? YES. AND MAGGIE ANI? YES. OKAY. THAT'S POSTPONED TO 12 8 25. ALRIGHT, THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK, THANK YOU. FIVE, PLEASE GO TALK TO EACH OTHER. ITEM SIX [6. C15-2025-0036 Joshua Myers 12302 Split Rail Parkway] C 15, 20 25 0 0 3 6. JOSHUA MEYERS. 1, 2, 3. TWO. SPLIT RAIL PARKWAY. HE IS ON. VIRTUALLY. VIRTUALLY. OKAY. DOES HE HAVE A PRESENTATION? YES. OKAY. AND MR. MYERS, CAN YOU HEAR US? YES. GOOD EVENING. ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR ME? YES. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. WHEN YOU'RE READY TO ADVANCE TO THE NEXT SLIDE, SIMPLY SAY, NEXT SLIDE. YES, MA'AM. UM, MY NAME'S JOSH MYERS. UH, I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 1 2 3 0 2 SPLIT RAIL PARKWAY. UM, WE'RE REQUESTING A REDUCTION OF OUR FRONT SETBACK FROM 25 FEET DOWN TO FIVE FEET TO ALLOW A, UH, CARPORT TO REMAIN. UM, IT'S THE CARPORT OVER AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT'S ON THE SIDE OF THE HOME. UM, WE BELIEVE IT'S A HARDSHIP BECAUSE OF THE LAYOUT OF THE LOT. UH, WHEN THE BUILDER FIRST BUILT THE HOME, THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE 25 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE FRONT OF THE HOME. SO THEY CALLED THE FRONT OF THE HOME, THE SIDE OF THE HOME, AND, UM, THE SIDE OF THE HOME, THE FRONT OF THE HOME. UH, SO CAUSING A, UH, HARDSHIP FOR US TO BE ALLOWED TO BUILD A, A CARPORT OVER THE EXISTING [01:30:01] DRIVEWAY. UM, OTHER HOMES IN THE AREA DO HAVE CARPORTS THAT ARE WITHIN THEIR FRONT 25 FOOT SETBACK. UM, AND WE DO BELIEVE WE HAVE BROAD SUPPORT OF OUR NEIGHBORS. UM, IF YOU WOULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WE'LL SHOW YOU A TOP DOWN VIEW OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF. UH, WE'RE KIND OF THE ONLY HOME ON THIS BLOCK THAT IS FACING EAST. UH, THE CARPORT IS BUILT OUT OVER THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND, UH, THE VIEW OF IT IS OBSTRUCTED FROM THE, UH, WEST BY THE PRIVACY FENCE THAT'S EXISTING THERE AS WELL. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. JUST A PERSPECTIVE VIEW COMING DOWN THE STREET OF SPLIT RAIL PARKWAY HEADING NORTH. UM, NEXT SLIDE. WE'LL SHOW YOU THE, UH, ROAD TURNS AND GOES TO THE WEST SPLIT RAIL TO RUNNING BUCK. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. JUST A QUICK DEMONSTRATION OF A COUPLE OF THE OTHER, UH, CAR REPORTS THAT ARE IN THE AREA. UH, THIS IS ONE STREET OVER, UH, ON RUSTIC MANOR. UH, THIS WAS DOING A LITTLE RESEARCH, HAD A CODE VIOLATION IN 2009, UH, THAT WAS CLOSED BY INSPECTOR KELLY STILLWELL. THE CARPORT IS LEGAL NON-COMPLIANT. UM, NEXT SLIDE, SAME STREET. UH, HAD ANOTHER PERMIT IN 2009 TO REPAIR A NON-COMPLIANT CARPORT THAT WAS CLOSED, UH, BACK AT THE TIME. AND, UH, THAT IS ALL FOR MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEE NONE. LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS OR MOTIONS. MADAM CHAIR, BOARD MEMBER VAN OLIN, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, BUT WITH THE CAVEAT THAT THE CARPORT IS NOT TO BE CLOSED IN, UH, AND STAYS OPEN ON ALL THREE SIDES IS GUTTERED, WHICH IT LOOKED TO ME LIKE IT ALREADY WAS, BUT I I I THINK THE, UH, I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. SO THIS IS A MOTION TO CONDITIONS APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT IT STAYS OPEN ON ALL THREE SIDES. AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER THING? GUTTERS. GUTTERS. GUTTERS. GUTTERS. YEAH. IT'S NOT GONNA BOTHER HIS NEIGHBOR OR ANYTHING, BUT IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO HAVE. WE'RE GONNA GIVE IT TO HIM. AT LEAST DO IT RIGHT. OKAY. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THAT GUTTERS ON THE, JUST ON THE SIDE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER? CORRECT. THANK YOU. FINDINGS, REASONABLE USE. THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE HIS LOT IS A CORNER LOT AND DUE TO THE LAYOUT OF THE LOT, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ORIGINAL BUILDER TO COMPLY WITH THE, THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT SETBACK AT THE ACTUAL FRONT OF THE HOME. SO THE SIDE OF THE HOME WAS CALLED THE FRONT AND THE FRONT OF THE HOME WAS CALLED THE SIDE, WHICH ALLOWED THE BUILDER TO REDUCE THE SETBACK AT THE ACTUAL FRONT OF THE HOME HARDSHIP. THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT THE SIDE OF THE HOME BEING TREATED AS THE FRONT OF THE HOME MAKES ANY MODIFICATIONS OR ADDITIONS TO THE SIDE OF THE HOME. A HARDSHIP IS LONG AS THE LONGER SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS BEING APPLIED TO THE WRONG SIDE OF THE HOME. THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF HOMES IN THIS AREA ARE ONLY SUBJECT TO 1 25 FOOT SET FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT. AND THE TRUE FRONT OF THE HOMES ARE CONSIDERED THE FRONT THE 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 AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THIS ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE MULTIPLE OTHER PROPERTIES INTO THE, UH, AREA HAVE CARDBOARDS BUILT AND SOME ARE WI WITHIN AND SOME ARE NOT FRONT SETBACKS OF THEIR PROPERTIES. ALRIGHT, AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION OF OPEN ON ALL THREE SIDES REMAINING OPEN ON ALL THREE SIDES PLUS GUTTERS ON THE SIDE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VON OLAND. SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE. LET'S CALL THE VOTE. TOMMY YATES? YES. SAMIR BARING. YES. JEFFREY BOWEN? YES. JESSICA COHEN. YES. MELISSA HAWTHORNE. YES. YOUNG J KIM? YES. BIANCA MEDINA. LEAL? YES. MICHAEL VON OLAN? YES. BRIAN POTI? YES. HAS ABDULLAH. UM, CHAIR, CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE GUTTERS? IS THAT, IS THIS, IS THIS THE TIME TO ASK THAT OR [01:35:01] IS IT'S PASSED? NOT, BUT IT, IT'S TO KEEP ANY RAINWATER FROM IT BEING CLOSER TO THEM? YES. OKAY, THEN YES, IT'S A COURTESY THING. IT'S JUST A COURTESY. OKAY. YES. AND THEN, UH, MAGGIE ANI? YES. OKAY. CONGRATULATIONS. YOUR VARIANCE IS GRANTED. THANK YOU. OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD [7. C16-2025-0007 Alexa Rosselot for Reserve at Bull Creek LLC, Federico Wilensky 7501 N Capital of Texas Highway NB] AND DO ITEM SEVEN AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A SHORT RECESS. ITEM SEVEN C 16, 20 25 0 0 0 7. ALEXA OT FOR RESERVE AT BULL CREEK, LLC FRED RICO, VALINSKI 75 0 1 NORTH CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY NORTHBOUND. MADAM CHAIR, THE APPLICANT IS ON VIRTUALLY. OKAY. AND VICE CHAIR, YOU'LL BE ABSTAINING FROM THIS ONE IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. YOU ARE MUTED. VICE CHAIR? YES MA'AM. I'M GONNA TURN OFF MY VIDEO AND WALK AWAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, WHO DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, ALEXA . SHE IS ON VIRTUALLY. OKAY. SUPER. MS. OT, CAN YOU HEAR US? DO I PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME CORRECTLY? I CAN HEAR YOU. ALL RIGHT, YOUR SLIDE. THANK YOU. PRESENTATIONS ARE PULLED UP. YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND SAY NEXT SLIDE. WHEN YOU WANNA ADVANCE TO THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. PERFECT. THANK YOU. UM, MY NAME IS ALEXA RUSSELL AND, UM, GOOD EVENING BOARD MEMBERS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT. AGAIN, MY NAME IS ALEXA RUSSELLO. ON BEHALF OF ETHOS VETERINARY HEALTH, I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF AUSTIN VETERINARY EMERGENCY AND SPECIALTY OR AID, WHICH IS LOCATED WITHIN THE PARCEL OF LAND AT 7 5 0 1 NORTH CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY. I TRULY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU ABOUT OUR MONUMENT SIGN VARIANT, OR REQUEST THAT AT ITS HEART IS ABOUT ONE THING. SAFETY AIDS IS A 24 HOUR EMERGENCY AND SPECIALTY ANIMAL HOSPITAL. THEY SERVE FAMILIES FROM ALL OVER AUSTIN AND CENTRAL TEXAS, AND WE OFTEN MEET THEM ON THE WORST DAYS OF OUR LIVES WHEN THEY'RE PET ARE CRITICALLY ILL OR INJURED IN EVERY MOMENT COUNT. THESE CLIENTS ARE ANXIOUS, EMOTIONAL, AND FOCUSED ON GETTING HELP AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE IN THOSE MOMENTS. CLEAR VISIBLE SIGNAGE ISN'T A LUXURY, IT'S A NECESSITY. IF YOU COULD PLEASE PROCEED TO SLIDE TWO. UNFORTUNATELY, OUR FACILITY IS COMPLETELY HIDDEN FROM VIEW ALONG THE ROADWAY. THE HOSPITAL TO THE SIDE IS STEERED BY A DENSE EVERGREEN CANOPY OF LIVE OAK AND CEDAR TREES THAT REMAIN FULL THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. YOU CAN SEE THIS IN THE BOTTOM LEFT IMAGE ON THE SLIDE, THE THREE PHOTOS ON THE RIGHT. SHOULD THE EXTENT OF THIS OBSTRUCTION EVEN AT 20 TIMES AND 40 TIMES ZOOM ONLY A NARROW SLIVER OF THE WORD EMERGENCY CAN BE VISIBLE. BECAUSE OUR PROPERTY LIVE WITHIN A SCENIC CORRIDOR, THE TRIMMING OR REMOVAL OF THIS VEGETATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, LEAVING US WITH NO LEGAL OR PRACTICAL WAY TO IMPROVE VISIBILITY THROUGH LANDSCAPE ALTERATION. WHILE WE FULLY RESPECT THE CITY'S GOAL OF PRESERVING THE CORRIDOR'S NATURAL BEAUTY, THIS RESTRICTION HAS CREATED AN UNINTENDED HARDSHIP FOR OUR 24 HOUR EMERGENCY FACILITY THAT DEPENDS ON BEING FOUND QUICKLY AND SAFELY. IF YOU COULD PLEASE MOVE, PROCEED TO SLIDE THREE. OUR CURRENT MONUMENT SIGNS BASIS DIRECTLY TOWARD THE HIGHWAY OFFER NO VISIBILITY FOR NORTHBOUND OR SOUTHBOUND DRIVERS. AN EXAMPLE OF THIS CAN BE SEEN ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE SLIDE. IT ALSO LACKS THE WORD EMERGENCY. SO EVEN IF IT'S SPOTTED, MOTORISTS HAVE NO WAY TO RECOGNIZE WHAT KIND OF FACILITY WE ARE. WHEN A CLIENT MISSES OUR DRIVEWAY, THEY MUST COMPLETE TWO U-TURNS ON THE HIGHWAY. BEFORE RE-APPROACHING THE ENTRANCE, DR. LINDSEY VAUGHN, THE MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF AID PROVIDED, PROVED THIS MANEUVER TO TAKE ROUGHLY SIX TO 10 MINUTES DEPENDING ON TRAFFIC TO MAKE MATTERS WORK. CX O IS MEANING TO REMOVE THE TURNAROUND DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM OUR DRIVEWAY, WHICH WILL ONLY INCREASE THE TRAVEL TIME IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE. EVEN VETERINARY EMERGENCY MEDICINE THESE MINUTES CAN MEAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH. IF YOU COULD PLEASE PROCEED TO SLIDE FOUR, THESE CHALLENGES ARE FURTHER COMPLICATED BY OUR PROXIMITY TO MAGELLAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, WHERE DAILY DROP OFF AND PICK UP PERIODS CREATE HEAVY CONGESTION, LASTING MORE THAN TWO HOURS AT A TIME. IN THE IMAGE ON THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER, TAKEN ON OCTOBER 20TH, 2025, YOU CAN SEE HOW THE NORTHBOUND RIGHT LANE BECOMES COMPLETELY GRIDLOCK DURING THESE HOURS. FOR SOMEONE DRIVING A CRITICALLY INJURED PET TO OUR HOSPITAL, IT WOULD BE EASY TO MISTAKE THAT LONG LINE OF CARS FOR OUR ENTRANCE, ONLY TO REALIZE TOO LATE THAT THEY'RE TRAFFIC TRAFFIC. AND IF THEY ACCIDENTALLY TURN INTO THE MAGELLAN CAMPUS, THERE IS NO WAY TO REACH AIDS FROM WITHIN THE PROPERTY, FORCING THEM BACK ONTO THE HIGHWAY AND DELAYING CARE EVEN FURTHER. PLEASE PROCEED TO BY FIVE. TO ADDRESS THESE [01:40:01] HARDSHIPS, WE WORKED CAREFULLY TO DESIGN A NEW MONUMENT SIGN THAT SOLVES THE VISIBILITY PROBLEM WHILE RESPECTING THE CHARACTER OF THE SCENIC CORRIDOR. THE SIGN WILL HAVE A VHA ORIENTATION PROVIDING A CLEAR VISIBILITY FOR BOTH DIRECTIONS TO TRAVEL WITHOUT ADDING VISUAL CLUTTER. IT WILL BE BUILT WITH NATURAL FIELDSTONE TO COMPLEMENT THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT AND RESERVE THE CORRIDOR OF THE AESTHETIC AND INTEGRITY. WE ALSO INTEND TO KEEP THE PAD AT THE EXISTING MONUMENT STICKS UPON. LASTLY, IT WILL FEATURE BRIGHT RED REFLECTIVE PAINT THAT IS SYNONYMOUS WITH A BURNING, ALLOWING VISIBILITY DAY OR NIGHT WITHOUT CREATING EXCESS LIGHT POLLUTION. PLEASE PROCEED TO SLIDE SIX FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED DESIGN. AND THEN IF YOU PLEASE PROCEED TO SLIDE SEVEN, EIGHT, AND NINE FOR A SCALED DRUG OF THE NEW SIGN AS IT WILL EXIST ON THE HIGHWAY. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ADVERTISING OR DRAWING ATTENTION, IT'S ABOUT IDENTIFICATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY. WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING FOR A REASONABLE WAY TO ENSURE, ENSURE THAT PEOPLE EXPERIENCING EMOTIONAL PANIC CAN FIND US QUICKLY AND SAFELY. WE FULLY RESPECT THE GOALS OF THE SCENIC CORRIDOR OR ORDINANCE, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE COMBINATION OF TOPOGRAPHY, PERMANENT VEGETATION AND SURROUNDING TRAFFIC HAS CREATED AN UNINTENDED HARDSHIP THAT DIRECTLY IMPACTS OUR CLIENTELE. BOARD MEMBERS AID EXIST TO SAVE THEIR LIVES WITHOUT THE VARIANCE APPROVAL. WE'LL BE OPERATING UNDER CONDITIONS THAT MAKE THIS MISSION HARDER, NOT BECAUSE OF ANYTHING WE'VE DONE, BUT BECAUSE OF WHERE WE ARE AND HOW THE LENGTH FIT. WE SIMPLY NEED TO FIND THAT, ALLOW PEOPLE TO FIND US WHEN EVERY MOMENT MATTERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING AND FOR YOUR CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO KEEPING OUR COMMUNITY BOTH SAFE AND BEAUTIFUL. THANK YOU GUYS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WITH SEVEN SECONDS LEFT, WELL DONE. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE. LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS. BOARD MEMBER VON OLAND. I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION. MADAM CHAIR. I PASS THIS THIS SITE EVERY, EVERY DAY. I KNOW EXACTLY. AND REALLY THE TRAFFIC FROM THE SCHOOL IS A MAJOR, MAJOR PAIN, BUT, UM, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH WHERE SHE'S AT AND THE TOPOGRAPHY AND EVERYTHING. I'VE ALSO LOST TWO, TWO PETS THIS, UH, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS OURSELVES THAT HAVE BEEN IN OUR FAMILY FOR 13 YEARS. SO I KNOW HOW PEOPLE CAN FEEL WHEN THEY GET INTO A PANIC SITUATION. I ENDED UP TAKING THEM UP TO, UH, 22, 22 IN BULL CREEK EMERGENCY BECAUSE I WAS, I COULDN'T FIND ANYBODY ELSE CLOSE ENOUGH. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THEY WERE THERE AS A MATTER OF FACT. SO, UM, HAVING SAID THAT, UH, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. UH, ONE QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT THOUGH IS RIGHT NOW 360 IS THEY'RE ADDING THE, THE EXTRA LANES IN THE PASS THROUGH, STARTING OUT AT THE BY WESTLAKE AVENUE. IT'S SUPPOSED TO GO, UH, COME UP ALL THE WAY TO 180 3. ARE YOU SURE THE LOCATION OF YOUR SIGNS IS GONNA BE BACK UP THE ROAD? UH, UH, FAR ENOUGH, YES. WE'RE PUTTING IT IN THE EXACT FOOTING WHERE THE EXISTING MONUMENT IS. OKAY. SO IT SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL OF, LIKE I SAID, THE PADS ALREADY EXISTING THERE AND THE LIGHTING IS THERE. OKAY. UM, SO IT'S KIND OF MY NEXT, THE NOTION OF KEEPING IT WHERE PEOPLE KNOW THAT IT ALREADY IS, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE MUCH. OKAY. MY NEXT, MY NEXT QUESTION IS BECAUSE I AM A VERY BIG PROPONENT OF THE SCENIC ROADWAYS AND 360 HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF THE LAST ONES THAT WE HAVE. SIX 20 IS ALREADY, I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT REALLY, THEY'RE SO CLOSE TO WILLIAMSON COUNTY. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE NOT HONORING THE 50 FOOT SETBACK FOR NATURAL TERRAIN. 360 IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE LAST ONES BECAUSE DEFINITELY 71 BEN WHITE ISN'T AND NEITHER IS 180 3 ANYMORE. THE LIGHTING, WHAT TYPE OF LIGHTING ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE FOR THIS SIGN? WE CURRENTLY HAVE UPLIGHTING AND WE ARE KEEPING THE UPLIGHTING. IT WILL NOT BE INTERNAL. UM, IT IS JUST, IT'S ONE OF THE EXISTING AS OF TODAY. SO REALLY WE'RE JUST REPLACING THAT MONUMENT. GOT YOU. OKAY, MADAM, I'LL MAKE A CHAIR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND THAT. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VON OLEN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER POTI. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, LET'S FINDINGS. OH, ACTUALLY NO FINDINGS. I ONE, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU DID SEE THERE WAS ONE LETTER OF OPPOSITION IN THE I DID. OKAY. DID FINDINGS, BUT I, I'M, AND I, AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE PEOPLE COME FROM. AGAIN, YOU KNOW, NORMALLY ON A CYNIC ROADWAY, I'M A NO-GO FOR SIGNS. SAME. BUT THIS PARTICULAR, I EVEN DROVE PAST IT TODAY TWICE, GOING UP TO HEV AND BACK, YOU KNOW, SO, I MEAN, I KNOW YOU, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THAT THAT PLACE EXISTS IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT. I MEAN, IT, IT SURPRISED ME. I DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL WE GOT OUR PACKET. OH, I DID. I HAD A CAT SAVED THERE ABOUT THREE MONTHS AGO. WELL, THERE YOU GO. I KNOW EXACTLY WHERE IT'S AT. SO, UM, SIGN WOULD'VE HELPED. IT WAS A LITTLE DARK. YES, MA'AM. THE BOARD MUST DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OR SUFFICIENT SUFFICIENCY OF, AND [01:45:01] I SHOULD HAVE READ THIS WITH THE OTHER ONE, BUT I I'LL PUT IT IN THE RECORD NOW. AND THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE FINDINGS DESCRIBED BELOW. IN ORDER TO GRANT YOUR REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE, THE BOARD MUST FIRST MAKE ONE OR MORE OF THE FINDINGS DESCRIBED UNDER ONE, TWO, AND THREE BELOW. AND THE BOARD MUST MAKE THE FINDING DESCRIBED IN ITEM FOUR BELOW. ONE IS THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF ARTICLE PROHIBITS ANY PRO ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGNS ON THE SITE CONSIDERING THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE SITE SUCH AS DIMENSIONS, LANDSCAPING, AND IN THIS CASE, TOPOGRAPHY DUE TO THE SITE'S TO, UH, TOP TOPOGRAPHY AND LANDSCAPING. THE BUILDING AND CURRENT SIGNAGE IS NOT READILY VISIBLE FOR PASSING MOTORS OR VISIT VISITORS. TWO, THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE IMPACT UPON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BECAUSE THE ENHANCED VISIBILITY WILL CLEARLY DIRECT CLIENTS TO THE CORRECT ENTRANCEWAY FOR THE EMERGENCY VETERINARY CLINIC. THREE, THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSE OF THIS SIGN ORDINANCE, BECAUSE THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO PRESERVE COMMUNITY AESTHETICS, ENSURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PREVENT VISUAL CLUTTER. AND FOUR, THE GROUNDING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, NOT ENJOYED BY OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED OR POTENTIALLY SIMILARLY SITUATED BECAUSE THE ADDITIONAL MONUMENT SIGN IS INTENDED TO REMEDY THESE SITE SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND ENSURE THAT THE CLINIC CAN BE SAFELY AND EFFECTIVELY LOCATED BY CLIENTS SEEKING EMERGENCY VETERINARY TREATMENT. THAT'S IT MA'AM. AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER OF ONE OWEN. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER POTE. LET'S CALL THE VOTES. TOMMY YS. YES. SAMIR BARING. YES. JEFFREY BOWEN. YES. JESSICA COHEN. YES. MELISSA. OH, MELISSA HAWTHORN IS ABSTAINING YOUNG J KIM? YES. BIANCA MEDINA. AL? YES. MICHAEL VON OLAN. YES. BRIAN POIT. YES. HASI ABULA. YES. AND MAGGIE ANI? YES. OKAY. CONGRATULATIONS. YOUR VARIANCE IS GRANTED. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL RIGHT. I HAD PLANNED ON CALLING RECESS, BUT THAT WENT SIGNIFICANTLY QUICKER THAN I EXPECTED. SO LET'S [8. C15-2025-0038 William T. Fox 9730 Anchusa Trail] GO AHEAD AND TAKE UP ITEM EIGHT FIRST. UH, ITEM EIGHT C 15 20 25 0 0 3 8. WILLIAM T. FOX 9 7 3 0 AND CHOOSE A TRAIL. OKAY. IF I CAN GET YOU TO COME UP, HAVE A SEAT, PRESS THE RED BUTTON ON THE MICROPHONE SO IT'S GREEN. FEEL FREE TO PULL IT CLOSE TO YOU. WHEN YOU'RE READY TO ADVANCE THE NEXT SLIDE, JUST SAY NEXT SLIDE. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. UH, WILLIAM FOX. UH, 9 7 30 IN CHU TRAIL IN AUSTIN, TEXAS. MY, UH, PURPOSE FOR HERE TONIGHT IS TO REQUEST AN ALLOWANCE OR YES, FOR, UM, HALFING THE REQUIRED SETBACKS FROM THE SIDE YARD AND THE REAR YARD AT MY PROPERTY. UM, I'M GOING TO PUT IN A GARAGE SLASH WORKSHOP, AND THE CURRENT SETBACKS ARE 10 FEET FROM THE SIDE AND 20 FEET FROM THE REAR. AND I'M ASKING THAT TO BE IN HALF SO THAT I CAN'T ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF THE, UH, BUILDING THAT I WOULD LIKE. UM, RIGHT NOW, THE CURRENT SETBACKS WOULD REQUIRE US TO ESSENTIALLY CUT ABOUT 60% OF THE FIG TREE THAT WE'VE HAD FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. THAT PRODUCES A GREAT DEAL OF FIGS EVERY YEAR THAT WE PROVIDE TO OURSELVES AND FAMILY AND FRIENDS. UM, SO THAT, ANYWAY, UM, SO IF WE HAD THE SETBACKS IN HALF, I COULD ACCOMMODATE MINIMAL PRUNING OF THAT TREE. UM, THE OTHER AREAS THAT I WOULD HAVE, UH, OH, UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SORRY. YEAH, SO THE, THE, THE PIC PHOTO HERE IS FROM GOOGLE MAPS. THE, UM, TEAL OR DARK BLUE IS WHERE THE SHED PROPOSED IS, UH, CURRENTLY IT SITS AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO MY NORTHERN NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE ALREADY APPROVED ANY OF OUR PLANS. IT IS THE LEAST COVERED BY ANY OTHER FOLIAGE THERE. WE HAVE SEVERAL LIVE OAKS, UM, JUNIPERS, POSSUM HALLS, SOME TEXAS, UH, PERCENTAGE AS WELL AS, UH, CEDAR ELMS. AND THIS IS THE PLACE WHERE IT INVOLVES LEAST, UH, PROBLEM WITH THAT. IT'S ALSO VERY FLAT. UH, DON'T REALLY HAVE TO DO MUCH IN THE WAY OF EXCAVATION. UM, OUR HOUSE SITS, UH, THE VERY FRONT OF OUR HOUSE SITS ON A DOWNHILL FROM OUR NEIGHBORING, UH, PEOPLE [01:50:01] TO THE WEST. AND EVERY TIME IT RAINS, WE HAVE WATER COME DOWN THROUGH OUR PROPERTY THAT THEN TURNS INTO A WET WATER CREEK, WHICH GOES OUT THE, UH, SOUTHEAST SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THIS IS THE, UH, SURVEY MAP AND THAT, AGAIN, THAT L-SHAPED TOWARD REAR IS WHERE THE BUILDING PROPOSED WOULD BE. UM, THE RECTANGLE TO THE RIGHT IS THE FLOODWATER, UH, A HUNDRED YARD YARD FLOODPLAIN WHERE THE WATER COLLECTS AND GOES DOWNSTREAM. FROM THERE, UH, EVERYTHING TO THE RIGHT ON THE PICTURE AND FORWARD HAS A LOT OF FOLIAGE. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS A PICTURE OF WHERE MY, MY TRAILER IS CURRENTLY SITTING. UM, THAT HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY OUR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND THAT'S VERY MUCH WHERE THE SHED WOULD BE AS WELL. SLIGHTLY FORWARD TO THAT DUE TO THE 10 FOOT, I'M SORRY. UM, REQUESTED 10 FOOT VARIANCE ON THE REAR YARD. UH, THE F TREE THAT YOU SEE IS TO THE RIGHT. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATION OR, UH, RULES WOULD SHOW APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH OF THE TREE WOULD HAVE TO BE CUT TO ALLOW IT. UH, THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, UH, WOULD, IF YOU CUT IT IN HALF, ONLY FIVE FEET, IT SHOWS THAT VERY MINOR CORNER RIGHT THERE, THAT WOULD'VE TO BE PRUNED. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, IT'S CLOSER TO A VERSION OF THE SAME THING. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF IT, UH, AGAIN, SHOWING THE PART THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PRUNED, UH, AS IT SITS. UM, NEXT SLIDE. AND THIS IS THE FLAT AREA I WAS REFERRING TO. UH, THAT IS ALREADY FAIRLY BARE. UH, THE TREE ON THE UPPER PICTURE IS A, A PEAR TREE THAT WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE AFFECTED. UH, THE FENCE THAT'S IN THE BACK IS ALREADY EIGHT FEET TALL. IT WAS THAT WAY WHEN WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE AND IT BACKS TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WHICH HAS NOTHING THERE. UM, NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS AN AREA, UH, THAT I WOULD HAVE TO EXCAVATE OR REMOVE THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY PUT IN, UM, TO GET RID OF THE, THE FIRE PIT AND THE, SORRY, THE PEAR TREE THAT'S ALREADY THERE IF THE CURRENT SETBACKS WERE MAINTAINED. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS PICTURES FROM WHERE THE BUILDING WOULD BE AS IT LOOKS TOWARD THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. THE ONES THAT ARE UP CLOSE AT THE TOP SHOW THE FENCE LOOKING TOWARD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, HIGHWAY 71, WHERE THERE'S NO ONE THERE. THIS WOULDN'T AFFECT ANY OF THEIR, UM, PLEASURE IN LIFE OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS AN ALTERNATE AREA, UM, THAT WOULD BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FIG TREE. UH, THE OAK TREE THAT'S IN THE MIDDLE IS A LIVE OAK THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. I MEASURED IT'S ABOUT EIGHT FEET CIRCUM, COMFORT'S AT ABOUT FOUR FEET TALL. UH, THE CANOPY GOES TO WHERE THE SHADOW IS AND THE FIG TREE IS JUST TO THE LEFT ON THE PICTURE. THERE'S A CURRENT DRAINAGE AREA ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE THAT I WOULD HAVE TO COVER OVER AND ALSO TAKE OUT THE JUNIPER AND THE UM, UH, TREES THAT ARE THERE IN THE CURRENT REGION. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THIS IS THE ONLY OTHER ALTERNATIVE THAT WOULD BE UP FRONT, BUT THE HOMEOWNERS WOULDN'T HAVE. SO ALLOW THAT BECAUSE IT FACES THE STREET AND THAT'S, UH, CONSIDERED A VISUAL. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE. LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UH, I'LL START BY SAYING THANK YOU. THIS WAS A REALLY GOOD PRESENTATION AND, UH, OH, VERY . LOVE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAVE TREES. ARE THERE QUESTIONS OR A MOTION? MADAM CHAIR, THE BOARD MEMBER OF VAN OLIN, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR COMING AND ASKING FOR PERMISSION, NOT FORGIVENESS. IT'S A BIG ONE. UM, SECOND, AND IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT, UH, I SEE WHERE HE DOES HAVE SUPPORT OF HIS, HIS IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. I'LL, I'LL, I'LL SECOND. OKAY. UH, HAVE BOARD NUMBER. BOEING HAD A QUESTION. UH, BASICALLY WHAT SIZE, WHAT SIZE IS YOUR BUILDING? I GUESS THE ONE FOR YOUR TRAILER IS BASICALLY JUST A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN A TRAILER. YES, SIR. SO IT'S GONNA BE AN LHA IS THE DESIGN. AND THE PART THAT'S GOING TO BE FACING FORWARD FOR EASE OF INGRESS IS GONNA BE 15 FEET WIDE BY 30 FEET LONG. 'CAUSE THE TRAILER ITSELF IS EIGHT FEET BY 25. OKAY. AND THEN THE, THE PART THAT HITS OFF TO THE RIGHT IS GOING TO BE A LEAN TO, THAT ACTUALLY GOES DOWN, IT'LL END UP BEING JUST AS HIGH AS THE FENCE. AND IT'S GOING TO BE ABOUT 25 FEET LONG BY, I THINK 15 FEET WIDE. OKAY. THAT'S, I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT INFORMATION SO I KIND OF UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU WERE GOING. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, VICE CHAIR, HORNE. UH, WE CANNOT HEAR YOU, MA'AM. SORRY, I KEEP COUGHING. SO I KEEP MUTING. UH, IS THIS SINGLE STORY, SIR? YES, MA'AM. SO IT'S LESS THAN 15 FEET IN HEIGHT? YES, MA'AM. YEAH. THE, THE, THE, THE LEGS, WHICH IS WHERE THE ROOF COMES DOWN TO IS AT 13 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE THE TRAILER HEIGHT. AND THEN THE ROOF, I'M [01:55:01] GOING A TWO 12 PITCH, SO IT'LL BE LIKE 14 FEET, SIX INCHES, 14 FEET INCHES. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION, SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? FINDINGS, REASONABLE USE. THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS ALONG THE HOA LIMIT, THE AREAS IN WHICH BUILDING COULD BE BUILT, SETBACK IS DEEMED EXCESSIVE AS THE REAR YARD YARD BACKS TO AN UNUSED GREEN AREA HARDSHIP. THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT THEY HAVE SEVERAL MA SEVERAL MATURE TREES. LIVE OAK CONCLUDED, I'M GONNA LEAVE IT RIGHT THERE. THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THEIR PROPERTY IS THE HEADWATER COLLECTION POINT FOR THE WET WEATHER CREEK THAT FORMS ONLY DURING SIGNIFICANT RAINFALL. AND THE SLOPE OF THEIR PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE WATER COLLECTION POINT. THE 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, AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATION OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH A PROPERTY IS LOCATED. BECAUSE THE PROPOSED BUILDING AREA IS AT THE VERY REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND THE UNUSED GREEN AREA GREENBELT THERE OFFERS NO SIGNIFICANT VISIBILITY TO ADJOINING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. A FRONT HIGHWAY 71. THAT'S IT, MADAM. ALL RIGHTY. AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VON OLIN. SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE. LET'S CALL THE VOTE. TOMMY GATES. YES. SEMI BEAR BARING. YES. JEFFREY BOWEN. YES. JESSICA COHEN. YES. MELISSA HAWTHORNE. YES. YOUNG J KIM? YES. BIANCA MEDINA. AL? YES. MICHAEL VON OLEN? YES. BRIAN POTENT? YES. HAS ABULA? YES. AND MAGGIE ANI? YES. OKAY. CONGRATULATIONS. YOUR VARIANCE IS GRANTED. IF YOU DON'T MIND, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO MS. LINA RAMIREZ. SHE'S BEEN QUITE LUCKY. YOU CAN TELL HER THANK YOU. SHE'S FANTASTIC. AS OFTEN AS YOU WANT. 'CAUSE SHE'S AMAZING. LIKE WE AGREED. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. THE TIME IS MADAM CHAIR. CAN WE JUST, UH, SEE IF WE'RE GONNA OPEN UP NINE OR NOT? UH, CAN WE WAIT TILL WE COME BACK? I REALLY, OKAY, THANKS. UM, THE TIME IS 7:53 PM WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A 15 MINUTE RECESS. SO WE WILL COME BACK AT 8:08 PM I'M GONNA CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER. WE'RE GOING TO START WITH NEW [2. C15-2025-0041 Christ May (Appellant) Warren Konkel (Owner) 6706 Bridge Hill Cove ] INTERPRETATION KEY C 15 20 25 0 0 4 1 CHRIST MAY AS THE APPELLANT WARREN CONEL AS THE OWNER. 6 7 0 6 BRIDGE HILL COVE. OKAY. SO WE WILL START WITH JUST ONE SECOND. A REPORT FROM CITY STAFF. GOOD EVENING BOARD MEMBERS. BRENT LLOYD, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WITH AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, A DS. UM, AND, UH, I'M HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK TO THIS APPEAL AND ALSO JOINING ME IS THE DEPUTY BUILDING OFFICIAL, STEVE LEACH. AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. MY COMMENTS ARE GONNA BE VERY BRIEF. UM, WE HAVE THE BENEFIT THIS EVENING ON THIS CASE OF HAVING PARTIES THAT ARE WELL REPRESENTED, UM, BY COUNSEL. AND THEY WILL BOTH, I THINK, BE PROVIDING ROBUST PRESENTATIONS THAT ELUCIDATE THE DIFFERENT ISSUES. FUNDAMENTALLY, THIS IS ABOUT, UM, THE PRIMARY ISSUES IN THIS CASE HINGE ON THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MODIFYING NON COMPLYING STRUCTURES, STRUCTURES THAT WERE BUILT IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AND THEIR, THE USES THEMSELVES ARE CONFORMING WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT. UM, BUT THE STRUCTURES NO LONGER MEET CURRENT SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. UM, AND WHAT, TO WHAT EXTENT CAN YOU MODIFY THOSE STRUCTURES, ADD ON TO THEM, UH, WITHOUT IT TRIGGERING COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT CODE? I THINK THAT IS THE MAIN ISSUE THAT THIS APPEAL CENTERS ON. UM, THE DECISION BEFORE YOU, UH, TONIGHT IS [02:00:01] APPROVAL OF A REVISION TO A, UH, 2022 PERMIT, UM, AS WE STATED IN OUR STAFF REPORT. AND WE, UH, WE BELIEVE THAT ELEMENTS OF THAT ORIGINAL PERMIT, WHICH ARE CONTESTED HERE TONIGHT, ARE REALLY OUTSIDE OF THE APPEAL WINDOW. UM, THAT IS OUR, OUR POSITION. UM, AND THEN THE OTHER TWO ITEMS, UM, HAVING TO DO WITH THE TRELLIS AND WITH THE MODIFICATION TO THE SECOND FLOOR, IT'S OUR POSITION THAT STAFF'S APPROVAL COMPLIES, COMPLIES WITH THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY 25 2 9 63. AND WITH THAT, UM, I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS, BUT AGAIN, MYSELF AND THE DEPUTY BUILDING OFFICIAL ARE HERE TONIGHT. UM, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. LOY. ALL RIGHT. NEXT WE WILL HAVE A PRESENTATION BY THE APPEALING PARTY OR THE REPRESENTATIVE. THIS WILL BE 10 MINUTES WITH DON'T, NO DONATION OF TIME ALLOWED. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. HI, MY NAME IS CHRISTIE MAY AND I AM THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 6 7 0 8 BRIDGE HILL COVE. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF I CAN GET 15 MINUTES PLEASE. THIS IS A COMPLICATED SITUATION. OF COURSE. I WOULD LIKE TO ALLOW FOR THE PERMIT HOLDER TO HAVE 15 MINUTES AS WELL. I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, WHY DON'T WE DO TEND TO START, WE'LL SEE WHERE WE'RE AT AFTER THAT. OKAY. DO WE HAVE MY, WE DO HAVE MY APPEAL. SO LET'S, LET'S GET GOING. UM, THE FIRST PAGE, OR THE FIRST SLIDE IS A PICTURE. UM, IT WOULD BE NUMBER TWO ON THE SLIDE. UM, IT'S A PICTURE OF MY HOUSE AND THE PERMIT HOLDER'S HOUSE. UM, MY HOUSE IS ON THE RIGHT, HIS IS ON THE LEFT. UM, MY HOUSE, IT HAS THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT SETBACK. YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 10 FOOT SETBACK AND THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK AND JUST HIS MASSIVE HOUSE AND HOW IMPOSING IT IS ON MY HOUSE. UH, I WISH I COULD TAKE Y'ALL THERE TO SEE IT. THAT'S AS CLOSE AS WE COULD GET. UM, I HAD BEEN OPERATING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE CITY WOULD NEVER APPROVE SOMETHING THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE CODE AND NEGATIVELY IMPACT MY PROPERTY. UM, HONESTLY, I DIDN'T KNOW A WHOLE LOT ABOUT THE CODE. I, UM, DIDN'T KNOW A WHOLE LOT ABOUT SIDE YARD SETBACKS UNTIL, UM, I READ A LETTER THAT STEVE LEACH WROTE, AND I WILL, I WILL HAVE SEVERAL QUOTES FROM STEVE LEACH FROM DIFFERENT LETTERS IN DIFFERENT TIMES. BUT THIS IS FROM STEVE LEACH TO WARREN CONEL ON SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2024. HE SAYS THE POOL DECK HAS EXPANDED SINCE THE 1997 SURVEY, INCLUDING THE PORTION OF IT WITHIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, A PERMIT TO REPAIR, REPLACE, AND ENLARGE. THE EXISTING POOL DECK WAS SECURED IN 2001, HOWEVER, NO INSPECTIONS WERE LOGGED AND THAT PERMIT IS EXPIRED. SO FROM BOTH OF THESE THINGS INDIVIDUALLY, EITHER ONE OF THEM, IF YOU HAVE AN EXPIRED PERMIT, THAT'S A LOSS OF VESTING, VESTING IS VOID. IF YOU HAVE ADDED SQUARE FOOTAGE IN A SETBACK THAT IS ILLEGAL, THEN THERE'S LOST OF VESTING WITH THAT. SO COMBINED, IT'S OVERWHELMING. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THE PERMIT HOLDER, I'VE, I'VE SEEN HIS PRESENTATION AND HE, HE HAS STATED THE, THAT THE EXPIRED 2001 PERMIT IS IRRELEVANT. WELL, LET'S PONDER THAT. I MEAN, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS, BUT WE'LL SAY, WELL, WHAT IF IT, WHAT IF IT IS IRRELEVANT, THEN THAT MEANS THERE'S NO ARGUMENT THAT THE LAST LEGAL NON COMPLYING STATUS OF THE 1997 SURVEY IS THE 1997 SURVEY. SO THAT'LL BE ON THE NEXT PAGE. STEVE LEACH INCORRECTLY ASSUMED WHAT WAS THERE IN 2022 WAS LEGAL NON-COMP COMPLYING. IF YOU TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE, OH, ARE, ARE WE THE NEXT PAGE, PAGE FIVE HAS A PICTURE OF THE 1997 SEALED SURVEY AND YOU SEE THE ORIGINAL POOL AND WHAT WOULD BE THE LAST LEGAL NON-CONFORMING PATIO. THE NEXT PAGE HAS A PICTURE OF THE 2021 SURVEY. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT REPRESENT A LEGAL NON COMPLYING PROJECT. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE DECK HAS BEEN EXPANDED. IT DOES HAVE THE ORIGINAL POOL AND CONAL DOES NOT OFFER ANY OTHER COMPLETED LEGAL NON-COMPLIANT PROJECT AFTER 1997. [02:05:01] THE NEXT PAGE, UH, I COULD READ THE CODE TO YOU, BUT I THINK YOU'D ALL FALL ASLEEP. AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TIME FOR IT, BUT I, I WANNA SAY THE CITY HAS AIRED IN THE INTERPRETATION OF 25 2 9 6 3 IN SEVERAL AREAS. IF WE'LL SKIP THE NEXT PAGE AND GO TO PAGE NINE. UM, 2 5 2 9 63 B TWO SAYS, REPLACEMENT OF AN ORIGINAL FOUNDATION MAY NOT CHANGE THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION BY MORE THAN ONE FOOT IN EITHER DIRECTION. YOU SEE THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT IS, UM, THE ORIGINAL POOL WITH THE EXPANDED PATIO. YOU CAN SEE RIGHT BELOW THAT I ZOOMED IN A LITTLE BIT AND I CIRCLED THE STAIRWELL THAT WENT DOWN FROM THE MAIN LEVEL OF THE HOUSE TO THE ORIG, THE, THE PATIO, THE LEVEL OF THE PATIO THAT IS GRANDFATHERED. WELL, THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT SHOWS THAT THERE'S BEEN AN ELEVATIONS CHANGE. THE PATIO HAS BEEN MOVED UP TO THE MAIN LEVEL OF THE HOUSE. ONE SECTION OF THE PATIO HAS BEEN MOVED UP TO THE MAIN LEVEL OF THE HOUSE IN ONE SECTION OF THE PATIO HAS BEEN LOWERED. TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU HAVE TO KNOW THAT PART OF THE UM, 2022 PERMIT WAS TO ENCLOSE THE FULL ALL OF THE COVERED PATIOS TO THROUGHOUT THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. SO NOW THERE'S TWO ELEVATIONS. SO IF THE CODE SAYS THE FILL, THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION CANNOT BE CHANGED BY MORE THAN ONE FOOT IN EITHER DIRECTION, AND YOU HAVE, THE CITY APPROVES TWO DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS ON TWO DIFFERENT PATIOS THAT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH CODE. A QUOTE FROM STEVE LEACH FROM SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2025. THIS WASN'T THAT LONG AGO. HE SAYS THE PORTION OF THE DECK THAT EXISTS TODAY WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL PATIO. SO IT MAINTAINED THE NON COMPLYING STATUS. HOW CAN THAT BE? HOW, HOW CAN IT BE THAT THE ORIGINAL PATIO CAN BE LIKE THEY, THEY APPROVED A BASEMENT UNDERNEATH, SO DUG OUT UNDERNEATH AND THEN PUT TWO LEVELS OF A PATIO THAT ARE MORE THAN ONE FOOT APART FROM EACH OTHER. AND ALSO DENOTE THAT THE POOL WAS CONSIDERED TO BE PERVIOUS AND NOW THEY'VE PUT PATIO THERE. SO THEY DON'T HAVE THE IC FOR THAT. IF Y'ALL LOOK AT THE NEXT PAGE, YOU SEE THIS IS FROM THE PERMIT APPLICATION. YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT IS WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE IN THE BASEMENT LEVEL OF THE HOUSE. THERE WAS MAYBE CRAWL SPACE, REALLY NOTHING. AND THEN THEY APPROVED AIR CONDITIONED HEATED LIVING SPACE IN THE FIVE YARD, FIVE FOOT SETBACK. THE NEXT PART OF THE CODE THAT IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH IS F1 B. A PERSON MAY MODIFY A BUILDING THAT IS A NON-COMPLIANT STRUCTURE BASED ON YARD SETBACK IF THE MODIFIED PORTION OF THE BUILDING IS NOT GREATER IN HEIGHT THAN THE EXISTING NON-COMPLIANT PORTION OF THE BUILDING. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE PORTION THAT IS IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IS THIS FRONT PORTION OF THE HOUSE. AND THEN THE GREEN SECTION SHOWS THAT THEY PUT A, A SECOND STORY WHERE A ONE STORY STRUCTURE EXISTED. THAT PORTION, THEY DIDN'T ENCROACH FURTHER INTO THE SETBACK, BUT THEY DID BUILD A 17 FOOT LONG BEDROOM ON TOP OF THE FIRST FLOOR. THAT EXPRESSLY IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY F1 B. THE NEXT PAGE SHOWS THIS PHOTO SHOWS THAT A MULTI-LEVEL PATIO WITH A STEEL TRELLIS ROOF STRUCTURE, WHATEVER IT IS, WITH A BALCONY ON THE SECOND LEVEL AND THEN THE HUGE WINDOWS IN THIS BASEMENT WHERE A SINGLE LEVEL PATIO WAS GRANDFATHERED. THE NEXT PAGE SHOWS WHERE THEY HAVE APPROVED WITH A REVISION PLAN, A WALL FOR AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN IN THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK. THIS IS A SOLID WALL. SO I'M STANDING ON MY PROPERTY WHEN I TOOK THIS PICTURE AND YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IT, A SOLID WALL AT THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK IS NOT PROHIBITED. ALYSSA MAYFIELD CALLED OUT IN HER COMMENT REPORT ON MARCH 19TH OR MARCH 18TH, 2025. SHE SAID THIS STILL CAN BE, CANNOT BE IN THE SETBACK. THE OUTDOOR KITCHEN CANNOT BE IN THE SETBACK. THE POOL IS OVER, IS NOT OVER EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER. SO IT'S NOT ABLE TO BE APPROVED AS IS. THE WHOLE PROJECT IS OVER IMPERVIOUS COVER. SHE SAID THAT ON MARCH 18TH. THEN ALL THIS, SORRY, I CAN'T, DO YOU HAVE MY WATER BABE? MY MOUTH IS SO DRY. I'M SO SORRY. THANK YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT. [02:10:03] ON MARCH 18TH. UM, SO SHE SAID ALL OF THESE THINGS AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE ARGUMENTS WENT AWAY. WHY? SO THE NEXT SLIDE, UM, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE POOL. IT'S A STRUCTURE. THE PRO PROPOSED ABOVE GROUND POOL ENCROACHES INTO THE SETBACK. NO STRUCTURE, UH, EXISTED IN THIS LOCATION ON THE 1997 SURVEY. NOTHING IS GRANDFATHERED IN THIS LOCATION. THE DESCRIPTION ON THE CITY PORTAL SAYS NEW PULL OVER EXISTING DECK. THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE. THIS POOL IS NOT AT GRADE. IT INCREASES THE MASS AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR IT. AS CORRECTLY POINTED OUT IN ALYSSA'S COMMENT REPORT THE NEXT SLIDE. THESE SHOWED PHOTOS SHOW THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING A SECOND FLOOR IN THE SETBACK. THIS ALLOWANCE GOES COMPLETELY AGAINST THE LETTER AND THE INTENT OF 25 2 9 6 3. THIS PORTION OF THE BUILDING WAS ONE STORY. NOW THEY'VE ADDED A WHOLE SECOND STORY. THE KEY ISSUES ARE UN ADDED UNPERMITTED SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN THE SETBACK ELEVATION CHANGES APPROVAL OF A VERTICAL EXPANSION, SPECIFICALLY A SECOND STORY ADDITION BUILT ON TOP OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT ALREADY ENCROACHES INTO THE SETBACK. IT'S JUST NOT ALLOWED LIVING SPACE CREATED IN THE SETBACK. THE BASEMENT UNDER A PATIO ENCLOSED COVERED PATIOS ON TWO LEVELS AND ADDED SECOND STORY ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. CITY REVIEWED, AIRED, AND NOT REQUIRING AN AS-BUILT SURVEY, AND THEY FAILED TO REVIEW HISTORICAL RECORDS. ANOTHER QUOTE FROM STEVE LEACH, A PERMIT TO EXPAND THE POOL DECK WAS APPROVED IN 2001, ALTHOUGH NO INSPECTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT. WE CAN HONOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT WAS FROM STEVE LEACH OCTOBER OF 2022. CAN I JUST HAVE, GIMME ONE SECOND HERE. UH, WHY DON'T WE DO AN ADDITIONAL TWO AND A HALF MINUTES AND THEN I'LL DO AN ADDITIONAL TWO AND A HALF MINUTES FOR THE OWNER. THAT SOUNDS AMAZING. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UM, SO STEVE LEACH GAVE THE CON THE ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT WAS APPROVED IN THAT PERMIT. I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY NICE. I I, I WISH THAT I COULD HAVE HAD THAT. I THINK Y'ALL PROBABLY ALL REMEMBER ME FROM LAST YEAR WHEN WARREN CONEL APPEALED MY PERMIT. UM, I GUESS STAFF HAS THE DISCRETION TO BE ABLE TO, UM, APPROVE IMPERVIOUS COVER, THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT THERE, TEXAS LAW DOES NOT ALLOW FOR SIDE THE YARD SETBACKS TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF. UM, I'M GONNA SKIP OVER FOR TIME'S SAKE TO PAGE 20 PLEASE, BECAUSE I REALLY WANT Y'ALL TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT ONE PATIO. IT'S ABOUT MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE CITY'S ENFORCEMENTS OF ITS OWN LAWS. THIS IS A PRECEDENT SETTING ENFORCEMENT FAILURE. ALLOWING THIS VIOLATION TO PERSIST NOT ONLY UNDERMINES THE CITY'S CODE ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, BUT IT, IT UNFAIRLY BURDENS NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS WHO MUST LIVE WITH THE IMPACTS OF A STRUCTURE THAT HAS NO LAWFUL BASIS. THIS CASE WILL BE CITED BY OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING TO EXPAND IN, IN THE ENCROACHING SETBACKS. OTHERS WILL CITE THIS CASE TO JUSTIFY NEW ENCROACHMENTS. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RE REVERSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF REINSTATING THE BUILDING PERMIT AND REQUIRE COMPLIANCE. IF I STILL HAVE A, A LITTLE BIT OF TIME UP TO 21. JUST UNDER A MINUTE. JUST UNDER A MINUTE. OKAY. LET'S GO TO 21. AND YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THE FIRST PHOTO OR THE FIRST DRAWING SHOWS KIND OF WHAT WAS THERE, THE TOP LEFT KIND OF WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE YOU SEE THERE WASN'T THAT SECOND STORY. UM, NOT AS IMPOSING THOSE. THE, UM, UPPER AND LEVEL, UPPER AND LOWER PATIOS WERE NOT, UM, FILLED IN WHATEVER. SO IT MAKES IT MUCH LONGER. YOU CAN SEE HOW THE PERMIT IN 2022, THEY APPROVED THESE THINGS. AND THEN, THEN WITH THE REVISION PLAN, ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN APPROVED ALL WITHIN THE FIVE YARD. I MEAN, FIVE FOOT SETBACK. LIKE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE CODE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO NOW [02:15:02] WE WILL TAKE COMMENTS FROM THOSE SUPPORTING THE APPEAL AT TWO MINUTES EACH WITH DONATION OF TIME ALLOWED, PLEASE. I THOUGHT IT WAS THREE MINUTES EACH. IT'S SUBJECT TO THE CHAIR. I DON'T WANT US TO BE HERE TILL MIDNIGHT. OKAY. I'M TERRY IAN. UM, AND I'M, UH, HERE TO ACTUALLY RESPOND TO WHAT YOU'RE, SOME OF THE THINGS YOU MAY HEAR FROM THE, THE PERMIT HOLDER WHO IN THEIR PRESENTATIONS CLAIM THAT, UH, THE APPEAL FAILS TO MEET JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION DID NOT IDENTIFY WHO THE PERMIT HOLDER WAS, HIS ADDRESS OR, UM, THE BUILDING PERMIT THAT WAS BEING CHALLENGED. ALL OF THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE COVER LETTER, WHICH WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION BECAUSE THE, THE FORM APPLICATION WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING AS TO WHERE TO PUT THAT INFORMATION. BUT IT WAS ALL THERE AND IT WAS ALL THERE TIMELY. UH, WE'VE ALSO HEARD FROM THE, UH, MR. UH, LLOYD THAT THE, UH, THE ORIGINAL PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN 2022, AND THAT THERE'S A BAR ON, UH, IN APPEALING, UH, ANYTHING THAT RELATED TO THE ORIGINAL PERMIT AS OPPOSED TO THE REVISIONS. UH, BECAUSE IT WASN'T DISCOVERED WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THE PERMIT ISSUANCE, MR. CONAL HIMSELF ACKNOWLEDGED IN HIS, UH, PERMIT APPLICATION, UH, THAT HE UNDERSTANDS THAT UNDER 25 1 4 11, A BUILDING OFFICIAL CAN SUSPEND THE PERMIT AT ANY TIME, UH, IF IT DETERMINES THAT THERE WAS ANY ERROR IN THE ISSUANCE OF THAT PERMIT AT ANY STAGE. UH, HE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED THAT UNDER 25 11 DASH 66, IF THE PERMIT, IF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DETERMINES THERE WAS ERROR IN THE ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT AT ANY STAGE, THAT HE COULD ORDER CORRECTIVE MEASURES. AND IF THE CORRECTIONS AREN'T MADE, THEN UH, HE CAN ORDER A STOP WORK ORDER, UH, UNTIL IT'S DONE. I'LL FINISH UP REAL QUICKLY. HERE'S HOW IT WORKS IN, IN THIS CASE, UH, THE BUILDING, UM, MS. MAY RECEIVED A BUILDING PERMIT IN MARCH OF 2024. IN, UH, LATE MAY OF 2024. MR. CONEL OPPOSED HER PERMIT. THE CITY IMMEDIATELY CAME OUT, DID AN INVESTIGATION, SUSPENDED HER PERMIT. WHILE THEY DETERMINED IF THERE WAS ANY ERRORS, THEY DETERMINED THAT PRIOR OWNERS HAD ADDED ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER. THEY REINSTATED HER PERMIT, THEY REINSTATED HER PERMIT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SHE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES. SO, OKAY, THAT WAS, THAT WAS WAY PAST THE 20 DAYS, UH, AT THAT TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UNDER STATE LAW, UH, THERE IS NO BAR. UH, THERE'S AN OLD ESTOPPEL ON. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. OKAY. OKAY. AND IF WE COULD JUST HAVE WHOEVER'S GOING TO BE NEXT, BE UP CLOSE TO THE FRONT. YOU CAN COME RIGHT UP AND GET STARTED. OR YOU CAN TAKE A SEAT IN ONE OF THE TWO ADDITIONAL SPOTS. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. MY NAME IS SCOTT BRYANT. UH, THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS POINTED OUT THAT, UM, WERE, YOU KNOW, NOT WITH CODE, UM, BY THE APPELLANT. AND I WAS JUST GONNA ADD A COUPLE MORE THINGS. UM, 25 2 9 63 F TWO STATES THAT PERSON CAN MODIFY A NON COMPLYING STRUCTURE IF THE ADDITIONAL LENGTH DOESN'T EXCEED THE LESSER OF 50% OF THE LENGTH OF THE NON COMPLYING PORTION OR 25 FEET. UM, IT'S BEEN STATED BY THE CITY THAT FOR THE REVISION PLAN E THIS EXTENSION OF NON-COMPLIANT LENGTH APPLIES TO EACH LEVEL OF THE HOME. UM, IF YOU, IF YOU CAN PULL UP THE, THE PRESENTATION AND GO TO THE LAST PAGE. I BELIEVE IT'S 22. UM, HOWEVER THEY SAY THAT IT, IT, IT, IT APPLIES TO EACH LEVEL INDIVIDUALLY. HOWEVER, 25 2 9 63 H STATES THAT A PERSON CAN MODIFY A NON-COMPLIANT BUILDING ONCE UNDER SUBSECTION E, WHICH IS ALLOWS THE EXTENSION. UM, IF YOU'LL LOOK AT THIS, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE EXTENSION HAS BEEN GRANTED IN AT LEAST FOUR PLACES. AND ON THE BOTTOM PICTURE, THE BOTTOM ARROW SHOWS THE EXPANSION IN THE EXTENSION OF THE BASEMENT, WHICH IS EXTENDED OFF OF. NOTHING EXISTED AT THAT LEVEL IN [02:20:01] THE BEGINNING, SO THERE WAS NO LENGTH TO EXTEND THE BASEMENT BECAUSE NOTHING EX NOTHING EXISTED UNDERNEATH THE SLAB BEFORE THIS MODIFICATION WAS MADE. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THOSE ERRORS IN THE, IN THE APPROVAL OF, YOU KNOW, BOTH OF THE, BOTH THE 2022 PERMIT AND THE REVISION PLAN, BECAUSE IT GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST 25 2 9 63. UH, SUBSECTION H THANKS. THAT'S ALL I GOT. THANK YOU. NEXT, GOOD EVENING. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS WITCHER MCCULLOUGH. I LIVE AT 67 0 7 BRIDGE HILL COVE, WHICH IS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND MY, UH, REMARKS ARE GONNA BE VERY SHORT. UH, I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY IN 1988. I HIRED AN ARCHITECT. THE ARCHITECT PUT EVERYTHING TOGETHER AND SAID, WE'RE ABOUT THREE FEET SHORT BEHIND THE GARAGE. WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE. AND I SAID, IS THAT HARD TO GET? HE SAID, NO, NOT REALLY. IN 1988, I GUESS IT SUPPOSEDLY WASN'T. UH, AND WE WENT AROUND AND TALKED TO ALL NEIGHBORS WHO WERE LIVING THERE, WHO ALL APPROVED OF THE VARIANCE OR IMPROVED THE, GET THE, THE SETBACK GOING BACK A FEW FEET. AND ALSO, I FOUND THAT ONE OF THE HOUSES WAS ALREADY VIOLATING THE 10 FOOT SETBACK. I HAD TO GO TAKE DEPOSITIONS IN SAN FRANCISCO. AND WHILE I WAS THERE, I CALLED THE ARCHITECT AND I SAID, DID IT PASS? HE SAID, NO, IT WAS A COMPLETE, NO. I SAID, WHY? HE SAID, THEY DIDN'T TELL ME. SO I CAME DOWN AND TALKED TO THE CITY AND THEIR REMARKS WERE, UM, LOOK, THIS IS A LAW. IT'S NOT JUST A SUGGESTION. IT IS A LAW. AND WE, UH, WE, WE, WE TAKE, WE TRY TO DO THE BEST WE CAN AND HAVING CONSISTENCY IN NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT NEIGHBORS WANT, AND TO PRESERVE AND PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO IT'S JUST REALLY NOT GONNA CHANGE. AND I HAD NO REAL ALTERNATIVE BUT TO ACCEPT THAT. AND THAT'S THE WAY MY HOUSE IS TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BOARD MEMBER VON OLEN, WERE YOU WERE, DID YOU HEAR THAT CASE? WHAT YEAR WAS THAT? 88. 88. . I'LL COME SEE YOU. JUST KIDDING. I MIGHT LOOK FAMILIAR, BUT I WASN'T HERE. BACK THAT NEXT PERSON. IS ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR? HE IS NOT. HE IS NOT THAT OLD. COME ON, JESSICA. ANY OTHER IN FAVOR? OKAY. OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE PRESENTATION BY THE RESPONDENT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, AND YOU WILL HAVE 12 AND A HALF MINUTES. THANK THANK YOU CHAIR AND, UH, BOARD MEMBERS, DAVID HARTMAN ON BEHALF OF THE PERMIT HOLDER. I WANNA STATE FOR THE RECORD, WE DID SUBMIT THAT, UM, OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION AND STANDING, BUT WE'RE NO LONGER PURSUING THAT. AND FOR THE RECORD, WITHDRAWING THAT. IF YOU GO TO SLIDE, UM, NUMBER THREE, UM, AS MR. LLOYD STATES AND HIS, UH, AND STAFF STATES IN THE, IN THE MEMO, 25 1 1 90 STATES THAT THE APPELLANT'S BURDEN IS THAT THE APPELLANT MUST ESTABLISHED THAT THE DECISION BEING APPEALED IS CONTRARY TO APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. AND SO I'VE JUST GOT A FEW SLIDES THAT ARE GONNA SHOW HOW THIS PROJECT COMPLIES WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. THIS SHOWS THE HISTORY THAT THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION WAS BEFORE CITY SETBACK REGULATIONS. THIS SHOWS THE STATUS IN 1985, THE CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING THE HOUSE, POOL, PATIO, AND DRIVEWAYS ALL BUILT LEGALLY AT THE TIME WITH NO SETBACK RESTRICTIONS. FAST FORWARD 15 YEARS LATER, FULL ANNEXATION BROUGHT NEW ZONING REG REGULATIONS THAT ESTABLISHED A 10 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT HIGHLIGHTED IN RED. AND SO YOU CAN LOOK ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THAT PICTURE, BASICALLY THAT THE PATIO AT THAT TIME, THIS IS 1985, THE PATIO AT THAT TIME WAS AT ZERO, AND THEN THE HOUSE WAS, WAS AT THE FIVE FOOT NEXT SLIDE. AND THEN JUST KIND OF, WE THINK IT'S NOTE WORTH WORTHY THAT, UM, THE CON IN 2022 SUBMITTED THE REMODEL PLANS, THE HOA APPROVAL AND THE APPELLANT, UH, THEN ON THE AC APPROVED THE FULL DESIGN AND WRITING. AND THIS SHOWS THE RENDERING AT THAT TIME WITH THE SHADE STRUCTURE AND THE WORK AND THE SETBACK. NEXT SLIDE. AND THEN THE 2022 CITY PERMIT ISSUED. AND AS THE STAFF MEMBER SAYS, IS NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL, THE CITY APPROVED MAJOR RENOVATIONS, INCLUDING A REDESIGN, POOL AND PATIO, NEW STRUCTURAL WORK, AND A BASEMENT LEVEL GYM AS THE STAFF MEMBER SAYS, THIS SCOPE OF WORK APPROVED IS NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL. AND I THINK IT'S REALLY SIGNIFICANT TO [02:25:01] POINT OUT THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE PATIO BETWEEN THE ZERO AND FIVE FOOT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED THE LEVEL OF NON-COMPLIANCE AT THAT TIME. AND THE CURRENTLY NO STRUCTURES IN THAT AREA. SO THE, THE AMOUNT OF NON-COMPLIANCE IS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED. NEXT SLIDE. THE 2025 PERMIT, UM, REVISION APPROVED WAS APPROVED AFTER EXTENSIVE REVIEW. THEY SUBMITTED THE UPDATED PLANS, ADDING THE SHADE STRUCTURE THAT YOU SEE THERE, POINTING TO A REVISED POOL LAYOUT, RECONFIGURED DRIVEWAY AND OTHER MINOR CHANGES WENT THROUGH THE LITANY OF NINE MONTHS, UH, REVIEW BY STAFF ACROSS SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS WITH MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF UPDATES TO ENSURE FULL COMPLIANCE. AND YOU SEE THE, THE ARROW IS POINTING TO THE SHADE STRUCTURE ADDED AND THEN THE WALL ADDED AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KIND OF SHOW, UH, THAT THE, THE, THE 2001 PERMIT THAT'S EXPIRED IS NOT USED AS A BASIS FOR ANY SETBACK AREAS. IN 2001, THE CITY DID APPROVE A POOL PATIO EXPANSION WITHIN THAT, WITH THAT ZERO FOOT SETBACK THAT'S SHOWN IN RED, BUT THAT PERMIT LATER EXPIRED. SO IF YOU LOOK TO THE RIGHT PATIO EXPANSION AREA FROM THE 2001 PERMIT THAT WAS APPROVED, BUT HAS IT BEEN EXPIRED? HOWEVER, WE'RE NOT RELYING ON THAT FOR ANY, UH, OUR CURRENT, UH, PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. THE NEW POOL IN BLUE AND THE PATIO GREEN FROM THE, THE 2022 AND 25 PERMITS, DON'T RELY ON ANY EXISTING SETBACKS FROM THE EXPIRED 2001 PERMIT. THE ONLY OVERLAP IS THE POOL ITSELF WITH HIS AUTHORIZED, UM, IN A SETBACK PURSUANT TO 25 2 5 13, WHICH SAYS IN THE SF SIX OR MORE RESTRICTIVE DISTRICT, THIS IS LA ZONING. A POOL INCLUDING A SWIMMING POOL, MAY, MAY BE LOCATED IN A REQUIRED YARD, ALSO AUTHORIZED AS LANDSCAPING, PARKING, UM, STEPS PORCH. NEXT SLIDE. AND I THINK KIND OF A, A THOUGHT EXPERIENCE EXPERIMENT AND, UH, ARGUMENT. I THINK IF YOU, IF YOU SET ASIDE THE, THE, BASICALLY THE CONSTRUCTION REMAINS PERMISSIBLE EVEN IF NOTHING HAD EXISTED, IF YOU SET ASIDE EVERY CLAIM ABOUT EXPIRED PERMITS, LOSS OF NON NON-COMPLIANCE STATUS IS THINK ABOUT WHETHER THERE HAD NEVER BEEN IMPROVEMENTS IN THIS DISPUTED AREA. EVEN UNDER THAT ASSUMPTION, ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTION IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER 25 TO 9 63 F, WHICH AUTHORIZES EXTENSION OF A NON-COMP COMPLYING AREA STRUCTURE ALONG ITS ORIGINAL SETBACK FOR UP TO 25 FEET. NEXT SLIDE. AND THIS IS THE CODE PROVISION, BUT IT ALLOWS LIMITED EXTENSIONS MATCHING THE ORIGINAL SETBACK, UM, APPLIES THE STRUCTURES LEGALLY BUILT UNDER CURLER CODES. AND SUB SECTION F EXPLICITLY ALLOWS THOSE STRUCTURES TO BE EXTENDED 50% UP TO 25 FEET ALONG THE ORIGINAL SETBACK LINE. AND THE CITY'S AS STATED IN THE MEMO, UH, INTERPRETS THE MODIFIED PORTION OF THE BUILDING ON A FOUR BY FOUR BASIS. AND YOU SEE THAT IN THE BOX PROVISION. A PERSON MAY MODIFY A BUILDING THAT IS IN A NON-COMPLIANCE STRUCTURE. IT'S BASED ON A YARD SETBACK. AND THEN JUMP DOWN TO SUBSECTION TWO THERE THAT SAYS THAT THE ADDITIONAL LINK MAY BE MODIFIED FOR THE LESSER OF 50% OR 25 FEET. NEXT SLIDE. AND SO HERE KIND OF WALKS THROUGH FOR THE BASEMENT AND MAIN FLOOR, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE EXCEEDS 50 FEET IN LENGTH. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE, THE CODE ALLOWS AN EXTENSION UP TO 25 FEET ALONG THE ORIGINAL SETBACK LINE. SO THAT 60 FOOT GETS YOU 25 FEET, 60 FOOT EXISTING LENGTH, GETS YOU 25 FOOT ON THOSE TWO FLOORS, UH, FOR AUTHORIZES THAT EXTENSION. AND THEN AGAIN, AS POOLS ARE AUTHORIZED UNDER THAT DIFFERENT CODE PROVISION THAT I READ EARLIER. NEXT SLIDE, THE TOP FLOOR IS ELIGIBLE FOR A 21.5 EX FOOT EXTENSION. AND THAT'S BECAUSE THAT FLOOR IS BASICALLY 45 43 FEET TO 50% OF THAT GETS YOU 21 AND A HALF FEET. AND, UH, THE EXTENSION WAS APPLIED 17 FEET TO THE NORTH AND FOUR FEET TO THE STATS. THIS, THE OTHER SIDE TO THE REAR, EXCUSE ME, UM, AS, UH, ON THAT PARTICULAR, UH, SLIDE. SO THE NEXT SLIDE I THINK IS AN INTERESTING POINT THAT THEY RAISE IN THERE. THERE, UM, UM, MATERIALS EXHIBIT TWO HIGHLIGHTS IN RED IN AREA THAT CORRECTLY MARKED AS EXCEEDS ALLOWANCES. IT CORRECTLY NOTES THAT NO FURTHER EXPANSION IS ALLOWED SINCE THE 25. UM, THE ALLOWANCE WAS ALREADY USED ON THIS FLOOR IN THE YELLOW MARKED AREAS. AND SO BASICALLY THE, THE PLANS WERE CLARIFIED THAT THE HIGHLIGHTED AREA IN THAT, IN THAT, UH, RED BOXED AREA, REPRE REPRESENTS THE CEILING, THE FLOOR BELOW, NOT THE CONSTRUCTION ON THIS FLOOR. NEXT SLIDE. THEN ONE OF THE FINAL SLIDES I THINK IS, IS KIND OF GETTING INTO THE WEEDS, BUT THAT REALLY KIND OF DEMONSTRATES A COUPLE OF IMPORTANT POINTS TO THE PERMIT. PLANS INCLUDE A PINK LINE MARKING EXISTING STRUCTURES TO ACCURATELY MEASURE THE ALLOWABLE 25 EXTENSION. THE [02:30:01] NE IDENTIFY THE AREA WHERE THE EXISTING NON-COMPLIANCE STRUCTURE ENDED. THAT PINK LINE IS SHOWN THROUGHOUT THE PERMIT PLANS MARKED. THIS BOUNDARY IS DETERMINED FROM THE PHOTOS. SO YOU SEE THE PINK LINE IS BASED ON THE EXISTING BALCONY, INCLUDING THE FASCIA AND THE THE TILE AREA. AND YOU SEE THAT PINK LINE, UM, OUTLINED BY BLUE IN THE BOTTOM, UH, PORTION OF THE SLIDE. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A 25 FOOT EXTENSION THAT THE 25 FOOT IS MEASURED FROM THAT PINK LINE. AND ALL THAT, AGAIN, IS KIND OF GETTING IN THE WEEDS, BUT IT REALLY KIND OF POINTS OUT THE REMARKABLE METICULOUS DETAIL ON THE PLANS AND JUST THE FACT THAT THE CITY REVIEW STAFF PUT THIS PROJECT THROUGH THE RINGER AND IN FACT EVEN HAD THEM REMOVE THE EXCESS THREE QUARTER INCH, UM, FROM THE TRELLIS AREA. UM, THE TOP OF THAT SLIDE, SO AGAIN, ON THE LAST SLIDE IS JUST AGAIN A CONCLUSION AGAIN, THE APPELLATE'S BURDEN IS THAT THEY MUST ESTABLISH THAT THE DECISION BEING APPROVED IS CONTRARY TO APPLICABLE LAW REGULATIONS. EVERY CLAIM THAT FAIL FAILS, HIDE OR SETBACK EXCEEDED THAT CLAIM IS INCORRECT. IT COMPLIES WITH 25 2 9 63 F AND THEN POOLS ARE ALLOWED UNDER A DIFFERENT PROVISION. NONCOMPLIANT STATUS IS LOST DURING DEMOLITION. THAT'S IRRELEVANT. THE CURRENT WORK DOESN'T RELY ON THE NONCOMPLIANT COMPLYING STATUS OF DEMOLISHED AREAS. 2001 PERMIT IS EXPIRED, IS IRRELEVANT. THE CURRENT WORK STANDS ON ITS OWN, DOESN'T DEPEND ON THE 2001 PATIO EXTENSION. BOTTOM LINE IS THE PROJECT REMAINS FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE CURRENT LDC. THAT'S THE END. ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY, WE WILL NOW TAKE COMMENTS FROM THOSE OPPOSING THE APPEAL AT TWO MINUTES EACH WITH DONATION OF TIME ALLOWED. IS THERE ANYONE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION? OKAY, THEN WE ARE GOING TO FOREGO THE REBUTTAL OR NO, NOT . THERE WE GO. OKAY, MS. MAY CHAIR COEN. SORRY TO INTERRUPT. ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY. UM, IT'S THE A OR IT'S THE APPELLANT'S CHOICE WHETHER OR NOT TO I GOT IT. I KNOW I, I WENT A LITTLE TOO FAR. I'M BACKING IT UP. YOU CAN TELL WE ONLY DO LIKE USUALLY ONE OF THESE A YEAR, RIGHT? OKAY. SO THIS WILL BE REBUTTAL BY THE APPEALING PARTY FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. BROUGHT MY WATER THIS TIME. OKAY. I'M GONNA GO THROUGH, UM, THEIR PRESENTATION A LITTLE. SO IF WE CAN PULL THAT UP AGAIN. UM, I WON'T GO THROUGH THE WHOLE THING, BUT JUST TO NOTE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE INTERESTING, UM, THIS PRETTY MUCH SAYS THE LAST LEGAL NON-COMP COMPLYING STATUS WAS THE 1997 SURVEY. SO AT LEAST WE AGREE UPON THAT, UM, ON THE PAGE WITH THE PICTURE OF WHAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE HOA. CAN WE MOVE TO THAT? I THINK IT'S THE NEXT PAGE. UM, THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THIS IS, UM, THAT THIS WAS SUBMITTED IN MAY OF 2022. WELL, THIS IS NOT WHAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY. SO WHY, IF HE KNEW HE WAS GONNA HAVE A SOLID WALL, IF HE KNEW HE WAS GONNA HAVE A BIG ROOF STRUCTURE SLASH TRELLIS ALL OF THESE THINGS, WHY DIDN'T HE SUBMIT THEM TO THE CITY? WHY WOULD, WHY DID HE LEAVE THE THOSE THINGS OFF THE PERMIT APPLICATION? STEVE LEACH HAS TOLD ME, HE HAS SAID TO ME THAT, UM, THE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED WERE MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE. I DON'T KNOW IN WHAT WAY THEY WERE, AND I'M, I THINK STEVE'S HERE. YOU CAN ASK HIM, BUT IT JUST MAKES YOU QUESTION WHY WOULD HE SUBMIT ONE THING TO THE HOA AND THEN ONE THING TO THE CITY. MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN IT APPROVED. ON THE NEXT PAGE, AS MY ATTORNEY SAYS, PERMITS ISSUED IN ERROR CANNOT BE CURED BY TIME. I AM GONNA SKIP ALL THE WAY TO THE ALLOW ALLOWS LIMITED EXTENSIONS MATCHING THE ORIGINAL SETBACK. UM, THERE'S SO MUCH ABOUT THIS THAT IS WRONG, THAT YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, IT HAS TO BE A LEGALLY BUILT STRUCTURE THAT IS MODIFIED. WE ALL KNOW EXPIRED PERMIT, ADDED SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE SETBACK, THOSE VOID ANY KIND OF VESTING. BUT EVEN MR. CONEL [02:35:01] INCLUDED THIS IN HIS PRESENTATION STRAIGHT FROM THE CODE, THE PART OF THE CODE THAT, THAT HIS, THE SECOND STORY ON TOP OF THE FIRST STORY IN THE SETBACK DOES NOT COMPLY WITH. SO IF YOU LOOK TO, UM, 2 5 2 9 63 F IN B, IT SAYS THE MODIFIED PORTION OF THE BUILDING, UNLESS IT IS LOCATED IN THE, IN THE STREET SIDE YARD, IS NOT GREATER IN HEIGHT THAN THE EXISTING NON COMPLYING PORTION OF THE BUILDING. IF YOU PUT A SECOND STORY ON A FIRST STORY THAT'S ENCROACHING INTO THE SETBACK, THE HEIGHT IS GREATER. YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT. IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THAT CODE. THEY'RE FORGETTING THE MODIFIED PORTION OF THE BUILDING CANNOT EXCEED THE EXI, THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING PORTION. YOU CAN'T ADD A SECOND STORY. THE CITY HAS NEVER STOPPED FROM WRONGFUL ACTIONS COMING BACK AND CORRECTING MISTAKES. THE CITY HAS CLEARLY AIRED AND THERE'S NO LIMIT. THEY'RE NOT STOPPED. I WANNA EMPHASIZE AGAIN THAT THIS ISN'T ABOUT ONE PATIO OR ONE MODIFIED STRUCTURE. THIS IS A PRECEDENT SETTING. I NEED YOU TO WRAP IT UP PLEASE. ENFORCEMENT FAILURE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO NOW WE MOVE TO CLOSE THE HEARING AND START INTO Q AND A. SO WHO WANTS TO START? DON'T EVERYBODY GO AT ONCE. MADAM CHAIR, BOARD MEMBER OF, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE, UM, NOT THE APPELLANT FOR THE, UH, PERMIT HOLDER, MR. CONEL OR HIS GROUP. SOMEBODY FROM THERE. I CAN YOU GO BACK TO, AND I KNOW I'M ASKING YOU TO PULL A RABBIT OUTTA THE HAT. GO BACK TO THE SLIDE TWO SLIDES BACK OF THEIR, OF THEIR, UH, PRESENTATION PLEASE. UH, NO, COME FORWARD. ONE, I THINK KEEP COMING. KEEP COMING. I SHOULD HAVE WROTE IT DOWN. I WASN'T FAST ENOUGH UP. NOPE. KEEP COMING. KEEP COMING. LITTLE BIT MORE HERE. KEEP COMING AGAIN, AGAIN. IS THAT IT? THAT'S THE BEGINNING. THERE'S ONE THERE THAT I SAW RIGHT THERE. GO BACK ONE. GO BACK ONE MORE MAN, YOU MOVING TOO FAST FOR ME SON. . , RIGHT THERE. GO THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. NOW I SEE WHERE IT SAYS EXISTING DECK TO BE DEMOLISHED. WAS THAT DEMOLISHED? THAT WELL WAS ENCROACHING INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK? WAS THAT THE NON-COMPLIANCE? WAS THAT DEMOLISHED? YES. OKAY. ALL THE YEARS I'VE BEEN SERVING UP HERE. THE THING ABOUT, UM, NON-COMPLIANCE STRUCTURES IS ONCE YOU, ONCE YOU DEMOLISHED SOMETHING AND YOU ELIMINATED, YOU'VE GOT A CLEAN SLATE AND GOING FORWARD FROM THERE, YOU NEED TO BUILD ACCORDING TO CODE. SECOND THING IS, IS I'M SEEING SOME OF THE AREAS BASED ON BOTH YOUR PRESENTATION AND HER PRESENTATION WHERE YOU GUYS ARE INCREASING THE NON-COMPLIANCE, THE IN INCREASING THE STRUCTURE IN A NONCOMPLIANT WAY, UH, ADDING THAT ADDITIONAL WALL. AND I'LL TELL YOU WHERE I'LL GO ON IT. I'VE GOT THIS, AND I WILL SAY THIS AND I'M GONNA HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE IN, UH, FOR, UH, THE INSPECTOR AS WELL. IT LOOKED TO ME LIKE THE ORIGINAL, UH, NON-COMPLIANT DECK WAS AN ILLEGAL UNPERMITTED EXPANSION, RIGHT? OF A LEGALLY NON-CON COMPLYING STATUS OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT. AND, AND IT WAS ENCROACHING IN THE SETBACK. YOU GUYS DEMOED THAT OUT. WHEN YOU DEMOED THAT OUT, YOU DON'T GET A PASS TO COME BUILD IT IN THE SETBACK. AGAIN, IT'S, I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT DONE IN ALL MY YEARS OF SITTING UP HERE. YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T DEMO SOMETHING, A NONCOMPLIANT STRUCTURE AND THINK YOU CAN COME BACK AND BUILD IT IN THE SAME MANNER THAT IS GOING TO MAKE THE NEW STRUCTURE NONCOMPLIANT AS WELL. I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT. SO MY QUESTION IS, WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU DEMOED EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN THE, THE SIDE YARD SETBACK OVER THERE WITH THIS EXISTING DECK TO BE DEMOLISHED? AND I SEE THE REMOVAL OF THE PATIO AND YOU GOT THE ARROWS POINTING UP THERE. WHAT GAVE YOU GUYS THE IDEA THAT YOU COULD GO BACK AND BUILD IN THAT SIDE YARD [02:40:01] CHECKBACK TO, TO ME, I THINK PART OF YOUR QUESTION MAY BE DIRECT, BEST, ADDITIONALLY DIRECTED TO STAFF THAT THE PROVISION I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS THE ONE THAT THE APPELLANT'S POINTING OUT SOME, WHICH IS 25 2 90, 96 STREET NINE 60 3D, PARAGRAPH FOUR. THE NUMBER FOUR. YEAH. IT'S THE, THEY'RE THEY'RE UNDER B 9 63 B FOUR, WHICH WAS D WHICH WAS ADDED, ADDED AS PART OF THE 2010 REMODEL ORDINANCE THAT HAD TO DO WITH WHETHER YOU CAN JUST LEAVE ONE WALL AND CLAIM GRANDFATHERING OR NOT. EVERYTHING AGAIN, AS THE, THE LAST SLIDE IS, IT DOES A GOOD JOB OF SUMMARIZING EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE PROPOSING. AND THAT'S BEING UNDER CONSTRUCTION FOR OUR CASE IS UNDER 20 SI FIVE UNDER 2 9 63 F, WHICH SAYS PRETTY EXPLICITLY THAT WHEN YOU'RE IN A YARD SETBACK SPECIFIC TO A YARD SETBACK, THAT THE ADDITIONAL LENGTH OF A MODIFIED PORTION OF A BUILDING CAN BE EXTENDED 25 FEET OR 50 PER 50 UH, PERCENT. SO TO ME THAT'S THE DISTINGUISHMENT IS THAT THE F IS SPECIFIC TO YARD SETBACK AND THEN THE, THE PROVISION UNDER B GOES BACK TO THE REMODEL ORDERS THAT WAS PASSED. I'M, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU GUYS ARE DEMOING NON-COMPLIANCE STRUCTURES AND THAT ARE IN THE SETBACK AND THEN YOU'RE COMING IN AND YOU'RE BUILDING AND THE SETBACK AGAIN THAT, AND I'M I'M JUST SAYING THAT IF YOU READ 9 63 F IT AUTHORIZES WHAT WE'VE DONE. AND I, I'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO ASK STAFF THAT AS WELL. GRANT, CAN ONE OF YOU GENTLEMEN COME UP HERE BECAUSE IN MY 20 PLUS YEARS OF SITTING ON THIS BOARD, WE HAVE NEVER ALLOWED SOMEBODY TO DEMO A NONCOMPLIANT OR SOMETHING THAT'S IN THE SETBACK AND COME BACK AND BUILD SOMETHING THERE. I MEAN THAT'S, UH, CAN SOMEBODY HELP ME OUT HERE FROM STAFF? ANYBODY? I'M STEVE LEACH. I'M THE DEPUTY BUILDING OFFICIAL, UH, I THINK PART OF YOUR, WE CAN GO BACK TO THAT, UH, IMAGE WITH THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTING. OKAY. SO THAT YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED PORTION WAS WITHIN THE PLAT SETBACK, WHICH IS FIVE FEET. THE LA ZONING SETBACK IS 10 FEET. 10 FEET. CORRECT. SO THAT CORRECT, THAT FIVE FOOT SECTION, AS I UNDERSTAND, WAS REMOVED AND IS GONE AND, AND NOTHING WAS PUT BACK WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. AND SO WHAT, BUT YOU JUST STATED THAT IT WAS, UH, IT'S 10 FOOT AND THE CORRECT, CORRECT. DID I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY? YOU JUST STATED IT WAS 10 FEET. CORRECT. SO WHAT HAPPENED? THE OTHER FIVE FEET, YOU JUST TOLD ME THAT THAT RIGHT THERE, THAT UH, UH, THEY TOOK IT OUT OF THE FIVE FOOT, BUT THEN THEY DIDN'T BUILD OVER THERE IN THAT FIVE FOOT AREA. WHAT, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTHER FIVE FEET IF IT'S A 10 FOOT SETBACK? THE, THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WAS BUILT ON A FIVE FOOT SETBACK. THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED OR AT LEAST PERMITTED BEFORE THE ZONING EXISTED. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT HE JUST TOLD ME THAT THEY DEMOED THAT OUT AND CAME BACK AND REBUILT AGAIN. BUT IF SO, ONCE THEY DEMOED THAT OUT, WOULD THEY NOT BE REQUIRED TO, TO BUILD OUTSIDE OF THE SETBACK IF IT, IF IT WAS DEMOED OUT? I MEAN, YOU GOT CLEAN SLATE AT THINK POINT. I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY AN ARGUMENT. AND I THINK THAT THEY HAVE AN ARGUMENT AS WELL THAT, THAT THE MODIFICATION PROVISIONS IN 25 2 9 6 3 ALLOW THEM TO DO WHAT THEY DID. MM-HMM . BECAUSE THE, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT DEMOLISH THE EXISTING HOUSE, WHICH WAS FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. SO THE EXISTING HOUSE IS IN THE SETBACK AND IT WAS NOT DEMOLISHED. OKAY. AND SO I THINK THE WAY THAT THEY'RE PRESENTING THIS NOW IS THAT THAT'S USING 25 2 9 6 3, WE'VE MODIFIED OUR EXISTING NONCOMPLIANT HOUSE. SO THE, SO THE, SO THE FOUNDATION IS STILL THERE WAS, I DON'T KNOW. AND, AND, AND I THINK THIS MAY GET A LITTLE BIT TO, TO MS. MAY'S COMMENT EARLIER ABOUT, ABOUT MY COMMENT THAT THESE DRAWINGS WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED, I THINK WERE A LITTLE BIT MISLEADING. AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT WAS OBVIOUS YEAH. TO MY REVIEWER, THE EXTENT OF DEMOLITION. I UNDERSTAND. AND THEN NO. YEAH. AND I'M NOT BLAMING YOU 'CAUSE I'VE BEEN, I'VE DEALT WITH YOU GUYS A LONG TIME AND WITH A LOT OF PERMITS AND A LOT OF BUILDING AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE TO SEE HOW THINGS ARE DONE OUT THERE IN THE REAL WORLD. OKAY. SO, UH, THAT THUMP THUMP YOU'RE HEARING IS THE BUS GOING OVER YOU? 'CAUSE THERE SEEMS LIKE BOTH PARTIES ARE THROWING YOU UNDER THE BUS. BUT, UH, I'M, YOU KNOW, I I NORMALLY SUPPORT STAFF ON A LOT AT THIS. I WILL SAY THIS, IT'S SORRY THAT YOU BOTH ARE HERE. Y'ALL SHOULDN'T BE THROWING STONES IN THE GLASS HOUSE. YOUR NEIGHBORS, OKAY? YOU GOT UPSET WITH A VIEW. YOU POKED A SLEEPING GIANT. SHE GOT UPSET. AND, AND NOW, NOW YOU'RE BOTH HERE AND I KNOW WHERE THIS IS GONNA END UP. IT'S GONNA END UP IN DISTRICT COURT, BUT YOU PUT US IN A REALLY AWKWARD POSITION. 'CAUSE WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION UP HERE. AND NO MATTER WHAT DECISION [02:45:01] WE MAKE, WE KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GONNA END UP. BUT IT JUST PUTS US IN, IN A POSITION TO WHERE NOBODY'S GONNA BE SATISFIED. I'VE GOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I NORMALLY 99.9% OF THE TIME SUPPORT STAFF, BUT I SEE SO MANY THINGS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE HERE AND THAT, UH, THIS IS NOT GONNA BE RESOLVED TONIGHT. AND WE'VE GOT ANOTHER REVISIT TONIGHT. SO I'M GONNA STEP DOWN MADAM CHAIR AND LET THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS GO. BUT I DON'T SEE US COMING TO ANYTHING HERE TONIGHT. THIS IS, UH, AN ONION. IT'S GONNA BE A, YEAH. UH, BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF STAN. UM, LET'S SEE. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE PERMIT HOLDER. ALL THE PERMIT HOLDERS, RIGHT? I'M GETTING MY WORDS RIGHT. IT'S IMPORTANT. UM, OKAY, SO I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW Y'ALL'S ARGUMENT THAT ESSENTIALLY IT'S OKAY THAT YOU DEMOLISHED THE PATIO BECAUSE YOU'RE RELYING ON THE, UH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE TALKING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT SECTION OF 25 2 9 63. YOU'RE SAYING THAT, THAT THAT SECTION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF A NON COMPLYING PORTION OF A STRUCTURE IS DEMOLISHED, IT LOSES ITS NON COMPLYING STATUS AND MAY ONLY BE REBUILT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT CODE. YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S ONLY APPLICABLE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SUBSECTION B AND NOT UNDER SUBSECTION F. AND MY QUESTION IS LIKE THE ENTIRE, THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THIS CHAPTER IS THAT IT'S ABOUT MODIFYING A PREVIOUSLY EXISTING STRUCTURE. SO THAT WORD MODIFY TO ME STILL MATTERS. LIKE IF YOU, IF YOU JUST DEMOLISH STUFF AND THEN REBUILD HOWEVER YOU WANT REGARDLESS OF CODE BECAUSE SOMETHING WAS THERE BEFORE, DOES THAT NOT UNDERCUT THE INTENT OF THE, THE CODE TO BEGIN WITH? I KNOW IT'S SORT OF A BIG QUESTION, BUT I THINK THAT IS KIND OF AT THE HEART OF WHAT WE'RE ALL STRUGGLING WITH UP HERE IS BECAUSE I THINK THIS WAS WRITTEN TO DO ONE THING AND IT'S BEING USED TO DO SOMETHING QUITE A BIT MORE EXTENSIVE. SO THAT'S MY VIEW. UH, HELLO EVERYBODY. UM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. UH, WARREN CONEL PERMIT HOME PERMIT HOLDER SLASH OWNER. UH, SORRY TO HAVE YOU ALL HERE LATE AGAIN. UH, I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD, LIKE, I'M NOT A LAWYER. I'VE BEEN STARING AT THESE THINGS FOR YEARS NOW. IT'S ALL COMPLICATED. UH, BUT I'M LOOKING AT B ONE AND IT LITERALLY SAYS DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL OF WALLS MUST COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. AND SO 9 6 3 EXPLICITLY ALLOWS DEMOLITION OF AREAS. AND THEN IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE FOUNDATION PAR PART, IT ALLOWS REPLACEMENTS OF FOUNDATIONS. SO JUST THE A AND B SECTIONS OF LDC CONTEMPLATE BEING ABLE TO MODIFY, MAINTAIN DEMOLISH AREAS. AND DOWN AT SECTION E AND F YOU CAN ACTUALLY EXTEND A BUILDING 25 FEET. IT'S VERY EXPLICIT. AND SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEMOLITION , BUT IGNORE THAT WHOLE PREMISE FOR A SECOND. PRETEND LIKE THERE IS NOTHING THERE AND WE JUST HAVE A HOUSE F ALLOWS US TO JUST EXTEND IT 25 FULL FEET WITH A SOLID WALL IF WE WANT TO. IT'S, IT'S VERY DIRECT AND VERY EXPLICIT THAT DEMOLITION DOES NOT LIKE DEMOLITION IS ALLOWED. THERE'S JUST LIMITS TO IT. AND MY UNDERSTANDING FROM SOME OF THE RESEARCH THAT, UH, MR. HARTMAN DID WAS THAT WAS TRYING TO LIKE THAT EXPLICIT DEMOLITION PIECE WAS MORE AROUND A, A LOOPHOLE WHERE PEOPLE WOULD KEEP ONE WALL OF A BUILDING AND THEN TRY TO CLAIM THE ENTIRE THING WAS A RE A DEMOLITION OR SORRY, WAS IT WAS A REMODEL INSTEAD OF NEW CONSTRUCTION. AND SO WHEN I READ THIS, ONCE AGAIN, I'M NOT A LAWYER, I'M NOT UP THERE, BUT I FEEL LIKE THERE'S ONE STRUCTURE ON MY PROPERTY. IT'S THE HOUSE, THE POOL, THE PATIO, LIKE THAT'S MY STRUCTURE. AND THE PORTION OF MY STRUCTURE THAT'S NON COMPLYING IS THE ENTIRE AREA IN THAT SETBACK. AND SO IF THERE'S FIVE TO 10 FEET OF MY STRUCTURE IN THAT SETBACK, ONE, I'M ALLOWED TO DEMOLISH IT ACCORDING TO A AND B AND REBUILD IT. NOT EVEN GETTING TO F BUT LIKE IT SAYS RIGHT THERE, B ONE, DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL OF WALLS MUST COMPLY. IT'S ALLOWED, IT'S NOT SAYING LIKE FORD DOES NOT OVERRIDE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THIS ENTIRE PROVISION. IT'S MORE LIKE A CATCHALL. I THINK IF YOU'RE TRYING TO DEMOLISH THE ENTIRE, IF WE WERE TO DEMOLISH THE ENTIRE PORTION OF THE HOUSE, THE ENTIRE SETBACK AREA, SO THERE'S NOTHING LEFT IN THE SETBACK. THAT'S HOW I READ FOUR AS TRIGGERED. IF THERE'S NOTHING LEFT IN THE SETBACK, THEN THAT PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE IS DEMOLISHED. BUT [02:50:01] WE HAVE AN ENTIRE HOUSE THAT WE DIDN'T TOUCH AND IT, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE SAID IT WAS A CRAWL SPACE. IT WASN'T, IT WAS 10 FOOT HIGH. LIKE THERE WAS ALL SORTS OF FOUNDATIONS THERE. LIKE THIS IS, THERE'S STILL ORIGINAL FOUNDATIONS THAT YOU CAN GO AND SEE ON THE SITE RIGHT NOW THAT ARE AT THE SAME LEVEL. AND THERE WAS ANOTHER ARGUMENT AROUND A ONE FOOT DIFFERENCE, LIKE A DIFFERENT PROVISION HERE. THE HEIGHT OF THE PATIO WAS 10 FEET ABOVE THE ACTUAL FOUNDATIONS. THE FOUNDATIONS DIDN'T CHANGE. THE FINISHED FLOOR FOUNDATIONS REMAINED THE SAME AT GROUND LEVEL. AND SO THE AMOUNT ABOVE IT, EVEN IF IT HAD NEVER BEEN THERE, IF YOU JUST CHOPPED OFF THE WHOLE BACK OF THE HOUSE AND NOTHING HAD EVER BEEN THERE BEFORE, NONE OF THIS DEMOLITION STUFF EVEN MATTERS. YOU CAN GO RIGHT OVER TO F AND IT SAYS YOU CAN EXTEND A HOUSE 25 FEET AND THAT COVERS EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING. LIKE THE DEMOLITION PART IS A DISTRACTION, LIKE WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO ALL OF THIS. MADAM CHAIR, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED. ONE, ONE SECOND PLEASE. BOARD MEMBER. DID THAT, UM, ADDRESS THAT YOUR ADDRESS MY CONCERN FOR NOW, YES. BOARD MEMBER VAN NOLAN, BUT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO INCREASE THE NON COMPLIANCY OF A NON-COMPLIANT STRUCTURE. SO I HAVE A QUESTION THAT MIGHT BE FOR LEGAL OR MAYBE, UH, BOARD MEMBER VAN OLIN OR BOARD MEMBER BOWEN COULD ANSWER LEGALLY UNDER THE CODE. WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF FOUNDATION? BECAUSE THERE WAS A BASEMENT PUT IN. DOES THAT CHANGE WHERE THE FOUNDATION IS OR, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THE ORIG, THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION, IN ORDER FOR HIM TO HAVE DONE THAT WOULD'VE HAD TO BEEN ON PETER OR COLLINS BECAUSE OF THE, TO TOPOGRAPHY OF THE GROUND. THEN AFTER THAT THEY WOULD'VE CAME IN AND HAD TO POUR ANOTHER FLOOR UNDERNEATH IT TO MAKE, TO ADAPT IT INTO A BASEMENT. AND THAT WAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS I HAD ALSO WAS THIS BA WHOLE BASEMENT THING WAS JUST BREEZED OVER AND WASN'T EVEN REALLY ADDRESSED BY THE PERMIT HOLDERS. OKAY. AND WE HADN'T EVEN GOT TO THAT ONE YET. BUT THE WAY IT LOOKS ON, ON THIS, BASED ON THE DRAWINGS IS IT HAD PROBABLY HAD SOME EX EXISTING THERE HOLDING UP THE FOUNDATION BECAUSE IT WAS ELEVATED 'CAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY AND THEN THEY BUILT UNDERNEATH IT TO MAKE A LIVING INTO A BASEMENT. HI, ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. UM, I'M LOOKING AT 25 1 21 AND I DON'T SEE A DEFINITION OF FOUNDATION, SO I'M GOING TO DEFER TO STAFF TO SEE IF THEY HAVE A COMMONLY USED FOUNDATION THAT THEY USED. BUT BEFORE I DEFER TO STAFF, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THE SCOPE OF THE DECISION THAT IS BEFORE THE BOARD. SO THE DECISION THAT IS BEFORE THE BOARD WHERE THE APPELLANT HAS STANDING TO APPEAL IS, UM, THE REVISIONS TO THE 2022 PERMIT. SO ONLY THE REVISIONS TO THE 2022 PERMIT ARE AT ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD. THAT'S BECAUSE, UM, THE APPELLANT ONLY HAS STANDING TO APPEAL FOR 20 DAYS AFTER THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE ARE THE REVISIONS TO THE 2022 PERMIT. SO DO THE REVISIONS TO THE 2022 PERMIT. ESSENTIALLY ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE 2022 PERMIT QUALIFY UNDER THE NON COMPLYING, UM, STR, UH, STRUCTURES PROVISION. UM, AND THAT ALL DEFER BACK TO STAFF. OKAY. 'CAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM STAFF BECAUSE WE KEEP HEARING ABOUT, UH, 25 2 9 63 F AND I'M LOOKING AT ONE B AND IT'S SAYING HERE, EXCEPT FOR VERTICAL CHANGE AND FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION ALLOWED UNDER SUBSECTION B TWO OF THIS SECTION, AND THIS IS JUST WHAT KEEPS GETTING THROWN OUT IS SUBSECTION F. SO THEN YOU GO BACK TO B TWO AND YOU START LOOKING AT THE FOUNDATION UNDER B TWO. AND THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION MAY NOT CHANGE THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION BY MORE THAN ONE FOOT VERTICALLY IN EITHER DIRECTION. IT LOOKS LIKE IT DID DO THAT DEPENDING ON WHETHER OR NOT THE BASEMENT FOUNDATION IS CONSIDERED THE FOUNDATION OR IF IT'S GOING TO BE WHAT'S ON TOP OF THE BASEMENT. SO THAT'S WHY I'M LOOKING FOR SOME CLARIFICATION FOR STAFF. THAT'S A QUESTION FOR STAFF OR, OR LEGALS DEFERRING TO STAFF, I GUESS. [02:55:01] IS THERE A STANDARD DEFINITION FOR FOUNDATION THAT Y'ALL USE WHEN REVIEWING THESE PERMIT APPLICATIONS OR NOT REALLY? I MEAN, UH, FOUNDATION IS THE PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE THAT TRANSFERS THE GRAVITY LOADS INTO THE EARTH. SO THEN THAT WOULD BE THE, THE FOUNDATION OF THE BASEMENT IN THIS PART, RIGHT? NO. MM-HMM . NO, BECAUSE THE WAY THAT BASEMENT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS CONSTRUCTED, THE ACTUAL, IT, THERE'S DIFFERENT TYPES OF FOUNDATIONS. YOU HAVE PURE BEAM, YOU HAVE A FLOATING FOUNDATION, YOU HAVE WHAT THEY HAVE HERE, WHICH IS AN ELEVATED FOUNDATION. AND UH, WHAT THEY HAD WAS AN ELEVATED FOUNDATION THAT HAD COLUMNS. BASICALLY, IF YOU CAN PICTURE THE SIDE OF A HILL AND IT'S GOT COLUMNS GOING DOWN NORMALLY TO BEDROCK, IF IT CAN TO UH, A STABLE SUBSTRATE. AND THEN THEY POUR THEIR COLUMNS, REINFORCED COLUMNS, AND THEN THEY BUILD OUT OVER THE TOP OF THAT. SO THAT MEANS DOWN HERE IS NOT TRANSFERRING ANY LOAD. OKAY. THOSE COLUMNS ARE TRANSFERRING TO LOAD FOUNDATION. THE FOUNDATION FOR THE COLUMNS WOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN THE ENTIRE FOUNDATION BECAUSE IT IS UP ABOVE YOU'VE TRANSFERRED JUST TO ONE SECTION WITHIN A CERTAIN PROFILE. SO THEN THAT WOULD BE COMPLIANT LIKE BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT ON TOP OF IT WHEN THEY ADDED THAT ADDITIONAL, UH, DECK ON TOP. WELL, THAT WOULD BE AN INTERPRETATION BASED UPON THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AS TO WHAT THEIR COUNT, WHAT WOULD YOU COUNT THE UPPER, WOULD YOU COUNT THE UPPER FLOOR THAT IS HOOKED TO THE COLUMNS THAT COME DOWN AS PART OF THAT FOUNDATION? IN, IN MY ARCHITECTURAL MIND? NO, THAT'S STRICTLY THE PART THAT SUPPORTS ALL THE ABOVE STRUCTURE. CONSIDER THE PATIO TO BE PART OF THE FOUNDATION. THAT'S, YES. I DON'T, I DON'T THINK SO. NO, I WOULD CONSIDER THAT TO BE A FLOOR. YEAH, CORRECT. I I WOULD TOO. THAT WOULD, WOULD CONSIDER IT THAT AS A FLOOR. UM, I I DO HAVE A QUESTION IN REGARDS TO THEN IT REGARDING THE SETBACKS. SO AT WHAT POINT, IF YOU HAVE A, IF YOU HAVE A NON-CONFORMING THAT'S IN THE, THAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE SETBACK AND IT GETS DEMOLISHED, EVEN THOUGH THE CODE SAYS YOU CAN EXTEND THAT WALL, AT WHAT POINT DOES THE SETBACK REALLY MATTER THEN BASED UPON THE WAY THAT READS THEN, THEN I AGREE IT'S A CONFUSING SECTION OF CODE. SO WHERE DOES THE LAW COME INTO EFFECT WITH THAT? FIX IT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE LAW THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE THIS VERSUS, SO I'M JUST SAYING THIS, THIS IS GONNA GET REALLY HAIRY AND THAT COMES FROM A GUY WITHOUT VERY MUCH SO YOU'RE PUTTING US IN A PREDICAMENT THAT NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, WE'RE SCREWED. SO THAT'S NOT A QUE THAT'S A STATEMENT BECAUSE OF THE VAGUENESS OF ALL OF THIS. AND TWO NEIGHBORS NOT BEING ABLE TO AGREE, WHICH THEN AN HOA HAS GOTTEN INVOLVED WITH THEIR INTERPRETATIONS THAT THEN WHAT THEY APPROVE VERSUS WHAT YOU GET IS TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS, WHICH IS ANOTHER TOTALLY DIFFERENT KETTLE OF FISH, A STINKY FISH. SO I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WHAT'S GOOD FOR ONE IS NOT GOOD FOR THE REST. IF SOMEBODY ELSE WERE TO GO AND TAKE DOWN SOMETHING NONCONFORMING, THEY MAY NOT, THEY MAY BE TOLD YOU CAN'T, YOU HAVE TO BUILD OUTSIDE THE, OUTSIDE THE SETBACKS. BUT THEN THIS COMES BACK AS A CASE THAT SAYS, WILL YOU LET IT FLY OVER HERE? SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU GUYS ARE GONNA DO, BUT THIS AIN'T, WELL, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S GONNA BE NONE. MADAM CHAIR, UH, VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE. SO I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. UM, I, I ALSO HAVE A STATEMENT, BUT I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. SO LEGAL HAS SAID THAT WE CANNOT VIEW WHAT WAS APPROVED IN 2022, ONLY WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE REVISION. CORRECT. [03:00:02] SO, UM, WHICH I AM SURE IF I, IF I AM UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. IAN WILL HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION THAN THAT, BUT THAT THAT IS AN ASIDE. CAN WE GET THE SCOPE OF THE REVISION SO THAT WHILE WE'RE GOING DOWN ALL OF OUR THOUGHTS, WE COULD BE GOING DOWN A THOUGHT THAT WAS IN THE 2022 THAT WASN'T A PART OF THE REVISION SCOPE. AND SO I, I WOULD LIKE IN THE, IN THE MATTER OF TIME TO, TO CLEARLY KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT IS BEFORE US. AND THEN I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO KNOW, UH, I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE 60 DAYS FROM FILING TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS CASE. WHEN IS THE 60 DAYS? SO FIRST QUESTION, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE ADVANCE PACKET THAT SHOWS, UH, REVISION A LIST, LIKE A LIST OF THE REVISIONS OR MADAM CHAIR, MELISSA, YOU, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PROBABLY THINKING THE SAME THING. I AM. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT STREAMLINES THIS DOWN TO JUST THE REVISION ISSUE. MR. REVISION, NOT ALL OF THIS STUFF GOING ALL THE WAY BACK. 'CAUSE IT IS OVERWHELMING. YEAH, IF THAT, IF THAT IS THE, THE CONFINES THAT DAVID'S GIVING US, WHICH I DO UNDERSTAND THAT PERHAPS MR. ARIAN MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION, BUT IF THAT IS WHAT OUR LEGAL, UH, I UNDERSTAND STAFF IS TELLING US, THEN WE SHOULD KNOW WHAT THAT IS. 'CAUSE WE ARE SPENDING TIME TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT MAY NOT BE WITHIN OUR PURVIEW. AND THEN THE SECOND IS, UH, BY STATE LAW WE HAVE 60 DAYS TO HEAR THIS CASE. SO WHEN, WHEN DID THE CLOCK START? SO I GUESS LET'S GET THE NUMBER FIRST. YEAH, LET'S GET THE NUMBER FIRST AND THEN LET'S FIGURE OUT HOW TO TALK ABOUT, AND I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE REVISION VERSUS THE WHOLE THING SITUATION, BUT HOW ABOUT IF WE GET A DATE AND THEN SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME KIND OF VIEW INTO WHAT THE REVISION IS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE COULD SIT HERE AND TALK ABOUT FOUNDATIONS, DECKS, THIS, THAT, AND THE OTHER, BUT IF THAT'S NOT THE SCOPE OF THE REVISION AND THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IS TELLING US, OUR PROFESSIONAL LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IS TELLING US, I, I WOULD AGREE, BUT I WOULD ALSO ARGUE THAT EVEN THOUGH WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION ON ANYTHING BEFORE THE REVISIONS, WHAT WAS DONE BEFORE THE REVISION COULD GIVE US SOME INSIGHT AS TOWARDS INTENT OR, OR WHAT WAS MEANT TO BE DONE OR WHAT WAS EXISTING. WELL, I MEAN, I I'M ALMOST SORRY THAT THIS ISN'T A VARIANCE CASE. WHERE, WHERE ONE OF THE TWO PARTIES WANTS TO BUILD THE 15 FOOT WALL BETWEEN THE TWO BECAUSE THEY BOTH LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES AND THEY BOTH HAVE NON-CONFORMING SITUATIONS THAT HAVE BOTH BEEN QUESTIONS NOW ON BOTH SIDES. AND IT'S BEEN TO COURT. I IT IS A SHAME AND I, I UNDERSTAND. I I ALSO HAVE AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER THAT I DON'T HAVE ANY SPACE IN MY HEAD FOR. IT'S SAD. I'VE LIVED IN MY HOUSE FOR A LONG TIME AND I HOPE THAT YOU ALL ENJOY YOUR HOMES FOR A LONG TIME, BUT I'D ALMOST RATHER SEE THIS BE A VARIANCE CASE THAN THIS, THIS THING GOING ON HERE. SO IF I COULD GET THE DATE, PLEASE, AND THEN SOMEHOW COULD SOMEBODY GIVE ME THE REVISION SCOPE AND THEN WE COULD TALK ABOUT WHETHER THAT'S STANDING OR NOT. ALL RIGHT, LET'S START WITH THE DATE. SEPTEMBER, THE PERMIT WAS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 24TH. THE APPEAL WAS FILED OCTOBER 14TH. THAT'S CORRECT. UM, THE REVISION WAS APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 24TH. THE APPEAL WAS, WAS FILED ON OCTOBER 14TH. SO THE 60TH DAY, UM, FOR THEM, FOR Y'ALL TO MAKE A DECISION IS DECEMBER 13TH. OKAY. SO WITH THAT SAID, IF Y'ALL PLAN ON POSTPONING THIS, WE HAVE TWO DATES AVAILABLE FOR Y'ALL. WE HAVE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25TH, UM, THAT'S AT THE PDC BUILDING OR Y'ALL CAN POSTPONE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING OF DECEMBER 8TH, WHICH IS MONDAY. UM, AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE NO NEW CASES. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT IS A VERY CLEAR CUT ANSWER. NOW, MAY I IMPOSE ON OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF TO TRY TO CLARIFY [03:05:01] WHAT THE SCOPE OF THE REVISION ENCOMPASSED AND WHERE WE CAN LOOK AT IT. STEVE LEACH, DEPUTY BUILDING OFFICIAL, THE REVISION HAD A FEW THINGS IN IT. UM, RECONFIGURED FACADES WINDOWS MOVED AROUND FROM THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL. THE, THE, I'D SAY THE MAIN THRUST OF THE REVISION WAS THE ADDITION OF THE OUTDOOR KITCHEN, THE TRELLIS OVER THE PATIO, AND I BELIEVE, UH, RECONFIGURATION OF THE POOL ITSELF. IS THAT A SO THE, SO THE BASEMENT WAS NOT A PORTION OF THE BASEMENT WAS PERMITTED IN 2022. OKAY. SO, AND WAS SIGNIFICANTLY BUILT BY 2024. OKAY. CAN, CAN YOU DEFINE THE POOL? CAN YOU DEFINE WHAT WAS THE, EXCUSE ME, I'M COUGHING FIT. OKAY. CAN YOU DEFINE WHAT THE MODIFICATIONS WERE TO THE POOL? PRIMARILY? I BELIEVE THAT THE SPA AND THE POOL WERE SEPARATE AT ONE POINT. AND, AND THEN THE NEW DESIGN, THE SPA IS WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE POOL. OKAY. MR. LEE, MY QUESTION THEN IS WHAT HAPPENED TO, I'M HOLDING HERE IN MY PACKAGE, UM, MASTER COMMENT REPORT. SO WHAT I, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, UH, THE STEEL CANOPY WAS PART OF THE REVISION. THE OUTDOOR KITCHEN WAS PART OF THE REVISION AND, UH, THE POOL'S NOT OVER EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. SO IT'S NOT ABLE TO BE APPROVED AS WHAT HAPPENED TO THESE COMMENTS? 'CAUSE IT CLEARLY STATES THE STEEL CANOPY CANNOT BE IN THE SETBACK. UH, THIS IS FROM ALYSSA MAYFIELD. UM, THE, UH, OUTDOOR KITCHEN CANNOT BE IN THE SETBACK. THE POOL IS NOT OVER EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER, SO IT'S NOT APPLICABLE TO BE APPROVED AS IS. AND THEN IT STATES THAT, UH, IT'S OVER THE, THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS OVER IMPERVIOUS COVER AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW. BUT I MEAN, BECAUSE NOW WE'RE GETTING, IF WE'RE NARROWING IT DOWN AND THESE ITEMS ARE PART OF THE REVISION AND SHE, SHE CLEARLY STATED THAT SOME OF THESE THINGS COULDN'T HAPPEN AND, UH, IT APPEARS THAT THEY DID. BUT, SORRY, BOARD MEMBER VAN OLIN BEFORE WE GO DOWN THIS ROAD, IS THAT EVERYTHING? BECAUSE VICE CHAIR ASKED FOR A LIST OF EVERYTHING, JUST SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE WORKING THAT'S IN THE REVISION? YES. YEAH, I I MEAN, I'D HAVE TO, I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS TO TELL YOU EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN THEM. UH, YES SIR. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. UH, SORRY. UH, IT, IT'S ME AGAIN. UM, THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE MAJORITY OF IT. UH, THE, THE DRIVEWAY WAS, SORRY, INTERRUPT. STATE YOUR NAME EVERY TIME I SPEAK. SORRY. UH, WARREN CONEL. OKAY. UH, THAT, THAT WAS THE MAJORITY OF THE CHANGES WERE THE, THE TRELLIS, THE KITCHEN AND THE, THE POOL RECONFIGURATION. UM, THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL AREA THAT WAS, UM, UH, IT USED TO BE JUST EMPTY STORAGE AND IT WAS CONVERTED INTO LIKE A WINE CELLAR OR WINE, WINE SOMETHING. BUT IT'S UNDER THE, THE POOL DECK. AND IT'S ACTUALLY NOT IN THAT 10 FOOT SETBACK. IT'S, IT'S NOT RELATED. UH, THE DRIVEWAY SLIGHTLY CHANGED. UH, AND THAT'S BASICALLY IT. SO THE, THE REVISION WAS RELATIVELY SMALL. THIS IS A PROJECT THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. EVERYTHING. OKAY. NO, THAT'S ALL I NEED. THANK YOU. UH, DOES THAT SOUND ACCURATE MR. LEACH? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. VICE CHAIR, IS THAT WHAT YOU NEED TO WORK WITH? WELL, THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED TO WORK WITH. UH, NOW I, I DON'T KNOW WHO I WANT TO ASK, BUT I THINK THAT I AM GOING TO ASK MR. IAN, I'M GONNA START THERE. OKAY. MR. IAN, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND HUMORING ME. ARE YOU AVAILABLE? YES. IS THE MICROPHONE LIGHT ON GREEN? OKAY. THERE. AND JUST, GUYS, I'M GONNA INTERRUPT REAL QUICK, VICE CHAIR BECAUSE THERE IS FIVE OF Y'ALL UP HERE. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD EACH TIME YOU'RE ABOUT TO START TO SPEAK SO WE KNOW WHO'S TALKING. CARRIE OR ANN? I REPRESENT THE APPELLANT. IT'S JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN'T SEE Y'ALL VERY WELL. THEY HAVE A LITTLE THING ABOUT THIS BIG WHEN YOU'RE ON WEBEX. I CAN'T AND I WOULD BE THERE IN PERSON IF I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO GET EVERYBODY SICK BEFORE THE HOLIDAYS. AND WE THANK YOU FOR IT. SO, UH, AND, AND I'VE HAD IT FOR 10 DAYS, SO IT'S NOT A LITTLE, YOU'D HAVE IT FOR THANKSGIVING IF I GAVE IT TO YOU. SO THANK YOU FOR NOT GOING . MR. MR ARIAN, OUR LEGAL STAFF HAS, HAS STATED THAT OUR PURVIEW IS THE REVISION. AND, AND IN YOUR PORTION OF THE PRESENTATION, UH, YOU WERE VERY CLEAR THAT IT WAS NOT LIMITED TO [03:10:01] THAT SCOPE. IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, DO YOU WANT TO EXPAND UPON THAT? AS I, I HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION. I DO FIND THIS TO BE A VERY SAD SITUATION BETWEEN TWO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. AND I WAS NOT KIDDING ABOUT THE FENCE VARIANCE. 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, FENCES SOMETIMES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS. SO, UH, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU CARE TO TELL ME A LITTLE MORE SO THAT THEN I CAN ASK MS. LOPEZ TO CLARIFY FOR ME, PLEASE? YES. UH, FIRST OF ALL, UH, 25 1 4 11 STATES THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CAN, UH, SUSPEND A PERMIT AT ANY TIME IF HE DETERMINES THAT THERE WAS SOME ERROR MADE IN ITS ISSUANCE. THERE, THERE'S NOTHING IN THAT CODE SECTION THAT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT TIMING. UM, 25 11 66 SAYS THAT, UH, IF THE, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DETERMINES THERE WAS ERROR AND NOTIFIES THE PERMIT HOLDER, PERMIT HOLDER SHALL CORRECT THE ERROR IF IT'S CORRECTABLE. UM, AND IF HE DOES IT, UH, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CAN, CAN, UH, PUT A STOP WORK ORDER AND SUSPEND ALL OPERATION. THIS MAKES SENSE BECAUSE 20 DAYS FROM THE DATE A PERMIT IS ISSUED, A NEIGHBOR DOESN'T NECESSARILY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. UM, IN THIS CASE, A A BASEMENT WAS DUG UNDERNEATH THE CRAWLSPACE OF THE ORIGINAL DECK TO CREATE A BASEMENT. UM, SHE DIDN'T KNOW THAT FOR IN, IN 20 DAYS. UM, SHE DIDN'T, SHE DIDN'T KNOW A LOT OF OF THESE THINGS WERE GOING TO HAPPEN IN 20 DAYS. 2 11 0 0 9 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SAYS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS THE SAME AUTHORITY AS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO CORRECT ERRORS. WHEN, WHEN THEY WENT DETERMINED THAT AN ERROR HAS BEEN MADE AND GIVEN MS. MAY'S SITUATION, UH, WHEN, WHEN MR. CONAL OBJECTED TO HER PERMIT MORE THAN 20 DAYS AFTER HER PERMIT WAS ISSUED, THE CITY WENT OUT THERE, THEY DID AN INSPECTION. THEY SAID, IT LOOKS LIKE TOO MUCH IMPERVIOUS COVER. WE ARE SUSPENDING YOUR PERMIT AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS, WHICH THEY DID FOR A MONTH AND ENDED UP COMING BACK SAYING, OKAY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GRANDFATHERED BECAUSE OF THE DATE WHEN THE PLAT WAS DONE. BUT YOU GOTTA GET BACK TO THAT GRANDFATHERED IMPERVIOUS COVER. SO WE ARE REINSTATING YOUR PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS THAT YOU REMOVE SOME OF THIS EXCESS IMPERVIOUS COVER. SO THERE'S A SITUATION WHERE MORE THAN 20 DAYS AFTER A PERMIT WAS ISSUED, THERE WAS A QUESTION, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DID THE BEST JOB HE COULD TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS AIR OR NOT. AND WHERE THERE IS AIR, HE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CORRECT IT. THANK YOU MR. GAN. UH, MADAM CHAIR? YES. VICE CHAIR. CAN WE ASK THE SAME QUESTION OF, UH, OUR PROFESSIONAL LEGAL STAFF AND THEN ASK THE SAME QUESTION MR. LLOYD? UH, I WAS JUST THINKING THAT WAS THE LINES WE SHOULD GO ON TO BRING IT WITH HIM. OKAY. HI, KIM ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. UM, SO I WANNA KIND OF JUMP A LITTLE BIT THROUGH THE CODE. SO I'LL, I'LL START OFF WITH, UM, CHAPTER TWO DASH ONE DASH ONE ONE, WHICH IS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. AND THIS DESCRIBES THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY. UM, SUBSECTION F SAID THAT THE BOARD SHALL HEAR AND DECIDE AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION UNDER CHAPTER 25. TWO. THE ACTIONS THAT, UM, MR. IAN WERE DESCRIBING WERE ACTIONS THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TAKES UNDER 25 1, NOT 25 2. AND ADDITIONALLY HE HAD DESCRIBED 25 11. THAT'S A SEPARATE PROCESS. THAT'S A SEPARATE PROCESS THAT [03:15:01] IS BASED ON A PROPERTY SPECIFIC LEVEL. UM, WHEN A, UH, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DECIDES TO SUSPEND A PERMIT, UM, BECAUSE OF AN ERROR, THEY IDENTIFY THE ERROR, THEY GIVE THE, UH, UM, PERMIT HOLDER A CHANCE TO CORRECT THE ERRORS. THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION THAT OCCURS OUTSIDE OF THIS BOARD'S PURVIEW. THE DECISION BEFORE THE BOARD, THE WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY IS AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AND ALL OF THE APPEAL RIGHTS GO, UM, ORIGINATE FROM 25 1 180 1. THIS IS ALL IN ARTICLE SEVEN. SO IF YOU GO TO 25 1 180 1 STANDING TO APPEAL, UM, AND THEN YOU GO TO THE INITIATING THE APPEAL, IT DESCRIBES WHAT TYPES OF DECISIONS THAT A PARTY CAN INITIATE. IN THIS CASE IT'S 25 DASH 1 180 2 2 IS THE 20TH DAY AFTER THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. SO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION THAT IS WITHIN THE 20 DAY WINDOW ARE THE REVISIONS TO THE 2025 PERMIT. SO YOU CAN SAY WHETHER OR NOT THOSE REVISIONS STILL QUALIFY UNDER, AND I HAD, UM, MISSPOKE EARLIER, UM, FOR THE 25 2 9 63, WHETHER OR NOT THOSE PROVISIONS STILL QUALIFY UNDER THE NON-COMPLIANT STRUCTURE, UM, PROVISIONS TO ALLOW FOR THE MODIFICATION EXPANSION. UM, BUT THO THAT'S THE DECISION THAT'S BEFORE THE BOARD. IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FROM THE OTHER POWERS THAT ARE GRANTED IN THE OTHER PART OF THE CODE. IT'S JUST WHAT'S THE LIMITATION OF THIS BOARD UNDER, UM, TO TWO DASH ONE DASH ONE ONE, UM, AND UNDER THE ZONING AUTHORITY. THANK YOU MS. LOPEZ. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? THANK YOU. THANK YOU MS. LOPEZ. AND THEN DID YOU ALSO WANTED TO HEAR FROM MR. LLOYD WERA? OF COURSE I WOULD. AS MR. LLOYD HAS BEEN WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND NOW DEVELOPMENT. OH, A DEVELOPMENT. WHAT IS IT NOW? IT'S NOT DSD ANYMORE. IT'S A D. IT'S A DD? NO, IT'S A-D-S-A-D. HELP ME OUT HERE. BRETT LLOYD, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER A DS. UM, I'M NOT SURE THAT I HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD AND I'M NOT GONNA WEIGH IN ON JUST PURE QUESTIONS OF LAW. THANK YOU. I CAN ACCEPT THAT THOUGH. YOU KNOW, I WANT YOU TO . OKAY. UH, THEN LET'S MOVE BACK TO, UH, BOARD MEMBER VON OLIN TO CONTINUE ALONG YOUR THREAD. I BEG YOUR PARDON? DID YOU WANNA CONTINUE ALONG YOUR THREAD? I INTERRUPTED YOU SO THAT VICE CHAIR COULD GET HER ANSWERS. WELL, WHEN WE WERE PRESENTED WITH THIS PACKAGE, THIS PACKET, WE HAD A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO WHEN THE FIRST STONE WAS THROWN OVER THE FENCE. OKAY. AND SO, OF COURSE I'M LOOKING AT THE PLANS AS I'M SURE JEFF DID, AND I'M SEEING A LOT OF, LET'S JUST SAY INCONSISTENCIES AND, UH, THINGS THAT, UH, DON'T LOOK LIKE THEY SHOULD BE THE WAY THEY ARE NOW THAT WE'VE BEEN CLARIFIED THAT WE NEED TO STAY, UH, JUST WITHIN OUR PURVIEW IS WITHIN THAT. PERSONALLY, I WISH ALL OF THIS PAPERWORK WOULD GO AWAY AND JUST GIVE ME, JUST HAVE TO JUST HAVE WHAT IT IS THAT WE CAN, WHAT, WHAT ARE OUR PARAMETERS? SORT OF LIKE WHAT, UM, MELISSA WAS TALKING ABOUT. I TOOK THE LIBERTY OF TALKING TO STAFF BEFORE I CAME UP HERE BECAUSE I KNEW THIS WAS GONNA BE A CLUSTER. OKAY. AND I DO KNOW THAT WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO POSTPONE IT, AND SHE'S GOT A COUPLE DAYS AT, WITH A ROOM THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE. BUT IT'S, THAT'S IT. THERE'S NO FLOATING AROUND. LIKE, YEAH. WELL, CAN WE DO IT ANOTHER WEEK OR CAN WE DO IT ANOTHER DAY? AND, UH, IN ORDER TO DISTILL THIS THING DOWN TO JUST THE ISSUES AT HAND THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ADDRESSING, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS. AND I BELIEVE, UH, ELAINE, YOU HAD A DAY AND YOU HAD A, A ROOM. THAT POSSIBILITY COULD EITHER DO THE 25TH YES. OR WE CAN DO THE NEXT MEETING. WE HAVE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25TH AT PDC OR MONDAY, DECEMBER 8TH. UM, DURING OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED BOARD MEETING. AND I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING PLANNED ON BEING CURRENTLY ON THE EIGHTH. WE HAVE ONE POSTPONED CASE FROM TONIGHT AND NOTHING NEW. CORRECT? WE HAVE, WELL, TWO POSTPONE CASES. YEAH, SORRY. 50 AND 52, 77, 52. RIGHT. [03:20:02] I AM NOT AVAILABLE ON THE 25TH. SO I GUESS LET'S JUST TAKE A QUICK INFORMAL POLL. WHO, WHO IS AVAILABLE ON THE 25TH? SHOW OF HANDS? NOVEMBER 25TH. NOVEMBER 25TH, WHICH IS THE WEEK OF THANKSGIVING. OR MONDAY, DECEMBER 8TH, WHICH IS OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING DATE. MAGGIE? I'M NOT THRILLED ABOUT IT EITHER. MM-HMM . UH, I WILL BE OUTTA THE COUNTRY, SO, NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S EVERYBODY. NOW THEN, LET'S, IT LOOKS LIKE WE CAN GET EVERYBODY. DO WE HAVE A PREFERENCE? DO YOU WANNA TRY TO DO IT IN THE MEETING OR DO YOU WANNA DO A SPECIAL? WHEN DID, WHEN ARE YOU GONNA BE OUTTA THE COUNTRY? MELISSA? I'M OUT THAT WEEK OF THANKSGIVING. OH, OKAY. SEE? SO SAY HAPPY, HAPPY BIRTHDAY. HAPPY BIRTHDAY. I THINK WE CAN KNOCK IT OUT IN THE DECEMBER MEETING. YEAH, I WOULD DEFINITELY PREFER A REGULAR, I THINK IF IT COULD DISTILL DOWN TO JUST WHAT WE KNOW, WHAT THE PARAMETERS ARE. WE'RE NOT THROWING WITH A BUNCH OF STUFF HERE. BECAUSE I, I SAW THIS THING, I MEAN, I, I GIVE YOU ALL A LOT OF LOVE FOR BEING HERE AS LONG AS YOU WERE LAST MONTH, BUT HOMIE AIN'T PLAYING THAT I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS RIDICULOUS. SO I, SO I FEEL LIKE IT NEEDS TO BE BROKEN DOWN TO, THESE ARE THE ITEMS THAT WE, WE, UNDER OUR PURVIEW, THIS IS STAFF'S PRESENT PRESENTATION OF IT. THIS IS THE OTHER, UH, THE APPELLANT'S PRESENTATION OF IT. AND STICK TO THOSE ITEMS ONLY AND GET US IN. GET IN AND OUT. NOW WITH THAT, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I THINK WE COULD GET IT IN AND OUT TAKEN CARE OF. I WOULD HAVE TO ASK IF WE DO THIS, THAT STAFF GIVES US A LIST OF EVERYTHING THAT FELL UNDER THE REVISION SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE WORKING WITH. MADAM CHAIR, UH, BOARD MEMBER CHAIR. STAN, I JUST WANNA WEIGH IN ON THIS. 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S, I, I THINK THAT STAFF'S LEGAL INTERPRETATION IS SOLID AND I THINK THAT IT, WE ARE, WE ONLY DO HAVE THE PURVIEW TO DECIDE ON WHAT THEY GRANTED IN THAT 2025 REVISION. HOWEVER, THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT THE PREVIOUS STUFF, RIGHT. BECAUSE YOU COULD SAY, WELL, THEY RELIED ON SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE BEFORE AS LIKE PREEXISTING STRUCTURE OR WHATEVER. SO IT'S NOT, I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY GONNA STREAMLINE IT AS MUCH AS WE HOPE NECESSARILY. UM, SO I JUST WANNA PUT THAT OUT THERE BECAUSE IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE BASING IT ON, THAT LIKE, THIS IS GONNA BE, BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY DECIDING ON THE TRELLIS, IT'S GONNA BE QUICK. NO, BECAUSE THEY MIGHT BE RELYING ON SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE PREVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, TO, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M JUST SAYING IT'S NOT GONNA BE THAT STRAIGHTFORWARD. I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WILL NECESSARILY STREAMLINE, BUT IT WILL TELL US WHAT WE CAN, THE DECISION WE HAVE TO MAKE. IT'S LIKE WHETHER WE MODIFY, REVERSE OR UPHOLD STAFF'S DECISION. AND IF WE DO MODIFY OR REVERSE, WE NEED TO SAY VERY SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE FIND IN ERROR AND THEN WE HAVE TO PUT WHAT WE DETERMINE TO BE THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION. SO I THINK HAVING THOSE, UH, REVISIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT, SPELLED OUT REGARDLESS OF WHAT CAME BEFORE, IT WILL HELP US IF WE NEED TO CRAFT LANGUAGE, UH, TO MODIFY OR REVERSE THE DECISION. IS THERE STILL, I KNOW WE'RE MOVING TOWARD POSTPONING AND I'M, YOU KNOW, ON BOARD WITH THAT AND EVERYTHING. IS THERE STILL TIME TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS TO STAFF BEFORE WE FINISH UP TONIGHT? YES, ABSOLUTELY. WE'RE, CAN I MAKE A COMMENT TOO? I'M GOING TO BRIEFLY INTERRUPT THAT AND SAY, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THIS MEETING TO 10 30. OKAY. CAN SECOND I GET A SECOND? SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER SHARE STUDY SECOND. ANY OPPOSITION? OKAY. MEETINGS EXTENDED TILL 10 30. GO AHEAD. UH, BOARD MEMBER STAN, I WANTED TO ASK, UH, STAFF, WHOEVER'S THE STAFF, I GUESS MR. LEACH, YOU'RE UP, YOU'RE UP AT THE PLATE. AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR, FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT. YOU MIGHT AS WELL JUST STAY THERE. I WANT TO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES BEING THROWN AROUND WITH THIS AND YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IT'S, WE'RE GONNA BE POSTPONING ANYWAY, BUT I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ISSUE. 'CAUSE I HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT YET IF THAT'S JUST A RED HERRING THAT'S NOT RELEVANT OR WHETHER IT'S ACTUALLY AT ISSUE HERE. UM, I KNOW THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT THE YARD, THE SETBACK, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT PIECE AT THIS POINT, BUT, UM, THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT THE POOL POTENTIALLY, OR LIKE, IT HAD IMPERVIOUS COVER AND NOW THEY'VE FILLED THAT IN OR SOMETHING. I BASICALLY, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, IS THE STRUCTURE AS PERMITTED TECHNICALLY NON-COMPLIANT WITH IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATIONS? YES. AND IF SO, IT IS OKAY. YES. YEAH, I THINK EVERY STRUCTURE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS, IS EXISTING NON-COMPLIANT WITH RESPECT TO IMPERVIOUS COVER. OKAY. AND IS THE, THE GRANT, WHAT IS THE EXISTING [03:25:01] NON-COMPLIANCE, LIKE WHAT, 'CAUSE I KNOW THE, THE APPELLANT BROUGHT UP LIKE THE 1997 PLAN OR WHATEVER, AND THEY WERE SAYING LIKE, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS IN PLACE IN 1997 IS THE LAST LEGAL NON-COMPLIANCE STRUCTURE, IS THAT WHAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER CALCULATION IS BASED ON? OR IS IS ANYTHING BUILT AFTER THAT STILL CONSIDERED LEGALLY NONCOMPLIANT WHEN IT COMES TO MM-HMM. IMPERVIOUS COVER? I KNOW IT'S KIND OF CONVOLUTED, SO THAT'S FORGET . . DO YOU HAVE 18 MONTHS TO LISTEN TO THAT ANSWER ? UM, NO. I, I DON'T KNOW A SIMPLE WAY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I CAN TELL YOU THAT IN, IN BOTH CASES IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON STAFF AND, AND MYSELF TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH IMPERVIOUS COVER IS ALLOWED HERE. BECAUSE BOTH OF THESE PROPERTIES WERE, WERE, WERE DEVELOPMENT STARTED BEFORE LAKE AUSTIN ZONING. UM, THERE'S BEEN DEVELOPMENT, UNPERMITTED DEVELOPMENT I THINK, ON BOTH PROPERTIES SINCE, UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE WORK THAT WE DID WAS, WAS TRYING TO COME UP WITH THAT NUMBER. RIGHT. AND, AND YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND, I LOOKED IN THE REPORT THAT Y'ALL PROVIDED AND IMPERVIOUS COVER WASN'T ADDRESSED, UNDERSTANDABLY, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE SAYING YOU DON'T WANNA OPINE ON ANYTHING THAT WAS DECIDED PRIOR TO THAT 2025 REVISION. SURE. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN REQUEST THIS, BUT IF POSSIBLE, IF STAFF COULD PROVIDE SOME OF THAT REASONING FOR OUR NEXT, FOR WHEN WE POSTPONE THIS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME AND MAYBE SOME FELLOW MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I THINK THAT'S IT. OKAY. SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THE POSTPONEMENT BEFORE US. I, I HAD ONE ITEM FIRE AWAY IF YOU WOULD HEAR. UH, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO STAFF, UM, BOTH DSD STAFF AS WELL AS LEGAL FOR SITTING WITH US. I REALIZED THAT YOU GUYS GOT POSTPONED TO THE END. UM, WE REALLY FELT LIKE THAT THE CASES THAT SAT THROUGH THE FIVE HOURS LAST TIME, THAT THEY REALLY DESERVED KIND OF A SHOT AT IT. AND I'M, I'M REALLY HAD TO SIT THIS LONG. THAT WAS IT. THANK YOU. EXCUSE ME. CAN I SAY ANOTHER SOMETHING? NO, NO. MR. CONEL GOT EXTRA TIME. UM, YEAH, THAT'S OKAY. NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, I THINK WHAT WE CAN DO TO TRY TO MAKE UP FOR IT VICE CHAIR IS MOVE THIS CASE TO THE BEGINNING OF THE AGENDA ON THE NEXT MEETING SO THAT WE CAN PICK IT UP FIRST SINCE WE ONLY HAVE THE 7 15, 17 50 AND 1752, UH, POSTPONEMENTS TO HERE. AND THEN, AND THAT WAY WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET THE RESOLVED IF THEY DIDN'T TALK TO EACH OTHER AND COME UP WITH AN AGREEMENT, THEY DESERVE TO BE AT THE END. , THEY WERE TALKING IN THE LOBBY. I THINK IT'LL BE FINE. OKAY. SO I DID SEE THE, THE MOTION WAS FROM BOARD MEMBER VAN OLIN, AND THIS IS POSTPONEMENT TILL DECEMBER 8TH. THE DECEMBER 8TH MEETING. WHO WAS THE SECOND ON THAT? WAS THAT, UH, WAS THERE A SECOND ON THAT? OKAY. SO WE'LL GIVE IT TO BOARD MEMBER BOWEN. BEAT TO IT. VICE CHAIR. OKAY. CHAIR. CAN WE, UM, JUST WHAT, UM, COMMISSIONER, UH, OR BOARD MEMBER SHA SAID ABOUT NOTES OF STAFF? CAN WE GET ALL THE NOTES OF STAFF? I KNOW IT MAY GO WAY BACK, BUT JUST ABOUT THIS ISSUE SO WE CAN BE READ. WELL, I CAN BE READ, YES, YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY ASK FOR THAT FROM THE STAFF. OKAY. IF WE CAN PROVIDE THAT IN A PACKET. ANY ALL IN ALL ANY, ANY AND ALL NOTES THAT YOU GUYS HAVE. BECAUSE TO BE HONEST, I NO, NO, NO, NO. BE CAREFUL. BE CAREFUL HOW MUCH YOU ASK FOR. THIS HAS BEEN, YEAH, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE 2022 AND YEAH. AND ALEX, AN HOUR IS OF TIME. I DON'T THINK YOU REALIZE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR. YEAH, YOU'RE YOU'RE TALKING LIKE BOXES OF PAPERWORK. OKAY. SO THE NO, NOT BOXES. TRY TO TRY TO NARROW IT DOWN PLEASE. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF IT'S POSSIBLE. ANYTHING PERTINENT THAT HELPED THE REVIEWER COME TO THE DECISION THEY CAME TO MAYBE, UH, YES, BECAUSE THEY WOULD'VE HAD TO HAVE LOOKED AT THE 2022 PERMIT AND THEN MAYBE BACK TO 97. SO, BUT DON'T, DON'T BOXES. JUST HOW DO THEY COME TO THE DECISION? MAYBE MIGHT BE, UH, HELP CLARIFY THINGS A LITTLE BIT. WOULD, DOES THAT COVER IT FOR YOU? YES, CHAIR. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER ASKS OF STAFF OR, OR LEGAL BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE POSTPONEMENT? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO POST UPON TO THE DECEMBER 8TH MEETING, 2025, MADE BY [03:30:01] BOARD MEMBER VON OLAND, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BOWEN. LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE. TOMMY H YES. SAMIR BEHRING. YES. JEFFREY BOWEN. YES. JESSICA COHEN. YES. MELISSA HAWTHORNE. YES. YOUNG JU KIM? YES. BIANCA MEDINA. AL? YES. MICHAEL VON OLEN? YES. BRIAN PETITE. YES. HAS ABDULLAH? YES. AND MAGGIE ANI? YES. OKAY. THIS IS POSTPONED UNTIL DECEMBER 8TH. AND I'M GOING TO MAKE AN ASK OF THE BOARD MEMBERS ONCE THE BACKUP IS UP AND YOU GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT. IF YOU THINK YOU ARE GOING TO MODIFY OR WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO MODIFY A REVERSE STAFF'S DECISION, CRAFT THE LANGUAGE THEN AND THERE. SO WHEN WE GET TO THE BOARD MEETING ON MONDAY NIGHT, IF WE HAVE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO REVIEW IT, MAKE SURE IT'S LEGALLY COMPLYING AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GOING TO AFFECT ANYTHING ELSE, WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT. HAVING TO CRAFT ON THE FLY, AS YOU GUYS SAW AT THAT LAST MEETING THAT WENT FIVE HOURS, IS INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT. OKAY? THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH. WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT MONTH. ALL RIGHT. AND JUST LIKE DESSERT, WE'RE SAVING THE BEST FOR LAST. WE HAVE A RECONSIDERATION CASE, C 15 20 25 0 0 3 5. [9. C15-2025-0035 Bob Kaler and Carol Journeay (Appellant) Kateryna Luschchenko (Owner) 205 E. 34th Street ] BOB KEELER AND CAROL JEANNE AS THE APPELLANT. CATERINA CHENKO AS THE OWNER. 2 0 5 EAST 34TH STREET. OKAY, THIS IS A RECONSIDERATION, MADAM CHAIR. JUST ONE SECOND. SO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO FIRST FOR THE NEW MEMBERS WHO HAVEN'T DONE THIS BEFORE WITH THE RECONSIDERATION, WE HAVE TO VOTE WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO RECONSIDER THE CASE BEFORE WE HEAR IT. SO THE CRITERIA IS THERE NEEDS TO BE NEW EVIDENCE. AND IF YOU BELIEVE THERE'S NEW EVIDENCE THAT WE NEED TO REVIEW, THEN WE VOTE TO RECONSIDER. IF YOU DON'T FEEL THERE'S NEW EVIDENCE, OR IF YOU FEEL WE MADE THE CORRECT DECISION THE FIRST TIME, THEN YOU WOULD VOTE TO DENY THE RECONSIDERATION. BUT WE HAVE TO DO THAT PART FIRST. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? OKAY. SO, UH, BOARD MEMBER VON OLAN. OKAY. I SAT THROUGH THE VIDEO WATCHING Y'ALL MAKE SAUSAGE FOR FIVE HOURS. OKAY? SO I COMMEND YOU, EVERYBODY HERE. I SAID IT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. I WANNA SAY IT AGAIN. ESPECIALLY OUR NEW MEMBERS. I REALLY COMMEND Y'ALL FOR WHAT YOU WENT THROUGH AND THE WAY YOU OPERATED AS A BODY. AT THE LAST MEETING. I ALSO NOTICED THAT AFTER FIVE HOURS YOU CAME TO A UNANIMOUS DECISION, WHICH IS VERY, VERY UNUSUAL. AND IN THESE TYPE OF CASES. AND I LOOKED AT WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR PACKAGE TODAY, AND I LOOKED AT WHAT WAS PRE PRESENTED AND PROVIDED LAST MONTH. AND TWO THINGS. ONE IS I DON'T SEE ANY, ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FROM THE PACKAGE. SO I DON'T REALLY SEE THE NEED FOR THE BODY TO REVISIT THIS AGAIN. AND IF IT IS TO BE REVISITED AGAIN, THE APPLICANT LOSES, RUNS THE RISK OF LOSING EVERYTHING THAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED LAST TIME. 'CAUSE YOU BASICALLY, YOU OPEN EVERYTHING UP. AND SO HAVING SAID THAT AND SEEING HOW MUCH Y'ALL WORK TO COME TO A UNANIMOUS DECISION, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO DENY RECONSIDERING THIS CASE. I'LL SECOND, SORRY, WHO WAS THE SECOND? UH, OKAY, ONE SEC PLEASE. OKAY. SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO DENY RECONSIDERATION THAT WAS MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VAN OLAND, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF ANI. DISCUSSION, MADAM CHAIR, UH, BOARD MEMBER POTI. I FEEL THAT WE DIDN'T FULLY GRASP THE IMPACTS OF THE ATTIC EXCLUSION THAT WE, UM, ADDED TO THE AMENDMENT. AND A LOT OF, UH, ORGANIZATIONS ARE HERE, AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THE DECISION. SO I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE IT UP. THE, AND I DID TAKE A LOOK AT THE, THE DISCUSSION OVER THE ATTIC SITUATION. AND I MEAN, I FELT LIKE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ATTIC IS SIX FEET TO SIX FEET, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S LOAD BEARING OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT, BUT, UM, I JUST DON'T, UH, [03:35:01] IF YOU GUYS WANT TO GO DOWN THAT PATH, THAT'LL BE FINE BECAUSE THERE'S SOME, A LOT OF ITEMS, THERE'S SOME ITEMS IN THERE THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE APPROVED AND I WOULD NOT SUPPORT. WE REOPEN THIS BABY UP AND I'M GONNA START DISSECTING AS WELL. THAT'S NOT A THREAT. IT'S JUST, I'M JUST TELLING YOU THERE'S THINGS OUT THERE THAT YOU GUYS REALLY WORKED HARD TO COME TO THAT PERSONALLY, BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE OF SITTING ON THE BOARD, I WOULD NOT HAVE SUPPORTED. UH, BUT I SEE WHY YOU GUYS WENT DOWN THAT PATH. I THINK THE ADDICT SITUATION IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD PROBABLY ADDRESS. UH, AND I WOULD, WE WOULD NEED TO TALK TO LEGAL ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT, IT, WE CAN'T PROVE, WE CAN'T ASK FOR AN INTERPRETATION OURSELVES OF, OF OURSELVES. CAN WE, I NOTICED THIS TIME, ERICA, YOU GAVE BECAUSE, UH, I MEAN THAT COULD BE SOMETHING WE COULD WORK OUT HASH OUT IN A WORK SESSION. AND JUST FOR, UH, THE BOARD'S, UH, TO INFORM Y'ALL, IT'S GOING TO BE, UH, SOPHIA INSTEAD OF ERICA SINCE SHE WAS OUR ATTORNEY, BUT OH, OKAY. DURING THE ORIGINAL HEARING. OKAY. GREAT. SOPHIA? UM, GOOD EVENING BOARD. GOOD EVENING CHAIR. UM, SONYA RE ACTUALLY, SONYA SHUT. . NO, NO, NOT A, NOT A PROBLEM. MADAM CHAIR, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. UM, YEAH, SO THE WAY THAT THIS WOULD FUNCTION, RIGHT, WE HAVE PART ONE, WHICH IS WHERE YOU ALL ARE ANSWERING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GOING TO APPROVE OR GRANT THE REQUEST TO RECONSIDER. THEN ASSUMING THAT YOU MAKE THE DECISION, AND BY THE WAY, IT'S A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE. SO SIX OUT OF 11 OR SIX OR MORE MEMBERS HAVE TO VOTE TO APPROVE, THEN WE WOULD MOVE INTO PART TWO. SO THAT'S THE ACTUAL RECONSIDERATION. SO THEN WE GO BACK TO STAFF'S ORIGINAL DECISION, BACK TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION MATERIALS, UM, THAT WERE A PART OF THAT DECISION. AND THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU ALL ARE REEVALUATING IS WHETHER OR NOT STAFF MADE THE APPROPRIATE DETERMINATION AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATION. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, SO IF WE DECIDE, BECAUSE I, I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER POTT'S CONCERN THAT MAYBE THE, THE SIX FOOT ISN'T AS CLEAR AS AS WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE. UM, I'M, MY QUESTION IS, DOES THE BOARD HAVE THE ABILITY TO CREATE AN INTERPRETATION CASE ON SOMETHING OUTSIDE SAFE? WE DENY THIS AND WE MOVE ON WITH IT. DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO BRING SOMETHING BACK WHERE WE CAN DISCUSS THE ATTIC SPACE? OR DO WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR IT TO COME UP IN ANOTHER CASE AND THEN ADDRESS IT AT THAT TIME? SO FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE RECONSIDERATION WOULD HAVE TO BE DETERMINED TONIGHT. MM-HMM . SO THERE WOULD BE NO ABILITY, FOR EXAMPLE, TO POSTPONE MM-HMM . AND, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER THINGS AND THINK THINGS THROUGH. UM, SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, RIGHT? I SUPPOSE HYPOTHETICALLY, AND I, I'M ALWAYS CAUTIOUS WHEN DEALING WITH HYPOTHETICALS, RIGHT? THERE IS POTENTIALLY AN ANOTHER CASE THAT COULD COME UP, BUT AGAIN, EVERY TIME THERE'S A NEW CASE, WE'VE GOTTEN NEW FACTS, WE'VE GOTTEN NEW CIRCUMSTANCES, SO IT MAY NOT NEATLY ALIGN IN THE WAY THAT YOU'RE PERHAPS HOPING. UM, SO REALLY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THIS AND REEVALUATE, IT REALLY NEEDS TO HAPPEN TONIGHT BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE. OKAY. IF, IF I MAY, UH, BOARD MEMBER LIN YES. UH, ADDRESS BOARD MEMBER POTT'S CONCERN, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED, AND I, I, I AM INTERESTED AS WELL, UH, BECAUSE AFTER THE MEETING I WAS ABLE TO REVIEW OUR DECISIONS AND, AND I COULD SEE WHERE MAYBE, UH, WE WERE NOT QUITE CLEAR ENOUGH IN THE CRAFTING OF OUR LANGUAGE, WHICH IS WHY I, I SAY THIS IS VERY, VERY DANGEROUS STUFF WHEN WE START OPENING UP THIS BECAUSE ME, I WAS NOT APPOINTED TO, TO, TO WRITE ORDINANCE. I'M HERE TO GRANT VARIANCES AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND RARELY IF, IF WE NEED TO MODIFY A STAFF DETERMINATION, BUT I I, I DON'T THINK THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE THE ORIGINATOR OF ORDINANCE. SO IF YOU'RE OPEN TO IT, I COULD SUGGEST MAYBE ALTERNATIVELY A WORKING GROUP WHERE WE COULD COME UP WITH THE CORRECT LANGUAGE OR THE LANGUAGE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE, UH, IN SUB CHAPTER F REGARDING HABITABLE ATS. AND THEN WE PRESENT THAT AS A RESOLUTION TO COUNCIL. AND I CAN TAKE THAT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND WE, UH, AMEND THE ORDINANCE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, MADAM CHAIR, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST ON SEVERAL ISSUES BECAUSE WHEN CODE NEXT AND [03:40:01] CODE NEXT OF NEXT AND CODE NEXT OF NEXT OF NEXT WAS COMING UP, UH, WE HAD ISSUES THAT WE HAD TO TAKE. AND YOU TOOK TWO, UH, PLANNING AND, UH, TO GET A BUY ON BEFORE IT WENT TO COUNT, AND IT WENT TO THE, WENT TO. UH, AND IT'S ONLY, I'M, I'M HESITANT BECAUSE IF WE REHEAR THIS CASE, AGAIN, IT IS A DIFFERENT MAKEUP OF BOARD MEMBERS TONIGHT AND WE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME'S GOING TO BE. RIGHT? IT WILL BE AND IT, BUT I GUARANTEE YOU IT'S NOT GONNA BE THE SAME. YEAH. I MEAN IF, I MEAN, THAT COULD CREATE ITS OWN NEW SET OF PROBLEMS IF, IF WE DON'T TAKE IT UP, I'D CERTAINLY BE INTERESTED IN A WORKING GROUP. I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT ALL THE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY OPEN. UH, AND IT'S VALID. I DON'T KNOW THE, THE APPLICATION FROM THE, THE PERMIT HOLDER INDICATED THAT LIKE THIS REALLY BLOWS UP A LOT OF STUFF THAT WE DID NOT INTEND TO BLOW UP. AT LEAST I DIDN'T. UM, SO IF, IF WE PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL, IT'S GONNA TAKE TWO YEARS TO FIX IT, AND THEN THAT'S JUST IT. TIME USUALLY DOESN'T TAKE THAT LONG. BUT I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN, BUT THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS A STEALTH DORM. IF NOBODY ELSE UP HERE WANTS TO SAY IT, I'M GONNA SAY IT, IT'S A STEALTH DORM. YOU GOT TWO FRONT DOORS, GOT TWO BACK DOORS, YOU GOT A DOOR IN THE MIDDLE, IT'S GOT A CASE OPENING THAT CAN BE CLOSED OVER AND IT'S FOUR BUILDINGS ON THIS PROPERTY. SURE, SURE. IT'S GONNA OPEN UP A BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS THAT I PERSONALLY, MYSELF HAVE A LOT OF HEARTBURN WITH BECAUSE THE NCCD VERSUS HOME, THE CITY COUNCIL PASSED HOME AND THEY THREW, THEY CHUCKED THIS BALL OUT THERE AND THEY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA END UP WITH A LOT OF INTERPRETATION CASES WHERE WE'RE GONNA BE WRITING CODE BY INTERPRETATION, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ENOUGH THOUGHT PUT INTO THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF HOME ITSELF. IT WAS A GOOD START, BUT I THINK EVERYBODY GOT WRAPPED UP IN ALL THE, THE EVERYTHING OF TRYING TO GET A, A, A CODE OUT THERE OR CODE NEXT TO, NEXT TO BROTHER OF, NEXT TO MOTHER, OF NEXT TO WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, THAT THEY SORT OF RUSHED IT. AND WE'RE ALREADY SEEING SOME OF THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. AND I'LL USE THIS AS AN EXAMPLE. I DON'T COME DOWNTOWN VERY OFTEN ANYMORE SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THEY DID AWAY WITH THE PARKING. I HAVE A, A VERY HIGH DOLLAR CLASSIC CAR SHOW CAR, AND THEY HAVE SHOW CAR, YOU KNOW, CAR GATHERINGS DOWNTOWN. I WON'T COME DOWN HERE BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY TAKE ONE CAR IN ONE DIRECTION AT A TIME ON EAST FIFTH STREET, EAST SIXTH STREET STREET, EAST THIRD STREET BECAUSE ALL THE PARKING IS GONE AND PEOPLE ARE PARKING ON THE STREETS. SO I DON'T THINK THIS IS GONNA BE THE ONE THAT WE'RE GONNA WANNA REOPEN AGAIN. UH, UH, COMMISSIONER PETITE, I SUPPORT YOU AND WANTING TO ADDRESS THAT. I REALLY DO, AND I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. BUT I'M GONNA STICK WITH MY MOTION TO DENY RECONSIDERATION. OKAY. I'LL, I'LL ON THIS ONE, I'LL JUST SAY THAT MY, MY, UH, OPINIONS ON THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY HAVE NOT CHANGED MUCH. SURE. BUT MY OPINIONS ON THE AT EXEMPTION HAVE CHANGED. UM, LIKE THE, THE, THE PRESENTATION HAD A, A PICTURE OF AN A DU THAT'S NEAR ME. IT'S VERY SMALL AND, UH, IT WOULD BE NON-COMPLIANT NOW. AND I DON'T THINK THAT IS RIGHT. I RESPECT THAT I CAN, I, I, UH, BOARD MEMBER BEARING. THANK YOU CHAIR. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER PETITE THAT, UM, I THINK THE ATTIC LANGUAGE WAS PROBLEMATIC. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE TO REOPEN THIS, I STILL THINK WE WOULD, UH, REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION. UH, I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE KIND OF GETTING AT, RIGHT? COMMISSIONER FOR EVEN IF THE ATTIC THE ATTIC OR FOR THE, OR OR NO, SORRY. THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION ON THE PERMIT. UH OH, SURE, SURE. IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED. I MEAN, I, I, I RECOGNIZE THIS WOULD BE A LONG PROCESS. IF I COULD SNOT MY FINGERS, I WOULD, UH, SAY WE SHOULD TAKE IT UP AND THEN PASS IT AS WE DID AND REMOVE THE ATTIC LANGUAGE. IF THAT WAS POSSIBLE. I THINK THAT WOULD BE GREAT. BUT I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF YEAH, WE CAN, WE ALL LIKE WINK AND AGREE. I DON'T THINK WE WOULD AGREE. I DON'T SEE THAT. I KNOW WE WOULD HAVE TO YEAH, I KNOW WE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE PRESENT THROUGH THE PRESENTATIONS. IT WOULD TAKE A LONG TIME. YEAH. IT HOURS TO GET TO WHERE WE'RE, AND I THINK I SHOULD STRESS MORE IMPORTANTLY, VICE CHAIR. I DID SEE YOUR HAND. I'LL GET YOU IN JUST A SECOND. WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RECONSIDERATION HERE, WE REALLY SHOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE CASE. I KNOW WE HAVE TO A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO RECUR IT, BUT WAS NEW EVIDENCE SUBMITTED OR WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER VIABLE NEW EVIDENCE SUBMITTED THAT WOULD GIVE US ENOUGH REASON TO CHANGE FROM OUR ORIGINAL DECISION? BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE REPERCUSSIONS FROM OUR, OUR ORIGINAL DECISION WITHIN, UH, THE DSD AND THE BUILDING COMMUNITY, SORRY, A SD AND THE BUILDING COMMUNITY, THAT THAT IS NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION, UNFORTUNATELY. [03:45:02] UM, I WOULD CONSIDER THAT TO BE NEW EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE DEPICT THE ATTIC PICTURES. JUST THE IMPACT OF THE ADDICT EXCUSE. IS THAT, ARE THOSE THE NEW EVIDENCE? OKAY. NO, BUT THOSE DO YOU MIND, UNFORTUNATELY ALSO THAT DOESN'T, AND LEGAL, I THINK YOU CAN JUMP IN ON THIS, THAT THE NEW EVIDENCE HAS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, BUT THE, THE ATTIC PICTURES ARE NO RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT WAS. THOSE ARE PICTURES FROM ANOTHER, ANOTHER PROPERTY THAT WE DON'T, UNLESS YOU PULL THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT THE STRUCTURALS ARE, HAVE REALLY NO RELEVANCE TO WHAT THE STRUCTURALS ARE FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT. SO JUST QUICK CLARIFICATION FROM LEGAL, UH, SONYA, NOT SOPHIA . YES, MADAM CHAIR. SONYA RETA. THANK YOU. UM, SO YOU'RE CORRECT. SO IT'S BASED ON WHATEVER NEW WRITTEN MATERIALS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT WHO HAS APPLIED FOR THE REQUEST OR WHO HAS MADE THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. SO WE ARE A BIT LIMITED IN WHAT WE CAN CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE, BUT I, I DON'T WANT TO DISREGARD YOUR CONCERNS BECAUSE I SHARE THEM, TRUST ME, I SHARE THEM A LOT. UH, IT'S JUST, WE'RE WE'RE BOUND SOMEWHAT, UH, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LAWS THAT GRANT US OUR, OUR PURVIEW OVER WHAT WE CAN CONSIDER. UM, DOES THAT KIND OF CLARIFY OR YEAH, I MEAN, I, I STILL HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS. NO, SIR. HANG ON JUST A SECOND PLEASE. 'CAUSE VICE CHAIR HAS HAD HER HAND UP FOR LIKE, OR HAD IT UP FOR LIKE 20 MINUTES. YES. VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE. WELL, I CAN TELL YOU I'VE PROBABLY HEARD MORE AT EXEMPTION DEFINITION CASES THAN PROBABLY, UH, MICHAEL BE RIGHT ALONG WITH ME AND ALL THESE LITTLE POINTY HOUSES JUST, YOU KNOW, WITH THEIR LITTLE DS CAPS ON. I CAN TELL YOU THAT IF WE HERE WITH THIS CASE, I DON'T THINK HOMES SHOULD APPLY TO THE NCCD. IT DID NOT CHANGE THE CONTENT OF THE NCCD, AND I REALLY FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD ONLY HAVE TWO UNITS PER LOT. SO IF YOU WANNA OPEN IT UP, LET'S GO. IF NOT, LET'S MOVE ON. AND WE CAN SUBMIT THROUGH PROPER CHANNELS A CODE CHANGE OR, OR ANOTHER INTERPRETATION, OR WE MIGHT GET TO HEAR THIS CASE AGAIN, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS FILED A NEW PERMIT ALREADY ON THIS PROPERTY, A BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF STAI. I THINK, I THINK WHAT I WANNA ADD HERE IS I, I WILL ALSO VOTE TO DENY THE RECONSIDERATION. I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S NEW INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. UM, BUT I THINK MY TAKEAWAY HERE IS I THINK WE REALLY FELT LAST TIME AROUND THAT WE WANTED TO LIKE, ADD SOMETHING MORE TO OUR DECISION AS OPPOSED TO JUST CONFINING IT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE WANTED TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO STAFF, WE WANTED TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE. AND I THINK MY TAKEAWAY HERE IS THAT I DON'T WANNA DO A LITTLE BIT MORE ANYMORE. YOU KNOW, I WANNA JUST OPINE ON THE ISSUE AT HAND AND MOVE ON, BECAUSE I THINK I DO AGREE. I MEAN, I, I, I EMPATHIZE WITH, UH, BOARD MEMBER PETIT'S CONCERNS AND I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, DOING IT AGAIN, I WOULD'VE DONE IT DIFFERENTLY. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S, UH, GROUNDS FOR REOPENING THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UH, BOARD MEMBER BARING. UM, YEAH. AND, AND EVEN THOUGH I, I, UH, SHARE, UH, COMMISSIONER POT'S CONCERNS, I, I DON'T WANNA REOPEN THIS CASE. IT WAS A DIFFICULT COMPROMISE. IT WAS DIFFICULT TO GET TO THE, THE FINDINGS WE HAD A MONTH AGO. AND I YEAH. BUT, UH, IS THERE ANYTHING WE NEED TO DO TO GO TO OPEN UP THE PROCESS YOU SUGGESTED CHAIR TO LIKE, UM, PERHAPS TAKE THIS DIP LINING COMMISSION? 'CAUSE ULTIMATELY I THINK THERE WERE A LOT OF ISSUES THAT WE RAISED LAST MONTH THAT WOULD BE BETTER ADDRESSED BY THE COUNCIL, AND THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY WHERE I WAS HEADED BECAUSE WE ARE RESTRICTED BY THE CREATION OF WORKING GROUPS. AND IF IT'S NOT NOTIFIED ON THE AGENDA. HOWEVER, WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK, AND THIS IS A QUESTION FOR LEGAL, BECAUSE THIS HAS COME UP IN RESPONSE SPECIFICALLY TO THE CASE WE ARE CURRENTLY HEARING. CAN WE CREATE A WORKING GROUP WITHOUT NOTIFICATION BECAUSE OF THIS CASE? LIKE BE, WITH THIS CASE BEING THE UNDERLYING CAUSE FOR THE WORKING GROUP TO BE CREATED AND AND CHAIR, I WILL HAVE TO SAY THAT I WILL NEED TO GO BACK AND, AND DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH. I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I GIVE CLEAR AND ACCURATE ADVICE ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. I, I DO THINK YOU PRESENTED SOME LEGITIMATE CONCERNS AND SOME REASONING [03:50:01] FOR WANTING TO HAVE THIS WORKING GROUP. UM, AND WHAT I CAN DO IS CERTAINLY GO BACK INTERNALLY, DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH INTO THAT QUESTION, AND THEN PROVIDE YOU WITH A RESPONSE, UM, IN CASE YOU ALL PERCEIVE THAT THIS MIGHT BE AN ISSUE THAT PERHAPS IS NOT ONLY FOR THIS CASE, BUT MAY COME UP AGAIN IN A FUTURE CASE. COULD I ASK, WHILE WE FINISH DELIBERATING ON THE RECONSIDERATION, IF YOU COULD MAYBE GET WITH, UH, MS. LOPEZ, MR. MADDOX, AND BANG YOUR HEADS TOGETHER AND GET ME AN ANSWER ON THAT WORKING GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE NIGHT? BECAUSE IF WE HAVE TO WAIT TILL DECEMBER TO THEN CREATE THE WORKING GROUP, IT MEANS WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE AN ANSWER TILL JANUARY. AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO PUT THIS TO BED BEFORE THEN. UNDERSTOOD. AND I CAN DO THAT. THANK YOU. AND, AND ALSO CHAIR, IF I, IF I MAY JUST BRIEFLY AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, EVEN THOUGH IT SOUNDS FROM THE CONVERSATION, UM, THIS DETERMINATION THAT YOU ALL MADE BACK ON OCTOBER 13TH DOES IMPACT THIS PARTICULAR NCCD, BUT IS NOT NECESSARILY, CITY DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE A CITYWIDE IMPACT. SO JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE A, A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE YOU TO SAY THAT AGAIN FOR STAFF TO HEAR, BECAUSE THE CURRENT INTERPRETATION BY STAFF IS THAT THIS IS BROAD SWEEPING, AT LEAST THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. OH, YES. MR. LLOYD, I FORGOT. WE HAVE THE GUY, THE BOSS IN CHARGE. CAN YOU WEIGH IN ON THIS PLEASE? BRETT LLOYD, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. SO THE PIECE OF CODE THAT THE BOARD WAS INTERPRETING WAS THE DEFINITION OF GROSS FLOOR AREA AND HOME, WHICH APPLIES ACROSS VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE, WHERE TWO, THREE, AND THREE UNIT DUPLEX, TWO UNIT AND THREE UNIT USES ARE ALLOWED. SO IT DOES HAVE IMPACT BEYOND THE NCCD. UM, BUT I, I KNOW THAT THERE WERE SOME ISSUES SPECIFIC TO THE NCCD THAT CAME UP IN TERMS OF THE QUESTIONS THAT, UM, BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE WAS RAISING, UM, THAT THE BOARD ULTIMATELY DID NOT GET INTO. BUT THE, THE ISSUE YOU DID GET INTO WITH RESPECT TO FAR DOES HAVE BROADER IMPACTS. MY APOLOGIES. I STAND CORRECTED. OKAY, THANK YOU. NO, NO, THANK YOU. SO YEAH, UH, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF WE CAN DO THAT WORKING GROUP BASED ON THIS CASE SPECIFICALLY, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING TO HAVE SOMETHING MORE GENERALIZED IN NOTIFYING FOR NEXT MONTH. YES, ABSOLUTELY CHAIR. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO, UH, BOARD MEMBER GATE SAID SOMETHING, BOARD MEMBER EIGHTS. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? UH, MY QUESTION WAS JUST A CLARIFICATION ON SCOPE OF THE CASE. I, I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST MAYBE, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY MAYBE TO THAT NNC NCCD, BUT I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS OUTSIDE OF THAT. SO, UM, I DO THINK STAFF WERE GIVING CLARIFICATION. YEAH. UH, BECAUSE SUB CHAPTER F WHERE THE, UH, THE MCMAN ORDINANCE IS WHERE THE HABITABLE ATTIC IS, UH, CODIFIED, IT IS BLANKET, UH, COVERAGE FOR ALL. UH, DID I SEE MR. LLOYD COMING UP TO CORRECTLY? I'M CLARIFY. I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT I WAS, MY GOAL IS TO SPEAK AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE TONIGHT, BUT, UM, THE, THIS IS NOT IMPLICATE SUBCHAPTER F SO SUBCHAPTER F AFFECTIONATELY REFERRED TO AS THE MCMANSION ORDINANCE IS REALLY MAINLY LIMITED TO SINGLE FAMILY AT THIS POINT. AND SO THE, THE FAR CALCULATION METHOD FOR DUPLEX TWO UNIT AND THREE UNIT IS DIFFERENT. IT'S NO LONGER IN SUBCHAPTER F IT'S IN THE HOME ORDINANCE. AND SO THAT WAS WHAT YOU ALL RULED ON. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT DID, DOES NOTHING. YOU DID IMPLICATES CASES THAT ARE REVIEWED UNDER SUBCHAPTER F BUT THEN HOW DID THE HABITABLE ATTIC, UH, CONDITION THAT WE APPLIED IN OUR INTERPRETATION? YOU DID NOT DO THAT. YOU DID NOT APPLY. YOU DID NOT GET INTO HABITABLE ATTIC. YOU, YOUR SAID MORE THAN SIX FEET. YEAH. YOU'RE, YOU JUST FOCUSED ON THE ACTUAL DEFINITION OF GROSS FLOOR AREA THAT APPEARS IN HOME. SO YOU DID TALK ABOUT ATTIC, BUT HABITABLE ATTIC IS A SPECIAL CALCULATION METHOD THAT'S EXISTS UNDER SUB CHAPTER F. IT'S SPECIFIC TO SUB CHAPTER F. AND WHAT YOU GUYS WEIGHED IN ON WAS BASICALLY THAT UNDER THE DEFINITION OF GROSS FLOOR AREA IN THE HOME ORDINANCE, IF IT'S, IF IT IS SIX FEET OR HIGHER, THEN IT COUNTS TOWARDS GROSS FLOOR AREA REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE FLOOR IS LOAD BEARING. THAT WAS THE CRUX OF YOUR RULING. AND WE LANDED ON THAT AS PART OF THE COMPROMISE. YEAH. RIGHT. LIKE THAT IS, THAT IS THE THING. LIKE THAT'S CAN YOU JUST, THAT AS BOARD MEMBER V OLEN POINTED OUT, IT WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION AND WE ONLY GOT THERE BECAUSE WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THAT LIKE THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW. IT, IT LANDED WHERE IT LANDED, IT WAS A COMPROMISE AT [03:55:01] DEFINITELY AGAINST THE, IT'S 20 BEDROOMS IN THE NCCD AND IT WAS CLEARLY FOUR UNITS. GIMME JUST A SECOND, Y'ALL LET ME, WHICH, WHICH IS WHY I WISH WE HAD RULED ON THAT WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT THAT ATTIC EXEMPTION. IT WAS OUR WAY OF NOT GETTING INTO THE NCCD. OKAY. HERE IS THE LANGUAGE THAT I SENT VIA EMAIL THAT I READ WHEN WE MADE THE DECISION, UH, THE APPEAL WAS GRANTED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FUNDS THAT THE PLAN SET FOR PERMIT NUMBER 20 25 0 7 2 9 30 PR DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL RELEVANT REGULATIONS. SPECIFICALLY THE STAFF DETERMINATION FOR THE NUMBER USED THREE IS INCORRECT APPROVED PLANS DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR FRONT YARD, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. THE APPROVED PLANS DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR FAR REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE GROSS FLOOR AREA DEFINITION OF ATTIC AND 25 2 7 7 3. OKAY, THANK YOU. YOU ARE RIGHT MR. LLOYD. SO WE DO NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT HABITABLE ATTIC. THE APPROVED PLAN SHOULD MEET THE CRITERIA FOR FAR REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE GROSS FLOOR AREA DEFINITION OF ATTIC AND 25 2 7 7 3 E ONE B. AND THE DEFINITION OF FLOOR IN 25 2 7 7 3 E ONE B IS NOT LIMITED TO WHETHER THE FLOOR IS LOAD BEARING OR NOT. SO YEAH, SO WE, WE WERE SAYING EVEN IF IT'S A NON LOAD BEARING FLOOR, RIGHT. WE BELIEVED THAT THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD WAS THAT IT'S NOT SO HARD TO MAKE A FLOOR LOAD BEARING RIGHT. AFTERWARD, WHICH IS STILL STANDBY. YEAH. WHICH IS WHERE WE LANDED IN, YOU KNOW, AND, AND I ALSO THINK THAT WAS OUR, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE FLORIDA AREA RATIO DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE NCCD AND I MEAN 0.65 COMPARED TO 0.4. THAT'S IN THE NCCD. I THINK THIS WAS PART OF THE COMPROMISE. AND I'D REALLY LIKE TO JUST CALL THE QUESTION IF THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE. OKAY. SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. OKAY. SO LET ME JUST DO, THAT'S FROM LAST MONTH. 30 SECONDS. ALL RIGHT. SO FIRST LET'S CALL THE VOTE. THIS IS A MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION AN END DEBATE. LET'S START WITH TOMMY Y. YES. SAMIR BARING. YES. JEFFREY BOWMAN. YES. JESSICA COHEN. I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN. MELISSA HAWTHORNE. YES. YOUNG JU KIM? YES. BIANCA MEDINA. LEAL? YES. MICHAEL VANOWEN? YES. BRIAN POTI? NO. HAS ABDULLAH? YES. AND MAGGIE ANI? NO. NO. OKAY. UH, RULES. YEAH. I THINK IT'S TWO THIRDS. IS IT'S TWO THIRD LEGAL. IT'S TWO THIRDS. RIGHT. BUT WAS IT, WAS IT CALLED TO QUESTION? WAS IT SECONDED? IT'S CALLED QUESTION AND SECONDED. OKAY. YEAH, IT'S TWO THIRDS. IS IT TWO THIRDS? IS THAT, IS THAT RIGHT? LEGAL? JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. I'M PRETTY SURE IT'S TWO THIRDS IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. SURE. THIS IS ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO DENY THEN IT WOULD NO, THIS IS TO CALL THE QUESTION AND DISCUSSION. CALL THE QUESTION AND DISCUSSION. YES. I BELIEVE IT'S A MAJORITY VOTE, BUT CIVIL MAJORITY. CIVIL MAJORITY, CORRECT. I WANNA SAY IT'S, IT'S TWO THIRDS. I CAN, I HAVE MY ROBERTS RULES RIGHT HERE. LET'S JUST DOUBLE CHECK. I DON'T WANT ANY AND ANY DISCREPANCIES. IF I CAN GET, I THINK WE DID GET TWO THIRDS THOUGH. YES. YES. IF I CAN GET SOME CLARIFICATION. I THOUGHT THE MOTION ON THE TABLE THOUGH WAS TO DENY THE APPEAL, OR I'M SORRY. IT DENIED. IT HADN'T BEEN SECONDED. IT WAS NOT SECONDED. RIGHT. SO WE WERE IN DISCUSSION. I THOUGHT IT WAS SECONDED BY MADAM CHAIR WAS SECOND. IT WAS, IT WAS SECONDED BY SHE OH, YOU'RE RIGHT. A BOARD MEMBER. SHE, I SECOND, BUT THEN I SECONDED BOARD MEMBER HORNE'S MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION. PREVIOUSLY BOARD MEMBER VON OLEN HAD MADE A MOTION YES. TO DENY THE RECONSIDERATION, WHICH HAD NOT BEEN SECONDED. I KNOW, BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO SECOND IT. AND THEN I NEVER GOT A CHANCE. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU DID SECOND IT. YEAH, I THOUGHT YOU SECONDED TOO. IT'S HOW I MARKED IT. NOT MY, BUT REGARDLESS, YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT THEN. YEAH, IF, IF I, I MEAN I WANTED TO, I DON'T KNOW. HISTORICALLY, HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, THE BOARD HAS ALLOWED DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE BOARD MEMBERS EVEN AFTER A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE THAT MAGGIE SECONDED THAT MOTION TO EITHER CONSIDERATION. SO THIS IS TO END DISCUSSION AND GO IMMEDIATELY TO THE VOTE. OKAY. SO [04:00:01] THIS IS A MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION END DISCUSSION. OKAY. PROCEDURALLY, DID WE HAVE TO FIRST WITHDRAW THE PREVIOUSLY NO, I THINK WE ALREADY HAD TWO THIRDS THOUGH. I MEAN, YEAH, I THINK, UH, WE HAD TWO THIRDS. REGARDLESS. THERE'S ONLY TWO PEOPLE SAID NO, THEN THE REST, ONLY TWO PEOPLE SAID NO. SO THAT GIVES US A SUPER, YOU'RE RIGHT, IT'S FINE. SO WE'LL JUST CALL THE QUESTION. IT'S DONE. I'M JUST TRYING TO, SORRY, I WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S, I FEEL LIKE I CREATED THAT. I'M SORRY GUYS. I WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S PERFECT. IT'S GOTTA BE PERFECT. I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE 'CAUSE I GOT CONFUSED ON, ON THE QUESTION. SO I'M SORRY. UM, I MEANT TO SAY NO, I'M SO SORRY. OKAY. YEAH. SO, SO FOR TOMMY, THAT'S A NO. CORRECT. OKAY. BUT THAT'S STILL 1, 2, 3, AND THEN 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. WHAT AM I MISSING? I ABSTAINED TWO. SO THAT'S ANOTHER THREE. THAT'S 10. SEVEN THREE. TWO THIRDS. WHAT IS TWO THIRDS OF 11? SOMEBODY MATH FOR ME. SO I, I'M CONFUSED. NOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING, WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS CALLING THE QUESTION OR WHAT, ARE WE VOTING ON MICHAEL'S MOTION OR ARE WE VOTING? WE'RE VOTING ON CALL. THE QUESTION AND DISCUSSION. EXCEPT WHICH IS TWO THIRDS. CORRECT. OKAY. AND THE QUESTION IS, COMMISSIONER RONALD THE MOTION TO DENY YOU NEED, RIGHT? YOU NEED 7.3 WOULD BE EIGHT. OKAY. THEN YOU GUYS CAN CONTINUE DISCUSSION. I FEEL LIKE CRAP. SO MY, I AM NOT GOING TO VOTE TO EXTEND THE HEARING AGAIN. WE'VE GOT 10 MINUTES. WE DID HAVE TWO THIRDS, DIDN'T WE? I'M SORRY. UH, WE DID NOT. 'CAUSE I ABSTAINED. ABSTAINED. YOU ABSTAIN. BUT THERE'S SIX. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. BUT, UH, ABSTAINING IT MEANS YOU JUST TAKE, YOU GET IT OUT, RIGHT? SO YEAH. SO WE DID HAVE, WE HAD, WE HAD SIX UNDER AGAINST THREE, TWO THIRDS. THAT, THAT SEEMS RIGHT. THAT SEEMS RIGHT. DOES THAT TAKE ME OUTTA THE VOTE? YEAH, IT TAKES YOU OUTTA THE VOTE. BUT WE STILL HAD SIX A YIKES. OF THOSE VOTING. YEAH. SO IT'S TWO THIRDS OF THOSE VOTING. YES. SO SIX OF 10. THAT'S CORRECT. YOU'RE RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. WELL, IT IS VERY RARE THAT SOMEONE KNOWS MORE OR CAN CALL ME A ROBERTS ROSA ORDER. YOU WANNA BE PARLIAMENTARIAN? WE SHOULD MAKE A PARLIAMENTARIAN POSITION FOR THE BOARD. WELL, I FELT BAD THAT THAT WAS HIS FIRST MEETING. I'M THE ROOKIE. I'M LISTEN, I'M LEARNING FROM EVERYBODY. . OKAY. SO THEN FIRST MEETING HE GETS, LEMME JUST DOUBLE CHECK, RIGHT? SO IF I ABSTAIN, THAT PULLS ME OUT OF THE VOTE, DROPS IT DOWN TO 10 AND IT WOULD BE TWO THIRDS OF THE PEOPLE VOTING FOR CALL THE QUESTION. RIGHT. IF WHAT'S UH, LET ME DOUBLE CHECK THAT MADAM CHAIR. ONE MOMENT. I'M LIKE 90%. THAT'S 90. YES. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. ROBERT. I'M GONNA GOOGLE IT REAL QUICK. I MEAN, DOES ANYBODY REALLY WANNA TALK ABOUT THIS ANYMORE? THREE VOTED. YEAH, THREE VOTED AGAINST, RIGHT? CALLING THE QUESTION I THINK, YEAH, I VOTED AGAINST BECAUSE I FELT LIKE PEOPLE WEREN'T DONE HAVING THE DISCUSSION. SECOND. OKAY. YES. IT PULLS ME OUT. I'M GOOD. WE'RE GOOD. WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. I JUST DON'T FEEL GOOD AND YEAH, NO, WE'RE GOOD. I THINK I, SO I HAD ENOUGH LAST TIME. THIS IS A MOTION TO DENY. UH, YES. SO THAT, THAT DOES PASS. WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE POST, OR SORRY, THE DENIAL OF THE RECONSIDERATION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VAUGHN OLAND. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF STAI. EVERYBODY CLEAR? YES. ALL RIGHT. YES. WE'RE DENYING THE RECONSIDERATION. SO YES, IF WE SAY YES, WE'RE DENYING YES. TO DENY NO TO NOT DENY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. TOMMY EIGHTS, UM, I'M GONNA VOTE NO JUST BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE AT EXCEPTION. OKAY. SEND A BEARING. YES. JEFFREY BOWEN. YES. JESSICA COHEN. YES. MELISSA HAWTHORN. YES. YOUNG JEW. KIM? YES. BIANCA MEDINA. AL? YES. MICHAEL VAN OLAN? YES. BRIAN POTE? NO. HAS ABDULLAH? [04:05:01] YES. AND MAGGIE ANI? YES. OKAY. THAT IS DENIED. WE WILL NOT BE RECONSIDERING LEGAL. UH, WHERE ARE WE AT WITH THE WORKING GROUP? THANK YOU GUYS. THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH FOR STAYING SO LATE. YES. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. SO I WAS ABLE TO VERIFY THAT WE WOULD NEED TO BE POSTED TO HAVE A WORKING GROUP. AND BECAUSE WE ARE NOT POSTED, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE A WORKING GROUP FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING. WHAT ARE MY RESTRICTIONS ON MEETING WITH OTHER BOARD MEMBERS? JUST TO DISCUSS ZONING THINGS IN GENERAL. SO I WOULD CAUTION TO, UH, BOARD MEMBER RENS ONE, MAYBE TWO PEOPLE, BUT ALSO YOU HAVE TO BE CONSCIENTIOUS OF WHAT WE CALL DAISY CHAINING. SO YOU HAVE A MEETING WITH A SMALL GROUP, THE FLOATING FORUM. YEAH. AND THEN SOMEBODY ELSE HAS A DISCUSSION WITH ANOTHER SMALL GROUP AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. UM, SO IF YOU WANNA HAVE A SMALL MEETING WITH A NON QUORUM GROUP, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT AGAIN, PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS OF SPREADING THAT, SO TO SPEAK. NO OLD SCHOOL TEXAS POLITICS. OKAY. THANK YOU. NO WALKING QUORUMS VERY, VERY MUCH. RIGHT? NO WALKING QUORUMS? YES SIR. NO WALKING QUORUMS. [10. Discussion of the October 13, 2025, Board of Adjustment activity report ] ITEM 10, DISCUSSION OF THE OCTOBER 13TH, 2025 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT. IT IS BEAUTIFUL. IT'S BEAUTIFUL. IT'S ALWAYS BEAUTIFUL. EVERYTHING I EVER DREAMED OF. THANK YOU STAFF. AND THANK Y'ALL FOR EVERYTHING. STAFF. I KNOW WE'VE HAD A LOT OF REALLY BIG CASES HERE, THE PAST TWO MEETINGS, AND THAT Y'ALL HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY, VERY, VERY HARD. IT'S, IT'S APPRECIATED AND IT'S NOTICED AND WE COULDN'T DO IT WITHOUT YOU. AND I MEAN THAT WITH MY WHOLE HEART. SO THANK Y'ALL VERY, VERY MUCH. UH, OKAY. ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? WELL, I'M GONNA THROW THAT WORKING GROUP ON THERE. WORKING GROUP, THANK YOU. TO DISCUSS NCC DS AND THE POTENTIAL HABITABLE ATTIC. IT'S, IT'S NOT HABITABLE ATTIC. IT'S CALLED HOME DEPOT IN PLYWOOD , BUT IT, IT'S THE CODE SIX FEET. AND THAT WILL BE ON THE NEXT AGENDA. ANY [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ] OTHER, UH, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS OR ANNOUNCEMENTS? WHY DOES THIS HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENTS ON IT? TELL ME. IT LIKES HOME DEPOT, RIGHT? IT'S MY BIRTHDAY IN TWO WEEKS. THAT'S AN ANNOUNCEMENT. IT'S MELISSA'S BIRTHDAY IN THREE WEEKS. THAT'S AN OH. ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, ANNOUNCEMENTS. THE TIME IS 10:26 PM HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE. HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE. THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. . BYE. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.