[00:00:01]
[CALL TO ORDER]
IS 5:47 PM ON DECEMBER 8TH, 2025.I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER.
LET'S CALL THE ROLE MELISSA HAWTHORNE.
A COUPLE OF QUICK HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS. WE'VE GOT A PRETTY SMALL AGENDA TONIGHT.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES OR PUT THEM ON VIBRATE AFTER YOUR CASE IS OVER.
PLEASE TAKE YOUR DISCUSSION OUTSIDE IF THERE'S MORE THAN ONE.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, UH, ABOUT YOUR CASE, YOU CAN CONTACT, UH, ELAINE, THE BOARD LIAISON TOMORROW VIA EMAIL OR PHONE.
UH, WHEN ADDRESSING THE BOARD, PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD.
DO NOT SPEAK TO THE OPPOSITION OR IN FAVOR TO EACH OTHER.
AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA NEED IT, BUT JUST IN CASE, WE USUALLY TAKE A BREAK ABOUT EIGHT O'CLOCK, UH, PARKING.
SO TO GET YOUR PARKING VALIDATION, WHEN YOU CAME INTO THE GARAGE, YOU GOT A LITTLE TICKET.
IT HAD A QR CODE OVER HERE BY THE DOORS.
WHERE YOU WALKED IN IS AN ADDITIONAL SMALLER QR CODE.
WHEN YOU LEAVE, SCAN THE FIRST ONE, SCAN THE SECOND ONE, IT'LL LET YOU OUT.
FOR ANYONE WHO IS GOING TO BE GIVING TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD TONIGHT, I NEED YOU TO PLEASE STAND AND TAKE YOUR OATH.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE? OKAY.
HAS EVERYBODY SIGNED THE ATTENDANCE SHEET? SUPER.
LET'S START WITH ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
ITEM ONE, THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM MOTION TO APPROVE.SECONDED BY I HEARD BOARD MEMBER POTENT DISCUSSION.
OKAY, MELISSA HAWTHORNE DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION.
SO WE HAVE THREE CASES TONIGHT.
THERE'S BEEN A REQUEST TO POSTPONE ITEMS TWO AND THREE.
UM, MADAM CHAIR, IT HAS BEEN POSTPONED FOUR TIMES ALREADY.
TWO TIMES BECAUSE OF THE BOARD.
TWO TIMES BECAUSE OF THE APPLICANT.
ONE OF THOSE TIMES WAS DUE TO THE INTERPRETATION APPEAL CASE THAT WE HAD THAT WENT REALLY LONG.
SO, SO MADAM CHAIR AND THE SPIRIT OF THE SEASON, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THOSE TWO CASES TO OUR, UH, FEBRUARY AGENDA.
I DON'T HAVE THE DATE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
IF YOU NEED ME TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
I ALREADY, IF YOU'RE REQUESTING A MOVE IT TO FEBRUARY, THAT IS FEBRUARY 9TH.
IN THE SPIRIT OF THE SEASON, I DON'T THINK ANYONE IS GONNA GET ANYTHING DONE BETWEEN NOW AND JANUARY 12TH OF THE SIGNIFICANCE.
AND IF THEY WANNA POSTPONEMENT, I AM THINKING FEBRUARY 9TH IS PROBABLY MORE ACCURATE.
FROM BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF STAI DISCUSSION?
[00:05:02]
YES, MADAM CHAIR, BOARD MEMBER VON OLIN.I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE HERE, BUT, UH, WHOEVER IS REPRESENTING THEM, THEY NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THEIR HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE HARDSHIP THAT WAS PRESENTED IN THAT CASE QUESTION.
SO IN THE SPIRIT OF THE SEASON, I'M NOT GONNA MAKE ANOTHER MOTION TO OPEN IT UP AND DENY IT.
WE'LL LET IT RIDE, BUT THAT HARDSHIP WILL NOT CARRY WATER.
SO JUST SO THAT THEY KNOW, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT WHEN THEY COME BACK.
WHICH NUMBER IS THIS AGAIN? I'M SORRY.
I WAS JUST GONNA FOR ITEMS TWO AND THREE.
THE TWO NEXT TO EACH OTHER? YES.
ANY OTHER? IT'S A THEME FOR TONIGHT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? BOARD MEMBER BOWEN? I HAVE A QUESTION, UM, REGARDING, UM, FOR STAFF REGARDING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT'S, OR SOME OF THE QUE I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS THAT HOPEFULLY I COULD GET CLEARED UP BEFORE WE EVER COME BACK TO THIS.
IS THERE A WAY TO TALK TO STAFF ABOUT THAT? SO RIGHT NOW, THE MOTION'S BEEN MADE TO POSTPONE, UH, WE CAN DISCUSS THE POSTPONEMENT, BUT NOT THE MERITS OF THE CASE.
IF YOU, THESE, THESE ARE NOT MERITS, THESE ARE JUST QUESTIONS REGARDING DREDGING.
WHAT ARE THE, WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE, SOME OF THAT WHEN TRYING TO RESEARCH THIS, NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND THAT.
AND SO I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING, UM, THE DEFINITIONS.
I THINK MAINTENANCE, MAYBE THE BEST OPTION TO BE ON THE SAFE SIDE LEGALLY WOULD BE TO SEE IF WE COULD GET THE VICE CHAIR TO MAYBE, OR WE COULD VOTE AGAINST POSTPONING FOR NOW AND THEN ASK THE QUESTIONS TO HEAR THE CASE AND THEN POSTPONE SO I CAN WITHDRAW MY MOTION.
BUT THAT IS MY INTENT WHEN WE GET THERE, IS, IS TO POSTPONE.
THE APPLICANT HAS ASKED FOR ANOTHER POSTPONEMENT IN THE SPIRIT OF THE SEASON.
I FEEL COMPELLED TO DO THAT, PARTICULARLY SINCE THE, UH, APPLICANT IS A NEW APPLICANT, UH, AND, AND IS PROBABLY AT A DISADVANTAGE.
UH, SO I CAN WITHDRAW MY MOTION AT THIS TIME, BUT IN LIKE TWO MINUTES I'M GONNA MAKE IT AGAIN
LET ME ASK, IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO WITHDRAWING THE MOTION? OKAY, SO THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND JUST OPEN UP ITEMS TWO AND THREE.
C 15, 20, 25, 26 C, 15, 20, 25, 27.
STEVEN HAWKINS FOR RED BAR PARTNERS.
1750 CHANNEL ROAD AND 1752 CHANNEL ROAD.
CAN'T DO BOTH, BUT EVEN NO, BUT WE CAN OPEN UP ONE OF THEM, NOT WHICH, IF WE'RE GOING TO POSTPONE BOTH, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO JUST ASK QUESTIONS ON BOTH.
WELL, THE QUESTIONS ARE SIMPLE QUESTIONS.
YEAH, I THINK, I THINK THE QUESTION WILL PERTAIN TO BOTH OF THEM, BUT I THINK UNDER ROBERT'S RULES YOU CAN ONLY OPEN UP ONE CASE, ONE ITEM, AND THEN, UH, THE OTHER ONE WE CAN LEAVE IT AS HIS TABLE AND THEN HE CAN ASK HIS QUESTIONS OF STAFF BECAUSE HE'S NOT GONNA DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE CASE.
PERTAINING TO, AND I JUST WANNA TAKE ADVANTAGE OF STAFF WHILES THEY'RE HERE BECAUSE IT'S SO RARE.
I THINK THOSE QUESTIONS ARE ACTUALLY GONNA HELP EVERYBODY ELSE WHEN THESE START COMING UP AGAIN.
[2. C15-2025-0026 Stephen Hawkins for Red Bud Partners, LP 1750 Channel Road ]
JUST START WITH ITEM TWO.BOARD MEMBER BOWEN, ASK YOUR QUESTIONS.
IS THERE SOMEBODY HERE THAT CAN ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? YES.
THERE IS VERY, VERY NICELY COMING DOWN.
I THOUGHT SHE WAS A LAWYER AND THAT WOULD BE OUR WATERSHED.
ERIC LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD FOLLOW THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING SINCE YOU'RE GONNA BE OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENT THEIR CASE AND THEN OPPOSING AND FOLLOW ALL OF THE NORMAL PROCEDURES FOR THE CASE.
SO LET ME ASK, IS THERE ANY WAY TO FIT THIS, THESE QUESTIONS THAT WE NEED FOR A FUTURE DATE, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS TODAY UNDER A POSTPONEMENT MOTION? UM, THE BOARD TYPICALLY HAS PROVIDED SOME GUIDANCE FOR THE APPLICANTS WHEN THEY DO THE POSTPONEMENT MOTION SAYING INFORMATION THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD.
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND.
BUT YOU GUYS JUST REOPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND STARTED THE CASE.
SO I WOULD RECOMMEND FOLLOWING THE NORMAL PROCEDURES THAT YOU HAVE FOR A APPEAL, UH, VARIANCE
[00:10:01]
CASE.ALRIGHTY THEN, UH, THIS WILL BE STEVEN HAWKINS FOR RED BLOOD PARTNERS.
UM, YOU'RE GONNA PUSH THE LITTLE GREEN BUTTON FOR YOUR MICROPHONE AND YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
I AM MICHELLE LYNCH WITH METCALF WOLF, STUDENT WILLIAMS. I WAIVE MY PRESENTATION 'CAUSE I DON'T HAVE ONE BECAUSE WE'RE STILL WORKING WITH OUR NEIGHBORS.
ANY OPPOSITION HERE? ANY OPPOSITION? OKAY.
HEARING, NO, LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BOARD MEMBER BOWEN.
I HOPE THIS MAKE THIS PLAIN SIMPLE BECAUSE IN REVIEWING, I WENT BACK TO SOME OF THE TRAINING THAT YOU PROVIDED US BACK IN JUNE, AND THAT REALLY BROUGHT ME SOME OTHER QUESTIONS.
AND ONE OF 'EM WAS OFF THE PRESENTATION SLIDE, AND I'LL START WITH IT.
IT SAYS ON, ON YOUR TRAINING SLIDE THAT SAYS, THE DIRECTOR MAY APPROVE LESS THAN 25 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGING IN A LAKE IF THE DREDGING IS NECESSARY FOR NEGA NAVIGATION SAFETY.
BUT IN SOME OF THESE ISSUES THAT WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT, I'VE, I'VE HEARD THE COMMENT THAT THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO, YOU CAN DO LESS THAN 25 WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS.
IS THAT TRUE? UH, JOHN CLEMENT WITH THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, UH, YES, THAT'S TRUE.
YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DREDGE UP TO 25 CUBIC YARDS.
UH, YOU NEED A, A SITE PLAN, AN APPROVED SITE PLAN IN ORDER TO DO THAT.
BEYOND THAT, YOU NEED A LAND USE COMMISSION VARIANCE.
GREAT, BECAUSE THAT, THAT LEADS ME TO, UH, CAN YOU DEFINE DREDGING UNDER Y'ALL'S DEFINITION? UH, REMOVAL OF MATERIAL FROM THE BED OF THE LAKE.
HOW, UM, HOW IS THAT DREDGING? WHAT ARE THE METHODS ALLOWED TO DO THE DREDGING? NOW MIND YOU, I'M FROM THE SOUTH AND BEEN AROUND DREDGING, SO I KNOW THERE'S SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS, BUT I WANNA KNOW WHAT Y'ALL'S OFFICIAL, UH, WE DON'T HAVE A STANCE ON THAT.
UM, ALL WE REQUIRE IS SEDIMENT AND CURTAIN OR ANOTHER METHOD OF PREVENTING, UH, DISCHARGE OF SEDIMENT LA LADEN WATER TO THE REST OF THE LAKE WHILE IT OCCURS.
I THINK MOST OF THE DREDGING THAT OCCURS NOW USES A HYDRAULIC HEAD.
SO IT, UH, JUST CREATES SOME TURBULENCE, PULLS UP A LOT OF MATERIAL, AND, UM, MANAGES TO DO IT WITHOUT IT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT CREATES, UH, SMALLER SEDIMENT PLUME THAN JUST GETTING IN, DIGGING AND DIGGING.
WHICH LEADS ME TO THE NEXT THING, UH, UNDER, WELL ALLOWABLE, BUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THE SEDIMENT? IS IT PUMPED BACK ON GROUND? IS IT JUST DISTRIBUTED IN THE LAKE? HOW DO Y'ALL, HOW IS THAT REMOVED? SO THAT, UM, TYPICALLY REMOVED AREAS, BUT WHERE DOES IT GO? YEAH, AND THEN WE'VE, UH, A COUPLE OF SITE PLANS.
WE, WE'VE HAD COME IN, IN THE PAST TWO YEARS HAVE SHOWN, UM, THE HYDRAULIC DREDGING SYSTEM, UH, PIPES THAT ALL THE WAY TO THE SHORELINE WHERE THERE'S THIS BIG SEDIMENT FILTER BAGS.
MAYBE YOU'VE SEEN THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION SITES.
UH, UH, FILTER FABRIC SEWN INTO BAGS.
THE PUMPING RATE IS CONTROLLED, SO THE BAG FILLS UP, YOU KNOW, IT'S A, A MIX OF SEDIMENT AND WATER.
'CAUSE THE BOTTOM OF THE LAKE IS IN SOME PLACES PRETTY LOOSE MATERIAL, UM, AND MATERIAL SLOWLY, THE, THE LIQUID SLOWLY DISCHARGES OUT OF THAT.
SO, UM, THERE'S NON EROSIVE FLOWS, UH, GOING BACK TO THE LEG FOR THE WA WATER THAT'S DISCHARGED FROM THE BAG.
AND, UM, THERE'S EROSION CONTROLS SET UP, UH, IN CASE THERE IS A SEDIMENT DISCHARGE.
AND IN ONE CASE, WE REQUESTED THAT THEY, UH, INCLUDE A SEDIMENT CURTAIN BECAUSE OF THE VOLUME, ULTIMATE VOLUME OF DREDGE AND DAYS THEY'LL BE DOING IT.
SO WE HAD THEM INSTALL A SEDIMENT CURTAIN, UM, JUST OFF THE BULKHEAD IN THE DIRECTION THAT THE WATER WAS GONNA BE FLOWING FROM THE SEDIMENT BAGS.
SO NO, UH, NO EXCAVATION BY LIKE A SMALL EXCAVATOR OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? EVERYTHING IS STRICTLY DONE HYDRAULICALLY? YEAH.
UM, WHEN WE'RE, UH, HOW, OKAY, I GUESS WE'RE DOING A LOT OF DREDGING BASED ON MAINTENANCE, CORRECT? YES.
SO HOW OFTEN CAN A RESIDENT DREDGE IS THERE A TIMEFRAME BETWEEN, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S IN THEIR INTEREST TO DO IT AS INFREQUENTLY AS POSSIBLE.
'CAUSE THEY DO NEED TO GET A SITE PLAN EVERY TIME.
UH, THEY CAN KEEP COMING BACK IN WITH SITE PLANS.
UM, I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT, UM, AS LONG AS FOLKS ARE UNDER THE 25 CUBIC YARD LIMIT, THAT THEY WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO MAX THAT OUT.
YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DREDGE UNDER YOUR DOCK, UH, FOR NAVIGATION AND
[00:15:01]
TO, SO TO ME, UP TO 25 CUBIC YARDS, THAT'S IMAGINING, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU'RE GONNA DREDGE OUT THIS PERFECT SHOE BOX, UH, RIGHT, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE IN THE BOTTOM LINE.UM, SO I ASSUME SOME AMOUNT OF OVER DREDGING GOES ON THAT WE DON'T HEAR ABOUT.
AND ALSO, UM, AGAIN, IT, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S RISK BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE DREDGING OPERATION, WHICH IS WHY THERE'S A 25 CUBIC CARD LIMIT.
UH, BUT THEN ALSO EVERY TIME YOU GO SET UP AGAIN AND DREDGE AGAIN, THERE'S A RISK OF DISCHARGE.
SO, UH, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IT'S WORTHWHILE TO PEOPLE, FOR PEOPLE TO GET OUT AND DREDGE AS RARELY AS POSSIBLE, EVEN IF THAT MEANS DREDGING A LARGER AMOUNT, UM, SO THAT THEY CAN DECREASE THE FREQUENCY OF DREDGING.
SO, AND UP TO THAT 25 CUBIC GUARD AMOUNT, BECAUSE BEYOND THAT, IT'S A LAND USE COMMISSION VARIANCE.
THERE'S QUESTIONS OF THE SUPPORTABILITY OF THE VARIANCE AND MORE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
SO, SO HOW ARE THE QUANTITIES VERIFIED? UM, WE LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN AND WE HAVE THEM PROVIDE, LIKE I, I WAS FORWARDED SOME OF THE, UH, CORRESPONDENCE ON THIS AND, YOU KNOW, THE, THE LITTLE PROFILES THAT THEY PROVIDED, WE LOOK AT THAT, UM, AND WE COMPARE, WE TAKE A LOOK AT THEIR BATH IMAGERY, WHICH I THINK THERE WAS ALSO A QUESTION ABOUT.
AND, UH, WE COMPARE IT TO, UH, THE CITY DATA WE HAVE AND JUST REASONABLENESS BASED ON WHEN WE PERFORM SITE VISITS, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE DEPTHS OF THE WATER, UH, I THINK THE APPLICANT HAD A PHOTO OF, YOU KNOW, A STADIA ROD PLACED IN THE WATER SO YOU COULD SEE THE DEPTH THAT WE'LL GO OUT AND DO THE SAME THING.
AND AS LONG AS WHAT THEY'RE SHOWING IS REASONABLE, THEN WE TAKE IT, UH, TO BE ACCURATE.
OKAY, BECAUSE I, I IT JUST LOOKING AT THIS JUST BROUGHT UP A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS AND UNDERSTANDING THAT ON MAINTENANCE ON DOCKS IS AN ONGOING TYPE ISSUE.
SO REALLY YOU KIND OF, UH, ANSWERED MY THING ABOUT QUANTITIES, I GUESS INSPECTIONS, YOU'RE GOING BACK OUT AND JUST KIND OF CHECKING AS, AS THE PROCESS STARTS, I ASSUME, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS.
SO THERE'S A, THERE'S A SEPARATE PROCESS FOR THAT.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAS A, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTOR FOR THE LAKES, AND HE GOES OUT AND DOES A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE CONTRACTOR, MAKES SURE ANY NEEDED EROSION CONTROLS ARE IN PLACE AND THEY DISCUSS THE PROJECT AND WHAT'S GONNA BE DONE.
UH, SOMETIMES THE CONTRACTOR HAS A DIFFERENT IDEA OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE HAPPENING OUT THERE THAN WHAT'S ACTUALLY ON THE SITE PLAN.
SO, UH, IT'S GOOD THAT THEY MEET AND DISCUSS THAT AND MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S GOING ACCORDING TO PLAN.
UM, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE, UH, WORK OUT THERE IS CONSTRUCTION OF DOCKS OR BULKHEAD WITH A DREDGING PROJECT, IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF, UM, TRACKING, YOU KNOW, ARE THEY STILL OUT THERE WORKING, ARE THEY DONE? AND THEN, UM, UH, INSPECTING THE, THE DISCHARGE AREA FOR POTENTIAL, UH, SEDIMENT DISCHARGES AND MAKING SURE THAT'S ALL SET UP AND NOTHING'S GETTING DUMPED INTO THE LAKE THAT SHOULDN'T BE DUMPED INTO THE LAKE.
UH, ONE OTHER QUICK ONE, SO I I UNDERSTAND 25 IS THE, IS KIND OF THE KEY FACTOR THERE.
IT IS THAT PER PER SLIP IN A DOCK OR PER ONE DOCK, UH, IT'S PER RESIDENCE, UH, PER, PER, UH, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THIS CONTEXT.
SO IF I HAVE TWO SLIPS I HAVE TO MAKE DO WITH GETTING WHATEVER I CAN GET OUT OF THE YES.
UM, AND I GUESS THE LAST THING, ONCE THE MATERIAL'S ON THE BAG AND IT'S FILTERED ALL THE WATER THROUGH AND DONE ALL THAT, IS THERE A PREFERRED METHOD OF DISPOSAL? CAN IT JUST BE SO THAT PUT BACK OUT ON THE, ON THE, ON SOMEBODY ON THEIR YARD? OR WHAT IS THEIR DISPOSABLE METHOD? UM, I'M NOT SURE.
I THINK THERE'S THE POTENTIAL FOR REUSE IF IT'S TESTED AND, YOU KNOW, IT CAN BE USED AS FILL POTENTIALLY.
UH, BUT OTHER THAN THAT IT WOULD GO TO A LANDFILL.
SO IS IT MANDATORY THAT IT BE TESTED? I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT WOULD BE, UH, I CAN CHECK WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTOR.
I, I JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE I'M, YOU KNOW, UH, I DID NOTICE IN A COUPLE DIFFERENT PLACES, YOU KNOW, IT TALKED ABOUT CONTAMINANTS, WHATEVER THE CASE IS.
I MEAN, FISH GUTS IS ONE THING, BUT I'M, I ASSUME THEY WERE DEALING WITH OTHER CONTAMINANTS.
YEAH, THE, THE STANDARD GENERALLY FOR CONSTRUCTION SPOILS IS THAT YOU GIVE YOUR LANDFILL, SHOW YOUR LANDFILL TICKETS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTOR.
I WOULD ASSUME THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS.
UM, AND THEN HOW DO THESE END UP BEING REFERRED TO US AT THE BO OA? UH, SO THIS CASE CURRENTLY AS A SITE PLAN AND REVIEW
[00:20:01]
AND THE, UM, UH, SITE PLAN REVIEWER, CASE MANAGER, CLARISSA DAVIS, SHE'S PROBABLY BEEN IN HERE A FEW TIMES, UM, FLAGGED IT AS EXTENDING MORE THAN 30 FEET BEYOND THE SHORELINE, WHICH ISN'T COMPLIANT WITH A SECTION OF CODE.AND THEN TO REQUEST THE VARIANCE TO THAT, UM, THEY CAME TO Y'ALL.
SO IF IT DIDN'T GET, IF THEY SAID WE'RE JUST GONNA PUT IT WITHIN, THEN IT WOULDN'T NEED TO BE HERE AT ALL IF THEY WERE GOING TO JUST PROPOSE A 30 FOOT DOCK, CORRECT? YES.
UM, YOU'VE ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS THEN.
AND IF IT HAD MORE THAN 25 OF DREDGE, THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD AND THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO EITHER A PLANNING COMMISSION OR ZAP.
SO I JUST TRYING TO GET QUESTIONS ANSWERED THAT I CAN'T FIND WITHIN DIRECTIONS UNDER, IT JUST SAYS THIS AND IT DOESN'T REALLY, AND THEN IF IT GOES TO ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD, THERE'S A FINDING OF FACT THAT IT HAS TO MEAN AS OPPOSED TO A HARDSHIP, THEIR FINDING A FACT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
AND WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION BEFORE HERE AT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, KIND OF CHICKEN EGG.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, SIR.
THANKS FOR EVERYBODY HUMORING ME ON THESE OKAY.
SO MOTION, MOTION TO POSTPONE ITEM.
MADAM CHAIR, DID YOU HAVE, WE HAVE OPPOSITION.
SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO FOLKS ON THE PHONE OKAY.
UH, THAT ARE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION.
WE CALLED FOR OPPOSITION AND THEY WERE ON THE PHONE.
WE JUST HAVE TO LET THEM TALK REAL QUICK AND THEN WE'LL GET BACK TO YOUR MOTION.
SO, NELLY SLAYTON, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? ARE THERE TWO PEOPLE ON THE LINE RIGHT NOW WAITING TO S NO, WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY THEN NEVERMIND.
SO YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT THAT MOTION, SO PROCEDURALLY, MAY I MAKE A MOTION FOR TWO CASES OR DO I NEED TO DO THIS FIRST CASE BECAUSE IT'S POSTPONEMENT.
WE, WELL, WE ONLY OPENED ONE CASE.
MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THE CASE THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY OF COURSE.
I JUST GOT TIMED OUTTA MY COMPUTER, WHICH TOOK ME QUITE SOME TIME TO GET IN BOARD.
STATI, DID YOU STILL WANNA SECOND? YEAH, I'LL SECOND.
BOARD MEMBER RONALD IN AGAIN, BEFORE WE TAKE THE VOTE, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT US TO CLOSE THIS, UM, I WANTED TO ADVISE HER TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE HARDSHIP BECAUSE AT THE LAST MEETING, THE APPLICANT DID STATE THAT IT WAS A PRIMARILY MAINTENANCE ISSUE.
AND A MAINTENANCE ISSUE IS NOT, IT'S ON THE RECORD.
SO MAINTENANCE ISSUE IS NOT A VALID HARDSHIP.
SO JUST TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR HARDSHIP, UH, BEFORE YOU COME BACK.
'CAUSE IF IT, IF IT IS JUST MAINTENANCE, IT WON'T FLY.
SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO THE FEBRUARY 9TH, 2026 MEETING MADE BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
SECONDED BY A BOARD MEMBER CHAIR.
LET'S CALL THE VOTE VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE? YES.
THAT WILL BE POSTPONED TILL FEBRUARY 9TH.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO ALSO POSTPONE C 15 20 25 0 0 2 7.
STEPHEN HAWKINS FOR TOM DAVIS, JR.
1 7 5 2 CHANNEL ROAD TO FEBRUARY 9TH.
SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE DISCUSSION.
[00:25:01]
YES.SO BOTH THOSE CASES, ITEMS TWO AND THREE ARE POSTPONED TO FEBRUARY 9TH, 2026.
[4. C15-2025-0041 Christ May (Appellant) Warren Konkel (Owner) 6706 Bridge Hill Cove ]
ITEM FOUR C 15 20 25 0 4, 1 MAY FOR THE APPELLANT.WARREN CONCO OWNER 6 7 0 6 BRIDGE HILL COVE.
WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE REPORT.
I'M THE, UH, ACTING BUILDING OFFICIAL WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
UM, AT THE LAST MEETING WHEN THIS WAS POSTPONED, UH, THE BOARD ASKED US TO, UH, COME BACK, UH, ASKED US A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
AND, UH, SO MY PURPOSE OF THIS IS, UH, FOR ME TO KIND OF EXPLAIN, UH, THOSE TWO THINGS.
ONE IS GENERALLY WHAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2022 VERSUS WHAT WAS IN THE REVISION? UM, YOU CAN SEE THE, THE MAJORITY OF THAT, THE, THE, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THAT IN, IN THE GRAPHIC THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, UM, THE, THE, THE BLUE STUFF IS THE STUFF THAT, THAT THE, THAT WAS PART OF THE 2025 REVISION.
EVERYTHING IN SALMON, UH, WAS, WAS PART OF THE 2022, UH, APPROVAL.
I SHOULD KNOW TOO, THERE WERE SOME, YOU KNOW, THE REVISION INCLUDED FENESTRATION MOVING AROUND ON THE FACADE INCLUDED SOME RECONFIGURATION OF ROOMS ON THE INSIDE.
BUT, BUT IN, IN TERMS OF THE MASS AND THE BULK OF THE PROPERTY, UH, THE PROJECT, UH, THE BLUE STUFF, UH, IS WHAT WAS ADDED IN 2025.
UH, THE SECOND QUESTION THAT I WAS ASKED WAS TO EXPLAIN, UH, HOW THE, UH, IMPERVIOUS COVER WAS, WAS CALCULATED.
UM, AND AS I, AS I SAID AT THAT MEETING, ALL, ALL OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE SUBDIVISION ARE NON-COMPLIANT WITH RESPECT TO IMPERVIOUS COVER.
THE SUBDIVISION WAS, WAS, UH, APPROVED AND, AND BUILT OUT TO SOME EXTENT BEFORE LAKE AUSTIN ZONING EXISTED.
UH, IN FACT, I THINK SOME OF THESE HOUSES WERE BUILT BEFORE THEY WERE EVEN IN THE CITY.
UM, SO THAT BEING SAID, UH, DURING THE ORIGINAL REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT, UH, THE DRAWINGS INDICATED THAT ALL IMPROVEMENTS WERE OVER AREAS OF EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER, WHICH WOULD'VE GRANDFATHERED THEM, UH, AND THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER, IN FACT, WOULD BE REDUCED BY THE PROJECT.
UM, AS THESE PROPERTIES ARE, ARE PREDATE, UH, THE CITY'S KEEPING PLANS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, THE ONLY WAY THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO CONFIRM THAT IS, IS BY LOOKING AT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY.
UM, SO OUR, OUR REVIEW DETERMINED THAT THE, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THE PLANS WERE IN FACT REP, UH, DEMONSTRATING THAT ALL THE NEW IMPROVEMENTS WERE OVER AREAS OF EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER, UH, AND THAT THE SITE WAS, YOU KNOW, WAS LEGALLY NON, NON-COMPLIANT WITH RESPECT TO IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UM, IN AUGUST OF 2024, UM, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED A COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT CERTAIN AREAS WHICH WERE SHOWN AS EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION IN 1985 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERED.
AND IN SEPTEMBER OF 2024, I PLACED, UH, 67 0 6 ON HOLD, UH, WHILE I INVESTIGATED THAT, THAT COMPLAINT.
UM, AND THEN IN DECEMBER, UH, AFTER CONCLUDING THE INVESTIGATION AND, AND WORKING WITH MR. COCKLE TO, UH, FURTHER REDUCE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, I, I PUT THE PERMIT BACK IN ACTIVE STATUS.
AND I'LL NOTE THAT THAT INVESTIGATION, I THINK, YIELDED A 150, 200 SQUARE FEET OF A, OF, OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
THAT, THAT WE WERE ABLE TO, OF ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT WE WERE ABLE TO SHAVE OFF THE PROPERTY.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE WITH REGARDS TO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER.
YOU STILL HAVE SIX MINUTES IF YOU'D LIKE TO, OR A THURSDAY ADD ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY.
[00:30:01]
WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPEALING PARTY OR HIS OR HER REPRESENTATIVE.THERE'LL BE A TIME LIMIT OF 10 MINUTES.
SO THIS IS THE APPEALING PARTY.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL BE OKAY.
UH, I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE, UH, APPELLANT CHRISTIE MAY.
AND, UH, THANK YOU FOR, UM, CONSIDERING THIS ANOTHER MONTH AND TAKING YOUR TIME ON IT.
UH, JUST TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY ON, UH, IN NOVEMBER, UM, MS. MAY IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF WHAT SHE CONSIDERED TO BE ERRORS IN THE PERMITTING OF THIS PROJECT, BOTH THE INITIAL PROJECT AND IN THE REVISIONS.
AND THESE INCLUDED THE, UH, THE ORIGINAL ONE LEVEL PATIO, WHICH WAS BUILT ON, ON A PURIN BEAM STYLE CONSTRUCTION.
UH, BECAME A TWO LEVEL, UH, PATIO, UH, WITH A, UH, A BASEMENT UNDERNEATH.
AND THE, THE, UH, THE WHOLE ORIGINAL PATIO WAS DESTROYED, DEMOED, AND IT WAS PUT ON A NEW FOUNDATION, AND ALL THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE ORIGINAL PATIO WERE REMOVED.
SO WE'VE SUBMITTED THAT THAT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE, UH, UH, STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MOD, FOR MODIFYING A NON-COMPLIANT STRUCTURE.
LIKEWISE, THE TRELLIS, WHICH IS ACTUALLY BUILT ON TOP OF THE PATIO, IT'S NOT A CANTILEVERED, UH, TRELLIS.
IT IS FOUR COLUMNS SUPPORTED BY THIS, UH, NEW PATIO, THE UPPER PATIO, WHICH IS, UH, WE BELIEVE, UH, NOT, UH, A, A LEGAL MODIFICATION TO A NON-COMPLIANT STRUCTURE.
AND THE KITCHEN, UH, WITH THE OUTDOOR KITCHEN, WITH THE, THE PLUMBING AND THE ELECTRICAL, UM, LIKEWISE WAS, WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL, BUT PART OF THE REVISION IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE CONDITIONS FOR NON-COMPLIANT STRUCTURES.
FINALLY, THE, UH, THE SECOND STORY BEDROOM, UH, OVER WHAT WAS A LEGAL NONCONFORMING ONE STORY PORTION OF THE BUILDING IN THE SETBACK.
UH, CLEARLY IT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF, UH, SECTION 9 63.
SINCE NOVEMBER, WE HAVE DISCOVERED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WHICH IS IN YOUR PACKET.
AND THIS IS THE, UH, THE NEW PATIO FOUNDATION.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PATIO WAS COMPLETELY, UH, DEMOLISHED.
UH, ALL THE STRUCTURAL MEMBERS WERE DEMOLISHED.
AND YOU COULD SEE A MAN STANDING, UM, WHERE THE, THE NEW PORE IS GOING TO BE.
AND YOU, YOU KNOW, THAT CUT IS A GOOD SIX FEET PLUS BELOW WHERE THE PRIOR FOUNDATION WAS.
YOU RECALL, MR. CONEL TESTIFIED LAST TIME THAT THE NEW, UH, PATIO WAS ON THE SAME FOUNDATION AT THE SAME GRADE AS THE OLD, UH, UH, PATIO.
AND THAT SIMPLY IS NOT THE CASE.
UM, SO WHY WE, WE HAVE THE, THIS, THIS ISSUE.
WE ALSO HAVE THE ISSUE WITH THE SECOND STORY, UH, BEDROOM, WHICH WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL.
AND WE, MS. MAY WOULD NOT QUALIFY, UH, UH, TO, TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION OF THIS BOARD IF THAT WERE THE ONLY ISSUE.
[00:35:01]
BUT NOW THAT WE HAVE LEGITIMATELY, UH, QUALIFIED, UH, HER APPEAL ON THE REVISIONS AND THE WHOLE MATTER IS IN FRONT OF YOU AS MR. UH, LLOYD HAD DEMON, UH, HAD INDICATED TO YOU IN HIS MEMO, YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO DECIDE WHETHER THERE WERE ANY ERRORS, UH, COMMITTED IN THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT.WELL, CLEARLY THE SECOND STORY ADDITION, UM, IS, IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY 25 2 9 63.
THE SUBSECTION THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IS SUBSECTION F1 B, UH, AND IT SAYS THAT IF YOU WANNA MODIFY A PORTION OF A BUILDING, YOU, YOU, IT CAN BE NO GREATER IN HEIGHT THAN THE EXISTING NON COMPLYING PORTION OF THE BUILDING.
IF YOU'LL GO TO SLIDE 14, YOU SEE THAT LETTER FROM, UH, MR. UH, UH, LEACH.
AND HE, HE CLAIMS THAT, UH, IT WAS SUP JUSTIFIED BECAUSE IT'S NO GREATER IN HEIGHT THAN THE EXISTING NON-COMPLIANT PORTION OF THE BUILDING.
WELL, IT IS THE NON-COMPLIANT PORTION OF THE BUILDING WAS ONLY ONE STORY.
UH, IT INCREASED THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING.
HE'S MISINTERPRETING THE WAY THIS SECTION READS.
I, I BELIEVE THAT MR. MR. LEACH JUST DOES NOT WANT TO CORRECT, UM, WHAT HE KNOWS ARE ERRORS IN THE ORIGINAL, UM, APPROVAL.
THE, UM, WHEN, WHEN MR. UH, LLOYD, UH, MADE HIS, UH, UH, PRESENTATION TO YOU ON OCTOBER 30TH, UH, OR IN HIS, HIS HIS MEMO, HE INDICATED THAT THE, UH, THE REASON HE WAS RECOMMENDING THAT YOU DENY THE APPEAL WAS THAT, UM, THEY HAD MADE ASSUMPTIONS THAT THE ORIGINAL PATIO WAS NOT BEING COMPLETELY REMOVED.
UH, AND ALSO BECAUSE OF THE 20 DAY RULE, YOU KNOW, YOU SHOULD JUST TREAT IT AS PART OF THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE.
WELL, THAT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.
ONE, WE KNOW THE ORIGINAL PATIO WAS COMPLETELY REMOVED.
IT WAS CHANGED IN ELEVATION BY MORE THAN ONE FUR VERTICAL IN TWO DIRECTIONS.
AND, UM, IT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S COMPLETELY NEW.
UM, WITH REGARDS TO, UM, UH, THE, THE SECOND REASON HE WAS SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD, UH, JUST GO AHEAD AND APPROVE IT, IS THAT, UM, GOING FORWARD, THEY WERE GONNA DO A BETTER JOB.
AND THAT'S KIND OF A CONCE, UH, CONCESSION THAT THEY, THEY MADE A MISTAKE.
YOU'LL RECALL THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM A YEAR AND A HALF AGO WHEN MS. MAY'S PERMIT HAD BEEN ISSUED.
AND MR. CONEL FILED AN APPEAL SAYING, I THINK MS. MAY'S IMPERVIOUS COVER IS TOO GREAT.
WHAT DID THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DO? HE, HE SUSPENDED THE PERMIT, HE INVESTIGATED IT.
HE DETERMINED THAT THE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING, UH, IMPERVIOUS COVER WAS LESS THAN WHAT WAS EXISTING AT THE TIME BECAUSE OF PRIOR OWNERS HAD HAD, UH, BILLED ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER, AND HE ONLY REINSTATED THE PERMIT ON THE CONDITION THAT MS. MAY WOULD NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT DETERMINED TO BE THE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING IMPERVIOUS COVER.
WE ACCEPTED THAT WE, NO ONE RAISED THE 20 DAY RULE.
I DIDN'T RAISE THE 20 DAY RULE.
[00:40:01]
I DIDN'T RAISE IT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS NOT A STOPPED, IS NOT PREVENTED FROM CORRECTING AN ERROR THAT IS MADE BECAUSE HE FAILED TO MAKE THE CORRECT DECISION.ADDITIONALLY, DAVIS V ABILENE, WHICH IS A CASE THAT I CITED IN MY LETTER TO YOU, STANDS FOR THAT PROPOSITION.
AND THERE ARE MANY OTHER APPELLATE AND SUPREME COURT CASES THAT SUPPORT IT.
IN THAT CASE, WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IN ABILENE HAD ISSUED A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARMENT FACTORY AND, AND RESIDENCE IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND WAIVED THE, UH, THE, UM, I UNDERSTAND I'M ABOUT OUT.
UM, AND, AND AFTER, IF I CAN JUST FINISH THIS THOUGHT, AFTER, AFTER, UH, UH, THE, UH, THE PERMIT, AFTER THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED, CONSTRUCTION BEGAN BUILDING OFFICIAL, YOU KNOW, HEARD A LOT OF COMPLAINTS, DECIDED, YEAH, I MADE A MISTAKE, AND HE ISSUED A STOP WORK, WORK ORDER.
MR. DAVIS SAID, HEY, I STARTED CONSTRUCTION AND IT WAS MORE THAN 20 DAYS AGO THAT YOU ISSUED THE PERMIT.
YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T ENFORCE THIS, THIS ORDINANCE ANYMORE.
THE COURT SAID, NO, HE APPEALED TO THE APPELLATE COURT.
THE APPELLATE COURT SAID, NO, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS NOT A STOPPED, MAYBE A THIRD PARTY LIKE MS. MAY WOULD BE A STOP FROM, FROM APPEALING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IF THAT WAS THE ONLY ISSUE THEY HAD.
BUT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS NOT.
SO I WOULD ASK THAT YOU, UM, YOU DO THE RIGHT THING, PLAY, KEEP, PLAY BY THE RULES, UH, BE CONSISTENT AND DO THE SAME THING THAT THAT WOULD HANDLE THIS THE SAME WAY THAT THE MAY APPEAL WAS HANDLED.
OKAY, SO NOW WE WILL TAKE COMMENT FROM THOSE SUPPORTING THE APPEAL.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SUPPORTING THE APPEAL? MADAM CHAIR, THERE IS, UM, THE HOMEOWNERS ARE ON, I MEAN, THE APPEALING PARTY IS ALSO ON VIRTUALLY SCOTT, BRYAN AND CHRISTIE MAY, THEY'RE ON VIRTUAL.
SO LET'S START WITH SCOTT BRYANT, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
UM, THE, THE ONE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT IS IN THE PRESENTATION IS THE CALCULATIONS THAT WERE USED FOR THE EXTENSION, UH, IN THE MODIFICATION OF, UH, NONLYING STRUCTURE DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THE OUTDOOR PATIOS WERE COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE, UH, TO THE ORIGINAL SLAB.
AND I'M NOT SURE WHICH SLIDE IT IS IN THE PRESENTATION, BUT, UM, CONEL USED THE LENGTH OF ROUGHLY 60 FEET AS A BASELINE FOR THE LENGTH OF EXISTING NON-COMPLIANT STRUCTURE.
BUT IN THE SUBMITTED PHOTOGRAPHS, THE ENTIRE, NOT ONLY THE PATIO, BUT THE OUTDOOR PATIOS THAT WERE SUPPOSEDLY ENCLOSED WERE DEMOLISHED.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE SURVEY, THE ORIGINAL SLAB LENGTH IS 48 AND A HALF FEET, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THEY HAVE AT MOST 24 FEET OF EXTENSION AND FROM THE ORIGINAL SLAB, NOT FROM THE END OF THE COVERED PATIO.
AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY HAVE USED A 60 FOOT NUMBER FOR THE BASEMENT EXTENSION, AND THERE WAS NO, THERE WAS NOTHING TO EXTEND ON THE BASEMENT LEVEL.
UM, IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU CAN ALSO SEE THAT THE NEW SLAB FOR THE BASEMENT LEVEL WAS ON NEW DIRT AND THERE WAS NOTHING TO EXTEND ON THAT LEVEL.
AND SO THAT EXTENSION SHOULD NOT QUALIFY AS A MODIFICATION OF A NON-COMPLIANT STRUCTURE SINCE THERE WAS NOTHING TO EXTEND AT THAT POINT.
[00:45:01]
THANK YOU.UH, CHRISTINE MAY, ARE YOU ONLINE? HELLO? UM, OKAY.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD FOR ME, PLEASE.
AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
BEFORE I HAD, UM, CONCRETE EVIDENCE, MA'AM, UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE, MA'AM, THAT THE MA'AM, MA'AM, YOU NEED TO STOP ENTIRE PATIO AND ANY SORT OF FOUNDATION MAAM THAT COULD HAVE GONE ALONG WITH THAT PATIO WAS DEMOLISHED.
HAS CONSISTENTLY IN WRITING NOTED THAT IF A DEMOLISHED GETTING TO THE MICROPHONE MAKE A DIFFERENCE, YOU NEED TO WAIT FOR ONE SECOND, PLEASE.
NON, I NEED YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
I THINK WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS SHE MUTED THE BROADCAST.
I THINK SHE MUTED THE BROADCAST LEGAL NOT SHOW THAT THE WHOLE PATIO WOULD BE DEMOLISHED.
CAN WE TAKE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SUBMITTED, CAN WE TAKE HER TESTIMONY WITHOUT HER STATING HER NAME FOR THE RECORD? UM, ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
YOU CAN ASK HER TO, TO SPEAK HER NAME.
UH, IT SOUNDS LIKE SHE MAY HAVE MUTED THE AUDIO.
SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT SHE CAN, UM, STATE HER NAME FOR THE RECORD BEFORE TAKING IN, BUT THE TESTIMONY, SO WE HAVE TO HAVE HER NAME BEFORE SHE CAN GIVE THE TESTIMONY THOUGH, RIGHT? YES, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THAT'S THE BOARD'S PRACTICE.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU TRY TO INTERRUPT HER PLEASE? UM, AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS BEEN GIVEN THIS MR. ARIAN, IS THERE A WAY THAT YOU CAN CONTACT HER? DO WE HAVE A CONTACT? NO.
HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO BREAK IN OR IS SHE STILL SPEAKING? YEAH, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO INTERRUPT HER.
IT BEING, THERE'S NO CHAT FUNCTION SO THAT YOU CAN'T SAY, IS IT POSSIBLE TO KICK HER OFF THE, LIKE KICK HER OFF THE BROADCAST HER CALL BACK SO THAT SHE KNOWS SHE'S NOT CONNECTED? YEAH, BUT I'M SAYING SHE DOESN'T KNOW SHE'S ON MUTE, BUT IF YOU KICK HER OFF AND SHE'S NO LONGER MUTE.
OH, SHE'S, OH, SHE IS UNMUTED NOW.
SO LET'S TRY TO GET, WERE Y'ALL ABLE TO HEAR ME SOON? NO, MA'AM.
WE NEED YOU TO START YOUR TESTIMONY WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF YOURSELF.
WE CANNOT HEAR YOUR TESTIMONY WITHOUT YOU INTRODUCING, THANK YOU.
STATING YOUR NAME INTO THE RECORD.
AND SO WE HAD TO STOP YOUR SO MADAM CHAIR, HOW WOULD YOU, YEAH, THANKS.
SO IF YOU DON'T MIND, I NEED YOU TO FIRST STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES AND YES, YOU WILL HAVE TO GIVE YOUR TESTIMONY AGAIN BECAUSE WE CAN'T TAKE YOUR TESTIMONY WITHOUT YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD FIRST.
ARE YOU READY? YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UM, I WANNA START WITH THE FACT THAT STEVE LEACH ALL ALONG DURING THIS WHOLE PROCESS HAS MAINTAINED THAT THE PLANS DO NOT SHOW THAT THE ENTIRE PATIO WOULD BE DEMOLISHED AS PART OF THIS RENOVATION.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SUBMITTED PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED, IT SHOWS THAT THERE'S A LITTLE SLIVER OF THE PATIO THAT SHOWS THAT PORTION WOULD BE DEMOLISHED, BUT THE REST OF IT
[00:50:01]
WOULD REMAIN.NOW, WE ALL KNOW NOW WITH THE NEW EVIDENCE THAT HAS COME TO LIGHT SINCE THE NOVEMBER 10TH MEETING, THAT THE ENTIRE PATIO WAS DEMOLISHED, THAT THERE WAS EXCAVATION OVER ONE FOOT, UM, AND A NEW STRUCTURE, A NEW ILLEGAL STRUCTURE HAS BEEN BUILT FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
WHICH ALL OF STEVE'S STATEMENTS.
THE CODE SAYS THAT IF A MODIFIED STRUCTURE, I MEAN, IF A NON-COMPLIANT STRUCTURE IS DEMOLISHED, IT LOSES ITS NON-COMPLIANT STATUS AND CAN ONLY BE REBUILT ACCORDING TO CURRENT ZONING.
UM, I PROVIDED THOSE PICTURES THAT YOU'RE SEEING.
I PROVIDED THOSE OVER TWO WEEKS AGO, AND I HAVE ASKED FOR A WRITTEN DETERMINATION ABOUT THAT.
THE PERMIT, THE 2022 PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN ERROR.
AND I HAVE NOT RECEIVED A DETERMINATION.
THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS THE DUTY AND THE OBLIGATION TO CORRECT A PERMIT THAT'S BEEN ISSUED IN ERROR.
UM, I AM ASKING FOR THAT CORRECTION AS MR. ARIAN NOTED.
WHEN MR. CONEL TURNED MY PROJECT IN, I WAS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH CODE.
IT WAS REGARDING IMPERVIOUS COVER, BUT THIS IS REGARDING THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
SO NOW THERE'S AN ILLEGAL STRUCTURE THAT'S BUILT FIVE FEET FROM MY PROPERTY LINE.
UM, I ALSO WANNA BRING UP THAT WHEN MR. LEACH CAME UP, HE SAID HE NOTED THE THINGS THAT WERE IN THE 2022 PERMIT AND THE THINGS THAT WERE IN THE 2025 PERMIT.
UM, ONE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS I, I KNOW THAT A BASEMENT WAS APPROVED, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLANS, THE BASEMENT THAT WAS BUILT IS VERY, VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE BASEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED, APPROVED FROM THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN.
UM, THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN SHOWS THAT IT, A, THE BASEMENT IS MOSTLY BELOW RAID, BUT THE BASEMENT THAT'S BEEN BUILT, CAN YOU MUTE HER PLEASE? A 10 FOOT WALL.
I APOLOGIZE IF YOU CAN HEAR ME.
WE HAD TO MUTE YOU BECAUSE YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED, BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
TWO, AND IT WAS JUST THE TWO VIRTUAL.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO A PRESENTATION BY THE RESPONDENT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE WITH A TOTAL TIME OF 11 MINUTES BECAUSE I GAVE AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE TO THE APPELLANT.
SO WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE 11 MINUTES.
GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS DAVID HARTMAN, UH, ATTORNEY AT DU BOIS.
BRIAN CAMPBELL ON BEHALF OF THE PERMIT HOLDER, UH, WARREN KUNKEL.
UM, BY WAY OF REFRESHER, UM, THE FACTS ARE THAT THIS, UH, INITIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THIS BUILDING WAS 1985, UM, WHILE IT WAS OUT IN THE COUNTY.
AND THE PATIO WAS AT ZERO FEET LOT LINE, AND THE HOUSE WAS AT FIVE FEET LOT LINE IN 2000.
THIS AREA WAS ANNEXED, WHICH IMPOSED, AND IT WAS ZONED LA ZONING, WHICH IMPOSED A 10 FOOT SETBACK, UH, ALONG THIS YARD.
UM, THE 2 22 PERMIT REDUCED THE NON-COMPLIANCE IN THE BACK PATIO AREA.
UM, IT LAWFULLY MODIFIED AND MAINTAINED THE POOL AND PER POOL PATIO AREA SHOWN IN GREEN AND REMOVED THE NON-COMPLIANT ELEMENTS, UM, SHOWN WITHIN ZERO TO FIVE FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE THAT NET NET, THESE MODIFICATIONS REDUCED THE MON NON-COMPLIANCE BY REMOVING SUBSTANTIAL NON-COMP COMPLYING MASKS FROM FROM THE REQUIRED YARD.
[00:55:03]
THE 2025 SECOND FLOOR PATIO EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION IS ALLOWED UNDER 25 TO 9 63 F.UM, IT MODIFIED THE SECOND FLOOR WITH THE PATIO EXTENSION ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, AND THAT PART WITHIN THE REQUIRED YARD IS ALLOWED UNDER 9 63 F, WHICH I'VE GOT A, A, A CODE, A SLIDE SHOWING THAT CODE PROVISION.
IT RUNS PARALLEL TO THE PROPERTY LINE, NOT HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING BUILDING.
SO COMBINED WITH THE INITIAL 16.8 FEET, UM, APPROVED IN 22, UH, AND THE 21 FOOT EXTENSION REMAINS WITHIN THE 21, UH, 0.9 FOOT ALLOWANCE IN THIS AREA.
AND THIS IS, THIS SHOWS THE CALCULATIONS AND THE AREA, THE AREA SHOWN IN YELLOW IS THE ADDITIONS.
THE FIRST FOUR FLIGHTS SHADE STRUCTURE, THE TRELLIS WAS ADDED, UM, AND THEY WERE, UH, DESIGNED TO SUPPORT MECHANICAL LOUVERS THAT SHADE INTERIOR SPACES.
THESE ARE ALLOWED AND AUTHORIZED SPECIFICALLY UNDER 25 2 5 13 B.
THAT ALLOWS FOR, UH, PASSIVE SHADING OF DEVICES, UM, UH, IN THESE AREAS.
AND THAT OUTLINE IN GREEN SHOWS, UM, THAT, UH, UH, THAT, UM, TRELLIS AREA AND THE 25 5 13 B IS THE, THE OPENNESS OF REQUIRED YARDS.
THAT AREA IS ALSO, UM, AUTHORIZED UNDER 25 2 9 63 F UM, THAT SHADE STRUCTURE AS NO SECOND FLOOR MASS.
THERE ARE SOME BACK AND FORTH, UM, IN THE PLAN REVIEW AND THE 3D, UH, RENDERING AND, UH, ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS.
AND SO IT'S AUTHORIZED UNDER 25 TO 9 63 F.
UM, THE OUTDOOR KITCHEN IS ALSO ALLOWED UNDER THE SAME PROVISION.
UM, THE KITCHEN AND THE WALL WERE ADDED ON THAT MAIN FLOOR PATIO BENEATH THE SHADE STRUCTURE THAT'S, UH, PERMITTED UNDER AND AUTHORIZED UNDER THAT SAME 25 FOOT EXTENSION, UH, FOR THE SHADE STRUCTURE.
THE POOL AND SPA CONFIGURATION WAS MODIFIED.
UM, THE POOL SPA AND LOWER PATIOS WERE MERGED INTO THE POOL AND EXTENDING THE POOL.
THE P THE PATIO AREA REPLACING THE 22 SPA, UH, IS ALLOWED AS PART OF THAT 25 FOOT EXTENSION BEING ACRO, UH, APPLIED ACROSS THE ENTIRE PATIO UNDER 9 6 3 F AS WAS MENTIONED.
THERE ARE OTHER KIND OF INTERIOR, UM, AR UH, ELEMENTS TO THE, TO THE REVISIONS.
UM, THE ONE THAT IS KIND OF THE EXTERIOR IS WINDOW PLACEMENTS.
THEY WERE ADJUSTED BUT DO NOT INCREASE THE DEGREE OF NON-COMPLIANCE.
UNDER THAT PROVISION HAS BEEN 40 YEARS OF THE CODE AND VARIANCES THAT CONFIRM THAT MODIFICATION RIDE.
THE CITY CODE HAS HAD THAT 25 FOOT EXTENSIONS IN THE, IN THE CODE SINCE 1984, UM, UNDER THE PREVIOUS CODE PROVISION, THE FAST FORWARD TO THE, UH, THE PLAIN ENGLISH LANGUAGE REWRITE THAT'S PRESERVED THAT RIGHT TO MODIFY AND EXTEND, UH, NON-COMPLIANT STRUCTURES.
IT'S BEEN MODIFIED AND TWEAKED OVER THE YEARS, BUT IT'S, IT'S REMAINS UNCHANGED.
AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS RECOGNIZED THIS RIGHT, AND GRANTED NUMEROUS VARIANCES INCLUDING LAST YEAR.
UH, THE ONE ON NUMBER FIVE THERE, UH, AUTHORIZED 15 FEET, REQUESTED 18 FEET, AND THAT WAS APPROVED.
THIS IS THE CODE PROVISION THAT AUTHORIZES, UM, THE MODIFICATIONS.
UM, AND I WOULD SAY THAT YOU KNOW, THIS PARTICULARLY THAT BOTTOM PROVISION, UH, 9 6 3 F TWO, THE ADDITIONAL LENGTH OF MODIFIED PORTION OF THE BUILDING DOES NOT EXCEED THE LESSER OF 50% OF THE LENGTH OF THE NON-COMPLIANT PORTION OR 25 FEET, UH, UH, EXISTING BUILDING IN PARALLEL TO THE LOT LINE.
I'VE DONE A COMPREHENSIVE, IT'S, I MEAN, I'M A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE NERD, SO IT WAS REALLY INTERESTING TO A COMPREHENSIVE, UM, UH, REVIEW OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THESE CODE PROVISIONS IN 25 60.
UH, UH, TWO, UH, 9 63 F LIKE I SAID, HAS BEEN IN THE CODE SINCE 1984.
UH, IT WAS CARRIED FORWARD UNDER 13 TWO.
AND THEN THE, UH, THE PLAIN ENGLISH CODE REWRITE IN NINE, IT WAS CARRIED IT FORWARD IN 9 63, HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY USED AND APPLIED ON THE GROUND IN THE FIELD AS AS, UM, THOROUGH DESIGN WILL CONFIRM LATER.
AND THE POLICY BEHIND THAT IS BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE IN A POSITION WHERE YOU'RE, SOMETHING LIKE INVOLUNTARY ANNEXATION HAPPENS, YOU'RE NOT LOCKED IN AMBER, YOU'RE ALLOWED FOR LIMITED EXPANSION, UM, UNDER THOSE CODE PROVISIONS.
AND SO YOU CAN, UH, MODIFY AND REMOVE AND REPLACE UNDER A VALIDLY IMPROVED PERMIT.
AND THAT'S NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THIS PROVISION OF 9 63 B.
THERE WAS A 2010 REMODEL ORDINANCE THAT I WENT BACK AND RE-WATCHED ALL THE, THE, THE, THE, THE MATERIALS RELATED TO THAT.
SO IT'S TWO, TWO YEAR STAKEHOLDER PROCESS BASICALLY TIGHTENING UP THE REMODEL PERMIT PROVISIONS.
THERE WAS KIND OF A PREVIOUS LOOPHOLE THAT THAT APPLIED.
[01:00:01]
KNOW, IF YOU HAD A ONE WALL AND A FOUNDATION, UM, THEN YOU COULD KEEP GRANDFATHERED, UH, PROVISIONS AND RELATE BACK.AND THOSE 2010 REMODELED ORDINANCE BASICALLY SAID IF YOU DID THINGS LIKE, UM, DEMOLISHED MORE THAN 50% OF THE WALL, THEN YOU'RE, YOU'VE DEMOLISHED THE, YOU'VE BASICALLY DEMOLISHED THE, THE, THE PROVI, THE BUILDING AND THE WALL, AND THEREFORE YOU'RE SUBJECT TO NEW CODE.
BUT ALL THESE PROVISIONS BASIC, BASICALLY AUTHORIZED, UM, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, AND IT'S BEEN IN THE CODE SINCE 1984.
THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED THE SAME CONCERNS FROM MORE THAN A YEAR.
REPEATEDLY, UM, STAFF RELEASED THE FORMAL RESPONSE THAT'S IN EXHIBIT B, AND IT'S GOT SOME REALLY GOOD LANGUAGE THAT WE CAN GET INTO IF IT'D BE HELPFUL.
THE REVIEW IS EXTENSIVE SEVEN MONTH MULTI-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW, UH, COMMENTS.
AND EVERY CONCERN WAS ADDRESS WAS ADDRESSED BEFORE IS ISSUANCE.
AND THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT 22 PERMITS ARE FULLY COMPLIANT, NOT THE SUBJECT OF OF THIS APPEAL.
THE 25 REVISIONS COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE, INCLUDING THE 25 FOOT CAP, 50% EXPANSION, AND THE SHADE STRUCTURE ALSO QUALIFIES AS A PASSIVE ENERGY DE DESIGN.
AND THEN THE STAFF COMPLETED A MULTI-DEPARTMENT REVIEW, CONFIRMED FULL COMPLIANCE BEFORE APPROVING THE PERMIT.
AND ALL CONCERNS RAISED AS THIS APPEAL WERE ALREADY ADDRESSED BY STAFF PRIOR TO ISSUANCE.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ALRIGHTY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THIS TIME WE WILL TAKE COMMENT FROM THOSE OPPOSING THE APPEAL.
YOU'LL COME UP TO THE LITTLE BARRICADE, PRESS THE BUTTON ON THE MICROPHONE.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UM, SOME OF Y'ALL KNOW ME BECAUSE I'VE BEEN HERE.
SOME OF Y'ALL DON'T KNOW ME BECAUSE I HAVEN'T BEEN HERE IN A WHILE.
AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE HERE.
I'VE GOT A WHOLE CODE AND INTERPRETATIONS AND REINTERPRETATIONS AND RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT SIT BEHIND EVERYTHING THAT I SHOULD LOOK AT BEFORE I COME HERE.
AND WITH THAT IS CERTAINLY THIS WHOLE THING ABOUT DEMOLITION.
WE'VE WORKED ON HUNDREDS OF APPLICATIONS WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND WE HAVE ON OCCASIONS UTILIZED THE NONCONFORMING OR NON-COMPLIANT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR NOT DEMOLITION OF A NON-COMPLIANT CONDITION.
WE HAVE SITUATIONS WHERE WE HAVE RELIED ON WHAT ARE OTHER CONSULTANTS DOING IN REGARDS TO SOMETHING THAT'S FOUND IN THE CODE.
WE HAVE A NETWORK OF CONSULTANTS THAT WE WORK WITH ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE CITY INTERPRETING THE TODAY ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE? HOW DID YOU DO THIS ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT? AND THERE'S A HUNDREDS OF PROJECTS IN TALKING TO A COUPLE OF, UH, OF CONSULTANTS JUST THIS PAST WEEK, HUNDREDS OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED UNDER THIS GUISE OF WHAT IS REMOVED AND REPLACED.
AND I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND HERE, BECAUSE IF Y'ALL GO DOWN THIS PATH OF ALLOWING FOR DEMOLITION TO BE A SACROSANCT, UM, NAME OF SOMETHING THAT GOES AWAY WITHOUT REPLACEMENT, THEN I'VE GOT A PLETHORA OF PROJECTS THAT WILL THEN BE DEEMED ILLEGAL.
THERE'S HUNDREDS OF OTHER PROJECTS THAT WILL BE DEEMED ILLEGAL AND UNDER MR. IAN'S WAY OF THINKING, THE BUILDING OFFICIALS SHOULD GO AFTER THEM AND PULL ALL OF THEIR PERMITS.
WELL, THAT'S NOT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN OUT OF THIS.
I MEAN, THE BOTTOM LINE TO ALL OF THIS IS THIS IS ALL ABOUT THESE PRO, THESE PERMITS WERE ISSUED IN COMPLIANCE TO THE CODE 9 63, WHICH APPLIES TO ANYTHING NON-COMPLIANT, WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, MULTIFAMILY.
IT'S BEEN USED ON MANY OCCASIONS.
AND THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE I CERTAINLY DON'T WANNA LOAD UP YOUR DOCKET BECAUSE ALL OF A SUDDEN, HUNDREDS OF OTHER OTHER PROJECTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED OVER THE, OVER THE PAST FOUR DECADES ARE THEN ILLEGAL.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH HERE.
UM, AND I'LL SAY ALSO THAT, THAT I WILL AGREE WITH THE LAST STATEMENT.
MR. ARIAN STATED THAT WE WOULD LIKE THE SAME OUTCOME THAT Y'ALL DID ON HIS CLIENT'S PERMITS OR THE, THE APPEAL OF HIS CLIENT'S PERMITS.
AND THAT'S TO DENY THE APPEAL.
MR. ARIAN AND I DO AGREE ON THAT.
YOU SHOULD DENY THE APPEAL OF THE, OF THESE, THESE PERMITS AND ALLOW FOR THE PROJECT CONTINUE FORWARD BECAUSE IT COMPLIES TO 9 63.
THANK YOU MR. THOR, FOR YOUR TESTIMONY AND YOUR EXCELLENT USAGE OF THE WORD PLETHORA.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
AND DO YOU MAKE SURE THE GREEN LIGHT'S ON THE MICROPHONE, UH, WARREN CONEL PERMIT HOLDER? UM, SO THIS WAS
[01:05:01]
SUPPOSED TO BE OUR DREAM HOUSE, AND THIS HAS TURNED INTO AN ABSOLUTE NIGHTMARE.IF I COULD GO BACK IN TIME, I WOULD'VE NEVER BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY.
UM, WHAT I CAN TELL YOU NOW IS THAT, UM, REMODELS ON THEIR OWN ARE HARD.
UH, LAKE AUSTIN ZONING IS VERY HARD.
I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THAT WAS WHEN I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY.
NON-COMP, UH, STRUCTURES ARE EVEN HARDER ON TOP OF ALL OF IT.
UM, WE, AS MUCH AS THEY'VE TRIED TO SAY THAT WE'RE DOING ALL THESE CRAZY THINGS AND THEY'RE TRYING TO SNEAK THINGS THROUGH FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET THIS CORRECT.
WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO THIS BY THE BOOK DOT I'S CROSS OUR T'S.
IT'S JUST REALLY, REALLY HARD.
UM, I MEAN, WE HAVE LOTS OF EXPERTS HERE AND THEY'RE DISAGREEING.
AND SO ULTIMATELY I THINK CITY STAFF HAS DONE A GREAT JOB.
I ACTUALLY WANT TO, UH, ACKNOWLEDGE MR. LEACH AND HIS WHOLE TEAM AND MR. LLOYD AND HIS WHOLE TEAM.
UM, THEY'VE PUT, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MAN HOURS OR WEEKS INTO THIS REVISION.
I MEAN, WE HAVE REALLY OVER THE LAST EIGHT OR NINE MONTHS, I'VE WORKED REALLY HARD WITH CITI, WITH STAFF, WITH LAWYERS, WITH LAND USE EXPERTS TRYING TO GET THIS CORRECT.
UM, AS I SAID, UM, ACTUALLY I I, THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
I'D LIKE YOU GUYS, IF POSSIBLE, TO OPEN UP THE LETTER OF OPPOSITION.
I SUBMITTED ONE THIS MORNING ON PAGE SEVEN.
UM, I'LL HOLD IT UP HERE AND I CAN PASS THESE OUT AS WELL.
THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE COVERED PATIOS.
THIS IS PAGE SEVEN OF THE OPPOSITION.
UM, THESE ARE THE COVERED PATIOS THAT WE REMOVED.
UM, THEY ARE COMPLETELY DETERIORATED.
THERE'S, YOU CAN'T EVEN WALK ON THESE THINGS.
THIS WAS STRUCTURALLY UNSAFE AND IF YOU LOOK ABOVE IT, THERE'S A ROOF STRUCTURE.
THE ROOF STRUCTURE REMAINED THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PROJECT.
AND SO, UH, MR. BRYANT'S CLAIM THAT WE DEMOLISHED ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE CONCRETE WALL IS JUST INCORRECT.
THERE WAS A ROOF STRUCTURE HANGING OVER THAT WENT ALL THE WAY OUT.
THAT EXACT SAME ROOF STRUCTURE, THE BEAMS, THE TRUSSES, ALL OF IT IS STILL THERE TODAY.
LIKE WE DID NOT DEMOLISH THIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
WE REMOVED THESE COMPLETELY DESTROYED, DETERIORATED PATIOS.
AND THERE'S JUST NO WAY TO MAINTAIN THESE OLD BUILDINGS.
IF YOU'RE GONNA TRY TO SAY THAT REMOVING A SINGLE TWO BY FOUR MEANS THAT YOU'VE NOW DEMOLISHED A PORTION OF YOUR BUILDING AND YOU CAN'T PUT IT BACK.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE WAY THE CODE WAS WRITTEN.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE INTENT OF IT.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.
I THINK MR. THROWER PUT IT REALLY, REALLY WELL WHEN HE SAID THAT, UH, REMOVE AND REPLACE IS SOMETHING WHOLLY DIFFERENT THAN DEMOLISH.
IF YOU HAVE AN OLD STRUCTURE WITH LOTS OF, UH, MATERIAL AND YOU GET A PERMIT AND YOU REMOVE IT AND YOU REPLACE IT AND YOU'RE NOT INCREASING YOUR NON-COMPLIANCE, THAT'S WHAT 9 63 IS MEANT TO DO.
IT'S MEANT TO ALLOW OWNERS TO MAINTAIN AND MODIFY THEIR AGING STRUCTURES.
THIS IS NOT DEMOLITION, THIS IS REMOVE AND REPLACE.
IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL, UH, COMMENT BY THOSE OPPOSING THE APPEAL? OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO THE REBUTTAL BY THE APPEALING PARTY.
MR. ARIANA WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UH, MAKE SURE THE GREEN LIGHT IS ON THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT, UH, THE RULES ARE JUST TOO HARD AND SO, YOU KNOW, YOU JUST NEED TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE.
THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THE RULES OF 9 63 ARE MEANT TO MODERATE THE, THE DEGREE TO WHICH, UH, A NON-COMPLIANT STRUCTURE CAN BE MASKED AND MADE MORE NON-COMPLIANT.
MR. HARTMAN TALKED ABOUT THE, THE SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AND SAID THAT, UH, IT, IT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF, OF THE CODE, UH, BECAUSE IT WAS LESS THAN 25 FEET OF AN AN ADDITIONAL, UH, LINEAL EXTENSION.
BUT THE CODE IS WRITTEN AND THAT SECTION IS WRITTEN IN THE CONJUNCTIVE.
YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL SUBSECTIONS OF F IN ORDER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT PROVISION.
THE OTHER PROVISION IN FD F1 B SAYS IF A NONLYING PORTION OF A BUILDING IS MODIFIED, YOU CAN DO IT AND YOU CAN EXTEND IT LINEARLY, BUT YOU CAN'T INCREASE THE DEGREE OF NON-CONFORMITY.
THE HEIGHT, YOU CAN'T INCREASE THE HEIGHT.
[01:10:01]
THEY INCREASE THE HEIGHT.IF, IF YOU SAY, FORGET ABOUT THAT, WE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE WERE ALLOWED 25 FEET OF EXTENSION, YOU'RE JUST EMASCULATING THE WHOLE PROVISION.
A SECOND STORY WAS ADDED WITH WINDOWS THAT LOOK OUT OVER MY CLIENT'S, UM, UH, ENTRYWAY.
UH, IT'S, UH, IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO WORK THAT WAY IN THE CODE.
UH, AS FAR AS WHAT MR. THROWER SAID, UM, I AGREE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DOES HAVE AUTHORITY TO, TO CORRECT ERRORS IN, IN, IN PERMITS.
AND THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T APPEAL THAT, THAT PROVISION, BECAUSE HOWEVER, MR. UH, LEACH DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS A POTENTIAL ERROR, HE DISCOVERED THERE WAS A POTENTIAL ERROR AND HE HAD TO INVESTIGATE IT AND HE ENDED UP, UH, CORRECTING IT IN A WAY THAT I THINK WAS FAIR AND EQUITABLE.
UH, WHAT I HEAR MR. CONEL SAYING IS, IF YOU STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THESE RULES IS JUST TOO HARD AND WE OUGHT TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT, AT THIS PROPERTY AND HOW IT IS INCREASED IN MASS, IT'S, IT'S INCREDIBLE.
AND IT'S ALL ALONG THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK LINE AS FAR.
UH, REAL QUICK, JUST A REMINDER TO EVERYONE FROM LAST TIME THAT THERE ARE A FEW OPTIONS, UH, FOR THIS.
UM, WE CAN EITHER UPHOLD STAFF'S DECISION, WE CAN MODIFY STAFF'S DECISION OR WE CAN OVERTURN STAFF'S DECISION.
IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT OVERTURNING, YOU NEED TO HAVE LANGUAGE FOR IT.
BEFORE WE START, I DID HAVE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL.
UM, GOING THROUGH THIS, IT'S LOOKING LIKE A LOT OF THE INFORMATION IS BASED ON THE 2022 PERMIT, BUT IF I RECALL CORRECTLY FROM THE LAST MEETING, LEGAL HAS STATED THAT WE CANNOT TAKE ANY EVIDENCE FROM THE 2022 PERMIT INTO CONSIDERATION ONLY THE REVISIONS FROM 2025.
IS THAT CORRECT? OR COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT, PLEASE? YES.
UH, ERIC LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
UM, SO THE CITY HAS MULTIPLE TOOLS IN ITS TOOLBOX IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND THE, THE, THIS, UM, IS AN APPEAL, UH, THAT WAS INITIATED UNDER 25 1 180 2, WHICH IS A, UM, AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MADE 20 DAYS AGO, WHICH IS THIS, UH, 2025, UM, AMENDMENTS.
SO THAT'S THE, THE 2025 REVISIONS TO THE 2022 PERMIT.
THE BOARD CANNOT UNDO THE 20 WHATEVER WAS APPROVED UNDER THE 2022 PERMIT.
UH, IT'S MY RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD KIND OF, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DECISION ONLY, UM, TREAT ANY WHAT WAS APPROVED UNDER THE 2022 AS NON-COMP COMPLYING.
AND SO THE SCOPE OF THE QUESTION BEFORE THE BOARD IS, WERE THE REVISIONS TO UNDER PERMITTED UNDER THE 2025 PERMIT? WERE THO DID THOSE FALL UNDER THE LIMITED MO MODIFICATIONS ALLOWED UNDER 25 2 9 63.
AND I WANNA MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR THAT I'M ONLY SPEAKING TO THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY.
I'M NOT SPEAKING ONTO WHAT ACTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT IS SEPARATE AND APART FROM WHAT THE BOARD CAN DO.
I THINK THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS AS WELL.
UH, VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE, UM, MS. LOPEZ, I ACTUALLY HAD A QUESTION.
UH, SO THE APPEAL WAS FILED AND THERE WAS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS PUT INTO THE PACKET, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE THE APPEALING PARTY FELT LIKE THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL SHOULD HAVE TAKEN A POSITION ON THAT INFORMATION, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS POSTED FOR ACTION ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA.
CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT PLEASE? UM, SO IF THERE IS ACTION THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CAN TAKE OR INFORMATION THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CAN CONSIDER, THAT WOULD BE TAKEN SEPARATELY FROM THIS APPEAL, BUT WOULD IT, WOULD IT, WOULD IT OR COULD IT HAVE BEEN DONE PRIOR TO THIS HEARING? ARE ARE YOU ASKING WHETHER THE BUILDING OFFIC? I, I'M NOT,
[01:15:01]
I HAVE NOT CONSULTED WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE CONSIDERED, UH, MAYBE I CAN CLARIFY.SO THERE WAS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS FILED, AND I'M NOT SURE WHEN, BUT IT, IT APPEARED TO ME FROM MS. MAY'S TESTIMONY THAT SHE EXPECTED THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ON THIS INFORMATION PRIOR TO THE BOARD HEARING THE CASE ON THE NEW INFORMATION.
AND I JUST WANTED TO GET CLARIFICATION WHETHER THE BOARD ACTION HAD TO HAPPEN PRIOR TO ANY CONSIDERATION OF ANY ADDITIONAL MATERIAL.
SO I THINK, AGAIN, WHETHER THE INFORMATION PERTAINS TO THE APPROVAL OF THE 2022 IMPROVEMENTS, THAT'S A SEPARATE DECISION THAN WHAT IS BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY.
THE DEC AND THE DECISION BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY IS WHETHER OR NOT THE IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE 2025 REVISION FALL WITHIN THE PERMITTED MODIFICATIONS OF A NON-COMPLIANT STRUCTURE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR LEGAL? I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION, NOT NECESSARILY FOR LEGAL.
WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UM, SO THERE, I WAS GOING TO ASK MR. LEACH, CAN YOU PUT UP THE EXHIBIT OF WHAT WAS THE 2025 VERSUS THE 2022? SO IT MIGHT AID IN OUR CONVERSATION, PLEASE.
ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE PERMITS OR NO, THE EXHIBIT HE HAD AT THE VERY, WHEN HE SPOKE, WHAT IS IN 2020, WHAT WAS IN 2022, WHAT WAS IN 2025 AND WHAT WAS EXISTING OR THOUGHT.
YEAH, THAT ONE
CAN YOU PUT IT HERE? I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
MR. FLEET, OR AT THIS TIME? I DON'T, ARE YOU JUST TRYING TO SHOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO OR, RIGHT.
I, I MEAN, SO WE'RE, WHICH YOU WANT TO DISCUSS WHAT LEGAL HAS SAID IS THAT OUR PURVIEW IS THE 2025 REVISIONS.
SO IF WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THE 2025 REVISIONS, HAVING THAT THANK YOU, WHERE WE'RE ABLE TO SEE IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO ANYTHING WITHOUT USING THE 2022 CHANGES.
I MEAN, EVERYTHING IS SUPPOSED TO BE CONSIDERED NON-COMP COMPLYING AND JUST ACCEPTED AS THAT, AS THOUGH THE PERMIT WERE SUPPOSED TO BE OR WAS APPROVED AND DONE CORRECTLY.
I MEAN, I THINK, IF I MAY, I THINK WHAT LEGAL WAS HINTING WAS THAT THEY COULD HAVE FILED THIS APPEAL DIFFERENTLY, BUT BECAUSE THEY FILED UNDER THE PROVISION THAT THEY DID, IT'S A 20 DAY, THEY'RE FILING SPECIFICALLY THAT 20 DAY LOOK BACK APPEAL.
UH, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ON THIS.
MS. LOPEZ IS THE ONLY WAY TO FILE BEFORE BO OA, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS YOU CAN APPEAL, BUT FOR, FOR OUR APPEAL, IT'S 20 DAYS RIGHT? FROM THE PERMIT ISSUANCE.
ERICA LOPEZ, UH, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, THE, IF THE APPLICANT WANTED TO APPEAL THE IMPROVEMENTS IN 2022 THAT WERE ISSUED UNDER THE 2022 PERMIT, THEY SHOULD HAVE APPEALED 20 DAYS IN 2022.
THE APPEAL TO THE 2022 PERMITS IS NOT TIMELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF A BOA APPEAL.
BUT THEN HOW, IF I MAY ASK A FOLLOW UP MM-HMM
HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH A SITUATION WHERE, KIND OF LIKE, NOT SPEAKING TO THE MERITS OF THIS CASE, BUT LIKE A SITUATION WHERE YOU DON'T REALLY EVEN DISCOVER THE PROBLEMS WITH A PERMIT THAT HAS BEEN GRANTED UNTIL A REVISION IS MADE THAT POSES PROBLEMS. RIGHT? LIKE, DOESN'T THAT CREATE KIND OF A, A GAP IN REVIEW? Y YES, BUT I THINK AGAIN, THE DECISION, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOUR, THE DECISION BEFORE YOU IS THE INTERPRETATION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE 2025 COMPLY WITH 25 2 9 73.
UM, THAT DOESN'T PROHIBIT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL LOOKING TO SEE IF THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN ERROR.
THAT'S JUST NOT WHAT THE BOARD IS LOOKING AT.
THE BOARD IS LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL INTERPRETED THE PROVISIONS OF 25 2 9 6 3 CORRECTLY WHEN LOOKING AT THE 2025
[01:20:02]
UM, PROVISIONS.SO ASSUMING THAT THE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE THE BOARD, ASSUMING THAT THE 2022 REVISIONS WERE NON COMPLYING, ARE THE CHANGES UNDER THE 2025 PROVISIONS, ARE THEY ACCEPTABLE MODIFICATIONS ALLOWED UNDER THE 25 2 9 63? SO IT MAY BE EASIEST FOR THE BOARD TO KIND OF IDENTIFY WHAT THOSE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS ARE AND THEN SAY YES, NO.
IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE, UM, THE DETERMINATION THAT STAFF ORIGINALLY HAD MADE, SOMETIMES THAT'S, THAT'S HARD TO DO THOUGH, BECAUSE AS COMMISSIONER YES, IT'S ON AS COMMISSIONER STATED, UH, SOMETIMES THEY DON'T GET TO THE SECTION OF WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING AND NOT EVERYBODY'S LOOKING AT WHAT EVERY NEIGHBOR'S GOT PULLING OR PULLING OF PERMITS.
AND SO THE 20 DAYS, IT MAY TAKE THEM MORE THAN 20 DAYS BEFORE THEY START NOTICING SOMETHING THAT SEEMS TO BE OUT OF WHACK.
AND, AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE, I'M TALKING ABOUT CASES IN GENERAL.
SO THE 20, THE 20 DAY, THERE'S TWO ISSUES.
THE 20 DAYS, FIRST OF ALL, IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, IS NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR A NEIGHBOR TO REALIZE THAT SOMETHING IS ENCROACHING IN THEIR YARD BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE STARTED THE CONSTRUCTION ON ANOTHER PART OF THE HOUSE BEFORE THEY GOT TO THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
THE OTHER ISSUE TO ME IS IF, IF YOU'RE GOING TO, IT'S SORT OF LIKE WHAT WE WENT THROUGH LAST WEEK WHEN WE WERE GOING TO POSSIBLY REOPEN AND REVISIT THE RECONSIDER THE, THE INTERPRETATION CASE.
IT'S HARD TO OPEN UP AND JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE 2022 REVISIONS WITHOUT THE 2025 OR THE 2025 RE REVISIONS WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE 2022 PERMIT BECAUSE THEY'RE ATTACHED AT THE HIP.
THEY'RE BASICALLY, IT'S AN APPENDAGE OF THE 2022 PERMIT.
AND, AND IT SORT OF PUTS US IN A BOX WHEN IT'S DEALT WITH THIS WAY, WHEN IT'S INTERPRETED THIS WAY, THAT YOU CAN ONLY TAKE A LOOK AT THE REVISION, BUT YET THAT REVISION IS TIED TO A PERMIT FROM 20 25, 22, 20 22.
BUT IT'S, IT IS JUST, I MEAN, YOU, IT'S HARD.
I, AND SO I WAS RACKING MY BRAIN.
I STARTED ON THIS THING LAST WEEK AND EVEN UP UNTIL BEFORE I LEFT TO COME HERE TRYING TO DETERMINE, AND I EVEN LOOKED AT, AT, UH, UH, THIS TEXAS, UH, CIVIL STATUTE.
UH, AND IT JUST, IT JUST PUTS US, IT PUTS US IN A POSITION TO WHERE WE CAN'T REALLY MAKE AN, A REALLY KNOWLEDGEABLE, EDUCATED DETERMINATION BECAUSE YOU'RE PUTTING BLINDERS ON US.
UH, NOT YOU, NOT OF COURSE, BUT YOU KNOW, WE'RE GETTING, WE HAVE BLINDERS ON AND WE HAVE TO JUST LOOK INSIDE THIS BOX WHEN EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND THIS BOX IS WHAT GOT US TO THIS BOX.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? AND I, I, I, I'M, I GUESS THERE'S REALLY NOT AN ANSWER TO THIS, BUT, UM, I JUST THINK THAT GOING FORWARD, UH, THE 20 AND THIS, THIS MAY BE SOMETHING THAT APPLICANTS ARE GONNA NEED TO DO IF TAKE IT TO THE LEGISLATURE, WHATEVER, TO GET A MORE THAN A 20 DAY WINDOW, BECAUSE IT'S 20 DAYS.
EVEN ME IN THE INDUSTRY, 20 DAYS ISN'T ENOUGH.
ME BEING IN THE INDUSTRY FOR SO LONG, IF I STARTED THE PROJECT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THE, THE ISSUE'S GONNA BE ON THIS SIDE WHEN I GET THERE, IT'S GONNA BE AFTER 20 DAYS WHEN I PULL THAT PERMIT.
YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO START CONSTRUCTION.
I, I SOMETIMES IT TAKES MORE THAN 20 DAYS TO START CONSTRUCTION.
WE'VE GOT A COUPLE BOARD MEMBERS WITH QUESTION QUESTIONS, SIR.
HOW FAR? WE'LL GO TO BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF DON, AND THE BOARD MEMBER BOWEN.
SO I JUST HAVE A PROCEDURE QUESTION.
SO LIKE, IN A, IN A NORMAL CASE, YOU WOULD HAVE, WE'D MAKE A DECISION, THE DECISION COULD BE APPEALED AND THEN, UH, IT COULD THEN BE APPEALED TO DISTRICT COURT.
IS THAT ON A PERMIT APPEAL SIMILAR, OR IS IT, IS THERE A DIFFERENT, UH, STEP OF, YOU MUST GO THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY IN ORDER TO HAVE YOUR DAY IN DISTRICT COURT? UH, FINAL DECISIONS OF THE BOARD MAY BE APPEALED TO DISTRICT COURT.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? UHHUH
SO ONCE ADMINIS, SO EVEN IF WE MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT ON THE 2025 REVISION, AS WE ARE DIRECTED THAT THIS IS THE BOX WE'RE IN, THEN IF THEY APPEAL THE DECISION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE HEAR
[01:25:01]
IT OR WE DON'T HEAR IT, THEN THE NEXT STEP COULD BE DISTRICT COURT, CORRECT? YES.RECONSIDERATION AND THEN DISTRICT COURT, I BELIEVE, RIGHT? ONCE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY HAS BEEN SOUGHT, UH, BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF STAI, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE PERMIT HOLDER'S ATTORNEY.
I'M, I'M BRINGING YOU INTO THE FIGHT.
UM, SO WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT THAT SAYS, LOOK, WE SHOULD ONLY LOOK AT THE 2025 REVISIONS.
THE APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY IS SAYING NO IN ORDER.
AND ACTUALLY THE CHAIR AS WELL IS SORT OF FEELING LIKE, NO, WE CAN'T EVEN TALK ABOUT THE 2025 REVISION UNLESS WE OPEN UP ALL OF THE ISSUES, POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, ALLEGED ISSUES WITH THE 2022 ISSUANCE.
UM, WHAT WOULD YOUR RESPONSE BE TO THE APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY? DO WE REALLY STAND IN THE SHOES OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HERE AND HAVE TO OPEN THE 2022? OR CAN WE LIMIT OURSELVES TO 2025? IF YOU'D BE SO KIND, WOULD YOU PLEASE RESTATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? I'M, I'M SORRY.
NOT EVERYBODY HERE KNOWS YOU AS WELL AS I DO.
HI, DAVID HARTMAN, UM, ATTORNEY FOR THE PERMIT HOLDER.
I WOULD SAY, ANSWER THAT QUESTION THAT I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH, UH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS COUNCIL ON THAT.
THAT'S A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, ESSENTIALLY.
BOARD MEMBER BOWEN, I, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF I CAN ASK THIS QUESTION OR NOT, SINCE I'VE READ THIS IN SOME OF THIS MASSIVE AMOUNT OF REVIEW, WE HAD A 2022 PERMIT, BUT I READ SOMEWHERE THAT IT NEVER GOT CLOSED.
THERE WAS A 2001 PERMIT, RIGHT? THAT EXPIRED.
IT WAS, UH, SO WE HAD A, WE HAD A, WE HAD A PERMIT THAT WORK WAS DONE, NO INSPECTIONS WERE DONE, BUT IT WAS NEVER CLOSED.
IS THAT TRUE? OR ANYBODY THAT CAN ANSWER IT FOR STAFF 2022 PERMIT? WELL, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE, OKAY, HOW CAN YOU PULL A PERMIT IF YOU HAVE OPEN PERMITS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN CLOSED OUT? I'VE BEEN FACED WITH THIS IN BEING ABLE TO DO THIS.
SO MY QUESTION GOES BACK, I GUESS, TO OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL, HOW CAN YOU ISSUE A PERMIT IF THERE WAS A PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED? NEVER INSPECTED, NEVER CLOSED OUT.
YET YOUR PLACE PROVIDED HOW MANY MORE PERMITS WHEN THERE WAS AN OPEN PERMIT STILL OUTSTANDING.
STEVE LEACH BUILDING OFFICIAL, I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 2001 PERMIT THAT WAS PULLED TO, UH, EXPAND THE POOL AND REMODEL THE PATIO.
I, WELL, I GOT A SHAKING HEAD BEHIND YOU, SO APPARENTLY THOUGHT, I JUST KNOW IT WAS 2021.
WAS THAT NO, IT WAS ALL THE WAY BACK IN 2001.
THAT, THAT'S WHAT THE APPELLANT IS, IS ABOUT.
THAT PERMIT WAS NOT ACTUALLY KNOWN ABOUT UNTIL I BECAME INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.
THAT PERMIT, UH, EXISTS IN OUR DATABASE IS WHAT'S CALLED AN IMAGE FILE.
UM, IT DOES NOT, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU SEARCH THE ADDRESS IN OUR DATABASE, IT DOES NOT PULL UP AS A BUILDING PERMIT.
IT JUST PULLS UP AS A, LIKE I SAID, AS AN AS AN IP FILE, WHICH COULD BE A LOT OF THINGS.
UM, AND IT, IT JUST WASN'T LOOKED AT DURING THE REVIEW.
UH, AND THE, THAT, THAT PERMIT, I BELIEVE PREDATES MR. CONWELL'S OWNING THAT PROPERTY.
THAT, THAT, THAT PERMIT WAS, WAS PULLED.
I MEAN, WHEN I, WHEN I DID FIND IT, YES, YOU'RE CORRECT.
IT APPEARS AS THOUGH NO INSPECTIONS WERE, WERE DONE ON IT.
BUT, BUT THAT PERMIT GOES WITH THE PROPERTY, NOT WITH THE OWNER.
SO THAT PERMIT BECAME WHAT WE CALL EXPIRED, BUT IT STILL, IT WAS STILL OPEN AND NEVER CLOSED.
IT WAS NEVER FINALED, I THINK.
THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S A, THAT'S A GOOD TERMINOLOGY.
FINAL, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, IT WAS NEVER FINALED.
MAY I INTERRUPT REAL QUICK? UH, BOARD MEMBER BOWER, ARE YOU TRYING TO DETERMINE LIKE WHETHER THERE WAS A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED, OR, WELL, IF IT WAS NEVER FINAL, YOU DIDN'T, IT CAN'T BE, YOU DIDN'T EVEN GET A CERTIFICATE OF CC, I MEAN, WAS 20 YEARS, LIKE IT WAS 20 YEARS AGO? LIKE, RIGHT.
LIKE I, THAT JUST SEEMS CRAZY TO ME, BUT GUYS, GUYS, BUT NO, NO COST.
BUT SHE'S ASKING, SHE'S ASKING.
BUT THE QUE IT STILL REMAINS IN THAT THERE'S BEEN MISTAKES MADE THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE
[01:30:01]
PROCESS.WOULD WE NOT ALL AGREE WITH THAT? THAT'S A YES OR NO.
I I I THINK THAT'S THE ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT SAYS, I'M SORRY IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK AND QUACKS LIKE A DUCK, IT'S A DUCK, YOU KNOW? YES.
IT, IF I CAN, IT'S A CASCADE OF, LET, LET'S WAIT ON TALK PLEASE.
IF, IF I CANNOT PULL A PERMIT BECAUSE THERE'S A PENDING PERMIT THAT HAS NEVER BEEN CLOSED OUT AND ONE GETS ISSUED, NOW I'VE GOT A PROBLEM.
IF I'M THE GUY THAT'S BUILDING OR IF I'M THE OWNER, WHETHER HE OWNED THE PROPERTY AT THAT POINT IN TIME, HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT THERE'S AN OPEN PERMIT YET.
OTHER PERMITS WERE NOW ISSUED WITH AN OPEN PERMIT THAT HAS NEVER BEEN CLOSED OUT LEADING TO
THAT'S, SO I GUESS IF I COULD INTERRUPT REAL QUICK, 'CAUSE THAT BRINGS ME TO A QUESTION.
'CAUSE MAYBE I'M A LITTLE LESS FAMILIAR WITH PERMITTING THAN SOME OF THE OTHER FOLKS.
CAN YOU HAVE AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT ISSUED IF A PERMIT IS OPEN ALREADY? NOT IF IT HAS NOT BEEN
STEVE LEACH BUILDING OFFICIAL, NOT FROM THE SAME SCOPE OF WORK, BUT YOU CAN HAVE MULTIPLE PERMITS AT AN ADDRESS.
UH, BUT IF THAT SCOPE OF WORK IS IMPACTED, AND EVEN THOUGH YOU SAY IT'S FOR A DIFFERENT ITEM, BUT THEY'RE IMPACTED IN SOME FORM, SOME FASHION, THAT DOES THEN RELY ON THAT OTHER PERMIT, DOES IT NOT BEING COMPLETED? I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION.
IF SAID PERMIT IN 2001 WAS FOR, AND I HONESTLY, I CAN'T REMEMBER, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS FOR? SOMETHING WITH THE DECK, BUT I DON'T, SOMETHING WITH THE POOL DECK.
SOMETHING WITH A POOL DECK YET WE THEN GO BACK AND WE DEMO IT, OR I'M SORRY, REMOVE AND REPLACE AND THEN TURN AROUND AND THEN ISSUE A PERMIT TO RE TO REPLACE, SAID REMOVE DECK.
YOU, YOU, YOU'VE GOT A CONFLICT.
OR AM I LOOKING AT THIS TOO SIMPLISTICALLY? WELL, I, I WOULD SAY THAT THE PERMIT THAT WAS PULLED IN 2001, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ISSUES WITH IT, WAS FOR A VERY SMALL ADDITION TO THE DECK.
WELL, DOES IT MATTER WHAT IT'S REALLY FOR? WELL, I'M NOT SURE I GUESS THAT, THAT THAT WOULD'VE BEEN ON WHAT YOUR, YOUR ULTIMATE QUESTION IS.
BUT YOU, YOU SEEM TO BE SAYING THAT THE, THAT THAT PERMIT SHOULD CALL INTO QUESTION THE ENTIRE PATIO AND MY, THE PATIO PRE-EXISTED.
MY QUESTION IS, YOU, A PERMIT WAS ISSUED WITH A PERMIT THAT WAS NOT KNOWN ABOUT, THAT WAS NOT CLOSED YET.
NOBODY DID THEIR DUE DILIGENCE IN ORDER TO PROCEED.
BECAUSE EVEN WHEN I LOOKED AT THE STAFF LETTER, THERE'S A THING THAT SAYS, GOING FORWARD, THE STAFF IS COMMITTED TO IMPROVING THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR APPLICATIONS PROPOSING TO MODIFY NON-COMPLIANT STRUCTURES.
SO WE'RE, ARE WE NOW OPENING UP A BIG CAN OF WORMS IN THE ENTIRE PROCESS? BECAUSE I CAN'T GO PULL A PERMIT ON SOMETHING IF A PERSON HAS BOUGHT, BOUGHT A NEW PIECE OF PROPERTY, DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT IT, AND THEN ONCE WORK DONE AND THERE'S AN OPEN PERMIT.
BUT I'M GONNA INTERRUPT REAL QUICK.
'CAUSE I THINK THE PROBLEM WE'RE RUNNING INTO HERE, EVEN THOUGH I AGREE WITH YOU, AND I THINK THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH THE 2001 AND THE 20 20 22 PERMIT, 20 20 20, THERE'S 2022 PERMITS.
WE CANNOT DISCUSS THEM ACCORDING TO LEGAL, WHICH IS THE PROBLEM I HAVE.
WE'LL GET TO YOU RIGHT NEXT VICE CHAIR.
I, I GUESS, I GUESS I JUST WANNA SAY THAT I THINK EVERYONE HERE KNOWS THAT THIS IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO NEIGHBORS AND I'M FEELING NOT GREAT ABOUT DRAGGING STAFF THROUGH AND SCRUTINIZING EVERY ONE OF THEIR DECISIONS BECAUSE TWO NEIGHBORS CAN'T GET ALONG.
UH, RIGHT NOW I'M REALLY LEANING HARD TOWARD UPHOLDING THE STAFF'S DECISION HERE AND MOVING ON WITH OUR LIVES.
UH, SO I JUST WANTED TO TRY TO EXPLAIN, UH, BOARD MEMBER BOWEN.
SO THE CITY DIDN'T COMPUTERIZE UNTIL LATE 1979.
AND SO ALL OF THE PERMITS THAT WERE ISSUED AND INSPECTION CARDS, WATER AND WASTEWATER TAP CARDS ARE ALL IN AN IMAGING SYSTEM BECAUSE EVENTUALLY THEY GOT SCANNED.
[01:35:01]
THE CITY IS ALSO FROM 1979, FORWARD, LET'S SEE, THEY WERE UNDER MAX FACTS, AND THEN PIER AND THEN AMANDA, I PROBABLY MISSED A COUPLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS IN BETWEEN.AND SO THERE WERE MIGRATION ISSUES WITH SOME OF THOSE.
AND SO IT IS, IT IS NOT INTUITIVE IF IT WAS A PROPERTY BEFORE 1979 TO LOOK IN IMAGING FOR SOMETHING, WHETHER IT WAS BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY WASN'T EVEN ANNEXED.
I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED, BUT I'M JUST SAYING IMAGING IS SOMETHING, IF I CAN'T FIND ANYTHING, I'M GONNA GO LOOK AT IMAGING.
SO I COULD SEE WHY SOMEONE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING, WOULDN'T HAVE GONE IMMEDIATELY TO IMAGING.
I THINK THAT ALSO, I, I FEEL VERY LIMITED BECAUSE I HAVE HEARD LEGAL SAID THAT WHAT IT IS THAT WE CAN DO IS TO LOOK AT THE 2025 REVISIONS, WHICH WERE ON THAT EXHIBIT.
SO I AM IN A SIMILAR BOAT WITH, UH, UH, BOARD MEMBER STAN, BECAUSE I DON'T REALLY FEEL LIKE THAT, THAT WE'RE PUT IN THIS BOX AND THAT THERE IS AT ONCE, ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY HAS PROCEEDED.
THEY OBVIOUSLY KNOW THEIR WAY TO THE COURTHOUSE AND THEY CAN CONTINUE ON WITH THEIR LIVES.
AND I WILL SAY AGAIN, THAT IF SOMEBODY WERE TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE BETWEEN, FOR A REALLY TALL FENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO PEOPLE, BOY, I WOULD, I WOULD DEFINITELY BE, UH, VERY PRONE TO CONSIDERATION FOR THAT ITEM SECOND, REGARDLESS OF ANYBODY'S VIEW.
UH, SO, UH, I, I AM, UH, UH, SO ARE YOU SAYING, MAGGIE, ARE ARE YOU SAYING YOU'RE GONNA MAKE A MOTION OR I WILL MAKE A MOTION? SURE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO UPHOLD CAN INTERRUPT YOU REAL QUICK.
'CAUSE WE DO HAVE SOME NEW MEMBERS THAT HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.
I DID WANNA GIVE A CHANCE TO ASK, BECAUSE THESE INTERPRETATION APPEALS ARE A LITTLE IN DEPTH BOARD MEMBER OF APPEAL.
UM, TO, TO, UH, APPELLANT'S COUNSEL, IF YOU CAN COME UP AND, UM, JUST GIVE YOUR TWO MINUTES ON WHY, UM, YOUR, YOUR, YOU KNOW, YOUR, YOUR ARGUMENTS.
1, 1 1 MORE TIME JUST TO, AND WHAT, WHAT SPECIFICALLY OF THE ORDINANCE ARE YOU STICKING ON? UH, REALLY QUICK, QUICK.
SO I WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.
I SEE YOU'RE KIND OF JUMPING OUTTA YOUR SEAT THERE A LITTLE BIT.
SO, TERRY, TERRY AREA AND ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANT.
FIRST OF ALL, WE DON'T AGREE WITH THAT EXHIBIT THAT SHOWED WHAT WAS THE REVISION AND WHAT WAS ORIGINAL PERMIT? THE, UH, YOU'LL, IF YOU PUT THAT BACK UP ON THE SCREEN, THE SECOND FLOOR ADDITION IS, IS SHOWN IN SALMON.
ORIGINALLY, IT DID NOT HAVE ANY WINDOW IN IT.
SO THE, THE WINDOW IS PART OF THE REVISION.
UM, THE, UH, THE, THE TRELLIS WAS A REVISION.
ALL OF THESE ARE SUPPORTED ON, UH, ELEMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED IN THE 2022 PERMIT.
SO I AGREE IT'S REALLY HARD TO, UH, SEGREGATE IT OUT.
THAT'S WHY WE ARE SO FRUSTRATED THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WON'T RECOGNIZE THAT ERRORS WERE MADE IN 2022 AND FIX 'EM.
THAT'S WHAT THEY DID WITH CHRIS CHRISTIE.
MAY, THEY WERE REQUIRED THAT SHE FIX IT.
UM, BUT EVEN, EVEN IF THE BOARD ONLY ADDRESSES THE REVISIONS, UH, WE BELIEVE THE TRELLIS, UH, IS, IS NOT, UH, APPROVED BY, UH, FIVE, UH, BY THAT ENERGY.
UM, UM, UH, SAVING, UH, PROVISION OF, I THINK IT'S 5 25 2 5 13.
UM, IT, IT IS NOT CANTILEVER, IT'S NOT AN EVE.
IT IS A STRUCTURE, A ROOF STRUCTURE THAT IS SUPPORTED BY FOUR COLUMNS ON THE DECK.
UM, SO WE THINK THAT EVEN IF, AND I DON'T AGREE THAT YOUR JU YOU DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION TO DO AND MAKE WHATEVER DECISION THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS AUTHORITY TO MAKE, UM, I AGREE THAT YOU DO HAVE, I, I BELIEVE YOU DO HAVE THAT AUTHORITY, BUT EVEN IF YOU JUST LIMITED IT TO THE REVISIONS, UM, THAT THE WINDOW NEEDS TO COME OUT OF THAT SECOND STORY ADDITION, THE KITCHEN
[01:40:01]
NEEDS TO BE REMOVED AND THE TRIALIST NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.MR. ION, REAL QUICKLY, IF I COULD ASK, WHEN YOU WERE FILING THIS, IS IT SAFE TO ASSUME THAT YOU THOUGHT THE 2022, UH, PLANS WERE GOING TO BE INCLUDED OR ALLOWED TO BE INCLUDED IN ALL OF THIS? NO, UH, UM, I, I AGREE THAT IN ORDER TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION OF, OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WE NEEDED TO FILE SOMETHING WITHIN 20 DAYS.
UH, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO THAT FOR A YEAR AND A HALF.
UM, BUT WE'VE ALSO BEEN TRYING TO WORK WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO GET HIM TO RECOGNIZE THE ERRORS HE MADE BACK IN 2022.
UH, WE HAVEN'T, WE'VE BEEN VERY FRUSTRATED THAT HE HASN'T RECOGNIZED THOSE AND TAKEN ACTION ON 'EM.
AND IT'S YOUR BELIEVE THAT THE TRELLIS KITCHEN AND WINDOWS SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ALLOWED? RIGHT.
THE, THE, THE WINDOWS IN, IN THE BASEMENT, UH, ARE PART OF THE REVISION.
THE WINDOWS IN THE SECOND STORY ADDITION ARE A REVISION.
DID I SEE A HAND UP? UH, I, I, WHILE I, LEMME CHECK IN WITH VIRTUAL MEMBERS REAL QUICK.
VIRTUAL MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'M SORRY.
UM, I JUST LIKE, UH, I WOULD LOVE TO EXPLORE THIS CASE MORE.
IT'S KIND OF FRUSTRATING THAT WE ARE STUCK ONLY TO 2025 AND, UM, IT KIND OF, FOR ME AS A BOARD MEMBER, IT TIES MY HANDS.
VICE CHAIR, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ADDITIONAL? WELL, I, I DON'T THINK SO.
THE WINDOW PLACEMENT IS NOT SOMETHING I THINK WE CAN, UH, IT IS PRETTY FUNNY BECAUSE I HAVE MY OWN NEIGHBOR, OR I SHOULDN'T CALL HIM A NEIGHBOR.
THAT WOULD BE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.
AND, UH, I HAVE PLANTS LIKE EVERYWHERE JUST SO I CAN'T SEE IN THERE.
LIKE, LIKE I DIDN'T NEED TO HAVE A VIEW OF THEIR BED FROM MY SPOT THAT I SIT IN EVERY DAY.
SO I HAVE MY OWN THING AND, AND I UNDERSTAND, BUT I DON'T THINK THE CODE ACTUALLY REGULATES WHERE YOU CAN PUT A WINDOW OR WHERE YOU CAN'T, OTHER THAN WHETHER THE SETBACK OR NOT THE SETBACK THOUGH, IN KINDNESS.
UM, I PERSONALLY HAVE MINE FILMED SO THAT NO ONE CAN SEE IN MY HOUSE.
UH, I AM, I AM FRUSTRATED BY THIS CASE AND I, I DO BELIEVE THAT, UM, WE ARE TOLD BY LEGAL, WE HAVE THIS PARAMETER AND SO WE ARE IN A BOX AND THERE'S NOT THAT MUCH THAT WE COULD MAKE A DECISION ON THAT WOULD BE IMPACTFUL UNTIL YOU'VE RUN OUT OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY AND YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO AFTER THAT.
AND SO I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF A MOTION, UH, FROM BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF IF THAT MOTION WERE COMING.
SHOULD I MAKE THE MOTION AGAIN? LIKE LET'S, IF YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION, THAT'S OKAY.
WELL, NO, I JUST, I JUST WASN'T SURE IF IT HAD GONE THROUGH BEFORE.
'CAUSE IT KIND OF BEEN BEEN INTERRUPTED.
SO YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO, UH, REJECT THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE STAFF DECISION.
SO THAT IS A MOTION TO UPHOLD STAFF'S DECISION.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER CHAIR STA SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
UM, CHAIR, CAN YOU CLARIFY YAYS VERSUS NAYS, WHAT THAT MEANS? I'M SORRY.
DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? UH, MY MOTION IS TO UPHOLD STAFF DECISION, WHICH WOULD MEAN REJECTING THE APPEAL.
SO IF YOU VOTE YES ON THE MOTION, UM, IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE PERMITS STAND AS THEY'VE BEEN GRANTED.
[01:45:01]
FOR? NO, I WAS LOOKING TO SEE LIKE, IF YOU JUST WANTED TO ELABORATE AT ALL.I MEAN, MOSTLY MY REASONING AT THIS POINT IS IT JUST SORT OF MAKES ME SICK HOW MUCH TIME AND RESOURCES HAVE BEEN PUT INTO THIS.
AND I, I THINK IT'S, TO ME, THE, THE 20 DAY APPEAL DEADLINE MAKES SENSE.
IT MAKES SENSE THAT WE'RE LIMITED TO THE 2025 REVISION.
I KNOW IT'S NOT COMFORTABLE, BUT I THINK IT MAKES SENSE.
AND, UM, I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT JUST THE REVISIONS IN 2025, IT IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THEY FALL UNDER THAT CITY CODE SECTION 25 2 9 63.
UM, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO, WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S TRUE, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MOST OF THE FOG AND CONFUSION AND YEAH, NOISE IN THIS CASE IS ABOUT WHETHER THE 2022 PERMIT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED.
ME, MYSELF, I'M HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE GETTING ON BOARD WITH THIS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE BOARD IS HERE TO GRANT REPRIEVE TO A LANDOWNER WHO, WHO'S HAVE, WHO HAS A PROBLEM EITHER WITH A NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE OR, OR WITH THEIR OWN PERMITS.
LIKE WE'RE, WE'RE HERE TO, RIGHT OR WRONG, IF WE SEE IT, THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE BEHIND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BEING CREATED.
AND I, I UNDERSTAND LEGALLY THAT IT'S NOT TIMELY TO ADDRESS THE 2022 PERMITTING, BUT YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T LOOK AT THE ERRORS THAT WERE MADE IN THE 2022 OR UNDER THE 2022 PERMIT THAT DO NOW AFFECT THE 2025 REVISION.
IT'S, IT'S A REALLY WEAK, IF YOU'LL PARDON THE PUN, FOUNDATION FOR AN ARGUMENT.
I WISH THERE WAS ANOTHER TOOL.
MADAM CHAIR, BOARD MEMBER OF VAN OLAND, I HAVE A STATEMENT THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE.
AS I SAID IN LAST MONTH'S MEETING, THIS IS A NO-WIN SITUATION.
AND DUE TO THE EMOTIONAL STATE OF THE TWO NEIGHBORS, I DID NOT SEE ANY ROOM FOR A COMPROMISE.
EVEN THOUGH I AGREE WITH THE NEW EVIDENCE OF THE APPLICANT AND MY DISTRUST OF THE VERACITY OF THE INFORMATION PRESENTED FOR THE PERMIT, I'M FOR ONCE AT A LOSS FOR WORDS IN ORDER HOW TO PRESENT AN ALTERNATIVE TO STAFF'S INTERPRETATION.
EVEN THOUGH I DON'T SUPPORT IT.
QUITE FRANKLY, I HAVE LEARNED OVER MANY YEARS THAT EMOTION WILL CLOUD JUDGMENT.
AND THIS CASE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT.
BOTH PARTIES ARE HEAVILY INVESTED IN THEIR HOMES AND ULTIMATELY STUCK WITH EACH OTHER AS NEIGHBORS.
SOMETIMES UP HERE WE HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS, NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE ALWAYS RIGHT, BUT BECAUSE THE DECISION HAS TO BE MADE EITHER WAY TO THE PERMIT HOLDER AND ALSO TO THE APPLICANT.
I JUST WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS DON'T MAKE THE MISTAKE OF THINKING.
WE'RE NOT AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
OKAY? WE JUST HAPPEN TO BE SOMEWHAT HAVING OUR HANDS TIED.
I TRULY HOPE YOU BOTH TAKE THIS TO DISTRICT COURT AND IT'S RESOLVED THERE.
IF THIS IS TRULY THE LAST STEP IN EXHAUSTING ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN IT, THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES FOR YOU TO GET THERE.
BUT BE MINDFUL OF WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU BOTH MAKE YOUR FUTURE DECISIONS ON HOW YOU PROCEED WITH YOUR PROJECTS.
'CAUSE I REALLY DON'T THINK YOU WANT TO END UP BACK HERE OPENING UP ANOTHER CAN OF WORMS. IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOU COULD WORK TOGETHER.
UM, I THINK, UH, THE WOUNDS ARE PRETTY DEEP, UH, HAVING TO LIVE NEXT TO EACH OTHER AND AND HAVE THIS KIND OF FRICTION CREATES ITS OWN KIND OF EMOTIONAL STRESS FOR BOTH PARTIES.
IT'S, UH, IT'S SAD THAT WE HAVE, WE WE'RE IN THIS, UH, SOCIETY TODAY.
BUT, UM, I WILL, I'LL FOLLOW SEE HOW THE BOAT, HOW THE BOAT FALLS OUT AND THEN, UH, I'LL, I'LL CAST MY VOTE ACCORDINGLY.
ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION BEFORE WE TAKE THE VOTE? I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, I'M ALSO VERY STUMPED AND TORN BASED ON ALL THE COMMENTS OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE MADE REGARDING HOW OUR HANDS ARE TIED AND, AND ALSO THE DEEPLY SCAR SITUATION, UH, BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORS.
WHAT, HOW MANY S DO WE NEED? I'M KIND OF, I MAY ABSTAIN ON THIS BECAUSE I FEEL VERY TORN, UM, ABOUT WHERE I STAND AND I DIDN'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE.
THIS IS GOING TO BE SUPER MAJORITY VOTE, SO SO ALL OF US HAVE TO SAY YES FOR IT TO PASS.
[01:50:01]
NO.I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THE VOTE COUNT.
IT IS A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE IF YOU WISH TO REVERSE OR MODIFY.
AND THREE TO THAT'S FOR A MOTION TO DENY.
SO THE JUST THE, THE, THE VOTE ON THE TABLE IS TO UPHOLD CITY STAFF'S DECISION, NOT REVERSE OR MODIFY.
SO, WHICH WOULD BE A SIMPLE MAJORITY.
OH, IT'S SIMPLE BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT REVERSING OR MODIFYING, YOU ARE UPHOLDING.
THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.
MIGHT, MIGHT I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? YEAH.
I'LL CALL THAT WHILE WE'RE HERE.
SO ABSTAINING, IT'S, THERE'S CRITERIA FOR ABSTAINING AND I, I JUST, I DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND ABSTAINING.
JUST 'CAUSE IT'S UNCOMFORTABLE SOMETIMES.
COULD YOU? IT'S NOT THAT IT'S UNCOMFORTABLE.
I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHERE I, WHICH, WHERE I STAND AT THIS POINT.
UM, I I DO FEEL LIKE THERE WERE SOME ERRORS MADE BY IN THE 2022, BUT WE CAN'T DISCUSS THAT.
I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE IS, IT'S A SITUATION WHERE STUCK.
YEAH, I, I JUST, I MEAN, I JUST CAN'T TAKE A POSITION THAT I FEEL CONFIDENT IN BASED ON WHERE WE'RE AT.
AND I DON'T WANT TO TAKE A POSITION THAT, THAT I DON'T SUPPORT.
LIKE EITHER WAY I CAN'T SUPPORT MY DECISION.
DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT EITHER WAY.
I I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE TO REALLY GET INTO IT, GET DEEPER.
UM, IT JUST SEEMS NOT, NOT THE RIGHT APPROACH.
JUST SEEING THIS IN A VERY LIMITED SCOPE THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED.
IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S THE, WE VETTED IT FULLY TO GET TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WE SHOULD.
THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I AM AND I USUALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND, UH, I KNOW I HAVE IN THE PAST TOUGHER CASES, BUT THIS IS ONE OF THE TOUGH ONES WHERE I JUST, I I DON'T KNOW WHERE I STAND AT THIS POINT.
I DIDN'T MEAN TO, I THINK WE'RE ALL FRUSTRATED WITH THIS ONE.
AS WE WERE TOLD BY LEGAL, WE HAVE A PARAMETER AND THAT IS THE PARAMETER.
AND SO I THINK, UH, IN THE SPIRIT OF THE SEASON, I, I APPRECIATE YOU AND I APPRECIATE YOUR WORDS.
I'M LOOKING THROUGH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND OUR BYLAWS.
AND I HAVE NOT SEEN THE SIMPLE MAJORITY RULE.
I ONLY SEE ARTICLE FOUR B NUMBER OF VOTES REQUIRED IN ORDER TO REVERSE OR MODIFY IT.
UM, SO WE, THE SUPER MAJORITY RULE IS IF YOU'RE REVERSING OR YOU'RE MODIFYING, AND WE DON'T IMPOSE SUPER MAJORITY VOTES UNLESS THERE'S SPECIFIC RULES OR STATE LAW THAT REQUIRE IT.
SO THE STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT A THREE FOURTH MAJORITY TO REVERSE OR MODIFY AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS APPROVAL.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THE BYLAWS THAT TALK ABOUT REQUIRING A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE TO UPHOLD.
SO THIS IS A, BECAUSE THE MOTION IS TO UPHOLD, THAT'S WHY ONLY A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE IS REQUIRED.
ISD, MATH FOR YOU RIGHT THERE.
UM, SO AGAIN, FOR THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, SINCE IT IS NOT REVERSING OR MODIFYING A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE IS NOT REQUIRED, ONLY A SIMPLE ONE WOULD BE REQUIRED.
UH, WHO HAD A QUESTION? A BOARD MEMBER? WELL, IT'S A JUST STATEMENT.
ALL I WANTED TO SAY IS FOR ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS IS JUST VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE.
SOME OF THESE ARE REALLY HARD.
IT, YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST GO WITH WHAT YOU'RE, WITH, WHAT WE HAVE, THE LIMITED INFORMATION WE HAVE.
BUT VOTE YOUR CON CONSCIENCE AND, AND DON'T BE AFRAID IF IT'S NOT OFFENSIVE.
WHEN, WHEN PEOPLE, WHEN I MAKE A MOTION, PEOPLE VOTE AGAINST ME.
OKAY? SO JUST, JUST VOTE YOUR CONSCIOUS AND DON'T NOBODY, NOBODY'S GOING TO HOLD YOU.
DON'T BE PRESSURED BY ANYTHING ACCOUNTABLE FOR OTHER THAN THE FACTS THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU.
LIKE WE'RE NOT GONNA BE MAD AT YOU
[01:55:01]
ABOUT IT.I SHOULDN'T SAY HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE, BUT IT'S YOUR VOTE.
WE'RE, WE'RE JUDGES ESSENTIALLY.
BUT THE WAY YOU THINK THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED, NOBODY'S GONNA BE MAD ABOUT IT.
OKAY, SO I GUESS WE HAVE A MOTION.
SORRY, NOT, I GUESS WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO, UH, UPHOLD STAFF'S DECISION AND REJECT THE APPEAL MADE BY BOARD MEMBERS.
SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE AN INITIAL VOTE AND SEE WHERE WE'RE AT.
SO YOU DID THIS THING WHERE YOU KEEP CALLING ME FIRST.
WHERE YOU USED TO DO THAT TO CALL ME.
'CAUSE I, I I DID, I FORGOT TO PRINT OUT MY VOTE TALLY SHEET.
I HAVE A PERSONAL VOTE TALLY SHEET THAT THAT'S GOES IN ORDER.
FIRST BOARD, BOARD MEMBER ABDULLAH THAT HE IS NOW IN THE HOT SEAT BECAUSE TOMMY EATS NO LONGER HAS THE LOWEST NAME IN THE ALPHABET, WHICH IS HOW I DO IT.
YOU'RE GOING TO GET CALLED ON FIRST A LOT NOW IN THE VOTING ORDER.
THAT'S WHY I WAS SO CONFUSED ABOUT THE MINUTES.
'CAUSE I WAS LIKE GOING, WELL SHE DIDN'T CALL TOMMY
I WAS JUST LIKE, CALL TOMMY FIRST.
JEFFREY BOWEN? NO, YOUNG J KIM.
UM, BASED ON SOME OF THE FEEDBACK I GOT FROM BOARD MEMBERS TO GO WITH MY CONSCIENCE, UM, THAT RESONATED WITH ME AND I'M HAVING, BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING, I AM GONNA GO WITH NO.
SO THAT PUTS US AT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 TO FOUR.
SO THAT WE WILL BE UPHOLDING STAFF'S DECISION AND REJECTING THE APPEAL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH Y'ALL FOR YOUR TIME.
[5. Discussion of the November 10, 2025, Board of Adjustment activity report]
DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS. ITEM FIVE, DISCUSSION OF THE NOVEMBER 10TH, 2025 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT.WE HAVE THE MOST AMAZING STAFF EVER.
AND I'M JUST GONNA THROW IT OUT THERE THAT IF YOU HAVE AN EXTRA $10, BUT ONLY 10 BECAUSE THEY CAN'T ACCEPT GIFTS FOR MORE THAN 50, THEY CAN RECEIVE COOKIES FROM TIP TREATS.
JUST GONNA THROW THAT OUT THERE FOR CHRISTMAS.
[6. Discussion and possible action regarding a working group for NCCD and Habitable Attic]
DISCUSSION.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A WORKING GROUP FOR NCCD AND HABITABLE ATTIC.
UM, THIS WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE LAST MEETING AND THEY ARE CREATING A WORKING GROUP TO DO THE SAME OR, OR SIMILAR.
UH, IT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING IS CREATING A WORKING GROUP TO AT LEAST MY UNDERSTANDING, DISCUSS CREATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE HOME ORDINANCE THAT WOULD REMOVE OR WOULD ADD HABITABLE ATTIC SPACE AS AN EXEMPTION TO ALL FAR.
SO I WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WAS STILL INTEREST ON THIS WORKING GROUP FOR CCDS INHABITABLE ADDICTS.
UM, MADAM CHAIR, I PROBABLY, MICHAEL'S PROBABLY HEARD MORE HABITABLE ATTIC THAN I HAVE, BUT I I'VE HEARD IT QUITE A FEW.
I I MEAN FROM THE DANIEL WORD MEMO TO, UH, THE PROBABLY, UH, I COULD PROBABLY ASK MR. LLOYD AND MR. LLOYD COULD PROBABLY TELL ME HOW MANY TIMES WE HEARD HABIT ATTIC, BUT I WILL SPARE YOU ALL IN THE SPIRIT OF THE SEASON.
UH, BUT I HAVE THOSE ACTUALLY SCANNED, WHICH ARE INTERESTING.
UH, BECAUSE DURING MCMANSION IN HABITABLE ATTIC AND EXEMPTION, WE ACTUALLY GAVE THEM TO SEVEN FEET.
UH, AND, UH, YES, I WAS ACCOSTED AT A CHRISTMAS PARTY ABOUT THE ATTIC EXEMPTION WHERE UPON I HAD TO GO, HEY, PARTY.
SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS I, I WILL SEND THAT TO ELAINE AND ELAINE CAN SEND IT TO THE, THE BOARD AND IF YOU WANT TO TAKE IT TO
[02:00:01]
PLANNING COMMISSION WITH YOU, ALL THE MORE POWER TO YOU.BUT I'VE HEARD ATTIC MORE THAN I WANT TO.
SO IS THAT A NO? YOU DON'T WANNA BE ON THE WORKING GROUP? I, UH, IF YOU, IF YOU FORM ONE, MAYBE, BUT IF YOU DON'T, DEFINITELY WON'T MISS IT.
I WAS JUST GONNA ASK, LIKE, WOULD IT BE HELPFUL, DO YOU THINK AS SOMEONE WHO HAS, YOU, LIKE LIAISE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, RIGHT? YES.
SO LIKE, DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO DO A WORKING GROUP AND THEN PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS OR DO YOU THINK THEY'VE GOT HANDLE, LIKE, I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT YOU WOULD SAY.
SO THE, THIS IS JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION.
I FEEL THAT WE OFFER A LEVEL OF, OF SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT LEVEL ADVICE THAT I THINK MAYBE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOESN'T ALWAYS DELVE INTO AS DEEPLY BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE SOLELY 25 2.
UM, IF THEY CHOOSE TO GO FORWARD, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY SHOULDN'T WITH COMPLETELY EXEMPTING HABITABLE AT FROM FARI THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF THE BOARD PROVIDED SUGGESTIONS TO PREVENT PITFALLS LIKE THIS FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE.
BECAUSE THIS, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT HAPPENED WITH HOME PASSED.
BUT BECAUSE THE CODE IS RIDICULOUSLY OLD, YOU KNOW, IT'S CLICKING IN CODE FROM 84 LAST YEAR, MODIFICATION IN 2011.
THERE ARE SO MANY INTRICACIES, THERE'S SO MANY PIECES THAT ARE TIED TOGETHER THAT IF YOU AREN'T VERY CAREFUL INADVERTENTLY YOU ARE GOING TO TO EITHER ACCIDENTALLY OVERTURN OR, OR OPEN UP A WHOLE NEW CAN OF WORMS SIMPLY BY, BY MAKING VERY BROAD CHANGES TO THE CODE.
UM, THERE'S SOME GOOD ARGUMENT TO BE MADE, I THINK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF SPACE YOU WANT A PERSON TO BE ABLE TO LIVE IN.
UM, I THINK ADDICTS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THOSE AREAS WHERE MAYBE OUR GUIDANCE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP THEM, YOU KNOW, TAILOR A NARROW, UH, AMENDMENT THAT DOESN'T BACKFIRE IN ANY WAY AND DOESN'T AFFECT HOME, UH, ADVERSELY, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT, WHAT COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION IS TRYING TO AVOID.
SO IS THERE, IS IT WORTH DOING? YES.
I WOULD SAY I STILL HAVE, I HAVE INTEREST THEN IN CREATING THE WORKING GROUP.
BOARD MEMBER POTITO SAW YOUR HANDS.
IF IF WE'RE GONNA DO THE GROUP, IF THEY WILL, I WILL.
UH, I I DO THINK IT'S INTERESTING THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY BRINGS UP 25 2, 5 13, THE OBSCURE SOLAR, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, ONE THING YOU CAN SAY, I ACTUALLY READ THE CODE.
HOW MANY DID YOU MAKE ON, CAN IT HAVE MORE THAN FOUR? SO THERE IS NO, NO REAL MINIMUM.
SO WHAT WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS WE HAVE TO AVOID A QUORUM.
I'M JUST LOOKING AT IT FROM A STANDPOINT OF NO OFFENSE, BUT A VOICE OF REASON AS TO AN ATTIC.
UM, AND THE FACT THAT I STILL BELIEVE THAT, UM, LONG-TERM ORDINANCES THAT WERE PUT TOGETHER, UH, SHOULDN'T BE OVERRIDDEN BY SOMETHING JUST BECAUSE THEY THINK IT CAN.
THOSE PEOPLE IN THAT AREA UNDER THIS NCCD, UH, WORKED VERY HARD ON THIS ENTIRE PROCESS ON WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS COMPATIBILITY.
AND THAT'S WHY ALL THESE PEOPLE WERE BROUGHT TOGETHER.
AND I HAVE, UH, ISSUES WITH THE FACT OF, OF, UH, SOMEBODY SAYING, OH, WELL THIS NOW SUPERSEDES THIS WITH NO, UH, VERY LITTLE CONSIDERATION OF WHAT THAT PURPOSE OF THAT PARTICULAR ORDINANCE WAS SET UP AS.
BUT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN BEING PART.
WELL, I THINK THAT'S ALSO A GOOD ARGUMENT BECAUSE THERE, IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SAY WHETHER OR NOT THE NCD SUPERSEDES OR, SO MAYBE THAT COULD BE, BUT, BUT THAT YES.
YEAH, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, COMES OUT, I HEARD THAT DURING THE PROCESS OF THAT OUT HERE STATING THAT IT, IT SUPERSEDES OR IT WAS ALLUDED, IT BEING SUPERSEDING, WHICH, UH, IN MY WORLD YOU CAN ADD TOO, BUT YOU CAN'T TAKE AWAY OUR, OUR INTERPRETATION SUPERSEDES IS KIND OF WHAT HAPPENED.
ANYBODY ELSE INTERESTED BOARD MEMBERS? IS THAT TOMMY VOLUNTEERING? OOH, SPICY MCKEE.
[02:05:01]
BOARD MEMBER PETIT TON, HAWTHORNE, BOWEN AND E I'M GOING TO ASK, UM, SOMEONE JUST FOR RIGHT NOW, UH, TO TAKE CHARGE, VOLUNTEER TO TAKE CHARGE AND SET UP THE INITIAL MEETING.IF YOU GUYS WANT TO, UH, CHOOSE A CHAIR OF THE WORKING GROUP AT THAT POINT.
YOU CAN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT I DO NEED SOMEONE TO ORGANIZE THE INITIAL MEETING OR MEMBER CHAIR STEIN.
SO WHEN YOU'RE EMAILING, UH, FOR THE WORKING GROUP, MAKE SURE YOU'RE ONLY EMAILING MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP.
AND THEN IF YOU'RE A PART OF THAT WORKING GROUP ONLY SEND THOSE EMAILS TO MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP.
DO NOT SEND IT TO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD BECAUSE THEN WE HAVE A A ROLLING FORUM.
SO BOARD MEMBER STAN, AND IF YOU'LL JUST AT YOUR CONVENIENCE EMAIL BOARD MEMBER PETITE VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE, BOARD MEMBER BOWEN AND BOARD MEMBER EIGHTS TO LIKE, YOU CAN DO DOODLE POLL OR WHATEVER TO GET 'EM TOGETHER.
AND I'M GOING, I'M GONNA SCHEDULE THEIR FIRST TELL ME IN PERSON.
SO WE HAVE TO, UH, GOD, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE'VE HAD A WORKING GROUP.
MS. LOPEZ, DO I NEED TO DO A MOTION TO CREATE THE WORKING GROUP LIKE PC DOES OR I THINK IN THE PAST WE'VE JUST CREATED AND MOVED ON.
ERIC LOPEZ ASSISTANT, THE ATTORNEY.
I THINK IF YOU JUST DO A QUICK MOTION AND IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, THEN PERFECT.
SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO CREATE A WORKING GROUP, UH, TO DISCUSS AND PRESENT POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR CCDS AND HABITABLE AT SPACE WITH BOARD MEMBER POTEET.
BOARD MEMBER STAN, VICE CHAIR HOR BOARD MEMBER BOWEN AND BOARD MEMBER EAST.
SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER ABDULLAH, IS THERE ANY OBJECTION? SO IS IT LIMITED TO CCDS BECAUSE THE ATTIC WAS, DO YOU WANNA GO BIGGER THAN CCDS? WELL, I'M JUST HABITABLE ATTIC SPACE GENERAL.
WHY DON'T WE JUST GO GENERAL AND WE COULD TAKE IT NARROW WHERE, OKAY.
ARE YOU OKAY? BOARD MEMBER AB TO LIVE BY MAKE AN A MODIFICATION AND JUST SAY WORKING GROUP REGARDING HABITABLE ADDICTS? YES.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE CLEANER IN THAT WAY WE CAN, WE CAN ALWAYS NARROW DOWN.
AND THEN PLEASE PRESENT YOUR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
AGENDA ITEMS. WE DO HAVE, WHERE IS IT? WHERE IS IT? WHERE IS IT? WHERE IS IT? UH, THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S GOVERNMENT RELATIONS TEAM IS PREPARING FOR THE 2027 90TH LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND THE HUNDRED 20TH SESSION OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS.UH, IT'S PART OF THAT PREPARATION.
THEY ARE BEGINNING THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS TO BRING FORWARD TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
IF YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS, PLEASE SEND THEM TO ELAINE AND WE CAN DISCUSS THEM AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING.
CAN WE JUST HAVE AN ELECTION AND KIND OF LIKE MAYBE A DO-OVER, I CAN'T COMMENT ON THAT AS CHAIR, BUT I REALLY, REALLY WANT TO.
SO, UH, DID, I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY GOT THIS.
ELAINE, DO YOU KNOW IF EVERYBODY GOT THIS EMAIL ON THE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS YOU GOT? OKAY.
SO IT SHOULD BE IN YOUR MAILBOX.
JUST READ OVER IT AND IT'S ONE OF THOSE LITTLE THINGS.
UH, ANNOUNCE OR ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. OKAY.
THANK YOU EVERY ONE OF YOU BOARD MEMBERS FOR YOUR SERVICE ON THIS BOARD.
I KNOW IT'S NOT ALWAYS EASY, BUT YOU ARE APPRECIATED AND I'M GLAD YOU'RE ALL HERE WITH US.
HAVE A VERY, VERY SAFE HOLIDAY SEASON.
AND THANK YOU CHAIR FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO.
I'VE BEEN HERE ONLY A COUPLE OF TIMES, BUT YOU'VE, YOU HANDLE A LOT OF STUFF, SO APPRECIATE IT.
OKAY, THE TIME IS 7:56 PM I HEREBY CALL US MEETING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADJOURN.