Aug 10, 2026 Board of Adjustment

[00:00:04]

05:38 SEE I REMEMBERED DELANEY WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS STARTED.

[CALL TO ORDER ]

AND SO WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS THING STARTED OFF.

WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. SO I GOT THERE WE GO. GOT EVERYBODY UP THERE.

GREAT. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY FOR JOINING US VIRTUAL TONIGHT.

SAY HI, WAVE TO THE FLOOR. AND WE'RE GOING TO START OFF, WE'LL DO THE ROLL CALL.

OKAY. BOARD MEMBER STONY.

YOU'RE SILENCED. SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. OKAY. OKAY.

BOARD MEMBER ABDULLAH IS NOT HERE TONIGHT. TOMMY AYERS IS NOT HERE TONIGHT.

OKAY. BOARD MEMBER BARRY HERE. OKAY. BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE HERE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MA'AM. BOARD MEMBER KIM HERE.

BOARD MEMBER MEDINA HERE. BOARD MEMBER POTEET HERE.

BOARD MEMBER VON OHLEN HERE. BOARD MEMBER MCCLELLAN HERE.

AND I THINK, OH, THERE SHE IS. BOARD MEMBER VALENTINE HERE.

THANK YOU MA'AM. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON FROM THERE.

SO WE'VE DONE THAT. ARE YOU HERE? I'M SORRY. OH, YEAH.

I'M HERE. YES. OKAY. FOR THE AUDIENCE. OH. EVERYBODY MAKE SURE YOU DO YOUR SIGN IN SHEETS. ESPECIALLY ALL THOSE THAT ARE VIRTUAL.

PLEASE SEND THOSE BACK IN TO ELAINE. SHE'S ALREADY THREATENED ME TONIGHT WITH NOT HAVING THOSE, SO. AND I'VE SIGNED MINE, SO OKAY. REMINDER TO THE AUDIENCE.

PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES, PUT THEM ON VIBRATE.

WHATEVER. DON'T NEED ANY PHONES GOING OFF. AFTER YOUR CASE IS OVER, PLEASE TAKE YOUR DISCUSSIONS OUTSIDE TO THE LOBBY.

AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CASE, YOU CAN EMAIL OR CALL MISS RAMIREZ TOMORROW.

WHEN ADDRESSING THE WHEN ADDRESSING THE BOARD, SPEAK TO THE BOARD, NOT TO ANYBODY ELSE.

AND THEN WE WILL NORMALLY TAKE A BREAK AROUND 8:00 IF WE NEED TO.

AND WE WILL GO FROM THERE. SO CURRENTLY WE'RE NOW AT ANYBODY THAT'S PLANNING ON SPEAKING TONIGHT, IF YOU WILL, STAND UP SO WE CAN DO YOUR OATH.

OKAY, SO WE GOT FIVE. ALL RIGHT. 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 VERY MUCH. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON NOW TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES ]

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY, I HAVE A SECOND.

BY BOARD MEMBER VON OHLEN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OH, IT WAS MCCLELLAN.

COREY. I'M SORRY, I JUST HEARD A VOICE. NO. DON'T TALK IN YOUR MICHAEL VOICE.

OKAY. SO ALL RIGHT, LET ME READ THE ROLL ON THAT.

LET'S SEE. BOARD MEMBER YATES IS NOT HERE. OKAY.

BOARD MEMBER BARRON. YES. OKAY. BOARD MEMBER BOWEN.

YES. BOARD MEMBER. HAWTHORNE. YES. BOARD MEMBER.

KIM. YES. BOARD MEMBER. MEDINA. LIAO. YES. OKAY.

BOARD MEMBER. VON OHLEN. YES. BOARD MEMBER. POTEET.

YES. ABDULLAH IS NOT HERE. OKAY. BOARD CHAIR.

VICE CHAIR. SARAH. I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN. YOU'RE GOING TO LAUGH.

OKAY. AND THEN BOARD MEMBER VALENTINE. YES. AND BOARD MEMBER MCCLELLAN.

[00:05:04]

GET THAT OVER HERE. OKAY. I WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

IS THAT CORRECT, MISS RAMIREZ? NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. SO DO WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO WITHDRAW? DO WE HAVE ANY POSTPONEMENTS OR WITHDRAWALS? NO.

WE DON'T. OKAY, GREAT. OKAY. SO WE WILL START WORKING THIS DOWN THE CASES AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE.

SO SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN THE THE APPLICANT WILL BE GIVEN FIVE MINUTES.

ANY REBUTTALS WILL ALSO BE GIVEN THE SAME THING.

THE OPPOSITION WILL BE GIVEN ANYTHING. ANY SUPPORT WILL BE ALSO GIVEN.

IS IT THREE MINUTES? IS THAT RIGHT, ELAINE. SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT? I SAID WAS THE SPEAKERS ARE GIVEN THREE MINUTES, FIVE MINUTES, FIVE MINUTES, TWO SPEAKERS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO FIVE MINUTES FOR THE PRESENTATIONS.

AND IF ANYBODY'S HERE IN OPPOSITION, IT'S TWO MINUTES FOR NO.

CAN WE TURN THAT VOLUME UP JUST A LITTLE BIT, PLEASE? IT'S TWO MINUTES FOR THE REBUTTAL. YES. FIVE FIVE AND TWO, FIVE FIVE AND TWO, FIVE, FIVE AND TWO.

OKAY. THANKS. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS ON MY. IT JUST SAYS INTERPRETATIONS HAVE ANOTHER RACE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE WILL START WITH OUR FIRST OUR FIRST CASE, WHICH IS GOING TO BE SEE

[2.C15-2026-0021 George Siddall 2101 Arpdale Street ]

MR. SIDLE, ARE YOU HERE? OKAY.

OKAY. YOU GOT THE TIME. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. YEAH, BECAUSE I GOT A I JUST GOT A DEAD SCREEN UP HERE ON THE ON THE MAYOR'S CONSOLE.

IT'S JUST BASICALLY A MICROSOFT WINDOWS SCREEN.

SO. LET ME PULL UP MY ON MY COMPUTER HERE.

OKAY? YEAH.

BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY PRESENTATION SCREEN ON HIS AT ALL.

OKAY, GREAT. AND YOU'VE GOT A PRESENTATION. MRS. DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YOU'VE GOT FIVE MINUTES, SIR.

THANK YOU. MY NAME IS GEORGE SEIDEL. I'M 2101 ARCHDALE.

I'M REQUESTING VARIANCE ON A AN AWNING OVER MY DRIVEWAY.

THE HOUSE WAS BUILT ABOUT 1950 ON AN EARLY, UNUSUALLY NARROW LOT, ABOUT 57FT WIDE, WHERE MOST OF THEM ARE 60FT OR BETTER, WHICH RESTRICTS THE BUILDING AREA. THE HOUSE WAS SET BACK ONLY 12FT FROM THE SIDE STREET, RATHER THAN THE REQUIRE THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT OF 15FT.

IT'S THE ONLY PLACE FOR A DRIVEWAY. CAN YOU GET A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MIC, SIR? I'M SORRY. THAT'S FINE. THERE'S NO OTHER PLACE FOR THE DRIVEWAY.

THE LAYOUT HAS A MINIMAL, IMPERVIOUS COVER AND MAXIMIZES THE SPACE FOR TREES AND GARDENING.

THE THE MAP SHOWING THE LAYOUT OF THE HOUSE AND THE DRIVEWAY.

FOR THE NEXT SLIDE. THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. YEAH.

THERE YOU GO. THE VEHICLES IN THIS SHORT DRIVEWAY ARE DAMAGED BY THE SUN, AND THE ACIDIC DISCHARGE FROM THE SHEDDING AND THE SHEDDING OF LIMBS FROM THE LARGE, PROTECTED PECAN TREE NEXT TO THE DRIVEWAY. NOT TO MENTION THE HAILSTORMS WE'VE HAD.

THE AWNING PROVIDES PROTECTION FROM SUN DAMAGE, HAIL DAMAGE, AND OTHER WEATHER RELATED DAMAGE, AND KEEPS THE ACIDIC DROPPINGS FROM THE PECAN TREE OFF THE VEHICLES, AS DEMONSTRATED IN THIS PICTURE BELOW.

[00:10:02]

THEY DO THE SAME THING TO THE CARS. NEXT PICTURE PLEASE.

THAT'S A PICTURE OF THE AWNING. NON-INTRUSIVE AT ALL.

ALL YOU SEE REALLY IS ONE POLE. SEE PAGES 23 THROUGH 26 OF THE ADVANCED PACKAGE FOR THE PHOTOS. WE'RE GETTING CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE.

I'M SORRY. THERE YOU GO. MOST OF THE MOST OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE AREA ARE WIDER AND REQUIRE ONLY A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ON THE SIDE, ALLOWING COVERING FOR PARKING OR AWNINGS AT LEAST 12FT DEEP ALONG THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

EXAMPLES ARE SHOWN IN THE FEET AND THE PHOTOS BEGINNING ON PAGE FOUR.

IN THE STORMS WE ADDED IN MAY AND JUNE OF THIS YEAR.

BROKEN TREE LIMBS FELL ON AT LEAST TEN PROPERTIES WITHIN A BLOCK OF THE HOUSE.

MOST OF THOSE PROPERTIES HAVE COVERED PARKING FIVE FEET OR LESS FROM THE SIDE BOUNDARY, PROTECTING THEIR VEHICLES FROM THE DAMAGE.

IN THE CASE OF 2101 ARCHDALE, STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK DENIES THE PROPERTY OWNER MYSELF THE REASONABLE PROTECTION PROTECTION OF DRIVEWAY PARKING THAT IS OTHERWISE CODE COMPLIANT AND AVAILABLE TO ALL OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. NEXT SLIDE. THAT SHOWS NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WITH ALL THEIR AWNINGS AND STUFF.

THE PRESENTATION SUBMITTED AT THE BOARD'S HEARING ON JUNE 8TH, AND THE LETTER FROM THE ZILKER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION CONTAINED MORE INFORMATION REGARDING POSSIBLE CODE CHANGES THAT COULD BE RELEVANT TO THE CASE.

AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MY NEIGHBOR, LORRAINE ATHERTON, WHO IS WITH THE ZILKER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, TO SPEAK. OKAY. OKAY. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO MINUTES.

OKAY. OKAY. I GUESS WE COULD JUST GO AHEAD. THERE YOU GO.

OKAY. I'M, I'M JUST HERE TO, TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE Z AND A POSITION.

IF, IF YOU WANT THEM, WE JUST WE DID A LOOK AT, WE WERE STUDYING THIS ISSUE ANYWAY, BEFORE THIS THIS CAME UP AND AND WE, WE DO FEEL THAT THAT THIS IS A, THAT THIS PROPERTY IS DENIED REASONABLE USE BECAUSE SO MANY, SO MANY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD DO HAVE MINIMAL SHADE COVERS FOR, FOR, TO PROTECT THEIR VEHICLES.

AND AND WE, WE DID FEEL THAT THE THE NARROWEST NARROWNESS, THIS LONG, NARROW LOT DOESN'T HAVE ANY OTHER PLACE FOR THE DRIVEWAY.

IT HAS A VERY MINIMAL DRIVEWAY, MINIMAL PARKING AREA.

AND IT SHOULD BE IT DOES CONSTITUTE A, A HARDSHIP TO HAVE TO BE, BE LIMITED TO THAT PARKING AND TO HAVE THE BIG TREE RIGHT OVER THE PARKING.

AND, AND OTHERWISE THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY VERY WELL LAID OUT.

AND IT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF, OF HOW TO DO COVERED PARKING WITH MINIMAL INTRUSION.

AND IT MEETS, MEETS ALL THE OTHER FINDINGS REGARDING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.

SO, BUT I'LL I'LL ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

OKAY. MISS ATHERTON, WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? OH, SORRY. LORRAINE ATHERTON. I LIVE AT 2009 ARCHDALE, JUST DOWN THE STREET FROM THE PROPERTY.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? OKAY. HEARING NONE. WE'LL NOW CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT AND OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS FROM ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS.

[00:15:06]

I'LL GO FOR IT. GO AHEAD. GO FOR IT, SIR. I'LL TAKE YOURS AS A SECOND, MELISSA.

I WILL. I WILL GLADLY GIVE YOU MY SECOND. DO YOU WANT ME TO GO TO FINDINGS? YEAH. LET'S. OKAY. SINCE I KNOW IT WAS CRICKETS BEFORE.

I FIGURED WE'D JUST JUMP IN. NO, NO. I JUST WAS LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY QUESTIONS OR REGARDING THIS.

SO REASONABLE. USE THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE, BECAUSE STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE 15 FOOT SIDE SETBACK DOESN'T ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE OF THIS COVERED AND UNENCLOSED PARKING.

BESIDES THE HOUSE IN A MANNER COMMON THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HARDSHIP TO HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT ABOUT 1950 AND DUE TO THE ORIENTATION OF THE HOUSE ON A CORNER LOT WITH THE CURB CUT FOR THE DRIVEWAY BEING ON THE SIDE STREET, AND WITH THE LOCATION OF THE HERITAGE TREE, THE PECAN TREE.

THE LOCATION FOR ANY CARPORT IS LIMITED AND THERE'S NO PLACE ELSE TO PUT IT EXCEPT WHERE IT HAPPENS TO BE NOW.

THE HARDSHIP. LET'S SEE. THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, BECAUSE MOST PROPERTIES ARE WIDER AND REQUIRE ONLY A FIVE FOOT SETBACK, ALLOWING COVERED PARKING FOR AWNINGS AT LEAST 12FT DEEP ALONG THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE 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 THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

BECAUSE SIMILAR COVERED PARKING IS COMMON IN THE AREA.

THIS AWNING IS CONFINED TO THE DRIVEWAY AND SO DOES NOT INCREASE IMPERVIOUS COVER OR SHED WATER TOWARDS THE ADJACENT LOT OR ENCROACH ON THE SETBACK.

THAT'S IT. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS ASKED WHETHER OR NOT THAT WE NEED TO ALSO INCLUDE ANY DRAWINGS THAT WERE PROVIDED ON THIS.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THE INCLUSION OF THE DRAWING ON PRESENTATION.

SLIDE 2-7. WILL THAT WORK FOR YOU, MR. RAMIREZ? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WAS THAT WORK FOR YOU THERE, MISS HAWTHORNE, SINCE YOU WERE SECOND ON THIS? OKAY. YES, SIR. OKAY. TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE GOT DUCKS COVERED HERE, SO.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. SO WE'LL NOW TAKE A VOTE ON THIS CHAIR.

CHAIR. HOLD ON JUST A MOMENT. THAT'S ACTUALLY A PHOTO.

I'M SORRY. THAT'S A PHOTO. IS THERE ANYTHING? HOLD ON JUST A MINUTE. LET ME LOOK THROUGH IT REAL QUICK. I'M SORRY.

YOU GOT TO REPEAT THAT, MR. CHAIR. WERE YOU REFERRING TO THE PRESENTATION PACKAGE OR TO THE ADVANCED PACKAGE? I AM LOOKING AT THE PRESENTATION IS WHAT I HAVE.

I DID NOT IN THE OKAY, SO WHAT PAGE DID YOU SAY THAT WAS IN THE PRESENTATION PAGE 2-7 IS THERE IN THE ADVANCED PACKAGES THAT ARE DIFFERENT PAGE.

YEAH. THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING WHICH WHICH. LET ME GO FIND THE OTHER ONE HERE BECAUSE I WAS ON THE PRESENTATION PAGE.

HANG ON A SECOND. SO BOARD, I NEED TO REMIND YOU, THIS IS ELAINE, THE LIAISON, THAT THIS CANNOT ENCROACH INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.

IT CAN ONLY GO UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE. AND FROM THE SURVEY, IT LOOKS LIKE IT GOES INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.

SO WE NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT CAN ONLY GO UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

OKAY. WELL, IF IT GOES, IF IT CAN ONLY GO TO THE PROPERTY LINE, THEN THAT MEANS IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE CUT BACK. TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

TO THE TOP. MAY I ASK A QUESTION? YES, MA'AM.

YES, MA'AM. THE DRIVEWAY ALREADY EXISTS. AND THIS IS JUST A VARIANCE RELATED TO THE AWNING EXISTENCE.

AND I BELIEVE THE POSTS. BASED ON MY VERY LITTLE VIEW OF THIS SURVEY.

I BELIEVE THE POSTS ARE IN THE PROPERTY LINE, AS IS THE AWNING.

THE DRIVEWAY ALREADY EXISTS. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ON THAT, Y'ALL.

NO THAT'S CORRECT, THAT'S CORRECT. HE DOES HAVE IT EXTENDING OVER THE DRIVEWAY OVER WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE

[00:20:08]

WE'RE JUST APPROVING A ZERO SETBACK FOR THE CARPORT AS SHOWN ON THE ADVANCED PACKAGE PAGE TWO OR ITEM 220.

BECAUSE HE MAY OPT. SO WE'RE ONLY APPROVING A ZERO FOOT SETBACK, AND HE MAY OPT TO TALK TO REAL ESTATE ABOUT THE EXTENSION OVER THE RIGHT OF WAY, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PASS A VARIANCE TO THE RIGHT OF WAY.

RIGHT. RIGHT. SO EVEN IF THIS IS GRANTED, IT'S STILL YOU CAN GET UP TO THE RIGHT OF WAY.

BUT BUT YEAH, NOT BEYOND THAT. YEAH. OKAY. I MEAN, HE CAN, HE CAN WORK IT OUT WITH REAL ESTATE.

I KNOW IN THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, IT DOES ALLOW FOR ENCROACHMENTS OVER THE RIGHT OF WAY IF THEY'RE AT A CERTAIN HEIGHT.

BUT THIS IS RESIDENTIAL, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY ALLOWANCES WITHIN THAT CODE AND REAL ESTATE.

YOU KNOW, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT HE COULD GET A LICENSE AGREEMENT AS IT IS REMOVABLE.

JUST WHETHER HE WANTS TO GO THROUGH THAT MUCH EFFORT.

BUT HE HAS A REALLY NICE NEIGHBOR THAT CAME DOWN TO HELP HIM.

SO YOU NEVER KNOW. MAYBE HIS NICE NEIGHBOR WILL HELP HIM.

CHAIR, THIS IS THE LIAISON AGAIN. ELAINE. CAN WE HAVE SONIA CLARIFY? SORRY. SONIA, DO YOU MIND CLARIFYING THAT THEY HAVE TO PROBABLY REPEAT IT AGAIN BECAUSE OF THAT LITTLE ISSUE WE JUST FOUND? SO THE MOTION WAS FOR A ZERO SETBACK, RIGHT? YES.

AND THAT ZERO IS ON THE PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE WE CAN'T GO INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.

RIGHT. SO IF WE DON'T ATTACH A PICTURE TO IT AND IT'S JUST FOR A ZERO SETBACK.

YES. CORRECT. THEN AS LONG AS IT'S WITHIN THE LIMITS OF OF WHAT THE BOARD IS AUTHORIZED TO BE ABLE TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR, THEN I THINK WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE STAY WITHIN THOSE LIMITATIONS. BUT WE ARE WE ARE POSTED TO A ZERO SETBACK IN THE ZERO SETBACKS ARE ALWAYS TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

SO I THINK I THINK WHAT WE'RE GRANTING WE'RE OKAY.

YES. NOW HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS THE RIGHT OF WAY ISSUE, WHICH IS A SEPARATE ISSUE. CORRECT. YES.

AND THEN WHICH IS A SEPARATE RESTATE THE MOTION ONE MORE TIME JUST TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR.

AFTER WE FINISH DISCUSSION. THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

THANK YOU. OKAY. AND AND SO THEREFORE WE CAN'T ATTACH THIS DRAWING BECAUSE THE DRAWING SHOWS THE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.

CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. OKAY. WELL THEN WE WILL DELETE THE DRAWING FROM THAT.

AND, MR. CHAIR, THIS VARIANCE IS REQUESTED AND GRANTED FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 252492 SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A STREET SIDE SETBACK FROM 15FT TO 0FT, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY LINE WHICH IS REQUESTED IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A CARPORT IN SF THREE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT.

SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THE VARIANCE IS. GOOD. THANK YOU.

OKAY. YOU GOT ENOUGH THERE, MR. RAMIREZ. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT, EVERYBODY CLEAR. THAT'S WHAT THEY.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL PROCEED WITH THE VOTE.

OKAY LET'S SEE. TOMMY'S NOT HERE. BOARD MEMBER.

BARRINGTON. YES. BOARD MEMBER. BOWEN. YES. BOARD MEMBER.

HAWTHORNE. YES. BOARD MEMBER. KIM. YES. BOARD MEMBER.

MEDINA. LIAO. YES. BOARD MEMBER. VAUGHN. OH, YES.

BOARD MEMBER. POTEET. YES. BOARD. HE'S NOT HERE.

OKAY. VICE CHAIR. SARAH. YES. BOARD MEMBER. VALENTINE.

YES. AND BOARD MEMBER MCCLELLAN. YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SIR. YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED. OKAY.

APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU FOR PUTTING UP WITH OUR PROBLEM LAST MONTH, BUT WE.

WE GOT YOU COVERED NOW. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU, MISS ATHERTON.

[00:25:07]

MOVING ON.

OKAY. OUR NEXT CASE IS GOING TO BE CASE NUMBER

[3.15-2026-0023 Samantha Riddell for John L Lohr 2205 Quarry Road]

YES. OKAY. LET ME GET MINE UP OVER HERE. OKAY.

AND YOU'VE BEEN WITH US BEFORE, HAVEN'T YOU? WE HAVE.

YES. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO YOU'LL GET FIVE MINUTES FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

AND WHENEVER YOU'RE READY TO START. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MY NAME IS SAMANTHA RUDDELL. I AM WORKING WITH THE OWNER HERE, MR. JOHN LOHR, ON HIS PROPERTY HERE AT 2205 QUARRY ROAD, TO REBUILD A PREEXISTING DETACHED GARAGE STRUCTURE IN HIS BACKYARD THAT BURNED DOWN A FEW YEARS AGO. IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE YOU CAN SEE THAT STRUCTURE IN THE BOTTOM LEFT HAND CORNER OF THIS DRAWING.

IT BURNED DOWN A FEW YEARS AGO. WE ARE ENDEAVORING TO REBUILD IN THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT TO AVOID DISTURBING ANY OF THE TREES IN THE YARD, INCLUDING THIS PROTECTED TREE. YOU'LL SEE IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WE HAVE A FEW LIMITATIONS ON THE SITE, INCLUDING THE REAR YARD SETBACK AS A THROUGH LOT, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE SEEKING.

THE VARIANCE FROM HERE TODAY FROM 15 OR FROM 25FT TO 20FT.

AND JUST SO WE CAN REBUILD WITHIN THAT EXISTING FOOTPRINT, YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE A POWER LINE WHICH TAKES OUT THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE YARD.

AND WE HAVE THIS TREE IN THE CENTER OF THE YARD, WHICH DOESN'T ALLOW FOR MUCH SPACE THERE.

AND THEN A PINCH POINT FROM THE ROOF LINE TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

FURTHER, THIS IS THE EXISTING FOUNDATION AND THE IMPACTS THAT COULD EXIST ON TREES NEARBY IF WE WERE TO NOT REBUILD WITHIN THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT.

BUT WE'VE CONSULTED WITH AN ARBORIST WHO HAS ASSURED US THAT THIS IS THE MOST VIABLE OPTION TO MAINTAIN THE HEALTH OF ALL OF THESE TREES ON SITE.

DO YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? AND FURTHERMORE, THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA, THIS IS NOT ONLY A CHARACTERISTIC STRUCTURE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THE SIZE SCALE DESIGN OF THIS STRUCTURE IS QUITE CHARACTERISTIC OF IT.

NEXT SLIDE. SO IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS CASE? SEEING NONE, WE WILL NOW CLOSE THE HEARING AND OPEN IT UP FOR ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD MEMBERS.

OKAY. YES, SIR. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. AND YOU'VE SAID IT.

IT'S IN WE'VE DONE WE'VE HANDLED THESE IN THE PAST.

BASICALLY YOU'RE BUILDING ON THE EXISTING THE PREVIOUS EXISTING FOOTPRINT.

THAT'S NOT GETTING ANY BIGGER. IT'S NOT GETTING ANY WIDER.

IT'S JUST CORRECT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. IT'S NOT GETTING ANY TALLER.

NO. OKAY. SECOND. OKAY. REASONABLE. USE. THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE THE OWNER IS UNABLE TO REBUILD A DETACHED GARAGE IN THE SAME LOCATION WHERE IT EXISTED FOR DECADES BEFORE DESTROYED BY FIRE. CURRENT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS PROHIBIT CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE PRIOR FOOTPRINT.

DESPITE THE STRUCTURE HAVING HISTORICALLY FUNCTIONED SAFELY AND APPROPRIATELY WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINES AND WITH MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE EXISTING TREES.

HARDSHIP TO HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY, IN THAT THE HARDSHIP RESULTS FROM THE SPECIFIC PLACEMENT OF MATURE TREES ON THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH LIMIT THE BUILDABLE AREA FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES PRIOR TO THE DETACHED GARAGE, OCCUPIED ITS LOCATION FOR SEVERAL DECADES AND WAS DESTROYED BY THE FIRE.

REBUILDING THE GARAGE IN ITS HISTORICAL LOCATION IS THE ONLY FEASIBLE OPTION THAT AVOIDS SUBSTANTIAL DISTURBANCE OF THE ROOT ZONES OF THE HERITAGE TREES AND TWO MATURE TREES, AND RELOCATING THE GARAGE TO MEET THE CURRENT SETBACK WOULD REQUIRE TO IMPACT THOSE WITHIN WITHIN THOSE ROOT ZONES.

[00:30:02]

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 THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. BECAUSE THE REBUILT GARAGE WILL MATCH THE FORM, SCALE AND LOCATION OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, WHICH HAD EXISTED MANY YEARS WITHOUT ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT TO ANY ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

AND I COMPLIMENT YOU ON YOUR FINDINGS. YOU DID A GOOD JOB.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S IT, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU SIR.

APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND WE'LL TAKE THE TAKE THE VOTE ON THIS.

WE'LL START OFF LET'S SEE HERE BOARD MEMBER BERING.

YES. YES. BOARD MEMBER. BOWEN. YES. BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE.

YES. BOARD MEMBER. KIM. YES. BOARD MEMBER. MEDINA.

LIAO. YES. BOARD MEMBER. VON OHLEN. YES. BOARD MEMBER.

POTEET. YES. HE IS ABSENT. OKAY. VICE CHAIR. SARAH.

YES. BOARD MEMBER. VALENTINE. YES. AND BOARD MEMBER MCCLELLAN.

YES. OKAY. CONGRATULATIONS, MA'AM. YOU'VE GOT YOUR VARIANCE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.

OKAY. MOVING ALONG. ALL RIGHT. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR.

[4.C15-2026-0027 Jacob Rogers for Paul & Heather Fink 6302 Shadow Valley Drive ]

YES. OKAY. YES THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. WE CAN MAKE SURE WE GET SOME VOLUME UP AND SPEAK UP VERY CLEARLY, SIR. WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. YES.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, SIR. OKAY. YOU'VE GOT FIVE MINUTES FOR YOU.

AND YOU DO HAVE A PRESENTATION HERE. IT'S ALREADY PULLED UP, SO.

YES, SIR. IF YOU'LL GO AHEAD AND GET TAKE START OFF.

WE APPRECIATE IT. YEP. YEAH. SO MY NAME IS JACOB ROGERS.

I'M AN AGENT FOR DENALI POOLS ON BEHALF OF PAUL AND HEATHER FINCH.

I'M AT 6302 SHADOW VALLEY DRIVE. WE ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR AN EXISTING POOL AND DECK.

THAT WAS BUILT IN 1976. SO IT PREDATES THE CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THAT POOL IS FAILING. IT HAS BEEN TRIED TO BE REPAIRED MULTIPLE TIMES.

SO THEY HAVE DONE PLASTER REPAIRS. THEY'VE DONE PLUMBING REPAIRS, THEY'VE DONE DECKING REPAIRS.

BUT YOU KNOW, UPON VISITING THE PROPERTY IT'S PRETTY APPARENT THAT THE GUNITE SHELL ITSELF IS FAILING.

SO AND ONE OF THE MAIN WAYS THAT WE KNOW THAT IT'S FAILING AS IT CONTINUES TO LOSE WATER, EVEN AFTER THE PLUMBING HAS BEEN REPAIRED AND THE PLASTER HAS BEEN REPAIRED. SO THERE'S APPARENT CRACKS IN THE ADVANCED PACKET THAT I SUBMITTED.

AND ALSO IN A COUPLE OF THE PHOTOS THAT I SUBMITTED ON THE PRESENTATION AS WELL.

SO WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS THE POOL TO BE REBUILT.

THE SAME EXACT FOOTPRINT. THE DECKING AS WELL, THE SAME EXACT FOOTPRINT.

BECAUSE THE POOL IS HEAVING. AND SEPARATION IS AT THE DECK JOINTS.

ULTIMATELY IT'S A 50 YEAR OLD STRUCTURE AT THE END OF ITS SERVICEABLE LIFE.

SO ON PAGE NUMBER FOUR, I SUBMITTED A COUPLE OF PHOTOS WITH SOME DETERIORATION AND DETAIL.

AGAIN, ALGAE ACCUMULATION ORGANIC DEBRIS, VISIBLE WEAR ON THE COPING AND DECKING ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SHELL THAT HAS BEEN SLOWLY FAILING FOR YEARS AND CAN NO LONGER MAINTAIN PROPER WATER CHEMISTRY. AND ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT, THERE IS A SHARED DRIVEWAY AND AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. SO THERE ISN'T ANY AVAILABLE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FOR US TO REMOVE AND REPLACE IT WITH.

AND THERE ARE MATURE, PROTECTED TREES IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH YOU CAN SEE ON PAGE ONE,

[00:35:06]

SO BASICALLY REBUILDING IT IN THE SAME EXACT LOCATION.

IS OUR ONLY OPTION. OTHERWISE THE CLIENT WILL JUST LOVE TO HAVE A FAILING POOL IN THEIR BACKYARD, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY'VE ALREADY TRIED TO REPAIR. SO ON THIS ONE ON THIS PROPERTY IN PARTICULAR, THE MATURE PROTECTED TREES LIMIT THE LOCATION OF REBUILDING THIS POOL AND ALSO THE STEEP TOPOGRAPHY.

SO IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, THERE'S A ROUGHLY TEN FOOT TALL RETAINING WALL RIGHT AGAINST THE EXISTING POOL DECK THAT LIMITS US SCOOTING TO PULL BACK ANY FURTHER, MOVING THE POOL UP CLOSER TO THE HOUSE ANY FURTHER.

SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS WE DEMOLISH THE SAILING 1976 POOL AND REBUILD IN THE EXACT SAME FOOTPRINT.

NO EXPANSION OF THE POOL OR DECKING, NO NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.

ZERO NET CHANGE IN COVERAGE. SAME LOCATION AS THE POOL.

EXISTED IN 1976. MODERN CODE COMPLIANT POOL WITH REQUIRED SAFETY BARRIERS AND POOL EQUIPMENT RELOCATED IN THE EXISTING GARAGE.

OKAY. IS THAT IT, SIR? YES. LET ME IN THE A COUPLE OTHER SLIDES THAT I HAD. IT'S A NO IMPACT ON THE AREA CHARACTER.

THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER BECAUSE, AGAIN, SAME FOOTPRINT AS THE POOL THAT EXISTED PREVIOUS.

ZERO INCREASE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. NO CHANGES TO DRAINAGE OR STORMWATER RUNOFF, NO INCREASE IN TRAFFIC OR ACTIVITY.

REPLACES A VISIBLY FAILING STRUCTURE WITH A SAFE, MODERN POOL AND WE ARE NOT REQUESTING ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGES.

IT JUST SIMPLY RESTORES WHAT ALREADY EXISTED.

SO THAT IS OUR REQUEST. OKAY, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

DO WE. I DON'T THINK WE HAD ANYBODY ONLINE FOR OPPOSITION ON THIS, DO WE? OKAY. SO NO OPPOSITION. WE'LL NOW CLOSE THIS CASE AND OPEN IT UP TO ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS FOR QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. MELISSA. THERE YOU GO.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. OKAY. SECOND.

OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE WITH A SECOND FROM BOARD MEMBER VON OHLEN.

ALL RIGHT. NO QUESTIONS. OKAY, I DO HAVE A, I GUESS WANT TO CLARIFY HERE.

SURE. BECAUSE I DO SEE THE WRITTEN OBJECTION IN THE PACKET.

BUT AS I UNDERSTAND FROM THE PRESENTATION, WE'RE NOT INCREASING ANY IMPERVIOUS COVER.

NO, MA'AM. OKAY. EVERYTHING IS BASICALLY REMOVE AND REPLACE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, JUST WITH SAFETY UPGRADES AND TAKING A POOL THAT HAS BASICALLY HAD ITS LIFE. AND MAYBE THE OBJECTION MISUNDERSTOOD THE REQUEST.

YEAH, I READ THAT OBJECTION TO IT, AND IT WAS KIND OF LIKE THERE, I THINK THERE WAS A QUESTION, BUT THERE AGAIN. OKAY. THAT OBJECTION, I GUESS, SHOULD BE NOTED, AT LEAST FOR THE RECORD, THAT THERE WAS A WRITTEN OBJECTION. SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THANK YOU. THANK YOU MA'AM. APPRECIATE THAT. THAT'S A GOOD THING.

OKAY. GO AHEAD. MA'AM. YES, MA'AM. CHAIR. THIS IS ELAINE.

CAN Y'ALL PLEASE TIE A DRAWING OR SOMETHING TO THIS, PLEASE? I'M JUST. I JUST HAVE A LOT OF TROUBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL REVIEW, AND THEY COME BACK AND ASK QUESTIONS. SO IF Y'ALL CAN PLEASE TIE YOUR APPROVALS TO A DRAWING OR A SURVEY OR SOMETHING WHEN Y'ALL ARE APPROVING THESE.

OKAY. READY? EVERYBODY READY? YEP. ZONING REGULATIONS.

PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE AS A STRUCTURE.

WAS BUILT IN 1978, AND AT THE TIME, IT ALLOWED 55% IMPERVIOUS COVER.

THE PROPERTY CONTAINS AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL SWIMMING POOL AND DECKING THAT SERVED THE SITE FOR MANY YEARS, AND AS IT IS DETERIORATED IN LEAKING, STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE.

THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT IT HAS A SHARED DRIVEWAY WITH ITS ADJACENT NEIGHBOR, AS WELL AS LARGE TREE AND THE TOPOGRAPHY TOWARD THE REAR OF THE SITE REALLY JUST HEMS IT IN AND THERE ISN'T A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE. THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

[00:40:06]

THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY, WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. AS THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE AND ARE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE ROADWAY AND REPLACE AN EXISTING. EXISTED ON THE MEETING. PARDON ME. ARE YOU TRYING TO HELP ME OR ARE YOU INTERRUPTING? THAT'S NOT FROM HERE.

OKAY. IT'S ON THE THE VIRTUAL. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S JUST ME OR.

BUT ANYWAY, THE PROJECT REPLACES AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL POOL AND DECKING IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME PLACE, SAME LOCATION, FOOTPRINT. SO, ELAINE. YES, MA'AM.

IF I TIE THAT TO PAGE 11 OF THE PACKET, IS THAT SUFFICIENT? 11. YES. PERFECT. SO 0411 OF THE ADVANCED PACKET.

11 OR 12 YOU PICK. LET'S DO 11. OKAY. AND CONCLUDES MY MOTION FINDINGS. OKAY. THANK YOU.

AND FOR MY OWN NOTES, WHAT WAS IT THAT YOU SAID, ELAINE, ABOUT THE SURVEY? IF Y'ALL COULD JUST PLEASE MOVING FORWARD, WHEN Y'ALL GRANT VARIANCES, IF Y'ALL CAN TIE IT TO A DRAWING OR SURVEY OR SOMETHING, BECAUSE RESIDENTIAL COMES BACK WHEN Y'ALL APPROVE THESE AND ASK QUESTIONS LIKE WHICH ONE Y'ALL ARE TRYING TO TIE IT TO? SO JUST IF Y'ALL COULD JUST PLEASE START TYING ANYTHING, ANY APPROVALS TO A SURVEY OR DRAWING OR SOMETHING MOVING FORWARD.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. YES, MA'AM.

I THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR SONIA. BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN WHEN WE TIE IT TO A DRAWING? LIKE, ARE WE SAYING WE ONLY APPROVE IT IN THAT FORM? LIKE I I'M NOT SURE. LIKE WHAT IT'S ACTUALLY THE LEGAL EFFECT OF ATTACHING A DRAWING WHEN WE WHEN WE APPROVE.

WELL, RESIDENTIAL ALWAYS COMES BACK WITH QUESTIONS LIKE SOMEONE, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU APPROVE, A CUSTOMER WILL TRY TO ALTER IT A LITTLE BIT.

AND THEY'RE LIKE, WELL, DID THEY TIE IT TO ANYTHING? BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING ELSE, LIKE MAYBE MOVE IT A FEW INCHES OR, YOU KNOW, DO A LITTLE BIT EXTRA THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.

SO IF Y'ALL CAN JUST TIE IT TO A DRAWING WHETHER IT'S A SURVEY OR SOMETHING, IT HELPS OUT WITH THE SETBACKS, LIKE WHAT Y'ALL ARE PROVING AS FAR AS WHERE IT'S LOCATED.

ON THE SURVEY, LIKE THIS ONE, FOR INSTANCE, FOR 11, IT SHOWS THE BACK IS TEN FEET, FOUR INCHES.

AND THEN FROM THE INTERIOR SIDE, IT'S 35FT, TWO INCHES.

THAT WOULD HELP. YEAH. NO, THAT TOTALLY MAKES SENSE.

IT'S JUST A DRAWING SHOWS MORE THAN WHAT WE APPROVE, RIGHT? SO LIKE, IF SOMEBODY CHANGES THE DESIGN OR SOMETHING IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE VARIANCE, BUT NOW WE HAVE A PICTURE THAT WE SUPPOSEDLY APPROVED, I THINK.

DOES THAT CREATE AN ISSUE? THEY'RE ONLY SPEAKING TO WHAT Y'ALL SPECIFICALLY APPROVE, NOT TO ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S ON THE DRAWING.

JUST WHAT Y'ALL ARE. THEY KNOW NOT. CAN I CAN I JUST ASK SONYA IF I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE RIGHT TIME, BUT JUST ASK SONYA IF THAT'S A IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS WITH ATTACHING A DRAWING.

YES. THE ISSUE THE ISSUE IS, IS THAT SOMETIMES THEY DON'T SUBMIT BACK FOR PERMIT FOR A YEAR OR SOMETIMES EVEN LONGER. AND IF WE DON'T ATTACH SOMETHING, I GET THIS PHONE CALL, HEY, DO YOU REMEMBER THIS? YEAH, YEAH. UNDERSTOOD. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT INTRODUCING A LEGAL PROBLEM WHILE WE'RE SOLVING A PRACTICAL ONE.

NO. UNDERSTOOD. AND I THE CONCERN THAT WAS RAISED BY MY STAFF TO ELAINE WAS NOT BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION PREVIOUSLY.

SO I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THIS HAD BEEN AN ISSUE OR THAT THIS HAD BEEN SOMETHING OF CONCERN.

AND TO BE FAIR TO STAFF, I DO FEEL LIKE IT'S PROBABLY BEST TO CIRCLE BACK INTERNALLY AND BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONCERN IS OR WHAT EXACTLY THEY ARE

[00:45:05]

I DO THINK YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT, BOARD MEMBER SHAHRESTANI, THAT WE DON'T ALSO WANT TO RISK APPROVING MORE THAN WHAT YOU'RE INTENDING TO APPROVE BECAUSE YOU'VE APPROVED A DRAWING IN GENERAL.

SO PERHAPS IF I CAN GO BACK TO STAFF AND JUST ASK MORE QUESTIONS AND GET SOME CLARIFICATION AS TO WHAT SPECIFIC INFORMATION THEY'RE TRYING TO PULL BY HAVING YOU GUYS ATTACH A A DRAWING TO, TO YOUR FINDINGS. I THINK I CAN PROVIDE BETTER CLARIFICATION TO YOU ALL MOVING FORWARD.

AND I CAN DO THAT IN PREPARATION FOR SEPTEMBER'S MEETING BECAUSE WHILE I'M, I THINK I'M UNDERSTANDING THE ASK, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE SO THAT THIS WAY WE KNOW WHATEVER IS BEING ATTACHED TO THE FINDINGS ISN'T GOING TO BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF, OR IT'S NOT GOING TO LIMIT THEIR ABILITY TO CHANGE A DESIGN AS LONG AS IT CONFORMS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF YOUR OF WHATEVER YOU'VE GRANTED IN THE VARIANCE.

SO ARE WE ADDING THIS AS AN AGENDA ITEM FOR SEPTEMBER? I KNOW WE'RE SLIGHTLY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT YET AT FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, BUT MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE YES.

SO PUT A PIN FOR NOW AND WE'LL REVISIT FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'RE GOOD.

YEAH. MR. CHAIR, AFTER WE TAKE THIS VOTE, I'M GOING TO NEED TO STEP AWAY FOR JUST A MINUTE.

VERY WELL, MA'AM. APPRECIATE IT. OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE ON THIS.

NO OTHER QUESTIONS. NO OTHER COMMENTS. NOT SEEING ANY.

OKAY. BOARD MEMBER. BARRY? YES? BOARD MEMBER.

BONUS. BOARD MEMBER. HAWTHORNE. YES. BOARD MEMBER.

KIM. YES. BOARD MEMBER. MEDINA. LEAL. YES. BOARD MEMBER.

VON OHLEN. YES. BOARD MEMBER. POTEET. YES. ABDUL IS NOT HERE.

VICE CHAIR. SARAH STANI. YES. BOARD MEMBER. VALENTINE.

YES. AND BOARD MEMBER MCCLELLAN. YES. OKAY. OKAY, MR. ROGERS, YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED. APPRECIATE IT.

MAKE SURE YOU KIND OF MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE FOLLOWING WHAT THE HAS BEEN LAID OUT FOR YOU.

OKAY? AND I GUESS HE'S GONE. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO. ALL RIGHT.

SO MOVING ON TO THE NEXT CASE. OKAY. THAT'S DONE.

OKAY. IS MR. FITZGERALD OKAY? HE IS. OKAY. GOOD.

OKAY, SO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX. CASE NUMBER C152026-0031. OH, WAIT A MINUTE. I'M SORRY. I READ THE WRONG ONE.

LET ME GO BACK TO NUMBER FIVE. ALL RIGHT, IT'S CASE NUMBER C 15.

[5.C15-2026-0029 Stephen Hawkins for Agustin Gonzalez 3011 Westlake Drive]

THANK YOU. CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? OKAY. YES, SIR.

OKAY. HELLO, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS JOHN FICHTER, AND I'M PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF AQUA PERMITS TONIGHT.

TONIGHT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS A NEW PROPOSED BOAT DOCK AT 3011 WEST LAKE DRIVE.

OUR FIRM IS PERFORMING THE PERMITTING FOR THIS PROJECT, AND WE ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR SAFETY AND NAVIGATION PURPOSES.

NEXT SLIDE. HERE'S A QUICK VIEW OF 3011 WEST LAKE DRIVE, NOT 1750 CHANNEL ROAD.

APOLOGIES FOR THE ERROR THERE. THIS IS TAKEN FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SERVICES WEBSITE.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. TONIGHT WE ARE SPEAKING OF VARIANTS FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 2521176 AYE ONE, WHICH STATES A DOCK MAY EXTEND UP TO 30FT FROM THE SHORELINE INTO THE LAKE, EXCEPT THAT THE DIRECTOR MAY REQUIRE A DOCK TO EXTEND A LESSER OR GREATER DISTANCE FROM THE SHORELINE IF DEEMED NECESSARY TO ENSURE NAVIGATION SAFETY.

FOR PROPOSING A NEW BOAT DOCK THAT EXTENDS 50FT ZERO INCHES FROM SHORELINE TO REPLACE THE EXISTING DOCK.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE'S A COUPLE OF AERIAL VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY AS SEEN FROM LAKE AUSTIN.

[00:50:05]

THIS IS DUE TO THE SHALLOW NATURE OF THE LAKE IN THE AREA, WHICH IS VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE, UNLIKE OTHER SECTIONS OF LAKE AUSTIN. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

BASED ON OUR FIRM'S ANALYSIS OF THE GIS BATHYMETRY DATA FOR THIS LAKESIDE AREA, WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT SUCCESSFUL AND SAFE NAVIGATION CAN BE ACHIEVED WITH A SIGNIFICANTLY SHORTER STRUCTURE THAN WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS.

WHILE THE EXISTING DOCK EXTENDS 84FT AND FOUR INCHES FROM THE SHORELINE, OUR FINDINGS SHOW THAT A NEW SAFE BOAT DOCK REQUIRES A DISTANCE OF ONLY 50FT FROM THE SHORELINE TO THE END OF THE SLIP. BY PROPOSING THIS NEW DESIGN, WE ARE NOT ONLY REDUCING THE OVERALL LENGTH OF THE DOCK, BUT ALSO MINIMIZING ITS NONCOMPLIANCE. THEREFORE REQUESTING THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM DEVIATION FROM THE ESTABLISHED CODE.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IMAGE DISPLAYS THE EXISTING DOCKS TO THE EAST AND WEST OF 3011 WEST LAKE DRIVE.

YOU CAN SEE IN THIS IMAGE THAT THE DOCKS TO EITHER SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY ARE EXTENDING INTO THE LAKE, GREATER THAN 30FT FROM THE SHORELINE. BOTH ARE RIGHT AROUND 60FT FROM SHORELINE, AND MODERN BOATS REQUIRE AT LEAST FOUR FEET OF DRAFT IN ORDER TO DOCK SAFELY, WHICH IS WHY DOCKS IN THIS AREA ARE USUALLY AROUND 60 TO 70FT OUT FROM THE SHORELINE.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE'S A CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BATHYMETRIC DATA SHOWN IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.

DUE TO NATURAL SHALLOW LAKE CONDITIONS IN THIS AREA, THE DOCK MUST EXTEND FURTHER OUT TO GUARANTEE SAFE USE.

THIS PROPOSED 50 FOOT LENGTH IS THE BEST CASE SCENARIO IN TERMS OF BOTH STAYING UNDER THE 25 CUBIC YARD DREDGE LIMITATION FOUND IN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 25826139, AND ALSO PROVIDE SAFE NAVIGATION FOR DOCKING A BOAT IN THIS AREA.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THE NEW DOCK IS DESIGNED TO BE SAFE AS WELL AS FUNCTIONAL.

THIS DESIGN ENSURES THAT THE PROPOSED DOCK WILL NOT EXTEND FURTHER THAN OR IMPEDE ACCESS TO NEIGHBORING DOCKS.

THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS SOLELY ROOTED IN ITS DEVIATION FROM THE CODE TO GUARANTEE SAFETY AND NAVIGABILITY CONTEMPORANEOUS TO OTHER NEIGHBORING DOCKS.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS VARIANCE ALSO WILL RESULT IN LESS DREDGING OF THE AREA OVER TIME.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL SERVE TO MAINTAIN EXCELLENT WATER QUALITY BY MINIMIZING DISTURBANCE TO THE LAKE BED.

GRANTING THIS VARIANT IS CRUCIAL TO AVOIDING CONTINUOUS, ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING DREDGING, THEREBY PRESERVING LAKE AUSTIN'S ECOSYSTEM. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING YOUR DETERMINATION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS CASE? OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE WILL NOW CLOSE THE CASE AND OPEN IT UP FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

COMMENTS? OKAY. I DO HAVE A QUESTION IN REGARDS TO THE IN REVIEWING YOUR DRAWINGS, ARE YOU ACTUALLY PUTTING SLIP SHEATHING OR SLIP SHEATHING DOWN ALONG THE SIDES OF THE.

OF WHERE THE NEW DOCK IS GOING, AS PER THE DRAWINGS.

YES WE ARE. WE'RE PROPOSING COFFERDAMS ON EITHER SIDE.

OKAY, SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SLIP SQUARE STEEL TUBE OR.

WAIT A MINUTE. I'M LOOKING RIGHT HERE. YOU'RE JUST YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS SHEATHING ALL THE WAY AROUND THAT.

SO. OKAY. AND I GUESS THE PURPOSE OF THAT WAS FOR I MEAN, MORE SEDIMENT COMING BACK IN. THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. ALSO, I'M, I'M CURIOUS AS TO YOUR I'M CURIOUS ON YOUR YOUR CUBIC YARDS. I NOTICED IN YOUR INFORMATION HERE THAT YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT OH, HERE IT IS.

RIGHT HERE. THAT THERE WAS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION WAS GOING TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT PROVIDING A VARIANCE.

HAVE YOU ALL TRIED? WE HAVE NOT ANY ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE FOR DREDGING OVER 25YD³ WOULD SORT OF BE THE NEXT STEP IF THE SERVANTS WEREN'T APPROVED.

THE SAFEST AND MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS DECISION FOR THIS PROJECT WAS TO PURSUE THE VARIANCE, TO EXTEND THE DOCK FURTHER INTO THE LAKE, RATHER THAN PROPOSING EXCESSIVE DREDGING IN THAT AREA.

OKAY. BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE BOARD'S FIRST TIME LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE ISSUES WITH THIS.

[00:55:08]

SO AT LEAST DOUBLE. OKAY.

I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. GO AHEAD. YES, MA'AM.

GO AHEAD. I MIGHT HAVE MISSED THIS, BUT DID YOU AT ALL INCLUDE AN IMAGE OF THE, LIKE HOW THE DOCK LOOKS LIKE, ALMOST LIKE AN OVERHEAD. LOOK AT THE RIVER TO SEE HOW FAR THE DOCK ACTUALLY EXTENDS.

OR SORRY, INTO THE LAKE TO SEE HOW FAR THE DOCK EXTENDS.

AND THEN ALSO, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE NEIGHBOR'S DOCKS? ARE THERE NEIGHBORING DOCKS THAT ARE EXCEEDING THE 30FT? YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING DOCK PROBABLY BEST ON SLIDE SIX.

OKAY. THE EXISTING DOCK IS 84FT AND FOUR INCHES INTO THE LAKE, SO WELL BEYOND THE APPROVABLE 30FT. AND THE DOCKS ON EITHER SIDE. I BELIEVE THE DOCK TO THE EAST WAS APPROVED MAYBE WITHIN THE PAST TEN YEARS. IT SITS AT ABOUT 60FT FROM SHORELINE, AS DOES THE DOCK TO THE WEST.

JUST IN GENERAL SECTION OF LAKE IS JUST INCREDIBLY SHALLOW.

AND SO NAVIGATION IS ALWAYS KIND OF HAZARDOUS IN THIS AREA.

THAT'S WHY HISTORICALLY, THESE DOCKS HAVE BEEN BUILT FURTHER OUT THAN 30FT.

IF THEY'RE NON-CONFORMING OR IF THEY'RE NEW CONSTRUCTION THEY SEEK FOR VARIANCES IN THE PAST.

GOTCHA. OKAY. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS. I DO HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION FOR YOU. I NOTICE ON ALSO ON YOUR DRAWINGS ON SHEET 14 OF 17 THE BECAUSE YOU WERE TALKING IN YOUR CASE ABOUT THE TURBIDITY, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS, HAVE YOU, HAVE YOU ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR THAT WALL CHANGING, TAKING OUT THE THE WALL AND PUTTING IN THE STACKED ROCK BULKHEAD? IS THAT FOR THE BULKHEAD? RIGHT? YES. ALL COMMENTS HAVE BEEN CLEARED FOR THE BULKHEAD DESIGN.

OKAY. SO SO WHAT I'M GOING TO ASK THIS WHAT WHAT IS STOPPING FROM GOING AHEAD AND PROVIDING WHEN YOU'RE IN THERE DOING THAT AND MAKING SURE THAT YOU'RE TAKING OUT ANY EXCAVATION IN ORDER TO PULL THAT DOCK BACK TO, TO FIT THE 30FT CRITERIA.

A TURBIDITY CURTAIN WILL BE INSTALLED AROUND THE CURRENT EXISTING DOCK AS IT'S DEMOLISHED FROM BARGE.

AND THEN THAT CURTAIN CAN BE SHORED UP CLOSER IN TOWARDS THE SHORELINE DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW DOCK.

OKAY. BECAUSE I. I ACTUALLY RAN SOME CALCULATIONS BASED UPON WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT ON YOUR BATHYMETRIC AND JUST LOOKING AT THE VERY FRONT I WAS LOOKING AT RIGHT AROUND 25 CUBIC FEET OR 25YD³ OF BASED UPON THE SIZE OF THE SLIP THAT WOULD GO IN THERE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

SO I WAS CURIOUS AS TO TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT EXCEEDING OUT INTO THE ACTUAL BEYOND THE 30 FOOT LIMITS AS PER WHAT THE LAKE AUSTIN CODE CALLS FOR.

THE 25YD³ AT 50FT EXTENDED INTO THE LAKE IS SORT OF THE SWEET SPOT.

THAT'S THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE TO ATTAIN THAT 25YD³.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO PULL BACK FROM 85FT INTO THE WATER CURRENTLY TO SOMETHING MORE MANAGEABLE WHILE ALSO MAKING SURE WE AREN'T

[01:00:01]

MR. CHAIR? YES, SIR. BOARD MEMBER. IF YOU WERE TO DO THE THE 25 CUBIC YARD DREDGING.

AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS HIT A COMPROMISE HERE.

SPLIT THE BABY, SO TO SPEAK. WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DO IT AT 40FT? I KNOW YOU'RE COMING BACK FROM 80FT TO 50, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO HIT A COMPROMISE HERE AND SEE IF YOU ARE ABLE TO UTILIZE THE 25YD³ OF DREDGING AND THEN GET GET YOURSELF INTO 40FT.

IS THAT DOABLE? I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO RUN SOME EXTRA CALCULATIONS TO MAKE SURE YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO COMPROMISE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO PROMISE THAT IT'LL BE NAVIGABLE AT THAT DISTANCE WITHOUT MAKING SURE WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE ENGINEERING STEPS.

THAT BEING SAID, YOU KNOW, AT 50FT WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT IT WILL REQUIRE NO MORE THAN 25YD³, WHICH IS WHY WE'VE KIND OF SETTLED AT THAT DISTANCE.

AGAIN, NOT TRYING TO GO OUT ANY FURTHER THAN WHAT'S NEEDED TO KEEP THAT NUMBER IN CHECK.

BOARD MEMBER. I'M, I'M LIKE YOU. I, I'M REALLY LOOKING AT SOMETHING NO MORE THAN ABOUT 40FT OUT.

CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT HIS NUMBERS, SEE IF THEY CAN GET THAT WITHIN.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW HE'S GOING TO NEED JUST ABOUT EVERY VOTE TO GET THIS TO PASS.

YES. AND SO I'LL SECOND YOUR MOTION. OKAY. MAY I MAKE A COMMENT? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. SO I WENT ON GOOGLE MAPS TO LOOK AT, I THINK THERE WAS A QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT ADJACENT BOAT DOCKS. AND THERE'S ONE UP PRETTY CLOSE RIGHT NEXT TO IT THAT LOOKS TO GO ABOUT 50FT AS WELL.

MY ORIGINAL CONCERN WAS, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING BOAT DOCK HERE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, THE FOOTPRINT IS A LOT SMALLER THAN WHAT LOOKS TO BE PROPOSED. EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GO OUT AS FAR, THEY'RE GOING TO BRING IT BACK.

THE FOOTPRINT ITSELF IS MUCH LARGER. I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU WERE HEADED TO WITH YOUR CALCULATIONS, LIKE THE AMOUNT OF DREDGING THAT WOULD BE NEEDED FOR THE BIGGER FOOTPRINT.

BUT JUST LOOKING AT THE ONE ADJACENT. TO THEM JUST I BELIEVE JUST SOUTH IT AGAIN, JUST MEASURING ON GOOGLE MAPS, IT APPEARS TO GO OUT ABOUT 50FT WITH A SIMILAR FOOTPRINT TO THE PROPOSED. AND LOOKING AT, THEY'RE LOOKING AT THEIR DRAWING AND THEY BACK UP THE THE WATER LINE ACTUALLY WHERE THEY'RE TAKING AND REPLACING THE BULKHEAD ON THE SHEET.

14 OF 17 IT GETS PULLED BACK SOME DISTANCE. BUT THE CALCULATIONS THAT I DID, WHAT I DID IT FOR THE FULL WIDTH ACROSS THERE MAKING IT AND DID THE CALCULATIONS AND JUST LOOKING AT THAT DISTANCE.

AND I CAME UP WITH JUST A HAIR OVER 25YD³ JUST FROM THE 30FT BACK IN, BUT WITH THEM PUTTING.

I WAS LOOKING ALSO AT WHAT THERE WERE. OTHER DESIGN WAS WITH THIS.

THE SHEATHING, THE SLIP SHEATHING GOING DOWN ALONG THE SIDE TO KEEP ANYTHING FROM COMING BACK IN SINCE THAT WAS GOING TO STAY.

THUS THAT QUESTION TRYING TO GET IT BACK IN AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT GETTING TOO FAR OUT INTO THE INTO THE MAINSTREAM WAS WHAT MY, MY ORIGINAL THOUGHTS WERE, BUT BUT THAT ONCE AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES OF SOMETHING BEING NON-CONFORMANT AND WITH IF THEY'RE GOING TO REDO SOMETHING, THEY HAVE TO BRING IT INTO CONFORMANCE.

THAT'S JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE SINCE WE, YOU KNOW, END UP WITH SOME OF THESE, SOME OF THE TIMES JUST TRYING TO FIND THE BEST RESOLUTION FOR IT WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES WE WERE LOOKING AT. BUT YES, MA'AM, BUT THANKS.

I APPRECIATE LOOKING AT THAT BECAUSE IT DOES WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT SAME MAP, I SAW THE SAME THING THAT IT.

WHERE WERE WE REALLY AT? BECAUSE THE OTHER ONE IS STICKING PRETTY FAR OUT IN A VERY NARROW WHERE YOU'RE DOING THIS AT BEING,

[01:05:01]

YEAH. THE OTHER ONE APPEARS TO BE ABOUT AROUND 90FT SOUTH.

YEAH. I THINK THEIR ACTUAL CALCULATIONS SAID THAT THEY WERE LIKE 84, 84FT OUT.

SO SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE FOR, FOR A POSTPONEMENT.

WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ANY OTHER COMMENTS THOUGHTS? YES, SIR. MR. CHAIR, I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE APPLICANT THAT THE REASON I'M ASKING FOR A POSTPONEMENT IS, WELL, NUMBER ONE, I CAN COUNT THE VOTES. SO AND AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A VACANT SEAT, HE NEEDS TO GET EVERYBODY ON BOARD.

AND SO IF THERE IS AN ABILITY TO COMPROMISE OR TO GET AS CLOSE TO, TO 40 AS YOU CAN SEE.

I'M SURE THAT WILL HELP YOU CASE DRAMATICALLY.

SO THE, THE POSTPONEMENT IS SO HE CAN GO RUN HIS NUMBERS AND COME BACK TO US WITH WITH THE OPTION.

YES, SIR. BECAUSE JUST FOR THE APPLICANTS, WE ACTUALLY DID RECEIVE A BRIEFING AT THE REQUEST OF ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PREVIOUSLY, SO THAT WE HAD INFORMATION ON ABOUT HOW THE DREDGING PROCESS WORKED AND THOSE, THOSE ISSUES. AND IT ACTUALLY ENLIGHTENED MANY OF US AS TO HOW THE DREDGING PROCESS WORKS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

SO THUS THE REASON FOR SOME OF THE QUESTIONS.

SO I BELIEVE WHAT BOARD MEMBER IS DOING IS TRYING TO MAKE SURE TO GET YOU THE BEST RESULTS FOR ALL OF US.

SO SURE. WE WILL IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

WE WANT TO TAKE A VOTE ON THE POSTPONEMENT OF THIS CHAIR.

YES, MA'AM. THE LIAISON. WHAT DATE ARE Y'ALL POSTPONING THIS CASE TO THAT DATE WOULD BE.

IS IT THE NEXT MEETING OR ARE Y'ALL TRYING TO PUSH IT OUT FURTHER? THE NEXT MEETING WOULD BE SEPTEMBER 14TH. OKAY.

SEPTEMBER 14TH. DO YOU THINK YOU CAN GET YOUR INFORMATION BACK TO US BY SEPTEMBER 14TH? YES, I'M SURE WE CAN. OKAY. AND AND IF IT APPEASES THE BOARD TO SET 40FT AS THE BENCHMARK WE'LL CERTAINLY TRY AND HIT THAT MARK. SEEING AS HOW THAT'S A FAVORABLE DISTANCE FOR Y'ALL.

WELL, WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR SOMETHING PROBABLY LESS THAN 40FT, BUT 40FT WOULD PROBABLY BE YOUR MAXIMUM, BUT OKAY. BUT THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE THE MEETING IN SEPTEMBER.

THEN WE WILL POSTPONE UNTIL THAT TIME. THAT WAS SEPTEMBER.

WHAT WAS THAT AGAIN? SEPTEMBER. SEPTEMBER 14TH.

SEPTEMBER 14TH. OKAY. SO I CAN WRITE THAT DOWN.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE WILL NOW TAKE A VOTE ON THIS POSTPONEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 14TH ON THIS CASE.

AT 3011, LIKE LAKEWAY DRIVE, WESTLAKE WEST. I'M SORRY.

YEAH. WESTLAKE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT.

TOMMY'S NOT HERE. BOARD MEMBER. BERING. YES. OKAY.

JEFFREY BOWEN. YES. BOARD MEMBER. HAWTHORNE. YES.

BOARD MEMBER. KIM. YES. BOARD MEMBER. MEDINA.

LIAO. YES. BOARD MEMBER. VON. OH, YES. BOARD MEMBER POTEET.

YES. HE IS NOT HERE. VICE CHAIR. SARAH? YES. BOARD MEMBER. VALENTINE. YES. AND BOARD MEMBER MCCLELLAN.

YES. OKAY. SO MR. FISHER, WE WILL BE POSTPONING THIS CASE UNTIL NEXT MONTH, ON SEPTEMBER THE 14TH. OKAY. PLEASE LET US KNOW WHAT YOU COME BACK WITH.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY.

OKAY. MOVING ON. LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE THE LAST CONTESTANT THERE, SIR.

OKAY, SO WE ARE ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX. THIS IS GOING TO BE CASE NUMBER

[6.C15-2026-0031 Michael McHone for Cater Joseph 507 Elmwood Place ]

[01:10:10]

YES, SIR. AND THIS IS FOR 507 ELMWOOD PLACE. AND I GUESS YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION, SIR? YES, SIR. OKAY, LET ME GET THEM. YOU GOT THAT WORKED UP ALREADY? GOOD DEAL. GOT YOUR FINGERS ON THE DIAL ON THAT.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, GO AHEAD, SIR. WE'LL GIVE YOU FIVE MINUTES TO GET STARTED.

YES, SIR. ON YOUR CASE AND GO FROM THERE. OKAY.

MY NAME IS MIKE MCCOWAN. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER, CARTER JOSEPH.

LOCATION AT 507 ELMWOOD. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 252492 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

D ON LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS TO DECREASE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FROM 8000FT² REQUIRED TO 6804FT².

REQUESTED IN ORDER TO ERECT TWO DUPLEXES IN AN MF4MP MULTIFAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICT.

HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. MY FIRST SLIDE IS A VIEW OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE'RE IN.

THIS IS THE ADJACENT ESSENTIALLY TO THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.

AND THE BIG YELLOW KIND OF SHADED AND ALL THE STUFF THERE TO THE EAST IS THE DELTA TAU DELTA FRATERNITY.

AND DIRECTLY TO THE WEST IS THE PARKING LOT FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING THERE.

THAT'S THE LITTLE WHITE BUILDING THERE. JUST TO THE EAST OF THE RED ARROW.

THE RED DOT. ALL THAT PROPERTY ACROSS THE SAN JACINTO.

AND DEAN KEATON IS UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PROPERTY FOR DORMITORIES AND CLASSROOM BUILDINGS.

AND IT'S A VERY BUSY BUILDING, A BUSY AREA. IT'S BEEN A STUDENT AREA FOR A LONG TIME, AND THIS PARTICULAR LOT IS A TRAPPED LOT AND THAT IT CANNOT PROPERTIES DIRECTLY TO THE EAST HAVE ALL BEEN REDEVELOPED.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. WE'RE GOING TO DO A LITTLE BRIEF HISTORY HERE.

THIS IS PART OF THE COTTAGE COURT SUBDIVISION FROM AUGUST OF 1911 WHEN ALL OF THESE LOTS WERE PLATTED.

THE 6804FT² WAS WHAT WAS THERE WITH A UNIQUE THING CALLED A 12 FOOT DRIVEWAY EASEMENT LOCATED BETWEEN THE LOTS.

SO IT WAS ONE OF THOSE NEW DIVISIONS WHERE IT WAS SUBDIVISION OUT WITH A HORSE AND BUGGY AND IN WITH THE TIN LIZZIE.

THE ZONING WAS BE MULTIFAMILY. PRIOR TO 1984 AND THE DRIVEWAY, THE CITY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT TO DO WITH THAT DRIVEWAY EASEMENT.

DRIVEWAY RESERVE. IT'S NOT REALLY AN EASEMENT.

IT'S BECOME AN EASEMENT BECAUSE BOTH AUSTIN WATER WITH SEWER AND THE AUSTIN WATER HAS THEIR OVERHEAD ELECTRIC IN THE 12 FOOT. THE EXISTING FRONT HOUSE ON THIS PROPERTY.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. WAS BUILT IN 1932. IT'S IN CURRENT POOR CONDITION AND IT'S ADJACENT TO PROPERTIES THAT WERE REDEVELOPED TO THE EAST.

AND THIS IS THE FRONT ELMWOOD ELEVATION FROM THE REAR.

WE HAVE THE DRIVEWAY RESERVE LOOKING AT THE GARAGE APARTMENT THAT WAS BUILT IN THE 1947 G.I.

BILL. BOOM OF HOUSING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S IN POOR CONDITION, AND YOU CAN GET A SMALL VIEW OF THE STAIRWAY THAT. THE FRONT HOUSE IS DIVIDED NOW INTO A DUPLEX.

THIS PROPERTY WAS PRESENTED TO THE. IN 20 2026, DEMOLITION PERMIT WAS APPROVED 2026.

SO 61540PR AND NEW CONSTRUCTION, TWO SIDE BY SIDE MULTIFAMILY DUPLEXES AND AN EXPEDITED BUILDING REVIEW.

IN THE SAME YEAR, JUST A MONTH APART. AND THAT IS WHAT IS PENDING AND HAS ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED BY EVERYBODY AND SEEN BY ALL THE NEIGHBORS AS WELL. AND FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM.

THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY OR AT THE AT THE MEETING OF THE EXPEDITED REVIEW.

AND A COUPLE OF HOURS AFTER THAT MEETING, WE GOT A NICE CALL FROM THE ZONING PR REVIEWER SAYING THAT HE HAD TAKEN THIS UP WITH HIS SUPERVISOR, AND THE SUPERVISOR SAID THAT IT COULD NOT BE APPROVED AS

[01:15:04]

AND SO THAT BRINGS US HERE TONIGHT, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.

IT IS DESIGNED AND READY TO GO. THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

AND THIS IS SORT OF WHAT WE'RE PLANNING TO DO.

BUILD THESE TWO SIDE BY SIDE DUPLEXES. THANK YOU.

OKAY. THANK YOU SIR. WHERE IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION IN REGARDS TO THIS CASE? NOT SEEING NONE. WE WILL NOW CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS AND OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.

MR. CHAIR? YES, SIR. THERE WAS A AN OPPOSITION LETTER THAT WAS IN THE LATE BACK UP.

AND THEIR QUESTION IS, IS ABOUT PARKING. WHAT ARE YOU DOING AS FAR AS PARKING? I SEE THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. WHAT ARE YOU DOING AS FAR AS PARKING FOR THE PARKING WILL BE OFF OF THIS DRIVEWAY RESERVE.

OKAY. DOES IT IS IT SHOWN HERE ANYWHERE? I DIDN'T SEE ANY.

I DON'T, I DON'T I DON'T HAVE A I DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN WITH ME, BUT IT WILL ACCOMMODATE PARKING FOR FOUR VEHICLES.

MICHAEL. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. YES, SIR, THAT'S WHAT I.

OKAY, THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE, MR. CHAIR.

WHEN WHEN DID THAT. LATE BECAUSE I DID NOT. ITEM ITEM 1520 260031.

LATE BACKUP. AUGUST 10TH, ARPA FUNDS. I DID HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING WHAT WAS YOUR, WHAT IS THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION FOR YOUR IMPERVIOUS COVER? I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY SIR, WHAT WAS THE, WHAT ARE YOUR WHAT ARE YOU ESTIMATING AS THE IMPERVIOUS COVER WITH THIS NEW.

OH, IT IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT, EVEN AT THIS SIZE, SIR.

OKAY. IT WAS. THAT'S THE REASON IT WAS APPROVED AT THE REVIEW.

IT HAS A EXPEDITED REVIEW. AND SO ALL THE QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED AND ALL THE ALL THE DEPARTMENTS ARE THERE.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. I'M LOOKING UP THE THE LATE BACKUP MYSELF.

SO. OH, THERE IT IS.

SHE HAS HER HAND UP. I'M SORRY. MAGGIE HAS HER HAND UP.

OH, I'M SORRY. MAGGIE. I DIDN'T SEE YOU UP THERE.

I'M TRYING TO FIND THIS. THAT'S OKAY. YEAH, I JUST I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT LIKE I DID SO RUDELY LAST TIME.

NO. IT'S HARD WHEN YOU'RE UP HERE ON THE SCREEN.

I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE HARDSHIP CITED. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.

SO IS THE HARDSHIP THAT THE EXISTING LOT IS ESSENTIALLY NONCONFORMING BECAUSE IT'S SMALL AND ALREADY HAS THREE UNITS ON IT.

BUT IF I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THE MF4 DOES NOT ALLOW FOR A TRIPLEX TO BE BUILT.

AND IF WE WERE TO DOWN ZONE TO SF3, WE WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND ALL THE REQUIREMENTS SF3.

FURTHERMORE, BECAUSE WE BECAME A A UASF3 USE, WE WOULD IMPOSE COMPATIBILITY ON ALL THE PROPERTIES AROUND US WHEN THEY WOULD COME TO DO ANYTHING. SO WE'RE KIND OF IN A PLACE WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO CONFORM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS AREA OF LARGE, LARGER, MUCH LARGER THAN FOUR UNITS ON A.

MOST OF THESE PROPERTIES WERE ABLE TO BE ACCUMULATED IN MULTIPLE LOTS WHERE THEY WERE.

AND THIS. THIS IS THE LAST LOT. AND IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY PLACE TO GO.

GOT IT. I'M JUST THINKING IF WE APPROVE THIS, I THINK BOARD MEMBER VAN NOLAN IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO THE FINDINGS BECAUSE THIS IS A TRICKY ONE. YEAH. I ALSO HAD A QUESTION REGARDING THE PARKING, BUT I KNOW SINCE SINCE WE NOW HAVE REALLY NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS, IT'S KIND OF LIKE CATCH AS CATCH CAN.

[01:20:06]

CURRENTLY THE MINIMUMS ARE WAY DOWN, 40% ARE REQUIRED IS WHAT'S DONE FOR PERMIT PRETTY MUCH FOR THE LENDERS. SO WE'RE WAY DOWN AND WE HAVE A WHOLE GENERATION OF STUDENTS THAT DO NOT HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE, AND THEY DEPEND ON ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, WHICH I'M SURE MOST OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH SCOOTERS AROUND.

I HAD TO MOVE THREE OUT OF MY PARKING PLACE TODAY WHEN I WAS SHOWED UP AT MY OFFICE.

OKAY. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? I MEAN, I HAD THE SAME THOUGHT AS BOARD MEMBER SHAHRISTANI.

I WAS WONDERING ABOUT THE HARDSHIP AND WHAT THAT WAS THERE, BUT I THINK YOU ANSWERED THAT.

YES, SIR. THAT WAS THE THAT WAS MY BIG THOUGHT HERE.

YEAH. MY ONLY NOTES WERE, YOU KNOW, PARKING IN IMPERVIOUS COVER JUST TO DOUBLE CHECK IT.

COMMENTS, QUESTIONS. BOARD MEMBERS ON THE SCREEN.

SORRY. I'M TRYING TO DO MY BEST TO LOOK UP HERE SINCE I DON'T HAVE IT HERE.

SO OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION? CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? SURE. I READ ALL THE MOTIONS TONIGHT.

I'M GIVING THIS ONE UP. SO THERE ARE THREE MINUTES THERE RIGHT NOW.

I'M SORRY, SIR. HOW MANY UNITS ARE THERE RIGHT NOW? IS IT THREE? THREE. OKAY. AND THE ONE IN THE BACK IS PRETTY OLD.

IT'S JUST A CONVERTED GARAGE, ISN'T IT? YES, IT'S A CONVERTED GARAGE.

AND NONE OF THEM WOULD PASS A BUILDING INSPECTION.

WE WEREN'T GOING THAT WAY. IT WAS COLLEGE. COLLEGE LIVING.

THAT'S ALMOST LIKE LIVING IN MILITARY HOUSING SOMETIMES.

SO. OKAY. DO I HAVE A MOTION? YES. BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE.

OKAY, I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I DO THINK THAT SOME ATTORNEYS ARE VERY, VERY QUALIFIED AND SMART AND COULD MAKE SOME FINDINGS, BUT I'LL I'LL GO WITH THE FLOW.

I'LL SECOND. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A MOTION BY YEAH, BY BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE. AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER MCCLELLAN.

SO. ALL RIGHT, ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE, AS LOT 53 WAS PLATTED IN 1911 AND AT THAT TIME WAS COMPLIANT WITH A B ZONE PROPERTY.

AND AS CODE HAS CHANGED OVER THE YEARS, IT BECAME AN M4 LOT WITH AN 800 ZERO SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM, BUT IT WAS ALWAYS INTENDED TO BE A MULTIFAMILY LOT.

THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCES REQUEST IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE EXISTING PROPERTY DOES HAVE THREE UNITS ON IT AND IS EXISTING NON-COMPLIANT AND NON-CONFORMING AS WELL AS THERE'S A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT NEXT TO IT, A FRATERNITY ON THE OTHER SIDE AND THE OTHER SIDE HAS A NEW DEVELOPMENT.

SO IT'S BASICALLY AN ISOLATED LOT UNDER UNDERUTILIZED ISOLATED LOT WITH SOME SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURES ON IT.

THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, BECAUSE MOST OF THE OTHER FOUR PROPERTIES WERE DEVELOPED OR GATHERED AND DEVELOPED. AND THIS ONE IS JUST KIND OF SHOEHORNED IN THE MIDDLE.

THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

AS THE LOT IS ADJACENT TO A FRATERNITY, A PARKING LOT AND A LARGER STUDENT HOUSING. AND WITH THE MIX OF STUDENT HOUSING THIS WOULD FIT RIGHT IN AND ITS PARKING WILL BE CONTAINED ON SITE AS WELL AS ITS TRASH.

SO I HOPE YOU HAVE A NICE PLACE FOR THAT TRASH COLLECTION.

MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO BOTH. THAT WAS WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT THERE MYSELF.

[01:25:02]

TRASH RECEPTACLES ON SITE, SIR. SO ALL RIGHT.

ARE YOU GOOD? OKAY, I GOT IT. GOOD OVER THERE.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE NOW.

SEE ABOUT VOTING ON THIS. OKAY. TOM YATES IS NOT HERE.

BOARD MEMBER. BERRY. YES. JEFFREY BOWEN. YES.

BOARD MEMBER. HAWTHORNE. YES. BOARD MEMBER. KIM.

YES. BOARD MEMBER. MEDINA. LIAO. YES. BOARD MEMBER.

VAUGHN. OWEN. YES. BOARD MEMBER. POTEET. YES.

HE IS NOT HERE. VICE CHAIR. SARAH STANEY. YES.

BOARD MEMBER. VALENTINE. YES. AND BOARD MEMBER MCCLELLAN.

YES. OKAY, SIR. YOU GET ALL THE DIFFICULT ONES, DON'T YOU? THAT'S WHY THEY CALL ME. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE BOARD FOR ALL OF YOUR INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS.

YOU'RE DONATING YOUR TIME TO THE CITY, I APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH, SIR. YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE'LL SEE YOU ON THE NEXT BIG ONE THAT YOU BRING TO US.

CONSIDERING THAT EVERYTHING IS VERY SMALL. LOTS.

SO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON. WE'RE IN THE HOME STRETCH HERE, LADIES AND GERMS.

[7.July 13, 2026, Board of Adjustment activity report ]

THANK YOU SO MUCH, LADIES. OKAY, WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT.

LET ME BRING THIS BACK UP. LET ME GET MY OTHER AGENDA UP HERE.

SINCE I LEFT THAT COPY AT THE HOUSE, I'LL HAVE TO PULL IT BACK UP HERE ON THE COMPUTER.

SO THE NOPE. THAT'S THE WRONG ONE. OKAY. WE HAD A AN ITEM THAT TO BRING UP. WITH OUR LEGAL COUNSEL. PLEASE COME TO THE FRONT TO EXPLAIN OUR SITUATION HERE REGARDING THE WHERE DID I LOSE IT? WELL, THE AGENDA HAS OUR STAFF REPORT.

NEXT. IT'S THE IT'S THE QUESTION ON THE.

YEAH. ON THE EXECUTIVE. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS. YES.

AND FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, CHAIR, JUST SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR.

ARE WE MOVING AHEAD TO ITEM NINE ON THE AGENDA BEFORE ITEM SEVEN AND EIGHT? I'M TRYING TO PULL UP MY AGENDA BECAUSE I ENDED UP.

I CAN'T FIND MY OTHER COPY. YOU'RE DOING GREAT.

DON'T WORRY. I'M GETTING THERE. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.

DAMN. HERE COMES MICHAEL. HERE COMES, HERE COMES MICHAEL.

OH. THANK YOU MICHAEL, YOU'RE YOU'RE YOU'RE A CHARM.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO ITEM. YEAH, THE ACTIVITY REPORTS ALREADY DONE.

SO ITEM EIGHT IS THE REPORT ON THE WORKING GROUP ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

[8.Report from working group on outcomes of BOA decision on Case No. C15-2025-0035 (made during BOA Meeting on November 10), specifically with respect to guidance given to staff regarding habitable attic space and how it figures into calculation of FAR.]

I KNOW THERE'S ONLY WHAT TWO OF YOU HERE OUT OF THE THREE.

IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU GUYS WANT TO BRING UP ON THAT OR.

WELL, I'LL DEFER TO THE OTHER MEMBERS. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING SINCE I KNOW YOU CHAIR AND ALSO BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE WANTED TO BE INCLUDED IN A MEETING.

I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE THAT MEETING AND THEN CIRCLE BACK.

OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YEAH. THANK YOU, BOARD MEMBER, FOR BRINGING THIS TO ME.

SO WE WILL CIRCLE BACK THAT WILL WE'LL CARRY THAT FORWARD TO THE NEXT ONE.

I WILL NOT BE HERE NEXT MEETING. SO WE MAY HAVE TO MOVE THAT AGAIN, SO.

OR AT LEAST WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION IF YOU'RE TRYING TO HAVE ANOTHER MEETING ON THAT.

IF YOU COULD SET THAT UP, THAT'D BE GREAT. DID YOU JUST, DID YOU JUST SAY YOU WEREN'T GOING TO BE HERE ON SEPTEMBER 14TH? YES, MA'AM. OH. THAT PUTS YOU AT THE MEETING.

[01:30:05]

SO. ALL RIGHT, WELL, THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NINE.

[9.Discussion on executive session approval process and the need to be posted on the agenda in advance with specifics]

I'LL GUARANTEE IT'S ON MY DESK AT THE HOUSE, SO.

OKAY, SO DO YOU NEED ME TO LEAD THIS OFF AND THEN LET YOU TAKE OVER? CHAIR, IF YOU WOULD AT LEAST LIKE TO START. I CAN CERTAINLY CHIME IN AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I ACTUALLY HAVE THAT THAT PIECE OF PAPER WITH ME AND ALSO YOUR NOTE.

SO EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE NOTE THAT CAME FROM LEGAL THAT TALKS ABOUT EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA POSTINGS.

LAST WEDNESDAY I HAD A MEETING WITH OUR LEGAL STAFF.

AND THEY WERE ACTUALLY WE WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS AND WHAT WAS WHAT WE KIND OF CAME UP WITH WAS DOING BECAUSE SINCE BOARD MEMBER ABDUL IS NOT HERE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE, WHAT THE STATE LAW WAS AND ALSO HOW TO BASICALLY DEAL WITH SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP.

AND STATE LAW APPARENTLY SAYS THAT WE HAVE 60 DAYS, AND IT WAS AGREED TO, TO AT LEAST MAKE SURE THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE FOR INTERPRETATIONS. AND THAT WAY THAT THERE'S AN ACTUAL PROCESS THAT THERE'S 20 DAYS FOR THE APPEAL. AND I'M READING FROM MY NOTES BASED UPON THIS, THIS MEETING.

AND IF YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE IT FROM THERE, MA'AM.

ABSOLUTELY. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, BOARD THE 60 DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED UNDER STATE LAW REALLY APPLIES TO INTERPRETATION APPEALS, SO IT'S NOT TO THE NORMAL VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT YOU ALL GENERALLY TEND TO HEAR DURING YOUR MEETINGS.

AND I KNOW THAT THE BOARD MEMBER, ABDULLAH, AND I BELIEVE BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE AT OUR LAST MEETING HAD EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT INTERPRETATION APPEALS SPECIFICALLY.

AND SO FROM THAT, THE THOUGHT AND THE PROPOSAL WAS, HOW ABOUT BECAUSE VARIANCE REQUESTS, THERE'S MORE FLEXIBILITY TO POSTPONE THOSE AND ESSENTIALLY GET THE PERMISSION AND THE APPROVAL TO THEN POST ON A ON A SUBSEQUENT AGENDA, YOU KNOW, VARIANCE REQUESTS, WE COULD PROBABLY CONTINUE TO TREAT AS WE ALREADY DO WITH OUR NORMAL PROCESS.

BUT BECAUSE INTERPRETATION OR APPEALS ARE UNIQUE AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT THOSE TEND TO GENERATE MORE QUESTIONS AND MORE CONCERNS FROM YOU ALL.

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE WITH THE CHAIR.

CHAIR BOWEN IS WORKING WITH OUR LIAISON WITH ELAINE TO IDENTIFY IN ADVANCE WHEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN INTERPRETATION APPEAL ON AN AGENDA. AND SO ONCE WE'VE IDENTIFIED THAT, WE CAN THEN ALSO REACH OUT TO YOU ALL TO SEE IF YOU MIGHT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BASED ON YOUR REVIEW OF THE BACKUP MATERIALS, WHICH DO GET POSTED IN ADVANCE, BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS US THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE TWO ATTORNEYS PRESENT TO HELP WITH THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE CAN THEN INCLUDE SOME EXECUTIVE SESSION POSTING LANGUAGE, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY IS ALSO AGREED THAT FOR INTERPRETATION APPEALS, THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. SO WE WOULD HAVE THAT, THAT, THAT APPROVAL FOR THESE TYPES OF INTERPRETATION APPEALS.

AND SO WE'RE AT LEAST ADDRESSING THE CONCERN IN A SITUATION WHERE POSTPONING MIGHT BE DIFFICULT.

BUT STILL FOLLOWING THE NORMAL PROCESS FOR OUR VARIANCE REQUESTS.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? SO I GUESS ANY TIME THERE IS AN INTERPRETATION ITEM ON THE AGENDA, THERE WILL BE ANOTHER ITEM SAYING THAT WE CAN GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THAT ITEM.

THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT. SO AND I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR THAT WE STILL HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A QUESTION ON WHICH WE CAN ACTUALLY GO INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO BASICALLY UNDER STATE LAW, THERE HAS TO BE A LEGAL QUESTION THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR CLOSED SESSION SO THAT IF THERE'S A QUESTION THAT WE CAN ANSWER IN OPEN SESSION, WE WOULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN OPEN SESSION.

BUT IF WE GET A QUESTION WHERE WE SAY NO, THIS IS REALLY MORE APPROPRIATE FOR EXECUTIVE, THEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO RETREAT IN INTO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ROOM.

BUT THE QUESTION THAT WE MAY HAVE FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION WOULD BE PRESENTED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

[01:35:07]

WE USED TO BE ABLE TO BEFORE WE HAD THE HYBRID MEETINGS.

WE USED TO BE ABLE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, YOU KNOW, FROM HERE WITHOUT ADVANCE NOTICE.

BUT BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY WITH THE HYBRID OF, YOU KNOW, THE VIRTUAL MEMBERS, I KNOW IT'S A LOT MORE DIFFICULT THAN WHAT IT USED TO BE.

SO THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE, MR. CHAIR. WOULD THAT HAVE TO BE? WOULD WE? I NOTICE THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA WAS THE RULES AND RULES AND PROCEDURES.

WOULD WE HAVE TO MAKE A TAKE A VOTE AND THEN ADAPT THAT INTO OUR RULES AND PROCEDURE, OR IS THAT JUST SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY AND WE JUST FOLLOW THAT PROTOCOL. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE CAN DO ADMINISTRATIVELY, I THINK.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I BROUGHT UP WAS ALSO WITH OUR OUR FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD STAFF THAT DOES SUCH A GOOD JOB IN KEEPING TRACK OF US IS WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ALSO ON BOARD WITH THIS BECAUSE OF THE TIME FRAME AND MAKING SURE THE APPEALS, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS.

AND I GUESS THAT WAS THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE. YES.

AS SOON AS I SOMEONE REQUESTED AN INTERPRETATION APPEAL, I CAN IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. AND THEN FROM THERE, I'M ASSUMING WE WILL DISPERSE THAT INFORMATION TO THE BOARD BECAUSE USUALLY THE POSTING AND THE AND THE PACKETS DON'T GET POSTED TO THE BCIC UNTIL THE WEEK BEFORE THE MEETING.

SO IF THEY NEED PLENTY OF TIME TO LOOK AT THE CASE, CAN THEY DO THAT? LIKE, CAN WE GIVE IT TO THEM AS SOON AS WE FIND OUT.

SO THEY HAVE THOSE QUESTIONS READY TO ASK Y'ALL.

BECAUSE IF NOT, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE QUESTIONS UNTIL THE WEEK BEFORE THE MEETING OR EVEN A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING.

RIGHT. I THINK THE MAIN CONCERN THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE FOR IS MAKING SURE THAT WE'VE GOT, NUMBER ONE, THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED WHEN AN INTERPRETATION APPEAL IS COMING SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THE REQUIRED POSTING LANGUAGE AND MAKE PREPARATIONS SO THAT WE ARE APPROPRIATELY STAFFED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION IF WE NEED IF WE NEED TO.

YES. BECAUSE SOMETIMES WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS WE MAY LOOK AT OUR BACKUP MATERIAL AND WE'LL HAVE A QUESTION THAT WE CAN FORWARD IN ADVANCE.

BUT I'VE EXPERIENCED IT ON SEVERAL TIMES WHERE, BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THAT WE GET THROUGH TESTIMONY, SOMETIMES A QUESTION ARISES THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A HAVE SOME INPUT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON.

SO I THINK IT PROBABLY WILL WORK IN A POSITIVE WAY FOR US AS THE MEMBERS, TO GET THE QUESTIONS TO YOU THAT WE HAVE FROM THE PACKAGE.

BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE SORT OF STAY LIGHT ON OUR FEET, BECAUSE IF SOMETHING COMES UP DURING THE DURING TESTIMONY THAT WE WANT TO GET A LEGAL OPINION ON AND WE CAN GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY. BOARD MEMBER NOLAN, IT TO THE IDEA IS AT LEAST THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO CATCH QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE WITH THE FULL RECOGNITION THAT THINGS HAPPEN RIGHT DURING A MEETING, TESTIMONY OR THINGS THAT YOU ALL HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT PERHAPS MIGHT COME UP.

SO NO, ABSOLUTELY. WE DON'T EXPECT THAT YOU ALL WON'T EVER HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT COME UP DURING THE MEETING.

I COMMEND YOU ALL ON HAVING THE MEETING AND COMING UP WITH THIS PROCESS, BECAUSE I KNOW IT WAS SOMEWHAT CONFUSING FOR SOME OF OUR NEWER MEMBERS ON HOW THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS WORKING AND WHY IT WAS WORKING IN THIS WAY.

SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS. YES. APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS.

ABSOLUTELY. BOARD MEMBER, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? SO YOU WON'T NEED IT LIKE ANY PARTICULAR QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE.

RIGHT. WE'LL JUST HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA AS A MATTER OF COURSE.

IF THERE'S AN INTERPRETATION APPEAL QUESTION WE'LL HAVE A HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA.

WE CAN GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO SO I THE IDEA IS THAT ONCE YOU ALL RECEIVE THE BACKUP MATERIALS, IF YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THEM IN ADVANCE AND LET'S SAY THROUGH THAT INITIAL REVIEW, YOU HAVE A QUESTION THAT YOU WANT TO ASK, WE AT LEAST WANT TO OPEN THE, THE DOOR OR THE, THE FLOOR, WHATEVER IT IS. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO OPEN UP THE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE.

NOW AGAIN, AS I EXPLAINED, THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS THAT COME UP DURING THE MEETING.

AND WE WILL ASK YOU TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY TO ARTICULATE WHAT THAT QUESTION IS SO THAT WE CAN THEN ANALYZE, IS THAT APPROPRIATE FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION, OR IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN ANSWER IN THE HERE IN THE OPEN? BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ONLY GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION IF IT TRULY IS A QUESTION THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THAT.

[01:40:06]

SO AGAIN, STILL LEAVING OPEN THE POSSIBILITY THAT, THAT THERE WILL BE A QUESTION THAT COMES UP, BUT THIS IS JUST KIND OF A FIRST INITIAL OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO CATCH ANYTHING THAT THAT WE CAN LEGAL.

SO THIS IS REFERRING BACK TO WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THIS IS A QUESTION THAT I HAVE. CAN WE GIVE THEM THAT INFORMATION? CAN I SEND OUT THE INFORMATION, THE WELL THE APPLICATION AND THE SURVEY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS AS SOON AS I RECEIVE IT. REASON BEING IS POSTING ISSUES LIKE DIANE HAS TO POST EXACTLY A MONDAY, THE MONDAY BEFORE THE MEETING.

SO EXACTLY A WHOLE WEEK. SHE'S GOING TO NEED THE POSTING LANGUAGE BEFORE THEN.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? LIKE SHE NEEDS IT BEFORE THAT MONDAY BEFORE THE MEETING.

SO SHE ACTUALLY PROBABLY NEEDS IT LIKE A WEEK AND A HALF IN ADVANCE.

AND IF THEY DON'T GET THE PACKET TILL THE WEEK BEFORE, THAT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE THE POSTING LANGUAGE AGENDA.

SO AM I ABLE TO SEND IT TO THEM AS SOON AS I RECEIVE THE PACKET? WELL, NOT THE PACKET. I WANT TO SAY THE PACKET, BUT AS SOON AS I RECEIVE THE THE APPLICATION AND THE SURVEY, CAN I SEND IT TO THEM OR. THAT'S WHERE IT STARTS TO GET CONFUSING.

OKAY, SO HERE I GUESS HERE IS MY QUESTION. ELAINE.

SO IF ONCE YOU RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION, WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS THAT IF WE DON'T HAVE EVERYTHING PREPARED AND READY TO POST ON TIME, THAT ITEM IS NOT GOING TO ULTIMATELY BE ON THE AGENDA.

THE ITEM WILL BE ON THE AGENDA, BUT NOT FOR THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.

I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE LANGUAGE FOR THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THEIR QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAVE FOR YOU ALL, AND WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO POSSIBLY HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT LANGUAGE.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S THE. SO AS SOON AS YOU FIND OUT, FOR EXAMPLE, THEN I THINK WE NEED TO AUTOMATICALLY HAVE, I THINK WE COULD POTENTIALLY CRAFT SOME POSTING LANGUAGE THAT WE CAN HAVE READY WHERE WE JUST SUBSTITUTING THE INFORMATION BASED ON THE CASE.

RIGHT. AND WITHOUT, WITHOUT HAVING TO DO SOMETHING ELABORATE AND HAVING UNIQUE POSTING LANGUAGE EACH AND EVERY TIME.

OKAY, SO I WANT TO SAY WE ALREADY HAVE SOME STANDARDS SO THAT IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR, JUST FOR US JUST TO SUBSTITUTE THE CASE INFORMATION, OUR AGENDA. SO THAT'S, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THAT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS THAT WE'LL HAVE TO FLESH OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE BEHIND THE SCENES, SO TO SPEAK. OUR AGENDA IS HISTORICALLY IN THE PAST, BEFORE COVID AND EVERYTHING USED TO HAVE A STANDARD POSTING LANGUAGE THAT MET THE LEGAL CRITERIA FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION. BASICALLY, IT'S THE SAME ONE THAT CITY COUNCIL USES THAT WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. SO AS SOON AS PROBABLY AS SOON AND THIS MIGHT BE HELPFUL LAYING OUT AS SOON AS WE KNOW IT'S AN INTERPRETATION OF CASES COMING BEFORE US THAT THAT OLD LANGUAGE CAN JUST BE INSERTED BACK ONTO THE AGENDA.

AND IF WE DON'T GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, THERE'S NO NEED TO.

WELL, NO HARM, NO FOUL. BUT IT IS POSTED IN CASE WE DO NEED TO.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, ELAINE? YEAH. BECAUSE WOULD THAT WORK? I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. LIKE BEFORE IT WAS JUST LIKE JUST A GENERIC LANGUAGE LANGUAGE WAS A GENERIC.

SO YEAH. SO I'M IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING AGAIN? BECAUSE IF THE BOARD DOESN'T RECEIVE THE PACKET UNTIL THE WEEK BEFORE, THE LANGUAGE HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTED.

SO THAT LANGUAGE IS ALREADY GOING TO BE ON THE AGENDA.

AS SOON AS WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE AN INTERPRETATION APPEAL AND THEN ANY QUESTIONS THEY HAVE, THEY CAN START CRAFTING THEM WHEN THEY GET THAT ADVANCED PACKET, WHICH IS THE WEEK BEFORE THE MEETING, AND HAVE THOSE QUESTIONS READY FOR Y'ALL COME MEETING DAY.

RIGHT? I THINK THAT WILL WORK. WE CAN AGAIN, LET'S CHAT A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW THAT WORK ADMINISTRATIVELY.

AND AS FAR AS THE LANGUAGE GOES, I'LL TAKE A LOOK AT ONE OF THE PRIOR AGENDAS.

YOU BOARD MEMBER RON, YOU MENTIONED PRE COVID, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. WELL, IT WAS YEAH, IT WAS PRE COVID. WE USED TO IT USED TO BE A STANDARD LANGUAGE THAT WAS AT THE TOP OF OUR AGENDA.

I MAY HAVE ONE FROM BACK IN THE DAY, BUT I'M SURE IF YOU WERE TO GO INTO SOME OF THE PREVIOUS AGENDAS BEFORE COVID, IT WAS A STANDARD LANGUAGE THEY HAD ON EVERY SINGLE AGENDA.

AND I CAN FIND ONE FOR YOU. I'M JUST CONCERNED WITH IF Y'ALL ARE SAYING THEY HAVE TO HAVE QUESTIONS TO Y'ALL AHEAD OF TIME FOR POSTING LANGUAGE.

OH, THAT'S NOT GOING TO GIVE US ENOUGH TIME. LIKE IF IT'S JUST A GENERIC POSTING LANGUAGE,

[01:45:03]

OKAY. I THINK I, I'M, I'M HEARING THE CONFUSION.

SO WE DO NOT NEED QUESTIONS FROM YOU ALL IN ORDER TO DRAFT THE POSTING LANGUAGE, SO WE CAN DRAFT THE POSTING LANGUAGE AND HAVE IT PREPARED WITHOUT HAVING ANY QUESTIONS. EXACTLY. WHAT WE REALLY JUST WANTED TO DO IS SAY, HEY, SINCE WE KNOW THAT THIS IS COMING IN ADVANCE.

IF YOU ALL HAVE THE TIME, THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THIS AND AS YOU'RE LOOKING, YOU'RE LIKE, HEY, I HAVE A QUESTION. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT AND ASK THE QUESTION.

SO AGAIN, JUST WANTED TO GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU ALL TO ASK QUESTIONS.

BUT THERE IS NO PRESSURE. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT.

THERE IS NO ANYTHING ON YOU ALL TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE.

IT WAS JUST MERELY, HEY, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE KNOWING, WE'RE GOING TO KNOW IN ADVANCE THAT THIS IS COMING.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT. SO I HOPE THAT CLARIFIES.

WE DON'T NEED QUESTIONS FOR POSTING. WE DON'T NEED QUESTIONS IN GENERAL.

IT'S JUST AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, JUST KNOW THAT WE'RE HERE TO TO ANSWER THEM.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. YEAH. OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU SO MUCH. OF COURSE WE WE APPRECIATE THAT.

AND HOPEFULLY YOU DID TALK TO BOARD MEMBER ABDULLAH ABOUT THIS SINCE HE SAID HE WASN'T GOING TO BE HERE.

HOPEFULLY YOU'VE KIND OF BRIEFED HIM ON THAT ALSO.

SO LAST MATTER IS ITEM 11 ON THE DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS.

[11.Discussion and possible action regarding the Board’s Annual Internal Review Report (July 1, 2025-June 30, 2026) to Council]

I DID TURN THAT IN. THE REPORT HAS CHANGED UP FROM WHAT IT USED TO BE.

SO THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION BASED UPON THE WAY THAT THIS AUTOMATED REPORT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE AND IT WAS ASKING FOR THINGS.

SO I HAD TO GET WITH CITY CLERK ON THAT. AND SO HOPEFULLY THAT WILL BE POSTED SOON.

THEY WERE WORKING THROUGH THOSE AND THEN WE CAN ACTUALLY GO FROM THERE.

BUT THE REPORT WAS TURNED IN. SO IN THE TIMELINE THAT WAS REQUIRED BUT IT DID TAKE SOME FINAGLING TO FILL IT OUT THE WAY THAT THEY PARTICULARLY WANTED IT TO MEET THEIR NEW FORMAT. WE ACTUALLY HAD TO, I ACTUALLY HAD TO PUT IN THERE THE NUMBER OF CASES WE APPROVED AND WHAT THEIR NUMBER OR WHAT THE CASE WAS, WHAT THE CODE NUMBER WAS, WHATEVER.

SINCE WE HAD SEVERAL THAT WERE FENCES, THEN WE HAD SOME THAT WERE SET BACK, SO ON AND SO FORTH, SO VERSUS JUST BY THEIR INTERPRETATION. SO WE'LL SEE HOW THAT WORKS OUT.

OKAY, CHAIR, WE SKIPPED ITEM TEN. ITEM TEN. YOU HAD DISCUSSED IT IN RULES CHANGE PROCEDURES TO LIMIT THE TIME FOR THE SPEAKERS.

[10.Discussion of changes to BOA rules and procedures to limit time for registered speakers]

BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE, I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU, I TOOK THE OLD LANGUAGE ON EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND I EMAILED IT TO ELAINE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THERE WAS I JUST PULLED IT OFF OF A 2017 AGENDA IN REGARDS TO A TIME LIMIT. I MEAN, I THINK WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS EXAMINING APPEALS CASES BECAUSE, I MEAN, WE DID HAVE AN APPEAL CASE THAT WE SPENT FIVE HOURS ON.

IT WAS QUITE, QUITE A NIGHT. AND I MEAN, I HAVE BEEN SINCE LIKE THE FEE STRUCTURES CHANGED AND THE THE AMOUNT OF APPLYING HAS, HAS CHANGED.

I MEAN, OUR AGENDAS HAVE REALLY SHRUNK AS WELL AS THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED WITH CODE CHANGES.

AND SO, I MEAN, WE CAN GET UP TO 32 CASES. SO I HAVE BEEN HERE ON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND I TO 1 OR 2 IN THE MORNING WITH MY COMPADRE THERE.

MICHAEL. SO IT IS, IT IS PAINFUL, BUT I, I DO THINK THAT HAVING TIME FOR PEOPLE TO EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS BOTH SIDES IS, IS COMPLETELY VALID, BUT PERHAPS WE OUGHT TO LOOK AT THAT. AND WHETHER OR NOT WHAT IS IN OUR CURRENT RULES IS SUFFICIENT AND FAIR TO THE CITIZENS.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY, THEN I GUESS WE WILL JUST KIND OF CARRY THIS ONE FORWARD AND CONTINUE WITH ANYTHING THAT WHEN WE GET SOMETHING APPROACHED WITH THAT WOULD ASSUME THAT WE RIGHT NOW, THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING, WE SEEM TO BE PRETTY GOOD.

[01:50:03]

IT'S ALSO UP TO THE CHAIR'S DISCRETION. THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, WE CAN INCREASE SOME OF THE TIMES, YOU KNOW, INTERPRETATIONS ARE THREE MINUTES. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE BASICALLY THAT WE CAN EXTEND THE TIME LIMITS IN EQUITABLE MANNERS BETWEEN PARTIES. SO. HOPEFULLY WE WON'T, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY WE WON'T HAVE ANY MORE OF THOSE MAJOR ISSUES COME UP.

BUT WHEN THEY DO, WE MAYBE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS THOSE AT THE TIME OF THAT MEETING.

IS THAT I THINK YEAH. AND I THINK THERE ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.

I MEAN, OTHER OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, THE THE TWO PEOPLE NEXT TO EACH OTHER THAT BOTH APPEALED THE CASE.

AND THEN WE HAD, YOU KNOW, NEEDED THE LEGAL CLARIFICATION OF WHAT IT WAS, YOU KNOW, BUT NOTHING WAS BETTER THAN THE CHURCH AMPHITHEATER.

SO, I MEAN, THEY DON'T HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. AND JUST WHEN THEY DO, YOU'RE KIND OF SHOCKED THAT, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE A WHILE. THE IRONY OF THAT ONE WAS THEY WENT AWAY AND NEVER CAME BACK AFTER THEY KEPT US HERE TILL 1:00 IN THE MORNING A COUPLE OF TIMES.

BUT YES, WHEN WE HEARD A CHUCKLE FROM THE FAR SIDE OF THE ROOM, I'M ASSUMING THAT THOSE OF US THAT WEREN'T HERE WERE PROBABLY GRATEFUL THAT WE WEREN'T HERE. SO THAT IS THAT IS CORRECT. AND THAT IS ONE OF THE MORE INTERESTING CASES I THINK WE'VE EVER SEEN.

THE CHURCH, THE CHURCH, THE AMPHITHEATER, THE CODE CHANGE, THE COURT RULINGS.

IT WAS QUITE INTERESTING. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK WE JUST MAY WANT TO KIND OF KEEP THAT ONE AS AN ITEM JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE, IF WE HAVE TO CROSS THAT BRIDGE, WE CAN CROSS THAT BRIDGE AND GO FROM THERE.

SO. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? LOOK, GO AHEAD SIR. BACK ON THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM TO VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE. I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES WITH THE PRIOR LANGUAGE FROM YEARS PAST WAS THAT IT SAID THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON ANY AGENDA ITEM THAT'S ON THE AGENDA, AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO THAT ANYMORE.

RIGHT. I THINK LIKE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND I JUST GAVE IT TO ELAINE SO THAT THEY COULD USE IT TO CRAFT PERHAPS SOME NEW LANGUAGE.

OKAY. WE DID. WE DID HAVE SOMETHING. I MEAN, IT JUST WITH THE APPEAL CASE, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY CHOICE.

WE COULDN'T POSTPONE IT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

AND I UNDERSTAND NEEDING TO PREPARE TO HELP US THROUGH IT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE IN THE POSITION WHERE YOU CAN'T POSTPONE IT, IT DOESN'T DO YOU ANY GOOD.

AND, AND WE HAVE GREAT LEGAL ADVICE ADVISORS AND, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WE NEED TO LEAN ON THEM.

AND SO THAT LANGUAGE COULD BE TWEAKED. IT JUST WAS A FORMAT THAT WE USED IN THE PAST.

YEAH. I THINK THIS ONE'S GOING TO BE SPECIFIC TO THE INTERPRETATION APPEALS.

IF WE'RE HERE FOR ONE OF THOSE, WE CAN'T JUST SAY LIKE, OH, WE ALSO WANT TO GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON SOME OTHER ITEM AS LONG AS WE'RE HERE.

YEAH. AGREED. YEAH. BUT THIS IS GOOD. I MEAN, I DO APPRECIATE THIS FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT.

I THINK THAT'LL BE A BIG HELP WITH THE INTERPRETATION CASES.

AND BACK ON REAL QUICK. WE'LL SKIP BACK TO THE TIME IT JUST LOOKING AT OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES.

ON PAGE 13 OF 16. IT TALKS ABOUT THE TIME LIMITS FOR PRESENTATIONS.

IT DOES PROVIDE YOU WITH AN OUTLINE OF THE FIVE MINUTES AND THE TWO MINUTES FOR THE REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS.

AND THEN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS. IT GOES, SAYS GO TO RULE FOUR D ABOVE.

SO SO THERE ARE SOME AT LEAST LIMITS ALREADY SET DOWN AND TALKING ABOUT INCREASING INCREASING OF TIME LIMITS BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTE OF THE BOARD.

AND UPON RULING THE CHAIR, TIME LIMITS MAY BE EQUITABLY EXTENDED AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT SHALL BE. SO WE DO HAVE SOME BASIC RULE.

WE HAVE SOME BASIC RULES SET UP IN THIS. SO BUT I THINK HAVING THAT.

HAVING THAT LATITUDE IN THERE TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THOSE, I THINK WOULD BE BEST.

I AGREE WITH BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE IN MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE HEARD AND MAKING SURE THAT THAT THAT DOES GET PUT OUT THERE.

SO QUESTIONS COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. MOTION TO ADJOURN, PLEASE.

DO I HEAR A SECOND? OKAY. WE GOT A MOTION. WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT.

WE NEED TO ADD SOMETHING TO THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.

[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]

[01:55:05]

SO THE GRANTING OF VARIANCES. YES. THAT'S RIGHT.

YES. THAT'S ALL. NO THANK YOU. I AGREE. ALL RIGHT.

I GOT TO GO BACK TO THE EMERGENCY VET, SO I'M GOING TO SIGN OFF THE DOG.

OKAY. WE'RE GOING DOWN AGAIN. NOT, I MEAN, BETTER, BUT NOT THERE.

OKAY. WELL, THANKS. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE THINKING ABOUT HIM.

OKAY. SO WE WILL ADJOURN AT 733. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYBODY SHOWING UP TONIGHT. AND SEE YOU IN NOT NEXT MONTH.

MONTH AFTER THAT. AND I SAID.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.