* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] THE [Call to Order] BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WILL NOW COME TO ORDER. UH, CURRENTLY WE'RE SITTING WITH 10 MEMBERS. WE'RE EXPECTING ONE MORE MEMBER TO SHOW UP THAT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START. BEFORE WE BEGIN, PLEASE BE KIND ENOUGH TO SILENCE ALL MOBILE DEVICES. THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. UH, WE'LL COME TO ORDER AS HECTOR OR MONICA WILL READ THE ROLE. MR. THIEL PRESENT. DR. ELLI? PRESENT. MS. BRECKMAN? HERE. MS. CRUZ? HERE. MR. ORIAN? HERE. MR. RIDDEN? HERE. MR. RODRIGUEZ. MR. NEFF? PRESENT. MR. MANNA? PRESENT. MS. FISHER? PRESENT. MR. MARTINEZ PRESENT. MONICA, DO WE HAVE A A, A QUORUM. THANK YOU. YES, WE HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND KEEP ON GOING. UH, WILL YOU PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES AND TEXAS FLAGS? BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. THE BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON THE TABLE JUST OUTSIDE THE BOARDROOM. THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AND STREET ADDRESSES. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT. LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I'LL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS. I ASK THAT ANY BOARD MEMBER SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS THE CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME OF THE MEETING. ANYTHING TO BE ADDED TO THE AGENDA WOULD BE, UH, BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BOARDS, THE BOARD'S ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THE BOARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES AND OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM THE DECISIONS OR DETERMINATIONS MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE AS AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR THE VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 28 DASH FIVE. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE POWERS TO HEAR CASES IN, IN ANY OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL. UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODES, THE BOARD'S DECISIONS AND APPEALS. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY'LL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER AFTER EVERYONE HAS BEEN HEARD IN THE CASE IT WILL BE CLOSED AND THE MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION. EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR THE MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT. SO THAT MEANS ALL CASES MUST HAVE AT LEAST NINE VOTES TO PASS THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTED THE RELIEF SOUGHT REST WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE REQUEST RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS [00:05:01] FROM THE DECISION OF THE BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AND VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT, COURT, DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURTS OF LAW. BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S DECISION REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION AND REMARKS TO THE P PERTINENT FACTS OF THE CASE. NEXT, I'M GOING TO VERIFY THAT WE HAVE ALL THE APPLICANTS PRESENT. SHOULDN'T TAKE VERY LONG. UH, CASE NUMBER, UH, B O A. CASE NUMBER, 19 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 0 REQUEST BY JOHN GRABLE. ARE YOU PRESENT? VERY GOOD. AND CASE NUMBER IS 0 0 0 9 3. UH, MARINA BRAN? YES. OKAY. ALL PRESENT. OKAY. NOW STAFF WILL MAKE A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON THE INSTRUCTIONS ON SPEAKING TIME FOR THE WITNESSES. STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST. PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND AN X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THE REQUEST FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION. YOU WILL BE CALLED AN ORDER THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THOSE IN SUPPORT IN OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION. YOU'LL HEAR THIS ONE. THERE ARE 30 SECONDS LEFT. YOU'LL HEAR ANOTHER BEEP AND WE WILL INFORM YOU THAT YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP. FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEIR TIME TO A SPEAKER, THAT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF TWO PEOPLE GIVING THEIR TIME FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. THOSE GIVING UP THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AND SIGNED IN TO SPEAK. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL LIMITED TO ONE SPEAKER WITH A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE FIRST CASE FORWARD. [1. 19-6098 BOA-19-10300090: A request by John Grable for a 3’6” variance from the 5’ rear yard setback requirement to allow a detached carport to be 1’6” from the rear property line, located at 7809 Broadway. Staff recommends Approval. (Council District 10) (Debora Gonzalez, Senior Planner (210) 207- 3074, debora.gonzalez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] HELLO BOARD. UH, FIRST CASE IS BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 0 IS A REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A DETACHED CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT SIX INCHES AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE APPLICANT JOAN UH, GRABBLE ADDRESS 78 0 9 BROADWAY, SONY OH TWO AH SHOOTING HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP WITH AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO KEEP A DETACHED CARPORT. UM, IT WAS REPLACED WITHIN THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT OF THE CARPORT WITHIN THAT FIVE FOOT, UH, REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT PER THE APPLICANT. THE PREVIOUS CARPORT WAS BUILT PRIOR TO 1995. HOWEVER, DURING, UH, 2016 IT WAS DESTROYED IN AGE TORNADO. THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR A PERMIT IN AUGUST, 2018 AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SERVICES ISSUED A PERMIT, UM, IN FEBRUARY, 2019. IN JULY, 2019, DURING A CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER INSPECTION, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE CARPORT WAS BU WITHOUT A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE APPROVAL. THERE IS CURRENTLY A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE SEPARATING THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE FROM A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOT TO THE REAR. THE NEW CARPORT IS A STEEL STRUCTURE WITH A MIDDLE ROOF, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE ANY STORM UH, WATER CONTROLS PRESENT HERE. HERE IS THE SIDE PLAN. THE CARDBOARD IS, UM, ON THE REAR PORTION. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON BROADWAY, NEIGHBORING PROPERTY ON BROADWAY. THIS IS ALSO ACROSS THE STREET ON BROADWAY. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE ADJACENT TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IS THE CANVAS CARPORT. SO THIS IS THE SUBJECT CARPORT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. THIS IS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE CARPORT, UM, ON THE REAR TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THESE ARE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES LOCATED ON LAWRENCE ROAD, AND THIS IS THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME ABUSING THE CARPORT ON THE REAR. [00:10:02] I RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF VARIANCE IN BO A 19 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. OF FACT, THE RECONSTRUCTED CARPORT IS BUILT WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE ORIGINAL CARPORT. IT HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 1999 WITHOUT ANY REGISTERED COMPLAINTS. THE RECONSTRUCTED CARPORT DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MALE. 31 NOTICES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF OAK PARK NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. ONE IN FAVOR OF SERIAL POSITION AND A COMMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. HERE'S NOTIFICATION PLAN QUESTIONS. WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE ORIAN STAFF? MR. ORIAN? SO THE, IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT SAYS IT WAS BUILT PRIOR TO 95. YOU JUST MENTIONED IT WAS BUILT IN 99. UM, WHEN IT WAS BUILT, WAS IT, WAS IT WITHIN A FIVE FOOT SETBACK AT THAT TIME? UM, THE, A PART OF THE APPLICANT, HE BUIL IT IN THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT, BUT THE APPLICANT MAY PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION IN EXACT HOW CLOSE IT WAS TO, AND ALSO ON THE SITE PLAN IT CALLS FOR A 30 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK, BUT THERE'S A FIVE FOOT SETBACK IN QUESTION. IS IT 30 OR IS IT FIVE FEET? IT'S FIVE BECAUSE IT'S A DETACHED CARPORT STRUCTURE. OKAY. THANK YOU MANANA. MR. MANANA, GO AHEAD. UM, COULD YOU GO BACK TO ONE PAGE WHERE IT SHOWED WHO VOTED IN FAVOR OF IT, SO, OR OH, ONLY THE APPLICANT. OH, THE APPLICANT. SO THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY VOTED. OKAY. ALL, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I BEING THE CASE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD. HELLO MY NAME. I'LL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN AN EXPLANATION OF YOUR REQUEST. YES, MY NAME IS JOHN GRAVEL ARCHITECT AND MY OFFICE ADDRESS IS 2 2 2 AUSTIN HIGHWAY IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 0 9. AND I'M REPRESENTING MY CLIENT, GENE BREN, WHO IS HERE, AND I HAVE MY STAFF OVER HERE TO THE LEFT TO ASSIST IN SINCE THEY HAD GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH THE CITY AS WE, UH, UH, SOUGHT A, A BUILDING PERMIT AND WENT THROUGH REVIEW PROCESSES WITH THE CITY. RIGHT. CAN YOU GIVE US AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT YOU, SINCE YOU'RE THE ARCHITECT OF WHAT YOUR, UH, UH, HOW YOU TRIED TO MEET THE, THE EXISTING CODES OR WHAT YOU HAD TO DO? WHAT WE DID WAS WE PRESENTED IT AFTER A LENGTHY, UH, DISCUSSION WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES. WE, UM, AND, AND WE WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS. THE IDEA WAS, OR, OR THAT WE SUBMITTED DRAWINGS THAT, THAT PROPOSED THAT WE PLACE IT ON, UH, ON THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT, THINKING THAT, THAT THE SITE, UH, ISSUES AND, UH, THE PATTERNS OF TRAFFIC AND WHERE THEY WERE, UH, WERE JUST TO REMAIN INTACT. AND SO WE WERE FORT WRIGHT IN THAT PROCESS WITH THE CITY AND WE NOTICED, UH, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WITH THE CITY THERE WAS, UH, SOME OTHER CASES THAT OCCURRED DURING THAT TORNADO DAMAGE AND, UM, AND THAT, UH, THESE SAME ISSUES CAME UP AND I BELIEVE THEY, UH, STATED THAT THERE WAS A VARIANCE GRANTED, UH, FOR THAT. WHAT WE ALSO HAVE IS, AS A FOLLOW-UP, WE STOPPED, UH, WORK ON, ON THE PROJECT, BUT WE DO HAVE, UH, ONE OF THE COMMENTS, AND I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS IT, WAS A, UH, DRAINAGE OR IRRIGATION PLAN WHERE WE WERE PUTTING IN A LARGE GUTTER WITH DOWNSPOUTS AND THEY WOULD DISCHARGE ALONG THE SAME SURFACE DRAINAGE, UH, PATTERNS ON THE SITE. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT? MANNA, MR. MANNA? SO, UH, FIRST QUESTION, DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO THE RESIDENT THAT SITS BEHIND THAT, UH, WHERE THIS PROPERTY ABUTS TO NOT DURING THE, UH, PERMIT PROCESS? NO, SIR. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YOU, THE WAY YOU ANSWERED THAT I WANTED TO, SO HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE ADJACENT, UH, RESIDENCE SINCE YOU HAVE APPLIED FOR THE PERMITS? HAS ANYONE DISCUSSION BEEN MADE WITH THESE PEOPLE TO ADVISE THEM? YES, SIR. UM, AND MR. BRAM CAN NOT ONLY, UH, DID I HAVE A A CONVERSATION WITH THEM, BUT ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP WAS, UH, UH, THE GUTTER AND THE DRAINAGE WAS NUMBER ONE, AND THEN MR. MR. BROWN, WOULD YOU LIKE CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE NEIGHBOR? OKAY. UM, OR EXCUSE GRAHAM, HE STEPS FORWARD. I'LL NEED HIM TO, TO GIVE HIS NAME AND ADDRESS. YES, SIR. AS WELL, SIR, FOR THE RECORD, HE MAY STEP UP AND HE DID SIGN IN TO SPEAK [00:15:02] BETTER, BUT THAT MEANS YOU'RE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. ALRIGHT, HOPE NOT TO TAKE THAT LONG. MY NAME IS JEAN GR. UM, I OWN THE PARTNERSHIP THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. UH, MY BACKDOOR NEIGHBOR IS RANDY BEAMER. UM, HE INITIALLY, UH, WAS THE INDIVIDUAL THAT KIND OF REGISTERED CONCERN ABOUT, UH, THE LOCATION OF OUR CARPORT. IT WAS ORIGINALLY, UH, CONSTRUCTED AT THE TIME THE BUILDING WAS, WAS BUILT BACK IN 1965. THAT'S WHEN THAT PARTICULAR, UH, FAC UH, STRUCTURE WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT, UH, BASICALLY ON THE SAME, UH, PROPERTY LINE OR AT THE SAME LOCATION THAT WE THEN, UH, CONSTRUCTED OUR NUCOR PORT. IT DIDN'T COME TO ANYONE'S ATTENTION THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT, UH, WE HAD POTENTIALLY VIOLATED A SETBACK LINE BECAUSE WE HAD A BUILDING PERMIT AND JOHN AND HIS CREW HAVE ALL BEEN VERY DILIGENT IN GETTING ALL THE CITY APPROVALS OF WHAT WAS NECESSARY TO BUILD A STRUCTURE WE HAD IN ORDER TO, TO MEET CURRENT, UH, ZONE REQUIREMENTS. WE HAD TO DRILL 20 FEET BEAMS DOWN TO SUPPORT THIS STRUCTURE. UM, AND, AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS JUST TO, TO, TO ALLOW US TO LEAVE IT WHERE IT IS INSTEAD OF SPENDING A HUNDRED THOUSAND OR WHATEVER IT TAKES TO MOVE IT BACK 3.6 FEET. I'VE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH, UH, RANDY BEAMER THIS MORNING AND, AND HE SAID THAT, UH, HE REALLY DIDN'T WANT TO COME TO THIS, UM, TO THIS HEARING TODAY. AND COULD WE JUST INFORMALLY OR OR BETWEEN US MAKE A DEAL? AND THE DEAL THAT, THAT WE'VE STRUCK IS THAT, UH, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE I'VE GIVEN HIM MY WORD THAT THIS GUTTER FOR ALL THE WATER TO RUN PROPERLY DOWN AS JOHN HAS EXPLAINED, UH, UH, TO THE, TO THE GROUND, TO THE SURFACE, AND THAT HE WOULD GET AN APPRAISER THAT WOULD IDENTIFY, UH, ANY DECLINE IN VALUE OF HIS PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF OUR CARPORT TO THE LOCATION IF IT WAS FIVE FEET OFF OF HIS PROPERTY LINE. WHATEVER THAT DECLINE IN VALUE IS, IS WHAT WE'VE AGREED THAT I WILL REIMBURSE HIM FOR THAT. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN, MR. ORIAN? UH, ORIAN, SO YOU STATED IT WAS BUILT IN THE MID SIXTIES, THE ORIGINAL CARPORT, THE, THE BUILDING, OUR BUILDING WAS BUILT IN THE MID SIXTIES. THIS CARPORT WAS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION AT THAT TIME. IT ACTUALLY, UH, WAS CONTINUOUS BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY AT 78 0 9 AND 78 0 1. UH, AND WE'VE GOT RECIPROCAL PARKING, UH, AND RECIPROCAL, UH, ACCESS ON BOTH OF THOSE PROPERTIES. NOW. WE REMODELED OUR BUILDING IN 1989 WHEN WE BOUGHT IT. UH, BUT THAT'S THE ORIGINAL CARPORT WAS BUILT BACK IN THE SIXTIES WHEN THAT BUILDING WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED. I SAW THE OLD PLAN IN THE, UH, IN THE FILE AND IT SHOWS IT TO BE GENERALLY IN THE SAME AREA I WAS. I'M WONDERING, DID YOU, IN YOUR OPINION, IS IT SLIGHTLY CLOSER AS FAR AS THE, THE, UH, THE DISCHARGE FROM THE STORMWATER RUNOFF ON THE TOP OF THE ROOF TO THE NEIGHBORING FENCE THAN IT WAS PREVIOUSLY OR, OR WAS IT PREVIOUSLY SLOPED ALSO TO THE REAR? ACTUALLY, THE, THE ORIGINAL CARPORT I THINK WAS FLAT. OKAY. AND, AND OUR CARPORT ACTUALLY HAS A, A SLIGHT, UH, SLOPE TO IT, AND THAT'S WHAT THE GUTTER IS GOING TO, UH, BASICALLY ACCOMMODATE WHEN WE GET THAT DONE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BRAMAN. ALL RIGHT, MS. BRIGHTMAN, GO AHEAD. UM, SO THE ADJACENT CARPORT AWNING, ARE THE UPRIGHTS CLOSER TO FENCE THAN YOUR CARPORT STRUCTURE? UH, I'M SORRY, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT OUR PROPERTY. I DON'T, NO, BUT I'M SAYING IN RELATION TO THE AWNING, NEXT TO THE CARPORT, ARE THE UPRIGHTS ANY CLOSER TO THE FENCE OR FURTHER AWAY THAN THE ONE THAT YOU BUILT? OKAY, LET ME MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION. YOUR QUESTION IS, IS THE CARPORT AT 78 0 1 BROADWAY, UM, CLOSER THAN OUR UPRIGHTS? IS THAT YOUR QUESTION I'M SAYING ARE, DO THEY LINE UP? SO IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR UPRIGHTS, UH, GO BACK TO, GO BACK ONE MORE, ONE MORE THERE. SO YOUR UPRIGHTS [00:20:01] COMPARED TO THE UPRIGHTS OF THE ADJACENT CARPORT, DO THEY LINE UP, ARE THEY BOTH EQUIDISTANT FROM THE FENCE? I, I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION NOW. OUR UPRIGHTS ARE PROBABLY TWO FEET CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN OUR ADJACENT, UH, CARPORT, NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CARPORT. UH, AND THE KIND OF THE DIFFERENCE IS, I THINK JUST THEIR CONSTRUCTION IS A, IS A DIFFERENT KIND OF CONSTRUCTION. IT'S CANVAS AND, AND, UH, AND, AND OURS, UH, WAS DONE IN A WAY IN ORDER TO TRY TO, I GUESS HAVE THE UPRIGHTS NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PARKING, UH, AS MUCH THAT, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION VERY MUCH? UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, SO YOU HAVE COME IN AGREEMENT WITH, UH, I GUESS THE RAM RANDY BEAMER, WE ALL KNOW. YES. UM, UH, SO THAT'S, UH, NOW WE CAN OFFER A CONDITION ON, ON THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE. SO, UM, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? ALRIGHT, PLEASE HAVE THEM COME FORWARD. YOU MAY, MAY HAVE A SEAT. NEXT PERSON I HAVE IS CRYSTAL SEPULVEDA. CRYSTAL, I'LL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD BEFORE YOU SPEAK. IT'S CRYSTAL SEPULVEDA AND UH, OUR OFFICE IS LOCATED AT 2 2 2 AUSTIN HIGHWAY IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 0 9. AND I AM WITH JOHN GRAVE ARCHITECTS. I AM, UH, THE PROJECT MANAGER IN CHARGE OF, UM, THIS PROJECT. AND, UH, JUST GIVING A GENERAL OVERVIEW, KIND OF GOING OVER EVERYTHING EVERYONE ALREADY STATED IS THIS ORIGINAL CARPORT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1965 WITH THE ORIGINAL BUILDING THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY. UM, THE ORIGINAL CARPORT SEEMS TO, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT SCALING, IT SEEMS TO BE ABOUT ONE FOOT SIX OFF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS WHERE WE HAVE CONSTRUCTED THIS EXISTING. SO, UH, OR THIS NEW, NEW CARPORT. UM, SO WE ARE STAYING WITHIN THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT. WHEN WE SUBMITTED FOR PERMIT IN, UM, JULY OF 2018, IT WAS DESCRIBED AS SUCH ON OUR SITE PLAN THAT WE WERE SIMPLY REPLACING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IN THE SAME LOCATION IN KIND, JUST DUE TO THE DAMAGE THAT THAT WAS DONE ON THE CARPORT. AND IN REPLACING IT, WE BROUGHT IT UP TO THE CURRENT CODES TRYING TO KEEP THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY SAFE FROM IN THE EVENT THAT ANOTHER TORNADO OR SOMETHING DOES COME THROUGH. IT WAS STRUCTURALLY ENGINEERED SO THAT IT IS SAFER FOR THE NEIGHBORS. UM, WE RECEIVED A GEOTECH REPORT, UM, WHICH IS WHY WE DID THE 20 FOOT DEEP PIERCE. WE GOT IT ENGINEERED BY STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, WE HAVE DOCUMENTS TO SHOW THAT TOO. AND WE ALSO WENT THROUGH, UM, ACCESSIBILITY, UH, DESIGNS AND WE SUBMITTED FOR THAT. SO THIS HAS BEEN PUT THROUGH MANY DIFFERENT DESIGN STANDARDS AND HAS GONE THROUGH, GONE THROUGH THOSE REQUIREMENTS. UM, SO WE, WE, WE DID APPLY FOR A PERMIT AND WE RECEIVED THE PERMIT. AFTER THAT WE BEGAN CONSTRUCTION AND IT WASN'T UNTIL AFTER CONSTRUCTION THAT IT WAS TAGGED FOR NEEDING COMPLIANCE. UM, BUT JUST REITERATING THAT WE WERE UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WERE JUST REPLACING IN KIND. ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS? UH, MR. NEFF? YES. UM, ON THE SITE PLAN, WHEN YOU SUBMITTED FOR THE PERMIT, DID IT SHOW THE DIMENSION FROM THE NEW CARPORT TO PROPERTY LINE AND THAT IT WAS WITHIN THAT FIVE FEET? NO, BUT YOU CAN, IT, IT IS A TWO SCALE SITE PLAN. SO WE ARE SHOWING THE REAR SETBACK OF 30 FOOT, BUT THAT'S JUST FOR THE MAIN BUILDING. AND THEN THERE'S A NOTE ON THERE THAT SAYS PROPOSED CANOPIES TO BE REPLACED, UM, IN THE SAME LOCATION. UM, SO BASED OFF OF THE 30 FOOT, UM, OBVIOUSLY IT'S MUCH CLOSER THAN THE FIVE FOOT, UM, THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED NOW. OKAY. SO IT WASN'T EXPLICIT, BUT I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS NOT THE SAME CONSTRUCTION TYPE OF CARPORT THAT WAS THERE ORIGINALLY. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A CANTILEVER CAR CARPORT, UH, WAS THE ORIGINAL CARPORT CANTILEVER? IT WAS NOT CANTILEVERED, BUT THAT DID HINDER THE USE OF IT. SO, UM, THE, THE POLE MADE IT HARD TO TURN IN AND NAVIGATE, WHICH WAS WHY WE CANTILEVERED IT. UM, BUT THE FOOTPRINT IS THE SAME. THE OVERALL AREA THAT IT COVERS IS THE SAME YES, SIR. AND THE, AND THE PORT [00:25:01] POSTS FOR THE CANTILEVER ARE ABOUT THE SAME DISTANCE THE ORIGINAL POSTS WERE? NO, THE, THE POSTS WERE FURTHER IN, BUT THE, THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING IS THE SAME. ALRIGHT, AND NO OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. ANY OTHER WITNESS? YES, I PROMISE NOT TO SLAUGHTER THE NEXT NAME. MATTHEW MARTINEZ AND MR. MARTINEZ, MATTHEW MARTINEZ, UH, WITH JOHN GRABLE ARCHITECTS. I'M A, A FELLOW EMPLOYEE WITH CRYSTAL. UH, WE'RE AT 2 2 2 AUSTIN HIGHWAY, UM, IN ALAMO HEIGHTS. I I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD MORE THAN WHAT CRYSTAL MENTIONED, HOWEVER YOU STOOD UP. SO YOU MAY BE ASKED A QUESTION. OKAY, SURE. DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THIS GENTLEMAN? OH YEAH. YOU'VE BEEN LET OFF. EASY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT, NEXT PERSON. JAVIER ALONSO. MR. ALONSO, THE SAME THING APPLIES TO YOU. NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? YES, SIR. UH, JAVIER ALONZO. I AM ALSO AN EMPLOYEE AT JOHN GRAY WALKER, TEXAS 2 2 2 AUSTIN HIGHWAY. AND, UH, BRIEFLY I'LL JUST SAY THAT I SUPPORT THIS, UH, VARIANCE REQUEST. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN? ORIAN. MR. ORIAN OUTTA CURIOSITY, UH, A TORNADO HAD, UH, IT WAS STATED A TORNADO, UH, DESTROYED THE ORIGINAL CARPORT. WAS THERE ANY OTHER DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY OTHER THAN THE CARPORT DAMAGE BY THE TORNADO? UH, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY HAD CARPORT DAMAGE AS WELL, AND THAT RESULTED IN THE CANOPY BEING REPLACED. DEAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE, UH, UH, DAMAGE? BRING HIM BACK? OKAY. SORRY, I JUST, THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION YOU HAD. YEAH, AND, AND I, WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THAT WAS IS I, I, I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE DUE TO A NATURAL DISASTER, IF THAT HAD EFFECT ON STATS REVIEW OF THE PERMIT. IF, UH, IF THE COST DIDN'T EXCEED 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE, OF THE IMPROVEMENTS. AND, AND THAT'S EXACTLY IT. UH, SINCE THE VALUE WAS OVER 50%, UM, USING GOOGLE EARTH, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE IMAGES WHERE THE STRUCTURES WERE IN PLACE, INCLUDING AN ADDITIONAL CARPORT IN THE MIDDLE. AND THEN FOR ABOUT A YEAR OR SO, EVERYTHING WAS JUST WIPED OFF AFTER THE TORNADO AND THEN THE CONSTRUCTION STARTED A COUPLE YEARS AGO WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH. OKAY. THANK YOU. NOW, IS THAT THE LAST OF THE WITNESSES? WE HAVE ONE MORE. NEXT PERSON I HAVE IS DAN EASON. HI, MY NAME IS DAN EASON AND, UH, I'M A, UH, A PARTNER, UH, IN THE OWNER IN THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR AT 78 0 1 BROADWAY, UH, SAN ANTONIO, 7 8 2 0 9. AND I'M JUST HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF, UH, THE, UH, APPLICANT. VERY GOOD. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS? AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS. AND THEN I HAVE THREE PEOPLE WHO SIGNED IN. UM, JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT FOR THIS ITEM, IT SEEMS THAT THEY SIGNED UP EITHER FOR AN ITEM THAT'S NOT POSTED ON THE AGENDA OR CITIZENS TO BE HEARD, WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE ON THIS AGENDA. RICK SCHNELL ANIS, RICK SHELL, ANISA SHELL AND PAULA STARNES. DID YOU MEAN TO SIGN UP ON THIS ITEM? WE DON'T HAVE A CITIZENS TO BE HEARD PORTION. YOU CAN SIGN UP FOR ONE OF THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, SO NOT THIS ONE. OKAY. THEN IF THAT, IF NOT THIS ONE, THEN IT'S, THAT'S ALL THAT'S SIGNING TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE. EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT YOUR CASE. YEAH, EITHER ONE OF YOU HAD YOU, SOMEONE WANTED TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND I BELIEVE IT WAS YOU WERE, YOU WERE RESPONDING TO WHAT WAS SAID QUESTION. I BELIEVE THE QUESTION. OH, I'M SORRY. I'M GENE BRIM, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER. UM, THE QUESTION I THINK WHAT, WHAT WAS ANY ADDITIONAL DAMAGE IN, UH, FROM THE TORNADO? UH, UH, IN ADDITION TO THE TWO CARPORTS THAT BASICALLY GOT BLOWN DOWN AND COLLAPSED AT THAT TIME. AND, UH, AND RANDY BEAMER'S FENCE BLEW OVER. UH, WE HAD, UM, SOME, SOME TREE LIMBS THAT WERE LOST, BUT BASICALLY OUR BUILDING SUFFERED NO OTHER DAMAGE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M GONNA CLOSE THIS CASE TO THE PUBLIC AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME. I'M ENTERTAINING A MOTION FROM STEEL. MR. THIEL. THANK YOU. GO, GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR MOTION. YES, SIR. REGARDING APPEAL NUMBER BO O A ONE NINE DASH 0 3 0 0 9 0, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED A THREE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT SIX INCHES AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT [00:30:01] 7 8 0 9 BROADWAY. APPLICANT BEING JOHN GRABLE. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE ORIGINAL CARPORT HAS BEEN IN THE SAME LOCATION SINCE 1995 WITH NO REGISTER COMPLAINTS AND THE NEW CARPORT IS WITHIN THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE NEW CARPORT IS BUILT WITHIN THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS THE ORIGINAL CARPORT THAT WAS DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR DUE TO INCLEMENT WEATHER IN 2016. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT REMOVING THE, THAT PORTION OF THE CARPORT THAT EXTENDS BEYOND THE REAR SETBACK, LEAVING THE CARPORT UNUSABLE IN ITS CURRENT FORMAT DUE TO SPACE LIMITATIONS. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE NEW CARPORT IS NOT OVERWHELMING IN SIZE AND FOLLOWS THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS THE ORIGINAL CARPORT THAT WAS BUILT PRIOR TO 1995 WITH NO REGISTERED COMPLAINTS. ADDITIONALLY, THE CARPORT IS BUILT ENTIRELY OF METAL FOR THE VARIANCE, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE CARPORT IS NOT NOTICE NOTICEABLY OUT OF CHARACTER WITHIN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT'S LOCATED. THE PREVIOUS CARPORT HAD BEEN IN PLACE FOR OVER 20 YEARS WITH NO COMPLAINTS. THE DISTRICT IS CHARACTERIZED BY COMMERCIAL, MULTI-FAMILY AND SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS. THE VARIANCE REQUESTED WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USES OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE BEING SOUGHT IS DUE TO A RECONSTRUCTION OF A CARPORT THAT WAS DESTROYED DURING A TORNADO STRIKE IN 2016. THE NEW CAR PORT FOLLOWS THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS THE PREVIOUS AND IS MADE ENTIRELY OF METAL. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL IN NATURE AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT. ALRIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION. SECOND. OH, NOW I HAVE THE SECOND AS WELL. UM, MR. THIEL, WILL YOU PLEASE START THE DISCUSSION? YES, SIR. UH, THIS SEEMS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO ME. UH, IT LOOKS LIKE, UM, BOTH THE OWNER AND, AND, UM, HIS VENDOR, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES AND, UH, THIS IS JUST REPLACING SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME. I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH IT AND WILL BE IN SUPPORT. YEAH. SINCE THE CARPORT'S GOING IN, UM, APPROXIMATELY THE SAME PLACE AS THE PREVIOUS ONE AND THEY'RE ACCOUNTING FOR THE CHANGE IN THE DRAINAGE PATTERN BY INSTALLING A GUTTER THROUGH COORDINATION WITH THE NEIGHBOR. I SEE NO ISSUE WITH THIS. I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AND ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY INPUT THEY'D LIKE TO GIVE TO THIS CASE? SO BE IT. OKAY. THE, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE MOTION. MR. TEO? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ORIAN? YES, DR. ELLI. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BREGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. BRITTON? YES, MR. NEFF. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THE MOTION CARRIES, UH, UNANIMOUSLY, UH, YOU WILL NEED TO GET WITH STAFF FOR THE COMPLETION OF, OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS. AND, UH, YOU THANK YOU FOR TRYING TO COOPERATE WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THAT'S A VERY GOOD ATTITUDE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT, THE NEXT [2. 19-6100 BOA-19-10300093: A request by Marina Villagran for a 2’ variance from the 3’ side yard setback requirement to allow a detached shed to be 1’ from the side yard property line, located at 5410 King Richard. Staff recommends Approval (Council District 7) (Debora Gonzalez, Senior Planner (210) 207- 3074, debora.gonzalez@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)] CASE BEFORE US CASE BOA 19 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 3 IS A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A DETACHED [00:35:01] SHED TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE APPLICANT MARINA PROPERTY ADDRESS 54 10 KING RICHARD SUNNING. R SIX AH H O D. HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP WITH AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A DETACHED SHED TO REMAIN ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. ON JULY 3RD, 2019, CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUED A CITATION DUE TO THE SHED LOCATION. UH, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MUST BE LOCATED FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE UNLESS THEY HAVE NO EVE OVERHANG. IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EVE OVERHANG, THE STRUCTURE WOULD THEN BE PERMITTED TO THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE OR REAR PROPERTY LINES. THE SHED IS BUILT IN A CONCRETE BASE IN BETWEEN LARGE MATURE TREES. HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP WITH AN AERIAL SORT, UH, PHOTOGRAPH. SO THE SIDE PLAN, IT'S OF COURSE THE PINK SHED. THAT'S STILL LOCATION AND THEY ARE 13 INCHES ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WE CAN SEE THE SHED LOCATED IN THE LEFT SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT'S CLOSE AS WE COULD GET OVER THE FENCE. NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, THIS IS THE CORNER ADJACENT PROPERTY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. I RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF VARIANCE IN BO A 19 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THEIR REQUEST IS NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, NOR WILL UM, NOR WILL IT SIGNIFICANTLY AL ALTER THE APPEARANCE OF THE DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN A COMMUNITY PLAN AND IT'S ALSO NOT LOCATED WITHIN A REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WHO ARE POSITIONS. QUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ORIAN? MR. ORIAN? SO ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED IT, IT APPEARS THAT THE SHED IS LOCATED STRATEGICALLY JUST TO DODGE SOME VERY MATURE TREES. UH, BUT THE PLAN ALSO CALLS OUT FOR A SHED AND A AND A SMALL DOG. CAN I BELIEVE ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. UH, DO YOU, DID YOU, COULD YOU TELL HOW CLOSE THOSE, UH, IMPROVEMENTS WERE TO THE, TO THAT COMMON FENCE? UM, WE COULDN'T ACCESS THE SHED, SO, AND WE COULDN'T SEE THROUGH THOSE TREES. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S A LOT OF TREES ALSO OVER HERE ON THE LEFT. SO THROUGH THE FENCE WE COULDN'T SEE HOW CLOSE IT IS. SO WE'RE JUST GOING BASED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS STATED, HOW CLOSE THEY'RE, OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ANYONE? THE CASE? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. AND LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT FORWARD FOR THE RECORD. UH, HENRY IS HERE, UM, FOR HENRY RODRIGUEZ. UH, DO WE NEED TO UPDATE HIM ON THE, UH, CASE OR IS HE GONNA HAVE TO EXEMPT HIMSELF IN THIS CASE? I NEED A RULING FROM STAFF WALKED IN AFTER THE PRESENTATION. OF COURSE, THE, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT MADE THEIRS, SO THIS OKAY. HENRY PAY ATTENTION. . YES. WE'RE GONNA LET YOU, UH, THIS IS OUR LAST CASE TODAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO JUST PAY ATTENTION TO THE APPLICANT AND YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO VOTE ON THIS CASE. THANK YOU FOR SHOWING UP. I'D LIKE TO BE, UM, I LIKE TO BE ALWAYS SOMETIME, BUT I NEVER AM WELCOME. WHAT IS THAT? FROM THE SECOND ONE. ALL RIGHT. I'M, I APOLOGIZE. UH, WILL YOU, YOU GO AHEAD AND PLEASE STATE YOUR, OKAY. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, REGARDING, OKAY, SO IF YOU'LL, NOW I JUMPED THE GUN. GO AHEAD. FINE. IF YOU'LL GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND PRESENT YOUR CASE. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS KATHY PUENTE. MY ADDRESS IS 54 10 KING RICHARDS, 7 8 2 2 9 IN SAN ANTONIO. I AM NOT THE ACTUAL APPLICANT. I'M THE REPRESENTATIVE. THE APPLICANT IS ON YOUR PAPERWORK. MARINA GERRAN. UM, THE OFFICIAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, THAT IS MY MOTHER-IN-LAW. UM, SHE'S BEEN IN AND OUT OF DOCTOR'S OFFICES AND WAS IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM THIS WEEKEND. SHE IS NOT ABLE TO BE WITH US TODAY. UM, BUT I'M THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY SUBMITTED THE PAPERWORK ON HER BEHALF. UM, BUT SHE'S JUST NOT ABLE TO BE HERE TODAY EITHER. [00:40:02] CONTINUE. UM, WE ORIGINALLY, WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT TRYING TO DO A, A SHED ON THIS PROPERTY FOR STORAGE REASONS FOR QUITE SOME TIME. ENTERTAIN BIDS FROM, UH, NEIGHBORING COMPANIES THAT OFFERED TO BUILD A SHED ON YOUR LOT. UM, IN DOING SO, WE'RE TOLD FOR THE APPROXIMATE SIZE OF THE SHED, WE WANTED, UM, TO BUILD THAT A PERMIT WAS NOT NEEDED BECAUSE IT WAS UNDER THE REQUIRED SQUARE FOOTAGE, UM, REQUIREMENT. SO THERE WAS NOT A PERMIT ON THIS, THIS SHED. UM, ORIGINALLY IT WAS GOING TO BE A 10 BY 15. UH, IT ENDED UP BEING AN EIGHT BY 24. AND THE REASON BEING IS WHEN THEY ACTUALLY GOT OUT THERE, THE CONTRACTOR THAT CAME OUT THERE WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT ALL THE TREES AND FIGURE OUT HOW WE WERE GOING TO SHIFT THE SHED TO BE ABLE TO FIT INTO THREE VERY LARGE MATURE TREES. UM, IT GOT VERY NARROW AND BECAME WIDER, UM, IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE, UM, THE PLACEMENT ON THE DRAWING UP THERE. I KNOW IT'S KIND OF SMALL AND I HAVE EXTRA COPIES IF ANYONE WANTS TO LOOK AT IT. UM, THE LITTLE CIRCLES WITH THE T IN IT, I WAS TRYING TO INDICATE WHERE THE TREES WERE. SO THERE'S A TREE TO BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY OR EAST AND WEST, WHICHEVER ON BOTH ENDS OF THE PROPERTY OR THE SHED. THERE ARE TREES AND THEN OF COURSE, IN FRONT OF IT. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURES THAT I PROVIDED, YOU HAVE SOME EVIDENCE YOU CAN HAND IT TO, UH, DEBORAH HERE AND SHE'LL PROJECT IT ONTO THE SCREEN. ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU BRING IS NOW SUBJECT TO THE FILE AND IT'LL BE SURRENDERED. I I'VE SUBMITTED ALL OF THIS ALREADY. OKAY. UM, THEY'RE ACTUALLY FILED THE WRONG FORM. IT WAS THE OLD FORM THAT , THE FIRST SET OF PICTURES YOU'LL LOOK AT, IT ACTUALLY SHOWS YOU, UM, THERE WE GO. IT ACTUALLY SHOWS YOU, UM, TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT OF IT WHERE THE TREES ARE. AND THEN OF COURSE THE TREE THAT'S TO THE LEFT OF THE FRONT DOORS. IT'S SEVEN FEET FROM, UM, THE TREE ON EITHER SIDE. BUT AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE TREE BRANCHES, THE TREE BRANCHES, ACTUALLY THE BRANCHES ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE ARE ACTUALLY THE FIG TREE FROM OUR NEIGHBOR'S YARD COMING OVER. UM, THE TREE ON THIS PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO THE RIGHT. AND THEN OF COURSE THERE'S A LARGE TREE TO THE LEFT AS WELL. THERE. WE WERE JUST SHOWING YOU THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION ORIGINALLY THE SHED WAS GOING TO BE ON. UM, WE WERE ORDERING A KIT. IT CAME WITH A WOOD, IT WAS COMING WITH A WOOD FOUNDATION. UM, WHEN THEY STARTED TO BUILD IT, THE COMMENT WAS IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S GONNA BE KIND OF FLIMSY. WE'RE GONNA ADD EXTRA THIS OR THAT. YOU'RE TRYING TO GO AROUND, UM, ALL OF THESE TREES. I HAVE SOMEBODY THAT CAN PUT IT ON CONCRETE AND IT'S LIKE, WELL, WE'D BE INTERESTED IF IT'S AFFORDABLE, WE'D BE HAPPY TO LOOK AT IT. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. IT WOULD BE BETTER, IT WOULD BE MORE PERMANENT. UM, WE INVESTED IN THE HARDY PLANK SIDING JUST SO IT WOULD BE LONG, UM, LONG TERM AND NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, FLIMSY PLYWOOD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO IT'S MADE OUT OF THAT HARDY PLANK CONCRETE AND MADE TO, UH, SIDING MADE TO BE A A, A DURABLE SHED. UM, THE GUY CAME OUT THAT DAY FOR THE F UH, THE CONCRETE AND SAID, I COULD DO IT. I COULD DO IT TOMORROW IF YOU DO IT RIGHT AWAY. I DON'T HAVE A JOB. I'LL GIVE YOU A GREAT DEAL. WE WERE LIKE, HEY, GREAT. UM, WHEN AGAIN, WHEN WE ORIGINALLY STARTED TO DO THIS SHED, WE HAD MET WITH OTHER PEOPLE THAT WERE GONNA BUILD IT, BUILD A KIT. UM, THIS CONTRACTOR CAME TO US, SAID HE COULD DO IT. UM, IN DOING SO, WE IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED. WE DIDN'T EVEN THINK ABOUT ALL THE NEIGHBORS AROUND THE HOUSE. WE JUST THOUGHT ABOUT THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR. LET THEM KNOW WE'RE THINKING ABOUT DOING THIS. YOU KNOW, WHEN BEFORE THEY HAD MOVED IN, THE FORMER OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY CAME TO US WHEN THEY NEEDED TO EXTEND THEIR FENCE, THEY WANTED TO ADD A BOAT, THEY DID ALL THIS OTHER STUFF. I WAS LIKE, NO BIG DEAL. YOU KNOW, WE'RE COOL WITH IT. IT'S YOUR PROPERTY, GO AHEAD. SO WHEN WE WENT TO DO THIS, WE WENT TO THE NEIGHBOR AND SAID, BY THE WAY, WE'RE LOOKING AT IT. THEY DIDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT AT THE TIME. WE DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW BIG IT WAS 'CAUSE IT WAS GONNA BE A KIT. UM, AS IT GREW IN ORDER TO FIT IN BETWEEN 'CAUSE IT BECAME SO NARROW. UM, UH, IT DID BECOME BIGGER THAN WE'D ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED, BUT WE WANTED IT JUST TO BE A QUALITY BUILDING AND NOT HAVE THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT SHEDS ON THE PROPERTY FOR DIFFERENT THINGS. WE WANTED JUST A GOOD SIZED BUILDING THAT WOULD, UM, WITHSTAND TIME, UM, PUT IT UP THERE. IN DOING SO, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY LINE, IT'S REALLY AT AN ANGLE. THE CONCRETE GUY DIDN'T REALIZE IT WHEN WE SAID, YOU KNOW, WE WANTED IT AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A FOOT AND A HALF, TWO FEET AWAY. WE DIDN'T REALIZE ON OUR PLAT ON OUR SURVEY, IT DOESN'T SHOW A SETBACK LINE ON THE SIDE. IT SHOWED ONE ON THE BACK. WE ADDED A POOL YEARS AGO. [00:45:01] THEY SHOWED US A SETBACK ON THE BACK. WE ABIDED BY IT. NO PROBLEM. WHEN WE LOOKED AT OUR SURVEY, IT WAS OKAY, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T EVEN THINK ANYTHING ABOUT IT. DIDN'T NEED A PERMIT. IF WE'D HAVE GOTTEN A PERMIT, MIGHT HAVE FIGURED IT OUT. ALTHOUGH AFTER THAT CASE, MAYBE WE WOULDN'T HAVE. I DON'T KNOW. BUT, UH, SO WE DON'T HAVE A PERMIT. IT WASN'T ON THE SURVEY. WE DIDN'T REALIZE IT. WE THROW IT ON THE CONCRETE, THINK WE'RE DOING GREAT, ADDED UP. UM, UNFORTUNATELY THE NEIGHBOR APPROACHED OUR CONTRACTORS, UM, AND WAS A LITTLE DISGRUNTLED ABOUT THE SIZE OF IT AND THAT HE'S LOOKING AT A BLACK ROOF. UM, AT THAT TIME IT WAS LIKE, MAN, WE'VE ALREADY PUT THIS THING DOWN ON CONCRETE. WE'RE 90% OF THE WAY DONE. WHEN YOU CAME OVER TO EXPRESS THAT, NOW IT BOTHERED YOU BECAUSE IT'S LARGE AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT A BLACK ROOF. UM, WE TRIED TO MAKE IT BLEND IN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM MY EXTRA PICTURES, YOU CAN BARELY SEE IT FROM THE ROAD. WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF IT, THE CODE COMPLIANCE KIND CAME OUT. HE WAS REAL NICE. HE TOLD US THE PROCESS. HE SAID, UH, ALL YOUR NEIGHBORS WILL BE CONTACTED, DA DA DA. YOU CAN GO TO 'EM AHEAD OF TIME, SEE HOW THEY FEEL. WE WENT DOOR TO DOOR. WE PROVIDED A LIST TO Y'ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT, UH, UM, APPROVED OR HAD WERE IN SUPPORT OF US. THEY'RE NOT GONNA WANT TO COME HERE, BUT SAID, YOU KNOW, HEY, WE HAVE NO ISSUE WITH IT. WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW YOU BUILT A SHED. YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOOD WITH IT. UM, OUR NEIGHBOR IMMEDIATELY TO THE SIDE HAD ORIGINALLY SIGNED IT. UM, THEN AFTER SOME DISCUSSION WITH, UM, THIS PARTNER, THEY DECIDED THEY WERE NOT. UM, SO AFTER THE SHED'S ALREADY BUILT, IT BECAME AWARE TO US THAT THEY WERE UNHAPPY THAT IT WAS AS LARGE AS IT WAS. WE TRIED TO PUT IT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THEIR TREES AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THEIR SHED, WHICH IS WITHIN THE THREE FEET SETBACK AS WELL. UM, THEY HAVE A DOG KENNEL AND A SHED THAT ARE BEHIND THIS SHED, UM, THAT ARE WITHIN THE THREE FEET. AND THE CODE COMPLIANCE GUY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT AND SAID, WELL, YOU CAN FILE A COMPLAINT IF YOU WANT. WE WENT, WE DON'T WANNA GO THERE, WE DON'T WANT THESE COMPLAINTS, WE JUST WANT THIS TO BE OVER. UM, AS SOON AS THE NEIGHBOR UNFORTUNATELY GOT AFTER MY CONTRACTORS SAYING SOME THINGS TO THEM THAT WAS NOT POSITIVE, I IMMEDIATELY CALLED HIM AND SAID, CAN WE SIT DOWN AND MEET? WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. YOU KNOW, WE PUT THIS ON CONCRETE, TALKED HIM, WALKED HIM THROUGH THE HOUSE, SHOWED IT TO 'EM, BROUGHT 'EM OUT IN OUR BACKYARD AND SAID, YOU KNOW, WE WANNA BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO? WE PUT THIS ON CONCRETE . UM, UH, HE SAID, CUT OFF THE OVERHANG, WE CUT. IT'S, THERE'S JUST ENOUGH OVERHANG ON THE SIDE TOWARDS THEIR HOUSE THAT WE LEFT. BECAUSE WE SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? THERE'S GONNA BE FOUR FEET OF THE ROOF THAT SLOPES DOWN TOWARDS YOUR YARD, FOUR FEET THAT SLOPES DOWN TOWARDS OURS. UM, OUR FENCE UNFORTUNATELY LEANS, WHICH WE PAID TO HAVE STRAIGHTENED BEFORE THEY PUT THE SHED IN, UM, BECAUSE THEIR DIRT'S ABOUT FIVE INCHES TALLER THAN OURS ON THEIR SIDE. SO IT PUSHES ON IT. THEY'VE GOT TREES THAT ARE PUSHING ON IT. UM, WE SAID WE'LL STRAIGHTEN IT WHEN WE REPLACE THE FENCE. WE'LL PUT THE GOOD SIDE OF THE FENCE ON YOUR SIDE OF THE YARD SO IT'S EVEN FURTHER FROM YOU. UM, WE'VE OFFERED TO ADD A GUTTER, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO RUNOFF ON THEIR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. WE DID NOT DO THAT YET. WE STOPPED EVERYTHING WITH THE SHED AS SOON AS WE REALIZE THAT WE ARE GONNA BE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS. UM, BECAUSE THEN I'M THINKING, OH MY GOD, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO TAKE OFF THE BACKSIDE OF THE WALL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE GONNA CUT IT. NOW IT'S GONNA BECOME A, A TWO, A SIX FOOT WIDE SHED INSTEAD OF THE EIGHT FOOT. UM, I KNOW THE NEIGHBORS EXPRESSED SOME CONCERNS THAT IT AFFECTS THEIR VIEW, ALTHOUGH IT'S ON THE SIDE OF THEIR HOUSE, NOT THE BACK OF THEIR HOUSE, WHICH THEY HAVE A BEAUTIFUL POOL LIKE WE DO. UM, OUR OTHER OPTION OF WHERE WE COULD HAVE PLACED THE SHED WOULD'VE BEEN FURTHER DOWN. AND I PUT A NOTE ON THE PAPERWORK THAT SHOWS THAT, UM, 34 FEET IN BETWEEN TWO OTHER SETS OF BEAUTIFUL TREES. THAT WAS AN OPTION FOR US. WE CHOSE NOT TO BECAUSE WE FELT LIKE, IF ANYTHING, IT AFFECTED THE VIEW OF OUR YARD AND OUR NEIGHBOR'S YARD BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE OUT THERE BY THE POOLS. AND IF WE'D HAVE PLACED IT THERE, IT IN MY OPINION, MIGHT'VE BEEN AN EYESORE. SO WE TRIED TO TUCK IT AWAY ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE WHERE IT'S KIND OF OUT OF THE WAY. UM, AND AGAIN, BETWEEN ALL THE TREES, WHICH MAKES IT REALLY HARD TO, TO SEE. WE CHOSE NEUTRAL COLORS, UM, INTENTIONALLY DID NOT CUT BACK MORE OF THE TREES THEN THE NEEDED, JUST SO THAT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT, IT PRESERVED THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH REALLY NICE MATURE TREES AND YOU KNOW, THE CONTRACTOR WAS LIKE, WANTED TO TAKE OUT THAT ONE TREE AND IT WAS JUST LIKE, IF WE JUST MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT SMALLER AND A LITTLE BIT THIS WAY, THEN WE CAN FIT IT WITHIN THE TREES. IF WE'D HAVE REALIZED THAT WE NEEDED TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE, WE WOULD'VE, UM, WE DIDN'T. AND WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR YOU TO CONSIDER ALLOWING US TO LEAVE IT WHERE IT IS. ALRIGHT, THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. SORRY ABOUT THAT. . OKAY. WELL FOR YOUR INFORMATION, I UNDERSTAND, UH, THAT ANYTHING LESS LESS THAN 200 SQUARE FEET THROUGHOUT, UH, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ARE NOT A PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION. HOWEVER, IF THERE'S ANY ELECTRICAL OR PLUMBING, IT WOULD'VE HAD REQUIRED A PERMIT. THAT'S CORRECT. ANYTHING UNDER 300 SQUARE FEET, WHATEVER IS BUILT HAS TO COMPLY WITH CITY CODE AND THAT'S WHERE YOU GOT STACK IS THE CODE. UM, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE IS PRECISELY THE CODE. YOUR BUILDING IS [00:50:01] YOUR BUILDING AND, UH, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE DEALING WITH NOW. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ORIAN, MS. ORIAN. OKAY. SO A COUPLE QUESTIONS. UH, ONE YOU HAD MENTIONED, UH, CUTTING BACK THE EVE OVERHANG. UM, HOW IS THERE, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE IS NO OVERHANG WHATSOEVER ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY SIDE? ABOUT, AND I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT MEASUREMENT. IT'S VERY, VERY SMALL. WHEN WE FIRST HEARD THAT HE WAS, WAS UNHAPPY, UM, HE SAID CUT IT. THEY, THEY ORIGINALLY CAME TO US AND SAID, WE'LL BE OKAY WITH IT IF CUT OFF THE OVERHANG, UM, AND UH, ADD A GUTTER. OKAY, SO WE DID AND SO ON, ON THAT STAFF, HOW MUCH CAN IT STICK PAST THE FACE OF THE WALL BEFORE IT'S CONSIDERED AN OVERHANG? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT CHANGES IS WHAT THE SETBACK IS EITHER FROM THREE FEET TO FIVE FEET OR AN EAVE. UH, IS THERE A SPECIFIC DISTANCE THAT WHERE YOU CONSIDERED IT AN EAVE AS OPPOSED TO NOT BEING AN EAVE? THAT SECTION OF CODE ACTUALLY REFERENCES ANY ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE THAT EXTENDS BEYOND THE WALL. SO IN THIS SCENARIO LIKE THIS, YOU COULD DROP THE STRUCTURE TO THREE FEET AS LONG AS THERE'S NO ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. UM, IF THERE'S ANYTHING AT ALL, THEN WE'RE LOOKING AT FIVE FEET. SO THAT'S GONNA BE A BIT OF A DIFFERENCE. AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION IS, UH, THERE WAS, UH, IN THE FILE, IN THE OPPOSITION LETTER, THE CONCERN IS RAISED THAT YOUR, YOUR SHED VARIES BETWEEN FOUR AND 11 INCHES OFF THE FENCE. DID YOU GET A SURVEY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT ONE FOOT IS THE, YOUR, YOUR SHED IS ACTUALLY ONE FOOT OFF OF THE PROPERTY LINE? SORRY. UM, ON THE, ON THE DRAWING THERE, BECAUSE OF THE ANGLE OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY WHEN THE GUY POURED THE CONCRETE, I DON'T THINK HE PAID ATTENTION TO AS MUCH AS WHERE THE ANGLE OF THE PROPERTY WENT. AND IT'S 13 INCHES FROM THE TOP FROM THAT, UH, SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND IT'S EIGHT INCHES FROM THE BOTTOM. AND THAT'S ON MY FORM THAT I SUBMITTED TO YOU GUYS THAT IT, IT IS CLOSER ON ONE END THAN IT IS ON THE OTHER. UM, WHEN WE CUT BACK, WHEN WE MET WITH THE NEIGHBOR AND SAID, WE WANNA BE GOOD NEIGHBORS, WHAT DO WE DO? THEY SAID CUT BACK THE OVERHANG SO IT'S NOT SO CLOSE TO THE FENCE. WE SAID, NO PROBLEM. WE'LL DO THAT. WE WANT YOU TO ADD A GUTTER. THE CONTRACTOR LEFT, JUST, IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE A LITTLE BIT TIGHT TO STOW, ADD A GUTTER, BUT JUST ENOUGH SO THAT WE CAN ADD A GUTTER TO THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AND THEN, UH, UH, OKAY. AND I ALL THAT'S THERE IS AND THEN JUST IT'S, I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID IT WAS, BUT HE SAID IT WAS WHAT THE MINIMUM, ABSOLUTE MINIMUM HE NEEDED. OKAY. TO BE ABLE TO ADD A GUTTER. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S LIKE FOUR INCHES OR WHAT. SO ANOTHER QUESTION IS ON THE SIDE PLAN YOU'RE CALLING OUT A, UM, UH, A NEIGHBOR'S SHED AND A DOG HANDLE. ARE THOSE, UH, ARE THOSE TWO IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED VERY, VERY CLOSE TO THE FENCE? CAN YOU YEAH, THEY'RE WITHIN THE THREE FEET AS WELL. WHEN THE, WHEN THE CODE COMPLIANCE GUY CAME OUT, HE MEASURED THEIRS AS WELL. AND, AND DID THEY DID, ARE THEY IN THE SAME PLANE OF THE FENCE FRONTAGE AS YOUR SHED? UM, WHERE FROM THOSE BUILDINGS? YEAH. I'M TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE A STRUCTURE AS CLOSE TO THE FENCE AS YOUR STRUCTURE IS. MY STRUCTURE IS CLOSER TO THE FENCE THAN THEIRS IS. BUT BUT ARE THEY WITHIN THE SAME FRONTAGE OF THE FENCE LINE AS, OR ARE THEY AWAY FROM? UM, I I DREW A LITTLE LINE. IT'S NOT EXACT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY MY LINE GOES COULD YOU PLEASE GIVE HER THE POINTER PLEASE? AND THERE'S A LASER POINTER THAT YOU CAN USE TO POINT AT THE MAP. DO NOT LOOK AT IN IT PLEASE. THE BUTTONS ON THE VERY TOP. OH, I SEE. I THINK, OKAY. SO I APOLOGIZE. I'M, I DON'T HAVE GREAT VISION. UM, THEIR SHED IS RIGHT HERE. UM, SO THEN BETWEEN THE, AND THEN THEIR, UH, DOG KENNEL IS RIGHT HERE. SO THE BETWEEN THE, YOUR SHED, THE FENCE AND THEIR SHED IS, DO YOU THINK THERE'S JUST A COUPLE FEET BETWEEN YOUR TWO BUILDINGS? YES. IF YOU, IF YOU LOOKED AT, OKAY, THE PROPERTY, IF I'M LOOKING AT OUR SHED, UM, BECAUSE WE WERE DOING IT WITH THE TREES, THERE'S A TREE ON THE RIGHT, THE TREE ON THE LEFT, THEIR SHED IS NOT EXACTLY RIGHT BEHIND OURS. WE DIDN'T WANT 'EM TO BACK UP ONE-ON-ONE ON EACH OTHER JUST BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO REPLACE THE FENCE AND GET TO IT FOR MAINTENANCE AND STUFF LIKE THAT. SO THEIRS IS, AND I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT SQUARE OR NUMBER OF FEET BETWEEN IT, BUT THERE'S SEVERAL FEET IN BETWEEN WHERE OUR SHED STOP OR STARTS AND THEN THEIRS IS HERE AND IT GOES FURTHER THIS WAY. SO THEIRS GOES, UM, THIS PART THAT 16 FEET, UM, FROM THAT FENCE LINE TO HERE, THEIR KENNEL IS LIKE RIGHT HERE AND THIS SHED IS LIKE RIGHT HERE. AND THEN LASTLY, UM, IT APPEARS AS ADVERTISED, UH, YOU'RE REQUESTING DOWN TO ONE FEET OFF OF THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S FOUR TO EIGHT INCHES, IT'S ON, ON THIS PART OF THE PROPERTY. SO STAFF, [00:55:01] IS THAT GONNA BE A PROBLEM IF SHE'S, IF HER, IF SHE'S STATING THAT HER SHED IS EIGHT INCHES OR, OR EVEN LESS THAT THIS, BECAUSE THIS WAS ADVERTISED AS ONE FOOT, HER STIPEND JUST SHOWS AT, AT THE CLOSEST POINT, 13 INCHES. AND ON HERE IS WHERE I ON THE APPLICATION IS WHERE, SO SHE'S STATING ON HER APPLICATION THAT IT, SHE'S, SHE'S MAKING A STATEMENT THAT IT'S LESS THAN A FOOT. SO DOES THAT AN ISSUE WITH THE ADVERTISING AND THE YES, BECAUSE ALL WE ADVERTISED WAS TO BE AS CLOSE AS ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE FENCE IS ACTUALLY ON THE PROPERTY LINE. UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S NOT. EVEN AFTER WE, UH, STRAIGHTENED THE FENCE BECAUSE OF ADDING THE SHED, WE DIDN'T REALIZE, WE KNEW THE FENCE LEANED A LITTLE BIT, BUT WE HAD NO IDEA HOW BAD IT LEANED WHEN WE BUILT THE SHED. AND YOU'RE STANDING NEXT TO IT GOING, HOLY COW. THE CONTRACTOR TOOK A LITTLE CORNER PIECE OF EDGE AND STOOD IT UP ON THE FOUR BY FOUR AND HE GOES, LOOK AT HOW MUCH IT LEANS. SO THAT'S WHEN WE HAD IT STRAIGHTENED, BUT WE DIDN'T REMOVE THE FENCE AND REDO IT ALL BECAUSE THE FENCE IS ALL SIGNIFICANTLY LEANING. AND THAT'S WHY, UM, IT WAS ACTUALLY, UM, ON ONE SIDE WHERE I MEASURED IT, IT WAS EIGHT, UH, EIGHT INCHES FROM THE FENCE, BUT 13 INCHES FROM, UM, WELL YOU'RE, YOU'RE THINK IT SAYS 18 INCHES INSTEAD OF EIGHT. THAT'S FROM THE LEFT SIDE. SO IT, IT WAS 13 INCHES FROM THE FENCE, BUT 18 INCHES FROM THE PROPERTY ON THE RIGHT SIDE, IT WAS EIGHT INCHES FROM THE FENCE AND 13 INCHES. SO IT'S STILL 13 INCHES FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS WHAT IT SAYS IT'S ONE FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. I WAS JUST TRYING TO BE CLEAR ON THE ACTUAL, I'M SORRY. I WAS, THAT'S WAS TRYING TO CLEAR ON, THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION IS THE FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LINE? OH. BECAUSE IF IT IS, OH AND THAT'S WHY WE EVEN OFFERED, WE HAVE THE GOOD SIDE OF THE FENCE ON OURS. WE'LL PUT IT ON THE OTHER SIDE WHEN WE REPLACE IT. SO THEN NOW IT'S EVEN FIVE INCHES FURTHER FROM YOU. NO, THAT'S GREAT. I MEAN IT BECAUSE, SO IT'S VARYING 13 TO 18 INCHES AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THANK YOU. BUT LUCK ECHO. KEEPING THAT CLEAN. ALRIGHT, UH, ANYONE ELSE HAVE A ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO ONE. ALRIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES SIGNED UP FOR THIS CASE? WE HAVE A COUPLE PEOPLE. WE HAVE A COUPLE FOR THIS CASE. UH, FIRST PERSON WE HAVE SIGNED IN TO SPEAK IS, I THINK IT'S MARTY GUNTER THE HUNTER. PLEASE APPROACH AND UH, WE'LL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND UH, THEN YOU CAN PRESENT YOUR POSITION. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MARTY GUNTER AND I LIVE AT 54 0 2 KING RICHARD. I'VE LIVED THERE FOR ROUGHLY 13 YEARS. THE SHED THAT WE'RE, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT ON OUR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WAS PUT IN IN 2002. UM, THE INDIVIDUAL THAT DID IT, THAT WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY FROM, UM, DID GET PERMISSION FROM THE CITY TO DO SO. I HAVE SOME PICTURES THAT I BROUGHT THAT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE FENCE. AT FIRST WE THOUGHT IT WAS JUST GONNA BE A SHED. THIS THING IS A MAJOR BUILDING. IT'S LIKE A WORKSHOP. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAD WITH IT, THAT IT, IT, WHEN IT WAS FINISHED, IT WAS JUST SO MUCH BIGGER THAN WHAT IT WAS STARTING OUT TO BE. YOU'LL SEE THAT'S OUR FENCE RIGHT THERE. THERE'S A PORTION OF THE FENCE THAT, THAT THEY REPAIRED THEMSELVES. UM, BUT YOU'LL SEE I TOOK A TAPE MEASURE. IT'S, IT'S A DECK OF CARDS BETWEEN, UM, THAT MOVED THE PICTURES. SO THAT IS THE ROOF OVERHANG. WE PUT A BOARD UP THERE OR I PUT A BOARD UP AND THAT COMES OVER OUR PROPERTY THERE. YOU CAN SEE WHEN WE LOOK AT ON OUR PATIO OUTSIDE OUR, OUR DOOR OUTSIDE THE BEDROOM DOOR OR OUTSIDE OUR KITCHEN DOOR, THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE, THIS HUGE, MASSIVE MONSTROSITY OF A BUILDING. AND I WASN'T SURPRISED AT HOW LARGE IT WAS AND, AND THE CITY DID NOT COME OUT AND LOOK AT OUR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AND I'D ASKED SEVERAL TIMES AND SEVERAL PHONE CALLS. I DIDN'T GET RETURNED BECAUSE WE HAD THE WRONG, UM, I THINK IT WAS ASSIGNED TO THE WRONG INVESTIGATOR OR SOMETHING. I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT HAPPENED THERE. UM, BUT, BUT CODE COMPLIANCE DID COME OUT AND THEY TOOK A PICTURE OF HOW CLOSE IT WAS TO THE FENCE THERE. YOU SEE THAT IS THE OPPOSITE END OF THE FENCE THAT IT, THAT'S COMING FROM THE ROOF. UM, EVEN IF THE FENCE IS A LITTLE BIT CROOKED, UH, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S ALMOST 10 INCHES HANGING OVER OUR SIDE ON OUR PROPERTY. THAT IS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. IT'S, IT'S WHAT ABOUT SIX AND A HALF INCHES IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. BUT THERE'S ALSO A CLOSER SHOT THERE. IT IS THERE. IT'S JUST, IT'S NOT EVEN FOUR INCHES, IT'S ABOUT THREE, THREE AND A HALF. IT'S OUT OF THE SIZE OF A DECK OF PLAYING CARDS FROM THE BUILDING TO OUR FENCE. UM, AND YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO BE NEIGHBORLY TOO, BUT THIS IS JUST, IS, IT'S AMAZING HOW BIG, AND I WISH SOMEONE FROM THE CITY WOULD'VE COME OUT AND LOOKED OTHER THAN THE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER JUST TO SEE HOW INVASIVE THIS, THIS BUILDING IS. IT'S MASSIVE. UM, AND YOU KNOW, I'M, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE WE'VE GOTTEN ALONG WITH THE NEIGHBORS VERY WELL ALL THIS TIME AND, AND THIS HAS JUST CREATED, YOU KNOW, AN ISSUE. AND I'M SORRY THAT IT HAS, UM, BUT I JUST, I WANTED TO SAY THAT I TOTALLY OPPOSE THIS COMPLETELY. ALRIGHT. VERY WELL. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS GORIAN, MR. DORIAN? SO WE HEAR TESTIMONY [01:00:01] OF TWO THINGS. ONE, THAT THE FENCE WAS STRAIGHTENED OUT TO TRY TO CORRECT, UH, SOME OF THE DISTANCES. UH, AND, AND SECONDLY THAT THERE WAS THE, THE, THE OVERHANG WAS SLICED BACK A LITTLE BIT TO REDUCE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. ARE THESE PICTURES OF BEFORE OR AFTER OR WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON ON THAT? THOSE TWO, TWO THINGS OCCURRING. THOSE PICTURES, SIR, WERE TAKEN JUST A COUPLE DAYS AGO. THEY'RE VERY RECENT, SO THEY HAVE NOT BEEN, THAT IS WHEN IT WAS ALTERED. THAT IS RECENT PICTURES SHOWING THAT IT IS WHERE IT IS. SO THERE IS AN OVERHANG CURRENTLY ON YOUR SIDE OF THE SHED? YES, THERE IS. AND, AND THE, AND THE PORTION OF THE FENCE, THAT'S A DIFFERENT COLOR. THAT IS WHERE THEY ACTUALLY, UH, REPAIRED IT. AND EVEN THAT IS ABOUT SEVEN INCHES FROM OUR PROPERTY LINE. MY CONCERN IS HOW ARE WE GOING TO KEEP BRUSH AND RODENTS AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING FROM THERE? PLUS THE RAIN AND PIECES OF TREE LIMBS THAT'S FALLING ONTO OUR PROPERTY AND, AND ITS JUST, I THINK IT'S A MATTER OF FAIRNESS. SO, UH, THAT POSES A QUESTION FOR STAFF. NOW, BECAUSE THIS IS UNDER 200 FEET AND THERE'S NO PERMIT, UH, I KNOW THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SETBACK, BUT IS THERE GOING TO BE A CITY REVIEW OF, OF ANY SORT OF FIRE PROTECTION BECAUSE OF HIS PROXIMITY TO THE FENCE AND HIS OTHER STRUCTURES ON HIS SIDE OF THE FENCE? IS THAT, IS THAT TO OCCUR, UM, AT ALL WITH THIS PROJECT? UNLESS THERE'S PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED, BUT AT THIS POINT IT'D BE CODE COMPLIANCE THAT WOULD BE ENFORCING THE, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. UH, STAFF WOULD ACTUALLY REVIEW IT FROM OUR END. UM, BUT BEYOND THAT, I DON'T, IF THERE'S NO BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW REQUIRED, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING IN PLACE TO DO THAT OTHER THAN CODE COMPLIANCE. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. I BELIEVE WE'VE BEEN ADVISED IT'S HARDY PLANK, SO I THINK THE FIRE RATING IS THERE. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS GENTLEMAN? NO. MR. N? YES, SIR. BEFORE YOU LEAVE, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. SORRY, PROBLEM . SORRY. UM, TAPE MEASURE SHOWS VERY CLEARLY IT'S, YOU KNOW, A MATTER OF FOUR OR NINE INCHES AWAY, BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE TO THE OTHER FACE OF THE FENCE ON THEIR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. DO YOU KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHERE YOUR PROPERTY LINE IS? DO YOU BELIEVE IT'S THE EDGE OF THE FENCE OR THE CENTER OF THE POSTS OF THE FENCE? OR DO YOU EVEN BELIEVE THE PROPERTY LINE TO BE WHERE THE FENCE IS LOCATED? I BELIEVE IT TO BE WHERE THE FENCE IS LOCATED. SIR, WHAT PART OF THE FENCE DO YOU THINK IT IS? UH, THAT I DON'T, I WOULD ASSUME IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FENCE. UM, I'M NOT SURE WHO BUILT THE FENCE, UM, 'CAUSE IT WAS DONE PRIOR TO US BEING THERE, BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT THE, THAT THE FENCE IS ACCURATE. SO WITH, WITH THE MEASUREMENTS THAT YOU'RE SHOWING, IT'S REALLY NOT, YOU DON'T BELIEVE EITHER THAT IT'S TO THE FACE OF THE FENCE BOARDS ON THEIR SIDE OF THE FENCE. YOU BELIEVE IT TO BE KIND OF THE CENTER OF THE POSTS PERHAPS. SO GIVE OR TAKE A COUPLE INCHES FROM MEASUREMENTS STILL REALLY CLOSE, BUT GIVE OR TAKE IT'S CLOSE COUPLE INCHES. IT'S VERY, IT, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE A COUPLE INCHES, BUT IT MAY BE, I DON'T REALLY DON'T KNOW, SIR. FENCE POST IS THREE AND A HALF INCHES. A FENCE BOARD IS THREE QUARTERS OF AN INCH. YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE, EVEN IF A COUPLE INCHES OF PLAY IN THERE, THERE MAY BE. SO SIR. AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION WAS, YOU WERE SHOWING THE OVERHANG WITH THE KIND OF USING A STICK. WHAT WAS THE STICK IN LINE WITH AS IT WENT UP? ROOF? THE, THE SHINGLES, SIR. AND ON THE BOTTOM, DID YOU PUSH IT AGAINST THE FENCE BOARDS OR, I USED A LEVEL TO HOLD IT STRAIGHT DOWN, SIR. AND THEN ALSO I TOOK A STRING WITH A, WITH A BOLT ON IT SO IT WOULD HOLD STRAIGHT. AND I TOOK A PICTURE OF THE STRING THAT WAS HOLDING LIKE A PLUMP. SO AS IT HANGS DOWN, IT'S OVER ON YOUR SIDE OF THE WHOLE FENCE. ALMOST 10 INCHES, SIR. AT LEAST WHERE THE STRING HANGS. I'M SORRY, WHERE THE, OKAY. THAT'S CLARIFICATION. I WAS LOOKING FOR, THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. YEAH, EXCUSE ME. HOLD ON. I HAVE A QUESTION NOW FOR YOU. I'M JUST ELABORATING FROM HIS QUESTION. YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU DROPPED A PLUMB LINE FROM THE ROOF DOWN ONTO YOUR PROPERTY. YES SIR. DID YOU TAKE A PICTURE OF THAT PLUM LINE, BOB, THE BASE TO YOUR FENCE, RELATIONSHIP TO THE FENCE? UM, NO SIR. I JUST TOOK A PICTURE OF WHERE THE FENCE, WHERE IT COME FROM, THE BUILDING, THEY WERE, THE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH HERE IS NOT THE FENCE, THE ISSUE IS THE PROPERTY LINE. AND THAT'S THE MAIN CONTENTION SO FAR. THE TESTIMONY HAS SUGGESTED THAT THE FENCE IS WELL WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY. UH, THEREFORE WE DON'T BASE THE DISTANCE ON FROM THE FENCE. THAT'S GONNA BE THEIR PROBLEM. BUT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ITSELF AND SO FAR I'VE NOT SEEN ANY TYPE OF SURVEY TO PROVE OTHERWISE IN THE TESTIMONY WE, WE RECEIVED. AND THAT'S, THAT'S MY CONCERN, UM, BECAUSE THIS IS, THIS IS THE REAL ISSUE HERE. WHAT WE'RE HERE IS GONNA MAKE A DETERMINATION OF THE DISTANCE THIS BUILDING IS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. WHETHER A FENCE IS CORRECT OR NOT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. IT'S THE PROPERTY LINE. AND IF WE MAKE A DETERMINATION, OUR DETERMINATION WILL BE, OR IF, IF WE, IF OFFERED A VARIANCE, THEN IF THAT PROPERTY IS, OR THE STRUCTURE IS NOT MEETING THAT DISTANCE, THEN IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE MOVED. AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE POINT. AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE'VE [01:05:01] BEEN ASKING THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT, DOES ANYONE HAVE A COPY OF WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THIS PROPERTY, TO THESE STRUCTURES? AND ALSO WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY THAT YOU'VE GOT A STRUCTURE ADJACENT TO THAT FENCE AS WELL AND I DIDN'T SEE IN ANY PHOTOGRAPH. HOW FAR IS THAT STRUCTURE THAT YOU HAVE? I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A DOG OR SOME SORT THERE. IT'S, IT'S A CHAIN SET OF CHAIN LIKE PANEL. IT'S NOT A KENNEL, IT'S JUST A, AND NO STORAGE BUILDING OR ANYTHING ADJACENT TO IT. THERE IS A, WE HAVE AN EIGHT BY 10 PORTABLE SHED THAT IS THERE, UH, THAT WAS THERE PRIOR TO THE PROPERTY BEING BUILT. AND WHAT IS IN YOUR, NOW I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR RULER WITH YOU TODAY. TWO FEET, EIGHT INCHES, SIR. YES SIR. AND I BELIEVE THAT FENCE IS THE PROPERTY LINE AND THAT IS THE TRUE PROPERTY LINE. ALRIGHT SIR. ALRIGHT, WE HAVE ANY END OF THE WITNESSES? YES. NEXT PERSON WE HAVE IS RICHARD BRAUN. I'M GONNA NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD FOR YOUR, GIVE YOUR RICHARD RICHARD BRONY 54 0 2 KING RICHARD. UM, I DO STAND DEPOSE TO THIS VARIANCE. UM, THE CONCERN IS THAT THE, FOR ME, THAT THE OVERHANG OR THE WATER IS DIRECTED, THE ROOF IS DIRECTED TO THE PROPERTY LINE. AND UM, IF I BELIEVE THAT THE PROPERTY LINE IS THE FENCE OR EVEN A FEW INCHES ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, ANY UM, WATER DRAINAGE, UH, WOULD BE ERODING ALONG THAT PROPERTY LINE. UM, THE DAMAGE, I MEAN THE EVENTUAL DAMAGE WOULD BE, UH, CONSISTENT WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, TAKING AWAY FROM OUR PROPERTY VALUES. UH, AGAIN, WHEN, UH, AS MARTY HAD MENTIONED, WHEN WE WERE CALLED AND TOLD THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A SHED PUT THERE, WE DID NOT OPPOSE ANY KIND OF SHED. WE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THEY WERE TELLING US THAT, UH, THE CONSTRUCTION THAT CON CONTINUED, UH, OR THAT STARTED AND THEN CONTINUED. THIS WAS NOT A SHED AS WE HAD ORIGINALLY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE. WE JUST ANTICIPATED IT TO JUST BE A SHED LIKE MAYBE WE HAD SITTING THERE THAT IT WAS GONNA BE SOMETHING THAT THEY BROUGHT FROM A LOCAL HOME DEPOT. BUT THIS BECAME A HUGE BUILDING AND THE LIKE, THE OVERHANG ACTUALLY DID OVER GO OVER OUR FENCE LINE, WHICH WE BELIEVE TO BE THE PROPERTY LINE. UM, WE DID TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS AFTER THEY CONTACTED US AND WE EXPRESSED, UM, DISSATISFACTION TO WHAT THEY HAD ORIGINALLY TOLD US IT WOULD BE. UM, WE DID, UH, TALK TO THEM. WE DID SAY THAT WE WOULD APPRECIATE A, UH, CUTTING BACK THE OVERHANG AND ADDING A GUTTER SO THAT THE EROSION FROM THE RAIN WOULD NOT IMPACT OUR PROPERTY LINE. WE DID ASK FOR THAT. UM, AS KATHY MENTIONED, THAT HAS NOT OCCURRED. UH, WE DO SEE A LITTLE BIT OF SHODDY CONSTRUCTION WHEN WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY YEARS AGO, WE LIKED THE OPENNESS OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE HAD AND I DON'T WANT TO, UH, TAKE AWAY OUR NEIGHBOR'S ABILITY TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO ON THEIR PROPERTY. BUT WHEN IT IMPEDES ON 30, 30 SECONDS PROPERTY 30, THEN THAT BECOMES A CONCERN. AND, UM, SO THE BIGGER CONCERN IS THE RESALE VALUE LATER ON. IF THIS IS ALLOWED. AND AGAIN, THIS WAS NEW CONSTRUCTION, I BELIEVE THAT IT DOES HAVE ELECTRICITY GIVEN TO IT. UH, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS REQUIRING A PERMIT OR NOT. ALRIGHT. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS? CORIAN CORIAN. SO WHEN YOU DISCUSS WITH, UH, YOUR NEIGHBOR ABOUT THE INSTALLATION OF A GUTTER TO HELP ADDRESS, UH, EROSION FROM, FROM, UH, STORMWATER RUNOFF, UH, WAS IT YOUR INTENT THAT THE GUTTER WOULD BE ENTIRELY WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY OR DID YOU DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL OF IT POTENTIALLY HANGING OVER TO YOUR PROPERTY AND HOW, OR HOW MAINTENANCE WOULD OCCUR ON THE GUTTER? IT WAS NOT DISCUSSED FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. WHAT I HAD ASSUMED IS THAT WHEN THEY WOULD CUT THE EAVE OFF, ADDING THE GUTTER, ALL OF THAT WOULD BE MAINTAINED ON MY NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. AND YOU ALSO MENTIONED THAT YOU FELT THERE WAS ELECTRICITY THERE. DO YOU SEE WIRES GOING INTO THE BUILDING? I DO NOT SEE WIRES GOING INTO THE BUILDING, UH, FROM MY PROPERTY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ELLI. DO YOU FEEL, OH, [01:10:01] DO YOU FEEL IF THE SHED WAS ONE FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE THAT THAT WOULD MEET THE NEEDS THAT YOU HAVE WITH THE GUTTER? I BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD BE, UM, WITHIN THE CONSIDERED VARIANCE, BUT AT THIS POINT IT IS NOT. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE? NO ONE. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE WANT ANY MORE WITNESSES? THAT'S ALL THAT'S I NEED TO SPEAK. GOOD. COME BACK PLEASE. YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE, UH, QUESTIONS OR STATEMENTS BY THE WITNESSES AND REBUT ANYTHING YOU HAVE AND SUPPLY ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR, YOUR FACTS. I UNDERSTAND, UH, FROM YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE CLOSEST THE BUILDING GETS TO, NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BUILDING, NOT THE OVERHANG. 'CAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE OVERHANG HAS NOT BEEN CUT BACK YET, BUT THE BUILDING ITSELF THE CLOSEST TO THE PROPERTY LINE, UH, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, I HEARD 13 INCHES. IS, UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORT THAT I DIDN'T ACTUALLY THINK TO TAKE PICTURES OF THE BUILDING WITH THE TAPE MEASURE LIKE THAT? WE TOOK PICTURES OF THE BUILDING FROM ALL THE DIFFERENT SIDES. UM, I DID MEASURE IT WITH CODE COMPLAINTS WHEN HE CAME OUT THERE. AND WHAT HE DID WAS MEASURE IT FROM THE CONCRETE, THE BOTTOM BASE OF THE, THE STRUCTURE TO THE FENCE. BECAUSE EVEN AFTER, WITHIN A WEEK OF US HAVING, I MEAN, WE DIDN'T TEAR DOWN THE FENCE, WE REPLACED ROTTED BOARDS AND WE TRIED TO SECURE IT BETTER. UM, BUT WE DIDN'T JUST GO IN THERE. THEY HAVE TWO LARGE DOGS. WE HAVE A LARGE DOG. WE DIDN'T JUST DECIDE TO TAKE DOWN THE FENCE AT THE TIME. UM, THE FENCE IS ALREADY LEANING BACK. AND SO WHEN CODE COMPLIANCE CAME OUT, WHERE HE MEASURED, AND THAT'S WHERE I TOOK MY MEASUREMENTS FROM, WAS FROM THE BASE OF THE STRUCTURE, UM, TOWARDS THE BOTTOM TO THE FENCE. AND THAT'S WHERE WE GOT IT. AND THEN WHEN HE SHOWED ME THAT YOU HELD THE, THE CORNER PIECE TO THE FENCE, YOU COULD SEE HOW MUCH IT HAD LEANED. SO I KNOW ALREADY, EVEN THOUGH WE'VE ONLY, THE BUILDING'S ONLY BEEN THERE A COUPLE MONTHS, UM, I KNOW ALREADY THAT THE, THE FENCE HAS STARTED LEANING AGAINST. I MEAN, IT NEEDS NEW CONCRETE, IT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED, UM, SO THAT IT WOULD STAND UP STRAIGHT. BUT, UM, THE EVE HAS BEEN OVER, HAS BEEN CUT BACK AS SOON AS THEY MENTIONED THAT. AND WE MET WITH THEM. THE BUILDING WAS, THEY HAD ALREADY PUT THE SHINGLES ON AND EVERYTHING ELSE. WE CALLED THE CONTRACTOR BACK AND SAID, YOU GOTTA CUT OFF THE OVERHANG. SO HE CUT OFF THE OVERHANG. IT WAS LIKE IT IS ON THE REST OF THE BUILDING, WHICH YOU CAN SEE IN THE PICTURES IT HAD ENOUGH TO HAVE A LITTLE VENT JUST TO LET OUT HOT AIR. UM, IT DOES NOT, IT ONLY NOW HAS, IT HAS BEEN CUT OFF. UM, IN HIS PICTURE YOU COULD SEE THAT THERE WERE STILL SHINGLES HANGING. THAT'S FROM THEM LIFTING UP THE PREVIOUS SHINGLES, CUTTING OFF THE ROOF LINE. AND THEY'RE STILL FLAPPY SHINGLES BECAUSE THEY WERE WAITING TO SEE ARE WE GONNA ADD THE GUTTER? HOW DO WE DO THE GUTTER? THEY ONLY LEFT US ENOUGH ROOM ON THAT OVERHANG, UM, FOR THE GUTTER. AND WHEN WE DID IT WITH CODE COMPLIANCE, YOU COULD NOT, UH, THE ROOF OF THE HOUSE OR THE ROOF OF THE STRUCTURE, WHATEVER WAS NOT OVERHANGING THEIR PROPERTY. IT WAS WHEN WE ORIGINALLY DID IT. AND AS SOON AS THEY POINTED THAT OUT TO US AND THAT THAT BOTHERED THEM, THAT'S WHEN WE CUT IT OFF. SO WE CUT OFF LIKE SIX, EIGHT INCHES, WHATEVER IT WAS PREVIOUSLY, WE CUT THAT OFF. AND THERE'S ONLY ENOUGH RIGHT NOW, UM, TO PLACE A GUTTER ON IT. IT NEEDED, AND AGAIN, I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT MEASUREMENT AND I DIDN'T THINK TO MEASURE IT, BUT I THINK IT WAS LIKE THREE OR FOUR INCHES THAT IT NEEDED. AND THAT'S ALL THAT'S LEFT. WE DIDN'T ADD ANOTHER DRIP EDGE BECAUSE AGAIN, WE JUST CUT IT OFF. WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO. UM, AND THE GUTTER HAS NOT BEEN ADDED YET. WE STOPPED AND CODE COMPLIANCE TOLD US, EH, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY NOT DO ANYTHING ELSE TO IT. LET'S JUST WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE CITY SAYS. SO WE'VE BEEN PREPARED TO ADD THE GUTTER, BUT HAVE NOT AT THIS TIME. UNFORTUNATELY, THE FENCE THAT WE STRAIGHTENED OUT HAS ALREADY LEANED BACK, SO I'M NOT GONNA QUESTION THAT. YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, IF YOU LEAN ON IT JUST A LITTLE BIT, HE HAS A LARGE FIG TREE THAT JUST KIND OF PUSHES WAY ON IT. WE'VE CONSIDERED CUTTING THE BRANCHES, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING NOT TO CAUSE ANY MORE ISSUES. YES, I'D LOVE TO CUT DOWN THEIR TREES THAT ARE PUSHING ON THE FENCE. THAT AND THEIR GROUND, THAT'S FOUR INCHES, SIX INCHES HIGHER THAN OURS. UM, I DID HAVE A PICTURE OF THAT AS WELL. I DIDN'T INCLUDE IT IN THERE, BUT WHEN WE REMOVE THE FENCE THAT YOU COULD SEE HOW MUCH HIGHER THE DIRT WAS ON THEIR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. UM, IT'S GONNA CONTINUE TO PUSH ON THE FENCE UNTIL THE FENCE IS REPLACED AND DONE BETTER IN CONCRETE OR WHATEVER. BUT, UH, HIS PICTURES FROM THE TOP OF THE FENCE WHERE THE FENCE IS LEANING SIGNIFICANTLY. UM, AND BY THE WAY, THERE IS NO ELECTRIC. WE DID CONSIDER THINKING, OH, WE'RE NOT USING IT AS A WORKSHOP, BUT SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT USE IT AS A WORKSHOP. MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE PUT ELECTRIC IN IT. WE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IT. YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T, BECAUSE WE DON'T INTEND, MY HUSBAND DOESN'T DO WOODWORKING. HE HAS A GARAGE. UM, THERE'S JUST STORAGE IN THERE. WE RUN A YOUTH ORGANIZATION. WE WERE PAYING $400 A MONTH FOR STORAGE. WE FINALLY SAVED UP ENOUGH MONEY TO BUILD IT ON THE PROPERTY SO THAT WE COULD MOVE THAT STORAGE IN THERE. SO IT'S FULL OF STORAGE RIGHT NOW. IT WOULD BE A HARDSHIP FOR [01:15:01] US TO TRY AND MOVE IT BECAUSE WE'D EITHER END UP HAVING TO TAKE DOWN THAT TREE. EVEN THEN I'M THINKING, GOD, WOULD WE HAVE TO CRACK UP THE CONCRETE? YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT, IT, IT WOULD JUST BE A REAL CHALLENGE. AND MY QUESTION THERE WOULD'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S TWO FEET FURTHER AWAY FROM THE FENCE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE UNHAPPY WITH THE VIEW. I DON'T LIKE THE VIEW OF THEIR YARD WITH THEIR NAKED STATUE, BUT I TOLERATED, THEY'RE MY NEIGHBOR. UM, BUT IT ONLY MEANT THAT THE VIEW WOULD'VE BEEN TWO FEET FURTHER AWAY. IT STILL WOULD'VE BEEN THERE AND I COULD HAVE PUT IT FURTHER DOWN IN THE YARD AND PUT IT FIVE FEET AWAY. BUT THAT WOULD'VE REALLY TAKEN AWAY FROM THE VIEW OF BOTH OF OUR POOLS, IN MY OPINION. UM, AND WE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO DO THAT THERE. THE CONTRACTOR WANTED TO DO IT AGAINST THE BACK FENCE LANE. WE SAID NO, BECAUSE WE HAVE A, A PORTABLE ONE BACK THERE THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR YEARS BECAUSE WE HAVE THE SETBACK LANE THERE. AND WE KNEW WE COULDN'T PUT IT THERE. IT WOULD'VE HAD BEEN REAL CLOSE TO THE POOL. OKAY. UH, APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY. I'M GONNA AHEAD AND, AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC. I HAVE ONE QUESTION, UH, ON THE SIDELINE YOU PROVIDED IN THE BACK CORNER BEHIND YOUR POOL, DO YOU HAVE AN EXISTING SHED THERE? THE, THE LITTLE CORNER, UM, YOU SEE A GAZEBO THERE. IT'S NOT ON CONCRETE, IT'S JUST STUCK IN THE GROUND. UH, THAT LITTLE SQUARE TOWARDS THE VERY, VERY BACK IS A RUBBER MADE HOME DEPOT. THE REASON WE DIDN'T DO THIS ONE, LIKE THAT ONE, IF YOU LOOK AT IT WHEN THE GROUND SHIFT, THE REASON WE WANTED TO BUILD ONE IS 'CAUSE THERE'S A CRACK ALONG THE TOP. IT'S CRACKED. IT'S OLD 15 YEARS OLD. STILL LOOKS ACCEPTABLE, BUT IT'S UNFORTUNATELY NOT KEPT THE WATER OUT. THINGS IN THERE HAVE RUSTED. ALL RIGHT. NO, THERE'S ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? ALRIGHT. OFFICIALLY CLOSE TO THE PUBLIC PENDING A MOTION FROM THE BOARD. WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION. MANNA, HOLD ON. NO ONE'S MAKING, NO ONE WANTS TO MAKE THE MOTION. I SAID MANNA. ALL RIGHT. NOW, UM, TAKING CONSIDERATION WHAT WE'VE HEARD WORDED APPROPRIATELY. OKAY, THANK YOU. REGARDING APPEAL NUMBER BO O A 19 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 3, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A A ONE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A SHED TO BE TWO FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 5 4 1 0 KING RICHARD, APPLICANT BEING MARINA FRAN. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP ALLY. YOU FIND THAT, UH, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. UM, IN THIS CASE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE SHED DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT ANY SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THE SHED IS SURROUNDED BY LARGE MATURE TREES AND IS NOT NOTICEABLE TO THE PASSERBYS UNTIL ENTERING INTO THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. STRICT ENFORCEMENT WOULD RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF THE STRUCTURE THAT THE SHED IS BUILT WITHIN, UH, BETWEEN LARGE MATURE TREES AND ADJACENT PROPERTY FENCE LINE COUPLED WITH THE SHED MOVING IT WEST OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WOULD, COULD POTENTIALLY INVOLVE REMOVING A LARGE MATURE TREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS THE INTENT OF THE REQUIREMENT RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE SHED IS NOT OVERWHELMINGLY IN SIZE, UH, COMPARED TO THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE AND IS HIDDEN FROM RIGHT OF RIGHT OF WAY VIEW DUE TO LARGE MATURE TREES. AND THE SIX FOOT FENCE, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THIS, FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMED PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE TO THE SHED IS UNLIKELY TO INJURE THE PRO THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTIES. THE SHED IS LOCATED WITHIN A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE AND BOUNDED BY LARGE MATURE TREES THAT OBSCURE THE VIEW OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY IS THE SHED LOCATED BEHIND A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE AND BOUNDED BY LARGE MATURE TREES THAT OBSCURED [01:20:01] VIEW FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY AND A MOTION. I, UM, DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? WHO DID THAT? HENRY? YEAH. ALRIGHT, HENRY. OKAY, MR. MANDEN, PLEASE START THE DISCUSSION. SO, UM, I CHANGED THE MOTION SLIGHTLY JUST TO TRY TO MOVE IT BACK AWAY AND THEN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, UH, THE LINE, THE DIRECT LINE COMING UP FROM THE BACK WALL SO THAT IT WOULD LEAVE ENOUGH SPACE SO THAT THERE COULD BE MAINTENANCE ON THE BACKSIDE. UM, AND, UM, LOOKING AT THE PICTURE DID LOOK THE POSSIBILITY OF POSSIBLY MOVING MAYBE THE WHOLE STRUCTURE FORWARD. UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK ALLOWING FOR THAT TWO FOOT OR FOR THE TWO FOOT, UM, UM, A SETBACK WOULD, WOULD, UM, YOU KNOW, ALLOW FOR THAT ACCESS BEHIND IT AND, AND, UH, GO FROM THERE. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. UH, HENRY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ELABORATE? UM, I THINK THAT THE, UH, APPLICANT HAS DONE EVERYTHING TO MAINTAIN AND RESPECT THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THE, IT IS, THE STRUCTURE IS PRETTY MUCH OBSCURE FROM PUBLIC VIEW IN RESPECTS OF, UH, THE TREE ORDINANCE. AND, UH, BUT HOWEVER, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT NO, IT, IT IS MUCH BIGGER THAN, UH, WHAT WAS LED TO BELIEVE THAT THE SIZE OF THAT STRUCTURE WAS GONNA BE. UH, I DON'T THINK I CAN SUPPORT THAT. ALRIGHT. ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT? MR. ORIAN? ORIAN? YES. UH, I AGREE WITH, UH, THE MOTION AS READ. UH, I'VE, I PERSONALLY FELT ONE FOOT WAS, WAS TOO CLOSE DUE TO THE, THE, THE LENGTH. UH, I KNOW THERE'S A HARDSHIP DUE TO THE MATURE TREES, BUT THIS, THIS IS, THIS LOT ISN'T SO CONSTRICTIVE. THERE'S OTHER PLACES THEY COULD PUT A SHED. UH, AND WE ALSO HEARD TESTIMONY THAT THE SHED IS BEING USED FOR, UH, THERE A NON-RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE, UH, NON-ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOME. AND THAT, THAT ALSO PUSHED ME IN THAT DIRECTION, UH, TO, TO NOT BE AS, UM, FORTHRIGHT IN REVIEWING THE, THE REQUEST AS MADE. SO I THINK, UH, THE MOTION IS READ WITH TWO FOOT, UH, ACCOUNTS FOR ENOUGH ROOM FOR MAINTENANCE, FOR, UM, OVERHANG FOR THE, FOR THE SMALL EVE THAT WILL BE THERE. I WON'T CALL IT AN E, BUT THE SMALL, UH, OVERHANG AS WELL AS GUTTERING. SO, UH, AS READ, I'M IN, I'M IN SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT? BRITTON, MR. BRITTON, A YOUNG LADY, UH, YOU UNDERSTAND HE CHANGED THE MOTION THAT YOU'RE APPLYING FOR? ACTUALLY, I'M SORRY, THIS IS REALLY NOT A DISCUSSION OF THE, OF THE PUBLIC. I JUST WANTED HER TO MAKE SURE SHE UNDERSTOOD THE MOTION. I THINK, I THINK SHE'S, SHE'S EXPLAINED THAT, BUT WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD MEMBERS AND THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE METHOD THAT WE'RE DOING HERE. I THINK SHE'LL HAVE TO DEAL WITH STAFF WITH WHAT HAS GONE ON HERE, BUT YES, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. HE'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THIS IS NOT THE, UH, REQUEST THAT SHE MADE. THIS IS AN ALTERNATE AND, UH, THIS IS WHAT IS BEFORE THE BOARD AND THIS IS HOW, WHAT WE'RE GONNA EITHER VOTE ON SINCE WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. I HOPE SO. OKAY. ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER, UH, DISCUSSION ON THIS BRAGMAN? BRAGMAN, PLEASE. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THE WAY THE MOTION WAS REWORDED. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT CHANGING IT, MOVING IT OVER ONE FOOT IS GOING TO CHANGE THE VIEW OF THE NEIGHBOR. UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY GONNA CHANGE VERY MUCH AT ALL, EXCEPT THAT IT BECOMES MORE OF A HARDSHIP FOR, UM, THE OWNER. SO I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE WAY THIS MOTION IS. ARE YOU SUGGESTING YOU'RE GONNA OFFER A, UH, UH, AMENDMENT TO THE, UH, MOTION YES. FOR THAT IN SUCH A FASHION? IN OTHER WORDS, YOU OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION TO BE RIGHT. SO THE AMENDMENT THAT I WOULD OFFER TO THE MOTION WOULD BE TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF A TWO FOOT VARIANCE, UM, TO ALLOW THE SHIP PROPERTY LINE MOTION TO, UH, SECOND ON THAT MOTION. VOTE ON IT. I'LL DO A SECOND. [01:25:01] ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT. THIS IS BEFORE THE BOARD ORIGINAL MOTION WAS READ TO ALLOW FOR ONE FOOT VARIANCE OF THE BY SIT BACK, AN ALTERNATE AMENDMENT IS OFFERED TO RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINAL REQUEST OF A TWO FOOT VARIANCE. THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT OF A, OF A, UH, TWO FOOT VARIANCE, PLEASE SAY, AYE. ALRIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY NAYS? NAY. ALL RIGHT, THEN I WON'T GO AHEAD AND CALL A VOTE ON THAT. MONICA, PLEASE. LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON THAT. MANANA. COULD, COULD YOU PLEASE REPEAT WHAT IS THAT WE'RE VOTING ON? NO, THE AMENDMENT, AMENDMENT FROM THE BOARD IS TO RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINAL REQUEST AND AS PER WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY RE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. AND, UH, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON, WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO INCLUDE THAT ALTERATION. WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY VOTING ON THE MO ORIGINAL MOTION. WE'RE JUST GONNA VOTE ON WHETHER WE'RE, WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE MOTION. OKAY? BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED NINE TO CHANGE THE MOTION. WE ONLY NEED SIX TO CHANGE THE MOTION, BUT WE WILL NEED NINE ON THE FINAL MO MOTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT PASSES OR NOT. DOES EVERYONE, DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND THAT? SO, MONICA, GO AHEAD AND TAKE ROLL. MS. BRAGMAN? YES, DR. ELLI? YES. MR. THIEL? NO. MS. CRUZ? NO. MR. ORIAN? NO. MR. BRITTON? YES. MR. RODRIGUEZ? NO. MR. NEFF? YES. MR. MANNA? NO. MS. FISHER? NO. AND MR. MARTINEZ? YES. THE VOTE WAS, UH, SIX TO TO FIVE. THE, THE, UH, MOTION FAILS, UH, FOR THE AMENDMENT. SO WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION MADE BY MR. MANNA FOR THIS V UH, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE. NO, I'M SORRY, I CLOSED THIS TO THE PUBLIC. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE ON THE MOTIONS. MR. MANNA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. RODRIGUEZ. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. TEO. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. LEY. I I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. ORIAN? YES. MR. BRITTON? NO. MR. NEFF? NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MS. FISHER? YES, I CONCUR. MR. MARTINEZ? NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. NOW, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, BECAUSE THE PREVAILING SIDE HAS AN OPTION OF MAKING A COUNTER MOTION, BEFORE I MAKE MAKE A RULING ON THIS, IS THERE ANYONE WILLING TO MAKE AN AN ALTERNATE OR A NEW MOTION? THE FIRST IS A MOTION TO RECONSIDER FROM THE PREVAILING SIDE. WE'RE GONNA TAKE A THERE AND WE ONLY NEED SIX FOR THAT, CORRECT? THAT'S JUST A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. IT IS THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND IT MUST BE FROM THE PREVAILING SIDE. AND THE PREVAILING SIDE IN THIS CASE IS, IS TO TURN DOWN THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. SO IF YOU VOTED NO, YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION HERE. F I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. RIGHT. MR. MR. NEFF, GO AHEAD. BUT FIRST IT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER. CORRECT? THAT HAS TO BE VOTED ON FIRST, RIGHT? SO HE'S MAKING A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. HE DOESN'T READ THAT. DO WE SECOND ON THAT? YES. ALRIGHT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT, TAKE [01:30:01] ROLL. ON THIS, UH, MOTION TO RECONSIDER MONICA MRNE. YES. MS. BRAGMAN? YES. MR. TEO? NO. DR. ELLI? YES. MS. CRUZ? NO. MR. ORIAN? NO. MR. BRITTON? YES. MR. RODRIGUEZ? NO. MR. MANNA? YES. MS. FISHER? NO. MR. MARTINEZ? YES. THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSES, UH, THEREFORE, UH, THE FAILING SIDE CAN MAKE A NEW MOTION FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE. CASE. UH, I DIDN'T WRITE DOWN WHO VOTED AGAINST IT. SO I GUESS ANYONE WHO VOTED NO IN THE ORIGINAL VOTE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO OFFERING NEW, UH, VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE APPLICANT OFFERING THAT, IF I MAY. ALRIGHT, MR. GO AHEAD. REGARDING A P B O A 1 9 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 3, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A ONE FOOT 11 VARIANCE FROM THE THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A SHED TO BE 13 INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 54 10 KING RICHARD, APPLICANT BEING MARINA VERAN. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP VIEWS THE PREVIOUS, UH, SIX FINDINGS ON THIS ONE, SINCE THEY'RE BASICALLY THE SAME LANGUAGE. I I I BELIEVE I'M GONNA ALLOW YOU TO DO THAT. JUST GET, MAKE SURE, JUST GET THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CORRECTIONS. WELL, THE FINDINGS ARE WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT'S THE SAME AS THE MOTION BEING MADE THAT WAS MADE BY MR. MANNA. OKAY. SO I'M GONNA SAY STILL HAVE TO END YOUR MOTION. END OF MOTION. SECOND. RIGHT. WE, WE HAVE A NEW MOTION. AND A SECOND, LET ME TRY TO GET THIS TO EVERYONE'S UNDERSTANDING. HE'S OFFERING A ONE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE TO THE THREE FOOT REGULAR SIDE SETBACK FOR EXTERIOR OR, UM, AUXILIARY STRUCTURE AND THEREFORE GRANTING IT TO BE WITHIN 13 INCHES OF THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. UH, WOULD MEAN IN THIS CASE IF ALL INFORMATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT WAY THAT SHE MIGHT POSSIBLY MEET, MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. SO THAT'S THE VOTE WE'RE GONNA BE TAKING HERE IF WE'D LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THIS THAT WE CAN DO. SO DOES ANYONE WANT TO WANT TO START A DISCUSSION ON THAT? I SAID MOST OF WHAT I WANTED TO SAY AND I APPRECIATE THAT. UM, BUT I AGREE WITH MS. BRADMAN'S COMMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, MOVING THIS THING 11 INCHES FURTHER AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IS NOT GOING TO SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE ANYTHING THAT EXISTS BETWEEN THESE TWO PROPERTIES. THERE STILL WILL BE A SHED THERE THAT WILL BE SEEN FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. THERE STILL WILL BE A DRAINAGE ISSUE THAT HAS TO BE SOLVED BY KEEPING THE DRAINAGE ON THE PROPERTY BY MEANS OF GUTTERS. UM, BUT THE HARDSHIP TO MOVE THAT STRUCTURE 11 INCHES IS SIGNIFICANT. UM, AND IT'S SEEN BY ALL OF US THAT THERE ARE STRUCTURES THAT ARE WITHIN THREE FEET ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE. SO TO IMPOSE THAT HARDSHIP ONTO THIS APPLICANT WHEN THEY HIRED CONTRACTORS TO DO THINGS AND TRIED TO FOLLOW CODES SEEMS, UH, SIGNIFICANT TO ME. AND MOVING THAT 11 INCHES DOESN'T SEEM TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING IN MY MIND. UH, SO IT SEEMS TO BE A MUCH BETTER OUTCOME TO PROVIDE THIS VARIANCE OPPORTUNITY IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE APPLICANT CAN PROVE THAT THIS IS 13 INCHES FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND [01:35:01] MOVE ON AND MAKE GOOD FRIENDS OF NEIGHBORS AFTER ALL OF THIS IS DONE. HOPEFULLY. SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE REASON I WENT BACK AND MADE THIS MOTION THE WAY I DID. OKAY. UM, AND, UH, I THINK MS. RAGMAN, YOU MADE THE SECOND YES. AND I'M JUST GONNA CONCUR WITH, UM, MR. NEFF. WELL SAID. YOU HAVE ANYONE ELSE WANNA ORIAN MR. ORIAN? UH, I'M STILL IN OPPOSITION TO THIS. I STILL THINK THE SHED IS TOO BIG. THE ROOF PITCH IS TOO GREAT. IT STILL PUSHES WATER GUTTER OR NOT ONTO THE NEIGHBORS AND, AND I CAN'T SEE HOW ALLOWING A, A SUCH A LARGE OBJECT TO BE AS CLOSE TO ANOTHER OBJECT AND OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE IS IN THE GENERAL WELFARE AND SAFETY OF, OF THIS COMMUNITY. 'CAUSE IT'S A FIRE HAZARD, HARDY PLANK OR NOT. I ALSO THINK THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEING USED AS A SO FOR A PURPOSE OF THE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING AND IT'S BEING USED FOR AN OUTSIDE PURPOSE, UH, IT, IT JUST DOESN'T DO IT FOR ME. I'M NOT IN SUPPORT VERY WELL. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? RODRIGUEZ? MR. RODRIGUEZ? AGAIN, UM, I CAN APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT, UH, THE TREE ORDINANCES, UM, RESPECTED AND QUITE OBSCURE FROM THE, FROM PUBLIC VIEW, BUT NOT FROM THE NEIGHBOR. SO I CANNOT SUPPORT IT. ALRIGHT. HENRY LE I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU JUST SAID. WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, IS THAT, THAT YOU WILL NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION BECAUSE IT, YOU FEEL IT DOES NOT MEET THE SPIRIT OF WHAT IS REQUIRED UNDER CODE, RIGHT? UM, THE, THE STRUCTURE AGAIN, LIKE MR. OREN SAID, I MEAN, OR I THINK IT WAS YES, HE WAS. YES. UH, IT IS JUST TOO BIG. OKAY. VERY GOOD. DOES ANYONE ELSE WANNA HAVE AN INPUT ON THIS? THAT BEING THE CASE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE. MONICA. MR. NEFF, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN? YES, I CONCUR. MR. TEO? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. DR. ELLI. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. ORIAN? NO. MR. BRITTON? YES. MR. RODRIGUEZ? NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. MANO. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. FISHER. NO. AND MR. MARTINEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. HOWEVER, THE MOTION FAILS, UH, THE VARIANCE IS NOT GRANTED. YOU'LL NEED TO GET WITH THE, UH, THE, UH, CITY STAFF TO WORK OUT HOW YOU'RE GONNA GO ABOUT DEALING WITH THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. THAT WAS OUR FINAL CASE FOR TODAY. UH, WE'RE NOW ENTERING INTO, [3. 19-6157 Discussion and Resolution adopting revisions to the Board of Adjustment Rules and Procedures.] UH, UH, DISCUSSION, DISCUSSION OF, UH, THE RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED AND REVISIONS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, RULES AND PROCEDURES. I BELIEVE, UH, KATT, YOU'RE GONNA TAKE CONTROL OF THIS ON THAT. ALRIGHT, WELL TAKE IT AWAY. SO, UM, AS A FOLLOW UP TO OUR BRIEFING IN THE WORK SESSION, I WENT AHEAD AND, UM, MADE THE EDITS THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED. AND SO I WANNA PUT THOSE UP ON THE SCREEN. UM, SO UNDER SECTION C OFFICERS ADDED A COUPLE OF THINGS RELATED TO, UM, ADDING THE PRO TEM, ADDING THE WORD REGULAR. SO IT NOW READS, THE BOARD SHALL ELECT A CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND PRO TEM FROM ITS REGULAR MEMBERSHIP. BY MAJORITY VOTE NO LATER THAN JANUARY. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE CITY COUNCIL ELECTION, THE CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND PRO TEM WILL SERVE AS A FOREIGN INDIVIDUAL TERM OF UP TO TWO YEARS. THAT SHOULD ADDRESS THE FIRST ISSUE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. ACTUALLY TWO THINGS ABOUT WHEN THE ELECTIONS OCCUR, MAKING SURE THAT WE ADD THE PRO TEM, MAKING SURE THAT IT'S, UH, SELECTION FROM THE REGULAR MEMBERSHIP, NOT THE ALTERNATE MEMBERS. AND ALLOWING, HAVING THE ALLOWANCE THAT YOU COULD DO THEM ANNUALLY. THE CHAIR'S DISCRETION. UM, BUT AT LEAST NO MORE THAN TWO YEARS. NOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE VOTING ON THIS OR ARE WE SUPPOSED TO JUST ACKNOWLEDGE THIS? I'M, I'M GONNA EXPLAIN TO YOU ALL OF THE EDITS FROM THE WORK SESSION AT THE END WILL VOTE ON IT AS A RESOLUTION. THANK YOU. NEXT AREA THAT WE TALKED ABOUT FOR CLARIFICATION WOULD BE, I'M NOT GONNA POINT OUT THE MINOR GRAMMATICAL, UH, THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. I'M JUST GONNA GO FOCUS ON THE SUB SUBSTANTIVE, UH, PORTIONS. SO THE NEXT ONE HAD TO DO WITH DR. TERRELL'S. HERE WE GO. ALRIGHT. SO UNDER TIME LIMITATION FOR SPEAKERS, WE, UM, WE'RE UNDER THE SECTION NUMBER TWO FOR APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE PRESENTATION. AT THE END OF THAT, I ADDED THAT THE CHAIR AT THEIR DISCRETION [01:40:01] MAY ALLOW ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS AND SHALL APPLY THIS FAIRLY TO ALL SPEAKERS. SO THAT WAY IF WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, JUST LIKE WE HAD TODAY, UM, THAT IT'S UP TO YOU TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS RATHER THAN JUST LIMITING IT TO JUST ONE SPEAKER PRESENTING THE CASE. AND THEN, UH, WE STILL HAVE THAT SECTION WHERE IT SAYS THE CHAIR AT THEIR DISCRETION MAY ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL TIME FOR ANY SPEAKER AND SHALL APPLY THIS FAIRLY TO ALL SPEAKERS. AND LASTLY WAS THE, THE VERY LAST SECTION, AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES AND PROCEDURES AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST SHALL REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL. THAT WAS IT. NEED A MOTION, UH, UM, APPROVING THE RESOLUTION THAT ADOPTS, ADOPTS THESE, UH, CHANGES TO THE RULES AND PROCEDURES. I'D, I'D LIKE TO GIVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION THAT ADOPTS DID I IT ADOPTS THESE SECOND. ALRIGHT. YOU WANT, YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PROCEDURES AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. YES. THANK YOU. THAT'S MY MOTION ALL. DO I HEAR, DO I HEAR A SECOND ON THAT? SECOND? WELL, I JUST NEED ONE. WHO'S GONNA TAKE CREDIT FOR THIS OR NO? I THOUGHT MS. BRAGMAN MADE THE MOTION. WHO MADE A SECOND? NO, I, OH, IS THAT ALL RIGHT? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I GUESS WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THAT. WANNA HAVE A DISCUSSION? NO, YOU CAN JUST DO VOICE VOTE. IF THERE'S ANY NOS, THEN WE CAN TAKE A, A ROLL CALL VOTE. SO THE, SO THE, SO THE MOTION PASSES, THE RESOLUTIONS ARE ACCEPTED AS, UH, ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION FOR THAT? NEXT IS [4. 19-6154 Consideration and approval of the August 5, 2019 Board of Adjustment Minutes] APPROVAL OF MINUTES. AND WE DO HAVE THREE PEOPLE SIGNING IN TO SPEAK ON THE, ON THIS ITEM. ON THE, OKAY. UM, WE HAVE PEOPLE TO SPEAK ON THE MINUTES, CORRECT. ALRIGHT. AS, UH, WELL THE FIRST ONE HAVE TO BE READ THEN IF THAT'S THE CASE. IS THAT NOT CORRECT? NO, THE MINUTES DON'T HAVE TO BE READ. THEY'RE ALREADY ATTACHED FOR, UM, CONSIDERATION. UH, SO WE CAN JUST CALL THE THREE PEOPLE UP. EACH HAS THREE MINUTES. THAT'S BRING FORWARD THE FIRST, UH, SPEAKER, FIRST PERSON I HAVE IS RICK SHELL. HELLO EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS RICK SHELL. I'M FOUR 30 EAST MISTLETOE AVENUE 7 8 2 1 2. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A LITTLE UNUSUAL, BUT, UH, I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK THE BOARD TO FIX A MISTAKE THAT OCCURRED, UM, TWO WEEKS AGO. CITY STAFF MADE MISTAKES IN PRESENTING INFORMATION TO THE BOARD, AND THE BOARD DECIDED BASED ON THEIR PRESENTATION, IF I CAN GET THIS PUT UP ONTO THE SCREEN, PLEASE. ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER SAY THAT A MOTION THAT HAS RECEIVED A VOTE CAN BE VOTED ON AGAIN, PROVIDED SOMEONE FROM THE PREVAILING SIDE MAKE A NEW MOTION TO DO SO. I'M ASKING YOU TO DO THIS TODAY. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AT 2 25 EAST MISTO WAS TO PULL OR CANCEL THE ISSUED PERMIT BECAUSE IT FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE U D C. THIS IS THE GRAPHIC CITY STAFF PROVIDED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. YOU CAN SEE THAT SIX PEOPLE ARE IN FAVOR, 15 ARE IN OPPOSITION. HOWEVER, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT ONE 11 HOME, WHICH IS RIGHT THERE, THAT'S THE APPLICANT, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THE APPLICANT BE, CAN BE OPPOSED TO HIS OWN CASE. T H C A'S STATEMENT CLEARLY SAID, WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL, YET T H C A IS MARKED IN OPPOSITION. KNOWING THIS, I'VE CORRECTED THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THE NOTIFICATION PLAN TO CORRECTLY READ SIX ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPEAL OF THE PERMIT. 15 ARE IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL AND BOTH TOBIN HILL AND BEACON HILL COMMUNITY GROUPS SUPPORT THE APPEAL REVOKING THIS PERMIT. SECONDLY, ONE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS SAID IN THE DELIBERATION PHASE THAT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS NOT THE PLACE TO ARGUE U D C CHANGES. I AGREE. SECTION 35 3 71, SECTION B SIX IN THE U D C CLEARLY STATES THAT ROOF PITCH WINDOW PROPORTIONS INCITING MUST BE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENTS. THEY ARE NOT. CITY STAFF ARGUED THAT IT'S IDENTICAL. THE WORD IDENTICAL CAN MEAN SIMILAR. ONE OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS EVEN SAID THEY WERE LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION ONLINE AND IT SAID SIMILAR. AND IT DOES, BUT YOU CAN'T CHOOSE TO LEAVE PART OF THE DEFINITION OUT. AND IT SAYS QUOTE SIMILAR IN EVERY WAY. EXACTLY ALIKE END QUOTE. THIS IS NOT WHAT'S BEING BUILT. [01:45:01] I AGREE WITH THE BOARD MEMBER THAT SAID WE SHOULDN'T BE USING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO MAKE U D C CHANGES. I UNDERSTAND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CONFUSION ON VOTING WHEN THE CITY PRESENTED INCORRECT INFORMATION TO START 30 SECONDS. THEREFORE, I ASK THAT YOU MAKE A MOTION FOR A RE-VOTE AND VOTE TO SUPPORT THE APPEAL TO REVOKE THE PERMIT. IT CAN BE REISSUED WHEN THE CRITERIA OF THE U D C OR MET. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME. NEXT PERSON I HAVE IS ANISA SHELL. I HAVE A QUESTION. ARE WE ARE REQUIRED TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE THOSE SPEAKERS? NOT SO MUCH REQUIRED. IS IT, IS IS IT ALLOWED? I, I WOULD SAY FOR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, BUT THIS ISN'T A DISCUSSION ITEM, SO SO THAT LEAVES THAT CLOSED. VERY GOOD. I THAT'S A GOOD CLARIFICATION. ALRIGHT, NEXT SPEAKER. I'M ANISA SHELL. I LIVE AT FOUR 30 EAST MISTLETOE AVENUE. UH, 7 8 2 1 2 IN TOBIN HILL. I'M A BOARD MEMBER OF THE TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AND A MEMBER OF THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION. UM, I CAME TWO WEEKS AGO WITH THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT ON THE SAME CASE, UM, ABOUT THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT BEING BUILT ON 2 25 EAST MISSILE TOE. UM, THERE ARE PHOTOS UP IN CASE YOU DON'T REMEMBER. UM, THIS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS NOT IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR IN ANY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS REQUIRED BY THE U D C. AND THE MOTION MADE WAS VERY CONFUSING, ESPECIALLY WHEN COUPLED WITH THE MAP THAT WAS PRESENTED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES THERE, THERE WAS A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE WITH NOWCAST SA WHERE UM, SOME OF YOU STATED THAT YOU WERE CONFUSED BY THE MOTION. AND SO THE REASON WE'RE HERE TODAY IS TO ASK YOU TO PLEASE REVIEW THIS CASE AGAIN AND MAKE A MOTION TODAY TO TAKE A RE VOTE. THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL AGAINST THIS PERMIT. THE APPLICANT LIVES BEHIND THIS HOUSE. THE APPLICANT IS NOT THE ONE THAT FILED THE PERMIT FOR THIS A D U. THIS IS THE VIEW FROM THE APPLICANT'S BACKYARD. THANK YOU. OKAY, UH, NEXT, NEXT WITNESS. NEXT PERSON I HAVE IS PAULA STARNES. AFTERNOON. I'M PAULA STARNES. I LIVE AT TWO 19 EAST MAGNOLIA AND I WAS HERE TWO WEEKS AGO ON SEPTEMBER OR AUGUST THE FIFTH TO ALSO SUPPORT THE APPEAL OF THE PERMITS THAT WERE ISSUED FOR THIS ACCESSORY DWELLING. AND EVERYTHING REALLY HAS BEEN SAID. I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION WHEN THE MOTION WAS MADE AND THERE WERE SEVERAL BOARD MEMBERS THAT MADE COMMENTS AFTERWARDS THAT THEY WERE CONFUSED. AND WHAT I WOULD ASK IS THAT Y'ALL RECONSIDER AND GO BACK AND LOOK AT THIS ISSUE AGAIN AND TAKE A VOTE AND SEE IF MAYBE IT WOULD CHANGE. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT. UM, THAT'S SOME INFORMATION THAT YOU CAN HAVE THAT, UH, WE'LL BE DEALING WITH AND I WILL MAKE, BE DISCUSSING THIS A LITTLE BIT LATER. BUT FIRST WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF A LITTLE BUSINESS BEFORE WE CAN MAKE INCOME. ALRIGHT. I'LL BE EXPLAINING A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I HAVE HAD TO REVIEW THE RULES AND, BUT BEFORE WE CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHO'S GONNA PREVAILING SIDE, WE HAVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. WITHOUT THAT, WE WILL NOT DETERMINE WHO THE PREVAILING SIDE IS. ALRIGHT. SO HAVE YOU, EVERYONE REME READ THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING AND DID YOU AGREE WITH HOW THE MINUTES WERE WORDED IN REGARD TO WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED? I HAD A COUPLE COMMENTS. ALRIGHT. UM, AND THEY WERE ON THE CASE THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED OR WAS JUST DISCUSSED. ONE OF 'EM SEEMS TO JUST BE DUPLICATION OF WORDS WHEN IT SAYS SOMETHING LIKE ACCESSORY DWELLING AND ACCESSORY DWELLING, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T HAVE THEM IN FRONT OF ME ANYMORE, BUT I CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT. UNDER ITEM FIVE SECOND LINE. UM, BUILDING PERMIT FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. THAT'S PROBABLY THE LANGUAGE YOU'RE REFERRING TO. I THINK IT NEEDS THE DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. OKAY. SOMETHING ABOUT IT WAS CONFUSING. SO WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THAT WORDING. HOW DO YOU RECOMMEND THAT SHOULD BE WORDED? WE NEED TO ADD THE WORD STRUCTURE, UM, WHERE IT SAYS TO ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. ALRIGHT. THAT THE ONLY CHANGE THAT YOU SEE NEED NEEDS TO BE MADE. I HAVE ONE MORE. [01:50:01] OKAY. I MAY LOOK OVER YOUR SHOULDER 'CAUSE I CLOSED MY COMPUTER. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANNA SAY? THANK YOU. I HAD ALSO NOTICED THE MAP ISSUES KIND OF AT THE END OF THE BOARD CASE. AND IN THIS IT SAYS, STAFF STATED 31 NOTICES WERE MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. AFTER A MAP CORRECTION NOTED BY STAFF SIX RETURNED IN OPPOSITION. WHAT, WHAT WAS THE MAP? CORRECTION, BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER A MAP CORRECTION OCCURRING DURING THE MEETING AT ALL. IT WAS JUST THE MAP WAS UP THERE. WE DIDN'T PHYSICALLY CORRECT THE MAP. WHAT WE DID WAS WE DISCUSSED IT. SO WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE, AT THE, UM, BY THE APPLICANT'S RELATED TO THE, THE CHECKS AND THE EXES, THERE WAS A QUESTION BY THE BOARD. AND SO WE DID NOTICE THAT THEY, WE SAID THAT THEY WERE FLIPPED. SO IF YOU READ THE, THE STATEMENTS, WHAT THE STATEMENTS HAD SAID WAS THAT I AM IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL OPPOSING THE PERMIT. AND SO THE STAFF THOUGHT THAT IT WAS OPPOSITION. UH, SO IT, WE DID NOTICE THAT IT WAS FLIPPED AND SO WE CORRECTED THAT FOR THE MINUTES. SO THE MINUTES ACCURATELY REFLECT HOW IT SHOULD HAVE APPEARED ON THE MAP. SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MINUTES ACCURATELY REFLECTED THE OPPOSITION AND THE SUPPORT FOR THE APPEAL IN, IN OTHER WORDS, MANY OF US THAT WERE WITNESS TO THIS WHOLE MEETING ACKNOWLEDGED THE FACT THAT IT MADE, IT WASN'T LOGICAL FOR THE APPLICANT TO BE, UH, AGAINST A PARTICULAR MOTION, UH, BECAUSE IT WAS HIS APPLICANT. UH, AND WE REVERSED THAT IN OUR, THE IDEA WAS THE NUMBERS WERE, THE ACTUAL MARKS WERE NOT MADE IN OUR PRESENCE. BUT THE ISSUE WAS EVERYTHING WAS FLIPPED OVER AND WE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT FACT AS A BOARD. AND IN FACT, I THINK WE DID THAT PRETTY CLEARLY. BUT THE, THE, THE REALITY WAS IS THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE RIGHT. AND AS MUCH THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS PRESENTED, BUT THAT WAS WHAT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED. AND I, I NOTICED THE ERROR, BUT I DIDN'T RECALL IT ACTUALLY BEING DISCUSSED AND CORRECTED IN THE MEETING. AND I MAY HAVE JUST MISSED THAT, BUT IN MY OWN RECOLLECTION, THAT HADN'T HAPPENED. SO I WAS QUESTIONING AFTER A MAP CORRECTION. WELL, THAT WHAT IT WAS, WAS THAT EVERYONE REALIZED THAT IT HAD TO BE THAT WAY, THAT IT WAS AN ERROR IN PRESENTATION BECAUSE WHY WOULD THE APPLICANT BE AGAINST HIS OWN MOTION? AND I BELIEVE IT WAS THE CHAIR YOU HAD ACTUALLY BROUGHT IT UP. YES. USING THE SAME WORDS. WELL, HE CAN'T BE OPPOSED TO HIS OWN APPEAL. RIGHT, EXACTLY. AND SO, UH, BUT REGARDLESS, UH, THESE ARE KEY POINTS. THAT PARTICULAR THING I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO ALTER. BUT THAT OTHER POINT I BELIEVE IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT, IT DEFINES WHAT WE DISCUSSED. UM, WE'RE STILL THE, THE POINT IS, IS THAT NOW THAT WE'VE GOT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ANY OTHER CASE OR ANYTHING WITHIN THE MINUTES TO BE DISCUSSED? ALRIGHT, BECAUSE THIS IS A CONTROVERSIAL ONE, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR A ROLL VAULT ROLL CALL VOTE ON THESE MINUTES BECAUSE I CANNOT CONTINUE UNTIL WE HAVE A DETERMINATION ON THIS, ON THESE MINUTES. SO MONICA, WILL YOU PLEASE TAKE A, A VOTE ON ACCEPTING THE MINUTES AS PROVIDED. YOU CAN STILL DO A VOICE VOTE. IF THERE'S A NO, THEN WE'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL ALL. SO IT WOULD BE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED MOTION. THE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES WITH THE CORRECTIONS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED SAY NAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THE MINUTES ARE ACCEPTED AS, AS AS CORRECTED. NOW, AS, AS THE, THE, UH, CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE, I'M ENTITLED TO BRING UP SOME VALID POINTS. UH, THESE DO INCLUDE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT THEY, THAT THE SPEAKERS, BUT I HAD RECEIVED A REQUEST BY. UM, NOW THAT WE'VE DETERMINED WHO'S ON, WHO WAS ON THE PREVAILING SIDE, ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS ON THE PREVAILING SIDE IS RE REQUESTED THAT WE REVISIT, UM, I FORGOT THE CASE NUMBER ONCE. OKAY. RIGHT. IT'S D 19, UH, DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 84. CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. WE REVISIT THIS AND WE PLACE ON THE AGENDA A RE A VOTE FOR CONSIDERATION BECAUSE UNDER THE RULES WE CANNOT DISCUSS ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ON, ON, ON THE AGENDA. IT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. THEREFORE, I'M GONNA PLACE THE RE VOTE FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE SEPTEMBER 16TH MEETING, WHICH IS OUR NEXT MEETING, CORRECT. FOR RECONSIDERATION OF, OF, UH, OUR POSITION ON THIS OR REVISIT THE CASE. AND AT THAT TIME, I'M ALSO GONNA ADVISE YOU ANY DISCUSSION THAT'S IN THE PAST IS NOT IMPORTANT ANYMORE. BUT FROM, BECAUSE I'M PLACING THIS ON THE AGENDA NOW, THERE SHOULD BE NO CONTACT, NO DISCUSSION [01:55:01] BETWEEN ANYONE ON THIS CASE. OTHERWISE I WILL DEMAND THAT YOU RECUSE YOURSELF. SO WE HAVE TO DO IT FROM THIS POSITION BECAUSE THESE ARE THE RULES. SO I'M PLACING ON THE AGENDA. I DON'T NEED YOUR SUPPORT TO DO THAT. OKAY. BUT I'M LETTING YOU KNOW THAT I AM DOING THIS AND BY DOING SO, IT'S NOW MOMS THE WORD. OKAY. JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. SO AT THE NEXT AGENDA, IT WOULD BE A MOTION TO, UH, AMEND OR, OR RESCIND, NOT NECESSARILY RECONSIDER IT TO BE A THREE STEP PROCESS. TODAY IS THE SUGGESTING FOR NEXT MEETING. AND THEN NEXT MEETING WOULD BE THAT MOTION. AND THEN THE THIRD MEETING TO ACTUALLY, YEAH, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE, THE RULES OF THE ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDERS AND PROCEDURES FOR THIS MEETING, FOR THIS BOARD. SO DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND THAT I'VE, I'VE GONE AHEAD AND PLACED THIS ON THE AGENDA. RIGHT? SO JUST TO CLARIFY, SEPTEMBER 16TH IS WHEN WE WOULD HAVE THE MOTION TO EITHER AMEND OR RESCIND THE VOTE. IF THAT PASSES WITH A VOTE OF SIX, THEN STAFF WILL BRING FORWARD THE CASE. AGAIN, WE HAVE TO POST IT, WE HAVE TO POST IT, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES. SO THAT CASE WOULDN'T BE HEARD BY, BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UNTIL, I THINK IT'S OCTOBER 16TH. AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THEN, AT THAT OCTOBER 16TH MEETING, WE WOULD HEAR THE ENTIRE CASE OVER AGAIN. THANK YOU. THAT'S CORRECT. THE ENTIRE CASE. OKAY. I I HAVE A QUESTION. SO, UM, WITH THESE RULES THAT, THAT JUST GOT CHANGED BY THE STATE LEGISLATOR OF THINGS THAT HAPPENED AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, HOW DOES THAT AFFECT WHAT WE'RE DOING? SO A COUPLE OF THINGS. IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE APPEAL BECAUSE THIS IS A PROCEDURAL ISSUE FROM THE BOARD THAT THE BOARD IS ASKING FOR IT TO COME BACK. UM, HOWEVER, THE BUILDING MATERIALS BOARD WILL BE IMPACTED. SO A SITING COULD NOT BE, UM, CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD RELATED TO THIS APPEAL. TEAL TEAL, UM, WITH OUR VOTE TWO WEEKS AGO, UM, IT'S, I'VE SEEN THAT THE, UH, THE NON APPLICANT, THE HOMEOWNER I GUESS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS CONTINUED WITH THEIR CONSTRUCTION, UH, AS RIGHTFULLY SO. UM, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT OCTOBER, THERE'D PROBABLY BE A SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION. UH, JUST SOMETHING TO BRING TO MIND. I HAVE ONE MORE POINT. SO I RECALL FROM THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT THAT THE ONLY THING A, A BORDER COMMISSION CAN DO OUTSIDE OF THE AGENDA IS TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADD SOMETHING TO AN AGENDA. CAN WE JUST MAKE A MOTION NOW TO, TO AND, AND BYPASS GOING TO SEPTEMBER TO DISCUSS ADDING IT AND WHAT NO, NO, SORRY. THANKS. RULES RATHER CAREFULLY. AND I'M TRYING TO NOT CREATE A LEGAL SITUATION THAT WOULD PUT EVERYBODY IN LEGAL JEOPARDY. AND THAT'S MY POSITION AND I'M GONNA STICK TO IT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. BECAUSE IF WE DON'T DO THIS, WE'RE GONNA ALIENATE SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE SOMEHOW. AND, UH, BY FOLLOWING THE RULES, THEN WE ARE MEETING THE CRITERIA. WE DO HAVE THE OPTION TO REVISIT A CASE ON THE DAY IT'S POSTED. HOWEVER, SINCE THAT WASN'T THE CASE IN THIS SITUATION, IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA. WE CAN'T EVEN DISCUSS IT. OKAY. SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT THAT'S GOING ON. IS THERE ANY OTHER INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO BE DISCUSSING? DIRECTOR'S REPORT? DIRECTOR'S REPORT? [Director's Report : Status of BOA Appointments / Reappointments] SO I, UH, FOR THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, WE HAD THE STATUS OF B O A APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS. UM, THEY'RE TRICKLING IN LITTLE BY LITTLE. JUST A REMINDER, IF YOU WANT IT TO BE RE AND YOU HAVEN'T BEEN REAPPOINTED YET, MAKE SURE TO REACH OUT TO YOUR COUNSEL OFFICE SO THAT WAY THEY CAN GET YOU SCHEDULED ON, UM, A FUTURE COUNSEL AGENDA TO BE REAPPOINTED. UM, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE TO DO YOUR OATH OF OFFICE AGAIN. AND THEN AS NEW APPOINTMENTS COME IN, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW SO THAT WAY WE CAN GET THEM, UM, WE'LL SCHEDULE AN ORIENTATION FOR NEW APPOINTEES. WE KNOW IF THE GOVERNANCE BOARD HAS COME UP WITH THE ALTERNATES. WE, UM, WE DID HAVE THE ALTERNATES. UH, WE HAVE ABOUT SEVEN APPLICANTS, UH, THAT HAVE APPLIED FOR THE ALTERNATE POSITIONS. WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO, UH, GIVE US, UH, A DATE. UH, THE MAYOR'S OFFICE SETS THE GOVERNANCE MEETINGS. UH, SO WE'RE JUST WAITING. UH, THERE'S A QUEUE OF ITEMS OBVIOUSLY, UH, BUT WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR THEM TO SCHEDULE US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. SO IT, SO IT HASN'T BEEN TAKEN BEFORE CITY COUNCIL YET? THAT'S CORRECT. IT HAS NOT BEEN, BEEN CONSIDERED. ALRIGHT. PLANNING COMMISSION IS ANOTHER ONE THAT WE ALSO HAVE TO BE HEARD BY GOVERNANCE AS WELL. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE NEED TO BE DISCUSSING? ANY, ANYONE? ALL RIGHT. PLEASE REMEMBER THIS BECAUSE THIS IS PART OF THE RULES. IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANTED TO BRING UP INTO THE AGENDA, YOU HAVE TO BRING THAT TO MY ATTENTION, UH, PRIOR TO THE, THE AGENDA BEING SET, UH, IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE PLACED THERE. AND, UH, NOW, UH, THIS PRETTY MUCH CONCLUDES TODAY'S SESSION. I THINK WE SPENT A LITTLE MORE TIME THAN I ANTICIPATED. BUT ANYWAY, THANK [02:00:01] YOU VERY MUCH AND HAVE A GOOD DAY. MEETINGS A, UH, ADJOURNED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.