Good morning.

I would like to call the Monday, September 8th, Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting to order.

We will begin with roll calls.

Cadis Horris is absent.

Mayor Agens is absent.

Jose Alvarez.

Present.

Jamie Romero Diaz is absent.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Present.

Jason Richards.

Present.

And Todd James.

Present.

At this time, would the board make a motion to adopt the minutes from the August 4th meeting?

So move.

Second.

We have a motion and a second to adopt last month's meeting minutes.

Go ahead and vote your screens.

And that motion is passed.

Please note that the board will recess at approximately 1 p.m.

if the meeting has not already been adjourned and will reconvene at approximately 1 30 p.m.

As a reminder, applicants, as a reminder to applicants, action that the board takes today will be released in the form of a disposition notice by September 18th and sent via email and mail to applicants as well as posted on the one-stop app for other interested parties.

Request that the board votes to approve must show compliance with any noted provisos before the case is finalized and granted final approval.

Four items on today's agenda have been withdrawn.

Item number three, BZA docket 064 25 for the property at 6116 Annunciation Street and 324 Webster Street.

Item 6, DZA Docket 06725 for the property at 2619 Bank Street.

Item 11 BZA Docket 07325 or the property at 2213 St.

Bernard Avenue.

And item number 12, BZA Docket 07425 for the property at 2432 Chestnut Street and 1329 2nd Street.

The following procedure shall be observed during a hearing.

Each speaker shall give their name and address prior to speaking on a proposal.

The presentation shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes to each applicant or representative speaker, but in no event shall the cumulative presentation total by applicants or their representatives exceed 10 minutes.

Um cumulative maximum of three minutes.

Uh followed, including recognition of speakers, relevance of argument, and absolute prohibition of applause or demonstration.

Excuse me.

The next item is BZA Docket 03225 for the properties located at 849 to 853 Odeon Street.

The site currently consists of two lots, one with one structure each.

For the purposes of this report, structure A refers to the structure on the 849 Odeon property or proposed lot 16A, and structure B refers to the structure on 853 Odeon property or proposed lot 15A.

The applicant proposes to resubdivide the lots to correct the current position of the interior connecting lot line, which bisects a portion of structure B.

The requested variances for proposed lot 16A are from Article 13, Section 13.3.1, Table 13-2, lot area and lot width, and the requested variances for proposed lot 15A are also from Article 13, Section 13.3.8.1, Table 13-2, lot area and lot width.

Staff believes that the request does satisfy the nine criteria as they pertain to the requested variants.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of this requested variance subject to one proviso.

Okay.

Is the applicant present for BZA docket number 032-25?

All right, please leave the name and name and address, and you have three minutes.

Uh Jerome Roy, uh 849, 851, ODIN Street.

No one else yet.

Um, you gave your address if you have any comments.

Oh, I don't have any comments.

Sorry, thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in support of this request?

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

Seeing in here and none.

Uh, any questions from the board?

And assuming you had a chance to review it, understand what's being requested.

All right, thank you.

What's the pleasure of the board?

The motion is in order.

Proceed.

Okay, regarding Docket BZA 032-25.

I move to approve the requested waiver waivers of Article 13, Section 13.3.8.1, uh, table 13 for 13-2 for lot area and lot width, and article 13, section 13.3.8.1, table 13-2 for lot area and lot width for both the proposed lots 15A and 16A, excepting the staff's report that all nine criteria have been met, subject to one proviso.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion and a second to accept the staff's report for BZA docket number 032-25, uh, granting the requested waivers uh for the proposed lots 15a and 16a of Articles 13, section 13.3.1, table 13-2 for lot area, and article 13, section 13.3.8.1, table 13-2 for lot width.

And that's for both items.

Uh understand that the nine criteria have been met and moved for the approval with the one-noted proviso of screens.

And that motion is passed.

Thank you.

Next item.

The next item is BZA Docket 054-25.

BZA Docket 054-25 concerns an existing residential property located at 509 Exposition Boulevard in an H U RD2, historic urban two-family residential district.

The applicant requests variances from the provisions of Article 11, Section 11.3.a.1, table 11-2A, and Article 11, Section 11.3.a.2 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the renovation of a single family dwelling, resulting in an insufficient front yard setback and an insufficient front yard bill two line after the fact.

The Department of Safety and Permits has determined that a new construction permit may be required of the applicant to move forward with work on their property.

Staff requires more time to discuss with legal how this affects the variances at hand, given they are connected to the original structural renovation permit.

Therefore, staff recommends a 30-day deferral of the requested variance.

Yes, good morning, board.

Uh Zach Smith here, 1000 South Norman C Francis.

Um have a couple people that are I think are going to want to speak today, both both clients for the ownership, and I think some some neighbors.

We had a 30-day deferral last month, and now we're asking for another 30-day deferral.

I I think it's something that that neighbors and our applicant can agree on that everybody is ready for this thing to move on.

And we've had the same sort of excuse.

We've had the same sort of statement where this is effectively a setback issue.

And fundamentally gets down to and nobody in the in in CPC BZA is causing this.

This is other parts of government.

It's it's to the point where it is costing real danger, real damage, real hardship, real dollars of damage to the applicants.

And again, I think there's a lot of discrepancies and a lot of disagreements between between parties, but everybody can agree.

People are just kind of getting tired of coming to this group waiting for their ability to be heard.

And we understand if you guys can't hear this today, because there is no recommendation, there is no staff report in front of you, but respectfully it's getting to a point.

It's it's it's beyond the point that is reasonable because you know, just mortgages and things like that is costing the owner over 10,000 a month to basically be told, well, you know, people are working on a report.

Um, and so we would love to hear it today.

I again I'm putting words in some neighbors' mouths.

They would love to hear it today.

It might be impossible for that to happen, but I would hope that there can be some strong words from this board to all parties, especially the ones that are not in this room, to please for the love of God give us a report so that we can hear this thing and everybody can move on.

Thank you.

All right, anyone else here to speak in support of the request.

Hi, um, good morning.

Um, thank you for your time in advance.

I I know we have a deferral today, but I would like to introduce myself.

I am Jen Harper here with my husband, Rob Hudak, and we are the owners of 509 Exposition Boulevard.

This was to be our forever home.

It was never meant to be a development.

And today we are here to ask for legal advice, not regarding the variants listed today, but about procedure moving forward.

We have been deferred for months waiting on a report from safety and permits.

The report was never written.

Instead, we have only received a no-reply email from one stop with no explanations, the only direction being to apply for a new construction permit.

As the home is 95% framed since May of 2025, this is of great concern to us.

We be we feel we would be losing our rights to our original foundation and footprint, of which we have spent to date around 300,000 on materials and labor.

At no point in time until August 14th, when we received this email from the No Reply One Stop, had anyone ever contacted us from SP about needing to change our structural renovation permit to one of new construction.

And our BCA report, there are multiple emails we sent downtown to SP and HDLC regarding our project.

Also, even though the linear footage of the home with the approved permits we received, was it 57% demolition?

The demo exceeded the 50% even before the barge board on the sides became an issue recently with HDLC.

This was approved by SP over the eight months we worked with them on achieving the permit.

There were were without a doubt lots of emails, in-person conversations, and this was not once brought up as a concern.

I have submitted to our caseworker Julia the report from the HDLC stating that the HDLC agreed that adding another story would necessitate the reframing of the first floor to properly carry the new load.

The recommended approval of the demolition.

We were fined a significant amount for removing the sparge board.

But they did agree we couldn't frame the home.

We had a permit for without doing so first.

The certificate of appropriateness was granted after we paid the fine last month for us to move forward.

Safety and permits stamped the plans and approved the removal of the front elevation, the back elevation, and 100% of the roof.

We built the home on the original foundation and kept inside the original hardwood floors and wood ceilings.

We are here to request a meeting with your legal team on how to proceed, and I thank you for your time today.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in support of this request?

Okay, two additional cards.

No one else is speaking in support, or is it just a no support?

Okay.

All right.

Anyone here to speak in opposition.

Good morning, board.

My name is Donald Fant of 401 Henry Clay Avenue.

I'm here on behalf of Arna, the Ottoman Riverside Neighborhood Association.

Arna opposes waivers of the front yard and Bill Two line for construction of 509 exposition.

These variances are not supported by the nine criteria for approval.

They would negatively impact the immediate neighbors to the benefit of the owner.

The zoning ordinance correctly limits the front yard encroachment to preserve the unique context and character of this historic neighborhood.

This is especially the case given this site's prominence onto Ottoman Park and landmark city setting.

The permitting process for this project has been a bait and switch approach with unclear documents and significant design changes, all of which have led to this juncture.

As to the applicant's claim of detrimental reliance, I would note the language which appears on each and every building permit issued by the City of New Orleans.

It states, and I quote this permit conveys no right to violate any provisions of the New Orleans amendments to the International Building Code of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in opposition on a request?

I'm Ted Moses, 501 Exposition Boulevard, and I live next door to 509.

And I know you've seen me before.

I apologize for that.

Um I went to the uh August meeting of the HDLC, and they ended up finding the owner the maximum amount for a Tier 1 fine.

Uh it was my understanding at that point that they considered the building 100% demolished in terms of the historic structure, and we're no longer going to be able to give a certificate of appropriateness.

Uh the owner says that they've received it.

I didn't see it on the site, so uh, but without a C of A, uh the safety and permits cannot issue a renovation permit.

It must be considered then at this point a new construction.

That's in keeping with the uh article CZO uh CZO Article 25.2 dot G, demolition of a non-conforming use or structure, paragraph three, which doesn't allow them to retain the non-conforming encroachment to a side yard when the building is over 50 percent, and there is no doubt that this building is over 50 percent now.

Uh all the exterior walls are gone, the roof is gone, the front facades are gone, the roof is gone.

All that's left is this foundation, uh, part of a ceiling and a floor.

Uh I urge that the BZA deny this variance, and I understand you may delay it till all these other issues are done, but I, along with Zach Smith and the owner would like this to be done as quickly as possible.

Thank you for your time and service.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in opposition?

Good morning.

Uh, my name is Kent Blackwell.

I live at 6330 Laurel, one house away from the project in question.

I've gone through the application and the drawing submitted by the builder.

I've talked to architects, engineers, and other contractors that have reviewed the same information.

Uh, none of us can understand how this project could have been properly evaluated.

The multiple sets of drawings submitted look nothing like what's framed there now.

The owner seems to have submitted incomplete and confusing drawings and just proceeded to build whatever they wanted.

The side yard setback requirement on the left side of the building is less than a foot, doesn't meet code, and certainly would not allow a fully equipped firefighter access to that space.

This presents an enormous safety issue for the surrounding neighbors.

There are numerous other violations that need to be addressed before this project is allowed to proceed.

Uh, a representative for the owner described this as a messy project.

I would have to agree, but the blame must be squarely placed on the owner.

I've been through the permit process with the city when I built my home.

I submitted properly dimensioned drawings, safety and permits, stood in front of this board to gain waivers, needed to start the construction.

The permits were issued, and the building was built according to submitted plans and specs, and my home was built without a hitch.

I would suggest this project would have seen the same results had the owner followed the rules.

I respectfully ask this board to follow the CCO and deny this waiver until the Sittler waiver request until this messy project is cleaned up.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in opposition?

Good morning.

My name is Cecilia Sogan, and my address is 6330 Laurel Street.

Last month I addressed this board and shared a few uh uh details about myself.

I've lived in the neighborhood of 509 Exposition Boulevard for over 60 years, and I have been a licensed architect for over 40.

These facts may not matter at all today, but what does matter is that our neighborhood is facing a very serious issue.

An owner, contractor, has deliberately demolished a historic building and has shown no shown complete disregard for the city of New Orleans and our community.

It is my contention that this individual knew exactly what she was doing and made a calculated decision to develop the project with no respect for anyone.

She basically did as she pleased.

So again, what matters?

What matters is your role is critical here.

We are asking you to enforce the city's codes and to recognize the impact of a developer who willingly destroyed a historic building and never obtained proper permits to build, leading to numerous building code violations.

Uh, which is probably how we ended up with this mess.

And so, again, what does matter?

What matters is that you recognize the impact of this development and require this owner to respect our city and simply follow the rules.

Thank you again for your time.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in opposition?

Good morning, board.

My name is Holly Grow.

I live at 427 Exposition.

My husband Kirk and I also own the property at 331 exposition.

We have four adult children.

We're all in opposition to this, so I come as representing the Groh family.

The building is too high, too wide, too long, and goes too much towards the park.

We came years ago after losing our home in Katrina to this neighborhood because of its integrity and uh as a nice, simple, beautiful place to raise our kids.

We are hoping that you will go by the city's rules and follow the rules and uh return this house to what would be appropriate.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in opposition?

Ms.

Johnson.

Fine.

Susan Johnson, 2822 LePay Street, Town of Carleton Watch, Historic New Orleans neighborhoods.

I'm not paid to be here.

Um is a clock running.

Okay.

So uh I don't know if you know Tim Lupin, Commissioner HDLC for Uptown, in case you thought that there wasn't any such thing as uh New Orleans character anymore.

Mr.

Lupin uh said at the HDLC that he would deny this design initially, it was over a year ago because he walked his dog past there all the time, and his dog liked the building.

So he um denied the motion, it went up to city council on appeal, and then uh Mr.

Lupin had the opportunity, I believe I wasn't there on August 15th of this year, to um make a motion for retention, and I believe it was a 12,000 dollar fine.

So uh people are on across the broad spectrum of the neighborhood, believe me, and I'm from Carrollton, are upset about this building.

Thank you so much.

I know you'll act appropriately.

Thank you, Ms.

Johnson.

Anyone else here in opposition?

Hello, good morning.

My name is Sheree Temer, and I'm an attorney working with the owners of 501 Exposition Boulevard to help make sure that their voices are heard.

I know that this project has come before you on multiple occasions.

Um and Mr.

Smith is right.

The neighbors don't want to keep coming back here to oppose this project.

But the decision of this board should be based on a reasoned opinion and a thorough review of the project after the staff has made a determination and a recommendation.

And the owners want to move forward today, basically asking the BZA to ignore all of the issues that they've clearly current created themselves.

The neighbors do want it resolved, but they don't want it resolved at their own expense.

But that really doesn't go to the heart of the problem, right?

This board has the authority to make a decision today if you choose so, and that is based on the information that you have before you.

And if the board does decide to make a decision today, at the very least, it should be a denial based on what you've seen here, based on what you have you've seen in the plans, based on what you've seen from what the HDLC has said.

Um and I know that that's not necessarily gonna inform your opinion, but it's clear the fact that safety and permits, all these other um departments haven't been able to make a decision or a determination just goes to the fact that a lot of these issues were created because of the multiple plans, the multiple changes, and the the shuffle that was created by the owners.

So I would just ask that you all deny if you decide to move forward today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in opposition?

Seeing none, the applicant has the opportunity to rebut.

Morning again, board.

Uh very brief.

I just ask in the event that this somehow was not going to get deferred, that there be an opportunity for a lot of questions, but I'm assuming that it's gonna get deferred.

So again, we haven't spent all the time to make the arguments.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, um, hearing all public comment and having a chance to review the application, any question from the board.

Yeah, since the issue was raised, could we just get an accounting from staff about where we are and how we are in this meeting without the recommendation with without any judgment, just the factual recounting of where we are?

Sure.

So the last official um statement and communication we've gotten from the Department of Safety and Permits on this particular issue was that the owner needed to apply for a new construction permit.

Um thereby moving away from the original structural renovation permit that we have been working with that the variances have been based on.

So our question for as staff is okay.

In that case, are we then going to be looking at variances from the new construction permit, or are we going to be moving forward with this variance from this permit?

Or is this permit rendered moot?

And that has not been answered yet, so that's something we need to consult with legal about.

And I'm assuming just that same trigger of questions is probably getting into a little bit what we've heard in the public comment.

Are we gonna now have to look at the additional waivers as it pertained to, I guess the side yard setback condition based on that nonconformant setback issue?

Exactly.

Okay.

I would like to advise that a department is probably the most appropriate at this time with the issues that are still outstanding.

Okay.

To confirm that we would have something in hand to appropriately review at the next meeting if this is deferred.

So any is there any commitment on a time frame from the department to get an answer to you guys?

I mean, where are we?

We don't have that information yet, and I believe that's in part because the new construction permit application hasn't yet been submitted.

So safety impairments can't initiate a full zoning review at this time.

So I guess the question back to Mr.

Smith.

I mean, do you concur in any capacity that a new building permit needed to be filed?

And the department in a phone conversation on Thursday, I guess what, four calendar days ago, um asked to take the evening to get us some more solid answers, and they got back to us on Friday with a kind of more solid that yes, we do believe you need to actually go forward with the new construction.

Uh permit, what we have been unable to get from the department is specifically where do they look at um you know the ability the the facts that both the Department of Safety and Permits and the HDLC gave this project over permission for over 54% of its demolition, and are now at this point saying, well, you've demolished over 50%, so we're gonna shoot you for new construction.

So it's as I'll I'll say on the record in another group, this is a very messy one.

Uh I'm probably one of the only ones that said I think it's messy all around.

I think there's a lot of people that could have done things a little bit differently.

Um, and you know, maybe I'm the only one that's gonna get up and say that that I, you know, me and my team takes some of that ownership as well.

But here we are again, 90 days in, and we had a phone call on Thursday with a need for internal deliberation to give us an answer on Friday, which was three business days ago, to basically say yes, we are gonna treat this as new construction, even though again the record will clearly show the department both departments of uh safety improvements and the HDLC granted permission for over 54 percent of the demolition.

So we'll be back in front of you in some case, but uh you know, I I think we have our our marching orders on the new construction.

Of course, that was a brand new reason for the 30-day deferral and was not the original 30-day deferral reason, and it wasn't the second 30-day deferral reason.

That just happens to be one of the newest 30-day deferral reasons.

So, again, nobody in this room is causing that problem.

This is this is folks in other departments who have not been able to make timely decisions, and I know that uh the staff would like nothing better than to write their report so they can move on to other issues.

But uh, I hope that answers your question.

Thank you.

All right, so I guess, and this is more back to staff into legal.

What where my concern now falls into play is one we we got an issue of a change between what is considered a renovation permit versus now a new new construction structural permit.

That then being when is that application then being applied for, then what is the time necessary for it to go through safety and permits to determine a zoning verification on that piece in order for that to come back to you guys on a BZA staff level to then draft a report based on the status of that issue.

So my concern is like it just seems like it's the the web has grown quite a bit, and how do we even get to some level of appreciation of what's before us?

And another piece is if that's the case, does it remain under the same docket item or is it something that would be rendered moot and does the clock start over again on a new application?

So I mean there's just so many moving parts here, and I appreciate legal's position on a deferral as necessary.

I guess my question is more about is it truly a 30-day deferral?

A are we really looking at a 60-day deferral just because of the time that we know it takes just to go through the process?

60 days probably would be a better time frame to give the applicant time to submit their permit application and safety and permits to do their zoning review.

So yeah, agreed.

See Mr.

Smith coming back to the mic quick.

Oh if I could respectfully request only 30 days, again, 60 days is now 20,000 of added.

But remember and Mr.

Smith, and here's the problem.

I totally get what they are from a cost standpoint, and y'all know while nine criteria is not a question on deferral, it's the reality of what does it actually take for it to get through the process, who's on first, who's on second, who's on third.

Um, so I mean, I think it's just gonna take a lot of pushing and and I'll just strongly advocate and encourage from our our seat to at least see what we can do to have the departments review this in a timely manner um to get this turned around, but confirm and give some early confirmation.

I I would just hate to see this come back, even if we said 30, and we get into another scenario to Friday before, and people have dedicated their money to come sit here to then sit through another 30-day deferral.

I mean, I'd rather put the appropriate amount of time in place knowing what's necessary to go through a process, especially if we're going into a new application.

It's hard to swallow, but I appreciate that.

Context, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

What's the pleasure of the board?

Motions in order.

Proceed.

Okay, I um, regarding Docket BZA 054-25 for 509 exposition boulevard.

I move to defer the matter for 60 days.

All right, we have a motion and a second for a 60-day deferral for BCA docket number 054-25.

Uh please vote your screen.

And that motion is passed.

And and I just want to just take a moment of privilege and strongly ask that on the city and whatever we could do to try to help move this forward.

Let's let's try to get this queued up sooner than later.

Um it's starting to become a pattern that we really need to get addressed.

Thank you.

Item number three, BCA dock it 06425 for the property at 6116 18.

Um Street and 320 where Webster Street was withdrawn.

The next item is BZA docket 06525.

When we left the last meeting with the applicant, we left the last meeting with the applicant planning to review the plans and make adjustments in order to bring the project as in line with the CZO as possible.

What you have before you is the applicant's revised plans, which have eliminated all waiver requests except for those related to front yard parking.

While the applicant has brought the request more in line with what is allowable, and it should be noted that the plan currently being proposed adheres more to the CZO than what has historic what was historically present and would have been grandfathered and had not had the previous owner not paved the entirety of the front yard.

Staff feels that the staff feels that staff finds that the request doesn't meet two of the nine criteria, and that strict adherence would not result in a demonstrable hardship, and a request is primarily for the convenience or profit of the owner or the other interested party.

And recommends denial.

Yes, good morning, board Zach Smith, 1000 South Norman C Francis.

On behalf of ownership, um we were here, uh had a nice robust discussion about this con this uh property last month.

In fact, just to kind of refresh the board's memory, uh Commissioner Alvarez noted that on uh street view, Google Street View in 2018, it actually showed the concrete truck actively pumping concrete, which of course predates my client's ownership and invested stake in this project.

Uh y'all should have in your packets the updated plan that uh staff referred to that was kind of redone in mid-August and submitted sometime again before the deadline that shows a plan that the current owner is looking to get approved today that effectively brings this back to the the grandfathered that staff noted.

This the the the front yard parking and the front yard paving had it not been modified to be essentially 100%, would have been grandfathered.

We have put that back to the most reasonable amount of paving that we could see to get us to the that historic amount.

Um so where it currently is about 98% uh impervious and two percent pervious.

We have the proposal in front of you to get this and flip the script to 38% pervious and 62 uh 38 percent impervious and 62 percent pervious, a huge reduction of the of the paving, but with an allowable continuous use of that front yard parking.

Uh, we addressed the items number six and seven last time.

If there's a need to kind of go back over that again, I will, but for respect of everybody in the long meeting, since it's already been discussed, it's been discussed.

But uh again, this is something you guys wanted to see it come down to a reasonable uh amount, and this effectively gets us back to before the illegal work was done in restoring us back to the original grandfathered front yard parking and paving.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

And that's Ron, you had to for yeah, you deferred your time to Zach.

So uh anyone else here to speak in support of this request?

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

Sorry, seeing and hearing none.

What any questions from the board?

And I just want to clarify, Mrs.

Smith.

Um, you're referring to the sheet that has your title block on it that has the revision that's also shown on screen, correct?

There's a title block of ours.

It should have three details on it and it should be dated 811 25.

It should have the pre-COVID current and then the proposed modifications to current.

It'll show a reduction of this entire front yard is basically a giant rollover curb.

It reduces it down to a 12-foot uh driving aisle with the proper curb.

But no, that is not the uh that may be my fault.

I put the newest plan in the report.

I don't have any four.

Yeah, figure.

Yeah, figure four.

Okay, that's just trying to make sure because it I didn't see it in the thank you.

Okay.

And just staff, you concur with what Mr.

Smith present has submitted versus what we discussed last year.

Yes, all right, thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Motion's in order.

Proceed.

Uh regards to BCA docket 065-25.

I move to approve the request for the waiver.

Uh accepting the applicant's uh verbal arguments and uh submission in our packet and finding that they've met all nine criteria.

Subject uh I'm looking for provisals here.

Would would he have any proviso and provisional page subject to the subject to the one noted provisor?

All right, we have a motion and a second on the floor for BZA docket number 065-25.

Um, based on what has been presented, oops, based on what has been presented to to date on this item.

The board's requested an approval of the requested variances, excuse me, requested waiver for Article 11, Section 11.3.3A for parking restriction location, article 22, section 22.8.a point one, point B2 for permitted vehicle parking location in front yard, and article 22, section 22-11 point D.1 for parking pad location, and moving for accepting that the nine criteria have been met and moving for approval with the one-noted proviso by staff.

There is one additional waiver at the top of page two.

Let's see.

Thank you.11 point D point two for parking pad design location as well, and move for the approval.

Understanding that the nine criteria have been met with the one noted proviso.

Please vote your screens.

And that motion passed.

Thanks for that catch, Emily.

Next item.

The next item is VCA docket 066-25.

The next item is BCA Docket 06625 for a property located at 2818 North Rampart Street.

This request is for a variance from the provisions of Article 21, Section 21.6.8.3, accessory structures and uses, rear yard coverage, article 21, section 21.6.8.6, accessory structures height.

Article 21, section 21.6.8.7, accessory structures and uses, interior side yard setback, and article 21, section 21.6.8.7, accessory structures and uses.

Article 21, section 21.6.8.3, accessory structures and uses, rear yard coverage permits a maximum coverage of 40%.

The applicant is proposing 100% coverage and is seeking a waivers for 60%.

Article 21, section 21.6.8.6 accessory structures height permits a maximum height of 14 feet.

The applicant has proposed a height of 21 feet and is seeking a waiver of seven feet for both article article 21, section 21.6.8.7, accessory structures and uses, interior side yard setback.

Variances, the CCR requires a minimum of three feet.

The applicant has proposed a setback of zero feet and is seeking a waiver of three feet.

Article 21, Section 21.6.8.7 accessory structures and uses rear yard setback requires a minimum of three feet.

The applicant has proposed a setback of zero feet and is seeking a waiver of three feet.

This request was deferred at the August Board of Zoning Adjustments hearing at the applicant's request.

The applicant has also requested a ref a deferral for today as well to pursue a revised design that may require different waivers.

With that, there has been no change to the recommendation.

Staff believes that the requested variances of Article 21, Section 21.6.8.3, accessory structures and uses, rear yard coverage, Article 21, Section 21.6.8.7, accessory structures and uses, interior side yard setback.

Accessory structures and uses rear yard setback fails to meet criteria 145, 67, 8, and 9 of the standards for variances.

Additionally, staff believes that the requested variances of Article 21, Section 21.6.8.6.

Accessory structures height fails to meet criteria 1245678 and 9 of the standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.f of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

In that staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

Okay, so applicant present for BZA docket number 066-25.

Representing the property owners at 2818 North Rampart Street.

Okay, for see what you comment.

Uh we're requesting a deferral while we rework the plans.

After reviewing the staff report uh from the previous meeting, uh our client uh wanted to uh explore a new approach, one that would not be seeking a height waiver, but we uh while we're still developing the plans.

We think some of the other waivers that we had requested might still be uh applicable.

So we're asking for a deferral while we update the plans.

Okay.

Anyone else here to speak in support of this request?

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Um how many days referral you're requesting?

Um till the next meeting, 30 days.

30 days.

So does that give you enough time to revise plans and put it in front of staff for review?

When do you plan on having it submitted to them?

Um well, I don't have a specific date yet.

Um we have been redeveloping the plans uh since the previous meeting.

Um I I don't know what how much time the staff would need to review them.

But well, I mean that's gonna boil down to how soon are you turning around plans to staff and when is the next uh dropped it?

Uh the due date for the next report is September 22nd.

So I think two weeks.

Yeah, but does that give you enough time?

I mean, that's usually last day for information, but does that give you an again?

So now it's the same item you may have heard us speak to earlier, same situation if we're doing some if we're doing substantial changes to the plan, and you may be triggering something else.

Um, how much time is that gonna take to confirm for it to go through where it needs to be submitted and confirming um what is actually gonna be requested?

So, how soon do you plan on turning in it?

These documents um within the next couple weeks, we can have the plans turned up.

Okay, so I'm kind of looking back to staff.

Is that sufficient or is that is this is this another one where 60 days is more appropriate, consider what's been stated.

It would ultimately be up to uh Alyssa as the assigned planner, you know, to determine how much time she needs to review plans.

Um, but based on the proposed the middle of a couple weeks, it might be better to defer 60 days.

Okay.

We would be fine with that if if you're fine with that.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board which we're trying to say, motion order proceed.

Um regarding docket BCA 06CC-25.

I moved to from the bottom for six days as per um the submission request.

All right, we have a motion and a second for BCA docket number 06625 for 60 day deferral at the request of the applicant.

Please vote to screen.

And that motion is passed.

Next item.

The next item BZA docket 067-25 for the property at 2619 Bank Street was withdrawn.

We will now begin with new business for variances.

BZA Docket 06925 is for the property at 3405 Octavia Street.

This is a request for variances from the provisions of Article 11, Section 113BA.

Article 22, Section 228A1BII.

Article 22, Section 2211 D1, and Article 22, Section 2211 D2 to permit the renovation of a single family dwelling resulting in parking in a parking pad located between the front facade and the front property line, resulting in front yard parking.

Staff determined that the plans revisions are needed to show compliance to or to clarify the need for any additional waivers.

Because some of these modifications may trigger the need for additional waivers, including minimum permeable open space, an encroachment of porch and steps into the required front yard.

Staff is requesting a deferral to allow the applicant time to revise their plans.

Staff has has been working with the applicant to get revised plans.

So we would be okay with the 30-day deferral.

Proceed.

Regards to BZA Docket 069-25.

I'll move for a 30-day deferral per the staff's recommendation.

Okay, we have a motion and a second for 30-day deferral at the request of staff for BCA docket number 069-25.

Please vote to screens.

This addition will house uh an outdoor barbecue area as defined by the applicant and will feature an oven kitchen hardware.

The addition will encroach into the required 15 yards, 15 foot setback.

The applicant is proposing an addition with a three-foot nine inch setback, thus requesting a waiver of 11 feet three inches.

The applicant is citing a pre-existing shed as preventing a different and compliant configuration for this addition.

The staff believes that this is not enough to constant constitute a special condition.

As many other properties surveyed in the immediate vicinity, also feature similar sheds and observe the rear setback as established by the CCO.

Staff has determined that the requested variance fails to meet criteria 1, 2, 6, and 7 of the standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.f of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

However, should the board find that the request meets all nine approval standards of the standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.f.

Staff recommends the following provisos.

The applicant shall submit the following plan reflecting the approval of the board of zoning adjustments, including compliance with all noted provisos, which is to provide uh the site plan.

Hi, my name is Brian Jill, Jill Architects.

I'm here representing Ken and Margaret Beer.

Uh owners of 1212 Webster since 2020, I believe.

Just right around COVID, they bought this house.

It's a long thin house, which uh, as I point out in my letter, uh, long thin lot, long thin house.

Um, since purchasing the home, they uh have had children get married, begin having grandchildren.

They have a large extended family here in New Orleans, and to have any kind of entertainment space in the back of their home is not does not show the full extent of their their floor plan.

But the family room is very tight right now, and to extend back and have an in-home eating area, it needed to go back.

By the time you did that and wanted to have a barbecue area, you were out of we were out of space.

We kept the house and the and the porch and the roofed areas inside the 15-foot required setback, but the barbecue area, which is open on all sides and extends back into the required 15-foot, because it's connected with the flat roof, which we elected to continue back so it didn't impact neighbors.

Um we're taking the the TPO roof back to within three feet nine inches, I believe it is, of the rear property lot.

Um the staff said that they did not see where we met criteria one, two, six, and seven.

So I wanted to address those in very quickly, because I know my time's limited, but um and look, uh Brian, if you need be, if you want a note of MSBR signed as support, if he wants to defer any of his time to you, we can so that you have time to cover the criteria.

Okay, I appreciate that.

His wife's here too.

She didn't sign a card, which would entitle us, I guess, to another three minutes if we yeah, so let's just go ahead and just I'm assuming it's for the same 1212 Webster Street.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So just quickly spinning through special conditions peculiar to the land, as I said, long narrow lot.

Um we're wanting to put a hundred and approximately 140 square feet into the rear yard.

Uh this does not exceed the amount allowed for in a required rear yard for an accessory building.

So just you know adjacent properties, which I'll get into in the next uh next section.

Uh there are several around the neighborhood who who exceed what we're asking to put in the rear required rear yard, and it and it is an accessory use.

Um it's four feet up off the ground, which is a little high for these houses, and as they age in place, carrying trays up and down to barbecue areas and things like that.

Uh you might ask why didn't you put it down on the ground?

Well, that that is why.

You're trying to carry things from the kitchen, which is in the midsection of this house, all the way back through the family room, through the dining room, downstairs.

It's just not convenient.

So we we looked at another option, which flips this around and throws it over in front of a window in Ken's office.

He works from home.

Uh, it gets very close to that existing accessory building and just does not leave the open airy space that we'd like to have in the in the backyard.

Um it says literal interpretation would deprive the owner of other things other people have.

Uh, I can tell you just on their square alone, 1203 and 1227 Henry Clay have uh have built into their required rear yards.

Um 1208 appears to have next door.

Uh and 1311 Webster, 637 Britannia, all have very large additions in their in their required rear yards.

Um they have support, by the way.

You should have all 18 reports of uh I mean all 18 letters signed by neighbors, right side, left side, and rear included in those.

So they've got a lot of neighborhood support.

Um demonstrable hardship.

Uh if they're not able to entertain their family, I think that you know represents a hardship to them.

And it it again is the only way to add on, in my opinion, as an architect who's done this for a long time, uh, sensibly to this home.

Um then finally uh variance is not based on the owner's convenience.

Well, it is in some some senses sense, uh, given that they don't want to traverse four feet vertically every time with a barbecue tray or ingredients.

Uh but by the same token, there is no weight.

Uh again, I keep saying that there's really no way to reasonably add on to this home with the existing accessory building that they inherited in 2020, and still achieve what they're hoping to gain out of this.

So we elected to put it on this side.

There's a there's a large building being built, uh, accessory building to the right at 1230 Webster.

And we thought this was the most innovative uh least invasive spot to put this addition.

All right, that concludes your comments?

Yes.

All right, cool.

Um anyone else here to speak in support on this request?

Mr.

Beer?

Morning.

I'm Ken Beer.

Uh, my wife, Margaret and myself, owners of 1212 Webster.

Uh and I won't reiterate uh the points that Brian made, but um, I did want to highlight we did go and uh um make sure we got the support of our neighbors, both the two sides as well as the backyard, as well as everyone in our block.

Um 20 out, and in fact, have some additional um letters of support with me that didn't get uh put in because of the um cutoff date, but feel like this is as Brian highlighted, the most practical approach, any other approach would not be very practical given the the lot and the configuration and the fact that we do have a storage building on the left-hand side, as Brian highlighted this um actually there's eight eight plus foot um walls around us.

Uh this will be a one-story uh flat roof, so very unintrusive, uh, and as it mentioned, kind of the the practical approach that uh we would believe is appropriate for this uh for this addition and appreciate your consideration uh and would would hope that you would take both the practicality and the logic of of this uh of this proposal.

So thank you.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in support on this request?

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

Okay, seeing none.

Any questions from the board?

Question for staff.

So is it is the thing that's making the encroachment that it that the roof is attached to the building, or also the fact that it's raised, in other words, if it were detached, it would be okay as an accessory structure.

So the is that because it wasn't made under the guys that it was uh accessory structure?

I don't know if that would change the rules of setback particularly.

And if always understood how it's been interpreted in the past, because it is elevated one to the same floor height, it does create the structural element there, but then because it is under one contiguous roof, that is what is generating the setback issue versus if they were to attach it to the accessory structure in the rear, they would be able to expand that footprint up to a certain percentage of rear yard cover, all right?

Because it was the existing accessory building that's here.

And if I'm looking at it just at glance, its footprint does not exceed or maximize what will be the allowable accessory building footprint in a rear yard.

Because usually uh it's up to I think it's is it 40 percent?

Not sure.

Brian, did is that something that you looked at and just kind of had an appreciation of what would be the max allowable accessory structure in the backyard, which is trying to help to provide a little bit more color to what how this came about.

Well, yes, the I mean the 40 percent coverage you are correct about the you you cannot cover more than 40 percent that that existing accessory building that they have was there when they bought the property in 2020.

It's uh an attractive enough building, but it's down on the ground and it's it's uh they use it for storage.

Um but it you know to expand that would still require they go up and down, up and down with trays and four foot.

Right.

So but you are correct in saying that the percentage if you took that accessory building included, including the columned overhang and all that, plus the 140 square feet that we're asking for, you're less than the 40 percent that someone could come in and build and they're required rear yarn.

Okay, great.

So, what that confirms for us is that really the nature of the waiver is the fact that it's attached to the building, um, and you've spelled out for us the reason that it's attached um uh mainly to do with safety of moving from the dining room to the the outdoor deck, essentially.

That's correct.

So thank you for that.

Um one thing I just need to at least ask.

Um, because keep in mind when we create this type of uh condition because it is prolonging out one way.

Um my only concern is that it would then create a precedent where and it the footprint could be expanded a lot further at a later date because of how this would be created.

So would the owner entertain in any capacity a deed restriction act just would limit the footprint to this configuration?

That's all we would yeah.

I think I think they're done after this.

They want to wrap it up.

They just want to be able to entertain indoors and and outdoors.

Right, and so here so you understand why I'm bringing that piece up.

If the land let's say if you have a sold the property downstream, somebody then comes in while this exists these conditions already exist.

We need to put something in place as a as a bulk as a belt and suspenders approach to prevent provent it from spreading out further.

Okay.

Um just want to make sure we got yeah, that's fine.

If y'all are ready to present a motion, that's fine.

Just want to make sure we cover that provision at some capacity, please.

All right.

Um in regards to BCA docket 070-25.

I move to approve the request for a waiver of Article 11, section eleven dot three dot eight dot one, table eleven-two A rear yard setback.

Uh accepting both the applicant's written submission and oral arguments um explaining um their view of the nine criteria.

And uh this accepting this motion uh includes both the standard proviso included by staff and the deed restriction uh limiting any further expansion um related to this project.

Would you please clarify your motion for the record?

Which part?

Um for the deed restriction.

Would you say I I believe that we would um have it have a deed restriction that would not allow the ex further expansion of the non-conformity that is being approved under this waiver.

Thank you.

All right, we have so I know you kind of amended that.

So mover, would you amend your motion to accept those comments?

Absolutely, thank you.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

All right, so with regards to BZA document number 070-25, a motion has been presented to grant the waiver as requested for Article 11, Section 11.3.8.1, table 11-2A for rear yard setback, uh, and taking the comments as presented and nine point criteria response is provided by the applicant in the oral presentation uh grants that request and moving to acknowledge the uh two noted provisos.

One is provided by staff, and the second being a deed restriction that limits the expansion of this uh non-conformance to the footprint as proposed.

So that would be the requirement of that date restriction.

Please uh vote your screens.

And that motion is passed.

Uh next item.

The vice chair will need to recuse himself for BCA docket 07125 for the property at 4400 at Dauphin Street with his recus recuse.

The board has lost quorum, and therefore this item will be automatically deferred to the next meeting.

Question for staff, do we have any board members that might be late or this is we don't know we are trying to get in touch with one other board member, but we have been unable to.

I believe they were traveling, so it doesn't appear that they will be able to attend, but perhaps we can push this item to later in the agenda, just in case.

Um I don't think you all can take official action because there's not a normal um we can't even suspend the rules to move it down the line, but um deferring it 30 days.

Well, how would we defer it?

It just is automatically deferred to the case.

Pretty much the only thing that can happen.

Yeah.

And if the uh other board member does happen to show up, then I believe there can be a reconsideration later.

Sure.

Okay, so to the applicants, I would say we don't know if you would like to stay and find out.

Okay.

The next the next item is BZA Docket 07225 for the property at 6242 Waldale Drive.

This is request is for variances from the provisions of Article 13, Section 133A1, Table 13-2 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a mixed use development on a lot with insufficient lot area, insufficient lot width, and insufficient interior side yard setback.

In accordance with Article 13, Section 133A1, Table 13-2, mixed and non-residential uses are required to have a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 100 feet, and provide a 10-foot interior side yard setback.

While the proposed residences and place of worship are permitted by right, the place of worship is a non-residential use and does not meet the minimum lot area, minimum lot width or interior side yard setback requirements.

Based on this report, the staff believes that the requested variances of Article 13, Section 133A1, Table 13-2, minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and interior side yard setback failed to meet criteria one, two, four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine of the standards of variances for Article 4, Section 4.6 point F of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, in that there are no special conditions that are peculiar to the land.

The literal interpretation of the ordinance would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the district.

The variants will confer on the applicant's special privilege.

The variance will alter the essential character of the locality.

Strict adherence would not result in a demonstrable hardship.

The variance will be detrimental to public welfare or interest to other properties.

The variance will impair inadequate.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, the variance will impair the adequate supply of light or air to an adjacent property, increased street congestion, increased danger of fire or endanger public safety.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

Yes, good morning again, board.

Uh if we make it the full three minutes.

And that is the fact that this exercise is not a random exercise of, hey, let's just go buy a lot and let's try and put up uh a uh an institutional use in this case a mosque for the students at UNL.

This is to rebuild a place that was destroyed due to Hurricane Katrina.

That specifically was two apartments with a mosque for student services.

So when we start in the conditions of peculiar land or the land it takes out of account and does not bring into account the fact that this is trying to put back into commerce and into use uh a mosque that already existed again with two spaces.

When we get into you know item two, you know, they mention that there's no similar waivers, but they do look at the fact that this is uh right here on a major roadway, and that essentially denying the variance effectively prevents the applicant from exercising a right that is already contemplated in the zoning district.

And that's an argument you're gonna hear me make a couple times because we really get into that in items eight and nine, where we start talking about how essentially any foot traffic is somehow deemed to be a break of uh of a reason for a variance when any institutional use of any kind, which of course is permitted by right in the zoning district, would bring uh a greater degree of foot traffic.

Uh we get into does it confer a special privilege?

Again, this is an institutional use that is allowed in the zoning district.

It's an institutional use again that the report did not bring in the full history here to say that this is effectively putting back a structure that existed for the exact same reasons, the exact same use.

And in fact, historically, there was a three-foot uh interior side yard setback, and we've moved this to be compliant with the five foot required.

Uh, when we get into will it alter the essential character of the locality, you can see by the architecture yourself that this matches part and parcel with the uh the two-story student housing options in and around Waldo uh Drive.

There is nothing uh that jumps out at this architecture as being somehow not fitting into the development pattern.

When we get into again, will it go to a demonstrable hardship?

You're gonna hear from some speakers today that actually talk about more so, and they're gonna they're gonna be more eloquent than I am about the absolute hardship that they uh receive by not having a dedicated space to pray.

This is something that's been a long time in the making.

Had this facility, had this community been a little bit more flush with cash, we would have already seen this get rebuilt in 07, 08, 10, 12, 15, etc.

etc.

But here we are again, almost uh what two weeks behind Katrina trying to come through with this waiver to get you there.

Uh when we get into how much more time do I have from Mr.

Lazel?

Another another two?

Three.

If I could.

Two.

Two?

Wonderful.

I'll I'll wrap up before then.

Uh let's see.

Again, is it for the convenience uh profit?

Guys, you're gonna hear again and again again.

This is because there is absolutely no place on the campus for the appropriate amount of privacy and the appropriate amount of quiet, and the fact that this is trying simply to put something back that has always been there.

Uh, there's an absolute hardship again.

Then we get into is it detrimental to public welfare or injurious to other property.

I do take some personal issue with kind of eight and nine, because again, if you read the actual staff words of the report, it pretty much argues against any sort of religious institutional uses in any sort of residential zoning districts.

It argues that there's going to be an increase in traffic.

Again, that comes by right, which this use is by right.

The the traffic has nothing to do with the waivers in front of us.

Uh in addition to this, we have probably the most robust parking agreement that I've seen in my professional career in the fact that UNO has granted the ability for almost 70 dedicated parking spaces to be used, and the fact at the neighbors' request that we have people that are gonna go to this mosque, have special credentials and specialized parking passes so that they are pushed there.

In addition, the group uh the the student uh Muslim association and the property owner and management of this group is working at a neighbor requested uh change so that they have a dedicated uh liaison for the community, like all things in the event there were to be issues.

But to say that uh, you know, we get into uh items eight and nine, they talk about well, you know, they're gonna have to cross the street, the CZO fully contemplates the ability to park for for non-residential uses over 300 feet.

So if we were to take that argument, we're essentially saying the CZO doesn't know as much as we do, and we can make that argument against any project at any time.

When again, this has a very robust parking agreement with the university in which it specifically serves for a use and a structure which we are trying to rebuild to restore it to its former glory, nothing bigger, nothing different, two residential apartments with the residential parking on site and all the non-residential parking with parking agreement with you and know with special decals and such.

And again, this is looking to be at the same height and the same general scale of all of the development in the neighborhood, and we're looking at uh historically a three-foot side yard setback that has gone to the five-yard side yard setback.

So, for all of these reasons, I believe that the report just happened to miss the mark on this, did not give any sort of historical context to the fact that this is not throwing a dart at the board trying to find out where to put this facility, but there's an absolute hardship to not allow this permitted by right institutional religious organization to return to this location.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in support on this request?

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Ian Bailey.

It's a pleasure to be here in front of you this morning.

I am a student at the University of New Orleans.

So I just kind of want to uh announce my support for this project.

I've been a member of the Muslim Student Association since I was a freshman at UNO, and we've worked long and hard to try to establish this project for our student community and the community at large.

We do have support from the university.

We've spoken to the administration about getting this project moved along.

And as Mr.

Smith talked about, we've made every uh I guess adjustment we can to be as courteous to the neighbors in the area by getting parking situated with the university so that we're not disturbing anybody in the area.

I think it would be very good for us to invest in these things because as youth in Louisiana, I'm born and raised here.

Um we deserve a lot of support right now with everything that's going on.

So I just kindly ask you all to please consider this motion for us.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in support.

Good morning.

My name is Jamal.

I'm uh I'm I wasn't I was a student at UNO and alum, and I was very active in helping with the Muslim students at UNO, very, very active in helping.

And one of the main things that we needed was an organized area for a space of prayer.

Um, from 2020 to 2024, I was actively helping with this.

But the problem was that students, because the prayer space isn't necessarily dedicated.

We needed a dedicated prayer space.

So people were a little bit praying like in a corner here or a corner there in the library.

And this was very, very active, or even sometimes in the UC.

So having a dedicated prayer space was something that we felt was necessary, and something that would help our community flourish.

And in fact, if you go to UNO and you ask them who is the most active group in the whole university, the MSA was one of the ones that was the most active in helping boost community morale.

So to put your efforts into helping this community grow, especially for the students to come.

My time is now up with them, but uh with UNO, helping them grow would really see UNO progress as a university, which we all would like to see.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak?

Uh good morning.

Uh my name is Abdullah, and um I serve as the president of the Muslim Student Association at the University of New Orleans.

I myself am a PhD student.

Uh I've been living in this city for around like six years now.

I call this my home.

Uh I came here in 2019.

And uh I I think Zach has already uh explained well about the technicalities of the project.

I'll just explain to you uh express how emotionally important this is for the Muslim student community on campus.

For many of us, New Orleans is not only where we study, but we also but also where we we are building our lives, friendships, and futures.

Having a mosque in the neighborhood would provide a vital space for prayers, community service, and interfaith engagement.

It would not only serve Muslims but also strengthen the broader community through outreach programs, food drives, educational workshops, and a spirit of service that is central to our faith.

We believe this adjustment is not just about zoning, it's about fostering inclusion, ensuring that all communities in New Orleans have the opportunity to practice their faith and contribute positively to the city we all call home.

Thank you so much.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else here in support.

Dear board member, uh, this is uh Dr.

Kabir Hassan.

I have been teaching at the University of New Orleans for 35 years.

And just real quick, because I don't have a speaker card for you, if you could provide your address for the record.

Oh, I think I gave a card, Kabir Hassan.

Okay, just state it if you can just.

This is Dr.

Kabir Hassan.

I live in Twenties, uh, Ghana, Louisiana, but I have been a professor at the University of New Orleans for 35 years, since 1990.

When I arrived in 1990, that was the only mosque I used to know.

And we used to pray regularly, and as explained by Zek about the so it's a pre-existing structure, which was dual purpose thing.

Um I'm also happens to be the faculty advisor of Muslim Student Association, the most by brand student organization registered university in New Orleans.

So when I came here at one time height, there was about 16,000 students at UNO right now.

It's about 6,000, you see all the press recently, the student enrollment.

One on these things one on one of Muslim faith.

Just I want to add, they have to pray five times a day, and all the students, the timing of their classes, the three times of this prayer has to be on on campus.

And we have been struggling to find a place, sometime in libraries, sometimes in the student union, and so on.

So finally, we have been trying to defend for the last 30 years.

I've been with this project.

Finally, uh we came back to this thing, and you do not only help us to our religious right and hardship it is going to create, because the largest mosque that we have about 10 miles in St.

Claude.

So I do request you that you allow us to rebuild what used to be the Arab mosque, and that's going to help also attracting international students of Muslim faith because it's one of these things they look at.

And I'm at the university, you know, seeing it most senior faculty.

We are trying to improve and attract more people to the University of New Orleans.

So this is I do request the board member to consider and allow us to build rebuild the mosque.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in support on this request?

Anyone here in opposition.

Hello, my name is Hugh Bartlett.

I'm a 6230 Waldo Drive.

I'm two houses away from this lot right here.

Uh I'm speaking in opposition to the three variances, the 6242 Waldo, which permit a non-residential building in our residential neighborhood.

This neighborhood has drastically changed since Hurricane Katrina destroyed it, which was 20 years ago.

The argument that we should rebuild this because it was there 20 years ago, lacks awareness for the character evolution of this neighborhood.

I also have a view a few issues to address.

I have concerns about the traffic parking shortages and safety risks.

UNO's approval does not take into consideration the neighborhood.

The agreement with UNO for 68 dedicated parking spaces is insufficient.

These spaces are over 500 feet away and lack enforceability.

The proposal parking plan here offers no meaningful enforcement, dismissing the strain on our already limited street parking.

Second, when I asked the permitting liaison for an average number of attendees, I was told 10 to 12 max.

This suggests to me it will not be 10 to 12 or 30 to 35, but rather 68, both students and non-residential.

Third, the development ignores the stress on our neighborhood's infrastructure.

Our homes are designed for two to six residents, which cannot accommodate an estimated 68 attendees implied by the 68 parking spots.

When I asked the property, properties permitting liaison for studies on this strain, he evaded the question, claiming no analysis was required.

His assertion that the mosque will have no negative impact, quote unquote, lacks evidence and authority.

As a failure analysis expert, I find this approach irresponsible and dismissive of potential risks to our infrastructure and community.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in opposition on this request.

There won't be a glass partition.

If we're talking about how frequently these services are and the most populated and most active student unit union group at UNO, that is inevitably going to change the scope of the neighborhood.

So you know, I again when Mr.

Smith says that you want to put this back into commerce.

I truly believe that this notion that the two residential units is a essentially a legal loophole to put a very active property right in a residential neighborhood.

I know you and O supports it, but it's also not on UNO's property.

So the traffic and congestion truly is a big piece here.

Both congesting the two parking locks allocated for about 70 spots in total, but there was also street parking.

And I and I encourage you to go Google drive that neighborhood.

You'll see cones, you'll see signs from the neighbors.

I spoke to neighbors, and they said that the that has transformed the neighborhood.

So someone who bought the property not knowing about what happened 20 years ago.

I I would urge you to look at the petition that we have where 42 active neighbors in the immediate adjacent area have all signed off saying this is not part of the um footprint of the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in opposition?

Yeah, good morning.

My name is David Harper.

I'm in 6236 Waldo, two houses down from this lot.

Um I am against this hypocrisy.

I was there in 98, is when I bought this house.

There was a mosque at that time.

Um though they were no guaranteed parking spaces at UNO for them.

The congestion was incredible.

Um it was the fabric of the neighborhood, I believe, would just totally be changed once they allow this.

You and oh offering 70 spaces or 68 is not it's not gonna help us because who's going to enforce that?

And I believe this would change the fabric of our neighborhood greatly, and I am against it.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in opposition?

Seeing none, Mr.

Smith, you have an opportunity to rob morning again, board.

Uh, you know, a rebuttal here.

You know, some projects, some projects I understand opposition.

Sometimes I just get a little personally dismayed by it, and that's that's my opinion right now.

Um, you know, just to kind of point a couple things out.

Obviously, we had a very robust uh response to a report that lacked the historical context of the fact that, and I appreciate both opposition and support for this, the very clear history that this, of course, this lot has a uh former use with mosque and with apartments, which helps to go into those criteria support.

But uh when it comes to parking, I get a little I get a little hurt by the parking argument because yes, there should be at any time on a normal on a normal prayer, about 10 to 15 persons on a more busy, I guess busier would be the more correct grammar.

Uh Friday, about 30 to 40.

And because of the CZO requirement only have there been this excess amount of parking that's been secured.

And I actually honestly love the fact that that was one of, if not the only argument against this, uh, because of the fact that it goes to prove that there will be an excess of parking to any of the needs that this place has, it expects, and more importantly, not to compare ourselves to a different location in a different municipality in a different uh you know government, but we look specifically at the history of this student center and this student mosque, uh correct me, it's a student mosque, and what their historical norms have been, and that's where we get those numbers.

So I'm not gonna say that any mosque elsewhere in the city or elsewhere in the parish or anywhere elsewhere in the state, or if we fly to another estate, we can maybe find one with more traffic.

But fundamentally, this parking is going to be well beyond the pale of what is needed.

Uh, you can see again the the comments by the staff's report, which I again will take a little umbrage with, but even the neighborhood, it tends to be we just don't want this permitted by right religious institution in our neighborhood because of the things that may or may not come with it.

And that, especially if that is the reason for denial, that means we essentially say we don't want what's permitted by right, and that is a slippery slope for all the other religious institutions, which we know can have a hard uh time fitting in.

We see that this fits, we see that there's a special precedent, we see that there's a history of use, we see that there is a robust way to handle for that traffic in the policing of the traffic.

Uh I wish we would have been told about some of this opposition in all of our back and forth, but it goes, it just sometimes you it rolls down the hill the the way it rolls down the hill.

With that, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh any questions from the board.

One question for Zach.

And maybe uh maybe this will be a question for staff.

I want to be sure I understand the layout right um and the diagram for the new construction in relation to the uh actual waivers being um axed for today.

Um the interior side yard.

Five five foot waiver.

If if you're um if you're building from the ground up, why is that why is that waiver being uh requested when you can theoretically build um when you can theoretically build and and uh take care of that looking at the diagram is the interior side yard, the uh yard closest to the neighboring property.

Yeah, this is a waiver.

I think it's a very fair question, Commissioner Gonzalez.

This is something where by pushing a building to be at 10 feet, we find that it creates this unusually large setback that you do not see in the development pattern, in addition to the fact that this starts to with the corn with the fact that it's got a corner on one side.

We already have an aggressive uh side yard setback on one side, and it starts to squeeze this space, which of course, if you've if if you've been in a mosque or or especially any kind of small space, this is all about that community space.

This is all about that that uh kind of open volume, which the program kind of dictates.

I would be absolutely out of my mind to tell you that there's no fundamental way that it couldn't be redesigned, but it is something that starts to seriously limit and pressure and put changes that are going to create changes to the way in which they need to worship.

But uh physically for new construction, could it be put at 10 feet?

Mathematically, yes, the answer is yes.

It would start to have underlying effects and hardships, but to answer it as honestly and transparently if it and that runs me to the next spot.

If that is one of the waivers that can't get across, I would love a partial kind of you know, approval on everything else, and then nothing and then a denial on our own.

Yeah, and that's the only reason I was asking be just because we are talking about clear lot and it's an interior side yard.

You you can't change the lot area or the lot width.

You can't physically change that, but the uh um side yard variants was theoretically in your control, so that's why I asked.

Totally understand.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I can uh Mr.

Smith, can you stay up there?

So I just want to clarify it's not a matter of moving the building.

You have a 10-foot corner side yard and you've got a 10-foot side yard or your requirements.

Does that sound correct?

Yes.

Yeah, it'd be 10 and 10.

So by getting it to the five, it matches the residential, which this matches.

It's you know, if this was a single family house or two family house, again, that's one of the reasons why I hated the arguments for eight and nine.

This is the same light and whatnot for for any other neighbor that any other structure would have.

And I think it's important to understand just based off the report, the question is not about the parking.

We're only looking at placement within a lot of dimensions, plus the setback condition is only that's the only thing that's before us at this point.

Use of permitted the parking has been addressed.

So we're not gonna get into those pieces.

Uh correct, there's no parking waivers being asked for.

Um, and only and just kind of coming back to Commissioner Gonzalez's point, um, or just question.

Traditionally, when we have that setback condition, it is to create a buffer between a residential versus a larger capacity use next to it.

So I mean, if there's any consideration, look at that five-foot modification, and it appears just from what I see in the plan to not necessarily create a restriction on the second floor in terms of how the apartments are configured.

It may be some minor tweaks and not trying to create a condition that reduces the amount of space for the place of worship, but just still trying to keep into some level of consistency.

What is the relative impact to the neighboring property?

A building being five feet closer could theoretically have an impact dependent upon what happens within a space, and it is just helps to increase that acoustical buffer for lack of uh better term.

Any other questions from the board hearing none is what's the pleasure of the board?

Just a quick question before we were to do that.

Um, I would be comfortable with your proposal.

Um, as long as the board's comfortable, we can do that without revised plans.

Then that those will be submitted later.

Uh I think it's a simple enough matter.

Yeah, we go forward.

Oh, don't I'll do it.

Oh, go ahead.

Okay.

Give a motions in order.

Yes, Mr.

Vice.

Thank you.

Okay.

Regarding Docker BZO's BZA072 at 6242 Waldo Drive.

Um, I'm gonna move for approval of two of the requested waivers, but not the third.

So I'm gonna um uh move to approve the requested waiver of Article 13, Section 13.3.8.1, table 132 for minimum law area, and uh Article 13, Section 13.3.8.1, same table 13 2 for minimum lot width.

Uh finding with the applicant's discussion and the letters that have been submitted that those uh waivers meet nine of the nine criteria.

Um we will not approve uh the waiver for the five foot side yard.

All right, we have a motion and a second for BCA docket number 072-75.

Um we have a modified approval for the requested waiver of Article 13, Section 13.3.8.1 for table 13 2 for the minimum lot area and minimum lot width uh with the modification a denial for Article 13, Section 13.3.8.1 table 13 2 for interior side yard.

And I failed to mention the one proviso.

Okay.

So we would include that, which would be to submit the plans uh with the revision.

All right, and then the second or accepts that site plan and architectural elevation.

Thank you.

Um as I mentioned, move for approval of the first two items with the denial of the third request.

Um understanding that the nine criteria have been met based on the letter is provided and a commentary from the board meeting in acknowledgement of the one proviso as recommended by staff.

Please vote your screens.

I can't I can't vote.

It says motion.

All right, that motion is passed.

Next item.

Item number 11, BCA Docket 073-25 for the property at 2213 St.

Bernard Avenue was withdrawn.

Item 12, BCA Docket 074 25 for the property at 2432 Chestnut Street and 13.

I'm sorry, 1239 2nd Street was withdrawn.

The next item is BZA Docket 07525.

BZA 075-25 is a request for variances from the provisions of Article 18, Section 18.30 point B.2 and B.4 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the renovation of a single family dwelling with more than two full and one-half total number of bathrooms and insufficient off-street parking.

The subject property is a two-story, seven bedroom, and five point five bathroom single family dwelling as determined by safety and permits with a two-car garage.

Only the two spaces in the garage count towards the requirement necessitating a waiver of five spaces.

The owners who intend to live in the residence full-time are unable to obtain their homestead exemption, which would then render this article and section of the code moot.

Um, they're not able to get it until after construction is complete.

Due to the order in which a homestead exemption can be obtained, um, the residents must seek a variance for the parking.

A majority of surrounding residents provide some form of off-street parking, 83% of the property surveyed, but the properties that can accommodate more than two vehicles is not a commonality found in the subject area.

In other words, the vast majority of the surveyed properties do not provide more than two spaces.

Additionally, the property would only be allowed two and a half bathrooms to service a structure on an 11,559 square foot lot.

Due to the difficulty in evaluating the number of bedrooms and bathrooms of other properties in the same district, one can surmise from the scale of the surrounding residential properties that it is unlikely that those dwellings only provide two and a half bathrooms for the entire home.

Additionally, the board has set a precedence of approving all previously heard similar requests and circumstances of inability to obtain a homestead exemption prior to occupancy permit release.

Based on this report, the staff believes that the requested variances meet all of the criteria of the standards for variances and recommends approval subject to two provisos.

Is the applicant present for BCA docket number 75-25, Ms.

Quigley?

Hello, board.

Good almost afternoon.

My name is Missy Quigley with Sherman Strategies, 800 Barone Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, 7013.

I want to thank Cameron for her report and for her recommendation of approval.

We only have four bedrooms, but safety and permits classified three other rooms as bedrooms.

You want let's just go ahead and just wrap up the comments and we'll just probably take care of it in a QA, if you don't mind.

Other than that, we just thank you and we asked for your support on this variance application.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in support on BZA docket number 75-25?

Seeing none, um anyone here to speak in opposition.

Um Susan Johnson, 2822 Page Street, Town of Carleton Watch, Historic New Orleans Neighborhoods.

I am not paid to be here.

It's really uh information only.

Um just wanted to remind uh whoever's listening of the sad history of this house of this property used to be a beautiful house, um beautiful old historic house.

And uh Dr.

Freudenberger wanted to demolish it.

Uh people tried to stop him or appeared to try to stop him.

Uh for years.

He did it anyway.

It's a long story.

Keywords, convoluted case on the PRC website, convoluted case 1230 Webster.

So uh, of course, everyone with uh appreciation for old homes and the rule of law, opposes uh Dr.

Freudenberger's actions over time, and the point of all this is yes, now we're down to the routine uh matter of uh getting out of the restrictions of the overlay, which um homestead exempted people should not have to uh deal with.

And what we're down to is in fact, whatever anyone decides today, uh Dr.

Freudenberger will go ahead and do what he wants.

That's what he's done all this time, and uh Sherman's strategies represented by a very nice experienced uh representative today.

Um be there to bail him out of it.

So thank you.

Anyone else here to speak from in opposition or information?

Um in opposition.

Okay, thank you.

My name is Claire Cook.

I live at 1323 Webster.

Um this home was bought, and um the home that sat on at the property began demolition um without a permit, and it was kind of a bizarre demolition to the point where we were all worried about the workers because there did not seem any rhyme or reason.

The city put out a stop work order on it when half the house was torn down, and the structure ended up sitting there for almost two years through one hurricane season, and finally we got councilman Joe Jeruso to pass it so that the house could be completely torn down because it posed a threat to everything.

The shutters, the siding was coming off, all that.

Umstruction then began on the house.

It's been a long construction, but that's how new houses are built.

Um right now they put up this structure over this past Easter over the five in five days over the weekend.

They put up a two-story large structure of without a permit.

What was there with the former house was a one-sided with polls, quarry, you know, the forget the name Corey, 10 roof used for cars to pull into.

The new owners have put up a two-story structure again without a permit.

Now they're asking the classic thing.

Do what you want and then ask for forgiveness later.

A stop work order was placed on the two-story structure.

The owners have said they've removed the second story, and that's a falsehood.

Just the roof was removed and lowered.

Right now, as I left to come down here and wait two hours to oppose this, there were bricks sitting on the scaffolding, ready to put on the structure.

If you can bring your comments to a close.

Um the owners have not followed any of the rules, filed the correct papers in two different instances.

Rather, the owners have done what they wanted and thumbed their nose at the councilman's office.

Ma'am, if you can bring your comments to conclusion, thank you.

Your time's up.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in opposition on this request?

Uh Miss Quigley, I have opportunity to rebut.

Um, as far as I know from looking at one stop, we've cleared up all issues.

We're properly permitted.

The renovation permit was completely closed out, and then when the structure was demolished, it required a new construction permit, and that's why we're here because it's the same exact plans.

We just got triggered by the overlay.

Um there's permits for everything, they're following the rules.

I I I'm not going to comment on past HDLC issues.

That was when I was working for the city and I was not in my private employment, so I don't want to discuss that.

But um, these are two people who are moving to New Orleans to raise their child here, and they are building a house that's nice, it's compatible with the neighborhood, and they are properly permitted for what they have.

The only reason why we're here is because they don't have their homestead exemption because the house is not completed.

Once we get this variance, we can complete the house and get the homestead exemption.

So that's the literally the only reason why we're here.

Thank you.

Any other um any questions from the board?

Cameron, can you address the question from the applicant about the second proviso?

Because I'm a little I have my own question about it.

Um I believe that one is like standard boilerplate.

However, if it is an existing curb cut, then I don't believe we would need it.

Okay.

I just worry because I was able to walk around the block a little bit and see that and maybe question to the applicant now.

Can you just confirm that the curb cut that's shown on the site plan is the existing curb cut?

Yes, that is the existing curb cut, and I spoke to the architect last week, and he said when we submit our revised plans, he's going to make that very well clear that it's the existing driveway to be used.

All right.

I would advocate to remove that provisor just to not make it more complicated than necessary to obtain the approval from the staff.

Thank you.

Yes.

All right, any other questions from the board.

Hearing none, what's the pleasure of the board?

I have a motion.

See regarding Dr.

Busier 075-25 at 1230 Webster Street.

I move to accept the staff's recommendation that the proposal meets nine of the nine criteria and approve the requested waiver for Article 18, section 18.30.b.2 University Area Street Overlay Parking District Parking, and Article 18, Section 1830.4, University Area Off Street Parking Overlay District Bathrooms, subject to one proviso, the first provisor listed in the staff's report.

All right, we have a motion and a second for BZA document number 075-25.

Uh amending the staff's report is for approving the requested waivers.

Well, Article 18, Section 18.3 point 30, point B.2 for university area over off-street parking overlay district parking and article 18 section 18 point 30 point B point four for university area all-street parking overlay district for bathrooms.

Uh move in for approval that the uh noting that the nine criteria have been met with the modification to only note the first proviso as recommended by staff.

Please vote your screens.

Yes.

And that motion is passed.

Next item.

We will now begin with unfinished business for safety and permits decision appeals.

Will the vice chair please read the hearing rules for decision appeals?

Thank you.

Rules and procedures for the appeals of the decision of the directive department of safety and permits.

The following procedures shall be observed during appeals hearing.

Each speaker shall give their name and address prior to speaking on the proposal.

The representative of the direct of the department of safety and permits shall present to the board.

Uh present to the board the decision which is under appeal.

The relevant code sections relating to the appeal and any information explained in the department's decision.

The applicant or representative will speak next.

The presentation shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes for each applicant or representative speaker, but in no event shall the cumulative presentation total by applicant or their representative exceed 15 minutes.

Proponents or persons in favor of the proposal will speak next and be allowed three minutes per speaker.

Opponents or persons in opposition for the proposal will speak thereafter and be allowed three minutes per speaker.

The applicant or representative will be a will be allowed a rebuttal, but the rebuttal shall be limited to a cumulative maximum of five minutes.

Additional information for any exceptional case, the time limitations may be extended by the presiding officer with the approval of the board.

As the board deems necessary, the case may be acted upon at this meeting or deferred for additional information or review.

In the case if the case is deferred, it will be acted upon at a subsequent meeting as provided by law.

All proper parliamentary procedures shall be fly followed, including recognition of speakers, relevance of argument, and absolution prohibition of applause or demonstration.

Standard of review.

Appeals where it is alleged that in error in any in any order, requirement, decision, or determination may be an administration made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

The board also has the power to hear and determine appeals for applicants who have refused a building permit because of a violation of conflict with the zoning ordinance or the official map of the city.

The applicant's appeal of the board of zoning adjustments is governed by section 5-408 of the City of New Orleans Home Rule Charter.

First item.

It was me.

You can go ahead, but I would just due to the fact that the pending litigation with the Fourth Circuit is still at hand.

I would just it's my understanding that the applicant has requested a deferral in the matter given the ongoing litigation in this matter.

The city does not oppose that.

Okay.

Any opinions as to how long we should defer?

I will give that to the law department.

Previously, on matters of litigation, um, the press member has been said it's been 120 days.

Um as it is still pending.

I would suggest at minimum 90 days, but 120.

It's appropriate.

So just considering that, I know we uh we've seen a pattern of 120.

I know that has also been questions in the past about at one point.

I know we've had indefinites just do the legal, and it would traditionally have been docketed once we know that there's some determined outcome from uh the cases in the past, but I think in this case, I think we still want to do we still want to follow the 120 rule or just change to indefinite pending um resolution.

Okay, thank you.

All right, what's the pleasure of the board?

Motion is in order.

Proceed.

Uh in regards to BCA docket 062-24.

I move to defer the matter for 90 days.

Oh, it's 120.

Say it 120.

120 days per uh recommendation from legal.

All right, we have a motion and a second on the floor for BZA docket number 062-24 for this item to be deferred 120 days per the recommendation of uh the law department.

Please vote your screen.

Terry, I vote yes.

And that motion passed.

Next item.

The next item is BZA docket 06125 for the property at 2306 through 2308 St.

Louis Street.

Good afternoon, Dan McMara, uh Chief Zoning uh official for the City of New Orleans.

Uh I had submitted a notice to the board that this matter is now moved because the department is rescinding the uh CSTR in this matter uh believing that it was improvidently granted.

Of course, the the uh holder of the permit upon notice uh sent to them will have an opportunity to uh appeal that decision as well.

Okay, so um I guess the question back to legal if this has been rendered moot and if no further action will be necessary, or do we need to vote on this map?

Well, I I would just like to say, you know, just to because the the more for legal, I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Yeah, if uh if I'm understanding you're saying that.

Okay.

I believe that since it's rendered moot that it can just be withdrawn.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right, uh understanding the department rendered that moot.

Uh next item.

The next item is BZA docket 07625 for the property at 4917 for red street.

Good afternoon, Dan McMurchie, zoning official for the city of New Orleans.

Uh there has been a request for uh for this matter to be deferred.

It's my understanding by the applicant.

The uh department does not object to the uh request and would in fact join in that request for the deferral in this matter.

I think uh 30 days is is more than ample for that.

How many days?

30 okay is what they were questioned for that.

Just to the next hearing date, I mean all right.

Um understanding from the department is the applicant present for BZ.

Counsel for the applicant is present.

Okay.

Good morning, Ben Flaxenberg, 909 Poiger Street.

If you could pull the mic closer to you just so we can make sure we hear you.

Thank you.

Um I represent Rob Seifert who lives at 2516 upper line.

Mr.

Sephard's not able to be here today.

He had a uh hospital appointment with his pregnant wife.

We have submitted some additional information for the board's consideration, including some drone video, and and I was told today that we are going to be receiving some records in response to a public records request.

So for all those reasons, we we're asking for a 30-day deferral.

Um, of course, if if the board has any questions about the merits or the substance of our appeal, I'd be more than happy to answer answer those.

Thank you.

Anyone else here speaking of support of this appeal?

Anyone here speaking in opposition to the appeal?

All right, seeing none.

Uh any questions from the board.

Mr.

Pleasure of the Board.

Motion's in order.

Yes, please.

Regarding Docket BZA 076-25.

I move to defer the matter for 30 days.

All right, we have a motion and a second for BZA docket number 076-25 for 30-day deferral at the request of the applicant in agreement with uh the department.

Please vote your machines screens.

Excuse me.

I vote yes, Terry.

And noting that uh four years in that motion is passed.

Next item.

The next item is DCA Docket 07725 for the property at 7301 through 7303 Birth Street.

Good afternoon, Dan McMarchy zoning official for the city of New Orleans.

My understanding that the applicant in this matter is requested that this matter be deferred.

I believe the applicant is present.

Okay, is the applicant present for 7725?

Susan Johnson, 2822 LePage Street, town of Carleton Watch.

I am not paid to be here.

I have a long version and a short version.

And let's stick to the short version, and I'll just ask respectfully for a 30-day deferral without explanation.

Thank you.

I believe it's routine, if I'm not mistaken.

Okay.

Anyone else here speaking in support of the request for deferral?

Anyone here speaking in opposition to this request?

Seeing none, any questions from the board.

Motion ordered.

Yes, please.

Regarding Docket BCA 077-25.

I move to defer the matter for 30 days as per the applicant's request.

Alright, we have a motion and a second.

For BZA docket number 77-25 request an authority.

For 30 day deferrow after request of the applicant and agreed to by the department.

Please vote your machines.

Yeah.

Gotcha.

All right, that motion passed.

Next item.

Yeah.

The next item is BCA docket 07825 for the property at 2045 Broadway Street.

Good afternoon, Dan McMarrett, Chief Zoning Official for the City of New Orleans in BCA matter 078-25.

I'm sorry, I incorrectly wrote 28 on my report.

That the installation of a patio slash porch in a non-conforming driveway at 2045 Broadway constitutes an illegal expansion of a non-conforming use under CZO Article 25.3.8.5.

And the department determined the subject property located in the H U RD1 district operates as a non-conforming neighborhood commercial establishment.

And the applicant sub filed a retroactive application for permit 25-22669-RNVN regarding a a uh patio that was installed outside.

The department found out that the newly installed patio slash porch was a physical expansion of the non-conforming use into the driveway area, increasing the functional area available for business operations.

Under CZO Article 25.3.8.5 nonconforming uses including structures, structures or land containing non-conforming uses shall be prohibited from expansion or increase in cubicle content unless specifically permitted by paragraph G or elsewhere in the ordinance.

The patio in question also encroaches across a property line into a neighboring parcel further rendering the improvement non-compliant.

And accordingly, that permit 25-22669-RNVN was denied.

The appellant contended that the driveway historically for functioned as a per part of the commercial operation when the property was a laundromat, including for deliveries or customer access.

Also argued that the determination of legal non-conforming status did not limit commercial use to the building interior.

And they also argued that the patio was a low profile non-structural ADA egress improvement sitting on grade and not increasing the building square footage or cubicle content in any meaningful way.

They argued that the improvement was made in reliance on verbal guidance from the city staff that no permitting zoning approval was required.

And the CCO definition of non-conforming use under 25.3.8.1 includes use of land supporting inclusion of a of the driveway as part of the legal non-conforming area.

And then they went on to argue that requiring removal would cause safety hazards, loss of ADA compliance, financial hardship, and potential discrimination against persons with disabilities.

Again, this was a H this was properties located in the HRD1 HURD1 district, which does not permit specialty restaurants as a principal use.

Property is only authorized as a legal non-conforming commercial establishment.

I've also cited the other in my report, the other applicable ordinances that I'm sure the board is more than aware of, as well as uh two legal uh precedence on the expansion of non-conforming use regarding how the such expansions are supposed to be construed narrowly and the prohibited uh expansion into new how uh expansion into new territory can constitute prohibited enlargement, even without an increase in the building's mass.

Now, as to their historic use argument that was submitted by the applicant, even if the driveway was historically used for ancillary business purposes, the legal non-conforming status is defined by the use as the date of the zoning change and recognizing the formal determination.

Unless the determination explicitly includes the driveway as part of a lawful operation area, an expansion into it for customer service space is an enlargement.

As to their ADA compliance, while ADA accessibility is a valid building code concern, it does not override zoning restrictions.

Accommodations must be made within the permitted development perimeters, uh parameters.

The applicant has not demonstrated in any way that compliance with the ADA requires the construction of an outdoor patio.

The palant states that the fire marshal indicated that the ADA required the installation of the patio.

However, the fire marshal's report on May 9, 2025 indicates that no such deficiencies were even observed on the property.

Lastly, if ADA compliance were truly the goal here, such compliance could be accomplished without violating the CZO.

As to their on-grade argument, the uh prohibition in 25.3.8.5 applies to increases in the operational footprint of the use, not only to structural additions with vertical height.

As to their argument that there was some reliance on staff guidance, the applicant's argument that they relied on quote unquote verbal guidance from the department is self-serving and unreliable.

They do not identify an employee of the department, the date alleged date of the conversation nor the contents of the purported conversation.

The board should also take consideration that the initial plan submitted by the appellant and for which a permit was originally issued, did not include a patio whatsoever.

Again, that was a subsequent after the fact application where that non-conforming use determination was made.

Lastly, reliance on the purple uh purported verbal statements of staff cannot confer rights that are contrary to the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

To the extent that the appellant is attempting to argue that the correspondence from Graces Espinosa somehow grants them the right to the non-conforming structure that is also misplaced.

Set aside that this communication came after the appellant was informed that the patio was an imper impermissible enlargement of the non-conforming use.

The correspondence from this Espinoza goes on to say to give more clarity on your project specifically.

This does not clear you from your existing zoning violations with regards to your NCU.

And if you're not allowed to have the structure per zoning, you need to remove said structure and contact the zoning division directly with any further questions at this point.

Again, so this argument also has no merit.

Lastly, as that we have the encroachment issue.

The patio encroaches onto a separate lot of record.

It's over the lot line.

The encroachment over the lot line is independently non-requompliant and will require resolution regardless of the non-conforming determination.

Given all of the above, the patio constitutes both a physical and functional expansion of the non-conforming use under the CZO and jurisprudence.

In conclusion, the department did not err in its original determination that it constitute the patio constitutes an expansion of a nonconforming use in violation of the CZO, that the encroachment onto the adjacent property is a separate compliance issue, and that ADA compliance could be addressed through alternative design solutions within the lawful footprint or existing approved operational area.

Based on the CZO case law and prior precedent of this board, the installation is a prohibited expansion of a non-conforming use.

The conform non-conforming use uh rights do not extend to new customer service areas in the driveway, and the encroachment further presents approve or prevents approval in its current form, at least deny this appeal.

All right, thank you.

Is the applicant present for VZA dock in number 78-25?

Please come up, name and uh address for the record, please.

You hello, David Provot Gilman, owner at 2045 Broadway Street.

Uh the determination from zoning is that the patio was for an expansion of a structure or land.

Our understanding is that this is not an expansion of the structure.

We also had the understanding that this was not an expansion of business based on the city's definition because we will not be and we will not be conducting business outside.

No table service, no customer service, as the zoning representative has stated.

I just want to clarify that we are not open as of right now and are very eager to open our doors to the neighborhood.

Additionally, this is something I think is pretty critical, but since the determination from zoning, the building department has confirmed that this patio does not require a permit at all.

This is on page 12 of your packet.

We obtained support letters from every single adjacent neighbor.

A few of our neighbors are students and recent grads who are excited to also work for us once we get open.

We also work with our next door neighbor whose property faces the patio to settle on a nice design for this patio, and he is in support.

Lastly, I stated this is currently our ADA access, and we will not be ADA compliant if we are forced to remove this.

We don't have a lawyer or architect representing us, it's just my wife and I.

I built this patio with my brother, and we are hopeful that we can keep it in place.

We are eager to resolve this with the city and be granted our business license so we can finally open.

Thank you.

All right, anyone else here to speak in support of the applicant.

Town of Carleton Watch.

I'm not paid to be here.

Uh the neighborhood watched.

Um while the old neighborhood washwoman site, laundromat dry cleaner for decades, uh, was purchased by Mr.

Private Gildman, and um just want to say welcome to the neighborhood from uh broadly across Carleton University area.

And uh Mr.

McNamara, as usual, gave a robust and impressive report.

Uh I do not pretend to understand the niceties of this um problem, but I hope that you will look upon the new commercial, the new business owners kindly and uh and help them in any way you can.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in support of the applicant?

Anyone here to speak in opposition to this item?

Okay, seeing none.

Um questions from the board, and I I do have an initial one to the applicant and trying to get some uh clarity from what you did provide in your justification.

Uh you did mention that you constructed the patio between you and your brother constructed the patio without plans.

Okay.

Um, one thing I think that's very important is that one you you made some comments in your presentation related to none of the outdoor seating, but if I understand correctly from a sketch as provided, it shows um seating on the in the driveway area.

That's so I'm trying to understand what is what is actually what are you what is the proposal and what has been appropriately demonstrated to the city in terms of its intended use.

Yes, so everything is a it's a specialty restaurant, everything is served inside.

We were going to provide some picnic tables out there if people wanted to sit, but what's been requested is that we demolish the entire thing, which feels a little bit unreasonable.

Um so if we have to remove the seating, we would like to have seating, but we also want to keep the patio in place.

So I guess those different priorities of what we're asking.

That would be the ideal.

If we can't have seating, we'd like to at least maintain the the patio in place with no seating.

Okay, so but you do also understand that you've inherently created a structure in some capacity because it does have some level of a foundation and placement inside that driveway area that encroaches beyond the property line.

You you do understand that piece.

I I guess we didn't understand it as a structure, because kind of like a fence might be shared between two parties.

Yeah, but usually you would have a fence that sits on the property line, not crossing the two properties without it being addressed holistically from both entities.

Yeah, from the neighboring.

From the neighboring property, correct.

Yeah, which which we did.

We we did it with the neighbor, we've spoken with them, got approval and all that.

Um we had to but again, it's you're creating a singular structural element that crosses a boundary line, and traditionally that isn't yeah.

You want to add to it.

So I I think I have some questions for the director too, but along this line, so I I take some exception to what they're saying about the expansion of your business use just by the fact of building the patio.

I think the issue that we're all gonna have is you have a non-conforming use on your lot, and you've built this patio, whether it's a structure or not, doesn't matter to us, cross a lot line into what I presume if you can confirm for me as a residence, correct?

Yes.

Yes, okay.

So um you're you're kind of appropriating their property, whether you have their permission or not, you're kind of appropriating their property for your non-conforming use, just for whatever portion of that driveway side yard that they have.

Now, I don't know enough, and it I don't know that it was in anybody's report.

The survey seems to indicate it's like a it's it says shared driveway, but do you know do you have any sort of legal agreement with your neighbor regarding it?

Okay, can you describe it to us?

It's uh basically uh I think they formed he's a he owns the title company.

Um so they had a boilerplate kind of item.

I think it's leasing us that uh parcel to be used for this patio.

Um yeah, all right.

So when I hear that piece, if that is the the tool that's being used, you're now granting use of the adjoining residential property, which is outside of the the lot limits, and in theory, back to what Mr.

McMurris presenting, you've expanded what is considered a non-conforming use beyond the property line.

So even if it's the intent to just have some type of uh elevated debt configuration, you are inherently expanding the non-conforming use beyond a beyond the limits of where you can use the property.

Can I get some more?

Yeah, I have some more questions.

So does that legal agreement you made was that recent or is it is it a long time ago?

It was a long time ago, yeah.

Yeah, okay.

So there's like a long-standing common shared use of the drive.

Yeah.

Do you have any information about the date that it was signed or um well I signed it personally with with the neighbor?

Yes.

Okay, okay.

So since you've bought it, yeah.

Yeah, okay, all right.

All right, let me let me take another line of questioning here, real quick for the director.

Is for getting this common drive to your argument that the driveway, at least the portion of the driveway is not commercial use.

If it's not commercial use, what is it?

I'm sorry, which which like I I guess in your argument what you're saying is at least the portion of the site that has non-conforming commercial use can be expanded on.

Like how I I guess I'm so what they've done is I I'm maybe you should clarify your question.

Yeah, so I mean sorry.

My contention would be the the use, there's three foot six and a quarter or three point six two feet of side yard that's theirs.

That's on their property.

There's another something that's not on their property, right?

Is is your contention that they can't have commercial use of at least their portion of the side yard?

I'm my my contention is that the non-conforming use for the commercial property was limited to the building itself.

What they have done is they've extant expanded this.

Now they're trying to claim that they're doing this for ADA purposes, but if that's in fact the case, then why would you put different evidence of other people putting tables and chairs outside?

Why does this structure indicate tables and chairs outside?

Why do the pictures that were submitted there indicate that there is an outdoor use component for that?

So my uh as if I understand your question correctly, they what they are doing is they are expanding not that that commercial use to the extent that there is a commercial use that allowed for the driveway, adding additional seating areas outside under the guise of ADA compliance is a certain certainly suspect given the fact that you could easily comply with ADA in any other number of ways.

I would like to politely risk push back on that, because the the method for access that they've proposed is probably the most reasonable approach, particularly given the fact that it's a historic building.

I would like to just divide this into two issues.

One is that they're crossing a property line, that seems bad, but I'm pushing back very strongly on the fact that they can't have the use of the side yard for an ADA ramp because that's their property.

If I and I thought this correctly, I didn't hit that present it.

I'm I'm sorry, I didn't Yeah, I didn't hit at present it even from the department.

So in answer your question, look what's on the plans.

The plan is not just a ramp.

The ramp is it it goes beyond a ramp.

Yeah, yeah.

And I'm not saying that look, I'm not here arguing whether the ADA compliant an ADA compliant ramp is an improper use in itself, but that's not what's occurring here.

And all the other evidence that has been presented to you, including the plans that were submitted by the applicant, including the pictures of other properties showing tables essentially the uh the uh the heated at first uh uh and uh you know uh and cheated it too argument shows that this is not those weren't pictures of ADA compliant ramps.

So I think you should take that into consideration when you're evaluating really what is before you and the decision that was made by the department.

If this business wants to seek some kind of variance and then come before this board, that's a whole nother ball of wax.

But what we're talking about here today is whether the department erred in issuing this decision, and I submit that that uh based on the evidence that is in front of you today, I think you should not consider this uh this extrinsic evidence that is not before you today regarding that.

But the very simple fact is what this record has before you and what the department based on this record is that they have improperly expanded that non-conforming use.

Again, whether they want to get a variance, that's for a later date.

Okay.

I'm maybe I'm trying to press too fine a point here, but what I'm trying to hedge against is a decision regarding their property that would require them to come back for us for a variance.

And so let me press you on it again specifically.

If they wanted to put an ADA ramp in their side yard on their property, would that be permitted?

I'd have to, I mean, again, I'm not gonna I'm not gonna argue a point that is that is not before us.

I it it very well could be.

If they were submitting plans that showed a compliant ADA plan, that that might be, but again, I don't I don't know that there might be other alternative uh things that may be done for ADA compliance.

Whether this specific thing is the only thing that can be done, I cannot say because I have not seen them actually submit plans for the purpose of ADA compliance.

What they submitted plans for was an outdoor patio.

And I'm gonna go based off of what is shown in the document, what's shown in the documents one, it does not show where the property line falls within the ramp within a graphic representation, but from the standpoint of what I've seen here before over time and what has traditionally been allowed, even for an accessibility standpoint, yes, they could have a ramp within what is considered the driveway portion, but it's only within the boundary of their site.

But even with that ramp condition, it can come up, come up to the side door point of entry, what's shown in the images, and then trans traverse back down to grade on their portion of the site, and that would be the compliant area of where a ramp would happen, and not put a super fine point on it.

I don't want to see them back here for some sort of violation for an ADA ramp, I guess is a point.

And that's what that's where a big part of what my position of what my comments have been is based off of what I'm seeing in the doc documents provided today, understand exactly where Mr.

McNamara is coming from as it pertains to the use, and how in no capacity has anybody ever been allowed to have a non-conforming use expand beyond a footprint of their property.

Yeah.

So that's a part one.

But then if we're gonna use the justification of the ramp, I already see within a plan how the deck can be modified, reduced to the given footprint of their site, and still allow for ADA access into the property without expanding the non-conforming use.

And again, you know, if if they had submitted compliant plans, that might be uh something that would allow them to do something without seeking a variance, but that hasn't been done.

What they have done is they went to get an after fact permit for a patio they illegally built on that's not true, expanding their non-conforming use and uh across a property line.

I give the app would uh opportunity to respond.

So it was our understanding that this does not require a building permit, which it does not.

So we built it and then zoning came back saying you have to get a building uh building permit, which is why we then submitted those plans, but those should be null and void because we do not require a building permit.

But if you if you're building something that encroaches beyond a property line, and in theory, you also have something documented that shows that you you initially proposed seating to expand beyond a footprint, no matter whatever it may have been.

And I actually step back.

Because you're showing it as your ADA access ADA accessible ramp, it would have needed to be provided in some level of documentation to show where you're providing that means of access to the site, because it is still a commercial commercial use, not a residential use.

So you're putting in your ramp, and that would have been necessary.

Your ramp would have been needed for your um fire marshal's review.

Okay.

So you would have needed a permit to show that to put that in place.

And I think we're kind of using one thing to kind of say, well, no, technically, I'm relying on this piece, but essentially you are doing a commercial use, and I'm just saying you did not have an architect on an attorney to handle some of these items, but theoretically, that's why you do bounce those options off of those professionals in order to make sure you're not putting yourself into a precarious situation like the one we're looking at now.

So just to be clear for you.

I mean, the the the issue, if you were in a commercial zone and you had made an option to do this, like we're not the building committee department, we're the zoning appeal department, right?

So I don't we can't really speak to permit yes or no.

That's an argument that's not really pertinent for us.

It's doesn't comply with the zoning code or not.

If you had done this and your neighboring property was commercial and you had an agreement with them, then I think this would be totally fine.

I think the issue at hand is basically that you have a non-conforming commercial use and you've decided to build or decide is not the right word.

You you have built across the lot line, and there whether you say that there's you know you're gonna take away the intent for it or not.

The the truth is you've taken your commercial use and expanded it into the lot that it doesn't have a non-conforming use, right?

So I think I'm very much in support of the ADA ramp that can be built, that should be built.

I think you can work with the city to see like what documentation might be needed to make that legal, but the the patio very much does imply that you're moving your commercial use onto a non-commercial property onto essentially a residential lot, and that we will take an issue with because that's just not permitted.

So just to clarify, I'll need to get a permit for the ADA ramp, even if it's the same type of structure which doesn't require a permit.

We're we're not the building department, but we're we're volunteer citizens who sit on the zoning appeals board, so I think you could talk with Mr.

McNamara or his associates a safety and permit to tell you whether you need to retroactively.

I mean, I believe you've applied for a building permit to get here already, correct?

Yeah.

I would imagine that would be sufficient if you were to revise your plans to show what you need for access.

But I think we've got Alfonso maybe in a rush room for just a moment, but um, I think we're all convinced by the director's argument, and given what we know, you know, it's it's not appropriate to build from a non-conforming commercial lot across a residential lot line and assume that you can have the use regardless of what sort of legal agreement you have that's just not compliant.

All right, any other questions from the board.

So I know we kind of technically before I asked for any action.

I know we kind of technically lost some quorum for a second.

Can I just ask one more question?

Sorry.

Um I think that they said I could maybe address this through a conditional use or something like that.

Um do we still have to if we're not using it, we're off limits for anything other than ADA, we still have to completely remove the patio.

Yeah, asking for a whole bunch of other procedural items and us from the dais cannot advise you on that piece.

Um I would strongly advise I would just strongly advocate that you talk to a land use professional in some capacity to understand what lim what limitations and what other uh administrative remedies you have.

I will uh not to contradict my colleague, I would say there they're probably several options available to you.

If whatever you can do to demonstrate to the city that that use is not gonna extend across the property lines would be hugely to your benefit.

So I don't know if that's installing a barrier at the property line or demolishing part of it or you know something.

I'm I'm sure there are multiple ways you can get through it.

Um I think his question was strictly about a conditional use of other tools.

All I'm saying is consult with someone to get advice.

Yeah, or until I until that would be determined, yeah.

Correct.

Yeah, if to get your business open, I mean you're talking about long processes there, so to get your business open, I would do what you can to bring it into compliance.

Yeah, that's just what we're trying to do.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Oh any other questions from the board.

Uh if a motion is in order, proceed.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Vice Chair, regarding document number BZA 078-25 at 2045 Broadway.

Um I move to um deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the director of safety and permits, finding that there was not an error in the interpretation of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

All right, we have a motion and a sec and a second for BCA document number 078-25.

Uh accepting excuse me.

Denying the appeal.

Right.

In upholding the decision of the director of safety and permits, finding that there was no error in interpretation of comprehensive zoning ordinance.

Please vote to screens.

And that motion is passed.

Let the vice chair make a motion.

I'm sorry.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Second.

We have a motion and a second to adjoin today's meeting.

Uh rule.

Say again.

Um sorry.

Uh no.

First was Jason, second was uh second.

There you go.

You got it.

There we go.

All right.

Uh roll call vote.

Aye.

Aye.

And that motion yes, and the meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.