Good morning.

I would like to call the Monday, October 6th, Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting to order.

We will begin with roll call.

Candace Forrest.

Present.

Todd James.

Present.

Tamara Agins.

Present.

Jose Alvarez.

Present.

Ramiro Diaz is absent.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Present.

And Jason Richards.

Present.

At this time, would the board make a motion to defer the minutes from the September 8th meeting to the November 3rd meeting?

So move.

Second.

It's been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Alvarez to defer our minutes to the November meeting.

Vote your screens.

Staff wishes to advise the board of a pending text amendment to the comprehensive zoning ordinance that may include modifications impacting variances and decision appeals.

Please refer to your packets for a memorandum as well as attachments.

Motion numbered M25380 and exhibit A.

Motion number 25 380 directs the city planning commission to complete a study to amend the articles, amend articles 1234, 19 and 26 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance in order to streamline administrative processes, clarify unclear provisions, and codify evolving practice practices, and include as a part of this consideration the amendment illustrated in exhibit A attached.

As noted, the amendments under consideration may include modifications to sections relevant to variances and decision appeals.

See numbers 38 through 45 and 48 through 52 of exhibit A.

Note that exhibit A is neither exclusive nor final.

The staff's report's projected release date is October 7th, followed by a public hearing of the city's planning commission and order city planning commission on October 14th.

Subsequently, the City Planning Commission's council.

Sorry, the City Planning Commission's recommendation made within the city charter required time frames and to be and will be transmitted to the city council.

The city council will hold public hearings in accordance with Article 4, Section 42D4, which governs actions by the City Council and zoning text amendments.

Please review the enclosed and attached BCA staff and advise BCA staff if you have any comments.

Additionally, should the board have any interest in a more detailed presentation of the proposed amendments that can also be arranged.

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 2 p.m.

Please be advised that a public works committee meeting will be held during this time.

Action that the board takes today will be released in the form of a disposition notice by October 16th 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.

No nays the motion carries.

We're now going to executive session.

With the word now, um consider a motion to reconvene from the problem.

From the executive session.

Second by uh Commissioner Gonzalez to retire from executive session.

Okay.

Seven yes, no nays.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

We will now begin with unfinished business for variances.

Would the chair please rate the hearing rule for variances?

Yes.

Rules and procedures for public hearings, variance requests.

The following procedures shall be observed during the hearing.

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

The applicant or representative will speak first.

The presentation shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes for each applicant or representative speaker.

But in no event shall the cumulative presentation total by applicants or their representatives exceed 10 minutes.

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

Opponents are persons in opposition of the proposal will speak next and be allowed two minutes per speaker.

The applicant or representative will be allowed a rebuttal.

The rebuttal shall be limited to a cumulative maximum of three minutes.

For an 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.

If the case is deferred, it will be acted on at a subsequent meeting as provided by law.

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

Standard of review.

The first item on the agenda is VZA Docket.

Good morning.

This item is BCA Docket 069 for property located at 3405 Octavia Street.

This request is for variances from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the renovation of a single family dwelling, resulting in a parking pad located between the front facade and front property line, resulting in front yard parking, as well as the encroachment of an uncovered porch into the front yard setback.

The applicant proposes to elevate the existing two-story single family dwelling through the Orleans Parish Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to protect the structure from future flooding.

In doing so, the building's proposed elevation would enclose the existing garage to become an additional bedroom and would result uh in the loss of access from the driveway to the garage and thus the loss of a required off-street parking spot and a compliant location.

Article 11, Section 11.3 point B.3.a, Article 22, Section 22.8.a, point one, point B, point two.

Article 22, Section 22.11 point D.1, and Article 22, Section 22, uh.11.d.2 does not allow for parking in the front yard between the front facade and the front property line.

The proposed location for the required off-street parking space is located within the front yard of the site via a parking pad designed for one vehicle.

Article 21, section 21.6.a.1 allows uncovered porches, steps, and stoops to encroach six feet into a required front yard.

The proposed elevation includes the addition of a new uncovered front porch and staircase that protrudes 8.9 feet into the front yard setback, which necessitates a waiver as the maximum allowable front yard encroachment for uncovered porches, steps, and stoops is six feet.

Staff surveyed 18 surrounding residential lots.

Of those 18 properties, 13 were found to have compliant off-street parking.

And then of those 18 properties, 13 were found to be compliant with the encroachment allowance for uncovered porches, steps, and stoops.

In total, 73% of surrounding properties surveyed were in compliance with the requested variances.

Staff believes the requested variance from Article 11, Section 11.3 point 3.

Article 22, Section 22.8, point A, point one, point B.2.

Article 22, Section 22, point eleven point D.

Point one, and Article 22, Section 22.11.2 fail to meet criteria 245 and 6 of the standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.f of the CZO, finding in that literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance.

Four granting the variance confers the applicant special privileges, which is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district or similarly situated.

Five, the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality.

And six, strict adherence would not result in a demonstratable hardship.

Additionally, staff believes that the requested variants of Article 21, Section 21.6.1 for the porch of steps and stoops, encroachment failed to meet criteria 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the standards variances in that one special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to this land or structure involved and are not generally applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district.

Two literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district.

Five, the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality.

And six, strict adherence would not result in a demonstratable hardship.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

John McMiniman, 824 Dakon Street Jefferson.

I'm with Ruby on construction.

You can go ahead with your comments.

They're using the existing driveway where they're parking currently.

We're lifting the existing uh landing in the front door right now.

We're not adding any um length or uh into the encroachment area on the front of the house.

It is getting widened, but as you elevate the property to gain access, you're gonna add steps to the front, which do go out into the area, I believe, by 2.6 feet.

Is that the end of your comment?

Pretty much, yes.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA docket 069-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Um, just had a quick question.

Um, it seemed like there's a little bit of discrepancy what was in the report versus what was presented by the um applicant.

Um there was reference to HDLC, but it seems like in terms of a review from historic significance standpoint, but apparently it it appears that it was tied to SHIPO instead, which would be the state office for review and compliance with the mitigation program.

Is that correct?

I'm just trying to make sure we understand like the justification of show why the stairs is going straight out to the street.

Um it was reviewed by the historical review board that uh leans parish uses BBEC engineering firm to administer the grant for them.

They handle all the the dealings with FEMA and historical review board.

I'm not sure if it's SHIPA, meaning the state versus the the local one.

I'm not sure which historical review board, but it has been.

I mean, we work on this for a number of months back and forth with them to get it approved.

There's uh quite a number of houses on the street that have them coming straight out.

I think what they're again, I'm I don't want to speak for the historical review board on their side, they're trying to keep the historical aspect of it.

Um there are some residences that have the stairs turning in different directions, and they tend to come out a little more on the commercial looking side than there are some good ones, but I don't know how they do that part of it.

So, and that's why I'm bringing up the question is it pertains to the projection of the stairs.

If you look at what the staff provided as examples on the side street, um, and what is typical for what you see for that area of uh broadmore, um especially in a neighborhood, the stairs do usually have an L-shaped configuration where they run parallel to the front of the property and then turn before they come facing towards the street, which would not necessitate the need for the porch and stoop uh encroachment into the front yard condition.

Um the sec in the second question I also had was in the plan graphically there's a chair lift that that's shown inside the drawing.

So I'm just trying to understand is that because of an ADA requirement, or is that just a any chairlift would be for an ADA requirement?

The the grant program uh the hazard mitigation grant program does allow for the chair lifts to be installed, which would have been um on the front landing of the the structure.

Right so and because of that, what I also want to make sure is traditionally, I think with CPC, and I don't know if staff that looked at it through this lens or not, typically you would have a um an administrative review if that chair lift is triggering the requirement for the for the you have the chair lift, but is that also what's pushing for the parking stall to be located within the front yard?

And if that's the case, is this the appropriate review mechanism if that's all being triggered by ADA requests?

It doesn't appear as though uh any sort of disability is motivating the particular request to elevate the house and park in the front yard and design the steps to encroach.

Um but if the applicant would like to make an argument as of such, then we can consider it under the reasonable accommodations process.

I can look into that.

Especially when there's examples of how the stairs can be configured in an L shape, which may actually be a better safety mechanism at the porch, because right now you have the chair lift going basically discharging right at the top of the stairs, which usually would trigger more of a safety issue from my perspective versus having a better landing area of where the chair is supposed to discharge on the uh porch once it's been elevated.

The landing um did get expanded to be able to receive the ADA left.

Um it didn't affect the stair layout the way it's looking, and the recommendation that you're making to have the stair go into a different direction wouldn't um wouldn't affect the ADA lift.

It would possibly go into the parking on the left side, and then if it turned to the right, it would just put them farther away from their parking spot that they currently are using.

Actually, would if you did the L shape and mimicked the propagare is just around the corner, yeah.

The stair would come from the left-hand side of the elevation, come down and then discharge towards the front, which would actually driveway which would bring the stair closer to the driveway.

That could be something that they could uh float past the uh the historical review board again.

I don't know if it's really truly through them or if it's really just at the preference of the owner, because I don't know if that's really the I don't know if the shipwreck review is what's triggering.

They wouldn't direct them on that.

This would have been something presented to the owner's idea of how they wanted the steps to look that got presented to the uh review board, they accepted what was presented, and that's kind of my point.

All right.

No further questions.

Uh just to clarify the so in the existing condition there's a garage door, and the future condition there is not.

Is that because of the clearance of the floor slab and the the height of the the lift or is there a reason why you can't accommodate a garage?

When when the structure gets elevated, the height of the elevation dictates if you can park underneath it or not.

The the federal grant that's elevating this structure is not lifting it high enough to be able to park underneath it.

So you're not going to be able to add a door to the bottom of it to get a vehicle underneath it.

So that's that's a slab then that is being supported by the by the that section on the bottom does have concrete, but it's not the concrete isn't going to be elevated, it's not structurally sound.

So you could conceivably have a garage there because it could just be open structure.

I mean, you you just could leave out the joists and create a taller volume for a garage.

The floor is getting reconstructed if you look at the drawing.

Um the basement, the current ground level floor is not getting lifted.

Yes, it is.

But you said it wasn't concrete.

The concrete is not going to be elevated.

A wooden subfloor is going to be constructed.

Right, right.

So you could you could conceivably box out that area and have a a garage there because it's just a structure, it's a it's a choice to build rebuild that floor back.

Um when you do that, you have to accommodate for landings, steps, and everything in the inside, the space is very limited for them to accommodate that uh again.

I understand.

I'm just and you also have to get to a there It ends up becoming like a split level on the when we start doing or when they when they shoot the levels on this to go to a a specific height and they say they're lifting your height eight or nine feet, that's the finished floor.

You have everything underneath plumbing, substructure, uh floor joists, piers.

Um just because the finished floor is high enough to walk underneath, it doesn't mean that everything is I'm actually referring to the second floor, what's now the second floor is you're making a new room that used to be a garage, right?

And that space could be left open.

No, no, on the fur.

So you go up the steps, and there's a new room now that used to be a garage.

It would use to be a garage, right?

So it's adding addition.

So that space could be open.

I mean, I'm not saying this is good architecture.

I'm just saying that um we have to get around to the the choice of the architect to do it this way, because you could make a garage there.

And because you're not lifting the slab, you're building a new floor in, and you're making a new room that wasn't there before.

Yeah.

Just to Commissioner Diaz's point, what we've seen in the past, which has always been uh what has always made it more complicated when we dealt with these leveling programs is if we're elevating a slab foundation property, we can't do a split slab configuration.

But if he's mentioning that they're doing a frame wood frame substructure on his piece, then yes, it does change the entire question of how that footprint could have been utilized instead of it becoming a bonus room for the sake of this elevation request.

And I guess that's my point is it's a bonus room and it's it's you know additional, so it it makes it a little challenging for us.

I I think maybe I'm not seeing a section drawing provided in the plan that would help better articulate how it doesn't meet the vertical clearance in that space.

So that may I'm I'm sure they must have at least something drafted at least on our architect side, it may have just not been provided as a part of the run to issues with width, depth, access, putting a space down there, putting the piers to hold the structure, having walls wide enough to be able to pull a vehicle in, open the doors, get in and out.

That's if it that's if it's required to even be enclosed.

I mean, because you could still elevate it and have a carport.

I mean, there's a couple of different ways that it could have been addressed architecturally to still achieve that within the footprint.

Correct.

Yeah, I'll just say uh this one is hard for us to approve right now because we can see a way that the stair could be reconfigured to uh Mr.

James's point.

And to Rami Diaz's point, we can also you know in asking for the bedroom, you're giving up the parking, and then you're asking for the permission to park in front instead, whereas the zoning code would basically take the parking space away, and that was referenced in your letter too.

So I might propose if you're willing, we could defer this to allow you to see if there's a way to bring it more into compliance rather than outright rejecting it.

It's just in this particular case, there's too much we can see that would be able to bring you into compliance to approve the variance.

Yeah.

You could cover with that?

Okay.

Yes.

Madam Chair, motions in order.

Do we think 30 days is um is sufficient?

Um because I think there's some significant plan modifications.

I mean, I know he's not the architect or record, he's just the the contractor essentially for this.

Yeah, those um I know we've been seeing this one for a while, maybe recommend 60 just to allow them the time to modify the docks.

Okay.

Okay.

So, madam chair, um, a motion is for a 60-day deferral in order to give the applicant and their representatives time to review the drawings and take into consideration some of the commentary we provide it today.

It's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Eggins to defer this item 60 days, vote your screens.

Seven yes, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

Uh please know my recuse on this one.

The next item is VZA docket 07125 for the property at 4400 through 4420 Dauphin Street.

This is a request for variances from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a mixed-use development with excessive bit building height, where the applicant is proposing 97 feet four and a half inches, and requesting a waiver of twelve feet four and a half inches, insufficient electric vehicle charging stations.

The applicant is proposing twelve electric electric vehicle charging stations and requesting a waiver of 17 stations, insufficient electric vehicle charging ready stations.

The applicant is proposing 12 charging ready stations and requesting a waiver of 29 charging ready stations.

Staff is recommending approval in part and subject to two provisos and denial in part.

The staff believes that the requested variances of Article 15, Section 153A1, Table 15-2, Lok and Yard Regulations, building height, bills to meet criterion two of the standard of the variance, and that literal interpretation of the ordinance would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the district.

However, should the board find that the request meets all nine approval standards for variances of Article 4, Section 46F staff recommends one provision.

In addition, based on this report, staff believes that the requested variances of Article 22, Section 224A, Table 22-1, off-street vehicle and bicycle parking requirements, and Article 22, Section 224A, Table 22-1, for also for off-street vehicle and bicycle requirements.

Meet all nine of the nine criteria of variances and therefore for variances and therefore staff recommends approval subject to one proviso.

Is the applicant present for BZA Docket 071-25?

Yes, I am.

You could give your name and address for the record.

Peter Ahmitt.

The address is 400 Poider Street, suite 2620.

You could go ahead with your comment.

Do we want to talk about this variance first or put them both together for the height and for the parking?

It's both of them together.

Okay, thank you.

Good morning, Chairman, uh board members.

Uh thank you for your time today.

I also want to thank the planning commission staff for their diligence, their thoughtful review, and their professional analysis uh of our variance requests.

Uh I'm representing NSA EB603, that's the development uh company that's putting this together.

Uh this project is requesting two variances, as you've just heard.

Uh it's gonna be a transformative adaptive reuse project for the area.

Let me jump in really quickly, a couple points.

It's a unique project, it's three buildings.

Each building is six stories tall, each building is half a million square feet, and each floor plate is approximately two acres.

Uh, that being such, we're gonna take the first two buildings and deliver 294 uh affordable workforce housing units with some retail space on the ground floor.

Uh, we're doing this by converting historic buildings from the Navy Support Activity Center uh on Poland Avenue.

Uh at the same time, maintaining the architectural integrity uh for this significance.

Um there's a project that has unanimous support.

Um DAC gave us unanimous support on our design.

Both neighborhood groups have been very important in helping us get this done.

Uh Councilman King's office has been great uh asset to this, and also uh the city and state of Louisiana uh have contributed.

We're requesting two variances as you heard.

One is the EV charging infrastructure requirements.

Uh we're asking to go from 70 total to 24.

It best matches the demographics of the area and the reality of the affordable housing development.

I appreciate the uh nine out of nine hardships and the recommendation for approval.

That being such, I'd like to speak briefly on the height variance issue.

Um we respectfully disagree with the staff's uh findings on the second criteria according to height as I understand it.

In order to prove the second uh hardship, you have to compare it to like in kind developments uh in similar uh M2 districts in the vicinity.

Well, there are no like in kind projects, and there are no other M2 districts in the vicinity, making this direct comparison uh impossible.

Um so we ask the board support our position on the second criteria is satisfied.

We'd like to address uh this specific point in a little more.

That's the um the end of your time, so we'll get back um if we have some further questions for you.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 071-25.

Good morning, board Zach Smith, 1000 South Norman Sea Francis.

Zach Smith, 1000 South Norman Sea Francis.

Uh I am not paid to be here, but I do enough work with a lot of clients, so I always I even check the boxes as I'm paid to be here.

Uh I think this is a great project.

As someone who saw this project, um, just struggling to get off the ground for so many years.

This has been one hell of a project to finally get moving.

And uh, you know, without all the particulars, I would hate to see anything related to this development get hung up, especially with all of the unique rooftop features.

Uh, I know the the staff sometimes has a very uh tricky spot to get to nine and nine, but the idea that the that both of these waivers requested can't be approved, so that this long, long, long-needed project can move forward.

I would hope that this board can get them across the finish line.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA docket 071-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board.

Seeing none is there a motion.

Yeah, uh, if a motion is in order.

Yep, proceed.

Uh before I make the motion, I just want to say uh uh I uh after reading the written record and listening to the applicant's argument.

I I uh fully agree with them that that second provision is sort of ambiguous.

Um, furthermore, just from the observations of the plans that were submitted, there is an existing rooftop edition there.

It's broadly similar in height.

So for those reasons, um, I'm gonna recommend approval.

Uh so regarding Docket BZA 071-25.

I move to approve uh accept the staff's approval of the waivers of Article 22, Section 22.4.8, table 22-1 for all street vehicle and parking requirements, um, subject to the one proviso that they listed, and uh also approve Article 15 uh waivers of Article 15, Section 15.3.8.1, Table 15-1 bulk and yard regulations for the high waiver of 12 foot four and a half inches, finding that it meets nine of the nine criteria of section 4.6 F of the conference of zoning ordinance.

Um it's the same provisor for both.

One proviso is for site plan and the other is for elevations.

I apologize.

Uh so subject to the one proviso that applies to the two, subject to two provisos.

Yes, yes.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA Docket 071-25, it's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner Diaz to grant the requested waivers, finding that the nine criteria have been met and adopting commentary and submissions um submitted by the applicant as support that uh the nine criteria as support for establishment that the nine criteria have been met, subject to two provisos.

Vote your screens.

Six years.

Um note one recruit one recusal on the motion carries.

Next slide.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

We will now begin with new business for variances.

BZA Docket 07925 for the property at 2212 South Clayborne Avenue.

The next item is BZA 07925 for a property located at 2212 South Claiborne Avenue.

The request is for a variance from provisions of Article 15 Section 15.3A1, Table 15-2, and Article 22, Section 22.4.8, Table 22-1.

Of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a standard restaurant with insufficient light area, insufficient permeable open space, insufficient interior side yard setbacks, insufficient rear yard, insufficient R-street parking, and insufficient bicycle parking.

The request proposes the construction of a two-story standard restaurant on the former footprint of a demolished structure.

Located in the C2 auto-oriented commercial district, the gloss gross floor area of the proposed structure is approximately 2,750 square feet, and no off-street or bicycle spaces are proposed.

As a vacant residentially sized parcel, the proposed commercial development will provide 10.7% of the required 20% permeable open space, two feet one inch with the required five-foot interior side yard setbacks, seven feet of the required 25-foot rear yard setback, and 2,700 square feet of the required 5,000 square foot lot area.

Due to the last residential like dimensions in the commercial zoning district, the lot is considered an anomaly within the zoning district as it differs from the size and orientation of other non-residential lots.

However, the proposed commercial development is not found to be consistent with the criteria standards for variances.

Based on this report, staff believe that the requested variances of Article 15, Section 153A1, Table 11-2, minimum lot area.

And Article 22, Section 22.4A, Table 221A, R Street Vehicle Parking Requirements meets nine of the nine criteria, standards for the articles of variances.

Therefore, staff recommends approval, subject to two provisals.

However, based on this report, staff believe that the requested variances of Article 15, Section 153A1, Table 15-2, minimum permeable open space, interior side yard setback, and rear yard setback.

Filled to meet standards six, eight, and nine of the standard for variances of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, and that strict adherence will not result in the demonstrable hardship.

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

The variance will impair the adequate supply of light or air to the adjacent property.

Lastly, staff believe that the requested variance of Article 22, Section 22.4A, Table 22-1, bicycle parking requirements, those to meet standards 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of the standards of variance for articles, sorry, in Article 4 is Section 4.6, and that there are no special conditions that are peculiar to the land or structure.

Literal interpretation of the ordinance will not depart the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the district.

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

Strict adherence will not result in a demonstrable hardship.

The request is primarily for the convenience or profit of the owner or other interested party, and the variance will be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to other property.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

The applicant present for BCA Docket 079-25.

Yes.

Good morning.

How are you doing?

If you could give your name and address for the record, my name is Angela Dix, 1219 Numa Street, New Orleans, Louisiana.

You can go ahead with your comments.

Okay.

So I got a quick question.

Do I go based on these the last variances that she said or what I have written?

I mean you're responding to the staff report.

So that's the question I have.

So in the staff report, there's an impact analysis, also the staff's recommendation.

So it's really confusing because in the impact analysis, it says that we've met everything, but yet in the staff report, it says that we haven't.

So that's where the confusion comes in it.

But I'll just speak based on starting from the beginning of what she said.

So this property um has been in continuous use, commercial use for over 40 years.

Over that time, it has housed at least three barrooms and two restaurants.

The most recent being a ballroom and lounge that also served food.

And until the previous owner passed away.

My own family's restaurant, Alexis Fried Chicken and Seafood was actually housed directly next door and served the community for decades until it was lost during Hurricane Katrina.

If not for that storm, our family business will still be in operation today.

When I purchased the property last year, it was already an undecised challenging condition.

I personally demolished the unsafe structure under drug activity, trespassing, continued despite repeated board-ups.

I um in turn worked with the uh pastor with the church next door and assured him we were dealing with um trying to get our restaurant back up and running, but on my own terms, I went on and demolished the building myself, not the city.

All of we are asking in that area is to rebuild in the same footprint with the two-story building, a restaurant on the first floor, an office and storage on the second floor, due to the fact of the small space that's um in there.

This property has always been commercial.

I'm not asking for something new.

I'm asking to restore what has long existed here in the same footprint or responsibly and safely.

Also, they've mentioned about uh off-street parking.

I already have a letter of intent.

I didn't know I needed to put it in that packet, but the property that sits on to the right side, uh, we're gonna be allowed to use that parking, which is suffice for over third 20 to 30 parking spaces.

Also, we'll be able to have uh bicycle.

And as far as uh the going to um I I guess I didn't understand the variance where it says it's detrimental to the public welfare and uh the congestion along with the supply of light or air on the adjacent properties to the left of us is the empty parking lot for the church, to the right of us is the empty parking lot.

Um, and as far as the danger of fire or endangering public safety with the materials that we plan on using, which is fire retarded materials for the new building, as opposed to the other building that was there for over 70 years.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 079-25?

If you could come up, please.

Good morning.

Ray Humphrey, 1219 Newman Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, speaking on behalf of Triple A Dix.

Uh first I want to say thank you to the board for giving us this opportunity to discuss.

Uh I appreciate the staff's thorough review, but I'd like to respectfully rebut the recommendation for partial denial.

First, uh the property located at 2212 South Claiborne has previously existed in its current form for over a century.

Uh it was previously held as a commercial building on the same footprint until we demolish the building for public safety.

Second, concerns about stormwater or fire safety are speculative and fuel fully mitigable.

We're prepared to use permeable materials, fire rated construction, and proper drainage to ensure compliance with modern safety standards.

Third, every comparable property alone this corridor operates with similar or greater nonconformities, and the last three variants requests in the same zoning district were all approved.

Denying this one would be inconsistent and inequitable.

And then lastly, I'll state that unlike most of the people here that will speak.

Alexis is a place where I met my wife, so it has a sentimental value.

So I appreciate you guys uh letting this thing move forward with no reservation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant?

Hi, thank you so much for letting me speak.

My name is G.

Joan Rhodes.

I live at 1141 Governor Nickel Street in the Tremay.

I'm a family member of the Rhodes family who operates Rhodes Funeral Homes on Washington Avenue.

I knew Alexis many years ago.

I knew her mother when they ran the business.

They've always run a clean business that has supported the community.

I support the uh allowing this family to re-establish their business.

Uh small business is important for our community.

I've seen them operate other businesses, and I feel confident that they will follow the law, they will be good citizens, and a benefit to the community.

This variance is a small thing to ask, and I'd appreciate your consideration.

Thank you.

Actually, I read through the report, and I maybe it's the attorney in me and not the public policy PhD person in me, but I could not find the evidence supporting many of this just simple statements that were made therein.

I I due process, I just kind of find that disheartening.

Number two, when speaking in terms of holistically, the variance is requested here are not um or dissimilar to variances granted to other properties along the Clayborn corridor.

And so for equitable reasons, I cannot understand why this historic, and I say historic third point, um, business, Alexis fried chicken and seafood from the Alexis family, um, should not be allowed to continue.

We as a community should be trying, I think.

Look up folks, we should be trying to support um historic businesses returning to New Orleans, especially post-Hurricane Katrina.

Thank you.

Um, and um I want to request that you all make that consideration out of equity, fairness, and justice, that we continue to support and and and try to encourage those businesses to return.

I have familiarity with that business, I have familiarity with those owners and what they did for the community.

Things that more often than not, we don't hear about.

We don't hear about philanthropy when it comes often from small businesses, small churches.

But the philanthropy of the Dixon Alexis families goes back centuries, and I want you all to consider that in you know this request for variance.

Thank you so very much.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant?

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Charlie Mendy.

I am uh a citizen of New Orleans, lived in uh at 203 Cherokee Street uh in the Black Pearl.

Um I'm just grateful to be here.

Um we're talking about something that's um very very important.

Uh supporting um a legacy, a legacy of uh the Dix family that have uh they have walked hard.

The parents have worked hard to really um pass on what they have what they have going on.

So we as citizens, we should really do whatever it takes to stand by, support, and walk with whatever the challenges are.

This is a legacy that we need to walk with and support them and to make sure that this restaurants get back into commerce because it's very, very important to our community as we know.

What makes New Orleans?

New Orleans is about what?

Culture, food, food and food, music, and the spirits.

And by the way, I'm standing here on behalf of the Dix families.

You know, that those ancestors are here with with me.

They are the ones that sent me here to make sure that to remind us that we should not forget where we come from.

They have worked hard to bring this family where they are today.

So we need to continue this legacy and support the Dix family.

And they are so humble, and like Stacy was saying, they do so much for our community, not only that, for the family, for the generation to come.

And I'm just saying this because I'm a witness.

I've seen them, I've been knowing them, and I've been here for so many years.

So please let's support Alexis Priced Chicken and Seafood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in support of the applicant?

Good morning.

Angelica Dix, 2412 Potomac Street, New Orleans, Louisiana.

I am the oldest daughter of Angela Dix, and before Hurricane Katrina, I worked some nights with my mom at Alexis Fried Chicken.

I remember the long nights and the hard work.

My mom and my aunt worked together and they split the shifts.

My mom worked from 11 p.m.

to 5 a.m.

And during those times, I stayed with my aunt and she watched me.

But there were also many nights where I also stayed at the restaurant and I helped my mom work.

I remember just four years old sitting, sitting on uh the countertop and taking orders.

This went on from a long time from a little girl to about eight years old.

For us, Alexis Fried Chicken was not just a business, it was our family's life and legacy.

I saw how hard my mom and I worked, and how much they sacrificed and how much pride they took in serving this community.

That's why this project means so much to me.

I know what we lost after Katrina, and I know what it will mean for the community to see our family's restaurant rebuilt.

I'm proud to stand with my mom and support bringing Alexis Fried Chicken back.

I know many people throughout this community that speak about Alexis Fried Chicken all the time and how much it brought people together in the city.

One thing New Orleans stands on is community, food, and soul.

And that is what Alexis Fried Chicken brought to New Orleans, and it needs to come back so we can get people back in the community together and get our family legacy back where it needs to be.

And I would really appreciate it if you guys could see everything that we are trying to do for the city.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Jason Coleman, uh 600 Jackson Avenue, 7013.

Um thank you all for being here and for participating in the public policy and as board members.

I represent uh Coleman Caleb Company, which is on Jackson Avenue.

I grew up on Phillip Street, which is the bounding uh latitude streets uh of this project.

And growing up in Uptown and going to church, three of my former members have spoken.

So we are all family-oriented around this business.

Uh our business is 79 years old this year, and Alexis uh should be right there with us.

But due to the interruption because of the storm, uh they are now rebuilding and trying to get uh back into service for the community, and I would ask that y'all consider uh the variations of a request uh based on what I know that the Israel Baptist Church has also sent a support letter of it, which is the adjacent property, and the other questions of parking and uh bike concerns have been met by the additional contract of the uh Jason open uh lot.

So at the end of the day, I humbly ask for y'all uh to request support for this project so we can continue the legacy of City of New Orleans with family businesses.

We know how hard it is to keep them going, but helping them getting back after Katrina, this would be uh uptown boost for legacy, and thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here?

Good morning.

My name is Pamela Dix, 18 Mentor Drive, Mandeville, Louisiana.

I'm here in full support of Alexis Fried Chicken and Seafood Rebuild as the oldest grandchild in our family.

I have witnessed firsthand the legacy, dedication and faith that has been poured into this vision for multiple generations.

Our family commitment to rebuilding and continuing this legacy is deeply personal.

We come a long, we come from a long line of hard-working entrepreneurs who built businesses that not only served our community but brought people together.

This project represents much more than construction, it represents restoration, family unity, and the um continuation of a dream that began decades ago.

I fully support Angela and the entire family as they move forward.

I believe this project will have a lasting impact in our community, honor those who came before us and provide opportunities for generations to come.

Thank you.

And by the way, my father worked there.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant?

Good morning.

My name is Jalise Jacob Spier, 5266 Tullish Drive, New Orleans.

This restaurant has always been more than a business to our family.

It has been a part of our history, our memories, and our community.

Even though I am part of the younger generation, I grew up hearing stories about Alexis Fried Chicken and seafood and the love, dedication, and hard work that went into it.

Our elders built something truly special that brought excuse me, they brought people together and made everyone feel like family.

Seeing this legacy being restored after Hurricane Katrina is both inspiring and meaningful for all of us.

I am proud to stand behind this project and behind Angela, who is carrying carrying forward the vision that began with our family decades ago.

Rebuilding Alexis is not about reopening uh restaurant, it's about reviving a piece of our family.

Uh I'm sorry, a piece of our family's heart and sharing it once again with the New Orleans community with sincere support and excitement, Jalise.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant?

Good morning.

Hi, my name is Sheryl Doyle, 1801 Nye Parkway in New Orleans, Louisiana.

I would like to express my full support for rebuilding Alexis Fried Chicken and Seafood.

This project has a deep meaning to my family.

My mother and my father both were across the street at Mason's Las Vegas Strip and would go to Alexis a lot during their time working there.

And there were a lot of stars, like Sammy Davis Jr., Mohammed Ali that also visited Alexis Chicken.

I remember hearing stories and going to events at this location.

This has been a staple in the heart of our family and a staple in the community since 1938.

My parents, friends, and the loss of it since Katrina has really sat in my heart, and to see it come back would mean so much to my family and the legacy of my family.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant?

Good afternoon, thank you.

Um my mother's brother, my uncle started this business on Clayborn Avenue.

And I would like each of you to consider a support and request for variants.

Thank you.

You could give your name and address for the record, please.

Yes.

Judith Benson, 1437, North Roman.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 079-25.

Good morning.

Heidi Hickman, 1437 North Roman.

I am a member of the Alexis family.

I just wanted to say that the requests for variants are really nominal, and we do miss the fact that this uh restaurant hasn't been able to rebuild after the storm.

Um again, you've heard a lot of people who are willing and able to see this through.

Um, we're very happy that Angela has taken on the project, and again, we are fully in support of these variances uh that are being requested so that we can see this open again.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 079-25.

Good morning, board.

Zach Smith 1000 South Norman Sea Francis.

Uh, I've known Miss Angela and Mr.

Ray for quite a bit, and we'll continue to pile on with all of their support that they're just wonderful people, and this is going to be a great addition to South Claiborne.

Making sure to not miss any of these other arguments.

Uh, you know, when we talk about 6, 8, and 9, uh, you know, uh, especially on the interior lot, this is a 90-foot uh deep lot.

It is traditionally something that uh, you know, when it was originally cut when it was originally made, even though prior to it had a uh a business on it.

This is a short lot, it's an extremely thin lot.

So when we talk about how number six says will not result in a demonstrable hardship to enforce a full rear yard setback and/or to enforce both interior side yard setbacks, you essentially create this very, very, very tiny buildable footprint for a commercial business.

You compare this and zoom out to the map that shows a lot of the commercial C2 lots in and around this area, they're much wider lots so they can accommodate these sorts of things.

So again, not granting this variance is gonna create an absolute hardship on them.

And then when it comes to eight and nine on is it injurious to public health and whatnot, the C2 allows for that 40-foot height, it allows for three stories.

This is obviously well within that.

If this was a house kind of permitted by right and all that, again, this is not gonna create that issue.

It is in C2, so there's not exactly that protection needed for neighbors and whatnot in that sort of way.

But this lot is more akin to something that would have been residential.

That's why it's so important to look at the history of this and the fact that this building was just removed in its existing footprint because it needs that in order to actually survive and exist.

If not, this essentially becomes an undevelopable lot.

On the bicycle parking, there's too many with only 12 seconds to kind of talk about, but fundamentally, if they end up dedicating their entire lot to park to bicycle parking, they can make that happen.

But if but but uh they'd have to essentially give up so much of the ability to make this as a successful commercial business.

So I hope you guys are able to grant all of these.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 079-25.

Good morning.

How are you doing?

My name is Verland Dix, 5400 Rhodes Avenue.

I'm here in support of my sister to help rebuild the legacy and the building of the restaurant on Claire Golden Avenue, just like everybody else has also spoke.

I grew up in there, uh worked there, got a lot of uh families or met a lot of families and people in the area, and just think it's important to try to get it back in the community to help uh continue our legacy and uh continue the things as far as meeting other families and and helping the way my my father and my mother helped in the community with uh the residents in the area.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant?

Good morning, my name is Dr.

Charles Coleman.

I reside at 6951 General DS Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70124.

I'm not familiar with all the variances and all the zoning requirements, but I'm here to give support and granting them a variance due to historical nature of the business.

And as Tracy mentioned, the uh importance of having a New Orleans-based business that actually contributes back to New Orleans.

A lot of times we have businesses, nationwide businesses, and if you ask them for any type of community grant or anything, they won't give, even the company I work with in the past.

I have asked sometimes when patients come to me and ask for certain things, I'll ask my corporation, and they wouldn't even want to contribute.

They'll tell me to contribute out of my own money.

So I can attest to the family of the Dix and Alexis for years.

Even for myself, um Angela Dad was there for everything I did in support without me even telling him he would just come automatically.

And he supported the theater, the local theaters, the community theaters.

So a lot of those things you have to consider when granting a business, uh, a license or whatever, the impact, how they would have a positive impact on the community.

I think this business would definitely have a positive impact on the community.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 079-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

All right, question six.

And let me let me give you a little preface.

So I totally understand what you guys are trying to work through right now.

I myself is one of those kids, much like your daughter, used to sit on my grandfather's bar the entire time they operated at Jill's drop.

So I get it.

Um, but but the thing I want to make sure we're understanding is the framework of what Breda did work with.

Try to work up in your report to try to help get you to the point of getting closer to open.

And there are some triggers in here that we have to really make sure we look at in terms of how it's impacted, not just by zoning, but also understand that you're gonna have some building code triggers and questions that are gonna come up that's gonna cause you to have to modify the plans for the building in general.

So a lot of what we're trying to help to address is to help expedite you getting open sooner versus taking this report as a complete shutdown on what you guys are proposing, because that's not the case of what the staff did provide.

Um, that's why you do see some partial requirements for support on some of these waivers versus some of them not being in support, especially when when we get into the setback conditions as it pertains to the side yards and the rear yard.

Now, the rear yard thing, I think that's a little bit like I could only speak for Todd, okay.

Rear yard, I get it, side yard, that's gonna be triggered heavily by fire code and how the plan is gonna have to be modified.

So, one thing I do have to ask you do you already have an architect or a professional of record signed on to do the drawings for this project?

So we have to make sure you speak into the mic because I want to make sure we work through it and hear you clearly we we do have um all consent that we have in mind but I wanted to make sure because it doesn't make sense to spend money and everything has to be totally changed.

So we did sit down with somebody to go over what we have now but I needed to make sure you know before we go full speed ahead and as far as the side yard um because as the building stood it was just it was still standing there everything we just um on labor day tore the building down so those side yards so on the right if you're facing the building on the right hand side there isn't there's there won't be a door on the left hand side so there isn't a problem with as far as uh if there's a fire and somebody needs to get out.

So let me help you out with this piece because I don't want you to speak to something that's on code that you're not necessarily familiar with.

Okay.

When you have these the reason why they establish the setback condition is so basically if fire department could access the building appropriately in the case of an emergency that you have enough width for a stair condition for you to have the appropriate ingress and egress requirements.

So the reason why I asked if you had an architect involved is because there are paths of travel that you have to make sure you're gonna be able to meet if someone's exiting out the kitchen based on your plan they got to have enough width on the side of the building to get away from the building safely because you can't discharge through the properties behind you legally.

All right so there's a lot of things in in why the zoning ordinance is set up the way it is right now to help put protection not just it's not just about the public it's about you all right and how you would potentially operate within the facility so I think that there's some plan modifications that do that you really do need to look at especially when we look at those conditions.

Here's a second one for you the way you have the plan shown up shown right now where it's only two feet on the side yard that's not a safe width for someone to bypass that side of the building second part with the windows being shown there you're not just in a plan I can tell you right now you go to plan review you're gonna lose all those windows they're not gonna allow you to have them you're gonna end up with a solid wall across that entire side of the building I don't think that's ideally what you're looking for when you want to come back and operate the facility and also it's actually going to create more of a fire code requirement when you develop your floor plan.

So there's a lot of things that are going to get triggered just by laying it out the way you have it right now.

So I think there's a lot of if you have someone you can engage with early I strongly recommend that you look at that first before we try to push what what's in front of us right now because I don't want you to then say okay well the board gave us the waivers and then you're gonna still have to modify it anyway because safety and permit still has to review it from a plan standpoint and the state fire marshal.

No so we're perfectly fine but if we get the waivers and safety and permits and the um I know we have to go through fire marshal also plus we also have to go through the overlay if they say you can't have this because it it's set up the way it is set up because that's how the building as it stands in the footprint is was and so here's the other piece you haven't had a structural engineer to evaluate if you could put it back on the same foundations if that's what you're intending to do.

That's a totally different animal there's a lot of different components that no we did see an engineer.

So when you say back on the same structure you mean the grounds because we have to drive pilings.

You're gonna so all right you're gonna have to drive a whole new foundation guess what if the footings are still in the same place of where the old building was or if there's any subsurface conditions that exist you end up driving your piles in a different location.

Nothing is there.

It's unforeseen so I'm looking I'm telling you from my professional capacity of once reform architect we often joke about in the construction space now.

So trying to just give you real clarity that what we're trying to get to is a recommendation is really just to help you guys out and streamline that process going forward.

I I I hate to see that we're kind of in a chicken chicken and egg scenario that it's a I want to hurry up hey this is what I'd like to do well no let's make sure we confirm exactly what you can do based on the how the building can be configured.

I think there's some leeway on how the side yard conditions can be worked out but I'm gonna just strongly advocate that you maybe look at this again come up with a revised concept plan with someone who could really look at this against the fire code and the other applicable codes to confirm where what would the most ideal outcome look like for you to be able to open up the way you need to set this up I just want to make sure we get that right first because you're gonna I'm just trying to avoid you having a reliance on us approving one thing and then all of a sudden it's gonna change anyway and in all likelihood maybe even have to come back to us downstream.

And in all likelihood, maybe even have to come back to us downstream.

Excuse me, uh Mr.

James James.

Yes.

Um the purpose of this and the variance is just to understand what our footprint could possibly be.

This is not a finished building.

It's not like if the variance is approved, they're gonna move forward directly and try to erect this structure.

We didn't have a whole lot of time to prepare, and we don't know what we can do or cannot do because of the situation.

It is very much so like you said, a chicken or egg situation.

All we're looking at is can we have the variance so that when we meet with our architect and we develop a plan for the site, we know what the actual boundaries can be, which is the size of the lot size of 90 by was it 30?

30 30 by 90.

That's what we're looking for right now.

We're not saying this is what's gonna happen next.

We understand that.

We just need the board of zoning to understand that we need to have full use of the lot, provided the building that is approved, will require more space than what the uh current zoning with the uh new allow the the uh without the variance would allow.

Totally get it.

I I get where you're coming from, but I think we are doing this out of sequence slightly.

Because it's not just it's not just the parameters of what you would like to build too.

We have to take into effect what's in a plan.

So look, in the I think when the I think the difference is when we before when we applied for everything, the building was still there, right?

Right.

So initially we were supposed to be on dock it in September.

Okay, so we got pushed to October, but because I made a promise to the pastor, it was supposed to be the September the 8th docket, right?

We go, you know, and I told him before the end of September, don't worry, we go before the board once you guys tell us what we can and can't do, then I'll tell you know, I'll know if to restructure the building in place or tear it down.

But because I made the promise, I would have it dealt with before then and between a lot of the addicts in the area they kept tearing our boards down.

Understood.

I just took it down because I wanted to have that, you know, relationship with the pastor that I was keeping my word, and that's why I took it down.

Okay, so I didn't from the presentation didn't understand that's kind of how we got to this point.

Yes, but again, it's we have to rely on the documents that's provided before.

So I know I'm one person, I know some other people may have comments.

If I can maybe uh attempt to sort of bridge where we are with the current status application and what we might need to to get it approved.

So the the staff is as recommended approval for your lot area and for your parking.

So we're not debating those.

Really, what we're talking about is permeable open space in your side yard setbacks.

Um I personally again I can only speak for myself, board member Richards, but I think most of us would agree that the uh like the the presentation you just gave about the hardship of the necessity to tear the building down, is what's causing these variances to occur because you have the right to extend your building up where it's still there, right?

So we're we're we're buying the variances or at least I am, but to Mr.

James's point, we don't want you to be in a position or don't want to to as a board approve something that's not going to conform with the plans that you ultimately need to submit for fire safety, life safety, and a building permit, right?

So right now, I believe that the two sticky issues are the two side yards, and then we haven't talked at all about this, but I would ask you um the the bicycle parking was omitted.

Is is that something you feel very strongly about in the middle of the case?

So I spoke on I'm sorry if I missed that.

Right.

So I spoke on the intent of using the lot next door.

We're allowed to we have um permission to use the lot next door for bicycle and for uh a parking.

Okay, great.

Yeah, so um with that one, does that staff does that still require a waiver?

Bicycle parking is not permitted further than 50 feet from the primary entrance, so I'm not sure if that would be an applicable spot if it's in the 300 foot adjacent.

Okay, and I think even in what they have shown in the plan with the front porch condition, they may be able to provide the required stalls at the entrance anyway.

It's just not documented in the plan.

Yeah, two spaces is a bicycle rack, right?

You got a bicycle on either side of a rack.

So um the journey we need to take to get to approval that's maybe too much.

So I guess my question would be would you be willing to provide the the two bicycle parking spaces on site?

Yes.

And is it okay like because we're still gonna have a side entrance also?

Does that count as the entrance or no?

If it's on your property, then it's it will work out, yeah.

Just no, she says no.

But she's saying no because we're using the property next to from the primary entrance.

Primary entrance.

Well the lots of things.

So that would be the entrance typically facing the frontage of the property as well.

Oh, so I'm sorry, where are you proposing to put it?

If you can see on the second frame.

Uh-huh.

That's a side entrance also.

I mean, we asked for the waiver.

I mean, I guess if they're saying if we can put in the front, the front is because we have handicaps.

So the handicap was more important than the bicycle per se.

So I don't know.

I can, you know, once we get what the architect, I can ask, yeah, is it possible?

Yeah, I'm I'm gonna just say just looking at what you have in the plan, the ramp is actually a lot longer than what you're probably gonna need if you're getting up to three feet.

You have enough area in that front porch condition to put the single rack in.

Okay, I'm willing to do that.

That's why I'm I'm not even touching that one.

I mean it's yeah, okay.

And I think it keeps going back to the challenge is that what we have in front of us is we see where it's not gonna be fully workable, and actually working with a professional that can walk through the proper way to do all of this would make this a lot easier because what we're trying to do is go off of concepts that we don't know for certain how this may ultimately look in the end.

So to make a decision based on what we have when what we're looking at, we see it's gonna change.

So the more appropriate thing to do is to have a better laid out plan from a professional that can probably get you to some of these things that we're asking about.

So let me ask you a question just so I know.

If we have what the professional and if we had the variance and we were approved, is that make a difference?

Because if the I mean I I I have to go back and look at the I can't there's an assumption that we're going to approve everything.

We don't know that yet.

And that's what we're we're talking through right now.

What we're seeing in front of us is making it very hard to get to that approval.

And so that's why the suggestion is and each of us, as we say, we each are speaking as one individual.

We don't know, but the point is if we give you time to work with a professional to bring a better plan to us, then we can more adequately address what would be before us.

There may be different decisions that are made.

You may not have the same variance requests.

It may look totally different because at that point you have a professional that can lay this out in a better way to probably get you some of the things that you need to get done.

Okay.

So let me just because when I sit down with the professional, I'd well I just want to know because the lot size isn't gonna grow, so it's only 30.

So with that being said, if we had to take five off each side, we're taking ten off the building.

You'd be taking two and a half off each side.

No, we have to take five off of each side.

We are two and a half.

You'd be taking five off total.

The variance that you're requesting here is for two feet eleven inches on each interior side yard for a total of five feet.

Right.

So what I'm saying is what you see of the two and a half that we're taking off is because that's what it is as it stands.

So when a building was there, that's what we put.

You have to take off five.

So the building would have to be twenty feet wide.

Twenty feet wide.

Right.

Right.

Um right.

Um but I I also just want to ask a question to staff, just since we're so the rear yard setback looks like it's put down a seven feet, but there's a staircase in that space.

Would you be measuring to the stair or to the it's ten feet?

In the rear.

So there's a staircase in the back shown in the plan.

I just want to make sure that we're clear on what is what the setback was actually put in here, because it's the stair is taking up a lot of that space in the back currently and the as it's drawn.

And I guess where I would start with the architect is really get the s the exiting stuff figured out because you're exiting out of the side of the building and you're gonna have to have a a clear width anyway for the door and be able to pass by.

So I think that's gonna drive your width of the building more than anything, more than the zoning.

Um and and then the back as well.

If you're having a stair on the back, you need to be able to get around the stair.

And then I think you also have some dumpster par dumpster storage back there, and I don't think you could put a dumpster under an exit stair.

So I think there's a couple of things that an architect should be able to help you guys figure out in the plan and get that cubicle volume figured out, you know, like how tall and how deep and and and then as well at the front, it looks like there's some extra fat with the with the ramp and the stair and all that that you might be able to make up some space at the front.

Because it looks like you're setting the building back further than originally was.

Was it ten feet?

Was it ten feet?

The back line is ten feet off the back.

From the front, from the front.

No.

From Clayborne.

Oh, from Clay bomb?

It looks like it's a setback a little further from what I saw in the photographs.

No.

So that front space looks bigger than.

So I'm just saying there's there's some space here and there to play to get those dimensions figured out.

So I and the rendering here looks like it's got way more space than what's in the plans.

Yeah.

The rendering here, these renderings are are, you know, there's looks like there's a big wide walkway along the side and there's room in the background of the stair, but if you look at the drawings, there's there's not that much space.

It just is based on two and a half feet on each side.

Yeah.

Right.

I'm just saying the rendering that's up there, that that perspective drawing is not drawn to what the dimensions are in the plan, unless it's you know, going into the neighbor's yard somehow.

Right.

And so for example, on your floor plan, you show a five that you're showing five feet in the floor plan on the right hand side of the plan is clear, but you're asking for two foot.

So there's just a lot of discrepancies in terms of what's shown in a sketch.

That makes it really hard for us to really determine okay, what is the appropriate way how to do this, and come up with the right language to get you to the next step.

Um, because here's a piece.

Understand what's triggering these events because you were trying to modify the existing building, and that plan would have been very different if you were adding a second floor onto it, right?

Versus in this case, yes, you it is down to grade, but even in terms of what's shown in the drawings, they don't really jive our line up with what you would actually be able to build in that case either.

So it makes it really hard for us to just say, look, just grant the waivers and let them figure it out.

We just don't want to create that condition for you.

Or we shouldn't create that condition for you, excuse me.

And so Ms.

Dixon, I I I do want to be clear because you you said something about going to the architect, we were talking about pulling five feet off of either side.

I think like the board has heard your arguments about the variances, right?

I don't think you should approach an architect saying you have to comply with the the zoning code.

I mean, I'll just go out there and say it.

You can probably be closer on one side than not the other and satisfy the necessary requirements, right?

So we're not asking you to it it it's a small lot, we all recognize that.

We're willing to grant or I'm I'm willing to grant a variance for this project just so you can take that knowledge away.

But we just need to know exactly how much you need um as a variance so that we can approve the right thing once you've talked with a professional and determine how much space you need on one side to get an exit, basically.

And and we all know here at this table it's gonna be more than two feet, right?

On on one side okay, thank you.

Yep.

Unless there's more questions.

So I guess um because we're looking at this.

I mean, I I just it really boils down to how much time you think you would be willing to take to sit down with.

I don't have time.

I'm I'm gonna go, yeah.

It's okay.

It's not like oh, we have to build this restaurant tomorrow.

Cool.

All right, perfect.

So let me just I would just recommend we you saw this earlier.

Um I'm gonna recommend a 60 day, and the reason why I say 60 day it just moves it to meetings, okay.

Um and that gives you the necessary time so you're not rushing through the plan with somebody to come up with something that establishes a different layout.

Um and I do echo Commissioner Richards' point.

I think there's a justification where we could probably deal with a reasonable reasonable setback on one side um to help get you to where you need to, so you have a reasonable size operation, right?

But let's make sure we're still addressing the width that's needed on the others on on the opposite side of that plan so that you could still meet the the fire ingress egress requirements that we know would probably be spelled out as a part of your uh plan review.

So if you're okay with that, I think we could present a motion.

Cool.

Okay.

Oh, can I add one more thing?

Shoot your comment.

And uh that will maybe actually allow you to put a ramp on the side of the building.

Mm-hmm and and regain the space on the front.

Yep.

So bringing it back, what are you saying is bringing the footprint back to the street how it always was, right?

So you have that porch condition, which could be really useful, but do you really want the ramp to take up the front of the building?

You could bring that ramp to the side of the building and make that side your condition, your ramp access as well as your your uh bypass that's needed for uh when I sat with an architect, he said it couldn't go on the side because of the measurements that were needed, so that's why we brought it to the front.

I preferred it to be on the side, but he told us we had to bring it to the front.

There's always so I could share this with you if it's a contiguous path and that ramp goes up along that side, and as long as there's a discharge where you could step down towards the back of the property or ramp back down towards the rear yard, you can have that ramp in a side yard.

Yeah.

But it has to be more than there's a certain width requirement for that ramp from an ADA standpoint.

Okay.

Yeah, I prefer it on the side.

All right, madam chair, for motion's in order.

Uh yes.

Um, are there any more questions from the board?

With regards to BZA docket zero seventy-nine dash twenty-five, my motions for a sixty-day deferral.

Give the applicant time to confer with a professional record to look at the plans and come back with uh an alternative uh application.

It's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez with regards to BCA docket zero seven nine two five dash two five to defer this item.

Sixty days, vote your screens.

Seven Yes, no nays, the motion carries.

Thank you.

And I would be remiss um, Ray, if I didn't acknowledge uh from one fellow blue devil to another.

Uh also a Dillagrad.

Thanks.

Oh, here we go.

The next item is the same.

South Tanti Street.

This request is for a variance from the provisions of Article 11, Section 11.3.8.1, Table 11A of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a single family dwelling with insufficient rear yard setback.

This is after the fact.

Article 11, Section 11.3.8.1, table eleven-two A requires a rear yard setback of 20% of the lot depth or 15 feet, whichever is less.

Um well, after hearing the recommendation, I would ask that the board uh follow the recommendation.

We built the property.

Um the lot is a 56 foot uh 56 foot long lot.

It was grandfathered in previously, however, by us doing a uh new new construction.

We lost the grandfather uh variants, so we asked that the uh the board allow for us to thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA docket zero eight zero-two five?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Motions in order.

Proceed.

Madam Chair, regards to BZA Docket Zero Eight Zero-25.

My motion is to accept the staff's recommendation for the requested waiver of Article 11, Section 11.3.8.1, Table 11-2A for rear yard setback and move for approval with the one noted proviso, understanding that the nine criteria have been met.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA Docket 080-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the request a waiver, finding that the nine criteria have been met, uh subject to one proviso.

Vote your screens.

Seven yes, no nays, the motion carries.

Next item.

Thank you.

The next item is BZA Docket Zero Eighty One 25 for the property at 900 through 906 Poland Avenue.

Good morning.

BCA Docket O eight One-25 is a request for a variance from the provisions of Article 9, Section 9.3.

Of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit in addition to uh an existing single family dwelling, resulting in an insufficient rear yard setback.

Uh subject property zoning district is a HMR three historic Marini Tremay Bywater Residential District where a minimum rear yard setback of twenty feet is required.

And the applicant is proposing a rear yard of uh setback of twelve feet one and one quarter inches, which represents a waiver of seven feet ten and three quarters inches.

Applicant has stated that the project originated as a camelback addition to an existing structure.

However, more than fifty percent of the original building was demolished due to structural damage, which caused the original structure to lose its legal nonconforming status and subsequently reclassified the project as new construction.

Staff finds that the requested variance fails to meet standards three and six for standards of variances for Article 4, Section 4.6 point F of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variance uh from Article 9, Section 9.3A, excuse me, nine point three point A, Table Nine Two Rear Yard setback.

However, if the board words a grant approval of this item, it shall be a request to the one proviso as noted in your staff report.

Thank you if you could give your name and address for the record.

David Gregor, nine hundred Poland Avenue, New Orleans, seven oh one one seven.

And Irina Kyle, nine eleven Lower Line Street, New Orleans, seven oh one one eight.

You can go ahead with your comments.

Okay.

From a historic perspective, it should be noted that nine oh six Poland Avenue currently has a rear yard setback in line with almost all of the structures on that block.

Our particular setback is twelve foot one and one quarter.

I should note that within the same area on Poland Avenue, only one building is compliant with your new setback requirement.

Unfortunately, adhering to a 20-foot setback would result in the demolition of original big brick piers, not to mention the removal of grade beams and additional structure and framing that has already been completed according to our original drawings and pre-existing permit.

Quote, an objective as clearly stated in your uh criterion item number five.

Um given that HDLC required us to apply for a new construction permit on August 19th.

We submitted our original drawings to the architectural review committee of the HDLC.

At that time, we received unanimous approval by all four architects present with no required alterations.

To reiterate, the notion that this design can be shortened by nine feet seems counter to the idea of working within an existing historic context, and that it would create an anomaly in an area where only one other structure conforms to the 20-foot setback.

As such, we're requesting a waiver of seven feet ten and three-quarter inches of the new setback requirement in favor of our HDLC ARC approved drawings, allowing us to continue with the work in progress.

I might also mention that when we appeared in front of HDLC, we had 14 of our fellow neighbors who uh supported this project.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA docket 081-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Um I do have one question.

Just trying to understand um in the staff report under the um reference to HDLC, it does indicate that this is um under enforcement review.

What does what does that mean?

And perhaps the applicant could verify what I'm about to say.

But um I I believe the original origin of the variance came from the fact that it was uh the camelback had gone through HDLC review, but I believe that they had demolished a portion of that building, which then in turn said that uh HDLC said they needed new construction permits, which then in turn I believe triggered uh code enforcement review.

But again, if it is that correct or it was started under a renovation permit, and then uh due to more than 50 percent uh uh demolition because of termite uh damage and uh structural walls, the walls gotta talk into the mic themselves.

Oh, sorry, and the walls didn't hold up anymore, and also we needed a one-hour fire rating on the north wall, and it had to come down anyway.

So that triggered then a new permit, a new construction permit.

And that triggered the variant.

Right, and I understood I understood that piece.

I was just trying to understand what was meant by under HDLC enforcement review.

I just hadn't seen that before.

Yeah, we were wondering the same thing.

Uh I think it's it's referring to the initial issue we had with HDLC, which was then resolved, and then we were informed by HDLC and eventually safety and permits that we had to reapply on just under a different status, which I'm not sure why they call it new construction, given the fact that we are restoring the front two portions of the building.

So it's considered whenever you um demolish more than 50 percent, that's what um that's why that was triggered.

Right, but that that went through HDLC.

So then the next step was for us to resubmit to the ARC, which we did.

Uh at the same time, we've responded to every other agency, including yours for this additional information.

I believe the right term is retention.

You you probably filed for retention or your demolition or something like that.

Yeah, I I think that's the term.

Okay, I just um we haven't had something that specifically said that a matter is under HDLC enforcement review.

And so that's what is called out in the report.

So I just wanted clarity on what that meant.

Well um question to the applicants.

Um, so just to establish the facts, I know they're in the report, but um you mentioned financial hardship, which is really not something we can consider, but I I do want to ask you a couple questions about the hardship and the conditions.

So um uh just if if you can confirm for us two things.

One, the the building is just being built back to the footprint that it originally was.

And your hardship in a sense is that you couldn't retain what was there after you got into it.

Is there those two things correct statements?

Like, in other words, you had to demolish it for structural reasons, and that's been established.

Are you talking about the 20 the Okay?

Let's do it.

If you can reformulate the question, let's take them one at a time.

So um the footprint is the same as the footprint of the historic building.

Yes.

Yes, okay.

Second one is um the only reason we've been talking about it, the only reason you had to tear it down was structural, right?

There are there were issues with the building.

Yes.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

We were cited for removing two walls, which if if I could explain, um the the north wall needs to be two by six construction type one uh as mandated by the International Building Code.

So um we had Avery Brothers, who was there uh adjusting the the roof from the front two buildings.

Um when they looked at that wall, there was every single element, the 16 studs that we removed were completely termite-ridden.

Um anyway, that that explains that part.

The remaining aspects of this are all original bricks, which extend through the length of the building, which if we adhered to the 20-foot setback, we would have to remove historic peers that were part of the original structure.

Right.

Thank you for the answer.

The footprint is exactly what the original building was at 906.

Right.

A non-financial explanation for hardship, which is the fact that you had to take it down as why you're in front of us, right?

So it that answers the question for me.

Thank you.

I mean it's not just the footprint of the old building, it is the old building.

Is there up to the great beam?

That we wrote ready to install when we had a change to permit.

Yeah.

We're I mean the other thing I would add is we're we're still working with Avery Brothers.

We're still committed to save the portions of the building, which um you know.

Yes.

And you have an enlarged footprint that's been established.

Um Madam Chair, if a motion is an order.

Are there any other questions from the board?

No.

Okay.

Uh regarding Docket BZA81-25.

Uh I move to approve the request for a waiver of Article 9, Section 9.3A, Table 9-2 for rear yard setback, uh, with a waiver of seven foot ten and three-quarter inches.

Finding based on the discussion here and the rest of the staff's report, uh, that the request um sorry, that the request does meet all nine of the nine criteria of approval for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6 F.

Subject to uh the one listed proviso in the report, which is to get the HDLC approval.

Sorry, with regards to BCA Docket 081-25, it's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner Diaz to grant the requested waivers, finding that the nine criteria have been met, um adopting the commentary from today to um satisfy that the nine criteria have been met, uh subject to one proviso.

Vote your screens.

Next item.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

The next item is BCA Docket 08225 for the property at 3134 Royale Street.

BZA 082-25 is an after the fact request for a variance from Article 21.6.

The property is a two-family dwelling located in the bywater and is zoned HMR3.

Um on the Louise's side street of the property, it abuts the country club restaurant's rear yard, which features a pool and a bar.

On the property line facing Lisa Street, there is a fence with a non-compliant height of 10 feet 11 inches.

This original non-compliant fence was installed by the country club to deter trespassers attempting to use their pool after hours.

The applicant characterized this fence as failing to create a sufficient acoustic barrier and being in disrepair and unsightly.

The applicant then installed a second fence within their lot, set a few back a few inches back from the property line.

Um this fence is also a non-compliant height of 11 feet nine inches.

Due to the intensive activity of the abutting commercial property and an observed status quo of non-compliant fence heights and similar contacts within the by water.

Um this report, and based on this report, the staff believes the requested variance of Article 21, 21.6 N1B fence height meets nine of the nine criteria of the standard subarians and is recommending approval, subject to one proviso.

Good afternoon, board Zach Smith 1000 South Norman C Francis.

On behalf of the owner, we want to thank the staff for the 909, and uh thank you very much.

We're here for questions.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA docket 082-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Seeing none, is there a motion?

Okay, sure.

Uh I'll make a motion.

Yep.

All right.

Regarding Docket BZA 082-25.

I move to approve the requested waiver of Article 21, Section 21.6.N.1.8 for fence height with a waiver of four foot nine inches, accepting the staff report that the proposal meets all nine of the nine criteria.

Did you call out a proviso?

Subject to one proviso.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA dock is 082-25.

It's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner James to grant the requested waiver, finding that the nine criteria have been met and subject to one proviso.

Vote your screens.

No nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

Items 8, 9, 10, BZA dockets 08325, 08425, and 08525 were rendered moot.

The next item on the agenda is BZA Docket 08625 for the property ed 6006 Annunciation Street.

BZA 8625 is a request for variances from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a single family dwelling with more than two and a half bathrooms and insufficient off-street parking in the in the university off-street parking overlay district.

The applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling with four and a half bathrooms and insufficient parking as determined by the six bedrooms in the proposed dwelling in the university off-street parking overlay district.

The maximum total permitted number of bathrooms in a single family dwelling is two and a half.

And the overlay district also requires a minimum of one off-street parking space per bedroom for for dwellings containing more than three bedrooms, which would translate to six spaces for the proposed dwelling.

Applicant is proposing only one off-street parking space.

While the subject site meets the side require meets the size requirements for single family dwelling, it's still too small to easily accommodate six off-street parking spaces.

The presence of a single family dwelling on a site featuring one parking space is common in this pre-war neighborhood.

The staff finds that these two approval standards and all seven of the other approval standards for variances are met and thus recommends approval of the parking waiver subject to one proviso.

However, revised regarding the waiver for the number of bathrooms, the subject property is typical of the residential lots in West River size in terms of its width, depth, and square footage, and with the obvious exception of its age, the proposed dwelling is similar to most of the other dwellings in the neighborhood, regardless of the number of bathrooms they contain.

And while acknowledging that in this day and age it's well outside the norm for a new 8250 square foot dwelling to feature only two and a half bathrooms, the literal interpretation of a of a regulation requiring no more than that number of bathrooms still does not rise to the level of a deprivation.

Also, although the desire to have four and a half bathrooms is not an unreasonable preference given the size of the proposed dwelling, the staff is unable to identify any other reason for which the variance would be sought.

Therefore, the staff recommends denial of the bathrooms waiver as it fails to meet approval criteria 1, 2, 6, and 7.

However, if the board is inclined to grant the waiver, the staff recommends the same proviso that was recommended for the parking waiver.

Thank you.

If you could give me a name and address for the record, Jennifer Zurich, 6221 South Clayburn, 70125.

Good morning, members of the board, and thank you for your time.

First, I want to thank the staff for their thoughtful review and for recommending approval of the parking variants.

We appreciate the recognition that the proposed design provides one off-street parking space in compliance with the base residential requirement.

And we're grateful that the staff acknowledge that this approach meets the intent of the ordinance while respecting the character and constraints of the historic block.

The second part of our request relates to the university over area overlay bathroom limitation, which allows only two and a half bathrooms for new single family homes.

Our design proposes four and a half.

So two homes side by side could be treated differently simply because one is new.

That feels inconsistent with the intent of the zoning code to support livable long-term housing.

It's also worth noting that this overlay provision is scheduled as sunset next year, meaning that very soon the new homes will be able to include more than two and a half bathrooms.

A request simply asks that this family not be penalized by timing, especially when their design otherwise meets all zoning and building requirements.

I'd like to respond to the staff findings regarding the bathroom.

SIF set at four criteria they felt were not met.

One, no special conditions.

This property is unique because it's being designed for multi-generational living.

A use the city encourages part of sustainable, inclusive neighborhood development that alone creates a functional need for more bathrooms.

Two, no deprivation of common rights.

Most homes in the surrounding area already have more than two and a half bathrooms, including many recently renovated properties, and denying this request would deprive the owners of a feature that is standard for comparable single family homes.

Three, no demonstratable hardship.

This hardship here is practical, not financial, limiting this family to five or six, including aging parents to two and a half bathrooms would create daily challenges and retrieve reduce long-term livability.

And the request is for convenience.

This request isn't about convenience or profit, it's about functionality and dignity, ensuring that each generation in the home has a appropriate access and privacy.

Finally, I'd like to draw the board's attention to the letter from Councilman Jeruso.

I assume you all received it last week.

In his words, the university area overlay was never intended to punish or limit single family homeowners who plan to live in their home and apply for homeside exemptions.

This legislation is written to curb the doubles to dorm phenomenon.

Investor driven conversions that added bedrooms for profit, not to restrict families building homes to live in themselves.

This project and this family are exactly the kind of residents the council member describes, long-term, owner occupied and invested in the neighborhood.

Unfortunately, because of the timing of construction and the way the law is structured, they fall into a temporary legislative gap.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 086-25?

Good afternoon, board.

Zach Smith 1000 South Norman C Francis, not paid to be here.

But this is what this is the wasted time and effort and energy that people have to go through in the city of New Orleans just to build single family homes so they can have the right number of rooms and bathrooms for their children because of the ridiculousness, the ridiculousness of these overlays.

So again, uh to Ms.

Zurich's point, if this was already an existing building, she could claim or her client could claim a homestead exemption because of the unfair and dare I even argue unconstitutional nature of this overlay.

They just can't put the cart before the horse.

So I would certainly hope that the board can fully support Miss Urk and this project.

And of course, know that these things will continue until this ridiculous rule decides to sunset and hopefully never to be seen from again.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA docket 086-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Is a motion in order?

Yes, pristine.

Simple and sweet.

Madam Chair, regardless of BZA document number zero.

86-25.

My motion is to approve the requested waivers.

Um take into account what has been presented by the applicant.

Is there justification for this request to meet the night criteria and grant the waivers for article and grant the waivers for Article 18, Section 18.30 point B point two for the University Area Overlay?

I mean, excuse, university area off-street parking overlay district.

And also for Article 18, Section 18.30 point B point four for the University Area All-Street Park and Overlay District Bathroom.

And um, excuse, sorry.

Split up on the screen.

Move for approval with the one-noted proviso.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA Dacid 086-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Alvarez to grant the request to waivers, finding that the nine criteria have been met and adopting a commentary from today, um, as well as submissions by the applicant to establish support that the nine criteria have been met, subject to one proviso.

Vote your screens.

Thank you all.

Staff is recommending deferral for item number 12, BZA Docket 08925 with all variance cases with staff recommendations for deferral as well as all variance cases with applicant requests for deferral submitted to staff no later than Monday, September 29th at 5 p.m.

will be heard following the new business for variances.

See Section E for Variances deferrals.

We will now hear deferral requests for variances.

Staff is requesting a 30-day deferral in order to acquire more information to prepare this report.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 089-25?

Anyone here in support of the applicant?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

If a motion is in order, proceed.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 089-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Eggins to defer the item 30 days at the request of staff.

Hold your screens.

No nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

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

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

Yes.

Rules and procedures for public hearings.

Appeals of decisions of the director of the Department of Safety and Permits.

The following procedures shall be observed during the appeal hearing.

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

The representative of the Department of Safety and Permits shall present to the board the decision which is under appeal, the relevant code sections relating to the appeal, and any information explaining 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 applicants or their representatives 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 of the proposal will speak next and be allowed three minutes per speaker.

The applicant or representative will be allowed a rebuttal.

The rebuttal shall be limited to a cumulative maximum of five minutes.

For an 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.

If the case is deferred, it will be acted on at a subsequent meeting as provided by law.

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

Standard of review.

Thank you.

And again, good afternoon, Dan McNamara, Chief Zoning Official for the City of New Orleans regarding hearing a number BZA 076-25.

The issue is the thank you.

Is it an appeal of a pool permit at 4917 Fred Street?

And the appellant was Mr.

Robert Seifert, and the decision is the approval and issue of a permit for construction of a swimming pool for commercial use.

Again, this property is at 4917 for Red.

It's an HUMU district.

There's an AC2 Arts and Cultural Diversity Overlay District as well.

And the current use is a permitted use as a standard restaurant.

The applicant is seeking that revocation.

In summary, the appellant Robert Seifert filed a timely appeal challenging the director's approval and issuance of a permit for a commercial swimming pool at 4917 Ferret Street, proposed to operate under the trade name of the restaurant trade name of Sonny's pool side.

The appellate contends that the permit violates the CZO because the pool is not a permitted or conditional use in the HUMU district.

The outdoor pool violates the prohibition against conducting activities outside of an enclosed structure in CZO section 21.4.b.

And that the pool and related operations constitute a separate commercial use from the restaurant, and the business plan confirms that the pool access is a primary feature of the commercial enterprise.

And lastly, the pool may extend onto land formerly zoned HURD2 raising concerns about the prior lot use and compliance.

Approved the permit for a swimming pool as an accessory structure to a standard restaurant.

City's justification includes to begin with the permitted use.

The property is primarily a standard restaurant, which is a permitted use in the HUMU district, and outdoor dining is also allowed pursuant to CZO section 21.4 point B.

The pool in the department's views is an accessory structure, and they're considered accessory structures under Article 21 and may be located outdoors as long as they are accessory to a permitted use.

No standalone pool services are allowed.

The department based on written representations of the permit applicant determined that the pool is a permissible accessory use to the restaurant and not a separate commercial use.

The appellant argues the uh inconsistency with the zoning district.

HUMU zoning permits only those uses listed in the CZO table 12-1.

A pool is not listed as a permitted or conditional use, and they argue that a pool is more akin to a country club, which is not permitted.

Also, they uh bring up an issue of violation of outdoor activity restrictions, arguing that section CZO section 21.4.b prohibits businesses from conducting activities outside an enclosed structure except for specific listed exceptions, and they argue that the pool is not among those exceptions.

They point to point to those materials suggesting that pool chairs may be rented, a DJ is uh allegedly planned, including separation from restaurant, indicating excuse me, separation from restaurant services.

And again, they bring up those uh issues of the condition uh contiguous lots raising concerns about subdivisions, lot boundaries, and potential misuse.

Uh the HMU district and permitted uses set forth in the CUZO suggests that the principal permitted use at the location is at a standard restaurant.

The recreational amenities like swimming pools are not listed as permitted or conditional uses in the HUMU.

The applicant's primary concern regarding the use aligns with the definition of standard restaurant in Article 26, which is limited to menu-based food services.

The accessory uh structure authority in Article 21 defines such uses, including um uh in pools.

Further accessory uses are not limited to either commercial or residential uses unless specified.

A swimming pool is listed as an accessory use, and the department interpreted the pool as an accessory to the uh primary restaurant use.

However, this interpretation has not been previously been applied to commercial restaurants either by the department or uh to the chief zoning officials uh knowledge of any prior BZA decisions, leading us to conclude that this is a matter of first impression.

The outdoor activities restrictions in 21.4 point B were also raised, and it prohibits outdoor activities except as uh enumerated, and those include outdoor dinings, amphitheaters, and other uh instances.

And while a pool is not specifically enumerated in 21.4 point B, restaurants and bars are permitted to have outdoor seating.

There's no specific prohibition against a restaurant with the bar having a pool as an accessory use.

Unless otherwise prohibited by city ordinances, outdoor seating is permitted as an accessory uh to a bar or a restaurant.

Outdoor seating is permitted in a required yard area with the exception of any required uh yard area that abuts a residential uh district.

As such, any any seating at 49 uh 17 Ferret must meet set back requirements.

Uh, as to the overlay district, the overlay district does not specifically prohibit outdoor pools, but it emphasizes compatibility with the district's uh character.

Again, the departmental uh department maintains that the pool is accessory to a permitted use, outdoor and accessory amenities are contemplated under Article 21, and operational uh operational restrictions uh limit the use to restaurant services.

To the extent that the department did error, the department uh the department failed to consider the implications of 21.6 point EE swimming pools requirement that every swimming pool shall be protected by a safety fence or barrier of at least six feet.

Uh such offense does not exist on all sides of the pool.

In conclusion, this appeal raises valid concerns about primary use, outdoor activity restrictions, and potential precedent under the HUM use zoning.

Further strict adherence to zoning use tables and restrictions would mitigate against creating new primary uses via accessory uses.

However, the department's determination that the pool may be accessory to a standard uh restaurant is reasonable though untested.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

You could give your name and address for the record.

Thank you.

Thomas McKeachin 909 Porter Suite 1600.

I'm here on behalf of the applicant as counsel.

You can go ahead with your comment.

And I'd like to cannot make a procedural request as a start.

Mr.

Flaxenberg is also uh co-counsel for the applicant, and he'd like to yield his time to me for continuity of the presentation.

And thank you to Mr.

McNamara for his thorough and thoughtful analysis of this unique um novel issue that's before the board today.

I think as you all know, um, you don't owe any deference to the interpretations under section 4.8 D of the CZO.

This is what lawyers would call a de novo review.

And given it's a novel, unique issue.

I'm gonna take more time than I usually would to explain how we got where we are.

So we're asking you to to grant our appeal to overturn the decision of the director, which granted the use uh or permit to use a pool at a commercial excuse me at a standard restaurant.

And we think it's legally incorrect for several reasons.

I probably won't cover all of them.

Uh I'll try to hit the highlights and then open open all up for questions.

Uh so as Dan said, uh in his report, this is a matter of first impression.

There hasn't been a commercial restaurant that has sought to use a pool as part of its services, as far as Mr.

McNamara can find and I could find doing the research.

And we respectfully suggest that the BZA is not the proper forum to address this kind of issue, which will effectively create a new use that is not properly defined in the CZO.

I suggest the city council is the proper place to decide if and where these types of yet-to-be defined uses can operate and under what restrictions.

I mean, the operator here could have and should have gone through the planning process and sought a conditional use.

The applicant raised all the same issues we're here to talk about today almost a year ago in our first appeal, which was filed in November of 2024, long before the pool was built, long before the pool permit was even sought, but the plan was there.

Uh and we suggested that this was a problem in the HUMU zoning then.

So they should have gone the conditional use route, and if the board grants our appeal, they can and should go through that process.

The report concludes on page four that the appeal raises valid concerns about primary use, outdoor activity restrictions, and potential precedent under the HUMU zoning.

Further strict adherence to zoning use tables and restrictions would mitigate against creating primary uses via accessory uses.

This is the important issue, and the first reason the appeal should be denied.

Denying this appeal, letting this use stay open, is going to set a precedent citywide.

Any business anywhere can come in and say, hey, look, this isn't my primary use, this is an accessory use, so therefore the restrictions that might be in place do not apply.

The reading of the code or the CZO to allow one of these types of uh businesses to operate would render Section 21 completely meaningless and null and void.

Section 21, as you know, talks about on-site development standards and is designed, quote, to address the site improvements on a lot other than the principal building, such as an accessory structure, in this case a swimming pool.

Section 21.4B requires that all activities on a business be conducted, quote, entirely within an enclosed structure.

And then they list a handful of examples, none of which reference or imply a swimming pool or the use of a swimming pool.

Now, the reasons for these restrictions, I think they're self-evident.

Outdoor activities create a lot of noise and other impacts on the surrounding properties, which is especially acute when the surrounding properties are all residential, as here.

So at Sunny's pool side, a swimming pool at issue is not within an enclosed structure and therefore not in compliance with section 21.4B.

But regardless of whether or not a swimming pool is a valid accessory use, which is suggested by the director's report, an outdoor swimming pool is prohibited under section 21.4B.

The director's report doesn't reconcile this provision.

He talks a little bit about outdoor seating, which is one of the specified exceptions under 21.4B, but it doesn't apply.

The pool is not a seating area.

The pool is a place to swim and party.

Those types of uses are not covered by 21.4B.

Even if they were under section 1.4G of the CZO, if there's an internal inconsistency in the zoning code, the interpretation shall apply the more restrictive regulation.

21.4B is a restrictive regulation.

It's neither restrictive nor even applicable to this situation.

But if it were, Section 1.4G says you apply the more restrictive provision.

The third reason to grant the appeal and revoke the permit is that Sunny's is not a standard restaurant.

The report further notes that the definition of a standard restaurant is limited to menu-based food service.

Simply put, Sonny's pool side is not that.

Instead, it's a commercial pool or country club, like we were talking about Mr.

Smith's client earlier, masquerading as a restaurant.

All the evidence suggests that it's not a restaurant.

For example, they don't let people in under 21.

So most of these people here to talk to you today have families.

They live in the neighborhood.

They can't go there with their kids.

That's not how standard restaurants operate.

Secondly, and contrary to the applicants stated business plan, they do take reservations.

And in fact, they advertise on their website that they sell pool passes available for $20.

And by way of reference, that's on page six of our supplemental submission and also exhibit H or screenshots from their website.

So clearly, menu-based food service is not the primary focus of the business at Sunny's pool side.

Any one of you, if you're over 21, can go there, buy a pool pass, spend $20, buy drinks all day, spend a lot of money there, and never have a bite of food to eat.

Until very recently, Sunny's had no means whatsoever to cook food.

This was raised in the uh conditional use process.

There's no vented stove, there's no microwave, there's no fryer, there's no oven.

And apparently they uh recently added at the city's insistence a small ventless oven to appease the department and obtain their COL.

The applicant's operational plan says the pool's not designed for recreational use or competitive use.

But the definition of a swimming pool under the CZO, section 26.6 states it's a structure intended for recreational purposes.

So how can it not be designed for recreational use and still qualify as a swimming pool under the code?

That definition sheds light on another issue why the director's decision was contrary to the CZO.

The pool itself is not an accessory use.

The pool is an accessory structure.

The use is swimming or partying in the pool, which is not defined in anywhere in the CZO as an acceptable use in any district.

Section 26 uh defines an accessory use as a use that is incidental and subordinate to the primary use.

Their operational plan, which is attached to exhibit G of our uh submission says that the pool is an integral part of their business, not an incidental or subordinate part.

And in fact patrons of Sunny's are forbidden to eat in the pool or to have glass in the pool.

So if the primary purpose of a standard restaurant is to serve food and drinks, and you can't do that in the pool, then the pool is not incidental.

The use of the pool is not incidental to the primary use.

Simply put, there is no swimming pool reference use referenced anywhere in the CZO.

The use implicated by a business with a swimming pool is either a country club or something else, but not a standard restaurant.

In order to properly permit a swimming pool use, the city council needs to get involved and either amend the CZO to address these types of uses or provide uh a conditional use permit on a Brohawk or ad hoc basis.

One last point that Mr.

McDamerick covered in his uh report is that the definition of a swimming pool requires a six-foot fence around the pool, and there isn't one here.

That's an additional basis to deny, or excuse me, to grant this appeal and revoke the permit.

Uh thank you for your time.

I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 076-25?

Anyone here on opposite somebody standing.

Hi, my name is Rob Seifert.

Uh, I live at we live at um 2520 with our my wife over there, Mamina, and our small son in the one to B.

We also own 2516 uh upper line, which is a house we bought that was in disarray that we are currently working with HGLC to remedy.

Um, I I'm not gonna give you all a big speech.

Uh I can just say that our the way our house is situated is we can see straight down into this property.

Uh I think they've been they had their soft opening two weeks ago.

They had a uh which we could hear their music in our house.

Um it's the equivalent of we understand when we live in a neighborhood like we do, that like we're gonna get street traffic.

That makes total sense.

We're gonna hear people coming from the bars and rouses, but it shouldn't be in our backyard.

And if y'all could see the the zoning, the the drone video that I did, or the images in the appeal, you can see how deep this pool is into our yard.

Like it touches my fence line, both of my fence lines, rear track over there, it touches their fence lines.

Everyone here is an owner that is surrounding this pool.

Um it's kind of to me, like let's say your neighbor has a says, hey, I'm gonna have people over for the Saints game.

It's gonna be in the backyard to me loud, but you know three three hours later it's over.

This is every day they're open.

Uh every day.

We come home to this now.

Um when we bought our house, uh 30 by 30 track of that land was RD2.

That someone y'all might know, Michael Collins, transferred to the uh the nail salon so he could make the increase the value of the property.

Um you'll hear from another resident here that bought a house from Michael Collins, who also took away like 80 feet of their lot at closing, and now they're in some kind of BCA here, and I think y'all seen them.

So our point is is that the pool directly impacts our lives.

We bought these houses to raise our families, and it without a doubt, this should be governed over by city council, and they should be forced to go to the uh conditional use.

Also, they're using the lot next door.

They have restrooms, they have patrons going in, their staff goes in and out.

Uh I have all this on video.

Um they they I've seen chefs go in there with cutting boards and food prep material, like they're operating two properties as one as well, and it's not been resubdivided.

So we just humbly request that y'all approve our appeal and make them go through City Planning Commission and City Council.

Thank you.

Our quick question to staff before we continue because I'm looking at the time, and I know that we discussed uh um that we would have to break at a certain point.

Is that um what is the time that we need to break?

I just don't want us to get like in the middle of a case.

Yeah, the public works committee meeting will begin at 1 15.

So we might have a little bit of wiggle room out of here.

All right, we'll try to get through.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Dockett 076-25.

Uh hello, Frederick Trabb, uh 4914 South Robertson Street.

Uh thank you for hearing from me.

I just want to echo what Rob and others are gonna say and have said, which is you know, the the pool is uh quite loud.

Uh the entire thing was set up as a party spot.

Uh they do not have the best interest of the neighbors at heart, and it is a residential neighborhood uh and a lot of young families there as well.

So appreciate your consideration, and thank you.

Hello, my name is Jonathan Sherman.

I own the property at 2512-14 Upper Line Street.

The pool's directly over the fence from my backyard.

And um, it's a very apparent.

If you take a look at this, if you take a look at the video or the um the aerial footage, that the pool goes very deeply into what is a residential neighborhood.

It is loud, it's not going away tomorrow.

It's gonna be here next week or several days, every day, all week long, all year long.

You've got a party, a commercial party in the backyards.

It is wrong.

The end game was taken on this.

You can take the you can take a look at it.

They took the roundabout way to avoid going in the right direction.

I ask you to please send this to city council.

Let them decide the correct uses and let them codify it.

It's embarrassing.

Thank you.

Um hi, good afternoon.

Uh, my name is Faroon Jacar.

I also live on uh Upper Line, 2528 Upper Line Street.

Um, I want to echo the sentiments that everybody's made, and I'm really just you know, disappointed in the business itself for going in such a roundabout way to get what they wanted instead of going through the proper approval, setting themselves up as a restaurant when it was clearly intended to be um you know a party pool.

And so a couple of points I want to make.

I have a small child, one year old, um, and then they're gonna this is gonna be loud, you know, behind my house, uh making it difficult for the children to sleep, going up until 10 p.m.

on many nights and midnight on a lot of other nights as well.

Um, and not to mention the parking difficulties that it brings to our street, which is adjacent.

Um, you know, if it was really zoned as a restaurant, there'd be me back and forth of cars moving through.

But if it's a big party spot that people are parking there for you know hours and hours on end, it's gonna make it even more difficult to find the already limited parking that we have.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Brandon Kemp, and I live at 2527 Upper Line Street.

Um, I'm a small business owner on Ferret and uh on Upper Line, and uh I just want to hear it be here to support my neighbors in um the movement to move this to City Council because uh this was not in the purview of not only any residents when they bought their homes, this is not in the purview of other business owners on the street, and uh it's grossly inappropriate, and I'm here to support them in this movement.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Glendora Hall is 4918 South Robinson Street.

I'm here to oppose the pool.

Noise is a big factor in it.

The amount of hours that the noise will be able to generate.

So those are my concerns.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for hearing our voices.

Mamina Torregano, 2520 Upper Line Street.

I live there with my husband, my two-year-old son, and soon-to-be second son.

And I mean, I was just want to put aside for a moment that the fact that this pool exists is illegal, shady to say the least, and you know, it's it's it's approval somehow slipped through the cracks.

But what I want to emphasize is the complete lack of disregard um of the consideration of the residents who live in the neighborhood.

So building a pool with a bar in the middle of a residential block without taking to account the families, the children, the people who work from home, it's not only can inconsiderate, but it's selfish and disruptive.

And in just the past two weeks, since it's opened, we've already experienced noise disturbances from the pool, and that has impacted our ability to work, rest, raise our children peacefully, and it's not just a matter of zoning or permits, it's a matter of respect for the community.

And as residents, we're asking you to help restore that respect and protect the character and livability of our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Hello, thank you for hearing us today.

Um, I definitely agree with everything um you've heard so far.

The only other you know, point I want to make is um oh sorry, my name's Laney Hampton, um 4914 South Robertson Street.

Um I live there with my partner Rick, who just spoke.

And um, you know, we've been really planning our future in this home, and um it's a neighborhood we love.

We take really good care of our neighbors, especially my partner Rick.

Um and we just love the area we've poured so much into our home, and um it's really impacting, I think our future plans.

Um, it's making us reconsider um, you know, this lovely home that we live in in this lovely neighborhood.

Um, and we had no say in this coming in and really um you know impacting that.

Um, the noise um is definitely a consideration.

Him and I both work from home.

Um our backyard directly um, you know, is right there uh behind Sunny's, and just on Friday at 5 p.m.

was wrapping up work for the day, and they were the music was so loud I could hear it inside our house.

Um, and like everybody said, it's gonna happen every day, every week, throughout the year.

Um really that's just what I want to share is that it's really making us you know reconsider.

Um, and that's really sad.

It's really really sad, um, especially for something that shouldn't be happening anyway, um, and has been put through in a very shady way.

So thank you.

Hello, uh I'm Rahul Vishikarma from 4916 South Robertson Street.

Uh we moved in very recently here, and just when we are starting our family, me and my wife who's working at Tulane, I work from home.

And like Lenny said, last Friday is when I really started to know what is going on and what's coming up and about in this part of the neighborhood that I just started my life in.

Uh really hoping you consider and be against the pool, and then be in the favor of the neighborhood that we want to build forward to and put our life here.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Leverne Murray.

I live 4918 South Robertson Street.

I've been in a neighborhood over 50 years, and I oppose the pool because of the um amount of noise, the traffic, and the noise, the traffic, and oh yeah, in the parking situation.

There's nowhere to park around and when they have these festivities, and our house is right behind where the pool is located.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Brahana Tindai Cole.

I uh reside at 20504 and represent the family that owns 2504 and 2506 upper line.

I've lived in the neighborhood for 12 years, and uh my family has been in uh on that 2500 block um since the mid-20th century.

And uh just just giving context to um just the community and living within that community and me living uh on that block for 12 years, understanding the fights once things get through and fighting these noise uh fighting to try to mitigate noise and the disrespect that uh once a um an organization can come in and think that they can just treat the community, the neighbors any kind of way, and uh just see that they can circumvent the rules and uh put this and for this specific example, the pool, and uh trying to write it off in different ways to uh circumvent the rules.

I think that it should go through the appropriate uh venue them since this is a novel concern.

I think that we should um uh focus uh or rather go through the appropriate channels to address it.

Thank you for your time.

My name's David Nathan, 4914 South Robertson Street.

Um I'm the neighbor of Rick Rick Trapp.

Uh so his well-being and his partner's well-being has um big connection to me because I also love the house, love the neighborhood.

It's the first place I've ever lived that I really loved before.

Uh I went to the previous place that these people owned called the Drifter.

Absolutely loved it.

I thought it was the closest that you could get to Hate Nashbury, San Francisco, the that kind of scene.

There were topless people, there was people with uh uh doing all kinds of stuff that we won't get into right now.

So it's not your normal swimming pool.

This is uh promoting hedonism, which I have usually no problem with, but I am going to be living under these circumstances every day.

And if you've seen pictures of the layout, all of the houses are all around the pool.

So it's not just like your normal New Orleans uh situation, like uh the drifter in mid-city was perfect because it was absolutely in the middle of nowhere.

This is more like Manhattan, where everything is around everybody else, and so um again, I want to echo the fact that we were not our feelings were not attended to whatsoever with this, that everything was um tried to be done as quietly and and underhanded as possible, is very disappointing.

I think we could have really come to uh an agreement where both sides could have been um more satisfied, and I really really appreciate that.

This goes to city council.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 076-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Good afternoon.

My name is Zach Copperman.

I'm one of the owners of 4917 Frett Street and one of the owners of the business known as Sonny's.

And what feels like a misdirection, you know, attempt to confuse and really throw out a bunch of things about the situation at hand here.

And I want to correct the record and give some of the facts.

Most of those are about parking and traffic and noise, and I get that too.

The reality is this is a pool in a standard restaurant in an entertainment overlay district on Ferret.

And we have gone out of our way to make sure it was all done a hundred percent correctly in the way that the city guided us to do it.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in opposition?

We're tight, but come on.

I want to just make one final point here.

Um there is another restaurant that was granted a pool, a standard restaurant that has a pool.

It's called the Lost Coyote.

It's at 1614 Esplanade Avenue.

That permit was granted somewhere in August of 2024.

So this is not a totally unique case that exists.

The way that I think the department looks at it in the way we've viewed the pool as the accessory use to the restaurant is no different than a McDonald's ball pit with a McDonald's restaurant.

That is a an accessory use to a standard restaurant.

It's similar to the pool that exists at the crew eyewear offices at 1020 Failure Street.

The city has consistently granted these types of things pool and otherwise for accessory uses to a permitted use like a standard restaurant.

Thank you.

Okay, so we've been instructed that the um we were supposed to break at one.

It is um 105 now, so we are gonna um need to recess um for the public meeting.

Thank you.

Yes.

And with the board make a motion to recess now until 210.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to recess the meeting for one hour.

Vote your screens.

Did everyone six years, no nays?

The motion carries.

We are in recess.

All righty.

Would the board make a motion to return from recess?

And prior to that, I'd like to thank everyone for your patience.

We're ready to return from recess.

Do we need a motion to uh reconvene?

We do.

So moved.

Second.

Hit the um button on the thank you.

It's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner James for us to return from recess, vote your screens.

Did everybody vote?

Seven yes, no nays.

The motion carries, and we're back.

Thank you for your patience.

I believe we were at uh Mr.

Smith on um opposition.

And just as a reminder, we're on BZA docket zero seven six-two five.

It's on now.

Good afternoon, board.

Zach Smith, one thousand South Norman Sea Francis.

Uh before the break, Mr.

Coverman noted the history on this, and to kind of just re-emphasize, there's been a lot of back and forth with this operational plan.

Uh it started actually at the end of last year, the beginning of this year, working with various members of the zoning division to make sure that this is a bona fide restaurant uh that may have a non-traditional kind of outdoor area.

Uh tons of vetting was done for the operational plan to make sure it was consistent with the CZO, and more importantly, consistent as a bona fide restaurant, just as any other restaurant in the city would be held.

Uh, in addition, and I'm kind of happy that not everybody returned after the thing after the break here, but there was tons of outreach uh done.

There are various people that actually spoke today in opposition to the project in support of the appeal that actually have met with the ownership of Sunny's and or rebuffed uh attempts by ownership and management to meet with them.

So I think it's very fair to say that uh this has actually been done in uh with a with a lot of light, a lot of transparency.

But more importantly, this boils down to a question of can a bona fide restaurant have a pool?

As the city notes, pools are accessory structures and uses, and therefore no provisions keep accessory uses from being integrated into any primary use or business.

As the department correctly notes, we have a fully functioning, ironed out and strong operational plan that proves this is a bona fide restaurant with a unique dining experience in an atmosphere that happens to involve a pool.

All guests are here for and required to have food.

Not all guests will be interacting with the pool.

This is a simple test.

Are we operating as a bona fide restaurant or not?

Yes, we are.

The parking arguments and the sound issues, as the board knows, are simply noise on this this thing.

This is about is a pool, is a pool allowed as an accessory use with a primary use that is a restaurant.

Again, yes, it is.

If the land use gods, i.e.

the city council want to change this or add some very specific language to what is allowed, not allowed for specific accessory uses, they're obviously welcome to, but that comes at a future date, not now.

They can add that, they can they can add permissions, they can add prohibitions at a later time.

But what is the matter in front of the BZA or even for the department decide is the accessory use allowed in tandem with the principal use restaurant or not?

And one of the main reasons why we know that it has to be, is that if we were to have the department or even this BZA create prohibitions where none are actually listed, for which particular accessory uses or structures they deem to be most appropriate with a restaurant, we're gonna find ourselves with some very bad logic.

If we were to follow that logic, we're being asked to overturn the department essentially for anything in Article 21 that might not be specifically associated with which you identify uh relative to a pool.

For instance, chicken coops and apiaries, not necessarily specific to restaurants.

We know that they can sometimes be uh allowed with or with food or that farm to table movement.

But again, these are things that are identified and listed and approved as part of uh in tandem with any principal use, any primary function, and again, we're not here deciding which ones we like and which ones we don't like.

Um we talk about other structures though, gazebos are identified in that article 21.

Again, gazebos are not specifically identified in relationship to restaurants.

Flagpoles are not identified specifically to restaurants, but again, we do not get to pick and choose what is allowed as accessory uses with fundamental and functionally uh considered primary uses, which is a restaurant.

This boils down to this is a primary restaurant, it's been proven, it's gone through great lengths of operational vetting.

The department has looked at this over multiple months, almost spanning two years, and has come to the conclusion that this in fact a bona fide restaurant that is at the uh the meat at the root of what is being asked in front of you.

And again, all of the things in the tables in 21 are allowed to come with it as long as they meet yards setbacks, etc.

etc.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in opposition?

The applicant has an opportunity to rebut.

Thank you.

I'll I'll be brief.

So Mr.

Smith said the question is whether or not a restaurant can have a pool that's partially correct.

The right the question is whether or not the restaurant can have an outdoor pool in compliance with 21, excuse me, 24.1b.

Uh I had that backwards.

21.4B, excuse me.

And nobody's addressed that from the opposition side because it can't be addressed.

It's clearly prohibited.

Maybe a restaurant can have a pool that's in an enclosed space.

All the analogies that the opponents offered, the McDonald's ball pit inside, a chicken coop inside, an apiary inside.

So they can't provide you with an example of something that is not in an enclosed structure that is an accessory use that's not specifically provided for in the code because it's not provided for in the code.

Uh Mr.

Cupperman noted this is an innovative use.

I agree, it's an innovative use.

It belongs over with the land use gods, as Mr.

Smith said, across order in this room at a different day to decide whether or not and how these things should be regulated and if this particular use could be approved through a conditional use process.

Finally, there's a I think Mr.

Kupperman raised the lost coyote as an example of another one of these uses I just looked during the break.

The lost coyote was not permitted as a standard restaurant as a mixed occupancy.

There's residential uses upstairs.

So I suspect that pool is probably also out of compliance with section uh 24.1, excuse me, 21.4b.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh questions from the board.

Yeah.

Um I do have a quick question.

And coming back to your earlier point referencing pools need to be within an enclosed structure, where are you referencing that within a code that states that a pool needs to be in inside of an enclosed structure?

Uh 20, sorry.

21.4B.

Within all districts, all activities shall be conducted entirely with an enclosed structure, with the exception of the following.

So if you're going to use the pool for an activity, i.e.

swimming, lounging, whatever you're going to be doing in the pool, that's got to be inside.

And the reason is these outdoor uses create noise and impacts on neighbors.

And there are exceptions under 214B for outdoor seating at a restaurant and the things that we normally associate with outdoor activities, but pools or swimming or use of a pool are not including those exceptions.

But and that's actually you're getting to my point.

So another thing that has already been spelled out and articulated by the department is that the pool itself is considered an accessory structure.

Correct.

You you would agree with that.

Yes.

So within that, it isn't allowed use to exist within what and if I understand how pools are defined within the definitions, can exist within the rear yard or side yard of any property that does not it does not uh establish that it needs to be residential nor commercial.

Would you concur with that part?

Correct.

Okay.

So if I'm creating a structure that also is in some capacity where people gather, theoretically is something that is still allowed to be used based on what's spelled out in the CCO.

So if it's enclosed, but then it also addresses outdoor seating for restaurants, and I think that's also addressed within a code.

And one thing I think we've been avoiding is getting into what is it?

Um the standards for uh standard restaurants and how they're defined.

And I think there's a series of checklist items on what defines a restaurant.

Would you concur?

Um, and I'm gonna ask this to the department.

Yes, there are there's a definition of the standard restaurant as well as specialty restaurants, which allows for outdoor seating, things of that nature and characteristics there, and characteristics of what will be a standard restaurant.

That's correct.

I just uh you want to go.

Yeah, question for the applicant.

In light of the logic that you spelled out for 21.4B2, how do you explain every outdoor pool in a hotel throughout this city?

That's a great question.

Um I would think those are problematic for this section as well.

Now I I mean I can't address any particular pool, but I'd say most hotels and residential quasi-residential HUMU, they go through some sort of conditional use, and those issues can be addressed through that process.

And that's that's actually not correct.

Um pretty much every hotel project is allowed to have a pool as an accessory to that uh function, including restaurants as well.

And I think that's pretty well articulated and spelled out tells it to find.

I guess where we struggle in it, it would I'm disagree with Mr.

Smith.

I would love it if the public was still here to hear this, um, but they can watch it on TV.

Um, you know, you you made a couple times reference to conditional use and some other things.

Well, like as at least as far as I can tell, there's not a single table, and I think this was admitted even in your presentation.

There's not a single table that lists pool as a as a primary use anywhere throughout the CZO, right?

So my feeling is if we were to side with you in this appeal, we would basically be making everything that's built in this, every pool in the city illegal somehow until city council resolves the issue.

The pools are I mean the existing pools would be non-conforming, then right.

No, no, no.

So I don't think you're making a pool illegal, but I don't want to speculate about the consequences of our decision.

There's no way to reconcile it with 21.4B then, and the the CZO provides if there is a conflict internally, which is the point you guys are raising, you go to the more restrictive use.

And clearly the more restrictive use is not allowing a pool that's an outdoor activity.

I just where I'm gonna disagree with you is in paragraph two there.

So I'm referencing 21.4 point B2.

Outdoor businesses and those businesses with a required outdoor component, including but not limited to, and then a list that follows.

So I'm just I'm I'm having a real hard time excluding pool just or hotel, like hotel is not listed in that list, if I'm correct.

So, you know, I believe the but not limited to is in there for a very good reason, and I don't see a reason to uh disregard it and overturn the director's decision.

The problem is you're reading a word or uh a use in there that's not listed, and I don't think that's within the purview of the board of zoning adjustments.

That's for the council side.

And if you look at the last sentence of subsection two, how are the outdoor components of these businesses may be limited or prohibited as part of a conditional use approval?

Everything points that this needs to go to the council and let them decide.

So actually, I'm gonna let me use your point and counter that.

This is actually within a purview of the BZA to interpret it based off of how it's been legislated and drafted to date, and that's what's before us.

Literally what we do.

And so because that use is not spelled out, we have to adhere to how this is defined herein.

Now, yes, where the council comes in is maybe the appropriate venue would be to go to the council and see if there's if they are a willingness to amend the code and include that as a caveat or use in the future where conditional use needs to be applied for.

I would agree with you.

But that's the procedural way of how this is typically addressed as opposed to using 21.4 point B.

Now, even though this isn't what you provided in your challenge, my question actually goes back more to Article 20, and how restaurants all types are actually defined and what the characteristics of what is a restaurant.

Okay.

That's actually where I think your conversation should have been directed, because they while here's the thing.

They are elements of how this is functioning and what you posted, what you showed is from their website of how they operate.

That does become a little bit more problematic in terms of it being portrayed as a standard as a restaurant as opposed to functioning on the focusing on the pool as an accessory use.

Yeah, if I had had unlimited time, I would have spent a lot of time on that.

I I felt like that um the prohibition of 21.4 point B is the clearer uh avenue.

And let me go back one more point on that.

If 214.4B said you can do everything except these things, I would agree with your interpretation that your job is to say, okay, this undefined use is something that is okay, because it's not listed there, it's not prohibited.

But this is the opposite of that.

It says nothing excuse me.

All activities shall be conducted entirely within enclosed structure.

So anything that's not within a enclosed structure and not listed as one of these exceptions should be prohibited.

So every restaurant in the city that actually has an outdoor courtyard with outdoor seating in active.

Well, no, because that's one of the things that's allowed.

That's a specific exception.

Well, but this is I mean, I'll I'll go back to what I said.

What's not in there?

Hotel pool yard.

Um, there are like probably hundreds of lists, you know, uses like legal in the city that are excluded from this list.

So I I I get that the argument gets you what you need for this case, but I don't think I I agree with Mr.

James.

Our job is to interpret the text of BZA, and and if if you've made a disagreement and filed an appeal and the director disagrees, that's what we're here to decide.

But I I think the way you're laying it out, it just seems incorrect, too restrictive.

I I respectfully disagree, but thank you.

But what about the rule about having a six-foot fence that Mr.

Magnumere?

How do we reconcile the clear non-compliance with that rule?

So that go ahead.

You got it.

I was just going to suggest that that was an issue that was raised in the review of the appeal.

I don't know that that's currently before the board at this time.

I think what he's asking procedurally, if that's a issue.

If that's an issue, that's going to be addressed in with with the with the property owner.

And uh if I understand your question correctly, if there's if there's an issue there that needs to be uh remedied, that's something that's incumbent upon the department to take action to do so.

Thank you.

And that was actually gonna be um my question on one of the other points about um how the restaurant is ultimately used.

I think there was a suggestion that it wasn't functioning truly as a restaurant, which goes back to sort of an enforcement issue.

And so I was just gonna make mention, I think some of the remedies may not be in this forum, but through an enforcement um action directly with the department.

The the the property owners indicated that they're gonna they're operating as a restaurant until uh we have evidence to the contrary, we're gonna believe them.

And can I make one other quick point because one of you asked me why we're I was focusing on 21.4B.

We appealed the pool permit here, so I was focusing on the pool issue.

There's gonna be another appeal coming when because the uh certificate of occupancy was issued recently.

So we'll be back here on that issue and talk more about the uh restaurant problems, and then we'll be across the street, depending on how either one of these votes go or arguing it again.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think you kind of asked the questions that I was gonna ask on.

Um are there any other questions?

Yeah, I just had one quick question about the um the report.

Um so on section three, you were summarizing the arguments.

Um, and the fourth one was about the adjacent lot.

Um and I was just curious if you'd I if it was hey, sorry.

I I I'm just going back and rereading it.

I was just wondering what the if you'd address that in your notes.

Because I I I was curious too about the using the building next door and the termination of how much square footage was needed for uh site plan and all that stuff because there were certain things that were excluded because of the square footage, and so I'm just just wanted because they made that argument in their in their case.

I just want to do that.

I think the argument that they were making regarded was concerning the depth of of the lot, and that it was that they acquired that use because it was in that particular portion of it was formally in a different.

No, I'm I'm referring to the to the neighboring property that that they're using.

Um I'm gonna uh I was gonna segue into that.

The other issue is the regarding the the the neighboring lot and the whether they're gonna be required to subdivide that lot.

Again, that's a separate issue that uh we have met with the property uh the property owner in the business regarding those issues, and they've made certain representations about uh uh how that they intend to uh use this on the 4917 property.

They put up a uh they did put up a temporary fence in between those uh those two properties, and they've indicated that all activities are going to be taking place on 4917.

If there is evidence to the contrary, then that will be addressed at that time.

I just address that point quickly.

Uh I would like to make a point first.

Unrelated to that is just because you asked the question about the fence, and maybe it wasn't appropriately answered, and given your comments about the next steps for this project.

I just wanted to take a stance on it.

Is that what we're what's being appealed is the issuance of the pool permit.

Um I do not think that the absence of the fence at this time is like uh cause for overturning the granting of the permit.

Uh particularly if the plans at least indicated some uh which they appear to me indicated in some way that the pool was to be fenced off.

If it's now the case that the fence is not there, then I do think that is an enforcement issue.

And that was kind of I was um just about to get to the point that it feels like there's some conflation of issues because if the the point that's before us is about the pool permit, I'm not disagreeing that there may be some questions surrounding some of these other pieces.

But if we're discussing specifically around the pool permit, then I think we can make I feel comfortable making that decision, setting sort of setting aside those other points as those should be addressed in a separate manner.

Yep, if that makes sense.

Yeah, and I guess my re my I'm reading into the argument, but um if you look at the property in total, the two together and how that would be a uh reviewed at permitting versus just doing the pool and that and the fact that it was kind of piecemeal is what I think was the argument in the letter and so.

And I just kind of feel like you can whatever the decision is around the pool permit, doesn't negate if there needs to be action around those other issues was how I was I guess thinking through it.

Any other questions?

Clear as mine.

No, no, no.

Quite clear.

If a motion is in order, yep, I see.

Right, madam chair.

Regarding Docker BZA076-25 at 4917 for Ed Street.

I moved to 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 or a conflict in the law in accordance with section which pardon in accordance with Article 4, Section 4.8 D of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA docket 076-25, it's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner James to deny the appeal and um uphold the decision of the department, the director of the department of safety and permits, finding that there was not an error in that decision.

Vote your screens.

Next item.

The next item is BCA docket 07725 for the property at 7301 through 7303 Bird Street.

Good afternoon again.

This is Dan MacMarchy, zoning official for the City of New Orleans regarding hearing number BCA 07725-7301 to 7303 birth street.

The director submits that this uh this uh appeal is uh premature.

The property is currently being scheduled for a zoning inspection, which will reveal whether the property is in compliance with the ordinances of the city of New Orleans.

Director Furley further submits that the results of this uh inspection are germane to the question presented and will fundamentally assist the board in reaching its decision.

As such, the department is requesting that this matter be deferred until the inspection is completed and findings made part of the record, and just to let you know on a little bit on top of all of that, that it is my uh my intent to I'm currently preparing a response that will I believe uh very definitively uh refute the allegations set forth in the appeal by Miss Johnson.

And with that, I request that we defer this until that results of that inspection are done and the report filed with the board ready uh-huh, Susan Johnson 2822 LePage Street, Town of Carrollton Watch.

I'm not paid to be here.

1816 Hillary is also here as she's on furlough from the Department of Interior, and he's ceding her speaking time to me in case it is necessary.

Another neighbor, Professor Susan Krinsky, domiciled at A32 Pine Street, would have attended this hearing today if the docket hadn't been deferred.

Professor Krinsky reports that the subject property is now occupied by student tenants.

Please note that no certificate of occupancy has issued for this property, even when the building inspector Kurt Cavalier conducted an inspection of the property on August 15th, 2025.

The property was already occupied, as you can see from the inspection photos uploaded to one stop.

That's a note for DSP ahead of their zoning inspection.

Okay, now a procedural matter ahead of this hearing today, safety and permits reviewed my original appeal letter of July 7th.

However, this is not the final version.

Because BCA staff kindly granted me a two-day extension after Friday, August 29th was declared a holiday at City Hall.

But somehow the revised appeal letter and materials were not uploaded timely and did not supersede the earlier materials in the system.

We've sorted it out with staff.

There's no need for further comment on this, except that there are big differences between the two letters, and as a result, it would be too confusing to discuss the docket in any detail right now.

But I just want to point out ahead of the proposed zoning inspection in the hope it will be useful.

That in fact, two off-street parking spaces, not one, are required per base zoning since the new owner has added a second unit.

The zoning reviewer failed to flag this.

Applicable law CZO article 24.4.

And table 22-1 off-street vehicle and bicycle parking requirements.

As for the director's report about the necessity for a zoning inspection, Madam Chair, can we please ask Mr.

McNamara why the zoning inspection is being held?

Specifically, what was it in the appeal letter that helped him to determine that there is a need for a zoning inspection?

Um this isn't the appropriate time for questions, um, and I would say that you would direct that question to the department, but not through us to ask questions for you.

Okay, so um having said that.

I asked, I received an answer.

It seems like this probably has to do with a discrepancy between total bathroom count as shown in plumbing riser diagram, figure nine in the packet, four bathrooms total, while on the other hand, architect Kelly Johnson's plans for both units show just three full bathrooms in the entire property.

Possibility of material misrepresentation.

So just finally before um signing off and accepting the deferral.

I would like to request that the zoning inspection should admit an advocate or neighborhood resident as an observer to the process.

Whether a district A staffer could participate.

He said no, we can't get involved in enforcement.

So my request is that I should be allowed to attend or a board member from the neighborhood association or a journalist.

That's my request, and that's pretty much I'm limiting my comments today.

I think is anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA docket 077-25.

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Mr.

McImai, you said 30 days and just make a short.

Thank you.

If a motion's in order.

Yes, Chris.

Madam Chair, regarding BZA document number 77-25.

My motion is for a 30-day deferral at the request of the department thank you.

With regards to BCA Docket 077-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer the item 30 days at the request of the department.

Vote your screens.

No nays.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

We will now begin with new business for the Department of Safety and Permits Decision Appeals.

The next item is BZA Docket 08725 for the property at 1943 North Rampart Street.

Good afternoon.

Once again, Dan McNamara, Chief Zoning Official with the City of New Orleans regarding BZA087-25.

Regarding the property, formerly known as Iggy's Bar at 194 and 3 North Rampard Street in the City of New Orleans zoning district is an HMC 1 historic Marin E-Tramay Biowater Commercial District.

Well the Iggy's had a legal nonconforming use as a bar.

In essence, the Bellin is challenging the Department of Safety and Permits June 23rd, 2025 decision to issue ABO permit 25 ABO B 26726.

Other than the issuance of a permit, there was no formal ruling regard on the property's non-conforming use status.

Article 25.2.

Turning to the appellants argument, the appellate asserts that the property has lost its non-conforming status due to unlawful operations.

Specifically, they cite City Code 26-660 failure to obtain a certificate of appliance for associate an associated rental unit, as well as Louisiana revised statute 26 colon 90 permitting minors to loiter or creating a disorderly environment.

Should be noted that any violation of law, either state or municipal uh forms the basis of a violation actual actionable by the alcoholic beverage control board.

And nonetheless, the prehibit the prohibition against uh and it used to, I guess my point there is it used to be in the code that any state violation uh would would form the basis of an alcoholic uh a violation that could be brought before the ABC uh C board.

However, this council and its wisdom changed that it was only to violations of the municipal code that resulted in a conviction.

Nonetheless, the same prohibition against minors uh in the establishment is found in City Code Section 10-369.

Uh so uh the cited city code violations that were in the application were regarding a November 15, 2024 violation for which the business was uh cited for a legal outdoor seating without a sidewalk use permit.

And then the appellant could contends that these violations render the non-conforming bar un uh use unlawful.

It should be said that the manner in which the uh the the business that is no longer there, by the way, was being operated was of considerable concern not only to these neighbors who were desperately crying out for something to be done about the bar, but it was a concern to the New Orleans Police Department, it was concerned to the city council.

Uh but again, those were things that were were required to be brought before the alcoholic beverage control board.

And um, so let me just move on to the um having said that, turning to the legal um uh principles that at issue.

Article 25 of the CZO says that no non-conforming uses may continue only if lawful and continuous, and this is uh I put in there the side of uh Palermo.

Nonconforming uses are vested projective property rights, been conditioned on lawful operation, they may be regulated in some circumstances terminated if the operation becomes unlawful, abandoned, or in conflict with the public welfare.

Pursuant to the home rule charter section 5-902, the alcoholic beverage control board shall hear and decide cases for suspension or revocation of city alcoholic beverage permits, and if provided by ordinance here and decide appeals from persons who have been denied an alcoholic beverage permit by an administrative official in the enforcement of applicable state or municipal laws.

The position of the department is simple, that there was no formal non-conforming use uh uh determin.

I'm sorry, it says termination in my report.

That's a typo.

It's supposed to be uh determination had been issued.

The relief sought by the appellate circumvents the duties and responsibilities of the law department and the alcoholic beverage control board.

While the DSP does retain authority to make determinations regarding the loss of non-conforming use status, the violations is alleged in the narrow confines of this matter require that they be first uh they first be adjudicated to form a defensible basis for uh termination of the nonconforming use under the CZO.

City code section 1078 sets forth the procedure for bringing home matter before the ABC Board.

Traditionally, this is a function of the law department.

No such petition was filed regard regarding the uh establishment uh known uh formerly known as IGES or I guess the non-existent establishment that was known as the IGES.

And while the again the appellant raised alarming and credible claims, once the ABO license was issued, the claim should have been brought before the ABC Board for uh adjudication.

So the department submits that ABO permit 25 ABOP 26726 was not issued in error.

And given the narrow facts of this matter, action on behalf of the law department and the alcoholic beverage control board were necessary in determining whether the alleged illegal use occurred on the property.

Other than the renewal of the permit, there was no new NCU determination that was subject to appeal.

Further, the entity holding that permit is no longer operating, and as such, uh the department submits that this matter is moved.

Thank you.

All right.

Is the um applicant?

Oh, that's not oh okay.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 087-25?

Absolutely.

Anyone here in support of the applicant?

Were they here at any point?

Do you know?

No.

No, I uh only people that were here from before were the folks who are speaking on behalf of uh or in opposition to 4917 for Red and these folks here.

Anyone here in opposition that wishes to speak?

If you're sitting here.

We can't hear you, I'm sorry.

Um in opposition of this appeal that was filed.

Um you can give your name and address for the um Robert Cohen, 1435 Creek Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, 7011.

Okay.

Did you have anything you wanted to put on the record?

Uh that I am the new owner and operator of Wi-Fi Square Bar on North Rampart Street at 1943, and um we are fully in compliant with everything that we've needed to do um any of the problems that were from Iddy's bar and over serving issue that they had with a management issue is now alleviated um as I'm operating the bar very differently than they did.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Uh anyone else here in opposition that wishes to speak.

Any questions from the board?

I don't know how you all want to quick question to the director.

If I could just summarize your comments, basically this was made to the wrong jurisdiction.

Uh I I would say that the the original uh should that business have been a going concern.

She is no longer that business no longer is no longer in business.

That uh should have been brought the the considerable uh and again the the applicant is not here to speak for themselves, but they had a quite a dossier on the activity that was taking place in there, and the it's the department's position that that matter should have been brought before the alcoholic beverage control board for action.

Okay.

And so is this actually moot?

Because I know that's how the end of the report read.

So I guess so yes.

I mean they're they're talking about the uh the the issuance of a alcoholic beverage permit to an entity that no longer exists.

So that they that Iggy's is no longer there.

Mr.

Cohen is a is a uh a new business in that location.

So if someone were to I I guess kick start this process, they would have to bring a new action regarding any issuance of an alcoholic beverage permit to with the new operator.

But the new operator.

So I guess just traditionally how we've seen this in the past, usually the city attorney would then provide that it's a moved request because it's no longer applying to a valid permit, but you're also saying it's the incorrect venue as well.

So it I guess I'm more looking to the city attorney to validate if this is actually a moot item or do we need to take any action?

So it is a moot item because it is there's nothing to address.

There's nothing to vote on it.

It no longer is in existence.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So if that's the case, then we don't need to take any um any action.

Thank you.

Next item.

There's a next item.

Come on, Dan, you're on a roll of day.

I thought I'd the next, I'm sorry.

Um BZA Docket 08925 has been withdrawn by the applicant.

Yeah.

Is that the last one?

Yeah.

Okay.

That's the last one for you.

Um we will now begin um the new business of any other matters.

My glasses on.

Annually, the board shall adopt a docketing schedule for the following year for all items requiring.

I'm sorry, Valerie.

We did have one item.

We're not hearing it.

I didn't hear what you said for item number 16.

Withdrawn.

Oh, it was withdrawn by the applicant.

Thank you.

I missed that.

Sorry.

No, no worries.

Annually, the board shall adopt a dopping docketing schedule for the following year for all items requiring public hearing and action by the board.

The schedule is established.

This schedule shall establish docketing deadlines, including deadlines for submittal of written documents related to the item before the board, deadlines for distribution of staff reports to the board and to the public, public hearing dates and resolution deadlines.

A copy of the schedule shall be posted on the city planning commission's website.

Umily is to explain any further information is needed.

Thank you.

So before you in your packets, you have the 2026 uh BZA schedule proposed for your adoption.

There are a couple of modifications that we have for the upcoming year.

So we will be having our meetings on the third Mondays of the month unless otherwise noted, usually due to holidays.

So those are those have an asterisk.

And the biggest change though is the release of our staff reports will now be one week prior to the meeting.

So the Monday before.

So that should give you enough time or more time to review them.

So that's something that we are proposing to adjust.

So those are the primary things.

Otherwise, because our rules state that we adopt the schedule in November or December, we would need to also suspend the rules to adopt this schedule today.

It's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to suspend our rules to uh consider this uh schedule, vote your screens.

No, but we have to make a motion to adopt the schedule, right?

We have to suspend the rules first.

Oh, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha.

Seven years.

Seven years.

Seven yes, no nays, the motion carries.

Now is there a motion?

So move.

It's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Eggins to adapt the 2026 BZA scheduling and deadlines.

Vote your screens.

I know it's the end of the day, folks.

Our brains are slow.

Seven YA's, no nays, the motion carries.

Are there any other items?

Just adjournment.

So moved.

Push the button.

Oh, come on.

It's been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Gonzalez to adjourn our meeting.

Vote your screens.

Seven yes.

No nays.

The motion carries.

Our meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.