Oh yes.

Like how do you all have the heater on?

It's not.

Yeah, it's more.

I've been sleeping with the window open.

We don't need it.

Um start momentarily.

I wanted to make sure that you remembered about the other withdrawn item to announce that.

Um sixty six when it was uh okay.

Thank you for reminding me because yeah, forgot.

Okay, good started.

Okay.

We um what's the evolution museum?

Highly recommend worth every penny.

It was so much fun.

I'll show you pictures later.

Yeah, we took so many pictures.

That sounds really fun.

Did you have did you get a jam ever?

Okay.

It was built as like an adult children's museum, but it was less interactive to me, so I'm curious about how interactive.

Oh, it's quite interactive, and then they have people like kind of come around to help take pictures.

Okay, you know, and show you what to do to make it, you know, make the illusion work.

Like, here's what you're gonna go help me out.

Okay.

Good morning.

I would like to call the November third Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting to order.

We will begin with roll call.

Candace Horace.

Present.

Todd James.

Present.

Tamara Agans.

Present.

Jose Alvarez.

Present.

Jamie Romero Diaz is absent.

Alfonso Gonzalez is absent.

Jason Richards.

Present.

At this time, would the board make a motion to adopt the minutes from the September 8th meeting, which were deferred last month?

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt the minutes from our last meeting.

Vote your screens.

Who made the motion?

I'm sorry.

Jason.

Okay, there we go.

Five yes, no nays.

The motion carries.

Additionally, at this meeting, would the board make a motion to adopt the minutes from the October 6th meeting.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Eggins, second by Commissioner Alvarez to adopt the minutes from our October meeting.

Vote your screens.

Five y's, no nays.

The motion carries.

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

if the meeting has not already been adjourned.

And we will reconvene at approximately 2 p.m.

As a reminder to applicants, action that the board takes today will be released in the form of a disposition notice by November 13th and sent via email and mail to applicants as well as posted on the one-stop app for other interested parties.

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

Two items on today's agenda have been withdrawn.

Item number one, BZA Docket 06625 for the property at 2818 North Rampart Street.

And BZA, I'm sorry, item number 10, BZA Docket 09625 for the property at 5939 Mandeville Street.

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.

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 or 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.

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

Standard of review.

BZA docket zero eighty-nine twenty-five for the property at 4201 Dauphin Street.

Try the other one.

Um staff, we have um speaker cards for item number.

It will be hired at after the new variances at the deferrals will be heard after the new variances.

One second.

The mic is not on.

Try that one.

BZA, okay.

BZA 08925 is an after-the-fact request for a variance from the provisions of Article 21, Section 21.6 dot T dot one of the CZO to permit uh mechanical equipment with insufficient setback from the interior side blot line.

The property in question is addressed four two oh one Dauphin Street in the Bywater neighborhood and zone HMC one, historic marinity, treme by water.

Use of the property is indicated uh to is intended to be a retail establishment.

The applicant is applying for an after-the-fact variance and has a HVAC condenser unit mounted to the side of the property on the Burgundy Street property line.

CZO article twenty-one dot six dot T dot one uh requires a minimum distance of two feet from the property line.

In this instance, the applicant is providing one foot of distance and is therefore requesting a one-foot waiver from the CZO.

ACLC has already approved of the placement, but have recommended an alternate placement on the roof.

And CPC staff's analysis of the surrounding development.

We found sixty-seven percent of similarly situated properties have their condenser units mounted on the roof, and we're compliant with setback requirements.

In instances where mechanical setback compliance was not observed, these were usually window mounted AC units or some form of exhaust.

Based on this report, the staff believes that the requested variances of Article 21, Section 21.6 point T point one fails to meet criteria one two six seven of the standards for variances of Article 4.6 point F of the CZO.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

You could come up and give your name and address for the record.

Leslie Say S forty two oh one Dauphin Street.

You could go ahead with your comments.

Uh you can look at the distance between the houses to move the unit back all the way.

I don't know how you'd get it on the roof in such a narrow area.

I only have 34 inches in my in my alley.

So how are you gonna how would I get the unit 15 feet up and then move it over in such a tight area?

That unit was hoisted up, but I you know it that was easy to do.

I don't know how you'd get the unit up in another location.

If you look at the survey, the it's just not it's not an easy fix.

Is that the end of your comments?

What's that?

Is that the end of your comments?

Well, I mean, you could ask me questions.

I I don't really know.

We'll get to the questions.

I mean, I think the HDLC already saw a hardship.

That's why I think they unanimously removed in my favor.

And the HCLC uh you can't have a uh uh a unit on the roof or even a wind turbine.

And that's what I always understood, and now it seems like they're willing to uh change their view of this after four months.

Okay.

We'll get to the questions once we um get through public comment if we have any questions for you.

You want me to sit down?

Oh, I mean, I don't know.

I mean, you can we we have to the process is we have to take public comment before we start asking you questions.

So if there's public comment, they would need to come to that mic.

So you can as you know, we had a neighborhood meeting, and uh was no negative comment that I knew of.

Okay, we'll see.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 089-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Uh quick question to staff, just trying to understand.

I know in the um the report, it was indicated that there were uh alternative placements, and I know the applicant was indicating one location.

What were the um the alternative location options?

The alternative location I'm checking with I'm talking with staff sorry.

I mean, according to the information provided uh by the applicant, the alternate location uh is visible on the elevation that's on the screen, which is um 15 feet up and then further back.

Okay.

Um it was less visible from the street.

Okay.

So when you discuss this with HDLC, did they by chance bring up mechanical code requirements?

Um I'm well I'm gonna ask you a question about their their alternative um because I think the HLC may have missed was was there a discussion head about how to service a unit if it's put on the roof.

I I I know you said it'd be very high up, but did they acknowledge that there's like a platform and some other things that would be required by the code when they did this, or they were just right in the and you only have this much space to this dude is I mean, I don't know what kind of lift and how you could even get there to to lift this unit up.

That's kind of the and it's gonna be like it's 40 feet back, it's 40 feet back, not counting the the street area.

So you're talking about trying to move a unit 50 feet back.

I I I don't know, I don't know.

I would say, and and this is I I think what the staff brought up is that the mechanics of getting it there aren't so much the hardship.

I I think what might be missing though is that in order to let me ask the question like this.

Currently you can service this unit from grade where it is where it is where it exists, correct?

I don't look at it as a service.

I don't look at it as a service thing, it's just uh practical.

Yeah, yeah.

No, I get that.

Um so if I could chime in on something real quick, just looking at the sketch, the hand sketch that was provided by the applicant.

If it was even shifted 15 feet back, it would be adjacent to the existing hood vent that's already there, correct?

I'm looking at his uh hand sketch on the plan.

And this is a this is a furnace unit or what type of equipment is it?

It's a central A, it's a condensing unit.

It is a condensing.

All right, so it is a wall pack unit.

So and usually those by application are closer in proximity to where the unit where it would it's servicing.

So just by moving it back further in a building doesn't necessarily mean that it could actually function in that capacity.

There's already existing pieces of equipment within the floor plan, there's existing hood equipment as well as other kit other kitchen functions that's further back.

So even if they were to shift this back further on that wall plane, I don't think the unit would be able to actually function correctly to service the 4201 unit, which is what appears to be dead.

I'm talking to staff and trying to help you.

On a 4201 unit, if it's shift back, it's now then tied to the 4203 or 4405 units, which is not what it's actually servicing.

So I think what they're trying, he's limited in terms of where he he can actually place it in plan versus how the unit is actually supposed to function.

And traditionally, with traditionally with these type of units, if it's a Kawasaki, not sure what type it is, they have to, there's a certain linear feet that it has to be adjacent to where it's gonna supply uh cooled in condition there.

Yeah, so to follow up on board member James's point is I think what the HDLC has missed in your case is that with the with the the way that the we're we're not a building code committee, we're a zoning code committee, but we do have architects who sit on the board.

So you've got the unit where it needs to be to service the unit.

If we were to move it to the roof, my point would be a couple things would happen.

You would have to put a service platform up there for it, right?

By the by the code, and then uh what Mr.

James brought up was that nothing can be within 10 foot of a hood exhaust.

And since you do have this hood exhaust up there, we're not sure that if you did what the HDLC proposed to do, you would be allowed to do that without substantial renovations to the building.

What we're trying to do is establish your hardship, and I think in your case, this to us does look like a bit of a hardship to move it.

Um given all the other factors that we're taking under consideration here with the sketches that you provided Madam Chef of motion.

The only thing I might add is you know the units function better, the the closer they owe it a gala.

Yeah.

That's that's the only thing I can add.

Before we make a motion, just uh you did have the neighborhood meeting.

Your your immediate neighbor has no particular complaints about the the unit, is that correct?

They do.

They complained.

Yeah, your immediate neighbor.

What's the um what's the no, they they agreed they didn't the neighbors adjacent, they've they don't have a problem with it.

I have it right here where they signed off on it.

Okay.

Colleen and Bob.

Okay.

They don't have a problem with the unit.

Yeah, I don't know if y'all notice.

They already had a unit there for 30 years.

Okay.

I have a picture of it if you want to see it.

That's okay.

I think we're all right.

It was just replaced with a with a more modern unit.

Okay.

And only um, and you kind of hit on it with asking the question about the neighbor.

The only question I had, um, and I know you kind of touched on Commissioner Richards, the uh the I think it was a mechanical code.

I'm just making sure that there is not any like safety or any other concerns by this um being located where it is.

Um I know staff included um a proposed proviso, but just making sure that there's not anything else that would impact um this decision within our purview.

I don't want to overstep what we should be considering.

If y'all can see it, this is the old unit.

Uh understood, thank you.

Thank you.

So that was just a question um to staff.

Um, or I don't know if in the discussions that you all were having, Commissioner James and uh Richards, if that concern has been sort of satisfied.

I I understand that the the the two-foot is there to respect your property, your your your neighbors and and access.

And access um given that it appears to be an open yard, you know, and if he's got the relationships with his neighbors, their service from the side.

So if you can get to it from the side with the ladder, I don't I don't see any safety concerns with the foot variance that's being requested.

Did we know the um clearance to the underside of it?

It appears to be at least a minimum of six foot.

But not really sure if we know what that under clearance is to where it's placed.

Uh question to the applicant.

How high up?

Do you do you know how high up it is, like to overhead?

Right now, yeah.

It's uh six feet eight inches.

All right, then we're good.

Okay, okay.

I think so.

Commissioner um forest, sorry.

So I was about to say the other.

Um I got it.

We we're talking so with respect to your question at six foot eight, that actually gives you the overhead clearance that's no different from a door height.

So remember, with that two-foot threshold that they try to maintain, that's also for clear access for fire department to be able to get around the building.

So if you had six foot eight of vertical clearance that allows for someone to walk underneath the equipment, yeah.

And the the zoning code recognizes it's at seven feet or seven foot six.

I don't want to misdate it, it reduces to eighteen inches.

So had he installed it a little bit higher, the variance we'd be asking for is six inches.

So I feel like given uh I think we're good, sir.

I don't think we need any further commentary.

I think we're all we're good.

We're good.

All right.

The gas meter is six feet eight inches.

Yeah, yeah.

That's okay.

We got so yeah.

So, madam chair, for motion's in order.

Yeah, are there any other questions from the board?

Proceed.

With regards to BZA docket number 089-25.

Uh, my motion is to grant the request for the uh waiver of Article 21, Section 21.6.t.1 for man equip mechanical equipment location.

Um, that based on the information is provided and upon further discussion, we do believe that the nine criteria have been met to fulfill to fulfill the remaining criteria's uh identified within the staff report.

Um, I do move for approval with the one-noted proviso.

Second or thank you.

With regards to BCA docket 089-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the requested waiver, finding that the nine criteria have been met in adopting the commentary from today's meeting to uh support establishment that the nine criteria have been met and subject to one proviso.

Vote your screens.

Six years, no nays, the motion carries.

Next item we will now begin with new business for variances.

BZA docket 09025.

This request is for variances from the from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the conversion of a multifamily dwelling to a single family dwelling with five bedrooms, five full bathrooms, and a parking pad with insufficient depth located between the front facade and the front property line, resulting in front parking, front yard parking.

The subject property is within university area off-street over parking overlay district, and the overlay, the maximum total permitted number of bathrooms in a single family dwelling is two and a half, two-filled bathrooms and one half bath.

So the applicant is seeking a waiver of two and a half bathrooms.

As the subject proposal is not increasing the number of bedrooms, and because at least 40% of other single-family and two-family properties on the block base do not provide all-street parking, it does not need to provide off-street parking.

Despite this, the applicant is proposing one off-street parking space in the front yard that is also of insufficient depth and triggers the need for waivers.

The property was originally developed with a compliant parking space located in a garage.

While it appears that the garage is no longer used for parking, and the applicant now parks in the front yard, that is a prohibited condition which requires the variance.

Based on this report, staff believes the requested variances of Article 11.

Well, all the requested variance variances failed to meet uh related to parking failed to meet criteria one to four five six seven eight and nine of the standards for uh variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.30 point B.4.

University area all-street parking overlay district bathrooms fails to meet criteria one, two, six, and seven of the standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.f of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

Therefore, the staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

However, should the board find that the request meets all nine approval standards, staff recommends one proviso.

Thank you.

You could give your name and address for the record and then go with your comments.

Catherine Harmon, LK Harmon Architects, 6238 Argonne, New Orleans.

Kristen Napoli, I'm the owner of 624 Webster Street.

You can go with your comments.

Called doubles to dorms.

Okay, this is clearly not a doubles to dorms.

Uh-uh, no, because I've designed dozens of those.

This is a single family home coming from a four-unit student housing going in to be a single family home.

And that's very obvious.

And I secondly would respectfully argue the staff report saying that there's no hardship because obviously, as the staff report does delineate in two separate locations, it's impossible to have in 2025 a two and a half bedroom house with five bedrooms.

It just wouldn't be able to rent or sell.

It's just not the way it's done.

It's not the 70s anymore.

And with that being said, the owner will go into the more detail.

So I actually my primary residence is in this neighborhood.

So I'm kind of speaking as the neighbor, but also as the owner of Webster Street.

I'm like a two-minute walk.

Um, so I got the card in the mail for this meeting.

Um so basically, I'm speaking um as the neighbor.

Um I'm part of a group.

Um there's a park that's like two blocks over called Alma Peters Park, and we have a WhatsApp group of about 74 moms that live in that neighborhood.

And we're all probably 35 to 45 in that group.

And now in today's day and age, we're having kids later in life.

So a lot of people have kids closer together.

Um they have a you know, two, three kids, and then they also have um they're taking care of their elderly parents.

So we're kind of in that I think they call it like a mid-life squeeze right now.

So most people in my neighborhood are struggling because there aren't a lot of options of four-bedroom or five bedroom scenarios.

Um, either one or both parents work from home, again, the young kids, and then again, some people's parents live with them or they have nanny quarters, etc.

etc.

So um I renovate houses in this area because I love the history of uptown New Orleans in general.

And um I picked this house because I'm familiar with the neighborhood and it's close to my house.

But this house is is 3,600 square feet, it's two stories.

And so with that square footage and the fact that it's two stories, having two and a half bathrooms becomes unrealistic for the first floor.

Um, if you have an elderly person living there, can't can't go all the way upstairs to take a shower.

If you have young children, or if you have blended families, which a lot of people have, or if somebody's older and there's a teenager living downstairs, or somebody's going to college and their child's living downstairs.

So, anyways, I bought this home with that in mind, and I've already had three families that I'm know that are are interested in this home because of the just the fact that it's four bedrooms, yeah, five bedrooms, five baths, and fits their needs.

Um, and when I bought it, it was a fourplex, so um, you know, I've already moved over, the meters have been retired for the gap, the utility meters have already been retired.

There's one address, so it's clearly gonna move to single family home.

Um anyways, I just want to that that's kind of my concern as far as like how we are living today and what people are really looking for nowadays, and you know, it's not the 2,000 square foot home with three bedrooms, two and a half bath, where all the kids are sharing one one bathroom and then just one bathroom for the primary.

Um so we're kind of moving away from that, and I think that it would do this neighborhood of disservice if this code was something that was required in this house because of the two-story 3600 square foot situation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 090-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board.

Just question to the applicant.

Um, maybe to Miss Harmon.

Can you talk a little bit more about the things that drove the front yard parking?

Because I think we we we understand the story about the the bathrooms, and certainly we have dealt with this ordinance in its many variations, and I'm sure you've been in front of us for years now, and so we understand that the staff need to interpret it literally.

But the real question is front yard parking.

Yes, it was already there, the curb cut.

So Kristen figured let's just leave it there.

Uh we obviously know that parking is not allowed in the front yard, but maybe like unloading groceries and go into the side yard instead of parking down the street on the street, you know, just to it was already there, so we figured let's just keep it.

We we didn't apply for the variance for that because we didn't plan to use it for parking.

But you know, the staff pointed out as they're supposed to and did that because you're leaving it there, you have to apply for the variance for it.

So we just rolled with that.

Thank you.

I just have a quick question to staff as I'm reading through the report and just trying to understand um because I don't know if it might just be a typo because um says approval.

Yes, yeah, okay.

Just make it short.

Thank you.

Okay, Madam Chair, if a motion is in order.

Are they any other questions from the board?

Proceed.

Okay, regarding Docket BZA 090-25 at 624 Webster Street.

I move to uh approve the requested uh waivers, finding with the discussion uh here today uh by the applicant uh that the request meets all nine of the nine criteria of the approval standards for the variances of Article 4, Section 4.6F of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, subject to the one listed proviso.

I'm gonna go back up and and uh uh read the waivers.

So um I'm moving to approve the requested waiver of Article 18, Section 18.30 B4 for university area off-street parking overlay district for bathrooms.

Article 11, Section 11.b3A B, pardon me, Article 11, Section 11.b.3.a for parking restrictions.

Article 22, section 22.8.a point one point B2 for permitted vehicle parking locations in the front yard.

Article 22, section 22.11 point D point one for parking pad design location, uh, and Article 22, Section 22.11.2 for parking pad design location, as well as the final one, Article 22, Section 22.11 point D point four for parking pad design dimensions.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA docket 090-25, it's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner James to grant the requested waivers, finding that the nine criteria have been met and adopting the commentary as well as the applicant's submission to establish that the nine criteria have been met.

Subject to was it one proviso?

One provisor.

Subject to one proviso.

Vote your screens.

The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

The next item on the agenda is VZA Docket 091 25 for the property at 6462 Louis the 14th Street.

The applicant is requesting a variance from a variance to permit the retention of a detached garage with insufficient distance from the principal structure.

This is an after-the-fact request from the provisions of Article 21, Section 216P2G, detached garages, principal structure.

The applicant is proposing a distance of three feet nine inches from the principal structure where five feet is required and seeking a way of waiver of one foot three inches.

Staff believes that the requested variance is fill.

The requested variance fails to meet criteria one, two, four, and five of the standards of variances for Article of Article 4, Section 46F of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, and that there are no special conditions that are peculiar to the land or the structure.

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

The variants will confer on the applicant special privilege.

The variance will alter the essential character of the locality.

However, the Department of Safety and Permits issued a building permit, permit number 23, 28511 in EWC on December 26, 2023, showing the detached garage with an insufficient distance from the principal structure, and the applicant relied on this permit.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the request, citing detrimental reliance on the issue permit, subject to one proviso.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 091-25?

Yes.

Address is 4922 Music Street.

You can go ahead with your comments.

Yes, when um we when my permit was awarded, that particular structure was there on the um on the plans, and I wasn't aware that there was supposed to be a separate um accessory permit because I'm building three of the same houses in the same area, which also have that same um, but just because of the lots are so much bigger, that wasn't an issue.

And when I applied for my final um um uh building permit, um, they that's when it was brought to my attention.

So it wasn't something that we just did without any um just an afterthought.

Is that the end of your comments?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA docket 091-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Motions in order.

Yes, proceed.

Madam Chair, regards to BZA docket number 091-25.

My motion is to accept the staff's recommendation for the requested waiver of Article 22, section 22.6 point B.2.g for detached garages, principal structure, and move for approval.

Um sorry.

Why is this like that?

Excuse me.

Move for approval.

Um with the one noted proviso.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA Docket 091-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the requested waiver, finding that the nine criteria have been met and subject to one proviso.

Vote your screens.

Six years and no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

Next item.

Thank you so much.

BCA 092 25 for a property located at 318 Lane Street.

This request is for the variance from the provisions of Article 21, Section 21.7, Table 21-2, Article 22, Section 2211 D1, and Article 22, Section 224A, Table 22-1 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit a parking pad between the facade and nearest point of the corner side yard property line, resulting in corner side yard parking.

Located in the SLRS 1 suburban Lake View single family residential district, parking and parking pads are not permitted in the corner side yard.

Records indicate that the site's residence was constructed in 2021 and completed in 2022 with a compliant rear yard parking location.

The request proposes a removal of the compliant parking space to construct the pool in the rear yard and the parking pad and the corner side yard.

In reviewing the request, staff are determined that there are multiple configurations that would provide both the compliant parking location and pool location.

Based on this report, staff believe that the requested variances of articles customer variances of all three requests filtered meet criteria one, two, four, six, seven, eight, and nine of the standard of variances for Article 4, 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 deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the district.

The variance would confirm the applicant's special privilege.

Strict adherence would not result in demonstrable hardship.

The request is primarily for the convenience or profit of the owner or other interested party.

The variance will be detrimental to public welfare or injuries to other parties or property, and the variance will impair the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property, increase street congestion, increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety.

Therefore, staff recommends denial.

Thank you.

You could give your name and address for the record.

And I also have three people seating time to me as well, and I'll I'll need that time on those bills.

So uh Ron Lazel, uh 1000 South Norman C.

Francis, thank you, commissioners, and also thank you, staff always for your hard work.

I'd like to address the comments made in the report.

Number one, special conditions.

While the lot meets minimum dimensions, the unique presence of an alley and a corner side designation create a condition not shared by typical interior lots.

Additionally, final as built conditions, including a parking pad that has been used since the first occupancy of the structure, along with the utility placements, have created site specific limitations not generally applicable to other lots.

These are physical conditions tied to the property, not preferences.

Lastly, the staff report reports notes that this corner side yard condition makes it easier to provide parking.

We disagree with this for several reasons.

One, the dimensions of the yard are less than typical in this area.

Two, the fact that we are not allowed to park in the exact same physical location as every other neighbor because of the corner side yard means that we have less area and more constraints than what is typical.

Therefore, special site specific constraints do exist.

The three of four properties compared to in the report have larger lots.

The orientation does differ than most of these parcels.

It is smaller and it has more restrictions on front yard and corner side yard than any other properties.

Number two, literal interpretation.

Many similarly zoned properties within this district have functional rear yard space for both parking and a pool.

This property, because of corner side yard conditions, alley access limitations, and utility placements, effectively loses the ability to construct a pool of any practical or standard size if parking must remain in the current location.

Other homeowners in this district have the full use of their rear yard for typical residential amenities, such as pools, outdoor living, and play areas.

Denying this request uniquely burdens this property, depriving it of rights commonly enjoyed by others.

Furthermore, parking in the physical area adjacent to the alley is a right enjoyed by others that is deprived to this property.

Number four.

Ignores the fact that the property is already at a disadvantage compared to other lots with more rear yard depth, uh unimpeded by corner side restrictions and the ability to park immediately adjacent to the alley.

Granting the variance merely equalizes property rights and access to the prevalent pattern of the area.

If you need further proof, look at Google Street View and see how everyone on the block parks adjacent to the alley.

Also, the staff's own survey of comparable nearby properties proves that non-compliant corner side alley parking is a long-standing and a common contextual condition, meaning approval would maintain, not disrupt neighborhood character or precedent.

The request does not grant a special privilege.

It resolves a special burden.

Also note that in the staff, it states 318 Bragg does not have corner side parking when in fact it does.

We submitted multiple properties that deviate from compliant parking, and that's on pages 27 through page 37 of your report.

316 Fillmore, the identical driveway on the same alley is 318 lane.

Number six.

A hardship exists when a property cannot reasonably enjoy typical residential improvements due to uniquely restrictive physical conditions.

The city's position that a substantially reduced pool is the reasonable alternative, effectively diminishes the utility of the property behind what the ordinance intends.

Hardship does not require financial loss since loss of normal use is a well-established hardship.

Again, hardship does not require financial loss since loss of normal use is a well-established hardship.

The applicant faces a clear hardship.

Loss of normal residential use solely because of unique lot geometry and the inability under the law to park on private property that is adjacent to the alley, like everyone else.

Number seven, the request is not speculative, commercial, or profit-driven.

It is based on the desire to achieve parity with typical neighborhood residential amenities, which is exactly what the variance mechanism is designed to protect.

Furthermore, the letter in the file referencing the need for the physical activity and swimming is the principal driver of installing this pool.

The staff again relies on the smaller pool suggestion, which fails to acknowledge the inequity the ordinance creates when applied literally to an irregular site that is very different regarding alley access to all the other properties on the alley in the same block.

The request is necessity-driven, not convenience-driven.

Number eight, there is no evidence of documented safety issues associated with alley-faced parking in this area, despite many cord corner and ally surveyed driveways.

Visibility standards can be met, and cars parked off-street reduce public congestion congestion versus street parking.

Furthermore, this parking space is wholly on private property.

Legally parking on private property would in no way impact the vehicle use of others, as this argument loses credibility.

Once you picture the owner installing a fence on the rear property line, which of course is legal.

If a fence could be put up and not cause any issues with safety, how is a parked car on private property supposed to be a safety issue?

Furthermore, because the parking arrangement that has been present since the certificate of occupancy being granted is parallel parking.

There is never a situation where the cars from 318 are blindly backing out into the alley, and this also means that cars in the alley will can always see the car at 318, and cars at 318 can always see the cars in the alley.

The proposed conditions improves rather than harms public welfare.

Number nine.

No structure is being placed in the corner side yard, only a vehicle in a private in a paved space.

This does not impede air, light, or emergency access.

Moreover, consolidating parking off the street and away from pedestrian sidewalk reduces conflict points.

If the concern is corner visible vision safety, standard BZA mitigation conditions can be applied.

Clear visible tri vision triangle.

The safety concern is hypothetical, unproven, and easily mitigated.

As stated in number eight, what would happen if the owner simply installed a solid wood fence on the property line adjacent to the alley?

That would truly limit visibility and safety.

In this condition, the maximum visibility is provided well beyond what an opaque fence would create.

Also, we have multiple, multiple letters of support from the neighbors for this.

The variance simply restores equal enjoyment of standard residential amenities, consistent with the stated purpose of Article 4.6.

Perfect timing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 092-25?

You could come up, please.

Thank you.

Good morning, commissioners, and thank you for your service.

My name is Rory Bellino, and my wife and I, Danielle, are the property owners of 318 Lane Street.

Danielle and I have lived in New Orleans our whole lives, and specifically Lakeview since 2010, as Danielle was born and raised there, and we never plan to leave.

This is where we're raising our three young children who all attend local schools.

Lakevie isn't just where we live, it's our home, our community, and where our kids are growing up.

I'm here today asking for your approval to keep our parking arrangement as it is so we can finally build a pool in our backyard.

This isn't about convenience.

This is about our children, especially one of our daughters who has some health issues that demand our attention and addressing.

Her pediatrician has specifically recommended swimming as part of her treatment and wellness plan.

As parents, we're just trying to do what is best for her health, and having a pool at home would make that possible.

I like to be completely transparent with this board.

My wife and I had absolutely no idea that our current parking situation was an issue.

Our home was a spec house that went under con that we went under contract on when it was over 50% complete.

We had zero input on the design, the current driveway placent, or the parking configuration.

It was already designed as such when we bought it.

We've been parking exactly the same way within our own property lines for over four years now, and there have been zero issues, zero complaints, and zero safety concerns.

We are not removing any parking or altering any parking.

It wasn't until our pool contractor submitted the permit application that we learned we needed this variance.

We are not trying to change anything or create anything new.

We're simply asking to continue parking where we've always parked in the same spot that was permitted and built in 2021.

Our neighbors are all in support of this.

I ask you to please reference the record for five letters of support that encompass all of our surrounding immediate neighbors.

If you look and if you virtually drive down our alley, you will see my neighbors park similarly or the same.

Oh I have uh two paragraphs left, if you like me to continue.

We'll we'll get we'll um get to question and answer.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 092-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Question for the staff, should we approve this?

The third proviso mentions getting DPW approval for curb installation, and I'm sort of going around on street view and there is no such thing.

Then I'm also wondering, since this is not exactly after the fact, we're basically questioning the benefit of sending them to DPW to chase something that may not be possible to get approved because there are no curbs in the area.

Does anybody have any feedback on that?

So the way that the provisal is written is really just a way to have DPW's oversight because the current parking pad is about 18 or so feet.

And if the way that the parking pad, I guess, spans outward, so to speak, or flares outward.

If the proposed or the alternate locations were provided, it will be a very different configuration as far as leaving this entry into a driveway as it was initially considered to be into a parking pad designation.

Does that make sense?

Um I think it would make sense if we were to not approve it somehow or ask them to follow some of these recommendations, but you know, I just look down the view of this thing and see gravel, you know.

Um, I just don't know what if if if we're to approve the the parking.

I'm I'm not saying how only thing I guess the way that I oh just real quick on this one.

Um, on the alleys, I know that the city has done some alley improvements along the stretch, probably closer towards the Orleans Canal side of Lakeview, and they have come in and do some different type of paving conditions in those alleyways, where I think it is two paved components with a permeable paving segment down the middle.

Um that work has happened, so don't I think the only way that would become a trigger in that case is as it relates to future improvement work.

But I mean, if we're looking at the existing condition, we're still dealing with these gravel segments of these alley conditions because of just the deferred maintenance on that side of the equation.

So it's really uh, you know, will DPW then come in and if they were to come do this, who knows when that happens.

Um how that apron condition would be designed, because I don't even know if that's even uh if any regulations exist or standard that her profiles would even that is my concern of putting the client in a catch or the owners um in a catch 22 and they just can't get through this because I don't believe to my knowledge there's a standard.

And I guess I wasn't seeing uh a catch 22 scenario because it does include language that says as applicable, and I think to staff's point, it it does put uh some type of oversight for something to be um for the plan to be reviewed and approved by DPW, but I don't think if certain actions can't happen that it's gonna hold them up in any way because it does say as applicable.

Just from professional experience, you could end up in chasing the tail.

Yeah, just based off of what my what mob experience has been for someone like that applying for a permit when the details don't exist.

So, what is it that you're saying?

Because what I'm and make I'm making sure I'm reading the right thing because I'm looking at number three where it says the applicant shall provide a site plan and or other documentation approved by the department of public works, indicating the following as applicable.

So are you saying that they won't be able to um review and approve the site plan?

Yeah, but well, I mean, there is no DPW standard that I'm aware of for side parking off the side of an alley without a curb.

Um we don't have to belabor this too much, but um if the board wishes to approve without this proviso, you can certainly do so.

I and I guess I'm just I I just have I'll defer to the professionals, but I I just am given the citations to city ordinances and everything else.

I I just am hesitant to say that this just could not work out in any kind of way.

I don't know if this will give you any peace of mind, it probably won't, but you know, there's you know a dozen neighbors parking the exact same way down that alley, and I don't see a reason to subject this applicant just because they're putting their pool into approval of an existing condition that matches everybody else's existing condition.

My two things madam chair for motion is in order.

Yes, proceed Madam Chair, regards to BCA docket number 0982-25.

Uh my motion is to grant the request for the waivers.

Um outlined within a report for Article 21.

Sorry.

For Article 21, section 21.7 for table 21-2 permit permitted encroachment into required yards, article 22, section 22.11.d.1 for parking pad location, and article 22, section 22.8 point.8 a point one point b three for parking pad location.

Um understanding one accepting by to address the nine criteria uh moving for approval and modifying what was the staff's outline, yeah.

Um, and removing a requirement of uh just accepting the first two provisos, excuse me.

With regards to BCA docket 092-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the requested waivers, finding that the nine criteria have been met and adopting the um applicant's representative uh submission and commentary from today to establish that the nine criteria have been met, subject to two provisos, vote your screens.

The motion carries next item.

Next item is a document.

The next item is BZA docket 09325 for the property at 6384 Vicksburg Street.

Is for a property located at 6384 Vicksburg Street.

Article 21, Section 21.6 point to point P point two A.

Detached Garages in Article 21, Section 21.7, table 21.

Permitted encroachments in to required yards, detached garage permits detached garages in the interior side yard in the rear yard.

The applicant has proposed a detached garage in the corner side yard and is requesting a waiver.

Article 21, section 21.6 point B.2.

Detached garages, principal structure distance requires a minimum of five feet between the principal structure and the detached garage.

The applicant has proposed a distance of three feet and seven inches and is requesting a waiver of one foot and five inches.

Article 22, Section 22.11 point B point.

One curb cuts permits one curb cut.

The applicant is requesting the retention of two curb cuts and will need a waiver for one carb cut.

Staff believes that the requested variances of Article 21 Section 21.6 point P.2.8 detached garages, Article 21, Section 21.6.p.2 point G, detached garages, principal structure distance, Article 21, Section 21.

Table 21-2 permitted encroachments into required yards, detached garage, and Article 22, Section 22.11 point B point one curb cuts fails to meet criteria one, two, four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine of the standards for variances of Article 4 and Section 4.6.f of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

With that, staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

I also have a few um letters or a few uh how many I have three, but I'll probably only need two.

So at all of the time for now.

Great, thank you.

Ron Lazell 1000 South Norman City Francis, Zach Smith's consulting again.

Thank you, Commissioners, and thank you, staff for always doing uh hard work and being uh very dedicated to what you do.

Uh I'm going to again address the staff's comments.

Number one, there are special conditions.

A quick view of the existing conditions shows that the lot has been historically developed in a manner with a side street curb cut in lieu of the primary usage of the rear alley and the zoning map alone does not tell the whole story.

This lot is uniquely placed near the adjacent school and is front row center to daily traffic congestion and vehicular navigation issues, such that this request is to respond to those special conditions.

Vicksburg Streak was previously a two-way, but changed to a one-way due to increased traffic flow caused by school operations.

Number two, literal interpretation will deny the applicant of maintaining the important and existing and safe aspects of the current parking arrangement, the curb cut on Bragg, so it will essentially deny the applicant the ability to retain an NCU.

The two curb cuts have been present since 2007.

The existing curb cut would not normally be on the side.

So in this case, denying the rear alley curb cut means you are literally denying this property access to the alley, which is the preferred curb cut to possess.

This would allow the applicant to better match the usage of the surrounding area.

Number four.

Affording more space to allow the existing parking arrangement to be maintained and garage added.

Current corner side yard is 19 feet, almost double the requirement in the SLS 1 district of 10 feet.

This allows more space for the proposed parking arrangement.

Additionally, providing the required distance from the accessory structure would force the owner to chop down trees, many trees in their yard.

Number five.

Accessory structures for parking are part and parcel of this district.

Number six.

While other options may exist, the recommendation clearly misses the existing nature of this parking layout and calls for a more complicated solution or hardship just to satisfy a technical requirement.

The existing actual conditions should be maintained wherever possible.

In this case, the potential presence of other options create a hardship from the status quo.

Number seven.

The potentially comp the potential completely looks beyond the fact that the existing development pattern on the site has a curb cut with unique turning angles and an adjacency to the rear alley.

Number eight.

The staff position here might make more sense if the structure were too close to a neighbor's property line, which it is not.

This is on the street side of the house, opposite from the neighbor, and completely across a street and an alley.

This is not blocking anyone's light or air.

And since this is on the street side, there is no privacy to protect.

Number nine.

To this end, this configuration of providing a car pattern that will not back out onto a street that is regularly blocked as parents wait for the end of school along the street.

This will help reduce traffic and reduce the potential for accidents since there is no need for backing out at this location.

I would also like to in your report, there are 10 neighbors who have signed letters of support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant?

Yes, good morning.

My name is Mark Unlin.

Evelyn is my sister-in-law, so I'm speaking on her behalf at 6384 Vicksburg Street.

Evelyn has uh an existing parking uh driveway that doesn't show well in this picture, but it's basically this where that building, the the garage is located.

So if you can imagine take the garage away, leave the slab.

That's what's there right now, and she's been parking there for uh 18 years, post-Catrina.

She used to live across the street, uh, and they swap lots and built this house.

So she's been there a long time, and it's worked very well for her.

But what we're trying to do is improve the security uh for her and for her car.

All the other houses in this area have off-street parking with garages, uh, but Evelyn does not.

And so we're a little bit worried about her getting in and out of the car, exposed to the street, as well as the car, rain, storms, everything else.

So we're trying to improve some security there.

Uh we'd like to uh install the garage basically in the same place that the parking uh existing parking pad is located and have it function the same way the existing parking has been up until now.

Uh as Ron mentioned, Bragg is a very busy street.

You've got St.

Dominic's school during the week, St.

Dominic's school uh activities on weekends, and you got St.

Dominic's Church on Sunday.

You plus you've got all the traffic going to the commercial businesses who don't want to uh go down Harrison and turn into those businesses, they cut through Bragg.

So Bragg is much more active than a typical side street, and that makes backing into it very difficult for Evelyn.

She's in her 70s, and even for me, when I back in, it's it's uh it's a crapshoot sometimes.

So we prefer not to drive back into Bragg.

We prefer to um use the alley as part of her driveway to get out of the area.

So uh the end of your time, sir.

And one more one more point.

There is a telephone pole, which I have found uh several times uh while backing into the alley.

It's just across from her parking pad.

So it's unusually poorly located.

So we hope we can get some support on providing some security for Evelyn and for her car.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 093-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Question to the applicant, Mr.

Louisell.

I think just be all your points are taken.

My question is mainly around, so there's there's a geometry of the site, but can you just speak a little bit about, you know, I'm looking up and down the yard, there's plenty of fences on the um Bragg Street.

Uh uh along the right-of-way, very few buildings that actually encroach into the corner side yard.

Can you just speak with a little bit more detail about why that thing needs to encroach in the five feet?

Because I know the staff made the comments and go in.

It says you create five feet.

Yeah, it's like five feet at the corner of the side yard.

Yeah.

Right.

Um can you just speak really quickly to the hardship about that particular variance?

Again, when you look at the at the layout of the other properties and the amenities that they're having, uh, especially this uh lady who uh this uh owner who is in age and was not even able to be here for it.

Um this is this gives her the ability to have this at this location.

We don't see an issue with it, not doing a good job of explaining it.

No, it's it's it's fine.

The only way to resolve it is to basically put it in her entire rear yard, right?

Yeah, and what's you know not showing on there also are all the trees that are on the property that would have to be cut down, which is also would be uh something that the city does not want.

Okay.

Yeah, we don't really have two ways it's on the basically one of the just a question to the um I I guess what I'm struggling with as I'm going through this is that from um the report, there seems to be a number of different ways that this could be done and still be compliant.

Has there been review of different ways to configure this to get to what the um the resident is looking for and still be compliant?

The the one way we get to is the destruction of the trees.

If we chop down all the trees, we can get to what they're requesting.

Obviously, this is not something that we would like to do as uh as a city.

And in terms of safety for um for the owner homeowner who lives there, you know, we went met with um uh with the owners, and this is really what what works best again.

He kind of highlighted that telephone poll there on the alley, um, which has been bumped into a few times, so this would certainly help with the flow of getting in and out.

A safety, big safety issue.

I guess I just go back to the um the report that there seems to be more than than one way, and so given that there seems to be some different configurations, uh it's hard to see this as a hardship when there are reasonable alternatives.

I think you mentioning the tree scenario is one, but that's not the only way.

I I'm not gonna proclaim to be an architect to come up with other scenarios, but there seems to be some different ways that this can be.

We we would be happy at this point to revisit the site layout and come back to you in 30 days?

Um if you're if you're fine with that, that'll give our team a little bit more time to work with the owner and the owner's represent representative to address your concerns.

Yeah, and just alone at line.

I mean, uh I have more heartburn related to the last request on the second curb cut because when I do see how it's just looking at the existing condition, its placement of where it's proposed in such close proximity to the street.

I am concerned that just in terms of its location, it does create a bigger issue, and even to the applicant, even to the owners, even to his own admission, trying to navigate the turning condition there just seems like it just looking from a turning radius configuration.

Is it really truly achievable if we were to try to grant that?

So it's it's kind of um, it's kind of almost grasped in a little bit for the stars on the request versus what may truly be uh attainable.

Because even if you even if you're looking at it through the singular lens of yes, there's this existing curb cut, they're trying to utilize what's there.

I think there's other ways to configure this footprint if they're making this level of an improvement to come up with something a little bit more compliant and not necessarily having to request as many uh waivers.

We're we're we're happy to do that.

Okay, okay.

Promotions in order.

Yes, you said um 30 days.

Yeah.

We want 30 days will be fine.

Thank you.

Cool.

Uh, Madam Chair, regards to BZA document number 093-25.

My motion is quote 30 day referral as based on a communication with the owner's representative.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA docket 093-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Alvarez to defer this this item 30 days.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BZA docket 094-25 for a property located at 211 Walnut Street.

This request is for variances from the provisions of Article 18, section 18.30 point B.2 for parking spaces, and Articles 18, section 18.30 point B.4 for 2.5 bathrooms.

Variances from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit construction of a single family dwelling with insufficient off-street parking and more than two full one and a half total number of bathrooms in the university off-street area parking overlay district.

Based on this report, the staff believes the requested variances of Article 18, Section 18.30 point B.2.

University area off-street parking overlay district.

Parking fails to meet one criteria of the standard for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.f of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variance and that there are no special conditions that are particular to the land or the structure.

Additionally, staff believes that the requested variances of Article 18, Section 18.30 point B.4.

University area off-street parking overlay district bathrooms fails to meet criteria one, two, six, and seven of the standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variance.

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

Staff recommends two provisos.

Yes.

Hi, my name is Johnny Beth Bryan.

Uh thousand Norman C.

Francis, New Orleans, 70125.

Uh, good morning to the staff.

Uh, first want to thank you for time and review of this project.

Um, as was said, this is going to be a single-family home, and it will be the owner's primary residence on its construction is complete.

Um, at which time they will obtain a homestead exemption.

As we know, the exemption, once it is in place, it would omit the need for this variance entirely.

But of course, you cannot get a homestead exemption until you are actually living in the property.

Bit of a catch 22.

This overlay was implemented to address college housing, and one look at the plans would show you uh that this house is clearly not meant for college students.

The owner simply wants to be able to build the house that they would like, as is the right of any other property owner in any other zoning district in the city.

We respectfully disagree with the staff regarding the four criteria one, two, six, and seven that the report states has not been met, and I'd like to address each of them.

Criteria one, special conditions absolutely exist in the form of an overlay that allows certain structures with the same characteristics to be exempt from these rules, while others solely based on the type of ownership, have to follow the rules to a T.

Criteria two, adhering to these rules specifically creates an outcome where this property would be unable to have the exact same rights, since at the end of the day, this house will enjoy a homestead exemption too.

Criteria six, not allowing a modern day project to match the constraints and the patterns of the surrounding area is a hardship.

It creates a lesser project that does not fit the style and scale of the surrounding developments.

Bedroom and bathroom count are a prevailing theme that are part and parcel with the appropriate usage of a structure based on its needs.

It is a hardship to not match plumbing needs with plumbing demands.

And criteria seven, if we are considering sanitary usage of toilets and other plumbing fixtures as a convenience, well then we're guilty.

However, if we see plumbing needs as code required, code mandated, and matching the current development patterns in the area, we see that creating sufficient plumbing resource is a necessity and not a preference.

We appreciate your understanding that the intent of this overlay rules are not meant to hurt single family homes with the homestead exemption.

Thank you for your time.

And then I did actually have a question on proviso two if we get to that point.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 094-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions questions from the board?

All right, so a question said that you made reference to one of the proviso questions.

What was that question?

Yeah, proviso two, it um has the removal of an adjacent curb cut and the public right-of-way.

We're just there's the property is the adjacent property.

There's two, there's no public rightway adjacent to this parcel.

So we're just a little confused on the curb cuts we're referring to.

Oh could the staff clarify what that um curb cut is or where it is?

Um, and so in reference to proviso two, this is a standard provisor that we add to most new construction.

Um, usually in the case that any curb cut is restored and that DPW would need oversight that the driver would be in compliance.

But um yeah.

I know we went to war on this one a little earlier.

If you were in the room, but I think for new construction, I don't think it's an onerous thing to ask for DPW approval for a uh for a curb cut.

You probably need it anyway.

Yeah.

And uh if it's existing, they'll just note it as such.

And that was a comment on the new construction permit that uh we did need that, the DPW driveway permit.

Madam Chair for motion's in order.

Are there any other questions on the board?

Madam Chair, regards to BZA dock number 094-25.

My move my motion is to re grant the request for the waivers of Article 18, Section 18.30, point B.2 for University Area Off-Street Parking Overlay District for parking in Article 18, Section 18.30, point B.4.

University area off-street parking overlay district of bathroom count.

Um, based on the information that's provided by the owner's representative, I believe they've fulfilled the requirement to address the nine criteria and move for the approval with the two noted provisos is staff as uh outlined within the report.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA docket 094-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Alvarez to grant the requested waivers.

Finding that the nine criteria have been met, adopting the commentary from today as well as the submission from the applicant's representative to support establishing that the nine criteria have been met and subject to two provisos.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BCA docket 09525 for the property at 1458 Nashville Avenue.

BCA docket 09525 is a request for variance from the provisions of Article 18, Section 18.30 point B.4.

University Area Off-Street Parking Overlay District bathrooms of the CZO to permit in addition to a single family dwelling resulting in more than two full and one-half total number of bathrooms.

In accordance with Article 18, section 18.30 point B.4, the maximum number of permitted bathrooms in the university area off-street parking overlay district is 2.5.

The applicant is proposing to permit a single family dwelling with 6.5 bathrooms and is thus seeking a waiver of four bathrooms.

The applicant's proposal for six and one half bathrooms is not related to the land or structure involved, having a special circumstance, nor are there any special conditions preventing the applicant from compliance.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 095-25?

Yes.

Hello.

Um Johnny Beth Bryan, Thousand Norman C Francis, 70125.

Uh good morning again, staff.

Um I want to thank you again for your time and review of this project.

Um this is a single family home that already has an existing bathroom count uh that already exceeds what is uh allowed in this overlay of the two and a half bathrooms.

The property owners and their two children will live at this house, and the bathrooms are needed because of a relocation of the children's bedrooms and four guest bedrooms when the grandparents come to visit.

After the renovation, this will become the property owner's primary residence at what time at which time they will obtain a homestead exemption.

We respectfully disagree with staff regarding the four criteria one, two, six, and seven that the report states has not been met.

Again, I'd like to address each of these.

Criteria one, the special conditions again absolutely exist in the form of this overlay.

Uh structures with the same characteristics uh to can be exempt from these rules, while others have to follow the rules to a team.

Criteria two, adhering to these rules specifically creates an outcome where this property would be unable to have the exact same rights, since at the end of the day, they will also have the homestead exemption, which again they cannot obtain until the construction is complete and they can move in.

Criteria six, uh again, a modern day project not allowing it to match the constraints and the patterns of the surrounding area is a hardship.

Uh it creates a lesser project but does not fit the style and scale of the surrounding developments.

And seven, uh, again, if we're considering uh toilets and toilet usage a uh convenience, then yes, we uh do not conform to this.

However, if we see the plumbing needs as code required, mandated, and matching the current development patterns in the area, um, we see that this criteria is met.

The only the owner simply seeks to enjoy the right of every other property owner outside this overlay and add bathrooms as needed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 095-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Um, I I think I just have to just understand the the hardship that would be created by not allowing six and a half bathrooms.

So the way the way that the property is being renovated, the kids' bedrooms are being moved upstairs.

Um, and as is typical with construction that's happening, there's usually an ensuite bath to every bedroom.

It also does look inflated because two of those bathrooms are actually down at the first floor where there's not any living space.

Um, so two of those bathrooms actually aren't even part of the living space.

But they're still gonna have that many.

I I guess what I'm I'm just trying to understand how it's a hardship to not have that many bathrooms because that's pretty much what is the ask is six and a half bathrooms.

And I'm just trying to well, the property already has um an existing four and a half, yeah, an existing four and a half bathrooms.

Um so they're really adding just the two, um, and that's for the kids' bedrooms upstairs.

Would you like to come?

Yeah, you want to answer this is the property, one of the property owners, just I'm Justin Boyce on the might need to go to the taller mic.

Sorry.

Uh Justin Boys.

Pull it up to you just because yeah, there you go.

I'm the owner of uh 1458 Nashville, and uh with the six and a half bathrooms.

So the house as it is now is a ground story that's not necessarily live in space, which currently has two bathrooms, which will not be touched by the renovation.

This is a second and third story that will be affected by the renovation.

So that two-bathround, you know, is included, which makes it you know six and a half on paper, but in all reality is uh no, we're just touching the second and and third story to have bathrooms.

So when you're saying it's inflated, are they getting rid of those?

Are they still?

I mean it's still gonna say inflated suggests that they're not gonna exist anymore.

Exist.

We just we're not touching the that ground floor at all.

It's just going to stay as is, those bathrooms will stay as is.

And then this second and third story, no, we're just changing the floor plan and optimizing, you know, for my families, young family were growing with like our children have their own bathrooms and space for when our grandparents come in from on from out of town to come help with our kids.

And I'm I'm gonna come back to, I mean, because this is usually the pattern when we get into these types of projects, assuming this is a you've you're you've purchased this out home and you're renovating to move into it.

Yes, sir.

Yes.

So again, this is a situation where if you already there and this in if your homestead exemption was on a site, would the waiver need to be requested?

Well, and maybe if we may ask staff.

Uh no, the waiver wouldn't be required if they already lived there and had the homestead exemption.

Part of the analysis actually was um uh new construction and renovation per renovation permits um that exceeded the number of bathroom counts, and you know, looking those up, they didn't require a waiver because um they had homestead exemptions.

Yeah, I mean, um I think it again, this is the what the intent of why this overlay district was put in place versus now we're finally starting to get a deluge of applications for people who are trying to put primary residents in basically moving into their primary residence and then basically having to come back through this process because of the legal triggering requirements of the homestead exemption requirement tied to the overlay.

So whether it's where it whether it seems like it's a lot at the end of the day, if just due to the nature of how homestead exemptions work, they're stuck.

So it's basically he would have to move into the home, get the homestead exemption, get that cleared, then apply for a permit to renovate it in order for him to do it the way they would see fit, which would be every they would have every property right to do so.

So I think I mean it's just one of these things.

I hate that we keep seeing things, quite honestly, because this is just kind of counterproductive to people trying to invest in move into as they uh as they grow their family.

Yeah, but we shouldn't be asking what's the hardship for the restrooms.

The hardship is the process.

I think if it would have been is not adding the building that way, I think it would have made more sense.

But yeah, I think that wasn't it.

You know, uh shouldn't uh as Todd said it's kind of a chicken chicken or egg thing, and it is counterproductive for you to move in, get your homestead, just to have to then submit for the renovation, move out, do the renovation.

Um yeah, yeah, you you you pretty much um uh got it reiterated.

I did also I did also want to mention that in our recent report, staff has um added a footnote.

We have tried to not consider the homestead exemption piece in our analysis because of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that using that type of thing as an exemption from zoning requirements is unconstitutional.

So we're trying to think of hardship in a different way.

Got it.

Well, appreciate that piece because of I understand how that has an overarching application on other uses, but I think so.

Removing that is the defining element.

This is just are we creating a hardship on process for people trying to get into primary residence, especially if that's how it's intended to be function, if that's its intended function.

So get it, and I understand the sensitivity of that uh that legal language.

So, madam chair for motion's in order.

Yes, proceed.

Uh, with regards to BZA document number 095-25.

My motion is to grant the request of the waiver for Article 18.

Section 18.30 point B.4 for the University Area Off Street Parking Overlay District for bathroom count.

Um, and based on the community conversation we just had.

I believe that the nine criteria have been fulfilled.

So I want to move for approval with the one noted proviso.

Thank you.

So we do here.

The next item is BZA Docket 09725 for property located at 1206 Joseph Street.

This request is for variances from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a second floor camelback addition to an existing single family dwelling within the university area off-street parking overlay district with more than two full and one half total number of bathrooms and insufficient off-street parking.

The applicant's proposed edition includes one and a half additional bathrooms for a total of three and a half bathrooms.

Article 18, section 18.30 point B.4 does not allow more than two and a half bathrooms by right, thus necessitating the waiver request.

The applicant's proposed addition includes two additional bedrooms for a total of four bedrooms.

One parking space must be provided per new bedroom with new construction or renovation that increases the total bedroom count to be greater than three.

The applicant must provide one space, one off-street parking space as the total bedroom count within this proposed dwelling is four, thus necessitating a waiver request of one off-street parking space.

Staff believes the requested variants from Article 18, Section 18.30.b.2 regarding the university area off-street parking overlay district.

That parking requirement meets all nine of the nine criteria of the standards for variances from Article 4, Section 4.6.f.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested of the requested parking space variants subject to one proviso.

However, staff also believes that the requested variants from Article 18, Section 18.30.b.4 regarding the total bathroom count fails to meet criteria one, two, six, and seven of the standards for variances, pulling from Article 4, Section 4.6.

Yes, Brian Jill, Jill Architects representing Gaston Kelly and his wife, who are a young couple from Boston.

They asked me to uh prepare renovation plans and uh a camelback for 1206 Joseph Street.

Uh I'm not gonna spend any time on the parking because I think it's pretty clear that staff approves it and says it meets the nine criteria.

The bathroom uh one over on the bathroom.

Uh they would have no way of knowing, but I was the architect for 1200 and 1212, both of which were camel backed and have three and a half baths.

1216 and 18 is a fourplex, no off-street parking, so it has at least four baths, maybe more.

Um 1230, two-story, three and a half baths, also a renovation that I did, uh, and a bath in a back building.

Um 1118 uh Joseph Street is also a camelback with three and a half baths and three bedrooms.

So just those examples, those are all within a two-block radius of this home.

I think Zach Smith's group just made my case for three and a half baths, and when they asked for a six and a half.

So this is a one they want to they want to have a a uh a suite on the first floor for for their elderly parents and their young couple who are also going to claim the homestead exemption when they move down here from Boston.

The construction is complete.

So that is uh all I have for you.

And um if you have any questions, uh Mr.

Kelly is here as well, and he can speak on his behalf.

Uh good morning, Gaston Kelly, the owner of 1206 Joseph Street.

Uh I won't belabor the points.

I've been listening closely to everything said already.

Uh, thank you to our architect and neighbor for uh making our case as well.

Um I'm from Boston originally.

My wife is from here, and she grew up here.

Her dad is still here at A30 Nashville.

We've been coming frequently, spending a lot of time here.

Um and as somebody mentioned, the midlife squeeze is also coming for us as well.

So we have been trying to get ahead of some of those pressures creating an anchor for us here in the neighborhood walking distance to Nashville.

Um, and obviously very cognizant and respectful of the neighborhood requirements and trying to get this home uh up to the standards of the neighborhood.

So um we are looking to move here.

The home set exception order of operations piece we understand, but um it is our intention once the renovation is done to make our home here and uh to be obviously productive members of the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 097-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Madam Chair, if a motion's in order.

Yes.

Are there I'm sorry, are there any questions from the board?

Okay, thank you.

Regarding Docker BZA 097-25 at 1206 Joseph Street.

I move to approve the requested waivers for Article 18, Section 1830.30 point B.1 for uh off street parking overlay district parking, and Article 18, section 18.30 point B.4 for uh off-street parking overlay district bathrooms, uh excepting the uh uh owner and his representative statements uh and finding that the uh request meets all nine of the nine criteria for the approval standards of variances of Article 4, Section 4.6F of the comprehensive voting ordinance subject to the one provisor listed in the staff's report.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA Docket 097-25, it's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the requested waivers, finding that the nine criteria have been met and adopting the commentary as well as the um applicant's representative submission for establishment that the nine criteria have been met, subject to one provisor.

One quick note, uh I just wanted to see it on the record.

The citation for the first variance is 18.30 point B.2.

I think we said B point one.

So I just wanted to make that clear.

Oh, in the report.

Okay, I would amend that uh to reflect the 18.31 B.2.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

We will now begin with any business for now begin with a deferral request.

BCA docket 054 25 or 509 exposition boulevard.

The next item is BCA Docket 05425 for the property located at 509 exposition boulevard.

Um the site currently consists of a single family home on a lot with frontage on Audubon Park.

The associated requests for variance is from the provisions of Article 11, Section 11.3.8.1, Table 11-2A, and Article 11, Section 11.3.8.2 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the conversion of a two-family dwelling to a single family dwelling, resulting in an insufficient front yard setback and an insufficient front yard bill two line after the fact.

Following the previous 30 60 day deferral, um, the applicant did not apply for the new construction permit with the department of safety and permits per private legal counsel to I'm sorry, per private legal counsel instruction to first confirm that they would not forfeit any rights to existing nonconformities on the property.

Staff also failed to receive any official comment from the legal department on this matter.

Um the applicant has since committed to applying for this permit, the new construction permit, and staff will wait.

The Department of Safety Permits review to determine whether any additional variances are required.

Therefore, staff recommends a 30-day deferral.

Is there anyone here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 054-25?

Anyone here in opposition.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Thank you so much for seeing us.

I want to ask a clarification.

Did y'all just say that 509 has now submitted a permit and withdrawn the request for the letter?

So they have not withdrawn the request, um, but they are uh intending on applying for a new construction permit as originally instructed by the Department of Safety and Permits.

Okay.

So I'm Leanne Moses, I'm the next door neighbor at 501 exposition.

And basically, what I'd like to ask um y'all to do since I am assuming there will be another deferral, and we have the time and the weather is so nice.

Please come see 509 exposition and the surrounding neighborhood.

I know that's not the norm.

We have the picture that's up there right now.

There are several other pictures that are now included in the report.

I'm gonna defer the rest of my time to my husband so he can show y'all those photos.

Um, so if we have to have a waiver of the rules or a suspension of the rules, so we can do it.

Um we've been trying to let y'all see those pictures because this structure is so different from everything else in the neighborhood on the block.

It's higher, it's wider, it comes forward onto the park, seven feet more than what was there originally.

They've lost their historic designation.

It sounds to me by their request that they're trying to keep their historic designation, even though they've lost it by saying that they do not want to forfeit any rights to existing non-conformities, so it's whatever is built there.

So I'm gonna defer the rest of my time to Ted Moses and let him come up and let y'all see the pictures.

But I really do urge you to come see what this looks like.

Thank and thank you for your time.

And I apologize again for taking your time, but I wanted to call your attention not just to the pictures, but to some of the additions to the staff report that came out this past week.

Uh pages 74 and 75 are two neighbors uh adjacent to the property.

Uh one is from Tim Duncan, he addresses the permits being not allowed just because they're code violations.

You can't you can't have that for detrimental reliance.

And the other is from Scott Wolf, who lives right next door, who uh is concerned with the loss of sunlight.

There was a loss of the sunlight.

You have to look at the picture now, and if I could ask you to suspend the rules so that we could see some pictures from the staff report on uh page 141.

You don't have to suspend the rules, but if it's in the staff report, it'll just be referenced.

Thank you.

So they so they can't see it.

Right now we're at your public, your comments, sir, so I can't guarantee how they're gonna rotate on the screen.

So I would just suggest that you save your time to give your comments, but if they're in the report, you can just reference where they are in the report.

Okay.

You can see that it's appropriate as it was originally built.

On picture 153, uh page, I'm sorry, page 153, or the front and rear views of the house.

What you see there is just the the very part of the house that they they're showing you, and you don't see it in respect to the other houses.

And what the uh is in this staff report shows the houses on uh on either side of it.

Um you can see that it's too hot, too tall and it's too wide, and uh it just dwarfs everything on either side and is bigger than any other house on Exposition Boulevard, period.

Um the next the next picture is page 154, which unfortunately they can't see, but I can see it because it's my views that are blocked.

Uh by building that porch out and then blocking in the porch.

Right now it's sheet rock, but their permit is for uh uh shutter walls, and the shutter walls are on all three sides, and it blocks my view down the street, and it blocks the view uh of the park.

I can't see down the street, and they can't see me, so it cuts me off from the rest of my neighborhood.

The same view is being blocked on Scott Wolf's side in 515 uh exposition.

He also is blocked and can't see down my side of the block, and it also blocks his view of the park.

Um there is no doubt that uh 509's requested Fort Front Porch will enhance their home's value by creating extra space.

But these enhancements come at the detriment.

Can I continue?

I only have about 15 seconds left.

Uh but these enhancements come at the detriment of not just the adjacent homes, but from all homes on their blocks on the block.

It alters the historic nature of the block.

Uh blocking our views will decrease our property values, and I urge you to deny the violation uh appeals and enforce the Zio as it's written.

And again, thank you for your time.

I really appreciate it.

And uh I I don't like to appear before here so often.

I know you all don't want to hear about it, and uh and these defers are deferrals are uh hard on everybody.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good almost afternoon.

I forgot to put my card in, but I will.

Um my name's Sheree Timer Henley.

I represent the Moses owners of 501 exposition.

Um the only couple comments that I had were related to the letter that I wasn't sure from the staff report whether it was received by city planning and then sent to safety and permits, or whether it was directly sent to safety and permits, um, and and what exactly uh what nonconformities were they ref were they specifically referenced in the letter, the ones that they're trying to um retain, because one of the biggest issues that my clients have had with this property the entire time is the lack of transparency as it relates to what exactly the neighbors at 509 are planning and how have they made changes and what changes are they willing to make.

So I know that you all aren't gonna address this matter today, but I think as you move through the next 30 days and consider whatever it is they come up with, because it right now it it seems like it could be anything.

Um they're continuing to show up, their neighbors are continuing to show up and oppose because they have no clarity, and um there have been conversations and back channels to try to get closer to what it is they're actually trying to build, and um I think their neighbors deserve to know beforehand before the plans are submitted.

Um, if they've made this request for a variance, the neighbors deserve to know what are they actually trying to do.

They should just withdraw this request if they're not moving forward with that.

So, with that, I appreciate your time.

Um, and I guess we'll be back again soon.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here on opposition?

Good morning, board.

Uh Donald Fant, 401 Henry Clay Avenue.

Excuse me.

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

Once again, Arna opposes the waivers uh that are being requested.

The variances are not supported by the non-criteria for approval and would negatively impact the immediate neighbors, as you've heard, to the benefit of the owner.

The zoning ordinance correctly limits the front yard encroachment to preserve the unique context and character of this historic neighborhood, and this is especially the case given the site's prominence on the Auburn Park, a landmark city setting.

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

As to the applicant's claim of detrimental reliance, I once again note the language which appears on each and every building permit issued by the city of New Orleans, which states, and I quote, this permit conveys no right to violate any provisions of the New Orleans amendments to the International Building Code or comprehensive zoning orders.

Sorry, my name is Kent Blackwell.

I live at 6330 Laurel.

Um I'm here really to speak for a number of neighbors that could make it today that uh neighbors in opposition to this project.

Um I just really want to, there's a couple of points I'd like to really drive home.

Um, because of the side yard setback on this and on this building, it presents a major safety problem for the neighbors.

You just can't get a fireman down an alleyway that's 11 inches wide.

I really I just want to drive that point home as hard as I can.

Um they certainly the way this project is being being put together, the way it stands now, it certainly has affected the quality of life for uh certainly that the the adjacent neighbors and uh ultimately the the neighborhood.

Um again, I'd like to ask the board to follow the CCO, deny this request, and um and and ask these owners to really just do a little better planning, present some drawings we can all um uh look at uh and and and build by and uh and go from there.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in opposition?

Hi, um my name is Holly Grow, and I'm married to Kirkgrow.

We have uh our primary residence at 427 exposition, and we have a rental property in which one of our four adult children lives at 331 exposition.

And thank you to the board for this time.

I want to stress that um you know, we our kids were the fifth generation out in Lakeview.

We lost our home in Katrina, we moved them.

The youngest was uh 11 weeks for Katrina, oldest seven.

They've all grown up there.

The reason we chose this after five generations out of the lake was that this was a historic five very family feeling uh neighborhood with not the gigantic houses.

You had the 90-year-olds and you still do living in their pay and their children's houses and seeing generations like we did out by the lake.

This house, as I've said before, is too tall, it's too wide, too near the sidewalk.

Um, I would encourage you also to come.

You do you can even just go down Laurel and see it looming above the other houses.

Um I want to tell you it's heartbreaking to watch the destruction of the house that was a hundred-year-old pine, my husband, who's an amateur woodworker and um a couple neighbors.

We couldn't believe them, any of us the mount that was put in the dumpster with the um it really is pine that doesn't get replaced.

So uh we are hoping all six of us, I represent the whole family that you will follow the rules, do the right thing, and um and and do come see what what's going on.

We I appreciate your time and thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Is there a motion?

Can I just ask a quick quick technical question there?

Um if they do end up having to apply for a new building permit, are they gonna apply for a new variance?

Like is everything gonna continue under this application, or it's completely unknown.

So we are um we are intending to maintain this application just so they don't have to reopen another variance case where we apply.

But essentially what will happen is once they apply for the new construction permit, um, they will be able to review that new set of plans holistically and see if there are any additional variances they need to request.

So it will be effectively a different request potentially, um, but it will be underneath the same variance case.

So all the other reports, everything that we've had so far will be maintained.

Okay, and then are are you I I assume you are, but you're contacting them every month and asking them to come.

I guess we can't really do this, but I'm gonna ask, can we just be a little more forceful in asking that they attend these meetings to make their case?

Because I think we've heard this four or five, three or four times.

Oh, yes, of course.

Yeah, um, yeah, of course.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I think it is on our end that some of these deferrals have happened, just to be clear, because I think it says that staff has been requesting pushing the deferrals.

So yeah, no, no, no question that staff's not doing their job.

I just if there's a way to convey that the board would really like to see the applicant, then let's do that.

Um last I spoke with them, which was this past Friday.

Uh I they are intending on showing up to the next meeting, so you will we'll be able to hear from them then.

All right, if a motion is in order, yes.

Okay.

Uh regarding uh document number BZA 054-25509 exposition, uh move to defer the matter for 30 days at the request of staff.

Thank you.

If regards to BZA Docket Zero Five Four-25, it's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer this item 30 days.

Vote your screen.

Six years, no nays, the motion carries.

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

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

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 hearing 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 the 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.

Standard of review.

Good afternoon, board Dan MacMark, Chief Zoning official for the City of New Orleans this year.

Board is aware that this particular matter has been in litigation for some time.

However, uh last time I checked, um the lawsuit is still uh pending in civil district court, although it seems to just be lying there.

Um so I I would just request that this this matter be deferred again uh given the fact that the um the applicant is not aggressively pushing their their litigation forward.

I would ask for as long of uh deferral period as the board seems fit, but uh I would I would just suggest that coming back every 30 days is probably not the best idea regarding this particular uh uh matter.

I think I think we've been doing 180 days or 120, I'm sorry, 120.

Is there anyone here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 008-24?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

If a motion is in order, proceed.

Madam Chair, regardless of BZA docket number 008-24.

My motion is for 120-day deferral.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA Docket 008-24, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer this item 120 days, vote your screens.

The next item is BZA Docket 07725 for the property at 7301 through 7303 Burn Street.

Again, good afternoon to Han MacMar, Chief Sending Official for the City of New Orleans.

Uh I have asked requested a deferral in this matter again.

As you may recall, I had previously requested a deferral so that we could have a inspection that was done.

That inspection was supposed to be performed, but it came to my attention that it had not been performed.

Um that's just something that I'm gonna have to handle on my end.

But uh I would ask for an additional 30 days so that could be accomplished to just 30 or just we were saying.

Perhaps I should have asked for 60 days, but in the the previous hearing, but 30 days should be more than ample.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present?

Yes.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 077-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

For motions and order.

Proceed.

Madam Chair, regardless of BZA docking number 077-25.

My motion is for a 30-day deferral at the request of the Department of Safety Apple.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 077-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Richards to defer this item 30 days.

Vote your screens.

The motion carries let's not all jump at once.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Alvarez to adjourn.

Five years and no nays.

The motion carries and the meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

Have a good day.