Test good morning.

I'd like to call the Monday, December eighth, Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting to order.

We will begin with throw call.

Candice Force.

Todd James.

Tamara Agens is absent.

Jose Alvarez.

Jamie Ramiro Diaz.

Alfonso Gonzalez and Jason Richards.

Present.

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

Second.

Second by Commissioner Gonzalez.

Roll call vote.

Jason Richards and Candice Forrest, yay.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

BZA Docket 10725 for the property at 4737 through 39 Dread Street and 1905 through 1907 Bordeaux Street.

All variances, I'm sorry, all variance cases with staff recommendations for deferral as well as variance cases with applicant requests for deferral that were submitted to staff prior to the submittal deadline will be heard following the new business for variances under section D of the agenda.

We would now begin with unfinished business for variances.

Will the chair read please read the hearing rules for variances?

Yes, rules and procedures for public hearings, variance requests.

The following procedures shall be observed during the hearing.

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

The applicant or representative will speak first.

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

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

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

Opponents 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.

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

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

Standard of review.

The first item on today's agenda is BZA Docket 05425.

BZA Docket 05425 is for the property located at 509 Exposition Boulevard.

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

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

Following the most recent 30-day deferral, the applicant applied for a new construction permit 25-35935-new construction with an updated mostly compliance set of plans.

The variance request was amended to only include an insufficient side yard setback as the front yard setback and the front yard bill two line had been resolved.

The original foundation, which the applicant intends to keep, is one foot from the property line where three is required.

This is common to the area, and staff does not find that the request would alter the character of the locale.

Further, the majority of side yard variance requests in the HURD2 districts have been approved in the past 10 years.

Therefore, staff recommend approval subject to one proviso.

Yes, good morning, board.

Zach Smith on behalf of the owner, uh, my address 1000 South Norman C.

Francis.

Uh just really wanted to start this morning uh to, you know, we say it a lot with the amount of projects that we work with with my company.

Uh this was an extra special one where we have to give the extra attention to the staff, uh, specifically the BZA, but also the Department of Safety and Permits.

This one has been on the docket for a long, long, long, long, long time.

Uh, I've said it before in several public meetings.

This one has been messy, and I think that it is actually very clean at this point.

It's been cleaned up.

There's building that was reframed uh to stay in the exact position it's always been in since the day it was built.

So with that, so we really appreciate the staff's report.

And um, there's gonna be quite a few folks here, I'm sure in opposition.

There's gonna be quite a few folks in uh support, just as a note to the board.

Um, I think everybody in support will probably waive their time and just stand up and call off if needed.

But uh, we're here for questions if needed need be.

And thanks again to the staff for the approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the uh applicant for BZA Docket 054-25 that wishes to speak?

You could thank you.

Anyone here in opposition.

If you will come up to the mic, please.

If you will come up to the mic, please Okay, good morning, everyone.

I'm Leanne Moses and I live at 501 Exposition.

And I am really sorry to be here.

And Mr.

Smith is absolutely correct.

This has been really messy.

The problem we have today is the current application should be denied as the required notice under CZO Section 3 and 4.6 DE was not provided to the public.

No mail notice was sent as occurred when the front yard setback variants was requested, and it is required.

No new variants was requested for a side yard encroachment, although it is in the record that one is needed.

While the BZA said at the last meeting that applicant can use the same docket number so that this new permit would not be new business, it did not waive notice requirements.

The BZA also did not find that the applicant retained any historic designation.

The HDLC ruled the applicant lost its historic designation and fined 509, the maximum amount for tearing down more than 50 percent of the historic structure.

Therefore, there is no historic foundation that applicant is entitled to retain.

If you want to look at anything historic, you have to look at what the HDLC said.

Staff failed to look at the application, its new construction, and did not even address earlier oppositions filed in the record.

Over 80 people opposed the last request for variants.

The staff report did not even analyze those and concluded without reasons, provided that prior problems are fixed.

The public is required to receive notice of any request for a new variance request and know how staff reached concludes applied with.

By not providing notice, evidence could not be submitted of noncompliance with the revised plan, although there are some oppositions already in the record with regard to the height and front yard encroachment.

Over the last six months, we repeatedly saw that the BZA required proper notice and compliance.

It is denied other variances for fences, parking, and height requirements.

Why do these applicants get a finding of a historic foundation when they lost their historic designation?

That's the end of your timing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We hope you will deny the application until notice can be given the other.

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

Arna opposes the requested variance of side yard setback for the construction of 509 exposition.

This variance is not supported by each of the standards for approval.

For example, Standard 9 states that a variance must not impair an adequate supply of light to the adjacent property.

Consider then the photos of this massive structure towering over and shadowing its neighbor to the north, while other houses in the area may have reduced side yards.

Few if any are three stories high, like this one.

Again, Standard 9 states a variance must not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.

Clearance between this structure and its neighbor is as little as three feet with a fence in between.

This lack of room is an impediment and a potential hazard for firefighting activities.

These types of issues are exactly why the zoning ordinance establishes setback requirements in the first place.

If the writers of the ordinance wanted to allow one-foot setback for new construction in historic neighborhood residential neighborhoods, they would have written it that way.

Other speakers this morning will elaborate further on neighborhood concerns for this request.

As guardians of our city's zoning requirements, we urge you to recognize the merit of these concerns and vote to deny the waiver.

Thank you for your service and your consideration.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in opposition that wishes to speak?

Good morning.

My name is Cecilia Sogan.

I live at 6330 Laurel Street.

Still.

We as a neighborhood had no knowledge of this until this past Friday.

This denied us the required 15 days notice as spelled out in the CZO and gave us little time to prepare.

Nonetheless, we did analyze the portion of the staff report that studied existing side yard noncompliance.

First, I'd like to point out that the staff's report labeled raw data report is totally flawed.

By the staff's own admission, the information collected using pictometry may be, and I quote the report, inaccurate or simply just out of date.

Of the surveyed area, which comprises four of our neighborhood blocks, only 25% of all properties in those blocks was considered.

How those properties were chosen is not clear to me.

We identified the neighborhood identified every lot and every building size using records from the assessor's office and the city's property viewer.

Much more precise than the relying on the staff's methodology of pictometry, which by definition by definition uses oblique views.

Our findings, 10 properties listed were not even in the study area.

Of the remaining 35, only five were noncompliant, which is about 14 percent, not 73 percent, as claimed in the report.

You just have to walk this neighborhood and see how inaccurate and erroneous this study is.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in opposition?

Good morning, Ted Moses, 501 exposition.

The third statutory criteria states the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.

Staff wrote, the standard is met.

I will show that it has not been met.

The staff wrote the special conditions which created the request for this waiver was not the result of the applicant's actions.

My response, the special conditions resulted from the applicant demolishing the very wall upon which the existing nonconforming side yard setback was located, and then built a new wall in its place.

As you are all aware, the HDLC fined the applicant the remaining 33 percent of the original historic home's value for the unauthorized demolition of this very wall.

The HDLC then declared the house 100 percent demolished and no longer qualified as historic.

Staff wrote these actions were the result of not once but twice relying on the review and approval of the city departments.

My response.

The drawing reviews resulted in the permits issued, which all occurred before the unauthorized demolition of the historic walls.

The permanent drawings did not include complete demolition of those walls, and the city had no knowledge that those walls had been demolished.

The staff wrote the interior side yard setback was found noncompliant after the application for new construction permit.

My response?

This is incorrect.

The new construction zoning review dated November 19, 2025.

Before that, the city had issued a Lama incident report on June 25th, 2025, which included the side yard violation.

Additionally, the side yard violations delineated in seven opposition letters contained in this staff report, all dated before November 19th, including Dan McNamara's forwarded email dated June 3, 2025.

See page 224 of the staff report.

The applicant's action caused a violation, which required the work to become new construction.

The new construction requirement did not create the violation.

Staff has ignored the event timeline.

Staff wrote, this interior side yard setback is a result of the existing historical foundation of the building, not the work of the applicant.

My response, do the applicant's unauthorized demolition as per the HDLC, there is no existing historic foundation.

Does the staff's claim of a historic foundation is unfounded and unsupported?

The above criteria analysis found five staff misstatements in this one response.

This statutory criteria has not been met, and the various applications should be denied.

Assuming there was even a side yard various application, as no side yard application was posted online.

Finally, any hardship incurred as a result of correcting this zoning violation is clearly self-created by the applicant and cannot be used for granting this variance.

I thank you for your time and service.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Commissioner, my name is Keith Doley.

My address is 1554 North Broad Street.

I represent Scott Wolf in this matter, who is probably most affected.

His property address is 515 Exposition Boulevard.

Not reiterating anything that has been said before.

Scott Wolf lived, Scott Wolf's property is directly next to this monster house that has been built.

He is now being denied sunlight.

He has been denied the view of the park.

There's an 11-inch, the building is within 11 inches of his property line.

The roof of the property actually overhangs Mr.

Wolf's property.

Such that if it the gutters overflow overflow at any point in time, it will rain upon his property.

The amount of water that will be coming off of a structure this large is too small to be the amount of water will be so voluminous that the area that is expected to run the water from the property line to the street is too small and thus will flood over into Mr.

Wolfe's property.

This also affects the resale value of Mr.

Wolf's property at a later date.

His view of the park is being uh diminished, his quality of life is being diminished.

Now, I don't care if it's political, if it's friend, is family, or as financial responsibility.

You all have a duty to protect this community.

And by not by denying this, you're doing that.

But by not denying it, you're allowing someone to take what could be compared to a Volkswagen and turn it into a monster truck.

This is unfair.

It's unheard of.

And because it is now created a hardship on not only Mr.

Wolf, but the community, you have an obligation.

You will sworn to protect those people who have come before you in opposition to this.

Not only should this request be this very this requested variance be denied, but the owner should be required to remove any violations, including tearing down that existing wall that over.

Thank you.

I just hope that this hardship that this applicant is requesting is denied.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in opposition?

Good morning, board.

Uh, my name is Kent Blackwell.

I live at 6330 Laurel Street, uh, uh two houses down from this uh project.

Um I'd like to address the hardship claim in item six of the staff report.

The hardship uh referenced in the report was created by the developer.

Uh they had they had more than one chance to address the multiple violations and bring this property into CZO compliance, but chose not to.

After they were cited and fined by HDLC, they had to be well aware that a new construction permit would be needed.

They chose to pour a new foundation anyway and continue building on the original footprint.

This hardship was totally self-imposed.

I would like to read a portion of an opposition letter that was sent to the board by Tracy Lee, FAA, who is one of our neighbors.

Uh, I quote, um I believe it is important to move away from the attitude of beg for forgiveness, beg for forgiveness rather than ask for permission.

This has been the status quo in our city far too long.

It is disappointing that the violations cited and those missed during the plan review process have not been actively enforced in the field.

Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of the property owner, their design professionals, and their contractors to comply with the governing codes.

Um and and finally, I encourage you and the staff of the BZA, this uh CPC to push more rigorous enforcement of the regulations.

It is critical for the future of the development of our city.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in opposition?

Good morning.

I'm Kirk Growth, owner of uh 427 Exposition Boulevard, and also manager of an LLC that owns 331 Exposition Boulevard.

I'm not nearly as well versed as the speakers that spoke just before me.

Um I do agree that it appeared apparently this whole thing has been messy.

Um I also understand that the application had changed from a remodeling, and again, I'm not on my terminology, to new construction.

Which begs the question if it's new construction, shouldn't the property be treated as an empty lot?

And why would there be a variance?

Um from hearing all this, we know that the rules are very complicated, and each of you have taken the hard work to learn them and use your judgment to apply them, which brings me to my third point, which is just that uh I understand the property owners have used the contention of detrimental reliance to try to get forgiveness and get what they wanted in the first place.

Uh there's two components to that.

Perhaps there was some detrimental reliance between them and whoever let them get this far.

Uh, but that legal concept does not impart any hardship or duty on third parties.

And the neighbors, some of whom spoke here, but uh the the many more that aren't here that that have concerns about this construction are also relying, they're relying on the city, and um a remedy for their detrimental liance should not be Dutch around reliance on on the neighborhood.

Uh because we're as the prior speaker just pointed out, or we're counting on you.

We rely on your expertise.

Uh although some are become well versed in the law.

Certainly not a typical neighbor that would do that.

Um so we just ask that you do the right thing.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in opposition?

Good morning.

I'm Tim Donc, and I'm 521 Exposition, two doors down from this construction.

There are a lot of us here long-term members of the long-term uh residents in the neighborhood, and um and uh we remember the original house that was there, and Ms.

Mary, she died at a ripe old age of 105.

Uh frankly, from my perspective, I didn't feel like the old house was was much to look at.

Uh the only thing that really had it uh uh any curb appeal was its facade.

Um I was personally optimistic when with the new construction, but things started happening um quickly that I was not aware of.

Um the the facade was completely removed.

Um the the height was it tremendous, way above uh anything I have seen in the neighborhood.

Uh I can I can't look see the sky out of my second floor window now.

This this uh the height of the building is is tremendous.

It's too close to the sidewalk in the front.

Anyhow, um construction restrictions are in place for a reason.

They're intended to deter these things from happening.

We don't want to be here.

Uh this isn't pleasant.

Um we ask that the board uh force changes to the construction, resulting in a new home on the block that complies with permit restrictions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in opposition?

I am Melissa Duncan, Tim's wife.

I live at 521 Exposition.

This is an emotional plea.

I grew up on Exposition, my great-grandparents live there.

I've been there for 66 years.

We're a humble block on the park.

Neighborly, we sit on our porch.

And now when I sit on my porch, I get to see this huge monstrosity that does not belong on this block of exposition.

Tim says we can't see the trees from our room anymore, our bedroom.

I can't use my cell phone from my bedroom anymore since that third floor was built.

Um I just think it's an insult to the integrity of the 500 block of Exposition Boulevard.

And I hate to think of what Ms.

Mary would say if she saw this on her humble little lot.

So please do the right thing.

And by the way, we have a lot of passerbys.

100% of the passers that stop to talk to me as I'm on my porch are appalled, appalled that this is happening on Audubon Park.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in opposition?

The applicant has an opportunity to rebut.

Morning again, board.

Zach Smith again.

Uh a couple pieces for just some education.

Uh where do we begin?

Um, you know, when we talk about the 11 inches from the property line, obviously that's what's in front of us because that's the what this waiver is, and that's what the staff through a lot of rigorous investigation and back and forth with the Department of Safety and Permits has come up with.

Um, you know, we were told months ago nobody liked this property because it was it wasn't historic, it wasn't this, it wasn't that, and now maintaining an existing setback that's always been maintained since the house has been built, now it's not is a problem.

So, you know, as an educational point, I always find that conflict a little strange.

The most important part though is that this demolition, we can't get distracted by the HDLC, because even the HDLC sometimes gets distracted by itself.

Um the 54% is after the city council approved the demolition of a majority of this building.

And the reason why this has gotten so messy, and again, I'm gonna be the first one to say, I think, and I've said this publicly in several HDLC meetings, I think the mess is all around and for everybody to share, is because this project was given permission to basically reframe its entire in its entirety.

This project was given permission to do things in excess.

And then after various bouts of of fur that have been raised over it, it's caused additional uh lenses to be looked at and included the now what's become a common thing of the department to look at these properties and say, hey, you're over 50 percent, so you have to be treated by new construction.

The property is not voluntarily, has never voluntarily asked for a new permit for new construction, only for the sake of uh being mandatory and being required.

And again, this is part and parcel with everything this board has approved.

This is everything that's part and parcel with what this staff has approved of allowing these properties to go back exactly as they were in terms of those setbacks.

So again, um it's very important to educate that the reason we're here is because after and only after the city council approved this thing for over 54 percent, did we get into a position where uh it had to be new construction?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Questions from the board?

Uh quick question to staff.

Just there's been a bunch of comments related to proper notice, and I mean I do remember that this has been on agenda for some time.

And as we've gone on a month by month basis, the designation of the project being reviewed under renovation versus new construction did change.

So if staff could provide some clarity on notice and if it's properly I can address the notice question.

Um I think Julia can can take up the other question.

As far as notice, Article 3 requires notice for each agenda item at a public hearing.

Um it does not explicitly say that any time an items request has changed, then we need to renotice that.

Um requests are very often changing at least one time.

And so um our practice has been to notice for the first the first time and then not after that for unfinished business, et cetera.

So for example, because we're gonna see it in some other cases later in the agenda, we as a board may have asked an applicant to do modifications to their plan, and by incident, the waiver request or variance items may have been modified, and we typically do not provide that notice if those changes are occurring through the process.

That's correct.

Okay.

And so the second part, um, Julia, the question again on that portion was just clarity as it pertained to us looking at this as a renovation versus under new construction, which triggered the review of this IR setback.

Uh yes, that's what happened.

Um I think that's a short as I can.

I mean, it's pretty straightforward.

I mean, because I think it's uh what I think it's of value, at least for those who who are in objection to where we are at this point, it's really important to understand every case is uniquely different.

And as we look at these application items, we have to look at the sequence of events that may have led up to how we got to a certain point and how the report has evolved.

Um I think another point that's also really important to address is when we get into how some of the nine criteria are addressed, especially with detrimental reliance.

Oh, well, excuse me, depriving property rights of Aaron Light, some of those items.

As I look at the modified plans, this shows that the overhanging gutter condition is at a zero.

So there is no projection into the joining property.

It does tie into the existing core boot footing as the existing foundation for the plan.

So while it may be it's reviewed as new construction only because it's more than 50% demolished.

Yes.

So naturally, anything that we would traditionally look at is a non-conforming setback condition, which can either go in the front yard, side yard, or even in vertical height, those items are all gone, so we still have to then review them under that lens, but still take into effect the taking to some level of account that the existing foundations do in some cases uh create a condition in order for us to maybe consider for review approval.

So I just wanted to make sure we kind of covered all those pieces.

Yes.

I don't have any other questions.

Question for the applicant.

And it's uh clarification, Mr.

Smith, that just so we as a board can be clear about the the timeline a little bit.

This came to us initially, and some of the opponents mentioned variances for front yard uh encroachment and that sort of thing.

Can you review for us the specific modifications that were made to the application so that that's no longer in front of us?

Because I don't know that we have the old plans in front of us in this uh maybe they're in the back of the packet, but any narrative about what was changed to bring that into compliance.

Yes, so fundamentally, and I may ask uh Mr.

Fox, the architect, in case there's uh continued questions that pop up, but fundamentally there was a discrepancy between the approved set of plans that had a setback uh versus a survey measurement.

And so uh one of the first items that was on for waiver requests, you know, originally on this application was for a deficient front yard setback.

Since then, and in the since the last meeting to today, those plans have been updated to essentially remove that front yard uh porch so that the front yard would be completely compliant with the requirement of the CCO.

So eliminating the need for any sort of front yard.

Uh and that actually speaks directly to uh one of the adjacent neighbors, always had a position that that new extension would block, you know, site lines in ways that they had never had before.

And so as far as I understand it, this is returning it to exactly the the condition from before in terms of uh front yard setback.

So that situation should have been resolved completely for anybody that had that uh kind of specific concern.

Um as a quick note as well, uh the plans that are being shown on the slide there actually reflect outdated plans.

The updated plans are in the packet um in the report.

Any other questions from the board?

Um not sure if staff has the option.

I think I mean while it's public, I still I think it's of some value if you are able to pull and at least show what is the correct building elevation for the sake of what's on screen.

Some of this does become a little bit misleading for those who are in the room.

Uh yes, give me one minute.

Um, for those of us who are looking at this um electronically, um the updated plans, uh the best options to look at would be uh page 17 of that granicus packet, which shows the front elevation um as well as the survey, and then page 24, which shows the right and left side elevations.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board.

Scene none, is there a motion?

I guess I just I just want a little more clarity on the I'm still confused about the conformity and nonconformity discussion.

It's still really muddy to me about the and maybe this is a question for staff or legal, like when does a building um you know, given the HDLC designation, and you know, I know we had some other properties that have come before us in the past would have been completely demolished, like like to the ground, and you know, there was some determination about the the condition of their foundations and where that was.

So uh I guess I'm just looking for a little more a little more explanation um given the the tightness of that property line condition.

Um so I can say that when we're using the term historic in this report, that's literally referring to what was previously there.

It's not an official designation that we are providing.

That is HDLC's um uh that is their gig.

But um, I can say that the foundation when we look at um what we call historic foundations, we're looking at what previously existed and what is currently there.

So we're looking at a foundation that's existed there for quite some time, at least that specific footprint that is existed there for quite some time and has been restored to that footprint.

Um so in this case, there's not technically well, actually, Emily, you might be helping help me out here.

I'm not sure in this case if we would apply the term legal nonconformity be for the insufficient side yard.

So the variance that is before you everything was reviewed by the Department of Safety and Permits as far as the updated plans, they reviewed it from the perspective of new construction, and any other existing nonconformities were deemed to be legally nonconforming.

This interior side yard setback is the one at issue, so that one is not legally non-conforming.

So if understood correctly and what I was getting to earlier, the question, or at least why it's changed, is because once it went over the 50% threshold of demolition, they can't review the non-conformant setback items anymore.

So I think it's because we're dealing with a 50% demolition and not a complete demo, where we have looked at it in the past.

If something's down completely to grade and it's just a pad left, very different situation versus a building having more than 50% of its square footage removed, but you're still relying on the existing foundations that are in place.

So that's where this whole thing is.

And the reason why I'm asking is because I'm trying to be dispassionate here about this because the project honestly, frankly, architect owner, it sucks.

This is terrible, and I agree with the neighbors.

Um, but I'm trying to look at this as a you know abstraction of property rights and all that, and that's where I'm struggling because it's yeah.

Separating the architectural piece of it from the exactly, yes, yes.

Sometimes I should be on the HDLC board.

Any other questions from the board?

Seeing none, is there a motion?

So separating what we believe is design appropriate.

We still have to look at what's what's in the confines of the CZO, and even looking at just what is come before us as a body because this has been before us for shoot.

This is almost past six months at this point.

Six months, July.

Since July.

So Madam Chair, for motion's in order.

Yes, proceed.

Uh Madam Chair, regards to BZA docket number 054-25.

Uh my motion is to accept the staff's recommendation to uh grant the requested waivers for Article 11, Section 11.3.8.1 table 11-2A for anterior side yard setback.

Um establishing that the nine criteria have been met and move for the approval with the one noted proviso and want to acknowledge what the applicant also provided to substantiate further the nine-point criteria beyond the staff's report.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA docket zero five four-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Richards to grant the requested waiver, finding that the nine criteria have been met and subject to one proviso.

Roll call vote, Todd James.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Yes.

Ramiro Diaz.

Uh yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Aye.

Jason Richards.

Yes.

And Candice Forrest, yay.

Six YAs, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BCA docket 06925 for the property at 3405 Octavia Street.

I'm gonna let the room clear out for a moment.

Just all principle.

The next item is BZA Docket 6925 for the property located at 3405 Octavia Street.

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

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

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

Article 11 3B 3A, Article 228A1B2, Article 2211 D1, and Article 2211 D2 do not allow parking in the front yard between the front facade and the front property line.

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

Article 216AA1 allows uncovered porches, steps, and stoops to encroach six feet into a required front yard.

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

Based on the report, the staff believes that the requested variances of Article 113B3A, Article 228A1B2, Article 2211 D1, and Article 2211 D2 fail to meet criteria 2, 4, and 5 of the standards for variances of Article 46F in that literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of commonly enjoyed rights.

Granting the variance confers special privilege and the variants, if granted, would alter the essential character of the locality.

In that special conditions that are peculiar to the land do not exist.

Literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of commonly enjoyed rights.

The variance would alter the essential character of the locality, and strict adherence would not result in a demonstrable hardship.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

Thank you.

Last time I was here and we had the um uh deferred the hearing was to adjust the steps, um, which we had originally shooting out towards the walkway in the front.

Um they turned them to the right and into the driving area.

Um we got a notice on Friday last week that they were still two feet six inches encroaching.

Um we're having new documents made to push them either farther back.

We didn't build a new porch on the front.

We were using the existing porch that was on the front.

We were adding the steps, so now it would only come out four feet instead of the the distance, and we think we can set it back even farther than not be within the encroachment.

Um the parking scenario, you had asked about uh elevating the house to a height that the car could park underneath.

Um unfortunately under FEMA's guidelines, we can lift it to what they approve.

We can't go higher than their approval.

The plumbing structures, there was new documents on or the new drawings are on the monitor right now.

It wasn't a bedroom, it was a utility room.

There's a washer, dryer, sink, and plumbing that are all associated with that room.

It's still a utility room.

It's not an improvement or a bedroom or a bonus room that's being added.

It's just the same room being elevated.

All those utilities are required to be elevated for FEMA's guidelines.

Um we're not taking we're we're not adding any parking spaces in the front.

We're just using the original parking space under the guidelines we have to operate under.

We can't modify any of those things.

So we have more documents coming to yet adjust the steps to more two feet, six inches more back into the uh the front of the house, which would to per the email I received from staff would meet the setback requirement on that.

The next would be the parking requirement.

And I believe Mr.

Diaz had the questions last time on that.

Is that the end of your comments?

Is that the end of your comments?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

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

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Uh just real quick.

Go ahead.

Go ahead, Chair.

Um, I was just gonna um just in light of what you were mentioning um at the outset.

Do you need time to submit excuse me, some of these additional I know you said you're still working on some plans, and I'm just gonna do it.

We can have the adjusted plans uh sent in again.

Um we s we made this adjustment thinking that this all met all the staff requirements.

And only Friday were we notified that we were still two feet six inches out.

Um and I can have adjusted documents sent in for that, yes.

But it sounds as if though it is a willingness to bring it into compliance.

So it's just more about the parking.

It yep, it's already been agreed upon.

Spoke with the homeowner on Friday after the email came in, they were very willing to have that adjustment made.

It's a very small adjustment.

Okay.

Um the only other question was about parking.

So I don't again, I don't have a lot of time to explain what FEMA's guidelines are on that.

But yeah.

Yes, and no, but here's the piece.

Um you you made mention to the plan being a utility room, historically it was a garage converted into utility.

Okay.

Yeah, I think as well.

I just want to make sure we acknowledge let's not try to paint it as one you know.

No, we're that's where all their original, I guess, connections and facilities are for that.

There's a doorway if you're facing the house on the left that goes into where the HVAC is and where the uh water heater is.

On the right side, when you come in, there is some I can't A washer and dryer was added on that side of the room.

Iron sink and stuff like that.

But historically it was a garage.

And that's what I'm just trying to make sure you understand.

Yes, as it pertains to how these buildings are initially permitted.

Yep.

If it had a required R-street park installed, that would have occurred within the garage.

Now, if it historically functions in a way where they were parking in the front yard because they had used the garage for other reasons, that's a different animal, but from a zoning and planet review standpoint, the garage would have still been perceived as the compliant parking stall.

Correct.

So once you elevated the building up, and now the garage is at that now elevated first floor level, that's no longer the legal perceived stall.

So yeah.

Go ahead.

Yeah, and my my question was um and and I thank you for adjusting the stair.

I I think I maybe had referenced my friend at a similar house where they like turned the stair on Nashville and did a similar thing.

So it it it works.

Um so if that's uh if that's moot, then um we can move on that one.

But I think my question was can given that you're you're not raising the slab, you're building a new floor.

Yeah, correct.

So you don't necessarily need to build a floor there, you could just leave that as a higher ceiling in that space.

And that was my question because FEMA, you know, I know I understand you can only raise it so much.

You couldn't add all the human move under the all the utilities that are in there have to be at uh BFE plus sh sure, but you could still put them up.

So you could put yes, absolutely.

So in that room, we can build a deck, a platform for all the utilities, then to have access to those utilities and to catch the doorway, and you'd wind up with about a 10 square foot space on the floor.

Because all of those areas that are in that drawing that you have right there, you're gonna have the washer and dryer, your fixtures, the depth for the washer and dryer, and then you're gonna have two to three feet of access for you to be able to get in front of all those utilities.

Then you have to have walkway going from the doorway in the residence to get to that area.

So the only spot you would wind up leaving on the ground would be a very small area you wouldn't be able to fit a vehicle in.

So I think Romney, well, I think we're running into the issue is if you study it from the front elevation.

Yeah.

It was at a lower floor height.

So I do agree with you, like if anything, the problem is it looks like it's a split level above that garage.

Because you and I were on the same page about this piece that if you're elevating it and you're bringing your first floor up to its new height, you should have enough vertical clearance to provide a compliance.

So I guess I'm I'm just confused because I I have still haven't seen really seen a section through the building that makes sense.

But the if you enter in the current plan before raising it, the is the the area that's got kind of a couch and a table, is that at grade and its tile?

I don't know if the the photos that we sent in are in there.

They have photos that we sent showing what's currently in there?

Sure, okay.

But plan south, uh, the south side of the plan there where you've got you've got the current driveway.

If you can envision that was at great and dryer, or when I go in that door on the right hand wall, washer and dryer.

Yeah, I'm gonna build a six to seven foot pad for that to land on.

Sure, sure.

I mean a washer and dryer you could put somewhere else.

I'm I'm asking about your you know, you've got a parking space that's compliant, and all I'm saying is to prove that you have a hardship here, you know.

The hardship is that I see what the grant program that we're operating under is not gonna pay to have anything relocated, any of the utilities.

We're elevating the utilities to keep them within the famous guidelines.

If we elevate there's a difference between mechanical and a and a w and a water heater versus a water, the water heater's not getting moved.

The washer and dryer would be the only thing that are in the way, but then I have to build structure to meet to that to go to where that washer and dryer are.

But you can you're actually confusing two different topics.

Yeah.

You are all right.

So the first floor is being brought up to the BFE or higher than.

Okay.

You having the problem again is it is a split level on if I'm facing the house to the right hand side, it is split level from the remainder of the home.

Oh that the back behind that is all living space.

That's the bottom floor that's right.

And part of it is you may not understand how we're looking at this and the terminology we're using.

Yeah.

From the residence itself, it is split, it is you have to traverse two different things.

The first floor and second floor are all not at the same height.

No.

Okay.

So because of that, the finished floor of what was that utility room and garage area is lower than the actual first floor of the remainder of the house.

Yes.

So because of that, the finished floor height is substantially lower.

So if I study your elevation detail two on sheet A202 for the proposed elevation, what would be the finished floor of that side of the home is substantially lower, and it would not have a seven foot-six clear ceiling space within that area.

It actually by default becomes a crawl space, so it's not enough vertical height for it to be a compliant garage.

Right.

And that's why I was referring to the plan where the uh where the current, you know, kind of couch and you know, there's kind of some living space that was down at grade.

But it's still gonna be split level.

So you're raising the whole house as a split level, but the space in the front that is the garage, it could still be a grade.

And that's what I'm saying.

There's a potential for a compliant parking spot, which is where I go to the how do you prove the hardship, and that's what I'm still struggling a little bit architecturally with this one.

Um only thing I would mention, because uh when we went through this one last time, I did take a little bit of time to look at the aerial maps to look at what is going on in it that block area.

And I want to say that there's a substantial amount of properties around it that still had parking within the front yard.

I think part of just how they have it graphically drawn is incorrect as well.

Whereas if they showed the parking stall all the way up against the facade of the building, its encroachment back towards a property line would be less detrimental.

Almost half of it is gonna end up being screened by the the new stairwell is as well as well as the existing porch.

So it is somewhat in keeping with what's in that part of broad that Broadmoor area versus um what we would traditionally try to push to make that uh footprint the compliant park install.

Yeah, and that and that argument would make me feel more comfortable because I don't want to set a precedent in this neighborhood if it isn't there.

Um seeing that there is a potential parking spot in the building.

Yeah.

Um with a little bit more design attention, but um but if if yeah.

Yeah, looking at the context.

I see what you mean, Todd.

There's a bunch of them on that side street.

Yeah.

Yeah.

All right.

I think this is kind of I'll even say this is kind of almost like the condition of a lot of the raised homes throughout that neighborhood.

Yeah, a lot of them did have those first floors that were at grade built out and use historically over a long period of time, but not at some of these are coming in much later hazard mitigation packages.

Yeah.

It's just been a lot of seven.

I just want to be consistent with what we've done for other properties around uh this neighborhood as well as there's tons of these, I feel like in Gentilia and New Orleans East that we had bedroom conversions that we didn't.

I feel like in Gentilia and New Orleans East that we had bedroom conversions that we didn't have way better.

Did not let them have the parking space.

Agreed.

And I think the locale makes a difference.

You know, like the part of the city definitely um makes a difference in that argument.

If a motion's in order.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Proceed.

I'm really terrible.

This is probably gonna screw it up.

Um paper sources uh in regards to BZA uh zero six nine two five.

Um I move to approve the um well.

Should we do it in part because they're gonna retract well that was what I was that was kind of what my challenge was at the outset, was wondering if there's still something that needed to be submitted because we can't break up the variances.

Couldn't we just deny the the one variance and approve the other four?

Yep.

Yes, I was gonna I mean if you're looking at it from sheet two, yeah, on the staff report.

Essentially, we're looking at the approval of what was the first one that was noted as the denial that had criteria 24 and 5 unmet with deny um or would you like for me to just go with it?

How about that, Rami?

Madam Chair, for motion's in order to proceed.

Uh with regards to BZA docket number 069-25.

My motion is to approve in part denying part the requested waivers and move for approval for the requested waiver of Article 11, Section 11.3 point B.3.a for parking restriction.

11.3 yes, yes.

I almost had it.

Section 22, section 22 point eight point a point one point b.2 for permitted vehicle parking locations, and article 22, section 22.11 point D point one for parking pad design and article 22, section 2211 point D.2 for parking pad design location.

That's uh D point one D point two, just to make sure we clarify, and move for denial of Article 21, Section 21.6 point AA point one for park for porches, steps and stoops, porch encroachments and setbacks.

Um for those items based on what has been presented and uh after I guess uh much debate.

All nine criteria have been met, including items two, four, and five for the items mentioned for approval, and move for that with the one noted proviso.

And I'll second.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 069-25, it's been moved by Commissioner Chains, second by Commissioner Diaz to grant the requested waivers for Article 11, Section 11 point B.3.a parking restrictions.

Article 22, section 22.8.a point one point B.2 for permitted vehicle parking locations front yard, and article 22, section 22.11 point D point one and D.2 for parking pad design location, finding that the nine criteria have been met, subject to one proviso, and denying the request for uh waiver of Article 21, Section 21.6 point AA point one for porches and steps and stoops, porch encroachment setback, finding that the nine criteria have not been met for that requested waiver.

Oh, sorry.

Roll call Todd James, yes, Jose Alvarez, yes, Ramiro Diaz, yes, Alfonso Gonzalez, yay, Jason Richards, yes, and Candace Forrest, yes, six Y's, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item at this time would the board suspend make a motion to suspend the rules to take up BZA docket 07925 as staff is no longer recommending deferral of this matter.

So move second.

It's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Richards to suspend the rules to hear an item out of order.

Roll call vote, Ty James.

Yes, Jose Alvarez, Ramiro Diaz.

Yes, Alfonso Gonzalez, yay, Jason Richards, and Candice Forrest.

Yay.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

In addition, would the board also uh make a motion to allow the inclusion of the amended report, which was posted less than 24 business hours prior to the meeting.

So moved.

Second.

I think it's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to suspend the rules to accept an amended staff report.

Roll call vote, Todd James.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez, Ramiro Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yes.

Jason Richards.

Yes.

And Candice Forrest.

Yes.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

BZA Docket 07925 is a request for the property at 2212 South Claiborne Avenue.

The request is for variances to permit the construction of a standard restaurant with insufficient lot area, insufficient permeable open space, insufficient interior side yard setback and insufficient rear yard setback.

This item was deferred from the October meeting.

Um so the applicant could rework plans and work with uh a professional of record to develop said plans.

Since then, the request has been modified in a couple of ways.

It's come into greater compliance.

Previously, there were requests for off-street parking for both vehicle and bicycle parking.

Those requests have been withdrawn.

In addition, the waiver for permeable open space, uh, the waiver amount has been reduced from 9.3% to 3.3% as the permeable open space proposed is increasing.

Uh Article 15 for interior side yard setback.

Um, that interior side yard waiver was also reduced.

Um it went from two feet eleven inches to two feet.

The applicant is now providing uh a greater interior side yard setback for both sides of the property.

Um also the rear yard setback waiver was reduced from 18 feet to 15 feet as that rear yard proposed uh has now increased as well.

Um as far as recommendation, um one thing to know in the um additional information section in the report, staff does note that the Department of Safety and Permits provided an updated zoning review on Friday.

Um that's the reason that we did modify the report.

It had previously been another recommendation for deferral, but because of that updated zoning review, um we went ahead and updated the report um and released an actual recommendation.

So based on the report, staff believes the requested variants of Article 153A1, table 15-2 for minimum lot area meets nine of the nine criteria of Article 46F, and staff recommends approval subject to provisos.

Um in addition, regarding the variances of Article 15, 3A1, Table 15-2 for permeable open space, interior side yard, and rear yard setback.

Um staff finds that fails to meet standards six, eight, and nine in that strict adherence would not result in a demonstrable hardship.

The variance would be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to other property, and the variance will impair the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property.

Um therefore staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

So this is a partial approval, partial denial.

Is the applicant present for BZA Docket 079-25?

Good morning, how you doing?

My name is Angela Dix.

I'm here in reference to our property at 2212 uh South Clayborn Avenue.

Um this is a um a family restaurant that we're trying to um re-establish since we lost in Katrina.

So um we made some of the um changes that was recommended to us by uh the board.

Um as far as the um I guess I'm a little not understanding the whole partial that we meet and partial that we don't meet.

So the variances that we're asking for is basically, you know, the uh previous building that was there uh when we first started this was um actually seven feet from the back property line.

Uh again, the pastor and the church that's behind us has zero problems.

They're like, we can't wait till you all come back.

We missed the restaurant as far as the side setbacks, it was only two feet, but we pushed it to three feet.

Um we have the ramp in the front, and we got permission from the property next door to be able to use for parking spaces because we do have uh extremely small lot size for what we're trying to build.

Is that the end of your comments?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 079-25 Ray Humphrey, 1219 Newman Street, uh here in support based on what I just witnessed for the very first thing on the docket, I mean, what we're asking for, in a sense, is kind of similar.

Number one, it was determined that there was over 50% damage forcing the demolition of the product property.

Just from doing some construction, I know that the property could have been saved and it technically to say that it was over 50% damage would have required more than just looking at the building.

However, that being said, we demolished the building and what was originally proposed was to go back in the exact same footprint of the structure that was there before.

Now there was some unratedness and so we went back and we made several revisions uh reducing the variance requests on the side in the back lot.

But at this point, knowing that on one side is a parking lot and on the other side is a property that we own as a family, I really don't see the consideration being given to everything with respect to causing a reducing the light or reducing the air I mean the two lots it's a parking lot for the church on one side and the park and basically what we've received from the family which is permission to do parking on the opposite side.

So I'm really confused this is not a building that's gonna go up in between two houses or two existing businesses.

This is between two lots and I'm just want to make sure that we all understand that and that the original request has already been amended and the original request was only to go back in the footprint of what was already there.

Thank you.

Thank you so anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 079-25 anyone here in opposition any questions from the board um just to I knew that question was going to come up with regarding the other topic and I want to make sure one thing is clear they they are two very separate situations and first application that's why I made a succinct reference to partially demolished and the building being renovated and attaching to existing foundations very different situation here.

What we brought up last time when we looked at your plan the side yard setbacks was substantially narrower than what is being provided right now because I believe before you guys were looking at only two feet of side yard setback initially so initially uh we were asking for three feet because well 2.11 so the uh so I asked for two and a half because that's what was there so when I first put the application in the building was still there and we thought we were going on uh in September so once I demolished it I didn't know that I needed to come and revise everything because I did everything based on the building so I just wanted to build in the same spot as the building so and I noticed here on page uh 27, 28 and 29 those revised we do have revised plans.

I I just see that's different.

But yes so now we're saying we're gonna do three feet in instead of two and a half feet in.

Okay.

So here's so again it's the same thing.

Um I guess based on the fire marshal he told us that uh we could go that is standard for three feet correct and that's what we mentioned in the last meeting that you you do have to have a further setback from the property line yes and that allows you to have your windows on both sides of the building because what you guys had proposed before you would not be able to have the windows.

Yes.

But you've also revised the entire floor plan to show something that could become more compliant which only inherit which only then drives the question if you're bringing the plan in board of what was the existing footprint down to five I mean down to three feet why can we not look at bringing the in bringing it into compliance completely on those two sides because the one thing that I think is in fairness to how the staff has generated the report they've already established that the you know they support increasing what you can build in terms of lot uh the footprint on a lot area it's just now working through what would be an acceptable setback condition on both sides of the site as well as the rear yard a little confused at the question but if you're saying why don't we go even further in the well you're building you're building new construction with this when this is not a you you're not using the existing foundation you just asked to go back in the same footprint.

Correct well I see what you're saying.

When we sat down with the director of safety and permits when she explained to us that we were the building was more than 50% damage and we would still have to ask for a variant then in that moment we said then we might as well tear it down.

And she was like, okay, but you can let the city tear it down.

And I was like, I don't want the city to tear it down.

That's why another thing.

It's more than double the price, right?

So we tore it down because they knew we were going to tear it down.

They just said, so these are the variances because the lot is so small, and the plans that we originally had was for that size to have as much space as possible because it's so small.

And once, you know, you guys said about the three feet, and we talked to them and the fire marshals, we thought that, you know, at least with the three feet.

But what is the design, what is the designer of the planing you guys to do?

Could because I feel like y'all are going directly to the regulatory side, and one thing we strongly advise for you guys to do was to get an architect or an engineer on board to to do the set of plans and then come up with something that may be able to be a happy medium for you guys because we even looked at potentially how to move the ramp to the side.

So you could have been so you could have even built to closer to the front property line.

There's a host of things that just within a plan that would have been actually really fell to you guys.

We did look at the side.

As you can see, at first we had the sides.

When we turned that in, uh the planner was like, you're spilling over onto the property next door.

And so the even though our family owns the property next door, we're not allowed to build on that property, right?

Spilling over to the property next door doesn't make sense.

I mean, that that means someone's drawing a plan and then drawing it over a property line.

That doesn't add up.

We eliminated the um side, and so we went with the front.

Because if we go with a building size that's we'll become so narrow, it's 20 feet.

So all we would have is 20 feet across.

Because coming in five feet on one side, five feet on the other, it's only 30 feet.

So now we only have 20 feet to to be able to deal with.

So we when we went and and I spoke with the architect, what I explained to him was he asked what we wanted to do, what did we want to put there?

I mean, to be able to, because we're gonna be dining, uh sit down, the the city also requires you to have a certain amount of um, you know, they asked for our menu now because when you're sit down, now they want you to be, you know, uh a certain sit-down just to be able to have in the C2.

And I'm like, okay, the restaurant before uh Katrina, we would take out only.

We didn't even have, and we were straight to the property line.

Now we're like, okay, we want to have a a dining.

We've never had that before.

We're gonna do the dining, but again, the space is so small that we're having to work with in.

And we can't use the lot next door because I don't own that uh personally by myself.

Other than that, we would have taken the whole space and made something bigger.

And even really with the staff, based on what they've said, that they've had other people who have come along and asked for about the same variances that we're asking for.

We're just asking for two feet on uh the interior sides because it's gonna be so small.

You know, those bathrooms, we have to have two bathrooms that's ADA compliant, that takes up a lot of space to be able to have, you know, enough sit-downs uh tables in the inside.

So again, I asked the architect, this is what we're looking for, how many tables, you know, the math has the math also to be able to have the space for customers to get in, the amount of time that customers will be sitting down.

If we have uh less and less space for people to sit, that's just less and less, you know, being able to uh have a um uh economically sound business.

I mean, just for for discussion points uh among us as a board, I think the last time we spoke, the main it mainly comported with what we heard, which was that the demolit the the building was in such a sh uh sh uh bad shape and was a safety danger.

That was why you elected to uh demolish it.

Um to us that is something of a hardship, and that's been somewhat acknowledged by the staff.

I think I'm gonna go to the the three points that weren't approved, so they were six, eight, and nine.

So eight and nine are light near and um uh uh public welfare.

And I I think given the particularities of this site that it is uh on a commercial strip, that the uh adjacent parcels are either owned by you or um the neighbors next to you are okay with it.

I think that we satisfy that.

So I think the last item we just need to resolve is item six, which is that strictly adhering to the regulation, meaning having the narrower building, having the shorter building would be uh a hardship, and the the trick there always when we do these reviews is that the hardship can't be financial.

Um and this is usually one of the one or two that are most difficult for us to get over uh when we're making uh approvals and it hasn't been recommended by staff, and we're we're trying to make the case one way or the other.

And I guess just talking out loud, you have something like a 30-foot lot if I understand correctly, and so you would be looking at having to build a 20-foot building if you had strict compliance, right?

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Which is a pretty narrow restaurant.

Yeah.

Yeah, uh, you know, taking away anything financially related, I'd still argue that that is a hardship.

Twenty-foot building for a restaurant.

Is you know, she you're gonna have um.

You know, you can always look at other restaurants of of similar size and ilk that that are able to enjoy providing what I would assume would be a more pleasurable and spacious dining space.

Um that 20 feet is tight.

You're raised that eyebrow.

But I I think what you also have to consider is that when we're talking about um the historic nature of what this was previously, it wasn't a sit-down restaurant previously.

So I think we're combining historically what this was with what is being intended now.

And I think that's what's making this more complicated, is that you didn't have it was strictly a takeout.

Right.

So I mean it was uh it was a sit-down.

Our restaurant, which was next door was takeout only.

This was a ballroom and a lounge.

It was sit-down.

Okay.

And at one time it was previously in the early 80s, it was called Dick's Restaurant, but my parents sold it, and on one side it was sit down, and it was so tight.

You could only have like four tables.

And on the opposite side, which was 2214 was a ballroom.

Okay.

And once they sold it, that ballroom took it and they took the wall down, and then they made more seats.

But it was a sit down.

I was just going off of what you were saying before that it was takeout.

Well, we were 2216 South Clayborn.

Okay.

All right, thanks for that.

But I and I mean I'm bringing it up just to state that we have to acknowledge that the situation uh it's when you're saying a hardship, just being mindful of what we're classifying as a hardship and recognizing, I mean the building is what it is.

We can't we can't change the size of the um of the lot, but I think there were some conversations at the last meeting where we were trying to figure out a way, ways that this could somewhat um be resolved.

And that's what I think Commissioner James was um going back to were some of those discussions.

And I don't know if everything that was discussed was brought into these um revised plans.

Yes.

And and so for example, going back to the original plan, and I'm looking at what's part of your retired set.

For example, you guys had a five-foot turnaround radius on one side of the property, and that may have been where the city was saying that it encroached onto the neighboring site.

What I mentioned then was that if you did the compliant five-foot setback on one side of the building, that would have helped to address what was your ADA access point, also move where the ramp needed to be installed, which inherently allowed you to build more square footage and bring the building to closer towards Clayborn.

And so when I'm looking at what was the existing plan then, there was ways to make a small tweak on one side of the building, bring compliance to one side, and you would have then been able to go through a different plan that I think would have actually been more to you guys' benefit and increase what would have been your uh indoor indoor seating area for from a dining standpoint.

And not lose the amount of seats or points of sale that you guys already had laid out.

So it's not trying to just completely make it harder on you guys.

I'm looking at it and trying to be very creative and come up with a solution for you here and show you how to modify the plan and still get you exactly what you need without giving up critical square footage that you guys can be making money from in the plan.

So again, not trying to create a financial using financial as a hardship, but just trying to be creative inside of what your plan already shows and how to let the code work to your advantage to get you a better space without spending more money on construction to put things in place that you may not necessarily need to put in.

I guess I misunderstood it because I told him y'all wanted us to, you know, be more compliant, and I think that's when he went to see what it the regulations were for fire marshal.

Um that's a great point that you brought up.

You'd be bringing at least one side of the building into compliance and moving that ramp over to that compliance side.

And being able to pull the entire building, not pull the building up, but build closer to uh Clayborne, which like Commissioner James says actually gives you um some added square footage there, and you know, uh I'm not a design professional, but I think it would probably lend a little bit of curb uh curb appeal and I'd have a winding ramp right in front of your building, it'd be on the side uh on your compliance side, you'd actually be asking for a little less from us by having at least one side uh one one interior side yard compliant.

So let me so I can get it straight.

So on one side, which would be like the left side, it would be will we be asking still for a variance on the left side.

Not if it was five feet.

Well, no, she's she saying correctly.

Oh, go ahead.

From her plan, if I'm facing your facing your building on the left hand side, look at a setback condition on that that you will be asking for a waiver, but if you went to three feet, you don't have to put a solid wall.

You can still have windows along that wall.

If we look at the right hand side and you did the compliance setback condition of five feet, you can then move your ramp to that side of the building, now move your building forward, come a little bit closer into compliance, and then actually have a ramp condition that's not facing the street and allow for your ADA access to still come through the side door like you initially had it planned.

And so on the side, it's the it being in the alley is not a problem, then still as long as that ramp goes up to the throat goes up to uh your transfer transfer area again to the first floor, and steps go down towards the backyard.

That meets what is the requirement for the fire department to have access around all three sides of the building.

Okay.

So then we essentially be taking five feet there, and the building would be instead of 20, I guess 24, it would still, it would come push in and be at 22.

22, 23.

But again, we we're not gonna sit up here and just go through the full plan and kind of lay it out.

I mean, just what we've given you just in terms of recommendations, which is what we presented last time, gives you something that's a lot more a lot easier and at least more palatable to look at how to deal with the setback request that you have, but actually give you a better product.

If I can make one quick comment.

The survey in the file shows that the prior building had a front yard setback of 7.3 feet.

What's proposed now is five feet.

So they could move up to 4.3 feet, but so they only have 0.7 foot that they can come closer to the front lot line.

Okay.

That's a question when you say that.

Um for C2, I thought you're allowed to build up to this property line.

Based on the the uh the code to the ordinance.

This isn't a zero.

But it said in a C2, because C1, like the variances that we're having to go through, C1 and M U1 and M U two don't have to do this.

But we have to, but it says that M on C2, we can build up to the property line because along Clayborne Avenue, everybody is to the property line.

So the CZO references Article 153A2 for the front yard setback, and that is where it outlines that the prior front yard setback can be used, for example, plus or minus three feet.

Got it.

Um it doesn't set a zero foot lot line unless that was already in existence.

Got it.

So the other rules uh for the C2, you're not uh you you're telling me there's a different rule for the C2 is something written differently.

Just a point of clarification for the staff.

So that's one way to do it.

Could they not then look at the adjoining properties and do the average, in which case the average is zero?

That's also possible.

We don't have that information in front of us.

I think it's an empty lot.

It's an empty square right now, currently.

Well, you have uh if you use and write in the next block to us, lead the hater, well, it's an income tax place now.

They're straight to the property line.

Quackalino is straight to the property line.

We were, even though we told our building down after Katrina, we were straight to the property line.

Correct, but the ordinance says um the adjacent lots, so I'm just looking left and right of your property.

No, nothing's a good one.

Yeah.

Because the church, which is right behind us, I don't know if that character uh because it butt up against us, they're straight to the property line also.

They're on Jackson Avenue.

All right.

So if I can attempt to summarize what Commissioner James is asking, is that if you if we can move the building forward, we can reduce the the required rear yard um variants.

Okay, that we're generally okay with the three foot on the left side, but if on the right side we can get more space, maybe at least a foot more.

Am I hearing that?

Go to the compliant five feet.

Even if and are you are you saying that would mean less than three feet on the one side or three on the left, five on the right.

Okay, three on the left, five on the right.

That that is what we would approve if you could come back to us with that.

Or do you want to say that again?

So we saying that I I'm not allowed to ask for the one on the back.

Because I know you're saying move forward.

Me moving forward would still give me the space that's needed that's taken away from the side.

Yeah.

That's what I put in.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

Um, I don't think anybody has a very strong opinion about the rear rear, okay.

Okay.

So madam chair of a motions in order.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Just a note that as I look at the plan and I I see a lot of inefficiency in the second floor and sort of how the kitchen's laid out.

And so I would challenge you to once you get past this part, get somebody that's really good at laying out kitchens and laying out, you know, kind of restaurant spaces and make sure that there isn't a more efficient floor plan within that volume that you can get more space for your you know, kind of seating area as well as you know, some efficiency on your on in the plan itself.

So I'm gonna say this and I'm probably getting trouble for it, but I'm trying to help you out.

Um you have a residential person listed on your plan doing the plan, okay?

I'm gonna come back to the point again from last time.

Strongly advising talk to a local architect who can look at this holistically and understand the codes appropriately so that we could come up with a better solution.

Um that is the best way to get you going forward because here's I'm just more concerned that even because I look at your timeline inside your packet of when you're trying to get open.

Oh, I don't really don't, I don't have I honestly don't have a case.

I'm looking at that and seeing, okay, how do I help you get there?

If you're trying to get to a timeline and get open sooner, let's make sure we're using the right people to advise you so that that timeline can be met.

Otherwise, you're gonna be dealing with someone who is guessing versus informed and really understands how to come up with a plan that really fulfills what you guys need.

Okay.

Yeah, and and and another note, I mean, when you look at structurally how the building goes together, a wider building is gonna be a lot more expensive and more difficult to span and correct and make your space less open because you'll have to add columns and other things.

So I mean, getting an getting somebody in there to really look at it uh you know aggressively with you know, looking at how you can maximize your budget um would be really helpful because you're gonna make a big investment here and and I think a little bit up front would would really help and get maximize your your value for that site.

Okay, Madam Chair.

Um motions in order.

Yes, per se.

So I guess the question, well, and one last statement with the applicant.

Do you think 30 days is enough to work through this?

Okay.

Madam Chair regards to BZA docker number 079-25.

Um recommendations for 30 day deferral to give the applicant time to consider the plan modifications as discussed by the board.

Second.

Thank you with regards to BCA docket 079-25.

It's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer this matter 30 days to give the applicant time to uh revise the building plans.

Roll call vote, Todd James.

Yes, Jose Alvarez, yes, Ramiro Diaz.

Yes, Alfonso Gonzalez?

Yay, Jason Richards, yes, and Candice Forrest, yes.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

Next item on the docket is BZA docket zero nine three twenty-five for the property at 6384 Vicksburg Street.

BCA docket 09325 for a property located at 6384 Vicksburg Street.

This request is for a variance from the provisions of Article 21, Section 21.6 point P.2.A.

Detached Garages.

Article 21 Section 21.6.2.

Detached garages.

Principal structure distance.

Article 21 Section 21.7 table 21-2.

Permitted encroachments into required yards.

And Article 22 Section 22.11.b.1.

Curb cuts.

To permit the construction of a detached garage in a corner side yard located less than five feet from the principal structure and more than one curb cut.

Article 21 section 21.6 point P.2.A.

Detached Grages and Article 21 Section 21.7 Table 21-2 permitted encroachments into required yards.

Detached garage permits detached garages in the interior side yard and 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 P.2.

Detached garages.

Principal structure distance requires a minimum of 5 feet between the principal structure and the detached garage.

The applicant has proposed 3 feet and 7 inches and is requesting a waiver of 1 foot and 5 inches.

Article 22 section 22.11.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 curb cut.

The request was deferred at the November VCA hearing for 30 days to allow the applicant time to reconfigure the proposed plans and review the requested variance.

Variances.

No new drawings have been submitted.

With that, staff believes that the requested variances of Article 21 Section 21.6.p.2.8 detached garages.

Article 21 Section 21.6.p.2.

Principal structure distance.

Article 21 Section 21.7 Table 21-2 permitted encroachments into required yards.

Detached Garage and Article 22 Section 22.11.b.1 curb cuts fails to meet criteria 1 24 56 78 and 9 of the standards for variances of Article 4 Section 4.6.f of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

Ron Lazel Zach Smith Consulting and Design 1000 South Norman C Francis 70125.

Commissioners, I thank you last uh meeting for giving us a deferral of 30 days.

However, um we are continuing to work with zoning, so we're going to ask for a 60-day deferral, and hopefully uh this will just be resolved.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 093-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

If a motion's in order.

Yes, proceed.

Madam Chair regards to BZA Docket number 0983-25.

My motion is for a 60-day deferral at the applicant's request.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA Docket 093-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Diaz to defer this item 60 days.

Roll call vote, Todd James.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Ramiro Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yay.

Jason Richards.

Yes.

And Candace Forrest.

Yay.

Six Y's, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BZA Docket 09825 for the property at 72 North Park Place.

And 163 Middle Park Place.

Next item is BZA 098-25 for a property located at 72 North Park Place.

This is an after-the-fact request for a variance from the provisions of Article 21 Section 21.6.a.1.

Article 21 Section 21.7 table 21 2.

To permit the retention of steps with excessive encroachment into a corner side yard and insufficient distance from the lot line.

And from the provisions of Article 22, Section 22.8 dot A.1.b dot II.

Article 22 Section 22.11.a dot one.b.

Article 22 Section 22.11.d.1.

Article 22 Section 22.11 D.2.

Article 22 Section 22.11.d.3 to permit the retention of a parking pad located between the front facade and front property line, resulting in front yard parking and a parking pad driveway with insufficient setback.

The request proposes both the retention of a straight run stair on North Park Place side that encroaches into the side yard and a noncompliant parking pad on the front yard between the front facade front facade and the lot line.

72 North Park places located in SDAS LRS one.

Of the requested variances, none were found to satisfy the nine items and the standards for the variances of Article 4, section 4.6.f.

Uh the variances related to both the stairs and the parking pad were deemed to run counter to the suburban quality of the vicinity, and no properties with similar degrees of noncompliance were observed during the staff's analysis.

Although some stairs in the vicinity exceeded encroachment into the yards, no stairs were observed with no stairs were observed encroaching into the two fit minimum distance from the lot line.

Based on this staff report, uh staff is recommending denial.

Good morning, board.

Zach Smith 1000 South Normancy Francis.

Before I get rolling, I believe there may be a card in from Lord Barth and Ron Lazel seating some time.

I don't believe I'll need it all, but uh just the two cards.

Should have two cards for in addition to mine.

Okay.

Good morning again, Zach Smith, 1000 South Normancy Francis, uh here on behalf of the owners sitting behind me.

Um of the owners will be speaking after me.

Um in terms of this, as always, uh we think the staff report was very thoughtful and overall um did a good job of uh of taking a look at the neighborhood.

Uh a couple of points of nuance, which we will get into.

Um relative to the stairs, um this is a in terms of special condition, it's important that everyone uh be afforded the ability to have compliant stairs.

One of the points we're gonna mention is that if you do take a look at the original stairs, you're gonna notice that they they look out of compliance.

If you go back on your Google Earths on your um pads and whatnot, and you go down uh half of the block on the park place side, and you look back, specifically November of 2013 or June of 2015, you can actually compare the slope of the of the what was was actually built as a non-compliant brick stair to the the other in not only rise and run, but it was also built noncompliant in the fact that it had no handrails and whatnot.

So as the owners uh here have been uh in the building, and you're gonna hear this come up through our points, they have uh aging family members, in fact, a grandmother who is starting to rotate through the properties uh in terms of for family care.

Uh, and it's one of the fundamental reasons why they had to remove this stair and um and work on it.

So not a sp is not a special, it is a special need because the compliance stairs are important to have.

They're code required, and they're obviously thought of under the health safety welfare provisions of the CZO and the building code.

Uh for item number two, the rights to have a co-compliance stair would be deprived by essentially forcing this to be squished into the property.

Uh there's no special privilege as many properties in the city have uh lease agreements with the city for stair encroachments.

And specifically, it's noted in as a potential proviso, this property has already received a encroachment permission from the city of New Orleans.

We did that part first to make sure that there was no discussion about how this board cannot grant anything over the city right away and whatnot.

The city has already granted uh the lease rights for the stair onto the city property.

Uh relative to uh number five.

While we can understand the position, we do believe that the equivalency is slightly false.

And that's because we're comparing stair runs to the traditional development pattern in the in the neighborhood and not looking at the post-Catrina development pattern in the neighborhood, where we start seeing uh greater need for stairs because of the higher nature of the buildings.

When we're looking at some of these little cottages and whatnot spread throughout the neighborhood, we just have a different uh comparison.

Specifically, also you look on the photos here, and you'll see that this building was actually it's one of the reasons why the stairs were non-compliant and they had to be replaced.

Is this building was actually built and constructed and was built too low, and at the very end of the construction had to be elevated in such a way to be compliant for FEMA.

So it's one of the reasons why the stairs, we believe the stairs on uh the North Park place side were non-compliant and essentially squeezed into that spot.

So making them uh work here is is the reason we did it.

The hardship uh fundamentally is that uh there is a family member, again, grandmother, who is legally blind and is on that unfortunate path of dementia, and as greater access and a more uh co-compliant and gentle way to get in and out of the building, is the reason why these stairs were built with the uh specific pitch uh that they were built to um again in the staff report, it also notes that uh many properties are non-compliant with the uh encroachment maximum, and even one property is non-compliant uh with that uh encroachment in the two-foot.

Again, we have the permission in advance from the city for an encroachment into uh onto public property.

Relative to parking pads, uh for items number two, uh would deprive the owner of rights that have been enjoyed for this property since 2011.

As you guys can see in the photos and any Google views, there's been a driveway and curb cut before this building was rebuilt after Katrina, and obviously since its construction.

Uh, this is simply a replacement of uh pavement.

In uh there was one bump out for the golf cart.

Again, that in the plan is completely getting removed.

That's where there's there's there's um they're gonna put it back to how it was.

For item number three, it is common for folks and expected for repaving of existing driveways.

Until very recently, the department would never consider paving that is replaced as somehow losing nonconformity.

Furthermore, the actual special condition does not result from the current owner.

Again, if you were to go back even before this structure was built, the use of this side as a curb cut and for parking was existing.

Um lastly, keep in mind that if this waiver is not granted for these parking spaces, essentially there's nowhere to park on this property uh is an interesting space.

This is a uh side in the opposite corner, there is an oak tree that's gonna be in a prominent position that we will have to come back to this board in order to say, hey, can we get a waiver for no parking?

Um again, this this property has enjoyed a and quietly enjoyed uh parking exactly where you see it, uh, quote unquote in that corner side yard, and has not been an issue until, of course, they took out the old bricks and paved it with with a more modern paving.

Uh but again, if it's denied, we will have to show back up in front of this board to find a place to legally put parking because there is no other place to do so uh that's safe or not going to destroy a city oak tree.

Uh lastly, to the section on parking pads, um, again, not a special can special condition is that the parking pad driveway has existed since 2011.

Uh literal interpretation would deny the owner the right to enjoy this existing condition they have had since 2011.

Uh there's no special privilege.

Again, the owners simply repaved what has been there since 2011.

Uh hardship of tearing up uh parking that has been there since 2011.

You're gonna continue to see this.

Um and then we talk about again when we talk about uh profit or convenience again replacing existing paving, existing parking spaces.

When we talk about the real estate, etc.

Everybody on this board, everybody in this room knows that if there were no parking and they were to add parking.

This time.

Thank you.

Um we're tracking it because he had two people see time to him.

He still had the additional two and a half minutes remaining.

Wonderful.

And I'm wrapping up.

Um again, if they were adding parking and whatnot, uh, we could see that in a in a sense of doing refurbishing and replacement of existing paving and existing concrete.

Again, we just can't agree that there's any sort of profits or convenience here.

It's essentially a uh equal to.

And then um again, in the staff report, a majority of the properties in this area are non-compliant with CZO requirements for parking pads or driveway setbacks.

Thank you.

Think is anyone else here and supported the applicant for BCA Docket 098-25.

Hello, I'm Craig Antonatis.

Excuse me.

I'm the owner.

Um basically just like Zach said, uh removed and replaced, and didn't think that this was gonna be an issue.

Um I had a malicious neighbor next door, and now she wants to be my best friend.

So I there's not much more I can say about that.

As far as the front steps, that's exactly what Zach said.

You know, I was looking, my parents are aging, my wife's parents are aging.

Her grandmother started staying with us recently, and the the existing steps had no handrails, and we're definitely just non-compliant.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 098-25.

Uh Carson Call, 75 North Park Place.

So I'm a neighbor across the street.

Uh just a couple of points.

Zach was right about the elevation bust.

They had the brick veneer up and they had to elevate this home.

So I got to watch the entire construction of it and had this residence for my 75 North Park Place for like 13 years now.

So that was the case.

Anyway, the new stairs are open with iron railing on the side as opposed to the brick wall before.

So the view coming down the street, you can see down the street.

Having four young kids across the street and the neighbor that he referenced next door.

It makes me feel better that she can see better along the side.

Besides adding beauty to the uh the structure itself.

Also with the older steps, they were probably in the tune of 30 inches, because I remember carrying Cub Scout popcorn in bags up the side and had to put it in front of me.

You couldn't even pass up to get to the front of the building with the previous owners.

On the driveway, uh it's a replacement of a sinking paver stone driveway.

Uh it had inadequate foundation to begin with.

They literally just rolled it out with about an inch of sand when the previous homeowner lived there.

Um so as a professional engineer, I appreciate the craftsmanship of this driveway replacement and the brickworks.

I think it looks great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant?

Good morning, everyone.

Uh, my name is Michael Fanasse.

I'm at 162 Middle Park Place, which is directly across the street from that home.

Um to the specifics, uh, the the pad, the driveway pad, as it's been referred to, is that that has been used for years and years as a driveway pad.

This gentleman did not change anything relative to that.

He simply put a coating of cement over the top after removing some shabby bricks.

Uh the the other part uh relative to the steps, it it's at my opinion anyway, and it's a matter of opinion.

It's more aesthetically pleasing, uh, the steps that he has changed.

And having hit that magic age of 75 now, I realize that the handrails that he put up are pretty important as a safety feature.

So uh I'm here in support of variances.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant?

Excuse me.

I'm Duane DiMaggio, 112 East Park Place.

I live right around the corner from them.

And uh they are just great neighbors and do nothing but one to uh uh make all the neighbors pleased and and happy with uh what they're doing.

And uh nothing that they have done has been in any convenience, inconvenience on any of us.

Appreciate hope that you guys can approve them.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant?

Good morning.

My name is Matthew Roniger.

I'm at 69 North Park Place.

Uh first, I'd like to thank the board again.

I think you guys do a wonderful job, and this is probably the most entertaining thing that I've ever been a part of.

So those folks that said they're sorry to be here, like I don't understand that.

Um also to the staff who prepared the report, incredible amount of uh analysis and data gathering as well as presentations.

So thank you.

For the parking pad, um, you know, y'all talked a lot about all the technicalities and the and the specific requirements, so I apologize if I don't touch on all of that.

What I do want to touch on is kind of the spirit of what I think those things are for.

Uh most of the parking pads is present in the report are non-compliant, even the ones that are compliant.

Most of the people in the neighborhood really park blocking the sidewalk anyway.

So this is you know better than what's out there for the most part.

So the steps, um, you know, the character in the neighborhood, I think is really interesting.

This particular part of the neighborhood is is almost like a little cul-de-sac.

It's got its own unique characteristic.

Everybody is it's very much a front porch piece of a front porch town.

Um and in the way that these steps kind of become a part of that that area is as Carson mentioned, you know, numerous kids running back and forth across the neighborhood.

There's better visibility.

Um this staircase in its current design really adds to the character neighborhood, grants uh the homeowner kind of similarly proportionate use of that outdoor space being that corner lot there.

So um anecdotally, I'll end with that staircase covered in snow was one of the most interesting pictures I had from uh this past January.

So uh hope you guys considered the the variance request and uh appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 098-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

I have a quick one.

Um so the drawings indicate a new concrete slab.

It says note seven, new four-inch slab, apron flare.

The intent is not to replace the concrete slab, you're gonna saw cut it and do some new permeable paving where the little referring where the we added the little sliver.

I'm looking at the the architect's texture.

So yeah, we're gonna saw cut that and just put some permeable to just the note is correct.

The note is indicating that it's new construction.

So that's what I want to clarify.

Because if you were replacing it, I would advocate for making it all permeable.

But gotcha.

Uh, just a quick question to um Mr.

Smith.

I know you were walking through the um the nine criteria, and one of the um items that you mentioned on the um hardship was the current residence.

Um I don't even remember how you um it ties back to the reasonable accommodation.

Yeah, I just wanted to ask whether or not there was consideration to pursue reasonable accommodation um given the specifics that you mentioned about the current occupants.

Um typically that's not part of what would be considered as a hardship um for that reason because that would need to go through the reasonable accommodation request.

So given that it's specific to the current um occupants of the home.

So I think that's a fair question.

Uh I would to be very just transparent and blunt.

I think that that it would be a slam dunk in the event that the board were to not be able to agree with the other reasons for actually creating a co-compliance dare for anyone regardless of dementia or legal blindness, and the fact that you've heard from a neighbor about how essentially inappropriate the the pre prior stair was in build.

Again, if you've been able to look at some of the pictures from comparing the other stair on the rear of the property, you can see that it was non-compliant.

So there were tons of non-reasonable accommodation reasons to have this stair replaced and put into a co-compliant way.

But again, if this board were somehow uh were not to agree with that and think it's more appropriate for the RA directly with the administration, then that's something that we're prepared to do.

Because this appeal was happening anyway, we wanted to include it all and be transparent and uh you know talk about all the points.

So while we think it's not just the reasonable accommodation that should be grounds for for that, uh if that's something you guys just disagree with, again, I think we'd have a fantastic shot with uh Mr.

Rivers in uh in the RA because the the paperwork is there.

So to kind of following up on that point, Zach.

Um mine is actually less concerned on the stair.

Mine is more with the parking pad location and how the RA more applies to that piece and less the stair.

So and so two parts and something I'm at least preface in terms of a compliant pad location.

A lot of what has been done in terms of what the existing condition was versus what's now shown is the as built.

Is that there's the planner condition of roughly three feet that sets back off the edge of the home on that side that actually pushes the compliant parking stall beyond the footprint of outside the property line if I'm looking at the site plan correctly.

You're talking about an 18-foot space that's non-compliant.

Um for the depth of the car.

Yep.

It encroaches past the property line.

While we look into this, I wanted to update the board.

Our staff did verify with the applicant about the reasonable accommodations piece.

It's our understanding that the individual in question that needs these accommodations doesn't actually live there full time.

And they would need to live there full time full time.

Okay.

Um a couple ones.

We're checking, we're checking the dimensions, but I didn't believe that we had an issue on the depth.

Um and if the planter needs to be removed so that it works, then again, consider it removed.

Um just as a point for that just quick Zach, you I know you're quick on this.

Um it shows a three-foot-four condition that extends off the edge of the proper off the edge of the building.

House.

And it shows what would be uh 18 foot six overall depth of compliance going well past a foot of well past a foot of the property line itself.

Okay.

Okay.

So that needs to be re-reviewed in terms of what you're looking at to provide a compliance stall if it's going to even be accepted in that front yard.

Okay.

Uh what is just out of curiosity when we talk about like wheel stops and things like that, because it's just a brick edge.

It's not a it's not showing it.

Yeah.

Because we dealt with this last time with that church and how you used a wheel stop and kind of go into that piece.

Because I mean you the problem is it's not documented correctly.

Right.

Because it's 17 foot four, not 18.

Yeah.

So 70 foot six or seven or whatever.

Yeah.

Uh apologies on behalf of the project for that one.

Uh we were focused on other parts of it, but yeah, it didn't, it didn't dawn on me that we had a it's not the intention.

And I guess because we were looking at the full depth, we always knew we had the the ability.

Uh just making sure I come back to the question that was originally asked about the reasonable accommodation.

I specifically made that note dealing with the stairs, that I don't believe, again, the the fact that this is essentially repaving existing spaces.

We were not applying any of that to these conditions, as I don't think I think regardless of who lives or doesn't live in the house, I think those points are very much on their own.

Yeah.

And I'll come back to what you mentioned earlier.

On the stair, I'm less concerned on that component of it, because you did mention earlier about stairs and stoops do often encroach into the public right away across town, and people can get leases for those components.

What we have just done is a precedent within this board is not granted related to off-street compliant parking stalls.

Correct.

Correct.

And again, that'll be one way or the other, that'll thousand.

We were never intending to ask for anything to extend beyond the property line when it comes to parking.

So and I just wanted to bring it up just to make sure.

Um I I agree that you do bring up some other um points for us to consider.

And so just depend regardless of which way this ends up.

I just didn't want that to be considered as the basis, just because of the fact that typically those are not what are taken into consideration individual circumstances, and that those are more appropriately done through the reasonable accommodation process.

But I do recognize um and agree that there were some other points that were brought up that um should be validly considered.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions from the board?

See none is there a motion.

Well, we said there weren't any other questions, but maybe just really really briefly if before making the motion, if I can just confirm what we're asking the the building owner to do.

So they're going to there's some things that aren't encompassed in these necessarily, but we've discussed bringing the parking pad back to its original extents.

Is that correct?

Clarifying.

If I may, um, you know, it would seem um very logical, and again, because it was not intended for this reason, and we certainly weren't asking for this type of waiver.

Uh if there were proviso to specifically have the site plan for the parking pad readdressed for the final approval such that in no way, shape, or form the uh the the legal 18 feet encroaches across the property line.

Um because this would just be essentially to keep the parking pad where it is.

Right.

So we we have that as one of the two provisors.

So I think I agree with you.

I think that would take care of that.

Okay.

Was that your only um that was my only question?

Um I would make a motion.

Madam Chair, regarding Docket BZA098-25.

I move to uh approve the requested waivers, finding with the discussion in this meeting uh and the materials provided by the applicant that they meet all nine of the nine criteria for uh standards for variance of Article 4, Section 4.6 F of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, subject to the two listed provisos.

The requested waivers are section 216 AA 1 for porch steps and stoops.

Uh two waivers there.

Uh section 21.7, table 21-2 permitted encroachments in the required yards, steps and stoops, section 228a 1b2, permitted vehicle parking locations, front yard section 2211A1B residential driveways, section 2211 D1 parking pad design location, section 2211 D2 parking pad design location, and section 2211 D3 parking pad design location.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA docket 098-25.

It's been moved by Commissioner Richards.

Second by Commissioner James to grant the requested waivers, finding that the nine criteria have been met, adopting uh the applicant's submission as well as commentary from today to satisfy that the nine criteria have been met, subject to two provisos.

Roll call vote, Todd James.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Ramiro Diaz.

Sure.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yay.

Jason Richards.

Yay.

And Candace Forrest.

Yay.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BZA Docket 09925 for the property at 3727, Ron Eagleway.

BCA Docket 099-25 is a request for waivers from Article 13, Section 13.3.8.1, Table 13-2, which includes a waiver of lot area, lot width, and minimum permeable open space.

The applicant is requesting to conduct a minor resubdivision with the intention to sell the rear portion of existing lot 37, which is a property located on Ron Eagle Way, to existing lots 29 and 30 on Milton Street, in order to provide the latter with more backyard area, resulting in the creation of lots 37A and 29A respectively.

Areas of noncompliance come into effect, in that the proposed lot 37A will now have a reduced lot area than what is required for a two-family dwelling.

The subject site had also gone undergone a recent renovation permit that converted the existing single family dwelling on site to a two-family dwelling, which changed certain lot requirements.

Proposed lot 37A would reduce that to 3,628.54 square feet to accommodate both units, which is a waiver request of 1,371.46 square feet.

In addition, the lot would not be in compliance in regards to width, so waiver is required to accommodate the existing 30.177 foot lot width, which rather than the required 50-foot lot width needed to construct for a required two-family dwelling unit.

The third and final waiver that is triggered due to the proposed resubdivision is that of the minimum permeable open space per Article 13, Section 13.3.8.1 table 13 through 13.2.

Uh the requirement is 40% of the total area of the lot uh for minimum minimum permeable open space.

The new resubdivision would reduce this to 36% of open area, which is which is a reduction and results in a waiver request of 4%.

Staff believes that the requested variances of Article 13, Section 13.3.8.1, Table 132 for lot area and lot width, fails to meet criterion six and seven of the standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.f of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, in that strict adherence would not result in a demonstratable hardship, and that the request is primarily for the convenience or profit of the owner or any other interested party.

In addition, staff believes that the requested variances of Article 13, Section 13.3.8.1, Table 13.2 for minimum minimum permeable open space fails to meet criteria 16 and 7 for variance uh for standards of variances of Article 4, Section 4.6 F of comprehensive zoning ordinance, in that number one, there are no special conditions that are peculiar to the land or structure, strict adherence would not result in a demonstratable hardship, or and number seven, that the request is primarily for the convenience or profit of the owner or other interested party.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of BZA docket 09925.

However, should the boards choose to approve this case, it shall be subject to one proviso found in your staff report.

Thank you.

You could give your name and address for the record.

Yes, my name is Melissa Foy, and my address is 3727 Ron Eagle Way.

You can go ahead with your comments.

Okay.

Um good morning.

My name, as I said, is Melissa Foy.

I'm a lifelong resident of New Orleans.

I purchased the home at 3727 Ron Eagle Way from my mother-in-law in November of 2024 while it was in significant disrepair.

Um, this home has been in our family since 1957.

It was built by my mother-in-law's parents in celebration of her birth.

During the renovation process, we uncovered several major issues, including extensive termite damage, the need for a full sewer line replacement, and significant water damage, among other structural concerns.

Throughout this process, we developed a great relationship with our neighbor, Mr.

T.A.

Tran, a local investor and contractor who's been an incredible source of support.

Our properties intersect, and we currently share a portion of yard space.

Mr.

Tran's yard is very small and difficult to maintain and difficult to entertain, while mine is exceptionally large.

The shared area is sloped away from my home, which causes water to collect between our two properties.

Ideally, I would like to address this by bringing in fill dirt, sod, and proper landscaping to correct the drainage issue.

However, due to the substantial unexpected repair costs from the substandard post-Hurricane Katrina work done to the home, and the fact that I'm scheduled to deliver my first baby within the next 72 hours, is critical that we find a practical and immediate solution.

Um basically he has the means to correct the flooding issue in the back of the yard.

We've already put our butt set in tears into this property.

It would be more feasible for him to do it.

My family's comfortable with the reduced yard size.

We can still fit a swing set, have enough room for our dog.

Um, and the decreased maintenance would be a blessing that comes with it.

We're um supportive of allowing our neighbor to assume responsibility for that portion of the property as we continue restoring our home and contributing to the rebuilding of the seventh ward, our home.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 099-25?

You could come up, please.

Hello, uh, my name is TA Tran, and I own the property on 1262 Milton.

So we're we're pretty much we're pretty much neighbors.

But uh yeah, I met her before this, and I actually sold her a truck, and while I was looking at the property on 1262 Milton Street, it turned out to be her property.

Uh right behind the house was her property.

So it was uh it was a super weird coincidence.

But me and her have been friends since, and she's been working on rebuilding her property, and I've been seeing her uh basically go through a lot just because there was so much to uncover.

So she's been spending a ton of money just to fix her property, and I saw her land and I was like, I could help you out if I purchase this land from you.

Like my yard is significantly higher, and every time it rains, everything just pours into her yard.

Um, yeah, that's that's basically why I wanted to buy the land.

If that makes sense.

Is that the end of your comment?

Yeah, yeah, that's it.

Thank you.

Am I good?

I'll sorry, yeah.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 099-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board.

Just wanted to clarify that the resulting lot is 120, 120 feet deep.

Is that am I reading that right?

From the Craig Krebs drawing.

Or the That's correct.

And then the other one would be 130.

Correct.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, my observation without making the applicant come back up for a question, is just that the existing lot.

Um, if it's two-family lot, it's already non-compliant, so it's supposed to be 5,000.

I had to do the math and add up the 40 and the other thing, but it's 4800 square feet.

So we're we're proving more of a um a little bit more of a uh waiver, but it was already insufficient, um, non-conforming condition.

Um, the width obviously is also a non-conforming condition.

There's nothing that um can be done about that.

And um we are reducing the permeable open space.

The waiver requested there is four percent.

And I just feel like it's not a nominal ask.

And it would end up with a site that's incredibly average.

Yes, 3110 is kind of the right.

Yeah.

If anything, we're bringing these things in more into conformity in a way.

So no no comments.

I feel like the criteria have been met.

We agree.

Well, if a motions in order, let's do that.

Let's go ahead and take care of this neighbor.

All right.

All right.

All right.

Regarding Docket uh BZA 099-25 3727 to 3729 run eagle way.

I move to uh approve the variance request uh of articles 13, section 133a 1, table 13-2 for lot area.

Uh section 13.3a1, table 13-2 for lot width, and section 1331, table 13-2 for minimum minimum permeable open space.

Um accepting the uh materials from the applicant and the discussion here that the request meets all nine of the nine criteria of the approval for standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6F of the conference of zoning ordinance, subject to the one provisor listed in the staff's report.

Second thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 099-25, it's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner James to grant the requested waivers, finding that the nine criteria have been met, adopting the applicant's submission as well as commentary from today to um establish that the nine criteria have been met.

Subject to two provisos, one proviso.

One proviso, thank you.

Roll call vote, Tad James, yes, Jose Alvarez, yes, Ramiro Diaz.

Yes, Alfonso Gonzalez, yay, Jason Richards, yes.

And Candace Forrest, yes, six YAs, no nays, the motion carries.

The next item is BZA Docket 125 for the property at 1901 Tupelo Street.

The next item is BZA docket 100-25 for a property located at 1901 Tupelo Street.

This is a request for a variance from the provisions of Article 13, Section 13.3.8.1, Table 13-2 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a single family dwelling with insufficient corner side yard setback.

The applicant is proposing new construction of a single family dwelling four feet three inches from the North Johnson Street corner side of the property line.

Per the provided plans, the property would not meet the required 10 feet corner side yard setback from the property line and is seeking a waiver of five feet nine inches.

The staff believes the special condition is that this lot is unusually narrow in width at 28.4.2 feet, barely over half the minimum lot width requirement of 50 feet in the SRS district, which constrains the ability to develop in the way that the district contemplates.

Therefore, granting the variance would not give the applicant a special privilege, rather, it would treat it comparably to those similar properties as an opportunity to develop housing and wouldn't would recognize the challenge of providing the required corner side yard setback on a very very narrow lot.

The staff believes the request does satisfy the nine criteria as they pertain to the requested variants.

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

Thank you.

Is the applicant present for BCA docket 100-25.

I'm trying.

Yes, good morning.

Um good afternoon.

Uh Patrick Thompson.

Um address is 1901 Tubaloo Street.

Uh yeah, we're seeking the variance uh by the lab being so narrow 28 by 126, and we just asked for the variance so we could complete the job.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA docket 100-25?

Anyone here in opposition.

Any questions from the board?

If a motion's in order, yes, proceed.

Madam Chair request the BZA docket 100-25.

My motion is accept the staff, except the staff's report and recommendation for the requested waiver of Article 13, Section 13.3.8.1 for table 13-2 for corner side yard setback and move for approval.

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

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA Docket 100-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Richards to grant the requested waiver.

Finding that the nine criteria have been met, subject to one proviso.

Roll call vote, Todd James.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Yes.

Ramiro Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yay.

Jason Richards.

Yay.

And Candace Forrest.

Yay.

Six YAs, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BZA Docket 10125 for the property at 3201 through 05 Charter Street.

BZA Docket 10125 for the property at 3201 through 3205 Charter Street is a request for a variance to permit the retention of a canopy with excessive encroachment into the required rear yard.

This is an after-the-fact request.

The requirement for permitted encroachments for awnings and canopies.

It's no more than five feet into the required rear yard.

The applicants proposing 16 feet into the required rear yard and requesting a waiver of 11 feet.

The staff believes the requested variants of Article 21.7, Table 21-2 fails to meet criteria 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 of the standards for variances of Article 46F, and that there are no special conditions peculiar to the land.

Literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of commonly enjoyed rights.

The variants will confer on the applicant special privilege.

Strict adherence would not result in a demonstrable hardship.

And the request is primarily for the convenience or profit of the owner.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variants.

Hi guys.

My name is John Casacelli.

I'm the owner of 3205 shotters.

We are new to New Orleans, and we bought our little house in the by water August last year, and we decided to shelter our barbecue area before the pagola.

It was a massive standing rainwater.

And it also threatened to compromise the foundations of that brick wall that you see that we share with our neighbor.

I think that brick wall is like 150 years old.

We employed a licensed contractor named Sequoia to construct the pagola, and we trusted that our contractor would handle the permits.

So I know that that's no excuse, but um yeah, that's where we're in this situation right now.

Um we are aware that the staff recommend that you don't pass the variants.

However, standard three, five, and eight, three, five, eight, and nine are met, um, and all the other standards pertaining to us having special special privilege by having a pagola in the backyard.

Umpogola does not affect any of our night neighbors and complies with the overall historic district field of the by water.

Um it doesn't affect the access to light from our neighbors and all of our neighbors do support our pagola and have sent letters of support.

Um I believe that our lot is very unique to the neighborhood as it is a corner block and doesn't have a backyard.

Our backyard is the side yard facing Louisa Street.

Um we appreciate you considering Article 21, Section 21.7 to allow us to keep Alpagola and permit the 11-foot waiver.

Thank you.

Thank is anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 102-25.

I'm sorry, 101.

Got it.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for 101-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Just a quick question to you.

Um so yes, it's not an excuse, but your contractor should have known better.

So it's not on you.

All right.

Um but back to them.

Is there any way the problem is because it's attached to the back of the house?

That's really what's driving this entire equation.

Yep.

Versus if a consideration to put two additional columns and how to make sure it's actually detached, it could still sit inside that same footprint, and I'm assuming that the footprint of it doesn't exceed the accessory structure, square footage is just staff, if is that correct.

One moment.

I'm trying to figure out like what's an alternative, so it's kind of like that happy medium between the two.

It does cause you to have to make a modification to it, but there's a way for the pergola to still exist as long as it's physically detached.

How far would it have to be detached from the house?

Well, I think we gotta check because sometimes in some cases I've seen where it's there's that three-foot setback requirement or so.

My understanding of this provision in Article 21, um, it doesn't distinguish whether or not a canopy is attached to a main structure or not.

And so regardless of whether it's attached, that canopy structure cannot encroach more than five feet into the required rear yard.

Okay.

But what what is his minimum requirements for an accessory structure?

An accessory structure in general.

It could go to the lot line.

Um, bridge requirement, max 40 percent.

Um the reason why I'm saying those parts, it could it could easily be modified in place with two additional columns and a beam that supports it on the house side.

Yeah, but that way if it's detached, it's now an accessory structure and no longer considered a canopy.

Right.

So how far would we have to detach it from the house?

I think because she's not we need to just confirm if there's a setback requirement from the accessory structure from the primary house.

Yeah.

Because I mean, if we what had a gap that much, would that be okay?

If that's if it doesn't have the three-foot setback requirement, in my opinion, yes, and as a way for you to do a special flashing where the two don't touch each other.

Yep.

And and the reason why we're that this rule exists is because once it's covered, it's considered part of the building.

So you could cover that, make it an addition, raise it up.

It's it's a it's an important zoning distinction here.

So it sounds intense, but it's a minor tweak that just becomes the that addresses really the loophole.

Okay.

So you could still keep it where it's at.

And if it's ironically, usually we're trying to try to tell people to attach to the building because it gives you some number time to tell you detach.

Emily.

Yeah, I was just going to say so.

The specific provisions for canopies and awnings.

Um, so not looking at the general accessory structure standards, but specific to this structure.

It has to be at least two feet from a rear lot line, two feet from an interior side lot line.

Um it cannot encroach more than five feet into the required rear yard, which is why we're here.

Um I think we would need a determination from safety and permits because my understanding is whether or not this is attached to the main structure, it can encroach more than five feet into the rear yard.

Okay.

But it's two different so I'll just so I'm I'm gonna just make a recommendation, just do a 30-day deferral so we could confirm what is the best process for you to maintain what you have in some capacity.

I do challenge that in terms of once it's detached, it is tech, it should technically be considered an accessory or gazebo structure separate from a canopy.

Uh, in my opinion, those would traditionally be attached to the building, and that's why that minimum depth requirement is spelled out in terms of how far it could project from the primary building.

I think deferral might be a good idea.

Looking at the definition of canopy in article 26, it does not specify whether or not it's attached.

I I got you.

Yeah.

But I think we're mixing two pieces up that once it's detached, it really should not be considered a canopy at all.

I think that completely goes away once you look at it because it's attached to the ground at the other end.

On a just to put this in the record, is the minimum lot width in the zoning district is 90 feet, and this particular property is about 81, it says 81.2 according to your survey.

Yep.

So I just want to acknowledge that as a particular hardship as well.

Cool.

If there was a standard lot and this pergola would have been constructed similarly situated, we would um be over the five feet, but well, no, actually, we would not, sorry, and add 10 feet to that, and I'm gonna have to do math uh live, but I'm pretty sure that we would only be one foot over because uh we would be 16.

We'd have uh nine extra feet.

I'm gonna use 10 because it's easier math.

So we'd be somewhere between one and two feet of requested variants.

So I do want to acknowledge that that is a genuine hardship for the um the property owner.

So there's a way to get there, it's just trying to confirm which one's the right way.

Yeah.

Since it's already there, if if you're okay with it, we may just have the staff look at this alternative mode.

An alternative solution, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

So hopefully it's a stand-up company and they'll fix it for you.

All right, thanks, guys.

Yeah, thank you.

If motions in order.

Are there any more questions from the board?

Proceed.

Madam Chair regards to BZA docket number one zero one-25.

Second.

With regards to BCA DACA 101-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Diaz to defer this item 30 days.

Rocal vote, Todd James.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Romero Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yay.

Jason Richards.

Yes.

And Candace Forrest, yes.

Six Yes, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BZA docket 10225 for the property located at 2275 Sanctuary Drive.

This request is for a variance from the provisions of Article 21, Section 216 Z 4, Article 21, Section 216 EE 1, and Article 22, Section 224A, Table 22-1 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit a swimming pool and a cabana in the front yard.

Based on this report, staff believes that the requested variances of Article 21, Section 216 Z4, pool house cabana.

Article 21, Section 216 EE, swimming pools, yard, um, location in the yard.

Article 21, section 217, Table 21-2 permitted encroachments into required yards for swimming pools, and Article 21, section 217, Table 21-2, permitted encroachments into required yards for a pool house in cabana meet nine of the nine criteria of the standards of variance variances of Article 4, Section 46F of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.

Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to one proviso.

Good afternoon, board.

Zach Smith, 1000 South Norman C Francis.

Uh just want to thank the staff for the work on this project, and I'm here for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board.

Seeing none, is there a motion?

Yeah, sorry.

Um Madam Chair regards to BZA Docket 102-25.

Um, a motion is accept the staff's report and recommendation for the requested waivers and move approval, noting that the nine uh nine criteria have been met with the one-noted proviso.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 102-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the requested waivers of Article 21, Section 21.6.4, pool house cabana.

Article 21, section 21.6.e.1, swimming pools location yard.

Article 21, section 21.7, table 21-2, uh permitted encroachments into required yards, uh, swimming pools, and pool house cabana, uh, subject to one proviso.

Roll call vote, Todd James.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Yes.

Romeo Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yay.

And Candace Forrest, yay.

Five yes, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BZA Docket 10325 for the property at Ford Newcombe Boulevard.

Oh, this is a request for a variance from the provisions of Article 21, Section 21.6.1.a, Article 21, Section 21.6.

And Article 21, Section 21.6.1 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a fence with excessive height that is not open and a swimming pool and mechanical equipment in the front yard.

The subject property is a through lot with front yards facing both Newcomb Boulevard and Audubon Street.

Sorry, sorry, section 21.6.

Uh the proposed fence is 10 feet from the existing street elevation and opaque.

The staff believes that the requested waiver of Article 21, section 21.6.1.a fence height to allow a waiver of the maximum fence height fails to meet uh standards 5, 6, and 7 of the standards for variants per Article 4, Section 4.6.f of the CZO, in that granting the variance would alter the essential character of the area.

The property regulations will not result in a demonstrable hardship, and the request is primarily for the convenience or prof profit of the owner or other interested party.

In addition, staff believes that the requested waiver of Article 21, section 21.6.

In that the property regulations uh will not result in a demonstrable hardship, and the request is primarily for the convenience or profit of the owner or other interested party.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of those requested variances from Article 21, Section 21.6.1.a fence height and opacity.

Now article 21, section 21.6.

And then article 21, section 21.6.1 requires swimming pool, a swimming pool to be located in an interior side or rear yard.

And the applicant is requesting to place uh the swimming pool in the front yard, assessing that waiver.

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

Therefore, staff recommends approval of that requested those requested variances subject to improviso.

You could give you a name and adjust for the record.

Yes, uh good afternoon, members of the BZA.

Richard Cortizus, 201 St.

Charles Avenue, Jones Walker on behalf of the owner uh for Newcombe Boulevard, Laborte family.

Um first I want to take a moment to thank the staff for the report.

This is this is not a very complicated matter, but sometimes because of the technical language language in the CZO, as you all may know, there are times when application of those technical rules can amount to an impractical result.

Um we agree with the recommendation of the staff with regards to the pool permit.

There's always been a pool there uh with pool equipment.

This is just a renovation of existing pool, uh, which was covered temporarily due to some foundation work that needed to be done.

Um I will add that customarily, historically, uh all properties literally 100% uh along the stretch of where these parcels lay between Newcomb and Audubon uh are considered as rear yard, or at least are treated customarily as rear yards.

So we are in agreement with the staff on the uh the pool waiver.

The current wall, which is currently an opaque wall and encroaches on the right-of-way, is being proposed by the owner uh to be moved back onto the owner's property and brought into compliance.

So we're literally taking a wall that is out of compliance and bringing it onto the property because of the encroachment on the city's right-of-way.

But because the wall is treated as being a front yard wall, if the owner moves the wall back to remove the encroachment and into compliance, the owners will be required to open the wall.

That is tantamount to penalizing the owner for correcting an encroachment issue.

We really want to we want to we want to address the public welfare here with the encroachment on the right-of-way.

Um this is exactly frankly why I think there's a BZA, right?

Um, this is where you all can help bring practicality uh to technical regulations that have impractical results sometimes.

Um and I know that staff kind of struggled with this a little bit.

Um, we're asking is to bring the wall into compliance, bring it onto the private property, uh, and remain the same design.

Um I'll note that this is not for the convenience of the owner.

This is really a public welfare and safety uh issue.

There's been a number of students in the area.

This is close to the it's actually in the university area.

There's been a number of um of there's a history of number of incidents with two lane Loyola and other students in the area hopping over the fence, jumping into the pool.

As a matter of fact, the neighbors who I'm surprised were here are actually uh asking for an increase in the height of the fence because they appreciate the privacy.

Um it's also a noise reduction uh issue that we'd like to bring to the area.

And then also, lastly, again, to bring it into compliance by bringing it onto private property.

Again, the majority of the fences are over seven feet in that area.

92% are closed walls, and 100% of those walls along the back of those parcels along Audubon Street are treated as rear yard.

That's been the history, it's been customary.

Um and denying the applicant, you know, these waivers would deny a right, obviously commonly enjoyed by all of the neighbors.

And that's the end of your time, Mr.

Clay.

Thank you.

That's for your support.

Thank you.

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

Uh you could come up, please.

Um hello, my name's Keith Hardy.

I live at 618 Audubon Street, which is directly across the street from this property.

Uh, been there for over 30 years.

I not only have no objection, but I'm in support of all of the waivers requested.

Uh this is a very unique block.

It's actually only about 150 feet deep, half the depth of a normal block.

Every house on the Ottoman side of this block has a high fence.

And I I can tell you that there are a number of times when I had to call the previous owners, Mr.

Laborte's parents, to advise them that there were some students hopping over their fence.

It's a it's kind of a game that the college students play.

So I think the fence is required for public safety, and uh I think it's required for privacy because my house actually overlooks down into that area.

And uh I I don't I haven't heard of any objections from anybody in the neighborhood, and I would urge you uh to support the request for the waivers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 103-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Let's see.

Uh just a quick question, Mr.

Cortices on where the staff's recommendation falls right now because it's approval and par denial and party.

Thank you.

Yes.

You you're still succinctly asking for all of the items to be approved.

Correct.

Okay.

All of the waivers, absolutely.

And I make note that the pool permit had been previously issued as well.

They recognize the pools there.

All right.

Um, Madam Chair, I don't have any questions if a motions in order.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Proceed.

Um Madam Chair, regards to BZA docket number 103-25.

My motion is to approve the requested waivers for Article 22, Section 22.6 point N.1.a for fence height and 21.

What about to say?

22.

I've been having too many kids around me doing six seven all weekend, so it's wearing me out.

No, what that has to be.

I'm just making a joke at this point because it's been a date.

All right, so let's try this again.

Article 21, section 21.6 point in point one A fence height and fence height opacity.

Uh Article 21, Section 21.6 point T for mechanical equipment, and Article 21, Section 21.6.1 swimming pools uh location of real yard.

Um move to approve all of the requested waivers based on the information that's provided by the owner's representative and move for approval with the one recommended proviso is noted by staff.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 103-25, 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 submission um submitted by the applicant to satisfy establishment that the nine criteria have been met, subject to one proviso, roll call vote, Tad James.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Yes.

Ramiro Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yay.

And Candice Forrest, yay.

Five years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BZA Docket 10425 for the property at 5710 General General Diaz Street.

The next, um sorry, did it.

Uh the request is for variants to permit the construction of a detached accessory structure with excessive rear yard coverage.

Article 21, section 216A3 coverage up to 40% of the required rear yard is required, and the applicant is proposing 46%, therefore requesting a waiver of six percent.

Based on this report, staff find that the required requested variance failed to meet criteria 1246 and 7 of the standards of variance for Article 4, Section 4.6 point F of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, and that there are no special circumstances peculiar to the land or structure.

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

The variants would confer uh special privilege upon the applicant.

Strict adherence of the ordinance would not result in a demonstrable hardship, and the request appears to be primarily for the convenience or profit of the owner or other interested party.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variants.

However, if the board finds that the request meets all nine approval standards, the staff recommends one provisor.

Board uh Andrew Blackwell, I uh am here representing Quilling Construction Group as well as the homeowner, Sean Coco.

Um for this project, we were uh commissioned to build a garage on an existing slab.

Uh this slab was poured uh during the original house construction.

My clients believed it was, you know, within the uh allowable zones.

Um for us to change it, uh we would end up having to, you know, substantially redo uh the the existing foundational slab.

Uh we are requesting this because uh as noted um in the report from the staff, 46 percent of uh structures uh within the area also do not meet this uh requirement of 40 percent.

They're over the 40 percent rule, um, which means statistically speaking, my client can walk out on the back porch, look to their left, look to their right, and both have structures that they're being denied, uh, which is actually the case at 5701 Memphis and 5723 Memphis, which were not included in the staff report uh with 5701 Memphis being almost identical uh to what we are proposing to do, although slightly larger.

Um it's for those reasons that we are asking to uh for this variance in order to be able to continue as planned and you know kind of fit what is already being allowed in this neighborhood.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA docket 104-25?

Good morning.

My name is Sean Coco.

I'm the owner and resident at 5710.

General Diaz, wanted to thank you all for your time and attention on this matter.

Uh, just one thing to clarify.

We purchased the house uh within the last year.

We closed on it last December.

We moved in in January.

The slab was existing prior to us, even looking at the house, and was uh the house was uh built and designed and moved into in 2013 by the original owners.

Uh the slab has a uh 2012 handwritten uh into the concrete with some initials from the previous owners.

So the slab was existing.

We did we went to the uh uh time and expense of uh to to better the property uh to construct a garage on that existing slab.

And uh I would uh appreciate uh we would we'd appreciate the ability to proceed on that existing slab with our uh designed garage.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA docket 104-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

The motions in order.

Um General Diaz.

Uh no relation.

No relation at all.

Uh so in regards to BZA 10425, I move to um approve the request, uh, citing the applicant's letter and the discussion here.

Um there any provisors?

One provisor with the noted proviso.

I didn't have the nine criteria but met.

Yeah.

That too.

Thank you.

BCA docket 104-25.

It's been moved by Commissioner Diaz.

No relation.

Second by Commissioner James to grant the requested waiver.

Finding that the nine criteria have been met, adopting the um submission by the applicant um to satisfy establishment that the nine criteria have been met, subject to one provisor.

Subject to one provisor.

Roll call vote to James.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Yes.

Ramiro Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Uh Candice Forrest, yes.

Foyers, no nays, the motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BZA docket 10525 for the property at 23, I'm sorry, 235 through 41 Bourbon Street.

This request is for variance from the provisions of Article 24, Section 24.13 point G point 1.

Projecting signs, projection, Article 24, Section 24.13, point G point 3.3, zoning districts group two allowable sign area, and Article 24, Section 24.13 point G.

Point three point C point V zoning districts group two first floor to permit a sign with excessive projection, excessive area, and erected above the first floor.

Article 24, Section 24.13 point G.1.A.

Projecting signs projection permits projecting signs with a permitted projection of four feet.

The applicant has proposed a projecting sign with a projection of seven feet and is requesting a waiver of three feet.

Article 24, section 24.13 point G point 3.3 zoning districts group two allowable sign area permits an allowable sign area of approximately 45 square feet.

The applicant has proposed a 93 square foot double-sided sign and is requesting a waiver of approximately 48 square feet.

Article 24, section 24.13 point G point 3.

Zoning Districts Group 2 First Floor permits projecting excuse me permits projection signs to be located on the first floor.

The applicant is requesting to construct the proposed sign above the first floor and will need a variance.

Staff believes that the requested variances of Article 24, Section 24.13 point G point 1.8 projecting signs projection.

Article 24, Section 24.3 point C point 3, Zoning Districts Group 2, allowable sign area, and Article 24, Section 24.13 point G.3.

Zoning Districts Group 2 first floor fails to meet criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6 point F of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

So refer to the staff report for the correct waiver amounts.

Thank you.

These signs add a unique artistic glow that complements the district's rich architectural heritage rather than competing with it.

Their presence would enhance the cultural atmosphere, both for the locals and visitors, creating a more immersive and memorable experience.

Reviving neon signage also supports preservation of traditional craftsmake uh craftsmen and small businesses that specializes in the vintage art form.

Overall, restoring these uh iconic signs would strengthen the French quarter's identity while celebrating a distinctive part of the visual history.

I understand the staff's uh uh responses to um the criteria, particularly hardship, but uh in terms of heritage.

Um there are things that you know uh trying to reach out and grab something that's special like the neon signs requires kind of a presentation type of thing.

I'm here today to ask you this board that I'd be able to come back with a presentation.

I can't make a presentation, but if I come back in another month, I can present to the staff something that then they can show.

So uh I can't add to this today.

We've got the historic New Orleans collection.

I'd like to participate.

This was the original uh Brennan's restaurant, and uh I don't know if you have even in this presentation the old sign uh pictured.

We're not asking to um put a new sign, we're asking to replicate the sign that was there, except for the name.

So I I can't get into a presentation unless I come back to in another month.

And I'd certainly like to do that to make my case to restore a sign that was there.

I think this has been done recently around the corner with acme.

Uh two jacks, there was a whole sign, you know, issue there.

Uh so I'm here to ask that you defer this and allow us to come back and make a proper presentation to encourage you to uh allow us to put uh old historic sign, you know, on the second block.

We're not doing it to increase uh you know the the profit for the place.

Uh there is a hardship that um you know getting this sign here, the hardship is uh overcoming all the variances.

But this sign was here.

We're using the exact same structural locations to tie back the sign.

And I know that uh you're gonna hear from VCPora.

That's that's the end of your time, Mr.

Williams.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 105-25?

Anyone here in opposition.

Any questions from the board?

Aaron.

Aaron is.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Good afternoon.

My name is Aaron Holmes.

I'm executive director of uh View Create Property Owners, Residents and Associates, VCPora.

Um we are here to speak in opposition of this request.

We agree with staff and want to actually commend them for doing um their diligence and pulling the data on all the comparable signage in the area.

That was really informative.

Um we don't support the waiver.

Uh it it only met one of the nine criteria for a variance.

Um and it definitely would grant uh special um preference onto this applicant because it it is much larger than any of its counterparts.

Furthermore, this is this is not a restoration, this is a recreation.

Um the sign in question that it is modeled after was removed between 1972 and 1975.

It has been gone for over 50 years.

Um, and so and if I'm not sure if you have this in your packet, and if you do grant a deferral to see the two signs, it is not the same sign.

It is a different business.

It was gone 50 years ago.

Um I also will say uh this particular property has been kind of in uh some issues with structural integrity for its facade and its uh envelope.

So the commitment to attach this large sign exactly where it was previously supported would not be a good idea.

Um the the regulations regarding these signs, it's not so much aesthetic, it's about public safety.

Um this is a very large piece of equipment that would be projecting an additional four for three or four feet over the public right-of-way.

We are uh a climate full of hurricanes.

Um I would not want to um subject the public to any potential damages or um and then lastly I this is a public safety issue.

They don't really meet any of the criteria.

We would not want to uh create a situation where basically anything that was ever a part of Bourbon Street could be recreated.

Um so we hope that you will decide today to uh deny this application.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here on opposition?

Good afternoon.

Um Nathan Chapman, I'm president of BCPora, uh volunteer uh head of the board of the organization that Aaron represents also.

Um, I have been volunteering for the French Quarter since I was a young man with dark hair.

And my predecessors in the early days used to have a good expression that there's no right way to do the wrong thing.

So I just because I've been hanging out all day, and I just ultimately I don't think I'd ask you not to defer it just because I think ultimately the fundamentals of this issue are are not gonna change, you know, even if if the applicant brought more additional information.

You know, I own a house in the French quarter.

During the period of this sign, I had suburban style asbestos roofing.

So can I go back to that?

Because over time, the city said, hey, let's upgrade the French quarter, and now you have to have slate.

So can I go back to metal windows?

I mean, this would create a terrible precedent if we say, no matter what period, you know, if you can find some awful thing from way back when you know, you can go back to it.

That's just not the way we want to be running the preservation of the French quarter.

I ask you for those reasons.

Uh I thought the staff report did a good job of the nine items.

I ask you to go ahead and deny it today, please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nikki Savinsky, 1011 St.

Philip.

I'm just a property owner that cares.

Um I oppose this proposal.

I support the staff report uh report for denial.

I also oppose the applicant's request for deferral, replicate means to produce the exact same item.

And he has clearly admitted that by having a different name, it is not reproducing the exact same item.

As Aaron Holmes said, it is a questionable building to be attaching a seven-foot sign.

And the um the stress on the building could be very real.

Most of the buildings in the French quarter have sadly not been repointed.

So attaching a sign this large would likely compromise the building, particularly should a storm come through.

So deferral as is not really in order.

He had time to prepare, and he did not, and the fundamentals are not going to change.

We are still going to have most of the criteria not met.

And uh furthermore, extending it over the public right of way is clearly meant to increase visibility and therefore profitability.

So that would uh further um be for the benefit of the applicant, and it's simply not fair to everyone else.

We have uh signs throughout the French quarter that meet the the uh VCC and zoning guidelines, and everyone should have to um uh abide by the same rules.

So giving special treatment is unfair.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in opposition?

The applicant has an opportunity to rebutton.

Uh we have all the proper structural engineering.

Um we've evaluated this facade and know exactly what it can and can't do.

And it was made to hold up this sign.

I'm sorry that we can't present to you today the sign that was there.

This was a really important site.

This sign meant a lot to the people uh that occupied it every day.

It was one of the original places that were Brennan had uh Brennan's had started.

I think um when you evaluate how much of the signage uh has been taken down on Bourbon Street.

It used to be a place in history where people would say, okay, let's go look at the lights on on Bourbon Street.

Those lights are gone.

This is not an an attempt to get more people uh and make more profit.

It's not a safety issue.

The the getting more people on the second block of Bourbon Street, I don't think uh that's not the purpose of what we're trying to do.

We're trying to really make something special on this corner the way it was, you know, historically.

Uh and I'd appreciate an opportunity to come and I don't know why they wouldn't want to see a proper representation of all the wonderful things that a sign like this would be back.

The staff report did not include uh a signage that's like uh right around the corner.

Uh Felix's or or ACME actually just got approved uh to restore some to put a sign there.

Uh so we'd like that opportunity too.

So after reading the staff report, we'd like a a chance to respond and really make a good effort to to convince you all that this is actually a very good idea.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board.

Uh just a note, Mr.

Williams.

Um, there was at least two of the images that were shown in the retired drawings that do show at least some reference to the original sign.

Yes, sir.

So that was already inside the packet.

Um not sure how much further you what other visual imagery you would have to do.

The visual imagery is not just this building, but the signs that were on Bourbon Street and how lit up they were and how great look look at what's going on right now in the three the three blocks, the first, the second, the third, and the fourth, they have all the first, the second, the third, I have all the flags that are there just to sell can get back to celebrating Bourbon Street.

So I mean, and I'd like to be have an opportunity to convince you to do that.

I was just asking particular to the images that you're referring to, and if it was included in a packet, and I'm just noting that it was.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I was just gonna say I found the photos on uh I think page 63.

Um also the shutters are different back then.

Would be nice if you did those shutters instead of the proposed ones, but um if we're gonna make that argument.

Um I and it also had an awning that was uh you know not part of the design.

So there's lots of other elements of the design that I think are you were picking and choosing um the time in history, and that doesn't necessarily go with SHIPO's uh in standards.

So agreed.

Which is not before us on this board.

So we're not SHIPARES.

Madam Chair, if uh motions in order.

Any other questions from the board?

I see.

So just as a point of clarity for I know there were some points of opposition, Nathan and I appreciate where you're coming from in terms of it being hit heard.

Just as precedent, we've generally granted that initial deferral from applicants when it requested if they want a minute package.

So not it's not negating what you guys may have prevent uh presented, but of uh BCA document number one oh five dash twenty five on motion for thirty data for at the request of the applicant's representative.

Second.

Thank you with regards to BCA docket one zero five dash two five has been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer the item thirty days at the request of the applicant.

Roll call vote, Ty James.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Yes.

Ramiro Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yay.

And Candace Forrest, yay.

Five years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Yeah, where's Chick fil A?

Thirty minutes.

All right.

Sorry about that.

We're trying to make sure we accommodate you guys at the same time.

So madam Chair, if we do a thirty minute recess.

Second that motion.

Commissioner Jane, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to recess for thirty minutes.

Returning at let's just say one forty-five.

Roll call vote, Ty James.

Yes.

Yes.

Ramiro Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez?

Yes.

And Candice Forest.

Yes.

Five Ya's, no nays.

The motion carries.

We're in recess, returning at one forty-five PM.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Um, and thank you everybody for your patience.

Can um would you all consider a motion to return from recess?

So please it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Alvarez to return from recess, rocal vote, Tad James.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez?

Yay.

And Candace Forrest, yay.

Four yes, no nays.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

The next item is item twelve, BZA Docket 10625 for the property at 1714 Shirley Drive.

This request is for variances to permit the creation of lots with insufficient lot width and insufficient lot area in conjunction with a resubdivision.

Proposed lot A1 is requesting is proposing a lot width of 28.5 feet and requesting a waiver of 10.5 feet, and they are requesting a lot area of 3,989.89 square feet and requesting a waiver of 410.11 square feet.

The request for proposed lot A2 is identical.

The variants would confer special privilege.

The variants would alter the essential character, strict adherent adherence would not result in a demonstrable hardship, and the request is primarily for the convenience or profit of the owner.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested waivers.

The two smaller multifamily dwellings add obtainable housing options in alignment with the city goals for increased housing supply, neighborhood scale density, and affordable rental opportunities.

The development is compatible with the neighborhood character.

It will meet the height, the setback and architectural requirements.

It will comply with drainage and design standards.

It will match the scale and rhythm of nearby neighborhoods.

The request enhances rather than disrupt the existing fabric.

You know, within three mile radius of Shirley Drive, there's about 2350 to 2750 residential lots between 25 and 30 feet.

This represents 11% of all the lots in District C.

While most of these lots occur in Elders Point, um, it also supports a well-established and historical accepted pattern in district C for lots 25 to 30 feet wide for residential lots.

Now, by contrast, within the one or two mile radius, there's only about a half of point of percentage of lots that are 25 feet to 30 feet wide, which really supports my proposal, which will not overdensify or alter the character of the media neighborhood.

Instead, it responsibly introduces obtainable, historically appropriate lot sizes that already exist widely in district C.

That's the end of your time, Mr.

Jackson.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 106-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

I did have one question.

I know you were discussing the um when you were going through the hardship discussion.

I kind of wanted to get back to that point.

Um as the property is resubdivided, there is still the ability.

What you're seeking to do is to put two multi-fam, two two-family units on each property.

One two family per lot.

Yes.

But it you would still have the ability, even if it's resubdivided, to do single family housing on those lots.

Correct.

So I'm where I'm struggling is the hardship question, given that there is still the ability to develop a use on the property.

So there's been a lot of blight on Shirley Drive.

If you take a look at the block that I'm requesting in the 1700 block, the four smallest lots in the neighborhood are my neighbors.

And my proposal for multifamily dwelling helps reduce the possibility of blight, it improves the neighborhood stability, and it also increases tax revenues for the city.

I mean, I I guess my I think the arguments can be made the same whether it was a two-family unit or a single family.

So I think where I'm having the question is the distinction between putting a single unit versus putting the two-family.

What is it that makes it a hardship to not have a two-family unit?

Because your response really can apply to either option, because you still get the same benefit, whether it's one unit or two.

While albeit the same benefit may be there, uh it reduces the support of the housing goals for the city.

And look, district C ranges from the Garden District to the East Riverside District, right?

If you take a look at housing near Orange Street, which values anywhere from a half a million to 1.2 million dollars, and rents are absorbently high, putting multifamily here on Shirley Drive will make it obtainable and more affordable places for people to live in New Orleans.

Yeah.

And just a quick um one more, just a quick question, and this may be better for staff, just trying to look at it on the um, I don't know if this is part of the report, but in that area, is it primarily um multifamily?

Like is it primarily um two-family dwellings along that um that stretch of Shirley?

I'm just trying to see what's in context with the the neighborhood.

Sure, I can look at that.

Just give me one moment.

Okay.

My um my struggle is with you said, district, I'm forget where the district is because district C is all over the place.

But in the clarify one thing, he did mention that it's warehouse district.

Um, excuse me, he mentioned that as garden district.

That's the Lore Garden.

Lower Garden District is district B.

That's not district C in terms of council district.

So but that doesn't even get into this.

But but the thing is council districts really have zero applicability.

Everything we're looking at within the CZO applies to how we're looking at the use, excuse me, the zoning district that applies within this footprint.

I understand what you're using as an argument related to citywide and how we're trying to address affordable housing, but at the end of the day, what we're trying to still we have to still come up with a justification of state why the density should be proposed on this site, considering the constraints of your footprint in terms of the the and and also the prevailing development pattern for the block face.

And when you're looking at 1714, it's a 57-foot lot, 1722, 57-foot lot, 1732, 57-foot lot, 1740, 1744, 54 and 58, all 57 foot lots.

The smallest lot in the 1700 block, we're talking 1700 and 1708, which are 40 feet.

So to cut one of the at least as far as the 1700 block of Shirley Drive is concerned, take one of the prevailing footprints of 57 feet and cut it in half under the guise or the argument of we want to add density for affordable housing.

To me, it doesn't cut the mustard because it goes directly toward the profit of the homeowner, which is something that can't be taken into consideration.

Um I wouldn't have a problem with it if the CZO allowed it, but the fact that it doesn't is what gives me pause.

And without a true plan showing the intended development on site, I think I did see one reference drawing that was marked as retired within the report, and that home only has one off-street park install proposed.

That becomes an an entirely different issue within itself, um, because there's no way to provide off-street parking for each one of those units if you're gonna have two units on the same lot.

Right.

And you can't stack them.

Two things small um home, small affordable homes, right?

Uh there are different guidelines and rules for small multi-family affordable.

But you're not doing multi-family, you're only doing doubles, correct?

But doubles not multi-family?

No.

And can I ask the board to consider one more thing?

So is Shirley Drive's really just a neighborhood.

I mean, you're planning.

So here's a you gotta so let me just give you some guardrails on what we have to look at.

There's nine criteria we're looking at that establish hardship to substantiate what you're requesting.

Okay.

We're drilling down on those nine questions that's in this document where the staff really doesn't give any supporting points really on those on those nine criteria.

Everything you're looking at is a justification in terms of what your gut may tell you about development pattern should be versus what development pattern can allow for.

And I'm I'm gonna come back to the same point again.

Putting two families on a sliver lot where off-street parking can't even be provided along this type of a stretch really only just hurts the neighboring properties.

Because now with a 28-foot lot frontage, excuse me.

Um, it's less it's roughly 28.

And if you did a single off-street park install, the only other place you can provide a stall on street is in front of the neighboring property.

And I'm not saying that everybody owns the street in front of them, but you then ininherently cause a density issue of how it may work along that stretch.

So we have to look at this holistically, not just on from helping to get housing in certain areas.

When are we creating uh false impact on a larger impact on density for this neighborhood, especially for this stretch, when it may not necessarily be the best application of use for this area?

I understand.

I guess for me, um I'm looking at a more of a broader perspective.

You know, when I take a look at the nine point criteria, I see the word district several times in your questions.

Zoning district.

It doesn't say that.

It says same district.

If you look at number two, right, it said enjoyed by properties in the same district, zoning district.

It doesn't say that.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna we've been doing this for we've been doing this for 14 years.

Stop just going by what's on the question.

So the so you have to understand how zoning just I get it, but it's strictly zoning districts.

That's why we're looking at this exclusively.

If you go to number four, it does the same thing, correct?

This is structures in the same district.

Right, but what you gotta remember is that this is taken from the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

So there is an inherent reference to zoning and not council district or any any other use.

It's you have to relate it back to what the document is for in the document, is the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

Yeah, we're looking at it from a zoning lens sitting on the zoning board.

I understand.

I understand.

And I'm inherently looking at it from over 3,025 to 30 foot residential lots in the LGRs.

Right?

And as I put on my note to the staff, I mean, right at twin 1208, 1210, 1212, Farragus Street, we allowed the 25 by 118 resubdivision there.

If you take a look at Casa Kelva Street, which is all less than a half a mile away from Shirley Drive, we allowed another 25 by 118 resubdivision just recently.

So when I'm asking is because of what I'm seeing, what has already been approved?

Difference different development pattern.

Like I like I started off with looking at the street.

The block face that you're talking about, where every other lot is the same standard 57 foot lot, you would be an outlier.

Now, I'm all I think you should take that 57 foot lot, put that two family on there because it's much needed.

I'm sure it would probably look great.

But to try to create two substandard lots where each lot would be reports at 1600 square feet smaller than the next smallest lot.

Um kind of creating more of a problem that that's doesn't even exist right now.

And again, it kind of points to the profit of the owner, developer.

Which yeah.

And even if it were to be re-subdivided, which um even in the staff report, they do reference that you still could do the resubdivide and do um two lots, but to just have two single family units.

So it would it still breaks down the same either one two family unit on the existing lot or to have two single family units on the subdivided lots.

Mm-hmm.

So can I ask the board a question?

Why was the MIZ created?

The what?

I'm sorry.

The MIZ.

What is what is it that you're referring to?

Why is the why was the MIZ created?

Well, that MIZ is also being challenged right now in terms of its viability.

So I don't know how much that really but again that's not here to talk to it anyway.

Because the MIZ doesn't apply to this site.

Okay.

I respectfully take whatever decision you make.

Uh I appreciate the opportunity to have a resubdivision for two single families.

I really appreciate that suggestion.

And um the opportunity to possibly build a a two-family there, uh I welcome that too as well.

I welcome that too.

Although I think the property would be underutilized, it'd be 17 almost 3,000 underutilized square feet there.

If I went with the 40 foot minimum.

But I get it.

I appreciate the experience.

Any more questions from the board?

And let me clarify it's the MIZ.

I think we may have said it a little backwards.

I've been slipping up saying numbers backwards and letters backwards, so I'm just making sure.

Um, in regards to BZA Docket 106-25, I move uh to deny the request for the waiver of Article 11, Section 11.3.8.1, minimum lot width.

And um again, the Article 11 section 11.3.8.1, minimum lot width.

Uh accepting staff's recommendation and finding that the uh standards variance of Article 4, Section 4.6.f of the comprehensive zoning ordinance hasn't been met.

Second.

Roll call vote, Todd James.

Yay.

Jose Alvarez.

Yes, Ramiro Diaz.

I kind of missed all the discussion.

So I'm gonna do that.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yay.

And Candace Forrest, EA, four years, um abstention.

Is that appropriate?

So what is what would you because he's here, so how do we not voting?

Just hold up.

But I mean he's here.

I missed all the questions.

I understand, but I don't want to say absent when he's physically here.

So I just need to figure out what's the appropriate way.

I mean, I did read.

Unless someone tells me to say he's absent, I'm not gonna just say that.

Yeah, we're looking into this.

Thank you.

But in general, you guys have two options, and it's either voting on something, and you can only recuse if there's a financial issue, or like or if you go to the bathroom or something.

Well, I did read the report, and I concur with what y'all said.

So I just didn't think it was fair to the applicant.

So is that I just need a verbal yes.

Thank you.

So uh four five years, no nays, the motion carries.

Next item.

Okay.

All right.

We are going to begin with the extension requests, the new business for extension requests.

The next item is BZA docket 05822 for the property located at 4040 Canal Street.

The applicant previously received an approval of a variance request from the provisions of Article 15, section 15.3.a dot one, table 15-2 to permit the construction of a mixed use development with insufficient corner side yard setback.

The applicant is requesting an extension of time for previously granted variants pursuant to Article 4, Section 46G2 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to allow an additional one-year extension to November 17th, 2026.

Uh, this is Nico Marcello on behalf of CSC Investments.

Um, so we got an additional um extension before, and we had just some difficulties starting construction, but right now it is under construction.

We broke ground a few months ago.

Um and we should have everything completed or up to the substantial construction phase by next year.

Is there anyone else here in support of the uh applicant for the extension request for BZA Docket 058-22?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Seeing none is there a motion.

Just confirming is this a one year?

Um one year should be fine.

If I could ask you all a question real quick, what do y'all look for in uh extensive construction exactly?

So Emily stepped away.

Um like a definition.

No, I would I would check with the department in terms of how they review it from some level of compliance.

Okay, thank you.

I think Mr.

McNamara's in the back is a decent resource on this topic, so I will just check with him to confirm.

Is there a motion?

Yeah.

Uh madam chair, regards to BZA docket number 058-22.

My uh motion is for one year extension of time.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 058-22, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the extension request for one year.

Roll call vote, Todd James.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Yes.

Ramiro Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yay.

And Candace Forrest, yay.

Five Y's, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BZA Docket 10323 for the property located at 729 Contest Street.

The applicant previously received an approval for a variance request from the provisions of Article 10, Section 103A, Table 10-2 to permit the retention of an addition to an existing standard restaurant resulting in insufficient minimum open space ratio.

This was an after-the-fact condition.

The applicant is requesting an extension of time to for a previously granted variance pursuant to Article 4, Section 46 G2 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to allow an additional two-year extension to December 14th, 2027.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 0 103-23?

Good afternoon.

Nicole Weber, 2131 Bienville Street.

Um, this is part of a two-phase project.

We've completed the renovation of the balconies.

Um that has been closed out by the VCC.

However, the additions to the building which were approved to be retained.

Um, we still have to go through the VCC or review process.

We've submitted twice, most recently as of September, um, and still have not received um a date to go before the architectural committee, so that's why I'm asking for this extension.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for the extension request for BZA docket 103-23?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

If a motion is in order, yes, proceed.

Madam Chair, in regards to BZA docket number 103-23.

One motion is for a two-year extension as uh requested.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 103-23, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the requested extension request of two years.

Roll call vote, Todd James.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Yes.

Ramiro Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez?

Yay.

And Candace Forrest, yay.

Five years, no nays, the motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BZA Docket 01124 for the property located at 1100 Search Street.

The applicant previously received approval of a variance request from the provisions of Article 15, Section 153A1, Table 15-2 to permit the construction of a multifamily dwelling with insufficient lot area.

The applicant is requested an extension of time for a previously granted granted variance pursuant to the provisions of Article 4, Section 46G2 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to allow an additional two-year extension to March 1st, 2027.

Good afternoon, board.

Zach Smith 1000 South Norman C.

Francis, on behalf of the ownership team, uh would hopefully get your approval for the two-year extension.

Just as an update, this was uh appealed by some folks in the civil district court.

It was thrown out, but it has been and it's currently on the docket, and so we are waiting for that to play out.

So we would hope that the two-year extension can be granted.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in support of the applicant for the extension request for BZA Docket 011-24?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Motions in order.

Yes, proceed.

Madam Chair for BZA Docket number 011-24.

My motion is for a two-year deferral as requested.

Two years two year extension as requested.

Excuse me.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 011-24, it's been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the requested extension of two years.

Roll call vote, Todd James.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Yes.

Ramiro Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yay.

And Candace Forrest.

Yay.

Five years, no nays.

The motion carries.

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

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

Yes.

Rules and procedures for public hearings, appeals of decisions of the director of the Department of Safety and Permits.

The following procedures shall be observed during the appeal hearing.

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

The representative of the Department of Safety and Permits shall present to the board the decision which is under appeal, the relevant code sections relating to the appeal, and any information explaining the department's decision.

The applicant or representative will speak next.

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

But in no event shall the cumulative presentation total by applicants or their representatives exceed 15 minutes.

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

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

The applicant or representative will be allowed a rebuttal.

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

For an exceptional case, the time limitations may be extended by the presiding officer with the approval of the board.

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

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

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

Standard of review.

The Board of Zoning Adjustments has the power to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is an error in any order requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

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

The applicant's appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustments is governed by Section 5-408 of the City of New Orleans Home Rue Charter.

The next item on the agenda is BZA Docket 10725 for the property at 4737 through 4739 Dreash Street, 1905 through 1907 Bordeaux Street.

The next item is BCA Docket 108-25 for the property at 1923 Broadway Street.

Good afternoon.

This is Dan McMahon, Chief Zoning Official for the City of New Orleans.

It's my understanding that the applicant in this matter has requested a continuance or deferral, rather, of this item.

And the applicant is here and can speak on that matter.

Susan Johnson, 2822, LePage Street, Town of Carrollton Watch.

I am not paid to be here.

Yes, I requested a deferral.

Please.

I can give an explanation if desired.

I still need some documentation from the assessor's office.

Is there anyone here?

Um anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 108-25.

Anyone here in opposition?

Good afternoon.

My name is Francois Baruch.

I own the property on 1923, 1925 Broadway.

We're reinstating the whole homestead exemption.

We are in the process of adding that.

I have all the documentation.

And uh it's a waste of time.

For the record, the Department doesn't take a position on the request for deferral.

We wouldn't note, however, for the record that the basis of the appeal was an alleged fraud in the application for homestead exemption.

I don't think that's a proper uh a proper appeal nor proper review for this board.

Board can decide what it wants to do with the request for the deferral, but on its face, I think it's uh the uh the application fails to say the basis upon which relief may be granted.

Is there anyone else here in opposition?

The applicant has an opportunity to rebut.

I raised my hand uh uh too slowly a little while ago, but uh from what I understand, um the new owner, while we appreciate the renovation done on the house.

The layout of the house is exactly like my house.

Well, it was exactly like my house was, is I've owned mine house for over 49 years.

And there is um there are a few private owners on the on the block.

Most of the buildings around there are apartment buildings have been there over 50 years.

Um, but it would seem to me that it looks like this is going to be one of those instances where uh this is just supposition, where because of the additional bedrooms that are that were uh put into the house, there may be some off-street parking that may be requested.

And uh well, we've got enough problems in the neighborhood.

Uh I've got there was a couple of little old ladies in their 80s that couldn't make it, but uh I talked to the lady who was handling this, and she said to have them send in uh their opposition to any changes as far as parking goes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh questions from the board.

Um I know that there's a request for a deferral.

Um I'm having a a little bit of a hesitation only because of the comments on the rebuttal stating anticipated.

I think the word was supposition.

And again, if you saw the application, the application was based on someone's supposition regarding the status of a homestead exemption.

There's nothing on on the department's end of it.

It's not really a decision on the department.

The materials were provided to the department, department reviewed those materials, and Ms.

Johnson believes that this the homestead exemption is in error.

But again.

And I and I think that's why I'm having, because I didn't get to finish.

I'm sorry, I got distracted, but I was having some hesitation because the initial statement, you're correct, um, Mr.

McNamara, I know you were indicating um reference to the homestead exemption, but the comments that were just made were making reference to possible violations because there's anticipation of parking violations as well as um anticipation of dorm uh the the dormitory scenario.

I'm trying to think of the appropriate word.

So my concern is we are trying to, we're holding, I feel as though we're in a holding pattern for a potential violation as opposed to something that is founded.

And my hesitation is just trying to figure out how we continue to go forward with those um statements.

I'd like to make a remark, please.

Uh the Are you indicating something different than what is before us?

Because my question is really trying to understand if we should take what action we need to take at this point.

So unless you're going to suggest that one of the statements that's been made is incorrect, I don't know that there's a I don't know that there's anything that would be added to the conversation.

I I have asked for I asked for a deferral from staff, and it's been established that requests for deferral is routine from the BCA on the first go.

So my question is.

Uh how is this how is the situation different?

It's different in the sense that what we've just been made aware of is one, something whether or not it's properly before us, and then two, whether or not we're dealing with an issue that has not occurred yet.

So that's what brought up my concern because as it's been stated by one of the um, and one of the questions that came up was whether or not the gentleman was speaking as the rebuttal or if he was speaking in support, because I did ask for rebuttal.

And so I just wanted to clarify.

So if that is in case that he spoke as the rebuttal, then that's speaking on behalf of the applicant.

So my question was if the statements being made are accurate, then I'm questioning whether this is properly before us if there is an accusation of something that has not yet occurred.

Okay.

Well, that was that was not a rebuttal.

From the neighbor.

Can I go ahead and clarify that?

What I said when I walked up to the mic was that I was late in raising my hand in support of the question.

I understand there was no rebuttal that was given then, because when I asked for rebuttal, Ms.

Johnson didn't come forward.

And I saw the two of you talking, so I assume that you were speaking as her on her behalf as the person's replying in rebuttal.

I wasn't speaking on her behalf.

I was just speaking as a neighbor that you know is concerned about what might happen.

So you're actually attempting to relitigate your presentation versus what we're trying to deal with procedurally.

So for the sake of continuity of what's requested, Ms.

Johnson, what do you have as your rebuttal right now on this item if he was not speaking on your behalf?

Um I don't have a rebuttal, Mr.

James.

I I'm just um I'm sticking with my first position of asking for a continuance.

So, Mr.

McMara, related to this gentleman's permit on that property, is his permit being tied up in any capacity?

I mean, we have we have issued the permit in this case.

Johnson is basing an appeal on what she is her belief that there's something, there's an issue with the gentleman's homestead exemption.

I got no, I understand what we're doing.

Which is not a decision of the Department of Safety and Permits.

So no, we are not, we are not holding up this gentleman's permit at all on the basis of this, what I would deem as a frivolous appeal.

Got it.

Is there room for another comment, please?

I didn't hear what the gentleman.

I don't I don't know what's happening.

Yeah.

Yeah.

There's there's a whole lot of interjection right now.

So the reason why I was asking that question, Mr.

McMahon is just to confirm that he's not impacted from his ability to do whatever work may be going on at the property.

He should not be.

No, he we've we've issued the permit.

And um, I guess to go back to the point of um the request for a deferral.

Um we really don't have a lot of information in front of us other than you know what we've discussed, and um in the interest of of time, I think um, and I'm only one board member, one commissioner, so my comments were basically me having some reservations just based upon what information we have now.

But um, in the interest of time, I think given our posture has typically been um an initial deferral request has been permitted.

Um I don't I don't see any reason to not go forward with that um that position.

And I would just further add, Ms.

Johnson, if you're going if you're doing research on this, I think it is very I think there's a burden on your side to make sure that we are applying to something that is within a purview of this board.

I I promise I'll research that this and and withdraw the appeal if it appears to me to be unfounded and I'll be conscientious about that.

I I appreciate your uh consideration.

Okay.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Is there a motion?

Yeah, for motion is in order.

Yep, proceed.

Yeah.

Uh Madam Chair, for BZA docket 108-25.

My motion is for a 30-day deferral.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 108-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Diaz to defer this item 30 days.

Roll call vote, Todd James.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Yes.

Ramiro Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yay.

And Candace Forrest, yay.

Five years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BZA Docket 10925 for the property at 1407 South Carolton.

Good afternoon again.

Dan MacMarrow in case number BZA 109-25 1407 South Carolton Avenue.

At issue is an appeal of zoning verification letter number 24-1348 issued in February 12th of 2025 for 1407 South Carolton Avenue.

The zoning determination letter determined that the proposed medical marijuana pharmacy slash dispensary is classified as a retail goods establishment, a use permitted in the HUB1 Historic Urban Neighborhood Business District.

Appellant raises three assignments of error, each is going to be addressed through the course of this.

Contrary to the assertions of the appellant, the zoning verification letter correctly applies a comprehensive zoning ordinance and should be affirmed.

So the facts of this case regarding the structure, 1407 South Carolton is an existing nonconforming commercial building, having, according to the Orleans Assessors website and the project description as having a total square footage of 7,555 square feet.

The applicant has uh indicated that they will be using 50 uh 204 square feet for their commercial purposes.

The construction uh the structure predates the current comprehensive zoning ordinance.

The applicant requested a zoning verification to receive building permits to renovate the existing building without any structural changes for the use of a retail medical marijuana facility.

Going to the legal principles at play the use classification under CZO 26.3 generic use definitions.

While the CZO does not list medical marijuana pharmacy or dispensary as named a named use in the in Article 12, it does not.

And when a use is not expressly listed, uh CZO 26.3A governs, which says generic use categories are intended to capture uses that share common functional or physical characteristics.

When a use is not listed by a specific name in the use table, um the zoning uh administrator determines that it falls within a generic use category is permitted or prohibited in accordance with the zoning district's allowance for the generic use category.

A retail goods establishment is permitted in HU-B1.

The CZO table 12-1 lists retail goods establishments as permitted uses uh in HUB1.

The department's uh classification therefore places the use in a category that is expressly allowed in the district.

Turning to the uh the other classifications of such businesses, the North American uh industry classification system is the national economic classification standard used by government agencies and uh industry.

The NAICS places both pharmacies and cannabis dispensaries within Sector 44 to 45 retail trade, differing only by retail subtype.

Pharmacies have 446110, cannabis retailers 4591 tobacco, electronic cigarette, and other smoking supplier retails, including marijuana stores and medical or recreational.

Both of these again fall under retail trade.

This reinforces the department's placement of the proposed use within the retail goods establishment uh generic category.

The NAICS framework supports the uh department's functional analysis and demonstrates that the classification is not novel, unusual or restrained.

It is conditions with industry practices and national coding standards.

While pharmacies and dispensaries uh are retail good retail goods establishments uh are defined.

I'm sorry, I got a little typo.

Uh pursuit to the CZO, a business that provides physical goods, products, and other merchandise directly to the per consumer where such goods are typically available for immediate purchase and removal from the premises by a purchaser.

Retail goods establishment does not include adult uses.

Retail goods establishment may not sell alcoholic beverages unless retail sales of package alcoholic beverages is allowed within the district, and a separate approval is obtained for such use of retail goods establishment that sells food products such as a delicatessen bakery or grocery may offer ancillary seating for consumption of food on the premises.

So also that clearly falls within the retail, the activities described in the application clearly fall under that category.

You can also look at the examination of small box variety store, which further elucidate elucidates types of businesses that are considered retail establishments.

Pursuant to CZO 26, a small uh a small variety store is a retail store between 5,000 and 15,000 square feet that sells at a retail assortment uh sells at retail, an assortment of physical goods, products, or merchandise directly to the consumer, including food or beverages for off-premises consumptions, household products, personal grooming health products, and other consumables.

The ordinance further provides that the small box variety store does not include smallbox stores that contain a prescription pharmacy.

So clearly indicating under that section that it is contemplated as a retail goods establishment, but it was distinguishing the small box store from uh variety store from other small box stores, but both still being retail goods establishments.

Turning to what I think was the crux of some of the argument was regarding the floor area limitations that have been addressed in the appeal.

Under CZO Article 12.2.b.1A, commercial uses up to 5,000 square feet are permitted by right.

Pursuant to 12.2.b.1B, commercial uses of 5,000 square feet or more require conditional use approval, except in grocery stores, which are up to 10,000.

Pursuant to 12.2.b.1C, commercial uses over 10,000 square feet of total floor area are prohibited.

This applies only to new construction as of to the effective date of the CZO.

Commercial uses that locate within an existing structure as of the effective date of the CZO that are over 10,000 square feet of total floor area require conditional use approval.

So in going to the particular assignments of error, contrary to the assertion of the appellant, the zoning verification fully complies with the CZO.

Applicant requested a zoning verification verification letter to receive building permits to renovate the existing building without any structural changes for the use of a retail medical marijuana pharmacy/slash dispensary.

In reaching its conclusion, the zoning verification clearly examined the zoning district, the proposed use, the applicable classification as a retail goods establishment, and that the zoning district allows for that.

These are specific reasons and sufficient reasons.

The ordinance does not require a narrative expansion.

This argument was with is without merit.

Turning to the second assignment of error is that the zoning verification letter fails to acknowledge that the use requires conditional use approval under Section 12.2.b.1B.

It also alleges misrepresentation of square footage.

I'm sorry.

This assignment is based on a flawed reading of the CZO.

Appellant argues that the size of the building at 1407 South Carrollton prohibits the proposed use outright or invalidates the zoning verification letter.

This is incorrect.

The prohibit prohibitions in CZO 12.2.b apply to new construction and not to build existing structures that are nonconformity.

The ordinance explicitly limits the prohibition to new uh buildings constructions constructed after the CZO's effective date.

Pursuant to the again, pursuant to the CZO, and I'm reading this again, commercial uses over 10,000 square feet of total floor area are prohibited.

This applies to new construction as of effective date of the ordinance.

Grocery stores are exempt from the prohibition.

Grocery stores over 10,000 square feet in area require conditional use approval.

Commercial uses that locate within uh in an existing structure as of the effective date of this ordinance that are over 10,000 square feet of total flare floor area require conditional use approval.

Here is no dispute that the property in question existed prior to the enactment of the current CZO.

It's in further undisputed that the property is less than 10,000 square feet.

Lastly, the use is not a grocery store.

Applying these facts, the CZO does not require that the appellant seek conditional use approval.

This assignment is without merit.

Lastly, the appellant argues that this the zoning verification letter improperly classifies the use as a retail goods establishment.

The department correctly determined that the proposed use is classified as a retail goods establishment.

Applying the generic use definitions in the CZO, Section 26.3A, the definition of a retail goods establishment, its similar uses are contemplated as retail use, and that the North American classific uh industry classification system all consider pharmacies and dispensaries to be retail uses.

The department cannot have been be said to have erred when classifying the proposed use as such.

The classification is both reasonable and textually supported and is permitted in the HUB1.

In conclusion, the zoning verification letter correctly stated that the determination and the reasons for it in compliance with CZO Section 4.9.b.

The zoning verification letter properly classified the use as a retail goods establishment establishment and correctly identified such use is permitted in the HUB1 zoning district.

The analysis comports with the CZO and the functional and industry standard classifications of cannabis dispensaries is retail establishments.

Lastly, the property in question is a legal nonconforming structure under 10,000 square feet not requiring conditional use approval.

For these reasons, the appeal must be denied in its entirety.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present.

Justin, real quick before you start.

I know I have a card saying it sometime was ceded to you, but just trying to confirm.

It's just one person seating time to you.

I think so.

I think that's all I need.

Got it.

Well.

If I need more than 10, we'll have somebody else.

Okay.

All right.

Justin Schmidt, 1506 7th Street, on behalf of the applicant or applicants, just say NYX and all.

With respect to my friend, uh Mr.

McNamara, I through my letter and disagree and show you why I believe he's come to some of the wrong conclusions.

And the best way to do that is to start on page two of my letter of October 31st, where we go through the assignment of error, the assignments of error.

First assignment of error is that the zoning verification letter.

Uh is deficient of Article 4, Section 4.9 point B of the CZO.

While and a copy of that is attached of the decision is attached as the decision to my uh correspondence.

Um it does not provide uh what Mr.

McNamara just went through.

And section 4.9.b of the CZO requires that.

For us to be able to defend this correctly, we needed to be able to know all these reasons.

And we didn't get that.

All we got was it's retail.

And that's not enough.

It's it's zoned this, and then you can look at the zoning verification letter, it just simply says it is uh it's it's it's retail use under this, and so we're going to count it as a retail use.

And that was no further indication.

Uh just a conclusory statement.

A medical marijuana pharmacy dispensary is permitted as a retail goods establishment in an HUB1 is conclusory and does not meet the requirements of section 4.9.b of the CZO.

Um moving on to the more substantive issues in the in my assignments error uh the assignment of error number two, which deals with the 5,000 square feet.

And I'd like you to look, I'm gonna take you here to page um.

This is gonna be page seven, going on to page eight of my uh letter of August October 31st.

And you'll see I've I've carved out the exact definition of section 12.2.b.1 commercial use floor area limitations.

And Mr.

McNamara has gone through in his letter and has explained the A, B, and C.

If you read A, B, and C, you have to read them together.

We have a a doctrine in the civil law that is you read documents or you read legislation or ordinances or um statutes, what's called in pary material that in in compared to one another.

And you can see that section one has the commercial use floor area limitations, and it says in historic urban neighborhood districts, the floor area of a commercial usage is limited as follows.

A commercial uses are permitted up to 5,000 square feet of total floor area unless a conditional use is required.

Okay.

So that's the first situation that you have.

So you have a commercial use up to 5,000 square feet permitted by right.

That's not what we have here.

We have 5204.

So then you get to B.

Conditional uses, conditional use approvals required for any commercial use of 5,000 square feet of floor area or more, with the exception of grocery stores.

Okay.

Now, this isn't a grocery store.

Mr.

McNamara has said this isn't a grocery store.

So far, at 5204, we are in B.

Now, Mr.

Where Mr.

McNamara seems to have lost his way is that when he gets to C, it says C is any commercial use over 10,000 square feet of total floor area is prohibited.

Well, this isn't over 10,000 square feet.

And nobody's saying it's over 10,000 square feet except, and so C isn't even applicable to this argument.

We don't get past B because we have a use that is under 10,000 square feet.

It is over 5,000 square feet and under 10,000 square feet.

It's 5204 square feet.

Where he says this applies only to new construction as of the effective date of the ordinance, that is for those items that C is applicable for.

That's not for A, B and C.

That is for commercial uses over 10,000 square feet.

So we don't get to C and the restrictions of having to be new construction only applying to it for that.

So we are back to subsection B, which says a conditional use required for any commercial use of 5,000 square feet of area or more.

That's what is required.

A conditional use is required, and that's that's our position.

You don't get to see, you see the table that I've carved down there.

This table was taken, it's an extract from the plan submitted and permitted.

These are not these are not the applicants' dimensions.

These are the dimensions that were submitted in the permit application, which the on the on the permit and the permits that were licensed, I mean that were permitted, approved, and built.

So that is that 5204 number is not ours, it is theirs.

So what what Mr.

McNamara is saying is, well, if it's if it's because it's it's an existing building, you only you only get up to you know a conditional use if it's over 10,000 square feet.

No, that's for grocery stores.

And I know this is the case because I dealt with this years and years ago when we were dealing with the um what what's now the the um fresh market at the corner of Louisiana and St.

Charles, the old Boltman funeral home.

That was a question of whether it was an existing and so forth, and that's where that language came from.

It has nothing to do with the fact that this is an existing building.

You only get to see if you're over 10,000 square feet.

Right now we're in B, and that's where we we really should stay.

The final discussion is on this discussion about retail goods.

And so Mr.

McNamara is correct when he takes the position that this is a retail establishment.

Anything that buys in that where you can walk in and buy something is a retail establishment.

But the threshold is not the national regulations.

We have to look at the local regulations.

And so when we're talking about what a retail goods establishment is, you put it on, you know, you put put your, you know, look at look at what the retail establishments that the zoning ordinance addresses.

Now, first of all, I think it's worth noting that in 2015, when the current zoning ordinance was drafted and adopted on August 12, 2015.

The discussion, medical marijuana wasn't even on the uh on the horizon.

It wasn't contemplated, it wasn't in existence.

So the the drafters of the the ordinance, the CZO at that time could not have even, you know, it's not that they didn't ignore it and just say, oh yeah, that's a retail establishment.

It wasn't on the table to be even considered.

This is something new in the last 10 years that has become a part of our vernacular.

Yes, there were dispensaries around, but they weren't disc they were very specific, Mr.

James.

I see you nodding your head.

This wasn't widespread, the the state legislation wasn't there like it is now.

Okay, so you can't say you can't come back and say that, oh yeah, the the city council in adopting this contemplated that retail uh that medical marijuana dispensary would fall into retail goods.

What happens is with these uses that aren't used that that don't have a specific use.

And you know, we we go to section 26.3, the rules of use, rules of generic use.

And it says, you know, B, a use that is not specifically listed in a zoning district does not fall within the use, the generic use definition as defined in this article, or is not interpreted as a generic is prohibited.

Okay.

So this is a prohibited use.

And what I'm gonna try to explain is if you have a continuum on the uses within, not nationally, but within the city of New Orleans, you have permitted uses and you have conditional uses or permitted uses on this side and conditional uses.

And if you look at at where, you know, you if you're going to line up everything, all the different retail goods or uses on there, you would move you the you know, the basic, very basic rudimentary retail shop, clothing shops, all those things, definitely on the permitted side of the continuum.

But what happens is when you get, as you move to the right, as you get more intense uses, you start seeing those things that are more intense and that are more like the alcoholic beverage uses, like the bars, like packaged liquor stores, like adult stores, like just real quick.

You have you have one additional minute.

I know we had up to is that five or fifteen?

It was at eleven because it's five plus three and three.

I do have a second card that seeded time to you, so I'm just making sure whatever.

Okay.

So anyway, what I'm saying is if you look at the on the continuum, this is a use that is closer to the alcoholic beverage uses and the adult uses than the clothing store or the dime store or you know, those other type of retail uses.

Yes, in the in the in the grand scheme, like my letter says, in the Venn the Venn diagram universe, this is in that, you know, this falls within a retail.

But you can't look at the national thing.

The NCIAS are not specific enough.

We have to look at the uses that the CZO contemplates as what is a conditional use and what is this.

And when you look at that on the continuum, you see that this is far closer to the conditional use, those retail uses that require a conditional use than those that don't require it.

And I'll uh catch up with everything else on rebuttal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZHAcket 109-25 that wishes to speak.

Hey, good afternoon.

My name is Betty DeMarco, and I am here today actually representing the Carrollton River Bend Neighborhood Association.

I live at 8221 Birch Street in Carrollton.

Um I gotta say, we would not be here today discussing this with you guys if the state of Louisiana had done the same thing that Arkansas, Mississippi, and Missouri did because the NOLA Cannabis, Creed C, and Good Day Farms do business in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Missouri.

All those states have restrictions on where medical marijuana dispensaries can be placed.

They have to be a thousand to eighteen hundred feet away from a church, a school, and a daycare center.

For some strange reason, Louisiana decided not to put that in any of the law that they wrote.

So that's my first question.

Then we come to the fact that the City Council, we had a dispensary open in 2018, but from 2015 to 2018, no one in this city or state ever thought about discussing with the community where these things ought to go.

If we had had a conditional use process for this 1407 South Carrollton, the neighbor next door might not be looking at an 18-foot lighted red sign next to their residence.

We might not have it next to a library.

We might not have a huge generator in the backyard of a friend of mine.

And we might be talking about whether or not the hours of this dispensary in our residential neighborhood should be 9 o'clock at night.

We have got a huge issue here, and it's been thrown to you guys and attorney McNamara to kind of figure this out for us, but we had no right.

The neighbors had nothing to say about any of this until we found this 5,000 square foot issue that we went after.

I'm going to add one thing, and then I'm going to be quiet about this.

A physician friend of mine asked me the other day, how do I get a patient to be able to receive medical marijuana who has no money?

I think he the doctor said I think he might be benefiting from a pain medicine, but he can't afford it.

So here we have a dispensary that's saying it's in the medical marijuana business, but we are going to disallow anyone that can't afford it, not covered under insurance.

So to me, I am questioning really what is this business about?

And if you go look at their website, you see a lot more on there about That's the end of your time, Mr.

Mark.

Watching a football game after you've gotten your gummies or your pot.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 109-25?

Hi, thank you.

And my name is Ryan Baim.

I'm at 809 Willow Street.

And I just wanted to speak from the perspective of a neighbor.

So my uh house shares uh the lot line shares with uh 4007 Carrollton, so I'm on the around the corner.

Um share a 120-foot fence line with um the parking lot of this establishment.

And um I uh agree that the the arguments um put forward have been convincing.

Um and from my perspective as a neighbor, what we have always been asking is for the conditional use process so that there can be some accountability and some kind of input from the neighborhood and from the neighbors who all surround this this location.

This is a quiet residential neighborhood.

Um I have two small children, um, and the idea of having a busy parking lot at 9A at 9 o'clock at night, which is the proposed hours, um, really doesn't work for the families that surround this uh this area.

Um, again, as we said before, too, there's a library next door.

Um, those those that's the context that surrounds um this proposed development.

And I just want to represent that perspective.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 109-25?

Hi.

Good evening.

Uh, my name is Kevin Berger.

I'm at 1427 South Carrollton, so just next door, and uh some of the things that she referred to are actually accurate.

Um, my wife and I have been there for about 30 years.

Um we drove up before there was an existing building.

It was an ophthalmology office and a dentist office, quiet, uh, minimal amount of cost of patients back and forth, minimal traffic.

Uh now when we drive up, there's this huge, hideous sign that's gloring, uh, glaring all night long, 24 hours with this huge electrical panel box that's just hideous.

So as we try to make New Orleans prettier, this ain't doing it.

It's a problem.

Uh, secondly, there's some issues with uh parking that we definitely know are gonna happen because it's already tight.

Uh, the majority of the driveways there have like can limit take like one or two cars in them, and so we do have to park on the street.

So those hours of operation where they're gonna be there till nine, ten o'clock, and on the weekends, it's gonna cause all kinds of issues for us trying to park our vehicles.

Uh, as well, those hours of operations take away our ability to have a neighborhood that's enjoying the weekend, doing things in the evening without a business running up and down the street in front of your house.

Um, another problem is gonna be security because right now there's an open fence at the front of the building that leads directly to the back of the building.

It was taken down by the previous owners and the owners now have not put a fence back up, so it gives anyone access to that backyard, and we've actually had homeless people sleeping in the alley.

So for myself and my family, that's a huge concern because they're right beside my front porch.

Um, just some concerns with drugs being sold in our neighborhood.

Um, it's been a real peaceful neighborhood.

A lot of school kids back and forth.

Um, I mean, these kids go home to drugs in their families and in the neighborhoods.

Here was a spot where there were no drugs.

So really peaceful and something good for them to grow up with.

And in terms of notification and some of the things the company has done, they have not done any of it.

The notice that you guys sent out for this meeting was the first notice that I've received of the first piece of conversation I've had regarding this from that owner.

They're right next door to me.

They have never once stopped by, said, hey, we're doing this next door to your house.

Hope you like it.

Never once heard from them.

So I think they do a lot of things where they ask for forgiveness instead of permission.

They don't do the things right up front because I think they've come back to you guys several times and said, Oh, okay, we know we've so we went and got this permit for this.

So I think they need to be held accountable for all of those things.

And I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in support of the applicant?

Was my time ceded to Mr.

Schmidt?