Good morning.

I would like to call the Monday, February 9th special meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustments to order.

We'll begin with roll call.

Candace Forrest.

Present.

Todd James.

Present.

Tamara Agens is absent.

Jose Alvarez.

Present.

Ramiro Diaz is absent.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Present.

And Jason Richards.

Present.

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

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to adopt our minutes from last meeting.

Uh vote your screens.

It was second by uh oh, I'm sorry, second by Commissioner Alvarez.

Vote your screens.

Five years, no nays.

The motion carries.

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

if the meeting has not already been adjourned and will reconvene at approximately 2 p.m.

As a reminder to applicants, action that the board takes today will be released in the form of a disposition notice by February 19th and sent via email and mail to applicants as well as posted on the one-stop one-stop app for other interested parties.

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

Item 19, BZA 015-26 for the property at 937 Esplanade has been rendered moot.

We will now begin unfinished business for variances.

Will the chair please he 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 are persons in favor of the proposal will speak next and be allowed two minutes per speaker.

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

The applicant or representative will be allowed a rebuttal.

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

For an exceptional case, the time limitations may be extended by the presiding officer with the approval of the board.

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

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

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

Standard of review.

Lastly, the request for Article 224A, Table 22-1 for bicycle parking was incorporated back into the request after having previously been withdrawn.

Based on this report, the staff believes the requested variance of Article 153A1 Table 15-2 for minimum lot area meets nine of the nine criteria of the standards for variances of Article 46F.

Therefore, the staff recommends approval of the requested variance of lot area, subject to two provisos.

However, staff believes that the requested variances of Article 153A1, Table 15-2, minimum permeable open space.

Article 153A1, Table 15-2 for interior side yard setback.

And Article 15, 3A1, Table 15-2 for a rear yard setback, fail to meet standards 6, 8, and 9 of Article 46F, and that strict adherence would not result in a demonstrable hardship.

The variance would be detrimental to public welfare.

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

Additionally, staff believes that the requested variants of Article 224A, Table 22-1, bicycle parking fails to meet standards 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of the standards for variances of Article 46F, in that one, there are no special conditions peculiar to the land.

Two, literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of commonly enjoyed rights.

Four, the variance would confer on the applicant special privilege.

Six, strict adherence would not result in a demonstrable hardship.

Seven, the request is primarily for the convenience or profit of the owner.

And I think we lost one one of it.

And eight, the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to would be detrimental to the public welfare.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variants for bicycle parking.

Good morning.

Since the last hearing, I've worked with my architect to make the exact changes that the board requested.

On one interior side yard, we've revised to make the full five-foot requirement, and the other interior side yard has been set at the three feet, and the request of the two feet.

Strict compliance with the side and rear yard setbacks will remove a lot of usable space for uh what is needed for our restaurant.

And regarding the uh bicycle parking, um, I guess uh I've requested not to necessarily have it removed out.

Article 229A3.

Um it states that all required bicycles bicycle spaces shall be located on the same lot as the used or required bicycle spaces may be located on a lot other than the same lot as the use provided such spaces are located within 50 feet of the main entrance of the use.

So we've gotten a re written re um approval to use the lot next door as we're using the lot next door for parking also.

And um again, uh we're not asking for anything new.

I'm just asking for the uh side yard and a rear yard variance is due to the hardship of the small lot, and we're not again not requesting a variance for the uh bicycle because we're gonna have a place for the bicycles on the lot next door.

Excuse me, can you please state your name and your address?

Oh, I was gonna my name is Angela Dix, uh 1219 Numa Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70114.

Thank you.

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

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Just a quick question to staff on a bike parking.

I think we mentioned this last time.

Um with the two required stalls, that's pretty much just one bike stand that could be provided anywhere within a proxy, correct?

That's correct, or within the right of way, subject to DPW approval.

Right.

So just keep in mind, I know you're still asking for that piece saying to put it on an adjacent property, but we're really talking about one bike stand, that is that that addresses all of those requirements, so it can be met within the sidewalk condition or within the front yard.

So you're saying we can't use the lot next door?

You can, but you have so many other ways to still come in compliance without having to do that piece as well, without encumbering a different property.

All we're trying to say is you have options.

You have a lot of options on that that does not impact how the building is designed.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, but you're also gonna suggest that I guess the plan that I'm seeing here on page 36.

There I see that you added a ramp and the landing for ADA access.

Yes.

But the ramp is facing towards the backyard.

That's where the parking lot is located.

Oh, that's where people is coming from from thank you.

Very clear.

And one last question to staff.

I know that what's shown in the plan on page 36 within the packet shows the compliance setback on that one side where the ramp is provided, but it still shows three feet on the opposite side of the property.

Um, but the way the report is written still basically says that that criteria would not be met for the interior side yard setback.

So how do we grant it for one side versus the other?

Yeah, so if you recall originally the applicant was requesting waivers for both interior side yard setbacks.

Um she did bring one into compliance completely, so that request was removed.

Um so that one's fine.

So if you uh choose to, if you find all standards met for the other one, you can certainly grant approval of that.

And what I'm what I want to make sure that's clearly noted is that if we were, let's say if we made a recommendation for approval on that piece, that it is exclusively for that one side versus both.

Yes, uh, you can say that, and um we can also ensure that the disposition notice clarifies what side of the property, what side which street side that is.

And just provide the uh I know that this typically goes in with the disposition notice, the plan that's been submitted.

I just want to make sure that's all clearly yes being marked because I don't want it to then someone say, well, the interior interior side of your setbacks were granted, so it applies to both.

Okay, yes, we could ensure that is highlighted.

Okay.

Madam Chair, for motion is in order.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Proceed.

Madam Chair, regards to BZA Docket 079-25.

My motion is gonna be slight gonna slightly deviate from the staff's recommendation.

Um I want to move for approval of the requested waivers for Article 15, Section 15.3.8.1, table 15-2 for minimum lot area.

Article 15, section 15.3.8.1, table 15-2 for main minimum permeable open space.

Clarification that on part for the third request, Article 15, Section 15.3.8.1, table 15-2 for interior side yard setbacks, granting it for one side of the site versus the second side as provided within the applicant's provided sketch and move for approval of Article 15, Section 15.3.8.1, Table 15-2 for minimum rear yard setback.

Um understanding that the nine criteria have been met for those items with the two recommended provisos by staff, but then denying the request for Article 22, Section 22.4.8, table 22-1 for bicycle parking.

What was your recommendation for the last one?

I didn't hear denial.

Okay.

Denial on the last item, but following the two uh provisos that the staff had recommended within the report for the other four items.

And that the non criteria were met for those items.

Yes.

With regards to BZA Docket 079-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the requested waivers of Article 15, Section 15.3.8.1, table 15.2 for minimum lot area, minimum permeable open space, rear yard setback, and um with the notation for the request for interior side yard setback, finding that the nine criteria have been met and adopting the applicant's submission and commentary to establish that the nine criteria have been met, subject to two provisos, and denying the request for Article 22, Section 22.4.

Table 221 provisical parking spaces, finding that the nine criteria have not been met.

Vote your screens.

Five Y's, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

Thank you.

The next item is BCA docket 10125 for property located at 3205 Charter Street.

This is an after-the-fact request for a variance from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the retention of the canopy with excessive encroachment into the required rear yard.

Article 21, section 21.7, table 21-2, allows awnings and canopies to encroach five feet into a required yard.

The canopy has already been constructed and extends 16 feet into the rear yard, thus requiring a waiver of 11 feet.

This request was deferred at the December Board of Adjustments meeting, so the applicant could work with an architect to bring the plans closer into compliance.

At this time, staff has not received any updated plans.

The staff believes that the requested variance fails to meet criteria 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 of the standards for variances of section 4.6.f and that there are no special conditions that are 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 will confer on the applicant special privilege.

Strict adherence would not result in a demonstratable hardship, and the request is primarily for the convenience or profit of the owner or other interested party.

Therefore, the staff recommends denial of the requested variance.

At this time, the applicant would like to request a 30-day deferral to the March 16th hearing to allow for more time to work with the design professional to bring the site into compliance.

Thank you.

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

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Uh just a quick question to staff with the deferral request, knowing that this is a um special meeting, just trying to determine if it's appropriate for 30 days or if this should go a little bit longer.

I would suggest deferring to the March 16th meeting.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions from the board?

We're gonna call that 60 days.

I'm gonna just take it.

Okay.

Uh Madam Chair, regards to docket number BZ BCA docket number 101-25.

My motion is for a deferral to the March agenda.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA docket 101-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Alvarez to defer this item to the March um agenda.

Vote your screens.

BZA docket 10525 is for the property located at 235-241 Burban Street.

The request is for variances from the provisions of Article 24, Section 24, 0.13.1.8, projecting signs, projection, article 24, section 24, 0.13 point G.3.3, zoning districts group two allowable sign area, and Article 24, Section 24.13.3.

Zoning Districts Group 2, first floor to permit a sign with excessive projection, excessive area and erected above the first floor.

Article 24, section 24.13.1.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 24.13.3.3.

Zoning District Group 2 allowable sign area permits an allowable sign area of approximately 45 square feet.

The applicant has proposed 93 square foot double-sided sign and is requesting a waiver of approximately 48 square feet.

Article 24, Section 24.13 point G.3.

Zoning Districts Group 2, first floor permits projection signs to be located on the first floor.

The applicant is requesting to construct the proposed sign above the first floor, and we'll need a variance.

Staff believes that the requested variances of Article 24 is section 24.13 point G.1.A.

Projecting signs projection.

Article 24 is section 24.13 point G.

Point 3.C.3 zoning districts group 2 allowable sign area and article 24 section 24.13 point G point 3.C point B zoning districts group 2 first floor fails to meet criteria 1245 678 and 9 of the standards for variances of Article 4 section 4.6 point F of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

The applicant present for BCA docket 105-25.

You could give your name and address for the record.

You can go ahead with your comments.

All of those are within the VCE district.

Your comments is there anyone outside the architect along with and um we are here we could show there were uh the same kind of sign second very uh is something that um uh is think essential returning uh something and we appreciate your support on this I think that we meet online credit thank you is anyone else here in support if the applicant for BCA members my name is Sonny Wick I'm the designer for the new blade sign I work for value hospitality I just wanted to make it clear that we're not proposing or historically they scale shape size everything has the view originally um we have our car our carval photos and sixties that show a large corner mounted sign in the same we're just bringing back what people the the factor of it and uh I just hope that y'all will thank you have connected five dash two five opposition good morning commissioners my name is Aaron Holmes I am uh the executive director of VCPora 816 North Rampart we are here again speaking in opposition to the requested variance as the staff report noted only one of the standards uh one of nine have been met and the proposed sign is not an existing historical

Good morning, commissioners.

My name is Aaron Holmes.

I am the executive director of VCPora 816 North Rampart.

We are here again speaking in opposition to the requested variants, as the staff report noted.

Only one of the standards, uh, one of nine have been met, and the proposed sign is not an existing historic sign, even if it were historically designated, reconfiguring it for a new business is not permissible.

Instead, this proposal attempts to recreate a sign that was removed more than 50 years ago and bears little resemblance to the original.

Again, this is a recreation, not a restoration.

We oppose this as a modern reinterpretation because it is neither historically comparable nor appropriate within the context of current design guidelines.

Allowing a larger, brighter reproduction of a long-removed sign would reinforce a worrying trend in in the Bourbon Street Urban Street Entertainment District, one in which signage must continually grow in scale and intensity.

Approval could also reverberate into adjacent zoning districts, undermining the carefully crafted sign standards that protect the historic character and public safety of the French quarter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in opposition?

The applicant has an opportunity to rebut.

Um we had an NPP.

The only person uh people that showed up were the um neighborhood group that just spoke.

Uh I've been to their board before, they don't support anything.

And I think it's time for our city to start changing and start approving some of these things that are gonna make our city um what I think it should be.

You can see the sign here, it's a replica of the sign that was there before, choosing the same structure, it's safe.

Um this is the signage examples, and you can see here where we are is right here, and um I just would um think back to the staff saying that we don't meet the nine criteria, and I implore the board that's here to recommend that we move forward with the signage.

I think it does meet the nine criteria, and um I hope that you uh choose to uh approve this and let us go ahead and build this sign.

Um they're not gonna make a bigger profit.

I mean, this is the second block of Bourbon Street, and um historically this was the first the Brennan's restaurant.

Um we have footage of all the the signs that used to be on Bourbon Street that eventually have been taken down, and I think people used to say, hey, let's go to New Orleans, and when they get here, they say, let's go look at the lights.

We have documentation about that, and this is an effort to try and restore that character that was once on Bourbon Street.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Just a uh question to the applicant.

I know that you have the um signage displayed here.

Was this information included as part of your um actual report that I mean your submission?

Every board that we're showing here was included in the report.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

Just a question to the applicant, Mr.

Williams, or any representative, and then I missed the last session, so if I'm retreading territory, I apologize.

But did the VCC have any comments on this at any point yet?

Well, we the state historic office of preservation has approved this.

Said they were waiting to see what you said.

So um we haven't brought it to them until we bring it to you.

They said we don't they didn't want to waste their time.

Okay.

Until you know, they had some input from zoning.

And I appreciate that.

So we're here, and we will go to the um your cray and present this to them too.

Just a quick question to the applicant.

You guys provided examples of uh other signs, particularly Dicky Brennan's and the Hotel Mount Leon signage.

Um just trying to confirm.

I mean are those signs, do those signs, and maybe this is more a question of staff.

Can we confirm if those signs exceed the size requirement?

Staff hasn't looked into those signs as of yet.

Because I think while we you may be providing something in context, no one's debating the context of how the design should be designed, but if it from our appreciation, we're really dealing with the projection and the allowable area of the sign, not necessarily the aesthetic.

So have y'all looked at that to confirm if that creates a precedent of non-compliance um basically exceeding the signage requirements before y'all provided that as a same example.

Yes.

I mean, looking at the facade of the building, and based on your requirements of square footage for building face and then how large the signs are, that's how we estimated.

So let me ask my question again.

I'm being very specific to the examples that you guys provided beyond your sign.

Are those signs larger than what they're allowed to have for those properties?

Yes.

They are they appear so and the second floor mounting and the projection goes across the board, and that's they've all significantly larger or mounted on the second, third, fourth floors.

Most appear to be larger than what we're proposing as well.

Quick question for uh the applicant looking at the uh original Brennan's Vucaray restaurant sign, the design that's proposed is very reminiscent of what is shown in the historic photo from 1964.

But would um just to confirm, are the dimensions similar in size and scope, or have they been enlarged?

They it looks the same, but it's that's just my layman eye looking at a picture.

Right.

We don't have the exact dimensions of the existing, but um through our signage craftsman, that's you know, he estimated exactly the same size.

Yeah.

Yeah, a follow-up question, kind of pity backing on what Commissioner James asked regarding the other signs that you guys researched in the uh French quarter.

Uh many of them uh do look again to appear to be uh similar in projection and obviously their second floor mounted.

Um does your sign in your estimation exceed the square footage of any of these?

No.

Okay.

I think the Mango Mango and the gateway daiquiri places are the two best examples, and they're also on street corners.

Both mounted on the second, and both I think significantly taller than what we're proposing as well.

Yeah.

Thank you.

But keep in mind, we're not talking about height, talking about area.

So to the board, I'm I'm thinking back to a related issue we had with this, and it was different in that it was the Jacks Brewery, um, and in that case, we were looking at uh signs on the same building under common ownership.

But it if if I was to go into Commissioner James' question, I think it's clear to us that all of the examples that are given exceed are are on the second floor, as Commissioner Gonzalez said, and that they exceed the projection.

But what we to try and hold everybody to the same standard of account, what we did on that project was ask for a quantity to actually state, you know, they they went back and did their best to recreate the exact um square footage.

Now, in that case, it was like three signs on a property they owned, but my hesitation on this, like the the examples are clear, and there's a historical precedent of a sign there, but I think I would be hesitant to move forward on this without knowing definitively what the areas of the signs are that you cited as references.

We'll be happy to come back and give you the exact dimensions.

And we'd get them off a photograph, obviously.

But yeah, I think the sign was gonna be here.

He's here, he can speak on that.

Is it is that okay if I he comes up and talks about the accuracy of the size?

Well, uh, no, I mean uh I'm I think we're that would be I mean I have no objection to that necessarily, but uh I think what we're and we understand you're gonna have to do your best to measure it, but I think if we came back with the same presentation with the the the areas, that would be a tremendously helpful to us so that we knew we're happy that everything that we're gonna base this uh variance off of meets the um uh exceeds the requirement as it's as it's enforced right now in the zoning code.

Um is it okay?

This is the sign maker, so he can also speak on behalf of coming back with how accurate he thinks he can make it.

Well, it's not I think you're misunderstanding what we're mentioning, or what Commissioner Richards is mentioning is the accuracy of the other signs that are included that you're using as a reference to confirm because what we keep hearing is that they appear to be this size or they appear to be that size.

So what we're asking for is some type of verification that they are in fact the same in size as what's being proposed.

So we're talking about the signs on the um images of other um the photos um on the boards of other signs in the area, not the dimensions of your proposed sign, but trying to compare those other uh signs and sizes to what's being proposed.

Um happy to get that information and come back.

Yeah.

So that would be I think I got it.

Yeah, just to make sure the request is clear.

If you have any questions about the actual sign, you know, this is the actual sign maker.

Yeah, nice that thank you for being here.

Uh I I believe it's pretty clear to us from the historical images, which you've done a good job representing that that the sign's very close to what we're doing.

Um, just to make sure that the request is clear.

So if if you come back, it would be good to know the the total projection versus the the zoning code and then the area versus the zoning code.

Absolutely.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Um, just one, given what we're asking.

Um, we're gonna um propose a deferral.

Um, as we indicated with one of the previous items, our next meeting is a quicker turnaround, so it's a question of if that could be completed prior to the next meeting or if this would need to be deferred until the um the March meeting.

Can you answer that, Emily?

Because I think that's gonna be the case for all of them.

Yeah, I I would suggest deferring everything to the March 16th meeting, just because staff reports um they are due Wednesday.

Got it.

Uh yeah.

Thank you.

All right, if uh motions in order.

Yep.

Proceed.

Okay.

Uh regarding docket BZA 105-25.

I move to defer the matter to the March uh 16th 16th meeting.

Thank you.

With regards to VCA docket 105-25, it's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer this item to the March meeting.

Vote your screens.

Okay.

Five yes, no nays.

The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Next item.

The next item is C ZA docket 00126 for a property at 3513 Charter Street.

Before before we begin, I just have a quick question because I know that there are three items that are identical.

Is it possible question of staff?

I guess to consolidate the three of these.

So I think in look I thought the issue is usually if the requests are different for each one.

In this one, it's the same applicant.

The request is identical, the recommendations are identical.

Um the reports are identical.

There is nothing different except the address.

I'll defer to law.

Okay.

Proceed.

Okay.

This is one of three adjacent properties under common ownership, each developed with a single family residence that operates as a commercial short-term rental.

These properties are all being considered for variances of fence height.

This summary is the same for the for items five and six on this agenda for BCA dockets two and three twenty-six.

The request is for a variance uh to permit a fence with excessive height.

The applicant is proposing a nine-foot fence and seeking a waiver of two feet.

The staff believes that the requested waiver of Article 21, Section 21.6.1.

Of the standards for variance is per Article 4, Section 4.6.f, in that there are no special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land.

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

The property regulations 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, the staff recommends denial of the requested variants.

If you could give you a name and address for the record, Ron Lazel 1000 South Norman C.

Francis.

You could go ahead with your comments.

Great.

And just to clarify, we're not going to speak on the next two, so we'll just speak on this one.

I have two deferrals for this one, or two um seating of times if I need a little more.

Just please take that in uh consideration.

Um in October of last year, we submitted a BZA application for a fence height waiver at 3134 Royal Street, a property located just three blocks from these three charter properties.

In the staff report for that case, our 11 foot nine-inch waiver request received an approval recommendation by CPC staff stating that all nine criteria had been met.

The board unanimously approved that request.

I will now review the staff's responses from that prior request, as these two situations are nearly identical and highlight how these same standards are met in these current requests.

Number one, special circumstances.

For that Royal Street staff report, it states the staff considers that the location of this parcel adjacent to a non-residential property that operates a pool and a bar directly abutting the subject site as late as 11 p.m.

constitutes a special circumstance.

The other properties do not contend with.

Noise.

So when I was first, we did not do these initial applications, but when I first did these, the first thing I did, well, when I was uh hired to take this on, I went through the neighborhood and walked.

What I was shocked about was how many people in the neighborhood signed letters of support.

Um, and at HGLC as well.

Every single neighbor is in support uh of this request.

And then convenience or profit, there is no convenience or profit sought here.

In fact, the applicants are working to proactively address the neighbors' concerns.

They are working to create sound proofing when they install the higher fence as well as more landscaping.

This is not done for profit.

It will in actuality cost the applicants more money, but they are working on being a good neighbor.

I asked that you fully support these requests.

Um as uh a note, council member King has already approved a 10-foot fence due to our appeal of HDLC's denial.

These applications when they were filled out by the other party had it for nine feet, but the the relief from the council office and HGL, well, H ELC didn't approve it, but through the council office was for a 10-foot uh uh fence.

Uh I am asking that you follow Councilmember King's lead and clear uh and the clear request of the neighbors who have actually, if you look on their their letters of support, they wrote in there they want a 12-foot fence.

Uh I would ask that you would please support a 10-foot fence.

We believe these nine criteria are met.

Um historically, as we've seen at other properties, the amount of uh fences in that area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 001-26 that wishes to speak?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

I just um a quick clarity, because just taking note of the last points that you were making.

Is are you changing your request to 10 feet or I'm just trying to understand with the reference to the 10 10 foot as opposed to nine?

Yeah, these applications were done by someone else, but when it went through HDLC, it was for a 10-foot fence.

So I am asking, even though the applications that they filled in here was for nine feet, that you would grant 10 feet as each as uh the council office has done.

And I do want, I don't the council office is approval based upon your approval.

I so I don't want to influence that the way they wrote it.

It's based on the I was going to ask that question next.

So just clarity to staff.

Um, how do we is it appropriate to just accept a verbal request to amend the request from nine feet to ten feet so in regards to the verbal change to ten feet?

I would suggest that you resubmit uh with the the clarification and the change of ten feet because if it were to be in the record or to be read by anybody else, it would be nine feet.

So it would I would suggest that it would need to be updated and resubmitted.

Could we just add a letter uh change in on that um like uh uh email to Ms.

Hernandez and say, hey, the actual request to meet what the council office did is 10 feet, really would keep the same report.

We've we've done everything on this uh outreach-wise.

Um I think it would be in the board's best interests, and I agree with the law department for the applicant to submit this updated information.

The report as written, analyze the nine foot proposed funds, and I wouldn't want um you know anything to come up later that questions if you are to approve this that questions your approval.

So, in um doing a resubmission, will that require this to have to be deferred?

So it if the applicant can provide us this information within the next uh couple of days, then we can work to get this on the February 23rd agenda rather than pushing them all the way to March.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

Not to try to belabor it, but just a point of concern because it is an increase in what's being requested versus what was initially submitted, and knowing that through the MPP process, which you said you already went through as well, correct?

Did you have an MPP request on it?

Requirement on this one?

That was done before we took on it, but yes, they did have an NPP, and actually I've locked the neighborhood three times because every time there's been a deferral, I want to let the neighbors know so they could come.

So I've actually been out there three times.

So my only concern is with it going from nine to ten, even though that had happened, making sure that appropriate public notice had to be able to do that.

Yeah, the letters I think were 10 and 12.

Yeah, all right.

Yeah, that is all very supportive.

All right.

I know we're not gonna want to go through another MPP process.

Um, and that's all I'm just trying to be careful, and I wouldn't stand to go back through that, just making sure that at least what was sent in the notification, or at least the neighbors are clearly notified of 10 feet versus what may have been provided.

So I mean if that's if that's okay and it's already provided in the notice, then I mean I'll just I'll just state for the record you know 10 feet's a really tall fence, and I get like if if we let the neighbors determine how fences how tall fences would be in New Orleans, we'd have 12 foot fences all over the city.

So I mean there's more to take into account other than just neighbor desire when it comes to the fence.

They actually want a brick wall that goes even higher than the right.

Yeah, right.

Yeah, I mean we've we we've seen it all.

So um if if that's your desire, then submit the materials and we'll we'll hear these three uh later in the month.

Oh, I wouldn't want to come back to the board if the board felt that 10 foot was too high.

No, no, no.

I'm just looking I'm just stating one person's opinion here.

No, I get it, I get it.

But madam chairs motion in order.

Are there any other questions from the board?

No.

Proceed.

Madam Chair, with regards to BZA docket 001-26.

My motion is for a deferral to the uh later in the to the February agenda, uh, but giving the applicant time that they do need to provide the correct clarification notice to staff before uh Wednesday reports are due.

Thank you with regards to BCA.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA docket 001-26, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer this to the later February agenda.

Vote your screens.

Five yes, no nays, the motion carries.

Next item.

Thanks.

My computer is proof.

Oh, oh, the next do the same, right?

Yes.

Um should I read the entire summary again or just the next item is BCA docket 002 26 for a property located at 3517 Charter Street.

Um this request is similar to the previous heard item.

And the staff recommends denial.

Thank you.

Uh I know the applicant um indicated they would not speak.

Is there anyone um here in support of the applicant for BZA docket 002-26 that wishes to speak?

Anyone here in opposition?

And just um for clarity, um it's gonna be the same request for deferral.

Motion's in order.

Yes, proceed.

Madam Chair, regards to BZA docket 002-26.

I want to adopt the previous motion from docket number 001-26 for the deferral to the February agenda.

Uh but the applicant needs to provide that clarification ahead of uh this final staff report being issued.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA docket 002-26, has been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer this item to the later February meeting.

Vote your screens.

Five yes, no nays, the motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BZA docket 00326 for a property located at 3521 Charter Street.

Um, this is similar to the previous two requests, and the staff also recommends denial.

Thank you.

Is there anyone here in support of the applicant for BZA docket 003-26 that wishes to speak?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Is there a motion?

If a motion's in order.

Again, for BZA Docket number 003-26.

My motion is for a deferral to the February agenda, but the applicant needs to provide uh proper documentation to staff.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 003-26 has been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer this item to the later February meeting.

Vote your screens.

Five Ya's, no nays, the motion carries.

Next item.

Next item is uh BZA Docket 004-26, which is for a property located at 6020 St.

Charles Avenue.

This request is for variances from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit a parking pad located between the front facade and front park property line, resulting in front yard parking.

The variance, if approved, would permit the construction of additional parking pads within the existing landscaped area of the property to accommodate front yard parking and would be accessible from the interior lot line via the sh existing shared driveway.

Staff believes that the requested waivers of Article 11, Section 11.3 point B, point three point A parking restrictions.

Article 21 section 21.7, Table 21-2 permitted encroachments into the required yards, parking pads.

Article 22, Section 22.8.a point one point B.2 permitted vehicle parking locations in the front yard.

Article 22, Section 22.11 point D.

Point one parking pad design location and Article 22 section 22.11.d.2 parking pad design location failed to meet standards 1246 and 7 of the standards for variance per Article 4 section 4.6.f of the comprehensive zoning ordinance in that one there are no special conditions that are peculiar to the land or the structure.

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

Strict adherence would not result in a demonstrable hardship.

And seven, the request is primarily for the convenience or profit of the owner or other interested party.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present for BZA Docket 004-26?

Is there anyone here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 004-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

The applicant was um did you were notified?

I I can give them a call.

I sent them numerous emails.

There was no indication that they I never received a response, but I was communicating with them.

So any questions from the board.

Is there a desire to um move this down the agenda to see if the applicant can be reached or I mean if anything, I would just just with all consideration.

I mean, I know we've deferred it to the end of the agenda in the past when they were no show.

Um but I know in the past we've also just deferred it one meeting considering that sometimes.

I mean, that's we have a meeting later in the month, so either option.

It's the pleasure of the board.

Later in the month.

Yeah.

Um would just defer it.

Yeah, yeah.

If a motion is in order.

Proceed.

Madam Chair, regards to BZA Docket number 004-26.

Uh, move for this to be deferred to the February agenda uh to give the applicant time to be present for the hearing.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 004-26, it's been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer this item to the later February meeting.

Vote your screens.

Yay.

Five yes, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

Who's doing item number eight?

Excuse me.

That is me.

No worries.

Having some technical difficulty.

BZA docket 00526 for the property at 8 Maryland Drive is a request for a variance to permit in addition to a single family dwelling, resulting in insufficient front yard setback.

A 20-foot front yard setback is required by the BS LRS3 district, and the applicant is proposing a setback of 18 feet three inches.

Based on this report, staff recommends denial of the requested variance as the proposal fails to meet standards two, four, six, and seven, in that literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of commonly enjoyed rights.

The variance would confer 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.

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

You could go ahead with your comments.

And Mark is a first responder, so he's also at work.

So they requested really for a redesign of the front facade.

They were sort of called the ugly duckling of the street.

So in order to clean up some bad appendages, bait windows elements that were causing leaks at the front facade, we are proposing a front porch, very traditional of New Orleans.

In our case, uh the property is relatively small and has a hardship.

And when I first walked all of Maryland Drive, I noticed that encroaching into the front yard setback was very common.

And we did submit um sort of a schedule of every property on the same side of the street, our Maryland, and measured their existing front yard setback and compared it to ours, in which we found that it was more than 75% of the properties had a front yard encroachment, some being just in the matter of an open-aired porch, others with air conditioned space.

In our case, we are asking for an open-aired front porch that is large enough in depth in order to have a chair in Ottoman and room for a kid to come up and get candy on Halloween.

Um that's really it.

The reason we're asking for the one foot nine is the porch column itself is what's really going to be encroaching in order to give us the little minimal of of breathing room that they have to the existing front yard setback, all to congregation to allow them to sit and enjoy.

So again, it's really just a minor request in order to get the structure pushed out to give them ample sufficient room on that porch to enjoy and congregate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 005-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Just a quick question to the applicant.

Um well, actually, may I ask something to staff first?

Clarification based off of what they have in their documents, which really driving the the setback requirement is the extent of the the porch condition itself, not necessarily the overhang of the canopy or the roof line.

Like if they move the edge of porch back in the colonnade back to the setback line, they would still be able to allow for the roof projection to overhang the steps, correct?

Just pulling up the plans.

I'm sorry?

You don't have your drawing tagged, I'm about to mess with you based on that.

Should be a large building section.

Well, and I'm looking at the floor plan.

That should be on a 101.1.

Correct.

From your document.

Was it in so let me ask you that while Emily's still looking at it?

Was it any consideration of moving the porch edge condition back to the setback line?

The original proposed drawing that I presented to the owners was in compliance to the fascia, not actually to the porch column, to which Marco Pelka is a six-foot-four um ex-football player, and he was adamant that he would get the eight feet if he could.

Got it.

Alright, that makes this easy.

And I'm sorry, from the the witnessed um properties along the side of Maryland.

We we thought it would be a relatively easy request.

And I know that you had some graphic references using some of the um the city's maps, right?

Yeah, using the viewer.

So and I know you were using some reference, but did you have anything that would actually laser it or yeah, we measured their property based on New Orleans property viewer, and then also got a professional survey performed.

We then measure the discrepancy between the two, which is about four feet, assuming that the New Orleans property viewer is consistently inaccurate and has everything roughly proportionately located.

We then adjusted all of the measured from the map, added the four feet, and even with that addition, which was helping the city, we still found that more than 75% of the properties were encroaching past the 20-foot yard setback, some almost to 10 feet.

Alright.

So what I'll this is what I'll just would strongly recommend to you know to try to help better substantiate what you're showing.

Usually property viewer is just a graphic reference of the footprint, because it's gonna give you general reference of what those buildings look like, not necessarily their correct placement.

Okay.

Okay.

So if you're gonna do something to try to help substantiate what has been the pattern, maybe go back, look at the properties alone that stretch, and if you could just shoot a laser from what would be the theoretical property line and confirm where that setback condition is for those properties, that would be the better way for you to do it from your perspective.

Um what would submission like that look?

Because we that's actually what we thought about doing, and I thought maybe a photo of that just wasn't enough black and white paper proof, so that's why we went with the official map.

So if you could give guidance.

Yeah, but in but again, it's not an official map.

This is a GIS.

So it's just different.

And I understand, like you went you you're using the technology to your advantage.

I mean, we we normally ask people to hire surveyors, but this is a lot of properties, so we would take your word that you measured it.

Correct.

And I mean, and what we've seen in the past, someone would, if you did it from a laser confirming, take a photograph of the image and just basically reference it to the property.

Right.

Yeah.

Um, and we would have to trust that in some capacity.

But I'll but I'm gonna still say just from what I'm seeing in the plan, understand what your owners ask what the owners are asking you to do.

I think there's some other ways to still do this differently and have at least some type of a projected cover.

One way is by moving back where the columns in the edge of the porch condition falls.

That if that went to the property line, but if the steps projected forward, you still get the same theoretical function, even with the roof overhang, because I think there's a that is a minimum of which you can overhang from the column and still get the same amount of cover.

They're looking for furnishable space, not necessarily cover, but I understand what you're saying.

Yeah, I mean it's it just makes it hard when we have a requirement, and if we start doing that, we set a precedent of what could be allowed.

So if you could help just demonstrate what you what you've seen in a few, confirm those ditts and yeah, I can submit photos of lasering all the houses, and I'll I'll repeat the exact same ones we measured.

It's every house along Maryland on their side that has the same hardship of Jefferson Parish line right in between.

Yeah, we were just looking at the and I was gonna before you I know you may have some other questions, but I just was gonna ask staff because I noticed that the properties included by staff were not along Maryland.

They were um other properties included, and just curious why none of the houses um included were on the same um street.

Yes.

Great great question.

I was going to address this.

Thank you.

Um so we have a new staff report template where we have narrowed uh the way we analyze properties to make it more fair.

Um so we are well, previously we had looked at all properties with an identified surrounding area and determined compliance versus non-compliance.

Now we are looking at other properties that were subject to the same regulations when they were constructed, which means under the current comprehensive zoning ordinance.

And so our analysis now looks at only properties developed under the current CZO.

And that's why only those few properties were included.

Thank you.

So that would suggest that other properties perhaps along uh Maryland may not have been constructed under the same CZO, so they may not have been subject to the same restrictions.

Correct.

And they are if they are non-compliant, they're non-conforming in some way, likely legally non-conforming.

Got it.

Thank you.

I think that about the little bit of blue.

Madam Chair for motions in order.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Proceed.

Madam Chair, regards to BZA docket number 005-26.

My motion is for a deferral to the March agenda to give the uh applicants representative time to go ahead and document what may be the condition for that block with a different uh measurement tool so that we could look at this through a fair length.

It's been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Alvarez to defer this item to the March meeting.

Vote your screens.

Five y's and no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

Can I get a point of clarification really quick for the re for the next submission?

Will there be clarification on how you'd like me to measure and submit?

So it's what I just mentioned.

Just photos of me lasering to the front yard.

If you shoot it, take a photograph of what you see as the measurement on your device, and just make that as your tally for the properties on Maryland.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'll be back.

The next item is BZA Docket 00626 for the property at 235 through 237 Charter Street.

This request is for variances from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit roof mounted mechanical equipment within sufficient distance from any wall of the building.

There are a number of requests for various pieces of mechanical equipment, so they're all listed out separately.

Um the staff recommends approval of the request, finding that all nine criteria have been met, subject to two provisos.

Thank you.

If you could give your name and address for the record, I uh Kirk Falbacher, uh 1700 Joseph Fana Street.

Thank you.

You can go ahead with your comment.

Okay, I'm the uh architect for this uh proposed restaurant.

This is a uh three-story building located in the French quarter mid block, and it's built to the lot lines.

There is a very small one-story roof at the rear, and that's where uh mechanical equipment has been located for past tenants.

We're removing that equipment and putting our equipment in the same spot.

Um there is no other place to put the equipment.

This building could not be occupied without use of this only available space for the equipment.

Is that the end of your comments?

Yeah, it's is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA docket 006-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

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

All right, regarding docket BZA 006-26.

I move to accept the staff's recommendation and approve the request.

Did waivers of Article 21 section 21.6.7 for the 11 pieces of equipment that are noted.

Uh finding the uh accepting the staff's recommendation that uh the request meets all nine of the nine criteria of approval standards for variances article four, section 4.6f of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, subject to the uh one provisor listed.

Two two provisos listed.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 006-26, it's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner James to grant the requested waivers of Article 21, Section 21.6.7 for mechanical equipment roof mounted um as indicated for the um 11 pieces of equipment, finding that the nine criteria have been met, subject to two provisos.

Vote your screens.

Thank you.

BCA 0726 is an after-the-fact variance request from the provisions of Article 21, section 21.6 dot n dot one dot a CZO to permit the retention of a fence with excessive height.

Subject site is a single family dwelling in the Audubon neighborhood.

The applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance to allow a fence height with excessive height uh along the sidelot line of Hickory Street.

Um Article 21.6 dot n.1.a establishes a maximum height of seven feet after the current fence is seven feet three inches, thus requiring a ri a waiver.

In the letter to the board, the applicant states that the subject the fence was installed in 2022.

Uh staff identified 10 fences in the vicinity that had been installed under the current CZO, and seven of those were in excess of the fence height requirement.

Nevertheless, staff found that approval items one, six, and seven were not met.

Therefore, staff is recommending denial.

Thank you.

Good morning.

So yes, as mentioned, we did not meet one six and seven in the nine criteria.

This fence was installed in conjunction with the property owner rearranging his security cameras so that there could be a clear line of sight to his property and his property only.

And as also mentioned in the staff report, this wouldn't be the only fence that exceeds the height limit in this area.

So I think that should be considered.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA docket 007-26 that wishes to speak?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Question of clarification just on the report.

Given what Emily said about the new way these are evaluated.

So if there's 10 properties or whatever listed on this, and seven of them are non-compliant, does that mean that they were built non-compliant but permitted compliant, or that they maybe got approvals from this board?

Or like how how are we flagging the properties?

I guess.

Yeah, so um the this ten that were identified were built under the current CCO, regardless of whether or not they were excessive or not.

Okay.

So like in concept, they would have been built to seven feet, but when you go check it in the field or visually exactly you find that they are not.

And it's also challenging because fences aren't typically required permits.

So yeah.

Oh, correct.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that for me.

Okay.

So this individual's been caught.

Seven neighbors have not.

You don't have to answer that.

Any other questions from the board?

And quick question from staff.

I know that traditionally this is taken from the height of the fence, is usually taken from grade, correct?

Or the adjacent grade.

So what is the chance of any variability of three inches in that adjacent grade that would have made this fence in compliance?

Or is it just given from one spot?

Our measuring tools are imperfect.

Well, unfortunately, look that I would not expect otherwise.

Um are you good?

It's the question is more because when you do it, it's probably being taken from one spot and you don't have access to the full property next door.

So it's kind of one of these things that when the work was installed, it may have been surveyed from a different spot, right?

And let's say the joining the property brought in fill, brought in dirt, brought in rock on our site.

Next thing you know, you have three inches on a compliance or the scrap.

I mean, anything could happen for the sake of a variability of three inches in adjacent grade.

So I'm just trying to was any of that taken into account or just noted when it noted when the uh survey was done on time.

Typically, when we survey things like this, uh we measure and then we determine is this likely compliant?

Does it look close as far as our measurements because we know that there is some uh margin of error?

And it depends also how we're measuring.

Um, you know, if we're usually using satellite imagery, you can't rotate to every single side of the fence to measure.

Okay.

Madam Chair, it's a motion and order.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Proceed.

So we'll be a little unique on this one.

So, madam chair, regards to BCA Docket 007-26.

My motion is to grant the request for the waiver of Article 21, Section 21.6 point in point one point eight for fence height.

Um, and I'm establish that the three criteria have been met, but I also want to note that just it is hard to really establish what would be the appropriate grade point in order to establish this because of the conditions when this would have been when the improvement would have started or have been done.

So just kind of with that and seeing the marginal difference here.

I want to make sure we're not creating a precedent for any additional fence heights to be granted in an area, but just to confirm where that height needs to be noted in for future references if anybody did apply for permit in this area.

So just with that, I want to move for approval, noting that the three remaining criteria have been met.

And uh the one noted proviso from staff.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA Docket 007-26, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the requested waiver, finding that the nine criteria have been met and adopting commentary from today as well as the applicant's submission to establish that the nine criteria have been met.

Uh did you include a proviso subject to one proviso?

Vote your screen.

Five yes, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BZA Docket 00826 for a property located at 5015 South Saratoga Street.

This is an after-the-fact request for variances from the CZO to permit an accessory structure with excessive rear yard coverage, excessive height, and insufficient distance from the interior side and rear lot lines.

Article 21, section 21.6.8.3 allows accessory structures a maximum of 40% of your rear yard coverage.

The applicant is proposing 58% of rear yard coverage, necessitating a waiver of 18%.

Article 21, section 21.6.8.6 allows accessory structures to be no taller than 14 feet.

The applicant is proposing 17 feet, 9 and a quarter inches, thus necessitating a waiver of 3 feet 9 and a quarter inch.

Article 21, section 21.6.8.7 requires accessory structures to have a minimum distance of three feet from the interior side yard and rear side yard lines.

The applicant is proposing zero feet from either property line, thus necessitating a waiver of three feet from both the side rear and interior rear property lines.

The staff believes that the requested rate waivers pertaining to rear yard coverage and accessory structure height failed to meet standards one, two, four, five, six, and seven of section 4.6.f of the standards for variances.

Additionally, staff believes that the variance requests pertaining to the interior side yard setback as well as the rear yard side setback failed to meet standards one, two, four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine per section four point six point f.

Therefore, the staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

Is the applicant present for BCA docket number zero zero eight-26.

Francis Barkley.

Okay.

So criteria number one, we have no special conditions.

Staff mentions in a report that the original historic accessory structure's long history at the property is not a special condition, but we have to disagree.

As criteria one reads, there are speci special conditions that exist or are peculiar to the land.

Over 20 years of two accessory structures existing along the shared lot line is a specific site specific site-specific condition that is not applicable to other lots.

The property owner will simply like to keep that special condition.

Criterion number two.

While accessory structures aren't common in the media area, the long history that the original accessory structure has should trump the argument that we're creating a special condition since the condition has existed for so long and is unique to this specific property and the adjacent property at 1908 Robert Street.

Criteria number four.

Approval will not create a privilege, but would officiate an existing physical condition.

The location of the accessory structure has not changed.

The property owner has also agreed to fire rate the structure and renovate the openings, and finally fix the roof overhang if necessary.

Criteria number five, grants and the variances to allow accessory search to stay, will not alter the character of the locality because the structure has existed in the same location for over 20 years.

There has always been two abutting accessory structures on the lot lines between 5015 South Saratoga Street and 1908 Robert Street.

Criteria number six.

Removing the accessory structure would be a hard shit upon upon the owner as it being denied a condition that has been enjoyed since the purchase of this property.

The owner understands that partial demolition to include uh the roof overhang may need to be required to get these variances granted.

Criterion number seven, the request is not for convenience or profit, but for the property owner to correct the record and properly establish their non-conforming except accessory structures location.

Criteria number eight and nine, the property owner agrees to fire rate the wall adjacent to the 1908 Robert Street accessory structure and remove the windows on the property line side.

I'm here to answer any questions to the board.

Thank you.

Is anyone else uh here in support of the applicant for BCA docket 008-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board.

Yes, uh, that was mentioned in the staff report.

I believe in criteria number eight and nine.

It just overhangs over the ex existing accessory structure on 1908 Robert Street.

So again, the property owner would be willing to correct that deficiency.

All right, so I just want to make sure you understand to what level that may require, because with a gable style roof, you're still providing some type of a runoff that will go onto that property.

So if a correction is being made, it would need to change from a gable structure to a shed structure to prevent any roof water runoff going on to the adjoining property.

So I'm just not sure if that was understood by your your client in terms of what might be the level of severity for that type of an improvement.

Understood.

I have the property owner here, Mr.

Charles.

Give me a moment to speak.

Good morning.

Just provide your name and address for the record, please.

Sure.

Charles Schluter, 5015 South Saratoga, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70115.

It makes sure you speak to the mic, so here, yeah.

Go ahead.

Um I'm not sure I completely understand the overhang.

Uh the overhang actually comes from the adjacent property on Robert Street.

The roof line on the structure is flush with the wall.

And if any additional drainage correction or control needed to be added, that would I would be perfectly willing to accommodate that.

Yeah, no.

So I'm looking at what's in your images as well as how the buildings are placed.

It's not just about capture.

Yes, sir.

No matter what, you still have a overhang.

It's not a it's not flush to that side of the facade.

You you have what appears to be at least a six to eight inch overhang of the roof that extends past your wall line.

Then from there, typically it is it's not legal to have runoff, even if you're putting in a gutter or downspout to have runoff to go to the adjoining property, even if it's being captured.

So typically what you that's why you usually see with most rear yard structures like this that you'll have a shed roof style structure in order to prevent that from completely being the situation.

So I'm just concerned that it seems to be a lot more of a larger modification to the second floor of the structure than you may originally be thinking.

So just trying to make sure you clearly understood what might be required for these items to be mitigated in order for the departments to sign off on it.

Understood.

Question for the applicant.

Can you just state for us?

The crime, the period of time in which you're contending this two-story accessory structure was built.

Was it built by the current owner or was it built before the current owner acquired the property?

It was built by the current owner and it was built in 2021.

But prior to 2021, there was there was already an accessory structure there.

So there was an original accessory structure there that existed since the purchase of the property.

And then this one was renovated to create what we have now in 2021.

And just to put a fine point on it, it was renovated to make it two stories at that time.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

That's right.

There are four requests in total.

Two of them met one through seven minus the third, and then two variances failed to meet one through nine minus criteria three.

Okay, so really what you're recommending is denial on all four points, just to a differing degree.

That's right.

Okay.

And then one further clarifying question for staff.

So this zero to three foot setback.

Um I'm gonna state what I think the case is, and you can tell me if I'm wrong, but it it'd be in a history, it's an historic district, so zero would be permitted, but there's an adjacent building next to it.

Is that that's essentially the issue?

Okay.

Yes, it's typically whoever gets to the property.

Yeah, but a property line first has a right to the zero setback.

And then one more question to the applicant.

So your your contention uh when's the contention that the the second accessory building was built prior to the renovation.

Say again the accessory building that was expanded.

When was that uh when are you contending that was built?

2021.

But you said there was one prior.

Oh, the one prior when he bought the property in the 1970s, it was already existing.

Okay, 1970.

Yes, sir, if I did Yeah, I mean what you what you've come to us to do is I mean, this has been illegally expanded above the minimum height, and we're being asked a few years later to like approve it, and I'm not sure that we're gonna be able to do that.

Um, if you're if the contention is which it that's where I'm getting confused because it appears to be somewhat contradicted by the sandborne map evidence you gave us, and it could be that the sandboard maps just weren't diligent, but we don't have a record of that you've provided us that that accessory structure was there, like we don't have any evidence.

That second accessory structure.

I have evidence it's only the there's only the one accessory structure, right?

At the time of the purchase, and this accessory structure that I'm asking for the variances for is at the same location that the original one was before it was renovated, if that makes sense.

These aren't two accessory structures back there, it's it's just the one still.

I'm not asking for a second accessory structure to be in the rear yard.

This is only one accessory structure.

So in the plant said it's showing graphically two.

Yeah, the the survey you provided shows two, and then there's some sandboard maps in the in the file, pardon.

Uh and there's the only indication we have is one from the 50s that shows a single structure looking close to the location of where the I will say the more compliant accessory structure is on the left side of the property if you're looking at it like oriented north-south.

No, you're right, Mr.

Jason.

That's my fault.

You're right.

Okay.

Wait, are these even the same?

Yeah.

Okay.

So I do have uh a photo of the prior accessory structure before the renovation here.

I didn't include it in my uh in my original submission.

But if you'd like to see that and maybe we could take some time as for 30 day deferral and I can submit some more information and strengthen my talking points.

I'd be open to that because the record as we have it's pretty confusing.

Okay, understood.

And maybe consider going back to if you have your property records from the purchase usually a plat would have been recorded with that so that may help us as just a older survey while a survey may be out of date just something that's a little bit more consistent to help us understand that condition.

Okay yes sir that works thank you all right just to be clear though we we're pretty unfavorable to this height issue but you can uh if you can demonstrate to us that this thing was there we can let it stay in its position understood agreement all right if uh motions in order are there any other questions from the board proceed okay uh regarding docket BZA008-26 I move to defer the matter to the March 16th board meeting second thank you with regards to BCA docket 008 26 it's been moved by commissioner Richards second by commissioner james to defer this item to the March meeting vote your screens five years and no nays the motion carries next item BZA docket 00926 is for the property located at the corner of 1229 CADIS and 4534 Perrier this request is for variance from the provisions of articles 21 section 21.6 point e point one swimming pools location to permit a swimming pool in the front yard article 21 section 21.6 point epoin swimming pools location permits pools in the required interior side yard and the rear yard the applicant is requesting to have the pool in the corner side yard 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 two provisos and staff needs to make a correction um the applicant is requesting the pool to for a waiver in the front yard thank you is the applicant present for BCA docket 009-26 for sea galvez on behalf of Zach Smith Consultant and Design 1000 South Normacy Francis Parkway I just wanted to come up and thank staff that uh you know it was a pretty clear issue and hardship with the property owners how the house is oriented and how the lot is oriented so I appreciate the recommendation of approval and thank you for your time thank you is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA docket 009-26 that wishes to speak anyone here in opposition any questions from the board for motions in order yes proceed madam chair regards to BCA docket 009-26 my motion is to adopt a staff's recommendation for the requested waiver of article of article 21 section 21 point six point e point one for swimming pool locations being provided in the front yard uh understanding that the not criteria have been met and move for approval with the two noted provisos thank you with regards to BCA docket 009-26 has been moved by commissioner james second by commissioner conzales to grant the requested waiver of article 21 section 21.6 point e point one swimming pool's location finding that the nine criteria have been met and subject to two provisos votes screens five y's no nays the motion carries next item the next item is BZA docket uh 1026 for a property located at 600 New Orleans Hammond Highway this is a request for variance from the provisions of Article 13 section 13.3.8 point one table 13-2 and article 13 section 13.3 point eight point one table 13 point two of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the construction of an accessory use to a place of worship uh with an insufficient lot area and ansufficient front yard setback the subject property sits at the end of a truncated block with frontages along three streets Kennison Street Bel Air Drive and New Orleans Hammond Highway Article 13 section 13.3.8 point one table 13 point two requires a minimum lot area of 2000 square feet in an SLRS one suburban lake view single family residential district the applicant is proposing a lot area of 17,09 square feet necessitating a waiver 2991 square feet article 13 section 13.3 point eight point one table 13 point two requires a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet in SLRS one district

Article 13, section 13.3.8.1, table 13.2 requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet in an SLRS 1, suburban lake used single family residential district.

The applicant is proposing a lot area of 17,009 square feet, necessitating a waiver of 2991 square feet.

Article 13, section 13.3.8.1, table 13.2 requires a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet in SLRS 1 district.

The applicant is proposing a 10-foot front yard setback on the Kennison Street side of the property, necessitating a 10-foot waiver.

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

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

Thank you.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 010-26?

Again, just wanted to thank staff for the recommendation of approval.

This is something that's existed at this lot once before, and it is Vogue Cause, so thank you very much.

I'm here to ask any questions.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 010-26 that wishes to speak?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Is there a motion?

Sure.

I'll make a motion.

All right, regarding Docket BZA 10 010-26.

I move to approve the request of waiver of Articles 13, section, Article 13, Section 13.3.8.1 for minimum lot area, and Article 13, Section 13.3.8.1, Table 13-2 for front yard, front yard setback, accepting the staff's recommendation 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 comprehensive zoning ordinance, subject to 1 proviso.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 010-26, it's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner Alvarez.

It's grant the requested waivers of Article 13, Section 13.3.8.1, Table 13.2 for minimum lot area and front yard setback.

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

Vote your screens.

Five years, no nays, the motion carries.

Next item.

Thank you.

The next item is BZA Docket 011-26 for a property located at 3627 Alfred Street.

This is a request for a variance from the provisions of Article 22, Section 22.4.

The development was originally permitted in 2009 under the former comprehensive zoning ordinance and prior ownership, but was not completed.

There is no availability on site for off-street parking, so the applicant is seeking a variance.

The property is also unique in that the location in the SRD suburban two-family residential requires a minimum lot length of 40 feet, whereas the subject lot provides 30 feet in width.

The special conditions justifying the variance of the off-street requirement is the pre-existing structure and the unusually narrow lot width.

These conditions date to the prior owner and the original creation of the lot, respectively, predating the current ownership of the property.

The staff believes the request does 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 011-26?

Hey.

You could give your name and address for the record.

I am the contractor.

Did you have anything that you wish to add?

Oh, I think I want to both say what my client wants to do, who just want to add some square footage on a property without to do any change on the foundation.

I just said a second floor.

That's thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 011-26 that wishes to speak?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Yes, proceed.

Madam Chair regards the BZA docket number 011-26.

My motion is to accept the staff's recommendation for a request of waiver of Article 22, Section 22.4.8, Table 22-1 of all street vehicle parking and bicycle parking requirements.

Uh understanding that the nine priority are have been met and moved for approval with the one noted proviso.

Thank you.

With regards to VZA Docket 011-26.

It's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Alvarez to grant the request a waiver of Article 22, Section 22.4.a, table 22-1, off street vehicle and bicycle parking requirements.

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

Vote your screens.

Five y's, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

We will now begin 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.

All residentially zoned properties with a homestead exemption shall be exempt from this overlay.

Zoning review was uh completed on August 14th, 2025, and the permit was issued on August 15th, 2025.

The property is H U R D one residential.

It has a homestead exemption.

The Department of Safety and Permits correctly applied the exception.

The following facts are undisputed.

1923 is located in the HURD 1 district.

18.30 point B eight expressly uh exempts residentially zoned homestead properties.

The exemption existed at the time of the review, and the DSP applied that provision is written.

Once again, this is an appeal that is entirely built on speculation, personal theories and conjecture about the owner's motives.

The appellate admits their argument is speculation.

Speculation is not and never may be a legal basis for reversal under the CZO.

The only legal question was whether the property possessed a home to that exemption.

The simple answer is that it did.

An official determination that the property had in a homestead exemption.

Appellant's argument fall entirely outside the BZA's jurisdiction.

The appellant is trying to attempt, is attempting to convert an administrative grievancy with the state agents agency and peculiar personal suspicions into a zoning appeal.

Neither the DSP nor the BCA have the authority to reinterpret the actions of the Orleans assessor.

The appellant has failed to articulate any error in the application of law.

Appellate's arguments fall entirely outside the board's jurisdiction.

As such, the appeal is fundamentally deficient and must be denied.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 108-25?

Is there anyone here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 108-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Oh, you can come up.

I mean not sure what to say.

Okay.

That's fine.

Neither are we any questions from the board.

This is shown up as unfinished business.

I guess this is deferred from the last meeting.

It's been deferred for several.

And it's uh the applicant has not shown up any of these meetings.

No, the applicant is um has shown, but there's been a uh request to defer.

Um, I think it's it looks like the first one was September.

Is that sound?

Yeah.

So but again, the the only issue before the board is whether we were incorrect in accepting an official government uh determination that there was a homestead enjoyed on the property.

No good.

Oh, I will add that the applicant submitted some updated documentation one week ago uh that we added to the packet.

Um I was I feel like I don't know if the packet was uploaded.

We for some reason I don't think I don't know that I have everything.

Um like I don't have a um complete statement, the document from um safety and permits, and it looks like the two submissions are actually applicant submissions.

Not that it matters, but just sharing that.

What's listed as the safety and permits file is actually the applicant's um submission.

Uh I'm able to see the director's report.

Yeah.

It must just be me.

Yeah, and it may just be an out of files.

Yeah, saved over like that.

Um wait.

It has also his name on it.

Um I know that the applicant's not here, but uh I think the director's argument's very compelling.

I do not believe we have any jurisdiction over whether properties never do not have uh homestead exemptions.

So um I would request to make a motion even in the absence of the applicant.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Echo the same position.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh Madam Chair, regarding Docket BZA 108-25.

I move to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the director of safety and permits, finding that there was not an error in the interpretation of the comprehensive zoning ordinance or conflict in the law in accordance with Article 4, Section 4.8 point D of the CZO.

Thank you with regards to the CA docket 108-25.

It's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to uphold the decision of the director of the Department of Safety and Permits, finding that there was not an error in that decision.

Vote your screens.

Next item.

We'll now begin with new business for safety and permits decision appeals.

The next item is item 16, BZA 01226 for the property at 1901 through 1941 Canal Street.

Good afternoon again, Dan McMahon, Chief Zoning official for the City of New Orleans regarding BZA docket number uh 012-26.

It's my understanding that the applicant has requested a deferral in this matter and the uh uh department has uh no objections present for BCA docket 012-26.

I think that was one of the issues in the request is that the applicant was not gonna be able to be present.

That's why they requested thank you.

Is there anyone here in support of the applicant for BCA docket 012-26 that wishes to speak?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Um Dan, in your communication with them, would they be able to make the February meeting or they did say that they can attend the February 23rd meeting?

All right, just one up.

All right, if a motion is in order.

Yes, proceed.

Madam Chair, regards to BCA dock and number 012-26.

My motion is for deferral to the February agenda.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA docket 012-26, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer this item to the later February meeting agenda.

Vote your screens.

Five yes, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is item 17, BZA Docket 01326 for the property at 10563, North Interstate 10 Service Road.

Good afternoon, Dan MacMarch, Chief Zoning official for the city of New Orleans regarding BZA 013-26.

Uh we would submit that this matter is moot because the uh the matter was reviewed and uh determined that a uh billboard was permissible on that uh location, and I believe the permit to do so was issued.

Just a question to staff.

Um if the item is rendered moot, does it what is our um legal next step?

You don't need to take any action.

And let me clarify that.

I believe that that that was a private property and it was a sign for a business.

And then and therefore not a billboard, but a sign advertising the business that was located at that property.

So it's the difference of a pylon sign versus it being a billboard.

I I think that would be the the distinction that was made.

So it was incorrectly reviewed uh as a billboard.

And then that was that was determined not to be the case.

So basically the appeal that's before us is not as you're saying it's moot because what was actually determined and what is being challenged is not that's correct.

It was determined that a billboard was not appropriate, and then it would upon uh further review, it was determined that that's not in fact what was uh submitted.

Submitted and proposed.

It was actually a proposed for a sign for the business at that location.

All right, so I mean, usually we what that means we wouldn't take any action on it, but I'm gonna just tell you I got a pretty decent stack of speaker cards that are here on the item.

Um so I think it would just be appropriate.

So Dan, if you don't mind just speaking a little bit clearer for them to the mic, just so that the people who are here from the public are clearly understanding what's yeah, what has transpired since this was docketed.

That's correct.

So when this was initially docketed, the Department of Safety permits determined that the sign in question was a billboard.

The applicant filed the um uh the appeal and then reviewing the appeal, uh the zoning administration straighter determined that there was an error on the part of the department of safety and permits, and that that was actually not a billboard, but a sign for the business on their private property advertising their the business at that location, and therefore it was not an appropriate denial uh based on the uh CCO standards regarding the billboard before we take comments.

I'd just like to note that we have no information about it.

Well, we're gonna take a comment.

Can I we have no information what this thing is in our file?

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.

I guess we're we don't have uh we don't have a record to there's nothing in the file that's really from the um the department.

I think the only thing that we had was the um information um stating the basis for appeal and I understand so the to that end the the comments that were made regarding this particular property were withdrawn and that sign was approved for that location.

Understood.

On on the basis that the original I'm I'm just trying to walk through the what had taken place.

So there was an appeal um filed.

That's correct, and then the department determined, and that appeal was based on a billboard.

That's correct.

And the department determined that there was an error in that decision, and but instead of a billboard being placed, it is a sign for the business on that on that property that's allowed.

So there's not a billboard.

That's correct.

That is not what's written.

Can someone please explain how that changed?

Oh no, the fact that this is the same.

So look, we just have to we can't take anything from the audience.

So we um we are just trying to clarify for the record what is before us, but we can't take any outbursts from the the audience.

So to try to help put further clarity and put this in it's a layman's terms for the folks that's here.

The way it's been presented to us, and I'm just I'm going way above and beyond what we would traditionally do for this incident, but because of the amount of people here and the speaker cards that's provided.

I want to make sure y'all have as much clarity as possible.

As I appreciate this, this is an item where it was submitted when the application was submitted, that documentation noted a billboard as a part of its request, which may have not been what was intended by the applicant.

Because if I'm understanding correctly from the department, it is a pylon sign that's associated with a business that's going on that site.

But here's the issue.

We don't have any of the drawings that show any information, so it's hard for us to even speak on it, comment on it, and typically when it's something that's been rendered moved, we generally do not take any public comment or anything to that effect because that is no longer before this board.

So I would just strongly advise that y'all just I'll just give you this two-bit.

Just go look at whatever permit has been applied for on the city's one-stop shop to better provide clarity to what is actually been applied for and permitted by the city.

And when was that permitted?

I'd have to go back and look at the.

And based on what you're indicating, it's not a billboard, it is a sign on the uh the pri on the property identifying the business, which is different than a billboard, and the requirements around business signage is different than the requirements for a billboard.

Yes, I would say generally speaking, yes, that's that's that's correct.

And I'm just trying to get clarity for the public to understand what is that which should be addressed as a sign for the business, not a billboard.

What's what's being proposed?

And to the point.

Well, I think the public is responding to what's on the agenda.

That's right.

So that's what has that's what their position is, and that's what they are here, they were here to address.

I understand.

And so I'm just trying to make sure that it's understood what has been the um I guess safety and permits position is that there's not a billboard.

There is a sign.

That's right.

We examined the applicant's uh design.

We we looked at the application that was submitted by the applicant and determined that what what that the decision that this was a billboard was not correct and therefore went and uh issued the permit.

Um essentially we agreed to what the what the applicant was uh was appealing and corrected that um error prior to the to this meeting.

And so for a business sign identifying itself, what are the requirements for for that for a sign?

So it's a it's a different zoning component.

And that's I'm just trying to like and I could pull up the CCO for you right now if that's what you're asking for.

I don't have all of them in front of the.

And I I guess the the qu and I'm don't go too deep.

It's a different I'm just trying to understand how we get to establishing that it's moot and that it's now to say that it's moot means that we have something that's compliant as a business sign.

That's correct.

Generally speaking, that the the billboard is gonna all uh advertise something that is taking place other than other than the business.

So if the business was, for example, an auto parts store and they put up a sign and they're off their advertising Popeyes.

Correct.

So yeah, it's it's really the difference in a we gotta be careful with even just saying business sign because that's not how it's defined in the CZO.

Right.

It's a difference of if it's a pylon sign, and that's how they've permitted, which is allowed.

Um one quick note if I could chime in.

Our staff did not receive confirmation that the permit had been issued.

So I would suggest rather than um determining this rendered moot right now, perhaps we defer it so that we can confirm that the permit has indeed been issued and this this resolved.

So that does make it that's gonna be different because just um to be clear to defer the item um we will have public comment because it's not um taken off of the agenda.

And if my question is we would be deferring it then as is as a um as a billboard.

I would and I'm gonna just say this is been up here 14 plus years at this point, like we've never gone to that level.

If something's been rendered moot by the department, we're not at the we don't necessarily have taken a discretion to amend it.

And I know that would be insensitive because of there's a number of people in the room that are here and out of a point of concern.

But my the what I have to make sure we stay consistent on is how we've acted on these items in the past.

And whenever something has been rendered moot by the department, we defer to the department in a capacity to render it moot and not take any comment at that point nor take any action.

We gotta stay consistent.

I mean, at this point, we just kind of have two different positions presented, and I mean my only concern is now we don't have confirmation on the building permit.

I don't think we've ever really received, but look, then I mean you don't have a date for you right now.

This is my point too, is we have nothing to look at.

Yeah, we could hear all the comments, we have no idea what this is about.

Right.

That's that's what I'm saying.

I mean, I don't disagree, I I'm not disagreeing.

I I will just add in other situations where we've had deferrals, it's been that same situation.

Sometimes we have a variance that has nothing in it.

And if it's deferred, we do hear um, we we hear everything without anything in front of us.

And I understand I think the fact of not having anything in front of us isn't what the issue is.

Yeah, the issue is whether or not this is truly rendered moot.

Yeah.

So I wouldn't use that we don't have anything before us as the our basis, is what I'm saying.

I will just let the board know that I uh like I said, this came in as a zoning verification.

I haven't been able to determine whether that zoning verification was amended.

I gotta be forthright with the board.

I don't have that information in front of me today.

I know that might cause some pain up there, but I'll say that.

Yeah, Dan, that's only making it more complicated.

Yeah, I know, I know, but I want to be it is a reality.

It's very simple.

Yeah.

You said a permit has been issued.

I I said I thought, and now I'm I've been trying to communicate via text messages with with uh my folks, and they have not been able to um confirm that that's so let's do this instead, Dan.

Let me let me just kind of throw a recommendation out there.

I want to make sure that it's been rendered moot before we do anything deeper than that.

So what I'm gonna recommend is just deferring it to the end of the agenda so that you can get clarification around what is actually the position of the department, and if this is truly been rendered moot.

Okay.

And that's if it is if it is indeed rendered moot, we can address it at that point in time so it can close the item.

If it is true that a permit's not issued, and we and it has not been a hundred percent resolved, we should be hearing the item as before us, including public comment.

And I understand that, sir.

And and my position would be that that uh so my recommendation is I I I agree with that.

This should not be rendered moot until we have the information that determines what whether it is in fact moot or not.

So, yes, we we I think we only have one item after this, so I don't know if until the end of the agenda we're gonna have enough time to confirm that.

We might we might we might just to complicate things just to complicate Mr.

Things a little bit further, Mr.

James.

I I don't know if the applicant is present.

Uh he is oh yeah.

Standing back there.

There he is.

Everybody's here.

I'm just trying to be as fair as possible, Dan.

Yeah.

Uh no, not here.

We we're not taking any public comment until we have a clarification from the department.

Gotta stay consistent.

Sorry.

So if if y'all don't mind, I'm gonna just make a motion to defer the item to the end of the agenda for BCA docket number 013-26.

We have one other appeal item before us, and we could hear it after that item.

But Dan, I'm gonna just ask if you could have someone please get on top of it.

Type in as fast as I can.

Thank you.

Second that motion.

Sorry, sorry, you're out of order.

I'm so sorry, we're not taking public comment this week.

With regards to BZA docket 013 013-26 has been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Richards to defer this item to the end of the agenda.

Vote your screens.

Five yes, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is item 18, BZA docket 01426 for the property at 3929 Canal Street.

Good afternoon, Dan Macmere, Chief Zoning Official of the City of New Orleans regarding BCA 0 number 014-26.

I have requested a deferral in this matter uh at the last um at the last meeting, so I assume that it was going to be on the next February meeting.

Um still hope to resolve this matter prior to that, and I would be getting with Mr.

Rivers this week uh with what my report is on this uh which led to our determination is the applicant present for BZA docket 014-26.

Uh Bob Rivers, City Planning Commission, and I have no objection to deferring it to the next one.

Is there anyone here in support of the applicant for BZA docket 014-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Uh just to clarify uh Dan, it is it for the February meeting or March?

Yes, sorry.

February, thank you.

Uh for motions in order.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Proceed.

Madam Chair, my motion is uh for BZA docket number 014-26.

My motion for deferral to the February meeting.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA docket 014-26, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Alvarez to defer this item to the later February meeting.

Vote your screens.

Five yes, no nays.

The motion carries.

Item 19, BZA Docket 01526 for the property at 937 Esplanade has been rendered mute.

Um therefore that brings us back to item 17, BZA Docket 01326 for the property at 10563 North Interstate Ton Service Road.

So we're back.

Right back.

Yes, we are.

What you got?

Back on that matter, Dan MacMarchy zoning official for the city of uh New Orleans.

Uh I have not been able to confirm that the zoning verification in this matter was revised.

So uh technically it's not moot.

I would like the the people who are if they are in opposition of that decision that they would be able to appeal the revision of the zoning verification letter as a decision of the Department of Safety and permits as well, that they would have another opportunity to um that when that is complete, they would have an opportunity to challenge that decision and voice their concerns at that time.

Which would be different, which is different than where we are currently that's correct, because that they would be able to appeal that decision and then have standing to to oppose the decision saying that this is uh yeah, that's correct.

Well they would be they would be appealing with the correct that's correct, and they would be able to they would have standing to challenge that at that time.

Is that clear?

But as it stands currently, because this is still not um we don't have a final determination um on the uh permit on the correcting the zoning very so now it's not rendered moot, so that is correct the department's position at this point is to defer or what is what is your I'm just trying to understand procedurally where we are.

I mean I I think we've uh as that and I'm only asking because we don't have anything, we don't have a position from the department.

So is it that this you're requesting?

Uh we can defer this into the next uh put that on the February the following February hearing if that is um but again there will be a uh uh a change in the zoning verification to which the the any anybody in opposition to that will have an opportunity to appeal.

We'll be able to appeal the zoning verification that's coming up that's correct, which should be done today.

They would have uh time in which to file to to challenge that decision.

That way you're challenging the correct decision.

Well, I would submit it was correct decision.

I think the people here might disagree with it right.

All right, all that said, can you let us know what you're recommending now?

Uh out of an abundance of caution, and I would probably recommend deferring the matter given the fact that there's uh the the that correction has not has not been made, and I just just learned that it has not been made.

So I think that out of an abundance of caution that should be done because it's not rendered made.

Correct.

Had my department actually done that correction on that zoning verification, then it would be since it hasn't, it's not therefore it should be deferred.

Okay.

Okay.

So we're back to um that's a normal item.

So given that it's a um deferral request, we um we do have members of the public here, so any of them that as it's given the information that everyone has heard, I would just say understand where kind of we are where the department is in terms of you know what we're anticipating at the February meeting.

And just a problem from an administrative level, just with the cards that we did receive, um, just so we don't have any confusion on when we do call people to the mic to speak because there's a not a lot of people listed in opposition, which is actually probably in support of the original ruling that the billboard would not be allowed.

So I just want to make sure it's clear that when we ask for speakers that when we when you're in support of the appeal, excuse me, when you're a supporter of the of this item, you're supporting the appeal that was provided by the property owner initially.

No, no, no.

Who's a correct opposition the billboard did so I'm just trying to make sure there's a difference and permits said that a billboard could not go thank you on the property.

And so if you're speaking in opposition to that, then you're speaking against what the city said, which is no billboard.

Are you opposing no billboard?

You want a billboard?

I wouldn't ask questions to the audience.

It's not our procedure.

That's not a good idea.

I just I want to keep it orderly.

In support of the appeal, so if you're exactly supporting and explain that because it can be I think that's what I was attempting to do just now to give calling because people are split.

All right.

So report.

I'm gonna let Madam Chair go back to calling out who's here, but I just wanted to provide clarity for those who filled out speaker cards.

Thank you.

So for BZA Docket 013-26 is the applicant present.

If you can come forward, please.

If you can give your name and address for the record.

John Cerniglia 2315, Florida Street, Mandeville, Louisiana, 7044.

Go ahead with your comments.

Well, my first comment is I'm a little confused what's going on.

So y'all need to make it clear to me.

It was put on record that this was uh mute by the uh safety and permits, and somehow everybody overruled it and went back.

And are we now here in this case, or am I objecting to the to the deferral?

So just to I'm I'm not gonna answer a question at this point.

We're at the point of public comment, and we did address what the position is if you want to continue with your public comments because you are on the clock at this point, and we can um go back to um our positions at this point.

I guess my question is what's the motion on the floor right now?

There's not a motion on the floor.

So I haven't made a motion for deferral.

Nope.

There's only requests.

There's a request for a deferral at this point at the request of the department.

Okay.

All right.

So that being said, Madam Chair, I'm the representative for the applicant, uh JM Snigley Enterprises LLC, and I object to the staff's request for deferral.

The CZO contains no article or section authorized uh staff to defer an appeal.

Article 4.8 governs appeals to this board, and it does not permit a deferral unless there is a procedural defect, missing required information or request by me, the applicant.

None of these conditions exist here.

Staff has not identified any ordinance, statute, or procedural defect that would justify delaying this appeal.

The application has fully complied with every requirement of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, and the staff has had more than ample uh adequate time uh to review the record.

First, the city's own one-stop system shows that the staff has known since November 6, 2025, that this billboard application is located on lot one.

The application summary explicitly lists the location as 10563, North Interstate 10 Service Road Lot 1.

And the description states the billboard is situated on a uh portion of that lot.

This is not new information.

Staff has had this in their possession for over three months.

Second, on November 2nd, 2025, I paid the required fee for the zoning uh determination as shown in the official city receipt.

Staff accepted the payment, issued a transaction ID, and processed the zone and verification requests.

The means staff uh had both the location and the zone and verification requested on file early no since early November.

A deferral now months later cannot be justified by any claim or incomplete information.

Third, if staff argues today that they need more time because they were unaware of lot two R, the argument fails on the face.

The applicant did not include lot two R on his on its application.

Staff is the party who introduced lot two R into the process by merging multiple unrelated lots into a uh fictional 24 lot superparcel that does not exist in law.

My application has always been for a billboard on lot one, and staff has known that from day one.

Any confusion about lot two R is a staff created interruption issue.

I mean interpretation issue, not an application error.

Fourth, the CZO does not authorize deferral because staff needs more time to reconsider its own internal theory.

The board's duty is to apply the ordinance to the actual parcel lot one, not to a postponed hearings while staff attempts to reconcile its position that it is unsupported by the public record.

Fifth, staff's two-week deferral request was originally for the January 26th meeting.

That meeting was canceled due to the weather, and the appeal was administratively moved to today, effectively granting staff the two-week deferral they requested.

Now the staff is back asking for yet another two-week deferral, which is improper and unsupported by the CZO.

The delays prejudice the applicant and undermine the integrity of the appeal process.

The record is complete.

The evidence is filed, and staff has had more than sufficient time to review the zoning verification, the parcel data, and the lot one designation.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the board deny staff's referral requests and proceed with the hearing today.

There is no legal basis for delay, and the applicant is entitled to a timely decision under the CZO.

I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 013-26?

Anyone here in opposition to the applicant for BZA Docket 013-26?

If you will come up, please.

If you would not speak from the audience, thank you.

But I've got to be careful with you, Madam Chair, members of the board.

I have the honor of serving as a member of the City Council.

I represent District E in which this proposed astrocity is being proposed.

I am a little bit perplexed.

Let me first thank you all for your dedication.

But I am a little bit perplexed at some of the things that were said earlier.

It's crystal clear.

Anybody with eyes can see the applicant has made clear.

This is a billboard.

So the earlier assertion that this was some type of sign associated with a business, uh, this is a vacant lot, no business is being proposed.

This has always been about a billboard.

Uh and the applicant has made clear uh that his goal is to erect a billboard so that he can generate revenue to ultimately build apartment complexes.

So let's just set the record straight.

Uh I appreciate you having this public hearing because, as you all know, last uh meeting you had to cancel.

Uh, and I have over 20 residents that want to speak.

Uh, but we are ready to put this issue to bed today.

Uh, I think the determination uh is has been accurate.

Uh I rise in opposition to the appeal.

Uh, and on behalf of my community, we are certainly uh ready to sustain that appeal.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else here in opposition?

Quickly.

My name is Denise Pruitt of 9696 Lincoln Beach Boulevard, formerly hanged Boulevard.

I am a resident and community member of District E, and I speak in strong opposition to the proposed billboard under docket number BZA013-26 for the vacant lot located at 10,563 North Interstate 10 Service Road in the C2 auto-oriented commercial district.

While the applicant is requesting approval to construct a billboard on this vacant lot, I am deeply concerned about the impact this structure would have on the surrounding community.

This location is near residential areas, and the presence of a large billboard has the potential to negatively affect neighborhood character and contribute to the depreciation of nearby property values.

Studies indicate that billboards near residential neighborhoods generally depreciate home values, particularly for properties within a close radius.

Residents should not have to bear the burden of visual blight and possible economic harm.

The applicant personally shared with me that the intent behind building the billboard is to generate income to fund other development projects he owns in New Orleans East.

While economic development is something our community greatly desires, there are no enforceable guarantees that billboard revenue will be used for that purpose.

There is also no guarantee that future development permits, I mean permits would be approved, nor any defined timeline for such projects.

In short, the community is being asked to accept a permanent structure based on speculative future benefits.

Additionally, several residents informed me that they signed a petition at a local Walmart, believing it supported general economic development.

They later expressed concern that it was not clearly disclosed that the petition related specifically to the construction of a billboard.

Transparent community engagement is essential when projects could affect neighborhood quality of life and residents deserve full clarity before being asked to show support.

Our neighborhood should not be asked to trade certainty for promises.

Approving this billboard would prioritize private income generation over the stability and well-being of residents.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Board of Zoning Adjustments to deny this appeal and protect the interests of the district E community.

Thank you for your time.

And I agree with everything this lady said.

Thank you so much.

The Eastern New Orleans Neighborhood Advisory Commission, Eno Knock resolutions Aura 226 and Aura 326 regarding VZA Docket 1326, resolution Enoch Aura 226 documents the failure to provide the required notice to EnoNak, resolution Enoch Aura 326, formally calls for the denial of this request.

Together, these resolutions establish that the process is procedurally defective and that the substantive release, the substantial relief should uh sought should be denied.

Enoch respectfully submitted these resolutions to the official record and urges the Board of Zoning Adjustments to deny BZA Docket 13 slash 26 with prejudice.

Notices, though, were provided to the New Orleans East Business Association and the Eastern New Orleans Civic Association.

Both organizations have been largely inactive for years and do not serve as representative bodies in the subdivisions and neighborhoods of New Orleans East.

So I wanted to uh refer to the petitions.

Petitions were assigned in the neighborhoods, actually 100 in the Lake Forest Estates neighborhood.

We have the Malia Subdivision Petitions and Idlewood Parkwood.

But the gentleman did uh solicit signatures, I gotta say, at Walmart, and then I happened to go there, so they were also signatures from residents that do not live in New Orleans East.

So, and I agree it was deceptive the way it was promoted because it in the uh the flyer he kept referring to we we we and actually today he is still referring to billboards.

So thank you so much.

Good afternoon.

I'm O'Dill Ramsey, 6911 Camberly Drive.

As president of the Lake Barrington Homeowners Association, I represent our community in protecting our quality of life, property values, safety, and the ability to live normally in our homes.

We oppose a billboard installation that is detrimental to our neighborhood and already deemed incompatible under the city zoning and land use laws.

Existing billboard restrictions along our New Orleans East Side 10 Carter exists to protect residential neighborhoods and land zones for residential use.

Allowing billboards in this corridor undermines the purpose of those protections and introduces commercial advertising into areas planned for residential living.

For clear public interest reasons, our city, cities nationally, and peer jurisdictions across Louisiana, including Jefferson and St.

Tammany parishes where our applicant resides using use the zoning and sign ordinances to prohibit buffer or strictly limit billboards from residential areas.

Billboards are large, brightly lit and visually intrusive with digital billboards creating glare, light trespass, and sky glow.

These effects disrupt sleep, degrade nighttime conditions, and alter neighborhood character, making them a recognized nuisance and legitimate land use concern near homes.

Cities and realtors nationwide acknowledge that these impacts often negatively affect property values where residences are nearby.

Along our I-10 corridor, a failing digital billboard poses a direct risk.

Research and storm post-storm assessments, including FEMA findings, show that single pole billboards can buckle, fail at the foundation, or collapse in hurricane force winds becoming dangerous debris.

For these reasons, approving a billboard permit would contradict established zoning principles and harm community livability and safely and safety, I should say.

We respectfully urge that the board deny EZ8 Docket 1326 to place the billboard with prejudice.

Ada Lacey, 7151, Lake Barrington Drive.

I am a committee member for the Lake Barrington Homeowners Association.

I don't want to keep repeating what the other residents are saying, but another concern that's that's our concern is uh traffic safety, is a concern near the residential um streets and pedestrian activity by creating avoidable distraction for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrian zoning laws exist to reduce these risks where safety already matters the most.

We have uh an increase of vehicles veering off the interstate running into our safety barrier.

We don't need any more of that.

That's too much of a distraction for the drivers that's commuting on I-10.

Good afternoon.

My name is Peril Cantrell, 7 to 620, Crestmont Road.

I'm the president of the Kenneworth Improvement District.

Number one, let me see I agree with everything that's been said before.

Just to add to that, um, this looks like or sounds like the first worm out of the can.

And once we open the can and let the first worm out, the rest of them will follow soon.

Given permission for this to for a billboard to be built in this residential area on a lot on a service road, we just begin something to create throughout New Orleans East where we already know everybody like to dump their worst trash there, and we have to fight it.

It should never come up, should never have had to come up, and it shouldn't have to come up again anywhere else by anyone else in it in a residential area.

It's not allowed anywhere in the city in a residential area, and it shouldn't be allowed in New Orleans east as well.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Corinne Villa Vaso, 711 Lake Barrington Drive.

Um, thank you all for being here, and thank you all for um listening and taking public comment.

Um, I want to thank Council Member Jason Hughes for standing with us.

Um I'm in strong opposition to this appeal.

I also want to reference that um what we have done in Lake Barrington subdivision, in addition to reaching out to all of the, as Ms.

Pearl said, this is a first can out of the worm.

I mean, first worm out of the can, this will set a precedent.

So we felt that it was very important that we engage all of the subdivisions that are along the I-10 corridor, provided that we also have the project with Connecting New Orleans East that is ongoing that's by the city of New Orleans that we felt it was very important to reach out to them directly, and opposite of getting petitions signed at a Walmart.

So in my hand, I have approximately over a hundred of these farm letters, which represents a household or residence in those residents, which equate to about 255 residents that will be immediately adjacent to that.

I appreciate him for clearing the air, the applicant.

But from a property valuation standpoint, proximity to large or digital billboards is widely recognized by appraisers and real estate professionals as a negative external factor.

Homes located near billboards often experience longer marketing times, reduced buyer demand, and downward pressure on sale prices due to light intrusion, visual clutter, and conversion of residential edge into commercial corridors.

This directly threatens the equity that homeowners have built over decades.

The subject site is located within the ENORC in the corridor transformation overlay district, which was community-led.

So these these um regulations are here for a reason, which expressly prohibit billboards to protect neighborhood character and residential investment.

Granted this request would conflict with the comprehensive zoning ordinance and undermine the policy decisions the city adopted to stabilize property values along the interstate service road corridor.

There's also a significant procedural defect.

Enoch, state legislative body created by Act 1240 in 2003 to represent East New Orleans on land use matters were not notified required by Louisiana or by statute.

Failure to provide notice denies residents due process and cause the validity of the document to question.

Other jurisdictions include St.

Tammy Parish, Houston, and Atlanta have strengthened restrictions on billboards near residential zoning specifically to prov to prevent depreciation of home values and to protect quality of life.

New Orleans East should receive the same protection.

As a homeowner, I rely on the city to enforce its zoning laws, consistently safeguard residential investments, approving this billboard will do the opposite.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Board.

Thank you.

My name is Marcia Mack Williams.

I reside in East New Orleans.

I am the uh first vice president of East New Orleans Neighborhood Advisory Commission known as EnoNAC.

ENONAC has been dealing with billboards since 2019, and we have been against billboards since then.

We have had resolutions dating back to 2019.

I agree with everything that has been said to him here today, and as the first vice president of Enoch, I am against the billboards, and as a resident of New Orleans East, I am against the billboards.

Thank you.

Hello, board.

Claudia Sulastan, New Orleans East resident, a member of Enel NAC, and I am the president of my neighborhood association for Berg.

I stand in opposition of the billboard.

Now, I don't know if we have a play on words because we are constantly referring to billboard, which is something that I perceive to be where you can advertise other businesses as opposed to a business sign that advertises the business that is on the property that you own.

So when this property is developed, I am looking for a sign to be placed on that property to advertise that.

But a billboard that is going to generate revenue for the landowner is not something that we want in our community.

Our neighborhood is unique.

Many of our neighborhoods are directly adjacent to the interstate, which bring challenges as it is with noise, traffic, pollution, and visual impact.

We don't have a high fence that can separate our neighborhoods from the inner state, which some areas in the adjacent parishes do have.

And I understand the reason we don't have those.

But we have been working for decades in New Orleans East to build up our community, to develop that sense of pride, to maintain the integrity of our communities.

And we don't want to see a billboard to come into our neighborhoods.

That's going to affect all that we are moving to build.

We are under a new administration now.

We are going forward.

We are going in a new direction, and a billboard to me would take us back.

So as all of the other people have stated the reasons that they don't see a billboard working for us.

So I am in opposition.

Thank you.

5606, 5706, Lord Primal Drive West.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Shuan Bernard, 5501 Norgate Drive on New Orleans.

And I stand in opposition to having a billboard placed in New Orleans East.

But also to speak about the issue I believe that's on the uh that was presented by the city asking whether or not this matter would be deferred or the matter to render this matter moot moot.

And I would be in agreement with that because I don't know what the city's reasoning is in order to come up and speak as to whether or not we support or don't support the reasonings that the city is giving.

So I looked in the records and I looked in the records and I read everything, and it does not necessarily uh make it available to me today in this chambers.

But I thought I read something that the department also has gone back and perhaps denied uh the request for a billboard, and that matter too may be appealed.

But we in this moment, I think the only issue before you all is whether or not the matter for the billboard is an issue, but I think that that file continues to evolve such that the applicant is changing addresses and trying to decide whether or not the billboard is faced one way or the other.

So it's a continuing matter that may not be appropriate at this moment to resolve only because we as a members of the community don't have everything to properly speak on it.

So while I oppose the uh billboard, I'm not quite sure what my position will be with why the city believes it's moot because I have not seen that evidence placed into the file to properly render an opinion on that.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lord Slandrum.

My address is 7301 Lake Barrington Drive, New Orleans 70128.

Um I'm a member of Enoch, and I'm also on the board of the Homeowners Association for Lake Barrington.

Um, my husband and I decided we were going to move into a more serene environment.

So we researched several of the lake communities because we thought we maybe we'd like to live in the lake community.

And we selected Lake Barrington because it did fit our needs.

We invested lots of money into getting a house renovated and to getting a bulkhead repaired and also in building a deck.

We are now at the stage of our lives that we cannot go and find another subdivision that we can afford to uh give us the same needs that we have in the Lake Barrington subdivision because living under the conditions of these lights flickering, keeping us from sleeping, and the other things that this um billboard would bring would not be the type of living we would want.

I agree with everyone here who spoke to oppose this billboard, and I certainly hope that you guys will oppose it also.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, and thank you for taking my comments.

I won't repeat what has been said because so many valid points have been made, but I would like to just touch upon the light pollution.

And that is that this property where this billboard is proposed is adjacent to many residential properties.

And I just wonder how many of us would like to come home from a day's work to find lights flickering in our bedrooms.

So I ask you to please consider this and all the other comments that have been made, because this billboard would be something not good for New Orleans East or for any residential area, and it will devalue our properties and adversely affect the quality of life of the residents.

Thank you.

Could you give your name and address for the sorry?

Yes, Gail Armand, 7511 Spring Lake Drive.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in opposition to the applicant that wishes to speak?

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Frain Baez.

I'm the homeowner, the home owner at 11311 Parkwood Court South, located in New Orleans East.

I want to start off by saying this is the flyer that the applicant passed out.

At the very top, it says petition to support the I 10 Billboard appeal to help fund the mixed use development in New Orleans East.

Then it goes on to say why this petition matters.

New Orleans East has been overlooked for far too long.

Our community likes basic amenities like retail stores, sit-down restaurants and shopping options.

Restaurants deserve better, and this project is a real opportunity for progress.

Really, billboards as progress.

And to me, in my own opinion, his presentation was deceptive because he pushed for retail shopping.

He kept saying retail shopping and affordable housing.

And if he ever got to the billboards, I don't know because I just kind of was walking past.

But I want to say that billboards would only litter our stretch of the interstate with unsightly distractions.

And I would suggest that the billboards be placed in the area between 510 and the twin span, where they won't be um distracting or intruding on the um the residents that live in the area where he wants to put it.

And there wasn't a single billboard in that area at that time.

So I don't see how that would enhance our living now.

There's never been one there, even when it was vibrant.

So I'm asking you to um to oppose putting a billboard out there.

I don't think we need it.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Thank you, board for being here.

Uh, my name is Wayne Lamille.

I live at 136-34 Dwara Boulevard, our New Orleans East.

Um I agree with all the people that everything, all the people that have spoken against this billboard says, because I oppose it.

Um we don't need something that's gonna be detrimental to our community.

Uh, a billboard along the sign will adverses affect us as far as lighting on the interstate.

It'll it'll affect our property values, and we don't need that.

Um, we're I'm offended that this gentleman has come into our community and has been deceptive and trying to get people to sign a petition that would do something that was negative to our community.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here uh in opposition that wishes to speak?

The applicant has an opportunity to report thank you.

Thank you.

First of all, I'd like to make it clear that our appeal, we're not asking for an exception.

We are not asking for a variance.

This appeal is solely based on the fact that where we want to place our billboard does meet all the requirements of the CZO and the overlay.

The only issue, as the staff will make and bring to your attention, is what he was trying to explain to you earlier, is that they denied our permit based on the fact that home decor across the street had an accessory sign that they thought was a billboard.

So they denied it.

So I then, which I'm hoping that you guys received our appeal and our basis for appeal that we sent, sent that in.

That it wasn't a billboard.

It was an accessory sign and shouldn't yet be held against us.

And then they revised their zoning and came back with oh, you're within 500 feet of a residential district, and you are uh in uh you're in uh uh your front lot, which means you can't put a billboard in the overlay zone.

So I then amended my appeal, sent the basis back that they were incorrect in that knowledge because what they were doing was taking, I own 24 lots, literally a quarter mile long, and they were taking all of those lots, including the lot I meant uh mentioned earlier, which is R2, I mean two R, combine them together in order to get, if you look at my uh basis for appeal, to get within 500 feet of a residential area, and to say I had frontage and therefore the billboard was not allowed.

Well, the actuality is the the billboard was always gonna be placed on lot one, which which is next to the canal, and it does not have any frontage on the I-10 service road.

So it does not uh inflict with any of the uh CZO or the overlay zones requirements because you can't group a bunch of lots together and say they're one lot to get 500 feet.

They also took their 500 feet from the back property line.

It is clear according to the article of the CZO that and the overlay zone that you can only measure by front footage on the facing road.

So this lot we're not asking for variance, we are not asking for an exemption.

It 100% meets every requirement to put a billboard there.

Now I really appreciate everything that the residents here of New Orleans East has said.

I get that, but you know, billboards have not been determined to be detrimental to a city.

We have them in New Orleans everywhere, okay?

And this whole case, this appeal is based on facts that were misinterpreted by the staff, which he's admitting to now, okay?

And if it was like the honorable Jason Richards said of your board, that it was the residents that made these decisions, we would have 20 foot fences, okay?

But in this case, the only thing that we're asking for is that this property meets every single criteria to allow a billboard.

We're not asking for any changes, no variances, no exceptions, no nothing.

It meets the requirements, and because it meets the requirements, we should be able to erect this billboard.

That's the bottom line.

That is what the BZA is here to do to interpret the the ordinance and and figure out does it qualify or doesn't it qualify?

I'm not trying to go out the scope of the CZO or out the scope of the overlay.

I can just tell you right now that it meets every single requirement.

And further, I can read this whole thing I got laid out here.

But I'd like to see if you have guys have any questions for me because I think you would know wanting to know what exactly is going on.

Is that the end of your comments?

Well, I got 52 seconds, so I guess I'll take them.

Okay.

Uh basically, uh, what I'm saying is we have a right to erect this billboard just because some residents don't want it, and I'm gonna tell you right here, what they're saying about me misrepresenting is totally inaccurate.

I spent only 10 hours at Walmart, and within 10 hours, we signed almost 600 signatures.

I physically got them here.

I can show them to you.

Okay.

Yes, maybe one or two.

I didn't know the people didn't live there, but I'm in New Orleans.

These in the heart of New Orleans, these getting signatures, okay.

So, but all of these people, the majority of 99% live in New Orleans East, and they were static, literally ecstatic about having a billboard.

And it clearly says here we are gathering signatures to support an appeal in connection to a billboard.

We were not trying to decept anybody.

Thank you.

That's the end of your answer.

This is the this is the basis.

Thank you.

Okay.

So um just to add to add some clarity.

Uh I and you have actually two members um of the board who um are residents of uh New Orleans East.

So I think we are fully aware of um what the issue is.

Uh I just want to first start off with the what's properly before us at this moment is a request from the department to defer this item.

And a few things that the applicant suggested do not seem to be the actual um, there were not any changes as far as I can see from what's listed before us in terms of the basis for the appeal um being related to the billboard.

Um I know there was some reference to and if I may make some clarifications that and and and I apologize, and and then you may get to already what I was thinking.

So the the basis of the denial was that there was another billboard within uh a thousand feet and as the uh applicant is indicating that was the um home decor.

That was the home decor sign for the bit for the that that and that's what's that's what was the appeal.

And that was what and that was the basis for the appeal.

That's why the department took a look at it and said, you know, you're actually correct.

And just and going back and looking at it, and I will spend the rest of the day doing uh looking at this particular zoning verification does not necessarily mean that the uh zoning verification will determine.

I realize the applicant has a different position.

Right.

I'm not saying one way or the other because I'm gonna go back and spend the rest of the afternoon looking at this.

Um but the department's position was that it was correct that that regarding the fact that that home decor sign was not a uh was not a billboard, and the basis for the uh the that the zoning verification was in error when it suggested that it was.

Got it.

And so at this point, we're at the um the point of the department requesting the deferral to get some of those questions answered.

That's correct.

And just to go back, because again, the applicant incorrectly stated that we do not have the um position to um the authority to um defer an item, and I just want to go back to what was read at the start of the um appeal hearings, and it is within the board's discretion to grant um deferrals uh as we deem necessary, and that's what we have been doing throughout um for variances as well as we have that um ability to do that as it relates to appeals as well.

So we are well within the authority of the board to um to grant a deferral should we um deem it necessary.

I appreciate force and may I just apologize for making that situating that situation.

I apologize to the board, the applicant, as well as the um the the neighbors from New Orleans East.

Um I just would like to apologize to everyone for for the confusion.

Thank you for um for that, and thank you for working to get it resolved um as quickly as possible.

Um are there any questions?

I know at this point we're at the point of a deferral request and recognizing um to uh commissioner.

I know uh someone gave you a uh elevation and called you honorable Jason.

Yes.

Uh we are we are we are not elected, we're volunteer volunteers.

I'll honorably take the next question, which would be but um I know that to your point we don't have like a full packet, so there may not be a lot of um questions, but we're at the point of a deferral, so not to get into the relevant arguments, but more so just addressing the um deferral request to the next February meeting.

Okay, so I have two points to make and the first one's to the uh to the legal, which is you you made some statements about our ability to defer or not defer.

So I was just gonna ask if to to confirm for the applicant that we basically have the power to to do what we need to do with the decision application.

Yes, the board is definitely with the rights to defer.

I accept that.

Um I'm a layman at this, okay.

So please the research I pulled up, might have indicated differently.

AI.

Fair enough point.

Uh all good.

Um the AI gives you trouble.

The other thing I'll say is I don't know that we're prepared to take any affirmative action one way or the other on this because just in in our review of the record, and I'll speak to the director here.

Uh uh, you know, there's some questions that we have in the billboard regulations that haven't been presented to us.

For instance, uh the issue was brought up the 500 feet from a residential district from our interpretation.

It bel it looks like this lot is skinny enough that it might qualify.

The applicants made some contentions about that.

It's not in your report, or we don't really even have your report.

So, like those are I think some key things that we would need to hear before we either come back with this appeal.

Um uh, or find that there's an appeal needs to be made in some other direction.

So I think there's enough questions given our review of the CZO and everything that's been said here that we're not comfortable taking any other action than a deferral on this for now.

And I'll make sure you have a complete record next time this matter comes to course.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

The motions in order.

Yes, Christy.

Thank you.

So, madam chair, with regards to BZA docket number 013-26.

My motions for deferral to the March agenda, because we do believe the staff needs to be able to excuse me, the department needs to provide further documentation and clarity as we would traditionally receive before we rule on these items.

Um, I will make a special request to for further clarity around Article 24 and prohibited locations in terms of how that is truly been handled in the past by the department and also what this body has done because we have seen billboards whether it be through waivers and variances, but also at decision appeals.

So just with that, I'll move uh uh deferral to the March agenda.

Second, thank you.

With regards to BCA docket 013-26 has been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer this item to the March meeting.

Vote your screens.

Five yes, no nays, the motion carries would the board consider a motion to adjourn the meeting?

So second it's been moved by Commissioner Gonzalez, second by Commissioner James to defer the meeting, vote your screens.

Five yes, no nays, the motion carries, and our meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.