Good morning.

I would like to call the Monday, February 23 Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting to order.

We will begin with roll call.

Oh.

Tamara Agans.

Jaime Ramiro Diaz.

Presented.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Present.

Jason Richards.

Present.

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

I'll feel a little slighted that there wasn't any accent provided on my name.

The lack of accent is the accent.

We appreciate the flourish.

I move so it's been moved by Commissioner.

Thank you.

Alvarez seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez to adopt the minutes from our special meeting.

Um I don't know if the screens is not letting us sign in.

Yes.

Well, all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Please note that the board will recess at approximately one PM if the meeting has not already been adjourned, and we'll reconvene at approximately two PM.

As a reminder to applicants, action that the board takes today will be released in the form of a disposition notice by March fifth and sent via email and mail to applicants, as well as posted on the 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.

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

The next item is BZA Docket 126 for a property at 3513 Charter Street.

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 request has been modified since the February 9th hearing.

The applicant now proposes a 10-foot fence height, an increase from the original nine-foot fence height request.

The comprehensive zoning ordinance requires a maximum fence height of seven feet.

The applicant is seeking a waiver of three feet.

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

Fence height fails to meet standards 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the standards for variance per Article 4, Section 4.6.

Therefore, the staff recommends denial of the requested variance.

Good morning.

Could you give you a name and address for the record?

Ron Lazel, 1000 South Norman.

See Francis.

Um again, thank you, Commissioners and staff.

As there are three dockets, as you know, as we went through this couple weeks ago that are pertaining to the same issue.

I'm only going to talk on this one issue and ask if I just need a little more time.

If you would be uh granted, I have four minutes right as of now.

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

In that staff report, 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 the request.

I will now review the staff's responses from that prior application on Royal Street, as the two situations are nearly identical and highlight how those same standards are met in our current requests.

Number one, special circumstance.

The charter's properties have three pools and three hot tubs in their backyards.

The single family home from these behind these properties and those on the side are raised house, meaning the windows are located above the existing fence and look directly into all three pool areas.

Everything can be seen from the homeowner's window.

This is absolutely a special circumstance.

Furthermore, the charter properties we are reviewing are zoned HMMU and the surrounding residential homes are HMR 3.

This is a clear case of commercial zoning abutting residential zoning, as was stated in the royal case.

Literal interpretation.

In that same report where residential abuts commercial, the staff noted that 75% of the fences are non-compliant.

This precedent, just three blocks away, is directly applicable to these three applications.

Four, special privilege.

Since there is a precedent for fences of excess height, where residential properties above commercial properties, granting the variance would not confer a special privilege.

A precedent exists.

And granting this variance for the charter's properties will not confer a special privilege.

Five, will not alter the character.

As cited, where commercial abuts residential, 75% of the fences, 75% of the fences are already not in compliance.

The Royal Street report stated strict adherence would require the neighbors to contend with the elevated noise levels generated by the country club, and therefore result in a hardship for the residents at these properties.

The charter's application, these three pro commercial short-term rentals accommodate up to 10 people in each unit, which means there could be 30 people at these three properties at one time.

The neighbors are begging for this fence to be built higher to bring them relief from the noise and the sights.

And when you look at the Royal Street versus these, it's the exact same situation.

Thank you.

Is there anyone here in support if the applicant for BCAcket 001-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board.

So remind me on the previous case you presented to us, my recollection of it, and I haven't gone back to the record to see, is that it is it was a fence at the rear yard of the country club and the side yard of the adjoining property.

Does that sound right?

Yes.

Yeah.

So to me, I get, you know, my inclination is that this is a really tall fence and that it's highly prominently visible, right?

So as opposed to that project, this fence involves a side yard, a rear yard, and a corner side yard.

So the visual impact of it's going to be pretty substantial, particularly on the corner side yard.

That said, I you know, we've read all the the neighbor comments and understand them.

I guess since you're coming back to us with the P word precedent, I have a real concern about setting a precedent, even though that's not what we do, where people feel entitled to come to this board to get 10-foot fences between commercial and residential properties all across the city.

So I don't know if you can speak to that at all.

I would I would love to um come back with a proposal on a change for this uh to kind of meet you guys halfway in the middle.

Uh that we keep the fence at 10 feet on the sides, which would alleviate the immediate neighbor behind.

And then we taper down to the seven feet at charters, which would then give enough blockage to the two uh the properties on the side that would be able to see in, and then by the time you get down to charters, it it's at the seven-foot level.

This would then address the major concerns of the issues that the neighbors have, and then the client would also be able to work on sound proofing on that as well.

I think that would be a great middle ground.

We'd be happy to support.

Okay, something like that sounds appropriate.

I mean, I guess we're not the visual committee, and this has already been through the HDLC steps, and I'm sure I'd you know the record says that the HGLC didn't support it, the council member wrote it, so I don't know.

Um it would basically, I guess, be this question to my fellow commissioners board members, that would be kind of to us to say what's acceptable.

I would say, you know, a like a long slope along Charter Street doesn't make a lot of sense.

It's a very weird look.

But in a constructibility issue, just yeah, just rip it at a very slight angle.

So if we made that transition pretty abruptly on the on the Gallier Street side, I think that would be okay.

I mean, I'm trying to think through my head uh immediate across the street neighbor, I believe, is restaurant, Elizabeth's restaurant.

And charters.

And um, I don't know the degree to which their neighbors immediately across the street who are really, really opposed to the um the are really really interested in the fence height.

The ones that are our are most affected is that house straight behind.

Uh-huh.

And then behind Elizabeth's.

Their yard goes deep into that neighbor's yard.

And quite frankly, um that is a big point for them on that side.

So, or if even if you would rather something on the 10-foot side and then on the between the two businesses, and we figure out the yeah, I think so.

Yeah, yeah, I I think a proposal like that might be good.

I mean, the border zoning adjustments is if nothing, the board of reconciling good neighborly relations.

So we understand that this is not the zoning code.

We understand that people desire this fence, but I want to do it in a way that doesn't, because this is so visually prominent that doesn't put 10 foot fences right on a prominent corner where everybody can see them and be under the impression that they can get 10 foot fences approved in the city.

Yeah, and um just some additional comments, just looking at it from a placement and the adjacencies that you're referring to, the residential versus what's happening up against the commercial property with Elizabeth.

I would look at it through the lens of just also how that fence wraps back towards the building facade um for the first building that's highlighted that's here because I know we're dealing with technically three properties, so but I think each property in this case actually is uniquely different when we get into how to appropriately address this.

And it's how you're containing the sound in the rear yard and not impacting that residential property direct that's across the rear yard uh side and the single property on the which street is that um sorry.

Oh oh I I I misstated it's Congress Street, not Gallery Street.

Yeah, gallery streets on the back side.

Yes.

So on the property that's on the Gallier side, that was I was trying to get the difference between the two.

Yeah, the 3121.

Right.

Looking at how the fence could potentially wrap back to the facade and only have the excessive height in that footprint to mitigate sound.

Um I think where it abuts Elizabeth, I think we should strongly consider keeping it at what the requirements are, because no matter what, as you're driving down uh charters, you're still gonna see that fence line, and I think you're gonna still have some level of a visual impact there that I don't think we necessarily need to create that buffer in that spot.

But if you wrap your fence condition back to the building with a gate, I think that's more appropriate to contain it.

Um but that's at least just for this first one on uh 3517.

3513.

3513 is 13, sorry, yeah.

That's all right.

Yeah, I agree with that point.

Yeah.

Um, but the one that's on the Congress Street side, I know we're not there yet, and I mean technically we're gonna get to it in a second.

It may be a little bit of the same thing unless somebody else has an opinion.

Well, I I just had a question.

I'm sorry if the I don't know if we talked about this last meeting, but is it is the issue visibility or sound?

Is curious what sound what the strategy is for the wall?

It's both.

And uh so the the uh the um um homeowner on the back side, it's full site full sound.

Uh on the sides, you know, we're just trying to protect more of the neighbor on the Elizabeth side of the building.

It is it is I mean, she asked me, and I had walked this neighborhood three times to go into her house.

I get it.

So, how do how does what is the detail that's gonna address the sound concerns?

Well, they're gonna have to figure that out when they put the plans in for the fence.

But they had tried to do something initially with this one, but it just it did not work when you had that fence at seven feet in the back.

Being able to put the ten-foot fence up in the back and keep that away from the neighbors, you know, we'll let the sound people and architects get that.

But yeah, I guess what I mean.

I have I have a courtyard issue where the sound next door just goes right over the wall, it doesn't matter.

So um it's more of a for me a visibility thing, and then you know, if you're containing sound within that space, it it just creates an alley.

Right.

And I'm understanding the need to wrap wrap the corner, is my point.

Yeah, wrap the wrap the hard corner, but I'm also saying from the acoustical standpoint.

I mean, the bet the best thing would be to create a green screen green green screen, yeah.

On that fence, and I don't know what how a green screen is still considered a fence.

The the issue, so um, and I guess this is why I get in trouble on a constructibility part, probably knowing too much for the sake of this topic.

It's how do you appropriately apply something like that with the pool being directly up against that fence line and having something to correctly absorb sound?

So there you know, you want to come back with a different proposal on this piece, is what you were what I thought I heard you say.

I'm sorry.

You were saying that you wanted to look at an alternative in the middle.

I was hoping that we could just get this settled today.

This has been a second time here.

Yeah.

Got it.

Um I mean, all I can offer today is we wouldn't, I would not for well, I know we're we're talking about 35 13 right now, but we will given what you presented.

I don't personally have any objections to side yards and rear yards.

I could approve the third one, but without the corner side yard.

My big concern is the back.

Yeah.

So we're only talking about this one, but we're talking about all of those.

Yeah, we're I'm I'm sort of uh we we agreed last time we were gonna kind of talk about them all.

Yeah, yeah.

So I I think I'm gonna agree with you that if if we can handle the two, and then the third one has a special revisor.

Yeah, so we could either defer that one or we could just say it like we're saying it, and it'd be up to somebody to figure out what the right transition between the two is.

Happy to have that to work with HCLC on that transition.

Absolutely.

Okay, so maybe just adding the five.

And I guess where I was going is if you're starting to get to like a green screen, this is where I start playing architect.

Is there is there a way to treat it a little differently, make it more of an open thing that then gets growies on it?

Yeah, it was more of a buffer than a I know they're also planning uh um this will be a big change.

They're planning on trying to put as much greenery in the back to go up even higher.

Yeah, but you have a little space between the fence and the sidewalk that you could maybe create some sort of screening, which is where I was going to think of the TCA fields.

That's less of a sound concern to me than the neighbors that are direct directly adjacent.

It's it's yeah, it's more though.

Visible definitely bring it up providing nothing.

So I'm trying to just figure out how do we put something in place.

Let's say if we had a recommendation on a proviso to address the sound, the acoustical treatment on a fence.

And I think once we kind of figure it out on one, it would apply to all.

Um but is that something that you would defer to HDLC or to planning to review it.

Yeah.

I don't know.

I mean, I don't I don't know it's in the purview of the city's zoning code to say.

We've done it in we've done that in the past, especially uh for example, and I mean, I don't know if staff is able to go back and check.

When we've approved generator, um generator placements and front yards are in side yards.

We've at least put some additional language in place for them to provide some level of a green screen buffer or something to that effect to insulate the sound from that equipment.

So I'm trying to treat it through that same lens.

I want to say that we even did it maybe at like geez, sukotai, maybe on magazine, I think was one option where we dealt with the equipment in a rear yard, um, and how to address the compressor that may be for the uh for walk-in.

Yeah.

That's that's that's how we've handled it in the past to just come up with some type of acoustical.

We're happy to do that either way, no matter what, if it's a provisor to work with HCLC or something that you're talking about right now.

The owners of these properties want to be good neighbors and fix it.

So it's not like we wouldn't aren't gonna do it no matter what um there, because it really is trying to be a better neighbor.

My take on it if everybody's okay with it, it's kind of on the applicant and the owner to figure out the acoustic details.

And then I would propose we add a one second proviso that would just be to get HDLC to approve it since it's already been through the round at staff level, so that whatever they propose is suit acceptable for the for the historic regulation.

Is there any reason we can not do that?

Is that okay?

Yeah, okay.

So just to be clear, you're we're talking about the the side yard and the rear yard being 10 and then whatever happens on the corner.

Corner side yard corner side yard, no, and then the H TLC will say how to make that transition.

Yeah.

I did want to provide a quick clarification.

Um I know uh commissioner Todd James had recomm had suggested the mechanical equipment screening that we've done in the past.

That is a requirement in the CZO, and it does contemplate landscape as a type of screening material.

Fences are a little bit different, but you can apply, you know, proviso as you see fit.

What language, if you don't mind, and we what language does it state in the CVO just it's been a while since it at least give us chapter inverse on it.

Yes.

In Article 216T, it states that screening materials may be masonry wood or landscape.

Um then it has a few other regulations as well.

My feeling is it's still there's ways to do this with wood.

Yeah, definitely ways to do it with masonry, but I don't want to put them in the middle of the case.

Yeah, I'm not trying to put the burden of the material.

Yeah.

Because I mean it's already calling out wood, it's saying wood or landscaping.

So I think maybe we just call off the additional landscape or green screen buffer and just leave it subject to you guys coordinating with some that's efficient.

Happy to do that.

That's perfect.

All right, all right.

Motions in order.

Are there any other questions from the board?

And just one quick note.

Um, I just want to make sure that if just the recommendation I'm still strongly suggesting on this one, is as it pertains not to the Congress Street side of this lot, but as it faces the other residential property on the side yard, allow for that 10 foot line to continue just along the edge of that property line.

Perfect.

And then it stops at the what would be the corner of the Elizabeth's property and have their fence come back to the building.

Is just one recommendation of suggesting.

So it would allow for you talking about the uh the uptown side or the sort of upriver.

Uptown side, up river side.

Because yeah, because they've got that parking space, it could return back to the building.

I think what you're saying.

Yeah, yeah.

You you're just saying no ten feet on the front yard.

It's it's a portion of the side yard.

Hard to see, but yeah.

Yeah, but up look if you if you look at the aerial, you'll see that there's still a residential property for the first amount of linear feet of the side yard.

Because it's not commercial for the both properties.

Well, yeah, no, no, no.

I'm I mean I'm gonna give them ten feet of I'm sorry, I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna recommend it with the the waiver apply.

Yeah, but they don't have a fence past here.

I mean ten feet to the air is fine.

They're not gonna go to the oh there's a I no, I I see I see what there's a low building.

There's a low building on the what is that uh the Elizabeth's charters on the upper.

Okay, yeah, yeah.

I don't know how much of this can be done in provisos, but what I'm gonna do is state our intent very clearly, and and I think it can make it into the report, and we can move forward with uh like approved right now.

So for uh item number two docket number BZA001-26 at 3513 Charter Streets.

This is the uptown property we're considering.

Um to approve the waiver for the requirements of Article 21, section 21.6.1 point A for fence height, up to 10 feet for the corner and rear yards of this property, noting that the waiver on the corner yard is not gonna extend past the building face.

Uh subject to the one proviso that's in the report plus a second proviso to have HDLC review and approve this uh prior to the approval of the um the uh permit.

One quick clarification since we're speaking specifically about uh 3513 charters and it's an interior lot.

I just wanted to verify that the corner provision wouldn't come into play.

I'm not gonna make it yeah, that's not until later.

So the uh the the approval, and I missed some language, so I'm gonna add that in there too.

But um, I'm gonna the the approval is for an interior side yard variance and a rear yard side variance.

The interior side yard variants is a good up to the face of the building.

Uh and I'm making this motion finding based on the evidence presented by the applicant that it meets all nine of the nine criteria according to Article 4.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA docket 001-26, it's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner Diaz to grant the requested waiver of Article 21, Section 21, excuse me, point six point N.1.a for fence height, finding that the nine criteria have been met, adopting um the applicant's submission as well as uh discussion from today to support establishing that the nine criteria have been met and subject to two provisos.

The note that the machine has the wrong second herbit.

That's okay.

Okay.

I think um Commissioner Gonzalez hit the button, but because he's not here um we can clean it up to just have it be uh Commissioner Diaz.

Vote your screens.

Five yes, uh no nays, the motion carries.

Next item.

Oh, okay.

So the next item is BZA dock.

The next item is BCA Docket 226 for a property located at 3517 Street.

Um this is also for uh rear yard um fence requests and just to note the uh comments from the previous item are um adopted for this item as well.

Yes, ma'am.

Is there anyone here in support of the applicant for BZA docket 002-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Um, just quick note on this one.

I think what we saying is just this would be more applicable to to the rear rear property line only.

Yes.

In this case, okay.

So if a motion is in order.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Proceed.

Madam Chair, regardless of BZA docket number 002-26.

My motion is to approve the requested waiver for Article 21, Section 21.6.1.8 for fence height.

Um that based on a commentary is provided on the previous item and discussion from fellow board members, uh move for approval for that request with the clarification.

Um there's the initial proviso that was noted by staff, and I want to add the second that just clarification that this only applies to the fence along the rear property line.

Um, and yeah, that's it.

Okay, HDLC.

Oh, yeah, sorry.

And the additional one, so it would be three provisos if and is that two or three?

Just do the two, but it was with the HDLC reference.

That's correct.

The first one was with the clarification that this applies only to interior side and rear yard, and the second provisor was um approval of HDLC.

Right, but remember on the first one, it's for the fence, the rear property line only.

Correct.

For this one with regards to BCA Docket 002-26 has been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Alvarez to grant the request a waiver of Article 21, Section 21.6.1.a for fence height, finding that the nine criteria have been met, adopting the applicant submission as well as the commentary from today uh for satisfaction at the nine criteria have been met, subject to two provisos.

Vote your screens.

Six years, no nays, the motion carries.

Next item.

Next item is BCA Docket 326 for a property located at 3521 Charter Street.

And just um for the uh record purposes, the um applicant is you're adopting the commentary from uh item number one, uh item number two, um in support of uh this item as well.

Yes, ma'am.

Is there anyone here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 003-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Clarification for the applicant now that we're on the corner property on Congress Street.

Um what we would approve without you having to come back would be no variance on the corner side yard, meaning we don't really get any height there.

So I just wanted to confirm before we vote that that's okay, or do you want to come back with a proposal that has some height in the part that covers the rear yard?

Uh I I mean I was hoping that we could have that side yard even just to the back of the building, and then it could go down to seven feet uh in order to again you're just blocking it in from the neighbor's race house on the side.

Although that one's less less intrusive, it's still how's that gonna look?

Ten foot fence down, even if we had a step down to the back of the property and then down.

Would seem to be less intrusive.

Okay, give us a second.

We need to see if we can specify that with like a distance or something.

Okay.

Makes sense though, but I'm asking, correct?

Yep.

Yes.

Okay.

It may be the quick question if you do know this, Ron.

Sorry.

I was gonna wait till you sat down before I asked the question.

Thank you.

Um maybe one way to do it is similar to what we discussed on the first property, is have instead of allowing it to return all the way to the front page, just have it return um before the enclosure of the uh porch.

Yeah.

Perfect.

Okay, all right.

I think I can do a motion.

Oh any other questions.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Proceed.

All right, madam chair.

And regarding item four docket BZA003-26 at 3521 charters.

I move to approve the requested waiver of Article 21, Section 21.6.1.a for fence height for a waiver of 10 feet.

Um finding that the request meets all nine of the nine criteria subject to the approval standards and variant of four variances, Article 4, section 4.6F of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, subject to the one provisor listed in the report, and a second proviso that uh this get review and approved by HDLC prior to the issuance of a permit.

And I want to clarify that the waiver is for the rear yard and the corner side yard, but that the waiver for the corner side yard is only for the link of the provided rear yard.

Perfect.

I think it's a waiver of three feet, not ten feet, though.

Just make sure that was a waiver of three feet up to ten feet, thank you.

Yeah.

Um, just real quick, sorry.

Um keep in mind there's an opening on the back side of that property.

That's the enclosed porch.

So maybe consider I know a second, somebody's already second on this, so I apologize.

Um look at some type of acoustical treatment, um, some type of panel enclosure on it.

What is that uh opening on the rear porch that's exposed?

Sure.

Okay.

Sounds like a good idea.

Oh no, not really.

I mean, that's that's architecture, right?

Yeah.

So all right.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA Docket 003-26, it's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner James to grant the request a waiver of Article 21, Section 21.6 point N.1.a for fence height, finding that the nine criteria have been met, adopting the applicant's submission as well as commentary from today to satisfy establishing that the nine criteria have been met, subject to two provisos, subject to two provisos.

Vote your screens?

Six y's, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

Thank you, Emily and Haley and Commissioners.

Appreciate it.

Morning.

Um next item is BZA Docket 004-26 for a property located at 6020 St.

Charles Avenue.

This was originally set for the January 26, 2026 BCA meeting and rescheduled and subsequently deferred from the February 9th, 2026 special meeting.

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.

This variance would permit the construction of additional parking pads within the existing landscaped area of the property to accommodate front yard parking.

The proposed parking would be accessible from the interior side lot line via the existing shared driveway.

Staff believes that the requested waiver of our waivers of Article 11, Section 11.3.

Parking restrictions.

Article 21, section 21.7, table 21-2, permitted encroachments into required rear yards parking pad.

Article 22, section 22.8.a.1.2 permitted vehicle parking locations in the front yard.

Article 22, section 22.11.d.1 parking pad design location, and Article 22, Section 22, 11.2 parking pad design location fails to meet standards 12, 4, 6, and 7 of the standards for variances or 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 structure.

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

Four, the variance will 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 or other interested party.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances as reference.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 004-26?

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

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Yeah, I know when we mentioned this last time, it was deferred to this meeting because I was I was in communication with the applicant, and I had one email back, and from there I sent them the notice, but I had not received anything back yet, no confirmation.

So was there any um any conversation um with the applicant um other than that um outreach?

So to I don't know how if I can say uh uh it's basically the applicant was basically asking the status of if the variance was approved or what what what happened at the meeting, and I said that there was no decision essentially until someone was present to petition the case.

But um that is the last contact I had with them.

And just a question for staff um in the event that uh a decision is made today, what does that result in for the um applicant?

If as far as their options, if they were to disagree, yes.

Their only option would be to appeal the decision to civil district courts.

They cannot come back before the board for uh a reconsideration.

It isn't it a two-year prohibition on Airport?

That's correct.

If they wish to reapply for the same thing, they would have to wait two years.

But if the request is modified in some way, our director actually has discretion to allow for them to apply if it's a substantially different application.

Okay.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Um only thing I'm gonna provide is just some initial comments is just I mean, just the lack of a appearance for the item kind of just speaks volume, quite honestly.

Uh second, just looking at just what's provided, knowing that there's already compliant off-street parking in the rear, um along the side yard that exists, so not really sure what the the true benefit of this is just outside of trying to solidify what has already been violations of use of parking in a front yard.

So just kind of kind of taking the issue and not really seeing how anything plausible from this application would really necessitate like a deferral or a future approval.

So madam chair, for motion's in order.

Yeah.

Uh Madam Chair, regards to BZA document number 004-26.

My motion is to follow the staff's recommendation.

Um, understanding that the let's see.

That the uh deny criteria have not been met, move for denial of the requested waivers.

Thank you.

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

Second by Commissioner Gonzalez to deny the requested uh waivers, finding that the nine criteria have not been met.

Vote your screens.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

We will now begin new business for variances.

It's me again.

Uh next item on the docket is uh BZ item number 016-26 for a property located at 2617 Spain Street.

This request is for variances from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to waive requirements for required screening and landscaping for an outdoor sales and display yard for the primary use of a motor vehicle dealership.

Staff believes that the requested waivers of Article 23, Section 23.13.2.b, outdoor sales and display areas, landscape yard, and article 23, section 23.13.2.c, outdoor sales and display area, motor vehicle screening fails to meet standards one, two, four, six, and seven of the standards for variants per Article 4 section 4.6.

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

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

Six, strict adherence will not result in a demonstrable.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances as referenced.

Thank you.

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

You can go ahead with your comments.

Yes.

Um so long story how it ended up here.

It's been a long almost one and a half year.

Um no one from zoning department could specifically say what I should do.

It was yes and no, so we went through subdivision.

We went through non-structural reconstruction permit, which apparently we did incorrectly because we had to name it as an office, uh, not as office, just general office, but the office of used motor vehicle dealership.

So here I am.

Um I read the request summary here, and um I just want to clarify what exactly I'm I am I'm asking here.

So the Article 23 section 2313 C2C outdoor sales and display areas screening.

So we took on this property about one and a half years ago.

It was the completely abandoned property with the no fence, graffiti everywhere, wasps and rats.

So we cleaned everything.

Since then we were burglarized twice the our uh uh chain link fence was cut, the the people got in, broke the glasses, stole the property.

So it happened twice.

Um our final solution here were we installed the chain link fence and we put the uh 85% opaque screening, and we put the guard dock and about 20 cameras inside just to prevent this from happening.

Uh so uh the zoning uh requirement in this particular case was um low ornamental see-through fence plus shops at the front.

Uh I explain in this nine uh provisions that that's uh physically not possible because uh now the logic here is our the the people outside they do not see our dog.

She's pretty strong at barking, so since we put this uh structure in place, we had no no even uh attempts to break in.

Uh so in this case, I am asking to leave our resistance seven feet fence with the white uh 85% uh uh light see-through screen.

And for the second uh outdoor sales and display areas landscape yard.

I was explaining that uh I would have to plant the trees ten feet apart inside of our property, basically at the parking lot.

The only property that I saw this happened, it was at Walmart essentially, where uh the parking lot is structured the way that every 10 feet there is a uh tree planted.

But in our case, we are not um even remotely uh square uh property.

Where we are with a narrow um property.

So in in this case, if we plant trees inside of the lot on on uh essentially on the parking uh spots where uh cars are located, uh we would not have even space to move them around, and this would create a necessary hazards for the customers who want to drive in and out.

Thank you so that's that's the end of your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 016-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Um, just a quick question more to staff first.

And I'm trying to, I was trying to have a better appreciation of what the actual requirements are from the screening uh perspective, especially for the landscape portion.

This is more about just creating a green buffer that's along the fence line or not, or is this also forcing him to remove the fence?

The the fence could remain, it's a matter of having additional screening with the landscape.

With the landscaping, okay.

So that's why I was trying to make sure we're really clear on because I think there make there's a communication disconnect on this from what I'm hearing in your comments.

This is about providing additional landscaping within the fence line or in front of the fence line, depending upon if it's within a property line, correct?

Okay, so the way I'm looking at the layout of the property, especially along the Spain Street side, there should not be an issue to provide some type of landscaping inside your fence.

You already have it to a certain level of transparency, they're just asking for the additional green buffer within it, or just some type of landscaping within the area, because if I look at your area, I think everything's pretty much gravel within the site.

Is it in front of the fence or behind the fence?

Behind the fence.

Yes.

But there is no transparency.

I think uh I understand where why you have it set up that way in terms of transparency.

I think there's just there's ways for you to do this with some type of minimum green cover, because I think if I understood correctly, it talks about how you could put in a hedge along the fence line.

Some type of low green cover along the fence line, and that would be in compliance.

And that would not based off of your layout and what you have shown on the right-hand side of how you're laying out the vehicles.

That has zero impact on your ability to put your cars in a display nor to move vehicles within the site.

Okay, so you're saying not in front of the fence, but inside of the property behind the fence.

Correct.

Even though my fence is not transparent.

Correct.

Here's the thing.

While it talks about visual screening, it also provides a green buffer, considering that you have some level of paved condition within this board.

So there's some minimum requirements within the CZO that spells out what type of landscape, and I think it talks about uh shrubs and that could be planted at a certain distance within a fence line.

Yes.

Um it's uh permanent screening along right away that consists of small shrubs and an ornamental fence slash low pedestrian wall, no less than three feet in height.

But I'm looking I'm I'm referring specific because I think when you get into the low fence, that's what's throwing the conversation off.

So exclusively looking at the language related to the shrubs.

I asked this question uh to the zoning.

I talked to so many people who was in this year.

No one could specifically tell me what exactly I need to do there.

Well, we're here now and trying to get you an answer.

Yeah, yeah, that's thank you for that.

Yeah.

I'm just at least making that one recommendation to you that I mean we could still follow the staff's recommendation, but giving you the clarification of what you need to put in place, and that should resolve what this waiver, which you're asking for is a waiver.

So it would be shrubs shall be planted at with one shrub with every 36 inches on center space linearly.

Uh shrubs on measure a minimum of 24 inches at planting and a minimum of 36 inches to a maximum of 48 inches at maturity.

Uh and that's for outdoor sales and display areas.

Um, so Mitch, maybe yeah, so maybe let's just do this.

If you could probably just pull that snapshot out and provide that to him after this, so it's really clear to him what the expectation is for that shrubbery requirement along the fence line.

Okay.

Okay.

So I I definitely can do that.

That that that's gonna be in well, essentially it's gonna be a certain distance from the fence inside of my property, even if even though it's not a good thing.

You could put it up against the back of your fence, it's actually gonna help you, quite honestly.

Yeah, absolutely.

But okay, even though it's not visible from the outside, it's still gonna got it.

Sure, yeah, absolutely, not a problem.

But the code spells out.

Yeah, yeah, not a yeah, sure.

Okay, great.

I think everything we've been talking about so far is on Spain Street.

So I just want to discuss here whole perimeter.

Yeah, so can you talk to us a little bit about how you're using the the rest of the property?

You're to me, your survey is upside down.

So we have Spain Street on the right, yeah, yeah.

St.

Rock on the left.

Yeah, yeah.

And the way at least what we can tell from a satellite, uh probably uh not recorded right-of-way for the overpass or something, like your your Saint Rock right-of-way access is really limited.

Yeah, it's it's already been it was two properties, it's been subdivided now, it's one property, and the back side of it is closed.

Uh, we decided to close the backside from the Central Street because whatever we do, it's covered in a graffiti in about a week.

Okay.

Uh, like totally.

So we just uh close that portion.

So if we were to do this, this requirement would also apply to the part of the corner property of Florida Avenue, and then turning on St.

Rock until you get to your vehicle entrance.

Yeah, yeah, uh both both sides of the fence.

Yeah, inside of the fence and on both sides.

Yep, that's that's actually what I was referring to.

Is it on the where it where it applies that I mean I'm my comment is I'm following the staff's recommendation from our perspective, but making sure you that's how you bring it into compliance on those two sides of property.

But okay, I can do that, no problem.

Because you're coming to us for clarification, this last thing.

It also says in there, isn't required where you have an entrance, obviously.

You're not gonna drive through the trees.

So you'll just be required to put a little plan together that shows t trees here and no trees at the driveway.

And to me, that is both sides of your property.

St.

Rock, there's a driveway entrance, and yeah, yeah, yeah.

I would put the shrubs along the fence on the on all uh sides, yeah.

And the trees inside.

Inside.

What about that?

Uh yeah, that is what we are basically saying is they are required.

Yeah.

Okay, trees inside.

Yeah.

Okay, the the code that says that every ten feet the trench tree should be planted.

And as I explained in the sine provisions, uh it is only visible from the satellite.

Because there is the about, I think, um there is a significant portion of that land that is not mine.

It was uh it was it was public right away that I cannot use.

So my uh physical uh dimensions is basically where we're where you see the office is located, then length of the car and the small like uh pedestrian walled access.

This is pr pretty much the whole length.

The the space is very long, but this is narrow.

Uh so uh it's not really reflective.

Uh you you you can see line uh there at the top on the right picture.

This everything is about that line is not my um it's not my property, it's a public right way.

And the satellite doesn't show that.

So if we take this out or if we're looking from the top from the satellite, my property is very narrow.

So I there is no way I can plant the trees.

I mean, even if it plant one tree in there, it would basically be in uh in the middle of the um of the property, where actually, you know, um drive.

Yeah.

I I'm uh I'm gonna say I do disagree with Yonis.

Um because there's a recommendation.

I think there's the reference to what the Savannah Hollies that's already planted along the street edge.

It's at the front, yeah.

Correct.

But if I understand correctly, what is the actual requirement for street trees?

Excuse me, for trees within the property line, because I'm not reading it the same way.

Uh-huh.

So the outdoor sales and display area speaks to um just plain landscaping for this type of use, and then there's a subsection that has motor vehicle as well.

So the tree planting would be um minimum of ten feet in width width with shade or evergreen trees at a weight or excuse me.

At a rate of one tree per 25 feet, I believe.

And that would still apply to both Spain.

Along the right of essentially.

Yes.

Right.

So I'm not following you on saying how that restricts you from laying out the yard the way you need to, because if it's within a landscape buffer behind the fence line, that's not restricting you from that, like that's almost like a 10-foot area.

Behind a fence line, no, but they they told me all that I need to plant them inside the sim as an example.

They brought like a low for Home Depot or Walmart, like their parking lots are made.

So every 10 uh feet inside of the parking.

There are like uh trees.

Islands.

Yeah, islands, islands.

Yeah, I think that's that's an incorrect reference.

That's someone showing you the layout of how parking is configured, but that's not what we're dealing with here.

No, we're dealing with the actual buffer of the property, the landscape islands are strictly along the fence line.

So that's it.

Yeah.

Absolutely doable, not a problem.

And again, it's it should be in front of the fence, just like I have those three savannah holly trees, or behind.

Behind.

Behind the fence.

Behind.

So trees and shrubs, trees and shrubs.

Yep, yep.

What uh I don't think we have any jurisdiction over what's in the public right away.

So we see that the trees are there, that's very nice, it looks great.

I don't I don't think that's required.

What what's required is two trees, well, sorry, trees every 25 feet, which basically your Spain Street property is 75 feet deep, wide, and you're gonna need 24 of that for a driveway.

So that's basically two trees, and then shrubs every three feet.

And I misread your plans.

I don't think your property goes to the edge of Florida Avenue.

Uh there's a there's a property between and then your and then your St.

Rock property is barely on the right-of-way because of the overpass.

So I think we are actually just talking about kind of Spain Street.

Just main street just inside the fence, two trees, and however many shrubs it takes.

Are we obviously okay?

No, I was I was still saying put it on both sides.

Okay, okay, rock okay.

I think you can put this in compliance.

I think you would just be also misinterpretation of what the requirements are.

So in if understood correctly, you didn't have an issue with the tins, putting it absolutely no.

No, no.

If if if I can put them shrub and trees inside of the property behind the fence, 10 feet apart for the trees, and then uh I I gonna take a look how many uh inches apart for the shrubs, of course I will do that.

Yeah, but I never yeah uh yeah, it was the confusion of the parking island is what he was.

Yeah, I specifically explained that this is not the customer's parking lot, this is where inventory is located.

Nevertheless, I've been told.

Oh no, you're good, yeah.

Yeah, you are good.

Okay, all right, madam chair for motions in order.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Proceed.

Madam Chair, regards to BCA docket number 016-26.

My motion is to follow the staff's recommendation for the two requested waivers and move for uh denial of this request, but that's with the understanding that the applicant now has a better appreciation of what was actually being requested with this uh provision in the code.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA Docket 016-26, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Richards to follow staff's recommendation and deny the requested waivers, finding that the nine criteria have not been met.

Vote your screens.

Next item.

The next item is BCA Docket 01726 for the property at 2335 Milan Street and 4126 through 28 LaSalle Street.

This request is for variances from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the creation of lots with insufficient lot area, insufficient lot depth, insufficient permeable open space, insufficient interior side yard setback, insufficient rear yard setback, and insufficient off-street parking.

The applicant is requesting a waiver of lot area of 1,09 feet, 1009.60 square feet per dwelling unit where 1800 square feet per dwelling dwelling unit is required for lot depth.

Um, and this is also with lot A1.

The applicant is requesting a waiver of 50 feet where 90 feet is required for permeable open space.

The applicant is requesting 26 a waiver of 26 percent where 30 percent is required for interior side yard setback, the applicant is requesting a waiver of 2.791 feet where three feet is required for rear yard setback.

The applicant is requesting a waiver of 1.667 feet where eight feet is required, and the applicant is requesting a waiver of two off-street parking spaces where um two off-street parking spaces are required for proposed lot A2.

The applicant is proposing a lot depth of 9.521 feet and 90 feet are required.

The applicant is requesting a waiver of 7% of permeable open space where 30% is required, and a waiver of 12 feet for rear yard setback where 15 feet is required.

The staff report based on the report, um the staff recommends approval of all waivers.

Good morning, members of the board.

My name is Renata Malasa.

I'm here as an agent for our uh the owner at 2335.

You can pull your mic down a little bit just to make it easier.

Um requesting um for the subdivision of the parcel currently has two long-standing residential structures into two separate legal lots.

The hardship is that the property has historically developed, was historically developed with two independent homes on one single parcel, and the current lot configurations does not reflect the existing building uh build condition.

This is not a request to increase density or construct additional units.

The number of residential units will remain exactly the same.

Um, granted, this variance allows the legal lot configuration with existing structures to improve the clarity of ownership and maintenance and will not negatively in fact impact the neighborhood.

Um, this request represents the minimum relief success to um formalize the existing condition.

So it's it's basically um one large parcel that has two um residential homes um on that one parcel, so it just needs to be divided.

So it just needs to be divided.

Is that the end of your comments?

Yes.

Thank you.

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

I'm sorry.

May I can you please state your address for the record?

My address is 141 Allen to Saint Boulevard.

Thank you.

Is there anyone here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 017-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Madam Chair, for motion and order.

Proceed.

Madam Chair, regardless of BZA docket 017-26.

My motion is to follow the staff's recommendation for approval for the requested uh waivers.

Uh noting the one proviso.

Understand that the nine criteria have been met.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA docket 017-26 has been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the requested waivers for the proposed lots A1 and A2.

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

Vote your screens.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

Thank you.

The next item is VZA Docket 019-26 for a property located at 211 Walnut Street.

This request is for a variance from the provisions of Article 18, Section 18.30 point B.4, University Area Off Street Parking Overlay, bathrooms to permit the new construction of a single family home on a vacant lot.

This item was previously heard at the November 3rd, 2025 BZA meeting for a waiver request of 2.5 bathrooms to permit overall five bathrooms and five parking spaces.

The board approved the request.

Upon third further review, staff determined that the floor plans indicated a total of 6.5 bathrooms, changing the initial waiver request from 2.5 to 4 bathrooms.

As such, the applicant today is seeking a waiver of the correct amount.

No changes to the parking quest are needed.

Staff believes the requested variance of Article 18, Section 18.30.4, University Area Off Street Parking Overlay District Bathrooms fails to meet criteria 126 and 7 of the standard for variances of Article 4 Section 4.6.f of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

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

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

Six strict adherence would not result in demonstrable hardship.

Seven, the request is primarily for the convenience and profit of the owner or other interested parties.

However, should the board find the request meets all nine provisos or all nine approval standards of the standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.f staff recommends one proviso.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 019-26?

You can give your name and address for the record.

Again, umrigally, as was stated, there was um two half baths that were missed on the floor plan, so which is why we are here again.

But upon sending it to safety and permits, they also reviewed and found that in the primary bath, because there is a sink in one of uh in both of the water closets that technically counts as another half bath.

So that added um another bathroom.

So this is for uh originally it was for five, and now we're asking for eight bathrooms.

Um we respectfully disagree with staff regarding the uh four criteria.

Um as we know, having a homestead exemption in place would omit the need for this variance.

Um this will be a single family home and it will be the owner's primary residence once construction is complete, at which time they will get the homestead uh exemption.

Um, but you know, we cannot get that until the structure is built.

Um for each item, criteria one uh special conditions exist in the form of an overlay that allows certain structures with the same characteristics to be exempt from these rules, while others solely based on the ownership have to follow the rules to a T for criteria two.

Adhering to these rules specifically creates an outcome where this property would be unable to have the exact same rights since at the end of the day, the house will uh enjoy a homestead exemption for criteria six.

Um not allowing a modern day project to match the constraints and patterns of the surrounding area is a hardship, creates a lesser project, does not fit the style and scale of surrounding developments.

Um for criteria seven.

Uh if we consider sanitary usage of toilet and other plumbing fixtures uh as a convenience, then we are guilty.

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

Um, so we respectfully disagree, and we ask for you guys to uh reconsider this and approve this variance request.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Is anyone um else here in support of the applicant for BCA docket 019-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Just a just a clarification.

Does an outhouse serve as uh compliance on this one?

Don't worry about it.

Sorry.

This is this is just starting to become crazy when we see these applications on this thing.

So apologize for this piece on the applicant.

Uh Madam Chair has a motion and order.

Yes, perceive.

Madam Chair, regardless of BCA Docket number 019-26.

My motion is to approve the requested waiver for Article 18, Section 18.30 point B.4 for the University Area off-street parking uh overlay district for bathrooms.

Um, based on what was provided by the applicant, we feel that the non criteria have been met, accepting their letter is submitted and move for approval with the one-noted proviso.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA Docket 019-26, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Alvarez to grant the requested waiver of Article 18, Section 18.30 point B point.4 for university area off-street parking overlay district for bathrooms.

Finding that the nine criteria have been met, adopting the applicant's uh submission and commentary from today to establish that the nine criteria have been met.

Subject to one proviso.

Vote your screen.

Six YAs, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BZA Docket 02026 for a property located at 7001 Wharple Street.

This request is for a variance from the provisions of Article 21, Section 21.6.1, mechanical equipment location in Article 21, Section 21.7, table 21-2 for permitted encroachments into required yards, ground mounted mechanical equipment.

To permit mechanical equipment in the corner side yard.

The applicant is proposing to place both pool equipment and two HVAC units in their corner side yard at the walker street side of the property.

Because there are three pieces of mechanical equipment and two relevant relevant sections of the CZO, a total of six variants would be required to place the mechanical equipment in the corner side yard.

The staff believes that the requested reverse of Article 21, Section 21.6.2.1 mechanical equipment location, and Article 21, Section 21.7, Table 21-2, permitted encroachments into required yards, ground mounted mechanical equipment to allow mechanical equipment in the corner side yard fails to meet standards one, two, four, five, six, and seven of the standards for variants per Article 4, Section 4.6.f of the CCO, in that there are no special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land.

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

Granting the variants would confer on the applicant a special privilege.

Granting the variants would alter the essential character of the area.

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

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variants from Article 21, Section 21.6.7, uh table 21-2 permitted encouragements into required yards, ground mounted mechanical equipment.

Um, I also wanted to note that the applicant submitted um three letters of neighbor support uh after the deadline if y'all wanted to um receive those letters.

Is the applicant present for BCA docket 020-26?

Yes, ma'am, Amber Babin, 112 Primrose Drive, Bell Chase 70037.

You can go ahead with the account.

Thank you.

Good morning, commissioners, and thank you for your time and hard work today and every day, and thank you, staff, for your hard work.

However, we respectfully disagree with the staff's recommendation.

We believe our circumstances meet the nine criteria to warrant granting the requested variances.

The plan submitted to the city and approved had the HVAC equipment adjacent to the carport.

During the process of construction in speaking with the HVAC contractor on site, it was indicated to us for the first time that placing the HVAC systems in that location would place a strain on the equipment and result in poor performance due to the distance from the house and the gas line.

So we're facing not only inefficient mechanics and performance in the short term, but also potential long-term issues with the maintenance and excessive wear and tear of the equipment.

Because of the fact that construction is already well underway, our options are limited, and after putting our heads back together with the contractors, it was determined that the most efficient place for the equipment would be in the front corner yard.

Staff's report mentions our requests are cart direct cost directed and amount to only an inconvenience, but it's not to us.

This is intended to be our forever home.

This space adjacent to the carport is also intended to be a green space for our kids, ages two and four to play in.

We strongly believe that the placement of multiple pieces of mechanical equipment in an area easily accessible to them would not be in anyone's benefit.

Placing the equipment in the side yard and out of their direct line of sight will provide a safer and larger green area for them to play in.

I want to emphasize that there will be an eight-foot fence at the property line, so the equipment won't be visible from the street to vehicle or foot traffic.

It won't affect our neighbors or the quality of the neighborhood, and there will be landscaping and trees to help curb any noise.

As um Ms.

Burke stated, I have several letters signed by our future neighbors attesting to their support that the variances be granted and stating that they have no issues with the placement of the equipment at the front corner.

This is our next door neighbor on Worple, our neighbor behind us, and our neighbor across worker street.

So I apologize that those are submitted late, but I hope the board will still consider them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA docket 020-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board.

Just a quick question of staff.

Um, just because I'm seeing the discrepancy in the plans.

On the other side yard, is it a four-foot setback or is it a what what is the setback on the Conrad side of the property?

Yeah, because um the original plans indicated another location.

I guess this is kind of an after-the-fact application because now the um interior side yard, I think is three or four, or is like four feet.

Okay, so that it couldn't be placed in the interior side yard.

Yeah, so it doesn't have enough space to go on that side to property, hence why it's on our end.

So I'm always taking my opportunity to take my shot on this one.

This is just another another example of one of my favorite folks who sends plans but never comes in when they submit these things, um, especially with the equipment being shown all the way at the garage.

Anybody who's dealing with residential construction at this point, you know you can't place equipment that far away from the primary structure because of what the uh applicant actually just presented to on a linear.

By the time you run the lines all the way back to the main house, it's you're gonna open introduce a whole nother litany of issues.

Um only other question I do have to the applicant, understand that you're trying to shield it away and it's based on the pool placement.

Has the pool already been installed?

No, sir.

That's a separate contractor.

Um we haven't started on that at all.

Okay.

But we would like approval to place the pool equipment over there too.

Along that side of the problem.

Yes, just to keep it away from the kids' green area, keep all the mechanical equipment in one area out of their line of sight.

And just a clarification with staff, while I do see there's some notation of pool.

I want to make sure that what they're applying for does apply not just to the AC equipment, but to the AC equipment and the pool equipment.

Yes, yeah, there are separate variances for all of them since there are two AC units and then the pool equipment.

Okay, yeah.

You can separate the variances.

Just making sure they're not having to come back for a separate request.

Madam Chair, there's a motion in order.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Proceed.

With regards to BZA docket number 020-26, my motion is to grant the request for the waivers.

Um for Article 21, section 21.6.1 for the uh three locations of mechanical equipment is noted and article 21.7 table 21-2 for permitted encroachments into the required yards uh for ground mounted equipment, ground-mounted mechanical equipment.

Um accepting the comments provided by the applicant and their response to the nine criteria move for approval with the one noted proviso.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA Docket 020-26 has been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the requested waivers, finding that the nine criteria have been met, adopting the applicant's submission and commentary from today to establish that the nine criteria have been met, subject to one proviso.

Vote your screens.

Thank you.

The applicant is requesting to divide lot A, which is 57 feet wide into lots A1 and A2, resulting in two lots that are 28 and a half feet wide, which is one and a half foot less than what is required in the district.

This is the second application the applicant has filed previously coming for the report, requesting a subdivision and the ability to build two family homes on each lot.

The applicant has amended their application and is requesting to build a single family home, which removed one of the previous waivers that they had requested, which if I'm remembering correctly, which was for uh minimum lot area, and this one is only for the width.

And but still um the board staff has found that the proposal fails to meet criteria one, two, four, five, six, and seven and recommends deny.

Thank you.

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

You can go ahead with your comments.

So, yeah, I mean, I you know, I stood before you guys uh on December 8th.

Uh honestly, uh, I was wearing left field for the first proposal.

I didn't read the correct um width requirement for a two-family, which would have been 40.

Uh, by the time I turned to that application, the ball was rolling, so I I didn't stop, right?

Um, you know, when I looked at um the staff recommendation from the previous hearing on December 8, it it proposed two single family homes was one of the suggestions, right?

Um, and then just standing before you the last time, uh I obviously learned some lessons from you guys.

Uh, one of the things that was brought up that um, you know, two two family structures there would not provide adequate parking, it would take care of from some other structural things, which I heard you loud and clear.

And um, you know, just looking at the two single family proposals, I think it makes more sense for our community.

Um, it does bring uh better conformity with only asking for one and a half foot variants here at these two particular properties.

And then as a new and up-and-coming developer, uh just understanding the cost to build homes and to make them affordable in our city when you consider the the price of flood insurance, the price of homeowners insurance, the price of car insurance, and coupled with our state being one of the lowest wage-paying states out there, uh, thinking about not personal gain or just profits, but honestly trying to build a pathway for generational wealth to be established and affordable in our city.

So, and I just ask that um I understand that uh most of the homes or lots of 40 or 57.

I I'm I'm just trying to come closer to the standard and and hopefully the decision will be based on more of the standard than what everyone else done previously before this particular project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA dock at 021-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Uh quick question to either the applicant or staff.

Um only because it's a little blurry and not able to read it on the plan.

What is the depth of the rear yard on the property based on the proposed layout?

140 deep.

That's the depth of the lot, right?

Yes, sir.

All right.

The the distance from your rear yard, how big how deep of a rear yard is on this property as it's currently showing.

I can pull that.

Give me one second.

Okay.

And while she's pulling that up, um the only reason why I'm bringing up this piece, and I think it's been a while since we've done one like this.

Um would you consider looking at having a shared driveway between the two properties?

And that way the parking could be in the back.

I mean, uh I'm open to the best suggestions.

Um with the new plan, uh each house gets two off-street parkings.

Correct.

And this actually still allows for that.

What I'm mentioning is that it's just one share driveway that goes between the two houses.

So it's almost like how you would flip the plan to next flip one of your plans instead of them being the same next to each other.

They're they're mirrored, and your driveway just goes to through the back, and you will be able to have the off-street parking behind the property.

The reason why I'm bringing this up is because when you're resubdividing it into these smaller lots, you still are reducing the amount of on-street parking that still can exist, and this would reduce the curb cuts from even though it's one curb cut per property, we're reducing how many curb cuts across the face of it and allowing, and you could actually have more parking in the rear.

I did want to add, um, that is certainly an option for lots in this zoning districts that are 30 feet or less, they do actually have an exemption from off-street parking that can be applied if the property owner desires to do so.

Right.

And I mean the exemption, but at the end of the day, I mean it's what is best practice from a development pattern, um, especially with going down to such an hour on this street.

I mean, that is usually a very well parked run of street.

So I'm just trying to look at it through the lens of reducing the amount of curb cuts, but then actually allowing you to put more parking in the rear of the uh homes.

Um, the original is blurry for me too, but um a lot.

Say again the original is blurry for me too, but it's a deep yard.

A lot of it's it's a very deep yard, too.

There's a way for you to probably come up with something really nice for the back of the properties, and that way the parking is actually screened from the front.

So is that something you would be amenable to?

I am.

I I guess the division was to to for the single families is to provide a rear yard for each family uh to have that private fence in between the two properties.

And I guess um, I guess I need to see it um to to create the parking in between the two.

Will I be able to put that fence to the divide the two properties and still be able to go to the rear of the park?

So it would make it a kind of tight almost.

And I did turn in the full set of plans, the full packet architectural package for the bills.

You submit it to safety and permits.

Um I may have emailed it to Ava, I think she requested it.

Yeah, but um, but what we're looking at is just the cover sheet from that set of docs.

I got you.

I'm not trying to overcomplicate it.

I'm just actually trying to help you get to that spot.

Yeah, that's the same.

But again, my concern is once you do that, I mean, having so many curb cuts does prevent you from having on-street parking in front of each one big when it's only 28 feet wide.

So, yeah, um Emily's correct in terms of there is that provision that does exist for that, but I'm at least trying to come up with something that's just still somewhat different, and it won't create an impact of off-street parking in the in the front.

So take the for example, take the outer driveway and move them both to the center to have a lot of.

It's just one driveway that goes up the middle, yeah.

And you can still have I think the depth of your rear yard is very significant that even if you brought two compliant off-street parking stalls in the rear, you still will have you still have the ability to fence off a rear yard.

Or I mean there's a bunch of different ways you could do it.

Okay.

I'm open though.

Okay.

Just look at it as a consideration.

Mirroring the plants.

Yeah, turn your micro.

Turn your micro.

Oh, I thought I have a uh mirroring the plan, and then that actually gives you a little bit more breathing room as well.

Correct.

So just look at it with your architect as a way to just make and it it simplifies the amount of curb cuts you're providing.

Um you can provide your off street compliant parking stalls in a rear of the property and still have a significant rear yard, considering the depth of this property.

Okay.

All right.

Madam Chair for motions in order.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Madam Chair, with regards to BZA docking number 021-26.

My motion is to approve the requested waivers for the proposed lot A1 and proposed lot A2.

Um in a for the 1.5 foot setback requirement.

Um understand that the nine criteria have been met based on uh the commentary provided today with and also some notation of alternative compliance and move for approval with the two noted provisos.

There is just one proviso, sorry.

Second provisal is a consideration of a shared driveway between the two properties.

So there are two providers.

Two provisos.

The one is provided by staff in the second was with the plan revision.

Yeah, you guys have something.

45 feet.

45 feet of rear yard?

Yeah, that's twice as much as the minimum requirement.

So yeah, just stand with my motion.

Can I request some clarification on the motion?

So are we requiring this or just saying that he needs to consider it?

I'm putting a requirement in just to help to offset uh on street parking impacts.

Okay.

If I can I could say one quick thing.

Ava, what I don't have the plan in front of me.

What is the the space between the two homes that you see there on those plans?

Is how many feet is that?

In between those two problems?

At the um it's 8.6 feet and five, so 13 and a half feet at the front and towards the rear, is um because there's a a bump out.

Right.

It's uh 10 point nine feet.

All right, but I think we have a motion on the table.

We do, we don't have a second.

Right.

So I know he was asking what we're doing.

I just I guess I I maybe everybody else had has this too.

I just got a little bit of anxiety.

I'm you're asking for an accommodation, so I I concede that maybe there's a way to do it or require something of him that gives to get, so to speak, uh, which is fair.

I just worry about over constraining the situation a little bit with the second provides um the way it is right now.

I don't think that's a second.

And I have a question, so if the subsequent plan requires a new waiver for let's say side yard setback or something, would the applicant have to apply again.

I'm looking at plans came in.

So I mean, since it's still on a table, I'm looking at what I see in the plans.

By the time you flip this and put the appropriate side yard setbacks, that's the minimum requirement on this, you have more than enough width between the two plans as they're already provided for a driveway to traverse between the two.

I guess it's just you know, I I've worked on residential projects where this shared driveway becomes the like you know, I'm sure the first two people you sell it to will be hunky dory and get along, but like those relations don't always last.

I actually live in one that has it, so it doesn't bother me.

Yeah, I know, I know.

I I I get that, but I mean we've we've been involved in you know legal issues with clients with shared driveways and rights of way not to be the annoying landscape person, but if you flipped it the other way, you could save the trees that are there that are pretty significant trees on the street.

Oh trees aren't on the plan, Rami.

Just looking at the drawing.

Looking at the street at the streetscape and the I mean they're they're pine trees, so they're not they're not that significant, but um no, it's it's I I see where you're coming from that it's it's adding some complexity to the site.

Yeah, yeah.

I understand your hesitation.

Sorry, Todd.

So I mean that's up to you.

I mean, it's I'll provide it one unless the chairwoman is gonna ask for it to be removed.

I mean, but we haven't had a um a second, so it's um it does.

It dies for lack of a second.

So is there a substitute motion?

Well, can I just understand one more thing, Todd?

Is the he's got a compliance space in the plan, right?

Are we trying to get two extra parking or so?

I can't hear you wrong.

Sorry, are you are you trying to get extra parking or are you trying to just get additional?

What's the distance between the driveways?

I can't tell in this.

It's less than 18.

You add back at least one to two additional spots of on-street parking, and still he can provide all of the off-street parking that he intends to provide behind the property.

So let's see.

What if he got rid of the parking entirely since it's not required?

That actually introduces more cars to the street.

Yeah.

Oh yeah.

That's actually the whole premise behind why I'm even putting this out of the state.

Okay.

Can I make slowly going down to something that's smaller than 30 feet in width?

Well, I'm also struggling a little bit because I'm looking at the neighboring properties and their curb cuts and where the parking is and they're all over.

Yeah, they're not the one there's one really close to the property line.

So yeah, it isn't it is kind of making a challenging condition there.

There's a driveway on either side of the property, which goes to you're not in no no matter what you do, you're you're you're losing a few spaces.

Yep.

Yeah.

Even if you not trying to make it more complicated from I'm actually just thinking through how to come up with a quick solution.

He's been through a ton already, just even absorbing what we provided to him back in December, and the fact that he came back with a less intensive package, I think just only help further where we are now.

So what I was just trying to recommend is something to still keep in mind what we provided in commentary back in December to you to kind of help reduce that impact, especially with the neighboring properties.

Can I maybe propose a a different way to propose a second proviso to you?

Is rather than say he has to have a shared driveways, there's currently space for three three on-street parkings in front of the lot.

It's vacant that the proviso would maybe say that he would retain two on-street parking spaces.

Can we do that?

It kind of has the same effect, but it gives some flexibility in the layout.

I don't know if we can do that.

I don't know if we so Emily, can we put a requirement in place?

Sorry, I was doing some math.

Um, can you repeat the question?

Okay, so the lots are um 57, the lots, the lot is it exists 57 feet wide.

So you divide that by 18, that's 3.16.

So there's three on-street spaces.

Uh we're granting them the or potentially granting them the variance to subdivide this.

And to address Commissioner James's concern.

It seems to me if the concern's really about on-street spaces.

We either specify that he needs to retain one or two on-street spaces in the final design.

Yeah, and to add to that, if you flip the parking the other way, if you if you instead of mirroring it the way Todd's mirror it the other way, you might be able to get two spots between the driveways in the middle.

In the middle, yeah.

But I can't do the math because I can't.

I'm yeah, this you can't read the the site plan because I'm looking for the neighboring driveways.

Well, yeah, is it because even if you do it the way you've got it here, you're you've got driveways up against each other.

So you gang the driveways and then you've got space in the middle in front of the house.

You mean park up?

It's not wide enough for one spot.

It's not wide.

Well, then you well, it'd be wide enough for like one and a half, yeah, like a small car and a big car.

Yeah, if you do it the other one.

The curve so in other words, the applicant would have two options to consider off-street parking if they're retaining at least two on-street spaces, or no off-street parking per the exemption and retaining three on street spaces.

I'm not okay with the level of getting rid of the old street parking.

Yeah, I I I get that the waiver exists for lots less than 30 feet, but we're creating the condition.

So I sort of want to take away that by saying that it will retain two at least two.

Okay.

And requiring off-street parking be provided.

Yeah, I guess we would have to do that to eliminate the exemption.

I do have a clearer copy here.

I I found in that old file.

Can I bring it to you?

Is that okay?

Can you email it to us?

Yeah.

As long as the board can clearly show that there is a nexus between the requested waiver and the proviso that you are that you would impose, um, then you can impose a proviso.

Okay.

So while that's being looked up, just to be maybe a little more clear about what my intent would be is we would grant the um grant the waiver of the lot width.

We would have the one provisor, we would add two more provisos to follow your logic.

One requiring off-street parking, and the second would require one on-street parking space for each lot, and that would give him the flexibility with his plans to do something.

But meeting I think ultimately we're gonna get back to the same requirements.

Yeah, yeah.

That's and then from my aesthetic point of view, if you flip it the other way, you might be able to save the trees, and you have a nice big kind of more of a front yard space where you're it's got driveway, house, house, driveway, which creates given the the character of this street, we create a bigger front yard condition instead of having a lot of driveways right after each other.

I'd actually help with you know the flow on the street.

So maybe just so I'll maybe as another substitute motion sticking with what I provided, but modifying the second proviso is for just requiring that the applicant study the plan with his architect to confirm which option provides the least point of impact to still protect on-street parking.

You should have it in your inbox.

I just gotta see the number the numbers that's solved it.

What's the side uh Ava while I'm waiting on it to upload?

Um, what is the side yard requirements for setback requirements for this district?

Is it three feet?

Is it three or five?

Okay.

My math doesn't work, guys.

I'm sorry.

It would it would not be possible, except it would not be possible in Todd's scenario to get a legal 18 true 18 feet, because it's 28 feet minus 12 half of that six, yeah.

You're splitting it.

And that's why I wanted to see the number if you put the driveways on the outside, does that actually get you because you can you can down to one in the middle so you can go like this with the property and get right up to the edge, and that given that there's a curb cut and the neighbors are right there with their driveways.

So if it's a center, if it's a center apply driveway, uh-huh.

It's 28 minus six because the driveway is split.

So you do end up with two spots.

Two 21 foot spots.

Oh, yeah, yeah, you're right.

These are not 12 foot driveways.

Three feet is the side you are requirement.

So by if he meets the minimum setback requirements on the outboard sides of it, he has more than enough room to put a driveway down the middle with a centralized curb cut, and you still preserve two on-street parking stalls, which kill the trees.

I mean, look.

They're just pine trees.

They're not that mature.

I like how this image perfectly puts up those two pine trees in the middle of the screen.

There they are.

I don't know who was slick about that one, then I can't.

I can't get this thing over.

Two of those trees are gone.

Man.

Is that right?

Yeah.

Okay, good job.

Two of those trees are gone.

I I didn't even really see how we remove any heavy equipment on the lots, or it would block the parking, right?

So that was the purpose for that.

Yeah, see, look, I'm I'm looking at the plan.

You got five foot setbacks on it.

So even if you went down to the minimum setback requirement, you don't have to do that, do that, but with the plan mod that I'm mentioning, I think addresses it.

But I mean, however, staff think I'm gonna kind of defer back to staff a little bit on this.

Which language do you think is more appropriate just so we could kind of get this thing going?

There's been a lot discussed as far as this proviso.

Um could you clarify which you are considering, yes, which version?

Oh, um, um, you know what?

I think I got it.

Don't even worry about it.

So, madam chair, if I can uh revisit and revise my initial motion.

Sure.

All right.

Um, I want to maintain the languages I provided and modify what I've provided for proviso two, and just state for the applicant to work with their architect and to submit a plan that provides some form of reducing the curb cuts or either reducing curb cuts or providing an alternate plan that helps to maximize the number of on street parking stalls uh provided for both lots that way it's not I'm not just subscribing one of the in these scenarios, it's probably likely there's only one that's gonna be able to be retained.

Um would you entertain a look to make that slightly more specific, just say instead of to maximize to provide a minimum of one per a lot per no, it won't work for a lot.

It does if he does essential, can I it works?

And I sorry to be difficult.

Now that I see the numbers, can somebody remind me the minimum between the side of the house and the edge of the property if you're putting a driveway.

The driveway width itself needs to be at least eight and a half feet, and then you need a setback of one foot between the edge of the parking pad and the lot line, so it's a width of nine and a half feet required.

Okay, so what's shown here is not compliant, not compliant plan.

Correct.

He would have to move the house move the houses back over to the correct setback requirement in order to have a compliant uh parking pad.

Yeah.

Of three feet to the side.

It just has to you you have to look at your plan.

You have it shown as the driveway is on the property line.

Right.

Your driveway is supposed to be one foot off the property line, and then the parking pad is supposed to be eight foot six wide.

Right.

It's shown as seven six.

So you've got eight foot six total from the side of the house to the property.

So it needs to scooch over.

Yeah, there's some notations in your plan that I know it's not you, it's whoever drafted this.

That actually it does not provide an off-street compliance stall.

So just based on that sheet that uh Ava did send to us, there's a lot of items that are that would have actually required additional waivers.

All right, so I'll I'll I'll I'm fine with this maximize off-street parking language, and um I'll second the motion.

With regards to BCA dock, it's 021-26.

It has been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Richards to grant the requested waivers, finding that the nine criteria have been met, adopting today's commentary as well as uh the applicant's submission to satisfy that the nine criteria have been met, and subject to two provisos.

Yes.

Vote your screens.

Five years, one nay, the motion carries.

Next item.

Thank you.

BCA2226 is a request for a variance to permit the construction of a two-story single-family dwelling with insufficient rear yard setback at 526 Marini Street.

And the far Marini Local Historic District.

The site is located on an undeveloped lot.

The massing and size of the site fits in with the nearby properties.

The proposed 10-foot rear yard setback will provide a reasonable distance between the petitions, the position site and neighboring property and will not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood.

The site also has an extremely shallow lot width, which limits the biddable area of the site and creates the need for this request.

However, the site can be developed with a smaller footprint to provide a compliant rear yard setback.

For this reason, staff recommends denial of this request as standard six of the approval standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.

Is not met, as denial of this request will result in the inconvenience rather than in a hardship.

However, should the board find that the request meets all nine approval standards.

Staff recommends two provisos.

If you could give your name and address for the record, Charles Clark, 1228 Connery, New Orleans 70115.

Okay.

Thank you for your time.

This is a one of these New Orleans lots that are smaller than what the parish likes to have.

We have a very uh minimal depth of only 41 feet.

Um throughout the city, they generally require 20% of the property depth to be the setback.

For some reason, in this district, they require a 20-foot setback, which would be almost 50% of the debt depth lot value there.

And the 20-foot setback is actually out of character for the neighborhood.

You can actually see in the property of uh see the picture of the properties next door.

They're actually encroaching that property line uh even greater than what our request is.

Our request is uh to keep a 10-foot setback.

The properties that are adjoining are less than five.

Um that neighborhood actually has several commercial developments that are built property line to property line on that same block.

Uh so they have zero property line setbacks, and so what we're asking for, we feel is within the normal for that area and would not negatively impact anybody in that neighborhood.

And so we're hoping for you to grant our request today.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA docket 022-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board.

No, we're gonna just the editorial comment.

I live in this neighborhood and probably walk my dogs by this lot and uh can attest that it is very small.

I've been hoping something would happen here for a long time.

Um just real quick on a site plan.

Uh it's saying 10 feet.

I'm sorry, that's right, that's the side.

Never mind.

Just question the applicant.

You know, you you got all your points except one demonstrable hardship.

If I take what you said correctly, I mean the hardship is you wouldn't have a house the size that everybody helped I mean it's it's a house that can't be marketed, basically, without this waiver.

I mean, the square footage on the property would definitely be it's wider problem.

Wider frontage than W.

I also think it we would, you know, by not granting it, we don't enjoy the same benefits of all the neighbors.

Um I'm actually just go ahead and I think even what the staff provided in response one inadvertently also answers uh criteria six.

Yeah, I'm agreeing.

And uh, you know, I mean it's all the adjoining houses have no yards, so it sounds pretty okay.

Yeah, to play the urban designer here like it seems like having a wider open space there doesn't help.

We want to get more street fronts, because the next thing is a bunch of big there's another little small building, and then you've got the giant yeah, so yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Uh Madam Chair of a motion is in order.

Okay, any other questions from the board.

Okay.

Um regarding Docket BZA 022-26 to 526 Marin Street.

I move to approve the request uh where the requested waiver of Article 9, Section 9.3.8, table 9-2 for rear yard setback, a waiver of 10 feet.

Um, accepting the staff's recommendation plus the discussion uh here on provisor six, finding that the request meets all nine of the nine criteria of the approval standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6F of the CZO, subject to uh pardon Supervisor.

Supervisors, thank you.

Thank you.

With regards to VCA docket 022-26, it's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the request the waiver of Article 9, Section 9.3.8, Table 92 for real yard setback, finding that the nine criteria have been met, adopting the applicant's submission as well as commentary from today to establish that the nine criteria have been met, subject to two provisos.

Six years, no nays, the motion carries.

Next item.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next item is BZA 023-26.

It is an after the fact request for variances from the provisions of Article 11, Section 11.3.a point one, table 11-2A of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the retention of excessive impervious surface in the front yard.

According to the applicant repairs undertaken by the sewage and water board of New Orleans to underground pipes resulted in site conditions that damage the front yard in an effort to address the resultant flooding, the applicant repaired the front yard with concrete after sewage and water board denied the request to repair with brick and mortar pavers to match the site's conditions in place since at least 2007.

The applicant seeks to resolve a violation they received by requesting a variance to allow an additional 50% of impervious surface in the front yard, where 40% is otherwise permitted for a total of 90%.

Based on the report, staff leaves the requested variances fail to meet criteria 2, 6, 8, and 9 of the standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.

In that the literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant from rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the district.

There is no demonstrable hardship.

Therefore, staff recommends denial.

However, should the board find that the request meets all nine standards, staff recommends two provisos.

Good afternoon.

My name is Shilin Cia Jones.

I live at 5312 LaSalle Street.

I'm the owner of 5312 and 5314 LaSalle Street.

Oh she pretty much said why I'm requesting the variance because it's a hardship.

But it is finances.

And I could not use that Sujan Waterboard is the reason for my repairing.

In 20 in early 20, in late 2015, Signal, SCLA, started work on Jefferson Avenue.

In the process of doing that work, we had main water line breakage in front of my home in the neighborhood.

Surgeon Waterbull came out to try to repair that.

After begging Sujin Waterbull to try to come back and repair what they had damaged.

Well, all I did was concreting all the damages.

And they want me to go back and try to repair something that I don't feel I should have had to repair in the first place.

And Susan Waterboard is a city agency.

Now I have another city agency emailing me telling me that to repair, just to remove cement, a certain percentage to come in compliance.

So I I'm just not understanding.

Okay.

Why I should have to pay and suffer for something that another city agents did to me.

Okay.

That's the end of your time, but we'll come back for uh questions.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 023-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Um, just a question, and I don't know if the applicant or if staff can better answer.

I'm just trying to understand how we got to the um the condition that we have currently because I know the notes in the report referenced that there was work done by sewage and waterboard, or that there was damage as a result of um utility work.

So was this condition created after that damage?

So you went in afterwards and paved the entire space.

Yes.

But if I guess without pictures of the damages that Susan Waterboard did, it don't serve justice, but I did have pictures.

So prior to the um the damage from sewage and waterboard, how much paving did you have in this area?

Well, it was it was like brick and border and dirt.

So I wanted Susan Waterboard to go back and do brick, but it was too expensive.

So, because I gave them estimates on how to go back and repair my bricks and my mortar, and I gave them estimate on the concrete.

So what they did was they get paid me out for concrete, not doing it.

This paid me out where I had to do it.

I had to get someone to do it.

So when you got this work done, was there any and the issue is that this wasn't the condition before from how you're explaining it.

And so the challenge is that this is outside of what is permissible.

And so what I'm trying to understand is when I try to understand, I understand now what the the issues are, but I hear what you're saying in terms of the situation that took place with the the drainage issue, but it doesn't negate the fact that what you went back with is not in compliance.

But what I went back, I understand now, but what I went back in with is which sewage and waterboard paid me to go back with.

I under I can't dispute what you may have gotten from sewage and waterboard.

Sewage and waterboard is one body, which is totally separate and apart from the CZO from safety and permits from city planning.

That is a totally separate entity, and we can't weigh in on what they may have paid you for whatever took place.

What we're looking at is what is provided for in the CZO with what you could put on your property, and what you put doesn't comply with what the CZO requires.

Any type of payment from sewage and waterboard.

We don't have any jurisdiction there.

Our jurisdiction rests in what the CZO requires for for your property.

Well, what they're telling me now is not that I couldn't put it there.

Correct.

There's a minimum.

That's what that's what they're telling me.

There's a maximum amount of paving that you can have in your front yard in the front of your property.

Okay.

They're telling me I put too much.

Correct.

The first when they first told me I put too much, they said like 100% because they didn't even see that flower bed up in there.

It's at 90%.

Yes.

Well, they went back since I've been.

Well we have is what's before us is that what you're permitted, which you're allowed to have is 40%.

Currently, you have 90% of your front yard paid.

So you would need to remove about half of that.

Okay.

And when I started out with the variance, the hardship, like I told them.

The hardship is your water put a financial hardship on me.

And now the city's still putting the financial whether I shouldn't have did it or not.

It's still a hard ship, financial hardship that I have to come out of pocket for a fine money that I don't have because another agency damaged me.

And what I'm explaining is that it's two different situations because what you and I'm not trying to go back and forth on it, but I it's not that we're not hearing what you're saying.

The challenge is that the decision that was made to put something back that wasn't in compliance is what is bringing you before us today.

It is not specifically what took place with sewage and waterboard.

It's the the decision to come back now with something different than what you had and something that's not in compliance.

Um I ask a question about that point.

Um and it's do you mind?

So it's a question for staff.

So and it's good to see you, Cameron.

Good to see you.

Um the photos make it look like what was there previously was some strip of concrete sidewalk and then brick paving that filled the site.

Yeah, and yeah, and now my under here's the question is if the brick paving's on like sand, does it count as permeable if it's mortared?

I believe it's definitely impermeable.

Does anybody know the answer to that question?

That's my understanding.

If there's mortar, it was very likely impervious.

Impervious.

So, you know, I'm looking at the photos that you provided of the damage, ma'am, and I see that there's chunks of mortar inside the the brick.

So I'm looking at this a little bit differently.

Um I'm I'm I'm thinking what you had before this was pretty much the scenario that you have now, which was you had impervious surface all over your front yard.

And so given that I'm a little more inclined that okay, you've gone back with a different material, but that you're no more out of compliance than you were before you did the work.

That's right.

Yeah.

Well, and and so looking at that more.

So like did it hold water when it rained?

Like the water just sit there on the on the surface and didn't drain.

After before the concrete.

I didn't have problems before the breakage and Susan Waterboard did that work.

Yeah.

But after Sous-Jum Waterball did that work, I sent I showed you the pictures.

It was just it was it wasn't healthy at all.

I was going through um all type of when it rained, I was going through all the feces.

Now, after I went back with the concrete, I haven't had no problem since the state.

Well, you you you have you when I look at the pictures, you definitely have positive drainage, right?

The water's coming off your property and and going to that.

But I don't see it as fully, I I'm not seeing the same thing that Commissioner Richards is seeing.

I do see I guess I'm looking dirt and I'm looking at the Google Street View, and it's you know, what my question, my next question was gonna be for staff was was actually about the um the sidewalk verge and uh the space between the old sidewalk and the street, and where's this where is the curb actually here?

And where I was gonna recommend maybe having a conversation with somebody like the urban urban conservancy who's done a lot of work in this neighborhood to help remove pavement and in a way that doesn't cost a lot of money.

That in fact a lot of times it's free.

So that's where I'm wondering if there's a way to find a landscape solution here that allows you to keep all the concrete and maybe leans on you know some of the nonprofits are in the city that are doing work to to do really low cost uh concrete removal, and so creating some some sort of a uh well, a little a little little planting area and some other things at least get you closer to compliance.

Because I I understand what you've got here now, it it drains the water well, you're not gonna have you're not walking through the water, but you've created a condition where it's now going on to the neighbors a little bit, and I I that that's my concern.

Yeah.

If you allow me, um I have the planned on one side, and I think originally like I had more planner on the other side too of the house.

I just didn't go back with that planner.

And I think um another problem would they have when I if you see in the middle, because it was concreted all the way.

You can't really see the sidewall because all that was messed up.

When Susan Waterboard did they work, all of that was messed up.

It looked like it's all together.

But it's really a sidewalk like was there before.

It just button against the water.

Well, right, but there's but there was a grass strip.

Oh there was a grass strip in this in the Google Earth as I'm looking at it, before this concrete work is done, there was a grass strip across the street.

Now it's been filled in with gravel and other places.

But it was really no grass.

It was like after Susan Waterboard did that.

I'm talking about before before that.

Well, you know, historically.

And even Romney, I'm gonna I'm gonna go back to the 2014.

Yeah, that's a street viewer.

2014.

It is a green strip, and it was a tree.

Yeah.

Okay.

And so that's where I'm saying if there's a way to get some, you know, get some of that condition back.

I think one of the concerns here too is the parking on the street.

People are using that whole sidewalk zone to park cars.

Um it's conditioned all up and down the street.

So there's no curbs here because the the city doesn't tend to have curbs in this area.

Um but you can see where there was the drivable right-of-way and then where people should be parking.

Um if you go all the way down my street, you're gonna see now we don't have that grace.

And that's and that's why the flooding, the flooding keeps getting worse in the city, is because we're paving over all these areas.

And so um, so I I try to find a solution in between, and and maybe uh would suggest that we you know connect you with urban conservancy that does a lot of work to um find ways to creatively remove some of that pavement without costing money to the owners.

And would I wasn't um used widely and it is used now and it's used across the street from me, they do the gravel.

But at the time I did it, I did not know about the gravel because I would have rather did the gravel, it would have been less expensive for me to do the gravel.

And you know, I asked them, I'd say, well, the house cars free, they all gravel.

What's the difference in the pave?

But they explain to me the water can go inside there.

But at the time I didn't know.

Yeah, and that's what I'm recommending is that if if we could connect you with urban conservancy, um, you guys know how to get and judge them.

They have programs to remove paving and they'd put back with gravel and with stormwater appropriate stuff and could help reduce the uh the permeability issues here.

Can I ask one question that I'm I'm confused about I received this email from planning and commission yesterday, even then, and they added um if I go forward or something with this 10,93.

Um we have had a rash of scam emails.

So um if you have do you have it so I can look at it.

Oh my phone, yeah.

Okay.

Because it really upset me in the lottery.

That's a difference, yeah.

That's a that is some sort of scam spam.

Well then you know it you didn't see it.

So it's all public record, they can't, and I'll just tell you the staff can't control that issue, but share it with staff so they could report it to the ID IT department and go from there.

So you don't have that as an invoice issue, ignore that.

We're just trying to help to get through this piece.

That's fine, because that really was allowed to do that.

It's only it's only exacerbating a problem for you.

Okay, so yeah.

All right, and Commissioner Dia, um, just kind of something that you brought up with the conservancy piece.

Instead of just trying to dictate it from here, because I don't know what options may exist for them, maybe we entertain a deferral on the item so the staff can at least converse with them and see if that's an option.

Yeah, and this paving has been here for a while.

So yeah, not like it's impacting the city, right?

Like it's been there for a long time.

So I would say this we should give it if we defer it, give it a long time.

Give it a long time, and then get and there's some landscape architects that are working with their conservancy that'll probably do it for for c you know, no cost or or volunteer work.

So I think, and I I'm gonna put them on the spot and I'll call Dan after this.

That's that's fine.

That sounds good.

I did want to ask one question before you make that motion.

Do you know exactly when you you did this paving?

I've been dealing with this for months.

So they told me I felt like a year behind.

I could have got it squared away, but some kind of way, I was just one year from being grandfather in the city.

You know, it's likely you didn't 2017 or two.

Yeah, I'm this happened like 2016, and it told me I could have been grandfathered in if it was like 2050.

Well, that that was our question.

I think that I was I missed it by some months.

What a what a coincidence.

Well, and but if we can get a landscape architect involved, we can get a number that makes sense.

Yeah, you know, we can we can get it past this.

So let me um let's connect connect her with with uh urban conservancy and and some of the green infrastructure nonprofits who would take this on.

What's the timing for the deferral?

I would say what's the maximum we can do 60 90.

I mean, let's let's say I mean I hate to defer it again, but uh 60 probably works.

Yeah, I think 60 is enough to at least talk to them and get a response.

That's the motion.

Yes, so um, in regards to BCA 2326, I recommend a deferral for 60 days, and hopefully we can get staff to connect to you with with the urban conservancy.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA docket 023-26 has been moved by Commissioner Diaz, second by Commissioner James to defer the item 60 days.

Vote your screens.

We will now hear deferral requests for variances.

The next item is BCA docket zero.

Just a second.

Same rules, same rules.

Variances, deferral.

Yes.

The next item is BZA Docket 01826 for a property located at 16 Neuron Place in 2239 Short Street.

The request is for variances from the provisions of Article 21, Section 21.6 point EE point one, swimming pools, location yard, article 21, section 21.7, table 21-2, permitted encroachments into required yards, swimming pool, and article 22, section 22.4.8, table 22-1 for street vehicle and bicycle parking requirements to permit the construction of a swimming pool in the corner side yard, resulting in insufficient off-street parking.

At this time, staff is requesting a deferral to allow additional time to complete a comprehensive review of the application and assess the requested variances in relation to the application applicable standards and surrounding context.

Staff recommends a 30-day deferral of the requested variances.

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Is there a motion?

Deferral.

Yeah, I was looking for 30 days.

Yes.

Um, in regards to BCA docket 018-26.

I move for a 30-day deferral of the matter uh for the request of staff.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 018-26, it's been moved by Commissioner Gonzalez, second by Commissioner James to defer uh 30 days at the request of staff.

Vote your screens.

No nays.

The motion carries.

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

Will chair please read the hearing rules for decision appeals.

Okay, so we still have our vote.

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.

Staff would like to update the board that the law department has advised us that the appeals should be deferred to a subsequent meeting.

Because the special meeting was on February 8th.

And so staff is is requesting deferral of the four appeals.

Staff has received an update from the law department about this one as well.

However, the applicant has requested a 60-day deferral.

And just a question to the law department.

Given the notice issue, do we still have to take public comment on these items or how should we proceed?

Because we're deferring the items.

I didn't hear I couldn't hear you.

Oh no, I was saying because we are deferring all the items.

I don't think we have to take public comment on those matters.

Is there a motion from the board?

Chair promotion is in order.

Proceed.

Regards to BZA Docket 062-24.

A move for a 60-day deferral at the request of the applicant.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 062-24, it's been moved by Commissioner Gonzalez.

Second by Commissioner James to defer this item for 60 days at the request of the applicant.

Vote your screens.

Five yes, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BZA 11025 for the property at 1037 through 39 Broadway Street.

And I don't believe the applicant is here for this one either.

So is this a recommendation for 30?

Yes.

Commissioner James.

I'll take it.

I just saw his name on here.

Oh, you moved.

Go ahead.

Is there a motion?

Oh, shoot.

Okay, yeah.

I moved to uh regarding docket uh BZA 110-25.

I move to defer it for 30 days to the next meeting.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket mean 110-25.

It's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer this item 30 days.

Vote your screens.

Five yes, no nays.

Motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BCA Docket 01226 for the property at 1901 through 41 Canal Street.

Again, staff is recommending a 30-day deferral.

I believe the applicant who is present also requested a 30-day deferral.

Adam Stump on behalf of the applicant.

I'll provide aerial imaging and affidavit of my client, but I hung around to see if y'all needed anything.

No, we're good.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there a motion?

Yes, there's a motion.

Madam Chair, regarding docket.

BZA 012-26.

I move to defer the matter for 30 days.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 014-26, it's been moved by Commissioner Richards.

Second by Commissioner Diaz to defer the item 30 days.

Just to be clear, we were on 12, I think.

Yeah.

I think you said 14.

The item is it's BZA Docket, unless the agenda is wrong, it's BZA Docket 014.

No, there's a 12.

There's a really short one, and then it's 12.

I missed it too.

Got it.

Yep.

BZA Docket 012-26.

Vote your screens.

Five years, no nays, the motion carries.

The next item is BZA Docket 014-26 for the property at 3239 Canal Street.

Again, staff is uh requesting a 30-day deferral.

The applicant is present as well.

Is there a motion?

In regards to docket 1426, I move to defer 30 days.

I requested the applicant.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 014-26 has been moved by Commissioner Diaz.

Second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer the item 30 days, vote your screens.

Five years, no nays, the motion carries.

Would the board consider a motion to adjourn the meeting?

So moved.

Second only if you say my name with an accent.

It's been moved by Commissioner Gonzalez, second by Commissioner James to uh would that be high Ms.

Oh Hamas.

To defer the I mean to uh adjourn the meeting of vote your screens.

Five minutes.

Five years, no nays, the motion carries, and our meeting is adjourned.

Have a good day.

Thank you.