Good morning.

I would like to call the Monday, March 16, Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting to order.

We will begin with roll call.

Candace Forrest.

Present.

Todd James.

Present.

Tamara Agins.

Present.

Jose Alvarez is absent.

Jaime Ramiro Diaz.

Presente.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Presenting.

Jason Richards.

Here.

At this time would the board make a motion to adopt the minutes from the February 23rd meeting.

I'm gonna let it slide today, so moved.

Second.

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

Uh vote your springs.

No.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

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

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

As a reminder to applicants, action that the board takes today will be released in the form of a disposition notice by March 26th 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.

Item one BZA 101-25 has been withdrawn.

All variance cases with staff recommendations for deferral as well as variance cases with applicant requests for deferral that were submitted to staff prior to the submittal deadline will be heard following new businesses, new business for variances.

This is an announcement regarding BZA docket 02726 for the property at 4418 Vancroft Drive.

So if anybody is here to speak, uh the board will not be able to hear this item today.

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

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

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

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

BCA Docket 00526 is a request for variances from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit an addition to a single family dwelling, resulting in insufficient front yard setback.

Article 13, Section 133A1, Table 13-2, requires a setback of 20 feet.

The applicant is proposing 18 feet 3 inches, which necessitates a waiver of 1 foot 9 inches.

At its February 9th special meeting, the board voted to defer this matter to the March 16th meeting to allow the applicant time to gather information regarding the front yard setbacks of neighboring properties along Maryland Drive.

The applicant provided this information and it is included in the granitis packet of this report.

The information does not change the staff's recommendation, which is based on permit data from nearby properties in the same zoning district developed under the current zoning ordinance to confirm compliance with the required setbacks.

Staff remains to find approval standards two, four, six, and seven not met, and that the literal interpretation of the ordinance would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the district.

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

Excuse me, the uh strict adherence would not result in a demonstrable hardship.

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

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variance.

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

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

Eric McCutcheon, applicant 3515 Annunciation Street.

You can go ahead with your comments.

So we went ahead and remeasured all 36 properties along Maryland Drive, which share the same hardship, lot size, etc.

The Jefferson Parish Line.

Out of those 36, 23 encroached the front yard setback.

Out of those 23, 21 actually encroached further than what we would be asking.

And that's the new findings submitted.

Hopefully, it satisfies the testing requirement that the BZA suggested.

Is that the end of your comments?

Yes, thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA docket 005-26 that wishes to speak?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Just want to acknowledge so thank you to the applicant representative who did go ahead and do the actual point surveys that we asked for in the last meeting and showing that tally.

Um one thing I want to still point out is I do appreciate what the staff did with their report to clearly show what the what information they could obtain within their with their limitations of what may have already been permitted and what's on file versus what's actually the condition.

And just for reference, and I think an appendix A of the staff report, those permits are on Bel Air and Fairway Drives, not necessarily on Maryland, which is where this is and where it seems to be the biggest variance in where the setback condition may be on these properties.

That property itself actually almost creates the identical condition to what they're proposing in this package with the front porch encroaching further into what have been what would have been the required front yard, but apparently there's some development pattern issue of how all of these uh lots were developed along Maryland Street.

So I just wanted to provide that point of clarity based on what the gentleman provided in the record.

So I don't have any other further comments.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Is there a motion?

Yeah.

Um Madam Chair, if I could present a motion.

Yes.

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

My motion is to grant the request for the waiver of Article 13, Section 13.3.8.1, uh table 13-2 for front yard setback, and accept what the applicant has submitted is the response of the nine criteria.

But I want to make sure I clearly represent that the hardship is driven more so off of what they were able to provide.

He is an architect, so you can stand behind what he provided as the existing condition along the Maryland Street, Maryland Street right away.

So that helps to further clarify that all nine criteria have been met and move for approval with the one-noted proviso by staff.

Todd, can I just ask one quick question for the board?

I I wasn't here for the last conversation.

Just want to make sure the trees are being protected and uh all right, cool.

Yeah, here you go.

With regards to BCA Docket 005-26 has been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the requested waiver, finding that the nine criteria have been met and adopting um the applicant's submissions as well as commentary from today to uh satisfy establish that the nine criteria have been met, uh subject to one proviso.

Vote your screens.

Six years, no nays the motion carries.

Next item.

Thank you guys.

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

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

Article 216A3 allows accessory structures a maximum of 40% rear yard coverage.

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

Article 21686 allows accessory structures to be no taller than 14 feet.

The applicant is proposing 17 feet 9 and 1 quarter inches, necessitating a waiver of three feet 9 and 1 quarter inches.

Article 216A7 requires accessory structures to have a minimum distance of three feet from the interior side yard and rear lot lines.

The applicant is proposing zero feet from either property line, thus necessitating a waiver of three feet.

This request was deferred at the February 9th special meeting to allow the applicant additional time to research the site's history to identify previous site improvements.

Since then, the applicant has submitted photos of the previous accessory structures located in the rear yard, as well as screenshot from the assessor's website showing two accessory structures on the property in 2010.

There has been no change to the staff analysis of approval standards.

The staff believes that the requested variances of article uh 216A3 for rear yard coverage and article 216A6 for height failed to meet standards 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the standards for variances of Article 46F, and that there are no special conditions peculiar to the land.

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

The variance would confer special privilege.

The variance would alter the essential character of the locality.

Strict adherence would not result in demonstrable hardship, and the request is primarily for the convenience or profit of the owner.

Additionally, the staff believes that the requested waivers of Article 216A7 for interior side yard setback and 216A7 for rear yard setback fail to meet standards 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the standards or variances of Article 46F, and that there are no special conditions peculiar to the land.

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

The variance would confer special privilege.

The variance would alter the essential character of the locality.

Strict adherence would not result in a demonstrable hardship.

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

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

Therefore, the staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present for BCA docket 008-26.

Good morning, board members.

How y'all doing?

Um I know last time I came here February 9th to discuss there was some confusion with uh my talking points.

I think we were going towards a good route, but then I got confused and I was just tunnel vision speaking about the one accessory structure, the after-the-fect one that we're discussing today, and forgot to mention the second accessory structure.

So when you started asking me questions about the second accessory structure, I don't know why my mind went straight to the adjacent one on 1908 Robert Street.

But uh just like Miss Eminent Lee mentions, I did submit photos from 2010 from the assessor's website.

It shows all three accessory structures, which is the two right now on uh 5015 South Saratoga.

The two right here.

Well, the one that was existed before the one that was after the fact, of course.

And the one located on 1908 Robert Street, which it shows history that the previous accessory structure, the one that was rebuilt, has always shared that lat line with 1908 Robert Street.

And again, I feel like we were coming to a split decision.

All the other criteria that were mentioned, I went over my talking points, and it seemed that we were on the right track for a split decision of keeping the location of the accessory structure, given that the history was so clear that there's always been an accessory structure he has shared with that lat line on 1908 Robert Street.

So I'm here to answer any questions.

And I one more thing I wanted to mention is the biggest thing that seemed to be an issue as well was the height of the accessory structure now.

Now I can't prove the height was always 17 feet, which I don't think it was 17 feet if we're being honest, but I did show that there's always been those three accessory structures, the two on 5015 SARS Earthoga and the one on 1908 Robert Street.

So we're here today to of course we would like all variances to be approved, but I'm just here to get your take on if we can have a split decision to keep the location of the accessory structure and maybe alter that height.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 008-26 that wishes to speak?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Quick question, Miss Galvez.

So when we did talk about this one last time, just curious.

You may mention to that as you're closing out your comments related to the overall height of the this larger accessory structure.

One of the comments I brought up last time was a concern about the roof line and the roof shape.

Right.

Is that part of that change as well to basically remove the condition where it runs off into the adjacent property?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Seeing nine, is there a motion?

Do you know what that proposed modification will be?

Because I think that was a big part of what I was looking to get clarity on.

I wouldn't go into detail about it now, but the plans are made by our firm.

So I'm sure with any recommendation that you guys give us and our designers in the office, we'll come up with a good compromise to fix that roof and the height.

Okay, so Ms.

Galvez, I just want to make sure I'm clear about your proposed compromise essentially, which would be we've got four waivers in front of us for accessories structures and uses.

Um your contention is that the two structures existed, so the waiver for um lot area coverage is in existing condition.

Yes, sir.

Same with the side yard and the rear yard setbacks.

Yes, sir, that's correct.

But that we would um potentially have a new design that would hit the 14-foot maximum height.

Yes, sir.

That I can live with.

Um I think Commissioner James's comment about roof drainage is maybe in the code.

I think that'd be a requirement anyway.

So unless you feel differently, I don't see the need for them to come back to us for that.

Okay, all right.

Uh Madam Chair, if a motion's in order.

Yes, proceed.

Okay.

Regarding Docket BZA 008-26.

I move for a partial approval of the requested waivers.

As follows, uh, approval of the waiver of Article 21, Section 21.6.8.3 for accessory structure and uses rear yard coverage.

Uh Article 21, Section 21.6.8.7 for interior yard, uh, interior side yard setback, and article 21, section 21.6.8.7 for rear yard setback.

Uh finding in the discussion today, plus the last meeting.

Uh, that those meet the nine of the nine criteria for approval of standards of variances of article four, section 4.6 F, subject to the one proviso.

This would not approve and deny the requested waiver of Article 21, Section 21.6.8.6 for height.

Uh, with one proviso as noted in the staff's report.

Second by Commissioner James to grant the requested waivers of Article 21, Section 21.6.8.3 for accessory structures and uses, rear yard coverage, and Article 21, Section 21.6.8.7 for accessory structures and uses interior side yard setback and rear side yard setback, finding that the nine criteria have been met, subject to one proviso, and denying the requested waiver of Article 21, Section 21.6.8.6 for accessory structures height, finding that the nine criteria have not been met.

Vote your screens.

Yes, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

Thank you.

BZA Docket 01826 is for the property located at 16 Duran Place in 2239 Short Street.

This request is for variances from the provisions of Article 21, Section 21.6.e point 1, 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.

Article 21, Section 21.6.1 dash swimming pools location yard permits swimming pools located within the rear and interior side yard.

The applicant has proposed a swimming pool to be constructed in the corner side yard.

Article 21, Section 21.7, Table 21-2 permitted encroachments into required yards swimming pool permits encroachments into the rear and interior side yard.

The applicant has proposed an encroachment into the corner side yard.

Article 22, section 22.4.

Staff believes that the requested variances article 21 section 21.6.1 dash swimming pools location yard, article 21, excuse me, and article 21, section 21.7.

Table 21-2 permitted encroachments into required yard swimming pool meets the nine criteria of standards for variances of Article 4 Section 4.6 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

However, Article 22, Section 22.4.8, Table 22-1, all-street vehicle, and bicycle parking requirements fails to meet criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 018-26?

Hi there.

As far as the parking requirement goes, we have explored all of the other options around our property.

Um and we have not found another suitable place to uh to park our vehicle.

Um the interior side yard.

Uh that space is only five foot nine inches across, and so unless we're putting a moped there, uh it's gonna be very difficult to put a car or between the house uh and the property line.

We also have uh live oak trees on the front of the house and also on the side just off uh to the left of that picture is another is another uh live oak, and that um we want to protect those trees.

We don't want to damage those trees by doing any construction and finally putting uh putting a driveway in the front of the house.

We have a historic uh facade that we would uh that we would like to not disturb by putting in a parking or any driveway or anything like that.

Is that the end of your comments?

Yes, ma'am.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA docket 018-26 that wishes to speak?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board question for staff?

Because it seems like the lack of parking is just a straight result of the geometry of the site and and the request to put the pool in the only place that they can put the pool.

So what is it about the off-street parking summarized neatly that doesn't meet the standards in your opinion?

I mean, I I see the list, but it seems like they don't have a good option without the variance to use the the site the way they want to use it.

Maybe I'm not asking a clear question.

Um we would either need to give them a variance to park somewhere else or just waive this.

That would be correct.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

It's just uh just to kind of echo that same point.

We kind of create a I don't want to say detrimental reliance on one approval versus the other, but if we're looking at the approval of the pool in this location, there is no other theoretical location for it to exist.

That's correct.

And technically, if the board were to grant as staff recommended, the request would be moot because they couldn't remove the parking to install the pool.

If that makes sense.

Yeah.

Okay.

Sorry if that if this was discussed, but is off-street parking required in this.

Yeah, it is, I think for sure.

Just checking.

Yeah.

Yeah, because it's not there's some properties around there.

Don't necessarily have all right, got it.

Yeah, I mean that there are many do have driveways, I think Romy, but like not everyone does, and so I I don't feel like this is granting like if everybody had a drive and no one parked on the street, I could see that, but um, I feel like it's a reasonable request.

I guess I'm just um I'm confused on the the way that the recommendation is um is framed because I guess this is part of trying to clarify the right question.

And I'm just trying to understand and looking at the staff recommendation um when we get to the hardship section and referring to a compliant off-street parking location exists.

But if that is where the pool is to go, I don't see how that can be stated that there is a compliant off-street parking at the same time.

We're saying that's where the pool should go.

The way staff analyzed the nine criteria is looking at each variance request separately, individually.

Um, and staff is finding that because the parking that exists on the site is both required under the CZO and compliant.

Uh, there's nowhere else that that parking could be relocated if the applicant is to have a pool on the site as well.

So we had to kind of pull the variance requests apart to dig into whether there's a true hardship for each one.

Right, but I think where I'm confused is if there's a um recommendation to approve the swimming pool to me, how are you approving the swimming pool that takes away the parking?

That's the uh the kind of trickiness of the recommendation.

Because the request technically meets all nine approval standards, we have to recommend approval for the swimming pool, but the applicant would be unable to install the swimming pool without providing a compliant parking space or obtaining a waiver.

So if the pool is granted but the parking is not, they would be unable to move forward with the pool.

It's just kind of the technical nature of reviewing each request individually.

Got it.

So I guess so.

Yeah, and come up with a motion.

But I'm ready to make a motion if necessary.

I would uh there any other questions from the board?

No, other than to say I I think an argument can be made that because of the lodge geometry, these approval criteria are basically all metal.

Yeah.

For motions in order.

Yes, proceed.

Madam Chair, regardless of BCA docket number 018-26.

My motion is to grant uh the applicant's request for waivers of Article 21, Section 21.6.1 for swimming pools.

Uh section 21.7 table 21-2 for permitted encroachment into the required rear yard for swimming pool and section 22.4.8 table 22-1 for off-street vehicle park.

Vehicle and bicycle parking.

Um I want to take the length which I was actually provided for the initial approval as well as what has been submitted by the applicant and uh comments on the day is to fulfill the nine criteria and move for approval with the two noted provisos.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA Docket 018-26, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Richards to grant the requested waivers, finding that the nine criteria have been met and adopting the applicant submission as well as commentary from today to establish uh that the nine criteria have been met, subject to two provisos.

Voture screens.

Six years, no nays to motion carries.

Next item.

Thank you very much.

We will now begin new businesses for variances.

All right.

The next item is BZA Docket 025-26 for a property located at 2732 Bay Street.

This is a request for a variance from the provisions of Article 11, Section 11.3.8.1, Table 11-2A, front yard setback, and Article 11, Section 11.3.a point two, uh front yard build two line of the conference of zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a single family dwelling with insufficient front yard setbacks and insufficient front build two lines.

The subject property is located on a block that is 120 feet deep with almost all lots featuring frontages along both Bay Street and Edge Street.

Staff recommends denial in part and approval in part.

Uh for the denial, the the staff believes that the requested waivers of Article 11, Section 11.3.8.1, Table 11-2A, um, and Article 11, Section 11.3.8.2 for the Bay Street side of the property to allow an insufficient front yard.f of the CCO in that literal interpretation of the province provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance.

Uh four, granting the variance requested will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege, which is denied by this ordinance to other lands or structures in the same district or similarly situated.

Six strict adherence to the regulation by the property would result in a demonstrable hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere convenience.

Seven, the request for the variance is not based primarily upon a desire to serve the convenience or profit of the property owner or other interested parties.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances from Article 11, Section 11.3.8.1, Table 11-2A, and Article 11, Section 11.3.8.2 for the base street side of the property.

Staff also notes that should the applicant shift the new structure 0.9 feet towards the edge street side of the property, these two variances would be moot, and the second two variances would be lessened.

And then for the approval, um article 11 section 11.3.8.1, table 11-2A requires a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet in an HURS district.

The applicant is proposing a 46 front yard setback on the edge street side of the property, necessitating a waiver of 26 feet.

Article 11, section 11.3.8.2 requires a front yard bill to line of 20 feet in an HURS district.

The applicant is proposing a 46 uh front yard 46 foot front yard on the edge street side of the property, necessitating a waiver of 26 feet.

The staff believes that this request, these requests do satisfy the nine criteria as they pertain to the requested variance.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of these requested variances subject to improviso.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present for BCA docket 025-26?

If you could come up, please good morning.

My name is Arthur White the third, and I'm up here for the get the variance approved for the rebuild on my home.

Uh I have some ma'am.

Sorry.

Can you please can you please sorry?

Can you please get your address for the record?

Oh, I was gonna get the first one.

2732 Bay Street.

I'm sorry, ma'am.

Thank you.

And that's the end of your comments.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 025-26?

Yes, ma'am.

Can come up, please.

Good morning.

Matthew Beeris, I'm representing the contracting company for the house on 2732 Bay Street.

We're requesting for the variance to be approved.

We went through Cobalt Engineering to, you know, get the measurements for the variances, and we're just asking for the approval.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here for BCA Docket 025-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Good morning.

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

Yes, I'm Priscilla Lopez.

I'm Edgewood Heights Association President.

I'm 3224 People's Avenue.

Um I'm here in opposition of the variance and the setbacks.

Okay.

Um we are, I'm gonna read so you'll be able to understand everything what we're doing.

We are writing on behalf of the Edgewood Heights Homeowners Association Board of Directors and the residents of our community to formally express our strong opposition to the proposed changes to the existing local zoning laws.

Um preservation efforts that have been in place since before World War II.

These resident uh regulations have consistently guided our neighborhoods' development and helped maintain our community character for generations.

We firmly believe that these exceptional zoning laws are vital for preserving the quality of life and safety and uh and aesthetic integrity of our residents cherished.

Any alterations to these regulations could result in um unintended consequences, potentially undermining the very essence of what Edgewood Heights um making it a desirable place to live.

Moreover, we urge all homeowners to adhere to the current covenants and guidelines outlined in our charter.

Um maintaining a cohesive community that respects established norms and forces corporation is crucial.

We also request that any proposals for variance zones, zoning, variance or zoning changes be brought to the attention of Edgewood Heights Homeowners Association Board of Directors for discussion and approval before any action is taken.

We believe that cooperative dialogue is essential in addressing community concerns and ensuring that all voices are heard, and we would like to provide some essential information regarding our stance on um recent zoning um variance changes requested in Ezwood Heights.

As a community, we have several key reasons for opposing this request that we believe warrant consideration.

Ezwood Heights is charming, quite neighborhood with a rich history characterized by homes over a century old, the historic.

That's the the end of your time, ma'am.

Oh, that's the end of the time.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry.

And I just want to say it is a historic district.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in opposition for BZA Docket 025-26?

Good morning.

Brian Lopez 3224 Peoples Avenue.

I'm in the opposition of the zoning changing.

I mean, the variance that he uh applied for.

The property is 60 by 120.

So he has a large piece of property there.

And my I don't understand why he has to change variants to put some type of property there that's not cohesive with the neighborhood.

And we we in opposition to this here, because I believe he has enough room.

Now that property is on Bay Street, the back portion of that property is on uh Edge Street.

So it's like two access to that property.

But when he give his setback, I think he said 48 feet from the front or something like that.

So you can push the property all the way to the back portion of this property.

But he has enough room to put whatever he wants on that property, but without changing the variance on this property.

That's that's our opposite issue.

We want to keep it as a historical district.

We want to keep the houses in uniform the way the neighborhood is existing, or again, could trina destroy many of the properties in that neighborhood, and we have a lot of vacant lots.

So we don't want to start changing zoning laws or variance laws and giving these um contractors or whoever they might come in the neighborhood to change the aesthetic of our neighborhood.

But we welcome anybody that wants to come build up in the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Um so we went through Cobalt Engineering.

We're we're not building this, you know, this this house just to build it.

We're doing it for the Restore Louisiana program.

The man lost his home uh in Katrina, he tried piecing it back together.

The uh the program deemed that it was inoperable to repair it, so they deemed it to be a reconstruction.

These are the the plans that the the program and cobalt engineering got together and proposed.

So it isn't something that the pro the homeowner's trying to get approved just so he can you know make it where he wants it.

This is strictly from Cobalt in the program.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Yeah, just a quick question, um, Jenna, on the so we can make sure to help provide some clarity because I think there is um, and this is a little bit more for the neighbors to really appreciate what I think is actually being applied for and what the waivers would create if granted, um, or at least if we just follow the staff's recommendation.

The problem is that the code itself pushes them to either build at the 14.9 foot setback line, which matches the setback conditions, or at least the average setback condition along that's the base street side.

Yes.

Okay.

When we get to the edge street side of the property, it's forcing him to have to build it at the 20-foot point.

Yes, it would um force him to have a um the edge street side acts as a de facto backyard for a lot of these properties.

Um, and so but because it does front edge street, it's beholden to the front yard um requirements of the CZO, even though it acts as a backyard.

Um, so yes, um it would be having a rear yard act as a front yard.

Okay, so maybe, and I know that for the neighbors, if maybe if I could ask the lady that's the head of the association if she could just come back to the mic, because I just want to at least have a quick summary on this piece so we could kind of help button this what button a concern.

Thank you so much.

But I also want to say that um we have a few of our home uh is what I saw most here that is in opposition of this here same variance.

Gotcha.

All right, but what I want to make sure we clearly communicate and understand one thing.

Okay.

Um so when you're looking at this property, which side would it be Bay Street or Edge Street side of the property?

Would you say is the more critical side that helps to preserve the intent of the setback condition along that street?

Well, I would say the front of the the front of the house is Bay Street.

Okay, yes.

So you would agree that the backyard is edge street.

That's right.

Okay.

That's correct.

Okay.

So saying that, I want to make sure you guys understand that is actually a lot in alignment with what the staff has actually recommended.

Oh, okay.

Okay, so that the setback condition, while he showed it, while they had it is 14 feet, it's actually 0.9 feet off from where it should fall.

So technically it would be asking him to move the property back or keeping it at 14.

Um I want to make sure we get so that y'all understand, because I think y'all are actually all on the same page.

I just think there's a disconnect in terms of how to interpret what the waivers are for.

Okay.

Yes, and so from what staff understands as well with the program that's allowing them to reconstruct the home, um, you have to maintain a similar footprint to what existed prior.

So this would be um in some ways restoring the similar footprint.

However, um staff put the um current survey of what exists on the property up there.

Currently, the front yard setback on the Bay Street side of the property is 21 point something feet.

So they are asking to minimize that front yard.

I'm I'm not exactly sure why, if there is something very particular about the program.

Um but so yeah, currently there's a a 20-foot front yard setback in the front, and then the next property over is a 17-foot setback, which is what the um requirements are based on, and then the rear yard is also a larger setback currently.

So it's it's rebuilding similar to the existing footprint.

Yeah, I just wanted to clarify one thing too.

As I look at the plans, it's it's 14 feet to the porch, and then the steps are also coming out in front of that, right?

So the steps are within that 14 foot.

So yeah, the steps are yeah, so it um the 14 feet, 14.9 feet is to the um the front facade.

So the steps encroach into the setback.

Okay, and the 14 foot nine is coming from the average of the neighbors or yes, yeah.

Since the uh lot on the like downtown side is vacant, um, it's based on the upriver side, uh, which is 17 feet, and it could vary three feet um, you know, above or less than 17 feet.

So 14 feet would be the um the setback.

Okay.

And you said that because I can't see a dimension on the drawings of the existing, so it's 21 feet or something, you said to the covered porch.

Currently existing, yeah, is um 21 feet.

Actually, yeah, in the survey, it's saying it's 21.9 to the front edge to the front face of the structure.

It's not accounting for the porch.

But what it sounds like what they did on Cobalt side is that the drawing is now putting the front build to line of that house at the in alignment with the porch, it does not say to 14 feet, but I'm using a guesstimate because it's showing the adjacent structure at 17.9 feet.

So assuming since that front porch is 6.1 feet in front of it, do the math from there and it kind of reduces it within that same footprint.

Yeah.

The stairs is gonna be taken so several feet of the setback.

I mean, that still comes up to roughly like 15, 15.

Yeah, 15.8.

So it's still the 14 doesn't match that 15, so I'm not sure.

Um, so the gentle so i I just wanted to make sure you understood that what we were discussing is in alignment with what you guys are actually concerned about.

Okay.

Um, yes, the the property is gonna change if they're building something new, so it's not gonna be identical to what was built here.

Yeah.

But in terms of what they're presenting is setback conditions, is respecting what's on the Bay Street side and acknowledging that edge street is truly the backyard.

This is a by default.

If this was two different lots, like one lot was on bay and one lot was on edge, that would be a very different situation, and it would be building to those two respective setback lines.

So just want to make sure you guys understand this isn't far off from what you guys are concerned about putting back in commerce.

Yeah, they all understand that what they say.

I just want to make sure that they was understanding this okay.

Okay.

So why while you if you want to come on.

Okay, thank you.

It it it might sound ridiculous, but let me ask some about variance.

That don't have anything to do with zoning, does it?

Yes, it does.

It does.

It's all it's all about zoning.

All about zoning.

So by giving the variance, do that that don't change the zoning of the neighborhood.

No, no.

If your zoning remains in place, uh the variance is only talking about how far back the property is being built from the front property line.

That's the only thing that we're uh discussing.

Uh-huh.

And the best way to explain it, a variance is like an exception to what would um typically that's why they are seeking they're seeking permission to deviate um in some way from what the zoning requirements are.

But it's it's for a specific property, it's not changing the zoning in the area completely.

Right.

We we welcome a good neighbor into the neighborhood.

We just concern more about because it's a historical district, we just concern about any zone changing or any kind of variance from that neighborhood that will alter anything else that's coming into the coming into that neighborhood.

That's our concern.

Yeah, no, so actually what's being recommended in alignment with the I'm glad it's explained it to us.

That's why we don't want to take the time to make sure you're thank you so much.

No problem.

Right and I surely appreciate it.

Thank you, because it's basically a senior neighborhood.

We have a lot of senior residents, so thank you for explaining to them.

And just to clarify one more thing, if it were built to what the zoning requires, the back side of the property would require a much bigger house than what you guys typically have in the neighborhood.

So this would be very much the same scale.

The difference would be that it's elevated a little more because of the the flood requirements, the flood zoning.

So just to clarify then with staff, so the setback of the 14.9, that is based on the adjacent houses and the requirement.

That would be to the covered porch.

So where the cover porch is currently is 15.8.

So it's we're talking feet here, eight inches.

The existing front edge.

Yes.

Yes, yeah.

So that makes sense.

So the they're taking an average of all the houses on the street and trying to make sure the house lines up with the existing houses.

That's right.

Thank you so much.

No, no problem.

One last question for the applicant.

Yes, sir.

So just based off what the staff is recommending, because it's just not a straight up approval.

It's an approval in part, denial in part.

Do you guys understand what's recommended from staff and so you can fulfill what is being asked?

Is that changed?

Yes, sir.

Absolutely.

Yeah, so we would just have to go through uh cobalt again to get with the program, and then they'll come up with the uh you know with the recommendations from from the city and all that.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Yes, sir, thank you.

And just to be clear, the recommendations to push it back a foot for what they currently have.

So that should be one would think minor.

A little bit closer, but maybe maybe not.

Madam Chair, for motion's in order.

Any other questions from the board?

Chrissy.

All right, madam chair, my motion is to accept the staff's recommendation for BZA docket number 025-26.

Which is a denial in part, approval in part, and denial of Article 11.3.8.1, table 11-2A for a front yard setback on Bay Street.

And section 11.3.8.2 for front yard build two lines on build uh base street.

Then move for approval of section 11.3.8.1 table 11-2A for front yard setback on edge street, as well as section 11.3.8.2 for the front yard build two line on edge street and move for approval with the one noted proviso.

Understand it at the nine criteria have been met for those two items.

Thank you for regards to BCA dockets 025-26 has been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Diaz to grant the requested waivers of Article 11, Section 11.3.1, Table 112A, front yard setback on the edge street side, and Article 11, Section 11.3.2 front yard bill two line on the edge street side, finding that the nine criteria have been met, subject to one proviso, and denying the requested waivers of Article 11, Section 11.3.1, Table 11, 2A, front yard setback on the Bay Street side, and Article 11, Section 11.3.2, front yard bill two line on the Bay Street side.

Finding that the nine criteria have not been met.

Vote your screens.

Next item.

The next item is BZA docket 026-26 for a property located at 203 Walnut Street.

This request is for a variance from provisions of Article 18, Section 18.30 point B.2 parking.

And Article 18 section 18.30 point B.4 bathrooms.

Article 11, Section 11.3.3A, parking restrictions.

Article 22, Section 22.8.A.1.b.

III.

Permitted vehicle parking locations in the corner side yard.

Article 22, section 22.11 point D.

Point one.

Parking pad design location.

Article 21, section 21.7, Table 21-2.

Permitted encroachments into required yards in the parking parking pad.

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

Um is for variances from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the renovation of a single family dwelling with insufficient off-street parking and more than two full and a half full and one half total number of bathrooms and a parking pad located in the corner side yard.

Based on this report, the staff believes that the requested variance of Article 18, Section 18.30.b.2 University Area Off Street Parking Overlay Bathrooms fails to meet criteria 1, 2, 6, and 7 of the standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.f of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, and therefore staff recommends denial of that variance request.

And additionally, staff believes the requested variances of Article 11, Section 11.3.

Parking restrictions.

Article 22, Section 22.8.

1.B, III permitted vehicle parking locations in the corner side yard.

Article 22, Section 22.11.1, parking pad design location.

Article 21, Section 21.7 permitted encroachments into required uh yards parking pad fails to meet criteria one, two, four, six, and seven of the standards for variances of Article 4.

Section 4.6.f of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

However, should the board find that the staff uh sorry, board find that the request meets all nine approval standards for those standards of variances.

Staff recommends uh one proviso.

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

Daniel Sellers, owner of 203 Walnut.

You can go ahead with your comments.

Uh first off, I want to say as the owner of the property that I feel like this overlay district is antiquated to begin with.

It's a primary residence.

I'm gonna live here.

I'm putting the money into the property uh for my family.

So it's gonna be for my wife and my children.

Uh I I wish I could have signed uh uh uh uh an affidavit saying uh you know, Daniel and Cynthia and their children are gonna live here, and that I don't need some.

If I had a uh if I would have just moved in this house and got a um, you know, if I would have got a uh homestead exemption, I could have just went ahead and done all this, but I want to do this the right way.

I love the city, I'm gonna be here forever until the day I die.

I just I just think it's uh it's antiquated.

I I I mean, I don't know if you know it's it's it's honestly slightly frustrating.

So you guys are a lot smarter than I am by a long shot.

I don't even understand what's going on today.

But uh, you know, something needs to change with this overlay district.

I mean, these kids, I mean, these kids don't even live on they're all living on campus now.

So one of y'all are smart enough, you gotta fix that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll take the credit for being uh smart, but some days I don't know.

Yeah.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 026-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Um, yeah, one quick question of staff.

Um, on the parking restriction piece.

Um is there a required off-street parking already covered within the existing garage or not?

There's a garage space.

Yes, the garage counts as one space.

Okay.

And are they okay?

So this is being triggered by everything else based on the overlay district.

Oh, this is the overlay district bedroom parking.

Yes, otherwise, single family residence.

And uh, sir comment earlier, like you know, we're not a legislative body.

Talk to your council person about that.

We just interpret the law once it's written, or the the zoning code, we don't interpret the law, pardon.

So we're just here for variances.

They're the only ones smart enough to understand all of this.

Uh well, compliments keep flying.

I'm not sure about that one.

I don't know.

We understand your frustration.

You aren't the first.

You aren't the first.

You aren't the last.

Yeah.

Um, but to echo uh his point, please just go ahead and send something to you, council person, because we all agree that this is something that's just gonna become a repeat issue uh for these types of properties.

So unfortunately, you having the ability to sign an affidavit like you mentioned related to uh future homes uh homestead exemption doesn't exist.

I don't know if that's a way for us to start doing something like that as a point of support for this.

I don't know.

What I don't understand is that when I spoke with Todd at Nauseum, who runs planning and zoning, he said, hey, these are most likely going to be approved.

This is ridiculous.

And here I am sitting here, and someone from planning and zoning, I don't even know who it is, is saying we don't even recommend this.

So here's why.

So I'm not gonna the staff is always gonna be in a precarious situation where they have to write a report based on the black and white letter of the law.

They can't take what you presented as a driver in terms of how they would interpret their report.

So it's not the staff's fault in terms of how they wrote the recommendation.

That's why you still come in before this body to present your point so we can take it into the who's the person that just said they don't recommend it.

Who's this lady?

So it's on staff, but I think you I think you're not following me.

Yes, sir.

Frustration is not them.

Okay.

She's only right of recommendation.

This body is who actually makes the final decision for you.

So again, I'm just asking.

It's not the staff.

They only can interpret the code as it's drafted, and they have a fiduciary responsibility to respond according to that piece.

That makes a lot of sense, I'm sorry.

And the the challenge is that this overlay district is creating this precarious situation that is part of what Commissioner uh James was mentioning that the way that the um overlay is written puts us in this scenario that forces um homeowners to have to come before us to seek a variance.

So all of this is being triggered by legislation, and that's why Commissioner Richards mentioned at the outset, we don't have the power to make a change to the legislation.

That's something that can be um put forward to the council to actually do that.

But all of this is being triggered by legislation, and so it puts us in this weird box where now you would have to come before us for a variance, but for that legislation, this process wouldn't even have had to happen for you.

But that's what's creating this situation.

So the overlay the overlay is here, you know, for what it's worth for your protection.

Because if if you were someone who was just a developer and not a homeowner, I understand.

You know, you you'd be on the other side saying, look at what they're getting away with, and we will have kids in the neighborhood, but um, but yeah, it's kind of you darned if you do, you darned if you don't.

Uh we get the frustration.

Okay.

So that said, I do have a question about what's for us.

So that just to be clear that the parking spaces on the front, those are being triggered by the requirement of the number of bedrooms.

The number of bedrooms is four, so that triggers a review.

The number of bathrooms is over the 2.5, which also triggers the overlay.

And also the parking in the corner side yard.

Right.

But that is the location and but the extra parking.

There was already a parking spot in the city.

Right.

So I guess my question is we're showing two cars in the drawing here.

Is that something that is that's being required?

That's not necessarily the homeowner's desire.

Or is it your desire to have the two the extra parking?

So that's that's what I'm trying to understand.

Because if it's just the way it is and you've got a driveway and there's a garage and this IZD wasn't here, you wouldn't be adding that extra parking spot.

So his graph the graphic that we're looking at isn't a part of that slide for the gentleman to see exactly what we're referring to.

In your um in the plans that were submitted, I know your architect was required to show X amount of parking stalls on the property.

And I think they're counting what's inside the garage as a stall, correct, Sarah?

Yes.

And so it's the additional two that would be triggered because of the overlay district, they have to show a location for them, and because that location does encroach into the required side yard, that's what's now triggering the second item.

Yeah.

So I guess what I'm asking is do we actually do you actually are you trying to get an extra do you want more paving out there with the next parking spot?

Because honestly, I wouldn't support that.

I would say like just keep it the way it is and you drive in and park in your driveway.

And if that's what you're trying to do, then we don't want to drive in tandem.

Okay.

That well, tandem side by side or I mean correct.

I want to drive in tandem.

I don't want to have to park in the garage and then my wife to park in the in front of it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So you want the two spots.

I mean everybody else has it.

Yeah, I think this is so we we have several variances in front of us and or several requests.

So the ones that are strictly related to the overlay to Commissioner Diaz's point, the parking restrictions, or the the number of parking, etc.

That's all fine.

Like those those waivers are easy for us to approve.

A lot of people come to us with front yard or corner yard parking.

And although some of your neighbors may have them, I think we do need to discuss whether it's worth approving that or not, if that's what you really want.

Oh, I just wanted to discuss it because you know it's it's it's not that I wouldn't, I maybe misspoke.

I feel like we have to talk about that extra spot because that would be yeah, if you take this take away all the IZD stuff, we're adding an extra parking spot.

So that's that's right.

That's what I'm sure we talk about.

Let me yeah, let me make the point really clear.

So what happens with a lot of even especially on Walnut Street, I imagine there are many other streets where garages and curb cuts are prominent.

What the zoning code allows or doesn't allow is um parking in front of your building, essentially.

It's not really permitted.

Uh what the existing condition you have is there's a driveway, you have to have a driveway to get into that, so you get into the garage.

So from a zoning stone code standpoint, that's compliant.

Now, people do probably park in front of their garages all the time.

If you're asking us for permission to increase the width of that, that is a variance that we would need to consider.

We just chop off that part of the house.

That may not be the case with this one because if I understand correctly, when we increase the amount of paving, is there a restriction on the percentage of paving in this for this?

So let's let's completely take away the overlay.

I'm just asking, just entertain me for this question.

If the overlay did not apply on this property from a parking pad requirement and all other comments, would he be able to have the amount of paving shown at the driveway portion, not parking pad, but driveway.

Because I'm not seeing him, I'm not seeing a waiver where it's permeable area inside that yard condition.

That's correct.

Based on the information that the staff has, there is no need for a waiver of impervious surface in the corner side yard.

That appears to be compliant based on what we have.

Okay.

So I want to make sure we understand that piece because if it was if he had the homestead exemption and would have still been before us as it's drawn with the driveway, I'm not gonna call it a parking pad for the sake of this argument.

He would be allowed to build this by right.

Except for the location in the corner side yard.

But that's if it's a parking pad.

So parking pad is only being triggered by the ICD.

It's because the second overlay, sorry.

Correct.

It's because the second parking space is required under the overlay district, and in order to have a second parking space, they have to be side by side because they can't be stacked spaces per the overlay.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

I'm quite clear.

I'm good.

All right.

I'm good.

All right, okay.

I'll run with it.

Madam Chair, for motions and order.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Proceed.

Madam Chair, regards to BZA docket number 026-26.

My motion is to grant the requested waivers.

Um section 11.3.b, point three point A for parking restrictions.

Section 18.30, point B, 0.4 for the university area, off-street parking overlay district for bathrooms.

Section 21.7, table 21-2 for permitted encroachments into required yards, parking parking pad.

Section 22.8.1b.3 for permitted vehicle parking locations, corner side yard, and section 22.11 D.1 for parking pad design location.

Um, and move for approval of these requested vapor uh requested waivers, understanding that the nine criteria have been met based on the comments provided by the applicant, the understanding of what's happening with this development, and move for approval with the one noted proviso.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA docket 026-26, it's been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Diaz to grant the requested waivers, finding that the nine criteria have been met and 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.

Six yes, no nays, the motion carries.

Next item.

I love each and every one of you.

Thank you.

So we can proceed with the next items.

The next item is BCA 2826 for a property located at 2731 Palmer Avenue.

This is an after-the-fact request for a variance from the provisions of Article 20, Section 21.6.8.3 carport projection to permit the construction of a carport with insufficient projection from the interior side lot line.

The CZO requires that every projection of a car port maintains at least a two-foot setback.

The applicant constructed a car port attached to the existing single family residence.

The car port is built to the interior side property line.

The applicant is seeking a waiver of two feet.

The staff believes that the requested waiver fails to meet standards one, two, four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine of the standards for variants.

Therefore, the staff recommends denial of the requested variants from Article 21, Section 21.6.3 car port projection.

Hi, my name is Steve Clicks, KLIX, and the address is 2731 Palmer Street.

This woman has actually no parking at all.

She can't park prior to the sidewalk, and she can't park past her property line either.

She actually moved some of her equipment on the side of her house so she could use that as a parking space.

So I'm looking at four inches off the property line, and it doesn't really inhibit anybody around her.

So it's not a fire hazard either, so I'm just uh curious.

At the end of your comments?

Yeah.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA docket 028-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board.

Just a um a quick question to um staff because I noticed in the report, um, it was indicated that there is a compliant parking space, and the applicant is saying that there is not.

Is there a a parking space currently?

It appears that there's a curb cut in a drive aisle where she can park alongside the house.

Okay.

It just wouldn't be covered by a carport.

I car got it.

Carport's and that would be able to remain if this were not granted.

They would just the actual cover, the car port would have to be removed.

Correct.

All right.

Um so there wasn't a permit that was submitted for this one when it was uh yeah, I submitted the permit.

The permit was it went through, but it was stopped because of the variance.

So it's just sitting there.

All right, but it was all the work had started prior to a permit being applied for.

We pulled the application when we started it, thinking that we didn't need the variants, and then we found out later, so we stopped.

Okay, that's part one.

Um I have a couple concerns on it because of one just from a permitting standpoint, and what I'm seeing in the drawings.

I'm just concerned about if it even meets the wind uplift requirements based on the structural system, how it's attached to the facial board, while it while the intent is one thing I'm concerned at what's being proposed, may actually have a much more dire situation downstream in the case of an event and us granting a permit for that type of structure.

Um just would cause more of a headache.

So I think there is some point of impact on how it would address the neighboring property.

Also, with the condition, even if the even if the foundation is four inches off, again it's this is very similar to a project that was in here earlier.

The runoff condition of how does this drain and where does it drain to is another issue.

So I'm concerned that what's really being proposed may actually cause a whole a whole host of issues that does actually impact the neighboring property, so I'm concerned about that piece.

Well, the drainage is actually I make sure that it's drained on her property and goes down her driveway as far as draining goes.

Um one thing that may be confusing us is there's a photo in the file.

That's a in that's not the completed carport, in other words, no, yeah, yeah, okay.

It's it's and it's the current condition.

It's just the current condition.

If you if you look at the drawing that I submitted, it shows the post is exactly four inches from the property line.

Okay.

But the gutter that above that is four inches, but our drain will come inside the carport to the opposite side of the column.

So it lands on the concrete that drains down a driveway.

Gotcha.

So the contention basically is that if you move the post in two feet, you really don't have enough width for a car.

You can see in the drawing that there's two, yeah, I think it's two foot one inch soffit.

Yeah, we have basically seven foot ten, really of roof, which meets ten foot.

Right, but yeah, so the ten foot two plus or minus clear would go down to eight feet.

Um is not enough space to open the door.

Um, there's no post in the middle.

That's how she can open the door.

Yeah, you say two posts on the one in the front, one in the back.

Okay.

So the door probability won't be there.

So word about the engineering of it.

Well, yeah, no, but also the permit, the engineering is uh, I believe it was 150 mile an hour.

So I don't think it's our job to say one way or the other that it does or doesn't meet the code, that's you know, your engineer or whoever, and then you've represented to us that you're draining onto the property, so it's from my standpoint as long as the gutters on her property and the drainage is on her property, then.

Yeah, well, the downspat will come inside and inside the room.

So, but I guess one trick is is the gutter going to be overhanging the other property.

No.

Okay.

All right.

I guess um I'm not I'm listening to um to your questions, um, Commissioner Richards, and I guess what I'm getting hung up on is trying to understand how the um the car port gives the the structure would give the additional width that's needed um for parking, because if that's why I was asking my questions at the beginning, if the carport is gone, the parking would still be there and still exist.

Yeah, but she physically moved some things that were located at the corner of the property, she pushed them back because prior to that she wasn't able to get her car because there was a I believe there was the gas meter and the AC unit that she pushed all over the room.

Right, but I but my issue is that the problem is not the parking, the problem is the carport.

Okay and so if the carport is not there, it doesn't take away the ability to park.

I I get that, but then I'm just explaining to you what she explained to me.

I I understand.

I'm just I I I I I hear you.

I'm just telling you in terms of what we're looking at currently, is that as I'm listening, I'm not hearing anything that justifies the carport if the parking is not going to go away.

Well only the carport will.

And it sounds like it is just for the convenience of the homeowner, and there's not a hardship to justify the carport.

The way she explained it to me, she moved her stuff, asked me for a carport because the debris from the neighbor trees are hitting on her car.

That's why she doesn't park in that spot.

She asked to see if we could get a car pick going, because she's got a lot of debris that falls from the neighbor's yard from trees.

She's asked them to cut them, they don't do it.

So this is where we're at.

I get it.

Um and as I'm stating, I'm not hearing a hardship that would justify a carport.

Okay.

Well, I I think I do have a slightly different take on it, which is a carport doesn't get put up because you have a hardship, the carport gets put up because you want to put one up.

And in the case of this, which everybody has the right to do, uh, in the case of this lot, it only being um I I can't read your survey, sir.

So I don't really want to represent how wide.

Well, if I the hardship, just to respond to that point, the hardship comes up because you're requesting a variance.

Under normal circumstances, if you don't need a variance, you're absolutely right.

You put a car port up because you want to.

But when the situation is that you now need a variance for your car port, a hardship absolutely comes into play because now you do have to justify your need for the carport.

If there weren't a request for a variance, then you're absolutely right.

Then it's just because it's what you want.

Okay.

Maybe slight disagreement there.

I I just I feel like the the variance would have to be based on the 10-foot width of the side yard and the fact that you can't build an eight-foot carport and still fit the car in.

That's the hard ship.

Well, we you we use the access of the s of of the soffit area to give it that 10 feet.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

Because I got a drawing right here.

Yeah, but I think what we're where we get in disconnected is a car port is not required.

Correct.

Parking pad is requirement for all for the required off-street parking.

That's not what's before us.

The car port itself is technically the luxury.

Yes.

Item of being able to have covered parking.

Which, if that covered parking is going to be provided, there are provisions that still need to be addressed in order for it to be installed correctly.

I'm not seeing where the hardship is a hardship is being established to necessitate a car port.

Parking pad, yeah, but that's not the question.

The hardship keeps sounding like the carport is the hardship.

Right.

And everything is surrounding the carport.

And the fact that you can't build it to a certain width, in and of itself can't be the hardship.

Yeah.

Well, the other thing is is uh the lady's 79 years old and she doesn't want to get caught in the rain.

That's another part of a carport.

So it also gives you shade.

It it does other things.

The convenience of the you know it's a convenience.

It's all going back to convenience and for you.

All right, I I'm I I'm clearly am the minority on the board here on this issue, but I I think like the anybody can if if it's permitted by zoning, anybody can put a carport up.

So but that goes just like parking, anybody can get parking, but we still have restrictions around it.

Yeah, right.

It's like, yes, I get what you're saying.

If there were no requests for a variance, that absolutely makes sense.

But it's when you ask for a variance, and now you have nine, and we've only touched on one.

Yeah, yeah.

But you have nine criteria that you have to meet.

So it's under normal circumstances that's perfectly appropriate, but it changes when now you're asking for a variance.

If you were asking for a pool, yes, that's something that somebody can put whenever they want to, but if the circumstances dictate that they now have to ask for a variance, well, now you have nine criteria you have to meet right in order to get that pool.

Right.

So yes, that statement I agree with.

So I would say what's a little bit unclear to probably everybody here is you have according to your sketch, using the soft it, you have ten foot too clear, approximately eight foot from the house.

I don't think it's quite yet been demonstrated to us because the the only issue we're talking about is that it's not two feet away from the property.

Okay, well, let me ask you a question then.

If the post was not there and the roof line still existed, would that satisfy the two-foot no it's the projection of the roof?

So it's mainly the rejection is what's covered, it's the covered space because you could if we approve this, somebody could go back and turn it into a room someday.

Maybe that's the could close it in and make it a garage.

Exactly.

Yeah, maybe, maybe not.

Um attached.

Yeah.

Does it attach to the primary roof?

It's an extension of that condition.

Yeah.

And it can make it very subject to expansion into that non-conformance setback.

So you're so we're looking at it from the roof plan down.

It's it's a covered space.

So what if this happened?

What if the roof was cut back to the two feet and no post there?

Then you never have to come back to us.

And then two feet.

So if I resubmit the permit that way, how would this uh you would just what we do is we defer your application, you would resend a drawing to the staff.

Okay.

And if the if if they deem it to be compliant, this is just a moot case and it doesn't come back to us, then you can proceed with your permit.

So that's possible.

I mean, I could run the post out from the house and just hang it.

Like an awning, sort of.

Uh uh, let's not make that.

No, I don't want you to make that decision.

I mean, we may be architect some of us on this part, but we're not gonna preach it.

Yeah, we're yeah, we're but uh if so how can I continue this?

Just resubmit everything.

Yeah, yeah.

Uh redo your sketch, send it to the staff member.

You've been course.

Cut it back, yeah.

And if if you can keep it two feet off the property line, then you've got a compliant carport and you don't need to be here.

Yep.

Thank you.

Okay.

Madam Chair, if a motion is an order.

Yes, per se.

Thank you.

Uh regarding docket number BZA 028-26, 2731 Palmer Street.

I move uh given the discussion here, I move to defer the matter for 30 days to give the applicant time to look at reevaluating or redesigning its plans.

With regards to BCA docket 028-26 has been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner Eggins to defer this item 30 days.

Vote your screens.

Six YA's, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

Thank you.

The next item is VZA docket 2926 for the property located at 1614 Poland Avenue.

This is an after the re after the fact request for variances to permit the construction of a second principal structure with insufficient rear yard setback and the retention of a parking pad located between the front facade and front property line, resulting in front yard parking.

Article 123A1, Table 12-2, requires structures to be at least 15 feet from the rear property line.

The applicant is proposing three feet, necessitating a waiver of 12 feet.

Article 21.7, Table 21-2, and Article 2211 D1 do not allow for parking in the front yard.

The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow for front yard parking.

Article 228A1B2 and 2211 D2 do not allow for parking between the front facade and front property line, and the applicant is requesting waivers.

The staff believes that the requested variants of Article 123A1, Table 12-2 for a rear yard setback fails to meet standards 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7, in that there are no special conditions that are peculiar to the land.

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

The variants would confer special privilege.

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

Additionally, staff believes that the requested waivers of Article 21.7, Table 21-2, Article 228 A1B2, Article 2211 D1 and 2211 D2 fail to meet standard 2, and that literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of commonly enjoyed rights.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 029-26?

Good morning again, board members.

Um this variance request is kind of similar to the one that I had earlier for 5015 South Saratoga Street.

It's not an accessory structure, but an actual dwelling unit.

Staff agrees with our point that the front yard has a non-conformant status and has no special conditions occur from attempting to refurbish the parking pad.

The same conclusion was not given to the six existing dwelling unit in the s in the rear yard since the original structure was demolished.

We clarified that the original structure was only demolished due to hurricane damage in 2021.

This is a special condition as the property owner had no choice but to repair the non-conformant structure in the rear yard.

Since the repair in 2021, the property has its detached structure like it has for over 20 years prior to the hurricane.

Although they did lose the nonconformant status of the dwelling unit in the rear yard, the owner wants to put back the exact same thing and not change the use.

I also want to mention that this is a permitted use in this district, so we're not proposing something that hasn't existed and doesn't have the right to exist.

It's just the location as the issue.

Criteria number two, although staff surveyed the area and confirmed that the surveyed properties built under the current CZO do not have second principal structures like 1614 Poland F.

This does not add to the criteria not being met since two principal structures are allowed on one lot throughout the whole HUB1 district.

Criterion number four.

Criteria number six, as mentioned in our nine criteria letter, it would not be fair to strip the owner of a condition that existed for so long due to a natural disaster that forced the owner to refurbish the detached structure.

Criteria number seven, staff acknowledges that the history of the original detect structure does hold weight in our argument, but it is not enough to prove that the request is based on hardship rather than convenience from the owner.

We would simply like to re-establish what is allowed in the district and has existed for so many years, prior.

Is that the end of your comments?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 029-26?

Are you coming to speak?

Oh, okay.

Anyone here in opposition.

Good morning, my name is Peretta White Mitchell.

I'm the owner of the property next door.

Um I'm in opposition of this being a multi-family dwelling.

First of all, on your sheet that I received about your on your docket, this house was not up on mine since 1995.

The structure next door that Ms.

Washington lived in was a one-family dwelling, not a two-family dwelling.

And if you look at all of your uh information from the city, it will say single family dwelling in any in every instance, even on the tax bill for that property.

That was a single family dwelling.

Also, the structure that that lady addressed, that structure that they built in the back.

That was a tin shed, a metal shed that you put lawnmowers and things like that in.

That was never a house, an existing house, and I'm sure that you probably could check that with integrated that there was no separate meter there.

Also, they have three meters already on that house.

All the work has been done.

I called Mr.

Green's office.

I spoke with peers.

They had a stop order on that property, and they didn't stop.

And I have my documentation for August 23rd that they were continuing their work despite having a cease and desist order posted.

Also, that front yard, because it is a single family dwelling.

The lot is 30 inches, 30 feet wide by 108 feet long.

That house has a single driveway, not uh multiple parking, single driveway with a little path leading up to the front door and some grass, some grass there.

I have a uh picture of the that I took off the internet of the house.

Um city regulations about the parking there.

He has he made that house a double.

He had the address on there 1610, 1612.

1610 belongs to me.

I already own 1610 Poland.

I notified Mr.

Green's office.

That's the the end of your time, ma'am.

I have his card.

You can go ahead.

10 is already an established address.

They didn't own 10 and they didn't own 12.

They own 14.

Um my concern is that variances are generally, and if I'm wrong, correct me.

I've never been before you all before, that variances are generally intended to address legitimate hardships, and there is no hardship there because the property was already established, and they put a unit, a full unit on the back in that garage that they are asking for those extra 12 feet for, and he's already had the meter boxes, not a meter, but the three-meter boxes already placed on the house, denoting to me that he intends to do three units there.

Um back to what I was saying, variances are generally intended to address legitimate hardships to the physical characteristics of a property, and in this case, the situation appears to be a self-created condition.

There was no hardship there, except he wants to add another unit to that already small property at 30 feet wide with three separate units.

That's gonna put a lot of people there, possibly if we look at maybe two to each unit, and there is no parking.

And this the zoning regulation is um in place to protect character safety and stability of the neighborhood.

So I'm gonna say again, she's not telling the truth about there was a house back there that was a tin shade to hold utility items that you um possess.

So I'm asking that you deny his request and even look at the fact that he already built it before he had approval to build that extra unit in the back and turn that single family unit if you can find it for yourself on the city's webpage, a single family unit into a double.

So we already have opposition, and I have another letter.

That's like the end of your time, but thank you.

Do you want the letter from the neighbor?

We would have to take a motion to accept anything that hasn't been presented to us.

Thank you.

I don't know if anyone is gonna else in opposition.

The applicant has an opportunity to revive yes, ma'am.

Well, the history of the actual dwelling prior to the demolition of 2021 might have been misconstrued.

Right.

I do want to mention that again in this district, you are allowed to have two principal structures, which include, you know, a double and a multifamily home.

So if we were to proceed or find a way to get the variances approved, we would bring out just a fix the addressing, speak to the neighbors, and address the parking a little more.

It I know the parking gets a little confusing because it does have an existing non-conforming parking pad in the front yard.

And being that we're adding a unit in the back, another parking spot would have to be added.

But again, those are things that we could we could alter or discuss.

I I do I would like to have a couple minutes maybe off the mic to speak to the property owner because we did hold the MPP meeting that nobody attended.

So just to clarify a couple things of what we're trying to do and what is allowed in this district, and I'm here to answer any questions about what we're proposing as well.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Yeah, question of staff.

Um was the existing multifamily uh status uh established for this property.

Our understanding is that it's an existing two family with an after the fact uh three family proposal.

Okay, but in the in a use table, I don't believe that that's allowed.

It is permitted.

Um I can pull that up as well.

HUV1, right?

Correct, H U B one.

Well, that's our main question because I'm seeing that blank in the in the zoning code for dwelling multi-family if it's not oh, limited to four units maximum permitted.

That's basically what it is.

Yeah, it lets it it splits out multi-family and four units, four unit multi-family.

Okay.

Yeah, got it.

One last question on uh just I'm just trying to make sure I know y'all did y'all's research.

I maybe just getting a little bit lost in what we have in this report.

Um and that can exist in separate principal structures.

Yes, and the HUB1 district under Article 21, you can have multiple principal structures in this district by right.

Okay.

I just want to make sure we touch on all those points.

I guess the variance is really hard for us to I it's hard for me to see a route to approval as an after the fact because there's probably a way that this could have been a three-family house and not had to encroach into the side yard, but it's been built this way, and I'm not really comfortable approving a variance.

I mean, I think when we're make sure the neighbors are clear because of the size of the lot, they could by right put three units there.

So that in and of itself is not necessarily an issue for the board.

The the the thing is that they've done it in such a way that it's triggered this non-compliance with the zoning code.

And if you have anything that you need to say, you have to come up to the mic.

I'd recognize you, you need to come up and speak.

Yeah, I'll recognize you.

Yeah, I have two properties side by side from there.

And they've done it without any kind of permit.

And put out so if they went through the process, we ain't got a problem with that.

But you literally have no parking.

Yeah.

So even though they put two parking spots there, you got six families, six calls.

How is that gonna work?

I understand the concerns.

You can't park on polling.

You know, it's just too tight.

Certainly, understand the concern.

And again, uh question back to staff.

The the the required parking is what for this proposal.

You're asking about the number of parking spaces required.

Um, generally with three family, three parking spaces would be required.

We would have to, I believe there are some spaces that are perhaps legally non-conforming, yeah, based on what was developed historically.

So we could verify that with the department of safety and permits.

Okay.

Yeah.

I'm gonna defer deferred.

Yeah.

A question to the applicant.

I mean, we're we're of a uh this is not approvable, just straight up.

Um like you said you might want to take the time to talk to the neighbors and see if there's a resolution for this.

So would you be amenable to a deferral?

And if so, how long would you think you would need?

Uh most definitely a deferral uh is in the question, and I think 30 days will do it.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay.

If the motion's in order, Madam Chair.

Are there any other questions from number ward?

Oh, we we have the we have the floor right now, it's out of order.

So understood, and I think that's actually what they've already acknowledged in terms of what needed to happen from an MPP standpoint in any type of communication.

So allow Miss Jarzia to come over and she'll be able to talk to you guys.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Uh so uh to defer this regarding Docket BZA029-26.

I moved to defer the matter for 30 days to give the applicant and the uh nearby property owners some time to discuss.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA tacket and zero two nine-26 has been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner Eggins to defer this item 30 days.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

BZA docket 10525 is for the property located at 235241 Bourbon Street.

This request is for variance from the provisions of Article 24, Section 24.13 point G point 1.

Projecting signs projection, Article 24, Section 24.13 point G.3.3, zoning districts group two allowable sign area, and article 24, section 24, point 13 point G.3.

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

Article 24, section 24.1 point A, projecting signs projection permits projecting signs with a permitted projection of four feet.

The applicant has proposed a projecting sign with a projection of seven feet and is requesting a waiver of three feet.

Article 24, section 24.13 point G.3.3.

Zoning Districts Group 2 allowable sign area permits in allowable sign area of approximately 45 square feet.

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

Article 24, section 24.13 point G.3, point C point V, zoning districts group two, first floor permits project projection signs to be located on the first floor.

The applicant is requesting to construct the proposed sign above the first floor and will need a variance.

Allow for the submittal of additional documentation.

VCA 10525 was also deferred at the special meeting held on February 9th to allow the applicant to submit supplemental excuse me, supplemental materials.

However, the supplemental materials were submitted on Monday, March 2nd, which did not allow sufficient time to complete a thorough thorough review and revised materials prior to today's scheduled hearing.

There has been no change from staff's previous recommendation.

With that, staff believes that the requested variances of Article 24, Section 24.13, point G.1.8, projecting signs, projection, Article 24, Section 24.13.3.3.

Zoning Districts Group 2 allowable sign area and Article 24, Section 24.

13.3.

Zoning Districts Group 2.

Price floor fails to meet criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

Thank you.

Did you have anything that you wish to add?

Um no, we presented the information that was requested at the last BCA for the square footages and the projections of similar signs in the same district.

And I believe the board should have the handful of examples.

One being 201 Bourbon Street with 144 square feet.

200 Bourbon Street with 86.6 square feet.

And 716 Iberville with 128 square feet.

All of these are mounted at the second floor or higher.

All of them with projections that are past the allowable amount.

Yes, that's all.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 105-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Um, just a quick note.

I know that the applicant did provide some comment in response to the non criteria, but I'd rather wait until we get an updated report addressing the non-criteria based off what you guys provided in that uh evaluation.

But if a motion's in order.

Are there any other questions from the board?

I have a re I assume is the deferral motion.

Okay.

Uh just a request for the applicant, Miss Laxton.

So you you gave us the projection and the area of each sign, which is good.

Um I think if you could give us a sense because what you're asking for, uh, I get that these are all approximately the size of your sign or greater.

So that's evidence in support of your case.

But the request is for double in your case, so it would be good if you could also do the calculation of lot area or like lot link, however, the sign area is calculated.

It's like how how long is that facade and what would be permitted?

So that we can get a sense of the relative ratio of what's provided to what would be required otherwise for those four properties where you found the um uh the existing condition.

Does that make does the question make sense?

Yes, um, in the VCE district, the maximum square footage is 50 square feet.

So the items provided or the addresses provided all are above the 50 maximum.

Oh, thank you for clarifying that for me.

So why is yours 44.88 or something like that?

It's 46.5 square feet on one side and it's double-sided.

So that's where we get the 93.

Okay, okay.

All right, hold on.

That's how I've understood the code.

All right, oh no, that's fine.

Um maybe question for staff, what determines the sign area?

I mean, I guess I could in this district.

I just don't know.

Sorry, I couldn't hear that.

Uh what is what how is the required sign area calculated?

It's uh a little bit complicated.

I can read it to you momentarily.

We can just address this next time too.

It's fine.

For motions in order.

I I have it in front of me if you would like me.

I didn't hear you.

Thank you.

All right.

So as far as calculating, the allowable sign area is computed at 8% of the public space area of the bourbon street facade measured by the height times the base.

And the CZO defines height as the distance between the floor and the ceiling where they intersect the Bourbon Street facade and base is defined as the linear footage fronting Bourbon Street, and then further, it may not exceed 50 square feet.

It's a little bit complicated.

Okay, gotcha.

I still so that said, I think it would be worth just quickly height and width of the public space as it's been defined there and just give us a sense of it's either 50 or it's something else.

And and if if you did that and they're all 50, that's fine.

Um but I would just add that and communicate that to staff as they put the recomm new recommendation back together.

Thank you.

The floor is yours.

Okay.

Okay, uh Madam Chair, if the motion is in order.

Yes, proceed.

Okay, uh regarding docket BZA 105-25 235 to 41 Bourbon Street.

I um at the staff's request I move to defer the matter for 30 days.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 1205-25, it's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner Eggins to defer this item 30 days.

Vote your screens.

Can I ask the staff when the deadline is to submit information?

We submitted two weeks before the meeting, but if someone could provide me with an exact date, that'd be nice.

We can provide that.

So staff reports are due no later than April 1st.

So in order for us to work the information into our report, um, you would want to work with your planner directly, but um Alyssa, I don't know if you have a particular deadline in mind based on the staff report due date of April 1st.

Um wait March March 23rd is fine.

So that would be in about a week, just fine.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Rami.

Six Ya's, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is VCA docket 02426 for a property located at 1309 Harmony Street.

The request is for variances from the provisions of Article 21, Section 21.6 point in point one point a fence height to permit a fence with excessive height.

This isn't after the fact request.

Staff determined that the submitted survey indicates a fence along or near the chestnut street property line.

However, it is unclear whether the fence is located on the subject property or on the adjacent lot.

Staff has requested clarification and an updated survey to accurately reflect the fence's location.

In addition, the applicant has informed staff that they were unable to attend the meeting today.

Therefore, staff recommends a 30-day deferral of the requested variances to allow the applicant time to provide the requested documentation and clarification.

Is anyone here in support of the applicant for BCA docket 024-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Motion's in order.

Yes, proceed.

Madam Chair, regards to BCA docket number 024-26.

My motion is for a 30-day deferral at the request of staff.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA docket 024-26 has been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Eggins to defer this item 30 days.

Vote your screens.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BZA Docket 3026 for the property at 3301 South Saratoga Street.

This request is for variances to permit the construction of a swimming pool in the corner side yard and mechanical equipment in the corner side yard.

During review, staff identified additional areas of potential noncompliance and is awaiting at the time of the report.

We were awaiting a safety and permits determination on whether additional variances are needed.

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

For motions in order.

Yes, proceed.

Madam Chair, regardless of BZA Docket number 030-26.

My motions for a 30-day deferral at the request of staff.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 030-26 has been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer this item 30 days.

Vote your screens.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

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

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

Rules and procedures for public hearings, appeals of the 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 it necessary, the case may be acted upon at this meeting or deferred for additional information or review.

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

Standard of review.

The applicant's appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustments is governed by Section 5-408 of the City of New Orleans Home MU Charter.

Okay, good afternoon, I think.

Good to see you all again.

Item number 13, BZA number 008-24.

This is our long present matter regarding the the jail.

I I mean to that extent, I mean, if we need to reset it again, I would just ask that we continue with the outdate, and then the applicant can then file to have it put place back on the agenda should they wish to do so.

Are there any um is there anyone here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 008-24?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Question of legal.

Do we have any sense of the status on the uh legal proceeding?

Not at this time, not to give an important time frame.

And I think if even if we see as it's noted, I mean, this has been going on since January 8th of 24.

So Madam Chair, if a motion is in order.

Yes, per se.

Um I did understand uh Mr.

McNamara's request, but I just want to be safe in terms of what we have been doing.

I think as of late it's been 120 days is the maximum deferral period that we've kind of set internally.

Is it that is correct?

Okay.

So, madam chair, with that uh my motion for uh BCA docket number 008-24 is for the 120-day deferral period.

Um, hopefully, if we could at least I'll just ask um either through the department or through legal if we could just get some form of communication on the status of if there's a hearing or um subsequent projected date on the outcome.

Thank you.

With regards to uh BZA docket 008-24, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer this item 120.

Vote your screens.

60 is no nays the motion carries.

Next item.

Again, good afternoon, Dan McMur, Chief Zoning Official Item number 14, docket number BZA 110-25 regarding the property at 1037-39 Broadway.

Um the issue on the uh appeal is whether the Department of Safety and Permits correctly determined that a uh legally nonconforming bar located in a residential district outside of an RDO residential diversity overlay is prohibited from receiving a sidewalk cafe permit under Article 21.8 of uh the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

The key legal principles that uh there's some key legal principles at issue.

Starting with is the Louisiana Civil Code, Article 450 regarding public things.

Public things are owned by the state or its political subdivisions in their capacities as public persons.

Public things belong to the state and uh are such things as running waters, the waters of bottoms of navigable uh water bodies, the territorial sea and the seashore, and then public things that belong to political subdivisions of the state are such as streets and public squares.

The other principles at play are the comprehensive zoning ordinance pursuant to 21.8.15 F temporary sidewalk cafes are permitted as an accessory to a licensed restaurant, uh, bars, retail goods establishments that sell food products and other similar similar businesses that sell food and beverages beverages for consumption on premises and are subjected to the following standards.

Sidewalk cafes are prohibited from uh legal non-conforming bars uh in residential zoning districts except for those in the RDO residential overlay district.

Further CZO 25.2.d puts the burden of a property owner to establish the legality.

In all cases, it is the burden of the property owner through the provision of clear and convincing evidence to establish the legal nonconforming structure use, lot, or sign under the provisions of the CCO.

Pursuant to CZO 25.3.4, casual intermittent temporary or legal use of land or structures is not sufficient to establish any nonconforming use.

There's also plenty of case law on this subject, including ban versus Audubon Park Commission.

That's 936 Southern Second 841.

It's a Louisiana Fourth Circuit case from 2006.

Uh there the uh Court of Appeal for the Sir uh Fourth Circuit, which is the governing circuit for this uh matter held that public property is inalienable and imprescriptable.

No prescriptive rights may be acquired in property owned by the city or uh in its public capacity.

This was a case as some of you may remember a number of years ago where Walnut Street residents had private encroachments extending into audit of Ben Park, and they tried to raise the claim that they had acquired that use through prescription.

That was soundly rejected by the Fourth Circuit.

Another case from the Fourth Circuit was McGraw versus City of New Orleans 216 Southern 3rd 950.

That was from the same court, Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, which reaffirmed banned and said that public things are insuceptible of private ownerships and prescription cannot run against public property.

Continuing on, there's persuasive authority from other districts in Shreveport chapter 237 versus Caddo Parish 135 FSUP 3rd 616.

That's a federal case from the Western District of Louisiana and plying Louisiana law came up with the same conclusions.

Public squares cannot be profited, privatized for long-term placement of structures.

No part of public property is susceptible of private ownership unless the dedication is formally revoked.

Continuing on, we have Coliseum Square versus the City of New Orleans, as well as ties for the stuff versus state, all these, you know, reaffirming or not reaffirming since those were earlier cases, the that those private entities cannot acquire the public things.

Cited by the applicant was City of New Orleans versus NAPCO Incorporated 591 Southern Second 1338, Louisiana Appellate Court from 1991.

This, however, was inapplicable in the case at hand because this had to do and actually particularly telling clarified the city's uh requests uh regarding injunction regarding outdoor seating was limited to outdoor seating on a public sidewalk, and that's exactly what we're talking about here.

So it did not grant the authority as suggested by the applicants.

Now getting to what actually the department determined, applicant's client CJN incorporated applied for, but did not play pay the application fee for a sidewalk cafe permit.

No time did the applicant apply for a non-conforming use determination.

In the interest of the uh of economy, the argument will also be refuted here.

In reviewing the application, the Department of Safety Imperium's determined that the application for a sidewalk cafe for the property located at 1039 Broadway is not eligible because sidewalk cafes are prohibited for legal non-conforming bars in residential zoning districts, except for those in an RDO residential diversity overlay district.

1039 Broadway Street does not uh is not in an RDO overlay, so a sidewalk cafe is not permitted.

Turning to the arguments of the appellant, the appellant appears to assert the following arguments.

Outdoor seating has existed at the location for over 40 years based on historical photographs.

This outdoor seating has therefore become a legal nonconforming use.

Again, they turned to this 1991 case involving City versus New Orleans versus NAPCO in support of its argument that it supports uh outdoor seating on public property, and then passed city licensing activity reflects a tacit approval of uh outdoor seating.

Uh you know, as I'll get into it a little bit further down, but these uh arguments are without merit.

Starting with the location of the alleged use city is on a public sidewalk and the public right-of-way.

There's no dispute that the city uh seating in question is on a public right-of-way.

Under CZO Article 25, nonconforming use rights attached only to private land or structures.

Public sidewalks are public things under the Louisiana Civil Code Article 450 and cannot accrue zoning rights.

Thus, the physical location of the seating precludes any non-conforming use status.

Further, under CZO 25.2 point D, the property owner bears the burden of establishing the legality of a nonconforming use.

Here, CJN Incorporate is arguing for non-conforming use for a property they do not own.

The argument is without merit.

Lastly, the CZO is clear that a temporary use, which sidewalk uses are by their very nature, and a legal uses uses, which is the case here, cannot establish nonconforming use status.

Again, looking at Louisiana case law, appellant apparent excuse me, appellants' arguments are undermined by decades of Louisiana jurisprudence.

The law is well settled that public property is imprescriptable and a legal use, regardless of how long that uh use uh took place.

Louisiana does not permit private parties to acquire ownership, possession, or usage rights in public property through prescription or historical use.

It's not the opinion of the department, this is the law.

Though that is uh clear, the department will also examine uh the case upon which the uh appellant improperly relies.

Appellant cites uh City of New Orleans versus NAPCO incorporated, as we discussed a little bit earlier in support of its argument that it is required a non-conforming use right to the public property.

However, if even a cursory argument, uh excuse me, even a cursory reading of the case undermines the argument.

In fact, it was modifying a pro uh a preliminary injunction that it was at issue, where the court affirmed that the injunction was valid as to illegal uses on the property.

As such, the reliance of the applicant on this case is clearly misplaced.

Uh even if the applicant were able to assert that it's a legal use entitled it to non-conform uh uh non-conforming use uh due to the passage of time, the historical uh the history of the establishment belies that argument.

Property was cited for a legal, an illegal sidewalk cafe in 26.

The matter was closed because the property came into compliance and the violation was abated.

As such, the clock would have started running anew from the date the violation was closed.

In August of 2025, a new violation case was created, thereby tolling any claims of prescription, should they had been were they even available to the applicant?

Um in conclusion, the applicant has failed to establish a valid basis upon which to base their appeal.

The outdoor sitting at issue is located on public property, not private property.

Public property is imprescriptable and cannot acquire non-conforming use rights.

Outs door seating uh was never allowed lawfully established as required by the CZO.

The CCO prohibits sidewalk cafes for legal non-conforming bars in residentials uh districts unless they're with within an RDA uh RDO overlay.

The property is not within an RDO overlay.

The department's determination that the application is ineligible is consistent with the comprehensive zoning ordinance and Louisiana law, the appeal must be denied.

Thank you.

And one quick announcement: the applicant has requested a 30-day deferral of this item.

Is the applicant present for BCA docket 110-25?

Rodney Laza 1000 South Norman C.

Francis, just to explain what the deferral is.

Zach is uh Zachary Smith is at uh chief building official conference for the state of Louisiana in North Louisiana.

That's all.

Our apologies.

Thank you.

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

110-25 that wishes to speak.

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Does the department department object to the deferral?

Of course not.

No.

I mean, if it's not.

I don't know.

All right.

Madam Chair, motions in order.

Yes, proceed.

Madam Chair, regards to BCA docket number 110-25.

My motion is about 30-day deferral.

Thank you.

If the guys of BZA tacket 110-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer the item 30 days.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

Thank you.

Item number 15, docket number BZA 012-26 regarding properties at uh 1901 through 1941 Canal Street and 100 through 116 North Prairie and 21 through 25 North Roman Street.

Under the CZO section uh 4.8A, the board's role is strictly limited.

The board may reverse and modify a determination only if the appellant demonstrates to the director that uh demonstrates that the director misinterpreted or misapplied the law or made a clearly erroneous factual determination, meaning one that is not supported by the record as a whole.

Contrary to the argument of the appellant, this standard is attentionally deferential, reflecting that zoning determinations are entrusted in the first instance to the department, I mean the director of safety and permits.

If the director's decision reflects a reasonable interpretation of the CZO and is supported by substantial evidence that the inquiry should end in the director's determination affirmed, excuse me.

Turning to the assignments that have error that were presented, um the uh first one was that the director applied the wrong legal standard.

The department's response is that the department uh director applied the correct legal standard, both attained and retained.

The appellant's argument implicitly collapsed the legal inquiry into a single question, as automotive activity occurred here for a long time.

That's not the legal standard.

The director correctly framed the inquiry as two independent mandatory elements.

Attainment, whether the nonconforming use was a lawfully established, was lawfully established on a specific land area prior to becoming nonconforming, and two, whether the lawful use was continuously maintained without lapse, abandonment, unauthorized expansion, or change in character.

This formulation is not discretionary.

It's required by CZO section 4.6, which narrowly construes nonconforming rights and places the burden squarely on the property owner.

The director's analysis tracks this structure throughout the memorandum, repeatedly distinguishing between existing uh between existence of activity and proof of lawful establishment and continuity.

So turn longevity does not equal legality.

The appellant's position effectively seeks to convert duration of use into legality.

The director properly rejected that approach.

A use that was never lawfully established or that expanded by its beyond its lawful footprint does not become protected by the mere passage of time.

By insisting on the proof of lawful establishment and continuity for each parcel, each parcel, the director applied the CZO exactly as written.

There is no error of law.

Nonconforming rights attached to land and not to businesses.

The pellet argues that the property should be treated as a single unified operation.

This argument misunderstands the nature of nonconforming use.

Nonconforming status is a land use attribute, not a business privilege.

It does not automatically extend across an assemblage of lots because one operator uses them in connection with the business.

Here, the director correctly recognized different portions of the site have different addresses, different portions have different licensing coverage, different portions have different leasing histories, and different portions show different patterns of use in aerial imagery.

Under these circumstances, partial or portion specific analysis is not only reasonable, it is legally required.

Further, treating the site as indivisible would unlawfully expand nonconforming rights, excuse me, would expand nonconforming rights.

Had the director accepted the appellant's single operation theory, the result would have been an impermissible expansion of nonconforming status to land areas that were not proven to be lawfully established or continuously authorized.

The director's portion by portion analysis prevents precisely that outcome and ensures that nonconforming rights are only recognized where proven.

The director did not ignore evidence.

To the contrary, the evidence was carefully weighed.

The record contains extensive documentation, occupational license, leases, affidavits, aerial imagery, and site diagrams.

The director did not discount the evidence wholesale.

Instead, the director evaluated what each category of evidence can and cannot prove.

Licensing and revenue records were credited where they clearly tied automotive uses to the specific portions of the site and showed continuity.

Leases were considered corroborative, but only to the extent that they identified the lots included in the license premises.

Aerial imagery was used as a confirmatory tool to assess whether claimed use patterns were actually present on particular lots.

Again, this does not error.

This is sound administrative judgment.

The director's treatment of the Iberville street lots is specifically instruction.

The director does not deny that those lots may have been used in association with automotive activity.

Rather, it finds that the occupational license submission relied on by the applicant, identified the license premises on Canal Street and North Roman Street only.

The lease documentation supported that support that license did not include the Iberville lots, and as a result, the record did not establish that the Iberville lots were part of the lawfully established footprint of the nonconforming use.

This conclusion flows directly from the document submitted by the applicant.

It is neither speculative nor arbitrary.

Appellant argues that the director improperly relied on code enforcement history.

The director's memo references zoning and code violations for a limited and appropriate purpose to explain why a nonconforming determination was requested and why the record was closely scrutinized.

The director did not evaluate violations with abandonment.

The memo does not state that the violations alone defeat nonconforming status.

Instead, the memo explains that when the record was examined in response to enforcement activity, documentation gaps became apparent, particularly with respect to the lot coverage and duration.

The director's conclusion that not all lots can be accounted for is a factual finding grounded in the record, not a punitive response to violations.

Where documentation does not establish law lawful and um lawful establishment and continuity, the director is obligated to decline uh recognition of nonconforming use status, regardless of how long the activity may have occurred informally.

The applicant also asserts that the mapping conclusions are arbitrary.

Contrary to the assertions of the appellate, the uh mapping demonstrates restraint, not arbitrariness.

The director's use of two mountain mapped outcomes, one identifying the areas that retained or uh retained and attained status, and one for those areas that did not is a critical strength of the determination.

It shows that the director granted nonconforming recognition where the uh evidence supported, supported it, refused to extend that recognition where the evidence was lacking, and clearly delineated the boundary between the two.

That is the exact opposite of an arbitrary decision making process.

It's transparent, enforceable, and faithful to the record.

In conclusion, to reverse the director, this board must find that the director misunderstood the law governing uh non-conforming use, or no reasonable decision maker could have reached the same conclusions on this record.

Neither of those are true.

Again, the director's determination reflects correct legal framing, conservative uh evidentiary judgment, lot specific analysis required by the CZO, and narrow tailor narrow tailoring that avoids unlawful expansion of non-conforming rights.

Disagreement with the outcome is not a basis for reversal under CZO section 4.8A.

And given this, the board must deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the director.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 012-26?

Oh good afternoon, Commissioners.

Adam Stump, on behalf of uh the property owners.

Uh, my address is one gallery at Boulevard, suite 1100, Medarie Louisiana 7001.

The property owner is here as well.

Um, give our limitation of time.

I'd like to focus on uh what I believe is a single dispositive issue.

The commercial automobile uses on these parcels were lawful before the 2015 zoning change and were continuously retained.

Before 2015, the property was uh general uh uh commercial district.

Um I don't think this is in dispute given the ruling on the first half of the parcels.

The issue at uh the uses at issue fall squarely within the framework.

They were lawful when established.

Uh Article 25 of the CZO defines a nonconforming use as one that was lawful but later became disallowed because of a zoning change.

This is precisely what occurred uh here.

The zoning amendment didn't create this issue, it created it rendered an existing lawful use non-conforming.

The aerial record confirms this.

The imagery shows that as early as 2004, the rear portion of area B and the materials provided to the board was already being used in the same automotive related manner as it is today.

By 2011, area D was likewise being used for the identical, identical commercial function related in the current operations.

The footprint layout and vehicle storage patterns visible before 2015 match what exists now.

There is no evidence of a later change in character.

A nonconforming use is lost only if discontinued or abandoned for more than 180 days, and the aerial record, along with the undisputed sworn testimony of the property owner, shows uninterrupted commercial use.

The director's report states that aerial imagery was relied on.

Uh, as an exhibit, it produced one aerial image from January 2025.

Uh yet the aerial imagery that I provided to uh the commissioners demonstrate that these uses were active years before the zoning change.

Uh the conclusion can't be reconciled with that record.

The question before the board's narrow that a lawful commercial use exist on the parcels before the zoning amendment and did it continue without interruption.

I think when you look at the um the parcel that was declared um retained, you can't then given the aerial imaging and the undisputed testimony, declare the other parcel uh as not retained.

And we respect we respectfully request that the entire tract of land be recognized as retained as non-conforming use, not only the front portion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

012-26.

Yes, good afternoon.

My name is Tom Lupo.

My address is 77 Turn Street.

Uh Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you for hearing me.

I've managed this property uh for the past 20 years, and I can tell you directly what you see in those aerial images is exactly how the property has functioned without interruption.

The rear areas behind uh the what was the old Dell CID and behind the auto leasing business on Iberville were not vacant land before the zoning change.

They were not residential yards, they were part of an active commercial automotive operation.

Vehicle storage, staging, and other repair-related use, consistent with what the images show as far back as 2004 and 2011.

That use didn't appear overnight, it didn't start after the zoning change, it was already there.

Before 2015, this was a commercially commercially functioning property.

It operated as a single economic unit.

The front and rear portions work together.

The rear area supported the business activity on the front.

When the zoning changed, nothing changed on the ground.

The same vehicles layout and activity continued, but on paper the property was split.

If the rear portion is now treated as though it was never part of the commercial use, the impact is very real.

The front portion cannot function properly without operational support in the rear.

Removing that ability dramatically reduces the property's value and makes it much harder to put back into productive commercial use.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 012-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Yes.

So actually, let me ask a question of the applicant first.

What was the the cause of this issue?

Like what how how did this issue come?

Why was the zoning determination essentially requested?

Like I'm I'm reading the record, and it appears that there was a reapplication for an occupational license or something.

Uh actually it was a violation notice from the previous administration.

A file issue notice?

A violation notice.

Okay, gotcha.

Okay, and then so follow-up question to the director.

Like I've I've read the director's report a couple times now, and I don't I'm not seeing much of a case made.

And so I know you you've you've made your case about why you've upheld this, but it's not clear to me why the the rear portions like walk walk us through why the rear portions did not retain their status.

Because in our analysis and our review of this, these properties, again, you have different lots.

And it in our view of all all the lots, there is a determination that there are there in there are in fact gaps there.

There's instances through that where you can see that there was no use on there.

It's an empty lot.

And so the so that was a portion of it.

I mean, answer your question.

I think this first came in as a violation letter, is because there is a a neighbor who is at as a residential property right next door to that property, and all of a sudden cars became uh the neighbor reported that cars were being stored on this property where there were not cars before, which also supports the the position that this was not uh you know a retained issue on those properties.

Where we are able to, and again the the burden being on the the applicant, where we were able to show and a consistent, you know, retention uh uh attaining and retention of that, we in fact did that.

However, there were portions of that lot where we do not believe that that record adequately uh established that non-conforming use, and we were not able to uh to grant it as to those.

For the ones that we were uh able to do so, we did so.

Once we we were not able to do so, we did not apologize, we're just flipping through all the images that the applicant provided, or at least that's what I'm doing.

Apologies, we're just flipping through all the images that the applicant provided, or at least that's what I'm doing.

I mean and that was on the basis of what?

Because this applicant's given us a lot of the the use is I know the word parking lot was used, but the use is auto repair, and I see that going back as far as the internet will allow us to go here.

And I'm I'm just I mean, it seems to me to be as clear an evidence as anyone can provide.

I also think it's a little like you know, I get it, I wouldn't want to live next to this either, but that's just the the city that we have.

But I mean, if the cars move off the lot for a while because business is slow or something, but they're intermittently used, I just don't see how that ends the ends the use.

Maybe I'm not asking anybody a question, maybe I'm just talking out loud.

Yeah.

If I remember correctly, when I was scanning through just going through the Google or overhead images, I believe, even in that record, even that residential property that I think may be the bone of contention at this time was even being used at some point and it was sold off separately.

Is that correct?

Uh I believe that's uh I I I'd have to go back and check on that.

I'm I'm not 100%.

Either Mr.

Lucal or uh Mrs.

Stump, if you could answer that question.

I'm sorry.

Can you repeat the question?

Uh Commissioner?

Yeah, there was a residential property that is the one lot along the back side of the property that apparently is a new bill.

At one point in time, that even that lot was being used as parking at one point.

Yes, do you know that?

That's correct.

That's all.

And I just think it's clear for everybody to state because it's not in the packet, but if you go look at the historical zoning, which you can do on the map, this entire square was C2 or something like that.

It was commercially zoned, so um this was all part of the master plan map changes?

Yeah.

Uh I uh I feel like the the case has been made really clear by the applicant, and I don't think there's really the director's provided any evidence to refute it.

I would be prepared to make a motion if it's in order at this time.

Are there any other questions from the board?

No.

Okay.

All right, madam chair.

Um regarding Docket uh BZA 012-26 at 1901 41 Canal Street, 100 and 100 to 16 North Prairie Street and 121 to 25 North Roman Street.

Um I move to grant the appeal and overturn the decision of the director of the Department of Safety and Permits.

Finding there is an error in the interpretation of the comprehensive zoning ordinance in accordance with Article 4, Section 4.8 D of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

Thank you with regards to BCA docket 012-26.

It's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner James to grant the uh appeal in the um in this item finding that there is an error in the decision of direct of the Department of Safety and Permits.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Turning to item number sixteen, docket number BCA uh zero one three-26 zoning official for the city of New Orleans.

Uh it's um my understanding that this item is going to be uh deferred until the next hearing date, but I would uh turn that over to staff.

There has been to have a lot of there has been a withdrawal of the previous uh zoning verification that was the subject of the appeal, and there's a new zoning verification in place.

That new zoning verification references the fact that the uh property in question is uh within a separate uh overlay district that would prohibit the the billboard so I I see your puzzlement on your face, Mr.

James.

Essentially what it was is there's there's two overlay districts, uh even if the one that was the subject of the previous zoning verification letter, which has been withdraw withdrawn, there is another zone, uh another one in place that says that you can't be within 500 feet of a residential district as well, and that that is the controlling one, and that and that was done.

Sorry the lateness of it, but that was uh completed last week and submitted to staff as well.

So I believe it in fairness to everyone present that everyone has a shot at that uh to discuss the the relative strengths or merits of that zoning verification letter, and we were requested a deferral of the matter.

And just to clarify, that information isn't in the packet just because it was produced after the deadline.

In that clarification is it an overlay district or are you speaking to the billboard?

The billboard prohibition that the 500 feet from the residential district.

I'm still in the middle of the year.

Thank you for clarifying that.

That's why you saw the look.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I understand now.

Let's do the public comment before we get into the discussion.

Is uh the applicant present for BCA tacket 013-26.

Yeah, he is.

Yes, ma'am.

Can you give your name and address for the record?

Yes, first of all, Madam Chair, board members, good afternoon.

My name is John Cerniglia, 2315 Florida Street, Mandaville, Louisiana.

I represent the applicant, JM Cerniglia.

Um the applicant objects to the uh staff's proposal for deferral.

The staff has had many opportunities to simply determine without needing an exception, without needing a variance, without needing a zoning change, to just simply interpret the CZO and the overlay to determine that this application is viable and meets all requirements.

They've had five months now to do this, and they are on their second revision.

The revision offers no material facts that are any different than what was on the last revision.

It only offers opinions of theirs that are different instead of offering material facts.

The material fact that it was within 500 feet of a residential was in the first revision.

It is nothing new.

The only two overlays that were uh mentioned was the uh the ENO, yeah, see in the CT, which they are still quoting in their second revision.

Mr.

Ramirez has a copy of that revision, if you haven't seen it, obviously.

Okay.

Um that being said, with the staff having ample time and offer no new material facts to their revision uh re uh revision.

I ask that their uh their uh request for deferral be the denied and uh and uh we move on with this today.

This is a simple case.

I'm going to show you clearly and directly that this billboard fully qualifies under the comprehensive zone and ordinance and the applicable uh overlays, and that the department's denial is based on misreadings, mismeasurements, and assumptions that the ordinance simply does not support.

My presentation is structurally around the four issues raised in their revision number two and revision number one and first provision.

And I will show you why each one fails.

Billboards are permitted in C2, and lot one is zone C2.

Article 24, table 23-24-3.

Lists the zoning districts where billboards are allowed.

C2 is one of those districts.

There is no dispute about the zoning classification.

So the starting point is simple.

Billboards are permitted on C2 property unless specifically prohibited uh prohibitions applies.

No such prohib uh prohibitation applies to lot one.

The ENORC and the CT overlays, which the staff is uh uh citing, do not apply to Lot 1.

The department's denial relies heavily on the property view or shading, but the CZO, not the shading controls.

Article 18.4.8 states the ENOC ENORC overlays apply to all lots fronting Interstate 10, 510, and the service roads.

The key word is fronting.

Lot 2R fronts the I-10 service road.

Lot one sits behind Lot 2R and does not front the service road.

This is confirmed by certified surveys, the city property viewer, parcel boundaries, my site plan, and fronted sketch.

The overlay applies only to frontage lots, not interior lots.

Therefore, lot one is not within the ENORC or the CT overlay footprint.

And the overlay billboard prohibition uh does not apply.

The 500 feet residential prohibition was measured incorrectly.

The department claims lot one is within 500 feet of a residential district to the rear.

But the Article 24.14, point B, point two A is explicit within 500 front feet of any residential zone in district on the same side of the street.

It is not measured from the re of their lot.

Two requirements must be met.

Front feet, meaning the measurement must follow the public frontage, not the re of the lot.

Same side of the street, meaning the measurement must follow the public right of way, not across interior parcels.

Lot one has no frontage on I-10 service road.

When measured correctly from lot two or frontage along the public right away, that's the lot one of the time, Mr.

Nick.

I'm sorry.

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

Anyone here in opposition?

If you could come up, please.

You need to come up to the mic.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

We did present cards.

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

Marcia Mack Williams 8300 Loman Road, New Orleans 70 70126.

I don't know where I live.

And on behalf of ENONAC, resolution number R 24-2 was forwarded to your office stating that we were in opposition to the placement of the requested billboard.

This is the third resolution since 2019 that ENONAC has filed with objection to the placement of the billboard along I-10 between Dowman Road and I-51.

I-510.

Also, the CPC study adopted in 2019 recommended denial of the placement of the billboard along the corridor, according to the United States National Library of Medicine.

Analysis proved that billboards are inequitably and disproportionately replaced in low-income and minority neighborhoods and raise a public health concern due to harmful content and the advertisement that systematically targets minority and low-income communities.

The landscape in New Orleans East is unique where many homes and residential residential living are within close proximity to the I-10 corridor and where residents utilize the on and off ramps to commute to and from their homes.

The placement of the billboard could become a nuisance and detract from the community's rebranding efforts.

Presently there are there exist eight billboards entering New Orleans East from the foot of the high rise to Sheffminter Highway.

Therefore, creating access for advertisement for any businesses.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in opposition that wishes to speak?

Oh, I'm sorry.

One more thing, Commissioners.

I have some opposition forms, and I know that they weren't sitting sent in.

We would have to make a motion.

Someone, one of the commissioners would have to make a motion to accept them.

Um, I do know that there's a deferral request.

I don't know what the decision may be in the event that it's um deferred, then it could be submitted.

Okay prior to the next hearing.

Okay, thank you.

Good morning, good afternoon.

My name is Lord Slandrum.

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

Uh, I do oppose this project.

I am a member of Enoch, but more importantly, I'm a resident of New Orleans uh East Lake Barrington subdivision, which is within 500 feet of this project.

I have a few reasons here why I am opposing.

Visual pollution and blight.

Billboards are often described as visual pollution or litter on a stick that degrade the appearance of a neighborhood, light pollution, especially with digital billboards, excessive and constant light at night can illuminate nearby homes, disrupting represent residents' sleep patterns, and contributing to overall light pollution that affects human health and wildlife, undermining community liability, the constant commercial messages can create a hectic strident atmosphere, diminishing the sense of peace and respite that residential areas should provide.

Potential decrease in property values.

Studies have suggested that properties located near billboards may experience a decrease in real estate value.

The high cost of billboard advertising often favors large national brand, making it difficult for local businesses to compete.

Driver distraction.

Potentially leading to accidents, energy consumption, digital billboards or energy intensive, using significantly more electricity than conventional billboards and even average single family homes, which goes against community substantiality and green initiatives, harm to nature, harm to the natural environment.

Billboard companies have been known to cut or remove public-owned trees to make their signs more visible, which negatively impacts air quality and contributes to erosion.

Speaking on behalf of the um Lake Barrington subdivision.

We are strongly against this project.

Also, New Orleans Eats residents.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Amy Scandaliato.

My address is 8010 Crowder Boulevard, New Orleans 70127.

This is not a bird, it's not a plane.

We are not on Planet Krypton, and it's not wearing a cape.

This is not a super parcel.

This is a bundled parcel.

He filed for an application on lot one.

Lot one.

Don't be fooled by this exhibit D that shows all of these lots individually placed.

All of these lots are bundled under one tax bill.

The only way, the only way for him to apply for an application on lot one would be to go through a debulking process.

And this lot does not qualify for a debulking because, as he stated, it's landlocked.

It is landlocked.

This property fronts on right road, which puts him in an overlay district.

He would only have two paths forward.

The first path would be to do an unbundling, which it does not qualify for an unbal unbundling because it doesn't front a street.

It's landlocked.

Number two, he could take that small strip that runs along the service road and do a resubdivision of lot one with that little portion, but then again, that then it'll put it fronting on the service road, which will put it again in an overlay district, which will prohibit this billboard from being built.

Ladies and gentlemen, this billboard will never be built.

It cannot be built, and he will not get a permit.

I can promise you that.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Before I begin, I have some documentation I wanted to share with you.

Um that kind of goes with my presentation, but I I heard you say something about it would have to, one of the board members would have to make a motion to accept items that have not been um included as part of the packet in order for us to receive them.

If you want to discuss it in your comments, you're free to do that.

But otherwise, it would have to um to actually be accepted.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

New Orleans East is a beginning.

Can you give your name and address for the record?

And yet you can pull them.

It's adjustable that you go.

There you go.

My name is Frame Bayers.

I reside at 11311 Parkwood Court South in New Orleans 70128.

Good afternoon.

New Orleans East is a diamond in the rough and the gateway to the city.

We don't need billboards to make us shine.

Before Hurricane Katrina, the East was a vibrant, thriving community.

There was an abundance of retail entertainment and fine dining.

It was where people from across the region came to shop and fulfill other wants and needs.

So why would we need them now?

One day in February, the applicant set up a table in Walmart on Bullet and stopped shoppers as they entered and exit the building.

I personally witnessed him presenting his project in a manner I believe to be deceptive.

His pitch and handout stated in large print, New Orleans East has been overlooked for far too long.

Our community lacks basic amenities like retail stores, sit-down restaurants, and shopping options.

Notice he says our, which gives the impression he lives in the East, but he doesn't.

And he wants us to believe billboards will bring these amenities to our community, but they won't.

In my opinion, the applicant used this strategy to lure individuals into signing his petition.

At the top of his leaflet and light colored print, it says petition to support the I-10 billboard appeal to help fund mixed-use development in New Orleans East.

Notice he throws in mixed-use development, which will include affordable housing for good measure.

He wants us to believe that he's going to build retail stores and housing after he erects the sign, but at a subsequent EnoNet meeting, he refused to offer any guarantees.

Let's be honest.

The applicant's sole purpose for installing a billboard is to make money.

And it's not my intention to prevent him from doing so.

I just think a better location for this project is alone the I-10 stretch between 510 and the twin span where visitors can be informed as they enter our city without the large, unsightly, intrusive sign destroying the beauty and serenity of nearby neighborhoods.

In short, billboards will not be our savior.

New Orleans East didn't have them before Katrina and certainly don't need them now.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Good afternoon.

My name is Edward L.

Blue and I'm the president of Elijah Less Improvement Association, and I'm also a state commissioner on Enoch.

I'm here in support of the East communities along I-10 in the denial of Bill Boards affirming their communities.

And that billboards will be a betterment of the East.

Thank you.

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

The applicant has an opportunity to rebut first of all.

If you clearly look on the property viewer and on the tax assessment, although it's paid under one bill, these are 24 separate lots.

And they are noted on there.

It specifically describes lot one and gives a measurement.

It describes lots one through and gives measurements for those lots.

These are independent lots.

No way are they tied together.

Okay.

So other than me paying one check as a tax bill, that is the only way.

The city itself recognizes it as a separate lot.

It specifically states lot one and gives a measurement for lot one.

That means it's not part of lot two.

And if it's not part of lot two, it cannot border lot uh right road, which is not even uh stated, but it can't continually just add in lots to to get to a certain distance.

Okay.

So I'd like to make that clear, first of all.

And as far as it's setting back from lot uh two, I don't have to make R2, uh two R part of lot one to give it access.

All I have to do is grant myself access over to Lot 1.

This lot qualifies in every manner, speaking of the word.

You know, I'm sorry they don't like billboards, but I think as Oliver Thomas thought, and as the current mayor, uh Helena Marino thought when they put a motion forward that Oliver Thomas uh wrote, and then Helena Moreno seconded it, even though it wasn't favorable with the staff on September 19, 2024.

They put it in front of the Citro City Council and it passed five to two, allowing billboards along to exempt I-10, which just doesn't even need that.

Let me make that clear.

But they did pass that uh amendment to amend the CZO and the overlays to exempt I-10 corridor uh to allow billboards.

Now, for some reason, even though that passed in the law, staff has not entered the verbiage into the CCO in a year and a half.

I don't know why they chose not to do it and put it in there, but that's on staff, not me.

My point is lot one meets all the requirements.

I will continue reading my initial thing.

Number four, well, let me go back in the half with number three.

Uh lot one has no frontage on the I-10 service road.

Lot two R has the frontage.

When measured correctly from lot two R is frontage along the public right-of-way, lot one is not within 500 feet of any residential zoning district.

The department's measurement from the rear property line is not supported by the ordinance.

It is a missing uh misapplication of Article 24.

The zoning administrators misuse of Article 3.2, she does not have map interpretation authority.

Finally, I need to address the zoning administrator's claim that Article 3.2 allows her to interpret the zoning map in a way that places lot one inside the overlay.

That statement is not just incorrect, it is misleading.

Article 3.2, table 3-1 are explicit.

Interpretation of the zoning map, executive director of the city planning commission, not the zoning administrator, not the Department of Public and Safety, and certainly not the property viewer shading.

I did not request a CPC interpretation.

The CP uh uh CPC did not issue one.

There is no CPC action in the record.

Yes, the zoning administration used Article 3.2 as it's uh as it gave her the power to interpret parcel boundaries and overlay uh applic uh uh oh excuse me, you know what I mean.

However, she sees it fit.

That is not what Article 3.2 says.

That is not what Table 3 uh authorizes, and that is not how zoning law works.

The ordinance, not the property view, or determines overlay app applicable ability, and the ordinance says the ENORC NCT overlays apply only to lots fronting the I-10 service road.

Lot one does not front the service road, lot two are fronts the service road, lot one sits behind it.

There is nothing to interpret.

This is a matter of surveyed fact, not administration uh discretion.

So the board must ask if only the CPZ can interpret the zoning map, and no interpretation was issued on what authority did the zoning administrator reinterpret lot one as an overlay lot.

There is no authority.

It was not it was an overreach and cannot stand as a basis of denial.

Conclusion lot one qualifies on its own merits.

When the ordinance is applied that that's correct.

I'm sorry, my time's up, Professor Sheck.

Thank you.

Uh just to get back to the um the request, Mr.

Um McNamara.

I know you asked uh in the beginning of your comments related to a deferral.

Um you said a 30-day deferral.

Yes, until the next uh to the next meeting.

And just I just wanted to get some clarity on um what where we are sort of in the um the decision string because absolutely so I know the I know the initial request was um related to an appeal of the uh November 17th, 2025 decision.

Right, and there was there was a subsequent uh revision of the zoning verification uh and upon which the the appeal was based.

And then uh there was the that was that the January that's correct, and then there was the one that came out last week.

So that's the second revision.

That's correct.

And so arguably it's not even properly before the board since the the the that which was being appealed has been withdrawn and replaced, so technically it would be be moot, and then he would have the appellate rights from the decision that was uh put forth last week.

And that's what I was gonna you kind of touched on it because that was what I wanted to get clarity on if it has been rescinded.

And it's been superseded by that got it.

That that previous one, that's correct.

Got it, madam chair.

And and just to clarify, staff is asking that the board defer this item for 30 days, as uh Mr.

McNamara said, and then at that point you can determine whether it's moot or not.

Um our staff is suggesting to retain it as part of the same docket number because this is all part of the same zoning verification case.

And that's what I was going.

I wanted to get clarity on because in some instances you would consider it a separate decision that would be separately appealable, but because it's part of the same matter, that's how you retain your right to still appeal based on your original application.

That is what we're advising.

Got it.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

McNamara, yes.

Um, so I I do have at least a couple questions that I do ask that the department address.

Okay.

In the next clarification.

Um of them in I I will say that there's some competing comments that the applicant did provide in his testimony, uh, as it pertains especially to the assembly of lots one through 23.

When I do look at this through the city's property view, it does show it as an assembly, and even in the 19 in the 1984 survey, it shows it as an assembly of lots.

So I I do have one question for you.

When a lot of that type of configuration apparently was created, and it shows that it's only front yard frontage is on right road.

Why would it still have a I-10 service road uh address?

That's just one item I like to see and get some clarity on.

And being that, and I'm also kind of give you a heads up at the same time, even in your same com the applicant's comments earlier, because that property does front right road, theoretically, it is within 500 feet of a neighboring rest of the SRM2 zoning district because that assembly does front on right road.

I want to point out to you that it's not clear to me that measuring along the lot lines is the way this is done inside the CZO, so any clarification you can provide to us on your stance on that would be extremely helpful as well because in other cases not specific to billboards when prohibitions are listed as distances or when somebody needs to apply for the uh MPP meeting requests, the distance is measured as a line drawn in a 360 circle around a property, and that's the way it's always been measured.

Correct.

So uh since the applicants made the contention that it is measured otherwise, we would really appreciate your stance on that.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

And I um I think the last point that um I had wanted to bring up uh I was going to mention what Commissioner James did as well, but also the original request um referenced the location uh being within a thousand feet of another billboard.

And I know that the revision is based upon, and that's what most of the conversation has been based upon uh within 500 feet of uh residential and just making that distinction.

I think it's clear in the comments, but it's just not necessarily um clear on the record.

So just wanted to make sure that that was um because I think that may have been what the original um zoning verification was, but I know some things have changed.

So, in response to that, all of those issues that have been brought up will be addressed in my report to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, is the motion in order?

Are there any other questions from the board?

Not just yes, a question to clarify.

We can't take action on this because we don't have a recommendation from the director, essentially, as okay, thank you.

Uh Madam Chair, my motions for a 30-day deferral for BCA docket numbers 013-26, but I think the department at least has instructions from us in terms of what questions and clarifications need to be established to make a decision next month.

Thank you.

If regards to BCA docket 013-26, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer this item 30 days at the request of staff.

Uh vote your screens.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

Before we proceed, I did want to let the board know that it's after one o'clock, and you have the option to uh recess if you want.

There is only one more appeal and then another item that should be pretty quick.

Let's roll.

I have to head out, so it's good.

Let's do it.

Going?

Let's roll.

Okay.

Item number 17, docket number BZA 014-26 regarding 3239 Canal Street and 120 North Rendon.

Uh this appeal attempts to re repackage the substantive zoning map uh amendment involving usable land as a minor administration correction under CZO section 4.7.

It does so by severing a portion of a wholly developable lot, rendering that portion constrained by reader subdivision design, and then asserting after the fact that the severed fragment is non-developable.

That theory fails as a matter of law structure and uh record evidence.

Critically, the city planning commission's own staff report confirms that the proposal is a resubdivision undertaken to expand North Ren a the North Rendon Street lot for the express purposes of providing off street parking, and that the resulting split zone condition must be resolved either through a zoning change or a minor map adjustment as determined by the Department of Safety and Permits.

Despite this acknowledgement, the director of the City Planning Commission advanced an inopposite request to treat the zoning changes minor.

The department correctly uh rejected that approach as an impermissible encroachment into legislative activity.

The appeal should be denied.

Undefined terms in the comprehensive zoning ordinance must be interpreted according to their normal dictionary usage.

Minor map adjustments are governed exclusively by CZO section 4.7.

Substantive amendments to the official zoning map must proceed under set CZO section 4.2.

And there's a prior zoning interpretation memorandum.

Zoning member memorandum number Z-18-01, which constrains and explains the meaning of minor in 4.17, and I'd like to read from that now.

Purposes of uh application of section uh 4.7 minor map adjustments of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, the term minor shall be defined as follows.

A portion of uh a lot or multiple lots which do not constitute a reasonably developable portion of ground and where the resultant adjustment does not expand the portion of a lot within the proposed zoning classification, which is greater than 15% of the portion of the lot from which the district boundary is proposed to be adjusted.

It also goes on to say a lot or portion of ground which is reasonably developable is ineligible for consideration under the provisions of section 4.7 and is required to seek approval pursuant to the procedure provided in section 4.2 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

Again, zoning map amendments are legislative acts reserved to the city council under the home rule charter and Louisiana law.

Ordinances must be interpreted in a manner that best conforms to the purpose to their purpose.

Section 4.7 establishes a narrow technical mechanism intended to correct pre-existing incidental zoning anomalies and not to reclassify usable land.

For purposes of 4.7, a minor adjustment is not a portion of a lot that does not constitute a reasonably developable portion of ground and does not expand the portion of the lot within the pro-zoning classification by more than 15% of the portion of the lot from which the district boundary is proposed to be adjusted.

The land proposed for reclassification could never realistically be built upon or used independently and represents only an inconsequential fraction of the area being removed from its existing zoning district.

It may qualify as a minor map adjustment.

If the land could actually be used for something, it does not.

The land originates from a wholly developable lot, which was deliberately severed to serve a development function.

Section 4.7 does not uh permit non-developability to be manufactured by subdivision design.

The CPC's own report identifies subjects uh subdivisions as the operative process and conditions final approval on zoning relief as determined by safety and permits.

The director of city planning commission did not direct the property owner to pursue a subdivision and rezoning despite a lot uh acknowledging that path.

Section 4.7 to be correct, this is a part of a subdivision process, but didn't want to leave that impression.

Um section 4.7 cannot be used to bypass subdivision or legislative rezoning.

Uh the director of city planning commission takes exception to and improperly emphasizes the phrase self-inflicted that was used by the zoning administrator in communications regarding this matter.

The phrase self-inflicted was inar inarfully stated, and the director of the city planning commission is aware that it is not described operative legal issue.

Conflating that does not undermine the central analysis of the department.

The department's analysis does not turn on blame but whether the land is eligible under 4.7.

In the department's view, section of 4.7 only applies to pre-existing incidental and non-developable frack fragments, not land rendered awkward by design.

Non-developability cannot be created by resubdivision and then invoked to justify administrative zoning relief.

The CPC report confirms the land was expanded for parking, subdivision was the appropriate process, and the zoning relief required independent DSP determination.

The land is functional and usable.

If the land could actually be used for something, it's not a minor map adjustment.

To decide otherwise would be to usurp the power of the city council and make it mere administrative activity.

The department correctly determined that the request is ineligible under section 4.7.

The appeal should be denied.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present for BCA Tacket 014-26.

Yes.

Thank you.

For the record, my name is Bob Rivers.

I'm the director of the City Planning Commission.

You know, this is the first time in 12 years that I've been in this position that I've felt the need to do this, and there's three main reasons.

One is I think that the decision was incorrect, obviously, but I think it's inocorrect in a way that really changes the nature of what uh what the ordinance believes a minor MAC minor map adjustment is for.

Um the second is that under the CZO, I am authorized to use these same standards to weigh in on requests for flum map uh amendments.

And so I do have a kind of personal um stink in how this is being interpreted.

And then third, uh, the city planning just recently committed completed a land use barrier study that laid out a number of mechanisms through which unnecessary process can be avoided.

And this is one of the few mechanisms that is currently in the ZZO that does just that.

Is it um spells out a way for unnecessary process to be avoided?

So we um having completed that report and gotten the very strong support from our city planning commission felt that um that we do have a duty to um to advocate for um the minor map adjustment process being um interpreted uh the way we're suggesting.

So the original decision laid out three reasons.

Um they've been expanded on a bit in the director's report and in the testimony today, but the decision itself that we appealed laid out three things.

First is that the portion of the property is developable and that developable properties are not eligible.

Second, that the need is self-inflicted or caused by the act the applicant and is not something that is, and I think the the language was um irregularly um that it had irregular geography.

Um then the third was um a statement that because this is a down zoning, um it's actually moving it to a less restrictive um district, and therefore it's um it's not appropriate.

So I'm gonna lay out four main errors that I have um identified.

Number one, uh it's an error to reject consideration because it's developable.

The language just doesn't exist in the either the zoning ordinance or in uh the interpretation Z1801.

Um as Mr.

McNamara spelled out previously, um Z1801 spells out two things that uh speak to the property.

One is the 15% requirement, and the other one is a reasonable, reasonably development standard.

The term reasonably can't be ignored, okay?

So that interpretation understands and contemplates that there is a scenario where something could be developable, but just not reasonably so, and in that case, it should be considered for um for a uh minor map adjustment.

There is nothing that says if it can be used for anything at all, it is not eligible.

That's taking the language of the existing law and narrowing it to such a such a degree that it changes the meaning of the law.

Number two, it's an error to include to preclude quote unquote self-inflicted requests.

Um the underlying legal argument that I think was being made in that decision was that because the applicant had done this by design, that it's ineligible, that they want to um add on a piece of property and use it for um for parking, um, that they brought this upon themselves and that they uh therefore should be having to go through the full zoning um zoning process.

Again, there's nothing in the language of the CZO or in Z 1801 that limit the applicability of minor map adjustments in this way.

Number three, it's an error to impose irregular geometry standard.

There's nothing that speaks to that's the end of your attack.

We won't come back.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA docket 014-26 Robert Kenny, 524 Esplanade Avenue on the owners of the properties?

Uh this all started because uh Mr.

Mrs.

Burns on the property next door on Canal Street wanted to buy the property from me, and I said, well, yeah, but you know, the property adjacent to it probably needs parking, you know, as long as I can cut that off, uh you know, I'd be willing to sell it to you.

And uh so anyway, that's the reason why this all started.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 014-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Um, I I have a series of questions, and I think I want to lead off my comments with one thing.

Uh this is one of these situations where we feel weird because the two department is that we often see, but I think this is like a unique opportunity for us to figure out how to help better align what is really the intent of the ordinance to kind of help streamline a process.

And one of the things I wanted to ask, which I think Bob you was alluding to in terms of barriers for um development rights and how to go through the land use process.

When a resubdivision comes into either department, is there an internal review procedure or some type of SOP that addresses um what additional administrative remedies are needed when a resub is over goes crosses over two different zoning districts?

That'd be to either one of you guys and Bob, I might even just come up to the table at this point because it's I feel like this is more discussion versus an application.

Sure, I think it's part of the uh subdivision review process.

Um we certainly um we included it in as a staff recommendation in that the subdivision application when it went to the commission, and the commission adopted it as a proviso on that approval and what was that uh the condition for it to be.

That it one of the that the uh split zone situation be remedied either through a minor map adjustment or through a zoning process.

Or through a or through a map adjustment.

Yes.

Okay.

Um so there's another section in the code when we get into zoning district boundaries under I think it's 6.3 point B.

And I know that wasn't necessarily part of the commentary, but I want to kind of make sure I understand this correctly.

Whenever a lot is created, technically the zoning district is supposed to follow that boundary, correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

So because we know that as a result of this item, should we not have something that's in I I know you say there was a proviso, but maybe is it not just in the future having those items run in tandem in order to help better protect applicants when these type of items come forward?

I know this is gonna be a rare case, but I'm curious just to either one of you guys, do you think that is something that's definitely remedies?

That we are working in tandem or in concert with each other to make sure that the process uh is as smooth as possible for the applicant.

Okay.

So you understand what's coming from?

If I under the qu understand the question, the suggestion is that we should have initiated the rezoning process at the same time, whether it was a minor map adjustment or a or a zoning map change, should have been initiated at the same time as the subdivision.

Correct.

I'm just trying to figure out like how do we figure this out?

That's certainly uh a good suggestion that we can uh we can look into.

Okay, and and so look, while I'm even triggering these questions is at the end of the day, this is not really about the two different departments.

I'm more looking at this gentleman who's been tied up for the better part of a year trying to get this resolved, right?

So, what can we do at least from being creative here from a from a BZA standpoint on how to help remedy the situation?

I I do and I'm gonna say this, Dan, there's a lot of what you brought up that I think is extremely valid in terms of how this should have been applied and maybe the map adjustment was the appropriate venue to go through that process.

But I wanna I want to throw one little special caveat in there.

Because the initial application went through, and yes, you had the what is it, uh H U R D 2 designation versus uh H UMU designation for the two, the development rights are very different between each.

And while I understand that it's technically a down zone on that portion when it changes from H U M U to H U R D2, it actually does become a little bit more restrictive within that limited footprint of that lot.

What would you guys both concur on that?

So, yeah, that's the sentence I was in the middle of when my time ran out.

Got it.

So I'll beat you to the punches.

Okay.

So it's kind of one of these things that I think if we actually had a better procedure up front to run those things in tandem, that may have actually ironed out the entire situation in the beginning.

And I think to your point that and and uh Mr.

Rivers also touched on this, is all the work that the CPC has been doing on land use barriers, which uh they've had a I mean uh a tough road a hoe pulling all that together, and they've done a yeoman's uh job and and doing that, and hopefully that that these kind of quirky issues uh are put by the wayside, and then you know they they don't cause any uh discrepancies in in this uh or or differences of opinion with the city of New Orleans uh departments.

Got it.

And I and I just have a genuine question of so when you look through the checklist of what is supposed to go procedurally through a certain review, whether it be through the director's CPC or through safety and permits, I do I did see that I think it's on like you said, the flum maps do go through Bob's office versus in this case, this item strictly goes through safety and permits.

What is the justification between why one map would go through one department versus the other?

And I'm just asking it's because CPC manages the map.

I can only answer the question in in this aspect of it that this was done, I think in 2022, and why and it was initially was with CPC, why it became a safety and permits issue, I can't speak to it.

Uh I'm sorry, I predated my time with the department.

So Dan is correct that when the 2015 zoning ordinance was adopted, both of these um zoning map change um and floom map changes, uh the minor map changes came through the CPC.

Um when um then uh director of safety departments, Jared Mutzer uh reviewed it, he felt that because the CPC is not given any legislative authority over zoning, but they are given authority over planning in the charter and in the state law that it was appropriate to move the zoning piece to the Department of Safety and Permits because there is already a function of um authority related to zoning.

Zoning within DSP as opposed to CPC.

Is that does that tie back to the the 2018 memo at all?

Or I believe there's a footnote in that that suggests that says something about how uh the CPC does not have any legislative authority, and I think that's that maybe when it was um identified in a zoning um interpretation, and then in 22 when we did an omnibus revision, uh that change was made in the zoning ordinance.

Okay.

All right.

So I want to make sure that the one last item because I think Bob, you did you did allude to it and it came from what you said I kind of beat you to the punch on on with the change with the down zone piece.

When we take that down zoning part, there's just the two approval criteria that we're supposed to follow when the map adjustment review is supposed to go through correct, it's just the two points.

So items um under 4.7 E.

Yes.

And I think the reason that um as Dan had mentioned before, the reason that the zoning interpretation was done is because the CZO really didn't define the term minor.

Um, and I think that really speaks to this issue because it's is it minor, is it not?

If it's minor, it should be eligible for a minor map adjustment.

If it's not minor, it should not be.

And what we're arguing is that the language that is actually in the ordinance and the language that is um supplementing that in the zoning interpretation, do contemplate this very scenario.

And of course, there's a bit of disagreement as to that point as to what actually constitutes that and whether that you're uh empowering the the department with authority that rests with the legislative branch of government.

Got it.

Well, yeah, no, I this is a very important point because I would say reading Mr.

McNamara reading your memo, you are saying that if you can use the land for anything, then it's not minor, which means everything is major.

And am I following?

That last part of your so I I would I I'm like looking at the the zoning interpretation the memorandum which has the talks which speaks of minor and then then it uses the the sent the paragraph that follows a lot or portion of ground which is reasonably developable is ineligible for consideration.

And so I think at that point in time that that puts this uh consideration uh for the resubdivision under the purview of the city council and not the Department of Safety and Yes, I misstated the question Todd clarified it for me.

So it's it but but still your contention is based on the zoning memorandum, which is again a memorandum that says portion or lot of multiple lots which don't constitute a reasonably developable portion of ground.

And you're saying that 30 by 30 is developable, developable, reasonably developable.

Well, and what I what I'm saying is that there is a lot that is there.

It is a lot that is a reasonably developable lot.

Now we're talking we don't have a lot at this point because we haven't had a resubdivision.

And yeah, we have a uh, you know, um a portion of you'd be in the portion of a lot instance at that point in time.

So I mean, and basically I guess my under the way I look at it, if this is what you're asking me, is what what do you see as would be a minor map adjustment?

Well, let's let's then can we can we stick with reasonably developable?

I want to attack it one thing at a time.

So uh uh my business owns a lot.

This is my literal personal story that is one parcel at the corner of two streets in the Marini, and it happens to be two lots.

One is very large and the other one is very small.

The CZO contains some articles about minimum lot area.

Sure.

And in my particular zoning, it basically says I cannot subdivide that lot and redevelop it outside of the tax parcel that I have.

So that I have a lot that cannot be reasonably developed, right?

That is a reasonably undevelopable lot.

Right?

What was made here was like a 30 by 30 foot section of a lot that could not otherwise be severed off in the future to become developable, that's a reasonably undevelopable lot.

But there's a factual distinction in the case that you just presented regarding your properties, that you have a piece of land that is a separate lot that is undevelopable, it's not reasonably developable.

That's not the exact that's not the case here.

That you you're talking about two separate lots that happen to be next to each other.

Is that correct?

Yeah, but you I was trying to clarify I don't really know where you're going with it, but I'm I'm just trying to clarify what we mean when we say reasonably developable.

I give you that as an example that like there are lots that can be created that are not reasonably developable.

Can I yeah, yeah, yeah.

Um so number one, I think the language in the memorandum speaks to a portion of ground and not a lot.

Um so it's it's looking at the the portion, not whether it's existing as a lot, whether it's it can ever be a lot, but it's it's the portion.

Yeah, a portion of the colour.

And I think I'm sorry, if you look at the next paragraph, it uses the disjunctive statement, a lot or portion of ground, which is reasonably developable is ineligible for consideration under the provisions of section 4.7.

So can I finish?

Shoot.

So the we need to look to why this language is in there.

And and in speaking with Director Munster at the time this was done, there was a concern that if we weren't careful about how we define this, that it could be a loophole and that we could you apply the minor map adjustment in a way that somebody could check all the boxes and move uh the zoning line and and then later on resubdivide it into a single lot and develop that separately as a develop.

So that's not what is happening here, and that's not what could happen here.

And and and I apologize if I confuse you with my example, but Bob and I are speaking the same language.

That is exactly what I was referring to, is there are lots that you can create that can't be severed off to become reasonably developable, and that's the way I understand this to be written in both the negative and the positive senses.

So reasonably developable doesn't mean you can use it, it just means can you can you separate it out at some point in the future and use it separately?

And in this case, I think the answer is no, it's a 30 foot by 30 foot ice of land, right?

And I'll say this if it's applied as a H UMU, theoretically, yes, but if it applies to the H H U RD2, no, definitely not.

Right.

So that and that's the thing.

So once a map would be adjusted to correctly reflect its footprint, so that's why I brought up the reference earlier about how it ties back to a 6.3 point B, how no matter what, if the resubdivide when when the resubdivision is finalized, that other zoning is what would ultimately apply.

So if it was to get carved back out, theoretically it's not a developable piece of land.

So it's this.

So I want to come back to why how I started my comments, is more from how do we help procedurally to iron this out and come up with a ruling that helps to give direction on how to move forward.

Both of you guys bring up extremely valid points, but what can we do from a ruling standpoint to help cure the issue but also remedy it because apparently this is one of these items that kind of causes a loophole, which I know Jarrett was trying to avoid in some case, but I think actually the remedy is a correction on some form of review procedure or standard operating procedure from either department on how these reviews are conducted in the future.

So would you guys agree that that's probably the better solution at this time?

So yes, and I and I think that you know, we're certainly um, I think the suggestion suggestion you made before about um you know, a subdivision application comes in and goes through a review, part of that initial review should be is this gonna affect zoning in any ways?

And if so, we should start this whatever the the zoning adjustment process is, whether it's a map change or uh minor map adjustment.

Absolutely agree with that.

I think one of the things that we also need to do is stick to the language that's in the ordinance and in the memorandum as the two approval standards, yes.

And you know, there's a lot that is added in the director's memorandum that you know, incidental, um tiny fragments, irregular geography, you know, all of that stuff doesn't exist in either the CZO or in the memorandum, and and it's done by design to make it very simple.

Check the box that it's 15%, check the box that it's not reasonably developable, and it should qualify for a minor map adjustment process.

Got it.

And in response to that, as Mr.

Rivers pointed out, there are processes that he is reviewing that he believes that are in place that perhaps can be changed, and that's why we've had a land use uh study that he has conducted.

I again submit that I think that uh in doing what Mr.

Rivers uh is suggesting is again usurping the power of the legislative branch of city government and that it's outside the purview of the Department of Safety and permits.

Wait, can you say that again?

I I understand what he's saying.

That the problem is it's the difference between minor versus the minor map adjustment versus what is the legal requirement of the map adjustment.

Map adjustment calls out for it to still go through CPC to council for full ratification, which is the legislative process versus minor map adjustment just allows the department, yeah, the department to do it.

Yeah, yeah.

Um, but again, it's the what is the triggering event, and that's why I came back earlier and asked the question about when the resubdivision process starts.

That's why it would actually behoove us to start those units in tandem so the legislative process can run its course.

But by it, yes, absolutely agree.

I don't and I and I don't want to you know keep beating a dead horse, but um, you know, I I've I've been called out for supposedly usurping legislative intent.

I think redefining terms, I think re you know, I think narrowing um language and adding incidental and adding other terms to the law is arguably taking on a legislative responsibility to redefine from the memo standpoint to just to reply that this it was never an ad hominem attack on Mr.

Rivers Mr.

It's incorrect and I know I think I need to say this there.

What I'm saying is to do so would give the department powers that it does not believe it currently possesses that those powers are for the legislative body.

It's not a comment on Mr.

Rivers whatsoever.

Got it.

So I think we are actually someone say this, it's kind of the the fun time of when we get to play adjudicant and the two lawyers are having fun at the table right now.

Um, and I think it's just two different, two different perspectives, but I think both parties are right in terms of where the issue lies.

The remedy is through how do we handle these going forward.

So I I mean, if madam chair, I mean there's a motion I think I could present that I think still protects both points of interest, but most importantly, who I think is the person that's kind of the victim here is the property owner and being able to cure what is necessary for what he's looking for to fulfill the process.

So any other questions from board members?

I'm sure it's clear as my right now.

Oh, it's fun.

Go ahead.

So like I mentioned, um, this is more in the best interest of the property owner, but also making sure I'm pretty clear in terms of how this should or should have not been interpreted with respect to the CZO.

Um, I want to acknowledge Dan you point out something that's extremely correct.

All right.

So with regards to section 4.7, you know, basically you should not be permitted to come in and circumvent that the legislative and administrative process through an administrative tool remedy for someone if the resub is in going into place.

Okay.

But what I want to make sure is clear is that I think Bob is also very much so correct that there's only two approval criteria.

I think that memo goes into something much different, and I want to make sure that we're adhering to the two standards that do exist within 4.7 4.7 point e and that that is what is the gatekeeping process for approval of any minor map adjustment.

So I think if we stay in alignment with that item, I think that helps us to address uh the major issue.

The second part does come back to the theoretical down zone piece.

So when we do get into this down zoning from H U M U to H U R D2, at the end of the day, you we're not adversely impacting the properties around it because once that resubdivision is already run its course and the fact that it was approved with the proviso of it to go through this process, we should be taking a less restrictive remedy solution in order to cure this item.

So based on that, I think that the two conditions have been expressive expressively uh met based off of what should have been the two check box items for 4.7 excuse me, 4.7e in accordance with everything inside of section 4.7.

So with that, my motion is to overrule the director.

Directors determine finding that this was done in error, but as I mentioned, not at the fault of the department.

We're just trying to find a the specific cure remedy in order to do what's in the best interest of the property owner.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA docket 014-26 has been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Richards to grant the requested appeal, finding that there was an error in the direct of the Department of Safety and Permits uh decision.

Do we get to do discussion on motions?

We never do it, but no, but you want to discuss the question.

There's something that needs to be discussed.

No.

Okay.

Vote your screen.

Messing with me.

I wanna I have things to say, but there this is not the right appropriate place to say it.

I know I I think it it's difficult because there are there may be times where you want to talk something out.

I get it.

Sorry.

Five years, uh no nays, the motion carries.

Next item.

The next item uh is section F of the agenda consideration of the forming of a committee for the proposed rules, policies, and procedure changes of the BZA for public hearing uh today.

We are proposing to revise the board's rules, which have not been updated since 2017, and today we are proposing to form a committee uh to review proposed changes and identify any other proposed changes.

Um I believe we are limited to three board members participating in the committee.

Otherwise, it would be a public meeting because we would have quorum.

Um so I will leave it to you all to form the committee.

Should we just um ask for nominations?

Um I like I know that previously both myself and the chairwoman have served on that committee.

Um but would also like to nominate uh Commissioner Richards to that group as a third.

Do you need a second?

How does that work?

I would second that.

It's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner uh Diaz to appoint Commissioners uh Todd James, uh Candace Forrest and Jason Richards to the rules committee.

Vote your screens.

Five yes, no nays, the motion carries.

Next item.

I hope you're okay with that, Jason.

Filent toll.

Would the board consider a motion to adjourn the meeting?

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Diaz, second by Commissioner James, I believe, to adjourn the meeting, vote your screens.

Vote your screens.

No nays.

The motion carries, and our meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

Have a good rest of your day.