Good morning.

I would like to call the Monday, April 20th, Board of Sonic Adjustments meeting to order.

We will begin with Roll Call, Candace Forrest.

Jose Alvarez.

Present.

Jamie Ramiro Diaz.

Present.

Alfonso Gonzalez is absent.

And Jason Richards is absent.

At this time, would the board make a motion to adopt the minutes from the March 16th meeting?

So moved.

Second.

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

Vote your screens.

Four yes, no nays.

The motion carries.

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

If the board has, I'm sorry, 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.

I'm sorry, by April 30th, and sent via email and mail to applicants as well as posted on the one stop app for other interested parties.

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

Today's agenda item number three BZA docket 02826 for the property at 2731 Palmer Avenue has been rendered moot.

Item number seven BZA Docket 03326 for the property at 37 3617 General Taylor has been withdrawn and item number 11 BZA Docket 03726 for the property at 4 Neuron Place has been rendered moot.

We will now begin with unfinished business for variances.

Would the chair please read the hearing rule for variances?

Rules and procedures for public hearings variance requests.

The following procedures shall be observed during the hearing.

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

The applicant or representative will speak first.

The presentation shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes for each applicant or representative speaker, but in no event shall the cumulative presentation total by applicants or their representatives exceed 10 minutes.

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

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

The applicant or representative will be allowed a rebuttal.

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review.

Based on this report, the staff believes that the requested variances of Article 24, Section 24, 13G1A, projecting signs, projection, Article 24, Section 2413, G3CII, Zoning District Group 2, allowable sign area, and Article 24, Section 2413 G 3 C V, Zoning District Groups, Group 2, first floor, fails to meet criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the standards of variances of Article 4, Section 46F of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, and that there are no special conditions that are peculiar to the land or structure.

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

The variants will confer on the applicant special privilege.

The variants will 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 or other interested party.

The variants will not be detrimental to the public, will be detrimental to public welfare or interests to other property.

The variants will impair the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties, increase street congestion, increased danger of fire, and endanger public safety.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

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

Steph recommends two provisos.

And to quickly add to that, just so the board is aware, these exact same requirements exist in the city code.

So even if you approve today, it would have to somehow be approved through that method, and I don't think that would be possible.

We do have VCC here as well, a BCC representative who can answer those questions since that's in that section of the city code.

Excuse me.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 105-25?

Hello, good morning.

Um McKenzie Laxton with 824 Barone Street.

Uh the only points that I wanted to make again were the nine criteria.

Items one, two, three, and four discuss uh this being a special privilege of the owner.

As we've presented before, there are neighboring properties with signs that are about the same size, if not bigger.

We've done multiple exercises to calculate the total square footage of the fronts of the building, the height.

Uh we've done everything that y'all have asked us to do to compare these neighboring properties, and each one has a sign that's just as big, if not bigger than what we've proposed.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

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

Good morning.

My name is Kylie Lewis, 824 Baron Street.

Um, I just wanted to express that there are neighbors in support of the renovation of this property and having the signage um to elevate that exterior of this building will help to um bring back the historic flair and vibrance and sophistication of that bourbon street has been missing in the past few decades.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant?

Thank you.

My name is Don Randon.

I'm president of Don Randon Real Estate.

My family has a long history on Bourbon Street.

My great-grandfather immigrated from France and bought 213 Bourbon in 1875.

My grandfather was born in that building.

My grandmother was born at 820, excuse me, 623 Bourbon.

My father and his six siblings were born in the home at 920 bourbon.

Obviously, many changes have taken place of bourbon, some good, some not so good.

Unfortunately, for the past 10 years, Bourbon Street is heading in the wrong direction.

The culture is changing.

We need a better balance.

Establishments like Redfish Grill, ACME, Galatois, O'Apthans House, Arnolds, GW Finns need help from time to time in order to thrive.

Please give consideration to helping the House of Jazz.

Signage is critically important to a business.

This company is investing significant funds to bring a high-end quality jazz club to Bourbon Street.

I remember the days when Pete Fountain, Al Hurt, Chris Owens, the Ember Steakhouse, and other established establishments like that were on Bourbon Street.

Things have changed.

Work with them, please.

I have nothing to do with that project, but it will undoubtedly be a positive for the street.

Actually, I'm told the sign requested is basically the same size and design of the sign that was on the building many years ago.

This sounds like preservation to me.

Please grant this request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Hi, Sunny Wicker, 365 Canal Street.

Um, I'm part of the design team, legacy design that is working on this signage.

I want to say I'm not originally from New Orleans, so I can come from a place of tourism.

New Orleans was the place of dreams and movies, and it's where all the high class people live.

But as a kid, I remember visiting and being in awe of the lights.

And as a teenager, it was the neons and the flashing.

And as an adult, I actually got into the field of signage because I was so enamored by what I had discovered in New Orleans.

I've lived here for 13 years, and I still find myself in awe of the Sanger Theater sign every morning on my commute.

Today I am honored to be a part of the process that creates that same magic for someone else.

This sign will bring movement, light, and character back to Bourbon Street.

The neon and illuminated signs are part of what draws people in and what makes this place unforgettable.

I am here in support of the sign at 241 so that someday another tourist like I once was could stand there in awe and think I want to do this and I want to be here just like I am today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

My name's John Marion, and I'm with A1 Signs here in New Orleans.

If this is approved, the sign will be 100% manufactured in New Orleans.

We do a lot of the neon signs in New Orleans, ACNA Oyster House, Sanger Theater, Door Furniture.

Um we did the Dixie Beer uh neon signage.

So it's gone and enhance the historic area of the French quarter, and we look forward to doing it.

Thank you.

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

Anyone here in opposition.

Good morning.

I'm Gretchen Byers, and I'm speaking on behalf of VCPora, and we support the staff's recommendation of denial.

This request does not meet the approval standards for a variance and was set a harmful president for the French quarter.

First, this is not a restoration, it's a modern recreation of a sign that has been gone for more than 50 years.

Is not historically comparable, nor is it appropriate under current design guidelines.

And despite what has been suggested, this is fundamentally about visibility and competitive advantage.

Larger, brighter signage is a marketing tool, meaning for profit.

Approving this would reinforce a troubling trend on Bourbon Street, where signage continues to escalate in size and intensity, often illegally.

That risks spilling to adjacent districts, undermining the standards that protect the quarter's character.

Second, the applicant examples don't hold up.

Staff surveyed 33 projecting signs in the immediate area and found all were compliant.

The applicants widened the search to find nine non-conforming signs, but none are truly comparable.

The applicant automatically stated that four of the nine were non-applicable.

Of the remaining five, ACME outme oyster house, Dickie Brennan Steakhouse, both fall into the CBD2 and are not subject to these regulations.

The Mango Mango and Gateway signs are long-standing non-comporbonies that have been resurfaced multiple times over the decades.

Photo documentation supports their existence since the mid-1960s.

Felix's signs show documented existence since 1984, but may have been installed illegally as the VCC would not have approved a sign obscuring ironwork.

None of these examples will be permitted under today's guidelines or even under prior versions of the zoning ordinance and VCC guidelines.

As the staff pointed out, um, this is not just about um the zoning ordinance.

This is also a city code issue which explicitly prohibits signs above the first floor.

Was that my time?

Yeah, that's the end of the day.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Anyone else here on opposition?

My name is Anthony Marino.

I am vice president of Ukraine Prof.

I also live at 1028 Bourbon Street.

I've lived there for over 35 years.

Also a resident of the quarter for 50 years.

I also used to work at the Royal Sinister Hotel just near the corner with this uh establishment wants to open.

Uh we want to support the staff.

I don't believe the signage is appropriate.

As it was mentioned, the original signage was gone with over 50 years ago as well.

Uh we just want to support the staff and this think this signage is not necessary for the operation of that business.

Royce also is to have economy hall.

They had very high class uh entertainment as well, didn't require signage of that nature.

Uh support the staff's recommendation.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in opposition?

The applicant has an opportunity to rebut.

Any questions from the board?

So, guess just question back to staff and I know we have a VCC representative here, if you could just provide a little bit more color to how the yeah, how the code does apply to this separate and apart from the CCO.

Hi everyone, I'm Renee Burgoyne, and the deputy director of the Vucore Commission.

Um, what you have before you, they're asking for the zoning variance, as you know.

Um it if you do, if they do get a variance today, it still has to go before the VCC, before our commission, and we are going to deny this because we cannot approve something that is against the code.

The code, section 166 uh-9-2, does not allow for this.

So VUCARA Commission cannot approve this.

Um, I have been told that this would require an ordinance change.

So VCC can also not approve this.

Okay.

So just my question back to staff, because I've always been curious in the past on items like this, especially within the VCC.

Um procedurally, what should come first?

Should VCC look at an application before we look at it or not?

And just curious if there's any take on that piece at this time.

Uh it's something we've discussed a lot over the years, and I think where we've landed on it more recently, is that and and Renee, you can chime in here if if I'm not stating this correctly, but VCC normally will not approve something that is against zoning, and they will wait until the zoning issue has been rectified to approve or review on their end.

This one is a little bit different, I would say, because it outright states in the code that we can't approve this.

So this one is a little bit different than probably some of the other issues that have come before you in the past.

Um signage is pretty straightforward for us.

Okay, and so what it what does the explicit language state, Nicole?

And I'm not trying to litigate it, I'm just curious.

No, no, no.

I actually don't have that in front of me.

If someone could pull that up, that would be great.

It's section 166-9-2.

I can pull it up.

Thank you.

Um, I had a question, I guess as you're pulling it up, Emily, because it's kind of tied to the same discussion.

I'm just trying to um understand, and it is a little bit, I guess, of a follow-up to Commissioner James' question of um what should be decided first.

And I guess for me, it's almost sounding like this decision is a sort of impossibility scenario where there's not a possibility for um for this to go forward, even if we and I I don't want us to sound as though we're making a decision based upon what the vo the view carry would do, but it almost sounds as if there's a scenario, as you were mentioning, that this is a little bit of a different situation than what we're normally presented with, and just wondering procedurally if there's a scenario where a decision uh uh a request is impossible to comply with, how are we what are our options in terms of decision making?

So typically with things like this, um, and this can often apply for um like DPW provisos as well when DPW approval is needed.

Um, we do have a proviso written here that states that VCC approval would be needed, and essentially if the VCC approval is not given on this project, if this variance were approved, it would be rendered moot for that reason.

And just that because I know we're going through uh rules procedure right now as a board.

Is this not something that should be visited through that venue since it it's almost duplicative?

If there's a sign regulation that's managed by the code and is an exclusive district with VCC who does manage that, should we truly be reviewing it within our authority?

We can look at that for sure.

Okay.

Emily, did you pull that up?

I'm not sure if um Commissioner James was still interested.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, that still remains.

Yes.

I believe it's three or four lines down.

I believe it's the highlighted portion in your email.

Yes, thank you.

Yes.

So this uh section of the city code, section one six six-nine two, Bourbon Street, the Carey Entertainment District special sign regulations states that limitations of display, no signs whatsoever shall be erected above the first floor level of any building.

And I'm not sure there may be other language in here too.

Um Renee, maybe you can speak to this.

If there's any other language about um, I think the sign area might be outlined in here as a I think there's some of that as well.

I'm sorry, I don't have that committed to memory.

Um above the second floor is above the first floor is we do not approve signage above the first floor.

Uh there's additional language under uh number two, allowable sign area, uh 2D.

The area of a double face of double-faced signs shall be calculated as provided for in section one sixty six-eight six.

However, in no case shall the category sign for any business be greater than 50 square feet if a double face sign or 25 square feet if a single face flat sign.

And in this case, the applicant is proposing the sign above the first floor, uh, as well as proposing a 93 square foot sign.

Um I can do further research into the projection.

I'm not sure if there is a projection limitation in the city code, but I can double check that right now as well.

So it just sounds like that provision in a code only addresses the third waiver.

Uh what I read just now addresses the second and third waivers regarding the allowable sign area and the the first floor.

Okay.

And then she said she was checking to see if there was anything related to projection, sign projection.

While we were waiting, were there any other questions from any other board members?

Um and just another question to staff thinking through the um the different uh variance requests, should the request get denied, the applicant would have the ability to still place a sign that would be on the first floor, and then otherwise compliant on projection and um and size.

That is correct.

Yes.

And while you're pulling that up, I know staff did make a notation back in a previous meeting that some of the I know that Commissioner Richards, uh, while he's not here, I know he did ask for some context in terms of how to classify some of the other signage that was provided as a as an example by the applicant, but I do see a notation from staff where some of those did not necessarily apply because of their location.

I actually researched every single one of those signs um given by the applicant.

I gave that information to CPC staff.

Um the majority of the so I believe it was five of the signs were actually located outside there on the other side of Iberville, which the VCC does not control.

Um there were a couple of signs that yes are quite larger, um, sort of in the same fashion.

But those have been there since well before the 1980s.

Um I actually went back and looked at every date, and staff does have that um that they can provide for you.

Okay.

Uh but I found historic photos for everything.

I actually went and looked um to see which signs were actually approved and which ones weren't, and which ones fell under a different CZO, um, so that you guys could have that information.

Okay.

Yeah.

So that's that's the primary applicability that now within a VCE district.

Yes.

Okay.

I have read through this section of the city code.

I I do not see anything referencing projection maximums.

It doesn't mean it's not there, it just means I have not identified it in this section.

And I guess just I can only speak for myself, just kind of based off of where we are with the nine criteria, uh, based on what the staff has already drafted in a report, clarification on the precedent set of any other sign if they're not located within a VCE.

So trying to look at it through a clear lens of liking kind, and based off of how we're supposed to look at the nine criteria, I'm still not seeing where a precedent has been established where those signs basically create a context for them to still use in this application.

Um I don't I don't want to come off as if there were just our position changes based off of the VCC, but I think just based off of what the staff has been able to reconcile against the examples provided by the architect, kind of.

And I do think Commissioner James, um, speaking of precedence, this would set a precedent.

And this would open the floodgates.

Got it on Bourbon Street.

But it sounds like even if even if we did approve it, that wouldn't matter.

Because VCC still has voting authority, which is pretty short.

And and again, our our voting authority would be based in the fact that the VCC cannot approve something that goes against code.

And section 166 lays this out.

We can't approve it.

Okay.

So uh to jump in there, uh an earlier section, section 16685 length of permitted projection of signs, and thank you, Val, for pointing this out, mentions that no sign shall project more than 48 inches beyond the building line.

And so the other waiver in question also appears to be at odds with this.

Yep.

And I think for um, as I was walking through it, um, just to touch base on what Commissioner James was bringing up, because again, it because of how our rules are, it's not a situation where we want to sound as though we're making a decision purely based on what we're hearing from um VCC, but more so walking through the nine criteria, which was why I was asking the question about what the applicant has available to them, because one of the um the nine criteria that wasn't met was a hardship, and none of what we've discussed here has really established that there is a hardship that exists, and they do still have the ability to um build a compliant sign that otherwise would not require um any of their variance requests.

So um I tend to agree that I don't I don't see, and this is again one commissioner speaking, but um I don't see where we can establish that um all nine of the nine criteria have been met with this request.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Is a motion in order?

Yes, proceeding.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, regards to BZA docket 105-25.

My motion is to accept the staff's recommendation for the requested waivers uh and move for denial of the request.

I'll second if the button.

I'm seconding that the button isn't.

Oh, I was gonna say I hear a second, I didn't see okay.

With regards to BCACA 105-25, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Diaz to uphold the um the uh staff's decision and um recommend denial of the requested variances, uh finding that the nine criteria have not been met.

Vote your screens.

Six years, no nays the motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BZA 023-26.

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

Just as a recap, the applicant after repairs were done by the sewage and water board to address flooding in her front yard, um paved over 90% of her front yard after sewage and water board denied her request to repair her front yard with the brick and mortar pavers that were in place since at least 2007.

Following the deferral from the last meeting, a representative from the urban conservancy connected with the applicant, and the applicant did attend one of the waterwise workshops.

However, the organization is unable to offer any assistance with removing the concrete at this time due to a lack of grant funding, and because they are not currently working within her neighborhood.

Staff met with the applicant on March 25th of 2026 to discuss the areas for concrete removal.

The applicant has proposed extending the existing planter in the front yard by two feet and expanding the permeable open space to the end of the last step of the stairs leading up to the front entrance of the property.

The total area of permeable space increases to 90 square feet or a total permeable area percentage of 37 feet, decreasing the waiver from uh from 50 feet to 23, or I'm sorry, 50% to 23%.

On March 31st, staff spoke with a member of the urban conservancy to give more context to the current application, and they notified staff of a potential for assistance from groundwork NOLA.

Uh while it's not confirmed that the organization will be able to provide assistance, there's still interest in the outcome of this variance by both of these groups.

Despite these developments, the review of the criteria for the standards of variances has not changed, and the requested waiver fails to meet criteria two, six, eight, and nine.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of BZA docket 023-26.

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

Thank you.

Is the applicant present for BZA Docket 023-26?

The applicant did mention to me in our meeting that there she would probably most likely would not be able to attend.

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

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board.

The applicant said she couldn't be present, but I know that there was at least some recommendations all on alternative compliance in a report.

Yes, that's a part of the provisos.

If approved, right?

Has there any dialogue with the applicant to that effect that they were comfortable with that modification?

Because I remember her speaking to unfortunately, she was more presenting her case around financial hardship in terms of reinstating this condition.

And I know that we were just curious on like what was the minimum path of effect.

I'm going to recuse myself.

So I just noted my recusal.

Okay.

So I think as uh staff was walking through, there were conversations and there has been some modification where some things the um paving has been reduced, but it's just still not fully compliant.

Correct.

And that um the uh I forgot the name of the entity, urban uh urban conservancy is unable to provide the assistance that was suggested from the last meeting.

I missed that piece.

Uh-huh.

So I think that's why we're kind of where we are now.

So it's still the same um conditions from the applicant's perspective in terms of the ability to um remove the paving and not necessarily having assistance today as the urban conservancy is not currently available to assist.

And if we deferred the item, would the applicant be available for the next meeting?

I will connect with the with her and see.

I will also mention that prior to or it might have been around the time that we had an in-person conversation, she had requested a deferral.

I think in her mind, she thinks she has to break up the concrete in order to wrap this up.

So she wanted a deferral to go ahead and do that.

But on the under the advisement of staff, we decided not to request the deferral, but she has requested a deferral.

Okay.

Are there any other questions from the board?

For motions and order.

Proceed.

Madam Chair, regards to BZA docket number 023-26.

My motion is for uh one month deferral.

I didn't hear the deferral.

One month deferral.

Second.

Can you push the Yeah, so on.

Oh, sorry.

Thank you.

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

Second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer the item 30 days.

Vote your screens.

Five yes, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

Item three, BZA Docket 028-26 has been rendered mute.

The next item is BZA Docket 030-26 for the property at 3301 South Saratoga Street.

This request is for variances from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a swimming pool in the corner side yard.

The applicant is requesting waivers of Article 21, Section 216, EE1 for swimming pools location yard, and Article 21, Section 21.7, Table 21-2, permitted encroachments into required yards for swimming pools.

The staff recommends approval of the request, finding that all approval standards have been met and subject to two provisos.

Yes.

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

Hi.

Anna Polk, 3301, South Saratoga.

And did you have anything that you wish to add?

No, I just hope it's over soon.

It's been since September.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 030-26?

Hey, good morning.

I'm Cody with the PLUSS Builders.

Um so we're looking at the site.

I think we fall within all of the required permit uh modifications and measurements that they require, other than the location of the pool.

Uh that's why the variance had to be applied for, but also here in case any provisions do need to be made, I can document that and get that forwarded or sent wherever that needs to get sent to for uh for approval.

Thank you.

Could you give your full name and address?

Cody Shillette.

My address is home address or work address.

Work address is fine.

It is 14663, Airline Highway, suite 102 in Gonzales, uh Louisiana.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Just a quick question.

I know that there's a two recommended provisos, one of them dealing with the safety fence.

You guys have had a chance to review that and you're okay with the provisos as recommended.

The provisions on the safety fence has already been done.

The fence has been replaced, and I think pictures have been sent in with the new fence.

All right, madam chair, for motion to note.

Yep, proceed.

Madam Chair, regard to BZA docket number 030-26.

My motion is to accept the staff's recommendation for the requested waivers.

Article 21, section 21.6, double E point one for swimming pool location and yard.

Uh and Article 21, Section 21.7, Table 21-2, permitted encroachments into required uh yard swimming pool.

Um understand that the nine criteria have been met and move for approval with the two noted provisos.

Second.

I can't oh, I'm going to do that.

With regards to BZA docket 030-26, it's been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Alvarez to grant the requested waivers, finding that the nine criteria have been met and subject to two provisos.

Six years, no nays, the motion carries.

Next item.

Next item is BZA Docket 031-26, which is a request uh for variances from the provisions of Article 13, Section 13.3.8.1, Table 13.2.

Article 22, Section 22 11, excuse me, 22.11.A point one point B, and Article 22, Section 22.11.3 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a single family dwelling with insufficient interior side yard setback and a driveway or parking pad with insufficient distance from the lot line.

Subject properties are located within the SRD suburban two-family residential district, uh, which requires an interior side yard setback of 10% of the lot width, as the subject site width is 52 feet.

The required setback would be 5.2 feet.

However, the applicant is requesting a waiver of 2.2 feet on the southeast lot line.

Due to the requested reduction in the side yard setback, the applicant is subsequently requesting a reduction in the setback for the associated driveway of the home.

Required setback would be one feet, however, the applicant is seeking a waiver of six inches, which would be a six-inch setback for the driveway.

Staff finds the requested variance fails to meet standards A1, A3, A4, A5, and B1 of the standards for variances per Article 4, Section 4.6.3.8.1, Table 13.2 for interior side yard setback.

Article 22, Section 22.11.a.1.b residential driveways, and Article 22, Section 22.11.3 parking pad design location.

However, if the board were to grant approval of this item, the request shall be subject to the one proviso as noted in your staff report.

Thank you.

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

You could go ahead with your comments.

So the uh what we're proposing is to build a house for the restore Louisiana program.

The existing home is just over 2800 square foot, and the largest floor plan that the restore program offers is 2100 square foot.

So the applicant is already losing, you know, 700 and some change of square foot, which is a significant amount of living space.

If these uh if we were not granted the variances, we would have to downsize her home significantly to meet uh the requirements, and so they would be losing a significant amount more of living space for the family.

Um that's that's our chief concern.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA docket 031-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board.

I mean, we've seen these in the past.

Um where my bigger concern comes in is that it just we don't I'm not seeing any documentation of the proposed structure outside of how it's cited, unless I'm missing something in the packet.

You mean the the new the correct because I know we've dealt with this in the past, they have a fixed architectural plan that goes on every site, but I'm curious as to what alternative plans were available.

Is it truly that set in stone for that for that footprint?

So in order to meet the requirements that you have, we would have to downsize to what they call a shotgun model, which is 24 feet wide by there's two different models.

One is 50 foot long, the other one's 57 foot long.

Um so yeah, they would be losing a lot of uh bedroom space, bathrooms available, you know, just overall living space.

So to have the to have the the house would to meet the requirements and the required driveway space to fit both of those on the land, we would have to bring her house down to almost the smallest one that's available.

And if we were granted the variance, is the the side of the the left elevation of the house that would be with three feet from the property line, those would be built with the uh required firewalls.

So it's within three feet or at three feet.

Well, at three foot.

So I don't think it's a lot of things.

The wall, the side wall would be at three foot, but then the the we can either do a raked fascia, which means there would be no soffit, no overhang that would hang further into it.

But it if we built it with the design with a with a one foot soffit, that would all be built to fire code.

So we would have the one hour fire rating.

So and looking at the um comments from the staff report um in terms of the the structure, and this kind of goes to Commissioner James' question because it's hard with not seeing how this is actually laid out, but it seems as though your the applicant is intending to maintain the same width of the existing um structure, which is currently a duplex.

Yes, I'm not I'm not totally sure about the the width of the existing house right now.

I mean, I can I can pull it up in my in my file, it would take me a minute.

So it I think that uh because I saw that, but I I remember the program itself when they're making reference to the same size and scale, it's not necessarily about the width of the building, it's about it's about them getting square footage.

Correct of the existence.

So I think that may be misreferenced to a point.

But even if that's the I mean, just it specifically says width in the the notes, but even if it's about the existing square footage, it's still a duplex.

And I don't know that you know, two um, and I mean I'm pretty familiar that these are pretty sizable um uh lots, as well as these duplexes are pretty sizable.

They're not gonna be your typical um duplexes that you have in the city.

In this particular area, these are a decent size.

So even if it's to maintain the square footage, that would be pretty large in terms of square footage.

But this is going from two story to single?

Correct.

See, that's the other part.

I get it, yeah.

I get it.

Yeah.

What it what would be the proposed square footage on the new structure?

2102.

And how many?

Um I'm just trying to I think right now uh the existing is uh 2846, I believe.

No, it's just it's a bit over 2800 square foot.

It's just it's not it's still not matching up.

So I'm I'm just I'm struggling because the arguments don't it's not um it's not lining up with what we're thinking, and I'm just still trying to go back to I know those are pretty sizable lots, so I'm just I'm trying to understand I think this lot is 52 foot wide.

What's that?

I believe the board had also asked about the existing or the prior conditions of the sites.

Is that accurate?

No, it's it's really uh again the problem without having the plan.

I mean, all that's been provided is a footprint.

So it's really hard to evaluate it.

Um against how we would traditionally look at uh um any other docket item.

Um I understand how the program works, and they it's this janky is uh name, but I probably shouldn't say that one.

The process is screwy.

I mean it there's these fixed floor plans, and it's one footprint is supposed to fit on every lot condition, and that's not the case.

Yes, they did do the adaptation, they did the shotgun model based on a 30-foot lot, but they don't have anything that's variable beyond that point, and it's just these geometries that folks are now stuck with when the application comes in for a permit.

So it just I understand the concern from Commissioner Forrest's point about scale, but again, it's it is going from one two-story to one story.

Right.

And the square footage is then spread out, but then we're creating a bigger deficit issue because especially how the the parking pad has been laid out.

And I mean, I'm almost curious as is it because the parking pad is in that location, or is this one of those properties where the driver the parking pad may need to be in the rear yard?

I don't know for it to be compliant.

But they're they're so heavily reliant on how the program is managed as opposed to what the zoning code says.

And I know we've pushed back on this in the past, so it's been a while since we've seen one of these.

So I can go ahead and email that.

And just as I'm looking at the the site, I'm because I'm looking at the the image of the um the current structure.

So what I'm trying to understand is because there's currently, I I can't tell if the parking pad that I'm looking at on the side is for the current structure or for the new structure, but there's existing parking.

Um is all of that going to be taken away and then redone when with the new um the new the new site is built?

That's correct.

We're gonna completely clear the lot, take the take the existing driveway out, and then we will ref reframe or form and then pour a new driveway.

And so is the existing parking non-compliant?

Because what I'm trying to, and I guess I'm not clear on my questions.

I'm just trying to understand if there's an existing parking along, you know, I'm looking at this like circular drive, and then there looks like to be a pad along the side.

Um, is that non-compliant?

I'm just trying to understand why if they're going back with what they had along the side, what's at issue, what's that issue with what they have currently.

I think you just can't, if if I remember correctly from the code, you can't have a compliance stall in the front in front of the property, in front of the building face.

The circle driveway, I think I thought was always compliant if it was a 50-foot wide lot.

You could have a circle drive, but you're still required to have a compliant parking pad beyond the building facade.

Can I can I just want to hear I'm trying to hear from I think that would push the house too far back to the to the back lot or the the back uh boundary line?

Well, I for me what I'm trying, I'm looking at parking that's existing, and so what I'm trying to understand, and it sound the parking appears to be ex there's a a uh parking location to the side of the building, and looking at the drawing, it looks like the parking would still be along the side.

The question is there's this um area that's in the front.

So I'm just trying to understand what is it that is the I think it was probably drawn.

But I'm asking staff.

I'm just trying to understand from staff sort of what what we're having an issue with.

The drawings have just been emailed to the board, so they should appear in your inboxes momentarily.

Okay.

And um, Emily, I don't know if you can weigh in or um the um as you were preparing the report.

If somebody can just weigh in on my question on the parking.

I'm just trying to, and looking at what we have, I haven't gotten the drawings yet, but as soon as they come through, I'll look at that.

But I'm just trying to understand comparing what was existing to what's being proposed.

Where is it?

Is it the area that is um it's difficult to call out what specifically on the draw on the um the report, but there is um page 12, there is a purple area, and there's the purple area that is alongside the building, and then the purple area that's in front of the building.

I'm just trying to understand what is it that's specifically at issue because as I'm looking at the current conditions, there seems to be a pad that runs along the side of the building currently.

The issue with the proposed um parking pad, it appears the site plan, as you mentioned, has highlighted the whole driveway and parking pad together.

However, the issue is the parking pad itself, which is the area beyond the front facade of the house, and that section is less than one foot from the side lot line.

And so that is the section that requires the waiver.

And so is that different when you look on the very next page where they show the existing duplex and how there's the circular parking and then there's the pad that runs along the side.

Is what's proposed different than what's existing currently?

As far as um insufficient parking pad distance, it appears that the prior development also had insufficient parking pad distance from the side lot line.

Um that dimension isn't indicated on the existing conditions document.

However, based on the visual rendering, it appears it was also insufficient and noncompliant.

Does that answer your question or do you think?

Well, I'm just trying to because I I guess when we've had similar conditions that have been existing, how are we weighing the length of time that it's been in that condition?

Because it looks like this has been an existing condition.

I can't tell for how long.

But have we looked at the amount of time that this was noncompliant?

And that was what my first question was was the existing parking noncompliant?

And it sounds like it was.

It appears it is based on what we're seeing.

Staff has not, um, and Mitchell, you can jump in here if you want as well.

Um I don't believe staff has researched the historical condition just because this is a brand new development.

So likely the the nonconformity if there if there was one would be lost because the use associated with it would be demolished, essentially.

So if they don't demolish the parking, then what would happen?

Well, and Emily, you can weigh in on this as well, but uh from my understanding, if the duplex is demolished and the associated parking would also be rendered moot as far as it it's not there's no parking in association with that structure anymore, so therefore that parking is now noncompliant.

Because the the use associated with the prior parking would no longer be there.

Okay.

Yeah, and just to clarify about the pattern on the street, there are four or five houses in a row that have the same route about it.

Um the other block or something.

I'm very very familiar with this area.

Historically for a long time.

And staff was looking more so on properties that were developed under the current CZO.

So that's why.

And none of I mean all of this exists in the next one.

It's a very wide neighborhood, so in the event that um just walking through this, what would what is the um the proposed alternative um if this were not to be um granted in terms of the parking?

Well, um I would assume that the applicant would have to essentially alter the plans for the house, you know, in order to accommodate the size.

But you know, this is the first staff is hearing that it is, you know, almost like a free rendered floor plan that is required, so there's not much room to fix the structure to accommodate the lot size.

So um I don't know if staff's position would have been any different just because of the the nature of the request.

Um but that would be the alternative.

J just to clarify if it was put in exactly the same place as the previous house, it would still be the same issue.

Except that you'd have the round driveway.

Right.

And then from that point still, I I'm not a hundred percent sure if they would have still needed a variance for that parking for the new use.

If they if they utilize the existing driveway, but they were adding a just essentially replacing the existing structure.

Would a waiver have been required for the parking in that instance?

Um that would be a department of safety and permits question, but our understanding.

Yeah, that was what I was asking was if they just you said that the parking would because it was non-compliant, they would lose their um their nonconformity.

Generally, if the the use itself, the structure is demolished, then the non-conformity that existed with the parking would be lost.

They would not be able to re-establish that because the use, the existing two-family dwelling would be gone.

Misunderstood your question, I'm sorry.

Oh, I thought I heard somebody say they're not.

So I misunderstood your question.

Oh, I didn't mean to contradict myself.

No worries.

Yeah, that was what I was that was my initial question was to just keep the parking and um and go with a new structure.

Well, if I just want to add just what would this do to this, the character of the street.

Yeah, the house is gonna be it's pulled forward more in alignment with the neighboring houses.

Not the duplexes are all set back, right?

But the neighboring single family houses pulled out a little further.

And you would then have a yard in front of the house and a driveway instead of that round thing.

So I guess my question is you know, the setback on the three-foot setback on one side is already there.

It's really just about that parking drive on the side is my my only concern.

But I mean it's gonna be a bit different too, just because it's gonna be a single family as opposed to the entire neighborhood is um subdivision is all duplexes.

They're different, some are two stories, some one story, but they are typically duplexes.

Right.

But it would be more, it would it would look like the neighboring house on the other side more than the duplexes in terms of the how it addresses the street and the side yard condition.

Um and just as a point of reference, um chair, to your question, the CZO references what we were discussing in Article 252G.

And this speaks about demolition of a non-conforming user structure, and it basically says the voluntary demolition of a non-conforming structure, et cetera, will result in loss of any legal nonconforming status for associated things, including off-street parking.

The applicant could shift the house and narrow that interior side yard further by six inches in order to bring the parking pad into compliance.

That would give it the one foot setback from the side lot line.

But then of course, there would be the greater um the greater issue with the interior side yard not complying, and then that would would require fire rating for that wall.

Yeah, you you can't have any penetrations of the house.

There could be nothing like your no lines coming out of the house, definitely no windows if you're less than two feet.

So how much flexibility you have to actually modify the typical plans?

Pretty much zero.

The program um they've not uh granted us when we've asked uh in the past to to modify the existing plans that they offer.

Uh there's only been one time that I know of in the 700 houses that I've built for them that they've allowed, and it was based on a uh on an HOA requirements one of the past modifications we have seen with this program was not specifically related to the structure itself, but regarding the uh the the front steps, for example, the front stoop, and that was adjusted, but generally they are unable to modify the the structures floor plan.

So it would either be this floor plan or choosing a different smaller floor plan, as you know.

Yeah, we can do that.

We can I mean you have to because you know, based on this plan, it's right where that's a good one.

So we could come off the front and then pour a sidewalk going over to it.

We do that quite often.

And then I guess um setting the house back any further would then create a front yard parking issue.

Because I see that there is space that the if the house were set back.

Right, because the pad would still be in the same, the pad would still be in the same.

But um what I was saying is that instead of it running along the side, it would be in the the front.

But I say that would create the front yard parking variance for issue.

Correct.

If the parking pad is not at least 18 feet in depth beyond the front facade, there would be a front yard parking issue.

Yeah, and it looks like um, I mean, just looking at the dimensions here on the existing survey plan.

The current footprint of the existing house about 1,004 60 square feet, two floors.

That's over 20 almost 3,000 square feet the current house.

I'm sorry, I can I can barely hear you, I'm sorry.

Yeah, I'm I'm just saying that the current house is about it's definitely more than 2800 square feet in two floors.

The the existing is is I want to say it's 2846, but I know it's definitely it's it's greater than 2800 square foot.

Yeah.

And if you if you look at the placement of the existing, it's within an inch and three sixteenths of what we're proposing because they they have a three-foot setback on the left elevation, and they've got a 9.1, or so 0.1 of a foot is about an inch and 316.

And so we're proposing a nine-foot setback.

So I mean it's pretty well gonna be in the same footprint that it is now.

Yeah, and the current design is 2100.

So you're ready to reduce in the house quite a bit.

So going to a smaller house.

Yeah.

The family would be losing a considerable amount of space, yes.

So, like right now, she's already losing over 700 square foot just to get this floor plan, which is the the largest that the program offers.

Yeah, so looking at the floor plan, the only the only place you could take six inches out is really right in the middle of the building.

And so, because like you've got uh bathrooms and other things along and kind of everything's tightly fit into that house.

It's not like there's a uh it's really just in the middle.

I would wonder what it would take to engineer that.

I mean, the they could it's it doesn't seem that difficult to narrow it up with six inches.

Well, essentially that would require the program to approve a customer.

Custom design.

Right.

Like I said, they've they've frowned on that every single day, except for once.

They've they've shot it down.

I think that's what I'm what I'm trying to say is it's it's not as easy as just saying remove six inches, because it's really only you can really only take it out of the middle and then you'd have to like change all the proportions of the windows and the doors and stuff.

I guess for me, I'm just as I'm looking up and down the um the buildings on that street.

I just um I guess it just must be a lot of non-conforming parking.

It's just very um, I mean, all of them pretty much have this same, if it's not the circular, they definitely have the drive going up the side.

Some of them are right in front of the the building.

So it's um it wouldn't be outside of the norm of what's in that area for this parking to look the way that it does in the proposed plans.

If I could add um in this zoning district, circular drives are permitted.

Um so those are permitted in the all the suburban residential zoning districts except for SLR S1.

So this property, it appears could technically be designed with a circular drive within the front yard, and that would be compliant.

As long as all the other things are met concerning circular drive dimensions and whatnot, um, that would be something that the applicant might want to explore.

Would we need to file for a variance and taking up too much of the percentage of the front yard if we did the circular drive, would we have to get a variance for that?

If it does exceed the 40 percent.

But permeable paving could potentially be used.

Yeah, I was gonna ask about this the rear yard and other other setbacks if there's anything that would be because it it seems like putting the building back on the same footprint is almost feasible and keep the pattern of what's there.

Um it sounds like maybe we should defer that so that you can check all the um check all the math.

I feel like we're doing a lot of math up here, but uh so is that something um that you would consider a deferral to look at um the circular drive option?

Absolutely, yeah.

We'll make it triangular, make it whatever you want.

Are there any other questions?

Regards to BZA docket zero three one-26.

I move for a 30-day deferral.

Um per the request of the applicant to explore these other options and possibly is that gonna be sufficient time to get uh is 30 days a sufficient time um just to staff in terms of the deadlines.

Is that gonna be sufficient?

What would be the turnaround to get the plans?

Should be enough to meet.

Yeah, and and the staff report is due on April 29th, so uh staff wouldn't need that prior to that point.

Um Mitchell, you can you can set the deadline with the applicant so you're able to complete it by that time.

So I would need to get it submitted to you by when April 29th.

Before uh I can I can definitely before April 29th because the reports have to be submitted on the 29th.

Okay, so it's just enough.

I would I don't want to set a hard date right now.

I can talk to you after we can I can get that to you this week.

Okay.

Yeah.

We can have another proposal drawn up.

Okay.

And I can yeah, um, I will second the motion, but I would recommend that um you look into um answering a specific um things that you have not met that the staff said that you have not met.

So instead of a general letter, try to because there's some met and some not met, just go through which ones the nine criteria.

Yeah, the nine criteria.

Okay.

And address those specifically okay.

So address the points that were not within conformity.

Okay.

No problem.

No, you you're not you're only talking in terms of the driveway, not in terms of the the left elevation setback, right?

We're not concerned about that.

Or or we are.

We are.

We are okay.

You're still out of compliance.

The only way that you are.

Well, I don't know, I don't want to misspeak because I don't know what may change depending on how the um drawing, yeah.

The drawings change.

But the point I think what the commissioners are saying once you get revised plans, once you revise this, depending on if any of these variances change, if you still need them, then making sure that you're walking through the nine criteria, um, specifically addressing the points where you were um where it was said that that you hadn't met that particular standard.

Right.

So I think if we if we go with a circular driveway in the front, then we absolutely can shift the house over.

Right.

That's I was thinking that it may negate, but I don't want to assume, but it may negate some of these requests.

If that's if that's the case, then you won't have to walk through those nine criteria, but for any waivers that remain, then you would just want to make sure that you explain those nine criteria um for the ones that you haven't met.

Okay.

Uh with regards to BCA docket 031-26 has been moved by Commissioner Gonzalez and second by Commissioner Alvarez to defer this item 30 days, giving the applicant time to make revisions to the plans.

Vote your screens.

Five years, no nays the motion carries.

Next item.

Thank you.

The next item is BZA Docket 032 26 for the property located at 2022 Phillips Street.

This request is for variances from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a two-family dwelling with insufficient off-street parking.

Staff believes that the requested variances of Article 22, Section 224A, Table 22-1 off-street vehicle and bicycle parking fail to meet criteria A 1, A3, A4, and B1 of the standards of variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variance.

The request for the variance is not based primarily on the desire to serve the convenience or profit of the property owner or other interested party.

Strict adherence to the regulation by the owner or agent would result in a demarchable hardship upon the owner and as distinguished from other from mere inconvenience.

Sorry.

Granting the variance.

Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant special privilege, which is denied by the ordinance or to other lands or structures in the same district or otherwise situated.

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

Staff recommends one provisor.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 032-26?

Deshaun Davenport, 73162, United Church Road, Coverton, Louisiana.

I'm here representing the owner of the property.

You can go ahead with your comments.

They recommended to build two family dwellings.

That way, most of the people that were doing the first-time home program buyers would be more easily attracted to lenders because of uh the grants and programs that are out there.

Uh we also have taken several trips during different days, nights, and also looked at Google maps where we show several vehicles already utilizing off-street parking in that area.

So we're just asking to be able to do the same for them after you're able to build it.

The lot width does not really allow for a second driveway because of the depth, or to try to put one next to each other to be able to accommodate two uh residents on that property.

Is that the end of your comments?

Yes, ma'am.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 032-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board.

In the um staff report, I know staff uh suggested uh altering the plans uh slightly to become compliant in terms of the parking.

Had you all looked at making any revisions to um comply?

We we did.

That's why we took in consideration the depth of the lot as well as the width of the water, it's only 38 feet width, so you gotta keep so many feet off the side lot.

So with the house size that we're trying to do it at 28 feet, it would just seem uh almost impossible to modify the plans to accommodate for a two-family dwelling, which is what we're trying to utilize to attract people to stay in the city to buy in the city and uh help with first-time homebuyers where they're receiving rental income while they're able to stay there as well.

We also looked at the references that they referred that were built similar, and those were the ones that were actually built by the same owner on the same sculpture and the same layout, but they also only had one driveway as well.

It's just within that block face, is where they're saying you that each residence needs a separate driveway.

So I guess a question for staff would be in this zoning, um is there any existing two family duelings that meet the two off-street parking.

Staff only surveyed a per like the immediate area of the site and looked only at other properties developed under the current CZO within the last ten and a half or so years.

Um and of those, there were only two, and those two properties only provide one parking space each, but due to their lot widths of thirty feet or less, they're actually exempt entirely from from the off-street parking requirement, and there's no exemptions available for this property.

So we didn't survey, we didn't survey other two families broadly.

Yeah.

So I just I just found very difficult to, unless you can do like a stack approach, right?

Attending kind of like parking condition.

There's no way to really provide that that zoning requirement in a lot of even 35.

Staff, um, so the the current proposal is for the one parking space and a car port underneath the house.

And one of staff's suggestions was adding um a side-by-side, so expanding the car port and building up because the the structure can be increased in height under the zoning districts.

But that was the only the only other solution really that staff identified.

And for the applicant, you said that that was not feasible, or that you look into it.

The design hadn't been adjusted to see about building it with height at this point.

They were just trying to keep the same footprint of what they've been building to, I guess to go with the design that's in the neighborhood already.

You'd end up with a ding bad.

I didn't hear you.

You would end up with a ding bat, which is a Los Angeles uh building type where you have two parking places and then a house over the top.

Yeah.

And I will note there may be other zoning issues that arise from that.

For example, with garage doors, they couldn't take up more than 50% of the front face of the building.

So it may not ultimately be possible.

It was just something to look at.

And I think the challenge here is the the shallowness of the lot too, right?

So you're to get that volume of structure and still have parking.

Yeah, I think this is a challenge we have everywhere uptown where it's a you know historic and central city where it's historic building fabric where there weren't parking spaces to begin with.

I was just trying to visualize this option and I just wasn't seeing it, but um I guess that's really the only solution is to try to combine the parking across is it across the front.

I'm just trying to understand.

That was the only possible solution staff identified, but it would again likely create other zoning issues.

So you know, the driveway can't be 24 feet wide, for example.

So that might not even be a real solution, correct?

And and the two examples that you found that only provided one parking was those on the variance that existed?

Those were not subject to variances because they had an exemption available.

Because exactly the lot was were 30 feet or less.

And just a dumb question.

This is only being triggered because it's two family, right?

So if it was a single family house, you would have one.

Correct.

So to that point, it really is really, you know in the benefit of the owner to have two units there in a historic setup.

If you see the street as all single families.

And then the parking is what limits it.

So either you're saying I can't I can't hear you.

Oh, sorry.

Um the the argument is that the applicant is making is that they're adding more housing opportunities here by making a two-family unit.

The counter-argument is, well, the character of the neighborhood is single family because of the zoning limits you to you have to have two parking places if you're gonna have more units.

I guess it's a little tricky because it's not that the request, the waiver is not the waiver is only for the parking.

I I don't I I'm hesitant to get stuck on the fact that it's two family because they are allowed to build that by right.

I think it's more just the park.

And I understand what you're saying, that the parking is triggered, but it feels a bit difficult to stretch it.

Let me reframe that.

If the house, if the lot were narrower, they could do it.

Well, if the house if the lot were narrower, they would be exempt.

That's my point.

So if the lot were 30 feet, they could they could build it because they've already done two of them.

It's just kind of an odd thing here where you've got a because the wall because they have a little extra room, you can't you can't make it work because of the zoning has an out when it's a narrower property.

I can't see what is the width of this lot?

Is it 32?

38.

38.

Yes.

So you could 36 feet.

Okay.

Yeah.

So you could conceivably develop a house on this site that has a driveway that goes to the back and has more parking, but it's such a narrow lot.

And I mean sorry, a shallow lot as well.

If it was 120 feet, you could see that working and having uh open space in the back still.

Um it's kind of a catch-22.

Yeah, well, I I was struggling with the the hardship discussion and realizing that typically if there are alternative options that would sort of defeat the hardship argument.

But in talking it through with staff, it's not completely guaranteed that there really is an alternative because we don't know if it's even possible to do what staff is proposing with having the two parking spaces across the front.

So I'm I'm still struggling with saying that there's not a hardship when there very well could be for the presentation portion, but uh something I did have as a point of concern when reviewing the packet.

Um was seeing that the stamp on a set of drawings is from a 2024 date, but this is submitted in 26.

So I'm just concerned as when were these documents actually completed, is the professional record actually reviewed it in compliance with that part with it being uh uh old date on the stamp.

Um that's that's just a huge concern I have off the gate.

Yes, sir.

If you look at through the packet, they had to update the site plans several different times to adjust the requirements as far as the permeable space, the setbacks and all that through email.

So the ER is still engaged with the project.

But your PR would also have updated the stamp on the set of documents to confirm that, especially if the documents have changed.

So just having something that's a old date just raises a red flag for me on this piece.

Um, the second part was even with the footprint of what's being shown for the parking pad.

Um, we had a very similar property and gentilly set up and designed in this fashion where while the parking stall may be compliant in terms of what's documented, is it actually going to be able to function appropriately based on the dimensions in that plan, especially with the column grid along the uh bottom portion of the plan to the right hand side of that parking stall.

Um I know we've seen, I mean, there's a a lot of designs that does actually mimic what the staff was mentioning before, where you do have the two compliance stalls can be parked underneath the first floor where the entries are actually set back, and that actually provides for a better layout of how the two stalls can function across the front of the property.

I know that does then require a second curve cut for the site, but if they're not contiguous, you at least they're at least broken up to be two separate 12-foot wide uh curved cuts on the front of the facade.

And that way you still can be in compliance with what the code spells out for the site.

Yeah, and I kind of agree with that.

I feel like you know you want to reutilize the plan, which makes sense, you know, saves money and things like that.

But but I think this particular site that serves a little more attention as it relates to the design proposal.

And I would recommend, you know, um, because right now I don't see a personally a pass forward um other than denying it, unless you want to take the time to really look at this plans and maybe explore where the staff option or come to this board again with like whether it's you know um an approval or a variance about uh the access to the size of related two driveways and so forth.

Um would you be interested in taking this back, defer it for maybe probably 60 days and see if you can incorporate the stab recommendations or come up with you know the architect of record uh different solutions to try to mitigate the second parking?

Uh we could do it within 30 days, but I was looking, we do have the current site plan updates with a current step that was emailed to the review at the time.

So each time he made an amendment, he put an updated stamp on those set that were sent for the site plans.

But we're just worried about, like she said, with the parking across the front with two spots as well as the space that you have to have for permeable if we're using that to be able to get into the spot.

So that is going to be a potential issue.

Our staff is happy to work with the applicant to try to get the plans to um potentially a compliant result.

Um so we can we can definitely work on that.

Yeah.

So is the applicant um are you amenable to working with staff?

Um that's fine, yes, ma'am.

Are there any other questions from the board?

I'm sure is a motion in order.

Yep.

Um in regard to docket number BCA 032-26.

I move to the further matter for you said you can do it in 30 days.

Yes, sir.

And we from the last meeting, the material has to be there before the 29th, correct?

Prior to because they have to submit their reports from the 29th.

Uh this matter uh 30 days as per the applicant's request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I was looking for the button.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA docket 032-26 has been moved by Commissioner Alvarez, second by Commissioner Diaz to defer the matted 30 days.

Vote your screen.

Six YA's, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

Good morning.

Item number seven has been withdrawn.

The next item is BZA Docket 03426 for a property located at 4422 South Murrow Street.

This request is for variances from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the lifting of a single family dwelling, resulting in steps with excessive encroachment into a required front yard and excessive height.

Article 21, section 21.6.8a point one, and Article 21, Section 21.7, looking at table 21-2, allow for porches, steps, and stoops to project no more than six feet into a front yard.

The applicant is proposing to project 12 feet, necessitating a waiver of six feet.

Article 21, section 21.6.4 allows for porches, steps, and stoops to measure a maximum of four feet in height.

The applicant is proposing 11 feet in height, necessitating a waiver of seven feet.

The staff believes that the requested waivers failed to meet standard B1 of the standards for variance for Article 4, Section 4.6.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 034-26?

Sure, Joseph Lowershell 44 T T South Mirage Street.

You can go ahead with your comments.

So I am part of the 2019 um FEMA flood mitigation grant program through the city.

And so since that time we've been trying to design what the front of the house would look like with the raising per that grant.

After four architects, this has been the only thing that actually is trying to stay within the historic look of the neighborhood.

We have those front stairs, how they're designed with going up and then over and then like up again.

That actually mirrors some of the other neighbors that are in the um that are in the neighborhood as well.

So the other designs are awful looking and very modern.

But this is the we're trying to keep what the house looking like as best we can.

That's it.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 034-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Question to staff on the one remaining criteria on B1.

Um, just looking at what you guys provided in the notes.

Um it's speaking to the special privilege because of the house being elevated beyond what is the minimum requirement.

That's right.

It appears that they're also lifting the first floor of the house by two feet, which is a little it's excessive as to what the base requirement would be to elevate the home.

Okay, so even with them elevating it the two additional feet, that only creates an encroachment of maybe uh one to two additional, well, what maybe four additional steps if we're gonna look at it from how the plan would have been configured.

That's right, they would still be requesting the variance.

The variance requested is just excessive of what could be requested.

However, they would still be here requesting that height variance.

Even if they kept it to even if it was lower.

That's right.

Okay.

So just want to make sure that's at least acknowledged because while I do understand was the intent in that remaining compliance remaining criteria, technically, they would still be before us even if it was at the lower height.

That's a that's right.

Okay.

Any other questions?

The motion in order.

Yep.

Proceed.

Madam Chair, regardless of BCA document number 034-26.

My motion is to approve the requested waivers uh for Article 21, Section 21.6, point AA.1 for porches and steps and stoops, stair projection, article 21, section 21.6.4 for porches and steps and stoops height, and article 21, section 21.7, table 21 2 for permitted encroachments into require yards, steps, and stoops.

Uh based on the comments today that all and what is what the staff report acknowledges that all nine criteria have been met.

We want to put special emphasis on remaining criteria B1 that in the case that this property would have been done to the minimum compliance, a waiver still would have been required.

So, with that, this does not basically confer special privilege onto the applicant.

So move for approval with the one noted proviso.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA docket 034-26 has been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Eggins to grant the requested waivers, finding that the nine criteria have been met and adopting the commentary from today as well as the applicant's submission to satisfy establishing that the nine criteria have been met subject to one proviso.

Vote your screens.

Next item.

The next item is BCA Docket 3526 for a property located at 3100 Bank Street.

This request is for a variance from the provisions of Article 22, Section 22.4.a, table 22-1 to permit the renovation of a mixed use development, resulting in insufficient off-street parking.

The conference of zoning ordinance requires one off-street parking space per dwelling unit for multifamily dwellings in the HUMU district.

The subject mixed use development is comprised of 21 residential units and two commercial spaces.

It is currently compliant, featuring 21 parking spaces.

They are not proposing to add any of the required spaces, seeking a waiver instead of three off-street parking spaces.

The staff believes that the requested waiver of Article 22, Section 22.4.6.f of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.4.

You could give you a name and address for the record.

Yes, good morning, board.

My name is Zach Smith, 1000 South Norman C.

Francis, on behalf of the ownership team for this building.

Um, there's a discussion in the in the report about how this is potentially for the convenience of the proper uh convenience or profit of the property owner.

We can understand why that argument sounds like it's valid, but it doesn't take into account the fact that this site was previously constructed with a certain intent, previously constructed to be fully compliant, and we're only here because there is essentially a commercial tenant space that, as you guys know, in the HUMU design standards, it's meant to have these commercial spaces on that down the down floor.

And this building has been unable to attract a tenant since it opened.

They have done things like paid ads in newspapers and city business, direct mailers, conferences, word of mouth, online advertising, signage at the space, and even including a billboard on two-lane avenue trying to represent this space.

Uh for anybody that knows this space, before it was, I believe, torched intentionally by a previous by a previous neighborhood person who didn't want a certain venue there.

It used to be the Jehovah's Witness Ummunity Space.

This space has always enjoyed a massive amount of grandfathered, if you will, parking that this property doesn't happen to be able to enjoy because of the fact that it did in fact burn down in approximately 2011-2012, and this development did not come on board for almost a decade later.

Um we point that out because when we get into point three, you know, we're we're we're noted with a lot of various properties in HUMU zoning districts, but we're also noting them they're on broad, they're on Canal, they're on Biennville, places that are much different development patterns with a much more uh um vibrant commercial enterprise.

Again, there's been no if if the if the property owner had the ability to get a commercial tenant in here, we would not be standing here.

This is because of the hardship.

We also have this hardship because as the as anybody can see, this property has been developed to be fully compliant, and there is not a square inch that where they're capable of putting that.

If the residential zoning was as flexible as it should be, where it allowed for on-street parking, we would have the ability to do that.

If we didn't have such a requirement for residential parking in this very progressive city called New Orleans, we wouldn't have to do this.

The idea that we're taking out a commercial space means that there'll actually be additional on-street space in the event we have that.

And I want to make a point.

Um the the Jehovah's Witness site was about 5,000 square feet.

It had roughly, if you go on satellite, it had roughly 25 spaces at 5,000 square feet divided by 60 per article 22.

This site would have been grandfathered, about 50 parking spaces.

Again, it was built, completely compliant because it had to be.

Um and again, I think it's obvious to see that there's this hardship.

Uh the a representative from the ownership team is probably going to get up and speak after me just to kind of go through and again be available for any questions specifically about the the ab the fact that since this place has opened, they have not had one interest in this space to be used for a commercial way.

At the same time, they're at full capacity for their residential, and it would be uh it's it's very much understood that with these three new spaces, there is definitely a need and there's definitely desire to have more apartments here.

Again, there is a hardship, there is no physical place to put that, and we think you guys can agree.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 035-26?

Hi, yes, Ilsa Style, 3100 banks.

Um, I'm here representing ownership.

Um, yeah, we completed this project in 2021.

The residential portion of the building has been able to be successfully rented since then.

Uh we've had really zero interest on this commercial space, and it's been five years.

And um, you know, we've done, we've pretty much exhausted all resources as far as marketing and trying to get this space occupied.

And it's we really just need to pivot to residential because the demand is there.

Um we provide, you know, uh bicycle parking on site, which is fully utilized.

Um, and like Zach said, parking is never fully occupied.

Um so again, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 035-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board.

Just quick question to staff.

While we're talking about just the parking requirement, and I do remember this project coming before us some time back.

Um as it pertains to the ground floor uh space, there's no other waivers that would be needed based on this changing from um commercial to residential, like the transparency requirements and nothing to that effect.

Uh we don't believe so.

The transparency requirements only apply for commercial uses, and if this is being converted to residential, um that shouldn't create any issue.

Um I believe the only waiver that safety and permits identified is this off-street parking waiver.

Okay.

And this property already enjoyed a waiver to that effect previously, correct?

Did this need a waiver in the past?

No, this was an appeal by the uh by the owner because there was some confusion about what constituted uh above the ground floor and how many floors you may remember.

That's what I was trying to remember when they came before us before.

That there was a NIMBY contingent that didn't want housing in their neighborhood.

Got it.

And so this board actually gotcha approved it.

Thank you.

So maybe it's a question to the operation side.

What is what has been the demand for parking on a property?

We offer a space per unit, and not every resident has taken up that offer.

Okay.

And just as a reminder, because there's would be one less commercial space, which also enjoys the ability to park on that street.

That's less commercial activity where there's this entire linear frontage for the building that that is very easily parkable to not quote unquote be in front of another neighbor or anything else.

So the building has just it just doesn't have the cars per what you think it might.

Proceed.

Oh, sorry about that.

Uh in regards to BZA docket zero three five-26.

I move to approve the uh the requested waivers, Article 22, Section 22.4 dot A all-street vehicle and by bicycle uh parking requirements, um, accepting both the written and oral arguments provided by the applicant and finding that they have met uh all nine criteria.

Second.

Okay.

Filling in, we have a motion and a second for BCA docket number 035-26.

Um approving a requested waiver for Article 22, Section 22 point four, point A, Table 22-1 for off-street vehicle parking and bicycle parking requirements, uh taken today's testimony to fulfill the nine criteria based on written and verbal.

And there is one note it provides while I forgot to include that we we would like to include in that motion as well.

All right, so revising that motion to include the language within the report to accept the one recommended proviso by staff.

Uh please vote your screens.

And that motion has passed.

Next item.

Item number 11.

Docket 02426 has been rendered moot.

We will now begin with the deferral request for variances.

The next item is BZA Docket 02426.

This requirement the next item is BCA Docket 02426 for a property located at 1309 Harmony Street.

This 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 is this is an after-the-fact request.

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 petition site or on the adjacent lot.

Staff requested clarification on March 9th, 2026, and an updated survey to accurately reflect the fence's location.

In addition, the applicant informs staff they would be traveling internationally until the beginning of April.

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

Is there anyone here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 036-26?

I'm sorry.

024-26, sorry.

Surveyors were on site last week, and I expect to have a report this week.

Is that the end of your comments?

Yes.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 024-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board.

Proceed.

If a motion is in order.

Proceed.

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

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

Second.

It's been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer BZA Docket 024-26 for 30 days.

Vote your screens.

Five yes, no nays.

The motion carries.

Okay.

I knew I wasn't gone that long.

Yeah.

This is a request for variances from the comprehensive voting ordinance to permit roof bounted roof mounted mechanical equipment with insufficient setback from any wall of a building.

So there are four locations.

And the applicant is requesting four feet ten inches, requesting a waiver of one foot two inches.

Another um three feet is being proposed, and it will require a three-foot waiver.

And the last is proposing three feet with the waiver of one foot.

The applicant, the uh staff rather is finds that all of the approval standards are met and recommends approval subject to one proviso.

Is the applicant present?

Yes, my name is James Van Horn, 5207 Chapatula Street.

I am the architect for this project.

Um not a whole lot to say.

We obviously agree with the staff's recommendation.

This is a very tight site.

Um pretty much the only other location we would be able to locate this generator would be in the existing off-street parking space.

Um, which we feel goes against the spirit of the zoning ordinance, uh especially because this property lies in the off-street uh university area off-street parking overlay district.

Um we have complied with all of the safety clearances that are required by the generator manufacturer.

Um we believe uh we have provided screening and alternate access to the roof area that deems the six-foot setback uh unnecessary.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 036-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Um order.

Yes, proceed.

Madam Chair, regards to BZA Docket number 036-26.

My motion is to accept the staff.

Accept the staff's recommendation for approval for the requested waivers, understanding that the nine criteria have been met and move for approval at the one noted proviso.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 036-26 has been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the requested waivers of Article 21, Section 21.6.7 for mechanical equipment.

Finding that the nine criteria have been met and subject to one proposal.

One provisor.

Next item.

The next item is BZA Docket 02926 for a property located at 1614 Poland Avenue.

This is an after-the-fact request for variances from the comprehensive zoning ordinance 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 12, section 12.3.8.1, 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, section 21.7, table 21-2.

And Article 22, section 22.11, point D.1.

Do not allow for parking in the front yard.

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

Article 22, section 22.8, point A, point one, point B, point two, and Article 22, section 22.11 point D.2.

Do not allow for parking between the front facade and front property line.

The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow for parking between the front facade and front property line.

This request was deferred at the March BZA hearing to allow for the applicant and staff to verify the required parking count with the Department of Safety and permits.

DSP confirmed that additional parking spaces are not required at this time.

Staff believes that the requested waiver of Article 12, Section 12.3.8.1, Table 12-2 pertaining to the rear yard setback fails to meet standards A1, A3, A4, A5, and B1 of the standards for variances per Article 4, Section 4.6.6.

At this time, the applicant is requesting an additional 30-day deferral to allow the property owner to gather supplemental material materials to further defend their requests.

On behalf of Zach Smith Consultant and Design, 1000 South Normacy Francis Bargay, Noales, Louisiana.

Thank y'all for hearing us again.

I did request an additional 30 days just to get some more uh we're still doing some digging on the history of that uh dwelling unit in the rear.

So if that's okay, which all we just like to meet y'all here again in 30 days.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Proceed.

Madam Chair, in regards to BCA Docker number 029-26.

My motion is for the 30-day deferral with the requested applicant in the city.

Second.

Thank you for guys to BCA packet 029-26.

It's been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Gonzalez to defer this item in 30 days.

Next item.

The next item, item 14 docket BCA03826 for the property at 3316 Dauphine Street.

Um staff is requesting a 30-day deferral.

Is the applicant present for BZA docket number 038-26?

Pedro.

Uh Pedro Molina, 3316 Dauphine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana.

All right.

Um you you okay with the deferral as requested?

Uh it be today or is the next available.

It's the next meeting.

So they don't have any, they don't have a formal record recommendation and a report for us to follow on.

Okay.

So we only really have the deferral before us at this time.

Okay.

As it states there's outstanding questions regarding uh the building permit, staff needs to uh come until the May 18th, May 18th meeting to confirm with the department on those items.

All right.

All right.

Anyone else here to speak on behalf of BCA docket number 038-26.

Anyone here to speak in opposition.

Good morning.

My name is Jan Benson.

I'm the owner of the home next door at 3322 Dauphine Street.

I was happy to see the house next door being restored.

It had been many years since any work was done in the house.

I'm speaking in opposition to the variants because it does not meet the legal requirements for a variance.

In the middle of construction, I saw the stands for the condensers being installed in the side yard and had provided a photo.

I have it in my my bag.

I went to the zoning board and began a dialogue with Miss Parker, a zoning inspector, supervisor of permits, and safety for the city of New Orleans.

She understood my grave concern and took the following action.

She sent Inspector Skinner to look at the property, 3316, twice.

He could not get access.

She responded with an email in May 22nd, 2025, letting me know if her office sent the owner a violation letter and a gain access letter.

A red flag was put on the property about the units being moved to the side yard, which the approved plans showed them being in the back of the house.

The dialogue is included in an email I have provided for you to read.

There is currently five inches of clearance, and the law requires two feet.

Getting a variance is convenient for them, but a grave concern for the safety of both our homes as well as other neighbors.

I really don't want my relationship with my new neighbors to start this way.

And I tried my best to warn them.

Uh yes, hello, my name is Frederick Helm.

I live at 19816 Street in New York, New York 1003.

So my name is Frederick Helm.

I'm the partner of Jan Benson, the owner of 332 Delphine Street.

I'm here to say that I take a I had a chance to review the application for uh for the variants, and I'm speaking in opposition to that variance simply because it does not meet the legal requirements for a variance.

There is no proof of hardship or practical difficulty.

In fact, four out of the nine required um standards were not met.

The third being like special privilege.

If the if you the if this unit was able to be put installed on the side yard, all units, all air conditioning units would then be allowed to be put in the side yard.

Six and seven.

The new location of the side yard units is just a convenience for the owner.

It was a create, it was created by an after-the-fact application.

Um it did not consider the zoning and safety commission to give or give them a chance to explore better or alternate options.

In fact, it kind of circumvents the law just by trying to install it and then say, Oh, we too bad we installed it, now we need to fix it.

So the nine the third one is the ninth thing, and it's what Jan had talked about.

This is gonna block the access to emergency personnel to be able to access the side of the house.

It's like a you know.

So the next bit is if you look at the drawings from Mr.

Molino and his application, they move the side house just because it was under a window, they move the air conditioning units just because it was under a window.

And um, even in these, even in the drawings themselves, they they talk they you can kind of see in HTL statement 18 that they put the new drawings under a window.

They put the new units under a window in the new drawing.

And then if you look at uh HTL statement number 19.

If you could bring your comments to close your times up, yeah.

You could just look, you can see that there's an actual space for a unit in the backyard under the window.

Thank you so much.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in opposition?

We can't receive any additional uh information at this time.

Um the applicant has an opportunity to rebut, but just keep in mind we are we are exclusively looking at is looking at the deferral at this time.

Um so if you have any comments, you're welcome to.

If not, none required.

Yes.

All right.

So correspondence was held with HDLC on the relocation of this.

They that was approved, and they also directed me to um mechanical division.

They also approve that, sending it back to HDLC.

Okay.

All right, so uh if anything, um in that concludes your comments?

Yes.

All right.

Any questions from the board?

Yeah, uh, just a point of clarification.

I think if anything, I know that there was some points of opposition that please note that's at least recorded in the record.

So we do have acknowledgement of what you guys have provided.

But um, what's before us right now is exclusively the deferral, and I think what most of what the applicant was presenting will be provided in some of that context in a future correspondence between the department and safety and safety and permits.

So if a motion's in order.

You want to continue with your motion?

Sorry.

Yeah, go ahead.

Um regarding Dr.

BZA 038-36.

I move to the for the matter for 30 days for uh staff request.

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second for BCA document number 038-26 for uh 30 data for all at the request of staff.

Uh please vote your screens.

That motion has passed.

Next item.

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

Will the chair please read the hearing rules?

Or the vice chair, please rate the hearing rules for decision appeals.

Rules and procedures uh for appeals.

Uh the following procedure shall be observed during the appeal hearing.

Each speaker shall give their name and address prior to speaking on a 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 may in any information explain in 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 cumulative presentation total by applicant 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 to the proposal will speak next and be allowed three minutes per speaker as well.

The applicant or representative will be allowed rebuttal.

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

Additional information.

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

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

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

The standard of review.

Anything from the department?

No, we we have no objection.

Okay.

What's the pleasure of the board?

Uh motions in order.

Proceed.

Regards to BZA docket 038-26.

No.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Sorry.

Which one am I?

Nope.

And I said the wrong one as well.

6224.

6224 of reading the screen, sorry.

Um BZA 062-24 move for a 30-day deferral.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion in the second to defer this docket item 30 days.

Please vote your screen.

And that motion is passed.

Next item.

Good afternoon.

Item number 16, docket number BZA 110-25 concerning the property at 1037-1039 Broadway Street.

And the applicant is believe the applicant's present.

Go ahead and present.

Yeah, you can go.

Thank you.

Uh again, uh the issue on appeals whether the Department of Safety and Permits correctly determined that a legal non-conforming bar located in a residential zoning district.

Uh instead of an RDO residential overlay is prohibited from receiving a sidewalk cafe permit under Article 21.8 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

The legal principles at play here are 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 that belong to the state are such things as running waters, the waters and bottoms of navigable natural navigable water bodies and territorial sea and seashore, and public things that may belong to public uh political subdivisions of the state are such things as streets and public squares.

Under the comprehensive zoning ordinance 28.8.15 F temporary sidewalk cafes are permitted as an accessory to licensed restaurants, all types, bars, retail goods establishments that sell food products and other similar businesses that sell food and beverage beverages for consumption on premises and are subject to the follow to the following standards.

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

CZO 25.2 point D burden of the property owner to establish legality.

In all cases is the burden of the proper property owner through the provision of clear and convincing evidence to establish the legality of a non-conforming structure, use lot or sign under the provisions of the CZO.

Pursuant CZO 25.3.4, casual intermittent temporary or illegal use of land or structures is not sufficient to establish any non-conforming use.

There's a tremendous amount of case law at play in this matter as well, beginning with ban versus Audubon Park Commission 936 Southern 2nd 841.

That's a 2006 appellate court case from the Louisiana Fourth Circuit.

And there they fourth circuit held the public property as inalienable and imprescriptable, and no prescriptive rights may be acquired in property owned by the city in its public capacity.

This case, as the board may be aware, was a involved Walnut Street residents whose prior had property was encroaching and into Audubon Park, and the court soundly rejected the claims of those residents.

There's McGraw versus the City of New Orleans 216 Southern 3rd 950.

Again, that's a 2017 decision from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reaffirmed bans saying that public things are insusceptible of private ownership and prop prescription cannot run against public property.

There's some federal jurisprudence as well.

Shreveport chapter 237 versus Caddo Parish, 135 Fed sub third, 616, that's out of the Western District, which is uh persuasive authority, of course.

Again, that court recognized that public squares cannot be privatized through the long-term placement of structures.

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

We also have Coliseum Square Association for the City of New Orleans, 544 Southern 2nd 351.

That's the Louisiana Supreme Court case from 1989.

Said public uh publicly dedicated spaces are held in public in trust for public use and are inalienable while serving public purposes.

There's another Supreme Court case in Louisiana Todd versus State, 474 Southern 2nd 430.

Established that public things are out of commerce and cannot be acquired by prescription.

There's a case that was cited by the applicant, which is City of New Orleans versus NAPCO Incorporated 591 Southern 2nd 1338.

Again, this is the 1991 Fourth Circuit case.

The appellant's client, CJN incorporated apply for, but did not pay for the application did not submit an application fee for a sidewalk cafe permit.

In no time do the applicant apply for a non-conforming use determination.

However, in the interests of economy, the argument will be refuted here.

In reviewing the application, the department determined that the application for a sidewalk cafe for the property located at 1039 Broadway is not eligible because sidewalk cafes are prohibited for non 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.

I'd like to summarize the appellants' argument.

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 non-conforming use.

Again, they cite 1990 uh the 1991 case, City of New Orleans versus uh CNAPCO Inc.

decision allegedly supporting outdoor seating on public property.

And they suggest that past city licensing activity reflects tacit approval of the outdoor seating.

That was not licensing relative to sidewalk cafes, rather that was located uh relative to occupational and ABO permits.

Uh turning to the analysis.

There is no dispute that the seating in question is on a public right-of-way under CZ article CZU Article 25.

Non-conforming use rights attach only to private land or structures.

Public sidewalks are public things under the Louisiana Civil Code Article 450 and cannot uh 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 non-conforming use.

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

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 the use uh took place.

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

This is not opinion, this is the law.

Though this is clear, the Department of Safety and Permit uh permits will also examine the case upon which the appellants have properly relied.

The appellant cites City of New Orleans versus NAPCO Incorporated 591 Southern 2nd 1338 in support of its argument that it has acquired a non-conforming use right to a public property.

However, even a cursory reading of the case undermines the argument.

In fact, in modifying a preliminary injunction that was at issue, the court affirmed that the injunction was valid as to illegal uses on that the injunction was valid as to illegal uses on public property.

Therefore, this reliance on this case is clearly misplaced by the applicant.

Even if the applicant were able to assert that it's a legal use entitled it to a non-conforming use due to the passage of time, the history of this establishment also belies to the argument.

The property was cited for an illegal sidewalk cafe in 2016.

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

As such, the clock would start running from the date the violation was closed.

In August of 2025, a new violation case was created, thereby tolling any claims of prescription.

Again, uh that would be only um those would only be available to the applicant where we dealing with private property.

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

The outdoor seating at issue is located on a public sidewalk, not private property.

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

Outdoor seating was never lawfully established as required by the CZO.

The CZO also prohibits sidewalk cafes for legal non-conforming bars in residential districts unless they are within the RDO overlay.

This property is not.

The department's determination that the application is ineligible, it's consistent with this comprehensive zoning ordinance and Louisiana law.

This appeal must be denied.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, board.

Zach Smith, 1000 South Norman C Francis.

Before we begin, um, there were several cards turned in.

I went ahead and dog eared all the ones for some folks that had to get back to class or needed to be out.

Everything that's flat should be someone that's currently in the building in the room.

Um I believe the only two public speakers today will be myself and Mr.

Jason Napoli.

Everybody else has seeded time to either of us.

Um I don't anticipate to need all of that time, but I definitely will probably push the five minutes allotted for the applicant.

So just as a before we get rolling.

Uh good afternoon again, boards before before you get started.

I just need to get clear on the amount of time.

Totally.

There should be two.

I'm seeing I'm seeing two of them noting that they're seating time to you.

And then one of them Craig Napoli.

We can do Craig Napoli as well.

All right, uh, just keep in mind.

We so some of you speakers and I understand that there was a stack that left the room.

None of them provided addresses to complete the cards.

Okay.

So just make a reference to that, and if when Mr.

Napoli.

They were running back to class.

Understand, but um, but if when Mr.

But um, but if we're missing Napoli speaks, just disclose your uh address for record, please.

So what's that what's what's the time on?

So just to um his two additional speakers, so that's so add six minutes.

Add six to his uh five.

Does he have five?

Yes, five.

So eleven minutes.

And for y'all's lunch, I hope to not be anywhere close to eleven.

Uh so again, good afternoon board, Zach Smith, 1000 South Norman Sea Francis.

Uh, we're here today about zoning.

Uh you've heard a lot about legal arguments and legal cases and legal precedent and legal ownership.

This is not a question about ownership.

It's never has been a question about ownership.

No one uh that I'm working for is trying to own city property, they're not trying to own the sidewalk.

And uh we do believe that some of these cases that have been presented are about when folks tried to erect permanent fences or to try to take city property and say that it's now my yard versus the city's yard.

In this case, this establishment, the boot is trying to continue a decades-long practice of using the sidewalk in a way that even the current CZO, and I'm gonna make stri great points to mention the current CSO and the previous CZO, as well as some references to municipal code, which is actually the former and the current uh spot.

But at no point are we trying to own the sidewalk, we're trying to use the sidewalk.

And we know that there is no prohibition against using the sidewalk because the former CZO and the current CZO identify and allow for these usages by private individuals of the public sidewalk.

We're here because there is a new CZO rule that essentially says a non-conforming bar cannot have exterior sidewalk cafes.

When we apply Article 21 in that section where it says that, Article 21 does not say we are somehow now exempt in this one particular section, we're somehow exempt of Article 25.

We now no longer allow you to use Article 25, which governs the law of the entire CZO.

How do we know that?

Because in Article 1 of the CZO, in 1.5A and 1.5 C, it specifically says that before you even get into the meet.

It talks about non-conforming uses and transition rules because this new CCO, circa August 11th, 2015, anticipated that there were uses in play.

And we know from the prior CZO that a sidewalk cafe was a distinct use.

Um and more importantly, the old CCO, you're gonna hear me go back and forth with it.

The old CZO and current municipal code today, if you were to go into Municode for the New Orleans, the word temporary does not mean intermittent.

The word temporary means it can be easily removed at a moment's notice, if guided or directed essentially by any entity.

That is the old CZO definition, which is available on the CPC website.

And if you look up uh sidewalk cafe in the City of New Orleans Municode right now, you will see the same thing.

Temporary is what we're looking at because temporary is how this use has always operated prior to the new CZO.

Um as we know, we're only here because a new CZO law essentially says, hey, even though you have a non-conforming bar, you no longer have the other parts to that nonconformity that you're allowed.

I don't recall anything in Article 25.

I don't recall anything in the entirety of today's CZO saying we're supposed to start shipping away at things that people already had.

I think it's uh I think it's very fair that the department has been very uh has been mostly uh agreeable on the fact that this stuff has existed.

I know that this body regularly goes to you know fact-check the people that are speaking, and in case they're not familiar with a particular property, I'm sure most of you know this property more than the rest because it's such a high profile kind of corner.

But if you go on Google, you can see on pictometry from the assessor, you can see on Google Earth, you can keep seeing on Google Street View, up until we voluntarily remove these because of this appeal, there have been consistent tables and chairs on this sidewalk for 2025, 2024, 2023, 2022, and I can keep on going back all the way long into the prior CZO.

Imagine the fact that this is an H U R D2, and we somehow had a very aggressive interpretation that basically said, hey, you know what, you're going to renew your your ABO boot, but the new CZO says that you can't be a bar anymore because bars aren't allowed.

We know that that is illogical.

We know that we don't apply the new CZO backwards like that.

This is an instance where this development is having a new zoning regulation applied backwards.

And what's making it confusing is the fact that it's like, well, it happens to be on public property.

We understand that.

Again, nobody here is saying that we're gonna own it.

Nobody's saying that the city can't take it back, nobody's saying the city can't plant a tree, nobody's saying somebody can't do something in the sidewalk.

If that happens, the same that would happen in any other part of town where the city might lay a direct claim over the spot or put it into use in some other way, of course, sidewalk cafes get taken.

Okay, because there is uh the same with ABOs.

There's a there's a level of privilege here.

But when you come to it, these accessory and pseudo principal extensions of your business are part and parcel with the underlying use.

What with the CZO is essentially triggered here, is they're going back and they're looking at the actual use.

They're going back and saying, oh, it's a non-conforming bar.

They're going back to the quote unquote private property, and then they're going back, and then they're extending that out to the sidewalk.

We think that not only is that incorrect, we think it's unfair.

We also think it's unfair because if you go into Article 1 of the CZO, it doesn't say that this law governs private property.

It doesn't say it governs private parcels, it says it governs everything.

With everything that's under the jurisdiction of the city of New Orleans, that CCO covers, I think it's in the first line on the first page.

So the idea that it doesn't somehow cover and relate to public property is insane.

We also know it's insane because Article 21 specifically talks about these uses on sidewalks.

So the idea that we can't have the CZO regulate some some version of the sidewalk, we think is just improper.

Again, it sounds right when you first hear it, and then you dig a little deeper and you go, well, this just doesn't make any sense anymore, because if it made sense, there would be no sidewalk cafes anywhere in the city of New Orleans.

If we applied this here again, Article 25 would have no meaning, there'd be no there'd be no protection.

Um for those reasons, uh, we think there's a particularly strong case.

You know, I hate to always lump in and throw in other people, but when we talk about this precedent setting stuff, you know, the city of New Orleans has regularly found its way out of some of these pickles.

We had issues for those of you that do historic preservation, where what do we do with existing balconies and such on on public property, and the city figured out a way to essentially call that a donation in kind.

Um, you know, there are a couple other uh other bars in H U R D2s.

There's one particular that's associated with uh St.

Patrick's Day.

I'm not gonna mention it because I hate to ever put it out there and in the spot.

It begins with the P, talks about a little umbrella.

HURD2, it has a vibrant historical reference and use of the city sidewalk.

Okay.

These are part and parcel to the to to the institutions that we have around.

And again, fundamentally, we're here because a new CZO law has essentially triggered the staff to say, well, somehow we have to retroactively apply this.

Again, the former CZO allowed for sidewalk cafes and identified them in the same way that the current municipal code does.

The current, still today, right now, on April 20th, that temporary does not mean intermittent, temporary does not mean casual, temporary means the ability to be taken away.

These tables and chairs that are that have always been at this place since the 70s, we had people call in my office that were the parents of current students saying, what's going on?

I was there, that's how I met my my wife, that's how I met my husband, etc.

etc.

They've been there clearly since the 70s.

They're intermittent in the fact that they can be taken away.

They're temporary because that was the prior CZO's definition, that's the current municipal code's definition.

They could be taken away just like that at the direction of law enforcement, at the direction of the city.

But the idea that we apply new regulations and new rules and new definitions to something that clearly was existing, it just doesn't, it just doesn't fly.

Um I think we we have that again.

Google Street View never lies.

You can find stuff from every single map you go to, with the exception of October 2025 when we took out and made and filed this appeal, uh, because these things have always been there.

They've always been there, enjoyed.

There's a reason why I didn't plan for it, I didn't do it in preparation for.

We had the we had the Frat Boy Faying Club that showed up to uh to to do it.

This is something that people have been just kind of jarred with with what's going on because it's such an ingrained, such a cultural use, such a historical use of this spot.

And yes, it is directly related to the use that it belongs to.

This isn't like just in the room in the middle of of nowhere, we have tables and chairs get set up.

This is directly adjacent to a non-conforming bar with an existing history of using the sidewalk in this manner, and there is no reason on the planet why we can't get to a uh outcome that allows it to continue.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant?

Good afternoon.

My name is Jason Napoli, 6301 Perrier Street, New Orleans, Louisiana.

I am a proud member of the uh the family that owns the bar.

I had the the luck of being able to use that seating in the early 2000s while I was at Tulane Law School.

I do want to address the legal argument being made by Mr.

McNamara because I believe we have both statutory law and case law that is not being applied properly here.

First, regarding the statutory law.

Mr.

McNamara essentially read for y'all the argument that he made in initially opposing this.

However, he did leave out one line regarding Article 450.

In his argument to all of you in the written argument, he stated that under Article 450, public things are not subject to zoning rights.

However, you will notice that he did not say that today, quite specifically because within 450, it doesn't say that.

Nowhere within Article 450 does it say that public things cannot be subject to zoning rights.

The reason that's so important is that's why sidewalk cafes exist in the first place.

Sidewalk cafes can only exist because zoning rights do apply to public property as it does to private property.

As Mr.

Smith pointed out, there is no limit within the CZO as to private and public property.

Secondly, regarding the case law cited, that is all in regards to acquisitive prescription, meaning private ownership of property.

No one is seeking to own any property here.

All of the cases cited regarding someone claiming to own part of Ottoman Park, or the cases regarding the ability of a municipality to remove Confederate monuments, those are not applicable here.

We are simply asking for the same privilege that is granted to every other business in this city that we have been using since the early 1970s.

And I'd imagine the reason the BZA asked for public comments is to get the voice of the public, the voice of the community, and the voice is overwhelming here that this community wants this practice that's been in place since the 70s to continue.

And I think the legal law, the case law, and the statutory law shows that this authority is within the BZA.

Previously, Antoine's was prohibited by the CZO from having a live entertainment permit.

The BZA ruled that because of its non-conforming use, that could continue.

Additionally, with the columns bar, the columns was originally not a bar at all, and rather it was just a hotel and a restaurant.

This same agency ruled that the bar was an accessory to the hotel, to the restaurant, and allowed that bar to exist.

And that bar exists to this day.

We do feel that there is no legal prohibition to the BZA recognizing that something that has been existing since 1972 should continue.

That is the entire purpose of non-conforming use.

The key issue here is can a non-conforming use apply to a public space?

There is zero case law to say that it cannot.

You do have that authority, and we are at this point honestly begging for the ability to continue something that we've employed in place for 50 years.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for a BCA docket one 110-25 good afternoon?

Uh my name is Lisa Greenleaf.

I am the owner of Lunch Sandwich Shop, a takeout only sandwich shop located on the corner of Broadway in Simple, directly next to the boot.

I'm here respectfully to ask that the city reconsider its decision regarding continuing the boots outdoor tables and chairs, specifically during daytime hours.

Since their removal, I have seen a negative impact on my business.

Because lunch is a take-out only concept with no indoor seating.

Many of our customers, primarily students in neighborhood restaurants, rely on those outdoor tables as a place to sit and eat during the day.

The cafe seating creates community and a natural gathering space that benefits multiple businesses on the block, not just the boot.

Outdoor cafe tables contribute significantly to the character and the vibrancy, especially of this part of Broadway.

During daytime hours, they provide a safe, convenient place for people to sit, eat, spend time in the neighborhood, and without them, you know, many of our customers just take their food and go elsewhere.

I'm a small locally owned business.

I opened recently.

I'm working really hard to become the part of the fabric of this neighborhood, and the presence of those tables made a meaningful difference in our operations.

Um, let alone, you know, to the overall street activity that was going on.

And I respectfully ask the city to reconsider allowing the boot to place the sidewalk tables and chairs back during the um the day so that the block can continue to function as a welcoming place for students, neighbors, and small businesses like mine.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 110-25?

Anyone here in opposition?

Susan Johnson, 2822 LePage Street, Town of Carlton Watch.

I am not paid to be here.

As town of Carlton Watch, a nonprofit.

I monitor development and commercial encroachment in the university area.

I represent the uh residential community, and I support the position of safety and permits.

Please deny the appeal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in opposition?

The applicant has an opportunity to rebut very quickly.

Um as you've heard from Ms.

Greenleaf with the with the with the uh adjacent business.

Again, it's clear that these are part and parcel and extensions of the uses.

You know, these are not just standalone tables and chairs.

These are understood.

They're meant to be part of the underlying use.

Um just as a reminder, again, we fully understand that if this was a existing non-conforming business, in this case a bar, and we were trying to do something new here.

We were trying to add new tables and chairs.

So we're trying to expand that.

We totally understand.

We think that the the Article 21, very clear, very clean, very easy to understand, and we think that the department would be perfectly right to say, hey, you can't have this new stuff.

Again, this is all about applying a new law to something that everybody in this room is aware of, has been in existence for four decades.

And we think that that is where Article 25 clearly anticipates.

Article 1 clearly anticipates not to be in this situation, and we hope you guys agree.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Just a quick question to the department, because it seems to be a disagreement on what was actually the nature of the the 91 um what was the judgment from the 1991 uh litigation on insight.

Are you you're so that that had to do uh if I if I recall that was a use that was taking place within the establishment?

It was not a use that was outside of the establishment, it was a use that occurred on the property.

And I thank you for asking that question because uh Mr.

Napoli referenced a a number of things.

He referenced the Columns Hotel, which had to do with a use that took place within the Collins Hotel.

All those things that those are uses on the property.

And again, like I mentioned in my opening thing, when you're trying to assert, which I believe is what they're trying to do, a non-conforming use.

You can't do that on someone else's property.

I can't assert that.

And um I'll just leave it there.

Uh I mean I had other comments to make, but I think that answers your questions.

Well, no, I mean, uh expand further because uh um that's why I'm just there's a reference related to like this longer duration of time of this being a non-conformant thing, but apparently there's been some language within the 91 uh judgment that applies to how this functions, correct?

How it functions on their property.

Correct.

And that's why it was limited, and that's why the injunction junctive relief that the city uh received was limited to uh what occurred on public property.

But I I would like to point out, and uh, you know, we had the the um proprietor of lunch uh a restaurant at that location.

That that restaurant has applied for a sidewalk use, and that sidewalk use is currently uh under review, and I I would I would submit that the restaurant would probably not be uh subject to the a prohibition because it is not a legal non-conforming bar, but it is operating a restaurant, and so the decision by this board should have no bearing on their application one way or the other.

Um, that was actually gonna be my next question, and because that person did come up with speaker.

There's two restaurants that have applied that are on either side of the bar.

Uh and again, those are those are all pending, and those are the both of them are restaurants.

Both of them are permitted as a restaurant.

And in that case, that only applies to the frontage to their location.

That's correct, sir.

I mean, essentially, that's that's correct, sir.

So they could get a sidewalk location, uh sidewalk cafe for their locations.

Doesn't extend down the street or uh anywhere else along the sidewalk.

And of course, I think that makes perfect sense that I don't get to get a sidewalk cafe to set up in front of my neighbor's house or set up in front of the post office or set up in front of any other entity.

And again, you know, this there is a path forward for this business should they choose to avail themselves of it.

And that might be a more difficult path, uh because you may I think it would require a zoning change for that location.

I mean, we all know what the location is, the history of that location.

I don't really see that being converted into a residential use, but there's a process for that, and it's not the BZA uh for that process.

They can avail themselves of that, get it get a change there, and then at that point in time, perhaps they can uh apply for and receive a uh sidewalk cafe.

But as it stands right now, the law is very clear that they are not entitled to that.

And just you know, my good friend Mr.

Smith seems to think that that such a viewpoint constitutes insanity, but I don't think I'm losing my mind over this one.

It's only Monday, Diana said.

I know it's early yet.

Are there any other questions from the board?

I I think I was just gonna what you mentioned about the zoning and about the the street and the character of that street and what happens in the parking and the sidewalk and planning for that as a block feels like it is an approach that I would love to see happen.

I was I was just involved in it earlier looking at parklet requirements, like could you put parklets there?

Is that allowed in the zone or not?

Or is there something else that can be done with the parking that would allow, you know, from a or do something with the zoning underlying to allow them to you know change the use on the street or so parklets are more under the purview of the DPW and and I'll punt on that.

Yeah, yeah.

But yeah, but if understood correctly, just kind of coming back to the the nature of how the CZO is structured now, because the RDO does not apply to this site, that's correct.

It cannot that's not that's one administrative remedy that does not exist because the overlay doesn't apply to this site.

That's correct, sir.

Okay.

But what you're in what you're presenting is that there is another administrative remedy.

I I would say it's not an administrative remedy, I think.

Excuse me, there's another remedy that they can go through the process to apply for, which would be more of a zoning change to bring the property out of a non compliant um non compliant use.

It would it would create it would allow for them.

I mean, currently they're not that that's not a permitted uh use uh there, they're not permitted to get to the sidewalk cafe.

There is an avenue that would allow them to achieve their goals, but again, not in the manner in which they're seeking right now.

Might be a difficult road to hoe, but you know, it's available.

Are there any other questions?

I think the questions I was gonna ask have already been addressed.

Kind of been asked and answered, so yeah, so Mr.

Smith, this is why I am still struggling in terms of what's been provided.

You make reference to zoning up the zoning and how it's applied to public space versus private property.

Can you articulate that a little bit more?

Because I'm I'm seeing a disconnect on this side of it, because I think sometimes that may be we may be blurring a line in terms of how this applies to public right-of-ways and how non-conformance could even be established within a public right-of-way because it it almost reads more like squatters' rights versus what the zoning law actually allows for a second.

Just trying to make sure I read directly from the text.

So one of the things that keeps kind of coming up is that apparently Article 25 does not apply to public property.

Don't know where that comes from.

I've never read that text.

Uh and here's the reason why.

When we go into Article 1, we talk about the applicability, the territorial application 1.4a.

This ordinance applies to all lands, uses, structures, and area within the boundaries of the city of New Orleans.

Okay.

So we say that the entirety of the CZO applies to everything, from West Bank, the east, all the way to the 17th Street Canal.

It did not say that it stops at private property.

We also know that this is correct because the former CZO, and even the law that we're talking about right now specifically talks about use privileges based on underlying zoning of what you can and can't do with the sidewalk.

All right, so hold up a side.

Repeat that last while you just say it because I think I want to make sure we focus on that big.

Yeah.

Article the Article 21 talks about what you can and can't do outside of your own property.

It talks about various uses, which again to all land uses, structures, and areas within the boundaries, it is a use.

And it happens to not be on our own property.

Okay, put the CEO says and then it right there.

Yeah.

But with that, just with that statement alone, if I understand correctly, based on the underlying zone for this property, it states that nonconforming, basically, you cannot have that nonconforming use beyond the boundaries of the building footprint itself, correct?

Yeah.

Where where does it where is it codified that that can exist?

Well, when we go into when we go into Article 25, because again, we're using Article 21 of the new CZO, so we should be allowed to use Article 25 of the new CZO.

And it says notwithstanding any other provision is ordinance, any structure, use, lot, or sign.

Use.

Use.

It doesn't the CZO anticipates certain instances where the public right away, the public area, public property is used in conjunction with the private property.

If that was wrong, if what I'm saying is wrong, what the whole section of Article 21 that's being thrown at us would not exist at all.

It would say point blank, you're not allowed to exceed the lines.

I think in the last 50 years of CZO, somebody would have lit listed a very black and white letter of text in the law that said this this ordinance does not extend beyond private property.

And there would be no section 21, whatever it is talking about sidewalk cafes and other uses in the city right away.

The CZO clearly anticipates and understands and regulates certain things in the right-of-way.

And the idea that we're using today's CCO instead of using current municipal code and the former CZO, which we all, I would hope can agree this existed for prior to the adoption in 2015, that's all we're asking for.

Because nowhere in Article 25 that I'm aware of says this only applies to private property.

It says no land use structures.

This is land, this is use, obviously it's not a structure.

Doesn't say private, doesn't say public, just says land and use.

And Article 1, again, everything from the 17th all the way to the wrigley's all the way down by me in Lower Coast Algiers.

Everything the CZO can touch and can govern.

So to the uh department, I guess what I'm trying to think through to play this um use argument out a little bit, and I know that part of what um the department has said is that um public property um can't, and I don't want to say taken because when it's a use, it's not that it's really taken, but that these non-conforming provisions don't apply to public property.

So the only time for our purposes that this has come into discussion for us is when we're dealing with um non-conforming parking, which will often include the sidewalk, you know, when there's like a parking scenario, it will include in some of these non-conforming um arguments, it will include the sidewalk, and those are considered have been considered to be non-conforming um uses.

So, how does your argument align with when a parking situation does include a part of city or public property, and it is recognized as a nonconforming use.

So I'm I'm trying to fully understand your your hypothetical.

So well, it's not a hypothetical.

I mean, it's basically just a lot of things.

Yeah, previous scenarios that we've had have been parking.

The only other time that a public part of property has been brought to us for consideration has been a scenario where there's a parking um stall that is um illegal.

And because the parking stall will be in will be um encroaching on the sidewalk.

So the sidewalk is actually incorporated as part of the parking.

And I I guess the distinction between what you're you're talking about that there's some degree of an encroachment.

We're talking about totally a piece of public space here.

And we're also talking about and I think what's really important, so I mean at one point we're not talking about nonconformity, and then we are arguing uh nonconformity.

But one thing that you have to remember as a board is the burden is upon the applicant to establish that there's a nonconformity.

And as we presented earlier, that the city has taken steps to enforce the violations that occurred on those on that property, and has done that more than once.

So again, they have failed to even establish that they have a non-conformity use.

I I'm not I'm not there.

And the reason why is because I think what you've presented for um the city's um challenge of the nonconformity came in 2015.

But what the applicant has contended was that this has been in use prior to that point.

Were there any challenges prior to the 2015 decision on this um nonconforming use?

I I'm not sure about that, but I mean what I can tell you is what the record does reflect, and the record, and again it's incumbent upon the applicant to establish the nonconformity, that the city took uh action in 2015, and also most recently uh in in or is it 2016?

I'm sorry, but most recently in 2025.

So for them, they that prevents them from trying to say that they that and the legal use would have been allowed at that property.

But again, we are talking about a wholly public space here.

And think of the precedent that this board might set by allowing non-conforming rights to accrue over a property not owned by the applicant, but owned by a different entity, and again, that being the City of New Orleans, where the law is very clear that you cannot acquire that nonconformity over a public thing.

Again, that look at looking again at the the what was cited by the the applicant was the everything cited by the applicant, including a case involving them, had to do with activity that occurs on that property or within that property.

Uh you know, Mr.

Smith also talked about, you know, somebody else, some Irish bar that begins with a letter, you know.

What about them?

Well, I can tell you, members of the board that the argument that he did it first or she did it uh too was never one that worked for my children, and nor is it an argument that is sufficient to establish non-conforming use in the city of New Orleans.

What and just saw a question, Mr.

McIntyre, what administrative options did they have prior to 2015 to gain use of the sidewalk condition?

Um did it exist?

I'm actually getting the same.

I'm sorry, I don't I don't know what the what it was you know 11 years ago, but I just you know as it stands now, that article is very clear that says a legal non-conforming bar cannot cannot unless and they don't meet the unless.

Can I frame that question another way?

CZO says you know you can get a you can get a sidewalk cafe and then you have to do it every year, right?

Would that have been allowed there or that would not have been allowed there because of the underlying zoning?

And and Mr.

Diaz, I thank you for the question, but uh I reviewed it as it is and exists today.

I did not go down and do a deep analysis of 2015, nor would I think would be relevant to today's proceeding.

Well, I guess my point is that it would have been incumbent upon them if they wanted to that they should have done that in 2015 when the zoning could be.

That's what you're what the code is saying.

That the code changed, you have to now.

If there was something that was viable then, you know, they probably should have done it.

But again, where we are where we stand now, they applied for but never uh paid for a sidewalk cafe permit, and they have to my knowledge they've never applied for a sidewalk cafe uh permit, be it 2015 or 2025 or 2026.

There you go.

So at this point, the appropriate action is to either apply for such a permit or request a verification of the nonconformity?

They applied for the uh they applied for the the sidewalk cafe, but again, they didn't pay they didn't uh pay the application fee.

Uh they've never applied for a uh non-conforming use determination for that location, again, which would be incumbent upon the applicant to provide the proof of that.

The only thing that's before this board is whether we erred in making the decision that we made, and uh as I've argued, uh we certainly have not.

Um if I could if you want to provide any color to that.

Say something.

Last question.

Yeah, one of the the reasons we're here is because we had enforcement action against the property, demanding that the tables and chairs be taken.

And through back and forth communication, this was brought up.

So where there is technically an avenue to go make an application for something, it was very apparent from the department that an application was going to be denied because of this statute being provided.

With that said, uh I did want to add a little more color though on the fact about this whole can public property somehow have the private the CZO cater to it even for private businesses.

We know this with every restaurant that has a bar that has a balcony that extends over the sidewalk.

The parking requirements factor in that square footage.

FAR factors in that square footage.

There is a means and a mechanism again for the CZO to extend beyond the four corners of somebody's private property into the right-of-way.

It happens all the time.

It's anticipated.

It's not often, but it does happen.

Um, when we talk about incumbent, again, we thought that identifying the 1991 Supreme Court case that identified that there have been tables and chairs there.

The fact that uh in 15 and 16, the city even mentioned it's in the report, identified that these were there.

There may have been a case that was closed by the city, but it's evident again that these things have never been removed.

They've continued to be there.

So the idea that we have not proven that this has happened for decades through all of the letters you guys have received from folks that are current students or people in and around the neighborhood from your own personal interactions.

I think it's absolutely apparent that this thing predates the CZO.

I think that it's absolutely apparent that the current CZO even today anticipates and regularly thinks about public property.

Again, the same section of Article 21 talks about public property.

And again, for any of the architects in here or developers in here, if they developed some sort of um balconies with seating, they would have to comply with parking regulations that kick in based on that square footage.

It's not just magically exempt.

They have height limitations on that space, etc.

etc.

etc.

So the idea that we haven't shown that this has existed long before, and the idea that again the CCO just extend just stops dead in its tracks at a property line, I think continue to be just incorrect um opinions.

But we appreciate and respect those opinions.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Yeah, I have a question.

Um I don't remember if it was AC or Dan who said that there was a uh sidewalk cafe permit application that was filed, is that right?

There was a filed, but the application fee was not uh paid for.

When was it filed?

Yeah, my goodness.

So this had to be this has been going on since November of last year, so it had to be, you know, prior to that.

And so no action like it can't move forward because the fee hadn't been paid.

Like what is the process of the case?

No, the the application was denied, they've appealed the the basis for the denial on that.

And then they appealed they appealed that decision to this board.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sure.

One last question, Mr.

McNamara.

You um you did get into the Coliseum Square case?

If I'm correct in that one.

I believe I cited it.

That's okay, sir.

And under that citation.

Under that sighting.

That one is pretty clear in terms of the public space cannot be dedicated or for public for any other private use.

I'm trying to get clarity on that piece.

Well, I've cited, but I feel like there's more to it.

I I cited it for the pro uh proposition that publicly dedicated spaces that are held in public uh entrust for public use and are inalienable when serving public ser uh uh public purposes.

Right.

And I think something that Mr.

Smith brought up earlier is it applied to zoning, but at the end of the day, public works is technically who manages the usage of that right-of-way.

That's so when he makes the reference to the balcony encroachments and things of that nature, that permitting process isn't just through safety and permits, that's also through public works.

Well, again, we're here talking about a sidewalk cafe permit, but air rights, those things that that would be the Department of Public Works.

That is correct.

Not zoning.

I would I mean it's that I'm trying to do that.

Yeah, yeah.

So I mean to the to the extent that you know zoning affects a lot of things.

I don't want to make a blanket statement that it is not going to uh implicate zoning depending on the facts of the circumstances, but there are things that the Department of Public Works certainly handles things that are happening in the public way, except the zoning aspect of sidewalk cafes, that use is uh um uh within uh the CCO is uh under the CCO and it's under the purview of the Department of Safety permits.

I guess I'm just adding um I'm I understand some of the argument um and even the uh the case that we're discussing because it discusses a street, and I'm just where I'm having a difference of opinion is a street versus a sidewalk.

And so I think for me that is what in everything that we've been discussing has been around streets, and I don't know that the law sees a street and a sidewalk as the same thing, because the street does have a specific public use.

I don't know that that's I don't know that you've established that a sidewalk has that same connection as a street does.

I'm sorry, but I certainly don't understand your question.

It's not a qu it's just it I'm only speaking to how you how we've explained all of this has been around cases that relate to streets and not a sidewalk.

I don't know that the street is means I don't know that a street is defined or means the same thing as a sidewalk.

Otherwise the street would be a sidewalk and a sidewalk would be a street.

I just feel like there's a distinction between a sidewalk and a street for these purposes.

I I would just admit that they are both public spaces and they're clearly public spaces under the law.

I think I think the way that we should be referring to it as the right-of-way.

Right-of-way.

So from the parcel line to parcel line within the public right-of-way.

Yeah.

But I I I guess the difference for me is that there isn't there is the ability to grant uses, grant uses of um the sidewalks for private purposes.

Grant uses of the sidewalks for private purposes.

Is that is that same ability available for for the streets?

I mean, you can have a street closure that allows you to have a you know a function, things like that, that certainly is available that that again you can get that done.

I mean we mentioned a block party.

Right, I'm just and I I guess it's just I guess it it just feels I I don't see, I feel like we're making a leap, and I don't see where we've connected the two to be the same, because all of these cases speak to streets, and that's my that's my only distinction.

I just I don't know for certain that those are two that they mean the same thing for these purposes.

Yeah, I would disagree with your assessment that these all these deal with streets because the folks over encroaching on Audubon Park where they built their own.

Well, I'm talking about the cases you cited.

I'm looking at the specific cases, like the Coliseum case talks about a street.

So that's what I'm referring to.

I'm not just saying it haphazardly.

I'm talking about the cases you cited specifically talk about streets.

Not all of them do.

Okay.

They all they all deal with public uh property.

Okay.

They don't all deal with streets.

And again, I think the board also takes into consideration the city's efforts to bring this business into compliance, going back as far as 1991, where the city did receive injunctive relief relative to public spaces, and the city, this is it's one thing to say, you know, well, this has been going on forever, but this has been going on forever because it seems like this establishment is uh not particularly concerned with what the laws are in the city of New Orleans.

When we finally tried to bring them in compliance again by have opening up a violations case, they did apply for a sidewalk cafe, to my knowledge the first time that they've ever done so, and they've are not allowed to do that because of the clear provisions of the CZO.

That's when they began trying to make, which I believe are very insufficient non-conforming use arguments, because they can establish that they've uh done that.

Again, why not?

Because this is a public uh public property.

And so I think we kind of getting into circular arguments here, but uh I don't believe they're insane arguments.

I don't believe that uh well I'm gonna with withhold my comments as as to uh qualifying language uh as to their arguments.

Well, I mean the only thing I could just from I'm I'm really struggling with this, and I think part of it is because of you're making references to some case law, but I think if more color could be provided from some of these cases to truly articulate what it is, because you provide in summary snippets, just just being honest, that makes it hard for me to truly dig deeper into what it may have actually spelled out.

So, like for instance, with the the NAPCO, the 1991 uh judgment, I feel like that actually probab would have provided more color and be very succinct to what this property is.

I know you talk about I know you stated it's pertaining to the nonconformance within the property itself, but I would love to see if there's any color commentary within it as it pertains to the sidewalk use because apparently it existed at that time as well.

So I cited the cases that I say cited based on the representations or the positions that the applicant has made relative to why they believe that they should have said uh uh you know have be allowed to have this use.

My point very specifically with all those cases is that it's consistently been the jurisprudence in the state of Louisiana and uh not only here with within this jurisdiction, but also as sided with the federal court cases that that public property is imprescriptable and that you can't acquire those rights uh either be it be it nonconformity or be it acquisitive prescription for those uses over what are public things.

And that's clear black letter law as to each of those uh cases, and I think we have clear black letter law, unfortunately, regarding this particular establishment is as whether they can have a sidewalk cafe.

Like I stated before, it would seem to me that this this particular property would not likely be uh ever go back to some kind of residential use, but again, that change is a legislative change and not under the purview of this board.

So can I just respond regarding the cases of the second?

I'm assuming you want to argue the point.

Yes, sir.

Please.

Briefly.

Proceed.

And I'll be as quickly as quick as possible.

So I did do an in-depth analysis of each case cited by the city.

To answer your question first, none of those cases deal with the sidewalk.

Try to speak closer to the mic so we can see a clue.

None of those cases in any way deal any more anyway with a sidewalk.

None of them deal with non-conforming use.

Ban versus Ottoman Park is a case where a private citizen was claiming ownership of Audubon Park.

That's in no way comparable to what's happening here.

In regards to Magall and Shreep, which are the two other cases cited, those were regarding the right of a city to remove Confederate monuments.

Coliseum Square, that's the case we discussed regarding the ability to lease a public street.

It was actually found in that case that the city did have the right to lease a public street to a private entity.

And then finally, Todd versus state is regarding private ownership and equivalent acquisitive prescription rights, which does not apply here.

This case is not about acquisitive prescription, although the city keeps referencing it.

And I do believe that we have established that, and the CZO does make it clear that non-conforming use can apply to both private and public property.

And specifically in regards to the sidewalk, I do believe that y'all pointed out that the sidewalk is somewhat of a unique part of the part of the city.

I do want this board to consider that with a sidewalk, that is our duty to maintain as private citizens, as a private business, we have the right, we have the duty, and we've been doing it for 50 years to maintain that sidewalk and keep it safe.

So I don't understand how the city can argue this is a purely public space, but oh, by the way, here private citizen, here is your bill for maintaining it.

And I would further point out we also have a 50-year case study here regarding this sidewalk seating.

We do not have a single injury that we can point to, not a single incident, not an EMS call, nothing that goes to damaging public safety here.

There is nothing that limits this board from granting our non-conforming use.

Once again, we would ask you to do it.

Again, there is a very simple question before this board.

Did the department err when it responded that the CZO prohibits a legal non-conforming bar from having the sidewalk cafe unless it's in the RDO?

We did not posit these arguments.

Well, I'm I'm I I think we're beating a dead horse now.

And I'll just say are there any other questions?

Is there a motion?

Madam Chair, if a motion is an order.

Yes, proceed.

Um regarding Docket BZA 110-25.

I move to grant the appeal and overturn the decision of the director of the Department of Safety Permits, finding that there is an error in the interpretation of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

Oh second.

With regards to BCA docket 110-25, it's been moved by Commissioner Eggins, second by Commissioner Alvarez to overturn the decision of the director of the Department of Safety and Permits, finding that there is an error in that decision.

Vote your screens.

So the motion fails.

I don't I don't know procedurally, given that there's a split if there's a reason.

I don't know if there's a substitute motion.

It'll be a substitute motion.

I couldn't hear you.

Oh, I was saying that there can be a substitute motion made.

Okay.

And if there's no motion made, I don't know if if if a motion is going to be made with the I think the feeling is that it would end up with the same decision.

So if there's not a substitute motion, what is the is there any additional action?

Uh no additional action.

It'll just would be necessary.

It would just be de facto denied in that case.

I think we would just try to be clear for the record, just to make sure that there wasn't any steps that needed to happen.

Next item.

Thank you, board.

Give me one moment, please.

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

Oh, I'm sorry about that.

Give me one second here.

Good afternoon, Dan McMuron BZA matter 013-26 regarding 10 uh 563 North Interstate 10 service road.

This appeal concerns the zoning verification uh dated March 11, 2026, in which the department determined that a billboard is not permitted on the subject property.

The determination rests on the application of Article 24 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance and specifically the general prohibition set forth in Article 24.14 point B.2.A, which prohibits billboards within 500 feet of a residential zoning on the same side of the street.

For that reason, the zoning verification dated March 11th, 2026 must be affirmed.

While not dispositive to the issue on appeal, additional overlay provisions identified in the verification also provides additional support and are just below for completeness.

The zoning verification dated March 11th determined that the proposed billboard is not permitted, noting the property's location, the CACO's provision governing billboards and their location relative to residential districts.

The zoning verification also referenced uh additional overlay districts in the area.

The applicant disputes the department's determination, asserting that an intervening strip of land between the subject property and the I-10 service road prevents the property from being treated as fronting roadways and affects how the ordinance should be applied.

Turning to the 500 foot restriction, uh the Article 24.14.b.2.A provides that no billboard may be erected within 500 feet, uh 500 front feet of any residential zoning district on the same side of the street.

The application of that provision requires identification of the property's frontage and measurement along the that frontage.

Under Article 26, a lot is a portion of land with fixed boundaries that is developed or may be developed with a principal building or any accessory structures together with an open space and parking areas and having its principal frontage upon an officially approved street.

This definition is foundational.

To apply frontage-based regulations such as 24.14.b.2.A, the property must be evaluated as developable, a developable lot with an identifiable frontage.

As noted above, the record reflects that an intervening strip of land lies between the subject property and the I 10 service road.

The applicant requires on this condition to assert that the property does not front the service road.

If that were the case, then the property would then uh be evaluated based on frontage along right road.

To the extent that the applicant's position would avoid both frontage points, the result would be a parcel without legally cognizable frontage and therefore arguably not developable under the CZO.

To achieve the applicant's goal, frontage must be assigned somewhere.

If the property is treated as fronting the I-10 service road or is uh fronting right road, the property falls within the 500 foot threshold established by Article 24.14.b.2A.

Accordingly, the proposed billboard is not permitted.

Although not necessary to the outcome, the zoning verification also identified the property as being located within overlay districts based on the official zoning map.

Article 24.14.b2B prohibits billboards within design review corridors identified in Article 18.

The record reflects that the property uh is depicted within these overlay districts as well.

In conclusion, the zoning verification dated March 11, 2026 reflects a correct application of Article 24 of the code comprehensive zoning ordinance.

When the property is evaluated as a developable lot with legally cognizable frontage, it is located within 500 feet of a residential of residential zoning on the same side of the street under any permissible frontage analysis.

Thus, the zoning verification dated March 11th, 2026 must be affirmed.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present for BZA Docket 013-26?

Yes, ma'am.

My name is John Siniglia.

Um 2315 Florida Street, Mandeville, Louisiana.

I represent myself and Grove 26.

Good afternoon, members.

The staff's denial is based on two claims.

Number one, that the lot is within an overlay district, and number two, that lot one is within 500 feet of residential zoning district.

Both conclusions are incorrect under the comprehensive zoning ordinance and its intent.

And the evidence in the record shows why this billboard fully qualifies.

First, lot one is zone C2, and Article 24, uh Table 243 expressly allows billboards in the C2 district.

Uh unless a specific pro uh prohibition applies, billboards are permitted.

Second, the overlays do not apply to lot one.

Article 18.4.a states that the uh the uh ENORC overlay applies to lots front in Interstate 10, Interstate 510, and the service roads.

The key word is fronting.

Lot 2R fronts the I-10 service road, and lot 24B fronts right road, which both have their own tax ID number.

Lot 1 does not front the service road, although it faces the service road.

It sits behind lot 2 and between lots 2 and lots 24B front and right road.

The certified survey shown in exhibits D and F provided and the city's own parcel maps confirming this.

The overlay applies only to front end lots.

Lot 1 is an interior lot, and the ordinance does not extend the overlay to interior parcels.

The property viewer shaded cannot override the text of the CZO.

Third, staff is attempting to treat lot one through lot 23 as shown in revision number two, where the staff changed the legal description to include the measurements of each lot which happens to be shared, uh which happen to share a single tax bill number.

The one giant super block to enforce lot one into over into the overlay and into the 500 residential buffer.

But the CDCO does not allow this.

Article 26 defines a lot as a parcel of land separately described, separately plotted or separately recorded.

Lot 1 through 23 or 23 separate lots.

Proof of this is the fact that each lot has its own measurements and multiple lots have different measurements within that their proposed superblock.

There are individually plotted, individually described, and individually recorded.

A shared tax bill number does not merge them into a single zoning lot.

And if and the historical record proves this beyond any doubt.

Originally, all 25 lots of Grow 26 were part of a single block.

But when the city created Right Road, lot 25 and part of lot 24 were taken, and a new separate parcel, lot 24B, was left created.

This history matters.

If Grove 26 were truly one zoning lot, the city could not have carved out lot 24B, sold it to an independently, sold it independently, and assigned its own tax bill number and its own frontage on right road.

Under the CZO, and it proves that lot 21 through 23 cannot be merged into a fictional superblock simply to create a prohibition that does not exist in the ordinance.

Fourth, this means that 500-foot residential prohibition was measured incorrectly.

Article 24.14.b.2A requires 500 front feet on the same street and the same side of the street would have had to start at lot one, not lot 23.

The measurement must follow the public frontage along the public right-of-way.

When measured correctly, lot one forms.

That's the end of it.

Sorry, I read slow.

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

Is there anyone here in opposition?

If you could come up to the mic, please.

Yeah.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

My name is Claudia Cellestan, 5706, Louis Prima Drive, West New Orleans East.

So I'm not going to claim that I know anything about codes and zones and lots and none of that stuff, but I do know that I have been a 40-year resident of New Orleans East, and I am concerned about the quality of life that we ex that we have for the East.

So I am here today in opposition of a billboard.

So my home is located approximately a fourth of a mile from I-10.

A billboard would impact our quality of life by creating visual clutter along with having bad sight lines in an area that is highly residential, a high density residential area where we already have homes that are devalued because of the stigma that is already assigned to the East.

A high density residential area where we already have homes that are devalued because of the stigma that is already assigned to the East.

Even though it has been proven by the police data that New Orleans East is no more crime-written than any other part of the city, we still have this type of uh stigma attached to us.

So when we look at billboards, we tend to look at billboards being in an area where we have poor economic um situation occurring.

We are not having billboards in our high-end residential areas.

And I don't believe that we should be subjected to something that already would add to depreciation of our homeowners value because we're going to be looking at alcohol signs and we're going to be looking at lawyer signs.

And I am just sorry, we can find that um elsewhere in the city.

The other thing that I'm concerned about is the distraction for drivers.

And we are exiting off the interstate either at uh read if we are uh going into the city or bullard if we are going further east.

And I think that we are just too close to exit.

If you want to utilize a billboard that is impactful, I think we need to be away from the residential area and on the outer sides of the miss you area at the very least.

We also have had studies done by the federal government that talks about safety, and the East did qualify for some grant money.

Granted that it was taken back with the from the present administration uh budget alignments, but a study was conducted and it showed that there was a significant uh amount of accidents that was occurring in this IT in corridor from the Morrison to the Miss U exit, and that the consideration was for um thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Frain Bias.

I reside at 11311 Parkwood Court South in New Orleans.

Um I'm against the billboard.

The applicant wants to erect the billboard in New Orleans East, but he doesn't think it's good enough to erect near where he lives.

The flashing lights of a digital billboard would detract from the beauty of a nearby neighborhood and cause a decrease in property values.

But since the applicant insists on erecting a billboard, a better location for it would be on the stretch of I-10 between 510 and the twin span.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lord Slandrum.

My address is 7301 Lake Barrington Drive.

I'm a representative of Enoch, Eastern New Orleans Neighborhood Advisory Commission.

I'm also a resident of the Lake Barrington subdivision, which this billboard would immensely affect.

First of all, I've been doing some research and I realize that residential areas where billboards are constructed, they lose their property value at approximately $30,000 within the 500 feet.

This is going to reduce our property value, and it's just going to affect our area very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in opposition?

The applicant has an opportunity to repeat.

Excuse me.

Thank you.

I'd like to continue my statement.

The measurements must follow the public frontage along the public right of way.

When measured correctly from lot one, the site is not within 500 feet of any residential zoning district.

Measuring from the rear of the lot or across interior parcels is not permitted by the ordinance.

And multiple examples are shown and provided exhibit H with the newest billboard being built just under two years ago on I-10 service road by Caruth Lumber being just 98 feet on the rear to a residential district.

Finally, Article 3.2 and Table 313-1 are explicit.

Only the executive director, I'm just gonna scratch that whole point and just get to my point.

That line uh when the ordinance is applied as written, not guessed at, not shared on a uh shaded on a map, not reinterpreted without authority, the results is clear.

Lot one is C2, where billboards are permitted.

Lot one does not front the service road, so the overlay do not apply.

Lot one is not within 500 feet of a residential district, the spacing requirement is satisfied.

No provision of the CZO prohibits this billboard.

Members of the board, the law is clear, the evidence is clear, and the denial is not supported by the ordinance.

I respectfully request that you reverse the director's decision and allow this permit to proceed.

Any questions from the board?

Yeah, um question to the applicant.

Um you make reference to the 500 foot rule and it it the 500 foot requirement and its distance to a residential district.

If the lot is not fronting the service road, which in this case, let me finish.

Okay.

Thank you.

It does front.

That's right road, correct?

No.

How not?

Lot 24B fronts right road, which is not part, it has its own tax number.

Just because it has its own ta a separate tax number.

It's a separate parcel.

That parcel has to front a right of way, correct?

On right road, it faces right.

I'm gonna just come back to the 500-foot rule.

Okay.

You you make reference to the code states that you cannot take that.

You try to present that it's not within 500 feet of a zoning of a residential zone adjusting.

How did you get to that uh rationale again?

Article 26.

Uh definition of a block.

A block is a group of lots that are classified a block that are within right of ways.

Correct.

Or B, which is in between a canal, which this is, and right of ways.

Okay.

Okay.

So we provided a survey.

This survey, these lots have been separated prior to right boulevard even being there.

There are there was 25 original individual lots.

And they are specifically outlined under the uh the tax assessment.

Lot one, lot two, lot three, and it gives a dimension of each lot.

And under Article 26.

Let me let me consider Chase on what you're presenting to.

You do understand there's a difference between a block and a lot.

That's what I'm getting ready to explain to you.

So uh a lot is a separate lot with four boundaries, okay, or more, but it's separate.

So lot one is is designated as eighty feet frontage, a hundred and sixty-eight to the rear on both sides, and eighty feet across the back.

That constitutes a separate lot within that block.

You can't just throw all the lots together and say, oh, they won lot, because they're not.

Each one has a different end, have multiple different sizes.

Some are 50 feet, some are 60 feet.

They're all different.

So you can't say all of these 23 lots are or lot one because they're not.

And because lot 24 was sold off, it supports the premise that these lots are separate, and they can be sold off separately.

I can sell off lot two if I want to anybody I want.

Because it exists.

But all right, so you're kind of being a little tangential, and what I'm trying to get back to is how the rule is applied in terms of whether 500 feet fall.

So I'm gonna defer back to the department and ask how is the 500 foot applied?

Again, you know, the I think we're we we as I indicated that lots require frontage.

Correct.

And I think we're all in agreement that lots require frontage.

Unfortunately, the applicant wants to uh either dispense of the requirement that a lot requires frontage altogether, or which I completely disagree with.

So I'm just trying to get down to one very succinct question.

How is the 500-foot rule applied?

And if this location if you look at this location, and as the applicant has already suggested that it's 168 feet from the rear.

That so it's 168 feet deep.

Correct.

And you do you know it's right behind that 100 what's it, 169 feet?

A residential difference.

So I I mean to but according to the CZO, it's measured from the front lot line, not the back.

You can't go back.

But even if you're 120, what's the depth of the lot?

What's the depth of the lot?

That's that's irrelevant.

It's very relevant.

It it is irrelevant because in the CZO, it would not be a good thing.

What is the number?

On the front roadway.

Very simple.

What's the number?

What 168?

Thank you.

That is less than 500.

But the CZO does not say you measure from the back property line.

Even if I measure from your front, no matter which point you're showing, as the crow flies, I am 500 feet.

We do not go as the crow flies.

The CCO is specific, and he read it and put it in his revision.

It goes from the front property line along the front of the road.

So if this is my front property line.

What's behind me is a relevant.

If if we're gonna argue the facts, let's stick to what the actual language states.

I would ask Mr.

McNamara to read that that zoning, that uh requirement.

I'm looking at it.

It's I mean, it's the point that's referenced in his document.

Would you read it to me, please?

So I understand.

No billboard may be erected within 500 feet from any residential zoning district on the same side of the street.

Exactly.

But along it says along the front line, along the property line.

It does not state that.

I just write what it states.

Well, let's do it.

It's 500 feet.

And so I'm gonna make another you made another reference stating that another billboard was erected of what you're trying to propose, but you said it was with the lumber company.

Multiple.

I sent you an exhibit.

Oh, I'm sorry.

You referenced the lumber company.

Yes.

Correct.

Mr.

McNamara, is that a billboard or is that the pylon sign for that business?

Which is two very distinct uses.

I believe it's the pylon sign for that business.

Okay, it is the pylon sign.

That was gonna be it is not, it's a digital billboard.

It flashed promoting a business that operates at the site, sir.

Correct, which has a principal use and it's a pylon sign associated to that principal use.

Then it can't advertise another business.

But it does.

So it's a billboard.

I mean I mean we we keep we keep going about.

I mean, either and the thing is it it's it's we we have a little bit of a shell game occurring here.

And I think this is kind of what I got to do at the beginning of this conversation was that you know either we you know we we need some frontage, but we want frontage one way or frontage another way, depending on which argument we're or no frontage whatsoever.

It's no frontage whatsoever, then it's not a developable lot.

Correct.

So uh if it is a developable lot, the 500 foot in play.

I would also argue that if it was a developable lot, those other two uh the the other issues are at play.

So no matter how you slice it, it's still not compliant.

Thank you.

Okay, I think that was the the argument.

I mean, not to cross over, but um that was the point that I was gonna try to make.

I feel as though we're making attempts to um to circumvent every possible rule, and I I just I don't see how you can every lot typically has four sides, and each you know, there has to, I think to the um department's initial point, there's got to be frontage, and I I can't see how you can make an argument that there's not a front somewhere.

And I and I think that the lot faces the service road.

Excuse me, sir.

I think if the board may recall, there was a member of the neighborhood who was driving that point home last time.

Last time in public uh argument, uh public comment that that uh address those very same points.

Probably, you know, better than I did.

That's a very humble comment from Mr.

McMurdo.

Every once in a while.

Madam Chair, so motion in order.

Are there any other questions from the board?

None from me.

Uh my motion is to uphold the decision of the Director of Safety and Permanents is no error was uh made in the determination of this request.

Second with regards to BZA docket zero one three dash two six has been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to uphold the decision of the director of the Department of Safety and Permits, finding that there was not an error in that decision.

Vote your screens.

Okay.

Six years, no nays, the motion carries.

Would the board consider a motion to adjourn?

So move second.

It's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to adjourn the meeting.

Vote your screens.