Squad, and what Good morning.

I'd like to call the Monday, May 18th, Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting to order.

We will begin with roll call.

Candice Forrest.

That's a report.

Hi, James.

Present.

Tamara Agins.

Jose Alvarez.

Present.

Jamie Ramiro Diaz.

Present.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Present.

And Jason Richards is absent.

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

I'm sorry.

That would be the April meeting.

Move.

Second.

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

Uh roll call vote, Todd James.

Yes.

Tamara Eggins.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Ramiro Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

And Candace Forrest.

EA.

Six years.

No nays.

The motion carries.

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

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

As a reminder to applicants, action that the board takes today will be released in the form of a disposition notice by May 28th and sent via email and mail to applicants as well as posted on the one-stop app for other interested parties.

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

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

Item number three, BZA Docket 03126 for the property at 7032 Boston Drive has been rendered moot.

Item number nine, BZA Docket 04226 for the property at 14 Thrasher Street has been withdrawn.

And item number 11, BZA Docket 04526 for the property at 730 through 32, St.

Peter's Street has been rendered moot.

We will now begin with unfinished business for variances.

Will the chair please read the hearing rules 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 show the cumulative presentation total by applicants or their representatives exceed 10 minutes.

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

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

The applicant or representative will be allowed a rebuttal.

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review, the board of zoning adjustments shall not authorize a variance from requirements of the comprehensive zoning ordinance unless it finds based upon the evidence presented to it that each case has satisfied the nine criteria listed in Article 4, Section 4.6 point F of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

In an effort to address the resultant flooding, the applicant repaired the front yard with concrete after sewage and water board denied the request to repair with brick and mortar pavers to match the site conditions in place since at least 2007.

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

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

The total area of proposed permeable space increases to 90 square feet for a total permeable area percentage of 37%.

This decreases the waiver request from 50 to 23%.

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

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

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

Thank you.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 023-26?

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

Anyone here in opposition?

I know the applicant wasn't available last month.

Was there?

Um the applicant also reached out to staff and um notified us that they would most likely not be able to make this meeting due to a health condition.

Okay.

Are there any questions from the board?

Yes, I know I know that the um she had been talking to like Urban Conservancy and other groups.

At this time, urban conservancy cannot provide any assistance to the applicant due to grant funding and them not working in her area.

I believe the applicant was also connected with someone from groundwork NOLA, however, I haven't received any update as to whether that organization is able to assist her, so there's no update from staff on that.

Okay.

That is correct.

She is willing to break up more concrete, um, which does decrease the amount of impervious coverage, but doesn't quite meet the requirement.

Got it.

Well, and given the site and the sidewalk condition there, I think it she's she's making a good effort, it seems like, and uh, I don't know if there are other places on the property, but um it looked like it was mostly about the front yard.

Um, so um I think there's a letter in here as well.

I just don't want to keep this going too much longer.

Um I'm comfortable to move forward within.

Um, if you want it just looking at it from what was there before it was a brick paver system, which if you would have tried to install something to that similar aesthetic, the what would be the subsurface condition would change dramatically how this would work.

So having concrete versus putting anything else back to increase permeability.

It kind of is a catch 22 for at this point.

Yeah, so if a motion is in order, um, in regards to um Docker 26 2326, I moved to approve um with the noted proviso um citing the letter and the discussion here today and over the past meetings.

Second.

Um just to make sure I was gonna offer up the second, but making sure that we had the two provisals covered as recommended most of the yeah, I said the noted provisos, but uh, I hadn't read what they were saying.

With regard to BCA Docket 023-26, it's been moved by Commissioner Diaz, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the requested waiver.

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

Subject to two provisos.

Roll call vote, Todd James.

Yes.

Tamara Igans, yes, Jose Alvarez.

Yes.

Ramiro Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yes.

And Candice Forrest.

Yay.

Six days.

No nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next.

The next item is BCA Docket 02926 for the 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 the front property line, resulting in front yard parking.

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

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

Article 21, section 217, Table 21-2, and Article 22, Section 22 11 D1.

Do not allow for parking in the front yard.

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

Article 22, section 228A 1BI, and Article 22, Section 2211 D2.

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

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

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

The Department of Safety and Permits confirmed that the additional parking spaces are not required at this time.

The request was also deferred at the April BZA hearing to allow for the applicant to provide additional materials to the staff.

This to support the staff report to staff to support the request.

I'm sorry.

At this time, the applicant has not provided staff with the updated documents.

The staff believes that the requested waiver of Article 12, Section 123A1, Table 12-2 rear yard setback fails to meet standards A1, A3, A4, A5, and B1 of the standards of variances per Article 4, Section 46F of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, and that no special circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land.

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

The request for the variance is based on primarily to serve the convenience or a profit of the property owner.

Strict adherence to the regulations will not uh result in a demonstrable hardship upon the owner and granting the variants will request the variance will not confer on the applicant special privileges.

Additionally, staff believes that the requested waivers of Article 21 Section 217 Table 21-2, permitted encroachments into the required yards for a parking pad.

Article 22 section 228A1BII permitted vehicle parking locations in the front yard.

Article 22, section 22 11 D1, parking pad design location, and 22 section 2211 D2, parking pad design location fails to meet standards A3 of the standards of variances.

Therefore, the staff recommends denial of the requested variances, and the applicant has requested an additional 30-day deferral to allow the property owner to gather supplemental materials to further defend their requests.

Thank you.

Could go ahead.

Yes, good morning, Zach Smith.

1000 South Normancy Francis.

Can you pull up the mic a little bit?

Sorry.

Is that a little bit better?

Wonderful.

Good morning again, board Zach Smith 1000 South Normancy Francis.

Appreciate the staff report and appreciate staff mentioning about the 30 days.

I wanted to actually see if we could push that to uh four months to 120.

We expect to have this solved and handled by that time.

Things have just been taking a little bit longer with some acquisition of some property next door.

And uh would love to keep the right open, but hopefully not have the staff waste more time sending out this notice every month.

Thank you.

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

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

The motions in order.

Proceed.

Madam Chair regards to BZA docket number 029-26.

Um, it's for 120 to defer at the request of the applicant for them to review alternative means of uh compliance.

Hold second.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 029-26 has been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Alvarez to defer the item 120 days.

Roll call vote, Todd James?

Yes.

Tamara Eggins?

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Yes.

Ramiro Diaz?

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yay.

And Candice Forrest.

Yay.

Four yes, no nays.

Six.

Six years.

No nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

And one note that item three was withdrawn.

Next item is BZA Docket 032-26 for property located at 2022 Phillips Street.

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

Table 22-1, off-street vehicle and bicycle parking requirements of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a two-family dwelling, resulting in insufficient off-street parking.

This request was deferred at the April 20th Board of Zoning Adjustments hearing.

So the applicant could work with the architect to bring the plans closer into compliance.

The board asked the applicant to explore revising the site plan and floor plan to provide two off-street parking spaces, curb cuts no greater than 12 feet, and impervious surface area that does not exceed 40% of the front yard.

As of May 1st, while the applicant's architect has expressed that a redesign would introduce other zoning issues, staff has not received an updated site plan and floor plans that either comply or that illustrate the suggested zoning issues.

The staff believes that the requested waivers of Article 22, Section 22.4.1, A.3, 8.4, 8.5, and B.1 of the standards of variance per Article 4, Section 4.6 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variants from Article 22 section 22.4.a table 22-1 of off street parking and bicycle requirements.

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

Staff recommends one proviso.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 032-26?

Good morning.

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

I'm here representing the party for the project.

And it would only cause more problems with the size of the lot.

If we tried to push the house back, we would incur in the buffer zone that you need behind the house.

And by trying to add two parking spots, we would run into errors with the size of the curve cuts as well as the driveway.

We even explored elevating the house, but we reached when talking to the bank that it would cause other hardships because the height would limit the amount of people that would be able to purchase the house if we tried to elevate it as far as elderly handicapped and stuff like that.

Is that the end of your comments?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

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

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

I can't recall from the um the last meeting.

I don't know.

Commissioner James as a or Diaz I resident uh design folks.

I don't recall what the specific um asks were around the um the redesign.

Um, just trying to understand from I know the applicant um applicant's representative is mentioning the challenges, and I just it's hard to weigh in on how um to review the proposed changes when we don't see them.

So I don't know um if you all had any specific thoughts.

I just I'm struggling with how to to kind of evaluate the position now.

Well, when we looked into it, the changes would cause other issues with zoning as well as the uh plan review as far as like because of the size of the lot.

So we couldn't put two parking spots next to it because we only limited 36 feet, then it would cause problems with the permanent space that would be needed.

And then we looked at the option of elevating it, but like I say, that would limit it as well, too.

So when we did discuss this last time, um we did not ask for it to be shifted back.

I think what we referenced was looking at the first floor plan and evaluating how to potentially put in the two compliant parking stalls on the ground floor.

There are properties across town.

I mean, I've seen them in Gentili, some of them uptown, mid-city, where similar plans have been created that provide the two off the two all-street compliant parking stalls, and some of it is by having covered parking under the first a portion of the first floor.

Um I will say I don't really buy the argument on if you were to elevate the house further that it wouldn't be marketable.

That's more of a financial piece if you're using the bank argument on that part, versus how the zoning application uh works here.

So, as I remember the conversation from two months ago, the initial comment was about looking at other plans that do exist or you have the ability to create because this is a clear site, you're not doing a structural modification in order to come up with a plan that may be able to suit what's being proposed.

And also, I mean, if if I'm hearing this correctly, this is more for the from a developer perspective as opposed to an individual resident who's trying to do a modification.

Well, I think those conversations are very different.

And when we're dealing with the developer, that is always going to drive back to at least one of the nine criteria not being met, which is related to the fiducial um financial benefit of the applicant.

They're not looking at the financial benefit because we've already referenced the two properties that are used with previously built in this area, which is on the same platform.

Um, referencing what you had in some of your initial comments related to bank financing.

No, not the bank finance.

We're talking about limited to people because of elderly on most of the binary area.

So if you elevate the house even higher, now you're trying to limit them ability to get up there.

So it's not necessarily banking directly, it's just as a potential.

So that's but again that's financial viability of the development.

I mean, if I don't want to be the only one to speak to this, but just looking over Jose's shoulder as he was driving down the street.

Looking at the context.

I mean, I think that.

And as you can see, there's several cars already parking on the street.

I mean, the challenge here is that the the lot's wide enough to accommodate to accommodate and um and because it's multifamily, right?

And we're not asking for it to be tandem.

I mean, that's when you because even the comment of saying that moving the plan further back into the site, that wouldn't even meet the compliance piece anyway, because you can't have parking within a front yard.

So no compliant parking stalls in the front.

That's why the question was raised last time about looking at how the covered parking portion answered, as it's already shown in the plan is under the second floor within the first floor plan.

Why not look at a plan that allows for the access to be behind the parking, which is something that you do see as a development pattern that does exist citywide?

I think for, excuse me.

Sorry, I think for uh to kind of go back to uh Commissioner James' point.

I think the um the challenge when looking at the um the nine criteria, one, as Commissioner James pointed to, about a hardship, if there are ways that you're able to develop the lot and be in compliance, it's difficult to indicate that there's a hardship.

And so when the only thing that's being discussed is the potential viability, not even a we don't know if it's a real issue, but the potential viability of um who would be able to um occupy the property, that doesn't fit within what we consider are the nine criteria because it's not truly a hardship.

Um, so I think that's where the conversation around meeting the nine criteria is a challenge at this point.

If that's the basis for not being able to um sort of reconfigure what the parking would look like.

And um additionally, just within our rules, I mean, with the change of the reasonable accommodations language that exists when we get into any discussion related to accessibility of a property that takes that out of this purview.

So it makes it even harder to even use that as a justification when items like that exists or processes or exist in that capacity to uh to get something on an administrative approval from the department.

And that's why I've mentioned the real viability, because in that situation there has to be an actual individual to um apply for a reasonable accommodation.

Right now, we're discussing a possibility that we don't know, would really come to fruition.

I will add that the CZO does allow for developers to apply for reasonable accommodations, even if a specific individual with a disability is not in mind, but just you know, thinking forward into the future that they would wrench or sell to somebody with a disability.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Yeah, no, I think my struggle here is that just because it worked on another site that was smaller, doesn't mean because now because it is a bigger site, you could change the design.

So that was the argument we heard last time, and I haven't seen really a change here.

So I mean I would I mean, is there can you guys take another pass at it or should we defer or we can but like I say, we just don't want to get into now we're back in front of you or meeting because we didn't meet the criteria or something else with safety.

But I mean with the plan review, because that's what we ran into as far as designing the driveway, but curved cuts was an issue, permeable space would have been an issue because of the size of the lot.

But you you're only gonna come before us if it doesn't meet the buildable waivers that you would need.

I mean, if you can design it without needing waivers, then you don't need to come before us.

So, because I think I mean you you keep referring back to the permeability, and then that's assuming that you're moving the building back and increasing amount of paving inside the front yard, and that's not what we suggested, nor would that be the appropriate way to uh modify the plan in order to come up with something that's applicable or at least acceptable.

I mean, I'm I'm one person.

I mean, my recommendation is just hate doing de facto just denials on things when there seems to be at least a path to get to compliance.

So I mean I'm can we ask for sixty days now?

Yeah, that was that was gonna be my question.

All right.

For motions in order.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions from the board?

And I mean, I know it takes time to go through the plan and look at how to come up with these mods.

I mean, do realistically, do you think the 60 days is acceptable?

I mean, workable, excuse me.

Yes, sir.

I mean, we had plans, it just kept running to issues.

Okay, you go through the CGO as far as other requirements.

So, yeah, and I'm gonna just strongly make the suggestion.

Don't look at it from shifting the home back.

That's not what we were suggesting because you don't want to create tandem parking.

Correct.

Um, it is looking at it having a centralized entrance with the two driveways and elevated.

Split or off to one side.

All right.

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

Madam Chair, uh, with regards to BZA docket number 032-26.

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

Thank you.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA Docket 032-26 has been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Diaz to defer the item 60 days to give the applicant time to um look at modifications to the plans.

Roll call vote, Todd James, yes.

Tamara Eggins.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Ramiro Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yay.

And Candace Forest, yay.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

Next item is BZA Docket 03826 for the property located at 3316 Dauphine Street.

This is an after-the-fact request for variances from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit ground-based mechanical equipment with insufficient distance from the interior side lot line.

Article 21, section 216T1 requires mechanical equipment to be at least two feet from the interior property line.

The applicant is proposing five inches necessitating a waiver of one foot seven inches.

Article 21 section 217, table 21-2, requires mechanical equipment to be at least two feet from the interior property line.

This request was deferred at the April BCA hearing to allow the applicant to post proper signage on the property and for the staff to write the report.

The staff believes that the requested waivers of Article 21, Section 21 6T1 mechanical equipment, and Article 21, Section 217, Table 21-2, permitted encroachments into required rear yard to required yards for ground mounted mechanical equipment fails to meet standards A1, A3, A4, A5, B1, and B4 are the standards of variances per article for section 46F of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, and that there are no special circumstances that exist.

Literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of rights humbly enjoyed by other properties.

The request of the variance is based primarily on the desire to serve the convenience of the profit of the property owner.

Strict adherence of the regulation would not result in a hardship, demonstrable hardship, uh granting the variance, uh, granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege.

The proposed variance will not impair the or will impair the adequate amount of light and air to adjacent properties.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

Is the applicant present for BCA docket 038-26?

Morning.

Um Pedro Molina, 3316 Dauphin Street.

I'm the applicant for the variance request at said property regarding the location of the mechanical condensing unit.

During construction, it was identified that the originally permitted plans located the unit beneath a window, which created a conflict with proper installation clearances.

Once identified, we work with HDLC and the city's mechanical division to identify compliant and practical alternative.

Unit was ultimately relocated to the service alley.

This location was selected because of his provision, location flexibility.

The screen from public view and minimizes impact to both the streetscape and neighboring properties.

Placement of the front of the property is not permitted per HDLC guidelines.

Locating the unit at the rear on the opposite side would block access to the full depth due to the rear patial structure and main house.

The other service alley is the shortest travel and would also act provide or close off that access to the rear of the property from that side due to the floor plan configuration.

Based on these constraints, the current location is the option that satisfies access flexibility.

This situation was not intentionally created.

It is a result of uh resolving of a conflict identified while trying to meet a standard.

The installation does not alter the character of the neighborhood.

I understand the concerns that were raised prior, and I've made an attempt effort to ensure this solution minimizes any potential impact.

Respectfully asking you for your consideration and approval of this variance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for a BCA docket 038-26?

Anyone here in opposition.

My name is Frederick Hallman, at 19E 16th Street, New York, New York.

I'm speaking in opposition to the variance.

Uh I sent a detailed letter on May 7th with a bunch of uh considerations.

First of all, it like it fails for the nine variants.

So requirements for a variance, uh special privilege inconvenience, but more importantly, the ninth one is the is the most pressing one where this uh mechanical device uh inhibits uh emergency personnel access to the full property.

That's my the property next door, is that they they have four five inches or four inches for a person to get through that alleyway in the need to.

So I I detailed some other letters in my uh in my letter explaining how the reason for the variance has been said to because we couldn't be under the air conditioner couldn't be under a window.

When in fact, when they place the air conditioners in the temporary drawing, they are under a window, they literally are put under a window.

Just really appears to me to be a made-up excuse for the after-fact need to uh have a convenient place for them to put the the units.

So if there's any questions you guys have for me about my letter, please feel free to send them.

I mean, uh ask me, I'll come back up and qualify and clarify anything, but I thank you for your time today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I know you gave your address, but could you just I can't recall if you gave your name for the record?

I'm sorry.

It's in the record, but uh, I submitted a letter May 7th.

My address is 19.

No, your name.

Oh, my name is Frederick Helms.

Sorry about that.

Oh, thanks.

Anyone else here in opposition?

My name is Janet Benson.

You can pull the mic up a little bit.

Make it easier.

Good morning.

My name is Janet Benson.

I am the owner of the home next door.

Uh I submitted all my documents about this variance.

Um, I'm in opposition.

It is a safety issue.

There's five inches between the stands, the condensers, and my fence.

And I'm deeply concerned about about the safety.

So I have all my documents I've submitted.

Um to Haley Webb, who was the program planner.

And if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer.

Thank you.

Could you give your address?

Yes, three three two two Dauphine Street.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in opposition?

The applicant has an opportunity to rebut.

Um I will state that I did reach out to HDLC and the city's mechanical division um regarding this prior to relocation or other options.

Um, I'm sorry, that correspondence has been presented.

Um part of my exhibit package to to the board.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the board?

A quick question, um, to the applicant.

I know you uh indicated that you um worked with HCLC and um the mechanical division.

Did you the staff report indicates that there are other compliant locations?

And the discussion has been around the original location, I believe, under the window.

But were there, did uh you all look at other locations other than where the um equipment is currently located?

Those other locations were discussed.

Um this one provided the I'm gonna say the the least constraint and the more flexibility.

Um, looking at the the site plan, um, as I noted before, um if you located it on the back left side of the property, that would provide that would um um not provide access due to the patio, um existing building and the back of the property of the main house.

The side to the right of that service alley is the shortest distance from the front of the property, access to the rear of the property, and then you have the front of the property.

So all of these were reviewed with HDLC as well.

That service alley is it is a private service alley, right?

So it is there is a gate and there is a fence.

So it's not I would say a public right-of-way or through away.

Question for the applicant.

What other uh areas uh they suggested for you to locate this equipment.

The only other suggestion would be the order.

Um but again that that is the shortest access path right to the rear of the property.

Um that would you would almost doing the same thing again?

Um we did bring up um the rear back, and that also cut access.

How do you structure and the building uh in front?

Um pointing to some constraint, right?

Always some great fence.

This is the one that provided the most flexibility.

Um, when you say a constraint, is it going to require uh uh variance, or is it it it would certainly require some some variance depending on where that location and I'm asking because the way that it's um provided in the staff report is that they're compliant locations, meaning that there would not be the need for a variance.

So that's why I'm just trying to understand if that's accurate or not.

So you're saying that there's no other location on the site that would be compliant and not require variance.

I would I would think I would think not.

Yes, constraint and compliance.

Yeah, that was my question.

It's like if if I mean I doubt this the city would tell you to put it in a place where you cannot put it, right?

So for the staff, where were those options that are compliant?

Our staff had also reached out to the zoning division of safety and permits just to triple check things.

Um we have not reached back out to mechanical, but the zoning division did confirm it could be placed anywhere in the rear yard between the garage and the house or on the roof if it's at least six feet from all building walls.

Yeah, that was gonna be my next question.

I mean, I just I'm I struggle with uh with the location just based on on the fact that it's in that tight little alley and looking at the photos.

Like I just I can't believe the mechanical divisional would allow that.

So it just seems like a non-starter to me.

Yeah, so I agree.

Yeah, so to your point, yes, it would not be it will recover so variances if it's in the short alley as you refer to the right side of the property, correct?

But the backyard or the roof are options.

Yeah, I mean there's a there's the roof of that shed in the back.

Um, or or the roof of the main house.

I know the HDLC is a concern, but I mean, I know there's been projects where that you create a well and the light the air conditioning goes into the well in the attic.

Um, construction, right?

Yeah.

This was new construction, right?

No, that's renovation.

Yeah, it was wrong.

Yeah.

Of course, the mechanical equipment's probably in the attic, so it might not work.

But having something mounted to the roof is another option.

I mean, I have mine up on a platform up on my roof.

Um, but you can't, it's behind a parapes, so you can't see it.

So I think that would be a a challenge with HTLC.

But um the rear roof uh feels like that could be an exploration there.

Um, sure, you are you referring to the headio?

Make sure you talk into the the mic.

Yeah.

Some of this is for our recording.

Even though we can hear you, it's being recorded, so we have to make sure that the recording can hear the commentary as well.

Alright, so the structure of that rear patio, you it will not you know support the weight of the units.

So you'd have to delete two of them.

Yeah.

So you'd have to fix that.

Right.

But yeah.

Dolly, um, just a note on that, whenever we're dealing with a non-contiguous structure, you're then having to now come up with a way to route that condensate line back to the building.

So just something.

It's more than just move into that fees.

As you can see, if that um patio mounted roof, then I also have existing structure immediately to the left of it.

Right.

Like actual, not I'm not talking about exterior space, but that would be interior space over the adjacent property, so that may also pose another issue.

While I haven't fully vetted it out, it's just in condition again.

Quick question to staff.

I know um, you mentioned that you had no um staff had not reached out to the mechanical division.

Um, and I'm just wondering if it would be helpful to get um to maybe have that conversation to understand um maybe there's some commentary or explanation as to why the proposal was laid out the way that it was.

Our staff would be happy to do that.

I don't know if um board members if uh as I can't make a motion, if um there's a desire to um get that information before making a decision.

Um yeah, and just to clarify the we talked about this a bit, the the reasons for it not being where you guys originally showed in the plan was primarily because of the window.

Yes, yeah, okay, and then you've got a porch on the backside that looks like it's got steps going to either direction, right?

So is there any chance that you could locate one of the units adjust modify the steps that instead of having them go each way, they one goes to the right and you locate because one of the locations was okay, right?

Of the two units.

The unit that was to the right of the window.

The plan, potentially.

I mean, I just that's where I see there's an option if you want it close to the building.

Yeah, I mean that's where I see there's an opportunity here that you can locate it in that rear yard.

Um yeah, I think I would love to hear some better, you know, uh opinions.

I I do struggle with the idea of having these units in that in that narrow uh walkway.

I'm not I I wasn't sure about the specifics, but just generally that was um just my thought.

If there are no more questions, is there a motion?

Um in regards to docket uh 3826, that right.

Um I moved to defer for 30 days to the next meeting.

Is that enough time to get the mechanical?

It should be.

Um, and I just heard from the planner who's assigned who couldn't be here today.

Uh, she did call the mechanical division twice, but hadn't gotten an answer, so we'll be sure to send an email.

Get an answer within that time.

Thank you.

I'll second.

Thanks.

With regards to BCA docket, zero three eight-26, it's been moved by Commissioner Diaz and seconded by Commissioner Alvarez to defer the item uh 30 days for staff to get uh clarity from the mechanical division.

Rocalvo, Todd James.

Yes.

Tamara Eggins.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Romero Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yay.

And Candace Forrest, yay.

Six years, no nays, the motion carries.

Next item.

We will now begin with the new business for variances.

The next item is BZA Docket 039-26 for a property located at 1455 North Roman Street.

This request is for a variance from provisions of Article 11, Section 11.3.1.

Table 11-2A minimum lot area and Article 11, Section 11.3.1.

Table 11-2A minimum lot width to permit the creation of a lot with insufficient lot area and insufficient lot width.

The applicant is proposing to resubdivise the site to move the lot line so that the 1451 North Roman Street proposed lot B slash one uh-a would include the driveway rather than the subject property at 1455 North Roman Street.

Uh proposed lot B-2-A.

This variance request only pertains to lot B-2-A.

The applicant proposes no changes to the footprint of the property and is requesting waivers for insufficient lot width and insufficient lot area.

The staff believes that the requested waiver for Article 11, Section 11.3.1, minimum lot area in Article 11, Section 11.3.1, minimum lot width to allow a waiver of minimum lot area and minimum lot width fails to meet standards A.3, A.5, B.1, and B.2 of their standards for variance per Article 4, Section 4.6.

Of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, and that A3 literal interpretation of the this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance.

A point five, strict adherence to the regulation by the owner or their agent would result in a demonstrable hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from mere inconvenience.

B.1 granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege, which is denied by this ordinance to other lands or structures in the same district or otherwise similarly situated.

B.2.

The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.

Therefore, the staff recommends denial of the requested variance from Article 11, Section 11.3.8.1, minimum lot area in Article 11, Section 11.3.1 minimum lot width.

However, should the board find that the request meets all approval standards of the standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.039-26.

Hi.

Hi, you could give you a name and address for the record.

Yeah, thank you.

My name's Ezra Spiracohen.

Excuse me.

Address 1457 North Roman.

It's the property next to the greenhouse in the picture here.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

Thanks to the city planning commission also for the report.

Um I just want to maybe explain a little bit the situation.

Um, not trying to alter anything on this site.

Um as it stands right now.

The driveway is connected to the uh adjacent property 1453.

You can see in the photos and in the survey.

Um my goal here is to preserve uh the way these properties have been for the last 20 years.

What's not included in the report is some research I looked at uh Google images.

It's been almost it's been 19 years as it as it as it exists today with the fence where it is and the driveway where it is.

So I'm not creating any new buildings, um, no changes to new any new buildings.

It's an application for a minor subdivision.

That's why um I need the variance on this property that that I would need the variance for already has an exception.

It's already under the 30 feet as it stands today in for the width.

Um there was some comparison with the other with the surrounding area.

I was able to do my own comparison with uh a different square, a caddy corner square that had many more uh exceptions than the ones that were in the report.

I think it is square 763, which is caddy corner to this the square that was in the survey or that was in the report.

Uh and it I counted 37% were both insufficient width and and um area, excuse me.

I also yeah, I also wanted to say that this wouldn't just be a mere insignificance.

Uh this would be more of a significant hardship to place the fence to move the fence to where it should be according to the current lot, um, and to remove the driveway.

This would also include removing steps on that are currently on 1450 uh three that come off the side.

You can see in the survey there's steps there.

The property would moving the property line where I'm uh where I'm requesting would allow the three feet, but it would be the I wouldn't be able to use the door there.

Um yeah, so I don't think this is a case of any special privilege.

Uh clearly there are exceptions in the area there, especially this uh caddy corner square that I mentioned uh where 37% of the properties both have insufficient width and area.

Um I'm sorry if I'm using too much time, please.

I have one more point uh to make.

Um yeah, there was some mention in the report about altering the character of the of the area.

My goal here again is to preserve the way it's been for the last 19 years or more, at least 19 years I should say.

Um the report mentioned the challenge uh challenges to possible new developments in the future.

I'm not sure what any hypothetical new developments might look like.

I find it might be unlikely in this historical district.

Thank you.

Okay.

Oh, please.

Uh, if yeah, I'd be happy to ask any questions.

Thank you.

Uh thank you for your time.

If there's a uh is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Dacket 039-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Just quick question to staff.

Um, when I was reviewing a poor report, I was having some confusion as to where the actual property line sits now versus where it's proposed.

Um was one part.

The second piece to this is on what's being proposed is B2A, the lot B2A, which I understand to be, that's the lot in question, correct?

Correct.

Okay, in lot B2A on the survey, it still shows a building encroachment on the property next to it.

So how can we evaluate this one knowing that there's already some type of a discrepancy in terms of the case?

Any type of encroachment issue is is actually gonna be finalized with the subdivision itself, um, but the subdivision cannot move forward at all unless um the waivers are approved.

So is that I'm talking about the fields physical building that's shown at the 14 57.

Gonna defer to Emily on this one.

Yeah, that property um is not part of the subdivision.

I don't believe it's under the same ownership.

I can double check that.

Um but it does appear to be encouraging.

It okay.

I gotta come to the mic.

Come to the mic and put it on the record.

Sorry about that.

Yeah, it is the same ownership.

Um that's my my house, uh, I actually live there.

The 1457 address is my address.

Um the uh it this used to be one lot, basically, and when they created three houses when they created the, it used to be just the A lot that you can't see on the survey.

And when they divided it, there was some encroachment.

I'm not sure.

This is some history uh in the area there that I don't have an explanation for, but there is an encroachment.

It is the same ownership.

We do have a um an easement between those houses on record uh for the driveway there.

Um again, this is the kind of the character of this neighborhood.

There's a lot of kind of irregular properties.

Um, and I'm actually trying to contribute to fixing that and regularizing this area and create and making the you know the property line and the driveway where they have been for you know, again, at least 19 years.

So what I'm trying to get to is this better off deferred to con so that you can work with the surveyor.

If you do own both properties, that means you have the ability to make the adjustment so that there isn't the encroachment between the two structures.

Well, excuse me, the encroachment of the structure onto the lot B28 is being created.

So I think it would just be better for us to see this in a correct configuration so that we're not creating some other form of a point of confusion at this time, because the staff is assuming one thing versus what you may have the ability to correct at this time, especially if we're gonna look at it, because I think if all things are being considered at once, let's get that out of the way so it can be applied to altered properties in order to properly reconcile how the individual structures may fall on an individual lot of record.

Look at your survey where you reside, cro crosses the proposed property line.

That needs to be remedied before we would.

Is the existing easement uh does that cover this issue?

We can verify that, but um the the subdivision has been applied for.

I believe it was about two months ago, and there is no comment from safety and permits about this issue.

We can triple check that as well, though.

So yeah, so in that case, I'd almost rather have all departments actually had the chance to review this appropriately, so that you're not coming back for something later.

Not saying that another waiver would be generated.

We have no clue, but if everyone hasn't provided the appropriate review points towards this to this formal application, I'd rather see a hundred percent of that addressed before so we know what we're exactly what exactly we should review and how to better inform staff on what should be granted.

Can I can ask a question?

So the safety and permits would be responsible for signing off on the encroachment, or they would have to redraw, they would have to suggest a different uh uh subdivision.

I think they would just provide comment to you for things to be resolved.

I see.

Um, I don't know the nature of how your easement is proposed or recorded, so it kind of makes it a little bit more complicated, and just to add, um, typically with a subdivision, the 60-day process of approval, this would have come up, but it was flagged before we even continued with that process, so this would have come up eventually um through the departments that we reach out to.

Um, but it it was we're seeing it earlier.

This, yeah, first.

And that's through PAC.

Would that this goes through planning advisor committee or not?

But no, it subdivisions send out to five different departments for approval things would be.

So similar to, but just not that formal process.

Correct.

Yeah, just through our our database LAMA.

Okay.

Look like you got a question over there, Rob.

I just this is not I'm not used to this process, so I don't know if where we stand in this and if we'll be holding something up that is gonna get resolved somewhere later, or if we let the other stuff get resolved and then we, you know, whatever.

Yeah, I always feel like it's the chicken before the ick, like I never know who's who's on the first.

Yeah.

The only issue that could arise if safety and permits does have an issue with this is that another waiver would be needed.

So if that lot line needs to be shifted over, then the other interior side yard would be deficient.

Yeah, because it's no longer three feet, unless they jog it at that point, but then you got a different building code requirement on that other structure because now that building's edge falls on the property line.

Currently it's over the property line, which is even worse.

May I recommend you consider doing a 30 or 60 day deferral?

Um reason being, I'm gonna say 30 if they're already in the process of reviewing it.

It usually comes back within 60 days.

Those comments from staff.

Correct.

So consider the 30-day deferral so you could confirm that everything's been appropriately reviewed by the different departments that will have oversight so that you at least have some clear understanding of what you may be triggering for yourself, just to be honest.

Um you may not like what some of the comments are that come back.

Um thank you for the recommendation.

I'm where I stand, um I was coming here today to request a variance again for the it's the width uh insufficient with an insufficient area.

Um would the board uh consider still considered approving.

I'm interested in approval or uh considering it further.

This variance today.

Um this issue about the encroachment on the off chance that it might come up with in the encroach and the easement doesn't cover it, then I yeah, I might have to ask for another variance.

It's just exactly necessary as a lot of assumptions.

And right, so again from where I stand, it would that process would be facilitated by uh uh uh I mean again I'm interested in approval.

An approved variance today would help in the future move this process along.

Uh so if the the if the variance um if the variance would or if the board would consider this insufficient lot size or area and insufficient width, and that would be okay.

Um that doesn't grant me the subdivision, that doesn't actually make anything official.

If I if I I think that's how this would work, right?

I still have to get the the minor resubdivision approved.

Um this is just kind of a way to move the process along.

So let me let me help you understand how it's likely gonna work.

Let's say if safety impairments came back and said that you needed to shift that other line, that may shift or reduce the overall width of what you're asking for.

So we're then revisiting the same application, same question on overall lot width, and it would also reduce the lot area.

So both items would be revisited.

Um even if you were to make the indentation and move the property line to capture the encroachment, that still changes the lot area.

So there's a lot of unknowns that would come up in the process, and you would be revisiting the same waiver requests.

So by going at least deferring it for now to confirm all comments and see exactly what's required would help streamline what the answer needs to be and what actual waivers and variances you may actually need to be requesting at that time.

The numbers change, of course, and then with that the waiver changes.

Um so even if we gave you an approval, it's subject is subjective at this point, it doesn't necessarily promote that it would get approved later on.

I see.

First time going through this process.

Um this was an important step to moving this process long.

So how what would could you make some recommendations about how to what the next steps would be and how to work with the city planning commission to make sure that all of these would recommend that's I'm at least saying if you just a deferral gives you the additional days in time so that you can confirm what the actual numbers with the actual waivers would be.

Yeah, and then you can also ask the surveyor like is this actually is this a CAD error?

Like, did you not draw is this not right?

I mean, is the line over is the building over the line?

Okay, that's it.

Oh, then they shouldn't have even they should sorry, they shouldn't have.

Submitted it, I understand you're talking about you have an encroachment or at least uh an easement that may exist on that line.

It's it's all sub it's all projection of subjective at this point.

So I strongly advise that you consider deferring it, confirm, review it again with the silverwind, with the surveyor, to see exactly how to appropriately draft this and get the correct calculations in areas.

Like we shouldn't just be resubdividing and then creating an encroachment.

Like that's just that would be poor planning practice at this point.

So let's reevaluate it, get the site plan correct so it appropriately reflects what's necessary for the waiver.

And I would I would tell you just reach out to them today so that you're not tripped up and you're now pushed out two months.

Is there uh a part of the CZO that I can refer to in terms of what explaining the encroachment and how that uh what that looks like in terms of the ordinance?

Krebs, who you used, okay is very well versed on the CZO.

Okay, I ask you to talk to the professional record who generated the documents.

But also get back with staff.

They're also trying to confirm with the other departments that have some purview on it.

So, okay.

Did you say sorry you said 30 days deferment?

Uh said 30.

If you mean if you move quick enough with them, I'm assuming when would he need to resubmit?

Looks like that would be so the next staff report due date is May 27th, so it would need to be fairly soon, um, at least a couple days prior to that.

You would need to work with Sarah to figure out what exact state she would need that.

I would say um if the staff reports due on the twenty-seventh, then you could get it to me by next week.

Get it to you, meaning that get the survey that shows the encroachment or that shows the the subdivision without the building crossing the property line.

So let me let me enter Jack.

Thirty days is now gonna be enough for you to get this all resolved.

All right, it's going to be in 16.

I was trying to help you out time-wise, right?

Unfortunately, it's gonna likely be 60 just based off what I'm hearing.

Okay, by the time you even get comments back from the department to understand where they may stand, that's one part.

Second part is getting your surveyor to go back out there confirm because they're probably gonna want to visit the site again to confirm uh those points.

So just 60 days would probably be uh best process.

Yeah, and and it also impacts the next property over.

Isn't currently, so I think it's gonna be uh a little stickier.

So I'm I'm with you, Todd.

Yeah, I I appreciate that.

That's one reason why I'm trying to resolve this because you know this will this will come up in the future.

Um this is the opportunity to, you know, as someone interested in in making this within the uh uh the city's guidelines.

Looking at the site plan and looking at the buildings on the street, it's clearly an oddball kind of property going on.

You're trying to make it right.

So let's let's get it right.

Okay, thanks for your support.

Uh all right, sorry about that.

No, no.

Uh this was helpful.

Thank you.

All right, so 60 days just to confirm 60 day deferment.

Okay, thank you.

No problem.

If there are no other questions from the board, is there a motion?

Yeah.

Um go.

Uh Madam Chair, Garcia BZA docket number 039-26.

My motions for a 60-day deferral.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA docket, uh 039-26 has been moved by Commissioner James.

Seconded by Commissioner Diaz to defer the matter 60 days.

Roll call vote, Todd James.

Yes.

Tamara Eggins.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez, Ramiro Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez, yay.

And Candace Forrest, yay.

Six years, and no nace the motion carries.

Next item.

BCA docket 040-26 is for the property located at 1041 Dumain Street.

The site currently consists of a commercial structure on a lot with frontage on Dumain Street.

The associated request is for a variance from the provisions of Article 9, Section 9.3.A, Table 9-2 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit a subdivision resulting in insufficient open space ratio.

The subject site was constructed nearly a hundred years prior to the adoption of the current CZO, and it's part of a much larger complex of buildings featuring surface parking.

The lot lines currently measure at approximately 18 feet by 56 feet, with the proposed lot lines narrowing the lot to roughly 15 foot by 32 foot, bringing the open space ratio to zero.

Staff finds that the approval standards A1, A3, A4, A5, and B1 for this request have not been met, and that the request for the variance is based primarily upon a desire to serve the convenience or profit of the property owner or other interested party, among other reasons.

Therefore, staff recommends denial.

However, should the board recommend approval of the requested variants, staff recommend one proviso.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 040-26?

Hi, my name is Mary Grace Burgess.

Address is 800 Barone Street, and I'm here on behalf of the owner to present our vanity requests for 1041 Dumain Street.

Request involves no change to any existing structures or characteristics of the site as it exists currently.

There's no construction of any kind associated with this.

We're simply here to request the ability to move a lot line to have an existing restaurant on one lot of record and an existing apartment building and parking lot on the other.

City planning originally approved our resubdivision request.

However, after the fact notice because of the open space requirements, we did need a variant.

The open space on the site does not change in any way, shape, or form.

As part of this proposal, one lot will receive a bit more open space and another a little less, but no overall change.

We do want to thank just thank the staff for a good staff report recommending in favor of many of the criteria, and I'm happy to help close the gap on the remaining few.

The staff report did identify a precedent for this request located at 1231 Bourbon Street.

They were approved to resubdivide two townhomes into individual properties where the individual lots did not meet the open space requirement, but the overall lot did.

The intent is simply to align the lot lines with the existing uses on the property.

The current lot line cuts through the existing parking lot.

So the revision is intended to correct that condition and ensure the parking area is contained within its property lot of record and able to be used by the residents of the apartment.

As of now, that property line is very close to the front door of the apartments.

Happy to answer any questions.

I also did print an aerial image showing where the lot.

So I think the lack of precedent might actually speak to precedent in a in a reverse way in that sense.

So I think that actually that point I think gets uh largely to a lot of the uh uh to a lot of the uh not met criteria and then also in terms of uh the other part to notice as Mary Grace noted.

Uh there are existing uses, just kind of lines it up with that.

You've got the existing uh apartment complex and the and the uh parking lot for it.

This doesn't change the use so in terms of uh anything special for the for the owner gaining anything convenience or profit there uh continuing the use as it has been for many years.

So it shouldn't be anything too too unique as far as that goes.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 040-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Miles R.

Just a quick question for y'all.

I know that there's a lot of notations related to some of the encroachments that exist on a perimeter of the site.

Is that something that's addressed via that same title work?

You mean onto the public right away?

Uh no, and to the joint and pro into H2A.

So what this what this should do, this resub and Mary Grace, correct me if I'm wrong, this resub should allow clear all the clear all encroachments.

Got it.

Let's just have to ask a question just coming off of what the last docket item was, and when we get into how elements do encroach beyond a building edge, just how did that really play out?

Um can y'all at least just add more color to a uh A4, which is the uh the variance is not primarily based on uh convenience or profit language.

So, you know, ideally here the issue that we're trying to correct.

I can't see it from there, is that this property line it intersects the parking lot as it is currently.

So currently the park and actually use the space, the residents are actually parking on the other property, which is not, you know, moving forward is not really how we want to have this.

So in addition, there's no access.

This building, no one can actually access that lot because there's a gate here in a fence.

So how this really it's really helping the residents so that they can use their parking lot for those apartments, and it makes the usability of the apartments feasible helpful.

And I think that because the existing use is what's maintained, there's not anything new or changing.

It's not it's not a profit-driven matter in the sense that there's nothing, there's no new profit that's gonna be gained by that.

There's new no new parking spaces, no new anything, it's just formalizing the uh cleaning up the formal use.

Right.

We were actually surprised to see that that's where the property line was.

Okay.

Any other questions or see?

Um in regards to docket 40 26.

I move to oh, were there any provisos?

One, okay.

Um I have moved for approval with the noted proviso um, citing the letter and the um discussion today.

Second, thank you.

Excuse me.

With regards to BZA docket zero four zero-two six has been moved by Commissioner Diaz, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the requested waiver.

Finding that the nine criteria have been met in adapting uh commentary from today as well as the applicant's submission to establish um that the nine criteria have been met and subject to one proviso.

Roll call vote, Todd James, yes, Jose Alvarez, yes, Ramiro Diaz, yes, Alfonso Gonzalez, yay, and Candace Forrest, yay.

Five years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

BCA 4126 is a request to re to permit the the creation of lots with insufficient lot area, insufficient lot width, insufficient lot depth, insufficient front yard, interior side yard, in uh corner side yard and rear setbacks.

Subject property is an irregularly shaped corner lot that contains a two-family dwelling.

The applicant wishes for each dwelling to occupy its own separate lot of records so that the subject property so the subject property is also the subject of subdivision case SD 115-24.

The proposed lots are both deficient in the aforementioned dimensional requirements, hence the need for waivers to be granted before the subdivision can be approved and certified for recordation.

Due to the subject property's size and shape and the respective orientation of the two subject dwellings, there is simply no way to create two separate wholly compliant lots which would allow either or both of the dwellings to be conveyed independent of the other.

Therefore, the staff recommends approval of BZA 4126, subject to the proviso cited in the staff report.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present for BZA Docket 041-26?

Good morning, Johnston Burkhard.

On behalf of the applicant, uh my address is 935 Gravier Street Suite 1800.

Here for any questions or concerns, and I thank you for your time and request approval today.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA docket 041-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

For motions in order.

Yes, proceed.

Madam Chair, regards to BZA Docket number 041-2026.

My motion is to accept the staff's recommendation for the requested waivers for uh proposed lot 23A and proposed lot 23b.

And move for approval with the one noted proviso.

Understanding that the uh non criteria have been met.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA docket 041-26, it's been moved by Commissioner James.

Seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez to grant the requested waivers of proposed lots 23A and lot 23B, finding that the nine criteria have been met, subject to one proviso.

Roll call vote, Todd James?

Yes.

Tamara Eggins?

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Ramiro Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yay.

Candace Forrest.

Yay.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

Item number nine, BZA Docket 042-26 has been withdrawn.

The next item is BZA Docket 04426 for the property at 932 Arabella Street.

This request is for variances from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a single family dwelling with more than two and one-half total number of bathrooms and insufficient off-street parking.

The applicant proposes to construct proposes the construction of a five-bedroom single-family dwelling with four and a half bathrooms and one off street parking space.

Due to the site's location within the university area parking overlay district, variances to permit the insufficient off-street parking and excessive number of bathrooms are required.

Based on this report, the staff finds that the following standards are not met and that there are no special conditions peculiar to the land or structure involved.

The request is based primarily on the desire to serve the convenience or profit of the owner or other interested party.

Strict adherence to the regulations will not result in a demonstrable hardship.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

However, if the board finds that the request meets all of the approval standards of the standards of variances of Article 4, Section 46F, staff recommends one provisor.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 044-26?

Is there anyone here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 044-26?

He's here.

Is there anyone here in opposition?

If he's here, do you want to um I think he's running in?

Apologies, board.

Zach Smith, 1000 South Norman C.

Francis.

Uh, we really appreciate the staff's uh report on this one.

As you all know, we have seen several of these very similar projects where someone who is building a single family house is essential is essentially just not able to have the same rights as folks that do currently live in single family homes.

This is part of the course.

This will be a project that as soon as it uh is completed, will hit the market and is listed and being built purely for uh as a single family home.

Uh per the report for A1 again, similar structures in the district and all around are allowed to be built.

Uh this property will seek and get a homestead exemption as soon as it is uh finished being constructed and sold.

Um, for A4 per the staff, there is no other place to put uh again two specifically unique independent parking spaces that would not be able to um to interfere with each other.

And then for A5 again, um, this is gonna be a single-family home.

And if it was fully occupied and fully constructed, or if this was some sort of renovation, this would be exempt.

All of those reasons we hope that this board can continue its consistent approach in approving this appeal.

Thank you.

Waiver.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 044-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Opposition.

Uh good morning, Commissioner.

Pull the mic up, please.

Is that better?

Yeah, good morning, commissioners.

My name is Gary Silbert.

Um my wife and I live at 933 hour Bella Street, directly across the street from this development.

And uh we're here in strong opposition to the developers' plan.

So I think the staff got it right.

This is all about the profit of the owner.

Specifically, he's talking about uh he's working on improvements of a 4400 square square foot property at the same time in the same footprint um developing a 3,866 square foot new home.

In the area that we live, we have the Romney Pilates studio.

We have Saba Restaurant, Whole Foods, and just a zillion uh retail uh uh outlets on Magazine Street.

The point is we're under heavy pressure for parking.

Uh as a senior citizen, my wife and I come home with groceries and from socializing and out and about.

And more often than not, we cannot find a parking space as a matter of convenience and safety.

I mean, dragging our groceries for a block and a half isn't right.

Coming in after hours in the dark and not, you know, worrying where we're gonna park is inappropriate.

And lastly, and most importantly, we moved into this neighborhood almost 20 years ago.

And this, I mean, it's such an attractive, beautiful neighborhood, and what is being proposed uh ruins the beautiful nature of the neighborhood, and strongly encourage you to follow your staff's advice, and and uh not approve this variance.

Finally, as uh as my wife says uh love's like a parking spot, the good ones are all gone.

Thank you.

Morning.

My name is Eugenie Lyman, and I live at 919 Arabella Street.

I've lived on this block in three different houses for over 40 years.

Bryce Reevely, the previous owner of 936 Arabella, lived there for longer than that, and she lived in that house like the treasure that it was, honoring the beauty and integrity of the oldest house on the block, and surely among the oldest in the entire neighborhood.

With when within a week at the onset of renovation by Crescent City developers, everything that had any intrinsic value to be reaped was gone.

Antique glass was shattered, the yard was stripped of beautiful landscaping, mature trees and plantings, and replaced by dumpsters into which 12-inch baseboards, door frames, and all of the trim were thrown out.

All of it was virgin cypress, and it's all irreplaceable now.

They've shown a complete disregard for the fabric of a cherished neighborhood.

The house is now a monstrous windowless box extending to the full allowance for the property.

This is not a one-off.

When I mentioned to one of the HDLC develop deputy directors in a conversation, a stop work notice that I had seen on a house on State Street that they that Crescent City Developers was renovating.

Um it was cited for removing more of the building than was permitted.

I was told that they were known to the HDLC.

Forgiveness rather than permission is their modus operandi, as others have referenced or will reference in their opposition.

They're currently permitted for a two-bedroom, two-bedroom house on the decimated lot.

Let them build just that, please.

It is at least of a size appropriate for the neighborhood.

Anything else is purely greed.

The stated purpose of the HDLC is preserving and protecting and regulating building sites and districts of historical importance.

It safeguards the city's heritage, enhances neighborhood quality, improves property value, and manages growth.

We are all so grateful for planner Valerie Goyne's recommendation for denial of all of these variances.

We respectfully ask that you not reward the arrogance and disrespect with which Crescent City developers approaches their destruction of one of the most unique neighborhoods in the country, and ask that you die deny them both permission and forgiveness.

Thank you so much for your time.

I'm Margaret Silverstein.

I live at 939 Nashville, directly behind the new development.

Thank you for your service.

Thanks for being here today and listening to us.

First of all, he doesn't comply with the nine conditions.

Um, he will not be deprived of the right to build a single family home.

He's just gonna have to build it according to the requirements.

He can't shove a huge house into this 31-foot lot.

Um, with respect to the special conditions and circumstances, he created those.

He subdivided the lot.

The property used to be a side garden for 936 Arabella.

He subdivided it, and now he intends to build a house with five bedrooms, four and a half bathrooms on a 31-foot-wide former yard.

So he created these problems for himself, and the house is not consistent with the neighborhood.

Arabella isn't Nashville Avenue, it isn't Eleanor Street, it isn't state.

These blocks are mostly populated by small single story houses.

Yes, there are some bigger houses, but for the most part, on these three or four blocks, it's single story houses, and shoving a five-bedroom, four and a half bath house onto this little lot, is it just doesn't fit in with the neighborhood.

And finally, it's gonna be a problem with the parking.

You put five people who can drive in that house, three teenagers, two parents, you've got five cars, and you've got one parking spot, and that's just inacceptable, unacceptable.

So we request that um you deny the application, and thank you for your consideration.

Is this thing on?

There we go.

I am Robert Woodkowski at 9-13 Arabella Street.

I'm in the neighborhood, obviously.

Um I don't envy any of the decision making in this process.

I've been in your seats before.

What I will say is I come from the era of greed is good.

I am a big fan of property rights and making money and doing all that, particularly with real estate.

However, with this particular project, uh, while the original intent was a single family dwelling with two full baths and one full number of bathrooms, that was entirely in keeping with this.

If any of you, and I would encourage you if the decisions waived for a while, to tear to look at this lot, if you looked at it, you might feel comfortable putting a lap pool in it.

It's extraordinarily narrow.

So the concept of a five-bedroom house with this many bathrooms, honestly, I'm sure I'd love to see the plans.

I'm sure they're great, but they're it's almost incomprehensible.

It's almost thinking about it as the size of the building that already exists, which is pretty monstrous.

Uh, it really comes down to density and this being a city.

There's appropriate levels of that.

And I think, again, I will affirm previous comments that I think the judgment and the concerns and the denial is appropriate at this stage.

Uh, I welcome the development if it cares to go forward in terms of a project and a footprint that's more appropriate for the space.

Thank you.

This request by Crescent City Developers is purely motivated by a desire for profit that does not meet the criteria needed for variances.

Since purchasing the house, Mr.

Fabray and Crescent City developers have proven that they are not interested in preserving the character of the house nor the integrity of our neighborhood, but merely are motivated by profit.

Just days after the purchase, interior architectural elements began being removed from the house.

For over 20 years, we have lived directly across the street from this development.

We, as well as several other neighbors, do not have off-street parking.

Adding two driveways between 930-932 Arabella and 936 Arabella, the other development that he is working on on the same lot, which they've subdivided, with 10 bedrooms between the two houses, will further burden all of the current neighbors as street parking will be removed by these houses, and more cars will be added to the neighborhood.

Our neighbors, Dana Atchinson and Eric Hardy, have already submitted to you and clearly outlined the criteria which have not been met.

Standard six has not been met, strict adherence to the regulations would not result in a demonstratable hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from mere inconvenience.

This is not a hardship.

He is building it to sell for profit.

He does not plan to live in the house that he's building, although he said he would on the application.

Standard seven has not been met.

According to his application, the purpose of the request is to allow the property owner to construct their primary residence and occupy the home once the construction is completed.

As he is merely building the house to sell for profit, he did not intend to live there as stated.

Standard nine has not been met.

As granting this property variance will substantially increase the congestion in the public street.

The increased density will increase the number of cars parked near the corner of Arabella and Chestnut.

If 932 and 936 are each sold to families who have teenager drivers, there is the potential to add at least 10 new cars on our block.

This is just too much.

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

Thank you.

Can I have my husband's time?

Did he speak?

Did he already?

He's next.

Can I have your son?

That's uh Clyde.

Yes.

Okay.

Furthermore, there are several inconsistencies which were submitted to safety and permits when he got his permits to develop for these developments.

In October, Crescent City Developers purchased the parcel at 936 Arabella, a house on a 75 by 120 lot, which was listed as a five-bedroom, four-bathroom house.

Just nine days later, the same five-bedroom, four-bath house was listed for sale by him.

He bought it for 1.1 million.

He listed that five-bedroom four-bath house for 1.9 million dollars.

This five-bedroom, four-bath house continued to be on the market until the listing expired a few weeks ago.

In the meantime, however, permits were applied for so that the house at 936 Arabella could be renovated.

Ironically, the stamp plan submitted to safety and permits state that the house at 936 Arabella is a five-bedroom, five bath house.

It's not a five-bedroom five-bath house.

It never was a five-bedroom five-bath house.

He should have gotten a variance for that one too.

The house was not a five-bathroom house.

On the plans, where he put a bathroom was actually a bedroom closet.

It was portrayed as a bathroom.

It seems as though the developers were skirting the need for a variance at 936 Arabella, also when adding a fifth bathroom for the property, and they succeeded.

How many bathrooms will be at 936 Arabella?

Shouldn't the developer have applied for a variance for that one too?

Crescent City Developers has already proven to be an untrustworthy neighbor with the house at 936 Arabella.

One needs to only look at NOLA One stop to see that multiple submissions of plans have already been made for the house at 932 Arabella.

When the need for a variance arose, he submitted plans and has already received a permit to build a 2,000 square foot, I mean a two-bedroom, I'm sorry, a two-bedroom house with the same exact footprint as the 4,000 square foot house that he's trying to build.

Do we really think it's going to be a two-bedroom house that he's going to build?

The permit states the house is going to be 2866 square feet, but the plans submitted show that it's 3866 square feet.

That's the end of your time.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in opposition?

The applicant has an opportunity to rebut.

My point's been made.

Uh this is a consistent application.

And um, here if there's anything I can try to help answer.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Just some um initial comments.

What I want to make sure that we're clear on in terms of what we did is on of the testimony, at least from those opposed to the application, relative to density and proposed use.

Um, if this property was within a different footprint of the city, none of these waivers would be reviewed.

This is exclusively tied to the university area off-street park and overlay district.

Um if this would have been a property that wasn't existing structure, um, where someone did have a homestead exemption filed, that same project that same project would not have to apply for waivers of variances.

So I think where I want to make sure I point some redirect some of the issues, a lot of what the concerns are from the neighbors are pertinent to who is actually performing the work in handling the ownership of the property versus what's actually within the CZO and what they may or may not be allowed to do.

Um we have been seeing a ton of these applications recently where it's a lot of individual single-family homes, some purchased by individual ready to go to construction, but because they don't have a homestead exemption on this site, they're required to come in front of us for waivers and variances.

So I get the frustration, especially when you're observing something that you've seen modified substantially in front of you, but what we have to be careful from from at least the BZA perspective is solely what we are here to review.

Um typically any other site, I don't think they would be required to have additional parking stalls.

This would only be one, correct, Valerie for any traditional single family home outside of the overlay.

And nor would there be any restrictions on the number of bathrooms.

So I just want to make sure we're clearly addressing what's in front of us and what was the intent of how this overlay was originally drafted to be enforced.

This was about preventing properties that were being converted into student housing, not single family occupancy, two very distinct uses and how they would function as a property.

So don't want y'all to hear this and think that we're just unilaterally just filing one thing.

I want to make sure we're clearly articulating what we're here to review.

I know you're raising your hand for a question.

I I'll welcome one question, but it needs to be brief because I at least want to, but you gotta come to the mic, you gotta come to the microphone.

It's gotta be on record.

Um my question is you said that if it weren't in the overlay district, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

And the reason that was in the overlay district is to prevent this from happening, actually.

It is in the overlay district, and how do we know that this is gonna be a home occupied house?

As on our block, we have others that are not owner-occupied.

They do not have homestead exemption.

Because this is in the overlay district, the overlay district has rules for a reason, and this is why they do have the rules, so that things like this don't continue to happen.

We don't know.

This could be a double steadarm for Tulane.

We are close enough to that that it could be.

When I look at the nature of how the plan is submitted and the characteristics of that floor plan, it does not read as if though this is for student housing.

I just wanted to at least provide the opportunity for you to have commentary, but at the same time, provide clarity based off of what's before us and how we review it.

But again, I'm one person.

I have any further comment, Madam Chair.

Yeah, I was just gonna um bring up the the one distinction.

I I definitely understand that um typically when these have been brought before us, it's been um an owner that has um run into the situation where if they would have um already had a homestead exemption, they would not have to go through this process.

This one is a little bit different because um I do think we have to at least acknowledge the fact that we don't know what this is gonna um turn into going forward.

So this does present a slightly different scenario than what we've dealt with before, because this isn't a situation where the person before us is the one that's going to um occupy the property at the end of the day.

So that is a bit of a distinction from the ones that have normally come before us.

Okay.

So question to staff.

Um in the case of an approval.

The plan is is currently shown and proposed.

Would that plan be able to be modified?

In order to reflect something that would be closer to a traditional rental style layout based on the if we would grant the waivers, this is currently shown.

Or does the phrase phrase another way if we approve it as it is and then they go and change the internal floor plan?

Because we're we're solely looking at the zoning, right?

So if we're just looking at the number of bathrooms and bedrooms, as long as it's not increased.

It's not necessarily the plan.

You can't lock the plan.

Right.

Yeah.

And technically safety and permits would have to approve it as well, but as far as the scope of a variance approval, we would be looking at no increase in number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and that would be within the scope of what was approved today if it's approved.

And just playing that thought process out because what's playing in the back of my mind is if for some reason the developer is not able to sell this as a single-family home, the concern is that it could ultimately get retrofitted to something that could be sellable as rental units.

Yeah, and and I guess I'm just echoing so by right, if it weren't for the IZD, they wouldn't be before us, right?

Um that said, the IZD, the only that we have been.

If it weren't for the IZD and if it weren't a scenario where it was already um, they already had a homestead exemption.

They still could be within the ICD and have a homestead exemption.

That's what I was gonna say.

So the other ones that we've been reviewing where we give a uh grace is because there is a homeowner that's already in place.

So a buyer or a or a um, or somebody that's renovating their existing property.

So I th I'm totally seeing that shade.

Um yeah, it's gray.

It this just feels a bit more of a slippery slope than the others, and that's why I just wanted to bring up that there is a bit of a distinction from how they've normally um been before us and not in any way trying to frame you know the current um developer in any negative light, but just explaining that there is a a bit of a distinction that puts things a little bit more out of our hands than what we've normally had before us.

Which even in those cases, they could have still gone ahead with the permit, completed that project and still sold that property.

So I'm just in the cases where we've had a property owner come in.

I mean, that could almost be the property owner doing as a developer themselves.

So I just want to make sure we're very careful in terms of how we look at it and frame this accordingly.

I'm not trying to do that.

I mean, I get it, it's a back and forth.

I think what the point is we know that this property is going to be sold.

That's not something that's been before us before.

So I get the hypotheticals, but the one definite is that this is a property that's slated to be sold.

I'm just throwing that comment out there for us to just consider downstream in future applications that still can apply for any other property owner that we have extended that grace to.

And it just goes back to taking this out of our hands and maybe addressing this, you know, in the appropriate place where it needs to be, um, to look at how this overlay district is uh crafted.

Yep.

And this is not an HDLC zone, right?

This is just HDLC for demolition.

Is that right?

Yeah.

Valerie or um, is this is is this a full this partial control, right?

So HDLC.

Yeah, I I don't think it's they're not it doesn't go before the architectural view, I don't think.

Yeah that's correct.

It's in the uptown, which is a partial control district.

Yeah, I mean that's to the to the scale and massing of the building and all that, it's it's as I said by right if it weren't for the yeah.

Mr.

Smith, um I know that you aren't the developer you're just here on behalf of so I want to make sure frustration is appropriately directed.

With regards to the plan and how it's shown.

Is there do you think there would be a temperature for the developer to look at a plan modification that may at least offset what would be the required parking to provide all to two off three compliance dolls.

Is that something that you might be able to review with them.

I mean we certainly can look at it I mean you know when we talk about what the look of this neighborhood looks like you'd either have to create a situation where you essentially shrink the entire building to where it's a narrow building that I'm just gonna assume does not really match the architecture and aesthetic of the area to have a whatever the width of the first bay is uh the second would be we can jack the house up in the air and dry underneath it and solve that problem.

Well is it that do they have to be adjacent or can they be in tandem?

They can't be tandem.

They can't be tandem because of the overlay to have these individual parking spaces right.

Uh and I go back to you know when we look at this and say yes it is in the overlay remember that the intent if we go into article eighteen the intent is specifically to try and derail what the CZO refers to even though it's ill defined or undefined short term.

It is specifically mentioned it's it's called the university area overlay um again if this building were to be built right now as let's just call it a two-two any property owner that this is sold to could literally do anything they wanted the second they got a homestead exemption in here.

I do hear the board's position about hey this is the first time this has come to you guys with a hey it's the developer looking to sell it I would propose you know I'm all about trying to to come up with a workable solution that can make some guarantees here is if the if if the board's comfortable with it if the staff are comfortable with it and ultimately maybe even the law department comfortable with it specifically locking in this floor plan as a proviso to this approval uh which I know is sometimes anticipated but uh the idea that this could turn into a million other things I mean I've been battling that slippery slip argument for 17 years and 99.999% of the time it never even was attempted to to happen so if there's a way to literally lock in this this floor plan and say you know if somebody in the future wants to come mess around especially a non-owner uh who's who's subject to the to article eighteen so be it and they gotta come back in front of this board but this group clearly is developing this land to sell this for a single family home if the if they if if they sold this plan to me to come and build this uh or or you know they built part of it and then we got a homestead and came back to it we again we wouldn't even be here.

Uh so I d could can they explore it to your question Mr.

James I'm sure they can um I'm not quite sure how it's gonna look um but I'm sure they could uh but at the end of the day I don't really think that that is the the one space two space doesn't seem to actually be the issue uh you know if this was 10 blocks another way it'd be less it'd be a different it'd be a different story that all revolves around parking you know it's it's amazing though no matter where we're building it always turns into parking.

I know there's a long sought after, you know, opposition to a certain grocery store.

It's about parking.

Everything tends to boil down the parking.

But uh yeah, my my my best my best thought immediately is again knowing that this floor plan is just not made for student housing.

So literally lock this in as a proviso uh for a period of time or for indefinitely, uh in a way that's obviously not going to destroy somebody's property rights when they come back to it when it is a single family home and somebody does live there with a homestead exemption.

So that's the only thing I wouldn't want to have subject to somebody some subject somebody to something that's well beyond the pale.

But at the end of the day, if it if it's sometimes you gotta solve for today, and yeah, can it be can it be explored?

I mean any just about anything be explored.

I think it's gonna look it's gonna look like some very goofy housing stock if this gets fully compliant parking spaces, because they're gonna either have to go all the way to the right.

And that's if that's if they were next to each other.

No, when in my head, I'm looking at the plan exclusively through tandem parking, not you can't.

Yeah, that's not gonna remember tandem is one of the the reasons.

It's very it's one of the next one.

Correct, and that's exactly why the parking thing is triggered the way.

Not enough parking is the reason why we're gonna no longer exist as a city in 50 years.

That was that was in that report a week ago.

Uh but I'm sorry, my you crack in EDO jokes, but that's all right.

Well, I mean, yeah, the other way to look at this is the just the scale of it, which is what the neighborhood was concerned about.

You know, if you reduce the number of rooms, then you could also meet the requirements.

So I think that's I think that's where I struggle here because um, you know, it does it it does it does feel quite large um for the site, and then you know, we were had an earlier case today where somebody, and I know granted it was multifamily, but you know, we were it you know holding them to a uh parking center as well there, so um that's that's my two cents.

Yeah, and I think that's what we the first time that it came up and um I was laughed at when I brought up the point, but I think that's what where we get stuck with the discussion of um permitting a certain number of bathrooms, it just it feels very inappropriate to dictate to someone how many because it's not bedrooms that we're limited that are before us, it's the bathrooms, and so um I mean it's triggered by some of the other things, but it's triggered by the bedrooms, but literally when this came up the very first time, um there was a request for I want to say it was like six or seven bathrooms, and it becomes questionable to start to ask what is the appropriate number of bathrooms to allow someone to have.

And so we get into some of these wonky arguments basically, and um it goes back to the point of if it were a homestead if they were a homestead exemption, none of this would even have to be asked.

So um it's not I mean I the scale is to I don't want to say to be questioned, but it's putting us back into that world of how do we judge you know what's appropriate.

So I keep going back to that by right.

If it weren't for the IZD and if it weren't for the homestead, then you would they would be able to do it and wouldn't be before us.

So I I I struggle with this ICD tremendously.

And this isn't the only one on the agenda today.

Um just to uh Mr.

Smith's uh to your suggestion.

I don't, you know, we always say that we're just each of us is just one board member.

Um I think given um what some of my points were, um, some of what you suggested um in terms of a potential proviso may resolve some of that angst.

Um, but I don't know what um the pleasure of the board may be, and I don't know if it really solves what I know those are some of the points I made.

I don't know if that solves what everyone else's um questions may be in terms of whether or not that may be a viable um solution.

Oh well, at least they in part that's why I brought up the question initially was is there an opportunity where a plan can be locked?

Um is ultimately what what I was alluding to in while I have staff, so I see it as at least a mechanism at the end of the day.

A lot of this is us having to react to whatever case is.

Um of it we learn from some of it works out perfectly.

So it's this is the bit of the nuance of how do we still push and promote development, but at the same time stay within the confines or at least protect the interests of everybody else around it.

Because again, it meets the minimum lot standards so no no other waivers exist on this item outside of just the university overlay component so and I'm just trying not to have us create a precedent where someone now comes and says well you you know this was granted in this case and that's why I get to the slippery slope argument of how far can we go with this and not create a situation where we've basically um undone the viability of the overlay district.

I may I may since there wasn't a pull the um since there wasn't a motion yet on the uh floor um the property owners had just shot me a text they were able to catch a couple in there and just wanted to say one thing as a factual note they built over a hundred houses and every single one of them has been a single family home they've never uh built or operated or their houses have never to been anything other than a single family home for what it's worth so when we talk about track record I think that's an important note to see what the uh this building is planned to be what it's being built as and what it will be thank you thank you I just want to make sure that again appreciate the comment but again this is the the one off that they haven't done a hundred of these so it's kind of the I have to still at least be very open and appreciate multiple points hence why we have the discussion in the first place so do appreciate the perspective of my colleagues.

I don't know how other folks on the board feel but I'm I'm struggling with this one quite a bit and I'm maybe gonna request uh I'm not sure even if a deferral would help here if there's anything that the developer could do to satisfy us a little better because I I'm I I'm gonna move for denial if um that's that's my opinion right now so if there's if that makes sense to if there's any any room there for the commitment plan right I think the only way that we can move on a deferral is if there's really um an ability to make a change to the plan.

So that's where I as far as if a motion's in order um in regards to um docket 4426 I'm gonna move to accept the staff's recommendation for denial.

Second thank you with regards to BZA docket 044-26 has been moved by Commissioner Diaz second by Commissioner Gonzalez to deny the requested waivers finding at the nine criteria have not been met roll call vote Todd James.

Yay Tamara Eggins no Jose Alvarez no Ramiro Diaz yes Alfonso Gonzalez yay Candice Forrest yay for two thank you for four yes two nays the motion carries next item item number nine, BCA docket.

I'm sorry, item number 11, BCA docket zero four five twenty six has been rendered moot all right the next item is BCA docket 4626 for a property located at 518 Walnut Street.

This request is for a variance from the provisions of Article 18, Section 18.330.30.b.4, university area off-street parking overlay district bathrooms to permit the construction of a single family dwelling with more than two full and one half total number of bathrooms and insufficient off-street parking.

The property owner seeks to combine two of the six units in this condominium structure to create a larger single-family dwelling with seven bedrooms and five and one-half bathrooms.

In accordance with Article 18, Section 18.30.b.2, three bedrooms are permitted in the university area off street parking overlay district before additional parking is required.

Because the previous dwelling enjoyed four bedrooms, the new combined dwelling is deemed to be increasing the number of bedrooms by three, necessitating three parking spaces.

Two spaces were already provided in the condo parking area, one for each existing unit, necessitating a waiver of one parking space.

In accordance with Article 18, Section 18.30 point B.4, the maximum number of permitted bathrooms in the university area off-street parking overlay district is 2.5.

In the case of this property, there is a legal nonconforming condition, wherein the existing units maintain four and one-half bathrooms.

While the lock configuration does constitute a special condition for the provision of additional parking at this site, it does not hinder compliance as the applicant could simply reduce the number of proposed bedrooms.

The applicant's request for five and one-half bathrooms is not related to the land or structure involved, having a special circumstance, nor are there any special conditions preventing the applicant from compliance.

The staff believes the request does not satisfy the nine criteria as they pertain to requested variants of Article 18, Section 18.30.

Failing to meet criteria A3 and A5 of the standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.30.4, university off-street parking overlay district bathrooms fails to meet criteria a uh one, a three, a four, and a five of the standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.

Therefore, the staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

However, should the board find that the request meets all nine approval standards of the stereotypes for variances, staff recommends the following provisos.

The applicant shall submit the following plans reflecting the approval of board of zoning adjustments, including compliance with all noted provisos is applicable to BZA staff for review and approval.

These plans shall be the plans for which the building permit is issued.

Uh the site plan and the floor plans.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present for BCA Docket 046-26?

Hi, Kristen Galat, home addresses 27407 Coleman Drive and Abeda.

Um so we are in the overlay district.

We do not want additional parking.

And this is kind of a funky one because we are a multi- currently a multi-family building in a single family district.

So our homeowner has purchased a second condo in the building and is wishing to combine the two units into one larger single family home for their family.

Is that the end of your comment?

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA Docket 046-26?

Hi, Charlotte Dawson, owner of the property.

Um I put on my form that the property address.

I actually live in Texas right now in this fiery debate a moment ago.

My husband's career is winding down.

We will be applying for our home site exemption once these two units are combined into a single family home.

Um, it is not a development.

This is for us.

I am from here.

I grew up here, I'm coming back here.

We are just big New Orleans people, and I'm excited to be for this potential and to be coming back and can answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 046 26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Just to clarify the parking in the back.

There's a certain number of spaces, but there's a certain number of residents in the building, and technically you're actually reducing the number of people that would be in the building, right?

Because there would have been two units here combining into one.

So each unit has a parking space.

So there are six units in the back, even when combined, there'll still be six spots, and I would be allocated the two I was originally allocated from the very beginning.

Okay.

And for what it's worth, I'm asking for fewer street spots.

I'm not asking for the maximum allocation, so we won't be taking more spaces if that's an issue.

Off street.

Yes, off street.

Yeah, yeah.

No, that makes sense.

Yeah.

So quick question: you have control of one of the units already are in a process of purchasing the second, or did you buy both?

No, okay.

I'm good.

I have a motion's in order.

So noting that every case is unique.

Um in regards to uh docket 4626.

I move to um actually approve the request.

Um with the uh with the recommended proviso um citing the nine criteria haven't met.

Um, we're referencing the conversation on the attached letter.

Second, provisos.

Yeah, I said with the provisos, okay.

One proviso, yeah.

He whispers, okay.

Sorry, thank you.

I thought it was two provisos.

I was mumbling.

This one.

Thank you.

With regards to BZA Docket 046-26, it's been moved by Commissioner Diaz, second by Commissioner Eggins to grant the requested waivers, finding that the nine criteria have been met, adopting their commentary as well as the applicant's submission to establish that the nine criteria have been met, subject to one proviso.

Roll call vote, Todd James.

Yes, Tamara Eggins?

Yes.

Jose Alvarez, yes, Ramiro Diaz.

Yes, Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yay, and Candice Forrest.

Yay.

Six J's no nays, the motion carries.

Next item.

We would now begin.

We would now begin with deferral requests for variances.

24.

The next item is BCA Docket 02426 for a property located at 1309 Harmony Street.

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

Fence height to permit offense with excessive height.

This is an after-the-fact request.

The previous survey submitted indicated offense along or near the Chestnut Street property line, however, it was unclear whether the fence was located on the subject property or on the adjacent lot.

Staff requested additional documentation on March 9th, 2026 to accurately reflect the fence's location.

Staff received the updated survey on April 24th, 2026, which indicates the fence that the fence is located on the subject property.

Additionally, the applicant has initiated a review with the Department of Safety and Permits to determine whether the existing fence is compliant with the applic applicable regulations due to a grade differ difference between the subject property and the adjacent property, which could negate the need for board action and render the variance move.

Therefore, staff recommends a 30-day deferral to provide sufficient time for resolution of the outstanding compliance determination.

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

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Motions in order.

Yes, proceed.

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

My motion is accept as staff's uh request for a 30-day deferral.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA Docket 024-26, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Diaz to defer the item 30 days at the request of staff.

Roll call vote, Todd James.

Yes.

Tamara Eggins.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Ramiro Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yes.

And Candice Forrest, yay.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item is BZA Docket 4326 for the property at 2518 Burgundy Street.

This request is for variances to permit ground-based mechanical equipment within sufficient distance from the interior side lot line.

The applicant is requesting.

The applicant is proposing a setback of one foot four inches.

The requirement is two feet, and they are requesting a waiver of eight inches.

The staff is requesting a 30-day deferral as it came to light that a survey was not included with the original application submittal.

And we need the survey to verify the correct setback measurements.

So staff is recommending a 30-day deferral.

Is there anyone here in support of the applicant for BCA Docket 043-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

For motions in order.

Yes, proceed.

Yes, proceed.

Madam Chair, with regards to BZA docket number 043-26.

My motions for a third-date referral at the recommendation of staff.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA Docket 043-26, it's been moved by Commissioner James.

Second by Commissioner Alvarez to defer the matter 30 days at the request of staff.

Roll call vote, Todd James.

Yes.

Tamara Eggins?

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Yes.

Ramiro Diaz.

Yes.

Alfonso Gonzalez?

Yay.

And Candace Forrest.

Yay.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries.

Next item.

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

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

Rules and procedures for public hearings, appeals of decisions of the director of the department of safety and permits.

The following procedures shall be observed during the appeal hearing.

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

The representative of the department of safety and permits shall present to the board the decision which is under appeal, the relevant code sections relating to the appeal, and any information explaining the department's decision.

The applicant or representative will speak next.

The presentation shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes for each applicant or representative speaker, but in no event shall the cumulative presentation total by applicants or their representatives exceed 15 minutes.

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

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

The applicant or representative will be allowed a rebuttal.

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review, the Board of Zoning Adjustments has the power to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

The board also has the power to hear and determine appeals from applicants who have been refused a building permit because of a violation or conflict with the zoning ordinance or the official map of the city.

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

Good afternoon, Dan McNamara, Chief Zoning Official for the City of New Orleans.

Before you start, staff, can you just read off what the next item is?

The next item is BZA Docket 06225 for the property at 2501 through 2537 Two Lane Avenue.

And good afternoon again, Dan McMahon, Chief Zoning Official for the City of New Orleans.

It's my understanding at this time at speaking to the counsel for the permittee that they're uh this might be being withdrawn.

So I don't know if I really need to go forward with the report and would refer to counsel for the permittee.

Hi, morning.

Um, yes, I want to we we do plan I've I'm sorry.

This mic seems to be having problems.

Can you all hear me now?

We can hear you, but that's how the recording um so you have to speak directly into it for the network?

Yes.

Okay, so that alright?

Okay, thanks.

Um, good morning to you all.

Um, yes, I've spoken with counsel for the landowner and also council for the city about our intentions to withdraw this appeal today on behalf of the two applicants, and I want to explain them what is behind this withdrawal and what and just some comments that we've asked to make on behalf of the applicants.

Just to bring us up to where we are today.

The location of this is a 2500 block of two lane avenue, and I'm sure y'all remember it well.

Um it was an application for variances by the landowner, and then we also had the separate perm uh appeal for the permit for the construction that was made by the director of safety and permits, and this is still this appeal, which is what we're hearing about today, has been stayed throughout the litigation.

And what's happened with the litigation is that uh y'all granted the variances, but what happened is that the trial court ruled in our favor, struck down all the variances, the appellate court in November ruled against us and reversed it, and the Supreme Court has decided not to hear the case.

So we're back in front of you all now, and during this whole process, the construction has continued.

The building is built for good or evil, whatever someone's perspective is on it.

The building is there, it's operational and has been some time.

And I want to make a point about the the neighborhood's position all from the beginning of this.

This was never about um about opposing a grocery store in this neighborhood.

It was never about Trader Joe's.

Trader Joe's is the tenant in this case.

This was about the landowner.

In fact, the variances go with the land, they're permanent, they never change no matter who the tenant is.

And this is a historic neighborhood.

So the concerns and the dispute that came about was really with the landowner, and unfortunately, efforts to try to work out some of the objections that the neighbors had went to was to no avail.

We were not able to get any agreement with them, and y'all actually granted the variances without any provisos, which kind of left the neighborhood with no choice but to try to proceed with the courts.

Um, and all they ever wanted was to make sure that this construction complied with the existing laws, and secondly, that's consistent with the master plan.

And and part of that with the master plan is that we want to have a vision.

There is a vision by law about what our neighborhoods or cities are going to look like, and that vision is not fully realized, but this was an effort to try to say look, we've got to keep this in mind.

It's important that we want to have walkable neighborhoods, it's important that we want to have access to public transit, it's important that we have urban designs that are consistent with existing historic neighborhoods.

And unfortunately, every request that the neighbors made to honor those that vision and that law was not accepted.

And some of the grievances that the neighbors had, I'm just gonna go through a couple of them just to get us in the background of where we are right now.

But there was never any evidence presented about how many parking spaces were needed.

This was a commercial development, and they had a traffic study.

They also told you all they had a formula to figure out how many spaces were needed.

To this day, that evidence was never presented here, and that was a big problem of the lack of evidence, and did they just got up and said we need spaces, you can have all the spaces you want, and I felt like there was a disregard of that.

Also, unlike 42 of the 44 commercial buildings on Two Lane Avenue that have a primary entrance on Two Lane Avenue.

This one doesn't have one.

They weren't required to have a primary entrance.

The reason that they gave was that there was theft in the city.

That's not a sufficient reason to say that they don't have to have a primary interest on a major street, and that's a problem.

I want to point out another thing.

There are no shade trees now on that block.

Drive down the 2500 block of Two Lane Avenue.

There's not a single shade tree.

And this is a barren block.

And this is not the vision of what any of us ever had in terms of what our neighborhood would look like or what for the pedestrians and the homeowners and residents who live across the street from where this place is.

We also have a beige, suburban style building, it was allowed to be built.

We were trying to urge that the urban design was an important part of this conversation.

We have the Dixie Brewery, the Falstaff Brewery.

This was historically a neighborhood that had this industrial breweries, and none of that was done.

So that's brings us to where we are today.

Obviously, we disagree with the appellate court's ruling, but we're realists and we know we have to abide by it, and it's the law, and so we have to acknowledge that.

But as a result, we want to there, these and we understand that these issues that we had in this appeal are essentially moot, and that's the reason for the withdrawal is not because we agree with what's happened, but that the issues are moot.

But before we move to, that's not even a moved withdrawal, we are withdrawing, and we'll do at the conclusion of these comments.

Um this doesn't mean that there's not something to be learned here for everybody, and something that we can all look at and say, is there a way to do this better and to resolve these disputes and these conflicts in a way that's better for the city and it's better for the people and better for our neighborhoods, in reviewing specifically commercial developments in historic neighborhoods.

That's a big deal.

Uh there's a need for growth, there's a need for development, but can we do it smart and we can we do it in a reasonable way?

And I don't know if you all saw the article in yesterday's paper, Louisiana Landmarks, about all this the property that's been restored and rehabilitated and preserved in the city.

And there was a really interesting comment that was made there.

I thought that we we wanted to talk with you all about just a little bit today.

And that comment was that it really is possible to have thoughtful development and at the same time honor the soul of a historic neighborhood.

Those two things do not necessarily have to be in conflict, those two things can actually be realized together with just a couple of adjustments and some thoughtfulness applied to this.

And that means we have to comply with existing law, and it also means this board exercising its authority to look out for these historic neighborhoods and protect these residents and protect these neighborhoods from developments that that aren't are harmful and not beneficial.

Um, so there's two specific things I want to urge you all to give some additional thought to.

And I was listening to you today and watching to you as you're going through your deliberations and making the decisions today.

Um, that, but these two things in particular, I think for all of us would be helpful going forward.

One of them is the issue of evidence, actual evidence.

You all are not a court of law.

You don't have the same rules that a court of law has, but your rules require that in order to get a variance, there has to be actual evidence.

One of the problems that we had throughout this process was where's the evidence?

Where's the evidence that there's theft in the city that means that you can't have a primary entrance?

Where's the evidence that's the end of your time, Miss Howell?

I think two people are here have seen that.

But if we if we're with I just want to just make it clear.

Okay, can you just wrap it up quickly?

If we had a withdrawal, we typically aren't hearing any comments.

And I appreciate it.

I appreciate your indulgence, and that's the one point I want to make about evidence.

Don't take the developer's word for it.

Hold on make them be accountable.

They've got money.

They've got people representing them.

Make them actually present evidence to you all that there is a hardship.

The second thing is design.

Several times, y'all, we would say with it's not design, we can't do anything about design.

Your the CZO Article 4, Section 4.60 specifically states that when you all are granting a variance or considering a variance, one of the things that you do that you may impose such conditions under location, construction, design, and use of the property.

That's a power that you all have to interject into these conversations about the variances.

You are not without that power.

You have that authority, you have that power, and we really request that you use it, particularly when you're dealing with sensitive subjects like the impact of commercial developments in historic neighborhoods.

Look at that rule.

We have the power, you have the authority to do this, the discretion to do it, and we would urge you to do that and to do it wisely and thoughtfully.

Thank you for considering these comments.

And if that move to or not move to it, you don't have to have it as a motion.

But we withdraw the appeal that's currently pending.

Thank you.

Next item.

The next item is BZA docket 110-25 for the property at 10 37 through 39 Broadway Street.

I did want to quickly note that the uh property owner's agent submitted some materials after the deadline.

So if the board would like to suspend the rules, um to accept those, we can do that.

Uh quick question because we haven't necessarily voted to.

Go ahead, legal, sorry, legal.

Thank you.

So during the April 20th meeting, uh we had a vote, a vote was taken on this matter that resulted in a tie vote of three to three.

Um, this tie vote resulted in a de facto denial causing the motion to fail.

And as Emily noted, there has been new information that has come to light.

So further action of the board is warranted and potentially necessary in this matter.

So we are because uh Commissioner Richards is not here.

We are gonna need to.

My suggestion would be that you would take uh up a motion to reconsider on the minutes, and it will just basically put on the record that you a motion to reconsider, but it'll pause it until all parties are available to properly hear the information, debate it, and vote on the matter, okay.

Um I would entertain that motion to reconsider.

Reconsider on the minutes.

Excuse me.

Yes, I second the motion to reconsider on the minutes.

It's been moved.

Sorry, it's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Gonzalez to um reconsider on the minutes.

Roll call vote, Ty James.

Yes, Tamara Eggins.

Yes, Jose Alvarez.

Yes, Ramiro Diaz.

Yes, Alfonso Gonzalez, and Candace Forrest, yay.

Six years, no nays, the motion carries.

Do we need to?

I know that um Emily brought up uh the additional items um that were submitted by the property owner, just trying to understand procedurally because we haven't heard anything yet.

So I don't know if we need to go through all of that before we move to discuss whether or not to accept those um additional items.

No, I think in light of the fact that it will be at the next meeting that it can be properly then added to the record.

Is that it can be added?

Yes.

So I don't think we need to take up that motion at this moment.

I don't need to do any further.

And just for procedure, when we're doing this motion to reconsider, it's um essentially deferring the item until the next meeting.

Right, it's saying that the board would like to take up this matter, but because it's not being taken up at this this moment, it will be taken up at the next meeting.

Okay, and I just wanted to make sure that that was um, you know, just clear for the record as well as for the for the audience.

Do we need to take any of I'm forgive me for not having to do this very often?

I'm just trying to understand procedurally what we have to do now at this point.

No, since the board voted voted on the motion, then we can go to the next agenda item.

Okay.

Well, I think that might be the end of the comments.

No, no public comments on this as.

Okay, that's what I wanted to be clear.

That is no comments.

Got it.

So this item is uh by way of our action is uh deferred to uh the next meeting.

Any other items?

Just a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Alvarez to adjourn the meeting.

Roll call vote, Ty James.

Aye.

Tamara Eggins.

Yes.

Jose Alvarez.

Ramiro Diaz.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Yeah.

And Candace Forrest, yay.

Six years, no nays.

The motion carries, and our meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.