I like to chilling in here they're able to keep the heat out.

So, um, just have the presentation on both screens then, because we don't should be showing the audience the uh feed.

Exactly.

Yeah.

That's kind of weird.

We might just give it a little bit of a little bit of a kiss my hero.

Oh, them down just a little bit.

Oh no.

We have the audio card on right.

Yeah, can someone check actually on the their device somewhere that the feed is coming through?

Yeah.

Okay.

Y'all talk and do a test.

So I can hear you.

Okay, yeah, I can hear.

I can have some of the camera.

The room is gonna the whole room.

Okay.

Usually you can get a little bit in that awkward person just sitting there with the can't hold the heat for that long.

Oh, yeah.

How many is one of four?

And um here is good.

Okay.

It does.

It works.

Dangerous.

But it's hard.

Trip has it all.

Yeah.

Right here, uh, at least we put it in the book.

Here you go.

I can have you know what it calls that.

Oh, I thought it was a little bit more than people, but it's so good.

We have y'all kind of pushed down the because of the reporting.

Okay.

So y'all are sure that's okay, okay.

What's that?

Well, so you'll probably go.

Well, we're not straining, we're just recording it.

Well, we're talking about five, but that's it.

Um, you told me I can go.

Yeah, yeah.

True.

Oh, win.

Oh, and they should look.

And we need long hair off.

Okay.

Does she have the tall skinny water bottle?

But I'm like, yeah.

He's not good at all.

I don't know.

This is the full lead.

This is here.

But so we can do it.

It's it like three times, you can do it.

Why do you move it?

It's all about the thing.

I think we stroll off the top of the video.

It might have been like little eraser.

Yeah, that would like to shape it here.

Oh wow.

I feel like all of these cuts up.

But yeah, we won't be colouring the sword.

I don't know how trying to do that.

Okay.

Okay.

But on your way here.

Okay.

Yes, I have to put it.

Oh I was trying to I call it.

I had the uh I called up.

You thought just turn it out of the thing, I'll go.

What can call it the track?

I don't have a color.

Okay.

So I just thought it would be a good one.

I guess he's trying to type it.

So I wouldn't be.

Don't believe that we're there.

That's a good thought.

Good of you.

Oh, I have a device, basically, you'd call that.

Yeah.

So the issue.

I was like, hardly if I didn't know, I don't feel like it.

I just felt that it's all in the I would have to have all the way to the point.

Actually, you can still call it.

And if you stay up here.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I'm forced to stop and I can't wait.

I'm gonna be watching.

Okay.

So I think I think I'm gonna start with it.

So I think I can't feel it.

I was still a call.

Okay.

It's Monday.

It's slow Monday.

It's money.

I think it's nice.

Well, it's it was very much a bit.

Charles.

That might help.

Okay, thank you.

Turn it a little bit.

There it is.

Okay.

I should think.

Yeah.

There you go.

It can't be a problem.

You want to spoil it?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's one point.

So the staff doesn't have a necessary.

Okay.

Good morning.

I would like to call the Monday, June 15th Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting to order.

We will begin with roll call.

Candace Forrest.

Hi, James.

Present.

Jose Alvarez.

Absent.

Uh Ramey Diaz.

And Alfonso Gonzalez is absent.

At this time, would the board make a motion to adopt the minutes from the May 18th meeting?

Okay.

Oh, I'm sorry, Jason Richards.

At this time, would the board make a motion to adopt the minutes from the May 18th meeting?

So move.

Second.

And by Commissioner Richards to adopt the minutes from our last meeting.

Do we want to do vocal or how to roll call vote?

Present.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

And this board.

Yes.

Point a note the motion carrying.

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

if the meeting has not already been adjourned.

And we'll 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 June 25th and sent via email and mail.

Request 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 was submitted to staff prior to the submittal deadline will be heard following new business for variance.

Item one BZA docket zero twenty-four twenty-six for the property at thirteen oh nine harmony has been rendered moved.

We will now begin with unfinished business for variances.

Will the chair please find the hearing rules for various procedures for public hearings variance requests.

The following procedures shall be observed during the hearing.

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

The applicant or representative will speak first.

The presentation shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes for each applicant or representative speaker.

But in no event shall the cumulative presentation by applicant or their representatives for the video.

Proponents or persons in favor of the proposal will speak next and be allowed to wait Charles we just muted it.

You muted him I don't think you can mute him it won't let me mute it.

I just muted an authorized variance from requirements of the consequence of zoning or at length unless it five based upon the evidence presented to it that each case has satisfied the nine criteria listed in article four section 4.6 point f of the comprehensive summoning board.6.21 requires the council append to be at least two feet on one to hear your property line the applicant is proposing five inches necessitating the waiver at one foot seven inches article 21 section 21.7 from table 21-2 requires the clinical equipment to be at least two feet from the interior property line.

Applicant is requesting is proposing five inches one foot seven six this request is approved at the case of the I guess we tend to start in our standard on the property and all this therefore these requested waivers article 21 section 21.6.2.1 article 21 section 21.7 and favorite 21-2 standards a one a three a four a five and one and a four of the standards variances for article four sections four point six point f of the CCO therefore staff recommends denial of the variances and here's the applicant present for VCA docket 038-26 morning here 1630 of the board programs if you have any other comments that you wish to um to add is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BZA docket 038-26 anyone here in opposition if you could come up please as long as y'all get along if you could give your name and address for the record so my name is Harvard Palm of 1936 Street New York New York I'm speaking this is my third time speaking in front of the mark.

I appreciate you guys talking about it.

But when you look at just each piece of paper, you talk about the staff report, the reasoning staff report to six out of the nine things are not there.

Now I'm not even worried about the force five.

What do you have number nine safety that these two condensers block the exit up to the backyard.

For people, like let's say, for example, there's a fire in that in the garage in the front.

There's no way for these people to get out of the house.

That front door is right there.

It's being blocked by a fire.

You're blocking an exit.

You're blocking the emergency personnel being able to access to the property.

Five inches, people, that's my hand.

Size of my hands five inches.

That's the amount of space between the two forms.

So I mean, I would really request this board.

Just ask just my one concern about safety and tell me don't worry about it.

It's okay.

They'll work it out.

The people will climb over those things.

They can make them look.

Yeah, I ask each member of this board.

Please ask that one question from CPT.

That's it.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in opposition?

Um for BCAC 038-26.

Thank you guys for your point.

Thank you.

The applicant has an opportunity to reply.

Other than that, uh solve you know, dated um alley.

Um, this is it is what it is to the property.

Um, the neighbor can say that they can't access the back of their property.

I mean, they have a full width of Broadway all the way towards the back of the property.

Um that's the end of your credits.

Any questions from the board?

Oh, not a good idea.

Uh quick question to the applicant.

Quick question to the applicant.

Um, I know that when we discussed this last time and it was questions raised about relocating it potentially to the rooftop of that rear structure, and you just had some concerns on the structural integrity of that portion of the site being able to hold up that equipment.

Is it any way to potentially elevate this above a certain plane on a platform or on a roof, or is that also just rejected from an HDLC standpoint?

Because it can't be viewable from the right-of-way point.

Other than it would have to be, I'd imagine that right, you can't be visible from the front right away.

Yeah.

Okay.

So I will say this just to what the opposite the gentleman who spoke in opposition.

I do understand what you're what your rationale is in terms of driveway access to neighboring property, but the way the code is established, the whole premise of the two foot separation between the fence line to the face of the equipment is for life safety, is for, excuse me, first responders to be able to have full access around the perimeter of the building, unless that wall on that side was a rated wall.

Now, don't want to put you through the rigors of having to change out the entire structural composition of that wall.

Is there any way to potentially look at shifting some of this equipment at least behind that back bathroom that's on the left-hand side of the main structure, or even potentially modifying the double stair access off the rear in order to relocate it to that part of the site?

I mean, I can see one of them being relocated to that back rear corner.

Um, just missing the underside of that window.

All right, and I remember you brought up last time about concerns about the equipment being under window.

I don't think that applies to AC equipment.

I think that only applies to equipment that is fuel-based.

So generators, um, hot water heaters, things of that nature can't be under a window placement, but these seat units can.

So that's just wanted to provide that one to clear.

Okay, yes.

Yeah, because I mean, if that were the concern I was gonna say you can put it on either side of it with the read that stairs there.

Yeah.

Um that's why I see there's another opportunity here.

Um and I I'm still concerned with the life safety issue and I kind of annoyed that you guys didn't get any response.

I think that's really unfortunate disgrace.

Yeah.

Um I can't see a way forward here with that.

And I agree with neighbors and I don't know what that you could say oh you can go on the other side of the fence, look hard to go around it.

It's such a tight neighborhood there's such little space I'm looking at there on that everybody's got really narrow space between their properties.

Yeah.

I've seen fire for your neighborhoods and I have our name on that.

Yep.

And just yeah to that same point just concerns like I mentioned earlier it's not just about your property it is also about the neighboring property because that could impede something that could actually stop a first responder from protecting your property if there was an emergency next door.

So um it's just I you know we hate to do this and call situations that cause a cost modification but I'm not really seeing any other path forward on this one especially because of the nature that it's inside of the historic district.

Yeah I had the same uh concern about the um safety and permits I mean it's just difficult um knowing you know what the concerns are I share the same um safety concerns uh as Commissioner D has pointed out um as well and so I think for me that was what my um that's frustration just not knowing you know where things lie on that end and it is difficult to kind of move forward with sort of I wanna call it a question mark but I guess it really is yeah I don't see a hard shit for why these things would be here I think it was a different location I would say that this was presented to Canada right prior to this new location.

I understand the um this term um I think it at the time of the presentation was the relocation type it should have been something that was um initially you know um for whatever that's forget that is real prominent for you I mean we what the city would have reviewed would have been the plans that were submitted and delivering her file and those show units and other locations and those show units in regards to departments can only work well for the information within it it's it would have this time again this was presented to HDLC and the response um that was presented to the to the board the initial time you mean to permit it not the forward I'm sorry to permitting or the that that was to HDLC and then to um the council and I know I understand what he's processing I mean that's usually when we get into these concept these conversations around detrimental reliance but again it's that that's not necessarily how it's been presented in the application but again it's it does become more of the the higher point of impact on life safety around a perimeter of the building which I don't know how else to modify that I think if the property wasn't in a historic district he would probably have more latitude to at least relocate it within the same footprint but at least on the roof line um and out of the actually actual alley condition but again it's but it's being pushed back that the pushback comes from because it's in a historic district it has to be within the alley so it's a trick bag but again it's it kind of does default back to what is the appropriate way to have this installed and it does go back to essentially where it was initially shown in the permits that um if not some modification to the rear stair like the uh other commissioner statement we don't have anything in our file about anybody ever granting permission for the we've had a wall mounted where you still at least have been in this particular file or something that's it you know I guess that's why this got deferred because it was promised with some information for the mechanical it's not like that well they still trying to they were trying to reach out to take your permits just period on this request and not getting um a response I will say I've connected with a staff member Bonjour handle who referred asking for you know more information where it can be relocated and she informs me that she's the processor she's not aware of rules and regulations and that she would you know try to get in touch with an inspector and I'll never get the answer permission.

I also reached out to J4 he has not a flat box either it's first and all the mechanical vision side is going to be emory the laws in nature that's correspondence with you uh that was initiated with HDLC first HDLC um did not see an issue with it um but they also noted that I should see the um review by the mechanical division um that was sent all over to um mechanical division um person responding corresponding with myself and these DLC review how the game set person um is for me yeah you're right yeah chase chase clear that's it is it is a fact it is let's see what's saying here that's yeah well the attention of the HCLC share with you recommended zoning that guidance there's what is shown in the packet to be right a correspondence stating what zoning requires and you know not we are not the SPC for TSP but it seems that zoning may be the most stringent when it comes to location it seems that you know there are any cases on site that could be in compliance with the it's just a matter of zoning for it and also HDLCO force.

When did you when did you pull the perimeter two years ago here um I guess my the question behind that question is this correspondence with the um mechanical division ACLC was that while you were under construction.

Yeah.

Well there's I mean that's the this thing here.

It's basically based on the legal.

Which page?

Okay, page 63.

Basically, reliable, yes.

From change.

Yeah.

Well, actually they did from the NBSB saying get back the mechanical March 29th.

So you've got sent in a circle, I think, and um it's hard for us to see what was attached to the emails, but I feel like nobody's going to get permitted if we answered this question.

Um I get that, but I think it's pretty strict about this.

That you would relied on the city's direction on this.

My personal feeling is that it's your concern, say, I think we need to close adjacent to the paper, but I don't see how we could find enough hardship with food area.

Yeah, I I'm hesitant to even make a any type of reliance argument because I do think that it still was referred back.

Um, I mean, there's still a questions unanswered.

Yeah, so I don't even want to I'm hesitant to suggest that there's um any reliance because there still was um a question unanswered on um from the mechanical side.

Yeah, yep.

I would agree with that.

Any other questions from the board?

Yes, I'll see.

Regarding document BCA03-26, I move to deny the request for the waivers of article 21 section 21.6.2.1 for mechanical equipment and article 21 section 21.7.

Um accepting the staff's finding that the request fails to meet the standards of uh approval for the variances of article four section 4.6 to conference and then order the uh six that are listed in the second.

Thank you.

With regards to UCA pocket 038-26, it's been moved by Commissioner Richards, second by commissioner Diaz to deny the requested waivers, finding that the nine criteria have not been met.

Yes, Jason Richards, and AS4s, yes, 40 days in our main.

What you have is two primary structures that are located on one lot.

They are attempting, um, applicant is attempting to give each property and a lot of records that's on a result of the deficient lots.

Proposed lot A and the deficiency of minimum lot area and depth, and proposed lot B has uh one B has a deficiency of lot area depth in rear yard setback.

Um we are recommending approval, finding that it meets the nine criteria, and the only proviso is that um before we stamp off anything it has to uh everything through the subdivision process.

Uh Edward Washington, 7130, and 403.

Oh, yeah, yeah, just say it a little loud because we're doing um audio recording.

Edward Washington, 7130, but Louisiana.

Do you have any um comments that you wish to add?

No, just if it was fine.

Is there anyone here in support of the applicant for VPA Docket?

047-26.

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Just a quick question is that um this happened last time as well.

Just it appears one way in the survey, then it shows some type of structural encroachment beyond the property line, but when you look at the build condition, it does not, unless that's the overhang of the group, it's really kind of hard to decipher.

It shows a 1.05 uh encroachment past the uh Hillary Shrimp property line.

You're talking about that one eight on that one eight.

We haven't gotten anything from records and real estate in regards to there being an encroachment.

Um if so we just we really follow their guidance on that.

If Ashley, she's pretty vigilant about that, had found some sort of encroachment.

She definitely would have referred that to that encroachment working group.

Um, it has gone through that 30-day process at this point.

So I don't know if there's some sort of offness of the lines of the survey, but she hasn't indicated anything.

They're saying it's the overhang.

So there must be that roof.

It might be the overhang just based off of this image.

Because I didn't see any pictures in the packet, so when I was trying to look at it from street viewer, it was hard to decipher.

But I think from this picture I could think, so that may be it.

It looks like it goes right exactly to the property line.

Yeah.

So that roof eaves um that little part right there is probably the enclosure.

Any other questions from the board?

Is there a motion?

Madam Chair, we're with regards to BCA document number 047-26.

My motion is to accept the staff's recommendation for requested waivers for proposed lot one a for article 11 section 11.3.8.1 table 11-2 for minimum lot area.

Article 11, section 11.3.8.1, table 11-2A for minimum lot depth.

As well as the requested waiver to proposed lot 1b.

Um, and this is all article one, section 11.3.8.1 table 11-2A for minimum lot area, lot depth and rear yard setback, and move for approval with the one noted proviso.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to the PA docket 047-26 has been moved by Commissioner Jane.

Second by Commissioner Richards to grant the requested waivers, finding that the nine criteria have been met subject to one provisor.

Yes, Ramiro Diaz, yes, Jason Richards, yes.

And Candace Forest, yes, four years, donate the motion.

Is request for variances from Article 113A1 and Article 113A1, Table 112A, minimum lot depth and rear yard setback uh from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the creation of a lot with insufficient lot depth and sufficient rear yard setback.

The applicant is seeking to resubdivide two lots of common ownership, resulting in a lot of insufficient depth and a building with insufficient yard setback.

The applicant states that the requested subdivision corresponds to how an existing fence currently exists on the site.

That finds that the requested waiver does not meet approval standards a one three and 4 and B1, and is therefore recommending denial to give your name and address for the record Christie Agavez on behalf of Zach Smith consultant and 1000 stop normality frankly parkway New Orleans Louisiana 70125 morning board members see out again start off with standard a one special conditions and circumstances there is an exist existing special condition as the pool in question has existed on the property since 2021 meaning that the post subdivision layout is already in use because the pool in the rear yard of 5015 camp street is actually designated for 1013 Sonya Street the primary residence of the property additionally the proposed lot depth for 5015 Camp Street 81 feet is similar to other lots in the area that are deficient in depth including the adjacent lot at 5023 Camp Street.

Standard A3 again there are multiple lots in this area and in the zona district that do not meet the lot depth or the rear yard setback requirement the difference between some of those properties and 5015 camp street is that 1515 camp street has an existing pool that actually pertains to 1013 Sonya Street thus the subdivision request if the variances were to be approved we would be creating a lot that are deficient but these deficiencies are already prominent in the HURD district we believe the requested changes are the most appropriate route to maintain the two lots that are already being used the way that we're proposing with the the fence line standard A4 the request is based on the property owner exercising their right to have a pool and wanting said pool to be directly tied to their primary residence not their rental property.

Shifting the lot lines to match the existing fence lines will contribute to better accessibility and lower liability for the property owner as the pool would not be on the pool would not be on her primary residence insurance policy.

The proposal does not introduce a new use but rather aligns an existing accessory use with the dwelling in third standard A5.

The request to maintain the existing configuration with the pool is a hardship upon the property owner as it creates the ongoing issues related to the property rights ownership insurance coverage and maintenance responsibility what we're proposing is to create two functional lots where the pool is located on the same parcel as the residence for which it was constructed and used the inconsistency of the current setup will be eliminated and the proposed lot configuration are in line with several lots in the area.

Standard B1 this request does not seek a proposed conditions that are already that aren't already existing we are not proposing increased density or any new development to add building area but merely asking for a permitted use of the pool to be located on a lot where the primary residence is at as mentioned there are other lots in the area that are considered non conforming so rather than creating a privilege we would we would resolve the irregularity by aligning the lot configuration with the actual residential use of the property oh this now I'm sorry.

Is there anyone else here in support of the applicant for BPA back at the 048 and the owner I'm sorry.

You could come up on the owner I don't know if you need to talk to it.

Just come up and give the aim and address for the record.

Hi Christine Harvey 1013 Sunyak Street Marlin did you have any um comments that you wish to add um anyone else here in support of the applicant anyone here in opposition any questions from the board uh question of staff um related to the pool well maybe to the applicant um you mentioned that the pool was done in 2021 when that permit was done was that done to the camp street or to the other property camp street street yes sir okay quick applicant so why are you seeking the well we'd like to get everything aligned properly and um as it turns out my neighbor um at 5009 camp street is uh the difficult situation?

She's schizophrenic.

Um she screams and curses all day and all night.

She lays in trash in her yard naked.

I just I could go on forever.

If you want to hear more, I'll be glad to share it with you.

Um I just I don't I don't want it.

So the property on Camp Street is is kind of untenable.

Right.

So the property where the pool is at, right?

Which is 5015 Camp Street, as you can see right there, you know, go this way, and this is uh Ms.

Christine's property right there, 1013's on yet.

She uses that pool for 1013, right?

And the fence lines are set up to the layout that we're showing here because we're trying to match those lot lines and fence lines and completely eliminate the association of that pool with 5015 camp street that she's looking forward to.

So maybe let me come back to maybe what your actual comments were earlier in the explanation.

Um you did mention about the insurance component and tying it back to the primary property, so I'm saying that piece has not has there not been any consideration.

I understand a big part of this is because an existing fence line where it falls.

You were saying to move the fence line and five feet.

Well, we have discussed that option.

Uh we requested the subdivision as is, and we can't get it today to see if we got some feedback.

Hopefully, we upload this up in that that way, and we're definitely open to doing it.

I just think that just in terms of what the zoning ordinance allows for, to me, it seems as if though this the antenna is so that you can structurally tie everything together.

Um I'd be able to answer that a lot.

All right, but I want to just confirm.

I mean, what is the justification for not looking at relocating that pot?

So I believe the when we bought the camp street property, um, we wanted to build a pool in a pool house and take that part of the art for us with no intention ever of wanting to sell our investment property at Camp Street, right?

Um when my neighbor returned from Bat Rouge in 2022 2023.

This was a situation I didn't know it existed for years prior.

She was gone for a little while and then she came back.

She was gone when I bought the property.

So that was one thing, but the way that we built this fence was so that it would be in an exact perfect line with the other lot on the street.

So in my mind at the time, I thought this will make this this will not create an irregular lot.

Like it was like, do I create an irregular lot by moving the fence line so that I have your lot lines on Sonyat?

Or do we provide a little less yard for the camp street property and give you those straight lot lines?

Um my first my first thought was let's make let's make it look symmetrical.

Either way, I was gonna have to probably ask for variance.

This is the one we we opted to go with at this time.

And if I understand, just based off of how the CCO is drafted, but it's footprint, if the fence line was brought in was shifted back at five feet for that rear section of the camp street property.

I don't think it would trigger it in any type of waiver on there.

I'm reading five foot, we'll get the rear yard set back, but she's eight and a half feet efficient on the set the uh rear the uh lot depth.

I don't know that I have eight feet to get I might be able to get five, right?

And so I think they're she's in front of us either way, yeah.

Yeah, there's two waves, two numbers.

Yeah, it's the eight foot six or the flat foot.

Yeah, and and it would be um I think you know there's some rules about clearance around pools and the pool put there, but you like don't have eight feet um how far is the pool but it's kind of cute from the survey, but it looks like 20 feet this former job, it's like like 10 feet that we got yeah, so yeah.

So um to add on to what Mr.

Steve was saying, because I think I would ask him that'll SMS with trying to move the fence line, I guess it would create a irregular latch shape to try to match it as like the measurement that she has right now are almost the T those adjacent lats next to her to the left.

1523 yeah right so they they look symmetrical and to add on a little backstory to what Mr Thing was saying about the the trouble neighborhood I did submit in a record of like history that she has and like education meetings and photos of what she did with that they said they one property break in when she broke into my house and um moved in effectively for several days until we found her and she was looking on my gas stove.

She could have burned the house down like I just can't if her you know me my my take is the proposal is more in keeping with the character of the three mods that are in all the beta for people.

I was tracking Todd's proposal too if I was looking up and last name but kind of like it's already a condition.

Yeah I mean I just been that way for five years and yeah I just I feel like making it bump in kind of screen you've already got a one here you have three lines with a property deal to be designed that there I just want to be careful that's not supposed to do it's because it's been there for five years just make some sense, right?

Yeah it's gonna create another strange condition.

Yeah I think that's why the process here pretty narrow backyard conditions but I think that so this property has a sizable side yard um and so part of it was that yes we took more of the backyard you know off of it but the side yard um is bigger than honestly most of town yards and it's bigger than what my yard was before we took it so we do have some good thoughts.

Yeah I saw that too I also saw the circular driving truck but that that's a really long time ago that's what I'm like I'm trying to um to get and I don't want to sound as though we're just negating some of the discussion but I'm trying to focus in on what appropriately we can consider and so um just trying to get back to uh I because I don't want us to get into a situation where we're making a decision based upon um situations as opposed to uh what's gonna consistently be the um the word the conditions um and I spent all that an outline and actually so I'm looking at it yeah yeah yeah I'm looking at it I'm looking at it exclusively through like how the mapping is shown yeah okay and I'll just say that there's the alignment of the what is that point of tradition of three properties at Sonya and Hamp Street?

Um, but I think there is some form of a happy medium in terms of what could, what should or shouldn't be weighed.

I know that there's the assumption of that the eight foot may not be able to be fine if it's hard to tell if that's actually the case because the survey only shows a presumed uh location of the pool, which seems to be a lot further away than eight feet away from that.

And I know that update the pool requirements goes up a 24-inch uh condition of setback from the edge of the pool line to the property line.

So trying to confirm exactly what is the real condition.

Um, if this I don't know if it's potentially the survey being updated to correctly document what is that setback from the hedge approved to the property one to the proposed property one, um, in order to appropriately confirm it because I don't want just from me, my standpoint, I don't want to just arbitrarily say it can't be met when we haven't been uh provided with the documentation to show the actual pension.

So your request would be for a dimension.

Correct.

Okay, because it I'm looking at it, it's relatively scaling it based off of what's in sheet uh page 12.

If it's nine 9.7 feet from the fence line to the back of the uh 5015 camp street property, that distance from the same fence to the edge of the pool.

Um, is far larger than 9.7.

Also, the fence as survey encroaches onto both properties, so it's not actually aligned to literally composed property funds, and even in that case, the fence would have to be for correctness of the past.

So I'm just trying to figure out how to appropriately come up with a justification when I see that there's so many things that would still need to be modified.

Okay, so um let's say we would uh come back and return with a survey that uh with revisions and show the uncorrect setback or show the setbacks on the pool than that property line.

Let's say it's not enough space.

Um come back.

Option A would be in a perfect world, maybe we do have the space and we can move that lot line, or we would create the irregular lot shape, but we would eliminate one of those waivers.

You already have a key lot and some configuration here, so irregular a lot shape.

I don't think it's uh it's a hard ship.

It's already weird.

But if we come back and we don't have the space, but it may be some form of a medium that you guys may be able to propose.

It may actually be the way of one request versus the other, it may just be the five foot requests.

At least you're getting what I think is an appropriate 15-foot setback from the existing structure on the camp street piece, and at least you still have some type of buffer zone about the or um it may end up, you may end up being able to be compliant because I mean the condition is still.

Uh requests on that survey.

Just speaking for the old topic, that's it.

Sure, and uh I'm assuming uh if we go the deferral route of the same thirty, that 30 days I think is sufficient.

I mean, you're really just going out there to get one quick field survey.

That's what I think.

Yeah, are there any other questions from the board?

No, just the editorial comment when to give the application the information because I guess minimum to be the required problem.

Two, yeah.

And the reason why we're doing all this, even though we see, I think we we clearly all are kind of like we're kind of like it could go either way.

It's because we got to meet the nine criteria, we gotta satisfy that.

Just because it looks nice on paper, doesn't say mean it makes sense, especially when you look at the context of the neighbors and the weird kinds of property lines that are happening, it's not yeah, any feet tidy people, but that's not the the setback for the back of the property, it's working.

Well, I'm more than happy to um get that information from the surveyor and come back to you guys and um see what we can possibly work out.

There's a couple different scenarios here.

Just trying to help give you clear path.

So you can get an answer.

Yeah, I appreciate that a lot.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

For motions in order.

Uh Madam Chair, we're requires to BZA doc number 048-26.

My motions for further date referral uh based on the comments provided to the applicant.

Second.

Thank you.

With regards to BCA document 048-26, it's been moved by commission chain.

Second by commissioning Diaz to defer this item 30 days.

Yes.

Remember Diaz?

Yes.

Jason Richards.

And Candace Forrest.

Yes.

Four years, no names, the motion carry.

Next item.

Morning.

This is BCA docket 043-26.

This uh appeared before you last month and it's requested 30 day deferral.

Um this is an after-the-fact variance request from Article 21, section 21.6.2.1 for mechanical equipment.

Uh the applicant has essentially two wall mounted AC units that uh encroach into the required setback in the HMR3 to store Marinette by water district.

Um staff requested deferral last month due to the fact that survey was never provided for this, and uh still has not been so once again.

Staff is asking for a 30-day deferral.

Hopefully, the applicant will be able to submit one shortly.

I've reached out to him, I haven't gotten response yet, but um just to verify the setbacks are properly done so that we can have a more accurate staff report for you next month.

Is there anyone here now that's appointed the applicant for being data 043-26?

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Um, just a question of staff, just knowing that you haven't heard from the applicant anticipation of getting a survey done.

Um is it more appropriate for 60 day deferral just knowing that the least comes on those documents?

It was said that the surveyor reached out and came to the property on May 20th, I believe.

And so I guess they're still drawing the survey versus when they actually did the survey of the property.

So um I would say 30 days should be sufficient enough time, but it you know that's up to the board if you choose for a 60-day deferral.

I mean, it's so I just think um I don't want to speak to the applicant, but I guess it's less about the applicant, it's actually just me looking out for y'all from the standpoint of the lead on the surveys and when you may receive it versus you guys have enough time to review.

I don't think it would be that much to review once we do get it.

We just needed it for more accurate measurements because like I said, one was never provided.

So once we get that, it wouldn't take too long to you know adjust the staff report.

I would think 30 days is sufficient enough, and if not, if you don't have it, then I don't mind doing it, 30 days.

The section drawing that's been there, shows the two that's your answer.

That's what they provided.

The applicant did provide that.

We had to kind of guide them through what we actually needed, but there were some inconsistencies between a couple of drawings that they did provide, so that's why the survey is there, so yeah.

Which one on uh that they added all the sections?

Yeah, that's the standard.

Uh yeah, understood.

I just want to make sure they know that you know the property line, not that's right, that's important too, right?

That is a logic.

All right, madam chair for motions one.

I think you have a question.

Madam Chair requires the BCA doc number 043-26.

My motion is 30 data for it, plus the staff.

Sorry.

Second, I'm sure that's been true.

Thank you.

With regards to BVA document 043-26, it's been moved by commissioner Jane.

Second by Commissioner Richards to defer the item 30 days.

Uh roll call vote page.

Yes, remember the end, yes, Jason Richard.

Yes.

And Candace for it.

Yes.

Uh four years.

Don't use the motion care.

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

Will the chair please read the rules or decision?

Moves and procedures for public hearings, appeals of decisions of the director of the department of safety and permit.

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 Permit 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 kinlet presentation total by applicants or their representatives exceed 15 minutes.

Proponents are 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 a pause 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 Charter.

Good morning, wheeler manager, zoning administrator for the Department of Safety and Permits.

Is uh an appeal as to whether or not the Department of Safety and Permits correctly determined that a legal non-performing bar located in the residential zoning district outside of an RDO residential diversity overlay prohibited from receiving a sidewalk cafe permit under Article 21.8 of the conference zone.

The applicant has failed to establish the ballot basis upon which the base to base their appeal.

The outdoor seating at issue is located on public proper public property and not private property.

The outdoor seating was never lawfully established as required by CZO 25.31.8 prohibits sidewalk cafes for legal non-performing bars in residential districts unless within an RDO overlay.

Property is not within an RD overlay.

The department's determination that the application is ineligible and is consistent with the conference zoning ordinance in Louisiana law.

The appeal must be denied.

More commonly known as the boot.

Thank you this morning.

As you know, we are requesting this is here that has been voted on reconsideration.

We are asking that you overturn the August 28th.

And here's why we submitted pretty significant comments on this.

It was a lot, it was about three separate com three series of comments since the April 20 hearing that were um that were geared towards answering questions that I thought the board had at that hearing that for whatever reason were not sufficiently answered, and also for correcting certain information that was put before the board at that meeting.

First, the notion that this is that the wrong action is before the board, that somehow this is improperly before the board.

The department denied the permit based on the zoning prescription.

So I think it's entirely proper that the board consider whether that zoning restriction applies in the first end.

However, to move this issue from the department, we have since submitted a legal non-conforming use determination application, and that was provided to you all most recently last week.

It goes through the entire history of use of the sidewalk seating.

Um, and so we submit that a month ago, or thereabouts a month, and it has not been acted on yet.

But again, I think this is issues properly before the board.

Um, substantially, speak substantially speaking, excuse me, I don't think that there's any suggestion that there's been the department doesn't really contest the notion that this sidewalk seating has been in place the requisite amount of time to establish a legal nonconformity.

The department's argument is that public rights of way are not susceptible.

The rules concerning legal non-conforming uses because public property is not susceptible to private ownership.

Well, that conflates to very different, distinctly different different concepts.

One is ownership, which we are not arguing.

This applicant is not arguing that they have the right to own that sidewalk to remove it from the public domain or to even use it to the exclusion to other members of the public.

So to that point, the case law cited by the department is all about acquisitive prescription.

That's about ownership.

This is not about a quiz and prescription.

This is about whether liberative prescription under revised statute 95625 has run.

And we have since cited for you a case, and I brought copies, not not enough, but I brought a couple of copies of Bosier City Police Jury versus Hicks that says the public right of way is in fact subject to liberative prescription under 95625.

Same argument was made in that case, and it was rejected, and red was denied by the state supreme court in April of this year.

So I think the case law absolutely supports this.

Second, the department made the argument to you all that there were violations, not only just violations, but adjudications interrupting prescription against this property.

We did a public records request, we dug into it.

In fact, there were no violation letters in 2016, or so there were certainly no adjudications in 2016, nor have there been any adjudications in 2025.

So setting up for one thing, I think that was the wrong question posed.

The question is not whether citations in 2016 are there after interrupted prescription because prescription's already run, then we're only talking about discontinuation.

We're not talking about establishing it.

But setting that aside, there were in fact no violations, there were no adjudications, there was nothing interrupting prescription, and there has been no evidence put forth by the department that this legal nonconformity was in any way has ever been discontinued, abandoned, or baited for 180 days or more, which is the only thing that Article 25 talks about.

So for those reasons, we would ask, we do overturn the decision of the director, we'll pay the permit fee and we'll be on our way.

I'm happy to answer any questions because I know there were questions last times, but that's all I have right now.

I think is anyone else here in supported the applicant for PCA packet uh 110-25.

Anyone here in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

Uh questions of the department, um, any follow-up to the latest requests of uh on May 20th and if that will be responded to in any capacity.

Um we haven't had a chance to respond to being sent to okay.

Oh, so based on FPs, um, knowing that that may have some level of applicability because the question is changing.

I'm curious if that would then at some point, let's say if the department did changed its position based on some legal findings that's also been provided by the applicant, that would be that would actually render the first question moved in some capacity, but then potentially give them another uh opportunity to consider this to be accepted for some type of permit application.

That's correct.

Yeah, okay.

Okay, we can we clarify what we're talking about?

May 20th when you filed the non-port review.

Yes, and we filed that because the department took the position last time that kind of you've gone about this the wrong way, you've put the wrong issue forward.

I'm not gonna get into technicalities, that's not the most efficient way to run things.

We're here arguing about a zoning restriction does apply or not, but we've since made that application.

I followed up with the partner a number of times.

We've provided the case law, and the only thing I hear is we're still reviewing.

Okay, so this appeal is about a rejection of the sidewalk to use for the correct, and the reason that the director denied it was they it was the department said that there is a zoning restriction and that a legal non-conformity didn't apply.

Um, only other comment I would provide on this one.

I mean, I did vote against the appeal last time, but was not aware of the tree for uh case, which did give me a different perspective on how to look at this in terms of how this would be applied, um, because initially it was being presented in a way that if you look at the policy square case, it did allude to a positive prescription for a property, which I did disagree with at that point, but now looking at the scripture plans in terms of what could be built environment, but then it's public right-of-way based off of how that case spelled out the road access through the street, is a very different issue, and then I was also looking at the full documentation from within here.

If I'm correct, there's also the benches that have been built around the planner boxes as well, which is theoretically built environment used in some form of speeding capacity outside of the space.

So we're dealing with two different things.

I know we're not just talking about moving furniture, you are also talking about features that are being used in a student capacity outside the bar, which could almost fall in alignment with that same type of application with the uh the case of tree.

Excuse me.

So one attorney on the board, the rest of the bar.

So can I just ask you some legal questions?

We should what what the what the plain English meaning prescription is sure.

So prescription is um in any other state but Louisiana's statute of limitations, that's just our painless family fancy Napoleonic code, and there are two there are two concepts of prescription.

Acquisitive restriction prescription is the idea that I can go establish title to property because I use it in a particular way for a certain amount of time, 30 years of each of this.

Like in the Audubon case, Ottoman Park case, that was the idea of people saying they could actually take the portion of Audubon Park and make it part of their property.

They can establish a title.

Liberative prescription, it's unfortunate they're both called prescription because they are kind of two different concepts.

Liberative prescription is the idea that you can lose the right to bring a cause of action because you've waited too long, and that's the whole idea behind a legal non-conformity.

It has nothing to do with ownership, it has nothing to do with title.

Is the idea that if a jurisdiction waits too long, you can't sue over a zoo zoning restriction or building restriction.

So that leads to maybe a question for the director.

Um I don't know if this is something that can't be answered today or not, but um, it's clearly established that this use goes back at least sometime in the meeting, and there's a sidewalk use permit that was amended in 2016, so it didn't exclude bars in non-RDO resident or uh non-conforming bars and non-RDU residential terms.

The best I can tell is there's like a citation and meeting code for sidewalk use that it appears that that popped in from the municipal coordinance in 2020.

But I don't like when did the city start grant a sidewalk use permit application.

So I think I don't know if the answer what's up.

I should the best I can.

You're right, it's uh the CZO prior to 2015, it was not a model of clarity.

But um, I think we at that time used franchises, um, they had this franchise system of allowing for sidewalk use, and it's not their sidewalk permit, sidewalk cafes and sidewalk seating.

There are numerous references in the CZO prior to 2015.

It's not particularly easy to follow.

It wasn't uniformly enforced.

There wasn't a whole lot of internal consistency, and then so not in 2015, but in 2017, that entire framework was overhauled.

That's my memory, too.

Yeah, some issues.

Yes, okay, it was the applicant seems like eager to one of them.

Or uh, just for the Zach Smith, one thousand South Normancy Francis uh, in addition, that uh speaker from the audience.

Zach Smith 1000 South Normancy Francis.

Uh, to the question that was asked, uh, yes, I think uh this carlisle had it on the head uh sidewalk cafes, had been actually in the code, previous CCO.

Uh they typically been completely run by PPW, and in the new zoning ordinance, and then with the discussion that was just mentioned by the board members about trying to get a better handle of how they were and how they were actually documented because correct me if I'm wrong, but this project actually had a uh a sidewalk franchise for video and it's it's the back and forth and and who keep track of it.

I remember when I first started with safety and permits curb cuts on the sixth floor in TPW was a giant book that was probably bigger than I am, but it was a giant book, and the one stopization of of the uh of many of these these permits, these approvals started becoming online, and one of the many things that the one stop did to try to make sure that all sidewalk cafes and franchise things that nature were all in one place, and yes, in 2017, it actually edited this section to read that way, which we know that 2017 means after the 2016 and after 2015 and certainly well after it was established that there's a tables and chairs outside of the pump work.

Okay, thank you.

Um, was in clarity around this 1991 case because it seemed like there was the outcome of that case.

Sure, and and we did include some of this in in our um materials.

I can give you the clip notes version of it.

I went and actually pulled because you they're not online, you have to go pull from the clerk's office down at CDC and they have to go off site and they pull you the record.

And so I went down there and read through it one day and actually copied it.

And I I gave some of the excerpts from that decision to you all.

But basically, what happened in 9091, the city filed a temporary for a temporary injunction against the boot on a on a number of violations, alleged violations.

We find something online I saw there was right.

Yes, the two that we're interested in though, right?

For these purposes are we're live entertainment and sidewalk seating.

And at the trial court, the trial court ran a temporary injunction as to both of those, finding that there was not a legal conformity and proposed the use was quote unquote determined, and by definition, according to the trial court, you couldn't establish legal one for it.

Notably, the trial court did not say the rules concerning legal non-conforming use don't apply.

They just said you have established one because of use intermittent.

That goes up to the fourth circuit for a reason that I have not really been able to determine the applicant or the property owner did not appeal the injunction as to the temporary injunction.

It was never a permanent injunction, temporary injunction as the sidewalk seating, only the live entertainment issue went up on appeal.

The fourth court, the fourth circuit rejected the trial court's reasoning, overturned the temporary injunction, and rejected the reasoning that intermittent use the focus on interim use the court said it's irrelevant if there's non-conformity that's been established under 95625 the regularity of the use is not relevant so that tells you that had you know we are extrapolating a little bit had the sidewalk seating gone up that would have had the same result around the same time after that there's a famous case called Elms um which is the case off of St.

Charles Avenue that is kind of the origin case of a lot of legal nonconformity and liberal prescription in the space but it says the same thing that once you've got a legal nonconformity and established whether it's intermittent or not is irrelevant.

Subsequent to that was 35 years ago there's been a franchise agreement at some point is that my understanding or a like the city used franchise I'll be honest I couldn't I tried to dig in and I couldn't make other fails of it so but yes the city had a franchise framework that it was using to regulate um the sidewalk uses as well as other uses throughout the city.

Okay.

So I mean my take on this just write a little bit of commentary because it wasn't here for the first round is this language here has been added or what I think is that in the CDO point.

If for instance we were in a district that permitted bar and the legislation was passed to remove it from the zoning district the bar goes to apply for their license renewal to not get rejected the same reason that this one has been rejected because people not reporting use to think the difference between that application this application is the um I think it might be terrible to call it inconsistent enforcement sidewalk use regulation throughout the city but not as clean as like a use inside of a building where you can clearly have a license to operate for this one is just a permit that the slation is created in around 25 that make the sidewalk which doesn't mean a lot of it would say I think yes but I agree with the contention that calling the speaker I agree with the convention that CZO regulate public and proper the use of public and private land that could possibly and then I would like to hear Mr Jane um I have a strong disagreement on FBs um because non-conforming use does strictly adhere to within the property line in structures in terms of that component of the application I think that that is something that's very specific and we got to be be careful not to allude that not conforming use can just go from the primary application.

So I think that's what comes back to Scarlett point earlier on the inquisitive versus liberal prescription pieces is two very distinct things um liberative thank you we all like to be liberated yes for commercial um so I want to make sure we're clearly the cipher in between the two and that's why I asked the question earlier I really rather had CPM evaluate the lit the latest question first before we go down this road because I think they have the ability to then look at this through a different lens before we would make a determination here one way or the other based on the initial question because technically the second question is necessary for us.

So I want to so I want to make sure we're clearly following what is the appropriate procedure because I could easily see this we can make the decision based on the initial question knowing that something else has been presented to the staff and it's getting kicked back once again okay.

I was gonna get to um what you would just bring it up because um when you were mentioning the um question that's now being uh posed to the department is procedurally where does that leave um us in making a decision today yes um because based upon what you were walking through as the potential scenarios there could be either a different decision to challenge or there could be a decision that may render part of what we're discussing loot.

So I'm just trying to determine whether or not this is something that we should um allow the department to weigh in on first before we decide.

Um I don't know from the department's perspective what um what thoughts maybe you would just from our perspective whenever we're reviewing a brand new license in this case, obviously we're talking about a sidewalk use permit.

Um our team is not able to make that determination within the confines of the there has to be that extra layer of review, and that's why we use the non-conforming unit to make that uh determination.

The presence of the non-conforming use itself uh can aim the licensed analyst to then proceed with approving the sidewalk use cabinet.

Um so in this case, um obviously we will review the non-conforming use application, and uh we have not had a chance to review it.

Um, but once we do, then obviously uh depending on the outcome of that decision, then we can you know proceed forward with the different appeal uh with more specific nuanced questions or uh or not have to hear it again before.

Okay, so the decision might be premature at this point.

That's the applicant agreed.

I'm gonna obviously the board make the decision at one.

I would not be doing my job if I didn't express a little frustration with that because this is now the third time we're here, and at no point when they deny the license to the department say, hey, submit an L and mute application.

That's only coming up after the fact that we've been talking about the same issues for this board for a month.

So and I get it was May 20th, but it was May 20th.

They've had them off, and we followed up for precisely this reason.

So we wouldn't have to come in here and get it kicked again.

I mean, I mean, I will I will push back a little bit just in the sense that I don't think the department um has to tell an applicant what they should apply for.

So I think to have the frustration about not doing the um the application is um the app that's your choice at any point in time.

I think it was even brought up initially at the initial hearing.

So it absolutely could have been done in April, but that was a decision you're within your rights to make that decision when it whenever you choose to, but I think um to have frustration about that is um a little bit ill placed.

So I wouldn't want to um hang your hat there.

I do think um, and even coming before us, I don't again, I I think these are all within the applicant's right to bring um the initial appeal.

I don't know if it was the applicant that brought the reconsideration, but I mean, again, it's the process and it's part of the process.

Um, to the commissioner asking um, obviously, you as the applicant you want a decision today.

I, as one member of the board and each of us can we can't say until we vote, but I I believe that it would be premature just based on what the potential um results are of the department's decision.

I think it would be premature for us to make a decision today, regardless if that may be what um what you feel as the applicant, but um it's a pleasure of the board what you know action we choose to take at this point.

I just know where my head is currently.

And to echo the chairwoman's point, um procedurally and what's required, it is the burden of the applicant to provide that documentation to us.

It is not the department's uh responsibility to basically present or create the argument for that applicant.

So I want to make sure we're a hundred percent respectful to the process procedurally where we are.

Yes, there is technically a second by the FAPO on this one because it did in the end in the split vote that basically sort of still open before us, uh which even in that case, the new decision still could have been applied for in a new um application would have been reviewed, but I think we're taking advantage, and I think it's open to everyone's advantage right now to strongly consider the fact that there's still an open question before the department.

I mean, and I'll just say this we have field today and not ban.

Okay.

So context is changing.

All right.

So I want to make sure that we respectfully take into consideration at peace allow it to procedurally go back to the department.

The department may change their position and this whole thing may be moving forward to you guys benefit, which I think also just falls to the benefit of everyone as a whole quite honestly especially for the safety stuff issue.

Okay.

Can I can I ask a different question that's from a class story which is the action zoning of the property and you explain a little bit about the RDO and what the like if there's another zoning approach here that would maybe help out that block sure and because it's not just this property it's it's well I'm not sure how much the property owner of the whole entire block space or is it just the significant amount it's not block based.

Right.

So the the RDO is a is specific toward uh more historic parts of the city and it allows it's more permissive and it allows for to have sidewalk cafes and things that nature um but this one obviously is done residentially so it's a right but what's process they could do a zoning change.

That's what's going to and as part of the zoning change they could obviously go to the zoning change um obviously that would not lose it would not lose their status as legal market forming bar because they would just go for zoning change.

And that time they would be allowed sidewalk was they could get an RDO or another zone or or is there a better zoning for that property.

For that's for that stretch the entire structure itself is used commercially for my understanding so it would probably be a whole block it.

Yeah so is so is the next block over and the two lanes right there.

I mean I'm just kind of like when you look at the zoning and that's one thing I looked at was trying to understand what is all of the administrative remedies for that.

If you just look at the underlying zone and how everything is used, I think we just get into much better bigger political conversation.

Yeah.

Um as you and I overlap quite a bit on this back in the day when we were doing it um doing the 2020 2015 changes to the code um especially from the universe universities and how the ECs were being impacted some of this it's a lot larger burden for them to carry because of the underlying zone and the fact that I think the the closest uh use I think maybe like an ATT considerably that's used it's like an SOC bill is supposed to think that may have some type of building that would change their ability to do something.

So I think they're they're really dealing with a a much larger deal of fund on the back end of this just from the administrative funding.

That's why I still think what I keep done alluding to this other department takes a different position based on all of the additional legal information that's been provided the way it happened to that that we cloud well then my next question was the thing that you had brought up about the the what was presented to us from previous actions about zoning or that was significantly the idea because my argument was well why didn't you in 2017 go back and request this permit at the time and zone change.

Is that given that there was something at that time that was presented with the I'm just curious what staff could address that with it and what the history was of citations or adjudications use your word that was a significant part of the discussion.

Because it was messy I mean I agree that the zoning changed over the years that I mean I was one of the people that was advocating for sidewalk cafes back so it changed as part of my neighbors to try to get that in so um I totally understand that it's kind of what we hear the history here.

Yeah, I mean the enforcement on the property has been you know a little swatching recognize that and as we've been trying to uh be more robust in our enforcement, uh businesses that have alcohol licenses oftentimes get looped into uh or pigeonholed into a certain segment of the businesses that are operating to make sure that they continue to operate within the confines if they don't expand, uh if they are in legal non-forming use.

Um so obviously in this specific situation we cited in 2016, the case was closed uh because they came to the client.

Uh we never brought that case to adjudication from 2016.

Um obviously we cited them again in 2025, which then begs the question today as to whether or not they are allowed or entitled to the cyber cafe, that case has not gone to adjudication because we recognize that uh there's other uh options to exhaust prior to bring it to adjudication, so we just have not brought it to adjudication for that purpose.

We're trying to wait for the process to uh unfold and see uh at the end of the day if they are in fact in uh deemed as a legal non-forming bar with sidewalk cafe, then so be it, but we want to make sure all those questions get answered before we uh take a uh significant action against the other questions.

No, quite clear.

Okay, motion for motion.

Yeah, madam chair, we're with regards to BCA docket number one ten-25, no motions action for a 30-day referral, um asking the department to please take into consideration the latest uh request from this applicant, and we'll just cover it from there so we have a full understanding of what question here we should think we can do.

Can I have to go up and ask a question during the motion?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

That's part of why I think that my question is that we're not sure.

So I'll rescind my motion.

Okay, so the question would be I think for legal or staff would be if if procedural question is not standing voted, it would uh would that get rolled up into this appeal or would it be a separate appeal?

I feel like this issue would come up before at some time.

Like, I'm trying to establish the burden we're gonna place on them if um this case just stays open.

If you take up the 30 day deferral, you're asking if we need to take action on their the ruling, but this is the scenario is understood that if department comes back and says legal non-conforming use, then this case is moved, everything's okay.

They would grant an application if they do not, then they would be making a second appeal of that case.

Does that fall under they get lumped under this appeal or is it different?

I think that we would have to wait until the actual disciplination is made by the board.

So we are correct, okay.

Once that's correct, so then my question is is it two appeals or I don't think that people know that until we this issue is resolved.

Okay.

My question was about your question, questioning his question.

I want to like mess it up.

So the fact that you're tracked that let's do it again.

All right.

We all on the same page.

Well, madam chair, regardless of BCA, if the motion's not excuse me.

Madam Chair, we're far as BCA dot one 10-25, the motion's probably date referral as we just mentioned, give the department fund to review the latest inquiry from the applicant to confirm for appropriate.

I was like, thank you.

With regards to BCA packet 049-26, I'm sorry, BCA docket 11025.

It's been moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Diaz to defer this item 30 day uh roll call vote patching.

Yes.

Remember Diaz yes jason Richards yes candice scores yes 40 days no name a motion carry that's good the next item is BCA document 0496 on behalf of the applicant we are actually requesting a 30 day deferral is there anyone here in support of the applicant for DCA docket 049-26 anyone here in opposition any questions from the board the motion in order uh yes proceed assumed no objection uh madam chair regards to bta docket number 049-26 of the motions for a 30 day deferro at the request that happened second thank you with regards to bta docket 049-26 has been moved by commissioner jane second by commissioner richards to defer this item 30 days roll call vote tie chain yes removal dia yes jason rich yes candice forrest yes four years no name the motion carried the consider a motion to adjourn so move second removed by commissioner james second by commissioner richards to adjourn the meeting roll call vote tied jane uh yes jason richards and candy scores yes four days no name motion carries and the meeting is adjourned have a good day