Good morning.

I would like to call the Monday, July twentieth, Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting to order.

We will begin with roll call.

Candace Forrest is absent.

Todd James.

Present.

Jose Alvarez.

Present.

Ramiro Diaz is absent.

Alfonso Gonzalez.

Present.

And Jason Richards.

Present.

At this time, would the word make a motion to adopt the minutes from the June fifteenth meeting?

So move.

Second.

We have a motion and a second to accept the meeting minutes from the previous meeting.

So we have a motion by Commissioner Gonzalez.

Second it by Commissioner Alvarez.

Yes.

Aye.

Commissioner Alvarez.

Yes.

And Commissioner James is a yes, and that motion pass.

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

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

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

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

The applicant or representative will be allowed to rebut the rebuttal shall be limited to a cumulative maximum of three minutes.

Additional information.

For any 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 parliamentarian procedures shall be followed, including recognition of speakers, relevance of argument, and an absolute prohibition of applause or demonstration.

Our standards of review.

I'm sorry, 04326.

Morning.

BCA docket 043 was a case that has been deferred from the May 18th and the June 15th meetings.

This is for a property located at 2518 Burgundy Street.

This is an after-the-fact request for variance from the provisions of Article 21, Section 21.6.1 mechanical equipment to permit two ground-based mechanical equipment units with insufficient distance from the interior lot line.

The comprehensive zoning ordinance requires a minimum setback of two feet for mechanical equipment while the applicant is providing 0.75 feet and one foot as per survey provided by the applicant on June 16th.

The staff believes that the requested waiver of Article 21 section 21.6.2.1 mechanical equipment fails to meet standard A5 of the standards for variance per Article 4 section 4.6.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variance.

However, if the board determines that the case doesn't meet all of necessary approval standards, the request shall be subject to one provisor.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Margaret Anne McLeod.

Um the pro one of the property owners along with my husband Brandon at 2518 Burgundy.

Was it provided in your report?

If we could pause their time, sorry.

It was provided around Thursday, Thursday of last year.

It was provided to us after, I believe the report was finalized.

So we did not put it in the packet.

Okay.

Alright, so let's just for now just hold off, let's go through your comments and if the board takes action to accept information after that line, okay?

Let's make sure it shows three minutes.

We're dealing with some new technology in chambers, so just bear with us a second.

But go ahead.

Proceed with your comments.

Okay, thank you.

Um we originally reached out to two different contractors to get quotes uh and um information as far as where to place these units.

They both said that the back of the house was not an option because of the space, the limited space that we were working with.

And so because of where the property is located, we have a zero line on one side and we have minimal uh space on the other.

Um the contractor in the email that I referenced earlier that was not with our original application said that there's not enough clearance for one unit in the back, let alone the two that we have, and it's required to have two in order to adequately um condition our home.

These condensers typically require a minimum distance of 24 inches or two feet between each air conditioning unit, and there's just not that at all, and there's no way to create that space.

So in order to avoid the structural changes, and also because there was no space according to the mechanical codes for the state in the back of the house, that's why we put them on the side.

Okay.

Does that conclude your comments?

Uh the only thing that I wanted to add is And just provide your name for the record.

Um sorry, Burning and McLeod, 25 18 Burgundy Street.

Thank you.

Um the only thing that they're um in the opening statement, it said that they were ground mounted units.

These are so they're mini splits.

Um sure most people are familiar with them.

Uh but those are not they're not ground mounted.

Uh I've not seen those on the ground, and I don't think in New Orleans that would be advisable.

That's the only thing I wanted to add.

Okay.

So that concludes your guy's comment.

And one more thing, in addition to the letter from the contractor, we also have a letter of support from our neighbor who is the only neighbor uh on that side and who who can see the unit.

So you can see it from exactly where you stand in front of the fence, um, but not on and when you're in front of our house or in front of our neighbor's house.

That's that concludes our comments.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in support of this request?

Seeing none.

Is anyone here to speak in opposition to BZA docket number 043-26?

Also seeing none.

Any questions from the board?

Um I understand what you guys were talking about related to the equipment and what the clearance requirements are.

Um just one thing I would just at least bring up as a comment.

Um in support to what you were discussing before when we're dealing when you're dealing with these, I think it's the typical like Kawasaki style wall-mounted units, you you do not attach those to ground.

I think actually there's BFE requirements for that type of equipment that it would need to still be at the base flood elevation.

So that puts it above that floor plane.

So it would have to be wall-mounted for that type of equipment.

Yeah, I was I was gonna ask, I couldn't tell from the maybe I just was reading too quickly what elevation they're at relative to grades.

So is it are you able to walk under them or is it I I am, but I'm I'm not a very I'm not a very tall individual, five foot nine.

Yeah, well, I guess I'm not either.

Um so uh I think um yeah, I mean I I we've had concerns with these kinds of units being in narrow alleyways because of life safety.

So I think that's my biggest concern here.

Um given that it's your only access point to the back uh because of the lock line condition.

Um I just want to be really careful that everything's okay with mechanical and life safety and fire fire safety.

I actually had the same concern related to that clearance point, just what is that under uh mounting point and how to make sure you have the I mean I guess we'd have to come into compliance with the fire department or say we didn't know short firefighters.

Yeah, there's I'm gonna presume that the you know, because it's not in the variance application that you have minimum seven foot clear and you know you would have to come in compliance if you did not um overhead, that is.

Yeah.

But I I you know you you have a zero lot line property in a very skinny yard, and um I think that's you know Yeah, there's a note here on page 30 section that sort of says I guess this is a standard from the manufacturer says units mounted approximately seven feet upgrade.

So let's if we can get that clearance to be seven feet, I think it will be reasonable.

Yeah, is there is there room under the Eve to get get it up as high as you can?

Should be it should be pretty easy to do.

Uh so they sit on like a mounting bracket.

I think those are adjustable.

Yeah.

So the bracket, the bottom of the bracket should be at seven feet for clearance.

That would be.

Should we deter and so I'll just ask this because I know that's coming from manufacturers' standards, maybe just as one safe way to put some protections in place from at least if we were going to make a recommendation to follow it, uh maybe add an additional provisal for them to confirm with fire safety uh with uh the fire department in their review, and that way that vertical that height clearances at least what's in accordance with that department systems who're gonna need to access that alley in case of the we had a similar thing on a couple of meetings ago, and it was the was it the mechanical division that was reviewing it or uh they never read.

I know we had a similar thing on a couple meetings ago, and it was the was it the mechanical division that was reviewing it or uh they never read it.

That was mechanical division, but in that case that was DX standard DX units which were on platforms blocking the alley.

Yeah.

Uh Commissioner James, my my stance the CZO requires seven feet.

Yeah.

So it does.

It does, yeah.

So I was I would I would just an offset from the neighboring yard too.

So I mean there's also the distance from the neighbor's building that because I how close is it to the neighboring building and is there a requirement there?

That was my concern.

All those rules are gonna be run off the property line, and um, I think they're all zoning issues, not building code issues.

Yeah.

So you're in the right spot.

Just as one point of clarity, for mechanical equipment, that is less than seven feet, that has less than seven feet of vertical clearance.

The requirement is two feet from the side lot line.

However, if it has more than seven feet or more of vertical clearance than eighteen inches, set back is permissible.

Okay.

Do we do we know what that is from the survey?

And a hard time reading the survey.

I'm gonna presume it's less than seven feet just because um the the waiver is set up on the two-foot rule.

But I meant plan.

Like the plan is showing, I guess it depends on what a unit is being placed.

The survey shows 3.3 and its widest condition and it goes out as narrow as 2.10.

Okay.

So there's no way to be compliant.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, I guess it depends on uh what is the width of that unit?

Well, the depth of the unit?

Well, I mean it's surveyed, so yeah.

I'm gonna trust that that's right.

Yeah.

Is it worth accepting the uh the stuff for the record?

Um yeah, I mean it's up to so it's on the file.

Yes, I mean, if y'all want to go ahead and make a motion to accept the information after uh after deadline, we can do that so we have it on the record.

Uh can I move to suspend the rules?

Isn't what isn't that what we have to do?

Yeah.

Motion to suspend the rules.

Second.

Alright, we have a motion by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez to suspend rules and redeem receive additional information after deadline.

Uh roll call vote.

Commissioner Richards, yes.

Commissioner Alvarez.

Yes.

Commissioner Gonzalez.

Yay.

Commissioner Diaz.

Yes.

Commissioner James is a yes, and that motion passed five five.

Just to be clear, is as we're looking at this survey.

The I'm just making sure I have my fuzzy screen here.

It's it looks like there's a foot of clearance at one unit and 0.9, which is what, like 10 inches?

No, it's nine inches.

Not an inch.

Nine inches.

There's an old school survey.

I thought it was oh yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Well, not when you got three digits, it's second digit.

I wasn't sure if it was engineering numbers.

Okay.

Minute, seconds.

Inches, inches, eights of inches.

All right.

Are you able were you able to forward that information to us?

Oh, yes.

I'll set printed copies if I don't need that.

Is that what we're referring to?

Yeah.

All right, it's all one copy.

This is one copy of it.

Yes.

All right, so just go ahead.

This is all separate documents.

Well, it's it's all the same email.

I'll just did in for individual people.

Yeah.

Got it.

All right.

Yeah.

So they're they're saying you'd have to move other equipment to get more than one unit back there essentially.

Um, which to me looks like uh um the water heater.

Yeah.

Any other questions from the board?

Mr.

Chair, if the motion is in order.

I just want to note that in in the text at the beginning of the the waivers.

I think there might be a typo.

Uh the first waivers for 1.25 inches, but I think it'd be 1.25 feet if I'm reading that correctly.

Yes.

Yeah.

I'll correct that.

Confirm with staff.

And then are we assuming that we're going to also raise the units up?

Yeah.

And if I understood correctly, that's within the CZO, so that's already assumed that it needs to be placed at the seven-foot clearance, or do we want to add any language?

No.

Emily clarified for us that it's not really in the CVO.

It could be less than seven feet.

It looks like it looks to me like it's about six five or six feet.

The seven feet is not explicitly required if you have uh so if it is seven feet and up of vertical clearance, you can have an 18-inch setback.

But if it's below seven feet of vertical clearance, then it's two feet setback.

So it's not explicitly required that it be seven feet.

Um let me discuss this before I make a motion.

I'd like to propose a provisor that it'd be seven feet just but just for life safety because this is your only way out of the house.

Um we're gonna go ahead and improve the waivers as they are with that one proviso.

So all right, you want to clarify the motion.

Well, I haven't made it yet, so I'll make it now.

So uh regarding Docket BZA 043-26.

I move to approve the request for waivers of uh Article 21 section 21.6.1 for a waiver of 1.25 feet and a waiver of Article 21 section 21.6.1 for one foot for the other unit.

Finding that the uh request uh based on the discussion today and the staff's recommendation letter, finding that the requests meet all nine of the nine criteria, including the one from the staff report that wasn't satisfied, which uh is as we've discussed is a hardship of the approval standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6 of the CZO, subject to the one proviso that's listed in the staff report to provide a second plan and a second proviso that the minimum clearance from the ground to the underside of the equipment shall be seven feet.

Second.

Alright, we have a motion by Commissioner Richards, second by Commissioner Alvarez for BCA document number 043-26.

Um, based on a commentary provided today today, understanding that what has been provided meets denied criteria and move for approval of the requested waivers of Article 21, Section 21.6.1 for mechanical equipment uh with the clarification on the waiver distance and the two noted provisos, one as provided by staff and a second as mentioned from the dais related to the seven-foot clearance requirement.

Um roll call vote, Commissioner Richards.

Yes.

Commissioner Alvarez.

Yes, Commissioner Gonzalez.

Yay.

Commissioner Diaz.

C.

Yes.

Commissioner James is yes, and that motion passed 5.0.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next item.

BZA 4826 is a request for variances from Article 11.3.a dot one for uh minimum lot depth and rear yard setback.

Um to permit the creation of a lot with insufficient lot depth and insufficient rear yard setback.

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

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

When this docket was previously heard, the applicant the board and applicant discuss redrawing the lot line between the parcels in such a way to minimize the waiver request.

The applicant has provided an updated survey to reflect this.

Staff finds that the requested waiver does not meet approval standards A1, A3, and 4, B1, and is therefore recommending denial.

Good morning, board members for C Agave is on behalf of Zach Smith, Consultant in Design.

1000 South Normacy Francis, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Yes.

Uh as mentioned last time we went kind of down the line of the criteria we didn't meet.

And we came with uh we reached an understanding of me providing a survey to see if I could eliminate one of the waivers being the rear yard setback waiver to see where that proposed LAT line, the rear lat line for 50-15 camp street, and the pool, that's setback how much ahead is approximately 11 feet and three inches, which is enough space to eliminate the rear yard setback, and the property owner is okay with us moving that lot line to eliminate that waiver while we do still believe, which we discussed last time too.

We do agree that you know if we're eliminated a waiver, it works for both of us.

So I'm open for discussion and well we're ready to take this one home if you guys are uh just a question to staff is the res revised survey in the staff report.

Yes.

I would clarify or question for the applicant, can you just clarify?

So the revision of the survey showed the dimension on the from the fence to the pool from the property line to the pool, but it did not move the property line, the proposed resubdivision yet.

Right, correct.

We just uh wanted to show it at first before we made the actual change to see if we got the approval before changing the whole subdivision application.

All right, so let me make sure procedurally anyone else here to speak in support of BZA application 048-26.

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, let's go ahead and proceed with uh questions from the board.

Apologies for jumping the gun there.

Are you good, man?

Uh question to staff would be do we need to potentially have a provide I know that there's a provisor that it has to meet the subdivision requirements.

Would we need to ask for a revised survey as well?

Yes, prior to closing out, if it is approved, we would need that revised survey.

It would be the same survey version that is stamped for the the subdivision as well.

Okay.

So it's part of the submittal requirements in order to get it close out anyway.

Yes.

All right.

So it's just any other questions from the board.

Uh hearing none if you had a question.

Yeah, okay.

I just want to clarify for everybody, we'd be approving it less the uh requested waiver for um the rear yards, the second rear yard setback.

Correct.

And I didn't do the math, but it gets it much closer to 90.

So yeah, well, eleven foot three minus five foot four is more than more than three feet.

Right.

But the 81.

It's 81 foot six on the short side or the one that's short of ninety.

So it's getting you closer to ninety.

It's like eighty-five or something.

Right, we're still gonna need to waiver, yeah.

Yeah.

Right.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

Is a motion in order.

Sure.

Uh I'll make a motion.

Mr.

Chair, regarding Docket number BZA 048-26.

I move to approve the requested waiver of Article 11, Section 11.3.8.1, Table 11 2A for minimum lot depth, uh reflecting a waiver of and I have to do some math here, which I should have done before I started.

And maybe it may let me do one administrative option.

Ms.

Galvest, are you withdrawing the second option?

You you're withdrawing the request on the second waiver, correct?

For the rear rear yard, the deficient rear yard?

Yeah.

Yes, sir, because we provide an applying one.

Because otherwise we would have to do it as a denial.

Yes, sir.

We're withdrawing that request.

Thank you.

Okay, so based on the discussion here, the requested waiver of Article 11, Section 11.3.8.1, table 11-2A for minimum lot depth would be a waiver of three foot one and one quarter inches.

Finding that the uh proposal request meets all nine of the nine criteria based on our discussion of this meeting and last meeting for the approval standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6F of the CZO, subject to the one provisor listed in the staff report.

And just to clarify, what was that waiver of distance again?

I'm sorry.

The distance of the rear yard waiver of 5 foot 4 and 3 quarter and subtracted it from the deficiency for the lot depth.

Got it.

Can you can you also please clarify for the record about the withdrawal?

Yes.

Uh for the record, uh the note of the waiver for section 11.3.8.1 table 11 2A for rear yard setback is withdrawn.

We're not the coverage of proposals.

Alright, we have a motion on the floor.

Do we have a second provider?

Second.

All right, we have a commission uh motion by Commissioner Richards, second it by Commissioner Alvarez.

I mean, Diaz, sorry, moving too quick.

Uh with regards to BCA docket number 048-26.

Um that motion is to grant the request for the waivers of Article 11, Section 11.3.a, point one, table 11-2A for minimum lot depth, modifying the waiver depth to three feet 1.25 inches, and noting that the applicant's representative did withdraw the second request of Article 11, Section 11.3.8.1, Table 11-2A for rear yard setback.

Um taking a commentary from today helping and also the letter of submission helping to address denying criteria for this request with the one noted proviso uh roll call vote.

Commissioner Richards.

Yes.

Commissioner Alparez.

Yes.

Commissioner Gonzalez.

Yay.

Commissioner Diaz.

Yes.

And Commissioner James is a yes, and that motion passed 5-0.

Next item.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Gonzalez.

We will now begin with new business for variances.

The next item is BZA 050 26 for the property at 6500 Vicksburg Street.

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

The applicant proposes to connect the existing detached garage to the principal structure.

The detached garage is currently located 6.4 feet from the rear property line as a result of the proposed renovation.

The garage would no longer be considered an accessory structure and would instead become a part of the principal structure.

Consequently, the principal structure would have a rear yard setback of 6.4 feet where 15 feet is required, necessitating a waiver of 8.6 feet.

Based on this report, the staff finds that the request fails to meet standards A1, A4, and A5 for approval in that there are no special conditions particle peculiar to the land or structure.

The request is based primarily on the convenience of the property owner, and strict adherence to the regulation would not result in a demonstrable hardship.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variance.

However, should the board determine that the request satisfies all nine approval standards, staff recommends approval.

I mean staff recommends one provisor.

Alright, is the applicant present for BZA docket number 050-26?

Yes, I'm Ashley LeJern representing on behalf of my client for 6500 Vicksburg Street.

And address for the record, please?

6500 Vicksburg Street, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Okay, proceed with your comment.

Um nothing much more in addition to what has been requested.

Um basically I'm just uh you know looking for clarification if we are um not permitted to connect the the walls of the new mudroom structure to the garage if it would be permissible to have the roof lines connect and maintain the five foot separation with with the exterior walls.

I have a number of um examples from the neighborhood showing a similar situation.

Okay, that concludes your comments?

Yes.

Okay.

Any anyone else here to speak in support of BZA docket number 050-26?

Seeing none.

Is anyone here to speak in opposition to this item?

Also seeing none.

Um any questions from the board?

Well, I was just gonna say make whether you connect it with a roof or not.

I mean the roof is what's driving it.

So if you if you make a roof, then you've connected it because from looking down from above, you know, you basically connected them.

Um looking at the context of the neighborhood and what's you know typical and and the fact that it's on a on an alley, you know, makes it feel I I look at it a little differently than if it was up against a neighboring house.

So um I'm not sure how to raise this better, but I think it's it's not uncommon to have that condition, which you've noted in your letter.

So in the staff's report that there's four approvals of similar cases in the last five years.

And I know usually even with those, we try to at least show that there's a pattern of a majority condition in order to grant the press to establish that as the precedent.

Um so just want to make sure we're delineating.

Um the only other thing I I've seen in the past is if we if you do just keep in mind when we if we were to consider granting something of this uh of this proposal, something similar to this proposal, we're technically increasing what would be become the allowable buildable area to increase well beyond what would be the total space generally for this site.

So I don't know if we want to look at any type of proviso or even a deed restriction that would limit the built um space to what is proposed here, and that's something that could be recorded to lock in that uh total square footage so that there's at least some form of preservation of open space or in within the rear yard area.

Do we know for a fact that it would be maxed out though?

I mean, we're basically allowing the buildable area to encroach on the yard, but I don't know that when it we are in excess of whatever lot coverage percentage.

Once you connect the principal structure to the accessory structure under one roof, we've now increase what would be the total allowable buildable area.

If I've always understood how the CZO can be interpreted later, um basically the not you would create a non-conformant setback and they would then be able to extend within that rear yard in alignment with the rear garage, because this is not this if I understand correctly from this one as it's currently proposed, the garage would be part of the primary structure.

That's correct.

It would become part of the principal structure, which is why they're here before us today requesting a waiver.

Um there are I don't know that this has been fully decided with the Department of Safety and permits as far as how enlargements are permitted for this wouldn't technically be a non-conformity in the traditional sense because it would be a variance.

Um they might interpret it as something different, but historically we have viewed it as if a waiver were granted, it would likely allow for an enlargement within that new buildable area.

Right.

Um and in this instance, if there was, for example, a deed restriction put in place, they could still build out to the um, I think it's the 15-foot rear yard, but they wouldn't be able to continue the rest of the way to fill in that gap closer to the rear yard, if that makes sense.

Yeah, that does make sense.

Just a quick question for the applicant, Miss Lejeune.

So we we talked there were four deficiencies, one, four, and five, and we've kind of talked about four and five, which were that there are other properties.

Can you speak for a minute about number one, which is the special conditions of like for the record?

That basically the staff saying they uh there are no special conditions of the let me read the standard.

You know, it's special conditions or circumstances peculiar to the land.

They they're saying you're not compliant.

Do you want to either read from your letter or explain to us why you feel like that that proviso is satisfied?

Yes, so the the approval standard was special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land or structure involved and are not generally applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district district.

Um so my response to that was that you know, given that the properties on a corner lot with the existing detached garage located on the corner um street side of the property, if it was connected to the primary residence, the separation from the garage on the other side, on the other three sides would be um at the south, the corner side yard, it's 10 foot away from the adjacent sidewalk, 19 feet away from the adjacent roadway.

On the west side um at the rear yard, it'd be three foot six from the rear setback, six foot eleven from the 13-foot wide alley drive, and 21 foot nine from the structure of the neighboring property.

On the north interior side yard, it would be 24 feet from the property boundary and 28 feet from the neighboring structure.

So even with the connection um and you know, technically being within the rear yard setback, we're nowhere near any um any adjacent structures that would be affected.

Okay, understood.

I would say to your garage wouldn't be well.

Can you clarify too the garage entrance, unlike many lake view houses is not from the alley, it's actually from the side street.

Yes, the the garage door um overhead door is from the side street, and then there's uh um convenience door that faces the the main house.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board.

Just to clarify again, Emily, when you when you mentioned earlier related to the ability to build you said it will be to the 15 foot point.

Or let me just if I remember correctly I think it allows for them now because the garage becomes part of the principal structure you've now created a setback condition of 6.4 feet from the rear yard setback and that would be the allow built to lie.

Unless there is a deed restriction.

That's what I was trying to get at the clarifying exactly.

Unless a deed restriction is provided.

Yes and if a deed restriction is required here then they would only be able to do what zoning allows.

Got it any further questions from the board hearing none what's the pleasure to board if a motion's in order control.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair regarding Dr.

BZA050-26 at 6500 Vicksburg Street I move to pardon approve the requested waiver of Article 13 section 13.3.8.1 table 13-2 for rear yard setback for a waiver of 8.6 feet finding based on the discussion today by the applicant that the request meets all nine of the nine criteria of the approval standards for variances of Article 4 section 4.6 F of the CZO subject to two provisos the one proviso listed in the staff report and another proviso requiring a deed restriction such that no enlargement of the non-conforming structure is permitted beyond the setbacks listed in the current CZO.

We have a motion on the floor do we have a second?

Second with regards to BCA document number 050-26 we have a motion by Commissioner Richards seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez correct.

Moving to grant the waiver of Article 13 section 13.3.8.1 table 13-2 for a rear yard setback taking today's commentary to fulfill the nine criteria and move approval with the two noted provisos one as one is mentioned in the staff report and the second as read by Commissioner Richards related to the deed restriction for the rear yard condition.

Roll call vote Commissioner Richards.

Yay Commissioner Alvarez Yes Commissioner Dia Yes Commissioner Gonzalez Commissioner James is a yes and that motion passed 50 next item again item number four BZA dock it 05126 has been rendered moot 052-26 is for the property located at 1631 D Kildeere Street.

This request is for a variance from the provisions of Article 22 section 22.11.8.1 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the renovation of a driveway with excessive width in an SLRS to suburban Lake Vista and Lake Shore single family residential district.

The CCO stipulates that a residential driveway that provides access to a garage is limited to a maximum of 12 feet in width at the front property line.

A driveway apron the width of the garage as measured from the garage walls is permitted to extend for a distance or depth of 20 feet from the garage doors before tapering back to the required driveway width for act for access to additional spaces.

In this case the proposed driveway apron exceeds the allowable 20 foot length by five feet so tapering to 12 foot in width for the excess five foot portion is required.

The staff believes that the requested waiver fails to meet criteria A1, A3, A4, A5, and B1 of the standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6 point F, in that there are no special conditions that are particular to the land or structure.

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

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

Strict adherence would not result in a demonstrable hardship and finally granting the variance would confer upon the applicant special privilege.

Therefore staff recommends denial of the requested variance.

As a note the applicant is unable to make this meeting due to jury duty and they subsequently requested a deferral thank you for that note.

Is anyone else here to speak in support of BZA docket number 052-26 and understanding what staff mentioned related to their representative.

Anyone here to speak in opposition to this request in here none any questions from the board and note the request for deferral.

Motion's in order all right proceed regard to BZA docket 052-26 I move for a 30 day deferral at the request of the applicant second all right we have a motion by Commissioner Gonzalez and seconded by Commissioner Alvarez for 30 day deferral with BZA docket number 052-26 roll call vote commissioner Richards.

Yay Commission Alvarez yes Commissioner Gonzalez Commissioner Diaz yes Commissioner James is a yes and then motion pass 50 next item BCA 053 26 is a request for variances from Article 11.3.a dot one to subdivide a single lot into two lots with insufficient area permeable open space and rear yard setback.

The existing lot is address 3914 and is a through lot zoned H U R M1 with two buildings.

The applicant is proposing to draw a lot line between the properties so that they both sit on their own lot of record.

Staff could not identify any similar and nearby developments under the currency zone but are but are of the position that this subdivision would bring the property more in line with the surrounding area.

Therefore staff is recommending approval representative here for BZA docket number 053-26 good morning board members um Avery 48 Hinderburn street here on behalf of a proposed purchaser of the structure um even though the two structures operate independently one is a single family home one is a daycare they do sit on one lot of record so the request for the variances is not for any construction but just to simply separate them into two lots and it's affiliated with um a subdivision application that is pending um so thank you to staff for studying it and for finding it meets all the criteria we appreciate that thank you for hearing it today happy to answer any questions thanks.

Thank you anyone else here to speak in support of BZA docket number 053-26 seeing none anyone here to speak in opposition on this request also seeing none any questions from the board here no questions go ahead and motion in order uh yeah proceed regard to get to the mic in regard to BZA docket zero five three dash 26 I move for approval following the recommendation of staff that the applicant really can't hear you.

I apologize um in regards to BZA docket 053-26 I move for approval um following the recommend uh recommendation of uh staff that the applicant has met all nine criteria subject to the notification by those can you please state the articles in the sections clarify your motion and clarification the report has one proposal to my bad here docket zero five three dash twenty six I move for approval uh looking for my articles finding that the applicant has met all nine criteria for the requested waivers uh of article eleven section eleven dot three dot eight dot one minimal lot area article

In regards to BZA docket 053-26.

I move for approval.

Looking for my articles.

Finding that the applicant has met all nine criteria for the requested waivers of Article 11, Section 11.3.8.1, minimal lot area.

Article 11, Section 11.3.8.1.

Table 11-2, minimal permeable open space.

And Article 11, Section 11.3.8.1, uh table 11-2 rear yard setback.

And Article 11.

Uh 11 section 11.3.8.1, table 11-2, real yard set back.

Um finding that uh all nine criteria has been met, and the approval comes with the staff's recommendation of the one note of provision, not two but one.

All right, we have a motion on the floor.

Second.

All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Gonzalez second and by Commissioner Richards for BCA docket number 053-26 for the requested waivers of the proposed lot twenty-a under Article 11, Section 11.3.1, Table 11-2A for minimum lot area, and minimum permeable open space, as well as rear yard setback.

Additionally, the requested waiver for proposed lot 10-a for article election article eleven, section eleven point three point A.1 table 11-2 waiver rear yard setback.

Um is mentioned, except in the staff's recommendation that the nine criteria have been met with the one noted proviso, roll call vote.

Commissioner Gonzalez.

Yay.

Commissioner Richards.

Yes.

Commissioner Alvarez.

Yay.

Commissioner Diaz.

Yes.

Commissioner James is yes, and that motion also passed 5-0.

Next item.

The next item is BZA 055-26.

This is a request for a variance from the provisions of Article 18, Section 18.30 point B.4 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance permit the renovation of a single family dwelling, providing more than two full and one-half total number of bathrooms.

The parcel is currently developed with a single-story single-family residence and is currently unoccupied and ineligible to claim homestead exemption on the property.

The site does not possess any unusual physical characteristics, constraints, or irregularities that are peculiar to the land or structure, and the requested waiver is the result of the applicant's proposed design rather than a demonstrable hardship associated with the property.

However, similar variances for excessive bathrooms have been granted within the HURD2 district and overlay.

Staff believes that the requested waivers of Article 18, Section 18.30 point B.4 failed to meet standards A1 and A5 of the standards for variances in that no special conditions or circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land or structure involved and are not generally applicable to other land or structures in the same zoning district, and strict adherence to the regulation by the owner or their agent would not result in a demonstrable hardship on the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience.

However, should the board find that the request meets all approval standards for the standards of variances, staff recommends one proviso.

Thank you, Ms.

A.

Anyone here on behalf of BZA Docket No.

055-26.

Nope.

For Cia Galvez, on behalf of Zach Smith Consultant and Design, 1000 South Norma C.

Francis, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Oh, okay.

This is well, let me let me start with my criteria first, and I'll go on my other spiel.

All right.

For standard A1, the subject properties, the subject property owners are renovating a home they plan on making their primary residence.

They're up on their properties outside the overlay.

They have more than 2.5 bathrooms.

The property owners cannot obtain their homestead exemption until renovations are completed.

Thus the need for the waiver.

There has also been 11 other properties that have requested the same waiver and it have been granted due to the circumstance of property owners that cannot obtain homestead exemptions until all work is completed.

Standard 8.5.

The point of the overlays to limit parking spaces in the area, not to dictate the amount of bathrooms and bedrooms an owner-occupied home can have.

Denying the waiver will result in a hardship as the owners plan on making this their primary home and will obtain their homestead exemption upon completion of the renovations.

If the waiver would be denied, the owners will have to alter the design, which is considered compliant in all of the aspects in the CZO besides the overlay.

Again, this overlays to limit parking, which the property owners are not increasing.

And even if they were to like add more bedrooms, their lot size is exempt from providing any parking anyway because it's less than 30 feet.

That again, these are the actual property owners.

I know we had a case prior that it was some confusion of a developer, but these are the property owners, the youngs.

Got it.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in support on BZA docket number 055-26?

Seeing none.

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

Also seeing none.

Any questions from the board?

Hearing no questions, is a motion in order.

If a motion is in order, I will make it.

Proceed.

Mr.

Chair, regarding Docket BZA 055-26 at 5912 Patent Street.

I move to approve the request for a waiver of Article 18, Section 18.30 point B.4.

University area off-street parking lane over district bathroom count with a waiver of one bathroom, accepting the uh presentation and the letters submitted by the applicant, finding that the request meets all nine of the nine criteria of the approval standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6 F of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, subject to one proviso listed in the staff report.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Richards.

Seconded by Commissioner Alvarez.

Um granting the request for waiver of Article 18, Section 18, point 30, point B, point four for the university area, off-street park and overlay district, uh, bathrooms count.

Um based on the information that's provided.

Um, all nine criteria have been met, including the two remaining as noted in the report A1 and A5, and move for approval with the one noted proviso.

Roll call vote, Commissioner Richards.

Yay.

Commissioner Alvarez.

Yep.

Commissioner Gonzalez.

Yay.

Commissioner Diaz.

Yes.

Commissioner James is a yes, and that motion passed.

50.

Next item.

Thank you.

The next item is BZA docket 056-26 for a property located at 518 Spain Street.

This is a request for variance from the provisions of Article 9, Section 9.3.a, Table 9-2, Interior Side Yard Setback of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the Construction of a Single Family Dwelling with Insufficient Interior Side Yard Setback.

Article 9, Section 9.3.

Table 9 2 requires an interior side yard setback of 3 feet.

The applicant is seeking a waiver of 3 feet.

The staff believes that the request does satisfy all nine criteria as they pertain to the requested variants.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested variants subject to one proviso.

All right.

The purchaser sought to renovate this existing building.

Found out that it was not doable.

HDLC asked us to rebuild exactly what's there to the fullest extent possible, and that's what we intend to do.

The building sits on the property line.

We're just trying to replicate what's there.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in support on this request?

Seeing none.

Is anyone here speaking in opposition to BZA docking number 056-26?

Also seeing none.

Any questions from the board?

Question for staff.

Um Ms.

King, do you're not I have a question why this is in front of our board?

Because it looks to me like it's just an extension of an existing non-conformity, which would otherwise be permitted.

The demo.

Yeah, so the reason is because the original structure that has the non-conforming setback will be demolished.

Fully demolished.

So they have they will have lost that nonconformity.

Understood, thank you.

So this is really similar to the project that we saw in Audubon Park some time back when the demolition triggers the nonconform.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right.

Is a motion if the pledge of the board?

Sorry.

To make a motion.

Yeah.

Okay.

Great.

Uh Mr.

Chair, regarding Docker BZA56-26 at 518 Spain Street.

I move to approve the requested waiver of Article 9, Section 9.3A, Table 9-2 for Interior Side Yard Setback for waiver of three feet, allowing a zero-foot lot line, accepting the staff's recommendation that the request meets all nine of the nine criteria of the approval standards for variances of Article 4, Section 4.6F of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, subject to the one proviso noted in the staff report.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Alright, we have a motion by Commissioner Richards and seconded by Commissioner Alvarez.

For uh BZA docket number 056-26, except in the staff's recommendation for the requested waiver of Article 9, Section 9.3.

Moving for approval with the one noted proviso, roll call vote.

Commissioner Richards?

Yes.

Commissioner Alvarez.

Yes.

Commissioner Gonzalez.

Yay.

Commissioner Diaz?

Yes.

And Commissioner James is a yes.

And that motion pass 50.

Next item.

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

This request is for variances from the provisions of Article 22, Section 22.4.a, Table 22-1, off-street vehicle and bicycle parking requirements to permit the construction of a two-family dwelling with insufficient off-street parking.

At its May 18th meeting, the board asked that 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.

This does not exceed 40% of the front yard.

The applicant agreed to a 60-day deferral to explore these options before the July 20th meeting.

Following the May 18th BZA meeting, staff reach out to the applicant to confirm site plan revisions that the board suggested.

As of July 2nd, staff have not received an updated site plan and floor plans that either comply or illustrate the suggested zoning issues.

Therefore, staff recommends a 30-day deferral of the requested variants.

And just to clarify, we're now in the uh variance section of the docket for deferrals.

Yes.

Anyone here to speak on behalf of BZA Docket No 032-26?

Seeing none, is anyone here to speak in opposition?

Any questions from the board?

That's the pleasure of the board.

Oh, we're down one.

Uh Mr.

Chair, at the request of the staff, I uh move to defer Docket BZA032-26 for 30 days.

Second.

Alright, we have a motion and a second for BCA Dock number 032-26.

Uh granting a 30-day deferrow at the request of staff.

Uh roll call vote.

Commissioner Richards.

Yes.

Commissioner Alvarez.

Yay.

Commissioner Gonzalez.

Yay.

Commissioner Diaz.

Yes.

Commissioner James is a yes and that motion passed.

50.

Next item.

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

This request is for variances from the provisions of Article 11, Section 11.3.a point one, 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.

At its May 18th meeting, the board asked that the applicant explore revising the subdivision plan to address the issue of encroachment from 1457 North Roman Street onto 1455 Roman Street.

The board also requested for staff to verify the encroachment issue with Department of Safety and Permits as it concerns the subdivision.

The board voted to defer the request 60 days to the July 20th meeting.

The applicant agreed in order to explore these options and revise the survey.

Following the May 18th BZA meeting, staff reached out to the applicant to confirm site plan revisions at the board suggested.

As of July 2nd, the applicant has expressed the need for additional time to revise the survey and address the comments provided at the previous meeting.

Also, staff has reached out on the applicant's behalf to the zoning division and Department of Safety and Permits to seek clarity on the issue of encroachment on the survey.

Staff has not received uh response as of this morning.

Uh therefore staff recommends a 30-day deferral of the requested variance.

Is uh app is the applicant a representative president for Bizier document of 039-26.

Yes, hi.

1457 North Roman.

My address.

Any questions, any comments related to that?

Yeah, um, thank you for hearing me today.

Um thanks for the help from uh the city planner.

Um I'm basically here to get some more information.

It seems to be uh difficult to get clarity on what the best solution is to this encroachment, basically where to move the line, uh move the property line.

Uh either way, no matter how it's placed, it seems to be creating some i uh uh deficiencies.

And um I'm very happy to have more time to do this, but I would like to see the best way to make this happen uh to not delay further.

Unfortunately, the next meeting is the first day of uh classes at Xavier University where I teach, and I won't be able to make it to the meeting.

I wanted to ask also what would happen if I couldn't be present and I couldn't find someone to represent me here, how that would work if it could still be moved forward the next meeting.

Um maybe if any of the commissioners here could give some input into how to best redraw this line to avoid the encroachment.

Um the the last word apparently from the zoning folks was that the line should be jogged around the house, but that would there was no clarity on how that would work.

There's a side porch on uh 1457.

There's a small porch there that would complicate this the instructions to jog the line and maybe there's some uh suggestions from the commissioners on that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um anyone else here to speak in support on this request for uh BCA document number 039 X26.

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

Alright, hearing none.

And I know that this is on a deferral list right now, so but to provide clarity to that point um if anyone has any information they care to share related to the modification to his proposed site wanted.

The hazy memory.

Sorry.

Uh we talked about this a little while ago.

Um so the what you're talking about is on the right side of the property, the existing building encroaches on the property line.

So the recommendation is to jog so that you're not a zero long line condition, right?

But you have a little bit that right?

So it's like just a little off.

Um it is the concern that then it's making too tight of a clearance between the porch and the and the building.

Is that the is that the concern?

I'm asking you.

Like, yeah, there's there's no way to conform to the three feet requirement.

So either way it gets drawn, it's gonna have to be very close to one of the structures.

Um so if it goes between the structures.

Where it gets jogged is is complicated.

We'd have to be before the the porch.

Um and that would be kind of right in the middle of this driveway area.

That you know, my I I'm trying to find the the simplest and more uh uh appropriate, most appropriate solution to drawing this line.

Um I imagine a straight line would just be would would it solve this problem uh but it would touch one of the structures.

Of course, because there's a driveway there, my uh kind of my feeling would be to have it touch the property at 1455 and just go straight back.

That's where the existing fence is too, which would help solve that issue.

Um it's a very small space there.

And I know you're looking for us to give you direction on it.

Um, any guidance would be very helpful, yeah.

But I'm with I will say this, and I'm not trying to push back.

Um you really do need to confer with the surveyor to understand what is the appropriate setback condition so you don't create a title condition, uh clear title condition for these pieces.

So we can add libid as much as possible in terms of what we see on the map, but it does get into more of uh a legal issue for you downstream um or for whomever downstream if these properties were to be sold off independently, uh especially with the impact on the 1457 property and how that uh property line does have that encroachment on that end.

That was always my concern initially.

It sounds like you did get some clarification from the city.

Um but I would I'm gonna strongly push back to you and say that you do need to confirm with the surveyor on what is the appropriate condition of how to draw the new property line.

Yeah, and and and looking at the kind of going to Google and trying to understand because I'm just looking at the surveyor.

The surveyor doesn't show the overhang of the roof so clear in this.

And so there is quite a bit of conflict between those roof forms at that at that joint.

So I understand the concern.

Um I guess uh so what are you asking?

Are you asking to just make the whole lot line straight instead of instead of jogging?

So you just go to the side of that encroachment.

To just touch along the the structure at 1455 and go straight back.

Then I think we'll Todd maybe some help here.

So it we need the surveyor to say what that distance would be.

If we're uh if you went off of the existing thing, we that's the number we need.

So is it is it two foot nine, is it two foot six, is it two foot eight?

Like, yeah, we don't take measure is not going to tell you that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, this is very helpful.

Um the my communication with the surveyor was that they they wanted more guidance.

They wanted to know where to to draw the slides, so that's why uh I didn't call them out to redraw it yet.

Uh so I will maybe confer with them more directly and hopefully get this move forward.

Yeah, we can't let that tail wag the dog.

It's they're the one stamping the survey.

They need to be able to go out appropriately document how this should be in order to give you clear title with regards to these three properties.

Yeah, and and you do have a three foot plus on the other side.

Right.

So I think that's where you know I don't know what the comfort line is for the for that distance.

But would that be something so the initial application that for variance was referring to that that other side to the to move the property line closer to make the that lot is di would be deficient because of the initial uh process that I was trying to get uh approval for.

The question on the side with the with the encroachment this this came up and it would just require a further uh allowance or for further variants for more uh more deficient lot because it would be moving both sides closer to the structure.

At the end of the what I mentioned last time was about letting the surveyor do this part because again it impacts so many other calculations.

So again, us trying to figure it from the dais to give direction on that piece just creates more of a headache.

What I was at least asking for is because I saw something that I think that was overlooked the last time we came through this item was particular to the right hand, because I don't have the street names in front of me right now, that right hand portion of B2A.

Because that exists and you're making a modification to the site plan, we might as well get everything done at one time and get all of the correct setback conditions in order to come up with a simple lot line condition, even if that creates other setbacks or changes in percentages or uh square footage area that's tied to this because all of those items are accounted for especially with lot area.

Yeah, I really appreciate your your expertise in pointing that out.

And you know, this is this is a great opportunity to to resolve this issue because it's all the same owner currently, and that that probably won't happen again for another you know maybe a hundred years.

Exactly.

The other thing we discussed was that parking, you know, the fact that you you you can use that as a parking area right now, and you know how does that work in the future?

Is it uh shared servitude or something?

And you know, I don't know what the best way to do that is, but you know, we for life safety you want to have the as much as you can.

But because it's a parking area, you know, maybe there's just I I can't tell you what to do.

But the survey the surveyor really should they I'm gonna just say if they need to step up and give you an appropriate guidance.

Understood.

Um my question about uh deferral for the next meeting if I am unable to be present and if I cannot find someone to be here in my place, will this still be able to be considered and move forward with any work presented by the the city planner?

Yeah, we can accept any revisions that are made and then we can I'll present on that um as long as you can just send me an email, that's fine.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

That's that's very helpful.

Um so I'm gonna just mention one last thing because of the survey pieces, and I think we did 60 days last time because of the amount of time it traditionally would take for the survey to get done in order for it to be submitted for staff to review it.

Is it still appropriate for 30 day review or is this something that would again maybe need 60 based on docketing dates and when you the time needed by staff to review this item?

I think 30 days would be appropriate.

I just do want to clarify that the applicant is really here because he does not want to create more deficiencies, which is a grandfathered condition, and so that's why what I'm trying to get more clarity on from safety and permits.

Um that that wouldn't create a greater issue of like a fire rating or anything on both properties.

So I am aiming to get an answer for that, but I I don't want to um have to push this back further than 30 days.

I get that from a time standpoint, but my biggest concern is related to property entitlements and title, clear title on a property.

When a building encroaches onto another property line and that hasn't been resolved, it creates a much bigger legal issue downstream that's gonna end up back in front of this body at a later date.

So I'd rather allow them to go through the appropriate administrative remedies once, get it done so you don't have an issue because if someone was to ensure, let's say if you sold off the 1457 property and someone tried to get clear title, they will not because the building encroaches over the property line.

Okay.

So I understand from a time standpoint, but I also want to protect even though cost is not what we look at within these waivers.

I want to respect the applicant's time, effort, and cost to resolve these issues, so it's not more expensive for them to address this at a later date.

I'll leave that to the applicant.

In terms of the rate time frame.

Um just for clarification, the there this encroachment existed when the when we purchased the property in 2020.

Got it.

It might have been it might have been skipped then.

Yeah.

That doesn't mean it's gonna get skipped in the future.

I'm just telling you what the legal environment is right now, especially when people look at this.

Technology has evolved and how people evaluate these properties is four more technical at this time than how it may have existed previously.

Okay?

No, it's super.

So the concern just for clarification, the concern is if the surveyor provides a solution that doesn't or that's inappropriate, then it will create possible problems further down the line with with the clear title.

Um sorry, I'm just asking for clarification on why this might take another another 60 days into the 30.

The amount of time it takes for someone to do the work.

Right.

That's all I'm really considering.

We could do the 30, and if it's still not ready, it's gonna get request for deferral again for another 30.

Just trying to be proactive for notification windows in reality of the time it's gonna take to get this done.

But if you all want to stick with the 30, I mean look, I'm just presiding, so I'm not the one making a motion.

Yeah.

This time I'll I'll take the 30 days.

I'll I'll make it happen.

The the surveyor is on standby.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

No, if the motion is in order.

Please proceed.

We have enough people.

Yeah.

Um in regards to uh docket.

Where am I?

Uh 3926.

Um I move to defer for 30 days.

Um to give the applicant time to adjust their application.

Second.

All right, we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Diaz, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez for BCA docket number 039-26 for 30-day deferral.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Richards.

Yes.

Commissioner Alvarez.

Yes.

Commissioner Gonzalez.

Yay.

Commissioner Diaz.

Yes.

Commissioner James is a yes, and that motion passed 5-0.

Next item.

BZA 05426 is a request for variance.

It's from the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit a renovation resulting in insufficient permeable open space, an excessive impervious surface in the front yard.

This is an after-the-fact request.

Staff is asking for a deferral for 30 days due to safety and permits has not been able to adequately determine if this is going to be a um condition that's able to be grantfathered in or not because we are not certain of the extent of the work that was done.

So we're going to get with the applicant and try to get some paperwork from their contractor to see if this even needs to be heard by the board or not.

Okay.

Yes.

Charles Anderson, 906 Phillips Street.

Alright, proceed with your comments.

Yeah, we um so we we did we could done a camel back uh two years ago, and then we planned on putting some bricks in the front to cover up uh unsightly concrete, and we've done that, and then I got a notification that we didn't have enough permeable area in the front of the house, which I wasn't even aware I needed a permit for, or I even needed a permit to do the work, so apologize for not getting that in in front of you uh previously.

And so we're just looking to get a variance to it's there's nothing changed really, it's just bricks over some concrete.

So we're just looking at the variance for the impermeable uh square footage, I guess.

Okay.

So no, we have this.

It's in front of us is a 30-day deferral, right?

Okay.

Do you have any objection to the deferral request?

Uh, I if you need it, I guess so.

I mean, I'm I'd hope we could rule on it, but if if we need a deferral, I can come back.

Yeah.

So you just so in the trata at least let me go through the comments first.

Anyone else here to speak in support on BZA docket number 054-26?

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

All right, and just to provide clarity, the staff report hasn't been developed enough in order for us to make a decision one way or another, just based off of what's provided to us.

So just understand that's the reason for this deferral at this time.

If if you have no objection.

I mean, again, I I don't if you need time, that's fine.

No objection.

And I do have a request for staff, and I don't know if were there photos in in the report at all, or or of like existing condition, previous preexisting because everything on Google was really hard to see.

Yeah, it's very hard to see.

It it looks it looks exactly the same.

And safety and permits isn't saying that there's been any addition or uh to the existing condition.

What they really want to know, and it's it's such a a fine line.

If the applicant filled in the concrete, then it's grandfathered in.

If they like filled in to uh re to clear to to the cracks, but if they tore the concrete up and repored, then it's not.

So we we just need something.

There aren't any really any pictures on Google.

We were provided pictures for the applicant, but that doesn't give any information to the condition underneath.

So that wouldn't give us a clear from their perspective.

Right.

It wouldn't give us a clear indication of what the extent of the work that was done.

And understanding that as the applicant, understanding that distinction.

Do you guys do you have any way to share that?

If we can't hear them upstairs.

Hello?

There you go.

Yeah, I have pictures I sent to the staff earlier showing the before and after.

Um I I can send them again.

Well, what they're gonna what they really and I I guess uh we haven't talked to this about any extent, they're gonna need um something from the contractor.

So we didn't really didn't use a contractor, we just used our handyman.

This is the guy just threw some bricks on top of our stuff.

So I don't have a contract or a contractor thing.

Then we have to talk to Emily.

Yeah, I mean, is there a way to do an affidavit?

I mean, well, I don't know.

I'm asking uh Emily, I guess, like how do you prove if something without tear it lifting it up?

Because I've gone back in full.

Oh, go ahead, Emily, I'm sorry.

I was just gonna say ultimately the determination of whether something is is legally non-conforming is up to the Department of Safety and permit.

So I would suggest um touching base with them about what they need, if an affidavit would be something that they can review as part of that.

Yeah, it just feels a bit catch-22 here.

So I'm trying to figure out is there a way to resolve that.

I'm happy to do whatever you guys you know would would like for me to do, but we told yeah, and the deferral will help resolve that, and you might not have to come back.

Okay, great.

All right.

Any other questions from the board?

Chairman, motion is in order.

Please proceed.

Uh regarding document BZA 054-26.

Uh I move to defer the matter for 30 days based on uh staff recommendation.

Second.

All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Alvar Alvarez, seconded by Commissioner Diaz for BZA document number 054-26 for 30-day deferral at the request of staff.

Uh roll call vote.

Commissioner Richards.

Yes.

Commissioner Alvarez.

Yay.

Commissioner Gonzalez.

Yes.

Commissioner James is a yes and that motion passed 4-0.

Thank you.

Next item.

The next item is BZA Docket 057 26 for the property at 10 Audubon Boulevard.

This request is for variances from the provisions of Article 11, Section 113A1, Table 11-2A for interior side yard setback to permit an addition to a single family dwelling.

Uh resulting in insufficient distance from the interior side lot line.

Staff has requested draw revised drawings to accurately reflect the use and height of the accessory structure at the rear of the property.

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

And assume that this has already been coordinated with the applicant on the deferral request.

I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

Um the deferral request has been discussed with the applicant.

Yes, yes, they're aware.

Anyone here to speak in opposition to BZA docket number 057-26?

Also seeing none was the pleasure of the board.

Mr.

Chair, regarding Docket BZ057-26, I move to defer the item for 30 days.

All right.

We have a motion by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez for BZA docket number 057-26, which is a motion for 30-day deferral.

Roll call vote, Commissioner Richards.

Yes.

Commissioner Alvarez.

Commissioner Gonzalez is still out.

Commissioner Diaz.

Yes.

And Commissioner James is a yes and that motion passed 4-0.

Next item.

Sorry, we will now begin with unfinished business for safety and permits decision appeals.

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

Thank you.

The following is the rules and procedures for the public hearing for appeals of the decisions of the directive department of safety and permits.

The pro the following procedures shall be observed during the appeals hearing.

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

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

The applicant or representative will speak next.

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

But in no event shall the cumulative presentation total by applicants or their representatives exceed 15 minutes.

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

Opponents, persons, persons in opposition to the proposal will speak and be allowed three minutes per speaker as well.

The applicant or representative will be allowed a rebuttal.

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

Addition information.

Standards of review.

Okay, we'll begin with BZA Docket 00824 for the property at 2900 Perdito Street.

Good afternoon, board.

As this board is well aware, this is our longtime friend, BZA008-24.

This involves the new facility at the Orleans Parish Directional Center.

My understanding is that the litigation which raised a lot of these uh same issues has been completed and the case was uh ultimately dismissed.

I don't know where the applicant is regarding our um piece of this, but you know, it seems like we do this every several months.

So I I don't I don't know why uh this has not been withdrawn.

So I but the litigation has been completed.

Okay.

Let me just let's in favor of the city of New Orleans.

That's got it.

So just for the sake of consistency, let's just go through speaking points and we'll defer to uh the law department.

Um anyone here to speak in support of the request for BZA docket number 008-24.

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

All right, seeing none.

Um legal, if there's any status updates you may be able to provide us.

He is correct.

Um the matter was dismissed November of 2025.

So to our knowledge, there's no new information.

So it the board may hear it if they would like.

So I guess the question comes back to they've been properly notified.

I mean, again, is if it's supposed to be withdrawn, is it technically that does it render it boot or not?

Is would be my question to the to really to legal.

Is this something that's a boot issue or is it still a relevant challenge?

I believe it would still be relevant.

I mean, there hasn't been any other information, and I don't to my understanding maybe Emily knows that it hasn't been withdrawn, and it still was is in the same position that it was when it was referred for the you know, first, second, third time.

So I think we would need further information from that applicant or action to be taken.

So is it maybe more appropriate to that the our infamous D word of deferral giving them a chance to withdraw this?

Or should we hear it?

I mean it's here to present.

And I would suggest, and I'm certainly up to the board and I would defer to staff as well as whether something can be continued without date and then leave it upon the applicant if they want to brief life into this uh this thing to do so and have it set back on the on the docket.

Uh well question to the director.

I mean, did were were they informed that this status would be changed this this month?

I d uh I I don't I don't know what notice was provided to the applicant, but I mean this is as you might recall it's been a couple years.

I think we did a was it a six-month deferral that we did the last time?

I can't even four months.

So we did 120 days, we changed that procedure since then.

Yeah.

And the applicant was notified um via email.

We have not heard back, uh, but we can try reaching out to see if they would like to continue with this or if they would like to withdraw.

Okay.

I would not be surprised just kind of from the makeup of this situation.

Who knows if it's the same person managing this case?

So on behalf of that entity.

So I think it's just out of fairness a consideration of a deferral to give them proper notification, and if nothing's returned at that point, um I think the board would just have to review it at that time and consider a ruling.

I agree with that.

Any other questions from the board?

What's the pleasure of the board?

Uh good.

Uh Mr.

Mosh is in order.

Regarding docket BZA008-24.

I defer the matter for 30 days.

Well, we have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Do you have any I was going to second it?

Good.

So just make sure we'll end this on a mic because I can while only with question that time line.

Gotcha.

Um we have a motion by Commissioner Alvarez, Commissioner Busse by Commissioner Richards for 30-day deferral of BZA docket number 008-24 to give the city time to contact the applicant to be present for this item.

Roll call vote, Commissioner Richards.

Yes.

Commissioner Alvarez.

Yes.

Commissioner Gonzalez.

Yes.

Commissioner Diaz?

Yes.

Commissioner James is a yes, and that motion passed.

50.

The next item is VCA docket 1110 25 for the property at 1037 through 39 Broadway Street.

And just one note.

The applicant has requested to withdraw this appeal as of this morning.

So we make 110.

Yeah.

Okay.

Was it that nice?

No, no, do we need to do anything since it's withdrawal?

No public comments are necessary.

I don't know if the board would like the applicant to state the withdrawal on the record, but since they're present, and let's cover all formalities.

If applicants present for BZA document number one 10-25.

Sure.

Laura Carla on behalf of the applicant, and we are withdrawing this appeal.

Thank you.

All right.

Noting that, uh no further action is required.

Next item.

The next item is VZA docket 04926 for the property at 717 Barrett Street.

And good afternoon, Dan McMahon, Chief Zoning Official for the City of New Orleans in case number BZA 04926 regarding 717 Barracks Street.

Issue before the board is whether the BZA should overturn the uh director's refusal to issue a determination that the property possesses a legal non-conforming use as a hotel operating without a dedicated lobby and without 24 hour staffing.

The short answer to that question is no.

The applicant seeks recognition of a vested right to operate a hotel without 24 hours staffing and without a dedicated lobby.

Those characteristics are not separate land uses recognized by the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

They are operational features of a hotel.

Louisiana law protects lawful non-conforming land uses.

It does not protect every business practice that existed before the adoption of a new ordinance.

The applicant therefore seeks recognition of a non-conforming operational condition rather than a non-conforming use.

Additionally, granting the relief requests would effectively create a property specific exemption from staffing requirements, requirements adopted by the city council.

The BZA has authority to interpret and apply the law.

It does not have the authority to create exemptions from ordinances where the city council has not provided one.

Without the staff available at check-in and check out and throughout the day via telephone, but without excuse me, but without a dedicated lobby space in 24-7 on site staffing.

The appeal had stated Article 19.4.a point 22C, adopted in 2025, and provides that no permanent or license shall be issued for the following uses.

Hotel motel, which does not provide on-site staff at all hours as part of customary lodging services services, excuse me.

Also acknowledges uh chapter 30, section 30-804, which provides each hotel and motel operating in the city shall have at all times at least one on-site on-duty staff member physically present and capable of immediately assess assisting guests, overseeing operations of the facility, addressing safety and security matters, and responding to emergencies.

The applicant argues that because the property operated for many years without 24 staffing, it acquired law legal non-conforming status and is entitled to continue operation in the same manner.

At the outset, the uh director raises a procedural uh objection that the matter is prescribed.

The applicant is attempting to relitigate a previously denied determination.

The record reflects the applicant sought substantial substantially identical relief in June of 2025.

Specifically, the applicant requested modification of the um the property's legal non-conforming use determination to authorize the operation of a hotel with no dedicated lobby, no 24-hour on staff uh site staffing, staff available by telephone and staff only present during check-in and check-out.

The director denied that request and determined that the property had not attained legal non-conforming status for such an operational arrangement.

The applicant did not appeal this determination.

For the rules of the BZA, every appeal of the decision of the director of the Department of Safety and Permits shall be taken within 45 days from the date of the refusal of a permit or date of order, ruling decision or determination by the director of the department of safety and permits.

Appeals are applications taken after 45 days from the date of aforesaid shall not be considered by the board.

Administrative decisions that are not timely appealed become final.

Party may not repeatedly seek the same determination until a different result is obtained.

The present application essentially seeks the same relief by previously denied, recognizing of a legal nonconforming right to operate without a dedicated lobby and without 24-hour on-site staffing.

The applicant identifies no material change in facts, no newly discovered evidence, or no intervening legal determination requiring reconsideration of the prior denial.

Accordingly, the board should find that the applicant is attempting to relitigate issues previously decided by the department and should decline to disturb the finality of the June 25th determination.

Given this, the department submits that the application cannot be considered by the board and must be dismissed.

Returning to the merits of the matter, that the applicant seeks recognition of an operational condition, not a non-conforming use.

The threshold problem with the appeal is that the applicant has not identified a land use that became non conforming.

Before adoption of the staffing requirements, the property was used as a hotel.

After the adoption of the staffing requirements, the property remains a hotel.

The use is not changed.

Instead, the applicant seeks recognition of a particular operation operating model with no dedicated lobby, no 24 hour staffing, and having the staff only available remotely by telephone.

Again, these are operational characteristics, they are not separate land uses.

Neither the CZO nor the city code recognizes separate use classifications for staffed hotels, unstaffed hotels, hotels with lobbies, hotels without lobbies, or hotels using remote staffing models.

A request of determination, therefore, concerns how a hotel operates rather than whether a hotel exists.

Louisiana courts have long held that non-conforming uses are disfavored and should not be expanded beyond their lawful scope.

Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that nonconforming rights must be narrowly construed.

Likewise, the court has held that a party claiming legal nonconforming status bears the burden of proving entitlement to the status.

The applicant cannot satisfy that burden because it is here because that is not identified a land use that became nonconforming.

At most, the applicant has shown that the properly his property historically operated without 24 hour staffing.

A history of operating in a certain manner is not the same as a vested property right.

If the applicant's theory were accepted, virtually any business practice in the city of New Orleans could become permanently protected.

Property owner could claim grandfather rights to staffing levels, security practices, management methods, check-in procedures, or other operational features simply because they existed before the adoption of a new ordinance.

Louisiana nonconforming use law does not extend that far.

The applicant argues that the 2025 interim zoning district created a legal non-conforming use.

The text of the ordinance does not support that conclusion.

Under Article 19.4.a.22C, no permit or license shall be issued for the following uses.

A hotel or motel which does not provide on-site staff at all hours as part of customary lodging services.

The ordinance does not prohibit hotels, does not remove hotels from the zoning district, it does not create separate categories of hotel use.

The property was a hotel before the adoption of the ordinance and remains a hotel today.

The ordinance simply imposes a staffing requirement on hotel operations.

Because the use itself remains unchanged, the applicant has not established the existence of a new non-conforming use.

City Code Section 30-804 applies to every hotel and motel operating in the City of New Orleans.

The ordinance regulates ongoing hotel operations.

The ordinance does not create a separate zoning classification.

Instead, it establishes a citywide operating requirement for hotels regardless of location.

The applicant's request of determination would therefore amount to recognition of a permanent exemption from a generally applicable operational requirement.

Nothing in the CZO authorizes the board to create such an exemption.

The applicant's position highlights why non-conforming use protection has traditionally been limited to land uses rather than business practices.

A property owner does not acquire a perpetual right to operate under every condition that existed when a use was established.

For example, a hotel that lawfully operated decades ago would not acquire a vested right to remain exempt from later adopted fire safety requirements, emergency access standards, occupancy controls, or other regulations designed to protect guests in the public.

Likewise, a restaurant that lawfully existed before the adoption of modern fire suppression requirements would not acquire protected right to continue operating without those systems merely because they were not required when the restaurant opened.

The use remains protected, the operational standards do not.

That same principle applies here.

Section 30-0804 requires on site staff who can assist guests, overseas operations, address safety and security concerns, and respond to emergencies.

By its plain language, the ordinance addresses guest safety and the emergency response.

The applicant asks the board to recognize a vested right to continue operating without complying with those requirements.

Doing so would significantly expand nonconforming use doctrine and transform historical operating practice into a permanent exemption from later enacted regulations.

The board should decline to make such an expansion.

Applicant requires on Panzika versus the City of New Orleans.

That case involved governmental action that prevented the continuation of a non-conforming bar use through the denial of licenses necessary to operate the use.

This matter is different.

No one disputes that this property may be continued to use as a hotel.

The city has not prohibited that use.

The city has not attempted to terminate a lawful hotel use.

Instead, the city requires compliant compliance with staffing requirements that applies to hotels generally.

Unlike Panzica, compliance with the staffing requirement does not eliminate the use itself.

The property may continue to operate as a hotel if it complies with the applicable requirements.

Panzika, therefore, does not support recognition of a vested right to operate a hotel without on-site staffing.

The BCA cannot create a property specific exemption from city ordinances.

The relief would require the board to do just that, and again, the board does not possess such authority.

The City Council enacted ordinance number 3207 codified as Chapter 30 Section 30-804 and later 30 ordinance number 339H, which incorporates similar staffing requirements into the CZO.

Neither ordinance contains a grandfather clause exempting existing hotels.

The applicant asks the board to determine the property may continue operating without complying with those requirements.

In practical effect, that would create a property specific exemption from ordinances created by council.

The BZA is an administrative body.

It does not possess legislative authority.

The board is not empowered to declare a duly enacted ordinance unenforceable as applied to a particular property absent express legal authority to do so, nor may the board create exceptions that the city council chose not to create.

If accepted, the applicant's theory would allow property owners to seek grandfathered exceptions and later adopted staffing, security, safety, management, or other operational requirements by characterizing prior business practices as non-conforming uses.

Nothing in the CZO authorizes such a result.

For this reason alone, the appeal should be denied.

The appeal acknowledges that Chapter 30 requirements will be addressed through a separate process.

That admission confirms that the property determination would not resolve all regulatory requirements applicable to the property.

Instead, the applicant seeks a determination concerning a particular operating model rather than the existence of a hotel use.

This further supports the conclusion that the request falls outside the traditional scope of a non-conforming use determination.

Thus the applicant has uh the applicant here has failed to establish existence of a legal non-conforming use.

The protected use is a hotel.

The applicant again seeks recognition of a right to operate a hotel without complying with the staffing requirements adopted by the city council.

Neither New Louisiana law nor the CZO recognizes 24 hours a hotel without 24 hour staffing or a hotel without a dedicated lobby as separate land use classifications.

Those characteristics again are operational features of a hotel, not distinct uses.

Louisiana courts narrowly construe non-conforming rights.

The applicant has identified no authority, holding that historical business practices become protected non-conforming uses.

Consequences of the application applicant's position further demonstrate its legal witness.

If accepted, any historical operating practice could become permanently insulated from future regulation merely because it existed before the adoption of a new ordinance.

Under that theory, again, a property owner could claim grandfather rights against later adopted safety security, emergency response, occupancy, staffing, or similar occupational requirements.

Louisiana nonconforming use doctrine has never extended so far.

Most importantly, the appeal asked the board to create property-specific exemptions from ordinances enacted by the city council.

The board's authority extends to applying existing law.

It does not include authority to create exemptions that the leg uh legislative body did not enact.

Accordingly, even if the board accepts the factual assertion that the property historically operated without 24-hour staffing, the applicant has not demonstrated the existing existence of a protected non-conforming use, and the board lacks authority to convert a historical operating practice into a permanent exemption from duly enacted ordinances.

For these reasons, the uh the director's determination uh must be affirmed and the appeal denied.

Thank you.

Laura, I'm behalf Laura Carl, on behalf of the applicant.

I did Mr.

McMackmara disservice by giving him a heads up before.

Um we're actually requesting a deferral, a 30-day deferral.

Um we are working through some issues with the department to hopefully resolve this appeal.

Ms.

Carlisle, I'm I'm dry now.

I will talk to him when you as well come up for air, but hey, I mean more positive.

Yeah.

I had it noted on my paper.

You were sitting right next to me.

I thought you would have seen it.

All right, all right.

Thank you, Miss Carla.

Ms.

Carlisle, any other comments?

No comments right now.

I'm hoping we can resolve this one within 30 days.

Okay.

Anyone else here?

Anyone else here to speak in support of in support?

Quick, quick fire over there, um, of this appeal.

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

I know we got four speaker cards in and one person noted time, but please make uh reference of the deferral that's also being requested of us.

Good afternoon.

My name is Aaron Holmes.

I'm executive director of EC Porad, and I was here to speak in opposition to the request.

Um I and my colleagues have sat here for about two hours.

Um this is not the first time that I've sat here for about two hours for just this property.

And I want to make note of, and I've made note of this in other um chambers for the View Carey Commission and the City Planning Commission, that this is a waste of your time and my time, and everybody here who was taking time out of their day to come and share their comments and make a determination.

I'm not going to go into the details why I am in opposition, other than it's pretty clear this is an operational practice, not a use.

It's not grandfatherable.

Um I have plenty more comments to make if and when this does come up, but I do want to make a note of the fact that this is incredibly disrespectful of everybody's time to act ask us to come.

I guess they didn't ask, to give us the opportunity to share the similar information that we have done so for over a year and a half on this issue.

So, yeah, rambling, but I'm a little frustrated.

Um, and I guess I'll see you in 30 days.

Thank you, Ms.

Holmes.

Anyone else here to speak in opposition?

Hi, I'm Sandra Stokes.

I'm with Louisiana Landmark Society, and I echo Aaron's comments.

Um it is disrespectful, and I ask that you don't defer it and make a decision now because you can't add any more words to for Mr.

McMahon's speech.

I agree with him totally that this is um uh this is an operational issue.

It has nothing to do with this with um grandfathering in.

It's an interesting time to be bringing this up as the city is doing the transient study and trying to find ways to get a handle on the STR.

So this is one of the ways, of course.

We have examples of people sitting on the French quarter steps, waiting to get into their hotel in the middle of the night.

This is a safety issue.

Um, and as well as a tourism issue.

Tourism looks bad when you got people waiting to get into their hotel.

And beyond that, it's beyond the French quarter.

It's not just this one building.

It sets a precedent for people to go back across the city and find these loopholes.

Um bottom line is it's a these are creating loopholes, and we ask that you stop the loopholes and keep it staffed and secure.

Thank you so much.

Any additional speakers in opposition.

Yes, my name is Alan Johnson.

Um charters.

Um I would like to also talk about the mess that this would make.

What this would do was we would have a set of standards for a hotel.

If you were a hotel at this date, then you met this standards.

If you have a hotel at this date, you met this standards, and if you're at the hotel at a certain date, you wouldn't have to follow other standards, such as fire codes, such as smoking bans, which we had with the bars recently.

This would create an absolute mess when it came to enforcement and expectations of the neighborhood.

But I'd like to talk about the unprofessionalism that we have seen with this process.

This is the second time that I've come here for this pro for this, and that they're able to defer and defer and defer.

As a long-time neighborhood association, and yes, I'm mad.

As a long-term neighborhood association president, this is the thing that makes it hard for us to do our jobs.

Because we get the we get jerked around by certain people who think that the rules don't apply to them and they don't have to show any respect to their citizens of New Orleans.

You should show respect to citizens from New Orleans.

I ask you to deny her deferral today and make them stand up.

This is this is the second time I've been here.

It is hard for to get people participating in the public process because they become jaded when certain people get favorable treatment and the people and the citizens who have to take time off from work, who aren't getting paid to be here like some others are getting paid to be here, who get rich off of jerking us around, are allowed to come here, and we're not treated with respect.

The people of the New Orleans deserve respect, and that is unprofessional, and it's disgusting that we have to keep coming and coming and coming.

And I ask you to deny her deferral.

If they want to reply later or do whatever they want to do, let them do it.

But don't make us keep coming here because we're gonna quit coming.

And the goal is to make us quit coming.

We lose faith, and that she gets to slide it through because we're not here to oppose them.

Deny her deferral and deny her application today.

Thank you.

All right.

Anyone else here to speak in opposition on a request?

And the applicant has a chance to rebut.

Um I'm just gonna I'm just gonna give some guardrails.

I think we're still looking at what is the deferral understanding.

This is the first time we also seeing this item, correct?

Uh this this wasn't deferred from before, correct?

This is unfinished business.

It is unfinished, Ms.

Hart.

Thank you.

I would like to Carlisle please go ahead.

I gave people a heads up, folks.

This folks, this morning a heads up that we would be asking for deferral because we have been trying to work through the department with the department through this application.

We did not submit comments in response to the director's report in reliance on the fact that we were having discussions with the department.

So my client has not had a chance to submit com did not submit comments because of that reason.

We're only asking for 30 days, and I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

That concludes the rebuttal.

Any questions from the board?

Seeing none, what's the pleasure of the board?

Well, just a quick question to clarify.

So even if we did not defer this, we don't have anything from the applicant.

Right.

I mean they haven't presented any.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah, let's make sure, because I think we also have some issues on audio.

Just as let's make sure we speak to the mics just so it's clearly heard.

Sorry about that.

Yeah, got it.

Okay, if a motion's in order.

Okay.

Regarding Dr.

BZA049-26 at 717 Barrack Street.

I moved to defer the matter for 30 days.

We have a motion on the floor.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All right.

Um with regards to BZA document number 049-26.

We have a motion by Commissioner Richards.

Commit uh seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez for a 30-day deferral.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Richards.

Yes.

Commissioner Alvarez.

Commissioner Gonzalez.

Yes.

Commissioner Diaz.

Yes.

And Commissioner James is a yes.

Um that motion passed 5-0.

I I will make a note though.

Um this board is made up of volunteers.

So our time is just as precious as everyone else's, okay?

I appreciate what your comments are, but at the end of the day, we do have a process by which we have to adhere to.

And if sometimes a request is made, sometimes it may seem untimely for some, we have to respect the process and understand what it is.

We do try to keep this space and try to keep the attack profile of it.

I didn't receive some of your comments as an attack, but let's also just kind of be mindful that it's not just the people presenting on a case, it's everybody waiting on everything to come up on this document on this docket.

So this is all part of it.

We can't take any special preference to move anything up due to these items, but we're here just trying to do this in the most fair and equitable process.

I just felt we needed to at least put that on a record.

Next item.

I second that.

Thank you.

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

The next item is BZA Docket 05826 for the property at 4501 to Low Street.

Good afternoon again, Dan McMurra, Chief Zoning official for the City of New Orleans.

I only have five paragraphs to read you this time.

So uh do we need to confer that it's not being deferred?

What's that?

The bad joke.

Don't do that.

Bad joke.

So the issue presented, this appeal relies upon the assertion that sidewalk cafes at non-conforming bars in residential zoning districts are not permitted.

However, the subject property is not located within a residential zoning district, rather it is located in the HU B1A neighborhood business district.

Comprehensive zoning ordinance especially expressly recognizes HU B1A as a district intended to accommodate an individual parcel or small cluster of parcels and non-residential use that exists within residential areas at CZO section uh 12.1.a.

The purpose of the district is to preserve historic neighborhoods serving commercial uses while maintaining compatibility with surrounding residential uses.

The distinction is significant.

Comprehensive zoning ordinance differentiates between a parcel located within a residential area and a parcel zoned as a residential district.

Although the subject property is surrounded by residential zoning, it is again itself zoned HU B1A and neighborhood uh business district specifically created for historic commercial uses within residential neighborhoods.

The applicant has not identified any provision of the comprehensive zoning ordinance prohibiting the issuance of a sidewalk use permit on property zoned HUB1A.

Instead, the appeal relies upon the guidance referring to residential zoning districts, a classification that is not applied to the subject property.

Uh the appeal should be denied.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Kelly Burgess.

It's 621 North Mirat Street in New Orleans.

Um my appeal to this.

And and hold up one second, I'm sorry.

Let's make sure we have the correct time allocation for them on screen.

It's still showing two minutes.

I think it's five.

All right, thank you.

Sorry about that.

Just wanted to make sure we didn't have an interruption.

Proceed.

I am appealing the sidewalk um permit issuance because under the HU B1A table 12.1, it says that bars are nonconforming.

It says there is no letter on that table next to a bar in that in that neighborhood, which means that it would be nonconforming.

Additionally, it says sidewalk cafes at non-conforming bars in residential zoning districts are not permitted.

That one building in the entire neighborhood is the only thing zoned HU B1A.

The sidewalk cafe is supposed to be closed at 10 p.m.

every evening, and the sidewalk cafe has no one there to regulate whether or not it's closed at 10 p.m.

and is never closed at 10 p.m.

There are always people outside of the bar making noise in the neighborhood.

Additionally, there should be an eligibility based on the principal use for the CZO, a sidewalk cafe permit is fundamentally an extension of an active restaurant use.

The establishment at 4501 Toulouse operates primarily as a bar and lounge.

Under city guidelines, the bar use uses are restricted from extending commercial seating into the public right-of-way within historically residential subdistricts.

And uh last week there was a gentleman who fell asleep on our porch, and when we attempted to remove him from our porch, he flipped out.

And it is an issue, it is a safety issue.

It is a noise issue, and I ask that you uh remove the permit.

Does that conclude your comments?

Yes.

Okay.

Anyone else here to speak in support of the appellant for BZA Docker number 058-26?

Seeing none, is anyone here to speak in opposition to this appeal.

I've been there for 13 years.

Um I've never had an issue with the bar.

The complainant does not actually live at the property at 621 North Merritt.

Uh they live in Metary and have security cameras on the property so that if a bar patron goes anywhere near the property, they get up in the night and drive out there and argue with them.

Um her father-in-law recently chased somebody down the street with a gun for sitting on the uh his tenant's porch while they were waiting for an Uber.

This is the danger, not the bar that's been there for 70 years.

That's all.

Anyone else here to speak in opposition to this appeal.

Good afternoon, board, Zach Smith 1000 South Norman C.

Francis.

I think you've heard a very clear position from Mr.

McMara on the merits.

Uh this is one of those various things that get brought to be appeals because somebody doesn't like a business or somebody doesn't like something.

Uh or usually it's a they use this technical process to to try and shut something down when of course this is a sidewalk cafe that is clearly within its rights to to be issued a license.

But more importantly, um, you know, this is again one of those situations I I think most of you were on the board, if not all of you, with that trapeze guy that went, you know, looking into his neighbor's backyard and created a problem where sometimes one really wasn't.

Uh and a lot of times we like to stay kind of quiet on some of these issues, but from everything I've seen, I've looked at videos, many of which I don't think were actually prov uh provided and uploaded into the the BZA's record.

Uh but uh I think they were some of them are a little bit behind.

But there were some severe instances of uh of very aggressive attitudes and interactions by the person who's filing this complaint.

And uh this is a textbook example of somebody going looking for a problem and then magically finding one and then wasting everybody's time talking about it.

So thank you.

Please deny this.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in opposition to this appeal?

The applicant has an opportunity to robot.

I am the property owner, whether I live there or not, has nothing to do with this permit.

I own the property.

I may intend to live there, so that that doesn't have anything to do with it.

My husband doesn't go looking for trouble, and neither do I.

If people are walking by our property while we're outside and they're over served by the bar and they're too drunk to know what they're doing, and they cause problems with us, that's a bar problem.

That's not a us problem.

Okay, that concludes your comments?

Okay.

Any questions from the board?

Quick question for the director.

You could just clarify for everyone.

I think I understand you correctly, the applicant made a case that this bar is in a residential area, but it is in fact zoned for business.

And so when it says within a residential zone, it literally means the zone has to be residential.

I'm sorry, you tailed off the trailed off the the zone has to be residential.

So in other words, this is not a residentially zoned property.

Right.

And there are arguments.

Thank you.

Yes.

Okay.

That was going to be my question.

All right.

Any other questions for the board?

It's the pleasure of the board.

If a motion is in order, please proceed.

Mr.

Chair, regarding Dr.

BZA58-26 at 4501 to Louis Street, I move to deny the appeal and uphold the director of the decision of the Director of Safety and Permanent Permits, finding that there was not an error in the interpretation of the comprehensive zoning ordinance or conflict in the law in accordance with Article 4, Section 4.8 point D of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.

Second.

All right.

SDUS-7434.

Alleging the sidewalk cafe bar is not permitted in a district and constituently legal non-conforming use.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Richards.

Yay.

Commissioner Alvarez.

Yay.

Commissioner Gonzalez.

Yay.

Commissioner Diaz.

Yes.

And Commissioner James is a yes.

And that motion passed.

50.

Next item.

The next item is BZA Docket 05926 for the property at 7301 birth street.

Quick note regarding this appeal.

Staff docketed it, believing that the appeal is proper.

However, I know the Department of Safety and Permits has some concerns around that.

So I will let Mr.

McNamara provide those.

Thank you.

And my apologies and my apologies to the applicant as well, because we're going to seek a deferral for 30 days in this matter.

I had promptly posited that question with staff and then promptly went out of town.

And then staff timely responded to my uh when I was I didn't see it until I got back, and that was after the date for submission.

So I would like an orderly move for a deferral of 30 days with apologies to the applicant in this matter.

Okay.

Ms.

Johnson.

Um hi, Susan Johnson, 2822 LePage Street, town of Charlton Watch.

I am not paid to be here.

Um a non-profit tracking private dorm development in the university area for five years.

My principal comment on this matter is that neighbor Susan Krinsky, resident of the 800 block of Pine, asked me to state that she would have attended the meeting if the appeal was to be heard, and that she submitted a letter of support for the appeal past deadline.

So that's what I have prepared.

But so is it my understanding that the appeal will go ahead or uh in 30 days or upon deferral?

Um if I'm understanding correctly, upon a deferral, it would it would advance.

Thank you.

And there still is the the technical question of whether it is proper.

Yeah.

So just understand that we still have that question, but it sounds like the department is if I understood correctly from Mr.

McCamara's comments.

There was a response to it, but you're asking for the 30-day deferral just to go through the appropriate question.

That's correct.

And and if I and I'll raise that uh exception, it should I deem it necessary or otherwise I'll provide a response on the merits to be heard in 30 days.

All right, just I'll ask a special favor, just make sure to confer with Ms.

Johnson and give her heads up on it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in support on this item of uh of the appeal for BCA document number 059-26 with the understanding of a request for a 30-day deferral.

Hearing none, anyone here to speak in opposition.

Also seeing none.

Um any questions from the board.

It's the pleasure of the board.

Mr.

Chair.

Proceed.

Regarding Docket BZA 059-26 at 7301 Berth Street.

I move to defer the item for 30 days.

Second.

All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Alvarez for BZA docket number 059-26 for 30-day deferral at the request of the Department of Safety and Permits.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Richards.

Yes.

Commissioner Alvarez.

Yay.

Commissioner Gonzalez.

Yes.

Commissioner Diaz.

Yes.

Commissioner James is a yes.

Commissioner James is a yes and that motion passed 5-0.

Last item.

Good afternoon, Dan McRamery, Chief Zoning Official for the City of New Orleans in case number BZA 049-26 regarding 7600 Maple Street.

The appellant seeks reversal of the director's determination denying recognition of legal nonconforming use status for the operation of a bar at 7600 Maple Street.

The appeal fails for several independent reasons.

The applicant has not produced the clear and convincing evidence required by the CZO under Article 25.3.b.3.

It's not established compliance with Article 24.3.4's operational requirement.

Requirements relies on alleged post-permit operations that would have been unlawful.

It's not established the current applicant as an entity entitled to assert the claimed vested right and is contradicted by objective governmental records and sworn and the sworn affidavit of a nearby resident.

For these reasons, the appeal should be denied.

The CZO is quite clear that it is the burden placed on the property owner to establish the legal legality of a nonconforming use.

It's 25.2.d.

It's reiterated in CZO Article 25.3.

Which places the burden on the property owner to produce clear and convincing evidence attesting to the legal non-conforming use status.

The department's not required to prove abandonment.

The operative question is whether the applicant provided entitlement evidence of entitlement to a recognition of a legal nonconforming use.

It did not.

Again, the applicant is not shown the required hours and days of operation.

Article 25.3.4 does not allow a legal non-conforming use to be maintained through casual intermittent, temporary or illegal use.

The affidavit is not provided by the applicant did not establish the regular hours of operation, the number of days a week, or compliance with minimal operational requirements of the CZO.

Further, the handful of isolated receipts and lease documents do not establish continuation of the use.

To the extent that they have any probative value, the affidavits attesting to the use only establish intermittent use insufficient to assert nonconformity.

The appellant also relies on uh alleged illegal operation.

Last ABO permit was issued to TMS Realty LLC doing business as TJ Quills, and that was effective uh June 25, 2024 and expired May 31st of 2025.

Especially states that licenses are not transferable, assignable, or heritable.

The record contains no subsequent ABO permit.

City Code Section 10-46 and Louisiana Revice Statute 2675 and 26275 prohibit alcohol sales without permits.

Article 25.3.4 provides that a legal use cannot establish or maintain a non-conforming use.

As the business operations of TMS ceased, the use was not maintained.

If any operations continued, they were unlawful.

Again, the legal use is insufficient to maintain nonconformity.

The current applicant is not established entitlement to assert the claim right.

Again, the last valid ABO permit belonged to TMS Realty LLC doing business as TJ Quills.

The present application was filed in February of this year, 2026 by a different entity.

The appeal provides no evidence of assignment, merger, succession, or other legal basis establishing entitlement to assert the claim vested right.

Further telling is the lack of any credible evidence from the entity that was purportedly that was purportedly engaged in business activity.

Save again for a handful of receipts of unknown and unattested origin, there are no other business records.

There are no leases, no ledgers, no payroll records, no pay stops.

The lack of sufficient supporting documentation of use demonstrated demonstrates that the department did not err in finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate nonconformity.

The objective governmental evidence undermines the appellant's claim of continuous commercial operations.

Records of the Department of Revenue reflected the business had not been remitted sales taxes for more than a year.

While not in a itself dispositive, the failure to pay taxes as well as failing to provide any substantial or well supported evidence undermines the appellant's claim of continuous commercial operation.

A neighbor, Mr.

David Bandana, who was residing in the area for more than 27 years, submitted an affidavit which was in the record which states that the premises uh premises ceased operation of as a bar in late 20 of 24 or early 2025.

He attested he observed no patrons, alcohol service, deliveries, eliminated signs, or routine activity, except for one or two isolated pop-up events.

His detailed observations directly contradict the appellants generalized affidavits.

The expired ABO permit, code violations, lack of sales tax reporting, different a different applicant entity, and the bandana bandana affidavit collectively outweigh generalized litigation prepared affidavits and demonstrated that the applicant failed to satisfy the clear and convincing standard.

The applicant has failed to carry the burden imposed by Article 25.3 point B.3.

The evidence does not establish continuation of a legal nonconforming use, and the appeal should be denied in the director's determination affirmed.

Thank you.

Is that applicant present for uh DZA document number 060-26?

Thank you, Chairman.

Bob Ellis, on behalf of the uh applicant, and I uh admit 650 Poydra Street, suite 220.

That's New Orleans, Louisiana, 70135, and I have been retained to represent the applicant uh before you today.

So thank you for your time and consideration.

I know we're on the last thing on the docket, and I just kind of want to jump into the history of this bar.

It is TJ Quills has been on Maple Street for over fifty years.

It did not stop operation.

One thing Mr.

McNamare said was correct is the operator prior to my client did allow her license to lapse, but her use continued.

We've proven that.

We had six affidavits, some from the actual staff that used to work there, managers and employees, and then we had re uh students who visited infrequent, like I'm sure some of y'all did back in the day, establishing that the bar was operating.

What we found in my uh my the property owners here today to provide some background on this, when we when the my client got the lease, and there is a lease, there's a lease now and there was a lease prior, the other operator essentially abandoned in the middle of the night the the rest of the bar.

She allowed she her office was a shambles, all the money was gone, and we found numerous returns.

Um the Z tapes of the old uh cash registers, and we submitted them.

It wasn't just one, it was multiple.

But the fact of the matter, that's all we had.

And we have the testimony, unrefuted at uh testimony of the uh employees.

The other thing we have is the lease, and then we had uh four letters of support.

This is from the next door neighbor, Mrs.

Colleen Loretta at 7535 Hampson Street, reads utility uh uh utility bar, uh which is right across the street.

Been there for years.

This person's 23 years I've been knowing the bar's been existing.

We have multiple, multiple, multiple statements from different people of all different facets, not just our former employees, not just our owner, but actual residents.

This person who put this affidavit up didn't live near the didn't live near the bar.

It was distances away, blocks and blocks away.

And we know that based on the affidavit itself.

Now let's get to what Mr.

McNamara said, and I agree with him on this.

Um the standard of review is clear and convincing.

The statute that uh requires the determination of nonconforming use is 25.3b determination and non-conforming use.

And number three provides such evidence includes but is not limited to documents such as rent receipts, affidavits, documentation of utility services, documentation of water services, sales tax receipts, property information.

We've provided what we had, and we have a lease that was in effect and was being paid.

That's non-disputed.

So that establishes that the use was in fact being used.

The fact that it did she the former operator did not apply for a permit is irrelevant.

Because once we provide the clear and convincing evidence, which I suggest we have, the burden actually shifts to the city to prove that there was a discontinuation or abandonment.

And that case is actually the Supreme Court case of the City of New Orleans versus Elms.

A case that I've just recently litigated in civil district court and had a similar finding that once we establish the uh nonconforming use of being affidavit and the property owner that the city had to prove evidence, provide evidence that we actually stopped using it.

They did not, and we prevailed.

What's interesting about non-conforming uses, and I I think this board is really aware of them, is it attaches to the use on the property.

It doesn't attach to the operator.

So the fact that the former operator allowed her permit to be expired doesn't change that the bar was being used as a bar.

It still had sales, it still had employees, and we had that evidence has not been refuted.

Maybe contested, but not refuted.

I'll stand corrected because I know Mr.

McNamara is about to say that to me.

The fact of the matter is, though, this bar has not gone 180 days without operation.

And if it was the city's actually taking a position opposite uh the director's denial because as we sit here today, the city issued a temporary alcohol beverage permit to it.

It has a temporary alcohol beverage from the city of New Orleans, it has a current uh alcohol tobacco license from ATC, health, it has every other permit necessary to operate.

So that would to me leans credibility that we've not lost our uh non-conforming use, and in fact we've verified it.

Because why else would the city take the position that you didn't you didn't have a non-conforming use, but issue an alcohol beverage permit.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that once we've established through clear and convincing evidence, and the burden shifts to the city, they have a duty to come here and provide you with evidence to the contrary.

What they've done is provide you with argument and conjecture and allegations.

But six affidavits with statements from uh four uh neighbors and the even the Maple Street Business Association all know about the existence of TJ Quills.

Everybody knows it.

Okay.

If you had to be bringing comments to a close unless someone's gonna do that.

That's all I have unless you all have questions, and I know that my property owner is here as well.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Anyone else here to speak in support of this appeal?

Yes, thank you, and thank you for your public service.

New Orleans is indeed special.

Uh, contrary to some other opinions.

Good morning.

Uh my name is Steve Zissis.

I live at 1834 Upper Line, and my family owns 7600 Maple Street.

Sixty-four years ago this month, my father, George Zissus, established a bar at this location where TJ Quill stands today.

He then built the house next door for his mother, my grandmother Bessie.

My father died far too young.

I was eight years old, and my mother Ginny was left widowed with three children to raise.

The rental income from the bar kept our family afloat and helped to raise me and my siblings, Tim and Maria.

Today, my mother still lives in the house my father built.

My sister and her two children children live there with her.

And my mother still depends on the income from this property.

When we call this a mom and pop property, we mean that quite literally.

We have heard claims that continuing this long-standing use would be contrary to the wishes of the community.

But I would respectfully ask which community.

Dr.

Sharif Sakla, president of the Maple Street Business Association, has submitted a letter of support on its behalf.

We also have support from Gaetanas and Angelique, Red's Uptilly Tavern across the street, the Maple Street Cafe serving the street for 30 years.

Greg Buisson, president of the River Garden Condo Association, 26 units, one block from our property, has signed a letter of support.

And most significantly, Colleen and Paul Lauria, the residents living closest to the bar, other than my own family, support us.

My family is not separate from the Maple Street community.

We are part of it, and we have been for generations.

But that operator is gone.

Our new tenant, Rob Ennis applied for the proper permits and is committed to operating responsibly and lawfully.

He has already begun improving the property with new security lighting, iconic street uh gas lanterns, and a new sign honoring TJ Quill's history.

We simply ask that this long-standing use, a tradition of more than 60 years that has sustained my family and is woven into the identity of Maple Street, be allowed to continue.

On behalf of my mother and my entire family, and in honor of my father's memory, I respectfully ask you to grant the appeal and preserve the long-standing use of 7600 Maple Street.

And in honor of my father's memory, I respectfully ask you to grant the appeal and preserve the long-standing use of 7600 Maple Street.

Thank you.

Any additional speakers in support of this appeal?

Seeing none, is anyone here to speak in opposition to this appeal?

Also seeing none.

Any questions from the board.

I see a button hit.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, it's a good question.

I'm really kind of having some concern just based off of what we've reviewed in the past as cases have come before us.

If a process is uh have they exhausted every administrative process to confirm if the nonconformant status is uh actually been triggered.

That's a question of the department.

I'm not sure I understand your question because if we denied the nonconforming use status, then it would become to the BCA.

Okay.

So there's been previous cases where items were able to go through uh ABO hearing, things of that nature.

I I would I would suggest that the alcoholic beverage control board does not have the authority to make determinations regarding a non-conforming use status.

That is solely the purview of this board and not the alcoholic beverage control board, and that would re so that would be the denial.

And if the denial is based on a zoning issue, then that zoning determination should have been appealed to the BCA.

The alcoholic beverage control board does not have the authority to make those determinations.

Okay, then let's just talk about that.

Um but there are something I I would like to comment about.

I I just, you know, I mean, contested not refuted.

I I I think that is a distinction without a difference.

But I would ask the board to very carefully look at the affidavits that were presented in this case uh and and determine whether those actually establish that clear and convincing evidence.

Again, that's a burden that is placed on uh the applic the applicant, and the applicant can't just say uh we submitted something, therefore that was clear and convincing.

There's contrary evidence, uh there is no evidence of legal use, but I want you to look very carefully at one of the affidavits that was submitted that said that the applicant entered into a lease, and I believe it says April of 2025, which predated the prior holder's alcoholic beverage permit.

And then if you look at that, there's a whole new entity in there.

If there was in fact a lease that this that was as attested to in that in that affidavit, then there is no longer, and there was no application in April of 2025 for a new alcoholic beverage permit.

I so this is where I'm getting very confused in this case, specific to your position.

So you seem to be there's two real confusions in my mind.

One is legal versus illegal use, which we had heard from a previous bar that was the Mile and Lounge, what what is legal?

Let me let me let me finish my thought.

I'm gonna park that one because what you said is you said earlier that the ABO has no bearing on the land use, and yet you are relying on the issuance or not issuances or denials of ABO permits to say once that's expired, this is somehow illegal.

What I would say is if I own a house and I decide or omit paying my property taxes, I have not been illegally occupying my house until I cure that.

I just have missed a step or done something administratively incorrect.

I don't see in the history of the enforcement of the CZO that just because you miss an ABO filing deadline that it makes you an illegal user of the site.

And and before you answer that, I'm a I hate the pile on, but in the case of the Mile and Lounge determination, statements were made that once something was able to be settled, I think there was a payment that was addressed at that time.

And due to that, because it was resolved, the nonconformant use uh did not actually occur.

So I'm feeling like we're receiving contradictory we have to use historical context.

And I'd be happy to address that.

So what happened in that case is that the law department brought a lawsuit against the Mile and Lounge.

The law department brought a lawsuit against the Mile and Lounge for the delinquencies in their uh, I believe it was their taxes as well as the delinquencies and the renewal of their alcoholic beverage permits.

As a part of the settlement of that litigation, the law department agreed for certain fines and would allow the the entity to reapply and obtain an alcoholic beverage permit.

That hasn't taken place in here.

So that's the major distinction here.

The law department has not instituted any litigation in this matter whatsoever.

But another distinction, that was a continuing entity.

As the evidence that is before you right now shows, provided by the applicant themselves that they engaged that they had a new lease with a new entity in April of 2025.

An entity for which there was never uh that never applied for an alcoholic beverage permit.

And again, if you look at the record, what is in the record, there's a handful of receipts from November or December of 2025.

That's it.

There's no taxes paid, there's nothing else.

Mr.

McLamara, I tend to agree with the applicant that use has nothing to do with who has the lease to the bar.

The use is the use.

So i it does have to be a legal use, does it not?

Legal.

Yes, but if I if I entered into a new agreement with someone else, some new entity, and they are running a blind tiger, an unpermitted bar for uh for a year, then they have attained an uh that you believe that that's clear and convincing evidence of a non-conforming use.

No, I wouldn't because I would posit that that's incorrect.

But I I think you're conflating several different things into one thing.

There's the use, the nonconforming use, and then there's the ABO permit, which is assigned to a legal entity, right?

And then there's who's signed the lease.

And those are really three different things.

All we need is the continuation of the use.

Let me let me ask this.

So are you suggesting that an illegal use is sufficient to maintain a non-conformity?

Of course not, but what is the definition of illegal use?

I would suggest that operating without an alcoholic beverage permit is an illegal use.

But in this particular instance, I would very strongly disagree.

I would very strongly disagree.

Again.

Then I'm surprised.

Well, okay.

And especially when you have a wholly new entity, as of April 2025, there's it's their affidavits.

But if we always deal with the use, it's always it runs contiguous with the land and with the entity.

So that's why I'm really confused on.

Are we truly applying this fairly and equitably between every user?

Because I'm almost feeling as if we heard one argument in a previous case, and this is almost polar opposites position in this one.

So even though while we may be saying it's two separate things, and I get it, they are two separate items, but I'm looking at the pure application, and that's why I asked the question administratively, has the same options been exhausted in this process?

If the city has the right to file a lawsuit in this case in order to help resolve the continued use, because apparently they have determined demonstrated in some capacity, I think you referred to Z tapes, which I'm assuming is the rollers, the receipts.

Yeah, yeah.

So when does it get to the point of having enough substantial information in order to change that position, especially if something has been submitted, even if it's not a hundred percent clean in terms of what it is, I think they even demonstrated the case of what was maybe left behind in the management office.

Uh I'm really unclear in terms of are we still applying this consistently as we look at every application.

I just feel like we are here to determine the non-conforming use status of this particular property and this and the department's determination is whether there was sufficient clear and convincing evidence that was provided.

They went and you know, you heard Mr.

Ellis himself.

I mean, we had nothing from the from the person who who we were in business with before, and they had a handful of things, they have a handful of affidavits.

The affidavits that are suggested, and again, even the person who is applying for the permit and who asked for the non-conforming use is two permittees uh not even permittees.

You had the person TMS who had an alcoholic beverage permit, the property owner engaged in a new lease with a different entity, and now we have a third entity that came in and is asking for the non-conforming use.

from the from the person who who we were in business with before and they had a handful of things they have a handful of affidavits the affidavits that are suggested and again the even the person who is applying for the permit and who asked for the nonconforming use is two s two permittees uh not even permittees you had the person TMS who had an alcoholic beverage permit the property owner engaged in a a new lease with a different entity and now we have a third entity that came in and is asking for the nonconforming use and I'll posit that this is not clear and convincing evidence the record is clearly demonstrates the insufficiency of the evidence that was presented to the department to make that determination that any use that existed was a legal use that that and and there's just wholly insufficient evidence that was provided to establish that uh nonconforming use the record is before you I would ask you to take time and and go over what has been presented to you as well as the affidavit of a noninterested party who also attests that which I would say directly uh contradicts I would say refutes the the evidence that was presented and if you look at the affidavits they are clearly done in the process of uh litigation they all for the most part say the same thing but again I take particular attention to that lease one uh can I ask the applicant a question or the appellant can you respond to the director's comments about the various entities who have applied or not applied for things I just yeah he's he's making it making some claims I don't understand them.

My property owner he has an entity that owns the property and then he leased it to the first operator who skipped town and then when that operator skipped town my client the new operator signed a lease there's nothing there's nothing mist that's not that doesn't that doesn't change the use it was still being used as a bar.

Yeah so who who had the um ABO license before was it the l less the operator not the property owner correct and and that's uh on a common yeah that's well no it's not a problem because I said it's common yes I'm sorry I thought you said problem yeah I mean that's very common um in and if if my owner would have known that they that the operator number one who skipped town didn't apply for the license they would have done it.

In fact the city notified um the property uh oper no sorry no notified the operator but never notified the property owner that there was a problem in October of twenty twenty five we just didn't know because he's collecting rent the the building's open it's doing it's it's operating so he would have never known the other otherwise so I I would suggest to you that this appeal should be granted.

Can you please look at the lease regarding the entity that was entered into a lease with the property owner in April of 2025.

Can you give me a page on the report I would defer to staff who's what is your um what what is your your case about the lease and can we get names of entities or something like that TMS was the original one that had the alcoholic beverage uh outlet permit.

Are you referring to the Gaber Alexander lease?

I'm sorry?

Are you referring to the Gabriel Alexander lease oh no that's a that's an affidavit never mind.

It's an there is the the lease isn't in there it's an it's a uh in one of the affidavits from the property owner and I believe it was 7600 Maple LLC I could shed some light on that um if if you don't mind 7600 Maple LLC owns the property.

TMS Realty LLC was the first operator my client is TJQ Maple Yeah wait that's that that's clear to us that makes sense so Mr McNamare what's your contention about I'm sorry I don't have that document in front of me regarding that but he says that he entered into a lease in April of 2025.

There's an affidavit attesting to that fact in the record.

Oh it's an affidavit not a lease that is correct.

Yeah he was saying it's the affidavit I was trying to report on the applicant and trying to the applicant okay I'm I'm still confused about how that affects anything.

Yeah.

Okay.

What's the the entity that had the alcoholic beverage outlet permit was TMS.

That permit expired in May of 2025 prior to May of 2025 the property owner entered into a new lease as attested to in the affidavit in April of 2025 with a different entity at that point in time alcoholic beverage outlet permits are not transferable.

At that point in time, alcoholic beverage outlet permits are not transferable.

So there is no alcoholic beverage outlet permit to go after.

Again, to the distinction of your point, if the city was to go after TMS, that might be one thing.

But there is no alcoholic beverage outlet permit as soon as that new lease with the new entity is entered into as attested to by the applicant.

Okay, so we're not the ABO appeal board, we're the zoning appeal board.

And what we're trying to determine is use.

Like I don't find that to be material materially relevant to this.

To maintain a nonconforming use, you have to have illegal intermittent uses are not sufficient to maintain nonconformity.

Mr.

McNamara, can you point to me anywhere in the CZO where it says that you must maintain an ABO license to have a legal nonconforming use of a bar?

It doesn't.

It's not written in it.

It talks about use and it talks about legal uses.

Right.

It says that illegal uses are not sufficient to do it.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but you're conflating the presence or absence of a of a of a permit to operate as an alcoholic beverage outlet with being legal or illegal.

That was exactly what was in front of us in the myelin lounge, which then went to civil court and then the city lost.

So I'm just trying to figure out why you're the city did not lose in the Mile and Lounge case.

The zoning board, which is a sub is a function of the city, did lose in that ruling.

So as I appreciate it, the outcome of that case is that how the department determined that one in the past is what applies.

That's why my concern comes from that we're not applying this in the same applicable lens that that case was applied in.

So we do have as a board, we have to look at pattern and precedent of how things have been issued or maintained.

So the question again comes to where my point again is in inconsistency.

I would say that that to your point if this was talking about TMS, if that entity were continuing, if that the city had taken action against that entity, and then the city engaged in a negotiated settlement with that entity, then perhaps we would be on all fours with that decision.

That is not that is not what happened here.

But that here is a TMS.

The pro property owner entered into a new lease with a wholly separate entity that never even applied for an alcoholic beverage permit.

We are not the ABO appeal board.

We're the zoning appeal board.

And that isn't the illegal use at that point in time.

So was it a six-month cure period?

But was there a six-month window where no business was occurring on a site?

I would say that there was not clear and convincing evidence if I that as I attested to, or as I uh had presented that there was anything beyond intermittent or illegal use and nothing that establishes that.

And again, that that would be like I have a bar, I'm going out of business, uh, Mr.

Richards, you come in and you enter into a lease with the property owner, and you just start selling alcohol.

Well, what happens, and we went over this in the Mile and Lounge case is I would be I would I would at least have the ability to go in front of the ABO board and get some remedies.

You would not be able to go before the alcoholic beverage control board, because the alcoholic beverage control board only has authority of those entities that have an alcoholic beverage permit.

You would not have be able to go in front of the alcoholic beverage control board.

The city could not bring you in front of the alcoholic beverage control board for the illegal use because the remedy that the alcoholic beverage control board has relative to the sale of alcohol in the city is the suspension, revocation, or other remedial measures that it seeks to impose against a business in the city of New Orleans.

That's what the alcoholic beverage control board is.

Otherwise, it goes to the state police, the state ATC, or the NOPD because it's a crime.

It's illegal.

Got it.

So I'm gonna come back to the six-month cure period.

Yeah.

Was a use, was a bar not functioning at this site for six months?

Just a yes or no question.

I don't see any clear and convincing evidence that that is in fact the case.

Even though that there's even though there's Z, what is it, Z tapes, whatever this is, receipts showing activity from this site.

There are some there's a handful of receipts from November and December of 2025.

And again, a new entity entered into business in April of 2025.

All right.

I would just submit that, and I know that you were involved on the ABO side of things in your previous position.

No one up here knows anything about that.

I'm not going to challenge you on that.

That's fine.

I really don't know about it.

Sorry, I don't know about what, sir.

I I don't know any.

I don't know anything about ABO.

The final points.

I don't know.

I'm an officer of the court and I have a duty of candor to this tribunal, and everything I'm saying is.

Well, uh, Mr.

Magnamera, with respect, we are not a court, it's not a tribunal.

We are a zoning code.

I mean, my my license requires that of you, sir.

I'm I I don't know where this is coming from.

I apologize if I've upset you for any reason.

All I'm trying to say is we're looking at the zoning code, right?

And we're trying to see has the use continued or has the use not continued.

And it they they've sent us what appears to me to be enough evidence that it has continued.

They sent you something, the only thing that they sent you are receipts from November, December.

Or their own affidavit, a new entity entered into business in 20 April of 2025.

That's didn't specify specify a date, May, June, July, August, September, October.

Literally, I tell what I mean, the applicant, do you want to respond to that?

Yeah, I mean, we have multiple affidavits, and um you heard the property owner, and he was collecting rent the whole time.

The business was selling alcohol.

That's all it that's the only revenue that that business that bar has.

Uh and so he was collecting rent, and that's why he never was aware that uh the former operator wasn't doing her job.

Yeah, you know.

Um and City did notify the operator, the first operator in October of 25, they were operating without an ABO permit.

They said it was expired.

But again, my property owner didn't know that.

He to hit to them, they're just receiving their rent checks and all's good.

I mean, his his family lives next door.

They're gonna see it operating, they're gonna see it uh open.

Um I think that it goes to the weight of how many affidavits and how many statements you have to the to the to the fact that it was it was continually operating as at a bar.

We didn't know there was a problem until my client signed the lease and we started applying.

That's that's what this got started.

How would you know?

If you if you live next door to a bar, you would just assume everything's running normally, legally, Vernon.

But the use was legal at the time, and it was being used, and it has not stopped.

And uh uh going back to the Supreme Court case of the City of New Orleans versus Elms, once we've established the clear and convincing evidence, the city has to prove the 180-day expiration, not the other way around.

I could get that statute and read it to you, but I'm making a representation that's accurate.

And so I guess the question, I'm gonna come back to my earlier question on administrative relief uh options, because at the end of the day the use does run concurrent with the land, and at the end of the day that's a property owner's burden at this point right now.

So understanding some of the commentary that is here, would that would the applicant not have the ability to come back to the city to look for some form of administrative relief before BCA in order to see if there's a legal option for them to either work through a resolution, even if it means that they're paying a fine, in order for it to in order for them to preserve the nonconform use.

That that is a decision that is not under the purview of the the Department of Safety and Permits.

It's the law department, it's the entity that brings cases before the alcoholic beverage control board.

Okay, so Mr.

Ellis, sir.

Is this not an opportunity for you guys to look at a deferral and to see if that option exists for you all as a point of resolution?

Well, we we could always look at that.

The I think what's gonna happen though from the law department standpoint is they're gonna say um the new the new operator does didn't have doesn't have the liability is the old operator, the old operator could definitely get a fine.

So that's why clearly articulated property owner, not operator.

Right.

The property owner uh I don't see any liability from the property owner standpoint.

Yeah, I don't because they got it.

Yeah, this is it.

Yeah.

All right.

Um I will go ahead and state that what we understood from what happened on the Mile and Lounge case, regardless of the outcome, was there it the loss of an ABO permit is is an administrative license thing.

You're considering it illegal, but the use remains, and what we're looking at is has the use been con has the use been discontinuous for 180 days.

I don't see that because I don't see the loss of the license, which again, if this T I'm sorry, I'm gonna get my acronym names wrong, TM S TMC.

If the if the previous owner had the ability to cure it, they could have done it.

The use continued.

A new operator has come in within the 180 days of it being used, and we haven't missed the gap.

And to me, those things are just they're they're separate.

They're separate.

And I would only suggest that another operator came in in April of 2005, I mean 2025, and the only evidence that has been presented to you was the tapes they found in the drawer somewhere from November or December and other uh uh other affidavits that do not attest to anything that shows that continuation of use.

So can I can I just ask the question about that?

So the the entity was 7600 Maple.

I was just curious if you guys know I mean it was property owner, property owner made the made the uh declaration that they were getting rent from April to December of 2025, and I just was curious what I mean.

I don't know that this helps, but I'm just trying to understand what that organization was versus the previous one.

That's the property owner coming.

That's the property owner, property owner taking over.

That's them receiving the rent payment saying that a business had been operating duration.

It's phrased 7600 Maple was the former operator of TJ Quills located in 76 Maple.

The property was under lease by 7600 Maple.

So I just want is that just messy language?

Is it a good one?

Actually, if you were to go to the Secretary of State's website, you would see that the managing member of TMS and 7600 was actually the same person, and that was the person to whom a permit was issued under TMS.

All right.

So let me rephrase my question.

That affidavit is saying that you were receiving rent from that from 76.

That's correct.

Okay.

And I had it wrong.

I just got my client corrected me.

7600 Maple and TMS Realty, they were the operator.

MG Z L L C is the uh property owner entity.

And that had a lease, a new lease with TJ Maple LLC, which is a new operator.

Yeah, that's helpful because looking at the affidavit is kind of worded weird.

So thank you.

So to that point.

TMS, only entity that had a permit.

7600 enters into a lease in April, which terminates any rights to an alcoholic beverage permit at that point in time, and then we have a third entity with which the property owner has entered into the lease.

Sorry, I'm sorry to interrupt.

He just said that that was the same entity.

Is that correct?

76 Maple uh and TMS Realty, we're the operator.

That was operator number one.

I had it wrong.

MG Z LLC is my client's property.

That's the entity that owns the property.

And I wanted to.

And Mr.

McMahon, out of respect to in decorum in a room, allow the presenter to speak.

Well, here's something y'all brought up, it's true.

If um if my property owner would have known that the ABO permit was expired, they could have gone to the city and said, hey, I know this operator has an expired permit.

I want internal settlement, I want to pay all the fees and fines, and then that ABL would have been brought up to speed, and then we could have transferred it to the new operator.

We didn't know.

Yeah.

And that's why I asked that question about the administrative permit to be so go ahead.

So this property owner, 64 years, was entered, had entered into the lease with TMS.

This property owner enters into a new business, a new lease with a wholly new LLC, 7600 Maple, uh a different company uh registered with the state of Louisiana.

At that point in time, he's now saying if my my client didn't know, his client knew who was dealing business with.

He had a lease with TMS, then he had a lease with 7600 Maple LLC.

Uh it's the same person.

It's not the same.

That's not how personhood works in the state of Louisiana.

It was not a name change.

It's it might be the same, it's a different company registered with the state of Louisiana.

Yes.

I don't think Mr.

I don't think Mr.

Ellis is making that representation.

No, no, I uh I'm sorry, I'm not a lawyer, so forgive me if I make those mistakes.

Uh all I'm saying is it was the same operator.

Not the same operator.

She uh she initially inherited TMS from the previous operator that she she inherited that and bought him out.

Her company is uh I think 7600.

So it so you're thinking that you're thinking of that there's been two or have not.

She was the same person in there, and what you're seeing is her renewing her lease with us.

Um I just wanted to clarify that.

And I'm uh the the gentleman may not understand how personhood works with companies and corporations incorporated uh in this in the state of Louisiana, but they're considered persons.

TMS was a was a uh a person.

A person, a legal person.

And it might have the managing member of that being the same person who is 7600 Maple Street LLC, a different person.

And and look, I actually do agree with you on that piece just from on track record of dealing with contractual challenges in state court system.

Yes, persons does businesses are identified as persons, so just for clarification.

And again, he has not offered any evidence other than a handful of tapes from November or December, which are well beyond the 180 days from when he attests that he entered into a lease with a wholly separate entity at that location.

I think Commissioner Richards, you hit on it.

It's the use.

It's all about the use.

The names and all that don't matter.

It's was it being used as a bar?

Yes or no?

It's a yes or no question.

Yeah, yeah.

I I uh Mr.

McNamara, you're you're giving me faces, and clearly you feel very passionately about this.

But not giving you faces, sir.

Okay.

Just a bad polka player.

Yeah, right now.

All right.

Clearly you feel very passionate about this issue.

I still cannot figure out what all this talk about entities has to do with the continuation of the use.

And I I think most of us we will see.

But to me, um the idea that you don't renew an ABO, and on that day, your use according to the CZO becomes illegal is just not how I read the CZO.

And in response to that, Ms.

Richards.

The entity TMS could not renew because at that point in time they didn't have a lease with the property owner.

So they would not be able to renew at that point in time because there was a new entity that entered into a lease.

You have to have a valid lease in order to obtain an alcoholic beverage.

Mr.

McNamara, the CZO has nothing to do with private property leases and all this other stuff.

It's just about the use and the land.

And that use has to be a a legal use.

And it illegal intermittent uses, those things cannot be those cannot maintain a nonconformity.

It cannot establish nor maintain a nonconformity with those types of uses.

So I mean, if this board were to put its imprimitor on this, an entity that could come in, start operating illegally with no rights whatsoever, and they were and the board would say, well, it was the use that did this.

And again, there's nothing in the that it shows that the the use that is required by the CZO that uh required by the CZO.

There's nothing showing that 7600 Maple uh had any legal right to engage in alcoholic beverage sales at that location.

And there's nothing but alcohol was sold.

In November and December, there is some tapes that you know, some receipt tapes that suggest that there are some what I would submit are self-serving affidavits that that suggest that, but there it's a this is not an overwhelming amount of evidence that would establish a clear and convincing right that the nonconformity continued.

I don't have any further questions.

Any other questions from the board?

It's the pleasure of the board.

Mr.

Chair?

Yep.

Regarding Dr.

BZA060-26 at 7600 Maple regarding the appeal of the determination that the property is not attained or retained legal non-conforming use as a bar, a move to deny the appeal.

I'm sorry, I move to grant the appeal and overturn the decision of the director of the Department of Safety and permits, finding that there is an error in the interpretation of the comprehensive zoning ordinance in accordance with Article 4, Section 4.8 point D of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

Alright, we have a motion and a second on the floor regarding DCA document number 060-26.

Um granting the appeal to overturn a decision of the Directive of Safety and Permits, finding that there was an error in the interpretation of the CCO or any other conflict in law.

Roll call vote, Commissioner Richards.

Yes.

Commissioner Alvarez.

Yay.

Commissioner Gonzalez.

Commissioner Diaz.

No.

No.

Commissioner James is a yes in that motion pass 4 1.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Next item.

The board consider a motion to adjourn.

Move to second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Alvarez and seconded by Commissioner Richards to adjourn today's meeting.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Richards.

Yes.

Commissioner Alvarez.

Commissioner Gonzalez.

Yay.

Commissioner Diaz.

Yes.

Commissioner James is a yes and five-o vote to wrap up the day.

Thank you.

Dan.

Dan.

Dan.

Hold up, hold up your microphone.