Okay, we are ready to start our meeting this morning.

Um we are in meeting number one three eight six, and first things first, we will hear brief remarks from the city to conduct the public hearing in an orderly manner manner.

We ask that you follow these rules and procedures.

Staff will announce the case and read the action requested.

The chair will ask if the applicant is present and if there are protestants or interested parties.

The applicant will be given time to present the case not to exceed 15 minutes.

The board will then hear from interested parties or protestants.

Each party will be given time to speak, not to exceed five minutes.

Please do not repeat comments of previous speakers.

After the board has heard from protestants or interested parties, the applicant may be allowed time for rebuttal, not to exceed 10 minutes.

If you wish to speak in support or opposition to a case, please sign in before speaking.

There is a sign-in sheet at the front desk.

Exhibits given to the board will be kept and made part of the permanent record.

During the hearing, the board may ask questions of the applicant or interested parties at any time.

Please be advised that exhibits given to the board will be kept and made part of the permanent record.

Staff reports for each application are available as PDFs on the Board of Adjustment webpage at TulsaPlanning.org.

After the presentations, the board will vote to approve or deny the application.

If you are approved, staff will give you a copy of your case report following the hearing for your records.

You will need to submit this documentation to the permit center as revision to your current permit application or include the documents with your submittal for a new permit application.

If you submitted your permit through the online portal, please submit your revision in the same manner.

When addressing the board, please state and spell your name and address for the record.

Please direct all comments into the microphone.

A video of these proceedings is also being recorded for future airing on TGov Channel 24 Cable TV.

Please silence all electronic devices.

Madam Chair.

Okay.

If you are a frequent flyer here, you'll notice we are a board of three today.

We are normally aboard of five.

And uh first things first, I am not usually the chair, so I will fumble through this and rely on my friends at the city to help me uh if I'm get off course.

But if you have a case today, you need three you need three of the five uh approvals for your case to move forward.

And so that means today you need all three of us.

If you would like to ask for a content continuance today, that is no problem.

If you go right over here to the desk, no problem at all.

We can get that moved.

Um, and if not, we will move forward.

So I don't see anyone moving towards that desk, so I'll assume we want to all just move forward today.

With that, we will start with agenda item number one.

Minutes for meeting 1385.

Madam Chair, I make a motion to approve the minutes from meeting 1385 from June 23rd, 2026.

We have a motion to we have a second.

Second.

Um great.

All those in favor, Mr.

Hale.

Yes.

Ms.

Dumas?

Yes.

And I will also vote yes.

That passes.

Item number two, Board of Adjustment Case 24065.

BOA 24065 is located at 320 South 42nd West Avenue.

Our applicant is Darren Jones with an action with a request for a special exception to permit a duplex in the RS3 district.

Is the applicant present?

Wonderful.

If you'll come to the microphone, give us your name and address, and tell us a little bit about your case.

Thank you.

My name is Darren Jones.

Um address is 320 South 42nd West Avenue.

Darren is spelled D-A-R-R-Y-N-J-O-N-E-S.

Um is my turn to speak up.

It is okay.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry, first time.

No worries.

Um, so my request is for a zoning exemption for the property.

Um I'm looking seeking to turn it into a duplex.

Um I have addressed a lot of the neighboring concerns.

Um, the reason why I'm uh pursuing this is because there's an add-on to the property that was made previously before I owned it.

Um and it just makes a lot of sense.

Um just trying to do what seems right for this property, what makes sense for this property.

Um I did provide some images for you all to see.

The livable space before the addition is approximately 1,600 square feet.

And I will be leaving that space as is.

And it's three bedrooms, two baths, and the addition is uh two large spaces that was created for it looks like for office space previously.

Um of the neighboring concerns will be parking on the street.

I I'm going to address that if this is approved by adding a parking additional driveway on the left-hand side of the property.

Um you can see that in some of the images.

And then for the the backyard, um, I am very dog friendly, which is why I should photoshop dogs in the images there.

Um, but I will split the backyard to uh make sure that there's space for both units on there.

Um the front space, like I said, would be a three-two still, and then that back space unit B will be a one-one with an open concept um space, as you can see on this image that's there.

That's the old layout, um, which has the add-ons, two add-ons on a back, which were permitted previously before I owned it.

Um, those are the spaces that I'm proposing that I um change into a duplex uh an additional unit as pictured there uh with the blue outline, all of that would be a bedroom and a separate entrance on the back side, um, a bedroom, uh kitchen and and um living, like I said, that is an open concept with the full bath.

Um the other uh concerns that and I'm speaking on behalf of some of the neighbors as well that I've I've kind of canvassed the the block just to see what would be um an issue for them and um there's some riffraff that's happening in our neighborhood, um, and they want to make sure that I bring in tenants that won't contribute to that.

So in my lease, I am um upholding you know the the tenants to be accountable to the the the clutter in the front yard.

There they can't park in the grass like some some others.

I will make sure that that's upheld.

Um and like I said, adding the extra parking will keep people off the streets because that spends a lot of the concern.

So I'm trying to do my best to um hear the concerns of the neighbors, but also provide some some housing um and some good housing for for uh tenants to come great.

My question was going to be have you spoken with the neighbors, but you've already addressed that.

Yes.

Any questions?

Are you are you familiar with any other duplexes in that neighborhood or are they all mostly single family?

They're all mostly single family.

This would be the first one that I've seen on that block.

That was another concern is they they're worried about the change, like in the facade the the the building um making.

So I'm not gonna change the structure.

That was a bigger deal.

They don't want it to look like it doesn't belong in a neighborhood.

The outside will remain the same.

I am gonna update it, paint it, um, power wash the the stone, um, like I said, add drive uh a new an additional driveway.

Um but the structure will look the same, so it will fit into the the current mold of the neighborhood.

But but I'm no I'm not aware of any additional duplexes in the neighborhood.

This isn't in front of us today, um, but you might check with the city before you do that additional parking to see if that's gonna run into any red flags.

Yes, I I have spoken with the city and they did give me the green green light to do that based on the existing parking with the way that uh the driveway has that half circle drive.

Yeah, so it has that additional entrance that I can use to bring up to the structure.

Okay, yeah, great.

Any other questions?

No questions.

Okay, all right.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Do we have anyone here to speak on forward adjustment case 24065?

Seeing none, we'll move into discussion.

Any thoughts?

I have a question for staff.

Um do Plexes have any requirements as far as where the entry is facing like ADUs, do no, they do not.

Okay.

That said, I don't have any issues with this.

Seems seems in line with the neighborhood.

Yeah, and um while it's not in uh and I uh and I owe overlay um the small area plan um does have a goal of increasing residential population, and so um seems harmonious to me.

Wonderful.

Do we have a motion?

Madam Chair, BOA case 24065.

Um I move to approve a special exception to permit a duplex in the RS3 district per the conceptual plans provided by the applicant today.

Um I don't think they're numbered.

And so yes, uh per the conceptual plans provided by the applicant today.

The boards finds that the request of special exception will be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the code and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

We'll move to a vote.

Mr.

Hale?

Yes.

Ms.

Dumas?

Yes.

I also vote yes.

Motion approved.

Moving on to case number three, Board of Adjustment Case 24066.

BOA 24066 is located at 11819 East 41st Street South.

Our applicant is Randy Alcosir with an request for a special exception to increase the permitted fence height of four feet within the street setback.

See applicant here.

Great.

Give us your name, address, and tell us a little bit about your case.

Sure.

Hello, board.

Randy Alcoser, R-A-N-D-Y, A L C O C E R address is 11819 East 41st Street.

Tulsa.

So bought the house.

And it had old, I guess peering fence piers.

They were just all falling down, and I guess the fence had already fallen down, so it made and uh the city made a new sidewalk there.

And um it was a little bit close, I guess you could say the car wouldn't fit with the sidewalk, it blocked the sidewalk.

So we took down all those pillars.

Um we were gonna put two pillars back.

Um I know my picture see those pillars are are moved back.

Those look like handles, but that's that's uh my skills right there.

Um but yeah, so move them back so a car fits, so you got view of everything safety-wise, it won't interfere with the sidewalk.

The sidewalks, the um well, little scratchy lines.

Um so the new fence, I took off all the old pillars just for visibility.

Um it's a raw iron fence, uh, good quality, just like you see in uh apartments or on like uh 21st, 31st, and Peoria over there in the super expensive homes.

Um so it gives the house literally the whole look that I'm that I'm going for.

Um so those those are examples.

That's not the actual house or anything, but it gives a fancy look.

It has the yard for it.

The property is on a one-acre lot.

Um it's uh it follows the fence line of the neighbor to the uh west, and the neighbor has an eight-foot fence, so it's gonna butt up right against their eight-foot fence and continue ours.

Um so the fence would be brand new, black.

Um distance from the sidewalk.

So just aesthetically, and we plant some brush, you know, some nice bushes there, and it looked really nice.

So the look aesthetically goes for the whole gate, you know, for the whole house.

Um, and there are five properties within a mile that have that kind of style fence, which is three apartments, uh actually four apartments, uh Dove uh Academy and the QT headquarters over there, they all have the same style fence, which looks really nice.

Um safety-wise, um we're gonna move in in a month.

We were having a painter paint, and they broke in and stole all his equipment.

So anywhere there's a QT, there's some action going on.

And QT is on 41st and Garnet.

So for privacy, uh security.

Um I have a dog as well, so don't want the dog to jump the four-foot fence.

Um I think that's pretty much it.

And um, yeah, it just gives the the house a whole look.

So and have you spoken with any of your neighbors?

Just the neighbor on the left, and he didn't really care because the house is kind of like on 41st, or it's not in a neighborhood, it's on the main street.

That's another reason why I kind of want a six-foot fence because it's there is so much traffic now, as in walking traffic.

There usually there was I guess with the new sidewalk and everything, there's just way more traffic.

Okay.

So any questions?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have anyone here to speak on board of adjustment case two four zero six six?

Okay, with that we'll move to discussion.

I don't I don't have any issues with this.

Um as long as it's not uh a wood solid fence.

But I mean, we're tying that to the example exhibit.

Yeah, no uh issues or questions here.

Okay, great.

Do we have a motion?

It's my turn, I suppose.

Madam Chair and Board of Adjustment Case 24066.

I move to approve a special exception to increase the permitted fence height and the street setback from four feet to six feet for the conceptual plan shown on page 311 and through 315 of the agenda packet.

The board finds that the requested special exception will be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the code and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.

We have a motion to wave a second second.

Uh we'll move to a vote.

Ms.

Dumas?

Yes.

Mr.

Hale.

Yes.

I'll also vote yes.

Motion approved.

Good luck.

Okay, uh, agenda item number four, Board of Adjustment Case 24067.

BOA 24067 is located at 1228 East 21st place South.

Um, our applicant is Kenneth Vives with a request for a special exception to increase the maximum allowable driveway width in the RS2 district.

Is the applicant present?

Wonderful.

Name, address, and tell us about your case.

Uh Kenneth Vivas, 5550 South Lewis Avenue.

Uh my client is we're relocating a detached garage on the state and moving it forward to the east property line.

That way they're not driving back through the entire backyard to get to the detached garage.

Uh it's existing 12-foot wide driveway, and we'd like to increase it to 18 feet wide so that we can get a two-car garage entrance into that detached garage.

Okay, and have you spoken with the neighbors or has your client?

I contacted all the neighbors within 300 feet and haven't heard back from any of them.

Okay.

Any questions from our board members?

So I'm looking at the site plan that projectors are working today.

Yes.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Um looking at the site plan that is projected right now.

Um you said you're moving forward, you're relocating the detached garage instead of the long building in the back along the west property line.

Okay.

Those two rooms on the right hand side of that were a three-car garage.

So you would drive through kind of where the new detached garage was all the way to the other side, and then had a three-car garage back there.

So we turned in that to an outdoor room and an office, and then building a new detached garage.

Whoops.

How large is the property?

Uh I don't have the that's okay.

I was thinking you said an acre, but I think that was the case before you now.

Yeah.

It's about 0.44 acres.

Thank you.

So okay, I so I guess I'm still a little confused.

So are you relocating a portion of that structure, or you've already converted that structure to the outdoor city area and office space, and you're building a new totally new two-car garage.

Okay, okay.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, and we got that permit like a month ago or something.

Okay.

I don't have any questions.

Any questions?

Nope.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone here to speak on board of adjustment case 24067?

Okay.

No one here.

We will move to discussion.

I think the fact that it sits at that um common intersection of three streets.

Um definitely helps build a case for alternative park parking and entrance ways.

Yeah.

And that intersection is so close to Peoria.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean it seems like a pretty big ask for the right-of-way relief.

25 feet.

And I can understand the street back relief, but I'm a little torn on how much over they are on the right-of-way.

So that relief though, from my understanding, is because it's an aggregate, and there's already the circle driveway there.

Right.

Yeah, okay.

And so pretty much any relief.

I mean, any relief is going to need the special exception.

Um your concern is just the you think it could be smaller.

I mean, it is smaller already.

It is smaller already.

Oh, well, I mean, it's an existing drive that they're widening.

But your can your concerns not the widening necessarily as it is just the walk.

The 27 feet to the 52.4 feet in the right-of-way.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But I mean, if you guys aren't concerned with it, then I can get over it.

It's up to you.

I'm not.

Could I add one more thing?

Um are you guys okay with that?

Sure.

Yeah, go ahead and come on up to the microphone.

There's already a driveway there going through to where the new garage is.

It's 12 feet wide, so we're going 18 feet.

So we're asking for six feet additional.

Right.

Even though, yeah, I understand the additional over the code minimum or maximum.

Yeah, I got you.

Yeah.

It doesn't bother me.

Are you uh never mind?

Because that is not a question.

We're not in question time.

I'm not gonna make a I'm not gonna make a motion for it, but I I would approve it if you did.

Okay.

Do you feel strongly enough to make a motion, Stumas?

Madam Chair, on BOA case 24067, a move to approve a special exception to increase the maximum allowable driveway width from 30 feet to 37.1 in the street set back and 27 feet to 52.4 feet in the right-of-way in the RS2 district for the conceptual plan shown on 4.12 and 4.13 of the agenda packet.

The board finds that the request of special exception will be in harmony with the spirit intent of the code and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

You can second.

Audrey just confirming I can second, even though I'm chairing the meeting.

I think that's a practical option for us today.

Wonderful.

I will give that a second.

We'll move into voting.

Mr.

Hale.

Yes.

Doomas.

Yes.

I will also vote yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Good luck.

We'll move on to agenda item number five.

Board of adjustment case 24069.

BOA 24069 is located at 8621 South Memorial Drive.

Our applicant is 8.

LLC, um represented by Jesse Stringer with a request for a variance to permit a fence within the street right-of-way and a special exception to increase the allowed fence height of four feet in the street zip back.

Hi, good afternoon, Jesse Stringer, 8.1428 South New Haven Avenue.

Great.

So I'm representing Regent Preparatory School today.

This was platted in 2014 and then re-platted a few years later as they started growing and expanding.

Even before they purchased this property, though, um the existing campus building that you see on this exhibit in front of you, it's can entire layout already encroached on the existing memorial right-of-way.

Regent Preparatory School bought this property, has been using it as it was intended since the beginning.

So they were not the ones that ever poured this parking lot or anything like that.

Now though, as the campus has grown and the communal spaces for the students, particularly the very young students who are over here in the elementary and middle school area, spend a lot of their lunch time and before school and after school time in and around this parking lot.

That's where they have lunch, that's where they sit and hang out with friends.

The school unfortunately has experienced this past semester some pretty scary situations with folks wandering on to the campus, threatening students and making parents in general feel extremely uncomfortable.

So the general consensus among the board and school staff was we're at that point, we need to go ahead and put up a security fence because how the campus is laid out.

Um it really doesn't uh work for them security-wise to put a fence anywhere other than along that property line, uh, which all works well and everything's fine, and there's no reason for us to be here except for one area which I have bubbled in red in the top left corner.

There's a portion of the fence that has to jog outside of our property line and into the right-of-way in order to just follow the natural layout of the existing site without the school having to come in and completely redo thousands and thousands of dollars worth of uh site layout and campus design.

Um our first question was to ODOT, because this is within the ODOT right-of-way.

We explained to them what was going on.

They had no issue and gave us written consent to move forward as long as it was okay with the city of Tulsa and this board.

Uh so we definitely crossed that hurdle already.

But um to sum this up, the actual hardship case is the unique relationship between this piecemeal campus, the Memorial Drive right-of-way, and the existing security fence in order to have a continuous fence, which if it if we didn't have this portion actually constructed, then the whole point of the security fence is kind of null and void.

So the uh main hardship is to have a continuous security fence and connect these segments together while avoiding having to do any major reconstruction of the entire site while of course staying outside of the existing sidewalk, staying outside of the utility easements and following the natural existing perimeter of the campus.

Okay.

Questions?

Can you speak a little bit towards the special exception portion too on the heights?

I think it's pretty straightforward, but yeah, so very similarly.

Um the point of this is to deter trespassers.

We know people with bad intentions are generally going to find a way to get to campus, but uh, this at least a six-foot fence would definitely take quite a bit of effort to climb over versus a four-foot fence and definitely give on-campus security time to handle the situation versus someone just so easily hopping over a four-foot fence.

So the main goal here is to make sure that students feel safe, parents feel safe dropping their kiddos off at school.

And so a six-foot fence is what made everybody who has discussed this with uh school staff feel the most comfortable is that six-foot height to deter any trespassers.

Do you know how much parking um is existing versus how much is required?

Um I do know that they are beyond maxed out on parking.

Uh we actually just had a meeting the other day to add additional parking because we have parents parking in the grass, uh, students having to park alongside the road off into the grass.

Uh so I know right now they're they're barely fitting as it is.

Uh, that was a discussion.

Can we afford to lose parking?

And we're like, we really cannot.

We already don't have enough.

So uh that's something we're also discussing is building an additional parking lot, which might help a little bit for some staff who park on the on campus.

Well, I have more of a question for um staff, uh, but I want to ask while you're still up here.

Are there any additional considerations or special um I don't know, like regulation that we should be aware of since it is uh the state of Oklahoma that manages the street?

Oh sure.

Um so I not necessarily for the state of Oklahoma, except that ODOT would need to approve it.

Um a license agreement would be required for structures to be located within the right of way.

And as part of that process, um the city sends that application to all the franchise utilities and other interested um parties like ODOT to get their comments before they could issue that license agreement.

So nothing that we need to be um considering today.

Um no, I don't think so.

It sounds like Jesse's already had those conversations with ODOT.

So I'm not aware of any like special requests or requirements, um, but that that would come up during that license agreement process.

Okay, thank you.

I I would suggest we continue this one.

Um because I don't have an issue with the special exception, but I don't like the variant, so I'm gonna vote no on it if we go forward today.

Um it may be a more favorable board when we have more members.

So it could work out in your benefit if we continue it.

Yeah, I that that sounds fine to us.

Are you guys okay with that?

Sure.

That's fine.

Okay, great.

So a motion to continue.

I will do it.

Madam Chair and Board of Adjustment 24069.

I move to continue to the agenda on what would that agenda be?

Um 21st, right?

Yeah.

Um move to continue to the board meeting of July 21st.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay, so voting to continue, Mr.

Hale.

Yes.

Ms.

Dumas?

Yes.

I will also vote yes.

So this case is continued to the July 21st board meeting.

Um, on to item agenda item number six, board of adjustment case 24070.

BOA 24070 is located at 16416 East Admiral Place South.

Our applicant is JLTH development group, LLC care of Michael Scarborough with a request for a special exception to allow commercial vehicle repair and maintenance use in the CS district.

Great.

Is the applicant here?

Name, address, and a little about your case.

Good afternoon.

Um Mike Scarborough with LTH Development Group, uh 110 West Camelback Road in Phoenix, Arizona.

Uh the special exception that we're requesting today is for a fleet fueling facility uh to be located within the CS zoning district.

Uh the property currently is vacant.

Uh uses along Admiral Way tend to be auto-centric today.

Um access would be taken off of both Admiral Place and 165th.

Um from my perspective, it seems to be a fairly straightforward request.

We're not looking for any uh variances or or uh deviations from code.

We will design it to meet code uh requirements.

Uh we did reach out to the neighbors.

Uh we were given the mailing list from our planner Austin and sent out our own letter to the neighbors requesting for them to reach out to us if they had any questions or concerns.

Um we did get one uh phone call uh from the property owner to the west, the semi-truck uh semi-crazy, I think maybe be the name of the business, but it's a semi-truck business to the west.

Uh was a very good conversation.

His biggest concern is when you look at our site plan, it kind of would appear as though we are going to curb off uh what is a platted access easement uh from his property to prevent him from having access, and as I explained to him, that's not the intent.

It's just graphically trying to show the area we would be improving for access.

Um he seemed to be comfortable with that uh conversation and comfortable with the requested use outside of that.

I actually stopped in my office yesterday before I flew out last night just to make sure I didn't have any return mail in uh addresses or anything like that, and just nothing came back in, and that's the only communication we've had to date.

Um and I think I put in my narrative or or my uh paragraph describing the use that we'd be happy to do some additional plantings or something along the southern property line just to help do a little bit of buffering for the residences to the south.

Can you can you point out where the neighbor was concerned?

The the curb cut that they were concerned about.

Oh, yes, sir.

It's the one along Admiral Place, the dark, the kind of swoop that comes in, the neighbors just to the west of that.

There's a platted access easement there that he has access to as well.

And so graphically it just looked like we were curbing them off, and I tried to exp I tried to help explain to him that that's not the intent, just trying to show the area of improvement.

Yeah, I mean you wouldn't be allowed to do that anyway.

So absolutely.

I can understand his concern.

Yep, absolutely.

Any other questions?

Um I just want to confirm there are currently not underground tanks there, and part of uh the application for this use is to be able to dig and add the underground tanks for fuel, yes.

Correct.

There are not underground storage tanks today, so that that would be part of the proposal going forward would be to have the underground storage tanks.

In addition, I don't believe I mentioned, but in addition, we're also gonna add a couple EV chargers on the property as well.

And what type of fleet uh will this be a facility for?

It's it's uh set up, it's a quarrels is the is the name brand.

Um the client that I represents GPM investments, and they own a bunch of convenience store fuel related operations.

Um, and so it'd be whoever I'm not sure exactly what businesses they'll they'll be targeting, but it will also have the ability to serve um non-fleet customers as well.

They will take credit cards, but primarily they don't do gas advertising for pricing.

So primarily it'll be for mostly few fleet customers.

Okay.

I think I also want to ask this while you're up here.

Um, and so are there additional requirements um or permits need it when adding underground tanks for fuel?

Or is this pretty much it you may be more familiar with those requirements?

The the zoning code doesn't outline any special additional requirements aside from the special exception.

Yeah, um typically in most jurisdictions we have to go through a permitting process with the EQ and have them review and uh permit the tanks as a secondary process uh outside of the city process.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Um might also offer that a continuance could be helpful in this case as well.

Um, but I don't have any other questions.

Okay, we can see if there's anyone here first.

Um is anyone here to speak on board of adjustment case 24070.

Andrew Heitzman, H I T S M A N 16136, East Admiral Place.

We own the truck wash next door to it.

We don't have a problem with it.

I mean it's great, but my only question was um why is it special exception to do the um repair and maintenance?

That was our only concern.

So that would be the um the use classification that the zoning out code outlines.

Yeah, so um the like a fueling station would fall under that like that use, yes.

Um so that's that's just the name of the use, but um but yeah, his his use like falls under that category.

Um and so that's I I think um if the board were to take action on it, they could maybe limit it to the fueling station if or something like that.

Um but but yes, that's what that means essentially.

Okay.

Yeah, we don't we don't have any problem with it.

I mean it's a good idea.

I mean, it's just offers more fuel for people, and it's supposed to be gas and diesel, so I mean we don't see we don't really see a problem with it.

I mean it seems pretty in line with with all the services over there, right?

Oh, yeah.

There's part there are semi-park stores or repair places, so yeah, um fleet pride's next door to us.

Yeah, um yeah, and then you know they got the other truck wash across the street from us.

So there's trucks all the time.

I mean it's yeah, yeah.

So yeah, um, we don't have a problem with it.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you for being here today.

If the applicant would like to come back up.

Yeah, I thank you.

I just wanted to also mention that uh Austin and I had a fairly lengthy back and forth on why we needed to go through the special exception process as well, because a convenience store with fuel isn't allowed use by right in CS.

You don't need a special exception, but because we are not traditional, we're a fleet, more geared towards the fleet is why we are being driven down that path.

So if I were here proposing a QT, we wouldn't we wouldn't be here if it was a QT type use.

So just thought I'd share that as well.

Okay.

Thank you for clarifying.

That is because the the definition for commercial vehicle repair and maintenance specifically includes truck stops and fleet vehicle fueling facilities.

Okay.

Well, thank you for that.

Is there anyone else here to speak on board of adjustment case 24070?

Okay.

We'll move into discussion then.

Stuomas, do you have concerns?

Well, there are um aligned uses um along the corridor.

Um to me that's not um compelling enough to add more underground tanks and for fuel.

So that's just uh um you know an environmental reason, and so that's where I'm offering that it could be um helpful to continue this application.

So if I put forward a motion, you're gonna vote no on it.

If you put forward a motion for to approve it.

Um very likely issues with the yeah.

Do you have any issues continuing this case to the next meeting, which is July 21st?

Okay, it's unfortunate for him, but come back into town.

Yeah, okay.

Sure.

Uh Madam Chair, and BOA case 24070.

Uh move to continue this application until the next uh hearing on July 21st, 2026.

We have a motion to wave a second.

Second.

Okay.

Motion can to continue.

Uh Ms.

Dumas.

Yes.

Mr.

Hale.

Yes.

Uh also vote yes.

The case is continued to the July 21st meeting.

And moving to our last agenda item number seven, Board of Adjustment Case 24071.

BOA 24071 is located at 7713 South 26th West Avenue.

Our applicant is Zed Hawa with a request for a special exception to permit an accessory dwelling unit in the AGR district.

Okay.

Don Conwell representing Dr.

Hawa.

Um, 10628 South Quebec Avenue.

So uh this was a temporary exception granted in 2022 with an expiration date of 2024.

He uh was building his primary home, had this accessory dwelling unit constructed.

Um granted a temporary, he received his certificate occupancy last year, and when he we were attempting to refinance his properties construction loan, we found out he that temporary exemption had never been addressed.

So we applied for a permanent um variance to that or exception to that.

So the display there shows the property.

Um the um concerns originally with the um project, I think have been alleviated, or the use of that property has not created any disruption to the neighborhood.

Um the uh the biggest questions we've had is can the neighbors see the finished house.

So that's basically it.

Um but yes, it basically as you can see the unit as is.

I believe the original intent or when they requested it and I was not involved was hey, we'll probably convert this to a four-car garage afterwards.

Um we're not request we're asking that that not be a a requirement of this permanent exemption.

So you addressed speaking with the neighbors.

Any questions so you you weren't around on the original no, I would no, I was not around on the original one.

Um I think we're just kind of curious reading through the meeting minutes why they put the limitation on it.

Um because it seemed very specific that they wanted the limitation for some reason.

Um but it to me the way it reads is and this is not really a question, but just kind of working through it in a head.

Um the meeting minutes read to me that they put the limitation on it because they essentially built the ADU prior to the primary residence, which isn't allowed.

So I mean that's and I think there were concerns, some ancillary concerns from the neighbors regarding drainage.

I mean, they were all there were there were more vocal neighboring concerns.

Which could have yielded to a more temporary status of that property.

Yeah.

Are they they don't use this for short-term rental?

They don't use it for no, no, I did not request that that limitation be put in there just for future view of the property right and marketability of the property in the unforeseen future.

I thought it was unnecessary since we've l this property has been in use that way for you know two years now.

So any other questions.

I'm good.

Okay.

Yeah.

Uh I'll ask is anyone here to speak on board adjustment case 24071.

Seeing there is no seeing there is no one left.

We will move on to discussion.

Did so reading through the meeting minutes from the previous one.

I mean, is that the same impression you're getting?

It was really more a matter of it being the ADU being built prior to the primary residence.

That's why this stipulation was put on it.

I can't really def determine too much, but I'm kind of confused as to why it was yeah, that's my understanding.

Um I think like you said, the um it was maybe presented as a temporary solution while they constructed the larger house and then they had plans to convert it into a garage later on, is the way that I read it.

Um I was not here for that case, but that seems about right.

And that was in 20, so that was four years ago.

ADU requirements have changed, some right?

Over that time.

Some have changed, yes, but the basic requirement that um a special exception is required in the EGR district has not changed.

That would have been the same then.

So then I guess the only thing to verify on my end, um does it meet the size requirements of today's ADU requirements for they gave the square footage of the house, which is like 9,000 or something.

Um yeah, if it's um so yes, the AGR district does not have the same accessory um building limitations that like a our an R district would have.

Um so yes, it's not it's not restricted in that way.

So AGR doesn't have any size restrictions on ADU.

It's interesting.

Um all that to be said, I don't know.

Right, right.

That's why I asked my questions.

Um I don't have any issues with this it it seems like it was just a matter of timing, really, at the from what I can tell.

Yeah, and yes, that that is correct.

The maximum um floor area of accessory buildings is regulated only in residential districts, not AGR districts.

Okay.

Very good to know.

Okay, no no further concerns.

So do we have a motion?

I will do it, madam chair, and board of adjustment case 24071.

I move to approve a special exception to a special exception.

Wait, hold on.

I think that's two special exceptions.

Yeah.

Well, and then is that written right?

Because are we are we doing a whole new special exception or are we removing the limitations of the previous one?

So the previous one came with I believe a two-year time limit.

Um so since that has passed, it is just a new one.

So a whole new one, yes.

All right, let me start over.

Madam Chair and Board of Adjustment Case 24071.

I move to approve a special exception to permit an accessory dwelling unit in the AGR district for the conceptual plan shown on pages 7.20 through 7.25 of the agenda packet.

The board finds that the requested special exception will be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the code and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.

We have a motion, do we have a second?

Second.

Okay, moving to a vote.

Mr.

Hale?

Yes, Ms.

Dumas?

Yes.

I will also vote yes.

Uh motion carries.

Thank you.

Um we have moved to the end of our agenda.

Do we have any comments today?

No.

No.

I will comment that we didn't have any.

Did we have any variances?

I guess one.

But it got continued.

Oh, okay.

So we didn't even have to hear the reason.

And everyone had spoken with the neighbors.

Just as an aside.

All right.

With that, our meeting is adjourned at 1 56 p.m.

maybe record time.