* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. WELCOME [00:00:01] TO THE BRIEF [BRIEFING SESSION - 5:30 PM] STAFF BRIEFING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 16TH, 2025. I'M BARRY SANDIS, CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. STAFF BRIEFING IS HEREBY CALL TO ORDER AT 5:35 PM THIS IS THE PORTION OF THE MEETING WHERE THE STAFF BRIEFS THE BOARD AND THEN PREVIEWS THE CASES ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. BOARD MEMBERS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS THAT MAY FACILITATE THE MEETING AND THE PRESENTATION OF THE CASES. NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN DURING THE BRIEFING. I'LL NOW CONDUCT A ROLL CALL TO CONFIRM THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM. AFTER I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY HERE. JUST LIKE THIS. BARRY SANDIS. HERE. DEBBIE ACHE? HERE. UM, ANTHONY LANGSTON. HERE. ERIC HAEN? HERE. LINDA ROGERS. HERE. STACEY WHITE. HERE. UM, DAVID BAKER HERE. UH, VIVIAN MORRIS. HERE. OH GOODNESS. OH NO. YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO SAY WITH A WEIRD HICCUP THING LIKE MR. BAKER HAS DONE. AND JONATHAN ED HERE. . ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS GOOD. SEE, THANK YOU FOR PLAYING ALONG. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE DO HAVE NINE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD PRESENT AND WE CAN PROCEED. COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE REMEMBER TO TURN ON, YOU KNOW, PLEASE REMEMBER, TURN YOUR MICROPHONES BEFORE YOU SPEAK SO THAT THEY CAN HEAR YOU IN THIS LITTLE DEAL. NOW WE'RE READY FOR STAFF TO PRESENT OUR FIRST CASE. TWO ZBA. A 25 0 4 0 0 2 4 IS A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2009 WEST JEFFERSON STREET. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY SIX. THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE VARIANCE THAT IS BEING REQUESTED IS TO GO FROM THE REQUIRED 50 FEET TO, UH, 48 FEET. YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, UH, HIGHLIGHTED IN RED. THERE IS NOT CURRENTLY A BUILDING PERMIT. APPLICATION SUBMITTED. 29 NOTICES WERE SENT. ZERO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURNED. OPPOSED? THERE IS NOT A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION AND STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE UH, ZBA ITEM AS REQUESTED. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS? AM I RIGHT? IS IT JUST THE LOT SIZE THAT IS SMALL? IT'S THE LOT WIDTH. THE LOT WIDTH? YES SIR. IT IS JUST, IT IS SMALL. SO IN ORDER TO COMPLY, IF THEY'RE GONNA BUILD SOMETHING, THEY HAVE TO HAVE THAT, THEY NEED TO GET THAT LOT WIDTH VARIANCE. THAT'S CORRECT. AND THEY MEET ALL OF THE OTHER, UM, DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS. IF YOU WANNA PULL BACK TWO SLIDES TO THE OVERHEAD, I THINK, I THINK, I THINK THE THING SHOWS THAT, UH, MAYBE IT'S KIND OF AT AN ANGLE. YEAH. YEAH. YOUR LOT LINE'S KIND OF AT A WEIRD ANGLE, WHICH CUTS UP YOUR SQUARE FOOTAGE A BIT. MM-HMM . OKAY. YEAH. QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS LEFT? SO THAT'S THE CENTER LOT. IT IS. THE LOT TO THE RIGHT ACTUALLY MEETS ALL OF THE DI DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND YOU'LL SEE THE LOT ON THE WET LEFT COMING UP LATER ON YOUR AGENDA. . OH, OKAY. WELL THAT WAS KIND OF MY QUESTION. NOW, DID, ARE THESE TWO GONNA NOW GONNA HAVE TO GET VARIANCES FOR, UM, APPROXIMATE, UH, YOU KNOW, BEING CLOSE TO THAT, THAT BUILDING? SO WE ARE GOING TO LET THE APPLICANT DESIGN A, A FOOTPRINT THAT FITS WITHIN THE SETBACKS. OKAY. SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE, SO IT WOULD NOT CREATE A HARDSHIP FOR THE TWO ON THE OTHER SIDES? NO. CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. ALRIGHT. THAT WAS MY WHOLE QUESTION. ANYBODY ELSE? THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE ON THIS ONE? IF NOT, UH, MR. BAKER, THE ONE ON FOR THE RIGHT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT'S ALREADY DONE MEETS AND IS ALREADY APPROVED, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. IT DOES IT, IT HAS ALL OF THE, THE, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT BUILDING ON THE DOWN THERE ON THE RIGHT HAND CORNER, UH, IS OVER THE LOT LINE. IT DOES. SO THIS AERIAL WAS TAKEN FROM D AD AND THE WAY THAT THE EARTH CURVATURE WORKS KIND OF, UM, KIND OF MAKES THE PROPERTY LINES LOOK A LITTLE ASKEW ON THE AREA. OKAY. I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE CAR, THE OUT OR MAYBE IT IS A CAR THERE. IT'S A CAR. WELL, IT IS, BUT, BUT IT DOES LOOK LIKE IT'S OVER THE LINE, BUT IT'S JUST THE WAY THAT THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WORKS. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO IT TURNS OUT THE EARTH IS CURVED. GOOD TO KNOW. GOOD TO KNOW. OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CASE THEN. OH, AND THEY'RE SWITCHING BATTERS EVERY TIME. I LOVE THAT. KEEPS ME ON MY TOES THOUGH, SO DON'T MISS ME. I WORKING . GOOD EVENING BOARD. UH, TONIGHT I'LL BE PRESENTING ITEM NUMBER THREE ON YOUR AGENDA. AND THIS IS ZBA TWO FIVE DASH OH FOUR DASH 0 2 8. [00:05:01] A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST AND VARIANCE IS FOR SIDE YARD CARPORT FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1522 HICKORY STREET. THE PROPERTY IS ON SINGLE FAMILY FOUR AND AGAIN, THE REQUEST THAT THEY'RE MAKING TONIGHT IS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A SIDE YARD CARPORT, A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM THREE FEET TO TWO FEET, A VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM AREA OF A CARPORT FROM THE ALLOWED MAX OF 500 SQUARE FEET TO 584 SQUARE FEET. AND THEN LASTLY, A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAX AREA OF ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ALLOWED ON THE LOT. WE TYPICALLY, UM, REGULATE THAT TO BE 50% OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, BUT THEY'RE WANTING TO EXCEED UP TO 82% OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. AND YOU CAN SEE A AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY, UH, OR A PICTURE OF THE, UH, PROPERTY THERE ON, ON THE SLIDESHOW. SO AGAIN, UM, THE CARPORT IS, UH, BEING REQUESTED TO BE BUILT AT 584 SQUARE FEET. IT IS GONNA BE SEVEN FEET TALL AND IT, IT IS REQUESTING A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF TWO FEET INSTEAD OF THREE FEET. AND IT ACTUALLY HAS ALREADY BEEN BUILT. UM, ON SCREEN YOU'LL SEE THAT THIS IS THEIR SITE PLAN SHOWING NUMBER THREE AS THE EXISTING CARPORT THAT HAS BEEN BUILT. UM, THEY HAVE THEIR MAIN STRUCTURE AS NUMBER ONE AND THEN NUMBER TWO IS SHOWING AN ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE REAR. SO THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THAT CARDBOARD THAT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED. AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, THEY HAVE BUILT IT PRETTY MUCH ATTACHED TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE. UM, IT IS FOR THE INTENT OF STORING CARDS AND THEY, THEY HAVE PROVIDED, UM, UH, A DRAINAGE SYSTEM THERE SO THE WATER'S NOT SKEWING OFF TO THE, UM, NEIGHBORING, UM, OWNER AND PROPERTY. SO REGARDING THIS ITEM, 53 NOTICES WERE SINCE OUT ZERO RETURN IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED. AND THERE'S NOT AN HOA WITHIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE REQUEST AS IS. AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE QUESTIONS TO MY RIGHT THERE. OTHER CARPORTS IN THE AREA. THERE IS, THERE IS ONE LEGALLY PERMITTED CARPORT, NOT DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, BUT A FEW HOUSES DOWN ACROSS THE STREET. YES, THAT'S RIGHT. NOW THERE ARE OTHER STRUCTURES ILLEGALLY THAT DO NOT HAVE PERMITS, NON PERMITTED ONES THAT WE COULD FIND. SO WE GOT ONE THAT PLAYED BY THE RULES THAT'S RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET AND DOWN TO MY LEFT. ANY OTHER, OH, I'M SORRY. MR. HI, DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? FOLLOW UP MY OTHER, MY OTHER QUESTION, MAYBE, I DUNNO IF THIS IS FOR NOW OR LATER, BUT HISTORICALLY WE'VE HAD A PROBLEM WITH 82% OF THE LOT BEING COVERED BY S DOES THE CITY NOT HAVE? SO IT'S NOT THE YEAH, THE REQUEST IS NOT THAT IT'S 82% OF THE LOT BEING COVERED. IT'S ACTUALLY A DIFFERENT STIPULATION WHERE WE TYPICALLY LIMIT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, UM, TO ONLY CO TO ONLY BE 50% OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. THAT'S RIGHT. AND SO THAT'S WHAT THE CASE IS. UH, HERE IT'S NOT, UM, THAT IT'S COVERING 82% OF BLOOD. SO THEY ALLOW 50. SO IF YOU HAVE A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, YOU CAN ONLY HAVE A 500 BY THAT CRITERIA. NOW I'M ALSO OF THE PERSONAL OPINION THAT 500 MAY BE A LITTLE SMALL FOR THE UGC AND GIVEN NEW VEHICLES OR PROBABLY COULD CHANGE US HEARING A LOT OF THIS IF THEY LOOKED AT IT, BUT THEY'RE NOT THERE YET. SO, UH, IN THIS CASE IT LOOKS LIKE A FAIRLY LARGE LOT. IT'S 6,500 SQUARE FEET IF I READ THAT CORRECTLY. AND, BUT IT'S GOT A 900 OR A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT HOUSE ON IT AND THEY WANNA CARPORT IT, RIGHT? YEAH. TYPICALLY IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, YOU KNOW, WE'LL SEE HOUSES OF 18 TO 1600 SQUARE FEET, MAYBE MORE, MAYBE LESS. RIGHT. AND LIKE YOU, TO YOUR POINT, 50% OF THAT, YOU'RE LIMITED TO 800 SQUARE FEET OR SO OF ACCESSORY TRUCTURE SPACE. THIS IS JUST A REALLY SMALL HOUSE ON THAT LOT. THAT'S RIGHT. OTHER QUESTIONS? AM I RIGHT? NO. UH, THERE'S YES, LEFT. GO AHEAD, MS. ACHE. UH, IT WAS IT BEING BROUGHT BEFORE TO US BECAUSE A, SOMEONE TURNED IT IN B THEY SAW IT. THIS WAS A CODE CASE? YES. THAT WAS BROUGHT TO THE CITY. MM-HMM ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? OTHERWISE WE'LL MOVE ON TO CASE 32. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MOVE ON 32. AND THERE HE GOES. MS. SHE BACK ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WE'RE NOT GONNA BRIEF, WE'RE GONNA HEAR THIS BECAUSE IT'S AN APPEAL OF A BUILDING OFFICIAL DECISION DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. OKAY. WHICH TAKES US TO ITEM FIVE. SALVADOR. [00:10:01] YOU WANT ME TO SAY IT? YEAH. OKAY. SO, UM, THIS APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT WE TABLE THEIR CASE UNTIL NEXT MONTH. DO WE NEED A MOTION TO DO THAT TABLE? YES. YES. COUNSELOR? YES. OKAY. MR. BAKER, YOU GOT, OKAY, I GOT IT. WHICH WILL TAKE US DOWN TO I, THE NEXT ITEM I'VE GOT IS ITEM SIX, ITEM 34, CORRECT. ITEM NUMBER SIX, CBA 25 0 5 0 0 3 4 IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND VARIANCES TO SETBACKS AND LOT COVERAGE LOCATED AT 2 2 5 NORTHWEST 16TH STREET. SO THIS IS A BIG ONE. UM, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY SIX. IT IS A PLATTED LOT. IT HAS BEEN PLATTED IN THIS CONFIGURATION SINCE SOMETIME IN THE FORTIES. THEY ARE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME. HOWEVER, THEY DO NEED, UM, VARIANCES TO THEIR SETBACKS TO GET AN APPROPRIATE FOOTPRINT ON THERE. THEY ALSO ARE REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES. THIS IS THE REQUIRED GARAGE PARKING SPACES. UM, WE REQUIRE TWO, THEY'RE ABLE TO GET A SINGLE, UM, GARAGE SPACE IN THERE. WE'RE LOOKING TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO 20, DECREASE THE MINIMUM STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 15 TO THREE FEET. UM, TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM FIVE FEET TO THREE. AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE. WE REQUIRE 50%. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING 52%. AS I SAID, THE, THE LOT IS PLATTED AND HAS BEEN IN THIS CONFIGURATION. WE DO HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED. UM, YOU CAN SEE THE AREAS IN RED. THOSE ARE THE SETBACKS THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING. AND THEN THE AREA IN YELLOW IS THE SINGLE CAR GARAGE. 39 NOTICES WERE SENT. ZERO RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURNED OPPOSED. AND THERE IS NOT A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION AS REQUESTED. HOW WIDE IS THAT? NOT MA'AM, THIS IS BRIEFING SESSION. WE HAVE TO WAIT TILL WE ARE OFFICIALLY SIX FOR ANYBODY ELSE TO, THEY'RE JUST BRIEFING THE BOARD ON THIS. OH. AND SO AT SIX WE'LL CALL THIS AND START THE WHOLE ALL THE CASES AGAIN. I KNOW YOU'RE RAISING YOUR HAND LIKE, HEY, I WANNA TALK ABOUT THIS. I SEE YOU OUT THERE. BUT UNDER THIS, THIS IS MERELY FOR STAFF TO LET US KNOW EACH OF JUST KIND OF HIGHLIGHTS AND LET US ASK THE QUESTIONS, GET IT OUT. WE DON'T DO ANY OF IT. NONE OF THIS IS REAL. IT ALL STARTS AT SIX O'CLOCK. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO BOARD MEMBER, I BELIEVE THAT IT IS A LITTLE OVER 25 FEET. THE WHOLE LOT, THE LOT WIDTH IS YES. THAT'S CRAZY. IT'S BEEN PLATTED LIKE THAT SINCE THE FOUR. THERE'S NOTHING, NEVER BEEN ANYTHING ON THAT. YEAH. CHUNK OF LAND. IF IT'S PLATTED LIKE THAT, GOOD FOR THEM. FIGURE OUT A WAY TO USE, I MEAN THE 15 TO THREE KIND OF SHOCKINGLY LARGE, BUT ULTIMATELY IF YOU LOOK AT IT'S 52% INSTEAD OF 50. THAT'S NOT A HUGE DEVIATION FROM INTENT. WELL, NONE OF THEM WERE HUGE DEVIATIONS, BUT THEY HAVE FIVE OF THEM. YEAH. IT'S JUST, WELL IT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE EVER GONNA PUT SOMETHING ON THAT PIECE OF DIRT 'CAUSE IT'S ZONED WITH SO MANY RESTRICTIONS. I AGREE. IT'S NOT AN APARTMENT. YEAH, IT'S NOT AN APARTMENT. YEAH, EXACTLY. WELL, WE DON'T KNOW THAT. THEY PROBABLY PUT, PROBABLY PUT 15 UNITS ON THAT LOT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS CASE THOUGH, FOR BRIEFING? UH, GO AHEAD, MS. WHITE. DOES, DOES THE CITY HAVE A NUMBER OF VARI A VARIATION? IS THERE A VARIATION LIMIT? IS THIS COMMON? LOTS LIKE THIS IN THE CITY? WELL, NO, I'M JUST ASKING IF YOU HAVE A VARIATION LIMIT PER CASE. NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE? ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON? WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON. OKAY. THANK YOU TOO. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ZBA 2 5 0 5 0 0 3 5 IS A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH LOCATED AT 2013 WEST JEFFERSON STREET. THE PROPERTY IS OWNED SINGLE FAMILY SIX DISTRICT. THE PURPOSE IS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME. WE'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 50 FEET TO 48 FEET. AND THERE IS OUR LOT ON THE FAR LEFT. HEY, I RECOGNIZE THAT NO BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. 29 NOTICES WERE SENT. ZERO RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURNED OPPOSED. AND THERE IS NOT A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION AND STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THIS REQUEST QUESTIONS. AM I RIGHT? FINE. SAYS THAT WHILE THERE'S NO PERMIT YET, THEY HAVE 90 DAYS IF WE APPROVE THIS AND IF, IF THEY DON'T APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT WITHIN 90 DAYS, THEN THEN THEIR, THEIR REQUEST WOULD EXPIRE IF THEY WERE APPROVED. GOES [00:15:01] POOF. I LEFT TO MY LEFT. ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? NO. MY ONLY PROBLEM IS WHY DID WE NOT PUT 'EM BOTH TOGETHER? SO THERE WAS ONE CASE AND THEN THE OTHER CASE, I MEAN THEY'RE ALL SPREAD OUT, ALL THE AGENDA. IT WOULD'VE BEEN SO MUCH MORE CONVENIENT. MY APOLOGIES. I'M A SIMPLE MAN. KEEP IT, KEEP IT, KEEP IT SIMPLE FOR ME. ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER 36. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ZBA 25 0 5 0 0 3 6. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE FENCE HEIGHT LOCATED AT 7 1 0 7 CARMONA STREET. THIS IS IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT THREE 10. UM, THE REQUEST IS SO THAT THEY CAN BUILD A NEW EIGHT FOOT SOLID CEDAR FENCE ON THE SIDE STREET PROPERTY LINE. THE UDC CURRENTLY ALLOWS FENCES ON CORNER, LOTS ON THE SIDE STREET PROPERTY LINE TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 36 INCHES HIGH. THAT IS IF THEY'RE SOLID, IF THEY'RE TRANSPARENT SUCH AS WROUGHT IRON CHAIN LINKING, THEY CAN GO UP TO 48 INCHES. ALRIGHT. OUR APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID CEDAR FENCE. OKAY. ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE? IT IS ON THE STREET SIDE SIDE, THE SIDE OF THEIR HOUSE, BUT ADJACENT TO THE FRONT OF IT'S ON A STREET, THE ADJACENT HOUSE. OKAY, GOTCHA. UM, THEY HAVE SUBMITTED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION AND YOU CAN SEE THE TOP PICTURE THERE IS SHOWING THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE FENCE. THEY DO HAVE A SIDE YARD FENCE CURRENTLY. THEY KIND OF WANNA PUSH THAT OUT. THEY WOULD BE SET BACK FROM THE EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK, APPROXIMATELY TWO FEET. OKAY. AND THE BOTTOM PICTURE THERE IS, IS THEIR EXISTING FENCE, 42 NOTICES WERE SENT ZERO RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURN TO POST. AND THERE IS AN HOA AT THIS PROPERTY, STAFF IS UNABLE TO SUPPORT THIS REQUEST BECAUSE THE UDC IS EXPLICIT ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS? AM I RIGHT MS. ROGERS FIRST ASSOCIATION? SEVEN. SO I BELIEVE MY APPLICANT IS GONNA BE HERE THIS EVENING. HE DID REACH OUT TO THEM TO GET AN APPROVAL LETTER AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEIR RESPONSE WAS THEY WERE NOT GOING TO GIVE AN APPROVAL LETTER UNTIL THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS APPROVE THE REQUEST . SO, UM, I WILL LET HIM SPEAK TO THAT. ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD JONATHAN. UH, EIGHT FEET. UH, IS THAT A BLOCKING VISIBILITY? THAT SEEMS TO BE A CONCERN. SO, SO I DID CHECK WITH OUR TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT AND THEY HAVE NO CONCERNS BECAUSE IT WILL BE SET BACK. UM, THEY FEEL PASSED THE SIDEWALK ENOUGH THAT THERE WON'T BE ANY VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION FOR THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC, UM, UTILIZING THE RIGHT OF WAY. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? AM MY RIGHT? HOW ABOUT MY LIFE? MR. BAKER? WHAT ABOUT THE ACTUAL HOMEOWNER'S VISIBILITY COMING UP? ? MY, THE APPLICANT? YES. WHAT ABOUT THE, UH, STREET? SO , SO YOU CAN SEE, UM, THAT THEY ALSO KIND OF ARE GONNA HAVE A SIMILAR CONFIGURATION TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY THAT FRONTS. SO I AM GOING TO SAY THAT TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THEIR VISIBILITY EITHER. THEY ALSO REVIEW NOT JUST THE STREET INTERSECTIONS, BUT ALSO FROM THE DRIVEWAY. SO THEY DRAW A LINE THAT'S ONE BY 20 AND IT'S NOT REALLY A STRAIGHT LINE. SO THEY LOOKED AT IT AND THEY FEEL THAT THERE'S ENOUGH SPACING BETWEEN THE FENCE EDGE AND THE DRIVEWAY THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS FOR THEM EITHER, EITHER. THANK YOU JIM. OF COURSE. THANK YOU. YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS? INTO MY LEFT, THIS SAYS CEDAR FENCE. SO IT'S GONNA BE A SIMILAR FENCE, CORRECT? IT'S HIGHER IS WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. WELL A LOT CLOSER TO SO RIGHT. PUSHED OUT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE ELSE? IF NOT, THAT'LL CONCLUDE. THAT'S THE LAST CASE I HAVE. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. ALRIGHT. LET'S SEE HERE. WE ARE GOING TO ADJOURN OUR, UH, BRIEFING SESSION AND RECONVENE AT OUR POSTED TIME OF SIX O'CLOCK. ANY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD COMMISSION, IF YOU NEED A COMFORT BREAK, NOW'S THE TIME AND WE WILL RECONVENE. BUT AT THE, ANYWAY, WELCOME TO [Call to Order] THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING WITH JUNE 16TH, 2025. I'M BARRY SANDIS, CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. THIS MEETING IS HEREBY CALL TO ORDER AT 6:02 PM THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT USUALLY MEETS THE THIRD MONDAY OF EACH MONTH. ALL MEETINGS ARE VIDEO RECORDED. NO OFFICIAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN UNLESS THE PROPER APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO HEAR, CONSIDER VARIANCES, EXCEPTIONS AND APPEALS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND FOLLOWS A PRINTED AGENDA THAT IS AVAILABLE [00:20:01] ONLINE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2 1 1 0.009 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. THE CONCURRING VOTE OF SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE BOARD IS NECESSARY TO DECIDE IN FACE FAVOR OF AN APPLICANT ON ANY MATTER WHICH THE BOARD HAS JURISDICTION. I'M GONNA SAY IT AGAIN JUST TO POINT OUT, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE NINE OF US UP HERE. TO GET YOUR VARIANCE APPEAL OR ADJUSTMENT APPROVED, YOU NEED SEVEN VOTES FOR YOU. SO THAT MEANS WE REQUIRE BASICALLY A SUPER MAJORITY. YOU NEED SEVEN OUTTA NINE, SIX THREE'S NOT A WINNER. FIVE FOUR, NOT A WINNER. SO IF AT ANY POINT IT FEELS HINKY AND YOU WANT A TABLE, GO FOR IT. UH, BUT TO GET YOUR APPEAL OR APPROVAL, YOU NEED SEVEN. I JUST HATE ANYBODY TO GET A VOTE OF SIX THREE AND FIVE FOUR AND GO, WOO HOO. NOT SO MUCH. NOT ON THIS BOARD. SO AS LONG AS EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM UNDERSTANDS HOW IT'S GONNA GO, WELL, YOU NEED SEVEN TO GET YOUR VARIANCE APPROVED. UM, DO, DO, DO, DO. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE BOARD ON ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA UNDER PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL NOW CONDUCT A ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS TO CONFIRM THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM. AFTER I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY HERE, JUST LIKE THIS. BARRY SANDIS. HERE. DEBBIE EK. HERE. ANTHONY LANGSTON. HERE. STACY WHITE. HERE. UH, CJ RAMIREZ. HERE. DAVID BAKER. HERE. VIVIAN MORRIS. HERE. UH, MELINDA ROGERS HERE. AND JONATHAN ED HERE. MUCH BETTER THE SECOND TIME AROUND. LET THE RECORD REFLECT. WE DO HAVE NINE MEMBERS HERE READY TO HEAR CASES SO WE ARE ABLE TO PROCEED AT THIS POINT. THE NEXT THING ON OUR AGENDA IS OUR INVOCATION. I'LL ASK MR. BAKER TO DO THE INVOCATION. DEAR FATHER, WE COME TO YOU TONIGHT JUST GRACIOUS FOR THE WEATHER AND THE, AND THE SEASONS THAT WE HAVE. LORD BE WITH US TONIGHT. HAVE US BE FAIR AND HONEST WITH THE CITIZEN THAT GREG PRAIRIE, UH, THIS GREAT CITY. WE ASK THINGS YOUR NAME, AMEN. AMEN. IN AN EFFORT TO MINIMIZE DISRUPTIONS THE FOLLOWING MEETING GUIDELINES WILL APPLY. THE STAFF WILL PRESENT FIRST ON ANY AGENDA ITEM. APPLICANTS HAVE 30 MINUTES TO PRESENT ONCE THE APPLICANT HAS SPOKEN, EACH MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO FILLS OUT A SPEAKER CARD THAT LOOKS JUST LIKE THIS WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK WITH ADDITIONAL TIME ALLOWED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN. THAT'S ME. UH, SPEAKER SHOULD GIVE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS RIGHT AT THE VERY TOP AS SOON AS YOU GET DOWN TO THE DA, YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS THAT GOES INTO THE RECORD OF WHO YOU ARE. IF YOU REPRESENT SOMEBODY THAT AS WELL, UM, STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION OF EACH ITEM. AND AN INDIVIDUAL WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT SHOULD SPEAK UNDER THE HEADING OF CITIZEN COMMENTS AT THE END, RARELY AND NEVER HAPPENS. BUT THAT'S HOW THE PROCESS WORKS. OUR FIRST ACTION ITEM [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] OF THE NIGHT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MAY 19TH, 2025. MEMBER OF THE BOARD WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THESE MINUTES? NONE. IS THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THE MINUTES? SEEING NONE, I'LL NOW ACCEPT A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM MAY 19TH, 2025. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE OF THE MAY 19TH, 2025 MEETING MINUTES SECOND. I I MR. LANGSTON BEACH THERE MR. WHITE. SORRY. UH, SO I HAVE A, A MOTION BY MR. BAKER, A SECOND BY MR. LANGSTER LANGSTON. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR? PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES NINE TO ZERO, [2. ZBA-25-04-0024 (Council District 1) – Variance to the minimum lot width permitted under the Unified Development Code, located at 2009 W. Jefferson St., legally described as Lot 3, Block 93, Dalworth Park Addition, City of Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas, zoned Single Family-Six District] WHICH NOW TAKES US TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF OUR AGENDA. AND WE HAVE SEVEN CASES ON THE AGENDA. AND WE'LL START OFF WITH ITEM NUMBER TWO. GO AHEAD, AARON. ITEM NUMBER TWO ZBA 2 5 0 4 0 0 2 4 IS A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2009 WEST JEFFERSON STREET. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY SIX DISTRICT. THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED SO THAT THEY CAN BUILD A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME. WE'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIRED OF 50 FEET TO THE REQUESTED 48 FEET. THERE HAS NOT BEEN A BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTED AS OF YET. AND YOU CAN SEE OUR SUBJECT PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED IN RED. 29. NOTICES WERE SENT, ZERO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO. RETURNED IN OPPOSED. AND THERE IS NOT AN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION IF THE OVERHEAD'S RIGHT. THAT'S JUST WEST OF MLK DOWN THERE, I BELIEVE. IS THAT RIGHT? FORMERLY 19 NORTHWEST 19TH STREET. OKAY. GOT IT. UH, ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? LOOKING LEFT. LOOKING RIGHT. THANK YOU AARON. I APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. I DON'T HAVE A SPEAKER CARD, BUT I HAVE WRITTEN DOWN HERE THAT TERRY BANKS IS THE APPLICANT. IS THERE A TERRY BANKS IN THE ROOM? YES SIR. WOULD YOU COME DOWN AND YES, SIR. [00:25:01] AND I'M, UH, WE'RE GONNA ASK WHEN YOU'RE DONE, THROW US A CARD JUST SO WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE WITH THE, WITH THESE LOTS AND, OKAY. YEAH. UH, TERRY, START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, SIR. UH, TERRY BANKS 2326 MRS. SHORE DRIVE, CEDAR HILL, TEXAS. OKAY. AND, UM, IT'S GONNA BUILD SOME SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THERE. RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE THE SPEC SPECIFIC. WE HAVE A PLAN, BUT YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE VARIANCE, WE MAY HAVE TO CHANGE THAT PLAN A LITTLE BIT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW THAT WE ARE IN COMPLIANT WITH THE UNIFIED CODE. UM, SO WE HAVE TWO LOTS NEXT TO EACH OTHER. BOTH OF THESE HOUSES WILL LOOK VERY SIMILAR EXCEPT THE FACADE WOULD BE CHANGED. UM, BUT BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S IT. VERY. SO WE'VE GOT JEFFERSON RUNS ALONG. GALVESTON JUST A LITTLE SOUTH OF THERE, BUT YOU GOT THE BON AIR BUILDING. YOU GOT BASICALLY MARTIN LUTHER KING, YOU GOT THE MAYORS COMPLEX OVER THERE. THE CPC, IS IT RIGHT IN THAT ROW SOMEWHERE? YEAH, IT'S A LITTLE MISLEADED. IT'S ACTUALLY GALVESTON. SO IF YOU THINK GALVESTON. SO IF WE WERE TO GET THIS APPROVED TO GET THE HOUSE BUILT, THEY WOULD FACE ONTO GAL SOUTH? YES SIR. YES. IT'S ON THE GALVESTON SIDE? YES. ALL RIGHT. YES. MM-HMM . HOW ABOUT YOU GUYS? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO KNOW OTHER THAN THE ANGLE OF GALVESTON MESSES YOU UP ON SQUARE FOOTAGE? A LITTLE BIT. HUH? ? THAT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT, YEAH. JUST, JUST MAKES YOU A COUPLE FEET OFF. YES SIR. ANYONE TO MY RIGHT? HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN? HOW ABOUT TO MY LEFT? THAT'S ALL WE NEED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING DOWN. WELCOME. IS ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN S SUPPORT OF ZBA 2 5 0 4 0 0 2 4. SEEING NONE. IS ANYONE WISHED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ZBA 2 5 0 4 0 0 2 4 SAYING NONE? WE DON'T NEED A REBUTTAL FROM YOU MR. BANKS. UM, I WILL NOW ASK IF WE CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION. WE CLOSE AND APPROVE ZBA 2 5 0 4 0 0 2 4 SECOND THERE EITHER REALLY, REALLY FAST OR EVERYBODY JUST SITS HERE AND LETS ME SWEAT IS HOW THIS WORKS. , I HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. BAKER AND A SECOND THIS TIME FOR MR. WHITE, BUT YOU BOTH MADE ME NERVOUS. UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MO OF THIS UH, MOTION PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. THIS CASE PASSES NINE TO ZERO. THIS WILL BRING US [3. ZBA-25-04-0028 (Council District 5) – Special exception for a side yard carport and variances to the minimum side yard setback and the maximum area of a side yard carport, and to the maximum square footage of all accessory structures permitted under the Unified Development Code, located at 1522 Hickory St., legally described as Lot 6, Block C, Fairview Addition No.1, City of Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas, zoned Single Family-Four District] TO CASE NUMBER, ITEM NUMBER THREE ON THE AGENDA. GO AHEAD SALVADOR. THAT'S RIGHT. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. ITEM NUMBER THREE ON YOUR AGENDA TONIGHT IS ZBA 2 5 0 4 DASH 0 0 2 8. THIS IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST AS WELL AS VARIANCES FOR THAT SIDE YARD CARPORT, UH, REQUEST AT 1522 HICKORY STREET. THE PROPERTY IS ON SINGLE FAMILY, UH, SIX AND IT IS CURRENTLY, UH, ASKING FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THAT SIDE YARD CARPORTS, UM, I'M SORRY, THAT SINGLE FAMILY FOUR, APOLOGIES FOR THAT. AND THE VARIANCE. A VARIANCE TO REQUEST, UH, THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK TO BE REDUCED FROM THREE FEET TO TWO FEET. A VARIANCE TO THE MAX AREA OF THE CARPORT FROM 500 SQUARE FEET TO 580 84 SQUARE FEET AND A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM AREA OF ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FROM THE ALLOWED 50% OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO 82% OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. AND YOU'LL SEE ON SCREEN A PICTURE OF THAT OF THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, THIS IS AN EXISTING SIDE YARD CARPORT. SO THE APPLICANT WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND, UH, BUILT A CARPORT AND THEN WAS, UH, INFORMED OF THE PROCESS AND WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO TO GET EVERYTHING RECTIFIED. AND SO THEY'VE COME, UH, TO THE CITY AND THEN THEY HAVE ASKED US TO PRESENT THEIR CASE ON THEIR BEHALF TONIGHT. UM, THEY ARE, THEY HAVE BUILT THAT 584 SQUARE FOOT CARPORT. IT IS SEVEN FOOT TALL AND THEY ARE REQUESTING THAT SETBACK FROM THREE FEET THAT IS REQUIRED TO TWO FEET ON SCREEN. YOU'LL SEE THEY HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE LABELED BUILDING AS ONE AS A PRIMARY STRUCTURE, TWO AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE REAR, AND THEN THREE, THE EXISTING CARPORT. AND SO THIS IS WHAT THE CARPORT LOOKS LIKE TODAY, UH, EXISTING. UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY DO HAVE A SMALL GUTTER SYSTEM THAT THEY HAVE ATTACHED TO THE SIDE. SO NONE OF THE, UH, RAINWATER WILL BE FALLING ONTO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND AGAIN, IT IS A SIDE YARD CARPORT THAT THEY HAVE BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS. SO THAT'S WHY THEY ARE IN FRONT OF YOU HERE TONIGHT. UM, IT'S GONNA BE USED TO STORE OUR VEHICLES. AND REGARDING THIS ITEM 53 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT, ZERO RETURN IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED AND THERE'S NOT AN HOA AND STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE REQUEST AS IS. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS TO STAFF, TO I RIGHT. QUESTIONS TO MY LEFT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH SALVADOR. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. I DO HAVE HERE THAT THE APPLICANT IS BLANCA CARDENAS. THAT'S RIGHT. SHE WON'T BE ABLE TO MAKE IT TONIGHT. OKAY. I THINK IT WON'T BE HERE TONIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANYONE [00:30:01] HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF 25 0 4 0 0 28 IN THE ROOM? DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 25 0 4 0 0 2 2 8? I SEE NONE. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CLOSE AND APPROVE ZBA 2 5 0 4 0 0 2 8. SEE IT'S ALWAYS A DELAY. UH, I HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. BAKER, A SECOND FOR MS. ROGERS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES BY ACCOUNT OF 9 2 0, WHICH WILL TAKE US TO ITEM NUMBER [4. ZBA-25-05-0032 (Council District 1) – Appeal of the Denial of the Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) for USA Storage and Parking, located at 500 W Oakdale (475 W Oakdale Rd.), legally described as Tract 22, John Farrans Survey, Abstract 468, City of Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas, zoned Light Industrial District, and within the SH 161 Corridor District] FOUR ON THE AGENDA, UH, WHICH I BELIEVE IS AN APPEAL. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. YES. MS. SHE OKAY. HI, TIFFANY BULL, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY. SO THIS ITEM IS NOT LIKE THE ITEMS THAT YOU TYPICALLY HEAR. I AM HERE TODAY REPRESENTING THE INTEREST OF THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE. UM, AND SO THAT IS THE HAT THAT I AM WEARING. ITEM FOUR IS AN APPEAL OF A BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION. WHOOP, HOLD ON. OKAY, HAD TO SWITCH PRESENTATIONS. OKAY. SO YOUR AUTHORITY, UM, COMES UNDER ARTICLE ONE TO HEAR A, AN APPEAL OF ANY DECISION MADE BY A BUILDING OFFICIAL. IT REQUIRES A VOTE OF SEVEN MEMBERS TO OVERTURN THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. YOU ARE HERE NOT TO GRANT A VARIANCE OR EXCEPTION THAT WOULD ACTUALLY EXCEED YOUR AUTHORITY. YOUR AUTHORITY IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THEIR DECISION WAS CORRECT OR INCORRECT BASED UPON THE LAW THAT IS IN PLACE. UM, IT DOES OUTLINE IN THE UDC WHAT THE PROCESS IS. IT IS ALL SUBJECT TO THE CHAIRMAN'S, UM, DETERMINATION. BUT TYPICALLY YOU GET TO HEAR FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR THEIR DESIGNEE, I'M SERVING AS THEIR DESIGNEE TODAY. AND THEN YOU GET A PRESENTATION BY THE PARTY BRINGING THE APPEAL AND THEN TESTIMONY, SUPPORTING THE APPEAL AND OPPOSING THE APPEAL. AND THEN THERE IS A REBUTTAL BY THE PERSON SEEKING THE APPEAL. UM, IN THIS INSTANCE, I'M GONNA ASK THE CHAIRMAN FOR SOME LEEWAY TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK WHEN THE TESTIMONY BY THE PARTIES OPPOSING THE APPEAL SPEAK BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE CONFUSING TO PRESENT INFORMATION TO THE BOARD, UM, TO KIND OF REBUT SOME OF THE INFORMATION YOU MAY HEAR FROM THE OTHER SIDE BEFORE THEY PRESENT IT. BUT I DO WANT TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE CASE. SO THIS IS 500 WEST OAKDALE DALE ROAD AND ALSO KNOWN AS 4 75 WEST OAKDALE ROAD. THE REASON WHY YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT ADDRESSES, WHICH I THINK HAS LED TO SOME HISTORIC CONFUSION ON OCCASION, IS BECAUSE THIS IS AN UN PLATTED LOT AND IT WAS REALLY UNDEVELOPED. THERE IS NO HISTORY OF THEM EVER GOING THROUGH ANY DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS, GETTING ANY CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY, GETTING ANY TYPE OF PERMITS FOR EXCAVATION, FOR GROUNDWORK, FOR ANYTHING. THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT HISTORY FOR THIS. AND BECAUSE THEY DID NOT GO THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT PLOTTED THIS, IT WAS NEVER OFFICIALLY ASSIGNED AN ADDRESS. SO THE PROPERTY DOWN HERE TO THE SOUTH RIGHT HERE, UM, IS ACTUALLY 500 WEST OAKDALE ROAD AND WITH TAD, BOTH OF THESE ARE 500 WEST OAKDALE ROAD, THIS ONE AND THIS ONE. THIS HERE WHERE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS, IS ON THE ODD SIDE OF THE STREET FOR ADDRESS NUMBERING. SO IF IT WERE TO GO THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, 4 75 WEST OAKDALE ROAD IS THE ADDRESS THAT WOULD BE ASSIGNED. AND WHEN STAFF, THERE WAS A PRIOR CO APPLICATION AND WHEN STAFF PROCESSED THAT CO APPLICATION, WHICH WAS DENIED, THEY ASSIGNED THAT TEMPORARY ADDRESS. UM, SO IN THIS INSTANCE, THE TENANT APPLIED FOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY RECENTLY FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE. THEY MAY HAVE ALSO SOUGHT TO, UM, DO HEAVY TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT PARKING. THE CO WAS DENIED BECAUSE THE PROPOSED USE REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. THIS IS IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. AND BOTH OUTSIDE STORAGE AND HEAVY TRUCK OR EQUIPMENT PARKING REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IN WHICH THE CITY CAN PUT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENTAL AND OPERATIONAL, UH, RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS IN ORDER FOR THEM TO OPERATE. SO ONCE THE CITY DENIED IT, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE TENANT APPEALED THAT DECISION. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY. UM, I TURNED IT SIDEWAYS JUST TO MAKE IT FIT ON THE SLIDE. SO IF YOU SEE OVER HERE IS ACTUALLY WEST OAKDALE STREET. IT'S A VERY LONG, IT'S [00:35:01] A VERY NARROW BUT LONG LOT, UM, AT LEAST THROUGH THE, THE DEPICTIONS. AND SO YOU SEE IT HAS, UM, DIFFERENT BAYS, APPARENTLY 48 BAYS AND THEN ALSO 18 STORAGE YARD UNITS. AND THEY INDICATED THAT IS FOR STORAGE YARD AND TRUCK PARKING. THIS RIGHT HERE WHERE THAT BLACK DOG IS, THAT IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. I WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, THE DARK BLUE IS THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN. THE AQUA COLOR IS THE 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN. THE MAJORITY OF THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN. AND THE REASON WHY THAT IS IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE WHEN PERMITS ARE ISSUED AND SOUGHT FOR FLOOD FLOODPLAIN, THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH FEMA REGULATIONS. AND THE CITY'S ADOPTED FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS TO ENSURE THAT YOU'RE NOT SHIFTING FLOODING TO ANOTHER PROPERTY TO ENSURE THAT YOU ARE MITIGATING WHERE IS REQUIRED. AND ALSO TO ENSURE WHENEVER STRUCTURES ARE BUILT IN THE FLOODPLAIN, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE ELEVATED UP TWO FEET TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE COMPLYING WITH THE FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS. OKAY, OUTSIDE STORAGE, AND I APOLOGIZE, IT DIDN'T QUITE LOOK THIS WAY WHEN I LOOKED AT IT BEFORE. UM, AS YOU CAN SEE OUTSIDE STORAGE, IT'S DOWN HERE AT THE BOTTOM. IT IS ALLOWED IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BY SPECIFIC USE PERMIT ONLY. IT IS DEFINED AS THE PLACEMENT OF ARTICLES INCLUDING MERCHANDISE, INVENTORY, EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, AND OTHER MATERIALS WHICH ARE NOT CURRENTLY IN USE IN AN UNCOVERED AREA. AND ALL OUTSIDE STORAGE IS REQUIRED TO BE SCREENED WITH A SOLID FENCE. AND THEN I STILL HAVE OUTSIDE STORAGE DEFINITION THERE. WE ALSO HAVE DEFINITIONS OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT, HEAVY EQUIPMENT, PARKING OR STORAGE, HEAVY TRUCK, HEAVY TRUCK PARKING EQUIPMENT OR STORAGE. ESSENTIALLY THESE ARE GONNA BE WHERE YOU HAVE HEAVY EQUIPMENT OR HEAVY PARK, UH, HEAVY TRUCKS THAT ARE USED FOR SHORT TERM OR LONG TERM PARKING OR STORAGE, UM, FOR A FEE. AND ALL COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THE CITY'S MINIMUM PAVING STANDARDS FOR THE PROPOSED USE. ALTERNATIVE PAVING STANDARDS CAN BE PERMITTED. UH, THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT LOT CURRENTLY DOES NOT HAVE ANY TYPE OF IMPROVED SURFACE ON IT, . AND THEN YOU CAN SEE BOTH, UM, HEAVY TRUCK OR EQUIPMENT PARKING IS AGAIN, ONLY ALLOWED BY SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IN THESE AREAS. SO THE APP APPELLANT IS SEEKING A DETERMINATION OR THEY ARE ARGUING THAT THEY HAVE A NON-CONFORMING USE. THESE ARE THE DEFINITIONS OF NON-CONFORMING USE AND NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. THE THE ONE THAT'S REALLY BEFORE YOU TODAY IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A NON-CONFORMING USE AND IT REQUIRES THE LAW. THE LAND WAS LAWFULLY IN EXISTENCE OR OCCUPIED AT THE TIME THE REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED. AND THEN SOMETHING ELSE CHANGES. SO ESSENTIALLY IF YOU ARE OPERATING A SNOW CONE SHOP AND THAT SNOW CONE SHOP IS ALLOWED ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY AND YOU ARE LAWFULLY OPERATING IT AND COMPLYING WITH THE REGULATIONS AND THE CITY CHANGES THE REGULATIONS AND PROHIBITS SNOW CONE SHOPS, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE BECAUSE YOU WERE LAWFULLY DOING SO. YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY GRANDFATHERED IN AND YOU CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE YOUR SNOW CONE SHOP AS LONG AS YOU WANT. HOWEVER, IF YOU EVER STOP OPERATING YOUR SNOW CONE SHOP AND YOU ABANDON THAT USE, THEN YOU LOSE YOUR NON-CONFORMING STATUS. NOW THE KEY WORD IN THE DEFINITION IS THAT THE USE WAS LAWFULLY IN EXISTENCE. IF YOU JUST GO AND PUT UP A SNOW CONE SHOP AND YOU DON'T HAVE THE PROPER CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND YOU ARE NOT LAWFULLY OPERATING, YOU CANNOT GAIN A NON-CONFORMING STATUS JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE OPERATING ILLEGALLY FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME DOES NOT GRANDFATHER YOU INTO THE REGULATIONS. AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE FORGET. THE USE HAS TO BE LAWFUL IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE ENTITLED TO NON-CONFORMING STATUS. AND THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN NO PERMITS OR CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCIES ISSUED FOR THIS. THE ONLY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WHICH WAS APPLIED FOR, WAS APPLIED FOR IN 2022 PRIOR TO THIS ONE. AND THE TENANTS SAID THAT THEY WERE LOOKING TO STORE THEIR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ON THIS VACANT LOT. AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE APPEAL OR THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS DENIED. THERE WAS NO APPEAL OF THAT. THAT DECISION OF DENIAL WAS FINAL. THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. AND IN FACT, AS THE UM, APPLICANT AND APPELLANT IN THIS CASE WAS GOING THROUGH [00:40:01] THEIR CO REVIEW PROCESS AS THEY WERE COMMUNICATING WITH STAFF, UM, THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THE FACT THAT THE PRIOR OCCUPANT DID NOT HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE WAS ANY TYPE OF OPERATION GOING ON, IT WAS NOT LAWFUL. IT WAS DONE ILLEGALLY. AND I WANNA BE CLEAR, YOU SEE EVERY DAY WHERE PEOPLE GO AND THEY DO THINGS IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE, WE DO NOT HAVE CITY STAFF TO BE ABLE TO GO OUT THERE AND SEE AND GRAB ATTENTION TO EVERYTHING. IT IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE. AND SO I THINK SOMETIMES PEOPLE MISTAKE AND THINK THAT BECAUSE THE CITY NEVER TOOK ENFORCEMENT ACTION, THAT MEANS THAT IT'S OKAY OR THAT IT'S LAWFUL OR IT'S ACCEPTABLE. AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE. I MEAN, I JUST ASK EVERYONE THINK ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES YOU MIGHT'VE BEEN SPEEDING AND DIDN'T GET A TICKET. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU WEREN'T SPEEDING. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU DIDN'T VIOLATE THE LAW. IT JUST MEANS THAT YOU WEREN'T ISSUED A CITATION, WERE PROSECUTED. AND SO, UM, I WOULD AGAIN LIKE TO ASK FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO ANYTHING THAT THE OTHER SIDE MAY, UM, BRING UP AND DISCUSS. REBUTTAL PLEASE . AND DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME AT THIS TIME? WHAT ARE THE LETTERS THAT YOU JUST POPPED UP? IS THIS FOR THEM? UM, THIS IS, THIS IS FOR THEIR APPEAL MATERIAL. I WAS JUST BRINGING IT UP FOR THEIR CONVENIENCE QUESTIONS OF MS. BOLT TO MY RIGHT. HOW ABOUT TO MY LEFT? I HAVE A QUESTION. YES, YES MA'AM. SO THIS LAND WAS JUST SITTING THERE ALL THIS TIME AND NOTHING WAS NOTHING. I THOUGHT YOU SAID SOMETHING WAS ALREADY ON IT. THIS LAND WAS, UM, VACANT LAND, BUT THEY'RE SO STRONG. IS IT THIS GRASS? THE, THERE WERE, IT WAS PRIMARILY GRASS. IF YOU LOOK THE LOT NEXT TO IT WAS DEVELOPED, UM, IT RIGHT HERE WAS, AND I CAN PULL UP SOME HISTORICAL IMAGES FOR YOU. SO THIS IS WHAT IT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE IN 1995. THIS IS THE LOT NEXT TO IT. AND YOU CAN SEE THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IN 1995. AND THEN THE NEXT IMAGE THAT WE HAVE IS FROM 2001. AND YOU CAN SEE IN TWO THOU BETWEEN 95 AND 2001, THEY STARTED CLEARING. UM, THEY STARTED CLEARING SOME OF IT AGAIN WITHOUT PERMITS. IT WAS NOT LAWFULLY PERMISSIBLE. I WOULD, I BELIEVE THAT THAT, UM, CLEARING OCCURRED AFTER THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD AT THE END OF 1999. UM, BUT AGAIN, THE, ANY USE OF THIS PROPERTY, THE CITY'S POSITION IS THAT ANY USE OF THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT LAWFUL BECAUSE THEY DID NOT GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. AND IT'S, AND A LOT OF TIMES WHEN PEOPLE COME AND APPLY FOR CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY, THEY COME AND APPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO GET UTILITIES THERE. THIS PROPERTY, WE DON'T HAVE A RECORD OF IT HAVING UTILITIES THERE, RUNNING WATER, ELECTRICITY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND SO, UM, THIS APPLICANT ACTUALLY CAME FORWARD, I BELIEVE AND APPLIED FOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO GET ELECTRICITY OUT THERE AND IN THEIR APPLICATION, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, UM, THEY HAD INDICATED THAT THIS WAS A CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY AND OR A CHANGE OF USE. UM, BUT AGAIN, THERE WAS NEVER A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON FILED OR ON FILE OR ISSUED. GO AHEAD. SO IS THAT WHAT THE PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE TODAY? THE IMAGE YOU JUST SHOW US IS MAINLY GRASS AND DIRT TO ME. IS THAT HOW IT LOOKS TODAY? JUST CURIOUS. IT NO, THEY HAVE ACTUALLY CLEARED MORE OF THE, THE LAND SO THAT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY NOW LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO THIS. THERE ARE ALSO, UM, A COUPLE OF WHAT APPEAR TO BE ILLEGAL STRUCTURES THAT WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS ON THE PROPERTY AS WELL. THAT SATISFY YOUR QUESTIONS? YES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MS. BULL? MS. BAKER, ANYONE ELSE? NO. THANK YOU. MS. BULL. YES SIR. GOTCHA. THANK YOU. SO I HAVE TWO CARDS, UH, BOTH IN SUPPORT AND WISHING TO SPEAK. I HAVE, UH, STEVEN AND ELI. IS ONE MORE OF A LEAD? COME ON DOWN AND WE'LL START YOU OFF. OR ONE LOST THE COIN FLAW. APPRECIATE, UH, JUST TO MAKE SURE, IS [00:45:01] THIS THE MOUSE FOR HERE? PERFECT. PERFECT. THEN GOT THE TOOLS. ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD. YES, GOOD EVENING. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. IT'S GOOD TO BE IN YOUR PRESENCE. UH, ALWAYS GOOD TO BE IN GRAND PRAIRIE. UH, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION MATERIALS. THERE ARE 46 PAGES, BUT I PROMISE YOU IT WILL NOT BE A 46 PAGE STYLE OF REPORT. START WITH NAME AND ADDRESS. CERTAINLY STEVEN DARLING. 2,500 DALLAS PARKWAY, PLANO, TEXAS 7 5 0 9 3. UH, THEN THE WAY THAT WE GOT HERE AGAIN WAS BECAUSE OF A VOLUNTARY APPLICATION BY THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO IS WITH ME AND DOESN'T TEND TO SPEAK AFTER THIS. UH, HE DID APPLY AGAIN, NOT BECAUSE THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS ON CODE COMPLIANCE'S RADAR, SOMETHING TO THAT DEGREE. UH, MR. OZA HAS MULTIPLE PROPERTIES THAT HE IS DEVELOPED HERE IN GRAND PRAIRIE AND ALL OF THEM ARE IN GOOD STANDING EXCEPT THIS ONE, WHICH HE BELIEVES, UH, HE ENDED UP IN THIS SITUATION AS HE'LL TELL YOU HIMSELF BECAUSE OF SOME CORRESPONDENCE THAT HIS CONSULTANTS, UH, AND THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE HAD. UH, THIS IS THE ACTUAL APPEAL LETTER. THERE'S, UH, NOTHING CERTAINLY REMARKABLE BUT HERE, BUT TURNING DOWN TO WHERE THE PROPERTY IS, JUST LIKE MS. BULL DEMONSTRATED, IT'S A VERY LONG SLIVER OF A PROPERTY OF ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF ACRES. AND JUST LIKE SHE MENTIONED, UH, APPARENTLY ACCORDING TO THE CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, BOTH THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY DOWN HERE IS 500 WEST OAKDALE, AS IS THE NORTHERN ONE. UH, WHEN I HAD ATTEMPTED TO FILL OUT THE APPEAL PAPERWORK FOR MR. ZA, IT ACTUALLY DID SHOW 4 75. AND I THINK PART OF THE CONFUSION BACK AND FORTH WITH CORRESPONDENCE IS BECAUSE OF THE INTERNAL ADDRESS ISSUE. TURNING DOWN HERE, THIS WAS A LETTER THAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE GLOBAL ZONING CONSULTANTS THAT MR. OZA HIRED, UH, RELATED TO 500 WEST OAKDALE. UM, TWO THINGS TO NOTE HERE. ONE, IT IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING THE HEAVY TRUCK PARKING REQUIRING SUP. HE DID APPLY FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY ON THIS LETTER, IT DOES SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT ZONING VERIFICATION LETTERS DO NOT STATE THE CURRENT CONFORMING STATUS OF DEVELOPMENTS. AND OF COURSE, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 19, PEOPLE ARE DIRECTED TO CHECK ARTICLE 19. SO THE WEIGHT THAT WAS PUT ON HERE, CERTAINLY IT'S IMPORTANT THAT A ZONING VERIFICATION LETTER WAS ISSUED, BUT IT ISN'T REALLY THE WHOLE STORY AND IT DOESN'T TELL SOMEBODY NO, YOU DON'T HAVE A NON-CONFORMING USE PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT A ZONING VERIFICATION LETTER DOES. UM, IN TERMS OF THE DUE DILIGENCE THAT EVERYBODY DID, UM, I'D LIKE TO READ THESE LETTERS BACKWARDS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. BECAUSE THE LOWER PART IS WHAT IS, UH, THE, THE MORE OLD IN TIME. THE TOP PART IS THE MORE RECENT IN TIME. UH, THERE WAS A RESPONSE THAT WAS GIVEN FOR AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST BACK IN OCTOBER 15TH, 2021, TO WHICH THE PERSON FROM GLOBAL CONSULTING, OR EXCUSE ME, GLOBAL ZONING REPLIED, THANK YOU. I AM NOT SEEING A RESPONSE TO OUTSTANDING BUILDING ZONING, FIRE CODE VIOLATIONS, ROAD PROJECTS, OR CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY. DOES THIS MEAN THERE ARE NONE? UH, THE REPLY RECEIPT FROM THE CITY WAS CORRECT. THERE ARE NO BUILDING ZONING OR FIRE CODE VIOLATIONS. BUILDING INSPECTIONS DOES NOT HAVE ANY RECORDS FOR THE ADDRESS. AND I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT. SOMETHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LITTLE BIT IS THERE'S NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, BUT THERE'S MERELY JUST AN ABSENCE OF THE RECORDS OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY. I'VE WORKED FOR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CITIES IN MY OWN CAREER AND SOMETIMES RECORDS DO GET LOST. PART OF THE EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE PERSON WHO ENDED UP BUYING THIS PROPERTY, RELYING ON WHAT THE CITY TOLD THEM, MENTIONED TO THEM SPECIFICALLY THAT THERE WEREN'T ANY RECORDS FROM 1997 OR PRIOR. UH, THIS IS A CITY CLERK COMMUNICATION FROM GLOBAL ZONING JUST SAYING, HEY, THERE'S NO CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY ON FILE. IN ADDITION, THERE'S NO ZONING, NO ROAD PROJECTS THAT CAN IMPACT RIGHT OF WAY. THIS IS REALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT EMAIL. AND I'M GONNA SCROLL DOWN TO THE BOTTOM BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT THIS HELPS REALLY ILLUSTRATE WHAT IT WAS THAT SOMEBODY WHO WAS POTENTIALLY BUYING THIS PROPERTY, SOMEONE WHO HAD ALREADY BOUGHT PROPERTIES IN GRAND PRAIRIE AND CONTINUES TO DEVELOP IN THIS AREA RECEIVED FROM THE CITY. IN REGARDS TO THE USE, I'M GOING TO REFER YOU TO ARTICLE 19 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH SPEAKS TO NON-CONFORMING USES. GENERALLY, IF THE USE WAS PERMITTED AT THE TIME IT WAS INITIATED, THEN THE CODE WAS AMENDED, THEN THE USE WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN UNTIL THERE'S A DISCONTINUATION OF THE USE AT WHICH YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET CURRENT STANDARDS. AGAIN, PLEASE READ ARTICLE 19 AND YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S IN COMPLIANCE OR NOT. HOPE THIS HELPS. ANY QUESTIONS? NORMAL, STRAIGHTFORWARD EMAIL. WE DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THE NON-CONFORMING DEFINITION AS IT'S ASSERTED THERE, BUT THERE IS MORE CORRESPONDENCE. GOOD MORNING, CASSIE. THANK YOU FOR REACHING OUT REGARDING THE STRUCTURES. OUR PERMANENT RECORDS GO BACK TO 1997 AND I COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING, BUT YOU WOULD BE BEST OFFICIALLY REQUESTING THAT INFORMATION VIA A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST WITH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION. BE RESPONSIBLE AND, OR EXCUSE ME, WOULD BE THE ENTITY TO RESPOND TO THIS IN REGARDS TO OUR ZONING OR RECORDS. AND MAPS INDICATE THAT THIS IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FOR THE PARCEL THAT BRITTANY HIGHLIGHTED, WHICH I WAS PRESUMED TO BE THE PARCEL IN YELLOW DOWN THERE. OUR CODES DOES DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN LIGHT AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. I DUG THROUGH SOME OLD ZONING MAPS AND SNIPPED THIS PICTURE OF A ZONING MAP DATA FROM 1996 APPEARS WAS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AT THAT TIME. SO AGAIN, FINALLY. HI JONATHAN. THANK YOU. WE DID [00:50:01] PREVIOUSLY SUBMIT A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST WITH THE CODE OF THE 1990S HAVE ALLOWED THIS USE BY RIGHT WITHOUT A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. WOULD THIS BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE WITHOUT A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT WITH A NEW TENANT OR OWNER IF THE USE REMAINS THE SAME? TO WHICH MR. TRULY REPORTERS REPLIES CASSIE, I DO BELIEVE THAT IN THE 1990S, THE UDC DID ALLOW FOR TRUCK PARKING BY RIGHT INI DISTRICTS, BUT AT SOME POINT IN TWO THOUSANDS THE CODE WAS AMENDED TO REQUIRE AN SUP. IF THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT, YOU COULD TRANSFER THE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE TO A NEW OWNER AS LONG AS IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 19. NOT EVERYONE IS A LAND USE EXPERT AND NOT EVERYONE HAS THE EXPERIENCE THAT THIS BOARD DOES TO HEAR CASE AFTER CASE AND TO HEAR THE NUANCE BACK AND FORTH. BUT ANY LAY PERSON HEARING THIS EMAIL FROM THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE WOULD FEEL OKAY. YOU COULD TRANSFER THE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE TO A NEW OWNER AS LONG AS IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 19. SCROLLING DOWN FURTHER HERE, I WANTED TO SHOWCASE THE HISTORIC USE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE MAP HERE. I PULLED SOME HISTORIC AERIALS IN OBVIOUSLY 1958. IT DOESN'T REALLY SEEM LIKE THERE'S MUCH HERE, BUT YOU CAN KIND OF START TO SEE AS THIS PROPERTY GOT DEVELOPED, THAT IT USED TO BE A THROUGHWAY TO GET DOWN TO WHAT IS OAKDALE HERE AND SANDY LANE HERE. AND SO HERE IS A PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY. SO YOU CAN SEE THERE'S GAPS IN SOME OF THE AERIAL MAPS. SO NOT ALL OF THE RECORDS ARE PRISTINE THERE, BUT IF YOU GO TO 1979, YOU'LL SEE ACTUALLY THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN GRADED, UH, NOT JUST TO THE PORTION THAT WAS LAID BROWN IN THE MORE RECENT 2000 PHOTOS, BUT ALL THE WAY SEEMINGLY TO THE PATH BACK HERE. UH, FINALLY, THIS IS, UH, A 1981. YOU CAN SEE ADDITIONAL GRADING THERE THAT CUTS A LITTLE DEEPER, UH, A LITTLE THINNER TOO. BUT THIS PROPERTY HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN USED AND IS NOT JUST SOME SORT OF VACANT LOT. UH, THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY ELECTRICITY, THERE HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING ELSE INVOLVED IN THERE BECAUSE OF COURSE NOT EVERY USE NEEDS ELECTRICITY. IF YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE, YOU DON'T REALLY NECESSARILY NEED THAT. UH, AS, UH, MR. OZA WILL TESTIFY TO SHORTLY AFTER I GET OFF THE LINE HERE PENDING ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. OF COURSE, UH, HE NOT ONLY PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY BUT DOES OWN ADDITIONAL PROPERTY IN THIS FLOODPLAIN AREA APPROXIMATELY ACROSS THE STREET. SO HE'S FULLY AWARE AND HAS CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY, IS MY UNDERSTANDING FOR THAT. UH, THERE'S ACTUALLY SOME OTHER COMPLICATIONS WITH THIS PROPERTY. UH, I DIDN'T SEE THIS IN ANY OF THE CITY MATERIALS. I'M JUST KIND OF GOING THROUGH THE LONG HISTORIC USE. BUT THERE'S ACTUALLY DEED RESTRICTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPERTY. UH, WE CAME TO KNOW THIS BASED ON THE SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED AND ACCOMPANYING MATERIALS FROM THE TITLE COMPANY. UH, THE PARTICULAR DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE DOWN HERE IN NUMBER NINE, THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS, UH, AS RECORDED IN 1993. GRANTED, WE KNOW THAT DEED RESTRICTIONS DON'T CONTROL OVER CITY ZONING, BUT IN TERMS OF THE CONTINUED AND EXTENDED USE, YOU'LL SEE THAT THIS PRODUCT, I'M TRYING TO FIND HERE WE GO, PERMITTED USES THE PROPERTY WITHIN THIS PROJECT MAY BE USED FOR OFFICE COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSING, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, WHOLESALING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, OR A COMBINATION OF SUCH USES OR OTHER INDIVIDUAL USES PERMITTED BY THE LAWS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS, AND SUCH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL OR REGULATORY AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE PROJECT. LONG STORY SHORT, THIS GENTLEMAN WHO IS INVESTED IN THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE AND VOLUNTEERED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY APPLICATION HIMSELF WHEN HE FOUND A NEW TENANT, FOUND HIMSELF IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF ENFORCEMENT FOR A PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN HERE POSSIBLY FOR LONGER THAN I'VE BEEN ALIVE SEVERAL TIMES OVER UNMITIGATED, CONTINUED USE WITHOUT ANYTHING FROM THE CITY. IN TERMS OF ENFORCEMENT, EVERY OPEN RECORDS REQUEST THAT I PERSONALLY FILED, FOR THE MOST PART, THERE WASN'T ANYTHING. THE ONLY CITATION THAT THE CITY WAS ABLE TO PRESENT TO ME WAS A MAY, 2025 CITATION FOR HIGH CUT GRASS. SO AGAIN, WITH THE PROPERTY BEING IN THE FLOODPLAIN, BEING HISTORICALLY USED FOR THIS PURPOSE, THERE BEING AN ABSENCE OF RECORDS THERE AND EVEN JUST THE AERIALS TELLING A DIFFERENT STORY THAN WHAT I THINK THE CITY IS UNDERSTANDING OR OR KNOWS ABOUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. WE DO THINK THAT IT HAS BEEN LEGALLY IN USE FOR THIS TIME JUST A LOW MAINTENANCE PROPERTY THAT DIDN'T BOTHER ANYBODY. AND FOR THIS REASON, BECAUSE MR. OZA HAS APPLIED, HE'S NOW FINDING HIMSELF NO LONGER ABLE TO USE THE PROPERTY THAT THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE TOLD HIM HE WOULD BE IN WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO USE. UH, OF COURSE MR. OZA IS HERE TO SPEAK AFTER ME, BUT IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? QUESTIONS FROM MR. DARLING TO MY LEFT? NO. HOW ABOUT TO MY RIGHT? NO, THE LAST YES, SIR. THAT LAST PICTURE. WHAT WAS THE DATE ON THAT LAST, UH, ON THE, WHICH APPLICATION? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I KNOW THE VERY LAST PICTURE YOU HAD. THE VERY LAST PICTURE I HAD. I WANNA SAY THOSE WERE FROM THE 2000 AND I DID GO THROUGH THOSE QUICKLY, SO I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THOSE A LITTLE SLOWER. UH, SO HERE IS, THIS HAS CONTINUED THROUGH, THROUGH THOUSAND 10. UH, THIS IS ALSO 2012. THE AERIALS BECOME MORE OFTEN SINCE TECH IS A LITTLE BETTER. 2014 AS WELL AS, UH, 2022. THIS IS THE AERIAL. AGAIN, [00:55:01] THERE ARE SOME GAPS 'CAUSE THEY JUST, I COULDN'T PULL ALL OF THEM, BUT 2022 DOES APPEAR TO BE THE LAST ONE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THE OTHER CARD I HAVE IS ELI AND HE SAYS ZA AND I'M, YOU'RE GONNA TELL ME HOW TO SAY IT HERE IN A MINUTE HERE. HE'S ONLY USED 10 OF YOUR 30 MINUTES. OH, . HE'S TALK HE'S A FAST TALKER. GO AHEAD SIR. START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. UM, UH, MY NAME IS ELLIE AMAL. UH, IT'S 500 WEST OAKDALE ROAD. FANTASTIC. UH, GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS. UH, 7 5 0 5 0. UM, NOT USED TO THIS, UH, BUT TO WHAT HE WAS, UH, TALKING ABOUT. UM, YEAH, WE OWNED THIS PROPERTY. WE BOUGHT THIS ONE IN 2 20 21, UH, AND DID THIS, UH, ZONING VERIFICATION LETTER WITH, UM, UH, GLOBAL ZONING. UM, I'M 29 YEARS OLD. I OWN THIS PROPERTY WITH MY BROTHER. UM, SO WE BOUGHT THIS FOUR AND A HALF YEARS AGO OR SO, UM, THAT THIS IS ONE OF OUR FIRST PROPERTIES EVER THAT WE BOUGHT. UH, I, WE REALLY RELIED ON THIS GLOBAL ZONING LETTER, UH, AND JOHN AND THE, THE EMAIL THAT JONATHAN THULE, UM, SENT TO US THAT BASICALLY SAID THAT WE COULD TRANSFER THIS PROPERTY INTO LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE AND WE COULD TRANSFER THAT OVER TO A NEW BI, UH, LIKE A NEW OWNER. AND FOR THAT REASON, THAT'S WHAT GOT US COMFORTABLE, UM, WITH BUYING THIS PROPERTY. UM, WE KNEW SOMEWHAT OF THE, THE ZONING COMPLICATIONS LIKE IN THIS AREA AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BECAUSE, UM, WE BOUGHT A FEW MONTHS BEFORE, OR FIVE MONTHS BEFORE OR SO, SIX, NO, MAYBE SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE OR SO, THE PROPERTY RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. THIS ONE RIGHT OVER HERE, ME AND MY BROTHER AND MY FATHER BOUGHT THIS ONE. UM, SO WE, AGAIN, THIS ONE WAS A VERY SIMILAR SITUATION. WE THOUGHT THAT, UM, THIS ONE HAD A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STATUS. UH, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE, WE, WE BOUGHT THIS AS, THIS WAS ACTUALLY MY, MY NUMBER ONE FIRST INVESTMENT THAT WENT ACROSS THE STREET. AND WHEN WE, WHEN WE, UH, WHEN WE HAD BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY, WE WENT TO GO AND TRY TO FIX IT UP, BRING IN A NEW TENANT, YOU KNOW, AND, AND CLEAN UP THE, THE AREA AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE MM-HMM . UM, AND YOU KNOW, WE, WHAT WAS IMPORTANT TO US WAS REALLY THE ZONING. WE KNEW THAT IF YOU, WE WEREN'T GOING TO BE ALLOWED ONCE WE LEFT AND THE, THE, THE USE WASN'T ALLOWED TO DO, UH, TRUCK PARKING, OUTDOOR STORAGE, EQUIPMENT RENTALS, UH, OR EQUIPMENT, UH, HEAVY EQUIPMENT, UH, IN THE AREA. THERE WAS NO WAY THAT THIS PROPERTY WOULD'VE BEEN ANY VALUABLE TO ANY VALUE TO US, AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO ANYTHING AT ALL WITH THIS PROPERTY. SO WE GOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE FIRST ONE, WHICH IS THE 7 0 9 WEST OAKDALE ROAD. UH, AND THEN ONE DAY THERE WAS A FOUR FOR SALE, FOUR FOUR LEASE SIGN, UM, RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET WHEN WE WERE DRIVING BY. AND, UM, WE, WE TOOK A SHOT AT IT AND, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAD OUR, OUR GLOBAL ZONING GUYS, UH, YOU KNOW, REACH OUT AND ASK YOU ALL THESE QUESTIONS. AND WHY I MENTIONED MY AGE IS I COULD HAVE BEEN VERY STUPID INTO READING THIS AND THINKING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, READING THIS INCORRECTLY AND BEING NEW AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE NOT DOUBLE CHECKING OR TRIPLE CHECKING OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE, BUT, YOU KNOW, I READ THIS AGAIN AS A 29-YEAR-OLD, YOU KNOW, REALLY, YOU KNOW, A LOT MORE IN THE NUANCES OF ALL THE BUSINESS AND ALL OF THE ZONING AND EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON. AND I STILL SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, I WAS LED TO BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS LEGAL NON-CONFORMING, WHICH, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW OWNER. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, UM, THIS USE WOULD'VE BEEN ALLOWED IF I DIDN'T HAVE THIS EMAIL, IF I DIDN'T HAVE THAT LEVEL OF COMFORT WHEN I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY AND, UH, UH, THAT, THAT, UH, THAT THIS, THAT, THAT THIS USE WOULD'VE CARRIED ON TO ME AND TO MY FUTURE TENANTS AND SO FORTH. I WOULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY. UM, THAT YOU'RE, THIS, THIS, THIS PROPERTY REALLY CAN'T BE USED FOR ANYTHING ELSE. IT'S A VERY, VERY SKINNY SLIVER OF PROPERTY. UM, IT REALLY CAN ONLY BE USED FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE, TRUCK PARKING, HEAVY EQUIPMENT, UM, YOU KNOW, PARKING OVER THERE. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER POSSIBLE USE THAT YOU CAN DO IT. IT'S LIKE, UM, LIKE, UH, TIFFANY MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S, IT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN. THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN. I I ONLY BOUGHT, I BOUGHT THIS FROM A GUY WHO HAD OWNED IT FOR A LITTLE OVER 20 YEARS, 25 YEARS OR SO. UM, HE WAS A VERY, IS A VERY NICE GUY. UM, AND YOU KNOW, WHEN I ASKED HIM, HEY, ARE YOU ALLOWED TO DO THIS? YOU KNOW, HE, HE HAD HIS OWN, UM, EQUIPMENT RENTAL OR TRUCK PARKING OR OUTSIDE STORAGE BUSINESS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. UM, AND HE HAD BEEN USING IT FOR, YOU KNOW, 25 YEARS. HE'S LIKE, NO, EVERYTHING'S PERFECTLY ALLOWED. EVERYTHING'S TOTALLY FINE. YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN USING LIKE THIS FOR EVER, [01:00:01] UH, FOR FOREVER AND THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY ISSUES. AND, UM, I TOOK HIS WORD FOR IT. I TOOK THIS, THE, THE JONATHAN TOOLEY'S WORD FOR IT. AND, UM, IF I KNEW WHAT I KNEW TODAY, I OBVIOUSLY WOULD'VE ASKED MORE AND MORE QUESTIONS, UH, AND, AND, AND MADE SURE THAT, UH, I ACTUALLY WOULD'VE BEEN ALLOWED TO, TO USE THIS. BECAUSE AGAIN, I WOULD NOT HAVE, HAVE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY HAD I KNOWN THAT, UH, I, I, I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO USE THIS AS OF RIGHT SINCE I HAD BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY, THE, THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN, UM, LEASED BACK TO THE OWNER. 'CAUSE HE HAD HIS, HE WAS, HE WAS SEMI-RETIRED AND HE WAS USING THE, THE LOT FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, SELLING HIS EQUIPMENT. BASICALLY THE SAME THING THAT HAD HE BEEN DOING FOR 25 YEARS OR SO. UM, AND UNTIL I HAD FI FOUND A TENANT, UM, FINALLY I FOUND A TENANT. UH, AND, UH, I GUESS THE REST IS HISTORY. WE, WE FILED FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND WE THOUGHT EVERYTHING WOULD GO TOTALLY FINE. AND, AND HERE WE ARE. UM, I DID NOT GET IN THIS POSITION, UH, BECAUSE I WAS, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, LIKE STEVEN SAID, BECAUSE I GOT, HAD GOTTEN CITATIONS BECAUSE THERE WERE ANY PROBLEMS THAT ANYONE GAVE ME. ANY PROBLEMS. YOU KNOW, I, WE, WE DID EVERYTHING PERFECTLY FINE ACROSS THE STREET. WHEN WE BROUGHT IN A NEW TENANT, WE GOT THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. EVERYTHING WAS TOTALLY FINE. AND THE GOAL WAS TO DO THE SAME THING HERE. I, UH, I, I'M A VERY NICE KID, I PROMISE. UM, AND I, YEAH, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO TO BE HONEST, IF I DON'T GET THIS, UH, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY THIS SITE IS, IS GONNA BE WORTHLESS. UH, IF, IF I, IF, IF I'M NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE A TENANT ON HERE. UM, AND YEAH, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT ELSE, UH, TO SAY. I MEAN, YEAH. UH, I'LL, I'LL START OFF A COUPLE QUESTIONS. ONE. SURE. UH, YOU BOUGHT IT FROM THE GUY HAD IT FOR 20 YEARS. YEAH. AND WHAT WAS HE DOING WITH IT FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS? UH, HEAVY EQUIPMENT RENTAL OR SALES, UH, TRUCK PARKING THERE. NARROW SPOT ON THAT NARROW SPOT. YEP. NOW THE SPOT TO THE, WELL, THE WHOLE, THE WEST, THE BIGGER, YOU DON'T OWN THAT LOT. NO, NO, NO, NO. ZACHARY EQUIPMENT, THAT ONE AND WHAT'S ON THERE RIGHT NOW? UH, EQUIPMENT, TRUCKS, THAT'S HEAVY EQUIPMENT. TRUCKS, UH, YEAH. OUTDOOR STORAGE AND ALL THAT STUFF. AND THEN FINISHED OUT SQUARE IS ZACHARY EQUIPMENT. YEAH. BUT THIS GUY THAT YOU BOUGHT THE LAND FROM HAS HAD HIS EQUIPMENT AND STUFF ON THERE FOR 20 YEARS UNTIL YOU BOUGHT IT IN 21, 22. YEAH. BUT EVEN UNTIL AFTER THAT, HE HAD IT SINCE YOU LEASED IT BACK. BECAUSE I LEASED IT BACK TO HIM AND HE HAD, I, I LET HIM USE IT UNTIL WE WERE ABLE TO FIND A TENANT. IT TOOK A LONG TIME TO FIND IT. 'CAUSE IT WAS SUCH A SKINNY LOT AND VERY SPECIALIZED TYPE PERSON THAT'S GONNA BE WILLING TO, TO USE THAT SPACE. YEAH. SO YOUR, YOUR, YOUR ASSERTION IS YOU, YOU DID YOUR DUE DILIGENCE. YOU ASKED CITY STAFF, THEY COULD FIND NO OBSTACLES AND PROBLEMS. NOW, TO MY MIND, IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS 4 75 FIRST IS 500. OAKDALE GETS A LITTLE CONFUSING AS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR RECORDS, BUT MR. TRU ALSO DID TELL YOU AS A CITY OFFICIAL, THAT, AH, USING THIS FOR THE SAME USE WAS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, SET YOUR MIND AT EASE. Y YES. TO BIG TIME. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. HOW ABOUT ANYBODY ELSE ON UP HERE WITH QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN AT, KIND OF WENT THROUGH IT? GO AHEAD, MS. ROGERS. I DO, BUT I DUNNO IF YOU'RE GONNA HAVE, WHAT I'M WANTING TO SEE, UH, WHEN THE ATTORNEY SHOWED THE FLOODPLAIN ON THAT PROPERTY, DOES ANYONE HAVE THE FLOODPLAIN AS IT'S EXTENDED OUT MORE, ESPECIALLY TO THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST, UH, THAT WE CAN SEE HOW MUCH OF THAT PROPERTY IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN? THE WEST ONE? YES. UM, NO, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT. DO YOU HAVE IT? I CAN PULL IT UP FOR YOU. OKAY. THAT'D BE GREAT. BECAUSE THAT'S, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA ASK TIFFANY TO GET UP FOR REBUTTAL PURPOSES. OKAY. THEN I'M GONNA ASK ELI TO ANY FOLLOW, JUST GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE TO YEAH, BECAUSE MY QUESTION WILL, WHILE WE'RE IN PUBLIC HEARING, WE'RE GONNA STAY OPEN IN PUBLIC HEARING SO EVERYBODY CAN EXPRESS WHAT THEY WANT. SURE. BEFORE WE MAKE IT, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO, YOU KNOW, MAN BOUGHT THE LAND THERE AND WE'RE TRYING TO DO IT. THE CITY IS, THEIR, THEIR ASSERTION IS THAT THEY DIDN'T MESS UP. UH, AND THAT, THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS, IS MAKING A TRUE AND CORRECT INTERPRETATION. SO, OKAY. SO I, WHEN WE GET TO TIFFANY'S PORTION, SHE'LL PULL THAT UP. OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ELI? UH, OVER HERE. OVER HERE, I'M SORRY, YOU SAID YOU LITERALLY HAD A LEASE BACK WITH THIS GENTLEMAN, CORRECT? CORRECT. YEP. FOR THE SAME USE THAT HE WAS, THAT HE HAD IT IN OPERATION? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND, AND, UH, TO BE CLEAR, THE THE USE THAT I'M APPLYING FOR IS THE SAME USE THAT, THAT HE HAD THIS ENTIRE TIME. OKAY. NOW, ON THAT LEASE, ON THAT LEASE, DID HE NOT HAVE A CO NO, HE WAS JUST CONTINUING TO OPERATE THE WAY THAT HE HAD OPERATED FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS. OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. UH, I MEAN, SO TO BE CLEAR, UH, YEAH. ACCORDING TO JONATHAN TULLEY, I GUESS THERE WAS NO CO UM, I, THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S, HE JUST HAD HIS ICE CREAM CARD OUT THERE AND HE WAS USING IT. [01:05:02] YEAH, THEY'RE A LITTLE BIGGER. IT'S HEAVY EQUIPMENT NOW. THERE WE GO. BUT THE REALITY IS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE NOTICED, I THINK THAT ICE CREAM, THAT ICE CREAM CART, HIS ICE CREAM CAR WAS, WAS ON THAT LAND THAT HE OWNED. YEAH. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IF NOT, THANK YOU, SIR. SURE, I WILL. I WILL DISMISS YOU AND THEN GET BACK TO COUNSELOR, BUT STANDBY. 'CAUSE YOU'RE COMING BACK. MM-HMM . OH, WONDERFUL. FAIR ENOUGH. YEAH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, NOW WE WILL, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? I HAD THE TWO CARDS ON THE PEOPLE IN SUPPORT. ANYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM HERE TO SUPPORT OR SPEAK ON THIS? ALL RIGHT. IF NOT, MS. BULL, I'LL ASK YOU TO COME UP FOR ANY REDIRECT CLARIFICATION YOU WANNA GIVE US. AND IF YOU COULD ANSWER MS. ROGERS' QUESTION, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. UH, YES, ABSOLUTELY. YOU WANT ME TO AN LET ME ANSWER HER QUESTION? YEAH, THAT'S, LET'S START AT THE TOP OF THAT. 'CAUSE THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION. IF YOU CAN PULL UP WHAT'S HAPPEN ON THAT FLOODPLAIN THAT COVERS THAT, UM, WEST LOT. EXACTLY. THAT'S ZACHARY THAT BIG SPOT OVER THERE NEXT. YEAH. CAREFUL FILTERS ON NON TYPE AND STUFF LIKE THAT AND GOOGLE. OKAY. NOW IF WE ALL PAY A QUIN ATTENTION, WE CAN FIND OUT THE EMPLOYEE LOGINS FOR MS. BULL, OR NO, I'M TRYING TO PULL UP THE INTERNET MAPS. JUNE, IS THERE A MS. JUNE'S HELPING OUT? SHE'S RIGHT BEHIND YOU FLOOR, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF IT WORKS HERE. OKAY. BUT I THINK THE INTER UM, THE PUBLIC MAP ALSO SHOWS THE, WHILE THEY'RE LOOKING FOR THAT MS. ROGERS, I'M CURIOUS WHY THAT'S A WHY THAT'S A QUESTION BEFORE YOUR MIND. WELL, THE REASON I WANNA SEE THAT IS IF THAT LOT THAT IS TO THE WEST OF THAT WHO IS, UM, USING IT FOR THE, BASICALLY THE SAME THING AND IT'S A FLOODPLAIN LOT, THEN WHY ARE WE NOT ALLOWING HIM TO USE IT FOR THE SAME USE? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. FAIR ENOUGH. AND AFTER WE WE'RE GONNA HEAR FROM MS. BULL, THEN WE'RE GONNA HEAR FROM, UH, ELI AGAIN, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M GOING TO ASK FOR DISCUSSION ON THAT ONE BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD ON A MOTION. OKAY. OKAY. BECAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S VERY CLEAR OF WHAT WE'RE THINKING AND EXPRESS IT. SOMETIMES WE DON'T EXPRESS IT BEFORE WE VOTE. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE UNDERSTAND EVERYBODY'S THOUGHT PROCESS AND WHAT'S GOING ON. ANY LUCK? YEAH. OH, FANTASTIC. YEAH, WE'RE, OH, JUNE'S COMING BACK. SHE HAS NO CONFIDENCE IN YOU. OH, THERE WE GO. OKAY. YEAH, THIS MOUSE IS NOT THE BEST. OKAY. THE, WHERE THE HASHES ARE, THAT'S ACTUALLY FLOOD AWAY. OKAY. OKAY. UM, WHICH ISN'T DEVELOPABLE AT ALL. SO THIS IS THE SUBJECT LOT WHERE THE, THE.IS, LET ME CHANGE IT TO HYBRID SO YOU CAN, THE, SOMEBODY LAID THE, SO IT'S RIGHT THERE, THE OVERLAY PART, RIGHT ON THAT PROPERTY LINE. SO HERE'S FLOODPLAIN, THIS IS ALL, SORRY, FLOODWAY FLOOD PLAIN AND THEN 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. THESE ARE 500 YEAR, UH, THIS PART IS ALL WITHIN THE 100 YEAR. AND THEN THIS LITTLE BIT IS IN THE 500. AND IF I'M, THE AQUA IS 500, THE DARK BLUE IS 100. AND IF I'M READING THAT PART OF ZACHARY'S IS IN THE 500 TOO, RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING ME? UPPER LEFT OF THE, A LITTLE BIT OF THIS IS WITHIN THE 500. OKAY. THERE AND PART OVER THERE LEFT AND RIGHT. OKAY. YEAH. GOT IT ACROSS THE STREET. OH, LOOK AT ALL THAT. WELL, THE PROPERTY HE ALREADY OWNS, WELL THAT ONE, THAT ONE'S IN NEITHER, THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S MARKED 7 0 9 7 17, 7 13 HERE. IS THAT CORRECT? WHICH ONE? UH, AND I WE'RE GONNA ASK ELI WHEN HE COMES BACK UP, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THE OTHER SPOT THAT HE OWNS IS TO THE LEFT OF THE SHADING THAT'S LARGER SQUARE WITH A LOT OF BUILDINGS AND STUFF ON IT, OR WHATEVER'S ON THERE. CARS PROBABLY. WHICH, WHICH OTHER PART DOES HE OWN? HE SAYS HE OWNS S PARK 7 0 9. YEAH, IT IS. THEY THE ONE RIGHT OVER THAT ONE? NO, NO. GO ONE MORE THE OTHER WAY. THE OTHER ONE. YEAH, THAT ONE WE GO, THERE YOU GO. SO IT IS, IT'S IN THE GREEN BIT. IT'S A LITTLE TOUCH OF GREEN. YEAH. IS THAT IT? IT, IT'S JUST LIKE A LITTLE SLIVER, BUT TOWARDS THE BACK IS REALLY, IF YOU LOOK DOWN JUST THE PROPERTY TOWARDS THE BACK. YEAH. AH, THAT'S WHERE THAT BLUE COMES UNDER IT. OKAY. OKAY. AND THAT'S YOUR SUBJECT PROPERTY, RIGHT? MS. ROGERS, DID THAT SHINE SOME LIGHT THAT YOU ON THE [01:10:01] QUESTION YOU WERE ASKING? IT DID. YEAH. HAVE SOME ON THE FRONT AND BLUE. OKAY. SO ON THAT, ON THAT PROPERTY, UM, EVEN FURTHER WEST, UH, YOU HAVE, UH, PRACTICALLY ALL OF THAT PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND I CAN'T REALLY TELL WHAT'S BEING STORED ON THAT, BUT, UM, IS THAT PROP, DOES THAT PROPERTY HAVE, UM, THE OCCUPANCY WRITING, THE, THE CERTIFICATE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LOT TO THE LEFT OF THE ZACHARY LOT IS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YES. THE ONE THAT'S, THAT'S, YEAH. 'CAUSE THERE'S OBVIOUSLY STUFF GOING ON ON THAT PROPERTY. I, SO WE DID NOT RESEARCH THE CERTIFICATE, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HISTORY FOR EACH OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES BECAUSE WE DID NOT DEEM THAT TO BE RELEVANT TO THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION. BECAUSE THE WAY THAT WE VIEW IT IS THE BOARD IS HERE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY WAS PROPERLY DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. OKAY? MM-HMM . I GUESS, UM, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN DOING THIS, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS COME UP. OKAY. AND, UH, SO MY KNOWLEDGE IS QUITE LIMITED, BUT IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT I, I REALIZE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT SOLELY ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY, BUT IF, IF THINGS ARE GOING ON ON OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE WITHIN THE FLOOD FLOODPLAIN IN THIS SAME AREA, AND THEY HAVE THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO DO WHATEVER THEY'RE DOING, UM, AND MORE, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S A, LIKE SERVICE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT, TRUCKS, WHATEVER, THEN TO ME THAT SEEMS RELEVANT TO, TO THIS PROPERTY. IF I MAY, YOU COULD LIKEN THAT TO EXISTING. OKAY. HANG ON GUYS. WE'RE GONNA DO THIS IN, WE'RE GONNA DO ALL THIS IN OUR DISCUSSION PORTION. LET HER DO HER TESTIMONY. OKAY. AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY, THE, THE ISSUE BEFORE US, THIS IS AN APPEAL, OKAY? DID A CITY OFFICIAL MAKE AN ERRONEOUS DECISION AND DETERMINATION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS WHAT'S BEFORE US. WE CAN GET INTO A LOT OF OTHER STUFF AND I CERTAINLY UNDER DISCUSSION, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION ONCE WE END PUBLIC HEARING. BUT IN THIS GUISE, WHILE WE HAVE MS. BULL, WHILE WE HAVE ELI AND STEVEN, I WANNA TRY TO KEEP THAT FOCUS. 'CAUSE ALL OF US PROBABLY HAVE SOME STRONG OPINIONS, THOUGHTS, BUT LET'S KEEP IT TO THE QUESTIONS. WE, WE GO DOWN RABBIT HOLES, RIGHT? SO LET'S NOT CHASE RABBITS. AND LET'S GET BACK, BACK TO MS. BULL'S POINT, WHAT SHE WANTS TO BRING UP HERE. I THINK WE, WE'VE COVERED WHAT WE NEEDED TO SEE ON THESE SLIDES. SO BACK TO YOU MS. BULL. OKAY, SO FIRST I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL UNDERSTANDING THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THAT THEY APPLIED FOR TO HAVE A HEAVY TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT COMPONENT, VERY LIKELY. BUT ULTIMATELY THE CO AS WE UNDERSTAND THE USE WAS FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE. AND SO FIRST, ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT THEY SHOWED ABOUT ANY PRIOR USE, ASSUMING IT QUALIFIED, WHICH THE CITY CONTENDS IT DID NOT QUALIFY AS A LAWFUL USE, WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR HEAVY TRUCK PARKING AND NOT FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE. BUT I ALSO WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR, WE ARE NOT TELLING THEM THAT YOU CANNOT OPERATE THIS IN THIS MANNER. WE'RE TELLING THEM THAT YOU NEED ADDITIONAL PERMISSIONS FROM CITY COUNCIL TO OPERATE IT IN THIS MANNER. THEY CAN GO AND APPLY FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT HAVE TO GRANT IT, BUT THAT IS PART OF CITY COUNCIL'S LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. THAT IS WHY THE MEMBERS HAVE, THE CITIZENS HAVE VOTED AND ELECTED CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE THOSE KIND OF DECISIONS. SO WHETHER OR NOT A PARTICULAR USE SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON A PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS SOMETHING THAT LIES WITH CITY COUNCIL. SO IN THIS AREA AND IN ANYWHERE IN THE CITY, YOU COULD HAVE IT WHERE A USE IS ALLOWED ON ONE PROPERTY AND NOT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY BECAUSE SOMEBODY STARTED USING IT IN THE 1950S IN A CERTAIN WAY AND SOMEBODY CAME IN IN THE TWO THOUSANDS AND WANTED TO USE IT IN THAT WAY. AND THEY CAN'T. AS, AS CITIES GROW AND EVOLVE, REGULATIONS CHANGE AS WE HAVE THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY COMPONENTS, REGULATIONS CHANGE, REGULATIONS CHANGE ALL THE TIME. AND THOSE WHO ARE OPERATING LAWFULLY UNDER THE CURRENT REGULATIONS, WE TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND WE DON'T PUNISH THEM. WE ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE IN THAT MANNER. BUT EVERYONE NEEDS [01:15:01] TO OPERATE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LAW. A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN REQUIRED TO OPERATE IN THE CITY WELL BEFORE 1999 WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE PRIOR OWNER, A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS ALWAYS REQUIRED AND THEY WENT IN AND WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, I UNDERSTAND THEY WANNA SAY THEY DID THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND THEY DID ATTEMPT TO FIND OUT THIS INFORMATION, BUT THEY WERE ALSO TOLD ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS THAT NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAD BEEN ISSUED FOR THE PROPERTY. AND THEY WERE TOLD TO LOOK AND READ. ARTICLE 19 HAD, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT LEVELS, BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO PURCHASE PROPERTY, IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE AN INVESTMENT CONSULT WITH A LAND USE ATTORNEY, IF YOU BELIEVE LAND USE IS A CONCERN AND A LAND USE ATTORNEY WOULD HAVE TOLD THEM THAT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH A NON-CONFORMING STATUS. AND THEY HAD CLEARLY BEEN TOLD, EVEN IN HERE, ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I WANNA POINT OUT THAT SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THEIR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THEY NEEDED TO VERIFY INFORMATION, THEY SAID THE CURRENT OWNER SAID HE'S BEEN THERE SINCE THE LATE NINETIES OPERATING HIS BUSINESS, RENTING OUT THE PROPERTY WITH THAT USE. HE SAYS THE ZONING WAS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL WHEN HE BOUGHT IT AND STARTED USING IT. OKAY? HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 1999. HOWEVER, IF YOU GO TO THIS EMAIL CHAIN AND YOU GO TO THE CONVERSATION, UM, MR. THULE DID POINT OUT THAT EVEN IN THE 1996 ZONING MAP, THAT IT WAS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, NOT HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. AND IN FACT, YOU CAN ACTUALLY PULL UP, EVEN IN THE 1980S, THAT ZONING MAP WILL SHOW YOU THAT IT WAS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. SO THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A CLUE THAT THEY CAN'T RELY ON ALL THE INFORMATION THAT PEOPLE ARE TELLING THEM THAT SOME OF THE INFORMATION IS NOT VALID. AND THIS WAS NEVER FORMALLY SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR DETERMINATION AND AN A FORMAL DECISION. THESE WERE INFORMAL CONVERSATIONS WITH AN ENTRY-LEVEL PLANNER. THAT'S WHAT OCCURRED. IF YOU WANNA LOOK AT THE FORMAL CONVERSATIONS, WHICH OCCURRED WITH THE CITY, AND, AND MR. TOOLEY EVEN TOLD THEM, HEY, SUBMIT AN OPEN RECORD REQUEST AND CHECK WITH THE OPEN RECORD REQUEST. WHEN THEY SUBMITTED THE OPEN RECORD REQUEST, THEY ASKED FOR RECORDS RELATED TO 500 WEST OAKDALE, WHICH DID CAUSE SOME CONFUSION AND ISSUES BECAUSE YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT PROPERTIES THAT BOTH SHOW AS THAT PARTICULAR ADDRESS AND COULD HAVE CAUSED SOME CONFUSION. BUT THERE IS NO, THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCIES ISSUED FOR THIS PROPERTY. UM, AND WE DENIED THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WHEN THEY CAME IN 2000 AND, UM, IN OCTOBER OF 13 20 22, THEIR TENANT CAME AND APPLIED FOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. AND AT THAT TIME IT WAS DENIED. AND THEY WERE TOLD AT THAT TIME THAT IT REQUIRED A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT AND YET THEY CONTINUED TO OPERATE THE PROPERTY. UM, OR THAT THAT TENANT, MAYBE THAT TENANT DID, MAYBE THAT TENANT DIDN'T, WHEN THIS TENANT CAME ON THE PROPERTY, THEY ALSO CAME IN KNOWING THERE WASN'T A VALID CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, OR AT LEAST THAT'S THE IMPRESSION BECAUSE WHEN THEY EMAILED STAFF, THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE WASN'T ONE. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE, THEY BELIEVE THEY MAY HAVE BEEN MISLED BY STAFF. I DON'T THINK THAT STAFF MISLED STAFF DIRECTED THEM BACK TO THE CODE. AND THE CODE SAID THAT IT HAD TO BE LAWFULLY IN OPERATION. ANY SUM SUMMARIZATION OF THAT CODE, HE STILL DIRECTED THEM BACK TO THE ACTUAL CODE. AND IF THEY HAD LOOKED AT THE ACTUAL CODE AND REALIZED THERE WAS NOT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THERE'S NO WAY TO LAWFULLY OPERATE IN THE CITY WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THERE WASN'T ONE THEN. THERE ISN'T ONE NOW THEY KNEW THERE WASN'T A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT ON FILE. THEY KNEW ONE WAS REQUIRED AND OTHER PROPERTIES AROUND THE AREA DO HAVE SPECIFIC USE PERMITS. OTHER PROPERTIES AROUND THE AREA DO HAVE COS OTHER PROPERTIES AROUND THE AREA WERE OPERATING WELL BEFORE, UM, THE PRIOR OWNER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 1999. AND SO FOR US, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT ALL OF THAT INFORMATION AND WE'RE NOT EVEN TRYING TO PUNISH THEM FOR THE ILLEGAL OPERATION [01:20:01] THAT HAS BEEN TAKING PLACE ON THE PROPERTY. WE'RE LOOKING AT IT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WHAT IS THE LAW? AND THE LAW REQUIRES THEM TO GET A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT GRANTED BY COUNSEL. COUNSEL IS THE ONLY BODY WITH THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT ONE. AND WE'RE SAYING YOU NEED TO GO GET THAT BECAUSE BASED ON THE INFORMATION, WE HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE LAWFULLY OPERATING WITHIN THE CITY. AND SO YOU NEED TO MAKE THAT REQUEST AND MAKE THAT PLEA TO COUNSEL AND TELL COUNSEL, WE BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT BECAUSE OF THESE REASONS. THIS IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE USE. WE'RE NOT DENYING WHETHER OR NOT THE USE IS APPROPRIATE OR NOT APPROPRIATE. WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT IT REQUIRES ACTION BY COUNSEL THROUGH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT AND THAT'S THE ROUTE THAT THEY NEED TO GO. SO IF I MAY, I HAVE QUESTIONS YOU, YOU'RE SAYING WITH THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, THE SCREEN UP IN FRONT OF US NOW JUST SHOWS THE PRI PRIOR DEVELOPMENT THAT IT WAS DENIED FOR A CO THE REASON WAS BECAUSE THE INTERPRETATION IS, 'CAUSE WE DON'T SEE THE REASONING ON THIS SHEET. THE REASON IS BECAUSE THE INTERPRETATION WAS THE USE WAS A CATEGORY FOR HEAVY, HEAVY DRUGS THAT YOU NEED AN SUP. AND THAT'S WHY YOU KEEP SAYING THE CITY COUNCIL CAN APPROVE SUVS. OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T APPROVE SUVS. BUT THE QUESTION IS, WAS THAT THE REASON THAT IT WAS DENIED AND ARE OTHERS, OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T MAKE EVERYBODY GET AN SUP. THIS IS A SPECIFIC USE FOR REQUIRING AN SUP. ANYONE WHO IS GOING TO USE A USE THAT REQUIRES AN SUP UNDER A USE CHART OR USE CHART WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GET ONE. RIGHT. UM, AND THIS ONE, THIS IS, I I JUST DID THAT LITTLE SNIPPET, BUT HERE THE FULL PART IS IN THE PACKET. OKAY. AND THEY DID PUT, UM, A LOT OF COMMENTS THERE ABOUT FLOODPLAIN AND THAT TYPE OF STUFF. AND THEY ALSO NOTED, SORRY, UM, LOT OF COMMENTS. THEY NOTED THAT THE ADDRESS WAS TENTATIVE ONLY UNTIL PLATTING COULD COMPLETE HEAVY EQUIPMENT PARKING REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AS WELL AS CITY COUNCIL WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. AND SO THAT'S WHAT THAT APPLICANT WAS TOLD. UM, BACK AT THAT TIME, AT THE TIME THAT, UM, MS. THE AM MAZA STILL OWNED IT AT THAT TIME, THAT SUP, SORRY, THAT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS DENIED FOR THE SAME REASON THAT THIS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WOULD IS DENIED. AND AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE USE OF THE PROPERTY ONE, I, WE DON'T HAVE AN EXACT DATE AS TO WHEN THAT PARTICULAR USE BEGAN, BUT I WOULD CONTEND THAT NONE OF IT WAS LAWFUL MR. BAGGER. SO THE PREVIOUS OWNER IN APPLIED FOR, UH, AN SUP OR A CO, IT WAS DENIED. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? NO, THE PREVIOUS OWNER WHO PURCHASED IT IN 1999 NEVER APPLIED FOR A PERMIT, NEVER APPLIED FOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. UM, AND WHEN HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, HE ACTUALLY, WHOEVER HE BOUGHT IT FROM ALSO BASICALLY SAID, UM, WITHOUT WARRANTY TO ANY USE, WITHOUT WARRANTY TO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING. AND HE PURCHASED IT. AND THEN AT SOME POINT IN TIME, HE BEGAN USING IT IN SOME MANNER AND HE MADE CLEARLY SOME MISREPRESENTATIONS WHEN HE SOLD IT BECAUSE HE, I GUESS, INDICATED TO THEM THAT IT WAS OWNED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, WHICH IT, AT ONE POINT WHEN HE BOUGHT IT, WHICH IT, IT NEVER WAS. AND SO I THINK THERE WAS PROBABLY SOME MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND SOME MISCOMMUNICATION, BUT THE CITY CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMEBODY'S MISUNDERSTANDING, UM, OF, OF THE LAW AND, AND THE LAW. IT'S OUR POSITION, THE LAW STATES THAT ANY USE HAS TO BE LAWFUL TO GET NON-CONFORMING STATUS. AND WITHOUT A VALID CO THERE COULD BE NO NON-CONFORMING STATUS. MR. WHITE, GO AHEAD. SO THIS HAS NOT BEEN THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL, CORRECT? NO, IT HAS NOT BECAUSE THERE'S, THEY, IT WENT THROUGH THEM TO ESTABLISH THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DATE OF THAT. I KNOW IT PRECEDED, UM, 1983 BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THE 1983 ZONING MAP, WHICH SHOWS THIS AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG AGO IT WAS ZONED TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. AFTER THAT TIME, THERE WAS NEVER ANYONE THAT WENT BACK TO CITY COUNCIL TO APPLY FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. [01:25:01] UM, AT, AT SOMETIMES THERE, DEPENDING UPON THE USE A CITY COUNCIL SPECIFIC USE PERMIT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN, UM, NEEDED DEPENDING UPON WHAT THAT WAS. BUT AGAIN, HERE ALSO A LOT OF THE HISTORICAL SHOWS HISTORICAL FOR HEAVY TRUCK PARKING. BUT I THINK IF YOU RECALL THEIR, UM, THEIR APPLICATION, THE GROUNDS IT WAS DENIED ON AND THE SITE PLAN, THIS IS IT, IT WOULD HAVE THAT COMPONENT TO IT. THE OUTSIDE STORAGE, I MEAN, SORRY, THE HEAVY TRUCK PARKING. BUT THIS IS, IS ALSO, UM, AN OUTSIDE STORAGE COMPONENT, WHICH IS AGAIN, A USE THAT HAS NEVER BEEN LAWFULLY USED AS WELL. SO IF THE BOARD HERE OVERTURNS THAT DECISION, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THIS IS GONNA GO BACK TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE SUP, CORRECT? NO. OKAY. THE EITHER PARTY HAS THE ABILITY TO SUE IN DISTRICT COURT TO CHALLENGE ZBA A'S DECISION. WHETHER YOU FIND FOR, OR WHETHER YOU UPHOLD OR DENY, EITHER PARTY CAN FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE ZBA TO, UM, BUT WE CAN'T GRANT THEM AN SUPY YOU. SO HOW, HOW IS CITY COUNCIL INVOLVED IN THIS DECISION? CITY COUNCIL IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION. BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE DECISION BEFORE YOU TODAY IS DID THE BUILDING, WAS THE, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? CORRECT. IN DENYING THE APPEAL. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS NOT A LAWFUL USE, THEN YOU WOULD DENY THE APPEAL AT THAT POINT. THEY HAVE TWO OPTION, WELL, THREE OPTIONS. ONE, THEY CAN CHOOSE TO JUST MOVE ON AND DO SOMETHING ELSE. TWO, THEY COULD APPEAL THE DECISION TO DISTRICT COURT OR THREE, THEY COULD GO AND APPLY FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO GET AUTHORIZATION FROM CITY COUNCIL TO USE THE PROPERTY IN THIS MANNER. OKAY. THAT'S WHERE I WAS, THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TO MY LEFT MS. BULL? HOW ABOUT TO MY RIGHT? DOES THAT WRAP UP YOUR REDIRECT, MS. BULL? ANYTHING ELSE? NO, NO FIRING. OKAY. WELL THEN, AS I MENTIONED, I'M GONNA REDIRECT WITH STEVEN AND ELI TO COME DOWN AND JUST KIND OF CLARIFY BEFORE WE CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEY'RE BOTH COMING DOWN. ALL RIGHT. WHOEVER TALKS FIRST, MENTION YOUR NAME AGAIN SO WE HAVE IT. EVERYTHING'S RECORDED AND OBVIOUSLY WE'LL NEED TO BE IN TRANSCRIPTS FIRST. ABSOLUTELY. UH, STEVEN DARLING, AGAIN, 2,500 DALLAS PARKWAY, PLANO, TEXAS. UM, I JUST WANNA REFRAME A LITTLE BIT OF THE DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SUVS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH WITH CITY COUNCIL. THIS IS AN APPEAL OVER A BUILDING OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE'S DECISION. AND EFFECTIVELY WHAT IS BEING CHALLENGED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHEN THEY ARE TAKING A LOOK AT THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY APPLICATION, THEY ARE DENYING IT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT LOOKING INTO THE NON-CONFORMING USE RECORDS OF THE PROPERTY. THERE IS ANOTHER PROPERTY THAT IS DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THIS, WHICH, UH, CERTAINLY HAVE THE MATERIALS THAT THE BOARD IS INTERESTED IN SEEING IT, BUT 28, 21 SANDY LANE DID NOT HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS RECENTLY AS 2010 WHEN IT ADMITTED IN THE LETTER THAT IT APPLIED TO THE BUILDING OFFICIALS SPECIFICALLY, THAT IT WAS AFTER A MEETING WITH ROB BALDWIN, SOMETHING THAT MOST ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WOULD KNOW THAT NAME FAMILIARLY REACHED OUT TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, WORKED SOMETHING OUT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, AND THEN WHOEVER IT WAS THAT HAD THAT MADE AN APPLICATION WAS ABLE TO WORK THINGS OUT. WE THINK IT'S BECAUSE, AGAIN, THE RECORDS OF THIS PARTICULAR AREA ARE PARTICULARLY SPOTTY. AND IF THERE WAS A NOTE AS I'M DIRECTING THE SCREEN HERE OF THE IMAGES THAT WERE ALREADY SHOWN REGARDING THE FLOOD PLAIN AND HOW THAT JUST SEEMED TO OVERLAP PERFECTLY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY, IT NATURALLY CURTAILS TO THE FLOODPLAIN. AND NOBODY FOUND THAT FROM LOOKING AHEAD IN A HELICOPTER. WE CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT THERE'S PROBABLY THE REASON WHY, AND IF YOU DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN THAT IT'S DEVELOPED HISTORICALLY, RIGHT ALONG THE LINES OF THE FLOODPLAIN IS AT SOME POINT SOMEONE DID NOT SEE THE ENTIRETY OF SANDY LANE OVER TO A PROPERTY OWNER. FOR HIM TO TAKE OVER AT SOME POINT, SOMEONE MUST HAVE INFORMED THESE PEOPLE EXACTLY OF WHERE THE FLOODPLAIN IS. BECAUSE AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS THROUGH THE DECADES, IT IS DEVELOPED ALMOST EXACTLY ALONG THAT CURTAIL LINE OF THE GREEN AND THE BLUE. AND SO FOR THAT REASON, WE DON'T THINK THAT THIS JUST HAPPENED WITHOUT THE CITY KNOWING OF IT. BUT THE CITY, SOMETIMES RECORDS DO GET LOST. WE'RE NOT ASSERTING ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN DONE FOR FOUL PLAY REASONS. WE JUST DO THINK THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY DEVELOPED FOR THIS REASON. AND AS ELI HAS LIKE TO TELL YOU, THIS PROPERTY DEVELOPED FOR ANY OTHER MEANS OR IN ANY OTHER WAY, JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. AND SO AGAIN, HE'S ASKING FOR, JUST IN THE FRAMEWORK OF WHAT THE BOARD HAS THE POWER TO DO [01:30:01] THIS PLAN REVIEWED. THIS DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY OF THE NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS. AND BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T TAKE ACCOUNT INTO OF THE NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS, OF COURSE THEY'RE GOING TO SAY NO. IF THEY'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE HISTORIC USE OF IT, THEN IT'S AN OBVIOUS ANSWER TO SAY IT'S ZONED FOR THIS. THERE ISN'T ANY OTHER, RIGHT? NO, BUT AS THIS YOUNG MAN'S ABOUT TO TELL YOU, IT, IT JUST IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY HAS ALWAYS BEEN DEVELOPED ALONG THESE LINES. AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I'M GONNA SEE THE REST OF MY TIME. BUT AGAIN, ASK THE BOARD TO VOTE AT LEAST SEVEN NINE OF RETURNING THE APPEAL AND GRANTING THIS YOUNG MAN WHAT HE'S LOOKING FOR. THANK YOU. NOW ONTO YOU, ELI. UH, YEAH. UM, SO, UH, ELLIE , UM, DO YOU NEED THE ADDRESS AGAIN? NO, YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY. UM, YEAH. SO AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE IMPORTANT PART FOR, FOR US IS, YOU KNOW, JONATHAN THULE, WHETHER SENIOR OR OR JUNIOR, YOU KNOW, HE WAS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY. HE, HE LED US TO BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE ALLOWED FOR TRUCK PARKING, OUTDOOR STORAGE, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, HEAVY EQUIPMENT, UM, STORAGE. UM, MY TENANT, UH, HAD, HAD APPLIED FOR THIS. HE PUT OUTDOOR STORAGE BECAUSE HE ASSUMED AND THOUGHT THAT THAT INCLUDED TRUCK PARKING AND EQUIPMENT. WE CAN ADD THAT IN THERE IF WE'D LIKE. SO YOU CAN, SO THAT, SO THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, EQUATES TO WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON PREVIOUSLY. UH, YOU KNOW, OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS OR SO. I'M NOT LOOKING TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAS BEEN DONE PAST, UH, YOU KNOW, OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS. WE WANNA KEEP IT THE SAME. WE WANT TO KEEP IT EVERYTHING THAT'S BASICALLY GOING ON IN THIS, IN THIS AREA. AND IF WE SCROLL, LIKE IF WE LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, THE MOST RECENT UPDATES, WE'LL SEE OUR PROPERTY. THIS IS, I GUESS, UH, I DON'T KNOW, UM, SOMEWHERE AROUND, I DON'T KNOW WHICH DATE, BUT YOU SEE OUR PROPERTY, WHICH WAS FULLY DEVELOPED, AND THEN YOU SEE LOTS OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAD NOT BEEN DEVELOPED YET. THAT'S 1995. YEAH, 1995 HERE. SO IF WE LOOK 2000, I CAN'T TELL WHICH WHICH YEAR THIS IS. IT'S 2006. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO IT LOOKS LIKE AT THE BOTTOM UNDER THERE. OH, HERE, OKAY. YEAH, 2008. SO YEAH, SO YOU SEE OUR PROPERTIES FULLY DEVELOPED AND SO ARE SOME OF THESE, BUT OUR PROPERTY HAS BEEN USED FOR THIS USE FOREVER. UH, AS, AS LONG AS THIS AREA HAS BEEN, UH, YOU KNOW, OPERABLE. I, I, OTHER, OTHER PLACES HAVE GOTTEN THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCIES, LIKE, LIKE STEVEN MENTIONED IN 2010, WHICH IS AFTER, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, ANY RECORDS WOULD'VE BEEN, UH, UM, I GUESS AVAILABLE MM-HMM . AND HERE I'M TRYING TO GET MORE RECENT. YEAH. OVER HERE. OKAY. SO THIS WHOLE AREA IS, IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, YOU KNOW, WHICH ALLOWS FOUR TRUCK PARKING, HEAVY, HEAVY EQUIPMENT, OUTDOOR STORAGE. I LOOK AT THAT ON JUST UNDER ONE UMBRELLA. THAT'S WHY I JUST SAY OUTDOOR STORAGE. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHERE, THIS IS WHAT THE AREA IS MEANT FOR. THIS IS WHAT I THOUGHT THE ZONING WOULD ALLOW FOR. THIS IS WHAT I THOUGHT MY PROPERTY WOULD BE LEGAL, NON-CONFORMING FOR. AND THAT'S WHY I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY. UM, I WOULDN'T, UH, AGAIN, I WOULDN'T HAVE NOT, I WOULD'VE NOT HAVE BOUGHT ON THIS HAD I KNOWN THAT THAT WAS THE CASE. UM, I, UH, I MEAN, YEAH, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY EXCEPT FOR GOTCHA ABOUT THE, THE, THE, UM, THE SUP, UM, THAT, THAT TIFFANY HAS BEEN LEADING EVERYONE TO ASSUME THAT, OKAY, WELL IF, IF I GET DENIED HERE, THAT I COULD JUST GO AND APPLY FOR AN SUP AND THEY'LL APPROVE IT. THE, THE CAVEAT WITH GOING FOR AN SUP MM-HMM IS THEY MAY REQUIRE ME TO FULLY PAVE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY WITH ASPHALT OR CONCRETE. THIS PROPERTY IS GRAVELED AT, WITH, YOU KNOW, CRUSHED ROCK, WHICH IS PERFECTLY, I LOOK AT THAT AS DEVELOPED ALREADY, RIGHT? CONCRETE OR PAVEMENT THAT'S GONNA COST ABOUT $2 MILLION OVER THREE TIMES THE PRICE OF WHAT I PAID FOR THIS. LIKE, I, THERE, THERE, IF THAT IS GOING TO BE WHAT'S GONNA BE REQUIRED OF ME, I'M GOING TO, IT'S GONNA KILL LAND, ESSENTIALLY. MY VALUE GOES TO ZERO. I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO USE IT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE, TRUCK BARKING AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT. AND I'M JUST GONNA LEAVE IT AND JUST LET IT, LET IT BE. THERE'S NOTHING I CAN DO WITH IT. UM, IT JUST BECOMES WORTHLESS. I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO DEVELOP IT. THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN. UM, IT'S SUCH A SKINNY LOT THAT NO ONE WILL AND, AND SUCH A SMALL PROPERTY. NO ONE'S GONNA BE WILLING TO REALLY DO ANYTHING WITH THE SITE. IF I WERE TO TRY AND GO AND SELL IT. THIS IS THE BEST AND USED FOR IT. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ENTIRE AREA HAS FOR YOU SEE NORTHWEST, SOUTHEAST, EVERYTHING IN THE AREA IS TRUCK PARKING, HEAVY EQUIPMENT, TRUCK, OUTDOOR STORAGE. AND I'M JUST LOOKING TO KEEP IT THE WAY THAT IT'S BEEN, AS LONG AS ANYONE CAN REMEMBER. AND, AND THE WAY THAT THIS AREA HAS, UH, HAS BEEN ANY REDIRECT QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. IF NOT, YOU'VE MADE IT JUST UNDER TIME. YOU JUST TURNED COLOR ON ME. THANK YOU. UH, SO THANK YOU ELI. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM WISH YOU TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS CASE? YOU'RE, YOU'RE DONE. YOU'RE GOOD. UM, SEEING NONE, I'M GONNA ASK FOR TWO MOTIONS. ONE, JUST TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING, THEN WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION. MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING ON [01:35:01] ZBA 2 5 0 5 0 0 3 2. SECOND SECOND. I GOT MS. ROGERS JUST A LITTLE BIT BEFORE YOU HAVE A MOTION, MR. BAKER, A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR OF CLOSING IT, SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL RIGHT. BY NINE TO ZERO, WE'RE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. NOW, DISCUSSION ITEMS OF THE BOARD, THE ONLY THING BEFORE US IS WHETHER THERE WAS A MISTAKE MADE BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. AND TO MY MIND, REPRESENTATIVES OF, OR STAFF OF CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE AND STUFF LIKE THAT. DIDN'T HIT THAT PART, DID I? ALL RIGHT. WELL, I TRIED. WELL, I, I, I READ THE EMAILS AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WAS LED ANYWHERE. IT ALWAYS READ BACK TO GO LOOK, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE. UH, BUT TO YOUR MIND, IS THAT A COP OUT? IF, WELL, I'M NOT REALLY GIVING YOU ADVICE, TELLING YOU YES OR NO. GO LOOK IT UP. YES. AND IN SOME WAYS IT'S NOT HELPING. IT'S NOT HELPING. RIGHT. BUT IT'S, IT'S NOT, IT, IT'S NOT REALLY HELPING AS MUCH AS IT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE. AND, AND THE CITY'S BAD ABOUT THAT. BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT WRONG. DOESN'T MAKE A MISTAKE. RIGHT. OKAY, WELL ON THAT, OTHER THOUGHTS ON THAT NOTE? UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S THIS, THE CITY PLANNERS, I EXPECT TO HAVE, UH, INTRICATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE UDC AND I, I, I KNOW THAT THAT IS A MASSIVE DOCUMENT, BUT I DO HAVE ISSUE WITH THE CITY SAYING, GO READ UP ON IT. OUR CITY PEOPLE ARE THE EXPERTS IN THIS. THAT'S FAIR. I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. I AGREE. AND, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTS AREN'T EXPERTS IN THIS. SO THAT'S WHERE I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. YES. YEAH, I'M, I'M CHALLENGED IF THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE US IS, DID A CITY, DID A CITY OFFICIAL MAKE AN ERROR? I WOULD SAY THE ERROR WAS NOT THE DUE DILIGENCE AND LED THEM TO BELIEVE THAT. WELL, IF THAT'S WHAT IT IS NOW, I DON'T SEE WHY IT WOULD BE A ONGOING THING. I THINK MR. A FRIEND, MR. DOOLEY PROBABLY DID 'CAUSE HE DIDN'T KNOW IN MY MIND, HE NEEDED A CHECK BEFORE HE STARTS GIVING SOMEBODY, IT'S A PROPERTY OWNER. MM-HMM . HALF, HALF PARTIAL ANSWERS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT. IT BOTHERS ME FOR A LOT OF REASONS THAT THAT'S WHAT THE LAND'S BEING USED FOR ANYWAY AND HAS BEEN FOR 20 YEARS. AND THAT IT'S WHAT THE LAND NEXT TO IT'S BEING USED FOR. AND THE FLOOD PLAIN RUNS ALL THROUGH THERE. THESE ARE ALL NOT BEFORE US. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER A CITY STAFF MEMBER INTERPRETED WRONG OR DID NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION. AND I KNOW ONE THING THAT WEIGHS HEAVY ON MY MIND IS HOW MUCH OF OUR RECORDS ARE SO LOOSE ON WE DON'T HAVE PREVIOUS RECORDS ON THAT, OR WE DON'T HAVE SOME OF THE STUFF. SO WE'VE HEARD THAT MANY, MANY TIME AND TIME AGAIN. WELL, WE DON'T HAVE NO, GO AHEAD. WE DO HAVE THE RECORDS, BUT THEY'RE JUST NOT DIGITAL. SO, SO THERE'S NOT, PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING BACK ON THE HARD COPIES TO LOOK FAIR. OKAY. OTHER THOUGHTS? GO AHEAD. I MR. THINK THAT WE, I KNOW WHAT'S, WHAT'S BEFORE US AND IT SOUNDS EASY TO GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND GET THE SUP. OKAY. BUT AS HE SPOKE, YOU KNOW, WHEN HE DOES THAT, IF HE, IF WE DENY THIS AND HE HAS TO DO THAT OR HE CHOOSES TO DO THAT, WHATEVER, HE'S RIGHT. I MEAN, THEY COULD REQUIRE HIM TO CEMENT THIS WHOLE THING OR WHATEVER. I MEAN, YOU DON'T KNOW. I KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEFORE US, BUT THAT'S NOT GERMANE TO US. IT IS MORE COST AND, AND PROCESS. BUT I'M JUST SAYING IT'S, MY POINT IS IT'S NOT THAT EASY. THAT'S ALL I WANNA SAY. I MEAN, IF, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE A WHOLE LOT OF REQUIREMENTS WHICH THEN HE CAN'T AFFORD AND IT'S ALWAYS BEEN USED FOR THIS AND UH, WHATEVER. THAT'S, THAT WAS MY ONLY POINT. AND TO BE FAIR, NONE OF THAT IS BEFORE US. I YEAH, I GET THAT. I UNDERSTAND. IT COULD GO, YOU CAN, IT COULD, COULD GO LEFT REALLY QUICK, COST A LOT OF MONEY AND BE REALLY A PROBLEM. CORRECT. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS THAT, AND WHETHER THAT WAS LEGALLY USED OR NOT, IT JUST IS WHAT IT'S, I GET THAT. I MEAN THE, THE, THE CITY'S POSITION IS BECAUSE THEY NEVER HAD A CO IT WAS NEVER USED LEGALLY AS THAT. YEAH. THAT'S MY PROBLEM. WELL THIS WAS PRESENTED AS IT WAS NEVER USED. JUST THAT WAS NEVER DEVELOPED OUT, NEVER USED. IT CLEARLY WAS. RIGHT. I MEAN, IF I JUST ALWAYS WALKED MY DOG ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND NOBODY HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT FOR 50 YEARS, I GOT A 50-YEAR-OLD DOG. BUT, UM, THIS IS A WEIRD SITUATION THAT HE BOUGHT IT RIGHT TO MY MIND, WHEN YOU SEND THOSE EMAILS, THAT'S CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE CITY. YEAH. CORRECT. AGREED. AND YOU'RE TAKING THAT AS, AND THAT'S IN WRITING AND TO, TO MS. ROGERS' POINT, I'M TAKING YOU GUYS AS LEARNED EXPERTS, NOT ME. 'CAUSE I DON'T HAVE CORRECT ACCESS. WELL, I CAN LOOK UP 19, BUT I DON'T PRETTY SURE I WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND IT TO BEGIN WITH. RIGHT. UH, SO YOU KIND OF ARE COUNTING ON WHEN YOU GO FOR OFFICIAL. SO TO THE QUESTION OF DID A BUILDING OFFICIAL NOT GIVE YOU A FULL ANSWER OR MAKE A MISTAKE? THAT'S HOW I'M GONNA VOTE ON, UH, [01:40:01] JUST JUST TO COMMENT, YOU KNOW, IF THE, IF IT, IF HE WERE TO GO BEFORE THE COUNCIL FOR THE SUP, UH, GOING BACK TO SOMETHING THE ATTORNEY SAID WAS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IS IN THAT FLOODPLAIN MM-HMM . ARE THEY GONNA CREATE A PROBLEM OF RUNOFF? YES. WHY WOULD THEY, WHY WOULD THEY SAY CONCRETE THIS WHEN IT'S OBVIOUSLY GONNA CREATE A RUNOFF CORRECT ISSUE ON THE PROPERTIES AROUND THE CITY, BUT THEY COULD, CITY COUNCIL HAS WIDELY EMPOWERED TO MAKE SUGGESTIONS AND AMENDMENTS AND WE'VE SEEN THAT SO MM-HMM . BUT NONE OF THAT IS BEFORE US ON THIS APPEAL. BUT THE ISSUE BEFORE US ON THIS APPEAL IS SIMPLY DID SOMEBODY FROM THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE GIVE THE WRONG INFORMATION? AND I'M KIND OF EXPANDING IN MY MIND, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO BE ALL THOSE EMAILS ARE, ARE GERMANE TO ME. 'CAUSE IF YOU'RE SENDING IT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, YOU THINK YOU'RE TALKING TO SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS. YEAH. OR ASSUMING. YEAH, I AGREE. IT'S AN ASSUMPTION. AND ELI, YOU'RE GONNA LEARN A VALUABLE LESSON ABOUT ASSUMING STUFF WITHOUT DOUBLE, TRIPLE AND QUADRUPLE CHECKING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. YOU PROBABLY ALREADY HAVE. UM, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE US HERE. BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD A DISCUSSION AND EVERYBODY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND TALK, KIND OF SAY OTHER, AND A COUPLE OF US WERE VERY VOCAL. I'VE ALWAYS BEEN VOCAL, BUT I KNOW YOU HAD A POINT. DEBBIE, MR. BAKER, ANYBODY ELSE WANNA SAY ANYTHING BEFORE WE CALL THE MOTION FOR A VOTE? MR. HEAD, I SAW MR. TOOLEY'S NAME IN AN EMAIL CHAIN. MM-HMM . HE, THAT INFORMATION WAS USED FOR THE DECISION FOR THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE TO BE DENIED. OR THAT INFORMATION WAS BETWEEN THE OWNER AND THE WAY I READ IT. DECISION THAT WAS THE, THAT WAS THE APPLICANT OR THE, I DON'T THINK THE PROPERTY OWNER ASKING PLANNING DEPARTMENT, HEY, IT'S THIS. OKAY. AND MR. TOOLEY'S RESPONSE WAS, IF THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALREADY ALREADY IS, THEN IT WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED. HE DID USE THE PHRASE, IF THAT'S ALREADY WHAT LEGALLY IS BEING USED AS, THEN YOU CAN DO IT. SO THE QUESTION IS, I MEAN THE CITY'S POSITION IS THAT IT WAS NEVER LEGALLY BEING USED AS THAT. SO HOW CAN YOU CONTINUE AND TRANSFER AND GRANDFATHER THAT IF IT WASN'T, BUT WHY DIDN'T HE TAKE THAT EXTRA STEP TO FIND OUT IF IT WAS BEING LEGALLY USED? TO MY, TO MY MIND, THAT'S THE MISTAKE ON THE CITY OFFICIAL ON THAT PART. 'CAUSE WE DID DO THE EXTRA STEP AND PEOPLE HAVE MOVED ON AND, BUT AT THAT TIME WHEN THAT EMAIL SENT, THAT'S COMING FROM A-G-P-T-X EMAIL. SO TO MY MIND, AGAIN, I'M ONE VOTE OUTTA NINE. YEAH. AND IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS HOW YOU WANT TO WANNA VOTE ON THIS AND WHO WANTS TO CRAFT A MOTION THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DON'T CHASE RABBITS, AS YOU SAID EARLIER ON, THINGS THAT AREN'T BEFORE US. OUR THING IS MERELY THAT ONE POINT POINT OF CONTENTION. I MEAN, THE APPEAL IS WHAT THE APPEAL IS. RIGHT. AND SO I THINK THAT'S HOW WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT, IS AS THE APPEAL IS STATED, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO AD LIB OR ADD TO. RIGHT. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. WELL, HOW, HOW ARE WE WORDING THAT? IS THIS A WRONG DECISION? WELL, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. I MEAN THAT, THAT, THAT THE, UM, IT SAYS THE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF THE, OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OF WHETHER THE, THE, AND THAT'S BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE HEARD, UH, ON BY THE CITY OFFICIAL. MM-HMM . OKAY. YEAH. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR SOMEBODY COMFORTABLE WITH THE MOTION? MAKE A MOTION? UH, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE, MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ZBA 2 5 0 4 0 0 2 8. I, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BY THAT. CLARIFY, APPROVE THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE MADE BY A BILL CITY OFFICIAL OR JUST DID WE APPROVE OF THE, UH, APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF THE CERTIFICATE? CAN, CAN I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION? UM, YES. I, I MIGHT RECOMMEND THAT YOU MAKE A MOTION TO EITHER GRANT THE APPEAL OR DENY THE APPEAL. I, I LIKE IT. I SHOULD. YEAH. THAT'S COMFORT LANGUAGE. WE, AND JUST FOR TRANSPARENCY, MR. HARPER'S, OUR, OUR COUNSELOR FOR THIS ONE. SO YOUR A MOTION ON IF YOU ARE GRANTING, OKAY. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GRANT ZBA 2 5 0 5 0 0 3 2, WHICH IS THE APPEAL. CORRECT. WHICH IS THE APPEAL, WHICH IS AN APPEAL WHICH WOULD EFFECTIVELY GO TOWARDS THE PROPERTY OWNER. EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IS? WHAT WE'RE WOULD, WOULD BE IN HIS FAVOR? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? CORRECT. IT'D BE IN, IT WOULD BE THE PROP FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER? YES. THE PROPERTY OWNERS. THE PROPERTY I, OKAY. AND I DID OKAY. JUST OUT OF, SINCE YOU'RE IN A DIFFERENT CAPACITY FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE. YEAH. I WANTED MR. HARPER AS OUR COUNSELOR TO, IS EVERYBODY CLEAR ON WHAT [01:45:01] WE'RE MM-HMM . ALL. SO MR. BAKER HAS MADE A MOTION. CAN I GET A SECOND? SECOND, MS. ROGERS, I HAVE A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE KNOW YOUR VOTE AS A REMINDER, WE NEED SEVEN OUTTA NINE. SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND I'LL CALL THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS PRESENTED. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. SAME SIGN. SO BY ACCOUNT OF SIX TO THREE, THE APPEAL DOES NOT GET SUPPORTED. IS THAT GRANTED? UH, YEAH, THAT'S THE WORDING WE USED IN THAT, RIGHT. MR. HARPER? YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. SO AS I TOLD YOU, SIX TO THREE IS A WEIRD DEAL AND SOMETHING TELLS ME THIS IS TO BE CONTINUED AND NEXT STEPS. MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT CASE THOUGH, WHICH IS ZBA 2 5 0 5 0 0 3 3. [5. ZBA-25-05-0033 (Council District 6) – Special Exception for a side yard carport and variances to the minimum side Special exception for a side yard carport and a variance to the maximum area of a side yard carport permitted under the Unified Development Code, located at 1005 Nadine Ln., legally described as Lot 90R-2, Florence Hill Addition No. 2, City of Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas, zoned Planned Development-84 District] WE FOUND OUT IN BRIEFING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED. IS THAT CORRECT? STAFF? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. MR. BAKER, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL MAKE A MOTION. WE TABLE ZBA 2 5 0 5 0 0 3 3 TILL NEXT SESSION. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. GOT MS. ROGERS BEFORE MR. BAKER MADE THE MOTION. MS. ROGERS SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. THAT MOTION IS TABLED. NINE TO ZERO. MOVES US TO [6. ZBA-25-05-0034 (Council District 5) – Special Exception to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces and variances to the minimum front and side setbacks for a primary structure, and to the maximum lot coverage permitted under the Unified Development Code, located at 225 NW 16th St., legally described as lot 1, Block 52, Dalworth Park Addition, City of Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas, zoned Single Family-Six] ITEM SIX, WHICH IS CASE 34. OKAY, ITEM NUMBER SIX, CBA 25 0 5 0 0 3 4 IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND VARIANCES TO SETBACKS AND LOT COVERAGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 2 5 NORTHWEST 16TH STREET. THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY SIX DISTRICT. THE PURPOSE OF THESE REQUESTS IS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A PLATTED LOT, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES. UM, THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF GARAGE SPACES IS TWO, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE GARAGE SPACE. THEY'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD, UH, REQUIRED SETBACK OF 25 FEET AND ARE REQUESTING 20 FEET OF VARIANCE TO DECREASE THE MINIMUM STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 15 TO THE REQUESTED. THREE. A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED FIVE TO THE REQUESTED THREE, AS WELL AS A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE FROM THE REQUIRED 50% TO THE REQUESTED. 52%. CAN WE GET THE SCREENS BACK? YEAH, THEY DIED. IT DOES SAY LEFT OUT. SO THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO THE AREA ON THE PLAN THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN RED, THOSE ARE YOUR PROPOSED SETBACK LOCATIONS. THE AREA HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IS THE PROPOSED SINGLE CAR GARAGE. THERE HAS NOT BEEN A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. I'M SORRY. THERE HAS BEEN A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED. 39 NOTICES WERE SENT. ZERO. RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURNED OPPOSED. AND THERE IS NOT A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION AND STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THIS REQUEST. QUESTIONS OF STAFF TO MY RIGHT. QUESTIONS OF STAFF TO MY LEFT. ALL RIGHT, NOW YOU'RE ABOUT READY. SEE ALL OF THAT PATIENCE AND IT'S GONNA COME, I'M GONNA BET YOU ARE OLIVIA? YES. ALL RIGHT. AND NOW ON THIS CASE I HAVE LUKE KEATON IS THE APPLICANT. IS THAT RIGHT OR NO? 2 2 2 2 5 IS LUKE KEATON, I'M SORRY. 34. AND IN THE SCRIPT IT SAID LUKE KEATON. IS THAT WRONG? NO, THAT'S CORRECT. OH THREE FOUR LUKE. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. YOU WANNA COME UP AND SPEAK? YES. SURE. SO YOU'RE FIRST UP, THEN WE'LL GET TO YOU OLIVIA. UM, YEAH, 'CAUSE I GOT, I DO HAVE LUKE'S CARD HERE. START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO DO. HELLO? LUKE KEATON. UH, 2037 DOWARD STREET. GRAND PRAIRIE. UM, BACK A WHILE AGO WE GOT THIS APPROVED. IT WAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT SCENARIO WITH THE GARAGE, BUT UH, WE MADE SOME CHANGES TO ACCOMMODATE SOME THINGS WITH THE, UH, MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FROM THE GARAGE TO THE STREET. UH, WE TIME LAPSED, UH, WITH THIS VARIANCE THAT GOT APPROVED BACK IN 2023. OKAY. WE DIDN'T APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT IN TIME, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE UP HERE AGAIN. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, UH, WE APPROVED THIS TWO YEARS AGO. I YES SIR. YEAH, WE JUST MADE ONE LITTLE CHANGE TO THE, UH, GARAGE, THE WAY IT WAS LAID UP. OKAY. WE HAD IT FACING, UH, FACING NORTH, SO WE JUST TURNED IT TOWARDS THE BACKYARD. THAT WAY WE COULD HAVE THE, UH, THE REQUIREMENT FROM THE, UH, GARAGE TO THE, GOES TO THE STREET DOWN. YEAH, ACROSS TO THE STREET. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? [01:50:02] NONE. ARI, THAT'S ALL WE NEED. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH LUKE. APPRECIATE YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF 25 0 5 0 0 3 4. SEEING NONE, I DO HAVE A CARD SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. AND THAT WOULD BE OLIVIA PARDO? YES. COME ON DOWN. AND YOU KNOW THE DRILL. START WITH THE NAME AND ADDRESS AND TELL US WHAT YOU'D LIKE US TO HEAR. OKAY. MY NAME IS OLIVIA BARDO UHHUH . AND THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK HERE. THIS IS ALL NEW TO ME. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN. UM, IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THEY'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THERE'S GONNA BE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES ALLOCATED FOR THAT HOUSE, UH, THAT'S BEING BUILT? I HAVE NO OBJECTION ON HOUSES BEING BUILT. I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL ADDED TRAFFIC THAT IS GONNA CONGEST OUR LITTLE AREA AND NOBODY HERE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS HERE, BUT IT'S JUST ME. OKAY. AT THE MOMENT IT IS ALREADY CONGESTED AND, AND IT'S JUST AN EMPTY GRASS LOT RIGHT NOW, CORRECT? RIGHT NOW, YES. OKAY. YES. BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHY, YOU KNOW, WHY THIS LETTER WAS SENT. WHY, WHY IS THE VARIANCE BEING ASKED FOR AND IS AM I, AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR MORE PARKING ON THE SIDE AND THE FRONT? YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T WANT I, I'D LIKE, I WOULDN'T LIKE TO SEE I ADDITIONAL, I APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN HERE. YOU GOT A LETTER AND YOU HAD QUESTIONS. YES. AND THERE IS A NUMBER ON THERE TO CALL, BUT SINCE YOU'RE HERE, I'M GONNA ASK ONE OF THE, UH, STAFF THAT IS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO KIND OF SORT THROUGH SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS THAT AS IT PERTAINS TO WHAT ARE THE VARIANCE SUBPOENAS. BECAUSE THEORETICALLY IF YOU JUST WANTED TO BUILD ON YOUR PLOT OF LAND, YOU CAN BUILD IT. YES. THERE ARE DEVELOPMENT CODES THAT SAY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SETBACK FROM THE STREET. YOU HAVE TO HAVE SO MUCH OFF OF THE STREET PARKING TWO CAR VERSUS ONE CAR. AND SO THE ITEMS LISTED ON THE SCREEN THING ARE THE VARIANCES AND KIND OF HOW THE DESIGN IS. BUT I AM NOT A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SO WE'LL LET THEM A ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. JUST LIKE, AND THEY HAVE A MIC ON TOO. SO YOU ASKED SOME, DO YOU GUYS HAVE A A TO START OFF JUNE? GO AHEAD. YES, MA'AM. YES. THANK YOU. UH, THANK YOU CHAIR. UM, SO RIGHT NOW THE ZONING AND THE PLA DOES ALLOW FOR THE BOTTOM OF ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THEY'RE NOT ADDING MORE HOME THAN WHAT THE LOT ALREADY ALLOWS. IT'S JUST A LOT. WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED BACK IN 19 HUNDREDS, THE LOT BACK THEN, PEOPLE DIDN'T ALL HAVE TWO CAR GARAGES. SO THEY CREATED A LOT. THAT'S A LOT NARROWER THAN SOME OF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS. I BELIEVE IN THE PAST, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PATTERN, SOME PEOPLE COMBINED THE TWO LOTS PLOTTED AGAIN AND APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT. THIS LET US HAPPEN TO BE SIT THERE SITTING THERE WITHOUT BEING DEVELOPED FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. SO ALL THEY'RE DOING IS BUILDING ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S ALREADY SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY MIGHT BE ADDING MAYBE TWO CARS TO THE HOME FOR THE PERSON WHO'S LIVING THERE, BUT THEY'RE NOT ADDING 10 20 CARS BECAUSE THEY'RE BUILDING ONE HOME. OKAY. THERE WOULD BE THOSE LIMITATIONS THERE. AND THEN THE STUFF LIKE SIDE YARD SETBACKS, JUST THE RULES ON HOW MANY FEET FROM YOUR PROPERTY LINE IS STRUCTURE, WHETHER IT, IF CAN, CAN THE STRUCTURE SIT, IF YOU LOOK THERE AT SF SIX, THE DISTRICT, THAT'S WHAT ACTUALLY IS REQUIRED. WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS ON THE RIGHT. SO THEY'RE ONLY ASKING FOR ONE PARKING GARAGE INSTEAD OF 2 1 1 SPACE. AND SO, AND THEN THEY'RE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR SOME RELIEF ON THE SIDES OF THEIR HOUSE AND STUFF SO THEY CAN BUILD A SMALLER HOUSE. SO IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA A SMALLER FOOTPRINT ONLY A ONE CAR GARAGE. SO IF THEY HAVE A NEIGHBOR OR NEED A, AS A KID, IF THEY HAVE KIDS, THEY GET OLDER, THEY'RE ONLY GONNA HAVE LIKE ONE EXTRA SPOT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT THERE IN THE DRIVEWAY, YOU KNOW, OR WHATEVER. SO IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE LESS THAN IF IT WAS A BIG HOUSE. IT'S ACTUALLY HAVE A SMALLER FOOTPRINT. SO IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY A LOT SMALLER THAN IF YOU HAD A LOT NEXT DOOR THAT HAD IT IN SPACE FOR TWO CAR GARAGE AND IT WAS A LOT BIGGER HOUSE AND IT'S ACTUALLY LESS INVASIVE THAN WHAT YOU THINK IT MIGHT BE. OKAY. SO THE GARAGE IS IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE? YES MA'AM. UP WHERE THE YELLOW IS AT THE TOP WAS WHAT THEY DID SAID, TOLD US IN THE, IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION. THAT'S WHERE THE PARKING OF THE GARAGE IS. OKAY. SO THE STREET'S OUT TO THE RIGHT OF THERE. RIGHT? RIGHT. AND ALL, THEY DO HAVE MULTIPLE VARIANCES, BUT ON THE WHOLE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE SMALL, THEY'RE SMALL VARIANCES. OKAY. I MEAN, IT'S A WEIRD LOT. IT'S KIND OF A, IT A VERY WEIRD STRIP. YEAH, IT IS. AND I JUST, I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE EXTRA ADDED. I HAVE NOTHING BUT RESPECT FOR YOU COMING DOWN AND ASKING THE QUESTION. YOU GET THE LETTER, YOU'D BE AMAZED HOW MANY LETTERS WE SEND OUT. YOU NEVER HEAR FOR, NOBODY [01:55:01] SAYS BOO. AND THEN AFTER IT'S DONE, SO I'M GONNA ANSWER EVERY QUESTION YOU TO YOU'RE HAPPY. OKAY. BECAUSE I REALLY RESPECT THE HECK OUTTA THE FACT THAT YOU ASKING THE QUESTIONS AND YOU'VE BEEN PATIENCE DOWN HERE. WELL I APPRECIATE IT AND UH, THANK YOU GUYS. DOES THAT SATISFY YOUR QUESTIONS FOR TONIGHT OR UH, YES. FOR TONIGHT. THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN. THANK YOU GUYS. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE? NOT SEEING ANYBODY ELSE. I'M GONNA ASK FOR A MOTION ON 2 5 0 5 0 0 3 4. MR. CHAIRMAN, MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE AND APPROVE ZBA 2 5 0 5 0 0 3 4. SECOND. GOT A MOTION FOR MR. BAKER? SECOND FOR MS. ROGERS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. THAT IS APPROVED NINE TO ZERO TAKES US TO OUR NEXT [7. ZBA-25-05-0035 (Council District 1) – Variance to the minimum lot width permitted under the Unified Development Code, located at 2013 W. Jefferson St., legally described as Lot 4, Block 93, Dalworth Park Addition, City of Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas, zoned Single Family-Six District] CASE, ITEM SEVEN ON THE AGENDA. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ZBA 25 0 5 0 0 3 5 IS A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH LOCATED AT 2013 WEST JEFFERSON STREET. THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY SIX DISTRICT. THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS SO THAT WE CAN BUILD A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT LIT WIDTH IS 50 FEET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING 48 FEET. THERE IS NOT CURRENTLY A SUBMITTED BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. THE PROPERTY, UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HIGHLIGHTED IN RED THERE ON THE RIGHT. 29. NOTICES WERE SENT, ZERO. RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURNED OPPOSED. AND THERE IS NOT A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION AND STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THIS REQUEST. ALL RIGHT. UH, ANY QUESTIONS? THE STAFF TO MY RIGHT. QUESTIONS TO MY LEFT. THANK YOU, AARON. OKAY. APPRECIATE IT. UH, NOW I DON'T HAVE A SPEAKER CARD. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? THIS IS TERRY BANKS. WE KNOW THAT'S WHY HE IS BEEN SITTING PATIENTLY. AND AT THE END OF ALL THIS, SOMETHING TELLS ME OUR TRANSCRIPT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE PULLED UP FROM THIS MEETING. SO I AM GONNA WANT YOU TO FILL UP A CARD BEFORE YOU LEAVE THE BUILDING. OH, IT WAS HANDED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY? YES. THANK YOU. SORRY. I KNOW IT'S A LOT FOR LEFT, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE A CARD ON THE PERSON, BUT COME ON DOWN SO HE CAN BE OFFICIAL AND LEGAL ON THIS. AND MR. BANKS. I ALL RIGHT. HE IS. GOT I, RON'S HIRING THE ATTORNEY'S LIKE TO HIDE STUFF FROM ME. YEAH. TERRY, ANY DIFFERENCE ON THIS FROM LAST TIME? TERRY , TERRY BANKS 2326 MISTY SHORE DRIVE, CEDAR HILL, TEXAS. BASICALLY THE SAME AS THE LAST TIME. YEAH, IT'S, IT'S THE SAME. YEAH. I MADE HIM WALK ALL THE WAY DOWN. HERE YOU GO. QUESTION FOR, ALRIGHT. WELL I THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN. I NEED TO GET UP, YOU KNOW, GET SOME BLOOD FLOWING. I'M SO GLAD. YEAH. KEEP US AWAKE HERE, BUDDY. THANK YOU MR. BANKS. APPRECIATE THAT. ANYONE ELSE WISHING YOU TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS CASE? ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CLOSE AND APPROVE ZBA 2 5 0 5 0 0 3 5. I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. BAKER WHOSE VOICE APPEARS TO BE CHANGING AND HE'D BE MAYBE GETTING THE SPECIAL CHANGE RIGHT NOW. AND, UH, SAME THING HAPPENED TO BOBBY BRADY A LONG TIME AGO. , UH, AND A SECOND FROM MS. ROGERS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, SAY AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES NINE TO ZERO, WHICH TAKES US TO OUR LAST CASE. [8. ZBA-25-05-0036 (Council District 4) – Variance to increase the maximum height allowed for a fence permitted under the Unified Development Code, located at 7107 Carmona Dr., legally described as Lot 14, Block B, Estates at Mira Lagos Addition, City of Grand Prairie, Tarrant County, Texas, zoned Planned Development-310] GO AHEAD, AARON. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER A ZBA 25 0 5 0 0 3 6 IS A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE FENCE HEIGHT AT A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 1 0 7 CARMONA STREET. OUR SUBJECT PROPERTY IS, UH, ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT THREE 10. THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS CONSTRUCT A NEW EIGHT FOOT SOLID CEDAR FENCE ON THE SIDE STREET PROPERTY LINE. OUR UDC ALLOWS A 36 INCH SOLID FENCE ON A STREET SIDE PROPERTY LINE, OR UP TO 48 INCHES DEPENDING ON THE TRANSPARENCY. OUR APPLICANT DESIRES TO BUILD A SOLID FENCE. THERE IS AN AFFILIATED, UM, BUILDING PERMIT. 42 NOTICES WERE SENT, ZERO WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURNED IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE IS A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION AND STAFF IS UNABLE TO SUPPORT THE REQUEST. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS OF STAFF? TO MY RIGHT, TO MY LEFT MR. BAKER, WHY DOES STAFF NOT SUPPORT? BECAUSE THE UDC CLEARLY STATES THAT, UM, THAT A 36 INCH FENCE SOLID FENCE IS ALLOWED THERE. SO, SO BECAUSE WE'RE, YOU'RE, THEY CAN ASK FOR A VARIANCE, BUT OKAY. BUT BUT IT'S ONLY THE SIDE OF THEIR HOUSE. THE FRONT HOUSE. THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S A CORNER LOT. OKAY. TO CLARIFY. OKAY. BOARD MEMBER, THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY DOES HAVE A SIDE YARD, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE FRONT YARD OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. SO THERE COULD BE, UM, A PERCEIVED ISSUE WITH VISIBILITY OR SOME SORT [02:00:01] OF IMPACT ON THAT ADJACENT PROPERTY WITH THEIR FRONT YARD. THAT PICTURE APPEARED TO BE THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. AND WHEN WE WERE QUESTIONING, THEY SAID, WELL, THEY'RE PUSHING IT OUT TOWARDS THE STREET. CORRECT? THE, THE BOTTOM PICTURE HERE. SO WHERE THE, WHERE YOU SEE THE DRIVEWAY ON THE RIGHT? OH, THAT'S THE SIDE, THAT'S ACTUALLY THE SIDE STREET OF OUR APPLICANT'S HOUSE. THE FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE FACES TOWARDS THE RIGHT OF THE SCREEN. GOTCHA. I THE PROPERTY TO THE LEFT, THEIR FRONT YARD IS ADJACENT TO THIS APPLICANT'S SIDE YARD. 'CAUSE IT'S A CORNER READING IT PROPERLY. THANK YOU. BECAUSE IT'S A CORNER LOT. ALL RIGHT. IS THAT CLEAR? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I'M NOT SEEING ANYTHING. THANK YOU, MS. ERIN. OKAY, SURE. ALL RIGHT. SO I DO HAVE, UH, JOSE GUERRO. YES. INTERIM, IF YOU'LL COME ON DOWN, START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FENCE. GOOD EVENING. UH, MY NAME IS JOSE GUERRA. UH, 42 0 3 LOKE DRIVE, MANSFIELD, TEXAS. OKAY. UM, THE REASON THAT I'M HERE, I'M TRYING TO SEE IF WE CAN MOVE THE FENCE, UH, 21 FEET FROM WHERE IT IS ESTABLISHED RIGHT NOW TO ALONG THE SIDEWALK. UM, WE HAVE NOTICED THAT SEVERAL, UH, HOUSES IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY HAVE DONE THAT BEFORE. UM, AND UH, WHAT WE DID, WE APPLIED FOR A PERMIT. THE PERMIT WAS, MOST OF THE PERMITS, WHICH WAS BUILDING AND TRAFFIC WAS, WERE OKAY WITH IT. MM-HMM . UH, THE ONLY THING ON THE BOTTOM, THE BUILDING WAS REQUIREMENT OF BEING EIGHT FOOT, UH, TALL AND CEDAR. UM, BUT ONE CAME OUT SAYING THAT THE VARIANCE ON THE FENCE, IT WAS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO LET YOU KNOW. UM, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF DECEIVING BECAUSE IT'S, IT IS A CORNER. AND IF YOU SEE ON THE, ON THE PICTURE WHERE THE WHITE TRUCK IS, UH, ON THE, UNDER THE ONE ON THE TOP, THAT IS THE, UH, SIDE. WELL, GOING TO THE, TO CARMONA STREET, WHICH IS WHERE THE TREES ARE, THAT IS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE ON THE SIDE WHERE ALL THE RIGHT STUFF THAT THE RED STUFF ARE. THAT'S, UH, ROSINA, WHICH IS THE SIDE, UH, OF THE HOUSE. SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY IT'S KIND OF DECEIVING. IT SEEMS TO BE THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, BUT THE, THE PICTURE ON THE BOTTOM THAT IS THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS WHERE THE, THE WHITE TRUCK ON THE TOP PICTURE IS. SO THAT OR, UM, MAIN, UH, THING IS JUST TO MOVE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE SO WE CAN GET MORE REAL ESTATE ON THE, UH, UM, BACKYARD AND, AND MAYBE LATER ON BEING ABLE TO PUT SOME, UH, SWINGS AND STUFF LIKE THAT FOR THE OKAY. YOU MENTIONED THERE'S SOME OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE PUSHED OUT. THERE'S, YES. IT'S A MATTER FACT, LIKE CEDAR FENCES, THERE ARE TWO, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU, DO YOU HAVE, UH, SOME, UM, I GAVE YOU SOME PICTURES OF THE, THE OTHER ONES. THERE'S ONE NEXT TO, NEXT TO THE HOUSE. IF YOU SEE ON, ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, ON THE ONE ON THE TOP, IT GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE FENCE. AND IT'S JUST THE NEXT HOUSE, UH, ON NOW 71 3 IS YOUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. EXACTLY. NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. EXACTLY. AND, UH, SHE MOVED, SHE MOVED ALL THE WAY TO THE SIDEWALK. AND THEN ON, UH, THE, THE ONE ON ROSINA STREET, WHICH IS ON THE OTHER SIDE, UH, THEY BUILD A, UH, POOL. SO THEY, THEY GOT TO MOVE EVERYTHING TO THE SIDEWALK. AND THEY HAVE THE SAME SITUATION WITH HAVING, UH, THE FRONT OF THE NEXT DOOR HOUSE, UH, WELL ESTABLISHED. SO THE FENCE GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE, TO THE, UH, SIDEWALK. AND I DON'T, I DON'T SEE ANY DO THEY HAVE ANY PIPES? WELL, MY QUESTION WAS IF IT'S, IF IT HAPPENS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT LITERALLY HAPPENED NEXT DOOR. YES. AND I TALKED TO THE, TO THE HOA, UH, AND THEY TELL 'EM, HEY, UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS? I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS. MOST OF, WE SEE THIS, MOST OF THE TIME DID WE, YOU GUYS TRY TO GET EVERYTHING AT THE, THE MORE, UH, THE MOST OF YOUR, OF YOUR BACKYARD. UH, THEN THEY TOLD ME YOU CAN SUBMIT IT, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE FIRST A PERMIT FROM THE CITY APPROVED FOR US TO APPROVE IT. UH, SO I PUT THE APPLICATION FOR THEM AND TELL HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE? IT TAKES BETWEEN 30 TO 45 DAYS FOR THEM TO REPLY, UH, RIGHT AFTER I GET THE P FROM YOU GUYS. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN? TO MY LEFT. MR. BAKER FIRST? YEAH. YOU SAID YOU LIVED IN CEDAR HILL. IS THIS A RENT HOUSE OR NO, NO, NO, NO. THIS IS MY MOM'S HOUSE. SHE'S MY MOM'S OVER THERE. THIS IS MY MOM'S HOUSE AND I AM THE, THE CONTRACTOR THAT I'M GONNA DO THE, THE, THE FENCE. SO HE MOVING THE, HE THE MULE. OKAY. HES THE HAPPY, HE'S THE BABY BOY. DOING WHAT MOM SAYS BASICALLY. I GOT YOU. YEAH. YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WHEN YOU SAID , [02:05:01] THEN YOU, YOU SAID, UH, THIS, YOU KNOW. OKAY. MENS NO. NO MENS. YES. YES. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GET ALL THE FEASIBLE. YEAH, NO, NO, NO. I LIVE IN MENS, LIKE THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BASICALLY TO MILES FROM HERE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU MR. MR. WHITE, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH, I HAD THE EXACT SAME PLACE. OKAY. EVERYBODY WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT YOU BEING ANYBODY ELSE? WE GOOD? THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN. UH, ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF ZBA 2 5 0 5 0 0 3 6. ANYONE WISH YOU TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? SAME CASE? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CLOSE AND APPROVE ZBA 2 5 0 5 0 0 3 6. I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. BAKER. A SECOND FROM MR. LANGSTON. UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN BY ACCOUNT OF EIGHT TO ONE. THE MOTION IS APPROVED. THANK YOU. AND IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM? KNOW EVERYBODY ELSE HAS BEEN HEARD, SO ALL THE CASES HAVE BEEN HEARD. UM, WE ARE ADJOURNED FOR TONIGHT. THANK YOU FOLKS. HAVE A GOOD EVENING. ME. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.