* 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. YEAH, GOOD. [Zoning Board of Adjustment on October 21, 2026.] [00:00:03] AJ, IS EVERYTHING SET? YOU'RE READY FOR ME TO... READY TO GO. OKAY. PERFECT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING. WITH A QUORUM PRESENT, I WILL NOW CALL THE MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER AT 6:42 PM. THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS TO CALL ANY VISITORS TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD REGARDING AN ITEM LISTED ON THE AGENDA THAT IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD TONIGHT? DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THAT IS THE CASE. SO, UM, THIS BOARD MEETS TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RICHARDSON AND APPEALS FROM A DETERMINATION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCES. IT DERIVES ITS AUTHORITY FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS. IN THE EVENT YOU WISH TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE BOARD, YOUR RECOURSE IS TO FILE AN ACTION IN THE STATE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 10 DAYS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF THE BOARD'S DECISION. THE TEST USED TO DETERMINE APPROVAL OR DENIAL IS WHETHER A SITUATION EXISTS THAT IS NOT CREATED BY YOU, WHICH PREVENTS YOU FROM USING YOUR PROPERTY IN THE DESIRED WAY, AND THAT, IF THE VARIANCE IS NOT GRANTED, WILL RESULT IN A HARDSHIP WHICH THE BOARD CONSIDERS UNNECESSARY, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PERMISSIBLE FACTORS. WE ARE NOT PERMITTED TO GRANT A VARIANCE IF THE HARDSHIP IS SELF-IMPOSED OR A FAILURE TO ACHIEVE THE VARIANCE RESULTS ONLY IN AN ECONOMIC HARDSHIP. ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO RATIFY SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY DONE OR DONE IN A MANNER THAT CIRCUMVENTS THE LAW MIGHT ALSO BE SELF-IMPOSED. WE ALSO CANNOT GRANT A VARIANCE THAT IS WHIMSICAL OR INTERFERES WITH THE SAFETY AND WELLBEING OF THE COMMUNITY. THIS BOARD HEARS AND ACTS UPON REQUESTS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE FENCE REGULATIONS. THE CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATIONS OF THESE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT, FROM THAT OF VARIANCES. EACH CASE IS DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS. THE FIRST PART IS THE PRESENTATION OF THE CASE BY THE CITY STAFF AND TESTIMONY, AND COMMENTS ARE TAKEN FROM THE PROPONENTS AND THE OPPONENTS OF THE REQUEST. THE SECOND PART OCCURS AND THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DISCUSS AND CONSIDER MOTIONS AS THEY ARE MADE. DURING THE SECOND PART, NO FURTHER DATA OR INFORMATION WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE PARTICIPANTS UNLESS SO REQUESTED BY A BOARD MEMBER. THEN THE BOARD VOTE VOTES ON THE MOTION. A DECISION TO GRANT OR DENY THE MOTION OR TO TAKE OTHER ACTION CONCLUDES THE CASE FOR THIS SESSION. IT IS THE INTENT OF THE BOARD TO GIVE ALL INTERESTED PARTIES A CHANCE TO SPEAK. EACH PARTICIPANT IS CAUTIONED, HOWEVER, TO CONFINE HIS OR HER REMARKS TO THE SPECIFIC ISSUES OF THE CASE. REPETITIVE COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED. UNRULY OR DISORDERLY CONDUCT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED AT ANY TIME DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS. UH, I WOULD LOW, NOW LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY AND THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. TINA FERGINS, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, CHRISTINE ROSS, PLANNER TWO, AND ANNA CASTANEDA, BOARD SECRETARY, WHO WILL BE THE RECORDER OF THE PROCEEDINGS. BOARD MEMBERS ARE JASON LEMONS' CHAIR, SCOTT ROOKER, VICE CHAIR, SABRINA BONSACK MEMBER, MUSA MATA ALTERNATE, AND MOHAMMED HAFIZ ALTERNATE. BY LAW, AT LEAST FOUR OF THE FIVE VOTING MEMBERS MUST APPROVE A MOTION BEFORE THE REQUEST CAN BE GRANTED. SO AT THIS POINT, UM, MR. HAFIZ, I WILL HAVE YOU VOTING ON ITEM ONE. AND MR. MATA, I WILL HAVE YOU VOTING ON ITEM TWO. ALL RIGHT. SO THE FIRST MATTER THAT WE HAVE... OH. SORRY TO INTERRUPT. ITEM ONE IS THE COMMENTS ON THE, UM, ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. SO IT'S PROBABLY ITEMS TWO AND THREE. OH, OH, OKAY. YEAH, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. SO, UM, IT WOULD BE ITEM, AGENDA ITEM TWO FOR YOU, MR. HAFIZ, AND AGENDA ITEM THREE FOR YOU, MR. MATA. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO THE FIRST AGENDA, THE FIRST MATTER ON THE AGENDA WE HAVE IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. THIS IS ITEM TWO, UM, OF THE REGULAR BUS- BUSINESS MEETING OF JULY 15TH, 2026. ARE THERE ANY REVISIONS NEEDED OR IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES? I TRUST EVERYONE HAS HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT. MR. MR. MONA? OR, OR MR. HUFFIES. SO MR. HAFIES MAKES A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. SO MS. BONESACK SECONDS. ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE, THE MINUTES FROM THE BUSINESS MEETING OF JULY 15TH, 2026, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AND THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE, ON THE AGENDA, AGENDA ITEM THREE, IS CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE 2604. AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR, FOR A VARIANCE TO APPENDIX A OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RICHARDSON'S CODE OF ORDINANCES. THIS IS ARTICLE SEVEN, SECTION 4F, TO ALLOW A ONE FOOT EIGHT INCH SIDE SETBACK IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK AS MEASURED FROM THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE TO ACCOMMODATE THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 520 GREENLEAF DRIVE AND IS ZONED R1100M RESIDENTIAL. UH, CHRISTINE ROSS, PLANNER TWO REPRESENTING CITY STAFF WILL NOW MAKE A PRESENTATION REGARDING THE REQUEST. MS. ROSS? GOOD EVENING. [00:05:01] UH, MY NAME IS CHRISTINE ROSS. I'M A PLANNER TWO HERE IN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. THIS IS VARIANCE NUMBER 2604, A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE, UH, IN THE, UH, A REQUEST TO ALLOW A ONE FOOT EIGHT INCH SIDE SETBACK IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ACCOMMODATE THE C - RECONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 520 GREENLEAF DRIVE AND IS ZONED R1100M RESIDENTIAL. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GREENLEAF DRIVE IN THE HUDSON HEIGHTS NUMBER FOUR SUBDIVISION. THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY ON THREE SIDES AND THERE IS A RECREATION AREA FOR A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION LOCATED TO THE EAST. THE SITE WAS DEVELOPED IN 1955 WITH A 1,564 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A 400 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE. THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS OUTLINED IN ORANGE AND THAT FOOTPRINT IS PROPOSED TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE DETACHED GARAGE IS SHOWN IN RED AND THE ROOF EAVE IS SHOWN IN BLUE. THE DETACHED GARAGE IS CURRENTLY CONSIDERED TO BE A LEGAL NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE BECAUSE THE ROOF EAVE IS CURRENTLY ONE FOOT 10 INCHES AWAY FROM THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE AND THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR A DETACHED, DETACHED STRUCTURE THAT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR YARD SETBACK IS THREE FEET AND IS MEASURED TO THE ROOF EAVE. THERE'S A 10 FOOT WIDE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT THAT RUNS NORTH TO SOUTH ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE A THREE FOOT TALL FENCE AND A PATIO AREA ON THE GRAPHIC. SO THE SEWER EASEMENT IS HERE, THE FENCE STARTS HERE AND THEN ENDS AT THE GARAGE AND THE PATIO IS THIS, UM, PEBBLY AREA HERE. AND THIS IS A PROPOSED FOOTPRINT. SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING GARAGE AND RECONSTRUCT IT. THEY WILL, UH, MAINTAIN THE EXISTING PLACEMENT OF THE WESTERN GARAGE WALL AND ROOF EAVE. AND ALTHOUGH THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROOF EAVE IS ONE FOOT 10 INCHES AWAY FROM THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIDE SETBACK OF ONE FOOT EIGHT INCHES TO ALLOW FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY DURING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO WIDEN THE GARAGE BY APPROXIMATELY FIVE AND A HALF FEET TO THE EAST, WHICH WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO 572 SQUARE FEET. AND THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE DEPTH OF THE GARAGE. HERE'S SOME SITE PHOTOS. SO THIS IS THE SOUTHERN ELEVATION TAKEN FROM THE DRIVEWAY, AND THIS IS THE EAST ELEVATION TAKEN FROM THE BACKYARD AND ANOTHER VIEW OF THE BACKYARD WHICH SHOWS THE FENCE AND THE PATIO WALKWAY. THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND GARAGE ALIGN, AND IF THE PROPOSED GARAGE WERE TO BE PLACED FURTHER EAST, THEY WOULD NO LONGER ALIGN AND THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE A PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH WOULD DISTURB THE EXISTING PATIO, THREE FOOT TALL FENCE, AND THE TREE IN THE BACKYARD. IT WOULD ALSO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER IN AND OUT OF DUE TO THE, THE ANGLE THAT IT WOULD CREATE. THE 10 FOOT WIDE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT THAT RUNS ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LIMITS THE APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT THE GARAGE ON THE EASTERN SIDE. AND THERE'S A 15 FOOT WIDE UNIMPROVED ALLEY BEHIND THE HOUSE, UM, THAT RUNS ALONG THE ENTIRE BLOCK AND THIS LIMITS THE ABILITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO UTILIZE A REAR ENTRY GARAGE. THE EXISTING GARAGE IS AGING AND IN POOR CONDITION AND REPLACING IT WILL IMPROVE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS INCREASE ITS SAFETY, WHICH IT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A ONE HOUR FIRE RATED WALL BECAUSE IT IS LOCATED WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE. TO SUMMARIZE, THE PRESENCE OF THE PATIO, THE FENCE AND THE TREE DOES NOT PREVENT THE APPLICANT FROM PAVING ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY AREA TO ALLY WITH, TO ALIGN WITH THE PROPOSED GARAGE IF IT WERE TO BE PLACED FURTHER EAST IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. THE PATIO AND FENCE CAN BE REFIGURED AND THE TREE CAN BE REPLANTED. ALL THE SI- SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GREENLEAF, EAST OF NORTH LYNDALE LANE HAVE THE UNIMPROVED ALLEY IN THEIR REAR YARD, SO THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A UNIQUE HARDSHIP. HOWEVER, THIS PROPERTY IS THE ONLY PROPERTY ON THE BLOCK WITH THAT 10 FOOT WIDE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT. THE STATE OF TEXAS OUTLINES FIVE CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER WHEN HEARING A VARIANCE CASE. THE FIRST RELATES TO THE COST OF COMPLIANCE. STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE WILL NOT EXCEED 50% OF THIS APPRAISED VALUE OF THE GARAGE. THE SECOND CRITERIA STATES THAT COMPLIANCE WOULD LO - WOULD RESULT IN A LOSS OF THE AREA OF THE LOT OF AT LEAST 25% AND STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THAT WOULD NOT OCCUR. [00:10:01] THE THIRD RELATES TO THE, UM, RELATES TO THE COMPLIANCE RESULTING IN THE STRUCTURE, UM, VIOLATING OTHER CODES AND ORDINANCES, WHICH IT WOULD NOT. AND THE FOURTH CRITERIA RELATES TO THE STRUCTURE IMPACTING ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR EASEMENTS, WHICH ALSO WOULD NOT IMPACT. AND THE FIFTH RELATES TO NONCONFORMITIES. THIS STRUCTURE IS ALREADY CONSIDERED TO BE A LEGAL NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND THE PROPOSED DESIGN WILL NOT INCREASE THE NONCONFORMING SETBACK. IT WILL MAINTAIN IT. BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICABLE CODES OF ORDINANCES, IT IS STAFF'S OPINION THAT A PHYSICAL PROPERTY HARDSHIP DOES NOT EXIST AND SHOULD BE DENIED. THIS WAS A PUBLIC HEARING AND STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT WITH A PRESENTATION AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. SO I HAVE A QUESTION. UM, THE GARAGE WAS CONSTRUCTED, WAS IT 1955? YES. DO YOU HAVE ANY, ANY INFORMATION TO SHOW WHETHER IT WAS CONFORMING IN 1955? YEAH, IT DOESN'T APPEAR SO. UM, I MEAN, OUR, OUR ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED IN 1956, SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT... YEAH, I'M, I'M JUST NOT SURE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. ANYTHING GOES IN 1955 UNTIL 1956. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. UM, AND THEN ALSO I WAS LOOKING AT THE, THE, THE MAP. WHERE, WHERE SPECIFICALLY IS THE CREPE MYRTLE? I, I... YEAH, IT'S HARD TO SEE ON THE, ON THE MAP, BUT IT IS RIGHT HERE. OH, OKAY. YEAH. RIGHT HERE. I SEE. OKAY. AND THEN I GUESS JUST TO REITERATE, UM, IT IS A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, BUT WHEN IT IS, WHEN IT IS TAKEN DOWN AT THAT POINT, THAT'S WHAT GIVES RISE TO THIS VARIANCE REQUEST HERE. CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WITH ANY QUESTIONS FOR, FOR MS. ROSS? ALL RIGHT. UM, WELL, AT THIS TIME, UM, IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, I'LL CALL THE APPLICANT AND ANY OTHER PERSONS THAT WOULD BE SPEAKING ON THE APPLICANT'S BEHALF. THAT WOULD INCLUDE CONTRACTORS, DESIGNERS. LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE A ONE MAN SHOW TONIGHT. UM, SO THIS IS FOR VARIANCE 2604, UH, REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 520 GREENLEAF DRIVE. AND, UM, SO I JUST ASK THAT YOU COME FORWARD TO BE SWORN IN. SO, UM, FIRST I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND STATE YOU'RE, YOU'RE TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, CORRECT? YES. ALL RIGHT. UH, MCGREGOR BAILEY, 520 GREENLEAF DRIVE, RICHARDSON, TEXAS. OKAY. AND THEN, UH, ASK YOU TO RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE. DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE BEFORE THIS BOARD TODAY TO BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO. ALL RIGHT. UM, YOU, YOU MAY BEGIN. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SWEET. UH, THANK YOU, CHRISTINE, FOR GETTING US KICKED OFF. UM, I'M KINDA GONNA REGURGITATE SOME MORE INFORMATION, BUT AGAIN, JUST, WE'RE ASKING JUST TO KEEP THE EXISTING GARAGE IN PLACE. IT'S BEEN THERE FOR SO LONG. IT'S JUST IN BAD SHAPE, SO WE JUST WANNA BUILD IT HOW IT IS AND ALSO ADD AN ADDITIONAL, I BELIEVE, FOUR FEET TO THE WEST SIDE FOR JUST ADDITIONAL STORAGE. AS YOU KNOW, THIS HOUSE BUILT IN 55, THEY WERE A LOT SMALLER BACK THEN. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF STORAGE IN THE HOUSE, SO, UM, AND THEN, YEAH, JUST TO GO OVER THE PICTURES, IF... IT'S KINDA HARD TO TELL, BUT UNDER THE HONDA PILOT THERE TO THE LEFT, YOU CAN KINDA SEE THE SLAB IS COMING APART AND, UM, I'VE NOTICED THERE'S NO REBAR AND REINFORCEMENT, SO, UM, THIS WOULD PROBABLY CAUSE US TO RIP OUT THE SLAB, AND THEREFORE I DON'T THINK JUST REPAIRING THE GARAGE IS AN OPTION AT THIS POINT. AND, UH, IF YOU ALSO LOOK, IT, IT'S LEANING A DECENT AMOUNT TO THE, UH, WE - OR EAST PROPERTY LINE. UM, I'VE SISTERED A COUPLE OF FRAMING JOISTS AND WHATNOT IN THE GARAGE TO KINDA JUST HOLD IT IN PLACE. IT'S NOT IMPEDING COLLAPSE, AT LEAST TO ME AND OTHER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS HAVE LOOKED AT IT, BUT AGAIN, JUST KINDA SHOWS YOU THE STATE OF THE GARAGE AS IS. OH, AND SORRY, UM, AND THEN AS FAR AS MOVING IT, STEP OUT HERE, UM, IF IT WERE TO BE A THREE-FOOT SE... HOW DO YOU DO THE POINTER? SIR, WOULD YOU MIND, UH, UH, IF YOU DON'T MIND JUST SPEAKING INTO THE MICROPHONE, THAT'S JUST THE MAIN THING. [00:15:01] SORRY. NO, NO, ALL GOOD. ALL GOOD. UM, WHERE'S THE POINTER ON THIS? OH, SEPARATE ONE. OKAY. UM, SO YEAH, IF WE WERE TO HAVE IT THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE EAVE, AND THE EAVE, I BELIEVE, IS 12 INCHES, SO IT'D BE THREE FEET, OBVIOUSLY, RIGHT AT THAT EDGE, AND THEN THE 12 INCHES FOR THE EAVE, SO THERE WOULD BE YOUR WALL, BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO THIS ABOUT ONE TO ONE AND A HALF FOOT KNOCKOUT, AND THAT'S FOR THE GARAGE AND THE TRACKS FOR THE GARAGE. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT'D BE ANOTHER ALMOST RIGHT IN THERE. SO YOU'D SEE, LIKE, THE EDGE OF THE GARAGE WOULD ALMOST OVER, BE NEARLY IN THIS FENCE, WHICH IS WHY WE'D HAVE TO REMOVE THE FENCE ENTIRELY, BECAUSE THE OPENING OF THE GARAGE AT THAT POINT WOULD BE RIGHT OVER THAT, OR IF NOT, YOU KNOW, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GARAGE OPENING. AGAIN, HERE'S THE, JUST THE PLAT. UM, AGAIN, CHRISTINE ALREADY WENT OVER MOST OF THIS, UM, JUST THE EXISTING STRUCTURES THERE. THIS PLAT'S A LOT DATED AND SO IT DOESN'T SHOW THE, THE PATIO AS IS TODAY, BUT THERE'S A STONE, FLAGSTONE PATIO THAT LEADS UP TO THAT ALONG WITH THE FENCE. AND IF WE WERE TO BUMP IT OVER, WE'D HAVE TO TAKE SOME OF THAT OUT, NOT A LOT. AND, UH, WHILE IT DOESN'T QUALIFY FOR THE 50% OF THE PROPERTY'S OVERALL VALUE, IT STILL ADDS KIND OF AN UNNECESSARY AMOUNT TO THE OVERALL CONSTRUCTION OF THE GARAGE. AND THEN HERE'S JUST SOME ELEVATION WHAT WE'RE THINKING. WE'RE LOOKING TO DO, UM, HARDIE BOARD FOR THE MATERIAL, AND IF THERE'S ANY CONCERN WITH SAFETY, THE HARDIE BOARD'S, UH, ASTM RATED, AND IT'S A CLASS A, UM, FIRE RESISTANCE, THAT'S BASICALLY THE BEST YOU CAN GET AS FAR AS FIRE RESISTANCE. UM, AGAIN, WE'RE HAVING A LOW PITCH KIND OF ROOF THAT'S SIMILAR TO THE RANCH STYLE OLD BUILDS IN NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'RE KIND OF TRYING TO KEEP THE ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENTS OF THE OLD CHARM OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN PLACE WITH THIS. AND THEN, YEAH, JUST A RECAP, UM, WE JUST, MOVING THE GARAGE THAT FAR OVER WOULD JUST CREATE JUST A WEIRD DYNAMIC WITH PARKING VEHICLES AND WHATNOT. AND WE WOULD REALLY LOVE TO KEEP THAT PEDESTRIAN FENCE IN THERE, BECAUSE WE HAVE AN AUTOMATIC GATE, AND THEN THAT FENCE SEPARATES THE DRIVEWAY, AND THEN WE HAVE THREE KIDS AT HOME, SO WE JUST, YOU KNOW, WE SEND THEM OUT IN THE BACKYARD AND WE USUALLY LOCK THAT PEDESTRIAN GATE, KEEP THEM OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY. SO I COME HOME, I, I, I CAN'T SEE THEM BACK THERE, YOU KNOW? I OPEN THE GATE AND, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'LL STOP IF THERE'S SOME RESISTANCE ON IT, YOU KNOW, GOD FORBID IT OPENS AND HITS ONE OF THEM OR THEY'RE BACK THERE, YOU KNOW. AND THEN AS IS, THE GARAGE IS LEANING SO MUCH THAT WE'VE ALREADY HAD IT FIXED ONCE THE DOOR, BUT NOW IT'S LEANING SO MUCH, AGAIN, THAT IT'S, IT, THE BRACKETS ARE ALMOST COMING OFF THE GARAGE DOOR. SO I'VE HAD TO FIX THAT A FEW TIMES AND IT CURRENTLY DOESN'T CLOSE, WHICH IS ANOTHER... AND AGAIN, WE JUST DON'T WANT TO KEEP PAYING AND PAYING TO REFIX THAT. UM, YEAH, IT'S JUST RECAPPING BASICALLY. AND THEN WE REACH OUT TO A FEW OF OUR NEIGHBORS AND THIS IS SOME WRITTEN, UM, CORRESPONDENCE FROM THEM. UM, I CAN READ IT IF YOU'D LIKE, BUT THEY, THEY ESSENTIALLY ARE SAYING THEY DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT. AND THEN OUR NEIGHBOR IMMEDIATELY WEST OF US, UNFORTUNATELY, MR. FERGUSON, HE PASSED AWAY OVER THE SUMMER, UM, SO HIS, HIS KIDS ARE, YOU KNOW, IN THE PROCESS OF PROBATE FOR THE HOUSE AND, UH, THEY COULDN'T WRITE ON THE BEHALF OF OWNERSHIP OF THE HOUSE, BUT THEY SAID, THE BROTHER AND SISTER SAID THEY DON'T MIND THIS VARIANCE. AGAIN, JUST MORE PICTURES, AND THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY IT. GREAT. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? DOESN'T, DOESN'T APPEAR THAT WE DO JUST YET. SOMETIMES, SOMETIMES WE NEED A LITTLE BIT OF, UH, A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEMPLATION TIME. UM - DIGEST A LITTLE BIT. YEAH, EXACTLY. UM, SO I WAS DOING A LITTLE BIT OF, UM, RESEARCH - OKAY. ON THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FROM THE ORIGINAL 1956 ORDINANCE, AND IN THE R1100M CHAPTER, IT DOES NOT SPEAK TO DETACHED GARAGE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. [00:20:02] SO THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS DEVELOPED UNTIL LATER? YES. OKAY. WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S AN INTERESTING, INTERESTING, UH, NUANCE RIGHT THERE. MR. ROOKER? IS IT JUST THE EAVE WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT? YES, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IS MEASURED TO. SO IT'S NOT THE STRUCTURE OF THE GARAGE PER SE? CORRECT. IT'S THE ROOF, FOR THE LACK OF BETTER TERM. YES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, MR. ROOKER? DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN EAVE? WHAT DO I HAVE? IS AN EAVE NECESSARY? IS AN EAVE NECESSARY? UM, I MEAN, NO, BUT AGAIN, WE WERE JUST TRYING TO MATCH THE ARCHITECTURE OF MY HOME AND THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH ALL HAVE EAVES. AND THEN IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE A EAVE, WE'D HAVE TO PUT A GUTTER TO KEEP WATER FROM - RIGHT. DRIPPING DOWN THE SIDE. SO I'M NOT, I BELIEVE GUTTERS CAN ENCROACH. I DON'T, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I'M GUESSING IF YOU PUT A GUTTER UP THERE, TALKING SIX INCHES NOW. YEAH, MAYBE. OR LESS. OKAY. THANK YOU. OF COURSE. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? UH, GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE. I'M, I'M JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT DEEP IN THOUGHT OF, OF MAYBE AN INQUIRY, BUT... ALL RIGHT. WELL, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, AT THE... OH, HERE WE GO, MR. MOTTA. JUST, JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOUR POINT FOR NOT, ONE OF YOUR POINTS FOR NOT MOVING THE GARAGE IS IF YOU WERE TO MOVE, UH, BASICALLY MOVE THE GARAGE A FOOT OVER TO COMPLY WITH THE EAVE, YOU'D ALSO HAVE TO RIP OUT THE FENCE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT LINES UP WITH YOUR DRIVEWAY, OR THE GARAGE DOOR OPENING. RIGHT. IT WOULD JUST KIND OF SET OFF A CHAIN REACTION, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, OF JUST STUFF WE NEED TO MOVE AROUND IN ORDER TO GET IT TO FUNCTION PROPERLY, OR AS IT IS NOW. MM-HMM. OKAY. THANK YOU. OF COURSE. WHAT'S THAT?. OH. I THINK, I THINK I FORGOT TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THAT'S OKAY. HE'S IN IT. OKAY. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU OPEN IT. YEAH. WELL, I WILL DECLARE, SINCE YOU ARE THE APPLICANT SPEAKING AT THIS TIME, WE ARE OPENING UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. AS YOU CAN TELL, THE PUBLIC HAS SHOWED UP IN, IN, IN GREAT NUMBERS TO, UH, TO HAVE THEIR, THEIR THOUGHTS HEARD ON THIS AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. WELL, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT, AT THIS TIME, IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT WE HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU, BUT, UM, YOU'RE WELCOME TO HAVE A SEAT. WE MAY HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AS WE, AS WE JUST KIND OF CONSIDER THE CASE ITSELF AND THE MOTIONS. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. OF COURSE. THANK Y'ALL. ALL RIGHT. SO NEXT, NEXT ITEM. SO, SO, OKAY. SO THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SORRY, I MISINTERPRETED THAT. IS THERE ANYONE W- WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE QUE - THE REQUEST? AND IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST? DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE CASE. SO SEEING THAT THERE ARE NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS, I'M GOING TO NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO THIS IS A TIME WHERE THE BOARD DELIBERATES REGARDING THE REQUEST. WE MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF ON THIS. UM, AND ALSO THIS IS WHEN WE WOULD ENTERTAIN MOTIONS, UH, AS THEY ARE MADE. SO DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF? SO JUST CLARIFICATION, THERE WAS NO ORDINANCE WHEN THE HOME WAS BUILT, AND HE'S JUST REPLACING, HE'S BASICALLY JUST GONNA MATCH THE, THE, UH, THE ENCROACHMENT THAT EXISTS AND NOT FURTHER EXPAND ONTO THAT ENCROACH- ENCROACHMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT HIS PROPOSED PLAN? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. MATA. COULD, COULD I - YES. JUST CLARIFY. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE BOARD UNDERSTANDS. SO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, OBVIOUSLY NON-CONFORMING, WHEN THE STRUCTURE IS TORN DOWN, THAT'S WHEN THE NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS ARE LOST, SO... ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OR DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS MATTER? AND I GUESS I, I WOULD JUST SAY, JUST, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, BUT, UM, SO MUCH OF THE TIME IN CASES LIKE THIS, WE ARE LOOKING AT UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS [00:25:01] AS TO THE PROPERTY AND THE LOT. AND IN THIS CASE, WE DO HAVE, WHAT IS IT, A 10-FOOT EASEMENT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. BUT REALLY BASED UPON THE LOCATION OF THIS GARAGE HERE, UM, WHILE THAT EASEMENT DOES LIMIT THEIR ABILITY TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, IT DOES NOT... JUST THE LOCATION OF THAT EASEMENT, YEAH, RIGHT THERE ON THE EAST, EASTERN, EASTERN SIDE. I GUESS IT'S MORE OF A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION AS TO THAT EASEMENT AS, AS TO WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING THE BOARD CAN CONSIDER HERE. SORRY, THAT'S NOT A VERY GOOD QUESTION. IT KIND OF SOUNDED LIKE A QUESTION ON THE END WITH THE, THE, UH, POSITIVE, UM, TONE IN TONE, RIGHT? IT WAS A, IT WAS VERY MUCH AN I'M, I'M RON BURGUNDY TYPE THING. YEAH. SO, UM, I- I- I- IT'S A FAIR QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE EASEMENT LIMITS DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. UM, STAFF DID LOOK AT OTHER LOTS WITHIN THE AREA TO SEE IF THEY HAD A SIMILAR ENCUMBRANCE, UM, PARTICULAR TO, IF, IF NORTH WAS UP ON THE PLAT, UM, PARTICULARLY TO THE NORTH, THERE WERE TWO LOTS TO THE NORTH THAT HAD A SIMILAR CONDITION WHERE A, A GARAGE STRUCTURE WAS CONSTRUCTED, UM, IN A SIMILAR POSITION AS THIS GARAGE STRUCTURE EXISTS. SO THE, THE EASEMENT HASN'T PRECLUDED THE, UM, OTHER LOTS IN A SIMILAR CONDITION FROM BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE A GARAGE STRUCTURE. SO IN THAT CASE, THE ANALYSIS, WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING THE OTHER STREETS ON GREENLEAF, WE'RE LOOKING AT OTHER STREETS THAT HAVE THAT SIMILAR, SIMILAR ORDINANCE OR, OR, OR NOT ORDINANCE, THE SIMILAR EASEMENT, UM - CORRECT. TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH. RIGHT. WE, WE LOOKED TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH, AND SO, BECAUSE THE EASEMENT BASICALLY RUNS NORTH-SOUTH ALONG THE EDGE OF THE SUBDIVISION. SO THE REMAINING LOTS, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ON THIS SINCE YOU HAVE THE PLAT, BUT THE REMAINING LOTS, UM, THAT ARE TO THE WEST DO NOT HAVE THE EASEMENT. SO ON THIS PARTICULAR BLOCK, THIS LOT DOES HAVE THE EASEMENT, WHEREAS THE OTHERS DO NOT. UM, BUT IF YOU LOOK TO THE NORTH, AGAIN, WE WERE LOOKING TO SEE, OKAY, IF THERE'S OTHER SIMILAR CONDITIONS, YOU KNOW, IS, DOES THIS PROPERTY HAVE SOMETHING UNIQUE ASSOCIATED WITH IT THAT, UM, THAT, UM, SOME OF THE OTHER LOTS IN THE AREA DO NOT HAVE? AND SO LOOK, FOLLOWING WHERE THAT EASEMENT WAS TO THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH, OTHER PROPERTIES HAVE MANAGED TO HAVE A GARAGE STRUCTURE. NOW, I WILL ADMIT, I DO NOT KNOW IF THOSE, YOU KNOW, IF THOSE GARAGE STRUCTURES COMPLY WITH OUR EXISTING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TODAY. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DO WE HAVE A POSSIBLE MOTION? LET'S CHECK MY NOTES REAL QUICK. OH. WE NEED A, UH, WELL, HOLD ON. MR. CHAIRMAN, LET'S SEE. I DO FIND THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE, OR SORRY, IT'S THE VARIANCE, RIGHT? THE VARIANCE, CORRECT. THE VARIANCE V2604 WILL, WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. IT'S NOT REALLY UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, AND GRANTING THE REQUEST WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. I THEREFORE MOVE TO GRANT THE REQUEST IN VARIANCE CASE V2604 AND THAT THE REQUEST BE LIMITED TO THOSE SPECIFICS WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED AS HIS/HER APPLICATION. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND GRANTING THIS MOTION? I'LL SECOND. OKAY. MS. BONSACK SECONDS. ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR OF, OF, UH, GRANTING VARIANCE 2604, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? AND THAT MOTION CARRIES, CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT APPEARS TO BE THE LAST ITEM OF BUSINESS. SO THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD, I WILL CALL THE MEETING ADJOURN- ADJOURNED AT 7:11, UM, PM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING OUT. WISH YOU THE VERY BEST OF * 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.