Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

>> LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.

[CALL TO ORDER]

[1. Minutes: Receive a report, discussion, public hearing, and action on approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting Held on May 11, 2021]

[00:00:08]

FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING. ANYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THOSE? SECOND?

OKAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> ALL: AYE.

>> NO ITEMS PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED FROM PRIOR MEETINGS.

THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS FIVE MEMBERS, FOUR OF MUST BE PRESENT. THE APPLICANT HAS 180 DAYS FROM THIS DATE TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT IF ONE IS REQUIRED.

A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS BOARD IF REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT AT THIS MEETING.

THE BUILDING PERMIT MAY BE APPLIED FOR THE DAY THE REQUEST IS APPROVED AFTER THE MEETING HAS ADJOURNED.

IF THE REQUEST IS DENIED, IT MAY NOT BE RECONSIDERED BY THIS BOARD UNTIL 12 MONTHS FROM THIS DATE.

APPEALS FROM THE DECISIONS OF THIS BOARD MAY BE MADE TO A COURT OF RECORD, IN THIS CASE, THE DISTRICT COURT, WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THIS DATE. WE NEED TO SWEAR IN ANYONE WHO'S GOING TO COME FORWARD AND PRESENT A CASE TODAY.

SO IF YOU PLAN TO COME TO THE PODIUM TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF ANY CASE TODAY, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.

[2. BA-2021-07: Receive a report, public hearing, discussion and action on a request for a Special Exception to allow the expansion of a nonconforming use at Lake Breeze Trailer Park, located at 902 East South 11th Street, Abilene, Texas]

NEW BUSINESS, THE FIRST ITEM IS BA-2021-07 RECEIVER A REPORT, PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION, AND ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE AFTER LAKE BREEZE TRAILER PARK.

>> THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE, AND I SPECIFICALLY MEAN A LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING USE. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, ZONING REGULATIONS DEFINE A NON-CONFORMING USE, REALLY ANY NON-CONFORMING USE, TO BE A LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING USE, THAT IS A USE WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM TO EXISTING ZONING REGULATIONS BUT WHICH IS NONETHELESS LEGAL BECAUSE THAT USE EXISTED BEFORE REGULATIONS, WHICH WOULD NOT NOW ALLOW IT AT ITS PRESENT LOCATION. EXPANDING A LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING USE IS ONE OF A RELATIVE FEW ITEMS WHICH THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY ALLOW BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS CATEGORICALLY DIFFERENT THAN A VARIANCE. A VARIANCE CAN BE GRANTED FROM PRACTICALLY EVERY STANDARD OF ZONING REGULATIONS EXCEPT USE REGUL REGULATIONS EXCEPT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS STEEP. ONLY FEW ARE ELIGIBLE FOR AN APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS, WELL, NOT SO MUCH. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE SPECIFICALLY BY INCREASING THE NUMBER OF SPACES AVAILABLE FOR HABITATION OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AT LAKE BREEZE TRAILER PARK. LAKE BREEZE TRAILER PARK LIES AT 902 ELEVEN EAST OF T&P LANE ON THE LEFT OF THIS IMAGE AND LEFT OF SOUTH JUDGE ELY TO THE RIGHT OF THE IMAGE.

THE APPLICANT DOES NOT SEEK TO EXPAND THE LAND AREA ENCOMPASSED BY THIS RV PARK BUT ONLY TO CONVERT THE GRASS COVERED COURTYARD IN THE CENTER INTO SPACES FOR NINE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. THIS RV PARK HAS BEEN AT THIS SAME LOCATION FOR AT LEAST 60 YEARS.

AN AERIAL PHOTO FROM 1964 SHOWS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME IMAGE THAT WE SEE IN THIS AERIAL PHOTO FROM 2020.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH IS OF COURSE IS HIGHLIGHTED BY STRIPING, AS WELL AS THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF SO MUCH NEARBY PROPERTIES.

THE ZONING OF THIS EXISTING RV PARK IS SPLIT BETWEEN

[00:05:06]

MANUFACTURED HOUSING ON ITS WESTERN HALF INDICATED BY THE COLOR BROWN AND AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE ON ITS EASTERN HALF INDICATED HERE BY THE COLOR GREEN.

A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK IS NOW NO LONGER AUTOMATICALLY ALLOWED IN EITHER MANUFACTURED HOUSING ZONING OR AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE ZONING. HENCE, THE LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING NATURE OF LAKE BREEZE TRAILER PARK AT EAST SOUTH 11TH STREET. THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE EXISTING AND PLANNED LAYOUT OF RV SPACES ON THE SITE OF LAKE BREEZE TRAILER PARK. 27 EXISTING SPACES LINE THE PERIMETER OF THIS RV PARK. 9 NEW RV SPACES ARE PROPOSED IN THE VERY CENTER OF THIS RV PARK, WHERE THE EXISTING GRASS-COVERED COURT IS NOW LOCATED. INTERNAL ELECTRIC, WATER, AND SEWER CONNECTIONS ARE PROPOSED TO BE MADE TO THESE NINE NEW SPACES AS SHOWN BY THE SOLID PINK, BLUE, AND GREEN LINES SHOWN ON THIS IMAGE. ALL WATER SERVICE TO EXISTING AND PROPOSED RV SPACES NOW FLOWS THROUGH A SINGLE METER AND IS PLANNED TO CONTINUE TO DO SO. LIKEWISE, ALL SEWAGE FLOW FROM EXISTING AND PROPOSED RV SPACES WILL ENTER THE CITY SEWER SYSTEM THROUGH A SINGLE SERVICE CONNECTION.

HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AT THE TOP LEFT PHOTO, WE CAN SEE THE GRASS-COVERED COURT IN THE VERY CENTER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND WE'RE LOOKING WEST IN THE DIRECTION OF T&P LANE. AT THE TOP RIGHT, WE SEE, AGAIN, THE GRASS-COVERED COURTYARD IN THE CENTER OF THE RV PARK AND WE'RE LOOKING BASICALLY NORTH FROM WITH EAST SOUTH 11TH STREET AT OUR BACK. IN THE LOWER LEFT, WE'RE LOOKING AT EAST SOUTH 11TH STREET, ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF WHICH IS, WELL, THE OPEN SPACE AREA JUST BELOW THE LYTLE LAKE DAM.

AND AT THE LOWER RIGHT WE SEE THE NORTHWESTERN VIEW OF THIS PROPERTY. AND WE CAN SEE THE -- BASICALLY, THE BASE CO-COVERED INTERNAL DR WITHIN THE RV PARK.

EIGHT OWNERS OF ADJACENT AND NEARBY PROPERTY WERE FORMALLY NOTIFIED OF THIS REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

NONE RETURNED WRITTEN COMMENTS EITHER IN FAVOR OF OR IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST. WITH PARTICULAR REGARD TO EXPANDING A NON-CONFORMING USE, ABILENE'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STATES THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MUST DETERMINE SEVERAL THINGS.

THE EXPANDED USE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT SYSTEMS FOR WASTE WATER OR STORM WATER AND STREET TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS. AND LIKEWISE, THE EXPANDED USE CAN BE MADE IN ACCORD WITH APPLICABLE CITY CODES AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANNED POLICIES, ESPECIALLY THOSE PERTAINING TO LAND USE COMPATIBILITY.

LAKE BREEZE TRAILER PARK IS SOLELY ACCESSIBLE TO EAST SOUTH 11TH STREET SO THAT INCREASED TRAFFIC FLOW FOR MORE RVS THERE WITH NOT IMPACT LOCALIZED STREET TRAFFIC.

ABILENE'S WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT HAS EXPRESSED NO CONCERN ABOUT SERVICE CAPACITY RESULTING FROM THIS MORE INTENSIVE USE OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.

NO PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY LIES IN THE HUNDRED-YEAR FLOOD HAZARD AREA. AND THE FIRE LANE ACCESS TO ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED RV SPACES, THE BASE COVERED AREA IN THE PHOTO, WILL REMAIN AT LEAST 30 FEET WIDE, WHICH IS INDEED THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FOR FIRE CODE COMPLIANCE.

FINALLY, THE VICINITY SURROUNDING THIS SITE IS ALREADY TYPIFIED BY A MIX OF USES INCLUDING MOBILE HOMES, CONVENTIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON RELATIVELY LARGE LOTS, AND EVEN A FEW APARTMENT BUILDINGS. ADDING MORE RVS TO THE RV PARK SHOULD POSE NO THREAT TO THE INTEGRITY OF NEARBY USE.

IN CONCLUSION, IF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS INCLINED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, CITY STAFF DOES

[00:10:03]

RECOMMEND THAT SUCH APPROVAL BE CONDITIONED ON A SINGLE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PARK'S OWNER TO INSTALL A BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE LOCATED IMMEDIATELY DOWNSTREAM OF THE WATER METER.

THIS RECOMMENDATION COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE CITY'S WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT. THANK YOU, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT THE CASE.

>> JUST A COMMENT. IT WAS AN EXCELLENT STAFF REPORT AND A WONDERFUL PRESENTATION. VERY NICE.

>> THANK YOU. >> AND CLEARS IT UP VERY NICELY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR BRAD? ROBERT.

>> YES, I HAVE QUESTIONS. >> YES, SIR.

>> SO THE 8-INCH, THE SEWER MAIN IS SUFFICIENT FOR 36 UNITS?

>> YES. >> OKAY.

THAT'S FINE. DOES THE CITY MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN RVS AND MANUFACTURED HOUSING?

>> YES. THEY ARE CATEGORICALLY TWO

DIFFERENT THINGS. >> OKAY.

>> MOST IMPORTANTLY, WELL, THERE IS A SPECIFIC DEFINITION, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THAT DEFINITION IS THAT A MOBILE HOME OR A MANUFACTURED HOME MUST BE AT LEAST 8 FEET WIDE AND 40

FEET LONG. >> OKAY.

SO TECHNICALLY, THAT MANUFACTURED HOUSING WOULD BE

ALLOWED HERE? >> TECHNICALLY, ON THAT PORTION OF THE PROPER -- ON THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS ZONED MANUFACTURED HOUSING, WHICH IS BASICALLY THE WEST HALF OF THE

EXISTING RV PARK. >> RIGHT, YEAH, OKAY.

IS THERE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT RV US USAGE?

>> NOT ANYMORE. THERE USED TO BE A REQUIREMENT THAT NOBODY COULD STAY THERE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR.

THAT REQUIREMENT IS NOW GONE. >> OKAY.

SO WE'RE HERE BECAUSE THE QUESTION WHETHER YOU CAN DEVELOP OR REDEVELOP ON AO LAND, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> WELL, SPECIFICALLY, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ADDITION OF THE NINE NEW SPACES, INTENSIFYING THIS NON-CONFORMING USE.

>> OKAY. >> AS I MENTIONED, THERE ARE 27 EXISTING SPACES AND THERE HAVE BEEN THOSE SAME BASICALLY 27 SPACES FOR DECADES NOW. AND THE PRESENT OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY WANTS TO INTENSIFY OR EXPAND THE NATURE OF THIS NON-CONFORMING USE BY ADDING THE NINE NEW SPACES.

>> IS THERE -- BRAD, IS THERE A DISTINCTION OR A, UM, A DEFINITION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AS FAR AS NON-CONFORMING USE, BETWEEN THIS PROPOSED PROJECT OF DOING THAT ON AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE VERSUS THE MANUFACTURED HOUSING ZONING? IS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN THOSE TWO ZONING DESIGNATIONS FOR THIS TYPE -- I MEAN, CAN HE EXPAND ON -- I GUESS REAL SIMPLIFIED, CAN HE EXPAND ON THAT AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE NON-CONFORMING -- NOT EXPAND BUT A NON-CONFORMING USE ON THAT AGRICULTURAL, THE AO?

>> IN FACT, THE RECREATIONAL PARK IS ALLOWED WITH A USE PERMIT AND THE AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE ZONING.

>> OKAY. >> IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE THIS A CONFORMING USE BY EXPANDING THE AO ZONING AND SIMULTANEOUSLY SEEKING APPROVAL FROM CITY COUNCIL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN RV PARK WITHIN AN AO DISTRICT.

AN RV PARK IS ALLOWED IN TWO ZONING DISTRICTS: THE AO ZONING DISTRICT AND THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH AND ON WITH A USE PERMIT BY CITY COUNCIL.

AND TO BE QUITE HONEST, WE'VE DONE A COUPLE THREE OF THOSE IN THE PAST FIVE, SIX YEARS FOR NEW RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKS.

WE'RE DEALING WITH A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK WHICH HAS BEEN THERE FOR MORE THAN 60 YEARS.

>> ONE MORE QUESTION. ARE THERE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR MH AND AO ZONING?

[00:15:01]

>> FOR PLACEMENT OF RVS? BASICALLY, 15 FEET FROM THE

PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY. >> AND HOW DOES THAT APPLY IF THE DIFFERENCE IS RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE?

>> IN AN RV PARK, WE WOULD STILL INSIST ON THERE BEING, YOU KNOW, A 15-FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN PLACEMENT OF A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AND THE OUTSIDE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY.

>> OKAY. BUT FROM A ZONING STANDPOINT, WE HAVE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND COMMERCIAL AREAS ARE THERE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR AO AND MANUFACTURED HOUSING? DOES MANUFACTURED HOUSING HAVE TO BE -- CAN YOU BUILD WITHIN -- UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE OR WHAT CAN YOU DO?

>> WELL -- >> OR DOES IT --

>> ARE WE TALKING ABOUT RECREATIONAL VEHICLES OR

MANUFACTURED HOUSING? >> WELL, WE HAVE A LOT THAT'S BOTH. ARE THERE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR EITHER OF THOSE?

>> WELL, FOR INSTALLATION OF A NEW BUILDING, BUT PLACEMENT OF AN RV, WE WOULD SIMPLY EMPLOY THE 15-FOOT SEPARATION STANDARD

REQUIRED IN AN RV PARK. >> OKAY.

THE DIFFERENCE IS, IN MY OPINION, SINCE IT'S NOT A PERMANENT STRUCTURE, THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE IS, BY DEFINITION, A VEHICLE. IT MOVES.

>> YEAH. >> AND --

>> SOME BETTER THAN OTHERS. [LAUGHS]

>> AND WE INSIST THAT IN AN RV PARK, A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE THAT IS INHABITED BE SEPARATED AT LEAST 15 FEET FROM THE OUTSIDE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY.

>> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> PARKED ON A BOUNDARY LINE AND, OH WELL.

>> THANK YOU. >> MM-HM, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, BRAD. AT THIS POINT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WILL THE PROPONENT PLEASE COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THE REASON FOR YOUR REQ REQUEST?

>> I'M TOMMY HENDRIX, THE OWNER OF THE LAKE BREEZE RV PARK.

I JUST WANT TO EXPAND THE PARK. I MEAN, SINCE I BOUGHT IT, I'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK THERE, CLEANED THE PLACE UP.

AND I PLAN ON MAKING IT A LITTLE NICER IF I GET TO ADD THESE SPOTS, YOU KNOW. THAT'S BASICALLY THE REASON FOR WANTING TO EXPAND IS, I MEAN, WE STAY FULL.

WE HAVE A WAITING LIST. PEOPLE -- SO THAT'S THE REASON

I'M WANTING TO EXPAND IT. >> YOU BET.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR TOMMY?

ROBERT. >> GO AHEAD.

>> GO AHEAD. >> I HAD, WELL, SEVERAL, BUT ONE IS PARKING. THE -- WHERE THESE PROPOSED NINE

SPACES ARE -- >> THE SPACES ARE DEEP ENOUGH

FOR THE RV AND THE VEHICLE. >> UH-HUH.

>> THERE ARE GOING TO BE APPROXIMATELY 60 FOOT ACROSS THERE. SO MOST OF YOUR RVS ARE 40 FOOT OR LESS. SO THEY'RE MORE OR LESS LIKE A

PULL-THROUGH SPOT. >> BUT THEN RIGHT NOW SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THE OUTSIDE PERIMETER, THEY PARK IN THE

MIDDLE. >> THERE'S ROOM IN FRONT OF THEIR RVS, LIKE THE WEST SIDE, THE PARKING IS IN FRONT OF THE -- BY THE RV. ON THE EAST SIDE, THERE'S ROOM TO DO THE SAME THING THERE WHERE THE -- THERE'S -- THERE'S ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF ROOM BOTH SIDES OF THE DRIVE.

SO THERE'S ADEQUATE PARKING FOR THE ONES THAT ARE ON THE EAST, THEY WILL PARK IN FRONT OF THEIR RV, WHICH THERE'S ABOUT 60 FOOT OF SPACE THERE ALSO. SO THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM TO

MAKE THE PARKING THERE. >> RIGHT.

AND THEN THE OTHER SIDE BY THE DRAWING, IT WAS --

>> THE OTHER SIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE FIRST SPACE THERE WHERE IT SHOWS PARKING ON THE EAST SIDE, WHICH WOULD BE AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT-HAND SIDE. YOU SEE THE LITTLE SQUARE THAT

SAYS PARKING. >> YES.

>> AND ON THE OTHER SIDE ALSO, THAT'S TYPICAL ALL THE WAY

AROUND. >> OKAY.

>> I JUST DREW IT IN THAT ONE SPOT, BUT THAT'S TYPICAL.

>> DO THE PEOPLE THAT PARK IN THE MIDDLE --

>> IN THE MIDDLE PART, YEAH, YOU CAN -- YOU CAN SEE ON THE TOP RIGHT-HAND SIDE WHERE IT SAYING PARKING, THAT WOULD BE THEIR

ASSIGNED PARKING. >> THEY CAN DO THAT PARKING IN

FRONT OF THEIR TRAILER? >> YES.

[00:20:01]

I DON'T HAVE BASE MATERIAL IN FRONT OF THERE NOW, BUT I IF I DO THIS EXPANSION I WAS GOING TO PUT ASPHALT (INAUDIBLE) IN AND

DO THE PARKING ON BOTH. >> AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION WAS, BY THAT PLAT, BY THAT DRAWING, THOSE PROPOSED DRIVETHROUGH UNITS, IT'S BASICALLY 30 FEET, THE U-SHAPED DRIVE AREA, BY THE DRAWING IS 30 FEET WIDE.

SO IS THAT SUFFICIENT SPACE IF SOMEONE PULLS A FIFTH WHEEL AND PARKS IT IN ONE OF THESE NEW PROPOSED SPACES, IS THERE SPACE

TO TURN OUT? >> YES, SIR.

>> AND BASICALLY INGRESS, EGRESS, GET IN AND OUT OF THERE,

IS IT SUFFICIENT? >> YES, THERE'S ENOUGH SPACE.

BECAUSE THE WAY THEY GET OUT AT AN ANGLE, THEY CAN PULL OUT AND GET AROUND. IT'S ADEQUATE SPACE.

>> WHEN I LOOKED AT THAT, IS A SMALL BUMMER PULL, WHATEVER,

MAYBE NOT AN ISSUE. >> THE FIFTH WHEELS CAN TURN SO SHARP, THEY CAN GET NEARLY SIDEWAYS, YOU KNOW, OR THEY CAN

GET SIDEWAYS. >> RIGHT.

>> AND THE 30 FOOT, THAT IS THE PAVED DRIVE THAT THE CITY DONE.

IT'S 30 FOOT WIDE RIGHT THERE. I'VE JUST KIND OF MAINTAINED

THAT. >> THE FUNCTIONAL OR WHATEVER,

THERE'S ACTUALLY MORE ROOM. >> TOMMY, DO YOU PLAN TO PUT IN

A BACKFLOW DEVICE? >> YES, YES.

WHATEVER THE CITY REQUIRES, YES. THAT'S NO PROBLEM THERE.

THAT'S... >> DO YOU CURRENTLY HAVE

PERMANENT RVS? >> THE RV PARK IS FULL.

IT STAYS FULL. WE MAINLY RENT BY THE MONTH BECAUSE WE DON'T EVER HAVE ANY VACANCIES.

I MEAN, WE'VE GOT A WAITING LIST AND IT'S BEEN THAT WAY -- I'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY PROBABLY SIX YEARS AND IT'S BEEN -- IT'S BEEN THAT WAY. AND THEN WITH -- OF COURSE, WITH THE NEW STUFF COMING TO TOWN, EVERY RV PARK AROUND IS FULL.

>> YEAH. >> AND THEN WE'VE GOT ALL THESE WORKERS COMING IN ALSO. IT'S JUST A --

>> BUT YOU HAVE RVS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE LONGER THAN A YEAR?

>> I HAVE RVS THAT WERE THERE WHEN I BOUGHT THE PLACE.

>> OKAY, ALL RIGHT. >> BUT, I MEAN, WE MAINTAIN IT, KEEP IT CLEAN. EVEN OUT O -- OUT FRONT, I DONE FLOWER BEDS NEXT TO THE ROAD. I POURED CONCRETE WHERE MILLER MACHINE SHOP USED TO BE. THAT'S WHERE MY ELECTRICAL SHOP IS. I'VE DONE QUITE A BIT OF WORK.

>> DO YOU PLAN TO TRANSITION TO MOBILE HOMES?

>> NO, NO, SIR. >> OKAY.

>> THE PARK -- THOSE EXISTING LOTS, LIKE ON THE SIDE, THEY'RE PROBABLY 25 FOOT WIDE OR SO. BACK WHEN THAT THING WAS BUILT, MOBILE HOMES WERE EIGHT FOOT WIDE.

NOW THEY'RE 20-SOMETHING FOOT WIDE.

SO WE DON'T DO ANY MOBILE HOMES AND HAVE NO INTENTION OF DOING

MOBILE HOMES. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? ANYONE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DISCU DISCUSSION? IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO ME AND IT LOOKS LIKE ALL THE

ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. >> WELL, I'M NOT EXCITING ABOUT REDEVELOPING UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, BUT IT'S ALLOWED, SO DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS WITH THAT.

>> I THINK THE ONLY SPECIFIC CRITERIA WE WOULD WANT TO INCLUDE WOULD BE THE ADDITION OF THE BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE THAT THE WATER DEPARTMENT HAS REQUESTED.

>> YEAH. AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO SAY THAT IT STAYS AN RV PARK, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.

>> ACTUALLY, THEY COULD -- IF HE WERE TO SELL IT AND IT'S ZONED -- I MEAN, IT'S ZONED -- I MEAN, IT WOULD BASICALLY WHATEVER'S IN THE ZONE WOULD BE ALLOWED, WHATEVER THE USES ARE.

AND SO IT COULD BE. AND THEN IF THEY TOTALLY CHANGED IT, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU COULD TAKE AWAY ANOTHER USE THAT'S ALLOWED IN THAT ZONING BY GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

>> BUT WE COULD RESTRICT IT FOR THE AGRICULTURAL-ONLY AREA.

>> NO, YOU COULD NOT. THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN

[00:25:01]

THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

>> I JUST DON'T THINK THIS BOARD COULD CHANGE THE USES LIKE THAT.

THAT'S REALLY ALMOST LIKE CHANGING ZONING.

>> RIGHT. WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY

IS JUST THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. >> WE'RE NOT CHANGING USE.

WE'RE AUTHORIZING CURRENT USE. >> YOU'RE AUTHORIZING EXPANSION FOR THE NINE LOTS IN THE MIDDLE, YES.

>> BUT WE'RE AUTHORIZING INTENSIFICATION OF RVS.

>> CORRECT. >> NOT MOBILE HOMES.

>> YOU -- IT'S AN EXPANSION OF RVS, YES.

AND THAT WOULD BE IN THE MOTION. >> OKAY.

>> ARE WE READY TO MAKE A MOT MOTION? I'LL ENTERTAIN ONE.

>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION BASED ON THE FACT THAT OF ALL THE CRITERIA REQUIRED FOR THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS HAVE BEEN MET AND DISCUSSED WITH THE ADDITION THAT THE BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE IS MANDATORY FOR ITS INSTALLATION. AND BASED ON ALL THE FINDINGS ON

THE STAFF REPORT. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE THAT MOTION TO APPROVE BASED UPON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE CONDITION RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY WATER DEPARTMENT FOR THE BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE.

CORONEL LANGHOLTZ. >> YES.

>> MR. BEERMANN. >> YES.

>> MR. ODLE. >> YES.

[3. BA-2021-08: Receive a report, public hearing, discussion and action on a request for a 3-foot 2-inch variance from the minimum 6-foot side building setback required in an RS 6 zoning district, located at 326 Shelton Street, being Lot 18 Block 1 of the Oakwood Addition, Abilene, Texas.]

>> AND MR. HAY. >> YES.

>> MOTION APPROVED. >> NEXT IN BA-2021-08, RECEIVE A REPORT, PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION, AND ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT TWO INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SIX FOOT SIDE BUILDING SETBACK REQUIRED IN AN RS-6 ZONING DISTRICT LOCATE THE ADD 326 SHELTON STREET BEING LOT 18 BLOCK 1 IN OAKWOOD ADDITION, ABILENE, TEXAS.

>> THIS REQUEST IS FOR A THREE FOOT TWO INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SIX-FOOT INTERIOR SIDE BUILDING SETBACK ORDINARILY REQUIRED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN RS-6 ZONING DISTRICTS.

APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE WILL LEGITIMIZE PREVIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITHIN 2 FEET 10 INCHES OF THE SOUTH SIDE BOUNDARY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT THE VERY CENTER OF THE SLIDE.

SURROUNDED BY OTHER SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN EVERY DIRECTION. IN 1956, A PERMIT WAS ISSUED TO CONSTRUCT THE ORIGINAL HOME ON THIS PROPERTY, AND THAT ORIGINAL HOME WAS SET BACK 5 FEET FROM ITS NORTH SIDE BOUNDARY AND APPROXIMATELY 14 FEET FROM ITS SOUTH SIDE BOUNDARY.

APPROXIMATELY TEN YEARS, THAT ORIGINAL RESIDENCE WAS EXPANDED SOUTHWARD AND TO WITHIN 2 FEET 10 INCHES OF THIS PROPERTY'S SOUTH SIDE BOUNDARY. THIS RESIDENTIAL ADDITION WAS BUILT WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT AND IN VIOLATION OF ZONING REGULATIONS, WHICH WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE BUILDING TO HAVE BEEN SET BACK 6 FEET FROM THE SOUTH -- OR EXCUSE ME, FROM THE SITE'S SOUTH SIDE BOUNDARY. THE APPLICANT IS NOW SEEKING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO LEGITIMIZE PREVIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF THIS RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. THIS MAP SHOWS THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING, SPECIFICALLY RS-6 ZONING, OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ALL OF THE SURROUNDING LOTS.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS TWO PHOTOS OF THE HOUSE.

THAT IS THE YELLOW-TINTED ONE, ON THIS PROPERTY.

ONE CAN VISIBLY DISCERN THE ADDITION BUILT ONTO THE SOUTH OR LEFT SIDE OF THIS HOME. THE SOUTH SIDE BUILDING WALL

[00:30:02]

LIES, AS I MENTIONED, 2 FEET 10 INCHES FROM THE SOUTH SIDE BOUNDARY OF THIS SITE AND ONLY APPROXIMATELY 7 FEET 10 INCHES FROM THE NORTH SIDE WALL OF THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENCE TO THE SO SOUTH.

26 OWNERS OF ADJACENT AND NEARBY PROPERTY WERE FORMALLY NOTIFIED OF THIS REQUESTED VARIANCE. TWO RETURNED WRITTEN COMMENTS IN FAVOR, NONE RETURNED WRITTEN COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION.

APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM A ZONING REGULATION ORDINARILY REQUIRES THERE TO BE SOME INHERENTLY SPECIAL OR UNIQUE CONDITIONS ABOUT THAT SUBJECT PROPERTY OR ITS SURROUNDINGS BY WHICH LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THAT REGULATION WOULD CREATE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. CITY STAFF CAN DISCERN NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS ABOUT THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY OR ITS SURROUNDINGS. THIS SITE, AS WE SAW FROM THE SLIDE, IS SIMILAR IN SIZE AND SHAPE TO OTHERS NEARBY AND IN THE SAME RS-6 ZONING DISTRICT. THIS SITE EXHIBITS NO UNUSUAL TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS WHICH WOULD MAKE IT FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFICULT OR IMPRACTICAL TO DEVELOP IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINARY ZONING REGULATIONS. IN ABILENE AND MOST OTHER AMERICAN CITIES, AT LEAST A 10-FOOT SEPARATION IS ORDINARILY REQUIRED BETWEEN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES ON ADJOINING LOTS, TYPICAL 5 FEET ON ONE SIDE, AT LEAST 5 FEET ON THE OTHER, CREATING A 10-FOOT SEPARATION TO HELP PREVENT THE SPREAD OF FIRE FROM ONE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER, MAINTAIN A MEASURE OF PRIVACY FOR RESIDENTS, AND TO MAINTAIN A MEASURE OF OPEN SPACE THAT HOMEOWNERS EXPECT AND DESIRE IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTS. DURING THE ENTIRE 75-YEAR HISTORY OF ZONING IN ABILENE, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES HAS NEVER BEEN LESS THAN 5 FEET.

IF BOARD MEMBERS ARE INCLINED TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL RECOMMENDS THAT THE ONE WINDOW OPENING ONTO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S SOUTH SIDE WALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A SUITABLE SOLID WALL.

THIS ONE WINDOW OPENING BEING LESS THAN 3 FEET FROM THE SOUTH SIDE BOUNDARY, REPRESENTS THE SINGLE MOST APPARENT VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS NON-COMPLIANT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. IF I MAY GO BACK TO THE SLIDE OF THE PROPERTY, ON THE RIGHT IMAGE SHOWS THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE RIGHT AND ITS NEIGHBOR ON THE LEFT.

AS I MENTIONED, THERE'S JUST ABOUT A 7 FOOT 10 INCH DISTANCE SEPARATING THEM, WITH THE RESIDENTIAL ADDITION BUILT APPROXIMATELY TEN YEARS AGO, THERE WAS ONE WINDOW OPENING ONTO THAT SIDE WALL APPROXIMATELY 3 FEET WIDE AND APPROXIMATELY 5 FEET IN HEIGHT. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL RECOMMENDS THAT IF THIS -- IF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS INCLINED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE, THAT AS A CONDITION, THAT ONE WINDOW BE REMOVED AND REPLACED BY A SUITABLY SOLID WALL. THANK YOU.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

>> DO YOU KNOW APPROXIMATELY WHAT THE WIDTH OF THOSE LOTS ARE

IN THAT AREA? >> NO.

>> OKAY. >> NO, I -- I HAVE A LOT OF FACTS ABOUT THIS, BUT THAT'S NOT ONE OF THEM.

[LAUGHTER] >> OKAY.

THEY SEEM TO BE FAIRLY -- I MEAN, THEY'RE ALL THE SAME, BUT THEY SEEM TO BE FAIRLY NARROW COMPARED TO SOME, BUT THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH STANDARD FOR THAT AREA.

>> YES. >> OKAY.

THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION IS, UH, IF WE DON'T APPROVE IT, WHAT'S THE OWNER'S OPTIONS, IN YOUR OPINION?

>> WELL, I CAN SIMPLY SAY THAT THIS -- WELL, AS I POINTED OUT, IT'S BEEN APPROXIMATELY TEN YEARS BETWEEN WHEN THIS ADDITION WAS BUILT AND WHEN IT CAME TO OUR ATTENTION.

IT CAME TO OUR ATTENTION AS A RESULT OF THE PRESENT OWNER'S ATTEMPTS TO SELL THE PROPERTY. AND IT CAME TO MY ATTENTION BECAUSE I GOT A TELEPHONE CALL FROM AN APPRAISER THINKING THAT THIS WAS AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE.

AND INDEED, IT IS. SO RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE FACED WITH NOT BEING ABLE TO SELL THE PRO

[00:35:09]

PROPERTY. >> THERE'S A PROPOSED -- OR, YEAH, A PROPOSED SALE OF THE PROPERTY AND I READ THAT IN THE PACKAGE. SO THERE WERE SURVEY, APPRAISAL,

TITLE COMPANY -- >> YES.

>> ALL ISSUES RELATED TO ENCROACHMENT INTO THAT SETBACK?

>> THAT'S HOW THE ISSUE CAME TO THE CITY STAFF'S ATTENTION.

>> RIGHT. YEAH.

>> IS THERE A POINT IN THIS WHERE THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CHANGE THAT EXTENSION, THE A ADD-ON TO REDUCE THE SIDE SO IT

DOES MEET THE SETBACK CRITERIA? >> THAT'S ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY.

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR BRAD? >> NO.

>> THANK YOU, BRAD. >> THANK YOU.

>> AT THIS POINT I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WILL THE PROPONENT PLEASE COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND REASON FOR YOUR REQUEST?

>> GOOD MORNING. MY THROAT IS A LITTLE SORE.

MY NAME IS ROSAELENA LANDEROS. I AM THE OWNER OF THE HOME.

I AM HERE TO ASK FOR THE APPROVAL.

AS MR. STONE MENTIONED, I AM IN THE PROCESS OF SELLING THE HOME.

I HAVE SOME CIRCUMSTANCES IN MY FAMILY AND I NEED TO GET A BIGGER HOME TO ALLOW A FAMILY MEMBER TO COME LIVE WITH ME AND MY CHILDREN. THIS HOUSE -- THE ADDITION WAS DONE A LITTLE OVER TEN YEARS AGO BY MY EX.

I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THERE WAS NO PERMITS OR ANYTHING AS FAR AS THAT GOES. DURING THE PROCESS OF THE SALE, THE HOUSE HAS PASSED ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS.

I'M SORRY. ALL THE INSPECTIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THE SALE. THE BUYER IS AWARE OF THE APPRAISAL ISSUE. SHE IS NOT OPPOSED TO CONTINUING WITH THE PURCHASE OF THE HOME. AT THIS POINT, ALL I'M AWARE OF IS THAT WE'RE WAITING FOR THIS APPROVAL TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SALE. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR M ME?

>> IF WE WERE TO APPROVE IT, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO REMOVE THE

WINDOW ON THE SOUTH SIDE? >> AT FIRST, UM, THE LAYOUT, I GUESS, THAT WAS PRESENTED APPEARED THAT THE WINDOW WAS IN THE MASTER BATHROOM, THE ADD-ON THAT'S INCLUDED IN THIS.

IT IS TO THE EX TIER -- EXTERIOR WALL.

I DON'T KNOW FINANCIALLY WHAT THAT WOULD COST TO DO.

IF THAT IS THE ABSOLUTE THERE'S NO WAY AROUND IT, THEN YEAH, I WOULD DO IT. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER WAY AROUND NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE SALE OF THE HOME.

SO IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO DO, THEN I

HAVE TO MAKE IT WORK. >> YOU MENTIONED THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SALE. I'M NOT SURE I COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD THEM. ARE THERE EXTENUATING

CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED? >> YES, SIR.

ONE OF MY SISTERS HAS SOME HEALTH PROBLEMS, ONE OF MY OLDER SISTERS. AND SHE IS GOING TO BE MOVING IN WITH US. MY HOUSE IS NOT SMALL TO TAKE HER AND ANOTHER DAUGHTER, AND HER DAUGHTER IN WITH US.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE MOVING TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE SO I CAN HELP HER AND BE ABLE TO HELP HER WITH RAISING HER CHILD AS WELL.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ROBERT.

>> THE HOUSE TO THE SOUTH, UH, THE WHITE HOUSE, IS IT VACANT?

>> NO, MR. CLIFTON LIVES THERE. I DO KNOW THAT -- WE TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THE SITUATION. HE'S AN OLDER GENTLEMAN.

HE LIVES THERE BY HIMSELF. >> THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH

BEING AN OLDER GENTLEMAN. >> NO, NO, HE'S VERY SWEET.

>> SOME OF US UNDERSTAND OLDER GENTLEMEN.

>> HE LIVES THERE BY HIMSELF. HE'S GOT A LOT OF CATS.

BUT WE TALK TO HIM. HE WAS A LITTLE HEARTBROKEN THAT WE'RE MOVING. ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS ARE REALLY GOOD. WE TOLD HIM ABOUT IT.

HE GOT HIS NOTICE AND SAID HE SUBMITTED APPROVAL FOR IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY RECEIVED IT OR NOT.

AND HE LIVES THERE BY HIMSELF. >> OKAY.

>> HE'S OUR CAT MAN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> SO IT MAY APPEAR NO ONE LIVES THERE AT TIMES.

>> YES, SIR. HE ONLY COMES OUT AT NIGHT IN THE BACKYARD. THAT'S USUALLY THE ONLY TIME WE

SEE HIM. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> YES, SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> NO.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU.

[00:40:02]

>> ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? ANYONE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIALS TO GIVE US SOME BACKGROUND ON --

>> IT WOULD. WE DO HAVE VAN WATSON HERE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT.

>> I FIGURED THAT'S WHY HE WAS HERE.

THANKS, APPRECIATE IT. >> VAN WATSON.

>> GIVE US AN UPDATE ON WHY THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TODAY.

>> WE'RE UNDER THE 2012 RESIDENTIAL CODE AND TABLE 302.1.1 REQUIRES ANYTHING LESS THAN THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO HAVE NO OPENINGS.

ONCE YOU GO FROM THREE TO FIVE, YOU CAN HAVE 25 PERCENT OF PROTECTED OPENINGS. AND ONCE YOU GO FIVE FEET AND BEYOND, YOU CAN HAVE ANY OPENINGS THAT YOU NEED.

>> OKAY. >> WOULD GLASS BRICK WORK IN

THAT SITUATION? >> THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE A RATING, A 1-R RATING. THOSE HAVE TO BE DONE WITH MORTAR. IT'S NOT THE TYPE THAT YOU CAN BUY IN THE FRAME AND WHATNOT LIKE A -- LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE BUY. BUT IT WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE

DONE WITH THE MORTAR. >> BUT THAT WOULD SUFFICE?

>> THAT COULD SUFFICE, YEP. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD OPTION HERE TO AT LEAST ALLOW THE EXTERIOR LIGHT FOR THEM.

WELL, THANK YOU, VAN. I'M ASSUMING THAT'S PRIMARILY

JUST A FIRE CODE ISSUE. >> YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> YOU BET.

>> ANY OTHER? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING

DISCUSSION. >> TWO POINTS.

THE THEORY WE GENERALLY WORK UNDER FOR ALL THE YEARS IS WOULD WE APPROVE THIS ADDITION IF IT CAME TO US BASED ON ASKING FOR A PERMIT. OBVIOUSLY, THAT QUESTION HAS TO BE ANSWERED. AND TWO IS IF WE APPROVE IT, WE LEGITIMIZE THESE KIND OF THINGS. THAT BEING SAID, WHY WE'RE HERE IS TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS. SO (INAUDIBLE).

>> I'M NOT EXCITED ABOUT SETTING A PRECEDENCE, BUT AS WE TALKED BEFORE, A SINGLE ONE DOESN'T NECESSARILY SET A PRECEDENCE EITHER. SO...

>> I'M ALWAYS HESITANT TO LEGITIMIZE A SITUATION THAT WAS CAUSED BY NOT GETTING A PERMIT AND NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES TO BEGIN WITH. THAT'S ALWAYS A DIFFICULT THING.

BUT LIKE MORT SAID, I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE, TO WEIGH THESE VERY CAREFULLY AND MAKE THE PROPER DECISION FOR THE SITUATION. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?

>> AS FAR AS APPROVING THE VARIANCE AND THEN MAKE THAT SUBJECT TO, YOU'RE MAKING IT A SOLID WALL OR WITH THE OPTION TO DO EITHER OR. BUT I WAS THINKING THAT --

>> I WOULD ASSUME SO. KELLEY, WOULD THAT BE

APPROPRIATE? >> I'M WONDERING IF -- I'M TRYING TO THINK IF THAT WOULD EVEN BE --

>> THAT WOULD BE PART OF APPROVING THE VARIANCE.

>> I THINK YOU COULD ADD THAT CONDITION.

THEY REQUIRE YOU TO DO IT ANYWAY, BUT I THINK YOU COULD AN

ADD THAT CONDITION. >> SO THEY WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO GETTING A BUILDING -- GET THE PROPER PERMITS.

HOWEVER, THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS BECAUSE WE CAN'T PERMIT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT PERMITABLE.

SO THEREFORE, IT'S KIND OF CHICKEN AND THE EGG.

I NEED TO GET PERMITS IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS A LEGITIMATE BUILDING. HOWEVER, I CAN'T MAKE IT A LEGITIMATE BUILDING WITH THE CURRENT SETBACKS THAT ARE ON THERE. SO IT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY TO DECIDE ON THE VARIANCE AND THEN AFTER THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS WITH OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO MEET THOSE CRITERIA.

>> ARE YOU SAYING WE DON'T HAVE TO PUT ANYTHING IN THIS ABOUT A

SOLID WALL? >> YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

[00:45:02]

IT IS YOUR OPTION. >> OKAY.

SO WHAT PERMITTING PROCESS WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR HER TO SELL HER

HOME? >> SO BEFORE THE APPRAISAL CAN HAPPEN, THEN IT HAS TO SHOW THAT IT IS A PERMITTED STRUCTURE.

RIGHT NOW IT IS NOT A PERMITTED STRUCTURE AND IT WOULD NEED TO GO TO OUR BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT.

WE HAVE NOT GAINED ACCESS TO THE HOME AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

SO THERE MAY BE OTHER THINGS BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PROPERLY PERMITTED TO BEGIN WITH. THERE MAY BE OTHER THINGS THEY FIND THAT DON'T MEET THE 2012 CODE THAT IT WOULD HAVE FALLEN UNDER. THERE'S STILL A FEW HOOPS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN EVEN AFTER ACTION HERE IF YOU APPROVE THIS FOR

THEM TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD. >> SO YOU COULD BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARY. I THINK YOU COULD ADD THAT CONDITION BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARY.

>> OKAY. >> WHAT'S THE --

>> READY? >> YEAH.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF WE'RE READY TO VOTE.

>> AS BEFORE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO COME UP SOMETIMES WITH SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS. I THINK THE WIDTH OF THE LOTS AND EXPANDING FAMILIES ARE ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE RUN INTO FOR MEETING THAT REQUIREMENT. AND I THINK THERE IS -- THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED TO THE PROPERTY ITSELF FROM THAT STANDPOINT. I FEEL THAT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST OR NOR WILL IT BE INJURIOUS TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT ESPECIALLY AND THE INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

I THINK THERE IS A HARDSHIP SUFFERED BY THE PETITIONER IN THAT SHE DIDN'T KNOW THAT IT WAS NOT PERMITTED WHEN THE ADDITION WAS DONE AND THAT NOW AS SOLE OWNER, SHE'S LEFT WITH THAT SITUATION. PLUS THE HEALTH PROBLEMS WITHIN HER FAMILY MAKE IT IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO MOVE TO A LARGER HOUSING. AND I WOULD INCLUDE THAT THE SOUTH WINDOW ON THE EXTENSION MUST EITHER REMOVE THE WINDOW AND PUT IN A SOLID WALL OR ADD A FIRE-RATED WINDOW.

>> WE DON'T WANT TO PUT THAT IN THERE.

IT'S NOT NECESSARY. >> I DO.

>> HE DOES. HE'S MAKING THAT PART OF HIS MOTION. SO...

EITHER -- EITHER THE SOLID WALL OR THE GLASS BLOCK THAT WOULD

MEET THE FIRE CODE REQUIREMENT. >> OR WHAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY ORDINANCES, THE CODES.

>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE WINDOW TO A SOLID WALL OR EXACTLY WHATEVER IS RECOMMENDED BY BUILDING INSPECTIONS. COLONEL LANGHOLTZ.

>> YES. >> MR. ODLE.

>> YES. >> MR. BEERMANN.

>> YES. >> AND MR. HAY.

>> YES. >> AND THE MOTION CARRIES.

>> THANK YOU. AND I THINK THAT IS OUR LAST ITEM OF BUSINESS. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO

ADJOURN. >> MOVE.

>> SECOND. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?

>> ALL: AYE. >> WE STAND

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.