[1. Minutes: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Minutes from the Regular Meeting Held on November 14, 2023]

THE MINUTES . CAN I GET A MOTION ON THE MINUTES PLACE.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 14.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES , MS.

SALINGER. YES. >> MR. MATA MILK . MOTION

[2. Hold a Discussion and Take Action to Elect a Regular Board Member to Serve as Chair]

CARRIES. >> SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ELECTION OF A BOARD CHAIR HOLDER DISCUSSION TAKEN ACTION TO THE REGULAR BOARD MEMBERS TO SERVE AS CHAIR IS THE

AUCTIONEER HERE? >> YOU ARE IS THE CHAIRMAN OR VICE CHAIR, YOU CAN ASK AND BE NOMINATED OR NOMINATE SOMEONE FOR CONSIDERATION AS THE PRESIDENT OR CHAIRMAN AND THEN

YOU CAN VOTE. >> WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO NOMINATE ANYONE TO BE CHAIRMAN FOR THE NEXT YEAR UPCOMING ?

>> WHAT IS THE TERM OR THE TERMS FOR THE CHAIR?

>> I BELIEVE IT IS ANNUAL, YEARLY.

>> YEARLY. >> I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT.

THAT? >> I THINK THE COLONEL SHOULD DO IT , IF HE WANTS TO CONTINUE TO DO IT, I THINK IT IS HIS

DECISION. >> I HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR A WHILE. I WANT TO BE AROUND FOR A WHILE.

>> WITH COLONEL LANGHOLTZ AS OUR CHAIR .

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO ELECT COLONEL LANGHOLTZ AS THE CHAIR FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

ROLL CALL . >> COLONEL LANGHOLTZ DO YOU

ACCEPT ? >> I ABSTAIN. I DO ACCEPT AND I APPRECIATE YOU SHOW GREAT CONFIDENCE IN ME AND I WILL NOW

>> SHOULD WE ADD A VICE CHAIR SINCE YOU WERE VICE CHAIR AT

THIS POINT? >> ARE THERE ANY NOMINATIONS

FOR A VICE CHAIR? >> UNFORTUNATELY IT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA SO WE'LL HAVE TO DO THAT NEXT TIME.

>> I DID NOT GET THAT. >> IT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA SO

[3. BA-2023-10: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on A Request From Robert Shipley Represented By Lance Johnson For A 20 Ft Variance From The 30ft Setback From The Rear Property Line Located at 3541 Edgewood. This Is Proposed To Create A 10 Ft Setback From The East Side Of The Subject Property And A Variance to The Maximum Lot Coverage Percentage to 52.5% (Required Maximum Is 40%). (Adam Holland)]

WE'LL HAVE TO DO IT AT THE NEXT MEETING.

>> OKAY WE'LL DO THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING.

>> OKAY ITEM NUMBER THREE IS BA-2023-10 RECEIVE A REPORT IN ORDER DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING TO TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST FROM ROBERT SHIPLEY REPRESENTED BY LANCE JOHNSON FOR A 20 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE LOCATED AT 3541 EDGEWOOD. THIS IS PROPOSED TO CREATE EIGHT 10 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE EAST SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND A VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE PERCENT OF 52.5% , THE MAXIMUM REQUIRED MAXIMUM

IS 40%. ADAM. >> GOOD MORNING AND MY NAME IS

[00:05:08]

ADAM HOLLAND I AM A PLAINTIFF OF THE CITY OF ABILENE AND THIS IS CASE BA-2023-10 OWNED BY ROBERT SHIPLEY AND REPRESENTED BY LANCE JOHNSON. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3541 EDGEWOOD AND HERE'S AN AERIAL LOCATION MAP SHOWING WHERE THE PROPERTY IS. HERE IS A ZONING MAP OF THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY THIS IS ZONED RS-12 ALONG WITH SIMILAR PROPERTIES NEARBY AND SO HERE ARE SOME VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND CURRENTLY THERE IS AN EXISTING HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY THE STRUCTURE DOES NOT MEET SETBACKS IN THE CURRENT FORMAT . I BELIEVE THERE IS A ZERO SETBACK ON THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS A CONFORMING SETBACK ON THE EAST SIDE .

HERE IS A PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURE AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS A 10 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE SOUTH SETBACK LINE AND ANOTHER 10 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE EAST AND THIS IS PROPOSED TO CREATE ONE SETBACK THAT CONFORMS TO THE STANDARDS FOR THE RS-12 AS WELL AS ONE SETBACK THAT IS A 10 FOOT SETBACK FOR THE REAR AS OPPOSED TO THE NORMAL REQUIRED 30 FOOT SETBACK. THEY HAVE ALSO REQUESTED A DEVIATION FROM THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AND RS-12, A 52.3.5 PERCENT MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AS OPPOSED TO A 40% LOT COVERAGE WHICH IS TYPICALLY REQUIRED IN THE RS-12 ZONING DISTRICT. WE RECEIVED NO NEW NOTIFICATIONS IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED . WE HAVE REVIEWED IT PURSUANT TO SECTION 1442 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND STAFF HAS FAMILY PROPERTY CONFORMS TO THE CURRENT STANDARDS SET IN THE LDC FOR THE LOT WIDTH AND LENGTH AND A DWELLING THAT MEET STANDARDS COULD BE BUILT ON THE PROPERTY GRANTING THE VARIANCE MAY BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AS IT WILL BE DECREASING THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE TYPICALLY REQUIRED IN THE RS-12 ZONING DISTRICT IN THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT TO THE LDC AND THE LDC INCLUDE STANDARDS FOR SETBACKS WHICH COULD BE MET BY CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND THE HARDSHIP IS CAUSED BY THE PETITIONER BECAUSE THEY LOT CONFORMS TO THE LDC REQUIREMENT AND CONFORMING DWELLING CAN BE BUILT ON THE PROPERTY. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS YOU HAVE FOR ME. >> JUST ONE. THE 40% , THAT IS A COVERED STRUCTURE IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES. THE 40% LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM INCLUDES STUFF LIKE CONCRETE COVERINGS OR ANYTHING THAT IS IMPERVIOUS COVER

EXCLUDING SWIMMING POOLS . >> OKAY AND SO SURFACE

COVERAGE? >> YES.

>> DRIVEWAYS AND THAT TYPE OF THING?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THANK YOU FOR THE

CLARIFICATION. >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> I'M SORRY -- >> GO-AHEAD.

>> THE SETBACK FOR THIS PLAN WE ARE LOOKING AT , AND SO THERE IS A 10 FOOT SETBACK ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PICTURE WHICH IS THE SOUTH SIDE IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES. >> WHAT IS THE REQUIRED

SETBACK ON THAT? >> SO, THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR THE REAR , WHICH WOULD BE THE EAST SIDE IN THIS CASE , WHICH WOULD BE THE TOP OF THE PAGE, IT WOULD BE NORMALLY 30 FOOT REQUIREMENT . SINCE THAT IS AN INTERIOR LOT LINE ON THE SOUTH SIDE IT WOULD BE A 10 FOOT REQUIREMENT.

>> AND SO , WHERE IS THE 30 FOOT, IS THAT FOR THE NORTH

AND WEST SIDE IS THAT RIGHT? >> THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT SETBACK IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD BE ON

THE TOP OF THE PAGE. >> ALL RIGHT .

>> WITH THE PROPONENT COME FORWARD .

>> GOOD MORNING. >> IS THERE NO ONE REPRESENTING

THIS CASE? >> I DID NOT KNOW YOU WERE A

PROPONENT. >> I THOUGHT YOU SAID ANY

OPPONENT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN I DO NOT BELIEVE THE WITNESS HAS BEEN SWORN IN THEY WERE NOT HERE

WHEN YOU SWORE IN. >> I WAS NOT. MAKE LET ME GO

BACK ONE STEP FOR YOU. >> I AM SORRY.

>> RAISE YOUR HAND YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

[00:10:02]

>> YES, SIR. >> WOULD YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT AND WHY THE COVERAGE IS NEEDED?

>> YES, SIR. JUST BASED ON OUR MEETING WITH THE LOT OWNER, THEY HAD TASKED ME WITH COMING UP WITH A PLAN TO MEET THEIR NEEDS FOR THE OBVIOUS , OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE GOING TO REMOVE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THERE AND THEN THEY WANTED TO BUILD A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE , AND THIS IS WHAT WAS GOING TO MEET THEIR NEEDS MOVING FORWARD. THE BUILDING INTO THE SETBACK WAS GOING TO BE REQUIRED JUST BECAUSE THEY LOT IS A LITTLE SMALLER THAN SOME OF THE OTHER LOTS IN THE AREA, AND TO MEET THEIR NEEDS WITH THEIR LARGER AND EXPANDING FAMILY, THEY TASKED US WITH COMING UP WITH A PLAN AND MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PROCESS AND BEING HELPFUL TO ACHIEVE WHAT THEY ARE WANTING. AND TO ACHIEVE THAT, WE NEEDED TO BUILD INTO THE SETBACK AND ALSO HAVE THE EXTRA VARIANCE FOR THE 40% , OVER 40% COVERING OF THE LOT.

>> YES, SIR. >> WHAT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE

OF THE NEW HOUSE GOING TO BE? >> I BELIEVE IT IS GOING TO BE OVER 4000 , AIR-CONDITIONED SQUARE FEET AND THE FOUNDATION OF FLAT WORK IS THE 7831 THAT WOULD EXCEED , I GUESS THE TOTAL COVERAGE. THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE STRUCTURE AND THE DRIVEWAYS AND EVERYTHING EXCLUDING

>> THERE IS NO WAY , THE SITE PLAN OR PLAN OF EQUIVALENCE SITE ON THE LOT THAT WOULD CONFORM ?

>> THE ONLY WAY WE COULD DO THAT IS TO PROBABLY GO UP AND PUT MASTER BEDROOMS UPSTAIRS, AND IT IS A LITTLE BIT OLDER COUPLE AND THEY WERE WANTING TO AVOID THAT. THERE IS A SECOND STORY ELEMENT TO THE HOUSE, BUT IT WOULD BE FOR GRANDKIDS OR A PLAYROOM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE THEY WOULD GO UP AND WE COULD ESSENTIALLY SEAL OFF THE UPPER PORTION OF THE HOUSE AND HAVE THE LOWER SECTION WHERE THEY COULD HAVE ALL OF THEIR DAY TO DAY IN AND OUT ACTIVITIES AND NOT HAVE TO GO UPSTAIRS. IT WAS A CONCERN OF THEIRS.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> BEFORE YOU WALK AWAY, WE NEED YOUR NAME AND WHO YOUR REPRESENTING.

>> YES, SIR. LANCE JOHNSON AND LANCE JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION

IS THE COMPANY. >> IS THE STRUCTURE THAT YOU'RE BUILDING, IS IT LARGER OR SMALLER, BECAUSE WHAT I HAVE NOT SEEN AS A FOOTPRINT OR OVERLAY OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE AND WHAT YOU WILL TEAR DOWN WHAT YOU WILL REBUILD.

>> THE EXISTING HOUSE , I THINK LIKE ADAM SAID, IT DOES NOT CONFIRM OR CONFORM CURRENTLY AND IT IS BUILT INTO THAT, I BELIEVE THE SOUTH SETBACK QUITE A WAYS IT IS ALMOST ON THE FENCE AND AS FAR AS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THAT EXISTING STRUCTURE I KNOW IT IS PUSHING THE 4000 NUMBER AND I BELIEVE IT HAS BEEN ADDED ONTO MULTIPLE TIMES. I DO NOT KNOW THE EXACT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE EXISTING HOME, BUT IT DOES COVER QUITE A FAIR AMOUNT OF THE LOT.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> OKAY, NO ONE. NO MORE QUESTIONS THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> YES, SIR. >> COULD YOU GIVE US A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHY THIS SIZES REQUIRED AND WHY WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THIS SETBACK FOR THE EXCEPTION VARIANCES?

>> IT WAS JUST THE SIZE REQUIRED TO, LIKE I SAID, TO MEET THEIR NEEDS NOW AND EXPANDING FAMILY NEEDS THAT THEY HAVE WITH LOTS OF EXTENDED FAMILY AND PLAN ON HOSTING LOTS OF GATHERINGS AND HAVING , HAVING THE NEED FOR THAT SPACE IN THE UPDATING AND A LITTLE BIT MORE OPEN CONCEPT OF THE MODERNIZATION OF THE HOUSE , JUST TO MEET CURRENT NEEDS, YOU KNOW , LOTS OF SPACE FOR GATHERING AND LOTS

[00:15:06]

OF OUTDOOR SPACE AND SO THE LARGE BACK PATIO AND THE THREE-CAR GARAGE IS WHAT PUTS OVER THE 40% ON THE IMPERVIOUS , BUT AS FAR AS THE SETBACK GOES, IT IS JUST TO CREATE A COMFORTABLE HOME THEY ARE WILLING TO GO THROUGH AND TEAR DOWN THE EXISTING HOME THAT DOES NOT MEET THEIR NEEDS AND BUILD THIS ONE BACK TO MEET THEIR NEEDS AND SO THEY ARE GOING THROUGH QUITE AN EXTENSIVE PROCESS TO ESSENTIALLY MEET THEIR NEEDS WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING HOME AND THE BUILDING OF THE NEW STRUCTURE AND SO THEY ARE WILLING TO GO THROUGH IT AND WILLING TO ESSENTIALLY TEAR DOWN WHAT THEY HAVE TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT WOULD MEET THEIR CURRENT NEEDS . I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE , THEY'RE WILLING TO DO ALL OF THAT TO GET THIS STRUCTURE TO MEET THE

NEEDS. >> THEY CURRENTLY LIVE IN THE

EXISTING HOME? >> YES, SIR, MR. SHIPLEY DOES CURRENTLY LIVE IN THE HOME, YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> YES SIR.

>> ANY SECOND THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION AND ADAM MAY HAVE TO ANSWER BUT I DO NOT KNOW IF YOU CAN, MAYBE YOU HAVE ANSWER. THE SETBACK FOR THE ADJACENT HOUSES, DO WE KNOW IF THEY ARE JUST LIKE THE SETBACKS FOR THE EXISTING HOME THAT IS THERE CONFORMING TO THE CURRENT STANDARDS?

>> SOME OF THE HOUSES NEARBY DO NOT CONFORM EXACTLY WITH OUR STANDARDS AS OF RIGHT NOW . I BELIEVE THE HOUSE, JUST TO THE EAST, THAT IS ONE THAT DOES NOT , BUT I DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEIR SETBACKS ARE RIGHT OFFHAND.

>> IF THEY MOVE THE HOUSE FORWARD, ARE WE TALKING PROBLEMS WITH OTHER SETBACKS?

>> YES AND CURRENTLY THE FRONT SETBACKS ARE MEETING THE

STANDARDS FOR THE LDC. >> AS PROPOSED.

>> AS PROPOSED. >> IT IS A LITTLE CONFUSING FROM THE DIAGRAM THERE IS A 25 FOOT SETBACK ON THE EAST OR SOUTHEAST CORNER AND A 10 FOOT , A 25 FOOT ON THE SOUTHWEST

CORNER SO IS THAT LIKE THAT? >> I THINK THAT IS JUST THE SETBACK LINE THAT CROSSES THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

>> OKAY THAT IS AN INDICATION WHAT IT IS.

>> OFF OF SULLIVAN DRIVE IN EDGEWOOD IS 25

>> 10 FOOT IS REQUIRED? >> 10 FOOT IS A REQUIRED SETBACK IS REQUIRED FOR AN INTER-REAL LINE AS WELL AS A

30 FOOT SETBACK. >> OKAY.

>> THREE OF THE FOUR ARE CONFORMING?

>> CORRECT. >> ADAM IF I UNDERSTAND IN THIS DIAGRAM YOU HAVE IT IS THE TOP OF THIS DIAGRAM AS REQUESTING THAT SETBACK IS THAT CORRECT ?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. MAKE IS THE BACK OF THE LOT WHICH IS

THE TOP OF THIS. >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. >> WITH THE ADDRESS CHANGE?

>> POTENTIALLY YES, THE ADDRESS CHANGE WOULD BE A PART

OF THE PERMIT -- >> IT WOULD FRONT ON SYLVAN INSTEAD OF WHERE IT IS NOW ON EDGEWOOD.

>> CORRECT. >> THAT WAS AN INTERESTING

QUESTION. >> ANYTHING ELSE? AND THANK

YOU ADAM. >> DOES ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK IN

OPPOSITION ? >> OKAY I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING AT THIS POINT AND DISCUSS , ANY DISCUSSION

REQUIRED? >> OKAY, SO WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF CASES LIKE THIS BEFORE, WHERE THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE IS SETTING UP RESIDENCE . AS FAR AS YOU GUYS ARE AWARE , I MEAN, YOU SEE THIS A LOT IN AUSTIN AND DALLAS WHERE THEY COME IN AND TEAR DOWN THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A BRAND-NEW HOME ON THE LOT . I

[00:20:07]

BELIEVE I READ IN OUR PACKET YOU HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED THAT YET HERE. I THINK IT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT AND WHAT WE DECIDE HERE TODAY AND ALSO IT SETS A PRECEDENT'S FOR FUTURE HOMEOWNERS THAT DECIDE TO DO THAT. AND THE OTHER THING I THINK WE ARE TASKED AND DETERMINING ARE THE FOUR QUESTIONS , YOU KNOW TO COME TO AN ANSWER THAT WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER AND WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER ALL FOUR OF THOSE IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO, I KNOW HOW THESE DISCUSSIONS HAVE GONE IN THE PAST AND I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT IF WE COULD AND START THOSE FOUR QUESTIONS AND SEE IF

WE CAN ANSWER ANY OF THOSE. >> OKAY.

>> IF WE CANNOT ANSWER THOSE THAT IS WHERE WE ARE AT.

>> BY THE WAY I CHALLENGE THE FACT WE HAVE NOT DONE THIS BEFORE AND I REMEMBER ONE, EONS AGO , NOT FAR FROM ME, THEY BUILT A NEW STRUCTURE AND IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO AND , SECOND, SETTING THE PRECEDENTS , I BROUGHT IT UP AT THE LAST MEETING WORDS AND PERSONALLY I THINK THIS FALLS INTO THE GOOD CATEGORY BECAUSE IT DOES A LOT OF GOOD THINGS FOR THE OWNER AND FOR THE CITY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND EVERYTHING IS PLUS, PLUS AND I SEARCHED LONG AND HARD FOR A NEGATIVE AND I COULD NOT SEE ANY. YOU RAISE AN EXCELLENT POINT WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING THE FOUR QUESTIONS , BUT I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN WITH THOSE THOUGHTS IN MIND THIS IS PROBABLY A VERY

GOOD THING. >> DID ADAM MENTION THERE WERE OTHER HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DO NOT CONFORM ALREADY THAT MAYBE IN THE PAST HAVE ALREADY EXTENDED PAST THE 40%

? >> THAT IS CORRECT . THERE ARE SEVERAL HOMES NEARBY THAT DO NOT CONFORM .

>> I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. THERE IS NOT ANY OPPOSITION TO

IT? >> RIGHT .

>> IT LOOKS LIKE THIS ONE TO CONFORMS MORE THAN THE CURRENT ONE IN THE EXISTING NEIGHBORING HOMES AND I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THE EXISTING NEIGHBORS, IS IT GOING TO PICK UP MORE SPACE BUT -- HER TO MAKE IT COULD BE THE NEIGHBORS, THERE IS NO OPPOSITION BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORS KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT CONFORMING ANYWAY AND IT TOOK PLACE BEFORE MAYBE THE CERTAIN ROLES WERE IN PLACE AND SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH

IT. >> I THINK A LOT OF THE HOUSES WERE BUILT BEFORE ANY SORT OF ZONING CAME INTO PLAY AND SO MOST OF THE HOUSES ARE NONCONFORMING.

>> YEAH . >> THAT IS WHAT MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT IS WE ARE REPLACING A NONCONFORMING HOME WITH A NONCONFORMING HOME BUT THE RULE IS WHEN YOU TEAR IT DOWN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION NOW HAS TO CONFORM TO THE ZONE.

>> YEAH AND I FULLY UNDERSTAND A HOUSE BUILT IN 1928 DOES NOT MEET THE CURRENT NEEDS OF A FAMILY , I LIVE IN A HOUSE BUILT IN 1929 AND I FULLY UNDERSTAND.

>> WAY IT IS CURRENTLY , THE 10 FOOT SETBACK IS A SIDE SETBACK AS OPPOSED TO A REAR SETBACK CURRENTLY IN SO IT IS RELATIVELY A SMALL IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS FROM THAT STANDPOINT AND THE IMPORTANT PART I SEE IS , SINCE IT IS ON A CORNER LOT THE 25 FOOT SET BACK IS CRITICAL FOR VISIBILITY AND SAFETY FROM TRAFFIC FROM THAT STANDPOINT. I AM NOT EXCITED ABOUT IT, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY REAL STRONG

OPPOSITION TO IT EITHER . >> SO A QUESTION THAT GOES INTO THE NEIGHBORS, IT DOES NOT HAVE AN EFFECT ON THEIR

[00:25:06]

PUBLIC WELFARE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MAKE IT WORSE?

>> NO. >> IT MAKES IT A LITTLE BETTER

. >> I WILL NOT SPEAK FOR THE NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST, BUT THE HOUSE IS PRETTY MUCH ENCLOSED AND THERE IS NOT A LOT OF VISIBILITY TO THE WEST FROM THE HOUSE AND I AM FAMILIAR WITH THAT HOUSE.

>> I THINK THE KEY WORD IS , TYPICALLY , THIS IS AN OLD , EXTREMELY OLD NEIGHBORHOOD AND SO THERE HAS TO BE A LOT OF

LEEWAY GIVEN. >> I UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM WITH PRECEDENTS BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THIS WHOLE AREA HAS HOUSES THAT ARE UNIQUE AND SO EACH ONE IS GOING TO BE , IF THEY COME UP, IS GOING TO BE A CONSIDERATION . I DO NOT THINK WE ARE GENERATING A PRECEDENT BECAUSE THIS ONE IS UNIQUE IN ITSELF AND WHATEVER WE DECIDE IS FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY

. >> I GUESS DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY REAL PROBLEMS WITH APPROVING THIS ?

>> I DO NOT AND I THINK IT IS REASONABLE.

>> I WILL TRY TO ADD SOME MORE WORDS TO MAKE THIS WORK.

BUT I THAT WE APPROVE THE 20 FOOT VARIANTS IN THE LOT COVERAGE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE MINIMUM AND THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS BECAUSE THE HOUSE, BECAUSE OF THE AGE OF THE HOUSE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA AND THE NEEDS OF THE CURRENT OWNER I DO NOT KNOW IT WILL DECREASE THE OPEN SPACE, A LOT OF THE SPACE IS FOR , I THINK IT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST, IT HAS A LOT OF COVERED AREA BUT NOT BUILT OVER AREA SO IT IS IN OPEN AREA MORE THAN ANYTHING. THE STRUCTURE, I THINK IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD THAT WE GRANT EXCEPTIONS MORE APPROPRIATE IN THE SETBACKS ARE MINIMAL IMPACT ON THAT PARTICULAR AREA FOR THE NEIGHBORS. THE HARDSHIP IS REALLY NOT CAUSED BY THE PETITIONER , IT IS ALLOWING THEM TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY AT THEIR STAGE IN LIFE AS OPPOSED TO STRICT ENFORCEMENT TO THE

LETTER OF THE LDC . >> I WILL SECOND THAT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. ROLL CALL .

>> THE MOTION TO APPROVE KARIE'S.

[4. BA-2023-11: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on A Request From Sergio Vazquez For A Variance To Allow For A 3-Foot Setback (7 Feet Required) For An Accessory Building That Is 14 Feet Tall Located at 1460 Tanglewood. (Mason Teegardin)]

>> SECOND CASES BE A, 2023-11 AND WE WILL REPORT AND DISCUSSION AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST FROM SERGIO VAZQUEZ FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A THREE FOOT SETBACK WHICH SEVEN FOOT IS REQUIREMENT FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING THAT IS 14 FEET AT 1460 TANGLEWOOD. MASON.

>> LOI MASON TEEGARDIN PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF ABILENE AND WE WILL BE REVIEWING CASE BA-23-11 IN THE OWNER IS SERGIO VAZQUEZ AND THE REQUEST THREE FOOT SETBACK FROM THE SEVEN

[00:30:02]

FOOT REQUIRED FOR A 14 FOOT TALL ACCESSORY BUILDING LOCATED AT 1460 TANGLEWOOD AND WE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION AND HERE WE HAVE THE AREA LOCATION MAP . WE HAVE THE ZONING MAP AND IT IS ZONED RS-12 WITH MEDIUM DENSITY TO THE WEST . HERE WE HAVE SOME VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY . AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED WHENEVER THE APPLICANT FOR THE PERMIT AFTER THE FACT IN THIS OF THE SITE PLAN THEY HAD SUBMITTED WITH THE SETBACKS AND YOU CAN SEE IS A THREE FOOT SETBACK TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY LINE. WIESEN APPA NOTIFICATIONS WITH IN A 200 FOOT BUFFER AND WE WERE SABLE IN OPPOSITION WHICH WAS THE

NEIGHBOR. >> BE STAFF REVIEWED THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 1.4.4.2 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND STAFF DETERMINED THERE APPEAR TO BE NO APPARENT HARDSHIP PRESENT GRANTING THE REQUEST WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS LOCATED WITHIN PROPER , PRIVATE PROPERTY AND DOES NOT IMPOSE THE NEIGHBORS PROPERTY IN THE BUILDING IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH REQUIRES ADDITIONAL SETBACK SEPARATION FOR TALLER BUILDINGS AND TALLER BUILDING DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND THERE ARE NO APPARENT HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE WAS CREATED BY THE APPLICANT. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THE OPPOSITION, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON REASONS?

>> YES. ACTUALLY SHE EMAILED US AND SHE SAID THE STRUCTURE BEHIND THE FENCE, HE BUILT IT BEHIND THE FENCE AND GET IT AFTER HOURS AND ON WEEKENDS AND SHE SAID IT HAPPENED SIMILARLY AND AN OLD RESIDENCE AND SHE IS ALSO SAID HER BEDROOM IS ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF THE HOUSE WHICH IS VERY CLOSE TO THE FENCE BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES WHICH IS RIGHT BY THE GARAGE THAT HE HAD BUILT.

>> QUESTIONS? >> THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION

HAD WHAT HEIGHT ? >> THEY PROVIDED AN OVERALL HEIGHT OF NINE FEET , AND IT IS 14, WHICH HE DID CALL US TO LET US KNOW IT WAS TALLER THAN WHAT HE PROVIDED BUT IT WAS SUPPLIED

WITH NINE. >> OKAY .

>> DID HE GIVE A REASON AND THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR THE GENTLEMAN BUT WHY IT GREW FIVE FEET?

>> I AM NOT SURE YOU WOULD NEED TO ASK HIM.

>> THAT IS WHAT I WANT TO KNOW.

>> THANK YOU. >> WILL BE PROPONENT MR. VASQUEZ OR HIS REQUESTING THE SPECIAL VARIANCE . MAKE GOOD MORNING MY NAME IS SERGIO VAZQUEZ. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE MY VARIANCE AND WHEN I DECIDED TO BUILD THIS STRUCTURE , I HAD NO IDEA WHAT I WAS DOING . I HAVE BEEN PAYING FOR A STORAGE FOR OVER 10 YEARS BECAUSE MY CURRENT HOME DOES NOT HAVE STORAGE OR A GARAGE AND I HAVE A CARPORT. MY WIFE , WHO LOVES TO COLLECT ALL OF MY KIDS ITEMS, WOULD NOT CONSIDER THROWING THEM AWAY . WHEN WE MOVED INTO THIS HOUSE SIX YEARS AGO , I WAS WELL AWARE THERE WAS NO STORAGE IN MY HOPE WAS, BECAUSE WE HAD NO STORAGE I WOULD BE ABLE TO GET RID OF SOME OF THOSE THINGS, BUT I WAS ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

>> TO BUILD SOME KIND OF STORAGE TO BE ABLE TO STOP PAYING THE EXTRA STORAGE , WE TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS AND I GOT SEVERAL QUOTES AND THE MONEY DID NOT MAKE ANY SENSE AND AT THE TIME I DID NOT HAVE THE MONEY BUT I WAS TRYING TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT WE COULD AFFORD AND AT THE TIME I WAS

[00:35:03]

PAYING FOR MY SON'S COLLEGE AND COULD NOT AFFORD ANY OTHER MONEY . MY WORK AND MY WIFE WORKS AND WE DO NOT MAKE A WHOLE LOT AND I AM PROUD TO SAY I DON'T HAVE ANY KIND OF GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO PAY FOR MY KIDS EDUCATION AND BEFORE MY SON GRADUATED, MY DAUGHTER ENTERED COLLEGE AND SO WE WERE PAYING FOR TWO COLLEGES AND DEFINITELY THERE WAS NO WAY I COULD AFFORD TO BUILD ANYTHING OR DO ANYTHING AND LUCKILY A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO MY SON GRADUATED IN WHATEVER MONEY WE ARE PAYING ON HIS EDUCATION WE WERE ABLE TO SAVE TO TRY AND BUILD SOMETHING . I HAVE A FRIEND WHO WORKS IN CONSTRUCTION AND I MADE THE MISTAKE , I MADE A MISTAKE OF LISTENING TO HIM AND NOT ACTUALLY GOING ABOUT IT THE RIGHT WAY AND SO TO SAVE MONEY AND DECIDE I THINK WE CAN MAKE IT BASED ON WHAT I CAN SEE I HAVE NO IDEA, I HAD NO IDEA I HAD NEVER DONE CONSTRUCTION IN MY LIFE AND EVERY TIME I CALLED SOMEONE TO DO ANY SERVICE AND MY HOUSE IT IS PRETTY OUTRAGEOUS AND ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF THE AREA I LIVE. IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS JUST, YOU KNOW THEY GO BEYOND -- LIKE THERE IS A THREE MINUTE WARNING.

>> I AM SO SORRY. >> CUT IT SHORT .

>> WHEN WE MEASURED THOSE, WHEN I REQUESTED FOR THE PERMIT LIKE I SAID I HAD NO IDEA WHAT I NEEDED TO MEASURE AND THEY TOLD ME THE DIMENSIONS I NEED TO GET THOSE BUT I DID NOT KNOW WERE THEY WERE OUTSIDE OR INSIDE DIMENSIONS AND SO I GAVE THE INSIDE DIMENSIONS OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN WHENEVER WE WERE REVIEWING THOSE DIMENSIONS, MY WIFE SAID OKAY THIS DOES NOT LOOK LIKE NINE FEET AND SO I THINK THAT IS WHEN I CALLED THE CITY AND I BELIEVE I SPOKE WITH HER, I TOLD HER THAT I MADE A MISTAKE AND THESE ARE THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS AND SO THAT IS WHAT PROMPTED THIS BECAUSE THE PERMIT HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BUT WHEN WE WERE READY TO GO BACK TO WORK AND I SAID I NEED TO MAKE THIS RIGHT I HAD ALREADY MADE A MISTAKE AND DON'T WANT TO MAKE ANOTHER MISTAKE AND SO THE LADY THAT IS OPPOSING THEM EVER SINCE WE MOVED INTO THE HOUSE SHE HAS ALWAYS BEEN NOT VERY FRIENDLY I DO NOT KNOW WHY AS WE HAVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING TO HER AND

SHE HAS TWO CAMERAS -- >> THIS IS IN MATERIAL, THAT IS

OKAY . >> I MEAN I KNOW THIS IS PROBABLY NOT A GREAT WAY OF DOING THINGS THAT I AM REALLY TIRED OF MAKING $160 A MONTH PAYMENT ON TRASH AND TO TOP IT OFF MY WIFE IS FOR YEARS ABOUT ME GOING ABOUT IT IN CORRECTLY BUT SHE STILL DID NOT WANT TO STOP, DID NOT WANT TO THROW ALL THE STUFF AWAY AND I HAVE RUN OUT OF MONEY TRYING TO DO WHAT I WANTED TO DO AND I HAD TO TAKE A LOAN AND TRY TO FINISH IT AND HOPEFULLY I AM ABLE TO FINISH IT.

>> TELL ME, IS THE STRUCTURE ON A CONCRETE SLAB?

>> YES, SIR. >> IT IS ATTACHED TO THE SLAB?

>> YES, SIR. >> WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

>> YES , HELLO AND GOOD MORNING. WHY DID IT END UP

BEING FIVE FOOT TALLER? >> NO SPECIFIC REASON .

WHENEVER WE WERE BUILDING IT WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE KIND OF LIKE AN ATTIC SPACE FOR EXTRA STORAGE BECAUSE MY WIFE HAS A LOT OF STUFF MEAN IT , I MEAN THERE IS NO PARTICULAR REASON OTHER THAN THAT WE WERE GOING TO TRY TO USE THAT AS SOME EXTRA STORAGE.

MAIN EXTERIOR WALLS WERE PUT UP?

>> NO, PRIOR TO THAT WE ALREADY MADE THE DECISION IT WAS GOING TO BE TALLER BUT TO MIMING LIKE I SAID, I DID NOT KNOW WHAT MEASUREMENTS WERE GOING TO BE NEEDED AND AT THE TIME WE WERE NOT PLANNING ANYTHING OTHER THAN THIS IS KIND OF LIKE STORAGE AND THAT IS WHY THERE REASON WE WENT

[00:40:04]

WITH THAT HEIGHT. >> YOU SAID IT WAS NOT

COMPLETE YET? >> THERE IS ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN FEET OF SIDING THAT NEED TO BE DONE TO BE COMPLETED.

>> OKAY. >> THE PICTURES ARE PRETTY

CURRENT? >> YES.

>> WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING?

>> IT IS 18 BY 23. >> 18 WIDE BY 23 LINKS , LINKS

. >> AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT IT IS THE ONLY PLACE THAT IS LEFT TO

COMPLETE. >> YOU HAVE A GARAGE ALSO AS PART OF THE HOUSE IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I DO NOT HAVE A GARAGE, NO, SIR.

>> YOU DO NOT. >> I HAVE A CARPORT., YOU

HAVE A CONCRETE AREA. >> I HAVE A TWO CARPORT .

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> YES, SIR.

>> DOES ANYONE PRESENT WANT TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?

>> I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. ANY DISCUSSION ?

>> IT IS A STRUCTURE THAT IS ALREADY UP AND SO, THE STRUCTURE IS ALREADY UP AND HE IS ALMOST FINISHED WITH IT AND SO I THINK WE HAVE TO BE RETROACTIVE AND APPROVE IT.

WHAT ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO DO?

>> I KNOW BUT

>> IT IS A SAD STORY IN THAT IS THE WAY IT IS BUT THE QUESTION IS IS IT GROUNDS FOR GRANTING WHAT IS BEING ASKED AND ONE OF THE THINGS ON IT IS HE CAUSED IT.

>> THAT IS TRUE, THAT IS TRUE AND WE HAVE THE FOUR QUESTIONS TO REVIEW I WAS SIMPLY MAKING A STATEMENT. LET'S GET TO THE QUESTIONS. I KNOW IT IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS.

>> THESE ARE ALREADY HARD WHEN IT IS UP AND GOING AND WHEN THERE ARE ALTERATIONS MADE TO IT.

>> I DO THINK THE STRUCTURE THEY ARE BUILDING , AT LEAST THEY ARE DOING BOARD AND BATTEN THAT MATCHES THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOME AND THEY ARE WORKING TO MAKE SURE IT BLENDS IN . I DO NOT SEE ANY, BASED OFF THE IMAGES THAT WE HAVE, I DO NOT SEE ANY AREAS WHERE ANY NEIGHBORING HOUSES ARE LOOKING DIRECTLY INTO THE BUILDING, IT SETS FAR BACK ON THE PROPERTY

. >> COULD WE GET THAT VIEW?

>> THE LADY -- >> THE ONE WHO SHOWS WHAT IS

BEHIND IT. >> I THINK THE WOMAN SEES THE ROOF AND THE SIDING, THERE IS NO OTHER PART INTO IT PICK SHE WOULD SEE IT IF IT WAS NINE OR 10 FEET TALL.

>> TRUE. >> THE OVERALL PLOT THAT SHOWS,

HERE WE GO, YES, THANK YOU. >> TO YOUR POINT --

>> YEAH. >> I MEAN -- OKAY. IT IS A BUILDING, IT COULD BE MOVED FORFEIT , IS IT REASONABLE TO ASK A PERSON TO MOVE IT FOUR FEET AND WHAT VALUE IS ADDED

IN DOING THAT? >> THERE ARE TIMES WHERE IF YOU MOVE IT FOR FEET OVER IT WILL MAKE IT LOOK MORE INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS GOING ON ON THE PROPERTY, OR THE

NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. >> YES . AND I SEE PRETTY MUCH BASED ON THIS I DO NOT SEE MUCH IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS , ON THIS DIAGRAM ON THE LEFT, AND REALLY NOT MUCH TO THE NEIGHBOR ON THE TOP EITHER . I SEE MINIMAL IMPACT .

>> I HATE TO BE THE HARD NOSE IN THIS AND GOING BACK TO MY FAVORITE THING , IF WE DO IT ON A MOTION AND FINANCIAL REASONS BOTH OF THOSE ARE NOT REASONS.

[00:45:02]

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> WE HAVE TO DO BETTER

INFORMING JUSTIFICATION . >> I REGRET HE DID NOT START WITH SOME LEVEL OF APPROVAL OTHER THAN WHAT HE DID AND THEN CHANGED IT AS HE WENT ALONG .

>> I AM CONCERNED IF WE APPROVE IT AS THE SEVEN FOOT AND NOT REQUIRING MAYBE LOWERING THE ROOFLINE AND WHATNOT, PEOPLE WILL START DOING A PROJECT AND THEN, I'M SORRY, ASK FOR FORGIVENESS THAN ASK FOR PERMISSION TYPING. I GET IT IS THERE ANYTHING -- FOR MAC

- LOW VOLUME ] >> NOW, I AM JUST WANTING TO LOOK AT ALL ASPECTS OF IT. IT IS A STRUCTURE THAT IS THERE , I GUESS HE SHOULD'VE KNOWN AND YES HE SHOULD'VE COMPLIED WITH THE RULES BUT NOW WHAT DO WE DO? AS WE GO BACK TO OUR

QUESTIONS. >> IT IS CONCERNING THAT WE GET

THE FOUR QUESTIONS . >> MAY I SAY SOMETHING ?

>> IT IS UP TO HIM. >> I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN. KEEP IT SHORT PLEASE.

>> YES, I WANT TO SAY THERE ARE OTHER NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE BUILT A NOT NECESSARILY SIMILAR STRUCTURES BUT COMPARABLE IN SOME FORM THAT ARE JUST AS TALL AS MY STRUCTURE AND I WANT TO SAY THEY ARE PRETTY CLOSE TO THE FENCE LINE AS

WELL. >> IT IS PRETTY HARD TO

EYEBALL THAT THOUGH. >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> WE UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION AND WE HAVE A FEEL FOR IT AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME WILL BE BUT WE DO UNDERSTAND , WE DO HAVE THE RULES, AND BY LAW , WE ARE SUPPOSED TO

FOLLOW. >> I UNDERSTAND.THANKS.

>> I THINK WE HAVE TO MINDFUL OF THE PRESIDENT ESPECIALLY IN THIS AREA BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WANT MORE OUT OF THEIR PROPERTIES AND WHAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE AND I UNDERSTAND THE NEED, BUT I SEE MINIMAL IMPACT TO APPROVING IT . IF SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD IF THEY DEVELOP THE PROPERTY BEHIND IT , AND I AM NOT SURE WHAT IT WOULD COST TO MOVE IT BUT IT COULD BE DONE. IT HAS NOT PASSED ANY CODE INSPECTION AT THIS POINT AND SO I AM NOT SURE WHAT THAT SITUATION IS

EITHER. >> WILL HE BE REQUIRED TO GO BACK AND PASS CITY CODE INSPECTION ON THE BUILDING ITSELF LAND LIKE YOU SAID IT HAS NOT AND HAS THE CITY BEEN OUT TO INSPECT IT LIKE IS THERE ELECTRICITY IN THE

BUILDING? >> I FEEL LIKE PERSONALLY I CAN ANSWER TWO OF THE FOUR THAT WE HAVE TO DO AT THIS POINT AND I THINK THERE ARE SOME SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND I THINK -- I THINK TO A POINT WE WOULD BE DEPRIVING HIM OF BENEFICIAL USE OF THE LAND AND I DON'T THINK WHETHER IT IS OVER SEVEN FEET OR THREE FOOT WOULD MAKE THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE. I DO NOT THINK IT IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST UNLESS YOU CAN CONVINCE ME IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ALD AND OBVIOUSLY WE KNOW SOME OF THE HARDSHIP WAS CAUSED BY THE PETITIONER AND SO THAT IS WHERE I AM AT WITH

[00:50:09]

THIS ONE . I THINK WE ARE IN A POSITION WHERE WE COULD BE SETTING A PRECEDENT FOR WE WILL SLAP IT UP AND ASK FOR FORGIVENESS LATER AND WE HAVE BEEN IN THESE SITUATIONS BEFORE AND IT IS , IT IS NOT THAT OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WILL FULLY ERADICATE ANY OF THAT ACTIVITY THAT GOES ON IN OUR CITY , BUT WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO CONTROL , BUT I DO NOT, AS FAR AS THE STRUCTURE ITSELF GOES, I DO NOT SEE ANY -- ANY REASON PHYSICALLY WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE FINISHED OUT. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE HOUSE, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE GOING ON, IT IS STRAIGHT UP THE DRIVEWAY, IT IS NOT SET ASIDE AND IT DOES NOT LOOK FUNNY OR LOOK INCONSISTENT WITH ANY OF THE OTHER STUFF IN THE AREA . THAT IS WHERE I STAND

ON IT AT THIS POINT. >> ARE THERE ANY ALTERATIONS WE COULD MAKE TO THE BUILDING THAT WOULD GET IT CLOSER TO

CONFORMITY ? >> WITH THE THREE FOOT SETBACK, IT CAN BE UP TO 10 FOOT TALL SO HE COULD MAKE IT 10 FEET TALL AND IT WOULD CONFORM.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT YOU'RE LATE LINE IS IT IS A

NINE FOOT WALL OR WHAT? >> YES .

>> THAT WOULD BE HARD TO DO. >> WHAT ABOUT ROOFING?

>> YEAH . >> IT WOULD ALMOST HAVE TO BE A FLAT ROOF . I MEAN, YOU COULD HAVE A LITTLE SLOPE .

>> THAT, TO ME, SEEMS LIKE THE DIRECTION IF HE NEEDS IT TO CONFORM IT WILL HAVE TO BE THE ROOFLINE THAT HAS TO CONFORM AND HE COULD HAVE A VERY LOW PITCH ROOF AND I WOULD MAKE SURE TO BE FED UP A LITTLE BIT IF THAT IS THE DIRECTION YOU

HAVE TO GO. >> WOULD IT BE IN THE BEST

INTEREST -- >> THAT CAUSES PROBLEMS TO.

>> WE MAY HAVE TO GO BACK AND WORK OPTIONS AND GET A CONTRACTOR AND SOMEONE WITH MORE EXPERIENCE.

>> HAVE YOU HAD ANYONE ELSE LOOK AT IT?

>> I HAVE NOT , I HAVE AN ARCHITECT.

>> YOU HAVE AN ARCHITECT? >> AND ENGINEER .

>> OKAY. >> SO MOVE IT, MODIFY IT IN

SOME CASE . >> I THINK THAT IS WHAT IS

GOING TO HAVE TO HAPPEN. >> HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN AT SOME SHOT AT SAVING THIS THING. IT WOULD WORK FOR YOU TO SEE IF YOU COULD FIND SOME WAY TO BRING IT INTO CONFORMANCE.

>> THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID.

>> WE ARE TRYING TO HELP YOU NOT DO THAT . WE WOULD LIKE YOU, YOU MAY WANT TO EXPLORE EVERY POSSIBILITY POSSIBLE BEFORE YOU REACH THAT DECISION .

>> I MAKE A MOTION WE TABLE BA-2023-11 AND ALLOW THE PARTICIPANT TO EXPLORE HIS OPTIONS AND BRINGING THE STRUCTURE BACK AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO CONFORMITY .

>> I SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS REQUEST AND ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO EXPLORE HIS

OPTIONS. ROLL CALL. >> THE MOTION TO TABLE THE

ITEM CARRIES. >> I APOLOGIZE FOR

[00:55:11]

INTERRUPTING AND I GOT A MESSAGE IT IS HARD FOR THE SPEAKERS TO PICK UP VOICES UNLESS WE ARE REAL CLOSE AND IF YOU COULD BE REAL CLOSE TO THE SPEAKER AND YOU'RE TALKING AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DISTANCE IS BUT SINCE IT IS BEING RECORDED I GOT AN EMAIL ABOUT THAT. NOT JUST FOR YOU ALL THAT FOR ALL THE BOARDS AND I THOUGHT I WOULD SPEAK THAT UP

[5. BA-2024-01: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on A Request From Seaton Higginbotham For A Special Exception To Allow For Off-Site Advertising In Agricultural Open Zoning Located at property ID 34009. (Mason Teegardin)]

RIGHT NOW.THANK YOU. >> OKAY MOVING ON THE NEXT CASE IS BA-2024-01 , WE WILL RECEIVE REPORT AND HOW TO DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST FROM SEATON HIGGINBOTHAM FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR OFF-SITE ADVERTISING AND AGRICULTURAL OPEN ZONING LOCATED AT PROPERTY ID3 4009 , MASON, GO FOR IT.

>> HELLO MASON AND PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF APPLING AND WE WILL REVIEW CASE BA-2024-01 THE OWNERS CARLYNN ENTERPRISE AND THE AGENT IS SEATON HIGGINBOTHAM AND REQUEST IS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW OFF-SITE ADVERTISING SIGN IN AO LOCATED AT PROPERTY I OWE 34009 AND WE WERE SAVED ONE IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND HERE WE HAVE THE AREA LOCATION MAP. AND WE HAVE THE ZONING MAP OF AO WITH RSA TO THE WEST. HERE ARE SOME VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THIS IS THE SIGN THAT IS GOING TO BE MOVED, THE ARROW FORD SIGN I'VE HER OFF OF I 20 DUE TO TXDOT IN THIS IS, THEY WOULD BE REQUESTING THEM TO MOVE IT AND THIS IS THE NEW LOCATION TO MOVE IT TO. PER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OFF-SITE ADVERTISING BILLBOARD ARE ONLY PERMITTED IN AO ZONING BY A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. BECAUSE THEY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND I ATTACH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND IT IS THE PINK SLIVER THAT SHOWS IT IS PROPOSED TO CHANGE ZONING TO RETAIL OVER TIME A 200 FOOT BUFFER, WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR . THE STAFF REVIEWED THIS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1.4.1 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND WE DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED SIGN LOCATION IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA IN THE PROPOSAL LOCATION IS DESIGNATED FOR COMMERCIAL USE BY THE COPPERHEADS A PLAN AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP THE RELOCATION OF THE SUBJECT SITE WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY BURDEN ON ANY EXISTING OR PROPOSED PUBLIC FACILITY AND REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE USES ALLOWED AND AGRICULTURAL OPEN ZONING AND REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE USES ALLOWED AND AGRICULTURAL OPEN ZONING DISTRICTS PARTICULARLY THE AO DISTRICTS THAT ADJOIN TXDOT SYSTEM HIGHWAYS AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS. >> ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS?

>> NO, SIR . >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WILL BE PROPONENT -- ONE QUICK ONE.

PROPERTY IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, SIR.

>> AGAIN, THANK YOU. >> PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

>> SEATON HIGGINBOTHAM . IN 1964 I WILL KEEP IT SHORT, COLONEL, 1960 FOR MY DAD ESTABLISHED A BUILDING UP AT THE SIGN UP AS PART OF HIS ADVERTISING FOR THE FORD DEALERSHIP AND IN 1974 WE MOVED OUR LOCATION TO THE CURRENT LOCATION AND SUBSEQUENTLY HE MOVED THE SIGN TO INTERSTATE 20. WE HAVE BEEN PAYING PERMITTING FEES AND LICENSING FEES SINCE 1979 ACCORDING TO THE STATE. AND APRIL 2020, WE PAY THE LICENSE FEE AND SEPTEMBER WHEN THE PERMIT CAME UP WE FELT TO PAY THAT AND SOME OVERSIGHT FELL THROUGH THE CRACKS AND TWO YEARS LATER THE STATE SAID WE HAD FORGOT TO PAY OUR FEES AND NOTICE WE HAVE TO REMOVE OUR SON. WE HAVE BEEN IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE STATE AND FEDERAL BECAUSE THEY SAID IT WAS A FEDERAL ISSUE THEY COULD NOT GIVE US A OR GRANT US AN EXCEPTION AND LET US PAY OUR FEES AND OUR PENALTIES AND SO WE ARE STILL AND CURRENT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THEM BUT WE

[01:00:03]

ARE ASKING YOU TO GIVE US THE ABILITY TO MOVE THE SIGN TO THIS LOCATION SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE IF WE ARE UNSUCCESSFUL IN GETTING THEM TO AGREE TO LET IT STAY IN ITS CURRENT POSITION. IT IS BEEN THERE FOR NEARLY 50 YEARS AND A LEGACY SIGN FOR US AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP IT WHERE IT IS BUT IF NOT WE ARE ASKING YOU TO LET US MOVE IT TO THE PROPERTY WE OWN AND I WILL

ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> I HAVE KNOWN. DIRECT WHICH OF THE PHOTOS IS A CURRENT SITE

? >> PARDON ME?

>> WHICH OF THE PHOTOS IS THE CURRENT SITE.

>> YES THE ONE ON THE RIGHT WE HAVE NOT REPAIRED SINCE THE WEATHER, THE STORM BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN IN NEGOTIATION OVER A

YEAR. >> THE PROPERTY YOU OWN IT IS BUILT FOR RETAIL OR CODED FOR RITO LATER AND YOU HAVE ANY PLANS TURNING THAT LAND INTO RETAIL?

>> NO. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> ANYONE IN OPPOSITION WANT TO SPEAK ?

>> I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. ANY DISCUSSION?

>> I THINK THEY NEED TO GO FOR HISTORIC OVERLAIN MYSELF.

>> I DO NOT HAVE ANY OPPOSITION. I THINK THE AGRICULTURE PART OF IT , THE SMALL PIECE OF LAND IS LIMITED AGRICULTURE ANYWAY AT THIS POINT. I DO NOT SEE A BIG

IMPACT WITH APPROVING. >> CAN I GET A MOTION FROM SOMEONE PLEASE? MAKE I AGREE THIS IS A HISTORIC SITE I HATE TO SEE IT MOVE FROM THE CURRENT LOCATION BECAUSE I THINK IT IS A PIECE OF ABILENE HISTORY AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT STAY AND I HOPE YOU GUYS CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN. I HAVE ZERO OPPOSITION

. >> IF THAT IS WHAT IT HAS TO BE, I CAN MAKE FROM I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR THIS OFF-SITE ADVERTISING IN AND AO ZONING AND TO BE POTENTIALLY PLACED ON PROPERTY 13009 BASED ON THE HARDSHIP THAT HAS BEEN CREATED BY THE STATE AND THEIR INABILITY TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ANY PROGRESS TO KEEP THE SIGN WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY LOCATED.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST BASED UPON THE FINDINGS IN THE HARDSHIP CREATED BY THE STATE . ROLL CALL.

>> MOTION CARRIES. >> FINAL CASE ON THE AGENDA,

[6. BA-2024-02: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on A Request From Jana Dover For A 1’ Variance From The 7’ Maximum Fence Height Indicated In The LDC On The Rear Fence Located at 2918 Arlington Avenue. (Kiley Hannah)]

CASE BA-2024 -02 AND WE WILL RECEIVE REPORT AND ORDER DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST FROM JANA DOVER FOR A ONE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE SEVEN FOOT MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT INDICATED IN THE LDC ON THE REAR FENCE LOCATED AT 2918 ARLINGTON AVENUE.

>> GOOD MORNING MY NAME IS KILEY HANNAH PLANNER FOR THE CITY. WE ARE HERE TO REVIEW CASE BA-2024-02. THE OWNER, JANA DOVER IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE SEVEN FOOT PERMITTED FANS TO ALLOW FOR AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. HERE IS THE AREA LOCATION MAP . THE ZONING MAP . AND HERE ARE SOME VIEWS OF THE CURRENT EXISTING FENCE . HERE IS HER PROPOSED , IT WILL BE A 45 OR 50 FOOT SECTION FACING THE ALLEY SHE WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE TO THE EIGHT-FOOT THAT WOULD TAPER DOWN TO THE EXISTING SIX FOOT.

[01:05:02]

>> CAN YOU GO BACK ONE SLIDE ? >> YES.

>> GO AHEAD, I WAS JUST LOOKING.

>> THE NOTIFICATION MAP, WE RECEIVED TWO IN FAVOR . AFTER STAFF REVIEWED THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 1.4.4.2, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE , WE HAVE COME TO TERMS WITH THE FACT THE EXISTING FENCE DOES CONFIRM OR CONFORM TO THE CURRENT STANDARD SET IN THE LDC FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT AND GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC WELFARE INTEREST . THE PROPOSED FENCE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE LDC IN THE LDC INCLUDES STANDARDS FOR HEIGHT WHICH ARE SATISFIED BY THE EXISTING FENCE AND THE HARDSHIP IS CAUSED BY THE PETITIONER BECAUSE THE CURRENT FENCE DOES CONFORM TO THE LDC REQUIREMENT. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WOULD LIKE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE TWO

POSITIVE FOLKS? >> NO, NO JUST THEY WERE IN

FAVOR. >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS

FURTHER? >> NEN FROM ME.

>> THANK YOU. >> WILL BE PROPONENT COME FORWARD PLEASE AND STATE YOUR NAME AND WHY THEY ARE

REQUESTING ? >> DO WE HAVE THE PROPONENT?

OPPOSITION? >> I SUGGEST WE TABLE THIS AND GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO COME FORWARD AND STATE -- OF