[00:00:01] GET THIS MEETING STARTED. HOW'S THAT SOUND? OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO START WITH APPROVING THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING. [CALL TO ORDER] [MINUTES] WE WILL ENTERTAIN ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS OR ANY FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. SO ANY COMMENT, MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING? SECOND. THANK YOU. A VOICE VOTE VOTE IS ACCEPTABLE. SO ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HAS FIVE MEMBERS, FOUR OF WHICH MUST BE PRESENT AT EACH MEETING FOR FAVORABLE VOTES ARE REQUIRED TO APPROVE ANY REQUEST UNDER CONSIDERATION. IF A SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS GRANTED BY THIS BOARD, THE APPLICANT HAS 180 DAYS FROM THIS DATE TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT. IF ONE IS REQUIRED, A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME WOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THIS BOARD, IF REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT AT THIS HEARING. A BUILDING PERMIT MAY BE APPLIED FOR THE DAY THE REQUEST IS APPROVED AFTER THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. IF THE REQUEST IS DENIED, IT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THIS BOARD UNTIL 12 MONTHS FROM THE DATE. APPEALS FROM THE BOARD. DECISIONS OF THIS BOARD MAY BE MADE TO A COURT OF RECORD DISTRICT COURT WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THIS DATE. IF ANYBODY IS GOING TO BE TALKING, I NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN. SO PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. OKAY. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. AGENDA. BUSINESS. [2. BA-2025-07: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request for Special Exception To Resume The Residential Use That Was Previously Abandoned, As Well As To Allow The Reconstruction Of Said Building To The Extent Of More Than Fifty Percent (50%) Of Its Replacement Cost. Located at 302 Willow Street. (Clarissa Ivey)] WE'RE HERE TO CONSIDER CASE BA 2025. DASH ZERO SEVEN. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS CLARISSA IVEY. I'M A PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF ABILENE. BEFORE YOU, YOU HAVE CSBA 2020 507 REQUEST TO READ THE OWNER, MR. JEREMY FORD. THE REQUEST IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO RESUME THE RESIDENTIAL USE, AND ALSO TO ALLOW THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN 50% OF THE REPLACEMENT COST. THE PROPERTY LOCATED IS LOCATED AT 302 WILLOW STREET, RIGHT IN THE CORNER OF SOUTH THIRD AND WILLOW STREET. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND IT SITS IN THE MIDDLE OF A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL CLUSTER. THESE ARE SOME OF THE PROPERTY VIEWS OF THE INITIAL STATE AND ALSO OF THE CURRENT STATE. AS YOU CAN SEE, MR. FORD HAS MADE SOME IMPROVEMENTS ALREADY TO THE PROPERTY. THESE ARE SOME OF THE VIEWS FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THE PERMITTED USES IN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS NOT A RESIDENTIAL ALLOWANCE FOR USE ALLOWANCE ON THIS DISTRICT. WE SEND OUT NOTIFICATIONS WITHIN 200FT OF THE PROPERTY. WE RECEIVE ONE IN FAVOR AND WE RECEIVE FOUR OPPOSED. THE REASON THIS WASN'T A NEW PACKAGE BECAUSE THEY WERE RECEIVED YESTERDAY. WE REVIEWED THE REQUEST WAS REVIEWED PURSUANT TO SECTION 1.4.4.1, SECTION EIGHT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND REQUEST IF THE IF IT'S WHOLLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE THE USES OF THE PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT PROPERTY WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THE PROPOSED USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDUSTRIAL USES. HOWEVER, IT'S A NON-CONFORMING RESIDENCE DOES EXIST ON THE SAME BLOCK. THE HOME AND THE SUBJECT HOME ARE THE LAST RESIDENCES WITHIN THAT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE CLUSTER THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER. THIS WILL NOT PLACE ANY UNDUE BURDEN ON PUBLIC FACILITIES. AND THE APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS CLEARLY IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSES AND THE INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE INTENDS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL USES FROM MANUFACTURING WHOLESALES AND MEDIUM INTENSITY ACTIVITIES. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR GO INTO MORE DETAIL ON ON THE CASE, IF YOU LIKE. I'M KIND OF CURIOUS, WHERE'S THE OTHER HOUSE OR RESIDENTIAL? SO THE IT'S AT 333 CHERRY STREET, AND THAT HOUSE IS ACTUALLY NOT ABANDONED. I CHECKED WITH THE WATER DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS STILL WATER USAGE, AND THAT ONE IS STILL A NON-CONFORMITY. ILLEGAL NON-CONFORMITY. OKAY, SO IT'S IN THE CORNER OF SOUTH FOURTH AND CHERRY. [00:05:06] DO WE HAVE A DATE ON WHEN THAT WAS CHANGED TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL? IT CAME IN WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED IN. IT WAS PRETTY MUCH SHOWN AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. THAT'S WHAT THE HOUSE REMAINED AS A NONCONFORMITY. IT'S BEEN THAT WAY FOR A WHILE. YES, YES. SO THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1947 AND LIKE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND EVERYTHING WAS INFORMED TO A LATER DATE. SO IT WAS I GUESS WHAT YOU CALL GRANDFATHERED IN. GREAT. THANK YOU. SO THERE WERE SEVERAL PEOPLE AROUND THE HOUSE THAT AREN'T VERY FAVORED OR OPPOSED TO THE RESIDENTIAL. WHY IS THAT? DID THEY COMMENT IN THERE? IT WASN'T. OKAY. SO. THE PEOPLE ON THE WEST SIDE OF WILLOW IS THE SAME OWNER, AND THE TWO DOTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF WILLOW IS THE SAME OWNER. I SPOKE WITH A NEIGHBOR ON ON THE PHONE PREVIOUSLY, AND THEIR MAIN CONCERN WAS OKAY, LET ME BACKTRACK A LITTLE BIT. WE RECEIVED THE APPLICATION, AND THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT THEY WERE GETTING GRANTED TO DO ADDITIONS BEFORE THE HOUSE WAS REPAIRED. BECAUSE THEY SAID IT LOOKED LIKE IT COULD POSSIBLY BE CONDEMNED. IT WASN'T IN GREAT SHAPE. SO I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT MR. FORD WAS COMING BEFORE THE BOARD TO ALSO REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE BROUGHT UP TO DATE, TO RESUME THE USE OF RESIDENTIAL, AND ALSO TO ALLOW IT TO BE REPAIRED. BUT THAT WAS HIS BIGGEST CONCERN THAT THERE WERE REQUESTING TO ADD MORE TO THE PROPERTY BEFORE IT WAS EVEN IN A CONDITION, A LIVABLE CONDITION. SO YOU WERE ABLE TO ADDRESS HIS CONCERNS? YES. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ANY ADDITIONAL CONCERNS. BUT AS FAR AS FROM THE ZONING PERSPECTIVE, YES. OKAY. AND HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN ABANDONED? THE SERVICE FOR THE WATER SERVICE WAS OFF. TURNED OFF ON JANUARY 23RD, 2010. BUT HASN'T HAD WATER SERVICE IN 15 YEARS. CORRECT. AND THE HOUSE IS NOT CONDEMNED RIGHT NOW. IT HAS BEEN CONDEMNED SINCE THE APPLICATION. OKAY, SO THE APPLICATION CAME FIRST AND THEN IT GOT CONDEMNED. YES. OKAY. THERE WAS A A SEECLICKFIX THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT HAD TO ACT ON. AND THEN THEY WENT TO INVESTIGATE AND THEY CONDEMNED THE PROPERTY. AND THAT PUT THAT NOTE IN THE IN THE STAFF REPORT. BUT THE CONDEMNATION DID COME A FEW DAYS AFTER THE APPLICATION. AND THAT'S WHY WE ALSO ADDED THE TO FIX IT UP FOR MORE THAN 50% AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE CONDEMNATION AND HOW MUCH IT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT REQUIRE TO BRING THE HOME UP TO DATE. BECAUSE WE TAKE THE THE 50% NOT OF WHAT THE OWNER PURCHASED THE HOME FOR, BUT WHAT THE TAILOR CAT ACTUALLY HAS THE HOME VALUE LISTED AS. SO THAT'S WHAT THAT WAS A CONCERN THAT MR. FORD HAD ABOUT THE 50%. HE HAD QUESTIONS ON. AND SO I EXPLAINED TO HIM, YOU KNOW, WITH IT BEING CONDEMNED, IT WOULD HAVE TO BRING UP BE BROUGHT UP TO CODE. IT DOESN'T HAVE A DATE TO GO TO BOB'S YET? THEY'RE WAITING TO HEAR FROM THIS MEETING WHAT THE RESULT IS BEFORE TAKING IT TO BOB'S. AND THEN FROM THERE, YOU KNOW, IF IF IT MOVES FORWARD. AND THAT'S WHY IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR HIM TO ALSO BE GRANTED TO REPAIR IT FOR MORE THAN 50% OF WHAT THE PROPERTY IS VALUED AT. OKAY. WHEN WAS IT PURCHASED? RECENTLY. YES, IT WAS PURCHASED IN THE SPRING OF THIS YEAR. OKAY. AND AFTER SPEAKING WITH MR. FORD, HE DID [00:10:03] MENTION THAT HE WASN'T INFORMED THAT IT WAS ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. HE THEY JUST TOLD HIM A RESIDENCE. I HAVE A QUESTION YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER. IN OUR NOTES, IT SAID THAT IT WAS PURCHASED. IT WAS SHOWN AS RESIDENTIAL. SO I GUESS ANY PROPERTY CAN REALLY BE LABELED AS WHATEVER IT WANTS, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT BE ACCURATE BASED ON THE CITY'S ZONING. THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT WE KIND OF BEEN. I MEAN, I GUESS NOT IT'S NOT A RECURRING ISSUE. BUT SOME REALTORS DO NOT REALLY SPECIFY WHAT THE PROPERTY IS ZONED, JUST PRETTY MUCH IF IT'S A HOUSE YOU'RE LISTED AS A RESIDENCE, OR IF IT LOOKS A LITTLE BIT LIKE AN OFFICE, THEY'LL LIST IT AS AN OFFICE SOMETIMES WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH THE ZONING DEPARTMENT. WHAT THE ACTUAL ZONING CLASSIFICATION IS FOR THE PROPERTY. OKAY. THANK YOU. BUT THIS HOUSE HAD BEEN GRANDFATHERED AS RESIDENTIAL. IT. YES, UP UNTIL IT WAS ABANDONED. IF IT'S ABANDONED FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, THEN THE USE IS ABANDONED. SO SO I GUESS FROM JANUARY, IT WOULD BE LIKE JULY OF 2010. IT LOST ITS STATUS. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CARISSA? THANK YOU. I DID NOTICE. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR HIM AS WELL. WITH THE PROPONENT, PLEASE COME FORWARD TO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE THEIR NAME. WHY? THEY ARE REQUESTING THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR VARIANCE. AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE A THREE MINUTE CLOCK. JEREMY FORD, I BELIEVE HE WAS HERE WHEN YOU. HE WAS. WAS HE? YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THAT. WAS WHAT? OH. DID I SWEAR YOU IN? THAT'S WHY. OH, YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. SO YES, IT'S. I PURCHASED THE HOME THIS LAST SPRING. I RECENTLY MOVED TO ABILENE SIX MONTHS AGO TO TAKE A JOB HERE. I DID THE NEWS HERE FOR FOX NEWS, AND SO I CAME IN. I FOUND THE HOME. I PURCHASED THE HOME THE REALTOR HAD LISTED THE HOME AS RESIDENTIAL IN THE BOOKS ON THE DEED. IT WAS STILL RESIDENTIAL. IT WAS ALWAYS RESIDENTIAL. THAT'S WHY I PURCHASED THE HOME, BECAUSE I WORK IN THE ENTERPRISE BUILDING, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY FOUR BLOCKS FROM THIS, THIS PROPERTY. SO I PURCHASED THE HOME WITH THE INTENT TO GET THE HOME UP TO STANDARD AND BUILD THE HOME UP. THE INITIAL ISSUE WAS TO EXTEND THE PORCH. AND THEN AN INDIVIDUAL HAD MADE A COMPLAINT, AND THEN SO THEN I HAD TO STOP THAT. AND THEN I DID NOT KNOW THAT I COULD NOT REHAB THE HOME OR CONTINUE FIXING THE HOME. SO THE SECOND COMPLAINT CAME IN WHEN THEY THE, THE CONDEMNED. I DIDN'T KNOW THE HOME WAS CONSIDERED CONDEMNED BECAUSE BEFORE I PURCHASED THE HOME, IT WAS IN LITIGATION WITH THE FAMILY. THAT'S WHY NOBODY LIVED IN THE HOME. AND THEN IT SAT AGAIN, IT WAS GRANDFATHERED IN. IT WAS ALWAYS RESIDENTIAL. IT WAS RESIDENTIAL AREA. THERE WERE THREE HOUSES APPROXIMATELY WITHIN THE SAME DISTRICT THAT ARE LIVABLE WITH INDIVIDUALS IN THEM BEHIND THE HOUSE OR ONE BEHIND THE HOUSE AND TWO OTHERS TO THE WEST OF THE HOUSE. AGAIN, AS SHE STATED THE RED DOTS ARE ALL OWNED BY THE SAME PERSON THAT OWNS THE SAME PROPERTY THAT OPPOSED SO I THINK THAT'S A LOT A BIT IRRELEVANT THAT THEY CLEARLY EITHER WANTED THE HOUSE OR DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE, YOU KNOW, BUT THE BIG PICTURE IS THAT I MOVED HERE TO PURCHASE A A PROPERTY TO REHAB A PROPERTY TO MAKE IT BETTER WITHIN THE WITHIN THE AREA. I HAD NO IDEA THAT IT WAS NOW CONSIDERED SINCE 2010, IT SWITCHED OVER TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. BUT IN THE DEED AND EVERYTHING ELSE, IT WAS STILL CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL. SO I BOUGHT IT AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. SO ANY QUESTIONS? WERE YOU LIVING IN IT AND RENOVATING IT AT THE SAME TIME? HERE'S THE ISSUE. I WAS NOT LIVING IN THE HOME. I. I RENTED A PLACE. THE ISSUE CAME WHEN I ARRIVED HOME, OR I ARRIVED THERE TO PICK UP MAIL AND DO THINGS, AND THEN IT SAID CONDEMNED. I GOT NO LETTERS. I GOT NO ANYTHING TO SAY THAT THE HOUSE, IT JUST SAID CONDEMNED ON IT. [00:15:04] SO THEN I CAME UP TO THE CITY. I'M FINISHING. I'M FINISHING, I PROMISE. BUT THE ISSUE WAS I WASN'T. AND THEN I STAYED AWAY. AND THEN SOMEONE BROKE WINDOWS AND BROKE IN AND STOLE ABOUT $10,000 OF THE TOOLS THAT I HAD TO START WORKING ON IT. LIVING IN IT? NO. WORKING ON IT. YES. TO GET IT UP AS YOU CAN TO GET IT GOING. AND THEN I STAYED AWAY. AND THEN SOMEONE BROKE IN AND STOLE, YOU KNOW, BROKE IN MY VEHICLE, BROKE IN THE HOUSE, STOLE ALL MY EQUIPMENT. SO. AND THEN I'VE HAD TO WAIT, YOU KNOW, ALMOST EIGHT WEEKS FOR THIS AND TRYING TO KEEP AN EYE ON IT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. IT'S FINE. I HAVE A QUESTION. THERE'S THREE CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION. AND ONE OF THEM IS THE APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL EXEMPTIONS, CLEARLY IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE AND FURTHERMORE PROVIDES SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. THE STAFF FINDING WAS THAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE INTENDS TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTIAL USES FROM MANUFACTURING, WHOLESALE AND MEDIUM INTENSITY ACTIVITIES. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHY THEY HAVE NO RESIDENTIAL IN THERE. DO YOU HAVE A THOUGHT OR FEELING TOWARDS THAT, LIKE WHAT THE CITY IS TRYING TO PROTECT? WELL, ALL OF US FROM IN THAT AREA, RIGHT. WELL, MY THOUGHT IS THAT THERE ARE CURRENTLY FOUR HOMES IN THE DISTRICT THAT INDIVIDUALS LIVE IN. WITHIN THE SAME LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO, THE. THE HOUSE IS GRANDFATHERED IN. IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE 1947. THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT CAME IN 2010. SO THIRD, I FEEL LIKE IT. IF IT WAS CHANGED TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THAT WAY WITHIN THE DEED. WITHIN BEFORE I PURCHASED THE HOUSE. SO I HAD NO IDEA. AND IT'S STILL NOT IN THERE? THE LISTING AGENT. I REACHED BACK TO THEM. WELL, FIRST MY ATTORNEY AS I STARTED AND THEN THE LISTING AGENT WHO SAID, NO, IT'S LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. I MEAN, IT'S RESIDENTIAL. IT'S STILL RESIDENTIAL. IT'S BEEN RESIDENTIAL. AND I FELT LIKE IF IT WAS AN ISSUE BEFOREHAND, SOMEONE ELSE SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, LEVELED IT OR CHANGED IT, OR DID WHATEVER THEY DID, IT SAT EMPTY. IT SAT AVAILABLE FOR SOME TIME BEFORE I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. SO YEAH. SO MY ISSUE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I BOUGHT IT UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF A RESIDENTIAL HOME WITHIN THE AREA THAT IT WAS IN, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN RESIDENTIAL ALL THAT TIME. SO I PLANNED ON, YOU KNOW, AND INTENDED INTEND TO LEAVE IT AS SUCH. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC. OR IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED OF THE REQUEST. IS ANYONE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THAT? AND WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND. YOUR FARR. YEAH. I'M CECIL FANE, AND I'M THE ONE HE REFERRED TO THAT ON THE PROPERTY THAT HAD THE FOUR RED DOTS. SO MY CONCERN IS IF BEING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ON A 6000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET LEASED TO THE OLD MORRISON COMPANY. NOW, REESE AND LOT NEXT TO IT, TO THEM. AND THEN I OWN THE TWO LOTS SOUTH OF HIM THAT I USE FOR MY PERSONAL STORAGE. THE MY CONCERN IS THAT IF I DECIDE THAT I WANT TO TRY TO GET THAT CHANGE, THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL OR SOMETHING, THEN A RESIDENTIAL, THEY'RE GOING TO COME UP AND SAY, OH, WHOA, WHOA, THIS IS RESIDENTIAL. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. WELL. SO THAT WOULD BE A BIG NEGATIVE TO IF I WANTED TO TRY TO GET THE ZONING CHANGED. BUT THE OTHER THING, THERE'S SO MANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS HOUSE THAT WHERE IT DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOT TO GET AN EXEMPTION TO THE 50% OR WORDS COST MORE THAN 50% TO REHAB THE HOUSE, THEN IT'S NOT ALLOWABLE. AND SO, OF COURSE, THEY'VE NAMED OTHER THINGS. THAT'S NOT WHERE IT DOESN'T CONFORM. BUT DOES THE COMMITTEE NOT EVER. OR THE PLANNING? NOT EVER MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ABOUT IT? I'M SORRY WE'RE NOT ABLE TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS WHETHER TO ACCEPT OR NOT ACCEPT. OKAY. BUT MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS IT IT'S BEEN VACANT FOR. [00:20:02] THEY SAID IT HAD BEEN SINCE 2010. I'M NOT SURE THAT NOBODY HAD LIVED IN IT PRIOR TO THAT. THE ELECTRICAL LINES FELL ACROSS MY PALLET RACKS AND I HAD TO GET WHERE IT TORE LOOSE FROM THE HOUSE. I HAD TO GET AEP TO COME OUT, TAKE THE LINE DOWN SO IT DIDN'T ENDANGER, YOU KNOW, MY PROPERTY. AND THAT'S BEEN PROBABLY TEN YEARS AGO. SO THE HOUSE IS IN TOTAL DISARRAY AND HAS BEEN FOR FOR MANY YEARS. SO. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED TO THIS? OKAY. THEN I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND HAVE OPEN IT FOR THE BOARD TO DISCUSS. AND THESE ARE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE TO FIND. IF THIS HOUSE WERE TO BE REHABILITATED, WOULD THE CITY HAVE TO GO OUT THERE AND DO AN INSPECTION TO MAKE SURE AND TO GET IT OUT OF CONDEMNED STATUS, WHICH AGAIN, SEVERAL YEARS AGO WE BOUGHT A HOUSE. WE HAD TO PUT NEW ELECTRICITY IN IT, NEW PLUMBING IN IT, BASICALLY EVERYTHING NEW FOR THE CITY TO COME IN AND APPROVE RESIDENCE FOR THAT HOUSE WITH THAT SAME PROCESS HAVE TO GO THROUGH. YES. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ANSWER? YEAH. DOES SHE NEED. YES. I MEAN, THAT'S A THAT'S A SEPARATE PROCESS. THE SO THE PROPERTY IS CONDEMNED RIGHT. AND AS BEING SUBSTANDARD. AND SO THEY WOULD THE OWNER WOULD EITHER HAVE TO ULTIMATELY BRING IT OUT OF CONDEMNATION BY BRINGING THE PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL AND ALL THAT UP TO CODE OR IT, IT MIGHT BE ORDERED TO BE DEMOLISHED IT IF THE PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT BRING IT OUT OF CONDEMNATION. AND SO THAT'S A SEPARATE THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT SORT OF THE ZONING ISSUE, IS IT ALLOWED TO, TO RETURN TO ITS PRIOR USE? OKAY. IT HAS TO BEAT THIS PROBLEM FIRST. YEAH. IT'S PRETTY MUCH LIKE IF IF IT WILL BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO BE A RESIDENCE, THEN MOVE ON TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO DO THE WHAT IT WOULD REQUIRE TO BE BROUGHT UP TO LIVING CONDITIONS OR THE BUILDING STANDARDS. OH, YES. I'M SORRY, THE PROPONENT WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE. DO I NEED TO CLOSE OUR BORDER, THEN OUR BOARD MEETING. YOU CAN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN. THE HOUSE ISN'T ACTUALLY CONDEMNED. I SPOKE WITH THE CITY INSPECTOR IN OUR AREA ADAM OR WHAT'S THE THE ONE FOR MY AREA. AND IT'S NOT EVEN IN CONDEMNATION AS OF NOW. HE MADE THAT A POINT TO LET ME KNOW HE HAD TO DO THAT, AND PUT SIGNS UP SO THAT I COULD OFFICIALLY STOP WORKING ON IT. THE IMPROVEMENTS UNTIL THIS MEETING. SO IT'S NOT EVEN OFFICIALLY CONDEMNED. IT'S IT'S JUST THAT HE'S GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS SO THAT LIKE AS AS STATED AFTER THIS, THEN I CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH WHICHEVER WAY THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE. SO THEN I CAN CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE PROPERTY AND OR AND GET THE PERMITS NEEDED. SO IT'S NOT ACTUALLY CONDEMNED AS WE SPEAK. SO IF YOU COULD JUST CLARIFY, WAS THAT A STOP WORK ORDER OR WAS IT A NOTICE OF CONDEMNATION AS SUBSTANDARD? I'M ONLY GOING BY WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, SO I CANNOT VERIFY THAT. IT WAS A NOTICE FOR CONDEMNATION, AND I BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO BOB'S NEXT. NEXT MONTH IT WILL BE AT THE BOB'S MEETING. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING AND PUT IT BACK TO THE BOARD BEFORE YOU DO THAT. OKAY. CAN I ASK THE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS UP HERE EARLIER A QUESTION? SURE. WOULD YOU PLEASE STEP UP TO THE MIC? THANK YOU. WITH THIS GENTLEMAN COMING IN AND DOING ALL THE REHAB TO THE FACILITIES AND THAT AND IMPROVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BECAUSE YOU SAID RIGHT NOW THERE'S ISSUES WITH THE PROPERTY, WOULD THAT NOT HELP YOUR AREA AROUND COMMERCIAL IT [00:25:08] ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IN THE 200FT THERE'S ONLY HIS HOUSE AND ONE OTHER. RIGHT. HE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT TWO HOUSES THAT ARE FURTHER OVER A BLOCK AWAY FROM THE LAST HOUSE, WHICH DOESN'T PERTAIN TO THIS HEARING. IT'S COMMERCIAL. YOU, IF YOU WANT TO IMPROVE COMMERCIAL, SET OUT A TREE. YOU KNOW YOU DON'T NEED A HOUSE BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO HINDER THE COMMERCIAL IN THE FUTURE. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO CHANGE. OKAY, BUT THE THING, THAT ONE THING I'VE GOT A PROBLEM IS. THIS GUY DOES NOT FOLLOW RULES. HE'S DONE EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD ON HIS OWN. HE'S RUN HIS OWN ELECTRICAL. HE'S GOT A GENERATOR RUNNING THROUGH HIS BREAKER BOX SO HE CAN POWER ELECTRICAL IN THE HOUSE. EVERY TIME THAT THEY'VE TOLD HIM TO CEASE. AND DECEASED. YOU CAN'T WORK ON IT. HE CONTINUES TO WORK ON IT. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES THIS HAS HAPPENED AND HE JUST CONTINUES TO WORK REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY SAY. SO I DON'T HAVE ANY FAITH THAT HE'S GOING TO DO IT. IF YOU GO AND LOOK AT IT NOW, SINCE HE HAS STARTED THE IMPROVEMENTS, THE PLACE IS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN IT WAS BEFORE HE STARTED. SO I CAN'T SEE THAT HE'S GOING TO IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF YOU JUST DRIVE BY AND LOOK AT IT. YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE THAT WHOEVER'S TAKING THIS OVER IS GOING TO MAKE AN IMPROVEMENT TO IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. NOW CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPENING THE DISCUSSION BOARD AGAIN. NELSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? WELL, IT'S THE FIRST TWO. TO IT LOOKS LIKE WE WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM APPROVING. IT'S THE LAST ONE. IS IN HARMONY WITH GENERAL PURPOSES. INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. THAT'S THE ONE. I'M HAVING TROUBLE. YEAH. GETTING PAST. ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? THAT'S. THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE PROBLEM OF THE INDUSTRIAL, THAT IT SEEMS TO BE THE PROBLEM OF THE RESIDENTIAL. AND IF HE DOESN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, THEN IT DOESN'T EXIST. I DON'T SEE HOW MR. FANE'S QUESTION IN REGARDS TO IT HAMPERING HIS PROPERTY. IF THEY DO FIX IT, IF THEY DON'T FIX IT, I CAN UNDERSTAND IT BEING AN EYESORE AND HAVING PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, PROBLEMS WITH HIS UNITS OF COMMERCIAL BUSINESS. BUT IF HE DOES FIX IT, I DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING A PROBLEM OF MEETING THAT DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE IT IS RESIDENTIAL. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? RIGHT. CAN YOU OPEN YOUR BACK UP? YES. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS BACK UP. THAT'S THE WHOLE PROBLEM. IT'S NOT RESIDENTIAL. I HADN'T BEEN RESIDENTIAL IN WHAT THEY SAY, 15 YEARS. IT LOST ITS GRANDFATHERED CLAUSE 14, 15 YEARS AGO. SO IT'S NOT RESIDENTIAL? YES, SIR. BUT I'M. WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE INTENDS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL USE. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO VERIFY. WELL, THE REASON THEY WANTED TO PROTECT IT WAS SO A COMMERCIAL COULDN'T GO AND BUILD AGAINST IT. THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF KEEPING IT WHERE COMMERCIAL COULDN'T INFRINGE ON THE RESIDENTIAL IN HOUSTON. YOU CAN BUILD ANYTHING YOU WANT TO BUILD. THEY CAN BUILD A SALT MINE RIGHT NEXT TO US. $2 MILLION HOME. AND THAT WAS WHAT IT WAS DONE FOR IS TO PROTECT THE HOUSES. THIS LOST ITS ITS AUTHORITY OR WHATEVER, TO BE A HOUSE. YOU KNOW, 15 YEARS AGO. SO I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN KEEP CONSIDERING THAT IT'S RESIDENTIAL. WE'RE GOING BY WHAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SAYS, SIR. ALL RIGHT. READ IT. CAN YOU READ IT TO ME? THE LAND DEVELOPMENT. IT'S RIGHT THERE ON THE BOARD, SIR. BOTTOM ONE. SO BE WHOLLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE USE AND PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT ADJACENT PROPERTY. [00:30:01] SO THERE'S NO WAY IT'S GOING TO COMPLY TO THAT BECAUSE EVERYTHING AROUND IS COMMERCIAL. READ THE LAST LINE ON THE WHERE IT SAYS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE INTENDS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL USES FROM MANUFACTURING WHOLESALE OR MODERN MEDIUM INTENSITY ACTIVITIES. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I CAN'T SEE WHERE YOU KEEP SAYING IT'S RESIDENTIAL. IT WAS GRANDFATHERED AT ONE TIME, SIR. WELL, I REGARD THAT IT WAS GRANDFATHERED AT ONE TIME 15 YEARS AGO. WE ARE RECORDED. THANK YOU. I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN. OKAY. SO THEN HOW WOULD YOU WORD IT FOR, LIKE, THE LAST STATEMENT TO. SAY THAT IT, I GUESS, HAVE US APPROVE IT, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU'RE FEELING. SINCE SHE'S GOING THAT DIRECTION WITH THE OTHER TWO. THE WAY TO GO WITH IT ON THAT IS THAT SINCE IT IS PROTECTED FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS LONG AS IT ENTAILS. IMPROVING THE PROPERTY TO THE OTHER PERCENTAGES AS PER REQUIRED, IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO. BUT IF IT DOESN'T GET THE 50%, IT DOESN'T MATTER. YEAH. I GUESS I'M LOOKING AT IT FROM WHEN THIS PURCHASE PERSON PURCHASED THE PROPERTY ON EVERYTHING THAT HE PURCHASED IT ON. SAID THIS HOUSE IS RESIDENTIAL. THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WAS WRITTEN THAT SAID, HEY, NO, THIS ISN'T RESIDENTIAL. IT'S LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE. SO IF YOU'RE BUYING THIS HOUSE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE IT AS A HOUSE ANYMORE. CORRECT. SO HIS ASSUMPTION WAS THAT WHEN HE PURCHASED THIS HOUSE IN GOODWILL, THAT IT WAS A HOUSE THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE ABLE TO REHABILITATE. SO AND HE'S IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT, AND I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU WITH THE 50%, IF HE MAKES AN EFFORT TO IMPROVE THAT PROPERTY PAST THE 50%, HE'S DONE WHAT HE HAS TO DO PER THE THE EXEMPTION HERE. CORRECT. DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION AND GIVE US THE FINDINGS? MY MOTION WOULD BE THAT WE ALLOW AN EXEMPTION ON THIS PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH IT'S LOCATED IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE. IF THE PERSON BRINGS THE PROPERTY UP TO THE 50% VALUE THAT IS TALKED ABOUT UNDER THE UNDER THE AGENDA ITEM FOR THIS CASE. AND JUST SO JUST SO YOU KNOW, IT CAN'T BE A REQUIREMENT. THAT'S A REQUIREMENT ANYWAY, THAT REQUIRED HIM TO HAVE TO COME AND GET THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION. RIGHT. AND SO AND I THINK STAFF WELL, OR MAYBE EVEN THE APPLICANT DETERMINED THAT PROBABLY HE IS GOING TO HAVE TO SPEND THAT MUCH TO BRING IT OUT OF CONDEMNATION. THEREFORE, IT'S NECESSARY FOR IT TO COME HERE. AND SO IT CAN'T REALLY, REALLY BE A REQUIREMENT. YOU JUST HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER TO ALLOW IT BASED ON, BASED ON THESE CRITERIA OR NOT. AND BUT IF YOUR MOTION IS TO APPROVE, THAT'S THAT'S FINE. BUT IT CAN'T THERE CAN'T BE A CONDITION THAT HE SPEND MORE NECESSARILY AS PART OF THE MOTION. WELL, I WOULD BE PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WE'VE GOT TO APPROVE IT BEFORE THEY CAN APPROVE IT. BASICALLY WHAT IT MEANS. IS THEY CAN STILL SAY NO IF IT DOESN'T PASS, THEN THAT. IS THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. ENOUGH FROM WHAT Y'ALL WERE, WHAT WE SAID. WE HAVE THE FIRST MOTION AND YES, HE SAID PER BASED ON WHAT WAS STATED THERE, WE JUST NEED A SECOND MOTION. ANYBODY? SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. MISTER ZANTAC. I THINK WE OUGHT TO APPROVE THE EXEMPTION. MISS SPARKS. YES. MISTER HORVAT. YES, AND MISS RITZY. YES. AND THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES. OKAY. [3. BA-2025-08: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request for Variance Request To Allow A 27’ Long Carport With A Minimum Setback Of 1’ (5’ Setback Required With A Maximum Of 22’ In Length With Architectural Compatibility) The Request Is Also To Permit A Carport 13’ From The Edge Of Pavement (A Minimum Of 15’ Is Ordinarily Required). Located at 1242 Chariot Circle. (Adam Holland)] [00:35:02] CONSIDERING BA CASE. CASE BA 2020 5-08. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS ADAM HOLLAND. I'M A PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF ABILENE. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR MR. JOHN RAY. THIS IS A REQUEST TO ALLOW THE FOLLOWING. A 27 FOOT LONG CARPORT WHERE A 22 FOOT IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT ALLOWED, A ONE FOOT PROPERTY LINE SETBACK, WHERE FIVE FEET IS THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIRED, AND A 13 BACK OF CURB SETBACK WHERE 15FT IS THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIRED. AND THIS IS LOCATED AT 1242 CHARIOT CIRCLE. HERE IS A LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE PROPOSED AREA FOR THE CARPORT. YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A CONCRETE PAD ADJACENT TO THE HOUSE. AND TO THE NORTH OF THE APPROACH, LOCATED OFF OF CHARIOT CIRCLE. THAT IS WHERE THE OWNER INTENDS TO PLACE THE PROPOSED CARPORT. HERE'S THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED RS 12. WHICH IS THE LOWEST INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT THAT WE HAVE? HERE'S A SITE PLAN KIND OF SHOWING WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING. THIS IS A 13 FOOT SETBACK OFF OF THE CURB. A 20 BY 23 FOOT CARPORT STRUCTURE TO BE ADJACENT TO THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE IS NORTH OF NORTHEAST CORNER. HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THAT FENCED IN PAD JUST ON JUST TO THE NORTH OF THAT APPROACH. THERE IS CURRENTLY A BOAT PLACED ON THE ON THAT CONCRETE SLAB. WE DID RECEIVE SEVERAL NOTIFICATIONS IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST, INCLUDING THE NEIGHBOR TO THE TO THE WEST. A NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH. AND JUST TO THE NORTHEAST. WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1442 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THERE ARE NO APPARENT CONDITIONS OF THE LAND THAT CREATE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP FOR THIS VARIANCE GRANTING THE REQUEST WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC OR INJURIES TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. THE REQUEST IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS IT STATES REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR THE PROPERTY. AND IT DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS SET FOR ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY. AND THERE ARE NO APPARENT HARDSHIPS TIED TO THE LAND. FOR THIS REQUEST, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE FOR ME. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PICTURE WHERE YOU HAVE THE DIMENSIONS OF THE CARPORT? YES. OKAY. IT SAYS 23. BUT ON YOUR PACKET, YOU'RE ASKING FOR 27 FOOT. IT'S A EXTENDING FROM THE HOUSE FOR 27FT. SO THERE'S A, THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL WIDTH FROM THE WALL OF THE HOUSE THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE COVERED. YES. OKAY. ADAM, WOULD THEY BE GOING GOING THE FIVE FEET? YEAH. TOWARDS THE STREET. WHAT DO YOU MEAN? IT'S GOING TO BE LOCATED ENTIRELY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. THE MINIMUM SETBACK FOR AN ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE CARPORT IS FIVE FEET. THEY'RE REQUESTING A ONE FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. DO YOU HAVE THE PICTURE OF THE HOUSE WITH THE TREES AND EVERYTHING? SO LOOKING AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, OKAY, YOU HAVE THE CARS THERE AND YOU HAVE THE FENCE. SO THAT IS THE FENCE GOING TO HAVE TO BE MOVED TOWARDS THE STREET. NO IT SHOULD NOT NEED TO. SO IT'S BASICALLY GOING TO GO ALMOST ALL THE WAY TO THE FENCE. CORRECT. THE FENCE IS THE PROPERTY LINE. YES. OKAY. ALL THAT OTHER EASEMENT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ADAM AT THIS TIME? NO. THANK YOU. OKAY. IS THE PROPONENT HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THIS? YEAH. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND WHY YOU'RE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE. MY NAME IS DAKOTA BREWSTER. I REPRESENT THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THAT WOULD DO THE WORK. THE HOMEOWNER WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND THAT CARPORT FROM WHERE THE SETBACK IS ORIGINALLY, BECAUSE IT WOULD PUT THE FRAMING WITHIN THE CONCRETE SLAB [00:40:09] OF THE PARKING LOT THERE OF HIS DRIVEWAY. WE'RE EXTENDING THAT. IT DOESN'T GO ALL THE WAY TO HIS PROPERTY LINE OR THE FENCE LINE, WHICH IS KIND OF HIS BACKYARD. BUT HE IS WE'RE GOING TO REMAIN ABOUT A FOOT OFF THAT FENCE. IT IS HIDDEN BEHIND SOME FRUIT TREES THERE. SO IT'S NOT REALLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. BUT REALLY JUST WANTS THE EXTRA ROOM. SO IF HE PUTS THAT 23 FOOT CARPORT, THE WAY HE HAS TO TURN IN HIS DRIVEWAY WOULD REALLY ONLY ALLOW ONE VEHICLE INTO THAT, AND HE REALLY WANTS TO FIT THE TWO VEHICLES TO GET THAT EXTRA FEW FEET. BUT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO BUILD IT PER THE CODE. IT WOULD IT JUST WOULDN'T BE. IT WOULD JUST ALLOW ONE VEHICLE INSTEAD. YES. WITH JUST A FEW EXTRA FEET, HE COULD ALLOW THOSE TWO EXTRA VEHICLES BE ABLE TO USE THE ENTIRE SLAB. RIGHT. IT IS WITHIN HIS FENCE LINE AND WHICH USED TO BE HIS BACKYARD. BUT HE HAD MOVED THE BACKYARD FENCE AND HAD A SLAB POURED THERE FOR EXTENDED DRIVEWAY. ONE OF THE THINGS ADAM SAID WAS THAT IT'S NOT MEETING STANDARDS FOR ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY. THERE WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION THERE. SO IF WE DO THE 27 FOOT, THEY WOULD ALLOW A TEN INCH FRAMING THERE AND WE WOULD USE THAT. WHAT WE HAD SAID WE WOULD USE FOR 27 WAS WHAT WE WERE GOING TO USE FOR THE 23, WHICH WAS AN EIGHT INCH MATERIAL, BUT IT WOULD BE UPGRADED TO MEET THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING. IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? BASED ON THE STAFF FINDINGS. THERE'S THIS ONE. THANK YOU. GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE IT. THIS IS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE VARIANCE NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE LDC. AND THE STAFF SAYS THAT IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE LDC. DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT OR DO YOU KNOW OF A WAY THAT IT IS? SURE. I'LL DO NOT. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR NOW. WE'LL OPEN IT BACK UP IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE. IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION. OKAY. I GUESS I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. DISCUSSION BY BOARD, OPENING IT UP FOR US. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY HARD TO MEET THREE OF THE FOUR. WELL, I THINK WE MEET THREE OF THE FOUR. THE WHEN WE DON'T MEET. IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH LDC, BUT THE SLAB. SLAB SIZES CAN IS CONTINGENT. THAT'S THE REASON THEY HAVE TO MAKE THE CARPORT BIGGER. BUT I'M SURE IF HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT HE WAS GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS WHEN HE BUILT THE SLAB, HE WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE SLAB DIMENSIONS. I'M SURE THAT WASN'T THE INTENT AT THE TIME THAT HE BUILT THE SLAB. AND THERE'S ALSO THE NUMBER ONE. THERE'S NO APPARENT CONDITIONS OF THE LAND. IT WON'T CREATE THE HARDSHIP. YEAH. SO THAT'S A THE. AND NUMBER FOUR, THERE'S NO APPARENT HARDSHIPS. EASEMENT PROBLEMS IS WHAT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT BECAUSE IT'S INFRINGING ON EASEMENTS OF INCIDENTS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE IN THE EASEMENT. BECAUSE HE'S ON THE PROPERTY LINE WITH THE FENCE. [00:45:16] SO WE'RE JUST READING THROUGH THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. I MEAN, I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING AT GETTING INTO THE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CALL IT AN EASEMENT OR THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUILDING WHERE YOU CAN'T. DO THIS ON THIS ONE. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT BECAUSE THERE'S NO APPARENT CONDITIONS. LAND, PROPERTY CREATE UNDUE HARDSHIP. THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A HARDSHIP TO ANYBODY ELSE EITHER, BECAUSE IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. IT'S NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE EASEMENT. THE GRANT REQUEST WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC OR INJURIOUS TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH SAME THING. IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. I'M ON BOTH FENCE AREAS. IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND CODE, BUT WE'RE MOVING IT FROM THE EXISTING TO GIVE HIM THE ROOM TO PUT TWO VEHICLES THERE INSTEAD OF ONE. SO YOU DON'T PUT ANYTHING ON THE STREET. IF HE IF HE CAN'T PUT IT, IF HE HAS TO MAKE IT SMALLER, HE CAN'T PUT TWO VEHICLES THERE. SO THEN YOU'D BE PUTTING A VEHICLE ON THE STREET OR CUTTING THEM DOWN TO ONE CAR SPOT, AND THERE'S NO APPARENT HARDSHIPS. THAT'S WHY I RECOMMEND TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT. SO LET ME JUST JUMP IN. AND IF THE THERE HAS IF YOU'RE APPROVING IT, YOU HAVE TO FIND THAT THE LAND CAUSES A HARDSHIP. AND SO THE NO APPARENT HARDSHIPS IS NOT ABOUT THE NEIGHBOR. IT'S ABOUT THE IT'S ABOUT THE, THE LAND ITSELF. SO I JUST WANTED TO TO CLARIFY AND MAKE SURE YOU YOU MIGHT WANT TO AMEND THE WORDING OF YOUR MOTION. YEAH. THE VERBIAGE. ALTHOUGH THERE'S NO HARDSHIP, IT WILL. CAUSE THE INDIVIDUAL TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HIS PARKING AREA. DOES ANYONE WANT A SECOND OR CONTINUE DISCUSSING THE I GUESS I WAS TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT MOTION. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE EASEMENT, BUT I GUESS WHAT I REALLY MEANT TO SAY WAS THE SETBACKS REQUIRED. PER THE THING, THE MINIMUM SETBACK OF ONE WERE 15 IS REQUIRED. THE LENGTH 13 WITH THE SETBACK IS GOING TO BE 13 AND A MINIMUM OF 15 IS REQUIRED. SO YOU'RE GOING OUTSIDE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS. BUT AGAIN, LIKE YOU SAID, IT DOESN'T CREATE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP FOR THE PERSON EITHER WAY. YEAH. BUT IN ORDER TO APPROVE IT YOU HAVE TO SAY IT DOES CREATE A HARDSHIP BASED ON THE. PHYSICAL SURROUNDINGS, SHAPE, TOPOGRAPHY AND OTHER FEATURES OF THE LAND, WHICH IT DOESN'T. YEAH. LIKE YOU MENTIONED, YOU'VE GOT THE SLAB THERE ALREADY. SLABS ALREADY THERE. I WOULD ASSUME THAT HAD TO BE APPROVED BEFORE THEY POURED THE SLAB. YES. THE SLABS. BEEN THERE. JUST A PART OF IT. YOU'VE ALREADY GOT THREE PEOPLE AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT SAID THEY FAVOR THE. THERE'S NO BODY. VERY DIRECT NEIGHBORS. YEAH. SO Y'ALL ARE SAYING THE APPARENT CONDITION OF THE LAND. SO THE SLAB IS THE HARDSHIP FOR NUMBER ONE? YES. OKAY. NUMBER TWO WAS FINE. AND IT. YOU'RE SAYING IT IS. CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. BECAUSE IT KEEPS MORE CARS OFF THE SIDE, OFF THE DRIVE, OFF THE SIDE OF THE STREET. THANK YOU. IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC OR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY SAID THAT THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT OPPOSED TO IT. [00:50:02] I'M STILL NOT CONVINCED WITH LIKE, THE LAST QUESTION OR FINDING Y'ALL'S FINDING HARDSHIP. YEAH. I DON'T SEE. THE HARDSHIP THAT IS CAUSED BY THE SURROUNDINGS. I ALSO DON'T SEE THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE IT'S DESIGNED TO HAVE SETBACKS. THAT'S WHY IT'S HERE, BECAUSE IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. RIGHT. BUT WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO SAY THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THERE'S I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION. THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE IT. AND DID SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION OR HAVE US DO A SECOND? HAS THAT MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND? DO WE NEED TO START OVER? WOULD THAT BE HELPFUL? I MEAN, THAT'S ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT. OR IF YOU WANT TO MAYBE MAKE A MOTION, I THINK THAT WOULD BE CLEARER. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CHANGE THAT MOTION TO WHERE IT WAS? THE VERBIAGE IS WHAT YOU WANT. IT TOOK ME OR ME. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I GUESS I'M TOYING WITH THE IDEA. WE'VE GOT. I DON'T SEE THE UNDUE HARDSHIP SINCE I MEAN, WE'RE KIND OF GOING AGAINST WHAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS SPELLED OUT. IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE A CARPORT. YEAH, BUT HE CAN HAVE ONE. LIKE THE HAS TO BE SMALLER. YEAH. IF YOU HAVE, IF YOU END UP AT ANY POINT HAVING LEGAL QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO APPLY THE LAW, I'M HAPPY TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT. AND SO I'M NOT SAYING DO IT, BUT I'M JUST REMINDING YOU THAT YOU CAN DO THAT IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IF THE BOARD IS STRUGGLING WITH THE LEGAL CRITERIA. ARE YOU ALL INTERESTED IN DOING THAT OR. I'M I'M LEANING MORE TOWARDS REJECTING IT. YEAH. I'M SAYING BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE CAN'T ANSWER ALL FOUR. AND TO MAKE A MOTION IN THAT DIRECTION, WE'LL GO THERE. YEAH. IF THAT'S WHAT WE GOT TO DO. MAY I MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE YOU DO? I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN. WOULD IT POSSIBLY CREATE HARDSHIP IF WE HAVE TO BUILD THAT TO MEET THE ORIGINAL SETBACKS TO PUT FRAMING IN THE DRIVEWAY SO IT TAKES AWAY SPACE OF HIS DRIVEWAY, AND NOW HE DOES HAVE TO PARK EITHER IN THE STREET OR ELSEWHERE. SO HE'S JUST HE'S LOSING PART OF HIS PROPERTY TO THAT WHICH WAS INTENDED AND APPROVED FOR A DRIVEWAY ORIGINALLY. AND THEN WE ALSO THE THE MEASUREMENTS AREN'T EXACTLY THE 13 FOOT IS NOT THE SETBACK OF THE CARPORT. IT IS A LITTLE CLOSER TO THAT 15FT. PROBABLY WITHIN 13IN OF THAT. SO IT'S REALLY ONLY A FOOT INTO THAT, THAT 15 FOOT SETBACK. BUT HOW ABOUT THE 27 VERSUS THE 22? YOU'RE LOOKING AT FIVE FOOT THERE. SO WITH THE MEASUREMENTS ON SITE, IT'S REALLY ABOUT A 23 FOOT CARPORT. THAT ADDITIONAL WAS TO GET CLOSER TO. AND WHAT WE SAID WAS 27 IS TO THE FENCE, BUT WITH THE FRAMING AND WHAT WOULD BE A ONE FOOT OFF REALLY ISN'T THE 27, IT'S MORE 26FT. AND THEY DID SAY THAT THERE MIGHT BE A A WAY AROUND IT, BUT THAT STILL PUT THE POST IN THERE IS THAT WE COULD HAVE PART OF THE FRAMING TO OVERHANG THE POST. SO THAT BEING SAID, THE POST IS STILL THE ISSUE OF BEING INSIDE THE DRIVEWAY. IF WE CAN HANG THE THE CARPORT PAST THE POST FOLLOWING, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS IT'S STRUCTURALLY SOUND. [00:55:09] OUR ISSUE IS JUST TRYING TO MOVE THE POST AS FAR AS CLOSE AS WE CAN AS THE FENCE. CHANGE THE WAY ANYBODY FEELS. AND THANK YOU. CLOSED AGAIN. CLOSED AGAIN? OKAY, SO THE ORIGINAL MOTION HAS BEEN DISSOLVED. SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION. HOW Y'ALL WANT TO GO? OKAY. NO, I DIDN'T KNOW. I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE STAFF FINDINGS. SECOND. MR. ZENTEK. I AGREE WITH THE MOTION THAT WAS JUST MADE. MISS SPARKS, I AGREE. MR. HARFORD AGREED, AND MISS FRITZY AGREED. AND THE MOTION TO DENY CARRIES. OKAY. WE HAVE ANOTHER CASE. CASE B A 2025 ZERO NINE. [4. BA-2025-09: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request for Variance to Allow a 20-foot Side Setback, Where 25 Feet Minimum is Required. Located at 3451 Silver Oak Subdivision. (Kera Valois)] GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS CLARISSA IVEY. BEFORE YOU, YOU HAVE CSBA 2020 509 REQUESTED BY THE OWNER, JONATHAN NEELY. THE REQUEST IS VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 20 FOOT SIDE SETBACK WHERE 25 IS REQUIRED. THE PROPERTY LOCATION IS 3451 SILVER OAKS DRIVE, AND THIS WOULD BE IN THE CORNER OF BUFFALO GAP IN SILVER OAKS DRIVE, AND THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL OPEN, WITH SOME MIXED USE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. HERE ARE SOME VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE BUILDING THAT DOES NOT MEET THE SETBACKS. WE SEND OUT NOTIFICATIONS AND RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR AND TWO OPPOSE. AND WE ALSO RECEIVED SOME YESTERDAY, ONE IN FAVOR AND ONE OPPOSED. IT WAS REVIEWED PURSUANT TO SECTION 1.4.4.2 AND D OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. CODE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. THERE ARE NO APPARENT CONDITIONS WITHIN THIS PROPERTY THAT CREATE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP. THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC. GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE HARDSHIP OR INEQUITY SUFFERED BY THE PETITIONER. IT'S NOT WHOLLY CAUSED A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE PETITIONER. THEREFORE THERE ARE NO APPARENT HARDSHIPS. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. SO IN THE PACKET, IT TALKED ABOUT HOW THERE WAS A PREVIOUS SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED. YES. SO IN 2022 THERE WAS A PERMIT REQUESTED TO PUT THIS PORTABLE BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY. THE SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED ON MAY OF 2022. TO SET THIS BUILDING IT WAS PROPOSED AS BEING 25FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THAT'S WHAT IT WAS APPROVED FOR. THE INSPECTOR GOING OUT TO FINALIZE THE INSPECTION. HE FOUND THAT THE BUILDING IS NOT ACTUALLY SET AT THE 25FT BY 20FT FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE. MY FIRST QUESTION WAS LIKE, WHY WASN'T IT CAUGHT IN THE FIRST INSPECTION WITH IT BEING A PORTABLE BUILDING? THE INSPECTOR ONLY GOES OUT THERE THE ONE TIME. I DID SEE HERE ON THE STAFF REPORT. I MEAN, ON THE APPLICATION THAT THE PORTABLE BUILDING WAS BUILT ON FOOTINGS. SO THERE THERE REALLY ARE NOT ABLE TO MOVE IT. SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE TO KEEP THE BUILDING AT THE 20FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE 25. BUT IT WAS ON THE APPLICATION WHAT THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT WOULD BE. DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE BUILDING HAD BEEN MOVED TO MAKE IT OUT OF COMPLIANCE? [01:00:05] WAS IT, LIKE, PHYSICALLY MOVED WITHIN THE SITE OR LIKE, DID THE BUILDING GET BIGGER, I GUESS. HOW DID IT GO FROM 25 TO 20, WHICH IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER. YEAH. I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT. BUT YOU DID SAID AN INSPECTION WAS DONE. YES, THE INSPECTION WAS DONE. THE INSPECTOR WENT MEASURED FOR THAT FINAL INSPECTION. IT WAS AT 20, NOT 25, BUT THE THE PROPOSED TO BE AT 25. SO I GUESS THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW THE PERMIT. SO THEY ALREADY APPROVED THE STRUCTURE. WHEN THEY WENT OUT, THEY APPROVED THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE STRUCTURE TO BE AT 25FT. SO RIGHT NOW THE PERMITS. THE PERMIT HAS NOT BEEN THE INSPECTION HAS NOT BEEN PASSED. IT FAILED INSPECTION. THEREFORE THE PERMIT IS STILL OPEN. AND AM I CONFUSING YOU? WAS THERE AN INSPECTION ON THE FOOTINGS? THERE WAS NOT INSPECTION ON THE FOOTINGS. IF THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN, AN INSPECTOR WOULD HAVE GONE OUT THERE AND DONE THAT MEASUREMENT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CARISSA? THANK YOU. WILL THE PROPONENT PLEASE STEP FORWARD? COME TO THE MIC, STATE YOUR NAME AND WHY THIS YOU'RE REQUIRING? ASK FOR THE VARIANCE. HI, MY NAME IS JONATHAN NEELY AND I'M WITH NEW BEGINNINGS CHILDCARE ACADEMY. AND WE ARE JUST REQUESTING THE THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE OF FIVE FEET. AND IT'S KIND OF A LONG STORY, BUT WE HAD WE BOUGHT THE BUILDINGS FROM THE EARLY HEAD START ABILENE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BUILDINGS. AND SO THEY WERE ON NORTH NINTH OR 10TH. AND SO WHEN WE BROUGHT THEM OVER THE MAN WHO WE HAD HIRED TO BRING THEM OVER, SET THE BUILDINGS. AND THE REASON WE CHOSE THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, THIS WAS THE FIRST BUILDING THERE. AND HE JUST SET THEM, UP AND WE TOLD THEM WHAT THE COMPLIANCE WAS. AND SO THEY WERE IT JUST SAT THERE FOR A LONG TIME. A LOT OF ISSUES WITH PERMITTING AND, AND I THINK MAYBE SOME PEOPLE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE VISION AND NOW THEY'RE, THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL. WE'VE WE'VE GOT ALL THE PERMITS TO FIX THEM. AND I MEAN, IT'S A VERY, VERY NICE ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT THE, THE BUILDING WAS SET THERE BECAUSE THE THE PROPERTY FROM BUFFALO GAP SLANTS BACK TOWARDS SILVER OAKS OR TOWARDS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO IT, IT CAN GET REALLY SOUPY BACK THERE WHEN IT RAINS. SO WE CHOSE TO MOVE THE BUILDINGS AS CLOSE AS WE COULD TO WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT WOULDN'T BE WHAT YOU'D CALL A HARDSHIP ON EROSION AND DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT ON ON THE BUILDINGS. SO WHEN WE PUT THEM THERE. APPARENTLY WE, WE HAD IT AT 25 AND I THINK WHEN WE HAD TO PUT THE FOOTERS ON THE PERSON WHO ORIGINALLY BROUGHT THE BUILDINGS WE JUST FOR SOME REASON HE, WE HAD PAID HIM TO SET THEM AND HE JUST WE HAD SOME ISSUES. SO WE HAD TO HIRE ANOTHER COMPANY TO COME AND REALLY SET THEM. AND THIS BUILDING IS CONNECTED TO OTHER ONES TO ANOTHER. THERE ARE FIVE BUILDINGS TOTAL AND THIS ONE'S CONNECTED TO THOSE BUILDINGS. AND SO IT'S FOR CHILDCARE. AND SO THEY USE OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THIS BUILDING RIGHT NOW. IT'S JUST SITTING THERE. WE DON'T HAVE OCCUPANCY FOR IT, BUT IT'S IT, IT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHILDCARE. AND SO IT'S CONNECTED TO THOSE OTHER BUILDINGS THROUGH A LIKE A DECKING. BUT APPARENTLY WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO WE HAD TO HIRE. THE SECOND GROUP OF PEOPLE WHEN THEY JACKED THE BUILDING UP SOMEHOW. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW, BUT WE LOST FIVE FOOT. THE. THANK YOU. THE THE FIVE FOOT IS IT'S. I HAVE PICTURES ON MY PHONE OF THE BACKSIDE OF THAT FENCE. AND THE BACKSIDE OF THAT FENCE IS OUR FENCE IS ABOUT FIVE FEET OFF OF THE PROPERTY LINE, SO THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM. AND THE FENCE IS AN OLD GOAT WIRE FENCE. AND IT'S AT THE VERY BACK OF ONE PROPERTY THAT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD [01:05:05] WANT IT TO BE 25FT KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW, BUT KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW NOW. BUT IT YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING BEHIND IT THAT WOULD HINDER ANY GROWTH, ANY FUTURE GROWTH. AND I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF THE CODE. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY TO KEEP DISTANCE ENOUGH DISTANCE. AND THIS IS, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY COUPLE, A COUPLE OF HUNDRED FEET FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. A COUPLE OF HUNDRED FEET FROM THE HOUSE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL LIVES. AND THEN BEHIND US, IT DOESN'T AFFECT ANYTHING, WHICH THAT'S WHERE THE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTUALLY BEGINS. AND IF YOU CAN, YOU SEE THE PICTURE THAT IT'S JUST A EMPTY FIELD. AND I'VE BEEN HERE 20 YEARS PASTORING THIS CHURCH, AND IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THAT IT'S NEVER CHANGED. AND SO AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE ARE JUST ASKING FOR JUST A LITTLE BIT OF REPRIEVE FOR FIVE FEET, THAT SOMEHOW, DURING THE MIDDLE OF CONSTRUCTION AND HAVING TO HIRE ONE COMPANY AND THEN THEM NOT DOING WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO, HAVING TO HIRE SOMEBODY ELSE, AND WE LOST FIVE FEET. SO. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN? NO. OKAY. THAT WAS A VERY GOOD EXPLANATION. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE IN FAVOR OR OPPOSE OPPOSITION OF THE REQUEST. OKAY, I DON'T SEE ANY. SO I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND DISCUSSION BY BOARD IS OPEN. SO YOU MENTIONED THERE WAS ACTUALLY THERE IS ACTUALLY FIVE FOOT BEHIND THE FENCE THAT. YES, SIR. IS THIS IS THIS OKAY? YEAH, I OPEN IT BACK UP. OKAY. YES, SIR. SO WE DID NOT BUILD THE FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LINE, RIGHT? WE BUILT IT ABOUT FIVE FEET OFF OF THE PROPERTY LINE TO GIVE OUR NEIGHBOR PLENTY OF ROOM. AND HE HE HE WAS VERY THANKFUL THAT WE BUILT A FENCE FOR HIM WHEN WE BUILT THE FENCE. BECAUSE IT'S A NICE FENCE. IT REALLY IS. AND COMPARED TO THE THE THE WIRE FENCE THAT'S BEEN UP THERE FOR THE 20 YEARS THAT I'VE, I'VE BEEN AT THAT PROPERTY. BUT YOUR PROPERTY LINE IS ACTUALLY FIVE FOOT. YES, SIR. IT'S ACTUALLY FIVE FEET FURTHER THAN WHERE WE PUT OUR FENCE. SO WE I MEAN, WE EVEN TRIED TO, YOU KNOW, GIVE PLENTY OF ROOM WHERE WE'RE NOT TAKING ANY PROPERTY FROM ANYBODY. IN FACT YOU KNOW, HE HAS PROBABLY FIVE FEET MORE ACCESS ON OUR PROPERTY THAN NOW. HE COULD TEAR HIS FENCE DOWN, AND IT WOULD WOULDN'T AFFECT HIM AT ALL. I MEAN, HE'D HAVE FIVE MORE FEET, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CLARISSA. BASED ON THAT COMMENT. OKAY. SO IS IT 20FT TO THE FENCE OR TO THE PROPERTY LINE? IT'S TO THE PROPERTY LINE. SO THE FENCE, IT'S IRRELEVANT. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THE. ON GOOGLE EARTH, IT APPEARS THAT IT'S JUST THAT BACK CORNER ABOUT THE BUILDING IS, I'M ASSUMING, LIKE 60FT OR SOMETHING. HOW MANY HOW MANY FEET IS ACTUALLY ENCROACHING? SO IT'S JUST ENCROACHING THE FIVE FEET ONTO THAT 25. BUT JUST AT THE CORNER, NOT ALL THE WAY BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE. OH, BECAUSE. YES, WAY BACK. IT'S A LOT. YES. BIGGER ABOUT HOW MANY FEET OF LENGTH IS ENCROACHING. DO YOU KNOW? I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT. I CAN SAY TO THAT IF YOU DON'T MIND. IS THAT OKAY? YES, PLEASE. SO IF YOU NOTICE, THE BUILDING IS ANGLED AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. IT'S THE BACK. LITERALLY THE BACK CORNER. IT'S THE FENCE TO THE CORNER. AND THAT'S THE ONLY PART THAT IS THAT'S AFFECTED. AND SO IT'S NOT THE WHOLE BUILDING BECAUSE THE BUILDING ACTUALLY ANGLES AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. SO IT'S LITERALLY LIKE THE BACK EDGE OF THE BUILDING. OKAY. SO BUT YEAH. SO. RIGHT. SO IT'S NOT THE ENTIRE BUILDING. IT'S JUST THE BACK BACK CORNER. YEAH. I MEAN, IT'S, YOU KNOW, NOT I MEAN, THE PICTURE KIND OF SHOWS YOU HOW IT ANGLES AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. YEAH. SO. THANK YOU. CLARISSA. [01:10:18] OKAY, BACK TO DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD. THANK YOU FOR THE CRITERIA. DO YOU FEEL LIKE IT'S NECESSARY? THE THING YOU WANT TO SAY? WELL, OBVIOUSLY, I FEEL LIKE. I'M SORRY. I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN. GO AHEAD. OKAY. SORRY. AND WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? THERE WAS NO QUESTION YET. OH, OKAY. OKAY. YOU WERE WANTING TO SAY SOMETHING? NO. I THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING ME A QUESTION. I'M SORRY. HAVE YOU SORRY? HAVE YOU ASKED WHAT IT WOULD ENTAIL TO MOVE IT? THE BUILDING. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. THE UMBILICALS ARE CONNECTED. I MEAN, IT WOULD BE. AND THE PROBLEM THAT WE THE REASON WE PUT IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE IS BECAUSE THE FURTHER BACK YOU GO AWAY FROM BUFFALO GAP ROAD, THE MORE PRONE TO FLOODING. AND SO BECAUSE IT'S A CHILD CARE CENTER, IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY PROBABLY DANGEROUS TO MOVE IT BACK FURTHER. LIKE IF WE WERE TO IF WE WERE TO TAKE THE BUILDING, IF WE WERE TO TAKE THE BUILDING AND MOVE IT TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE OTHER FOUR BUILDINGS THE FURTHER AWAY WE GET, THE MORE PRONE IT IS TO FLOODING. SO I GUESS IF THAT MAKES SENSE, WE COULDN'T MOVE IT AND IT WOULD BE FOR ITS USE, BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY COULD START BECOMING A DANGER TO TO CHILDREN IF WE WERE TO MOVE IT TO ANOTHER LOCATION. AND IT I MEAN, THERE'S JUST NO WAY WE COULD DO THAT AT THIS POINT? IT WOULD I MEAN, THERE'S JUST I MEAN, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO DO THAT. SO. AND THAT'S WHY WE CHOSE THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION TO START THERE, AS I SAID, BECAUSE IT GETS IT'S JUST NOT SAFE THE FURTHER BACK YOU GO. AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, THE ONLY THING WE COULD REALLY DO WITH THAT LAND BACK THERE EVEN AS A CHURCH, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT AND IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE LIKE A SOCCER FIELD OR SOMETHING BECAUSE THE AGAIN, THE FURTHER BACK YOU GO, IT JUST IT FLOODS. AND SO IT'S JUST NOT A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR CHILDREN. AND IT'S REALLY I DON'T, I MEAN, I, YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T SEE HOW YOU COULD BUILD A LOT BACK THERE OUTSIDE OF, LIKE, A, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, A SOCCER FIELD OR SOMETHING. SO WHICH IS WHY WE'VE NEVER REALLY USED ANY OF THAT BACK PART. OF THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN. WHAT ARE Y'ALL THINKING? SO ON NUMBER ONE COULD POSSIBLY THE SLOPE OF THE LAND AND THE SHAPE OF THE BOUNDARY LINE, THE DEMOGRAPHY AND THE HARDSHIP? YEAH. IT WOULD. YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC. AND I ACTUALLY THINK THAT THE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE, THE WAY THAT IT'S SET UP NOW FOR NUMBER THREE, THEY TEND TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE SETBACK IS TO KIND OF GIVE PRIVACY. AND THERE'S ALL THOSE TREES THAT ALREADY CREATE THE PRIVACY AND THE. WHEN THE DEAL THE DEAL WITH THE NEIGHBOR TO I MEAN, THE NEIGHBORS ARE RIGHT WITH THE BUILDING, THE FENCE. IT'S TAKEN IN PART OF THE PROPERTY. SO REALLY FAR AWAY FROM EVERYTHING, RIGHT? THE MAJORITY OF THE BUILDING IS WITHIN THE CODE. MORE THAN COMPLIANT. YES. YEAH. JUST THE ONE CORNER. AND IT WOULD BE A HARDSHIP TRYING TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE BUILDING NOW THAT IT'S ALREADY BUILT. THEY'RE ALL CONNECTED. WHEN IT WAS INITIALLY INSPECTED THE FIRST TIME, IT PASSED. YEAH. THAT SEEMS LIKE WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE AN ANSWER FOR EVERYTHING. SO WE WANTED TO WORD IT. WHY DON'T YOU GIVE IT A TRY? OKAY. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE. THE. APPROVE THE MOTION FOR A VARIANCE. YEAH. APPROVE THE MOTION FOR VARIANCE. [01:15:03] THANK YOU. NUMBER ONE, I THINK THE SHAPE OF THE BOUNDARY LINE ALONG WITH THE SLOPE OF THE LAND DOES CREATE A HARDSHIP. GRANTING THE REQUEST. THE REQUEST WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC. I THINK, IN GENERAL, THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. BASED ON THE. THE MAJORITY OF THE BUILDING IS CONSISTENT AND MORE THAN CONSISTENT WITH THE SETBACKS, AND THE HARDSHIP IS NOT CAUSED BY THE PETITIONER. AT NUMBER ONE, BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE SET THE BUILDINGS AND THE NUMBER TWO BECAUSE OF THE LAND CONDITIONS. YEAH, I SECOND THAT. MR. I AGREE, I APPROVE IT. MISS SPARKS. YES, MR. HALFORD? YES. AND MISS RIXEY. YES. AND THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. SINCE WE HAVE NO OTHER BUSINESS ON THE AGENDA, THEN I'M GOING TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. THANK YOU FOR COMING AND PARTICIPATING. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.