Jan 07, 2026 Building And Standards Commission

[CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]

[00:00:10]

ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE ROLL CALL. FRANK ROBINSON HERE. JIM CASON. YEAH. LAURA OTTER HERE, JEFF COBLE HERE. CLIFF MCCULLOUGH HERE, DAVE SNYDER HERE. WE HAVE A NEW MEMBER.

JAMES LEE. I DON'T THINK SO. MR. LEE IS NOT WITH US. NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA. CITIZEN COMMENTS. PARDON ME. I WAS MISTAKEN IN OUR LIAISON. THIS IS SHARON. DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? YEAH. THAT'S FINE. I SO SORRY ABOUT THE LIGHT AT 1431 ARE GOING TO FIGHT YOU AND MOST OF THE REST OF US. YEAH. SO, YES, MR. PRINCE HAS DECIDED TO ONLY TAKE ON PLANNING AND ZONING. SO I'LL USE HIS ELEVATION POLICY BASED ON. DID YOU HEAR THAT? OH, I SAID, ARE YOU SITTING IN OR YOU ARE NEW? I AM ACTUALLY THE NEW LIAISON. MR. PRINCE HAS DECIDED TO ONLY TAKE ON PNC. SO I WILL BE NEW. BUT I'M NOT NEW TO THE. I'M NEW TO THIS TOWN, BUT NOT NEW TO PLANNING AND ZONING. AND BOARDS AND BUILDING SUSTAINABLE. SO A LITTLE EXPERIENCE. LAST TIME I SPOKE TO, I TURNED AROUND AND SAID NICE WORK. YOU REMEMBER THAT ELECTION? I BELIEVE THAT WAS.

YES, YES. YES, SIR. WE'RE ON CITIZEN COMMENTS. ARE THERE ARE THERE ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS? NO,

[STAFF AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS]

[00:05:05]

BUT THEY HAVE RECEIVED LETTERS. TYPICALLY, IT'S 30 TO 45 DAYS BEFORE WE CAN TAKE ACTION AS A CITY. AND SO THOSE LETTERS HAVE BEEN GOING OUT. WE'VE BEEN DOING QUITE A FEW A WEEK. THEY TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION, ALL THE ORDINANCES, EVERYTHING INCLUDED. BUT THAT PROCESS HAS STARTED. WE HAVE AN ONGOING LIST. IF THERE'S ANY OTHER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, MORE THAN HAPPY TO ADDRESS IT. AND THEN MOVING FORWARD, HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET SOME KIND OF SET UPDATE LIST AND WE'LL COME FULLY PREPARED TO ANSWER ANYTHING THAT MAY BE ON THAT LIST. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR

[I.1. Discussion, consideration, and possible action for Election of officers (Chair, ViceChair, and Secretary) for the coming year.]

NOW, WE HAVE AN INTERESTING OTHER PIECE THAT I ASKED TO BE PUT ON. YES, SIR. WHICH IS THE POSSIBLE ELECTION OF A SECRETARY. BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD MINUTES. THE RULES OF PROCEDURE INDICATE THAT STAFF IS SUPPOSED TO DO THOSE FOR US. THERE'S ALSO A PIECE IN THE BUILDING CODE THAT SPEAKS TO GETTING ON THE COMMISSION'S AGENDA BY REACHING THE COMMISSION SECRETARY. IT. ARE WE GOING TO GET MINUTES? YES, SIR. SO WE OUR POSITION ATLAS, AS I'M SURE EVERYBODY IS PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH HER POSITION HAD BEEN VACANT. THEY FILLED IT.

THEN IT WAS VACANT AGAIN. WE JUST BROUGHT ON A NEW PERSON FOR THAT WAS FULLY TRAINED IN MINUTES BEFORE THE HOLIDAYS, AND SO THAT IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST TASKS AHEAD IS GETTING MINUTES CAUGHT UP FOR EVERY BOARD. I KNOW IT'S NOT JUST THIS ONE AND SO WE ARE WORKING THROUGH IT. IF YOU CHOOSE TO ELECT A SECRETARY, THAT THAT IS YOUR WILL TO DO SO.

BUT WE DO HAVE IT COVERED ON THE STAFF LEVEL. IT WAS JUST WAITING FOR THAT POSITION. SHE STARTED THE FIRST WEEK OF DECEMBER, GOT TRAINING AS SOON AS SHE GOT IN, AND THEN HOLIDAYS HIT. AND IT'S BEEN, AS I'M SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS, A BIT HECTIC. SO. ANYBODY WANT TO BE SECRETARY? YOU'D HAVE TO. I THINK WE'LL PASS ON THAT PART OF THIS ACTION ITEM. NEXT ITEM

[I.2. Presentation and Discussion on the Preliminary Code Diagnostic Report from Freese and Nichols.]

[00:10:05]

HIGH LEVEL KEY ISSUES, READABILITY, USABILITY, LEGISLATIVE COMPLIANCE. I THINK IT'S ALL THINGS THAT WE'VE KIND OF RECOGNIZED OUR ISSUES. THERE WERE SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM CITY STAFF, AND YOU MAY SEE THOSE IN RED. BUT THE BIGGEST THINGS THAT THEY HAVE NOTICED IS ESSENTIALLY THE WAY THAT OUR CODE IS ORDERED STRUCTURALLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

IT CONTRADICTS ITSELF. AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING IN HERE THAT'S GOING TO STAND OUT AS LIKE, OH NO, WE NEVER KNEW THAT OR NEVER REALIZED THAT. I WILL SAY FREESE AND NICHOLS HAS MADE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS IN HERE THAT I DON'T THINK SOME AGREE WITH. EVEN MYSELF. I DON'T AGREE WITH THE WAY THAT THEY'VE PUT IT FORWARD WITHOUT ANY THOUGHT AS TO WHAT WE WOULD BE OKAY WITH AS A CITY. BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE DON'T INTEND TO USE THEM FOR A REWRITE. AND SO AT THE JOINT WORKSHOP, WE'LL DISCUSS AS A COLLECTIVE HOW WE HANDLE THE REWRITE MOVING FORWARD. I KNOW THIS IS A LOT OF INFORMATION TO DIGEST. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. IF YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH SECTION BY SECTION AND POINT OUT HIGH LEVEL THINGS, HOWEVER, HOWEVER WE WANT TO PROCEED, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO HELP WHERE I CAN, AND I HAVE WITH US. A TYPICALLY YOUR BUILDING OFFICIAL IS HERE IN THIS POSITION. UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T HAVE A BUILDING OFFICIAL. IT'S MYSELF APPOINTED AT THE MOMENT. AND SO I DO HAVE ONE OF OUR FANTASTIC STAFF MEMBERS WHO IS MORE FAMILIAR WITH BUILDING CODE SPECIFICALLY, WHEREAS I GOT YOUR POLICY AND CODES. BUT WE'RE WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HELP. ARE YOU THE INSPECTOR? OKAY. THANKS. OR IF YOU GOT. WELL, I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS. CLEARLY, THERE'S A LOT BEHIND THIS REPORT. I'M CURIOUS HOW WE'RE GOING TO. IS IT IS IT THE SUBCOMMITTEE WORK THAT'S GOING TO. REORGANIZE WHAT'S EXISTING OR AND THEN BRING IT BACK TO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE BSE AS APPLICABLE? OF COURSE. SO THE MY INTENT WITH THE JOINT WORKSHOP NEXT MONTH IS TO FIGURE THAT OUT. SO PLANNING AND ZONING IS GOING TO ASK FOR A SUBCOMMITTEE TO GO THROUGH THE REPORT AND PICK OUT STUFF THAT YOU KNOW, NEEDS TO BE PAID MORE ATTENTION TO. AND THEN FOR ME, THE JOINT WORKSHOP IS WHERE COLLECTIVELY WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW WE MOVE FORWARD, WHETHER IT'S A SUBCOMMITTEE, WHETHER IT'S WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, WHETHER WE HAVE A THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT DO IT, WHETHER WE DO IT IN-HOUSE, WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE, AND HOWEVER STAFF NEEDS TO EXECUTE IT AND MOVE FORWARD. TO ME, THAT'S A NEXT MONTH ISSUE. OUR CITY MANAGER AND MYSELF DON'T FEEL THAT FREESE AND NICHOLS SHOULD DO THE REWRITE. I WOULD BE OF THE MINDSET THAT IF WE USE A CONSULTANT, IT SHOULD BE MINIMALLY AND ONLY FOR SPECIFIC THINGS THAT WE CAN'T DO IN-HOUSE. THAT'S A PERSONAL PREFERENCE. I JUST MUCH LIKE THE CITY CHARTER, THE CODE OF ORDINANCES IS SUCH A PERSONAL THING TO OUR CITY, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S MANY THAT I WOULD TRUST TO TO HANDLE IT WITH THAT LEVEL OF CARE. SO I DON'T FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE PERSON THAT DOES IT. I THINK THAT'S FOR US TO FIGURE OUT NEXT MONTH AFTER EVERYBODY HAS HAD MY INTENT IS SO THAT EVERYBODY HAS 30 DAYS TO REVIEW THE FULL, FULL REPORT, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT LIKE TO GET INTO THE WEEDS AND THE NITTY GRITTY PART OF IT. AND THEN WE CAN FIGURE IT OUT.

FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE USING THE REPORT TO FIX WHAT WE HAVE. I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT A FULL REWRITE FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, AND I'VE DONE REWRITES BEFORE BECAUSE I HAVE SPENT TIME IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. AT THIS POINT, IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE EASIER TIME WISE TO JUST START FROM SCRATCH. WE CAN DO A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS THE CLEANER WAY TO DO IT. IT MAKES MORE SENSE TYPICALLY, AND THEN CHAPTER BY CHAPTER, WE JUST START GOING THROUGH IT AND DECIDING WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ABSOLUTELY. I WAS GOING TO ALSO REITERATE LAST NIGHT AT CITY COUNCIL THAT WAS THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH THE CONSENSUS WAS THAT IT WAS GOING TO NEED A COMPLETE REWRITE, JUST BECAUSE THERE'S JUST SO MANY OVERLAPPING. ALSO. MR.

[00:15:05]

LOOKS LIKE A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM FOR US. THEN TO APPOINT THE SUBCOMMITTEE. CORRECT? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. P AND Z WOULD OPEN THE SUBCOMMITTEE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOWEVER MANY MEMBERS ACROSS HOWEVER MANY BOARDS, WHICH MY ASSUMPTION IS GOING TO BE TWO PER BOARD, EVERY BOARD. AND THEN AT THAT POINT, IT'S WHO VOLUNTEERS TO BE A PART OF IT.

AND THEY MAY IT MAY NOT EVEN BE. A STRICT NUMBER. IF, YOU KNOW, ONE BOARD HAS MORE PEOPLE, BUT ONE BOARD HAS LESS, IT'S A GROUP THAT WILL LOOK THROUGH THE DETAILED DOCUMENT. A COUPLE OF TECHNICAL POINTS. I HEARD EARLIER THAT THE COUNCIL DECIDED HOW MANY WOULD BE COMING. I DIDN'T THINK, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT. IT WASN'T IT WASN'T A DECISION. IT WAS A DISCUSSION OF THEY WERE JUST SAYING. SO THERE WAS A CONSENSUS ABOUT THREE 2 TO 3 TWO OR DISCUSSION. IT WAS NOT A VOTE. NOBODY HAS DECIDED ON ANYTHING. YEAH. MY MY POINT IS, ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, WE CAN'T APPOINT A SUBCOMMITTEE UNLESS IT'S ON OUR AGENDA. SO THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING LOOKS LIKE A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM FOR NEXT MONTH. IT MAY BE. THE OTHER OPTION IS THAT I BELIEVE MISS LINDA, OUR CHAIR FOR PLANNING AND ZONING, HAD MENTIONED WANTING TO HAVE A SECOND MEETING THIS MONTH. AND IF THAT'S THE ROUTE, IT MAY BE A SIMPLE MEETING, BUT IT'S GOING TO GET INTERESTING. NOW IT IS, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU. AND

[00:20:02]

THAT'S HOW THEY'VE SET MEETINGS. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO STICK TO SO THAT WE DON'T RUN OVER SCOPE OR OVER BUDGET. LET ME. UNLESS YOU ALL HAVE SOME SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES, I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON SUBSTANCE, MEANING ISSUES WITH WHAT'S IN OUR PACKET. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT PROCESS. OKAY. THIS THE CITY COUNCIL LIAISON, I THINK, CORRECTLY INDICATED THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION'S INTEREST IN BEING INVOLVED IN THIS. I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY THAT'S A FUNCTION OF WHAT PNC AND THE COUNCIL, THE. I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD. NO, NO, NO, IT'S NOT THAT ANYONE HAS NECESSARILY MORE SAY OR IT'S NOTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S THERE WAS A CAVEAT AND I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. I DON'T HAVE MY LAPTOP. BUT THERE WAS A CAVEAT THAT RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CERTAIN CODES GOING TO COUNCIL HAVE TO COME FROM PNC. AND SO AS A GENERAL BLANKET, THAT'S WHO FREESE AND NICHOLS PUT THEIR CONTRACT TO SEND TO COUNCIL. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO TO MITIGATE SOME ISSUES WITH THAT AND HOW THE SCHEDULE HAS GONE AND CORRECT ON A VERY SHORT TIMEFRAME WITH A LOT OF BOARD CHANGEOVER RIGHT AFTER HOLIDAYS, THIS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT THING. WELL, LET ME. IS THERE A GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION OUGHT TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS EXERCISE AND. YES. YEAH.

OKAY. THAT'S THAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM MR. PRINCE IS THAT WE INCLUDE INCLUDE BUILDINGS AND STANDARDS IN THAT. BUT HE ALSO DID WANT TO REFER THAT BACK TO YOU AS WELL. AND I APPRECIATE MR. PRINCE COMMENTS AT THE COUNCIL MEETING. THE BUILDING STANDARDS REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT I MADE, THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVED IN JUNE OF 24. AND THEN I MADE THE PRESENTATION IN AUGUST OF 2025. EXCUSE ME. I ADDRESSED SOME OF THE ISSUES IN FREESE AND NICHOLS AND THE IN THE IN THEIR CONTRACT TECHNICAL STUFF. DID WERE YOU HERE THEN? I DON'T THINK SO. YEAH. IT'S THE SAME SAME HOUSE. FOR INSTANCE, THERE'S THEY HAVEN'T ADDRESSED TO CODES TO TO ORDINANCES FOR INSTANCE. THAT WAS PART OF MY REPORT. AND THEN I SAID THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION IS NOT INVOLVED. AT THAT SAME TIME, THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION HAD A REFERRAL FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, WHICH WE HAVE ACTED ON TO AMEND CHAPTER NINE WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMISSION BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION'S ROLE. WHICH WOULD HAVE AMENDED CHAPTER NINE. THAT SAID, BEFORE, LIST OF ORDINANCES WOULD BE DISCUSSED BY THE BY THE COUNCIL AT THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION. LOOK AT IT. I THINK AT THAT MEETING IN AUGUST, THERE WAS A GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT WE WOULD BE INVOLVED. SO, YEAH, I KNOW YOU WEREN'T HERE.

NO. THERE'S SEVERAL OF US THAT THAT'S THAT'S JUST STUFF. HISTORY. BUT I THINK IT'S REPORTABLE THAT WE'D LIKE TO BE INVOLVED. AND AT SOMETIME IN FEBRUARY, I THINK YOU INDICATED THE, THE WORK ON THE 120 PAGES WOULD BEGIN, PROBABLY WITH SUBCOMMITTEES AND PEOPLE FROM BUNCH OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS IN FEBRUARY. SO THE FULL REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE JANUARY 20TH.

WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS EXTENSIVELY PUBLISHED ON AS MANY FORUMS AS POSSIBLE AND IN AS MANY INBOXES AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. FROM THERE. MY REQUEST IS THAT THERE IS, AT LEAST AT A

[00:25:06]

SO A LOT OF THE OUTCOME IS GOING TO BE BASED OFF OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING TOMORROW. THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE STAFF GUIDANCE TO DO THIS SUBCOMMITTEE. HOWEVER, IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO ENTAIL ANOTHER MEETING. AND AT THAT POINT WE CAN MAKE IT A JOINT MEETING AND DO HOWEVER WE NEED TO GET THIS HANDLED SO THAT IT'S SITUATED ENOUGH TO FOR PEOPLE TO FEEL COMFORTABLE GOING INTO A JOINT WORKSHOP. THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN. THE REASON I KNOW THIS WILL BE FINISHED. THE MY QUESTION IS IF IT'S IF WE'RE GOING TO GET IT JANUARY 20TH, THE SUBCOMMITTEES AREN'T GOING TO REALLY BE READY TO GO UNTIL AFTER FEBRUARY 1ST.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE 20 OR HOWEVER MANY DAYS BEFORE THEY'RE GOING TO MEET WITH FREEZE. SEEMS LIKE WE'RE GETTING JUST JAMMED UP WITH TIME. JUST MISUNDERSTANDING.

I'M NOT. SO THE REPORT WILL BE FULLY AVAILABLE TO EVERYBODY ON THE 20TH, BUT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY WORK DONE UNTIL THE MEETING WITH FREEZE. WELL, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE EXTENT OF WORK IS TO BE. IT MAY BE THAT PEOPLE WILL PROVIDE A LIST OF COMPLAINTS OR HOT TOPICS OR, YOU KNOW, HIGH PRIORITY THINGS THAT WE NEED TO TOUCH ON AT THE WORKSHOP. IT MAY BE SOME COLLABORATIVE EFFORT IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. WE WERE WAITING FOR TOMORROW TO FIGURE OUT WHAT COMES NEXT, AND THEN WE STILL HAVE A PRETTY DECENT AMOUNT OF TIME IN THIS MONTH TO CALL FOR ANOTHER MEETING, REGARDLESS OF THE BOARD IF NEED BE. OKAY. THANK YOU. CAN I CAN I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT AFTER TOMORROW'S MEETING THAT WE POST THE PLANNING AND ZONING MAYBE DECISION ON OUR OWN DISCUSSION BOARD. THAT WAY EVERYONE CAN VIEW THAT TO SEE IT A LITTLE BIT, OR MAYBE I CAN JUST EMAIL EVERYONE TO SEE WHAT WHAT THE PLAN GOING FORWARD. SPEAKING FOR THE BOARD, WE WOULD RATHER YOU JUST SEND US AN EMAIL, OKAY? BECAUSE THAT'S JUST THAT'S WHAT I'M WANTING CLARIFICATION ON BECAUSE I'LL BE ATTENDING THAT MEETING AS WELL. JUST JUST KIND OF WATCHING PROCEDURE, JUST LEARNING A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT PROCEDURE. BUT YES, I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN WITH THE TIMELINE. IF WE RECEIVE IT ON THE 20TH AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A MEETING WITHIN 30 DAYS, THAT LEAVES US BASICALLY, ESPECIALLY TO GET AN AGENDIZED PROPERLY AND PUBLIC NOTICE. WE WOULD HAVE TO WE WOULD HAVE TO MEET WITHIN PROBABLY 15 DAYS IF THAT 20 DAYS, AND THEN DECIDE AGAIN FOR THE WORKSHOP MEETING, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE WE WOULD NEED TO WE WOULD NEED TO GET SOME DUCKS, WHETHER THEY'RE IN A ROW OR NOT, BEFORE WE MEET WITH THEM. YEAH, YEAH. BUT WALKING IN, WHOEVER'S ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE FROM THE DIFFERENT BOARDS SHOULD HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THEY WANT TO TALK TO FREEZE AND NICHOLS ABOUT WHEN THEY GET THERE. I AGREE, AND WE'LL HAVE THAT FULL REPORT ON THE 20TH. BUT AT THAT POINT, WE NEED TO DECIDE WHO'S GOING TO TAKE WHAT CHAPTERS, YOU KNOW, WHICH ONES ARE APPLICABLE. AND I MEAN, IT MAY BE SOME WANT TO TACKLE SOME SUBSECTIONS AND SOME MAY WANT TO TACKLE OTHERS. LIKE YOU WERE SAYING, THERE MIGHT HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT TO READ THE ENTIRE THING. THERE'S SOME THAT MAY JUST WANT TO PARSE IT OUT. AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT'S THE THE WOULD BE THE SUBJECT COMMITTEE'S RULES. YOU'RE GOOD. YES I'M GOOD. THANK YOU. MR. CLARIFICATION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ONE SUBCOMMITTEE OF MADE UP OF MEMBERS OF EACH COMMISSION, OR ARE YOU TALKING

[00:30:03]

SO THAT SHOULD CUT THE TIMEFRAME DOWN. AND IF I MAY, JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 30 DAYS. I WOULD LIKE TO STAY IN FEBRUARY AS TO NOT.

DEAL WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT, SO TO SAY. HOWEVER, IF WE NEED TO EXTEND IT OUT FOR TIME, 45 DAYS, 60 DAYS, THAT'S OKAY AS WELL. IT'S JUST A CONVERSATION THAT WE NEED TO HAVE WITH FREESE AND NICHOLS, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THAT CONVERSATION IS GOING TO BE. AND SO I DON'T WANT TO PROMISE THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, PUSH IT 90 DAYS OUT SO THAT EVERYBODY HAS AMPLE TIME TO REDLINE EVERYTHING IN THIS. IT'S JUST THEIR SCHEDULE IS SAYING FEBRUARY. AND SO THAT IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO STICK TO, TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES. IF IT SLIPS, IT SLIPS. WE'LL WE'LL DO WHAT WE NEED TO. AGAIN, THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT THING AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DONE RIGHT. YES. SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY WE CARE WHAT FREESE NICKEL WANTS. BECAUSE AT THIS POINT, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO A REWRITE IN, OUR CONTRACT IS OVER IN FEBRUARY. DO WE REALLY CARE? I GUESS I'M I HAVE A TENDENCY TO OVERSIMPLIFY THINGS, BUT TO ME, WE'VE GOT 120 PAGES THAT SHOULD BE SPLIT UP INTO THE APPROPRIATE WHEELHOUSE. WE GET OUR SECTIONS, WE BEAT THEM TO DEATH FOR 30 TO 60 DAYS AND COME BACK WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THEN WHOEVER AND STAFF IS GOING TO PUT THIS THING BACK TOGETHER PLUGS IT IN, AND EVERYBODY'S GOT THEIR LITTLE PIECE.

EVERYBODY GETS IT DONE. IT'S EFFICIENT. OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MEETING AFTER MEETING AFTER MEETING. EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE PICKING EACH OTHER'S STUFF APART. AND WE KNOW HOW THAT GOES. WHY WOULDN'T WE JUST FOCUS ON WHAT WE DO? I LET MISS ROBINSON GO AHEAD, STRAIGHTEN ME OUT, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING FOR A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND SOME OF IT'S BEEN ON A SUBCOMMITTEE WITH PNC IN WHICH WE DEALT WITH ZONING SUBJECTS AND THREE AND 11, ETC. ETC. THAT'S HAPPENED. NOW WITH PERAK AND THE AIRPORT BOARD AND ALL THOSE FOLKS GET INVOLVED. THAT'S GOTTEN MORE INTERESTING. JORDAN AND I'VE INVESTED IN BAPTIST FOR A WHILE. I'M DEAD ON WITH WHAT WHERE SHE WANTS TO GO. I AGREE WITH YOUR POINT ABOUT FREEZING NICKELS. BUT THE RULES OF PROCEDURE SAY APPOINT A SUBCOMMITTEE IN OPEN MEETING.

BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE CAN'T. WE CAN'T. I MEAN, FOLKS CAN INDICATE THEY'RE INTERESTED, BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT ON OUR AGENDA, AND IT'LL WORK, BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE BEFORE WHATEVER THE BIG SUBCOMMITTEE GETS TOGETHER. WE'RE GOING TO BE MEETING BEFORE TO APPOINT FOLKS, BUT WE'RE NOT. IT'S PLANNING AND ZONING IS PUTTING THE SUBCOMMITTEE TOGETHER, AND THEN THEY'RE INVITING US TO THEIR SUBCOMMITTEE. SO ARE WE VOTING THAT IN OR ARE THEY VOTING IT IN PROCEDURALLY? I AM NOT CLEAR ON THIS CASE SPECIFICALLY. I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH. I THINK I LIKED NUMBER ONE. LET'S SEE IF THERE'S A CONSENSUS ON THIS, THAT THERE BE A BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE. NO, I WOULD SAY NO. WHY? DO IT? DO IT IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE SUBCOMMITTEE OR GROUP REVIEWING THE DOCUMENT, HOW WOULD OUR SUBCOMMITTEE FIT INTO THAT COMMITTEE? IT WOULDN'T. YOU'D HAVE TWO INDIVIDUALS FROM THIS COMMISSION WHO VOLUNTEER, NOT APPOINTED VOLUNTEER ACCORDING TO THIS. NOW, I ASSUME THAT COULD CHANGE. IT MAY. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING BASED OFF OF THE COMMUNICATION I'VE HAD WITH THE PNC, WHEN IT'S A TECHNICAL ISSUE AND I CAN SHOW IT TO YOU IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE COMMISSION HAS TO VOTE ON WHO THOSE FOLKS WOULD BE. MY ASSUMPTION IS IT'S GOING TO BE VOLUNTEERS, AND WE'LL DO THAT IN A MONTH. OKAY. YEP. IT'S I MEAN, IT'S 100 WAYS YOU CAN DO

[00:35:04]

GUYS, I HEAR A TIMELINE. I HEAR A PROCESS. WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WILL, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, GET INVOLVED IN THREE. RIGHT NOW THAT WE DON'T KNOW YET. ONE IS WE TAKE JUST TAKE THE LIST OF OUR CODES. THREE, SIX, 11. DA DA DA DA DA. I THINK WE NEED TO SIT DOWN TOGETHER BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO DO A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. THAT'S PART OF THE CODE REWRITE. IT'S GOING TO BE A CENTRAL ELEMENT. AND SO I THINK IT'S HELPFUL IF THE FOLKS AND EXPERTISE WITH ONE SET OF CODES AND FOLKS THAT HAVE EXPERTISE OVER HERE GET ON THE SAME PAGE. ONE OF THE BIGGEST IN THE IN THE IN THE PHRASE THE NICHOLS THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT I KNOW THERE'S CONFLICTS AND THAT'S THE WAY YOU RESOLVE THEM. SO AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS WHEN WE GET TO YOUR STUFF TONIGHT. OKAY I DON'T DISAGREE. I'M JUST SAYING I THINK THIS BOARD SHOULD BE LOOKING AT OUR CHAPTERS, OUR SECTIONS COLLECTIVELY. THEN WE GIVE IT TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THE JOINT COMMISSION. AFTER WE'VE ALL DONE OUR WORK, THEN THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE ON THE JOINT COMMISSION TAKE THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE, SLIDE RIGHT INTO IT. THAT'S THAT'S TWO THINGS ON OUR NEXT AGENDA.

WELL, IT FRIIS-MIKKELSEN REPORT. YEAH. AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE. CORRECT. OKAY. WELL, I CAN'T FIGURE OUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S GOING TO BE A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, BUT THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE A ANOTHER CHAPTER THREE OR CHAPTER THREE GOING TO BE PART BROKEN UP AND PUT INTO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. SO, YOU KNOW, OUR STUFF MAY BE COMBINED WITH OTHER STUFF. YEAH, IT IS IN A PARTICULAR PART. YEAH. WHICH THE CHAPTER NINE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE MADE THAT IS IN LIMBO IS GOING TO BE IN A. IF I MAY. SO YES, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ESSENTIALLY TAKES ALL OF THESE BITS AND PIECES FROM EVERY ASPECT ACROSS THE BOARD, MUSHES THEM TOGETHER, BUT PUTS THEM IN ORDER OF DEVELOPMENT. AND SO INSTEAD OF THE WAY THAT OUR CODE IS STRUCTURED NOW, IT'LL GO FROM ANNEXATION ALL THE WAY TO BUILDING PERMITS AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS ALL IN ONE PLACE. BUT IT'LL BE RESTRUCTURED AND TOGETHER AND COMBINED. IS THERE IS THERE GOING TO BE ANY CODE OUTSIDE OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE? NO, SIR. IT IS JUST THE TECHNICAL THINGS THAT WE'LL SEE. IT IS IT'S CHAPTER SIX, WHICH IS NUISANCES AND STUFF. THAT'S PROBABLY NOT IN THE UDC. SO FOR INSTANCE, IT MAY REFER TO THE ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CRITERIA MANUAL. THAT MANUAL DOES NOT NEED TO BE IN THE CODE. IT CAN BE SEPARATE BUT IT WILL BE REFERENCED IN THE CODE. WHEN WE ADOPT BUILDING CODES IT'LL SAY 2021 BUILDING CODE, YOU KNOW, BLAH BLAH, BLAH. BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT THAT WHOLE BUILDING CODE INTO IT. SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS, BUT IT'S NOT, I THINK, IN THE SENSE THAT YOU'RE ASKING WHERE IT'S SEPARATE CODES. IT'S IT'S A REFERENCE TO AN ESTABLISHED CODE THAT'S USUALLY ISSUED BY A HIGHER AUTHORITY, LIKE THE STATE OF TEXAS OR THE ICC.

LAURA. WELL, I WAS JUST GOING TO TELL YOU THAT, I MEAN, ONE OF THE KEY PARTS ABOUT THIS PRELIMINARY REPORT IS THE FACT THAT THERE'S OVERLAP IN AREAS, WHICH CREATES SITUATIONS.

PROBLEMATIC SITUATIONS FOR A NUMBER OF PARTIES, DEPENDING ON THE CASE. AND SO I DO FEEL LIKE

[00:40:03]

I DON'T THINK WE DO. NO, I'M NOT SAYING WE GO BACK TO THEM, BUT WE TAKE THEIR REPORT WHERE THEY SAY WE'VE GOT OVERLAP. YOU KNOW, ON PAGE 89 AND PAGE SEVEN, THEN WE CAN CORRECT THAT OVERLAP. TO BE FRANK, I THINK THEIR REPORT IS JUST JUSTIFICATION THAT ALL OF US HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT THE CODE IS NOT WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE, AND WHETHER WE USE IT AS REFERENCE OR NOT. I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON THE TOPIC AND THE ISSUE, BUT IF WE'RE STARTING FROM SCRATCH, IT CAN BE WHATEVER WE WANT IT TO BE, AS LONG AS WE CAN ALL COME TO AN AGREEMENT AND THE ATTORNEY SAYS, YEAH, I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULD GET OUR MARCHING ORDERS FROM THEM, BUT IF WE IF WE PAY A COUPLE OF DOLLARS FOR THESE PEOPLE TO TELL US WHAT'S WRONG WITH WHAT WE'VE GOT, I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST USE THAT AS AN OVERLAY TO KIND OF GUIDE US TO FIX. AND I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT. MY ONLY CAUTION TO THAT IS SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THEY'VE MADE, EVEN IN THE SUMMARY. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LEVEL OF WANT FOR SOME OF THE THINGS, LIKE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, INCREASING DENSITY AND THERE'S NO GUIDANCE ON THAT. AND SO THIS IS WHAT I MEAN, THERE'S COOL. OUR CODE IS NOT GREAT, BUT I DON'T I DON'T KNOW HOW HOW MUCH THE REPORT REALLY COMES INTO PLAY WITH THE REWRITE. AND I'M SURE WHEN THERE'S MORE TIME AND MORE RECOMMENDATIONS, THERE MAY BE MORE CASES LIKE THAT. BUT I KNOW THERE'S SOME THINGS IN HERE THAT ARE GOING TO CAUSE A FIGHT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE BEST STARTING POINT OR IF WE JUST SAY, THIS REPORT IS PRETTY AND IT TELLS US THAT OUR CODE NEEDS WORK, LET'S, LET'S FIX IT AND HOW WE WANT IT TO LOOK FOR US. ANYTHING ELSE? NOTHING POSITIVE. YEAH. NO, IT'S. I, I SENT JORDAN AN EMAIL AND ALL THIS STUFF. SHE'S GETTING BUGGED BY 100 MILLION PEOPLE. SHE RESPONDS FASTER TO ME ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS THAN ROY. WOW. THAT'S LIKE YOU SAY. AND THE LAST THING I. ONE OF THE LAST THINGS I SENT TO HER WAS, ARE YOU ENJOYING THE CHALLENGE? I DON'T THINK I RESPONDED TO THAT ONE. YEAH. WHAT YOU IT'S GREAT STUFF.

[00:45:01]

[I.3. Receive a report from the permit expiration subcommittee and discuss and consider a recommendation to the city council concerning an ordinance amending Chapter 3, Code of Ordinances.]

YOUR HONOR. OKAY. SO ESSENTIALLY SOME OF THESE BUILDERS WERE BUILDING LARGE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THEY RAN INTO SOME ISSUES WITH SUBCONTRACTORS THE SIZE OF THE HOMES, GETTING THE PEOPLE IN ON TIME. THEY WERE HAVING TO RENEW PERMITS. AND DUE TO THE SIZE AND DISCUSS DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE, THE SUBCOMMITTEE AGREED TO EXTEND FOR HOME SINGLE FAMILY HOMES LARGER THAN 5000FT■!S WOULD NOW BE 18 MONTHS FOR THE FIRST PERMIT AND THEN RENEWABLE AFTER THAT. SO WHAT WE DID, I HAVE OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE FORMED A SUBCOMMITTEE TO LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT SECTION 310 PERMITS AND APPROVALS.

THERE ARE SEVERAL PAGES IN THE PACKET, BUT THERE ARE ONLY THREE PAGES WHERE THERE ARE CHANGES. THE FIRST PAGE IS 30. IT'S JUST A ERRATA FIX. AND THEN ON 32 AND 33. OH, YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT OKAY. 32 AND 33 IN K, B IS WHERE IT STARTED. THIS WAS THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT WAS DOWNLOADED AND THEN EDITED. AND IT HAD BEEN EDITED A COUPLE OF TIMES. SO THIS RED LINE DIDN'T SHOW UP. SO HOPEFULLY THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS IN THE FUTURE.

SO IN K1B WE JUST SIMPLIFIED THIS TO OH I'M SORRY I MISSPOKE EARLIER. GREATER THAN 5000 WOULD BE 24 MONTHS. WE ADDED THE ORIGINAL FOR THE LESS THAN 5000. LESS WAS 12 MONTHS. WE BUMPED THAT UP TO 18 AND THEN WE CHANGED THE GREATER THAN 5000 TO 24 MONTHS. AND THE THE OTHER SEE PARAGRAPH TWO. JUST SOME SIMPLE ISSUES THERE. I DON'T WANT TO READ IT. READ IT ALL TO YOU. WE WENT THROUGH THIS LAST MONTH. SOME OF THEM ARE JUST FIXES. WE DID INTRODUCE THE CONCEPT OF EXCEPTION OF A DOCUMENTED HARDSHIP THROUGH THE DISCUSSION.

THERE WERE SOME. ISSUES THAT HAD COME UP FOR PEOPLE THAT WERE OUTSIDE OF THEIR OUTSIDE OF THEIR CONTROL, THAT HAD PUT THEM IN A DELAY OF CONTINUING THE PROJECT, AND IT WAS THE OWNER SIDE THAT IT OCCURRED. SO. SO WE ADDED THIS IN HERE AS A PROPOSAL. AND THEN TRY TO CLEAN UP SOME OF THE LANGUAGE WHERE IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. SO THE BIG ONE IN NUMBER THREE, THAT WHOLE SENTENCE DIDN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE. WE TOOK THERE WAS A BUNCH WHERE IT TRIED TO EXPLAIN.

YEAH, THAT'S WHERE THAT IS. NUMBER THREE. IT TRIED TO EXPLAIN PERMITTING AND EXTENSIONS AND ALL OF THIS. AND I THOUGHT, WELL, WAIT, THERE'S A SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT THAT, FEES ETC. SO I JUST REFERRED TO IT AT THE END OF NUMBER THREE, THE APPENDIX AREA. CORRECT? YES.

AND THEN FOR NUMBER FOUR, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THIS THERE WERE PLACES AND IT'S OF COURSE OCCURS IN IN OTHER SECTIONS, YOU KNOW, CODE ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY, CITY OFFICIAL INSPECTOR, A LOT OF VARIETY OF THINGS. SO WE DID WHAT WE COULD HERE, TOSSING SOMETHING OUT THERE IN THE LAST MEETING, WE HAD THE DISCUSSION, WE LANDED ON CITY BUILDING OFFICIALS. SO

[00:50:08]

SO IT OUGHT TO READ. I TOLD YOU I DID THIS WRONG. THANK YOU. I THOUGHT I REMEMBERED THIS STUFF, RIGHT. IT SHOULD BE INTERNATIONAL CODE. CONGRESS. COMMISSION. COMMISSION. YES, SIR. I PRENTISS'S ICC. CODES. SO WOULD THAT READ APPROPRIATELY THEN REQUIRED BY THIS ARTICLE OR THE APPLICABLE ADOPTED INTERNATIONAL CODE COMMISSION? OKAY, HE JUST NEEDS TO ADD THE WORD COMMISSION AN EXTRA C YEAH. AND IF I MAY, FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT ON OUR END, THE SPECIFICALLY WHERE IT SAYS THE EXTENSION PROCESS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A DOCUMENTED HARDSHIP, MY ONLY REQUEST IS THAT WE CLEARLY DEFINE WHAT A DOCUMENTED HARDSHIP IS, RIGHT? IF SOMEBODY BRINGS ME A PIECE OF PAPER THAT SAYS, I HAD A BAD WEEK, I HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT AS A DOCUMENTED HARDSHIP. UNLESS WE HAVE IT SOMEWHERE. ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE PUT THIS TOGETHER WAS EXACTLY THAT, BECAUSE IT KIND OF STOOD OUT AS A SORE POINT, AND I WOULD PREFER TO SEE THAT PUT IN THE DEFINITIONS. AGREED. I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHAT. SO THERE ARE MULTIPLE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF A HARDSHIP.

THERE ARE MULTIPLE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS. AND SO WHETHER WE GO WITH WHAT THE STATE DEFINES IT AS OR WHICH IS VERY VAGUE, MIND YOU, OR WE SET SPECIFIC PROVISIONS THAT WOULD APPLY. SO SOMETHING LIKE FORCE MAJEURE OR NATURAL EMERGENCIES OR NATURAL DISASTERS, EMERGENCY HAPPENINGS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT YOUR CONTRACTOR COULDN'T COME OUT ON. TIME TO ME IS NOT A HARDSHIP. THAT'S THAT'S THE BUSINESS. RIGHT. AND WE SHOULD BE PLANNING ACCORDINGLY WHEN WE'RE BUILDING. BUT THE STATE DEFINITION, I BELIEVE, IS VERY VAGUE. AND SO I KNOW EVEN APA HAS THEIR OWN DEFINITION THAT'S A LITTLE MORE STRICT, BUT IT'S STILL GOING TO BE VAGUE BECAUSE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE APPLIED BROADLY. AND SO IF WE WANT TO CREATE A LIST OF THINGS THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE, WE CAN PLACE THAT SOMEWHERE THAT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S OUT OF ORDER, BUT WE MAY NEED SOME DIRECTION FROM A BUILDING OFFICIAL. WHAT? OKAY, IF I MAY, ON PAGE 37, DOCUMENTED HARDSHIP IS ONE OF THE DEFINITIONS. OKAY, I THOUGHT I HAD IT IN THERE.

RIGHT. OH, THERE YOU GO. OKAY. AND THAT'S THAT'S A GOOD DEFINITION. DOCUMENTED. SO THE ONLY MY QUESTION WOULD BE IT SAYS DOCUMENTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. THERE IS. SOME STICKY SITUATIONS STAFF CAN GET INTO WHEN IT'S UP TO STAFF TO APPROVE THINGS. THERE'S PEOPLE WILL CLAIM BIAS. PEOPLE CAN CLAIM SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT.

AND SO IT'S ONE OF THOSE YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAPPY TO EXECUTE IT. WITH MYSELF IN THIS POSITION AS

[00:55:03]

WE'LL COME BACK TO THIS IN 20 MINUTES 30 MINUTES. YEAH. YOU. OKAY. LET ME GET LET ME GET I THINK YOU AND I ARE ON THE SAME PAGE. THE OVERLAP IS WITH FREESE AND NICHOLS. WE HAVE. IN THE TERM THAT THAT I'VE USED WITH JORDAN IS PLUG IN. AND SO WHATEVER WE DO TONIGHT, WHATEVER COMES OUT THAT WE CAN AGREE ON, WOULD GET PLUGGED IN SOMEHOW WITH THE PHRASE THE NICHOLS EXERCISE AS A COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION. IT'S NOT GOING TO END UP GOING TO THE COUNCIL. YOU WITH ME ON THAT CONCEPT? IS THAT THAT WE SIMPLY PLUG IT IN TO THAT PROCESS. NOW, WE HAVE IN THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT, THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS CODE RECOMMENDATIONS AT THREE DIFFERENT PLACES. DRAINAGE, WHICH IS GOING TO GO ON THE COUNCIL'S AGENDA. THAT'S THE INTENT. IT'S ON OUR LIST, AS YOU'VE SEEN ON OUR MAGNIFICENT WHAT HAPPENED TO CHAPTER NINE? I WAS NOT AWARE CHAPTER NINE WAS GETTING FORWARDED. MAN, THANK YOU FOR ASKING. NOW. NOW WE DEFINITELY HAVE AN OVERLAP WITH TWO AND THREE, AND WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO CALL THAT IN ORDER. YOU AND I'VE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE ORDINANCE, THE COMPLETE ORDINANCE THAT THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION RECOMMENDED. THAT CAME FROM. IT WAS REFERENCED FROM THE COUNCIL. THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL A FULL ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER NINE. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE COMMISSION'S BOARD DUTIES, AND IT WAS INTENDED TO GO IN DECEMBER.

CORRECT. WAS THAT THE DECEMBER YOU TOLD ME THAT THE CITY MANAGER TOOK IT OFF, SO I DON'T TO ME IT'S NOT CHAPTER NINE. SORRY. WE HAVE A LIST OF THINGS. OKAY. IT'S NOT LISTED AS CHAPTER NINE. IN MY MIND, AT LEAST IT WAS INTENDED FOR THE DECEMBER AGENDA. DUE TO THE HOLIDAYS AND THE WAY THAT THE LIAISON THINGS HAPPENED, IT DID NOT MAKE IT ON THE DECEMBER AGENDA. WE CAN ADD IT TO THE JANUARY AGENDA WITH THIS. IT'S AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD.

IF THAT'S THE ACTION, STAFF WILL DO SO. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE PUT IT ON THE NEXT AGENDA. ABSOLUTELY. ENOUGH SAID. AND THEN THE COUNCIL WILL DO WHAT I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH IT. BUT LET'S NOT GET INTO THAT. OKAY. SO BACK TO. THE ISSUE ON THIS AMENDMENT. I THINK ONE WAY TO PROCESS THIS, AS IT WOULD BE AS A PLUG IN. TO THE FREEZER NICHOLS EXERCISE IN WHICH THE SUBCOMMITTEE OR A BUNCH OF US, HOWEVER IT GETS PRESENTED IN THE REWRITE PROCESS, THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF WHAT I CALL PLUG INS. THAT WILL BE THE LANGUAGE THAT IN

[01:00:05]

FOR ME. IF THEY START PLAYING AROUND WITH INDUSTRIALIZED HOUSING OR THE BUILDER LICENSING, I'M GOING TO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THAT. FOR INSTANCE, WE BEAT THAT TO DEATH.

THAT'S PRETTY GOOD STUFF. BUT IN ANY CASE, THAT'S THAT'S A PLUG IN. NOT TO NOT TO THE COUNCIL. IT'S UP TO YOU ALL. IF YOU MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION ON A RED LINE TO THE COUNCIL QUESTION, BECAUSE IT'S IN THE FULL ORDINANCE, WHO'S GOING TO DRAFT THE ORDINANCE? WE CAN DRAFT IT AS STAFF. AND I JUST FOR MY REFERENCE TO CLARIFY, WHEN YOU REFERENCE PLUG IN, YOU MEAN THAT'S ESSENTIALLY OUR TEMPLATE FOR THE REWRITE AND NOT FOR SENDING TO COUNCIL. NOW AS AS I, I'M BETTING THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO WANT TO PLUG IN EXCEPT FOR THE CHAPTER NINE AMENDMENT THAT DON'T HAVE ANY WELL PAST INDIRECTLY HAS TO DO WITH HOW YOU REGULATE DEVELOPMENT, BUT NOT DIRECTLY. THAT'S AND THAT WAS THE CONVERSATION YOU AND I HAD THAT OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL PERIOD. OKAY. THE DRAINAGE SECTION, I'M GUESSING THE COUNCIL'S GOING TO GO. NOT RIGHT NOW. AND ON THAT NOTE AS WELL, FREESE AND NICHOLS IS DOING A DRAINAGE STUDY. AND WITH THAT, I BELIEVE IN THEIR SCOPE. PART OF IT IS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENGINEERING STANDARDS AS WELL AS PROTECTION. WHEN WE GET INTO THE DEVELOPMENT. YES, THERE'S TOO MUCH DETAIL, GUYS, AND I APOLOGIZE. I KNOW IT'S TOO MUCH DETAIL. PART OF THAT REFERRAL WAS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING DRAINAGE. PART OF THAT COUNCIL ARE FOR PART OF IT WENT TO PNC. THEY DID NOT ACT ON IT. WE DRAFTED A COMPLETE ORDINANCE.

OKAY. THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE PROCESS. MY THINKING IS YOU GOT SEVERAL THINGS HAPPENING OUT THERE TO INCLUDE WHO'S IN THE PROCESS. AT SOME POINT, ALL THAT STUFF'S GOING TO COME TOGETHER. BUT TO DRAFT TO FOR THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER THREE. NOW YOU WITH ME ON THAT CONCEPT? I DON'T THINK THAT'S HAPPENING. YOU KNOW, THIS STUFF IS GOOD. IT'S DONE. I ALMOST THINK WE WE JUST OUGHT TO GO AHEAD AND SUBMIT IT TO COUNCIL, BECAUSE WHO KNOWS? THIS WHOLE PROCESS OF REWRITING, WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE. YOU KNOW, WE'RE ONE PARAGRAPH AWAY FROM HAVING THIS THING EXACTLY THE WAY WE ALL WANT IT WITH THE DEFINITION. GET IT IN THERE, GIVE IT TO COUNCIL, AND THEN LET THEM PUT IT WHERE THEY WANT, WHEN THEY WANT. IF THEY WANT TO PLUG IN, THAT'S FINE. BUT THAT CAN BE DONE. AND THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAD WITH THE DEFINITION WAS WE'RE GOING TO GET WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU A LIST OF THINGS THAT THEY CAN COME AND SAY, THIS WAS A HARDSHIP. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE. THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER ONE. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU 100 OF THEM. THEY'RE GOING TO COME WITH 101, OF COURSE. SO ARE YOU GOING TO TELL THEM THAT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THE FACT THAT THE TRUST FACTORY IN NORTH CAROLINA WAS GOING TO BURN DOWN, SO THEY CAN'T GET TRUSSES FOR 90 DAYS, WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE LIST, THAT'S NOT A HARDSHIP.

IT'S OBVIOUSLY A HARDSHIP, RIGHT? THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T WANT TO PUT A LIST TOGETHER.

RIGHT? IF SOMEBODY COMES IN AND SAYS, MY DOG DIED, THAT'S NOT A HARDSHIP. THE DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK. IT'S NOT A HARDSHIP. SOMEONE WHO'S FAMILIAR WITH CONSTRUCTION LISTENS TO THEIR HARDSHIP AND SAYS, YEAH, I CAN SEE THAT. THAT, YOU KNOW, YOUR TRAILER CAUGHT FIRE IN NEBRASKA OR WHATEVER, US HAVING IT ON THE LIST OR NOT. IF IT'S NOT ON THE LIST, IT'S NOT A HARDSHIP.

WE IT JUST DIDN'T SEEM FAIR. MORE THAN ANYTHING, WE WANT WE WANT TO BE FAIR BECAUSE WE CAN MAKE WE CAN MAKE RULES ALL DAY LONG. THEY'RE NOT FAIR. WE HAVE TO LIVE HERE, TOO. SOME OF US ARE CONTRACTORS, RIGHT? SO THAT'S WHY WE TRIED TO KIND OF LEAVE IT AS AN OPEN DOOR. AND THIS DEFINITION THAT YOU HAVE PROVIDED IS PRETTY SOLID IN THE WAY THAT IT'S INTENDED AND

[01:05:01]

YEAH, BUT BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT JUST THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN AFFIDAVIT. I MEAN WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? I'M NOT REALLY SURE. THAT CAME FROM ME, FROM MY CAREER AS AN ENGINEER. IF YOU DON'T HAVE PAPERWORK, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. YEAH. AN AFFIDAVIT IS HE'S GOING TO SWEAR THAT'S THE TRUTH. THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. AND THAT'S AND I DON'T SEE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE COMPLICATED. IT COULD BE A PIECE OF PAPER WITH, YOU KNOW, EMAILS FROM THE COMPANY WHOSE PLANT BURNED DOWN SAYING IT'S A PROBLEM, TURN IT IN AND SAY, THIS IS WHY I NEED AN EXTENSION.

DOESN'T HAVE TO BE COMPLICATED. IS A. BUT THERE DOES NEED TO BE A PAPER TRAIL FOR ANY VARIANCE

[01:10:09]

AND LET ME WORDSMITH THIS A LITTLE BIT. SO I WOULD SAY THE INABILITY TO COMPLETE A PROJECT WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME LIMIT DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPLICANT SLASH PERMIT HOLDER, AND WITH DOCUMENTATION AS REQUIRED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT. YEAH, OKAY. I WOULD AGREE TO THAT. MY QUESTION FOR THAT WOULD BE SO IT'S BASICALLY A SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ALONG WITH JUST A SIGNATURE FROM THE APPLICANT.

CORRECT. YEAH. JUST JUST TO ELIMINATE ARGUMENTS LATER ABOUT WHO SAID WHAT. I'M A NURSE, SO I UNDERSTAND DOCUMENTATION DIDN'T HAPPEN. LAURA, YOU WANT TO TRY TO DO THIS TONIGHT OR BRING IT BACK THE WAY I'M THE WAY I'M LOOKING AT THIS. I'VE ONLY MADE TWO CHANGES THAT I BELIEVE ARE REQUIRED BASED ON THIS ENTIRE CONVERSATION. YEAH. DO YOU WANT TO DO IT TONIGHT? TRY TO GET A MOTION TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT OR BRING IT BACK NEXT MONTH. WELL, I.

FOR ONLY TWO WORDS. I'D LIKE TO GET IT DONE TONIGHT. OKAY. OTHERWISE IT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER LONG CONVERSATION ON HOW DO WE GET HERE AGAIN. I MEAN, RESPECTFULLY I UNDERSTAND.

OKAY. SO BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION, IF WE LOOK BACK AT ON PAGE 32, NUMBER TWO. THE CENTER OF THE PARAGRAPH, THAT'S SORRY, THE PHRASE THAT STARTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A DOCUMENTED HARDSHIP AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL, I WOULD WANT TO CHANGE THE WORD DETERMINED TO AS REQUIRED. A MOTION. RIGHT NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN. YOU CAN. OKAY, YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION THAT THIS GETS ADOPTED WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES. AND THEN GIVE YOUR CHANGES AND MAKE A MOTION RIGHT NOW. ALL RIGHT. LET ME TALK ABOUT THE OTHER ONE FIRST. OUTSIDE. COULD YOU INDICATE TO US WHAT Y'ALL WERE TALKING ABOUT? I WAS ASKING HER IF SHE WAS MAKING A MOTION NOW AND INCLUDING THESE CHANGES, BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T SAY, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO. WOULD YOU START TALKING? SO I JUST MAKING SURE. YEAH. SO THANKS.

YOU HAD. YES. THE OTHER CHANGE WOULD BE THE VERY LAST SENTENCE OF THAT PARAGRAPH TWO. WHICH

[01:15:11]

WHERE IT SAYS INSPECTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO DEMOLITION. NECESSARY ENOUGH TO WHERE NEEDED. I HAD TO READ THAT 2 OR 3 TIMES TO FIGURE OUT. RIGHT. SO WHAT I MY SUGGESTION YOU CHANGE THAT. INSPECTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ANY DEMOLITION REQUIRED IN ORDER TO COMPLETE NECESSARY INSPECTIONS. SIR, CAN YOU ONE MORE TIME? I'M TRYING TO WRITE DOWN WHAT YOU SAID.

YEAH. SAY. WITHOUT DOCUMENT IN COMPLETED WORK. THAT IS, AN INSPECTION SHALL BE INSPECTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ANY DEMOLITION REQUIRED IN ORDER TO COMPLETE NECESSARY INSPECTIONS.

I GUESS THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING, RIGHT? YES. YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO TEAR SOMETHING OUT SO YOU CAN INSPECT THE PLUMBING OR SOMETHING, CORRECT? DEMOLITION REQUIRED. BUT THEN I'M READING. YEAH. IT JUST IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION, BUT. OKAY. SUBJECT. PUT THAT IN SUBJECT TWO. OKAY. SO THE PROPOSAL IS TO CHANGE THE SENTENCE TO READ WORK THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITHOUT DOCUMENTED INSPECTIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ANY DEMOLITION REQUIRED IN ORDER TO COMPLETE NECESSARY INSPECTIONS. I LIKE THAT PROPOSAL. ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? IT'S MUCH CLEANER, I LIKE IT. OKAY. SO THREE THREE AMENDMENTS TO THAT. ANYTHING ELSE? YOU WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE TO TRY TO PULL SAME SESSION. ARE YOU READY TO GO WHEN SHE'S READY? SORRY.

YOU'RE GOOD. BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION WILL COME BACK TO WORK. LAURA. YES, SIR. YES, SIR.

I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT. THE CHANGES TO AGENDA ITEM. WHERE? I TO WAIT. SORRY, I THREE. BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES. K PARAGRAPH TWO ON PAGE 32. IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARAGRAPH, THE RED LINE PHRASE CHANGE THE WORD. I'LL READ IT OUT AND THEN I'LL CHANGE OUT THE WORD. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A DOCUMENTED HARDSHIP AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY BUILDING.

OFFICIAL CHANGE OUT. DETERMINED, DETERMINED AND PUT THE WORD REQUIRED SO THAT IT WOULD READ, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A DOCUMENTED HARDSHIP AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL.

THE SECOND CHANGE IS AT THE VERY END OF THAT PARAGRAPH. CHANGING THE RED LINE ADOPTED INTERNATIONAL CODE TO READ ADOPTED INTERNATIONAL CODE COMMISSION ICC. AND THE THIRD CHANGE IS IN PARAGRAPH FOUR ON PAGE 33, AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE, BEFORE THE HIGHLIGHTS.

THE. THE SENTENCE READS. WORK THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITHOUT DOCUMENTED INSPECTION SHALL BE

[01:20:02]

FURTHER DISCUSSION. HEARING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, 6 TO 0. NOW I'M GOING TO ASK LAURA YOU. ■THE SUBCOMMITTEE PREPARED A DOCUMENT INDICATING WHY SOME OF THE ISSUES AND THE COMMISSION HAS SEEN THAT. I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE COUNCIL TO GET THAT. OKAY. WOULD WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SEND THAT AND THE AMENDED RED LINE, THAT MEANING THE DOCUMENT THAT THE COMMISSION SAW EARLIER ABOUT WHY WHAT? ALONG WITH THE RED LINE? YES. HOWEVER, I ONLY HAVE A HARD COPY NOW BECAUSE I SUBMITTED ALL OF THAT IN NOVEMBER OR. YEAH, I SUBMITTED ALL THAT IN NOVEMBER. DOESN'T NEED A HARD COPY. IT'S GOING TO BE ELECTRONIC. I DON'T HAVE AN ELECTRONIC COPY ANYMORE. ONCE I SUBMITTED IT, I GOT RID OF IT OFF MY COMPUTER. IF I MAY, WE CAN TAKE A HARD COPY. WILL DIGITIZE IT. OKAY. WELL, BUT IT'S IN IT'S IN THE CITY EMAIL.

YEAH. NO, IT'S IN THE COMMISSION PACKET. SO IT'S IT'S DIGITIZED IN THE COMMISSION PACKET. WE CAN PULL IT OFF OF GRANICUS. I'D BE HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP WITH YOU IF IT'S APPROPRIATE. WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT I'M TRYING TO WORK OUT IS THE PROCESS AFTER WHAT WE'VE DONE. IF YOU'RE OKAY, YOU WITH THIS, YOU WOULD AMEND YOUR RED ALIGNMENT IN BETWEEN YOU AND JORDAN. YOU'D GET TO THE OTHER DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT? WHY? RIGHT TO SEND TO THE COUNCIL. I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL FOR COUNCIL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT QUANAH. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. IT WAS ALSO PART OF THE NOVEMBER PACKET AS WELL. BUT I DO HAVE A HARD COPY YOU'RE WELCOME TO HAVE SO WE CAN PULL IT OFF OF GRANICUS. THE PDFS ARE STORED INDEFINITELY ON GRANICUS SO WE CAN PULL IT FROM THAT, SINCE THIS ONE WILL NEED AN ORDINANCE WITH IT. I'VE TAKEN THE NOTES OF THE RED LINES PER THE MOTION AND EVERYTHING. AND SO WHAT WE CAN DO IS IN THE ORDINANCE, DO THE RED LINES AND THEN WITH THE REPORT SEND THAT TO COUNCIL. YEAH. RIGHT. SO YOUR WORK WITH STAFF AND WHAT GETS TO THE COUNCIL AND JORDAN WILL DRAFT THE ORDINANCE. SURE. SUPER.

NEXT ITEM IS A WORK SESSION. DISCUSS A REPORT FROM WAYNE MCCULLOUGH. EXCUSE ME, MR. ROBERTS, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. WOULD WOULD IT BE PREFERRED THAT THIS COME BEFORE COUNCIL BEFORE THE 20TH? WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING SCHEDULED FOR NEXT WEEK. AND IF WE DID, WE WOULD BE ON A SHORT TIMELINE TO GET THAT ONTO THE COUNCIL AGENDA. SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF FOR THE DECK OF THE CODE SUBCOMMITTEE COMES THROUGH AND ALL OF THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE THIS TO GO AHEAD AND BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL OR CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL BEFORE

[01:25:04]

I'D RATHER GO AHEAD AND GET IT. GET IT SEEN THAT WAY, ONCE WE START GOING INTO SUBCOMMITTEE, WE ALREADY HAVE THIS CLEANED UP AND READY TO GO JUST TO BE, LIKE L SAID, PLUGGED IN. SUPER.

THANK YOU. IF THAT WORKS FOR CITY, I'M HAPPY TO ACCOMMODATE. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. NOW

[1. Discuss a report from Wayne McCullough concerning definitions in the code of ordinances.]

OKAY, WELL, THE COMMISSION'S CALL. WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO WITH THESE DEFINITIONS? IT WAS MY INTENTION THAT WE HAVE A SECTION IN THE CODE SOMEWHERE WHERE ALL THE DEFINITIONS ARE IN ONE PLACE, AND I DON'T CARE WHERE IT IS, JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WHERE IT IS. PREFERABLY SOMEWHERE UP FRONT. APPENDIX INDICES, PART OF IT. THAT WAS THE COMMISSION'S CONSENSUS AT THE LAST MEETING. AND THAT WOULD BE TYPICAL OF UDC. YES.

SO IN ORDER TO MODIFY OUR DEFINITIONS AS THEY'RE STRUCTURED NOW IN THE CODE, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH EVERY SECTION WITH AN ORDINANCE THAT MOVES THOSE DEFINITIONS TO A NEW SECTION, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE. WE CAN DO THAT. IT'S JUST GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT. IT MAY NOT BE AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO GET TOGETHER. I THINK ALMOST EVERY SECTION HAS DEFINITIONS IN IT. SO WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND MAKE THAT THAT CHANGE. AND IT'S POSSIBLE WE CAN DO IT IF THAT'S THE INTENT, AND THEN ADD THESE INTO THAT.

IT'S MORE SO A FUNCTION OF JUST SHIFTING. AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT WOULD ENTAIL. AS FAR AS THE MOTIONS AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE ADOPTED ORDINANCE. SO MY RECOMMENDATION IS MORE AIMED AT THE REWRITE. THAT'S WHERE YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THIS. SO I I'M NOT SURE I

[01:30:02]

I'VE WRITTEN A LOT OF SPECIFICATIONS AND WORK PLANS AND CERTAIN WORDS. THE FIRST FOUR IN THIS LIST ARE ALWAYS CONTENTIOUS. THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO GET DEFINITIONS INTO SIMPLE DEFINITIONS MAY, WILL, SHALL, AND SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST THE ENGINEERING SPECIFIC MEANINGS. IF WE GO FURTHER DOWN. ABANDONED A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE THAT IS BASICALLY VACANT FOR SOME PERIOD OF DAYS, RECEIVED NOTICE OF DEFAULT OR FORECLOSURE IS SUBJECT TO A TAX LIEN SALE OR DEEMED A NUISANCE BY THE CITY. BEST INDUSTRY PRACTICES. NOW THERE'S A FUZZY PHRASE RIGHT THERE. I'VE LISTED SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THAT I THOUGHT NEEDED TO BE CONSIDERED IN THAT IT'S NOT REALLY A DEFINITION. NEXT PAGE ON 37 TOP BUILDING OFFICIAL IS DEFINED THAT BECAUSE WE USE THAT IN A NUMBER OF PLACES, THE CITY EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ENFORCING CITY BUILDING CODES INCLUDES THE BUILDING OFFICIALS, DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. SO I THINK WE GOT GOT IT COVERED. WE GOT SOMEBODY THAT CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION, SIR. DOCUMENTED HARDSHIP, TALKED ABOUT THAT AGGRIEVED PERSON. I WOULD CHANGE THAT TO AGGRIEVED PARTY IS IT MAY NOT BE A PERSON, IT MAY BE A CORPORATION. AND THAT PERSON, ORGANIZATION OR BUSINESS THAT HAS BEEN ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE ACTION OR FAILURE TO ACT BY ANOTHER PARTY. ADVERSE EFFECT INCLUDES FINANCIAL, PHYSICAL INJURY, INCONVENIENCE OR REDUCED QUALITY OF LIFE. THAT LAST ONE IS IMPORTANT OUT HERE.

ADVERSE EFFECT ADVERSE FINANCIAL EFFECTS INCLUDE ACTUAL COSTS AND LOSS OF INCOME.

PERSONAL INJURY MAY INCLUDE PAIN AND SUFFERING. INCONVENIENCES, SO YOU CAN READ THE REST OF THAT. THE NEXT DEFINITION IS IMPROVED VERSUS UNIMPROVED. THE NEXT ONE IMPROVED IS REAL ESTATE, WHICH HAS BEEN DEVELOPED. UNIMPROVED IS REAL ESTATE IN ITS ORIGINAL UNMODIFIED NATURAL CONDITION. AND THEN DEVELOPMENT. ANY MAN MADE CHANGE TO REAL ESTATE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO. AND THERE'S A LIST OF THINGS HERE, AND I PULL SOME OF THIS OFF OF OTHER. OTHER ENTITIES DEFINITIONS THAT WE WERE PROVIDED. SO THIS IS NOT ALL OUT OF MY OWN HEAD. AND THIS LIST IS NOT NECESSARILY COMPREHENSIVE. IT MAY COME UP WITH MORE DEFINITIONS AS WE GO. IF I MAY ASK, IS THERE A DESIRE TO HAVE OUR DEFINITIONS LIST REFERENCE? ICC AND STATE LAW AS SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS CHUNK OF DEFINITIONS? OR DO WE WANT TO ADOPT OUR OWN? BECAUSE SO A LOT OF THE TIMES STATE AND ICC WILL DEFINE SOMETHING, BUT IT'S SUPER VAGUE AND IT'LL SAY CHECK WITH YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT. WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD REFER TO THOSE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, EXCEPT WHERE WE HAVE A SPECIFIC DEFINITION. OKAY. AND WE WOULD SUPERSEDE WE'D HAVE TO PUT SOMEWHERE THAT ESSENTIALLY WE WHATEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE SUPERSEDES, WHICH WILL BE US. OKAY. AND IT WOULD BE SUPERSEDING MAINLY TO CLARIFY THE MEANING. OKAY. DONE. SO WHEN YOU CAN DO WITH THE REST OF THE DEFINITIONS, THIS IS ONLY A COUPLE PAGES. I'M GOING TO BE WORKING ON THEM. AND IF

[01:35:05]

HE HE COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT. HE HAD TO REACH OUT TO THE, TO THE OTHER END OF THE IT. WELL HE WAS THE IT GUY. THAT WAS BIG TALK. THAT'S. YEAH. YEAH. AND HE SAID, WELL HE SAID HE SENT ME HOME BECAUSE HE SAID THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HE FIXED. BUT A COUPLE HOURS LATER HE CALLED ME AND SAID, TRY THIS, I'M ON. IT WORKS. AND JUST AS A SIDE NOTE, THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION ALSO HAS DEFINITIONS. IT'S TYPICALLY PLANNERS ARE THE ONES THAT DO CODE REWRITES. TO AN EXTENT. IT IS A VERY EXTENSIVE, VERY DETAILED DEFINITION LIST, AND IT'S A GREAT PLACE TO LOOK. A LOT OF CITIES USE THAT AS THEIR DEFAULT WITH STATE LAW DOESN'T COVER WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO COVER. SO JUST AS A IF YOU HAVE TIME, SPARE TIME AND YOU WANT TO PERUSE. MIGHT SAVE YOU SOME TIME. MIGHT TAKE A. THANKS.

RABBIT HOLE TWO FOR THE COMMISSION ON DEFINITIONS AND REPORTABLE ONE FOR THE UDC.

THAT'S THAT'S WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM. NUMBER THREE, WHEN YOU WHEN YOU'RE DEFINING IT, THE ABANDONED BUILDING. I HAVE SEVERAL ISSUES WITH THAT. WITH THAT DEFINITION, I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO DETAIL. OKAY. THAT THE. THE COMMISSION HAS APPROVED AND I HAVE SUBMITTED TO JORDAN. IT'S NOT A REWRITE, BUT IT'S THAT A BUNCH OF AMENDMENTS TO THE UNSAFE SECTION OF CHAPTER THREE FOR HER TO COMMENT ON, THAT'S GOING TO GET PLUGGED IN. THAT'S JUST THAT'S OKAY. BUT THERE'S THEY'RE GOING TO BE CONFLICTS WITH THAT DEFINITION, THAT ORDINANCE. SECONDLY, WE'LL DEAL WITH THE THREE PERSON MY ISSUES ON AGREED PERSON. THE NEXT ITEM.

OKAY. BECAUSE I HAVE ISSUES WITH THAT DEFINITION. BUT. I HAVE VERY LITTLE I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO DETAIL BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF WORK ON DEFINITIONS. YEAH, A TON OF WORK. THAT'S THAT'S ONE OF THE HUGE PROBLEMS WITH OUR CODE. IT'S HUGE. THEY'RE WRONG AND THEY'RE INCONSISTENT ACROSS THE CODE. SO AND YOU'RE TRYING TO FIX IT. FOR MY OWN PART, I HAVE NO PRIDE OF AUTHORSHIP IN THE DEFINITIONS. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH MODIFYING THEM.

AND YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. ALWAYS. I THINK I HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE DEFINITION ON ABANDONED. ARE THESE SUBJECT TO ALL ALL FOUR, OR IS IT ANY ONE OF FOUR? SO ON THE IT SAYS A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE THAT IS ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR IS DO THEY HAVE TO INCLUDE ALL FOUR TO BE CONSIDERED ABANDONED OR IS IT ANY ONE OF THE FOUR? THAT'S ONE OF MY ISSUES. AND THEN THE THE REASON I QUESTIONED THAT IS BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE IN DEFAULT FORECLOSURE THAT ARE WORKING WITH THEIR LENDER, BUT THEY STILL OCCUPY

[01:40:01]

AND SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD. THE DEFINITION IS OPEN FOR REVISION, BUT THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTIONING. I DON'T REALLY OKAY. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF IT WAS FOR ALL FOUR, IF IT HAD TO BE ALL FOUR OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS, OR IF IT WAS ANY ONE OF TWO, OR A COMBINATION OF. LET ME LOOK AT THAT REAL QUICK. THIS IS A DOCUMENTED HARDSHIP. NO, NO.

ABANDONED ON PAGE 36. IF I MAY. I BELIEVE THE STATE OF TEXAS, ANY ONE OF THEM HAS VERY SPECIFIC THINGS. WE'RE ALLOWED AS A CITY, OBVIOUSLY, TO GO TO, YOU KNOW, CONDEMNATION AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE WHEN IT COMES TO ABANDONED PROPERTIES, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S SAFETY CONCERNS. AND SO I THINK THE STATE HAS A VERY FINITE DEFINITION OF WHAT IT IS. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN DEVIATE FROM THAT LEGALLY, BECAUSE THEN WE'RE SUPERIMPOSING ON WHAT THE STATE HAS ALREADY. AND WHERE IS THAT? I CAN SEND A LINK TO THE TEXAS CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT ALL OF THIS. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN LIST OF DEFINITIONS. I CAN SEND THAT IN AN EMAIL TO. OKAY, GREAT. I DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT. IF THERE'S A DEFINITION FOR ANY OF THESE THAT'S BINDING ON US, FINE. MAKES IT EASIER. PROBLEM I'LL SEND IN A COLLECTIVE EMAIL. I'LL SEND OUT THE APA LIST, THE TEXAS STATE LIST, AND THEN ICC HAS A LIST AS WELL. I ACCESS WISE, IT'S A LITTLE FUNNY BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SUBSCRIPTION, WHICH WE DO AS CITY STAFF, BUT I THINK YOU CAN VIEW IT. YOU JUST CAN'T DOWNLOAD IT. SO IF IT NEEDS TO BE DOWNLOADED, WE CAN DO THAT, BUT WE CAN SEND THOSE IN EARLY TOMORROW. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. JUST A SIDE NOTE. ANY OF THESE THAT IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE ICC SAYS ABOUT ABANDONED PROPERTY, TYPE IN YOUR GOOGLE SEARCH. WHAT IS THE ICC SAY ABOUT ABANDONED ABANDONED BUILDING. AND AND IT WILL GIVE YOU THEIR DEFINITION. CAN I DO IT ALL THE TIME AND? THAT'S A GREAT DAY. WHAT'S THAT? NO, THIS WAS A WORKSHOP FOR DISCUSSION. YEAH I THINK IT'S GOOD WORK. I THE ONLY THING I WOULD QUESTION TOO I MEAN, I THOUGHT YOU SAID, I THINK THAT THE BEST INDUSTRY PRACTICES. I THINK THOSE ARE GOOD. I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT THOSE WOULD BE IN A, IN A DEFINITION SECTION.

I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER SUITED SOMEWHERE ELSE, MORE SPECIFIC TO WHAT THEY DEAL WITH.

BUT WE'LL GET TO THAT LATER. I THINK YOU PUT A LOT OF WORK IN. THAT'S GOOD, I AGREE. YEAH.

WELL GOOD ON THAT. MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT ON THIS. YEAH. WELL CLIFF UNDER BEST INDUSTRY PRACTICES I THINK NUMBER ONE IS IS THE BEST ANSWER. THE OTHERS ARE JUST EXAMPLES OF THE THE WAY I LOOK AT IT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON DEFINITIONS? NEXT ITEM ON OUR WORK SESSION IS

[2. Discuss amendments to the code of ordinances concerning appeals of city staff decisions.]

[01:45:13]

ALTHOUGH THE TERM OFFICER IS NOT DEFINED, I THINK WE'RE ALL OFFICERS. SO I COULD APPEAL.

SOME DECISIONS TO STAFF MAY HAVE BEEN MADE. LET ME NOT GO INTO MORE DETAIL. I THINK SIMPLY AS A PLUG IN. YOU'RE WITH ME ON THAT TERM COMMISSION. IT'S A WORK SESSION. WE CAN BEAT THIS UP, DISCUSS IT, SEE IF YOU WANT TO EXPAND. SEE IF YOU WANT IT TO DELETE WHATEVER.

JORDAN, YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE AGGRIEVED PERSON SPECIFICALLY OR THE APPEAL PROCESS. PROCESS.

MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE CONSISTENCY. REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE OUTCOME IS. APPEALS ARE A PART OF WHAT WE DO. AND SO I DON'T YOU KNOW, THAT'S GREAT. IT'S JUST I WOULD RATHER SEE ONE CONSISTENT PROCESS ACROSS THE BOARD AND WHETHER IT'S THE BOARD IN WHICH IT APPLIES TO MAKES THE DETERMINATION OR HOWEVER IT SHAKES OUT. BUT THE THE STEPS ARE ALL THE SAME. THE EXPECTATIONS ARE ALL THE SAME. IT'S NOT DIFFERENT FOR A ZONING THING THAN, YOU KNOW, A BUILDING OR A THING. AND THE CONSISTENCY IS MY ONLY REQUEST. DOES WANT TO CHIME IN ON THAT.

I WOULD THINK THAT AS A COMMISSION, IT WOULD IT WOULD IT YOU WERE SAYING THAT IT WOULD BE ONE, POSSIBLY ONE PERSON. I WOULD THINK THAT IF IT WAS COMING FROM LIKE, SAY, JUST BUILDING STANDARDS, IT WOULD NEED TO COME AS A BODY. I KNOW WHEN COUNCIL MAKES A DECISION, IT HAS TO COME AS A AS A BODY, NOT AS AN AS AN INDIVIDUAL. SO I WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD NEED A MAJORITY, NOT A SUPERMAJORITY BUT A MAJORITY TO APPEAL. YOU'RE PROBABLY OUT OF ORDER. I APOLOGIZE. YOU'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION. IT WAS MORE OF A QUESTION, A PROCEDURAL QUESTION. AND YOU CAN DO THAT THE WAY THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE WRITTEN. YEAH, TECHNICALLY, YOU TAKE A LOOK AT PAGE 41. THAT I APPRECIATE YOUR POINT. YOUR QUESTION. WHICH IS IT WAS MORE OF A QUESTION ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, ACCORDING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHARTER AND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. THE CHARTER SAYS COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN'T DO STUFF UNLESS THE WHOLE COUNCIL SAYS THEY CAN, UNLESS THEY SAY. THEY CAN INFLUENCE A COMMISSION. AND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ALLOW COUNCIL LIAISONS TO INFLUENCE THE COMMISSION FOR DIFFERENT WAYS. AND ONE OF THOSE JUST OCCURRED.

AND BUT THANK YOU. HERE'S WHAT HERE'S WHAT PAGE 41 SAYS. INDEED. AND THIS IS IN CHAPTER THREE. THAT'S US. PROCEDURE FOR APPEALS. APPEALS AFTER COMMISSION. AND THAT'S US. THIS CHAPTER THREE. MAYBE BY ANY AGGRIEVED PERSON. THAT'S NOT DEFINED. OKAY. OR BY AN OFFICER.

THAT'S US. OKAY. I SAID CHAPTER THREE. AMEND CHAPTER 11. IT'S IN D OF CHAPTER 11, WHICH IS

[01:50:17]

THAT'S CHAPTER 11. I'M ON THE WRONG PLACE. NO, IT'S I THOUGHT YOU SAID IT WASN'T DEFINED.

AGREED PERSON. WELL READ PERSON IS NOT A DEFINED TERM IN CHAPTER 11. BUT YOUR POINT, JIM, I THINK IS WELL TAKEN. YOU CAN FIGURE OUT FROM THAT PHRASE WHO CAN APPEAL, RIGHT. WHATEVER.

AND SO THAT THAT IN MY OPINION, THAT INCLUDES AN APPEAL OF AN APPROVAL OF SOMETHING. THAT'S, THAT'S MY PIGGY. WHAT I THINK ALL OF US RECOGNIZE THE APPEAL FROM SOMEONE THAT GOT DENIED.

THIS IS APPEALS OF APPROVALS. THAT'S THAT'S MY BIGGIE ON THIS. THAT'S NOT THE ONLY ISSUE WITH THIS. BECAUSE AGAIN, IF WE'RE HEADED FOR UDC, I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO. GET CONSISTENT ON SEVERAL ISSUES. JUST SO I'M UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE I'VE, I WAS WITHIN 200FT OF SOMEONE WHO WANTED A PERMIT FOR SOMETHING. AND SO SOMEBODY HAS COME IN AND BASICALLY SAID I WAS WITHIN THE 200FT OR I WAS JUST OUTSIDE AND I WANT TO BE INCLUDED. SO LET'S MOVE IT OUT TO 600, WHICH I DON'T AGREE WITH. BUT HAD THEY GIVEN THE PERMIT TO THE PERSON I DIDN'T WANT THEM TO GIVE THE PERMIT TO, THEN I COULD BE AN AGGRIEVED PERSON AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD AND JUST REPEAT WHAT I SAID BEFORE, BECAUSE I'VE ALREADY TOLD YOU WHY I DON'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN AND IT'S NOT 200FT. TAKE A LOOK AT PAGE 40, PAGE 40 FOR A PERMIT.

CHAPTER THREE. OKAY. THAT DOESN'T SAY DENIAL. IT HIGHLIGHTED IT'S KARMA. IT'S TWO SEPARATE THINGS. YOU CAN APPEAL A DENIAL. ANOTHER THING YOU CAN APPEAL IS DETERMINATION MADE BY CITY OFFICIAL. THAT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE YOU COULD. IF YOU CAN GET IT DONE. AND THEN AND THEN IT LAYS OUT HOW YOU DO IT. YOU SEE, YOU'LL NEVER GET NOTHING DONE IN THIS TOWN. BUT I. GET IT. SURE IS. I'M GLAD NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THIS. YEAH. I DON'T I DON'T

[01:55:04]

YEAH. THE WHOLE STRUCTURE AFTER THE COMMA. A DETERMINATION MADE BY A CITY OFFICIAL RELATED TO THIS SECTION OR VARIANCES TO THIS ORDINANCE AROUND WHAT IS IT? I JUST I JIM, I AGREE WITH YOUR POINT THAT OKAY, MAYBE IF YOU PUT ANOTHER COMMA AFTER SECTION. YOU SEE THE DENY A PERMIT. I GOT A QUESTION. OKAY. SO YOU PUT ANOTHER COMMA AFTER SECTION. SO IS I KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE THE CHAMPS JIM SCOTT'S FLOOR. GO AHEAD I KNOW GRAMMATICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THAT COMMA THERE BUT YOU DON'T HAVE IT. IT DOESN'T. OKAY, I GOT YOU, DAVE. IS THERE SOMETHING IN A TEXAS STATE LAW THAT SAYS THAT ANYONE HAS ANYBODY HAS A RIGHT TO APPEAL SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN VOTED AND APPROVED THAT WE SHOULD BE DEFERRING TO, OR IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, ANYBODY CAN APPEAL ANY DECISION ANY TIME THEY WANT. IF I MAY, THERE ARE SOME I DON'T THINK IT SPEAKS DIRECTLY TO THAT. AND THERE ARE SOME PROCESSES THAT, ESPECIALLY UNDER CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE BILLS THAT ESSENTIALLY WE CAN'T DENY IF THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF. AND SO IT GETS A LITTLE TRICKY IF YOU ALLOW APPEALS OF APPROVALS, IF THEY FALL UNDER THOSE SPECIFIC STATUTES, I DON'T THINK THE STATE WOULD WOULD PUT PROVISIONS LIKE THAT SPECIFICALLY REFERENCING CERTAIN TOPICS. AND IT MIGHT GET DICEY IF THEY MENTION IT AT ALL. AND EVEN FROM OUR STANDPOINT AS A CITY, I WOULD CAUTION AGAINST CERTAIN APPEALS FOR APPROVALS ON CERTAIN THINGS. SO PLATS AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS ARE HUGE, HUGE THINGS THAT WE'RE UNDER VERY STRICT GUIDELINES FOR. AND I DON'T WANT US TO END UP OUT OF LEGISLATIVE COMPLIANCE BY ALLOWING THEM TO BE APPEALED, BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS PUTTING THEIR APPROVAL ON HOLD. AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO THAT. SO IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE GOING TO WORK ON TO FIX AND CLEAN UP, TO MAKE SURE. IS THAT? NO. OKAY. BECAUSE IT GOES ACROSS OUR ORDINANCES. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN BY ORDINANCES. AND PNC. AND THERE'S HUGE POLICY ISSUES HERE. SO COUNCIL'S GOT TO FIGURE THIS ONE OUT. THIS IS NOT WHAT THE WHAT. IT THERE'S POLICY ISSUES THAT THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO NOW I WANT I DON'T WANT SOMEBODY TO APPEAL BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.

IF I WERE IN YOUR SHOES I WOULD LIKE THAT. AT THE END OF THE DAY WE ARE AT THE BEHEST OF SO BUT SO IT TO ME IT'S THE ISSUES AND THE TECHNICAL STUFF THAT'S HERE GETS PLUGGED IN TO THE REWRITE. DID DID THAT. I UNDERSTAND, I'M JUST SAYING SHOULD WE BE WORKING ON IT TO HELP COUNSEL AND PUT SOME WORK INTO THE RECOMMENDATION? IT'S NOT NOW. OKAY OKAY OKAY. I THINK THERE'S JIM. DID. OKAY. I'M CALLING STUFF. PLUG IN. SO WE'LL SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT.

IT'S A BIG. AND THE COMMISSION HASN'T COME DOWN TO ANY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION OR

[02:00:10]

[3. Discuss the Commission's Annual Work Program.]

WELL, WHAT I'M HOPING I'M HOPING WE'RE JUST GOING TO JUST COPY OVER SOME OF THE STUFF WE DID ALREADY. AND NOT REWRITE EVERY SINGLE WORD. YEAH. BECAUSE YOU THINK WE'D BE THIS HORSE TO DEATH. THIS. NOTHING. YOU'VE BEEN HERE TILL 10:00 AT NIGHT. I CAN WORK THAT OUT, GUYS. WHAT IF YOU GUYS GOT ANYTHING FOR US? THAT'S THE THE BIGGEST THING ON THE HORIZON, HONESTLY. AND MY INTENT, TO BE FRANK, IS NOT TO MAKE BOARDS DO MUCH OF THE WRITING. I NEED YOUR DIRECTION. I NEED YOUR GUIDANCE. AND WE'LL HANDLE THE TECHNICAL SIDE AND THE NITTY GRITTY. AND IF WE BRING YOU A DRAFT AND YOU TOSS IT IN THE TRASH AND SAY, START OVER, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'LL DO. THAT'S I LIKE YOU ALREADY. I STILL LIKING HER. I'M A LOT THIS COMMISSION. WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE THREE PAGES OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE CROSSED, ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT ROY BROUGHT TO US, WE SAID, LET'S DO IT, LET'S FIX IT, STAFF, BRING IT BACK. OKAY. ANY ANYTHING ELSE Y'ALL WANT TO WORK ON, PARTICULARLY IN THE NEXT YEAR? I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT. I GAVE YOU A LIST OF THINGS I DON'T WANT TO WORK ON. IS THERE ANYTHING OUR INSPECTOR WANTS US TO WORK ON? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU EARLIER. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE PERMANENT EXPIRATION STUFF? TO EXTEND THE TIME FRAMES. FIRST OF ALL, MY NAME IS DUANE. I'M 40 YEAR CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL. ABOUT 25 TO 30 OF THOSE WERE AS A SUPERINTENDENT BUILDING BIG, BIG UNITS. LAST JOB I DID WAS $53 MILLION PODIUM. FINISHED IT IN TWO YEARS, 360 UNITS.

FINISHED THEM IN TWO YEARS. MY BIG FEAR ABOUT THE THE 18 MONTHS AND THE 24 MONTHS IS THAT AS I'M WALKING, AS I GO OUT AND I DO THE INSPECTIONS, THERE'S A LOT OF BUILDERS. NOT I SHOULDN'T SAY A LOT. THERE'S SOME BUILDERS THAT WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT. 18 AND 24 MONTHS TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE HOMEOWNER. SO THAT'S MY BIGGEST FEAR BECAUSE I SEE IT HAPPEN EVERY DAY. SO I PERSONALLY AGAIN CAN FINISH 360 APARTMENT COMPLEX IN TWO YEARS.

IT'S IT'S A MATTER OF MANAGEMENT, AND IT'S A MATTER OF JUST HAVING YOUR DUCKS IN A ROW AND ACTUALLY BEING ON THE JOB SITE. BIG ISSUE. NOBODY'S ON JOB SITES. SO THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY FEAR. I'M COMING FROM THE THE FROM THE SIDE OF THE HOMEOWNER TRYING TO PROTECT THE HOMEOWNER AS WELL AS TRYING TO PROTECT CONTRACTOR BECAUSE, AGAIN, I'VE BEEN BUILDING FOR 40 YEARS. SO THAT'S IT FOR ME. I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO RECONSIDER WHAT WE RECOMMENDED EARLIER, BECAUSE THAT THAT'S AN YOU PROBABLY AGREE WITH THAT. I DO AGREE WITH IT, BUT I'VE BEEN IN CONSTRUCTION MY WHOLE LIFE TO I STILL DON'T THINK IT'S OUR POSITION, THOUGH, TO RIDE HERD ON THE DEVELOPERS ON THE HOMEOWNER'S BEHALF. THEY PAID FOR THAT PRODUCT. THEY'RE PAYING FOR THAT PERSON TO DO THE JOB THAT'S BETWEEN THEM AND THEIR BUILDER. WE SET OUR STANDARDS FOR WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE CITY AND WHAT OUR DURATIONS

[02:05:04]