[I. CALL TO  ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]
          [00:00:08]
          ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND BRING THIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING TO ORDER. I AM THE COUNCIL LIAISON AS WE DO NOT HAVE AN ELECTED CHAIR AT THIS POINT. I'M JUST STARTING US OFF UNTIL THE GROUP CAN GO AHEAD AND ELECT A PRO TEM CHAIR. WE DO NOT HAVE AN ELECTION RIGHT NOW ON OUR AGENDA, AND SO THIS WILL BE A TEMPORARY ELECTION. IN ORDER TO HAVE SOMEONE PRESIDE AT THIS MEETING, JUST TO LET EVERYONE KNOW, IN REGARD TO CALLING TO ORDER, WE DO HAVE JAMES PECK IN ATTENDANCE. JIM GRUENWALD, JEFF SMITH, TODD MASSEY, AND ED TIDWELL. AT THIS TIME. I WOULD ASK EACH OF YOU ALL TO GO AHEAD AND NAME OR GO AHEAD AND PUT FORWARD SOMEONE TO CHAIR THIS MEETING. MAKE A MOTION. JAMES PECK WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE ED TIDWELL TO CHAIR THIS MEETING. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND WITH JEFF SMITH. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, FOR PRESIDING OVER THIS MEETING. MY PLEASURE. I MAY I HAVE THE FLOOR FOR A MOMENT? YOU SURE? ME BEFORE WE PROCEED INTO ANY PART OF THE AGENDA, IF WE CAN HAVE A REVIEW OF OUR CODES TO FIND OUT IF THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE ARE ABLE TO APPROVE OR DENY ALL THESE REQUESTS. I KNOW WE HAVE SOME SPECIFIC ROLL CALL NUMBERS AND MINIMUMS THAT WE HAVE TO MEET FOR THAT, THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THIS BOARD. WHO WOULD KNOW THAT INFORMATION OFF THE TOP OF THEIR HEAD? ALL RIGHT. 
          SEARCHING FOR IT? DEFINITELY NOT. I'M PULLING UP. I'M WORKING. I'M WORKING TO PULL THAT BACK UP RIGHT NOW. OKAY. I THOUGHT WE NEEDED FIVE. I BELIEVE WE HAVE A 75% OF THE BOARD REQUIREMENT AS FAR AS THAT IS CONCERNED. GENERALLY, THAT WOULD BE 75% OF EIGHT. AND FIVE DOES NOT GET US THERE. AND SO I'M LOOKING TO CONFIRM THAT IN OUR CODE RIGHT NOW TO MAKE SURE WE'RE PULLING IT UP. BUT I'M I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THAT THAT IS FACTUAL. AND I AM LOOKING FOR THE CONFIRMATION. I'M SORRY I COULDN'T PULL IT UP ON THE WAY HERE. OKAY. I DO SEE WHERE IT SAYS IT'S 1160 FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. I'M LOOKING TO SEE FOR VARIANCES, BUT FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, YES, IT IS 75%. WE DON'T HAVE ONE ON THE AGENDA TODAY. AND SO IF IT'S NOT VARIANCE AS WELL THEN THEN WE CAN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. BUT IF IT IS VARIANCE AS WELL, DO WE HAVE DO WE HAVE EIGHT TO START WITH. BECAUSE I SEE SEVEN. I BELIEVE THAT'S A FUNCTIONAL PROBLEM THAT I HAVE RAISED IN THE PAST AS WELL. SO THE QUESTION THEN WOULD BECOME IF 75% OF SEVEN ACCOMPLISHES ANY OF THAT, THEN THAT WOULD BE OKAY. IF OUR CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE US TO HAVE EIGHT, I DON'T THINK FIVE OF SEVEN IS 75. 
          IT'S NOT QUITE THERE. IT'S JUST SHY. BUT IT'S WORTH WORTH NOTING. FOR THE RECORD, FOR THE HISTORY OF THE ERRORS THAT MAY EXIST. SORRY Y'ALL OUT THERE. THANKS FOR BEARING WITH US. 
          THAT'S THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS NEEDS TO BE BINDING, RIGHT? INDEED. OUR DECISION. WELL, IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT BECAUSE WHEN WERE THESE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED. THAT'S THAT'S THE REASON THAT WE WANT TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO TRY TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS IN FRONT OF US. MANY OF THEM ARE FROM QUITE A WHILE AGO. OKAY, SO IT IS SECTION 1140 OF CHAPTER 14, OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, AND IT SAYS ACTION BY THE BOARD. AND I'M GOING TO READ THIS WORD FOR WORD. THE BOARD SHALL NOT GRANT A VARIANCE UNLESS IT FINDS THAT EACH ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IN 1120 HAVE BEEN MET. THE BURDEN OF PROVING SUCH CONDITIONS EXIST WITH THE APPLICANT. THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD, TOGETHER WITH THE SPECIFIC FACTS UPON WHICH SUCH FINDINGS ARE BASED, SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE OFFICIAL MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING AT WHICH THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED. THE CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD SHALL BE NECESSARY FOR ANY DECISION IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT FOR ANY MATTER TO WHICH IT IS REQUIRED TO PASS, OR TO AFFECT A VARIATION OF ANY ORDINANCE, RULE OR REGULATION. AND SO IT SAYS 75% OF THE BOARD TO WHICH WE HAVE SEVEN MEMBERS OF. AND SO NOW I THINK IT'S A QUESTION OF MATH. I THINK 
          [00:05:03]
THAT'S ABOUT. THAT'S SIX. YEAH. BECAUSE FIVE IS LIKE 72%. YEP. I THINK YEP. 771.4271.43 SO. 
          YEP. NOT QUITE THERE. IT'S 5.25. WELL, ALL THREE OF THESE VARIANCES CORRECT. SO THE FIRST THREE ITEMS ARE VARIANCES WITH WHAT OUR CODE SAYS. WE CAN'T TAKE ACTION ON THEM. THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS ON OUR AGENDA THAT WE CAN ITS FUNCTION ITS BUSINESS. BUT THE VARIANCE SPECIFICALLY. YES. THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE TABLED TO OUR NEXT REGULARLY CALLED MEETING. HAVE WE MADE CONTACT WITH ANY OTHER CURRENT MEMBERS TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE NOT, IN FACT, GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IT? JOSEPH HAD FORGIVE ME. JOSEPH HAD LET ME KNOW THAT HE WAS CALLED TO NEW YORK LAST NIGHT. OKAY. AND SO I WASN'T ABLE TO MAKE IT TODAY. I DID NOT HEAR BACK FROM RACHEL. 
          I BELIEVE SHE IS ALSO OUT OF STATE IN SEATTLE AT THIS TIME, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY APPOINTED ALTERNATES, MISS OWENS. NO, DO NOT AT THIS TIME. DOES IT HAVE TO ROLL TO A REGULAR OR CAN WE CALL A SPECIAL. SO IN ORDER TO HEAR IT ON A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE IT ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT TO CALL FOR A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING. WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE'D ALSO HAVE TO READ NOTICE BECAUSE THE WAY THAT IT'S NOTICED NOW, IT'S ON A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. AND SO WE WOULD HAVE TO RE NOTICE FOR A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING AT WHATEVER DATE AND TIME IT WAS HEARD AT. I WILL SAY WE HAVE AN APPLICATION ON OUR AGENDA FOR NEXT MONTH. AND SO ESSENTIALLY THESE WILL ROLL TO BE WITH THAT, NOT THAT IT'S IN ANYBODY'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT, BUT THAT'S PROCEDURALLY WHERE WE'RE AT. SO ARE THERE ANY STATE LAWS THAT AFFECT THE TIMING OF APPLICATIONS FOR THIS TYPE OF APPLICATION? BECAUSE I KNOW, I KNOW SEVERAL IT'S EXCUSE ME, IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF YEARS SINCE I'VE BEEN UP HERE, BUT I KNOW THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT IF THEY ARE NOT HEARD WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME FRAME, THEY'RE AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED. NO. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE WITH YOUR PLATS. THIS IS NOT A PLAT. THESE ARE TOTALLY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD. AS A QUASI JUDICIAL BOARD. YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION EITHER YES OR NO ON EVERYTHING. OKAY. 
          THERE IS NO SET EXPIRATION DATE. I THINK THE BIGGEST THING IS THE WEIGHT THAT HAS GONE ON TO THE APPLICANTS WHO HAVE BEEN I MEAN, THIS WOULD BE THEIR SECOND MEETING, BUT PROCEDURALLY, I THINK IT WOULD TAKE LONGER TO DO A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING THAN IT WOULD TO ROLL TO THE NEXT REGULARLY CALLED MEETING. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU, MR. PECK, FOR BRINGING THAT TO OUR ATTENTION, BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT. AS FAR AS THE PERCENTAGES. ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE WILL. JUST GO WITH THE SCHEDULE AS LISTED, THE AGENDA AS LISTED UNTIL WE GET TO THOSE ITEMS. SO I'M GOING TO START 
          [II. CITIZEN COMMENTS]
WITH CITIZEN COMMENTS. IT SAYS HERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THE BOARD IS PROHIBITED FROM ACTING OR DISCUSSING OTHER THAN FACTUAL RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. 
          ANY ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. LET'S SEE, I HAVE A I THINK I HAVE A REQUEST. WHERE'S MY CARD? GO? HERE IT IS. OKAY, SO THIS IS A REQUEST TO SPEAK ON AN ACTUAL AGENDA ITEM. SO. 
          BURKHART. ALL RIGHT. SO IS THERE I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP. DO THEY HAVE TO BE SIGNED UP OR CAN THEY. SO ANYBODY CAN SPEAK. WE JUST ASK IF THEY'RE NOT SIGNED UP THAT THEY FILL OUT A CARD AFTER THEY SPEAK. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD AT THIS MOMENT? CITIZEN COMMENTS. ON SOMETHING THAT'S NOT IN NOT ON THE AGENDA. 
          YEAH. OKAY. WELL, WE'LL MOVE ON THEN. STAFF AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS. SO NORMA OR JORDAN, DO 
          [III.1.     Routine Reports from City Council Liaison.]
Y'ALL HAVE ANY REPORTS FOR US? FORGIVE ME. JORDAN, IF IT'S OKAY. AS WE DID. NOT OFFICIALLY REMOVE MEMBERS THAT WERE ALREADY ON THE BOARD, COULD WE BRING THEM BACK IN AN ALTERNATE CAPACITY? DO WE? WE DON'T HAVE BRAD WITH US, DO WE? WE DON'T. SO MY I WOULD DEFAULT TO 
          [00:10:02]
WHETHER OR NOT WE APPOINTED IT BECAUSE WHEN WE APPOINTED THIS BOARD BACK IN DECEMBER, I BELIEVE IT WAS, THERE WAS A LIST THAT WENT WITH IT. AND IF THEY WEREN'T ON THAT LIST, I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENS. OKAY. WELL, THEY WERE THEY WERE REMAINING MEMBERS FROM THE OTHER. WE HAD SEPARATED IT OVER. OKAY. WELL, WITHOUT BRAD, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME IS THAT I CAN TRY TO GET AN ANSWER, BUT I CAN'T MAKE ANY PROMISES. OKAY. IF WE COULD, THEN I POTENTIALLY COULD CALL IN ANOTHER MEMBER BY USING A VERY GRAY WIDE LOOPHOLE TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. THANK YOU. AND THIS MAY BE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BOARD CAN PARTICIPATE TELEPHONICALLY OR BY ZOOM OR SOME OTHER MEANS. 
          IS THAT CORRECT, OR DO THEY HAVE TO BE PRESENT? THEY COULD, IF THEY WERE AT A PLACE THAT THEY COULD DO A ZOOM. BOTH OR BOTH ARE ARE TRAVELING IN A PLACE THAT THEY THE OTHER TWO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. AND SO THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND VIA ZOOM. THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. 
          IS THERE ANY WAY TO GET A HOLD OF ANY OF THESE MEMBERS TO SEE IF THEY CAN PARTICIPATE? I WILL TRY THAT RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. REMEMBER THAT YOU'RE POSSIBLY CONSIDERING TO CALL BACK IN FROM THAT PROCEDURAL CHANGE, I BELIEVE WOULD BE IN A CURRENTLY RUNNING TERM, NOT A FRESH COINED. THE TERM WASN'T UP FOR REAPPOINTMENT LAST YEAR. THAT THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING FOR JORDAN IN HER CONVERSATION. BUT IS IT. WELL, PRIOR TO DECEMBER, PRIOR TO THE ELECTIONS IN DECEMBER, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE ON THE BOARD? WE WE HAD BEEN A BOARD OF EIGHT WITH ALTERNATES AND THERE IS A FUNCTIONAL PROBLEM THAT WE PRESENTLY, ACCORDING TO THIS ROLL CALL, ARE A BOARD OF SEVEN WITH NO ALTERNATES. OKAY. AND THERE WAS A. FOR FOR BACKGROUND, I DON'T THINK I'M OUT OF TURN SAYING THIS. THERE WAS A PROCEDURAL CHANGE WITH MEMBERS WHO WERE ON MULTIPLE QUASI JUDICIAL BOARDS WITHIN THE CITY THAT CAME FROM A CITY COUNCIL LEVEL, THAT CAUSED SOME PEOPLE WHO SERVED ON MORE THAN ONE BOARD THAT FELL UNDER THAT CATEGORY. SO THAT WOULD BE THINGS LIKE PLANNING AND ZONING AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AT THE SAME TIME, TO NOT BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO SERVE IN THEIR PRESENT CAPACITIES ON THOSE OVERLAPPING BOARDS. SO UNFORTUNATELY, THAT MEANT WE HAD SOME PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO PARTICIPATE ON BOTH ANYMORE AND WERE REASSIGNED TO OTHER ROLES. AND SO WE'RE WATCHING OUR OUR CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF RECOVER FROM THAT CHANGE. THEY DO ALLOW FOR HOLDOVERS UNTIL REPLACED. 
          SO IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHETHER THAT EIGHTH PERSON HAS BEEN REPLACED OR NOT. RIGHT? NOW, IF A PERSON HAS NOT BEEN. SO. THE EIGHTH PERSON, THE MEMBERS THAT I WAS PURSUING HAVE NOT HAVE DECLINED TO ANSWER SO FAR. AND SO I'M STILL PURSUING OTHER PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO FILL THE CHAIR. SO RIGHT NOW, THE CHAIR IS STILL OPEN. DO YOU DO YOU RECALL IF THAT'S WAS THAT TWO MEMBERS OR WAS THAT THREE MEMBERS THAT FELL INTO THAT CATEGORY OF NEEDING TO BE REPLACED? I DON'T RECALL OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I KNOW AT LEAST ONE I CAN'T REMEMBER THERE WAS TWO. TWO. OKAY. SO YEAH, WE HAVE TWO POTENTIAL THAT FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY. VERY WELL. SHOULD WE PROCEED WITH WAS THERE ANY REPORTS JORDAN HAS STEPPED OUT, 
          [III.2.     Routine Reports from City staff.]
BUT DID YOU ALL HAVE ANYTHING AS FAR AS. THE MAIN THING THAT I WAS GOING TO REPORT ON FROM THE COUNCIL WAS IN REGARD TO YOUR ITEM? AND I WAS WOULD MAKE A COMMENT AT THAT TIME. ITEM 6.1 IN TERMS OF OUR. WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF RELOOKING AT ALL OF OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES AND PUTTING THEM IN A STRUCTURE FOR A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. BUT THAT ALSO MEANS POLICY CHANGES IS WE ARE LOOKING AT AS WELL. AND SO WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT THE VARIANCES FOR POOLS AND 
          [00:15:08]
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, THERE ARE SOME ANOMALIES WITHIN OUR CODE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO BE LOOKED AT. JUST ONE SECOND. THANK YOU. WELL I GUESS., AND W. YEAH. SO ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO CALL. I'M GOING TO CALL US BACK TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS, WE DID GET IN CONTACT WITH OUR LEGAL TEAM, AND THE COMMENT FROM THE LEGAL TEAM WAS ESSENTIALLY THAT WHEN THIS BOARD WAS SELECTED BY COUNCIL, THERE WERE NO ALTERNATIVES IN ANY PREVIOUS MEMBERS DID NOT ROLL OVER TO THAT SLOT THAT WAS COMMITTED TO THIS CURRENT TERM. AND SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE CAN'T CALL THEM FORWARD TO SIT IN THIS MEETING. WE RUN THE RISK OF IT NOT BEING VALID ACTION BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT FORMALLY APPOINTED. AND SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE THREE VARIANCES IS TO ESSENTIALLY TABLE THEM UNTIL THE NEXT REGULARLY CALLED MEETING. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE 
          [IV. CONSENT AGENDA]
GOING TO MOVE ON TO CONSENT AGENDA. SO PROCEDURAL QUESTION AGAIN SOME OF US WERE NOT HERE FOR THOSE MEETINGS. SO CAN WE ARE WE ALLOWED TO. CONSENT TO SOMETHING WE WERE NOT HERE FOR OR DO WE JUST ABSTAIN? I WOULD ALSO SAY LET'S TABLE THAT AND GET SOME CLARIFICATION. THIS IS A WEIRD MEETING. IT'S NOT A BAD QUESTION AT ALL. I WOULD SAY, LET'S GET WITH OUR ATTORNEY AND MAKE SURE, OKAY. SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO. TABLE CONSENT AGENDA. CORRECT. MOTION TO TABLE THE CONSENT AGENDA. AND I HAVE A MOTION TO TO TABLE THE CONSENT AGENDA. I'M ASSUMING UNTIL THE NEXT NEXT REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING. ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. DO I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE AYE. ALL THOSE AGAINST NAY. ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE. THE MOTION TO TABLE THE CONSENT AGENDA UNTIL OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING PASSES. UNANIMOUS. SO, YOUR HONOR, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR THE EXCEPTION, SO. SO I JUST WANT TO LEAVE IN THAT. 
          [Items V.1 - V.3]
DISRESPECTFUL. SO WE ARE NOW UP TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. AND BECAUSE OF OUR CURRENT 
          [00:20:05]
SITUATION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU WANT TO YOU WANT TO SAVE IT FOR NEXT TIME. THANK YOU. THERE IS ONE FINAL QUESTION. THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO VOTE IN AN ALTERNATIVE ON THE SPOT. I ASSUME NOT. NO, IT'S A COUNCIL APPROVED. THAT'S A COUNCIL APPROVAL THING. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO PUBLIC HEARINGS. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO TABLE OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. MR. CHAIR, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE ALL THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS UNDER SECTION FIVE OF THE AGENDA TONIGHT TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. I SECOND THAT, ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? NAY HEARING NONE. PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE TABLED UNTIL OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING. UNANIMOUS. TIDWELL, IF I COULD ASK OR NOT ASK SO MUCH, THE THE REASON THAT WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF THESE POOL VARIANCES IS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT OUR CODE IS STRUCTURED. THERE'S A SECTION 530 AND 540 THAT SPECIFICALLY SAY THE THINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED TO BE IN SETBACKS. THERE'S A LIST OF EXCEPTIONS. POOLS ARE NOT IN THAT LIST OF EXCEPTIONS. AND SO WE HAVE TO ASSUME BASED OFF OF THAT, THAT THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN SETBACKS. IT'S NOT TYPICAL COMMON PRACTICE FOR CITIES TO HAVE SUCH LARGE SETBACKS AND NOT ALLOW POOLS INTO THEM. THEY TYPICALLY FALL UNDER SOMETHING DIFFERENT. I'VE SEEN FIVE FEET OFF PROPERTY LINE. I'VE SEEN TEN FEET OFF PROPERTY LINE. AND SO IT'S AT THE CITY'S DISCRETION ON THAT. IT'S NOT A STATE LAW OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND SO MY QUESTION TO YOU AS A BOARD MOVING FORWARD, WE'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF THESE. WE HAVE A LOT OF SHALLOW LOTS. THEY MAY BE LARGE, BUT THEY'RE VERY SHALLOW. AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, HAVING A 25 FOOT SETBACK, RIGHT. IT'S PRETTY ROUGH, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOUR HOUSE IS PUT SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE BECAUSE OF TREES OR WHATEVER ELSE. AND SO IF THERE IS CONSIDERATION AND SOME KIND OF CONSENSUS, NOT AN ACTION, BECAUSE WE CAN'T TAKE ACTION ON IT, BUT SOME RELIEF THAT WE COULD ADOPT AS CODE FOR POOL SPECIFICALLY AS STAFF, WE CAN TAKE THAT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND HAVE THE DISCUSSION TO GET OUR CODES CORRECTED IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. THE QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THAT ACTUAL RELIEF? WHAT IS THE COMFORT LEVEL IN ALLOWING PEOPLE INTO THE REAR SETBACK SPECIFICALLY? AND I MEAN, EVEN THE SIDES, I GUESS TO AN EXTENT THEY'RE MORE SHALLOW, BUT THAT ONE AS WELL. AND SO IF THERE IS SOME KIND OF CONSENSUS THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH, WE'LL TAKE THAT AND WE'LL WE'LL START THE PROCESS FOR CODE AMENDMENTS. IF THERE'S NOT CONSENSUS OR YOU GUYS WANT MORE TIME, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT AT THE NEXT MEETING. BUT WE'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF THESE POOL VARIANCES UNTIL WE DO SOMETHING. OKAY. SO WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THROUGH OUR LIAISON TO PLANNING AND ZONING. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING TO TAKE THIS UP? TO AN EXTENT, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION, BUT IF THERE'S GENERALLY A CONSENSUS ON, YOU KNOW, HEY, THIS IS A LITTLE INTENSIVE, THIS IS A LITTLE EXTREME, LET'S SCALE IT BACK. 
          WE CAN TAKE THAT TO PLANNING AND ZONING AND RUN WITH IT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. OKAY. BUT WE NEED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TODAY. YOU CAN'T. AND THAT'S WHY IT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. IF THERE'S GENERAL CONSENSUS AND HEAD NODS, WE CAN TAKE THAT. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A FORMAL CONVERSATION ABOUT IT, WE CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN ON OUR NEXT AGENDA. AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION. HISTORICALLY, I'M NOT SURE WHAT WAS DONE WITH POOLS, BECAUSE OUR CODE IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT'S ALLOWED IN A SETBACK AND WHAT'S NOT. AND SO IT'S A CONVERSATION TO HAVE. I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING FOR THE BOARDS TO FIGURE OUT AND BEING THE BOARD THAT'S GOING TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THEM. 
          YOU KNOW, THERE'S A THERE'S A LEVEL OF COMFORT AS A BOARD, RIGHT. AND SO IF THAT'S IF THERE'S CONSENSUS ON THAT LEVEL OF COMFORT, WE CAN TAKE IT TO PLANNING AND ZONING. OKAY. SO YOU WOULD BE IF, IF WE SO CHOOSE, YOU WOULD BE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING FROM US, KIND OF A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION OF WHAT WE THINK SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THEM TO CONSIDER OR JUST TO, FOR THEM TO TAKE IT UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER WAY IT SHAKES OUT, WE CAN TAKE THAT AS STAFF TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. YES. I THOUGHT PROCESS BASED ON HEARING THIS CONVERSATION EVOLVE OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ANY CHANGES THAT COME TO OUR CODES LIKE THIS COME THROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING, BUT THEY ARE NOT EFFECTIVELY DONE THERE. THEY ARE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT LEAVE PLANNING AND ZONING AND THEN GO TO COUNCIL. BASICALLY, THE HARD WORK IS DONE. THEY THEN GO TO COUNCIL. THAT BEING SAID, THAT 
          [00:25:02]
LEAVES US AS A BOARD WHO HAS CODE CHANGES THAT LIE IN FRONT OF OUR CITY. POSSIBLY THAT WE ARE OURSELVES NOT NECESSARILY WEIGHING IN ON POSSIBLY A WORK SESSION, OR POSSIBLY AN AGENDA ITEM ON A PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING, SOMETHING THAT CALLS THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AT LEAST TO BE MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE, TO HEAR IT IN REAL TIME, THE WAY IT PLAYS OUT IN PLANNING AND ZONING, AND BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON THAT AGENDA ITEM IF NECESSARY, MAY BE A HEALTHY WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS BOARD STAYS WELL INFORMED ABOUT THOSE TYPE OF DISCUSSIONS AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING LEVEL, AND CAN PARTICIPATE IN THEM IF NEED BE. AND IT WOULD SAVE US POSSIBLY ADDITIONAL SCHEDULING WOES TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT IN FRONT OF PLANNING AND ZONING. BUT I DON'T WANT TO MISS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO BE PART OF THAT PROCESS NECESSARILY, EITHER. THERE'S BEEN CONFUSION ACROSS THIS BOARD FROM NOT EXACTLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S ACTUALLY ON THE RECORD NECESSARILY IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO IF RECORD CHANGES ARE HAPPENING, ANYTHING I CAN DO TO OTHER THAN JUST ASKING OUR FELLOW MEMBERS AND IMPLORING THEM TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT HAPPENS OVER THERE, IF WE CAN MAKE THAT A MORE FORMAL PROCESS THAT COMPELS THEM TO, THAT MIGHT BE A STEP BETTER. THAT MAKES SENSE. SO THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF WHERE MY THINKING IS ON THAT. I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO TO HELP ENSURE THAT THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE WOULD GO, BUT THAT MIGHT BE AN EASIER THING TO GET OUR CONSENSUS ON. LIKE HEAD NODS. WELL, I WOULD SO MY POSITION WOULD BE THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING ON THE AUGUST AGENDA TO PUSH FORWARD, AND INCLUDED IN THAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS OF. BECAUSE I'M PRETTY SURE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GET LEGAL TO WEIGH IN BECAUSE WE CAN'T JUST I KNOW WE CAN'T JUST SHOW UP AT A PNC MEETING AND COMMENT ON SOMETHING. SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE WE'D EITHER HAVE TO BE SCHEDULED OR, YOU KNOW, A JOINT SESSION. SO IT, IT DEPENDS ON, ON WHICH WAY. SO WHAT CAN HAPPEN IS THAT AS A BOARD, YOU APPOINT TWO, THREE MEMBERS TO SHOW UP AT A MEETING AND HAVE A CONVERSATION. YOU'RE NOT HAVING A QUORUM AT THAT POINT. AND SO YOU'RE NOT TRIGGERING TOMA. AND YOU CAN SHOW UP AND SPEAK JUST AS MEMBERS. OUR P AND Z DOES THAT AT COUNCIL. VERY OFTEN. IF YOU START GETTING MORE THAN THAT, IT'S A QUORUM. WE CAN'T WE HAVE TO POST, WHICH IS FINE. WE CAN POST AS WELL. AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS TWO MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE SAME ITEM. JUST SAYING THAT Y'ALL ARE GOING TO BE A QUORUM AT THE SAME TIME. AND THAT'S POSSIBLE AS WELL. SO IT'S HOW SHOWING UP AS A FULL BOARD TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION, SHOWING UP AS A FEW MEMBERS THAT HAVE GENERAL CONSENSUS FROM THE BOARD TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AS A BOARD, IT'S AT YOUR DISCRETION. BUT EITHER WAY, WE CAN ACCOMMODATE THE DIRECTION YOU WANT TO GO. YEAH, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT COMING ACROSS AS TRYING TO INFLUENCE, YOU KNOW, A PNC MEETING. SO I THINK THAT'S JUST JOINT SESSION MAY BE A WAY TO ENSURE WE DON'T. OR WE CAN JUST SEND IT OR SECURE THAT WE DO. BUT YEAH, OR WE CAN JUST SEND SOMETHING TO THE LIAISON FOR THEM TO CONSIDER OR MAYBE EVEN, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE PNC LIAISON, YOU KNOW, IF WE DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO SHOW UP, SHOW UP. WELL, IN TWO, IT'S WORTH HAVING YOUR INPUT. YOU'RE THE ONES DEALING WITH THE DECISIONS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S YOUR INPUT IS VALID. IT'S THINGS THAT YOU CONSIDER WHEN YOU'RE HEARING THESE CASES AND VARIANCES, AS YOU'VE SEEN HARDSHIPS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. THEY ARE VERY STRONG CASES THAT YOU HAVE TO BUILD AGAINST GETTING OR FOR GETTING APPROVAL. AND SO YOUR INPUT MATTERS. ALL RIGHT. SHOULD WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION IF DO WE TO READ DOWN THE THE DAIS HERE. SHOULD WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'RE LEANING TOWARDS A JOINT SESSION AT THIS POINT? I DON'T THINK IT'S A RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE IT'S NOT AGENDIZED. BUT I THINK IF WE HAVE CONSENSUS TO HOST A WORK SESSION, JUST GENERAL HEAD NODDING STAFF CAN HANDLE THE REST AS ONE PERSON WOULD BE OPEN TO. IT SOUNDS LIKE IF IT HAPPENED, I'D BE THERE. IS THIS NOT NEED TO BE ON THE AUGUST AGENDA? WE CAN PUT IT ON THE AUGUST AGENDA. THE JULY AGENDA FOR P AND Z IS ALREADY SLOTTED, AND SO IT WOULD BE ON THE AUGUST JULY. WELL, THE I MEAN, FOR US, NOT FOR PNC, BUT FOR US. IF OUR AUGUST MEETING HAPPENS PRIOR TO IT DOES, WE CAN HAVE A JOINT SESSION ANYWAY. WE MIGHT AS WELL HAVE IT THERE. AND THEN IT'S AGENDIZED. AND SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE WE PUT IT ON OUR AUGUST AGENDA, AND THEN WE PUT IT ON THE P AND Z AGENDA AS A JOINT WORKSHOP TO TALK ABOUT THIS AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, WHICH WE'LL GET TO WHEN WE GET THERE IN ORDER TO, TO TRY TO FIGURE THIS OUT IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. OKAY. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. ME TOO. 
          YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE HAVE A CONSENSUS. YES. FOR ME, THE MOST WELL KNOWN VOTE 
          [00:30:12]
VOTE NON-VOTING. I'VE TRIED TO STAY AWAY FROM THIS ROOM FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. SO WELCOME BACK. SO I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST TRYING TO REFLECT ON, YOU KNOW, HOW THINGS GET SENT TO BOARDS. WHO CAN DO IT, HOW CAN IT BE DONE? BECAUSE I KNOW THERE WAS FOR A WHILE, THERE WAS SOME CONTENTION ON, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR LIAISON BRINGING STUFF TO PNC BECAUSE IT'S AN UNDUE INFLUENCE. YOU COULDN'T HAVE STAFF LIAISON BRING STUFF TO PNC. AND SO ANYTHING THAT HAD TO BE BROUGHT TO PNC HAD TO GO TO COUNCIL, AND THEN COUNCIL HAD TO GIVE APPROVAL FOR IT TO GO TO PNC. AND YEAH, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE FOLLOWING THE RIGHT PROCESS TO GET IT TO PNC. BUT IF I ASK A QUESTION OR A COMMENT, SO BEING NEW, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. I'M STRUGGLING AND I'M TRYING TO CATCH UP, BUT JUST COMMON SENSE. IF I'M IF I'M READING IT RIGHT, THEY'RE WANTING TO BUILD A POOL, BUT IT'S INSIDE THEIR FENCE. IT HAS TO BE FENCED, RIGHT? WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT THE CASE. YEAH. OKAY. NO, NO WE CAN'T. YEAH. NO PROBLEM. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I CAN AND CAN'T DO, SO NO PROBLEM. YOU'RE FINE. 
          YEAH. AGENDA ITEMS WE CAN'T DISCUSS, BUT JUST GENERAL STUFF. OKAY. POLICIES AND ORDINANCES AND STUFF. YEAH. IT JUST SEEMS FUNNY THAT INSIDE YOUR FENCE, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THINGS INSIDE YOUR FENCE. YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED. YEAH, YEAH. I'D BE HAPPY TO VISIT WITH YOU ABOUT GENERAL CODE THINGS TO ANY DEGREE THAT I KNOW THEM ANYTIME. SO YEAH, I THE BEST THING WE CAN JUST START STUDYING CODE, RIGHT? SO IT IT'S YOUR BEDTIME READING. 
          THAT'S WHERE I STARTED. IT WORKS WELL FOR THAT. WELL, THAT'LL BE YOUR BEST RESOURCE RIGHT THERE. YEAH. THIS ONE'S BETTER THAN I AM. SO THE TWO BEST. THAT'S ALL WE NEED. OKAY, 
          [VI.1. Consider, discuss, and take ac on regarding the City’s Height Excep on Framework and Related Board of Adjustment Procedures.]
WELL, WE WILL MOVE ON TO NUMBER SIX ACTION ITEMS. CONSIDER, DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION REGARDING THE CITY'S HEIGHT EXCEPTION FRAMEWORK AND RELATED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURES. 
          ALL RIGHT. WHAT PAGE IS THAT ON. IT STARTS ON 4949 40. OKAY. OH 40 I GOT 47. IS THE COVER PAGE. 
          FAIR ENOUGH. AND SO, MR. TIDWELL, IF I MAY, WALL, THERE'S SOME CATCH UP HERE. OUR CITY ATTORNEY GAVE A TRAINING BACK IN MAY REGARDING THE RULES AND PROCEDURES OF EVERY BOARD. 
          WITH THAT BEING SAID, SOMETHING THAT CONTINUES TO BE AN ISSUE, AT LEAST SINCE MY TENURE HERE, IS SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT WE HAVE THEM, IT'S THE WAY WE HAVE THEM STRUCTURED. 
          AND SO IN THE PACKET IS A PRESENTATION THAT OUR ATTORNEY HAD DONE FOR THE CITY OF LOCKHART AND THE WAY THAT THEY DO THEIRS, AS WELL AS SOME INFORMATION FROM TML. AGAIN, VERY MUCH LIKE THE VARIANCE THING THAT WE JUST SPOKE ABOUT. WE GOT TO FIGURE THIS OUT. AND SO I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO LOOK THROUGH THIS MATERIAL, GIVE TIME FOR QUESTIONS, AND THEN LET'S TALK ABOUT IT IN AUGUST AS WELL. I DON'T WANT TO RUSH ANYBODY INTO MAKING THANK YOU. ANY DECISIONS THAT THEY MAY NOT BE COMFORTABLE WITH TODAY, BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO HAVE TO SIT HERE AND READ THROUGH THIS REAL QUICK. RIGHT. SO ESSENTIALLY A SPECIAL EXCEPTION ALLOWS IT'S A VARIANCE BUT NOT A VARIANCE. AND SO IT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO GO HIGHER IN BUILDING THAN THEY ARE ALLOWED TO IN THE CODE IF THEY MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA. THE PROBLEM WITH OUR SPECIFICALLY ONE WHERE IT'S LOCATED BECAUSE IT'S NOT A VARIANCE, BUT IT'S LOCATED IN OUR VARIANCE SECTION. AND SO IT GETS VERY CONFUSING ON THAT, THAT END. AND THEN THE WAY WE HAVE IT STRUCTURED IS AMBIGUOUS. AND SO OUR ATTORNEY ESSENTIALLY GAVE US A COUPLE OF OPTIONS. CLEAN IT UP, GET IT, GET THE PROCEDURES DOWN, GET IT TO WHERE YOU KNOW, IT MAKES SENSE. IT'S NOT AS WISHY WASHY. IT'S NOT AS, YOU KNOW, AT THE JUST GENERALLY CLEAN IT UP, GET RID OF IT AND LOOK AT OUR HEIGHTS OR FIND SOME KIND OF HAPPY MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN THE BOTH. BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY AS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, YOUR QUASI JUDICIAL BOARD. AND SO THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE BASED ON THE CRITERIA THAT YOU'RE GIVEN SHOULDN'T BE. IT SHOULD BE CONSISTENT ACROSS THE BOARD, ACROSS EVERY CASE. AND HIDE EXCEPTIONS WERE HISTORICALLY 
          [00:35:06]
LOSING THAT CONSISTENCY. SO WE'RE GETTING APPROVED. SOME WE'RE GETTING DENIED AND IT'S KIND OF GONE OFF THE RAILS. SINCE THEN. I THINK WE HAVE ABOUT 12 APPLICATIONS THAT ARE ON HOLD UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THIS. SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE POOL SITUATION, BUT THEY'RE DOING AN END. THEY ACTUALLY HAVE ANOTHER WAY TO GO GET THESE APPROVED, AND THEY'RE GOING THROUGH AND THEY'RE GOING THROUGH AN EXCEPTION, AN EXCEPTION VERSUS A VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT. AND SO, BUT IT'S STILL YOUR, IT CREATES A CONSISTENT. AND SO SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. I AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO INUNDATE YOU GUYS WITH INFORMATION. STAFF IS HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS THEY COME UP. AND WE CAN PUT THIS ON OUR NEXT AGENDA TO DISCUSS IN DETAIL AND BRING TO THE PNC WORKSHOP AS WELL. IT'S. IT'S A LOT OF LEGAL JARGON. AND SO I DON'T EXPECT ANYBODY HERE TO BE READY TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, ANY KIND OF. AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHEN WE SAY CLEAN IT UP, THIS WOULD GO BACK TO CITY COUNCIL FOR AT SOME POINT, AND THEY WOULD SAY, THIS IS WHAT THE HEIGHT REGULATION IS GOING TO BE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO RUN ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT THROUGH VARIANT, THROUGH THROUGH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, MAYBE. SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO IT. AND YOU'LL SEE IN THE PRESENTATION FROM OUR ATTORNEY, THE CITY OF LOCKHART HAS THE EXACT SAME PROCESS, BUT THEIRS IS VERY SPECIFIC WITH CRITERIA AND REQUIREMENTS. AND SO YOU CAN'T EVEN BE HEARD UNTIL YOU HAVE ALL OF THAT. WE DON'T HAVE THOSE SAME CAVEATS. SO WE CAN BEEF UP THE ORDINANCE, ADD MORE STUFF IN IT TO MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, EITHER IT'S A YES OR A NO. AND IF IT'S A YES, IT'S A YES, IT'S A YES. IF IT'S A NO, IT'S A STRAIGHT NO. WE CAN GET RID OF IT ALL TOGETHER, WHICH IS AN OPTION. AND PEOPLE JUST HAVE TO GO THROUGH A STANDARD VARIANCE, WHICH HAS A HIGHER STANDARD OF APPROVAL RATING, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PROVE HARDSHIP, WHICH IS REALLY HARD TO DO. OR WE CAN DO A COMBINATION OF BOTH. SO WE CAN TIGHTEN UP THE ORDINANCE AND SAY, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A YES, IT'S A YES. IF IT'S A NO, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH A VARIANCE OR WE CAN RAISE THE HEIGHT A LITTLE BIT. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S TEN DIFFERENT WAYS TO FIGURE THIS OUT. IT JUST DEPENDS ON HOW WE WANT TO DO IT. MR. CHAIRMAN. YES, IT'S BEEN A SOURCE OF MUCH CONFUSION AND CONSTERNATION ACROSS THIS BOARD THAT REALLY REACHED FEVER PITCH OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS. 
          IT SEEMS THAT THE DECISION MAKING ABILITY WAS INTACT PRIOR TO THEN, AND IT WOULD ONLY WORSEN WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T BEEN PARTICIPATING HEAVILY IN THIS BOARD'S ACTIVITIES. I DEFINITELY AGREE IT'S A CONVERSATION AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING LEVEL THAT WE WOULD WANT TO BE A PART OF. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE PLANNING AND ZONING WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE CHANGE SOMETHING. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IT'S GOING TO COME BACK TO US AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A NEW SET OF INFORMATION. BUT IF WE DON'T UNDERSTAND SORT OF HOW THE SAUSAGE IS MADE, THAT COULD LEAD TO FURTHER CONFUSION. SO SO I THINK THIS SORT OF FALLS INTO THE SAME LINE OF THINKING IN MY MIND THAT THE PREVIOUS AGENDA ITEM DOES, WHERE WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WORKSHOP THIS. THERE WERE THERE WAS GOOD INFORMATION THAT CAME FORWARD IN A JOINT TRAINING SESSION THAT WAS HOSTED BACK IN MAY, MAY 27TH. THERE IS A TRANSCRIPT AND A VIDEO. IF YOU. IT'S WORTH IT TO LOOK INTO. IT'S A. I WOULD SAY IT'S A IT'S A GOOD PRESENTATION. 
          IT'S WORTH LOOKING INTO. I ALSO, AS SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN ON THIS BOARD FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, CAME AWAY FROM IT WITH FRESH QUESTIONS RATHER THAN ADDITIONAL ANSWERS ABOUT CERTAIN PARTS OF THE HEIGHT EXCEPTION SPECIFICALLY THAT DESERVED A BETTER CONVERSATION WITH THE PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD, AND FOR SURE DESERVES A QUESTION AT PLANNING AND ZONING AND COUNCIL. SO IT'S ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT NEEDS A LITTLE GROUP. THINK AS MUCH AS I'D LOVE TO BE MORE EFFICIENT THAN THAT, BUT IT DOES. BEYOND THAT, OTHER QUESTIONS CAME UP. I'M NOT SURE HOW OR WHERE IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO BRING UP. ONE OTHER QUESTION THAT CAME FROM THAT PRESENTATION, BUT IT WOULD RELATE TO HOW THIS BOARD INFORMS THEMSELVES PRIOR TO HAVING ONE OF THESE MEETINGS, THAT THAT WOULD BE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE NEED, WANT REQUIREMENT OR PROHIBITION FROM ACTUALLY SEEING PROPERTIES IN PERSON THAT DID NOT COME OUT OF THAT JOINT TRAINING SESSION, CLEARLY. AND I THINK THAT'S ESSENTIAL. SO AND I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS YOU CAN'T. RIGHT. AND THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I GATHERED FROM THAT TRAINING, WHICH IS 180 DEGREES FROM WHAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN DOING FOR THE PREVIOUS, HOWEVER LONG SINCE WAY BEFORE MY TIME, IF PEOPLE HADN'T SEEN THE PROPERTIES, THEY DIDN'T FEEL INFORMED ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO WEIGH IN BY JUST READING A PACKET LOOKING TWO DIMENSIONAL HEIGHT VARIANCES, IT BECOMES EXCEPTIONALLY IMPORTANT ON THE HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS AND THE NUANCE BETWEEN EXCEPTION AND VARIANCE IS VERY IMPORTANT. 
          IT'S MY THINKING MAYBE ALONE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THOSE ARE VERY DIFFERENT FOR A REASON, BUT I ALSO AGREE WITH THE COMPLICATIONS AND MESSINESS OF MAYBE HOW THEY'RE ON THE BOOKS 
          [00:40:02]
NOW. SO IT DESERVES DISCUSSION AND THOUGHT FOR SURE THAT'LL MAKE EVERYTHING GOING FORWARD MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD, NOT ONLY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE ON, BUT PEOPLE WHO ARE SITTING IN THESE SEATS IN THE FUTURE, AND ESPECIALLY FOR OUR STAFF RIGHT NOW, WHO HAS A MOUNTAIN OF APPLICATIONS THAT ALL NEED TO BE ABLE TO COME THROUGH BOARDS BEFORE BEING DECIDED ON. SO IF WE CAN DO ANYTHING TO STREAMLINE THAT PROCESS FOR OUR NEIGHBORS, THAT'S HUGE TO US BECAUSE THE LONGER THEY HAVE TO WAIT FOR THINGS LIKE PROCEDURE THAT SLOW THEM DOWN, THE MORE WE SEE THINGS LIKE WE SAW TONIGHT. AND I HATE THAT FOR OUR NEIGHBORS. I'D HATE IT FOR MYSELF IF I WERE IN THEIR SHOES. SO YEAH, THEY PROBABLY WANTED TO HAVE A POOL IN THE GROUND BEFORE THE SUMMER HIT. YEAH. I THINK YEAH. SO IN AN ORDINANCE REVIEW AROUND WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE ON THE BOOKS VERSUS WHAT WE SHOULD TO MAKE SURE THERE'S A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING, I GUESS THE, THE CLEAR MESSAGE THERE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ACTION TO NECESSARILY TAKE ON THAT OTHER THAN ACTION ON THIS ENTIRE AGENDA ITEM, BUT THAT CAPTURES THE PREVIOUS AGENDA ITEM, THIS ONE, AND QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP FROM THAT TRAINING. SO TO CLARIFY SOME OF THIS DISCUSSION THAT WE WANT TO HAVE THE ROLES LIKE THE, OUR ABILITY TO VIEW THE PROPERTY OR SOMETHING, IS THAT PART OF THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE OR IS THAT THAT'S THAT FALLS THAT'S UNDER STATE LAW. SO ESSENTIALLY STATE LAW, AND I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR AS OUR ATTORNEY IS, BUT ESSENTIALLY STATE LAW SAYS YOU CAN'T VISIT A PROPERTY THAT'S A SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION. AND I BELIEVE OUR ORDINANCE SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE TO. WELL, SO MY. WE ALWAYS DEFAULT TO STATE LAW. 
          THAT IS BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE CANNOT VIOLATE STATE LAW. AND OUR CITY CODE NEEDS REVISIONS. WE'RE TRACKING THAT. WE NEED TO CLEAN SOME OF THAT STUFF UP. IT'S IN THE WORKS, BUT WE CANNOT VIOLATE STATE LAW WILL BE KIND OF THE QUASI JUDICIAL PART OF IT IF IT'S NOT PRESENTED IN THE EVIDENCE FOR EVERYONE TO VIEW, THEN YOU CAN'T USE THAT IN CONSIDERATION. RIGHT? YEAH. OKAY. AND IT'S NOT JUST THIS BOARD. IT'S EVERY BOARD. SAME THING WITH OUR BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION. THEY HAVE CAVEATS WHERE THEY CAN'T GO VISIT PROPERTIES EITHER. AND SO IT'S ACROSS THE BOARD. WE SHOULD GET OUT OF THAT PRACTICE. 
          YOU GET TO SEE A SURVEY WITH MAYBE THE POOL DRAWN ON IT OR SOMETHING. SO IN THE PACKET IN FRONT OF YOU, IT'S INCLUDED IN THE PACKET. IT WILL ALWAYS BE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. THEY PUT A RIDGE PULL UP. WE GO OUT AND TAKE PICTURES. AND SO YOU'LL SEE ALL OF THAT INFORMATION IN YOUR PACKET. IF THERE'S INFORMATION THAT YOU WANT TO SEE THAT YOU'RE NOT SEEING, LET US KNOW AS STAFF AND WE'LL TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT ALWAYS ENDS UP IN A PACKET. WE'RE TRYING TO STANDARDIZE THESE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, BUT EVERY APPOINTED BOARD IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT. AND THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO SEE DIFFERENT THINGS. AND SO WHO'S DUE DILIGENCE IS THAT IS THAT OUR DUE DILIGENCE OR IS THAT THE PERSON THAT'S ACTUALLY SUBMITTING FOR THE FOR THE VARIANCE? IS IT UP TO THEM TO, TO PROVIDE ALL THAT, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT OUR STAFF PROVIDES? SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT OUR CODE REQUIRES IN STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT CAN INCLUDE THE SURVEY. 
          YOU KNOW, THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF STUFF THAT GOES INTO THAT. STAFF IS REQUIRED TO AFFIRM THAT WHAT THEY'VE PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE, THAT IT REFLECTS CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND, THAT IT MATCHES WHAT OUR CODE SAYS. AND THEN WE'RE REQUIRED TO BASICALLY PUT IT IN A NICE, PRETTY PACKAGE AND SEND IT TO YOU SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE AS STAFF, THAT WHAT THEY'VE PROVIDED IS CORRECT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. AND YOU'LL SEE IN YOUR PACKET THERE'S A SECTION THAT SAYS CRITERIA. AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH AND TAGGED, YES, THIS MEETS IT. NO IT DOESN'T. YES. WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, YOU'LL SEE THOSE IN ALL OF YOUR PACKETS. REGARDLESS OF THE TOPIC. THE SECTIONS WILL CHANGE, BUT THOSE WILL BE DIFFERENT. AND THEN YOUR JOB IS TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT PACKET AND SAY EITHER YES, THEY MEET THE CRITERIA OR NO THEY DON'T. SO WE CAN RELY ON THE FACT THAT IF SOMETHING IS BURDEN OF PROOF FALLS ON THE APPLICANT, THAT IT HAS BEEN VERIFIED WHEN THEY COME TO SPEAK TO US AND SAY, OH YEAH, WHAT IS REQUIRED IN THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN VETTED BY STAFF, WHETHER THERE ARE STUFF OUTSIDE OF THAT THAT THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED TO STAFF. THAT'S THAT'S RIGHT. I'M JUST SAYING I'M I'M JUST THINKING THAT THE THINGS THAT THIS SAYS THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF. SO THAT'S FROM THE CITY OF LOCKHART. AND SO NO, I'M TALKING JUST LIKE THE SWIMMING POOL. OH YEAH. 
          YEAH. AND SO IF THEY DON'T PROVIDE THAT, IF SOMEBODY COMING TO US AND THEY HAVE A BURDEN OF THAT, THEY HAVE TO PROVE THEIR HARDSHIP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I MEAN, IS THAT IS THAT VETTED? I MEAN, IF I WALK UP HERE AND SAY, HEY, I HAVE A HARDSHIP. SO IT'S THE STATE IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT IS DEFINED AS A HARDSHIP. IT'S ALSO IN YOUR PACKET. AND SO THERE'S CAVEATS TO THAT. AND SO IT'S SITE CONSTRAINTS. THAT'S A HARDSHIP WHETHER YOU DETERMINE AS A BOARD THAT IT'S ENOUGH OF A HARDSHIP TO GET A VARIANCE. THAT'S THAT'S YOUR DISCRETION AS A BOARD. FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO AN EXTENT, IT CAN'T BE CAUSED BY THEIR OWN WRONGDOING. 
          [00:45:05]
IT CAN'T BE FINANCIALLY BACKED. YOU KNOW, IT CAN'T BE. I JUST DON'T WANT TO PAY TO CHANGE MY PLAN SET. THAT'S RIDICULOUS. NO, WE CAN'T DO THAT. IT CAN BE THINGS. ARBITRARY THINGS. IF IT'S A NON-CONFORMING LOT AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOMETHING WEIRD GOING ON THERE. THERE'S CONSIDERATIONS FOR THAT. BUT IT CAN'T JUST BE, HEY, I THINK THIS LOOKS COOL. YOU KNOW, YOU SHOULD APPROVE IT. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY COMES UP AND SAYS IT'S A NON-CONFORMING LOT, BUT YET WE HAVE NOT SET EYES ON IT BECAUSE WE CAN'T. HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? I MEAN, SOMEBODY'S GOT TO BE SAYING YES. THEY HAVE SHOWN THAT IT IS A NON-CONFORMING LOT. SO THEY'LL PROVIDE STAFF WITH A SURVEY, AND THEN WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE TO VERIFY THAT IT'S NON-CONFORMING. AND SO WE'LL BRING IT FORWARD. AND IN THE CAVEATS IT'LL SAY, YES, THIS IS NON-CONFORMING. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO CONFIRM. THAT STAFF IS OKAY. YES. AND THEN APPLICATIONS THAT AREN'T COMPLETE AND DON'T MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF, WE KICK BACK. WE DON'T EVEN BRING THEM TO YOU GUYS. AND SO WHAT YOU SEE IS VETTED TO THE ABILITY OF STAFF. I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE'S FINANCIAL RECORDS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. BUT WE WE LOOK THROUGH WHAT'S SUBMITTED, MAKING SURE PEOPLE KNOW WHEN IT'S TIME TO SHARPEN THEIR PENCIL, OR AT LEAST MAKE SURE THEY HAVE ONE AND USED IT ON THE APPLICATION. IT'S PROBABLY ESSENTIAL. AND WE APPRECIATE STAFF DOING AS MUCH OF THAT AS POSSIBLE FOR EVERYBODY. WELL, I MEAN, YOU CAN ASK TIM, I'VE KICKED STUFF BACK BECAUSE IT THEY'RE JUST NOT COMPLETE PACKETS. YEAH. CATCH IT. CATCH IT THERE HELPS EVERYONE. THAT'S AWESOME. THANK YOU ALL. IF WE ARE THIS IS SO THIS WORDING IS DIFFERENT FOR ME. YOU USED TO SAY CONSIDER, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION. NOW IT SAYS TAKE ACTION. SO CALL OUT. YEP. 
          SO IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO CONSIDER THIS I STILL WE STILL I, WE NEED TO TAKE SOME KIND OF ACTION THOUGH TO EITHER TABLE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING OR SOMETHING. BUT IF WE WANT TO MODIFY, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE, WHAT, THE THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED FOR P AND Z AND, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERATIONS AND STUFF, DOES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE MOTION OR DOES. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND MAKING A MOTION TO PUT ITEMS DISCUSSED TONIGHT. IT CAN BE AS VAGUE AS THAT ON OUR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED AGENDA FOR A WORKSHOP. AND THEN AT THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED WORKSHOP, WE CAN FORWARD TO COUNCIL OR TO PLANNING AND ZONING. OKAY, CAN THAT BE DONE IN THE SAME MOTION AS TABLING THIS ACTION ITEM, OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE TWO SEPARATE? THE RECOMMENDATION TO HOST A WORKSHOP IS AN ACTION, OKAY? AND SO IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE TABLED. THE RECOMMENDATION CAN BE THAT WE HAVE A JOINT WORK, THAT WE HAVE A WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS. THIS AT OUR AUGUST MEETING FOR FORMAL DISCUSSION WORKSHOP WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYBODY THAT FOLLOWS THAT WELL ENOUGH TO MAKE A MOTION? I CAN GIVE IT A TRY. YOU WANT TO GIVE IT A TRY? I WAS HOPING YOU'D SAY, YEAH. HEY, MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON ACTION ITEM NUMBER SIX THAT WE. ARE WE TABLING THIS ITEM OR REALLY NOT? WE'RE CARRYING THIS FORWARD THAT WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT BACK FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AT OUR AUGUST MEETING, AS WELL AS MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR A WORKSHOP WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND PLANNING AND ZONING FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AND CODE ASSESSMENT. I'LL SECOND THAT. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE THE MOTION. AND A SECOND. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT MOTION? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I, I ALL THOSE OPPOSED? NAY. OKAY. 
          HEARING NONE. THE MOTION WILL BE BROUGHT BACK IN AUGUST WITH THE WORK AS A WORKSHOP AGENDA ITEM PASSES UNANIMOUS. AND THAT IS IT. RIGHT? ANYBODY ELSE? ANYTHING? ALL RIGHT. I WILL CA
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.