[ I. CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]
[00:00:10]
EVERYBODY, FOR COMING OUT. I WILL CALL THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER AUGUST 3RD, 2026. AT 6:32 P.M. AND, WE'LL START WITH A ROLL CALL. CALL TO, TO ORDER. I AM JAMES PECK. WE'LL START ALL THE WAY DOWN HERE AT THE VERY FAR SIDE OF MY LEFT, RIGHT HERE.
IF WE CAN JUST HAVE YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND COME DOWN AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF. ROBIN BURKHART, TODD MASSEY, ED TIDWELL. TOM, I AM. JEFF SMITH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU GUYS FOR
[V.1. Election of officers (Chair and Vice-Chair) for the coming year.]
THAT. SO WE, WE DO NOT HAVE OFFICERS ELECTED AT THIS POINT IN TIME. SO TO BE ABLE TO START OUR MEETING, WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO TAKE A VOTE FOR A CHAIR PRO TEM FOR THIS MEETING. SO, WITH THAT, IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A CHAIR PRO TEM, I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR THAT. NOMINATED. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A NOMINATION FROM TOM MONAGHAN FOR, ED TIDWELL.DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. AND A SECOND FROM TODD MASSEY.
AND, ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY. WE CAN TAKE A VOTE ON THAT. ALL IN FAVOR OF ED TIDWELL TO BE OUR CHAIR PRO TEM FOR THIS MEETING, SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NAY. HEARING NONE. ED, YOU GET TO BE OUR PRO TEM FOR THIS ONE. THANK YOU, SIR. I'LL STAY RIGHT HERE FOR NOW. CAN I? I'M GOOD WITH IT, IF YOU ARE. ALL RIGHT, SO OUR FIRST ONE WOULD BE TO ELECT OFFICERS. HOW MANY OFFICERS? WE JUST HAVE A A CHAIR AND A VICE CHAIR. GIVE ME A SECOND. SO IT ALLOWS FOR OUR CODE. ALLOWS FOR THE PROVISION OF A SECRETARY. STAFF HAS BEEN HANDLING THE MINUTES MORE THAN HAPPY TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO BE SECRETARY, THAT'S FINE AS WELL. IT EITHER WAY WORKS. ALL RIGHT. SO THE FIRST, AGENDA FOR THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS TO ELECT A CHAIR. AND SO I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR TO, NOMINATIONS MOTIONS FOR SOMEONE TO CHAIR THE COMMITTEE ON A PERMANENT BASIS. LET ME JUMP. WELL, ALL RIGHT, THERE IS A MOTION WHERE I HAVE BEEN NOMINATED NOMINEE ED TIDWELL. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I NOMINATED JIM, I NOMINATED JAMES, YOU NOMINATED JAMES? YES. OH, I WANT TO SAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. I STAND CORRECTED.
THE NOMINATION WAS FOR JAMES. I THOUGHT I HEARD I THOUGHT I HEARD HIM SAY YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. I STAND CORRECTED. THE NOMINATION IS FOR JAMES. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.
ALL RIGHT. I HAVE THE MOTION IN THE SECOND FOR JAMES TO BE OUR CHAIRPERSON. ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? NAY. HEARING NONE, JAMES IS OUR CHAIRPERSON. AND NOW YOU CAN DO THE VICE CHAIR. ALL RIGHT. I AM BACK, SO WE NEED TO ELECT A, A VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU GUYS FOR THAT. SO WE'LL, OPEN FOR NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR. NOMINATE ED. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A NOMINATION FOR VICE CHAIR. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. OKAY. NOT QUITE SURE. WHICH ONE OF Y'ALL DO WE HAVE FIRST HERE? I THINK WE HAD I THINK WE HAD TODD. AND JUST BEFORE THAT. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR ED TIDWELL FOR VICE CHAIR. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NAY. HEARING NONE, WE HAVE ED TIDWELL AS OUR VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU. BEN. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY. MOVING ON. THANK YOU. THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH THAT. WE WILL MOVE INTO, OUR CITIZEN COMMENTS POINT OF THIS. AND I DO NOT HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP FOR GENERAL COMMENTS. I BELIEVE I HAVE SPECIFIC, WELL, GENERAL. YEAH, THIS IS THIS IS MORE GENERAL. THIS IS ABOUT, THIS IS ABOUT MEETING MINUTES FROM A PRIOR MEETING. SO SHOULD
[00:05:02]
WE TAKE THIS NOW OR IN THE, ARE WE APPROVING MINUTES? WE DO HAVE MINUTES ON CONSENT. STAFF IS GOING TO REQUEST THAT ONE IS PULLED SO THAT WE CAN MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THAT. IT WILL TECHNICALLY BE A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM. AND SO. RIGHT. SO WE SHOULD PROBABLY MOVE FORWARD INTO THAT, GRAB THAT THAT'LL COME RIGHT UP NEXT IN OUR AGENDA. SO, WE DON'T HAVE ANY BASIC GENERAL, CITIZEN COMMENTS. WE CAN MOVE BEYOND THAT INTO OUR STAFF AND COUNCIL LIAISON[III.1. Routine Reports from City Council Liaison.]
REPORTS. AND FOR THAT, WE WILL GO TO, NORMA OWN ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? THANK YOU. CHAIR, MR. PECK. REALLY, I JUST WANT TO SAY, SINCE THE LAST MEETING, THE COUNCIL DID MEET AND APPROVE AN ADDITIONAL MEMBER TO THE COMMISSION, AND THAT IS TOM MONAHAN. I APPRECIATE THAT HE PUT IN HIS APPLICATION AFTER WE FELL SHORT A COUPLE OF MEETINGS. IN ADDITION, WE HAD, PATRICIA SABLE AND ROBIN BURKHART ALSO STEP UP. AND AS IT TURNS OUT, WE HAVE USED EVERYBODY AND NEEDED YOU HERE THIS EVENING. SO APPRECIATE YOU ALL STEPPING UP TONIGHT. THIS IS A BIG TASK.THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND OF WHICH YOU'LL LEARN MUCH MORE ABOUT AFTER, THE HEARINGS AND THE CASES THAT YOU'LL BE LISTENING TO TONIGHT. I WILL BE LISTENING INTENTLY MYSELF. BUT I WILL SAY THERE'S NOT ANYTHING ADDITIONAL FROM COUNCIL. OUR MEETING DID, GET, CUT SHORT A LITTLE BIT DUE TO WEATHER ACTIVITIES. SO I WAS NOT ABLE TO GIVE A FULL REPORT REGARDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS LAST TIME OTHER THAN TO GET THE APPOINTMENTS DONE. SO I WILL BE LISTENING FOR THINGS IF Y'ALL HAVE QUESTIONS OR INSIGHT TO RELAY TO COUNCIL COMING UP AND APPRECIATE EVERYBODY BEING HERE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS OWEN. AND ANY ROUTINE
[III.2. Routine Reports from City staff.]
REPORTS FROM CITY STAFF? JORDAN. YES, YES. SO, NOT NECESSARILY REPORTS. WE DO HAVE A BIT OF A SCHEDULING ISSUE THAT I WANTED TO TOUCH BASE WITH THE BOARD. OUR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING, WHICH WE DO HAVE AN ITEM FOR, HAPPENS TO FALL ON THE CITY'S OBSERVED LABOR DAY HOLIDAY. AND SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, BECAUSE IT'S THE MONDAY AFTER A VACATION WEEKEND, WE WANTED TO SEE IF THERE IS A DESIRE TO PUSH THAT MEETING. I HAVE SOME AVAILABLE DATES.BECAUSE WE HAVE AN APPLICATION, IF WE PUSH IT FORWARD, IT'S POSSIBLE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AUGUST 31ST. COUNCIL CHAMBERS IS FREE THAT DAY. WE CAN AS WELL PUSH IT LATER. THERE'S, I HAVE A LIST OF THOSE AS WELL. STAFF'S PREFERENCE IS THE 31ST, JUST SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN APPLICANT WAITING LONGER THAN, THE NECESSARY TO BE HEARD. BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE'LL DEFER TO SCHEDULES. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY AN ACTION, BUT IF WE CAN GET GENERAL CONSENSUS ON THE 31ST, WE'LL GO AHEAD ON OUR END AND SCHEDULE WHAT WE NEED TO SCHEDULE AND BLOCK OFF WHAT WE NEED TO BLOCK OFF. I SEE TWO HEADS. GOT IT. YEAH. THERE ARE THERE ARE A FEW HEADS NODDING UP AND DOWN THIS DIRECTION. SO, DISCUSSING THAT EVERYBODY WHO'S HERE RIGHT NOW, DOES ANYBODY KNOW THAT THEY HAVE ANY HARD, FAST SCHEDULE CONFLICTS THAT WOULD PREVENT MEETING ON THE 31ST OF THIS MONTH RATHER THAN OUR NORMAL FIRST MONDAY OF SEPTEMBER? SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, I THINK WE'RE GOOD THERE. AND OTHER THAN THAT, WE HAVE NOTHING. AWESOME. THANK
[IV. CONSENT AGENDA]
YOU SO MUCH. AND SO WE'LL MOVE FORWARD TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA. ALL MATTERS IN THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE BOARD AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION WITHOUT DISCUSSION. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ACTION WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. SO WHAT WE WOULD HAVE HAD HERE WOULD BE, ONE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR JANUARY 5TH, 2026. TWO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR JANUARY OR FOR JUNE 1ST, 2026, AND THREE, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR JULY 6TH, 2026. I HAVE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS FOR THIS. ONE IS A CITIZEN COMMENT REGARDING THE MINUTES FROM JANUARY 5TH, 2026, AND ALSO A COMMENT FROM STAFF FOR THAT. JORDAN, DO YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE FOR CITIZEN COMMENT FIRST OR STAFF COMMENT FIRST? WELL, I DID NOT KNOW. OKAY. SO BEFORE WE HAVE ONE. SO, YES, SO STAFF IS REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF THE JANUARY 5TH MINUTES FOR DISCUSSION CONSIDERATION, POSSIBLE ACTION. THE OTHER TWO, IF THE WILL OF THE BODY CAN BE VOTED ON. GOT IT. SO I THINK WE CAN WHICH MANAGER FOR JANUARY 5TH. SO. YES MA'AM. SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND BRING YOU FORWARD RIGHT NOW. THAT'S, VICKY BELCHER, IF YOU CAN COME TO THE PODIUM AND LET'S MAKE SURE WE HAVE THAT MIC ON FOR YOU THERE. IS IT ON? THERE'S A. STANDBY.[00:10:08]
JUST A SECOND. YEP. SO DO WE WANT TO DO WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND I MOTION THAT WE PULL THE JANUARY 5TH MINUTES FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. PERFECT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM ED TIDWELL, SECOND FROM TOM MONAHAN TO PULL THE JANUARY 5TH, MINUTES FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA THAT WOULD LEAVE THE, THE OTHER TWO ITEMS TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD IN A CONSENT AGENDA. WE CAN DO THAT AND CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION ON THIS, BEYOND THAT POINT. SO WE CAN OPEN THAT UP FOR, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? AND ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION, SAY I. AYE. ALL OPPOSED NAY, HEARING NONE, THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUS. AND WE CAN TAKE, CITIZEN COMMENT FROM, MISS VICKY BELCHER. THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME TODAY. I DROVE DOWN FROM FORT HOOD, CANCELED MY LAST PATIENT SO I COULD BE HERE. WHEN I READ THE MINUTES THAT WERE GOING TO GO FORWARD, I WAS IMMEDIATELY CONCERNED AND EMAILED JORDAN, WHO HAD TALKED TO A FEW TIMES ABOUT THAT. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU ALL, SINCE I THINK MR. PECK IS THE ONLY ONE HERE WHO WAS THERE. WHEN I READ THE MINUTES, IT INDICATED THAT THE VARIANCE ACTION ITEM NUMBER ONE FOR OUR PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON SINCE LAST SUMMER, WAS VOTED TO DENY, WHICH IS ACTUALLY FALSE. IF YOU PASS THOSE MINUTES, YOU WILL BE FALSIFYING THE MEETING. THIS HAS BEEN A LONG JOURNEY. AND WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED ON THE 5TH OF JANUARY WAS THE BOARD VOTED TO REMOVE THE ITEM FROM THE AGENDA, BECAUSE THERE WAS SO MUCH CONFUSION OVER THIS. JUST TO CARRY BACK, SOMETIME LAST JULY, OUR REPRESENTATIVE FOR OUR BUILDER, TORY SAINT PAY, WHO DOES ALL THE PROCESSING OF THE REQUEST FOR PERMITS AND EVERYTHING, CAME AND SPOKE TO A CITY EMPLOYEE. I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT WAS AT THE TIME. THEY ARE NO LONGER HERE, I DON'T THINK, AND ASK WHETHER OUR REQUESTS FOR A FOUR FOOT THREE INCH, CHANGE ON OUR BUILDING SHOULD BE DONE UNDER A SPECIAL VARIANCE, A SPECIAL RESTRICTION OR VARIANCE. SHE WAS TOLD VERY SPECIFICALLY, YOU MUST DO THIS UNDER A VARIANCE.WE FILED THE VARIANCE IN, I BELIEVE AUGUST AND IT WENT BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER MEETING.
THE VARIANCE INCLUDED THE REASONS FOR THE VARIANCE, WHICH WERE NOT PERSONAL, NOT WERE NOT TO SAVE COST. THEY WERE BASED ON HARDSHIP AND CONCERNS FOR SAFETY, FOR PERMEANCE OF THE LAND, FOR ABILITY TO KEEP THE DEER FROM GOING THROUGH. SO WE DON'T BLOCK IT UP TO PEOPLE, AND ALSO TO PRESERVE THE VIEWS OF THE ONLY PERSON WHO IS GOING TO BE IMPACTED, WHO WAS MY DAUGHTER, WHO AGREED TO THE HOUSE, WHICH WE DESIGNED SO IT WOULD HAVE LESS IMPACT AND ALSO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PRIVACY OF NEIGHBORS. AT THE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 5TH, THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONABLE THINGS THAT HAPPENED. WE HAD A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESENT WHO SAID VERY CLEARLY THAT THE LAWYER TOLD HIM IT WAS UNETHICAL FOR HIM TO COMMENT, AND THEN HE WENT ON TO MAKE COMMENTS, WHICH I FEEL WOULD SWAY THE BOARD. AFTER AN HOUR PLUS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WENT ON THERE. THEN HIS WIFE WAS ALLOWED TO PROVIDE A STATEMENT AS WELL AS WHAT HE ALREADY SAID, EVEN THOUGH SHE HAD NOT FILED TO MAKE A STATEMENT AHEAD OF TIME. SO THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS WITH THAT. HE MADE STATEMENTS SUCH AS, THIS WOULD BE THE ONLY TWO STORY HOUSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE. OUR DAUGHTER'S HOUSE IS TWO STORIES. A HOUSE NEXT TO HER IS TWO STORY. OURS IS ACTUALLY NOT TWO STORY. IT'S ONE STORY WITH A LOFT OVER THE OVER THE DRIVEWAY. AT THAT TIME, THERE WERE TWO VOTES. AND INSTEAD OF CONTINUING TO VOTE, THE BOARD VOTED TO TABLE THE MINUTES.
THOSE MINUTES WERE NEVER PRODUCED OR TABLE THE ITEM. THOSE MINUTES WERE NEVER PRODUCED, AND AT THE JANUARY 5TH MEETING, THEY COULD NOT PRODUCE THEM. ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WHO IS NOT HERE CLAIMED THAT NO, WE VOTED AGAINST IT. IT'S DENIED. IT SHOULD JUST BE DENIED. BUT IT WAS VERY CLEAR. AND IF YOU GO BACK AND LISTEN TO THE TAPES, THAT MOTION WAS TABLED. I THINK MR. PECK CAN AGREE WITH THAT. ALONG THIS JOURNEY WE'VE HAD OTHER ISSUES.
WE HAD A GENTLEMAN SENT ON LAGO VISTA CITY STATIONERY OR SOMETHING THAT LOOKED LIKE THAT WHO APPARENTLY HAD BEEN HIRED LAST SPRING, A YEAR AGO, SPRING 2025, AND WORKED IN A CAPACITY FOR THE CITY. SEND US AN EMAIL SAYING YOU NEED TO FILE THIS AS A RESTRICTION. YOU NEED TO SEND, I THINK IT WAS 500 $0. WIRE IT TO US, DON'T EMAIL TO US. WE MADE COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY MANAGER. WE GOT COMMUNICATION AGAIN FROM HIM. HE SAID, NO, I DEAL WITH THIS.
I'M WORKING FOR THE CITY. YOU WILL SEND US THIS MONEY. AND I DID REPORT THAT TO THE CITY MANAGER, HOPING THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME ACTION BY THE CITY TO FIND OUT WHAT FELONY
[00:15:04]
WAS. IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS COMMITTED BY THIS MAN. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HELPED, BUT AT ANY RATE, WE'RE DEALING WITH MONTH AFTER MONTH AFTER MONTH, OVER FOUR FEET, THREE INCHES OF SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BLOCKING ANYONE'S VIEW. AND SECOND STORY WINDOWS THAT ARE NOT LOOKING INTO OUR NEIGHBOR'S POOL. AND NOW I'M HERE. I'M GOING TO STOP YOU. I'M GOING TO STOP YOU RIGHT THERE BECAUSE YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP. OKAY, SO I HAVE A QUESTION. YES. TWO QUESTIONS ACTUALLY. SO THE CORRECTION ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE VOTE WAS THAT THE ONLY CORRECTION THAT YOU HAD CORRECTION ON THE MINUTES IS THE STATUS. IT WAS NOT DENIED. RIGHT. BUT THEN I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD MOVE FORWARD AND GET THIS DARN THING SETTLED SO WE CAN BE. THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF YOUR APPLICATION? I HAVE NO IDEA. IT'S NOT ON THE.IT'S NOT BEEN ON ANY AGENDA SINCE JANUARY. WE'RE TOLD TO WAIT PATIENTLY. WE'VE WAITED PATIENTLY. I'VE TALKED TO JORDAN A FEW TIMES. IT'S LIKE WE HAVE TO DO TRAINING. WE HAVE TO GET A NEW BOARD. WE HAD MULTIPLE PEOPLE ON MULTIPLE BOARDS AND THAT WAS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST. SO AS A CITIZEN, I FEEL LIKE LAGO VISTA HAS LED US DOWN AND WE HAVE WAITED A YEAR. MEANWHILE, WE GET OLDER AND OLDER. I'D LIKE TO STOP WORKING, BUT I'M GOING TO KEEP TREATING SOLDIERS AS LONG AS I CAN'T LIVE DOWN HERE. AND SO I GUESS FORT HOOD WINS BECAUSE OF THAT. I'VE BEEN TREATING SOLDIERS FOR 45 YEARS NOW. BUT, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, MY HUSBAND NEEDS TO BE DOWN HERE. WE NEED TO BE NEXT TO MY DAUGHTER. WE NEED TO HAVE AN AGENT PLACE HOME THAT IS WELL DESIGNED AND GOING TO ADD TO YOUR TAX VALUE OF LAGO VISTA. I'M JUST HOPING THAT THE BOARD WILL WORK WITH FOLKS TO MAKE SURE THAT LAGO VISTA IS GROWING IN A WAY THAT IS GOOD FOR THE PUBLIC, GOOD FOR THE TAX BASE, GOOD FOR FAMILIES. YOU SHOULD WANT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE LIKE, OKAY, MY HUSBAND RETIRED. WE GOT, WE GOT, WE GOT YOUR POINT. YEAH. OKAY.
WE'LL GET WITH JORDAN AND, AND, AND NOT VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT'S FALSE. YES, WE HAVE ALREADY, WE HAVE ALREADY PULLED IT FROM THE AGENDA. SO IT WILL NOT BE VOTED ON TONIGHT. OKAY.
SO YEAH, THANK YOU. AND IT'S GOING TO GO BACK TO STAFF AND IT'LL COME BACK TO YOU ON THE 31ST OF AUGUST. WE'LL READ IT. AND IF IT'S CORRECT, THEN YOU DON'T NEED TO DRIVE ALL THE WAY DOWN. IF MY IF MY MORE IMPORTANTLY IS I NEED THE DARN PLANS DONE BY A LUXURY HOME BUILDER. SO IT GETS DONE. SO I WE'VE WAITED FOR MORE THAN A YEAR NOW AND WE STILL CAN'T BUILD. I JUST HEARD YOU SAYING YOU DON'T WANT TO PUT IT OFF SO WE DON'T DELAY PEOPLE. SURE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COME DOWN AND TALK TO US. WE'LL WE'LL MAKE A DIFFERENT PUSH. AND OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE A FULL BOARD OF PEOPLE NOW TO PUSH ON THIS FOR YOU. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING OUT TONIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I MAKE A MOTION THAT, WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. OKAY. YOU KNOW, THE TWO REMAINING ITEMS WE HAVE. YEAH, YEAH. WE'RE THERE. WE DIDN'T VOTE ON THEM. WE JUST VOTED TO PULL THE ONE. OH, DID WE JUST VOTE TO PULL THE ONE? EXCELLENT. I THINK HE'S RIGHT. YEAH. WE VOTED TO PULL THE ONE. I HAD TO VOTE, BUT WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON THE CONSENT YET. ALL RIGHT. SO MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT.
HAVE A MOTION FROM BILL TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA MINUS ITEM ONE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND SECOND, SECOND FROM TOM MONAHAN. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NAY.
HEARING NONE. THE CONSENT AGENDA MINUS ITEM ONE APPROVES. UNANIMOUS. AND WE HAVE ALREADY HANDLED AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE. THAT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS. OUR ELECTION OF A CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR, SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. CHAIRMAN. AGENDAS. YEAH. FOR ITEM ONE,
[IV.1. Approval of the Minutes for the January 5th, 2026.]
THE TWO CORRECTIONS. AND IF IT'S THE WILL OF THE BOARD, CAN THE MINUTES CAN BE APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS. SO THE FOR ITEM SIX TWO AND ITEM SEVEN ONE INSTEAD OF DENY IN THE MOTION IT SHOULD SAY REMOVE FROM AGENDA. IF IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO TAKE THOSE CORRECTIONS AND APPROVE THOSE MINUTES WITH THOSE CORRECTIONS. IT CAN BE DONE TODAY OR WE CAN BRING IT BACK. CORRECTED FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION ON THE 31ST. I THINK I MAY BE GO AHEAD. MAKE A MOTION THAT WE WAIT FOR THE CORRECTED VERSION. I WILL SECOND THAT. JUST BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNED CITIZEN. YEAH. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO BRING THAT BACK CORRECTED ON THE 31ST. ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NAY HEARING NONE. TOM. FIRST AND SECOND. YEP. OKAY. YOU GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. AND EVERYBODY HAS THE REST OF A PACKET. NOW.EVERYBODY DOWN HERE TOO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE ON AND SIX. OUR ATTORNEY, WILL BE JOINING
[00:20:08]
US. I'M GOING TO LET HIM KNOW THAT IT'S TIME. IF WE WANT TO JUST GIVE HIM FIVE MINUTES TO SIGN IN. OKAY? SURE. SHOULD WE TAKE A, TAKE A RECESS FOR ANY OF THAT? HE'S ON STANDBY. I'M HOPING TO. OKAY. NOT NEED ONE. GOT IT. SO WE'LL HOLD THAT JUST TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUST A MOMENT HERE. WAITING FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO JOIN PROCEDURALLY. IF WE PROCEED AND CONTINUE, THERE'S STILL A STAFF REPORT. THERE'S STILL OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO CERTAINLY. OKAY. GOT IT. IF WE NEED TO RECESS, WE CAN WE CAN COME BACK AND DO THAT. SO WE ARE DOWN TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. THAT'S AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX. THERE'S A DIFFERENT. YEP. GO AHEAD. INTERESTING. I WONDER WHY, THIS WAS THE POSTED FROM OUTSIDE. LET'S FIND OUT. YEAH, I'VE GOT THE PACKET RIGHT HERE. IT SHOULD BE THE SAME. LET'S GO. 123. LOOKS LIKE INTERESTING.OKAY, SO YEAH, OUR AGENDA AND OUR PACKET DO NOT ALIGN WITH ITEM NUMBERS, BUT WE ARE STILL ON THE SAME EFFECTIVE, EFFECTIVE TOPIC WHICH IS OUR PUBLIC HEARING. AND WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT OUR PUBLIC HEARING NUMBERS ALIGN HERE. THAT WOULD BE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART FOR THIS. AND THEY DO. OKAY. THANKS FOR BEARING WITH US
[VI.1. 26-2958-VAR: Conduct a Public Hearing on a variance request, pursuant to Section 11 of Chapter 14, to allow an encroachment into the minimum required rear yard setback as required under Chapter 14, Table A at 3003 Boone Drive (Lot 8012, Highlad Lake Estates Section 8)]
ADMINISTRATIVELY HERE, GUYS. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS PORTION OF OUR MEETING. THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING IS GOING TO BE 26-2958-VAR. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF CHAPTER 14 TO ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK AS REQUIRED UNDER CHAPTER 14, TABLE A AT 3003 BOONE DRIVE, LOT 8012 HIGHLAND LAKES ESTATES, SECTION EIGHT, AND WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:54 P.M. AND IF STAFF IS READY, WE CAN MOVE RIGHT INTO OUR STAFF REPORT FOR TWO, NINE FIVE, EIGHT. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM A 25 FROM THE 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW A PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL TO BE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 4.5FT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE REQUESTED RELIEF IS ABOUT 20.5FT. COUNCIL APPROVE AN INDIVIDUAL EASEMENT VACATION ON APRIL OF 2026, AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF A 15 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ADJACENT AND PARALLEL TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY DUE TO THE PROPERTY'S TOPOGRAPHY, EXISTING RESIDENT PLACEMENT, AND LIMITED USABLE REAR YARD AREA. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY BACKS INTO A GOLF COURSE, AND STAFF HAVE CONFIRMED THERE ARE NO UTILITIES IN THE EASEMENT.YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? WE CAN ANSWER THEM. ALL RIGHT, SO WE CAN BRING THAT BACK TO THE BOARD. ANYBODY WITH ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SO YES. SO ALL THE EASEMENT BACK EVACUATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. SO THEY'RE ALL GOOD ON THAT END. YES. SO THIS APPLICANT, AND ALL OF OUR APPLICANTS TONIGHT HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS. THEY'VE DONE THE STEPS IN THE ORDER THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DONE. HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH THE WHOLE PACKET HERE. ARE THERE CITIZEN COMMENTS THAT GO WITH THIS ONE HERE. SO THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMENTS YOU'LL FIND WITHIN THE PACKET THEMSELVES. FOR THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY AGAINST, SO 17 NOTICES WERE MAILED, SIX WERE IN FAVOR, ZERO WERE OPPOSED AND THEY ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY FOR HER. SO A LOT OF THESE HIGHLIGHTED ITEMS I KNOW THE FINDINGS ARE ON THE
[00:25:03]
PROPERTY OWNER. THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MEET THESE CONDITIONS. HAVE THEY BEEN HAVE THEY BEEN VERIFIED. SO THEY HAVE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN MET. SO BASED OFF OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE, WHAT WE'VE OBSERVED SITE CONDITION WISE, THE HISTORY WITH THESE PROJECTS, THEY HAVE BEEN MET IN THE TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT, IT'S NOT A DETRIMENT TO PUBLIC INTEREST. GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY, ESSENTIALLY THEIR ENTIRE BACKYARD IS A SETBACK. AND SO IN ESSENCE, IT DOES HAVE A HARDSHIP ON THAT SAME THING WITH THE UNIQUE PROPERTY CONDITION. THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A TOTAL VACATION OF THE SETBACK. THEY'RE JUST ASKING FOR THE PORTION THAT IT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO GET THE POOL INTO THAT AREA. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, IT'S, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT ADDING MASSING, THEY'RE NOT ADDING DENSITY. IT'S ESSENTIALLY A CAVEAT IN OUR CODE THAT HAS MADE, POOLS NOT ON THE LIST OF EXCEPTIONS FOR THINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED IN A SETBACK. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? CAN YOU PASS OUT A COUPLE THINGS. ANYWAY, I'M HERE JOINING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS BECAUSE OF MY PAST EXPERIENCE ON PLANNING AND ZONING, WHICH I WAS ON FOR EIGHT YEARS AND I WAS CHAIR OF THE LAST THREE. WHAT'S HAPPENED WITH THE ORDINANCES WITH RESPECT TO SWIMMING POOLS? AND THIS IS EQUALLY APPLIES TO DRIVEWAYS, EVEN THOUGH DRIVEWAYS AREN'T THE SUBJECT TODAY. IS THAT BACK IN, EARLY 2024, THERE'S AN EFFORT UNDERWAY TO CLEAN UP THE ORDINANCES WHERE THERE WAS SEEMING DUPLICITY OR THEY WEREN'T IN THE RIGHT SPOT. SO THE PROJECT WAS TO MOVE THE EXCEPTION LIST FROM CHAPTER THREE, WHICH INCLUDED POOLS AND DRIVEWAYS AT THAT TIME, AND MOVE IT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. BECAUSE IT'S, IT SEEMED MORE APPROPRIATE TO BE IN ZONING.WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT, WHEN, I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE VIDEO OF THAT MEETING AND AT THAT TIME, NO ONE ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT POOLS AND DRIVEWAYS AND THE, P AND Z APPROVED IT WITH NO INTENT TO ELIMINATE THOSE ALLOWANCES. AND THEN WHEN IT WENT TO COUNCIL IN JUNE, COUNCIL SPENT ABOUT TWO MINUTES ON IT AND APPROVED, WHAT WE DID THERE WAS ALSO THE COUNCIL DIDN'T EXACTLY MATCH THE RECOMMENDATION WE MADE. WE MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO ADD CONCRETE TO THE WALKWAYS, WHICH NOW HAS JUST WOODEN DECKS, BUT THAT WAS NEVER TAKEN UP BY COUNCIL BECAUSE IT WASN'T ON THERE IN THE PACKET. SO IT NEVER MADE THE PACKET. SO THE QUESTION IS BACK TO THE POOLS AND DRIVEWAYS AND I'LL JUST STICK TO POOLS, SINCE THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, IS WHY DID POOLS AND DRIVE IN DRIVEWAYS NOT MAKE THE EXCEPTION LIST IN CHAPTER 14? AND THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AT THAT TIME, WHO I KNEW WELL, WAS VERY EFFICIENT AND VERY METICULOUS IN WHAT HE DID. SO IT SEEMED ODD THAT THESE WERE REMOVED. BUT THEN AS I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WENT ON, THEN SOMETHING CAUGHT MY EYE IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE THAT MAKES ME THINK THAT, THE REASON POOLS AREN'T IN THE EXCEPTION LIST BECAUSE OF THE FIRST LINE OF, WHAT IS IT? SECTION 540 IN CHAPTER 14. SECTION 540 IS THE SECTION THAT, DEALS WITH LAND USE AND THAT YOU'LL FIND THE EXCEPTION LIST IN 540. IT SAYS STRUCTURES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED IN YARDS EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED HEREIN, WHICH WOULD MEAN THE REST OF THAT CHAPTER OR THE BUILDING CODE. SO WHAT I BELIEVE ROY WAS THINKING BY TAKING THOSE OUT IS THAT THEY WEREN'T NEEDED BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY IN THE BUILDING CODE,
[00:30:05]
BECAUSE YOU NEED PERMITS FOR DRIVEWAYS, YOU NEED PERMITS FOR POOLS. THERE'S ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR POOLS, FOR SAFETY FEATURES AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF. SO, THE DOCUMENTS I PASSED OUT KIND OF GOES THROUGH, A LITTLE MORE DETAIL OF THAT, BUT THAT'S, THE BASIC ARGUMENT THAT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT, THERE'S NO DOUBT THE ORDINANCE SHOULD BE, SHOULD BE AMENDING THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC, RATHER THAN TRYING TO READ SOMEBODY'S MIND FROM A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. SURE. IT'S NO LONGER HERE, BUT NONETHELESS, TO ME, A CLEAR, A PLAIN READING OF THE RULE, SUGGESTS THAT, IN MY VIEW, ANYWAY, THAT, POOLS ARE ALREADY ALLOWED. AND BECAUSE OF THIS ORDINANCE, THAT WORD OR DIDN'T SAY AND IT SAYS OR SO THAT'S KIND OF, MY ARGUMENT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. MONAHAN. I THINK THAT MAY, THAT MAY APPLY TO OTHER ITEMS AND MAY EVEN HELP US WITH ANOTHER AGENDA ITEM TONIGHT.ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD? WELL, MY, MY QUESTION, MY QUESTION WOULD BE FOR JORDAN. HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THIS? AND DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS? SO WHAT WOULD YOUR INTERPRETATION BE? SO, I RECEIVED THIS AT THE SAME TIME THE BOARD DID. MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD ACTUALLY BE THAT WE DISCUSS THIS AS A BOARD AND EXECUTIVE SESSION.
NOW THAT OUR ATTORNEY IS ON THE CALL. IF SO MOVED, WE CAN RECESS AND GET A LITTLE BIT MORE GUIDANCE, FROM MR. BULLOCK. THAT WOULD BE, I THINK, THAT MAY BE A GOOD IDEA IN LIGHT OF THIS, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE HAVE MULTIPLE, POOL RELATED VARIANCES. AND THIS IS INFORMATION THAT WILL HELP WITH THE DECISION FOR ALL OF THOSE. I THINK PROCEDURALLY THAT WOULD MEAN THAT WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOW. SO AT 7:04 P.M. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR, 26-2958-VAR. AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WILL, RECONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY. AND, WE SET A TIME LIMIT FOR THAT. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO KNOW. WE'RE JUST. PROCEDURALLY WERE REOPENING A PUBLIC HEARING AT THAT POINT TOO, SO OKAY, WE WE RECONVENED FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION INTO OPEN SESSION AND WE WILL, REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAD TO CLOSE IT REALLY, BUT.
ALL RIGHT. THANKS, EVERYBODY, FOR BEARING WITH US. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS GOING TO, RECONVENE BACK INTO REGULAR SESSION FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE'RE DOING THAT AT 723, AND WE ARE GOING TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, 26-2958-VAR AT THE, THE SAME TIME. 723. ALL RIGHT.
AND, YEAH, WE'LL BRING THAT BACK. ANY, ANY COMMENTS, FROM, FROM STAFF OR FROM, FROM THE BOARD. WELL, I'M JUST GOING TO, I WILL LET THIS, I'LL LET THE CITIZENS KNOW WE DURING OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION, WE GOT CONFIRMATION FROM OUR LEGAL. AND WE ARE GOING TO PROCEED WITH THE VARIANCE. AS NOTED IN THE AGENDA. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. TIDWELL. SO THAT BEING SAID, I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP FOR ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON, ON THIS HEARING. I BELIEVE WE CAN GO AHEAD AND, APPLICANT HERE. WE, YEAH, WE DO, WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE. IF, IF, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH THE, THE BOARD, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME TO THE PODIUM AT THIS TIME. IF NOT, WE CAN, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE. NO. OKAY. SO, WITH, WITH NOTHING FROM THE APPLICANT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 26-2958-VAR AT 7:24 P.M. AND WE WILL BRING THAT ITEM BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT FOR, AGENDA ITEM FROM, FIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS,
[00:35:08]
ITEM NUMBER 126-2958-VAR. THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST.OKAY, I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. A MOTION FROM MR. CHAIR. YES, MA'AM. TO MAKE IT A VALID MOTION, WE DO NEED TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE EXACT FOOTAGE WITHIN THAT MOTION. I BELIEVE IT IS ON PAGE 24, IF YOU'D LIKE EACH OF THEM HAVE THE EXACT FOOTAGE. 24 IN ORDER TO SHOW A STATEMENT OF FACT. OKAY. AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE IN YOUR PACKET WILL HAVE THESE MOTIONS. IF IF SO, MOVED. OKAY. I'LL RESTATE THE MOTION. I MOVE TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER 26-2958-VAR VARIANCE FOR 20.5FT OF RELIEF TO THE REAR. SETBACK TO ALLOW A SWIMMING POOL TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED YARD. SETBACK AT 3003 BOONE DRIVE. BASED ON THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT THE APPLICATION SATISFIES EACH REQUIRED CONDITION FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 1120 OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA CODE OF ORDINANCES. AND I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. ALL RIGHT.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM MISTER MONAHAN, A SECOND FROM MISTER TIDWELL. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? AND ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NAY, HEARING NONE CARRIES UNANIMOUS. ALL RIGHT. AND WE WILL MOVE TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM. THAT IS A PUBLIC
[VI.2. 26-2961-VAR: Consider, discuss, and take action on a variance request, pursuant to Section 11 of Chapter 14, to allow an encroachment into the minimum required rear yard setback as required under Chapter 14, Table A at 2905 Patriot Drive (Lot 1A, Coeur Du Lac Sec 2, Replat of Lots 1,2, & 3).]
HEARING, 26-2961-VAR. CONSIDER, DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION ON A VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 11, CHAPTER 14 TO ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK AS REQUIRED UNDER CHAPTER 14. TABLE A AT 2905 PATRIOT DRIVE, LOT ONE A, SECTION TWO REPLAT OF LOTS ONE, TWO AND THREE AND WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 727 AND WE CAN MOVE INTO THAT WITH OUR STAFF PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW A PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL TO BE LOCATED 15FT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE REQUESTED CHANGE IS A TEN FOOT REDUCTION IN THE THE REQUIRED REAR SETBACK. THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THE EXISTING RESIDENCE IS SITUATED FARTHER INTO THE LOT, LIMITING THE AVAILABLE SPACE FOR THE POOL CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE OF THE SETBACK AREA. THE APPLICANT ALSO STATES THAT TOPOGRAPHY, LOT CONFIGURATION AND THE EXISTING RESIDENCE PLACEMENT AS THAT REDUCE THE USABLE REAR YARD AREA. HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. AND WE'LL GET SAME QUESTIONS. DID THEY HAVE MET ALL THE FINDINGS. YES THEY HAVE. AND AS WELL YOU WILL NOTE ON PAGE 51 OF THE PACKET THERE IS A UTILITY EASEMENT ON THIS PROPERTY THAT'S WITHIN THE SETBACK. THE POOL DOES NOT ENCROACH ON THAT UTILITY EASEMENT. SO THEY HAVE NOT HAD TO VACATE IT. THE SETBACK ISSUE STILL APPLIES. BUT THE UTILITY EASEMENT FOR THIS PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY DID NOT HAVE NOT ABATED. THEY WATCHED THE PROVISIONS OF THEIR SURVEY. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE UTILITIES IN THAT EASEMENT. SINCE THERE WAS NOT A REQUEST TO RELEASE THAT EASEMENT WE DON'T KNOW. PUBLIC WORKS GETS SENT OUT WHEN A REQUEST IS PUT IN TO RELEASE. SO THE POOL WON'T BE IN THERE.NO SIR. THERE ARE NO REASONS. NO UTILITIES. NO. NO UTILITIES IN EASEMENT. OKAY. YOU'D BE SURPRISED BECAUSE I HAVE UTILITIES IN MY BACK. THAT WOULD BE VERY SURPRISED THAT THE. NO, I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK WE CAN BRING THE APPLICANT AND WE HAVE THE
[00:40:12]
APPLICANT HERE WITH US THIS EVENING. YOU GUYS HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO BRING FORWARD TO THE TO THE BOARD? IF YOU DO, YOU CAN COME TO THE PODIUM FOR US, PLEASE. IF NOT, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. YES, SURE. YES, SIR. I GOT A LOT TO SAY, BUT I'M ALSO RETIRED, SO I THINK WE'RE VERY SIMILAR TO THE OTHER ONE. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE? CARLOS ACOSTA.OKAY. THANK YOU SIR. SO IF THAT IS THE CASE, UNLESS YOU WANT TO HEAR SOMETHING SPECIFIC ABOUT OUR PROPERTY. ALL I GOT TO SAY IS THANK YOU. SURE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? AND IF I MAY, THE MOTION LANGUAGE IS ON PAGE 48 FOR THIS ONE. IF THERE'S A NEED FOR REFERENCING. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. OKAY. AND THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION FROM NO. 11 NOTICES WERE MAILED. SIX LETTERS WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION. OKAY. THERE'S NO ONE THAT LIVES BEHIND THIS ON THIS ISLAND OR.
LETTERS WENT TO SOMEBODY. OKAY. SO, WITH, WITH NO OTHER QUESTIONS, WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 26-2961-VAR AT 730, AND WE CAN OPEN THAT ITEM UP FOR A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. GO AHEAD. YOU GOT A RHYTHM? I MOVE TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER 26-29, V8-VARA, VARIANCE FOR TEN FEET OF RELIEF TO THE REAR. SETBACK TO ALLOW SWIMMING POOL TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK. 2905 PATRIOT DRIVE. BASED ON THE BOARD'S FINDINGS THAT THE APPLICATION SATISFIES EACH REQUIRED CONDITION FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 1120 OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA CODE OF ORDINANCES. I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER MONAHAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE REPEAT THE NUMBER ON THE VARIANCE? I THINK THERE WAS A IT LOOKED A LITTLE BIT. THANK YOU. OKAY, THE CASE NUMBER IS 26-2958-VAR. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MONAHAN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND AND A SECOND FROM MR. TIDWELL. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? OKAY.
HEARING NONE, WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NAY. AND HEARING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUS. AND. YES. YES. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH US TONIGHT. YEAH. YOU HAVE TO STAY. THANK YOU GUYS. YOU'RE WELCOME TO STAY.
COME BACK ANYTIME. ALL RIGHT, MR. CHAIR, I THINK, WHAT I WAS SEEING, AND MAYBE I'M WRONG, THE 2958 WAS FOR 3003 BOONE DRIVE. WE USE THE SAME NUMBER 361. THAT'S WHERE IT SAYS THAT IS, YOU KNOW, IN THE IN THE PACKET IT IS ONE WAY AND ON THE. YEP. IT IS WRONG IN THE PACKET.
SO PROCEDURALLY CAN DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION FOR CORRECTION. MAKE A MOTION FOR THE CORRECTION. I'M NOT SURE WHAT PACKET WAS PRINTED AND THE ONE THAT I PULLED FROM ONLINE. IT'S CORRECT. OKAY. 2961 IS CORRECT. 2961 IS CORRECT. THAT'S THE ONE WE JUST DID. YEAH. YEAH. SO THE WRONG PROJECT NUMBER. SO WE YEAH, WE READ IN TWO, 958 BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS IN THE PACKET THAT GOT PRINTED, BUT 2961 IS THE CORRECT. YES. THE CORRECT NUMBER. GOOD CATCH.
ROBERT'S RULES OR WHATEVER. I WAS VOTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE SO I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. RECONSIDER TO AMEND THE MOTION. YES, SIR. OKAY, SO I'LL MOTION THAT. WE RECONSIDER.
CASE NUMBER 26-2961-VAR. FOR, AMENDMENT OF THE MOTION. SECOND. ALL RIGHT, HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO RECONSIDER. ALL IN FAVOR OF RECONSIDERING TO CORRECT THE CASE NUMBER TO 2961.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NAY. HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. UNANIMOUS. OKAY. SO WE HAVE THAT CORRECTION. WE'RE DONE. WE
[00:45:04]
DON'T HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION THERE OR NO THAT'S JUST TO OPEN IT TO RECONSIDER. WE ACTUALLY NEED TO OPEN IT BACK UP. SO WE HAD AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR MADE, HERE. AND THE MOTION THAT WAS READ IN WAS READ IN AS 26-2958-VAR FOR THE APPROVAL AND SHOULD HAVE READ 26-2961-VAR FOR AN APPROVAL. SO WE CAN OPEN THAT UP FOR A MOTION TO CORRECT. SURE. I MOVE, I MOVE TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER 26-2961-VAR, SUBJECT TO THE OOPS. VARA VARIANCE FOR TEN FEET OF RELIEF TO THE REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A SWIMMING POOL TO ENCROACH IN THE REQUIRED REAR REAR YARD SETBACK AT 2905 PATRIOT DRIVE. BASED ON THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT THE APPLICATION SATISFIES EACH REQUIRED CONDITION FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 1120 OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA CODE OF ORDINANCES, AND I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NAY. AND HEARING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO. I'M GOING TO DOUBLE CHECK THIS NUMBER JUST TO MAKE SURE IT LOOKS RIGHT. OKAY. GOOD. TAKE YOUR WORD ON THAT ONE[VI.3. 26-2975-VAR: Open a Public Hearing to Consider, Discuss, and Take Action on a variance request, pursuant to Section 11 of Chapter 14 to allow an encroachment into the minimum required rear yard setback as required under Chapter 14, Table A at 21008 Stillwood Ct. (Lot 2272 Country Club Estates, Sec. 9)]
THERE. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 26-2975-VAR, PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION ON A VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 11, CHAPTER 14 TO ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK AS REQUIRED UNDER CHAPTER 14, TABLE A AT 21008 STILL WOOD COURT, LOT 2272 COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES, SECTION NINE. AND WE WILL OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:36 P.M. AND WE CAN BEGIN WITH THE STAFF PRESENTATION.THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW A PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL TO BE LOCATED FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE REQUESTED CHANGE IS A 20 FOOT REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED REAR SETBACK. THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THE PROPOSED POOL LOCATION IS THE ONLY PRACTICAL AND FUNCTIONAL OPTION. AFTER REVIEWING THE LOT LAYOUT, GRADING EXISTING SETBACKS, UTILITIES, EASEMENTS AND USABLE OUTDOOR SPACE. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I CAN ANSWER THEM. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? I'M NOT GOING TO ASK THIS TIME. NO, I KNOW THE ANSWER. I JUST WANT TO SEE THE PICTURE.
WHERE'S THE PICTURE? THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR AS WELL. OKAY, 75 YOU SAID. I'M SEEING WE ALSO HAD 21 NOTICES MAILED. IT LOOKS LIKE THREE IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED. AND THAT'S INCLUDED AS WELL IN YOUR PACKET. THE APPLICANT HERE. SO. COME TO THE MIC. I CAN ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS. SURE, SURE. NO PROBLEM. ALL RIGHT. SO LOOKING FROM THE STREET THE HOUSE IS ON THE FAR RIGHT. CORRECT. AND SO YOU GOT A WIDE SPOT ON THE LEFT. IT GOES BACK TO WHERE THE POOL WOULD BE. YEAH. SO THE THE TOPOGRAPHY ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE REALLY DIPS DOWN. SO THAT'S WHY WE ENDED UP PUTTING THE ORIENTATION OF THE HOUSE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW DEEP OUR BACKYARD IS, BUT IT'S ALREADY FENCED IN AND IT'S VERY, VERY SHORT. SO THERE'S REALLY ONLY ONE PLACE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO REALLY PLACE THE PLACE, THE POOL, OKAY. IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE PICTURE, IT'S A REALLY STEEP. YEAH. IT'S THE CORRECT. YEAH. YEAH. LOOKS LIKE YOUR BACKYARD IS ABOUT 29FT WIDE. YEAH. GOT IT. YEAH.
[00:50:05]
IT PUTS THE MAJORITY OF THIS BACK THERE IN THE SETBACK FOR SURE. YEAH. THAT'S ALL ALL BUT FOR WOULD BASICALLY TAKE EVERYTHING. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE PLACING IT. YEAH FOR SURE. YEAH.AND SINCE WE HAVE YOU UP HERE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER INFORMATION FOR THE BOARD THAT YOU'D LIKE US TO HEAR. THAT'S NOT IN OUR PACKET TO TO CONSIDER ABOUT YOUR APPLICATION? I DON'T THINK SO. I MEAN, JUST THE MAIN THING FOR US IS WE ALREADY HAD OUR FENCE PUT IN AND EVERYTHING AND JUST KIND OF GETTING READY TO, YOU KNOW, PUT THE POOL IN THAT, THAT AREA. SO IT JUST WAS WHAT MADE SENSE TO, TO US AND TO ORIENT IT IN THAT, THAT LOCATION. SURE. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. THANKS FOR THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AMONG THE BOARD? NO. ALL RIGHT. PERFECT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME FOR THAT. AND, WE, WE CAN BRING THAT BACK AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TWO 9 OR 2 6-2975-VAR AT 740, AND WE WILL BRING THAT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION PAGES 72, 72, 72. WELL, I'D GO THREE FOR THREE I GUESS. YOU WANT TO MAKE IT. GO AHEAD. YEAH. I MOVE TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER 26-2975-VARA VARIANCE OF 20FT OF RELIEF TO THE REAR. SETBACK TO ALLOW A SWIMMING POOL TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED YARD. SETBACK AT 21008. PATRIOT. BASED ON THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT THE APPLICATION APPLICATION SATISFIES EACH REQUIRED CONDITION FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 11-20 OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA CODE OF ORDINANCES. ALL RIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? I'LL SECOND THAT AND MOTION FOR MISTER OR SECOND FOR MISTER MASSEY. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NAY AND HEARING NONE. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT.
[VII.1. Discussion regarding Board of Adjustment observations and insights concerning the City's Special Exception and Variance ordinances for possible communication to the Planning & Zoning Commission during its ordinance review.]
AND WE ARE MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT ACTION ITEM, WHICH IS A DISCUSSION REGARDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OBSERVATIONS AND INSIGHTS CONCERNING THE CITY'S SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND VARIANCE ORDINANCES FOR POSSIBLE COMMUNICATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DURING ITS ORDINANCE REVIEW. SO THIS IS, AS AS AN OVERVIEW, PART OF A LONG STANDING CONVERSATION OF AMENDMENTS THAT MAY BE NECESSARY THAT WE COULD, WE COULD CHIME IN ON, FOR ORDINANCE REVIEW AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING LEVEL AND AT THE CITY COUNCIL LEVEL. SOME OF THAT CAME FORWARD IN DISCUSSION DURING THIS PREVIOUS, DURING THESE PREVIOUS AGENDA ITEMS. DO WE NEED TO COVER THEM SPECIFICALLY? SO, YOU KNOW, AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, WE DISCUSSED QUITE A BIT. AND I WOULD SAY WE COULD JUST MOVE FORWARD BASED ON OUR DISCUSSIONS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, CAN WE NOT? SO I THINK TO AN EXTENT, AS FAR AS, SPEAKING ON WHAT EXACTLY WAS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL. WE DO IS ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE.HOWEVER, THE OUTCOME, THE AFTERMATH, I THINK IS UP FOR DISCUSSION, CLARIFICATION, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. BUT SPECIFICALLY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, WE JUST HAVE TO BE COGNIZANT OF THAT PRIVILEGE. YEAH, I WAS. I WAS MORE, YOU KNOW, WANTING TO KNOW IF ARE WE, ARE WE LOOKING, ARE WE LOOKING FOR SPECIFIC ITEMS OR ARE WE JUST LOOKING FOR DIRECTION? THIS IS AN ITEM, THAT, BECAUSE OF HISTORICAL, PRECEDENTS AND POTENTIALLY CHALLENGES, THAT, COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING, MAY CHOOSE TO GO AHEAD AND DO A CORRECTION VERSUS, WITHIN THE ORDINANCE AS WE ARE OR HAVE BEEN. AND PLANNING TO UPDATE OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES. BUT IN THIS CASE, THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, HISTORICALLY, POOLS AND, DRIVEWAYS, ETCETERA, WERE AT ONE TIME ON THE, EXCEPTION LIST AND CURRENTLY ARE NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT WILL LEND ITSELF TO ADDITIONAL, FAMILIES, YOU KNOW, THAT COME THROUGH. AND I, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF WHO ELSE, JAMES, IS IT ONLY YOU? AND THEN, THAT IS, I THINK ALL OF OUR OTHER PRESENTLY. YEAH. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER MEMBERS ON THE BOARD WHO ARE NOT IN
[00:55:04]
ATTENDANCE TONIGHT WHO WERE HERE FOR SOME OF THOSE, LARGELY AS A BACKGROUNDER FOR ANYBODY ELSE WHO WAS NOT HERE AT THAT POINT IN TIME. THIS DISCUSSION ITEM CAME UP BECAUSE OF THE NUANCE BETWEEN SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND VARIANCE THAT WAS REQUIRED FOR HEIGHT. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY DISCUSSIONS OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND NUMEROUS CASES IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD. BECAUSE OF THE WAY OUR CODE IS WRITTEN AND POSSIBLY HOW THAT MAY DEVIATE FROM STATE LAW IN SOME PLACES. WHAT SHOULD AND SHOULDN'T BE SPECIAL EXCEPTION VERSUS WHAT SHOULD BE VARIANCE IN THIS CITY AND IF AND WHY THERE ARE SPECIAL CARVE OUTS THAT, ARE IN OUR CODE FOR THAT HEIGHT EXCEPTION RATHER THAN VARIANCE. SO THIS IS, IT'S TOUGH WITH, WITH NEW MEMBERS ON THIS BOARD WHO HAVEN'T EXPERIENCED SOME OF THOSE CASES. BASICALLY, THIS IS OUR TIME TO BE ABLE TO CHAT ABOUT THOSE. IT'S HARD TO HAVE AN INFORMED DISCUSSION IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN MANY OF THESE BEFORE, BUT THIS IS OUR TIME TO BE ABLE TO PUBLICLY IMPLORE PLANNING AND ZONING AND CITY COUNCIL TO HEAVILY REVIEW THAT PART OF OUR CODE AND TO UNDERSTAND WHY THAT NUANCE IS THERE AND HOW THAT HAS CREATED HANG UPS AT THIS BOARD IN THE PAST, JUST SO I'M CLEAR ON IT. SO IF I RECALL ON THAT LAST MEETING, IT WAS SO THERE'S IT'S ALMOST AN END AROUND OR IT'S ANOTHER WAY TO GET APPROVALS ON HEIGHT WHERE THEY GO THROUGH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION INSTEAD OF COMING TO THIS COMMITTEE. IS THAT, NOT NOT EXACTLY. I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY TAKE COMMENTARY FROM STAFF, BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION A LITTLE BIT, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR HEIGHT HAS FEWER REQUIRED METRICS THAN VARIANCE WOULD, BUT IT'S WITHIN A VERY SPECIFIC CARVE OUT THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE THE SAME HARDSHIP, BUT ONLY WITHIN VERY TIGHT CERTAIN LIMITATIONS. SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR MORE CONSISTENCY WELL THROUGH THIS PROCESS. SO LET'S, LET'S FIND OUT WHAT, WHAT WE HAVE FROM STAFF AND WE'LL PICK UP FROM THERE. SO UNDER STATE LAW, A VARIANCE REQUIRES A HARDSHIP. HOWEVER YOU JUSTIFY THAT HARDSHIP, IT HAS TO BE A HARDSHIP THAT'S AT THE BOARD'S DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHAT TRIGGERS A TRUE HARDSHIP. A SPECIAL A SPECIAL EXCEPTION UNDER STATE LAW IS A CARVE OUT FOR HEIGHT AND SOME OTHER PROVISIONS AS ALLOWABLE TO EXCEED WHAT IS ESTABLISHED BASED OFF OF A SET SET OF PARAMETERS. AND SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A HARDSHIP. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE A BURDEN. BUT WHAT THE CITY DOES IN ORDER TO ISSUE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS IS HAVE A LIST OF THAT CARVE OUT AND THOSE METRICS OR THOSE THINGS THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO MEET. THE BIGGEST CONCERN, I THINK WITH OUR CODE AND A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO, WE HAD A PLANNING AND ZONING AND A BOA PRESENTATION FROM, I BELIEVE IT'S THE CITY OF LOCKHART AND HOW THEY STRUCTURED THEIR ORDINANCE VERY CLEARLY SAYS, HERE'S YOUR LIST OF REQUIREMENTS. EITHER YOU MEET IT AND YOU CAN GET THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION, OR YOU CAN'T MEET IT. AND YOU DON'T GET THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION, BUT IT DOESN'T DISCUSS HARDSHIPS. IT'S, IT'S CERTAIN ADDITIONAL DESIGN CRITERIA. THERE'S CAVEATS TO IT.AND THE CONCERN IS THAT OUR CODE DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE THOSE CAVEATS. AND I THINK WITH BOARDS, AND WITH JUST GENERAL TRANSITION ADMINISTRATIVELY COUNCIL ELECTED AND APPOINTED, THE NUANCES OF THAT HAVE KIND OF, NOT NECESSARILY BEEN LOST, BUT NOT UPHELD CONSISTENTLY, WHICH BECAUSE IT'S NOT A VARIANCE AND DOESN'T REQUIRE HARDSHIP, THERE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTE CONSISTENCY IN THE WAY THAT WE HANDLE THOSE PROCEEDINGS. AND SO, LIKE MOST THINGS POLICY WISE, THERE'S TEN WAYS TO SKIN A CAT. IT'S HOW DO WE WANT TO HANDLE IT? DO WE WANT TO ADD MORE CAVEATS? DO WE WANT TO MAKE THE PATH CLEARER? DO WE WANT TO SET THOSE STANDARDS? AND EITHER IT'S YES OR NO. IS IT WHAT ARE THOSE STANDARDS. I'VE SEEN CITIES DO A 2 TO 1 PROGRAM. AND SO IF YOU WANT X AMOUNT OF HEIGHT, YOU NEED TO MOVE YOUR BUILDING IN X AMOUNT OF FEET. AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS THAT CAN BE REQUIRED, BUT YOU HAVE TO DO THOSE THINGS IN ORDER TO GET THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION. CURRENTLY, OUR CODE PUTS SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND VARIANCES IN THE SAME CHAPTER. AND SO I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT WHETHER IT IS OR IS NOT A VARIANCE, WHICH DATES BACK BEFORE MY TIME. AND SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, AS THE BOARD DEALING WITH IT. BOAS CAN'T MAKE POLICY. HOWEVER HISTORICALLY THERE'S KNOWLEDGE AND INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE IN THESE THINGS. AND THERE'S ALSO TO AN EXTENT, A COMFORT LEVEL BEING THE ONES DEALING WITH IT. AND SO WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE? NOT SPECIFICALLY. I WANT TO SEE X, Y, AND Z. BUT WHAT IS THAT COMFORT LEVEL? IS IT, YOU KNOW, SOME HAVE MENTIONED GETTING AWAY FROM SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALTOGETHER AND THE ZONING HEIGHT IS JUST ZONING HEIGHT AND IT IS WHAT IT IS. IS IT ADDITIONAL CAVEATS, ADDITIONAL DESIGN CRITERIA? YOU KNOW WHAT, WHEN IT COMES BEFORE YOU, I THINK THE QUESTION IS
[01:00:02]
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SEE? GENERALLY SPEAKING, OF COURSE CAN'T MAKE POLICY. SO LET'S NOT ALL WE CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AS FAR AS HISTORICALLY HOW THINGS HAVE BEEN HANDLED PROCEDURALLY AS THE BOARD THAT DEALS WITH IT, BUT VERY CAREFUL TO NOT MAKE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS. RIGHT? YES. MR. MEYER. I'VE DEALT WITH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR QUITE A WHILE AND WAS ON PNC. IN FACT, I EVEN HELPED WRITE SOME OF THE. I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE RECENT CHANGES, BUT ONE THING I ADDED WAS WHAT CONSTITUTES A VIEW IN THE. SO WE DIDN'T HAVE A DEFINITION OF A VIEW AT ONE TIME, AND THE DEFINITION ISN'T PERFECT, BUT IT'S SOMETHING TO LEAST SET SOME CRITERIA, BUT THAT. THE VIEW IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE FOR THE EXCEPTION IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE OF OUR TOPOGRAPHY, UNLIKE, I THINK LOCKHART IS FAIRLY FLAT. I MEAN, IF YOU'RE BUILDING ON A FLAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, BLOCKING VIEWS ISN'T AN ISSUE. BUT IF YOU'RE SITTING UP AND GOT A NICE VIEW AND THE GUY DOWNHILL FROM ME WANTS TO BUILD A TALL HOUSE SO HE CAN GET A NICE VIEW, DOES HE GET IN THE WAY OR NOT? SO THAT'S BASICALLY THE WHOLE POINT OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR HEIGHT IS DOES IT DO. VIEW. AND, I DON'T KNOW. WE USED TO P AND Z USED TO DO THE DO THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS THEMSELVES UP UNTIL ABOUT FOUR, MAYBE FIVE YEARS AGO WHEN IT DID GET MOVED TO BOA, WHICH IS REALLY THE APPROPRIATE PLACE. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK SOMETHING THAT WOULD REALLY HELP FOR THAT ASSESSMENT ANYWAY IS, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, IT USED TO BE THAT YOU WERE REQUIRED TO GO OUT AND LOOK AT THE RIDGE POLE. AND IF YOU DIDN'T, YOU COULDN'T VOTE, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU HAD TO GO OUT TO THE PROPERTY. THAT'S STILL SUBJECTIVE BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE STANDING ON THE GROUND AND YOU CAN'T GO TO A PROPERTY AND LOOK AT THAT'S SUBJECTIVE. SO HAVING BETTER SURVEILLANCE, I THINK WOULD BE BETTER. I MEAN, I'VE ALWAYS I'VE TOLD OTHERS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A DRONE THAT CAN GET UP THERE AT THE HEIGHT AND LOOK AROUND AND WE CAN SEE THE VIDEO AND SEE. EXACTLY. SO THAT'S, YOU, YOU BRING UP AN IMPORTANT POINT. IF I'M NOT TAKING THE FLOOR FROM YOU IN SOME OF THE TRAINING THAT WE HAD EARLIER THIS YEAR, THAT WAS JOINT TRAINING BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING AND OTHERS, WE ACTUALLY FOUND THAT THERE ARE CODES AT THE STATE LEVEL THAT PREVENT US FROM GOING AND DOING A SITE SURVEY. SO WE'VE HAD PRIOR PROCEDURES THAT, WHILE THEY SEEMED LOGICAL AND MAKE PERFECT SENSE FOR OUR TOPOGRAPHY, WE FOUND OUT, MAY HAVE BEEN BEING CONDUCTED AND PRACTICED IN CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW, WHICH I HADN'T EITHER. I'M IN MY SECOND TERM ON THIS BOARD. IT WAS NEWS TO ME. SO IT'S, IT'S NEW AND INTERESTING AND DIFFERENT. SO IT'S, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE NUANCE OF THIS CONVERSATION.EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, WHICH IS THAT WE HAVE SOME PRETTY UNIQUE TOPOGRAPHY THAT MIGHT NECESSITATE TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO ADVISE OUR PLANNING AND ZONING AND CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT HARDSHIP CANNOT ALWAYS BE MET, WHERE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION MIGHT BE NECESSARY FOR HEIGHT. SO WE SHOULDN'T NECESSARILY LOOK AT ALL HEIGHT RELATED QUESTIONS AS SOLELY A VARIANCE, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT ALL MEET THE NET. THE BASIC METRIC FOR HARDSHIP. BUT AGAIN, WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING POLICY. WE'RE JUST RECOMMENDING THAT EVERYTHING WE HAVE WOULD FALL WITHIN ANY SORT OF STATE LAW. AND BEYOND THAT, I'M NOT SURE WHERE ELSE TO GO WITH THIS DISCUSSION. SO WE HAVE WE HAVE OUR COUNCIL LIAISON. ALL RIGHT. I THANK YOU FOR INDULGING ME FOR JUST A MOMENT. SO, CITY OF LAGO VISTA IS GROWING UP. AND I THOUGHT IT WAS WISE TO GO AHEAD AND SEPARATE AS MR. MONAHAN OR COMMISSIONER MONAHAN JUST STATED. THOSE THAT MAKE THE RULES FROM THOSE THAT ENFORCE THE RULES. AND SO IN THIS CASE, AS WE MOVE ON, I KNOW, WHAT IS HELPFUL IS THAT IF Y'ALL ARE TRYING TO MAKE DECISIONS ON ENFORCING THE RULES, WHAT KINDS OF THINGS DO YOU NEED TO KNOW IN ORDER TO MAKE A GOOD DECISION? WHEN, WHEN APPLICANTS COME BEFORE YOU, PART OF IT IS, THAT, WE ARE, LOOKS LIKE CLARITY WITHIN OUR ORDINANCE AS AN EVOLVING PROCESS. IT WAS STILL AN EVOLVING JORDAN HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THAT.
[01:05:01]
AND WE HAVE A COMMISSION WORKING ON THE, THE UDC, THE FIRST ROUNDS, BECAUSE WE HAVE QUITE A FEW ORDINANCES THAT WERE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW JUST BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, EVOLVING OVER TIME. SO WHEN Y'ALL ARE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS, I JUST WANTED TO STATE IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT, TO THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, YEAH, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE A DRONE. WELL, AS IT TURNS OUT, STATE LAW SAYS, WELL, NO, MAYBE YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW, DO THAT.BUT THEN WHAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL OR SIMPLY JUST STATING THIS IS NOT CLEAR TO ME, RIGHT? THERE'S NO, THERE'S NOT A WAY FOR ME TO MAKE A GOOD DECISION OR JUDGMENT HERE AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME. AND THAT HELPS TO FOCUS THE CONVERSATION AT THE P AND Z LEVEL AND THE COUNCIL LEVEL IN ORDER TO MAKE THINGS CLEARER. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE COMMENT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE KEEP THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. I KNOW IN PAST YEARS IT'S COME UP BEFORE, LET'S GET RID OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND JUST RAISE THE THE HEIGHT. WELL, NEVER CAME TO A CONSENSUS. WHAT IS THAT HEIGHT? JUST BECAUSE OF TOPOGRAPHY, RIGHT? BECAUSE IF WE RAISE THE HEIGHT, SOMEONE MAY GET THEIR VIEW BLOCK WITHOUT HAVING A HEARING ABOUT IT. SO THE VIEWS ARE ALWAYS CONSIDERED, PARAMOUNT TO PROTECT. THEN, I FORGOT NOW, BUT, SO WE GOT THE VIEWS AND ALL THE HEIGHTS, YOU KNOW, OUR HEIGHT LIMITS RIGHT NOW ARE THE LOWEST, I THINK IN THE STATE 15FT, SOME SECTIONS, 18FT IN OTHERS. AND SO SOME PEOPLE AREN'T NECESSARILY LOOKING FOR A VIEW. THEY JUST WANT A MORE MODERN HOUSE, WHICH MEANS JUST AN ELEVATED ROOF MORE THAN JUST A VIEW. SO IT'S TO ACCOMMODATE, A NEW ARCHITECTURE, SO TO SPEAK. IS THAT SO? I DON'T THINK, I THINK IT'S GOOD TO HAVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION HOW WE EVALUATE IT. IS ANOTHER MATTER. IF SITE VISITS AREN'T ALLOWED, THERE WERE, I NEVER THOUGHT THEY WERE THAT GOOD ANYWAY BECAUSE YOU HAD TO GO OUT ON SITE. LOOK AT THE RIDGE POLE. YOU WEREN'T SURE IF YOU EVEN PUT THE RIGHT HEIGHT UP THERE ON THE MARKINGS. WHICH, YOU KNOW, UNLESS IT WAS REALLY EGREGIOUS, WE DIDN'T KNOW. AND SO THEN, YOU KNOW, THE, I THINK THE RULE STILL ALLOWS THAT, THE BOARD CAN REQUIRE SURVEYS, REPORT ON THE HEIGHT LACKING ANY OTHER MEANS TO, EVALUATE THE HEIGHT. I THINK, BRINGING IT BACK, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR THIS BOARD, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DELINEATION BETWEEN MAKING POLICY VERSUS ENFORCING POLICY, IS IF THERE ARE ANY POLICY CHANGES THAT DO COME FORWARD FROM PLANNING AND ZONING OR FROM CITY COUNCIL, THAT THEY'RE MADE VERY CLEAR TO THIS BOARD AND THAT THERE'S THOROUGH TRAINING ON THOSE. THE ABSENCE OF THAT HAS CREATED SOME DIFFICULT SITUATIONS FOR PRIOR ITERATIONS OF THIS BOARD OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
SO THAT'S GOING TO BE AN INTENSE PRIORITY. THAT NEEDS TO BE REFOCUSED AND PROBABLY SHOULD BE READDRESSED RIGHT NOW, WHETHER THERE ARE CHANGES OR NOT WITH AS MANY NEW MEMBERS AS WE HAVE. THAT'S, THAT'S GOING TO BE OF TOP PRIORITY. BUT IF WE'RE MAKING CHANGES, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT AS WELL, SO THAT'D BE THE REQUEST THAT I WOULD HAVE OF, OF COUNCIL AND STAFF. BEYOND THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SIGNED UP FOR THIS, BUT I SAW A HAND COMING UP OUT HERE. I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS, AS SOON AS THE, THE BOARD'S DONE WITH ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS, WE CAN FOR SURE OPEN THAT UP.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW OR DO WE WANT ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? I'M JUST I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. WE'VE GOT CLEAR UNDERSTANDING. WE'RE TALKING HEIGHT FOR ONE. BECAUSE OF THE ORDINANCE, THE REQUEST THAT WE HAD, THIS MEETING POOLS, DRIVEWAYS RETAINING PARKING, PARKING, PARKING LOT. YEAH. BECAUSE THIS IS ONLY MY SECOND MEETING, THE FIRST ONE, WE DIDN'T CONTINUE. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT TOPICS HAVE COME UP, YOU KNOW, BUT SO I KNOW HEIGHT POOLS, DRIVEWAYS, PARKING LOT. I MEAN, WHAT DOES ANYBODY ELSE KNOW WHAT ELSE? YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S PRETTY MUCH GOT IT. I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO'S BEEN AT OTHER MEETINGS AT THIS POINT.
I'M LIKE, I WISH, I, I WISH I HAD MY OTHER TWO, BUT THOSE ARE REALLY THE, THE HOT BUTTON ISSUES. CHIEF AMONGST THEM HAS BEEN THE HEIGHT SPECIAL EXCEPTION. SO THAT'S IMPORTANT.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, ONE THING WE BROUGHT UP LAST WEEK THAT THE. WE CAN'T GO OUT ON SITE. AND
[01:10:04]
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS ALWAYS A LONG STANDING, LIKE TOM SAID THAT I MEAN, THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAD TO GO OUT THERE. SO I THINK WHEN WE ASKED LIKE, HEY, WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED TO BE PREPARED FOR THESE CONVERSATIONS? WHATEVER WE NEED TO FILL THAT GAP. IF THERE IF THAT WAS THAT IMPORTANT BEFORE, IF IT NEEDS TO BE DIFFERENT PHOTOGRAPHER OR THEY NEED TO SUBMIT SOMETHING SO THEY CAN PROPERLY SHOW US AND PROVE THEIR EVIDENCE. AND SO OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT IN YOUR PACKET TONIGHT. WE DO HAVE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION THAT'S COMING UP, ON THE 31ST, THE PACKET THE MATERIAL IS IN THE PACKET ARE GOING TO BE A VERY SIMILAR LAYOUT TO WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET TODAY FOR THE VARIANCES. AGAIN, VARIANCES ARE NOT SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ARE NOT VARIANCES. AND SO YOU'LL SEE GOING THROUGH THE CASE, GOING THROUGH THE CODE HOW IT MATCHES UP. WE'LL PROVIDE PICTURES. WE'LL PROVIDE NOTICES. IT'LL BE OUR FIRST ROUND WITH THIS NEW BOARD. AND SO IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL THINGS OR, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF STATE LAW AND OUR CODE, WE'LL PROVIDE WHAT WE CAN, TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS. I THINK THAT STAFF'S JOB, GENERALLY SPEAKING. AND SO WHEN THE AGENDA IS POSTED, WHICH SHOULD BE WELL IN ADVANCE, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S THINGS THAT WE NOTE, I DON'T WANT TO STALL OUT MORE APPLICATIONS. AND SO IF THERE'S THINGS IN ADVANCE THAT WE CAN TRY TO GET OUT TO THE BOARD AS A WHOLE AND ADVANCE THE MEETING, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO SO. AND THEN IF WE NEED TO ADJUST THE STAFF REPORT, SIMPLE FIXES, WE CAN ADD ANYTHING THAT'S NECESSARY IN THOSE STAFF REPORTS MOVING FORWARD. AND THEN THAT TAKES OUT THE I NEED TO GO ON SITE TO VISIT IT. I NEED, YOU KNOW, AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN CLEAR THAT UP RELATIVELY EASILY. DO YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THAT STATE DOCUMENT THAT SAYS WE CAN'T DO SITE VISITS? IT'S THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. I CAN GET THE SPECIFIC SECTION FROM. I JUST WANT TO READ IT BECAUSE, I MEAN, THAT MAKES NO SENSE BECAUSE I THINK IT'D BE, IT'D BE HELPFUL IF WE COULD TAKE THAT AND THE PIECE FROM OUR CODE AND SEND BOTH OF THEM TO THIS ENTIRE BOARD FOR, FOR COMPARISON, ESSENTIALLY THE, THE STATE LAW GENERALLY TALKS ABOUT HAVING AN UNBIASED OPINION GOING IN TO, GOING INTO DECISION MAKING. AND PART OF THAT INCLUDES GOING, IT'S THE SAME THING. BUILDING IN STANDARDS IS UNDER THE SAME REGULATIONS FOR AN UNBIASED OPINION ON THINGS. AND SO, THEY'RE TECHNICALLY NOT SUPPOSED TO GO LOOK AT UNSAFE BUILDINGS. STAFF HAS TO MAKE THE CASE THAT IT'S AN UNSAFE BUILDING AND PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION TO DO SO. I THINK WHAT MADE IT KIND OF RESONATED FOR ME, TOM, WAS IT'S KIND OF LIKE YOU'RE IN COURT AND IT'S LIKE YOU'RE PRESENTING THE EVIDENCE. AND IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE, YOU CAN'T BRING IN SOME OTHER EVIDENCE THAT NO ONE ELSE SAW BEFOREHAND. RIGHT? YEAH. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT RESONATED WITH ME. YEAH. INTERESTING. WELL, THAT, I MEAN, IT SEEMS SOME TYPE OF WHETHER IT'S A SEPARATE CONTRACTOR THAT JUST GIVES US TO LOOK AT IT OR, I MEAN, WE GOT TO HAVE SOME EVIDENCE WHETHER I, I GUESS BEING SO-CALLED A OR KIND OF LIKE A JUDICIAL BODY OR SOMETHING SOMEWHAT QUASI JUDICIAL AND IMPARTIAL, RIGHT. STAFF PROVIDE STAFF SHOULD PROVIDE THAT. AGAIN, VERY SIMILAR TO THE PACKET THAT YOU HAVE TONIGHT, STAFF MAKE AN ASSESSMENT AND GIVE US WHAT THEY THINK IS IT'S GOING TO BE A NO. SO THE WAY AND AGAIN, IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO THE PACKET TONIGHT, YOU'LL SEE IT SAYS, HERE'S THE, THE CODE THAT SAYS YOU NEED X, Y AND Z. WE'LL PROVIDE THE FACTS GIVEN TO US AT THE TIME AND WE'LL PROVIDE WHATEVER MATERIAL WE CAN PROVIDE. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE BOARD HAS TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION ON WHETHER OR NOT IT MEETS THAT CRITERIA WITH THE FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU ALL AT THE TIME OF THE DECISION MAKING.EFFECTIVELY THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR MEETING THESE METRICS IS ABSOLUTELY ON. THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO DO MORE THAN WHAT'S REQUIRED NOW, WHICH IS WHERE WE RUN INTO SOME ISSUES WHICH MAY BE REQUIRING A SURVEYOR TO GIVE US A SURVEY REPORT. SO TYPICALLY, WE GET SOME KIND OF SURVEY OR LOT PLAN ON HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS. SPECIFICALLY, WE REQUIRE A PLOT PLAN. MAYBE NOT AS DETAILED AS A SURVEY, BUT IT IS IN THERE AS WELL AS A HEIGHT LINE AND A SIDE PROFILE ON ELEVATION. SO LOOKING AT THE LOT SIDEWAYS, YOU'LL SEE THOSE ELEVATIONS AND THEN WHERE THE HOUSE FALLS AND WHAT THAT DIFFERENCE IS. ALL OF THOSE ARE PROVIDED ALREADY. AND HOW ABOUT HOW ABOUT HEIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING HOUSES THAT MAY BE IMPACTED BY THE, BY THE VIEW.
SO MY CONCERN WITH THAT TO AN EXTENT IS THAT YOU'RE NOW, BRIDGING. WE CAN ONLY LOOK AT ONE PROPERTY TO AN EXTENT. WE CAN ONLY REQUIRE THE APPLICANT OF THAT ONE PROPERTY TO BE UNDER THAT BURDEN OF PROOF. AND SO MY CONCERN WITH REQUIRING HEIGHTS OF HOUSES AROUND IT IS
[01:15:07]
WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING INTO THIS GRAY AREA WHERE WE'RE PUTTING AN OVEREXTENDED BURDEN OF PROOF ON AN APPLICANT. IT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL. I DON'T, I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A SOLID ANSWER ON THAT. I JUST WE CAN'T REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS TO, TO DO THINGS FOR IT. IT JUST GETS A LITTLE CONVOLUTED. I THINK THAT WOULD BE, ANOTHER REQUEST IN THIS REVIEW, IS LOOKING AT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION CRITERIA. IT DOES MAKE REFERENCE. THIS IS FROM MEMORY. I DO NOT HAVE THE CODE IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IT MAKES REFERENCE TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND IMPACT OF VIEW. SO THE QUESTION THAT WE WOULD HAVE BACK TO THE DECISION MAKING BODY FOR THIS POLICY WOULD BE HOW WE ARE INTENDED TO BE ABLE TO SIZE THAT UP. YOU BRING UP A VERY GOOD POINT. SO THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THAT DISCUSSION.DEALT WITH THIS FOR A LONG TIME. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE LEGAL VIEWS ON THIS STUFF BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE GO THROUGH ATTORNEYS AND NO, NO ONE'S EVER BROUGHT THAT UP. SO IT'S JUST ODD THAT THIS IS KNOWN OR THAT'S WHY I GUESS I'D LIKE TO JUST SEE IT. AND, AS, JUST AS A POINT OF REFERENCE, ON MAY 28TH, I BELIEVE IT WAS, MR. FORT, WHO'S OUR ATTORNEY DID A PRESENTATION AND A TRAINING. THAT VIDEO IS AVAILABLE, ON THE AGENDAS AND MINUTES FOR CITY COUNCIL. SAME THING THEIR PRESENTATION THAT GOES THROUGH SOME OF THESE, ESPECIALLY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS IS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET. AND SO WHAT DATE. MAY 28TH I BELIEVE IT WAS. YES. MAY 28TH UNDER CITY COUNCIL. THE AGENDA MINUTES AND THE PACKET ARE AVAILABLE. IF YOU HAVE AN OVER ABUNDANCE OF SPARE TIME AND WANT TO PERUSE 104 PAGE POWERPOINT. SOUNDS EXCITING. AND TOM, NOT TO ADD TO IT, BUT I'M GOING TO ADD TO IT. VIEW. I MEAN, THAT WAS ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT WE HAD TROUBLE WITH HIS VIEW. I'VE SEEN IT WHERE IT SAYS YOUR VIEW IS NOT PROTECTED. BUT THEN WE, WE HAVE ORDINANCES THAT ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT VIEW, BUT LEGALLY THERE IS NOTHING THAT DEFINES A VIEW THAT ACTUALLY, YEAH, THAT ACTUALLY PROTECTS YOUR VIEW UNLESS YOU'RE LIKE IN NEW YORK CITY WHERE THE PEOPLE CAN BUY THE AIRSPACE ABOVE YOU AND PROTECT THE VIEW. BUT DIDN'T YOU ALSO YOUR VIEW, WHERE IS YOUR VIEW FROM? YOU KNOW, BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE SAY IT'S THE STREET, SOME PEOPLE SAY IT'S THE FRONT DOOR. SOME PEOPLE WILL SAY, WELL, IT'S FROM WHEREVER I'M STANDING AT THE MOMENT. YOU KNOW, IF I CAN'T, IF I'M OVER HERE ON MY PATIO AND I CAN'T SEE MY VIEWS BLOCKED, YOU KNOW, SO THAT THAT VIEW HAS ALWAYS BEEN A TOUGH ONE AS WELL. AN IMPORTANT THING THAT I SAW COME UP IN DISCUSSIONS TO THAT POINT WAS MAKING SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS COGNIZANT OF WHAT COULD BE BUILT WITHIN THE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS VERSUS WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE FROM THAT TO WHATEVER A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD BE. SO IF THERE'S NO FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN AFFECTING ANY OF THAT, THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT THAN IF THERE WERE. SO IT'S CONSIDERING THE BUILD LINES OF THE PROPERTY AND IMAGINING A THREE DIMENSIONAL OBJECT WITHIN THEM, AND THEN IMAGINING AN EXTRA TWO, THREE, FOUR, SEVEN, HOWEVER MANY FEET ARE REQUESTED ABOVE THAT. AND IF THERE'S A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS, TO GET INTO THE NUANCE OF THAT CONVERSATION, AGAIN, EASIER WITH THE SITE VISIT THAN WITHOUT. IT'S VERY HARD TO TELL THIS STUFF. IT PUTS A LOT OF BURDEN BACK ONTO THE APPLICANT TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THOSE SORT OF IMAGES OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT STAFF ADVISES THAT THEY MAY ADD TO THAT TO HELP BOLSTER THEIR CASE FOR US. SO THAT'S, IT PUTS A LOT BACK IF WE, IF WE AREN'T MAKING SITE VISITS ON, ON STAFF AND THE APPLICANT AND A THOROUGH, ROBUST CONVERSATION HAPPENING AT THAT LEVEL TO ADVISE WHAT FALLS OUT, WHAT FALLS WITHIN, WHAT CARVE OUTS WITHIN OUR CODES AND HOW TO BEST PRESENT THEIR CASE TO THIS BOARD. SO IT'S A TOUGH ONE IF YOU'VE, IF YOU EXPERIENCE A HEARING ON A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, YOU'D BE SURPRISED THE TIMES THAT YOU FILL ALL THE CHAIRS. AND THEY'RE NOT IN FAVOR OF, OF THE HEIGHT EXCEPTION. SO I THINK IN THE, IN THE INTEREST OF TRYING TO LAND THE PLANE ON THIS CONVERSATION A LITTLE BIT, WE'RE NOT EXACTLY TALKING IN CIRCLES, BUT WE HAVE A GENERAL IDEA THAT WE NEED SOME CLARITY. AND WE, WE DO HAVE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO I SAW A HAND COME UP, MISS BELCHER, HAVE, SOME COMMENTS FOR US. I DO THIS, THIS WILL WORK THE SAME WAY AS
[01:20:03]
IT DID EARLIER. WE CAN GIVE YOU A THREE MINUTES. YEAH, WELL, THANK YOU, MR. MONAHAN, FOR BRINGING UP VIEW AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS. I DO WANT TO LET YOU KNOW, AS SOMEONE WHO'S LIVED THIS FOR THE LAST YEAR, I COULD BUILD A TWO STORY HOUSE ON MY PROPERTY THAT WOULD BLOCK MY ENTIRE DAUGHTER'S ENTIRE VIEW WITHOUT ANY VARIANCE BY PUTTING IT AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, WELL WITHIN THE BUILDING RESTRICTIONS. SO WHEN WE PLACED WHAT WE WERE TOLD TO DO A VARIANCE PLACING THE HOUSE IN A PROPER MANNER SO IT WOULDN'T BLOCK HER VIEW AND SHE'S THE ONLY ONE IMPACTED, THEN IT WAS TABLED. AND NOW WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF NOT KNOWING WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE SOMETHING ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE A VARIANCE THERE. SHOULD IT BE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION? BUT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT YOUR ADVICE, YOU ALSO NEED TO CONSIDER THE PLACEMENT. YES, WE WERE REQUIRED TO GIVE A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SPECIALIZED FOR THE TOPOGRAPHY, NOT JUST A REGULAR SURVEY AND A PLOT PLAN, WHICH WAS DRAWN BY OUR BUILDER. AND IT IS OF CONCERN THAT WE COULD BUILD THE HOUSE THAT WOULD BLOCK THE ENTIRE VIEW WITHOUT YOUR VARIANCE. AND WHEN WE ASK FOR A REVIEW OF ACTUALLY PLACEMENT, THEN IT'S BEEN TABLED. SO JUST SAYING VIEW HEIGHT IS NOT GOING TO BE THE WHOLE STORY. IN A PLACE LIKE LAGO VISTA, WHICH HAS ITS UNIQUE TOPOGRAPHY. SO IF MY DAUGHTER CELLS AND I CAN'T BUILD A HOUSE, I'LL JUST PUT A TWO STORY RENTAL ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND BE DONE WITH IT. AND SO IT'S JUST UNFORTUNATE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS TO THINK ABOUT. AND VIEW IS ONLY VIEW IS ONLY VIEW. IT DEPENDS ON THE PLOT PLACEMENT TOO. AND THEN WHETHER THE ONLY PERSON OR THE PEOPLE INVOLVED WITH THE VIEW SAY, THIS IS ABSOLUTELY FINE. THIS PRESERVES MORE FOR ME THAN WHAT IT WOULD TAKE AWAY. AND I GUESS ONE MORE THING. 15FT IS IN A MODERN HOUSE, LIKE YOU NOTED, ESPECIALLY ONCE YOU ADD THE FOUR FEET OF THE AIR CONDITIONING. SO THE TOPOGRAPHY AND EVERYTHING IS EVERYTHING IN LAGO VISTA. AND SO IT IS, YOU GOT OLD CODES THAT ARE UNDULY KEEPING GOOD TAXPAYER BASE FROM BUILDING NICE QUALITY HOUSES THAT STILL COULD PRESERVE PEOPLE'S VIEWS IF WE'RE SO RIGID. AND HOPEFULLY SOMEONE WILL TELL SOMEONE WILL TELL ME WHERE MY VARIANCE APPLICATION IS AFTER A YEAR AND WHAT I CAN EXPECT, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S NOT COMING UP IN AUGUST, SO I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHERE I'M AT. SO THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER, WE TRIED TO TELL ME, REMEMBER, WE TRIED TO GET AWAY WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT HEIGHTS AND MAKE IT ALL 21FT. YEAH. THEY DIDN'T, THEY NEVER DID THAT. IT DOESN'T WORK. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'LL BE A TOUGH ONE. DEFINITELY SOMETHING FOR US TO PAY ATTENTION TO, AS PLANNING AND ZONING WORKS THROUGH, THROUGH THEIR PROCESS THERE. AND, I'M SURE THIS WILL NOT BE THE LAST WE, WE HEAR OF IT. AND, IF ANYBODY DOES NOT, IF ANYBODY HAS ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT ONE, IF NOT, I THINK WE CAN, WE CAN CLOSE OUT THAT ITEM. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY ACTION OTHER THAN JUST THE INFORMAL DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD THERE. SO WITH THAT, COME FORWARD AND ADJOURN AT 81200. DO I HAVE ONE MORE? AM I MISSING ANOTHER 262 COMMITTEE? I DON'T HAVE IT HERE. THAT'S THE WRONG PACKET. THAT'S.I'M NOT SURE WHAT THERE IS. NO SIX TWO. OKAY. OKAY. SO NO SUBCOMMITTEE TO LOOK AT. NO SUBCOMMITTEE. OKAY, GOOD. ALL RIGHT. THAT MAKES IT EASY. I'LL HOLD THAT ADJOURNMENT THEN. 8
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.