[I. CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]
          [III. 1. Routine Reports from City Council Liaison.]
          [III. 2. Routine Reports from City staff.]
          [IV. CONSENT AGENDA]
          [V. 1. 26-3001-SP-E: Open a public hearing to Discuss, Consider, and Take Action on a special exception application pursuant to Section 11.60 of Chapter 14 of the City of Lago Vista Code of Ordinances to allow an increase in the maximum height allowed by Table A at 2007 Coolidge Lane (Lot 3023 Highland Lake Estates Section 3).]
          [00:21:45]
          LIKE THAT, IF YOU HAD A CERTAINU WERE REQUIRED TO HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE. AND I DON'T 
          [00:21:55]
KNOW IF THAT'S THE SAME BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS REQUIRE 75% SUPERMAJORITY ANYWAY, TO 
          [00:22:01]
APPROVE A MOTION OF THE BOARD TO APPROVE THE MOTION RIGHT OF THE BOARD NOT PRESENT, BUT THE 
          [00:22:06]
BOARD ITSELF. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. IF I MAY, IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME, THERE'S A PACKET 
          [00:22:21]
HERE OF FOLKS OPPOSING IT. AND ONE IN FAVOR OF IT. LOOKING OUT INTO THE CROWD AS THIS OPEN COMMENT PERIOD, IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE CROWD IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSAL? WE WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU. WELL, HOLD ON, HOLD ON. NO, THIS IS OPEN. THIS IS ON MY COMMENTS. NO. NOT YET, NOT YET. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE NOT OPENED IT UP TO THE FLOOR YET. RIGHT NOW WE'RE STILL STAFF AND COUNCIL DISCUSSION. WE WILL GET THERE THOUGH. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A LITTLE DISSENTING OPINION THOUGH. IS IS 1160 SAYS IS IT GOING TO IMPACT THE VIEW OR OUR ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT. 
          RIGHT. THOSE ARE THE TWO CRITERIA. ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU'RE ON PROPERTY THAT'S ESSENTIALLY FLAT, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO IMPACT A VIEW BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS A HOUSE IS BUILT, THERE IS GOING, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE NOT SITTING UP IN THE SLOPED AREA, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE ABOVE THE HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU. AND SO WHEN YOU'RE ON RELATIVELY FLAT LINE, THERE'S NOT REALLY AN IMPACT VIEW AS VIEW IS DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE. SECOND OF ALL, THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT, WHICH IS SUBJECTIVE. AND SO THIS IS WHERE MAYBE WE'D HAVE THE DISAGREEMENT IN MY VIEW ANYWAY IS THAT. I TO ME, IT'S HARD TO JUDGE ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY EMPTY LOTS THERE STILL. THERE'S NOT THERE'S ONLY A FEW HOUSES IN THAT IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THAT LOT. AND SO I WOULD, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE. WELL, THE REASON I BRING THIS UP BECAUSE WE WHEN I WAS ON PLANNING AND ZONING, WE USED TO DO THIS ALL THE TIME. AND SO I THINK THE SAME STANDARDS STILL APPLY. AND. SO IN MY VIEW, UNLESS IT'S A WELL FULLY DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ONE ANOMALOUS LOT OR SOMETHING SIMILAR CLOSE TO THAT, THEN IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, I DON'T MY PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT ARGUMENT HOLDS UP WELL GIVEN FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY VIEWS BEING BLOCKED. WELL, THAT THAT'S, THAT'S MAYBE NOT TRUE THOUGH, THAT THAT MAY NOT BE TRUE BECAUSE IF YOU FOUND A FLAT LOT IN LAGO VISTA, YOU WON THE LOTTERY BECAUSE THERE'S NOT 
          [00:25:03]
VERY MANY. SO I WOULD SAY, WELL, THIS AREA IS FLAT. SO I WOULD SAY, OKAY, MAYBE IT IS, MAYBE IT ISN'T. BUT IF YOU'RE BUILDING A HOUSE THAT'S TALLER THAN THE OTHER HOMES, YOU'RE DEFINITELY GOING TO BLOCK SOMEBODY'S VIEW. AND THE OTHER HOMES MAY BE SLIGHTLY ELEVATED FROM YOU. IT MAY BE FLAT AS WELL, BUT IT MAY BE WORKING ITS WAY UP THE HILL OR SOMETHING. 
          IF WE WERE ALLOWED TO GO CHECK THESE PROPERTIES, IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT. BUT I WOULDN'T MAKE A BLANKET STATEMENT THAT THEY'RE NOT BLOCKING ANYBODY'S VIEW. WELL, IF IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF VIEW, IT'S EITHER IT HAS TO BE A LAKE OR THE HILLSIDE OR THE SURROUNDING HILLSIDES. IT'S NOT THE TREES ON THE LOT ACROSS FROM YOU. THOSE ARE NOT PART OF THE VIEW. 
          WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS ACTUALLY PARTICULARLY POINT OUT THAT IT IMPACTS VIEWS. WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT. I DON'T HAVE A LONG HISTORY WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, BUT IT'S JUST THIS IS THE FIRST ONE. WHAT NORMALLY WE'VE HAD POOL AND OTHER TYPE OF EXCEPTIONS COME IN. NOT THE EXCEPTION IS THIS HOW MANY HAVE WE HOW MANY DID WE APPROVE? IS THIS HAVE WE APPROVED ANY THIS YEAR? LAST YEAR, LAST YEAR. IS THIS A NORMAL THING? WE HAVEN'T APPROVED ANY. I DON'T I HONESTLY I DON'T I HAVE NO IDEA. WE HAVEN'T APPROVED ANY SINCE WE'VE BEEN ON IT IN THE LAST MEETING. WE TALKED ABOUT THEM GOING TO A SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WITH A DIFFERENT CITY COMMITTEE, AND I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT EITHER. AND SO WE WERE TRYING TO WRANGLE THAT IN AND AROUND THE LAST MEETING WE HAD. THERE ARE SOME THINGS I NEED TO BE CLEANED UP. YEAH. AND MORE DEFINED. BUT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT LIKE HAVING CONSISTENT THIS, LIKE HAVING, MAKING, BEING ABLE TO MAKE CONSISTENT DECISIONS. BUT THERE WAS ANOTHER COMMITTEE OR SOME OTHER CITY GROUP THAT WAS APPROVING HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS BECAUSE ALL WE SAW WERE PLANNING AND ZONING, PLANNING AND ZONING USED TO DO EXCEPTIONS. AND THEN IN 23, I THINK IT WAS, IT CHANGED TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. AND SO THAT SAYS 2023. DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW MANY WE'VE BEEN? I DON'T KNOW, PLANNING ZONING USED TO APPROVE QUITE A FEW. 
          THE 2023. WE HAVE SIX, THREE YEARS OF HISTORY. DOES ANYONE KNOW? DO WE KNOW SINCE I'VE BEEN I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF. SINCE I'VE BEEN ON VOA, WE HAVE NOT BEEN FAR BETWEEN. I'M NOT RECALLING ANY. I'VE BEEN ON FOR TWO. WE'VE EVEN HAD PEOPLE CRYING IN THE AUDIENCE. YEAH, IT'S. IT'S VERY RARE THAT HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS GET APPROVED AND. AND IT USUALLY IS BECAUSE OF THE TERRAIN AND STUFF THAT YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT. I MEAN, YOU COULD, YOU COULD APPROVE 20 OF THEM, BUT THEN THERE COULD BE THAT ONE THAT DOESN'T. SO IT'S. BUT UNLESS, UNLESS THERE LIKE NEXT DOOR OR SOMETHING AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SAME VIEW, THE SAME IT, IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER. BUT THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY THAT HAVE COME TO THE BOARD OR ANYWHERE TO GET APPROVED THAT I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO. THERE, THERE MAY BE, THERE MAY BE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HISTORY IS. YEAH. SO I, WE'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD TWO PLUS YEARS NOW, AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK DEFINITIVELY BECAUSE I'VE SLEPT SINCE THE LAST TIME I WAS AT ONE OF THESE MEETINGS. BUT I WOULD JUST SAY AS A GENERAL POLICY, THEY'RE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN IN THE APPROVALS. AND SO I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO COMMIT TO PUBLIC RECORD THAT WE'VE NEVER. BUT I WOULD SAY AS A AS A ON AVERAGE, IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT THEY DON'T GET APPROVED AS A AS A CONDITION OF HOW THE WORDING IN THE THE ORDINANCES ARE STRUCTURED. I CAN CONFIDENTLY SAY EVERY MEETING I'VE BEEN AT AND I'VE ONLY MISSED A COUPLE. WE'VE NEVER APPROVED ONE. I ONLY KNOW BECAUSE I'M PASSIONATE ABOUT IT. WELL, AND I ASKED TO BECAUSE. 
          SO THE LAST ONE, I THINK TWO OF THE LAST THREE MEETINGS, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT AND WE'VE SAID LIKE, THERE SHOULD BE CONSISTENCY AND THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANOTHER GROUP. AND THIS IS THE FIRST ONE THAT'S COME ABOUT. AND I'M WONDERING IF THE CITY CHANGED SOMETHING. 
          AND NOW THEY KICKED IT DOWN THIS WAY TO TRY TO SEND EVERYTHING OUR WAY. I'M NOT I DON'T I DON'T KNOW, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT FROM A HEIGHT PERSPECTIVE, AS SOON AS WE START APPROVING ANYTHING OVER HEIGHT REGULATIONS, THEN EVERYTHING IS GOING TO COME IN FRONT OF US. SO IF THE CITY IS SERIOUS ABOUT IT, THEN WE CAN'T. DO WE NEED TO RAISE IT OR HAVE A AT LEAST HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY TO SAY, WHAT ARE WHAT ARE THE RESTRICTIONS? AND IS THIS WHAT WE WANT TO STAY WITH? BECAUSE OTHERWISE EVERY BUILDER THAT COMES OUT HERE IS GOING TO WANT TO PUT THEIR. IT'S GOING TO BE A HOUSE THERE IN FRONT OF US, I WOULD THINK. 
          AND MAYBE NOT EVERYONE, NOT NOT EVERYONE, I WON'T SAY THAT, BUT A LOT MORE. THE. THE EXCEPTION EXISTS BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY. ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN THESE HEIGHT STANDARDS WERE SET, THIS COMES BACK FROM THE ORIGINAL PO BACK. YOU KNOW, WE GOT THOSE HEIGHT STANDARDS FROM THE PO BEFORE THE CITY WAS INCORPORATED. RIGHT. AND SO IT WAS. 15. A LOT OF AREAS ARE 15FT. OTHERS ARE 18FT DEPENDING ON WHICH SECTION OF LARGO YOU LIVE IN. THAT'S THE HEIGHT EXCEPTION. WELL THEN ARCHITECTURAL STYLES HAVE CHANGED SINCE THOSE 80S HAVE 
          [00:30:05]
HOMES. AND SO PEOPLE WOULD COME IN WANTING A HEIGHT. AND, YOU KNOW, EACH ONE GETS LOOKED AT INDIVIDUALLY. IF IF I MEAN, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME DENIED BECAUSE IT BLOCKS WHAT THE DEFINITION OF VIEW IS. THEY GET DENIED OR THEY, YOU KNOW, FROM MY HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, SIX OUT OF SEVEN NEIGHBORS SAYING, NO, THEY CAN'T BUILD OUT THERE. AND I WOULDN'T WANT TO BUILD A HOUSE NEXT TO SIX NEIGHBORS WHO NOW HATE ME. ANYWAY, WHY IS THE HOUSE SO TALL? WHAT? WHAT IS IT THAT'S MAKING IT GO EIGHT FEET TALLER? WHAT'S THE REASON FOR IT IF IT'S A ONE STORY HOUSE? HOUSE? I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN TALK TO THE HOMEOWNERS, BUT WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE POINT? WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE EIGHT FEET TALLER IF IT'S NOT A TWO STORY HOUSE? WHY IS IT SO COLD? WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? WELL, IT'S 18FT FROM THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE LOT TO. SO UNLESS IT'S COMPLETELY FLAT, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS, THERE'S SOME. IT'S FROM THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE LOT. SO I MEAN, IF THEY WERE GOING TO DO LIKE A LIKE A HIP ROOF OR SOMETHING WITH LIKE TALLER SAND, THEY COULD STILL DO IT WITHOUT IT BEING A BIG EXCEPTION. JUST, JUST HEARING THAT IT'S FLAT. I DON'T I HEAR AND UNDERSTAND THE WORD FLAT, BUT I, I'M STILL IN LAGO VISTA. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S WEIRD THINGS HERE. YOU KNOW, IT'S A LITTLE FLAT. IT'S LAGO VISTA FLAT, SPANISH LAGO VISTA FLAT. COULD THEY DIG IT DOWN ON IT OR SOMETHING? YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THEY CAN'T BECAUSE THEY'RE SAYING YEAH, NOT BECAUSE OF THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO A WHOLE NEW DRAINAGE STUDY AND FLOOD RISKS AND STREET IMPACTS. SO THEY CAN'T THEY WOULD THAT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING FEASIBLE. WELL AND WELL, I MEAN, IT COULD BE I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT'S THE RISK THAT PEOPLE TAKE WHEN THEY BUY A LOT. WE HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO ANY HOMEOWNER, ANY PROPERTY OWNER TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY RECOUP WHATEVER THEIR INVESTMENT IS. IT'S A RISK THAT THEY TAKE. AND THE BURDEN SHOULDN'T FALL ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS TO ABSORB THAT, BECAUSE IT'S COST PROHIBITIVE TO PUT WHAT THEY WANT TO PUT IT. AND SOMETHING ELSE, YOU'LL SEE IT MORE WITH THE FLATTER. I'LL GO WITH THE WORD FLATTER, NOT FLAT. BECAUSE MY MY STREET, I WOULD SAY IS FLAT, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY FLATTER. IF SOMEBODY'S GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET, LET'S SAY I'M LOOKING OUT HERE AND I'VE GOT A VIEW OF THE LAKE, RIGHT. AND THEY DECIDE THEY WANT TO COME IN AND BUILD A HOUSE. IF THEY PUT A HOUSE THERE THAT IS 18FT TALL. AND NOW I CANNOT SEE THE LAKE, THEY HAVE BLOCKED MY VIEW. RIGHT? SO BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE THEY'VE BLOCKED MY VIEW WITH AN 18 FOOT TALL HOUSE, THEY CAN BUILD 25FT AND IT DOES NO FURTHER DAMAGE BECAUSE MY VIEW IS ALREADY BLOCKED. SO AGAIN, THE TOPO YOU THIS PICTURE, IT'S JUST THAT I'VE SEEN IT'S JUST THE THE RIDGE POLE AND STUFF. 
          YOU CAN'T REALLY TELL. WE CAN'T GO THERE AND LOOK AT IT. YOU KNOW, I WISH IN OUR PACKET THERE WAS DIFFERENT VIEWS SO THAT WE COULD SEE OR SOMETHING YOU KNOW THAT WOULD YOU KNOW THE PEOPLE THAT ARE OPPOSING BECAUSE OF THEIR VIEW, WHAT ARE THEY LOOKING AT? ARE THEY LOOKING AT 18FT OR ARE THEY LOOKING AT 25FT? BECAUSE IF THEY'RE LOOKING AT 18 AND IT SAYS AND THEY SAY, HEY, IT BLOCKS MY VIEW, THEN 25 DOES NO, NO, NO HARM. THAT IS A GOOD POINT. WE CAN'T SEE FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT ON THE PICTURES. WE CAN'T SEE WHERE WE ARE, WHERE THEY'RE LOOKING FROM. THEY'RE LOOKING, THEY MIGHT BE LOOKING FROM WHEREVER, BUT IT IS HARD TO TELL FROM THOSE PICTURES IN THE PACKET. AMANDA AND DUANE, I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW, AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE BEEN HEARD THAT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GO DRIVE BY THE PROPERTY. WHAT IS THE CITY ORDINANCE THAT FORBIDS THIS, OR WHERE IS IT CODIFIED THAT WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DRIVE BY PROPERTY? THIS IS INFORMATION THAT I RECEIVED WHEN I BECAME LIAISON FOR THE BUILDINGS AND STANDARDS COMMISSION. SO IT PROBABLY DOESN'T APPLY TO BY A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. BUT FROM WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT WE ARE ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED FROM GOING OUT THERE AND VISITING A PROPERTY. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT STAFF, AND AND NEIGHBORS. WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO GO OUT THERE AND BE AN INVESTIGATIVE BODY, SO WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION AS A WHOLE OR AS A COMMITTEE AND NOT DO INDEPENDENT RESEARCH. 
          SO THEN IT SHOULD BE PRETTY EASY FOR NORMA TO EMAIL US THE THE CITY ORDINANCE THAT FORBIDS IT SOMEWHERE. THERE IS NO ORDINANCE THAT FORBIDS IT. WHAT THEY WHAT THEY TOLD US WAS THAT 
          [00:35:05]
THE CITY'S RULES SAID WE HAD TO GO VISIT THE PROPERTY, BUT THAT THE STATE LAW SAID WE COULD NOT. 
          THERE'S. AND IT SHOULD BE OKAY. CAN WE HAVE A TAKEAWAY FOR NORMA OR OUR LIAISON TO. YES, YES, ABSOLUTELY. FOR US, THE APPROPRIATE LAW. I WAS VERY CONFUSED ABOUT IT AS WELL WHEN I GOT ON TO BUILDINGS AND STANDARDS BECAUSE I WAS LIKE, WELL, HOW CAN WE NOT? I MEAN, IF WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING INSPECTIONS AND PUTTING LIKE CODE VIOLATIONS AND ORDINANCES AND IMPOSING, HOW ARE WE? WHY CAN'T WE LOOK AT IT? THAT MEANS IF UNINTENTIONALLY VIOLATED ORDINANCE FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS, BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER COMMUNICATED TO THIS BOARD. AND HERE'S THE DEAL. I WHEN I SAW THIS ON THE THE THE AGENDA, I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS GOING TO BE CALLED IN AT 430 THIS AFTERNOON. I DROVE BY THIS WEEKEND. SO I WAS GOING TO SAY LIKE, SO YOU CAN'T PROHIBIT US FROM DRIVING ON A PUBLIC STREET. RIGHT? SO, PROPERTY, I MEAN, I'M, I'M ENTITLED TO BE NOSY. I'M NOT. I WASN'T THE LIAISON UNTIL ABOUT TWO HOURS AGO. I JUST HAPPENED TO. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. EXACTLY. BEING THE NEWBIE, BEING THE NEWBIE. THEY SENT ME TRAINING. AND SO I DID THIS TRAINING. AND AT THE END OF IT, THEY TALKED ABOUT IT. AND THEN THE FIRST MEETING WE CAME IN, THEY TALKED ABOUT A STATE LAW AND ABOUT. AND WHAT RESONATED WITH ME WAS ONLY IT WAS LIKE, PICTURE YOURSELF. YOU'RE THE JUDGE. YOU'RE THIS IS THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL COMMITTEE. RIGHT. AND SO THEY SAID, PICTURE YOURSELF. YOU'RE IN A YOU'RE IN A COURTHOUSE. THE EVIDENCE THAT'S PRESENTED IS THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED, BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE MIGHT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO OUT ONTO THAT SITE, EVEN THOUGH WE ALL FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD BE OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO DO THAT, UNLESS IT'S PRESENTED IN THIS CASE, WAS MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT WAS WHAT RESONATED WITH ME. I WAS LIKE, OKAY, I GUESS I GET IT. WHEN I LOOK AT THESE PICTURES, IT THERE ARE FROM GROUND LEVEL AND IT IS HARD TO SEE WHERE YOU'RE AT. AND IF THAT'S ALL WE GET LARGE, LARGER THAN ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, LARGER THAN THIS MEETING, WE'RE HAPPY TO COMPLY. WE JUST NEED TO BE SHOWN WHERE WHAT THE COMPLIANCE RULE IS. OTHER THAN A COMMENT OR SOMETHING. SO MY ASK IS NOT TONIGHT, JUST IF WE CAN GET NORMA TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE CITY LIAISON TO FOLLOW UP WITH, I CAN SEE HOW THEY'RE COMING UP WITH THAT AND CITING THE STATUTE, THAT STATUTE FOR IT. PERFECT. YEAH. GOOD LUCK. YOU WON'T FIND ONE. I'VE ASKED FOR A COPY OF THE SO-CALLED LAW THAT SAYS WE CAN'T VISIT. AND I WOULD SAY I'VE NOT BEEN GIVEN THAT YET. AND I'VE DONE MY OWN RESEARCH AND LOOKED AT CASE LAW, TRIED TO FIND CASE LAW, AND I, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT OPINION COMES FROM, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION WITHOUT SEEING IT. THAT'S RIGHT. AND THEN ANY STAFF MEMBER OR ANYONE COULD SWAY WHATEVER IS IN THE PACKET. AND IF WE'RE JUST GOING OFF OF THIS INFORMATION JUST IN THE HOPES THAT IT'S NOT BIASED OR THERE'S NOT AN OPINION IN HERE OR ANYTHING LIKE. YEAH, THAT'S WHY WE'RE ON HERE, RIGHT? IS TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON WHAT WE, WE THINK AND WHAT WE SEE, NOT WHAT'S BEING FED TO US OR WHAT'S THE POINT OF US BEING UP HERE. I AGREE. WELL, THE POINT I THINK THE POINT IS, IS THAT THEY HAVE TO LIKE AND THIS IS ALL, LIKE I SAID, I'M I'M THE NEW ONE COMING IN. AND I THOUGHT IT WAS LIKE, I'M GOING TO GO ON EVERY SITE AND I'M GOING TO SEE THE VIEW. I'M GOING TO SEE EVERYTHING. I'M GOING TO SEE WHERE THE POOL'S GOING TO BE. AND THEY WERE LITERALLY STRICTLY IT WAS LIKE, ABSOLUTELY NOT. BECAUSE WHATEVER, I KNOW YOU CAN'T GO ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY, BUT YOU CAN SURELY DRIVE PAST IT, RIGHT? APPARENTLY NOT. SO I DID LOOK IT UP AND IT'S CALLED IT FALLS UNDER THE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AND DUE PROCESS. 
          SINCE YOU'RE A QUASI JUDICIAL BODY, IT IS UNDER THE UNC SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT, AND I CAN SEND YOU ALL THE LINKS BY EMAIL IF YOU'D LIKE, PLEASE. SO LET ME ASK YOU GUYS THIS. IF YOU BOUGHT A HOUSE, KNOWING WHAT THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WERE, YOU'D GO, OH YEAH, I'M GONNA BUILD MY HOUSE RIGHT HERE BECAUSE NOBODY CAN BUILD A HOUSE HIGHER THAN THIS HIGH. 
          AND THEN NEXT THING YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY DOES. WOULDN'T YOU BE UPSET? I WOULD BE UPSET BECAUSE I BOUGHT MY HOUSE WITH KNOWING THE RULES AND GOING BY THE RULES, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, OH, I DIDN'T KNOW. ALL YOU HAD TO DO IS GO ASK, AND YOU CAN GET IT BUILT AS HIGH AS YOU WANT. 
          AND I WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S WHY PREDOMINANTLY THIS BOARD IS REJECTED FOR THAT FOR EXACTLY THAT REASON, TO THE PEOPLE WHO SPENT MONEY, BOUGHT A HOUSE THINKING THAT NO ONE WAS GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE TALLER THAN THEIRS. AND EVEN IF THE DEFINITION I DON'T KNOW, THE DEFINITION OF A VIEW MEANS THAT YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE A LAKE OR WHATEVER. I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY PRETTY HARD TO DEFINE TO DEFINE WHAT A VIEW IS. WELL, YOU HAVE TO LOOK, IT'S IT'S CODIFIED, I GOT IT, I GOT IT, BUT IT'S STILL, IF I'M IN THE HOUSE NEXT TO YOU AND I SAY, YOU'RE BLOCKING MY VIEW, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY OPINION OF THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          IT'S STILL YOU'RE BLOCKING MY VIEW, IN MY OPINION. AND I BOUGHT MY HOUSE THINKING THAT YOU COULD ONLY BUILD A HOUSE THIS HIGH, AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE THIS HIGH. IT 
          [00:40:01]
TO ME IT WOULD I WOULD BE SUPER, SUPER UPSET IF YOU DID THAT WELL. AND ALSO, I DON'T WANT PEOPLE THINKING, OH, OKAY, I KNOW, I KNOW IT SAYS THIS OR THE BUILDING STANDARDS SAY THIS OR THE ORDINANCE SAYS THIS, BUT I'LL JUST GO ASK FOR AN EXCEPTION. EXACTLY. THEN WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE ANYTHING IN PLACE? EXACTLY. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. JUST BUILD WHATEVER YOU WANT. WELL, THAT'S WHEN THE CITY NEEDS TO LOOK AT IT AND SAY, IS THIS WHAT WE WANT? IS OUR STANDARDS OR DO WE WANT TO RAISE THEM? AND THEN THE ONLY STUFF THAT COMES TO US IS IF THEY RAISE THE STANDARDS, MAYBE THERE'S ALWAYS AN EXCEPTION TO EVERYTHING, THOUGH, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU CAN LEGISLATE EXCEPTIONS OUT OF YOUR ORDINANCES. I AGREE, I'M JUST SAYING THEY'RE CALLED EXCEPTIONS FOR THE RIGHT, NOT FOR US TO JUST EXCEPTIONS. 
          EVERYTHING EXCEPTIONS, VARIANCES YOU KNOW. YEAH. THERE'S THERE'S ALWAYS SPECIAL CASES, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. SO THIS IS NOT IN THE REPORT PROVIDED BY STAFF. THIS LOOKS LIKE IT WAS DONE BY A CITIZEN. SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY WILL HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS. BUT WE HAVE A SHEET THAT SAYS. THERE'S ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR TEN, TEN PROPERTIES AROUND SAYS NOT APPROVED. IT'S THE THE MAP WITH THE 200 YARD OR THE 200 FOOT CIRCLE. AND WHO IS RESPONDED? IS THAT CITY PROVIDED OR WAS THAT. NO. THIS IS PROVIDED BY ANDREW WHITE, ANDREW AND DON WHITE. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF STAFF WOULD KNOW. HAS THERE BEEN TEN APPLICANTS THAT IN THIS AREA THAT HAVE BEEN DENIED? I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR A FACT, BECAUSE I DIDN'T RESEARCH THAT PORTION OF THIS. I DO KNOW THAT AS THE PLAN REVIEWER FOR THE CITY, THAT IF THE BUILDING DOESN'T GO TO THE STANDARDS THAT THE. OUR CODE OF ORDINANCE STATES, AS A PLAN REVIEWER, I HAVE TO DENY IT. I FEEL LIKE SOME OF OUR QUESTIONS MIGHT BE ANSWERED IF PEOPLE COME UP AND TALK. ONCE WE CALL PEOPLE UP, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO GET. SO I WAS READING IN THE. 
          PUBLIC, LET'S SEE IF I CAN BRING IT BACK UP FROM TAM. I'M SORRY. CARRY ON UNTIL I CAN FIND IT AGAIN. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. NOPE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS AGENDA ITEM TILL THE NEXT MEETING SO THAT WE CAN GET CLEAR GUIDANCE ON OUR ABILITY TO VIEW THE SITE. I THINK THAT'S AS A QUESTIONABLE I. IF YOU DON'T MIND, I WOULD LIKE TO DELAY THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE AND HAVE SIGNED UP, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM BEFORE WE GO. BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL IN A MINUTE. BASED ON SUBMITTED MATERIALS AND SITE VISITS, STAFF DID NOT IDENTIFY A CLEAR, SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT. THE RESIDENTS OF ONE STORY REPRESENTING AS REMAINING BELOW THE 35 FOOT ABSOLUTE HEIGHT LIMITATION. BUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MUST MAKE THE FINAL DETERMINATION. ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO READ THAT FROM FROM FROM STAFF. ALL RIGHT. IF EVERYBODY'S ON BOARD, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO CITIZENS. YEAH, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO START. 
          THE WHITES WHO SUBMITTED THIS PACKAGE ARE NOT IN ATTENDANCE. I DON'T BELIEVE. OH, SO I DON'T HAVE TO READ IT. WELL GOOD. BECAUSE I WAS FORWARDED THIS, SAID Y'ALL WERE NOT GOING TO BE 
          [00:45:07]
PRESIDENT AND I NEEDED TO READ IT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT MUCH. SO I APPRECIATE THE FIRST. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LAST. OKAY. WELL, I WILL MOVE ON TO LET'S GO OVER HERE TO MY. LIST. 
          NINE I WANTED TO DO WITH THEM ALL THE ONES THAT ARE IN FAVOR. I HAD ALL THE CARDS. WHAT DID I DO WITH THEM ALL? I PUT THEM IN ORDER, STACKED THEM UP SOMEWHERE. OH, THERE THEY ARE. 
          THANK YOU. I KNEW I HAD THEM SOMEWHERE. ALL RIGHT. FIRST I WILL CALL ROBERT RUGGIERO. 
          ROBERT, PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF TO THE COMMITTEE AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          I'M ROBERT RUGGIERO, 20117 HIGHLAND LAKE DRIVE. IN ANSWER TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS YOU WERE WORKING ON. I'M A GEOLOGIST. I'VE WORKED ON LIDAR, THREE DIMENSIONAL REPRESENTATIONS OF TOPOGRAPHY IN THIS AREA. THERE ARE DATABASES THAT ARE HELP YOU ALL IMMEDIATELY LOOK AT THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGES AND DISCUSSING AND PONDERING SOME OF THESE THINGS. BUT I LIVE AT A CLOSING CONTOUR OF 940FT IN MY HOUSE, THE HIGHEST POINT IN THE REGION, AND I'M KIND OF FLATTISH. BUT WHEN YOU COME OFF OF MY HIGH GROUND AND I-40 DOWN TO THIS LOCATION, IT'S AT 900FT, SO IT DROPS 40FT IN A MATTER OF HALF A BLOCK. SO THERE IS SOME STEEP TOPOGRAPHY. AND THEN BEHIND DALE B'S HOUSE, THERE'S A CREEK THERE. AND THAT'S JUST ALL THIS TOPOGRAPHY DROPS DOWN TO A VERY DEEP CREEK THAT RUNS DOWN INTO TRAGER'S COVE. SO THERE IS, YOU KNOW, A GOOD BIT OF TOPOGRAPHIC DRAW. AND THERE ARE TWO LOTS IN PARTICULAR BENEATH OR BELOW THIS ONE ON CLEVELAND THAT ARE IN THE CREEK BED TO PONDER HOW YOU'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO BUILD A HOUSE IN THE CREEK BED. OKAY, I'D LIKE TO READ VERY QUICKLY A LETTER THAT WAS SENT IN, YOU KNOW, BY ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS. HE SAYS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS PREDOMINANTLY MADE OF LIFELONG RESIDENTS LIVING IN SINGLE FAMILIES HOMES. 
          SUPPORT SHARED ENJOYMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD HABITAT PRESERVATION, AND PLACE A STRONG EMPHASIS ON PRESERVING THE ENVIRONMENT. HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS PLAY A CRUCIAL ROLE IN PRESERVING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, COMMUNITY ENJOYMENT, MINIMIZING VISUAL IMPACTS AND PREVENTING LIGHT POLLUTION. PURSUANT TO LAGO VISTA ZONING ORDINANCE, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO HEIGHT STANDARDS MAY ONLY BE GRANTED IF THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL HEIGHT CREATES NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE VIEW OF ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER OR THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. WE BELIEVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FAILED TO MEET THE STRICT STANDARD FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON SEVERE ADVERSE IMPACT ON HILL COUNTRY VIEWS, PROPERTY VALUES, AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN HIGHLAND LAKE ESTATES ARE DIRECTLY TIED TO OUR UNOBSTRUCTED TEXAS HILL COUNTRY VIEWS, WHICH ARE OFTEN. 
          THE TREE LINES. THAT'S THE HILL COUNTRY. ELEVATING PRINCIPLE, BUILDING AN ADDITIONAL EIGHT FEET ABOVE STANDARD 15 FOOT BASELINE CREATES AN UNNECESSARY ARTIFICIAL VERTICAL PROTRUSION BARRIER THAT DESTROYS THE ESTABLISHED HORIZONTAL SKYLINE, DIRECTLY CUTS OFF LINES OF SIGHT TO MULTIPLE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AND SIGNIFICANTLY BLOCKS VIEWS ACROSS THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S NATURALLY ROLLING TOPOGRAPHY. AND IN PARTICULAR, THEY OWN THESE HOUSE. THIS IS A MONSTROUS DOUBLE THE HEIGHT BUILDING RIGHT NEXT TO THEIR HOUSE. 
          THEY'VE BEEN HERE FOR DECADES. IT'S INCOMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT. THE STANDARD HEIGHT LIMITS WERE ENACTED INTENTIONALLY TO PRESERVE THE STEP DOWN VISUAL FLOW OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, MUCH LIKE AN ARENA SEATS. THE STANDARD HEIGHT LIMITS WERE ENACTED TO PRESERVE THESE. THIS SLOPING 
          [00:50:10]
FEATURE, GRANTING A SUBSTANTIAL HEIGHT INCREASE, VIOLATES THE ESTABLISHED ESTHETIC SCALE AND DESTROYS VISUAL CONTINUITY OF THIS IMMEDIATE BLOCK. IT ALTERS THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD RELIES HEAVILY ON LOW PROFILE ARCHITECTURAL HARMONY TO PROTECT THE SHARED SIGHT LINES OF THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD, ALLOWING A 23 FOOT TALL SILHOUETTE ON THIS HIGHLY VISIBLE CORNER LOT SETS A DAMAGING PRECEDENT THAT ALTERS THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF OUR IMMEDIATE VICINITY AND DIRECTLY IMPACTS THE OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD. VISUAL PROFILE, ABSENCE OF HARDSHIP FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT THE APPLICANT FACES NO UNIQUE GEOLOGICAL OR PHYSICAL SITE CONSTRAINTS THAT REQUIRE BUILDING UPWARD RATHER THAN OUTWARD, ON AN OVERSIZE, FLAT, ONE THIRD QUARTER ACRE LOT. THAT'S ONE OF THE LARGER LOTS IN OUR AREA. ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO STOP YOU RIGHT THERE. THAT'S THREE MINUTES. THERE'S MORE. IT'S IN THE PACKET. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT, I'LL CALL SALLY RUGGIERO. TO 0117 ON MY DRAWING. I WANTED TO CLEAR UP A COUPLE OF THINGS BECAUSE IT IS A FLAT LOT AND IT'S ABOUT THE HEIGHT. OR CALL ONE STORY, CALL IT TWO STORY. WE FIRST OFF, THERE ARE LIKE 13 RESPONSES THAT THE WHITES HAVE FIVE LOTS ALL IMPACTED, AND HE GOT FIVE NOTICES. WE HAVE, I THINK IT'S NINE OTHER FOLKS. AND SO WE HAVE PERMISSION FROM SEVERAL FOLKS WITHIN THE 208 TO READ THEIR LETTERS INTO THE RECORD THAT WE BASICALLY READ BY PEOPLE THAT ARE WITHIN 200FT, CHOOSING THEIR LETTERS THAT WE RECORD, AND THEN ONE PERSON IS GOING TO GO PERMIT READ ANOTHER ONE THAT'S QUITE ELOQUENT. AND ANYWAY, I'LL BE REAL QUICK. THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF OUR LOT OF VISTA RESIDENTS OF ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR GENERATIONS SPANNING MANY DECADES, ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND ARE TO BE DEFENDED. WE ARE THE BACKBONE OF THIS GREAT COMMUNITY. WE BUILT LAGO VISTA BY FOLLOWING THE RULES AND RESTRICTIONS AND THE LAW. WE SERVED THIS FINE COMMUNITY AND CARE FOR EACH OTHER AND PUT EVERYTHING INTO OUR HOMES. WE'LL PASS OUR CHERISHED LEGACY TO THE PEOPLE, TO OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS. THIS IS WHAT MAKES US HARMONIOUS. 
          NEIGHBOR HOODS WITHIN LAGO VISTA. NUMBER TWO. THIS REQUEST FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE HARDSHIP AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT WARRANT YOUR APPROVAL. THE HARDSHIP IS OURS AND WE DEFEND OUR 15 FOOT HIGH ELEVATION NEIGHBORHOOD. WE SPEAK IN UNISON, JOINED BY MANY IN THE COMMUNITY. APPLICANT IS FREE TO BUILD 15FT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AS PERMITTED. 
          OTHERWISE THEY MAY BUILD THEIR INCREASED HEIGHT DREAM HOME WHERE IT IS ALLOWED. NUMBER THREE. ALTHOUGH THE MAP LOCATION CAN BE CORRELATED TO A CORNER LOT AT COOLIDGE AND CLEVELAND, THE PROVIDED ADDRESS IS OFFICIALLY NOTICED, AND THE SAME THAT APPEARED ON THE APPLICATION DOES NOT EXIST. GOOGLE MAPS PROXY ADDRESS LOCATION OWNED BY HELEN BEATRICE WINDSOR. FURTHERMORE, THE APPLICANT'S STATED AS SARAH ROBBINS AND RANDY STEWART ARE NOT THE SAME NAMES ON THE DEED. TRANSFER FROM MIDNIGHT LAND CORPORATION OR JUST EVERY RESIDENT. THE NAMES ARE. DEED ARE EDWIN STEWART AND SARAH ROBBINS. TWO QUESTIONS. WHO ARE THE APPLICANTS THAT ACTUALLY OUTSTANDING AND HOW IS THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE AND THIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HANDLING THE INCORRECT NOTICE OF LOCATION? SO BASICALLY, LIKE I SAID, THERE'S LIKE TEN, INCLUDING ANDY AND DAWN'S FIVE LOTS. YOU NOTICE FOR ALL OF THEM AND NINE OTHER FOLKS, THEY'RE IN THERE, MOSTLY HOMES. THERE'S ONLY A COUPLE OF LOTS. 
          MOST OF THEM ARE HOMES. WE WILL DEFEND THE RIGHT. AND WE ALWAYS HAVE PEOPLE TO HAVE THEIR 15FT ELEVATION. THERE'S NO HARDSHIP OTHER THAN OURS TO HAVE TO DEFEND. AND WE'VE BEEN HERE TWO, THREE AND FOUR GENERATIONS. WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR, YOU KNOW, NUMEROUS DECADES. WE'VE BEEN THE PILLARS OF THE COMMUNITY. AND THIS IS A COHESIVE NEIGHBORHOOD OF NEIGHBORS. AND LIKE I SAID, WE WILL DEFEND SOMEONE'S RIGHT TO HAVE 15FT. THERE'S NO HARM THERE TO BUILD THERE AND SAY, WE JUST WANT TO BUILD THIS DREAM HOME. YOU KNOW, THEY THEY CAN DO THAT, BUT NOT ON THAT LOT. AND LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE THE FULL SUPPORT OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY AND PEOPLE AT LARGE IN THE COMMUNITY. SO. ALL RIGHT. AND I'M GOING TO STOP YOU THERE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT. RHONDA TREASTER. MY NAME IS RHONDA TREASTER AND I LIVE AT 21742 SIERRA TRAIL. I'M 
          [00:55:19]
NOT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I'M HERE REPRESENTING PHOTOS, AND I WILL BE READING THE LETTER FROM LORI FRENZEL. I AM WRITING TO RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE PROPOSED TWO STORY HOME AT 2007 COOLIDGE LANE. I HAVE OWNED MY HOME IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 26 YEARS, AND I FEEL TRULY BLESSED TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO KEEP MY HOME HERE FOR SO LONG. OVER THE YEARS, I HAVE REMAINED DEEPLY CONNECTED TO WIDER VISTA AND TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I TAKE PRIDE IN MAINTAINING MY PROPERTY AND IN HELPING PRESERVE THE APPEARANCE AND CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHAT HAS ALWAYS MADE THIS AREA SPECIAL IS THE QUIET SETTING, THE OPEN VIEWS, THE PRIVACY, AND THE ESTABLISHED PATTERN OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT FIT NATURALLY WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MANY OF US HAVE WORKED HARD FOR YEARS TO PRESERVE THOSE QUALITIES, AND THEY ARE A MAJOR PART OF WHAT LAGO VISTA STANDS FOR. THE PROPOSED HEIGHT INCREASE WOULD HAVE A SERIOUS NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THAT CHARACTER. A TWO STORY HOME ON THIS LOT WOULD TOWER OVER NEARLY NEARBY HOMES, AND WOULD BE ESPECIALLY DISRUPTIVE TO LONG TERM AND ELDERLY NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE LIVED HERE FOR DECADES. 
          BECAUSE THIS IS A HIGHLY VISIBLE CORNER LOT, A STRUCTURE OF THAT HEIGHT AND SCALE WOULD CREATE AN IMPOSING PRESENCE THAT IS OUT OF KEEPING WITH THE ESTABLISHED LOOK AND FEEL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS PROPOSED TWO STORY HOME WOULD HAVE AN ESPECIALLY HARMFUL IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORING ELDERLY COUPLE, WHO HAVE LIVED IN THEIR HOME FOR 26 YEARS. A HOUSE OF THIS SIZE DIRECTLY BESIDE THEM WOULD GREATLY REDUCE THEIR PRIVACY, LIMIT THEIR ABILITY TO ENJOY THEIR BACKYARD AND PLACE A MASSIVE TWO STORY STRUCTURE NEXT TO THEIR ONE STORY HOME. 
          THEY HAVE WORKED HARD TO BUILD A LIFE IN THIS COMMUNITY AND TO ENJOY THE PRIVACY OF THEIR WILDLIFE AND PEACEFUL SETTINGS THAT MAKE LAGO VISTA SO SPECIAL. THEIR CONCERNS DESERVE TO BE HEARD CAREFULLY AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED, BEFORE ALLOWING A DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD SO DEEPLY AFFECT THEIR HOME AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE. I AM PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE EFFECT THAT THIS WOULD HAVE ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNER'S VIEWS, PRIVACY AND ENJOYMENT OF THEIR HOMES. THE EXISTING HEIGHT LIMITS HELP PRESERVE THE NATURAL VISUAL FLOW OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROTECT THE OPEN HILL COUNTRY, SETTING THAT SO MANY RESIDENTS VALUE. OH, DID YOU TELL ME TO STOP? NOPE. NOT YET. NOT YET. APPROVING. APPROVING A NEIGHBORHOOD IN A WAY THAT CANNOT BE SO EASILY UNDONE. I ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE THIS REQUEST REFLECTS A TRUE HARDSHIP. BASED ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED, THE LOT APPEARS LARGE, BUILDABLE, AND CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING A BEAUTIFUL AND FUNCTIONAL HOME WITHOUT EXCEEDING THE STANDARD HEIGHT LIMITATIONS. THIS APPEARS TO BE A MATTER OF DESIGN PREFERENCE RATHER THAN NECESSITY, AND THAT PREFERENCE SHOULD NOT COME AT THE EXPENSE OF THE NEIGHBORING HOMEOWNERS AND THE ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY. ALL RIGHT, I AM GOING TO STOP YOU NOW, THOUGH. WE'RE AT THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. CAN I JUMP IN FOR A SECOND HERE? YOU MAY. SO IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE PACKET ON PAGE 31 ONLINE, IT SAYS TOWARDS THE BOTTOM IT'S SECTION TWO C, IT SAID THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS SHALL ADEQUATELY PREPARE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED DETERMINATIONS, INCLUDING STUDYING THE APPLICATION MATERIAL AND VISITING THE SITE, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S ETHICS POLICY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A DISABILITY, BOARD MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT ADEQUATELY PREPARED MAY NOT VOTE ON CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION. OKAY, I JUST GOT A TEXT MESSAGE FROM NORMA. SHE'S APPARENTLY SHE SAID IT'S NOT STATE LEVEL. IT'S 
          [01:00:01]
NOT A CITY LEVEL. SO SO THAT WE WERE NOTIFIED BY BRAD, OUR CITY ATTORNEY. SO JORDAN TOLD US THAT SAME THING AT THE LAST MEETING. LAST MEETING? YEAH. THAT THE REASON WAS THAT WAS A CITY RULE. BUT THE STATE LAW TRUMPS THE CITY RULE. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TOLD. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TOLD. BUT THERE IS NO STATE LAW. OKAY, I'M NOT SAYING THAT. I'M SAYING FROM THIS SEAT RIGHT HERE. WE WERE TOLD THAT. YEAH. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING WITH FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY TOO. SO SO SO IT SAYS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO VISIT THE SITE IF WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE OR WE CAN'T VOTE. BUT THEN THE STATE SAYS YOU CANNOT VISIT THE SITE IS WHAT WE WERE TOLD. 
          RIGHT? BRAD SAYS THE STATE SAYS YEAH, SAYS THE STATE SAYS EXACTLY. SO I'M UNTIL I GET THAT, I DON'T THINK HE'S ACTUALLY WE'VE WE'VE WENT OVER THIS. THERE'S BEEN NOTHING HE CAN SAY THAT HE HASN'T SHOWN US. HE HASN'T SHOWN US ANYTHING THAT SAYS. RIGHT. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING. CITY ATTORNEY TELLS ME NOT TO DO SOMETHING. I'M NOT. I'M JUST NOT DOING. I MEAN, WE HAD A WE HAD A PRETTY GOOD DISCUSSION. YOU AND I WERE IN THE MEETING TOGETHER. SO THERE'S TWO MEETINGS IN A ROW. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT. BOTH KNEW LIKE, Y'ALL ALL KNOW. YOU PROBABLY DON'T KNOW, BUT I'M NEWER THAN TYLER IS. BUT WHEN I COME IN HERE AND THEY SAY, THIS IS THE RULE, DON'T GO OVER THERE, THEN WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO, GO OVER THERE? I MEAN, WELL, IF THE PACKET IS DICTATING ME TO GO OVER THERE, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE, THEN YEAH, I'M GOING TO GO OVER THERE BECAUSE IN WRITING IN THIS PACKET FOR THIS MEETING TONIGHT, IT IS TELLING ME THAT I HAVE TO GO OVER THERE AND VISIT OR I CANNOT VOTE. BUT IT'S A IT'S COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY TO THE LAST TWO MEETINGS THAT WE'VE HAD WHERE WE WERE TOLD, ABSOLUTELY NOT. PECK ACTUALLY BROUGHT IT UP IN DISCUSSION. JAMES, I DON'T YOU'RE OUT THERE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE WITH US, BUT YOU YOU WERE YOU WERE LEADING THAT DISCUSSION. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE CITY STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY ARE NOT ON THE SAME PAGE. AND THEY'RE PUTTING SAYING ONE THING AND PUTTING ANOTHER IN THE PACKET. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE ANY DETERMINATION ON ANYTHING WHEN WE'RE GETTING CONFLICTING INFORMATION FROM PEOPLE THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS. 
          YEAH. EXACTLY. AND TO MY POINT, THE PERSON THAT MADE THIS PACKET IS NO LONGER EMPLOYED WITH THE CITY. THANK YOU. SORRY. NO, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. I THINK IT EMPHASIZED WHERE WE'RE ALL AT. AND I STILL HAVE SOME MORE IF. YEAH. ALLEN WINDSOR, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. ALLEN. EVERYBODY CALLS ME DALE. I DON'T KNOW WHY. I MEAN, MY MOTHER. SO WE BOUGHT OUR HOUSE ON COOLING 19 YEARS AGO. WE VISITED THE SITE BEFORE WE HAD THE. THERE WAS A LOT. NOTHING WAS JUST TREES AND THAT WE PICKED THAT LOT OUT, DID A GREAT LOT. AND ALL THE HOUSES AND ALL WERE WERE NICE. THEY WERE SINGLE STORY AND EVERYBODY WAS NEAT. EVERYBODY WAS REALLY GREAT PEOPLE. AND EVERY, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD LOOK AROUND, YOU HAD WELL, YOU HAD DEER, YOU HAD ALL KIND OF ANIMALS. SO IT WAS GREAT FOR US. AND AS FAR AS THE LOT BEING LEVEL, IT'S NOT LEVEL. I LIVE RIGHT BESIDE IT. IF THEY BUILD THAT HOUSE, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PUT A WALL BECAUSE THAT'S HOW CLOSE IT WILL BE, AND THEY'LL BE RIGHT OVER OUR HOUSE. AND WE'VE MET THESE PEOPLE. THEY'RE NICE PEOPLE. THEY'RE NO BIG DEAL. I JUST WISH THEY'D BUILD A HOUSE EQUAL TO ALL THE OTHER HOUSES. SO THAT'S ABOUT IT. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW? BUT, YOU KNOW, IF IF YOU VOTE YES, MAYBE I'LL HAVE TO MOVE FROM. BUT. AND THERE IS A CREEK BACK THERE. JUST SLIP, SLIP DOWN. WE HAVE A LADY. 
          SHE'S A GREAT LADY. NAME WAS SHERRY COOK. SHE WAS ACROSS THE STREET AND SHE WROTE THIS LETTER AND SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT THERE'S, THERE'S NO REALLY REASON TO BUILD A HOUSE THAT TALL. YOU'RE GOING TO INTENTIONALLY BLOCK OUT PEOPLE AND THAT. AND IF I COME OUT MY FRONT DOOR, I COULD LOOK SEE ANY HOUSE UP THE STREET, NO MORE. AND DID YOU SEE CLEVELAND? BUT IF HE BUILDS HIS HOUSE THAT HE WON'T BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING. SO ANYWAY, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THERE'S NO COP. I'M RETIRED. I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO DO. SO I'M A BUSY GUY. I GOT TO WATCH TV. YES, SIR. DON'T LEAVE YET. I GOT TWO QUESTIONS FOR YOU. OKAY, SO YOU LIVE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THEM? YES, SIR. AND SO THE HEIGHT FROM THE DESIGN THAT I SEE, IT'S IT'S THE WAY THEY PITCH THE ROOF. IT'S GOING TO PUT IT OVER THE HEIGHT. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A 
          [01:05:01]
IT'S NOT A TWO STORY. THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE WINDOWS. IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S GOING TO BE UPSTAIRS LOOKING DOWN ON YOUR HOUSE. BUT AS YOU ARE ON THAT SIDE OF YOUR HOUSE OR LOOKING OUT YOUR WINDOW, YOU'LL SEE THAT BIG HOUSE. CORRECT? LIKE IF YOU LOOK LIKE LOOKING INTO A WALL, RIGHT. SO JUST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WHERE YOU'RE SITTING, WHAT IS YOUR BEST VIEW? IS IT OUT YOUR BACK? WELL, RIGHT NOW IT'S, IT'S ALL AROUND THE HOUSE. WE GOT VIEWS ALL AROUND THE HOUSE. WE PICKED THAT LOT BECAUSE OF IT AND HAD OUR HOUSE BUILT THERE. BUT IF THEY IT'LL, IT'LL CUT OFF THE POINT TO THE LEFT AND I WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE CLEVELAND DEPENDING ON HOW WHAT, WHERE THE HOUSE IS LOCATED ON THE LOT. IT'LL IT'LL STIFLE US FROM SEEING A LOT OF THINGS. RIGHT. SO SO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MR. WHITE, YOU'RE UP. SO I AM THE ONE THAT PUT TOGETHER. AND THIS WAS JUST KIND OF A SURVEY OF WHAT WAS GOING ON. SO THE NOT APPROVED. DOES THAT MEAN THERE WAS THINGS DENIED OR IS THAT JUST THE PEOPLE THAT SAID THEY'RE OPPOSED? OKAY. OKAY. AND ACTUALLY HAD ONE. SALLY WASN'T ON THIS AS WELL. BUT I DO HAVE NAMES AND. RIGHT. AND THEN I THOUGHT I WOULD BRING THE FULL SET OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS THAT I RECEIVED THIS MORNING. SIR, WE NEED YOU AT THE MICROPHONE SO THAT WE CAN RECORD, IF I MAY LEAVE THIS. PERFECT. THANK YOU. ANDREW WHITE, 4101 CROCKETT AVENUE. SO I GAVE YOU SOME HANDOUTS. I ACTUALLY GAVE YOU A COPY OF WHAT I WANT TO SAY TODAY BECAUSE I COVER A LOT OF STUFF. REFER BACK. SO GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS ANDREW WHITE. I'M SPEAKING REGARDING CASE NUMBER TWO, 63001-SPE OR 2007 SCHOOL LANE. AT 936 THIS MORNING. I RECEIVED MOST OF THE RECORDS REQUESTED ON AUGUST 20TH. I REVIEWED THEM TODAY. THE DULY PRODUCED DOCUMENTS REVEAL MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES THAT WERE NOT APPARENT FROM THE PUBLISHED PACKAGE. THE CITY PRODUCED A COMPLETE STREET PLAN ZONED FROM HOUSE PLAN, ZONED AS THE DESIGNER SET, IDENTIFIED AS PLANS FOR 2475-S DATED NOVEMBER 12TH, 2025, AS FRONT ELEVATION SHOWS A MAX RIDGE HEIGHT OF 28FT ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR ROOF GEOMETRY GEOMETRY REACHING 12 BY 12 AND 12. THE CITY ALSO PRODUCED SEPARATE ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION SHEETS AT THE SAME PLAN 2475 S. THOSE SHEETS ARE TITLED RESIDENTIAL PROJECT FOR RANDY KNOW. IT SHOWS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT GROWTH IN HEIGHT OF 25FT, TWO INCHES AND 9 TO 12 JANUARY, WHICH I THINK YOU GOT TO ADDRESS, BUT THEY'RE BOTH IN THE PACKET. SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PACKET, THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TO LOOK. IT'S A DIFFERENCE OF TWO FEET, TEN INCHES AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT BETWEEN THE TWO. PLAN REPRESENTATIONS TO THE SAME BASE PLAN IS ALSO ELEVATION DISCREPANCY THAT DO PRODUCE SITE PLAN STATES A FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF 909.5FT, WHILE THE CASE INFORMATION REPRESENTED 908.9FT. DIVIDING THE PRODUCT TO PRODUCE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION WITH THE REDUCED 25 FOOT TWO INCH RIDGE HEIGHT PRODUCES AN APPARENT RIDGE ELEVATION OF APPROXIMATELY 934.673 NOT STATED 933.4 IF THE 28 FOOT RIDGE SHOWN IN THE PLAN SETS CONTROLS, THE APPARENT RIDGE ELEVATION WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY NINE 37.5FT. 
          PRODUCED RECORDS DO NOT IDENTIFY THIS ROOF DESIGN AS THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION DESIGN. EXPLAIN THE CHANGES TO RECONCILE THE ELEVATIONS FOR IDENTIFIED. THE CONTROLLING REVISED PLAN SAID. THE SEPARATE ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS ALSO CONTINUE TO IDENTIFY RANDY NO FURTHER THAN THE APPLICANT'S AND OWNER'S NAME. IN THIS CASE, I'M NOT ASKING THE BOARD TO DETERMINE ANYONE'S INTENT. TONIGHT. I'M ASKING THE BOARD TO APPROVE A HYPERTENSION WITH SUPPORTING RECORDS DESCRIBE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT BUILDING HEIGHTS AND CONFIGURATIONS, AND I REMAIN OPPOSED AS PRESENTLY SUBMITTED. RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COURT TO CONTINUE THE CASE INQUIRED AND REQUIRE ONE COMPLETE COORDINATED PLAN. SET A RECOGNIZED HEIGHT CALCULATION AND SUFFICIENT TIME FOR PUBLIC REVIEW BEFORE TAKING ACTION. IF THE BOARD IS UNWILLING TO CONTINUE THE MATTER, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT IT DENY THE APPLICATION PRESENTLY 
          [01:10:05]
SUBMITTED BECAUSE THE REQUESTED RELIEF CANNOT BE VERIFIED FROM THE CONFLICTING RECORD. THANK YOU. I HAVE MORE DETAILS, I HAVE QUESTIONS, ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE THE IS THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE? DO WE KNOW? WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE? SIR? MY NAME IS EDMUND STEWART. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I'VE HAD ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING BUSINESS AROUND THIS AREA FOR OVER 35 YEARS. I KNOW, I THINK I HEARD JEFF RIGHT, YES. WHAT DID YOU HEAR? YEAH, I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT LIKE, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY SOMEONE WOULD BUILD A HOME THAT HEIGHT, BUT I MEAN, MAYBE BACK IN 19, IN THE 70S, WHEN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS WERE IMPLEMENTED, I'M ASSUMING BEFORE A LAGO VISTA CAME INTO EXISTENCE. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THAT'S THE TYPE OF HOMES THAT THEY USED TO BUILD. BUT IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WE DO OUR WORK IN, MAYBE THE INSIDE OF THE HOUSE MIGHT BE 25FT, BUT THE OUTSIDE FOR SURE, THERE'S BASICALLY PRETTY MUCH IMPOSSIBLE. I MEAN, I GUESS YOU COULD BUILD A 15 FOOT ROOFLINE AND IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE KIND OF GETTING PUNISHED BECAUSE OUR LOT IS FLAT. BUT IF YOU BUILD A HOUSE THAT IS 15FT TALL, THAT PROBABLY MEANS YOU HAVE TO HAVE EIGHT FOOT CEILINGS, WHICH I MEAN, THIS DAY AND TIME WITH ALL THE HOMES THAT WE'VE WIRED, YOU JUST DON'T SEE THAT. I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S YOU DON'T SEE IT ANYMORE. SO, I MEAN, YOU CAN GO THROUGH ANY NEIGHBORHOOD, I GUESS, BESIDES THIS ONE AND LOOK AROUND AND YOU'LL SEE EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. I MEAN, IT JUST YOU JUST DON'T SEE IT. SO I'M TRYING TO IMPEDE ANYBODY'S VIEW. COME IN THERE AND BUILD A HUGE IT'S A 2500 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO. I MEAN, WE'VE RAISED OUR KIDS. WE'RE LOOKING FOR RETIREMENT. WE'RE LOOKING FOR PEACE. WE. WE WANT TO BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY. WE LOVE THE COMMUNITY. I MEAN, I WORK FOR HEB, WE RENOUNCING. HIS NAME IS RANDY. HIS REAL, REAL NAME IS EDWIN. HE KNOWS EVERYTHING. SO THAT'S WHERE THE CONFLICTING EDWIN RANDY CAME OUT. BUT WE LOVE OUR COMMUNITY. WE WANT THEM TO LIVE IN LAGO. WE CAME OUT HERE, LIKE I SAID, WE RAISED OUR KIDS. WE HAVE GRANDBABIES. WE. WE JUST WANT TO COME AND AND CHILL AND BE PART OF Y'ALL AND PART OF ALL THE COOL KIDS. BUT. YOU KNOW, I, I DO HOPE THAT EVERYONE GETS TO DRIVE BY. OH, THAT'S. YES. THE LOT. THAT WOULD BE ONE OF MY WISHES THAT EVERYONE COULD SEE IT. I KNOW Y'ALL KNOW WHAT I THOUGHT, BUT YEAH, WE, WE JUST WANTED THIS TO BE OUR, NOT OUR DREAM HOME. WE'RE NOT BUILDING A HOME. WE JUST WANTED THIS TO BE OUR RETIREMENT. WE BOTH STILL WORK, BUT KIND OF SEMI-RETIREMENT AREA. WE LIVE IN CEDAR PARK RIGHT NOW, AND WE WERE JUST REALLY EXCITED TO CUSTOM BUILD A HOME AND DIDN'T REALIZE THE ROOFLINE WAS GOING TO CAUSE THIS MUCH CONFLICT, AND WE WOULD HAVE COMPLETELY REPROCESSED EVERYTHING. WE HAD THIS MANY CONFLICTING PEOPLE, BUT WHERE THE LOTS AT, WE'RE NOT IMPEDING A LAKE. YOU. YOU KNOW, AND THE LOTS ALREADY BEEN CLEARED OFF. WE DIDN'T CLEAR IT OFF, SO ALL THE TREES WERE ALREADY CLEARED OFF, SO WE DIDN'T TAKE AWAY. AND I UNDERSTAND ALL THE DEER AND THE WILDLIFE LIKE WE LOVE THAT TOO. AND I'M ALWAYS STUMBLING HOUSES COME IN. BUT WE DIDN'T CLEAR THAT. THAT LOT WAS CLEAR. OKAY. CAN I ASK YOU SOME DETAILS THAT YOU MAY NOT KNOW OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD? SINCE WE DIDN'T GET A STAFF REPORT TODAY BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS WITH THE PACKET TO I CAN'T PULL UP THE APPLICATION REAL QUICK RIGHT NOW, BUT. YOU'RE ASKING IF I REMEMBER WHEN I LOOKED AT IT WHEN I WAS HOME, YOU'RE ASKING FOR EIGHT FEET OF HEIGHT. ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, RIGHT? ROUGHLY EIGHT FEET, EIGHT FEET ONE ONE. RIGHT. AND THE ALLOWED BY RIGHT IS FOR THAT AREA IS 15FT, 15 TO 18. DO WE UNDERSTAND IT'S 18 OR 18? YEAH. IT'S I THINK THAT AREA IS 15. RIGHT. SO 15 PLUS EIGHT IS 23FT APPROXIMATELY. YOU KNOW SOME CHANGE. ALL RIGHT. SO DO 
          [01:15:15]
YOU KNOW WHAT THE HIGH POINT WHAT THE ELEVATION IS AND THE HIGH POINT OF YOUR LOT. IS IT HIGHER. IS IT ABOVE THE FLOOR LEVEL. IS IT AT THE FLOOR LEVEL. MIGHT BE A QUESTION. IT'S 911911. IT'S A IT'S ACTUALLY A FOOT AND A HALF ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR. IT'S A FOOT AND A HALF ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR LINE. CORRECT. OKAY. SO THAT HIGH POINT OF THE LOT, THAT 15FT, WOULD GIVE YOU 16.5FT, ABSOLUTE HEIGHT FROM THE FINISHED FROM THE GROUND LEVEL UP. SO TAKE THAT FOOT AND A HALF AWAY FROM THE EIGHT FEET AND EFFECTIVELY THE EFFECTIVE HEIGHT CHANGE BECAUSE OF WHERE THE HEIGHT IS, THE HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM WOULD BE ALMOST A FOOT AND A HALF OR SO LESS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE HIGHEST ELEVATION IS WHERE YOU MEASURE THE ACTUAL HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING IS WHAT YOU'RE ALLOWED. SO, OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE, BECAUSE I SEE THESE PICTURES WITH 25FT, THESE AREN'T OFFICIAL FROM THE PACKET. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S ALL I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. WHAT WAS ASKING THERE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL KNOW, BUT JORDAN HAD SENT ME AN EMAIL STATING THAT THE. VERY WELL, IF YOU ALL CALL IT VARIANCE OR EXCEPTION, I'M NOT SURE IT WAS. ONE EXCEPTION WAS APPROVED. SO I HAVE AN EMAIL STATING ON THURSDAY. WITH MY FAX STATING THAT THE EXCEPTION WAS APPROVED AND I'M LIKE. CAN I. I'M JUST LETTING Y'ALL KNOW. YEAH, WELL, YEAH, ALL I HAVE IT ON MY EMAIL. NOT SURE THE CONTEXT, BUT THAT WAS SOMETHING. SO DUANE, DO YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS CITY STAFF IS NOT LOOKING AT IT AS AN EXCEPTION. THEY'RE LOOKING AT IT AS A VARIANCE. I DO NOT KNOW IF JORDAN HAD SENT ANYTHING OUT. SHE WAS NOT EMPLOYED HERE ON THURSDAY. SO I DON'T KNOW WHO WOULD HAVE DONE THAT. BUT I DO HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON THE HOUSE. I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO TO. SHE WAS ASKING FOR A WIRE TRANSFER, SO IT WAS REALLY ALARMING BECAUSE I'M LIKE, SOUNDS LIKE A FAKE EMAIL. YEAH, IT WAS OKAY, WELL, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA SEND IT TO Y'ALL BECAUSE IT WAS REALLY ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE I WAS LIKE, DAMN. I SENT IT TO MERCEDES. I SENT IT TO TAM, BUT TAM'S ALREADY OFF TO SCHOOL, SO YEAH, BUT IT WAS JUST ONE OF THOSE EMAILS THAT I GOT. AND WE'RE, WE'RE ABOUT READY TO START CHEMOTHERAPY FOR CANCER. 
          SO TOMORROW IT'S JUST CAME OUT. SO HE WAS GETTING HIS COURT PUT IN ON THURSDAY AND I WAS SITTING IN THE HOSPITAL AND I'M LIKE, OH MY GOSH, I'M LIKE, BRANDY, YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE THIS. AND I SENT IT TO HIM. AND THEN IT SAID, AND IT WAS ON LAGO VISTA LETTERHEAD AND EVERYTHING SOUNDS LIKE A SCAM. IT'S A SCAM. YEAH. BUT I MEAN, LUCKILY I YOU DID NOT YOU DID NOT WIRE ANY MONEY. OH, I DON'T KNOW. IT WAS $4,700 IN RESTITUTION. SHE WAS ASKING FOR IT. SO ANYWAYS, I WILL SEND THAT EMAIL. DO YOU WANT THAT EMAIL SENT TO YOU? YOU SENT IT TO YOU OR YOU CAN SEND IT TO ME, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE SENT OVER TO OUR IT DEPARTMENT AND SEE IF WE CAN TRACK IT. OKAY. BUT YEAH, I DON'T LIKE IT HAS ALL OF OUR INFORMATION ALL OVER IT. I MEAN, IT'S CALLED A PUBLIC RECORD DEPARTMENT. YEP. SO WE HAVE TO BE VERY WARY OF WHERE THAT COMES FROM. YEAH. NO, WE HAVEN'T BEEN. BUT IT COULD ALSO MEAN THE CITY HAS BEEN HACKED TOO. I DOUBT THAT. I MEAN VERY KEEN TO SEE WHERE THE ACTUAL EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM. WELL TO GET ALL THAT INFORMATION, IF THEY GET HACKED INTO THE COMPUTER DATABASE, YOU CAN GET YOU CAN GET THAT'S ALL PUBLIC RECORD FROM THEIR PERMIT. RIGHT, I UNDERSTAND THAT. IT'S LIKE IT WAS CITY OF LAGO.NET OR DOT. YEAH. IT'S NOT LIVE. IT'S NOT LAGO VISTA, TEXAS.GOV. IT'S JUST A SCAMMER. AND THAT WAS NOT LONG AGO. AND I AND I TEXT OR EMAIL MERCEDES. AND SHE'S LIKE, A LOT OF US WILL NEVER ASK FOR A WIRE. AND I SAID I WASN'T GOING TO WIRE THE MONEY UNTIL WE SHOT IT ON MONDAY ANYWAY. AND SO ANYWAY, IT WOULD BE. LIKE, REALLY SORRY THAT HAPPENED TONIGHT. YOU DID NOT. I GOT REALLY EXCITED AND AND THEN I WAS LIKE, YEAH, NO, THAT'S A SCAM. IS THIS SOMETHING MAYBE STAFF OR COUNCIL? CAN WE PUT SOMETHING 
          [01:20:06]
ON THE WEBSITE THEN NOTIFYING RESIDENTS THAT CLEARLY THEY'RE SCAMMERS OUT THERE THAT ARE TRYING BECAUSE THIS OVER TO STAND OFF, I NEED TO GO OVER TO PD BECAUSE I NEED TO BE AN INVESTIGATION. WELL, I WAS HAVING AGAIN, WE'VE HAD THIS HAPPEN PREVIOUSLY WHERE THE PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY CALL FROM PD ASKING, ASKING THEM FOR MONEY OR MONEY ORDERS, GIFT CARDS. IT'S AN ONGOING THING, BUT LUCKILY OUR IT DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN UPGRADED RECENTLY, BUT IT DOESN'T PROTECT PUBLIC INFORMATION. EXACTLY. I WAS GOING TO SEND IT OVER TO THE VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUT I FORWARDED IT. I WAS LIKE, YEAH, WE'LL MANAGE IT. YEAH, NO, YOU SHOULD ABSOLUTELY MAKE A COMPLAINT BECAUSE THAT'S OBVIOUSLY I MEAN, IT'S OVER THE THRESHOLD OF $500. SO THAT ACTUALLY IS A FELONY. SO YEAH, IT WAS 4790 AND SHE HAD IT ALL ITEMIZED OUT. BUT EVEN SO, THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE NOTIFIED THAT THIS IS GOING ON. YEAH. 
          ALL RIGHT. WELL, I'M GOING TO CALL TO ORDER AT THE MOMENT. AND THEN IF YOU WOULD WORK WITH THEM AFTER AFTER THE MEETING TO MAKE SURE ALL THAT IS HANDLED PROPERLY. ALL RIGHT. I AM GOING TO. YES, SALLY. I'M SORRY. MAY I MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION? WE HAVE COME TO COME TO THE MICROPHONE SO THE PEOPLE ON TV CAN SEE YOU. WE ARE, I BELIEVE, 2490FT. WE HAVE 15 FOOT ELEVATION. WE HAVE TEN FOOT CEILINGS ON OUR 15 ALMOST FLAT. I MEAN, IT'S JUST IT'S A LOW LEVEL ROOF. AND YOU KNOW, OUR VIEWS AREN'T LIKE YOU. WE HAVE A HIGHLAND LAKE ADDRESS. WE 
          [02:21:44]
DON'T HAVE A LAKE VIEW THAT OUR VIEWS ARE VIEWS AND IT WILL IMPACT US SEVERELY. YOU CAN 
          [02:21:50]
BUILD A 15 FOOT ELEVATION. HOME ON THAT THIRD ACRE LOT. YOU CAN CERTAINLY PUT THAT FOOTPRINT 
          [02:22:02]
THERE. AND THE EXTRA HEIGHT, IT'S OUR VIEWS. WE HAVE THOSE VIEWS FOR FOR GENERATIONS, AS 
          [02:22:09]
MANY AS 3 OR 4 GENERATIONS. AND THOSE ARE OUR VIEWS. WE LOVE OUR HILL COUNTRY VIEWS AND IT 
          [02:22:14]
STEPS DOWN AND YOU KNOW, IT, IT COULD EASILY BE 15 FOOT ELEVATION, BE 2500FT■S. DREAM 
          [02:22:24]
HOME, BUT YOU CAN BUY A $750,000 LOT IF YOU COME IN AND YOU AND LOGO JUST A LOT ALONE. 
          [02:22:33]
AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS BUILT OUT AND EVERYBODY IS IN OPPOSITION AND IT WILL AFFECT 
          [02:22:39]
OUR VIEWS. WE ARE THERE. WE SEE THE TOWERING STRUCTURE THAT IS THE, YOU KNOW, THE WHATEVER 
          [02:22:47]
THEY CALL IT, THE WOODEN STRUCTURE THAT SHOWS THE HEIGHT OF IT WILL IT WILL TOWER OVER, 
          [02:22:54]
YOU KNOW, ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS. AND OUR VIEW IS OUR VIEW IS BELOVED. WE DON'T HAVE A LAKE, 
          [02:22:58]
BUT WE ALL HAVE A VIEW OF EACH OTHER AND IT WILL SEVERELY IMPACT. AND LIKE I SAID, THAT 
          [02:23:05]
CAN BE PLACED AND NOBODY KNOWS THAT ANYMORE. THAT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE. LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE A HOME BUILT IN 2003 AND IT'S A TEN FOOT HEIGHT, AND WE'RE VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT. AND THAT COULD BE REPLICATED IN, YOU KNOW. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. CAN I TAKE A MINUTE TO READ THE DEFINITION OF A VIEW FROM OUR CITY ORDINANCE? CAN CAN WE CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD? NO IDEA. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST? NO. 
          OKAY. SO THIS IS IN CHAPTER 14 OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. IT SAYS DEFINES A VIEW AS A SCENIC VISTA OF WHAT CAN BE SEEN FROM A PROPERTY AT GROUND LEVEL, OR FROM A FIRST OR SECOND STORY, BEYOND AND ABOVE ANY EXISTING TREE LINE, OR THE ALLOWED MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ON AN INTERVENING PROPERTY OR A VIEW IS BEING EVALUATED. EXAMPLES OF A VIEW INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, PARKS, HILLSIDES, OPEN GREEN SPACES, GOLF COURSES, AND A LAKE THAT'S THAT'S WHERE YOUR VISION AS WELL. LIKE TREES BY THEMSELVES JUST ACROSS THE STREET, THE LOWER LEVEL OR SECOND STORY, YOU'RE LOOKING OVER ABOVE THE TREE LINE. SO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANKS. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO AT THIS POINT, I WILL BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION QUESTIONS. WELL, COULD I SPEAK FOR JUST A MOMENT? I KNOW I DIDN'T FILL OUT A CARD. I'LL BE 30S. ALL RIGHT. I WILL ALLOW THAT. DON WHITE, 4101 CROCKETT AVENUE, OWNED SEVERAL LOTS AROUND. I JUST WANT TO MENTION, BECAUSE NOBODY'S REALLY TALKING ABOUT IT ARCHITECTURALLY, IT WILL STICK OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB. IT LOOKS LIKE A BEAUTIFUL HOME. BUT WHEN YOU 
          [02:25:03]
LOOK AT THE RIDGELINE, I MEAN, YOU'RE LOOKING UP. THEY CAN STILL HAVE A BEAUTIFUL HOME THAT'S FITS IN MORE WITH THE OTHER HOMES. I KNOW WE'RE AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WE DO HAVE NEWER HOMES THERE AND EVERYBODY KIND OF LOOKS DIFFERENT, BUT STILL COHESIVE. 
          BUT THAT REALLY TALL HEIGHT STICKS OUT IS GOING TO STICK OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO AGAIN, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION QUESTIONS. ANYBODY. I WILL TURN MY MICROPHONE ON JUST TO MAKE IT OFFICIAL. AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, I CAN SAY IT IS FRUSTRATING THAT WE HAVE CONFLICTING INFORMATION AND IT IS HARD TO MAKE A SOUND JUDGMENT THAT IS REASONABLE AND ARTICULATE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY AND STATE LAW, WITH THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED TO ME TONIGHT, I AM VERY CONFLICTED TO MY MOTION OR VOTE IN EITHER DIRECTION DUE TO LACK OF COHESIVE INFORMATION. 
          SO I I'M STRUGGLING AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THE REST OF THE COUNCIL FEELS, BUT JUST SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW, I'M, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS ONE, NOT BECAUSE OF THE MERITS OF THE CASE, NOT BECAUSE THE MERITS OF THE DESIGN OR THE LAW, SIMPLY DUE TO THE LACK OF INFORMATION OR, OR CONFLICTING INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CITY, ITS COUNSEL AND THE DOCUMENTATION. 
          THAT'S MY PIECE ON THIS. ALL RIGHT. SO AT THIS TIME, I AM GOING TO MOVE TO CONTINUE CASE NUMBER 26-3001- SP DASH E TO. SCOTT SAYS I NEED A DATE TO SAY THE NEXT MEETING, IS THAT SUFFICIENT? IF I SAY TO THE NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING? TO A DATE TO BE DETERMINED AT AT WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, I WOULD PROBABLY SAY YES, I COULD I COULD DEFINITELY FIND OUT FOR SURE WE'VE DONE THAT. BUT BUT IT WHERE WE ARE AGAIN, WITH THE CITY, THE STAFF, I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. OKAY, SO CHAIRMAN, PUT SOME QUALIFIERS ON THERE. 
          YES. FOR EXAMPLE, CONTINUE TO THE NEXT MEETING WHERE THE INFORMATION OF SITE VISITS THAT'S TO COME AND THAT SO WE HAVE THOSE QUALIFIERS THEN DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE A HARD DATE THEN. OKAY. SO I MOVE TO CONTINUE CASE NUMBER 26-3001-SP-E TO A FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETING TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED REGARDING. TABLE A, THE HEIGHT CLARIFICATION IN THIS AREA, BECAUSE I'VE HEARD 15FT AND 18FT. I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION WHETHER IT'S 15 OR 18, AND I KNOW SOMETIMES IT CAN BE 15 ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET AND 18 ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. SO I WANT CLARIFICATION ON THAT. WE NEED INFORMATION SPECIFIC AS TO WHETHER WE CAN OR CANNOT VIEW THE SITE. MUST OR MUST. YES. I WOULD LIKE SOME MORE INFORMATION. IF WE CAN GET ANY KIND OF RENDERING THAT SHOWS, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH THE HOUSE SITTING ON THAT PROPERTY, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S POSSIBLE, BUT IT WOULD BE NICE, YOU KNOW, FROM THE STREET VIEW, IF THERE'S A THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE ON THE, ON OUR ON, ON THE PEOPLE PRESENTING THE CASE. RIGHT? CORRECT. RIGHT. AND WHAT OTHER QUALIFIERS? IF THERE'S ANY CLARIFICATION ON THE VARIANCE VERSUS EXCEPTION, SOME PEOPLE. SO IN MY MIND, I DON'T THINK IT'S CLEAR IN EVERYBODY'S. AND IF WE HAVE ANY HISTORICAL LIKE RESULTS ON WHAT WE DO WITH HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS ON OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, I'D BE OPEN TO SEEING THAT IF THERE'S BEEN ANY. 
          DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY CLARIFICATIONS? ALL RIGHT. SO THERE'S THE MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A SECOND FROM TOM. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. 
          THERE'S A LONG MOTION. YOU BETTER CLEAR THAT UP. I I'M SORRY, I'D LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY. 
          [02:30:02]
I WOULD ONLY CAVEAT YOUR MOTION BY SAYING, IF ANYTHING, THAT YOU'VE JUST MOTIONED VIOLATES THE CITY STATUTE OR STATE OR A REQUIREMENT OUTLINED BY THE CITY FOR THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESIDENT THAT WE CLARIFY THAT AND STRIKE THOSE PORTIONS OF YOUR MOTION. ALL RIGHT, MR. TIDWELL, MAY I ASK A QUESTION QUICKLY? HE WAS GOING TO GIVE US A SUMMARY OF WHAT WHERE HE THOUGHT THINGS WERE, BUT HE WANTED EVERYBODY ELSE TO SPEAK FIRST. MAY WE HAVE THAT TO END THIS MEETING? WE CANNOT. I MEAN, FOR TRANSPARENCY PURPOSES. OTHERWISE WE'RE DIGGING AND LOOKING AND LET'S JUST BRING IT ALL OUT, MAN. WELL, I'VE MADE A MOTION. DOES IT NEED TO BE RESTATED FOR CLARITY? I DON'T HAVE THE ROBERT'S RULES IN FRONT OF ME. I WILL WITHDRAW MY MOTION AT THE MOMENT, MR. CHAIR, I WAS GOING TO SAY IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE THE EXCEPTION THAT MR. ECCLES RECOMMENDED, THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT PERMISSIBLE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AN AMENDED MOTION TO GO BACK AND TO TO DO THAT. SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO RESTATE THE MOTION, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION AT THE AT THE MOMENT. AND MR. WHITE'S, YOU HAVE YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH US. I DID DO SOME RESEARCH. I DID DO SOME RESEARCH ON THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO COMING HERE TONIGHT. I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO INFLUENCE ANYBODY IN ANY WAY, FORM OR FASHION UNTIL THE END OF IT. THE PROPERTY IS OR THE HOUSE ORIGINALLY STARTED AT 28FT. AS I SAID EARLIER, THEY DID LOWER IT TO 25.2FT OR 25FT, TWO INCHES, BUT IT'S ALL ROOF. THERE IS NO SECOND STORY. IT'S JUST A HUGE ATTIC. TOP PLATE ON THIS HOUSE IS AT 12FT. THE HEIGHT IS 15FT. IN THIS AREA. THE FFA OR FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION, AS I STATED, IS 909.5 TOP. THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE LOT IS 911. THAT'S A FOOT AND A HALF DIFFERENCE. SO THE ONLY WAY THAT THIS HOUSE COULD BE BUILT IS BASICALLY WITH A VERY, VERY SMALL ROOF. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT HASN'T HAPPENED BEFORE. IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE. 
          THEY HAD TO KNOCK THE ROOF DOWN AND THEY PUT A FLAT ROOF ON. THAT HAS HAPPENED IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS. WE HAVE A HOUSE BEING BUILT CURRENTLY THAT'S GOING THROUGH THE SAME THING AS A AGAIN, AS A PLAN REVIEWER, I WOULD HAVE TO DENY THIS HOUSE BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR OUR CODE. IT IS GOING TOO HIGH. WE ARE AGAIN, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THIS AS AN EXCEPTION. WE ARE LOOKING AT IT AS A VARIANCE. AND ACCORDING TO OUR CODE, A VARIANCE IS ONLY DONE FOR SPECIAL CONDITIONS. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. IT IS NOT TO BE SELF-IMPOSED OR PERSONAL IN NATURE. I DON'T LOOK AT ANY OF THESE PROPERTIES AS SOMETHING IN NATURE OR LIKE PERSONAL. I I'M JUST LOOKING AT THEM PER CODE. IT MUST RELATE TO A UNIQUE ASPECT OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, SUCH AS IRREGULARITY OF SHAPE OR TOPOGRAPHY, AND NOT COMMON TO GENERAL CHARACTERISTIC OF THE AREA. THAT VARIANCE WILL BE NO GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED TO ELEVATE THE DIFFICULTY OR HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED, AND THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE. SO THAT'S HOW I LOOK AT WHEN I DO PLAN REVIEW. THAT'S HOW I LOOK AT MY PLAN REVIEWS ACCORDING TO, AGAIN, ACCORDING TO EVERYTHING THAT'S ON PAPER, I COULD NOT PASS THIS. I COULD NOT ACCEPT IT. SO THEY DO HAVE TO MEET THE CONDITIONS OF 11.20. THAT'S OUR THAT'S HOW WE'RE LOOKING AT IT. 
          IF YOU WANT TO GUYS WANT TO LOOK AT IT DIFFERENCE DIFFERENTLY, THEN IT'S A BOARD. 
          SO WELL, THAT WAS MY QUESTION IS IF WE WE'RE GETTING MIXED LEGAL GUIDANCE ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE FOR YEARS WE ALWAYS TREATED EXCEPTIONS. A VARIANCE IS YOU'RE TRYING TO GET. YOU'RE YOU'RE TRYING TO GET AN EXCEPTION TO AN ORDINANCE BECAUSE THERE'S NO ORDINANCE TO GIVE YOU THAT RELIEF. YOU'RE LOOKING FOR RELIEF FROM AN ORDINANCE BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. 
          SO YOU ASK FOR VARIANCE. AN EXCEPTION IS WHEN YOU HAVE A HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT SETS THE CONDITIONS BY WHICH YOU CAN GET RELIEF FROM THE THE STANDARD CONDITIONS. SO 1160 IS AN 
          [02:35:08]
EXCEPTION. VARIANCE IS WHERE THERE'S NO ORDINANCE THAT YOU CAN POINT TO TO LET YOU HAVE THAT. AND SO WE'VE WE'VE HAD THAT MEETING FOR YEARS THROUGH SEVERAL ATTORNEYS. AND, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS WHOLE THING ABOUT VARIANCE GETTING MIXED UP AS AN EXCEPTION IS JUST BOGGLES MY MIND ACTUALLY. AND SO WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE. AND THEN WHEN YOU SAY. THE, THE HIGHEST POINT IN THE LOT IS 911, YOU SAID, YES, SIR. IS THAT RIGHT? SO THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION PLUS TO 15, IT COULD GO UP TO 16.5 ROUGHLY. RIGHT. I MEAN IN ABSOLUTE TERMS WOULD BE FROM THE FROM THE FLOOR UP BE 16.5. I GUESS THE ONE THING ARE THEY ASKING. SO 16.5 PLUS EIGHT. 
          THAT'D BE 24. IT'S 25, 25FT. TWO INCHES. OKAY. IS THAT -8.2 IS THAT GETS TO THAT 16. IT'S EIGHT 8.8FT ONE INCH ABOVE ORDNANCE ABOVE HEIGHT RESTRICTION ABOVE THE THE 18. 
          RIGHT. CORRECT. SO. I WOULD LIKE A SITE SECTION FOR IS 15FT ELEVATION. AND WE'RE ALSO VERY UTILITIES, RIGHT. IT'S 15FT IS THE HEIGHT. BUT THE HIGH POINT OF THE LOT ISN'T WHERE THE HOUSE IS, WHERE THE FLOOR IS GOING TO BE AN EXTRA FOOT AND A HALF. THEY GOT AN EXTRA FOOT AND A HALF IN ABSOLUTE TERMS BECAUSE OF THE HIGH POINT OF THE LOT. AND WE TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. YEAH, THAT'S WHY IT'S ONLY LIKE, YEAH, YEAH, OKAY. INSTEAD OF TEN BECAUSE REALLY THEY'RE GOING TEN FEET. THEY'RE ASKING FOR TEN FEET. RIGHT? CAN I MAKE A MOTION? YES, IN JUST A SECOND. BECAUSE I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON BOTH OF Y'ALL'S COMMENTS. AND IF STAFF IS LOOKING AT THIS AS A VARIANCE, WHY IS IT BEING BROUGHT BROUGHT TO US AS AN EXCEPTION? SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT IT AS A VARIANCE? I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WAS BROUGHT TO YOU AS AN EXCEPTION, BECAUSE WE'VE ALWAYS LOOKED AT IT AS A VARIANCE. JUST LIKE I SAID, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE ACCORDING TO VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE. IT SAYS RIGHT THERE THAT IT'S A ORDINANCE. I'M NOT TRYING TO VARIANCE. IT SAYS A VARIANCE. BUT THE VARIANCE 1120 DOESN'T APPLY BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR HEIGHT. EXCEPTIONS ARE NOT PART OF THE VARIANCE PROCESS. THAT'S PART OF THE EXCEPTION PROCESS. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. YEAH. AND THE WAY TAM PUT THIS PACKAGE TOGETHER, SHE HAS SPECIAL EXCEPTION PURSUANT TO 1160. MAXIMUM TABLE HEIGHT. AND SHE DISCUSSED ALL SHE TALKS ABOUT IS THE 35 FOOT ABSOLUTE HEIGHT. SHE DOES NOT ADDRESS. IF THEY ARE ASKING FOR 40FT, THEY'D HAVE TO GET VARIANCE BECAUSE THERE'S NO ORDINANCE THAT AUTHORIZES THAT TYPE OF THING. YEAH. AND THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN BY TAM, IT'S WRITTEN AS AN EXCEPTION. NOT. BUT WE'VE ALWAYS LOOKED AT THEM AS VERY. THAT'S WHY I WAS CONFUSED IN THE BEGINNING. AND I SAID, SO ARE WE NOT FOLLOWING 11.20? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'VE ALWAYS DONE. AND THIS IS VERY CUT AND DRY THEN BECAUSE THEIR HARDSHIP IS SELF-IMPOSED AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T HAVE TO BUILD IT, THEY CAN BUILD SOMETHING. IT'S JUST GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE BARELY, YOU KNOW, A PITCHED ROOF OR A FLAT ROOF THAT THEY CAN DO IT. AND SO, AND IT OBVIOUSLY ISN'T IN PUBLIC INTEREST. SO TO ME, IT WAS VERY OBVIOUS COMING INTO THIS, AND I WAS CONFUSED ABOUT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. AND I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THERE WAS SOME SOMETHING ELSE GOING ON HERE WITH THE WAY THIS PACKET WAS PHRASED AND CONSTRUCTED. THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM HOW WE'VE EVER DONE IT. AND HE'S SHAKING HIS HEAD BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN HERE A COUPLE OF YEARS. THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE'RE USED TO SEEING, WHICH IS ALSO WHY I MADE THE POINT. THE PERSON THAT SPEARHEADED THIS PACKET IS NO LONGER HERE. AND WE'RE ALSO GETTING CONFLICTING INFORMATION ON IF WE SHOULD GO VISIT OR NOT VISIT. SO EITHER WAY, HALF OF US CAN'T VOTE BECAUSE I THINK HALF OF US WENT TO GO LOOK AT IT AND HALF OF US DIDN'T. SO EITHER WAY, WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM TO VOTE. SO THAT'S WHY MY OPENING COMMENT, YOU ARTICULATED EXACTLY WHAT MY CONCERN IS ABOUT US SITTING HERE TRYING TO TAKE ANY MOTION OTHER THAN TO CONTINUE WHILE WE GET FEEDBACK. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M ALLOWED TO VOTE NOW BASED ON WHAT BRAD SAYS, THE STATE SAYS. AND THEN HOW QUICKLY DO WE LOSE A QUORUM? YOU'VE BEEN THERE. THERE'S A QUORUM. NUMBER. SO THERE IS A MESSAGE FROM FROM NORMA THAT SAYS THAT IT'S A 
          [02:40:08]
PUBLIC ROAD. YOU CAN DRIVE BY IT, BUT YOU THAT'S WHAT I SET FOOT ONTO THE PROPERTY. AND YOU CAN'T SPEAK TO ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS. CORRECT? CORRECT. SO BUT THEN SHE SAYS, BUT BRAD ALSO STATED THAT BECAUSE OF CONDITIONAL. YOU CAN ONLY MAKE YOUR DECISIONS BASED ON THE FACTS GIVEN IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO THAT'S CONFLICTING. I NEED TO CLARIFY THAT FOR STATE LAW AND CLARIFY THAT WITH BRAD, BECAUSE OUR COMMITTEE PACKET, WHICH YOU REVIEWED BY TODD, IT'S A POLICY AND PROCEDURES. IT VERY EXPLICIT IN THERE ABOUT THAT AS WELL. I CAN'T EVEN TRUST WHAT'S IN THE PACKET. SO IT'S $700 FOR POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR BOARD DEFINITIONS. SO I BUT I'M JUST SAYING IF WE WERE TO ONLY IF WE DON'T GO AND VISIT AND GO OFF THE PACKET, I CAN'T EVEN TRUST WHAT'S IN HERE. SO WHAT'S IN THE PACKET. YEAH. SO JUST JUST SO EVERYBODY'S CLEAR, THIS STARTED ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO WITH WAY, WAY BACK WITH A DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE PRIOR TO THAT, YOUR, YOUR CITY'S PLANNING AND ZONING, EVERYBODY WERE THEY WERE REQUIRED TO GO AND LOOK AT THE PROPERTY, LOOK AT THE POLL, LOOK AT EVERYTHING THEY WERE, THEY WERE REQUIRED TO DO IT. WELL, WE FOUND OUT THAT THERE WAS A DEVELOPMENT GOING IN WHERE THE DEVELOPER WAS TAKING CERTAIN MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, CERTAIN MEMBERS OF PLANNING AND ZONING, CERTAIN MEMBERS ON TOURS OF THEIR PROPERTY, AND NOT EVERYBODY WAS GOING. AND SO THERE BECAME SOME REALLY BIG CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IT WAS FELT. AND SO THAT'S WHY CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE. UNFORTUNATELY, HERE WE ARE 3 OR 4 YEARS LATER, AND WE STILL DON'T KNOW EXACTLY IN THIS CASE ANYWAY, WHAT CLARIFICATIONS ARE AS FAR AS OUR ROLES AND WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO. SO THAT'S WHY YOU HEAR THE DISCUSSION ABOUT CAN WE CAN WE NOT? MUST WE? AND WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW SO THAT WE DON'T GET IN TROUBLE LEGALLY. AND THAT'S THE MAIN THING, RIGHT? WHERE IT'S LIKE, I MEAN, LITERALLY FOR FOUR WEEKS THAT I'VE BEEN ON THERE FOR MONTHS THAT I'VE BEEN ON THIS, WE'VE BEEN TOLD OPPOSITE. AND THEN IN TODAY'S PACKET, IT SAYS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GO ON SITE. SO I'M SORRY WE HAVEN'T GONE ON SITE OR THERE'S CONFUSION, BUT THERE'S, THERE'S REASON WHY WE'RE CONFUSED UP HERE. SO BASICALLY, THE WAY IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN DRIVE BY IT AND LOOK AT IT, BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE YOUR JUDGMENT BASED ON WHAT YOU SAW UNLESS YOU BRING IT UP, UNLESS IT'S IN THE PACKET. YEAH. OR YOU BRING IT UP IN OPEN FORUM. SO TOM, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE YOUR MOTION, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CONTINUED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE THE BOARD GETS CLARIFICATION ON, ON THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION VERSUS VARIANCE ARGUMENT WITH WRITTEN PROOF OF THE OPINION THAT WE CAN LOOK AT, AND AS WELL. THE. THAT WAS THE VARIANCE IN EXCEPTION. AND I FORGET WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE. IF IT'S A VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION. VARIANCE OF EXCEPTION AND THE SITE VISIT WRITTEN CLARIFICATION AS WHAT THE ACTUAL GUIDANCE IS FOR US TO VISIT SITE VISITS. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I HAVE A DISCUSSION. I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE THAT AS LONG AS NOTHING THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR VIOLATES CITY OR STATE LAW, YOU ACCEPT THAT? FINE. ALL RIGHT. AND I WILL SECOND THAT AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A AMENDED MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? NAY, HEARING NONE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN AND WILL REMAIN OPEN UNTIL WE CONTINUE AT THE NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. SO CAN I SPEAK NOW? YOU SAID IT'S STILL OPEN. NO. OKAY. LET'S SEE. I HAVE NOTHING ELSE ON THE AGENDA, SO I WILL CALL THIS MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2012 8:12 P.M.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.