WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.960 I'm lost with the papers, that means a lot, right? 00:00:03.960 --> 00:00:07.560 Good afternoon, the date is Monday, October 28th. 00:00:07.560 --> 00:00:12.720 The time is 448, and I'd like to welcome you 00:00:12.720 --> 00:00:17.060 to this Zoning Board of Adjustments meeting. 00:00:17.060 --> 00:00:20.240 Our first order of business is to sign both the US and Texas 00:00:20.240 --> 00:00:20.740 flags. 00:00:20.740 --> 00:00:29.960 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America 00:00:29.960 --> 00:00:34.880 and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, 00:00:34.880 --> 00:00:39.280 indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 00:00:39.280 --> 00:00:41.040 I'll honor the Texas flag. 00:00:41.040 --> 00:00:43.720 I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, Texas, 00:00:43.720 --> 00:00:47.820 one state under God, one and indivisible. 00:00:47.820 --> 00:00:50.920 Thank you. 00:00:50.920 --> 00:00:54.360 The first item of our business is item 2A, 00:00:54.360 --> 00:00:59.320 considered approval of the minutes, September 30th, 2019. 00:00:59.320 --> 00:01:01.320 Is there any discussion about minutes? 00:01:01.320 --> 00:01:03.320 We move to approve Mr. Higgins. 00:01:03.320 --> 00:01:03.820 Second. 00:01:03.820 --> 00:01:05.000 And a second from Ms. Lane. 00:01:05.000 --> 00:01:06.920 Is there any discussion or corrections 00:01:06.920 --> 00:01:09.800 to be made to the minutes before we proceed? 00:01:09.800 --> 00:01:14.440 All right, seeing none, let's vote. 00:01:14.440 --> 00:01:17.880 All in favor, raise your hand. 00:01:17.880 --> 00:01:19.920 Any opposed? 00:01:19.920 --> 00:01:21.720 And any abstained? 00:01:21.720 --> 00:01:25.640 So all in our favor, thank you very much. 00:01:25.640 --> 00:01:29.040 The next item is to be received, the 2019 Zoning Board 00:01:29.040 --> 00:01:31.520 Adjustment Calendar. 00:01:31.520 --> 00:01:33.660 Yes. 00:01:33.660 --> 00:01:37.920 This is, again, for the 2020 calendar coming year. 00:01:37.920 --> 00:01:42.720 Calendar is shown on here that meetings 00:01:42.720 --> 00:01:45.160 are scheduled for the last Monday of every month. 00:01:45.160 --> 00:01:47.960 And you can see that there are some exceptions. 00:01:47.960 --> 00:01:52.560 Specifically, May is the only one I see that's the exception. 00:01:52.560 --> 00:01:56.360 But otherwise, it's the last Monday of each month, 00:01:56.360 --> 00:01:58.240 as we've done in previous years. 00:01:58.240 --> 00:02:01.800 So we will take any comments and put changes, 00:02:01.800 --> 00:02:04.760 if there's any, with regards to the calendar. 00:02:04.760 --> 00:02:08.880 Do you think you can get a quarter on December 28 00:02:08.880 --> 00:02:10.840 between Christmas and New Year's? 00:02:10.840 --> 00:02:12.360 Could we move that to the 21st? 00:02:12.360 --> 00:02:12.880 21st. 00:02:12.880 --> 00:02:14.720 Certainly, that's a good idea. 00:02:14.720 --> 00:02:15.520 We can do that. 00:02:15.520 --> 00:02:20.960 With December 14th? 00:02:20.960 --> 00:02:21.460 Yes. 00:02:21.460 --> 00:02:21.960 Is that-- 00:02:21.960 --> 00:02:23.240 That would be great. 00:02:23.240 --> 00:02:24.240 14th would be better. 00:02:24.240 --> 00:02:24.760 Better. 00:02:24.760 --> 00:02:25.260 Better. 00:02:25.260 --> 00:02:25.760 OK. 00:02:25.760 --> 00:02:27.720 I think we can make that exception, especially 00:02:27.720 --> 00:02:31.260 during that part of the holidays. 00:02:31.260 --> 00:02:34.120 Any other changes, corrections, input? 00:02:34.120 --> 00:02:44.160 And we can always-- sometimes there's a special call. 00:02:44.160 --> 00:02:45.000 Certainly. 00:02:45.000 --> 00:02:46.800 It's not reflected in this calendar, 00:02:46.800 --> 00:02:48.840 but that's certainly an option as well. 00:02:48.840 --> 00:02:52.320 All right. 00:02:52.320 --> 00:02:53.280 Moving on. 00:02:53.280 --> 00:02:54.480 I'm sorry to break it up. 00:02:54.480 --> 00:02:55.080 Just we need a-- 00:02:55.080 --> 00:02:55.600 Yep. 00:02:55.600 --> 00:02:56.920 Or do we have to vote on that? 00:02:56.920 --> 00:02:57.560 Oh, we're voting. 00:02:57.560 --> 00:02:58.240 I'll take it. 00:02:58.240 --> 00:02:59.320 OK. 00:02:59.320 --> 00:02:59.980 OK. 00:02:59.980 --> 00:03:00.480 So-- 00:03:00.480 --> 00:03:01.240 Motion? 00:03:01.240 --> 00:03:04.040 So the only change-- the only correction then, 00:03:04.040 --> 00:03:06.440 just for the record, to the calendar 00:03:06.440 --> 00:03:10.880 is changing the December 28th meeting to December 14th. 00:03:10.880 --> 00:03:12.920 Otherwise, the calendar is pretty much 00:03:12.920 --> 00:03:14.160 rolling in favor of this. 00:03:14.160 --> 00:03:16.600 So I guess we'll vote on this calendar all in favor. 00:03:16.600 --> 00:03:17.100 Oh, sorry. 00:03:17.100 --> 00:03:17.600 Pardon me. 00:03:17.600 --> 00:03:18.880 We need a first and a second. 00:03:18.880 --> 00:03:19.380 Pardon me. 00:03:19.380 --> 00:03:21.360 Is that for this year or for the 2020? 00:03:21.360 --> 00:03:22.240 That's for 2020. 00:03:22.240 --> 00:03:22.740 Oh, OK. 00:03:22.740 --> 00:03:25.680 I was hoping this year, but-- 00:03:25.680 --> 00:03:26.320 Sure. 00:03:26.320 --> 00:03:27.120 Yes. 00:03:27.120 --> 00:03:28.640 Do we have a motion to approve? 00:03:28.640 --> 00:03:32.120 A motion from Ms. Seaborn and a second? 00:03:32.120 --> 00:03:33.600 And a second from Ms. Lane. 00:03:33.600 --> 00:03:35.840 All in favor? 00:03:35.840 --> 00:03:37.720 Any opposed? 00:03:37.720 --> 00:03:38.680 And any abstained? 00:03:38.680 --> 00:03:42.440 So that, again, all passes unanimously. 00:03:42.440 --> 00:03:46.920 [INAUDIBLE] 00:03:46.920 --> 00:03:50.600 And then the next item is to see-- receive a briefing 00:03:50.600 --> 00:03:52.840 and discussion of limitations and authority 00:03:52.840 --> 00:03:54.380 of the Board of Adjustment and Hearing 00:03:54.380 --> 00:03:56.640 and willing upon Mary's request and appeals 00:03:56.640 --> 00:03:57.960 of administrative decisions. 00:03:57.960 --> 00:03:59.360 Who is presenting this? 00:03:59.360 --> 00:04:00.120 That's me. 00:04:00.120 --> 00:04:03.040 And if it's OK with the commission, 00:04:03.040 --> 00:04:07.680 may I present this position here rather than going to the lecture? 00:04:07.680 --> 00:04:08.960 Absolutely. 00:04:08.960 --> 00:04:09.460 OK. 00:04:09.460 --> 00:04:13.280 Good evening. 00:04:13.280 --> 00:04:14.460 My name is Jerry Drake. 00:04:14.460 --> 00:04:16.000 I'm with the city attorney's office. 00:04:16.000 --> 00:04:18.640 And one of the reasons why I asked for this item 00:04:18.640 --> 00:04:21.360 to be placed on the agenda is that I 00:04:21.360 --> 00:04:25.440 understood that we had several new members of the Board 00:04:25.440 --> 00:04:26.800 of Adjustment. 00:04:26.800 --> 00:04:31.560 And I wanted to go through a briefing similar to the one 00:04:31.560 --> 00:04:36.360 we had a couple of meetings ago to go 00:04:36.360 --> 00:04:39.720 over the role of the Board of Adjustment 00:04:39.720 --> 00:04:43.920 in hearing the various matters that come forward 00:04:43.920 --> 00:04:46.520 for your consideration. 00:04:46.520 --> 00:04:51.760 And I don't know what your experience level is, 00:04:51.760 --> 00:04:56.040 if this is a new experience for some of you, the Board of Adjustment 00:04:56.040 --> 00:05:01.480 is a rather unique board with the city. 00:05:01.480 --> 00:05:05.400 Because it essentially has a quasi-judicial function. 00:05:05.400 --> 00:05:08.360 It's not a political board. 00:05:08.360 --> 00:05:11.560 It's not a recommending body. 00:05:11.560 --> 00:05:16.240 It's not a board that sets policy or anything 00:05:16.240 --> 00:05:17.720 of that nature. 00:05:17.720 --> 00:05:22.800 Its function is to review the decisions of staff 00:05:22.800 --> 00:05:27.840 and to consider variances to various rules that 00:05:27.840 --> 00:05:30.800 are put into place by ordinance that are code. 00:05:30.800 --> 00:05:37.760 And to grant relief where necessary to avoid 00:05:37.760 --> 00:05:40.680 constitutional problems with district 00:05:40.680 --> 00:05:45.760 enforcement of the ordinances as written. 00:05:45.760 --> 00:05:50.560 And in the case of an appeal of an administrative decision, 00:05:50.560 --> 00:05:53.480 to review the decision that was made 00:05:53.480 --> 00:05:59.880 by staff for consistency with the law 00:05:59.880 --> 00:06:05.120 as expressed in the code ordinances and in state law. 00:06:05.120 --> 00:06:07.040 And so with that in mind, you're going 00:06:07.040 --> 00:06:09.800 to have to be briefed on what the law is. 00:06:09.800 --> 00:06:12.560 And so that's part of what I'm wanting to do here, 00:06:12.560 --> 00:06:15.880 is to let you know what the law is 00:06:15.880 --> 00:06:19.880 so that you can go through and know where to find it. 00:06:19.880 --> 00:06:24.160 Fortunately, most of the matters that you're going to deal with 00:06:24.160 --> 00:06:26.640 are going to be in a few sections of the Dental 00:06:26.640 --> 00:06:28.400 Development Code. 00:06:28.400 --> 00:06:35.360 And so I attempted to copy those into this briefing document 00:06:35.360 --> 00:06:38.960 that was set out to you in advance. 00:06:38.960 --> 00:06:41.280 As I looked at it, I saw where there 00:06:41.280 --> 00:06:47.600 were some errors that came out when it was printed off, 00:06:47.600 --> 00:06:58.360 starting at about page 8 and going through to about page 14 00:06:58.360 --> 00:07:00.880 or so. 00:07:00.880 --> 00:07:02.520 There are a few places where it says, 00:07:02.520 --> 00:07:05.200 error reference source not found. 00:07:05.200 --> 00:07:07.080 And I think what must have happened 00:07:07.080 --> 00:07:11.040 was that I copied this from a Word version of the Dental 00:07:11.040 --> 00:07:14.360 Development Code that was approved this year. 00:07:14.360 --> 00:07:17.560 And I think that it had some hyperlinks in there 00:07:17.560 --> 00:07:21.560 that as I cut and pasted into the Word document, 00:07:21.560 --> 00:07:26.080 some of the references didn't carry over with it. 00:07:26.080 --> 00:07:28.720 It looked fine when I put the paper together 00:07:28.720 --> 00:07:32.000 and when I attached it to an email over 00:07:32.000 --> 00:07:34.840 to our friends in the Planning Department. 00:07:34.840 --> 00:07:41.040 But somehow in the reproduction, something went awry. 00:07:41.040 --> 00:07:47.400 So I'm going to go through and just call out 00:07:47.400 --> 00:07:51.040 to you those section numbers that are missing 00:07:51.040 --> 00:07:52.160 that I'm aware of. 00:07:52.160 --> 00:07:55.120 But certainly, if there's any doubt, 00:07:55.120 --> 00:07:56.560 I hope that each of you have been 00:07:56.560 --> 00:07:58.680 given a copy of the Dental Development Code 00:07:58.680 --> 00:07:59.920 that you can refer to. 00:07:59.920 --> 00:08:01.520 And if there's any questions about it, 00:08:01.520 --> 00:08:04.160 you can refer to it. 00:08:04.160 --> 00:08:10.640 Starting out on this first page of this Legal Orientation Guide, 00:08:10.640 --> 00:08:12.480 we start with the statutes. 00:08:12.480 --> 00:08:16.640 And those come from the Texas Local Government Code. 00:08:16.640 --> 00:08:24.600 And this first section 211.008 speaks in general terms 00:08:24.600 --> 00:08:26.440 about the Board of Adjustment. 00:08:26.440 --> 00:08:27.880 And it allows for the appointment 00:08:27.880 --> 00:08:28.920 of a Board of Adjustment. 00:08:28.920 --> 00:08:32.000 Oddly enough, it's not a requirement of state law 00:08:32.000 --> 00:08:37.400 to have a Board of Adjustment, but it does allow for it. 00:08:37.400 --> 00:08:40.240 And it provides that if we do have a Board of Adjustment, 00:08:40.240 --> 00:08:42.280 we've got to have at least five members. 00:08:42.280 --> 00:08:47.160 And the idea being that the legislature doesn't 00:08:47.160 --> 00:08:49.880 know how big our city council is or how small it is, 00:08:49.880 --> 00:08:52.440 but it's got to be at least five members. 00:08:52.440 --> 00:08:55.280 And the idea is that each council member 00:08:55.280 --> 00:08:56.600 has an appointment. 00:08:56.600 --> 00:09:06.320 And the thought is that they want at least 75% 00:09:06.320 --> 00:09:11.400 of the members that have been appointed to hear a case. 00:09:11.400 --> 00:09:17.600 And sometimes, what do you do if one or two can't make it? 00:09:17.600 --> 00:09:19.880 Depending on how big your Board of Adjustment is, 00:09:19.880 --> 00:09:22.040 you may not have a court. 00:09:22.040 --> 00:09:24.680 And so the law also allows for the appointment 00:09:24.680 --> 00:09:28.960 of alternate Board members to fill in for the regular Board 00:09:28.960 --> 00:09:30.240 members. 00:09:30.240 --> 00:09:35.000 And so with that in mind, a quorum 00:09:35.000 --> 00:09:40.560 is stated in the statute as 75% of the members. 00:09:40.560 --> 00:09:43.160 Well, to simplify things a little bit, 00:09:43.160 --> 00:09:50.480 we've come upon that that's six, because there's seven members. 00:09:50.480 --> 00:09:52.560 Six out of seven is 85%. 00:09:52.560 --> 00:09:54.840 Five out of seven is 71%. 00:09:54.840 --> 00:09:57.480 It's not quite enough to make 75%. 00:09:57.480 --> 00:10:03.320 So the easy rule is six members. 00:10:03.320 --> 00:10:08.040 And as far as what the authority of the Board, page 2, 00:10:08.040 --> 00:10:13.080 sets out to hear and decide appeal that alleges an error, 00:10:13.080 --> 00:10:14.840 hear and decide special exceptions 00:10:14.840 --> 00:10:16.760 to the terms of the zoning ordinance, 00:10:16.760 --> 00:10:19.280 to authorize in specific cases of variance 00:10:19.280 --> 00:10:22.400 the terms of a zoning ordinance, hear other matters 00:10:22.400 --> 00:10:26.160 authorized by ordinance adopted under this subchapter. 00:10:26.160 --> 00:10:30.200 And then in item C, it provides the concurring vote 00:10:30.200 --> 00:10:33.600 as 75% of the Board is necessary to reverse 00:10:33.600 --> 00:10:36.000 an order requirement, decision, or determination 00:10:36.000 --> 00:10:38.880 of an administrative official to decide 00:10:38.880 --> 00:10:42.360 in favor of an applicant on a matter in which the Board is 00:10:42.360 --> 00:10:45.160 required to pass under a zoning ordinance 00:10:45.160 --> 00:10:48.440 or to authorize a variation from the terms of the zoning 00:10:48.440 --> 00:10:49.440 ordinance. 00:10:49.440 --> 00:10:54.520 Again, 75% of the members, there are seven members. 00:10:54.520 --> 00:10:58.000 And so that requires six votes. 00:10:58.000 --> 00:11:04.920 And alternates could fill in for the gaps as necessary. 00:11:04.920 --> 00:11:10.160 211.010 talks about procedures for an appeal to the Board. 00:11:10.160 --> 00:11:16.600 There is a new section, A-1, that the legislature inserted 00:11:16.600 --> 00:11:19.920 as far as who could bring forward an appeal 00:11:19.920 --> 00:11:21.680 to the Board of Adjustment. 00:11:21.680 --> 00:11:25.320 And it's got some new provisions in there as well. 00:11:25.320 --> 00:11:28.080 But in basic terms, a person who's 00:11:28.080 --> 00:11:30.560 agreed by the decision, an officer, 00:11:30.560 --> 00:11:33.160 Department of the Board, a bureau, a municipality 00:11:33.160 --> 00:11:34.640 affected by the decision. 00:11:34.640 --> 00:11:37.360 So the city can actually bring forward 00:11:37.360 --> 00:11:40.360 a matter to the Board of Adjustment if it wants to. 00:11:40.360 --> 00:11:43.360 And then A-1 adds to the people who 00:11:43.360 --> 00:11:46.520 can bring an appeal to the Board of Adjustment. 00:11:46.520 --> 00:11:51.640 If you have somebody who works for a different department, 00:11:51.640 --> 00:11:53.680 doesn't like the way that one department has 00:11:53.680 --> 00:11:55.920 ruled on an issue, theoretically, 00:11:55.920 --> 00:11:57.520 they could bring forward an action 00:11:57.520 --> 00:11:58.840 at the Board of Adjustment. 00:11:58.840 --> 00:11:59.560 Jerry? 00:11:59.560 --> 00:12:00.040 Yes, sir? 00:12:00.040 --> 00:12:01.400 Is there a legal definition for-- 00:12:01.400 --> 00:12:02.680 The Board of-- sorry, the Board of-- 00:12:02.680 --> 00:12:05.200 do I have to recognize him for the record? 00:12:05.200 --> 00:12:09.880 I think the point is to allow the microphones to pick it up. 00:12:09.880 --> 00:12:13.640 But as far as procedurals-- 00:12:13.640 --> 00:12:17.440 Yes, the chair recommends Mr. Higgins. 00:12:17.440 --> 00:12:19.640 I'm just wondering if there's a legal definition 00:12:19.640 --> 00:12:23.880 to a grieved or somebody could just say, I don't like it. 00:12:23.880 --> 00:12:28.280 Yeah, I don't know that I've seen one. 00:12:28.280 --> 00:12:29.240 I haven't looked at it. 00:12:29.240 --> 00:12:33.520 But I can look and see if I can find that and report back 00:12:33.520 --> 00:12:37.360 to you at our next regular meeting. 00:12:37.360 --> 00:12:41.040 I would assume it would be somebody who simply 00:12:41.040 --> 00:12:43.080 disagrees with it. 00:12:43.080 --> 00:12:46.240 But that's a good question, because you 00:12:46.240 --> 00:12:50.480 have to suffer some kind of specific harm. 00:12:50.480 --> 00:12:53.120 Or you just don't like it, theoretically. 00:12:53.120 --> 00:12:55.320 And that's something I'm going to have to look into. 00:12:55.320 --> 00:13:00.680 Let's see. 00:13:00.680 --> 00:13:05.840 As far as a decision made by an administrative official that 00:13:05.840 --> 00:13:08.120 is not related to a specific application 00:13:08.120 --> 00:13:13.440 address or project, it seems to suggest 00:13:13.440 --> 00:13:16.840 that if it's not related to a specific application, 00:13:16.840 --> 00:13:19.520 that a grieve could be theoretical. 00:13:19.520 --> 00:13:20.320 But I don't know. 00:13:20.320 --> 00:13:21.160 I'll have to look. 00:13:21.160 --> 00:13:27.280 Also included are the persons who 00:13:27.280 --> 00:13:29.640 file the application subject to the decision, 00:13:29.640 --> 00:13:31.760 owner representative, the owner of the property 00:13:31.760 --> 00:13:35.560 that is subject to the decision, a person who's 00:13:35.560 --> 00:13:38.680 aggrieved by the decision, and is the owner of real property 00:13:38.680 --> 00:13:41.400 within 200 feet of the property that 00:13:41.400 --> 00:13:45.200 is the subject of the decision, or any officer, department, 00:13:45.200 --> 00:13:46.920 board, or bureau of the municipality 00:13:46.920 --> 00:13:49.920 affected by the decision. 00:13:49.920 --> 00:13:54.040 There's some requirements in there for timeliness of filing 00:13:54.040 --> 00:13:59.440 and how the application must be made for appeal. 00:13:59.440 --> 00:14:04.200 211.011 on page 3 talks about judicial review 00:14:04.200 --> 00:14:05.760 of the board decision. 00:14:05.760 --> 00:14:08.040 I'm not going to go through all of that, 00:14:08.040 --> 00:14:09.520 because that's going to be something 00:14:09.520 --> 00:14:14.800 that's more of an abuse to the actual judge who's 00:14:14.800 --> 00:14:16.960 going to hear the appeal. 00:14:16.960 --> 00:14:19.760 It's not going to bear upon your decision here 00:14:19.760 --> 00:14:22.280 at the Board of Adjustment. 00:14:22.280 --> 00:14:25.600 But the idea is that-- 00:14:25.600 --> 00:14:29.680 and what I need to emphasize here is that your decisions, 00:14:29.680 --> 00:14:33.120 if the city council doesn't like your decision, 00:14:33.120 --> 00:14:34.880 that's too bad. 00:14:34.880 --> 00:14:36.640 There's no appeal to the city council, 00:14:36.640 --> 00:14:39.160 even though they are the governing 00:14:39.160 --> 00:14:41.800 body of the municipality. 00:14:41.800 --> 00:14:43.640 The idea of a Board of Adjustment 00:14:43.640 --> 00:14:48.160 is that the council sets what the rules are, 00:14:48.160 --> 00:14:51.280 what the law is, what the standards of the ordinances. 00:14:51.280 --> 00:14:53.880 And if somebody doesn't like that, 00:14:53.880 --> 00:14:57.200 they don't get to just challenge that because they don't like it. 00:14:57.200 --> 00:15:00.440 They get to challenge it because of some impact 00:15:00.440 --> 00:15:02.040 that it has on them. 00:15:02.040 --> 00:15:08.000 And you're deciding, is the application of the ordinance 00:15:08.000 --> 00:15:15.320 to their situation one that is untenable under the law? 00:15:15.320 --> 00:15:18.160 And is it confiscatory? 00:15:18.160 --> 00:15:21.720 Is it take away all of their property rights? 00:15:21.720 --> 00:15:23.640 Does relief need to be given? 00:15:23.640 --> 00:15:28.720 And so that's your role here with the Board of Adjustment. 00:15:28.720 --> 00:15:33.480 And any review of your decision-- 00:15:33.480 --> 00:15:38.600 because you've been given this discretion by the law. 00:15:38.600 --> 00:15:41.360 Any review of that has to be done by a judge. 00:15:41.360 --> 00:15:43.880 He's going to look at the evidence that 00:15:43.880 --> 00:15:45.800 was placed before you. 00:15:45.800 --> 00:15:47.480 That's going to be-- 00:15:47.480 --> 00:15:53.240 some of you may be surprised to see that people giving testimony 00:15:53.240 --> 00:15:57.840 are sworn in, that documents that you see 00:15:57.840 --> 00:16:01.640 are going to be numbered and put into evidence as exhibits. 00:16:01.640 --> 00:16:07.200 And the reason for that is that if there's an appeal, 00:16:07.200 --> 00:16:08.800 the judge is going to look at all that. 00:16:08.800 --> 00:16:13.160 He's going to see, did you have substantial evidence upon which 00:16:13.160 --> 00:16:14.440 to base your decision? 00:16:14.440 --> 00:16:16.040 If there's not substantial evidence 00:16:16.040 --> 00:16:20.000 to support your decision, then it's subject to being reversed. 00:16:20.000 --> 00:16:24.880 So it's not just a mere vote of preferences. 00:16:24.880 --> 00:16:29.520 It's an issue of, is there sufficient evidence 00:16:29.520 --> 00:16:31.160 to support your decision? 00:16:31.160 --> 00:16:34.800 And so that's very important. 00:16:34.800 --> 00:16:37.200 On page four, we've got a provision 00:16:37.200 --> 00:16:40.960 from the Denton Charter that provides 00:16:40.960 --> 00:16:44.440 that the Board of Adjustment is at least seven members. 00:16:44.440 --> 00:16:47.080 I guess if council member goes up to nine members, 00:16:47.080 --> 00:16:49.760 they can increase that to nine. 00:16:49.760 --> 00:16:51.640 But right now, the charter says it's 00:16:51.640 --> 00:16:54.640 got to be a minimum of seven. 00:16:54.640 --> 00:16:58.160 And right now, that's what it is, the seven members. 00:16:58.160 --> 00:17:03.720 And below the charter provision are some provisions 00:17:03.720 --> 00:17:06.960 from the 2019 DVC. 00:17:06.960 --> 00:17:11.400 And 281A, it talks about the process 00:17:11.400 --> 00:17:14.680 for gaining relief from the strict application of the DVC 00:17:14.680 --> 00:17:16.400 where literal enforcement of the DVC 00:17:16.400 --> 00:17:19.520 will result in an unnecessary hardship 00:17:19.520 --> 00:17:22.280 and where the variance is necessary to develop 00:17:22.280 --> 00:17:26.040 a specific parcel of land which cannot otherwise 00:17:26.040 --> 00:17:28.560 be developed in the same manner allowed 00:17:28.560 --> 00:17:32.720 for other similar parcels due to unique conditions 00:17:32.720 --> 00:17:33.400 on the property. 00:17:33.400 --> 00:17:34.520 Well, what would that be? 00:17:34.520 --> 00:17:39.080 Maybe it's really narrow and you can't get the proper width 00:17:39.080 --> 00:17:41.840 requirement on the front of the lot. 00:17:41.840 --> 00:17:47.200 And maybe you need 50 feet, and it only has 40 feet. 00:17:47.200 --> 00:17:48.840 But the back, it's pie-shaping. 00:17:48.840 --> 00:17:53.280 Maybe the width of it on the back is 200 feet. 00:17:53.280 --> 00:18:00.840 And so the concerns that might prompt the 50 foot requirement 00:18:00.840 --> 00:18:04.360 may not be as important when you consider 00:18:04.360 --> 00:18:07.200 that there's ample room on the lot 00:18:07.200 --> 00:18:11.280 to allow for the development. 00:18:11.280 --> 00:18:16.560 It also provides for appeals and variances on signs. 00:18:16.560 --> 00:18:20.480 Because what I first got here was 00:18:20.480 --> 00:18:24.000 Denton had a separate sign board of appeals for people 00:18:24.000 --> 00:18:28.880 to appeal application of sign decisions of the staff. 00:18:28.880 --> 00:18:31.480 And what we found was there was a lot 00:18:31.480 --> 00:18:33.480 of duplication and redundancy. 00:18:33.480 --> 00:18:35.720 And so the council decided, look, 00:18:35.720 --> 00:18:37.960 let's just combine sign board of appeals 00:18:37.960 --> 00:18:40.680 into the zoning board of adjustment. 00:18:40.680 --> 00:18:42.240 And so now the board of adjustment 00:18:42.240 --> 00:18:47.880 hears sign appeals and variances as well. 00:18:47.880 --> 00:18:49.840 As far as the variance procedure, 00:18:49.840 --> 00:18:53.560 I copied this from the Denton Development Code. 00:18:53.560 --> 00:18:58.240 And one of the things about the Denton Development Code, 00:18:58.240 --> 00:19:01.600 the new one that's really interesting and helpful, 00:19:01.600 --> 00:19:05.040 is that it gives a number of steps in the process 00:19:05.040 --> 00:19:09.200 to guide an applicant through the process. 00:19:09.200 --> 00:19:12.360 But you don't really need to worry too much about those 00:19:12.360 --> 00:19:13.400 steps. 00:19:13.400 --> 00:19:17.120 Those are really more for the assistance of the applicant. 00:19:17.120 --> 00:19:22.520 But it does describe the steps leading up to when you hear it. 00:19:22.520 --> 00:19:26.040 You're really not getting into it until step five. 00:19:26.040 --> 00:19:31.360 And so it provides, just like the state law, 00:19:31.360 --> 00:19:34.080 75% of the members or six votes is 00:19:34.080 --> 00:19:36.800 necessary to approve a variance. 00:19:36.800 --> 00:19:44.240 It requires findings and effective conclusions of law. 00:19:44.240 --> 00:19:50.680 And as far as post-decision actions and limitations, 00:19:50.680 --> 00:19:52.640 the director shall provide written notification 00:19:52.640 --> 00:19:56.040 of the board of adjustment decision to the applicant. 00:19:56.040 --> 00:20:01.200 There's a 24-month period for which the variance remains 00:20:01.200 --> 00:20:02.120 valid. 00:20:02.120 --> 00:20:04.720 If it's not exercised within 24 months, 00:20:04.720 --> 00:20:06.760 it shall automatically expire. 00:20:06.760 --> 00:20:08.760 It's not transferable. 00:20:08.760 --> 00:20:12.440 And the decision of the board of adjustment is final. 00:20:12.440 --> 00:20:14.320 And if you want to appeal it, again, 00:20:14.320 --> 00:20:15.880 you don't take it to city council. 00:20:15.880 --> 00:20:18.400 You take it to a district court. 00:20:18.400 --> 00:20:25.920 Section D on page seven talks about the variance approval 00:20:25.920 --> 00:20:27.800 criteria. 00:20:27.800 --> 00:20:30.480 It talks about special circumstances or conditions 00:20:30.480 --> 00:20:33.800 applied to this parcel that's unique to the property. 00:20:33.800 --> 00:20:37.760 It's different from other lots that are 00:20:37.760 --> 00:20:40.960 subject to these same requirements. 00:20:40.960 --> 00:20:44.320 And it requires special consideration 00:20:44.320 --> 00:20:47.080 because of these special circumstances. 00:20:47.080 --> 00:20:49.840 It has to be not detrimental to the public welfare 00:20:49.840 --> 00:20:51.680 injurious to other property. 00:20:51.680 --> 00:20:53.260 It has to be the minimum variance that 00:20:53.260 --> 00:20:55.520 will accomplish the purpose. 00:20:55.520 --> 00:20:57.680 It has to be a situation where literal enforcement 00:20:57.680 --> 00:21:02.240 and strict application will result 00:21:02.240 --> 00:21:04.720 in unnecessary hardship inconsistent 00:21:04.720 --> 00:21:07.920 with the general provisions and intent of the DEC, 00:21:07.920 --> 00:21:11.080 such as granting the variances in the spirit and intent 00:21:11.080 --> 00:21:14.000 to see that substantial justice is done. 00:21:14.000 --> 00:21:16.160 It's not strictly for the purpose 00:21:16.160 --> 00:21:18.760 of mitigating a financial hardship. 00:21:18.760 --> 00:21:22.560 So it says, well, it's too expensive for me 00:21:22.560 --> 00:21:25.000 to develop this piece of property. 00:21:25.000 --> 00:21:28.720 That's not a good enough reason. 00:21:28.720 --> 00:21:33.960 It's got to be something that inhibits an ability to develop. 00:21:33.960 --> 00:21:37.720 And F, a condition or feature that 00:21:37.720 --> 00:21:39.880 creates the need for the variance did not result 00:21:39.880 --> 00:21:41.760 from the owner's actions. 00:21:41.760 --> 00:21:45.600 So if somebody splits their lot in half, 00:21:45.600 --> 00:21:48.000 they can't come to you and say, oh, gee, my lot's 00:21:48.000 --> 00:21:50.640 too small to build on. 00:21:50.640 --> 00:21:56.560 It has to be something that is unique that the applicant didn't 00:21:56.560 --> 00:21:58.360 cause. 00:21:58.360 --> 00:22:04.120 So you know, 283 at the bottom of page 7 00:22:04.120 --> 00:22:07.680 talks about an appeal from an administrative decision. 00:22:07.680 --> 00:22:11.400 And right around in here is where 00:22:11.400 --> 00:22:14.960 we start to get these errors and reference source not found. 00:22:14.960 --> 00:22:20.120 So I guess the first thing I want to do here is-- 00:22:20.120 --> 00:22:22.120 and maybe if some of the members of staff 00:22:22.120 --> 00:22:26.240 can help me out a little bit with tracing these back-- 00:22:26.240 --> 00:22:33.560 I know that this item C here is referring to a figure 2.8-2, 00:22:33.560 --> 00:22:39.240 which is a table that shows the steps that you take 1 through 6. 00:22:39.240 --> 00:22:44.560 And the next reference not found is 2.4 00:22:44.560 --> 00:22:47.280 that talks about the procedure. 00:22:47.280 --> 00:22:52.080 The pre-application conference is spelled out 243. 00:22:52.080 --> 00:22:56.440 The application submittal and processing, 00:22:56.440 --> 00:23:01.000 it's in accordance with 2.4.4 with the following 00:23:01.000 --> 00:23:02.480 modifications. 00:23:02.480 --> 00:23:07.720 Staff review and action, that should be a reference to 245. 00:23:07.720 --> 00:23:13.360 In section C4, that reference source not found at the bottom 00:23:13.360 --> 00:23:15.720 should be 246. 00:23:15.720 --> 00:23:21.360 Post-decision actions and limitations should be 248. 00:23:21.360 --> 00:23:25.680 And approval criteria should be 245. 00:23:25.680 --> 00:23:31.240 So really, as far as the administrative decisions 00:23:31.240 --> 00:23:35.320 are concerned, again, the steps 1 through 4 00:23:35.320 --> 00:23:39.040 are primarily for the benefit of the applicant. 00:23:39.040 --> 00:23:42.320 You're really not going to be involved until step 5. 00:23:42.320 --> 00:23:46.600 And then step 6 bears upon your decision 00:23:46.600 --> 00:23:49.920 only insofar as someone might want 00:23:49.920 --> 00:23:55.080 to appeal a decision of the board of adjustment. 00:23:55.080 --> 00:23:58.880 Vested rights, this was not in your last briefing 00:23:58.880 --> 00:24:01.920 because we just didn't get to it. 00:24:01.920 --> 00:24:06.240 But knowing that you would be hearing 00:24:06.240 --> 00:24:09.160 a case that involved an appeal for a vested rights 00:24:09.160 --> 00:24:14.440 determination, I set that out here at 256. 00:24:14.440 --> 00:24:22.480 And basically the state's vested rights law is contained 00:24:22.480 --> 00:24:26.800 within chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code. 00:24:26.800 --> 00:24:30.360 And the thought behind the vested rights law 00:24:30.360 --> 00:24:36.440 is to prevent the government from changing 00:24:36.440 --> 00:24:40.120 the rules of development in the middle of the game. 00:24:40.120 --> 00:24:45.240 And the idea is that when you propose a development 00:24:45.240 --> 00:24:52.080 under certain terms and get your first approval on that, 00:24:52.080 --> 00:24:55.400 you're entitled to carry through with your proposal 00:24:55.400 --> 00:24:56.960 until the end. 00:24:56.960 --> 00:25:01.800 And there are some limitations associated with that. 00:25:01.800 --> 00:25:04.160 And there's a number of exceptions 00:25:04.160 --> 00:25:09.200 to this rule in chapter 245. 00:25:09.200 --> 00:25:11.280 One of the main exceptions to the rule 00:25:11.280 --> 00:25:15.440 is, for example, zoning provisions. 00:25:15.440 --> 00:25:17.160 There's only certain zoning provisions 00:25:17.160 --> 00:25:19.040 that are not accepted, those that 00:25:19.040 --> 00:25:21.640 talk about the size of your lot, the type, 00:25:21.640 --> 00:25:23.840 landscaping, things of that nature. 00:25:23.840 --> 00:25:26.440 But otherwise, the city can decide 00:25:26.440 --> 00:25:31.480 to rezone a piece of property at some point in the future, 00:25:31.480 --> 00:25:34.280 even if it has an impact on the land. 00:25:34.280 --> 00:25:39.000 And the landowner is entitled to protest that. 00:25:39.000 --> 00:25:43.120 Maybe they can even force a super majority in some cases. 00:25:43.120 --> 00:25:46.160 They can ask for rezoning. 00:25:46.160 --> 00:25:52.680 And so that exception recognizes that zoning is somewhat fluid. 00:25:52.680 --> 00:25:56.840 It's not necessarily going to be a guaranteed situation. 00:25:56.840 --> 00:26:03.120 Other exceptions include things like flooding provisions. 00:26:03.120 --> 00:26:09.080 You're not entitled to a vested rights 00:26:09.080 --> 00:26:12.360 type of determination for relief from something 00:26:12.360 --> 00:26:16.720 that's intended to prevent flooding or protect life 00:26:16.720 --> 00:26:18.760 safety. 00:26:18.760 --> 00:26:23.080 And there are a number of others as well. 00:26:23.080 --> 00:26:27.640 But let me give you some of these section 00:26:27.640 --> 00:26:32.520 numbers on page 10 in item C. That's 00:26:32.520 --> 00:26:36.480 referring to section 244, step 2. 00:26:36.480 --> 00:26:42.200 Item D is referring to subsection 234. 00:26:42.200 --> 00:26:47.800 And on page 11, under 62681, that's 00:26:47.800 --> 00:26:51.560 referring to section 622. 00:26:51.560 --> 00:26:55.960 And the first part of the vested rights determination 00:26:55.960 --> 00:26:57.800 is a complete decision. 00:26:57.800 --> 00:27:03.680 And there are some provisions in there 00:27:03.680 --> 00:27:06.680 to make sure that the application, what's 00:27:06.680 --> 00:27:12.880 put forward as a project, is a complete application. 00:27:12.880 --> 00:27:17.960 But a project defines the scope of the improvements, 00:27:17.960 --> 00:27:23.240 primarily public improvements, and does not 00:27:23.240 --> 00:27:25.960 include some other things. 00:27:25.960 --> 00:27:30.720 Once you build, say, a shopping center, what you do with it 00:27:30.720 --> 00:27:34.000 is not really a vested right. 00:27:34.000 --> 00:27:38.000 So you've seen situations where shopping centers 00:27:38.000 --> 00:27:42.520 have been repurposed into something else. 00:27:42.520 --> 00:27:45.120 That's not a vested rights issue. 00:27:45.120 --> 00:27:50.480 It's the development project that's vested. 00:27:50.480 --> 00:27:55.600 What you store on a piece of property is not a vested right. 00:27:55.600 --> 00:27:57.560 It's what you intended to build. 00:27:57.560 --> 00:28:01.840 How you intended to develop it, that's what's vested. 00:28:01.840 --> 00:28:07.840 And then this section D on page 10 00:28:07.840 --> 00:28:10.720 talks about the Board of Adjustment appeal 00:28:10.720 --> 00:28:16.600 and what your criteria are for deciding the petition. 00:28:16.600 --> 00:28:19.200 It says the city manager or the Board of Adjustment on Appeal 00:28:19.200 --> 00:28:21.480 should decide the vested rights petition based 00:28:21.480 --> 00:28:22.920 upon the following factors. 00:28:22.920 --> 00:28:26.200 One, whether the city received fair notice of the project. 00:28:26.200 --> 00:28:30.160 And then that's a key word, the project and nature 00:28:30.160 --> 00:28:31.600 of the permit sought. 00:28:31.600 --> 00:28:34.120 Two, whether the nature and scope of the project 00:28:34.120 --> 00:28:37.720 prevents the city from applying one or more current regulations 00:28:37.720 --> 00:28:40.320 to impose or pending applications. 00:28:40.320 --> 00:28:43.000 Three, whether any prior approved applications 00:28:43.000 --> 00:28:46.320 for the property have expired or have been terminated 00:28:46.320 --> 00:28:47.800 in accordance with the law. 00:28:47.800 --> 00:28:51.240 Four, whether any statutory exception to a right 00:28:51.240 --> 00:28:55.760 asserted pursuant to 245 is applicable to one or more 00:28:55.760 --> 00:28:57.200 of the current regulations. 00:28:57.200 --> 00:28:59.560 That's what I was talking to you about before, 00:28:59.560 --> 00:29:01.680 where there are certain exceptions for life 00:29:01.680 --> 00:29:10.680 safety, for fire regulation, for zoning that are not 00:29:10.680 --> 00:29:15.320 going to be subject to the city being locked down 00:29:15.320 --> 00:29:17.480 and a vested right determination. 00:29:17.480 --> 00:29:20.800 Five, whether any exemption from one or more regulations 00:29:20.800 --> 00:29:23.880 to the DDC or city ordinances is applicable. 00:29:23.880 --> 00:29:26.680 And six, whether the project is dormant. 00:29:26.680 --> 00:29:31.800 Basically, what dormant means is that even after you 00:29:31.800 --> 00:29:38.200 have a fine project, if there's no progress towards completion 00:29:38.200 --> 00:29:42.640 within a certain amount of time, it's 00:29:42.640 --> 00:29:47.440 subject to being found dormant. 00:29:47.440 --> 00:29:50.920 But generally speaking, if you have an approved flat, 00:29:50.920 --> 00:29:53.960 that's considered progress towards completion. 00:29:53.960 --> 00:29:59.960 If you have an investment that's made in the property, 00:29:59.960 --> 00:30:02.080 that's progress towards completion. 00:30:02.080 --> 00:30:05.600 Certain approvals could be progress towards completion. 00:30:05.600 --> 00:30:09.640 So that's going to be something, as each case comes forward 00:30:09.640 --> 00:30:13.440 to you, I can't really lay out all of them now, 00:30:13.440 --> 00:30:16.920 but as each case is brought forward to you, 00:30:16.920 --> 00:30:19.240 there should be some analysis that 00:30:19.240 --> 00:30:23.680 comes to you in the staff report that talks about whether or not 00:30:23.680 --> 00:30:31.400 there is an expiration because of a lack of progress 00:30:31.400 --> 00:30:36.120 towards completion, whether it's dormant or not. 00:30:36.120 --> 00:30:41.560 626, relief measures that apply to gas wells. 00:30:41.560 --> 00:30:49.080 That section number in A1 is 6.2.2. 00:30:49.080 --> 00:30:54.640 The A is providing for the setback requirements 00:30:54.640 --> 00:30:58.560 for drilling and operation. 00:30:58.560 --> 00:31:03.920 There are also in the city some setback requirements, 00:31:03.920 --> 00:31:06.120 what we call reverse setbacks, that 00:31:06.120 --> 00:31:12.360 impact people building protected uses around a gas well. 00:31:12.360 --> 00:31:16.240 And those are discussed in here as well. 00:31:16.240 --> 00:31:19.560 But the procedures are pretty much the same 00:31:19.560 --> 00:31:27.320 that you come forward and ask for a waiver of the setback 00:31:27.320 --> 00:31:33.160 provisions following more or less similar procedures. 00:31:33.160 --> 00:31:36.200 Going on to page 12, let me give you some of those section 00:31:36.200 --> 00:31:37.880 numbers. 00:31:37.880 --> 00:31:40.680 The first one is 626B. 00:31:40.680 --> 00:31:43.360 The next one is 626C. 00:31:43.360 --> 00:31:50.760 On to subsection A2, it's talking about section 22C. 00:31:50.760 --> 00:31:58.160 And then in A3, it's referring to subsection 637B, 00:31:58.160 --> 00:32:02.480 applying the procedures under subsection A. 00:32:02.480 --> 00:32:11.280 In this subsection B, B1 is referring to section 6.2 00:32:11.280 --> 00:32:15.560 with respect to the application and interpretation 00:32:15.560 --> 00:32:16.760 of the section. 00:32:16.760 --> 00:32:19.760 And it says, except for vested rights appeals, 00:32:19.760 --> 00:32:24.400 the matters described in paragraph 63AF. 00:32:24.400 --> 00:32:25.800 63AF? 00:32:25.800 --> 00:32:28.360 8F, as in Frank. 00:32:28.360 --> 00:32:29.680 Got it, thanks. 00:32:29.680 --> 00:32:32.120 And it says, furthermore, the Board of Adjustment 00:32:32.120 --> 00:32:34.240 shall hear a desired request for variances 00:32:34.240 --> 00:32:36.480 to provisions of this section. 00:32:36.480 --> 00:32:40.360 And that should be 6.2. 00:32:40.360 --> 00:32:47.640 On to the next page, this B2B at the end of it 00:32:47.640 --> 00:32:52.560 is referring to section 632G, as in Gerald. 00:32:52.560 --> 00:33:01.440 And then this B2C is referring to subsection 6.2.2 00:33:01.440 --> 00:33:05.000 with respect to the minimal setbacks. 00:33:05.000 --> 00:33:05.760 And-- 00:33:05.760 --> 00:33:06.640 Excuse me. 00:33:06.640 --> 00:33:07.600 Yes. 00:33:07.600 --> 00:33:10.320 Would it be possible to get a corrected copy of this? 00:33:10.320 --> 00:33:12.440 It sure could, absolutely. 00:33:12.440 --> 00:33:16.640 And I just discovered it today that they didn't carry over. 00:33:16.640 --> 00:33:18.560 And we can get that to you-- 00:33:18.560 --> 00:33:20.120 Even just by email. 00:33:20.120 --> 00:33:21.160 Sure. 00:33:21.160 --> 00:33:23.560 Absolutely, we can do that. 00:33:23.560 --> 00:33:25.160 And I apologize. 00:33:25.160 --> 00:33:28.640 I know this is very difficult to follow and find. 00:33:28.640 --> 00:33:31.000 I can only assure you that it was correct 00:33:31.000 --> 00:33:36.160 when I saw it last, and it's one of those computer issues. 00:33:36.160 --> 00:33:39.320 The problem is that when you do the links, when you just 00:33:39.320 --> 00:33:41.800 forward them, they only go partially. 00:33:41.800 --> 00:33:44.320 So you actually have to open them, copy them, 00:33:44.320 --> 00:33:45.040 and put them in. 00:33:45.040 --> 00:33:46.280 Right, exactly. 00:33:46.280 --> 00:33:49.120 And I didn't realize that they were links when 00:33:49.120 --> 00:33:52.920 I did the copy and paste, and it didn't appear. 00:33:52.920 --> 00:33:56.400 So that's the problem, isn't it? 00:33:56.400 --> 00:33:58.720 But Board of Adjustment proceedings, 00:33:58.720 --> 00:34:04.280 it talks about what these proceedings and what 00:34:04.280 --> 00:34:07.560 the standard review for appeals are, 00:34:07.560 --> 00:34:10.920 general criteria for review of variances, 00:34:10.920 --> 00:34:13.960 special circumstances existing on the property related 00:34:13.960 --> 00:34:15.800 to size, shape, area, topography, 00:34:15.800 --> 00:34:19.200 surrounding conditions, and location that do not generally 00:34:19.200 --> 00:34:22.240 apply to other property in the vicinity. 00:34:22.240 --> 00:34:25.520 Two, whether variances necessary to permit the applicant 00:34:25.520 --> 00:34:27.920 the same rights in the use of property 00:34:27.920 --> 00:34:31.320 that are presently enjoyed by other similarly situated 00:34:31.320 --> 00:34:33.720 property, which rights are denied 00:34:33.720 --> 00:34:36.520 for the property on which the application is made. 00:34:36.520 --> 00:34:38.920 Three, whether the grantee of the variance 00:34:38.920 --> 00:34:41.000 on the specific property will adversely 00:34:41.000 --> 00:34:44.520 affect any other feature of the comprehensive master 00:34:44.520 --> 00:34:45.840 plan of the city. 00:34:45.840 --> 00:34:47.960 Four, whether the variance, if granted, 00:34:47.960 --> 00:34:52.120 will be of no material detriment to the public, welfare, 00:34:52.120 --> 00:34:54.840 or injury to the use, enjoyment, or value 00:34:54.840 --> 00:34:56.880 of the property in the vicinity. 00:34:56.880 --> 00:34:59.800 Five, whether the operations proposed 00:34:59.800 --> 00:35:02.680 are reasonable under the circumstances and conditions 00:35:02.680 --> 00:35:04.480 prevailing in the vicinity, considering 00:35:04.480 --> 00:35:07.880 the particular location and the character of the improvements 00:35:07.880 --> 00:35:09.600 located there. 00:35:09.600 --> 00:35:12.560 Finally, six, whether the operations proposed 00:35:12.560 --> 00:35:15.080 are consistent with the health, safety, and welfare 00:35:15.080 --> 00:35:17.160 of the public, when and if conducted 00:35:17.160 --> 00:35:20.040 in accordance with the gas well development site plan, 00:35:20.040 --> 00:35:24.640 or gas well permit conditions to be imposed. 00:35:24.640 --> 00:35:28.840 And then for setback variances, this B2 00:35:28.840 --> 00:35:32.200 talks about the standard of review for that. 00:35:32.200 --> 00:35:35.920 And it talks about reasonable access for fire, 00:35:35.920 --> 00:35:38.440 to the extent that the operator and service owner are 00:35:38.440 --> 00:35:40.960 in agreement on the plan of development, 00:35:40.960 --> 00:35:44.160 have provided for adequate access, traffic circulation, 00:35:44.160 --> 00:35:46.360 taking measures to promote compatibility 00:35:46.360 --> 00:35:47.880 in gas well development. 00:35:47.880 --> 00:35:49.520 Three, for requests for the operator 00:35:49.520 --> 00:35:52.760 to reduce drilling and production site setbacks, 00:35:52.760 --> 00:35:56.120 whether the impact upon adjacent property and the general public 00:35:56.120 --> 00:35:59.360 from gas well development under the request of setback 00:35:59.360 --> 00:36:01.840 will be substantially increased, considering 00:36:01.840 --> 00:36:04.720 A, reasonable use of the mineral estate, 00:36:04.720 --> 00:36:07.440 of the mineral estate owners to explore, develop, 00:36:07.440 --> 00:36:09.400 or produce the minerals. 00:36:09.400 --> 00:36:12.720 B, the availability of alternative drilling sites. 00:36:12.720 --> 00:36:16.600 And C, the number of owners of protected uses or lots 00:36:16.600 --> 00:36:18.520 in a residential subdivision who are 00:36:18.520 --> 00:36:22.000 willing to waive the drilling production site setback 00:36:22.000 --> 00:36:24.880 as requested in the modified form. 00:36:24.880 --> 00:36:30.880 And it says that under 2B, in deciding 00:36:30.880 --> 00:36:33.280 to request for variance for setback requirements, 00:36:33.280 --> 00:36:35.960 you can approve the request as granted, modify the request, 00:36:35.960 --> 00:36:38.760 deny the request, in granting a variance 00:36:38.760 --> 00:36:42.080 for reduction of the drilling and production site setback, 00:36:42.080 --> 00:36:45.280 you may impose such conditions as are necessary to mitigate 00:36:45.280 --> 00:36:47.440 the impacts of the reduced setbacks 00:36:47.440 --> 00:36:50.160 and to preserve the public health and safety, 00:36:50.160 --> 00:36:53.320 including but not limited to the enhanced mitigation standards 00:36:53.320 --> 00:36:58.200 contained in subsection 632(g). 00:36:58.200 --> 00:37:00.880 And in 3, it says you will determine 00:37:00.880 --> 00:37:06.160 whether you grant an extension of the expiration of a gas well 00:37:06.160 --> 00:37:09.000 development site plan or gas well permit based upon whether there 00:37:09.000 --> 00:37:11.880 are certain stances reasonably beyond the control 00:37:11.880 --> 00:37:15.800 of the operator, including any delay on the part of the city 00:37:15.800 --> 00:37:19.160 and issue of subsequent permits to justify an extension 00:37:19.160 --> 00:37:22.800 of the site plan or permits in which the operator may enjoy 00:37:22.800 --> 00:37:27.360 the same rights in use of the property that are presently 00:37:27.360 --> 00:37:30.640 enjoyed by other similarly situated properties in which 00:37:30.640 --> 00:37:32.720 rights are denied to the property for which the site 00:37:32.720 --> 00:37:35.320 plan or permits have expired or suspended. 00:37:35.320 --> 00:37:38.120 4, any action in the subsection B 00:37:38.120 --> 00:37:42.080 shall require a 3/4 majority vote 00:37:42.080 --> 00:37:44.760 of the entire Board of Adjustment. 00:37:44.760 --> 00:37:47.000 And 5, any operator or other person 00:37:47.000 --> 00:37:49.000 agreed by any decision of the Board of Adjustment 00:37:49.000 --> 00:37:51.920 to present to a court of record a petition 00:37:51.920 --> 00:37:55.080 duly verified stating that the decision is ill. 00:37:55.080 --> 00:37:57.560 That's essentially your appeal. 00:37:57.560 --> 00:38:00.880 C talks about administrative variances. 00:38:00.880 --> 00:38:08.280 That's pursuant to section 622 for a new existing site 00:38:08.280 --> 00:38:10.920 from the gas well administrator under the following 00:38:10.920 --> 00:38:11.800 circumstances. 00:38:11.800 --> 00:38:14.480 One, the operator has at least one existing site 00:38:14.480 --> 00:38:16.160 on the property under mineral lease. 00:38:16.160 --> 00:38:19.600 Two, such existing sites are located closer 00:38:19.600 --> 00:38:23.040 to protected uses or residential subdivisions 00:38:23.040 --> 00:38:26.040 than is the proposed drilling and production 00:38:26.040 --> 00:38:28.080 site to such uses. 00:38:28.080 --> 00:38:30.880 Three, the operator agrees in a written instrument 00:38:30.880 --> 00:38:34.840 capable of reporting to limit gas well development 00:38:34.840 --> 00:38:37.600 on such existing sites to existing gas well drilling 00:38:37.600 --> 00:38:40.200 production activities. 00:38:40.200 --> 00:38:42.640 D, you have vested rights appeals. 00:38:42.640 --> 00:38:47.040 Any person who claims he's obtained a vested right 00:38:47.040 --> 00:38:51.440 pursuant to chapter 245 or another applicable vesting law 00:38:51.440 --> 00:38:53.880 under prior gas well development regulations 00:38:53.880 --> 00:38:57.080 from the requirements of section 6.2-- 00:38:57.080 --> 00:38:59.120 this is what that first one should be-- 00:38:59.120 --> 00:39:04.080 and section 6.3, as they pertain to gas well development, 00:39:04.080 --> 00:39:06.600 may request a determination pursuant 00:39:06.600 --> 00:39:13.040 to subsection 2.5.6, vested rights for proposed gas wells 00:39:13.040 --> 00:39:15.480 to be located inside the city limits. 00:39:15.480 --> 00:39:18.040 The petitioner shall include a statement of the reasons why 00:39:18.040 --> 00:39:23.480 the regulations contained in section 6.3 as they pertain 00:39:23.480 --> 00:39:25.360 to gas well development-- 00:39:25.360 --> 00:39:28.880 or section 6.2, as they pertain to gas well development, 00:39:28.880 --> 00:39:36.240 are not exempt pursuant to local government code 245.004. 00:39:36.240 --> 00:39:39.400 From there, we go on to signs. 00:39:39.400 --> 00:39:42.280 I'm not going to spend a lot of time on that, 00:39:42.280 --> 00:39:45.640 because it's very similar to the variances 00:39:45.640 --> 00:39:49.480 that you have for land. 00:39:49.480 --> 00:39:53.440 Basically, it can't be a situation that you created. 00:39:53.440 --> 00:39:58.880 It has to be the minimum hardship to allow use. 00:39:58.880 --> 00:40:03.440 It can't be a purely financial hardship. 00:40:03.440 --> 00:40:06.680 And then from there, there are a number of interpretations 00:40:06.680 --> 00:40:10.440 of procedures, starting on page 16, 00:40:10.440 --> 00:40:14.920 talking about sworn testimony in due process. 00:40:14.920 --> 00:40:21.280 As I said earlier, you need to decide your case is based only 00:40:21.280 --> 00:40:23.520 on the evidence that is put before you, 00:40:23.520 --> 00:40:25.680 just like your record of law. 00:40:25.680 --> 00:40:28.240 And so the witnesses need to be sworn, 00:40:28.240 --> 00:40:33.120 and the exhibits identified for your consideration. 00:40:33.120 --> 00:40:37.360 You cannot base your decision on personal experience, 00:40:37.360 --> 00:40:41.520 driving out to the site, what the applicant may have said 00:40:41.520 --> 00:40:46.240 to you at Rotary Club, or anything of that nature. 00:40:46.240 --> 00:40:54.000 It has to be on the basis of the record that is before you 00:40:54.000 --> 00:40:57.520 that is being reported here. 00:40:57.520 --> 00:41:01.000 And it talks about the cases being directly 00:41:01.000 --> 00:41:06.120 appealable to district court on the basis of the record. 00:41:06.120 --> 00:41:07.840 >> Just a question? 00:41:07.840 --> 00:41:08.760 >> Yes. 00:41:08.760 --> 00:41:09.360 >> Ms. Lane. 00:41:09.360 --> 00:41:10.400 >> Thank you, yes. 00:41:10.400 --> 00:41:14.880 One quick question, which is in section -- on page 14, 00:41:14.880 --> 00:41:19.720 you listed off the D, if you could just review those numbers. 00:41:19.720 --> 00:41:21.120 >> Certainly. 00:41:21.120 --> 00:41:23.520 The first one is section 6.2. 00:41:23.520 --> 00:41:24.720 >> Yep. 00:41:24.720 --> 00:41:26.280 >> That's on the third line. 00:41:26.280 --> 00:41:26.520 >> Yep. 00:41:26.520 --> 00:41:29.640 >> And then -- and section 6.3. 00:41:29.640 --> 00:41:30.800 >> Okay, got that much. 00:41:30.800 --> 00:41:33.480 >> Okay. As a pertaining to gas well development, 00:41:33.480 --> 00:41:35.640 may request a determination pursuant 00:41:35.640 --> 00:41:38.200 to subsection 2.5.6. 00:41:38.200 --> 00:41:39.880 >> 2.5, that's okay. 00:41:39.880 --> 00:41:42.160 >> Yeah. Vested rights. 00:41:42.160 --> 00:41:42.680 >> All right. 00:41:42.680 --> 00:41:48.000 >> And then the remaining section references are 6.3 and 6.2. 00:41:48.000 --> 00:41:51.320 >> All right, thank you so much. 00:41:51.320 --> 00:41:53.760 And then my other question is that -- 00:41:53.760 --> 00:41:55.720 this is maybe more substantive. 00:41:55.720 --> 00:41:58.800 You mentioned actually visiting the site. 00:41:58.800 --> 00:42:01.920 That seems to me that when possible is a duty 00:42:01.920 --> 00:42:06.080 because we should be able to compare what we see 00:42:06.080 --> 00:42:09.760 in three dimensions with what we see in two. 00:42:09.760 --> 00:42:11.960 >> Well, you know, I don't think you're going 00:42:11.960 --> 00:42:17.560 to find support in the law for that -- for that idea. 00:42:17.560 --> 00:42:20.720 I think that the -- where you're going to find support 00:42:20.720 --> 00:42:24.000 in the law is that the decision be made 00:42:24.000 --> 00:42:27.040 upon the evidence that's presented to you. 00:42:27.040 --> 00:42:30.240 It doesn't mean that you have to be totally ignorant 00:42:30.240 --> 00:42:34.160 of the situation from personal experience, 00:42:34.160 --> 00:42:38.000 but you can't let your personal observations 00:42:38.000 --> 00:42:42.400 and experience color your decision to the extent 00:42:42.400 --> 00:42:46.160 that it's contrary to the evidence that you see. 00:42:46.160 --> 00:42:50.560 >> They should -- actually, in my opinion, what you see 00:42:50.560 --> 00:42:52.360 with your own eyes should cause you 00:42:52.360 --> 00:42:55.480 to question things more, actually. 00:42:55.480 --> 00:43:00.240 That if the pictures don't show cracks, but you've seen them, 00:43:00.240 --> 00:43:01.720 you should be able to ask about it, 00:43:01.720 --> 00:43:04.320 and it would be a duty to do so. 00:43:04.320 --> 00:43:07.680 >> Well, like I said, I understand all I can tell you is 00:43:07.680 --> 00:43:10.320 that the requirements of the law is 00:43:10.320 --> 00:43:14.720 that you consider these cases on the record that's before you. 00:43:14.720 --> 00:43:20.800 Hopefully the staff report will go into that or the report 00:43:20.800 --> 00:43:25.680 of the various witnesses will discuss those. 00:43:25.680 --> 00:43:29.760 Certainly you can ask them about that if you saw cracks there. 00:43:29.760 --> 00:43:34.520 There's certainly nothing that says that you can't ask a person 00:43:34.520 --> 00:43:37.240 who's giving testimony to the Board of Adjustment 00:43:37.240 --> 00:43:40.800 about some cracks that you saw when going up there, 00:43:40.800 --> 00:43:46.320 and make your ruling on the basis of the testimony 00:43:46.320 --> 00:43:50.120 that you receive in response to those questions. 00:43:50.120 --> 00:43:53.320 And the photographs that you receive. 00:43:53.320 --> 00:43:57.400 But you can certainly ask questions about that. 00:43:57.400 --> 00:44:00.680 You just can't let that be the basis of your decision 00:44:00.680 --> 00:44:03.960 if it's outside of the record. 00:44:03.960 --> 00:44:05.960 >> Okay, let's see. 00:44:05.960 --> 00:44:08.040 Variance is a special exception. 00:44:08.040 --> 00:44:13.400 It goes into that, generally speaking, what is a variance? 00:44:13.400 --> 00:44:15.440 What is a special exception? 00:44:15.440 --> 00:44:21.880 It's relief from the strict application of the law, 00:44:21.880 --> 00:44:29.200 while putting into -- while honoring the intent 00:44:29.200 --> 00:44:35.960 of the regulation and trying to avoid undue hardship. 00:44:35.960 --> 00:44:40.480 And the special exceptions, that's discussed as well. 00:44:40.480 --> 00:44:43.200 We rarely see special exceptions, so I'm not going 00:44:43.200 --> 00:44:46.760 to spend your time on that. 00:44:46.760 --> 00:44:55.200 On page 18, use variances are absolutely positively prohibited 00:44:55.200 --> 00:44:56.760 in the state of Texas. 00:44:56.760 --> 00:44:59.000 And let me talk about what a use variance is, 00:44:59.000 --> 00:45:04.360 because there's a lot of confusion over that. 00:45:04.360 --> 00:45:07.200 You know, people think that if they can get relief 00:45:07.200 --> 00:45:11.080 from the Board of Adjustment, you know, can I come to the Board 00:45:11.080 --> 00:45:15.840 of Adjustment, because the zoning on my property, you know, 00:45:15.840 --> 00:45:18.680 I want to have a coffee shop, 00:45:18.680 --> 00:45:22.440 but it's zoned for a single-family home. 00:45:22.440 --> 00:45:26.120 You know, so I want to appeal to the Board of Adjustment 00:45:26.120 --> 00:45:34.160 to allow me to operate a coffee shop out of this structure 00:45:34.160 --> 00:45:36.240 that was built as a single-family residence. 00:45:36.240 --> 00:45:37.240 I'm not going to live there. 00:45:37.240 --> 00:45:39.480 Nobody's going to live there, but I'm going 00:45:39.480 --> 00:45:43.320 to have a coffee shop there, because I think it's a good idea. 00:45:43.320 --> 00:45:48.280 Cannot come, and the Board of Adjustment may not grant a 00:45:48.280 --> 00:45:53.200 variance to use property in a manner that is inconsistent 00:45:53.200 --> 00:45:54.800 with the zoning requirements. 00:45:54.800 --> 00:45:55.960 >> I have a question about that. 00:45:55.960 --> 00:45:56.440 >> Yes. 00:45:56.440 --> 00:45:59.200 >> I was on planning and zoning for a couple of years, 00:45:59.200 --> 00:46:03.840 and I remember seeing at least one case where there was, 00:46:03.840 --> 00:46:06.840 for example, like a, I don't want to name the restaurant, 00:46:06.840 --> 00:46:09.760 but there was a restaurant that was, had like more seats 00:46:09.760 --> 00:46:12.960 than what was zoned for, and there were a couple 00:46:12.960 --> 00:46:15.360 of restaurants out there, and it had been happening for, 00:46:15.360 --> 00:46:20.000 who knows how long, before like that applicant came to P&Z. 00:46:20.000 --> 00:46:22.880 I know it's a separate case, but can you help me like understand 00:46:22.880 --> 00:46:26.680 with those cases go to P&Z, or did we screw something up back there? 00:46:26.680 --> 00:46:28.960 They came and they're like, can we get this, 00:46:28.960 --> 00:46:32.800 I can't remember if it was a variance or like a zoning change 00:46:32.800 --> 00:46:34.960 so that they would be like not breaking the law 00:46:34.960 --> 00:46:38.160 by having 85 tables instead of 50 or whatever. 00:46:38.160 --> 00:46:41.000 Like is that, so is this specific just to ZEA, 00:46:41.000 --> 00:46:44.360 or like would those types of cases go to planning and zoning, 00:46:44.360 --> 00:46:47.760 or is that, we're talking completely because it was the, 00:46:47.760 --> 00:46:49.720 it was still like a commercial property 00:46:49.720 --> 00:46:54.560 and we're just changing, you're talking about like residential 00:46:54.560 --> 00:46:56.360 versus commercial or? 00:46:56.360 --> 00:47:00.320 >> If you own a piece of property and the zoning that's 00:47:00.320 --> 00:47:02.720 on that piece of property doesn't allow you 00:47:02.720 --> 00:47:06.680 to do what you want to do, and you want to do something 00:47:06.680 --> 00:47:09.080 about that, your remedy is to ask for the property 00:47:09.080 --> 00:47:13.240 to be rezoned, to some zoning classification 00:47:13.240 --> 00:47:14.160 that would allow it. 00:47:14.160 --> 00:47:15.800 >> Okay, and that's about what we saw. 00:47:15.800 --> 00:47:17.800 That just shook up something in my brain. 00:47:17.800 --> 00:47:21.040 >> And, you know, any rezoning is going to go to P&Z first 00:47:21.040 --> 00:47:24.960 for recommendation and a public hearing, and then it's also, 00:47:24.960 --> 00:47:28.080 then it's going to go to city council for a final decision 00:47:28.080 --> 00:47:30.920 and after a second public hearing. 00:47:30.920 --> 00:47:32.360 >> Thank you. 00:47:32.360 --> 00:47:36.040 I'd say special considerations for signs. 00:47:36.040 --> 00:47:43.560 A lot of people want to ask for variances on signs. 00:47:43.560 --> 00:47:47.640 We saw, well, one, with the last meeting 00:47:47.640 --> 00:47:52.800 where they wanted a taller sign, they felt like it would be easier 00:47:52.800 --> 00:47:55.360 for people to see as they were driving down the highway. 00:47:55.360 --> 00:47:59.480 The thing is, there were already provisions that allowed 00:47:59.480 --> 00:48:03.120 for taller signs by the highway and bigger signs by the highway. 00:48:03.120 --> 00:48:11.120 And so, you know, you can't, you can't apply the regulations 00:48:11.120 --> 00:48:18.200 in a way that act upon the message being communicated 00:48:18.200 --> 00:48:19.320 on the sign. 00:48:19.320 --> 00:48:28.320 So, for example, if there's a, somebody who wants to have a sign 00:48:28.320 --> 00:48:31.120 that supports some cause that you don't agree with, 00:48:31.120 --> 00:48:33.800 you can't deny it on that basis. 00:48:33.800 --> 00:48:35.920 It has to be content neutral. 00:48:35.920 --> 00:48:41.040 It's a First Amendment like that is very important. 00:48:41.040 --> 00:48:47.400 But as with other variances, it can't be self-imposed. 00:48:47.400 --> 00:48:49.560 It can't be purely financial. 00:48:49.560 --> 00:48:54.720 It can't be a situation that you could have prevented. 00:48:54.720 --> 00:48:56.520 It's not a place to come. 00:48:56.520 --> 00:48:59.640 Zoning Board of Adjustment is not a place to come 00:48:59.640 --> 00:49:03.720 if you simply disagree with the law that council passed. 00:49:03.720 --> 00:49:05.960 That's not a good enough reason. 00:49:05.960 --> 00:49:11.880 If you disagree with the law, then go to the council and, you know, 00:49:11.880 --> 00:49:15.720 when they have the public hearing on what the laws ought to be, 00:49:15.720 --> 00:49:20.160 what the code provides for, and sign up to speak 00:49:20.160 --> 00:49:22.880 and tell them what you think that the law should be. 00:49:22.880 --> 00:49:26.400 But once the law is in place, you can't just change it. 00:49:26.400 --> 00:49:28.200 Oh, that's for council to decide. 00:49:28.200 --> 00:49:29.480 They're the policymakers. 00:49:29.480 --> 00:49:35.080 They're the legislative body that gets to say what the code says. 00:49:35.080 --> 00:49:38.200 And that's not the Board of Adjustment. 00:49:38.200 --> 00:49:43.520 The Board of Adjustment only, you know, grants relief where necessary 00:49:43.520 --> 00:49:49.160 to carry out the intent of the law that the council has established. 00:49:49.160 --> 00:49:53.560 And it talks about some signs are just flat prohibited. 00:49:53.560 --> 00:50:01.480 You know, the provisions say you can't have a video sign or a flashing sign, 00:50:01.480 --> 00:50:07.400 and that's as opposed to a sign that's regulated at maximum height and size. 00:50:07.400 --> 00:50:11.000 You can grant relief from a maximum height provision 00:50:11.000 --> 00:50:13.960 if the variance criteria are met. 00:50:13.960 --> 00:50:20.640 But if where the audit says you just can't have a video sign or a flashing sign, 00:50:20.640 --> 00:50:22.080 then that needs to be honored. 00:50:22.080 --> 00:50:27.800 It's not a regulation from which you can seek relief. 00:50:27.800 --> 00:50:32.360 And there's some examples that are in there, as well as a discussion 00:50:32.360 --> 00:50:35.200 of unnecessary or undue hardship. 00:50:35.200 --> 00:50:38.320 And that's pretty much where I'm going to stop. 00:50:38.320 --> 00:50:43.040 I apologize again for the references that were messed up. 00:50:43.040 --> 00:50:45.880 And I apologize that this took so much time to go through. 00:50:45.880 --> 00:50:50.560 But I hope that at least for the new members on the Board of Adjustment, 00:50:50.560 --> 00:50:54.840 you can see some value in this, because it may be a little bit different 00:50:54.840 --> 00:51:00.240 from what you assumed in agreeing to be a Board of Adjustment member. 00:51:00.240 --> 00:51:05.440 Perhaps you thought that you could weigh in on policy issues 00:51:05.440 --> 00:51:09.920 on what the law should be as opposed to what it is. 00:51:09.920 --> 00:51:16.040 But I think the key takeaway for all of this is that on the Board of Adjustment, 00:51:16.040 --> 00:51:20.960 you're not deciding the law, the council decides what the law is. 00:51:20.960 --> 00:51:26.360 You only decide whether or not there's sufficient costs to grant relief 00:51:26.360 --> 00:51:31.200 under the provisions that are set forth in the ordinance itself. 00:51:31.200 --> 00:51:36.040 >> And I think the last case that we saw, I think really highlighted that for me, 00:51:36.040 --> 00:51:40.640 that having started on P&Z for three years, there would have been a whole lot 00:51:40.640 --> 00:51:45.360 of conversation about how can we tweak this, and so kind of keeping in the spirits 00:51:45.360 --> 00:51:49.640 of the signed ordinance, but making it easier for the applicant. 00:51:49.640 --> 00:51:54.480 There's a lot more flexibility with P&Z, because those are just recommendations 00:51:54.480 --> 00:52:00.200 to go to council, whereas we really were tasked with kind of upholding the law 00:52:00.200 --> 00:52:03.400 and the ordinance, there wasn't hardly any movement with that. 00:52:03.400 --> 00:52:10.080 So I think that really highlighted for me the big difference between those boards 00:52:10.080 --> 00:52:14.520 that make recommendations to city council as ours has the final say. 00:52:14.520 --> 00:52:17.240 >> We should approach this with the judicial freedom of mind. 00:52:17.240 --> 00:52:24.760 >> Yes, absolutely, and let me just tell you that on the item 3A, close meeting, 00:52:24.760 --> 00:52:29.520 I'm going to recommend that we not do that, and so if some of you were thinking 00:52:29.520 --> 00:52:36.480 about holding some questions for the close meeting, you know, go ahead and ask them now 00:52:36.480 --> 00:52:40.920 if you can, this is not the caption that we intended to post. 00:52:40.920 --> 00:52:46.880 We were not intending to meet with you in close session about the specific matter that's coming 00:52:46.880 --> 00:52:51.720 before you, we'd rather you decide that on the basis of the evidence that is put in front 00:52:51.720 --> 00:52:59.320 of you in the testimony that's on the record, and so we were intending for this close meeting 00:52:59.320 --> 00:53:06.440 to be a spot where you could ask questions about the general role of the board of adjustment 00:53:06.440 --> 00:53:13.640 in close session if you felt like you needed to, so, but with that in mind, 00:53:13.640 --> 00:53:17.440 I want to recommend that we not carry through the close meeting, 00:53:17.440 --> 00:53:22.600 and if that prompts some more questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. 00:53:22.600 --> 00:53:23.800 >> Can I move to the back? 00:53:23.800 --> 00:53:24.440 >> Yes. 00:53:24.440 --> 00:53:29.440 >> Okay, so moving on, and I did neglect to mention at the start of the meeting a couple 00:53:29.440 --> 00:53:34.360 of absences, I think I need to mistake that for the record, so board member William House 00:53:34.360 --> 00:53:39.240 and alternate principal Mujafru are absent from the meeting, and I wanted to ask you, 00:53:39.240 --> 00:53:44.760 before we get started with the public hearing, I understand that we have another meeting tomorrow, 00:53:44.760 --> 00:53:50.840 which, you know, I love volunteering, but why are we, like this is a new thing, so confused, 00:53:50.840 --> 00:53:54.280 so why don't you explain to me why we're having this meeting tonight, 00:53:54.280 --> 00:53:56.840 and then seeing the same case again tomorrow? 00:53:56.840 --> 00:54:10.600 [ Inaudible ] 00:54:10.600 --> 00:54:14.040 >> Good evening, Richard Canone, Deputy Director of Development Services and Planning Director. 00:54:14.040 --> 00:54:20.040 The reason there's two meetings tonight, I have a little slide that explains partly. 00:54:20.040 --> 00:54:24.440 Within the local government code, there were some changes this last legislative session 00:54:24.440 --> 00:54:27.320 that requires a public hearing be held. 00:54:27.320 --> 00:54:31.400 However, the decision on that public hearing cannot be held on the same night. 00:54:31.400 --> 00:54:36.680 It has to be done within 60 days of when an application was filed, 00:54:36.680 --> 00:54:41.320 and so the reason we have the meeting tomorrow is for that decision to be rendered. 00:54:41.320 --> 00:54:43.800 So tonight would be the public hearing. 00:54:43.800 --> 00:54:46.760 Tomorrow would be when that decision would be rendered by the board. 00:54:46.760 --> 00:54:52.120 >> And that's what I understood from the, I guess, from the backup. 00:54:52.120 --> 00:54:57.880 So to be clear then, so we're only hearing testimony tonight, but the decision will have 00:54:57.880 --> 00:55:01.640 like 24 hours to kind of ruminate on this and come back tomorrow with the decision. 00:55:01.640 --> 00:55:02.760 >> That's correct. 00:55:02.760 --> 00:55:08.280 >> And then did I see something else in the backup somewhere that the only things 00:55:08.280 --> 00:55:13.000 that are going to be included in the public, in the minutes from this is basically the evidence 00:55:13.000 --> 00:55:18.200 that's been provided here, but not the public testimony that we have during the public hearing part. 00:55:18.200 --> 00:55:22.840 Did I misread that, or is that, I hope I misread that. 00:55:22.840 --> 00:55:25.720 >> No, you can consider the sworn testimony that you've received. 00:55:25.720 --> 00:55:27.400 That's part of what you receive on the record. 00:55:27.400 --> 00:55:30.040 >> But what, so that will be included in the minutes? 00:55:30.040 --> 00:55:33.800 >> Well, it's going to be recorded one way or another. 00:55:33.800 --> 00:55:34.360 >> Okay. 00:55:34.360 --> 00:55:37.880 >> You know, we, that's, that's, that's part of the reason for all the microphones. 00:55:37.880 --> 00:55:41.480 >> Okay, because I was like, that's not a sunshine lot. 00:55:41.480 --> 00:55:42.440 I don't know what that is. 00:55:42.440 --> 00:55:43.960 Okay, so thank you. 00:55:43.960 --> 00:55:47.880 So, so just to recap, so we're hearing, we're hearing everything tonight. 00:55:47.880 --> 00:55:48.840 We come back tomorrow. 00:55:48.840 --> 00:55:51.160 Is anything going to be re-presented tomorrow? 00:55:51.160 --> 00:55:53.000 Or we just sit down and someone makes a motion 00:55:53.000 --> 00:55:56.200 and then we discuss it and we're out of here in half an hour? 00:55:56.200 --> 00:55:57.160 Or like how does that work? 00:55:57.160 --> 00:55:59.240 >> Again, this is our first time doing it. 00:55:59.240 --> 00:56:03.160 My understanding was once the public hearing would be closed, it would be, that would be it. 00:56:03.160 --> 00:56:05.160 I mean, there would be deliberations obviously. 00:56:05.160 --> 00:56:09.800 And if there was questions, I think that if a board member had it, it would be available. 00:56:09.800 --> 00:56:13.480 But we were not planning on doing any additional presenting 00:56:13.480 --> 00:56:17.080 of any material once that public hearing was closed. 00:56:17.080 --> 00:56:21.640 >> And if I could jump in, on pages two and three of that legal orientation guide 00:56:21.640 --> 00:56:25.080 that I went through, this item here, yeah. 00:56:25.080 --> 00:56:33.560 It talks about section 211.010 of the local government code. 00:56:33.560 --> 00:56:37.480 You see it says, included the HB 2497 amendment. 00:56:37.480 --> 00:56:39.960 That's what Richard was just talking about. 00:56:39.960 --> 00:56:42.360 And A1 is a new section. 00:56:43.080 --> 00:56:50.040 And also if you look over on the next page, item D, there's some additional language. 00:56:50.040 --> 00:56:51.160 It was added to that. 00:56:51.160 --> 00:56:56.840 I didn't do the red line for you, but it does talk about the hearing, 00:56:56.840 --> 00:57:00.040 not later than the 60th day after the date the appeal was filed. 00:57:00.040 --> 00:57:05.080 So if you want some verification of what Richard was just talking about, 00:57:05.080 --> 00:57:08.600 it's these amendments to section 211.010. 00:57:08.600 --> 00:57:14.360 >> Will all of our future CBA meetings be held back to back like this? 00:57:14.360 --> 00:57:19.320 >> Just to appeal to the board is what I'm reading in this section. 00:57:19.320 --> 00:57:20.680 >> Oh, appeals. 00:57:20.680 --> 00:57:27.240 >> But like for example, like the sign thing that we saw, like, because that's not. 00:57:27.240 --> 00:57:28.280 >> That's not an appeal. 00:57:28.280 --> 00:57:28.920 >> Okay. 00:57:28.920 --> 00:57:30.920 >> That's a parent's request. 00:57:30.920 --> 00:57:31.640 >> Aye. 00:57:31.640 --> 00:57:38.120 >> It talks to CBA by virtue of the fact that we consolidated the signed board of 00:57:38.120 --> 00:57:40.200 appeals with the board of justice. 00:57:40.200 --> 00:57:43.800 It's not as a result of the defined role in the statute. 00:57:43.800 --> 00:57:47.720 >> Thank you. 00:57:47.720 --> 00:57:47.720 >> Thank you. 00:57:47.720 --> 00:57:51.000 >> Any other questions on that? 00:57:51.000 --> 00:57:51.000 >> No. 00:57:51.000 --> 00:57:52.920 >> Okay. 00:57:52.920 --> 00:57:53.320 >> Thank you. 00:57:53.320 --> 00:57:55.000 >> See you tomorrow. 00:57:55.000 --> 00:57:57.000 >> Or later. 00:57:57.000 --> 00:57:57.960 >> You got any other questions? 00:57:57.960 --> 00:58:03.480 >> Well, the packet that we've got for tomorrow is like virtually. 00:58:03.480 --> 00:58:04.200 >> It's a sign in. 00:58:04.200 --> 00:58:04.440 >> Yeah. 00:58:04.440 --> 00:58:09.800 >> Is there a reason for that, a separate meeting, you have to have the packet again? 00:58:09.800 --> 00:58:11.880 >> It's not a legal issue. 00:58:11.880 --> 00:58:13.480 I don't know if there was a. 00:58:13.480 --> 00:58:18.920 >> I don't think, I think it's to make sure that everyone had the same information that 00:58:18.920 --> 00:58:19.480 was provided. 00:58:19.480 --> 00:58:22.200 I mean, if they're duplicates, then does it. 00:58:22.200 --> 00:58:26.200 >> There might be some legal requirement or something. 00:58:26.200 --> 00:58:30.920 >> Just the post date of having the meeting was important. 00:58:30.920 --> 00:58:35.640 >> All right, so I guess, thank you for clarifying that. 00:58:35.640 --> 00:58:37.640 So with that, I'd like to open the public hearing. 00:58:37.640 --> 00:58:43.000 The time is 547, item 4A. 00:58:43.000 --> 00:58:47.880 Hold a public hearing and consider an appeal of an administrative decision regarding vested 00:58:47.880 --> 00:58:51.640 rights related to the applicability of gas well reverse setback and separating distance 00:58:51.640 --> 00:58:53.880 requirements to a mobile phone park. 00:58:53.880 --> 00:58:59.080 The subject property is approximately 13.6 acres, located on the west side of Fort Worth 00:58:59.080 --> 00:59:05.000 Drive, across from the intersection of Country Club Road and the city of Denton. 00:59:05.000 --> 00:59:09.720 And with that, and I believe, do I also swear in city staff, I think that's what you were 00:59:09.720 --> 00:59:10.520 about to say, wasn't it? 00:59:10.520 --> 00:59:11.240 >> You did. 00:59:11.240 --> 00:59:11.720 >> Yes. 00:59:11.720 --> 00:59:16.600 >> I just wanted to do that in house, possibly be able to speak to all of you at this point. 00:59:16.600 --> 00:59:23.800 >> Absolutely, so to expedite this, anyone who plans on speaking during the public hearing, 00:59:23.800 --> 00:59:27.000 why don't you all just, should we all stand at the front? 00:59:27.000 --> 00:59:28.760 We swear everyone in at the same time. 00:59:29.320 --> 00:59:30.840 And I'll just make it a little bit faster, is that good? 00:59:30.840 --> 00:59:31.160 >> Sure. 00:59:31.160 --> 00:59:31.720 >> Yeah, absolutely. 00:59:31.720 --> 00:59:33.160 >> Stand here or go front, whatever. 00:59:33.160 --> 00:59:34.920 >> I want you on the front, yeah. 00:59:34.920 --> 00:59:36.440 I'm looking at you both at the same time. 00:59:36.440 --> 00:59:40.600 Thank you, so could you quickly identify yourself for the record? 00:59:40.600 --> 00:59:42.360 >> Richard Canone, city of Denton. 00:59:42.360 --> 00:59:43.000 >> Thank you. 00:59:43.000 --> 00:59:44.840 >> And I'm Jonathan Vinson of Jacksonville. 00:59:44.840 --> 00:59:46.360 >> Thank you, and please raise your right hand. 00:59:46.360 --> 00:59:52.360 Under penalty of perjury, do you swear or affirm that any testimony or information you provide 00:59:52.360 --> 00:59:56.840 or any statement you make before this board is complete, be true and correct to the best 00:59:56.840 --> 00:59:58.120 of your knowledge and ability? 00:59:58.120 --> 00:59:58.600 >> I do. 00:59:58.600 --> 00:59:59.640 >> Great, thank you both. 00:59:59.640 --> 01:00:05.240 And that's not to say that y'all can't testify and speak as well. 01:00:05.240 --> 01:00:07.000 If you choose to, we'll just swear you on later. 01:00:07.000 --> 01:00:08.840 Okay, thank you, go ahead. 01:00:08.840 --> 01:00:16.360 >> Again, for the record, Richard Canone, city of Denton Development Services, 01:00:16.360 --> 01:00:17.800 Deputy Director and Planning Director. 01:00:17.800 --> 01:00:22.120 What I've prepared is just a, and I think you should have a copy in front of you, 01:00:22.120 --> 01:00:25.800 just a short PowerPoint presentation that just kind of outlines 01:00:25.800 --> 01:00:29.560 the material that we have provided you in the backup. 01:00:29.560 --> 01:00:33.960 Again, the location of this property is 2800 Fort Worth Drive, 01:00:33.960 --> 01:00:37.400 approximately 13 and a half acres. 01:00:37.400 --> 01:00:38.920 Currently used as a mobile home park. 01:00:38.920 --> 01:00:42.200 There is a current license for 77 stands. 01:00:42.200 --> 01:00:46.680 And there were some prior approvals relative to this site and this request, 01:00:46.680 --> 01:00:48.040 or I should say this appeal. 01:00:48.040 --> 01:00:53.720 There was a specific use permit/rezoning that was done in 1981 01:00:54.440 --> 01:00:56.840 that included a concept plan for 100 pads. 01:00:56.840 --> 01:01:01.240 The property received final plat in 1985, 01:01:01.240 --> 01:01:05.320 and then this was also part of the 2002 city-wide rezoning 01:01:05.320 --> 01:01:10.120 from that specific use to just the, to ECI, I believe. 01:01:10.120 --> 01:01:14.680 Again, there was a vested rights determination 01:01:14.680 --> 01:01:18.200 that was submitted in conjunction with a denial of a building permit 01:01:18.200 --> 01:01:20.760 as it relates to gas well setbacks. 01:01:21.880 --> 01:01:27.560 The applicant, their assertion was that they were vested 01:01:27.560 --> 01:01:29.480 in a 50-foot setback from the wellhead, 01:01:29.480 --> 01:01:33.240 which was in place or would have been a setback at the time. 01:01:33.240 --> 01:01:38.040 And again, they based that on that the setbacks came after their site development 01:01:38.040 --> 01:01:41.960 with the SUP approved in '81 and then plat in '85. 01:01:41.960 --> 01:01:48.680 The staff determination was that the rich cheap gas well plat in 2002, 01:01:50.040 --> 01:01:54.120 as you can see in the map attached here, or I'm sorry, included to the right. 01:01:54.120 --> 01:02:00.600 The area that they were anticipating putting some of those additional trailers 01:02:00.600 --> 01:02:04.520 would be covered by both the 250 reverse setback 01:02:04.520 --> 01:02:08.120 as well as the 300-foot separation from equipment to protect use. 01:02:08.120 --> 01:02:12.680 Staff's determination that the project was complete 01:02:12.680 --> 01:02:17.960 and that zoning setbacks do not vest in accordance with Texas Local Government Code 245. 01:02:17.960 --> 01:02:21.000 - Mr. Commanding, before you, sorry, before the next slide. 01:02:21.000 --> 01:02:26.920 I was curious how those other properties or residences were somehow included in the 01:02:26.920 --> 01:02:29.880 circle. Can you go over that part again? 01:02:29.880 --> 01:02:34.520 - Certainly. So the gas well setbacks came into effect later 01:02:34.520 --> 01:02:40.200 as part of the, I think it was 2002 development code. 01:02:40.200 --> 01:02:43.080 And so those are essentially considered non-conforming. 01:02:43.080 --> 01:02:47.240 So it would be like any other protected use, those that kind of fall within the ring, 01:02:47.960 --> 01:02:52.040 can continue to exist as a nonconformity until such time as it's damaged or... 01:02:52.040 --> 01:02:55.800 - So when those properties were built, they were probably just adherent to them? 01:02:55.800 --> 01:02:57.240 By or totally just a hundred? - Correct. 01:02:57.240 --> 01:02:57.880 - Okay. - Correct. 01:02:57.880 --> 01:03:00.760 And I don't even know if the wells were there at that time when this was initially... 01:03:00.760 --> 01:03:02.440 - Yeah, okay. - Initially constructed. 01:03:02.440 --> 01:03:04.920 - May I ask a question while you have that up there? 01:03:04.920 --> 01:03:10.600 - Mr. Higgins? - I don't, I understand this. 01:03:10.600 --> 01:03:16.680 When you look at the Ricks Creek overhead, it looks like, 01:03:16.680 --> 01:03:20.200 it looks like you don't measure it from the well, you measure it from the pad site? 01:03:20.200 --> 01:03:24.440 - Correct. There's two different measurements. So there's a reverse setback that's measured 01:03:24.440 --> 01:03:31.720 from the pad site. And then there's a 300 foot separation from the equipment into the protected 01:03:31.720 --> 01:03:35.160 use. So there's really two measurements that are done. 01:03:35.160 --> 01:03:41.240 - All right, I see. - And then again, this is really just 01:03:42.120 --> 01:03:47.560 word for word, exactly what's in the, within the backup. These were, there are six criteria for 01:03:47.560 --> 01:03:53.080 a vested rights determination. The first, whether the city received fair notice on the project 01:03:53.080 --> 01:03:59.400 and the nature of the permit sought. Again, we found based upon these reasons that there was no 01:03:59.400 --> 01:04:04.200 fair notice for another project or nature of another valid permanent property. The second 01:04:04.200 --> 01:04:07.720 criteria, whether the nature and scope of the project prevents the city from applying one or 01:04:07.720 --> 01:04:12.760 more current regulations to the proposed or pending applications. Again, we view this 01:04:12.760 --> 01:04:18.360 project as complete and no vested rights remain from that 1985 plat. There were no other valid 01:04:18.360 --> 01:04:25.160 permits. Therefore the vested, the guest will setback, reverse setback of 250 feet would apply. 01:04:25.160 --> 01:04:31.080 Criteria number three, whether prior approved applications for the property have expired 01:04:31.080 --> 01:04:36.440 and terminated. And there's been no other prior approved applications defined by 01:04:36.440 --> 01:04:43.720 local government code chapter 245. Number four, whether any statutory exemptions to a right 01:04:43.720 --> 01:04:47.240 asserted under local government code 245 is applicable to one or more of the current 01:04:47.240 --> 01:04:52.360 regulations. And because zoning is exempted from local government code, the SGP was extinguished 01:04:52.360 --> 01:04:57.960 as a part of the rezoning of the property, vesting no development rights of the property. 01:04:57.960 --> 01:05:02.360 Again, that was what I had mentioned early on, where it was zoned with that SGP and then when 01:05:02.360 --> 01:05:10.360 it was rezoned, it was not rezoned with that SGP overlay, if you will, or demarcation. Further, 01:05:10.360 --> 01:05:19.400 the reverse setback is a zoning regulation and does apply. Whether there is any exemption from 01:05:19.400 --> 01:05:23.320 one or more regulations under the DDC or city ordinance is applicable. There are no exemptions 01:05:23.320 --> 01:05:30.280 from the 250 foot setback for this property. And whether the project is dormant, the development 01:05:30.280 --> 01:05:36.520 project is complete, so it is not dormant, is really how we're looking at that. Just to reiterate 01:05:36.520 --> 01:05:43.000 what we talked about prior to opening the public hearing, looking at the review of this, there's 01:05:43.000 --> 01:05:49.800 two really sections that govern this, first being the local government code 211.010, again, which 01:05:49.800 --> 01:05:54.360 requires this to transmit to the board all papers constituting the record of the action that is 01:05:54.360 --> 01:05:59.320 appealed. And so what you have in front of you or was included as part of that packet is the initial 01:05:59.320 --> 01:06:04.280 request as well as our determination, the legal memo, and ultimately that serves as the basis for 01:06:04.280 --> 01:06:10.120 the city manager's letter. And then DDC 3538E, if the petitioner believes that the city manager 01:06:10.120 --> 01:06:14.920 has vested rights, iterations, and error, the petitioner shall have the right to appeal such 01:06:14.920 --> 01:06:24.120 determination to the city's board of adjustment. Under the criteria, DDC 3538E, and again, this is 01:06:24.120 --> 01:06:29.560 the same language that's in the current DDC, there's criteria for deciding the petition, and I'll just 01:06:29.560 --> 01:06:34.600 point to the city manager or the underlined or board of adjustment on appeal. And so the six 01:06:34.600 --> 01:06:42.280 criteria are the same that I had just gone for, gone over previously. And with that, I have no 01:06:42.280 --> 01:06:49.560 other slides. I'd be happy to answer any additional questions. Mr. Carton. You said the project's 01:06:49.560 --> 01:06:56.520 complete once, and I see a lot of definition. What is the definition of complete project? 01:06:56.520 --> 01:07:00.920 We look at that as when any improvements associated with that were required as part of that 01:07:00.920 --> 01:07:07.080 plat. Once those were complete, the project is complete. Different than a residential subdivision 01:07:07.080 --> 01:07:17.800 that has individually platted lots. This was platted as one lot. 01:07:19.880 --> 01:07:28.440 When you say approves, does that mean that each intended lot for a mobile home, 01:07:28.440 --> 01:07:39.320 pads are done, plumbing's done, electricity's done, and now you're done waiting for mobile homes to be 01:07:39.320 --> 01:07:45.880 put on it, or does it mean that the mobile homes have to be on it? If there's any associated public 01:07:45.880 --> 01:07:52.920 improvement with that, meaning any streets, drainage, those related permits. Another component 01:07:52.920 --> 01:07:57.800 of that of that SGP approval was that it comply with all standards of the code. I think at the 01:07:57.800 --> 01:08:04.120 time, I think is what it says in there. Now, we haven't reviewed this. I don't know for sure if 01:08:04.120 --> 01:08:09.400 it meets it, but I believe in the code that governed at the time, I think it was part of the 01:08:09.400 --> 01:08:17.320 1969 code, there was a maximum building coverage of 40%. So whether or not that came into play, 01:08:17.320 --> 01:08:22.920 again, I'm not certain that wasn't anything that we looked at with respect to this. 01:08:22.920 --> 01:08:32.440 Can you explain to me why it's considered completed if there's 77 sites there, but it was 01:08:32.440 --> 01:08:37.960 originally approved for 100? I believe that was one of the arguments the applicant was making too, 01:08:37.960 --> 01:08:45.000 is that they feel it's not complete, and we'll get a chance to explain that later, but why is 01:08:45.000 --> 01:08:52.040 the city considering that it's complete when it's only built out to 77? You know, if I could jump in, 01:08:52.040 --> 01:09:01.480 in Texas, a manufactured home is considered personal property. It's not a fixture on the land, 01:09:01.480 --> 01:09:09.400 it's not development. It's an object to be, that can be stored on property. It's kind of like the 01:09:09.400 --> 01:09:16.440 difference between a real house, or, well, I don't mean to say a real house, but a building with a 01:09:16.440 --> 01:09:26.440 foundation that's affixed to the ground, or, you know, a mobile home that could be set upon the 01:09:26.440 --> 01:09:34.600 ground, or a pad, or what have you, it's actually, and it can be moved away. The very fact that it's 01:09:34.600 --> 01:09:41.160 mobile means it's not associated with the land, it's not part of the land. If the land is sold, 01:09:41.160 --> 01:09:45.880 or if the mobile home is sold, someone could haul it off. It doesn't necessarily 01:09:45.880 --> 01:09:55.320 have to be sold with the land, and so there are cases that talk about objects that you store 01:09:56.120 --> 01:10:07.800 on land is not part of the development or the development project. So the company is selling 01:10:07.800 --> 01:10:13.480 gravel, they could have a pile of gravel on the ground. The pile of gravel is not part of the 01:10:13.480 --> 01:10:25.480 development, it's stock and trade. And so, because it's not an actual improvement to the land, 01:10:25.480 --> 01:10:35.800 it's necessarily part of it. It's not part of the development itself, or a necessary part of the 01:10:35.800 --> 01:10:45.720 proposal. The concrete is poured. What's necessary for storing mobile homes on there is done, 01:10:46.680 --> 01:10:57.160 but the lack of homes is the homes that are protected uses. You could use the property for 01:10:57.160 --> 01:11:04.120 something else, other than a mobile home park. But the fact that there are no mobile homes on 01:11:04.120 --> 01:11:07.480 there doesn't mean that the project's incomplete. Does that make sense? 01:11:10.920 --> 01:11:17.960 Wouldn't by the pictures, and I'm sorry for my ignorance on this, but having the 01:11:17.960 --> 01:11:23.480 drive with the circle, wouldn't that show that there's intended for 01:11:23.480 --> 01:11:32.200 further use there? It may be, but does it necessarily mean that those are going to be 01:11:32.200 --> 01:11:41.320 mobile homes, as opposed to, I don't know, the same concrete could be used for a go park track, 01:11:41.320 --> 01:11:52.520 or a parking lot for some other use? It's not necessarily a mobile home park. It doesn't 01:11:52.520 --> 01:12:02.520 necessarily have to involve protected uses that are subject to the reverse setback. And it's not, 01:12:02.520 --> 01:12:11.240 again, something that's stored on the land is not part of the development of the land. 01:12:11.240 --> 01:12:19.720 Just like parking a car on there is not development. Could someone park their mobile home there without 01:12:19.720 --> 01:12:29.400 any hookups to the city? Has that part not been developed yet, as the electric and water, 01:12:29.400 --> 01:12:33.880 and that's what they're looking to develop, so that more mobile homes could be placed on the 01:12:33.880 --> 01:12:41.880 property? Or are those already put in? Because if it's just things to be stored, then I don't 01:12:42.680 --> 01:12:51.400 understand why. I have to go back to the original definition of mobile home park, 01:12:51.400 --> 01:12:55.240 because I also think it talked about travel trailer, and it referenced a 01:12:55.240 --> 01:13:05.000 sort of a non-permanent basis. I'm sorry, it was of a transient nature, I think is what the 01:13:05.000 --> 01:13:14.120 definition states. And so there could have been a RV that potentially could use that. 01:13:14.120 --> 01:13:16.920 That, I think, would be permitted within the ordinance at that time, 01:13:16.920 --> 01:13:25.640 which I don't know if you necessarily had to have had a concrete path. Again, that I'm not 01:13:25.640 --> 01:13:32.200 aware of to park an RV for a short period of time. And that could be parked closer than 250 feet, 01:13:32.200 --> 01:13:37.960 because it's just... If it's not on a pad, it could be there for a day or two, or 01:13:37.960 --> 01:13:46.120 just almost like a campground. And so is the applicant looking to build more pad sites? Correct. 01:13:46.120 --> 01:13:53.000 Okay, and then that would be a protective use? Correct. I understand that. Mr. Higgins, 01:13:53.000 --> 01:13:57.640 did you have a question as well? I'd like to get clarification from Jerry to see if I understand. 01:13:58.600 --> 01:14:02.680 I'm not really concerned about the mobile homes, because those belong to the owners of the mobile 01:14:02.680 --> 01:14:08.440 homes. I'm concerned about the property and what's on it, if it's owned by the property owner or 01:14:08.440 --> 01:14:17.240 something. If you had 100 pad sites complete, then the project would be complete. And if you 01:14:17.240 --> 01:14:23.320 have 70 pad sites complete and 30 that are not, you're still considering the project to be complete. 01:14:24.920 --> 01:14:33.240 Well, and that was really a staff determination. But I think part of that is that having a pad, 01:14:33.240 --> 01:14:40.040 or a concrete pad, is not a protected use as such. It's not a protected use until you have a 01:14:40.040 --> 01:14:45.720 mobile home on it and people are living there. That's where the problem comes in. 01:14:45.720 --> 01:14:53.800 You're not entitled to locate homes on the property within the reverse setback. 01:14:54.440 --> 01:15:03.240 And so the fact that they've got the concrete poured for the drives and they've got 01:15:03.240 --> 01:15:15.080 utility stands in that are not occupied or what have you, that's not actually a protected use 01:15:15.080 --> 01:15:21.640 as such. Does that answer your question? So sorry, so pad sites are not a protected use, 01:15:21.640 --> 01:15:26.280 or they are a protected use. They're only protected when a mobile home is on it. 01:15:26.280 --> 01:15:33.160 So the setup for the mobile home is not protected until a mobile home is on it. 01:15:33.160 --> 01:15:39.960 It's interesting because you're getting into these kind of hair splitting details here. I mean you 01:15:39.960 --> 01:15:47.400 could even sell mobile homes without them being a protected use and store them for sale. That would 01:15:47.400 --> 01:15:56.280 not be a protected use. To simply store mobile homes for sale would not be a protected use. 01:15:56.280 --> 01:16:06.600 And so the pads, I don't know that that's really the issue so much as having the mobile homes there 01:16:06.600 --> 01:16:12.920 that are occupied. They want to place residences within the 200 feet area. Right. I need a legal 01:16:12.920 --> 01:16:18.200 definition of the term protected use. I'll have to look for that. Yep. 01:16:18.200 --> 01:16:26.520 So I guess what I'm hearing is that there's a little, so pad sites are not a protected use 01:16:26.520 --> 01:16:30.520 and the mobile homes are not a protected use, but put them together with the intention of that 01:16:30.520 --> 01:16:35.800 becoming a residence. Well once it is occupied. Once it's occupied and that would be within this 01:16:35.800 --> 01:16:45.640 250 foot circle that we're looking at. Am I clear on that? Did I get that right? 01:16:45.640 --> 01:16:51.400 Clear as mud right about the closest. We usually see signs so this is different. 01:16:51.400 --> 01:17:00.760 So to make sure we know what we're talking about. Protected use is defined in section 6.3.1. That's 01:17:00.760 --> 01:17:08.680 general definitions. Protected use is defined as a dwelling church, public park, public library, 01:17:08.680 --> 01:17:15.480 hospital, pre-kindergarten, pre-kindergarten or elementary, middle or high school, 01:17:15.480 --> 01:17:23.320 public school, public transit center, senior center, public recreation center, hotel or motel. 01:17:23.320 --> 01:17:27.960 In the first quarter that was dwelling. Yes. And that's really what we're talking about. 01:17:30.120 --> 01:17:36.760 Because they didn't develop those out fast enough is that and it's not protected because of the 01:17:36.760 --> 01:17:45.160 rezoning. Is that because they didn't put a dwelling in place. A dwelling is a protected use. 01:17:45.160 --> 01:17:54.920 But they didn't do it fast enough. I just want to make that in 81 they were approved and 85 approved 01:17:54.920 --> 01:18:01.800 because there's rezoning 02 because they didn't put a dwelling in place by 02 prior to that. 01:18:01.800 --> 01:18:06.520 Well what you're saying with fast enough I think what you're describing is more or less 01:18:06.520 --> 01:18:12.600 a grandfather that if they got it in that that they would be entitled to remain in place as a 01:18:12.600 --> 01:18:18.920 legally non-conforming use despite the fact that they are non-conforming. They don't meet the law. 01:18:20.200 --> 01:18:28.280 You know the issue here is that it's a protected use whether they put it up before or they put it 01:18:28.280 --> 01:18:38.120 up after if it's within the reverse setback. And so you know would there be a situation where they 01:18:38.120 --> 01:18:45.080 could claim some kind of a legally non-conforming component of that. That's an entirely different 01:18:45.080 --> 01:18:50.600 question from the one that's brought before you today. So those properties that we're seeing 01:18:50.600 --> 01:18:57.240 inside that 250 and 300 foot circle those were to your point Mr. Horne those were developed 01:18:57.240 --> 01:19:04.600 fast enough. But now those would be legally non-conforming so heaven forbid something 01:19:04.600 --> 01:19:11.960 you know some natural disaster should heaven forbid but it would be damaged somehow. The property 01:19:11.960 --> 01:19:20.520 owner would not be able to add dwellings back to those sites in the same way that we saw that sign 01:19:20.520 --> 01:19:25.400 that got knocked over and he had good intentions of putting a new one up but I'm sorry like it got 01:19:25.400 --> 01:19:29.560 damaged so you can't do that. So is that do I understand this correctly so those those were 01:19:29.560 --> 01:19:37.720 built out prior to this 02 rezone or ordinance or whatnot and if they were to be removed or damaged 01:19:37.720 --> 01:19:43.240 somehow they could not be put back in. That's I know and so I know we're not talking about 01:19:43.240 --> 01:19:47.080 those but just put it in context so I understand because we're talking about dwellings inside the 01:19:47.080 --> 01:19:56.600 circle. Yeah okay all right thank you. And again just for for clarification because I know that 01:19:56.600 --> 01:20:03.880 Jerry had provided on on the definition of dwelling or dwelling unit the code further defines dwelling 01:20:03.880 --> 01:20:10.200 HUD code manufactured home and then dwelling mobile home but there is a specific exemption 01:20:10.200 --> 01:20:13.960 this term does not include a recreation vehicle that's defined by 01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:35.320 Thank you for helping us understand all of this all right go ahead yes remind me your name please 01:20:35.320 --> 01:21:00.040 sir thank you all very much we certainly appreciate your time tonight on this complex issue my name 01:21:00.040 --> 01:21:06.920 is Johnson Vincent office address is 2323 cross avenue and before I get going I want to mention 01:21:06.920 --> 01:21:13.880 that I have with me tonight Mr. Wayne Allen who is with Stone Town the owner of the park 01:21:13.880 --> 01:21:19.000 as well as Lee Allison and Lance Fulldoor who are civil engineers who office here in 01:21:19.000 --> 01:21:23.480 Benton so you're probably very familiar with them. Mr. Allison is telling me that he's been 01:21:23.480 --> 01:21:29.320 working on this project since about 2011 and in the last couple years it's gotten much more 01:21:29.320 --> 01:21:34.920 heavily involved in it so is it correct I have 10 minutes or is there 01:21:34.920 --> 01:21:46.600 I think Ron yes okay I'm sure I'm going to say yes but I'm sure we'll have follow-up questions 01:21:46.600 --> 01:21:53.320 sure and that's some studies are stricter about time Mr. Smith Mr. Smith could you speak a little 01:21:53.320 --> 01:22:03.160 louder sure we're here tonight on the appeal of the vested rights determination you have much of 01:22:03.160 --> 01:22:11.560 this in your packet that was provided by the staff actually Mr. Allison's company is was working on 01:22:11.560 --> 01:22:19.240 this back in February 2017 specifically they were tasked with looking at some of the floodplain 01:22:19.240 --> 01:22:23.560 issues that were involved so it's been about two and a half years now that they've been working on 01:22:23.560 --> 01:22:31.480 this the vested rights issue came up very late in the process over the summer of this year and 01:22:31.480 --> 01:22:36.040 because of that Allison engineering group eventually did ask for a vested rights 01:22:36.040 --> 01:22:44.440 determination the city manager issued that determination on September 27 and stated that 01:22:44.440 --> 01:22:49.640 you know vested rights did not apply in this case we obviously disagree with that and that's why we're 01:22:49.640 --> 01:22:56.760 doing it for you and I provided you with a letter explaining our position as well as a copy of the 01:22:56.760 --> 01:23:01.960 PowerPoint presentation that we're going to talk about I'm going to come back to this in a second 01:23:01.960 --> 01:23:08.120 but I think it is important to understand that this property was originally granted a specific 01:23:08.120 --> 01:23:18.440 use permit in 1981 and that's a copy of ordinance number 81051 passed by city council in May 5 1981 01:23:18.440 --> 01:23:27.320 it specifies in here that the SUP is granted for the mobile home park use and it specifically 01:23:27.320 --> 01:23:32.520 states that it's conditioned on a site plan which is attached as an exhibit so this is an ordinance 01:23:32.520 --> 01:23:39.880 passed by council when the only zoning process has the force of law you see the date there May 5 1981 01:23:39.880 --> 01:23:45.240 and that's a copy of the attached concept plan the staff has acknowledged the concept plan 01:23:45.240 --> 01:23:50.920 fills 100 pads and I'm going to come back to that issue in an event as well but it would be our 01:23:50.920 --> 01:23:56.040 contention just like any other project that is not necessarily built all at one time but you see many 01:23:56.040 --> 01:24:01.640 development projects that were built in phases this is no different the intent was always there 01:24:01.640 --> 01:24:07.000 to do up to 100 units maybe it didn't happen all at once but I think that's irrelevant I think 01:24:07.000 --> 01:24:13.720 what's important is that the intent was shown in 1981 when this concept plan was attached to this 01:24:13.720 --> 01:24:19.480 ordinance that they wanted to develop 100 pads just because it didn't happen all at the same time 01:24:19.480 --> 01:24:23.320 I think should be immaterial there's many other projects that are built in phases 01:24:25.720 --> 01:24:32.440 the uh the plat final plat was adopted in 8.4 of 1985 now there are a couple of things I want to 01:24:32.440 --> 01:24:40.680 discuss on this plat there's been some mention of the cul-de-sac on the west side why would you show 01:24:40.680 --> 01:24:46.360 a cul-de-sac if you didn't intend to eventually develop dwelling units there that would be accessed 01:24:46.360 --> 01:24:52.280 from that cul-de-sac there would be no point in doing that another thing about plats there's been 01:24:52.280 --> 01:24:58.840 some discussion of the plat not showing or not mentioning a use not showing structures or building 01:24:58.840 --> 01:25:03.320 footprints you know this is board of adjustment it's not your planning and zoning commission and 01:25:03.320 --> 01:25:09.880 council where it's more typical to see plats come through but plats typically don't show uses the 01:25:09.880 --> 01:25:16.200 use is really immaterial the property is flat I just lost our quorum so yeah one second I'll suspend 01:25:22.360 --> 01:25:24.200 me 01:25:24.200 --> 01:25:34.840 it's a shame if we had seven members we wouldn't 01:25:34.840 --> 01:25:42.200 you keep your brother off 01:25:48.840 --> 01:25:54.360 yeah we lost our quorum I apologize I have to be a mom okay it's okay all right thank you I apologize 01:25:54.360 --> 01:26:02.360 you're the chair do what I want my dad all right go ahead please continue so anyway my point about 01:26:02.360 --> 01:26:07.400 the plat is that the plat shows the lot and it shows the improvements that would be provided on 01:26:07.400 --> 01:26:11.240 the lot again it begs the question why would you have a cul-de-sac there on the west end if you 01:26:11.240 --> 01:26:17.880 didn't plan to eventually do pads there and plats typically do not show uses they typically do not 01:26:17.880 --> 01:26:23.960 show building footprints those are governed by the zoning whatever use you put on your plat at lot 01:26:23.960 --> 01:26:29.560 and whatever building envelope takes shape there that's governed by the zoning so you know I think 01:26:29.560 --> 01:26:36.760 the plat does show the intent to develop this out with pads but the fact that there's no use for 01:26:36.760 --> 01:26:44.360 building footprint shown on there I think is immaterial this is the email March 23 2018 01:26:45.240 --> 01:26:51.560 when this issue first started to surface after several years and really after decades of this 01:26:51.560 --> 01:26:55.960 property being in service as a mobile home park there was a question raised about what does the 01:26:55.960 --> 01:27:02.200 sup provide what is the concept plan provide and what's what is the property invested in 01:27:02.200 --> 01:27:11.000 this is the march 30 2018 reply from mr kanan refers to the 1981 sup ordinance in fact the city 01:27:11.000 --> 01:27:15.160 revisions I think they were given up to find it for us refers to the concept plan for the mobile 01:27:15.160 --> 01:27:20.920 home park and it says I quote the concept plan shows 100 mobile home pads also consistent with 01:27:20.920 --> 01:27:28.600 staff comments referencing such pre-application comments from May 28 2009 so not just in 2018 but 01:27:28.600 --> 01:27:34.920 back in 2009 staff apparently was of the opinion that the concept plan provided for 100 mobile 01:27:34.920 --> 01:27:42.680 home pads and just as an aside the 2002 city-wide rezoning that may have changed the zoning on this 01:27:42.680 --> 01:27:46.760 property but it would also be our contention that we were vested prior to that time as well 01:27:46.760 --> 01:27:51.320 so you know we think we've been vested from 1981 going forward 01:27:51.320 --> 01:27:57.480 further evidence that the city knew exactly what this use was 01:27:57.480 --> 01:28:03.880 and had no issues with it going forward the first in a series of mobile home park licenses was issued 01:28:03.880 --> 01:28:07.880 to the mobile home park in 1984 and again these are from the city's records 01:28:07.880 --> 01:28:12.440 there were numerous mobile home park licenses issued over the years 01:28:12.440 --> 01:28:22.600 new homes have continued to be set at the mobile home park the gas wells were approved in 2002 2003 01:28:22.600 --> 01:28:29.320 but you can see here that there's a list of units just since october 2015 numerous units that have 01:28:29.320 --> 01:28:34.520 been set in the mobile home park why didn't it come up then i can't take but apparently they were 01:28:34.520 --> 01:28:44.280 proposition yes sir did you get sorry did any of those fall inside the circle with the word my 01:28:44.280 --> 01:28:49.320 question yeah inside of the circle good question i don't know the answer to that question do y'all know 01:28:56.600 --> 01:28:59.640 the fact remains that there were can i ask the question also 01:28:59.640 --> 01:29:07.160 do those new home sets require permitting by the city i believe they did correct each one 01:29:07.160 --> 01:29:14.440 required a permit by the city that's that's what i'm talking about yes can we be able to see can we 01:29:14.440 --> 01:29:20.600 find is this can we get that information from the city is that like what i know they're in the circle 01:29:20.600 --> 01:29:27.240 if they if those are in the circle yes after the 2002 and also the permits also the permit 01:29:27.240 --> 01:29:33.320 this may mean if we need to gather this research oh thank you it may mean that we you know if it 01:29:33.320 --> 01:29:39.880 takes the city time we might have to put on a vote obviously but so to so to your point mr vinson 01:29:39.880 --> 01:29:48.120 there have been several new sites or homes that have been added since 2002 but we're unclear about 01:29:48.120 --> 01:29:54.200 where those homes are located if they're inside the circle or out i personally am unclear on that 01:29:54.200 --> 01:30:00.920 i'm sure someone could make that determination well could we get a map from country view of the 01:30:00.920 --> 01:30:08.920 site numbers that'll tell us right there we just need a layout of the park with the pad numbers on 01:30:08.920 --> 01:30:20.360 it thank you that way sure good question so in any event as you can see this issue has come up 01:30:20.360 --> 01:30:24.680 very late in the game you know the city continued to issue permits for these settings of these mobile 01:30:24.680 --> 01:30:30.760 homes on these paths country view mobile home park continues to be properly licensed by the city 01:30:30.760 --> 01:30:38.200 this is dated september 30 2019 so what is that about four weeks ago they were issued a mobile 01:30:38.200 --> 01:30:42.840 home park license for this year so again no problems that we can see you know have no reason 01:30:42.840 --> 01:30:47.800 to think that we were not totally invested and could proceed to continue to develop the mobile 01:30:47.800 --> 01:30:55.160 home park as i said allison engineering group has been working on this in the floodplain context for 01:30:55.160 --> 01:31:01.240 a couple of years and i want to point out that from a floodplain standpoint you know we do understand 01:31:01.240 --> 01:31:05.720 that's a totally separate issue we understand we need to comply with floodplain regulations 01:31:05.720 --> 01:31:10.760 and do what's necessary to you know whether it's race a pad out of the floodplain or whatever 01:31:10.760 --> 01:31:15.960 that's not before you today that's a totally separate issue i'm sure we're going to comply 01:31:15.960 --> 01:31:20.360 with whatever needs to be complied with on that but the point of this is you can see on here the 01:31:20.360 --> 01:31:26.200 cul-de-sac you can see the proposed pads around the cul-de-sac you can see that allison engineering 01:31:26.200 --> 01:31:31.960 is working on this that that you can't read it on the powerpoint and i had to squint but this drawing 01:31:31.960 --> 01:31:38.120 is dated may of 2018 so about a year and a half ago this was presented in the city they saw the 01:31:38.120 --> 01:31:42.440 pad science this is going to relate to the fair notice issue we're going to talk about 01:31:42.440 --> 01:31:52.760 existing hydraulic work map again showing pad sites around the cul-de-sac and a copy of the 01:31:52.760 --> 01:31:58.680 1985 plan again showing the proposed pad so this is all my point my larger point is that this is 01:31:58.680 --> 01:32:06.440 consistent all the way through from 1981 through today there are no surprises here the sqp ordinance 01:32:06.440 --> 01:32:13.560 said what it said the concept plan said what it said with regard to 100 pads 1981 to 2019 this has 01:32:13.560 --> 01:32:19.000 been a continuous operation permits issued you know everything's going along fine it's licensed 01:32:19.000 --> 01:32:24.680 this issue came up very recently how much there are surprises i'm going to quickly take you through 01:32:24.680 --> 01:32:32.280 a few photos just an aerial view of the country mobile home park you can see it's laid out exactly 01:32:32.280 --> 01:32:38.360 like the plat showed see the cul-de-sac it's been there since that time birds eye view this is a 01:32:38.360 --> 01:32:46.920 little bit closer just a quick photo tour and i know the use is not really relevant today other 01:32:46.920 --> 01:32:52.440 than the fact that we're invested in the use but whether this is a good use or not i want to raise 01:32:52.440 --> 01:32:58.440 your comfort level on this mobile home parks i've represented some over the years and the perception 01:32:58.440 --> 01:33:04.600 of them is sometimes i think i'm more in this particular instance i'm going to take you inside 01:33:04.600 --> 01:33:09.480 the park and show you what it looks like to see what we're talking about this is all recent 01:33:09.480 --> 01:33:15.640 photo photography from google street view going down the main road in the interior 01:33:17.240 --> 01:33:22.680 i think you'll see i was very pleasantly surprised to see how clean it is it's an 01:33:22.680 --> 01:33:28.120 excellent shape i mean this is a well maintained mobile home park i'll go through these quickly 01:33:28.120 --> 01:33:33.720 because i know my time is limited but again you know continuing west continuing west i mean it's 01:33:33.720 --> 01:33:39.800 very spotless it's i'm very impressed with the view of this now we're rounding the curve and 01:33:39.800 --> 01:33:44.040 showing them the plant you can see in the background the vacant part of the property 01:33:46.280 --> 01:33:51.800 looking down the cul-de-sac you can see the vacant land why would they have shown this on the concept 01:33:51.800 --> 01:33:57.480 plan if they did not intend to eventually develop those as mobile home pads now we're turning around 01:33:57.480 --> 01:34:03.720 we're heading back east again i'll go quickly through these this is an excellent use i mean 01:34:03.720 --> 01:34:09.080 this is you know these are people's homes they live here you know it's a good affordable housing 01:34:09.080 --> 01:34:14.600 option it adds to the variety of housing types in the city of denton coming back towards the 01:34:14.600 --> 01:34:20.760 main entrance you know there's a playground for the kids there's a little gazebo there i don't see 01:34:20.760 --> 01:34:27.480 any trash anywhere or anything sitting out so you know it's a good use now i want to get in the time 01:34:27.480 --> 01:34:33.560 i have left into the six points that the city has established to guide you in its criteria for 01:34:33.560 --> 01:34:38.840 looking at these best rights determinations and this is in the handout that i gave you as well so 01:34:38.840 --> 01:34:45.080 if i had to zip through this you can read it at your leisure question one whether the city received 01:34:45.080 --> 01:34:51.880 fair notice of the project first of all the council passed the shp ordinance in 1981 they 01:34:51.880 --> 01:34:58.040 granted the first mobile home park license in 1984 numerous subsequent licenses permitted numerous 01:34:58.040 --> 01:35:03.000 settings of new homes as recently as this year i think that's fair notice i think the city knows 01:35:03.000 --> 01:35:09.080 exactly what this use has been for decades uh city says that the final plan did not approve uses or 01:35:09.080 --> 01:35:14.920 depict the location of structures as i explained flats don't do that concept plans do that flats 01:35:14.920 --> 01:35:21.000 do not that seems to me to be of little if any relevance the city says that the project is 01:35:21.000 --> 01:35:27.320 complete and that this is really i think the main question um that we're dealing with we think the 01:35:27.320 --> 01:35:33.960 project was not complete it was intended to be phased why otherwise would the concept plan show 01:35:33.960 --> 01:35:40.040 100 pads from the very beginning and plat shows the cul-de-sac to access the remainder of those 01:35:40.040 --> 01:35:47.320 paths it was always intended to be fully developed so i think the record is is clear that the city had 01:35:47.320 --> 01:35:52.200 fair notice knew the nature of the permit sought knew that there would be 100 pads there eventually 01:35:52.840 --> 01:35:57.480 and i believe we're vested in that second point whether the nature and scope of the project 01:35:57.480 --> 01:36:03.560 prevents the city from applying one or more current regulations the city says the project is complete 01:36:03.560 --> 01:36:09.320 we disagree with that premise we think the vested rights derived from the original 1981 shp ordinance 01:36:09.320 --> 01:36:15.560 approving this specific use it's not a blanket rezoning it was an shp ordinance specific to this 01:36:15.560 --> 01:36:23.880 one news again 1981 concept plan the 1985 flat showing the entire lock and the cul-de-sac 01:36:23.880 --> 01:36:32.040 and the mobile home park permits licenses and other things through 2019 as recently as earlier 01:36:32.040 --> 01:36:37.640 this year whether any prior approved applications have expired or have been terminated uh staff 01:36:37.640 --> 01:36:42.760 says there have not been any prior approved applications that have expired and terminated 01:36:42.760 --> 01:36:47.480 we agree with that it's been a continuous operation there's no reason there would be 01:36:47.480 --> 01:36:52.520 no reason why anything would have terminated we continue to operate for these decades uh with our 01:36:52.520 --> 01:36:57.720 vested rights to the member paths before the presence of the gas wells which are only about 01:36:57.720 --> 01:37:05.000 17 years old we've been approved since 1981 whether there's any statutory exception to our right now 01:37:05.000 --> 01:37:08.520 this is an interesting question and you know i don't want to get too deep in the weeds on the 01:37:08.520 --> 01:37:14.280 legal side of this but i think it's important only certain types of zoning regulations are exempted 01:37:14.280 --> 01:37:18.520 under this portion of the vested rights statute and i've gone so far as to quote it here 01:37:18.520 --> 01:37:25.400 there's an exemption for municipal regulations that do not affect landscaping or tree preservation 01:37:25.400 --> 01:37:31.320 open space or park dedication property classification etc what that means is that 01:37:31.320 --> 01:37:37.240 regulations that do not have and it's tricky because it's a double negative 01:37:37.240 --> 01:37:43.320 regulations that do not affect these items are exempt from the vested rights statute from 01:37:43.320 --> 01:37:49.800 preserving owners rights under the vested rights property classification i've looked there's no 01:37:49.800 --> 01:37:57.640 definition in chapter 245 of property classification my research indicates that property classification 01:37:57.640 --> 01:38:03.320 is commonly understood to mean the use of the property so what that means is that our vested 01:38:03.320 --> 01:38:09.480 rights under the vested rights statutes include the ability to use the property for the intended 01:38:09.480 --> 01:38:15.000 use under the specific use program that's that's our position and i think it's correct this is the 01:38:15.000 --> 01:38:22.520 actual statute itself section 245.003 i'm not going to read this to you it's in your packet there 01:38:22.520 --> 01:38:29.240 that's the actual text with my bold highlighting whether any exemption for one or more regulations 01:38:29.240 --> 01:38:34.440 under the dent development code or ordinances is applicable to the project we're not aware of any 01:38:34.440 --> 01:38:40.760 such exemptions we're not sure that there may not be any we would have to do further research on that 01:38:40.760 --> 01:38:47.080 but to us it's a pretty simple proposition our use existed existed well prior in time for the gas 01:38:47.080 --> 01:38:54.520 wells we believe the vested so we don't think this really even applies and finally point six 01:38:54.520 --> 01:38:59.320 whether the project is dormant and again this kind of cuts to the heart of the issue this is this is 01:38:59.320 --> 01:39:06.360 probably the central premise the city staff asserts that the project is complete so it's not dormant 01:39:06.360 --> 01:39:12.040 we strongly disagree with that premise the project is not dormant has never been dormant we've always 01:39:12.040 --> 01:39:18.680 wanted to do 100 pads maybe not all at once didn't happen that way but that's very common with 01:39:18.680 --> 01:39:25.720 development projects so the project was always ongoing it was never going it's not going now the 01:39:25.720 --> 01:39:32.040 vested rights we believe derived from the original 1981 issue keep ordinance approving again this 01:39:32.040 --> 01:39:38.520 specific use with an attached concept plan part of the ordinance showing the 100 pads everyone agrees 01:39:38.520 --> 01:39:45.080 on that the 1985 final plat again does not show uses or structures but it does show the entire lot 01:39:45.080 --> 01:39:50.760 and the cul-de-sac intended to serve future development and again from the numerous mobile 01:39:50.760 --> 01:39:57.000 home park licenses permits and other items up through this year even after this discussion 01:39:57.000 --> 01:40:05.000 so we're here before you tonight respectfully to ask that the city staff's best rights determination 01:40:05.000 --> 01:40:10.360 which was unfavorable to us be reversed again the shp was passed by council in 1981 01:40:11.000 --> 01:40:17.240 first mobile home park license granted in 1984 property planted in 1985 showing the cul-de-sac 01:40:17.240 --> 01:40:24.600 always intended that more pads 100 total would be developed mobile home park licenses granted for 01:40:24.600 --> 01:40:30.920 most subsequent years including up to and including this year the gas wells that are the 01:40:30.920 --> 01:40:39.080 causing the issue here appeared much later 2002 and 2003 how they got approved with mobile home park 01:40:40.360 --> 01:40:45.640 pads with mobile homes on them sitting there is a great question i don't know the answer to that 01:40:45.640 --> 01:40:51.560 question but it's causing us an issue we were there well before that and as recently as march 01:40:51.560 --> 01:40:58.840 30 2018 the staff took the position that the shp ordinance from 1981 showed the 100 mobile home 01:40:58.840 --> 01:41:06.440 pads consistent with staff congress in 2009 so you know i know that's been somewhat repetitive but 01:41:06.440 --> 01:41:12.920 i think it's important to understand those facts the bottom line is we are very clear in our 01:41:12.920 --> 01:41:19.320 thinking that we've invested since 1981 nothing has happened to change that you know the presence 01:41:19.320 --> 01:41:24.440 of the gas wells don't know how they got there but they shouldn't affect us they shouldn't be used to 01:41:24.440 --> 01:41:31.640 take away our property rights our vested rights in these 100 mobile home park pads so again very 01:41:31.640 --> 01:41:37.240 respectfully we have a difference in opinion of the staff and we hope that you'll see it our way 01:41:37.240 --> 01:41:52.680 we will take a brief recess for five minutes thank you okay thanks 01:41:58.520 --> 01:42:05.320 6 34 are there any questions for that applicant yeah mr higgins yeah i'm 01:42:05.320 --> 01:42:13.320 we'll take a bit of it i'm appreciative of your rebut to the manager's letter 01:42:13.320 --> 01:42:19.000 but i want to take kind of a different tack it's sort of based on this 01:42:19.720 --> 01:42:34.760 creek picture setback lines are are created with concerns for safety and safety is something that 01:42:34.760 --> 01:42:40.680 that decision that safety decision is a legislative decision that's handed down 01:42:40.680 --> 01:42:44.520 not something for us to argue about 01:42:47.160 --> 01:42:54.840 in the texas uh legis whatever the texas legislative local legislator guide whatever the god 01:42:54.840 --> 01:42:59.800 section 6 2 6 relief measures for gas wells only 01:42:59.800 --> 01:43:16.200 page 13 paragraph 2 standard of review for setback during cities of section 2 paragraph d 01:43:18.120 --> 01:43:22.040 in deciding the request for variance of setback requirements the board may 01:43:22.040 --> 01:43:29.400 approve the request as granted modify the request or deny the request in granting a variance for 01:43:29.400 --> 01:43:35.640 reduction of a drilling and production site setback the board may impose such conditions 01:43:35.640 --> 01:43:42.200 as are necessary to mitigate the impacts of the reduced setbacks and to preserve the public health 01:43:42.200 --> 01:43:49.800 and safety including but not limited to the enhanced mitigation standards contained in 01:43:49.800 --> 01:43:58.200 subsection and then the jury provided the number i didn't like that so am i supposed to be talking 01:43:58.200 --> 01:44:06.280 in the microphone no because the microphone's right here so given that it seems to me that 01:44:06.280 --> 01:44:15.480 there is a concern for safety uh and how that might might play into this how would you address 01:44:15.480 --> 01:44:21.800 that mr smith uh well first comment i would make is that uh one of the items we've taken 01:44:21.800 --> 01:44:28.360 into consideration in this whole project has been fire code uh and we intend to fully respect the 01:44:28.360 --> 01:44:33.800 fire code and comply with the fire code my experience with dealing with fire code is that 01:44:33.800 --> 01:44:38.120 that pretty much trumps every time the fire marshal kind of gets the duty what he or she wants 01:44:38.120 --> 01:44:43.320 and it's no different here so we will absolutely comply with fire code requirements 01:44:43.320 --> 01:44:50.200 the gas well setback is more on the zoning side and you know i understand the zoning ordinances 01:44:50.200 --> 01:44:54.600 are enacted because cities have the right to regulate the public health safety and welfare 01:44:54.600 --> 01:45:01.880 but on the other hand you know they're to some extent they're picking a number 01:45:02.440 --> 01:45:06.120 i mean the fire code is probably based on more of a technical analysis of what's appropriate 01:45:06.120 --> 01:45:11.560 this happens to be a distance that cuts into our mobile home part 01:45:11.560 --> 01:45:20.200 you know if i'm reading this correctly uh well it's a request for a variance to the setback 01:45:20.200 --> 01:45:24.040 requirement so that's not really before you do not i guess what we're really only talking about is 01:45:24.040 --> 01:45:30.040 the vested rights determination but that indicates that you know the board in some circumstances on a 01:45:30.040 --> 01:45:36.440 different kind of a case could actually reduce that setback if they saw fit uh i'm not you know 01:45:36.440 --> 01:45:40.440 obviously that's not before you don't have jurisdiction to do that in this case because 01:45:40.440 --> 01:45:45.800 that's not the application but i think there's a big distinction to be made between a zoning 01:45:45.800 --> 01:45:51.720 gas well setback and the fire code required setback which we absolutely understand 01:45:57.960 --> 01:46:05.160 would the owner i wonder if the owner operator has considered the possibility that mobile homes 01:46:05.160 --> 01:46:13.000 located inside the red circle should there be some sort of an accident disaster which created 01:46:13.000 --> 01:46:18.360 physical harm for the homeowner or any other residents of the home i would think that the 01:46:18.360 --> 01:46:26.200 owner operator would find himself in a pretty serious liability situation wouldn't that 01:46:27.240 --> 01:46:34.360 um well that's outside my area of expertise would that be a fair same question be the same question 01:46:34.360 --> 01:46:40.360 asked to the city if it's a safety issue then why are those homes allowed in another home or not 01:46:40.360 --> 01:46:47.400 so either it's a safety issue or it's not a safety issue it can't be and when i want it to be but i 01:46:47.400 --> 01:46:54.200 want to add as part of my answer that you know that that's a good question uh i don't know the 01:46:54.200 --> 01:46:59.960 answer to that question but i do know that the mobile home pads were there long before the gas 01:46:59.960 --> 01:47:07.080 well drilling sites were but they weren't developed yet correct some of them were that the ones that 01:47:07.080 --> 01:47:12.520 are shown apparently on the there's a couple of drawings inside the line right so those have been 01:47:12.520 --> 01:47:16.520 developed and then the gas well went in and then we have coordinates written because we're starting 01:47:16.520 --> 01:47:24.680 to see several of us here at this table who are were very involved in the history of dentin trying 01:47:24.680 --> 01:47:31.000 to find a compromise between what we're seeing here and with with gas well operators and so 01:47:31.000 --> 01:47:38.360 my understanding is that had those sites already been developed they would have been protected 01:47:38.360 --> 01:47:43.640 uses then there wouldn't have been room for that gas well to go in but because there were no 01:47:44.280 --> 01:47:52.600 protected uses in that area they were allowed to come in and now they superseded your rights if i'm 01:47:52.600 --> 01:47:57.880 understanding the how the ordinance was written and the conversations we were having as a community 01:47:57.880 --> 01:48:03.320 four or five years ago that's part of what i'm clear about as representing the mobile home park 01:48:03.320 --> 01:48:10.680 because and this is from the uh the staff's extensive memorandum uh you see the the drawing 01:48:10.680 --> 01:48:16.840 here and i apologize it y'all have it yes i mean you see the the existing mobile homes these are 01:48:16.840 --> 01:48:23.240 not just passed there are mobile homes here yeah they're within these setbacks um you know i believe 01:48:23.240 --> 01:48:29.080 that those were there prior to the approval of the gas wells i don't know the information we 01:48:29.080 --> 01:48:33.960 requested the map with the plat numbers and then the permits issued by the city for those mobile 01:48:33.960 --> 01:48:40.600 homes sets yeah that will tell us yeah they were there yeah i think that'd be i do think that was 01:48:40.600 --> 01:48:45.640 really helpful but i i guess what i'm saying is that yes yes those mobile homes were there and 01:48:45.640 --> 01:48:50.440 then yes the gas or maybe the gas was put in and then the mobile homes were there but it was kind 01:48:50.440 --> 01:48:57.080 of a free-for-all like we didn't have like the gas well kind of snuck up on us about 10 years ago 01:48:57.080 --> 01:49:01.160 when they put that one in on on bonny bray and we're like crap we don't have any laws to regulate 01:49:01.160 --> 01:49:06.440 this and that's when we started having these conversations so somewhere in that between 1981 01:49:06.440 --> 01:49:14.840 and 2008 2009 when we saw that gas well going this probably all was happening at around that time 01:49:14.840 --> 01:49:22.360 because i once we passed once we passed the gas well ordinance um and we and we've been which 01:49:22.360 --> 01:49:27.240 we've been tweaking in the near sense trying to find like that perfect balance to not take 01:49:27.240 --> 01:49:32.440 away the rights of property owners while still allowing gas well development in our town um 01:49:32.440 --> 01:49:44.520 work i have so many words in my brain right now um we now have a set of rules that would not allow 01:49:44.520 --> 01:49:52.200 for development within that within that circle and maybe in the 80s and 90s there was no loss that's 01:49:52.200 --> 01:49:56.040 how they got there i'm just rambling at this point but i'm trying to think out loud like how 01:49:56.040 --> 01:50:01.800 did they get there and how when when did they get there that would be something i'd like to see too 01:50:01.800 --> 01:50:07.480 is when you're bringing these the the lot numbers to us i'd be really curious to see there's i see 01:50:07.480 --> 01:50:12.440 like there's three three mobile homes up here and then there's another i don't know what this 01:50:12.440 --> 01:50:18.280 property is down here at the bottom of the circle yeah but i'd be really curious to see when those 01:50:18.280 --> 01:50:24.840 were allowed to be built because we saw the gas was put in in 2002 2003 the permits were shown 01:50:24.840 --> 01:50:29.640 and that was before we had a guest so yeah and i appreciate what you're saying i mean that's an 01:50:29.640 --> 01:50:36.360 important issue um i guess our position um and admittedly it's narrowly focused representing 01:50:36.360 --> 01:50:41.720 the mobile home park is why should we be penalized right when we believe those were the conversations 01:50:41.720 --> 01:50:49.240 we were having yeah yeah yeah so that's so back to i'd like to see a more concise timeline of 01:50:50.120 --> 01:50:57.560 when the denton development code for the the current gas well setbacks and reverse setbacks 01:50:57.560 --> 01:51:03.480 was established in relation to the timeline of the the mobile home park and 01:51:03.480 --> 01:51:11.800 when i was going through the the reading at one point was at 50 feet for a reverse setback 01:51:11.800 --> 01:51:19.000 a long time ago uh has the code changed or was that the fire safety the fire code has always 01:51:19.000 --> 01:51:25.480 been 100 okay so what what were the what were the gas well setbacks or reverse setbacks previously 01:51:25.480 --> 01:51:33.320 to the 250 and 300 feet we can get that and the dates and how it it correlates to to their 01:51:33.320 --> 01:51:40.360 development and so i want to take this back to the issue of vested rights which is 01:51:40.360 --> 01:51:45.080 what we're deciding right whether the city of denton administrative decision regarding 01:51:45.080 --> 01:51:53.400 vested rights is appropriate or not this property was issued a special use permit in 1981 and then 01:51:53.400 --> 01:52:01.400 it was rezoned somebody mentioned that earlier there you were mr kanane and does a rezoning cancel 01:52:01.400 --> 01:52:08.840 the rights issued to the property or the owners of by the special use permit let me try to address 01:52:08.840 --> 01:52:15.400 your legal question without actually testifying as to facts because i i don't want to be a fact witness 01:52:15.400 --> 01:52:25.640 here but i i think that the issue of the rezoning speaks to the fact that the applicant has claimed 01:52:25.640 --> 01:52:37.080 that an sup has created some uh vested rights as a supplement to their plat application yes if you 01:52:37.080 --> 01:52:47.080 look at the plat the plat shows a concrete ribbon going around in an oval with a with a 01:52:47.080 --> 01:52:55.000 little tail on the end of it you know it doesn't show uh you know any any homes there or anything 01:52:55.000 --> 01:53:04.600 of that nature it just it it shows that hardscape and what the applicant is arguing is that there 01:53:04.600 --> 01:53:15.640 was an sup that was granted at some later date that shows with more detail that there are going 01:53:15.640 --> 01:53:24.120 to be specific areas locations if you will where mobile homes are going to be located and they are 01:53:24.120 --> 01:53:30.920 they are are claiming if i'm if i'm not correct mr vince let me know that that that that augments 01:53:30.920 --> 01:53:39.720 the uh and and further defines the project the the the problem with it and where the zoning issue 01:53:39.720 --> 01:53:49.560 comes in is that uh sup is a component of zoning indented and so if you have a a particular zoning 01:53:49.560 --> 01:53:58.760 classification with an approved sup that applies to it that stays there and that sup is relevant 01:53:58.760 --> 01:54:09.560 until that property is rezoned once the rezoning comes in then you have new zoning defined for 01:54:09.560 --> 01:54:17.720 that area it doesn't necessarily have an sup associated with it because the sup is specific 01:54:17.720 --> 01:54:28.920 to the prior zoning okay so that that's the that's i think the importance of the rezoning it's not that 01:54:28.920 --> 01:54:34.600 you know under the law that something's taken away or what have you i think that the argument 01:54:34.600 --> 01:54:44.840 is that that's the practical effect is that once you have a rezoning of the area that the sup is 01:54:46.680 --> 01:54:54.120 essentially of no importance or meaningless if i might respond to that just kind of give you the 01:54:54.120 --> 01:55:00.680 other side of my perspective uh the the sup and the concept plan that was actually from 1981 so 01:55:00.680 --> 01:55:08.360 that preceded the 1985 plan uh the the slide that i put up here uh this is from the texas vested 01:55:08.360 --> 01:55:13.720 rights statute it talks about applicability and it specifies that it applies to a project that 01:55:13.720 --> 01:55:22.440 was in progress on or commenced after september 1 1997 i would suggest to you that our project 01:55:22.440 --> 01:55:27.880 qualifies for that because it was begun and was in progress in the sense that it was continuing 01:55:27.880 --> 01:55:34.760 to operate and it had you know the delta of the additional mobile home pads available under the 01:55:34.760 --> 01:55:43.000 concept plan if before september 1 1997 a regulatory agency city of denham approved or issued one or 01:55:43.000 --> 01:55:48.280 more permits for the project absolutely happens mobile home park licenses permits for the mobile 01:55:48.280 --> 01:55:58.360 homes with the plant the sup and so what i'm coming back to is i understand what mr drake 01:55:58.360 --> 01:56:04.200 is saying about zoning and you know in a global sense uh that's that's kind of a different issue 01:56:04.200 --> 01:56:11.720 our specific issue is regardless of the impact of subsequent zoning changes on us we believe we're 01:56:11.720 --> 01:56:20.360 vested in our 100 mobile home pads and i don't think that the city is at odds with the applicant 01:56:20.360 --> 01:56:29.640 on on whether it falls within 245 003 and i don't think that the city is at odds with the idea that 01:56:29.640 --> 01:56:39.000 they manifested an intention to build a hundred some odd uh uh lots uh well it's not really a lot 01:56:39.000 --> 01:56:48.440 but the pads for uh manufactured homes at some point in time i i think the the the issue is is 01:56:48.440 --> 01:56:59.240 the is the project as defined uh by that application complete and and if i could offer by way of an 01:56:59.240 --> 01:57:06.280 analogy uh let's say for example we were talking about a parking lot uh and and you apply for a 01:57:06.280 --> 01:57:12.600 parking lot that has a hundred spaces on it they could they could you could park a hundred cars on 01:57:12.600 --> 01:57:20.360 this parking space when is that parking lot as a project complete is it when the concrete is poured 01:57:20.360 --> 01:57:27.960 fured and all 100 the stripes for all 100 spaces are put on it or is it when you have a hundred 01:57:27.960 --> 01:57:35.880 cars actually parked and filling you know i think that uh the the city's perspective is that what 01:57:35.880 --> 01:57:44.360 you're talking about is it's more like the former that the that the parking lot is complete once you 01:57:44.360 --> 01:57:51.480 pour the parking lot and you stripe it and it's it is a parking lot it doesn't require you to have 01:57:51.480 --> 01:58:00.440 100 cars on it before that parking lot is complete and in a similar fashion manufactured homes are 01:58:00.440 --> 01:58:06.280 very much like cars because they're they're they're mobile they're pieces of personal property 01:58:06.280 --> 01:58:14.920 that's not a development of land and uh and so the fact that you don't have all of the spaces 01:58:14.920 --> 01:58:22.680 occupied doesn't mean that it's incomplete as a project uh the the fact remains that what was 01:58:22.680 --> 01:58:31.160 shown on the plat was built uh and and and it's it it has a number of uses doesn't necessarily have 01:58:31.160 --> 01:58:41.320 to be a mobile home and uh so it like i said you could sell manufactured homes uh in in that 01:58:41.320 --> 01:58:48.680 location perhaps or or maybe it could be used for any of a number of different uses but let's say 01:58:48.680 --> 01:58:58.440 with your parking lot analogy that there was some hazard such that it was unsafe it was determined 01:58:58.440 --> 01:59:05.960 to be unsafe for vehicles to be uh within a certain distance of some hazard and so there was a separate 01:59:05.960 --> 01:59:13.880 prohibition for that maybe it's because of flooding maybe it's because uh you know you got uh you know 01:59:13.880 --> 01:59:20.600 winds or or there's an airport nearby and the planes are taking a very low approach and and 01:59:20.600 --> 01:59:26.040 there's some other regulation that that that restricts how much of that parking lot could be 01:59:26.040 --> 01:59:33.000 used does that mean that the project is incomplete i think the city's position would be that no that 01:59:33.000 --> 01:59:41.000 does not mean the project's incomplete and so by analogy uh i think the city's position is that the 01:59:41.000 --> 01:59:48.200 uh that the uh proposed mobile home farm was complete it's just that it's not fully occupied 01:59:48.200 --> 01:59:54.680 if i could respond to that i because there's points i want to make in response uh the first 01:59:54.680 --> 02:00:00.280 is on the manufactured homes you know they may be personal property but the land and the paths and 02:00:00.280 --> 02:00:06.680 the potential paths are part of the real property which the applicant owns so i think that's really 02:00:06.680 --> 02:00:12.600 what's an issue here tonight you know i get the manufactured homes can move in now but we're really 02:00:12.600 --> 02:00:19.480 talking about the ability to develop this land in accordance with the 1981 concept plan uh the other 02:00:19.480 --> 02:00:26.200 thing is you know we can draw on dueling analogies but uh lots of projects are built in phases i mean 02:00:26.200 --> 02:00:32.200 mr drake's analogy of a parking lot well what if you had plans to build two parking lots or two 02:00:32.200 --> 02:00:38.360 apartment buildings maybe you build one right away and maybe you build the other one when market 02:00:38.360 --> 02:00:45.000 conditions warrant happens all the time you know we understand that some of these potential pad 02:00:45.000 --> 02:00:51.000 sites are in floodplain the city of denton has regulations to deal with that you raise sites out 02:00:51.000 --> 02:00:55.560 of floodplain you mitigate for the floodplain you do and that's where the civil engineers come in 02:00:55.560 --> 02:00:59.320 who are the experts in that and and that's actually how we got here a couple of years 02:00:59.320 --> 02:01:06.520 ago we were trying to work through that process by the book uh so you know i think the fact that the 02:01:06.520 --> 02:01:12.600 the driveways were poured in accordance with the plan is not dispositive of whether this 02:01:12.600 --> 02:01:19.880 project was complete it was ongoing sorry sorry i have several questions miss mason did you have 02:01:19.880 --> 02:01:27.240 one yeah i just wanted to to bring it back to part of the statement about hold a public hearing and 02:01:27.240 --> 02:01:33.480 consider an appeal of an administrative decision regarding vested rights related to the applicability 02:01:33.480 --> 02:01:40.920 of gaswell reverse setbacks and separation distance requirement to a mobile home so it's it's circling 02:01:40.920 --> 02:01:48.120 back to the gaswells as a main point of contention within the the clause that's stated i just want to 02:01:48.120 --> 02:01:53.560 reiterate that because i think i feel like we lost that for a little bit thank you and mr 02:01:53.560 --> 02:01:59.720 horton you had a question no no okay it was late yeah um are there children expected to live there 02:01:59.720 --> 02:02:08.360 uh some i would imagine so there's an elderly perhaps i'm sorry elderly persons perhaps probably 02:02:08.360 --> 02:02:16.440 and uh any disabled uh i'm sure maybe yeah because the reason i bring this up is because uh you know 02:02:16.440 --> 02:02:21.240 many considering you know we have what we have in terms of the ordinances passed but it is generally 02:02:21.240 --> 02:02:30.120 regarded as impossible for um uh those in wheelchair to safely get out unless there's a 600 02:02:30.120 --> 02:02:38.680 foot setback or reverse setback we have 250 300 something like this so there's you know things 02:02:38.680 --> 02:02:44.520 are moving in the opposite direction of allowing building close to these things not in the direction 02:02:44.520 --> 02:02:49.880 of allowing it towards whether you know the debate obviously is about whether or not their 02:02:49.880 --> 02:02:57.000 your project is grandfathered or whether rezoning and new ordinances affect any future decisions 02:02:57.000 --> 02:03:04.920 about continuing but that that's the reality behind it that i think should be brought into 02:03:04.920 --> 02:03:12.600 consideration by the owner as well as by us you raise a good point um but it comes back to the 02:03:12.600 --> 02:03:17.800 fact that i think what we're here tonight to discuss is is the narrowly focused idea of whether 02:03:17.800 --> 02:03:25.160 we are vested in our rights that preceded by decades the presence of those gas wells and i 02:03:25.160 --> 02:03:33.880 i suppose what i'm asking is why are we here or why why why even be here for that when that narrow 02:03:33.880 --> 02:03:42.840 focus is in conflict with safety well the fire code establishes a 50-foot difference we're sort 02:03:42.840 --> 02:03:50.840 of respecting that i would argue we're here because as many people didn't have the forethought to 02:03:50.840 --> 02:03:57.560 right see how this would affect the the decisions the city made the citizens made four years ago 02:03:57.560 --> 02:04:04.840 right paying no attention to these issues right and we just unfortunately we're seeing the full 02:04:04.840 --> 02:04:09.720 applications and we have seen through the years trying to find that balance between 02:04:09.720 --> 02:04:19.800 gas well development which is a reality and the rights of surface owners and the mineral rights 02:04:19.800 --> 02:04:25.000 as i understand in the state of texas supersede the rights of the service owners and so we're 02:04:25.000 --> 02:04:30.680 trying to find this like what's the balance between like safety and being able to continue 02:04:30.680 --> 02:04:34.920 to develop and so and that's what's what brought you here today so our task is really to find out 02:04:34.920 --> 02:04:43.320 like we're are you vested you should be able to develop any way because you were there first 02:04:43.320 --> 02:04:48.760 and and we're just trying to kind of find i guess that the answer to that the balance of that miss 02:04:48.760 --> 02:04:54.840 regan's you have a question did you want to respond to her well i would just uh appreciate the remarks i 02:04:54.840 --> 02:05:00.680 think you're spot on i mean i think uh it seems to me and this is not articulated anywhere it's not 02:05:00.680 --> 02:05:05.320 really a rule in this kind of proceeding but it seems to me given the history that we've 02:05:05.320 --> 02:05:13.240 discussed extensively the burden if you will should really be more on the city to demonstrate 02:05:14.120 --> 02:05:19.320 you know why we shouldn't be allowed to continue our vested rights which we've had since 1981 02:05:19.320 --> 02:05:28.200 and mr higgins yeah um i have a question for our attorney it's a question of clarification and then 02:05:28.200 --> 02:05:36.600 based on that answer i probably have a comment to make we are not tied in a position here 02:05:36.600 --> 02:05:43.320 a letter was sent out by the manager this is the rebuttal to the letter 02:05:44.280 --> 02:05:49.960 are we restricted to voting up and down on that or couldn't we add mitigating things or changes 02:05:49.960 --> 02:06:02.600 you can add uh you can add mitigating changes in accordance with the ordinance uh or or at least 02:06:02.600 --> 02:06:10.840 those could be added okay uh as part of your your decision where i'm coming from on this is 02:06:12.040 --> 02:06:17.400 i was i was set on a planning and zoning commission in a different community for a 02:06:17.400 --> 02:06:24.760 couple of years and applicants would come and you know we wanted to mitigate a site problem we 02:06:24.760 --> 02:06:30.120 wanted to mitigate a sound problem we wanted to mitigate a problem maybe people would didn't have 02:06:30.120 --> 02:06:35.240 any reason to be in this proper being able to pass through this property and you would come to some 02:06:35.240 --> 02:06:40.600 sort of agreement on that and that would be the recommendation of city council i know i know what 02:06:40.600 --> 02:06:46.280 those mitigations are i don't know what mitigation for a gas well would be i don't know if you could 02:06:46.280 --> 02:06:51.560 build something along the perimeter with enough height and enough strength that would deflect the 02:06:51.560 --> 02:06:58.280 possible explosion or fire i don't know if that could be done if that can be done is it in our 02:06:58.280 --> 02:07:07.800 purview to say we would uh it's one possibility aside with the owner given this condition 02:07:09.160 --> 02:07:14.440 or is it not within our purview when if it isn't within our purview i would like to know 02:07:14.440 --> 02:07:23.000 if anything realistically could be done to mitigate that risk i i think that that uh that 02:07:23.000 --> 02:07:31.640 that legally the answer would be that you could impose qualifications conditions and what have you 02:07:33.160 --> 02:07:40.920 but they would have to be based upon and informed by the evidence that has been presented to you 02:07:40.920 --> 02:07:51.720 i do okay so that red circle evidence the red circle is is evidence that's been presented to you 02:07:51.720 --> 02:08:00.680 and and will be part of the record because it was it was shown to you but you know as far as unknown 02:08:00.680 --> 02:08:08.280 information uh that unknown information or supposition is not evidence before we will 02:08:08.280 --> 02:08:17.400 we will meet tomorrow to discuss the last debate and so i this is the applicant's opportunity 02:08:17.400 --> 02:08:22.040 to make a suggestion in that regard if they think it would be helpful 02:08:24.920 --> 02:08:31.160 um i think we should discuss that you know the engineers are here i'll have to talk to the owner 02:08:31.160 --> 02:08:38.520 the ownership and see you know um not sure what would be feasible but there might be something 02:08:38.520 --> 02:08:43.560 feasible i i totally understand where you're going and i will commit to you to explore that 02:08:43.560 --> 02:08:51.160 i i think just kind of following on with that it the law does not require a winner-take-all 02:08:51.160 --> 02:08:59.320 right type of situation and and uh so bearing that in mind that that i think the question 02:08:59.320 --> 02:09:06.280 is is probably very valid because as things stand right now for the applicant to gain any relief 02:09:06.280 --> 02:09:13.400 they would require six of you to agree that they're entitled to it right but also again coming from 02:09:13.400 --> 02:09:20.040 b and c experience you have to be specific you have to state you have to clearly state what it is you 02:09:20.040 --> 02:09:26.920 have in an engineering sense what the materials are what the height's going to be how thick it is 02:09:26.920 --> 02:09:35.240 and i don't know how in this short in the next 24 hours again miss lee yes i was just going to 02:09:35.240 --> 02:09:43.560 say five years ago you would have had no problem because we banned it and i feel sorry that you do 02:09:43.560 --> 02:09:51.160 have this problem at all because you would not have had that we have changed our ordinances 02:09:51.160 --> 02:09:55.480 uh one question for the city and i said you don't want to testify as a witness i don't know 02:09:55.480 --> 02:09:59.240 when did the city decide that the project was complete 02:09:59.240 --> 02:10:04.840 i'm sorry kind of go back 02:10:10.040 --> 02:10:19.160 that question could be taken two different ways are you asking when was the project completed 02:10:19.160 --> 02:10:26.280 or are you asking when the city came to the realization that the project had been completed 02:10:26.280 --> 02:10:37.320 in the past i i yes so uh the second and the first uh because you know the first was when did 02:10:37.320 --> 02:10:41.640 the city decide that it was complete like when did the city make the determination 02:10:41.640 --> 02:10:48.920 as of today we recognize that it's complete was that before or after we've had these other home 02:10:48.920 --> 02:10:57.320 permits put on there is this a recent we have these emails is this you know in september we said that 02:10:57.320 --> 02:11:04.040 that's when they and did you look did you go back and then backdate that and say hey this was 02:11:04.040 --> 02:11:09.560 actually completed in 2001 or whatever so yes when did they just when did the city 02:11:09.560 --> 02:11:15.240 make that decision and what day did they when did they decide that the project actually was completed 02:11:15.240 --> 02:11:28.840 you know i i think that you could go ahead and testify with that richer i mean the simple question 02:11:28.840 --> 02:11:32.840 simple answer is what we got a formal application that's when the determination was made when it 02:11:32.840 --> 02:11:37.640 was looked at building permit but but i i want to i want to bring up something because 02:11:37.640 --> 02:11:46.040 the slide here the the original permit that was issued this was something that we have not looked 02:11:46.040 --> 02:11:52.200 at we did not have that as part of the original application but it but it brings up an interesting 02:11:52.200 --> 02:11:58.920 an interesting point if you look at chapter 32 of the debt and code ordinances 02:11:59.720 --> 02:12:07.000 which governs mobile home parks and rv parks going back to that that 81 sup approval one of the 02:12:07.000 --> 02:12:13.160 conditions of that approval was that the park be developed in in accordance with those standards 02:12:13.160 --> 02:12:20.280 so if you look at those standards again we still assert the project is complete 02:12:20.280 --> 02:12:25.960 but if you look at those standards there's a there's a certain requirement certain number of 02:12:25.960 --> 02:12:34.120 requirements one of those being a plot plan is required and the plot plan must show 32-39 02:12:34.120 --> 02:12:39.880 the plot plan shall be filed as required and shall show the following the number of location 02:12:39.880 --> 02:12:46.440 and size of all mobile homes and recreation vehicle stands and so again i i have not seen 02:12:46.440 --> 02:12:53.080 that this initial license or the plot plan that's associated with again the license was shown tonight 02:12:53.080 --> 02:12:59.720 on the slide but again i would assume again maybe that's not safe to do but if we issued a permit 02:12:59.720 --> 02:13:05.000 based upon the number of stands that were required to be shown on the plot plan it's my guess that 02:13:05.000 --> 02:13:11.880 that maximum was 76 what's also interesting is again depending where where the board decides 02:13:11.880 --> 02:13:16.440 one of the ironically one of the items that 02:13:19.480 --> 02:13:26.760 you do vest in is open space requirements under 245 this section of the code chapter 32 required 02:13:26.760 --> 02:13:35.560 a minimum of one acre a max at least eight percent of the gross site area which on this when it was 02:13:35.560 --> 02:13:42.840 initially approved would be approximately 1.01 acres of open space i think the area that's 02:13:42.840 --> 02:13:50.280 that's vacant now you know taking out the the right of way just a quick take off is is approximately 02:13:50.280 --> 02:13:58.840 2.7 acres is what i came up with and so i i bring that up in the fact that if it is found that we 02:13:58.840 --> 02:14:06.200 aired and they are vested that vesting would still be in those those standards that would apply if 02:14:06.200 --> 02:14:12.840 that makes any sense meaning that those open space standards so they they still may not be able to 02:14:12.840 --> 02:14:23.800 get to that 100 stand mark sort of kind of were dairy's example related to the parking lot you 02:14:23.800 --> 02:14:28.440 just because it was approved by the sqp doesn't necessarily mean you're able to get all of that 02:14:28.440 --> 02:14:34.200 they were still required to comply with all the standards contained in that and i just want to 02:14:34.200 --> 02:14:39.800 make sure that that i don't know if i mentioned this when i first spoke but i i did want to make 02:14:39.800 --> 02:14:47.320 sure that that i had both the presentation entered in into well really all the exhibits one through 02:14:47.320 --> 02:14:53.480 six from the backup it entered into the record exhibit seven being the powerpoint exhibit eight 02:14:53.480 --> 02:14:59.400 definitions that i read and then exhibit nine chapter 32 the current version that's that's 02:14:59.400 --> 02:15:06.520 on unity code now of the code ordinance that answered any additional questions 02:15:06.520 --> 02:15:10.600 thank you 02:15:10.600 --> 02:15:21.320 this is a public hearing is there anyone who would be compelled to speak 02:15:21.320 --> 02:15:26.520 anything we'd like to add that hasn't been discussed already 02:15:29.400 --> 02:15:37.800 so i believe at this point i closed the public hearing it's all right so we can deliberate it's 02:15:37.800 --> 02:15:44.200 now 707 look i'm sorry pardon me yeah sorry deliberate today or deliberate i don't know 02:15:44.200 --> 02:15:50.760 what i'm closing public hearing 707 so yeah one thing to say i just want to make sure of it sure 02:15:50.760 --> 02:15:58.280 i'm new to this too so new rule so what happens now do we go do we deliberate now and then come 02:15:58.280 --> 02:16:01.640 back and just raise our hands tomorrow that we're out of here or do we deliberate tomorrow 02:16:01.640 --> 02:16:10.520 i feel like there's more more information that we need specifically the specific timeline and the 02:16:10.520 --> 02:16:19.080 the the lot numbers that were mentioned you know where where are those um so i feel like 02:16:19.080 --> 02:16:23.400 we need a little more information obviously before we can go anyway which we can't do until tomorrow 02:16:23.960 --> 02:16:30.440 but are there any other i guess outstanding questions or concerns for staff or the applicant 02:16:30.440 --> 02:16:35.240 so when we come back tomorrow we have everything we need if we're going to get 02:16:35.240 --> 02:16:42.360 more information from the applicant i would like to see the suggestion as to how this could be 02:16:42.360 --> 02:16:52.120 mitigated through some kind of error okay in order to vote tomorrow would we want to set a time limit 02:16:52.120 --> 02:16:56.280 like saying to receive this information so that we have some other candidate 02:16:56.280 --> 02:17:01.640 i'm down on that but i don't know what's reasonable that's you know whatever 02:17:17.000 --> 02:17:27.560 the posting for tomorrow does not really appear to include taking additional evidence 02:17:27.560 --> 02:17:40.600 and testimony it appears to contemplate that a decision will be made and given that it doesn't 02:17:41.240 --> 02:17:48.600 it talks about a public meeting but not a public hearing okay and and so there's no mechanism to 02:17:48.600 --> 02:17:58.600 receive evidence within tomorrow's posting if the board of adjustment believes well first of all 02:17:58.600 --> 02:18:07.240 one the board of adjustment has to make determination on the evidence available to it 02:18:07.240 --> 02:18:13.880 there are sometimes in life when there's not enough evidence to overturn a decision 02:18:13.880 --> 02:18:20.680 and and and that's what's being asked is to overturn a decision 02:18:20.680 --> 02:18:34.680 as first of all second of all you know if if the board does decide that more information is 02:18:34.680 --> 02:18:47.480 necessary and it's going to have to be taken under some other posting other than the one that's set 02:18:47.480 --> 02:18:53.000 for tomorrow because tomorrow's posting which cannot be changed at this point in time and still 02:18:53.000 --> 02:19:02.040 afford you 72 hours advance notice to the public that that could not be done tomorrow 02:19:03.480 --> 02:19:13.800 you could perhaps you know ask if the applicant as as the the impellent with the burden of proof 02:19:13.800 --> 02:19:23.240 you know has additional information to submit to you today in terms of like say Mr. Higgins' 02:19:23.240 --> 02:19:34.840 proposal for some some mitigating measures that that that might work for them if you 02:19:34.840 --> 02:19:40.840 wanted to reopen the the hearing to allow for that additional testimony perhaps you could do that 02:19:40.840 --> 02:19:47.080 you know so i i i think you've you've you've basically got three options right now you could 02:19:47.080 --> 02:19:53.880 act on the basis of the evidence you have and and ask yourself whether that the the burden has been 02:19:53.880 --> 02:20:03.240 met to reverse the decision of staff and and and act on that tomorrow the other options would be 02:20:03.240 --> 02:20:15.240 to ask for the the public hearing to be continued to another date certain for you to receive 02:20:15.240 --> 02:20:23.560 additional testimony and act on that at yet another date after their after 02:20:23.560 --> 02:20:33.080 and and or you know to see if you wanted to reopen the hearing for today 02:20:33.080 --> 02:20:39.320 only and and see if you have to bring additional testimony one question 02:20:39.320 --> 02:20:42.840 is this a body that can receive cards in public meetings 02:20:45.880 --> 02:20:50.520 i know public hearing anyone can show up with or without you know there was a 02:20:50.520 --> 02:20:55.080 Cynthia there was a recent amendment on that wasn't there as far as you can 02:20:55.080 --> 02:21:00.680 i i don't know if it could be done by cards i believe it's by testimony is that correct 02:21:00.680 --> 02:21:10.040 i'm not sure the question a public hearing if you attend for example city council you 02:21:10.040 --> 02:21:13.960 wouldn't have to fill out a card at all but after everybody speaks if you wish to speak you can 02:21:14.600 --> 02:21:19.160 a public meeting however you can speak on items that are on the agenda if you file a card 02:21:19.160 --> 02:21:25.320 i don't know if our body functions the same manner this this body does not function in the same 02:21:25.320 --> 02:21:35.000 manner okay at all this would be an issue of you know if the question is can members of the public 02:21:35.000 --> 02:21:42.680 offer testimony in a public hearing i believe that there was a recent legislative change that 02:21:43.240 --> 02:21:51.880 does allow certain members of the public to to be heard during a zba hearing under certain 02:21:51.880 --> 02:21:58.840 circumstances we'd have we'd have to find that and and and look at that with a real razor's edge 02:21:58.840 --> 02:22:07.480 in response to a very specific question but uh you know i i i don't think it's one where 02:22:08.360 --> 02:22:15.880 i don't believe testimony could be given by members of the by a by a card and that 02:22:15.880 --> 02:22:20.600 that card of this is this isn't a matter of voting you know for who's in favor 02:22:20.600 --> 02:22:23.880 or is it supported right in other words 02:22:23.880 --> 02:22:32.360 so i guess i'm of the opinion that i i would like to 02:22:34.280 --> 02:22:41.560 make a decision on this tomorrow the reason being to your first point is um i i don't know 02:22:41.560 --> 02:22:49.560 if sufficient evidence was um or if all the evidence was produced to overturn uh the staff's 02:22:49.560 --> 02:22:57.720 decision yes there were a list of of lots that were included since 2002 but they could have been 02:22:57.720 --> 02:23:05.800 anywhere on that property and my my hunch is that given the scrutiny that every gas well permit gets 02:23:05.800 --> 02:23:11.240 in st. denton over the last 10 years that we've lived here trying to pass an ordinance that works 02:23:11.240 --> 02:23:17.160 for both gas well operators and surface owners my hunch is that that was that would have been caught 02:23:17.160 --> 02:23:25.800 by the planning department so my i feel like we have the information we we need to make a decision 02:23:25.800 --> 02:23:31.560 tomorrow but i am only one person on a six-member board and so i don't know if you all would like 02:23:31.560 --> 02:23:36.200 to postpone have another public hearing so that we can continue to hear testimony or 02:23:36.200 --> 02:23:44.440 the only sticking issue to that is that the city's position addressed on one of these five or six 02:23:44.440 --> 02:23:51.640 and six conditions that whether the project is dormant or not and seeing that additional 02:23:51.640 --> 02:23:56.200 information would allow us to make a better determination if we agree with the issue of 02:23:56.200 --> 02:24:21.960 dormance sure that's the only thing i absolutely hang on is it your contention that the project's 02:24:21.960 --> 02:24:27.960 dormant because i don't believe it's the city's contention that the project's oh i'm sorry i may 02:24:27.960 --> 02:24:35.640 have stated that long the city says it's complete okay yeah sorry the city says it's complete and 02:24:35.640 --> 02:24:40.120 the position of the property owners that you know it's an ongoing 02:24:40.120 --> 02:24:45.960 phase development right and so and so the issue of completeness 02:24:47.960 --> 02:24:54.200 if we saw that the city was continuing to approve new pad sites and it's ongoing 02:24:54.200 --> 02:25:01.720 right well i don't think that that's uh you know i certainly don't think that that's correct 02:25:01.720 --> 02:25:09.320 according to the law i think that the the project can be complete uh like for example you know if 02:25:09.320 --> 02:25:17.560 you know you might have a residential subdivision that you can go back to your parking lot analogy 02:25:17.560 --> 02:25:23.480 or you can do that if you want to but say let's say that it was a a single family subdivision 02:25:23.480 --> 02:25:29.320 i mean the plat gets approved the public infrastructure is put into place uh the the 02:25:29.320 --> 02:25:37.400 plat's recorded uh you know but maybe not all the houses are built yet uh you know is is is the 02:25:37.400 --> 02:25:46.440 subdivision complete it is the it is the development complete uh even though a builder may put a house 02:25:46.440 --> 02:25:53.640 on an empty at some point in the future we have subdivisions all over town where they have empty 02:25:53.640 --> 02:25:59.000 lots i hate to be a sticker i know i'm probably out of order but since the public hearing is closed 02:25:59.000 --> 02:26:07.960 mr drake is going to testify as a fact witness i'm not i'm not just i'm giving and uh a position 02:26:07.960 --> 02:26:17.720 that's based on law uh and certainly i'll be happy to disclaim any kind of testimony uh because i 02:26:17.720 --> 02:26:25.560 don't think i've offered any facts uh from this case uh if you disagree i mean i'll be happy to 02:26:25.560 --> 02:26:32.200 revisit and disabuse any any statements you think was factual related to this case 02:26:34.680 --> 02:26:39.880 i think it seems to me it's time you know the board did deliberate well and that's what we're 02:26:39.880 --> 02:26:44.040 trying to determine because the rules have changed this would be the time that we would normally 02:26:44.040 --> 02:26:48.840 deliberate but i think we've deliberate tomorrow so we're trying to figure out do we deliberate 02:26:48.840 --> 02:26:54.520 tomorrow or in 72 hours i don't see why we can't deliberate tonight and we can't vote tonight so 02:26:54.520 --> 02:26:58.600 yeah if we have questions that we want to talk to each other i think we're fine with that and again 02:26:58.600 --> 02:27:07.160 tomorrow sure yeah i i've got an obligation to advise the board on legal issues so we can 02:27:07.160 --> 02:27:12.840 deliberate tonight does that like i just i've this is a new thing and so i don't yeah it is a new 02:27:12.840 --> 02:27:18.680 thing it's new for all of us and it's new for me uh to be realized we can deliberate tonight and 02:27:18.680 --> 02:27:24.920 we can deliberate tomorrow the decision comes tomorrow yes no do we go home and deliberate 02:27:24.920 --> 02:27:32.600 tomorrow well i want to make sure that uh posting for tomorrow i just didn't call the public meeting 02:27:32.600 --> 02:27:37.080 and issue a decision regarding an appeal of an administrative decision regarding vested rights 02:27:37.080 --> 02:27:42.920 related to the applicability of gas well reverse setback and separation distance requirements to a 02:27:42.920 --> 02:27:50.440 mobile home park the subject property is approximately i have it right here cynthia what what your thought 02:27:50.440 --> 02:27:57.880 yeah i and richard you gave as as well i i don't see anything that would prohibit the commission 02:27:57.880 --> 02:28:07.240 from deliberating i think you can deliberate tonight on the basis of this posting uh the 02:28:07.240 --> 02:28:13.480 the only the only limitation is that you have to come to your decision tomorrow that's so weird 02:28:14.840 --> 02:28:23.000 it is well can i can backtrack to one of our other options if we did go down the avenue of 02:28:23.000 --> 02:28:32.200 postponing what are the parameters for that to set another hearing it would be to continue a the 02:28:32.200 --> 02:28:40.760 public hearing to some date in the future a date certain and receive testimony on that date as well 02:28:41.320 --> 02:28:48.440 and then you would also have to find another time when the same six commissioners who heard this 02:28:48.440 --> 02:28:58.360 evidence could reach a decision on the case that would be to allow them to bring back the additional 02:28:58.360 --> 02:29:04.120 evidence that we originally requested that we're not going to hear tonight is that correct if you 02:29:04.120 --> 02:29:11.320 were to do that you you would be continuing it to to receive additional evidence if you feel that 02:29:11.320 --> 02:29:19.800 that is appropriate here but it will require setting another date for you to reach a decision 02:29:19.800 --> 02:29:27.720 and i i think you're going to have to have the same commissioners to cite the appeal who heard the 02:29:27.720 --> 02:29:36.840 evidence i'm sure if i may just ask for just for clarification item um because i know there's a lot 02:29:36.840 --> 02:29:41.240 of additional information that was presented this evening and additional information that's being 02:29:41.240 --> 02:29:47.720 requested i just want to make sure i understand correctly again we we issued a vested rights 02:29:47.720 --> 02:29:52.840 determination based on what was submitted as part of exhibit one that was the information that we 02:29:52.840 --> 02:29:57.960 had that we based our decision off of i know there's been additional information brought uh as part 02:29:57.960 --> 02:30:04.200 of the presentation and discussed so i just want to make sure that there's additional information 02:30:04.200 --> 02:30:09.480 that's being requested again that was not part of the record that we had submitted that was the 02:30:09.480 --> 02:30:15.880 basis for this appeal i just wanted to point that out that's a good point as well so it may it may 02:30:15.880 --> 02:30:26.040 be in the applicant's interest to postpone rather than force a decision now well i i think that 02:30:26.040 --> 02:30:39.160 that legally mr canoni's point is that the the the appeal is based upon the information that was 02:30:39.160 --> 02:30:47.720 known to staff and known to the applicant and and and so that determination was made by the city 02:30:47.720 --> 02:30:56.040 manager and and he issued a letter on that basis to receive additional information outside of what 02:30:56.040 --> 02:31:08.840 was considered in the context of that appeal uh you know maybe contrary to the process itself are we 02:31:08.840 --> 02:31:15.160 saying that the city only looks at what was handed in a packet to them they don't look at their 02:31:15.160 --> 02:31:23.480 permits or any of the anything that they've done no sir only look on that so no sir what i'm saying 02:31:23.480 --> 02:31:30.600 what we're asking for is city information right we're asking for their behavior issuing permits 02:31:30.600 --> 02:31:39.160 what have you so we're not asking for information outside of the city access the city had access to 02:31:39.160 --> 02:31:47.320 make their decision understood that and that's that's a valid point as well uh you know i think the 02:31:47.320 --> 02:31:57.080 point that mr canoni raised is that uh if this additional information was not part of the the 02:31:57.080 --> 02:32:06.200 initial staff determination and so uh i think the argument would be uh if i'm saying this right mr 02:32:06.200 --> 02:32:15.880 canoni that the um the the the determination that's being appealed was not informed by this 02:32:15.880 --> 02:32:24.200 additional evidence and so it might be a different staff determination uh with 02:32:24.200 --> 02:32:31.960 additional evidence from the applicant or from other sources whether it's the city's information 02:32:31.960 --> 02:32:40.680 or whoever's uh who's ever uh information it is uh it may it that may result in a different 02:32:40.680 --> 02:32:47.240 staff determination that is subject to appeal before so but i just i just i want to make sure 02:32:47.240 --> 02:32:52.600 i'm accurate i want to make sure i'm hearing you right correct so what i hear you saying is 02:32:52.600 --> 02:33:01.880 the city could have maybe not done a thorough job but because they chose not to do a thorough job 02:33:01.880 --> 02:33:08.280 and your your analogy use an analogy the city chooses not to do a thorough job and they come 02:33:08.280 --> 02:33:14.840 with a decision we have to be we have to make a decision based off of a non-thorough and not 02:33:14.840 --> 02:33:22.280 using all the resources did i hear that correct no not for me uh you know i i i would i did not say 02:33:22.280 --> 02:33:27.800 the city didn't do a job no no i didn't say the city did what i'm saying is what i heard you saying 02:33:27.800 --> 02:33:36.600 is if yeah if the city chooses not to do a thorough job in any case all right and so we have to in 02:33:36.600 --> 02:33:46.360 that decision is appealed based off of a non-thorough job 50 data use we can only look at that 50 in the 02:33:46.360 --> 02:33:53.640 appeal and not the other i i think that it is the appellate's responsibility to bring forward 02:33:53.640 --> 02:34:03.720 evidence showing that the city's decision was in error that that that's the burden of proof 02:34:04.520 --> 02:34:11.560 when you bring an appeal is is the burden of proof is upon you as an appellant to show 02:34:11.560 --> 02:34:17.400 that a prior decision was erroneous and and here is the evidence that shows that 02:34:17.400 --> 02:34:28.760 would it be okay if i ask a question 02:34:32.600 --> 02:34:41.320 uh i asked a factual question it's actually for you i think you could make a legal argument 02:34:41.320 --> 02:34:48.280 if that's fair uh well my really my question is what i think i interpret you as saying is that 02:34:48.280 --> 02:34:53.320 with additional information we can ask for another 02:34:53.320 --> 02:35:00.840 vested rights determination and see where that goes and in the meantime maybe this proceeding 02:35:00.840 --> 02:35:06.760 would be held over while that goes on and then we come back see where we are that's an interesting 02:35:06.760 --> 02:35:16.680 point because i i don't think that there's anything that that limits uh you know how many times an 02:35:16.680 --> 02:35:22.120 appeal of a staff of different staff determination you brought in other words the fact that you 02:35:22.120 --> 02:35:29.480 appealed this staff determination does not uh to my knowledge anyway prohibit anyone from appealing 02:35:29.480 --> 02:35:40.840 a subsequent staff determination if if that makes sense what is what is your position on that i mean 02:35:40.840 --> 02:35:47.240 you agree or disagree there i have no reason to disagree okay based on your discussions sounded 02:35:47.240 --> 02:35:51.960 like i think everybody in the room is that there's more information out there that would be 02:35:51.960 --> 02:36:04.040 beneficial just trying to see how how do we best take that in so 02:36:04.040 --> 02:36:11.400 is it being suggested that this particular appeal be withdrawn and a new one submitted 02:36:11.400 --> 02:36:21.160 i did suggest that is that kind of what you're suggesting yeah go ahead you 02:36:21.160 --> 02:36:26.520 meet me oh she just in other words rather than deliberate and decide on what we have 02:36:26.520 --> 02:36:33.080 that's allow them to redo it that's not for me to say or comment on i don't think that's i think 02:36:33.080 --> 02:36:40.840 that's outside my scope i believe this appeal is under this commission's authority and jurisdiction 02:36:40.840 --> 02:36:48.920 now okay i don't think that anybody can take away that jurisdiction others in the commission itself 02:36:51.640 --> 02:36:57.560 so we we are to determine the outcome of this they couldn't they couldn't reapply is that what 02:36:57.560 --> 02:37:06.440 you're saying with new evidence the new evidence is being presented here and now we decide on this 02:37:06.440 --> 02:37:14.120 the commission will need to decide this appeal that's under its jurisdiction on the basis of 02:37:14.120 --> 02:37:21.880 on the basis of the evidence before whether the commission decides to continue the public hearing 02:37:21.880 --> 02:37:29.560 for additional information is a matter for the commission to decide however mr kanoni's point is 02:37:29.560 --> 02:37:37.480 that if you're asking for information that was not considered by the staff in reaching his decision 02:37:37.480 --> 02:37:45.480 by the appellant in appealing the decision and by the city manager in initially ruling on that 02:37:45.480 --> 02:37:54.920 appeal i believe his point is that that that would not be appropriate with respect to this 02:37:54.920 --> 02:38:04.680 so we heard the evidence tonight yes so if we opened the public hearing if we had another public 02:38:04.680 --> 02:38:10.600 hearing would that that would be out of order i think that that would be out of order because 02:38:10.600 --> 02:38:16.600 because that's not what they considered they would have to he has to reapply and then possibly 02:38:16.600 --> 02:38:25.640 reappeal okay so in other words we're coming back tomorrow to make a decision right because the city's 02:38:25.640 --> 02:38:31.160 review of it was layer one and ours is layer two okay so if there's a bunch of new evidence brought 02:38:31.160 --> 02:38:38.680 in we'd need to go back to layer one is the idea if i may i just want to sort of reaffirm a statement 02:38:38.680 --> 02:38:44.600 that i had made previously we reviewed it based upon what was submitted that's provided i believe 02:38:44.600 --> 02:38:50.920 that's exhibit one in the as part of the staff report what we did not review it as for compliance 02:38:50.920 --> 02:38:56.760 however however the board decides to vote if the board decides to say yes they are 02:38:56.760 --> 02:39:01.640 they are vested what we did not do is look at it for compliance with what they would have been 02:39:01.640 --> 02:39:07.080 vested in so that that has not been done um and there's a dish there's a number of requirements 02:39:07.080 --> 02:39:11.800 there's a 5 000 square foot minimum i think for each pad say there's a there's a multitude of 02:39:11.800 --> 02:39:19.560 standards that would would apply that we have not we have not uh we did not do and the families have 02:39:19.560 --> 02:39:29.960 an opportunity to respond with all this so i i guess then if i understand there's so much legal 02:39:29.960 --> 02:39:38.520 talk in here so if i understand this correctly then we're where we would be out of order to have 02:39:38.520 --> 02:39:45.320 another public hearing but we can come back tomorrow to continue to deliberate and make a decision 02:39:46.120 --> 02:39:54.600 based on what we heard tonight is that correct okay and not accept new information not okay so 02:39:54.600 --> 02:40:01.320 where those lot numbers are and the exact timeline that would be information that we would have been 02:40:01.320 --> 02:40:06.360 very helpful for us to make a determination tonight it was not presented and so therefore 02:40:06.360 --> 02:40:12.120 we are tasked tomorrow with making a decision based on what was presented tonight is that 02:40:13.880 --> 02:40:23.000 we all got that much at least good job okay um is there are there any other points that need to be 02:40:23.000 --> 02:40:26.440 i feel like when we're deliberating whether or not we could continue to deliberate and i think 02:40:26.440 --> 02:40:30.920 that's we've we've determined that is there anything else that's like just 02:40:30.920 --> 02:40:37.080 you're burning the itch to say like tonight you should be out we've done and we'll come back 02:40:37.080 --> 02:40:42.920 tomorrow just one thing i think public meeting means we can talk yes absolutely before we both 02:40:42.920 --> 02:40:49.560 right yes will guys be here tomorrow if we have questions for them tomorrow or no well i will 02:40:49.560 --> 02:40:56.760 we do that's taking testimony yeah that's taking testimony which is not posted for you to take 02:40:56.760 --> 02:41:03.560 testimony receive that right so just us tomorrow okay and they can be here we just can't talk 02:41:03.560 --> 02:41:06.600 on either side right right 02:41:09.080 --> 02:41:14.920 so we can't we can't have more questions of staff or the applicants one i think that that's true i 02:41:14.920 --> 02:41:21.880 think that uh you know to the extent that you wanted to ask about procedures or or the law 02:41:21.880 --> 02:41:29.160 you know something that is not evidence in this particular case if you want to say you know how 02:41:29.160 --> 02:41:39.560 does this ordinance work or how does this provision of the of the ddc work or or ask about that that's 02:41:39.560 --> 02:41:50.040 not evidence that's directly relevant to this appeal i i have one more question to to them before 02:41:50.040 --> 02:41:58.120 we leave tonight can i ask that the public hearing be reopened for that oh sure absolutely yeah i'll 02:41:58.120 --> 02:42:02.840 reopen the public hearing now instead of 34 miss meissner has a question for the applicant 02:42:02.840 --> 02:42:07.880 so i'll wait for you to get up to the podium 02:42:07.880 --> 02:42:18.200 so in your process uh were you aware of the new denton city code development 02:42:18.200 --> 02:42:23.320 codes in in regards to the gaswell setbacks and reverse setbacks when they came about 02:42:25.480 --> 02:42:31.720 when those were adopted yes uh no i'm only become aware of those 02:42:31.720 --> 02:42:36.120 in the course of work known as very specific manner okay 02:42:36.120 --> 02:42:44.200 i work in cities all over north oasis so i haven't done anything 02:42:44.200 --> 02:42:48.600 was the owner aware i can't answer the question 02:42:52.280 --> 02:42:56.760 so okay i won't speculate further on that you answered my question thank you 02:42:56.760 --> 02:43:02.440 close the public hearing again now one minute later 7.35 thank you 02:43:02.440 --> 02:43:11.640 thank you how y'all doing my brain is mushed it was a lot of information 02:43:11.640 --> 02:43:19.000 um are there any other this is your chance any other questions for staff or the applicant 02:43:19.880 --> 02:43:24.760 before we come back to our meeting why is it necessary to come back we're not going to have 02:43:24.760 --> 02:43:39.080 new information it's weird it's so weird but yes yeah yeah are we good okay um i have so many 02:43:39.080 --> 02:43:51.320 papers uh i don't know where my agenda is thank you is that it okay all right so with that we're 02:43:51.320 --> 02:43:58.040 moving on so that was item 4a we're moving on to item five are there any concluding items uh 02:43:58.040 --> 02:44:04.920 that we would like to mention for the public record any questions future discussions yes 02:44:07.080 --> 02:44:14.600 talk about earlier and this is changing the times for the meetings have a conversation 02:44:14.600 --> 02:44:23.000 about changing the time i am so feeling that yes there we go five five well the the special 02:44:23.000 --> 02:44:29.240 call meeting is set um yes absolutely well what i'll do is uh we'll reach out to y'all 02:44:35.400 --> 02:44:40.280 anything else no but 5 30 next semester i want to be able to get here before 02:44:40.280 --> 02:44:47.640 it's hard for me to get here before 5 32 i'm just an alternate so everybody we have to count 02:44:47.640 --> 02:44:54.840 i really like four let's debate right now yeah okay i think with that then uh we are going to 02:44:54.840 --> 02:45:03.000 wrap it up at 7 37 thank you everyone for your time tonight my goodness lulu you were amazing 02:45:03.000 --> 02:45:08.440 that the public record show that my daughter is an angel thank you everyone i'll see you tomorrow 02:45:08.440 --> 02:45:17.240 5 30 formally have to have emotion to it sure don't you do not sure just say that's it that's it