Mar 06, 2024 Zoning Board of Adjustments

BT WAS.

[00:01:49]

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER, ESTABLISH QUORUM]

MR. CHAIRMAN, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.

WE DO HAVE OUR NEW BOARD MEMBER, MR. ANDREW ALMAGUER. MISS ALEJANDRA.

ALEKSANDRA I APOLOGIZE.

RODRIGUEZ. MR. MARK GONZALEZ, YOU YOURSELF, MR. MARK MORAN, WE DO HAVE MR. MICHAEL CANTU, AS WELL AS MR. RUBIN AND MR. RONNIE CAVAZOS.

SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

CAN EVERYONE PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN PRAYER? LET US PRAY. HEAVENLY FATHER, WE COME TO YOU TODAY ASKING FOR YOUR

[A. Prayer]

HELP US TO ENGAGE IN MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION.

ALLOW US TO GROW CLOSER AS A GROUP AND NURTURE THE BONDS OF COMMUNITY.

FILL US WITH YOUR GRACE, LORD GOD, AS WE MAKE DECISIONS THAT MIGHT AFFECT OUR CITY AND CONTINUE TO REMIND US THAT ALL THAT WE DO HERE TODAY, ALL THAT WE ACCOMPLISH, IS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF OUR CITY.

WE ASK THESE THINGS IN YOUR NAME.

AMEN. AMEN. MR. CAN YOU PLEASE LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE?

[B. Pledge of Allegiance]

ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU. PLEASE BE SEATED.

[2. CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC NOTICE]

YES, SIR. MISTER CHAIRMAN, STAFF DID NOTIFY THE PUBLIC AS PER THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ON FRIDAY, MARCH THE 1ST, AT 5 P.M..

[3. OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST]

HE IS IN ANOTHER MEETING NEXT DOOR. BUT HE HAS ASKED US IF HE NEEDS.

IF HIS PRESENCE IS NEEDED.

JUST TO NOTIFY HIM, AND HE'LL COME ON DOWN.

OKAY. BUT EVERYBODY KNOWS.

KIND OF LIKE THE RULES OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE THAT HAS A CONFLICT WITH ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE GOING TO BE PRESENTED HERE TONIGHT? NO.

[4. PUBLIC COMMENTS]

[A. Public Comments are limited to three (3) minutes. If a resident desires to make a public comment, please notify the Chair Person prior to the start of the meeting. A spokesperson for large groups is required. We ask for everyone's cooperation in following these procedures.]

JUMPING INTO YOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.

IF A RESIDENT DESIRES TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE NOTIFY THE CHAIRPERSON PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING.

A SPOKESPERSON FOR A LARGE GROUP IS REQUIRED.

WE ASK FOR EVERYONE'S COOPERATION AND FOLLOWING THESE PROCEDURES.

[5. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE MEETING PROCEDURES USED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:]

STAFF WILL PRESENT ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE ITEM BEING CONSIDERED.

THE PARTY MAKING THE REQUEST MAY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION, AND MAY ADDRESS THE BOARD ON ANY ISSUES ARISING DURING THE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEM

[00:05:01]

THE USE OF A SPOKESPERSON FOR LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE WILL BE REQUIRED.

ONCE THE CHAIR CLOSES THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE BOARD MAY QUESTION ANYONE AND MAINTAIN ANY DISCUSSION WHICH CLARIFIES THE PROPOSAL AND WILL THEN TAKE WHAT ACTION IS BELIEVED TO BE APPROPRIATE. A MINIMUM OF FOUR VOTES ARE REQUIRED FOR AN ITEM TO BE APPROVED BY BOARD.

[6.]

[ELECTION OF OFFICERS]

CONSIDER APPOINTMENT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS BOARD CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.

AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION AND WE'LL BE VOTING ON THE BOARD CHAIR AS WELL AS VICE CHAIR.

MR. SHOULD WE START WITH SHOULD WE START WITH VICE CHAIR OR BOARD CHAIR? IT'S UP TO YOU. CHAIRMAN, WHETHER YOU WANT TO START WITH THE VICE OR THE CHAIR. TYPICALLY IT'S DONE WITH THE CHAIR FIRST AND THEN THE VICE SECOND.

OKAY. VERY GOOD. SO THEN AT THIS TIME, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP TO THE REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS.

I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE BOARD CHAIR.

MR. LOGAN, PROBABLY NEED YOUR GUIDANCE ON THIS ONE JUST BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, IT'S THE FIRST TIME IN MY POSITION WHERE I'LL BE OPENING IT UP.

WHAT? I WOULD JUST OPEN IT FOR DISCUSSION, IF THAT.

OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN NOMINATIONS.

OKAY. PERFECT. PERFECT.

OKAY. WELL, AT THIS TIME, I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR US TO DISCUSS IF THERE'S ANY ANY RECOMMENDATIONS, ANY QUESTIONS.

OPEN UP FOR FOR DISCUSSION.

AND THAT'S GOING TO BE FOR THE BOARD CHAIR.

ON BEHALF OF ANDREW I HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET.

I JUST HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET YOU ALL.

I DON'T KNOW, Y'ALL. SO I WOULD LIKE TO.

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO RELY ON, ON MOST OF YOU TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS. SO I'LL OPEN IT UP AND LEAVE IT TO, TO THE BOARD TO, TO MAKE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS SIDE? WELL, I WOULD RECOMMEND I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE MARK MORAN TO CONTINUE BEING OUR CHAIRPERSON. OKAY. SECOND, THANK YOU, MR. REESE. I ACCEPT. SECOND.

NO. SO AT THIS TIME GO AHEAD AND MOTION NO.

I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR FOR BOARD CHAIR MARK MORAN, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP VICE CHAIR FOR DISCUSSION.

CHAIRMAN. THERE IS GREGORY, WHO IS NOT HERE TODAY.

THAT IS CORRECT. SO THAT SHOULDN'T I GUESS IMPACT YOUR DECISION IF YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND HIM. THAT'S STILL UP TO THE BOARD TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT.

MARK. I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND MICHAEL CANTU AS A VICE CHAIR.

OKAY. WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR MR. MICHAEL CANTU TO BE VICE CHAIR.

I'LL SECOND THAT. DO WE HAVE. OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. REESE. SO AT THIS TIME, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD.

AND BEFORE I CLOSE THE ITEM.

I'M SORRY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER I'LL STILL KEEP IT OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE ITEM FOR VICE CHAIR. I HAVE A MOTION FOR MICHAEL CANTU TO BE VICE CHAIR BY MR. REESE. AND I HAVE A I MEAN, MR. GARZA. AND THEN I HAVE A SECOND BY MR. REESE. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES.

[7.]

MINUTES. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13TH, 2023 REGULAR MEETING. CAN I GET A MOTION ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE? FROM THE BOARD, I MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.

I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. CANTU TO APPROVE. CAN I GET A SECOND? I SECOND. ANDREW. ALMAGUER.

MR. ALMAGUER I GET A SECOND FROM MR. ALMAGUER.

[A. Consider Approval of the minutes for December 13, 2023 Regular Meeting]

[8.]

[00:10:06]

[Consider Variance to the City’s Unified Development Code Article 3, Section 3.102, Standards for Rural and Residential Development, being lot 12, Madison Park Phase II Subdivision, located at 3404 Madison Avenue, as requested by Rocass Homes, LLC]

[A.]

GOOD EVENING. ALEX GONZALEZ, PLANNER TWO.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 3.102, AS IT APPLIES TO SETBACKS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED BUILDING STANDARDS.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A ONE FOOT REDUCTION OF THE SEVEN FOOT SIDE SETBACK, AND A FIVE FOOT REDUCTION OF THE 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK.

THE PROPERTY IS PART OF THE MADISON PARK PHASE TWO SUBDIVISION THAT WAS RECORDED BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF 2017. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT THIS LOCATION, WITH A SIX FOOT SIDE SETBACK AND A TEN FOOT REAR SETBACK.

THE MADISON PARK PHASE TWO SUBDIVISION HAS THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS.

IT HAS 25FT IN THE FRONT, SEVEN FEET IN THE SIDES, AND 15FT IN THE REAR. STAFF MAILED A NOTICE OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST TO 3838 NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, AND WE RECEIVED NO COMMENTS IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS REQUEST AT THE TIME THE REPORT WAS PREPARED.

THE PROPOSED PLACEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE SLIGHTLY ENCROACHES INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACKS BY ONE FOOT INTO THE SEVEN FOOT SIDE SETBACK AND FIVE FEET INTO THE 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK, AS INDICATED IN THE SUBDIVISION.

PLOT NOTES. WHILE THIS SIDE YARD SETBACK ALIGNS WITH PHASE ONE OF THE SUBDIVISION AND THE RESIDENTIAL PRIMARY DISTRICT, THE REAR YARD SETBACK DEVIATES FROM THE NORM AND IT CONTRASTS WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ONE FOOT REDUCTION OF THE SEVEN FOOT SIDE SETBACK, AND DISAPPROVAL OF THE FIVE FOOT REDUCTION OF THE 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK.

IF APPROVED, THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY REPRESENTING LLC THAT WOULD LIKE TO? YES, SIR. WOULD YOU LIKE TO STEP UP AND SAY ANYTHING TO THE BOARD IN REFERENCE TO YOUR YOUR REQUEST? YES. HI, DEAR CHAIRMAN.

DEAR BOARD MEMBERS. I'M HERE TO REQUEST A VARIANCE STANDARD SIDE SIDE SETBACKS.

IT'S SEVEN FEET AND I'M REQUESTING TO BE AT SIX FEET, WHICH IS NOWADAYS IN A REGULAR NEIGHBORHOOD.

SIX FEET IS A STANDARD SETBACK.

AND I'M REQUESTING FIVE FEET ON THE BACK AS A GOING IN.

I'M NOT ENCROACHING ONTO THE EASEMENT, BUT I'M REQUESTING FIVE FEET ON THE BACK OF THE LOT, AND I'M PLANNING HERE TO BUILD MY NEXT MODEL HOME.

WE WANT THE PARADE OF HOMES LAST YEAR, AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY TO HAVE A GREAT HOUSE, WHICH IS GOING TO BE YOU KNOW, AN EX MODEL HOME FOR US HOMES HERE.

THERE'S GOING TO BE BUILT.

OKAY. SO I APPRECIATE IF YOU TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. BUT I WANT TO TAKE ONE ITEM AT A TIME. WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE THE SIDE SET BACK FIRST, AND THEN WE'LL DO THE THE FIVE FOOT REDUCTION IN THE REAR.

SO WE'LL START OFF WITH THE, WITH THE SIDE. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. AT THIS TIME FROM ANYONE FOR THE SIDE SETBACK GOING FROM 7 TO 6.

I HAVE A QUESTION. HAS THE HOA BEEN INFORMED OR HAVE THEY ISSUED APPROVAL OR ANY COMMENTS? I'M SORRY. DO YOU MIND STEPPING UP TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE? THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AND I FORGOT TO ASK YOU FOR YOUR NAME EARLIER.

THANK YOU, MR. MORENO. YEAH, I SPOKE TO NORMA GARCIA. SHE'S THE ONE IN CHARGE OF THE BOARD THERE AT THE HOA, THE HOA AND THE MADISON PARK.

AND SHE KNOWS ABOUT ME REQUESTING THE VARIANCE FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOT.

I'M ACTUALLY ALSO BUILDING THE HOUSE NEXT TO IT, WHICH YOU CAN SEE ON THE ON THE PICTURE IS GOING TO BE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE. AND THAT HOUSE IS ALREADY IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND I'M BUILDING THAT HOUSE AT THE MOMENT RIGHT NOW. OKAY, SO SHE'S WELL INFORMED ABOUT ME ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOT BY CHANCE. DID SHE PROVIDE ANYTHING IN WRITING AFTER ABOUT THE DISCUSSION OR HER BEING OKAY, OR THE BEING OKAY WITH THE ONE FOOT REDUCTION?

[00:15:04]

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME ON THIS ITEM? NO QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT.

AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS ITEM AND ASK FOR A MOTION FROM THE BOARD.

I WOULD. I MEAN, I WOULD SAY THAT WE TABLE THIS UNTIL WE GET APPROVAL, DOCUMENT AND APPROVAL FROM THE HOA.

I SEE THE CITY'S FINE WITH THE ENCROACHMENT ON THE ON THE SIDE.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR FOR THE CITY.

WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR NOT APPROVING, APPROVING THE SIDE SETBACK, ENCROACHMENT AND NOT THE REAR SETBACK ENCROACHMENT? SO THIS PROPERTY IS PART OF OUR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH ALLOWS FOR A SIX FOOT SIDE SETBACK.

SO THAT IS THE REASON WHY WE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR THE SETBACK IN THE REAR SETBACK.

OUR CURRENT STANDARDS DO CALL FOR A 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK, AND THE PLAT CALLS FOR A 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK.

SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THE REAR.

OKAY. I GUESS FOR ME, I'LL BE OKAY WITH IT IF WE GET DOCUMENTED APPROVAL FROM HOA. OKAY, SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION WITH APPROVAL PENDING WITH THE CONTINGENCY OF RECEIVING THAT LETTER? OR ARE YOU STILL WANTING TO TABLE UNTIL WE RECEIVE THE LETTER? I WOULD LIKE TO TABLE IT UNTIL WE RECEIVE THAT LETTER.

OKAY. I THINK THAT'S A YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THAT.

I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA.

ACTUALLY I'D LIKE TO ALSO HEAR FROM THE HOA.

OKAY. MR.. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION? I MOTION TO TABLE THE ITEM AND ASK THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE HOA SO THAT WE COULD RECEIVE THAT.

AND LOOK AT THIS AGAIN.

AND THIS IS FOR THE SEVEN FOOT.

THIS IS FOR THE SIDE SETBACK AT THIS TIME.

SO I HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. CANTU TO TABLE THE ITEM FOR OUR NEXT MEETING, AND FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE PROOF FROM THE HOA THAT THEY ARE OKAY WITH THE ONE FOOT REDUCTION ON THE SIDE.

AND I HAVE MR. MCGUIRE WITH A SECOND.

I'LL SECOND THAT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

[B.]

MOTION CARRIES. GOING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.

SAME ITEM. SECOND REQUEST.

AND I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR THE FIVE FOOT REDUCTION IN THE REAR.

I MOTION TO ALSO TABLE THIS OKAY.

AND ASK THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTED APPROVAL FROM THE HOA BEFORE HEARING THIS AGAIN. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. CANTU TO TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL WE GET PROOF FROM THE HOA TO TO REVISIT THE ITEM, AND THEN I HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.

I'M SORRY, FROM MR. ALMAGUER.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION IS DENIED UNTIL WE GET THOSE DOCUMENTS.

MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

ITEM EIGHT. BE CONSIDER VARIANCE TO THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.

ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 3.102 STANDARDS FOR RURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BEING LOT 13 MCCALL ESTATES UNIT NUMBER TWO SUBDIVISION DIVISION LOCATED AT 1321 JOSLYN STREET, AS REQUESTED BY LTR CONSTRUCTION LLC.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 3.102, AS IT APPLIES TO SETBACKS FOR DUPLEX AND MULTIPLEX LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 0.9FT REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED TEN FOOT STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK.

THE PROPERTY IS PART OF THE MCCULLOUGH ESTATES UNIT NUMBER TWO SUBDIVISION THAT WAS RECORDED BACK IN APRIL 9TH OF 1973.

[00:20:02]

STAFF MAILED A NOTICE OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST TO 47 NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, AND WE RECEIVED NO COMMENTS IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AT THE TIME THE REPORT WAS PREPARED. THE SURVEY FOR THIS PROJECT OUTLINES A 0.9FT AND A 0.4FT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED TEN FOOT STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK.

A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN THE PROPOSED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON DECEMBER 19TH, 2023, WITH THE SETBACKS, ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S UDC, AS FOLLOWS WITH A TEN FOOT FRONT YARD, TEN FOOT REAR YARD, SIX FOOT SIDE YARD AND A TEN FOOT STREET SIDE YARD.

THE REDUCED SETBACK IS TO THE STREET SIDE AND NOT TO ANOTHER STRUCTURE.

FOR THAT REASON, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST AT THIS TIME, AND THE APPLICANT WOULD ALSO NEED TO COMPLY WITH ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT AT THIS TIME.

OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM LTR CONSTRUCTION INDIA? SIR, DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? APPROACH THE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

SO ESSENTIALLY WE ARE REQUESTING AN 11 INCH ON THE NORTH SIDE AND 6 TO 4IN ON THE WEST SIDE TO COME IN ON THE ON THE VARIANCE.

WE JUST FINISHED BUILDING THAT PROJECT IN THE BACK, THAT FOUR PLEX. RIGHT.

WE'RE WE'RE DOING CLEANING UP RIGHT NOW.

AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER PROJECT HERE IN EDINBURGH. SO. THAT'S ALL WE GOT 11 INCH ENCROACHMENT TO THE NORTH AND A SIX INCH TO THE WEST.

UP TO TEN FEET. AND IS FOR THE PROJECT THAT WE'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S THE NEW ONE. THE NEW FOURPLEX.

WHEN WAS THIS PHOTO TAKEN? A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. THIS WAS TAKEN A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH.

WITH THE TEAM. HI, EVERYONE.

MISS MYRA, WHICH IS IT IN RIGHT NOW? MAYBE. FOUNDATION. IS IT STILL ROOFING? WE'VE BEEN WAITING THE POOR FOUNDATION FOR ABOUT A WEEK NOW. OKAY. WEEK AND A HALF FOR THIS MEETING. SO WE CURRENTLY HAVE THREE PROJECTS HERE IN THE CITY OF EDINBURGH.

SO ALL THE ALL THE PLUMBING IS ALREADY IN THE ROOFING.

PLUMBING. IT'S WAITING ON REBAR AND READY TO POUR.

YEAH. IT'S NOT ENCROACHING OR ANY SETBACKS OR UTILITY EASEMENTS.

NOTHING LIKE THAT, RIGHT? NO, IT IS NOT ENCROACHING ON ANY EASEMENTS.

SO IT'S ON THERE ON THE SURVEY WE CAN SEE WE CAN SEE THE ENCROACHMENT.

THERE IS A SLIGHT ENCROACHMENT TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SURVEY.

IT'S SHOWING 9.1 AND 9.6 INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED TEN.

SO THE THE NORTHWEST CORNER IS COMING OUT 11IN.

OR 9.1 AWAY FROM THAT SIDEWALK.

SO IT WOULD BE 10.8IN AND 4.8IN.

CORRECT. JUST CURIOUS.

I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SETBACKS, BUT I WAS JUST KIND OF CURIOUS. I'VE PASSED BY THAT DEVELOPMENT, AND I HAVE NOTICED THAT THE SOME OF THE WINDOWS ARE JUST CLOSED, AND I'M JUST CURIOSITY FOR ME.

IS THAT PART OF THE DESIGN? WAS THAT PART OF THE DESIGN OR IT WAS JUST WHICH THE PROPERTY? YEAH. THE PROPERTY WINDOWS CLOSED.

YEAH. YEAH. THEY'RE KIND OF LIKE CLOSED UP.

MAYBE WITH SOME, SOME.

STONE ON SOME OF THE WINDOWS.

THE ONE HERE IN THE BACK. YOU MEAN LIKE THE, THE, LIKE STUCCO MOLDING THAT THAT ONE.

OH, IT'S JUST A DECORATIVE NICHE.

YEAH. THE SQUARE. YEAH.

THE STONE IS STONE. IT WAS JUST PART OF THE DESIGN.

JUST PART. OKAY. JUST CURIOUS. IT'S NO WINDOW.

OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NO. NO QUESTIONS.

BUT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO. EXCUSE ME. I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE ITEM AND ASK THE BOARD FOR A MOTION. I MOTION TO APPROVE.

I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MR. REESE. I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. MARK. THREE SECONDS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES.

AGAIN. APPROVAL, SIR. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

[C.]

[00:25:06]

HI. GOOD EVENING. AND PLANNER TWO FOR THIS EVENING.

WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE FIVE, SECTION 5.207.

AS IT APPLIES TO EASEMENTS, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING OVER A 30 FOOT UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENTS BETWEEN LOTS TWO AND THREE.

THE PROPERTY HERE IS LOCATED ON THE INTERSECTION OF WEST ALBERTA ROAD AND SOUTH SUGAR. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SHOWING A BUILDING OVER TWO LOTS THAT HAVE A 30 FOOT UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENT.

THE BUILDING PROPOSES 360FT IN WIDTH BY 102 IN DEPTH.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REPLAT AND REMOVE THE 30 FOOT UTILITY ACCESS EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET, BUT THEY HAVE A SENSE OF URGENCY ON STARTING THIS CONSTRUCTION.

SO THIS IS WHY THEY'RE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE FOR BUILDING THAT OTHER LARGE BUILDING OVER THOSE EASEMENTS.

THIS PROPERTY, THE PREMIUM HELIUM SPOT SUBDIVISION, WAS RECORDED BACK IN NOVEMBER 28TH, 2016.

NONE OF THE PROPERTIES THERE HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED SINCE THEN. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

OH, AND OUR STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE REPLAT IS COMPLETED WITH WITHIN 12 MONTHS.

CONDITION THAT THE REPLACEMENT WITHIN 12 MONTHS. YES, SIR. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM SOUTH TEXAS INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP HERE TODAY REPRESENTING THEM? NO. NO. NO, SIR.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN THEIR BEHALF IN THE PUBLIC.

I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT'S IN REFERENCE TO THIS. I'LL JUST WAIT. PROBABLY NOT.

I THINK THEY'RE STEPPING OUT. OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

IS THERE ANY INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE RIGHT NOW? YES. THERE'S A WATER RUNS THROUGH THE REAR.

THERE'S AN ELEMENTARY RIGHT BEHIND THESE LOTS.

SO ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS ALREADY IN PLACE.

AND THE, THE EASEMENT THAT THEY'RE BUILDING ON.

WHO DOES THAT BELONG TO? IT BELONGS TO THESE NEW PROPERTY OWNERS.

SO THE COMMON ACCESS IS BECAUSE OF ALL THESE LOTS AS THEY BUILT THEM TOGETHER BETWEEN LOTS ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, I THINK IT MAY GO UP TO SEVEN.

AND THE SUBDIVISION, THEY DECIDED TO DO SOME COMMON ACCESS IN BETWEEN THE LOTS.

SO NOW THESE GENTLEMEN THEY SO THEY'RE GETTING YOU KNOW, THEY'RE JUST IT'S JUST IT'S A INDIVIDUAL.

IT'S A COMMON AND IT'S A UTILITY EASEMENT.

WE CHECKED WITH ENGINEERING AND ALL THE ASPECTS DOESN'T IT DOESN'T SHOW ANYTHING THAT WOULD RUN THROUGH THERE. AND FOR SOME REASON IT WAS JUST A FIVE FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ON OUR ASPHALT THAT DOESN'T SHOW ANYTHING.

SO AT THE TIME, BACK IN 2016, 2016, WHEN THEY WERE RECORDED IT WAS BASICALLY JUST FOR THE COMMON ACCESS FOR INDIVIDUAL LOTS TO HAVE THE, EACH ACCESS IN CASE THIS HAPPENS, THEY SELL THE LOTS.

OKAY. SO I'M SORRY, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ON AND I'M APOLOGIZE I JUST GOT A COPY OF THIS.

SO I HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT MORE IN DEPTH.

BUT THE PLAT RESTRICTION THERE IS A PLAT RESTRICTION FRICTION CORRECT FOR NO NO STRUCTURES OVER THE THE EASEMENT.

SO WITH THE TIME THEY GO THROUGH REPLATTING OF THE LOTS THAT THEY PURCHASED, THEY WOULD HAVE A NEW PLAT WITH NEW PLAT NOTES AND REMOVE THE COMMON ACCESS EASEMENT THERE SO IT WILL NO LONGER BE THERE ONCE THEY GO THROUGH THE REPLATTING PROCESS.

BUT THAT DOES TAKE SEVERAL MONTHS HIRING THE ENGINEER AND WHATNOT.

SO AND SO THE THE WHAT THE REQUEST IS, IS THE REQUEST IS TO WHAT REPLAT THEN SO THIS THESE PROPERTIES ARE NO, THE REQUEST IS TO BUILD OVER AN EASEMENT.

SO YEAH, BETWEEN LOTS TWO AND THREE, THERE'S A 30 FOOT COMMON ACCESS THAT THAT RUNS THROUGH THERE. AND IF YOU SEE IT SHOWS RIGHT THROUGH A COUPLE SUITES ON GOING UP NORTH WHERE IT HAS BUILDING ONE.

[00:30:01]

BUT BECAUSE OF THOSE COMMON ACCESS, THEY WANT TO BUILD SOME MEDICAL OFFICES ALL ALONG. ALL THAT LARGE BUILDING.

SO LET ME ASK YOU THE PLAT.

THERE'S A PLAT RESTRICTION AND THEY'RE ASKING TO GO AHEAD AND BUILD OVER THAT RESTRICTION.

THAT'S ON THE PLAT. RIGHT.

YES. AND SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE.

NOW THE VARIANCE IS TO TO BUILD OVER.

AND OUR UDC CALLS FOR THE STRUCTURE.

I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION ON PLAT RESTRICTIONS VERSUS VARIANCES A VARIANCE LIKE WE'VE SEEN. WE HAVE LIKE SOMEONE WANTING TO HAVE VARY HAVE A VARIANCE ON A SETBACK, FOR EXAMPLE, OR MAYBE PERHAPS A FENCE LINE, A FENCE SAYING INSTEAD OF BEING THE ZONING REQUIREMENT REQUIRES FIVE FOOT, THEY WANTED OUT.

SIX THERE'S AN EXISTING CONDITION THAT THEY WANT TO VARY, RIGHT? HERE IS A PLAT RESTRICTION.

DOES THE DOES THE BOARD HAVE AUTHORITY TO, 42.

APPROVE A VARIANCE ON A PLAT RESTRICTION.

SO THAT PROBABLY WOULD BE MORE OF A LEGAL QUESTION BECAUSE I THINK BASED OFF OUR PREVIOUS I THINK I THINK IT COULD BE BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME OWNER.

SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY, BUT I UNDERSTAND ONCE IT GETS PLATTED.

SO YOU'RE GOING OFF OF WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE OUT THE INDIVIDUAL PLAT.

SO I THINK THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE REPLATTING PROCESS ON THEIR OWN IN THE EVENT THAT THEY GET THE VARIANCE. AND I'M ASSUMING HERE A LITTLE BIT AS WELL.

I'M TRYING TO MAKE SENSE, OF COURSE, OF THE VARIANCE AS WELL.

SO I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT'S WHAT IT IS SINCE THEY'RE THE OWNERS. AND THERE'S A REQUEST THAT THEY HAVE TO REPLAT THEN THE VARIANCE WILL HOLD BECAUSE ONCE THEY ONCE THEY REPLAT.

YEAH. SO THE LEGAL PART OF IT WOULD BE THE REPLATTING PROCESS TO REMOVE THAT EASEMENT.

AND THEN THAT NOTE WON'T APPLY TO THAT STRUCTURE ANYMORE.

AND I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

I'M ALSO TRYING TO. YEAH.

I GUESS THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS THAT THESE ARE ACTUALLY RESTRICTIONS AND THEY'RE A PLAT RESTRICTION IS LIKE A COVENANT, RIGHT? IT RUNS WITH THE LAND.

CORRECT. SO HERE WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE OF A PLAT RESTRICTION OF A COVENANT THAT ACTUALLY RUNS WITH THE LAND. SO THAT'S THE QUESTION I HAVE.

AND LIKE FOR COUNCIL TO MAYBE, YOU KNOW, TO LET US KNOW IS DOES THE BOARD HAVE AN AUTHORITY TO GRANT A VARIANCE ON A PLAT RESTRICTION? THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE.

NOW, I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A UTILITY EASEMENT.

SO IT'S A COMMON AND IT'S UNDER A COMMON ACCESS.

IT'S UNDERNEATH, YOU KNOW.

SO I CAN SEE HOW IT MAY NOT IMPACT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE MORE OF A POSITIVE AND A NEGATIVE IMPACT IN THIS SCENARIO.

BUT I STILL HAVE THAT.

I DO HAVE THAT QUESTION.

THAT'S A QUESTION THAT I HAVE.

WITH REGARDS TO THIS ONE, I THINK I KIND OF SAID IT.

THE THE OWNER OF THE PLAZA HAS CONTACTED SOUTH TEXAS INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP TO DO A REPLAT. THE REPLAT IS GOING TO TAKE ABOUT SIX MONTHS GIVE OR TAKE, BUT MORE THAN LIKELY IT'S GOING TO BE LONGER THAN THAT. THE ONLY REASON WE'RE CONSIDERING THIS ONE HERE TONIGHT IS BECAUSE THEY WANT A VARIANCE TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT.

AND THIS VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW THEM TO GET THAT BUILDING PERMIT. IF IF IT DOESN'T PASS HERE TONIGHT, THEY'RE STILL GOING TO DO THE PROJECT. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE REPLAT TO BE DONE.

THE REPLAT, IN ESSENCE, IS GOING TO REMOVE THAT ACCESS EASEMENT THAT WAS PUT ON THERE BY THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER BACK IN THE DAY.

RIGHT. YEAH. NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT POINT.

AND I AND I SEE I SEE WHERE THE BOARD I SEE WHERE STAFF IS REQUESTING OR Y'ALL ARE APPROVING THIS. RIGHT. WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL JUST BECAUSE OF THE, OF THE, OF THE TIME FACTOR. WE KNOW THAT IN SIX MONTHS IT'S NOT GOING TO NEED A VARIANCE BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE REPLANTED.

THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THE LOT DIMENSIONS ALSO BECAUSE THEY'VE SOLD OR THEY'RE WANTING TO SELL SOME LOTS A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN WHAT'S ALREADY RECORDED.

SO THIS IS JUST GOING TO BUY THEM TIME, I GUESS TO, TO MOVE THE PROJECT ALONG A LITTLE BIT QUICKER. MR. MCGUIRE, I'M SORRY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE MR. MAYOR DID GET YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. WELL, I DON'T THINK THE QUESTION WAS ANSWERED.

I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHY CITY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING IT.

IN THESE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, IT BEING THE UTILITY EASEMENT THAT'S UNDERNEATH, CAN'T SEE IT IMPACTING OTHERS.

IT'S MORE OF A POSITIVE FOR BUT THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT I HAD,

[00:35:02]

IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A UTILITY EASEMENT, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. BUT AN ACCESS EASEMENT, WE CAN KIND OF WORK WITH THE DESIGN OF THE OF THE PLAZA.

AND IT DOESN'T HOLD, I GUESS, AS MUCH WEIGHT AS A UTILITY EASEMENT BECAUSE I MEAN, IT JUST DOESN'T AND THAT'S THE REASON THAT WE RECOMMEND IT FAVORABLY.

IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A UTILITY EASEMENT, THEN THEY GOT TO RELOCATE THE LINES.

IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT BALLGAME. SO THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL QUESTION.

WAS THERE ANY INFRASTRUCTURE CURRENTLY RUNNING THROUGH THAT EASEMENT? NO, THERE IS NO INFRASTRUCTURE. AND THAT'S WHAT MADE OUR DECISION A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO RECOMMEND.

LIKE ONCE THEY GO THROUGH THE REPLATTING PROCESS, THEN THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH, THEY HAVE TO GO TO PNC AGAIN AND GET APPROVAL AND CORRECT. SO WE'RE KIND OF JUST ASSUMING THAT IT WILL GET APPROVED.

AND I SEE WHY. RIGHT. IT MAKES SENSE.

IT HAS TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP.

AND THAT'S WHAT KIND OF TRIGGERED ALL THIS, BECAUSE THE NEW OWNERS DON'T REALLY LIKE THE WAY THAT IT WAS DESIGNED.

SO THEY'VE HIRED AN ENGINEER TO START THE REPLATTING PROCESS, WHICH HAS ALREADY STARTED. RIGHT.

SO IT'S GOING TO CHANGE, BUT THIS GIVES THEM THE FLEXIBILITY TO APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT NEXT WEEK, RATHER THAN WAITING FOR HIS ENGINEER TO FINISH WITH THE REPLANT.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? IS THE PLAN TO START THE BUILDING? PORTIONS OF THE COMMERCIAL PLAZA? YES. AND BY THE TIME IT'S DONE.

HOW QUICK IS THE THAT COULD BE ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

THAT COULD BE ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TONIGHT, THAT WE APPROVE IT SUBJECT TO THE REPLAT. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WROTE, ISN'T IT? YEAH.

WE GAVE THEM 12 MONTHS. BUT IF YOU WOULD WISH TO GIVE THEM REPLAT IN 12 MONTHS IS THE RECOMMENDATION. SO SO THAT NEEDS TO BE COMPLIED WITH.

THAT HE HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE REQUEST, NO REPORTS.

WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM. I MEAN, THEY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, WE LOOK AT THEM.

AND IN THIS CASE, NOT TOO MANY THINGS WOULD CHANGE.

THE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD CHANGE ARE THE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS, BECAUSE THEY'RE A LOT STRICTER TODAY THAN THEY WERE BACK WHEN THIS PLAN WAS CREATED.

THE ENGINEER'S AWARE THAT THE THE DEVELOPER'S ALSO AWARE OF THAT.

SO THEY'RE OKAY WITH THOSE CHANGES. THEY'RE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO HAVE MORE ON SITE DRAINAGE. NOW THE THE ENGINEER DID SAY IT WAS GOING TO TAKE HIM SIX MONTHS, BUT WE PUT 12 MONTHS IN THERE JUST TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM TO BE ON THE SAFE SIDE, AS HAS CITY OF EDINBURG ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

MADE ANY COMMENTS ON PETER HAS SEEN IT, AND THE ONLY COMMENTS THAT THEY MADE WAS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO HAVE MORE DRAINAGE BECAUSE OF TODAY'S STANDARDS.

WHAT I JUST TOLD RONNIE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS CONCERNS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? I JUST STILL HAVE THAT QUESTION.

I GUESS THE QUESTION, THE ISSUE THAT I HAVE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD HAS AUTHORITY TO APPROVE A VARIANCE ON A PLAT RESTRICTION, WHETHER. I DON'T KNOW IF THE MECHANISM IS ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS APPROVAL OR ACTUAL REPLATTING, AND WE'RE TRYING TO BYPASS IT IN A CERTAIN WAY TO QUICKLY FACILITATE.

AND I GET IT, I UNDERSTAND IT.

I, I THINK IT'S I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT AT ALL.

I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE THAT.

AND THIS IS A DISCUSSION THAT I'VE HAD WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY, OMAR OCHOA, ON, ON, ON WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD HAS THE DISCRETION TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES WHENEVER THERE'S A PLAT NOTE. AND IN TALKING TO OMAR, THERE'S CASE LAWS FOR BOTH SIDES.

SO IT'S STILL KIND OF GRAY.

IT'S STILL NOT DEFINED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

WE'VE SEEN IT. WHERE WHERE THE RULING IS THAT THEY CAN MAKE A CHANGE.

AND WE'VE ALSO SEEN IT ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE.

IS IT IS IT FACT SPECIFIC OR IS IT A ISSUE SPECIFIC, OR IS IT IN GENERAL? IT'S JUST IN GENERAL.

WE'VE SEEN CASE LAW ON BOTH SIDES.

WHERE SOMETIMES THEY DO GRANT THEM, SOMETIMES THEY DON'T. AND THAT'S WHY WHEN THIS CAME UP WE DECIDED, WELL, LET'S BRING IT TO THE BOARD AND HAVE THEM DECIDE. THANK YOU.

[00:40:07]

ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE ITEM AND OPEN IT UP FOR A VOTE.

I MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT WHAT THEY WERE SAYING. I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST WITH A REPLY WITHIN 12 MONTHS. CORRECT.

IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

MR. SECONDS. THE MOTION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES.

[D.]

REMAIN SILENT. GOOD. OKAY, WE GET THAT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU.

WELL, I JUST WANTED TO. BEFORE WE MOVE ON. ON ADA.

I JUST WANT TO SHARE THE COUPLE. THAT OR THE FAMILIES THAT WERE HERE, WERE HERE ON THE ON THE MATTER OF THE SECOND ITEM THAT WE SAW, THE APARTMENT WITH THE SLIGHT VARIANCE ON THE SIDE, AND THEY WERE MORE CONCERNED WITH THE LAND USE.

ON WHY THERE'S APARTMENTS THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

I TOLD THEM THAT THAT WAS DECIDED PRIOR TO THIS MEETING WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED.

THAT WE WERE ONLY HERE TO CONSIDER THE ENCROACHMENT THAT WAS ON THE NORTH SIDE.

THEIR CONCERN WAS ALSO WITH THE SPACING REQUIREMENT FROM ONE STRUCTURE TO THE OTHER.

IN THIS CASE, THERE'S A 12 FOOT SEPARATION FROM THERE FROM FROM ONE OF THE LADIES PROPERTY TO THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.

AND I TOLD HER THAT IF THE VARIANCE THAT WAS CONSIDERED HERE TONIGHT WAS THE OPPOSITE WAY, WHERE THE ENCROACHMENT WAS ON THE SOUTH SIDE NEAR HER HOME.

WE WOULD HAVE RECOMMENDED AGAINST IT, BUT BECAUSE THE VARIANCE WAS ON THE NORTH SIDE FACING CHAPIN, WHERE THERE WAS A 15 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, AND THEN YOU HAVE A STREET, THERE'S NO THERE'S NOT REALLY A STRUCTURE ON THAT SIDE THAT THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE RECOMMENDED FOR THAT VARIANCE.

THEY WERE OKAY WITH IT. THEY WERE STILL A LITTLE BIT UNHAPPY THAT THEY MISSED THEIR SHOT AT COMING TO THE REZONING MEETING, TO THE REZONING MEETING.

BUT WE DID VERIFY THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ZONED PROPERLY FOR APARTMENTS, AND IT DID HAVE A CHANCE TO GO OUT THERE. THERE'S LIKE A MIXTURE. IT'S LIKE AN OLDER SUBDIVISION. IT'S GOT MOBILE HOMES STILL.

IT'S GOT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND NOW APARTMENTS.

SO THOSE ARE ALWAYS TOUGHER.

YEAH. FOR THAT EXACT REASON.

YEAH. AND THERE WAS SOME ISSUES ALSO WITH THE WITH THE PROPERTY PINS.

THAT'S WHAT KIND OF PROMPTED ALL THIS.

THEY, THEY DISCOVERED WHEN THEY DID A SURVEY THAT THE PROPERTY PINS WERE A LITTLE BIT OFF.

SO IT WASN'T TEN INCHES OFF LIKE THE ENCROACHMENT.

IT WAS JUST A COUPLE. BUT IT WAS STILL OFF A LITTLE BIT.

BUT THERE WERE MORE UPSET THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE CHANCE TO COME UP AND BE OPPOSED TO IT OR. NO, THEY JUST THEY WERE JUST THEY WERE SPANISH SPEAKING.

I NOTICED THEY STARTED RAISING THEIR VOICES AND YEAH, THEY WERE SPANISH SPEAKING AND THEY THEY WERE JUST, I GUESS, A LITTLE BIT YOU'RE RIGHT THAT THAT THEY WERE NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, BUT THEIR OPPOSITION WAS NOT ON THE WHAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED HERE TONIGHT. IT WAS ON THE LAND USE, ON THE FACT THAT THERE'S APARTMENTS BEING BUILT NEXT TO THEIR HOMES.

OKAY. MAYBE MY CONCERN WAS BECAUSE THERE WERE SPANISH SPEAKING, MAYBE THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, AND THAT COULD HAVE BEEN THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MAYBE THEY THOUGHT THIS WAS A REZONING FOR APARTMENTS. BUT I DID EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT THE WHAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED HERE TONIGHT.

THAT'S ALL I HAD. I WAS READY TO CALL 911.

I SAW, YOU KNOW, AND I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION BECAUSE AT THE PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MR. ANDREW ALMAGUER WAS APPOINTED AND PONCIANO WAS REMOVED FROM THE BOARD.

THAT IS CORRECT. WE HAD NOT PROPERLY GIVEN HIM A PACKET FOR THIS MEETING, BUT HE CALLED ME BEFORE THE MEETING AND I TOLD HIM, WELL, COME ON DOWN. YOU'RE YOU'RE A VOTING MEMBER. SO THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE IT.

GLAD HE MADE IT ON TIME AND WAS ABLE TO TAKE PART OF THIS MEETING HERE TONIGHT.

AND THEN, RONNIE CAVAZOS, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE SEE YOU HERE.

YOU'RE WELCOME. WELCOME TO THE BOARD.

MR.. BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO ITEM EIGHT, D, I KNOW YOU AND I HAD BRIEFLY DISCUSSED PRIOR TO THE MEETING, AM I ARE WE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE? ITEM EIGHT? D WAS AN ITEM THAT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION HERE TONIGHT.

THEY WERE REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO HAVE A SEPTIC TANK ON A PROPERTY INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS THAT DID NOT MEET THE MINIMUM HALF ACRE REQUIREMENTS FOR A SEPTIC TANK.

THAT'S A STATE LAW. SO THE USE WAS ALSO COMMERCIAL, SO IT MAKES IT EVEN HARDER FOR STAFF TO APPROVE SOMETHING GOING AGAINST A STATE LAW THAT DOESN'T IT. WHERE THE LOT DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMUM STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS.

SO THERE IS A PROCESS THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO GET APPROVAL FOR A COMMERCIAL LOT TO BE ON SEPTIC. IT'S A PRETTY LENGTHY PROCESS.

[00:45:03]

[9.]

THERE'S NO FURTHER ITEMS. NO. SO THE NEXT ITEM WOULD BE JUST INFORMATION ONLY.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS TO DISCUSS.

WE HAVE ATTENDANCE ROSTER. DID WE WANT TO DISCUSS THE ATTENDANCE ROSTER? IS THERE ANYTHING ON THERE THAT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED? THE ATTENDANCE. I THINK THE ONLY QUESTION THAT CAME UP IS BECAUSE MR. CAVAZOS HAD MISSED TWO MEETINGS IN A ROW.

SO AFTER THREE MEETINGS, YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THIS BOARD.

SO I'M GLAD THAT YOU MADE IT HERE TONIGHT. AND IF YOU EVER HAVE ANY, I GUESS IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE A MEETING, JUST LET STAFF KNOW A REASON.

WE'LL PRESENT IT TO THE TO THE BOARD AND IT WILL BE AN EXCUSED ABSENCE.

I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION NOW.

IS THIS THE CURRENT BOARD? AS IS. WE'RE MISSING. GREGORIO VASQUEZ IS MISSING.

MR. PONCIANO IS NO LONGER ON THIS BOARD.

CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. YEP. SO, YEP. THIS IS THE BOARD.

THE BOARD. MR. CAVAZOS, I'M GLAD YOU JOINED US, MR. MCGUIRE. GLAD YOU MADE IT.

PLEASURE TO MEET YOU, I'M SURE. LIKEWISE. LIKEWISE. EXCITED TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH YOU. WITH YOU AS WELL. YES, SIR. LIKEWISE.

AND, MARK, CONGRATULATIONS AGAIN, AND THANK YOU FOR THE NOMINATION.

WE APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH, SURE.

THANK YOU AGAIN, GUYS. LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET OUT OF HERE.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVED.

MR. MARK, MOTION TO ADJOURN.

DO I HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND, SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. EVERYBODY HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

I.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.