Aug 28, 2024 Zoning Board of Adjustments

[00:01:12]

AND THEN I DIDN'T KNOW.

AND THEN I'LL JUST OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.

VOLUNTEERS. DO YOU HAVE THE PRAYER? YES. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE.

I'D LIKE TO CALL OUR MEETING TO ORDER.

TODAY'S DATE IS AUGUST 28TH, 2024, AND IT IS 5:30 P.M..

CAN CITY STAFF CONFIRM THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM, PLEASE? YES, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN.

WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. WE DO HAVE BOARD MEMBER ANDREW ALMAGUER.

BOARD MEMBER ALICIA GARZA JR.

BOARD MEMBER RUBEN RUIZ, VICE CHAIRMAN.

YOURSELF, MR. MICHAEL CANTU, MR. MARK GONZALEZ, BOARD MEMBER.

AND WE DO HAVE A NEWLY APPOINTED BOARD MEMBER,

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER, ESTABLISH QUORUM]

SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. WELCOME ON BOARD. OH, AND BOARD MEMBER GREGORY VASQUEZ. THANK YOU.

WELCOME. THANK YOU FOR THAT. OKAY, CAN I HAVE EVERYONE PLEASE JOIN ME IN PRAYER?

[A. Prayer]

LET US PRAY. BEFORE WE BEGIN OUR MEETING, LET US TAKE A MOMENT TO THANK THE LORD GOD FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE, WORKING TOGETHER TOWARD THE COMMON GOAL OF ENRICHING OUR CITY AND ALL WHO WORK HERE.

LORD, WE PRAISE YOU AND ASK YOU TO GUIDE US IN THIS MEETING, THAT WE MAY BE UNITED IN THE SPIRIT OF MUTUAL RESPECT AND IN THE HEALTHY EXCHANGE OF OUR IDEAS. HELP US TO WORK TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD OF ALL IN OUR COMMUNITY.

WE ASK THIS IN YOUR NAME.

AMEN. AMEN. PLEASE STAY STANDING.

MR. GONZALEZ, CAN YOU LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. EVERYBODY CAN BE SEATED.

MOVING ON. CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC NOTICE.

STAFF, CAN WE CONFIRM PROPER PUBLIC NOTICE WAS GIVEN? YES, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, STAFF DID NOTIFY THE PUBLIC AS PER THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AT 5 P.M.

ON THE 23RD OF AUGUST.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

YES. UNDER STATE LAW, CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS IF A COUNCIL MEMBER OR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THAT PERSON'S FAMILY HAS A QUALIFYING FINANCIAL INTEREST IN AN AGENDA ITEM. MEMBERS WITH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION NOR VOTE ON THE AGENDA ITEM.

[2. CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC NOTICE]

[3. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST]

[4. PUBLIC COMMENTS]

PUBLIC 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 LARGE GROUPS IS REQUIRED.

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

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS? OKAY. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.

ITEM FIVE. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE MEETING PROCEDURES USED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF

[5. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE MEETING PROCEDURES USED BY THE ZONING]

[A. All items are generally considered as they appear on the agenda as each item is introduced.]

[B. Staff will present its findings and recommendation on the item being considered.]

[C. The party making the request may make a presentation and may address the Board on any]

[issues arising during the discussion of the item being considered.]

[D. Anyone in the audience desiring to speak in favor or in opposition may do so. A three (3)]

[minute time limit will be given to each person interested in speaking on the item. The use of]

[a spokesperson for large groups of People will be required.]

[E. 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 it believes to be]

[appropriate.]

[F. A minimum of four votes are required for an item to be approved by Board.]

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE DESIRING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION MAY DO SO.

A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT WILL BE GIVEN TO EACH PERSON INTERESTED IN SPEAKING ON THE

[00:05:06]

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 IT BELIEVES TO BE APPROPRIATE. A MINIMUM OF FOUR VOTES ARE REQUIRED FOR AN ITEM TO BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD. MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT ITEMS.

[6. ELECTION OF OFFICERS]

BOARD CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.

MR. ACEVEDO, CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THIS? YES. BOARD. I'M GOING TO REPORT THAT MARK MORAN STEPPED DOWN.

AND WE ALSO HAD ANOTHER PERSON THAT STEPPED DOWN EARLIER THIS MORNING.

MR. MORAN IS NOW SERVING IN THE EDC BOARD, AND ONE OF THE RULES IN THE CITY IS THAT YOU CAN ONLY SERVE ON ONE BOARD.

SO HE CHOSE THE EDC OVER THE ZONING BOARD.

SO WE HAVE A VACANCY AND HE WAS OUR CHAIRMAN.

MR. CANTU IS OUR VICE CHAIR.

SO AT THIS TIME WE NEED TO NOMINATE EITHER MR. CANTU TO ASSUME THE ROLE OR ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD WANT TO BE THE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. SHOULD I OPEN UP DISCUSSION OR WE COULD OPEN IT UP.

WE COULD OPEN IT UP FOR FOR DONATIONS.

OKAY. YES. SO I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP THIS ITEM FOR A MOTION TO SEE WHO WOULD BE THE BOARD CHAIR FOR THE COMMITTEE FOR NOMINATION.

MY NOMINEE MR. CANTU. I SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. RUIZ TO NOMINATE MYSELF, MICHAEL CANTU AND AS CHAIR, BOARD ANY. SECOND FROM MR. GONZALEZ. CORRECT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN.

MOTION PASSES. NOW WE NEED TO APPOINT A VICE CHAIR.

I'LL OPEN A MOTION FOR VICE CHAIR AT THIS TIME FROM THE BOARD.

I WANT TO NOMINATE ALICIA GARZA FOR VICE CHAIR.

I'LL SECOND. MR. VAZQUEZ NOMINATES MR. ALICIA GARZA FOR VICE CHAIR.

AND I HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. DUSTIN. YES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN.

MOTION PASSES. OKAY, SO WE HAVE OUR CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR ABSENCES.

[7. ABSENCES]

CAN I GET A MOTION FROM THE BOARD, PLEASE? MOTION TO APPROVE. SHE'S NO LONGER.

SHE'S NO LONGER ON THE BOARD.

OKAY. CAN WE SKIP THIS ONE TALKED ABOUT GO AHEAD AND TO TO GO AHEAD AND JUST TAKE ACTION. JUST TAKE ACTION.

OKAY. CAN I GET A MOTION ON THIS? I HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. ALMAGUER TO APPROVE THE EXCUSE.

I SECOND THE MOTION, AND I HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. GREGORY VAZQUEZ. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN.

MOTION PASSES. CONSIDER EXCUSING THE ABSENCE OF BOARD MEMBER GARZA FROM THE JULY 31ST,

[A. Consider excusing the absence of Board Member Alexandra Rodriguez from the July 31, 2024]

[B. Consider excusing the absence of Board Member Eliseo Garza, Jr. from the July 31, 2024]

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES.

[C. Discussion and possible action on Mr. Ronnie Cavazos’ absences from the Zoning Board of]

I'LL OPEN THIS ITEM UP FOR DISCUSSION.

YES, SIR. MR. RONNIE CAVAZOS HAS MISSED QUITE A BIT OF OF MEETINGS.

AND JUST LIKE WE DID WITH OTHER MEMBERS THAT MISSED MORE THAN WAS ALLOWED IN THE BYLAWS.

I WANT TO BRING IT UP FOR DISCUSSION TO SEE IF, IF IT'S POSSIBLE OR IF THE BOARD WANTS TO REMOVE THEM OR IF THEY WANT TO GO AHEAD AND EXCUSE HIS ABSENCES.

MR. HAVE WE HEARD FROM MR. CAVAZOS? NO WE HAVEN'T.

BUT I WAS TOLD. I GUESS MR. RUIZ KEEPS IN TOUCH WITH HIM.

HE'S HE'S GOT PRIOR COMMITMENTS ON WEDNESDAYS THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THESE MEETINGS, SO THAT'S, I GUESS, THE REASON FOR HIS ABSENCE.

AND THE BYLAWS STATE, WHAT, JUST THREE ABSENCES, I BELIEVE. YEAH, IT'S IT'S MORE THAN THREE ABSENCES.

YEAH. YES. THE BYLAWS ARE ATTACHED IN THE AGENDA PACKET.

IT STATES IF IT'S FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS OR A CERTAIN PERCENTILE OF THE

[00:10:01]

THERE IS A PORTION THAT DOES SAY THAT, YES.

WELL, IT'S UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE I KNOW MR. CAVAZOS IS A VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE, VERY SUCCESSFUL BUILDER, BUT HE'S ALSO VERY BUSY, I'M SURE.

ARE THERE ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENTS? OKAY, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND I'LL ASK FOR A MOTION FROM THE BOARD. I MOTION TO REMOVE SINCE HE'S ALREADY BEEN ABSENT A COUPLE OF TIMES. I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. GARZA TO REMOVE RONNIE CAVAZOS FROM THE BOARD.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND THE MOTION.

I HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. GREGORY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN.

MOTION PASSES TO REMOVE MR. RONNIE CAVAZOS. MOVING ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[8. MINUTES]

MINUTES? MINUTES. I'M SORRY.

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE JULY 31ST, 2024 REGULAR MEETING. CAN I GET A MOTION FROM THE BOARD, PLEASE? MOTION TO APPROVE.

I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM MR. ALMAGUER AND A SECOND FOR MR. GONZALEZ. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES.

OKAY, MOVING ON TO NUMBER NINE. PUBLIC HEARINGS.

WE HAVE A REQUEST FROM JOJO THOMAS FOR A VARIANCE TO THE CITY OF EDINBURG UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW HIS FOLLOWERS TO BUILD A SIX FOOT FENCE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD, AND A SIX FOOT FENCE ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, EXTENDING BEYOND THE FRONT PLANE OF THE BUILDING AT LOT 29 S MOUNT ESTATE SUBDIVISION. HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS 3421 SOUTH KERALA AVENUE.

GOOD EVENING BOARD. I AM RICARDO FARLEY, ONE OF THE PLANNERS HERE WITH THE CITY OF EDINBURGH. SO THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A VARIANCE IS FOR A FENCE.

THIS WAS A WROUGHT IRON FENCE THAT SHOWS ON THE BOARD THERE.

IT'S GOING TO LOOK SOMETHING LIKE THIS. SO THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE TWO, AS IT APPLIES TO FENCES AND FRONT AND SIDE YARDS. THE VARIANCE REQUEST WOULD ALLOW A SIX FOOT WROUGHT IRON FENCE, AS IS PICTURED HERE IN THE FRONT YARD AND ON THE SIDE YARD EXTENDING BEYOND THE RESIDENCE.

NOW, TO TRY TO CLARIFY WHAT I JUST READ, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN FIND THE SITE PLAN HERE.

SO YOU SEE THE SITE PLAN HERE.

AND SO HERE YOU WOULD HAVE THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE.

I'M SORRY. ON THE LET'S GO BACK AND FIND IT HERE.

WELL I CAN'T FIND IT HERE.

THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE.

SO HERE YOU WOULD HAVE THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE ON THE SIDE EXTENDING TO THE FRONT, NOT CROSSING THE DRIVEWAY, EXTENDING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, TYING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT FENCE.

SO THAT IS WHAT IS BEFORE US.

SO THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST WEST ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 445FT SOUTH OF I-69.

PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT.

ADJACENT LAND USES ARE VACANT RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE.

SO THIS LOT IS PART OF SH MOUNTAIN ESTATES SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS ONE OF OUR NEWEST DEVELOPMENTS AND IT WAS RECORDED IN OCTOBER OF 2023.

THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A SITE PLAN AS WE SEE SHOWN HERE, AND AN ELEVATION DRAWING WHICH WE JUST LOOKED AT.

FOR THE PROPOSED FENCE ON AUGUST THE 8TH, 2024.

SO STAFF REVIEWED THE SITE PLAN AND LOOKED AT ELEVATION DRAWING.

AND FROM THAT IT WAS NOTED THAT HE WOULD NEED TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE, AND THE APPLICANT DID THAT ON AUGUST THE 8TH, 2024. AND THAT IS WHAT IS BEFORE US THIS EVENING.

SO STAFF DID MAIL NOTICES OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO 20 NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

NOW WHAT IS INTERESTING TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT.

WE RECEIVED TEN COMMENTS IN FAVOR TEN COMMENTS IN FAVOR OF THIS WROUGHT IRON FENCE.

SO THIS LOT HAS A TOTAL STREET FRONTAGE OF 109FT, MORE OR LESS ALONG SOUTH CAROLINA AVENUE.

[00:15:03]

I MEAN, THE SURVEY.

THAT'S THE SITE PLAN. AS YOU CAN SEE, HERE IS THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT FENCE.

SO THE FENCE IS GOING TO TIE IN TO THAT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT FENCE WHICH IS A BLOCK WALL. HERE YOU CAN SEE THE THIS IS THE SURVEY OF THE SUBDIVISION.

HIGHLIGHTED HERE IS THE LOT THAT'S THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND IT'S ADJACENT TO CANAL DISTRICT AND ALONG CORRALES STREET HERE.

SO THAT BEING SAID, ARTICLE TWO OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES PROHIBIT FENCES ALONG THE FRONT OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.

AND THERE'S A NEW CLAUSE IN OUR CODE THAT SAYS A NEW SUBDIVISIONS, WHICH THIS IS A MORE THAN TEN LOTS TO DECISION TO PERMIT.

FENCES IN THE FRONT AND STREET SIDE YARDS MUST BE APPROVED AND INDICATED ON THE FINAL PLAT. AND THIS PARTICULAR CASE IT WAS NOT SO.

HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT DOES STATE THAT SECURITY IS THE BASIS FOR HIS REQUEST.

NOW STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST IF APPROVED.

THAT IS, IF THE BOARD SEES TO APPROVE THIS FENCE BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IT.

IT'S NOT OPAQUE AND IT DOES NOT CAUSE ANY SIGHT OBSTRUCTIONS.

THEN THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO PAY A RECORDING FEE AND MEET ALL OTHER APPLICABLE BUILDING AND CODES AND ORDINANCES.

MR. FARLEY, GOOD AFTERNOON.

YES, SIR. SO I'M SEEING THE THE PLAT HERE.

IS THERE ANY OBSTRUCTION OF VIEW TO EXIT THAT SUBDIVISION? AND THAT'S ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE.

I AM SEEING THE LETTERS THAT SAYS FOR BUT IT'S ALL THE SAME ADDRESS, JUST DIFFERENT NAMES, I THINK.

YES, SIR. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY VOTED, SO I WENT OUT TO THE SITE AND DID A SITE INVESTIGATION. AND REMEMBER, THIS IS GOING TO BE A WROUGHT IRON FENCE SO YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IT.

IT'S NOT A SOLID WOOD FENCE OR A SOLID MASONRY FENCE.

SO THERE ARE NO SITE OBSTRUCTIONS.

SO THE PILLARS THOSE THINGS DON'T GET IN THE WAY OF.

NO, SIR. THEY WOULDN'T. I KNOW THAT THE STREET IS PRETTY BUSY. SO YOU HAVE WHAT'S CALLED A 25 FOOT CORNER CLEARANCE, AND IT MEETS THAT CLEARANCE AS WELL.

SO THERE ARE NO SITE OBSTRUCTIONS AT THIS LOCATION.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. PURDY.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. FARLEY.

SURE. DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT IN ATTENDANCE TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM? NO. OKAY. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD ON THIS ITEM? I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF? WELL, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS DENIAL BASED ON THE CITY CODE.

HOWEVER, THE BOARD COULD CONSIDER APPROVING IT BASED ON THE SITUATION THAT YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IT. IT'S NOT OPAQUE AND IT DOES NOT CAUSE ANY SIGHT OBSTRUCTION.

AND IF APPROVED, THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THE APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES AND PAY A RECORDING FEE. OKAY.

THANK YOU. SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH THIS SITE.

I ACTUALLY HAPPEN TO DRIVE BY IT AND WHAT ISN'T BEING TOLD HERE.

OR I GUESS WHAT'S SUBMITTED IS THAT THERE'S A SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTH OF IT.

IT'S IN THE PLAT. NEVER MIND.

YES, SIR. THERE IT IS. SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ALL THAT TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT. AND I GUESS THAT'S WHY THEIR CONCERN IS SAFETY, RIGHT? YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT. SO WHILE I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE PRIVATELY GATED, RIGHT.

NO, SIR. IT'S STILL PROVIDES A FENCE THAT I GUESS ACTS AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE STREET AND AND THE APARTMENTS OR DUPLEXES, WHATEVER THESE ARE.

YES, SIR. MR. FARLEY, I HAVE A QUESTION.

YES. SO I KNOW THERE'S SOME TOWNHOMES THAT ARE OFF.

RIGHT OFF WISCONSIN RIGHT BEFORE MCCALL IN BETWEEN.

SO WITH THOSE AND I HAPPEN TO HAVE ONE OF THOSE.

OKAY. AND SO MY THING IS WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, IT'S KIND OF THE SAME SETUP.

BUT THEY HAVE A COMPLETE BLOCK NO SEE THROUGH.

SO IT WOULD BE HARD TO KIND OF DENY SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHEN THAT WHOLE WALL IS BLOCKED.

RIGHT. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT AND I AND I HAVE A TOWNHOME THERE.

SO WHEN I TURN OUT OF THERE, YOU CAN'T SEE CARS COMING.

WISCONSIN HEADING TO MCCALL.

SO IT'S VERY HARD. YOU GOT TO LIKE, LITERALLY PEEP OUT AND SEE CARS HAULING DOWN WISCONSIN TO GET TO MCCALL'S LIGHT.

SO HAVING A SEE THROUGH FENCE IS ACTUALLY A BENEFICIAL MORE THAN SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE CITY.

SO I'M JUST SHARING WITH THE BOARD THAT THAT THAT IT'S KIND OF THE SAME.

[00:20:03]

THEY'RE BUILDING QUITE A BIT IN THERE, WHICH IS NICE, BUT I'M JUST KIND OF SHARING THAT THEY IT'S ALL BLOCK.

YOU CAN'T SEE THROUGH IT.

SO. YEAH. OKAY. MR. FARLEY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.

YES, SIR. WE DO APPROVE THIS TYPE OF FENCE.

YOU ALL WILL BE OUT THERE.

MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S THE TYPE OF FENCE THEY'RE GOING TO PUT UP. CORRECT? YES, SIR.

THAT'S CORRECT. I NEED TO IF I NEED TO BE THERE, I WILL BE THERE ON THE SITE, SIR.

I GUESS. THANK YOU. YES.

BUT LATER IN THE FUTURE, THEY CAN SWAP IT OUT.

CORRECT? WELL, THE. WHAT WENT OUT HERE? IT SAYS WHAT? IT IS A WROUGHT IRON FENCE.

AND IT WAS ZEEBO. YOU CAN PUT CONDITIONS ON IT.

SO I WOULD PUT THAT CONDITION THAT IT HAS TO BE A WROUGHT IRON FENCE.

SOMETHING THAT IS SEE THROUGH OR NOT.

OKAY. AS LONG AS WE CAN PUT SOMETHING HERE, A CONDITION THAT THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO BE CHANGING IT OUT FIVE, TEN, 20 YEARS FROM NOW.

YES, SIR. SO WE DO FINAL INSPECTIONS, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND WE'LL GO OUT THERE TO ENSURE THAT WHAT IS BEING RECOMMENDED HERE WILL BE PLACED.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AND MR. BRADY? YES. DO WE KNOW WHAT KIND OF ICE? IT SAYS CONCRETE COLUMNS.

BUT WHAT IS STUCCO OR WHAT? WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE BRICK COLUMNS, SIR.

YES, SIR. AND I AGREE WITH MR. REECE PLACING A STIPULATION ON THERE FOR FOR THAT TO REMAIN.

WHAT'S BEING SAID HERE FOR THIS VARIANCE? YES, SIR. BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MYSELF TOO.

AND I KNOW THEY PUT METAL PANELS ON THE, ON THE FENCING THERE BEFORE THEY SWITCHED IT OUT TO MASONRY. AND I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD LOOK HERE FOR THE CITY OF EDINBURGH, BUT THANK YOU.

MR.. YES, SIR. SURE. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. SO I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION, AND I'LL NOW ASK THE BOARD FOR A MOTION.

I MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT ARE TO BE PUT ON ON RECORD THERE, THAT THEY CAN'T JUST CHANGE THE FENCE AT ANY MOMENT AND KEEP IT.

WHAT'S BEING ASKED FOR RIGHT NOW ON THE VARIANCE? I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM MR. GARZA FOR THE REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FENCE BEING BUILT ACCORDING TO THE SPECS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO PLANNING AND ZONING.

AND I HAVE A SECOND FOR MR..

MR.. GARZA? YES, FOR MR. GARZA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN.

MOTION PASSES. OKAY, ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.

ITEM EIGHT B REQUEST BY JUAN ADAMI FOR A VARIANCE TO THE CITY OF EDINBURG UNIFIED

[9. PUBLIC HEARINGS]

[B. Request by Juan Adame for a Variance to the City of Edinburg Unified Development Code to allow]

2009 NORTH MCCALL ROAD.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO IN THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE REQUEST, THE ITEM IS ALREADY BUILT AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

AS YOU CAN SEE HERE. AND SO THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE THREE AS IT APPLIES TO SETBACKS. ACTUALLY THERE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT VARIANCES THAT THIS PARTICULAR STRUCTURE WOULD NEED VARIANCES FOR FOUR DIFFERENT ITEMS. THE FIRST ONE IS WE'LL LOOK AT IT HERE IS THE BUILDING SEPARATION HERE.

SO TYPICALLY WE REQUIRE TEN FEET BUILDING SEPARATION.

HERE THEY ONLY HAVE A ONE FOOT SEPARATION.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BRING OUT THAT THE ITEM IS BUILT OVER A TEN FOOT UTILITY, A 15 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT IN THE REAR.

ALSO ON THE SIDE HERE.

HE'S REQUIRED TO HAVE A SIX FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK.

HE ONLY HAS A ONE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK.

SO THESE ARE THE VARIANCES THAT ARE BEFORE YOU.

AND ALSO SINCE IT'S NOT ATTACHED IT'S IN WHAT WE CALL THE SIDE YARD.

OKAY. SO THIS JUST KIND OF GIVES US AN IDEA AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

SO THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH MCCALL ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 400FT SOUTH OF FRAMBOISE STREET.

IT'S ZONED RESIDENTIAL PRIMARY DISTRICT.

ADJACENT LAND USES ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AND OPEN SPACE.

[00:25:05]

SO AS WE MOVE ALONG IN THE BACKGROUND IN HISTORY, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE DATES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BRING OUT.

SO THIS PROPERTY IS PART OF NORTH MCCALL SUBDIVISION.

IT WAS RECORDED IN 1973.

SO ON JULY THE 3RD, 2024 CODE ENFORCEMENT.

NOTICE THIS BEING BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT AND SENT A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE APPLICANT FOR BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT.

SO THE APPLICANT CAME IN THE OFFICE ON AUGUST THE 1ST.

HE SUBMITTED A BUILDING PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

SO PLANNING STAFF REVIEWED THE BUILDING PERMIT AND NOTICED THE ENCROACHMENTS THAT WE JUST BROUGHT OUT. AND SO ON AUGUST THE 1ST, WE CALLED THE APPLICANT UP.

HE CAME IN THE OFFICE AND HE APPLIED FOR THE VARIANCE AND WHAT IS BEFORE US THIS EVENING.

SO STAFF DID MAIL NOTICES OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST TO 27 NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

AND WE DID RECEIVE TWO AGAINST GRANTING THE VARIANCE.

AND SO PLANS RECEIVED BY THE CITY AND I AGAIN I WENT OUT TO THE SITE.

PLANS RECEIVED BY THE CITY SHOWS A 25FT BY FIVE INCH BY 24FT, EIGHT INCH ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, AS WE SEE HERE, BUILT OVER A 15 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT.

NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THE APPLICANT DID HAVE THE EASEMENT SPOTTED.

HE CALLED ONE 800 DIG TEST, AND I YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU.

I PASSED OUT BEFORE THE MEETING STARTED.

THEIR RESPONSE BACK FROM THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT AND FIND THAT RESPONSE, PLEASE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THIS ONE. SO THE RESPONSE WAS FROM AEP.

CLEAR SPECTRUM. CLEAR.

TEXAS GAS SERVICE CLEAR.

THE ONLY RESPONSE WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED BACK FROM IS AT&T.

NT THE APPLICANT DID CONTACT AT&T TRYING TO GET THAT RESPONSE BACK, BUT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THAT RESPONSE AS WE SPEAK.

SO THE AGAIN, THE SETBACKS FOR THIS ZONING DISTRICT ARE 20IN THE FRONT, SIX ON THE SIDE AND 20 ON THE REAR.

ALSO, I'D LIKE TO BRING OUT THAT THE FIRE MARSHAL AND I, WE WENT OUT THERE AND WE DID AN ON SITE INSPECTION.

THE FIRE MARSHAL WAS HERE, AND HE DID SAY THAT IT DID MEET ALL OF THE FAR READING FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

SO THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THIS CARPORT OR THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS TO HAVE SHADE FOR HIS DAUGHTER SOMEWHERE TO PLAY, TO ENJOY AFTER SCHOOL ACTIVITIES WITHOUT BEING IN THE HOT SUN. SO STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST.

HOWEVER, IF APPROVED, HE WOULD AGAIN NEED TO PAY A RECORDING FEE AND MEET ALL APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES AND ORDINANCES.

AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

MR. DUNNE, PLEASE.

HELLO. MR. OBAMA, CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? ONE OF THEM? MR.. OKAY.

GO AHEAD. THE REASON THAT I'M TRYING TO APPLY FOR THE VARIANCE IS JUST, YOU KNOW, MY DAUGHTER I'M A SINGLE PARENT.

I'M AT THE CUSTODY OF MY DAUGHTER, AND SHE'S 14 YEARS OLD.

SHE'S VERY ACTIVE AFTER COMING FROM SCHOOL.

SHE LIKES TO, LIKE, PLAY AROUND.

NORMACOT ROAD IS A VERY TRAFFIC AREA WHERE, I MEAN, I REALLY WOULD HATE FOR HER TO BE PLAYING ON THE FRONT SIDE.

I'D RATHER FOR HER TO PLAY ON THE BACK SIDE, WHICH, I MEAN IT'S GOING TO GET HARDER EVERY YEAR.

SO I DECIDED TO PUT SOMETHING FOR HER AT LEAST TO LIKE, YOU KNOW, GET SOME SHADE WHENEVER SHE'S JUST OUTSIDE HAVING ENJOYING HER HER SPORTS OR WHATEVER. SHE'S IN VOLLEYBALL RIGHT NOW, AND SHE LIKES PRACTICING AND GETTING BETTER EVERY TIME. ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THERE'S JUST LAND, WHICH IS AGRICULTURE, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE.

IT'S IT SHOULD BE AN ISSUE BY THE BACKSIDE.

NEIGHBORS. PRETTY MUCH THIS.

THIS IS THE REASON WHY I'M TRYING TO REQUEST A VARIANCE.

OKAY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? MR.. THIS HOME WAS BUILT RECENTLY, RIGHT? I WANT TO SAY IT WAS A RECENT THIS COVERING THAT YOU BUILT WAS BUILT ALSO RECENTLY, BUT WITH NO BUILDING PERMIT WAS ACQUIRED.

YES, SIR. OKAY. I MEAN, I SEE THE, THE THE PORCH RIGHT NOW?

[00:30:01]

I HAVE A I HAVE A CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS.

IT'S YOU KNOW SOME VEHICLES THAT I HAVE, YOU KNOW, I GOT TO MOVE THEM AROUND.

ONE OF THEM DIDN'T WORK, SO I JUST GOT TO FINISH UP ON MECHANIC.

I MOVED IT OUT OF THE WAY ANYWAYS.

THAT ONE. BUT I PASSED BY THERE AND AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S FUNNY THAT THIS IS COMING ALONG BECAUSE I PASSED BY THERE JUST ABOUT DAILY, AND I SEE A LOT OF MECHANIC WORK THAT GOES ON IN THAT IN THAT HOUSE.

RIGHT. AND AT ONE POINT, I WAS EVEN THINKING THAT THERE WAS MAYBE A MECHANIC SHOP THERE BECAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS PEOPLE THERE WORKING ON SOMETHING.

AND, YOU KNOW, AND I SAW THIS PORCH, TOO, AND IT JUST CAUGHT MY EYE.

BUT I DO SEE A LOT OF ACTIVITY THERE AS FAR AS VEHICLES GOING IN AND OUT.

I FEEL I'VE SEEN 4 OR 5 VEHICLES THERE ON THE DRIVEWAY.

ON A DAILY BASIS. SO IT'S NOT ONCE IN A WHILE.

SO MY CONCERN IS THAT IT'S NOT SAYING YOU'RE NOT SAYING THE TRUTH, BUT I THINK IT'S MORE FOR I DON'T KNOW IF A BUSINESS THAT YOU'RE RUNNING MORE THAN, THAN HAVING, YOU KNOW, TO FOR FOR YOUR CHILD BECAUSE I SEE, I'VE SEEN ON THE HOUSE THAT IT'S NEXT TO YOU ON THE NORTH SIDE SOMETIMES THE, THE SINCE WE HAVE THIS, YOU HAVE MORE DRIVEWAY.

IT'S AN OBSTRUCTION FOR THE VEHICLE.

THE NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR ON THE NORTH SIDE THAT CAN'T SEE SOMETIMES BECAUSE IT'S ALSO A VERY HIGH TRAFFIC AREA. RIGHT.

AND THAT WAS THE ONLY CONCERN THAT I HAVE THAT IF WE DO APPROVE THIS, IS IT GOING TO BE MORE FOR PARKING, MORE PARKING OR OR ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. I JUST RECENTLY CAME I WAS LIVING IN MISSION.

I'M BARELY ESTABLISHING BACK TO EDINBURGH, SO, I MEAN, I DO HAVE VEHICLES.

I EVEN HAVE A MORE, MORE MACHINERY IN MISSION AREA, WHICH I HAVEN'T EVEN BROUGHT IT TO MY PROPERTY. I KNOW IT'S IT'S A SMALL I MEAN, A SMALL LOT. IT'S NOT A BIG LOT.

YOU KNOW THERE IS SOME WORK BEING DONE BECAUSE HOUSE HASN'T BEEN FINISHED YET.

I MEAN, I STILL GOT TO WORK ON FENCING AND LANDSCAPING.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I'M DOING EVERYTHING I CAN TO BE ABLE TO COMPLETE THE THE PROJECT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT, MR. FARLEY. I HAVE A QUESTION.

I'M SORRY, MR. CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, FOR THE RECORD, THAT YOU'VE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR COMMENTS WITH RELATED TO WITH REGARD TO THIS SPECIFIC ITEM.

OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, I'M OPENING THIS ITEM UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS AND FOR DISCUSSION ITEM.

OKAY. MR. FARLEY, I HAVE A QUESTION.

YOU DID SAY CODE ENFORCEMENT SAW THEM BUILDING THE SHED OR.

YES, SIR. THEY YES. THEY TELL THEM TO STOP.

WELL, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THEY PLACED THEY THEY SENT A LETTER, A NOTICE OF VIOLATION LETTER TO THE APPLICANT.

AND THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS WHAT CALLS THE APPLICANT TO COME IN AND APPLY FOR A PERMIT.

AND THAT LETTER WAS SENT TO THE MISSION PROPERTY THAT I DIDN'T GET A HOLD OF.

IT TOOK ME A WHILE TO COOK IT.

AND SO THAT LETTER WAS SENT TO THE MISSION.

IT WAS MR.. I DO APOLOGIZE IF YOU COULD SPEAK INTO THE MIC SO WE CAN GET IT ON THE RECORD, PLEASE. THANK YOU AGAIN.

THE LETTER, I DID RECEIVE IT, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS JUST SENT FROM THE MISSION PROPERTY. AND WHEN WHEN I WENT TO GO GET IT, YOU KNOW, I DID. SAW THAT I NEEDED A VARIANCE HERE.

MR. FARLEY, WHEN THIS HAPPENS AND JUST ENLIGHTEN ME, PLEASE DO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, ARE THEY ABLE TO PUT SOME TYPE OF STICKER OR SOMETHING ON THE PROPERTY WALL OR SOMEWHERE THERE IN THE HOUSE? WELL, I HAD I HAD REQUESTED FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT TO BE HERE.

I AM NOT PART OF THAT DEPARTMENT.

BUT IN PREVIOUS CASES, USUALLY THEY POST A STOP WORK ORDER.

BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THEY SENT A LETTER.

I THINK THAT WE CERTAINLY NEED TO START POSTING AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY HAVE A FENCE IN THE FRONT OR WHATEVER THEY HAVE.

THAT WAY THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE YOU FINISHED IT, CORRECT? NO. LIKE I SAID, IT'S NOT FINISHED.

IT'S JUST I'M STILL WORKING ON IT, TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, I'M FIXING IT JUST LIKE A TARP ON IT OR, YOU KNOW, JUST, YOU KNOW.

SO. MR. FARLEY, A QUESTION.

YES, SIR. THAT IS, THERE'S NO CONCRETE UNDER IT.

IT'S JUST DIRT. YES, SIR.

IT'S JUST DIRT. SO HERE AGAIN, I DID DO A SITE INSPECTION, AND IT'S JUST DIRT AT THIS TIME.

SIR. MR. FARLEY, WHAT IS THE SETBACK THAT WE HAVE ON THAT PARTICULAR PLAT RIGHT THERE? SO IF YOU. SO LET'S LOOK AT THIS HERE.

SO THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS NOT ATTACHED TO THE MAIN HOUSE.

OKAY. SO AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CAN BE IF IT'S NOT ATTACHED IT CAN BE BUILT IN THE REAR SETBACKS JUST NOT OVER ANY UTILITY EASEMENT.

AND THE REAR SETBACK IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WOULD BE FIVE FEET OR EASEMENT, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. YES, SIR.

NOW THE SIDE SETBACK, IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE SIDE

[00:35:02]

SO HE'S HE'S PRETTY MUCH TO THE PROPERTY LINE THEN.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES, SIR. OKAY. SO HE'S OVER THE FIVE FOOT EASEMENT. WHAT? HE WOULD BE ALLOWED. YES, SIR.

OKAY. YEAH. HE'S BUILDING RIGHT THERE AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE OVER THE EASEMENT.

HAVE WE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH OF THEM, BY ANY CHANCE? WELL YOU DID GET I DID PASS OUT SOME RESPONSE BACK THAT WERE AGAINST GRANTING THIS VARIANCE.

THERE WERE TWO OF THEM.

WHETHER THEY WERE THE NEIGHBORS, I DON'T KNOW ANYONE WHO ISSUES A COMPLAINT CAN STAY ANONYMOUS. OKAY.

OKAY. I SEE THEY ALSO HAVE A BUILDING RIGHT NEXT TO THAT ONE.

SO THEY'RE ALSO IN VIOLATION.

MR. FARLEY, I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

EARLIER, YOU INDICATED THAT AS FAR AS THE TWO STRUCTURES THAT ARE DEPICTED ON THAT PHOTOGRAPH, THE SHED, AND I GUESS THE HOME, THEY HAVE TO BE TEN.

THERE HAS TO BE A TEN FOOT SEPARATION.

YES, SIR. HOWEVER, THAT CAN BE REDUCED WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL'S APPROVAL.

AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE FIRE MARSHAL IS HERE.

HE DID SAY THAT IT DID MEET ALL OF THEIR FA RATINGS.

OKAY. AND THE REASON FOR THE TEN FOOT SEPARATION WOULD BE FOR SAFETY PURPOSES.

YES, SIR. THAT IS CORRECT.

SO IS THERE ALSO A VIOLATION IN THE BACK PART ON THE ON THE WEST SIDE? YES, SIR. SO ON THE SIDE THERE.

SO ACTUALLY THAT'S THE NORTH.

YOU SEE HE HAS PUT SOME LOOK LIKE A GARAGE DOOR OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.

AS REGARDS THE SIX FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK.

OKAY. HE'S ONLY LEAVING A FOOT, SO HE'S ENCROACHING FIVE FEET THERE.

HE BUILT OVER THE UTILITY EASEMENT IN THE REAR.

HE WOULD HAVE TO RESPECT THAT UTILITY EASEMENT NOW AS AN OPTION.

LET'S SAY THAT HE ATTACHED IF HE ATTACHED HIS CARPORT TO HIS HOME.

OKAY. THEN ONE OF THE VARIANTS GOES AWAY.

THAT IS THE VARIANCE IN THE IN THE SIDE YARD.

NOT THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, BUT THE SIDE YARD.

HE WOULD STILL HAVE TO ADHERE TO BUILDING OVER THE UTILITY EASEMENT AND THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. SO THIS JUST TO CLARIFY.

SO IF THIS WAS ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE AND THE VARIANCE THAT WAS BEING PRESENTED FOR THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS WOULD GO AWAY, OBVIOUSLY. YES, SIR. THAT IS CORRECT.

AND ALSO THE VARIANCE FOR THE STRUCTURE BUILDING BEING BUILT IN THE SIDE YARD, THAT IS FROM THE PLANE OF THE HOUSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAT'S CONSIDERED THE SIDE YARD. THAT WOULD GO AWAY AS WELL.

AND SO HE WOULD ONLY BE LOOKING AT TWO VARIANCES.

THAT IS THE VARIANCE FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND THE REAR BEING BUILT OBVIOUSLY BEING BUILT OVER THE UTILITIES.

MR. FARLEY COULD COULD YOU JUST FOR JUST FOR CLARIFICATION IDENTIFY THE THE NOTIFICATIONS THAT WERE AGAINST THIS ISSUE THAT WE HAVE HERE BEFORE BEFORE US.

YES, SIR. SO ON YOUR NOTIFICATIONS THAT WERE GIVEN TO YOU ALL, IT IN THE CAPTIONS, IT GIVES YOU THE ADDRESS AND DOWN BELOW THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, THEY WOULD CHECK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST.

OKAY. AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THEY DID CHECK AGAINST.

MR.. ON ANOTHER NOTE ON THE NEIGHBOR, I ONLY HAVE ONE 2009 ON ANOTHER NOTE, I DO HAVE JUST ONLY ONE NEIGHBOR.

JUST SO YOU GUYS CAN BE CONSIDERED THAT THAT THAT'S THE ONLY NEIGHBOR THAT THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO SAY NO. WHICH YOU KNOW I'M BELIEVING IT'S THAT'S THE ONLY NEIGHBOR I HAVE.

I DON'T HAVE ANOTHER NEIGHBOR JUST, YOU KNOW, BACKSIDE IS JUST THE FIELD CAN FIELD AND JUST ONLY HAVE ONE NEIGHBOR ON THE SIDE.

I HAVE AN EMPTY LOT. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT'S THE ONLY NEIGHBOR THAT I HAVE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, HE HAS A STRUCTURE ON THE BACK WHICH IS WOOD.

AND THEN HIS, HIS PORCH IS CONNECTED RIGHT THERE ON THE LINE, WHICH I DON'T HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT, YOU KNOW, BUT I IF, IF IF IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE, THE CONSIDERATION THAT IT AFFECTS HIM FOR ME TO HAVE A STRUCTURE. I MEAN, HE'S RIGHT THERE IN THE HE'S ABOUT INCHES TO THE, TO THE FENCE LINE FROM HIS STRUCTURE, WHICH, I MEAN, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S IT WOULD WILL BE FAIR FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO NOT HAVE A SHADE FOR MY DAUGHTER WHEN HE HAS A SHADE FOR HIS PROPERTY, WHICH HE'S ONLY HAD ONE ONE NEIGHBOR.

LIKE I SAID, AND JUST IT'S JUST FIELD IN THE BACK.

THAT'S ALL. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE.

MR. ADAMI, ARE YOU POURING ANY CONCRETE? IT'S GOING TO BE YOUR. I'M NOT.

I'M NOT POURING ANY CONCRETE YET.

[00:40:02]

BUT, YOU KNOW, FOR ME, IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO HAVE A SHADE THAN A THAN A CONCRETE PLAN. YEAH.

AND ALSO THE YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE THE BACK NEIGHBOR.

RIGHT. I KNOW IT'S A FIELD RIGHT NOW, BUT YOU KNOW, MY UNDERSTANDING AND THERE'S SOME DEVELOPMENTS GOING ON IN THAT AREA. SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMES IN.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU BASICALLY ALSO GOING INTO YOUR PROPERTY AS WELL.

SO I MEAN, SOME ISSUES I THINK WILL CAUSE LATER AS WELL.

SO JUST TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT MR. FARLEY, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE NEIGHBOR. I'M ASSUMING THAT'S TO THE NORTH.

YES, SIR. OKAY. THAT STRUCTURE, IS THAT A PERMANENT STRUCTURE? THAT IS A PERMANENT STRUCTURE, SIR.

ON MY INVESTIGATION THAT I DID OUT THERE, I NOT ONLY TAKE A LOOK AROUND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS WELL, AND THAT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IS ALSO ENCROACHING.

SO WHAT I CAN DO IS TEAM UP WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT SO CODE ENFORCEMENT CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

I WAS JUST CURIOUS, BECAUSE SOMETIMES WHEN YOU SEE FROM THIS TYPE OF VIEW, IT MAY BE LIKE A PORTABLE STORAGE UNIT THAT'S NOT STRUCTURED, RIGHT? NO, I WAS JUST IT LOOKED LIKE A PERMANENT STRUCTURE, SIR, BECAUSE I SEE I SEE MR. ADAM'S POINT. YES, SIR.

IF ONE GETS TO DO IT, WHY NOT ME? AND THAT'S WHERE WE GO. I MEAN, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE CONCERNS.

I JUST WAS CURIOUS, YOU KNOW.

AND, MR. FARLEY, DO WE KNOW IF THERE WAS EVER A PERMIT OR ANYTHING ACQUIRED FOR THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR? SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS I HAVE WE HAVE NOTHING ON RECORD.

NOTHING ON RECORD. YES, SIR. OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER MAYBE ANOTHER CODE ENFORCEMENT. I COULD FOLLOW UP WITH THEM.

OKAY. YES, SIR. AND, MR. ADAM, I HAVE A QUESTION.

I SEE YOUR YOUR CARPORT THERE ON THE WHITE PICKUP TRUCK RIGHT OFF TO THE SIDE.

YOU HAVE, LIKE, AT LEAST EIGHT FEET, MORE OR LESS JUST BASED ON LOOKS.

WAS I TAKE YOU? WE COULD GO IN, GET YOU INTO THE EASEMENT THAT YOU NEED TO BE AT, AND THEN WE'LL ADDRESS YOUR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY LATER ONCE CODE ENFORCEMENT GOES OUT THERE. I JUST IT'S MAINLY JUST TO NOT SET A PRECEDENT, BECAUSE IF YOU START TODAY, TOMORROW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE NEIGHBOR DOING THE SAME THING. EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE ON EVERYBODY'S PROPERTY LINE. AND I UNDERSTAND THE VIEWS THAT YOU HAVE OR WHY THE REASON YOU'RE BUILDING THIS.

BUT I FEEL THAT ON THIS METAL STRUCTURE, SINCE THERE'S NO FOUNDATION, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE THOSE THE SUPPORT BEAMS OR PILLARS THAT YOU HAVE ON THE NORTH SIDE MORE IN HERE BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE THE SPACE THERE.

YOU JUST DECIDED TO GO MORE TOWARDS THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE I SEE.

AND THEN ON THE BACK END ALSO.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WANTS TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD? THEN I'LL CLOSE DISCUSSION AND I'LL ASK THE BOARD FOR A MOTION.

A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST.

I HAVE A MOTION FOR DENIAL FROM MR. GREGORY VASQUEZ. I SECOND THE MOTION.

HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. GARZA. AND IT WOULDN'T BE MAINLY TO TEAR IT DOWN, BUT JUST TO BRING IT INTO EASEMENTS OR TO SETBACKS REQUIRED.

JUST LIKE WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING, TO BRING IT INTO THE SETBACKS THAT WERE ALREADY SET FORWARD. SO LET'S RETRACT.

CAN WE RETRACT THE MOTION AND AND REPRESENT.

OKAY. LET'S TAKE ANOTHER MOTION.

WE'LL RETRACT THE PREVIOUS MOTION AND I'LL OPEN IT UP.

A MOTION TO DENY REQUEST.

I KNOW THE LOCATION VERY WELL, AND I THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC THERE GOING ON IN AND OUT WITH WITH VEHICLES.

I MEAN, SOMETIMES IT LOOKS LIKE A MECHANIC SHOP.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHAT I'VE SEEN BEFORE, BEFORE THIS, THIS PRESENTATION, I MOTION TO DENY REQUEST.

SO TO I GUESS BE SPECIFIC ON THAT DENIAL.

THERE'S TWO WAYS THAT WE CAN DENY THIS. WE CAN DENY THIS COMPLETELY FOR IT TO BE COMPLETELY TORN DOWN OR THERE'S OR HE CAN COME INTO COMPLIANCE BY, I GUESS, MEETING ALL ALL CODE.

SO IT WOULD BE IF MR. VASQUEZ WOULD AGREE OR ENTERTAIN A AMENDMENT TO HIS MOTION.

YOU COULD DO IT THAT WAY AS WELL.

OKAY. IT'S EITHER IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER.

SHOULD WE HAVE DISCUSSION ON THIS FIRST BEFORE MORE DISCUSSION? I THINK IF THE MOTION IS TO DENY AND IF HE BRINGS THE SUPPORTING STRUCTURE POLES INTO COMPLIANCE, I MEAN, HE COULD DO THAT ANYWAYS.

HE CAN DO IT. OKAY. OKAY.

SO I HAVE A MOTION FOR DENIAL FROM MR. GREGORY VAZQUEZ. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND THE MOTION. HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. GARZA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES.

[00:45:03]

BUT HE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.

JUST. I'M NOT SURE IF HE'LL KEEP ALL THE OVERHANG, BUT HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO KEEP A FOOT OR TWO OF OVERHANG AS WELL.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING. MR. JAIME. JUST TO BRING IT UP TO THE TO THE SETBACK NEEDED, NOT NECESSARILY TEARING IT DOWN. I WANTED TO SEE YOUR OPINION ON THAT. AND IF THAT WAS SOMETHING BY BY THIS BOARD DENYING IT.

HE CAN HE CAN BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE AND HE'LL BE ALLOWED TO AND RESUBMIT WITH.

WITH THE PERMIT. OF COURSE. OKAY.

YEAH. SO YOU CAN RESUBMIT AGAIN. RIGHT. RIGHT. YEAH. SO YOU JUST HAVE TO TEAR DOWN.

HE JUST GOT COMPLIANCE.

YEAH. YOU'RE RETROFITTED. YES. THERE YOU GO. NOT TO TEAR DOWN JUST TO GET COMPLIANCE.

OKAY. MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM.

ITEM EIGHT C REQUEST OF AURÉLIA AND ERASMO MURANO FOR A VARIANCE TO THE CITY OF EDINBURG UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW AS FOLLOWS.

THE EXISTING RESIDENCE TO ENCROACH 2.5FT INTO THE EAST SIDE.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I DO APOLOGIZE.

GOING BACK TO THE PREVIOUS MOTION, IT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL.

RIGHT. BUT WE DO NEED TO PUT A STIPULATION ON THE AMOUNT OF DAYS THAT HE HAS IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE, TO ADHERE IT WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT AS WELL. SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN REOPEN IT THE ITEM AGAIN.

MAKE THE MOTION WITH THE WITH STIPULATION OF THE DAYS, AND THEN GO AHEAD AND FOLLOW THROUGH WITH CLOSING IT.

YOU CAN MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION.

OKAY. AT THIS TIME, WE'RE REVISITING MOTION.

ITEM EIGHT. WAS IT 8B8B9B9B8B? NO YOU'RE RIGHT. WHAT'S WHAT'S KIND OF THE NORM THAT YOU SEE WITHIN ALLOWABLE DAYS TO KIND OF FIX SOMETHING.

PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE'VE SEEN BY THE BOARD IS 30 DAYS.

IT'S USUALLY I MEAN, DEPENDING ON THE AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION THAT IS BEING DONE.

RIGHT. TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THE REQUEST WAS THAT IT IS NOT TO TEAR DOWN THE STRUCTURE, IT IS JUST TO DENY IT OVER THE EASEMENTS AND TO MAKE IT INTO COMPLIANCE WITHIN THE SETBACKS AND THE EASEMENT. CORRECT. SO BASED OFF OF THE AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD NEED TO BE DONE, IT'S UP TO THE BOARD'S DECISION WHETHER IT WOULD BE 30 DAYS OR 60 DAYS.

IT'S ULTIMATELY UP TO THAT.

BUT THAT IS A NUMBER THAT WE NEED IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO ADHERE WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT. TO FOLLOW UP, MAKE SURE A BUILDING PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR AND FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH THE CONSTRUCTION. SO DO WE NEED TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION THEN? OKAY. OKAY. SO AT THIS TIME WE ARE REVISITING ITEM EIGHT B AND WE ARE AMENDING THE MOTION. SO YOU WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO AMEND.

OKAY. SO WE WILL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO AMEND I GUESS THE AMEND THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE THE 60 DAYS, I THINK 60 DAYS.

SO YOU CAN GET BACK INTO COMPLIANCE AND REAPPLY.

OKAY. SO I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. GREGORY VASQUEZ TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND TO HAVE A 60 DAY COMPLIANCE PERIOD SO THAT THE APPLICANT CAN BE COME BACK INTO COMPLIANCE WITHIN THOSE WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME. CAN I HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND THE MOTION, MR. GARZA. SECONDS. THE MOTION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN.

MOTION PASSES. EXCUSE ME.

BOARD. WOULD YOU BE SO KIND TO REPEAT THE MOTION SO MR. DONNIE COULD UNDERSTAND YOU? SURE. SO THE MOTION IS.

HIS REQUEST IS DENIED, AND HE HAS 60 DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE STRUCTURE AND WITH CODE.

OKAY, I'M GOING TO APOLOGIZE ON MY PROPERTY.

IS IT GOING TO BE SOMEBODY ELSE, TOO? BECAUSE, I MEAN, I KNOW THERE'S A THERE'S NOT MY PROPERTY BEING NON-COMPLIANT.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IT'S JUST A REQUEST.

YES, SIR. I AT THIS POINT, I THINK THE STAFF CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

ALL WE DO RIGHT NOW IS JUST VOTE ON THESE SPECIFIC VARIANCES.

SO THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE, I THINK CAN BE ANSWERED BY STAFF.

STUFF. WHAT WE'LL DO WILL GET CODE ENFORCEMENT INVOLVED.

AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.

SURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR.

MOVING ON TO ITEM EIGHT C.

[C. Request by Oralia and Teraso Morano for a Variance to the City of Edinburg Unified Development]

THE EXISTING RESIDENTS TO ENCROACH 2.5FT INTO THE EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND TO ALLOW A COVERED PATIO ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO ENCROACH EIGHT FEET INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK AND SIX FEET INTO THE EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK AT LOT 49,

[00:50:04]

YES, BOARD. THIS IS A PREVIOUS ITEM FROM THE LAST ZBA MEETING.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER THE LARGE TWO STORY STRUCTURE HOME MADE OUT OF A MASONRY BLOCK THAT WAS BUILT AT 2809 JESSICA DRIVE.

AND THIS ITEM WAS WAS HELD BACK AT THE LAST MEETING SO THAT STAFF CAN GO OUT THERE WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE STRUCTURE WAS SAFE IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION.

THE REQUEST IS TO HAVE A 2.5 SIDE YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED SIX FOR AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, AND THEN TO HAVE A TEN FOOT REAR SIDE SETBACK OR REAR SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK THAT IS REQUIRED FOR AN OPEN PATIO ROOF STRUCTURE.

THESE PICTURES SHOW BOTH OF THE STRUCTURES, THE SIDE BEING AT TWO AND A HALF, AND THEN THE OPEN PATIO AREA THAT'S IN THE REAR OF THE BACKYARD.

AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING THE CONCERNS WERE NOTED.

HOWEVER AFTER VISITING THE SITE WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL, WE DETERMINED THAT THE STRUCTURE IS SAFE SINCE IT'S MADE OUT OF CMU BLOCK.

THE FIRE MARSHAL AND SOME OF MY STAFF WENT OUT THERE, AND IT'S A PRETTY SOLID STRUCTURE, AND THEY FEEL CONFIDENT IN ALLOWING THE VARIANCE TO BE ALLOWED.

WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF BOTH VARIANCES. HOWEVER, WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU ADD A CONDITION THAT THE REAR STRUCTURE NEVER BE ENCLOSED, THAT IT REMAIN OPEN AS AN OPEN STRUCTURE.

THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. AZEVEDO.

DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT IN ATTENDANCE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? I'M KIND OF HARD OF HEARING. SO CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, SIR? MY NAME IS THERESA MURANO.

OKAY. GO AHEAD. AND LIKE I SAID, I'M KIND OF HARD OF HEARING COMPLIMENTS OF VIETNAM AND ARTILLERY FIRE, SO.

OKAY. BUT I'LL GO WITH WHATEVER THE CITY DECIDES THAT I NEED TO DO.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND COMPLY WITH IT.

I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONNECT MY ELECTRICITY BACK THE WAY IT WAS BUILT BACK IN 1989. WHENEVER THEY BUILD IT, THEY HIT THE MAJOR STRUCTURES, AND I'VE HAD THEM WITHOUT ELECTRICITY ALMOST FOR FOUR MONTHS NOW.

AND YOU KNOW, WITH THIS HEAT AND IT'S GOT SHEETROCK AND PAINT IT IT DETERIORATES.

SO I NEED TO GET MY ELECTRICITY BACK ONTO WHERE AT LEAST I DON'T LOSE THAT.

BUT ON THE BACK PART OF IT, IF I NEED TO REMOVE IT OR WHATEVER Y'ALL WANT ME TO DO, I'LL DO IT. YOU KNOW, I'LL COMPLY WITH WHATEVER THE CITY SAYS.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION.

I KNOW WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOME OF THE AGAINST NOTIFICATIONS THAT WERE SENT IN.

LET ME LET ME OPEN UP THE THE ITEM FOR FOR DISCUSSION AND FOR.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, LET ME ASK, IS THERE ANY ONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, THEN I'LL OPEN THE DISCUSSION UP FOR.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND ONE OF THE NOTIFICATIONS.

IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE MOVING IN AND OUT. IS THAT IS THAT A IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S THAT'S HAPPENING? BECAUSE I KNOW IT SAYS HERE WE'RE MOVING INTO THE AREA, PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED THERE. SO IS IT LIKE, IS THIS A NEW OWNER OF THE HOUSE OR WHAT'S THIS IS A NEW OWNER. HE KIND OF INHERITED THE PROPERTY THE WAY THAT IT IS.

OKAY. IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, HE CAME IN TO GET A SECONDARY ELECTRICAL METER.

OKAY. AND HE NEEDED TO GET AN ELECTRICAL CLEARANCE, AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY.

SO WE DON'T ALLOW A SECOND METER.

CORRECT. SO HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO RETROFIT EVERYTHING BACK TO HAVE JUST ONE WATER METER AND ONE LIGHT METER. OKAY.

YEAH. HE'S THE NEW OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. OKAY.

FROM THE LAST TIME THAT WE CONSIDERED THIS ITEM.

WHAT HAS CHANGED? HAS ANYTHING CHANGED? THE ONLY THING THAT REALLY CHANGED IS THAT STAFF HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO OUT THERE WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL, AND WE DEEMED IT SAFE.

OKAY. BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL AND AIR CONDITIONING THERE.

IS THERE IS THAT VIOLENT IN ANY CODES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? BECAUSE IT LOOKS DOESN'T LOOK VERY SAFE.

I MEAN, EVEN THE AIRCON DOESN'T EVEN FIT THERE.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT THERE CAN BE A CONDITION THAT HE RELOCATE THAT THAT UNION.

IS THAT THE REAR STRUCTURE OF THE, OF THE IT'S AN IRREGULAR SHAPED LOT.

SO IS THIS THE BACK OR THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY? THAT'S ON THE SIDE. THAT'S ON THE SIDE, THE SIDE ON THE WALL.

AND SO IS THAT HIS FENCE OR IS THAT LIKE A22.

IT'S HIS FENCE THAT THEY HIT THERE.

I CAN I CAN PUT HIM ON THE GROUND IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. ONE OF THE THINGS ON THE BACK PART OF THIS PROPERTY

[00:55:02]

THEY HIT A WOODEN ROOF ON IT THAT WENT WITH A FIREPLACE UP THERE.

ALL IT DID WAS REMOVE IT BECAUSE IT WAS ALL ROTTEN, AND I DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND USE STRUCTURAL STEEL TO GO AHEAD AND AND TAKE THAT WOOD AND STUFF. THAT WAS ALL ROTTEN, AND CATS WERE GETTING UP THERE AND MAKING IT, MAKING A MESS. AND I DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND JUST TAKE IT ALL DOWN AND PUT ANOTHER.

MY PROBLEM IS THAT I DIDN'T GET A PERMIT.

I DIDN'T KNOW I NEEDED A PERMIT. YOU KNOW, I'VE LIVED UP IN THE COUNTRY MOST OF THE TIME, SO. I GUESS SINCE YOU JUST ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU MAY HAVE ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY WITH SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS ALREADY ENCROACHING ONTO SETBACKS AND VIOLATIONS, BUT WHAT VARIANCES ARE COMING TO US FOR NEW STRUCTURES AND NEW IMPROVEMENTS? NOT EVERYTHING WAS ALREADY PREEXISTING.

HOW DOES. HOW DOES PLANNING AND ZONING TAKE INTO ACCOUNT? IS THERE ANY LIKE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE FOR IMPROVEMENTS OR THAT ARE VIOLATING CODE? BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS A CASH DEAL, SO IT DIDN'T REQUIRE A SURVEY.

BUT IT WASN'T UNTIL THE WHOLE ELECTRICAL METER BECAME AN ISSUE THAT WE DISCOVERED THAT'S WHAT TRIGGERED THE VIOLATIONS. CORRECT? HE HAS TO GO OUT THERE.

OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ACTUALLY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE WITH WITH RESPECT TO THE SO.

SO GOOD EVENING, GABRIEL ESPINOZA WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE.

SURE. GOOD EVENING. ANY QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROXIMITY OF OF THE STRUCTURE TO THE NEIGHBOR. RIGHT? BECAUSE THIS STRUCTURE IS NOT, I GUESS GOES OVER THE DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE SETBACKS. IT'S A LITTLE CLOSER.

CORRECT. SO BECAUSE IT'S CLOSER, IS THERE ANY CONCERN THAT IF THERE IS SOME TYPE OF FIRE THAT MAYBE IT'LL EXPOSE THE NEIGHBORS TO SOME RISKS? YEAH, THAT THAT WILL ALWAYS BE THE CASE ANYTIME WE HAVE LIKE A PORCH STRUCTURE, BECAUSE THAT'S JUST GOING TO CARRY THOSE FLAMES COMING OUT OF DOORWAYS OR, OR WINDOWS. THE REASON THAT WE DEEM THIS SAFER IS BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE. IT WAS ALL WOOD FRAME STRUCTURE UP AGAINST HIS MASONRY, CONCRETE BARBECUE AREA.

SO SINCE THEY UPGRADED IT AND IT MEETS THE FIRE RATINGS THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE TEN FEET OF HIS STRUCTURE.

THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THAT CAME FROM.

SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE THING TO THINK ABOUT WOULD BE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND HOW IT WOULD AFFECT THOSE AREAS.

SO THE MATERIAL WAS DIFFERENT THAN THAT WOULD PROBABLY CHANGE YOUR OPINION, CORRECT? OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO SO FROM WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING FROM YOU IS HE PURCHASED A PROPERTY? THIS PROPERTY ALREADY HAD THE ISSUES, AND I GUESS THE PREVIOUS OWNER OR WHOEVER DID THE. THEY PROBABLY DID THE CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT.

YEAH. YEAH. SO HE KIND OF INHERITED THE PROBLEM.

YEAH, YEAH. OKAY. THANKS.

ARE THERE ANY MORE COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? MR. AZEVEDO.

SO? SO THIS WAS ACQUIRED RECENTLY.

WE HAVE THE ENCROACHMENT.

IT'S A FULL BLOWN STRUCTURE.

WHAT WOULD BE THE SOLUTION, LET'S SAY, FOR DENIAL.

BECAUSE I SEE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE HERE THAT ARE AGAINST THAT.

ABOUT PARKING, ABOUT, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK TO MYSELF, CONCRETE, YOU KNOW, TWO STORIES, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD REQUIRE A LOT OF RETROFITTING TO THAT STRUCTURE.

IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE A LOT OF CHANGES.

WOW. AND THEN THE SETBACK ON THAT ONE, MR. AZEVEDO IS SIX FEET ON THE SIDES, AND WE'RE AT TWO AND A HALF.

JUST TO PERMIT WITH THE BLOCK MASONRY FENCE.

AND IT WAS. IT WAS A CASH DEAL.

NO SURVEY. IT WAS TOUGH.

AND RIGHT NOW, MR. AZEVEDO, THE VARIANCE IS FOR HIM TO GET ELECTRICITY TO THAT SECOND STRUCTURE THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY.

IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PASS HERE? AND THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS, MR. ACEVEDO, APPROVAL IS TO TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

[01:00:05]

AND NOW I GUESS WE COULD ALSO INCLUDE THAT THE AIR CONDITIONER THAT'S UP IN THE AIR BE RELOCATED TO THE FLOOR.

OKAY. THAT'S A STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

IS THAT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION? PRETTY MUCH. IT WAS PRETTY MUCH INHERITED.

YEAH, HE IMPROVED IT ACTUALLY BECAUSE IT WAS A WOODEN STRUCTURE BEFORE.

NOW IT'S A METAL STRUCTURE WHICH HELPS THE FIRE RATING.

AT LEAST HE CAME INTO THAT COMPLIANCE WITH, I GUESS, MATERIAL. THE LAST TIME WE SAW THIS ITEM WE SAW LIKE A BARBECUE AREA.

IS IT STILL THERE? STILL THERE.

THAT LOOKS UNSAFE. MY CONCERN IS THAT STILL BEING USED AS A AS A LIKE A CHIMNEY AREA, BARBECUE AREA. IF MY BARBECUE THAT MUCH I JUST, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES MY KIDS COME OVER OR SOMETHING AND THEY WANT TO COOK OUT WITH ME AND YEAH, THEY DON'T THEY'VE GOT THEIR OWN PLACES AND THEY DO THEIR OWN COOKING SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO I JUST WANTED TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT WASN'T ROTTEN UP THERE.

SO I'LL PUT A METAL ROOF.

THAT'S IT. RIGHT. THAT'S SOMETHING FOR THE BOARD TO, TO CONSIDER AS WELL AND POSSIBLY ADD FIREPLACE IS A PROBLEM.

I DON'T HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH DEMOLITION AT ALL BECAUSE I DON'T EVER USE IT. OKAY, NOW THE BOARD COULD ALSO CONSIDER APPROVING ONE AND NOT THE OTHER. THAT'S ALSO AN OPTION, RIGHT? OKAY. I THINK WE'VE HAD ENOUGH DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION, AND I'LL ASK THE BOARD FOR A MOTION.

I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION, AS INDICATED BY THE BY STAFF, THAT HE COMPLY WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS INDICATED ON THE RECORD, REMAIN OPEN AND ALL OF THAT.

I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MR. ALMAGUER, SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT COMPLYING WITH ALL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING CONDITIONS THAT ARE SPECIFIED IN THIS THIS REPORT.

IS THERE A SECOND THE MOTION? I HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. GARZA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN.

MOTION PASSES ON THE FLOOR.

OKAY, JUST DON'T CLOSE IT.

YEAH. AND PUT THIS ON THE FLOOR.

NOT A PROBLEM. THANK YOU.

HERE'S MY PERMIT BEFORE THE BALL FALLS.

OKAY. THAT'S IT. THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU. GOD BLESS YOU. BYE BYE.

GOOD BYE. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.

[D. Request by Illiana Espiritu for a Variance to the City of Edinburg Unified Development Code to]

OH, YEAH. 80. ARE WE ON 80 RIGHT NOW? FROM 90. 90. I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY KEEP SAYING EIGHT.

IT'S ACTUALLY 90. YEAH, YEAH.

IT SAYS I'VE GOT 80 FOR SOME REASON.

OH, BECAUSE THE NEXT ONE IS TEN. YEAH, IT'S 990.

IT'S 90. OKAY. ON THE AGENDA, IT'S LIKE A TYPO.

YEAH, MINE SAYS NINE, SO.

NO, IT SAYS NINE, BUT I THINK THAT IT SAYS INFORMATION ONLY IS NINE ALSO.

SO I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE IT'S KIND OF CONFUSING. OH, I GET YOU. OKAY.

SHOULD HAVE BEEN MOVING ON TO ITEM 90.

OKAY. YOU'RE RIGHT. REQUEST BY ILIANA ESPIRITU FOR A VARIANCE TO THE CITY OF EDINBURGH UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW AS FOLLOWS.

DO I HAVE A 5.4FT SIDE YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY FOR AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 3502 WEST MILE 17.5 ROAD IN HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS. YES, THIS IS ALSO A VERY UNIQUE CASE.

WE GOT SOME GOOD ONES. THIS THIS MEETING.

THIS IS A VARIANCE TO KEEP A FIVE FOOT, FOUR INCH SIDE YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL.

RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN COMES WITH THE HIGHER SIDE SETBACKS AND THE HIGHER FRONT SETBACKS.

AND THERE'S ALSO A SECOND PART TO THIS VARIANCE.

AND IT HAS TO DO WITH ALLOWING AN ADDITION TO THE HOME UNDER THE CURRENT UDC.

THIS PROPERTY HAS A LITTLE HISTORY.

IT GOT A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WHERE THEY WERE ABLE TO BUILD WITHOUT PLOTTING, BUT THEY ALSO GOT A FAMILY PARTITION THAT WAS ALLOWED WHERE THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD A

[01:05:05]

BUT ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE UDC FOR A FAMILY PARTITION, WHICH DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE. IT SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T REMOVE OR ADD ANYTHING TO THE STRUCTURE. SO THAT KIND OF LIMITS THE PEOPLE TO NOT ADD A ROOM AT A SHED, A SWIMMING POOL. TO ME, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO MODIFY IN THE UDC, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE WHAT THE WHAT THIS FAMILY IS TRYING TO DO IS THEY'RE TRYING TO ADD TO THE TO THE HOME.

THEY'RE THEY'RE TRYING TO ADD AN ATTACHED ADU, WHICH IS ALLOWED UNDER THE SINGLE FAMILY CODE.

BUT BECAUSE OF THAT PROVISION IN THE IN THE UDC, WHICH DOESN'T ALLOW FOR ANY ADDITIONS OR ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING FAMILY PARTITION, THAT'S WHY THESE PEOPLE ARE ARE HERE.

AND THE 5.4 SIDE YARD SETBACK HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE THE SINCE THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS ALLOWED. SO WE'RE TRYING TO CORRECT A MISTAKE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY DONE ON THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND TRYING TO ALLOW THEM TO BUILD THAT ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

OKAY. DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM? CAN YOU PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? GOOD EVENING COUNCIL. MY NAME IS MARK SILVA.

PRETTY MUCH LIKE THE GENTLEMAN SAID.

WE'RE ASKING TO HAVE A FIVE FOOT, FOUR INCH FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK AND TO ALLOW FOR THE ADDITION OF A ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

OKAY, NOW I'LL OPEN UP THE ITEM FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS AND FOR DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD.

LET ME LET ME ASK, IS THERE SOMEONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YES. OKAY. I HAVE MY BUILDER HERE.

I HAVE A QUESTION. YES.

SO FOR THE NEW BUILDING IS THERE A REASON WHY YOU'RE KIND OF PUTTING IT THAT WAY? IS THERE, LIKE, A CERTAIN REASON WHY YOU'RE ASKING FOR THAT SITE, FOR THE SETBACK? IT'S JUST TO PRETTY MUCH ALIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. OKAY.

BECAUSE IN THE BEGINNING THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY AN ACRE, WHEN MY, WHEN MY FATHER IN LAW PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, IT WAS AN ACRE.

OKAY. WHEN HE PASSED, HE DIVIDED INTO HALF, HALF AND HALF FOR MY WIFE AND FOR MY SISTER IN LAW.

MY SISTER IN LAW WAS ABLE TO BUILD HER NEW STRUCTURE.

SHE HAD THE VARIANCE FOR IT.

IT GOT APPROVED ALL THAT.

BUT WHEN THAT PARTITION WAS MADE UP THAT CREATED THAT FIVE FOOT, FOUR INCH SETBACK, WHICH WAS LIKE A NONCOMPLIANCE.

OKAY, SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS, YOU KNOW, GO ALONG WITH THE REGS AND BE IN COMPLIANCE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO THAT WE WERE ABLE TO BUILD A NEW STRUCTURE.

I GOT YOU. SO THE VARIANCES FOR THE THE OLDER BUILDING RIGHT.

RIGHT. SO IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NEW BUILDING.

WELL I MEAN ONCE YOU GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR THAT SIDE IT WILL GO ALONG WITH THE NEW AS WELL. YEAH. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO TRYING TO RUN YOU OUT. OKAY. THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WANT TO LINE THEM UP.

EXACTLY. SO. OKAY. LET ME I THINK I'M I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING.

RIGHT. SO THERE'S TWO VARIANCES.

ONE IS FOR THE SIDE SETBACK WHICH IS 5.4 SHOULD BE 15 RIGHT.

BUT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE GRANDFATHERED DEALS RIGHT WHERE THIS IS EXISTING.

AND HE PURCHASED IT THAT WAY.

THE SECOND ONE IS BECAUSE IT WAS PARTITIONED.

THERE'S A CLAUSE THAT SAYS THAT THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS TO BE IMPLEMENTED ON PARTITION LOTS. DO WE KNOW WHAT THE SPIRIT OF THAT WAS KIND OF NEWS TO US WHEN WE SAW IT THIS PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS WHEN THIS FIRST CAME UP.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'LL BE TAKING A LOOK AT.

I HAVE A LIST OF ITEMS THAT I'M GOING TO BE RECOMMENDING THAT WE REVISE IN THE UDC CODES, AND THAT WILL BE THROWN IN THERE.

AND THEN I HAVE THE OTHER QUESTION IS THE NEW BUILDING, THE NEW BUILDING. THE SIDE SETBACKS ARE TEN AND TEN.

CORRECT? THAT SEEMS CORRECT, YES.

TEN AND TEN. SO IT'S STILL NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 15FT SITE SETBACK.

RIGHT. BUT. OH THAT'S TRUE.

IT WOULD NEED A VARIANCE ON THE OTHER SIDE. ON THE OTHER SIDE. RIGHT.

WE'RE THINKING I THINK THAT GRAPH MIGHT BE A LITTLE OFF.

WE'RE SHIFTING IT OVER.

YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO SHIFT. WE'RE GOING TO BUILD THE FIVE FOOT AND THEN MAYBE 30 YARDS OR 30FT. I MEAN, 30, 35FT.

SO THE NEW BUILDING IS GOING TO MATCH. IT'S STILL GOING TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. WE'LL STILL HAVE THE 50 FOOT SETBACK ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE. OKAY.

NOW ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WILL SAY IS FOR ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS, WE DON'T ALLOW A SEPARATE WATER METER AND A SEPARATE UTILITY OR ELECTRICAL METER.

SO IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO SHOW ON ONE METER THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.

[01:10:03]

THE SECOND BUILDING, WILL THAT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CODE OR WILL IT STILL REQUIRE SOME VARIANCE TO THE SIDE.

IT GOES WITH THE LOT. SO THAT IN ESSENCE BECOMES A FIVE FOOT FOUR INCH SETBACK.

AND IT WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT.

BASICALLY YOU'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE ON ONE SIDE BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE. HE'S JUST TRYING TO MATCH UP THE BUILDING OF THAT WITH THE 5.4.

CORRECT? CORRECT. THAT WAS CREATED WHEN THE LOT SPLIT UP.

CORRECT. ARE THERE ANY STRUCTURES ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE 5.4FT SETBACK? HOW FAR IS THE HOUSE THAT YOUR SISTER CREATED? YOUR SISTER ALONE? I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT MEASUREMENT, BUT PROBABLY AROUND THE SAME THING. AROUND FIVE FEET. I WANT TO SAY.

SOUNDS LIKE THAT ONE MIGHT NEED A VARIANCE ALSO. SO BECAUSE I KNOW THE CURRENT MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS TEN FEET, RIGHT? RIGHT. SO THE HOUSE ON THE OTHER SIDE ACTUALLY SET SEVEN FEET BACK.

SO YOU HAVE THE SEVEN AND THE FIVE WHICH IS 12.

SO IT'S 12.4FT WHICH IS FINE FOR BUILDING SEPARATION.

OKAY. OKAY. SO BOARD. SO JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT WHAT WE'RE ASKING, RIGHT.

OKAY. I GUESS IT IS AN INTERESTING.

YEAH, IT'S AN INTERESTING MEETING.

YEAH. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR MR..

FOR THE APPLICANT OR MR.. RUSSELL FOR. THE CITY STAFF? MR.. SO NOTICES WERE SENT OUT TO TO ANY FEEDBACK NEGATIVE OR NO, WE DID SEND OUT 14 NOTICES.

WE GOT NO FEEDBACK FOR OR AGAINST.

AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

CORRECT. RIGHT. OKAY. SO I THINK I'LL CLOSE THIS ITEM AND OPEN UP.

REQUEST A MOTION FROM BOARD.

MOTION TO APPROVE BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FOR MR. RUIZ. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

I HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. GREGORY VASQUEZ. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN.

MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, GENTLEMEN.

[9. INFORMATION ONLY]

INFORMATION ONLY. I WANTED TO ASK THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IF WE COULD HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING FOR AN ITEM THAT WAS REQUESTED BY LOCAL ENGINEER.

WE COULD DO 1 OR 2 THINGS. WE COULD HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING ON THE 10TH AND THEN HAVE OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. OR WE COULD TRY TO COMBINE BOTH MEETINGS AND HAVE ONE MEETING IN SEPTEMBER. AND THAT WOULD BE ON THE 17TH.

SO WE ALREADY HAVE FOUR ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING.

SO IT WOULD BE FIVE WITH THE SPECIAL REQUEST THAT CAME IN.

BUT IT'S UP TO THIS BOARD WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO HAVE TWO MEETINGS. WE COULD HAVE ONE ON THE 10TH AND THEN THE OTHER ONE ON THE 20 SOMETHING. OR WE COULD HAVE COMBINED THEM BOTH AND DO IT ON THE 17TH.

IS THERE A NORMAL MEETING? DATE? THE 17TH? NO, IT'S FURTHER UP TO WHAT THAT DATE SAYS THE 28TH.

THEY JUST COME BACK. COME BACK 27TH OR COMBINE THEM, RIGHT? YEAH. YEAH. SEPTEMBER.

SO SO REGULARLY. REGULARLY SCHEDULED A MEETING FOR AUGUST IS ACTUALLY ON THE 25TH.

SEPTEMBER THE 25TH. SO WE'RE REQUESTING TO MOVE IT UP.

YES, WE'RE REQUESTING TO MOVE IT UP.

IF YOU CHOOSE TO HAVE EITHER ONE MEETING FOR THIS ONE ITEM FOR THE SPECIAL REQUEST, THAT WOULD BE ON THE 11TH.

WE WOULD SEND OUT NOTICES THIS FRIDAY TO MAKE THE 1010 DAY GRACE PERIOD PER THE STATE LAW.

OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, WE CAN COMBINE THE ITEMS FROM THE LAST MEETING, WHICH IS THE 25TH. WE CAN MOVE THEM UP TO THE 17TH AND WE'LL ONLY HAVE ONE MEETING IN SEPTEMBER. SO ESSENTIALLY WE WOULD JUST MOVING BE MOVING IT TO THE WEEK PRIOR.

I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT WE WANT 117 1717.

THE 17TH. THE 17TH. OKAY.

THE OTHER ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE A LUNCH MEETING AND LUNCH.

SO IT WILL BE THE 17TH.

THE ONLY THING IS, IS THAT THAT DAY WE DO HAVE A CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

SO IF YOU CHOOSE TO, IT WOULD BE AT LUNCH DURING THE NOON TIME.

IS THAT OKAY WITH EVERYBODY? OR WE CAN MOVE IT TO THE 18TH.

18TH. THE 18TH AT 530.

IS THERE A REASON WHY YOU GOT TO MOVE IT UP? IS THERE AN ITEM THAT NEEDS TO BE BEFORE THE REGULAR SCHEDULE? YES.

THERE IS A REQUEST THAT CAME IN FOR A SPECIAL MEETING.

FOR THAT, FOR AN ITEM THAT IS TIME PRESSING.

OKAY. TO MY UNDERSTANDING.

SO. SO WE'RE THE 18TH.

YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. 18TH. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING AT. THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED TIME.

[01:15:02]

OKAY. SHOULD I MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING? I MAKE A MOTION, MR. CHAIR.

I GET A MOTION, MR. GARZA, AND A SECOND FOR MR. GONZALEZ TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.

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

THANK YOU. GENTLEMEN. GREAT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.