THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM? YES. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS. ERICA. MONTREAL 
          [00:00:05]
PLANNING AND ZONING. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM TODAY WITH VOTING MEMBERS YOURSELF, MICHAEL CANTU, OMAR RUBEN RUIZ JR, MARK GONZALEZ AND ANDREW AL-MAJED. AND THEN WE HAVE ALTERNATES 
          [1. CALL TO ORDER, ESTABLISH QUORUM]
MATTHEW CRUZ AND TONY GARZA. THANK YOU. CAN EVERYONE PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME FOR PRAYER? LET US PRAY. GOD OUR FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR HAVING CALLED US TOGETHER, THAT WE MAY HUMBLY SERVE YOU AT THIS MEETING. SEND YOUR HOLY SPIRIT UPON US AND REMAIN PRESENT AMONG US TO LEAD US IN THE CONVERSATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS WE WILL HAVE. BLESS OUR WORDS AND THOUGHTS WITH HOLINESS, THAT WE MAY BE INSTRUMENTS OF YOUR GRACE. WE ASK THIS IN YOUR NAME. AMEN. 
          [A. Prayer.]
AMEN. MR. GILBERT, 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. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO ITEM TWO. 
          CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC NOTICE. YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, STAFF DID NOTIFY THE PUBLIC AS PER THE 
          [B. Pledge of Allegiance.]
TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12TH, 2026 AT 5 P.M. THANK YOU. ITEM THREE. 
          DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. MR. CHAIRMAN, UNDER STATE LAW, A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL IS REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST FOR THEMSELVES OR CERTAIN 
          [2. CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC NOTICE]
FAMILY MEMBERS AND ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON MATTERS RELATED TO SUCH CONFLICT. ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS TO DISCLOSE RELATED TO THE PENDING MATTERS ON TODAY'S AGENDA? NO, SIR. THANK YOU. ITEM. ITEM FOUR MEETING PROCEDURES. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE MEETING PROCEDURES USED BY 
          [3. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST]
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. ALL ITEMS ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED AS THEY APPEAR ON THE AGENDA AS EACH ITEM IS INTRODUCED. STAFF WILL PRESENT ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE ITEM BEING CONSIDERED. THE PARTY MAKING THE REQUEST MAY MAKE A PRESENTATION AND MAY 
          [4. MEETING PROCEDURES]
ADDRESS THE BOARD ON ANY ISSUES ARISING DURING THE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEM BEING CONSIDERED. 
          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 ITEM. 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 IT BELIEVES TO BE APPROPRIATE. A MINIMUM OF FOUR VOTES ARE REQUIRED FOR AN ITEM TO BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD. ITEM FIVE 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 LARGE GROUPS IS REQUIRED. WE ASK FOR EVERYONE'S COOPERATION AND FOLLOWING THESE PROCEDURES. IS ANYONE HERE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS IN THE AUDIENCE? WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM SIX MINUTES. CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE JULY 29TH, 2026 
          [5. PUBLIC COMMENTS]
REGULAR MEETING. IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE? A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND FROM MR. GONZALEZ. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON TO ITEM SEVEN, OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. HOLD PUBLIC 
          [6. MINUTES]
HEARING AND CONSIDER THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY JAR GROUP DEVELOPMENT L.P. FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES TO THE CITY OF EDINBURGH. UDC TO ALLOW THE REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUM LOT AREA LOT WITH THE REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREA RATIO AND TO DEFINE THE 
          [7. PUBLIC HEARINGS]
SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR LOTS ONE THROUGH 124. GRATITUDE GROVE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 2620 NORTH CLOSNER BOULEVARD. GOOD EVENING BOARD. HI, MR. PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR. GRATITUDE ROSE. GRATITUDE. GROVES IS A RESIDENTIAL, URBAN AND TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION THAT WAS RECORDED 124 LOTS. IT WAS RECORDED BACK IN JUNE 2ND OF 2026. SO A FEW MONTHS AGO, AND WHEN IT WAS 
          [A. Hold Public Hearing and Consider the Variance Request by JAR Group Development, L.P., for the]
RECORDED, IT WAS RECORDED WITH A ZERO FOOT SIDE SETBACK. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE KIND OF NOTICED OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS IS THAT THERE'S MORE OF A DEMAND FOR TOWNHOMES WITH DETACHED SETBACKS, INSTEAD OF ALL THE TOWNHOMES BEING ATTACHED TO ONE ANOTHER. SO THEY HAVE A VARIANCE HERE IN FRONT OF US TODAY. AND THERE'S FOUR THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE CONSIDERED. THE FIRST ONE IS OUR CURRENT UDC REQUIRES THAT EACH TOWNHOME LOT HAVE A MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 4000FT■!S IF IT'S GOING TO BE DETACHED. MOST OF THE LOTS IN THAT SUBDIVISION, THE SMALLEST ONE MEASURES 3631. SO THEY'RE A LITTLE SHY OF THAT. 
          AND AS FAR AS THE LOT WIDTH, ALL OF THE LOTS THERE AT THAT SUBDIVISION, OR MOST OF THEM 
          [00:05:01]
ARE 35FT WIDE. AND THE CURRENT UDC REQUIRES 40FT. THEY'RE ALSO ASKING FOR A REDUCTION OF THE SIDE SETBACKS. INSTEAD OF HAVING ATTACHED, THEY'RE PROPOSING THREE FEET AND THREE FEET. SO THERE WOULD BE A TOTAL OF SIX BETWEEN STRUCTURES. AND THEN THE LAST ONE, IT HAS TO DO WITH LANDSCAPING. THE CURRENT UDC REQUIRES 40% OF THE LOT TO BE LANDSCAPED. THERE'S SOMEWHERE IN THE AREA OF 36FT■!S OR 36%. I'M SORRY, AS FAR AS LANDSCAPING. SO THOSE ARE THE FOUR VARIANCES THAT ARE UP FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION. OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, WE'VE TALKED TO THE FIRE CHIEF. WE'VE TALKED TO THE DIRECTOR OF BUILDING PERMITS, AND WE'VE COME UP TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WE WOULD ACCEPT OR WE WOULD SUPPORT A ZERO AND SIX, WITH ONE SIDE BEING BUILT WITH A MASONRY WALL, AND THEN THE OTHER SIDE COULD HAVE WINDOWS. BUT SO THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD SUPPORT A ZERO SIX FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE. BUT AS PRESENTED, WE WOULD HAVE TO RECOMMEND AGAINST IT. I THINK THE ENGINEERS HERE AS AS THE DEVELOPER AND I'M HERE IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. AZEVEDO. I'LL NOW OPEN THIS ITEM FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE ITEM? GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M THE PROJECT ENGINEER FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. 
          I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THE IDEA IS TO GO THREE AND THREE WITH THE TOTAL DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDING OF SIX. I KNOW THERE'S A FEW CONCERNS ABOUT THE AC UNIT TO BE ONE SIZE, SO THAT WILL PRETTY MUCH, YOU KNOW, BLOCK THE ACCESS TO THE BACK. 
          BUT THE DEVELOPER IS WILLING TO, I MEAN, FORCE THE BUILDERS TO HAVE THAT AC UNIT ON THE BACK. 
          THAT WILL BE AN OPTION, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE IT WORK. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, I'M HERE TO ANSWER. THANK YOU. MR. CONNELL. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WANTS TO MAKE A COMMENT? I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT WHEN SUBDIVIDING? WAS IT? IT WASN'T TO, I KNOW FOR ATTACHED PRODUCTS OR ATTACHED TOWNHOMES, WE REQUIRE. WHAT A 20 FOOT, 25FT, 25 FOOT EASEMENT, RIGHT? OR 20 FOOT EASEMENT, TEN AND TEN OR WHATEVER IT BE. BUT I KNOW THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE, I GUESS, THE TOWNHOME ZONING, RIGHT. AND WHAT IT ALLOWED. SOME PEOPLE THOUGHT, WELL, IF YOU ALLOW ZERO, THEN WHY WON'T YOU ALLOW 5 OR 6? RIGHT? GIVE THEM MORE. EXACTLY. SO I UNDERSTAND THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION DURING THIS TIME. DURING THE PAST FEW MONTHS. SOME PEOPLE STOPPED DEVELOPMENT. OTHER PEOPLE WENT FORWARD WITH THE DEVELOPMENTS, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY COULD DETACH THEM. RIGHT. WHICH IS AND I SEE THAT NOW DEVELOPERS ARE COMING BACK AND TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION, RIGHT? NOT ONLY DEVELOPERS, BUT ALSO BUILDERS THAT HAVE RECEIVED EITHER APPROVED BUILDING PERMITS THAT ARE BEING REVOKED OR, OR OTHER RIGHT, OR BUILDING PERMITS THAT HAVE JUST BEEN HELD UP. SO I KIND OF WANT TO ASK THE STAFF, WHAT IS THE FUTURE RESPONSE TO THIS? RIGHT? BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE NOT ONLY ARE THESE TWO APPLICANTS GOING TO BE HERE, BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE A WAVE OF OTHER APPLICANTS. AND I GUESS WHAT, RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT CHANGES TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO SEPARATE TOWNHOMES. IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING TOWNHOMES, IT'S GOT TO BE ATTACHED. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE ITS OWN ZONE. AND THEN THE OTHER ZONE WOULD BE FOR THE AUTO URBAN HOMES, FOR THE SMALLER DETACHED. SO GOING FORWARD IN THE FUTURE, THERE'S GOING TO BE TWO DIFFERENT ZONINGS, ONE FOR THE ATTACHED TOWNHOMES AND THEN THE OTHER ONE FOR THE DETACHED. SO SO THE REASON FOR THESE VARIANCES TODAY ARE BECAUSE OR IS BECAUSE WE CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE A SEPARATE ZONING. IT'S EITHER YOU ATTACH THEM ALL OR THEY'RE DETACHED AND THEY FALL UNDER THE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ZONING, WHICH IS A 40 FOOT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AND SO ON. RIGHT. AND THESE, THESE TWO APPLICANTS HERE TODAY, RATHER THAN WAITING FOR THE UDC CHANGES TO HAPPEN, THEY OPTED TO APPLY ALREADY TO TRY TO GET A VARIANCE SO THAT THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR PROJECTS. OKAY, NOW DO THESE FOR THE MOST PART, MEET THE WHAT? I GUESS THE PROPOSED NEW UDC CHANGES ARE ARE GOING TO BE OR MORE OR LESS. OR WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE PROPOSED UDC CHANGES? WELL, NOTHING'S BEEN APPROVED YET. THEY'RE JUST PROPOSALS AT AT AT THIS TIME. 
          BUT YES, WITH THE WITH REGARDS TO GRATITUDE GROVES, HE WOULD MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS 
          [00:10:05]
EXCEPT FOR ONE THE LOT WIDTH. WE ARE PROPOSING 36 FOOT LOTS FOR THE DETACHED ONES. AND HE'S AT 35 SO HE'S A FOOT SHORT. OKAY. IS THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? I'D LIKE TO MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT. I THINK THE CITY REALLY NEEDS THIS NEW ZONING. I THINK IT'S IT'S IT'S MUCH NEEDED. I KNOW THAT WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT, I GUESS THE CITY OF MCALLEN, THE CITY OF MISSION, HAVE ALREADY IMPLEMENTED SIMILAR ZONINGS. RIGHT? WE'VE SEEN SOME OF THEIR PRODUCT THAT'S COME OUT AND IT'S I'M ASSUMING WE CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE WE'RE NOT THE CITY. WE DID A LITTLE BIT OF, OF, OF RESEARCH. AND MOST OF THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN THOSE CITIES HAVE BEEN ALSO THROUGH VARIANCES BECAUSE THEY TOO DON'T HAVE SOMETHING THAT KIND OF CLEARS THIS UP BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S FAIRLY NEW. WHAT ARE WE SEEING ON THE, ON THE SITE SETBACK FOR THEM? WE SAW TWO EXAMPLES, ONE IN MISSION AND ONE IN MCALLEN, AND THOSE WERE ZERO AND SIX. WHETHER WERE THEY SPECIFIED, THE WEST SIDE IS GOING TO BE AT ZERO AND THE EAST SIDE IS GOING TO BE AT SIX, OKAY. OR THE NORTH SIDE IS GOING TO BE AT ZERO, AND THE SOUTH SIDE IS GOING TO BE AT SIX, DEPENDING ON THE ORIENTATION OF THE LOT. OKAY. QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IS OR WOULD YOU GUYS, I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE A TOTAL OF SIX BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS, BUT WOULD YOU GUYS BE OKAY DOING ZERO AND SIX? LET ME HAVE THE DEVELOPER ANSWER THAT QUESTION. SURE. GOOD AFTERNOON OR GOOD EVENING. YEAH. MY NAME IS SIMON RODRIGUEZ. YES, I'M OKAY WITH THAT. ACTUALLY OUR INTENTIONS WERE TO DO GARDEN HOMES. SO THOSE WERE OUR INTENTIONS FIRST TO DO THE THREE THREE AS WE DECIDED WHEN WE SUBMITTED THE PLANS, THAT WAS THE INTENTIONS. AND WE ALSO GOT THE PLANS FROM MCALLEN. AND MCALLEN HAD ALREADY APPROVED, BUT IT WAS ZERO SIX. AND MR. ACEVEDO AND I KIND OF WENT OVER. WE LOOKED AT THAT SUBDIVISION THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED IN MCALLEN FOR ZERO SIX. SO I'M OKAY IF IF THAT'S YOUR INTENTION, INSTEAD OF DOING THE THREE THREE, THEN WE CAN GO ZERO SIX. THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. IS THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? IF NOT, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION ON THIS ITEM, AND I'LL ASK THE BOARD FOR A MOTION. DOES IT HAVE TO BE IT COULD JUST BE ONE. I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE, SUBJECT TO A ZERO AND SIX SETBACK REQUIREMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE NOT APPROVING THE THREE AND THREE, BUT WE'RE APPROVING UP TO THE LOT LINE. AND THEN THAT YOU GUYS HAVE A SIX FOOT SIDE SETBACK ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE. ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE. CORRECT. THAT'S MY MOTION. I SECOND HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. LUIS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. MOTION PASSES. NOW, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER THREE VARIANCES THAT WERE ATTACHED? THE LOT WITH THE LOT WIDTH AND THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. OKAY. I MOTION FOR. SO LET'S LET'S TAKE THEM ONE BY ONE THE LOT WIDTH. AGAIN, THESE ALL FALL. THESE ARE ALL, I GUESS THESE ARE ALL BEING PRESENTED BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT GARDEN, HOME MIDDLE TYPE OF ZONING. RIGHT? SO IF WE DID A LOT OF THESE OR MOST OF THEM WOULD BE ADDRESSED BY THAT. SO I'LL MOTION FOR APPROVAL FOR THE OTHER THREE VARIANCE REQUESTS ON ITEM. ITEM 7787 A SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND FOR MR. ALMAGUER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. 
          MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON TO ITEM SEVEN. B, HOLD PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY MELVIN HUNT ON BEHALF OF B AND M LIVING SPACES, LLC. CONSTRUCTION. 
          MODERN CONSTRUCTION PROPERTIES. ADELAIDA DEL CARMEN CASTELLANOS, VEGA DEVELOPMENT, R&R LEGACY BUILDS, MARIA DE LOS ANGELES, LEDESMA MORALES AND THE CENTER OFFICES FOR THE FOLLOWING 
          [B. Hold Public Hearing and Consider the Variance Request by Melden & Hunt, Inc., on Behalf of B&M]
          [00:15:02]
VARIANCES TO THE CITY OF EDINBURGH UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW THE REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUM LOT AREA LOT WITH THE REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREA RATIO AND TO DEFINE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR LOTS TWO THROUGH 62 ENCLAVE ON KLAUSNER SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 301 DAVID DRIVE. OKAY, THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE ITEM SEVEN A THAT WAS JUST PRESENTED. HOWEVER, THESE LOTS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. THIS IS IN THE AREA OF OF DAVID ROAD AND AND BUSINESS 281 IN SOUTH EDINBURGH. AND INITIALLY WHEN THIS PARTICULAR PLAT WAS RECORDED BACK IN NOVEMBER OF 2025, THE PROPOSAL WAS FOR ATTACHED TOWNHOMES AND THE LOTS RANGE, BUT MOST OF THEM ARE ABOUT 2700FT■!S, THE LOTS BEING ABOUT 27FT WIDE, SO THEY NEED A VARIANCE ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE LOT WIDTH. AND WHEN IT WAS RECORDED, IT WAS RECORDED WITH ZERO FOOT SETBACKS. THEY WERE THEY WERE ALL GOING TO BE ATTACHED. BUT THE MARKET FOR ATTACHED HOMES IS NOT AS GOOD AS THE MARKET FOR A DETACHED HOME. SO THEY'RE CHANGING THEIR REQUEST TO SEE IF THEY CAN GET A. THEY'RE PROPOSING ZERO AND FIVE, BUT IT DID GET AN EMAIL TODAY FROM THE ENGINEER WHO SAID HE WOULD BE RECEPTIVE TO ZERO SIX. I GOT THAT BEFORE THE MEETING. AND THEY'RE ALSO REQUESTING FOR A VARIANCE ON THE LANDSCAPING. THIS ONE HAS A LITTLE BIT LESS LANDSCAPING THAN THE ONE WE JUST SAW. THIS ONE'S PROBABLY AT ABOUT 26%. 
          AFTER WE CALCULATE THE BUILDABLE AREA. AND THOSE ARE THE CHANGES. THOSE ARE THE FOUR PROPOSALS THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. AGAIN THESE LOTS ARE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER, BUT THE REQUEST IS SIMILAR IN IN, IN NATURE TO THE ONE THAT WE JUST SAW FOR SEVEN EIGHT. THANK YOU. 
          MR. ACEVEDO IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM. BEFORE THAT, I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THIS ITEM FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE. CAN YOU GO FIRST? EITHER EITHER ONE. YES, SIR. REGARDS TO THAT. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, SIR? LUIS VEGA. OKAY. 66 YEAR OLD DISABLED VETERAN. I'VE BEEN LISTED 15, MAYBE 18 YEARS ON THIS PLACE. OKAY, I AM TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION AS TO WHAT EXACTLY I'M SORRY TO SAY, BUT THE LEGAL LINGO, I'M NOT ATTUNED TO IT. SO I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT EXACTLY THE THIS MEANS TO ME DOES. IT MEANS THAT I'M I'M GOING TO LOSE LAND OR AM I GOING TO LOSE. BASICALLY, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. SO I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU PROBABLY LIVE IN THE SUBDIVISION NEXT TO IT, RIGHT? SO THIS DOESN'T AFFECT ANYTHING ON YOUR PROPERTY. IT DOESN'T AFFECT ANYTHING ON YOUR HOUSE. WHAT IT BASICALLY IS, IS THAT THESE DEVELOPERS ARE COMING IN AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE SETBACK CODES FOR THE CITY OF EDINBURGH. 
          SO, SO EVERYTHING THAT THEY'RE WE'RE VOTING ON TODAY STAYS ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY AND DOESN'T DOESN'T GO ON YOUR PROPERTY. OKAY. I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T PRESUME TO KNOW. I READ IT AND I SAID, OKAY, I NEED TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON HERE BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, I'M GETTING READY TO RETIRE. I DON'T NEED TO BE MOVED OUT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. NO, NO, NO, OF COURSE NOT. THIS IS THIS WILL NOT DO THAT. DEFINITELY NOT. IT'S WELL, THAT WAS MY MAIN CONCERN. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN REST ASSURED THAT THIS VARIANCE IS JUST FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WITH YOUR PROPERTY, EVEN IF THE I MEAN, THIS IS IN THE VICINITY OF YOUR PROPERTY, YOU'RE GOING TO MAYBE DRIVE BY IT, RIGHT? SO YOU'LL SEE IT, YOU'LL SEE THE CONSTRUCTION GOING UP. BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS THIS LITTLE CIRCLE YOU HAVE HERE. GOT IT OUT. OKAY, MY PROPERTY FALLS OUT OF MAYBE A QUARTER INTO IT. IS THAT GOING TO BE AN ISSUE AS FAR AS MY LIVING AREA AND STUFF LIKE THAT, AS FAR AS YOUR LIVING AREA, YEAH. IN OTHER WORDS, I'M ASKING, OH, I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RADIUS, RIGHT? RADIUS? NO. NO, SIR, IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T ENCROACH YOUR PROPERTY. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT TO KNOW BY LAW, WE NEED TO NOTIFY THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE 300FT AROUND IT SO THAT WE'VE GOT A NOTICE JUST TO GIVE YOU A HEADS UP, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPACT YOUR PROPERTY. OKAY, GENTLEMEN. IT IS. EVERYBODY ELSE. HAVE A NICE EVENING. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, SIR. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, MARIO REYNA, PRESIDENT OF MELVIN HUNT, REPRESENTING QUITE A FEW PEOPLE HERE TODAY. SO SOME OF THESE LOTS HAVE SOLD. AS I MENTIONED, WHEN WE 
          [00:20:05]
INITIALLY PLANNED THIS PROJECT, THEY WERE GOING TO BE ATTACHED THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE. 
          WE DIDN'T GET VERY GOOD FEEDBACK. I HAVE SOME HANDOUTS HERE. HAND THESE OUT. 
          SO THIS IS KIND OF THE CONCEPT WE'RE DOING HERE. WE'VE DONE THIS IN OTHER CITIES, AS I MENTIONED. AND SO AS WE GOT THROUGH CONSTRUCTION, THE DEVELOPER AUDIBLED, HE WASN'T GETTING GOOD FEEDBACK AT THE ZERO ZERO. SO HE HIRED AN ARCHITECT, CAME UP WITH MULTIPLE FLOOR PLANS. WE INITIALLY CAME UP WITH THE FLOOR PLAN AT ZERO SIX, AND I COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD THE CODE. I THOUGHT IF YOU WERE ZERO, THAT WAS THE MINIMUM, WHICH YOU COULD BE MORE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER PLACES WITH THE FIREWALL. BUT WE CAME UP WITH SOME DESIGNS THAT ARE MODERN. THESE ARE ABOUT 1200FT■!S, LIVING AREA, TO CAR GARAGE. THEY WORK. IT'S A SIMILAR REQUEST TO YOUR LAST ONE. THIS FLOOR PLAN DOES WORK ON THIS LOT. AND SO WE'RE ASKING FOR WE'RE OKAY WITH ZERO SIX. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. MARIO. GIVEN THAT THESE LOTS ARE NARROWER THAN THE ONES THAT WE SAW PREVIOUSLY. CAN YOU CAN YOU FIT THIS ON THERE? YES, SIR. SO WE HAVE, I THINK, ABOUT 4 TO 5 CONCEPTS THAT WE'VE CREATED IN EACH ONE OF THESE CONCEPTS CAN FIT ON A ZERO FIVE. AND WE'VE UPDATED THEM TO BE TO ZERO SIX. AND I THINK WE'VE SUBMITTED MULTIPLE PERMITS UP TO DATE PENDING HOPEFULLY HOW THIS GOES TODAY. DO YOU GUYS KNOW OF IT? ALL OF THEM WILL BE TWO TWO CAR GARAGE OR WILL THEY BE A MIX OR EVERY CONCEPT THAT WE HAVE IS A TWO CAR GARAGE. 
          YES, SIR. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. DO YOU GUYS ALSO RECOMMEND THE SAME ZERO SIX ON ON THIS DEVELOPMENT? THAT'S CORRECT. WE WOULD SUPPORT A ZERO SIX BUT NOT THE ZERO FIVE, NOT THE ZERO FIVE. OKAY. AND SO THE ZERO SIX ALLOWS FOR ITS PENETRATIONS ON ONE OF THE SIDES. CORRECT. ON THE ON THE LARGER SIX FOOT SIDE, YOU WOULD ALLOW FOR, FOR WINDOWS OR PENETRATIONS. CORRECT. AND THE OTHER SIDE WOULD BE FIRE RATED. THE OTHER SIDE WOULD HAVE TO BE THE, THE CONSENSUS BETWEEN THE BUILDING CODE DIRECTOR AND THE FIRE CHIEF WAS TO DO A SOLID MASONRY WALL. OKAY, SO THAT'S NOT JUST A TWO HOUR FIRE RATED WALL, BUT A SOLID MASONRY WALL. 
          OKAY, WELL, THAT'S NOT WE'RE NOT TAKING THAT UP TODAY. RIGHT. THAT'S, THAT'S THE CONSENSUS. 
          IT'S A DECISION BETWEEN THE FIRE CHIEF AND THE BUILDING CHIEF. OKAY. WELL, THAT'S HOW THEY WOULD SUPPORT IT WITH THOSE CONDITIONS. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? ANY QUESTIONS? BOARD. ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS. THEN I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION ON THIS ITEM, AND I'LL ASK THE BOARD FOR A MOTION. 
          MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE ZERO SIX SETBACK. IS THAT FOR ALL THE REQUESTS OR FOR ALL THE REQUESTS, I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FOR ALL THE VARIANCE REQUESTS ON ITEM SEVEN B, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND FOR MR. LUIS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON TO ITEM SEVEN C. 
          PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER VARIANCE REQUEST BY ERICA CANALES FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES TO THE PLAT FOR STONEBROOK ESTATES DOCUMENT 191998-6482. RECORDED IN VOLUME 
          [00:25:02]
33, PAGE ONE. 60 A MAP RECORDS OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS, ON JUNE 4TH, 1998. THE VARIANCE 
          [C. Hold Public Hearing and Consider the Variance Request by Erica E. Canales for the following]
REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THE REDUCTION OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR LOT THREE, AND TO ALLOW FOR THE ENCROACHMENT INTO A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT. STONEBROOK ESTATE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 2003 TARIK LANE. THIS BOARD. THE TARIQ APARTMENTS ARE IN THE AREA ON SOUTH JACKSON, NORTH OF CANTON AND IT'S A FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION AND CURRENTLY THEY'VE BUILT A BEAUTIFUL HIGH RISE ON ON THE FIRST TWO LOTS. AND NOW THEY'RE MOVING OVER TO THE EAST AND BUILDING ON LOT NUMBER THREE. NOW, I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM BECAUSE INITIALLY LOT THREE WAS GOING TO BE FOR DRAINAGE, AND IT DOES HAVE DRAINAGE FOR THE FIRST TWO UNITS THAT WERE BUILT THERE. WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS THEY'RE MOVING THAT DRAINAGE POND FURTHER SOUTH ON LOT THREE TO ACCOMMODATE FOR TWO MORE BUILDINGS ON ON LOT THREE. SO MET WITH THE CITY ENGINEER, LOOKED AT THE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS THAT WAS REQUIRED FOR THE FOR ALL THE LOTS, AND THEY SUBMITTED A REVISED DRAINAGE REPORT SHOWING THAT THE VOLUME THAT WAS GOING TO BE DETAINED FOR THOSE FIRST 2 OR 3 LOTS IS STILL GOING TO BE THE SAME. SO WE'RE OKAY WITH THE WITH THE PROPOSAL AS FAR AS THEM BUILDING ON LOT THREE AND THE VARIANCES, THERE'S TWO VARIANCES THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING HERE FOR LOT FOR LOT THREE. AND THE FIRST ONE HAS TO DO WITH THE SIDE SETBACK. THIS IS AN IRREGULAR CUL DE SAC LOT. AND IT DOES HAVE A A PLAT SPECIFIED SEVEN FOOT SIDE SETBACK BECAUSE IT'S A CUL DE SAC. THEY'RE LEAVING SIX FEET. SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE OF A FOOT. I WILL SAY THAT THE BUILDING THAT IS PROPOSED IS OVER 30FT FROM THE NEAREST BUILDING. SO THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF SEPARATION BETWEEN STRUCTURES. THE SECOND VARIANCE IS TO BUILD CARPORTS ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE LOT AND ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE LOT. AND WE WE HANDED OUT AN EXHIBIT THAT KIND OF HIGHLIGHTS THE AREA WHERE THEY WANT TO BUILD THE CARPORTS. THERE'S ALSO, I THINK, 2 OR 3 TRASH BIN ENCLOSURES ALSO WITHIN THAT AREA. NOW, WE LOOKED AT THE PLAT. IT'S A PLAT FROM 1998, AND WE DID NOTICE THAT THERE WAS SOME EASEMENTS THERE. 
          THERE'S SOME EASEMENTS ON THE NORTH SIDE, AND THERE'S SOME EASEMENTS ON THE EAST SIDE WHERE THE CAR PARTS ARE GOING TO BE PROPOSED. HOWEVER, WHEN WE WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE PLAT, WE LOOKED AT THE AS BUILTS TO SEE WHAT WAS IN THOSE EASEMENTS. THERE'S NOTHING THERE. THE WATER LINE, SEWER LINES, THEY'RE ALL ALONG THE STREET. THESE APPEAR TO BE BLANKET EASEMENTS, SO IF APPROVED, WE WOULD WANT TO SEE THAT THERE'S A HOLD HARMLESS ATTACHED FOR THOSE CARPORTS. BUT AS FAR AS THE ONE FOOT, WE DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THEM DEVIATING FROM THE 7FT TO 6FT BECAUSE THEY ARE LEAVING AMPLE ROOM ON THE SECOND VARIANCE. 
          HOWEVER, WE WOULD WANT TO SEE, IF APPROVED, THAT THEY DO SOME KIND OF HOLD HARMLESS. THANK YOU, MR. SOMERVILLE. I'LL NOW OPEN THIS ITEM FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT? I SPOKE TO THE APPLICANT EARLIER AND I BELIEVE THEY THEY SENT ME A PRESENTATION TO HAND OUT, WHICH WAS GIVEN TO EACH ONE OF YOU, BUT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING. AND THEIR ARCHITECT IS ALSO OUT OF TOWN. MR. ACEVEDO ON. THE CARPORTS. THIS IS GOING OVER A DRAINAGE EASEMENT. CORRECT. I SEE TWO, TWO EASEMENTS. IS IT THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT? YES. OKAY. SO LET'S START WITH THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON ON THAT. IS THERE ANY FUTURE PLANS. WELL WE WOULD WANT TO SEE THEM ALSO GET A LETTER FROM THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT THAT THEY'RE OKAY WITH THEM ENCROACHING OVER THAT EASEMENT. OKAY. BEFORE WE ISSUE OUT ANY BUILDING PERMITS, DOES THAT EASEMENT BELONG TO THE CITY OF EDINBURG OR TO. NO, IT'S A COUNTY. IT'S THE COUNTY. 
          OKAY. SO WE WE'D ASK FOR THAT, RIGHT? DEFINITELY. RIGHT. OKAY. AND THEN THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL 15 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT, BUT THERE'S REALLY NOTHING THERE THAT, THAT THAT APPEARS LIKE A BLANKET EASEMENT. SO THE 15FT, THERE'S THERE'S NO UTILITY LINES IN THERE, NO UTILITY LINES WHATSOEVER. NO. SO THEY'RE ALLOWED TO PAVE OVER IT. BUT THE ISSUE HERE, THE VARIANCE IS FOR THE ACTUAL STRUCTURES, RIGHT? THE COURTS AND THE THE ACTUAL STRUCTURES THAT ARE GOING TO BE ERECTED. AND YOU GUYS ARE OKAY WITH THE, I GUESS THE, THE ENCROACHMENT 
          [00:30:04]
OF THE FOOT ON THE ON THE SETBACK, LEAVING SIX FEET FROM THE LOT LINE BECAUSE THE OTHER BUILDING IS IT'S OVER 30FT AWAY, OVER 30FT AWAY OR 30FT. OKAY. OKAY. SO I THINK. OBVIOUSLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING HERE IS GETTING ASSURANCE FROM THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT THAT THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT, RIGHT. AND THAT THERE IS NO FUTURE PLAN FOR EXPANSION THERE. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL WOULD DO. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD REQUIRE FOR THEM TO GIVE US SOME KIND OF LETTER FROM THEM, THAT IT'S OKAY FOR THEM TO BUILD THEIR CARPORTS OVER THAT EASEMENT. SO IF WE APPROVE, WE COULD DO IT SUBJECT TO SUBJECT TO CORRECT. OKAY. IS THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC OR FROM THE BOARD? IF NOT, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION ON THIS, AND I'LL ASK THE BOARD FOR A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE THE THE CARPORTS HAVING A HOLD HARMLESS, BEING SUBJECT TO IRRIGATION FLUID, WATER AND WHATNOT. I WOULD ALSO I WOULD ALSO WANTED TO APPROVE THE THAT SITE SETBACK. OKAY, SO YOU PROBABLY MET THE THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT APPROVAL, RIGHT? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NO PROBLEM. SO I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO RECEIVING DRAINAGE DISTRICT APPROVAL FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE CARPORT AND THE THE OTHER STRUCTURES THAT ARE ON IT AND SUBJECT TO RECEIVING A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FROM THE APPLICANT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND FROM MR. ALMAGUER? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON TO ITEM SEVEN. D HOLD PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY FOUR PILLARS DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR A VARIANCE TO THE CITY OF EDINBURGH UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX FOOT, PINE TREATED WOOD FENCE ALONG THE SIX FOOT HEDGES, ALONG WITH SIX FOOT HEDGES. IN LIEU OF THE 
          [D. Hold Public Hearing and Consider the Variance Request by Four Pillars Development, LLC, for a]
SIX FOOT CMU WALL REQUIRED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE BEING LOT 54, SUGAR MILL ESTATE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 1119 WEST CHAPIN ROAD. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, CLARENCE CRUZ, JUNIOR PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST CHAPIN ROAD, AND IT'S APPROXIMATELY 1320FT EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH SUGAR ROAD AND WEST CHAPIN ROAD. PROPERTY HAS A TOTAL FRONTAGE OF APPROXIMATELY 86.85FT, ALONG WITH CHAPIN, AND A LOT DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 660FT. NOW THE CURRENT ZONING IS MULTI RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT. ADJOINING ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY TO THE WEST AND NORTH, RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN TO THE DISTRICT, WEST AND EAST, AND URBAN UNIVERSITY TO THE SOUTH. ADJACENT LAND USES CONSISTS OF SINGLE FAMILY USES, VACANT LOTS AND MULTIFAMILY USES. NOW THIS PROPERTY IS PART OF THE SUGAR MILL ESTATES SUBDIVISION, WHICH WAS RECORDED IN SEPTEMBER 15TH OF 2023. NIKE STATED THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SIX FOOT, PINE TREATED WOOD FENCE WITH SIX FOOT OF HEDGES. IN LIEU OF THIS CMU WALL THAT IS REQUIRED BY OUR UDC. NOW THAT CMU WALL IS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, WHEN A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT ABUTS AN ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN DISTRICT, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH DIRECTLY EAST OF IT AND A LITTLE BIT NORTHWEST OF THIS PROPERTY. NOW, THE STAFF DID MAIL NOTICE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO 31 NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS ON AUGUST 7TH, 2026, AND RECEIVED NO COMMENTS IN FAVOR AGAINST THE REQUEST AT THE TIME THE REPORT WAS PREPARED. NOW, THE APPLICANT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE, BUT IF APPROVED, THE APPLICANT WILL ALSO NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS. THIS IS MORE OR LESS WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING. OKAY. THANK YOU CLARENCE. YOU'RE WELCOME. I'LL NOW OPEN THIS ITEM FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE THE ITEM? HI, MY NAME IS DANIELA 
          [00:35:01]
PEREZ. I'M HERE TO REPRESENT SUGAR MILL ESTATES LLC. SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS A PROPOSED ENHANCED BUFFER, WHICH IS GOING TO BE YOUR SIX FOOT PRIVACY WOOD FENCE, TOGETHER WITH THE CONTINUOUS EVERGREEN LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND OBVIOUSLY PERMANENT IRRIGATION. THANK YOU. DANIELA, DO YOU GUYS, YOU GUYS DID THE SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTH, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. AND ON THAT FENCE, WHAT, WHAT WHAT WAS THAT MADE OUT OF? WHAT? ALSO. YES. DID YOU COME IN FOR A VARIANCE AS WELL FOR THAT? THERE WAS NO VARIANCE REQUEST IN REFERENCE TO THAT ONE. OKAY. 
          IT'S BECAUSE THERE'S RESIDENTIAL ON THE EAST SIDE. YEAH. SO LET'S SEE. YEAH. IT'S IT'S THE SAME SUBDIVISION. YEAH. YEAH. SO TO THE SOUTH. YEAH. HAVE YOU GUYS HAS THERE BEEN ANY COMPLAINTS FROM FROM THE RESIDENTS AND THE SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION THAT WE KNOW OF. 
          IT'S UNKNOWN TO ME. NO, NO, WE DIDN'T GET ANY COMMENTS. WE DIDN'T GET ANY COMMENTS EITHER. 
          OKAY. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THESE DUPLEXES OR WHAT ARE THESE FOURPLEXES? WELL, THERE LET ME SEE. RIGHT THERE. THE SITE PLAN. SO YOU'LL SEE 20 UNITS. SOME OF THEM ARE LIKE DUPLEXES AND SOME OF THEM STAND ALONE. AND WE'RE KIND OF GOING BACK AND FORTH IF IT'S GOING TO BE PRIVATE. BUT I MEAN, IT'S VERY LIKE A SECLUDED LITTLE SUBDIVISION. SO I MEAN, WE'LL MAKE THE LANDSCAPE LOOK VERY NICE. ENTRANCE ONLY FROM CHAPIN. CORRECT. SO IT WON'T BE. 
          YEAH. IT'S NOT CONNECTED TO THE SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTH. SO YOU WON'T HAVE THROUGH TRAFFIC. 
          NO. 
          WHAT IS I GUESS WHAT'S THE DRIVER FOR. THE MAIN REASON BEHIND, YOU KNOW, THE THE THE WOOD, IS IT THE COST OF THE CMU? THERE'S COST INVOLVED, BUT ALSO ENHANCING THE BUFFER. I MEAN, A CMU WALL JUST IT'S NOT THAT ATTRACTIVE VERSUS I MEAN, YOU HAVE THE UNITS TO THE EAST AND THEN HAVING LIKE A CMU WALL VERSUS THE WOODED WITH THE WITH THE CONTINUOUS HEDGES, IT JUST ENHANCES EVERYTHING. IT LOOKS SO MUCH BETTER. I'VE SEEN THAT BEFORE. WHERE. WHERE THE APPLICANT BUILDS THE WALL. AND FOR SOME REASON THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE OTHER SIDE. SO THEY DON'T FINISH OFF THE OTHER SIDE. AND IT JUST LOOKS I'M TALKING ABOUT THE CMU WALL, AND YOU HAVE ALL THE GROUT COMING OUT FROM THE JOINTS. AND IT'S JUST NOT NOT A GOOD LOOK. I HAVE A QUESTION. YES. ARE YOU ALL DEVELOPING THIS AND ALSO BUILDING THESE BUILDINGS. SO FOUR PILLARS IS THE DEVELOP OR SO FOUR PILLARS IS THE CONTRACTOR. AND SUGAR MILL ESTATES IS THE OWNER WHICH IS MY DAD. SO BASICALLY HE'S GOING TO KEEP THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT FOR HIS PORTFOLIO. SO OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW HE WANTS THIS TO LOOK REALLY NICE. SO TO BE KEPT REALLY NICE. SO THE, THE WOOD FENCE, YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PRIVATE. SO I'M ASSUMING THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE AN HOA OR THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP IT. THERE IS GOING TO BE AN HOA AND THE HOA GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING UP WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THIS. 
          CORRECT. SO THE HOA, WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE IT PRIVATE TO HAVE AN HOA. AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ALWAYS HAVE AN HOA BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE WITH POOLS AND TRAMPOLINES IN THE FRONT AND GARAGE SALES AND STUFF LIKE THAT. SO YOU JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THIS SUBDIVISION LOOKING TIP TOP SHAPE. I MEAN, IF YOUR DAD'S GOING TO BE THE SOLE OWNER, I DON'T THINK YOU'LL HAVE THAT ISSUE. AND THEN FOR GARAGE SALES, YOU NEED A PERMIT FROM THE CITY ANYWAYS. 
          SO YEAH, BUT BUT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE FENCE. SO AS THE YEARS GO BY, THAT'S GOING TO BE KEPT UP BY YOUR FATHER. CORRECT. HOA. OKAY. THAT'S A GOOD COMMENT. THE MAINTENANCE OF IT. WELL THAT'S GOOD THAT THERE'S AN HOA IN PLACE. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR FOR THE 
          [00:40:09]
STAFF. WHAT IS THE WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS THE MATERIAL THAT NEEDS TO BE USED TO BUILD, YOU KNOW, WHAT TYPE OF FENCE? MASONRY. WOOD. YES, SIR. WHENEVER IT'S OVER 200FT OR MORE IN LENGTH, THE LOT DEPTH, IT REQUIRES A CMU WALL. I'M SORRY TO SAY IT AGAIN. 
          WHENEVER IT'S OVER 200FT OR MORE IN LENGTH. AND THAT'S WHAT A CMU SIX FOOT CMU WALL. SIX FOOT CMU. YEAH. WHICH IS A CONCRETE CONCRETE MASONRY. SO HERE WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FROM CONCRETE TO WOOD TO WOOD. YES. SO INSTEAD OF THE CMU WALL, THEY WANT TO DO THE SIX FOOT CEDAR FENCE WITH SIX FOOT OF HEDGES. YEAH. I JUST SO HAPPEN TO LIVE JUST WEST OF THIS SUBDIVISION. IN FACT, WHEN YOU WHEN THE THE FENCE WAS BUILT, THE FENCE THAT WENT, I GUESS EAST AND WEST, THERE WAS NO VARIANCE REQUESTED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. RIGHT. AND SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AT THE TIME THAT THE REQUIREMENT WAS MASONRY AND SO WENT WOOD. RIGHT. 
          AND SO THERE'S ACTUALLY A DITCH THAT RUNS ALONG THERE. YOU KNOW, THAT DITCH THAT THAT WAS BUILT BY THE BY THE CONTRACTOR OWNER. AND SO THERE'S NO ACTUALLY NO FENCE FROM MY PROPERTY IN THAT DITCH. THERE'S ACTUALLY NO, NO FENCE AT ALL THAT HAS BEEN BUILT. AND I'VE ASKED AND ASKED AND ASKED, BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT HAS BEEN BUILT THERE THAT SEPARATES MY PROPERTY FROM THE DITCH. RIGHT. AND SO I THINK WHEN Y'ALL BUILT THE, THE MASONRY WALL RIGHT BY MY PROPERTY, Y'ALL STOP WHERE THE DITCH WAS, Y'ALL DIDN'T CONTINUE ON AND FINISH IT, RIGHT. I GUESS THE, THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE IS IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE, IF YOU MOVE ALL, IF YOU JUST DRIVE RIGHT ALONG SUGAR ROAD, THOSE FENCES ARE SO DILAPIDATED RIGHT NEXT TO WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS, RIGHT? THOSE FENCES. AND YOU KNOW, NO ONE'S DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT. YOU JUST KEEP GOING. ACTUALLY GO WEST FURTHER WEST PAST SUGAR, ALL THE WAY TO JACKSON ROAD, ALL THE WAY TO MCCALL. AND YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE THESE FENCES ARE JUST DILAPIDATED BECAUSE THEY'RE ACTUALLY CEDAR. RIGHT. 
          SO I GUESS I, I HAVE AN ISSUE, YOU KNOW, I MAY HAVE A CONFLICT HERE. I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE A CONFLICT OR NOT, BUT, YOU KNOW, I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH, WITH THESE VARIANCES THAT REQUIRE REQUESTING FROM MASONRY TO WOOD BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT KEPT UP. AND I KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, RIGHT. BUT THAT DOESN'T STILL GUARANTEE THE FUTURE OF, OF THIS TYPE OF FENCE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I'M HAVING ISSUES WITH THE ACTUAL, THE LAST DEVELOPMENT THAT Y'ALL DID, I STILL HAVEN'T NO ONE'S HEARD ME AND NO ONE'S LISTENED TO TO MY APPEALS. SO I GUESS THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE NOW. NOBODY'S LISTENING TO ME. 
          MISTER, AT THIS TIME, BECAUSE YOU ARE MENTIONING A SPECIFIC ITEMS. I BELIEVE THAT THERE MAY BE A CONFLICT. SO MY MY LEGAL OPINION IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE BOARD AND THE CITY IS THAT YOU REFRAIN FROM MAKING ANY FURTHER COMMENTS. THAT'S THE LEGAL POSITION RIGHT NOW. 
          THAT'S A DECISION THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE, MISTER. BUT THAT IS LEGAL POSITION. MAYBE SOMEONE ELSE WOULD HAVE TO MAYBE VOTE ON THIS ONE, RIGHT? CORRECT. YES, SIR. SO GOING BACK, I THINK THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THIS. AND SO YOU SAY THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE AN HOA, BUT MAYBE FOR CITY STAFF HOW LONG DO WE REQUIRE FOR I MEAN, FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO UPDATE THEIR FENCING? OR DOES THE CITY GO BY AND GIVE NOTICES TO PROPERTIES THAT HAVE FENCES THAT ARE DETERIORATED AND FALLING APART AND OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T MAKE A NICE VIEW, RIGHT. 
          USUALLY THAT'S IT'S A CODE ENFORCEMENT ENFORCEMENT ISSUE WHENEVER IT'S ANY TYPE OF MAINTENANCE, IF THEY REQUIRE MAINTENANCE OR THEY SEE A DILAPIDATED OR FALLING APART, CODE ENFORCEMENT WILL REACH OUT TO THAT LANDOWNER OR PROPERTY OWNER AND ISSUE A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO UPKEEP THAT THE MAINTENANCE TO THAT FENCE. NOW WHAT IF THAT IS NOT FOLLOWED? BECAUSE THIS SOUNDS LIKE OBVIOUSLY AN ISSUE THAT HASN'T BEEN TAKEN CARE OF. IF THEY DON'T FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION OR KIND OF COME TO IT, THEN THEY'LL BE CITED FOR IT. OKAY. AND THEN LAST QUESTION ON THE FRONT EDGE OF CHAPIN, IS THERE GOING TO BE A PORTION OF THAT THAT HAS A WALL, OR IS IT ALL DRIVEWAY OR A STREET? WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY 
          [00:45:08]
WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING IN THE FRONT BECAUSE WE HAVE IF WE'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING GATES OR IT'S JUST GOING TO BE PRIVATE, NON GATED, BUT I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT LOOK GOOD. AND GOING BACK TO WHAT MR. ALMAGUER WAS TALKING ABOUT, I KNOW WHEN HE WAS MENTIONING ABOUT A FENCE NOT BEING UPKEPT, HE WAS TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER PROPERTY, NOT SUGAR MILLS. SO IF YOU GO BY SUGAR MILLS, ALL OF THE WOOD FENCE IS A KEPT UP KEPT. SORRY. SO YOU HAVE 80 I BELIEVE IT'S LIKE 80 SOME FEET OF FRONTAGE THERE ON ON CHAPIN. SO I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MAYBE SOME WALL ON EITHER SIDE OR. I'M NOT SURE WHERE YOUR ROAD'S GOING, BUT I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT. I DON'T THINK CEDAR WOOD WOULD LOOK GOOD ON THERE, SO I WOULDN'T APPROVE. WOOD TO BE INSTALLED ON THE FRONTAGE OF CHAPIN, BUT ON THE OTHER. ON THE OTHER REQUEST, I REALLY DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT AS LONG AS. OBVIOUSLY IT IS KEPT UP WITH WHERE SHE'S PROPOSING, IT ACTUALLY IS NOT IN THE FRONT. IT'S STARTING ON THE EAST SIDE GOING ALONG THE THE NO, I AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I SEE IT HERE. BUT BY HER MENTIONING THAT, I MEAN, THEY DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE GATED OR IF IT'S GOING TO BE OPEN OR NOT. I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A ROAD THAT'S 80FT, RIGHT? THAT'S GOING TO BE ACTUALLY USED TO LIVE UP HERE. OKAY. YEAH. BECAUSE THE ENTRANCE IS 30 RIGHT HERE. I THINK THE ENTRANCE IS ABOUT 2830. CAN'T REALLY. I'M SORRY. IT'S SO NOBODY CAN ZOOM IN. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. SO THAT DOESN'T OFFER A OH OH ZOOM. IS IT THE WALL. IT'S ABOUT 30FT TO BE INCLUDED. I DON'T THINK WE CAN ZOOM IN. OH OKAY. YES YES YES OF COURSE. YES. SO SO I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT WHAT'S FRONTING CHAPIN WOULD LOOK NICE IF IT WAS A NICE CMU WALL. THE THE ONLY ISSUES THAT THAT WHAT'S UP FOR VOTE RIGHT NOW IS THE STUFF ON THE EAST SIDE. RIGHT. THE STUFF THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED. CORRECT. THE WEST AND EAST SIDE, A LITTLE WEST PIECE RIGHT HERE. CORRECT. SO I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN EVEN DICTATE WHAT HAPPENS RIGHT THERE UP FRONT ON THE, THE PIECE THAT'S FRONTING CHAPIN. BUT JUST TO GO TO HIS POINT, WE WILL MAKE SURE TO MAKE SOMETHING VERY NICE IN THE FRONT AND THEN LANDSCAPE IT WITH THE NAME, WITH LIGHTING, JUST SO IT'S LIKE IT ENHANCES THE CITY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? NOW IS NOW A VOTING MEMBER, BY THE WAY. OKAY. 
          ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? ANYONE THERE? OKAY, THEN I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION ON THIS ITEM, AND I'LL ASK THE BOARD FOR A MOTION. 
          I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT. FOR TO TWO MAIN REASONS. IT'S ALREADY CONFORMING OR THIS. AND I KNOW THIS IS A SEPARATE PROPERTY, BUT WHAT THEY HAVE IN THE BACK DOESN'T HAVE A CMU WALL. RIGHT. AND WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY, I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE ANY APPLICANTS RIGHT NOW THAT ARE COMING TO US AND COMPLAINING ABOUT THE NOISE IN THAT SUBDIVISION. AND FOR THE SECOND REASON BEING THAT, WELL, THAT WAS MY SECOND REASON, THE FACT THAT IT'S ALREADY UP ON THE OTHER SIDE AND THAT THERE'S NO CITIZENS THAT ARE COMING AND COMPLAINING ABOUT IT, THAT'S MY MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE IT. SECOND, THAT MOTION, I HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. LUIS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? 
          [00:50:06]
SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO ITEM. ITEM EIGHT. INFORMATION ONLY. 
          ATTENDANCE ROSTER. DOES STAFF HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE ATTENDANCE ROSTER? NO. IT WAS 
          [8. INFORMATION ONLY]
ATTACHED TO THE PACKET, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY EXCUSES THAT WE NEED TO BECAUSE I THINK LAST TIME WE HAD A FULL QUORUM. SO IT'LL BE AT THE NEXT MEETING WHERE WE WE'LL HAVE TO ADDRESS SOME SOME ABSENCES, BUT NOT AT THIS ONE. OKAY. THANK YOU. ITEM NINE ADJOURNMENT. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING? SECOND, FIRST AND SECOND TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MEETING ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.