01/05/2017 Zoning Appeals Board


— PRESENTING THE CASES TO THE BOARD TODAY FOR THEIR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION. AT THIS TIME RESPECTFULLY, WE WOULD ASK YOU TO TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONE RINGER. TURN OFF YOUR iPAD RINGER, TURN OFF ANY ELECTRONIC DWHIESES WOULD MAKE NOISE AND POTENTIALLY INTERRUPT THE BOARD PROCEEDINGS OR ANY OF TODAY’S SPEAKERS. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION ON THAT. FOR EACH OF TODAY’S PUBLIC HEARINGS, THE BOARD REVIEWS CORRESPONDENCE THAT’S BEEN SUBMITTED IN ADVANTAGE OF THE HEARING, WHETHER IN SUPPORT OF OR OPPOSITION TO THE CASES. THE BOARD REVIEWS CORDENSE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS, AS WELL AS SITE PLANS, MAPS, PHOTOGRAPHS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH COMPRISE THE CASE RECORD. STAFF WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION OF SOME OF THOSE DOCUMENTS IN TODAY’S — TO KICK OFF TODAY’S HEARINGS. AND THEN ONCE THE HEARING IS UNDERWAY, THE APPELLANT WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS OR HER CASE TO THE BOARD. AFTER THE APPELLANT’S PRESENTATION, THE BOARD WOULD HEAR FROM THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL. AND IF THE APPEAL HAS OPPOSITION, THEN THE BOARD WOULD THEN HEAR FROM THOSE PARTIES. AFTER THE OPPOSITION COMPLETES THEIR TESTIMONY, THE APPELLANT WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENTEE BUT TESTIMONY. UNDER BUSY RULES, AN APARTMENT HAS 10 MINUTES FOR A PRESENTATION IF THERE’S NO OPPOSITION PRESENT. FOR CONTESTED CASES, RULES ALLOW 15 MINUTES TO EACH SIDE FOR TESTIMONY. SHOULD THE APPELLANT WISH TO PROVIDE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY, THEN THEY SHOULD RESERVE SOME PORTION OF THE ORIGINALLY ALLOTTED 15 MINUTES. AT THE CONCLUSION OF EACH HEARING, THE BOARD WILL DELIBERATE AND VOTE ON THE INDIVIDUAL CASE IN QUESTION. THE BOARD BOARD IS VESTED WITH E POWER TO ACT UNDER THE SECTION. ALL SECTION NUMBERS COME FROM THE METRO ZONING CODE, WHICH APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT. THE ZONING CODE WAS ADOPTED BY THE METRO COUNCIL AND TOOK EFFECT ON JANUARY 1st OF 1998. I’LL INCLUDE THE — I’LL INTRODUCE THE ENTIRE ZONING CODE AND MAKE IT PART OF TODAY’S RECORD RATHER THAN READING IT IN ON EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE. THE METROPOLITAN CODE REQUIRES A RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. THE BZA MEETINGS ARE ACTUALLY RECORDED FOR METRO’S TELEVISION NETWORK AND LATER PRODUCED FOR YOUTUBE AS WELL, WHICH IS EASILY ACCESSIBLE FOR THOSE NEEDING TO REVIEW TODAY’S PROCEEDINGS. BECAUSE OF THAT IT’S IMPAIR TIN THAT ANYONE ADDRESSING THE BOARD COME FORWARD. DO NOT ADDRESS THE BOARD FROM YOUR SEAT. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND TAKE A SEAT AT THE FRONT. USE ONE OF THE MICROPHONES. SURPRISE YOUR NAMES BY NAME AND ADDRESS AND MAKE THE DESIRED PRESENTATION. WE’RE DELIGHTED THAT YOU’RE HERE AND HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE. THE CODE ALSO REQUIRES FOUR MEMBERS OF OUR SEVEN-MEMBER BOARD IN ORDER TO STAB QUORUM. THE BOARD REQUIRES FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES IN ORDER TO GRANT AN APEOPLE. IN THE EVENT — AN APPEAL. IN THE EVENT THAT — THE APPEAL WOULD BE READVERTISED FOR THE NEXT AVAILABLE PUBLIC HEARING. IN THE EVENT THAT FIVE OR MORE MEMBERS ARE PRESENT, WHICH OF COURSE IS THE CASE AT THIS HOUR, AND THE APPEAL FAILS TO RECEIVE FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, THEN THE CASE WILL REMAIN ON THE BOARD’S AGENDA FOR THE NEXT 30 DAYS. APPLICATIONS THAT FAIL TO RECEIVE FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES WITHIN THAT 30-DAY WINDOW SHALL BE DENIED BY OPERATION OF LAW. UNDER BOARD RULES, AN AGGRIEVED PARTY MAY FILE AN APPEAL FROM ANY BOARD DECISION TO THE CHANCERY COURT. AN AGGRIEVED PARTY MAY FILE A MOTION FOR REHEARING WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE ORIGINAL HEARING DATE PURSUANT TO THE BZA RULES AND REGULATIONS. AFTER THAT TIME, THE BOARD’S DECISION BECOME FINAL AND NO — BECOMES TIME AND NO FURTHER ACTION CAN BE TAKEN. FOR THE APPELLANTS IF YOUR APPEAL IS GRANTED, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT FOR WHICH YOU HAVE APPLIED. A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED WITHIN TWO YEARS. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN ANY FALSE OR MISLEADING TESTIMONY IS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD, THEN ANY APPROVAL COULD BE REVOKED AT A LATER DATE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I SUBMIT THAT ALL THE CASES HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE PROPER ORDER AND ALL APPELLANTS HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED BY CERTIFIED MAIL AND ALL LEGAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN FULFILLED. WE HAVE A HANDLEFUL OF PRELIMINARY ANNOUNCEMENTS TODAY. TWO CASES THAT WERE ON TODAY’S AGAIN ONE DRY THANH. FIRST CASE — CRI DRAWN. — WITHDRAWN. 192 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. AND CASE 2017015 ON LONGWOOD PLACE HAS ALSO BEEN WITHDRAWN. THOSE MATTERS WILL NOT BE HEARD. MR. CHAIRMAN, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF CASES THAT WILL BE DEFERRED TO A LATER BOARD DATE. FIRST CASE 2016-127 AT 5056 PINE VALLEY ROAD WILL BE DEFERRED. CASE 2017-008 AT 1215 GALLATIN PIKE WILL BE DELIVERED. CASE 2017-013 AT 1601 57th AVENUE NORTH WILL BE REFERRED. AND TWO OTHER CASES HAVE BEEN — IDENTIFIED FOR DEFERRAL BUT REPRESENTATIVES FOR THOSE APPELLANTS WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD THEMSELES. THE FIRST OF WHICH IS CASE 2016-132 FOR PROPERTY AT 509 WYOMING. MR. CHRIS DUNWISHES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD WITH REGARD TO THAT REQUEST.>>PLEASE COME FORWARD AND SIT DOWN AND TURN ON THE MICROPHONE AND TELL US ABOUT CASE 132.>>VERY WELL. MY NAME IS CHRIS DUNN AND I’M A PARTNER WITH THE LAW FIRM HERE IN NASHVILLE. IN THE FALL OF LAST YEAR, I HEARD ABOUT A SYLVAN PARK FAMILY THAT NEEDED A HAND WITH A BOUNDARY ISSUE. SPECIFICALLY I HEARD ABOUT A GRANDFATHER WHO HAD CONSTRUCTED A PLATFORM FOR HIS GRANDDAUGHTER. HIS GRANDDAUGHTER’S NAME IS ROWAN. SHE HAS ENOUGH COURAGE TO FILL THE ROOM, BUT SHE SUFFERED FROM SER REBRAL PALSY AND SHE IS — SER REBALL PALSY AND SHE’S UNSTEADY ON HER FEET AND PREFERS HARD FLAS SURFACES. MY CLIENT — FLAT SURFACES. MY CLIENT, MR. KILL WILKINSON, WHO IS HERE TODAY, CONSTRUCTED A PLATFORM ON THE SITE OF HIS HOME. HE’D LIVED THERE SINCE 1981 AND THE PLATFORM UNFORTUNATELY ENTERED INTO THE SETBACK ON HIS LOT. AND THERE WAS SOME CONCERN BY A NEIGHBOR IN THAT REGARD. AND SO HE HAD FILED AN APPEAL AND I GOT INVOLVED A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THANKSGIVING TO TRY TO SEE IF I COULD ASSIST. I’M NOT A LAND USE EXPERT BY ANY STRETCH. I’M A CONSTRUCTION LAWYER, BUT I WANTED TO SEE IF I COULD HELP BECAUSE I KNOW HIS MOTIVATION WAS IN THE RIGHT PLACE. SO WHAT I INTENDED TO DO ON TUESDAY MORNING WAS COME BEFORE YOU AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE. AND I THINK THAT I HAD SOME GROUNDS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE FOR THAT. BUT THAT HAS CHANGED TO A GREAT BIT, THAT THAT PLAN IN THE LAST 48 HOURS, IN LARGE PART BECAUSE THE GENTLEMAN SEATED TO MY RIGHT WHO IS DAN ROSE. DAN IS THE GENERAL COUNSEL AT ROGERS GROUP HERE IN NASHVILLE. HE’S A CLIENT OF MINE. HE IS PROBABLY ABOUT TWICE AS SMART AS I AM. AND I HAD TALKED TO DAN IN DECEMBER ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE THE CASE AND ON TUESDAY MORNING I WAS BACK AT WORK AND GOT A TEXT FROM DAN AND DAN HAD COME UP WITH A BETTER PLAN THAN I HAD, WHICH WAS FOR ROGERS GROUP TO FUND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PLATFORM THAT WE VERY MUCH HOPE WOULD NOT BE IN THE SETBACK. AND HE EXPRESSED HIS WILLINGNESS AND ASKED ME TO CONVEY TO THE CLIENT THAT THEY WOULD BACK THAT EFFORT FINANCIALLY. IN ADDITION TO DAN’S HELP, TWO OTHER GENTLEMEN FROM NASHVILLE HAVE VOLUNTEERED IN THE LAST 24 HOURS TO ASSIST IN GETTING THE PLATFORM REBUILT IN A WAY THAT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM IN THE SETBACK. THE FIRST IS JOHN FINCH. HE IS ONE OF THE OWNERS WITH PBG BUILDERS IN GOODLETTSVILLE WHO HAS RESPONDED TO DAN’S OFFER BY SAYING THEY WOULD CONSTRUCT A NEW PLATFORM AND A RELATED PRIVACY FENCE IN A WAY THAT WE REALLY HOPE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE. AND THEN ANOTHER GENTLEMAN, LILLARD TEASLEY, WHO IS A STRUCTURAL ENGINER IN TOWN, HAS OFFERED HIS FIRM’S SERVICES TO DESIGN THE DECK OR PLATFORM. ROWAN KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THIS. SHE’S AT SCHOOL TODAY. PROBABLY NOT TERRIBLY HAPPY TO BE THERE AFTER A NICE CHRISTMAS BREAK. BUT WHAT I’VE COME TO DO IS EXPLAIN THAT AS THE SITUATION AND ASK FOR AN INDEFINITE DEFERRAL TO ALLOW THE DESIGN WORK TO BE DONE AND THE PRICING TO TAKE PLACE SO THAT WE CAN GET A NEW PLATFORM CONSTRUCTED, WHICH WILL ALLOW ROWAN TO USE THE EXERCISE EQUIPMENT THAT SHE USES ON THE PLATFORM AND SHE JUST GENERALLY ENJOYS BEING OUTSIDE AND BEING ON THAT FIRM STEADY SURFACE. SO WHAT I REQUEST INDEFINITE DEFERRAL ON THE MATTER TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION TO TAKE PLACE. AND TO HAVE STAFF MAKE ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS OF THE CONSTRUCTION ONCE COMPLETED. WE’LL OBVIOUSLY GET THE PERMITS WE NEED TO DO THE WORK. AND THEN IF THINGS GO AS WE HOPE THEY WILL, AND WE THINK THEY WILL GO WELL, THE MATTER CAN BE CLOSED BY STAFF AT THAT POINT. SO IT’S A COLD DAY IN NASHVILLE, BUT THERE’S SOME WARM PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN OUR CITY AND HAPPY TO EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU.>>THANK YOU FOR THAT VERY MOVING STORY AND YOUR INTEREST IN ROWAN. AND YOU KNOW, SHE MIGHT GET OUT OF SCHOOL EARLY TODAY BECAUSE OF THE WEATHER. WHO KNOWS. WALLER LAND IS ONE OF OUR TOP LAW FIRMS IN THE CITY AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE QUITE A BIG PRACTICE. IS THIS A PRO BONO CLIENT THAT YOU’RE DOING?>>WE’RE NOT GOING TO RECEIVE ANY MONEY.>>THEN THAT –>>YES.>>WELL, IT SOUNDED THAT WAY. IT’S — AND MR. ROSE, YOU ARE ALSO DONATING A LOT OF MATERIAL FOR THIS, TOO, AND TIME.>>WE’RE BASICALLY BAY PAYING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION.>>WELL. YOU KNOW, IT’S RARE THAT WE KIND OF GET TO THANK PEOPLE FOR THEIR KINDNESS TO A NEIGHBOR AND I WOULD LIKE TO ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AND HOPE THAT YOU KNOW, THIS WILL WORK OUT WITH THIS INDEFINITE DEFERRAL, DEFERRAL THAT YOU CAN GET THIS CONSTRUCTED AND KIND OF GET WITHIN THE LAW SO I DON’T EVEN HAVE TO COME BACK HERE. THIS IS JUST A GREAT STORY. SO THANK YOU FOR — FOR DOING THIS. HOW OLD IS ROWAN AND WHAT GRADE IS SHE IN?>>SHE’S 9 AND A SECOND GRADER.>>WONDERFUL. DOES ANYBODY ELSE ON THE BOARD HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? MR. HERBERT.>>YES, MR. CHAIR, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT ONCE THE DEMOLITION OF THE CURRENT DECK STRUCTURE THAT IS IN THE SETBACK, ONCE THAT DEMOLITION HAS OCCURRED, THEN THE APPEAL THEN BECOMES MOOT. AND WE COULD WITHDRAW IT AT THAT POINT IN TIME. SO ONCE THAT DEMOLITION HAS OCCURRED, THEN IF THE BOARD WOULD GIVE ME THE AUTHORITY, WE WOULD JUST THEN WITHDRAW THE APPEAL ADMINISTRATIVELY IN THIS CASE — AND THIS CASE IS OVER.>>OKAY.>>I WOULD ASK MR. HENRY –>>DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO THAT?>>I THINK MR. HENRY –>>YES, ARE YOU REPRESENTING SOMEONE RELATED TO THIS?>>I AM.>>OKAY, PLEASE, YES, HAVE A SEAT. AND IS THAT AGREEABLE TO YOU?>>WE’LL MAKE THIS REAL BRIEF. YES. SO SEAN HENRY, 315 DEDRICK STREET. I REPRESENT MISMAY BOISE SITTING BEHIND ME. SHE’S THE IMMEDIATE NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR AT 5011 WYOMING. THIS DECK WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS CITED IN ENVIRONMENTAL COURT AS AN ENFORCEMENT MEASURE. OUR ONLY CONCERN, SO LONG AS THE STRUCTURE REMAINS THERE, COULD BECOME AN INDEFINITE ENCROACHMENT AND INDEFNIST RYE SLAYINGS. SO IF THE — VIOLATION. WHATEVER TIME FRAME IS REASONABLE, THEN WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO WHAT’S BEEN PRESENTED HERE SO FAR.>>OKAY. SO WE’VE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBOR WHOSE PROPERTY IT’S BEEN ENCROACHED UPON. SO MR. HERBERT HAS SAID THE DECK IS ABOUT TO BE REMOVED. SO I THINK — DO YOU HAVE –>>MR. DUNN, WOULD YOU HAVE ANY INPUT AS TO HOW LONG YOU THINK IT WOULD TAKE TO DO THE DEMOLITION ON THE CURRENT DECK? TO REMOVE IT FROM THE SETBACK.>>YEAH, I’LL LIVE WITH ANY REASONABLE RESTRICTION. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DONATING THEIR TIME AND SERVICES ARE — ARE FAIRLY BUSY PEOPLE. IF WE COULD HAVE A BIT MORE THAN 30 DAYS, THIS HAS COME TOGETHER FAIRLY QUICKLY IN THE LAST 48 HOURS. AND I KNOW ALL THESE OTHER GENTLEMEN HAVE OTHER PROJECTS ON WHICH THEY WORK. SO IF WE COULD PARTICULARLY GIVE THEM THE TIME OF YEAR WHERE WEATHER CAN BE INTERRUPTION — IF WE COULD HAVE 60 DAYS FOR THE DEMOLITION TO OCCUR, I’M CONFIDENT WE COULD GET IT DONE IN THAT PERIOD.>>OKAY, MR. HENRY?>>60 DAYS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.>>OKAY. SO WE ARE GOING TO THINK — DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE — AND ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU, AGAIN, FOR YOUR KINDNESS AND GENEROSITY. MR. HENRY, THANK YOU FOR SHEPHERDING THIS, TOO, AND COMING TO A REASONABLE AGREEMENT WITH THE PARTIES. SO WE WILL — WE’RE GOING TO DECIDE BASICALLY THAT WE’RE GOING TO ACCEPT THEIR OFFER THAT THIS DECK IS GOING TO BE REMOVED WITHIN 60 DAYS, AND THEN AFTER THAT, THEY’RE GOING TO WORK WITH MR. HERBERT TO ADMINISTRATIVELY COME INTO AN AGREEABLE WAY THAT THIS CAN BE APPROVED BY STAFF. OKAY? THAT’S MY MOTION. ANYONE HAVE A SECOND?>>I’LL SECOND IT. AND I WANT TO ADD TO THAT THAT WE GIVE AUTHORITY TO OUR DIRECTOR THERE THAT — PROCEED AS NECESSARY.>>OKAY. AND IF THERE’S NOTHING THAT NEEDS TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF US, IT DOESN’T NEED TO COME BACK. JUST PROCEED AND GET THIS SETTLED. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY MORE DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES]>>OH-OH OPPOSED? PASSES. GOOD LUCK.>>THANK YOU.>>JOHN MICHAEL?>>A SIMILARLY SITUATED ITEM, CASE 2017009 INVOLVING PROPERTIES AT 509 AND I BELIEVE 511 WEDGEWOOD IS A SUBJECT — SUBJECT TO A REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL. AND THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPELLANT, MR. JOEY HARGIS, IS HERE TO PRESENT THAT REQUEST TO THE BOARD.>>MR. HARGIS, WELCOME BACK.>>THANK YOU.>>MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS WAS THE BOARD’S POLICY DURING MY TENURE. I CONTACTED JOHN MICHAEL AND REQUESTED A DEFERRAL THIS WEEK. AND SO COME HERE AND ASK YOU, I’M HERE REPRESENTING MR. WIGGS THOMPSON AT 27 TEEN-9. WE HAD OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING LAST NIGHT. COUNCILMAN KOBY SLEDGE SENT AN EMAIL OPPOSED TO THE CASE. SO WE HAD OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING LAST NIGHT. A LITTLE LATER THAN I WANTED TO GIVEN THE HOLIDAYS AND ARRANGING A PLACE. ALSO DURING MY TENURE, I REMEMBER THIS BOARD WROTE INTO THEIR RULES, WE HAD TO HAVE A MEETING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH WE’RE HAVING THE SKATES. SO WE HELD OUR MEETING LAST NIGHT. GREAT CONVERSATION. EIGHT PEOPLE SHOWED UP. MOST FOLKS ANSWERED QUESTIONS. SO I COME TO YOU TODAY REQUESTING A ONE-MEETING DISEFERL TO GIVE THE ANYBODY — DEFERRAL TO GIVE THE NEIGHBRS A LITTLE MORE TIME. I BELIEVE THE STAFF HAD WRITTEN THE RECOMMENDATION. BUT JUST ALSO MORE TIME.>>IS THERE ANYBODY HERE ELSE TODAY INVOLVED WITH THIS CASE? PRESENT? OKAY. SEEING NONE, SO YOU WOULD LIKE ONE MEETING DEFERRAL? OKAY. AND LET’S DEFER IT ONE MEETING AND PUT IT — OKAY. WE’LL PUT IT WHERE IT GOES. OKAY. SO MOTION TO DEFER IT FOR ONE MEETING.>>I’LL SECOND.>>SECOND. ANY DISCUSSIONS? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.>>OPPOSED? DEFERRED ONE MEETING. THANK YOU. JOB MICHAEL?>>MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS THE JUNCTION OF THE MEETING WHERE W% TAKE A MOMENT TO RECOGNIZE THE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO ARE PRESENT WITH US TODAY. I’VE SEEN COUNCILMAN SAN COLEMAN, I’VE SEEN COUNCIL MEMBER KATHLEEN MURPHY IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM. I DON’T KNOW IF I SEE ANY OTHERS. PRETTY SURE THAT I DON’T. WE ALWAYS AFFORD THIS OPPORTUNITY IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AT THIS POINT, IT’S TOTALLY APPROPRIATE. IF YOU’D LIKE TO WAIT UNTIL SOME OTHER CASE ON THE AGENDA, THAT’S FINE. MR. COLEMAN?>>COUNCILMAN COLEMAN, WELCOME TO THE BZA. THANKS FOR BEING HERE.>>THANK YOU.>>PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF OFFICIALLY FOR THE RECORD.>>FOR THE RECORD, I AM SAM COLEMAN. I REPRESENT THE 33rd DISTRICT. IN BEAUTIFUL AT TOK YOK, TENNESSEE. — ANTIOCH U TENNESSEE. GLAD TO BE BEFORE YOU. I AM HERE ON — ITEM 2017-001 ON PAGE 3. HAVING TO DO WITH A VARIANCE THAT’S REQUESTED. JUST A BIT OF HISTORY BEFORE I GO ON AND MAKE THE STATEMENT IN WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE ON. THIS IS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT’S SITUATED BETWEEN TWO STREETS. OLD MICORY BOULEVARD. IN THE MIDDLE — HICKORY BELOVED. IT’S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PROPERTY OWNER HAVE ALLOWED IN THE PAST 10ATES TO OPERATE A RODEO KIND OF ACTIVITY ON THE WEEKEND. AND THIS HAS BROUGHT A LOT OF CONCERN FROM THE NEIGHBORS. IT HAS GONE ON FOR ABOUT THREE TO FOUR YEARS, I KNOW. EVEN BEFORE I CAME BACK TO COUNCIL. OUR LAST EVENT HAPPENED IN SEPTEMBER AFTER WE GOT STOP AND DESIST ORDER. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE NEIGHBORS DID NOT ACTUALLY — WELL, THE TENANTS DID NOT ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THE RULES, SO THEY CONTINUED TO GO ON. HOWEVER, WHEN THIS MATTER CAVE UM, NEIGHBORS HAVE CONTACTED ME AND THEY WANTED TO COME DOWN TO TESTIFY TODAY AND I ASKED THEM NOT TO, ALLOW ME TO COME DOWN TO SPEAK TO YOU. WE HAVE NOT HAD A COMMUNITY MEETING. AND AS I UNDERSTAND OUT THAT’S ONE OF YOUR RULES, THAT YOU MUST HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING. SO I TAKE FROM THIS THAT THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH THE TENANTS WILL CONTACT ME. WE WILL SET UP A COMMUNITY MEETING. GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN TO THE NEIGHBORS WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO IN TERMS OF USING THE PROPERTY FOR NONCONFORMING USE. SWRAIRNS, THAT IS. — VARIANCE, THAT IS. SO UNTIL WE HAVE THAT MEETING, I ASK THAT WE DEFER THIS MATTER AND ALLOW THE NEIGHBORS TO HAVE THEIR INPUT. I DOUBT VERY SERIOUSLY THE NEIGHBORS WOULD AGREE TO THIS. THIS ACTIVITY HAS GONE ON FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. THE NEIGHBORS ARE FED UP. I DON’T SEE THEM AGREEING TO IT, BUT LIKE ALWAYS, I WOULD GRANT EVERYBODY THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE OUR COMMUNITY AND EXPLAIN THEIR POSITION, BECAUSE WE DON’T WANT TO RESTRICT ANYBODY’S PROPERTY.>>DO YOU HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME YOU WISH THIS TO BE DEFERRED?%>>I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOUR RULES WOULD BE. NORMALLY IN COUNCIL IT’S USUALLY DEFERRED FOR ONE MEETING. THAT AND COMPLETELY UPON THE APPLICANT BECAUSE IT’S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT ME. WE HAVE A BUNCH OF COMMUNITY MEETINGS ALREADY LINED UP. SO I CAN TELL YOU WON’T BE NO TIME WITHIN THE NEXT SIX WEEKS.>>WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD NOTICE FROM THE STAFF PERSPECTIVE THAT IT IS OFTEN HARD TO GET ANY KIND OF A COMMUNITY MEETING LINED UP IN THE FIRST TWO WEEKS. SO PUSHING OUT TO FEBRUARY THE 2nd OF 2017, BZA MEETING, A GOOD FOUR-WEEK WINDOW MAY BE PRUDENT.>>WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO WITH THE FEBRUARY MEETING?>>WELL, I’M HESITANT TO SAY THEM, BECAUSE I DON’T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS.>>OKAY.>>THEY NEED TO MAKE THE REQUEST IN THE MEETING AND WE NEED TO FIND ROOM ON OUR SCHEDULE.>>WE CAN PUT TO IT THE NEXT MEETING AND IF THEY CHANGE THEIR MIND, WE CAN PUSH IT BACK, RIGHT?>>THAT’S IMPORTANT TO ME, MR. CHAIRMAN, BECAUSE LIKE MOST OF US HERE, I AM A LAWYER AND I NEED TO SET MY CALENDAR. AND SO –>>WE CAN DEFER IT — SET YOUR CALENDAR RIGHT NOW! [LAUGHTER]>>WELL, I MEAN, IT’S IMPORTANT. IT’S IMPORTANT. AND I DON’T WANT MY NEIGHBORS TO COME DOWN HERE, FILLING UP THE ROOM, TESTIFYING. I CAN DO THAT FOR THEM. BUT IF RULES WERE EYE LOU — ALLOW, IF WE CAN DO IT INDEFINITELY, AND AS SOON AS THEY HAVE A DATE, THEN WE CAN BUT I WOULD HATE TO BE TRAPPED IN A RULE PARTICULARLY IN THE WYOMING MONTHS.>>THAT TERM THAT COMES UP IN THE METRO COUNCIL HERE’S, INDEFINITE DEFERRAL. HOW DO WE HANDLE THAT?>>IN SHORT IT CAN BE DONE. YOU’LL WANT TO HEAR FROM THE APPELLANT, OF COURSE. THEIR WAIT FOR THEIR HEARING DATE SHOULD NOT BE KEPT TO ANY UNREASONABLE LENGTH. BUT IF THE WORLD DETERMINED IT’S NOT PRUDENT TO PIN ARBITRARILY A DATE TODAY, THEN IT CAN BE DONE INDEFINITELY. THEY CAN REACH OUT TO OUR OFFICE SINCE THEY’VE HAD THEIR MEETING AND SET IT FOR THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEEK.>>WHY DON’T WE ASK THE APPELLANT UP AND ASK THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND AGAIN, IF THEY WANT TO MOVE IT AFTER WE SET IT.>>SO YOU WANT TO SET IT LIKE ONE MEETING OR FEBRUARY?>>I’M SAYING WHY DON’T WE ASK THE APPLE IF THEY HAVE A PREFERENCE — APPELLANT IF THEY HAVE A PREFNS.>>IT’S UNUSUAL BECAUSE WE USUALLY ASK ELECTED OFFICIALS TO COME AND WE HEAR THE CASE. I CAN’T IMAGINE THIS BOARD NOT RESPECTING THE COUNCIL MEMBER’S REQUEST TO DEFER IT. AND SO I THINK THAT GIVEN THAT IT MOST MIKELY WILL BE DEFERRED — LIKELY WILL BE DEFERRED, I THINK IT’S HIGHLY APPROPRIATE TO ASK THE APPELLANT TO COME AND UP SAY, YOUR CASE IS GOING TO BE DEFERRED. AT LEAST A MONTH.>>OKAY.>>AND MAYBE SIX WEEKS.>>LET’S HEAR FROM THE APPELLANT, THEN.>>AND MR. HOY HEY GONZALEZ — JOSE GONZALEZ. AND MICHAEL MARTIN, IF EITHER MR. GONZALEZ OR MR. MARTIN IS PRESENT, PLEASE COME FORWARD TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT FOR CASE NUMBER 2017-001?>>OKAY. COME FORWARD.>>MAXWELL ROAD.>>YES.>>YES. ARE YOU JOSE GONZALEZ?>>YES, I AM.>>PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD AND YOUR ADDRESS –>>4057 MAXWELL ROAD.>>AND WHAT’S YOUR NAME?>>JOSE GONZALEZ.>>OKAY. AND YOU?>>JOSE GONZ, JR., I’M HIS TRANSLATOR.>>GOOD. DID YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COUNCILPERSON SAID, THAT HE BASICALLY WANTS TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE AROUND YOUR PROPERTY TO DISCUSS THE USE AS A RODEO? AND HE WANTS TO DEFER IT UNTIL THE TIME THAT THEY CAN MEET TO DISCUSS WHETHER HE CAN SUPPORT IT OR NOT.>>HE SAID HE WAS WORKING ON A THAT DURING THE MEETING THAT YOU GUYS HAD.>>OKAY. SO IT’S — SOUNDS LIKE WE’RE GOING TO DEFER THIS. SO IS THERE A DATE THAT –>>DEFERRAL, MEANING PUT IT UP TO A LATER DATE?>>YES.>>SO THE QUESTION IS DO YOU WANT IT IN TWO WEEKS OR DO YOU WANT IT IN LIKE THE — IN FEBRUARY? p>>FEBRUARY. EITHER THE 2nd OR THE 16th.>>FEBRUARY 2nd OR THE 16th.>>16th, PLEASE.>>OKAY. MR. COLEMAN, IS THE 16th –>>MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST FOR HALF A SECOND, BECAUSE I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THE RULE. IT’S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THERE HADN’T BEEN A COMMUNITY MEETING, IT WAS DEFERRED BY RULE.>>YES.>>AND WE DON’T HAVE A DATE FOR WHEN THE COMMUNITY MEETING CAN BE ARRANGED BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GET A PLACE. SO IF WE’RE SETTING A DEFINITE DATE, HOW ARE WE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH NOTICE AND TIME FOR THE COMMUNITY TO ACTUALLY COME OUT, BECAUSE IT TAKES A TWO-WEEK PERIOD.>>FROM THE STAFF PERSPECTIVE, THAT’S UP TO THE APPELLANT. THEY’LL DO THAT. OR IF THEY COME ON THE DATE AND THEY’VE NOT DONE THAT, THEY DON’T GET TO BE HEARD. THAT’S –>>INVITE PEOPLE AND IF NOT, IF WE COME BACK ON THE 16th AND THEY HAVEN’T HAD THEIR MEETING, THEN IT GETS DEFERRED AGAIN.>>OKAY. OKAY? SO SIX WEEKS OUT. THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT. SO I WOULD LIKE TO — DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS?>>I JUST NEED SOME CLARITY. IS IT BEING DEFERRED OR PROPOSED TO BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF FEBRUARY?>>FEBRUARY 16th, OR MEETING ON THE 16th. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE DEFER THIS UNTIL FEBRUARY 16th% TO ALLOW THEM TIME TO HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING AND WORK WITH THEIR COUNCIL PERP, SAM COLEMAN.>>I’LL SECOND.>>MOTION HAS BEEN MADE, SEGDED. ANY MORE DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY AND THEY’LL BE BACK ON FEBRUARY 16th. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.>>THANKS TO MR. GONZALEZ, JR., FOR YOUR HELP.>>YES.>>MR. CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL MEMBER MURPHY IS HERE ALSO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.>>WELCOME BACK TO THE BZA, COUNCIL LADY MURPHY.>>THANK YOU. I THINK I’M HERE ANYTIME Y’ALL ARE. I’M GOING TO ADDRESS THE OTHER CASES ON YOUR AGENDA IN MY DISTRICT LATER. I JUST WANTED TO BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT 2017-101, WHICH IS WHAT I HAD BUMPED — ASKED TO BUMP FROM CONSENT. IT’S A BANK IN MY DISTRICT. YOU PROBABLY KNOW IT. IT HAS A VERY –>>THE GOLD DOME.>>YES. AND SO — AND I APOLOGIZE THAT I DIDN’T HAVE TIME TO REACH OUT TO THE APPLICANT OVER THE HOLIDAYS AND THINGS. AND SO WE HAVE TALKED AND I’M FINE WITH IT GOING BACK ON CONSENT. AND THEY ARE — WE’RE GOING TO HAVE SOME UPCOMING CONFERENCE CALLS AND MEETINGS AND HOPEFULLY GET A NEIGHBORHOOD LANDMARK OVERLAY PUT ON THIS, WHICH I KNOW THAT HISTORIC HAS BEEN INTERESTED IN DOING IT FOR A LONG TIME.>>INTERESTING.>>AND THE RIGHT PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN IN THE RIGHT ROOM, SO I’M EXCITED THAT TODAY I WAS ABLE TO MAKE CARROT AND STICK THIS AND GET THIS CONVERSATION GOING.>>SOMEONE –>>THANK YOU ALL FOR ALLOWING ME THAT TIME TO WORK THAT OUT.>>THIS IS A VERY BACK-TO-THE FUTURE CASE. I NOTICED ON HERE IT SAYS THE APPELLANT IS FIRST AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF NASHVILLE. NOT M SOUTH. FIRST MESH — AMERICAN.>>YES.>>WHICH IS REGENTS AFTER MANY BUYOUTS. BUT I WAS LOOKING FOR GEORGIE ON THE APPLICATION. OLDER PEOPLE THAT REMEMBER THE GEORGE WASHINGTON MASCOT BACK. WAY BACK WHEN.>>I’LL SEE IF I CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT, TOO, FOR THE FUTURE.>>YES.>>BUT I APPRECIATE THEM WORKING WITH ME AND CALLING UP TO THEIR LEADERSHIP AND AGREEING TO HANDSHAKE DEAL THAT WE WILL GET THAT BALL ROLLING AND HOPEFULLY BE ABLE TO GET THAT THROUGH. SO THAT Y’ALL.>>WE’LL PUT THAT ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA.>>I’M HAPPY TO GO DO WHATEVER Y’ALL NEED TO DO.>>THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU.>>JOHN MICHAEL?>>MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU PROVIDED A PERFECT SEGUE INTO OUR DISCUSSION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. FOR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, OUR BOARD YOU’LL WHRIEZS A CONSENTED AGENDA WHEN IT’S CASES AT EACH ONE. ONE BOARD MEMBER REVIEWS THE RECORD PRIOR TO THE HEARINGS AND IDENTIFIES CASES WHERE APPELLANTS HAVE MET THE CRITERIA. THE BOARD MEMBER DETERMINES THAT TESTIMONY IN THE CASE WOULD NOT ATTAR THE MATERIAL FACTS, THEN THAT INDIVIDUAL CASE IS RIMMEDDED FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA — RECOMMENDED FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA AND APPROVAL BY THE BOARD. WE WILL ENTER INTO THE RECORD THOSE CASES THAT HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED AND IF ANYONE IS HERE IN OPPOSITION THE ANY OF THE CASES THAT I IDENTIFY, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND SO THAT WE CAN REMOVE THE CASE FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND HAVE ITS HEARING IN THE REGULAR ORDER. THE FIRST CASE IS NUMBER SEVEN 2017-004. 3831 WHITE’S CREEK PIKE. REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND EXISTING HISTORIC HOME EVENTS LOCATION AS PROPERLY PERMITTED FOR USE OF A PAVILION. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO CASE 2017-004? SEEING NONE, THE NEXT CASE RECOMMENDED IS 2017-005, PROPERTY A 201 HAVERFORD FOR AN SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. IS THERE HINER HINE ANYONE HEREN OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE, THAT CASE IS ON IF CONSENT AGENDA. 5100 CHARLOTTE, FOR A VARIANCE CONCERNING MONUMENT SIGNAGE. ANYONE HERE STILL WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSIION TO CASE 010? THE NEXT IS SEVEN-014 — 20170 IMHOON 4 FOR SIGNAGE VARIANCE AT A NEW HOA TELL. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION? MR. CHAIRMAN, WE WOULD SOLICIT MOTION AND VOTE ON A CONSENT AGENDA INVOLVING CASES SWFN-004, 2017-005, 2017-010, AND 2017-014. THOSE ITEMS ARE NOW MOVED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA. ANY DISCUSSION?>>I HAVE A DISCUSSION POINT, BUT FIRST OF ALL, HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYONE. THERE’S A COUPLE CASES I DIDN’T FULLY UNDERSTAND, SO I’D LIKE TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING AND I’LL CLARIFY IT. IT DIDN’T HAVE TO DO WITH COUNCILWOMAN’S MURPHY’S CASE.>>WHICH CASES WOULD YOU LIKE TO ABSTAIN FROM?>>004 AND 005.>>SO ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA? SO WE ARE GOING TO — LET’S TAKE A VOTE ON THE ENTIRE CONSENT AGENDA EXCEPT 004 AND 005. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CONSENT AGENDA MINUS 004 AND 005, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE? [CHORUS OF AYES] OPPOSED. PASSES UNANIMOUSRY. NOW THE CONTENT — UNANIMOUSLY. NOW THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH 004 AND 005. THOSE IN FAVOR OF THOSE TWO ITEMS, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] OPPOSED. AND WE HAVE ONE ABSTENTION.>>WITH THAT HAVING BEEN PASSED, MR. CHAIRMAN, AN ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE AUDIENCES IF YOUR CASE HAS BEEN APPROVED, YOU’RE DONE. WE’RE WELCOME TO STAY, WE’RE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU BUT YOU’RE NOT OBLIGATED TO STAY FOR THE DURATION FOR WHAT PROPOSES TO BE A POTENTIAL MARATHON OF THE ZONING MEETING. YOU’RE WELCOME TO STAY BUT NOT OBLIGATED. MR. CHAIRMAN, WE’LL PLOD WITH THE FIRST CASE.>>OKAY.>>CASE 2016 WHO WHO 3 INVOLVES THE APPELLANT JOHN LOTT REQUEST FOR AN ITEM A APPEAL INVOLVING A OPERATION WHERE THERE WAS SEPARATION OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL WITHOUT — THE OPERATION OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE HIGHLIGHTED PROPERTY GIVES AN OVERVIEW OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE AERIAL GIVES A BETTER PICTURE OF WHERE WE’RE DEALING. IF MR. LOTT WOULD COME FORWARD TO MAKE HIS PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, AGAIN, THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT WAS IDENTIFIED BACK IN THE SUMMER FOR PERMIT APPLICATION BUT FLAGGED AS ONE HAVING HAD OPERATION AT THE PROPERTY, REVIEWS ON THE PROPERTY, AND YET NOT THE REQUIRED PERMIT, HENCE THE DENIAL. MR. LOTT OR EITHER MR. LOTT, ARE YOU PRESENT TODAY? ALSO PUTTS UNLESS YOU’RE SEEING SOMETHING I’M NOT, MR. LOTT IS NOT HERE. THE BOARD HAS OPTIONS TO DEFER ONE MEETING OR DENY THE APPLICATION, THUS GIVING THE INDIVIDUAL THE OPPORTUNITY TO REFILE AT A LATER DATE. IF HE SHOULD WISH.>>HMM. OKAY. SO WHAT’S THE WILL OF THE BOARD HERE? WE HAVE A POTENTIAL INQLIMENT WEATHER DAY, BUT — INCLEMENT DEFERRED. HE KNEW THIS WAS TODAY. IT’S RARE AS YOU KNOW THAT WE HAVE NO SHOWS.>>WHEN WAS THIS FIRST ON OUR AGENDA, DO YOU REMEMBER?>>FORGIVE ME FOR NOT KNOWING THE EXACT DATE. IT WAS IN THE FALL, PERHAPS AT ONE OF OUR OCTOBER, NOVEMBER MEETINGS. MAYBE THE ONE AT THE MADISON POLICE PRECINCT.>>I’M PREPARED TO MOVE TO DENY THE APPLICATION.%>>I’LL SECOND THAT.>>IF WE DENY IT, JOHN MICHAEL, CAN HE REAPPLY?>>HE WOULD BE PERMITTED TO REAPPLY. SINCE IT’S AN ITEM A CASE, IT’S DIFFERENT THAN THE TRADITIONAL YOU MUST COME BACK WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT IF AT ALL.>>IS THERE A TIME LIMIT?>>THERE’S NOT ONE FOR HOW LONG HE WOULD HAVE TO WAIT. NEXT WEEK.>>THEY COULD IMMEDIATELY APPLY AGAIN?>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>SINCE THIS IS AN ITEM A, HE WAS DENIED A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT, HE DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW. SO TIME DOES NOT FAVOR HIM AND HE CAN’T DO ANYTHING IN THE INTERIM. WE’VE HAD A MOTION. IT’S BEEN PLOL SECONDED. — PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AIDS AIDS.>>OPPOSED — [CHORUS OF AYES]>>OPPOSED? IT IS DENIED AND THE APPLICANT IS WELCOME TO VE APPLY AGAIN AND PAY THE FEE, I GUESS, TOO.>>MR. CHAIRMAN, CONTINUING WITH THE BRISK CASE, — THIS CASE IS IS — THIS CASE IS SOMETHING THE BOARD HAS SEEN PREVIOUSLY. QUICK OVERVIEW. THE ZONING MAP SHOWS YOU THE INDUSTRIAL AREA ALONG ANTIOCH JUST ABOVE HARDING PIKE. OFF I-24. THE REQUEST INVOLVED THREE VARIANCE REQUESTS. THE BOARD APPROVED THE FIRST TWO. WHAT REMAINS IS A QUESTION OF A SIDEWALK VARIANCE. THE HIGHLIGHTED PROPERTY IDENTIFIED HERE IN THE AERIAL PHOTO IS NOW DEMOLISHED. HOWEVER, THE PERMITTED CONSTRUCTION I BELIEVE IS UNDERWAY. MR. RICHARDS, IS THAT CORRECT, FOR SOME COMPONENTS?>>NOT AT THIS TIME.>>JUST THE DEMO IS DONE. VERY WELL. THE SITE PLAN DEMONSTRATES THE PROPOSED LAYOUT OF THE WAREHOUSE AND WORK SPACE FOR NR RICHARDS’ — MR. RICHARDS KANSAS CITY AND AS THE BLUE SKY SUGGESTS, THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN QUITE SOME TIME AGO SHOWING THE FACE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE UPPER LEFT, THE VIEW ACROSS THE STREET, AND THEN THE CURRENT VIEW UP AND DOWN ANTIOCH PIKE ON THIS NEXT SLIDE. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION PRESENT FOR CASE 2016-136? SEEING NONE PRESENT, THE APPELLANT WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES TO MAKE A PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD.>>YES, CUTTER RICHARDS, I’M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. JUST REQUESTING A SIDEWALK VARIANCE DUE TO THE FACT THERE’S A FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT’S I GUESS UNDETERMINED OR — THAT WAS THE REASON I FIRST CAME IN TO PUSH THE BUILDING BACK. AND THERE’S NO OTHER SIDEWALKS ON THAT STREET. SOY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM DOING IT OR PUSHING IT TO A LATER DATE. FOR THE SIDEWALKS.>>OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?>>OKAY, I WAS NOT CLEAR ON WHAT THE HARDSHIP IS THAT WOULD PROHIBIT YOU FROM BUILDING THE SIDEWALK.>>AT THIS POINT I DON’T KNOW WHERE YOU WOULD BUILD THE SIDEWALKS BECAUSE I GUESS THERE’S EXPANSION, A FUTURE EXPANSION COMING THROUGH. I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S A BIKE LANE OR WIDENING OF THE ROAD. SO IF THAT’S THE CASE –>>BASICALLY, THE CITY — IS IT THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY, I GUESS? THE CITY HAS LEFT AN OPTION OPEN IN THE FUTURE. AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS A VERY INDUSTRIAL AREA. AND YOU SEE ALL THOSE 18-WHEELERS THERE. BUT THIS IS A TWO-LANE HIGHWAY. WELL, WE PROBABLY NEED TO EXPAND THIS SOMETIME. THEY DON’T KNOW WHEN. BUT THEY’RE LEAVING THAT OPTION OPEN AND SO HE’S SAYING I DON’T WANT TO BUILD A SIDEWALK NEXT TO THE ROAD IF THE CITY IS GOING TO COME ALONG AND EXPAND THIS.>>IS THAT THE ONLY VARIANCE, CORRECT?>>YES. BECAUSE WE — IN THE PREVIOUS CASE, WE DUMPED — DEALT WITH IT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD?>>NO, SIR.>>OKAY. LET’S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSSION.>>I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. I TRAVEL THIS STREET VERY REGULARLY. AND I WILL BE GREATLY SURPRISED IF IT DOESN’T GET WIDENED BECAUSE IT’S GOT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC COMING OFF HAYWOOD LANE, OFF OF I-24 AND UP TO HARDING. AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE HIS COMMENT, THAT YOU KNOW, WHY BUILD IT WHEN THERE’S PROBABLY LIKELIHOOD IT WILL BE TORN UP, BECAUSE THAT STREET WILL DEFINITELY BE ON THE LIST FOR BEING WIDENED. I WOULD IMAGINE.>>OKAY.>>I CAN APPRECIATE THAT, TOO, BUT THERE’S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE BUILDING IN NASHVILLE WHO ARE REQUIRED TO DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO METRO FOR WIDENING SIDEWALKS. AND SO I FEEL A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE NOT — YOU KNOW, ALLOWING THE VARIANCE. BUT I DON’T KNOW IF SOMETHING CAN BE WORKED OUT THAT IT BE BUILT IN THE FUTURE AFTER THE RIGHT-OF-WAY — OR AFTER THE ROAD IS EXPANDED.>>YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT’S JUST SO FAR OFF IN THE FUTURE, LET’S ASK OUR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. DO WE — IT’S EITHER KIND OF UP OR DOWN, ISN’T IT, WITH THESE SIDEWALKS VARIANCES? WE CAN’T SAY WE YOU HAVE TO BUID IT IN TWO YEARS OR WHATEVER THE –>>I DON’T KNOW HOW WE WOULD EVER ENFORCE THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, SO I THINK IT’S AN UP OR DOWN SITUATION.>>I KIND OF LEAN TOWARD ALLOWING THE VARIANCE BECAUSE IT — YOU KNOW, FOR THE REASONS THAT — AND THE APPELLANT, THAT YOU KNOW, WE’RE ALWAYS CAUGHT WITH THIS QUESTION OF IF WE — SOMEBODY GOT TO START IT. HERE’S THE ONE THAT MAY START IT. BUT I THINK WHEN — TO ME, THE TRIGGER ON THAT QUESTION IS, WHAT’S THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE REST FALLING THROUGH? I MEAN, IS THE BIG WAREHOUSE NEXT DOOR GOING TO HAVE ANY REASON TO PUT IN A SIDEWALK AT ANY POINT IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE BEFORE THE — YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL ROAD WIDENING. IF THE ROAD WERE WIDENED, IS THAT A TIME WHEN THE CITY WOULD COME IN AND POTENTIALLY HAVE A SIDEWALK PROJECT THAT WOULD APPLY TO THE WHOLE STREET. AND I THINK IT’S A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT SEEMS THAT THE APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS TO ME WIN THE DAY AND I THINK THAT THE VARIANCE IS PROBABLY OKAY. BEING VERY SENSITIVE TO THE OVERARCHING QUESTION OF WHEN DO WE REQUIRE SIDEWALKS AND WHEN DO WE NOT. WHO GETS A VARIANCE AND WHO DOESN’T.>>I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT WE DO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO DENY FROM PLANNING BECAUSE ACCORDING TO PLANNING, THE SETBACK IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE SIDEWALK OR THE FUTURE EXPANSION. AS I READ IT. AND WHILE IT IS AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE, PLANNING’S POINT IS — YOU KNOW, WE’RE LOOKING 25 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. SO I WOULD JUST POINT THAT OUT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE ALL WANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT RECOMMENDATION AS WELL.>>YEAH, I’M NOT SURE IF I UNDERSTAND THAT, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, NORMALLY WHEN WE BUILD SWAWXZ, THEY’RE RIGHT NEXT TO THE — SIDEWALKS, THEY’RE RIGHT NEXT TO THE ACTUAL STREET. SO I DON’T SEE HOW YOU CAN BUILD A SIDEWALK AND THEN THEY EXPAND THIS TWO LANES AND THAT NOT BE OVER THE SIDEWALK.>>I’M NOT SURE THAT THEY’RE ALWAYS NEXT TO THE STREET. THERE’S A MOVEMENT TO PUT A GREEN BUFFER BETWEEN THE STREET.>>BUT USUALLY THAT’S AN 8-INCH BUFFER. WHAT’S THE CURB AND GUTTER.>>I THINK IT’S BIGGER.>>ACCORDING TO PLAN’S RECORD WHICH MS. CHAPPELL JUST REFERENCED T REQUIREMENTS ARE A SIX-FOOT WIDE GRASS STRIP AND EIGHT-FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK.>>SIX FOOT. THAT’S STILL SMALLER THAN A LANE OF TRAFFIC.>>SMALLER THAN A LANE OF TRAFFIC.>>OKAY.>>WELL, AND THIS IS AN AREA WHERE SOMEBODY IS NOT GOING TO BE GOING TO BUY THEIR GROCERIES AND WALK BACK HOME. I CAN’T EVEN IMAGINE ANYONE HAVING ANY REASON TO WALK IN THAT AREA. IF IT WERE A NEIGHBORHOOD, I’D BE ALL OVER IT, YES, WE NEED SIDEWALKS. BUT THIS IS A VERY HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AREA. AND AS — THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS — NO ONE ELSE HAS SIDEWALKS THERE.>>YOU COULD SEE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PICTURE THAT LOOKS LIKE A STORAGE FACILITY.>>YES.>>A RENTAL PLACES WITH MANY, MANY BAYS AND BOOTHS, SO THIS IS VERY INDUSTRIAL.>>IS THERE STILL A PROVISION IN THE ZONING CODE TO PAY INTO THE SIDEWALK BANK? I DON’T KNOW IF I’M REFERRING TO THAT CORRECTLY.>>JOHN MICHAEL.>>THERE IS SUCH A THING.>>LET’S TALK ABOUT THE BZA’S POWER AND THE SIDEWALK’S VARIANCE AND WHAT WE CAN DO AND CAN’T DO. WE BASICALLY — IT’S UP OR DOWN. WE CAN’T SAY GO PAY TO THE SIDEWALK.>>IT’S CORRECT THAT THE BOARD CANNOT DIRECT OR BOARD AN APARTMENT TO YOU’D LIES THAT OPTION. BUT — UTILIZE THAT OPTION. BUT THE APPELLANT HAS THAT OPTION IF FOR EXAMPLE THE BOARD WERE TO DENY THIS VARIANCE REQUEST TODAY, THEN THE OBLIGATION RESTS WITH THE APPELLANT. HE WOULD THEN GO FORTH AND IT’S BUILD THE SIDEWALKS OR TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OPTION UNDER THE ZONING CODE TO PARTICIPATE WITH THE — I GUESS IN LIEU OF OR THE SIDEWALK FUND AS IT’S CALLED. SO THE SIDEWALKS WILL BE BUILT ELSE WHERE WITHIN THAT GENERAL AREA FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PARTICULAR LOCATION. THAT BEING THE CONCEPT, ANYWAY.>>YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS TREATING IT AS A HARDSHIP, I WOULD ALSO — IT’S EASY TO THINK ABOUT THESE AS LINES A — ON A DRAWING. I’M AN ARCHITECT. EVEN IF THE NEW SIDEWALK WERE AT THE VERY EDGE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE APPELLANT — IF HE BUILT THE SIDEWALK THAT STARTED AT THE EDGE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON HIS PROPERTY, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WOULD VERY LIKELY DESTROY OR TEAR UP PART OF THE SIDEWALK AND WOULD BE REPLACED BY THE CITY, BUT IT WOULD STILL BE DAMAGING WHAT — POTENTIALLY COULD BE DAMAGING FOR RAINWATER OR FOR UTILITIES BEING RELOCATED. SO IT’S NOT NECESSARILY THE FACT THAT IT COULD BE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, BUT IF IT’S AT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OR CLOSE TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OR PEAR SHELL, IT’S VERY — PARTIALLY, IT’S VERY LIKELY THE SIDEWALK WOULD BE DAMAGED AND HAVE TO TO BE REPLAD IN CONSTRUCTION. IT’S NOT A MATTER OF PUTTING DOWN NEW PAVEMENT ON THE GRASS. WE’RE NOT PAINTING PAVEMENT. THERE’S A LOT OF DISRUPTION THAT WOULD GO ON WITH THE CONSTRUCTION.>>WHEN WE WIDEN ROADS, WE TAKE THE EQUIPMENT THAT TEARS UP THE ROAD.>>ESPECIALLY IF THERE’S UTILITY RELOCATION. YOU’RE GOING TO BE DISTURBING A LOT MORE THAN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY POTENTIALLY.>>ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? DO I HEAR A MOTION FROM ANYONE?>>I’LL MOVE THAT WE GRANT THE VARIANCE. BECAUSE –>>I’LL SECOND.>>BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAS MET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VARIANCE UNDER SECTION 7 PON PINE 20.060G.>>AND I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THAT POTENTIALLY BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK WOULD BE LOCATED VERY CLOSE TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IF NOT, YOU KNOW, IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE POTENTIAL — I MEAN, THE BE — NOT THE SIDEWALK WOULD BE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, BUT IT WOULD BE IN IF — THE FIND PRINT WHERE AN — FOOTPRINT WHERE THE EXPANSION WOULD BE POSSIBLY BE TORN UP, ANYWAY. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? OKAY. MOTION?>>SECOND.>>MOTION SECONDED. ANY MORE DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES]>>OPPOSED? OKAY. IT PASSES 5-2.>>THE NEXT CASE TO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD IS 2016177. APPELLANTS AND OWNERS. PROPERTY AT 1007 TRICE DRIVE. THE REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE FROM STREET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR PLAIMENTD OF A FENCE. — PLACEMENT OF A FENCE. THE BOARD HAS SEEN THIS CASE PREVIOUSLY, THOUGH NOT IN A FULL HEARING. THAT WAS THE ONE THAT WAS DETERMINED BY A PUBLIC WORKS TO BE A FENCE THAT WAS BUILT INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND THEREFORE, SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD COULD NOT OFFER RELIEF UPON. HOWEVER, THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO MOVE IT OUT OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY INTO SOME OTHER AREA, THAT DOESN’T NEAT THE BASE ZONING CODE BUT WOULD REQUIRE A SETBACK ENVIRONMENT, CAN BE HEARD BY THE BOARD. THIS IS THAT REQUEST TODAY. THE ZONING MAP OVER IN THE NATION SHOWS YOU THE CORNER PROPERTY THERE AT TRICE. THE AERIAL SHOWS YOU THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SITE VOTES IN — SITE VISIT PHOTOS SHOW THE CURRENT FENCE, SIX FEET TALL JUST INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE VIEWS UP AND DOWN EACH OF THE CORNERED STREETS THERE SHOWN ON THIS FINAL SLIDE FROM THE SITE VISIT WHICH AGAIN AS YOU CAN TELL FROM THE CLEAR SKIES IT’S BEEN A WHILE NOW. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO CASE 2016-177? SEEING NONE, THE APPELLANTS WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES. AND IF YOU’D GIVE ME HALF A MOMENT, THEY’VE SUBMITTED A POWER PLAY POINT PRESENTATION WHICH I’LL TAKE A MOMENT TO LOAD UP.>>WHILE WE’RE WAITING, PLEASE EVERYONE IDENTIFY THEMSELVES FOR THE RECORD.>>[INAUDIBLE]>>I’M THE PROPERTY OWNER’S ADVOCATE. AT 100 7 TRICE DRIVE.>>OKAY.>>MY NAME IS CONSTANCE MIELKE AND I’M THE PROPERTY OWNER.>>JOSEPH MIELKE, 1007 TRICE DRIVE.>>VERY GOOD.>>SO JOHN MICHAEL, JUST TO KIND OF CLEAR THINGS UP, WHEN WE — THIS WAS ON OUR AGENDA LAST MEETING. THERE WAS A — YOU KNOW, COMMENT THAT THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN BUILT –>>YOU MAY KNOW THAT. I APOLOGIZE.>>IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND IN FACT IT WAS. SO REMIND US AGAIN WHAT WE WERE DOING TODAY. — WHAT WE ARE DOING TODAY.>>YOU’RE DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE FENCE CAN BE MOVED BACK TO A PLACE THAT STILL DOESN’T MEET ZONING CODE AND THUS WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE FROM THE SETBACKS.>>STOLE US FOR THIS TYPE OF FENCE — SO TELL US FOR THIS TYPE OF FENCE HOW FAR BACK DOES IT REQUIRE –>>I DON’T HAVE THE FILE IN FRONT OF ME. I BELIEVE THE REQUIRED SETBACK WOULD BE 10 FEET AND IT’S ONE OF THESE SLIDING SCALE SCENARIOS WHERE YOU CAN HAVE A FENCE RIGHT AT YOUR PROPERTY LINE –>>LIKE TWO FEET.>>30 INCHES TALL AND I BELIEVE THAT EVEN HAS TO BE NOT AN OPAQUE FENCE. THE TRUE PRIVACY FENCE HAS TO GET OFF THE SETBACK CONSIDERABLY. THE DOCUMENTS ARE LIKELY IN YOUR CASE FILE.>>CURRENTLY IT’S IN THE SETBACK, NOT EVEN ON THE PLOT LINE. — PROPERTY LINE. SO THIS TALL A FENCE WOULD HAVE TO BE UNDER THE CODE AT LEAST 10 FEET BACK, IS THAT WHAT YOU’RE SAYING?>>AT LEAST THAT. AND SO THE IDEA ULTIMATELY IS EVERYBODY HAS ACKNOWLEDGED, THE AMENDMENT HAS ACKNOWLEDGELED — APPELLANT HAS, KNOWLEDGED, WE CANNOT HAVE THE STATUS CODE. THE QUESTION IS WHAT CAN WE HAVE.>>DID YOU ASK IF THIS WAS OPPOSITION?>>I DID.>>YES, NO OPPOSITION.>>NO.>>OKAY. ARE WE READY TO PROCEED? JOHN MICHAEL, ARE WE READY? TO PROCEED? OKAY. LET’S GO.>>SINCE WE ARE IN — WE’LL JUST START RIGHT ON IN WITH THE HARDSHIP FOCUS AREAS. WE’RE GOING TO BE LOOKING EXACTLY AT THE — THAT THE HARDSHIP WASN’T SELF-IMPOSED. BECAUSE THIS CASE, AS JOHN MICHAEL SAID, IS NONCONFORMING AND NONCOMPLYING. WE KNOW THIS ALREADY. SO WE WANT TO FOCUS ON THESE AREAS TO TRY TO COMPEL THE BOARD TO ALLOW A VARIANCE FOR THIS FENCE. I’D LIKE TO BEGIN BY TALKING ABOUT — THAT THE HARDSHIP WAS NOT SELF-IMPOSED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DELIBERATE INTENT TO BREAK THE LAW. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE BEGAN WITH THE RAT INFESTATION ON THE PROPERTY.>>NEXT, PLEASE, JOHN MICHAEL. I’M SORRY.>>ALTHOUGH RATS DO NOT POSE AN IMMEDIATE THREAT, THERE ARE ADVERSE EFFECTS THAT COMPOSE THE ISSUES. THESE ISSUES ARE BROUGHT ON BY A BROWN — IT’S CALLED A BROWN RAT. THAT’S WHAT WE HAVE HERE IN NASHVILLE. THEY ACTUALLY LIVE IN COLONIES OF 100. THEY ALSO CAN BE UP TO 19 INCHES LONG AND THEY CAN BE AS BIG AS 30 OUNCES. THEY CAN SQUEEZE THROUGH HOLES SMALLER — OR AS SMALL AS THE SIZE OF A QUARTER. THEY’RE ALSO KNOWN TO CAUSE EXTREME DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. AND FOOD. THE HEALTH AND FIRE HAZARDS THAT COME ABOUT FROM A RAT INFESTATION WITH THE SPHEESES AND URINE — FECES AND URINE CAN HAVE A GREAT IMPACT. BECAUSE THE URINE AND FECES POSES A RISK TO ONE OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE POPLATION, WHICH ARE — POPULATION, WHICH ARE THE CHILDREN. RATS SPREAD DISEASES AND VIRUSES KNOWN TO TRIGGER ASTHMA AND ALLERGIES. THE WHOLE PREMISES OF THE FENCE BEGAN WHEN THE RAT — WHEN THE HOMEOWNERS HAD A RAT INFESTATION. THEY HAVE TWO YOUNG GRANDCHILDREN IN THE HOME. IT SCARED THEM. THEY CALLED RAT CONTROL. NEXT. AND THEY HAD THEM REMOVE THE FECES AND URINE WITHOUT THE ENZYMES AND TRAPS. THEY ALSO CLEANED UP TO PREVENT ANY MORE RAT ENFASTTITIONS AND THEY — INFESTATIONS AND THEY WERE ADVISED TO FILL UP HOLES AND BUILD BARRIERS. ANIMAL PROS ACTUALLY TOLD THE HOMEOWNERS IT WOULD BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO BUILD A WOOD FENCE. THIS IS WHEN THE HOMEOWNERS NEXT, DECIDED TO LOOK FURTHER INTO THE FENCE REQUIREMENTS. WHEN THEY DID SO, NEXT, THEY — NEXT. THEY LOOKED AT THE SLIDE THAT YOU SEE ON YOUR LEFT. THAT’S WHAT THEY PULL UP ON YOUR INTERNET SITE, WHICH DID NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN AN INTERIOR LOT OR A CORNER LOT. WHEN THE HOMEOWNERS LOOKED AT THIS FIGURE, THEY LOOKED AT THE FIGURE AND THEY ASSUMED THAT THAT LOT LINE THAT YOU SEE WITH THE DOTTED LINE ABUTS THE STREET. SO THEY ASSUMED THAT WHERE THE ORIGINAL CHAIN LINK FENCE WAS, THEY ALREADY MET THAT VARIANCE OF HAVING A FENCE AND THEY WERE ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY LINE. THIS DIAGRAM MADE THEM THINK THAT, YEAH, THAT’S RIGHT, THE LOT LINE AND THE STREET ABUT, BECAUSE THIS CAN BE VERY MISLEADING. IT WASN’T UNTIL THE HOMEOWNERS GOT A CODE VIOLATION THAT THEY REALIZED THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN A CORNER LOT AND AN INTERIOR LOT. BUT ONCE AGAIN, EVEN ON THIS DIAGRAM THAT YOU SEE, IT APPEARS THAT THE LOT LINE ABUTS THE STREET. SO THE HOMEOWNERS — DID NOT INTENTIONALLY BREAK THE LAW. WHEN THEY DID THE FENCE INSTRUCTION, NEXT, THEY BUILT IT ONE FOOT BACK FROM THE ORIGINAL CHAIN LINK FENCE. THEY ALSO USED PRESSURE-TREATED WOOD THAT ABUTS THE GROUND. AND IN THEIR MIND, IT WAS GREATER THAN 10 FEET FROM THE ROADWAY. BECAUSE OF THE DIAGRAM. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS WAS NOT DELIBERATE. THERE IS NO PERMIT REQUIRED FOR A FENCE. THERE’S ALSO — IT’S VERY EASY TO MISINTERPRET TATE COME PLEX REQUIREMENTS — COMAPPLICATION REQUIREMENTS. THERE ARE — COMPLEX REQUIREMENTS. THERE ARE MISLEADING FIGURES OF COMPLIENSZ. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THAT THIS FENCE DOES NOT POSE A PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE RISK TO THE COMMUNITY. WE’RE GOING TO DO SO BY — I’M GONNA SKIP THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE MR. MICHAEL ALREADY SHOWED YOU. THAT I’M GOING TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE PETITION RESULTS. I DECIDED WITH THE PETITION RESULTS THAT IT WOULD BE BEST, BECAUSE ANYBODY CAN READ A BUNCH OF SIGNATURES AND YOU DON’T REALLY KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. SO I WANTED TO PUT IT IN GRAPH FORM SO YOU COULD SEE WHAT IT MEANS. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT 28% OF THE PEOPLE, THE 25 SIGNATURES THAT SIGNED THE PETITION, FEELS AS THOUGH THERE’S NO OBSTRUCTION OF THE VIEW. NEXT.>>NEXT.>>25 TOTAL SIGNATURES WERE ON THE PETITION. 68% OF THESE 25 SIGNATURES WERE THE WEST PARK ADDITION RESIDENTS. 32% WERE NEARBY DISTRICT 20 RESIDENTS. AND 57 OF THOSE — 57% OF THOSE PEOPLE FELT AS THOUGH THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION. THERE WAS WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER 44% INCONCLUSIVE COMMENTS, IF YOU CONSIDER THAT THE FENCE IS PRETTY, IF THEY MADE A COMMENT SUCH AS THAT NATURE, OR IF I CONSIDER THE 12% THAT DID NOT MAKE A COMMENT AT ALL IN THE 44%. JUSTIFICATION THAT THE FENCE DOES NOT POSE A RISK TO PUBLIC WAL FAIR AND SAFETY ALSO CAME FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DETERMINATION. WHERE THE STREET SERVICES SUIT, NEXT — SUMMIT, NEXT, MR. HERBERT KING, SAID IF THE HENCE WAS MOVED BACK ON TO THE PROPERTY LINE, THAT THERE WOULD BE PROPER SIGHT DISTANCE AND SAFE FOR CARS TO PULL OUT AS LONG AS THE MIELKES DID NOT PARK THEIR VEHICLES BETWEEN THE FENCE AND THE ROADWAY. I’M GOING TO DEMONSTRATE WITH YOU ON THE NEXT SLIDE THE EXACT SIGHT PLAN AND THE REQUEST OF MR. KING, THE SUPERINTENDENT, THAT FEELS AS THOUGH THAT THE FENCE WILL BE — BY MOVING IT BACK, IT’S GOING TO ELIMINATE THE SIGHT RESTRICTION. HE WANTS TO MOVE IT BACK, NEXT. ONE FOOT ON THE TRICE DRIVE SECTION. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LARGE POSTER, YOU CAN SEE HIGHLIGHTED IN THE POSTER THAT SHOWS THE EXACT AREA WHERE MR. KING SUGGESTED THAT THE FENCE BE MOVED BACK TO THE PROPERTY LINE. NEXT. THE NEXT AREA IS AT CORA PLACE WHERE MR. KING SUGGESTED THAT THE FENCE BE MOVED BACK TO THE PROPERTY LINE THREE FEET. NEXT. FLFER, WHAT WE’RE — THEREFORE, WHAT WE’RE REQUESTING IS A FRONT SETBACK OF 10 FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WITH THE HEIGHT TO REMAIN AT SIX FEET. WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO ASK FOR 3 1/2–FOOT HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR THE OFF OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FENCE TO REMAIN ON THE PROPERTY LINE WITH A TOTAL OF SIX FEET. THIS AREA IS NOT A MAIN THOROUGHWAY. NEXT. THE FENCE DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE PETITION, STREET SERVICES DETERMINATION, AND THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY. THE MIELKES DID NOT SET OUT TO INTENTIONALLY BREAK THE LAW BUT TO PROTECT THEIR FAMILY. THERE IS NO PERMIT REQUIRED FOR A FENCE. THE DIAGRAMS ARE MISLEADING, WHICH LED TO MISINTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. THE HARDSHP WAS NOT SELF-IMPOSED. THEREFORE, WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD TO GIVE US A VARIANCE OF 10 FOOT AND 3 1/2 FOR THE HEIGHT. OF THE FENCE.>>I HAVE A QUESTION. YOU RAISED THE ISSUE OF RATS BECAUSE — AND HOW IT TIES TO THE FENCE BECAUSE OF — I THINK DOGS. YOU DIDN’T MENTION DOGS IN YOUR VERBAL PRESENTATION.>>NO.>>BUT IT WAS IN YOUR WRITTEN PRESENTATION. SO BASICALLY IT WAS TO ALLOW YOUR DOGS TO RUN FREE IN THE YARD, TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY FROM –>>CAN I ANSWER THAT?>>YES, MA’AM.>>WHENEVER WE FIRST INITIALLY DECIDED TO CONSTRUCT THIS FENCE, WE DID HAVE A RAT INFESTATION. AND ALSO WITH MY DOGS. I WAS TRYING TO FOCUS MORE ON THE HEALTH. THE HEALTH ISSUE OF WHY I REALLY AND TRULY — THE FENCE, WE DECIDED TO PUT THE FENCE UP. WE HAD A CHAIN LINK FENCE. AND WHEN THE ANIMAL PROS WAS THERE CLEANING EVERYTHING OUT, I SPENT WILL BE $15,000 ON THAT. THEY WERE LITERALLY WATCHING RATS RUN BACK AND FORTH THROUGH THE CHAIN LINK FENCE BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY AND OTHER PROPERTIES AROUND US, BECAUSE THERE IS A SEVERE RAT PROBLEM IN OUR AREA WITH ALL THE CONSTRUCTION GOING ON. PLUS, MY DOGS, I HAVE AN OLDER DOG. PEOPLE THAT WALK THEIR DOGS, THEY COME UP TO THE FENCE. THEY LET THEIR DOGS FIGHT THROUGH THE FENCE WITH MY OTHER DOGS. I’VE BEEN AIRLINE TO TEAR MY DOGS LOOSE. THAT’S ANOTHER ADVANTAGE TO HAVING THE PRIVACY FENCE. BUT THE RATS WERE THE INITIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE.>>AND SO — BECAUSE THE FENCE WAS BUILT OVER THE PROPERTY LINE, YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE THE FENCE.>>YEAH. WE’RE –>>AND SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IS IT’S HIGHLY UNUSUAL TO HAVE A SIX-FOOT FENCE IN SOMEONE’S FRONT YARD. I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT YOUR YARD IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL IN THAT YOU DON’T HAVE A BACKYARD.>>NO.>>THAT’S SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD WILL TALK ABOUT, BUT WHY IS IT IMPORTANT — IF YOU HAVE DOGS TO SCARE AWAY THE — TO DRIVE AWAY THE RATS, WHY DOES THE FENCE HAVE TO BE A SOLID FENCE? WHY SCANT IT HAVE — CAPITAL IT HAVE WITH SOME OPENING?>>WITH RATS, RATT CAN JUMP AND HIT YOU IN THE — RATS WITH JUMP AND HIT YOU IN THE CHEST. AND THIS IS WHAT I WAS TOLD BY ANIMAL PROS. THE TWO AND A HALF FEET, AND WHEN WE CONSTRUCTED IT, IT WAS PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE RATS AND PARTLY BECAUSE — IT WAS JUST SYMMETRICAL. IT ALL KINED UP — LINED UP, TO DETER THE RATS BECAUSE RATS CAN JUMP. THEY CAN CLIMB 2 AND A HALF FEET F. I’VE GOT AN OPENING AT THE TOP OF IT, ALL THEY GOT TO DO IS COME OVER THE FENCE. WITH IT DOWN IN THE GROUND, AND WITH IT TALLER — A LOT OF TIMES A RAT IS GOING TO HIT IT AND ONLY GO SO FAR. AND THEN IT’S GOING TO GO AWAY. THEY’RE NOT GOING TO JUST CONTINUALLY CLIMB SIX FEET TO TRY TO GET OVER IT TO GET IN. OBVIOUSLY MY DOGS DIDN’T DO A JOB WITH THE RATS BECAUSE I HAD RATS AND I’VE HAD MY DOGS EVER SINCE I LIVED THERE. THE DOGS DID NOT DETER THE RATS. THE DOGS CAME — TORE RATS CAME WITH THE DOGS IN THE YARD.>>I THINK THE DOG FOOD AND THE TRASH.>>I HAVE TO FEED MY DOGS, YOU KNOW. I MEAN –>>LET ME ADD SOMETHING HERE AS WELL. THE HOMEOWNERS HAVE SEEN A REDUCTION IN THE RAT POPULATION IN THEIR YARD BECAUSE OF THE FENCE. I MEAN, BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS FENCE, BECAUSE ANIMAL PROS STILL HAS THE ANIMAL TRAPS. THAT ARE UNDERNEATH THEIR HOME.>>AND THEY CAUGHT ZERO.>>AND IT PROVES TO THEM THAT ALL THOSE NASTY THINGS AS I SAY — ARE NOT COMING BACK IN. THAT THEY’VE PROPERLY SEALED THEM OUT. AND WHAT’S EVENNIC AND I’VE BEEN — IRONIC AND I’VE BEEN TOLD THAT WE CAN’T TALK ABOUT OTHER PROPERTIES, BUT WHAT’S IRONIC IS THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR, WE FOUND OUT, HAS HAD TO CALL RAT INFESTATION PEOPLE, TOO, BECAUSE NOW I GUESS THEY’VE DECIDED TO GO OVER TO THEIR HOUSE. [LAUGHTER]>>WHEN I’VE COME HOME, I HAVE SEEN THE RATS TRYING TO GET IN UP UNDER THE FENCE AND THEY CAN’T AND THEY RUN AROUND THE FENCE TRYING TO FIND OPENINGS.>>WE DIDN’T INTENTIONALLY DO THIS. WE REALLY DIDN’T. WE HAD NO — WE’VE WORKED IN CONSTRUCTION. WE ASSUMED WE WERE ON OUR PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE CHAIN LINK. WE WENT BEHIND THE CHAIN LINK. AND SOMEBODY CAME — WE GOT THE CODE VIOLATION AND THAT’S WHEN WE REALIZED, OH, I DIDN’T KNOW WE HAD TO BE TWO AND A HALF FEET TALL BECAUSE I’VE SEEN OTHER FENCES THAT ARE LIKE OURS.>>IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.>>IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND YOU KNOW, WE DIDN’T INTENTIONALLY DO THIS. I DON’T — NOBODY WANTS THIS HEADACHE. I HAVE CRIED OVER THIS FENCE. I HAVE.>>OKAY, YOU SAY THAT RATS CAN JUMP UP TO TWO AND A HALF FEET.>>NO, RATS CAN JUMP UP TO YOUR CHEST. THEY CAN HIT YOU — IF THEY’RE ON THE GROUND, THEN RUN AND JUMP AND POP YOU IN YOUR CHEST.>>HOW MANY FEET IS THAT?>>WELL –>>I’D SAY FOUR FOOT.>>FOUR AND A HALF, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AN AVERAGE MAN IS AROUND 6-FOOT TALL AND A RAT CAN JUMP UP TO PROBABLY THE CHEST HEIGHT OF AN AVERAGE MAN.>>THAT’S WHAT THE RAT EXPERT.>>THAT’S WHAT THE RAT PEOPLE, ANIMAL PROS SAID TO US.>>SO THE OTHER QUESTION IS YOULITION ON THIS CONCLUSION — YOU LIST ON THE CONCLUSION ABOUT HARDSHIPS NOT SELF-IMPOSED, BUT WHAT IS YOUR HARDSHIP THAT YOU NEED A SIX-FOOT TALL FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD?>>I DON’T WANT RATS ANYMORE AND ALSO FOR MY DOGS. I MEAN, I HAVEN’T HAD ANY — I’VE BEEN ABLE TO TAKE MY DOGS OUT. I DON’T –>>OBVIOUSLY THE DOGS COULD BE IN AN AREA WITH AN OPEN FENCE OR NORMAL KIND OF FENCE.>>YEAH. THE HARDSHIP IS I CAN’T AFFORD ANOTHER $15,000. I HAVE GRANDCHILDREN THAT LIVE WITH ME.>>WITH ASTHMA.>>AND THE ONE GRANDSON THAT HAS THE ASTHMA, BEFORE WE DID GET RID OF THE RATS, HE WAS IN AND OUT OF THE HOSPITAL, HAD TO HAVE A BREEDING MACHINE — BREATHING MACHINE. AFTER I GOT RID OF THE RATS AND WE DON’T HAVE THEM ANYMORE, HE HASN’T HAD ANY ISSUES WITH HIS ASTHMA. AND I MEAN, THAT’S THE TRUTH ON THAT.>>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? YOU HAVE FIVE SECONDS LEFT.>>I WANT TO ADD THIS ISN’T ON A MAIN THOROUGHWAY, EITHER. THERE’S VERY LIMITED TRAFFIC ON THIS.>>IN A CIRCLE.>>THE NEIGHBORHOOD — NEIGHBORS AROUND US DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.>>OKAY.>>THANK YOU.>>WE’RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSSION? LET ME ASK JOHN MICHAEL AGAIN. TELL US THE RULES OF FENCES AND WHY WE HAVE THEM.>>FENCES ARE CONSIDERED PERMITTED SETBACK OBSTRUCTIONS UNDER 17.12.040 — METROPOLITAN CODE OF LAW SPECIFICALLY ZONING CODE. IT’S CORRECT TO STATE, AND I KNOW THAT THIS IS SOMETIMES CREATED HARD BURN FOR OUR BOARD — HEARTBURN FOR OUR BOARD, PERMITS ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR PRIVACY FENCES. HOWEVER, IF YOU’RE GOING TO BUILD A PRIVACY FENCE, YOU HAVE TO MEET THE CODE REQUIREMENTS WITH HARD TO HEIGHT, SETBACK, MATERIALS, ET CETERA. ALTHOUGH IT IS A PERMITTED SETBACK OBSTRUCTION, THAT COMES WITH CERTAIN CRITERIA. HERE WE GO. 17 –>>I’M SORRY. IN A SENSE, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON’T REALIZE, IN A SENSE THERE’S NOT A PER MID REQUIRED. THERE’S NO INSPECTION AS THE PROCESS GOES THROUGH WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT REQUIRES A PERMIT, YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT DRAWINGS AND THEY GET APPROVED BEFORE YOU BUILD. SO WITH FENCES, IT’S — YOU SORT OF — IF YOU MESS UP, YOU DON’T SOMETIMES KNOW UNTIL SOMEONE REPORTS YOU ONR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THERE’S NO STOPGAPS IN BETWEEN. YOU GO UNTIL YOU’RE BUSTED.>>YOU’VE IDENTIFIED THE SEQUENCE THAT MOST OF THESE CASES COME TO YOU AT THE BOARD AND THAT IS PROPERTY STANDARDS ARE SET OUT. IERS, THERE’S SOMETHING TOO TALL, TOO TALL IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, OR IN THIS CASE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THAT’S HOW WE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT IT AND IT BRINGS THE APPELLANTS HERE. THE APPLICABLE SECTION, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU PREFER TO HEAR THAT, 17.040 IS OTHER SETBACKS, E, PERMITTED SETBACK CONSTRUCTIONS. SCREENING WALL OR FENCES GIVES US THE CRETEIA FOR A — CRITERIA FOR A-FOOT SECTION HEIGHT RESTRICTION. YOU CAN HAVE IT SLOLS IT’S IN — AS LONG AS IT’S SIX FEET IN HEIGHT OR LESS. — THAT’S SOMETIMES MORE APPLICABLE TO OTHER PROPERTIES. TWO AND A HALF FEET RIGHT UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE IS FINE. THAT THE JUST NOT WHAT’S BEFORE YOU BY WAY OF REQUEST. SO IT’S A CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT A VARIANCE ON THE HEIGHT AND THE PLACEMENT.>>OR AN OPEN FENCE, TOO.>>RIGHT.>>SO OPEN FENCE YOU GET TO GO HIGHER.>>I THINK THAT’S THE IDEA HERE. BUT THAT’S THE APPLICABLE SECTION FOR THE BOARD’S CONSIDERATION IN TERMTSZ OF –>>SO THE APPLICANT HAS ASKED FOR A VARIANCE IN THE STREET SETBACKS OF THE FENCE. SO WE’RE HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT’S GOING TO BE GRANTED OR NOT.>>YOU KNOW, CONCEPTIONUALLY — CONCEPTIONULLY, PUTTING A SIX FOOT FENCE IS VERY TROUBLING IN THE FRONT YARD. BUT WHEN YOU GET TO THE — JUST ON PAPER. BUT WHEN YOU GET TO THE REALITY OF THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS TO HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE EXTREMELY UNIQUE. IT’S A VERY UNUSUAL LOT. THERE IS NO — IN TERMS OF HOUSE PLACEMENT AND A CORNER LOT WITH NO BACKYARD –>>JOHN MICHAEL, CAN YOU PUT THE PICTURE UP AGAIN OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND THE FENCE?>>YOU KNOW, OFTEN ON FENCES, YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY AND HAVE PUBLIC WORKS, YOU KNOW, WEIGH IN. SIT AN ISSUE — IS IT AN ISSUE. IT CERTAINLY APPEARS THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE IN THIS CASE, THAT IT’S MET THAT MEASURE. I THINK THAT OUR MEASURE FOR PUBLIC — IMPACT ON PUBLIC WELFARE, THAT A LOT OF THAT RELY OSNEIGHBORS AND WE HAVE NO NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION. I DON’T RECALL IN THE PACKET BUT THERE’S NO PHYSICAL PRESENCE OF OPPOSITION, AND SUBSTANTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT. SO THE NEIGHBORS EITHER CLEARLY RECOGNIZE THE PROBLEM OR APPRECIATE WHAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE — OR WHAT THE HOMEOWNERS ARE TRYING TO DO. SO THOSE ARE THREE FACTORS THAT I THINK ARE VERY UNIQUE TO THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. ALTHOUGH — YOU KNOW, I SAID IT’S A TOUGH — IT’S A TOUGH CALL THAT JUST — YOU KNOW, TO PUT A FENCE LIKE THIS IN WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A FRONT YARD.>>I AGREE IN — I’VE SEEN TALL FENCES IN FRONT YARDS, GRANTED THEY’RE PROBABLY 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT I MEAN, I’VE SEEN TALL FENCES IN YARDS. SO I WOULD BE INCLINED TO VOTE IN FAVOR. TO GIVE THE HARDSHIP.>>SO THE OTHER THING THAT WE NEED TO DETERMINE IF YOU’RE AGREEING OF THE VARIANCE IS, RIGHT NOW AS IT STANDS, THIS IS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO WHERE DO YOU WANT THE FENCE?>>NOW, AND WE DON’T HAVE A RIGHT TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE A FENCE ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THEY HAVE TO MOVE THE FENCE AS THEY STATED, AND THEY’RE ASKING TO MOVE TO IT THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS FURTHER FROM THE ROAD THAN THIS. AND THIS IS — YOU KNOW, I THINK THEIR PROPERTY LINE IS FURTHER FROM THE ROAD THAN MANY PROPERTY LINES ARE. SO I DO THINK THAT — IF WE PASS THIS, THAT THERE SHOULD BE A CONDITION THAT — THAT THE HOMEOWNERS DON’T PARK IN SPOT% THAT PUBLIC WORKS DEEMS UNSAFE FOR THEM TO PARK THEIR CARS, WHICH THEY’VE AGREED TO. BUT THE PROPERTY LINE –>>SO PUBLIC WORKS HAS SAID WHAT?>>THEY SAID FOR THEM NOT TO PARK AROUND THAT CORNER.>>ON THE OTHER — BETWEEN THE FENCE AND THE ROAD.>>YEAH.>>WHERE THE WHITE TRUCK IS.>>WHAT ABOUT — [OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS]>>WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE? [OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS]>>HE SAID THE OTHER SIDE WAS FINE AND WE’RE SLOWLY GETTING RID OF CARS. SO THAT WE DON’T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL CARS. THE CADILLAC IS ALREADY GONE. THE BLUE CAR IS FIXIN’ TO BE GONE. THERE ARE ONLY BE — WILL ONLITON WHITE TRUCK, THE BLUE TRUCK, AND OUR PT CRUZER AND MY — PT CRUISER AND MY DAUGHTER IS GOING TO –>>WE’VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.>>WE WILL NOT PARK ON THAT SIDE OVER THERE.>>THAT WAS CLARIFY CAKES, YES, THANK YOU.>> — CLARIFICATION, YES, THANK YOU.>>I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST, IF A MEETINGS IS MADE TO APPROVE, COULD IT BE — MOTION IS MADE TO APPROVE, COULD IT BE EASIER TO RELY ON PUBLIC WORKS’ RECOMMENDATIONS AND NOT US TRY TO INTERPRET IT?>>PUBLIC WORKS MIGHT BE LESS GENEROUS, SHALL I SAY.>>YEAH, I THOUGHT THEY HAD BEEN OUT THERE AND APPROVED SOME LOCATIONS AND –>>PUBLIC WORKS DID?>>YEAH.>>OKAY. JOHN MICHAEL?>>MR. CHAIRMAN, OF NOTE, PUBLIC WORKS’ PRIMARY INTEREST IS THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE THERE AT THE INTERSECTION. SO YOU MAY TO KNOW THAT FROM MR. KING’S NOTES, HIS PRIMARY CONCERN IS JUST GET IT OUT OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND MAKE SURE IT’S SAFE TO NAVIGATE THAT INTERSECTION. HIS CONCERNS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ZONING CODE AND ITS PARAMETERS. MR. KING HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO LOOK AT THE ZONING CODE AND DOUBTLESS HAS NOT DONE SO. THAT COMES TO OUR STAFF AND THEN UPON APPEAL TO THIS BOARD. SO IN THE SAME WAY THAT THE BOARD CONTEMPLATES MAYBE WE JUST RELY ON PUBLIC WORKS, PUBLIC WORKS IS COMPLETELY RELYING ON ZONING STAFF FROM THE CODES DEPARTMENT AND NOW THE BOARD TO LOOK AT ITS ISSUES.>>SO COULD WE ASK THE HOMEOWNER TO PRESENT, YOU KNOW, EITHER A SITE PLAN OR A MAP TO — TO Y’ALL — BASICALLY, HOW DO WE GET PUBLIC WORKS TO SAY — DO THEY STAKE IT OUT?>>I THINK THE THRESHOLD IS VERY LOW. AS LONG AS THEY’RE AFOOT AWAY FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY INTO THE INTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY, AND PRESERVE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, THEN PUBLIC WORKS WILL BE HAPPY. THAT’S WHAT I GLEANED FROM THE CORRESPONDENCE.>>A FOOT FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY MEANS A FOOT INSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE?>>A FOOT CLOSER IN FROM WHERE THEY ARE. — THAN WHEN THEY ARE.>>BASICALLY –>>THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. WE’RE JUST DISCUSSING. SO DOES THAT ANSWER — I MEAN, BASICALLY, IT SOUNDS LIKE PUBLIC WORKS CARES ABOUT THE SIGHT LINE NEAR THE WHITE TRUCK AND — THAT’S PRETTY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. OBVIOUSLY NOT IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO WE — DO WE HAVE A MOST ABOUT THIS? — MOTION ABOUT THIS? MORE DISCUSSION?>>I WANT TO ADD THAT WE HAVE A CODE THAT WE NORMALLY COMPLY WITH. AND I HEAR NO HARDSHIP HERE. SO THAT’S MY POINT.>>I THINK IF I WERE GOING TO FIND A HARDSHIP, I THINK I WOULD QUOTE THE EVER POPULAR HERBERT CLAUSE. COULD YOU QUOTE THAT FOR US, MR. HERBERT? EXACT LANGUAGE OF THAT?>>THE CATCH JULY CLAUSE.>>ANY OTHER EXCEPTIONAL OR UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE.>>I WOULD BE WILLING TO –>>A RAT INFESTATION.>>I WOULD GRANT A RAT INFESTATION AND THE — SEEMS TO IMPOSE DIMIN MUST HARM TO THEIR NEIGHBORS. IF SOMEONE IS MAKING A MOTION WOULD CARE TO USE THAT.>>SO ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT A SIX-FOOT FENCE WILL KEEP RATS OUT OF PROPERTY?>>I DON’T KNOW WHAT WILL KEEP RATS OUT OF A PROPERTY. BUT IF WE’RE LOOKING FOR A HARDSHIP TO HANG OUR HAT ON, I THINK THAT’S — I THINK THAT’S REALLY THE ONLY THING WE COULD DO. I DON’T THINK THAT ANY OF THE OTHER CATEGORIES COULD WORK. I’M AGREEING WITH YOU. BUT I’M ALSO TRYING TO FIND A WAY THAT — I MEAN, WE CAN’T — IF WE CAN’T APPROVE THE VARIANCE WITHOUT FINDING A HARDSHIP, SO IF WE’RE DO TO TO THAT, I — I DON’T THINK WE HAVE THE SAY THE RAT INFESSTATION. I THINK WE CAN SAY IT’S UNUSUAL AND EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION.>>DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?>>I’M WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GRANT BOTH THE HEIGHT VARIANCE AND THE LOCATION VARIANCE AS DESCRIBED TODAY, WHICH, WHICH IS BACK TO THE PROPERTY LINE, WITH ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWED BY PUBLIC WORKS, BASED UPON THE ISSUES DISCUSSED ABOUT CREATURE INFESTATION AND THE ATTENDANT HEALTH ISSUES THERETO BEING AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WOULD QUALIFY AS A BASIS FOR THE VARIANCE.>>I’LL SECOND THAT.>>OKAY. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY MORE DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, THOSE IN FAVOR FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES]>>OPPOSED?>>NO.>>PASSES 6-1. SO WHAT WE’RE GOING TO DO IS YOU’RE GOING TO TALK TO JOHN MICHAEL TOMORROW OR NEXT WEEK ABOUT HOW TO MOVE THIS FENCE AND WHERE AND PUBLIC WORKS IS GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN THE LOCATION ON THAT SIDE BY THE WHITE TRUCK. OKAY? SO WHEAF WE’VE RULED TODAY — WHAT WE’VE RULED TODAY IS YOU CAN KEEP THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE AND YOU CAN KEEP THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE FENCE CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. SO GOOD LUCK WITH EVERYTHING.>>THANK YOU.>>MR. CHAIRMAN, OUR NEXT CASE IS 2016-190. INVOLVING PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SYLVAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD AT 13246 AVENUE NORTH. — 13246th AVENUE NORTH. THE APPELLANT THAT IS FILED THE ITEM A APPEAL CHALLENGING THE — WITH REGARD TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SP LANGUAGE AS TO CLOSING TIME REGARDING THE BUSINESSES LOCATED WITHIN THIS RETAIL PROPERTY. THE AERIAL HERE NOW DATED OBVIOUSLY SHOWS THE CONSTRUCTION UNDERWAY AT THAT INTERSECTION. AND THEN THE RECENT SITE VISIT SHOWS THE APPEARANCE JUST FROM THE STREET LEVEL. BECAUSE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FOLKS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE, THE PARTIES WILL HAVE 15 MINUTES. A REMINDER, THE 15 MINUTES IS CUMULATIVE. YOU DO NOT GET EACH OF YOU 15 MINUTES. I’VE GOT DIAPERS TO CHANGE –>>BEFORE WE START –>>I JUST WANTED TO ASK, JOHN MICHAEL, IF YOU WOULD, I AM GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE AT 3:25. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT IT MAY MATTER, IF THERE’S AN EQUAL NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS, IF YOU COULD TALK ABOUT HOW THE VOTING IS COUNTED. AND WHAT IT TAKES TO CARRY A MOTION.>>SURE. FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES WILL CARRY A MOTION, WHETHER THAT BE IN FAVOR OF THE — WHETHER THAT BE IN FAVOR TO SUPPORT THE ITEM A APPEAL OR TO EJECT. FOUR VOTES WILL BE NECESSARILY REGARDLESS WHETHER THERE ARE SEVEN MEMBERS PRESENT OR FOUR MEMBERS PRESENT. I THINK THAT’S CLEAR AND SOME OF THE FOLKS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL WHO CAN EXPLAIN IT TO YOU PERHAPS EVEN MORE CAPABLY. I’VE STATED THE OVERVIEW. I BELIEVE YOUR NORMAL PROCEDURE IS TO HEAR FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SINCE IT IS AN ITEM A APPEAL AS TO WHAT THE DETERMINE WAS AND WHY IT WAS, ALTHOUGH I KNOW YOU HAVE A LETTER IN THE FILE THAT WOULD GIVE YOU A GOOD JUMPING OFF POINT FOR THE APPELLANT.>>MR. HERBERT, WHY ARE WE HERE?>>I’LL STAND BY THE LETTER IN THE FILE. IT’S PREVIOUS.>>THAT’S EASY. VERY GOOD. SO LET US PROCEED. JOHN MICHAEL.>>MR. IRWIN OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE.>>OKAY.>>I’VE DAVID CLINE FELT. I DO APPELLANTS HERE. WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO SPEAK. WE’VE TRIED TO COORDINATE IT AND GET IT DONE, SNAP, SNAP, SO IT WILL BE SOME NEIGHBORS. AND THE COUNCILMAN WHO KNOWS ABOUT THE INTENTION. LEGISLATION WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED WILL SPEAK AT THE END. THE OPINION DOUBT SOUND OUTRAGEOUS. YOU’VE SEEN THE LETTER. SOME OF YOU MAY SAY THAT MAKES SENSE. THERE’S AT LEAST TWO REASONS THAT YOU SHOULD NEED TO GRANT THIS APPEAL. THE FIRST IS THAT IT DOESN’T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE HISTORY, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY BEHIND THE SP. AND THE SECOND IS IS IT ACTUALLY ADDS SOME UNCERTAINTY IN WAYS THAT’S A PANDORA’S BOX. I DON’T THINK YOU WANT TO GO DOWN THAT PATH. PRIOR TO 2013 THIS HAD TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND — THE FORMER COUNCILMAN WORKED WITH THE — ALWAYS A CASE, THERE’S TRADE-OFFS. IN THE CASE THE OWNER RECEIVED THE RIGHT TO BUILD AN ADDITIONAL RESIDENT SHALL HOUSE. THEY ALSO — THE HOUSES ALL FACE UTAH NOW AND THEY ALSO RECEIVED AN ADDITIONAL 19 LYNNE, ALMOST DOUBLING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THIS PROPERTY. THERE WERE RESTRICTIONS. SO THE NEIGHBOR AND EVERYBODY HAD CERTAINTY. THEY GOT EXTRA DEVELOPMENT% RIGHTS AND THAT’S WHAT AN SP IS FOR. THE SP IS INTENDED TO BE CONTEXT SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT. SO THE CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT HERE. YOU’VE GOT THIS LITTLE SPOT NEIGHBORHOOD POLICY. EVERYTHING IS KNOWN AS NEIGHBORHOOD MAINTENANCE WHEN Q WHICH MEANS WHAT — WHICH MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. IT’S SUPPOSED TO STAY A NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS ISN’T THE AREA DOWN AROUND EDLY IS. THIS IS UP OFF THE STREET. THE NEIGHBORS KNEW THERE WOULD BE A COMMERCIAL THERE. BUT IN A RESTAURANT ON TECHNOLOGY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A PARKING LOT IN THE BACKYARDS. IN THIS CONTEXT, JAESON WORKED WITH THE OWNER AND THE NEIGHBORS ON THE SP. IT’S PROPOSED AND ALLOWS A MULTIPLE COMMERCIAL USES. THEY DISCUSSED THE USES. JAESON AGREED THAT A RESTAURANT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE, BUT WITH LIMITED TIME — LIMITED HOURS. INITIALLY THEY ASKED FOR HOURS THAT SAID THAT PROHIBIT THE OPERATIONS AFTER 9:00 P.M. DEVELOPERS SAID, WHAT IF WE GOT EMPLOYEES HERE. THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE A DOZEN BAKERY. THE BAKERS MAY NEED TO GET THERE AT 4:00 A.M. BECAUSE IT WAS BETWEEN 6:00 AND 9:00. SO THEY SAID THAT’S FINE. THE BAKERY WAS GOOD, SO THEY CHANGED THE LANGUAGE FROM PROHIBITED OPERATIONS, AND THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT, TO SHALL NOT BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AFTER 10:00 P.M. WITH THE INTENT BEING THAT IF YOU’RE THERE WORKING, COOKING, WHO HASN’T WORKED AT A RESTAURANT AT SOME POINT, AND YOU KNOW, WASHING DOWN IF TABLES AND STUFF — THE TABLES AND STUFF, THAT’S OKAY. THE PUBLIC IS GONE TO DONE AT 10:00 P.M., PERIOD. THAT WAS UNDERSTOOD BY THE COUNCIL MEMBER, UNDERSTOOD BY THE NEIGHBORS, DEBATED AT LENGTH. THAT WAS AN ESSENTIALLY ALTERNATIVE DON’T STANDARD, WHICH IS WHAT AN SP IS FOR. WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION DEBATED THIS, THEY WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PARKING. WASN’T EVEN A NEWS VOTE, BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T — UNANIMOUS VOTE, BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T WANT ANOTHER SOUTH 12 PROBLEM. YOU HAVE A 100-SEAT RESTAURANT, SO THE ISSUE WAS LIMITING THE NOISE AND THE PARKING THAT’S GOING TO ACCUMULATE FROM THE PUBLIC. SO THE PUBLIC WILL BE GONE AT 10:00 P.M. PROPERTY WAS SOLD. AND NEW OWNER CAME IN. AND UNDERSTOOD THAT. THE NEW OWNER MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS. SAID I UNDERSTAND THE EXISTING ZONING. THEN A NEW RESTAURANT PLATER CAME IN AND SET I NEED TO — AND SAYS I NEED TO STAY OPEN UNTIL 11:00 P.M. JUNE, MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY SAID WE WANT TO DO THAT. EXTEND IT TO 11:00. AND THERE WAS EVEN AN APPLICATION FILED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO AMEND THE SP. THEN A REQUEST WAS MADE TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AFTER THE OWNER PROPOSED SOME LANGUAGE, RAN IT BY, WAS VOTED ON BY SOME MEMBERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK 33 TO 18. SO NOT THAT MUCH WHAT I’D CALL AN OVERWHELMING VOTE. WHERE THEY SAID, HEY, YOU KNOW, OKAY, WE’RE OKAY WITH THIS LANGUAGE.% SO THE OWNER PRESENTED IT. SAID I WANT TO MODIFY THE SP TO USE THIS LANGUAGE. PRESENTED IT. AND THEN THE ZONE ADMINISTRATOR TOOK THE LANGUAGE THAT THE OWNER REQUESTED AND WAS APPROVED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND PUT IN IT AND THAT’S THE LETTER YOU HAVE. THAT’S THE LANGUAGE THAT THE OWNER REQUESTED AS A MODIFICATION. AND I’M ASSUMING — OF COURSE, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR PROBABLY DIDN’T KNOW ALL THE HISTORY WITH JAESON AND THE OWNER. BUT IF YOU’RE GOING TO CHANGE THE INTEND OF A PIECE OF LEGISLATION LIKE THIS, THAT’S WHAT THE COUNCIL IS FOR. SO IT’S NOT LIKE THIS OWNER IS BEING TOLD, NO, YOU CAN NEVER DO THIS. BUT IT NEEDS TO BE DONE LEGISLATIVELY, NOT BY AID ADMINISTRATOR. THEY CAME — ADMINISTRATIVELY. THEY CAME IN. THE SP WAS IN PLACE. ONLY OPENED TO THE PUBLIC UNTIL 10:00 TO ADDRESS THOSE NOISE CONCERNS. IT’S PROPERTY THAT THIS PROPERTY — THAT’S THE ISSUE WITH THE HISTORY. ALSO, THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED FOR MULTIPLE COMMERCIAL USES. DOES THAT MEAN WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN WITH ANOTHER COMMERCIAL ICE, THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IS GOING TO HAVE TO GET ANOTHER OPINION, BECAUSE THIS ONE TALKS ABOUT FINISHING MEALS. WHAT IF IT’S A DAY SPA. SO YOU’RE GOING TO COME IN FOR THE 9:45 APPOINTMENT. IT’S A TWO-HOUR POINT AND YOU 11 AT 11:45. SO — LEAVE AT 11:45. SO THERE’S ALL KINDS OF PROBLEMS WITH THAT. LET’S SAY IT’S A FAMILY-STYLE RESTAURANT. THEY’RE GOING TO BE THERE WELL PAST 10:00 AT THAT POINT. PLUS THEY’RE SEEKING A BEER PERMIT. SO YOU KNOW, YOU COME IN, GO WITH OUR FRIENDS, GO DOWN WATCH A COUPLE BASKETBALL GAMES, GRAB A BURGER, AND YOU’RE WATCHING THE WEST COAST GAMES. IT’S GOING TO BE MIDNIGHT. HERE’S THE ISSUE. IT ADDS UNCERTAINTY. SO YOU LOOK AT THIS THING. IT SAID 10:00 P.M. IS WHEN IT’S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. PUBLIC ON THE PROPERTY. AND NOW WE HAVE THIS, WELL, HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES TO FINISH THE MEALS. IT JUST OPENS IT UP FOR MANY, MANY THINGS. AND A GENERAL RULE IS YOU INTERPRET LEGISLATION TO ADD CERTAINTY. LET’S SAY THAT THERE’S CONSTRUCTION — WE KNOW THERE ARE VARIOUS OTHER RULES IN THE CODE. CONSTRUCTION NOISE HAS TO END AT A CERTAIN TIME. WELL, I HAD TO START MY CONCRETE POUR, YOU KNOW, 20 MINUTES BEFORE THE TIME I GOT TO FINISH IT. SO IT WILL TAKE ME ANOTHER TWO, THREE HOURS, DON’T WORRY ABOUT IT. THESE TIMES MEAN SOMETHING. THIS TIME IN THIS MEANS SOMETHING. YOU MAY ASK THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND OTHERS, I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED THE CODE DOESN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT PLATING HOURS OR THOSE VARIOUS THINGS MEAN. SO YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT WAS INTENDED BY THE COUNCIL MEMBER, WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED, AND FINALLY, YOU WILL HEAR I THINK THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION LIKE I SAID APPROVED THIS. NONE OF THAT MATTERS. THAT’S THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED AFTER THE FACT. THIS ISN’T A VARIANCE AS YOU KNOW WHERE YOU’RE BEING ASKED TO SORT OF WORK SOMETHING OUT. YOU’RE BEING ASKED TO INTERPRET — WELL, READ THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION, SEE IF YOU AGREE THAT THAT’S WHAT IT MEANT. AND BASED ON THE HISTORY AND THE UNCERTAINTY THAT IT ADDS, WE ASK YOU TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND I GUESS IT’S CALLED OVERRULING. I’M NOT SURE WHAT IT’S CALLED. DUT DISAPPROVE THE ZONE ADD — BUT DISAPPROVE THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION.>>HI, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO OUR POSITION ON THE TERMS OF SP — MY MAKE IS MIKE IRVIN. 4506 UTAH, WHICH IS ACROSS UTAH AVENUE FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT. I’VE BEEN INVOLVED SINCE DAY ONE. THIS TROUBLED ZONE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN PROBLEMATIC SINCE THE BEGINNING. WE’RE ALL READY FOR A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS TO OPEN THIS SITE AS LONG AS IT DOES SO UNDER THE GUIDE LINES OF THE SP, WHICH WE SPENT SO MUCH TIME NEGOTIATING, HAMMERING, AND MAKING COMPROMISES. WE UNDERSTAND IT’S A URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND WELCOME ANY NEW TENANTS THAT ABIDE BY THE SP. THE CURRENT OWNER BOUGHT THE PROPERTY WITH THE KNOWLEDGE. — NOW WE’RE BEING ASKED TO SACRIFICE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN OUR AREA OF OUR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES SO POTENTIAL TENANTS AND PEOPLE WHO DID NOT LIVE NEARBY CAN USES THIS DEVELOPMENT. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE BOARD TO UPHOLD THIS APPEAL TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR FAMILIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>YES, GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD MEMBERS. I’M BERNARD PICKNEY. I LIVE FINISH 604 DAKOTA — 4604 DAKOTA AVENUE. AND I’VE BEEN INVOLVED IN PLANNING THE ZONING ISSUES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE I JOINED THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MORE THAN 30 YEARS AGO. I ATTENDED EVERY MEETING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR SITE OVER THE LAST FOUR AND A HALF YEARS. AND YOU KNOW, THERE WAS CLEAR AGREEMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BUSINESS WOULD HAVE 16 HOURS A DAY TO OPERATE AND THE NEIGHBORS WOULD HAVE EIGHT HOURS OF PEACE AND QUIET. AND YOU KNOW, THIS OPINION LETTER CHANGES THAT. MAKES IT VERY UNCERTAIN. IT TAKES A VERY SPECIFIC EASY-TO-ENFORCE CRITERIA AND MAKES IT SO VAGUE THAT IT’S UNENFORCIBLE. SO — UNENFORCEABLE. THAT’S WHY WE’RE HERE FOR AN APPEAL. THANK YOU.>>GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS DR. SHAWNA GRAHAM. I LIVE AT 4510 NEBRASKA AVENUE. MY NOME IS HE’DLY ADJACENT TO THIS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. AND EACH OF YOU IS GETTING A COPY OF AN EMAIL THAT WAS SENT TO MR. HERBERT ON OCTOBER 11th FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER, MR. JIM JACOBS. AND FROM THAT EMAIL, MR. JACOBS STATES THAT THE SYLVAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION VOTED IN FAVOR OF SOME NEW LANGUAGE AND THEN HE ASKS THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, MR. SLOAN, AND MR. HERBERT TO AGREE TO THAT, QUOTE, MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE SP. SO MR. JACOBS HIMSELF KNEW HE WAS REQUESTING A ZONING CHANGE. AND THEN MR. JACOBS PROCEEDED TO PROVIDE MR. HERBERT WITH THE EXACT SP LANGUAGE THAT HE WANTED. AND THAT’S PRECISELY WHAT HE GOT. I’M NOT SURE IF IT’S THE JOB OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO SIMPLY INTERPRET AN ORDINANCE. THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE OR IS IT TO RUBBER STAMP A REQUEST FROM A PROPERTY OWNER WHO WANTS TO CHANGE AN SP WHO HE SUDDENLY FINDS INCONVENIENT TO HIM. MY TWO DAUGHTERS ARE 3 AND 6 YEARS OLD. THEY SLEEP 50 FEET FROM THIS 25-SEAT PATIO. OF COURSE I’M INTERESTED TO KNOW WHAT TIME OF NIGHT THE BUSINESS HAS TO STOP ACTIVITY. AND THAT’S WHAT WE WERE PROMPTED IN THIS SP. — PROMISED IN THIS SP. AND WITH THIS NEW LANGUAGE, THIS NEW INTERPRETING, WE HAVE NO GUARANTEE OF WHEN THAT HAS TO STOP. WE COULD HEAR PATIO NOISE OUT THERE UNTIL AFTER MIDNIGHT ON SCHOOL NIGHTS. THE CARS IN THE PARKING LOT RIGHT BEHIND MY HOUSE, THE ALLEY TRAFFIC, CAR DOORS SLAMMING, CAR ALARMTS. ALL THE NOISE THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT WITH A 100-SEAT RESTAURANT SO CLOSE TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CERTAINTY WHEN THAT’S GOING TO END. SO I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS SIMPLY A MECHANISM TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROPER SP AMENDMENT PROCESS AND IT REALLY UNDERMINES THE PUBLIC — THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN — YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC — IT DEGRADES THE TRUST THAT I WOULD HAVE IN AN SP PROCESS IF I CAN’T TRUST THAT WHAT WAS PROMPTED TO US — PROMISED TO US IS GOING TO BE ENACTED AND IF WE COULD HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER COME ALONG AND SUDDENLY DECIDE THEY DON’T LIKE THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT AND HAVE NEW LANGUAGE CONSTRUCTED AND CONSTRUED TO THEIR FAVOR, YOU KNOW, I JUST THINK IT’S AN OVERREACH AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU GRANT THIS APPEAL. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.>>GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. JAESON HOLLOMAN, 4800 — I WAS THE COUNCIL PERSONAL AT THE TIME THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS REZONED. WHAT I WANT TO DO IS GIVE YOU WHAT THE NEGOTIATION WAS. SO MAYBE YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THIS. THIS WAS — AS SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW, I THINK THE LAST ITER WERATION — ITERATION WAS AN ITALIAN GROCERY STORE, A CORNER GROCERY STORE. A LOT OF OUR URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS HAD SMALL GROCERY STORES SCATTERED THROUGHOUT IN EAST NASHVILLE, SYLVAN PARK. AND THIS WAS ONE OF THOSE. IT WAS — ONCE WE DID THE MASS, COMES — REZONED COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WHEN THE DEVELOPER ORIGINALLY CAME TO ME, THERE WAS TWO LOTS. THERE WAS THE RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY AND THIS COMMERCIAL ZONED PROPERTY. BECAUSE IT WAS ZONED COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, IT WAS LIMITED IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT A RESTAURANT COULD HAVE. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THAT BUILDING WAS THERE, IT ACTUALLY HAD A GRANDFATHERED LARGER SPACE. THAT BUILDING WAS IN PRETTY BAD SHAPE. IT WAS MOSTLY CONCRETE BLOCK. IT WAS UNATTRACTIVE. AND SO THE NEGOTIATION THAT WE HAD WAS THAT THEY WOULD GET A SECOND RETAIL SPACE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU NOW SEE AS THE SCOUTS BARBERSHOP. WAS ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED TO BE A BAKERY. AND IN EXCHANGE FOR GETTING THAT EXTRA RETAIL SPACE AND THEREFORE A LARGER OVERALL COMMERCIAL FOOTPRINT, THAN WHAT THEY HAD BY RIGHT UNDER CUSTOMER SHALL ZONING OR — COMMERCIAL ZONING OR CERTAINLY WITH THE BUILDING THAT THEY HAD, IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT, THEY AGREED THAT THEY WOULD LIMIT THE RESTAURANT SPACE AND THE IDEA IN LIMITING THE RESTAURANT SPACE WAS THAT THE CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD WERE PRY NORTH CAROLINA NIGHT TAME TRAFFIC AND PARKING. AND — NIGHTTIME TRAFFIC AND PARKING. IS AND IT WAS GOING TO BE THE RESTAURANT AND NOT THE RETAIL SPACE THAT WOULD DRIVE THAT. THEY AGREED TO THAT AND THEY ALSO AGREED TO NIGHTTIME QLOASH HOURS OF 10:00 P.M. — CLOSURE HOURS OF TMS AS HAS BEEN CONSISTED. — HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. IT AND IT SAID NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC — IT’S THE FORMER WHO SOLD OUT. BUT THEY SPECIFICALLY ASKED THAT WE COUCH IT IN TERMS OF OPEN TO THE PUBLIC SO THAT THEY COULD STILL DO NAPKIN ROLLING, FLOOR WAXING, ALL OF THE THINGS THAT TEND TO HAPPEN WHEN A RESTAURANT CLOSES DOWN. BUT THEY WOULDN’T BE CAUSING A TRAFFIC AND PARKING ISSUE, WHICH IS WHAT THE PRIMARY CONCERN DURING THE NEGOTIATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS. SO THAT’S A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND AS TO HOW IT HAPPENED. AND THE REASON FOR THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AT THE TIME.>>OKAY. QUESTION. IF YOU WANTED EVERYONE OUT OF THERE — MR. HOLLOMAN — AT 10:00 P.M., HOW COME YOU DIDN’T PUT THAT IN IF LAWR — IN THE LAW, THE STATUTE?>>WELL, I — I FRANKLY DON’T THINK THERE’S ANY AMBIGUITY IN CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC. THAT MEANS THE PUBLIC ISN’T GOING GOING TO BE THERE.>>YES, THERE IS. WE HAVE MANY LETTERS THERE RESTAURANT OPERATORS THAT TALK ABOUT WHAT CLOSING TIME IS. AND ONE IN PARTICULAR I WOULD LIKE TO CITE IS FROM THE CO-OWNER AND C.E.O. OF TED’S MON TENANT GRILL. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE THIS IS THE BIG C.E.O. BUT HE SAYS IT’S NOT CUSTOMARY FOR HOSPITABLE TO FORCE PATRONS TO LEAVE A RESTAURANT PREMISES PRIOR TO THEM COMPLETING THEIR MEAL. IN MY 30 OR MORE YEARS IN THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY, I COULD NOT KNOW OF ANY FULL-SERVICE RESTAURANTS THAT HAVE A POLICY OF FORCING PATRONS TO LEAVE THE PREMISES AT CLOSING TIME POSTED ON THE DOOR IF THE PATRON IS STILL EATING THEIR MEALS.>>I DON’T THINK ANYBODY THOUGHT THAT. I THINK THAT WHEN YOU KNOW THAT YOU’RE GOING TO BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC AT 10:00, YOU STOP SEATING PEOPLE AROUND 9:00 OR 9:30.>>WHAT HAPPENS IF THE PERSON AT 9:30 IS STILL EATING THEIR STEAK?>>THE SAME THING WHEN YOU SHOW UP AT ANOTHER RESTAURANT, WE ARE NO LONGER SEATING. I SEE THAT ALL THE TIME.>>THAT’S DIFFERENT THAN WE’RE NO LONGER SEATING THAN AT 10:00. YOU’RE EATING A STEAK AND THEY’RE SAYING, IT’S 10:00. YOU GOT TO GO.>>WELL, I GUESS WHAT I’M SAYING IS THAT THE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC IS WHEN IT IS NO LONGER OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. AND LIKE ANY BUSINESS, YOU KNOW HOW LONG IN A PROCESS TAKES AS A RESTAURANT OWNER.>>SO –>>AND SO YOU HAVE TO COUCH OUT WHAT TIME YOUR LAST SEATING IS TO ACCOMMODATE YOUR RESTRICTIONS.>>SO MR. HOLO –>>I GUESS — I DON’T KNOW HOW ELSE WE COULD HAVE WRITTEN IT OTHER THAN TO SAY, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE FRANKLY THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OTHER THAN WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE CAN STILL HAVE OUR STAFF ON SITE TO DO THE REMEDIAL WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. AND SO THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN THAT AND OPEN WAS CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC.>>I GUESS WHAT I JUST HEARD — HEARD YOU SAY SOUNDED — THE LOGIC SOUNDED VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT I SEE FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, IN THAT YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY IS EATING THEIR STEAK AND THEY GOT THERE AT 9:30, AND AT 10:15, THEY FINISHED, THAT IS FINE. BUT YOU DON’T WANT SOMEBODY ADVERTISING GET IN AT 10:00 AND WE’RE GOING TO PARTY UNTIL MIDNIGHT. AND I DON’T THINK THAT’S THE INTENT OF WHAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR — I DON’T READ THAT AS THAT. SO THE QUESTION EITHER — PROBABLY TO THE ATTORNEY IS THAT — WHY IS IT IMPORTANT FOR THIS NOW RATHER THAN — WE TALK A LOT OF HYPE CALS AND I HEARD A LOT — HYPOTHETICALS AND I HEARD A LOT MENTIONED. WHEN SOMEONE SAYS 9:59 AND 59 SECONDS, AND YOU KNOW, WE’RE GOING DRINK BEER ALL NIGHT. THAT YOU GO BACK TO THE ZONING FOLKS AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS CLEARLY IN VIOLATION, BECAUSE THIS ISN’T SOMEONE EATING A STEAK OR HAVING DINNER THAT GOT THERE AT 9:30 OR — YOU KNOW, EVEN 9:40 DEPENDING UPON THE TYPE OF RESTAURANT. AND YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF THESE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS ARE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS BUT THEY HAVEN’T HAPPENED, AND THEY REALLY DON’T VIOLATE WHAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HAS INTERPRETED THE RULE TO BE. YOU KNOW, I GUESS — IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WHY DOES THIS NECESSARY AND WHAT RECOURSE WOULD YOU NOT HAVE IF WE JUST HELP UPHELD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR?>>THERE’S THREE THINGS. FIRST, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S RULES BECOMES — THAT ESSENTIAL BECOMES WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS. SO IF I’M ASKING A ZONING INSPECTOR TO GO OUT THERE, THE ZONING INSPECTOR IS GOING TO PULL THE FILE AND SAYS THESE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO COMPLETE THEIR MEALS. THERE WAS NO DEFINITION. I CAN’T TELL THEM NOT TO. AS A FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER I CAN TELL YOU I USED TO SAY HOUSES HAD MORE PEOPLE THAN THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO AND CODES WOULD GO AND SAY, NO, WE’RE JUST PLAYING CARDS AT 2:00 A.M. AND SO THERE’S CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU CAN’T ENFORCE AND THIS WOULD ADD IN THAT LACK OF ENFORCEABILITY. THE SECOND THING IS THAT IT’S ENTIRE DIFFERENT. WE WANT IT CLEAR, THE APPELLANTS HAVE NO INTENTION OF TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO RUN THEIR BUSINESSES. IT’S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THIS SPACE IS NOT A RESTAURANT SPACE. THIS IS A COMMERCIAL SPACE. THE TIME OF 10:00 P.M., AND THE THE ONLY REASON YOU JUST SAY IT, IF YOU’RE EATING, YOU DON’T LIST FIF 76 DIFFERENT USES AND SAY — YOU’VE MADE IT CLEAR THAT IF THIS IS A RECORD STORE, IT’S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. YOU HAVE TO LEAVE AT 10:00 P.M.>>BUT ISN’T THAT VERY DIFFERENT — RETAIL IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN FOOD, BECAUSE THERE’S PREPARATION OF THE FOOD.>>ABSOLUTELY.>>IT TAKES PEOPLE DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF TIME TO EAT THEIR FOOD.>>ABSOLUTELY.>>SO UNDER YOUR LOGIC, YOU WOULD ANT THIS RESTAURANT TO KICK — WANT THIS RESTAURANT TO KICK PEOPLE OUT PHYSICALLY AND GET EVERYONE CLEARED OUT BY 10:00, WHETHER THEY’RE FINISHED OR NOT?>>I WOULD SAY FIRST OF ALL, IT’S THE RESTAURANT –>>THAT A YES OR NO?>>IT NEEDS TO BE APPROXIMATELY THAT TIME. THE NEIGHBORHOOD –>>AT 10:00 YOU WANT THEM GONE, IF THAT — EVEN IF THEY SCRNT FINISHED THEIR FOOD — HAVEN’T FINISHED THEIR FOOD?>>YOU KNOW, MR. EWING, I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN PRECISELY AT 10:00. THESE NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN REASONABLE SINCE DAY ONE AND THEY’VE MET WITH THEM AND SAID WE’RE NOT GOING TO BE OUT THERE WITH A STOPWATCH. BUT THE POINT IS, THIS OWNER ORIGINALLY CAME IN AND SAID THEY WANTED 11:00 AND THEY APPARENTLY FEEL THEY’VE GOTTEN THAT. BECAUSE THEY’RE NOW OKAY WITH THE NEW INTERPRETATION BECAUSE THEY KNOW YOU CAN COME IN AT 10:00 AND STAY. I UNDERSTAND AND I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT THAT I GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THAT YES, A RESTAURANT OWNER NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT TIME TO SET THE CLOSING. THE ZONING — THAT’S THE THIRD ISSUE. ZONING IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT ONE PUTS ON ONE’S DOOR.>>MR. KLEINFELD, YOU CALL IT NEW INTERPRETATION. WE HAVE ANOTHER LETTER BY LOCAL TACO WHO THE OWNER OF LOCAL TACO WHO IS RIGHT NEARBY. AND HE SAYS IN THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY, IT IS CUSTOMARY THAT THE POSTING CLOSING TIME MEANS THE TIME IN WHICH NO NEW GUESTS ARE WELCOMED TO ENTER THE ESTABLISHMENT.>>ABSOLUTELY. WE AGREE WITH THAT 100%.>>SO THIS ISN’T NEW TO THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY.>>CORRECT.>>WE HAVE MANY LETTERS IN THE TIME FROM PEOPLE THAT OWN RESTAURANTS THAT SAY –>>THIS IS UNIQUE, THOUGH. NOT ONE OF THOSE RESTAURANTS, NOT A SINGLE RESTAURANT, STARS WE COULD FIND ANYWHERE IN THE CITY, AND I IMAGINE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY HAVE ALSO LOOKED TOO, HAS A ZONED TIME. THIS THIS IS NOT — I ABSOLUTELY AGREE AND I AM CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO — I WORKED IN THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY. THAT TIME ON YOUR DOOR IS BETWEEN YOU, YOUR STAFF, EVERY STAFF PERSON EVER WORKED AT A RESTAURANT, YOUR TIME IF YOU CLOSE AT 10:00, IT PROBABLY SAYS 11:00 ON THE TIME — YOU KNOW, THE TIME SHEET. , BECAUSE THAT’S ABOUT HOW LONG IT TAKES TO SHUT DOWN THE PLACE, CLEAN UP AND PUT THE CHAIRS ON THE TABLES AND THAT KIND OF THING. THAT’S NOT WHAT THIS IS. THIS ISN’T TELLING THEM WHAT TO POST ON THEIR DOOR. IT’S SAYING THAT THE ZONE, JUST LIKE ZONING SID YOU COULD ONLY — SAID YOU COULD ONLY HAVE SIX PEOPLE INSIDE THERE. AND THE RESTAURANT HAS ROOM FOR 100. SO TARESTAURANT OWNER, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE PERCEIVED AND COULD BE SEEN AS UNREASONABLE TO SAY, WAIT, I CAN ONLY HAVE SIX PEOPLE IN HERE? BUT YOU’D SAY, YES, BECAUSE THAT’S THE ZONING. AND IN THIS CASE, THIS IS THE ZONING. IT WAS ADOPT, RIGHT OR WRONG, FOR BETTER OR WORSE, IT IS THE ZONING.>>IT MIGHT BE THE ZONING, BUT THERE’S STANDARDS IN THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY AND YOU HAVE NORT DONE ANYTHING TO REFUTE THESE STANDARDS IN THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY AND I ASKED YOU AGAIN, SHOULD THEY KICK PEOPLE OUT AT 10:00 THAT HAVEN’T FINISHED THEIR FOOD?>>YOU KNOW –>>GET OUT.>>IF THAT’S A BUSINESS PROBLEM THAT THEY HAVE, THEY NEED TO MEET THE ZONING.>>SO UNDER YOUR INTERPRETATION, THEY SHOULD HAVE TO KICK EVERYONE OUT AND CLEAR THE PLACE BY 10:00.>>THEY SHOULD SET THEIR TIME OF CLOSING WHICH THEY POST ON THEIR DOOR AT A TIME THAT ALLOWS THEM TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO PLEASANTLY AND ENJOYABLEBLY FINISH THEIR MEALS.>>SO IF A COUPLE IS ON THEIR 25th WEDDING ANNIVERSARY AND THEY WANT A LEISURELY MEAL AND THEY HAVEN’T LEFT BY 10:00, KICK THEM OUT?>>I’M SORRY WE’RE BEING SO ARGUMENTATIVE ABOUT THIS. I BELIEVE 10:00 IS 10:00 AND IT’S IN THE ZONING CODE.>>BECAUSE WE’RE INTERPRETING WHETHER THE THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IS RIGHT OUR WRONG AND I WANT YOU ON THE RECORD FOR THAT.>>OUR STANDARD FOR OVERTURNING THE ADMINISTRATOR’S POSITION IS YOU KNOW, IS HE IN ERROR AND YOU KNOW, OR IS HE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUSLY INTERPRETING SOMETHING. AND I HAVEN’T HEARD ANY TESTIMONY THAT SAYS EITHER OF THOSE. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DISAGREE, BUT I DON’T SEE BASED ON THE POINTS THAT MR. EWING HAS RAISED, THAT, A, THAT HE’S IN HERROR, BUT I DON’T SEE — IN ERROR, BUT I DON’T SEE THIS THAT HE’S ARBITRARY OR CA PRECIOUS.>>I’M NOT SURE THAT’S THE STANDARD FOR ITEM A. IT WAS THE OWNER ROYCE PROPOSAL AND IT WAS — OWNER’S PROPOSAL. THE OWNER PROPOSED A MODIFICATION AND FOR THAT TO BE ADOPTED AS AN TERPGHTS IS DIFFERENT. — TERPGHTS, IS DIFFERENT. THE INTERPRETATION IS DIFFERENT. I DON’T THINK THEY UNDERSTOOD OR KNEW THERE HAD BEEN VERY SPECIFIC LEGISLATIVE DISCUSSIONS BY THE COUNCIL MEMBER, BY THE — AND EVERYONE THAT WAS ADDRESSING A SPECIFIC ISSUE THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THROWN OUT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, ALL THE NEIGHBORS –>>BUT THE SPECIFIC ISSUES — WE’RE ONLY DEALING WITH WHAT ENDED UP IN THE LEGISLATION, NOT WHAT WAS DISCUSSED.>>CORRECT. OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. WHEN CAN THE PUBLIC BE THERE.>>WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. AND AGAIN, AND I DON’T BULLPEN I THINK IT’S GOOD — DON’T — I THINK IT’S GOOD TO CHALLENGE A LOT OF THESE THINGS, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVEN’T HEARD BEFORE AND IT’S — I HAVEN’T HEARD IT. AND ALMOST FIVE YEARS. SO I THINK — I KNOW YOU FEEL LIKE YOU’RE ON THE DEFENSIVE SOMETIMES, BUT JEWELRY ARE LAWYERS HERE, YOU — BUT Y’ALL ARE LAWYERS HERE, SO YOU’RE –>>DOESN’T –>>MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND IT. WHEN I READ OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, AND UNDER THEIR LEGAL DEFINITIONS, BUT SOMETIMES WHEN I’VE GONE BY AN ESTABLISHMENT AND ON THE DOOR IT SAID NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, PRIVATE EVENT. IT WASN’T OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. AND THIS SAYS, YOU KNOW, IT’S — CAN YOU HAVE A PRIVATE EVENT? AFTER 10:00? I MEAN — YOU’RE STARTING TO TALK ABOUT LANGUAGE AND SO I — I DON’T KNOW.>>I DON’T DISAGREE THAT THERE CAN BE AM BIG IMRIEWLTS IN IT — AMBIGUITIES IN IT. WERE TO IT TO SAY SIX PEOPLE MAY BE IN THIS RESTAURANT, THEN YOU CAN ONLY HAVE SIX PEOPLE IN THE RESTAURANT. AND IT — REGARDLESS OF HOW ABSURD THAT MAY BE, IT HAD TO BE CHANGED LEGISLATIVELY. AND THAT’S THE THING. IF IT NEED TO BE CHANGED, CHANGE IT. LEGISLATIVELY.>>OKAY. I’M GOING TO SPEAK AS A NONLAWYER. AND SOMEONE WHO READS THE ZONING CODE OFTEN. AND WHO OFTEN DOESN’T ALWAYS UNDERSTAND THE ZONING CODE AND I WILL WRITE TO MR. HERBERT AND MR. MICHAEL AND ASK QUESTIONS. AND SO TRUTH TRUTHFULLY, I READ IT THE WAY YOU READ IT, THAT THE SPUN — PUBLIC SHOULDN’T BE IN THERE AFTER 10:00 P.M. I’M NOT A RESTAURATEUR. I’M JUST SOMEONE READING IT. SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. AND SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. IS YOUR LETTER JUST SPECIFIC TO THIS PERMIT THAT WAS PULLED FOR THE RESTAURANT?>>MY LETTER IS SPECIFIC TO THIS PROPERTY. AND SO IT’S BEEN — THE QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED AS TO HOW THIS CAME TO ME. AND MR. KLEIN FILTER HAS — HAS INTIMATED THAT — THAT IF I RENDER AN OPINION ON THIS, THEN I’M CIRCUMVENTING THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IN COUNCIL. SO LET ME EXPLAIN HOW THIS CAME TO ME. I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS ISSUE AT ALL UNTIL A CERTAIN POINT — I DON’T KNOW, SEVERAL DAYS BEFORE WHENEVER I WROTE THE LETTER. I WAS CONTACTED BY THE COUNCILPERSON. I WAS CONTACTED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. AND SAID, LOOKS LIKE YOU’RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO INTERPRET THE LANGUAGE OF THIS SP. YOU’RE AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, LIKE IT OR NOT. SP IS A BASED ZONE AND YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO INTERPRET THIS LANGUAGE. SO THAT’S WHAT I — I THEN TALKED TO THE COUNCILOR PERSONAL FOR THE DISTRICT. I — COUNCILPERSON FOR THE DISTRICT. I MET AND TALKED WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ASKED FOR THEIR INPUT, CONSIDERED IT, AND THEN WROTE THE LETTER THAT I WROTE. NOW, I DID RECEIVE LANGUAGE FORWARDED TO ME FROM BOTH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE COUNCILPERSON AS TO WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP HAD SUGGESTED. I DID MAKE SOME MINOR ALTERATIONS, BUT I CONSIDERED IT INDEPENDENTLY. I DID SEEK ADVICE FOR FROM PLANNING AND THE COUNCILPERSON BEFORE WRITING THE LETTER AND I THOUGHT WHAT I WROTE WAS RENAL. THAT’S HOW IT CAME TO ME WAS VIA THE COUNCILPERSON AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS BEING MY DUTY TO INTERPRET A BASE ZONING, AN SP BASE ZONING.>>NOW, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. HERBERT AS WELL. SO IT IS A ZONING. SO IT DEALS WITH THE USE OF THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND IF A SUBSEQUENT OWNER HAD A DIFFERENT BUSINESS, WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO ASK YET FOR A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THE LANGUAGE? GIVEN THE INDUSTRY — WE’VE HAD LETTERS FROM THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY. WOULD SOMEBODY ELSE BE DIFFERENT?>>I’D SAY IT’S POSSIBLE THAT IT COULD BE BECAUSE WHAT WAS PUT TO ME SQUARELY BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE COUNCIL PERSON WAS WE’VE GOT A RESTAURANT. THIS IS THE USE THAT IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED IN THIS SPACE. NOW, OPINE UPON THE LANGUAGE THAT IS CONTAINED WITH THE SP. I WAS NOT INVOLVED WITH THAT LANGUAGE IN DRAFTING IT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT LANGUAGE UNTIL IT WAS PUT TO ME A FEW DAYS BEFORE I WROTE THAT LETTER.>>MR. KLEINFILTER OR MR. HOLLOMAN, AGAIN, I’M A LITTLE — ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THIS WAS AN ERRONEOUS DETERMINATION? OR THAT IT WAS –>>I DON’T THINK IT’S WHAT WAS INTENDED IN THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WERE HAD DURING THE ORIGINAL ZONING. BECAUSE THE CONCERN WAS THAT OBVIOUSLY YOU COULD STAY OPEN SIGNIFICANTLY LATER UNDER TYPICAL NOISE ORDINANCE, ALL THOSE TYPES OF REGULATIONS. AND SO ATIONZ I THINK WAS MENTION — AS I THINK WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE NEIGHBORS SAID TO ME THEY WANTED A CLOSING TIME OF 9:00. WITH SOME BACK AND FORTH AND TRYING TO ATTRACT A MORE HIGH-END RESTAURANT SPACE, WE WANTED TO HAVE IT A LITTLE BIT LONGER. AND SO WE SAID 10:00. AND THEN THE DEVELOPER CAME BACK AND SAID, WELL, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WHEN WE SAY CLOSED, I CAN STILL HAVE MY EMPLOYEES INSIDE. BECAUS I NEED TO ROLL SILVERWARE, MOP FLOORS, THAT KIND OF STUFF. AND BECAUSE THE ISSUE FROM THE NEIGHBORS’ POINT OF VIEW WAS NOT ANTIRESTAURANT, IT WAS THAT THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT TRAFFIC IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD ON PARTICULARLY WEEKEND NIGHTS WHEN THEY’RE AT HOME IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY, LATE. AND SO THAT WAS THE REASON. SO I GUESS ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT — SO I GUESS WHAT I WOULD SAY IS I DISAGREE WITH THAT TERMS BASED ON THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT I HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF. I DON’T KNOW THAT BILL HAD THAT FRANKLY LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IN FRONT OF HIM WHEN HE MADE THIS DECISION. BUT I WILL ALSO SAY THAT I BELIEVE THAT YOU AS THE ZONING AUTHORITY FOR THE COUNTY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO LOOK AT THIS ORDINANCE AND MAKE A DETERMINATION. YOU KNOW, IT’S NOT AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. IT’S JUST SIMPLY THAT YOU LOOK AT IT WITH YOUR EYES AND YOU ARE THE ULTIMATE DECIDERS IN DAVIDSON COUNTY SAN FRANCISCO WHAT A ZONING ORDINANCE THAT I OR ANYBODY ELSE WROTE SAYS. AND THEN IF SOMEBODY DISAGREES WITH THAT, IT CAN GO TO CHANCERY REPORT.>>SURE. BUT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AS YOU REFER TO IT DEALT WITH A SPECIFIC USE TORE THIS PROPERTY — FOR THIS PROPERTY AT THAT TIME. IT COULD HAVE BEEN — I MEAN, YOU WERE CONTEMPLATING THAT IT WOULD BE A RESTAURANT.>>ALL ALONG, IT WAS DESCRIBED TO ME AS A RESTAURANT SPACE. AND FRANKLY, I FELT LIKE IF WE ADDRESSED IT FOR A RESTAURANT SPACE, WHICH I THINK WE ALL AGREE IS A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED THAN, YOU KNOW, AN ICE CREAM SHOP. THERE’S THREE TO FIVE MINUTES BETWEEN THE LAST ORDER AND THE PERSON OUT THE DOOR.>>RIGHT.>>SO NOBODY WAS WORRIED ABOUT IT FOR RETAIL OR ICE CREAM SHOP OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND FRANKLY, BEYOND THAT, IN A NEIGHBORHOOD SPACE, THERE AREN’T A LOT OF BUSINESSES THAT WOULD COME IN AND BE OPEN ANYWHERE NEAR THIS TIME OF NIGHT. YOU KNOW, THE BAKERY, THE BAR ERROR SHOP, THE BARBERSHOP IS NOT OPEN NEARLY AS LATE.>>DOESN’T IT JUST GO TO THE — WHAT I HEAR YOUR CONSTITUENTS OR THE NEIGHBORS SAYING IS, THEY FEEL A LITTLE BIT LIKE THEY GOT FLIMFLAMMED AND THEY WANT SOME CERTAINTY WHETHER WHEN IS IT GOING TO BE QUIET. [OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS]>>THE REASON THAT I CAME TODAY IS BECAUSE I FEEL A LITTLE RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE — AND AS I THINK MR. IRWIN SAID. THIS WAS NOT A SHORT PROCESS. THIS WAS A LOT OF GIVE AND TAKE AND BACK AND FORTH OVER ABOUT A YEAR PERIOD AND THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY GOT OUT OF IT, WAS, YOU KNOW, A PRETTY EARLY NIGHT FOR THE RESTAURANT.>>BUT DON’T YOU THINK WE’RE ADDRESSING A PROBLEM THAT REALLY MAY NOT BE A PROBLEM?>>WELL, I GUESS — I AND I HEARD MR. TAYLOR SAY THAT, TOO, AND I WOULD PUT IT BACK TO. AND I WILL SAY ORIGINALLY I — I SUGGESTED ON THE BEER PERMIT SIDE, PARK CAFE HAS BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR A LONG TIME. WHEN I GOT ON THE COUNCIL THEY HAD BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND HAD NEVER HAD A BEER PERMIT. THEY CAME AND APPROACHED ME AND ASKED FOR THE BEER DISTANCE WAIVER. AND I WENT TO THE NEIGHBORS AND THE NEIGHBORS HAD A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH WILLIE. HE WAS A GOOD NEIGHBOR. AND SO THEY HAPPILY SUPPORTED IT. MY SUGGESTION TO THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPERS WAS, I THINK YOU SHOULD GET OPEN, SHOULD DEMONSTRATE PARTICULARLY AFTER ALL THIS BACK AND FORTH THAT YOU’RE GOING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR, AND THEN SEEK A BEER PERMIT. YOU KNOW, RESTAURANTS HAVE CERTAINLY SURVIVED AND THRIVED IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA WITHOUT AN IMMEDIATE BEER PERMIT. WHAT’S THE POINT OF THAT? I WOULD TAKE THAT SAME STATEMENT DID TURN IT BACK TO BOTH OF YOU AND SAY, LET’S SEE IF IT’S A PROBLEM. II DON’T THINK IT’S THAT LIKELY, I HOPE, THAT SAYING YOU GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHEN TO CLOSE, WHEN THE STOP SERVING FOOD AUTHORIZED TO MAKE THE 10:00 DEADLINE. — FOOD IN ORDER TO MAKE THE 10:00 DEADLINE. I DON’T THINK THAT’S AN ISSUE. SO LET’S SEE IF IT REALLY BECOMES A PROBLEM FOR THEM. DO THEY HAVE A THRONG OF PEOPLE BEATING ON THEIR DOOR AT 9:45? WANTING TO BE SEATED? THAT’S A LITTLE BIT LATE. IF YOU’RE NOT REALLY SEEKING OUT A LATE NIGHT CROWD, NOT ADVERTISING FOR LATE NIGHT RESTAURANT, AND SO I WOULD JUST SAY I DON’T SEE WHY WE CAN’T SAY CLOSE TO THE PUBLIC MEANS CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC. AND IF IT BECOMES AN ISSUE, THEN AS MR. KLEINFILTER POINTED OUT, THERE’S A CURE FOR THIS. IT’S GOING TO GO BACK THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS WHERE THERE’S A LOT MORE FUNT THAN 15 MINUTES — — I THINK THAT’S THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO ADDRESS THAT, IF IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED DOWN THE LINE. AND I WILL ALSO SAY ONE MORE THING, WHICH IS THAT IN TERMS OF INTERPRETATION, I DO THINK THAT THIS HAS IMPACT BEYOND THIS CASE, IN THAT THESE ARE ALL — MINUTES AND RECORDS THAT CAN BE PULLED AND REST ASSURED, GOOD LAWYERS IN TOWN WILL REMIND THIS BOARD OF WHAT THEY MEANT WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC IN OTHER SITUATIONS DOWN THE ROAD.>>THIS APPLIES TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE. WE’RE HERE TO DECIDE IF BILL HERBERT — [OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS]>>YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THIS. THAT WE’RE HERE TO DECIDE IF THIS CASE IS CORRECT OR NOT. AND OUR RULING DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSEE — IT’S AN ITEM A CASE. IT APPLIES TO THIS CASE AND THIS CASE ONLY.>>I WAS SIMPLY POINTING OUT THE PHRASE.>>AS CA COORM FORMER — YOU KNOW THIS DOESN’T HAVE ANY OTHER PRECEDENT ON ANY OTHER RESTAURANT. IT’S JUST THIS CASE BECAUSE WE’RE RULING WHETHER BILL HERBERT MADE THE RIGHT DECISION OR NOT.>>WE CAN DISAGREE ON THAT.>>OKAY.>>CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF THE NEIGHBOR — I FORGOT YOUR NAME. THE DOCTOR, SORRY. I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT YOU LIVE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE BUILDING?>>YES. I SAW MY HOUSE IN ONE OF THOSE PHOTOS. IT’S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT JUST NEXT TO THE PROPERTY.>>HAS THE RESTAURANT BEEN IN OPERATION?>>NO, NO. THERE’S BEEN NOTHING THERE YET.>>SO THERE’S NO WAY TO REALLY DETERMINE.>>NO. AND I THINK OUR CONCERN FROM THE NOISE PERSPECTIVE IS REALLY THAT IT’S A 100-SEAT RESTAURANT WITH A 25-SEAT PATIO RIGHT IN THE MIDST OF RESIDENTIAL ZONING, COMPLETELY SURROUNDED.>>I SEE. THERE’S NO LANDSCAPE BUFFER OR ANY KIND OF BUFFER.>>NO, NOT ON MY SIDE. ON THE OTHER SIDE THEY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF LANDSCAPE BUFFER NEXT TO THOSE HOMES. BUT MY CHILDREN LITERALLY SPEECH 50 FEET FROM THIS PATIO.>>UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU.>>THANKS.>>ANY OTHER COMES FOR THE — COMMENTS FOR THE FOLKS HERE? IF NOT, THEY’LL HAVE 1:59. NO, THIS IS ITEM A. WHAT?>>IT’S STILL THERE –>>THEY’LL GET TO COME BACK. LET’S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND TELL US WHY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD BE UPHELD.>>GOOD AFTERNOON. [INAUDIBLE]>>PLEASE PRESS THE MIC.>>HEAR ME. GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I’M ADAM LA FEVER. I’M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE LAND OWNER AND THE PROPOSED RESTAURATEUR. AS THE BOARD IS AWARE, THIS IS AN ITEM A APPEAL ONLY INTERPRETS WHETHER MR. HER EXPERT ERRED WITH HIS INTERPRETATION OF THE SP LANGUAGE. THE LANGUAGE WHICH IS BEFORE YOU WAS CLEAR. IN THAT IT HAD A HOUR OF OPERATION THAT ENDED AT 10:00. BUT WE MUST LOOK AT THE PERMITTED USES OF THIS PROPERTY. ONE OF WHICH IS A FULL-SERVICE RESTAURANT. THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION SO FAR ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A RESTAURANT. AND I WOULD POINT YOU TO ALL OF THE LETTERS MR. EWING ADDRESSED. I BELIEVE THERE’S SIX OR SEVEN. IN THE FILE FROM LOCAL RESTAURATEURS, ONE, A NATIONAL RESTAURATEUR, FROM TED’S MONTANA GRILL THAT SAYS IT’S IMPOSSIBLE AND UNHEARD OF TO HAVE A TIME WHERE EVERYBODY IS KICKED OUT OF THE ESTABLISHMENT. NOW, THE APPELLANTS FROM EVERYTHING I’VE HEARD TODAY ARE RELYING ON LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO BACK THEIR POSITION THAT THERE IS A LOT OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN IT WAS A LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO HAVE THIS THING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC. EVERYBODY OUT BY 10:00. AND THE BOARD AS YOU’RE AWARE IS A QUASI JUDICIAL BODY. SO I’M GOING TO REFERENCE SOME CASE LAW FOR YOU REGARDING LEGISLATIVE INTENT. TENNESSEE WHEN ADDRESSING LEGISLATIVE INTENT HAS SAID THAT IT REQUIRES MORE THAN JUST SILENCE IN THE LANGUAGE. IN THIS CASE THE, AND P IS SILENT OF WHETHER IT MEANS KICK PEOPLE OUT AT 10:00 OR PEOPLE CAN FINISH THEIR MEALS. THERE’S NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATION, WHETHER IT BE THE MINUTES OF PLANNING MEETINGS, COUNCIL MEETINGS, THE VIDEOS OF BOTH THAT ADDRESSES THE HOURS OF OPERATION. MR. HOLLOMAN, FORMER COUNCILPERSON HOLLOMAN WAS UP HERE TESTIFYING ABOUT WHAT HE TEAMED TO BE LEGISLATIVE INTENT. — DEEMED TO BE LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND THE COURTS HAVE ALSO ADDRESSED TESTIMONY OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT BY COUNCIL PEOPLE, IN THIS CASE FORMER COUNCILPERSON. AND THE CASE LAW SAYS WHEN EXAMINING LEGHTIVE INTENT — LEGISLATIVE INTENT, THE LETTERS, TESTIMONY, OR OTHER EVIDENCE RETROSPECTIVELY IS NOT ADD MISS ONLY SUCH ISSUES. AND THERE’S A REASON FOR THAT, JUST AS — THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY ON THE FRONT END TO PUT IN MORE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT WOULD HAVE DEPARTMENT WITH THIS. IT WAS NOT INCLUDE — DEALT WITH THIS. IT WAS NOT INCLUDED. ANOTHER ISSUE IS CONTRACT ZONING. AS THE BOARD IS AWARE, CONTRACT ZONING IS PROHIBITED IN TENNESSEE. THIS CLEARLY LOOKS LIKE A KID QUO PROSITUATION WHERE THE — KID PRO QUO SITUATION. WHERE THE COUNCIL VOTED ON ABEAUTIFUL OF THIS SP ONLY IF — APPROVAL OF THIS SP ONLY IF EVERYBODY WAS OUT BY 10:00. THAT DIDN’T OCCUR AND IF THAT WAS THE CASE, ITS CONTRACT ZONING. IT WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE AND WOULD BE IMPROPER IN THIS CASE. I’M GOING TO LET MS. VICTORIA ROTHBURG SPEAK. SHE’S A LEASEHOLD IN THE PROPERTY. SHE’S THE PROPOSED RESTAURATEUR. SHE HAD FORMAL MEETINGS AND INFORMAL AND SOME PEOPLE’S HOUSES INCLUDING SOME OF THE APPELLANT’S HOUSES. SHE’S GOING TO DISCUSS WHAT HAPPENED IN THE MEETINGS, THE CONCEPT FOR THE RESTAURANT. IT IS JUST FOR CLARIFICATION A 77-SEAT RESTAURANT WITH A PANTEDIO, NOT 100- — PATIO, NOT 100-SEAT RESTAURANT. THIS IS MS. ROTHBERG.>>THANK YOU, ADAM. MY NAME IS VICTORIA ROTHBERG AND I’M ONE OF THE RESTAURANTURES, THE OWNER AND OPERATOR FOR THE SPECIFIC LOCATION. I ALSO LIVE AT 4510 CHARLOTTE AVENUE, WHICH IS SEVEN BLOCKS FROM THE RESTAURANT, MY SECOND HOME, HOPEFULLY. MY PARTNER AND I BOTH AGREE UP WORKING IN NEIGHBORHOOD — GREW UP WORKING IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESTAURANTS. WE LEARNED A GREAT DEAL FROM WORKING IN THE CORPORATE SETTING, OUR PASSION IS WORKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING SO OUR CONCEPT IS ABSOLUTELY TO BE A NEIGHBORHOOD RESTAURANT. OUR NUMBER ONE GOAL IS TO PROVIDE A COMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENT WHERE OUR GUESTS CAN COME AND CONNECT AND EMBRACE EACH OTHER’S COMPANY. OUR CUISINE WILL BE GLOBALIE INSPIRED WITH PLATES PRICED MODERATELY TO HOPEFULLY DRIVE REPEAT GUESTS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE’RE VERY EXCITED TO BE SERVING THE NASHVILLE COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY SYLVAN PARK AND I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF NEIGHBORS THAT ARE EXCITED FOR US TO OPEN. WE HAVE A ATTENDED NUMEROUS NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS AND EVEN WENT DOOR TO DOOR OVER THE SUMMER TO MEET HUNDREDS OF SILL VARPARK RESIDENT — SYLVAN PARK RESIDENTS. WE KNOW THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY IS IN SUPPORT OF BOTH OUR RESTAURANT AND MR. HERBERT’S INTERPRETATION. IN FACT, WE HAVE OVER 150 SIGNATURES FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT SUPPORT EVEN A MORE LIBERAL HOURS AS THE APPELLANTS MENTIONED TO 11:00 P.M. ON THE WEEKENDS. HOWEVER, WE WANTED TO COMPROMISE WITH THIS OPPOSITION AND TO SHOW THIS, WE MET WITH SEVEN OF THE APPELLANTS LATE SEPTEMBER, ONE OF THE SIGNATUREORIES’ HOUSE. COUNCILWOMAN MURPHY WAS ALSO THERE. EVERYONE AT THE TABLE AGREED IT WAS NEVER THE INTENT OF THE SP TO MEAN A KICK GUEST OUT ITEM AT 10:00 — TIME AT 10:00 AND A 10:00 P.M. RESTAURANT CLOSURE TIME WAS REASONABLE. HOWEVER, HERE WE ARE. THE APPELLANTS WILL HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT ALL — THAT WE ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE CLOSE PROXIMITY NEIGHBORS BUT I WANT TO ENSURE THAT THIS IS ZIM SIMPLY NOT CORRECT. THERE ARE SEC SEVEN HOURS THAT — THARP OUR IMMEDIATE NOBODIES AND SURROUND THE PROPERTY. THREE ARE ON NEBRASKA AND FOUR ARE ON UTAH. OF THOSE SEVEN FOUR A DIRECT SUPPORTERS AND HAVE SENT LETTERS TO YOU ALL. ONE — I’M SORRY, TWO ARE EITHER SHORT-TERM ARLONG-TERM RENT — OR LONG-TERMALS. IF I — LONG-TERM RENTALS. OUR SUPPORT EVEN GROWS IF WE INCLUDE THE HOUSES ACROSS. I ASK FOR YOU TO UPHOLD THE INTERPRETATION FOR MR. HER EXPERT FOR THE REASONS WE HAVE SHOWN. I ASSURE YOU WE’RE 100% COMMITTED TO MAKING THIS RESTAURANT FOCUSED ON SIMPLY NOURISHING THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND NASHVILLE COMMUNITY.>>QUESTION –>>YEP.>>WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT — WHEN YOU HEAR THE LANGUAGE AND SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, THE THE NO NEW PATRONS AFTER 10:00, AS A RESTAURATEUR WHARKS DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU? COME EAT, WE’RE OPEN TILL 10:00, BUT IF I CALL FOR A RESERVATION AND SAY I WANT A RESERVATION FOR 10:00 FOR EIGHT FOLKS, WHAT’S THE FRAME THAT YOU WOULD SUGGEST –>>WE ABSOLUTELY WILL BE POSTING THE HOURS OF OPERATION ON THE FRONT DOOR, WHICH WILL BE CLOSED AT 10:00. SO IF A GUEST WANTED TO MAKE A REZZERRATION AT — RESERVATION AT 10:00, WE WOULD NOT ACCEPT THAT RESERVATION.>>WHEN YOU SAY CLOSED AT 10:00, DOES THAT MEAN CLOSED AND EVERYONE CLEARED OUT OF THE RESTAURANT?>>NOPE, THAT JUST MEANS CLOSED AND NO NEW GUESTS.>>SO THE KITCHEN CLOSES AT 10:00, BASICALLY.>>IF THERE WAS A GUEST THAT WALKED IN AT 9:45 AND –>>AS LONG AS THEY ORDER BEFORE 10:00, YOU’LL SERVE THEM?>>YES.>>OKAY.>>BUT IF 10:01, I’M NOT ABLE TO ORDER.>>YEAH, I MEAN, AGAIN, THE QUESTION BECOMES, YOU KNOW, IF THE GUEST WAS IN THERE ENJOYING A MEAL AND THEY — THEY JUST GOT IN AND THEY WERE TRYING TO ORDER, WE WOULD LATE THEM ORDER BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO NOT KICK GUESTS OUT. I’VE BEEN IN THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY. I KNOW I LOOK YOUNG BUT FOR AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN WORKING AND GUESTS ARE VERY POLITE AND NO ONE WANTS TO BE THE LAST GUEST IN A RESTAURANT. AND WE HAVE EVERY INTENTION OF CLOSING AT 10:00. THIS IS NOT TO TRY TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY. AND WE WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF OUR GUESTS BUT WE ALSO WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL NEIGHBRS AND BUSINESS OWNERS AND WE CAN’T HAVE EMPLOYEES THERE UNTIL MIDNIGHT WHEN WE STOP GENERATING MONEY AT 10:00. WE WANT TO CLOSE AT 10:00.>>DOES YOUR CONCEPT — AND AGAIN, I KNOW IT’S A COMPETITIVE MARKET AND YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO TELL US ENOUGH TO — YOU TOLD A LOT OF NEIGHBORS, BUT I’M SURE YOU DON’T WANT TO UNVEIL YOUR LOGO AND YOUR MENU AND ALL THAT UNTIL IT’S TIME FOR TO YOU DO THAT, BUT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU’RE GOING TO SHOW A FOOTBALL GAME AND HAVE A BEER FEST AND ALL THAT KIND OF THING, ARE YOU — DOES YOUR CONCEPT — WHICH I THINK IS A LEGITIMATE ISSUE.>>SURE. I CAN DIRECTLY ANSWER THAT. WE HAVE NO TELEVISION. THERE WILL BE — YOU KNOW, THE MUSIC THAT WE HAVE SELECTED IS STRICTLY BACKGROUND MUSIC. THERE IS NOT EVEN SPACE FOR LIVE MUSIC. AND WE ABSOLUTELY DON’T WANT TO ATTRACT THAT TYPE OF GUEST BECAUSE THAT’S NOT — I WANT TO MANAGE EMPLOYEES AND NOT UNRULY GUESTS.>>IT’S NOT THE CONCEPT THAT YOU’RE GOING TO FORE.>>YES, SIR, THAT’S CORRECT.>> — GOING FOR.>>YES, SIR, THAT’S CORRECT.>>TELL ME ABOUT THE C.E.O. WE HAVE A EL WILLER FROM HIM.>>YOU DO.>>AND HE BASICALLY SAID HE WORKED WITH YOU.>>YES,.>>AND HE’S BASICALLY SAYING AS THE C.E.O. OF A NATIONWIDE RESTAURANT COMPANY, HE DOES NOT KNOW OF ANY CASE — BECAUSE IT’S NOT CUSTOMARY OR HOSPITABLE. TALK ABOUT THAT.>>SURE.>>YOU’RE IN THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY. BUT SERVICE IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS FOOD, RIGHT?>>ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, I WEAR A PINEAPPLE AROUND MY NECK WHICH IS THE SIM BOP OF HOSPITALITY. THAT’S WHY I’M IN THIS BUSINESS. I THINK WHAT YOU DISCUSSED EARLIER F GUESTS ARE CHOOSING OUR LOCATION TO SPEND THEY’RE EVENING OUT — THEIR EVENING OUT AND THEIR DISPOSABLE INCOME AND THEY HAPPEN TO BE FINISHING THEIR FEEL AFTER THE POSTED CLOSING HOUR, I CAN’T IMAGINE HOW UNHOSPITABLE THAT WOULD BE TO ASK THEM TO LEAVE.>>HAS THAT BEEN YOUR EXPERIENCE OF ANY FULL-SERVICE NASHVILLE RESTAURANT, TO KICK GUESTS OUT?>>NO, I’VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT. AND I DON’T THINK ANY RESTAURANT DOES THAT. I DO KNOW OF COURSE, I MEAN — YOU KNOW, THE LIQUOR LAWS THAT LAST CALL AT 3:00. BUT THAT’S VERY DIFFERENT.>>OKAY.>>I’D LIKE TO ADDRESS ONE MORE ISSUE WITH PERMISSION. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY. THE CLIENT DID FILE AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE SP. PAY THE $2400 FEE TO DO THAT. AFTER NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS THERE, WAS SOME SUPPORT TO EXTEND THE CLOSING TIME TO 11:00. HOWEVER, THERE WAS THE SYLVAN PARK NEIGHBRHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETING WHERE EVERYBODY PUTT NOT EVERYBODY, I APOLOGIZE. 33-18 AGREED THAT THE 10:00 TIME WAS NEVER INTENDED TO KICK EVERYBODY OUT.>>MR. KLEINFILTER DESCRIBED THAT 33-18 AS NOT OVERWHELMING. AS FAR AS THE VOTE.>>WELL –>>TWO-THIRDS NOT OVERWHELMING, COUNCILOR?>>COUNCILOR N MY EXPERIENCE, THOSE OPPOSED TO A PROJECT ARE MORE THAN LIKELY TO SHOW UP –>>BUT IS TWO-THIRDS OVERWHELMING?>>I WOULD ARGUE YES.>>OKAY.>>BUT THAT BEING SAID, $2400. THEY HAD THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. 33-18 THEY AGREED THAT 10:00 WAS NEVER EXPECTED TO BE A KICK-OUT TIME. WITH THAT VOTE, WITH THE SYLVAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, MY CLIENT WITHDRAW THE AMENDMENT TO THE SP AND — IN RELIANCE ON THAT VOTE. AFTER MY CLIENT I WITHDRAW THE SP THIS, APPEALS COMES IN. WITHOUT THAT VOTE MY CLIENT PROBABLY WOULDN’T HAVE SIGNED THE LEASE, PROBABLY WOULDN’T HAVE PROCEEDED WITH THE RESTAURANT. BUT BEING THAT THE MAJORITY, 66% OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS, WERE IN FAVOR OF 10:00 NOT BEING THE KICKOUT TIME, MY CLIENT PROCEEDED. AND EFFECTIVELY LOST $2400.>>SO MR. HERBERT’S LETTER, I’M GOING TO READ FROM IT. SAYS CLOSING TIME SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO MOAN THE TIME AT — MEAN THE TIME AT WHICH NEW PATRONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ENTER THE PREMISES. PATRONS RARE TO 10:00 SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO FINISH THEIR MEAL BEFORE HAVING TO EXIT THE PREMISES. SO THE LETTERS THAT YOU HAVE SUBMITTED BASICALLY SAY THAT.>>THEY BASICALLY SAY THAT AND I BELIEVE THE BOARD WILL SEE THOSE LETTERS ARE FROM MOST — WITH THE SEX OF TED — EXCEPTION OF TED’S, WHO’S A NATIONAL CHAIN, THOSE ARE FROM PREDOMINANTLY LOM, ONE-LOCATION RESTAURANTS. SO SMALL BUSINESSES THAT RELY ON THAT INTERPRETATION, NOT MR. HERBERT’S TERPGHTSZ, BUT THE CLOSING — INTERPRETATION, BUT THE CLOSING TIME, AS LONG AS YOU’RE IN BEFORE A CERTAIN TIME, YOU CAN EAT YOUR MEAL, THEN LEAVE.>>ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD?>>I BELIEVE THAT IS IT. TO DAVID’S POINT, THERE IS THE ISSUE OF IF NOISE BECOMES AN ISSUE OR IF TRAFFIC OR PARKING BECOME AN ISSUE, THERE IS A WAY TO DEAL WITH THAT THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIONS, WHETHER IT BE A NUISANCE COMPLAINT OR OTHER AVENUES. SO I BELIEVE AS DAVID POINTED OUT, WE’RE ALSO PREMATURE HERE. — WE’RE A LITTLE PREMATURE HERE IN ESTIMATING WHAT COULD HAPPEN. IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS A COUNTERARGUMENT THAT THE BUSINESS COULD JUST OPEN WITH A 9:00 TIME, SEE HOW THINGS WENT. THEN IF THINGS WEREN’T GOING WELL, THEY COULD APPLY TO AMEND THE SP. BIZS DON’T — BUSINESSES DON’T WORK THAT WAY. YOU DON’T EVEN A BUSINESS, FAIL, AND TRY TO AMEND SOMETHING. BY THAT I’M YOU’RE FINISHED. SO IT’S IMPRACTICAL TO OPEN WITH A PROPOSED CLOSING TIME. THINGS AREN’T WORKING IT ON. WE’LL GO THROUGH THE THREE-MONTH PROCESS IF LONGER WITH AN SP, TRY TO SURVIVE WHILE THINGS AREN’T GOING WELL AND HOPEFULLY GET THE HOURS EXTENDED. IT’S NOT PRACTICAL AS A BUSINESS.>>OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?>>I HAVE A QUESTION. I THINK YOU MAY HAVE SAID THIS, BUT DO YOU RENT THE PROPERTY AND THERE’S ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER?>>YES, I AM A LEASEHOLDER, NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER.>>IS THE PROPERTY OWNER HERE?>>YES, HE IS.>>OKAY.>>AND THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS ALSO BEEN INVOLVED IN A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS.>>ANYTHING ELSE? IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON YOUR BEHALF HERE?>>HOW MUCH TIME DO WE HAVE LEFT.>>EIGHT:37 — 8:ATHLETIC — 8:.>>I BELIEVE THERE ARE OTHERS.>>STATE YOUR NAME AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD AND WHY YOU’RE HERE.>>ALL RIGHTY. MY NAME IS WILLIAM RIPLEY. I OWN –>>WHERE DO YOU LIVE?>>I LIVE AT 135 WERE FINISH Sth AVENUE NORTH — 46th AVENUE NORTH. YOU CAN SEE MY HOUSE AS WELL. I’M RIGHT THERE ON THE LEFT. YOU CAN SEE THE CORNER OF MY YARD. AND THE FRONT PORCH THERE RIGHT WHERE THE –>>WITH THE SIDEWALK COMING DOWN?>>YEAH. AND SO I’M FIRST AND FOREMOST, I’M NOT A LAWYER. I’M IN I.T. AND I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS, THOUGH. AND FIRST COMPLIMENT MY — MY LOCAL NEIGHBORS HERE. I SHARE THEIR CONCERN THAT THIS BE — I DON’T WANT THIS TO BE SOMETHING WHERE YOU HAVE PEOPLE PARTYING UNTIL MIDNIGHT. AND I WOULD NOT BE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT IF I THOUGHT THAT’S WHAT THIS WAS. I’VE HAD MANY DISCUSSIONS WITH VICTORIA AND CHRIS, THE RESTAURANT OWNERS. AND QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK THAT IF OUR GOAL IS TO KEEP THIS RESTAURANT AS A NEIGHBORHOOD-FRIENDLY RESTAURANT THAT DOESN’T CAUSE LATE NIGHT NOISE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THEN I THINK THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS — THE CURRENT INTERPRETATION OF THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED. AS SOMEBODY WHO GOES TO BED BEFORE 10:00 P.M., I THINK A FULL WAVE OF PEOPLE EXITING THE RESTAURANT AND ALL OF THE CHATTER THAT GOES WITH THAT IS MORE LIKELY TO WAKE ME UP THAN A SLOW STREAM OF — OF SATIATED GUESTS WALKING OUT PLEASANTLY, YOU KNOW, AT 10:00 OR 10:15, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. SO I DON’T SEE THIS AS A PANDORA’S BOX SITUATION. I THINK THERE’S PLENTY OF OPTION FOR RESOURCE IF THERE IS ANY SORT OF ISSUE. I HAVE THE SINGLE BEST VIEW I BELIEVE OF THE FRONT OF THE RESTAURANT AND THE PATIO THERE. CONVERSELY, THEY HAVE THE BEST VIEW OF MY AND MY WIFE AND OUR HOUSE. AND SO IF THEY’RE CAUSING DISRUPTION, VICTORIA WILL HEAR FROM ME VERY QUICKLY. ON THAT FRONT. AND THEN FINALLY, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I WAS THERE AT THAT — THE SPA MEETING WHERE I DON’T KNOW IF IT WAS 33-18 BUT IT WAS RUFFLE 2 TO 1 ON THE VOTE AND I WAS HOPING THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE END OF THE MATTER. I’VE LIVED AT MY PROPERTY FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS NOW. WHEN I MOVED IN, IT WAS A VACANT SPACE ACROSS THE STREET. THE ITALIAN MARKET HAD GONE OUT OF BUSINESS. AND I WAS EXCITED. MY WIFE AND I TALKED AND OUR PARENTS TEXTED US PRACTICALLY DAILY, HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING, WHAT’S GOING TO GO IN THERE. WHAT’S THAT GOING TO BE INSTEAD OF JUST THIS VACANT EYESORE. AND YOU KNOW, THREE YEARS LATER IT’S STILL VACANT. I WAS THRILLED WHEN I HEARD ABOUT THIS CONCEPT COMING IN. AND THERE HAD BEEN FOUR OR FIVE DIFFERENT ROUNDS OF, YEAH, THIS WILL WORK. WE FINALLY AGREED ON SOMETHING. AND THEN IT GOT PULLED BACK. AND I THOUGHT FOR SURE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETING WITH THE TWO-TO-1 VOTE THAT TO ME THAT SAID OVERWHELMING MAJORITY. I DON’T KNOW IF SIMPLE MAJORITY IS THE RIGHT TERM. I’M NOT A LAWYER. BUT I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE THE END OF IT. I WAS NOT THRILLED ABOUT SHOWING UP HERE TODAY AND DOING THIS PUBLIC SPEAKING. I NEED TO RUN BACK TO WORK AFTER THIS. SO I THINK I’LL LEAVE IT THERE.>>OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? PLEASE COME FORWARD.>>GOOD AFTERNOON. I’M ALAN GRANT. I LIVE AT 450 WAIT WYOMING. RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM MR. RIPLEY. ESSENTIALLY THE CORNER OF 46 AND UTAH. WHILE AIM AN ATTORNEY — WHILE I AM AN ATTORNEY, I WILL COME TO YOU TODAY AS A NEIGHBOR AND AS ONE WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE HISTORY OF THIS PROJECT. JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF INSIGHT. I’LL START BY SAYING I ACTUALLY WAS NOT ABLE TO BE AT THE MEETING. I’M A MEMBER. MY SWAIF IS ON THE BOARD. WE HAVE A 2-YEAR-OLD AND ALSO A 3-MONTH-OLD AS DO MANY PEOPLE IN WHO LIVE TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND MOST OF US CAN’T GO TO A MEETING. SO YOU CAN YOU SHOULD CONSIDER IT 30-FIT ANN TOO IF YOU WANT — 35-18 IF YOU WANT TO INCLUDE US. THE APPELLANTS JUST — ALMOST OBSTRUCTIONIST UNWILLINGNESS TO ADMIT YOUR REQUEST, THAT YES, THEY’RE ASKING THE PEOPLE TO RESTAURANT — THE RESTAURANT TO KICK PEOPLE OUT AT 10:00 P.M. THEY THAT’S KNOW WHAT BEING ASKED. REGARDLESS OF THAT, MR. HONHOLLOMAN IS ASKING YOU TO BELIEVE THAT ALL PARTIES AGREED THAT THE RESTAURATEURS WERE GOING TO HAVE TO KICK PEOPLE OUT AND THAT’S JUST NOT TRUE. I WAS AT THOSE MEETINGS, TOO. AND I NEVER CONTEMPLATED THAT. WHO IN THEIR WILDEST DREAMS WHROO CONTEMPLATE A RESTAURANT IS GOING TO KICK SOMEBODY OUT. YOU MENTIONED AN ANNIVERSARY DINNER. WE WILL TALK TO THIS PLACE AND IF WE WANTED TO GO THERE UNTIL BEDTIME, IT’S 7:45 NOW, ARE WE GOING TO GET A GLASS OF WINE. HOW LONG IS OUR DINNER GOING TO TAKE. IT’S 8:30. I DON’T THINK WE CAN GO BECAUSE IT’S 8:30. WE NEVER EVER WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT. AND AS FAR AS THE OTHER PARTIES WHO ARE INVOLVED, NR HOLLOMAN MENTIONED, IT WAS CONTEMPLATED THAT A RESTAURANT SPACE WOULD GO IN THERE. NO, IT WAS CONTEMPLATED THAT DOUG AND DEB WERE GOING TO GO INTO THAT SPACE. THAT THEY WERE GOING TO PUT A RESTAURANT THERE. DOUG WHO RARELY MAKES APPEARANCES ON SOCIAL MEDIA ACTUALLY POSTED ON FACEBOOK AND I’VE READ THERE THIS. I’D QUOTE IT BUT I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S NECESSARY.% LAM — LAP BECAUSED THIS IDEA — LAM BECAUSED THIS — LAM BASED THAT IF HE HAD TO KICK PEOPLE OUT, THAT’S LEWD CUSS. — LUDICROUS. I KNOW THERE’S PEOPLE HERE IN OPPOSITION OF THIS OR I GUESS FOR THE APPELLANTS THAN THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANTS. YOU KNOW, AS WAS MENTIONED, YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE 10 PEOPLE IN OPPOSITION SHOW UP FOR EVERYTHING AND WANTING SUPPORT. IT’S ALL OF US ARE SETTING ASIDE OUR SCHEDULES TO BE HERE. I’M NOT BILLING THE CLIENTS BECAUSE I’M SITTING HERE. AND BECAUSE IT’S IMPORTANT. AND JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE WHO SET ASIDE TIME. NOT ANY MORE IMPORTANT, BUT I WOULD NOT BE SWAYED TO THINK THAT THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT OPPOSE THIS. LASTLY, THERE WAS A MEETING HOSTED BY COUNCILPERSON MURPHY WHO HAS HELD EXHAUSTIVE AMOUNT OF MEETINGS AND FRANKLY, I WOULD NOT WANT TO HAVE TO HAVE GONE THROUGH WHAT SHE’S GONE THROUGH WITH THIS PROJECT ALONE THE AMOUNT OF MEETINGS SHE’S HAD TO HOLD. BACK BACK IN JUNE THERE MUST HAVE BEEN 60 PEOPLE IN TAROOM. THREE-QUARTERS OF THEM RAISED THEIR HANDS OR SPEED SUPPORT OF THE 11:00 P.M. CLOSING TIME AND THE BEER PERMIT. THE NOBODY SUPPORTS THIS. THIS IS A CASE OF SOUR GRAPES, OF PEOPLE WHO DIDN’T LIKE THE PROCESS. THERE WERE SOME CERTAINLY MISSTEPS PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPERS, BUT THAT’S IN THE PAST. THE SP SAYS WHAT IT SAYS. IT’S VAGUE AND THAT — FRANKLY SHOULD BE CONINSTRUMENTED AGAINST — CONSTRUED AGAINST THE DRAFTER AND THAT’S JAESON HOLLOMAN. HE COULD HAVE DRAFTED IT — MR. KING, YOU ASKED, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE CA YOU HAVE WRITTEN IN THERE. HE SAID CUSTOMERS HAVE TO BE OUT BY 10:00 P.M. OR NONEMPLOYEES HAVE TO BE OUT BY 10:00 P.M. I THINK IF IT WENT TO CHANCERY, IT WOULD RULE IN THE APPLICANTS’ FAVOR. AS FAR AS THE NEIGHBOR, PLEASE LET THIS PROCEED. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN GOING ON WAY TOO LONG AND I THINK THEY DESERVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT. THANK YOU.>>ANY QUESTIONS?>>I DON’T KNOW IF ITCH A QUESTION, I — IF I HAVE A QUESTION –>>I’M JUST ONE NEIGHBOR. I’M HAPPY TO FIELD QUESTIONS.>>I DON’T THINK IT’S A QUESTION. BUT IT’S SOMETHING YOU BROUGHT UP ABOUT HOW — YOU CAN SIT. IT’S OKAY. HOW THE SPSs WERE WRITTEN, NUMBER 6, SECTION 4, SAYS A BUSINESS WITHIN — SHALL BE NOT BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC OUTSIDE THE HOURS OF AS MANY 6:00 A.M. D 10:00 P.M. IT DOESN’T REFERENCE A RESTAURANT. I JUST THOUGHT EVERYONE SHOULD BE CLEAR ON THAT.>>RIGHT. I JUST MENTIONED THAT IN THE SENSE WE’RE ALL GOING INTO THE INTENT OF ALL THIS. IT WAS ALWAYS CONTEMPLATED THAT THIS WOULD BE A RESTAURANT. THERE’S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO WOULD SIGN ON TO A LEASE, DEB AND DOUG, THE PEOPLE — HOUSTONS AND — THEY WERE THE ONE WHO’S HAD SIGNED ON TO PUT A RESTAURANT IN THIS SPACE. EVERYONE KNEW IT.>>THAT WAS ACTUALLY — WAS THAT BEFORE THE BUILDING WAS BUILT?>>THAT WAS IN THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS OF THE SP. WE’D MEETINGS AT McCABE PUB ON SUNDAYS AND I DON’T KNOW AT WHAT POINT THIS RESTAURANT ROOT GAME IN THE FORAY, BUT IT WAS PRIOR TO IF — THE SP BEING VOTED ON. SORRY. I MISSED — MISSPOKE. BUT EITHER WAY, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF I’M MISSPEAKING, HOLLOMAN DID MENTION THAT A RESTAURANT SPACE WAS CONTEMPLATED. SO I THINK WE’RE KIND OF GETTING INTO THE WEEDS A LITTLE BIT ON THAT. THE POINT IS, I’M SPEAKING — I’M 500 FEET AWAY. I HAVE SMALL CHILDREN AS WELL. I CERTAINLY FEEL FOR THE NEIGHBOR WHO BACKS UP TO THIS PROPERTY. SHE DOES HAVE A NICE CHARGE GARAGE. IT’S NOT — LARGE GARAGE. IT’S NOT LIKE THE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING INTO THE BACKYARD. I FEEL FOR HER THERE. HOWEVER, THIS IS A NICE RESTAURANT. THEY’RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A TV. I WASN’T EVEN AWARE OF THAT. I DON’T THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE SOME HUGE GNAWSONS AND OPINION — NUISANCE AND I THINK WE’RE ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT’S NOT EVEN RIPE.>>ANYONE ELSE SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS?>> — SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THIS? IN SUPPORT OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.>>GOOD AFTERNOON. I’M AT 300 4Sth AVENUE — 46th AVENUE NORTH. I’M NOT A LAWYER, BUT I CAME HERE ON MY TIME OFF. I’D LIKE TO THANK UNCLE RYMAN FOR DOING THAT. I’LL READ A LITTLE SNIPPET OF WHETHER MR. DOUG DID SAY. BECAUSE DURING THEIR DISCUSSION THEY DID NOT BRING UP AT ALL THE NAME TRUST THE RESTAURANT THAT THEY HAD A TENANT AND THAT LO AND BEHOLD THEY DID AGREE ON THOSE HOURS. SPECIFICALLY, WHAT WAS SAID WAS, WE WOULD HAVE NEVER HAVE MOVED FORWARD WITH THAT PROJECT IF WE HAD TO CLEAR THE BUILDING AT 10:00 P.M. THAT IS LIEUTENANT CUSS. NO — LUDICROUS. NO RESTAURANT DOES THAT. SO THE ONLY THING I’D LIKE TO POINT OUT TO YOU IF YOU FEEL HASN’T BEEN POINTED OUT YET, IS WHY COMING UP HOLO — COUNCILMAN HOLO HOLLOMAN DID NOT MAKE THIS ISSUE THEN IS A RED FLAG. WHY WAS THAT NOT CONSIDERED TO FLUSH THAT OUT AND INCLUDE THAT IN THE LANGUAGE. AND WE GET TO THE 11th HOUR. THE NEIGHBORHOOD VOTES ON IT AND AN APPEAL IS MADE AND HERE WE GO TAKING TIME OUT OF OUR WORK AND YOURS. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE. YOU ONLY HAVE 24 SECONDS IF THERE IS. SEEING NONE, THE OTHER SIDE THAT IS 1:59 FOR REBUTTAL.>>I’LL BE VERY BELIEVE. PATRICK BURKE. 3603 RICHLAND AVENUE. I’M AN AN ASTRONAUTURE THAT OPED THE LETTERS. — WROTE THE LETTERS. IT IS AN ABSOLUTELY UNREASONABLE INTERPRETATION TO KICK OUT, YES, IT WOULD BE A DEATH SENTENCE TO THE BUSINESS. I HAVE EASTERN NEN TO A RESTAURANT THAT DOES THAT. — I HAVE NEVER BEEN TO A RESTAURANT THAT DOES THAT. THANK YOU.>>PERFECT. 1. THE 59 FOR — 1. THE — 1:59.>>MOST EVERYTHING YOU HEARD IS IRRELEVANT. I THINK YOU KNOW THAT. THAT THE DISCUSSIONS HOW MANY PEOPLE VOTED IN FAVOR OF IT, HOW MANY PEOPLE DIDN’T. THIS IS AN INTERPRETATION OF A PIECE OF LEGISLATION. THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT MEETING. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF NEW MEMBERS APPARENTLY MADE THE ASSOCIATION THAT NIGHT. MY CLIENTS AND PEOPLE THAT WERE TURNED AWAY TOLD IT WANTS GOING TO BE VOTED ON THAT NIGHT. I DON’T THINK IT MATTERS. SO I DON’T WANT TO GO TOO FAR DEEP. CLOSING TIME. REALLY BAD TO KICK PEOPLE OUT THE TIME YOU PUT ON YOUR DOOR. BUT AGAIN, THE TIME — NOTHING IN THIS ORDINANCE SAYS THAT’S WHAT YOU HAVE TO PUT ON YOUR DOOR. YOU AS A BUSINESS OWNER NEED TO PLAN TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU CAN ACCOMMODATE THE LAWS THAT ARE IN PLACE. YOU HAVE FIRE MARSHAL LAWS AND YOU KNOW, YOU CAN KICK PEOPLE OUT IF YOU ACCIDENTALLY LET TOO MANY PEOPLE IN, THE FIRE MARSHAL SHOWS UP. NO, DON’T KICK PEOPLE OUT BUT PUT YOUR SIGN ON YOUR DOOR THAT STEAD A CERTAIN TIME SO YOU CAN ACCOMMOATE THE LAW. THAT WAS ADOPTED. THE PERSON THAT WAS QUOTED AND AGAIN SAYING THIS OUTRAGEOUS. HE WAS EVEN ON THE SCENE WHEN THIS SP WAS ADOPT. THAT WAS AFTER THE FACT, SO THE COMMENTS ABOUT RETROSPECTIVE — RETROSPECTIVE COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL MEMBER. YOU HEARD THEM TIMING-WISE. HE WAS TELLING YOU WHAT WAS DEBATED, SCUZZED, AND INCLUDED — SCUZZ DISCUSSED AND INCLUDED. I RESPECT BILL COMPLETELY. WHATEVER I INTIMATED IS BECAUSE I DON’T THINK HE KNEW ABOUT THE HISTORY AND HE MADE THAT CLEAR. HE DIDN’T KNOW. SO WITH THAT HISTORY, AND THIS BOARD DOES — THIS BODY, THIS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HAS THE ABILITY TO SAY, BASED ON THAT, BASED ON WHAT THE INTENT WAS, THEN THAT’S WHAT YOU HAVE TO MEET AS YOUR ZONING. WE’D RECOMMEND, WE CLOSE AT 9:00, DO WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO ON YOUR DOOR. AND MOST IMPORTANT THING IS, THIS SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT RESTAURANT. I’LL PROBABLY GO TO THIS RESTAURANT AS LONG AS IT’S THERE. THESE RESTAURANTS DON’T STAY FOREVER. AND IT COULD BE ANY OTHER — THAT’S ONE OF THE THINGS AT ZONING. MY YEARS LONG TIME AGO ON COUNCIL, PEOPLE COME IN WITH STRAIGHT ZONING AND SAY THIS IS GOING TO BE A GREAT RESTAURANT. THEY’RE NOT THERE ANYMORE. I’M NOT SAYING THEY’RE GOING TO DISAPPEAR. BUT YOU’RE PLANNING FOR ANY RESTAURANT IN THIS SPACE. AND IT COULD BE A PARTY JOINT, NOT WHAT SOUNDS LIKE A A NICE WHITE NAPKIN PLACE.>>LET’S HEAR FROM COUNCILOR LADY MURPHY. YOUR NAME HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP A LOT TODAY DURING THIS PROCESS, SO TELL US WHY WATER HERE AND — WHY YOU’RE HERE AND WHAT YOUR PERSPECTIVE IS ON MR. HERBERT AND HIS LETTER.>>SURE. I WILL. I WAS — I GUESS WHEN I WAS SITTING DOWN TO KIND OF THINK THROUGH WHAT AM I GOING TO SAY TODAY, BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN — AN ISSUE THAT HAS TAKEN UP MY TIME OVER THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF MORE THAN ANY OTHER ISSUE. IT HAS TAKEN UP MY COUNCIL STAFF’S TIME. IT HAS TAKEN UP BILL HERBERT’S TIME. IT HAS TAKEN UP PLANNING’S TIME, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN JUST AN ONGOING GREAMENT, NONAGREEMENT, NO, THIS WON’T, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THE BEST SITUATION HERE. I DON’T WANT TO GET INTO A WHOLE LOT OF HE SAID SHE SAID, BUT I’M SENSING FROM WHAT WE’VE BEEN THROUGH TODAY, I NEED TO GEE THROUGH AT LEAST MY EXPERIENCE WITH THIS PROPERTY AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT I AM AWARE OF AND AT LEAST THE TIMELINES SINCE I WAS ELECTED IN AUGUST OF 2015. SO FIRST, THIS WAS A LITTLE RESTAURANT, ALSO MARKET. — A LITTLE MARKET YEARS AGO, A COUPLE YEARS AGO. I HAD RUN BY IT. MY FATHER AND BROTHER ATE THERE FREQUENTLY BECAUSE THEY DONATED HOMES, SO THIS HAS BEEN A COMMERCIAL SITE FOR A LONG TIME. [CAPTIONING WILL CONTINUE SHORTLY] THEY — I MEAN, OF COURSE, THE STOP WORK ORDER, WE’D HAVE TO PULL THE DATES. I MEAN, I THINK THE STOP WORK ORDER PROBABLY WENT ON IN JULY. THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS COULD HAVE TORN DOWN THOSE WALLS AND FIXED THAT PROBLEM THEN. THEY CHOSE TO WAIT.>>SO LET’S TALK ABOUT THE CURRENT PEOPLE.>>SO GETTING FLEW TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY, I’VE HAD COMMUNTY INPUT. I’VE DONE AN ONLINE SURVEY REGARDING THE SP. AND I’VE HAD COMMUNITY MEETINGS. REGARDING THE, AND P AMENDMENT THAT HAD MEN — BEEN MENTIONED A COUPLE TIMES TODAY, ON MY ONLINE SURVEY I HAD OVER 271 RESPONSES, CLOSE TO 400 EMACE. AND WHEN I — EMAILS. WHEN I BROKE DOWN THE NUMBERS T NUMBERS WERE IN SUPPORT OF EXTENDING THE HOURS. I EVEN CALCULATED OUT BY THE FOUR-BLOCK RADIUS AND DOUBLING THE VOTES WITHIN THE FOUR-BLOCK RADIUS OF THIS PROPERTY, I SPENT PROBABLY MORE TIME ON THIS THAN I SHOULD HAVE. AND THERE WAS STILL — OF SUPPORT TO EXTEND THE HOURS. GOING INTO THAT, SO I HAD THE COMMUNITY MEETING ON THE — JUNE 29th AND I ACTUALLY HAVE THE SCWHRND AGENDA FROM THAT MEETING. I’M HAPPY TO GIVE YOU ALL WITH MY NOTES ON IT. THERE WAS SUPPORT THERE THAT MIGHT BY A RAISE OF HANDS TO EXTEND THE HOURS AND TO APPROVE THE BEER PERMIT. SO FROM THERE, TO BE CLEAR, I REQUESTED THIS LETTER FROM BILL WHENEVER — I GUESS THE WEEK BEFORE — THE WEEK THAT HE WROTE IT, I REQUESTED IT THAT MONDAY. THE MORNING BEFORE THE SYLVAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TOOK A VOTE ON THIS, BECAUSE WE HAD LOTS OF MEETINGS WHERE NEIGHBORS WHO — MANY OF THEM ARE THE APPLICANTS HAD SAID, THAT IT IS FINE, AND THEN NO, AND YES, AND NO. WHY DID I WAIT SO LONG TO GET A LETTER FROM BILL HERBERT? WHY DID I SIT THROUGH MEETINGS AND BLUFF THROUGH — I KNEW ONCE I GOT A LETTER THAT WAS FINAL — THAT SHOULD BE THE INTERPRETATION, RIGHT? IT’S HIS JOB TO INTERPRET SWRAIG — VAGUE LANGUAGE IN THE CODE AND IT’S THE BZA’S JOB TO INTERPRET THE AMBIGUITY IN THE SPs. AND I WANTED TO TRY TO GET AS MUCH FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS I COULD GOING INTO THAT. SO DURING MONTHS OF MEETINGS, I KEPT ASKING FOR, IS THERE PROOF OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT. AS A LOBBYIST, I FREQUENTLY ASK MY BILL SPONSORS OR LEGISLATION THAT I’M OPPOSING TO STATE ON THE FLOOR IF THEIR INTENT IS TO HARM MY CLIENT OR NOT. BECAUSE I KNOW THAT I’VE GOT TO GET THAT INTO THE RECORD AND ON THE FLOOR OF THE STATEHOUSE AND STATE SENATE. I KNOW THAT THE COUNCIL IS DIFFERENT. BUT WHEN I REVIEWED — AND I DON’T GET PAID BY THE HOUR, SO I DID NOT REVIEW THE ACTUAL TAPE. BUT WHEN I HE VIEWDZ THE — REVIEWED THE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNINGS COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL MEETING, I DIDN’T SEE ANY MENTION OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT ON THESE HOURS. AND I DIDN’T SEE THAT THIS WAS A MENTION OF THE HOURS NECESSARILY UNTIL IT GOT TO THE COUNCIL. I DIDN’T SEE IT IN THE — IN WHAT WAS APPLIED TO AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.>>SO WE GET THAT. IS HILL HERBERT’S LETTER RIGHT OR WRONG?>>SO AGAIN, THAT’S — IT’S DIFFICULT. AND I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN HE HAS WRITTEN IS WHAT — WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN IS WHAT HIS JOB IS TO DO, IS TO TAKE THE LANGUAGE THAT’S IN THE SP AND APPLY IT TO THE REAL WORLD SITUATIONS WHEN AND WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD. THAT’S WHAT Y’ALL DO. WE SAW THAT WITH THE FENCE, AND THE SETBACKS. YOU HAVE TO INTERPRET WHAT IS ON THE GROUND AND HOW THESE LAWS APPLY TO THAT. AND I FEEL WITHOUT THAT LEGISLATIVE INTENT, WRITTEN OR OUT PUT IN PLAIN LANGUAGE THAT ALL PATRONS WOULD BE OUT THE DOOR, I THINK BILL HERBERT WROTE THE LETTER THAT HE COULD WRITE BASED OFF THE DOCUMENTATION AND A REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE OF A FULL-SERVICE RESTAURANT HERE. NOW, IF WE’D ASKED — I THINK THAT IF WE HAD ASKED HIM FOR AN INTERPRETING OF A RETAIL BOUTIQUE INTO THIS SPACE, IF IT WAS GOING OOB A DRESS — GOING TO BE A DRESS SHOP OR ONE OF THE CAN’T BE LIKE A BIKER BAR OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT IF I HAD ASKED HIM WHAT’S THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HOURS FOR CLOSING TIME FOR RETAIL SHOP, I’M SURE HE COULD PROBABLY WRITE SOMETHING SIMILAR THAT AT 10:00, YOU HAVE TO COMPLETE YOUR PURCHASE OF YOUR DRESS. AND MOVE ALONG. THAT YOU COULDN’T CONTINUE TO SHOP FOR HOURS ON END.>>SO YOU GID THAT KIND — YOU GET THAT — YOU GO TO DILLARD’S OR NORDSTROM’S, YOU GET THAT, WE’RE ABOUT TO CLOSE IN 15 MINUTES. PLEASE BRING YOUR ITEMS TO THE CASH REGISTER. WE’LL BE TONE AT 10:00 A.M. TOMORROW FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE.>>RIGHT.>>YOU DON’T THEY’RE THAT ANNOUNCEMENT IN A RESTAURANT.>>CORRECT. I THINK WHEN WE INTERPRET CLOSING TIME AND WE INTERPRET CLOSE TO THE — CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, YOU’VE GOT TO INTERPRET IT IN THE SENSE OF THE USE THAT WE’RE ASKING IT FOR. THE SAME CLOSING –>>I’M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE, FROM THE DAY THIS BUILDING WAS BUILT, IT WOP I — IT WAS I INTENTIONED TE A RESTAURANT.>>THE SP AND EVERYTHING HAD BEEN PASSED BEFORE I CAME ALONG. IS BY THE TIME I CAME ON THE SCENE, IT WAS — ALL THAT WAS ALREADY THERE. I WAS AT THE SPA MEETINGS WHERE THEY VOTED ON WHETHER THEY SHOULD ALLOW THEM TO HAVE A BEER PERMIT. AND THAT WAS APPROVED AS LONG AS THEY GOT THEIR LIQUOR LICENSE. NOW, I HAVE HAD SOME CONSTITUENTS ASK ABOUT RESIDENTIAL PARKING ONLY ON THESE STREETS AND I HAVE SAID THAT — BECAUSE I KNOW PARKING IS — THIS SP, IT’S TOUGH BECAUSE IT’S SO TIGHT. IT WAS A CLEAR BIG EXPANSION OF COMMERCIAL USE AND OF THE RESIDENTIAL AND JUST NOT A LOT OF PARKING AT ALL. I HAVE SAID, WE NEED TO WAIT UNTIL THIS BUSINESS OPENS TO SEE ABOUT THE PARKING AND PUTTING THOSE RESTRICTIONS ON BECAUSE LIKE WHEN — OPEN, IT ALL RUNS TOGETHER. SIX MONTHS AGO, I GOT A LOT OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT PARKING. AND IT TRICKLED OUT AND IT HAS KIND OF WORKED ITSELF OUT WITH PEOPLE REALIZING THAT YOU CAN PARK AT THE PARK AND I DON’T WANT TO CREATE A SITUATION TO SAY, NO RESIDENTIAL PARKING HERE AND IT JUST SQUISHES OUT ON TO THE ONE OF THE OTHER STREETS. BUT BACK TO THE POINT OF DID BILL HERBERT MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION HERE, YES OR NO, DO I KNOW THE ABSOLUTE CORRECT ANSWER. COULD WE DISSECT, WHAT DOES CLOSED, WHAT DOES PUBLIC MEAN. I GOT OUT MY LAW DIX WREARSZ AND — DICTIONARY AND THERE’S A LOT OF WAYS TO INTERPRET THIS. AND I THINK BILL DID THE BEST AND THE MOST CORRECT ANSWER GIVEN THE SITUATION THAT IT IS RARE THAT THERE IS HOURS IN AN SP. IT IS RARE THAT ANY FULL-USE RESTAURANT HAS RESTRICTIONS OF HOURS LIKE THIS. AND WHEN YOU APPLY IT TO REAL WORLD, HOW DO RESTAURANTS OPERATE, HOW WOULD A RETAIL OPERATE, HOW WOULD A DRESS SHOP OPERATE, HE INTERPRETED IT IN THE WAY THAT RESTAURANTS OPERATE. AND I THINK THAT’S BEST WE COULD ASK HIM TO DO.>>THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL LADY MURPHY? WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND ENERGY AND EFFORT AND TRYING TO GET TO THIS TO SOME SORT OF CONCLUSION. SO THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU.>>I’VE GOT A QUESTION –>>WE’RE GOING — WE’RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ASK AWAY.%>>BECAUSE THE APPELLANT RAISED IT AND THERE WAS SOME QUESTION AS TOMAN YOU — AS TO — YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS AND HISTORY WAS. I GUESS GIVEN ALL THE TESTIMONY AND IT’S BEEN VERY THOROUGH AND THE HISTORY THAT WE’VE SEEN, WAS THERE ANYTHING IN THAT YOU HEARD THAT WOULD CHANGE YOUR OPINION IN YOUR LETTER?>>NO.>>SO FULLY STAND BY YOUR OPINION IN YOUR LETTER GIVEN THE COMPLETE AND FULL TESTIMONY — YOU HEARD A GOOD BIT OF IT AHEAD OF TIME, BUT SINCE — I DON’T KNOW THAT HE WAS THINKING OF THIS WHEN HE WROTE THE LETTER, ALL THOSE PINTS HAVE BEEN RAISED — POINTS HAVE BEEN RAISED AND THOSE CAN BE CONSIDERED AND THE LETTER IS STILL HOW YOU WOULD APPROACH THIS PROPERTY?>>I STILL STAND BY THE LETTER, RIGHT.>>THANK YOU.>>I THINK THIS IS A VERY EASY CASE. THE APPLICANT — I MEAN, THEY HAVE SUBMITTED MANY LETTERS FROM RESTAURANTS THAT BASICALLY SAY, THIS IS THE STANDARD. AND I WANT TO READ AGAIN THE C.E.O. AND CO-OWNER OF TED’S MONTANA GRILL, WHICH IS A NATIONWIDE CHAIN, SESSIONS, IT IS NOT CUSTOMARY FOR HOSPITABLE TO FORCE PATRONS TO LEAVE A RESTAURANT PREMISES PRIOR TO THEM COMPLETING THEIR MEAL. IN MY 30 OR MORE YEARS IN THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY, I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY FULL-SERVICE RESTAURANTS THAT HAVE A POLICY OF FORCING PATRONS TO LEAVE THE PREMISES AT CLOSING TIME POSTED ON THE DOOR IF THE PATRON IS STILL EATING THEIR MEAL. AND NOW I’M GOING TO READ FROM BILL HERBERT’S LETTER. CLOSING TIME SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THE TIME AT WHICH NEW PATRONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ENTER THE PREMISES. IF THE BUSINESS IS A FULL-SERVICE RESTAURANT, PATRONS ENTERING THE PREMISES PRIOR TO 10:00 P.M. SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO FINISH THEIR MEAL BEFORE HAVING TO EXIT THE PREMISES.>>I MEAN, I DON’T SEE — I HAVEN’T SEEN ANYTHING THAT WOULD SAY THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ERRED IN HIS JUDGMENT. AND I WOULD CERTAINLY VOTE TO SUPPORT THAT. AND WITH RESPECT TO THE NEIGHBORS WHO ARE CONCERNED, I THINK THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT CAN BE IMAGINED IN A — THAT MIGHT HAPPEN, THAT HAVEN’T HAPPENED AND I THINK FRANKLY BASED ON TESTIMONY, THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT IS VERY SLIM BASED ON THE RESTAURATEUR WHO HAS LEASED THIS SPACE. BUT I DON’T — I THINK THAT FROM THE HISTORY, FROM THE WAY THIS THING — YOU KNOW, EVOLVED. IT WAS — ALL OF THESE RULES WERE WRITTEN UNDER THE SUMS THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A RESTAURANT — ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A RESTAURANT, NOT A STANDARD RETAIL STORE. SO I THINK IT’S APPROPRIATE THAT BILL APPLIED THOSE STANDARD RULES TO THIS SP AND I DON’T THINK HE ERRED.>>OKAY. OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?>>I — SIEM — SORRY. I GUESS I DID WANT TO SAY, HE PROBABLY DIDN’T ERROR. AND I DON’T KNOW HOW TO VOTE IN THIS INSTANCE.>>WELL, THIS IS AN ITEM A APPEAL.>>I KNOW.>>OUR RULE IS WHETHER HE ERRED OR NOT.>>I KNOW THE RULES. I KNOW THE RULES. BUT I READ IT. I STILL READ IT AS THE NONLAWYER. AND I STILL COUNT SEE WHERE IT SAYS THAT — DON’T SEE WHERE IT SAYS THAT CLOSING TIME IS WHAT NEEDED TO BE INTERPRETED. IT SAYS — IT SHALL NOT BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. MAYBE I’M LOOKING AT IT TOO LITERALLY. DOESN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT RESTAURANT. BUT I CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, HE WAS ASKED TO, YOU KNOW, INTERPRET IF A RESTAURANT WENT THERE AND — SO I TONIGHT THINK HE — I DON’T THINK HE PROBABLY ERRED BUT I DON’T THINK IT’S AS EASY AND I THINK — I UNDERSTAND THE PROPERTY OWNERS’ CONCERN. THERE’S A BUSINESS GOING RIGHT NEXT TO THEIR HOMES. SO I WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.>>OKAY. ANYONE HAVE A MOTION?>>I MOVE THAT WE FIND FOR THE APPELLANT AND UPHOLD THE ADMINISTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION.>>WE DON’T –>>YOU MEAN YOU UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR?>>I THOUGHT THE APPELLANT WAS –>>THE AMENDMENT –>>I’M SORRY.>>YOU’RE EITHER VOTING –>>I FIND — I MOVE THAT WE UPHOLD THE ADMINISTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION.>>OKAY. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. AND WHY ARE WE UPHOLDING IT? BECAUSE –>>THE MAGIC WORDS.>>I FIND THAT HE DID NOT ERR IN HIS INTERPRETATION.>>OKAY. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. PROPERLY — IS THERE A SECOND?>>I’LL SECOND.>>MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY MORE DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES]>>OPPOSED? DID EVERYONE VOTE YES? OKAY. IT’S UNANIMOUS.>>MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY RECOMMEND A BREAK BEFORE THE NEXT HEARING.>>OKAY. [RECESS]>>>CASES REMAINING ON OUR DOCKET, 2017-I WANT TO MAKE SURE I CALL THE RIGHT CASE NUMBER. 011. WHICH IS INVOLVING THE PROPERTY AT 204 38th AVENUE NORTH, — REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT SETBACK IS A CASE THAT HAS SINCE BIN SUGGESTED FOR CONSENT AGENDA VOTE WITHOUT HAVING THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE IS NO ONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THAT CASE, MR. VICE CHAIRMAN.>>I BELIEVE THE COUNCIL LADY WAS IN SUPPORT.>>THAT’S RIGHT. SHE WENT OUT OF HER WAY TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE MATTER. SO THE BOARD WOULD HAVE THE CONSIDER — THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THAT.>>DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION TO ADD THAT TO THE CONCEPT AGENDA?>>SO MOVED — CONSENT AGENDA?>>SO MOVED.>>IS THERE A SECOND?>>SECOND.>>ALL IN FAVOR SAY NR. [CHORUS OF AYES]>>ANY OPPOSED. IT PASSES.>>WE’LL SHOW THAT A 5-0 PASSAGE. WE’LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED CASE.>>MR. DESCRIBES CHAIRMAN, THE NEXT CASE IS 2017-006. THE APPELLANT MS. ANDI CROOKS, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, HAS FILED AN ITEMS A APPEAL WITH REGARD TO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTY. 2008 ROSEMARY LANE IN NASHVILLE. AERIAL PHOTO WHERE THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL HAD OPERATED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE LEGALLY REQUIRED PERMIT. FINALLY, THE FRONT VIEW. YOUR CASE FILE INCLUDES SOME OF THE DATA OBTAINED BY THE CODES DEPARTMENT DEMONSTRATING THAT THERE HAD BEEN THE PRIOR OPERATION BEFORE THE PERMIT. THAT’S AN AUTOMATIC BASIS FOR REJECTION ONCE A PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR, THE BOARD HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO REDUCE THE PENALTY ASSOCIATED WITH PRIOR OPERATION. IF IN FACT — UNLESS YOU DETERMINE THERE WAS NO SUCH VIOLATION. WITH THAT SAID, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION PRESENT ON THIS CASE? SEEING NONE, THE APPELLANTLESS HAVE 10 MINUTES TO — APPELLANTS WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES TO MAKE THE DESIRED PRESENTATION.>>AIM AND — I’M ANDI. CRAIG OWNS THE PROPERTY. HAPPY NEW YEAR.>>COULD YOU TELL US, YOUR STORY, BUT IS THIS YOUR HOME?>>THIS IS MY HOME, YES.>>AN OWNER OCCUPIED HOME.>>YES –>>C.U. TELL US WHEN YOU STARTED — CAN YOU TELL US WHEN YOU STARTED RENTING THE HOME AND WHAT HAPPENED TO MAKE YOU APPLY FOR A PER PLIT.>>I START — PERMIT.>>I STARTED RENTING THE HOME AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER AND I FOUND IN NOVEMBER THAT I NEEDED A PERMIT. FOR SOME REASON I THOUGHT YOU ONLY NEEDED PERMISSION IF YOU WERE NOT A HOMEOWNER. I DIDN’T RESEARCH IT WELL ENOUGH. I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT. AS SOON AS I FOUND OUT I NEEDED A PERMIT, I WENT TO METRO CODES WITH MY FLOOR PLAN AND MY FEES AND EVERYTHING AND THEY DENIED ME SINCE I HAD ALREADY LISTED. AND WE’RE TALKING ABOUT A HANDFUL OF OPINION NOT HUNDREDS. — OF PEOPLE, NOT HUNDREDS. THERE ARE OVER 3,000 AIRBNBS IN THE CITY OF NASHVILLE. AND I LOOKED UP HOW MANY ARE PERMITTED AND LESS THAN HALF OF THEM ARE. SO I WAS TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING. AND I FEEL LIKE I’M GETTING PUNISHED FOR IT.>>DID YOU RENT –>>I’M VERY NERVE:00.>>ONCE YOU WENT TO CODES AND THEY SAID YOU HAVE TO COME HERE, DID YOU STOP RENTING YOUR PLACE?>>YES, SIR. AND I FILED FOR THE APPEAL AND I FOLLOWED ALL THE STEPS THAT DEBBIE HELPED WITH ME. THERE’S STILL A SIGN ON MY LAWN WHICH I HOPE TO TAKE DOWN TODAY.>>ABSOLUTELY. AND WE DEFINITELY APPRECIATE YOU TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING.>>THANK YOU.>>I’M SORRY.>>GO AHEAD.>>WERE THERE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU HAD TO –>>SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS WEREN’T ABLE TO MAKE IT. THEY JUST HAD A NEW BABY. BUT I HAVE SEVERAL LETTERS FROM MY NEIGHBORS IN SUPPORT AS WELL AS MY NEIGHBORS PHYSICALLY HERE. — HER PERSON SENT A LETTER, JOHN. AND I DON’T KNOW IF YOU GOT IT. AND COLBY SLEDGE. OH, SURE.>>COLBY IS YOUR –>>YES, DISTRICT 17.>>HAVE HER IDENTIFY HERSELF.>>MY NAME IS KATHLEEN O’SULLIVAN. 2003 ROSE ROSEMARY NAME. I ALSO GO BY CASSIE. MY PARTNER IS IN MEXICO STARTING A MUSIC FESTIVAL. IT’S VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT ANDI IS AN EXCELLENT NEIGHBOR AND WE LIVE IF A COLORFUL CHARACTERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD TO SAY THE LEAST AND I FEEL THAT ANDI IS SAFER WITH PEOPLE OF THE CHOOSING THAT SHE HAS SELECTED TO BE IN HER HOME. I FEEL SHE’S SAFER WITH PEOPLE THAN WITHOUT THEM. AND WHEN I FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE OR NERVOUS, I GO TO ANDI.>>IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU’D LIKE TO ADD?>>I JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE I WAS NOT TRYING TO MAKE MONEY ON THE CITY OR NOT PAY MY HOTEL — THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER AIRBNBS THAT ARE DOING THAT. AND ALSO THE AIRBNB IS RELATIVELY NEW. AND I FEEL LIKE IT’S STILL KIND OF A COMPLICATED PROCESS. AND I’M JUST TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING BY GETTING A PERMIT.>>RIGHT.>>THANK YOU.>>DID ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. WE’LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE’LL TALK ABOUT IT. AND ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS? THIS SEEMS TO BE THE CLASSIC CASE OF WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE AND THAT PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THINGS AND WHEN THEY COME HERE, THEY — YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY STOP WHEN THEY’RE TOLD TO STOP AND THEY COME HERE AND TRY TO DO RIGHT. SO — I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE METRO COUNCIL JUST GAVE US NOT TOO LONG AGO THE AUTHORITY TO — NOT WAIVE A PENALTY BUT TO DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE PENALTY FOR RENTING WITHOUT A PERMIT. USED TO BE WE HAD TO MAKE PEOPLE WAIT A YEAR. WE HAD NO OPTION. BUT WE DON’T HAVE THAT RESTRICTION NOW. SO WE’RE VERY FORTUNATE. AND INTEND TO BE EMPATHETIC WITH FOLKS LIKE YOU BASS CLEAR DEMONSTRATION THAT YOU WEREN’T CLEAR ABOUT THE RULES AND STOPPED WHEN YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO STOP AND DID THE RIGHT THING BY TRYING TO COME HERE AND MAKE IT RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION?>>I’LL MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE GRANT THE APPEAL — AND SET THE TIME OF THE — I’M SORRY. I WANT TO SAY — I WANT TO ALLOW THEM TO START RENTING NOW BUT –>>I THINK THE LANGUAGE THAT WE’VE USED IS THAT WE FIND IN FAVOR OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR BECAUSE THE APPELLANT DID ADMIT TO RENTING AHEAD OF TIME, BUT THE PENALTY IS — THE PENALTY IS ESSENTIALLY TIME SERVED AND YOU’RE ELIGIBLE FOR YOUR PERMIT TODAY.>>RIGHT. WHAT LANGUAGE WOULD YOU LIKE US TO USE FOR THE TIME SERVED PART, COUNCIL? IT’S REALLY NOT TIMED SERVED.>>YOU CAN SAY THAT THEY — THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WAS CORRECT, BUT THEY’VE NOW WAITED SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AND ARE ELIGIBLE FOR A PERMIT.>>OKAY. I’LL TAKE ANOTHER WHACK AT THIS.>>I JUST HAD A QUESTION. HAVE WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING?>>YES.>>OKAY.>>IF YOU’D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION, WE CAN RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.>>NO. IT’S NOT IMPORTANT.>>I’M JUST MANGLING MY MOTION HERE. SO I MOVE OR — THAT WE FIND THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS CORRECT IN HIS DECISION AND THAT THE THE — THAT THE TIME ELAPSED IS ENOUGH AND THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GET THEIR PERMIT AS OF TODAY.>>IS THERE A SECOND?>>I’LL SECOND.>>ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES]>>ANY OPPOSED? IT PASSES 5-0. SO YOU CAN GO TO THE CODES DEPARTMENT TOMORROW AND APPLY FOR YOUR PERMIT. PROVIDED EVERYTHING ELSE IS IN ORDER, YOU’RE GOOD TO GO.>>THANK YOU.>>THANK Y’ALL.>>IT WAS ONLY WHEN I STARTED TALKING THAT I REALIZED I HADN’T COMPLETELY THOUGHT THAT THROUGH.>>OKAY.>>MR. VICE CHAIRMAN, YOUR FINAL CASE IS 2017-007, ZEV GOERHING, THE APPELLANT AND OWNER OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1619 ELECTRIC AVENUE, OVER IN EAST NASHVILLE. HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE FROM FRONT SETBAC FLIRMTS THE RS5 ZONING DISTRICT IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE. THIS SHOWS THE STRETCH ALONG ELECTRIC WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE AERIAL GIVES YOU A BETTER VIEW OF THE EXISTING HOUSES. THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED DEMONSTRATES THE PROPOSED SETBACKS PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. IN THIS ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. FROM MY SITE VISIT PHOTOS, WHICH I WILL ADMIT WERE VERY, VERY RECENT, THE VIEW OUT OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE STREET AND ACROSS THE STREET, THEN AND UP DOWN ELECTRIC AVENUE. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION OF THIS CASE? SEEING NONE, MR. GOERHING, YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES TO MAKE THE DESIRED PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF BY NAME AND ADDRESS AND PROCEED.>>I LIVE AT 1621 ELECTRIC AVENUE RIGHT NEXT DOOR.>>AND I’M ROBERT THOMPSON, ARCHITECT ON THE PROJECT. JUST GOING TO REITERATE A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT’S ALREADY BEEN SAID. IF YOU COULD SWITCH TO THE MAP VIEW. THERE ARE 31 HOUSES ON THIS BLOCK. AND FIVE OF THEM MY CLIENT’S PROPERTY, INCLUDED KIND OF BREAK AWAY FROM THE ESTABLISHED RHYTHM, THE SETBACK RHYTHM OF THE OTHER HOUSES. WE’RE REQUESTING A SETBACK VARIANCE FROM 60 FEET TO APPROXIMATELY 34 FEET, WHICH WOULD BE IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT SPECIFIC BLOCK.>>AND THIS IS GOING TO BE OUR OWN HOME.>>I’M SORRY, HIS PRIMARY RESIDENCE. IT’S NOT A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. HE LIVES NEXT DOOR AT 1621. HAS LIVED THERE SINCE 2004. SO HE’S INTERESTED IN THE CHARACTER AND WELL-BEING OF HIS OWN NEIGHBORHOOD.>>I THINK THAT’S ABOUT IT.>>LET’S SEE. SO THIS IS NOT A CONTEXTUAL OVERLAY ISSUE? IS THAT –>>CONTEXTUAL OVERLAY –>>NO, NOT. CONTEXTUAL SETBACK.>>THANK YOU. ALWAYS GET THAT WRONG. YOU ALWAYS CRENGT ME AND I APPRECIATE IT.>>WELL, I’M KNEE DEEP IN CONTEAKS — CONTEXTUAL OVERLAY ISSUES IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.>>I GUESS THE QUESTION IS YOU MENTIONED THE 31 OTHER HOMES AND THE ONE THAT I SEE, AND I’M LOOKING UP HERE — FROM THE OTHER DRAWING TO THE LEFT, THE ONE THAT SEEMS A LOT CLOSER TO THE STREET — IS IT THE NEW HOMES THAT ARE SETTING THIS –>>NO, SIR.>>OR THE OLDER HOMES.>>THEY ARE IN FACT NEW HOMES, BUT LOOK AT HISTORICAL WRORDZ, THE ORIGINAL — RECORDS, THE 1950 HOMES WERE IN THAT SETBACK.>>THE HOME THAT IS — IF YOU PUT BACK THE PICTURE, THERE’S A LARGE TREE COVERING THAT RUN HOME TO — ONE HOME TO THE LEFT. BUT THAT’S AN OLD 1948 HOME. IT’S AT THE 34, 35 FEET.>>SO WHY WERE THOSE FOUR SETBACK THAT WAY?>>I CAN ANSWER THAT. I CAN ANSWER THAT. BECAUSE I’VE LIVED THERE FOR A LONG TIME AND I’VE BEEN FRIENDS WITH A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE LIVED THERE SINCE THOSE HOUSES WERE BUILT. I OWN 1617, 1619, AND 1621. THE BOTTOM I BOUGHT 6 — WOMAN I BOUGHT 1617 FROM BOUGHT IT IN 1948 AND SHE SAID ONE OF THE ORIGINAL IDEA THAT IS THE DEVELOPER HAD AT THAT TIME WAS TO PUT TWO HOUSES ON THOSE LOTS. BUT I GUESS WHOEVER WAS IN CHARGE AT THAT POINT SAID NO. IN 1948. SO — THAT WAS OF COURSE WHAT SHE TOLD ME. I DON’T — I NEVER CHECKED THAT INFORMATION.>>IT WAS BILL HERBERT. HE’S BEEN HERE QUITE A WHILE, MR. VICE CHAIR. [LAUGHTER]>>AND SINCE HE HAD ANOTHER APPOINTMENT, CAN’T DEFEND HIMSELF. [LAUGHTER]>>OKAY. AND I REALLY DON’T — THE OTHER — THERE’S NOT OPPOSITION, WHICH IS IMPORTANT I THINK IN A — ESPECIALLY IN A CONTEXTUAL LOAFER YAY SITUATION, BECAUSE IT’S USUALLY — OVERLAY SITUATION, BECAUSE IT’S USUALLY THE NOBODIES THAT WOULD HAVE THE BIGGEST IMPACT ON THAT. TELL ME WHAT I GUESS — WHAT — IN WHATEVER YOU ARE WANTING TO BUILD, I GUESS THE NEW HOME WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE CONTEXTUAL LOAFER YAY IN TERMS OF DESIGN?>>YES –>>SETBACKS, ELSE. — SETBACKS, ET CETERA.>>ARE THERE ANY PENTAGON ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE TO ADD — ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE TO ADD –>>I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION. ON THAT — WHERE WE SAW HOWEVER MANY WAS ON THAT STREET, THAT ONE — THAT’S THE PICTURE. I ASSUME THERE’S PINK — THIS PINK IS YOUR LOT THAT YOU WANT TO BUILD ON.>>YES, MA’AM.>>AND YOU’RE ASKING THAT THAT ONE BE MOVED FORWARD, EVEN THOUGH ONE ON EACH SIDE IS BACK FARTHER. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. I KNOW YOU CARE ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THERE THAT LOOK RIGHT OR IS THAT GOING TO MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOK WEIRD ALONG THAT SECTION IF YOU MOVE YOURS UP — OR BACK YARDS THAN THEIRS ARE?>>I’M GOING TO ANSWER PART OF THAT. I’M GOING TO LET ROBERT ANSWER THE OTHER PART. THE HOUSE TO THE LEFT, 1617, I HAVE PLANS TO EVENTUALLY KNOCK THAT HOUSE DOWN.>>OH, THAT’S –>>AND BUILD THAT HOUSE ALSO. THE REASON — I AM A ONE-MAN. I’M NOT A DEVELOPER. SO I HAVE TO DO — AND I HAVE A WIFE AND CHILDREN. SO OBVIOUSLY, THE SINGLE — OUR OWN HOME COMES FIRST. I COULD KNOCK BOTH OF THEM DOWN, BECAUSE I HAVE TENANTS AND THEY’RE WONDERFUL PEOPLE AND THERE’S NO REASON TO KNOCK A HOUSE DOWN IF I DON’T NEED TO. THE HOUSE DOES NOT HAVE CENTRAL HEAT. I’M TALKING ABOUT THE ONE TO THE LEFT. IT DOESN’T HAVE CENTRAL HEAT AND AIR SO I WILL EVENTUALLY KNOCK THAT HOUSE AND BUILD THAT HOUSE. THAT COULD BE TWO, THREE YEARS, I’LL BE HONEST. AND THEN AS TO THE CHARACTER OF THE STREET, I WANT TO GET ROBERT COMMENT ON THAT.>>GEORGIA. I THINK — YEAH. I THINK — ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU KNOW, THE ONE TO THE LEFT WILL ULTIMATELY — HE DOES HAVE CONTROL OF THAT AND WILL BE BROUGHT FORWARD. I THINK OVERALL IT’S A — IT’S A STEP CONTRIBUTING TO THE OVERALL RHYTHM OF THE STREET AND THE SETBACK THAT’S BEEN ALREADY ESTABLISHED.>>IS THE LOT NOW VACANT?>>NO. NO. NO. THERE — THERE ARE TENANTS LIVING IN THAT HOUSE. 1619 — YEAH, IT’S NOT VACANT. YOU SAW THE PHOTOS. I THINK JOHN MICHAEL WAS OUT THERE YESTERDAY. HE TOOK THOSE PHOTOS. [LAUGHTER]>>SO YOU’RE GOING TO TEAR THAT DOWN AND BUILD ANOTHER HOUSE?>>YEAH. 1619. I’M GOING TO TEAR THAT DOWN AND BUILD OUR OWN — MY PERSONAL HOME.>>YOU’RE NOT PLANNING TO BUILD ANOTHER ON THE SAME PROPERTY?>>I’M SORRY, WHAT –>>YOU’RE NOT PLANNING TO BUILD ANOTHER HOUSE ON THAT SAME PLOT? THAT’SIA YOU WANT TO MOVE — THAT’S WHY YOU WANT TO MOVE IT FORWARD?>>IRE JUST BUILDING A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON 1619.>>YES, SIR.>>ONE HOUSE ONLY. YOU’RE PLANNING TO BUILD.>>YES, SIR, ONE HOUSE OLD ONLY. I THINK THAT’S THE –>>THIS IS UNDER R7, SO WE’RE LIMITED TO A SINGLE HOUSE.>>ANY MORE QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING MORE THAT YOU’D LIKE TO ADD?>>NO, SIR.>>OKAY. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND HAVE A DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS?>>I THINK WHAT THEY’RE PROPOSING IS KEEPING WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND FOR FROM WHAT WE’VE HEARD ABOUT THE CONTEXTUAL SEATBACK IS THAT’S THE INTENTION OF THE ORDINANCE. SO I DON’T — I THINK IT’S ACCEPTABLE.>>IS THERE A MOTION?>>SURE. UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE HAS COMMENTS FIRST.>>WELL, I’LL SECOND THAT MOTION.>>WE NEED AN ACTUAL MOTION. IF YOU DON’T MIND.>>OH, SURE, SORRY. I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR THE STREET SETBACK, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IT WILL RESULT IN THE HOUSE BECOMING MORE CONTEXTURAL WITH THE HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.>>I STILL SECOND THAT.>>ALL RIGHT. WE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES]>>ANY OPPOSED? IT PASSES 5-0.>>WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THE BUSINESS OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. OUR NEXT MEETING WILL TAKE PLACE ON JANUARY THE 19th AT 1:00 P.M. HERE IN THE SONNY WEST CONFERENCE ROOM.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *