Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-03-28AGENDA CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS SPECIAL BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSr31ENTS MEETING THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1985 AT 7:30 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 413 MAIN STP= No � NOR-, 03-1-101-11 A. Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider waiving Section 69.L.Vested Rights, which reads as follows: "Any person, firm or corporation claiming a vested right to com-ence and complete a specific proposed development who does not file an application for a determination under this Section 69 within six (6) months of the effective date of an amendatory ordinance rezoning his property so as to prohibit his proposed development shall be deemed to have waived his right to seek such a determination." B. Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative to BZA 85-09 submitted by Mr. Fred Brodsky, and consideration of same. [f Zilfto u Board of Zoning AdjustaTent to consider the Minutes of the meeting of February 7, 1985. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17, V.A.T.C.S., AS MMMED BY C-2-1WIER, 227, ACTS OF THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, THE SPECIAL BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGENDA VMS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH AT 5 PM. Citj; Secretary The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Grapevine, Texas, met in a Special Session on Thursday, March 28, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at 413 Main Street, Grapevine, Texas, with the following persons present, to wit: Woug Lamb Glenn Deavers Gerald Thompson Ron Troy Bill Waldrip, Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Second Alternate Member Member constituting a quorum, with no absences, and the following City Staff, to wit: H.T. (Tamy) Hardy Joy Carroll Sue Martinez Marlin Smith Adrienne Leonard David Chance Director of Community Development Administrative Assistant Secretary City's Legal Consultant Attorney with City Attorney's Office Certified Shorthand Reporter Chairman Lamb called the meeting to order at approximately 7:40 P.M. and explained the purposes and procedures thereof. wmvwe) • Chairman Lamb then issued the Oath of Truth to those in attendance who expressed a wish to speak relative to the evening's agenda. The Oath of Truth was then issued to Arthur J. Anderson, Representative for Mr. Fred Brodsky and Sharron Spencer, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. NEW BUSINESS The Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider waiving Section 69.L.Vested Rights, relative to BZA Case No. 85-09, submitted by Mr. Fred Brodsky. Discussion commenced with Mr. Tommy Hardy, Director of Community Development, stating that the waiving of this section will be done on a case by case basis. At this point, a member of the Board of Zoning Adjustment requested some further discussion as to why within a six (6) month period, this section was not waived. Mr. Arthur Anderson spoke, stating that Mr. Brodsky was unaware of this Section 69.L.Vested Rights, until one (1) month after his six (6) month period had lapsed. it was noted by a member of the City Staff, that the rezoning of the subject property from (I-1), Light Industrial District to (HCO), Hotel Corporate office, was passed on June 7, 1984. It was confirmed that Mr. Brodsky had been in contact with the City throughout this particular time period. A comment was made by Board of Zoning Adjustment member, relative to the granting of this waiver possibly setting a precedent for other cases in the city., At this point in the discussion, Mr. Marlin Smith, the City's Legal Consultant, made comments to the Board members relative to the subject case stating, that the Board of Zoning Adjustment should make their ration on Section 69.L.Vested Rights to take request with waiver of this section with the case; then he suggested the motion to be to postpone to a date certain. BZA Minutes March 28, 19 • Page 2 Board of Zoning Adjustment members discussed that they want to hear evidence of the facts. Mr. Smith discussed with the Board menbers that there could be a two-part hearing and that decisions could be made as tw# separate items. Following the discussions, Board of Zoning Adjustment member, Gerald Thompson, made a motion to have waiver on Section 69.L.Vested Rights for BZA Case No. 85-09 postponed to the Regular scheduled meeting of the BZA on May 2, 1985 and the motion was seconded by Bill Waldrip, which prevailed the following vote: Ayes: Lamb, Thompson, Deavers, Troy, Waldrip and Tischler Nays: None A preliminary Master Plan and Analysis and a letter, submitted as "Exhibits", were presented to the Board of Zoning Adjustment by Mr. Fred Brodsky. Then, following a brief discussion amongst the Board members, a motion was rendered by Ron Troy to accept continuance of the case and to table to the Board of Zoning Adjustment meeting scheduled for May 28, 1985 at 7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 413 Main Street, Grapevine, Texas, and the motion was seconded • Vice-Chairrnan Deavers, which prevailed the following vote: Ayes: Lamb, Thompson, Deavers, Troy, Waldrip and Tischler Nays: None Ayes: Lamb, Deavers, Troy, Waldrip and Tischler Nays: None Abstain: Thompson robellelligggla There being no further business to be considered by the Board, a motion was made • Vice-Chairman Deavers to adjourn the meting at approximately 8:25 P.M. and Gerald Thcopson seconded the motion, which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Lamb, Thompson, Deavers, Troy, Waldrip and Tischler Nays: None PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE B!' RDCF ZONING ADJUSTMENT • THE CITY • GRAPEVINE, TE)�AS, ON THIS THE DAY OF 1985. L Chai ATTEST: Secretaly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS of the BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT of the CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS at the COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 413 MAIN STREET GRAPEVINE, TEXAS MARCH 28, 1985 - 7:30 p.m. In re: CLAIM OF VESTED RIGHTS by MR. FREDERICK BRODSKY R11 DAVID CHANCE - CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER 618 COPPER RIDGE - RICHARDSON, TEXAS 75080 214-234-0110 or 231-9723 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 P R E S E N T Board of Zoning Adjustment: Mr. Doug Lamb, Chairman Mr. Glenn Deavers Mr. Gerald Thompson Mr. Gary Tischler Mr. Ron Troy Mr. Bill Waldrip City Staff: Ms. Joy Carroll, Planning and Zoning Administrator Mr. Tommy Hardy, Director of Community Development Ms. Adrienne Leonard, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Marlon. Smith, Consultant to the City Mr. Arthur Anderson Geary, Stahl & Spencer Counsel to the Applicant Mr. Fred Brodsky, Applicant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LAMB: I would like to call to order this special meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustments on Thursday, March 28, 1985 in the council. chambers at 413 Main Street. For all of those who are here to speak either for or against any of the business of the Board tonight I will request that you rise and let us know who you are and then we will swear you in. MR. ANDERSON: My name is Art Anderson with Geary, Stahl & Spencer. I represent the Applicant, Fred Brodsky. (witness sworn.) MR. LAMB: under new business, Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider. waiving Section 69-L, vested rights, which reads as follows: Any person, firm or corporation claiming a vested right to commence and complete a specific proposed development who does not file an application for a determination under this Section 69 within six months of the effective date of an amendatory ordinance rezoning his property so as to prohibit his proposed development shall be deemed to have waived his right to seek such a determination. Is there any discussion with regards to this? MR. HARDY: It was felt like we needed to put 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is is 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I this on the agenda for you all to take action. This was a requirement set out in Section 69 and we have spoken to the attorneys and they feel like you have a right to waive this section and hear this case. MR. LAMB: Is this waiver meant to be for this specific case and only this case, or -- MR. HARDY: -- or, any case that might. request i t . MR. LAMB: In other words, we would do this on a case-by-case basis, is that right? MR. HARDY: If it is past the six months, yes. It was in December. MS. CARROLL: December 6th or 7t.h. MR. LAMB: Any questions from any members of the Board? MR. DEAVERS: If we waive this it would be forever, right? MR. HARDY: Just for this case. MR. LAMB: I will consider a. motion to waive this section. MR. WALDRIP: I would like a little further discussion. I would also like to hear any input from the Applicant's attorney as to why that within the six month period they did not get the applica- tion filed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is is 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LAMB: Sir? MR. ANDERSON: You want me to take the podium? MR. LAMB: It's not necessary. We can hear you pretty well. MR. ANDERSON: We were hired by Mr. Brodsky recently, approximately a month or six weeks ago, and from my conversations with him it is my understanding that he was unaware of the Section 69 six month requirement, and therefore when he did find out about it he filed his application as soon as he could. It was approximately a month late, from what I understand. The zoning ordinance was enacted the first month of July and he filed the first week of February. So, it was approximately about a week, I mean, about a month after the six month time period elapsed. That is the only justification I can give you. MR. WALDRIP: Tommy, did you come up with a date? MR. HARDY: It was the first part. of December. MR. WALDRIP: When the application was filed? MR. HARDY: Oh, when the application was filed, no. It was February 6th. MR. ANDERSON: It's my understanding that the ordinance was July 7th, when the ordinance was 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 passed. MS. CARROLL: June 7th. MR. ANDERSON: Oh, June 7th. So, I stand corrected. It would be approximately two months then. Also, I would like to point out that there were negotiations going on for a period of time trying to either revise the current HCO ordinance that was imposed upon the property or to devise a new set of standards or a new ordinance, and that process was going on. We were not involved in that, but it is my understanding, and Tommy may be able to elaborate, but that process was going on during the fall. I'm not saying that that means that the six month period doesn't apply, but there is some consideration in there, I think. MR. LAMB: Tommy, can you shed any light on that? MR. HARDY: As Mr. Anderson was saying, there was some ongoing work on changing of the various ordinances. None of those changes had gone into effect and we hadn't even had public hearings on some of the changes to the HCO district. As far as impacting his property, I don't know that they are going to do that much. The basic 'changes are in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Sharon, can you -- the HCO changes, I can't remember right off the top of my head what they all are, some of the principal differences. MR. LAMB: Excuse me, I think we better regress and swear Sharon in. (Witness sworn.) MR. HARDY: The HCO uses, there is not anything that I can recall as far as regulations in the district, is that correct? MS. SPENCER: That is my recollection as well. MR. HARDY: None of the height restrictions have changed, have they? MS. SPENCER: Not at all, nor do I anticipate that they would. MR. HARDY: Mr. Brodsky did submit some proposed changes to our planner and our planner did not recommend that we do what he proposed and I don't think that the P&Z accepted the changes he proposed either. MR. DEAVERS: But the statement that he was negotiating during that period of time is true? MR. HARDY: Yes, sir, I would say. MR. WALDRIP: He did have contact with the city during this period of time? MR. HARDY: Yes, sir. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LAMB: Any other questions? Thank you, Sharon. MR. TISCHLER: I'm curious to know why this six month period wasn't brought up at the negotia- tions with the City. MR. HARDY: Well, we never knew that he was going to file under the vested rights. It was never brought up. I didn't even know he was going to consider that until he brought in the application. I think it was just an avenue of appeal as everything else had failed so far. MR. LAMB: Any other questions or comments for Mr. Anderson? MR. WALDRIP: I think what we have to keep in mind here is that we have a situtaion where it is my understanding that it was the council's intention in putting this vested rights section in the ordinance was to allow a provision for people who were in the process of doing a development who got caught in the moratorium who would have an avenue of appeal, you know, for a specific case that was going on. I think a waiver of this section could be a precedent that could allow us to open up a lot of other reviewing of a lot of other decisions made as a part of the master plan. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I I see this as very hard if we are going to grant, you know, one exception to the six month requirement as to why we are not going to grant another one. Apparently, the City didn't. delay him in any way, as far as filing the application. I can't see where there was any hardship created that prevented him from doing this. I think that that six month period was enacted for a very special reason. That wasn't something that was real random as far as the way it was come up with. MR. ANDERSON: Could I speak to that, Mr. Chairman? MR. LAMB: Sure. MR. ANDERSON: I think Mr. Waldr.ip has a very valid concern, that is, that you don't. want people just to wait and wait and wait and then try to get. in under the old ordinance. I think that in this case it is a little bit different. We were not retained by Mr. Brodsky last summer when they went through the process of rezoning the property. It is my understanding that at the council meeting there were representations made and requests made that the Applicant and the city staff get together to see if there might be a. way to work out a compromise to work on a different 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ordinance. That process has taken place all the way up to approximately three weeks ago with Mr. Wiles when he drafted his memorandum critiquing, or making comments, upon the revisions that Mr. Brodsky had suggested at that point. So, in that. case, I think we have a little bit different twist in terms that the Applicant has been trying to work with the City through this and that has just not worked up to this point, trying to make an alterna- tive route. In addition, I think that the deviation from the timetable is fairly short, in terms of being a two month time period, and I think also that the Board of Adjustment, as you very well know, decides each case on its own merits and it is not, you know, one case is not a precedent for another one. MR. LAMB: Marlon, do you have any comments in this area based upon your recollection of the negotiations? MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have some comments, or some counsel, not so much based upon any recollection that I have from discussions that were had with Mr. Brodsky and his agents. First of all, and as I suspect all the members of the Board know, everyone is charged with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 M knowledge of the law and the ordinances and it is not a defense to say that you did not know the law. That is a bit strict and perhaps a bit technical under these circumstances, but that is the legal principle that is involved here. Secondly, if I may sound like a lawyer for a moment, what you have before you this evening in the way of representa- tions from Mr. Anderson, while he undoubtably makes them in good faith, would not be received as evidence in a court of law because they are his impressions of what his client believes or what might have been said to his client. That suggests to me the possibility of a sort of halfway house here. There may indeed be circumstances that would make it equitable for this Board to decide that in this instance that the facts and circumstances merit waiving that six month requirement, but it does seem to me, that for you to do that that you would need better and more persuasive evidence than that which you have before you this evening, and one thing that you could do is to take this request with the case and after you had heard all of the evidence, and in light of that evidence and in light of what the principals themselves say 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 that they believe and said, you could make your decision then as to whether or not it is equitable to waive the requirement in this particular instance, MR. DEAVERS: It isn't. imperative then that. we act on waiving this section then at this time? MR. SMITH: In my opinion, it is not, particu- larly in light of the fact that you have a written request for a continuance in front of you. MR. LAMB: okay, in this case a motion to table this particular section to a future day would be appropriate I'm going to -- I'm asking more than -- would it be appropriate to table this piece of business until. later? MR. SMITH: My suggestion would. be, Mr. Chairman, if I may be so bold, would be that the motion to take the request for this waiver of this section with the case. MR. LAMB: Okay. Are there any questions from the Board members? MR. TISCHLER: Tommy, looking ahead on the April 4th agenda, you've got it on the agenda again. MR. HARDY: I'm sorry, I don't have that agenda. MR. LAMB: I observed that too, and I have a 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 similar question. MS. CARROLL: That is a worksheet agenda, but I wanted to get the subject matter to them, just in case we do -- MR. LAMB: Yes, that's fine. MS. CARROLL: -- for the decision of the Board. MR. LAMB: Bill, do you want -- MR. WALDRIP: I think I have another question for Marlon. Is it possible for us just to table the waiving of this requirement until a later date so that we can hear whatever evidence they have to provide as to, you know, why the six month period, you know, the application was not submitted within the six months period? MR. SMITH: That really comes to the same thing. My suggestion would be that if you want to do that let the motion be to postpone considera- tion of this issue to a date certain, that date certain being contingent upon what you do with respect to this continuance. The only reason I suggest that you do that is that a motion to table is not debatable and a motion to postpone to a date certain is. MR. TROY: Does that mean that we would hear the case and then decide upon the motion to waive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 the -- MR. SMITH: That is correct, and one of the things that you will be looking for evidence on in the course of the case are those circumstances which the Applicant thinks that makes it applicable to waive the requirement in this instance. MR. LAMB: That would be part of the evidence? MR. SMITH: That would be part of the evidence. Really, what I'm saying, gentlemen, if there are equitable circumstances here you have a right to hear it from the person that was directly involved. MR. LAMB: I have one more question, Marlon. You said, to a date certain. Does that require us to provide a date certain at this point in time for all these circumstances? We haven't moved forward into the continuance or anything. MR. SMITH: I know. MR. HARDY: It will have to be a date certain. MR. SMITH: It gets a little complicated, because you have this other question before you as to whether or not you will continue, the request for a continuance. That is why I suggested that you take the request and consider it with the case, because then it will go right along with whatever you do with the case. That is why I made 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 the suggestion in that form originally. I suggested that you entertain a motion to take the request for a waiver and consider it with the case and then it will ride right with it. MR. LAMB: Well, somebody? I direct the question to you because you raised the question in the first place. MR. WALDRIP: It's questioning the merits of the whole case before you decide on the first part of it. MR. LAMB: He has pointed out, I think properly that we are hearing circumstances that need to be determined in fact. MR. WALDRIP: I agree. MR. LAMB: Personally, I would like to hear the facts rather than dismiss it offhand, a way of saying that, rather than dismiss offhand I would rather hear the evidence and determine what the facts and circumstances are as opposed to saying, you know, it's not there by reason of the wording of the ordinance. So, I personally would like to see the circumstances as Marlon has described by taking the request with the case. At anytime during the proceedings of the case, if I understand the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 procedures correctly, if we determine that there is not sufficient evidence or circumstances we can call it off right at that time. That's my understanding of the procedures, because if at any point in time we determine that the waiver is not in the best interest of the proceedings we can call it off. Do I have the -- MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman? MR. LAMB: Yes. MR. SMITH: I think that the sense of what I was suggesting to you was that you would hear all of the evidence and then you would decide both questions at the same time, the waiver, and the request for the vested rights determination. I would not advise -- MR. LAMB: Then I misunderstood. MR. SMITH: I would not advise that you say, I've heard enough and we're going to stop this right here. MR. LAMB: In that case, I would still like to hear the evidence. MR. TROY: Hearing the evidence would indicate the merits of either granting or denying the waiver. MR. LAMB: Yes, hear it all. MR. TISCHLER: How long do we let this thing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 drag out, is the question? MR. WALDRIP: I'm still not convinced that the two things aren't something totally separate and that one doesn't have any effect on the other. MR. THOMPSON: These changes are new and everybody hasn't become familiar with them yet. I think that the guy has a right to present his case. MR. WALDRIP: I do too, but I would, you know, like to hear why during the six month period if he was having discussions with the City what was going on during that time. Like you said, hear the evidence and hear what the situation was. I'm not so sure that that relates to the second part, you know. MR. LAMB: That's very possible. I don't think we're going to have an opportunity, based on who is present at this point. MR. WALDRIP: I know that's not tonight, I agree. MR. THOMPSON: We could still grant the waiver and ask that the evidence be presented at the first of the next hearing. MR. WALDRIP: Yes. MR. LAMB: No, we're going to hear all the 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 evidence, as I understand it. MR. THOMPSON: Only if that is our decision. MR. WALDRIP: That was my question to Marlon, did we have to incorporate both of them. MR. DEAVERS: We table this and hear the real evidence MR. LAMB: With regard to this particular subject? MR. DEAVERS: Yes. MR. LAMB: And then come back at a later date if it was determined that sufficient evidence -- MR. DEAVERS: To grant the waiver. MR. LAMB: -- to grant the waiver. Comments, sir? MR. SMITH: I think you could do that too if you were to separate it out and say that you are going to hold a two-part hearing. The first part of the hearing would be whether it is applicable to waive the requirement and the second part would be directed to the merits and the Applicant is going to have to sort those questions out and persuade you on the first part before you go on to the second question. That would be another alterna- tive for you. MR. LAMB: What would be a reasonable length 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 of time, in your opinion, for this if we tabled this by motion to the next meeting? What would be a reasonable length of time to sort these kinds of circumstances out? MR. SMITH: There is no way that I can respond to that one, Mr. Chairman. I don't know. MR. THOMPSON: I don't think next week, which would be our next meeting. MR. LAMB: No. MR. THOMPSON: I think that thirty days from that meeting would be sufficient for them to present their case and it would give us another thirty days before the case would be heard, if we gave them sixty days. MR. LAMB: That would be sixty days on the case and thirty days as they have requested. Okay, I will accept a motion in this regard, either to take the waiver with the case or to table the waiver until a date certain, approximately thirty days from tonight, thirty days plus. MR. DEAVERS: That would be the regular meeting in May. MR. LAMB: The regular meeting in May, I think that that would give them more than enough time. Does that pose any problem for you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 MR. WALDRIP: What is the date? MR. HARDY: Second of May. MR. ANDERSON: As far as I know right now, no. I can check with Joe and Kirk in the morning. MR. LAMB: Do I have a motion? MR. THOMPSON: I move that the waiver for BZA 85-09 be submitted and considered at the stated meeting in May. MR. LAMB: I have a motion. MR. WALDRIP: I second. MR. TISCHLER: Postpone, right? MR. LAMB: Discussion? The motion is to table this until -- MR. TISCHLER: Table or postpone? MR. WALDRIP: Just a postponement. MR. LAMB: Postpone until the first regular meeting of May, which I believe will be May 2nd. MR. HARDY: Yes. MR. LAMB: I have a. motion and a second. All in favor of the motion raise your right. hand. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries unanimously. First regularly scheduled meeting in May. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. LAMB: In light of the fact that we do not have a -- yes, ma'am? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. CARROLL: You still have the request for continuance before you. MR. DEAVERS: He was getting to that, I think. MR. LAMB: I was just moving on to Section B. Has everyone seen the letter? Would you like to review the letter, the facts of the letter, or should we just -- MR. ANDERSON: If you have any questions I would be glad to answer them. I would like to introduce it for the record also, if it hasn't. already been. MR. LAMB: That was my next question. (Applicant's Exhibit 1 marked.) MR. LAMB: We have also received a. rather massive set of documents that I would like to enter into the record at this time, PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN AND SITE ANALYSIS. (Applicant's Exhibit 2 marked.) MR. TROY: These were marked as a draft. Are there no changes? MR. LAMB: I mean, is this it.? MR. ANDERSON: We had not gone to the actual build -out phase, so -- MR. LAMB: That's why it's a draft. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 (It was agreed that Exhibit AP -2 would be retained by the Board and not attached to this record.) MR. LAMB: All right, Board of Zoning Adjustment to conduct a public hearing relative to BZA 85-09 submitted by Mr. Fred Brodsky and consideration of same. We have a letter requesting a continuance. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Anderson as regards this letter and a request for continuance? The time requested here is for sixty days. We are not going to see a request for another continuanc are we? MR. ANDERSON: No, sir. MR. LAMB: Thank you. MR. DEAVERS: That would be about the June meeting? MR. LAMB: The regularly scheduled June meeting. Now, I'll ask a question of staff, the city staff. Is that an appropriate time? MR. HARDY: No. MR. LAMB: We should make it a special meeting? MR. HARDY: Yes. MR. WALDRIP: I would like to hear Marlon's suggestion as to whether this should be a particular date or -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SMITH: The motion is directed to the discretion of the Board. I think that one of the things that you can take into consideration is, in acting on. that motion, is the fact that the application does not seem to have generated a lot of citizen interest so that you can't really say that. people who seem to be interested in this this evening, in this proceeding, are being deprived of the opportunity of having it heard tonight. That is something you can certainly consider. As to whether, if you grant the continuance, whether it should be at a regular or special meeting, it seems to me that it is reasonable to anticipate that the proofs and support of this application may be reasonably lengthy and I would think that you might want to set a.sid.e a meeting for this purpose alone. MR. THOMPSON: If we're going to consider the waiver on Section 69 and it might be appropriate to wait and see if our decision on that at the special meeting and then set it. MR. SMITH: If you should decide, Mr. Chairman, that the waiver should not be granted it would make the second proceeding moot and it simply wouldn't. go 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 forward. MR. LAMB: But we can set a date? MR. SMITH: I think that in fairness to the Applicant you should set a date. MR. LAMB: Set a date, and then if it does it does and if it doesn't it doesn't, okay. MR. HARDY: June 6th is the regularly scheduled meeting. Possibly the week after that, which would be June 13th. MR. LAMB: I'm going to be out of town on the 20th. Does anyone else have any -- MR. TISCHLER: I will be out of town. MR. LAMB: Does anybody else have any -- MR. HARDY: There is May 30th. MR. LAMB: Okay, we can go the other direction and make it May 30th. MR. DEAVERS: That is nine weeks. That's more than sixty days. MR. LAMB: Does it always have to be on Thursday nights, guys? MR. HARDY: It doesn't have to be Thursday. MR. LAMB: The first and third Tuesday are council meetings. MR. HARDY: Monday nights would be fine. MR. LAMB: May I suggest Monday night the 27th? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 MR. S14ITH: That is a national holiday. MR. LAMB: This thina doesn't have all of those little red things. MR. HARDY: May 20th? MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, since I anticipate that you may want me here, let me tell you what my schedule is. I have a trial scheduled to start in Chicago on May 20th and I have three days blocked out, and the following two days of that week are devoted to another committment. There is a possibility that that trial will not go forward. If it is continued it is very unlikely that it would be continued for a shorter period than one week. If we start getting over two or three weeks from that trial it is likely that I would have a conflict, if the trial gets kicked over. So, from my schedule, about the safest date in that schedule would be about May 30th. MR. LAMB: Okay. MR. WALDRIP: We have two conflicts that date. MR. SMITH: Or, May 29th. MR. HARDY: Keep in mind that we will have two new members by that time, but Mr. Deavers will be out by that time. MR. LAMB: Who has a problem with the 30th, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 other than me? MR. TROY: The 28th of May is a Tuesday. MR. LAMB: Is Tuesday okay? MR. SMITH: No problem for me. That is a reasonably safe date for me. MR. LAMB: I will offer the 28th, okay? MR. HARDY: That is the day after Memorial Day. MR. LAMB: So, get back. Mr. Anderson, is the 28th any difficulty? MR. ANDERSON: Speaking for myself, it's fine, but I would like to see if I may, if it's all right with the Board, I would like to check with the other members of my firm and Mr. Brodsky in the morning and get back and make sure. MR. LAMB: We'll shoot for the 28th and then if there is a problem we can make some adjustments, but we will shoot for the 28th. Now, who is going to make a motion for that, anybody? I will accept a motion. MR. HARDY: I think we need for the attorneys to clarify this. If we table this to a date certain, the 28th, are we not going to have to have that the 28th or are we going to have to reschedule another public hearing, because this is a public hearing, and you have to table that to a date certain? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 MR. SMITH: That is what you are doing. MR. WALDRIP: But he was saying that he had other people to check with. MR. LAMB: That's fine, but we're going on the 28th. MS. CARROLL: We need to set a time. MR. LAMB: A time, yes. All right, is 7:30 a good time? Okay, I'll accept a motion to set this continuance to the day of Tuesday on May 28th at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers here at. 413 Main. Do I have a motion? MR. TROY: So moved. MR. LAMB: Do I have a second? MR. DEAVERS: Second. MR. LAMB: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion raise your right hand. All opposed the same sign. Motion is carried unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. MS. LEONARD: Mr. Anderson, for the record, do you have any objection to Exhibit AP -2 being retained at the City? MR. ANDERSON: No objection. MR. TROY: Does that include the application that we received as a part of this request? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 MR. LAMB: That was a part of the original application, that is a part of the request. There being no further agenda or any miscellaneous reports this evening -- MR. HARDY: None. (Whereupon, the hearing in regards to BZA 85-09 ended on this date to be resumed on May 28, 1985.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF TEXAS X X COUNTY OF TARRANT X This is to certify that I, David Chance, reported in shorthand the proceedings had at the time and place set forth in the caption hereof, and that the above and foregoing 28 pages contain a full, true and correct transcript of said proceedings. Given under my hand and seal of office on this the day of w A.D., 1985. David Chance, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas, #1006.