►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustments Committee Meeting 121218
Description
Board of Adjustments Committee Meeting 121218
A
C
A
Yes,
I
need
a
motion
to
excuse
mr.
Felson
second,
a
motion.
The
second
excuse,
mr.
Martinez,
all
those
in
favor
aye
opposed
no
sugar.
Thank
you
very
much
at
this
point.
I'm
we'll
go
into
our
first
first
item
request
submitted
by
deanna
8,
that
is,
to
authorize
an
exception
to
the
literal
interpretation
of
laredo
land
development
code,
section
24,
77,
entitled
dimensional
standard
by
granting
a
variance
to
the
setback
requirements
on
lock
for
block
11
88
Eastern
Division
located
at
28
15
South
muggings
history.
Is
there
anybody
here
to
speak
on
behalf.
A
D
A
B
F
B
G
A
Every
other
questions
anybody
have
any
questions,
don't
think
we'd
address
this
pretty
much.
Last
last
time
it
was
just
a
matter
of
making
certain
that
the
drawings
were
reflecting
that
it
was
the
duplex
and
duplexes
are
loved,
but
still
the
setback
requirement
that
you're
requesting
is
pipe
from
20
feet
to
5
to
15.
Even
about
yes,
sir.
A
No
further
questions
I'll
ask
to
close
the
public
here
in
the
emotion.
Have
a
motion
to
close
the
public
hearing.
I
need
a
second
second
motions,
a
second
to
close
the
public
hearing
any
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
any
opposed
marek
motion
carries
all
right.
Gentlemen:
I
think
we've
all
ready
to
address
this
pretty
much.
G
A
Wouldn't
I
wouldn't
think
that
it
would
be
that
far
it
were
only
these
but
event
there
wasn't
even
the
setback.
You
were
quite
requesting
it
from
20
feet
to
15
feet
so
still
at
5
feet,
it's
only
5
feet,
the
other
15
or
so
would
still
be
there
and
I.
Don't
I,
wouldn't
imagine
a
15
foot
easement.
It
would
have
showed
it
here
on
your.
F
F
A
F
A
Motion
carries.
Thank
you,
sir.
Our
second
item
is
a
request
submitted
by
the
animal
RV
Vetta
to
authorize
an
exception.
The
literal
interpretation
Laredo
and
development
Code,
section
24
there
77
entitled
dimensional
standards
by
granting
of
variance
to
the
setback
requirements
on
lot.
Nine
block
9v
said
most
a
subdivision
located
to
1512
Wild
Rose
Lane.
Is
there
anybody
here
to
speak
on
behalf.
A
I
Pero
si
como
cuatro
meses
menos
una
multa,
yep
I
got
or
we
are
in
Corydon
si
dimittam
hey
stay
low,
he
supported
carousel
margin,
tengo
una
pequeña
bouquet,
but
it's
called
a
la
luna.
Whatever
our
league
in
adversity
for
Capriccio
me
las
piernas
man,
it
was
this
doctor,
really,
okay,
I,
admit
miss
atomic
war.
It
is
parasol
race.
A
B
A
A
B
B
I
I
I
A
F
F
A
F
A
Request
submitted
by
he's
been
on
just
authorized
an
exception
to
the
literal
interpretation,
Laurita
land
development
code,
section
24,
decks,
77,
entitled
dimensional
standards
by
granting
of
variants
of
the
setback,
requirement,
unlocked
29
block
8,
San
Ysidro
northeast
la
Cuesta,
subdivision
phase
2
located
at
5:37
those
annual
drive.
Is
there
anybody
here
to
speak
on
behalf
all
right,
sir
I
need
a
motion
open
a
public
hearing,
a
motion
and
a
second
second
to
open
the
public
hearing.
All
those
in
favor
any
opposed
motion
carries
go
ahead,
sir
good.
E
Afternoon,
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
whether
Luca
Castile
I'm
an
attorney
with
a
Fenian
Castillo
law,
firm
of
Laredo,
Texas
and
I'm
here,
representing
Berto
and
Landis,
and
his
wife
Amanda,
who
are
the
owners
of
537
at
Roma
in
the
San
Ysidro
subdivision
in
miss
mr.
Fernandez.
Just
a
new
background
on
him.
It
he's
a
29
year
old
man,
serviceman,
first-time
homebuyers,
just
to
set
a
little
background
on
this
matter.
E
What
and
I'll
tow
told
of
the
board
right
now
that
what
triggered
this
matter
for
us
to
come
before
the
board
again,
is
that
he
received
a
letter
on
October
3
2018,
saying
that
on
me
for
2017,
the
relative
on
Ramirez
/
krk
had
submitted
an
application
for
variance
on
the
same
537,
Altos
amo.
At
that
time,
he
enough
purchase
on
May
16
of.
E
Needless
to
say,
he
was
never
advised
of
a
problem
like
this,
never
advised
that
someone
else
had
gone
and
that's
for
a
variance
in
this
matter.
So
therefore,
on
June
14
2017,
the
hearing
was
held
by
this
board
and
the
matter
was
denied
the
variance
was
denied,
and
so
he
gets
his
letter
saying
you
need
to
comply,
or
else
we're
going
to
ask
for
injunctive
relief.
E
Basically,
my
contention
of
my
clients
contention
is
that
on
that,
at
the
time
that
the
board
heard
the
matter
neither
krk
nor
mr.
van
or
the
wand
Ramirez
had
authority
to
to
speak
on
his
behalf,
and
he
did
not
know
he
bought
the
property.
Doesn't
autumn
October
3
2018
when
he
gets
this
letter,
saying
your
violation
and
the
given
they'd,
given
that
the
order
boa
23
2017
denying
the
variance,
and
so
our
contention
is
that
that
is
a
void
void
order
in
the
sense
that
at
that
time
the
owner
was
mr.
and
mrs.
E
Fernandez
and
pursuant
to
the
rules
of
of
the
board,
there
is
no
authorization
after
they
will
attached
authorizing
anyone
else
to
come
in
and
as
for
the
variance.
So
at
that
time,
I
know
you
heard
the
matter
and
I
wasn't
I
I,
don't
know
what
exactly
was
presented,
but
all
all
I'm
saying
is
that
we
I
think
we
believe
we
have
the
right
to
a
rehearing
on
this
matter,
because
of
that
the.
A
B
I,
don't
have
the
file
on
me,
but
I'm
pretty
positive.
It
was
KR
key
because
they
apply
more
than
more
than
a
month
before
the
hearing
so
I'm
pretty
positive.
It
was
care
k
when
they
submitted
that
deed.
Now,
if
it
was
at
the
same
time
of
the
word,
that
transaction
was
happening,
that's
something
different.
A
Cassie
I
certainly
I.
Certainly,
you
know
agree
with
the
fact
that
it
has
to
be
the
owner
of
record
there.
Does
that
makes
the
request,
but
please
understand
that
we
cannot
move
forward
right
now
at
this
point,
with
a
request
or
with
anything
else,
until
we
consult
with
legal
staff
to
verify
you
know
for
once
and
for
good
who
was
the
owner
of
record
at
that
point,
was
it
KRK
if
it
was
care?
If
I
understand
what
you're
saying
but
you're
telling
me
one
thing,
I
need
I
need.
A
You
know
we
need
to
have
our
our
attorneys
look
into
it,
so
the
city
would
look
into
it
and
that
way
they
would
tell
us
really.
It
was
care
favor.
It
wasn't
carefully.
It
wasn't
clear
key
that
we
have
to
figure
out
what
action
we
take
because
really
the
owner
of
record.
If
it
was
somebody
else.
Yes,
if
that
happens,
that
the
owner
of
record
would
come
forward.
Yes,.
A
I
understand
it,
but
we're
not
going
to
pass
that
around
here.
We're
gonna
want
and
we
understand,
but
we're
gonna
want
the
attorney
look
at
you,
but
I
I
would
suggest
that
what
we
do
is
that
we
table
the
matter
until
such
time
that
we
get
something
in
writing
from
our
from
our
attorneys.
What
we
say,
look
it
was
incorrectly
done
with
krk
or
it
was
done
properly.
All
right,
I
think
is
everybody
agree.
F
On
that,
I
would
just
have
one
question
food
to
her
that,
if
does
the
ownership
matter,
if
the
issue
still
is
at
hand
because
ownership,
you
know
passed
on
it
to
me,
I
mean
we
still
got
an
issue
with
with
it
wearing
saw.
The
really
ownership
have
anything
to
do
with
with
outcome
of
the
the
order.
So
that
would
be,
and.
A
I
and
I
agree
that
it
may
not
change
the
outcome,
but
truth
be
told.
Is
that
the
one
that's
proper
to
make
the
application
has
to
be
the
other
and
then
other
property?
So
what
we'll
do
is
we'll
clarify
that
point
first,
once
we
clarify
that
point,
it
may
not
be.
It
may
not
change
the
outcome,
but
at
least
they're
entitled
to
the
proper
hearing
all
right,
sir.
Yes,
that
that
agreement.
G
G
J
A
You
representing
the
city
right
yeah,
so
would
you
would
you
take
this
matter
back
and
just
verify
who
exactly
and
so
that
way
you
can
communicate
to
the
board
here?
Who
was
the
owner
of
record
mr.
Carr
CEO
says
he
has
a
deed.
In
other
words,
all
we
need
to
do
is
have
something
in
writing
to
our
board
so
that
we
have,
you
know
we're
we're
given
the
proper
direction.
All
right,
I
appreciate
it.
Thank
you
and
so
I
haven't
a
motion
to
table
am
I.
Correct.
Yes,
I
have.
A
Table
to
this
matter
until
we
get
that
clarification,
all
those
in
favor,
any
opposed
motion
carries.
Thank
you
very
much,
sir.
What
we'll
do
is
I'm
sure,
we'll
get
that
you'll
be
next
month
and
what
weakened
me?
You
can
figure
out
what
to
do.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
sir
appreciate.
Thank
you
all
right.
Moving
on
to
the
next
one.
A
Last
one
request
submitted
by
Hickey
pena
architects
to
authorize
an
exception
to
the
literal
interpretation,
Lloyd
and
Development
Code,
section
24,
dot,
77
entitle
dimensional
standard
by
granting
of
variants
of
the
setback
requirements
of
the
east,
one
half
of
lot
to
block
87
Western
Division,
located
at
213,
Lincoln
Street
there.
Anybody
here
to
speak
on
behalf
there.
Yes,
you
are
I,
need
a
motion,
open
public
hearings,
motion
second
and
the
second
open,
a
public
hearing,
all
those
in
favor
any
opposed
motion
carries.
So
it
seems
to
me,
like
we
saw
you
not
long
ago.
B
J
J
Essentially,
these
people
are
getting
a
loan
from
to
demolish
the
house
and
rebuild
it
to
bring
it
up
to
code,
because
some
of
these
houses
are
in
pretty
bad
shape.
We
end
up
a
lot
of
the
times.
The
properties
that
we
have
are
a
lot
of
Records
they
just
there
are
really
small
pieces
of
property
we're
trying
to
do
the
best
that
we
can
so
for
this
particular
project.
The
projects-
okay
at
213,
Lincoln,
it's
in
the
Azteca
neighborhood.
We
are
we're
asking
for
a
variance.
J
The
the
land
development
code
maintains
that
you
need
a
minimum
30
foot
lot
width
for
the
to
be
considered
a
lot
of
record
a
lot
is
it
believed,
27
feet
wide,
so
the
variance
that
were
asking
for
us
to
allow
us
to
reduce
the
lot
with
minimum
requirement,
we're
still
going
to
meet
all
setbacks
on
the
sides
and
in
the
front
in
the
rear.
So
really
all
we're
asking
for
is
just
that
variance
for
the
lot
it.
J
G
J
F
J
A
H
H
H
A
A
second
to
approve
this
all
those
in
favor
aye
any
opposed
motion
carries.
Thank
you
very
much
for
what
you
do,
but
what
you
guys
do
on
this
thing,
I
mean
you
know
it
does
not
grow
almost
and
what
you
guys
do
on
this
is
it's
great.
We
certainly
appreciate
these
kind
of
things.
These
are
the
these
are
the
happy
ones
that
we
like
to
deal
with.