►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustment Commission Meeting 030823
Description
Board of Adjustment Commission Meeting 030823
C
A
A
Unfair
hi
hi
hi
all
right.
Well
then,
let's
move
on
okay,
so
we
today
we
have
one
one
request:
that's
filed
by
Felipe
Ramirez
and
that
request
is
to
authorize
an
exception
to
the
literal
interpretation
of
Land
Development
code,
section
24.77.1
dimensional
standard
by
granting
a
variance
to
the
R3
zoning
District
lot
with
lot
depth
and
property
area
square
footage
on
the
East
18.52
feet
of
Lot
4
in
the
west
18.52
feet
of
lot.
E
F
Thank
you
for
the
record,
the
owner.
Basically,
that
is
applicant
underrepresentative.
The
property
description
is
the
East
18.52
feet
of
Lot
4
and
the
West
18.52
feet
of
lot.
Five
block
79
Western
tuition
located
at
104,
Saragosa
Street,
District
8..
The
request
is
a
variance
from
the
dimensional
standards,
as
required
by
the
Laredo
non-development
quotation.
F
The
purple
site
plan
on
January
3rd
of
2023,
the
building
department
denied
the
applicant
the
building
permit
on
the
East
18.52
feet
of
not
four
and
west
of
18.52
feet
of
lot.
5
Lux
79
Western
Division,
located
at
104
Zaragoza
Street
for
a
construction
of
single
family,
doing
due
to
the
property
now
being
planted
and
for
not
meeting
dimensional
standards
of
an
R3
zoning
District
serving.
F
Staff
recommendation
staff
does
not
support
the
proposed
variances
for
the
following
reasons:
the
proposed
property
May
apply
for
a
zone
change
to
an
r1b,
as
the
zone
change
will
preserve
the
reasonable
use
of
land,
the
property,
the
property.
The
proposed
property
meets
the
dimensional
standards
for
an
r1b
zoning
district.
For
the
following
reasons:
the
minimum
property
width
of
an
r1b
zoning
district
is
35
feet.
F
The
composed
property
has
a
width
of
37.04
feet,
the
minimum
property,
not
depth
of
an
r1b
zoning
district
is
85
feet
and
the
closed
property
has
a
lot
depth
of
111.11
feet.
The
minimum
property
lot
area
square
footage
of
an
r1b
Sony
district
is
3014..
The
property
holds,
has
a
property
law
area
of
a
square
footage
of
41
156
square
feet.
The
proposed
property
is
approximately
41
15.56
square
feet
and
shows
no
topographical
features
like
extreme
silk
or
unconventional
shape.
That
would
be
considered
peculiar
or
unusual.
G
G
G
E
If
you're
aware,
whenever
we,
we
have
cases
that
come
to
us,
we
try
to
solve
them
before
we
come
here
in
talking
to
the
the
applicant.
We
have
the
potential
to
take
care
of
this.
We
we
have
an
ordinance
that's
coming
through
for
our
1B
in
the
eastern
western
division
to
to
actually
allow
it,
because
currently
the
ordinance
it
has
to
be
a
new
development
right.
E
So
this
ordinance
has
already
gone
to
council
for
the
for
its
first
reading.
It
passed
it's
going
for
the
second
reading,
so
it'll
go
to
effect.
So
then
we
would
be
a
lot.
We
would
be
able
to
take
these
smaller
lots
and
zone
change
them
into
the
r1b
to
get
them
to
where
they
want
to
go
to
build
okay,
but,
as
you
stated
in
your
question,
is
that
today
no,
it's
not
it'll,
be
on
the
March
20th
city
council,
meeting,
okay,.
E
Is
and
there's
no
alternative
to
build
anything
else,
and
that's
why
that's?
Why
he's
here
today?
Okay,
that's
why
he
applied,
he
was
denied
which,
by
by
getting
a
denial,
makes
this
right.
So
it's
able
to
come
to
you
at
Board
of
adjustments.
We
just
wanted
to
put
out
there
because
we
we
are
seeing
this
a
lot
more
in
the
older
neighborhoods,
that
we
have
illegally
subdivided
properties
and-
and
it
makes
life
difficult.
So
we
are,
we
do
have
a
new
ordinance
coming
in
that
hopefully
can
help
with
that.
A
A
H
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
members
of
the
board.
My
name
is
Victor
nadis,
with
Savvy
engineering
I'm
here
representing
the
owner
to
transfer
just
your
question
pretty
much
when
they
buy
the
property
they
do
buy.
He
pretty
much
and
they're
buying
a
truck,
and
the
track
is
pretty
much
a
portion
of
lot
of
one
lot
and
portion
of
another
lot.
Yes,
yes,.
H
Yes,
pretty
much
one
of
the
drawbacks
about
about
this
track.
Is
it's
illegally
subdivided?
And
so
that's
one
of
the
portions
where
it
has
to
go
to
get
padded
in
itself
to
correct
pretty
much
this
pretty
much.
This
undivided
lot,
that's
broken
into
two
lots,
and
so
that's
the
formality.
It's
just
the
padding
process
and
one
of
the
other
reasons
is
going
through
the
padding
process.
It's
also
lacking
Water
and
Sewer
Services
itself.
H
H
E
A
J
H
Say
as
an
example,
let's
pick
on
the
neighbor
on
the
left
side.
If
he's
trying
to
do
a
repair
or
such
building,
the
building
department
will
allow
them
to
do
a
repairs
to
an
existing
structure
up
to
a
certain
percentage,
if
they're
trying
to
expand
to
to
a
certain
percentage,
I
think
it's
50
that
they
have
to
try
and
expand.
Furthermore,
they
won't
allow
a
date.
They
would
then
ask
for
it
to
be
plotted,
and
then
the
other
part
is
usually
where
people
get
kind
of
caught.
H
Where
they're
needing
to
cut
is
the
the
request
for
a
water
meter,
and
so
the
the
lucky
part
pretty
much
these
owners
they're
able
to
do
some
repairs,
they're
able
to
do
such
they're
able
to
get
services
and
they
already
have
their
meter
and
such
it's
just
the
sad
part
is
this
one
God
left
alone
and
vacant,
and
it's
been
empty
for
for
a
while
and
and
it's
it
doesn't
have
a
meter
itself,
and
so
there's
I've
experienced
this
in
the
past.
There's
just
lots
that
Unfortunately
they
they
go
through.
H
D
Correct
yeah,
unfortunately,
all
right,
maybe
for
sure,
that's
true,
go
ahead.
No
go
ahead,
go
ahead,
so
they
bought
the
property
already
and
he's
already
did
it
under
their
name.
Yes,
and
the
property
I
look
at
the
plans
and-
and
it
seems
that
they're
going
to
be
conforming
with
the
complying
with
the
setbacks,
construction
setbacks
I
noticed
that
they
have
about
5.9
five
feet:
nine
inches
to
each
other
sides
and
they're
complying
with
the
front
and
the
setbacks
for
the
for
the
rear.
A
Think
you
have
a
good
point,
but
the
problem
becomes.
If
we
start
allowing
a
lot
of
this,
what
happens?
Is
we
start
sort
of
making
the
exception
the
role
of
everybody
going
and
acquiring
property
that
otherwise
would
not
be
able
able
to
be
planted
and
that
well,
this
guy
did
it
so
we're
going
to
do
it
and
we're
gonna,
and
so
you
open
the
floodgates
for
people
basically
illegally
subdividing
and
and
what
we
want
to
we
want
to
reduce,
is
illegal
subdivisions.
A
D
I
agree
with
you
100,
but
the
new
ordinance
actually
is
providing
for
the
West
section
of
Laredo
for
developers
to
come
and
cut
the
lots
and
make
them
smaller,
even
smaller
than
what
or
Mr
Ramirez
owns,
see
so
you're
correct,
but
I
feel
that
this
particular
property,
as
as
it
was
as
he
was
mentioned
by
the
engineer,
it's
already
built
from
both
sides.
So
it's
not
something
that's
going
to
be
creating
like
a
like
a
flower.
That's
in
Span
I
mean
this
is
by
itself.
A
And
we
had
that
situation
with
Habitat
for
Humanity,
where
they
had
removed
two
structures
on
an
R3
and
then
wanted
to
do
directors
right.
There
was
well
two
houses
that
were
houses
and
wanted
to
come
back
and
do
to
it.
You
could
do
that,
but
you
just
can't
make
them
separately
owned.
You
know
now
in
theory.
They
could
do
that
here
on
this
R3,
because
we're
we're
just
varying
the
R3.
Wouldn't
it
be
better
in
in
reality
that
to
wait
for
the
r1b
and
then.
H
Give
them
an
r1b
can
I
make
a
comment
on
that
from
to
the
R3.
It
won't
be
accepted
by
planning
or
building
our
three
has
a
density
requirement
and
just
by
the
lot
size
it'd
be
in
less
than
six
thousand.
It's
not
going
to
allow
pretty
much
that
extra
dwelling
to
be
placed,
and
so
that
actual
guideline
is
actually
on
Land
Development
ordinance.
So
Mr
Ramirez
has
an
example.
Right
now
is
trying
to
get
like
another
dwelling
to
do,
multi-founder
such
or
just
the
two
Plex.
H
He
won't
be
able
to
do
it
because
of
the
lot
density,
and
so
he's
he's
actually
pretty
much
strict
on
the
rule
that
he
only
complies
with
one
with
one
dwelling
and
one
of
the
things
I
I.
If
I
may
I
also
wanted
to
point
out.
Two
things
of
the
process
is
one
one
thing
about
the
r1b
is
that
it
does
require
three
parking
spaces:
the
the
owner
himself.
H
H
They
already
have
pretty
much
a
designer
who
kind
of
laid
out
the
setbacks
and
such,
and
so
with
the
small
lot
we'll
be
requiring
to
to
have
three
parking
spaces,
and
so
one
that
changes
the
configuration
it
adds
more
more
concrete,
more
more
cost
to
to
the
owner.
That's
one
minor
comment:
I
want
to
make.
The
second
comment
has
to
do
more,
with,
with
the
time
lapse
of
of
the
ordinance
versus
now,
I
think
the
intent
that
a
person
will
be
opinion.
H
The
intent
is
the
same
either
trying
to
get
it
approved
with
the
board
or
trying
to
get
the
r1b.
The
intent
is
the
same
in
trying
to
help
this
owner
who's.
Still
at
your
case,
he's
still
facing
an
illegally
subdivided
lot
he's
still
facing
the
planning
process,
and
so
the
the
one
of
the
main
arguments
that
I
want
to
make
to
board
is
we're
able
to
get
approved
today,
then,
on
on
March
22nd
I'm
able
to
go
preliminary
and
I
already
start
for
this
homeowner
to
do
construction
for
for
this
house.
H
If,
if
it
gets
denied
by
the
board
today,
I
would
have
to
apply
for
zone
change
on
March
21st
wait
for
the
meeting
the
following
month
and
then
also
wait
for
Council
approval,
and
so
we're
talking
me
going
to
preliminary
Club
until
May,
and
so
it's
pushing
just
the
owner
and
trying
to
accomplish
the
same
goal
for
a
month,
I
respectfully
in
a
different
perspective.
I
I
do
like
the
r1b
concept,
I'm,
not
against
it.
I
just
want
to
make
the
main
argument
is.
H
This
would
help
the
homeowner
now
follow
the
pretty
much
the
rules,
the
guidelines
of
the
undevent
code
and
and
the
powers
of
the
board
of
adjustment
and
we'll
give
them
the
same
goal
and
and
so
I'm
just
trying
to
push
more
of
the
timeline.
Where
he's
able
to
construct
sooner
than
than
pretty
much
45
days
later,
and
so
that
those
are
really
my
main
points
that
I
wanted
to
bring
up.
H
Yes-
and
this
is
more
on
on
the
owner
part,
because
when
it
comes
to
the
construction
I'm
not
dealing
with
the
with
the
vertical
construction
with
the
residents,
that's
what
the
contractor
and
the
owner
I'm
more
part
of
the
planning
process,
I'm
trying
to
pretty
much
legalize
that
lot
itself,
so
both
processes
I'm
going
to
be
doing
the
same
task
for
it.
It's
just
trying
to
really
just
trying
to
speed
up
the
process
for
them.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
like
any
mean
personally
as
a
homeowner.
H
A
D
H
H
L
A
Or
they
could
they
could
go
back,
redo
their
stuff
and
we
wouldn't
even
see
them
again.
In
other
words,
what
do
you
mean
redo
their
stuff?
In
other
words,
they
would.
They
would
go
back
to
planning,
ask
that
the
lot
be
replanted
as
an
r1b
and
likely
be
approved
if
they
change
the
ordinance
and
we
wouldn't
see
them
again.
Yeah.
L
But
I
guess
the
the
reason
for
for
not
declining
it
today
and
tabling
it
instead,
because,
like
Mr
theis
mentioned,
there
is
I
think
we
all
assume
that
it's
going
to
pass,
but
there's
a
chance
that
it
doesn't,
and
so,
if
it
doesn't
pass,
then
this
owner
has
no
reasonable
use
for
the
property
and
should
have
a
variance,
I.
Think
and.
H
My
two
are
arguing
points:
it's
one
of
the
yes,
the
timeline
but
and
two
just
the
that
slight
risk
of
getting
and
denied
and
and
pretty
much
this
request
for
variance,
I've,
seen
it
in
the
past
and
actually
I.
Think
even
the
last
item
that
you
guys
had
this.
This
is
an
item
that's
been
done
before
in
the
past.
It's
nothing
different
than
and
I
I
just
want
to
respectfully
ask
the
Lord
if
you
know,
support
support
something
that's
been
done
before.
Okay,
I
have
a.
G
J
H
The
only
comment
I
can
ask
is
that
they
use
this
for
single
family
dwelling
and
and
it's
the
same
as
the
surrounding
usually
I've,
seen
more
neighbors
go
against
when
when
the
use
is
changed
in
this
case,
the
use,
it's
still
going
to
be
a
single
family
value
and
even
though
it's
owned
as
an
R3,
that
the
density
of
that
lot
won't
allow
for,
for
other,
do
I
need
to
be
added,
and
so
it's
it's
going
to
be
in
our
pretty
much
a
one-dwelling
lot
itself.
Mr.
A
E
J
A
E
A
L
I
I
B
J
I
G
I
D
F
I
So
I'm
trying
to
get
at
is
I
guess
the
point
I'm
trying
to
make
is:
are
we
trying
to
help
the
situation
or
keep
the
empty
lot
in
the
same
condition?
It
was
for
the
next
so
30
20
30
years,
whatever
I'm
just
trying
to
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
I'm
trying
to
put
myself
in
the
owners
you
know
so
so.
There's.
E
Little
history
just
to
help
you
out
recently.
We
had
a
case
that
came
in
that
that
which
we
call
the
Habitat
case.
You
know
it
was
an
R3
lot.
It
had
very
old
buildings,
we
couldn't
even
live
in
those
things
right,
so
habitat
tore
them
down
and
they
wanted
to
make
two
lots
out
of
it:
keep
one
for
the
the
owner
of
the
property
and
the
other
one
they
wanted
to
sell
right.
They
couldn't
do
that
because
a
lot
was
too
small
right,
so
that
was
taking
the
city
management.
E
They
talked
about
it
and
they
they
asked
that
we
create
an
ordinance
that
would
reduce
the
size
of
the
lot
to
kind
of
accommodate
right,
which
we
did
so
before
this
case
we
took
that
zone
case
to
PMZ.
It
got
passed
at
pnz.
Then
we
took
not
the
Zone
case,
but
the
ordinance
we
took
it
to
PNC
got
it
passed,
took
it
to
council
and
they
read
it
the
first
time,
so
it's
going
for
its
second
reading.
E
So
if
that
passes,
because
there's
that
slight
possibility,
then
they
would
be
able
to
to
make
a
zone
change
and
build
their
house.
So
that's
what
that
ordinance
is
coming
in
to
to
try
to
help
people
that
have
smaller
lots,
and
when
is
this
so
it'll
go
to
the
March
20th
city
council
meeting
to
be
read
for
the
record.
So
if
we
didn't
have
that
ordinance,
then
we'd
be
sitting
in
a
position
where
this
person
just
doesn't
have
anything
else
to
go,
and
then
he
would
be
here
to
to
talk
to
you.
E
I
talked
to
the
client.
I
explained
the
situation.
I
said
you
know
we're
pretty
much
right
in
line.
So
if
you'd
want
to
wait,
we
can
wait
and
then
we
could
just
do
the
Zone
case
process,
but
time
was
of
the
essence
for
him
and
he
wanted
to
to
bring
it
to
you.
So
that's
work,
that's
why
it's
here,
but
we
will
be.
We
will
have
a
an
ordinance
that
will
accommodate
these
smaller
Lots
So.
I
L
L
Now.
If
we
tabled
it
this,
we
get
an
opportunity
to
see.
If
the
zoning
change
happens,
that
can
do
the
zoning
change
and
then
the
application
to
the
boa
becomes
moved
correct,
that's
correct
and
all
that,
and
it
pushes
back
his
timeline,
of
course,
which
I
I
understand
and
that's
a
priority
and
a
concern,
but
as
far
as
what
what
our
powers
are
to
look
at
is,
is
there
reasonable
use
of
the
property?
L
K
But
I
I
think
it's
maybe
not
safe
to
say,
but
I
think
it's,
maybe
probable,
that
it's
going
to
pass
if
it
was
done
to
accommodate
a
non-profit
and
it
seems
like
Council,
wanted
to
help
the
non-profit,
and
that
would
help
a
homeowner
like
this
applicant.
In
other
words,
I,
don't
see
it
being
denied.
Oh.
L
L
J
G
A
G
G
L
A
E
G
Is
there
I
mean
there's
nothing
on
the
agenda
for
for
other
business,
but
my
question
is:
when
you
guys
and
I
mean
stop
see
these
Aerials?
Is
there
anything
we
can
do
to
be
a
little
more
proactive?
Like
I
I
know,
you
can't
get
a
waiver
from
the
county
clerk's
office
to
file
a
document
or
something,
but
just
by
eyeballing.
A
G
Impossible:
well,
it's
not
necessarily
impossible.
If
you
break
it
up
like,
as
the
cases
come
in,
you
can
see,
you
do
the
Aerials.
You
know
the
certain
parts
of
town
which
is
really
the
old
school
downtown
Aztec
certain
these
areas
that
were
pre-ordnance
date.
You
don't
really
get
this
more
on
the
later
developments,
because
after
79
it
all
changed,
but
in
air
like
you,
should
have
even
on
the
buyer's
side.
G
E
Yes,
sir
I
understand
what
you're
saying
oh
a
lot
of
times.
This
is
these
kind
of
problems
come
through
the
building
department,
because
you
have
a
situation
like
this,
where
it
belonged
to
the
daughter.
You
know
the
parents
split
their
lot.
They
build,
they
build
a
house
for
their
daughter,
daughter
lives.
Their
daughter
gets
married.
She
moves
out,
then
they
sell
that
house
to
somebody
else
and
then
it
triggers
the
problem
right.
G
G
But
what's
supposed
to
be
done
and
is
done
in
practice,
don't
always
go
inside
can't
we
file
something
like
because
when
they
do
a
title,
search
that
as
you're
in
the
process
of
purchasing
it,
something
pops
up
or
it
says
that
you
illegally
yeah
like
so
that
whenever
that
person
tries
to
transfer
it
down
the
line,
that's
open
and
notorious
so
that
we
don't
have
to
deal
with
the
problems.
Mr
levod
is
talking
about
which
I'm
sympathetic
with
the
buyers
right.
E
Is
is
performed,
that's
when
they'll
find
out
that
it's
an
illegally
subdivided
property
if
they,
if
they
follow
the
what
we
call
the
con
the
correct
way
of
doing
a
transaction,
but
if
they
do
it
through
a
notary
or
they,
you
know
whatever
it's
just
a
cash
deal
or
whatever,
and
they
just
file
it
like
that.
We
won't
see
it,
but
if
it's
done
through
a
title
company,
typically
don't
pick
it
up.
They'll
pick
up
that
it's
legally
subdivided
and
you'll
see
it
if
you're
at
webcad.
G
E
G
And
I
get
what
Mr
levoda
saying
that
yeah,
it's
a
it's
an
enormous
task,
but
as
these
cases
come
in
because
you
see
the
zone
changes,
you
see
the
building
permits
you
see
whatever,
and
when
you
do
the
Aerials
like
these,
you
can
tell
from
the
beginning
which
ones
I
mean
you
look
at
them.
I've
got
215
San,
Pablo,
211,
San,
Pablo,
201,
San
Pablo.
All
of
these
are
R3,
none
of
it.
Very
few
of
these
are
whole
Lots.
All
of.
E
These
other
ones
are
the
building
directors.
He
faces
this
all
the
time
yeah.
It
is
just
constant,
and
so
he
definitely
would
support
what
you're
saying,
because
he's
trying
to
find
a
way
to
to
do
this,
because
you
have
you,
if
you
just
Google,
Western
Division
north
of
downtown,
just
Google
it,
it
should
be.
Eight
lies
right,
four
and
four,
oh
something
like
that
and
you'll
see
all
kinds
of
you
know:
air-conditioned
Shop,
with
a
diet
next
to
it
with
the
house,
and
it's
just
all
over
the
place
and
they'll
stay
like
that.