►
From YouTube: City of Laredo Board of Adjustment Meeting, 02/13/2019
Description
The City of Laredo Board of Adjustment Meeting of 02/13/2019 was held at the Laredo City Hall, City Council Chambers.
A
B
A
C
A
C
A
A
B
A
D
A
E
C
E
Do
you
the
Larkin
for
me,
you
cannot
be
encroaching
on
the
setbacks
in
order
to
act,
and
that
was
my
argument
with
the
Sony
in
the
planning
department,
because,
by
definition
it
says
they
use
and
they're
taking
at
the
use
of
the
building
and
the
use.
That's
what's
legal,
not
conforming
according
to
what
we
discussed.
A
D
D
The
discussion
with
regard
to
legal
non-conforming
status
arose
from
the
expansion
of
a
legal
non-conforming
use
and
the
requirements
under
the
code
that
says
the
the
expansion
can
only
of
illegal
non-conforming
use
can
only
be
5%
of
a
lot
area
which,
when
we
did
the
calculations
there
at
four
point
five
percent
of
a
lot
area.
If
it's.
A
D
D
F
D
D
All
right,
I
think
that
is
and
now
there's
a
lot
of
glare
here,
see:
okay,
so
these
this
is
the
structure,
that's
under
construction
right
here,
it's
asking
for
the
variance.
This
is
what
it
looked
like
in
2016.
You
see
what
we've
discovered.
It
seems
that
this
structure,
these
pieces
of
the
structure
were
already
there
in
2016,
so
we
were
of
the
opinion
that
it
wouldn't
constitute
necessarily
an
expansion
of
illegal,
not
conforming,
but
the
rebuilding
of
the
existing
structure
that
was
there
previously
now.
D
These
structures
are
the
ones
that
are
also
interesting
in
that
we
see
in
2016,
this
structure
was
sort
of
rectangular,
and
now
you
see
sort
of
a
doubling
of
the
width
of
that
structure.
This
structure
as
well,
you
see,
has
been
added
on
to
so
we
looked
and
we
couldn't
see
any
record
of
any
of
building
permits
for
those
structures,
but
we
are
of
the
position
that
this
would
not
constitute
an
expansion,
but
these
structures
have
already
undergone
expansion.
These
structures,
of
course,
are
also
they'd.
D
D
D
G
D
A
D
D
D
C
F
A
F
A
A
A
G
G
D
D
Sir,
that
was
a
regional
concern
that
if
you
forming
structure,
leave
a
non
conforming
structures
they're
required
that
they
can
only
expand
by
a
by
five
percent
of
the
lot
area.
In
this
case,
we
did
not
think
it
considered
an
expansion,
since
this
structure
was
there
previously
and
since
it's
it
was
a
sort
of
a
rebuilding
of
the
original
structure.
Right
so.
D
Apply
the
the
4.5
or
the
5%
rule
did
not
apply
because
the
structure
was
already
there
previous,
it
was
it's
not
an
expansion,
it
wasn't
like.
Let's
say
the
the
original
structure
was
100
and
they
want
to
expand
it.
If
the
original
structure
was
the
footprint
correct,
that
is
the
original
friend
and
the
rebuilding
back
to
the
original.
They.
C
E
A
D
When
we
were
originally
considering
as
an
expansion,
we
did
do
the
calculation
and
it
comes
in
at
4.5
percent
of
the
lot
area.
However,
we
don't
consider
it
an
expansion
any
longer,
since
this
was
the
original
footprint
they're
rebuilding
back
to
the
original
they're,
not
expanding
a
structure.
It's
just
rebuilding
the
structure
to
its
original,
ok.
C
E
A
Let's
see
I
just
I'm,
sorry
I,
just
don't
see
this
as
a
correct
way
of
going
about
this.
If
we,
if
we're
looking
at
something
that
is
zoned,
our
three
should
only
have
two
buildings
has
three
buildings,
even
though
one
of
them
may
be
legal
non-conforming,
the
other
two
were
expanded
without
permits
and
now
we're
being
asked
to
only
deal
with
the
expansion
on
that
one.
Are
you
set
back,
but
on
the
setback
on
that
one?
But
here
here
we're
gonna.
A
E
Mean
just
to
help
you
out
on
that
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
we're
here
for
the
setback
and
not
for
the
rest
of
the
five
portion
of
the
extra
abilities.
So
I
would
think
this.
What
I
think
that
it
doesn't
necessarily
mean
by
approving
the
setback
you're
approving
everything
else,
because
even
if
you
approve
the
setback,
I'll
say
three
feet
instead
of
a
five.
That
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
the
building
diploma
is
going
to
issue
that
permit
this.
You
have
to
review
other
things.
Aside
from
what
you
approved
so
you're,.
E
G
G
G
D
G
D
D
D
D
G
G
Mr.
chair,
nonetheless,
what
what
still
bothers
me
is,
if
all
had
all
this
had
been
done.
At
the
same
time,
we
would
have
an
issue
about
the
5%
because
of
those
other
improvements,
but
they
benefit
by
doing
it
piecemeal
without
a
permit
and
say
well,
no,
you
can't
look
at
that
one
anymore.
Now
you
just
look
at
this
one
well,
had
it
all
been
done
at
the
same
time,
with
a
proper
permit.
That
would
have
been
one
of
the
issues
with.
A
D
D
A
H
G
It
just
seems
odd
that
the
only
thing
we
get
to
look
at
is
a
variance
on
the
setbacks
5
to
3.
Yet
nonetheless,
we
know
that
all
these
improvements
and
additions
were
created
without
a
work
permit
had
they
been
done
at
the
same
time.
Maybe
they
would
not
have
reached
that
5%,
but
maybe
they
would
have.
Maybe
it
would
have
been
too
9
on
that
basis,
and
then
you
know
it's
non-conforming
to
begin
with,
and
yet
they
didn't
apply
for
a
permit
to
do
the
expansion,
but
yet
the
other
thing
also.
A
G
G
G
B
C
C
The
fact
that
these
structures
have
already
been
expand
so
I
can
understand.
Let
the
concern
that
I'm
hearing
from
fellow
board
members
they
just
normally
I
mean
like
I'm,
a
very,
very
accommodating
person,
but
I
understand
that
this
in
a
two-year
span
is
a
significant
amount
of
change
to
the
property.
That
was
not.
It
didn't
go
through
those
channels
that
we
know
of
that
staff
is
telling
us
either
so
I
wouldn't
be
kind
of
reluctant
to
all
right.
So.
A
A
A
All
right,
the
next
item
coming
is
requests
submitted
by
David
Estrada,
to
authorize
an
exception
to
the
literal
interpretation,
Loretta
land
development
code,
section
24,
77
entitled
dimensional
standards
by
bringing
a
variance
to
the
lot
area
requirement
on
lot,
9
block
986,
Western
Division,
located
at
3908.
So
no
we've
seen
evidence.