Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Good morning.

Notice of this meeting has been posted online for at least 72 hours. Staff present today are Gianna Bridges, Trey Qualls, Maribel Pena, Stacey Jones, Emily Reyes, Sanchez Collins, and Danisha London. Chair, will you please call this meeting to order?

Good morning. This is Whit Wallman, and this board, this meeting of the Board of Adjustment will now come to order. It is the 16th day of September, 2026, and I welcome everyone to the Board of Adjustment. This board is a citizen board appointed by the city council. By state law, a minimum of nine members or alternate members must be present to provide a quorum in order to conduct business. Today, we have a quorum with 10 currently. Today's meeting agenda can be found online at www.forwardtexas.gov. Speaker registration forms for cases on today's agenda should have been turned in prior to the start of this session. Today's public hearing is being documented by cable television and video conference recording, which will be available on the City's website. To facilitate an orderly meeting, I am asking everyone in Council Chamber to turn off the audible alarms on your electronic devices at this time so we will not be distracted during our meeting. Each case will be called in the sequence listed on the agenda unless otherwise directed by me, the chair. The Board of Adjustment requests that the following rules of order be respected. For case introduction, each case will be introduced by the City of Fort Worth Development Services Department. After presenting the facts of the case to the Board of Adjustment, board members will have the opportunity to question city staff about the case and any applicable laws or regulations that might apply. This portion of the discussion is exclusively between city staff and the board members. For case presentation, as your case is being called, we ask that you move to the front row of the chambers. You will have seven minutes to present the facts of your case and why you believe your application meets the criteria for approval. If more than one person is presenting the case, it is necessary to divide the total seven minutes among all parties so you do not exceed the allotted time. After the applicant has presented their case, I will call for any opposition to come forward. This is their opportunity to express why they believe the variance or special exception should not be approved. The opposition is also allotted a total of seven minutes of time to be shared among all speakers. If opposition is presented to the variance or special exception, the applicant will have an additional three minutes of rebuttal time. The chair may allow for a few more seconds in each presentation to ensure a speaker's final point can be made. In 2019, there was a rule change regarding translation cases. When speakers require the services of a translator, all speaker times during those cases will be doubled. For question and answer period, after the parties have presented their positions, the board members will then have the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant and any opposition. During this time, all speakers must remember that all dialogue be directed to the Board of Adjustment only. There is no time limit during this period. After the board members have received answers to their questions, I will close the public portion of the hearing. Board members can discuss the case amongst themselves and the city staff to determine whether or not an application meets or does not meet the criteria for approval. After this discussion, I will ask for a motion to approve, deny or continue the case. City staff will call for a voice vote from each member. If an application is denied, an applicant will have 10 days in which to appeal to a court of appropriate jurisdiction. For more information on this and additional information on any case on today's agenda, you may contact the Board of Adjustment at 817-392-8026 after this meeting. If necessary, a closed executive session may be held with respect to the posted agenda items to enable the Board of Adjustment to receive advice from legal staff. The first order of business is the approval of the minutes from the previous meeting, which was August 2026. We are open for a motion to approve.

I make a motion to approve the minutes as written.

Do we have a second? Second. Thank you very much. We have a motion by Ms. Herrera and a second by Mr. Whitten.

Riley.

Sorry, Mr. Riley. Excuse me. Can we please perform a roll call vote? Yes.

Board Member Jim Whitten.

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza. Yes. Board Member Michael Johnston. Yes. Board Member Bob Riley. Yes. Board Member Deborah Freed. Abstain. Board Member Whit Wollman.

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera.

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera? Yes. Board Member Kay Duffy? Yes. Board Member Eric Arteaga? Yes. Board Member Jared Wilson?

Yes.

Board Member Lucretia Powell? Abstain. The motion passes.

Okay, thank you. Let's move on to the first case, which I believe is a translation case, BAR-26-072. Ms. Reyes, we're ready when you are.

Good morning chair and members of the board. The first item on the agenda is BAR-26-072. The property is located at 3513 South Jones Street. The property owner and applicant are Jesus and Teresa Ramirez. The property is owned A-5, one family district. The applicant is requesting four variances. Variance A is to the one family A-5 district development standard requiring a minimum side yard setback of five feet to allow a storage shed to encroach into the side yard setback along the northern property line. The applicant is requesting a four foot side yard setback. Variance B is to the requirement that non-habitable accessory structures shall be limited to 10 feet in height to allow construction of a non-habitable accessory structure, a storage set that exceeds the maximum height allowed, and the applicant is requesting for it to be 12 feet. Variance C is to the one-family A-5 district development standard requiring a minimum side yard setback of five feet to allow construction of a storage shed to encroach into the side yard setback along the southern property line. And the applicant is requesting a two-foot side yard setback. And variance D is to the maximum non-habitable accessory structure size of 200 square feet for a lot size between 5,000 to 9,999 square feet to allow non-habitable accessory structure, a storage shed, to exceed the maximum allowed cumulative square feet of non-habitable accessory structures. And the applicant is requesting to have 402 square feet. The subject property contains a single family home as a primary use and is located on an interior lot in an established neighborhood. The subject property is rectangular in shape and was plotted with an alley. The lot contains a mature tree and is not located within a floodplain. Their primary structure is approximately 560 square feet in size and does not contain a garage. There's a current code enforcement complaint for working without permits for the storage sheds that was issued in April of 2025, which was the result of the residential accessory permit for a storage shed that is awaiting client reply as of August 2025, which is pending the outcome of this case. Varian's request A is to allow a storage shed to be located four feet from the northern side property line, resulting in an encroachment into the required side yard setback. The existing storage shed is located at the rear of the property, and the existing storage shed is measuring approximately 16 feet, six inches wide by 20 feet long, resulting in a footprint of approximately 330 square feet, and the structure has an overall height of 12 feet. The applicant is requesting an additional variance to the requirement that non-habitable accessory structures shall be limited to 10 feet in height to allow construction of a 12 foot tall non-habitable accessory structure, a shed. The structure is 11 feet seven inches from the rear property line and four feet from the northern side property line. The proposed height exceeds the allowance of 10 feet by two feet and therefore remains deficient. These are the elevations of the shed. The variance request for C is to allow a storage shed to be located two feet from the southern side property line, resulting in an encroachment into the required side yard setback. The existing storage shed is measuring approximately nine feet wide by eight feet long and nine feet in height, resulting in a footprint of approximately 72 square feet. The applicant is requesting variance D to exceed the maximum allowable cumulative area for non-habitable accessory structures. Section 5.301 limits the cumulative area of non-habitable accessory structures to 200 square feet on a residential lot between 5,000 and 9,999 square feet in size. The ordinance further provides that the maximum square footage is cumulative of all non-habitable accessory structures located on the lot, excluding private garages, private carports, and private portico chairs. According to the submitted site plan, the subject property contains two non-habitable accessory structures and one storage shed measuring 330 square feet and a second storage shed measuring 72 square feet. The combined area of the two storage sheds is 402 square feet, exceeding the maximum allowed cumulative area by 202 square feet. These are the regulations that pertain to the case. These are the board's actions, and this concludes staff's presentation, and I'm available to answer any questions the board may have.

All right, any questions for staff? Ms. Freed. Ms. Duffy, excuse me. And you next.

So I'm a little confused. I'm sorry. Maybe I'm just sleeping this morning. But variance A is for a side yard setback on the northern property line. Variance C is for a side yard setback on the southern property line. Correct.

According to the picture, it doesn't look like it's.

I'm confused.

So it's two different sheds. So the first shed is on the northern, which is displayed on the screen right now. And then the second shed is on the other side.

I'm so sorry. Okay, thank you.

No, you're good. It's free, please. Yeah, I'm looking, it appears that variants A and B are from the same structure. And from our materials, I got the impression that that used to be a carport that was enclosed.

Yeah, it was an enclosed carport, but however, they removed it and put a shed.

So the carport has been removed?

Correct. Correct.

Okay, and they just use the same foundation for a shed?

That is correct. That's new. And then the item for Variance C for the other shed, is that— Constructed or is that a request to construct?

It's constructed already.

And from the aerial view it looked like there were additional sheds. You said one of 72 square feet or is that?

Yes, variance C is the one that is 72 square feet. On the aerial we did tell the applicant to provide all the structures on the property and he informed us that those were the only two structures on the property.

So the other ones that we see from the aerial are no longer there?

Correct. You could confirm with the applicant as well. Thank you for your help.

Any other questions for staff? Okay. Thank you very much. Is the applicant here? Yes, sir. Please come forward. State your name.

The facts about your case, your address, and you have 14 minutes.

My name is, he gave his name.

Drew, will you make sure and use the microphone, pull it up close to either one of you.

Thank you.

He's stated his name and address. Yes. You can pull that microphone closer. We make sure we can hear.

Thank you. Thank you. Please go ahead. My name is Ramirez, and he stated his address. Can you state the address, please? 3513 Sav Jones, Fort Worth, Texas. 3513 Sav Jones, Fort Worth, Texas.

Yes, sir, please go ahead. State the facts about your case.

You have 14 minutes.

So basically I had a porch there, and I enclosed it because I had tools there, and they started stealing from me. And I didn't know the measurements or anything like that, so I closed it.

Yeah, I didn't know what the required dimension was supposed to be, so that's why I made it that way, and that's why I'm here to find out what's going to happen to it. But I wish for it to be able to keep it, please.

You still have plenty of time. If there's any else you want to add. And this is kind of your time to make a case for your application and that kind of thing. I just want to make sure you know that.

It's my home and I need it. Okay. Anything else you'd like to add?

Thank you. Is anyone else here to speak in support of this application? Okay, having seen none, is there anyone here to speak in opposition? Okay, also having seen none, I will move to board questions for the applicant.

This is Johnston. Is the large shed already constructed, or is that something that you're planning to construct?

Yeah, it's already been constructed for my tools. It doesn't have any lights.

It's just covered.

To protect my tools.

What about the small shed? Is it already constructed as well?

Yeah, the small shed was already there when I bought the house.

All I did was renovate it a bit because it was falling apart. Thank you. Ms. Frieden.

Yes. Would it be possible to store all of your tools in the larger shed?

Probably. Yes, sir. Mr. Riley. The larger shed, it was on the same foundation as a carport. Yes.

Yeah, I just renovated it.

I fixed it, basically. It was there when you bought the property.

Yeah, the carport was already there, just the porch.

I just closed it in.

Any other questions for the applicant? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Tufkin.

So has anyone from the city explained or talked to you about the fact that that larger shed could have been a garage and been that height instead of a shed?

No one told me anything.

So I think some of these variances could have been avoided if we called this a garage, which would have required a garage door, right?

Yes, and the structure was already constructed when the applicant came to us, so we bring in the variances that has been requested for the existing structure.

I'm just wondering, for the cost that he paid to come see us about variances, I think he could have installed a garage door in the front of that thing and it would have been legal, right?

We would have to review it as a garage, but potentially he'll still need the variance for the setback. Is the one foot setback in the administrative? So the one foot setback is within the director's purview. However, it says director or designee, and the director has chosen the Board of Adjustments as the designee.

Sir, Mr. Garza.

Do you have access from the alley to park a car in that storage shed?

Yeah, the entrance goes all the way to the back by one side of the house.

Was the original entrance to the carport from the street or from the alley? Yeah, from the street. The alley is actually blocked.

Thank you.

Mr. Garza, do you have anything else? Any other questions for the op-ed?

Okay.

I'm going to close the public portion of this hearing. We'll open up to discussion among the board. Sir, if you would stay close, we might ask questions. Thank you. Any board discussion about this case or a motion?

Ms. Duffy. I'm just not a fan of going and playing getcha on people who have something already built. I think this gentleman's owned this property for more than 25 years. as I can tell, that carport was there when he got there. I mean, if that was a garage, we wouldn't need the extra space, we wouldn't need the height. I don't think it's our job to be code compliance on this board, that's what I don't think. It looks like code compliance already got him to take out some extra structures in the backyard.

I agree with you.

That's a question for the applicant.

It also looks like both structures were there when he bought the house, so it's self-created.

Can you speak into the microphone, please?

If I understand it correctly, both structures were present when the applicant bought the house, so this isn't a, He didn't create this situation himself. It was there. Is that correct? That's for the applicant.

Were both structures present when he bought the house? Yes, they were there. They're old. They're there.

So all he did was improve them.

Can he speak into the microphone, please? Yeah, I just improved it and covered the shade so that they wouldn't steal my equipment.

Ms. Duffy and I don't see eye to eye frequently. And I'm more of the opinion that if he had come for the permits, then he would have learned something like if it was a garage, all he would need is the one foot setback. I'm inclined to support variances A and B. so that he has something to store his tools in. This was a complaint, so I take those pretty seriously as well. So my position is that we would support variants A and B. And by default, since A, this structure that was a carport, Is already over the 200 square feet, we would also have to approve variance D in order to allow him to keep that structure.

So I think. I would be inclined to support them as well. Because he's been through this whole process. But I just think in the future, all of it could have been avoided by putting a garage door in the front of that building.

If he'd gone and gotten a permit for it, He would have learned that and we wouldn't be here.

Well, he also could have learned that when he was applying, when current enforcement told him to come to this board, they could have told him that too. So anyway, that's my two cents. But yeah, I think that it looks like they perhaps asked him to remove some other things in his backyard and he's done it. And these are useful. I mean, he has no garage in his house. I think it would be nice to approve it.

Do you have a question for staff or for the applicant? Go ahead. Yeah, you're fine.

So, sir, you said that two storage sheds have been removed since they were on the property. Help me understand those two storage units. Were they on the property when you bought them, and why did you remove them?

Can both of you speak into the microphone? Can you make sure your handheld is still on? Yes.

Could you ask him to pull the mic or stand closer to the mic as well?

Repeat the question, please.

My question is that we saw an aerial view that had two additional storage sheds. So my question is twofold. Were those there when he bought the property? And if so, why were they removed?

Entonces, en las vistas áreas que habían visto, habían visto dos adicionales que parece que usted también ya removió.

No se removió. El primero lo renové, el que está allí. Lo renové porque estaba cayendo. Yeah, so I haven't removed anything.

I just renovated both of them because they were falling apart and coming down.

So when did you buy this property?

1999. Okay.

Because we have a picture, and if staff could put up from the docket, page 37.

And I'm sorry to carry this on, but it's just, we really need an understanding of the full property. One before or after that, there, right, back, there. Okay, so we've got the house and we've got a red roof, which I assume, I don't know which of these is the garage. I think the one with the red roof, then there's a white roof and another white roof all along the back property line. What are those?

So the white one's actually an RV that I used. I used that to work. And the other white one?

Just like a shade covering.

So the red one is the porch that I covered and closed.

Okay, so as I understand it, staff, that that white one that is a shade, that would also count as an accessory structure with additional square footage. Is that correct? Yes. So I don't think we have a real clear picture of this application then because it's much more than 402 square feet of covered accessory structures. because just a shade is also an accessory structure.

That is correct. And so we communicated with the applicant and asked him to provide on the site plan all structures with dimensions to us on the site plan. And the site plan we have before us is what he's provided.

So quick question on that. Is like a pop-up tent in someone's yard considered an accessory structure?

No, a pop-up tent is temporary and should be taken down.

But we don't know what that is.

Yeah, it's more just establishing.

Excuse me, could we have the interpreter translate what was just discussed up here for the applicant so he understands the discussion?

Could you make sure and pull up to the mic, please?

Thank you.

It's a temporary wooden shade. Okay, but it is a shade structure.

It's just a shadow.

It gives shade.

Right. It's supported by wood ears or something. That should have been on the site plan for the city so that we would have all of that information.

I brought all the information that they asked me to bring.

So legal?

I don't know.

We do not have all the information to assess this because there's significantly more covered. When I look at this picture and I see all the covered space, I kind of understand why there might have been a complaint to code compliance. How do we handle this when we don't have all of the information?

You always have the opportunity to continue a case. You can also deny a case. You can also grant what's before you. We can't force the applicant to provide something in a site plan. We get what we get. So you can approve what's before you. You can deny it if you don't feel you have the information, or you can continue it, and the applicant can continue to try to work with staff.

So we need to use what's in front of us.

I, for one, cannot make a decision based upon what's in front of us because I don't think it's complete. And I think that there is, I understand an RV, got that, but we don't have the correct information.

Yes, sir. Mr. Garza.

I want you to translate this if it's possible. We're trying to help him get this passed.

We don't have the complete, accurate information with this petition.

There's also the strong possibility that if he creates this storage into a garage, he can avoid some of the variances that he's requesting here with us.

There's also the strong possibility that if he creates this storage into a garage, he can avoid some of the variances that he's requesting here with us.

So for that, would he consider us filing a continuance today so he can work with the city on removing that other structure, getting all the information, whatever we have to do, so we can help him get this to pass?

Yeah, that sounds good.

It sounds like to me there's enough questions about the case and obviously you've reached the applicant, so.

Yeah.

We're open to a motion or more discussion.

I move that we continue this case. I'll second that.

Is that Ms. Duffy, the second?

Do we need a timeframe?

Probably. Staff, what's? 60.

Two months? Yes. I move that we continue this case for two months.

Ms. Duffy, you okay with that? Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Staff, could we please perform a roll call vote on the continuance?

Yes. We have a motion to continue case BAR-26-072 for two months. Motion made by Board Member Deborah Freed and second by Board Member Kay Duffy. Roll call vote, Board Member Jim Whitten.

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza. Yes. Board member Michael Johnston. Yes. Board member Bob Riley. Yes. Board member Deborah Freed. Yes. Board member Whit Wollman. Yes. Board member Jana Herrera. Yes. Board member Lucretia Powell. Yes. Board member Kay Duffy. Yes. That's a yes for board member Kay Duffy. Board member Eric Arteaga. Yes. Board member Jarrett Wilson. Yes. Motion passes.

Okay, sir, so you've been approved for a 60-day, two-month continuation of this case. I would work with staff as early as tomorrow. You kind of heard the questions and heard some of the issues. I would work with them as early as tomorrow to get those answered.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, I'm told that for the next case, BAR-26-066, we are moving that one to the end of the agenda. So we are going to move on to BAR-26-083. Staff, we are ready.

Can we have the applicant of this case to come to the front, please?

Thank you.

Good morning, this is case BAR-26-083. The address is 2628 Daisy Lane. There's a special exception to allow carport within the required front yard of a residential dwelling. The second request is a variance to the one family A5 district development standards of a minimum five foot side yard setback to allow a non-habitable accessory structure, which is a detached carport, to encroach into the required side yard along the western property line. The minimum required side yard setback is five feet, but they are requesting four feet, 10 inches. The second request is variance C to the one family A5 district development standards to permit fewer parking spaces than required for a one family dwelling with four bedrooms. The minimum required parking spaces is three, but the applicant is requesting one parking space. The last request is variance D to the one family district development standard that two of the required parking spaces for a four bedroom home be located behind the front building wall to allow all required parking spaces to be located in front of the front building wall. Here's the area map. The subject property is located within an interior street in an established neighborhood containing mature trees and no presence of a floodplain. The property is approximately 5,050 square feet in an area with a 1.06% slope from the northern property line to the southern property line, and it was not plated with alley access and the primary structure was constructed in 1958 and fronts on Daisy Lane with driveway access provided from the street. The property contained a one-car garage and it has been converted to a bedroom. This is a special exception A. Again, the applicant is requesting a special exception to allow construction of a carport measuring 10 feet wide by 10 feet long by eight feet high that is located within the required front yard. The carport encroaches into the established front yard by approximately 20 feet with the setback measuring eight feet from the property line to the carport. The location of the carport is intended to provide cover for existing gravel drive leading to the driveway. The existing gravel drive measures 10 feet 9 inches wide and 28 feet long and extends to the property line from the front building wall. All driveways must be hard surface and dust free. Driveways for one and two family uses may at minimum consist of compacted gravel base. Any base product must be contained within a border and maintained including circle and ribbon drives. VARIANCE B, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A VARIANCE TO THE ONE-FAMILY A5 DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD OF A MINIMUM FIVE-FOOT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW A NONHABITABLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHICH IS GOING TO BE A DETACHED CARPORT, TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. VARIANCE C, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A VARIANCE TO THE ONE-FAMILY A5 DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO PERMIT FEWER PARKING SPACES THAN REQUIRED FOR A ONE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH FOUR BEDROOMS. The last request is variance D. The applicant requests a variance to the one-family A5 district development standard that two of the required three parking spaces for a four-bedroom home be located behind the front wall to allow all required parking spaces to be located in front of the building wall. This is the variance request regulations. Again, the minimum required side yard setback is five feet, but the applicant is requesting four feet, 10 inches. The minimum required parking space is three, but the request is for one parking space. These are the Board of Adjustment actions. And staff is available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Questions for staff? Yes, Ms. Duffy.

Can we back up to the site plan picture? Okay, so from what, oh, that next one. So not only is... The 4'10", that's the set book the house currently has, right?

Yes.

The house that was built in 1958.

I believe so, yes, according to the records that we have.

That's my only question.

Ms. Herrera, do you have a question?

Do we know when the garage was converted, or is that something for the applicant? That's something for the applicant. And then the gravel part of the, I know that's not a variance, but how does that get fixed? That's out of our discussion to have that updated?

I believe it is, but Emily, do you know any more information about that?

The applicant is allowed to have a driveway of compacted gravel as long as it is bonded.

So what they have now is acceptable.

Okay, thank you. Do I need to show the picture of what they have now?

Any other questions for staff? Okay, thank you very much. Is the applicant here? Yes, please come forward. state your name, address, and the facts about your case, and you'll have 14 minutes. And I would ask the board, while we're speaking, could we please make sure that we pause, let the translator translate everything, all the discussion up here, to make sure the applicant hears it. We have 14 minutes. We have plenty of time for this. Please go ahead.

You can say your name, address, and data of your case.

My name is Alma Treviño, and my address is 2628 Daisy Lane. Fort Worth, Texas.

So my name is Alma Trevino, and my address is 2628 Daisy Lane, Fort Worth, Texas.

Mi caso es que mi casa la acabo de comprar existentemente. Yo sé que estaba hecha en el 58, y cuando yo la compré, el garage ya estaba convertido en una recámara.

So I just purchased my home. I understand it was built in 1958. And when I bought it, the porch that was there was converted into a bedroom previously. And I have space in the back and so I want permission to be able to construct in the back to be able to create additional room to live more comfortably. Yeah, I didn't know there was problems with building space to be able to park, so that's why I'm requesting permission to be able to construct and build.

Ma'am, you still have plenty of time if there's anything else you want to ask.

También creo que están pidiendo algo por el carport, que estar afuera, que ya estaba ahí cuando yo me moví a esa casa. Yo la compré con el afán de que tenía espacio para poderla hacer un poco más amplia, ya que no tuvo un costo muy alto y se me hizo fácil poder construir más.

And I understand there's an issue with the carport that was already there when I bought the house. But I did buy it with the desire to increase the size to live more comfortably and to be able to build there.

I have three children and I need space for them. And I need a space for me to work. A free space for me.

And I have three kids, so that's why I need the space. I also need space for myself to be able to work from my home as well. That's all I have.

Okay, thank you. You still have plenty of time. If there's anything else you want to add.

Do you have enough time to say anything else?

I don't have anything else to say. I have nothing else to add to this.

I'm just here to get my petition approved so I can begin construction.

Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor of this case? Okay, having seen none, is there anyone here to speak in opposition? Okay. Also, having seen none, I'll close that part of the hearing. Mr.

Chair, I'm sorry. We did receive one notice, one email of opposition for this case. It's provided in your late correspondence document.

Staff, could we put that up if possible? Please. Is that it in total?

Second. Can you go to the third page?

Just two pages.

It's four total.

Can I ask a side question? Just because what I've been listening to the radio all morning, but do we put letters that come in through an AI checker to see if they've been generated by AI?

No, ma'am, we just provide to the board what the members of the public provide to us. This one in particular just piqued my interest.

It is too perfect. Are there any more pages or is that it?

Okay, thank you.

Okay, we will move into questions from the board for the applicant. Mr. Riley, yes, sir.

Looking at your site plan, indicating that you're, I thought that there was a building addition. Has that been completed? A two-story building addition in the back?

Yes. When was that constructed?

It does not have any addition in the back.

Sorry, I didn't understand.

Go ahead, Mr. Ross. It appears to me that the house probably was originally built as a two-bedroom with a garage that was converted over.

Originally.

So now it has three bedrooms.

Correct.

And the plan is to build a two-story structure behind the main building that would contain two more bedrooms.

Exactly. This is a self-imposed hardship. It's the easiest way of saying it in my mind.

I have a question for staff too. Did they come in for a permit or was this code compliance? How did we start the process with this that we found these four but it sounds like they want to do a building permit to add more? Does that make sense?

I didn't see any lot history, so I didn't see any type of code compliance or any permits for this case. From my understanding, they just submitted for a variance. It could have been that they came in and spoke with someone, a building plans examiner, and maybe the plans examiner informed them that they needed a variance before they started the building permitting process.

If they wanted to go, yeah, if they wanted to start the process, they need to get these cleared up first. Yes. Thank you.

You're welcome. I've got an add-on question to that. From what Mr. Riley was saying, it sounds like this would turn into a five bedroom structure. Is that correct, instead of four bedroom? And if so, does that change the parking requirements? I think she just told us it has three. It has three and they're looking at building two more bedrooms, a two story structure and back. Three already, add two. Is that correct? Are you interpreting this for her? So my question to the applicant, is that correct? You're looking at two more bedrooms? Okay, so staff, are there parking requirements for a five bedroom? Is that the same as for a four bedroom?

For a five bedroom dwelling, the parking requirement will be four spaces required instead of three.

Again, we're not really dealing with the accurate information. Hang on one second.

One second for the applicant.

Oh, I thought I did.

She said she was going to add more if you want to.

Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead and complete what you were saying.

She just stated that one bedroom will be demolished because stairs go there. So it will be a four bedroom, not five.

Yeah, in the proposed site plan, that bedroom three turns into what's called hall. The closet gets flipped to bedroom two.

Gotcha. Okay. Is there any way as part of that we could put a garage back in?

Mm-hmm.

There's only five feet on each side of the, a little less on the one side. So they can take it back there.

There was a garage that was converted.

That looks like what the master bedroom is now.

Any other questions for the applicant?

One second, ma'am.

Hold on one second. Does the board have any other questions? If anybody wants to have her respond.

This is Johnston. I noticed that there was a letter of opposition by what it looks like your next-door neighbor. Have you talked or had any communication with your next-door neighbor about this application?

I have their signatures. I do have their signatures.

Staff, could we, if she's going to submit that, could we please take it? Ma'am, if you give that to us, we will keep it. Make sure she knows that.

Thank you.

I have a question for staff.

Please.

If we did no construction and the house has three bedrooms, would we still have an issue with parking today?

Yes. The three bedroom dwelling required two parking spaces to be located behind the front building wall. Because that garage was converted, they no longer meet the parking requirements behind the building wall.

So when you buy a house that is like this, how do they navigate that building, parking or whatever? It's been eliminated by someone else.

If there was never a Board of Adjustments variance granted to that property, the property owner assumes responsibility for that property they purchase and will come before the Board to request a variance. if they're not able to determine any alternative solutions to provide those two parking spaces behind the front building wall.

There's no way to access the backyard of this property either. Well, for our automobile tax, there's no alley. There's no.

Mr. Johnson, do you want to ask your question again about?

Yeah, I was. If we could go back, let me let me put down here the see if we could find the address of the person that wrote the opposition letter. Yeah. So the.

The address of the person who wrote the letter is 2624 Daisy Lane.

Okay, and that's the same address of the person who signed a petition to accept it.

Well, it looks like they changed their mind.

Do you want to ask the applicant?

Do you know... why Ms. Ruiz wrote the letter of opposition when she apparently signed a petition in support.

Yeah, I wouldn't know. I normally don't have too much contact with my neighbors, so I wouldn't know.

The name of the person who sent in the opposition letter is Nancy Zomara at 2624 Daisy Lane. And the petition shows Marilyn Ruiz. Not sure if they're roommates or family, but there's two different people here.

So the household, if both of them live in the same household, the household is divided. You have, based on the petition, you have one individual in agreement, and then you have one individual not in agreement.

TAB records show Nancy Zamara as the property owner.

Okay. Any other questions for the applicant?

Perhaps Ms. Ruiz is the renter.

Perhaps.

Perhaps. When we send out legal notifications, it goes to the property owner, whoever, whatever address is recognized in TAD for the property owner. The notification goes to that person.

Do the children drive? Do your children, the three children, do they drive?

Los hijos de ustedes manejan? Two of them do.

Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, I'm gonna close the public portion of this hearing. If you would stay close, we're gonna have a board discussion, but we might ask you a few questions to stay upfront. All right, now I'll open it up to discussion among the board and or a motion.

I'm inclined to allow the one parking space that she's pretty much inherited, but it's not going to solve her issue with construction in the future. The one parking space in front of the property, I don't see any other way of navigating that on this house.

Actually, that one's pretty readily resolved if they just expand the parking platform in front, expand the driveway. And that's really the one that gives me the most bother. For a four-bedroom house to have just one parking spot puts a lot of parking on the street. On the first two variances, those were inherited. And while... They shouldn't have been. They were. I mean, that's fact. And I'm not in a punishment mode. But I do think that in order to support... The additional people and the additional vehicles that there needs to be one more parking spot. Obviously, it cannot be variant C cannot be addressed because they cannot get through the side of the house based on the side measurements and alley access. So I'm in support of AB and DA.

Mr. Chairman, so our typical parking stalls are 9 by 18, and the length of the drive from the front property, from the front wall measures 28 feet. So that's not sufficient space to have two cars parked there tandemly in the driveway. Right. But the driveway potentially can be expanded not to exceed 50% of driveway coverage.

Right. It might be very complex because if that carport stays, it'd be hard to maneuver around that, but the carport doesn't have to stay even if it's approved.

Any other discussion?

Well, I'll make a motion.

Before that, I want to address one more thing. Sure, go ahead, please. Can you tell her that it's going to be very, very hard to allow her to expand two more bedrooms or one more bedroom, and she's going to face this parking issue again?

As long as she knows that. Ms. Duffy, please. So I often feel obligated to point out that if she were to add...

have one of those bedrooms be a study instead of a bedroom, this parking requirement would go away.

No. She still needs...

But the bedrooms would be reduced if she had... She would still... She made it a three-bedroom house with one study.

Right, and that would still require two parking spaces behind the front wall. So we would have to look at variance D, which, but variance C would be different. No, variance C still would not be met.

I would also say that this is what was submitted with the application, right, the site plan.

So if variance C, if she had a house with three bedrooms.

She has a house with three bedrooms.

A home with three bedrooms is required to provide two parking spaces behind the front building wall.

So the applicant is requesting one parking space. Variant C would change to the numbers two and one instead of three and one, right? Correct. For a three-bedroom home, yes. If she changed her application to a three-bedroom with a study.

The existing floor plan, I'm sorry, the existing floor plan shows four bedrooms. Yes. Without the additions.

Do we have another floor plan besides this one? Because this one is not marked what's a bedroom.

Yes, the slide before. I'm sorry, it does show three. Master bedroom, bedroom two, and bedroom three.

Stacy, can you go to the docket?

My mistake.

Keep going, Stacy.

Next one. The top existing is three bedrooms. The master, bedroom two and bedroom three. So the intent of this variance is to do the building addition.

Stacey, if you want to leave it here, that's fine.

I think we have a question from Ms. Freed. No. Ms. Duffy, Joe, anything else? Mr. Garza, please.

The problem that I have with a situation like this is I understand that the city's growing and our... We have to make do with what we have, but at some point in time, if she decides to rent the house, it can become a real nightmare for the neighbors. So that's something we have to consider because what we decide today is going to be forever. So we try to help solve the parking situation with what she has today. And that's becoming increasingly, even one parking space won't solve it. And I'm looking at the carport. The truck doesn't fit under the carport. She's parking the truck halfway into the street. And I know there's no sidewalk there, but if there was, she'd be parking on the sidewalk. So the only way to solve this would be a double parking space, which Ms. Freed said. But there's a variance for that.

Probably require taking down the carport to do that, but...

But that's the only solution for today. Now, if she builds more bedrooms, we're going to run into the same situation.

We could... I've crossed this out. I've crossed out my notes so much. So the request was for... I think on Variant C, if we approved it, we should specify two instead of three parking spaces. I really think that having just one parking space for a home that large is a disservice to the rest of the neighborhood. And as you say, especially because the home is capable of holding that many people, it could be even worse. I'm pretty much where I was, but I would consider changing Variant C and approving it with two parking spaces.

This is Johnston. If we changed Variant C to two, how would they get the second car behind the building line?

They can't. Variant D cannot be approved. I mean, we've got... I feel like we have to approve variance D because there's not a solution available. There's no way to go down the side to build a driveway for a garage in the back. That's not an option. So there's variance D I think we have to approve. Variants A and B, I have a sense that since it was there beforehand, we could approve it. But in reality, if she puts a second parking space in, it would probably require removing that. But that's not necessarily what we have to decide.

I think B, we also have to approve because the house itself is 4'10".

Absolutely. Absolutely, yeah. I see no problem at all with B.

I would say that's about the only one I don't have an issue with is B.

Really?

As an ode to Mr. Johnston, too, I'm sure we're going to split these votes, right?

I think we need to separate these.

Yeah, for sure. Mr. Riley.

Are there other carports in the neighborhood?

¿Hay más porches de carro en Cocheras en el vecindario?

Cocheras como...

Like carports, you're saying?

CCI.

Yes, they are.

Staff, I did observe a few during the site we did. Thank you. You're welcome.

Any other discussion?

Are you on Google Maps?

Not my back.

Any other discussion or a motion? Yes, sir.

Mr. Wood. If we're talking about possibly approving A, B, and D, and then C, if it's two spaces instead of one, is that what we're discussing right now?

That's what I was discussing. Mr. Riley, I believe, has exception to A. Is that correct, Mr. Riley?

The only one I can support is B. I'm the exact same way as Mr. Riley.

What do you suggest they do for D? What's the solution?

They come to us for relief. Sometimes they create their own situation.

That's exactly what's happened here.

But Dee is behind the building front line. And that's not possible.

Can I explain C and D? Please do. So variant D will capture whatever your decision is for variant C. So currently, the home requires three parking spaces on the property. Two of those parking spaces must be located behind the front building wall. Variant D is to allow the required parking spaces to be located in front of the front building wall. So if the board chooses not to approve Variant C, but approve Variant D, then the applicant will need to figure a way to allow the three parking spaces to be located in front of the front building wall. If the board wants to make a stipulation to variance C and approve two parking spaces instead of one, then those two parking spaces will need to be located in front of the front building wall. Now I'm more confused.

Wouldn't that require a whole new application though to get two spaces?

No, the board can make the stipulation to allow two parking spaces instead of the requested one.

We wouldn't have a coverage issue of...

So the property owner will have to submit plans showing that they do not exceed 50% driveway coverage. This site seems to have potential to expand their driveway to not exceed that percentage, but we'll have to get the plans to see. If their proposed plan would exceed the 50%, they'll be back before us to request a variance to exceed the 50%. Thank you.

So Mr. Riley, Can you explain your objection to D, that the spaces, which requires the spaces to be behind the building line? How would they resolve that?

I am assuming, which can be dangerous, this house was a two-bedroom house. And there was an illegal conversion of a one-car garage into a third bedroom. And then the existing structure has three bedrooms. with no parking, except for out in front of the building, the front line. The whole variance that we have today is they're gonna do a building addition, convert, or be able to produce four on a lot that was originally set up with two bedrooms. And unless they can do a tandem, take the master bedroom out, convert it back to a tandem, The solution to me is to put in a tandem garage. They get two parking spaces behind the building front line.

Which kind of makes it feasible because they're willing to construct a second story with two more bedrooms. They should be able to navigate the building to qualify for the parking behind the wall.

And it appears to me that the second story is a whole brand new building. It's not above any of the existing buildings. I don't know. What are they going to do on the ground floor of the new two-story building? More bedrooms? Office space? People call office space a theater room, which can turn into a bedroom. I don't know. My preference is I'll be able to support number B. That gives them some guidelines to work in. Then, other than continuing the case, I don't have a problem with denial without prejudice, where they can figure this out and bring it back at some point in time here fairly soon. I don't know that they're gonna be able to figure it out if we did a denial with prejudice. That's my compromise. This is a two-bedroom home that's about ready to be a four-bedroom with a separate building. I don't know what is going to be on the ground floor.

So, Mr. Riley, if I can point out, in the floor plan, it shows four bedrooms on a ground floor with the second story. Stacey, if you can go up just a little bit as the game room. Up a little bit more. There it is.

Which could become a bedroom.

So if they do no construction, are they still in trouble with the parking?

Yes.

Can we help them with that?

We'd have to approve.

So with no construction, the existing structure is three bedrooms that requires two parking spaces behind the front wall.

So they're still out of compliance? Currently.

Right. So in order for her to keep the house she purchased in January the way it is, we'd have to approve A, B, and D. Otherwise, we're forcing her to do some reconstruction, tear down things that are there.

I agree. If she wants to construct the second story with more bedrooms at that time, she can also consider constructing the garage back behind the wall.

She has no access, but... she wants to do reconstruction, then she'll have to deal with them on making... We're talking about compromise here. It seems like that's excessive, but...

I'm okay with A, B, and D.

I think for me, I could be okay with A, B, C would have to be changed to two required spaces minimum because there's still street parking. I think it's reasonable if she can put two spaces in, three bedroom house. You got street parking and then D. Approved D. And then approve D, I think two spaces is viable. Looking at it, it's maybe not ideal, but is viable. So I do see a path forward without deconstruction.

I think we're mixed on this on some of these. So I think we can talk about it forever. Or we could put each one separately to a vote. That's my opinion.

I'm open to a motion.

Mr. Johnston, I move that we approve as written BAR 26083 without prejudice.

I'll second. An approval is just an approval. Only a denial motion could be stated with or without prejudice. Okay.

Okay. Then I will move to approve as written BAR 26-083, but reserve, I guess, the right to assert a vote for without prejudice if they are denied, and also would ask for separate votes on each.

No. No. Yeah, so I guess the only way you could really do that is you could reconsider if one were denied.

Okay, we could do that.

So go through each one, sounds like individually, vote on the approval.

And then if we have any denials, we can reconsider. I'll move for without prejudice.

The way to do that is to have a motion for approval on all. If it turns out that one is denied and there's a desire by those in the prevailing party to reconsider it, you could do it that way as a denial without prejudice.

I also would recommend that we go ahead and change the wording as we get to variance C so that we approve it with two parking spaces instead of three. So with the stipulation. Why don't we just take each one separately? So instead of saying approve them all, let's make it.

Yeah, Mr. Johnson said that. We're going to split them up.

So I think Ms. Freed is asking for each motion separately. Okay.

I can do that. Okay. I can move to approve as written BAR 26-083A.

I will second.

Okay. So we have a motion to approve A by Mr. Johnson and second by Ms. Freed. Staff, could you please perform a roll call vote?

We have a motion to approve case BAR-26-083, Variance A. Motion made by Board Member Michael Johnston and second by Board Member Deborah Freed. Roll call vote for Variance A. Board Member Jim Whitten. Special exception. Special exception A. Thank you.

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza. Yes. Board Member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board Member Bob Riley.

No.

Board Member Deborah Freed. No. Board Member Whit Wollman.

No.

Board member Jana Herrera? No. Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member Kay Duffy? Yes. Board member Eric Arteaga?

Yes.

Board member Jarrett Wilson?

No.

The motion to approve variance A fails for lack of non-affirmative votes.

Now, to be clear, denial, failure to achieve the right, the appropriate number of votes is a denial with prejudice. If there is a desire by any in the prevailing party to reconsider for a denial without prejudice, we can address that now.

Do we need to do that now or wait till after all of them?

Let's address it now.

I would recommend to do them now, successively.

I would not support that because that would possibly become a huge two-car carport if it was approved to have a carport.

I would like to reconsider for denial without prejudice.

Point of...

I'll second that. Oh, wait, did you?

Who is the prevailing party, the yeas or the nays?

In that case, because the motion failed, it would be the nays or the prevailing party.

Anybody that voted against?

Correct.

Mr. Wilson voted against, correct?

Correct.

We have a motion to reconsider A, the denial with prejudice, correct?

Without prejudice.

Well, but the vote was denial.

First you need a vote on the reconsideration, then Mr. Wilson can make the motion to deny without prejudice.

Correct. Okay, so we need a motion now. Motion to reconsider. Yep, motion to reconsider A.

Can I second it or does it have to be prevailing party?

The second can come from anyone. I'll second that.

Okay, motion to reconsider by Mr. Wilson, a second by Ms. Duffy. Staff, could we please perform a roll call vote and maybe read out what we're reconsidering. We're reconsidering the denial of A.

Yes, okay.

Right now you're just voting on whether to reconsider.

Reconsider, right.

Yep.

Okay, so we have a motion to reconsider the decision made by the board for special exception A. The motion was made to approve the case as written. Motion failed for lack of non-affirmative votes. Board member Jared Wilson has made a motion to reconsider and the motion was seconded by board member Duffy. Now we'll take a roll call vote. Board member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

This is a yes to reconsider. Yes. Okay, board member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board Member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board Member Deborah Freed? Yes. Board Member Whit Wollman?

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera? No. Board Member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member Kay Duffy? Yes. Board Member Eric Arteaga?

Yes.

Board Member Jarrett Wilson?

Yes.

The motion to reconsider passes. Mr. Wilson, would you like to make a motion?

I'd like to make a motion to deny without prejudice BAR 26083A, special exception.

Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Riley. Staff, could we please form a roll call vote?

Yes. We have a motion for case Bay R-26-083. Motion made for special exception A to deny without prejudice. Motion made by board member Jarrett Wilson and second by board member Bob Riley. Board member Jim Whitten.

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Board Member Deborah Freed. Yes. Board Member Whit Woldman.

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera. No. Board Member Lucretia Powell. Yes. Board Member Kay Duffy. Yes. Board Member Eric Ortega.

Yes.

Board Member Jared Wilson.

Yes.

The motion to deny without prejudice passes.

Or special exception and correct.

Yes.

Okay. Yes.

I'll make a motion for BAR25-083, Variance B.

26, sorry.

26-083. Take me back. 26-083, Variance B, that we approve as written.

Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Second. Mr. Wilson? Motion by Ms. Freed. Staff, would you please perform a roll call vote?

Yes. Board member Jim Whitten.

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed. Yes. Board member Whit Wollman.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera. Yes. Board member Lucretia Powell. Yes. Board member Kay Duffy. Yes. Board member Eric Arteaga. Yes. Board member Jarrett Wilson. Yes. The motion passes.

Okay, thank you.

Moving on to C. I'll make a motion for BAR 26-083 on Variant C that we approve two parking spaces rather than the required three.

Second.

Okay, so there's an amended motion for Variant C from three required spaces to two. Motion by Ms. Freed, second by Mr. Wilson. Approved as written.

Okay, so we have a motion for case BAR-26-083 for Variant C, motion made by Board Member Deborah Freed to approve with the stipulation of requiring two parking spaces instead of the requested one parking space. The motion was seconded by Board Member Jarrett Wilson. Roll call vote for Variant C. Board Member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza? Yes. Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed? Yes. Board member Whit Wollman?

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell? Yes. Board member Kay Duffy? Yes. Board member Eric Arteaga? Yes. Board member Jarrett Wilson? Yes. The motion passes.

Okay. Now moving on to variance D. Any more discussion or a motion?

Johnston moves for the approval as written of BAR 26083D. Thank you.

We have a motion. We have a second?

Second.

Mr. Whitten, thank you. Motion to approve by Mr. Johnston, second by Mr. Whitten, as written. Can we please form a roll call vote?

Yes. Board Member Jim Whitten? Yes. Board Member Sergio Garza? Yes. Board Member Michael Johnston? Yes. Board Member Bob Riley? Yes.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed. Yes. Board member Whit Wollman.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera. Yes. Board member Lucretia Powell. Yes. Board member Kay Duffy. Yes. Board member Eric Arteaga. Yes. Board member Jarrett Wilson. Yes. The motion passes.

Okay, ma'am. So you've had several You've had all of yours passed with several different stipulations and I would reach out and maybe, I'm sorry, one denied, but I would reach out to staff as early as possible to get more further clarification on what each of those mean and how you would move forward. And you can reach out to city staff as early as tomorrow.

Which one was the one denied?

It was a special exception to allow carport within the required front yard residential dwelling.

Can we explain to them what it without prejudice means?

Yeah, so when we deny, typically a typical denial, and the reason why we went through this whole process, a standard denial is with prejudice. And I understand it's two years, is that right, legal? So that's two years you're not able to bring your case before us again.

Usualmente cuando rechazamos, normalmente cuando es con prejuicio, el límite es dos años. Usted no puede presentar de nuevo su caso normalmente.

But for yours, it was denied without prejudice, which means there's not the two-year delay or waiting period to bring yours back. What it does is it denies and allows you to work with city staff prior to two years.

Entonces, en el caso tuyo fue rechazado, pero sin perjuicio, lo que significa que no tienes que esperar los dos años. Eso permite a usted trabajar con el personal de la ciudad para poder arreglar el asunto aún más rápido.

And you also had on C, there was a change to one of the requests. So again, I think reach out as early as tomorrow with city staff to make sure you understand what you can do going forward based on these approvals and denials. Okay, thank you. All right, staff, we're ready for the next case. BAR-26-079. This is case BAR-26-079.

The address is 1724 Stockup. This is a variance to the requirement that the driveway coverage for one and two family uses should not exceed 50% of the front yard as measured between the front property line and the closest location on the structure to allow 100% of the driveway coverage in the front yard. The maximum allowed driveway coverage is 50%. The applicant is requesting 100% driveway coverage. The subject property is located in- One second, Gianna.

I'm sorry. Can we ask the applicant to come to the front? Can you start over, Gianna? One second.

For the benefit of the board and for the room, we're just setting up a translation. Since this is a translation case, we're making sure that everything is translated to the applicant.

Okay, this is BAR-26-079. The address is 1724 Stalker. There's a variance to the requirement that the driveway coverage for one and two family uses shall not exceed 50% of the front yard as measured between the front property line and the closest location on the structure to allow 100% of the driveway coverage in the front yard. The maximum allowed driveway coverage is 50%. The applicant is requesting 100% driveway coverage. The subject property is located in an established residential neighborhood. The 13,939 square foot property has a 4% downward slope from the northern property line to the southern property line and was not plated with alley access. There are several mature trees in the front and rear of the property and there is no presence of regulated floodplain. There are no environmental constraints and the primary structure was constructed in 1967. The lot history right now, there is an active code compliant case. It was issued June the 11th of 2026. Applicant is requesting a variance to allow 700 square feet of paved surface resulting in 100% driveway coverage in the front yard as measured between the front of the structure and the front of the property line. The area between the front of the structure and the front of the property line is 1,215 square feet and the maximum driveway coverage allowed by right is 50% or 642.50 square feet. These are the variance regulations. These are the Board of Adjustment actions. Staff is available for any questions.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? Did you say what the law history was? Was there a permit or was this code compliance?

There's an active code compliance case and it was issued on June the 11th of this year.

Thank you. Any other questions for staff?

Code compliance for what?

The code compliance case for the 100% driveway coverage.

Do we know if there was a complaint or if it was just a random drive-around inspection?

That I'm not certain of. You may want to ask the applicant because I believe sometimes the code compliance officer will let them know.

Thank you. It was from a complaint. Thank you.

Thank you. Please go ahead.

So I think you said that structure was built in 67, but I'm seeing a tag that it was built in 2020. Is that? Looks more correct from the photo, but I don't know. I guess I'll ask the applicant. The driveway since then probably anyway.

I have a silly question for Steph. Is artificial grass considered non-concrete?

As long as it's permeable surface.

They can put artificial grass over concrete and it would quality.

No, they have to take up the concrete.

Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Thank you very much. Is the applicant here? Yes, please come forward, state your name, address, and the facts about your case, and you'll have 14 minutes.

I just want to state that the applicant says she understands everything in English perfectly, and she can actually speak English. There may be a couple words when she speaks that she may need help, but for the most part, she won't need interpretation. Okay.

We still want to grant 14 minutes.

Yes.

We're still going to give you 14 minutes since this was noticed as a translation case. Okay.

Good morning. My name is Maria Aguilar. My address is 1724 Stalkop Road. And I built concrete because I have like two mayor hits on my son's car. And I have about like three side mirror because they drive by and broke it. And And there's like a bus stop like in front. So sometimes it needs space. In front of my house, there is like no another house. So I can't park on the other side because as well there is the bus stop. And that's why very much I need the... The full concrete on my house.