[ITEM 2: BOA-26-0001 – A request by Cheryl Walters, on behalf of Deborah Cashen-Lusk, property owner, pursuant to the City of Decatur Code of Ordinances, Appendix B, “Zoning,” Section 4.3.6, “Variances.” The request is for a variance to the City of Decatur Code of Ordinances, Appendix B, “Zoning,” Article 5, “Zoning Districts,” Section 5.1.9, “C-1, Restricted Business District,” Subsection D, “Area Regulations,” (1)Size of Yards, (d) Minimum Rear Yard: Ten Feet (10’), to allow an existing, non-conforming concrete block building to encroach 9.78 feet and 9.52 feet, respectively, into the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback at the property located at 1900 W US Hwy 380 Business, Decatur, Texas. (Cashen-Lusk)]

TO ALLOW AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING CONCRETE BLOCK BUILDING TO ENCROACH 9.78FT AND 9.52FT INTO THE REQUIRED TEN FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK ON A PROPERTY LOCATED ON US 380 BUSINESS.

AND WE'LL HEAR THE STAFF REPORT FROM LISA. YES, SIR.

LISA HANNON, PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE RECORD.

WE'LL ENTER OUR STAFF REPORT INTO THE RECORD IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING BUILDING.

A PLAT APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED. SO THAT TRIGGERED THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.

A TEN FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK IS REQUIRED. AND AS STATED, THE REQUESTED ENCROACHMENT IS 9.52FT AND 9.78FT, RESPECTIVELY. SO LOOKING AT THE GOOGLE MAP IMAGERY, THIS BUILDING'S BEEN IN PLACE SINCE APPROXIMATELY OR BEFORE 1995. SO IT'S BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME.

SO IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, ALSO THERE IS AN EXISTING SEWER LINE THAT RUNS ACROSS BOTH OF THESE PROPERTIES.

IT'S GOING TO BECOME TWO PROPERTIES. THE 0.73 ACRES TO THE WEST AND THE 0.64 ACRES TO THE EAST.

THE ONE WITH THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS THE PROPERTY LOT TWO TO THE EAST.

WE'RE WORKING WITH THE SURVEYOR AND THE APPLICANT AND PUBLIC WORKS REGARDING AN EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT.

WE ARE GOING TO REQUIRE THAT TO BE APPROVED BY PUBLIC WORKS AND RECORDED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE PLAT AND VARIANTS ARE RECORDED, SHOULD SHOULD EVERYTHING GET APPROVED. SO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CAN LEGALLY GRANT THE VARIANCE PER THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND OUR CITY ORDINANCES. IT DOES NEED TO MEET CRITERIA.

SO WE'LL GO THROUGH THE CRITERIA. THAT THE VARIATION IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.

AGAIN THIS IS A NON, THIS IS AN EXISTING BUILDING.

THEY DIDN'T JUST UP AND BUILD THIS THERE'S NO EXPANSION PROPOSED FOR IT OR THEY'RE NOT PLANNING ON DEMOLISHING IT.

IT'S BEEN THERE FOR MANY YEARS AND THE PLANNING HAS CREATED THE NEED TO GO THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS AND THE VARIATION DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS.

AGAIN, THIS IS WE DISCOVERED IT THROUGH THE PLATTING PROCESS.

LITERAL ENFORCEMENT RESULTS IN UNDUE HARDSHIP.

IT IS A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING. TO MOVE IT OR DEMOLISH IT WOULD BE NEARLY, IT'D BE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MOVE IT.

AND THEY HAVE NO PLANS TO DEMOLISH IT. IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A NONSTANDARD OR AN UNSAFE BUILDING, SO THERE'S NO REASON TO REQUIRE IT TO BE DEMOLISHED.

AND THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE.

AGAIN, WE'RE SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD. I KNOW, BUT IT'S AN EXISTING BUILDING THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR NUMEROUS YEARS.

AND NO PLANS OF EXPANSION OR DEMOLITION OF IT THAT COULD CAUSE HARDSHIP FOR THAT PROPERTY OWNER.

SO WE NOTIFIED 26 PROPERTY OWNERS AND FRIDAY WE HAD GOTTEN A NEUTRAL RESPONSE.

HOWEVER, AT 3:18 THIS AFTERNOON, THAT SAME PROPERTY OWNER DECIDED TO CHANGE THEIR RESPONSE FROM NEUTRAL TO OPPOSED, REQUESTING THAT BUFFERING BE CREATED ACROSS BOTH LOTS.

SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE LOT ONE AND LOT TWO GOING THROUGH THE PLATTING.

LOT ONE IS PROPOSED, ALL OF THIS IS ZONED COMMERCIAL.

SO LOT ONE IS PROPOSED FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING.

WHEN THAT CONSTRUCTION, WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS COME IN FOR THAT NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING, BUFFERING IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED BY CODE FOR THAT LOT ONE.

[00:05:05]

THAT'S A REQUIREMENT IN BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL.

IT'S THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH THAT IS OPPOSING THE VARIANCE APPLICATION.

I'M GOING TO JUST WALK OVER. THERE.

SO IT'S A PRETTY LARGE PROPERTY AND THAT'S ALL RESIDENTIAL.

SO THEY ARE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE GOTTEN AN OPPOSITION ON THAT.

WE SPOKE THE CITY ATTORNEY AND I SPOKE WITH THE APPLICANT.

SHE SHE KNOWS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BUFFERING ON LOT ONE.

IT IS NOT REQUIRED ON LOT TWO AT THIS TIME BECAUSE LOT TWO IS STILL RESIDENTIAL.

HOWEVER, SHE'S WILLING TO PUT UP A FENCE WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE NORTH.

SO AT THE TIME OF WRITING, THE PRESENTATION AND THE STAFF REPORT ARE CONDITION OF APPROVAL WAS REGARDING THE EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT FOR THE SEWER EASEMENT THAT RUNS OR THE SEWER LINE THAT RUNS ACROSS ACROSS BOTH PROPERTIES.

NOW WE WOULD LIKE IT WOULD BE UP TO THE BOARD TO SAY IF THEY WANTED TO APPROVE IT OR DENY IT OR APPROVE IT WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THE FENCING TO GO ACROSS BOTH PROPERTIES, BUFFERING TO GO ACROSS BOTH PROPERTIES.

AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM HER AND YOU DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING POSTED ON THIS.

OKAY, WE WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:59, AND WE WOULD INVITE ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE TO COME TO THE PODIUM.

AND I BELIEVE YOU'VE GOT TO STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

YES, SIR. HI, MY NAME IS DEBORAH LUSK AND I'M THE OWNER OF BOTH OF THOSE PROPERTIES.

1900 IS A HOME ON THERE AND IT HAS THAT CONCRETE BUILDING, FROM WHAT I'M UNDERSTOOD, HAS BEEN THERE FOR DECADES.

I HAVE MADE IT ESTHETICALLY MORE APPEALING BECAUSE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO IT'S NOT, I'VE NEVER HAD ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT IT BEING THERE.

HAD NO IDEA ABOUT ANY OF THIS UNTIL, YOU KNOW, I WANTED TO SEPARATE THE PROPERTIES.

ALTHOUGH THEY'VE BEEN SEPARATED, SEPARATE SEWER LINES, SEPARATE WATER, SEPARATE EVERYTHING, SEPARATE PROPERTY TAXES. BUT ON THE SURVEY, IT DIDN'T INDICATE THAT.

THAT'S WHY I SAID, HEY, WE NEED TO MAKE A NEW SURVEY AND ALL THIS CAME ABOUT.

SO ANYWAY, THE I HAVEN'T HAD ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT THAT.

YOU KNOW, IT LOOKED LIKE A HORSE SHED TO ME IN THE BACK, YOU KNOW, FROM THE ORIGINAL OWNERS, WHOEVER YOU KNOW, OWNED THAT LAND. BUT IT'S, IT'S NOT HURTING ANYTHING BY BEING THERE.

NOW I UNDERSTAND THE MAN IN THE BACK. THIS. DO YOU WANT ME TO TALK ABOUT THAT OTHER SIDE, TOO? OKAY, SO THE OTHER PROPERTY I WAS PUTTING UP A SMALL METAL BUILDING OFF TO THE LEFT OF THE PROPERTY.

BECAUSE OF OUR GROWTH, IT'S, IT'S GOING TO HAVE A MORE ROOM FOR THE TYPE OF BUSINESS THAT WE HAVE.

AND THE WHOLE PROPERTY LINE IS CEDAR TREES. THE WHOLE PROPERTY LINE.

SO THERE IS NO VIEW FROM ONE HOUSE TO OUR PROPERTY THERE.

SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T MIND PUTTING UP A FENCE RIGHT THERE FOR WHATEVER REASON.

THE PROBLEM IS HIS CEDAR TREES ARE ABOUT 15 TO 20FT ON OUR PROPERTY.

SO THE LIMBS, THE CEDAR TREES ARE ON THE PROPERTY LINE.

AND SO YOU'VE GOT THESE MASSIVE CEDAR TREES. AND WHY I NEVER DID ANYTHING ABOUT IT IS BECAUSE IT'S A BOUNDARY IN ITSELF, YOU KNOW? AND I REALLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO CUT THOSE CEDAR TREES BACK IN ORDER TO PUT THAT FENCE THERE BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A SEWER LINE RIGHT THERE.

SO I CAN'T PUT THE FENCE AT THE END OF THE CEDAR TREES BECAUSE THERE'S A SEWER LINE.

SO THE TREES HAVE TO BE CUT BACK IN ORDER TO PUT A FENCING UP THERE, WHICH I DON'T.

IF THAT'S A REQUIREMENT, I WOULD HAVE TO DO IT.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM DOING THAT. BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IT'S ALL A BOUNDARY ANYWAY.

[00:10:06]

IT'S CLOSED OFF. AND SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS GENTLEMAN IS REQUIRING THAT.

BUT IF THE CITY IS REQUIRING IT, YOU KNOW, I'LL DO IT.

BUT THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE TREES. SO YOU KNOW, ANYWAY, WHATEVER IT IS THAT I NEED TO DO TO MOVE FORWARD THEN.

BUT I WOULD APPRECIATE THE VARIANCE ON THIS CONCRETE BUILDING, YOU KNOW? SO DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? DOES THIS GENTLEMAN UNDERSTAND HIS OPTIONS? I. DON'T NECESSARILY GOOD. WELL, IT WAS AN UNDERSTANDING THAT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LEAVE THE TREES ALONE BECAUSE I'M NOT PUTTING THE FENCE UP. SO NOW WITH THE NEW BUILDING COMING, THE IT'S JUST A 30 BY 30. IT'S NOT A BIG METAL BUILDING. IT'LL BE OFF TO THE VERY FAR LEFT.

NOT BY WHERE THE TREES ARE. SO YOU KNOW, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY I THINK HE HE JUST DISAGREES.

MISS, I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR CLARITY OF THIS BOARD.

WHEN YOU SAY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE METAL BUILDING, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LOT ONE, NOT LOT TWO OVER HERE.

AND YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT LOT TWO TODAY. OKAY.

LOT TWO. SO THAT'S JUST THE HOUSE. THAT'S RESIDENTIAL HOUSE.

SO I DO I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT A PLAT ON LOT TWO RIGHT NOW CURRENTLY.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S RAISED THE. YES. YES. EXCUSE ME.

VARIANCE FOR THE CONCRETE BUILDING THAT'S IN THE BACK OF LOT TWO.

OKAY. IT ENCROACHES INTO THE SETBACK. GOT IT.

AND THE METAL BUILDING THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. IS ON THE OTHER PROPERTY.

IT'S ON LOT ONE. YES. OKAY. WELL, IT HASN'T YET.

OKAY. AND THAT WILL LOT ONE BE PLATTED AS WELL? YES. BOTH OF THEM ARE GOING THROUGH THE PLATTING PROCESS.

SO THEY'LL BE PLATTED TOGETHER? YES, SIR. WELL, THEY'LL BE PLATTED SEPARATELY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME.

OKAY. SO THERE'S NOT A SUBDIVISION HAPPENING WHERE YOU MIGHT CHANGE THE.

WE'RE DOING WE'RE DOING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT ON THAT.

IT'S GOING TO THE MARCH 30TH PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.

OKAY. BUT THESE TWO, IT WILL CREATE TWO LOTS WHEN WE GET DONE.

ARE THERE TWO LOTS RIGHT NOW? NO, NOT ON PAPER.

THEY'RE NOT. OKAY. OKAY. SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS LOT TWO OF THE PROPOSED PLAT.

YES, YES. ALL RIGHT. I'M WITH YOU NOW. THE THE FOLKS THAT ARE THE PROPERTY OWNERS BEHIND THAT HAVE RAISED THE OPPOSITION ARE ONLINE, ARE ON ZOOM. SO OKAY, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THEM OR IF THEY WANT TO SPEAK.

OKAY. LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION. WHERE IS THE SEWER LINE? I'M ASSUMING THERE'S A TEN FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT.

YEAH. AND IS IT IN THAT TEN FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT? SO RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT IN THE TEN FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT.

THEY ARE CREATING AN EASEMENT. AND AS YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE BIG RED CIRCLE IS, YOU SEE THE LONG BLACK LINE BETWEEN LOT TWO AND LOT ONE MEANS THAT SEWER LINE CROSSES BOTH OF THOSE PROPERTY LINES.

THAT'S WHY WE NEED AN EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED BY PUBLIC WORKS.

SO IF THAT NEEDS ANY WORK OR ANYTHING, THEN IT IT CAN BE DONE.

WE CAN ACCESS THE PROPERTY. WELL THE SEWER LINE COMES TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE? IT LOOKS LIKE? YES. SO IT'S IT'S NOT CLOSE TO THE TEN BY TEN CONCRETE BUILDING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN QUESTION.

OKAY. NOW THERE ARE TWO SEWER LINES, ONE FOR ONE BUILDING AND ONE FOR THE OTHER.

THE HOUSE IS THE ONE THAT RUNS ACROSS THE OTHER PROPERTY ALL THE WAY TO THE CITY SEWER.

AND THAT'S THAT'S WAY PAST THE CITY, THE TREES.

SO IN THIS.

SO IN THIS PLATTING PROCESS, ARE WE GOING TO END UP WITH ONE RESIDENTIAL LOT AND ONE COMMERCIAL LOT? NO, THEY'RE BOTH ZONED C-2. I. I. I WAS NODDING YES.

AND THEN YOU SAID NO. SO THERE'S A HOUSE. THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON ONE OF THE LOTS, BUT IT'S IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE, WHICH IS ALLOWED. THE OTHER IS COMMERCIAL FOR COMMERCIAL.

RIGHT. THE ONE WITH THE HOUSE. LOT TWO. THEY COULD TEAR IT DOWN.

[00:15:02]

THEY COULD. AS LONG AS THEY MET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS, THEY MAY BE ABLE TO TURN THAT ONE INTO AN OFFICE.

IT IS ZONED COMMERCIAL. BOTH BOTH PROPERTIES ARE ZONED COMMERCIAL.

OKAY. SO IN A PLATTING PROCESS FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ARE YOU REQUIRED TO HAVE A TEN FOOT BUFFER LANDSCAPE BUFFER OR OTHERWISE? ONLY WHEN YOU ARE ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL, BECAUSE RESIDENTIAL IS TO THE NORTH, ONLY WHEN YOU GET READY TO REDEVELOP OR CHANGE ANY ZONING OR CHANGE ANY USE. SO LOT ONE'S GETTING REDEVELOPED TO ADD A NEW BUILDING THAT'S GOING TO TRIGGER THE BUFFERING ON LOT ONE BETWEEN LOT ONE AND THE NORTH PROPERTY. RIGHT NOW, LOT TWO DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY BUFFERING.

SHE'S NOT DOING A CHANGE OF USE TO AN OFFICE OR A MORE INTENSIVE USE.

IT'S STAYING AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. SO THEREFORE WE CAN'T REQUIRE ANY BUFFERING FOR THAT THROUGH THE PLATTING PROCESS.

THAT'S ON LOT TWO. THAT'S ON LOT TWO. CORRECT.

SO IT'S ON C-1. CAN YOU TAKE THAT ONE OFF? OKAY.

SO MISS LUSK, WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, OR MAYBE I'VE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE CITY IS A FENCE ON LOT ONE, WHICH IS THE WEST LOT. THAT WOULD SATISFY THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS.

NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE DISCUSSION TODAY. I WANTED TO TALK TO HER ABOUT HER WILLINGNESS TO MEET THE NEIGHBOR WHO IS IN OPPOSITION WITHOUT THE BUFFERING. HOW SHE FELT ABOUT JUST MEETING WITH HIM ON THAT AND AGREEING TO PUT UP A FENCE THERE ON LOT TWO.

SHE WAS WILLING, BUT THERE'S BEEN SOME ISSUE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORS ABOUT THESE TREES, AND I DON'T KNOW THE EFFECT THAT THE FENCE WOULD HAVE IF SHE DID PUT ONE UP ON THE TREES. SO THAT'S WHAT WE DON'T KNOW. BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED ON LOT TWO.

OR LOT ONE RIGHT NOW. RIGHT NOW. RIGHT NOW. BUT WHEN THE BUILDING PLANS COME IN, SHE HAS A CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT BUILDING PLANS FOR HER NEW BUILDING ON LOT ONE AT THAT TIME. THAT'S WHEN THE BUFFERING WILL BE REQUIRED.

IT WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE IN PLACE BEFORE FINAL INSPECTION IS APPROVED.

SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE THOSE TREES ARE.

SO EVEN THERE. SO EVEN IF THERE'S EXISTING BUFFERING IN PLACE, THE THE REQUIREMENTS ARE YOU STILL HAVE TO PROVIDE IT YOURSELF.

YES, SIR. AND IT'S REQUIRED ON THE USE THAT'S MOST INTENSIVE.

SO THE PROPERTY C-2 IS THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS RESIDENTIAL.

SO SHE HAS A COMMERCIAL C-1. SO PUTTING SOMETHING IN WOULD REQUIRE THE BUFFERING IN BETWEEN THE TWO.

AND THE THE BURDEN FALLS UPON THE PROPERTY OWNER DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOST MOST INTENSIVE USE.

SO AND AGAIN, THESE LOT LINES ARE NOT EXACT OR APPROXIMATE BASED ON SOMEBODY DRAWING LINES.

SO WITHOUT AN ACTUAL SURVEY THAT WOULD IDENTIFY THE TREES, OUR OFFICE CAN'T OR OUR STAFF CANNOT TELL EXACTLY WHERE THOSE TREES LAND OR WHERE THE TRUNKS OF THOSE TREES LAND.

IT APPEARS THAT THEY ARE ON MOSTLY ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE OR ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY.

WHEN THE WHEN THE RESIDENTS PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THAT CAME IN, THEY ALSO HAD CONCERNS ABOUT SOME TRESPASSING THAT THEY SAID GOES ON. BUT THAT WAS WHAT THEY TOLD STAFF.

BUT THEY ARE ONLINE IF YOU DO HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THEM.

OKAY. I KNOW OF NO TRESPASSING. I KNOW WE DO A JUVENILE GROUP AND ONE TIME WE WERE PLAYING SOCCER OUT IN THE FIELD AND THE BALL WENT OVER ON THE PROPERTY AND THEY WENT AND GOT IT AND BROUGHT IT BACK.

SO THEY PUT A NO TRESPASSING SIGN RIGHT THERE IN THAT LITTLE HOLE WHERE THE BALL WENT THROUGH.

THAT'S THE ONLY ONLY TIME THAT'S HAPPENED IN TWO AND A HALF YEARS.

SO WE DON'T PLAY BALL OUTSIDE ANYMORE. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MISS LUSK? [INAUDIBLE]PUT A SIGN UP THERE BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR.

TELL THEM COME OVER AND GET YOUR BALL. IT IS WHAT IT IS WITH KIDS.

[00:20:01]

YEAH, I WAS PRETTY TAKEN BACK BY IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, HEY, JUST LET ME CONFIRM ONE MORE TIME, JUST FOR FOR ME THE WESTERN LOT IS LOT ONE. EASTERN LOT IS LOT TWO.

THE EASTERN LOT HAS AN EXISTING HOUSE ON IT. WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE USE.

SO THEREFORE LOT TWO DOES NOT REQUIRE A CHANGE IN THE BUFFERING RIGHT NOW.

LOT ONE CURRENTLY DOESN'T, BUT WHEN WE PLOT IT, THEN THAT WILL REQUIRE BUFFERING ON LOT ONE.

YES. EXCUSE ME. WHEN IT'S DEVELOPED. YES. YES.

WHEN IT'S DEVELOPED. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.

WELL, I THINK WE NEED TO TALK TO THE OWNERS OF THE LOT TO THE NORTH AND.

AND LET THEM TALK. YEAH. EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS.

THANK YOU, MISS LUSK. THIS IS GUY AND IRENE. WE'RE AT 1803 OAK MEADOW DRIVE, DECATUR.

WE'RE THE NORTH LOT. OUR PRIMARY. WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE LEGALESE OF ALL THE DEFINITIONS AND THE PLOTTING AND ALL THAT, OUR PRIMARY CONCERN IS APPEARANCE. AND OUR CEDAR TREES, WE'RE VERY SENSITIVE TO OUR CEDAR TREES.

THEY HAVE SINCE. PARDON ME FOR NOT BEING POLITE SINCE MISS LUSK AND HER HUSBAND HAVE TAKEN OVER THE PROPERTY WE HAVE SUFFERED DAMAGE SEVERAL TIMES TO OUR CEDAR TREES.

SO OUR CONCERN IS WITH THE CEDAR TREES AND THE PROTECTION THEY PROVIDE, BOTH AS A WINDBREAK, AS A VISUAL BREAK, ETC.. AND I'M NOT I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT I REALLY CARE WHETHER OR NOT YOU PUT A FENCE UP, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T CHOP DOWN OR CHOP OFF OR CUT OFF THE TREES.

I UNDERSTAND THE LEGALITY OF THE SITUATION IN THE SENSE THAT IF THE TREE BRANCHES EXTEND OVER THE PROPERTY LINE, THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE CAN DO. HOWEVER, IF YOU HAVE TO TRIM OFF BECAUSE IT RAN OVER THE PROPERTY LINE, TRIM IT TO PROPERTY LINE, DON'T DO WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY DONE AT THE WHITE BUILDING AND EXTEND 2 OR 3FT OVER THE PROPERTY LINE.

WHEN YOU JUST HAPHAZARDLY, WITHOUT ANY, WITHOUT ANY CARE FOR PROPER HUSBANDRY OF THE TREE. JUST CHOP THE BRANCH OFF. THAT WAS IT. BUT THAT'S NOTHING HERE.

NOTHING THERE. THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. BUT. SO OUR PRIMARY CONCERN IS THE TREES AND THE PROTECTION OF THE TREES, THEIR ROOTS, ETC.. AND AS FAR AS THE TRESPASSING, THE TRESPASSING IS SOMETHING THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, UNLESS YOU PUT UP A 20 FOOT TALL WALL, IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

WE GET PEOPLE JUST WANDERING OVER BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S A PARK AND ANYBODY CAN WALK THROUGH THERE.

AND IT HAPPENS. WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT A IT'S IT'S NOT PLEASANT, BUT THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT.

SO ASK ME QUESTIONS. OKAY. MR. PREGUES, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU JUST SAID CORRECTLY, YOUR CONCERN IS THAT YOU DON'T WANT THOSE CEDAR TREES TO BE TRIMMED BACK TO THE PROPERTY LINE OR THEIR ROOTS TORN UP.

OKAY. SO AND I'M GUESSING THOSE CEDAR TREES ARE MATURE TREES, BUT THEY PROBABLY WEREN'T THERE IN 1995, WERE THEY? NO. I THINK THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY PUT THEM IN AROUND 98, 98 OR LATER WHEN HE BUILT THE PROPERTY, BUILT THE HOUSE HERE AND PUT THE TREES IN LANDSCAPING, ETC..

OKAY, SO IS THIS CONCRETE OUTBUILDING HAVING AN EFFECT ON THE TREES THAT ARE HERE? NO OTHER OTHER THAN THE BRANCHES. WHEN THEY PAINTED THE BUILDING, THEY CHOPPED OFF A PORTION OF THE LONGEST BRANCHES THAT RODE OR TOUCHED ON IN THE BUILDING. THEY CHOPPED THEM OFF AND AS I SAID, THEY, THEY, THEY JUST CHOPPED THEM OFF. IT WASN'T A VERY IT'S NOT A VERY PRETTY JOB.

AND THEY CHOPPED THEM OFF FURTHER THAN THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE.

SO I UNDERSTAND THEY NEEDED TO TAKE THEM OUT.

THAT'S AND THAT'S, THAT'S JUST THAT'S LIFE. THAT'S THE WAY THE THAT'S WHERE THE LINE IS.

BUT THESE TREES ARE PLANTED ON YOUR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE.

CORRECT. ARE THESE TREES ON OUR SIDE? SO THE TRUNKS OF THESE TREES ARE ALL ON YOUR SIDE? YES. OKAY. OKAY. SO YOUR CONCERN REALLY IS THAT IF YOU HAD THE WAY, IF YOU HAD IT YOUR WAY

[00:25:05]

WE WOULD LEAVE THE TREES AS THEY ARE AND NOT TRIM THEM AND LET THEM REMAIN A VISUAL BUFFER BETWEEN YOU AND THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH. YES. OKAY. SO.

AND ARE YOU OKAY IF WE GRANT THEM A VARIANCE FOR THAT BUILDING THAT'S BEEN THERE SINCE 1995? I'M OKAY WITH THAT AS LONG AS AS I SAID, OUR CONCERN IS THE TREE.

OKAY. OKAY. I DON'T THINK WE AS A BOARD CAN LEGISLATE THE RIGHTS OF YOUR OF YOUR NEIGHBOR TO TRIM OR NOT TRIM THOSE TREES. BUT I, I THINK MAYBE THEY WOULD BE AMENABLE TO BEING GOOD NEIGHBORS.

AND SO. I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE. WE ONLY CUT THE TREES OFF OF THE ROOF OF THAT BUILDING SO THAT WE COULD PAINT IT.

YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

THOSE BRANCHES THAT WE PICKED UP AND WE CUT WERE BROKEN.

SO WE CLEANED UP THE PROPERTY. WHEN WE FIRST BOUGHT IT, THERE WERE BRANCHES EVERYWHERE, SO WE JUST PICKED THEM UP.

WE TRIMMED IT UP, MADE IT PRETTY AND. BUT WE NEVER WENT OVER THE PROPERTY LINE.

WE NEVER WENT ON TO THE PROPERTY LINE. NO. OKAY.

AND WE TRIED TO DISCUSS THAT WITH THEM. AND YOU KNOW, HE SAID, I UNDERSTAND THEY WERE ON YOUR PROPERTY.

SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS ALL SAID AND DONE. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS LUSK. ANY MORE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? CAN I COME IN TO HER COMMENT, SIR? CAN I COMMENT ON WHAT SHE JUST SAID? SURE. SHE SAID THEY NEVER DID ANYTHING TO THE TREES.

WE HAVE OUR TREE. TREE NUMBER SIX, IF YOU COUNT STARTING FROM THE WESTERN SIDE AND DOWN ALL OF OUR TREES WERE GRAZING THE GROUND ALL THE WAY UP AND DOWN THAT LINE. THEY HAD A WORKER THERE WHO DIDN'T KNOW THAT THEY WEREN'T, THAT THEY WEREN'T THEIR TREES, AND HE PROCEEDED TO CHOP THEM OFF AT LEAST SHOULDER HEIGHTS TO ME.

CHOP OFF ALL THE LOWER BRANCHES. SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THEY HAVE TOUCHED THE TREES MORE THAN WERE MORE THAN. THEY'VE CERTAINLY AFFECTED VISIBILITY. SO I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO AN ARGUMENT OVER THE TREE.

THAT'S YOU KNOW, WE THAT'S THAT'S LIFE. THAT'S WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE.

THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT EXCEPT PRAY FOR TIME FOR THE TREES TO GROW BACK.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE COMMENTS.

OKAY, CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD HELP FOCUS IN ON THE WORK OF THE BOARD, THAT IS, WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT THE VARIANCE ON THE BUILDING.

I KNOW BOTH OF THESE PARTIES HAVE SOME FEELINGS OR EXPERIENCES THAT MAY NOT ALIGN REGARDING THIS OTHER ISSUE.

BUT THE QUESTION FOR THE BOARD, AND I BELIEVE.

MR. PREGUES. JUST SAID THAT THE BUILDING'S NOT AN ISSUE.

SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT US AND FOCUS US BACK IN ON THE BUILDING.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE? THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:20.

ANY MORE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS HERE? IS THE FENCE GOING TO AFFECT THE ROOTS OF HIS TREES? I THINK THE FENCE IS OFF THE TABLE, NOT OUR ISSUE.

FROM WHAT I HEARD, FENCE IS OFF THE TABLE. THAT'S WHAT I AM GATHERING FROM THE CONVERSATION THAT WE JUST HAD IN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO THE TEN FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THAT BUILDING.

NOT FOR NEW BUILDINGS. JUST FOR THAT BUILDING.

WE HAVE A SECOND FROM DANNY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE, AYE. ALL RIGHT. ITEM TWO IS APPROVED. THANK YOU.

AND THEN I UNDERSTAND THAT ITEM THREE AND FOUR ARE ON THE SHELF FOR NOW.

[ITEM 3: New and/or future business items. a. As of the agenda posting, the meeting on Monday, April 13, 2026, currently has no (0) BOA applications. The application deadline is Monday, March 16, 2026, by 5 p.m. (The meeting will be an in-person meeting with potential virtual attendance of staff and members of the public unless otherwise determined.)]

THAT IS CORRECT. I APOLOGIZE. WHEN WHEN WE PUBLISHED THE AGENDA.

THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, WE THOUGHT HE WOULD BE HERE.

BECAUSE HE'S GOING TO HELP WITH THOSE DISCUSSION ITEMS. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THOSE TO THE APRIL 13TH MEETING.

[00:30:04]

YEAH. NEVER BE A, NEVER BE SORRY FOR TAKING THINGS OFF OUR AGENDA [LAUGHS] SO, BUT JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, IT'S APRIL 13TH, THAT'S A WEEK EARLY. WE HAD TO MOVE IT UP DUE TO EARLY VOTING HERE IN THE CHAMBERS.

SO WE CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE AN APPLICATION FOR THAT.

BUT YOU DO THINK WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THE DISCUSSION FOR CARPORTS.

AND YES, IT'S JUST DISCUSSION. WE DON'T HAVE ANY APPLICATIONS AS OF YET ON THAT, BUT WE DO HAVE SOME PENDING.

WE PLAN ON HAVING A MEETING. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

OH YEAH. WE DO HAVE THREE OTHER ACTUALLY, WE HAVE FOUR OTHER VARIANCES NOW OR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS THAT WILL BE COMING THROUGH.

OKAY. FOR NEXT MEETING. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THEN WE STAND ADJOURNED.

WE'LL SEE YOU ON APRIL THE 13TH. WHAT TIME? SIR? HEY. I'M SORRY. YEAH. AT 4:23. AND, MAN, LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE FOUR.