[00:00:03]
[ Call Meeting to Order]
PRESENT, YOU MAY NOTICE THAT WE HAVE NO MORE MICROPHONES IN FRONT OF US.BOARD MEMBERS, UH, MICROPHONES ARE IN THE SAME HAND AND I'M TOLD RECORDING IN PROGRESS.
SO, UH, THEY WILL PROBABLY PICK UP YOUR BREATHING.
SO, BUT, UH, UH, SO I CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER, UH, THERE, WE HAVE A QUORUM WITH FOUR MEMBERS.
SO THE FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
OH, I HATE LOOKING AT MYSELF ON THE VIDEO APPLIED TO FLY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
PUBLIC STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
[1. Consider Action on the Minutes from the December 15, 2021 Board of Appeals Meeting. ]
FIRST ITEM IS YOUR BUSINESS IS CONSIDER ACTION ON THE MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 15TH, 2021 BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING, THAT WAS THE LAST TIME WE MET.SO WE DON'T MEET VERY FREQUENTLY.
HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES.
DO I HAVE SOMEONE WHO MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE THEM, MOVES TO APPROVE.
AND SECOND, JAMIE SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL.
THAT'S FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES.
[2. Hold a Public Hearing, Present, Discuss, and Consider Action on an Appeal of the Building Official’s decisions related to the enforcement of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Addison for sideyard conditions and associated fence and retaining wall improvements at 4111 Leadville Place, generally located at the common boundary with 4108 and 4110 Pokolodi Circle. BOA22-01/4111 Leadville Place.]
TO THE NEXT ITEM.HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, PRESENT, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTION ON AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DECISIONS RELATED TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE TOWN OF ADDISON FOR SIDE YARD CONDITIONS AND ASSOCIATED FENCE AND RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS AT 4 11 4 1 1 1 LEADVILLE PLACE GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE COMMON BOUNDARY WITH THE 41 0 8 AND 41 10 POKE ELODIE CIRCLE B OH 8 22 DASH OH ONE SLASH 4 1, 1 11 LEADVILLE PLACE.
DO WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT PLEASE? YEAH, YOU NEED MORE NUMBERS.
10 SCHMIDT DIRECTOR DEVELOPED SERVICES FOR TELEMATICS.
THEN I'M GOING TO DRINK BRIEFLY, VERY QUICKLY TRANSITIONS, UH, IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.
I'M JOINED BY OUR PLANNING DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, LESLIE ELLIOTT, A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CHRISTINA.
SO WHERE DOES THE DEAL OR THE RALEIGH? THE APPLICANT IS A HUMAN POUNDS, INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION, UH, OF TOWN CODES IN RELATION TO THE SIDE THERE AND CONDITIONS.
UH,
POKE THE LOBBY CIRCLE 1 0 8 41.
10 WILL BE A NATURE OF APPEAL IS TIME AROUND IS THEATER, BUT I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD OF HIM.
JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS IN ORDER TO OVERRIDE THE DECISION OF A BUILDING OFFICIAL, IT REQUIRES AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF FOUR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, WHICH IN THIS CASE, SINCE THERE ARE ONLY FOUR, IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE ALL OF US TO VOTE, TO OVERRIDE THE EFFICIENCE.
BUT I, I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR, SORRY TO DELAY THAT'S OKAY.
AND WHILE YOU WALK INTO THE PODIUM, UH, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY TIME LIMITS, BUT WE JUST WANT TO TRY AND STAY ON TRACK.
AND, UH, I'LL LET YOU KNOW IF I THINK THINGS ARE GOING TO STRAIGHT INTO TOO WILDLY, UH, BUT IT HARDLY EVER DOES.
SO THE PRESENTATION, BUT WE HAVE PAPER COPIES.
IF ANYONE WANTS THOSE TO BE ABLE TO GO ALONG THEY'RE HERE.
SO I WOULD APPRECIATE A PAPER COPY.
I WOULD WALK THROUGH MY MIND, BUT I'LL PROBABLY WATCH PRIMARILY THE SCREENS.
THANK YOU FOR TESTING, TESTING DIFFERENT TO ME, BUT IT MAY BE, IT SOUNDS DIFFERENT.
[00:05:09]
UM, MY NAME IS ROSEANNE HOPWOOD AND, UM, MY HUSBAND LEE AND I ARE OWNERS OF MORE ONE, ONE LANDFILL.UM, THE OUTLINE FOR WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK WITH YOU TODAY ABOUT IS, IS LISTED HERE.
WE ARE GOING TO DO OUR BEST TO, TO KEEP IT CONCISE.
UM, BUT I APPRECIATE THE BOARD KIND OF POKING US IF IT'S GOING ON FOR TOO LONG.
SO I'M A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL COUNSELOR AND I HAVE WORKED WITH WOMEN AND CHILDREN AFFECTED BY DOMESTIC ABUSE, UH, PRIMARILY AT GENESIS WOMEN'S SHELTER.
UM, MY HUSBAND HAS, UH, WORKED AS AN EXECUTIVE IN THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FIELD FOR 28 YEARS.
UM, I PUT LITTLE PLUS SIGN THERE BECAUSE THIS IS BROADCAST PUBLICLY, NOT GOING TO GO INTO WHO ELSE IS IN OUR FAMILY, BUT JUST, LET'S JUST SAY WE HAVE CHILDREN AND DOGS WHO ARE IN OUR YARD AND ARE EFFECTED BY THESE DECISIONS.
UM, AND, AND WANTED TO BRING THAT UP.
UH, YOU CAN SEE HERE A GOOGLE EARTH PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY, UH, ON OUR NORTH BOUNDARY.
UH, THERE IS THIS RETAINING WALL AND THEN SUPPORTS THE POLKA ELODIE LODGE WHO BACK UP TO IT.
UH, AND, AND THEY'RE ABOUT THREE FEET HIGHER.
SO THAT JUST KIND OF GIVES YOU AN IDEA.
THIS IS, UH, ABOUT A 93 FOOT RETAINING WALL.
THEY, THEY COME SHORTER IN MOST YARDS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT, UM, WE, AND, UM, 40, 41 TAMPOCO LOD HAD THESE WEIRD CORNER LOTS.
AND SO WE HAD OUR BLESSED WITH EXTRA SPACE, BUT ALSO THE EXTRA COSTS TO COME.
WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, WE, IT WAS A JUNGLE.
UM, AND SO REALLY UNTIL THE PANDEMIC CAME, LIKE MOST OF YOU, YOU KNOW, WE NEEDED TO FIND THINGS TO DO AT HOME.
AND SO WE CLEARED AND WE BUILT SOME WE CLEANED, AND THIS IS OUR NORTH BOUNDARY AFTER THAT.
UM, AND DURING THAT PROCESS, WE TOUR A LOT OF THE VINES AND THINGS OFF OF THE RETAINING WALL.
AND, AND WE NOTICED THAT THAT, THAT THERE WERE SOME PROBLEMS, UM, WHO ELSE IS INVOLVED HERE TODAY? UM, OF COURSE THE ADDISON STAFF, UM, AND EVEN THOUGH WE ARE IN A CONFLICTUAL POSITION RIGHT NOW WITH THE STAFF, WE DO APPRECIATE THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THEY DEVOTED TO THIS IN PARTICULAR.
UM, OMAR CAN AND IRMA, WHO I DON'T THINK IS HERE, BUT SHE IS LIKE RESPONDED TO LIGHTS, FIVE OPEN RECORDS REQUESTS FROM US, WHICH I KNOW IS A PAIN.
UM, WE HAVE HAD ADVISORS, WE'VE HAD A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
UM, OUR ATTORNEY BRAND AND STARLING, I BELIEVE IS LISTENING AND IS CONNECTED VIA PHONE.
UM, WE'VE HAD HELP FROM RETAINING WALL PEOPLE, SURVEYORS ARBORIST.
UM, OUR NEIGHBORS ON LEADVILLE HAS HAVE BEEN HELPFUL.
UM, AND THEN OUR UPHILL NEIGHBORS OF COURSE, UM, 41 0 8 AND 41, 10 41 0 8 REALLY HAS JUST A SMALL, A SMALL DOG IN THIS FIGHT.
SO TO SPEAK THERE IS, I MEAN, 41 0 8.
SO THEY ONLY HAVE ABOUT 10 FEET OF THIS WALL.
UM, THE, THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES ARE KIND OF ALL SET 40 41 10 HAS ABOUT 83 FEET OF THIS 93 FOOT WALL.
SO THAT KIND OF TELLS YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT REALLY THE THREE PARTIES THAT HAVE BEEN KIND OF INVOLVED FOR A WHILE IN DEALING WITH THIS, JUST TO BACKTRACK.
UM, IF, IF ANY OF YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH MIDWAY MEADOWS, UM, IT WAS DEVELOPED BY J STYLES AND THE EIGHTIES, UM, THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU WILL SEE, UM, IF IT HASN'T BEEN REPLACED OR ANY, WHICH MOST OF THEM ON READING TRAIL WERE ALL JUST TORN OUT AND REPLACED.
UM, THESE RAILROAD TIE RETAINING WALLS.
SO HERE YOU SEE ONE THAT STEPPED BACK, UM, YOU SEE THE, THE TIE BACK.
SO, SO IT'S, IT IS A SYSTEM IT'S NOT JUST A WALL, IT IS A SYSTEM.
UM, AND, UH, THIS IS THE TYPE OF SYSTEM THAT WAS USED WHEN, WHEN OUR PROPERTIES WERE, WERE DEVELOPED TO HANDLE THE GRADE CHANGE BETWEEN, UH, LEADVILLE AND, AND POLKA LOADING, UM, AROUND 2011, UM, THE POLK LOADING OWNERS ATTEMPTED TO REPAIR, UH, THE RETAINING WALL.
UM, WE DIDN'T LIVE THERE THEN, BUT, UH, THOMAS NOBLOCK, WHO IS THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAS, HAS BEEN REAL HELPFUL IN KIND OF HELPING US UNDERSTAND
[00:10:01]
WHAT IS, WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY.UM, I'LL SHOW YOU ANOTHER BROADER PICTURE, BUT, BUT THE, THE ATTEMPTED REPAIR INVOLVED LUMBER, UH, LUMBER OF A METER THAT WAS ATTACHED TO, UH, THE ORIGINAL RAILROAD TIE, UM, A RETAINING WALL, UM, YOU CAN SEE, UM, IN, IN THE, THERE ARE MANY, MANY OF THESE FOUR BY FOUR POSTS WITH A METAL ROD GOING BACK TO ATTEMPT TO TIE THAT INTO A BEGGAR.
PARDON? DID SOMEBODY SAY SOMETHING? OKAY.
UM, AND THEN ALSO, UH, LUMBER TIE BACKS.
SO WHAT YOU HAVE IS, UH, A RETAINING WALL THAT HASN'T BEEN NEAR ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL RAILROAD TIES.
THEN YOU HAVE A SEPARATE STRUCTURE, WHICH IS A FENCE.
SO THE FENCE POSTS ACTUALLY ARE INDEPENDENT OF THE WALL.
THEY GO DOWN INTO THE GROUND, THEY GO UP AND THEN YOU HAVE THAT FENCE ATTACHED.
IS THAT PICTURE FROM YOUR PROPERTY? THIS IS TAKEN FROM OUR PROPERTY.
SO IF YOU WERE STANDING IN MY KITCHEN, UH, THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD BE SEEING.
A LITTLE FURTHER BACK, BUT YOU GET THE IDEA.
UM, SO PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRE YEAR OF 2021.
UM, WE, AND, AND THE POLKA LOMI NEIGHBORS, UH, NEGOTIATED REGARDING THE RETAINING WALL AND WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO, UM, TO DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT IF IT'S LEAVING, UH, TOWARD OUR PROPERTY, UM, ALSO IN 2021, UM, WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU A PHOTO IN A MINUTE THAT THE NORTH SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY FLOODED, UM, THANKFULLY NOT OUR HOME.
UM, NOW MORE RECENTLY, UM, IN 2022, UM, WE, WE DID, UM, HE IN AGREEMENT WITH POKER, LOD OWNERS OBTAIN, UM, THREE QUOTES FOR REPLACING THE RETAINING WALL ALTOGETHER.
UM, ALL OF THEM CAME WITHIN, YOU KNOW, TWO OR $3,000 OF EACH OTHER.
UM, AND WE PROVIDED THAT QUOTE TO THE POPE BOLOGNA OWNERS.
AND AT THAT POINT, THE NEGOTIATIONS STALLED, UM, AFTER THIS PERIOD OF TIME OF, OF, OF TRYING TO, TO HANDLE IT, UM, PRIVATELY, WE, WE FILED THE COMPLAINT WITH, UM, WITH PATTERSON, UM, ALMOST AS SOON AS THAT COMPLAINT WAS FILED.
UM, WE, UH, LEARNED FROM BILL ELLIOTT THAT, UM, OUR FENCE IS, IS OBSTRUCTING A DRAINAGE EASEMENT, UM, EXCUSE ME, AND THE WALL.
WELL, THE SURVEY ONLY SHOWS THE FENCE AS YOU SAW THE FENCE AND THE WALL ARE BASICALLY IN ONE PLANE.
SO THIS ADDS ANOTHER WRINKLE TO, TO THE SITUATION.
AND, UM, AND THEN OF COURSE, ADDISON CODE ENFORCEMENT CAME, I THINK, THREE TIMES TO OUR PROPERTY, UM, AND THEN MADE DETERMINATIONS AND WE READ THOSE AND THEN WE FILED AN APPEAL.
SO THAT BRINGS US KIND OF TO TODAY, LET ME SHOW YOU THE FLOODING.
SO THIS IS THE FLOODING IN MAY OF 2021.
UM, THE WATER DID ACTUALLY, UM, COME UP TO, UM, OUR, OUR KITCHEN WALL, UM, AND THAT'S MY FOOT AND THAT'S HOW CLOSE IT, IT CAME TO, UM, TO OUR KITCHEN PATIO DOOR.
THANKFULLY WE HAVE HAD A REALLY DRY SEASON, UM, BUT WE HAVE ACTUALLY PURCHASED, UH, UH, WHAT ARE THEY CALLED SANDBAGS BECAUSE WE JUST WANT TO BE PREPARED.
UM, IF SOMETHING HAPPENS AGAIN AND WE ARE ACTUALLY HAVE EMPLOYED A DRAINAGE ENGINEER AS WELL, TO HELP US TRY TO FIGURE OUT, UM, HOW ALL OF THIS FITS TOGETHER.
AND THIS IS, UM, UH, NEXT STEP OF, OF OUR SURVEY OF OUR PROPERTY.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE, THE YELLOW ARROW IS POINTING TO THE FENCE, WHICH IS DESIGNATED, UM, UH, CLEARLY, UM, AND THEN THE, UH, THE YELLOW BRACKET, IT SHOWS YOU THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
SO WE'LL EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT WHY THAT'S A FAD WRINKLE THAT'S FOR NOW, JUST KNOW.
AND WE ACTUALLY, UM, HAD HERBERT BEASLEY COME OUT AND DO A NEW SURVEY.
UM, BILL ELLIOTT SUGGESTED THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA.
CAN WE USE YOUR NAME A FEW TIMES IF THAT'S OKAY? I JUST MAY NOT REMEMBER SOME OF THEM THAT'S OKAY.
UM, I DON'T REMEMBER THESE PARTS, BUT YEAH.
AND, AND SO WE, WE SAID, YES, YOU KNOW, WE'LL, WE'LL DO A NEW SURVEY JUST TO MAKE SURE AND ENSURE ENOUGH AND ACCURATE YES.
THAT'S YOUR PROPERTY LINE? CORRECT? THE RED LINE IS THE PROPERTY LINE.
[00:15:01]
SO THE EASEMENT IS ALL ON YOUR PROPERTY.THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT COMPLETELY BURDENS OUR PROPERTY.
UM, UM, SO, UM, AND IT HAS, YOU CAN SEE IT CONTINUES TO THE LAST, SO ACTUALLY ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS ON LEADVILLE, THIS, THIS DRAINAGE EASEMENT RUNS ALL THE WAY TO THE GRANDE.
SO ALL OF US HAVE A DRAINAGE EASEMENT, UM, WHICH WAS THE RETAINING WALL IN RELATION TO THIS.
UM, WELL, NONE OF OUR SURVEYS THAT HAVE OUR PROPERTY DESIGNATE A RETAINING WALL, WE HAVE A SURVEY, WE ACTUALLY FOUND THAT A VERY EARLY, WAS IT LIKE 1980 SOMETHING SURVEY, IT DOESN'T DESIGNATE THE RETAINING WALL, BUT, BUT IF YOU WERE LOOKING AT THIS, IT WOULDN'T BE IN THE SAME PLANE AS THE FENCE.
SO I'M SURE IT'S ACTUALLY ON YOUR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THE FACE OF THE RETAINING WALL NOW DRAINAGE AND TIE BACKS.
I MEAN, A RETAINING WALL IS NOT, YOU KNOW, FOUR FOOT STRUCTURE OR A FOUR-INCH STRUCTURE.
SO, SO THE FACE OF THE RETAINING WALL IS WHERE IT IS NOW.
IT IS OBVIOUSLY LEANING CONSIDERABLY, BUT YES, SO ESSENTIALLY THE FENCE AND THE RETAINING WALL ARE IN THE SAME PLANE.
AND YES, THE FACE OF THE RETAINING WALL IS ABOUT A FOOT TO TWO FEET SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
THE STRONG SEEMS TO SAY, IT'S TWO FEET INTO YOUR FEED ON LAND.
ONE FOOT, FOUR INCH, AND ON ONE END AND TWO FEET ON THE OTHER HAND.
BUT THE EXACT, THIS IS THE EXACT GUY RIGHT HERE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? SO WHAT WE'RE DOING AND, AND, AND KIM REALLY ALREADY KIND OF ADDRESSED THIS.
I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT, THAT FOR THE DURATION OF, OF THE CODE, UH, COMPLAINT, UM, AND, AND DURING INVESTIGATION, UM, THE TITLE, UH, FIT THAT THIS COMPLAINT WAS GIVEN WAS SUBSTANDARD RETAINING WALL ACROSS KINGSMAN.
SO IT APPEARED TO BE CLEAR TO US THAT, THAT IT WAS NOT JUST A SUBSTANDARD RETAINING WALL, BUT IT WAS ALSO A CROSS EASEMENT THAT THESE ARE INTEGRAL ISSUES.
YOU CAN'T REALLY FIX ONE WITHOUT FIXING THE OTHER.
UM, AND SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.
SO HERE IS WE, WE GAVE THE, THE TOWN OF FIVE PAGE APPEAL AND IN THE PROCESS OF JUST BRAINSTORMING ON HOW CAN WE FIND A CODE COMPLIANT SOLUTION TO WE NARROWED IT DOWN AND JUST FOUR POINTS.
AND THIS IS WHAT WE, WE ARE HOPING WE WILL SHOW TO YOU THROUGH EVIDENCE.
UM, AND THROUGH REVIEW OF THE CODE.
UM, TODAY THE DETERMINATION OF THE TOWN WAS THAT ONLY THE WESTERN 10 FEET OF THE WALL HAS FAILED AND REQUIRES REPAIR.
SO IF I GO, HOW DO I GO BACK? SO IF I GO BACK NOW, THE PROBLEM WITH THIS SURVEY PROBLEM WITH THIS, SIR, THIS IS FROM 2017.
IS THAT THIS, THIS, UH, THIS IS 4,108 POLE COLLODION 41 10.
THIS, THIS PROPERTY LINE IS ACTUALLY RIGHT ABOUT HERE.
SO THE CITY OR THE TOWN, IS IT OKAY FOR ME TO CALL IT A CITY? SURE.
IF YOU'RE MORE COMFORTABLE, WELL, IT JUST KIND OF, I DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A LOT OF FENCE AND ONLY THE WESTERN 10 FEET OF THE WALL IS IN, IS, IS IN, IS NONCOMPLIANT AND REQUIRES REPAIR THAT'S ITEM.
NUMBER ONE, WE WILL ARGUE TODAY THAT THE ENTIRE 93 FOOT WALL HAS FAILED AND REQUIRES REPLACEMENT.
SO TWO DIFFERENCES THERE, THE LENGTH AND THE TERMINOLOGY REPAIR VERSUS REPLACEMENT, THE WALL WILL BE REPAIRED WITH LIGHT MATERIALS ALREADY PRESENT.
WE WILL, WE WILL, UH, UH, SHOW THE EVIDENCE AND CODES THAT THE WALL CANNOT BE REPAIRED WITH LIKE MATERIALS OR ALREADY PRESENT.
IT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED WITH A STRUCTURE THAT'S DESIGNED TO MEET CODE.
UM, THE CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR A WALL REPAIR.
WE WILL ARGUE THAT THE CODE REQUIRES THE WALL RECONSTRUCTION TO BE PERMITTED, AND THE EASEMENT ISSUE WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN, IN, UH, THE CITY'S DETERMINATIONS.
SO WE ARE GONNA PUT FORWARD THAT THE WALLS, THE WALLS LOCATION IN THE EASEMENT VIOLATES CODE, UM, AND THAT WAS OUT RESOLVING THIS, NO
[00:20:01]
CONSTRUCTION CAN, CAN OCCUR WITHIN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT, UM, OR, AND OR THE EASEMENT MUST BE CLEARED.UM, SO THAT WAS THAT, THAT'S THAT REAL STICKY WRINKLE THAT WE'LL GET INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THAT.
WE'VE NARROWED IT DOWN TO, LIKE, THESE ARE THE FOUR THINGS THAT WE HOPE THE BOARD WILL COME TO UNDERSTAND AND AGREE WITH US TODAY.
UH, BY THE WAY, WHAT WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR HERE IS THE BOARD TO DECIDE WHO'S GETTING CITED OR WHO'S PAYING FOR WHAT, RIGHT.
WE ARE NOT THAT THAT IS NOT PART OF THE, IN MY OPINION, THAT IS NOT PART OF THE CODE AND NOT PART OF WHAT YOU'RE DECIDING TODAY.
UM, SHE IS ACTUALLY CURRENTLY OVER CODE COMPLIANCE FOR, UM, A MODULAR DESIGN COMPANY CALLED, UM, M D PLUS HE GEEKS OUT ON CODES AND DEFINITIONS AND EVIDENCE.
SO THIS IS WHERE I'M GOING TO LET HIM, UH, KIND OF, UH, STEP IN.
I'M GOING TO GET MY WATER REAL QUICK.
UM, DO WE NEED TO SWITCH IMAGES? I'M GOING TO LET HIM MAYBE, OR MAYBE YOU MIGHT NEED TO HELP.
UM, I'M GONNA GO WITH THAT OTHER DOCUMENT.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO JUMP FROM THIS ONE TO HIS, AND THEN WE'LL JUMP BACK.
SO, UM, WE APPRECIATE YOU GUYS TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR OUR CONCERNS.
UM, WE'VE SAID WE'RE REALLY JUST LOOKING TO HOW WE CAN MOVE FORWARD HERE, AND IT'S JUST KIND OF STUCK AND, UM, I THINK FOR BOTH PARTIES AND HOPEFULLY YOU WILL SEE HOW IT IMPACTS US, NOT JUST FROM A LIFE STANDPOINT, BUT FROM A PROPERTY VALUE STANDPOINT.
COULD YOU SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT LOUDER? I'M SORRY.
UM, I JUST SAID THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE'S BOTH KIND OF TWO ELEMENTS TO THIS.
I MEAN, THE CODE IS IN PLACE TO, YOU KNOW, PUT IN PLACE MINIMUM STANDARDS, THE SAFEGUARD LIFE AND, UM, AND TO PROTECT PROPERTY VALUE.
AND SO CURRENTLY ISSUES AFFECTING THE PROPERTY VALUE BECAUSE IF I WERE TO PUT MY PROPERTY ON THE MARKET TODAY, I WOULD HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT THERE IS A FAILED RETAINING WALL ON MY PROPERTY BECAUSE I HAVE AN ENGINEERED.
SO LEGALLY I HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT TECHNICALLY THE UPHILL NEIGHBORS COULD CHOOSE NOT TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT AS VISUAL, BUT SOMEONE COMING ON PROPERTY WITH SEEING THIS FAILED RETAINING WALL.
SO THERE'S THIS MANY PARTS TO THAT.
SO JUST AGAIN, A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MY BACKGROUND.
SO I WORKED FOR A MODULAR COMPANY.
I'VE BEEN IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FOR 28 YEARS, EVERYTHING FROM SUPERINTENDENT TO, UH, VP OF PRE-CONSTRUCTION DESIGN BILL, I'VE INTERACTED WITH MUNICIPALITIES AND CODE, YOU KNOW, FOR A LONG TIME.
AND I REALLY RESPECT WHAT THESE GUYS DO.
IT REALLY IS A DIFFICULT POSITION.
SO I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I UNDERSTAND YOU GUYS WERE IN A DIFFICULT POSITION.
UM, AND SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT, I MEAN, I, I DO RECOGNIZE THAT.
UM, BUT I DO FEEL THAT, UM, THERE ARE SOME VERY CLEAR THINGS IN THE CODE AND THEY'RE VERY SPECIFIC ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES THAT ARE APPLIED HERE, BOTH FROM DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, BUT ALSO FROM A FORENSIC STAND.
SO I'M GOING TO TAKE TIME, KIND OF WALK THROUGH THE CODES AS I SEE, UM, KIND OF IDENTIFY DEFINITIONS, UH, FROM THE CODE AND HOW THAT AFFECTS THE DECISION AND THEN PRESENT EVIDENCE, UH, TO SUPPORT THAT.
SO TO START WITH, WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A RETAINING WALL.
SO PART OF THE CODE A RETAINING WALL IS DESIGNED TO RESIST THE LATERAL LOADS AGAINST IT.
THESE PROPERTIES, THE UPHILL NEIGHBORS, WHEN THIS, WHEN THIS SUBDIVISION WAS DEVELOPED, THE EXISTING GRADE WAS AT 6 32 ACROSS BOTH LIGHTS.
THE CURRENT ELEVATION OF THE UPHILL LIGHTS IS 6 35.
SO THE UPHILL LIGHTS HAVE BEEN RAISED THREE FEET FROM THE EXISTING GRADE.
IT'S GOT US FACILITATING THE NEED FOR THIS WALL.
SO FOUNDATIONS, SO ON THE TIMBER FOUNDATIONS, TYPICALLY WITH A CROSS TIE, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE
[00:25:01]
LIKE A POURED FOOTING LIKE YOU MIGHT HAVE NOW WOULD TYPICALLY BE, UH, THE TIMBER ITSELF, BUT THAT TIMBER CAN'T SIT ON TOP OF THE GROUND.IT NEEDS TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE LAYER TO TWO LAYERS BELOW THE EARTH TO RESIST THAT THE BOTTOM OF THAT WALL KICKING OUT.
SO TO SAY THAT THE WALL IS THREE FEET FROM THE GRADE, DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AND ACTUALLY STAGE FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOT.
SO WE WOULD ARGUE THAT THAT IS AN ISSUE ALSO, UM, THIS ISN'T JUST A WALL THAT WAS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY LINE THAT EXTENDED THERE.
THE DESIGN OF TIMBER RETAINING WALLS IS IN THE PICTURE YOU SAW EARLIER.
THE PHOTO HERE IS FROM, UH, REDDING TRAIL IS A PICTURE OF A CROSS TIE RETAINING WALL.
IT HAS TIEBACKS WHICH EXTEND INTO THE OTHER PROPERTY.
SO THIS ISN'T JUST OUR RETAINING WALL BECAUSE IT'S ON OUR PROPERTY.
IT ACTUALLY EXTENDS THE BOTH PROPERTIES AT A MINIMUM.
BOTH PARTIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THAT.
AND THEN PER THE CODE OF THE NEW YEAR, UH, IS A FACING ATTACHED TO A WALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING ORNAMENTATION PROTECTION OR INSTALLATION, BUT CAN NOT BE COUNTED AS STRAINS TO THE WALL.
SO THE VENEER THAT WAS APPLIED TO IT COULD NEVER BE, UH, INCORPORATED AS PART OF THE SUPPORT STRUCTURE OF THAT WALL.
OUR ENGINEER'S REPORT STATES THE EXACT SAME THING.
IT SAYS THAT THE TIMBER VENEER FACADE CANNOT BE, IT CANNOT SUPPORT THIS.
SO, BUT WE WERE ALSO ARGUING THAT THEY'RE NOT TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
THE VENEER WAS ATTACHED TO THE WALL.
AND SO YOU CAN'T REALLY SAY YOU HAVE TO REPLACE ONE OR THIS ONE'S FAILED.
AND THE WHOLE THING IS NOT FAILED.
THEY'RE INTEGRALLY ATTACHED MECHANICALLY.
WE'RE ALSO ARGUING THAT WE HAVE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE AND I'LL SHOW IN A MINUTE.
SO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PROPERTIES, WHERE THERE WAS AN INTERSECTION, UH, 41 TENS, UH, NORTH, UH, EXCUSE ME, EAST EAST PROPERTY LINE, THE SHARED WITH OFFICE ON THE PARK, THAT CORNER BLEW OUT COMPLETELY IN FAITH AND STAYED IN THAT CONDITION FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS.
AND DURING THAT TIME, WE WERE ABLE TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT WHAT IS BEHIND THE VENEER THAT YOU SAW EARLIER ON OUR PROPERTY.
AND SO YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS PHOTO THAT THERE IS A TIMBER RETAINING WALL BEHIND THE VENEER.
SO YOU WOULD NOT SEE THAT FROM OUR PROPERTY, BUT DUE TO THE UNIQUE NATURE OF EVERYTHING THAT TRANSPIRED, WE WERE ABLE TO ACTUALLY DOCUMENT WITH OBSERVABLE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY AN ORIGINAL RETAINING WALL BEHIND THE SIDE.
SO WE'RE ALSO ARGUING THAT THIS IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION.
DANGER MEANS SOMETHING VERY SPECIFICALLY IN THE, SO IT SAYS ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE OR PORTION THERE OF IT MEANS ANY OF THE CONDITIONS BELOW IS DEEMED DANGEROUS.
SO A STRUCTURE THAT HAS COLLAPSED HAS PARTIALLY COLLAPSED, UH, OR LACKS THE NECESSARY SUPPORT OF THE GROUND, UH, IS CONSIDERED TO BE DANGEROUS.
AND OUR SHOW WITH EVIDENCE IN THE MOMENT THAT MS. WALL MEETS ALL THOSE CONDITIONS.
UM, AND THEN ALSO THERE'S RISK RISK OF COLLAPSE OF ANY PORTION OF IT.
AND WE'LL ALSO SEE THAT, UM, SO THE CODE OF ORDINANCE, THE FIRST ONE I HAVE LISTED IS THE ONE THAT THE TOWN USED TO BASICALLY ISSUE THE CITATION TO 41 0 8, WHICH BASICALLY DEALS WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND JUST INCLUDES FENCES AND WALLS SHALL BE MAINTAINED STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND IN GOOD REPAIR.
UM, AND THEN THERE'S ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN THE 2018 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, WHICH THE TOWN HAS ALSO ADOPTED, WHICH IDENTIFIES WHAT IS CONSIDERED A FAILURE, OVERTURNING SLIDING, OR EXCESSIVE FOUNDATION PRESSURE AND WATER OUTLET.
AND SO THE DIAGRAMS I'VE SHOWN HERE ILLUSTRATE
[00:30:01]
THAT HIS CONDITIONS.DID YOU SAY? AND, AND COULD YOU REPEAT THOSE THREE THINGS AGAIN? YES.
OVERTURNING, SLIDING GETTING EXCESSIVE FOUNDATION PRESSURE IN WATER.
SO THE ILLUSTRATIONS OBVIOUSLY DEMONSTRATE OVERTURNING, WHICH WE KIND OF LOOKED DOWN SLIDING, WHICH WE HAVE, NOT EXACTLY WHAT THAT, BUT AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE FOOTING NEEDS TO GO INTO THE GROUND.
IT CAN'T SIT ON TOP OF THE GROUND BECAUSE OTHERWISE WIDE, UM, OR UNDERMINING ALSO, WHICH ISN'T EXACTLY LISTED IN THE CODE, BUT THAT JUST IS WHERE THE, THE GROUND UNDERNEATH THE FOOTING WILL NO LONGER SUPPORT IS UNDERLINE.
SO MISSOURI UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HAS A COURSE ON GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND RELATED TO THE RETAINING WALLS.
SO IT STATES THAT A TILL OF ONLY 10 DEGREES INCREASES THE LOAD ON THAT WALL BY 20%.
SO WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK BACK TO THE IRC CODE AND IT'S A STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE, THERE'S GOING TO BE A SAFETY FACTOR.
ONE POINT I APPLIED TO THAT DESIGN IF IT'S BEEN DESIGNED.
AND SO WHATEVER THE ACTUAL LOAD IS ON THAT WALL, THEY'LL PUT A SAFETY FACTOR OF 50% ON TOP OF THAT.
SO THAT MEANS THAT IF THAT WALL REACHES THE POINT OF BLENDING 25%, IT HAS JUST MET THE SAFETY FACTOR IN ANYTHING BUT BEYOND THAT, IT HAS EXCEEDED ITS SAFETY FACTOR.
SO BASIC, UM, CONSTRUCTION TOOLS, UM, NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY HERE, A FOREFOOT BUILDERS LEVEL, A PROTRACTOR, OR BASICALLY A SQUARE AND A TAPE MEASURE AND A PLUM LINE.
SO WHEN YOU CAN SEE HERE, YOU SEE THREE PHOTOS.
SO THE FIRST PHOTO SHOWS THE CONDITION AT 41 0 8, THE PROPERTY THAT WAS CITED FOR FAILURE.
THE SECOND PHOTO IS ABOUT 15 FEET TO THE EAST, UH, WHICH IS AT 41 10 PROPERTY.
AND THEN THE OTHER PHOTO IS CLOSER TO THE EAST END OF THE PROPERTY.
AND SO IT MAY BE A LITTLE HARD TO SEE HERE, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE BASE OF THE LEVEL AND THE POST, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY OF THESE.
SO IF I LOOK AT THE PROTRACTOR, IF 90 DEGREES IS STRAIGHT UP, THE FIRST POST IS A SEVEN READINGS, 70, 71 POINT, OH YEAH.
THE SECOND ONE IS 74 AND THE LAST ONE IS 79 AND 78.
SO EVEN THE BEST POST IN THIS SCENARIO IS AT AN 11 DEGREE ANGLE.
AND IF YOU REMEMBER, WE JUST STATED THAT ANYTHING, 10 DEGREES, 10 DEGREES HAS 20% INCREASED LOAD ON THAT WALL.
AND THAT'S, AS IT WAS DESIGNED, I'LL GET INTO SOME ISSUES LATER.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS IN THE CODE THAT AFFECT ADDITIONAL LOADS THAT MAY BE CARRIED ON THAT WALL BECAUSE TYPICALLY A BASE RETAINING WALL IS DESIGNED TO SUPPORT ONLY THE SOIL AT A LEVEL OF CONDITION TO THE TOP OF THE WALL.
ANYTHING ABOVE THAT OR ANYTHING PLACED WITHIN THAT IS CONSIDERED A SURCHARGE AND PLACES, ADDITIONAL LOAD ON IT.
SO, ADDITIONALLY, THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT IS BACK AT THE, BASICALLY THE KIND OF THE WEST CENTER, THAT SECOND PICTURE YOU SAW IN THE PREVIOUS PHOTO.
AND THEN THE SECOND PICTURE IS AT THE FAR EAST CORNER.
AGAIN, IT MAY BE A LITTLE HARD TO SEE HERE, BUT I'M DEMONSTRATING THAT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BOTTOM OF THE FENCE AND THE TOP OF THE WALL IS FIVE INCHES IN THE FIRST ONE IN THREE AND A HALF INCHES IN THE SECOND ONE.
SO THIS GOES TO THE SLIDING AND MINING ASPECT OF THE FAILURE OF THE, OF THE WALL.
SO BASICALLY WHAT HAS OCCURRED HERE IS THE WALL HAS SHIFTED AND IT'S SLOW SONG
[00:35:01]
IN THE GROUND BECAUSE THE SOIL CAN'T SUPPORT IT ANYMORE.AND SO BASICALLY THIS RETAINING WALL HAS BEEN UNDERMINED.
THE WALL IS SINKING INTO THE GROUND BECAUSE, BECAUSE THE FENCE IS NOT MAYBE, WELL, IT ACTUALLY HAS ONE OTHER THING I DIDN'T POINT OUT HERE.
SO THE FENCE POSTS AND FENCE WERE NEVER DESIGNED TO SUPPORT THE LOAD OF THIS RETAINING WALL, BUT CURRENTLY THE WALL HAS FAILED INTO THE FENCE POSTS.
AND YOU LOOK AT THE CENTER PHOTO WITH THE YELLOW LEVEL.
I, I PUT A PLUMB LINE ON THAT FENCE POST AND THAT FENCE POST IS FOUR INCHES OUT OF PLUM.
SO THAT MEANS THAT THAT FENCE POST HAS ACTUALLY MOVED BECAUSE IT HAS LOAD FROM THE RETAINING WALL ON IT.
SO THE RETAINING WALL IS ACTUALLY CAUSING THE FENCE TO FAIL BECAUSE THE FENCE WAS NEVER DESIGNED TO SUPPORT THAT WAY.
AND WE'LL KIND OF TALK ABOUT THIS LATER IN THE TOWN'S PRESENTATION ABOUT DETERIORATION OF THE WALL.
SO YOU CAN SEE HERE, THESE ARE TWO PHOTOS WHERE BASICALLY THE TIMBERS HAVE SEPARATED THE VENEER, THE RAILROAD TYPE, A HIGH END.
IT HAS DETERIORATED IN SOIL AND THE GRAVEL IS WASHING DOWN IN THERE AND THROUGH THE WALL ONTO OUR PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE GAPS.
THERE ARE ADDITIONALLY RETAINING WALLS ARE TYPICALLY REQUIRED TO HAVE THE DRAINAGE BEHIND THEM.
ONE OF THE GREATEST CAUSES OF RETAINING WALL FAILURES IS WATER BUILDING UP BEHIND THE WALL AND THE PRE THE PRESSURE OF THAT WATER, PUTTING ADDITIONAL FORCE ON THE WALL THAT IT WASN'T DESIGNED FOR.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE DEMONSTRATING HERE IN THE UPPER TWO PHOTOS IS THAT WHEN IT RAINS OR WHERE THE UPHILL NEIGHBOR RUNS, THEIR SPRINKLERS, THE WATER DOESN'T TRAVEL THROUGH THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM, AS IT WOULD HAVE POTENTIALLY WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED, IT'S MIGRATING THROUGH THE SOIL, IT'S TRAPPED BEHIND THE VENEER AND THE, AND THE TIMBER CROSS TIGHT TIMBERS, AND IS, AND BY THAT WATER BEING TRAPPED THERE CONTRIBUTES TO FURTHER DETERIORATION OF THAT WALL.
AND THEN THE BOTTOM TWO PICTURES JUST KIND OF SHOW ADDITIONAL SATURATION OF THE WOOD AND DETERIORATING.
THIS CODE BASICALLY TALKS ABOUT THE PERMITTING.
ONE OF THE ISSUES WE BRING UP IS THAT THE CODE SAYS, AND THE POSITION OF THE TALENT IS THAT ANY WALL UNDER FOUR FEET DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PERMITTED.
SO, BUT THERE ARE CAVEATS TO THAT IN THE CODE, THE CODE STAYS.
NUMBER ONE, EVEN AT THAT BASELINE FACTOR, WHETHER THE CITY REQUIRES IT TO BE PERMITTED OR NOT, IT STILL HAS TO MEET ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF THE CODE.
SO ANY OTHER DESIGN CRITERIA IN THE CODE THAT RELATES TO RETAINING WALLS, WHICH THEY ARE THERE, THAT WALL STILL HAS TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS WHERE THE CITY PERMITS THAT OR NOT.
ADDITIONALLY, AS I MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO ABOUT THE SURCHARGE, IF THERE'S A SURCHARGE ON THAT WALL, EVEN IF IT'S UNDER FOUR FEET, IT HAS TO BE PERMITTED PER THE CODE AND PER THE CODE THAT THE TOWN HAS ADOPTED.
SO WHAT IS A SURCHARGE? A SURCHARGE IS A VERTICAL LOAD STRAIGHT DOWN THE SOIL IS A HORIZONTAL LOAD.
SURCHARGE WOULD BE A VERTICAL LOAD PLACED UPON THE WALL BY A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS.
THE FIRST BEING, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, IF THE SOIL SLOPES UP FROM THE TOP OF THE WALL, THEN ANYTHING ABOVE THAT HAS TO BE FACTORED IN BECAUSE IT'S PLACING PRESSURE ON THAT WALL.
IF THERE'S ANYTHING BUILT WITHIN, WHAT'S CALLED THE ANGLE OF REPOSE, WHICH IS BASICALLY A 45 DEGREE ANGLE FROM THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL.
SO IF THE, IF THE WALL IS FOUR FEET HIGH, FOUR FEET BACK FROM THE WALL, ANYTHING WITHIN THAT FOUR FEET IS CONSIDERED SURCHARGE AND THEN WATER PRESSURE.
SO THE TOWN'S POSITION HAS BEEN AT LEAST ON THE ONE CITATION.
THEY ISSUED THAT THE WALL HAS TO BE REPAIRED.
BUT WHAT WE'RE DEMONSTRATING HERE IS, IS THE ENTIRE WALL HAS FAILED.
SO THE CODE ACTUALLY FOR REPAIR ACTUALLY INCLUDES REPLACEMENT TO CORRECT DAMAGE.
SO EVEN IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE CITATION,
[00:40:01]
IT COULD BE REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED BECAUSE IT'S ENTIRELY FAILED.SO THESE WERE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THE CITY TOOK OF THE ALKYL NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE HERE IS ALL OF THIS THAT YOU SEE IN THIS PHOTO IS WITHIN THE FOUR FEET ANGLE OVER POSE ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF THAT RETAINING WALL.
SO EVERYTHING YOU SEE THERE IS CONSIDERED A SURCHARGE.
SO ANY WORK THAT HAS TO BE DONE ON THIS RETAINING WALL, EVEN REPAIRS HAVE TO BE PERMITTED HER, HER THE KIND OF, CAN YOU FIND OUT WHERE THE TOP OF THE RETAINING WALNUTS? YES.
IT WOULD BE BEHIND THE IVY'S AT THE BOTTOM.
YOU CAN BE WAITING FOR YOU TO BE INVITED AND TAKE THESE PHOTOS.
AND SO YOU CAN SEE THE LEGS GOING DOWN.
UM, AND, AND THERE IS A DECK THAT IS APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED FEET LONG.
I'M NOT SURE HOW WIDE THE BOTTOM, THE BOTTOM OF JUST FINISHED, WHERE YOU SEE THE VEGETATION IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE FENCE.
THE FENCE IS, IS THE TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL.
SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ACTUALLY SEE THE FACE OF THE WALL, RIGHT? YEAH.
SO ADDITIONALLY, SO HERE YOU CAN SEE THE BASE OF THE WALL.
SO THERE'S LANDSCAPE ROCKS, THERE'S, WHAT'S CONSIDERED IMPERVIOUS.
SO THE GRAVEL THAT'S THERE CAUSES WATER TO RUN OFF AGAINST THE BACK OF THE WALL RATHER THAN SETS SEEKING INTO THE GROUND, WHICH IS ALSO WHICH CONTRIBUTES TO THE WATER ISSUE WITH THE SKIES.
AND THEN THE WAY TO THESE LANDSCAPE ROCKS ARE ALL CONSIDERED TO BE A SURCHARGE.
DID YOU SAY THAT GRAVEL IS CONSIDERED AN IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL? RIGHT.
SO WATER WON'T RUN THROUGH GRAVEL.
THE STACK WILL, BUT IT HAS TO DO WITH THE RATE AT WHICH IT RUNS THROUGH.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT ANY DESIGN CRITERIA, TYPICALLY GRAVEL IS CONSIDERED IMPERVIOUS MATERIALS.
IN THE DECK, OBVIOUSLY IN THIS MODE, WHICH, WHICH WE HAVE NOT REALLY TALKED ABOUT THIS EITHER, BUT TECHNICALLY ROUGHLY A FOOT BEHIND THIS WALL IS ACTUALLY OUR PROPERTY BECAUSE THE FENCE AND THE RETAINING WALL ARE ACTUALLY TWO FEET, REMEMBER ONE AND A HALF TO TWO FEET ON OUR PROPERTY AND THE EAS.
SO THERE'S BEEN THINGS BUILT THAT ARE ACTUALLY ON OUR PROPERTY AS WELL, BUT WE'RE NOT MAKING A BIG ISSUE OF ABOUT WHAT THAT IS, BUT THAT IS THE CASE.
WE CANNOT INSPECT OUR OWN PROPERTY FOR THE CONDITION OF THIS.
SO I DON'T REMEMBER IF MY WIFE MENTIONED OR NOT, BUT I MENTIONED THAT THAT REAR CORNER OF 41 TUNES PROPERTY HAD BLOWN OUT ON THE OFFICE ON THE PARK SIDE.
AND SO DURING THE PROCESS OF US NEGOTIATING, SHE, UH, THE UPHILL NEIGHBOR HAD THIS RETAINING WALL BUILT, UH, TO REPLACE THAT WALL.
THIS WALL WASN'T TO OUR KNOWLEDGE THROUGH OPEN RECORDS WAS NOT PERMITTED.
UM, MY WIFE MAY TALK ABOUT THIS, BUT IN A MEETING WITH KIN OMAR, SANDRA, MYSELF AND MY WIFE WERE LOOKING AT THIS WALL, POINTED OUT THAT THE FENCE IS 10 FEET AND CAN LOOK DIRECTLY AT OMAR AND STATED THIS WALL IS IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE BECAUSE THE CODE STATES THAT ANY FENCE IN THE TOWN OF ADDISON CAN'T BE OVER EIGHT FEET.
ADDITIONALLY, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THIS FENCE HAS TO DO WITH A COMMON RETAINING WALL.
IT HAS TO DO WITH IT BECAUSE IF WE HAD MOVED FORWARD IN NEGOTIATIONS, THIS IS WHAT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED AND BEEN BUILT ON OUR PROPERTY.
AND THIS HAS BEEN THE RUB BECAUSE THIS IS A SUBSTANDARD RETAINING WALL.
AND BECAUSE THIS ALSO HAS A SURCHARGE ON IT, IT HAS A FENCE WITH POSTS ACTUALLY INTO THE WALL.
AND AS WE SAW EARLIER, I THINK IT SAYS, SINCE THIS IS, WE CAN MOVE ON, BUT, AND I THINK THAT'S A BIT SPECULATIVE ABOUT, BECAUSE THIS IS A REPAIR THAT WAS DONE BY SOMEONE ELSE IS SENDING US THIS, ISN'T THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL.
IT IS NOT DIRECTLY THE SUBJECT OF THE VIDEO, BUT WHY, BUT WHY,
[00:45:01]
BUT WHY IT IS RELEVANT IS THAT THIS CORNER TIES TO OUR RETAINING WALL.AND SO AGAIN, THIS RETAINING WALL WAS INTEGRATED WITH OUR RETAINING WALL AT THE CORNER.
SO IT IS RELEVANT, BUT I, I'M NOT GOING TO CAMP OUT ON THIS.
BUT MY POINT IS IS THAT THIS WALL PER CODE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE PERMITTED DUE TO THE SEARCH WARRANT.
AND THAT'S STILL NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEAL IF IT'S NOT OKAY, BUT THAT'S WHY WE'RE ARGUING THAT WE WANT, LET'S SAY A RETAINING WALL DESIGNED PER CODE.
THAT WAS MY ONLY POINT OF THAT.
IT'S MY ISSUE IS NOT WITH THAT WALL PER SE, BUT JUST THAT WE WANT ANYTHING IN THAT AREA TO DETERMINE IF IT HAS A SURCHARGE ON IT, LET'S MOVE ON.
SO ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WAS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE CITY, THAT WAS PART OF OUR COMPLAINT WAS THE EASEMENT.
SO I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS NECESSARILY, BUT BASICALLY THE PRIMARY DEFINITION HERE, I WANT TO POINT OUT THE SERVIENT ESTATE, WHICH BASICALLY MEANS THAT THE CAUSE OF THE FIVE-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT IS ON OUR PROPERTY.
WE'RE CONSIDERED THE SERVIENT ESTATE, WHICH MEANS WE BEAR FULL LIABILITY FOR THAT EASEMENT.
WHY THAT'S RELEVANT IS THAT THE TENANT OF ADDISON'S CODE STATES THAT NOTHING CAN BE BUILT WITHIN THAT AND USE PLAN CLEARLY SEEING THAT THE RETAINING WALL IS IN THE EASEMENT AND THE FENCE AS WELL, WHICH THE FENCE CODE ACTUALLY STATES THAT IT CAN'T BE IN THE EASEMENT EITHER.
SO WE BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS WALL IN AND ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS FROM IT.
SO FLOODING ANY OF THAT IS OUR LIABILITY, BUT WE ALSO ARE REQUIRED TO KEEP THAT EASEMENT CLEAR.
IT SAYS THAT IT SHALL REMAIN, HAS OPEN CHANNELS AT ALL TIMES.
AND IT ALSO SAYS IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE WALL WAS THERE FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT SAYS WHEN IT'S DISCOVERED THAT IT IS IN THE, IT HAS TO BE DEALT WITH THAT.
IF THERE'S ANY OBSTRUCTION IN THE EASEMENT THAT IT HAS TO BE DEALT WITH.
SO THEN YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN THIS.
WELL, I GUESS I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
COULD YOU GO BACK TO THAT ONE? WE'VE ALREADY SEEN THIS.
WELL, YES, IT WAS IN THE UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER.
AM I CORRECT IN SAYING THAT IT'S THE UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER WHERE THE PICTURES OF THE WATER ACCUMULATION WAS? NO, ALMOST THE ENTIRE WALL.
I'M SORRY, THE ONE WHERE YOU HAD YOUR FOOT IN THE HOUSE AND, OH, SORRY.
SO COULD YOU POINT WHERE THE WATER WAS ACCUMULATING? YEAH.
WELL IT, IT WAS ACCUMULATING, UH, UH, BASICALLY, YEAH, WE HAVEN'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANOTHER PHONE.
SO THIS JUST SHOWS THAT WE HAD A SURVEY DONE AND THEY ACTUALLY STAYED THE EASEMENT.
AND THIS TAPE MEASURE SHOWS THAT THE BASE OF THE WALL TO THE EASEMENT IS 3.3 FEET, FIVE INCHES.
AND I GUESS THEN HERE'S THE PHOTO DOCUMENTING THE, THE, THE, UH, THE FLOODING.
SO WHERE THIS TABLE IS WITH THE, YEAH.
SO THE SORT OF, IF YOU JUST KIND OF VISUALIZE THREE, THESE THREE PHOTOS, SO THE FIRST LARGER PHOTO IS NEAR THE CONCRETE PATIO TO YOUR LEFT, WHERE IS THE, SEE THE SLIDING DOORS TARGET? WHERE'S THE SAME YOU, WHILE YOU WERE TALKING THE RETAINING WALL.
SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RETURNING ALL OF THIS ON THE PARK, AND YOU SAID IT TIES INTO YOUR TIED INTO THIS CORNER OF OUR LAW AND ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRAINAGE ISSUE, WHICH THE FENCE THAT'S ON THE WEST SIDE OF YOUR PROPERTY.
IS THAT A BOARD ON BOARD FENCE THAT GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND ON, ON, ON THAT BOUNDARY, THE WEST SIDE ON THE, THAT GOES, THAT THE ONE THAT IS THIS WAY YES.
SO THERE'S NO RETAINING WALL BETWEEN THOSE PROPERTIES.
SO, BUT YEAH, THERE'S NO RETAINING WALL, BUT THERE IS A FENCE.
SIX FOOT BOARD ON BOARD SEATS.
[00:50:01]
SO REALLY EVERYTHING YOU SEE HERE IN THIS, IN THIS DIAGRAM WAS FLOODED.AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE HIRED A DRAINAGE ENGINEER TOO, TO HELP US START TO, AND THE RE, AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE A NEIGHBOR BUILT A FENCE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE GROUND AND DID NOT ALLOW WATER TO FLOW THROUGH IT.
AND SO IF THOSE, DEPENDING ON THE SLOPE AND GRADE AND ALL THAT, I, I'M JUST SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT OFFENSES GO ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND AND THEY DON'T LEAVE A ONE OR TWO INCH GAP UNDERNEATH IT.
THEN WATER COULD BE ACCUMULATING BECAUSE OF A FENCE THAT'S ON THE OTHER PROPERTY LINE, RIGHT.
IN TERMS OF THE STANDING WATER IN THEIR BACKYARD.
AND THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING QUESTIONS.
THE RETAINING WALL HAS BEEN THERE SINCE THE DUO WAS CREATED AND THE, UH, FENCE THAT SITS, UH, THE FENCE OR THE RETAINING WALL ARE ACTUALLY ON YOUR PROPERTY.
SO WE DO NOT HAVE AN UPDATED SURVEY, REFLECTING THAT CONDITION.
UH, HE'S NOTED THAT THEY'VE SURVEYED IT, THAT HASN'T BEEN PROVIDED TO THE TOWN.
SO THE SURVEYS THAT ARE PROVIDED IN THIS PRESENTATION THAT IS A DATED SURVEY AND WHAT'S IN THE PACKET IS THAT SAME SURVEY.
BUT I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THIS CONDITION, BUT THIS WAS, YEAH, THIS WAS WHAT'S ON RECORD WITH THE CIVIC TECH, SEVERAL SURVEYS THAT REFLECT THAT CONDITION FROM, UH, RANGING OVER A LITTLE MORE RECENTLY VERSUS SEVERAL DECADES AGO.
AND AGAIN, NOT TO BELABOR THE POINT, BUT THE FACE OF THE RETAINING WALL IS ON OUR PROPERTY, BUT A RETAINING WALL IS NOT A, JUST A FACE.
SO IT'S MOST LIKELY THE BULK, IF NOT ALL OF THAT STRUCTURE IS ON THEIR PROPERTY, IF IT'S A TWO FOOT ENCROACHMENT INTO THEIR PROPERTY.
I MEAN, I DEFINITELY, FROM WHAT I SEE IS THE RETAINING WALL IS FULLY ON YOUR PROPERTY EXCEPT FOR THE TITLE INSTANCES.
AND WE, YEAH, WELL, I'LL HAVE SOME SORT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT, WELL, WE DO KNOW THAT THERE'S PART OF THIS SURVEY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT'S INACCURATE.
AND SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE, WHAT ELSE MIGHT BE AN ACCURATE RIGHT.
SINCE WE KNOW PART OF IT IS, BUT THAT'S JUST AN ASIDE BECAUSE THAT'S WHY I SORT OF A MORE RECENT SURVEY MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE, BUT THE SURVEY AND THE UPDATED SURVEY USE GPS AND THE INDUSTRY STANDARD FOR IDENTIFYING THE QUORUM POINTS.
SO, SO THEY'VE DONE TWO INDUSTRY STANDARD.
WHAT'S THEIR, WHAT? SO THEY'RE NOT SURVEY, LIKE THEY'RE NOT THE ONES WHO ARE SHOWING LIKE 27 AND THAT PROPERTY LINE, THEY'RE NOT SURVEYING THAT ALL THEY'RE DOING A SHOW IN OUR CORNER POINT, EVERYTHING ELSE IS AN OVERLAY THEY GOT FROM SOMEONE ELSE.
SO THEY DENIED YOU THAT SURVEY.
SO THAT'S KIND OF LET ME TURN IT BACK OVER TO MY WIFE UNLESS YOU HAVE, WELL, I GUESS I COULD ASK IF YOU GUYS HAVE QUESTIONS, HOW DO WE SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON AND SOMEBODY THINKS SOMEONE WE MAY PROBABLY BACK.
UM, SO WE DEBATED WHETHER OR NOT TO EVEN SHOW YOU GUYS ALL OF THAT EVIDENCE.
UM, BECAUSE WE DID HIRE A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND, UH, SEPTEMBER OF 2021, UM, HE HAS BEEN IN BUSINESS SINCE, OH, FOR FOUR.
HE BEEN A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSED IN TEXAS FOR 40 YEARS.
UM, HIS SPECIALTY IS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING.
UM, I CALLED THE, THE BOARD THAT OVERSEES HIS PROFESSION.
HE'S NOT HAD A SINGLE DISCIPLINARY ACTION IN 40 YEARS.
SO WE, WE PROVIDED THE TOWN WITH HIS REPORT.
REALLY WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DO WE NEED TO SUPPLY THAT THESE THINGS ARE TRUE, THAT THE VENEER IS NOT AND CANNOT FUNCTION AS A RETAINING WALL, WHICH APPLIES TO OUR POINT.
ONE OF OUR FOUR POINTS IS THAT THE WALL CANNOT BE REPAIRED WITH
[00:55:01]
LIKE MATERIALS.UM, THE ENGINEER STATED THAT THIS WALL HAS EXCEEDED ITS USABLE LIFESPAN THAT IT'S TILTING BY APPROXIMATELY EIGHT INCHES.
UM, HE EXPECTS EVENTUALLY THAT NEAR WALL COMPLETELY TOPPLE OVER MORE THAN LIKELY DURING A HEAVY RAIN STORM, WHICH IS WHY WE BOUGHT SANDBAGS.
UM, AND WHEN THE RETAINING WALL COLLAPSES, IT WILL AFFECT THE FENCE AND SUPPORTING FENCE POSTS.
THAT THAT IS THE, THAT WAS THE SENTENCE THAT GETS MY MOTHER'S HEART A LITTLE BIT, UM, SCARED BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF PRESSURE FROM THAT RETAINING WALL IS BEING APPLIED TO THOSE FENCE POSTS AND THAT FENCE.
AND ARE THEY GOING TO GIVE ABRUPTLY? SO MR. MILLET'S REPORT HAS BEEN IN THE HANDS OF THE TOWN SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS.
UM, IT WAS DISMISSED AS AN ENGINEER'S OPINION.
UM, THE ENGINEER ENGINEERING CODE SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THAT'S WHAT ENGINEERS DO THEY GIVE EXPERT OPINIONS? UM, I DON'T BELIEVE ANYBODY FROM THE TOWN WAS PRESENT WHEN MR. MILLET EXAMINED THE RETAINING WALL.
UM, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THROUGH MY OPEN RECORDS REQUESTS, NOBODY FROM THE TOWN HAS CONTACTED MR. MILLETT, UM, TO ASK HIM WHAT KIND OF EXAMINATION HE MADE OF THE WALL, WHAT TOOLS HE MAY HAVE USED, ET CETERA.
SO STILL THOUGH WE, WE WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND PROVIDE EVIDENCE IN ADDITION.
SO THIS IS THE MORE UNPLEASANT PART.
UM, I, WE HAVE SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK, UM, OF THE STAFF IT'S UNPLEASANT FOR ME BECAUSE I'M A CONFLICT AVOIDER.
UM, WE KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN A TEAM EFFORT.
OMAR, RHONDA HAS BEEN THE PERSON WHO HAS TOUCHED EVERY STEP OF, OF THIS PROCESS.
SO OMAR, UM, I UNDERSTAND FROM, UM, THE CITY'S ATTORNEY THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS.
YOU'RE ALLOWED TO ASK RELEVANT QUESTIONS, RELEVANT QUESTIONS.
WE'RE GOING TO ASK OMAR TO MOVE OVER INTO THIS POSITION FOR SURE.
AND IF, IF I'M ASKING AN UNRELEVANT QUESTION, I'M SURE YOU WILL, YOU KNOW? YEAH.
AND WHILE HE'S GOING OVER, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST STAY ACCURATE, MOST PROFESSIONALISM IN ALL THE INTERACTIONS WE'VE HAD WITH HIM.
HE'S BEEN DARK PROPERTY MULTIPLE TIMES.
SO I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE'S DOING THE BEST.
UM, SO, UM, AND I'M JUST GOING TO SAY IT TO THE STAFF'S KNOWLEDGE OR TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DO YOU KNOW IF ANY OTHER ENGINEER OR EQUALLY QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL HAS, OTHER THAN JOHN MILLET HAS ASSESSED THE WALL? NO.
THAT YOU DON'T KNOW OR NOT? TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NOT TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE.
UM, DO YOU KNOW IF ANY TOWN STAFF USED ANY CONSTRUCTION MEASUREMENT TOOLS AND ASSESSING THE WALL, LIKE PLUM LINES OR SQUARES OR LEVELS, OR DID YOU SEE ANY OF THAT HAPPEN? NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
UM, AND THEN PHILIP
IS THAT CORRECT? I HAVE NO IDEA IF HE DID VISIT, HE WAS NEVER THERE WITH ME.
WHO, WHO WAS THE PERSON THAT YOU BROUGHT WITH CHRISTINA THEN? SEAN.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT SEAN'S POSITION IS? UM, I WAS UNCLEAR, OBVIOUSLY I GOT THIS WRONG.
SO WHAT IS SEAN'S POSITION, SEAN? WHAT IS YOUR POSITION? PUBLIC WORKS.
SO SINCE, UM, WE DIDN'T GET A RESPONSE FROM THE TOWN ON THE EASEMENT ISSUE.
UM, LET ME JUST, MY ONLY QUESTION IS, WERE, WERE YOU THERE TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF THE WALL BEING IN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WAS THAT IT WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY PROBLEM WITH THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WHEN I WAS REQUESTED TO BE OUT THERE.
DO YOU KNOW WHY, WHY SEAN CAME? LIKE WHAT, WHAT WAS THE, WHAT WAS THE THINKING THERE? UH, JUST TO SEE IF ANYTHING WAS OBSTRUCTING THE FLOW OF THE WATER.
HE JUST STATED THAT HE WASN'T AWARE OF.
WE'LL JUST, I DON'T THINK YOU NEED THE RESTATE, WHAT SEAN IS SAYING.
[01:00:01]
WELL, WE'LL JUST, WE'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.UH, YOUR UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT HE WAS THERE TO EVALUATE THE FLOW OF WATER, BUT YOUR STATEMENT IS I WAS NOT AWARE OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN THE AREA.
DOES IT IMPEDE THE FLOW OF STORM WATER? MY RESPONSIBILITY IS PUBLIC STORMWATER FLOW.
SO IT DOES NOT IMPEDE ANY PUBLIC PUBLICLY OWNED STORMWATER FLOW.
SO YOU'RE A COUPLE OF EMAILS THAT WE GOT THROUGH OPEN RECORDS.
UM, ONE, UM, OMAR E IS ONE THAT YOU SENT, UM, ON APRIL 7TH TO KINSMEN AND SANDRA AND CHRISTINA.
AND YOU STATED WITHOUT THE RETAINING WALL, THE PROPERTY ON THE HILL WILL EVENTUALLY HAVE FOUNDATION ISSUES DUE TO EROSION AND WILL END UP IN THE NEIGHBOR'S BACKYARD.
UM, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T THINK OF HOW MANY EMAILS I'VE WRITTEN THAT IF THERE'S EVER AN OPEN OR GO SOLID, BE LIKE, OH, WHY DID I SAY THAT? BUT ANYWAY, I'M SORRY, I'M GETTING OFF TOPIC.
UM, WHEN YOU SAY THE, UH, PROPERTY ON THE HILL, YOU, YOU MEAN THE POLKA LOD PROPERTIES THAT ARE UPHILL FROM LEADVILLE? CORRECT.
UM, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT? PROPERTY MIGHT HAVE FOUNDATION ISSUES DUE TO EROSION IN MIGHT OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, YOU WERE USING EUPHEMISM, BUT END UP IN THE NEIGHBOR'S BACKYARD.
CAN YOU JUST KIND OF SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT? UH, SO WITHOUT THAT RETAINING WALL, I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT SOIL WILL THEN COME ONTO YOUR PROPERTY MAY CAUSE SOME ISSUES TO THE PROPERTY THAT'S UP ON THE HILL.
DO WE? WE'RE NOT SURE HOW FAR OUR UPHILL NEIGHBOR'S HOME IS FROM THE EDGE OF THE RETAINING WALL.
SO I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A CONCERN.
UM, AND THEN ON APRIL 18TH, AND I'M JUST GOING TO JUMP DOWN TO THE, TO THE BLUE PART WITHOUT THE WALL.
UM, THEY, THE PROPERTIES, UM, APPEAL WOULD NEED TO SLOPE THEIR PROPERTY TO KEEP THEIR SOIL FROM EXTENDING ONTO THE, TO THE LEADVILLE.
RIGHT? THIS IS THE STATEMENT YOU'RE MAKING THERE.
SO BASICALLY YOU'RE SAYING, TELL ME IF I'M WRONG THAT THIS RETAINING WALL ALLOWS OUR NEIGHBORS TO HAVE A LEVEL YARD WITHOUT IT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A YARD THAT SLOPED DOWNWARD TO OUR GRADE.
IS THAT WHAT THAT MEANS? CORRECT.
SO THIS WALL IS, IN YOUR OPINION, THIS WALL IS IMPORTANT TO BOTH THE SAFETY AND THE USEFULNESS OF THESE PROPERTIES.
I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SPEAK ON THAT.
I THINK IT'S BENEFICIAL TO BOTH PROPERTIES TO HAVE IT.
IT'S NOT A, THERE, THERE HAVE THE REASON I'M ASKING THIS.
THERE HAD BEEN A FEW TIMES WHEN THE ADJECTIVE LANDSCAPING WAS PUT IN FRONT OF RETAINING WALL.
UM, WE JUST WANT IT TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT A COSMETIC RETAINING WALL.
THIS IS A RETAINING WALL THAT IS CARRYING OUT SOME VERY IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS.
UM, CAN YOU TELL ME, UM, HOW DID YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT, UM, THAT THIS WALL WOULD NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN A DESIGN PLAN FOR THE WALL? WE DON'T KNOW HOW DEEP THE SETTING IS, AND WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT SURCHARGES THERE ARE.
I MEAN, THERE COULD STILL BE A BIG DECK AND BOULDERS.
AND SO CAN YOU TELL ME HOW YOU, HOW YOU DECIDED THAT, THAT THE REPAIRS WERE CONSTRUCTION, WHATEVER WOULD NOT REQUIRE ABSOLUTELY.
WITHOUT KNOWING THOSE SPECIFICS? I COULDN'T TELL YOU IF IT WAS GOING TO REQUIRE A PERMIT OR NOT, BECAUSE I DIDN'T CONSTRUCT THE FENCE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S UNDERNEATH THE GROUND.
SO, AND BOARD MEMBERS, IF, UM, YOU WANTED A, THE ACTUAL TECHNICAL RESPONSE TO THAT.
SO OMAR'S NOT, UH, A BUILDING PROFESSIONAL OR AN ENGINEER.
UH, OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL COULD RESPOND TO THAT IF WE WANT THE TECHNICAL RESPONSE TO THAT.
UH, BUT OMAR, UH, ANSWERED THAT APPROPRIATELY.
AND I'M I'M, I THINK WE'RE VERY HAPPY WITH, WITH THAT CLARIFICATION IS THAT THE TOWN CANNOT YET, OR HAS NOT YET BEEN ABLE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT NO PERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
UM, WHAT ABOUT THE REPAIR WILL HAVE TO BE MADE WITH LIGHT MATERIAL THAT IS WORDY PRESENT? CAN YOU TELL ME HOW THAT DECISION CAME TO BE? UH, IN OUR
[01:05:01]
ORDINANCE, UH, THE FENCE WOULD NEED TO BE REPAIRED IN LIKE MATERIAL.SO THE VIDEO THAT'S COME APART, WE WOULD NEED TO REPAIR THAT VENEER.
SO THE TOWN CODE SAYS IF YOU'RE REPAIRING A FENCE, CAN'T, THAT'S CEDAR, YOU CAN'T JUST AND THROW A PARTY BOARD, THEY NEED TO MATCH.
AND YOU'RE, YOU WERE TAKING THAT CODE AND DON'T LET ME PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT YOU'RE TAKING, YOU'RE APPLYING THAT CODE TO THE VENEER THAT'S THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE RETAINING WALL, CORRECT.
UM, THAT TH THAT'S WHERE THAT CAME FROM, I THINK WE WOULD ARGUE, AND WE HAVE ALREADY ARGUED THAT CODE THAT APPLIES TO FENCING DOES NOT APPLY TO THE RETAINING WALL, UM, THAT, UM, THE RETAINING WALL REPAIR, UM, TO SIMPLY GO IN AND TAKE OFF THAT VENEER AND IT IS NOT A TRUE REPAIR.
UM, THE FIRST ONE IS IT WAS THE INTERNAL DIALOGUE.
IT APPEARS BETWEEN YOU AND THE CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD BE, WHICH IS ALL PRIVILEGED.
SO, SO THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO, UM, TO ASK THE QUESTION, CORRECT.
UM, OKAY, SO NOW OMAR, WE ARE DONE.
IF YOU CAN STAY THERE IF YOU WANT, OR YOU CAN.
TH THE NEXT FEW SLIDES JUST REALLY ARE OUR RESPONSE TO THE AUGUST 11TH STAFF REPORT THAT IS AT THE FRONT OF YOUR PACKETS.
UM, IN GENERAL, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T REALLY SEE ANY, ANY ISSUES WITH THEIR REPORT, BUT THERE WERE ABOUT THREE POINTS THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE.
THE FIRST IS THAT THE STAFF REPORT ON PAGE TWO PARAGRAPH ONE SAYS THE REMAINDER OF THE RETAINING WALL, WHICH IS 41 10, DID NOT HAVE ANY VISIBLE DETERIORATION THAT IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO AN APRIL 18TH EMAIL.
AND WHICH OMAR CLEARLY STATES THERE'S IN 41, 10 RETAINING WALL, OR AREAS IS CHEERIER RATION, UH, CONTAINING MOST OF THE SOIL.
THERE'S AREAS OF THE FENCE THAT HAVE GAPS AND THERE'S EVIDENCE OF SOIL SEEPING THROUGH.
SO WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE BOARD THAT 41 10 DID HAVE VISIBLE DETERIORATION AS EVIDENCED IN OMAR'S APRIL 18TH, EMAIL.
I HAVE A LITTLE SICK THERE BECAUSE I THINK WHAT YOU MEANT TO SAY WAS IT DOESN'T LEAN AS FAR AS 41 0 8, I BELIEVE IS WHAT HE INTENDED TO SAY THERE.
UM, SO THE INTENTION OF THE STAFF FOR FORD IS THE TERM FAILURE.
SO WE'RE WRITING CITATIONS BASED ON FAILURE OF THE WALL, AS THINGS AGE, AS ANY INFRASTRUCTURE AGES, IT'S GOING TO SHOW DETERIORATION THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S FAILED, AND IT'S NOT NO LONGER MEETING ITS INTENT.
AND, UH, LEANING FENCE HAS NOT FAILED UNLESS IT DOESN'T KEEP YOUR DOG IN AND THE PREDATOR OR THE PROWLERS.
NOW, UM, AS LEE HAS POINTED OUT, THERE ARE MULTIPLE JOBS OF A RETAINING WALL, OR IT IS RETAINING SOIL, PROVIDING DRAINAGE AND SUPPORTING SURCHARGES ARE ENGINEER CERTIFIED.
AND THEN THE BREAD BUSINESS FOR 40 YEARS HAS SAID THAT THIS WALL HAS FAILED.
IT IS NOT CLEARLY NOT REDIRECTING DRAINAGE.
AND THE SPECIFIC DISH THAT WAS REFERENCED IN THE CITATION STATES INTERIOR LIGHT GOOD REPAIR THAT DOESN'T DEAL WITH WHETHER IT'S FAILED WILL NOT.
SO WHEN TILLER DOES YOUR PAR YOUR PORT OFF, OBVIOUSLY THE CITY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, AND WE WILL BE OPENING THIS TO PUBLIC HEARING.
WELL, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THAT THE STAFF WAS GOING TO GET TO MAKE COMMENTS WHILE WE WERE PRESENTING.
I WAS TOLD BY MONDAY, THEY'RE TRYING TO CORRECT ANY MISSTATEMENTS THEY CAN.
WELL, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD THIS YEAR? OKAY, WELL, WE'VE BEEN VERY PATIENT.
BUT, BUT CLEARLY THE STAFF REPORT SAYS THERE WAS NO VISIBLE DETERIORATION.
[01:10:01]
ON APRIL 18TH, THE STAFF WAS NOTIFIED THAT THERE IS VISIBLE DETERIORATION.UM, I'VE REALLY ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS.
THE STAFF REPORTS STATES THAT, YOU KNOW, THE INSPECTION REPORT IS, IS, IS AN ENGINEER'S OPINION.
UM, AGAIN, NO ONE FROM THE TOWN WAS PRESENT WHEN MR. MELLON EXAMINED THE WALL, AS FAR AS I KNOW FROM A, OKAY.
DOES ANYONE FROM THE TOWN INVITED TO BE PRESENT? UM, THIS WAS DONE IN SEPTEMBER OF 2021.
RIGHT? SO HOW CAN YOU DECIDE THAT, THAT RESPONSE? YEAH, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
AND MR. SCHMIDT WOULD STOP INTERRUPTING ME IF HE CAN MAKE INCORRECT MISSTATEMENTS, BUT GO AHEAD AND FINISH.
WELL, I DON'T THINK I MADE A MISSTATEMENT AT ALL.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, I WOULD LIKE TO GO.
I JUST WANT TO GO ON RECORD TO, TO STATE THAT IF THIS WERE, IF THIS WERE IN A COURT SITUATION, I KNOW I CAN MAKE THIS STATEMENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, THEY'RE ACTING AS AN APPEAL FOR THE MUNICIPALITY.
YOU ARE NOT IN A CIVIL COURT OF LAW.
USED TO BE, IF YOU FILED A PETITION AGAINST YOUR, THE PEOPLE BEHIND YOU, BUT YOU'RE NOT, YOU ARE COME TO THE CITY FOR AN APPEAL OF FOUR POINTS AND THE BOARD IS GOING TO HEAR THOSE FOUR POINTS.
THAT STATEMENT IS RELEVANT AND IS HAPPENING IN THE COURT OF LAW IS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS YEAR.
SO EITHER WAY, CAN ANYBODY HEAR ME IN TERMS OF THE POINT THEY'RE TRYING TO GET ACROSS AND THE ENGINEERS CAN BE CONSIDERED EXPERT TESTIMONY AT AN EVEN HIGHER LEVEL THAN THIS BOARD OF APPEAL.
I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE SPECIFICS.
LET'S NOT GO THERE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS.
SO LAST OF ALL, THE STAFF REPORT STATED THAT, UM, WE'VE APPLICANT ASSERTS THAT BOTH ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS SHOULD BE CITED.
WE HAVE NEVER STATED THAT ANYONE SHOULD BE CITED.
WE STATED SPECIFICALLY THAT WE BELIEVE THAT THE OFFICER INCONSISTENTLY APPLIED THE CODE BECAUSE BOTH PROPERTIES ARE IN NON-COMPLIANCE, BUT ONLY ONE WAS CITED.
WE HAVE FROM THE BEGINNING MADE EFFORTS TO SHARE MORE THAN EQUALLY IN THE COST OF REPLACING AS WELL.
UM, AND THEN FINALLY, THE STAFF REPORT JUST DOES NOT ADDRESS THREE KEY COMPONENTS THAT THE TOWN IS NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT, WHICH WAS STATED ON APRIL 13TH TO US, UM, IN, UM, OMAR ARANDAS EMAIL, UM, THAT THE RETAINING WALL WILL BE, WILL BE REPAIRED WITH LIKE MATERIALS, WHICH WAS AGAIN, STATED TO US, YOU KNOW, MIRANDA'S EMAIL TELLING US WHAT THE DETERMINATIONS WERE.
AND, UM, ALTHOUGH THE CODE OFFICER RECEIVED ONSITE CONSULTATION FROM INFRASTRUCTURE STAFF AND DISCUSSED WITH US, THE EASEMENT RESTRICTION, UM, THE TOWN DETERMINED, UM, DETERMINATIONS, LACK, ANY REFERENCE AT ALL TO, TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE DRAIN DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
NOW LET'S DO SOMETHING CALLED MEDIC COMMUNICATION.
I WANT TO PULL BACK FROM WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY, WHICH IS END OF MY PRESENTATION.
WE HAVE A DISAGREEMENT ON WHETHER WHAT HAPPENED ON OUR UPHILL NEIGHBORS.
EAST FOUNDRY IS RELEVANT TO WHAT IS GOING, WHAT MAY HAPPEN ON OUR UPHILL NEIGHBORS, SOUTH BOUNDARY.
THE EXACT PROBLEM ON HERSELF BOUNDARY OUR NORTH BOUNDARY IS THE PROBLEM THAT SHE FACED ON HER EAST BOUNDARY, A FAILED RETAINING WALL.
BUT WHAT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE SPECULATING AND I DON'T THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR US TO SPECULATE RIGHT, AS WE HEAR THIS.
AND WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT I'M SPECULATING ABOUT? I THINK YOU'RE SPECULATING THAT THE UPHILL NEIGHBOR WHO WILL USE THE SAME TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES, IF, IF SOMEONE REQUIRES THEM TO REPAIR A RETAINING AND THAT IS PURE SPECULATION, AND I DON'T WANT TO GO THERE AND I DON'T THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE.
WE WILL NOT SPECULATE ON THAT.
[01:15:02]
ME CAN SAY THAT THAT FENCE WAS PERMITTED ON THE EAST BOUNDARY.THAT IT IS NON-COMPLIANT BECAUSE IT'S A 10 FOOT FENCE, THE FENCE THAT I UNDERSTAND, BUT THAT IS OUR, OUR CONCERN IS THAT THE CITY WILL, I'M SORRY, LET HIM FINISH.
I MEAN, BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE SPECULATING AGAIN, THAT THE STAFF WILL ALLOW SOMETHING THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE AND AGAINST OUR BUILDING CODES.
AND JUST AS I THINK THAT SOME STAFF, AT SOME POINT ALLOWED YOUR HOUSE TO BE BUILT OVER THE BUILDING LINE, AT LEAST PER A DIAGRAM I SAW, WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATE EITHER.
BUT THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE EITHER.
AND SO LET'S SORT OF NOT BRING ISSUES THAT AREN'T RELEVANT INTO THE DISCUSSION RELEVANT, BUT SPECULATIVE, I WILL, I'LL GIVE YOU THAT.
SO, UM, WE'RE GOING TO JUST SKIP ALL OF THIS.
SO HERE'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING THE BOARD.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF, IF OUR GOING, GONNA HAVE ANYTHING TO CONTRIBUTE HE'S UM, ON THE PHONE, HE COULDN'T GET THE VISUAL TO WORK.
UM, THIS IS WHAT, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE ASKING THE BOARD TO APPROVE NOW, BECAUSE, BECAUSE THE STAFF REPORT ONLY ASKED YOU TO RULE ON 41, 10 WALL HAS FAILED.
THAT'S ALL THE STAFF REPORT ASKS, BUT, BUT THAT DOES NOT ADDRESS KEY ISSUES OF OUR COMPLAINT.
SO WHAT WE ARE HOPING TODAY, YES, CASE SCENARIO AT THE ENTIRE 93 FOOT WALL HAS FAILED AND REQUIRES REPLACEMENT.
YOU REALLY WANT THIS WALL TO BE REPLACED WITH THE SAFE.
WE'VE BEEN UP TO THIS FOR A WHILE.
IT'S THE SAFE, DURABLE STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO MEET CODES.
DID TOWN WILL ISSUE PERMITS FOR THE WALL OF INFANTS RECONSTRUCTION.
AND WE'RE ONLY ASKING YOU TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE WALLS OBSTRUCTED OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
WE ONLY ASK YOU TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE ARE AWARE THAT WE WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO COME TO THIS BOARD AGAIN, TO ADDRESS WHATEVER OUR DRAINAGE ENGINEER SAYS.
WE DON'T KNOW, BUT WE JUST WANTED ACKNOWLEDGED BECAUSE WE CANNOT ALLOW ANYONE TO BUILD IN OUR DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
WE CAN'T KEEP THAT RETAINING WALL IN THE DRAIN.
IF THERE'S FLOODING IN OUR NEIGHBORS PROPERTY, IN OUR PROVINCE, YOU ARE NOT THE CHILD, NOT OUR UPHILL NEIGHBOR.
WE ARE UNDERSTANDING WHAT THIS FIXED, UNDERSTAND THE EMOTIONAL DRAIN.
THIS IS MUST'VE BEEN ON YOUR SITE.
YOU FOR, I WANT TO GET TOGETHER AS LONG AS IT DID.
AND WE APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION.
UM, AT THIS POINT, UM, LET ME GET STAFF'S OPINION HERE.
UH, THERE'S TWO THINGS I THINK THAT NEED TO HAPPEN.
WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND HEAR FROM OTHERS.
AND THEN, UM, I IMAGINE THAT STAFF WANTS TO SORT OF, UH, MAKE SOME RESPONSES TO THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION.
UH, WHAT DO YOU THINK OUGHT TO HAPPEN FIRST? NICOLE, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'LL HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING JUST SO WE CAN SEE THE FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC TO THE ACTUAL APPEAL.
AND THEN THAT WAY THE STAFF CAN ALSO ADDRESS ANY COMMENTS THAT MAY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED WITH PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL.
THAT, THAT I THINK MAKES SENSE TO ME.
SO IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE'LL, WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT.
SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I THINK IT'S SEVEN 19.
UH, I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? I HAVE ONE CARD FROM MICHAEL SMITH.
FEEL FREE TO SIT DOWN AT JULY OR GO WHEREVER YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE.
SO WE MAKE SURE THE MICS CAN HEAR YOU, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND, AND WHERE YOU LIVE, UH, AND WHAT
[01:20:01]
YOUR THOUGHTS ARE ON THE MATTER.ATTORNEY MICHAEL SMITH FOR ELLEN CASSIDY, THE OWNER AT 41, 10 PUCK ELODIE, AND THE RETAINING WALL WAS BUILT IN 1980.
THE HOPWOODS BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 2017.
SO TENDING WHILE HAD BEEN THERE FOR CLOSE TO 40 YEARS, THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET A SURVEY DONE AND THEIR CORRESPONDENCE WITH CITY OF ADDISON, THEY SAY A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN 2017.
AND THE SURVEY THAT WE LOOKED AT TONIGHT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THAT RETAINING WALL IS ON THEIR PROPERTY.
TEXAS LAW IS CLEAR THAT NEIGHBORING LANDOWNERS, HEY, HANG ON.
I, I JUST WANTING TO POINT OUT, I THINK WE HAVE THE HOPKINS THAT ADMIT THE RETAINING WALL IS ON, BUT HANG ON, HANG ON.
THIS IS NO LONGER YOUR TIME TO SPEAK.
AND I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND THAT DESIRE.
SURELY THEY'LL GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THINGS I WOULD ASSUME CORRECT.
THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO, TO CORRECT MISSTATEMENTS AND, AND, BUT YOU'VE HEARD OUR POSITION WITH, WE WILL ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.
THEREFORE, IF THIS PILL IS BOARD, THE BILLBOARD GRANTS, THEIR BILL, OR REQUESTING THAT THEY BE RESPONSIBLE TO A PLACE ALL 93 FEET, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
UH, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CARDS.
IS THERE ANY OTHER PERSON FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ANYBODY ON THE PHONE FROM IT? DOESN'T REPRESENT ONE OF THESE STAFF TO SPEAK, HEARING NONE I'M LOOKING AROUND AND I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER HANDS RAISED AND I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CARS.
HE NEEDS TO CHECK WITH OUR ATTORNEY.
I WILL TRY TO SPEAK EARLIER AND WAS NOT ABLE TO DO A PUBLIC.
LIKE HE'S TRYING TO SPEAK, UM, TRIED TO SPEAK.
COULD YOU CALL HIM AND TEXTED ME OF, YEAH.
IF WE COULD PUT THEM ON THE SPEAKER PHONE OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD WORK FOR US AS WELL.
I SAID, THIS IS ACTUALLY FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
HE SHOULD BE SPEAKING DURING THE APPELLATE PROCESS WHEN THE ACTUAL APPELLANT IS SPEAKING, UH, IF HE'S GOING TO DO SO ON THEIR BEHALF.
SO WHAT WE COULD DO IS RATHER THAN DO IT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING, HE COULD SPEAK DURING THEIR REBUTTAL QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
AND SO WHY CAN THE OTHER PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS SPEAK DURING THE, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THE APPLICANT, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER TIME DURING THIS APPEAL TO ACTUALLY SPEAK TO THE BOARD.
UH, WELL, IF YOU'RE, IF WE CAN HEAR FROM YOUR ATTORNEY, WE WILL DO THAT.
ONCE WE CLOSE THE PUBLISHER, I HAVE SEEN SOMEBODY ELSE RAISED THEIR HAND SIT DOWN.
SO IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND WHEN YOU'RE DONE FILL OUT CARD.
UM, MY NAME IS ELLEN CASSIDY AND I LIVE AT 41 10 POKER ELODEA.
AND I HAVE SINCE 1992, MS. CASSIDY, CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE LOUDER? I CAN SPEAK SO LOUD.
YOU KNOW, I'M A TEACHER, UH, WHEN THIS WAS FIRST BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BY THE HOPWOOD SINCE FEBRUARY OF 21, UH, EVERYBODY ON POLKA, LOD HAS BEEN TOLD THAT THE FENCES ARE ON AND THE, AND THE RETAINING WALLS ARE ON OUR PROPERTY.
AND WE'VE BEEN TOLD FOR YEARS THAT IF SOMETHING HAPPENS WHEN IT'S TIME TO FIX THE WALL OR FIX THE RETAINING WALL, IT'S ALL ON US.
WE'VE LIVED THERE FOR 30 YEARS.
I'VE REPLACED THE FENCE THREE TIMES HAVE HAD THE, THE, THE RETAINING WALL REINFORCED A TIME OR TWO, I THINK.
AND NO ONE EVER OFFERED TO PAY HALF.
I ASKED THE FIRST TIME AND NOBODY, SHE SAID NO FALL ON YOU.
SO I ASSUME THAT WHEN I HEARD FROM THEM IN FEBRUARY, I KNEW THEY WERE SAILING.
I'D KNOWN FOR A YEAR, BOTH RETAINING WALLS WERE FAILING.
AND I, WHEN SHE, WHEN THEY CONTACTED ME AND SHOWED ME THE PICTURES AND I SAID, I'M ON IT.
AND I WAS READY TO GO OVER THERE.
I HAD THE CONTRACTOR HIRED, WE WERE READY TO COME IN AND NOT REPAIR IT, BUT REPLACE IT.
AND THEY STOPPED IT AND THEY DIDN'T, THEY REFUSED IT AT THAT POINT.
UM, AND THEN HE BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT IT'S ACTUALLY ON HIS PROPERTY, WHICH KIND OF CHANGED THE WAY I FELT ABOUT THE WHOLE THING.
AND, UH, I HAVE OFFERED TO PAY HALF OF WHAT IT WOULD COST TO REPLACE IT, THE, UH,
[01:25:01]
THE ONE INVOICE AND, UH, THE ONE THAT THEY SHOWED YOU.I HAD NO IDEA THAT 10 FOOT FENCE WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED.
I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO WATCH THESE BUILDINGS GO DOWN.
CAUSE I'M RIGHT, RIGHT BEHIND HERE.
UM, BUT I JUST ASKED THE CONTRACTOR ABOUT THAT, UH, THAT FENCE I DID LAST OCTOBER AND IT COST $20,000.
BUT I'M JUST SAYING WHAT I'M SAYING.
HALF OF THAT, HALF OF THAT IS WHEN I OFFERED HIM TO, TO PAY FOR HALF THE FENCE, THAT THE INVOICE, THEY BROUGHT TO US FOR $32,000 FOR A SANDSTONE RETAINING WALL.
AND I DON'T, I DON'T WANT TO REPAIR IT.
I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR AN UPGRADE.
I JUST WANT TO, I JUST WANT IT TO BE SERVICEABLE IS ALL I WANT IT TO BE SO THAT YOU KNOW, THAT WHEN THEY BROUGHT THAT ONE INVOICE TO, UH, TO ME, I SAID, NO, I CAN'T, AS IT IS, AS IT STANDS NOW I'VE HAD TO HIRE A LAWYER BECAUSE I CAN'T DEAL WITH THEM.
AND I'M SO FAR I'M IN IT FOR $6,500.
SO I HAVE DONE, I HAVE VOLUNTEERED TO PAY HALF O'MARA WAS VERY HELPFUL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ISSUE? SO OUR ATTORNEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, I UNDERSTAND TO BE IN THE PUBLIC.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE THEM SPEAK DURING YOUR REBUTTAL AND FIGURE OUT SOME WAY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
UM, SO SEEING NO OTHER NODDING IN THE ROOM AND I HAVE NO OTHER CARDS, SO I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7 26.
UM, NOW I THINK WE'LL TURN TO THE STAFF TO, UH, COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT WE'VE HEARD SO FAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND OTHERS IN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, THIS IS A VERY FRUSTRATING ISSUE FOR ALL PARTIES HOP WITH MY EMPATHY, A TASK.
THESE HAVE MY EMPATHY, MR. HALE HAS MY EMPATHY.
WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN THIS POSITION WITH THEM.
WE WANT TO HELP THEM FACILITATE A NEIGHBORLY SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM.
THE CHALLENGE WITH THE CITY IS WE ENFORCE CODES.
WE ENFORCE CODES THAT ARE VERY BLACK AND WHITE, AND THEY HAVE TO BE THAT WAY.
IF I WAS PUT IN A POSITION WHERE I WAS, UM, ALWAYS HAVING TO ENFORCE AMBIGUOUS CODES IN A WAY THAT REALLY LOOKED AT JUST MAINTENANCE ISSUES AND AESTHETIC ISSUES VERSUS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE EVALUATING FOR LIFE AND SAFETY THAT IS, HAS TO BE STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND CAN'T BE FAILED.
MOST OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN TOWN WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD SAY IS FAILED.
IF WE'RE APPLYING THE STANDARDS THAT HOPWOODS ARE APPLYING TO THIS RETAINING WALL, IT IS STILL SERVING ITS PURPOSE AS A RETAINING WALL.
IT IS NOT ECSTATICALLY PLEASING.
IT DOES HAVE SOME SHIFTS OF WEAR AND TEAR, CERTAINLY, BUT IT'S NOT FAILING THE REPORT THAT THEY PROVIDED FROM THIS ENGINEER MAKES A STATEMENT ON ITS FAILURE, BASED ON IT'S JUST AN ASSUMPTION.
IF I APPLIED THAT SAME ASSUMPTION TO EVERYTHING IN MIDWAY MEADOWS, ALL THE ROADS, ALL THE UTILITIES, ALL THE DRAINAGE FEATURES, ALL OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE THEORETICALLY WOULD BE FAILED.
WELL, HE HAS, HE GOT THE CHANCE TO SPEAK WHEN I KNOW, AND I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE LET HIM, WHICH HE DID, BUT HOW HAS THE REST OF MIDWAY MEADOWS RELEVANT IF HER EAST WALL IS NOT RELEVANT? REALLY? YES, PLEASE.
SO I WE'VE PROVIDED A LOT OF PICTURES WITH YOUR PACKET.
IT HAS THAT THE APPLICANT, UH, DISPLAYED IT HAS PICTURES OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
THERE'S MAINTENANCE AND THERE'S HAIR, BUT IT'S NOT A FAILED WALL.
IT IS PERFORMING AS IT SHOULD PERFORM.
UM, WE DO HAVE OTHER STAFF MEMBERS, IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHETHER SOMETHING REQUIRES A PERMIT OR NOT, THAT'S A VERY HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION, CERTAINLY, BUT WE CAN COMMENT ON THAT.
UH, BUT THE, THE REAL ISSUE HERE, UH, THE PRIME ISSUE AND WHY WE'RE HERE IS WHETHER THAT WALL HAS FAILED OR NOT.
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS THERE NEEDS TO BE MAINTENANCE AND THERE NEEDS TO BE FURTHER EVALUATION OF THAT WALL BETWEEN THE THREE NEIGHBORS.
CAUSE THEY ALL BENEFIT FROM THAT WALL.
IT'S NOT JUST THE CASSIDYS AND IT'S NOT JUST THE HOPWOODS.
IF THAT WALL DIDN'T EXIST, THOSE LOTS WOULD HAVE TO BE LARGER.
ALL THREE OF THEM IN ORDER TO ENJOY
[01:30:01]
THE SAME USABLE AREA, UH, OR THOSE PROPERTIES.SO THEY ALL BENEFIT FROM THAT WALL AND THEY ALL BENEFIT FROM FINDING A REASONABLE SOLUTION FOR MAKING THE DESIRED REPAIRS.
THE CITY'S ROLE, THE TALENT'S ROLE IS NOT TO MEDIATE THESE CIVIL ISSUES.
IT'S NOT FOR US TO HELP THEM FIND A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM.
WE ARE HERE TO DETERMINE IF IT VIOLATES OUR CODE OR IT DOESN'T.
WE MADE THE DETERMINATION WHERE IT DOES.
AND WE'VE MADE A DETERMINATION WHERE IT DOESN'T THE CONDITION RELATED TO THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT IT APPEARS BASED ON THE SURVEYS.
I HAVE NOT SEEN THEIR NEW SURVEY, SO I CAN'T TELL THEM THAT ON AN UPDATED SURVEY, BUT IT APPEARS BASED ON THE SURVEYS WE'VE REVIEWED AND PROVIDED TO THE BOARD THAT THE RETAINING WALL AND FENCE ARE ON THE HOPWOODS PROPERTY.
IT SEEMS THAT APPEARS TO BE THE ONE ITEM OF CONSENSUS ON THIS ISSUE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CONDITION HAS EVER BEEN DIFFERENT.
IT APPEARS THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE, UH, THAT THAT'S THE CASE.
SO ONCE AGAIN, A SHARED PROBLEM AMONGST THOSE THREE PROPERTY OWNERS, NOT REALLY THE CITY'S ROLE TO DICTATE THAT CONDITION, THEY NEED TO WORK TOGETHER AND RESOLVE THAT.
AND IF THEY CAN'T WORK TOGETHER TO RESOLVE THAT, IT IS A CIVIL ISSUE.
THEY SHOULD REMEDY THAT IN COURT.
DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANY MEMBERS OF STAFF OR MYSELF STAND FOR THE CITY? OH, WHAT DOES THE CODE SAY ABOUT CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL ON AN EASEMENT AS FAR AS WEATHER, DOES THAT MAKE WITHIN AN EASEMENT? NO, IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE EAST, BUT THAT'S WHERE IT IS.
THAT'S BASED ON THE EXIST SURVEYS THAT WE HAVE THAT APPEARS TO BE PRECARIOUS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR WARD STAFF? ALRIGHT.
IT IS NOW TIME FOR YOU TO RESPOND AND UH, HOW ARE WE GOING TO, YOU WANT YOUR ATTORNEY TO SPEAK LIKE A COLD? YEAH, LET'S TRY THAT WORK AT ALL.
AND YOU BOTH HEAR ME, THEY WORK, BUT SO CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME AT ALL? I'VE GOT YOU ON SPEAKER PHONE VOLUME, THE VOLUME TURNOVER.
COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND, UH, GATHER YOU'RE REPRESENTING THE HOPWOODS, BUT COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND ABSOLUTELY.
I CALLED IT TO THE, I GUESS THE SOON AND I'VE TRIED TO, TO SPEAK AT TIMES AND APPARENTLY NOBODY COULD HEAR ME.
UM, I JUST WANT TO JUST GO OVER A FEW KEY POINTS BOTTLE.
UM, THERE WAS A COUPLE OF THINGS MR. KERRIGAN SAID THAT I THINK I NEED TO ADDRESS FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT.
UM, I THINK ARE, UM, WITH DUE RESPECT TO HIM, THE STATEMENTS OF THE LAW, THE, THE FACT THAT THE, THE RETAINING WALL HAS MIGRATED ONTO MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY, UH, REALLY HAS NO BEARING ON WHO BEARS THE COST.
UM, THE TEXAS LAW IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT IF THEY RETAIN LOLA SUPPORTING HIS PROPERTY, HIS COLLEGE PROPERTY, THEN SHE NEARS THE BURDEN.
THAT, THAT, YEAH, WE ALSO HAVE HAD EVIDENCE THAT SHE'S MADE SEVERAL MODIFICATIONS TO THAT WALL OVER THE YEARS, WHICH ALSO LENDS CREDENCE TO THAT.
SHE SHOULD BE AT LEAST PARTIALLY RESPONSIBLE.
I I'VE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT HOW THIS IS A CIVIL MATTER AND HOW, UH, MY CLIENT'S DIFFICULT.
WHAT I WILL TELL THE BOARD IS I'VE REPRESENTED NUMEROUS CLIENTS OVER THE PAST 17 YEARS IN THESE TIMES OF DISPUTES.
AND I, MY CLIENT HAS OFFERED TO PAY FOR HALF THE COST OF THIS, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, EVEN THOUGH WE HAD AN INITIAL AGREEMENT ON THAT POINT, THAT WAS SUBSIDY WITH THE RENEGED.
AND SO I FEEL LIKE MY CLIENTS, TO THE EXTENT THEY'RE BEING PAINTED, AS I'M READING CIVIL, UH, AN AGREEMENT TO PAY FOR HALF THE COST, I DON'T THINK IT'S UNREASONABLE AT ALL, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE THE BURDEN TO DO THAT.
[01:35:01]
UM, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE BOARD IS SAYING ABOUT THIS BEING A CIVIL MATTER, BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THE BOARD IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO ENFORCE ITS ORDINANCES AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN THAT CITY CAN SEEK LEGAL REDRESS WHEN THEY FOUND TOO.I DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN HERE, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS CIVIL ISSUE, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE TOWN MADISON.
UM, BECAUSE TO ME THERE ARE ORDINANCES THAT ARE NOT BEING FOLLOWED WITH THEIR ORDINANCES THEY'RE BEING VIOLATED.
UM, I, I KNOW THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE FROM AN ENGINEER, SOMEBODY QUALIFIED TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT THIS WALL IS FAILING, HAS BEEN PRESENTED ON COMPETENCE.
UM, I'VE SEEN NO EVIDENCE FROM THE CITY OR FROM THE CASSIDYS THAT THEY ARE QUALIFIED TO PINE ON THAT TOPIC.
UM, SO, SO WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT WE HAVE AN ENGINEER THAT SAYS THIS WALL IS FAILING, AND I WILL KNOW THAT IT KIND OF BOGGLES MY MIND THAT I, THAT THE END OF THE WALL ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY IS SUPPOSEDLY FAIRLY, BUT THIS ONE'S NOT, EVEN THOUGH THEY, THEY LEAN ONTO THE PROPERTY AND THEY ONLY, THEY ONLY SEE THE TWO AS A FEW DEGREES.
IT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY ARBITRARY, UM, I GUESS, STANDARD TO SAY THAT THAT, UH, ONE SECTION SPELLING AND THE OTHER'S NOT, WHEN THEY'RE ONLY SEPARATED BY WHAT FIVE DEGREES, BOTH ARE LEADING AND BOTH ARE CERTAINLY IN DANGER OF FAILING.
UM, YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE WE, I, MY, MY CLIENTS ARE UNDERSTANDABLY CONCERNED WITH THE SAFETY ISSUE IS PRESENTS.
WE WERE CONCERNED WITH THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT THIS ISSUE BEING ADDRESSED.
I I'VE LITIGATED NUMEROUS ISSUES WHERE WE'VE HAD TO DISCLOSE THINGS LIKE THIS.
AND LET ME TELL YOU, IT JUST, IT CERTAINLY DECREASES THEIR PROFITS.
I, UM, MY CLIENT, EVEN IF THIS WAS ON THEIR PROPERTY AND COULD NOT GO OUT TOMORROW AND START TEARING DOWN VISCOSITIES, THAT'S IN RETAINING WALL AND APPRENTICE THEMSELVES, THERE'S GOT TO BE, I THINK, A DETERMINATION BY THE CITY, WHETHER OR NOT THIS SPEAKS THE WORD THAT SAYS, I THINK CLEARLY IT DOES.
THAT'S THE ONLY GOOD THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TODAY.
AND SO I WOULD ASK THE CITY, UM, AT LEAST HEAR, HEAR THEM OUT REVIEW THE DOCUMENTATION THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED, WHICH I THINK IS CLEARLY IN FAVOR OF THIS LAW AS IS FAILED.
I'M GONNA HANG UP BRANDON, UNLESS YOU NEED SOMETHING ELSE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE ONE COMMENT ABOUT HIS STATEMENT AND I PRESENTED IT IN THE PHOTOS, BUT MAYBE IT WAS NOT AS CLEAR.
SO THE AREA THAT IS FAILING THAT HAS BEEN CITED IN THAT POST, WHERE IT HAS FAILED, DOES NOT HAVE A METAL FENCE POST IN FRONT OF IT, WHICH ARGUABLY IT'S NOT DESIGNED TO SUPPORT THAT WALL.
THE ONE THAT IS LEANING ABOUT 15 FEET FROM THERE HAS DEFLECTED A FENCE POST BY FOUR INCHES AND IS LEANING IN IT.
AND IF I WERE TO COME TO THE CITY AND SAY, MAY I COME IN AND REPLACE THIS FENCE? IF I REMOVE THAT FENCE, POST THAT AREA NOW WOULD LIKELY BE IN THE SAME CONDITION AS THE OTHER.
SO THE BURDEN IS PLACED ON THAT FENCE TO SUPPORT THAT WALL.
AND IT'S NOT DESIGNED TO SUPPORT THAT WALL.
SO YOU CAN'T STATE THAT THE WALL IS PERFORMING AS DESIGNED BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING IMPEDING IT.
SO I WOULD JUST LIKE THAT TO BE ON THE RECORD THAT THERE IS THAT, THAT THE ONLY THING SEPARATING THOSE TWO AS A METAL FENCE POST IS NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT PURPOSE, THAT DESIGN ARE WE STILL IN OUR REBUTTAL PHASE? UM, NICOLE, SURE.
SO LONG AS WE DON'T GET REPETITIVE HERE, TAKE A MOMENT.
I THINK THAT THAT OUR ATTORNEY'S POINT WAS GOOD AND THAT THE CITY CANNOT EXPLAIN TO US WHY A WALL THAT IS LEANING A WALL THAT IS AT WHAT ARE THE, WHAT ARE THE DEGREES AGAIN? ON THE WEST SIDE, WE'VE GOT A 7 70, 71 75, 78, A WALL SHOULD BE AT 90 DEGREES.
WHERE IN THE CODE, DOES IT SAY
[01:40:01]
THAT 78 IS FAILING, BUT 75? AND YEAH, THERE ARE OTHER AREAS IN THE CODE THAT STATE THAT IT HAS TO BE PLUMBING LEVEL, RIGHT? SO I, YES, I, THAT IS OUR ATTORNEY'S POINT.UM, WE ARE NOT ASKING THE CITY OR THE BOARD TO MAKE ANY DETERMINATIONS REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY FOR PAYING FOR THIS.
WE AGREE THAT THAT IS A CIVIL ISSUE IN OUR PURVIEW TO DO RIGHT.
WE WILL NOT BE DOING THAT, RIGHT.
THAT WE AGREE IS A CIVIL ISSUE.
WE ARE ASKING THE CITY TO ENFORCE ITS CODES.
AND WE WANT TO JUST MAKE A COUPLE OTHER COMMENTS.
UM, WE HAVEN'T EXACTLY STATED IT THIS WAY, BUT WE ARE OMAR IN ONE OF HIS STATED THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE PART OF THE FACADE TO PROVE THAT THE WALL BEHIND THERE WAS FAILED AND EVEN TOLD US THAT AS THE, AS THE WORK IS BEING REPAIRED, YOU MAY WANT TO TAKE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS AND SEND US AND MAKE A SEPARATE NUISANCE COMPLAINT.
I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE HAVE PRESENTED PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE THAT THAT WALL IS BEHIND THERE, AND THAT IT'S DETERIORATED.
SO AGAIN, WE'VE ASKED WHAT FURTHER EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED.
MS. CASSIDY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE IN THE COST OF THAT ENGINEERING REPORT AND SHE CHOSE NOT TO.
SO WE BARED THE FULL BURDEN OF THAT.
AND SO I FEEL LIKE THAT WE ARE BEING ASKED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THAT IS NOT LIKELY BEING REQUESTED OF THE OTHER PERSON WHO SHARES IN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SMALL.
YEAH, THERE, THERE IS ADEQUATE EVIDENCE OF SEVERELY DECAYED RAILROAD TIES BEHIND THIS VENEER.
AND IF A SEVERELY RE DECADE RETAINED A RAILROAD TIES BEHIND A VENEER IS NOT A FAILED WALL THAN WHAT IS TELL US.
I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.
SO REBUTTAL ARE OVER, UM, STAFF DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THEY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY.
DO THEY SAY, JUST TO CLARIFY WHY WE DECIDED THIS PORTION AND NOT THE OTHERS THAT YOU CAN VISUALLY SEE EVIDENCE WHERE THE VENEER HAS FAILED, IT'S BROKEN.
UM, THERE ARE PORTIONS OF THE WALL THAT DOES LEAN, BUT IT WAS THE OPINION OF STAFF THAT, THAT LEANING DID NOT REPRESENT FAILURE.
IT REPRESENTED AN OLDER RETAINING WALL THAT WAS APPROACHING AND HEADING TOWARDS, UH, END OF LIFE, BUT IT WAS STILL SERVING THE PURPOSE THAT IT WAS INSTALLED, UH, TO DO, WHICH WAS TO RETAIN HER.
I THINK THE TIMES WHERE COMMENTS ARE OVER NOW, IT IS TIME FOR BOARD DELIBERATION AND DISCUSSION AMONG BOARD MEMBERS.
AND WHILE THERE MAY BE A DESIRE FOR THE PUBLIC OR THE STAFF TO INTERJECT COMMENTS DURING ANY DISCUSSION WE MIGHT HAVE, I ASKED THAT YOU DON'T DO THAT EVEN TO STAFF.
AND IF ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION TO ANYBODY IN THE ROOMS, I WILL ALLOW THEM TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS AND HOPE.
BUT, BUT DURING THE BOARD, IT IS A DISCUSSION AMONG THE BOARD.
HERE IS EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THAT? UM, OUR ATTORNEY WAS NOT ABLE TO GET BACK.
YEAH, NOPE, NO PROBLEM AT ALL.
YOU JUST LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE READY.
SO YOU CAN HEAR AND FEEL FREE TO PUT THE PHONE UP HERE WITH YOU, LIKE, OKAY.
YOU'RE CERTAINLY WELCOME TO LISTEN.
BUT AS I WAS STATING, BEFORE WE ADDED YOU ON THE PHONE, THIS IS THE TIME FOR THE BOARD TO DELIBERATE, NOT FOR THE PUBLIC OR THEIR ATTORNEYS TO INTERJECT ANY COMMENTS.
IF A PARTICULAR BOARD MEMBER HAS A SPECIFIC QUESTION OF ANYBODY IN THE ROOM, APPLICANTS
[01:45:02]
FOR STAFF, THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO ASK THEM.BUT NO ONE'S SOLICITED COMMENTS FROM ANYBODY, BUT THE BOARD RIGHT NOW, EXCEPT OUR ATTORNEY, IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, WE SHOULDN'T BE, IT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN.
DO WE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? ARE THERE ANY PLANS TO DO ANY FURTHER ENGINEERING WORKED BY THE TOWN? NOT TYPICALLY COMMISSION ENGINEERING REPORTS, SURVEYS, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, UH, UH, UM, THIS OBVIOUSLY IS A VERY UNIQUE CASE FOR US.
WE DON'T FEEL MANY, THIS IS VERY UNIQUE, SO THE TOWN HAS DECIDED PROPERTY ON, BUT THIS APPEAL IS TO ASK US TO RULE THAT THE TOWN IN FORCE CUDDLE WHEN WE'RE BEING ASKED TO.
SO THEY'RE HEALING,
UM, SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO STATEMENTS THAT HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS I'M TRYING TO SPEAK FOR THE APPLICANT HERE.
SO, UM, FORGIVE ME IF I'M MISREPRESENTING YOU, UH, SUCH AS IF IT, IF THE WALL IS REPAIRED IS A PERMIT NEEDED.
WE DID PROVIDE STATEMENTS ON THAT THOUGH.
SO, UM, UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERN THERE, BUT IT'S REALLY AN APPEAL OF OUR DECISIONS NOT TO ACT.
IS THAT A FAIR? I AGREE THAT UNTIL THE DETERMINATION OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE WALL OCCURS, IT CAN'T BE STATED WHETHER THERE HAS TO BE A PERMANENT.
AND SO I WILL SORT OF REPHRASE WHAT I THINK WE'RE TO CONSIDER AND I'D BE HAPPY TO CAUSE I, I PULLED IT OFF OF THEIR POWERPOINT PRESENTATION EARLIER.
THEY ACTUALLY LAID OUT THEIR FOUR POINT.
BUT, UH, BUT I THINK THE APPEAL IS WHETHER THE ENTIRE RETAINING WALL HAS FAILED OR JUST THE 10 FEET THAT HAD BEEN SIGNED.
YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T THINK WE'RE IN A POSITION TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ON ANY OF THE OTHER POINTS, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S MY OPINION, WHETHER IT'S FAILURE.
ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE WELL WE'RE, THAT'S WHY, YEAH.
LET ME READ THE LAST SLIDE IN YOUR, IN THE PRESENTATION THERE, THEY LED THAT THEY'RE THEY STATED THAT THEIR COMPLAINT IS THAT THE ENTIRE 93 FEET OF THE WALL IS FATAL AS OPPOSED TO THE 10 FEET.
THAT IF THEY FAILURE IS DETERMINED, WHAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED WITH WHETHER A TORMENT IS NECESSARY AND YEAH, THAT'S IT.
AND THAT IT TRUCK'S THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
THE ONLY THING THAT WE ARE AS I READ THOSE FOUR POINTS, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR IS NOT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW IN THIS MEETING, IS THAT I WOULD AGREE, ESPECIALLY WITH NUMBER FOUR, NOT ADDRESSING THE EASEMENT AT ALL.
THERE'S NOTHING FOR THE BOARD, A DECISION TO OVERTURN BECAUSE NO DECISION WAS EVER MADE ON THAT.
UM, AS FAR AS THREE, HE IS CORRECT.
I MEAN, THAT IS AS FAR AS WHETHER OR NOT A PERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE WALL REPAIR, THAT IS A HYPOTHETICAL.
UM, AND SO THERE WAS NO DEFINITIVE INTERPRETATION OF A CODE THAT IS SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE TO A WALL.
THAT'S ACTUALLY AN, UM, AND NUMBER TWO, THE KIND OF THE SAME THING AS THE PERMIT ISSUE.
WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT A WALL, THAT'S LOOKING AT PLANS.
THE ONLY DECISION OR INTERPRETATION YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT, WHETHER OR NOT
[01:50:01]
TO OVERTURN IS THE NET POINT, NUMBER ONE, WHETHER OR NOT 10 FEET NEEDS TO BE REPLACED BECAUSE IT'S NO LONGER STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR 93 FEET.WHAT WE DO, WE DO DECIDE THAT.
I MEAN, AND I THINK THAT IS INDEED THE ISSUE PERFORMANCE, WHETHER THE ENTIRE BALL HAS FAILED OR NOT.
I'D LIKE TO ASK MS. CASSIDY OR HER ATTORNEY A QUESTION.
UH, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAD REPLACED YOUR FENCE THREE TIMES OVER A PERIOD OF HOW MANY YEARS OR 30 YEARS WHERE IT WAS ANY EVENT RELATED TO THE RETAINING WALLS ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL.
I'M SORRY, I CAN'T, IT'S ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL.
I KNOW, BUT DID YOU HAVE TO REPLACE YOUR FENCE BECAUSE OF THE DISCUSSIONS AMONG THE BOARD.
NOW I UNDERSTAND YOUR, YOUR SAFETY QUESTIONS THOUGH.
AND ACTUALLY IT'S THE SAFETY SOME POINT THAT, UM, I, I, I DO WANT TO ADDRESS THE ENGINEERING REPORT.
UH, THE TWO PAGE ENGINEERING REPORT, UM, IN MY OPINION IS MY OPINION.
WHEN I READ THAT ENGINEERING REPORT, I WOULD THE ENGINEERING, IT HAS TO FAIL BECAUSE IN MY EXPERIENCE, A, A RAILROAD TIRE RETAINING LOAD ON THE LAST 20 OR 30 YEARS.
IT HAS TO BE, HAS TO HAVE FAILED.
AND IN FACT, HE DOESN'T, IT ALWAYS SAYS IS IT'S HE THINKS IT'S EXCEEDED AS ITS USABLE LIFE, WHICH IN MY MIND, DOESN'T NECESSARILY EQUATE TO A FILM.
THE OTHER IMPORTANT PART AS YOU READ, THE ENGINEERING REPORT IS THE TOTAL FAILURE OF THE WALL SHOULD NOT BE AN ENDANGERMENT TO HUMAN LIFE.
I MEAN, HIS ENGINEER SAID THAT, AND THAT IMPLIES TO ME THAT THE WALL HASN'T FAILED BECAUSE HE'S SAYING A TOTAL FAILURE WOULDN'T BE AN ENDANGERMENT TO LIFE.
SO IT JUST, AS I READ THE TEXT OF THAT REPORT, I HAVE SOME, SOME, SOME QUICK, YOU KNOW, IT TENDS TO SUPPORT THE OPPOSITE, TO BE HONEST.
IF YOU, EVEN, IF YOU ACCEPT HIS PREMISE THAT ARE USEFUL, WISEMAN'S 30 YEARS AND AVERAGE USEFUL LIFE IS 30 YEARS.
I DON'T KNOW IF HE SAID AVERAGE OR NOT.
I CAN'T ACTUALLY FIND THE STATEMENT, BUT THERE, THERE SEEMS, IN MY OPINION, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE FOR, FOR US TO JUSTIFY DECLARING THE INSTALL IN TERRIBLE FAILURE.
AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT ANYBODY ELSE WANTED TO HEAR, BUT THAT'S MY OPINION.
UH, ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS I WOULD KIND OF HURT.
I CLEARLY HAS NOT FOUND CAUSE IT'S FILLED WITH IN THE SOIL.
IT CLEARLY MEANS MAINTENANCE, BUT THAT'S A MAINTENANCE PIECE.
THAT'S NOT A FULL REPLACEMENT.
UM, I FEEL THE SAME WAY ANY, EXCEPT THE 10 FEET REALLY NEEDS TO BE REPLACED.
AND THAT'S REALLY NOT BEFORE SINCE THE OTHER 83 FEET.
SO I'LL TAKE THE HIT ON THIS ONE.
I MOVE THAT WE DENY THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL.
DO I HAVE OF THE BUILDING? FISHER'S DETERMINATION THAT THE ENTIRE RETAINING WALL HAS NOTHING.
WE DENY THE OPINION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DETERMINATION.
DO I HAVE A SECOND JAMIE SECONDS ALL IN FAVOR OF DENYING THE APPEAL, UH, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND FOR THE ATTORNEY ON THE PHONE AND FOR ANYBODY ELSE THAT COULDN'T SEE THAT IT WAS A UNANIMOUS FOUR ZERO TO DENY THE APPEAL.
[01:55:01]
THAT IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN WAS THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA.AND IN THAT CASE REALLY DURING.