* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [Zoning Board of Adjustment on September 21, 2026.] [00:00:04] ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. MY MICROPHONE'S ON OR NOT. OKAY. UM, SO AT THIS TIME I'LL CALL TO ORDER THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED, UH, MEETING FOR THE WILEY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, UH, SEPTEMBER 21ST, 2026. AND IT IS 6:00 PM UM, SO FIRST OFF TONIGHT, ARE THERE ANY CITIZENS PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON ANY NON AGENDA ITEMS AND SEEING THAT THERE IS NO ONE PRESENT, UH, WE WILL MOVE ON FROM THAT. UM, WE HAVE ONE ITEM ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING, AND THAT IS TO, UH, APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING THAT WE CONDUCTED, UM, WHICH WAS IN JULY. AND SO I WILL NEED A, A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE MEETING MINUTES PROVING THE MEETING MINUTES IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE. I SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. UM, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO A VOTE. YOU CAN CAST YOUR VOTE. THE OPTION. I'LL JUST, MY, I DON'T HAVE THE OPTION. PARDON ME? I DON'T SET THE OPTION. OH, OKAY. YEAH, IT'S NOT, IT'S, SO I'LL JUST PUT MY HAND UP. THANK HAND. DID YOU MEAN TO VOTE NO ON THE MINUTES? NO, I DID COME SIT DOWN HERE. YEAH, NO, RIGHT HERE. IN BETWEEN. BACK ACROSS. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SO WE'VE CLEARED THE VOTE. WE'RE GONNA RE-VOTE ON THE MEETING MINUTES APPROVAL. ALRIGHT. AND THAT DOES CARRY FIVE TO ZERO. ALRIGHT, SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR, UM, AGENDA ITEM TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONS TO CONSIDER AN ACT UPON A REQUEST BY DANIEL REED COMPTON FOR A VARIANCE TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 93 DASH 29 AND TO SECTION 2.5 POINT C OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OVER THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED SQUARE FOOTAGE AND OVER THE ALLOWED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. BUILDING HEIGHT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1201 EAST STONE ROAD AND SEVEN 20 SOUTH SOUTH WA ALLEN BOULEVARD, ZBA NUMBER 2 0 2 6 DASH ZERO TWO. MR. MOLINA? YES. UH, GOOD EVENING. IS IT? YEAH, IT'S WORKING. YEAH. LONG. JUST DOWNLOAD. OKAY. SO OUR FIRST AND ONLY ITEM ON THE REGULAR AGENDA IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE, UH, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1201 EAST STONE ROAD. IT'S ALSO AT SEVEN 20 SOUTHWEST, UH, OR WA ALLEN BOULEVARD. UM, SO THIS PROPERTY, IT, IT WENT THROUGH A RIGHT OF WAY ABANDONMENT TO ACQUIRE THAT SEVEN 20 WA ALLEN BOULEVARD THAT HAPPENED EARLIER THIS YEAR. SO THE TOTAL SUBJECT PROPERTY MEASURES AROUND 3.189 ACRES. AND THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE [00:05:01] TO ALLOW FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT MEASURES 2,700 SQUARE FEET WITH A HEIGHT OF 25 FEET. AND ESSENTIALLY THIS BUILDING IS REPLACING AN OLD BARN THAT USED TO BE ON THE PROPERTY. SO THIS IS WHERE THE BARN WAS LOCATED BEFORE IT HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED, AND THIS IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING NOW, UM, THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING IS NEEDED FOR THE STORAGE OF AN RV AND TWO VEHICLES, AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TO EXTEND THE DRIVEWAY. THERE'S ALREADY A DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE OFF OF STONE ROAD. THEY'RE PLANNING TO EXTEND THAT AND ADD ADDITIONAL PARKING AREA AS WELL. UM, WE DID MAIL THIS TO 21 PROPERTY OWNERS AND DID RECEIVE FOUR COMMENT FORMS IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION. AND THIS SHOWS LIKE THE GENERAL LOCATION OF WHERE THAT WAS. UM, PRETTY MUCH THE, THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THERE'S MERIT FOR THESE, THE VARIANCE APPROVAL BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL GONNA BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THEY, THEY AREN'T PROVIDING ANY WINDOWS THAT IS GONNA AFFECT THE PRIVACY OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. ALSO, JUST BASED ON THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE LOT BEING OVER THREE ACRES THIS SIZE OF THE BUILDING ISN'T, IT'S NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE ACREAGE THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. KEEPING IN MIND THAT OUR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS ARE REALLY BASED ON LOTS THAT ARE TYPICALLY 10,000 TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH THIS IS MUCH OVER THAT, BUT SAYING THAT I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. AND THEN THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE. OH, HE IS NOT. OH, OH, OKAY. I GUESS THE, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WERE NOT SO HAPPY ABOUT THIS, DID THEY GIVE A REASON WHY? THE ONES THAT, SO WERE RELUCTANT TO SAY YES, WERE JUST SAID NO, THIS IS THE, UH, LETTER THAT WAS IN OPPOSITION. UM, PRETTY MUCH IT SAYS THAT THE HOMEOWNERS ARE MISREPRESENTING THE PURPOSE OF THE STRUCTURE THE RV BUILDING IS TO STORE FOR A, A HOMEOWNER'S FATHER TO LIVE IN. UM, SO WE HAVE TALKED TO THE APPLICANT AND ESSENTIALLY THEIR PLANS MIGHT HAVE CHANGED, BUT WHAT WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY GONNA HAPPEN IS THEY WERE GONNA BUILD THIS RV UH, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, THE STORAGE OF THE RV AND THE TWO CARS IN THE FUTURE, THEY MIGHT HAVE EXPANDED IT TO BAR BARTON DOMINION. IN DOING THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO REPL THE PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS AND, AND THEN COMPLY WITH ALL THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT PROPERTY. RIGHT. SO AT THAT POINT IT WOULDN'T BE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, IT WOULD BE A HOME, A DWELLING. I, I DON'T THINK THAT PLAN IS STILL GONNA BE PURSUED. I DON'T REALLY KNOW. I THINK THEY, THEY'RE STILL LOOKING INTO IT, BUT EITHER WAY THEY STILL HAVE THE RV. SO THE, THE, IT'S NEEDED, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS STILL NEEDED FOR THE STORAGE THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO YEAH. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAD YOU JUST ADDRESSED, AND THAT WAS JUST THE NEXT STEP FOR THE APPLICANT AS FAR AS OBTAINING A PERMIT IF MM-HMM . ANY SPECULATION ABOUT LIVING QUARTERS AS PART OF THIS IS REALLY NOT RELEVANT TO OUR DECISION TONIGHT. CORRECT. 'CAUSE CORRECT. THERE'S ADDITIONAL THINGS THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO. RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHY I MADE SURE IN THE REPORTS THAT PROVIDE THE TEXT THAT STATES THAT THEY STILL HAVE TO COMP, UH, UH, COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE LAND USE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE, THE ZONING AND ALSO THAT IT CAN ONLY BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AS WELL. SO YEAH, JUST FOR EVERYBODY'S, UM, YOU KNOW, EDUCATION, IT, IT'S PRETTY, PRETTY EASY TO SEE WHEN SOMEBODY SUBMITS THEIR BUILDING PLANS. IF THEY'VE GOT A BUNCH OF LIKE ROUGH PLUMBING AND SOME ELECTRICAL AND SOME OTHER STUFF THAT AREN'T NORMALLY FOR WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER A BARN DOMINION KIND OF THING, THEN WE'LL OBVIOUSLY START ASKING SOME QUESTIONS. BUT THAT AT THIS POINT, THAT'S JUST LIKE YOU SAID, SPECULATION. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE ASSUME, AND MR. REED OR MR. COMPTON HAS SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, HE'S, HE'S JUST MOVING FORWARD WITH A, A BARN DOMINION STYLE, UH, A ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT THIS TIME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR OKAY, MY QUESTION, I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE EIGHT CHARACTERISTICS AND SO, UH, BECAUSE THE SECOND ONE IS TALKING ABOUT HOW THAT THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROPERTY CAN'T BE REASONABLY DEVELOPED OR USED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISION. SO BECAUSE IT'S LARGER, [00:10:02] IS THAT SAYING THAT IT CAN'T OTHERWISE BE DONE WITHIN THE EXISTING CODE? UM, IT COULD BE, UM, THE, AND, AND I, I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS AN ARGUMENT HERE THAT OUR, AND AS KEVIN MENTIONED, THE, THE, UM, THE CODE IS KIND OF AIMED AT QUARTER ACRE MM-HMM . YOU KNOW, SIDE THE NORMAL, UH, SAY HE JUST SAY NORMAL, BUT THE MAJORITY OF LOTS AND WILEY, YOU KNOW, ANYWHERE BETWEEN EIGHT TO 15,000 SQUARE FEET. UM, BUT BECAUSE HE HAS 130 SOMETHING THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, IF MY MATH IS RIGHT MM-HMM . UM, YOU KNOW, BEING ON OVER THREE ACRES, THEN, UM, THE CODE ISN'T NECESSARILY AIMED DIRECTLY AT, AT THAT SIZE LOT. SO FROM A CERTAIN PERSPECTIVE ON THAT, COULD HE MEET, COULD HE STAY WITHIN IT? YES. UM, HE COULD, BUT LIKE I SAID, THERE'S AN ARGUMENT THAT MAYBE THIS ISN'T, THAT INTENT WAS MADE FOR A SMALL, FOR SMALLER LOTS. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT DOES. AND I'M JUST, 'CAUSE I'M JUST TRYING TO STAY WITHIN THE FULL INTENT AND PARAMETERS OF WHAT I'VE, I'M STILL LEARNING WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING ON THIS. AND SO I DO FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDRESSES SOME OF THE LATER ONES, SOME OF THE LATER, YOU KNOW, 5, 6, 7, AND EIGHT MM-HMM . BUT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, STRICT APPLICATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD CREATE A HARDSHIP. THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A HARDSHIP CREATED IN THIS INSTANCE BY NOT ALLOWING THEM TO CREATE A LARGER ONE. AND SO THAT SEEMS TO KIND OF GO AGAINST IT UNTIL THEY DO REPL. YEAH. UM, I, I, I GENERALLY AGREE. UM, I DO THINK LIKE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT NUMBER FOUR WHERE IT SAYS THE DEM THE, THAT THE HARDSHIP IS NOT SELF-IMPOSED, UM, THIS HARDSHIP ISN'T SELF-IMPOSED. HE JUST HAPPENS TO BE SITTING ON A, ON A LARGER TRACK OF LAND MM-HMM . UM, SO, UM, I MEAN, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY IT'S, IT'S UP TO Y'ALL TO DECIDE WHETHER THOSE ITEMS ARE BEING SATISFIED OR NOT. I MEAN, I CAN TRY TO HELP YOU OUT WITH AN INTERPRETATION A LITTLE BIT, UM, BUT THAT IN PART OF THE, THE BOARD'S, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY LOOKS AT THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY, RIGHT. UM, AND JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW, IN A, A COURT THAT HAS MORE THAN ONE JUDGE, YOU'RE GONNA END UP WITH SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT DIFFERENT OF OPINION ON WHAT CERTAIN THINGS MEAN. RIGHT. SO BY ALL MEANS, YOU KNOW, NO. SO I MEAN, JUST LOOKING AT THAT, AND AGAIN, I'M KIND OF A, A VERY, BY THE BOOK THINKER IN A LOT OF WAYS I, IF THE INTENTION IS TO REPL, I THINK THAT ONCE THEY DO SO THEN IT WOULD ABSOLUTELY ALLOW THEM TO DO WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO. BUT THERE'S NOT REALLY A HARDSHIP CREATED GIVEN THE, UH, THE CURRENT SITUATION OF THEIR PROPERTY. AND SO IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE BASED OFF OF THESE PARAMETERS THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD PASS. AND I'M WILLING TO HEAR SOMETHING ELSE AND CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE. LET'S, LET'S, UH, LET'S MAKE SURE WE'RE DONE WITH MR. MOLINA. I GUESS IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS AND THEN WE SHOULD HAVE A , I HAVE TO OPEN A PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION. THERE'S NO ONE PRESENT, BUT I NEED TO DO THAT FOR THE RECORD. SO WE'RE FINISHED QUESTIONS WITH MR. MOLINA. I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION AND I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION SINCE THERE IS NO ONE PRESENT. AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE BOARD DISCUSSION. SO, UM, I GUESS ONE THING I I I WOULD SAY, I THINK ON THE NOTE OF JUST A, CONSIDERING THE INTENT OF WHAT THE CITY'S TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THE CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE LOT SIZE, IT'S PROBABLY FAIR TO, I INTERPOLATE THAT IF YOU WERE TO CREATE A ZONING ORDINANCE FOR A THREE ACRE LOT, THAT THE CURRENT SIZE OF THE BUILDING WOULD BE WITHIN WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. UM, MAYBE, MAYBE NOT. THERE'S, UH, I THINK THAT MY, MY JUDGMENT ON IT WOULD BE, UH, THAT, THAT THAT INTER INTERPOLATION, IT, IT SEEMED REASONABLE TO ME. UM, SO I, I GUESS WHILE I SEE YOUR POINT, UM, I, I WOULD LEAN TOWARDS ALLOWING THE STRUCTURE WITH THAT CONSIDERATION. UM, SO, AND I THINK THAT'S FAIR BECAUSE IT IS A, IT'S MUCH LARGER THAN THE, UH, THE LOTS THAT THE RULES WERE WRITTEN [00:15:01] FOR. HOWEVER, IT'S JUST, I MEAN, ARE WE DEBASING THIS OFF OF KIND OF THE HYPOTHETICAL, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAD SOMETHING FOR A THREE PLUS ACRE LOT, WE WOULD DO THIS, OR IS IT GONNA BE BASED OFF OF HOW THINGS ARE WRITTEN IN THIS PARTICULAR ZONING AREA? AND THAT'S TENDS TO BE THE WAY I SEE IT. I MEAN, I'M, AGAIN, I'M ABSOLUTELY WILLING TO BE WRONG, BUT THAT'S HOW I SEE IT ON THIS ONE. I, I ALSO HAVE A QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SETBACK. YOU SAY IT VIOLATES A LITTLE BIT THE SETBACK, BUT DOES NOT, UH, THE PRIVACY OF THE NEIGHBORING, UH, MAYBE PEOPLE AROUND. SO WHAT, WHAT VIOLATION? SO HOW FAR DO THEY VIOLATE THE, SO CURRENTLY THE SETBACK, THE, THE BUILDING PLACEMENT IS 30 FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINES. THAT'S ACTUALLY FIVE FEET OVER. WHAT'S TYPICALLY REQUIRED FOR A HOME, FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS ACTUALLY THREE FEET. SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE TREATING THIS MORE AS WITH THE SPACING AS IF IT WAS A DWELLING. SO YEAH. AND THEN TO GIVE Y'ALL JUST MORE BACKGROUND ON IT, THE, THE BARN THAT WAS DEMOLISHED WAS ALREADY NOT COMPLIANT. IT WAS ALREADY 2000, OVER 2000 SQUARE FEET. SO THAT'S OVER THE 1700 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM OR YEAH, THAT'S REQUIRED. THIS IS STILL OVER THAT, BUT THE, THE SITE WAS ALREADY LEGALLY NONCONFORMING. YEAH. IS THERE SOME SORT OF GRANDFATHER ALLOWANCE FOR THAT, IF THAT WAS THE CASE? NO. NO. AND IT'S, 'CAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN DEMOLISHED TOO, SO, RIGHT. . YEAH. YEAH. I, I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER, UH, VOTE IN TOWARDS, IN FAVOR IS THAT IT'S, IT'S AN, IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE COMMUNITY, UH, THAT THE, THE OLDER STRUCTURE'S BEEN REMOVED AND HE'S PROPOSING SOMETHING THAT'S, UM, MORE SIGHTLY. SO, UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I GUESS I THINK WE'VE HEARD EVERYONE'S THOUGHTS ON IT. SO WE'LL NEED, WE WILL NEED TO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND UH, AND THEN VOTE. SO, UM, A MOTION TO VOTE, WE'LL, WE'LL NEED DENY OR APPROVE IT TO VOTE. WE'LL NEED A, A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST OR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST AND THEN SOMEONE WILL NEED TO SECOND THAT MOTION TO MOVE TO A VOTE. NOT ON MY SIDE. MOTION TO APPROVE. FRED, HIT YOUR . YEAH, I'LL VOTE TO APPROVE. OKAY. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND SO WE CAN VOTE ON THIS ITEM. ALL PASS. ALRIGHT, SO IT DOES PASS FOUR TO ONE. ALRIGHT. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TURNED IN RIGHT NOW, DO WE? AS OF RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE, SO AS OF NOW, NO MEETING NEXT MONTH. AND I GUESS YOU'LL LET US KNOW IF THAT CHANGES. I WILL LET YOU KNOW. UM, YEAH, WE, WE HAVE TO HAVE IT BY THE END OF NEXT WEEK FOR IT TO BE A MEET FOR IT TO MAKE IT, SO. ALRIGHT. AND WITH THAT, I'LL, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AND I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AND I'LL NEED A SECOND. I SECOND THE MOTION TO ADJOURN AND PLEASE VOTE ON THAT. AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. FIVE ZERO. THANK YOU EVERYONE. YOU'RE WELCOME. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.