Jun 01, 2023 Building and Standards Commission

INTO IT AND, UM, ASK FOR NOMINATIONS OF THE CHAIR OF THIS GROUP, MR. PRES TO NOMINATE RANDY JONES.

JUST FOR THE RECORD, YOU'VE GOT, UH, MY NAME'S WES MORRISON.

I'M COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER FOR THOSE I HAVEN'T MET.

WELCOME.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

WE'VE GOT JOSE SANS HERE, WHO IS OUR PLANNER, AND THEN AUTUMN KEIFER, WHO IS OUR, UH, ATTORNEY TONIGHT.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'M GOING TO JUMP RIGHT

[1. Appoint Chairperson of Building & Standards Commission.]

SECOND.

ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? OKAY, THEN I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE, I GUESS.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANY OPPOSE? I SEE NONE.

SO, MR. YOUNGS, CONGRATULATIONS.

YOU MAY TAKE THE CENTER CHAIR AND CONDUCT THE REST OF THE MEETING.

UH, ONE THING I THINK WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO DO, SINCE SOME OF US KNOW EACH OTHER FOR A LONG TIME, AND SOME OF US HAVEN'T, WE MIGHT WANT TO JUST KIND OF INTRODUCE OURSELVES AND GIVE US SOME BACKGROUND AND, YOU KNOW, QUICKLY, NOT 15 MINUTE MONOLOGUE.

I WANT TO, WE'VE GOT AN AGENDA, SO I DON'T WANNA GET TOO FAR OFF THE AGENDA AND THE ATTORNEY'S GIVING ME THE, I ALREADY, SO JUST IF YOU WANNA DO A REAL QUICK INTRODUCTION, I THINK THAT'S OKAY, BUT THAT'S WHAT I, I, I THINK JUST A FEW WORDS AND I'LL MOVE YOUR NINE POINT PLEASE.

THERE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR VICE PRE FOR VICE PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT? I'M SORRY.

UM, SO ARE

[2. Appoint Vice Chairperson of Building & Standards Commission.]

VICE, UH, CHAIRMAN RANDY, I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE, UM, JESSE OWEN.

I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT NOMINATION.

ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, LET'S HAVE A VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ON THE AGENDA IS TO REVIEW THE, UH, ADOPTION OF THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION RULES AND PROCEDURES.

IS THERE ANYBODY OPPOSED? OKAY.

NEXT ITEM

[3. Review and consider adoption of the Building & Standards Commission Rules of Procedure as required by Chapter 54.034(b) of Texas Local Government Code.]

UH, HAVE, DO WE NEED TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES AND READ THOSE? OR IF PEOPLE READ 'EM AND, UH, HAVE COMMENT, I WAS ABLE, ABLE TO READ 'EM.

JOSE, HIS SCREEN ON HERE ISN'T ON.

OH, I CAN FIX THAT.

ONE OF 'EM WORK.

THERE WE GO.

THANKS.

FORTUNATELY I HAD A HARD COPY , UH, SO HA, HAS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO READ IT? MM-HMM.

? YES.

MM-HMM.

SOME OF THESE HAVE FAIRLY FORMAL AND LARGE RAMIFICATIONS THAT REALLY PRESS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD, AND SO I JUST THINK IT SHOULD BE EITHER CONSISTENT OR IT SHOULD BE DIFFERENT FOR A REASON.

I'VE, I'VE GOT A FEW QUESTIONS ON IT.

UH, I THINK THE BIGGEST QUESTION I HAD WAS, IF YOU GO THROUGH THERE, THERE'S, I THINK THREE AGENDA ITEMS OR FOUR AGENDA SEQUENCES, AND THREE OF 'EM HAVE SOMEBODY FROM THE CITY SPEAKING FIRST AND A FOURTH ONE.

HAS THE, UH, PEOPLE APPEALING FIRST, WAS THAT DONE FOR A REASON OR WAS THAT JUST AN OVERSIGHT? UH, IT'S JUST A TYPICAL, THAT'S A TYPICAL PROCEDURE THAT WE USE IN MOST OF OUR OTHER PUBLIC HEARING FORMATS, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS IT'S, IT'S A TWO DIFFERENT FORMATS IN THE SAME, BUT PAT, ARE YOU REFERRING TO, LET ME, LET ME LOOK AT THAT.

UH, I HAD IT HERE A SECOND.

I THINK IT'S ON PAGE THREE.

PERHAPS IT'S ON PAGE THREE IS THE DIFFERENT ONE.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE AGENDAS ON THE OTHER ONES, THEY HAVE THE, UH, UH, THEY HAVE SOMEBODY FROM THE, UH, CITY FIRST.

OH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF HEARINGS YOU'RE, YOU'RE REFERRING TO, LIKE FOR THE DANGEROUS BUILDINGS? YES.

IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE YES.

APPEAL OF A CITY OFFICIAL.

I, I DON'T KNOW, AUTUMN.

IS THERE ANY REASON WHY THAT'S DONE THAT WAY? IS IT JUST A STANDARD PROCEDURE OR IS THAT JUST THOUGH IT WAS DRAFTED, JUST IT WAS DRAFTED MAY ALSO JUST WITHSTAND THE PROCEDURE.

WELL, I, I WAS, I WAS JUST WONDERING BECAUSE THEY HAVE,

[00:05:01]

I, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK STAFF HAS ANY CHANGES IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE.

UH, THE OTHER THING IS, IF YOU GO TO PAGE SIX, UH, YOU'VE GOT, YOU'VE GOT THE ROBERT RULES OF ORDER UNDER, UH, UNDER BASICALLY THE PROCEDURES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE USED, BUT IT'S UNDER, IT'S CONSIDERED A SHALL SHOULDN'T THAT BE MORE OF A, A SHOULD? BECAUSE I WOULD THINK IF, YOU KNOW, WE AREN'T PROFESSIONAL PARLIAMENTARIANS AND IF THERE'S SOME MINOR PROBLEM WITH THE RULES OF ORDER, IT COULD END UP BEING A, A REASON FOR APPEAL.

I DON'T KNOW, AUTUMN, NOT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT ANY CONCERNS WITH CHANGING IT TO SHOULD? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, BUT ROBERT'S RULES, AS YOU KNOW, IS MORE OF GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW.

THEY'RE NOT SET IN STONE.

I THINK OF IT AS A GUIDELINE ALSO, BUT THAT ISN'T HOW IT'S LABELED THERE.

AND MY EXPERIENCE WITH, UH, UH, REGULATORY FILINGS IS THINGS LIKE THAT CAN GET YOU TIED UP FOREVER.

UH, YOU KNOW, MY COMMENT WOULD JUST PARENTHESIS USE AS A GUIDELINE OR SOMETHING THERE.

UH, AND MY, AND MY OTHER COMMENT, AND IT'S JUST A VERY SMALL COMMENT, IS YOU HAVE DIFFERENT NUMBERING FROM THE TITLE PAGE AND THE INDEX VERSUS THE REST OF THE DOCUMENT.

IT STARTS OVER ON PAGE ONE VERSUS GOING, YOU KNOW, SEQUENTIALLY ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

I DEFINITELY CONCUR THAT COULD PRESENT CHALLENGES WHEN REFERRING TO A PARTICULAR STATUTE.

RIGHT.

SO FOR CLARITY, THE NUMBERING SHOULD BE, AND THE OTHER THING IS, IS IT'S ACTUALLY MORE LIKE YOU HAVE THE, UH, ALSO ALONG WITH THAT, UH, FOR FORMAL DOCUMENTS, I'M USED TO EITHER HAVING PAGE OF, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING, PAGE THREE OF SEVEN OR THREE OF EIGHT AND, UH, END OF DOCUMENT, UH, UH, LISTING AT THE END.

UH, AGAIN, FOR MY REGULATORY EXPERIENCE, WE ALWAYS HAD TO DO THAT SO THAT PAGES DIDN'T COME IN AND OUT EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE DON'T DO IT.

AND IF THIS IS, IF THIS IS A STANDARD FORMAT, THAT'S FINE.

UH, AND, UH, THE OTHER ITEM I HAD WAS THIS CHART ON THE BACK, WHICH WAS VERY GOOD, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT TIED IN TO THE REST OF THE, I DON'T THINK IT'S TIED INTO THE REST OF THE DOCUMENT, UH, OR LINKED OR NOTED.

AND WHETHER, UH, THE VERBIAGE WE USE IS, IS THAT, AGAIN, IS THAT A SHALL OR IS THAT A SHOULD? I THINK THIS DOC, THIS CHART IS JUST REALLY JUST SERVED AS A GUIDE.

UP BY THE CHAIRMAN THAT WOULD BE OF A CONCERN THAT WE COULDN'T MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE CHANGES.

AS TO HOW TO MAKE THINGS.

I DON'T THINK IT'S, BUT AGAIN, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT IF YOU'RE HAVING SOMETHING THAT'S A GUIDE, IT SHOULD BE LABELED AS A GUIDE.

THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S AT LEAST MY EXPERIENCE OF, OF REGULATORY ISSUES IS THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHOULD IT AND SHALL, UH, YEAH.

YOU WANNA FOLLOW IT AS A GUIDELINE, BUT IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU DO HAVE TO FOLLOW IT EX PERFECTLY, NOT 98%.

SO, UNDERSTOOD.

JUST, JUST IN TERMS OF CLARIFICATION, I THINK ALL THIS STUFF IS GOOD, BUT, UH, I KNOW I'VE BEEN BURNED IN MY PAST BY, UH, LITTLE, UH, LITTLE THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S EVER BEEN, UH, UH, BURNT BY , SLIGHT CHANGE IN WORDINGS.

UH, BUT THAT WAS, THAT WAS ONLY MY, THAT WAS MY ONLY COMMENT.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF OTHER ANYBODY ELSE HAS COMMENTS OR ALONG THOSE LINES OR WHATEVER, ANY DISCUSSION.

UH, I HAVE A COMMENT.

IS THERE A WAY, UH, WHO WRITES THESE? I MEAN, DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THOSE OR DOES IT NEED TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL? SO THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT

[00:10:01]

UM, AND WE CAN GET THESE CHANGES BACK TO YOU AT YOUR NEXT MEETING.

THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE MY RECOMMENDATION.

AND I THINK EVEN, EVEN IF SOMETHING CAME UP, WE CAN NOTE WE'VE GOT IT NOW ON THE RECORD THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE TYPE OF CHANGES TO CLARIFY.

NOT TO CHANGE THE CONTENT, BUT TO CLARIFY.

AS, AS YOU SAID, I MEAN, YOUR, YOUR WORDS WERE THAT GENERALLY IT'S ALL GOOD AND IT'S GOOD RULES.

IT'S JUST THERE'S SOME TWEAKS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE AS FAR AS PAGE NUMBERS AND SOME SHALLS VERSUS SHOULD WE CAN MAKE THOSE CHANGES.

I, I, I WOULD CALL IT CLARIFICATIONS.

SO IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THOSE? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOOD.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

DO WE NEED ANY MORE DISCUSSION OR DO WE, ARE WE READY TO VOTE? I THINK, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MR. HALL, YOU ARE AN ALTERNATE, CORRECT? I AM.

SO I THINK I NEED SOMEONE OTHER THAN AN ALTERNATE TO MAKE THE INITIAL MOTION.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

NO, NO, NO.

I'M CORRECT.

I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE CHAIRMAN'S.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CHANGES.

AND MR. OWENS DOES YOUR SECOND STAND.

I THINK WE'RE GOOD.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

ANY DISCUSSION, AND I KNOW IT MIGHT, MIGHT SIGN BE FRUSTRATING WHEN I SAY ANY DISCUSSION, BUT WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE THAT EXPLICIT.

UH, NOBODY WANTS TO DISCUSS ANYTHING.

ARE WE READY FOR A VOTE? I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER SO THAT I TAKE IT.

UH, THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS TO STARTING A VOTE NOW.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADOPTING, UH, THE, THE, UH, CHAIRMAN'S CLARIFICATIONS.

I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THE, UH, ARTICLE, WHAT'S THE DOCUMENT WE'RE DOING? THE RULES AND PROCEDURE, THE RULES AND PROCEDURES WITH THE CLARIFICATIONS, THE MO WITH THE MODIFICATIONS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED, UH, THE CLARIFICATIONS WE DISCUSSED.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

MOTION IS PASSED.

NEXT THING ON THE AGENDA, DO WE NOW HAVE TO ACCEPT THE BUILDING AND STANDARD COMMISSION'S RULES OF PROCEDURE? THAT'S WHAT IT JUST DID.

DID WE DO THAT? THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE VOTING ON.

YES.

I I I DON'T THINK WE DID THAT.

I THINK WE DID.

I THINK WE VOTED, VOTED ON THE CLARIFICATIONS, BUT NOT ACTUALLY.

OH, I THOUGHT YOU DID WITH THE CLARIFICATIONS.

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT IT WAS DONE TOGETHER.

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

I THINK IT WAS DONE TOGETHER.

I THOUGHT IT WAS DONE TOGETHER.

THAT YEAH, I THINK OKAY.

FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT, WE ALL AGREE IT WAS DONE TOGETHER AND I BELIEVE NOW, UH, RULES AND PROCEDURES.

SO THEN WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TO, UH, CONDUCT A HEARING AND, AND AN APPEAL OF CITY INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER SIX.

UM, I THINK IN OUR FORMAT, WE ASK IF THERE'S ANY OLD BUSINESS TO BE ADDRESSED.

I THINK THAT THERE'S NOT, BUT WE AT LEAST NEED TO ASK TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS AT LEAST ASKED FOR.

HAS THERE BEEN SOMETHING, UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OLD BUSINESS FROM THE CITY TO DEAL WITH? NO.

AND THERE'S NO OLD BUSINESS POSTED ON THE AGENDA.

AND

[4. Conduct a hearing and consider an appeal of a City Official interpretation of Chapter 6 Article III entitled “Signs”, specifically related to Section 6-72 entitled “Temporary Signs”. (APEL-23-1)]

ARTICLE THREE ENTITLED SIGNS, UH, SPECIFIC SECTION 6 72 ENTITLED TEMPORARY SIGNS.

AND THAT'S FOR THE APPEAL 23 DASH ONE.

UM, ONE OF THE THINGS I LIKE, LIKE TO DO AND I'VE DONE IN THE PAST IS KIND OF GIVE AN OVERVIEW.

ONE THING IS, IS THAT ANYBODY WHO TALKS HAS TO SIGN IN AND KIND OF ANNOUNCE WHERE THEY'RE FROM AND THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE YOUR SPECIFIC ADDRESS, BUT WHAT CITY IS ABOUT CLOSE ENOUGH AND HOW YOU'RE RELATED TO THE, UH, UH, ITEM BEING DISCUSSED.

UH, THE OTHER THING IS, IS I'VE, I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD CLOSE TO 40 YEARS, AND EVERYBODY HAS ALWAYS GOTTEN A CHANCE TO TALK.

I JUST ASK EVERYBODY TALK ONE AT A TIME AND NOT, UH,

[00:15:01]

UH, AND, AND I TRUST EVERYBODY HERE.

IT'S, IT IS IN ORDER, BUT I'LL TELL YOU, THERE'S BEEN SOME REAL WILD SECTIONS, .

UH, SO IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO REVIEW THAT.

THE OTHER THING IS, IS THAT THIS, THIS BOARD IS A QUASI JUDICIAL, JUDICIAL BODY, WHICH MEANS THAT WE'RE LIKE A DISTRICT COURT.

AND SO YOU REALLY, PEOPLE NEED TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES LIKE THEY ARE IN COURT AND THINGS THAT ARE SAID ARE CONSIDERED TESTIMONY.

AND WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY TO TALK FOR THE, UH, UH, FOR THE APPEAL? UH, WELL, I SHOULD SAY FIRST WE USUALLY HAVE SOMEBODY FROM THE CITY TALK FIRST, AN OVERVIEW.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

COMMISSION MEMBERS, THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY TEMPORARY SIGN SECTION OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE.

ON MAY 2ND, THE, A NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES OFFICER OF THE CITY ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION REGARDING THE SIGN HERE BEFORE YOU LOCATED AT 900.

GLENDA, THIS INFORMATION'S ALSO IN YOUR BACKUP, BUT I'M JUST GONNA DO A REAL HIGH LEVEL OF HIGH OVER FOR THE, FOR THE, UH, PUBLIC BENEFIT.

UM, THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS CITED.

IT WAS SECTION SIX DASH 72 TEMPORARY SIGNS.

UM, AND THE THOUGHT IS, IS THAT THE SIGN BEFORE YOU WAS A TEMPORARY SIGN, THAT WAS NOT ALLOWED.

UM, THE OWNER ON THAT SAME DAY, LATER IN THE DAY, THE OWNER ISSUED THIS LETTER OF APPEAL, WHICH IS IN YOUR BACKUP THAT, UH, THE APPEALING DETERMINATION THAT THE SIGN WAS A VIOLATION OF 6 72.

SIDE ORDINANCE DOES PROVIDE AN APPEAL PROCESS.

AND THAT'S WHY IT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.

AND THAT'S WHAT YOUR, YOUR ROLE IS HERE TONIGHT AS THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION IS TO HEAR THE APPEAL.

JUST A REAL QUICK OVERVIEW OF STAFF FINDINGS.

THE, UM, IN YOUR BACKUP, YOU ALSO RECEIVED A COPY OF THE SIGNED ORDINANCE, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT SEX SECTION SIX DASH 72 IS A CHART THAT I IDENTIFIES ALL THE ALLOWED TEMPORARY SIGNS WITHIN THE CITY.

THE STAFF DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT, UH, THAT THE SIGN BEING, UH, BUILT AND BEING WHERE IT'S AT TODAY IS ALLOWED BY THE SIGNED ORDINANCE, AND THEREFORE, UNDER 6 74, UH, OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE, IT SAYS ANY SIGN THAT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY PER, UH, DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE IS THEREFORE PROHIBITED.

SO STAFFING'S ASIDE WOULD BE PROHIBITED.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

UM, I KNOW THE APPLICANT'S HEARING HAS A STATEMENT AS WELL.

DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, UH, QUESTIONS FOR MICHAEL? I DO.

SO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED.

UM, HAS THERE BEEN ACTUALLY, UM, AN ENFORCEMENT AGAINST THAT, OR IS IT JUST, WE'RE AT THAT STAGE JUST VIOLATION? SO RIGHT NOW IT'S A VIOLATION.

WE'VE NOT TAKEN ANY ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

THE REASON WE DIDN'T TAKE ENFORCEMENT ACTION IS BECAUSE THEY FILED THE APPEAL, AND TYPICALLY JUST OUT OF COMMON COURTESY, WE ALLOW PE THERE'S A APPEAL PROCESS, SO WE DECIDED TO ALLOW THE SIGN UNTIL THIS APPEAL PROCESS HAD RUN ITS COURSE.

UM, IF HE HASN'T BEEN, IF THE OWNER OF THAT SIGN HASN'T BEEN FINE.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST A NOTICE.

IS THERE, DOES THE RULES PROVIDE FOR AN APPEAL OF RIGHTS? UH, JUST FOR A, A NOTICE OF VIOLATION? YES.

I MEAN THAT, SO THE DETERMINATION BY THE CITY OFFICIAL WAS THAT THIS SIGN WAS IN VIOLATION AND IT NEEDED TO BE REMOVED.

THE PROPERTY OWNER IS APPEALING THAT DECISION.

THANKS.

ANY O ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'VE GOT A FEW.

CITY THAT IS LIKE THAT WHERE THERE IS A COMMERCIAL SIGN IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA.

UH, AND IT, AND IT MAY BE SELF-EVIDENT, BUT, UH, WHAT'S THIS PROPERTY ZONED? IT'S ZONED R 75.

SO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

AND IS THAT PRETTY MUCH THE HOUSES AROUND IT? YES.

I, I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT A BLOCK OFF OF A MAJOR CORRIDOR, BUT STILL THE HOUSES AROUND IT ARE ZONED.

IT'S, IT'S NOT A NEIGHBOR THAT'S A, THERE'S, THERE'S NOT A COMMERCIAL LOT NEXT TO IT OR ACROSS THE STREET, OR, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ON A CORNER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

OR YOU'RE AT A DIVISION WHERE ONE SIDE OF THE STREET'S RESIDENTIAL, THE OTHER SIDE AND THE OTHER SIDE'S COMMERCIAL.

THIS IS ALL RESIDENTIAL.

RESIDENTIAL AND, OKAY.

UH, OTHER THING I WAS GOING TO ASK, I THINK THE OTHER OTHER THING I WAS GOING TO ASK WAS, IN FACT, UH, I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH SIGNS FOR QUITE A WHILE, AND I LOOK AT THIS, THE ISSUE IS, IS THAT YOU HAVE A COMMERCIAL SIGN IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED BY THE SIDE ORDINANCE.

I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OTHER PLACE IN THE

[00:20:01]

UH, I CAN, I CAN THINK OF NO APPEALS.

AND, UH, THAT'S WHERE I THINK SOME OF THE DISJOINT IS ON THIS, IS THAT THIS IS SO DIFFERENT THAN WHATEVER WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST THAT'S BEEN DONE IN THE PAST.

IT JUST, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T COMPUTE.

AM I RIGHT OR ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY PLACES THAT HAVE LIKE THIS, THIS TYPE OF SIGN IN ANY RESIDENTIAL AREA? NO, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING TO THAT NATURE.

ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO.

UH, DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY, UH, SPEAKING FOR THE, UH, UH, UH, CLAIM IT? OKAY.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.

MY NAME IS TIMOTHY STERN.

I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 900 GLENDA.

I CONSTRUCTED THE SIGN ALONG WITH MY WIFE, THE ONE IN QUESTION.

UM, IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU, UH, JUMPED STRAIGHT TO CALLING IT A COMMERCIAL SIGN.

I'M CURIOUS IF YOU CAN DEFINE THAT.

I WAS UNABLE TO FIND A DEFINITION FOR A COMMERCIAL SIGN IN THE ORDINANCE, SO I HAVE TO TAKE THE PLAIN ENGLISH DEFINITION OF A COMMERCIAL SIGN, WHICH IS AN INTENT TO MAKE A PROFIT.

I DO NOT INTEND TO MAKE A PROFIT.

WELL, I, NUMBER ONE, I'M NOT A LAWYER, AND I TRIED NOT TO USE TERMS IN THE ORDINANCE FOR A SPECIFIC REASON FOR THAT, BECAUSE THE POINT IS YOU'RE TRYING TO SOLICIT BUSINESS.

LET ME ASK YOU, THE REASON YOU HAVE THAT SIGN, IS THAT TO SOLICIT BUSINESS? NO, IT'S NOT SOLICIT BUSINESS.

NO, SIR.

THEN WHY DO YOU WANT, THEN WHY DO YOU WANT THE SIGN? WELL, I HAVE 12 PUPPIES THAT NEED TO FIND NEW LOVING HOMES.

I'VE PREPARED A SPEECH I'D LIKE TO READ.

THE TABLES FORMAT COMBINES CHURCH, CHARITY, AND CIVIC AND ON-PREMISES CATEGORIES WITHIN THE SAME DATA CELL WITHOUT A CLEAR CONJUNCTION CONNECTING THEM.

WELL, I WANT TO BEGIN BY EXPRESSING MY GRATITUDE AND GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT MY CASE.

TODAY.

MY APPEAL RESOLVES AROUND THE INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER SIX, ARTICLE THREE OF THE BEDFORD CITY ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTION SIX DASH 72 TITLED, TEMPORARY SIGNS AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO THE SIGN DISPLAYED ON MY PROPERTY.

BEFORE WE DELVE DEEPER INTO THIS MATTER, I WANNA CLARIFY SOME KEY POINTS ABOUT MY SIGN.

THE SIGN IN QUESTION IS NOT COMMERCIAL.

IT IS NOT ADVERTISING A BUSINESS, NOR IS IT A MEANS FOR US TO GENERATE ANY FORM OF INCOME.

IMPORTANTLY, IT IS NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE SALE OF PUPPIES.

THE WORDING OF THE SIGN CAREFULLY CHOSEN DOES NOT MENTION FOR SALE.

IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY SYMBOL OR INDICATION OF A TRANSACTION, SUCH AS A DOLLAR SIGN.

THE PRIMARY GOAL BEHIND THE SIGN WAS TO INFORM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR WIDER COMMUNITY ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF THESE PUPPIES, AND TO INVITE INDIVIDUALS OR FAMILIES INTERESTED IN EXPANDING THEIR HOUSEHOLD WITH A PET OR A POTENTIAL SERVICE ANIMAL.

IT IS A SIMPLE HOMEMADE SIGN INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE LOVING HOMES FOR A LITTER OF PUPPIES, AN EVENT THAT IS NON-RECURRING AND TEMPORARY IN NATURE.

THE SIGN WAS CRAFTED BY MY WIFE AND I, WE MADE A MODEST INVESTMENT OF LESS THAN $100 ON MATERIALS AND EMPLOYED A BASIC DESIGN METHODOLOGY, PROJECTING THE DESIGN ONTO PLYWOOD BOARD, AND THEN TRACING THE PAINTING BY HAND.

WE TOOK GREAT CARE TO ENSURE THAT IT WOULD BE VISIBLY PLEASING WITH A KEEN INTENT TO PRESERVE THE AESTHETIC HARMONY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION I HAD WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS SIGN.

MY FIRST STEP WHEN I CONCEIVED THIS IDEA WAS TO REFERENCE THE CITY ORDINANCE.

I DID THIS JUST TO GET AN IDEA INTO WHAT WAS WITHIN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY BASED ON MY INTERPRETATION.

I PUT TOGETHER A PLAN OF WHAT I WOULD BUILD WITH THIS PLAN.

I PLACED A CALL TO THE CITY OF BEDFORD NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES DIVISION AND WAS EVENTUALLY IN CONTACT WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

I PROVIDED A METICULOUS DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DESIGN, COVERING ASPECTS SUCH AS CONSTRUCTION, DIMENSIONS, MATERIALS, AND CONTENT.

I WAS NOT ONLY REASSURED THAT THE SIGN WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE, BUT WAS ALSO GIVEN SUGGESTIONS REGARDING ITS PLACEMENT ON MY PROPERTY.

THIS CONVERSATION LED ME TO BELIEVE THAT MY INTENTIONS WERE WELL UNDERSTOOD, AND THE SIGN WAS WENT THEN ACCEPTABLE PARAMETERS.

LET'S NOW TURN TO THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION.

IT DOES NOT EXPLICITLY DEFINE A COMMERCIAL SIGN LEAVING VOID IN THE INTERPRETATION.

THE COMMON ENGLISH DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL IS THE INTENTION TO MAKE A PROFIT, WHICH I'M NOT.

HOWEVER, THE ORDINANCE DOES PROVIDE A DEFINITION FOR AN ON-PREMISES SIGN AS A SIGN WHICH PROMOTES OR ADVERTISES ACTIVITIES, COMMODITIES, SERVICES, OR ENDEAVORS, WHICH ARE OFFERED ON THE PREMISES ON WHICH THE SIGN IS LOCATED.

THIS IS PRECISELY THE CATEGORY UNDER WHICH MY SIGN FALLS, A CATEGORY WHICH IS PERMITTED UNDER THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION.

MY ARGUMENT PRIMARILY CONCERNS SECTION SIX DASH 72 OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE, WHICH DEALS WITH TEMPORARY SIGNS.

I BELIEVE THAT MY SIGNS SHOULD BE CATEGORIZED AS ON-PREMISES.

UPON EXAMINING THE TABLE UNDER SECTION SIX DASH 72.

IT'S EVIDENT THAT THE COLUMN IS LABELED ON PREMISES, LOGICALLY SUGGESTING MY SIGN SHOULD FALL WITHIN ITS SCOPE.

HOWEVER,

[00:25:01]

I PROPOSE TREATING THESE AS SEPARATE ENTITY IS GROUPED FOR DATA NORMALIZATION PURPOSES.

HOWEVER, I ACKNOWLEDGE THE SUBSEQUENT ROW ALSO CONTAINING THE CHURCH AS A CATEGORY MUDDLES THIS INTERPRETATION.

UNDER THIS INTERPRETATION, A PERMIT IS REQUIRED, BUT NO FEES ARE REQUIRED.

I DISCUSSED THIS WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT IN THAT PRIOR DISCUSSION, UH, ABOUT OBTAINING THE MATERIAL FOR THE SIGN, AND WAS ASSURED THAT BASED ON RECENT CHANGES, I DID NOT NEED A PERMIT.

UPON RECEIVING MY NOTICE OF VIOLATION, I ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN A PERMIT I FELT WAS NECESSARY, BUT WAS DENIED.

THAT'S AT THE POINT I SUBMITTED THIS APPEAL.

WE ARE NOT CONDUCTING A ROUTINE BUSINESS, NOR IS THE SIGN A PERMANENT INSTALLATION.

IT EXISTS PURELY TO HELP THESE PUPPIES FIND A HOME, AND IT WILL BE REMOVED AS SOON AS THE PURPOSE IS ACCOMPLISHED.

THIS ACTIVITY IS BEING CARRIED OUT IN THE MOST RESPONSIBLE WAY POSSIBLE UNDER THE SPIRIT OF BOTH RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERSHIP AND COMMUNITY HARMONY.

THE SIGN IN QUESTION IS TEMPORARY, AND JUST LIKE A SIGN ADVERTISING, A GARAGE SALE, LOST PET OR ELIMINATE STAND, IT WILL BE REMOVED ONCE ITS PURPOSE IS SERVED.

IT IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF ROUTINE BUSINESS, BUT OF A TRANSIENT NECESSITY.

I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF REGULATIONS IN MAINTAINING THE AESTHETIC AND TRANQUILITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

HOWEVER, THE FREEDOM TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT IS NON-COMMERCIAL TEMPORARY AND CAUSING NO HARM OR PUBLIC NUISANCE, IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT.

THE SIGN FALLS WITHIN THOSE LINES, OFFERING LOCAL FAMILIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADOPT A PET WHILE ENSURING THE PUPPIES FIND A LIVING HOME.

THERE'S ANOTHER CRUCIAL POINT I'D LIKE TO RAISE TODAY.

THE GUIDANCE GIVEN BY ANIMAL SERVICES TO BED FOR RESIDENTS, INCLUDING MYSELF, IS TO LIST ANIMALS FOR AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR TO SURRENDERING THEM.

THE CURRENT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE SEEMS TO CONTRADICT THIS DIRECTIVE, WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY CREATE CONFUSION AND REASONABLE ISSUES WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY.

I APPEAL TO YOU TO SEE THIS SITUATION FROM THE VIEWPOINT THAT THE CITY SIGN ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNED NOT TO STIFLE FREE SPEECH, BUT TO PREVENT INTRUSIVE COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING AND MAINTAIN THE AESTHETICS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

I BELIEVE THAT MY SIGN IS IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THESE PRINCIPLES.

IT IS A TESTAMENT TO THE SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY AND RESPONSIBLE CITIZENSHIP RATHER THAN A VIOLATION OF CITY ORDINANCES.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.

OKAY, SIR.

I, I, I'M SORRY.

I MIGHT HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

PLEASE, BUT I WANT, I WANNA MAKE SURE FIRST THAT YOU AGREE THIS ISN'T A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE'S NO, WE TALKED, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT EARLIER.

THERE'S NO QUESTION.

IT'S RESIDENTIAL, IS THAT RIGHT? YES.

IT'S RESIDENTIAL AND THERE'S NO QUESTION IT'S TEMPORARY.

YES, IT'S DEFINITELY TEMPORARY.

AND YOU WEREN'T CITED UNDER ANYTHING FOR A COMMERCIAL SIGN, IS THAT RIGHT? OR GIVEN A NO, NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, NO.

THEN THE OTHER THING IS WITH, UM, 6 72 UNDER TEMPORARY SIGNS, THE ONLY ONE THAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH IS THE CHURCH, CHARITY AND CIVIC ON PREMISES.

YOU, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, ADMIT, IT'S NOT A POLITICAL SIGN OR ANY OF THE OTHER CATEGORIES.

UNDER 6 72, THERE'S A DIFFERENT ROW ON THAT TABLE THAT CATERS SPECIFICALLY TO POLITICAL SIGNS ALONG WITH VEHICLE SIGNS AND SO FORTH.

UM, THE, UH, THE CATEGORY, AND I AGREE THAT IT, IT'S PRETTY HARD TO INTERPRET IT.

THERE'S, THERE'S NO OTHER COLUMNS THAN THOSE TWO THAT HAVE COMMAS, DELINEATING DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OR, OR WHATEVER WE WANNA CALL THOSE ENTITIES.

SO I DON'T THINK I ASKED MY QUESTION CLEAR ENOUGH.

SO, 6 72 SAYS, TYPE OF SIGN, HORIZONTAL BANNER, VERTICAL BANNER, ET CETERA.

MM-HMM.

, YOU ADMIT THAT NONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES FIT.

THE ONLY CATEGORY THAT YOU BELIEVE IT FITS UNDER IS CHURCH, CHARITY AND CIVIC ON-PREMISES.

THOSE WERE TWO CONFLICTING QUESTIONS.

I JUST WANNA CLARIFY.

MY SIGN, I BELIEVE, SHOULD BE CATEGORIZED AS AN ON-PREMISES SIGN.

WHICH IS IN THAT TABLE.

AND SO THE CHURCH, CHARITY AND CIVIC ON PREMISES, AS OPPOSED TO THE CHURCH CHARITY, CIVIC OFF-PREMISES, WOULD YOU AGREE ON-PREMISES MEANS THE SIGN IS ON THE PREMISES OF THE CHURCH, CHARITY, OR CIVIC, AS OPPOSED TO OFF-PREMISES WHERE A SIGN MIGHT BE FOR A CHURCH AS A DIRECTIONAL SIGN OR OFF THE CHURCH PREMISES? WELL, I, I WOULD DISAGREE JUST BECAUSE OF THE, THE STRANGE, UM, WAY THAT THAT DATA IS CONSTRUCTED IN A TABLE.

TYPICALLY, WHEN I SEE COMMAS IN OUT THE ADDITION OF A ADDITION OF A CONJUGATION, I SEE IT AS A FORM OF DATA NORMALIZATION, WHERE ALL PROCEEDING CELLS IN THAT ROW WOULD APPLY TO EACH ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES HAD THEY BEEN SEPARATED.

I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A CONJUGATION IN THERE, BUT IT'S THE SYMBOL AMPERSAND, WHICH IS SPECIFIC TO CIVIC AND CHARITY.

UH, CHARITY AND CIVIC, I THINK IS ACTUALLY HOW IT'S WORDED.

IT, IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO INTERPRET THAT MM-HMM.

UM, SO

[00:30:01]

, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH CHURCH BEING DUPLICATED IN THE ROW ABOVE IT AND BELOW, IT ALSO KIND OF MUDDLES THAT INTERPRETATION.

UM, MY THOUGHTS WERE THAT, YOU KNOW, CHURCH BEING A RELIGIOUS THING, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, YOU WANT TO ALLOW THE MOST, UM, THE LEAST AMOUNT OF RESTRICTION WITH THOSE ORGANIZATIONS.

AND SO THAT'S JUST HOW I INTERPRETED THAT.

UM, BUT NOT JUST THE CELLS AND THAT DATA NORMALIZATION QUESTION GOING ON WITH THE TABLE, BUT EVEN FURTHER UP IN THE ORDINANCE, UH, SIX DASH 69, I BELIEVE, WHEREVER THE DEFINITIONS ARE, IN THAT SAME ORDINANCE, ARTICLE THREE, UM, IT HAS A DEFINITION FOUR ON-PREMISES SIGN AND OFF-PREMISES SIGN SEPARATELY.

UM, COULD YOU TELL ME THE NAME OF THE, UH, ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR THE, UH, UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT PERSON THAT YOU SPOKE WITH PRIOR TO PUTTING THE SIGN OUT? UM, THAT'S A VALID QUESTION.

I WAS HOPING TO AVOID NAMING NAMES.

I, I, I'D WANNA START OFF BY SAYING, FOR THE MOST PART, EVERYONE I'VE DEALT WITH WITH THE CITY HAS BEEN EXTREMELY PROFESSIONAL AND CORDIAL.

THERE'S NO ANIMOSITY HERE.

AND, AND IT'S, IT'S BEEN A NICE PROCESS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF, OF THIS ONE OFFICER.

THAT INITIAL CONVERSATION THAT I REFERENCED WAS WITH OFFICER ANGELA KACHA.

I, I MAY NOT BE PRONOUNCING HER RIGHT HER NAME PROPERLY.

UM, AFTER THE APPEAL WAS FILED, I RECEIVED A CALL FROM AN UNKNOWN NUMBER WHO APPARENTLY WAS OFFICER CAMACHO.

I FOUND OUT THROUGH AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST, UM, WHERE HER BEHAVIOR, UH, I'M GONNA SKIP OVER THAT PART.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

SO, UM, DID YOU AV I, I HATE TO, DID YOU ADVERTISE THESE PUPPIES OR PUT THEM SOMEPLACE ELSE FOR SALE, LIKE FACEBOOK MARKET PLACE, FREE PUPPIES, OR A NEWSPAPER, FREE PUPPIES, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? IT, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DO THAT.

MANY ONLINE PLATFORMS HAVE STRICT POLICIES ABOUT LISTING ANIMALS, UH, AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN REASONS FOR THAT.

UM, THEIR, THEIR MAIN CONCERNS ARE AGAINST ILLICIT ACTIVITIES INVOLVING ANIMALS.

AND SO MANY PLATFORMS HAVE JUST HOLISTICALLY BANNED THAT.

UM, THESE PLATFORMS BEING PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE SAME CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTIONS AS LOCAL ORDINANCES.

SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

THEY'RE ALLOWED ON THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY TO BE ABLE TO RESTRICT WHATEVER CONTENT THEY WANT, AND IT CAN BE CONTENT BASED.

HOWEVER, EVEN AS RECENTLY AS THE 2015, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS RULED ON A VERY SIMILAR CASE TO WHAT I'M PRESENTING HERE TODAY, WHERE THEY RULED UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF THE SIGN OWNER, UM, RULING THAT THE, I BELIEVE THIS WAS THE TOWN OF GILBERT, UH, UH, WAS RESTRICTING SIGNS BASED ON THEIR CONTENT.

AND SO, IF THE RULING IS THAT MY SIGN IS NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE OF ITS CONTENT, IT'S DEEMED COMMERCIAL, UH, THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS HEARING IS NOT TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CERTAIN THINGS.

UM, BUT I, I BELIEVE IT'S AN IMPORTANT MATTER TO BRING UP.

DID YOU ADVERTISE THE PUPPIES ANYPLACE ELSE, ASIDE FROM THE SIGN? UM, LET ME THINK.

UH, I HAVE MADE POSTS TANGENTIALLY RELATED TO THE, TO THE, UM, PUPPIES.

I ALSO HAVE DEDICATED A WEBSITE.

UH, I'M A TECHNOLOGIST BY TRADE.

AND SO, UM, IN THE BOTTOM CORNER, THERE IS A URL TO THE WEBSITE, UH, WHERE I HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE PUPPIES DISCUSSING THEIR HERITAGE AND PEDIGREE ALONG WITH THEIR PARENTS AND JUST OUR OVERALL EXPERIENCES AS PET OWNERSHIP.

UM, AND IT LISTS INFORMATION ON HOW THEY CAN GO ABOUT OBTAINING A PUPPY IF THEY CHOOSE.

I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTION I HAVE.

THANK ARE THERE.

I KNOW THAT WAS MANY.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE TWO.

UH, SO JUST ONE OF THEM IS, COULD YOU, UM, IDENTIFY THE DATE THAT THE SIGN WAS ERECTED? SURE.

SO THE CONVERSATION WITH OFFICER CAMACHO WAS ON APRIL 28TH.

I PURCHASED THE MATERIALS EITHER THAT DAY OR THE NEXT DAY.

UH, AND THE SIGN MUST HAVE BEEN PUT UP EITHER THAT FRIDAY OR SATURDAY, WHICH I BELIEVE IS, UH, APRIL 29TH OR 30TH.

I, I DON'T THINK THE, THE, THE MATTER AT ISSUE IS THE, UH, THE, THE APPEARANCE OF THE SIGN, UH, OR EVEN ITS CLASSIFICATION AS COMMERCIAL.

THE SITUATION IS, UM, AND, AND LIKE I SAID, EVERYONE'S BEEN VERY CORDIAL WITH ME, OFFICER, WELL, THE OFFICER WHO, UH, GAVE ME THE NOTICE OF CITATION, UH, I ACTUALLY HAD A PRIOR NOTICE OF CITATION.

UM, I HAD AN ISSUE WITH POISON IVY ON MY PROPERTY.

UH, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, A SECTION OF MY YARD BECAME OVERGROWN.

I WAS STRUGGLING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BRING IT UNDER CONTROL CUZ UM, I MEAN, YOU CAN BARELY SEE IT NOW, BUT I'M TERRIBLY ALLERGIC TO POISON IVY.

UM, SO I RECEIVED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION BECAUSE OF THE STATE, THE YARD GOT IN DUE TO THAT.

UH, SO I FINALLY FIGURED THAT OUT, GOT THAT UNDER CONTROL, AND HE WAS ACTUALLY ON MY PROPERTY TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT NOTICE OF VIOLATION, UH, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS ALL GOOD.

UM, AND BY THAT TIME, THE SIGN HAD BEEN ERECTED, AND THAT'S WHEN HE ISSUED THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.

FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, BASED ON MY CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM, THE NOTICE WAS NOT ISSUED, UM, DUE TO A COMPLAINT OF THE COMMUNITY.

UH, IN FACT, SEVERAL OF MY NEIGHBORS, SOME WHO ARE HERE, UM, COMPLIMENT MY SIGN.

THEY, THEY ACTUALLY LIKE IT.

[00:35:01]

I THINK THE QUESTION HERE IS, IS IT A TEMPORARY SIGN? AND I THINK YOU'RE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT IS A TEMPORARY SIGN.

SO THEN THAT INVOKES 6 72.

THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES, UH, UNDER WHICH CATEGORY OF 6.72 ARE YOU, ARE YOU, ARE YOU ASSERTING HERE FOR THE SIGN TO BE PERMISSIBLE? SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE CHURCH, CHARITY AND CIVIC ON-PREMISES CATEGORY, I NOTICED THAT THAT PARTICULAR CATEGORY HAS A 30 DAY MAXIMUM ON IT, WHICH IS WHY I WAS ASKING THE DATE THE SIGN WAS ERECTED.

THAT'S CORRECT.

IT, IT ALSO REQUIRES A PERMIT, NO FEES, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE A PERMIT.

THAT'S CORRECT.

UH, WHICH I ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN AFTER THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.

USUALLY I WOULD TRY TO DO THAT BEFORE ERECTING THE SIGN, BUT WHEN I MADE THE INITIAL PHONE CALL TO CODE ENFORCEMENT, I WAS ASSURED, UH, UH, THAT DUE TO SOME RECENT CHANGE, I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE, UH, THAT A PERMIT WAS NO LONGER REQUIRED.

AND SO I WAS ALLOWED TO PUT THE SIGN UP.

IT WASN'T UNTIL AFTER I RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT I ATTEMPTED TO GET THE PERMIT UNDER THAT CATEGORY.

AND WOULD I BE CORRECT IN JUST HEARING YOUR REMARKS SUMMARY, YOU'RE NOT ATTEMPTING TO ASSERT THAT THIS IS A CHURCH SIGN? RIGHT.

IT'S NOT A RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION OF ANY SORT.

IT'S NOT RELIGIOUS, IT'S NOT COMMERCIAL.

IT'S NO MORE THAN LIKE A LEMONADE STAND OR A LOST PET OR SOMETHING.

SO, OKAY.

SO I THINK THE CATEGORIES HERE ARE CHURCH, CHARITY, AND CIVIC.

SO WE'RE ON PREMISES.

WE'RE AGREEING YEAH.

THAT IT'S NOT A CHURCH SIGN.

IT'S NOT A CHURCH SIGN.

IS IT YOUR BELIEF THAT IT'S A CHARITY SIGN OR A CIVIC SIGN? UM, I DO HAVE PLANS TO DONATE SOME OF THE ANIMALS TO A CHARITY WITH, UH, SERVICE ANIMALS FOR VETERANS.

UM, I'VE ALSO ROLLED AROUND THE IDEA OF POTENTIALLY DONATING ONE TO A POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUT NOTHING HAS QUITE BEEN DONE YET.

THEY'RE STILL SIX OR SEVEN ANIMALS TO BE, UH, RE-HOMED.

UM, AND SO I STILL HAVE TIME TO DECIDE ON HOW TO GO ABOUT THAT.

UH, SOME ANIMALS HAVE BEEN RE-HOMED WITH NO FEE.

UH, THE FEE IS JUST DESIGNED TO COVER THEIR FEEDING COSTS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY PERSPECTIVE ADOPTERS WOULD HAVE THE FINANCIAL MEANS TO CARE FOR THE ANIMAL.

UM, YEAH.

SO, UH, IT'S, I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD CATEGORIZE IT CHARITY QUITE YET, BUT THE, UM, THERE'S STILL A POSSIBILITY.

SO THERE IS A FEE INVOLVED FOR THESE ANIMALS.

HERE.

THERE IS A FEE, UH, THE FEE IS NOT DESIGNED TO MAKE A PROFIT.

UH, IT'S DESIGNED JUST TO COVER THE COSTS AND TO ENSURE LOVING HOMES FOR THE FAMILY.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

I HAVE A FOLLOW UP.

WHAT IS THE FEE? THE FEE? SO THE FEE HAS BEEN ADJUSTED BASED ON MY VETERINARIAN FEES.

UH, I HAVE A VET THAT'S GOING TO, UM, VACCINATE AND DEWORM THE ANIMALS.

WELL TEST THEM FOR PARASITES NEXT WEEK.

UH, AND AS THAT PRICE IS ADJUSTED, THE FEE IS ADJUSTED PER PUPPY.

THEY, THEY HAVE A LITTER PRICE.

UM, THERE'S ALSO BEEN A COUPLE OF ANIMALS WHO UNFORTUNATELY DIDN'T MAKE IT.

UH, THIS WAS A RATHER LARGE LITTER.

IT WAS, UH, 13 TO START OFF WITH.

UH, THAT'S QUITE LARGE FOR A DOG.

UM, AND SO SINCE, SINCE THAT FEES, IT INITIALLY WAS SEVEN 50 BASED ON WHAT I INTERPRETED THE VETERINARY SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY, SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY.

UM, BUT AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH MY VETERINARIAN, THAT'S COME DOWN NOW TO FOUR 50.

UM, AND, UH, THAT SHOULD COVER THE FEED.

I I HAVE A, YOU, YOU CAN GO FIRST.

NO, NO.

I WAS GONNA SAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH.

I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE WORD TEMPORARY.

UM, SO HOW LONG ARE THESE DOGS GONNA BE PUPPIES? SO BASED ON THESE CITY ORDINANCE, THE ANIMAL ORDINANCES, SIX MONTHS, UM, I HOPE TO HAVE THEM ALL GONE LONG BEFORE THEN.

AND THEN THE SON WILL GO, THE SUN WILL GO SOON.

WHERE WILL YOU HAVE 13 MORE? I'M NOT GONNA HAVE ANY MORE ANIMALS.

UM, SO MY MALE GERMAN SHEPHERD AGES OUT OF THE ELIGIBLE STUD CLASS FOR THE KENNEL THIS YEAR.

UM, THAT'S ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO DECIDING TO HAVE THE LITTER.

UH, AND MY FEMALE WILL BE SPAYED AFTER SHE'S DONE NURSING THIS LITTER THAT'S, WELL, ACTUALLY IT HAS TO BE THREE WEEKS AFTER SHE'S DONE NURSING THIS LITTER, BUT IT'LL BE BEFORE THE END OF JUNE.

NOW I HAVE ANOTHER QUE I'M SORRY, .

NOW I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

SO THE, THE, THE MOM AND DAD TO THESE DOGS, HAD THEY HAVE OTHER PUPPIES THAT YOU HAD TO FIND HOMES FOR? NOPE.

IS THIS, THIS IS THEIR FIRST LITTER.

THIS IS THEIR FIRST AND ONLY LITTER? YES, MA'AM.

AT THE TIME THE, THE NOTICE WAS, UH, POSTED.

SO MY, MY QUESTION IS, WHY DO YOU NEED TO MAKE THE SIGN THAT BIG? I MEAN, GARAGE SALE, THEY'RE PRETTY SMALL.

IT ALLOWS 36 SQUARE FEET.

THIS IS A FOUR FOOT BY EIGHT FOOT SHEET OF PLYWOOD, WHICH IS 32 SQUARE FEET.

SO I FELT IT WAS UNDER, YOU KNOW, COVERED UNDER THE ORDINANCE.

UM, I DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

I WAS VERY METICULOUS TALKING ABOUT THE SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION.

UH, AND I WAS ASSURED THAT THAT WOULD BE OKAY.

UM, WHEN I RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION, I ACTUALLY GOT TO, TO SPEAK WITH THE OFFICER

[00:40:01]

UM, AND HIS INITIAL COMPLAINT WAS THAT IT WAS TOO BIG.

AND I'VE MAINTAINED THROUGH THIS ENTIRE INTERACTION THAT I'M MORE THAN WILLING TO ADHERE TO ANY TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER RESTRICTION, UH, AS ALLOWED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

UH, AND WHEN I CHALLENGED THAT, THAT'S WHEN THE NARRATIVE KIND OF SHIFTED TO NOT FINDING A CORRECT CATEGORY FOR THIS SIGN.

AND SO IT WAS OUTRIGHT BAND.

SO I, WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING ABOUT THE ORDINANCE AT ISSUE.

WE TALK ABOUT SECTION SIX DASH 72.

YOU WOULD AGREE THAT UNDER SECTION SIX DASH 73, THE EXEMPTIONS, NONE OF THAT EXEMPTIONS APPLY TO YOU, CORRECT? NOT THAT I CAN TELL, NO.

WE GO DOWN TO THE NEXT SECTION, SECTION, UH, SIX DASH SEVEN, UH, 74 PROHIBITED SIGNS.

YOU WOULD ALSO AGREE THAT, UH, NONE OF THE, UH, PROHIBITED, UH, SIGNS APPLY EXCEPT THE LAST ONE WHERE IT SAYS, W ANY SIGN NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED BY THIS ORDINANCE.

SO THAT IS THE ONE THAT I'M REALLY WORRIED ABOUT, UH, BECAUSE TEMPORARY SIGNS ARE CATEGORIZED BASED ON THEIR CONTENT, AND THEN THIS STIPULATION OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD MAKE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

AND THERE'S ALREADY BEEN SEVERAL CASES, BOTH IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, UH, COURT OF APPEALS AND IN THE SUPREME COURT AS RECENTLY AS 2015, WHERE THIS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE.

AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT THE POINT OF THIS APPEAL HEARING, BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT FACTOR FOR THE CITY TO CONSIDER.

UM, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BASED ON THE ORDINANCE, IF THIS SIGN IS NOT CATEGORIZED AS ON PREMISES, I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WOULDN'T.

BUT IF IT'S NOT, UH, THEN THAT WOULD BE INVOKED.

I HAVE ONE LAST NOTE.

I CONTACTED NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES AND I'VE MAINTAINED THAT I, I WILL, UM, ADHERE TO ANY TIME, PLACE AND MANNER RESTRICTIONS.

SIR, YOU MADE A COMMENT THAT THERE WERE RESTRICTIONS FROM A SOCIAL MEDIA STANDPOINT OF TRYING TO FIND HOMES FOR YOUR PETS YES.

OR ANIMALS.

CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT? BECAUSE I'M FAIRLY ACTIVE ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND, UH, THERE'S A LOT OF FREE PETS YES.

ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

I AGREE WITH YOU.

THERE ARE.

SO WHY DO YOU FEEL LIKE THE TRAFFIC PATTERN DOWN GLENDA ROAD IS GOING TO BE BETTER SERVED TO MARKET YOUR, YOUR, YOUR DOGS FOR A, FOR A LOVING HOME THAN EXPANDING THAT WAY BEYOND THE TRAFFIC PATTERN DOWN YOUR STREET? YEAH, THOSE ARE REALLY GOOD QUESTIONS.

AND IF YOU, IF WE'D HAD THIS CONVERSATION BEFORE THE SIGN WAS EVER UP, I, I WOULD'VE PROBABLY CHALLENGED MY OWN ASSUMPTIONS ALSO THAT SOCIAL MEDIA WOULD'VE PROBABLY BEEN A BETTER REACH.

UH, HOWEVER, WHAT I'VE EXPERIENCED IS THAT, UM, THE VAST MAJORITY OF MY WEB TRAFFIC AND PHONE CALLS HAVE BEEN A DIRECT RESULT OF THIS SIGN.

UM, WELL, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? I MEAN, YEAH, ONE PHONE CALL VERSUS 500 VIEWS OF YOU COULD PUT THAT SIGN ON NEXT DOOR AND, AND PROBABLY GET A LOT MORE PHONE CALLS THAN YOU'RE GETTING FROM PEOPLE GOING DOWN YOUR STREET.

UNFORTUNATELY, THOSE CALLS ARE NOT PEOPLE INQUIRING ABOUT A, A PUPPY.

THOSE ARE PEOPLE SAYING VERY RUDE THINGS, VERY HURTFUL THINGS.

UM, THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THERE WHO HAVE PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS ABOUT, UM, WHAT'S OCCURRING ON MY PROPERTY.

UH, THERE'S BEEN COMMENTS TOWARDS, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, RUNNING A PUPPY MILL AND SUGGESTING THAT, WELL, JUST RUDE COMMENTS.

OVERALL, VERY, VERY HURTFUL THINGS.

UM, AND, AND THAT'S THE VAST MAJORITY OF COMMENTS I'VE RECEIVED FROM ANY SOCIAL MEDIA ENCOUNTER DIRECTLY RELATED TO RE-HOMING THE PUPPIES.

UM, THE, THE QR CODE ON THIS SIGN IS, IS THE ONLY ONE IN EXISTENCE.

UM, SO THEY HAVE TO SCAN THAT QR CODE IN ORDER TO GET TO MY WEBSITE THROUGH THAT LINK THAT IT IS, WHICH ALLOWS ME TO TRACK IT UNIQUELY TO SOMEBODY JUST LOOKING IT UP ON GOOGLE OR CLICKING THAT LINK THERE.

UM, AND SO THAT'S HOW I'M ABLE TO TRACK THE INTERACTIVITY THAT THIS SIGN HAS HAD.

I KNOW WHAT THIS SIGN HAS BEEN SHARED ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

I WON'T BE ABLE TO DETERMINE IF THOSE PEOPLE SINGING ON SOCIAL MEDIA VERSUS DRIVING BY HAVE, HAVE DIFFERED.

UM, BUT IT HAS STARTED TO SERVE THE PURPOSE IT WAS INTENDED.

AND GOING DIRECTLY TO SOCIAL MEDIA.

I HAVE TRIED LISTING THEM ON CRAIGSLIST.

UH, IT WAS BANNED IMMEDIATELY.

UM, EVEN, EVEN WITH, UH, THE LOWERED FEE AND, AND EVERYTHING ELSE, UM, TRYING TO POST IT ON FACEBOOK DIDN'T EVEN ALLOW ME TO POST IT.

IT, IT WAS IMMEDIATELY REJECTED.

UM, AND OTHER PRIVATE GROUPS ON FACEBOOK DO NOT ALLOW THAT BASED ON THEIR RULES.

UH, ANY ANIMAL REHOMING AT ALL.

I KNOW THAT, AND I SEE THEM TOO, LISTING OF ANIMALS ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

THESE PEOPLE HAVE CIRCUMVENTED CERTAIN POLICIES BY CATEGORIZING THEIR POSTS BY SOMETHING DIFFERENT OR JUST DOING IT IN VIOLATION OF THEIR TERMS OF SERVICE.

I AM NOT WILLING TO VIOLATE ANYONE'S RULES OR EVEN CITY ORDINANCES OR ANYTHING OF THAT MATTER.

UM, THAT'S WHY I READ THE ORDINANCE BEFOREHAND.

[00:45:01]

ONE RESTRICTION COULD BE LIMITING THE SIZE OF THE SIGN, IF EIGHT BY FOUR IS DEEMED TO BE TOO BIG, BUT THE CONTENT IS OKAY, UM, I WILL CHOP THE SIGN.

I'LL MAKE IT SMALLER.

I'M PERFECTLY OKAY TO DO THAT.

NOBODY'S ASKED ME TO DO THAT YET.

WELL, I THINK THE STATUTE THAT YOU'RE, UM, ASSERTING HERE, THE CHURCH CHARITY CIVIC ON PREMISES ACTUALLY IS A 50 SQUARE FOOT ALLOWANCE.

SO FOUR BY EIGHT BY MY COMMON CORE MATH IS 48 FEET.

SO YOU WOULD BE WITHIN THAT.

STRUCTURE.

I THINK THE QUESTION IS JUST DOES THAT LINE APPLY? YES, SIR.

TO THIS TYPE OF SIGN? UH, I'VE GOT ANOTHER QUESTION.

AND IT REALLY GETS DOWN TO TIMING.

UH, I'M, I'M LOOKING AT YOUR, UH, REQUEST FOR APPEAL, AND YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T STATE A TIME LIMIT HOW LONG YOU WANT THAT SIGN UP THERE, NUMBER ONE.

AND THEN THE SECOND THING IS, IS IF EVEN GOING BACK, I BELIEVE TO THE, THE CATEGORIES YOU, I THINK IS VALID, THEY STILL HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 30 DAYS.

AND IF YOU PUT THIS UP MAY, LET'S SAY MAY 1ST, EVEN MAY 2ND, 30 DAYS IS LIKE TOMORROW.

SO IT WOULD, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE APPEALING THEN.

YOU'VE HAD THE SIGN FOR THE 30 DAYS THAT IT'S ALLOWED.

AND, UH, I COULD UNDERSTAND IF, UH, IF THERE WAS A FINE INVOLVED, YOU'RE APPEALING A FINE, BUT YOU'VE GOT, YOU'VE HAD TO SIGN UP FOR YOUR 30 DAYS AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MORE DAYS YOU WANT.

WELL, SO, AND BASED ON MY ORIGINAL CONVERSATION WITH THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, UH, I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS NO, UM, PERMIT REQUIRED.

IF THE INTERPRETATION IS THAT THIS ISN'T ON PREMISES SIGN, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A PERMIT, AND THE PERMIT SHOULD LIST OUT THE, THE TIME RESTRICTION.

BUT, BUT, BUT THE, BUT THE LINE ITEM, EXCUSE ME, THE LINE ITEM THAT YOU'VE VERY SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED MM-HMM.

HAS A TIME LIMIT IT DOES ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

IS THAT CORRECT? TH THAT IS CORRECT.

AND THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH THE OFFICER, WE ACTUALLY DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE TIMEFRAME THAT THE SIGN WOULD BE UP.

UM, I MENTIONED NO LATER THAN JULY 8TH, AND I WAS TOLD THAT THAT WAS OKAY.

NOW, IF I AM GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.

IT'S, IT'S THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE COMMUNICATED SOME VERY DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF THIS ORDINANCE, BUT SOMEHOW, TOTALLY FORGOT ABOUT THE TIME DURATION THAT'S BUILT INTO THE ORDINANCE.

EVEN, EVEN IF WE AGREED WITH WHAT, YOU KNOW, THE CATEGORY YOU HAD YOUR TIME'S ALREADY OVER, BASED ON MY CONVERSATIONS WITH CITY MANAGER ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES FREEZE WHEN I PUT IN THE APPEAL, ALSO, I WOULD THE, YOU KNOW, EXPECT THAT THE PERMIT WOULD BE THE START DATE FOR ANY SUCH ENFORCEMENT.

THAT'S HOW IT TYPICALLY GOES WHEN YOU GO TO A PERMIT FOR THAT CATEGORY.

BUT, BUT, BUT THAT'S A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT BECAUSE THE SIGN WENT UP BEFORE IT WAS PERMITTED.

I WAS TOLD I WAS LOUD.

WELL, WELL, AGAIN, YOU, YOU VERY DETAILED COME DOWN TO WHAT'S IN THE, IN THIS ORDINANCE WHEN IT'S FOR YOUR FAVOR, BUT WHEN IT, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T SUPPORT YOUR, YOU KNOW, THE TOTAL ARGUMENT, IT'S LIKE, IT DOESN'T REALLY COUNT.

THAT'S WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING.

I DON'T FOLLOW, I, I THINK PERHAPS PUT DIFFERENTLY IS EVEN IF YOU HAD APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT UNDER THE CHURCH, CHARITY AND CIVIC CATEGORY, AND EVEN HAD THE PERMIT BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A FEE, THE TIMEFRAME FOR THAT WOULD ALREADY HAVE EXPIRED.

SO IF EVEN HAD THE SIGN BEEN PERMITTED, YOU WOULD'VE ALREADY RECEIVED ALL OF THE BENEFIT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THAT ROW.

UM, WELL, I DIDN'T RECEIVE THE PERMIT.

RIGHT, BUT YOU WOULD, YOU DID BENEFIT FROM USING THE SIGN.

THE SIGN'S BEEN UP THIS WHOLE TIME.

THE SIGN'S BEEN UP THE WHOLE TIME, RIGHT? BECAUSE THERE'S NO, YES, THE SIGN'S BEEN UP.

IT WOULD CLARIFIED AT THE BEGINNING, NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION HAS BEEN EN ENJOINED.

SO ESSENTIALLY THE SIGN WAS UP AS OF 4 29 TO 30, I BELIEVE YOU SAID.

AND IT'S STILL UP AS OF THE 2ND OF JUNE.

1ST OF JUNE.

2ND OF JUNE, YES.

UM, IF I WERE TO CREATE A SIMILAR SIGN, WOULD THAT BE PERMITTED? WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO CONSIDER.

UM, AND THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH NOTICE PROCEDURES OR SOMETHING.

IS DOES THE STATUTE APPLY? SO, AND I THINK THAT'S THE OTHER QUESTION WE NEED TO JUST CLARIFY IS, YOU KNOW, CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE HAD, YOU KNOW, WITH INDIVIDUALS ARE OF INTEREST.

BUT WHAT, YOU KNOW, THE FRAMEWORK THAT WE'RE ALL HELD TO IS THE STATUTE.

I AGREE.

SEPARATE AND APART FROM ANY CONVERSATIONS.

AND, AND, AND I, I REALLY WISH THIS WOULD'VE HAPPENED SOONER.

UM, I BELIEVE THERE WAS A, AN INITIAL, UH, MEETING FOR THIS SCHEDULED EARLIER.

[00:50:01]

AND SO IT'S BEEN PUSHED OUT TO TODAY.

UM, AND SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I HAD BEEN PREPARED FOR.

I PREPARED FOR THE LAST MEETING WHERE I WOULD'VE STILL BEEN ALLOWED TWO WEEKS.

SO, UM, THAT, THOSE ARE THE COMMENTS I HAVE TO THAT.

UH, ANOTHER QUESTION.

ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER SIGNS LIKE THIS IN THE CITY? YES, SIR.

ONE, UH, TWO BLOCKS SOUTH OF MY PROPERTY.

WHAT IS IT? IT IS A BILLBOARD SIGN.

UM, IT, IT'S IN SPANISH.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

I DON'T, SORRY.

I, I SPEAK SPANISH.

DO YOU HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH OF IT PERHAPS? I DON'T.

SHEPHERD, A KC REGISTERED, UH, IT'S, IT IS, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S A PEDIGREE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR? NO.

DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SPEAK, UH, ON THIS SUBJECT? THANK YOU.

PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME.

WE'RE IN A LEARNING PROCESS HERE.

UM, I'M JERRY WILHELM.

I'M, UM, TIM ST'S NEIGHBOR.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE SIGN WAS PUT UP, IT, UM, YOU KNOW, HE REALLY SPENT A LOT OF TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT HE DID NOT BREAK ANY ORDINANCES.

IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO HIM.

AND, UM, WE LEARNED ABOUT THE PROCESS, HOW THE CITY HAD, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PERSON THAT HE SPOKE TO UP THERE AT NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES LET HIM KNOW THEY, UM, YOU KNOW, IT WAS IMPORTANT ABOUT THE SIZE.

AND SO HE MADE SURE THAT HE GOT THAT SIZE, UM, CORRECT TO WHAT WAS AGREED UPON.

AND THEN THE SIGN WAS PUT UP THESE PUPPIES.

UH, THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF OF ISSUES GOING ON TRYING TO POST THESE PUPPIES ONLINE AS EVEN ME AND, UM, OUR OTHER NEIGHBOR THAT'S HERE TODAY WITH US, WE'VE TRIED TO POST AS WELL, AND WE JUST GET DENIED.

IT'S, IT'S CONSTANT DENIAL, BUT YET IT'S A, IT'S A, THE RESPONSIBLE PART TO DO FOR AN ANIMAL OWNER TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THESE ANIMALS INTO GOOD HOMES.

UH, WHILE WE HAVE ALL OF THESE STRAYS THAT ARE RUNNING ALL OVER BEDFORD THAT BEDFORD CAN'T CONTROL, CUZ IT'S BEEN OVERWHELMING.

AND TIM STOOD UP AND HE TOOK THAT ACCOUNTABILITY INTO HIS OWN HANDS AS A NEIGHBOR AND AS A BEDFORD CITIZEN.

AND I JUST FEEL THAT, UH, THE SIGN IS, IS A TEMPORARY.

AND I WAS VERY, UM, MOVED BY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT HE'S DOING AND, AND THIS IS HOW HE'S DOING IT.

IT'S, IT DOESN'T TO ME APPEAL TO BE ANY TYPE OF A BUSINESS.

UM, HE'S, HE'S NOT TRYING TO GROW, UM, AND PROSPER OFF OF THIS SIGN.

HE'S JUST TRYING TO DO HIS DUE DILIGENCE.

AND AS A NEIGHBOR, I, I COMPLETELY SUPPORT THAT.

AND I WOULD HOPE THAT AS A COMMUNITY WE CAN COME TOGETHER AND STAND TOGETHER AND SUPPORT THAT AS WELL.

AND MAYBE THE REHOMING OF ANIMALS COULD BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY THAN A DEAD ANIMAL IN THE STREETS, OR A ANIMAL THAT'S BEING DROPPED OFF.

I'VE HAD FOUR DROPPED OFF AT MY HOUSE IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS.

THEY JUST DROPPED THEM OFF.

AND THAT'S THE PROCESS NOW, BECAUSE A LOT OF CITIZENS DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT WAY TO STAND UP AND REHOME THESE ANIMALS.

AND IT'S BECOME A HUGE PROBLEM.

AND I JUST FEEL THAT, UM, WHAT IS BEING DONE, UM, I DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY BESIDES THE FACT THAT IT'S, IT'S AN AWESOME, BIG, BEAUTIFUL SIGN.

UM, OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T SEE, I DON'T SEE WHERE THE DISCONNECT IS AND WHERE IT SHOULD BE.

AND THAT'S WHAT I GOT FOR YOU GUYS TODAY.

THANK, THANK YOU FOR MY TIME.

ANY QUESTIONS? I, YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION.

FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR COMING HERE AND SPENDING YOUR TIME TO COME HERE TONIGHT TO TALK TO US.

AND I ALSO APPRECIATE YOUR CARING FOR ANIMALS AND THAT, YOUR PASSION FOR THAT.

MY QUESTION IS, DID YOU POST ON YOUR PERSONAL FACEBOOK ABOUT THE PUPPIES SO THAT YOUR FRIENDS COULD SEE THAT THERE WERE PUPPIES? YES.

I'VE POSTED MANY DIFFERENT WAYS AS I'M A BUSINESS OWNER MYSELF HERE IN BEDFORD.

AND, UM, WHEREAS MINE'S JUST MAINLY AN APP AT THIS TIME.

UM, I'M STILL IN SOCIAL MEDIA GROUPS AND, UM, I, I STILL, YOU KNOW, COMMUNICATE BACK AND FORTH WITH, UM, DIFFERENT PEOPLE ALL OVER DALLAS AND THE FORT WORTH AREA.

SO I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A PERFECT MOMENT TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT THERE TO THE COUNTRY HOMES THAT EVERYBODY'S LOOKING FOR GERMAN

[00:55:01]

AND, UM, SO I, I TRIED TO REACH OUT TO THOSE GROUPS AND I INSTANTLY GOT DENIED.

UM, I ALSO TRIED TO POST ON THE CITY OF BEDFORD'S PAGE AND I WAS DENIED IMMEDIATELY, UM, BECAUSE I WAS AGAINST THE, UM, THE, THE RULES AND THE VIOLATIONS OF THE GROUP AND, UM, SOUTH LAKE AS WELL AS COLLEYVILLE.

UM, I COULD NAME 48 DIFFERENT GROUPS HERE IN TEXAS THAT I TRIED TO POST ON, AND I WAS DENIED EACH TIME.

BUT YOU WERE ABLE TO POST IT ON YOUR PERSONAL PAGE? ON MY PERSONAL PAGE ONLY.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

NO PROBLEM.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YES, THERE'S ONLY ONE THING.

MY NAME'S TERESA AND I'M THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR.

THERE'S ONLY ONE THING THAT I NEED TO SAY.

UM, WHEN THERE WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP, UH, THE CITY MADE A COMMENT SPECIFICALLY SAYING THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAD AN ISSUE, UH, WITH THE, WITH THE SIGN THAT IT WAS BOTHERING THE NEIGHBORS.

NONE OF US, NONE OF US HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE SIGN AT ALL.

AT ALL.

NONE OF US, WE CAN SIGN A PETITION, WE CAN SIGN EVEN THE OLDEST NEIGHBOR IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, EVERYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE ALL WERE HAPPY THAT HE WAS TRYING TO GET ALL THESE PUPPIES AND YOUR HOME THE RIGHT WAY.

NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, PUTTING IN THEM IN A BOX AND, YOU KNOW, THROWING THEM OUT IN 30 DAYS JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

CUZ EVERYBODY DOES THAT.

SO I'M SO PROUD OF HIM.

THANKS FOR COMING DOWN AND SPENDING YOUR TIME HERE.

ANYBODY ELSE? UH, WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO COMMENT OR DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD? JUST TO CONFIRM, WHAT'S THE CITY ASKING US TO DO? QUESTION? SO THE QUESTION IS, IS DOES THIS SIGN COMPLY WITH SECTION SIX DASH 72? STAFF BELIEVES IT DOES NOT.

YEAH, I WAS THINKING MAYBE AS IF THERE IF, COULD WE ADD SOMETHING TO LIKE GARAGE SALES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? NOT WITHOUT DOING AN ORDINANCES.

I THINK WE'RE, UH, READY FOR DIS DISCUSSION.

SO, UH, DOES ANYBODY WANNA KIND OF VOICE THEIR OPINIONS ON THIS? WELL, I, I GUESS I CAN START.

UM, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT IT'S A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT IT IS A TEMPORARY SIGN.

THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT IT NOT POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS OR CIVIC AT THIS TIME.

THE QUESTION AS I SEE IT IS, IS ON PREMISES A DIFFERENT CATEGORY THAN CHURCH, CHARITY AND CIVIC, AND I DON'T THINK IT IS.

WHAT I THINK IS CHURCH CHARITY AND CIVIC ON-PREMISES MEANS THAT THE SIGN IS ON THE PREMISES OF THE CHURCH, CHARITY OR CIVIC ORGANIZATION.

I THINK THAT THAT'S CLARIFIED BY THE NEXT STATUTE THAT SAYS CHURCH CHARITY CIVIC OFF-PREMISES, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THE SIGN IS NOT ON THE PREMISES OF THE CHURCH, CHARITY OR CIVIC ORGANIZATION.

SO I'M NOT SEEING ON PREMISES AS ITS OWN CATEGORY.

I'M SEEING IT AS A DESCRIPTION OF WHERE THE SIGN IS.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, THEN I BELIEVE THIS SIGN, AS NICE AS IT IS, AND AS WONDERFUL IT IS THAT THIS GENTLEMAN HAS TAKEN IT UNDER, UH, YOU KNOW, DOING THE RIGHT THING BY THESE DOGS THAT UNFORTUNATELY THAT SIGN DOES NOT FIT ON PREMISES.

AS ON-PREMISES WOULD MEAN ON-PREMISES OF A CHURCH, ON-PREMISES OF A CHARITY OR ON-PREMISES OF A CIVIC ORGANIZATION.

AND I GUESS THOSE ARE MY, MY THOUGHTS ON THIS.

I AGREE.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DISCUSSION? ONE THING I ALWAYS TRY TO LOOK FOR A SOLUTION.

I, IS THERE A REMEDY FROM THE CITY STANDPOINT FOR THIS TO BECOME SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE AND, AND WITHIN THE GUIDELINES THAT ARE ALREADY BEEN DRAWN UP THAT THIS GENTLEMAN CAN CONTINUE HIS MISSION, BUT NOT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE SEE IT HERE? ON THIS PICTURE? I'M LOOKING AT TEMPORARY SIGNS.

[01:00:01]

YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE THE 40.

YEAH, NO.

THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE, IF YOU LOOK IN THE ORDINANCE, UH, WE ARE REALLY SUPPOSED TO IDENTIFY SOMETHING UNIQUE WITH THE PROPERTY OR THE BUILDING, UH, THAT WOULD SAY THAT IT DOESN'T QUITE FIT.

UH, THE EXAMPLE THAT I, I'D GIVE, AND IT MAY HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PUT IN THE ORDINANCE BY NOW, IS THE SIGN ON TOP OF, UH, HEB HOSPITAL.

THAT'S A HUGE SIGN.

IT'S A HUGE SIGN, BUT IT'S 500 FEET AWAY FROM THE EXPRESSWAY AND IT'S ON TOP OF, I KNEW AT ONE TIME, BUT IT'S LIKE SIX STORY BUILDING.

YOU CAN'T SEE IT BECAUSE OF THAT UNIQUE SITUATION.

AND OUR ORDINANCE DOESN'T NECESSARILY INCORPORATE ALL THOSE FACTORS, BUT WE'RE, BUT FOR ANYTHING THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR AN APPEAL, WE NEED TO FIND SOMETHING THAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT IT THAT JUSTIFIES THE APPEAL.

AND I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY UNIQUE THING ABOUT THIS PROPERTY OR ABOUT THIS CONDITION I HAVE.

I HAVE HEARD, YOU KNOW, IT'S A VERY, IT'S HAS VERY GOOD INTENTIONS, BUT IT DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AND THERE'S NOTHING UNIQUE ABOUT THAT HOUSE OR THAT STREET.

UH, AND WE, AND WE REALLY NEED TO FILE THE CODE.

UH, I KNOW, UH, I KNOW WHEN CODE ENFORCEMENT, UH, GOES TO MY SON AND TELLS HIM TO MOVE HIS TRAILER BECAUSE IT'S ON THE GRASS, WE MOVE THE TRAILER WHEN MY WIFE HAS, WELL MY WIFE AND DAUGHTERS HAVE A GARAGE SALE.

WE GO GET A PERMIT AND WE, WE DO WHAT'S UNDER THE ORDINANCE.

AND, AND I THINK WE NEED TO TRY TO FOLLOW THE WHAT'S IN OUR ORDINANCE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S HOW WE LIVE TOGETHER, IS BUY WHAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE.

AND I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY JUSTIFICATION THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE FOR A WAIVER TO THE REQUIREMENTS.

ANYWAY, THAT'S MY FEELINGS ON THAT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSIONS? NO, I, I WOULD JUST AGREE, I WOULD JUST SAY IT'S, IT'S VALID TO CONSIDER SOME OTHER CLASSIFICATION THAT'S PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD APPLY AS LONG AS THE APPEAL COULD PROVE, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICABILITY OF THAT PARTICULAR CATEGORY.

BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT SO WELL, WELL MY CON MY COMMENT IS, IS THAT EVEN IF WE CHOSE TO GIVE IT A CATEGORY THAT WAS ALLOWED, IT'S STILL PAST THE 30 DAYS.

HE'S NOT ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL TIME.

HE HAS, HE ASKS FOR A, A, YOU KNOW, A CATEGORY.

HE'S HAD THE, HE'S HAD, YOU KNOW, THIS SIGN HAS BEEN UP FOR 30 PLUS DAYS, SO IT'S ALREADY BLOWN PAST ANY KIND OF TEMPORARY SIGNAGE.

YES.

SO, UH, I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND YOU'RE RIGHT, I'M NOT ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS YES.

OR ADDITIONAL TIME FOR THIS SIGN.

I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S TIME WOULD BE ELAPSED.

SO WHAT I'M ASKING IS FOR THAT IT DO BE CATEGORIZED THIS WAY SO IT SETS THE PRECEDENT SO THAT I MAY PUT ANOTHER SIGN UP.

I HAVE, IT IS FOR ANOTHER SIGN, MUCH SMALLER SIGN.

UM, PROBABLY IN THE SAME LOCATION, CUZ IT IS A GOOD LOCATION.

IT'S RIGHT ON THE CORNER.

UH, BUT I'M JUST HOPING TO SET A PRECEDENT HERE THAT THIS TYPE OF SIGN CAN BE CATEGORIZED AND ALLOWED UNDER THE ORDINANCE SO THAT I CAN FIND HOMES FOR THESE PUPPIES WITHOUT THE STRESS AND WORRY OF, OF VIOLATING ANY CITY ORDINANCES.

I'M, I, I, THAT'S, I DON'T WANNA DO THAT.

SO THANK YOU.

IS IT, DOES ANYBODY WANNA PROPOSE A, A MOTION OR DO WE WANT MORE DISCUSSION? I, I DON'T NEED ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

UM, I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE DISCUSSION.

WE HAVE A MOTION CLOSED DISCUSSION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

WE HAVE A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR TO CLOSE DISCUSSION.

PLEA SAY AYE.

UH, I THINK AT PASS UNANIMOUSLY.

ANYBODY, UH, OPPOSE.

[01:05:03]

UH, SO NOW WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY, UH, READY TO, UH, PROVIDE A MOTION, MOTION TO VOTE ON THE APPEAL? IS THAT WHAT? YES.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE VOTE ON THE APPEAL.

WELL, OR I THINK LET'S HOW WE, HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE SAY? I THINK WE NEED THE MOTION.

WE NEED TO SAY, UH, I PROPO, I PROPOSE, UH, TO EITHER REJECT OR APPROVE OKAY.

FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.

IT SAYS HERE IF I MAY.

YES.

SO YOU MAKE A MOTION.

UH, SO I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY THE APPEAL.

SECOND, I, ARE WE READY FOR A DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? NO DISCUSSION FROM ME.

UH, OKAY.

ARE WE READY TO VOTE? OKAY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL, SAY AYE.

UH, DOES ANYBODY WANT TO, UH, UH, SAY VOTE NO.

THE MOTION PASSED TO DENY THE APPEAL.

IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT TODAY? I THINK WE DID HAVE ONE AGENDA ITEM HERE.

FIVE.

TO TAKE ANY ACTION NECESSARY AS A RELATIVE AS A RESULT OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY BUSINESS TO CALL MR. MORRISON? THERE WAS NO NEED FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT WAS JUST IN CASE Y'ALL NEEDED TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

SO THAT ITEM'S NOT NEEDED.

SO REALLY THE ONLY LEFT ITEM LEFT IS ADJOURNMENT.

SO WE NEED A ANNOUNCEMENT? UH, NOT, I'M SORRY.

UH, MOTION TO ADJOURN.

MOTION.

WE HAVE A MOTION FROM TOM TO ADJOURN.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF JURY SAY AYE.