49:44The nightclub application, which sought a variance for proximity to schools and religious institutions, sparked debate during the meeting. Staff recommended denial, highlighting that the application failed to meet four of the six criteria necessary for approval. Concerns were raised about noise, traffic congestion, parking shortages, and potential nuisances from alcohol consumption that could undermine the neighborhood’s character. Mora Bernard, representing the applicant, argued that the nightclub met all conditions for approval and emphasized that temporary special event permits had not resulted in noise or loitering issues, citing soundproofing measures in place.

Public opposition was vocal and unanimous. Residents like Virginia Gilmore and Veronica Gusman recounted past disturbances linked to similar establishments, emphasizing noise and safety issues. Gilmore, a resident for over 40 years, expressed a preference for a quieter establishment, while Gusman highlighted the proximity to an established church and concerns over future disturbances. Gin Souvenir shared personal experiences of property damage and noise affecting her family’s quality of life, urging for a business that would respect the residential environment.

Board members aligned with the residents’ concerns, with one member calling the proposed hours of operation “preposterous” and another emphasizing the importance of balancing business development with residents’ rights to peaceful enjoyment of their homes.

0:00In another significant agenda item, the board deliberated on a variance application for an existing accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on Northwest 136th Street that was built without permits. The structure, primarily used for storage, required a variance due to its non-conforming status. Staff recommended denial, as the application did not meet four of the six criteria for approval. They noted that legalizing the structure without adherence to zoning codes could set a precedent for bypassing regulations.

19:19The applicant’s representative argued that the ADU was necessary to accommodate the family’s need for additional space, given the small size of the existing home. They presented support from 15 neighboring property owners and clarified that the structure was not intended for immediate residential use. Some board members expressed concern over classifying the structure as an ADU. They debated the potential implications of approving the variance, with considerations for future occupancy conditions.

33:12Ultimately, a motion to approve the variance with conditions — including that future occupants must be related to the owner — was passed with a 5 to 1 vote.