>> I, ANDREW GALLETTI, WOULD LIKE TO CALL A VOTING MEETING BOARDROOM TO ORDER. [Zoning Board of Adjustments on March 17, 2021.] [00:00:05] IT IS WEDNESDAY 17TH, AT 4:00 PM. CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? >> BOARD MEMBER BIKOVA? >> HERE. >> BOARD MEMBER CLEMENT? >> PRESENT. >> CHAIRPERSON GALLETTI? >> PRESENT. >> VICE-CHAIRPERSON GIRNDT? >> PRESENT. >> BOARD MEMBER RAILEY? >> PRESENT. >> BOARD MEMBER SLYER? >> HERE. >> BOARD MEMBER WATFORD? >> HERE. >> COUNCILMEMBER BILL QUIROGA HAS NOT JOINED US. I'LL BE SURE AND ANNOUNCE IT IF HE DOES. JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE THE FIVE REGULAR MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE, AND SO THE ALTERNATES WILL BE NON-VOTING PARTICIPANTS TODAY, BUT FEEL FREE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A QUORUM HERE. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON CASES WE HAVE TODAY? SEEING NONE. WE NEED A MOTION FOR CORRECTION OR APPROVAL OF MINUTES. >> SHALL MOVE, CLEMENT. >> ROLL CALL, PLEASE, FOR THE MOTION. >> DID IT RECEIVE A SECOND? I'M SORRY. >> I'M SORRY. >> YES. THIS IS ROBERT GIRNDT, I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> OKAY. BOARD MEMBER BIKOVA? >> YES. >> BOARD MEMBER CLEMENT? >> YES. >> CHAIRPERSON GALLETTI? >> YES. >> VICE-CHAIRPERSON GIRNDT? >> YES. >> BOARD MEMBER RAILEY? >> YES. >> ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES. >> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE FLOOR NOW TO THE PUBLIC FOR ANY AGENDA OR ANY NON-AGENDA ITEMS. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANYBODY HAS FOR THE BOARD? >> NO PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVED. >> OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO NEW CASES. FIRST CASE, PLEASE? >> DANIEL, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? >> YES, I AM. SORRY ABOUT THAT. TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> SURE CAN. >> OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. THIS IS GOING TO BE 21Z-003 4235 LAS PALMAS. IT'S A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 3, DISTRICT YARD, LOT AND SETBACK ADDENDUM FOR R-1 ZONING. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DEFERRAL OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED CASE UNTIL THE APRIL 7TH, 2021 REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING. THIS IS THE FIRST DEFERRAL REQUEST AND THERE ARE NO COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS DEFERRAL. >> ON THE DEFERRAL, WHAT WAS THE DATE THAT THEY WANT TO DEFER THIS TO, THE NEXT MEETING; IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. I BELIEVE IT'S APRIL 7TH. >> OKAY. WOULD SOMEBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT, PLEASE? WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS 21Z-003, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DEFER THIS TO THE APRIL 7TH MEETING AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. I'M SURE SOMETHING HE NEEDS TO GET TOGETHER THERE. I'D LIKE A MOTION THAT WE GOT A DEFERRAL. >> THIS IS ROBERT GIRNDT. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> OKAY. ROLL CALL, PLEASE? >> BOARD MEMBER BIKOVA? >> YES. >> BOARD MEMBER CLEMENT? >> YES. >> CHAIRPERSON GALLETTI? >> YES. >> VICE-CHAIRPERSON GIRNDT? >> YES. >> BOARD MEMBER RAILEY? >> YES. >> ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES. >> THANK YOU. MOVING TO OUR SECOND CASE, PLEASE, DAN. >> SURE. THIS IS 21Z-004 9602 TEICHMAN ROAD. THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST REGARDING LOT DEPTH. THERE WERE 28 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, ONLY ONE RETURNED IN OPPOSITION. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 3, RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY R-1 ADDENDUM, REGARDING LOT DEPTH IN CONJUNCTION WITH A REPLAT. [00:05:02] PROPERTY OWNER WOULD LIKE TO REPLAT ONE LOT INTO TWO. THE PROPOSED LOTS WILL NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT OF 100 FEET IN A RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY R-1 ZONING DISTRICT. PLEASE NOTE THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE ON PAGE 2 OF YOUR STAFF REPORT AND ALSO KNOW THE LAND VOLUME REGULATIONS, VARIANCE FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN PAGE 2, AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION, IT'S NOTED ON PAGE 3 OF YOUR REPORT. I BELIEVE NOW WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. >> NEXT SLIDE, CATHERINE, PLEASE? THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THERE ARE IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT LOT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE? THIS IS THE VIEW TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE? THIS IS THE PROPOSED REPLAT CONFIGURATION. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF SUPPORT. >> I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF REPORT. WHAT IS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR R-1? >> ONE REQUIRES A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 50 FEET BY 100 FEET IN DEPTH. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I DO. THIS IS ALICE WATFORD. >> YES, MA'AM? >> TO DIVIDE THIS LOT, WHAT WOULD THE DIMENSION, WHAT WOULD THEY BE IF THEY WERE DIVIDED? >> FIFTY BY 100. >> OKAY. THANKS >> CERTAINLY. >> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I'M CLEMENT. YOU SAID 50 BY 100. UNLESS I'M LOOKING AT THE WRONG THING, I'M LOOKING AT 50 BY 81. >> IT'S AN IRREGULAR-SHAPED LOT. LET ME PULL IT UP HERE ONE SECOND. IT'S ACTUALLY ON PAGE 2 OF YOUR STAFF REPORT. ONE SECOND HERE. THE SOUTHERN LOT LINE, IT'S ABOUT 65 FEET. THEN ON THE COMMON LOT LINE SECTION, IT'S 71.35. ON THE NORTH PART OF THAT LOT, IT'LL BE ABOUT 56.60 FROM THE REQUIRED 100. >> SO IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE? >> NO. >> ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT IN THE ROOM? >> THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SIGNED IN. >> DO WE THINK THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO SIGN IN RIGHT NOW OR WE'LL GO AHEAD? WE'LL HAVE TO CONTINUE FORWARD WITH THIS. >> I HAD CONTACTED THEM THIS AFTERNOON THAT THEY INTENDED TO, BUT I DON'T SEE THEM ON THE LINE AND THEY'RE NOT IN THE WAITING ROOM. >> OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU. >> ANDREW, I HAVE A QUESTION. >> YES, SIR. >> I'M LOOKING AT THIS LAST SLIDE THAT CATHERINE HAD BRIEFLY PUT UP, AND I GUESS I'M CONFUSED. RIGHT NOW, WITHOUT BEING DIVIDED, THAT LOT IS 65 FEET WIDE AT ITS WIDEST POINT AND IT DOES GO TO 60 AT ITS NARROWEST, BUT IT'S ALSO 176 FEET DEEP. SO THEY'RE ASKING TO DIVIDE THIS. THEN I STATE THE DIMENSIONS OF 71 FEET FOR ONE LOT BY 81 FEET AND THEN THE OTHER LOT WILL BE 65 BY 81. AM I LOOKING AT THIS WRONG? >> NO, I BELIEVE YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT CORRECTLY. APPROXIMATELY, THE WIDTH OF LOT A WOULD BE [OVERLAPPING] [00:10:03] 86.59 BY 71 ON THAT CENTER PORTION. AGAIN, IT'S AN IRREGULAR-SHAPED LOT, SO IT VARIES. THEN WHAT'S LABELED LOT B WOULD BE THE 89 IN WIDTH BY THE 65, ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION THERE. ON THAT COMMON LOT LINE, YOU HAVE 71.35. >> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT I WAS LOOKING AT. THANK YOU. >> OF COURSE. >> IN THE R1 DISTRICT ZONING, [NOISE] WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THERE, WE'RE LOOKING AT TWO LOTS THAT NEITHER ONE WILL CONFORM TO THAT, CORRECT? >> WELL, THEY DON'T CONFORM IN TERMS OF DEPTH, THEY DO CONFORM IN TERMS OF LOT AREA, WHICH IS 5,000. >> CORRECT. >> THEY DO CONFORM IN TERMS OF LOT WIDTH, WHICH IS 50. ONLY EXCEPTION WOULD BE THE DEPTH, WHICH THERE IS A REQUIREMENT OF 100 FEET AND THEY'RE ONLY PROPOSING WHAT WE JUST EXPLAINED AT THE VARIOUS PORTIONS OF THAT LOT, VARIOUS ELEVATION, I GUESS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL, THEN I'D LIKE TO RETURN IT TO [OVERLAPPING]. GO AHEAD. >> ANDREW? >> YES, SIR. >> THERE WAS ONE PUBLIC COMMENT POSED AND I DON'T BELIEVE WE HEARD THE COMMENTS FROM THAT. >> NO COMMENT PROVIDED. MR. CLEMENT, NO COMMENT WAS PROVIDED, JUST TO FINISH THE POST. >> THANK YOU. >> I'LL GO AHEAD. THIS IS SUSAN SLYER, AND JUST RISK LOOKING LIKE AN IDIOT. I WAS LOOKING AT PUZZLED ROBERT. PERHAPS IT LOOKED AS IF THE BOTTOM OF THE LOT WITH LABELED AS BEING 65 FEET, AND THEN AS IT NARROWED, IT WAS LABELED AS BEING 70-SOMETHING. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAW, ROBERT? NO? >> NO, NOT REALLY. >> FINE. WELL, THEN I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. >> THAT MAY JUST BE A FUNCTION OF THE WAY THAT THAT IS DISPLAYING. I'M GOING TO PULL UP THE STAFF REPORT AND WE'LL LOOK AT A DIFFERENT VIEW. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, ABOUT HOW IT NARROWS, BUT THE MEASUREMENT IS WIDER. SO LET ME GET A DIFFERENT EXHIBIT THAT WE CAN LOOK AT. WELL, THIS ONE I THINK SHOWS THE SAME CONDITION. THIS IS 65, NOTED HERE, BUT DOES SEEM TO BE LONGER THAN THE 71 THAT'S NOTED HERE. ADRIEL, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? >> NO. I SEE THE OBSERVATION. THIS IS WHAT DOCUMENTS WE RECEIVED FROM THE SURVEYOR. IT'S WORTH ALSO NOTING THAT TEICHMAN WROTE THEY ARE CIRCLES AROUND AS WELL. >> [NOISE] THANK YOU. IF NOBODY ELSE HAS ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND RETURN IT TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION AND DISCUSSION. SEEMS LIKE WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED [LAUGHTER] A LOT OF IT. I'LL GO FROM THERE. >> CATHERINE, IF I MAY BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN TALKS. I'D HEARD THAT THE APPLICANT HAD EXPRESSED INTEREST TO BEING PRESENT DURING THIS HEARING; IS THAT CORRECT? >> YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. I HAD CONFIRMATION FROM THEM THIS AFTERNOON THAT THEY WOULD BE ATTENDING. >> IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN, WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS A DENIAL? I'M GOING TO PUT IT THIS WAY, HOW LONG WOULD AN APPLICANT HAVE TO WAIT IF THEY WANTED [00:15:02] TO ASK FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF ANY TYPE OF DECISION, BUT A RECONSIDERATION? >> IF THE CASE IS DENIED BY A COMMISSION, A SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR CASE CANNOT BE SUBMITTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS SINCE THE DATE OF THE DENIAL. >> IF YOU CAN JUST ANSWER ME AGAIN, WAS THEIR INTENTION TO BE PRESENT AT THIS HEARING IN WRITING? >> YES. OUR COMMUNICATION IS BY EMAIL. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> WHAT'S THE DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING? [NOISE] >> THE NEXT MEETING IS APRIL 7TH. >> OKAY. DUE TO THE EXPRESSED DESIRE OF THE APPLICANT TO BE PRESENT, I MOVE THAT WE DEFER THIS CASE TO THE APRIL 7TH MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. >> I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> OKAY. CAN WE ROLL CALL ON THAT MOTION PLEASE? >> BOARD MEMBER BIKOVA? I'M SORRY. >> YES. >> THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBER CLEMENT? >> YES. >> CHAIRPERSON GALLETTI? >> YES. >> VICE-CHAIRPERSON GIRNDT? >> YES. >> BOARD MEMBER RAILEY? >> YES. >> ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES. >> I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL AND THANK OUR GUEST THAT'S HERE TODAY TOO, PLEASE, AND THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, AND LOOK FORWARD TO OUR NEXT MEETING, WHETHER IT'S ZOOM OR IN-PERSON. IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS MEETING. WELL, I'M SURE GALVESTON'S A SMALL TOWN, AND I'LL SEE EVERYBODY ONCE OR TWICE BEFORE NEXT MONTH. [LAUGHTER] * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.