[00:00:02]
ANDREW GALLETTI, CALLING ZONING BOARD MEETING TO ORDER, AND IT IS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7TH.[Zoning Board of Adjustments on April 7, 2021.]
AND CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE BOARD MEMBER [INAUDIBLE].HERE. BOARD MEMBER CLEMENT? HERE. CHAIRPERSON GALLETTI? HERE.
VICE CHAIRPERSON GIRNDT? HERE. BOARD MEMBER RALEY? HERE. BOARD MEMBER THEILER? HERE. BOARD MEMBER WATFORD HAS NOT JOINED US, I'LL MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT IF SHE DOES COUNCIL MEMBER BILL QUIROGA? PRESENT. FOR MYSELF.
CATHERINE GORMAN, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER DONNA FAIRWEATHER, ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY, ADRIEL MONTALVAN, PLANNING MANAGER.
AND DUSTIN HENRY, COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER.
I NEED A, DOES ANYBODY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON OUR CASES TODAY? OK, SEEING NONE.
WE NEED A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
YES, SIR? ROBERT? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
THANK YOU. AND I, ANDREW GALLETTI, WOULD LIKE TO SECOND IT.
AND COULD WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE, BOARD MEMBER [INAUDIBLE]? YES. BOARD MEMBER CLEMENT? YES. CHAIRPERSON GALETTI? YES.
AND JUST A NOTE FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE ALL FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT, SO THE ALTERNATES WILL NOT BE VOTING, BUT THEY'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO PARTICIPATE.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE FLOOR NOW TO THE PUBLIC FOR ANY NON AGENDA ITEMS, I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE SOMEBODY.
WE HAD PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED FOR CASE NUMBER 21Z003 AND I'LL READ THAT INTO THE RECORD.
IT WAS FROM GRAND PEACOCK 4221 LAS PALMAS.
AND THE COMMENT IS, MY WIFE AND I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS AND WE ARE OPPOSED TO A REQUEST TO BUILD OVER THE CURRENTLY ESTABLISHED FRONT YARD BUILD LINES FOR 4235 LAS PALMAS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS DESIGNED SO THAT THE ROADWAY IS THE PATHWAY FOR VIEW TO THE OCEAN AND ENCROACHMENT OVER THE CURRENTLY ESTABLISHED FRONT YARD SET BACK WILL DISRUPT THE VIEWS OF ALL PROPERTIES ON LAS PALMAS WITHIN THE FIRST BLOCK.
WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS NEW CONSTRUCTION, BUT DOING SO WITHIN THE CURRENTLY ESTABLISHED SET BACK.
OK. AND THAT'S THE ONLY ONE WE HAVE? YES. OK, WELL, THANK YOU.
NOW THE FLOOR IS OPEN IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS US.
SOMEBODY FROM THE PUBLIC OUT THERE.
BOARD, IF SOME OF Y'ALL WOULD PUT YOUR VIDEO ON SO AT LEAST IF YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, I WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE YOU. SO FAR, I'VE ONLY GOT THREE OTHER PEOPLE.
OK, NOBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THERE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE FIRST CASE, SO OLD BUSINESS, PLEASE.
STAFF? FIRST ONE? THIS IS 21Z003.
IT'S 4235 LAS PALMAS IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. ARTICLE THREE, DISTRICT YARD AND SET BACK ADDENDUM TO THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY R1 ZONING DISTRICT TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SET BACK.
PUBLIC NOTICES SENT WERE TWENTY FIVE, WHERE FIVE WERE RETURNED FOUR IN OPPOSITION AND ONE NO COMMENT. NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS.
IN SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE THREE ADDENDUM IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT SET BACK, FACING LAS PALMAS STREET FROM 20 FEET TO 10 FEET IN ORDER TO HAVE MORE BUILDABLE AREA.
THE LOT IS APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET WIDE AND 80 FEET DEEP, WITH DUNE SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED BUFFER REQUIRING APPROXIMATELY 70 TO 75 FEET OF WIDTH.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIRED 20 FEET TO 10 FEET.
PLEASE NOTE THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION IN YOUR STAFF REPORTS.
AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS JUST A MINUTE.
[00:05:18]
STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD THERE? I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH THE POWERPOINT, WE MIGHT GO TO THE APPLICANT AND WE CAN RETURN FOR THE PHOTOS.WELL, THEN IF THE APPLICANTS HERE, WOULD THEY COME UP, PLEASE? STATE YOUR NAME AND.
HI, THIS IS BENDEL RUSHING, I'M THE HOMEOWNER, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, SIR, WE CAN.
OK, BEFORE I START, I HAD TALKED TO CATHERINE THAT AND SHE STATED THAT THERE WERE FIVE OF THE 25 NOTICES RETURNED AND NONE IN FAVOR.
WELL, THERE WERE ACTUALLY TWO RETURNED THAT I KNOW, ONE OF WHICH IS MINE, BECAUSE I OWN ONE OF THE PROPERTIES WHERE THE NOTICE WAS SET.
AND I OBVIOUSLY STATED I WAS IN FAVOR OF IT.
THE OTHER IS MY BROTHER AND I KNOW THAT.
AND HE RETURNED HIS IT WAS SENT TO DANIEL.
I UNDERSTAND DANIEL'S BEEN OUT OF THE OFFICE, SO THERE ACTUALLY WOULD'VE BEEN SEVEN RETURN TWO IN FAVOR, FOUR OPPOSED AND ONE NO COMMENT.
BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BETTER BACKGROUND HERE, MY FAMILY OWNED THIS LOT SINCE 1977. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE AERIAL PHOTO, IT'S A CORNER LOT ON LAS PALMAS.
LAS PALMAS USED TO COME DOWN TO THE SOUTH, TURN TO THE EAST AND JOIN THE VISTA THERE.
CREATING TWO CORNER LOTS THERE AND IT'S THE WESTERN CORNER LOT.
SO I HAD A 20 FOOT, YOU KNOW, I NOW HAVE A 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE ON BOTH THE SOUTH AND THE WEST ENDS OF THIS.
AND AFTER HURRICANE IKE, OBVIOUSLY ALL OF THE SAND WAS MOVED FROM THE DUNE STRUCTURE NORTH WHEN ALL OF THAT SAND WAS ULTIMATELY RETURNED AND THEY CREATED THE DUNE SYSTEM.
THE SAND ON LAS PALMAS THERE ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
SO IT WOULD NEVER JOIN THOSE TWO STREETS AGAIN.
AND IN DOING SO, THEY HAD TO DUMP SAND ON OUR LOT.
AT THE TIME, WE HAD MORE IMPORTANT PROBLEMS AND DIDN'T EVEN DIDN'T THINK IT WAS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE. AND OBVIOUSLY IT HAS BECOME AN ISSUE BECAUSE NOW WITH THE BUILDING RESTRICTION OF THE BUILDING LINES AND THE RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE OF THE SAND , APPROXIMATELY 65 PERCENT OF THE LOT IS ENCUMBERED IN SOME WAY, EITHER BY THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE OR BY THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
SO OUR ORIGINAL PLANS WERE TO PUT A HOME ON THAT LOT ON THE EAST SIDE FACING TO THE SOUTHWEST SO THAT IT DOESN'T OBSTRUCT THE VIEWS TO THE THE THE HOUSE JUST TO THE NORTH.
BUT AND OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE NOW.
IN DOING SO, WE WERE GOING TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SOUTH BECAUSE THE HOUSE DUE EAST HAS A 15 FOOT VARIANCE TOWARDS WHAT USED TO BE LAS PALMAS.
SO IN TRYING TO DESIGN A HOME THAT WILL WORK ON THAT LOT, I OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO USE THE WEST SIDE OF THE LOT NOW.
AND BECAUSE OF THE OFFSET FROM THE NORTH TOW OF THE DUNES, I NEEDED ENOUGH SPACE UNDER THE HOME TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AT LEAST A GARAGE, AN ENTRYWAY STAIRCASE AND AN OUTSIDE SHOWER.
IN MOVING THE HOME 10 FEET FURTHER TO THE WEST, ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE.
IT ALLOWS ME TO PUT ABOUT 50 PERCENT OF A PAVEMENT UNDER THE FOOTPRINT OF THE STRUCTURE.
SO 50 PERCENT OF IT I WON'T HAVE IF I CAN'T GET THIS VARIANCE THAT DROPS TO UNDER 40 PERCENT. AND I'VE DRASTICALLY I WON'T I ESSENTIALLY WON'T HAVE A GARAGE.
SO THE HOUSE TO MY EAST LIKE I SAID, IT HAS ALMOST A 15 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE SOUTH AND
[00:10:07]
ALMOST, YOU KNOW, AND ALMOST IS ON THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE SMALL SLIVER THERE TO THE EAST, THE HOUSE DIRECTLY NORTH.OF THIS PROPERTY IS BUILT 12 FEET FROM THE BUILDING LINE.
THE HOUSE THAT'S THREE HOUSES NORTH IS 10 FEET FROM THE BUILDING LINE.
THE FIFTH HOUSE, MY BEST GUESS IS IT'S SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 12 AND 15 FEET FROM THE BUILDING LINE. BUT I CAN'T TELL UNLESS I WENT DOWN THERE WHEN THEIR YARD AND MEASURED.
I WAS ABLE TO MEASURE THE OTHER TWO YARDS, BUT I COULDN'T MEASURE THIS ONE.
IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE AERIAL PHOTOS THAT I HAVE, THE HOMES THAT ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, THE MAJORITY OF THOSE HOMES AREN'T BUILT 20 FEET FROM THE BUILDING LINE. ONE OF THE ADDED BENEFITS IS THAT I'LL HAVE TO PUT DOWN ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY SQUARE FEET LESS OF DRIVEWAY AND STILL BE 30 TO 35 FEET FROM THE STREET.
SO THERE'S BASICALLY NO IMPACT.
I HEARD ABOUT THE NEGATIVE RESPONSE FROM 4221.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL PICTURE THERE IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE LINE THAT'S DRAWN THERE, THE WEST LINE, THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT THE BUILDING LINE.
IT'S NOT ACTUALLY OVERLAID CORRECTLY.
AND YOU CAN FIGURE THAT OUT BECAUSE OF WHERE IT SITS RELATIVE TO THE STREET.
BUT THAT'S APPROXIMATELY WHERE THE WEST SIDE OF THE HOME WOULD BE BUILT, BECAUSE I ESTIMATE THAT THAT'S PROBABLY ABOUT 10 FEET FROM THE ACTUAL BUILDING LINE.
AND LIKE I SAID, THOSE HOUSES DUE NORTH OF THERE, THEY ALREADY HAVE VARIANCES.
JUST TODAY I WAS DRIVING DOWN LAS PALMAS AND I COUNTED NO LESS THAN A DOZEN HOMES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THEY HAVE WELL LESS THAN 20 FEET OF DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE STRUCTURE ITSELF.
SO, YOU KNOW, IN ALLOWING IT, IT'LL ALLOW ME TO BUILD AND THE HOME WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AND WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN PALM BEACH.
THE MAJORITY OF HOMES WERE BUILT IN THE 60S AND 70S, WELL BEFORE THEY HAD TO DEAL WITH THIS. SO I NOW KNOW THAT THERE AND I KNEW THERE WERE NEIGHBORS THAT WERE GOING TO BE OPPOSED TO THIS BECAUSE I'VE HAD NEIGHBORS TELL ME FLAT OUT THEY DON'T WANT ME BUILDING AT ALL AND THEY'RE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT I DON'T BUILD, WHICH IS PRETTY NEIGHBORLY.
SO I DO FIND IT KIND OF HYPOCRITICAL FOR PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT TO GIVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENJOY THE SAME BENEFIT THAT THEY'VE HAD OF USING MORE OF THEIR LAND.
IN MY CASE, IT'S NOT REALLY A LUXURY.
IT'S ALMOST A NECESSITY IN ORDER TO BUILD BECAUSE OF THE SAND THAT WAS PUT ON THERE.
IT'S NOT A NATURAL OCCURRING DUNE.
IT WAS A MANMADE CREATED DUNE THAT I CAN'T MOVE NOW.
SO THE TWO HOUSES THAT DIRECTLY ABOVE THIS LOT, BOTH OF THEM ENJOY THAT BENEFIT AND BEING GRANTED, THIS WILL AT LEAST ALLOW ME TO BUILD A HOME WITH SOME PAVED AREA FOR THOSE THINGS THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
OK, DOES THE STAFF HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE OWNER OR POSITION? COMMISSIONERS WOULD BE ABLE TO QUESTION THE APPLICANT, NOT STAFF.
BUT I DO BELIEVE WE'RE WAITING TO SEE IF STAFF HAD THEIR STAFF REPORT, A VISUAL.
OK, CATHERINE, DO YOU HAVE THAT? IS IT IS AVAILABLE? THERE YOU GO.
YEAH, I SUBMITTED A NUMBER OF PICTURES AND SOME AERIAL PICTURES AS WELL SHOWING SOME OF THIS. THESE ARE STAFF PHOTOS.
THIS IS THE AN AERIAL PHOTO OF THE SITE.
THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
TO THE WEST AND TO THE SOUTH AND THAT, OH, I'M SORRY, HERE IS A PICTURE OF THE SURVEY.
SO I PLAN PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.
AND ANOTHER VIEW OF THE SITE PLAN.
AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
BRINGING IT BACK TO THE BOARD IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
I GUESS THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS SO THIS IS BASICALLY THE NATURAL OCCURRENCE
[00:15:04]
[INAUDIBLE] THIS DUNE, IT'S ENCROACHED ON YOUR PROPERTY.IS THAT WHERE I'M SEEING THAT.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES. YES, SIR. BUT IT'S NOT A NATURALLY OCCURRING DUNE.
I MEAN, THE SAND WAS PUT ON THERE.
IT WAS DUMPED ON THERE AFTER HURRICANE IKE.
THEY DUMPED SAND ON WHAT USED TO BE LAS PALMAS WHERE IT CONNECTED LAS PALMAS WITH [INAUDIBLE]. THEY DUMPED SAND THERE, BUT THEY ALSO DUMPED IT ON THIS LOT.
AND SO IF YOU IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT IF YOU LOOKED AT A BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF THE DUNE LINE THAT COMES DOWN THE BEACH, IT TAKES A BIG JOG TO GO UP INTO THIS LOT AND THEN DOWN.
AND SO IT'S NOT A NATURALLY OCCURRING DUNE, BUT NEVERTHELESS, IT'S A DUNE THAT I NOW REALIZE THAT I CAN'T MOVE.
OK. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? ANGELA, COULD YOU HAVE THEM PUT UP THAT MAP AGAIN? CAN HE EXPLAIN WHERE THE SAND WAS DUMPED? YES, PLEASE, CATHERINE, IF YOU CAN PULL THAT ONE UP? OK, HERE'S THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, THE APPLICANT'S PARTICIPATE BY PHONE AND THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISPLAYING.
I'M SORRY, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO VISUALIZE WHERE THE SAND WAS DUMPED.
IT'S DUMPED ON THE SOUTH, THE SOUTH PORTION OF THIS LOT ALL ALONG.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THAT OVERVIEW WHERE LAS PALMAS THE STREET WAS.
WHEN THEY CAME BACK AND PUT SAND ON THERE, THEY ALSO PUT SAND.
THEY ALSO PUT SAND ON THE SOUTHERN END OF THAT LOT.
AND THAT PICTURE THAT YOU HAVE, LIKE I WAS SAYING, WHERE THAT WEST LINE, IF YOU LOOK THAT OVERLAY THERE IS INACCURATE.
IT SHOULD BE ABOUT 10 FEET, PROBABLY FURTHER TO THE WEST.
THAT LINE IS ABOUT WHERE THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE BUILT IF I WAS ALLOWED A 10 FOOT VARIANCE BECAUSE THAT THE STRUCTURE TO THE NORTH THERE IS 12 FEET FROM THE BUILDING ON.
WELL, I DO HAVE A QUESTION, IF IT'S IF THIS IS MANMADE AND IT'S DUMPED THERE, DO THEY REALLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY YOU CAN'T BUILD THERE AND MOVE THE SAND OFF THE PROPERTY? IT'S JUST LIKE AN EXAMPLE, LIKE ENGLISH[INAUDIBLE] THAT IS AS MANMADE.
A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT OWN PROPERTY ALONG THE SHORELINE, THEIR OWN PART OF THE WATER. SO MY QUESTION IS BECAUSE IT'S MAN MADE.
SHOULD HE BE [INAUDIBLE]? I WAS.
OH, I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS DIRECTED AT ME, BUT I WAS GOING TO SAY, SIR, I AGREE WITH YOU 100 PERCENT. IF I COULD HIRE YOU TO MAKE IT HAPPEN, I WOULD.
I ACTUALLY IN 2019, I FOUND MYSELF IN HOT WATER WITH MY NEIGHBORS AND WITH EVERYBODY IN GALVESTON, IT APPEARS, BECAUSE I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT I COULDN'T MOVE THAT SAND.
AND I ACTUALLY STARTED MOVING IT TO THE SOUTH TO GET IT OFF OF THERE, THINKING THIS IS MY PROPERTY, THIS ISN'T NATURALLY OCCURRING.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE I AM TODAY.
I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS NOW.
AND IF I MAY JUST ADD TO THAT, THERE ARE DEFINITELY REGULATIONS REGARDING REMOVAL OF DUNES THAT ARE EITHER NATURALLY OCCURRING OR MANMADE.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF DUSTIN HENRY CAN ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF HE HAS ANY PART OF THIS CASE.
BUT THE ZBA REALLY THEIR PURVIEW IS TO LOOK AT WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED AND MAKE A MOTION BASED ON WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED.
BUT I WILL SAY THAT THERE ARE DEFINITELY REGULATIONS REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF DUNES, WHETHER THEY ARE MANMADE OR WHETHER THEY ARE NATURALLY OCCURRING.
AGAIN, IF DUSTIN HENRY CAN PIPE IN ON THIS HAS ANY MORE SPECIFICS REGARDING THIS AREA.
DONNA, CAN YOU SEND ME THE STATUE ON THAT? I'M SURE OUR COASTAL RESOURCE FOLKS WILL BE ABLE TO SEND THAT TO YOU FORTHWITH.
OK, YES, SIR, AND THAT'S WHAT DROVE THE DESIGN OF THIS HOME WAS ALL OF THE SAND AND ALL OF THE RESTRICTIONS BASED ON THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE SAND AND THE DUNES AND THE
[00:20:01]
OFFSETS THAT YOU NEED THE 25 FEET FROM THE NORTH TOW TO BE ABLE TO PUT ANY SORT OF PAVEMENT UNDERNEATH IT.FIVE [INAUDIBLE]. THAT'S THE REASON, YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHAT I HAVE DESIGNED, ONLY ABOUT 50 PERCENT OF THE STRUCTURE IS GOING TO HAVE ANYTHING UNDERNEATH IT BECAUSE OF THAT.
GO AHEAD. THE QUESTION IS, I UNDERSTAND ABOUT PLACING SAND AND SO ON, SO FORTH, BUT AS LONG AS YOU CAN MOVE THAT SAND, IF IT'S ON THE BEACH, YOU CAN MOVE IT ANYWHERE.
I USED TO WORK FOR THE COUNTY.
WE HAD THIS OVER CRYSTAL BEACH, THIS CAME UP.
BUT THEN AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S BEEN A WHILE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE ORDINANCE HAS CHANGED, LAWS HAVE CHANGED, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING TO LOOK AT.
WELL, I KNOW THAT IN DEALING WITH YOU KNOW, I'VE DISCUSSED IT WITH DUSTIN, I'VE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED A BUILDING APPLICATION FOR, YOU KNOW, DUNE CONSTRUCTION, YOU KNOW, DUNE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE THE THE DUNE AREA.
AND BECAUSE OF ME MOVING SAND ON MY LOT IN JULY OF 2019, I ACTUALLY HAD TO COME UP WITH A MITIGATION PLAN TO MITIGATE THE VEGETATION DAMAGE ON MY LOT THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ABIDE BY AS WELL.
SO I BELIEVE THAT THERE PROBABLY ARE REGULATIONS NOW THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE EXISTED THEN.
AND I'M JUST TRYING TO COMPLY AND DEAL WITH WHAT PEOPLE ARE TELLING ME IS, YOU KNOW, ARE THE RESTRICTIONS THAT I HAVE TO LIVE WITH.
OK, MR. CLEMENT, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING, A QUESTION OF APPLICANT? YEAH, I HEARD THE APPLICANT SAY THAT REALLY THE THE REQUEST FOR THIS VARIANCE WAS TO ALLOW HIM TO POUR CONCRETE UNDER THE BUILDING.
IS THAT CORRECT? IT WON'T [INAUDIBLE] WITH THE BUILDING ITSELF.
NO, IT WOULD BE FIBER CRETE, BECAUSE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, AS IT SITS, AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT, ROUGHLY 50 PERCENT OF THE STRUCTURE WILL HAVE NOTHING UNDER IT EXCEPT SAND.
AND SO IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A, YOU KNOW, A GARAGE, AN ENTRANCE WITH A STAIRCASE UNDERNEATH AND AND AN OUTSIDE SHOWER, THAT'S SORT OF THE MINIMUM, YOU KNOW, THAT WE NEEDED. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LINES MOVING IT TO THE WEST, THERE'S A BIG JOG THERE THAT CUTS OUT A HUGE PART OF IT.
IF I DIDN'T IF I WASN'T ABLE TO MOVE IT TO THE WEST.
AND LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW, THE BOTH PROPERTIES THAT ABUT THIS ONE OF THEM HAS, YOU KNOW, IT WAS BUILT FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE OTHER ONE'S BUILT EIGHT FEET ARE 12 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO TO BE SURE, I UNDERSTAND YOU, THE LOT AS IT'S ZONED NOW WOULD BE BUILDABLE, YOU JUST WOULDN'T HAVE AS MUCH COVERED GROUND UNDERNEATH IT AND WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS MOVE THE BUILDING TO THE WEST SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE MORE SLAB OF WHATEVER MATERIAL UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. ESSENTIALLY, ESSENTIALLY.
NOT NEARLY WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, BUT IN ORDER TO HAVE SORT OF THOSE BASIC THINGS, I MEAN, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE SAND AND THE THE NARROWNESS OF THE EASTERN PART OF THAT LOT AND HOW HOW ALL OF THOSE THOSE RESTRICTIONS IMPACTED.
ANYTHING ELSE, MR. CLEMENT? NO. OK, SO YOU'RE TELLING, ONE QUESTION I HAD TO ASK IS SO YOU'RE SAYING UNDER YOUR OWN HOUSE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD UP TOP? YOU CANNOT PARK UNDER IT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PUT SOME TYPE OF A SLAB OR DRIVEWAY WALKWAY UNDER.
IT'LL JUST BE SAND, I CAN'T HAVE ANY SORT OF I CAN'T HAVE ANY SORT OF.
YOU KNOW, HARDENED MATERIAL, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH RIGHT RIGHT NEXT NEXT TO IT, THERE'S HUGE DRIVEWAYS.
BUT NO, IT WOULD BE DEPENDING ON PART OF IT IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT.
ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
[00:25:04]
OK, AND I'D LIKE TO MOVE IT BACK TO THE BOARD.FOR A MOTION AND DISCUSSION HERE, PLEASE.
OK. IF NOBODY WANTS TO JUMP OUT THERE, WELL, I'LL MOVE AT THIS POINT TO APPROVE IT BECAUSE OF THE TRAPEZOID SHAPE OF THE LOT AND THE WAY IT FACES THAT ONE STREETS ENDING.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE HE'S FAIRLY HAMPERED AND HE DID NOT CAUSE THE FACT HE CAN'T PARK UNDER HIS HOUSE. ANYWAY, THAT'S THAT'S MY REASONS FOR THAT.
IT'S. THIS IS BARBARA, I'LL SECOND THE MOTION FOR THE REASONS THAT WERE JUST STATED.
OK, I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT FOR THE DISCUSSION NOW.
ON THIS. YES, SIR, MR. ROBERT? YES, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM DUSTIN HENRY.
I BELIEVE HE'S A MEMBER OF STAFF.
WHAT IS THE COASTAL RESOURCES OFFICER? I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION, BUT.
WHAT IS THIS DO? HI THERE, DUSTIN HENRY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
I KNOW A FEW OF YOU FOLKS, BUT FOR THOSE OF YOU HAVE NOT MET.
NICE TO MEET YOU. I'M NOT SURE IF YOU DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT TO ANSWER, BUT I'M JUST HERE TO BE A RESOURCE TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN CASE THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DUNE PROTECTION OR BEACH ACCESS PLAN.
OK. ANYBODY ELSE, COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS, DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND.
BOARD MEMBER [INAUDIBLE]? I'M SORRY, I THINK YOU MAY BE MUTED.
I DON'T THINK I AM. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, YES.
YES. SO YOU WERE IN FAVOR? YES. OK. BOARD MEMBER CLEMENT? NO. CHAIRPERSON GALLETTI? YES.
VICE CHAIRPERSON GIRNDT? OPPOSED. BOARD MEMBER RALEY? APPROVE. THAT MOTION DID NOT RECEIVE FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES AND DOES NOT PASS.
I THANK YOU AND THANK YOU, SIR, FOR COMING IN.
OK, MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT CASE, PLEASE, ON OLD BUSINESS.
THIS IS 21Z-004 , 9602 TEICHMAN ROAD.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE THREE, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY R1 ADDENDUM REGARDING LOT DEPTH TO CONDUCT CONJUNCTION WITH A REPLAT.
AT THE MARCH 17, 2021 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING.
THIS REQUEST WAS DEFERRED UNTIL TODAY.
IT WAS DEFERRED TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO BE PRESENT AT THE MEETING.
YOU SEE ATTACHMENTS FOR THE STAFF REPORT AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS.
THERE WERE 28 PUBLIC NOTICE SENT AND ONLY ONE RETURNED IN OPPOSITION.
AND THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE THREE, AS I STATED . THE PROPOSED LOTS WOULD NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LOCKED UP REQUIREMENT OF ONE HUNDRED FEET IN A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY R1 ZONING DISTRICT.
OK. PLEASE NOTE THE APPLICANT JUSTIFICATION OF PAGE TWO OF THE REPORT.
[00:30:02]
HI, CAN YOU HEAR ME? THIS IS [INAUDIBLE] WITH TRICON.YES, MA'AM ARE YOU THE APPLICANT? LINDSAY CAN? HOLD ON, PLEASE. GO AHEAD, STAFF.
AND I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.
CATHERINE, COULD YOU PLEASE PUT UP THE PHOTOS, PLEASE? I CAN.
SO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST.
NEXT SLIDE, CATHERINE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE PROPOSED REPLAT THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT, OK, DOES ANYBODY GOT QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OK. SEEING NONE.
THERE IS THE APPLICANT IN HOUSE THIS TIME.
YES. YES, HI, THIS IS LINDSAY WITH TRICON, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN.
OK, I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR IF YOU NEED ME TO, I CAN BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THE REASON THE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED.
OK, ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? OK, YES, SIR. MR. VICE CHAIR? GO AHEAD, ROBERT.
LOOK, I WOULD LIKE DIDN'T SHE SAY THAT SHE WOULD EITHER AFTER ANY QUESTIONS OR GIVE US A BRIEF SYNOPSIS? I'D LIKE TO HEAR THT.
OK, SO I'M REPRESENTING THEIR CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS, PATRICK AND TRANH, AND THEY ARE CURRENTLY OWN THE LOT.
AND THEIR HOPE IS TO RECEIVE A VARIANCE FROM THE CITY SO THAT THEY CAN REPLAT IT INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS AND THEN THEY'D LIKE TO, IN TURN, SELL THOSE LOTS TO THE TWO ADJOINING NEIGHBORS TO THE WEST.
SO A LOT A WOULD BE SOLD TO THE NEIGHBOR, CHRISTOPHER AND STEPHANIE WALTMAN AND LOT B WOULD BE SOLD TO GRANT AND SARA SHALLENBERGER.
OK. ANYBODY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OK, HEARING NONE OR SEEING NONE.
I'D LIKE TO GO. GO AHEAD, WILLIAM.
DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING? MS. CLINTON? OK. ALL RIGHT.
WELL, THEN I'D LIKE TO RETURN IT TO THE TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION.
YES, SIR, MR. CLEMENT? I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE DENY IT BASED BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR EFFECT AND THAT IT WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF INCREASING THEIR DENSITY AND WOULD JUST DEVIATE FROM THE WAY THE LOT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. I'M ALSO, SO THAT WOULD BE THE MOTION WOULD BE TO DENY BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE.
I DON'T BELIEVE THE LOT SIZE QUALIFIES FOR THE LOT SHAPE, QUALIFIES FOR A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.
OK, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION NOW IF I COULD JUST DISCUSS MY MOTION AND MY CONCERN IS THAT ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE CREATING SMALLER LOTS WHICH CREATE GREATER DENSITY AND GREATER TRAFFIC FLOW.
AND OBVIOUSLY, WHEN THEY WERE ZONED A CERTAIN EFFECT OR A CERTAIN RESULT WAS DESIRED AND ONLY GRANT VARIANCES, ESPECIALLY VARIANCES WHERE THERE ISN'T A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE WE'RE JUST GOING AGAINST THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE ZONING.
AND SO I'M GOING TO VOTE TO DENY THE MOTION.
SUSAN? HI, SO I THINK IN OUR LAST DISCUSSION AT THE LAST MEETING, WE DETERMINED THAT OR ACTUALLY I WOULD LIKE STAFF TO TELL US I THINK THE ONLY PROBLEM.
[00:35:03]
OH, GOSH, I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY, BUT IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS EXCEPT IN ONE MINOR WAY. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL PHOTO, EVERY LOT IN THAT PHOTO HAS OR EVERY LOT OF THIS SAME SIZE HAS TWO HOUSES ON IT.SO IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT THE PRECEDENT HAS ALREADY BEEN SET AND I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL IN ANY WAY TO GO AHEAD AND LET THEM SUBDIVIDE.
OK. I'M LOOKING AT IT JUST MYSELF, YOU KNOW, HERE WE HAVE THIS, THE WHOLE BLOCK SUBDIVIDED THERE AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO PUT IT A LITTLE BIT UNDER.
IT'S GOING TO PUT IT OVER ONE WAY AND AGAIN.
I'M KIND OF EXCITED THAT THE PEOPLE NEXT DOOR WANT TO BUY IT AND I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, THEN OF COURSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK AND REPLAT THEIR LAND OR THEY'RE GOING TO OWN, TWO, OR WE'RE GOING TO WIND UP IN THE SAME PLACE.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO AGREE WITH MR. CLEMENT THERE AT THIS POINT, EVEN THOUGH I WAS LEANING THE OTHER WAY, BUT FROM WHAT Y'ALL ARE TELLING ME AND WHAT I'M LOOKING AT NOW, I COULD SEE WHERE I THINK IT WOULD BE ADVANTAGED NOT TO HAVE THAT SPLIT.
COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT THIS SALE.
WELL, THE WOMAN SAID THAT SHE'S ACTUALLY GOT BOTH OF THESE, BUT SHE WANTS TO SPLIT THEM UP. SHE HAS BOTH OF THESE LOTS SOLD TO THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, WHICH, OF COURSE, MAKE THEM AN EXTRA WIDE LOT.
BUT UNLESS THAT NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR IS GOING TO REPLOT AND REPLAT AND DO EVERYTHING THEMSELVES, THEN YOU'RE STILL ALWAYS GOING TO WIND UP WITH TWO PROPERTIES THAT SOMEBODY COULD GO IN AND BUILD ON AND DEVELOP.
AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THAT'S WHAT THEY TOLD US EARLIER, IF ANYBODY ELSE GOT ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT.
I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY, THERE'S ALREADY BEEN EMOTION.
YEAH, I'M SORRY THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN A MOTION, MA'AM.
AND A SECOND, SO UNLESS THE CHAIRPERSON WOULD LIKE TO TABLE THE MOTION AND OPEN IT UP FOR MORE COMMENT.
THE CHAIRPERSON CAN QUERY THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THAT, BUT RIGHT NOW THERE IS AN ACTIVE MOTION ON THE TABLE.
OK. WELL, IF I CAN, I'D LIKE TO GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE.
I'D LIKE TO TABLE THIS MOTION AND COME RIGHT BACK TO IT AND HEAR WHAT LITTLE BIT, IF ANYTHING, MS. POLK HAS TO SAY.
YOU'D HAVE TO MAKE THAT MOTION AND HAVE IT SECONDED.
MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE IT MOMENTARILY.
IS THERE A SECOND? OK. ALL RIGHT, THEN.
OK. ALL RIGHT THEN LET'S GO AHEAD.
AND IF NO THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, WE'LL GO AND PUT THIS TO A VOTE.
WE HAVE THE MOTION TO DENY AND OPEN IT UP FOR ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
BOARD MEMBER [INAUDIBLE]? DENY. ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF THE DENIAL? YES. MEMBER CLEMENT? YES. CHAIRPERSON GALLETTI? YES. VICE CHAIRPERSON GIRNDT? YES BOARD MEMBER RAILEY? OPPOSE.
OK WITH FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES THAT MOTION PASSES.
ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO THE, THAT'S THE LAST OF OUR OLD BUSINESS, MOVING ON TO NEW BUSINESS.
THE REQUEST IS TO DECREASE THE LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT FROM 50 FEET TO 40 FEET AND TO REDUCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT FROM 5000 SQUARE FEET TO FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SQUARE FEET. PUBLIC NOTICES SENT WERE 31 TO RETURN.
NO CITY DEPARTMENTS HAD ANY COMMENTS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE SIX, I'M SORRY.
ARTICLE THREE, DISTRICT YARD, LOT, AND SET BACK REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY R-1 ADDENDUM IN ORDER TO REPLOT THE LOT INTO TWO LOTS.
THE REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT FROM 5,000 SQUARE FEET TO 4,400 HUNDRED SQUARE FEET AND REDUCE THE LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT FROM 50 FEET TO 40 FEET.
PLEASE NOTE THE APPLICANTS JUSTIFICATION IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AND WE HAVE SOME PICTURES.
[00:40:06]
OK, SO HERE IS AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
TO THE EAST. AND TO THE SOUTH.
THIS IS THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT.
AND THE PROPOSAL AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
AND. DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OK, MOVING BACK TO THE BOARD, RETURNING A [INAUDIBLE] I'M SORRY.
HELLO, I'M SORRY, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE 4014 VISTA BOULEVARD? YES, MA'AM, GO AHEAD.
ARE YOU THE APPLICANT? YES, SIR. THIS IS SELENA COMPANA.
I ONLY [INAUDIBLE] ABOUT 15 YEARS [INAUDIBLE] HUNDRED SQUARE FEET.
I'M WANTING A REPLAT FOR TWO LOTS, SO WE CAN GIVE ONE TO MY DAUGHTER AND ONE FOR RETIRED US. WE SEE THAT MOST OF THE LOTS IN THE AREA IS 40 FEET WIDE.
SO IF WE REQUEST THE REPLAT IS BECAUSE WE SEE THAT WE CAN MEET THE LOT SIZE ON THAT AREA.
SO IF YOU CAN SEE IT IN YOUR PHOTOS, THE LOT BEHIND US ARE 40 FEET BELOW THE SITE ON EACH SIDE, LEFT AND RIGHT AND 40 FEET.
SO SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS ALREADY GRANTED OR HAS BEEN LAID OUT.
SO WAS THE REQUEST , SO WE CAN BE TWO HOMES.
I KNOW A LOT IS GOING TO BE BIGGER THAN THE 4000 THAT USUALLY ARE ON THAT AREA.
I WAS GOING TO BE FORTY TWO HUNDRED SQUARE FEET.
YES, MA'AM. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? FROM THE BOARD. OK, WELL, THANK YOU, MA'AM, FOR COMING IN AND AND WE'LL TAKE IT FROM THERE. I'D LIKE TO.
I'D LIKE TO RETURN THE MEETING TO THE BOARD.
YES, OR A MOTION AND A DISCUSSION.
OH. THAT YOU, ROBERT, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? NO.
I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS.
IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYTHING ACROSS THE STREET IS THE EXACT SAME 40 EVERYTHING ON THE SIDE IN THE EXACT SAME 40.
I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG AGO THIS HAS BEEN PLATTED, BUT IT APPEARED EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ACROSS THE STREET, ON EACH SIDE IS AT THAT 40.
FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THAT, I LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION, AND IF WE CAN'T GET THIS OPEN UP FOR A DISCUSSION. OK.
I DON'T SEE ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SECOND THAT.
SO AT THIS POINT, STAFF? I SECOND YOUR MOTION WE'LL SECOND THE MOTION, OK, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
I'D LIKE TO OPEN THAT UP FOR DISCUSSION, PLEASE.
MR. CLEMENT, YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? WE'RE KIND OF ALONG ON THE SAME SUBJECT HERE.
WELL, I THINK THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS REQUEST.
AND AGAIN, I DON'T SEE I DON'T SEE A SPECIAL CONDITION.
OK, I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO SPLIT THE LOTS AND BUT ONCE THIS WAS SOLD IN ZONED THIS WAY IN THE PLANNING AND BY INCREASING THE DENSITY, INCREASING THE TRAFFIC, INCREASING EVERYTHING.
[00:45:02]
THERE DO APPEAR TO BE SOME LOTS OF.THAT ARE NOT THE SAME, BUT WITHOUT HAVING THE MEASUREMENTS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY WAY OF KNOWING IT, BUT THE FACT THAT IT IT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUMS FOR EITHER A LOT WITH OR A TOTAL LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE AND WITHOUT SEEING A SPECIAL CONDITION, I DON'T SEE THAT.
I DON'T SEE HOW I CAN SUPPORT IT.
IF ANYBODY ELSE, I GUESS I'D HAVE TO CHIME BACK IN ON MINE, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDING IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER NOW AND LOOKING AT IT IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
I WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION.
AT THIS POINT, OH, IF I MAY, CHAIRPERSON, THERE'S BEEN A MOTION, IT'S BEEN SECONDED.
YOU CLEARLY CAN WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION, BUT I MEAN, THERE'S ALREADY BEEN A SECOND I UNDERSTAND, MS. GORMAN, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
OK. I'D LIKE TO GET A ROLL-CALL VOTE ON THIS, PLEASE. BOARD MEMBER [INAUDIBLE].
YES. BOARD MEMBER CLEMENT? AND I'M SORRY, CATHERINE, CAN WE JUST CLARIFY THE MOTION WAS TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND I JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ACTIVE MOTION ON THE TABLE.
BOARD MEMBER [INAUDIBLE]? YES.
BOARD MEMBER CLEMENT? OPPOSED. NO.
CHAIRPERSON GALLETTI? OPPOSED.
VICE CHAIRPERSON GIRNDT? OPPOSED.
BOARD MEMBER RALEY? MOVE. OK, WITH THAT MOTION FAILED TO GET FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES AND DID NOT PASS.
OK, WAS THAT OUR LAST CASE OF THE DAY, THE CORRECT? ALL RIGHT, I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR COMING IN AND.
I LIKE TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
CATHERINE?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.