>> I WANT TO WELCOME EVERYBODY WHO IS WITH US TODAY.
[Landmark Commission on September 20, 2021.]
[00:00:03]
I'M GOING TO CALL TO ORDER THE LANDMARK COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING.TODAY IS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2021, AND THE TIME IS 4:03.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE DOWN TO ATTENDANCE BY ROLL CALL.
>> CAN YOU HEAR PATRICK WHAT HE'S SPEAKING?
>> OKAY. I'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THE ROLL-CALL. COMMISSIONER CLICK.
>> COMMISSIONER HUDDLE STAN IS ABSENT.
>> VICE CHAIRPERSON PATTERSON.
>> COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] THOMPSON.
>> COMMISSIONER WOOD IS ABSENT.
WE ARE MISSING TWO MEMBERS, SO BOTH OF THE ALTERNATES WE ARE VOTING TODAY.
>> CATHERINE, JUST AS AN FYI, THAT PARTICULAR MICROPHONE THAT PATRICK IS AT, MAY NOT BE FUNCTIONING.
HE MAY WANT TO MOVE OVER TO THE ADJOINING CHAIR.
SOMETIMES IT'S A HIT OR MISS WITH THAT ONE.
>> THANKS DONA. [NOISE] GOT TO TEST THAT OUT FOR JUST A SECOND. GO AHEAD, PATRICK.
>> DOES ANYONE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
>> NONE. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES?
>> NO? OKAY. MINUTES ARE APPROVED AND SUBMITTED. MEETING FORMAT.
>> WE HAVE OUR STANDARD MEETING REMINDERS.
THAT IT'S BEST TO WATCH THE MEETING IN GALLERY VIEW.
IT ALLOWS YOU TO SEE ALL OF YOUR COMMISSIONERS AT THE SAME TIME.
WE ASK THAT YOU MUTE YOUR MICROPHONE UNLESS YOU'RE SPEAKING.
WE ASK THAT YOU PHYSICALLY RAISE YOUR HAND TO GET THE ATTENTION OF THE CHAIR AND BE RECOGNIZED BEFORE SPEAKING OR MAKING A MOTION.
WE'LL BE TAKING THE VOTES BY ROLL CALL.
THEN FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE ATTENDING, WE ASK THAT IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, YOU USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN.
THEN YOUR MICROPHONE WILL BE TURNED ON AND YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
TODAY, WE ARE DEBUTING OUR NEW CONSENT AGENDA POLICY.
WE'VE PLACED THOSE CASES THAT DON'T REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING AND IN WHICH STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SO STAFF WILL NOT PRESENT THE STAFF REPORTS, BUT INSTEAD WE'LL ANNOUNCE THE CASE NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES INCLUDED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THAT TIME THE COMMISSION CAN ASK STAFF ANY QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAVE ABOUT THE CASES.
AFTER QUESTIONS, THE CHAIRPERSON WILL CALL FOR A MOTION AND A SECOND AND APPROPRIATE MOTION WOULD BE, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
THEN THERE CAN BE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION AND THEN A ROLL CALL.
IF ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER AN ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA INDIVIDUALLY, THEN THEY CAN REQUEST THAT ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA DURING QUESTIONS TO STAFF.
IF THAT OCCURS, THE STAFF WILL PRESENT THE STAFF REPORT IN THE TYPICAL FASHION AFTER THE VOTE ON THE REMAINING CONSENT AGENDA ITEM THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS?
>> NO PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVED.
>> OKAY. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS?
>> NO PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVED.
>> OKAY. MOVING ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, WE HAVE ITEM 21LC051, WHICH IS 21O2 MECHANIC, AND 21LC0592310 STRAND.
>> OKAY, GREAT. I'D LIKE TO BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND ASK IF ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? JOANNE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> [BACKGROUND] THAT'S WHY I DON'T MAKE MOTIONS? [LAUGHTER] I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT BOTH ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND.
[00:05:01]
>> THAT'S UNANIMOUS. MOVING ON TO THE NEW BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARINGS, WE HAVE CASE 21LC-0531513 20TH STREET.
>> THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR CEMENT BOARD CITING.
PUBLIC NOTICES SENT WERE FIVE, TWO WERE RETURNED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO USE AN ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL ON THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FACADES OF A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
IN THIS CASE, THE ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL PROPOSED IS FIBER CEMENT, HARDIE BOARD SIDING.
THE APPLICANT HAS EXPRESSED CONCERNS THAT THE WOOD SIDING ROTS EASILY AND HE HAS REPLACED THE WOOD SIDING QUITE FREQUENTLY.
BECAUSE FIBER CEMENT BOARD IS NOT RESISTANT, THE APPLICANT WISHES TO USE THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR YOU AND YOUR STAFF REPORT AND CONFORMANCE.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED TO REPLACE ALL OR SOME WOOD SIDING WITH FIBER CEMENT SIDING ON THE FRONT SIDE AND REAR FACADES OF THE STRUCTURE.
THIS PRODUCT IS WELL ESTABLISHED AND COMMONLY CALLED HARDIE BOARD.
THE DESIGN STANDARDS RESTORE PROPERTY STATE THAT ORIGINAL MATERIALS AND STYLES SHOULD BE USED IN BOTH THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FACADES OF CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
DUE TO NON-CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO USE AN ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL BE DENIED.
HOWEVER, IF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FINDS THE REQUEST COMPLIES TO DESIGN STANDARDS, FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MAY BE APPROPRIATE.
SPECIFIC CONDITION ONE, THE EXTERIOR MODIFICATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN, MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT A OF THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS.
THE PROPOSED SIDING SHALL BE A VERTICAL BOARD AND BATTEN STYLE TO MATCH THE EXISTING WOOD SIDING AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE.
WE HAVE SOME PICTURES. ONE MINUTE.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THESE ARE THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND EAST, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NONE. OKAY. WELL, AT THIS POINT, WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS CASE, KATHERINE IS THERE ANYBODY ON THE LINE, OWNER OR REPRESENTATIVE OF THIS PROPERTY?
>> IF THERE'S ANYBODY ON THE LINE THAT'S REPRESENTING THIS CASE, IF YOU COULD USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN.
THERE IS A PERSON HERE WHO LOOKS LIKE THEY MAY JUST BE ON THE PHONE.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND ALLOW THEM TO SPEAK IN CASE THAT'S THE APPLICANT.
THERE'S A COLOR WITH A NUMBER THAT ENDS IN 9325, ARE YOU HERE FOR THIS CASE?
>> ARE YOU HERE FOR THIS CASE?
>> WHAT WAS THE ADDRESS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT?
>> OKAY. ARE THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE?
>> IF THERE IS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, PLEASE USE THE RAISE-YOUR-HAND FEATURE ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN. SEEING NONE.
>> OKAY. WELL, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND BRING THIS CASE BACK TO THE COMMISSION, AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
IS THERE ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS THAT WE'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE. STEPHANIE.
>> I CAN MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY CASE 21LC-053 WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
>> IF I MAY RECOMMEND, WE DON'T TYPICALLY HAVE THIS SITUATION WHERE NO QUESTIONS OF STAFF ARE ASKED, AND THERE'S BEEN NO PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT OR PROPERTY OWNER, AND WE ALSO DON'T TYPICALLY HAVE THE SITUATION WHERE A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND THERE'S NO DISCUSSION.
[00:10:04]
IN LIGHT OF ALL THAT, I WOULD LIKE SOME THOUGHTS AS TO THE REASONS BEHIND THE MOTION AND THE COMMISSIONERS THOUGHTS ON WHY THEY'RE VOTING THE WAY THEY WANT TO VOTE.>> STEPHANIE COULD YOU STATE YOUR REASONS FOR YOUR MOTION.
>> YEAH. NOW, MY REASON FOR THE MOTION TO DENY IS BASED ON THE LACK OF CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE SAME BOARD ALREADY CITING.
>> OKAY. DOES THAT SATISFY THE QUESTION DONNA?
>> I ALWAYS TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SOME FORBID REGARDING THE COMMISSIONERS THOUGHTS OR REASONINGS BEHIND IT MOTIONS AND BOATS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> YEAH. OKAY. I AGREE WITH THAT.
CAN WE GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS BY A RAISE OF HANDS.
STEPHANIE DO YOU WANT TO READ YOUR MOTION?
>> SURE, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY CASE 21 LC-053, FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
THIS IS THE FACT THAT THE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE STRUCTURE.
>> OKAY. IS EVERYONE READY? CAN WE GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE? EVERYBODY IN FAVOR FOR DENIAL, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND [NOISE].
ANYBODY IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.
>> OH, JAME'S, NOT VOTING. I'M SORRY.
>> NO. WAIT. I'M CONFUSED HERE BECAUSE YOU SAID IN FAVOR. WAIT A MINUTE.
>> WELL, ACTUALLY WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT YOU WERE STANDING IN FOR FRED, I'M SORRY. THAT'S RIGHT.
THE MOTION WAS MADE TO DENY THE REQUEST BASED ON NON-CONFORMANCE.
THE VOTE IS, ARE YOU VOTING IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT MOTION? [OVERLAPPING]
>> KATHERINE, WE ARE UNANIMOUS.
>> WE GOT THAT AND THE MOTION PASSES.
>> OKAY. GREAT. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO CASE 21LC-0541818 AVENUE NOW.
>> MY THOUGHTS THERE SHOULD BE PERHAPS A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE USE OF PARTY BORED, JUST SORT OF PUBLIC KNOWS WHY WERE OPPOSED TO IT INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING THAT THIRD ONE.
I THINK WHAT IT IS, IT'S A SYNTHETIC SURFACE, IT'S A STAMPED SERVICE THAT'S VERY CONSISTENT ON THE SIGHTINGS, AND IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO REALLY MATCH WHAT REAL TRADITIONAL SIGHTING IS.
>> RIGHT, AND ALSO THERE ARE SOME CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE WE ALLOW SOME PARTY SIDING PRODUCTS, BUT NEVER ON THE PRIMARY FRONT SURFACE OF A HOUSE.
THE STUDENT NON-CONFORMANCE. THANKS DAM.
MOVING ON. IS 21 LC- 0541818 AVENUE.
>> THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE, AND GARAGE APARTMENT, 29 NOTICES WERE SENT, ZERO RETURNED.
PLEASE NOTE THE BACKGROUND SECTION IN YOUR STAFF REPORT TO PLAN A LANDMARK COMMISSION HAS SEEN CASES AT THIS LOCATION THREE TIMES PREVIOUSLY, IN RECENT HISTORY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND GARAGE DEPARTMENT.
THE DESIGN OF THE FRONT HOUSE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM THE PREVIOUS APPROVALS, INCLUDING A MODIFIED ROOFLINE.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, INFORMANTS.
STEPHENS, THAT THE DESIGN OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES.
THE DESIGN STANDARD STATE TO USE REFORMS SIMILAR TO THOSE SEEN TRADITIONALLY IN THE DISTRICT.
THE DESIGN STANDARDS FURTHER STATE THAT EXOTIC REFORMS AND SHED ROOF FORM SHOULD NOT BE USED ON THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, THE ROOF STRUCTURE PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT CANNOT BE CLEARLY CLASSIFIED INTO ONE OF THE TRADITIONAL REFORMS. IT IS A COMBINATION OF HIP, SHED, AND GABLE WITH HYPODERMIS.
THERE ARE NO EXAMPLES OF THIS REFORM IN THE LOSS BIO HISTORIC DISTRICT.
[00:15:02]
DUE TO NON-CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE REQUEST BE DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, THE STANDARD CONDITION REGARDING APPEALS.HOWEVER, SHOULD THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FIND THEIR REQUESTS DOES CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MAY BE APPROPRIATE.
SPECIFIC CONDITION ONE, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT PRESENTED IN DETACHMENT A OF THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS, A, THE SKIRTING ON THE MAIN STRUCTURE SHALL BE LATTICE.
ITEMS TWO THROUGH SIX ARE STANDARD AND WE HAVE SOME PICTURES.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, PROPERTIES TO THE EAST, AND TO THE WEST, AND PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND THE FRONT AND REAR ELEVATIONS, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> IS THE OWNER OR OWNER REPRESENTATIVE WITH US TODAY?
>> IT LOOKS LIKE MR. BIZONY, THE OWNER, IS SIGNED IN.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND ALLOW HIM TO SPEAK.
OKAY. MR. BIZONY, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
YOU'LL NEED TO UNMUTE ON YOUR END.
YOU COULD TRY IF YOU'RE ON THE PHONE, PRESSING STAR 6.
>> WE CAN HEAR YOU. [OVERLAPPING]
>> CARRY ON. IS THIS MR. BESONI?
>> OKAY, GREAT. WE'D LOVE TO HEAR ABOUT YOUR PROJECT.
IS THERE [NOISE] SOMETHING YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH THE COMMISSION? [NOISE]
>> NO. BREAK IT UP ON ME A LITTLE BIT. I CAN'T GET IT IN THE MEETING.
I'M ON THE PHONE [INAUDIBLE] BUT I HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT THE ROOF MATERIALS NEED TO BE CHANGED, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
>> I THINK MR. BESONI MISHEARD.
I THINK HE HEARD THE RECOMMENDATION OF IT BEING LATTICE.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF HE'S REALLY HEARING THE COMPLETE NEEDING.
>> I'M HERE. I HEARD PART OF THAT ROOF.
>> OKAY. THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL BASED ON THE STYLE OF THE ROOF.
IT'S A COMBINATION OF DIFFERENT ROOFS THAT ARE UNCOMMON IN HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND THAT IS WHY IT'S A NON-CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
HOWEVER, IF THE COMMISSION DECIDES IT'S OKAY, WE CAN ALWAYS REVERSE THAT.
THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION ABOUT YOUR PROJECT.
>> WELL, I CERTAINLY DON'T MIND MAKING IT ALL CONFORM TO A UNIFORM AS WELL.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT MADE IT THE LAST TIME WITH THE ROOF.
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME MATERIALS USED ON THE LAST PERMIT THAT WENT THROUGH.
I DIDN'T KNOW WE CHANGED THIS MATERIALS FOR THE ROOF.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S JUST THE MATERIALS, SIR.
I THINK IT IS THE WAY THE ROOF IS FRAMED OUT.
YOU HAVE A COMBINATION OF A HIP, A SHED, AND SOME DIFFERENT STYLES IN THERE, SO IT'S NOT JUST THE MATERIAL, IT IS THE WAY IT IS FRAMED OUT THAT IS UNCOMMON WITH ROOFS IN HISTORIC HISTORY.
>> YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ANGLES OF EACH ROOF?
>> OKAY. [NOISE] JUST LET ME KNOW WHAT I NEED TO DO.
I GUESS YOU WANT THE SHED TO BE MORE OF A BANK STYLE ROOF AS THE HOME, IT SOUNDS LIKE.
>> WELL, WE WON'T MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO YOU, SIR.
WE WILL JUST EITHER VOTE ON WHAT IS ON THE APPLICATION [NOISE], WHICH IS FOR THAT STYLE OF ROOF.
IF IT PASSES, GREAT, YOU'RE GOOD TO GO, YOU CHECK INTO PLANNING AND I'LL GIVE YOU THE REST OF THE PAPERWORK.
IF NOT, THEN YOU WOULD LOOK TO MEET UP WITH CATHERINE AND THE PLANNING STAFF AGAIN AND SEE WHAT CHANGES WOULD FOLLOW WHAT'S IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND THEN RESUBMITTING THE APPLICATION BACK TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHERE CAN I SEE THOSE GUIDELINES? WHERE'S ALL THESE RULES AT ON THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT? ON THE RULES THE MATERIALS AND EVERYTHING, WHERE IS THAT READABLE AT?
>> IT'S ALL ONLINE WITH THE CITY OF GALVESTON IF YOU JUST GOOGLE THE CITY OF GALVESTON LANDMARK COMMISSION DESIGN GUIDELINES.
YOU'LL FIND IT DIFFERENT, OR YOU CAN EMAIL CATHERINE, SHE'S A HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON, AND SHE'S REALLY WANTS TO WORK WITH OUR PROPERTY OWNERS TO GET YOU TO WHAT YOU ARE WAITING FOR, WHICH IS TO BUILD YOUR HOUSE.
FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT TO CATHERINE AS WELL.
>> OKAY. EVERYTHING LOOKS FINE EXCEPT THE ROOFS.
[00:20:04]
THE ANGLES OF THE ROOF IS THE PROBLEM.>> THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE APPLICATION BEFORE US.
>> OKAY. WELL, LET ME SEE WHAT WE CAN DO WITH THIS.
WE'RE HAPPY THAT YOU WANT TO BUILD ON HISTORIC DISTRICT.
DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BESONI? NO? IS THERE ANYONE IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT MR. BESONI'S PROJECT TO US.
>> IF THERE'S ANYBODY ON THE CALL, WE ASK THAT YOU USE THE RAISE YOUR HAND FUNCTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS RICHARD TANOTS AND I'M THE ENGINEER ON THIS WITH MR. BESONI ON THIS STRUCTURE AND THIS IS LIKE OUR THIRD DIFFERENT HOUSE WE'VE SUBMITTED.
I CAN SEE THAT YOUR ISSUE WITH THIS ONE IS THE HIP FRONT OF THE ROOF.
WE CALL IT OUR SUBMITTAL A, BUT WE HAD ONE SUBMITTAL B THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVED NOT TOO LONG AGO THAT WAS A GABLE.
WE'LL PROBABLY GO BACK TO THE GABLE NOW.
IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION FOR THE VIEW FROM THE STREET.
MOST LIKELY THAT ONE WILL BE ACCEPTABLE.
IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER ISSUES THAN WE WOULD LIKE TO SOMEHOW GATHER THEM UP NOW IF POSSIBLE SO THAT WE CAN JUST MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF RESUBMITTALS ON THIS TOUR BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN QUITE CUMBERSOME AND EXPENSIVE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT SUBMITTALS.
I KNOW WE'RE NOT ALL EXPERTS IN THE 260 PAGE DOCUMENTS AND [LAUGHTER] AND NOT ALWAYS VERY CLEAR AND COULD BE INTERPRETED IN MANY WAYS.
ANYWAYS, I THOUGHT THIS WOULD GET APPROVED TONIGHT, SO WE THOUGHT IT WOULD GET APPROVED.
WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THIS ONE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPROVED OR WE WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE SUBMITTED IT.
JUST ANOTHER DELAY, BUT I GUESS IT'S GOOD BECAUSE THE PRICE OF LUMBER IS GOING DOWN, SO THAT'S ONE GOOD THING.
>> [LAUGHTER] I'M GLAD WE COULD BRING THAT TO YOU.
[OVERLAPPING] THE DESIGN THAT WAS APPROVED UNDER 21 LC 010.
THAT APPROVAL REMAINS IN EFFECT AND YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT DESIGN APPROVED UNDER THAT CASE WITHOUT ANOTHER RESUBMITTAL.
THAT'S STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> THE ONE THAT WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY, INTERNALLY WE REFERRED TO IT AS DESIGN B.
THAT ONE'S ALREADY APPROVED AND WE WON'T HAVE TO GO IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION AGAIN ON THAT ONE?
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT DESIGN B REFERS TO, SO YOU'D HAVE TO LOOK BACK TO 21 LC 010.
THAT'S THE DESIGN THAT'S BEEN APPROVED.
>> THAT ONE WAS DESIGN B. IT'S APPROVED.
THEN WE'RE GOOD TO GO ON THAT ONE, I GUESS. IS THAT [OVERLAPPING]
>> DOES THAT INCLUDE ALL THE MATERIALS? DID EVERYONE LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF MATERIAL AND THE COMPOSITIONS OF ALL THE DIFFERENT MATERIALS? I GUESS THAT WILL BE ONCE WE GO TO GET THE BUILDING PERMANENT, WILL THEY LOOK AT THAT FURTHER, I GUESS, WHATEVER.
>> CAN I JUST INTERRUPT FOR A QUICK SECOND? THIS IS DONNA FAIRWEATHER FROM THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT HERE.
I'M CONFUSED AS TO WHICH CASE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND IF I'M CONFUSE THEN I CAN ASSURE YOU THE COMMISSIONS ARE CONFUSED.
SIR, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU REFER TO AS YOUR CASE AS YOUR PROJECT B IN TERMS OF THE MATERIALS AND WHATNOT.
BECAUSE IF THAT'S THE CASE, THAT IS NOT BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY.
THE COMMISSION IS ONLY LOOKING, I'M SORRY, I SCROLLED DOWN.
[OVERLAPPING] ANYONE ELSE IS 054.
>> CORRECT. I'LL WRAP IT UP, DONNA.
>> [NOISE] THE PREVIOUS REQUESTS SEVERAL MONTHS AGO.
CURRENTLY, THAT ONE WAS APPROVED.
I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THAT COMMISSION REFERS TO IT AS A CASE NUMBER.
I'M SORRY TO CONFUSE EVERYBODY.
MR. BESONI, THE CASE THAT CAME BEFORE THE COMMISSION LAST TIME WHERE WE APPROVE THAT PROJECT.
THE TIME FRAME IS STILL STANDING.
[00:25:03]
AS LONG AS YOU ARE STILL WITHIN THE ORIGINAL TIME-FRAME OF WHEN IT WAS APPROVED, YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET YOUR PERMITS, BECAUSE THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY IS THIS REQUEST FOR THAT PARTICULAR ROOF LINE AND WE ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO MAKE ANY SUGGESTIONS OF ANY ALTERCATIONS.
IT'S A PLAIN YES OR NO BASED ON THIS.
DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE TODAY, YOU THEY MAY DECIDE YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT PREVIOUS CASE IN WHICH I THINK YOU HAVE TWO YEARS FROM THE TIME YOU WILL COME BEFORE LANDMARK AND GETTING APPROVAL THAT YOU CAN TAKE BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND GET A PERMIT.
>> MR. BESONI IS ON HIS CELL PHONE, SO PERHAPS HE'S HAVING DIFFICULTIES WITH THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, I THINK YOU HAVE ME MUTED.
I'VE GOT IT. THAT SOUNDS PERFECTLY FINE.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU MR. BESONI, WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
THIS TIME IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR MR. BESONI, I'D LIKE TO BRING THIS, I GUESS I SHOULD [INAUDIBLE] SPOKE TO EVERYBODY THAT'S ON THE LINE ON PUBLIC THAT WANTS TO MAKE A COMMENT.
>> WELL, THEN I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I'M GOING TO BRING THIS BACK TO MY COMMISSIONERS, AND I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
IS THERE ANY OF MY COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE, 21 LC - 054. SHARON?
>> YES. I MAKE THE MOTION ON 21 LC - 054 THAT WE DENY THE MOTION.
>> COULD YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF A REASON WHY YOU'RE DENYING IT?
>> FROM LACK OF THE ROOFING LINES AS STATED BY THE COMMISSION. [NOISE]
>> DOES ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A SECOND? [OVERLAPPING] JANE?
THE MOTION IS TO DENY CASE 21 LC - 054.
>> I AM SORRY, COMMISSIONERS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION?
>> WELL, I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN ANSWER THIS BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT THE LAST CASE, BUT ESSENTIALLY WE APPROVED THAT HOUSE, BUT WE APPROVED IT WITH A DIFFERENT HEIGHTS; IS THAT CORRECT? THANK YOU.
>> IF THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION, OTHER COMMISSIONERS READY TO TAKE A VOTE?
>> THE STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A VOTE VIA ROLL-CALL.
[BACKGROUND] IN FAVOR. [BACKGROUND] COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON.
ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES.
OKAY. MOVING ON, DISCUSSION IN OUR ACTION ITEMS, SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS. DOUG MCLEAN.
I WAS NOT AWARE THAT FRED WASN'T GOING TO BE HERE, BUT I KNOW THAT THE CITY HAS CREATED A $50 MONTH'S FEE FOR THE RENTALS, IS THAT CORRECT DAVID? YEAH. WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THE FEE FOR REGISTRATION FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL WAS MADE ANNUAL, THAT'S ALL.
THERE WAS ALREADY A $50 FEE, BY MAKING THIS REQUIRING AN ANNUAL REGISTRATION.
THAT MEANS YES, IT'S $50 PER YEAR.
THE POINT OF THAT BEING THAT IT WILL HELP US CLEAN UP THE DATA.
BECAUSE SINCE 2014 WE'VE BEEN COLLECTING THOSE REGISTRATIONS AND WE DON'T KNOW WHICH ONES ARE LIVE AND WHICH ARE NOT.
IF YOU BOUGHT A HOUSE THAT USED TO BE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL AND DON'T USE IT FOR THAT, IT'S NOW YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE.
YOUR NAME IS STILL ON THAT LIST.
BY MAKING IT AN ANNUAL REGISTRATION, THEN IN THE NEXT YEAR, THOSE THAT ARE NO LONGER VALID WILL FALL OFF.
THE COST OF THE REGISTRATION IS BEING REVISITED BY CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY COMMITTEE.
THAT'LL BE HAPPENING IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, NO, WE DID NOT SET A NEW FEE.
[00:30:01]
WE SIMPLY MADE THE EXISTING FEE ANNUAL. THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE IS I KNOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS GOING TO BE LOOKING AT SOME ISSUES AND THEY'RE BASICALLY PROTECTING CERTAIN DISTRICTS FROM BEING ABLE TO DO SHORT-TERM RENTALS.NOT FROM PLANNING'S POINT OF VIEW.
THERE ARE TWO CASES BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TOMORROW FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN R0 ZONING DISTRICT.
THOSE ARE DONE AT THE INITIATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATES OR IS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN.
THEY ARE REVIEWING IT AS JUST A PART OF THEIR REGULAR WORK IN ZONING CHANGES.
THERE ARE TWO R0 NEIGHBORHOODS IN CITY AND NEW SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE DISALLOWED IN AN R0 NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PROCESS DOUG, FOR THIS ONE, THERE IS A PROCESS FOR AN EXISTING AREA TO REQUEST TO BECOME AN R0.
IT REQUIRES A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SIGNAGES FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA.
REQUESTERS ARE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND IT GOES BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE REGULAR COURSE IS A CASE BEING PRESENTED TO THEM.
BUT I BELIEVE THERE ARE DEFINITELY ONE IF NOT TWO REQUESTS ON TOMORROW'S AGENDA, BUT I KNOW THERE'S AT LEAST ONE [OVERLAPPING] TO BECOME R0.
I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE COULD POSSIBLY PROTECT THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT THAT IS OUR OLD, BEAUTIFUL, WONDERFUL HISTORIC DISTRICT FROM BEING COMPLETELY OVERRUN BY SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
IT'S HAPPENING IN A VERY FRIGHTENING WAY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT ONCE YOU GO DOWN THAT SLIPPERY SLOPE, THAT WE'LL EVER BACK AND IT IS IMPORTANT, IT WAS 30, 40, 50 YEARS AGO WHEN [INAUDIBLE] REALLY GOT GOING.
ACTUALLY CREATE THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WE'VE GOT A RESPONSIBILITY TO TRY AND PROTECT THAT SOMEHOW.
I DON'T KNOW HOW WE FOLLOWED WITH THIS, BUT THIS IS REALLY SCARY.
HOW MUCH HAS HAPPENED IN A 12 MONTH PERIOD JUST IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M AFRAID THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FAVORITE, WHICH IS SO CRITICAL TO THE ISLAND, IS REALLY BEING TORN APART BY THIS.
THOSE ARE JUST MY COMMENTS AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU ALL FEEL ABOUT IT, BUT I THINK IT'S WORTHY IF SOMEBODY ATTENTION [INAUDIBLE].
WELL, I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE COMMENT THAT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER A PROPERTY IS USED AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, A PERSONAL FAMILY HOME, A VACATION HOME, A REGULAR RENTAL, THEY'RE ALL GOVERNED BY US ON THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HISTORIC PLACES, IF THEY FIT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
I KNOW THAT SHORT-TERM RENTALS OBVIOUSLY HAVE A LOT OF CONTENTION ON THEM FROM PEOPLE THAT EITHER LIKE THEM OR HATE THEM, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S POSITION WOULD BE OTHER THAN TO CONTINUE TO UPHOLD THE DESIGN GUIDELINES IF OR WHEN AN OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTY THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, WANTS TO MAKE ANY EXTERIOR CHANGES.
AM I NOT UNDERSTANDING YOUR COMMENTS, DOUG? MY COMMENTS ARE THE SOCIAL FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE'RE GOING TO REVOLVE ABOUT IT FOR NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE NEIGHBORHOODS ANYMORE.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO LIVE HERE.
ESPECIALLY IN THE EAST AND HISTORIC DISTRICT.
PEOPLE ARE COMING IN AT 10:00 AND 11:00, 12:00 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT AND IT'S HAPPENING ALL THE TIME AND THEY'RE PARTYING LATE AT NIGHT, AND THEN THEY'RE COMING OUT.
PEOPLE ARE COMING AND GOING AND THAT USED TO BE THE FAMILY THAT HAD BEEN THERE FOR GENERATIONS, OR SOMEBODY COME IN AND RESTORE THAT HOUSE AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, AND NOW IT'S GOING ON TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER.
YOU NO LONGER HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS.
YOU BREAK THOSE IN PIECES, AND ALSO YOU BREAK DOWN YOUR SENSE OF SECURITY IN NEIGHBORHOODS.
THE EAST END IS SO UNIQUE, AND THE FENCE TO THE HOMES ARE SO CLOSE TOGETHER, LITERALLY CAN REACH YOUR ARMS OUT AND YOUR ELBOWS HIP.
[NOISE] IT'S NOT A TYPICAL SCENARIO WHERE YOU'VE GOT A HOUSE OUT ON THE WEST END SOMEWHERE.
IT REALLY ISN'T A VERY EXCLUSIVE PLACE AND WE NEED TO GUARD THIS SOMEHOW.
I MEAN, DEFINE IF POSSIBLE A WAY TO SAFEGUARD THE DISTRICT FROM BEING LAUNCHED.
DAVID, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT COULD MAKE THIS COMMENT? BECAUSE I CAN'T RAISE MY HAND CALLING MYSELF OBVIOUSLY, [INAUDIBLE] GO TO JOIN.
IS THIS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE TAKEN UP WITH THE LDR IS LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS?
[00:35:01]
IS [NOISE] THAT [OVERLAPPING].I THINK THAT INITIALLY THAT WOULD BE MORE OF A QUESTION FOR CATHERINE.
BUT, MS. STEPHANIE, I DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS LANDMARK COMMISSION'S PURVIEW.
THAT'S THE ROUTE THAT R0 APPLICATIONS COME FROM.
I WOULD THINK THAT IF A HISTORIC DISTRICT WANTED TO APPLY TO BE AN R0 DISTRICT, THAT THEY COULD CERTAINLY MAKE THAT APPLICATION.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? [OVERLAPPING] IS THERE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE? YEAH, BUT NOT THROUGH LANDMARK.
YEAH. [OVERLAPPING] I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, IT'S PROBABLY MORE APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
IT'S TYPICALLY THAT'S THE GROUP THAT SPEARHEADS THE R0 EFFORT.
IN HISTORIC DISTRICT., WE DON'T HAVE A TYPICAL 501C4 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
WOULD WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON A CONSENSUS TO THE [OVERLAPPING].
TONY, IS THAT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT.
I KNOW THAT THE EAST END HISTORIC DISTRICT HAS ONE.
WHAT DO YOU CARE? WELL, THERE'S A TAX RAMIFICATION TO IT FOR ONE [OVERLAPPING].
NO I UNDERSTAND BUT THIS IS NOT A TAX QUESTION.
[OVERLAPPING] THIS IS AN ORGANIZATION QUESTION.
CORRECT. BUT THE ORGANIZATION IS FOR HISTORIC HOMEOWNERS AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE ENOUGH [INAUDIBLE] FOR HISTORIC HOMES.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY, TECHNICALLY REPRESENT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOR DOES IT CLAIM TO REPRESENT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S A LARGE ENOUGH ORGANIZATION THAT YOU COULD GET A HEALTHY CONSENSUS WITH A GROUP.
BUT TO SAY THAT WE REPRESENT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS AN ASSOCIATION OF WHICH CATHERINE IS RECOMMENDING DOESN'T EXIST.
THIS THIS IS PROBABLY CLOSER TO [INAUDIBLE] STAND, BUT I WONDER IF WE SHOULDN'T TAKE A LOOK AT THE CHARTER OF THE EASTERN HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSOCIATION.
THERE'S A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ITS BEING A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THAT ASSOCIATION EXISTING.
CORRECT. BUT IT IS HOW THE ASSOCIATION IS LISTED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT [OVERLAPPING].
IS NOT GERMANE TO THE QUESTION.
REALLY, WHERE DO YOU SEE THAT SOMETHING HAS TO BE A 501C4 RATHER THAN A 501C3 IN ORDER TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE? WELL, ACCORDING TO THE IRS, 501C4 IS PART OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS.
[OVERLAPPING] 501C3S ARE NON-PROFITS.
IT IS BASED ON YOUR APPLICATION OF YOUR NON-PROFIT.
OUR NON-PROFIT WAS BASED ON [OVERLAPPING].
I'M NOT SURE YOU GET THIS. FIRST OF ALL, A 501C3 IS ALSO A NON-PROFIT.
BUT THE FACT THAT [OVERLAPPING] WHAT? I JUST SAID, IT'S A NON-PROFIT [OVERLAPPING].
[OVERLAPPING] 501C3 AND 501C4 ARE BOTH NON-PROFITS, THEN THIS ONE IS DESIGNED TO FOSTER THE HEALTH OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WOULD THINK THEY WOULD BE AS QUALIFIED TO MAKE APPLICATION AS ANY ORGANIZATION.
I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW THAT [OVERLAPPING].
IF I MAY, CATHERINE, IF YOU KNOW OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD, WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ORGANIZATION TO MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR AN R0? WELL, THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ORGANIZATION.
IT CAN BE WHATEVER ORGANIZATION.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ABNORMAL.
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
IT CAN JUST BE A GROUP OF CONCERNED RESIDENTS.
[OVERLAPPING] I WAS SAYING THAT IN HOPES THAT THE VEIN OF THAT DISCUSSION IS JUST NIPPED A LITTLE BIT.
IT REALLY IS JUST ANYBODY IN IT.
AS I RECALL, IT IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PERCENTAGES OF HOMEOWNERS THAT WOULD NEED TO GET ON BOARD WITH THE CHANGE OF ZONING.
RIGHT. IT'S A 75 PERCENT OF THE PROBLEM THAT IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED DISTRICT.
>> GO BACK A LITTLE BIT ON HISTORY WHEN THE LAND [INAUDIBLE] COMMITTEES FOR THE LDR, THOSE CREATED AND THE R ZEROS AND ALL THAT WE MADE A BIG PUSH.
THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS MADE A BIG PUSH THAT WE NOT HAVE IN OUR LITTLE COLUMN THAT WE HAVE SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL VOTED AGAINST THAT BECAUSE THEY SAID, ONE LADY SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT WE'RE THE PERFECT PLACE FOR THEM.
I ASSUME THAT THIS PLANNING COMMISSION ON
[00:40:02]
THESE R ZEROS WILL COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL, IS THAT RIGHT? NOW THE COUNCIL WILL VOTE AGAIN.UNLESS WE HAVE [LAUGHTER] THE COUNCIL'S APPROVAL FOR HISTORICAL DISTRICTS TO BE R ZEROS, IT DOESN'T DO ANY GOOD.
I THINK MY AREA WITH THE COTTAGES THAT ARE JUST FLIPPING RIGHT AND LEFT TO BECOME SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
I DON'T SEE [INAUDIBLE] TO EVEN TRY BECAUSE WE GOT THAT MESSAGE LOUD AND CLEAR WITH THE LDRS THAT THERE ARE THE SUBDIVISIONS THAT COULD BE EASILY IDENTIFIED AS BEING COHESIVE AND ALL THE SAME COLONY PARKS, THOSE SUBDIVISIONS THEY THOUGHT WERE APPROPRIATE.
BUT FOR ONES LIKE OURS THAT WE'RE HETEROGENEOUS AND THAT WASN'T THE BRIDGE.
WELL, I THINK WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THOSE SAME STEPS TO GET A HUGE PERCENTAGE OF OUR AREAS [INAUDIBLE] FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS TO SIGN ON TO THAT.
NOW WE HAVE A VERY ORGANIZED COMMITTEE THAT WOULD PUSH IT AHEAD BEFORE WE COULD GET THE APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL.
I'M JUST TELLING YOU THIS HISTORY BEHIND THAT.
WE TRY [LAUGHTER] GO FOR IT AGAIN.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE EXISTING PEOPLE THAT THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS? ARE THEY GRANDFATHERED [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING]?
>> YEAH. THEY'RE GRANDFATHERED.
>> THAT WAS FROM THE BEGINNING.
IF YOU WANT THE LDRS THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN.
>> IS THERE ANY WAY TO REGULATE A DENSITY OF RENTALS, IS THAT TOO LATE IN THE [INAUDIBLE]
THEY CAN'T TAKE A LARGE HISTORICAL HOME AND DIVIDE IT UP AND MAKE HALF OF IT A RENTAL AND THE OTHER HALF A DIFFERENT KIND OF [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO. I MEAN, THE DENSITY OF LIKE, HOW MANY HOUSES PER BLOCK?
>> THE SHORT ANSWER TO THAT IS NO.
>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. THANK YOU.
>> [OVERLAPPING] OR MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THE COUNCIL COULD WORK ON.
WE COULD WORK ON THIS HISTORICAL DISTRICT BOOKS.
>> I'M JUST GOING TO NOT SAY MUCH TO THAT.
>> JONAH. I'M HAPPY TO SAY IT.
IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU WANT TO GO.
CHANGE YOUR STATE LEGISLATURE.
>> [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE] THROW IT DOWN FOR US.
>> AM SORRY. THAT'S THE SOURCE OF THE LIMITATION RIGHT THERE.
[OVERLAPPING] COUNCIL DID NOT MAKE THAT CHANGE.
>> AS I RECALL DIDN'T WE FIGHT THE LEGISLATORS QUITE A BIT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS OURSELVES AS CITY OF GALVESTON [OVERLAPPING] AND NOT HAVE A STATE MAKING FOR US.
IS THAT RIGHT, DAVID? ISN'T THAT WHAT [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE MANAGE TO KEEP THINGS FROM BEING MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THEY ARE, BUT THEY'RE STILL EXTRAORDINARILY RESTRICTIVE AND WE CANNOT REGULATE THE DENSITY.
THIS IS TEXAS. THIS IS A PRIVATE PROPERTY ISSUE. CONVERSATION IS OVER.
>> WELL, THERE IS ONE ISSUE THOUGH.
IF YOU LOOK BACK IN THE HISTORY OF THE ISLAND, HISTORY OF ITS RENAISSANCE, WE REALLY ARE AN ABSOLUTE JAM.
THIS LITTLE ISLAND THEN UNLESS YOU GO AROUND AND GO TO NATIONAL CONVENTIONS SOME THINGS ABOUT IT WITH YOU JUST DON'T REALLY COMPREHEND HOW IMPORTANT ARE LITTLE TINY HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WE'RE NOT LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.
THE STATE CAN'T RECEIVE US LIKE WE'RE EVERYBODY ELSE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT.
THAT'S WHERE I THINK MAYBE IF THERE'S POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, MAYBE IT WOULD HELP.
BUT IT'S A VERY GOOD DISCUSSION.
I APPRECIATE YOU'VE ALL BEEN INVOLVED IN IT.
I KNOW IT'S NOT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW, BUT THANK YOU FOR ALL THE INPUT.
>> I'LL JUST SAY THAT UNDERSTANDING, THE CITY OF GALVESTON, THE ISLAND OF GALVESTON, WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT IN MANY RESPECTS WE ARE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER PLACES, EVEN PLACES THAT HAVE A BEACH, ETC.
BUT I WILL TELL YOU FROM WHAT I HAVE GLEANED AND WHAT THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAS GLEANED.
THE POLITICAL CLIMATE REGARDING THIS ISSUE IS NOT THERE.
I WILL SAY IT EVEN FIRMER THAN COUNCILMAN COLLINS HAS SAID IT. IT'S NOT THERE.
THERE ISN'T THE POLITICAL SUPPORT, AS I SEE IT IN THE LEGISLATURE.
FOR ANY MORE STRINGENT REGULATIONS ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS,
[00:45:02]
THEN WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ESPOUSING.WE HAVE PUT IN PLACE THE NEW SHORT-TERM RENTALS REGULATION REGARDING FEES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND WE'RE ALSO COMING UP WITH SOME OTHER AVENUES TO MONITOR, REGULATE, MAKING SURE REGISTRATION AND ALL THOSE THINGS THAT WE CAN REGULATE ARE GOING TO BE IN PLACE.
BUT I'LL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, IF YOU WERE TO STEP OUT ON THAT LEDGE, I WOULD JUST SAY YOU BY YOURSELF AND NOBODY ELSE IS GOING TO BE JUMPING WITH YOU.
[LAUGHTER] DID I SAY THAT OUT LOUD? I AM SORRY.
>> [INAUDIBLE] THAT WAS CLASSIC.
>> DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS BEFORE WE CLOSE THIS? NO. IS THERE ANYTHING ANYBODY WANTS TO ADD TO THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION NEXT MONTH? WE DON'T HAVE A MEETING IN TWO WEEKS, SO IT'S FOUR WEEKS FROM NOW, BUT IS THERE ANYTHING ANYBODY WANTS TO DISCUSS ON DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS FOR NEXT MONTH, DAVID?
>> I BELIEVE ELECTION OF OFFICERS SHOULD BE AT THE FIRST AVAILABLE MEETING IN OCTOBER [OVERLAPPING].
>> NO, THE NEXT MEETING IS OCTOBER THE 4TH.
THAT'S RIGHT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY CASES [BACKGROUND].
>> THERE WERE NO CASES SUBMITTED FOR THAT MEETING.
YEAH. WE WILL DO IT AT THE SECOND MEETING IN OCTOBER.
THEN IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO SAY, I'D LIKE SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING.
[INAUDIBLE] MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING [INAUDIBLE].
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANKS, EVERYBODY.
>> BYE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.