>> WE'LL CALL THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
[1. Call Meeting To Order]
[00:00:05]
ORDER AT 3:33 PM ON OCTOBER 19TH, AND WE'LL TAKE THE ATTENDANCE,[2. Attendance]
PLEASE, MR. COLLINS.>> COMMISSIONER EDWARDS IS ABSENT.
COMMISSIONER FINKLEY IS ALSO ABSENT. CHAIRPERSON HILL.
>> MR. COLLINS DID YOU NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER WALLA WAS ABSENT TOO? PLEASE, SIR.
>> THANK YOU. FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT, WHO'S WITH US TODAY?
>> ON STAFF SIDE, WE HAVE CATHERINE GORMAN, OUR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, MYSELF PATRICK COLLINS, THE PLANNING TECHNICIAN.
>> ALSO ON THE CALL ARE BRANDON HILL COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER DANNA [INAUDIBLE] ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, AND WE SHOULD BE JOINED BY ADRIAN MONTEVON AND PETER MELBOURNE.
COMMISSIONERS DO WE HAVE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS? SEEING NONE, I WILL NOTE THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM WITH FOUR COMMISSIONERS PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY IS WITH US, ALTHOUGH HIS CAMERA'S NOT ON RIGHT NOW.
[4. Meeting Format (Staff)]
WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS THE MEETING FORMAT, PLEASE? MS. GORMAN.>> JUST OUR STANDARD MEETING REMINDERS THAT YOU SHOULD WATCH THE MEETING IN GALLERY VIEW AT THAT ALLOWS YOU TO SEE ALL OF YOUR COMMISSIONERS AND IT'S HOW IT'S SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC.
WE ASK THAT YOU KEEP MUTED UNLESS YOU'RE SPEAKING IN ORDER TO CUT DOWN ON BACKGROUND NOISE.
WE ALSO ASK THAT YOU PHYSICALLY RAISE YOUR HAND TO GET THE CHAIRS ATTENTION BEFORE SPEAKING OR MAKING A MOTION, AND WE'LL BE TAKING THE VOTES BY ROLL CALL.
FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE IN THE MEETING, WE ASK THAT YOU USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN IN ORDER TO INDICATE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK.
COMMISSIONERS, WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES OF
[5. Approval Of Minutes]
THE OCTOBER 5TH, 2021 MEETING.DID ANYONE HAVE ANY ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS, OR CHANGES TO THOSE MINUTES? SEEING NONE, THOSE MINUTES WILL BE ACCEPTED AS WRITTEN.
WE ARE ACCEPTING PUBLIC COMMENT IN WRITING, PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO NOON TODAY OR 11 O'CLOCK TODAY WAS SUMMARIZED AND SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONERS.
WE RECEIVED IT BEFORE NOON TODAY.
ADDITIONALLY, YOU CAN COMMENT, PUBLIC COMMENT CAN BE RECEIVED ON THIS ZOOM CALL.
YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EITHER COMMENT AT THE TIME THAT THE CASE IS CALLED ON THE AGENDA OR YOU MAY COMMENT NOW, FOR EITHER AGENDA ITEMS OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS. ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SAY ON THAT CATHERINE, BEFORE I CALL FOR PEOPLE TO RAISE THEIR HANDS?
>> I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT YOU COULD ALSO MAKE A COMMENT AT THIS POINT FOR THE DISCUSSION ITEMS.
>> THANK YOU. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO COMMENT NOW? IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
SOMETIMES YOUR HAND IS RAISED AND SOMETIMES IT ISN'T.
MS. SCHNEIDER, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK OR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION. SEEING NONE.
[7.A.1. 21P-055 (0 Opihi)]
WE HAVE PUBLIC SHARING ITEM, COMMISSIONERS, THESE ITEMS ARE SIMPLY A PUBLIC HEARING.FIRST WE HAVE ITEM 21P-055. [NOISE]
>> GREAT. LET'S GO TO THE 21P-055.
HOPE I'M PRONOUNCING THAT CORRECTLY.
[NOISE] IT SAYS AGAIN, AS YOU MENTIONED, TO A PERSON, THAT THIS ONLY A PUBLIC HEARING, NO ACTION REQUIRED.
THERE WERE 22 PUBLIC NOTICES IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE REPLANT IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM 3-6 IN A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT, AND THE REPLY CONSIST OF SUBDIVIDE INTO
[00:05:03]
COMMERCIAL RESERVES AND ONE LANDSCAPE RESERVE INTO FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS, LANDSCAPED RESERVE, NEW PARK AND RESERVE.PLEASE NOTE THE MINIMUM LOT STANDARDS, AS WELL AS THE APPROVAL CRITERIA ON PAGE 2 OF THE REPORT.
ALSO NOTE THE BLACK CONDITIONS, AND OF COURSE THOSE WILL BE APPROVED WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED AS ONE THROUGH FOUR.
NOW WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS ARE IN SLIDES.
THIS IS THE AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT PARTIALS THAT ARE GOING TO BE SUBDIVIDED.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED RE-PLAN CONFIGURATION. THAT'S THE POINT.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:39 PM AND IS THE APPLICANT WITH US TODAY? [NOISE] CATHERINE OR THE REINHARDT'S HERE?
>> YES THE REINHARDT'S ARE HERE.
REINHARDT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> MS. REINHARDT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE READY TO GO.
>> SORRY. THANK YOU. YES. PERSON I'M HERE IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU GUYS.
DO YOU ALL HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANNA SAY ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR RE-PLOUGH?
>> WE'RE JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
>> GREAT, COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE REINHARDT'S? I DON'T SEE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU ALL.
[NOISE] LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE OFF THE HOOK ON THAT ONE.
ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? ANYONE ELSE HAD THEIR HAND RAISED ON THIS ONE, CATHERINE?
>> ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION. SEEING NONE.
>> GREAT. IN THAT CASE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 03:41 PM, AND WE HAVE NO MOTION ON THIS BECAUSE WE TAKE NO ACTION, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THAT'S THAT.
WE'LL MOVE ON NOW TO CASE 21P-056.
[7.A.2. 21P-056 (Sea Butterfly And Grand Ave)]
THIS IS AT THE CORNER OF SEA BUTTERFLY AND GRANT AVENUE IN THE SAME SUBDIVISION.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO RE-PLAT TWO LOTS INTO 12.
THERE WERE 35 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO RE-PLAT TO INCREASE THEIR MALATHION TO 12.
THE RE-PLAT WILL CONSIST OF SUBDIVIDED INTO RESIDENTIAL RESERVES AND TO 10 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, LANDSCAPED RESERVE, AND A RESIDENTIAL RESERVE AREA AS WELL.
PLEASE NOTE THE LAST STANDARDS AND PLAT APPROVAL CRITERIA ON PAGE 2 OF YOUR REPORT, AND ALSO KNOW THE PLAT OF CONDITIONS.
THIS PLAT IS APPROVED WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED AS ONE THROUGH FOUR, AND NOW WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.
[BACKGROUND] THIS IS A ARIEL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE OR PARTIAL X.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED CONFIGURATION OR RE-PLAT AND THAT CONCLUDES SUCCESSFULLY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ADRIEL.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:42 PM, AND I SEE THAT THE REINHARDT'S ARE STILL ON THE CALL AND THEY ARE STILL UNMUTED? YES, CATHERINE.
DEBBIE, ARE YOU ALL STILL THERE?
>> YES, WE CAN. ANYTHING YOU'LL WANT TO SAY SPECIFICALLY ON THIS ONE?
>> NO. JUST AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> OKAY. GREAT. MS. GORMAN, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON THE LINE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT MAYBE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE REINHARDT'S ON THIS ONE?
>> I ASK THAT ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
LOOKS LIKE BETSY SCHNEIDER WOULD LIKE TO TALK.
>> MS. SCHNEIDER, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE?
>> MS. SCHNEIDER, YOU'VE BEEN UNMUTED ON OUR END, YOU MIGHT NEED TO UNMUTE ON YOUR END.
[00:10:01]
IF YOU'RE ON WITH YOUR PHONE, YOU CAN TRY PRESSING STAR SIX TO UNMUTE.>> MS. SCHNEIDER? DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS CASE OR WERE YOU WAITING FOR 21P-052?
>> YES. HI. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
>> WELL, I'M GETTING ALL CONFUSED WITH THE NUMBERS AND STUFF.
IS THIS MY TURN TO TALK ABOUT THE BEACHFRONT IN FRONT OF ME?
>> NO, MA'AM. WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THE ONE THAT'S IN BEACHSIDE VILLAGE.
THE ONE IN YOUR AREA IS COMING UP NEXT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO WAIT UNTIL WE HEAR THAT ONE NEXT?
>> YEAH. I'LL TALK NEXT ABOUT TERRAMAR BEACH THEN, RIGHT?
>> OKAY. GREAT. JUST HANG ON JUST ANOTHER MINUTE AND THEN WILL BE TO THAT ONE.
>> ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK ON THE RE-PLAT IN BEACHSIDE VILLAGE? YEAH, OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ON THIS, CATHERINE, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE?
>> THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:45 PM, AND SAY GOODBYE TO THE REINHARDT'S.
NOW WE WILL OPEN CASE 21P-052.
[8.A.1. 21P-052 (23110 Gulf Dr.)]
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIS IS BRANDON HILL, THE COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER.
THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
AT THE OCTOBER 5TH, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, THIS REQUEST WAS DEFERRED UNTIL THE OCTOBER 19TH, 2021 MEETING WITH THE REQUEST TO RECEIVE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, FOUNDATION SLASH PILING PLANS FROM THE APPLICANT AND WITH THE APPLICANT TO REVISIT THEIR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE TO TRY AND MINIMIZE THE FOOTPRINT WITHIN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, A FIBER CREATE SLAB IN ASSOCIATED DOING MITIGATION PROJECT.
THE ADDRESS IS 23110 GULF DRIVE.
THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IS ABSTRACT 121 PAGE 12, LOT 14, TERRAMAR BEACH, SECTION 5.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE TERRAMAR BEACH SUBDIVISION.
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE NORTH, EAST, AND WEST.
A BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF TWO FEET PER YEAR.
TO PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A FIBER CREATE FOOTPRINT BENEATH THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE IS APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET FROM THE NORTH OF THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA AND 63 FEET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
THIS IS LANDWARD OF THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE AND WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AREA.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE SEAWARD OF SOME DUNES AND IN VEGETATION.
THEREFORE, APPROPRIATE MITIGATION ACTIVITIES ARE PROPOSED.
UPON CONSIDERATION OF ALL PERTINENT COMPONENTS OF CHAPTER 29 PLANNING BEACH ACCESS DUNE AND PROTECTION AND BEACH TRUNK CONSTRUCTION AND THE GLO'S COMMENTS RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF CONSIDERING THIS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS.
AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION KNOWS, EXEMPTIONS CAN BE GRANTED IN AN INSTANCE FOR WHERE PROPERTIES FOR WHICH THE OWNER HAS DEMONSTRATED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY THAT THERE IS NO PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE TO CONSTRUCTION WITHIN OR SEAWARD OF THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
IN DETERMINING WHAT IS PRACTICABLE, THE CITY CONSIDERS WHETHER AN ACTION TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNIQUE IS COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE AND CAPABLE OF BEING DONE AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FOOTPRINT OF THE STRUCTURE IN RELATION TO THE AREA OF THE BUILDING PORTION OF BLOCK AND CONSIDERING THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY.
DUE TO THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANT, THERE IS NO LONGER A FOOTPRINT IMPACT WITHIN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA, ONLY A PORTION OF THE HOME WHICH OVERHANGS INTO THE DCA.
THE PARTIAL FIBER-CREATED SLAB IS CONFINED TO THE PORTION LANDWARD OF THE 25 FOOT OFFSET FROM THE NORTH OF THE DUNE AND HAS BEEN MOVED FURTHER LANDWARD SINCE THE LAST MEETING, SHOWING THE STEPS WERE TAKEN TO MINIMIZE ITS FOOTPRINT.
THE PILINGS NOW STOP AT 25 FEET AND ONE INCH FROM THE NORTH OF THE DUNE, AND THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS NOT BUILT OUT TO THE BUILDING LINES WHICH ARE
[00:15:04]
SHOWN IN YOUR PACKET AND AS FAR LANDWARD AS PRACTICABLE, CONFORMING TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON EROSION RESPONSE PLAN, SECTION 5, CHAPTER 31 OF THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 15.6B, AND INDICATING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT CITING ALTERNATIVES.STAFF FINDS THAT THIS REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACH ACCESS PLAN AND EROSION RESPONSE PLAN, HAVING INCLUDED AN APPROPRIATE MITIGATION STRATEGY AND ALLOWANCE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS WITHIN A POTENTIAL PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT.
THE RELOCATION OF A QUANTITY OF SAND AND SITE VEGETATION WILL TIE INTO AN EXISTING DUNE CREST TO THE EAST TO SERVE TO BOLSTER A CURRENTLY WEEKEND AREA.
PAGES 1 AND 2 OF THE STAFF REPORT SUMMARIZE THE APPLICANTS' PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.
THE REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACH ACCESS AND EROSION RESPONSE PLAN.
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT C FOR THE PROPOSED DRAWINGS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL FOR THE CASE 21P-O52 AND WILL INCLUDE THE GLO'S COMMENT LETTER WITH THE ACTION LETTER WHICH SERVES AS A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT.
STAFF REPORT PAGES 2 AND 3, LISTS THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ARE NUMBERED ONE THROUGH THREE AND STANDARD CONDITIONS ARE FOUR THROUGH 18.
THESE HAVE BEEN UPDATED AND INCLUDED IN THE MEMO WHICH EXISTS AT THE FRONT OF YOUR STAFF PACKET TODAY, AND INCLUDES A SPECIFIC STANDARD PERMIT CONDITION WHICH STATES THAT THE APPLICANT MUST CONFORM TO ALL SECTIONS OF 15 OF THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTION 15, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE OUTLINED IN THE GLO COMMENT LETTER ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE AND DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT.
STAFF HAS INCLUDED SOME UPDATED SLIDES AND PHOTOS FOR YOUR EDIFICATION.
HERE YOU CAN SEE THE AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE BEG, EROSION RATE AS WELL AS THE NEW DRAWING FOR THE HOME.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE IS THE FIRM MAP WITH THAT SAME DRAWING. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE YOU SEE THE UPDATED DRAWINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THE HOME HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY MOVED LANDWARD AND WIDENED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE LIVING STRUCTURE.
THE OVERHANG, WHICH I SPOKE ABOUT IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, IS VISIBLE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN WHERE YOU SEE THAT THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PILINGS ARE 25 FEET, ONE INCH FROM THE NORTHWEST OF THE DUNE, AND THEN THE HOUSE ITSELF OVERHANGS UTILIZING I-BEAMS SLIGHTLY INTO THE 25 FOOT OFFSET AREA.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE YOU WILL SEE THE SITE PROFILE OF WHAT'S PROPOSED CATHERINE, IF YOU'LL CLICK ONCE, HOLD ON, GO BACK.
SO JUST FOR CLARITY SAKE YEAH THERE YOU ARE, I ADDED SOME ANIMATIONS, SORRY CATHERINE.
SO JUST FOR CLARITY SAKE, THIS IS THE SECTION OF THE HOUSE THAT YOU'RE SEEING SHOWN IN THIS SIDE PROFILE WHERE YOU CAN SEE THAT THE DUNE THAT IS BEING CREATED AS PART OF THIS MITIGATION WILL SIT IN FRONT OF THE HOME, AND THE YOU CAN SEE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE DUNE TO ITSELF IN THE HOME THAT IS BEING BUILT.
NEXT SLIDE. THIS PROFILE, IF YOU'LL ADVANCE IT ONE TIME AND ALLOW THE ANIMATION TO PLAY. THERE WE GO.
THIS SLIDE IS THE OPPOSITE SIDE, THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
YOU'LL SEE THE EXISTING DUNE AND ITS DISTANCE TO THE PILING ITSELF.
NEXT SLIDE, HERE ARE THE PHOTOS POST NICHOLAS THAT SHOW THE SITE YOU CAN SEE FACING SOUTH ON THE PROPERTY THAT THERE ARE PATHS THAT CROSS THROUGH THE PROPERTY GOING TO THE BEACH, NEXT SLIDE.
HERE IT IS FACING NORTH FROM THE LOV AND FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, YOU CAN SEE THE GENERAL LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
[00:20:01]
NEXT SLIDE, FACING EAST AND WEST ON THE PROPERTY.NEXT SLIDE, HERE ARE SOME POST HURRICANE NICHOLAS SITE CONDITIONS SHOWING THAT THERE WAS A TEMPORARY DIE OFF OF VEGETATION IN THAT FOR DUNE RIDGE IS ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, AND THAT CORRELATES WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS WELL.
THIS CONCLUDES THE STAFF REPORT.
I AM AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THIS AS IS THE APPLICANT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, APPRECIATED BRANDON.
WE'LL NOW OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND I AM GOING TO GO FIRST IF THAT'S OKAY.
I HAVE A QUESTION AND I GUESS IT RELATES BRANDON TO THE FACT THAT WE THAT WE DID PUT IN THE STANDARD CONDITION 18 ABOUT THE GLO COMMENT LETTER AND THE FACT THAT THIS PLAN WAS SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED FROM WHAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE GLO.
DO WE ASK THE GLO TO COMMENT AGAIN? WOULD THEIR COMMENTS THEN CHANGE AND WOULD THAT CHANGE WHAT SHOULD BE ATTACHED TO THIS STAFF REPORT, HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THIS?
>> I REACHED OUT TO MICHELLE WITH THE GLO AND REQUESTED THAT EXACT SAME THING.
SO ON OCTOBER 11TH, I REACHED OUT AND MADE HER AWARE THAT THERE HAD BEEN FEEDBACK THAT WAS GIVEN FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHICH WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN SOME CHANGES FROM THE APPLICANT.
I MADE HER AWARE OF WHAT THOSE CHANGES WERE AND SHE ASKED IF THERE WERE GOING TO BE ANY CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED ADVERSE IMPACTS, TO THE DUNE VEGETATION OR ASSOCIATED MITIGATION AREA? I CONFIRMED WITH THE APPLICANT THAT THERE ARE NO INCREASE IN IMPACTS.
IT'S JUST A CHANGE IN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE AND THEREFORE A CHANGE IN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE IMPACTS, BUT THAT THERE WAS ACTUALLY A MINIMIZATION OF THE IMPACTS TO THE DUNES SINCE IT WAS PULLED FURTHER BACK ONTO THE LOT.
I SHARED THAT WITH MICHELLE AND HER STATEMENT WAS THAT ALL OF THE COMMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS INCLUDED IN OUR PREVIOUS COMMENT LETTER ARE STILL ENFORCEABLE UNDER LAW.
I DO NOT THINK THAT FURTHER GLO REVIEW IS REQUIRED IN THIS INSTANCE.
WE CAN PROVIDE A REVISED LETTER IF YOU THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT ONLY IF THERE ARE CHANGES IN THE MITIGATION PLAN.
PLEASE SEND US A COPY SO THAT WE HAVE THAT FOR OUR RECORDS.
SO THE GLO IS OKAY WITH THIS CHANGE GIVEN THE NATURE OF IT, AND WE WILL BE CERTAIN TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE UPDATED MITIGATION PLANS FROM THE DRAWINGS HERE AND THEIR RECORDS.
I WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
COMMISSIONERS, WHO ELSE HAS A QUESTION FOR MR. HILL? YES. COMMISSIONER PYNA.
>> I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN HERE ABOUT THE WALK OVER WAS THAT, DID I MISS SOMETHING ON THAT? SO THAT'S OUR MITIGATION PLAN.
>> NO. THE APPLICANT, AFTER THE LAST HEARING, DECIDED TO REMOVE THE WALK OVER FROM HIS CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
THE WALK OVER IS NO LONGER BEING PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT.
>> MAYBE THAT GOES TO MY NEXT QUESTION IS THOSE SPLIT PATHS THAT ARE CUT INTO THE DUNE WILL THAT GROW BACK WILL THEY STILL BE USING THOSE EXISTING ONES, WILL THEY GOING TO BE USING A DIFFERENT ROUTE IS GOING TO BE TAKING.
>> GREAT QUESTIONS THERE, COMMISSIONER PYNA.
THE REASON THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD SHOWN THOSE IN OUR PHOTOS IS BECAUSE IT IS CLEAR THAT EITHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN ACCESSING THE BEACH THROUGH THIS PROPERTY.
THAT WAS BROUGHT UP TO THE APPLICANT WHEN WE WERE ORIGINALLY SPEAKING WITH THEM, AND THAT IS WHY THEY SET ASIDE A PORTION OF THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT CAN STILL BE USED AS A BEACH ACCESS ROUTE.
THE HOME ITSELF IS GOING TO BE SITTING RIGHT IN
[00:25:04]
THE LINE OF WHERE SOME OF THOSE CURRENT PATHS TO GO THROUGH.BUT THANKS TO THE APPLICANT, BEING WILLING TO ACCOUNT FOR THE POTENTIAL OF ACCESS, PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO WALK DOWN THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHICH IS VISIBLE ON THE MAPS.
THAT COMES OFF OF GOLF ROUTE DRIVE ITSELF, AND THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE BEACH THROUGH THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
CURRENTLY THE DUNES IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE WHERE THOSE PATHS CUT THROUGH TO THE BEACH, THAT IS THE SECTION THAT WILL BECOME A MITIGATED DUNE, AND THEN TO THE WEST OF THAT IS WHERE PEOPLE WILL STILL BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE BEACH.
BUT THE MANY OF THE PATHS WHICH HAVE MADE, IF YOU RECALL, I DON'T KNOW IF CATHERINE WANTS TO PULL A BACKUP, BUT IF YOU RECALL THE PHOTOS LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY FROM THE BEACH ITSELF, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS FAIRLY LOW AND IMPACTED.
THERE YOU CAN SEE THE THE TRUCK SITTING BACK THERE, AND YOU SEE THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL PATHS CUT THROUGH THE VEGETATION THERE ON THAT WESTERN PORTION.
THAT'S WHERE THIS DUNE IS GOING TO BE CREATED, AND THEN THAT ALONG THE FAR WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE HOUSE THAT IS TO THE WEST, IN LINE WITH THAT IS WHERE PEOPLE WILL STILL BE ABLE TO WALK RIGHT WHERE THAT TRUCK IS PARKED FROM THE ROAD AND ONTO THE BEACH WITHOUT IMPACTING THE MITIGATION THAT IS GOING TO BE DONE ON THIS LOT ONCE THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED.
>> I'M SORRY. ONE MORE QUESTION IS, AND THAT'S GREAT TO HEAR ABOUT HOW THAT WESTERN SIDE AND ACCESS, BUT THAT'LL BE PRIVATE PROPERTY AND IN SOME WAY WALKING THROUGH AND HOW DOES THAT BEACH ACCESS WORK? IS THAT STILL, I'M SORRY.
WHAT IF THEY DECIDE TO SELL IN FIVE YEARS AND THE NEXT PERSON THAT BUYS IT ISN'T?
>> CERTAINLY. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE COME ACROSS OR I'VE COME ACROSS IN THE PAST AND IT'S WHAT'S CALLED A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT.
ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO REACH THE PUBLIC BEACH EASEMENT ITSELF.
WHATEVER ROUTE THEY HAD BEEN TAKING TO GET TO THAT EASEMENT.
ESSENTIALLY, THEY ARE PRESCRIBED THE EASEMENT TO THAT LARGER BEACH EASEMENT.
SO THIS PATH WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST IN PERPETUITY AS LONG AS PEOPLE CONTINUE TO USE IT, AND SHOULD THE GLO, I HAVE SPOKEN WITH THEM ABOUT THIS IN THE PAST WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN PROPERTY OWNERS OR NEIGHBORHOODS OR SIMPLE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE WANTED TO BUILD ACROSS WHAT HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT, AND EVERY TIME THE GLO HAS HELD THAT, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN USING THAT TO ACCESS THEIR PUBLIC BEACH EASEMENT THAT THEY SHOULD STILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO SO IN PERPETUITY, AND THAT'S ONE OF OUR BIG CHARGES HERE WITHIN OUR DIVISION IS ACCOUNTING FOR HOW PEOPLE ARE GETTING TO THE PUBLIC BEACH AND MAKING SURE THAT WE CONTINUE TO MAKE THAT POSSIBLE.
I ASSURE YOU THAT THE GLO WILL CONTINUE TO BE VIGILANT ON MAKING SURE THAT PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS REMAINED IN PLACE AS WE WILL AS WELL.
>>YEAH. SEE THAT THEY TOOK OUR RECOMMENDATION AND I RELOCATED THEIR FRONT ROW PILINGS, THAT WAS REALLY A GOOD MOVE.
HOWEVER, I DIDN'T SEE AN ARCHITECTURAL OR ENGINEERING SITE PLAN THAT LOCATED THE PROJECT ON THE SITE.
WELL, THE MITIGATION PLAN SHOWED IT.
DID THEY SUBMIT THE SITE, THE ONE FOR CONSTRUCTION, I MEAN?
>> THEY PROVIDED WHAT WAS IDENTIFIED IN YOUR APPLICATION AS NEW PROVISIONS, AND I THINK THAT GIVEN THE EXISTING REQUIREMENTS IN OUR APPLICATION AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, COMMISSIONER BROWN, THAT THEY'VE PROVIDED THE DRAWINGS THAT WERE REQUESTED, BUT IF YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THOSE,
[00:30:01]
I'M SURE THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS THAT WITH YOU.>> THAT'S THE ONLY CONCERN, PROCESSING ENQUIRIES ARE GOING TO REQUIRE AN ASSIGNMENT.
THIS IS A DIMENSION TO LOOK AT PROJECT ON SITE, IT CONFORMS TO WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN MITIGATION PLAN, IS THAT TRUE?
WOULD YOU MIND REPEATING THAT?
>> YEAH. I GUESS DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS YOU WOULD REQUIRE A SITE PLAN.
THE PROJECT ON THE SITE OF [INAUDIBLE] THAT WE SEE ON THE MITIGATION PLAN, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> IT IS REQUIRED THAT YOU HAVE AN ACCURATE MAP, PLAT OR PLAN.
THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, AND THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T SPEAK DIRECTLY TO ANY ENGINEERED SITE PLAN OR ARCHITECTURAL PLANS THAT ARE REQUIRED.
>> WELL, HERE'S MY CONCERN IS THAT WHOEVER'S GOING TO BUILD IT AS THE SET OF PLANS IN HER HANDS THAT ALLOWS THEM TO LOCATE THE FILINGS THAT ARE IN THE SAME LOCATION IS NOT A MITIGATION PLAN AND RIGHT NOW THEY DON'T HAVE THAT.
THE FOUNDATION IT'S ALL WITHIN ITS OWN SET OF PARAMETERS, BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT REFERENCES IT.
IS A DUNES OR ANYTHING, PROPERTY LINES OR ANYTHING ELSE.
ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION AS LONG FOR MITIGATION BUT NOT DIRECTION.
THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING, I ASSUME BEFORE THEY GET A PERMANENT THEY WOULD NEED SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
FOR CONSTRUCT, THAT TELLS ME WHERE THIS PROJECT NEED TO BE LOCATED RELATIVE TO THE PROPERTY LINES AND BUILDING LINES AND THE ARCHITECT THAT DO THE CONSTRUCTION.
>> I'M CERTAIN THAT THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS, DOES SPECIFICALLY CALL FOR THOSE ENGINEERED PLANS FOR WHAT WE'RE REVIEWING WITHIN OUR DIVISION, I FEEL THAT WHAT'S BEEN PROVIDED IS SHOWING THE ADEQUATE INFORMATION.
>> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I SAW THE COMMENT ABOUT DRAINAGE, BUT I DIDN'T SEE AND MAYBE I MISSED IT, A DRAINAGE PLAN HERE, MR. HILL?
>> I KNOW THAT THEY PROVIDED THE TOPOGRAPHICAL WHICH SHOWS THE CONTOURS FROM WHICH DRAINAGE COULD BE INFERRED.
BUT I DO NOT KNOW IF THE APPLICANT HAS SUPPLIED A DRAINAGE PLAN AS IT WERE.
>> OKAY. JUST SO YOU'LL KNOW, NORMALLY WE GET A DRAINAGE PLAN WITH NICE LITTLE ARROWS THAT SHOW WHICH WAY THE WATER IS GOING TO FLOW.
AGAIN, JUST WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE INFERENCES THAT WE NEED TO KNOW WHICH WAY THAT WATER IS GOING TO FLOW AND I KNOW THAT YOU COVER IT IN A CONDITION, BUT JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE'D LIKE TO SEE THAT IN A PLAN TO SEE WHERE THE RUNOFF FLOWS.
THEN THERE WAS ONE OTHER THING THAT IT WAS GOING TO SAY, HOLD ON JUST A MINUTE.
JUST THE SAME COMMENT THAT BOB HAD ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SITE PLAN AND THE DRAWINGS FOR THE PILINGS THAT THE ONLY PLACE WE ASSUME IS ON THE MITIGATION PLAN AND NORMALLY, WE DON'T HAVE A MITIGATION PLAN LIKE THIS.
WE OWN THE ACTUAL ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SITE PLANS.
I'LL LEAVE THE FATE HERE ON THIS.
>> AS WE'VE DISCUSSED OFFLINE AFTER THE PREVIOUS MEETING, SOME OF THE SPECIFIC INFORMATION THAT
[00:35:01]
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SEE MOVING FORWARD IN ORDER TO MAKE SOME OF THESE DECISIONS.THE CURRENT PERMIT CHECKLIST THAT IS SENT OUT TO OUR APPLICANTS, THAT IS NR APPLICATION SPEAKS TO WHAT IS REQUIRED IN APPLICATIONS.
ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS THAT IT REQUIRES A COPY OF A TOPOGRAPHIC MAP WHICH SHOWS THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE, THE NORTH OF THE DUNE, THE CONTINUOUS LINE OF VEGETATION, THE LANDLORD THE EXISTS IN COPPICE MOUNDS, MAN-MADE VEGETATION MOUNDS, IF THOSE EXIST, CURRENT DUNE RESTORATION PROJECTS, DISTANCE TO MEAN HIGH TIDE AND THEN IT MUST SHOW LOW ELEVATIONS FOR DRAINAGE, BUT IT DOESN'T SPEAK TO A DRAINAGE PLAN.
I KNOW THAT WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS SEEN PREVIOUSLY COMPARED TO WHAT IT IS THAT OUR ORDINANCES OR THE APPLICATION ITSELF ACTUALLY ASKS FOR.
I THINK THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE WORKING TO MAKE THOSE THINGS SINK UP A LOT MORE MOVING FORWARD, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE DEFINITELY LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING ON, MAKING SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR FROM THE APPLICANTS MEETS THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING THESE DECISIONS.
BUT I DO WANT US TO MAKE SURE THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICANT ON THIS ONE, THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP TODAY, THAT IS HOW THEY ARE DESCRIBED IN THE CURRENT PROCESS.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:10 PM.
DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT WITH US?
>> YES, THE APPLICANT TO USE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
YOU'VE BEEN UNMUTED AND YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
FIRST THING I WANT TO DO IS THANK YOU FOR TAKING ALL OF OUR COMMENTS TO HEART AND WORKING SO QUICKLY AND DILIGENTLY AND REALLY COMPLYING WITH SO MANY OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.
NOW, IS YOUR TIME TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION SO WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY, SIR?
>> YES. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR COMMENTS BACK.
I DID TAKE IT TO HEART AND LOOKING AT IT AS LIKE, I DON'T WANT TO COME BACK WE'VE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
WE WERE VERY QUICKLY TO REDESIGN EVERYTHING, AND WE ACTUALLY LIKE THIS HOUSE A LOT BETTER.
WE'RE ACTUALLY A VERY THANKFUL FOR YOUR COMMENTS BECAUSE WE ENDED UP WITH A BETTER PRODUCT I THINK SO. WE'RE VERY EXCITED.
AS FAR AS THE DRAINAGE PLAN, I DO HAVE DRAINAGE PLAN ACTUALLY, BUT IT'S UNDERNEATH THE OLD HOUSE.
WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING EVERYTHING UPDATED NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL TURNED AROUND BY LIKE LAST TUESDAY IN ORDER TO GET IT IN FOR THIS MEETING.
WE WERE SCRAMBLING TO GET EVERYTHING IN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, BUT EVERYTHING THAT'S TALKED ABOUT, SITE PLANS, DRAINAGE PLANS WERE ON TOP OF IT.
WE'RE TRYING TO GET AS MUCH THIS [INAUDIBLE] AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
>> ALL RIGHT. GREAT. THANK YOU.
I'M GLAD IT WORKED OUT WELL FOR YOU TOO.
COMMISSIONERS, WHO HAS QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YES SIR. COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.
>> WELL, MR. SEYMOUR, I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU SPEND CONSIDERABLE EXTRA COSTS TO BRING US THIS INFORMATION IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WE'LL SEE, SO FAR EVERYTHING [LAUGHTER] BEEN FREE.
I'LL HAVE TO HAVE ENGINEERING COSTS TO RE-ENGINEER.
WE'RE IN THAT PROCESS, BUT THAT'S ABOUT IT ALL THE SUCCESS ABOUT ENGINEERING COSTS.
>> OKAY. YOU SAID YOU WILL HAVE A PLAN AVAILABLE?
WHENEVER WE GET THOSE DONE, WE CAN SUBMIT THEM FOR FINAL PAPERS IF YOU'LL NEED THEM.
>> OKAY, I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE MAYBE GEARED MORE TOWARD MR. BRANDON HILL.
I'M TRYING TO SCROLL BACK TO IT SO THAT'S WHY I DID.
I KNOW WE HAVE THE CONDITIONAL ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE DONE THAT ARE MENTIONED,
[00:40:04]
AND WE CAN ADD OR SUBTRACT IN THOSE CONDITIONAL ITEMS; IS THAT CORRECT?>> IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, YOU'RE INFERRING THAT THE DRAINAGE WILL BE GOOD; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, SIR. I THINK THAT IT IS.
WHAT I LOOK FOR IN TERMS OF DRAINAGE IS DOES IT REFLECT A SIMILAR ENVIRONMENT TO WHAT IT IS AROUND? THE BIG THING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE CHANGING WHEN THEY IMPACT THE GRADING OF THIS PROPERTY IS THEY ARE TAKING AN AREA THAT IS CURRENTLY A LITTLE BIT LOW WHERE THE SCALLOPING EFFECT HAS HAPPENED ON THE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF JUST PEOPLE WALKING ACROSS IT AND THE WAY THAT THE PROPERTY ITSELF HAS MIGRATED.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE TAKING THAT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING A HOUSE THERE AND LEVELING THAT HOUSE.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE A NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE BEACH OR TO THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE THEN GOING TO TAKE THE MATERIAL THAT THEY ARE GRADING OUT FROM THE PROPERTY AND THEY'RE GOING TO CREATE A MITIGATED DUNE OUT OF IT.
IT IS GOING TO BE HIGHER THAN THE DUNE TO THE EAST.
BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT I DON'T THINK WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT.
IN FACT, IF ANYTHING, IT WILL MIGRATE ITSELF OVER TIME.
MOTHER NATURE HAS A WAY OF EVENING THINGS OUT, AND SO I FORESEE THE DUNE RIDGE ITSELF BEGINNING TO MIGRATE AND LOOK MORE SIMILAR TO WHAT IS EXISTING THERE CURRENTLY, RIGHT NOW THERE'S REALLY A LOW SPOT WHERE THIS DUNE IS BEING PROPOSED SO IF ANYTHING WILL SEE A DIMINISHMENT IN THE POTENTIAL FOR, LET'S SAY, STORM RUN-UP TO IMPACT THIS PROPERTY OR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BY DOING THIS.
IN TERMS OF MY ASSESSMENT, I'VE NOT SEEN ANYTHING THAT IS A CAUSE FOR CONCERN REGARDING THE IMPACTS THAT THE PROPERTY DRAINAGE WOULD CAUSE.
>> COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY ADD THAT INCLUSION OF THE DRAINAGE PLAN, THE REVISED DRAINAGE PLAN THAT MR. SEYMOUR SAYS THAT THEY ARE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW AS A SPECIAL CONDITION.
WE COULD CERTAINLY ADD THAT AS A SPECIFIC CONDITION INCLUDING THAT AND PENDING THAT.
IF THAT'S WHERE YOU WERE GOING ON THAT.
>> THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING AND I THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I THINK THAT'S A REAL GOOD PLANS SIR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. SEYMOUR, THERE WAS THE SAME THING ON THE ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SITE PLANS, CORRECT? AS WELL AS THE DRAINAGE PLAN?
>> OKAY GREAT. PERFECT. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. WE THANK YOU, MR. SEYMOUR.
>> NOW WE WILL CONTINUE ON WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I THINK WE HAD AT LEAST ONE OTHER PERSON WHO WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING; IS THAT CORRECT, MS. GORMAN? CATHERINE?
>> ABOUT THAT. BETSY SCHNEIDER, SHE WANTED TO COMMENT, SHE HAS BEEN UNMUTED, SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> HI. IT'S NICE TO HAVE YOU WITH US.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT AND WELCOME, AND YOU MAY BEGIN WHEN YOU'RE READY.
I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT THE PICTURES THAT WERE SHOWN TODAY ARE OLD.
SINCE NICHOLAS, EVERYTHING THAT WAS GREEN IS BROWN BECAUSE THE OCEAN COMES OVER.
THEN WHEN IT RAINS, IT COMES FROM THE SIDE ALSO FROM THE ROADS POURING DOWN.
IT ALWAYS FLOODS HERE TERRIBLY.
IT WAS 28 FEET THAT WAS OPENED THAT HE'S TRYING TO CALL A PATH THAT'S FROM THE OCEAN OPEN IN EARTH, TAKES IT AWAY CONSTANTLY, THE VEGETATION.
THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR HAS 40 FEET OF SAND AND NO VEGETATION.
THERE IS A VERY STRONG CURRENT THERE AND
[00:45:03]
MOTHER NATURE JUST CONTINUES TO TAKE THAT SAND AWAY.IT'S WHY THE CURRENT IS SO STRONG.
I HAVE DUNES IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY TO PROTECT MY HOUSE.
THOSE ARE MY DUNES IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE.
YOU CAN'T HAVE THEM THERE ON MY PROPERTY.
[NOISE] BUT SAY THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN A NON BUILDABLE PROPERTY FOR OVER 10 YEARS, AND HOW I KNOW THAT IS THE TAXES WERE ONLY 500 A YEAR.
THERE HAS BEEN A STORM WHEN SOMEBODY WAS BUILDING AND EVERYTHING CAME DOWN.
THERE IS CEMENT UNDER THE PROPERTY AND OTHER THINGS AND YOU CAN'T BUILD ON CEMENT.
IF A HOUSE IS BUILT THERE, IT'S GOING TO COME CRASHING DOWN INTO MY HOUSE ON A STORM.
THEY'VE HAD THREE MONTHS TO GET THEIR PEOPLE TOGETHER TO TALK.
I SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME THREE MONTHS TO GET A SECOND OPINION.
EXPERT SCIENTISTS, EXPERT DUNES, EXPERT VEGETATION, EXPERT WATER DRAINAGE.
GALVESTON BEACH DESERVES A SECOND OPINION.
[NOISE] WE LOVE OUR BEACH AND WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF IT.
I FEEL THAT THIS WILL TOTALLY DESERT THE BEACH.
IT'S GOING TO CAUSE OUTRAGEOUS FLOODING.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE SEE THAT FLOOD PAN BEFORE IT GOES IN.
JUST NOT ON A FACE VALUE, IT NEEDS TO BE SEEN.
WHAT ELSE? [NOISE] I DESERVE THREE MONTHS TO GET MY PEOPLE IN ORDER SINCE THEY'VE HAD THREE MONTHS.
I DESERVE TO GET MY PEOPLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND GALVESTON CERTAINLY NEEDS A SECOND OPINION.
I AM ALSO LEGALLY DISABLED, SO I WILL NEED A PATH GOING TO THE BEACH THAT SUITS ME.
[NOISE] I JUST DON'T FEEL HE'S BEING HONEST WITH YOU.
I THINK THAT A LOT OF THIS IS JUST THROWING IN AND I JUST BELIEVE THE BEACH NEEDS A SECOND OPINION AND THAT YOU CANNOT TAKE HIS WORD FACE VALUE. THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMMENTS, MS. GORMAN?
>> WE DO. [INAUDIBLE] SCHNEIDER, YOU'VE BEEN UNMUTED ON OUR END AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> PERSONALLY, I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO THANK THE COMMISSION FOR ALLOWING ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.
ONE THING THAT I WANT TO EMPATHIZE WITH RESPECT TO THIS PLANNING COMMITTEE HEARING, IS THAT THE DEVELOPER NEEDS AN EXEMPTION TO BUILD IN THIS AREA.
OBVIOUSLY THE REASON THAT THE BUILDER NEEDS EXEMPTION IN THIS AREA IS BECAUSE OF THE PROTECTED DUNE AREAS IN THERE.
THE COMMITTEE HAS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FOOTPRINT OF THE STRUCTURE IN RELATION TO THE AREA OF THE BUILDING PORTION OF THE LINE.
AS WELL AS THE COMMITTEE KNOWS THAT NEEDS TO CONSIDER THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY.
AS POINTED OUT BY THE COMMITTEE DURING THE LAST MEETING, THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT IS NOT SEEN VERY OFTEN BY THE COMMITTEE NOR IS IT SEEN OF THIS MAGNITUDE.
I IMPLORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE TO HOLD THE DEVELOPERS' FEET TO THE FIRE IN THE SITUATION AND ENSURE THAT IT STRICTLY COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN THIS EXEMPTION TO BUILD ON THIS PROPERTY.
ONE ITEM IT SEEMS TO BE THAT IS THE INFORMALLY PERFORMED IS WITH RESPECT AS THE COMMITTEE BROUGHT UP EARLIER DURING THE QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE GLO.
THE INFORMAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE GLO DON'T SEEM TO BE SUFFICIENT TO CONFIRM THAT DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PROPERTY WILL NOT AFFECT THE DUNE PER CONSERVATION AREAS.
IF THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE IN THE FOOTPRINT TO THIS MAGNITUDE, WHICH IS UNQUESTIONABLY BEEN DONE IN THE SITUATION WITH THESE NEW PLANS, THE NEW PLANS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED FORMALLY TO THE GLO FOR IT TO EVALUATE AND CONSIDER.
IN ADDITION, ANOTHER ITEM BROUGHT UP BY THE COMMITTEE A MOMENT AGO EARLIER WAS THIS PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT AND PATHWAY TO THE ACTUAL BEACH.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS WIDENED HOME WOULD UNQUESTIONABLY IMPEDE ON THAT PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT, MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT TO GET ACCESS TO THE HOME.
THE PHOTO EVEN SHOWN TO THE COMMITTEE EARLIER, DISPLAY THE ALLEGED EASEMENT OR WALKWAY TO THE AREA BEING BLOCKED BY A TRUCK.
[00:50:05]
IT'S EASILY SEEN THAT THE PROPERTY HAS ALREADY BEING USED BY THAT ONE PROPERTY OWNER, NOT FOR AN ACCESS TO THE BEACH, BUT INSTEAD AS THE PARKING LOT.ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD DO IS TAKE AWAY THAT PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT.
IN ADDITION, ALSO BROUGHT UP BY THE COMMITTEE PREVIOUSLY WAS THIS IDEA OF HOW THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS ARE GOING TO BE FOLLOWING THIS DUNE MITIGATION PLAN AND ENSURING THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROPERTY ACTUALLY FOLLOWS THE DUNE MITIGATION PLAN, THEN IT APPEARED TO ME THAT THIS DEVELOPER ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED TO GET AN EXEMPTION, THAT THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY WILL NOT AFFECT THE DUNE AND THE MITIGATION ITSELF THAT PLANS.
IN ADDITION, THE DRAINAGE IDEA BEING INFERRED SHOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT IN THIS SITUATION TO PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION TO BUILD ON THIS PROPERTY.
I KNOW THAT THE DEVELOPER HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS AN OLD HOUSE AND THERE WAS A DRAINAGE FROM THE OLD HOUSE.
THERE HAS NOT BEEN A HOUSE ON THIS PROPERTY FOR A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF YEARS.
ACTUALLY, NO FRONT ROW CONSTRUCTION HAS OCCURRED IN THIS THERAMORE BEACH AREA SINCE 1984.
EVEN AFTER [INAUDIBLE], MOST OF THE HOMES IN THE BEACHFRONT AREA WERE OFFERED BUYOUT AND ARE ACTUALLY OWNED BY GALAXY ITSELF.
IN ADDITION, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT FIBER CRETES LAB THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
THERE'S NO FIBER CRATES LAB OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT ON ANY FRONT PROPERTY IN THERAMORE BEACH WHATSOEVER.
THE REASON BEHIND THAT IS BECAUSE ANYTIME A TROPICAL STORM IS JUST GOING TO COMPLETELY DESTROY THAT AND WASH IT ON THE BEACH.
THE NEXT STORM IS GOING TO COMPLETELY TAKE AWAY THIS FIBER CRETE LAB AND YOU'RE GOING TO END UP ON THE BEACH.
>> [OVERLAPPING] EXCUSE SCHNEIDER, I'M SORRY BUT YOUR THREE MINUTES IS UP.
I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS, BUT WE HAVE TO STOP IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS. THANK YOU.
>> I APPRECIATE OUR COMMITTEE TIME.
ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT MS. GORMAN?
>> IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
BEFORE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, MS. FAIRWEATHER, I NEED TO ASK YOU IF I NEED TO ADDRESS WITH THE APPLICANT BEFORE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING OR AFTER I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ONLY FOUR COMMISSIONERS HERE TODAY, AND THEN IF THIS CASE WILL REQUIRE A UNANIMOUS VOTE TO MOVE FORWARD.
IS THAT BEFORE OR AFTER I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> I WOULD DO IT BEFORE YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> MR. SEYMOUR, TODAY WE HAVE A UNIQUE SITUATION.
WE HAVE A QUORUM WITH ONLY FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HERE.
IN ORDER TO PASS YOUR CASE, TO APPROVE YOUR CASE, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
YOU'RE GOING TO NEED THE APPROVAL OF ALL FOUR OF THE COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE HERE TODAY TO MOVE FORWARD.
YOU CAN DEFER YOUR CASE UNTIL OUR NOVEMBER 2 MEETING WHEN WE WILL HAVE HOPEFULLY MORE OF OUR COMMISSION HERE, OR YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD AND HOPEFULLY GET AN APPROVAL, A UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OF ALL FOUR OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS WHO ARE HERE TODAY.
HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED, SIR?
>> BEFORE THAT, IT [OVERLAPPING]
CATHERINE OR BRANDON, CAN YOU LET THE APPLICANT KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IF HE DOESN'T GET A VOTE AFFIRMING HIS APPLICATION? WHAT IS HIS RECOURSE?
>> WELL, DONNA, THAT THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT I WAS GOING TO POSE TO YOU.
LET'S SAY THERE'S A MOTION TO APPROVE, IT DOESN'T GET A UNANIMOUS MOTION, COULD SOMEONE THEN MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER AND DEFER IT TO THE NEXT MEETING.
WOULD THAT BE IN ORDER WITH ROBERT'S RULES?
[00:55:03]
>> A MOTION THAT FAILS FOR LACK OF AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, IF THERE'S ANOTHER MOTION AFTER THAT, THEN IT CAN GO FORWARD.
SOMETIMES WHEN THE FIRST MOTION FAILS, THERE CAN BE A SECOND MOTION.
HOWEVER, IT'S GOT TO BE CONDITIONAL [INAUDIBLE]
>> IT'S GOT TO BE A SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT MOTION.
THE MOTION WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT.
YOU CAN'T DEFER THE SAME MOTION THAT JUST FAILED.
>> I DIDN'T DIDN'T SAY THAT. I SAID THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A SECOND MOTION, A DIFFERENT MOTION.
THAT'S PROCEDURALLY IN TERMS OF MOTIONS.
BUT I'M JUST ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT THE APPLICANT HAVE A TIME-FRAME BEFORE THIS CASE CAN RETURN TO THE COMMISSION FOR REVIEW? IS THERE A WAITING PERIOD, IS THERE A SIX-MONTH WAITING PERIOD OR A YEAR WAITING PERIOD? THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW.
>> THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO KNOW.
>> IF AN APPLICATION IS DENIED BY THE COMMISSION, THERE CAN BE A WAITING PERIOD, BUT IF IT'S JUST NOT APPROVED, THEN THEY CAN REAPPLY.
>> IN THIS SITUATION, IF THEY DID NOT MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, COULD SOMEONE THEN MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER? I'M UNCLEAR ON THAT.
>> THAT'S A NO. BECAUSE IF THE MOTION MOVES FORWARD IT'S EITHER APPROVED OR DENIED, THEN IT'S DEAD FOR THE DAY.
YES, COUNSEL MEMBER LISTALSKI.
>> WITH ONLY FOUR VOTES, A MOTION TO DENY WOULD HAVE TO TAP ALL FOUR VOTES TO MOVE FORWARD THOUGH.
>> IF IT DOESN'T GET FOUR VOTES, THEN SOMEBODY ELSE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER?
>> I THINK WE'RE GETTING INTO THE WEEDS ON THIS.
>> THAT IS CORRECT, RIGHT? IF SOMEONE MAKES A MOTION TO DENY THIS CASE OR PROVE IT AND IT DOESN'T GET FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, MOTION FAILS, SOMEBODY ELSE TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION, AND THAT MOTION COULD BE A DEFERRAL?
>> YES. THAT'S WHAT I STATED BEFORE.
IF THE FIRST MOTION DOESN'T GO FORWARD BECAUSE OF A LACK OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, THEN ANOTHER MOTION CAN BE MADE.
THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT HAPPENS.
DOES IT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BRANDY?
>> YEAH, THAT'S PERFECT. A FAILURE TO PASS A MOTION TO APPROVE DOES NOT INHERENTLY MEAN A DENIAL, IS WHAT I WAS GETTING AT.
>> PERFECT. DARRELL IN YOUR, AND I DON'T MEAN TO BE JUMPING IN FRONT OF JEFFREY HERE, BUT JUST I WANTED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION PRIOR TO ASKING YOU FOR YOUR OPINION?
>> WELL, THAT'S WHY I SAID IT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I WOULD OFFER TO THE CHAIRWOMAN IF THE APPLICANT WISHES TO SPEAK FURTHER OR AS A RESPONSE TO GO AHEAD AND ANSWER.
>> NO IT'S MR. SEYMOUR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OR DISCUSS?
>> I'M SORRY. I THINK I ACCIDENTALLY JUST MUTED MR. SEYMOUR. THERE YOU GO.
>>YES. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IF I DO REQUEST THIS TO GO TO VOTE THEN IF IT FAILS, SOMEONE ELSE COULD DO A MOTION TO DEFER.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN YES, I WOULD LIKE US TO GET IT TO VOTE.
>> DONNA, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION THEN.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WHY DO WE EVER MAKE THIS AN ISSUE WITH OUR APPLICANTS? IF THAT, THEN WHY DO WE EVER DO THIS?
>> FIRST LET'S NOT SAY THAT IF THERE IS A SECOND MOTION IS NOT NECESSARILY FOR DEFERRAL.
THERE'S THREE OPTIONS ON THE TABLE HERE; APPROVAL, DENIAL,
[01:00:04]
AND THEN IF THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT NEITHER ONE OF THOSE IS WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO THEY CAN ALSO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE FOUR.THAT'S THE FIRST THING, THERE'S THREE OPTIONS HERE.
TYPICALLY AND I MISS THIS, SO I DO APOLOGIZE.
THEY USUALLY GIVE THE OPTION TO THE APPLICANT THAT IF THERE ARE FOUR COMMISSIONERS PRESENT, IT HAS TO BE UNANIMOUS FOR THE DECISION TO GO FORWARD.
WE WERE DOING IT ON THE BACK-END.
USUALLY WE SAY THAT RIGHT IN THE BEGINNING.
>> WELL, I REALIZED IT UP FRONT.
I JUST THOUGHT WE NEEDED TO DO IT AFTER WE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE WE POSTED A PUBLIC HEARING, DONNA.
I FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE I KNEW WE HAD PEOPLE HERE WHO WANTED TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE.
I WANTED TO MENTION THIS AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE IT WAS THERE, SO THAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT CAN HAPPEN HERE.
>> WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS TYPICALLY, THE REQUIREMENT FOR IT BEING A UNANIMOUS VOTE DOES OCCUR A LITTLE BIT EARLIER.
IT MAY TAILOR WHAT PEOPLE OR HOW PEOPLE AND WHAT THEY BRING TO THE DISCUSSION. BUT WE'RE HERE NOW.
>> ONE THING WHEN IT COMES TO CASES LIKE THIS, IF SOMEBODY MAKES A MOTION AND THEN SOMEONE SECONDS THAT MOTION.
YOU CAN DISCUSS IT AND THEN YOU CAN GET A SENSE ON WHERE THAT MOTION IS GOING TO GO, THEN MAYBE WE COULD GO FROM THERE.
>> BUT AT THAT POINT, THE MOTION IS ON THE TABLE.
>>IT IS BUT IT CAN BE WITHDRAWN.
>> THERE'S NO TURNING BACK FOR THE APPLICANT AT THAT POINT.
>> THAT'S TRUE FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT AGAIN, IT CAN BE WITHDRAWN.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO GET APPROVED OR DENIED HERE AT THIS MEETING.
THAT'S MY OPINION. BUT I THINK WE'RE SPINNING OUR WHEELS HERE.
>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THIS APPLICANT TO HAVE THE OPTION TO CHOOSE TO DO WHAT HE THINKS IS BEST AND TO KNOW WHAT HE CAN DO UP FRONT.
MR. SEYMOUR, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WOULD YOU LIKE TO CHANGE WHAT YOU WANTED [LAUGHTER]
>> I WOULD LOVE TO GET THE APPROVAL AND THE ACCESS TO START WORKING ON THIS PROJECT.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT OR ANYTHING THAT WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT THEN A PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:37 PM? COMMISSIONERS, I'LL BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION.
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE 21P052 REQUESTS FOR PERMIT.
>> OKAY. DO I HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER BROWN, VICE-CHAIR BROWN?
>> I'LL SECOND IT, BUT I'D LIKE TO TO ADD A CONDITION.
>> DO WE HAVE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?
>> DONNA, WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT HERE.
WE'VE GOT A SECOND, LET'S JUST TYPE THE SECOND ASCIII IS COMMISSIONER BROWN.
WE'VE GOT A SECOND. IF WERE IN DISCUSSION MR. BROWN'S GOING TO OFFER FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS.
LET'S HAVE THE FIRST FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
>> WITH THAT THE SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION WILL MATCH THE DUNE MITIGATION PLAN IMPROVEMENT LAYOUT AS PRESENTED IN
[01:05:04]
THE STAFF REPORT REGARDING DIMENSIONS FOR THE STRUCTURE'S LOCATION ALONG THE LOT.>> INCLUDE THE 25 FOOT THEME PROTECTION LINE.
>> THAT IS IMPLIED IN MY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT LANGUAGE.
>> DONNA HELP ME REMEMBER HOW WE HAVE TO HANDLE THIS AMENDMENT.
BY ACCLAMATION IS THERE OBJECTION TO THAT AMENDMENT OFFERED BY VICE-CHAIR BROWN?
>> CAN WE PLEASE READ IT AGAIN BECAUSE HE WAS FADING IN AND OUT FROM WHERE I'M SITTING.
>> VICE CHAIR BROWN, PLEASE READ THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AGAIN.
>> THAT THE SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION MATCH DOING MITIGATION PLAN IMPROVEMENT LAYOUT AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT REGARDING DIMENSIONS FOR THE STRUCTURE'S LOCATION ON THE LOCK.
>> IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT PROPOSED AMENDMENT? SEEING NO OBJECTION.
THAT PROPOSED SPECIFIC CONDITION IS ACCEPTED.
I PROPOSE A SECOND SPECIFIC CONDITION AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE A SPECIFIC CONDITION THAT WE INCLUDE AN ACCEPTABLE DRAINAGE PLAN.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT AMENDMENT? COMMISSIONER PYNA?
>> A QUESTION WHAT IS DEFINED AS ACCEPTABLE.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS ALREADY WELL-DEFINED WITHIN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF BEACH DEVELOPMENT. DID I MISS?
>> IN NUMBER 16, IT SAYS DRAINAGE PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED.
BUT I WANT TO SEE A LITTLE DRAWING THAT SHOWS THE ARROWS.
THE APPLICANT SAID THEY'RE WORKING ON THAT AND THEY HAVE IT IN THE WORKS.
THEY GOT IT GOING. WE'RE NOT ASKING THEM TO DO SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THAT THEY'RE NOT ALREADY DOING.
I JUST SAYING I WANTED IN THERE.
THAT'LL GO IN THERE AS A SPECIFIC CONDITION.
I HAVE ANOTHER AMENDMENT SPECIFIC CONDITION THAT WE INCLUDE A GLO COMMUNICATION, ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGE IN PLANS FROM OUR 10521 SUBMITTAL TO THE 1019 SUBMITTAL, AND THAT THE GLO HAS NO OBJECTION.
IN OTHER WORDS, JUST SOMETHING IN WRITING THAT MEMORIALIZES WHAT MICHELE COLBERT TOLD BRANDON VERBALLY.
>> IF I MAY, WOULDN'T THAT BE FROM STAFF AND NOT FROM THE APPLICANT?
>> BUT IT'S THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GLO AND STAFF.
I THINK IT'S SOMETHING [OVERLAPPING] THAT BRANDON CAN AFFIRM VERBALLY THAT HE'LL GET THAT YOU AS PART OF THE STAFF REPORT. [OVERLAPPING].
NO I'M ASKING YOU TO GET TO BE A SPECIFIC CONDITION THAT WE INCLUDE A GLO LETTER.
I'M NOT ASKING FROM THE APPLICANT.
A COMMUNIQUE FROM THE GLO, NOT FROM THE APPLICANT.
I'M JUST ASKING FOR SOME COMMUNIQUE FROM THE GLO.
THEY BASICALLY MEMORIALIZES THAT CONVERSATION.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, COMMISSIONERS? AMENDMENT ACCEPTED.
WE HAVE THREE AMENDMENTS, THREE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ADDED.
[01:10:04]
ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS? FURTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS? YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER PYNA.>> WE'VE DONE A COUPLE OF THESE BEFORE, AND IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE ALWAYS HAD THAT SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ESPECIALLY WHERE THAT DO MITIGATION PLAN IS SO CRITICAL TO THAT SITE CONSTRUCTION, IT SEEMS THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE STAFF WOULD HAVE INCLUDED ON THERE.
TO HAVE OUR MEETING FROM OCTOBER 5TH.
I KNOW WE MADE MENTION OF THAT BECAUSE I REMEMBER BOB SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THOSE PYLONS TO NOT HAVE THAT A SECOND TIME.
IT RAISES A FLAG SAME WITH THE DRAINAGE PLAN.
I SPECIFICALLY REMEMBER SEEING DRAINAGE PLANS AND IN MANY OF THESE AND EVEN IN CASES WHERE IT ISN'T AS CRITICAL TO THE DUNE INFRASTRUCTURE IS WHAT THIS ONE IS.
I FEEL BAD FOR MR. SEYMOUR BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO PUSH THIS FORWARD ANY LONGER, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WHY CAN'T WE GET THIS?
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION FOR MR. SEYMOUR.
BUT ONE THING IS THAT HE REDESIGNED THIS WHOLE PLAN FROM THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE MADE BY PLANNING COMMISSION.
I THINK HE'S DONE AN INCREDIBLE JOB FOR SUCH A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME TO TURN THIS AROUND AND GET THIS BACK TO YOU ALL FOR THINGS THAT WERE REQUESTED, THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE DRAINAGE PLAN AND THE SITE PLAN ARE THINGS THAT HE WILL HAVE TO SUBMIT IT TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT AND PLANNING STAFF REVIEWS THAT KNOWING PERMIT AND THEY KNOW THAT THIS CASE VERY WELL, WHERE ARE THIS CASE.
NOW THEY'LL REVIEW THAT DURING THE PERMANENT PROCESS.
I'M SURPRISED THIS ACTUALLY GONE THIS FAR ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL IS MADE THIS FORUM DISCUSSION, BUT WHICH I'M HAPPY TO SEE.
I REALLY THINK THAT HE HAS PROVIDED THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHAT THEY HAVE ASKED FOR.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS CASE BEING APPROVED.
>> NO, I COMPLETELY AGREE AND I APPLAUD HIM FOR COMING BACK AND FOR EVEN TAKING ON THIS TO BEGIN WITH, I KNOW THAT YOUR ONE NEIGHBOR THERE TO THE NORTH IS WHERE NOBODY'S EVER HAPPY TO HAVE THEM BUILD IN FRONT OF THEM.
I'M SURE THAT MR. SEYMOUR HAS SEEN THE PROPERTY AND SEE WHAT'S THERE AND WAY IF IT'S BUILDABLE OR NOT.
I'M NOT OVERLY CONCERNED WITH THAT.
I JUST WISH THAT THOSE PLANS HAD BEEN INCLUDED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IN THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE WE GET THEM WITH ALMOST EVERY OTHER APPLICATION AS BEFORE. THAT'S MY ROUTE.
>> JUST 1 SECOND COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY AND COUNCIL MEMBER LIST ASCII.
WE DID SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR THOSE ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SITE PLAN FOR THIS MEETING WITH THE DIMENSIONS ON THEM AND WE DID NOT GET THEM.
I DO COMMEND MR. SEYMOUR OR FOR COMPLETELY REDESIGNING THIS WHOLE HOUSE TO COMPLY WITH WHAT WE WANTED.
THEY REALLY REALLY DID A GOOD JOB OF GETTING THAT HOUSE WAY BACK AWAY FROM THAT CRITICAL DOOM AREA.
THEY GOT IT COMPLETELY ON A CRITICAL DOOM AREA, WAY BACK IN THE DOOM, BUT WAY FROM THE DOOM CONSERVATION AREA, ONE INCH BACK FROM IT.
I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT NOBLE AND WONDERFUL EFFORT.
YES. COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY AND THEN COMMISSIONER BROWN.
>> WHAT I'M HEARING FROM STEVEN IS THAT THIS HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE PAST, BUT THAT MAKES ME THINK.
[01:15:02]
THIS SHOULD BE A TEMPLATE THING WHEN IT COMES TO THESE APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS AREA WHEN WE'RE GOING INTO THE COASTAL AREA.MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.
THIS WILL BE PART OF THE CHECKLIST.
IT'S OBVIOUS THAT MR. STEVE MORRIS HAD TO COME UP AND DO SOME OTHER STUFF THAT HE WAS NOT PLANNING ARE PREPARED TO DO.
I THINK MAYBE WE NEED TO MAYBE LOOK AT HOW THIS PROCESS IS GIVEN TO THE APPLICANTS VERSUS US COMING IN ON THE TAIL AND SAY, WOW, I REALLY WANT TO SEE THIS.
I REALLY WANT TO SEE THAT. WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK?
>> MR. BROWN, YOU WERE NEXT, I THINK YOU CAN ADDRESS THAT AS WELL AS WHATEVER YOU ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT.
>> WELL, I THINK THAT'S DANNA IS RIGHT ON TARGET WITH THAT.
IT SHOULDN'T BE EXPECTED AND I'LL JUST TELL YOU MY THINKING ON THAT SITE PLAN IS, THIS IS A COUPLE OF THINGS.
ONE IN PARENTS AND ALL THE OTHER APPLICANTS.
ALSO, I THINK FOR THE RECORD, THE SITE PLAN FOR THE MITIGATION HAD ALL THE DIMENSIONS ON IT, BUT THAT'S NOT WHO'S GOING TO BE OUT THERE IN THE FIELD BUILDING THIS THING AND LOCATING IT.
THAT'S WHY I WAS ADMITTED THAT THERE WILL BE A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
THE MITIGATION GUYS PROBABLY TOOK THE FOUNDATION PLAN THAT YOU SAW, COPIED AND PASTED IT ONTO THEIR MITIGATION PLAN AND BY THE SAME TOKEN, ARCHITECTURAL GUYS COULD HAVE COPIED AND PASTED THE DIMENSIONS RIGHT ON ROAD.
I PLAN THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT THEY'RE ALL DOING ANYWAY.
THAT'S JUST COPYING AND PASTING THINGS BACK AND FORTH.
AGAIN, IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO ANYWAY.
BUT I JUST THINK THE REASON THAT I'M HOPING ON THIS IS IMPERATIVE TO ALL THE OTHER APPLICANTS AND SO THAT WE PROVIDED THE SAME WAY.
IT'S ALSO TO GIVE US A CONSISTENT TYPE OF INFORMATION SO THAT WE'RE MAKING THE RIGHT JUDGMENTS EVERY TIME.
>> OTHER COMMENTS? THIS IS A TOUGH ONE.
I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION THAT I FORGOT TO ASK, MR. HILL THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK HIM REAL QUICK BEFORE WE CALL OUR VOTE.
MR. HILL, HAS THE MITIGATION REVIEW BEEN DONE OR A REVIEW OF THE MITIGATION PLAN BEEN DONE SINCE HURRICANE NICHOLAS? JUST A REAL BRIEF ANSWER. YES OR NO?
>> THE MITIGATION PLAN HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED SINCE NICHOLAS, NO.
THE IMPACTS TO THE PROPERTY FROM NICHOLAS WOULD BE BENEFITED BY THE PROPOSED MITIGATION.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS ANY FURTHER COMMENT? QUESTIONS? READY TO CALL THE VOTE? READY AS YOU'LL EVER BE? LET'S DO IT. MR. COLLINS.
>> ON FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES.
>> CONGRATULATIONS, MR. SEYMOUR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE'LL GET ALL THAT INFORMATION IN HERE AS YOU REQUESTED.
>> THANK YOU. WE'RE TRUSTING YOU.
>> ALREADY. LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR DISCUSSION ITEMS. COUNSEL MEMBER LISTALSKI DON'T SAY I NEVER SURPRISED YOU.
>> THAT WAS A SURPRISE. GOOD JOB GUYS.
[01:20:01]
[LAUGHTER]>> I KNOW ONE PERSON RIGHT NOW WHO'S NOT SAYING GOOD JOB.
[LAUGHTER] DISCUSSION ITEMS, WE'RE GOING TO START WITH A DISCUSSION OF HEIGHTENED DENSITY ZONE, ZONE 6.
MS. GORMAN, ARE YOU GOING TO HANDLE THAT ONE?
>> DO YOU MIND IF I ASK IF WE MOVE THE SECOND DISCUSSION ITEM UP? THERE ARE I THINK MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE INTERESTED IN HEARING THAT ONE?
>> GO AHEAD AND GET YOUR POWERPOINT UP.
>> WE'RE GOING TO START COMMISSIONERS,
[9.B. B. Discussion Of Accessory Structures Including Boat Houses And Piers (Hill)]
WITH THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES INCLUDING BOTH HOUSES AND PEERS.MR. MELBOURNE. PETE YOU SHOULD BE UNMUTED AND ABLE TO SPEAK? [NOISE]
>> I THINK I'M. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YOU'RE A LITTLE MUFFLED BUT WE CAN HEAR YOU.
>> I'LL TRY MY BEST. THAT BETTER?
>> BUT TODAY, WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS SENSORY STRUCTURES, INCLUDING BOTH HOUSES AND PEERS.
WE HAVE A FEW SLIDES TO GET THROUGH RELATING TO THE TOPIC.
WE'LL CONCLUDE WITH A DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF.
>> COMPUTERS BEEN VERY, VERY SLOW.
I'LL NEED JUST A MINUTE TO GET THE POWERPOINT ON THE SCREEN.
>> NOW I ATTEMPTED TO SHARE THE WRONG ONE.
I'M SORRY. PLEASE BEAR WITH ME.
[NOISE] WELL, I AGAIN FOR THIS DELAY.
CHAIR, DO YOU MIND IF I SUGGESTED WE TAKE MAYBE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK WHILE I TRIED TO GET THIS SORTED OUT?
COMMISSIONERS, IT'S 4:57 LET'S COME BACK AT 5:05 PLEASE.
PERFECT. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, MR. MELBOURNE.
>> OKAY. BUT WE HAVE A FEW SLIDES HERE AND HOPEFULLY WHAT WE CAN GET OUT OF THIS IS SOME INFORMATION, SOME THOUGHTS OR IDEAS THAT CAN CARRY OVER INTO THE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION OF THIS PRESENTATION.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. CATHERINE.
>> YEAH I SWITCH TO THE NEXT SLIDE. CAN YOU SEE IT?
>> OKAY. I DIDN'T SEE IT CHANGE.
IT SHOULD BE THE OUTLINE AND IT'S JUST THE TOPIC POINTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE TO OUTLINE THIS DISCUSSION.
NUMBER 1, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE CURRENT REGULATIONS.
TWO WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT SOME CURRENT CONFLICTS AND SOME GRANDFATHERING THAT CURRENTLY EXIST HERE IN GALVESTON.
NUMBER 3, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT SOME NEIGHBORING AND OTHER COMMUNITIES STANDARDS AND HOW THEY DEAL WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
THEN LOOK AT SOME CONCERNS OR ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF
[01:25:03]
ALLOWING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A STANDALONE STRUCTURES.THEN WE'LL CONCLUDE WITH SOME ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS FLASH PERMITTING POOR SENSORY STRUCTURES. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
NOW THE CURRENT REGULATIONS WE ARE ALL PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH NOW, HOW WE IDENTIFY ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AS A STRUCTURE THAT IS SUBORDINATE TO A PRINCIPLE BUILDING.
BASICALLY MEANING THAT THERE ARE SUPPOSE TO BE THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE BEFORE WE ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECONDARY STRUCTURE.
IN THIS CASE, THIS IS WHAT WE LOOK AT FROM ALAN WHITE, WHEN IT COMES TO SHADES, GAZEBOS, WORKSHOPS, PIERS.
IN THIS CASE, PIERS WOULD ALSO FALL WITHIN THIS CATEGORY NOT AN ASSESSORS BUILDING UP STRUCTURE.
NEXT SLIDE. NOW, THE CURRENT CONFLICT ON GRANDFATHERING AND THIS IS WHAT'S OFTEN BROUGHT TO STAFF'S ATTENTION AS THE WHAT ABOUT.
IT'S THE WHAT ABOUT PIRATE'S COVE SECTION 8 SUBDIVISION.
WHAT ABOUT SUNSET COVE AND WHAT ABOUT THE VACANT LOTS OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES.
WELL, VACANT LOTS WHERE THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE HAS BEEN REMOVED TO DESTROY IT.
IN THOSE CASES, WHAT WE HAVE ARE SOME STAND-ALONE BOAT DOCKS, OR IN THIS CASE WHERE THEIR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED OR DESTROYED, SOME STAND ALONE PIERS THAT CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE AN EXISTING PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE WE HAVE SOME VISUALS OF THESE CASES.
FIRST THERE'S THE PIRATE'S COVE SECTION 8, AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN SLIGHTLY TO THE RIGHT AND UP.
THERE ARE SOME SMALL LITTLE LOTS AND THOSE LOTS FUNCTION AS BOAT DOCKS FOR THE RESIDENTS WITHIN PIRATE'S COVE.
NOW, THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE WHERE THIS OCCURS IN PIRATE'S COVE WAS THE RESULT OF ANNEXATION.
THOSE LOTS WERE PLOTTED AND RECORDED PRIOR TO THE CITY ANNEXING PIRATE'S COVE.
[NOISE] WE BELIEVE WE ANNEX PIRATE'S COVE IN 2006.
THOSE LOTS HAD BEEN PLOTTED PRIOR TO THAT.
SINCE THEY HAVE SOME GRANDFATHERING WITH THOSE.
NOW, WHEN TAKE A LOOK AT SUNSET COVE.
NOW, SUNSET COVE HAS SOME STEP-WORD LOTS THAT HAS AMENITIES, WHICH INCLUDES THE STANDALONE POOL, AS WELL AS SEVERAL LITTLE BOAT DOCKS WHICH ARE PART OF THE SUNSET COVE MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY.
NOW, SUNSET COVE, THEY ALSO HAD AN INTERESTING.
NOW SOME TIME CATHERINE, YOU CAN HELP ME WITH THIS.
I RECALL THERE WAS SOME TIME AGO WHEN SUNSET COVE WANTED TO MODIFY SOME OF THE USES WITHIN THEIR SUBDIVISION, AND I BELIEVE THAT INCLUDED SOMETHING LIKE HORSE STABLES.
NOW, THAT DIDN'T GAIN ANY APPROVAL BY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS CITY COUNCIL.
THAT WAS ONE AMENITY THAT FAILED TO BE ADOPTED.
BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE OTHER AMENITIES THAT ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUNSET COVE SUBDIVISION.
THEN THE OTHER VISUAL TO THE RIGHT IS SHOWING CASES WHERE THERE WERE PRIMARY STRUCTURES THAT WERE DESTROYED OR REMOVE.
MOST LIKELY THESE WERE DESTROYED FROM THE EFFECTS OF THE STORM OR SUCH A FIRE MAYBE, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S SOME REMNANTS OF SOME PIERS THAT PROTRUDE OUT FROM THOSE FLOODS.
BUT THOSE ARE WHAT WE'VE CONSIDERED LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING, BEING THAT THERE WAS AT SOME POINT A PRIMARY STRUCTURE THAT WAS DESTROYED. NEXT SLIDE.
ON THE NEXT WE'VE LOOKED AT SOME STANDARDS OF SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
IT WAS PRETTY MUCH A CONSENSUS IN HOW THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES, AS WELL AS SOME OTHER COMMUNITIES WITH A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SHORELINE FRONTAGE, DEALT WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, INCLUDING DECKS, BOATHOUSES AND PIERS,
[01:30:01]
AND THEY WERE ALL TREATED AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WHICH REQUIRED A PRIMARY STRUCTURE FIRST BEFORE THERE COULD BE CONSTRUCTION.NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE'S JUST NEIGHBOR AND OTHER COMMUNITIES.
I DIDN'T WANT TO GET STANDARDS FROM EVERY ONE OF THOSE COMMUNITIES WE LOOKED AT.
BUT YOU CAN SEE HERE, TIKI ISLAND FOR EXAMPLE.
CLEARLY YOU CAN SEE B THERE CLEARLY SAYS NO BOATHOUSE, BOAT RAMPS BUT DOCKS ARE ALLOWED.
UNLESS THERE IS A COMPLETED RESIDENTIAL DWELLING ON A LOT.
THIS WAS PRETTY MUCH STANDARD FOR ALL THE COMMUNITIES WE LOOKED AT. NEXT SLIDE.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT SOME CONCERNS AND ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES.
[NOISE] SOME POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES IS WHAT WE AS STAFF HAVE TO LOOK AT IN THE EVENT THAT WE WERE TO GO IN THE DIRECTION OF ALLOWING STANDALONE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AS THE POTENTIAL FOR THERE BEING NUISANCES OF BREAK RENTS FOR TRESPASSERS, THE LACK OF SELF PATIENT FACILITIES.
WE HAVE TO CONSIDER WITH THE SCALE OF THESE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES COULD PROPERLY BE INSTALLED IT.
HERE WE HAVE SOME VISUALS CONCERNING SCALE AND FROM SOME OTHER NUISANCES THAT CAN COME OUT OF HAVING AN ASSESSORS PURCHASE.
HERE WE CAN JUST IMAGINE THAT THIS PIERS COMING OUT FROM A VACANT LOT AND I THINK IT'S A MATTER OF PASTE.
BUT, WHAT'S THE SCALE? WHAT WOULD BE PROPER FOR A STAND ALONE PIER? YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS ONE IS A LITTLE BIT ELABORATE, BUT WITHOUT HAVING ANY TYPE OF SCALE OUTLINED WITH WHAT LIMITS ARE, THEN THE SKY'S THE LIMIT.
THE PHOTO TO THE RIGHT WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY BE THAT VERY SAME LOT.
BUT OF COURSE, PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO GATHER ON THAT VACANT LOT, AND THIS COULD BE AN EXTREME CASE OF WHAT THAT VACANT LOT COULD LOOK LIKE.
BEING ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
SOMETHING LIKE THIS COULD HAPPEN ON A WEEKEND.
FOLK COULD COME IN AND USE THAT STANDALONE STRUCTURE AND COME OUT IN THEIR CAMPERS OR THE VEHICLES, SETUP A LITTLE CAMP SITE AND THEY CAN PACK UP AND BE GONE BUT FOR THE WEEKEND THOUGH.
BUT THIS IS WHAT STAFF WOULD BE CONCERNED WITH AS IN POTENTIAL ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES AND MANAGING THAT.
NOW WE MOVE TO ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS.
NOW STAFF THEN HAVE TO LOOK WITHIN THE LDR AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY COME UP WITH A WAY TO PERMIT A STANDALONE STRUCTURE WITHIN THE EXISTING STANDARDS.
ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT WOULD BE TO LOOK STRICTLY AT THE LAND USE.
TO SEE IF WE TAKE A PIER OR BOATHOUSE AND ALLOW IT TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON A VACANT LOT ADJACENT TO IT, THEN WHAT IS THE LAND USE ON THAT PROPERTY OR THAT PARCEL? THE CURRENT LDRS DO ADDRESS THAT AND IT IDENTIFIED AS RECREATION OUTDOOR.
IS AN EXISTING LAND USE AND IT'S LIMITED IN SOME ZONE AND CATEGORIES AND NOT RIGHT PERMITTED IN OTHERS.
BUT WE CAN TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AND SEE WHY THIS [NOISE] WOULD NOT WORK IN SOME OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL VACANT LOTS.
IT PROVIDES RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES OUTDOORS FOR THE PUBLIC AND IT HAS TO BE OPEN TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE RESIDENCE OF THE SUBDIVISION.
THE PHRASE INCLUDES PUBLIC AREAS FOR ACTIVE AND PASSIVE RECREATION ACTIVITY, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE THAT ARE LISTED BELOW.
THEY INCLUDE OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOLS, TENNIS COURTS, FISHING PIERS AND ALL THE OTHER ITEMS LISTED THERE. BUT-
[01:35:06]
THERE ARE SOME CASES WHERE THIS DOES EXIST ON THE ISLAND.WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, CATHERINE.
WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT SOME PLACES WHERE RECREATION OUTDOOR DOES EFFECTIVELY WORK OR HOW WELL IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN IT EFFECTIVELY WORKS.
THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF SEA ISLE.
THE RECREATION OUTDOOR IS BASICALLY IN THE CENTER OF THE SCREEN.
YOU CAN SEE THERE'S THE TENNIS COURT, THERE'S THE SWIMMING POOL, AND THERE'S A BOAT LAUNCH, AND THAT'S ALL ON A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL PARCEL.
BUT IT CONFORMS TO THE STANDARDS THAT WOULD BE LISTED FOR THE RECREATION OUTDOOR USE, THAT IT'S OPEN TO THAT PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION.
WE CAN GO ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
HERE'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT, WHERE IN THIS CASE IT'S SHOWING PART SPACE WITH THE LITTLE GATHERING SPACE, YOU CAN SEE THE PARCEL IN THE CENTER OF THE SCREEN, JUST BELOW WHERE IT SAYS THE EVIA MAIN.
HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF CURRENT RECREATION OUTDOOR USAGE.
WITHIN OUR STATUS, WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER LAND USE, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT GREATER LAND, IF YOU WILL, IN THIS CASE.
THE NEXT SLIDE, CATHERINE, IS CAPITALIST COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OUTDOOR.
NOW, THIS IS NOT THE LAND USE THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER TO BE WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING CATEGORY, BUT THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN THERE'S A THING PEER FOR COMMERCIAL USE, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
THIS WOULD ALSO BE THE LAND USE THAT WOULD BE APPLIED TO THE ISLAND PLEASURE PIER THAT WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH.
BUT IN THE RESEARCH, I DID FIND AT LEAST ONE CASE WHERE YOU CAN HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURE.
IT'S GOT TO BE THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE CATHERINE.
THIS WAS FOUND IN FORT WORTH OF ALL PLACES.
THE STANDARDS, WAS 5.308 DOCKS, PIERS, AND BOATHOUSES.
THIS IS, AGAIN, JUST ANOTHER EXCERPT FROM THEIR STANDARDS.
YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN THEIR STATUS, A STRUCTURE WILL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE ON THE PROPERTY.
OF COURSE, THERE WERE SOME OTHER STANDARDS LISTED THERE AND THIS WAS LAKE WORTH, FORT WORTH TEXAS.
NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT IN THIS CASE, IT'S A LAKE FOR A COMMUNITY AND IT'S MORE OF A TRANSIENT TYPE SITUATION, SO THE USE OF THOSE LAKEFRONT LOTS, PEOPLE GENERALLY ARE EXPECTED TO DRIVE IN, SET UP A CAMP SITE, AND PACK UP AND DRIVE AWAY, AND THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A GREAT DEAL.
I'M SURE THERE IS SOME PERMANENT RESIDENCY, BUT IN THIS CASE, IN A LAKE, WHICH IS AN INTERIOR PORTION OF LAND, THEY DID PERMIT THIS TYPE OF LAND USE.
NOT TO SAY THAT IT COULDN'T EXIST HERE IN GALVESTON, BUT WE DID FIND AN EXAMPLE OF SOME REGULATION.
THAT CONCLUDES THAT PRESENTATION.
THE LAST SLIDE IS, WE'RE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.
>> WELL, CURRENTLY, WE DO HAVE STANDARDS IN PLACE ON HOW TO ADDRESS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT HAS BEEN FUNCTIONING JUST FINE.
WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY ISSUES OPERATING WITH THE CURRENT STANDARDS.
>> RIGHT. UNTIL WE'VE HAD REQUESTS THAT WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH, WHICH HAS ACTUALLY BROUGHT A LARGER ISSUE TO BEAR,
[01:40:08]
WHICH IS THE FACT THAT WE ARE A WATERFRONT COMMUNITY, AN ISLAND THAT DOES NOT ADDRESS BOATHOUSES AND PIERS SPECIFICALLY IN OUR LDRS, EXPECT FOR AS A COMMERCIAL USE AND PROBABLY SHOULD.ARE WE TRYING TODAY TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE REQUEST THAT WAS MADE TO US BY A CITIZEN? OR ARE WE TRYING TO ADDRESS SPECIFICALLY OVERALL, THE BOAT HOUSES AND PIERS IN GENERAL AS A LAND USE? WHAT I HAD IN MIND WHEN I BROUGHT THIS FORWARD WAS TO ADDRESS BOTH HOUSES AND PIERS AS A LAND USE.
>> THE LAST TIME THIS WAS A DISCUSSION ITEM, THE COMMISSION ASKED US TO DO RESEARCH ON WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES DO AND DONE THAT AND PRESENTED IT TO YOU.
IF THE COMMISSION IS INTERESTED IN BOAT HOUSES AND PIERS BECOMING A LAND USE, WE CAN CERTAINLY EXPLORE THAT.
>> COMMISSIONER PYNA AND THEN COUNSEL MEMBER LISTALSKI.
>> I'LL DEFER TO COUNSEL MEMBER LISTALSKI.
I'LL TAKE HIS GUY. LET'S SEE WHAT HE HAS TO SAY FIRST.
>> YOU ALL HEARD THE CASE THAT WENT IN FRONT OF COUNTY COMMISSION AND THAT CASE CARRIED ON TO COUNCIL.
THE COUNCIL DEFINITELY WANTED TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AND IT SEEMED LIKE THE CONSENSUS AT COUNCIL WAS TO TRY TO MAKE THIS A LAND USE OR SOME TYPE OF PERMITTED USE ON THE PROPERTY BESIDES THE ACCESSORY DWELLING CRITERIA.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WANT TO ASK.
ONE OF THE SLIDES HAD SOME OF THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE ISSUES THAT MIGHT COME ALONG WITH THIS.
NUISANCE, TRESPASSING, SANITATION SCALE, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, JUST TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE, THE NUISANCE AND THE TRESPASSING, IF THE LOT IS ON THE WATER AND PEOPLE CAN GET TO IT, THEY'RE GOING TO GET TO IT.
IF THEY WANT TO GO FISHING ON THAT LOT AND THEY FEEL LIKE THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT TRESPASSING, THEY'RE GOING TO GO OUT THERE AND THEY'RE GOING TO FISH OFF THE SHORELINE.
TO PREVENT THAT, IT'D BE GREAT IF PEOPLE FENCE THEIR PROPERTY AND KEPT PEOPLE OFF.
I THINK THAT'S EASY TO ADDRESS IF WE DO CREATE SOME TYPE OF LAND USE AND ORDINANCE THAT GOES ALONG WITH THIS.
SCALE, I'M NOT SURE, WE DON'T REGULATE SCALE.
IF WE SAW PERMITS IN FRONT OF US THAT HAD A PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT ASSOCIATED WITH THE PIER, WE DON'T ASK THOSE QUESTIONS WHEN WE SEE PERMITS FOR PIERS THAT GO ALONG WITH THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
I DON'T I KNOW WHY WE WOULD ASK THAT QUESTION IN THIS SITUATION EITHER.
THE SANITATION IS REALLY THE ONLY ISSUE THAT I CAN SOMEWHAT SIDE WITH AND SEE THERE COULD BE AN ISSUE.
WE DON'T WANT SOMEBODY OUT THERE, SITING ON THE PIER, DRINKING BEER, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO GO THE BATHROOM AND WHO KNOWS WHERE THEY GO? THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY ISSUE AND I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT IS A HUGE ISSUE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH.
I'M NOT TOO CONCERNED WITH THAT, BUT THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY ISSUE THAT I DO AGREE WITH THERE.
WHEN IT COMES TO LAND USES, I THINK THE BEST LAND USE WOULD BE TO CREATE A NEW ONE CALLED PRIVATE PIERS AND BOATHOUSES AND CREATE THE DEFINITION THAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT.
[01:45:02]
BUT ONE OF THE FIRST SLIDES YOU HAD THE GRANDFATHERING ISSUES.JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY WENT OUT AND BUILT IT, AND DIDN'T GET A PERMIT FOR IT, IS THAT CONSIDERED GRANDFATHERING? WITH SECTION 8 OF PIRATES CODE, I THINK THAT COULD BE AN ISSUE THERE.
JEFFREY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I'M NOT SURE IF ALL OF THE LOTS ALONG THERE OR THE HOUSES ALONG THERE HAVE BEEN BUILT OUT AND THEY HAVE A BOATHOUSE TO GO WITH THEM, AND IF THEY DON'T, I SEE THAT BEING A PROBLEM IF THEY COME TO COUNCIL AND ASK FOR A PERMIT TO BUILD A BOAT HOUSE OUT THERE, BECAUSE IT'S A SITUATION WHERE THAT IS A SEPARATE LOT AND THERE COULD BE SOME FUTURE ISSUES WITH THAT AS WELL.
MY OPINION IS THAT WE TACKLE THIS AS A RECREATIONAL A LAND USE FOR PRIVATE PIERS IN BOAT HOUSES AND CREATE A DEFINITION AND CRITERIA THAT'LL GO ALONG WITH THEM.
>> I AGREE THAT WE NEED TO CREATE A LAND USE.
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT WE NEED TO CREATE A LAND USE FOR BOAT HOUSES AND PIERS.
I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT MY SUBDIVISION.
I JUST THINK IT'S WRONG FOR ME TO TALK ABOUT MY SUBDIVISION AND IT'S ALMOST JUST SAID I HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS, BUT I THINK I SHOULDN'T TALK ABOUT MY SUBDIVISION IN MY SECTION 8 HOUSING.
>> YES. SORRY. DID I SAY THAT? NO. [INAUDIBLE] I JUST DON'T THINK I SHOULD TALK ABOUT MY SUBDIVISION BUT IT'S A PLANET SUBDIVISION AND ACCEPTED PLATTED SUBDIVISION AND I DON'T THINK I SHOULD TALK ABOUT MY SUBDIVISION [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'LL JUST SAY, I KNOW THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE DEVELOPER.
I WORKED FROM DEVELOPER AT THE TIME THAT SUBDIVISION GOT PLATTED AND THAT WAS THE PLAN ALL ALONG.
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
IT MIGHT NOT QUITE FIT THE DEFINITION OF OUR [INAUDIBLE] BUT IT WAS DEFINITELY THE ATTENTION OF THE DEVELOPER TO DO EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING OUT THERE.
>> YEAH, I THINK WE NEED TO CREATE A LAND-USE.
PERSONALLY, I DO NOT THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BOAT HOUSES, BUT TALK ABOUT HYPOCRITE.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BOAT HOUSES AND PIERS ON LOTS THAT DON'T HAVE PRIMARY STRUCTURES ON THEM.
I JUST THINK THAT IT CAN BECOME A PROBLEM.
FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, THE NUISANCES, THE GOING TO THE BATHROOM, THE PROBLEMS THAT IT CAN BECOME FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
PEOPLE ROLLING IN, PEOPLE ROLL OUT FOR THE WEEKEND.
I THINK IT CAN BE A BIG PROBLEM FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
I THINK WE HAVE A BIG CONSIDERATION FOR DIFFERENT PARTS OF THIS ISLAND.
WHAT CAN BE A PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE ON HARBOURVIEW MIGHT NOT BE A PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE ON SUNSET COVE MIGHT NOT BE A PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE ON SPORTSMAN ROAD.
WE HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS UP AND DOWN IN THIS ISLAND AND I THINK A ONE SIZE FITS ALL MIGHT BE TOUGH.
WE CERTAINLY CAN TALK ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE HAVE FOR BOAT HOUSES AND PIERS.
I WOULD SAY AT THIS POINT, I THINK WE DO NEED A SEPARATE LAND USE, IN MY OPINION.
I THINK THAT COUNSEL MEMBER LISTALSKI HAS SAID THE SAME.
>> I THINK IT'S COMMENDABLE TO LOOK AT THAT AND AGAIN IF SOMEBODY BUYS AN AREA AND THEY THEY DO IT SPECIFICALLY TO HAVE A WATER ACCESS.
I THINK THAT'S GREAT. WE HAVE SEEN THE BRIEFING, SHOWED US WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR AREA BUT NOW I'M INTERESTED AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE STAFF CAN FIND OUT HOW DO THEY HANDLE THIS SITUATION IN OTHER AREAS CAUSE IF I RECALL, I THINK I REMEMBER DRIVING AROUND SAVANNAH AREA AND
[01:50:03]
SOME OF THE PLACES ALONG THE CHARLES RIVER AND THERE WERE JUST LOTS WITH DOCS THEIR PIERS OUT IN THERE.THEY WERE THEY WERE FENCED YOU COULD NOT GET TO THEM.
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE INCLUDED.
I GUESS IT'S TWO PARTS THEY LIKE TO CONSIDER LAND USE ASPECT OF IT GIVEN WITH SOME PROVISION WE ENCOMPASS IT AND PROTECT THAT PROPERTY INTO WHERE ELSE AND WHAT ELSE IS DONE AND NOT.
I DON'T LIKE TRYING TO REINVENT THE WHEEL WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE'S FIGURED IT OUT AND IT WOULD JUST FIT PERFECTLY INTO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IN THE ISLAND.
>> I THINK THAT THAT'S SURE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD LOOK AT.
I THINK THAT WHEN DR. GROUP BROUGHT HER PARTICULAR SITUATION TO US, SHE MENTIONED THICK FENCING AND KEEPING THINGS SECURE THAT WAY.
I ALSO AGREE WITH WHAT COUNSEL MEMBER LISTALSKI SAID, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO GET THERE, THEY'RE GOING TO GET THERE.
IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO TRESPASS THEY ARE GOING TO TRESPASS WHETHER THERE'S A FENCE, WHETHER THERE'S NOT A FENCE, WHATEVER.
>> I THINK I WANT TO ECHO OR SUPPORT WHAT HAS BEEN SAID HERE IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THIS THING ALIVE.
I AGREE THAT IT SHOULD BE A LAND USE BUT WE ARE A REAL ISLAND ARE SURROUNDED BY WATER.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NOT EVERYBODY HAS TO DEAL WITH, BUT I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR US TO DEAL WITH IT.
THERE ARE GOING TO BE EMPTY LOTS ON PLACES THAT AREN'T BUILT ON IT.
WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO HAVE A BOAT DOC, OTHER PLACES THAT HAVE DONE JUST HAVEN'T FOUND THEM YET.
OTHER LOCALITIES THAT HAVE THE SAME MISSION WE HAVE AND HAD FIGURED OUT A WAY TO REGULATE IT.
I THINK WE HAVE A GOAL TO GO ABOUT FIND WHO THAT IS ALSO THE PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN SPELLED OUT HERE I THINK CAN BE AT LEAST PARTIALLY MITIGATED WITH A FENCE OR SOME SECURITY DEVICE IS NOT GOING TO KEEP EVERYBODY OUT BUT IT'LL KEEP HONEST PEOPLE HONEST.
IF WE DO ALLOW THIS THEN THAT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN WITHOUT SOME SECURITY LIKE A FENCE OR SOME KIND.
I THINK A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE DONE TO SEE HOW OTHER PLACES DO IT FIRST AND MITIGATE WHATEVER WE ALLOW WITH SOME KIND OF SECURITY.
>> PETE DID YOU FIND THE FENCE TO BE IN PLAY ON ANY OF THESE THAT YOU LOOKED AT?
>> WE DIDN'T FIND MANY WHERE IT WAS PERMISSIBLE TO HAVE AN NECESSARY STRUCTURE STAND ALONE.
I DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH IN TERMS OF RESEARCH TO GAUGE ON WHETHER FENCING WAS HELPFUL.
WE DID INCLUDE THE FORT WORTH AREA.
DON'T RECALL IF THERE WAS A FENCING CRITERIA.
>> THE ONE THAT YOU SAW LIKE OUT AT SPORTSMAN ROAD, WHERE THEY HAD THE DOC THAT WAS OUT THERE WITH NO PRIMARY STRUCTURE WHERE THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE HAD BEEN DESTROYED BUT THE PIER WAS STILL THERE.
WAS THERE ANY FENCING INVOLVED AS YOU RECALL?
>> I AM NOT SURE IF THERE'S ANY EXISTING FENCING UP THERE, BUT CATHERINE YOU MAY HAVE SOME INSIGHT ON THIS, ARE WE CURRENTLY DEALING WITH SOME COMPLIANCE ISSUES OUT IN THAT PART OF TOWN?
>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF BUT LOOKING AT THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH THAT WAS INCLUDED, IT DOES LOOK LIKE THERE ARE FENCES THAT SURROUND THOSE PROPERTIES THAT WE USE AS AN EXAMPLE.
>> THIS MAY BE A PROPERTY A FEW YEARS AGO THAT ACTUALLY WENT TO.
I WANT TO SAY THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS, DUE TO THE OWNER WANTING TO REBUILD A PAIR THAT WAS ALREADY THERE.
THERE WERE SOME CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE BBA WAS ABLE TO GRANT THE OWNER THE ABILITY TO REBUILD THE PIER THAT WAS THERE.
I'M THINKING THAT WAS THE CASE.
>> THANK YOU, DONNA. COMMISSIONERS, DO WE WANT TO ASK? I THINK WHAT I HEARD COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY AND VICE-CHAIR BROWN SAY IS THAT YOU WANTED STAFF TO DIG A LITTLE BIT DEEPER, BUT STAFF HAS ALREADY DONE PRETTY HARD ON WHAT OTHER WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES HAVE DONE.
[01:55:03]
I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT JOE, WE'RE ASKING THEM TO DO AND I THINK PETE HAS ALREADY DONE THAT.I DON'T I REALLY KNOW HOW MUCH MORE DIGGING THERE IS FOR HIM TO DO ON THIS.
I MEAN, YOU SAW THE LIST IN HIS PRESENTATION OF ALL THE CITIES AND TOWNS THAT HE'S ALREADY LOOKED AT AND IT WAS PRETTY EXTENSIVE, IN THESE START GOING TO OTHER STATES AND THEN YOU GET OUTSIDE OF TEXAS LINE.
IT CAN BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM TEXAS LAW.
>> JUST ONE THING THAT I HEARD BROUGHT UP IS CREATING A LAND USE FOR PRIVATE PIERS AND BOAT HOUSES.
IF LAND USE WAS CREATED FOR PRIVATE PIERS AND BOAT HOUSES, WHERE WOULD YOU USE THAT LAND USE.
SPECIFICALLY TO THE POINT THAT JEFFREY YOU MENTIONED, YOU DIDN'T WANT TO SAY, PIERS AND BOAT HOUSE IS BUILT ON LOTS AND IT DIDN'T PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
IF YOU HAVE THAT LAND USE WHERE WOULD YOU PUT UP PIER OR BOAT HOUSE OR WHY WOULD YOU HAVE A PIER BOAT HOUSE LAND USE IF YOU NEEDED A PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR HOUSE ON THE LOT? [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M JUST SURPRISED IN THE HECK OUT OF YOU TODAY.
[LAUGHTER] I'M SAYING I DON'T WANT IT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE OTHER PEOPLE DO SO THAT MIGHT JUST BE WHAT WE DO.
>> I DON'T WANT IT, BUT I'M SAYING I'M HEARING OTHER PEOPLE DO.
I'M A MOTHER, I DON'T ALWAYS GET WHAT I WANT.
>> I'M LEARNING THAT AS A FATHER BELIEVE ME.
>> YOU LISTED ALL OF THESE SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES, IS SPECULATION OR HAVE WE SEEN THESE CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING AN UNPROTECTED DOCS SOMEWHERE BEFORE?
>> THOSE ARE STANDARD COMPLAINTS THAT WE GET ABOUT THESE SITUATIONS.
>> SOME OF IT IS FROM COMPLIANCE RELATED ISSUE, SORRY I WAS MUTED.
>> I WAS WONDERING IF THAT HAD COME LOCAL, IF THOSE ARE THINGS THAT HAPPEN HERE LOCALLY OR OTHER PLACES EXPERIENCE THOSE KIND OF THINGS, WHETHER OTHER PLACES WHERE THEY'RE ON THE WATER AND HAVE A SIMILAR SITUATION DOES.
>> IS THERE A WAY TO BUILD IN SAFEGUARDS AT ALL INTO OUR LAND USE?
>> IF WE WERE TO EFFECTIVELY PERMIT STAND-ALONE BOAT HOUSES, PIERS, DOCKS, THEN THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING BUILT IN TO PREVENT THOSE THINGS THAT CONCERNS US.
>> WHAT COULD WE BUILD IN BESIDES THE FENCES, PETE?
>> GOSH, LIGHTING ON BOAT HOUSES IS SO CONTROVERSIAL.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA THE CAN OF WORMS THAT IS.
COUNCIL MEMBER LIST ALSKI COULD PROBABLY TELL YOU.
YOU GOT NEIGHBOR PROBLEMS TIMES 10 WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT LIGHTING ON BOAT HOUSES.
>> TO ADDRESS BOB'S CONCERN WITH LIGHTING.
OF COURSE, I DON'T THINK WE WOULD APPROVE OR DENY A BOAT HOUSE ON THE TYPE OF FISHING LIGHTS THEY HAVE THAT ARE TRYING TO LIGHT UP THE MOON.
[LAUGHTER] BUT MAYBE WHAT BOB WAS SPEAKING MORE ABOUT, IS JUST SECURITY LIGHTING ON THE LOT ITSELF TO HELP WITH SECURITY.
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT OF COURSE, IT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OUR LIGHTING STANDARDS
[02:00:02]
>> IF YOU'VE GOT RESTAURANTS ISSUES, THEN YOU'VE GOT PLUMBING, YOU'VE GOT A PRETTY EXPENSIVE BOATHOUSE THEN.
YOU'RE GETTING INTO SOME REAL EXPENSE IF YOU'VE GOT PLUMBING, SEWAGE, WHATEVER FOR JUST A BOAT HOUSE.
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GO TO THAT KIND OF EXPENSE FOR A STANDALONE BOATHOUSE?
>> I THINK IT'S GOOD TO HEAR SOMEBODY TALK ABOUT THAT KIND OF STUFF.
IF FOR IT TO BE A STAND ALONE, YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE IT LIKE A RESIDENCE, THEN IT DEFEATS PURPOSE OF THAT, AS WE'RE DISCUSSING ACCESS REBUILDINGS, RIGHT? BECAUSE WHEN YOU START TALKING ELECTRICAL, SEWAGE, NOW YOU'RE STARTING TO MAKE IT WHY YOU GOT TO DO IS THROW A BED IN IT, AND IT'S A HOME.
I THOUGHT THAT WE COULD WAIT FOR LAND USE.
I WOULD THINK THAT A GUY'S GOT A LOT.
HE DOESN'T REALLY WANT TO BUILD ON THAT LOT FOR 10 YEARS BECAUSE HE WANTS TO SAVE UP HIS MONEY.
HE'S GOING TO JUST PUT HIS PIER IN FIRST SO HE CAN ENJOY THAT.
TO ME, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING A PERSON WOULD DO AND I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SAY TO SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WELL, YOU'RE FREE TO DO THAT, IT'S YOUR LOT IT'S YOUR PROPERTY.
HOW CAN WE MAKE IT WORK? IT WOULD BE SIMPLE FOR SOMEBODY TO MAKE USE OF THEIR PROPERTY AT SUCH A POINT WITHOUT SPENDING ALMOST $300 OF SQUARE FOOT TO BUILD A HOUSE ON ANY PLACE HERE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT CURRENT PRICES ARE BUT THE NORTH ARE $200, I KNOW.
HOW COULD YOU HELP SOMEBODY USE THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT GOING INTO THE EXORBITANT FEES AND RESTRICTIONS.
>> I TOTALLY GET THAT THING ABOUT THE RESTAURANT.
I MEAN, HAVING A RESTAURANT THERE, SAY I LIVE IN IT.
SAY IF I IF I LIVED IN HOUSTON AND I CAME DOWN FOR THE WEEKEND AND I'VE WANTED TO HAVE MY BOAT HERE AND COME DOWN FOR THE WEEKEND.
IF I WANTED TO HAVE A SHOWER AND A RESTROOM BEFORE I WENT BACK TO HOUSTON OR WHEREVER I LIVED.
WOULDN'T BE A BAD THING TO HAVE.
YOU'RE IN THE BUSINESS COUNCIL MEMBER LIST ALSKI, TO PUT IN A RESTROOM AND LIGHTING AND ALL OF THAT.
>> DEPENDING ON THE LENGTH OF PIER AND SIZE AND ALL THIS STUFF.
WE'RE TALKING ANYWHERE FROM $30,000 TO $75,000 FOR THE PIER AND BOATHOUSE OUT THERE ALONE.
I UNDERSTAND WHERE STUFF IS COMING FROM.
THEY DON'T WANT TO CREATE PROBLEMS THAT ARE GOING TO COME BACK ON THE CITY IN THE FUTURE.
DEFINITELY I UNDERSTAND THAT POINT.
I'M GOING TO TRY TO PUT IN ANY SAFE GUARDS TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
YOU'VE GOT PROPERTY THAT IS VERY VALUABLE PROPERTY.
YOU'VE GOT RESPONSIBLE OWNERS FOR THE MOST PART HERE.
THEY WANT TO PUT THEIR BOAT IN THE WATER AND GO OUT ON THE WATER.
I JUST DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE STAND OUT MIDDLE A LOT USING THE BATHROOM AND CAUSING PROBLEMS FOR THE NEIGHBORS? DEFINITELY COULD HAPPEN.
[LAUGHTER] THAT COULD HAPPEN CURRENTLY WITH A LOT.
IF THEY WANT TO GO OUT THERE AND FINISH OFF THEIR LAND, THEY CAN DO THAT.
WE DON'T STOP THEM FROM DOING THAT.
WE WOULDN'T STOP THEM FROM PUTTING IN A [INAUDIBLE] ACROSS THEIR PROPERTY.
WHY ARE WE STOPPING THEM FOR PUTTING IN THE PIER? SOME THINGS WE'VE GOT TO USE A LITTLE BIT OF COMMON SENSE HERE. THIS IS JUST ONE OF THEM.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GO OUT THERE AND SPEND A 100 GRAND, FIXING UP AND PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS A COUPLE $100,000 AND THEN BECOME A NUISANCE FOR THEIR NEIGHBORS.
THAT'S DEFINITELY POSSIBLE, BUT I JUST DON'T SEE IT HAPPENING LIKE THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S BETTER WAYS TO DO IT.
MAYBE THERE'S SOME TEMPORARY LICENSE TO BUILD THE PIER AND IT CAN BE REVOKED IF WORSE COMES TO WORSE.
I JUST DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE THE PROBLEMS. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT DATA OUT THERE ON COMPLAINTS FROM PROPERTIES THAT WE HAVE THAT ARE GRANDFATHERED IN.
THAT MIGHT MAKE ME UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION BETTER
[02:05:03]
AND THINK OTHERWISE THAT THIS IS GOING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE.ARE THERE ANY INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY GO ALONG WITH THESE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
FOR INSTANCE, A SWIMMING POOL IS AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE PROPER FENCING THINGS AROUND THAT.
WHAT'S TO KEEP A KID FROM GOING OUT TO YOUR PIER AND FALLING IN.
IS THERE SOMETHING ALREADY OUT THERE ABOUT BOAT HOUSES AND PIERS THAT WERE MISSING AS WELL?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
>> WOW. PETE. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA?
>> I AM NOT SURE ABOUT THE IN CHARGE REQUIREMENTS.
>> SIGMA I KNOW IT'S VERY SPECIFIC FOR A SWIMMING POOL AS FAR HOW WIDE THE SLABS CAN BE OR THE FENCING AND THINGS LIKE THAT BECAUSE OF THE ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE.
>> THERE'S A STATE LAW ON THAT.
IT'S NOT JUST A CITY LAW ISN'T THAT RIGHT COUNCIL MEMBER? DO YOU KNOW AS A BUILDER? ISN'T THAT A STATE LAW?
>> I'M NOT SURE THE LEGAL REGULATIONS OUT THERE REGARDING POOLS, I KNOW THERE ARE DEFINITELY BUILDING CODES THAT WE GET TO FOLLOW ANYTIME WE BUILD UP HERE AND DEFINITELY FENCING IS REQUIRED.
THEY ARE VERY SPECIFIC ON THAT, HOW THE GATES OPERATE, SO DEFINITELY REGULATIONS ARE THERE ON THAT.
>> ALL RIGHT. HOW DO WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS COMMISSIONERS? DO WE WANT TO ASK MR. MELBOURNE TO DRAFT A LAND USE CREATE A LAND USE FOR PRIVATE BOATHOUSES AND PIERS AND INCLUDE IN OUR DRAFT FOR OUR REVIEW, LIGHTING RESTROOMS, FENCING WHATEVER TO MAKE THIS SECURE AND THEN SEE IF WE WANT TO LEAVE THAT IN THERE AS WE MOVE FORWARD? VICE-CHAIR BROWN, THOUGHTS?
>>I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A SAMPLE ORGANIZED BUT WITHOUT THE RESTROOM I THINK THAT JUST TAKES A SCALE OVERBOARD IN TERMS OF POOLS AND ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME BLACK JOURNALIST WAS MENTIONING SOME DATA ON THE COMPLAINTS JUST TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM IS RIGHT NOW.
BUT I HAVE A MODEL ORGANS THAT INCLUDES FENCING AND SECURITY LIGHTING TO GO ALONG WITH THIS PROGRAM HAS IS IN HERE
>> I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING EXACTLY THE COMPLIANCE AND THE NON-COMPLIANCE.
WHAT DATA ON COMPLIANCE ARE WE LOOKING AT?
>> NO, DATA ON COMPLAINTS, COMPLAINTS ABOUT PIERS WITH NO PRIMARY RESIDENCE
>> HOW MANY THERE ARE CURRENTLY ON THE ISLAND?
>> YEAH I HAVE TO KNOW COMPLAINTS THEY'VE BEEN GETTING WERE THEY HAVE PIERS WITH PRIMARY RESIDENCE.
THE THINGS THAT ARE GENERATING THE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES THAT WE SAW ON PETE'S SLIDESHOW.
>> IF I CAN CLARIFY, THE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES AND CONCERNS WE INCLUDED THAT IN THE SLIDES JUST TO GET EVERYONE THINKING ABOUT WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY COME FROM ALLOWING THESE STANDALONE STRUCTURES ON VACANT LOT.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THOSE INCIDENCES ARE OCCURRING NOW, BUT IT'S JUST TO GET US THINKING ABOUT WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY COME OUT OF HEAVEN IF WE HAD THOSE STRUCTURES.
>> THAT HONEST THAT QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT HOW THOSE IF THOSE COMMENTS, THOSE OBSERVATIONS WERE GENERATED FROM EXPERIENCE HERE IN GALVESTON?
>> MY ANSWER WAS THOSE ARE STAFF CONCERNS.
>> OKAY. WHAT I WAS INTERESTED IN IS, HAVE WE HAD ANY COMPLAINTS BASED ON PIERS THAT WERE UNACCOMPANIED BY PRIMARY RESIDENCES OR NOT AND IF SO, WHAT COMPLAINTS I AM TRYING TO GET A HAND ON THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM THAT THIS MIGHT SOLVE OR NOT.
>> WELL, WE COULD PROBABLY GET SOME DATA FROM THE CITY MARSHALL ON WHAT IS CURRENTLY OUT THERE AND IF THEY HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH ANY OF THE LOTS IN THEIR CURRENT FORM
[02:10:06]
>> BUT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET ANYTHING ON WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] WHAT'S HAVE BEEN HAPPENING NOW? THAT QUESTION'S GOING TO COME UP SOONER OR LATER.
>> I'M GOING TO ROLL THE DICE SINCE THEY ARE NOT GETTING A LOT OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT GOODALL PIRATES CODE SECTION 8 OR SUNSET.
[LAUGHTER] JUST GOING TO SPECULATE.
[LAUGHTER] PETE ARE WE CLEAR ON WHERE WE'RE GOING?
>> YES MUM, WE ARE AS CLEAR AS MUD.
>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. [LAUGHTER]
>> I THINK I HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE WANTING.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE OUT RESTROOMS. WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH LIGHT AND WE NEED TO BE CLEAR THAT IT IS SECURITY LIGHTING, THAT IT IS SOMEHOW COMPLIANT WITH NEIGHBORHOOD'S STANDARDS, THAT IT DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH FISHING LIGHTING AND WE ARE GOING TO PUT FENCING IN THERE.
>> SOMETHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH PROPERLY SECURING, DISCOURAGING.
LET'S SEE IF WE CAN FIND SOME LANGUAGE THAT'S DISCOURAGING NUISANCE.
>> SIGNAGE MAYBE, IT WOULD BE LIKE YOUR 306 OR 307 SIGN ON FENCING IF IT'S AN UNDEVELOPED LOT, POSTED, NO TRESPASSING SIGN, SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR HAVING THAT USE OF YOUR LAND.
>> OKAY AND COUNCIL MEMBER LAKANSKI?
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I THINK IT'S IN OTHER ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS, BUT IF ONE OF THE OTHER NUISANCES THAT GOT BROUGHT UP OR A COMPLAINT THAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE IS THAT THE HOMEOWNER HIMSELF OR THE LANDOWNER HIMSELF IS OUT THERE WITH THEIR RB AND THEY LIVE THERE WHICH ARE OTHER, I THINK THERE'S REGULATIONS THAT AFFECT THAT REGULATE THAT BUT WE DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO MAKE A PLACE THAT THE OWNER THINKS THAT THEY CAN GO OUT THERE AND CAMP AND HAVE ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY WANT WITH A HOUSE WITHOUT A HOUSE.
>> RIGHT. IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHATEVER NEIGHBORHOODS STANDARDS OR WHATEVER?
>> IT HAS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OVERLYING ZONING, WHATEVER IT WOULD BE.
THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON SINCE STAFF IS GOING TO FIRE US SINCE IT'S ALMOST 6 O'CLOCK. ALRIGHT. HDDZ, ZONE 6.
[9.A. Discussion Of The Height And Density Zone, Zone 6 (HDDZ-6) (Hill)]
>>WE TALKED A WHILE AGO ABOUT THE HEIGHT AND DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE, ZONE 6 WHEN WE WERE CONSIDERING THE POD.
THE HEIGHT AND DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE STATES FROM 2008, IT WAS ADOPTED THEN AFTER A LENGTHY PUBLIC PROCESS IT HAD A LOT OF GOOD PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
IT CONSISTS OF SIX ZONES, ONE IS THE GATEWAY WHICH IS THE AREA COMING INTO TOWN ALONG OFF IT'S [INAUDIBLE] AND THEN ZONES 2-5 ARE ALONG SEAWALL.
ZONE 6 IS FOR THE WEST END IT IS FROM THE WHOLE WEST, IT'S FROM COVE-VIEW TO 11-MILE ROAD.
IT'S THE LARGEST OF THE HDDZ ZONES.
I SHOULD SAY THAT THE HDDZ IS A DESIGN ZONE.
THAT IT'S DESIGNED OVERLAY AND IT REGULATES THE PLACEMENT OF BUILDINGS ON THE LOT, HEIGHT, INTERACTION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND SOME DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.
IT'S THE AREA WEST OF THE SEAWALLS TO 11-MILE ROAD.
THIS AREA IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER AREAS COVERED BY THE HEIGHT AND DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE.
IT HAS A LOT OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS,
[02:15:04]
AND NOT A LOT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.THE HDDZ REGULATIONS EXEMPT SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS IT'S ONLY FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IT'S NOT FOR RESIDENTIAL.
THIS AREA OF HDDZ IS THE AREA IN WHICH WE HAVE SEEN THE LEAST AMOUNT OF USE OF IT.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY SIGNIFICANT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE LAST 13 YEARS SINCE IT WAS ADOPTED.
IT'S ALSO THE STRICTEST OF THE ZONES.
I'VE DONE JUST A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE HDDZ REGULATIONS REGARDING LOT SIZE, AND SETBACKS, AND COMPARING THEM TO THE OTHER ZONES.
FOR INSTANCE, THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT IN HDDZ 6 IS TWO ACRES, IN THE OTHER ZONES IT'S AN ACRE AND A HALF.
THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ALSO ARE STRICTER AS ARE THE FLOOR TO AREA RATIOS AND THE LOT COVERAGE IN THE APPROVED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE.
I SAY ALL OF THAT TO BRING UP THE TOPIC OF HDDZ-6 DO WE NEED IT? THE ONLY DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THIS ZONE IS A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, IS THIS AREA HERE THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THE SORT OF TEAL.
THAT IS A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR A COUPLE OF CONDO OR MULTI-FAMILY TOWERS, RESIDENTIAL TOWERS THAT RECEIVED A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVING SOME OF THE HDDZ REQUIREMENTS.
IN THE 13 YEARS WE'VE HAD IT WE HAVEN'T USED IT.
THE ONE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED GOT WAIVERS FROM IT.
THIS IS JUST A TOPIC THAT WE AS STAFF HAVE BEEN KIND OFF MULLING OVER AND WANTED TO BRING IT TO THE COMMISSION FOR YOUR THOUGHTS.
BUT ALL OF THAT ALSO IS PREFACE WITH, "IT'S NOT PRESSING." THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT HAVING ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA THAT IS BEING CONTEMPLATED NOW THAT I'M AWARE OF.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING WE WANTED TO GET THE COMMISSION'S FEEDBACK ON.
>>THIS CAME UP BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE PODS SEEMS TO BE THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING THESE DAYS.
I DON'T KNOW IT SEEMS LIKE THAT POD MIGHT BE GETTING THE ONE THAT YOU EVEN POINTED OUT MIGHT BE REACHING THE END OF ITS LIFE ALSO, MIGHT IT, CATHERINE?
>>BUT ANYWAY, THAT IS KIND OF THE QUESTION ESPECIALLY OUT HERE IN THE WILD WEST WHERE I'M CURRENTLY SITTING.
IS THERE A REASON TO HAVE THIS HDDZ-6 IF IN 13 YEARS IT'S NEVER BEEN USED? AGAIN, WHEN PUDS SEEMS TO BE THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING.
AS CATHERINE SAID, NOT PRESSING, JUST SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER.
IT WOULD BE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LDR, CATHERINE?
>>IT WOULD BE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO REMOVE IT FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION SECTION THAT GOVERNS HDDZ.
THEN IT WOULD BE A CORRESPONDING MAP AMENDMENT TO REMOVE IT FROM THE MAP.
>>THIS IS A DISCUSSION ITEM AND IT COULD COME UP AS AN ACTUAL CHANGE TO THE LDR WHEN THE NEXT TIME WE HAVE WE'RE GOING TO GO TO COUNSEL WITH CONCRETE CHANGES TO THE LDR IS THAT CORRECT?
>>SURE, WE CAN CERTAINLY ADD IT TO WHAT STAFF CALLS THE LIST.
WE HAVE A RUNNING LIST OF THINGS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT WE THINK NEED TO BE MODIFIED.
IF THE COMMISSION AGREES WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ADD THAT TO THE LIST, AND THEN YOU'D CONSIDER IT WHEN YOU LOOKED AT ALL OF THOSE TEXT AMENDMENTS.
>>YOU CAN LOOK AT IT IN ANOTHER DIFFERENT WAY.
YOU CAN SAY ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY DOWN THERE IS BECAUSE OF THE HDDZ.
IF YOU LOOK AT THAT AND YOU SEE HOW EFFECTIVE IT IS DOWN THERE YOU MIGHT SAY, "WELL, IT'S NOT WORTH FOR BUILDING DOWN THERE." THE REASON IS IT'S RESTRICTIVE AS THUS IT IS, IS BECAUSE IT'S A SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENT.
TYPICALLY SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE THE LARGEST AND MOST IMPACTFUL ALONG THAT ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'LL EVER SEE.
FOR INSTANCE, THE LAST ONE THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT WAS A PRETTY BIG BUILDING.
[02:20:01]
IT WAS ACTUALLY LARGER THAN THE HDDZ ALLOWS.AGAIN, THE REASON THAT IS THE MOST RESTRICTIVE BECAUSE YOU'RE BUILDING ON A BEACH THAT'S RECEIVING OVER TIME PRETTY MUCH AS TWO OR THREE PEOPLE PER YEAR.
OR YOU'RE BUILDING ON A WETLANDS WHICH IS ALSO THE MOST SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENT WE HAVE.
THERE'S ANOTHER WAY OF LOOKING AT IT IS BECAUSE OF THAT RESTRICTION IS PREVENTING THOSE LARGE BUILDINGS FROM BEING BUILT.
NOW, THAT MAY BE A GOOD THING IF YOU WERE TO ASK SOME PEOPLE IN THIS TOWN.
I WOULDN'T SAY THAT YOU SHOULD GET RID OF IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEING USED SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY YOU SHOULD KEEP IT.
[INAUDIBLE] THOSE THINGS SHOULDN'T BE THERE WITHOUT THOSE TYPE OF RESTRICTIONS BUT CAN STILL BE THERE.
THAT'S THE THING COMMITTEE THAT CAME UP WITH THAT PARTICULAR ZONE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THE WHOLE REASON FOR THAT HDDZ WAS TO BE ABLE TO TAILOR THE WAY THESE THINGS ARE BUILT.
BECAUSE WHERE THEY'RE BUILT IT'S IN A SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENT AND IT'S NOT [INAUDIBLE] AS LONG AS SEAWALL MAYBE BETWEEN A HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD AND A SEAWALL.
WHICH IS NOT A TYPE OF SENSITIVE THAT IS CULTURALLY SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENT.
IT SERVES A PURPOSE AND I WOULD COUNSEL NOT GETTING RID OF IT.
BUT I THINK [INAUDIBLE] WE HAVE IS UNDERSTANDING HOW THE PATTERN WORKS.
BECAUSE IT WAS NOTHING BUT CONFUSING THE LAST TIME, AT LEAST FOR ME BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT A COMPLETE [INAUDIBLE] APPLICATION FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.
WHAT THE APPLICANTS WE'RE ASKING FOR RELIEF FROM IS JUST PART OF WHAT WAS IN THAT APPLICATION AND IT LEFT ME GRUMBLE, "WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? NO, THEY'RE JUST TAKING THE HDDZ AND THEY'RE PICKING AND CHOOSING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND WHAT THEY DON'T WANT TO DO." THIS DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME.
THAT'S WHEN WE GOT TO FEELING LIKE, "WELL, WHAT DOES THIS HDDZ THING FOR ANYWAY, WHY ARE WE EVEN DOING IT? IS IT THE RIGHT THING?" IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF WHETHER THAT HDDZ SHOULD BE THERE OR NOT.
IT'S HOW THE PATTERN WORKS WITH THE HDDZ? I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION.
>>I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT, BOB, AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO LOOK AT IT AND NOT THE WAY I HAD LOOKED AT IT AS TO WHAT MAY BE THE DEVELOPMENT IS THAT IT'S PREVENTING THAT THE HDDZ MIGHT BE A GOOD DISCOURAGER IN THAT REGARD.
THAT IS A VERY GOOD WAY TO LOOK AT IT.
OTHER COMMENTS? COUNCIL MEMBER, DID I SEE YOUR HAND UP? NO? OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY. I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING THEN MISS.
GORMAN IS WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT OFF THE LIST FOR NOW.
WE'RE GOING TO KEEP ALL HDDZ-6 INTACT IS THAT CORRECT COMMISSIONERS? YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, KEEP HDDZ IN PLACE? OKAY. BOB, HAD THE PERSUASION ON THAT ONE.
LEAVE IT THERE, CATHERINE, PLEASE, FOR NOW.
YES, VICE-CHAIR BROWN. ANYTHING?
>>I WAS JUST RAISING MY HAND BECAUSE EVERYBODY FROZE.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF I WAS FREEZE FROZEN OR NOT.
>>YOU'VE HAD THE JOHN PAUL MELODY THIS TIME.
[LAUGHTER] HE'S USUALLY OUR FROZEN MAN.
ANYTHING ELSE, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS? HAVE WE JUST BEATEN EVERYTHING TO DEATH TODAY? [NOISE] ANYTHING ELSE, CATHERINE?
>> HOLY SMOKES. GREAT. IF NOTHING ELSE WE'RE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU ALL. [NOISE]
>>ALL RIGHT. BYE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.