[00:00:02]
>> WE'VE GOT WEDNESDAY FOUR O'CLOCK, NOVEMBER 3RD.
[Zoning Board of Adjustments on November 3, 2021.]
IT'S FOUR O'CLOCK WE'RE HAVING THIS VIRTUAL MEETING ON ZOOM, AND I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.CAN WE GET AN ATTENDANCE PLEASE.
>> BOARD MEMBER CLEMENT IS ABSENT TODAY.
>> BOARD MEMBER RAILEY IS ALSO ABSENT AS WELL AS BOARD MEMBER SYLER.
>> SINCE WE HAVE A FEW MEMBERS ABSENT, BOARD MEMBER HOLLAWAY YOU WILL BE VOTING TODAY.
>> STAFF PRESENT ARE MYSELF, CATHERINE GORMAN, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, PLANNING TECHNICIAN, PATRICK COLLINS, AVAILABLE ON THE PHONE OR HIS ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DONNA FAIRWEATHER AND PLANNING MANAGER, ADRIAN AUTOBARN.
>> THANK YOU. WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF CASES TODAY.
DO WE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ON ANY OF THESE TWO CASES FROM THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE? SEEING NONE. WE'RE GOING ON TO THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM LAST MEETING PLEASE.
[NOISE] I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT THERE.
>> CHAIRMAN, I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF YOU HAVE ALL THE MEMBERS REQUISITE TO SIGN UP ON THE MINUTES, SO WE'D HAVE TO UPHOLD THE MINUTES TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING.
>> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO JUST HOLD THAT UP UNTIL THE NEXT ONE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, UNTIL YOU HAVE AT LEAST A QUORUM OF THE FOLKS THAT WERE PRESENT AT THE LAST MEETING IN QUESTION, THOSE FOLKS WILL NEED TO BE THERE TO AFFIRM THE MINUTES.
>> DO WE NEED A MOTION TO DO THAT?
>> NO. THANKS. L GUESS AT THIS POINT, DOES ANY OF THE STAFF NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD?
>> WE HAVE OUR STANDARD MEETING REMINDERS ABOUT WATCHING THE MEETING IN GALLERY VIEW.
THAT'S HOW IT'S SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC AND HOW YOU CAN SEE ALL OF YOUR COMMISSIONERS AT THE SAME TIME.
WE ASK THAT YOU KEEP YOUR SELF MUTED UNLESS YOU'RE SPEAKING TO CUT DOWN ON BACKGROUND NOISE.
THEN WE ALSO ASK THAT YOU PHYSICALLY RAISE YOUR HAND TO GET THE CHAIR'S ATTENTION BEFORE SPEAKING OR MAKING A MOTION.
FOR THOSE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE PARTICIPATING ON THE CALL, WE'LL ASK THAT YOU USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE WHEN YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
THEN ALSO, L COULD MENTION THAT WE HAVE A NEW MEMBER JOINING US TODAY, CAROL HOLLAWAY. SHE IS HERE.
RECENTLY APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL AS AN ALTERNATE TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
SHE IS JUST COMING OFF OF SIX YEARS IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE HER.
>> WELCOME MS. HOLLAWAY. GO AND PASS THERE.
DOES ANYBODY WANT TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON THE AGENDA ITEMS, PUBLIC SPEAKING AREA?
>> IF THERE'S ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ON THE CALL WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD REGARDING NON-AGENDA ITEMS? IF YOU COULD USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE. SEEING NONE.
>> HEARING NONE. HOW ABOUT NEW BUSINESS? ON OUR FIRST CASE PLEASE.
>> CHAIRMAN, PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW BUSINESS, IF YOU CAN MAKE THE ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING THAT THERE ARE FOUR COMMISSIONERS PRESENT TODAY.
>> YES. THE ATTENDEES THAT ARE HERE TODAY ON THESE TWO CASES, EVERYBODY BE AWARE.
WE CAN PUT THIS INTO THE NEXT MEETING, BUT THERE'S ONLY FOUR MEMBERS.
THAT MEANS ANYTHING THAT'S DECIDED ON TODAY HAS TO BE DECIDED BY ALL FOUR MEMBERS, EITHER FOR IT OR AGAINST IT.
ONLY ONE PERSON AGAINST IT, IT WOULD ACTUALLY NOT PASS.
I LIKE TO KNOW IS EVERYBODY WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD AT THIS POINT? YOU SAID BOTH THEM ARE ONLINE, THAT CORRECT?
>> YES. LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH CASES ON THE LINE.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE, THEN YOU COULD ANSWER THE CHAIRPERSON'S QUESTION.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO KEEP MOVING FORWARD WITH YOUR CASE TODAY OR IF YOU'D LIKE TO DEFER TO THE NEXT MEETING WITH THE HOPES TO HAVE MORE COMMISSIONERS TO BE PRESENT.
[00:05:06]
I DON'T SEE ANYBODY RAISING THEIR HAND.>> HOW ABOUT THE FIRST CASE, PLEASE?
>> YES. FIRST CASE IS 21Z-0123910RVUR.
THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST PERTAINING TO BUILDING HEIGHT.
THERE WERE 47 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, ONLY ONE OF THOSE RETURNED IN OPPOSITION.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICT.
THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED WOULD ALLOW THE GALVESTON COLLEGE PROPOSED BUILDING TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 50 FEET TO 60.5 FEET.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE PRIMARY ROOF ELEVATION WILL BE SAID ABOUT 49 FEET, WITH THE PARAPET OF THE BUILDING WOULD BE 51 FEET.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED STAIRWELL ELEMENTS OF THE BUILDING WILL BE SLIGHTLY HIGHER BUT WOULD NOT EXCEED 60.5 FEET.
PLEASE REFER IT TO EXHIBIT B FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS.
AGAIN, THE VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT IS PERTAINING TO BUILDING HEIGHT, THE UN REQUIREMENT IS 50 FEET AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 60.5.
PLEASE NOTE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO VARIANCES AS FAR AS THE APPLICANTS JUSTIFICATION ON PAGE 2 AND ALSO PAGE 3 THROUGH FIVE OF YOUR STAFF REPORT, AND NOW WE HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.
PERFECT. THIS IS THE AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THIS IS AGAIN LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 39 TO NAMUR. NEXT SLIDE CATHERINE, PLEASE.
[NOISE] THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THESE ARE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST.
THIS IS THE ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSAL FOR THE NEW BUILDING SHOWING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. THAT CONCLUDES OUR SUPPORT.
>> IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, [INAUDIBLE]. GO AHEAD PLEASE. MS. HOLLAWAY.
>> THANK YOU. ADRIAN, I'M READING IN THE CASE MATERIALS THAT THE BFE IS 10 FEET. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> BECAUSE THE GROUND ELEVATION IS 10 FEET AS WELL.
WHAT I COULD TELL FROM THAT LAST SLIDE THAT YOU JUST SHOWED.
>> LET ME LOOK BACK AT THE MATERIALS TO CHECK FOR THAT GROUND ELEVATION.
BUT THE APPLICANT IS ALSO ONLINE WHO CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION, MS.
>> ALRIGHT. BUT, MY QUESTION TO YOU ADRIAN IS, BASED ON OUR BUILDING CODE IN OUR CRS CRITERIA, DO WE BUILD AT THE BFE OR DO WE BUILD 18 INCHES ABOVE THE BFE?
>> TYPICALLY THAT'S A BUILDING CODE PROVISION AS WELL, OR PART OF OUR BFE STANDARDS FLOOD MITIGATION, SO THAT IS IN OUR FREE BOARD PROVISION WHICH STATES THAT YES.
AT LEAST A MINIMUM BY 18 INCHES ABOVE THAT BASE FLOOD ELEVATION MUST ALSO BE ACCOUNTED FOR.
>> THE 50 FEET THAT IS IN THE REGULATION RIGHT NOW INCLUDES THE 18 INCHES?
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT I WAS WANTING TO KNOW.
>> IT'S CERTAINLY A QUESTION THAT I HAD FROM STAFF IS THERE.
IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE PICTURE YOU WERE SHOWING US EARLIER, WE HAVE THE WHOLE ELEVATION OF BUILDING AT THAT 10 FEET OVER OR JUST THAT ONE SECTION, IT LOOKS LIKE WHERE THE RISE TO GET OUT ON THE ROOF AREA.
>> YES. THE MAJORITY OF THE BUILDING IS JUST SLIGHTLY HIGHER ABOVE THAT THRESHOLD THERE, THE 50 FEET.
[NOISE] THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING THAT IS ROUGHLY ABOUT 10 FEET OR SO HIGHER.
[00:10:01]
THAT IS THE STAIRWELL ELEMENT OF THE BUILDING, YES, WITH ACCESS TO THE ROOF.>> OKAY. DOES THE ROOF USES THE OBSERVATION POINT GENERAL ON THERE? WHAT IS THAT USED FOR?
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
>> OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? [NOISE] IS THE ADVOCATE HERE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND LET US KNOW ABOUT YOUR PROJECT HERE, PLEASE.
>> HEY, IT LOOKS LIKE ALAN STILTS HAS ASKED TO SPEAK AS HAS MILES SHELTON.
ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
MR. STILTS AND MR. SHELTON HAVE BEEN UNMUTED ON OUR END.
YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELVES ON YOUR END AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> GOOD EVENING. CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME?
>> GREAT. MY NAME IS MILES SHELTON, I'M PRESIDENT [INAUDIBLE] OF GALVESTON COLLEGE.
THE PROJECT THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IS OUR PROPOSED NEW NURSING HEALTH SCIENCE BUILDING.
THE ROOF DOES NOT HAVE AN OBSERVATION DECK.
THERE IS NO OBSERVATION AREA ON THE ROOF.
THE STAIRWELL RISE THAT GOES ABOVE THE MAIN ROOF LYING IS PROVIDING WORK ACCESS TO THE ROOF AND IS SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE WITHIN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY AND BAR-CODES THAT WE PROBABLY SHOULD COMPLY WITH.
THAT'S PART OF THE PROPOSAL, BUT THE MAIN BODY OF THE BUILDING IS WITHIN THE 50 FEET.
IT'S JUST THAT STAIRWELL AREA YOU SEE IN THE BUILDING THAT IS ABOVE THE 50 FEET.
THIS IS ABOUT A 65,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, GIVE OR TAKE.
WE'RE STILL IN THE PLANNING PHASES OF EXACTLY HOW THAT MAY PLAY OUT.
ARCHITECTS WHO ARE ON BOARD IN THE CALL HERE CAN PROBABLY GIVE YOU THE MORE INFORMATION ON THAT, BUT WE DO BELIEVE THAT THE VARIANCE OF THAT ONE SECTION OF THE BUILDING DOES MAKE SENSE.
WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE WHOLE OF THE BUILDING, JUST FOR THAT STAIRWELL.
I WOULD ASK, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, IF NOT, I'LL PASS IT TO OUR ARCHITECTS WHO ARE ON THE CALL, ALAN STILTS AND JASON MOONEY, AND LET THEM TELL YOU ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT THEY HAVE DRAWN.
>> OKAY. AT THIS POINT, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE ADVOCATE HERE BEFORE HE TURNS IT OVER TO HIS ARCHITECT? [NOISE] YOU HAVE TO HELP ME A LITTLE BIT, I DO NOT HAVE EVERYBODY'S VIDEO COMING IN PROPERLY HERE, BUT IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS, I LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND GET THE ARCHITECT ONLINE AND EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS ALAN STILTS WITH PBK.
I THINK PART OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS, WE'VE GOT THE THE CURRENT ORDINANCES, LIMITS TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT, INCLUDING ALL PARAPETS TO THE 50 FOOT ABOVE THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION, AND THAT BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OR THAT 50 FEET IS INCLUSIVE OF THE 18-INCH FREE BOARD.
I KNOW THAT GALVESTON COLLEGE HAS BEEN WORKING AND LOOKING AT FUTURE AND HAS BEEN RESEARCHING STUDIES ABOUT ANY FUTURE IMPACTS, FLOOD RISE, WATERS, ETC.
THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE PRECAUTIONS ON THEIR BUILDINGS ON CAMPUS, ESPECIALLY WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO RAISE THE BASE FLOOR ELEVATION EVEN HIGHER THAN THAT 18-INCH FREE BOARD JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO FLOODING ISSUES AND TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
RIGHT NOW THE BUILDING IS CURRENTLY SET WITH THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF ABOUT, I THINK IT'S 14 AND A HALF, SO IT'S ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF FEET ABOVE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION, BASED ON STUDIES THAT THEY'VE DONE AND LOOK THAT.
THEY DID THE SAME THING WITH ONE OF THEIR PREVIOUS PROJECTS.
THEN BASED ON PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE THAT I'VE HAD WITH ZONING CURRENTLY IN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, OUR SETBACK PLANS ARE ZERO.
IT'S ALL THE WAY UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE WITH THAT AREA, BUT I KNOW THAT IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE SENT, WE SHOWED THAT THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE SET BACK FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK,
[00:15:04]
AND SO AS THE BUILDING GETS SET BACK FURTHER AWAY FROM THE STREET, ULTIMATELY, THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IS NOT AS BIG OF A FACTOR.IF WE WERE DIRECTLY ON THE ZERO SETBACK LINE AT 50 FEET, WILL BE VERY TALL, RIGHT UP AGAINST THE BUILDING.
THEN WITH THE BUILDING SETBACK AND SOME ZONING ORDINANCES, THEY WILL ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IN THE BUILDING, THE FURTHER YOU SET IT BACK, BECAUSE IT'S STILL GETS THE SAME AESTHETIC FEEL IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT.
AS FOR THE STAIR ITSELF GOING UP TO ROOF ACCESS, I KNOW THAT THAT'S ALWAYS A FACTOR WITH FIRE MARSHALS AND FIREFIGHTERS OF ALLOWING ACCESS, NOT NECESSARILY VIA JUST A ROOF HATCH, SO IT GIVES THEM BETTER ACCESS TO THE ROOF FOR ANY SAFETY AND PERSONAL SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE BUILDING IF SUCH AN EVENT WAS TO HAPPEN.
>> SORRY, DID WE LOSE YOU THERE?
>> I'M STILL HERE. ARE YOU THERE?
>> CHAIRMAN, WERE YOU ABLE TO HEAR ALL OF WHAT MR. STILTS SAID BECAUSE I WAS ABLE TO HEAR HIS PRESENTATION.
DO YOU NEED HIM TO REPEAT SOMETHING?
>> NO, THAT LAST LITTLE BIT GOT CUT OFF.
I KNOW THIS IS A VERY SMALL AMOUNT.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE ARCHITECT HERE?
>> I'M SORRY, I MISSED IT. I'M NOT SURE IF MR. STILTS WAS FINISHED WITH THIS PRESENTATION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THAT WAS IT. THE ONLY OTHER ITEM, I THINK THAT STAFF WAS CORRECT, AND CURRENTLY, THE BASE ROOF ELEVATION IS BELOW THE 50 FEET, BUT WE NEEDED A LITTLE BIT OF A PARAPET TO FINISH UP THE EDGE.
THEY WERE CORRECT IN CURRENTLY WE ARE AT 51 FEET WITH THAT PARAPET ABOVE THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION, BUT THAT'S ALSO INCLUSIVE OF THE 18-INCH FREE BOARD.
IF YOU WERE NOT INCLUDING THE 18-INCH FREE BOARD WE BUILD BELOW, IT'S JUST GOING TO BE AN INTERPRETATION OF [INAUDIBLE] STANDARDS, AND I BELIEVE RIGHT NOW IT'S 50 FEET INCLUSIVE OF THE 18-INCH FREE BOARD.
>> LOOKS LIKE MS. HOLLOWAY HAS A QUESTION.
>> [NOISE] YES, MA'AM. GO AHEAD AND TELL ME.
>> THANK YOU. MR. STILTS, CAN YOU REMIND US AGAIN WHAT SETBACKS ARE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PLAN?
>> YES. I BELIEVE IT IS 10 FEET AND 11 FEET ON EACH SIDE, SO FROM AVENUE [INAUDIBLE] AND 39TH STREET, THE BUILDING IS SET BACK AT LEAST 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LOTS.
>> [NOISE] ANYBODY ELSE GOT A QUESTION FOR THE ARCHITECT? I'M HEARING A MUTED AREA IN A SENSE, SO I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT THERE'S NO QUESTIONS.
>> THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU SIR, FOR COMING, AT THIS POINT I'D LIKE TO BRING BACK TO THE BOARD.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER PERSONS?
>> ANYBODY ELSE OUT THERE THAT WANT TO SPEAK?
>> IS THERE'S ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS TOPIC, IF THEY COULD USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE? SEEING NONE.
>> I WOULD NOW LIKE TO RETURN TO THE BOARD HERE. YES?
>> I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL DUE TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THE SPECIAL CONDITION THAT EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY THAT DOES NOT GENERALLY EXIST OF OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, THAT SPECIAL CONDITION IS THE GALVESTON COLLEGE PROPERTY, AND PROPOSED STRUCTURE ARE UNIQUE IN THAT THEY PROVIDE HIGHER EDUCATION IN AN AREA GENERALLY RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE.
>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION?
>> CHAIRMAN CLINT IS RAISING HIS HAND, [INAUDIBLE] I'M SORRY, HE'S RAISING HIS HAND.
[00:20:01]
>> I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER CRAIG MAY WANT TO SAY SOMETHING.
>> I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
>> THANK YOU. OKAY. AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO GO AND OPEN THIS UP FOR DISCUSSION ON THIS HONEST MOTION, ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD, YES MA'AM MISS HOLLOWAY?
>> YOU CAN TELL WE'RE CHARITY ON PLANNING COMMISSIONS THOUGH, IF YOU GUYS ARE QUIET, YOU'RE GOING TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE HERE.
[LAUGHTER] I FEEL LIKE BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF GALVESTON COLLEGE AND WHAT THEY HAVE TO OFFER IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE, THAT INCLUDES THE ENTIRE BUILDING, THE FIRE ACCESS AND THE MAINTENANCE ACCESS, I THINK THAT JUSTIFIES THE VARIANCE AND I'M GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR WHEN THE TIME COMES.
>> [NOISE] COMMISSIONER CHAIR, SORRY, CHAIRPERSON, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY, THE STATEMENT THAT IT ALLOWS FOR FIRE ACCESS, AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE?
>> MAINTENANCE, IS THAT A PART OF YOUR MOTION?
>> NO, I'VE ALREADY MADE MY MOTION, THIS IS DISCUSSION.
>> I UNDERSTAND. YOUR MOTION INITIALLY, WAS GALVESTON COLLEGE PROPERTY AND PROPOSED STRUCTURE, AND WHAT WAS THE REST OF THAT?
>> ARE UNIQUE IN THAT, THEY PROVIDE A HIGHER EDUCATION IN AN AREA AND GENERALLY RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE.
>> I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT FALLS INTO THE MOTION, HOWEVER WHAT IS THE VALUE ON THAT ONE.
>> TO GRANT A VARIANCE, YOU WOULD NEED TO HAVE A SPECIAL CONDITION, THE USE OF THE PROPERTY MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE A SPECIAL CONDITION.
TYPICALLY, SPECIAL CONDITIONS ARE BASED ON, YES THE LOCATION OR IF IT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF LOT, SHAPE, IF THEIR FEATURES OF THE BUILDING THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER BUILDINGS THAT SOMEONE CAN POINT TO AS A UNIQUE FEATURE, IF THERE ARE CERTAIN CONDITIONS ON THE PROPERTY THAT A VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW THE PROPERTY TO BE CONTINUED IN CERTAIN FORM.
IF THERE'S AN ENCROACHMENT THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR 75 YEARS, IF THERE'S HISTORIC TREE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT, IF THE LOT SHAPE AGAIN IS LITTLE, I USE THE WORD WONKY.
I'M GOING TO FILL THOSE THINGS OUT TO YOU, WHICH IS WHY I QUERIED WHETHER OR NOT THE FACT THAT THE PARAPET PART, THE TOWER PART IS, AS I'VE HEARD THE APPLICANT SAY, IS A SAFETY ISSUE, IF THAT WAS PART OF THE MOTION BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
>> DONNA, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HELP ME HERE.
[LAUGHTER] WHEN I WAS READING THE APPLICANTS JUSTIFICATION, THAT WAS OFFERED AS A JUSTIFICATION AND BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE CASE REPORT, I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS JUSTIFIABLE, THAT WE COULD USE THAT.
IF YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT PERHAPS FOR LIFE HEALTH AND SAFETY, CONCERNS FOR THE BUILDING THAT WE MODIFY THE MOTION TO SPEAK TO THAT, I CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.
>> I'M NOT MAKING A SUGGESTION EITHER WAY OR NOT, THE COMMISSIONERS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO VOTE ON THE MOTION THAT WAS PRESENTED, AND THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE WHETHER OR NOT A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THAT MOTION.
[OVERLAPPING] I THINK THE COMMISSIONERS UNDERSTAND I DO THIS PART [LAUGHTER] QUITE A BIT.
IF WE COULD PUT A LITTLE BIT MORE MEAT ON THEM BONES SOMETIMES.
>> I DO BELIEVE [OVERLAPPING].
>> I CAN OFFER A MODIFIED MOTION BUT WE'D HAVE TO HAVE A SECOND.
SHOULD I WITHDRAW MY MOTION AND MAKE ANOTHER ONE?
>> LET'S HEAR FROM MR. GIRTH THERE AND SEE WHAT WE CAN COME UP WITH.
>> ROBERT, WE HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD TO THAT?
[00:25:03]
>> I'M NOT SURE I CAN DO THAT, WE ALREADY HAVE A MOTION AND I DID SECOND IT BUT I'M GOING TO LET MISS HOLLOWAY GO AHEAD AND AMEND HER MOTION.
>> OKAY. IF YOU WOULD DRAW YOUR SECOND AND LET HER AMEND THE MOTION.
NO, I DON'T NEED TO WITHDRAW MY SECOND, SHE JUST NEEDS TO AMEND IT AND THEN [OVERLAPPING] HER.
>> OKAY, DONNA, WE USED TO CALL THIS FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS; IS THAT STILL A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?
>> [OVERLAPPING] MAKE YOUR AMENDMENTS TO THAT MOTION PLEASE.
>> LET ME WORK ON THE ON THE VERBIAGE.
>> [LAUGHTER] I'M GOING TO SAY THAT THE SPECIAL CONDITION IS THAT, GALVESTON COLLEGE PROPERTY AND PROPOSED STRUCTURE ARE UNIQUE IN THAT THEY PROVIDE HIGHER EDUCATION IN AREA AND GENERALLY RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE, AND THAT THE VARIANCE IS BASED ON HEALTH SAFETY, AND WELFARE INTERESTS FOR THE BUILDING INHABITANTS.
>> OKAY. YES, SIR, MR. ROBERT.
>> ARE THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSIONS ON THIS? SEEING NONE OR HEARING NONE, I LIKE TO CALL FOR A VOTE.
>> ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES.
>> THANK YOU ALL FOR SHOWING UP TODAY.
THE MOTION PASSES. WE MOVE ON.
THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO THE SECOND BUSINESS WE HAVE HERE. STAFF, PLEASE.
>> SECOND CASE WOULD BE 21Z-013.
THIS IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST PERTAINING TO THE REAR SETBACK, WITH 28 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, ONLY TWO OF THOSE RETURNED BOTH POST.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM ARTICLE 3, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY R1 AND THEN IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO THREE FEET.
NOTE THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 12.401 OF THE LDR, REAR YARD EXCEPTION MAY BE REQUESTED WHERE THE REAR YARD SETBACK OF ANY TWO OR MORE LOTS IN THE SAME BLOCK, DO NOT MEET THE REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS OF THE LDR.
FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS, PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT C. ON PAGE 2 OF THE REPORT, PLEASE NOTE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE R1 DISTRICT, WHICH ARE 20 IN THE FRONT, THREE IN THE SIDE AND 10 IN THE REAR.
THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS FOR THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 10 TO THREE.
ALSO NOTE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, AND THE APPLICANTS JUSTIFICATION ON PAGE 2 AND PAGE 3 OF YOUR STAFF REPORT.
THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE.
THIS IS SUBJECT'S SITE ENCLOSED BY THE FENCE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS IS A VIEW OF THE SUBJECT SITE FROM THE BEACH.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE WHITE FENCE FOR REFERENCE, THAT IS THE SUBJECT SITE.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. IT'S A SEA SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN PROPOSED, AS WELL AS THE ENCROACHMENT OF OTHER STRUCTURES WITHIN THE BLOCK, SHOWING HOW THEY ARE APPROXIMATELY THREE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, WHICH MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LDR OF TWO OR MORE STRUCTURES WITHIN THE BLOCK,
[00:30:02]
WITH LESS THAN THE SETBACK AS PRESCRIBED IN TODAY'S REGULATIONS. THAT CONCLUDES SOME SUPPORT.>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, MA'AM. MS. HOLLOWAY.
>> ADRIAL. I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
WHEN YOU REFERENCE THE SAME BLOCK, A REAR YARD EXCEPTION WHERE THE REAR YARD SETBACK OF ANY TWO OR MORE LOTS IN THE SAME BLOCK, DO NOT MEET THE REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS OF THESE REGULATIONS.
>> A BLOCK IS THE BOTH SIDES IF IT WOULD READ AS BLOCK PHASE, IT WOULD BE A SINGLE PORTION OF THE BLOCK.
THIS IS THE ENTIRETY OF THE BLOCK.
>> I GUESS, BUT WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THE LDRS MY INTERPRETATION OF THE BLOCK WAS FROM POINT ON THIS, I'LL GIVE YOU REFERENCE, THE BLOCK WOULD BE GARFIELD TO EIGHT MILE TO BERNICE.
>> DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC CITATION?
>> I DO, HOLD ON JUST A SECOND PLEASE.
IN THE DEFINITIONS IN DIVISION 14.3 ON PAGE 14-22 OF LDRS, BLOCK MEANS A LAND AREA CONSISTING OF CONTIGUOUS LOTS ESTABLISHED BY RECORDED PLATT'S, USUALLY BORDERED BY A COMBINATION OF STREETS, PUBLIC PARKS, CEMETERIES, RAILROAD, RIGHTS OF WAY, OR OTHER BARRIER TO THE CONTINUITY OF DEVELOPMENT.
SO IN MY MIND, THE BLOCK IS BOUNDED BY GARFIELD, EIGHT MILE AND BERNICE.
>> I COULD SEE HOW YOU COULD INTERPRET THAT.
>> BECAUSE I'M THINKING THAT'S THE DEFINITION IN THE LDRS.
[LAUGHTER] THAT'S HOW I INTERPRET IT.
>> IT ALSO STATES THE LAND AREA CONSISTING OF CONTIGUOUS LOTS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE RECORD OF PLATT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] BUT THEY ARE CONTIGUOUS.
I THINK THE MAGIC WORD HERE IS CONTIGUOUS.
>> MAYBE IT'S INCORRECT RIGHT NOW, BUT ANYWAY, THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS.
I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT FOR NOW UNTIL I CAN REMEMBER THE OTHER ONE.
>> IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. I JUST REMEMBERED.
>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE ADRIAL THAT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE REAR SETBACK, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS STRUCTURE WOULD BE LOCATED MORE SEAWARD, THAN WHAT REGULATION WOULD ALLOW?
>> YEAH. IN THIS CASE, THE REAR SETBACK FOR THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL OR LOT WOULD BE CLOSEST TO THE BEACH. YES.
>> OKAY, AND WHAT IS THE EROSION RATE THERE?
>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YOU'RE NOT, I'LL TURN TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION.
>> BUT WE NEED TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE IN PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS?
>> ANYBODY ON THE CALL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CASE? I SEE THE APPLICANTS AND THE OWNER ARE HERE.
IF YOU'D USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
>> WHOEVER HAS HAD A GOOD VISUAL GO-AHEAD, IS THE OWNER HERE? OR YOU'D LIKE TO COME UP AND ADDRESS THE CORPORATE.
>> LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT SOME HANDS RAISED NOW.
[00:35:02]
>> MADONNA FANOS AND CATE BLACK, ACTIVATE YOU ON OUR SIDE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNMUTE YOURSELVES ON YOUR END AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> THIS IS MADONNA FANOS WITH RISE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN.
WE JUST WANTED TO TALK ABOUT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED.
THE WAY THAT WE UNDERSTOOD THE BLOCK WAS THAT IT'S WITHIN THAT SAME, WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE HOUSES THAT WERE ACROSS THE STREET, WERE ON THE SAME BLOCK.
BUT WHILE RESEARCHING, WE HAVE FOUND OTHER HOUSES ON THAT SAME ROAD, ON THE SAME SIDE AS THIS PROPERTY THAT ALSO HAD THE THREE-FOOT SETBACK ON THEIR SURVEY.
BUT WE DIDN'T INCLUDE IT BECAUSE WE THOUGHT IT WAS FURTHER AWAY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BLOCK.
THE OTHER QUESTION REGARDING MOVING TO THE SEAWARD, WE JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WE HAVE ALREADY APPLIED FOR THE BEACH HOME CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE APPLICATION AND WE GOT IT.
WE ARE 89 FEET AWAY FROM THE NORTH DOOR OF THE DOOM AND ABOUT 218 FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
>> IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HER? YES, MA'AM. [INAUDIBLE]
>> DONNA, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TELL ME WHETHER I CAN TALK ABOUT THIS OR NOT.
WITH REGARD TO THE LINE OF VEGETATION IN THAT DISCUSSION, I BELIEVE THAT THIS AREA FALLS UNDER THE EXCEPTION FROM THE GLO.
WHEN I SAW ON THE CASE REPORT THAT IS ON THE SURVEY, THE REAR OF THIS PROPERTY LINE IS VERY CLOSE TO THE 200 FOOT FROM THE MEAN LOW WATER, WHICH MEANS THAT THIS PROPERTY IS RIGHT ON THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
BUT THAT'S IMMATERIAL TO THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION, I BELIEVE.
[OVERLAPPING] I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT SO AS NOT TO GIVE THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD INFORMATION THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE CORRECT.
>> IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE, WOULD LIKE TO, HAVE ANY QUESTION?
>> WE CAN HEAR YOU. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> THANK YOU, CATHERINE. [LAUGHTER]. HI, THIS IS CATE BLACK WITH RISE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN.
[NOISE]. I HAD JUST WANTED TO STATE ONE MORE ITEM IN ADDITION TO WHAT MADONNA HAD MENTIONED TO BOARD MEMBER HOLLOWAY'S QUESTIONS.
ALSO, THAT THE REASON WHY IT'S AT THREE FEET, WHEN THIS WAS CERT THAT THE REAR SETBACK GOT THREE FEET, WHEN WE RECEIVED THE SURVEY FOR THIS, IT WAS NOTATED AT THREE FEET BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT WAS DONE AS PRIOR TO THE LDRS BEING CREATED.
OBVIOUSLY, THE MAJORITY OF THE HOMES WERE INITIALLY BUILT TO BE AT THAT THREE-FOOT SETBACK.
WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THAT AS WELL. THAT IS ALL.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS BLACK? THANK YOU MISS BLACK FOR COMING IN.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD?
>> IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
WE HAVE TO USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
WE'VE GONE AHEAD AND UNMUTED YOU.
YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> HI, MY NAME IS AJAY SHARMA. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> I'M THE HOMEOWNER, WE BOUGHT THIS LOT IN DECEMBER LAST YEAR.
WE BOUGHT THE LOT LAST YEAR AND IT'S GOING TO BE OUR RETIREMENT HOME.
WE'VE WORKED WITH DIFFERENT PEOPLE, WE'VE WORKED WITH RISE, AND WE'VE WORKED WITH PEOPLE WHO DID THE SURVEY, AND THE HOUSE AS ARCHITECTED WAS WITHIN WHAT THE SETBACKS WERE THAT TIME.
AT THIS TIME WHEN WE'RE FINALLY GETTING READY TO DO THE CONSTRUCTION, WE'RE JUST HOPING THAT YOU ALL CAN FIND IT IN YOUR HEARTS TO GRANT US AN EXCEPTION HERE.
[00:40:07]
THAT ALL I HAVE TO SAY.>> IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE NEW HOMEOWNER? YES, MA'AM. MISS HOLLOWAY.
>> MR. SHARMA, DID YOU EVER CONSIDER AN EXCEPTION TO THE FRONT SETBACK? I'M LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPH HERE AND NOTICING THE PROXIMITY TO THE BEACH FRONT.
IT SEEMS AS THOUGH IF THIS IS GOING TO BE YOUR RETIREMENT HOME, YOU MAY WANT TO RELOCATE YOUR STRUCTURE AS FAR NORTH OR FOREIGN LAND-WARD AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN.
DID YOU EVER CONSIDER REPOSITIONING YOUR HOME CLOSER TO THE STREET?
>> NO, I HADN'T CONSIDERED IT AND AS A LAY MAN, I WORK IN COMPUTER SYSTEM DESIGNS, SO I REALLY HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THIS STUFF, BUT IF THAT'S AN OPTION, I WOULD BE EXTREMELY HAPPY TO TAKE THAT AS WELL IF CATE THINKS THAT'S DOABLE.
>> WELL, THIS IS NOT PART OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE TODAY, SIR.
I'M AFRAID FOR YOUR FUTURE BECAUSE OF THE HIGH EROSION RATE IN THAT AREA.
PERHAPS AFTER TALKING WITH YOUR BUILDING TEAM AND YOUR ARCHITECTURE TEAM, YOU MIGHT WANT TO COME BACK TO US AND ASK FOR AN EXCEPTION FOR A FRONT SETBACK RATHER THAN A REAR ONE.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU.
AS A SETBACK IN THE FRONT, WHAT ARE YOU BUILDING AT?
>> KATE COULD YOU ANSWER THAT, PLEASE?
>> THE REASON WHY WE DIDN'T ASK FOR A FRONT SETBACK QUESTION IS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY, I GUESS NOT REASON, I'M SORRY I CAN'T THINK OF THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR.
WE'RE BUILDING AT 25, WHICH IS THE SETBACK GIVEN BECAUSE THAT IS HOW IT WAS PLOTTED AS.
WE'RE REQUESTING THE THREE-FEET SETBACK FROM THE REAR AS AN EXCEPTION BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WAS EXISTING AND THAT'S HOW THE DEVELOPMENT WAS CREATED.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO ASK FOR MORE, "THAN OUR NEIGHBORS", WERE SIMPLY TRYING TO ASK FOR WHAT THE DIVISION AND THE SUBDIVISION WAS DESIGNED AS, PLOTTED AS, RECORDED AS AND ORIGINALLY BUILT AS.
IF I CAN REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS OF WHAT THE REQUEST IS, AND WE CAN REMAIN FOCUSED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS.
THAT IS WHAT'S BEING REVIEWED TODAY.
>> REQUESTED THE CHANGE OF THE SETBACK DOWN TO THREE-FEET IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THE REAR SETBACK TO THREE-FEET.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE HOMEOWNER OR THE BUILDER ARCHITECT HERE? IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THAT'S ONLINE WITH US?
>> NO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE ON THE LINE.
>> CHAIR. BEFORE WE PROCEED I'D LIKE TO MAKE COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DEFINITION UNDER ARTICLE 14 OF THE LDR.
THE DEFINITION OF BLOCK MEANS A LAND AREA CONSISTING OF CONTIGUOUS LOTS ESTABLISHED BY RECORDED PLOTS USUALLY BORDERED BY A COMBINATION OF STREETS, PUBLIC PARKS, CEMETERIES, RAILROAD ROADWAYS, OR OTHER BARRIER TO THE CONTINUITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS POINT? IF THERE IS NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I'D LIKE TO RETURN IT TO COMMISSION FOR A MOTION ON THIS.
YOUR GOING TO HAVE TO HELP ME OUT ON THE FACES HERE
[00:45:03]
BECAUSE I'VE ONLY GOT ONE PERSON SHOWING HERE.>> LOOKS LIKE MR. GERT WOULD LIKE THE FLOOR.
>> YES. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE REQUEST WILL NOT AFFECT THAT VIRTUALLY THE VALUE OR USE OF JASON OR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, AND WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
>> COMMISSIONER GERT, THAT'S PART OF THE STANDARD BOILERPLATE.
BUT THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR THE THREE-FOOT REAR SETBACK.
I BELIEVE WHAT I'VE HEARD IS THAT IT WOULD BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION OR THE PLATTED AREA AS IT WAS BEFORE THE LDR.
>> WELL, THAT CAN BE PART OF IT.
ALSO THERE'S OTHER LOTS IN THAT SUBDIVISION THAT ARE ALSO WITHIN THAT THREE-FOOT RANGE.
THE REAR YARD SETBACK OF ANY TWO OR MORE LOTS.
THERE ARE MORE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IS THAT ENOUGH?
>> IS THAT PART OF YOUR MOTION?
>> I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT MOTION.
>> MS. HOLLOWAY HAS ASKED FOR THE FLOOR.
>> I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT ADRIEL JUST READ EXACTLY THE SAME DEFINITION THAT I HAD READ.
REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF A BLOCK.
MY TAKE ON IT IS DIFFERENT THAN HIS OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE THE TERM BORDERED BY A COMBINATION OF STREETS AND OTHER FEATURES.
BUT WHEN I READ THIS, I THOUGHT THEY WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE BLOCK THAT I HAVE ALREADY DEFINED IN THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION.
I TOOK THAT TO MEAN THAT THE APPLICANTS JUSTIFICATION WAS AN ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS ON ANOTHER BLOCK.
I TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE FACT THAT THIS IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THIS AREA IS HIGHLY EROSIVE AND IT CONTINUES TO BE.
THE POINT OF MOVING THE STRUCTURE CLOSER TO RISK RATHER THAN AWAY FROM RISK DOESN'T SIT WELL WITH ME IN TERMS OF PUBLIC INTERESTS. THANK YOU.
>> I LOOK AT IT AS WE HAVE A LOT OF HOMES LINED UP IN A ROW, WHETHER YOU CALL IT A BLOCK WHETHER IT GOES FOR HALF A MILE OR IF IT GOES FOR 300-FEET OR FOR 600-FEET IN THAT AREA.
WHEN YOU'VE GOT A HOUSE, HOUSE, HOUSE AND THEN YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THERE, I WOULD'VE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE MORE IN LINE WITH THAT BLOCK BEING MATCHING UP WITH THE REST OF THE PROPERTY IN THE AREA.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN ON THE EROSION THERE, BUT WE ARE TALKING BUSINESS A LOT OF WAYS OFF THE BEACH OR THE SAND FRONT IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND OR WHAT I COULD SEE FROM THE PICTURES.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE GOT ANY QUESTIONS? OR ANY COMMENT ON THIS DISCUSSION? HERE, NANA, LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.
>> I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? WE DIDN'T GET THAT. IT'S STILL NOT COMING THROUGH.
IF YOU COULD PUT MAYBE A THUMBS UP OR A THUMBS DOWN.
[00:50:01]
NO, I'M SORRY.>> JUST A THUMBS UP OR THUMBS DOWN COMMISSIONER.
>> THUMBS UP. COMMISSIONER BIKOVA HAS INDICATED SHE IS IN FAVORS.
>> WE HAVE THREE VOTES IN FAVOR, ONE VOTE OPPOSE.
THE MOTION FAILS DUE TO A LACK OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES.
>> WELL, THANK YOU, SIR, FOR APPEARING HERE TODAY AND WE'LL SEE IF THEY GET A POSSIBILITY OF REWORKING THIS TO FIT WITHIN THE CURRENT LDR AS IT'S WRITTEN.
I WANT TO THANK ALL THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE STAFF FOR THEIR TIME.
I WANT TO WELCOME MS. HOLLOWAY AGAIN FOR BEING THE NEW MEMBER.
AT THIS POINT, ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING THEY'D LIKE TO ADD TO THIS?
>> I COULD JUST NOTE FOR THE RECORD, WE TYPICALLY DO THE ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR IN THE FALL IN OCTOBER FOR ALL OF OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
WE DIDN'T MEET IN OCTOBER, AND THEN IT SLIPPED OUR MINDS IN NOVEMBER.
WE DO HAVE CASES SUBMITTED FOR THE DECEMBER MEETING, SO WE'LL DO THE ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR AT DECEMBER.
WELL, THE ELECTION WILL BE IN THERE? IS THAT CORRECT? IN DECEMBER.
>> IT WILL BE ON THE DECEMBER AGENDA.
>> SO I DON'T HEAR ANYMORE FOR TODAY, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THIS MEETING.
I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR SHOWING UP.
>>THANK YOU ALL.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.