[00:00:01]
>> I, ANDREW GALLETTI WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE ZONING BOARD MEETING TO ORDER.
[Zoning Board of Adjustments on June 6, 2022.]
IT IS 3:35 ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 2022.CAN I HAVE THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
>> BOARD MEMBER CLEMENT IS HERE. CHAIRPERSON GALLETTI.
>> BOARD MEMBER RAILEY IS ABSENT. BOARD MEMBER SYLER.
>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON TODAY'S CASE? SEEING NONE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> TRY THAT. IF IT'S NOT ON, IT WON'T RECORD.
>> LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND GET A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MINUTES, PLEASE. ANYBODY?
>> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR MAYBE SHOW OF HANDS?
>> MR. CLEMENT, WITH JUST A SHOW OF HANDS FOR THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES, PLEASE? THERE WE GO.
THANK YOU. STAFF WOULD LIKE TO GIVE US A MEETING FORMAT, PLEASE.
>> WE'RE BACK TO OUR TYPICAL MEETING FORMAT EXCEPT THAT MR. CLEMENT IS PARTICIPATING VIA ZOOM.
>> MOVING ON TO NEW BUSINESS, FIRST CASE, PLEASE. THE ONLY CASE.
>> FIRST AND ONLY CASE IS 22 Z-005 VERSUS 5401 AVENUE P 1/2.
THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LOT AREA.
THEY WERE 28 NOTICES SENT, ONE RETURNED AND THEN ONE IN FAVOR.
NOW, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE 3, ADDENDUM IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE REQUIREMENT OF A LOT AREA FROM 2,500 SQUARE FEET TO A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THAT.
THE LOT CURRENTLY HOSTS TWO INDIVIDUAL HOMES BUILT ON THE SAME LOT, VERY COMMON IN GALVESTON.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSAL IS TO REDUCE MINIMUM LOT AREA TO 2,250 SQUARE FEET IN ORDER TO PLACE EACH HOUSE ON A SEPARATE LOT.
THE LOT IS A 120 FEET LONG AND 50 FEET WIDE AT THE P 1/2 RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH A TOTAL OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET.
SEE THE EXISTING SURVEY AND PROPOSED REPLAT IN ATTACHMENT A OF THE STAFF REPORT.
[NOISE] IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REDUCE THE VARIANCE FOR ONE OF THE LOTS TO 2,250 SQUARE FEET.
OF COURSE, THE FRONT LOT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER AND OVER THE MAIN REQUIREMENTS, SO IT'S JUST THE REAR HOUSE THAT NEEDS A LITTLE VARIANCE.
PLEASE NOTE THE VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS AND YOUR STAFF REPORT AND THE APPLICANTS NARRATIVE AND JUSTIFICATION.
WE ALSO HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE.
HERE WE HAVE ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE THE EXISTING SURVEY SHOWING THE FRONT HOUSE AND THE REAR ACCESSORY DWELLING.
THEN ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE YOU CAN SEE A RED LINE THERE ACROSS THAT WOULD DENOTE WHERE THE PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE WOULD BE TO PUT THAT SECOND HOUSE, THAT REAR HOUSE ON ITS OWN INDIVIDUAL LOT.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE HAVE PHOTOS.
THE SUBJECT SIDE WE CAN SEE THE FRONT HOUSE AND THE REAR HOUSE TO THE LEFT OF THAT PHOTO.
PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, EAST, SOUTH. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
WE DO HAVE A LITTLE EXHIBIT THAT THE APPLICANT HAD SENT AS WELL IN THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I HAVE. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, DANIEL, THAT THE RED LINE LOOKS AS THOUGH IT'S GOING THROUGH THE STRUCTURE, BUT REALLY IT'S PROBABLY UNDERNEATH THE EAVES. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I WOULD SUSPECT THAT THAT LINE IS, I GUESS APPROXIMATE BECAUSE I'M SURE WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT A PROPERTY LINE THROUGH THE HOUSE.
IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE PROBABLY RIGHT THERE VERY EACH.
>> THE APPLICANT ROOM WOULD LIKE TO ANNOUNCE YOURSELF.
[INAUDIBLE] PRESENT YOUR CASE.
>> YES, SIR. MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE].
I'M REPRESENTING KEITH BASSETT.
HE'S OUT OF TOWN TODAY AND WASN'T ABLE TO ATTEND.
I WAS WONDERING IF WE COULD MAYBE GO BACK TO THE SURVEY THAT YOU HAVE.
[00:05:07]
ACTUALLY, I THINK I SEE IN YOUR POWERPOINT THE SIDE PLAN FURTHER DOWN.I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHAT MS. HOLLAWAY WAS QUESTIONING THERE BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY, THAT RED LINE THAT'S INDICATED IN THE OTHER DRAWING THAT YOU SAW IS NOT WHERE WE'RE INTENDING TO PUT THE PROPERTY LINE.
IF YOU SEE THERE JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THE BACK OF THE STRUCTURE.
THIS LINE HERE IS FOUR FEET FROM THE BACK OF THE STRUCTURE.
FOUR FEET FROM THERE WOULD ALLOW FOR US TO GET A MOWER BASICALLY BACK THROUGH THERE BEHIND THE HOUSE.
WHERE YOU SAW THE PREVIOUS LINE, WHICH WAS BASICALLY COINCIDENT WITH THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY GIVE US THE 2,500 SQUARE FEET.
BUT IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE HOUSE AND GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF SEPARATION, WE'RE PROPOSING TO REDUCE IT BY THAT 250 SQUARE FEET.
THE TWO PROPERTIES ARE ALREADY SPLIT, THERE'S ALREADY A FENCE BETWEEN THEM.
WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF EITHER ONE AT THIS POINT AND THERE ARE NO PLANS TO DO THAT IN THE FUTURE.
THE OWNER OWNS THE PROPERTY, HE HAS SOME BUSINESSES IN TOWN.
I BELIEVE ONE OF HIS EMPLOYEES AT CHALMERS IS JUST LOOKING TO BUY ONE OF THESE TWO HOUSES, ISN'T A BAIT AND ISN'T ABLE TO AFFORD THEM BOTH.
I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE IS WHICH, BUT THAT'S THE INTENTION HERE.
THEN THIS IS NOT REALLY CHANGING ANYTHING SUBSTANTIALLY OTHER THAN CREATING A NEW PROPERTY LINE AND HAVING THE ABILITY TO BUY ONE OF THE HOUSES.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
>> BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT? BILL, YOU'RE GOOD? BILL, ARE YOU GOOD ON THIS? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> I THINK YOU SAID THAT THE PROPERTIES WERE DEVELOPED BEFORE THE LDRS WERE PUT INTO EFFECT. I APPRECIATE IT.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING.
I'D LIKE TO BASICALLY RETURN THE MEETING TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION AND DISCUSSION. [OVERLAPPING]
>> DO I HAVE TO READ THE WHOLE THINGS?
>> [LAUGHTER] I THOUGHT THAT WAS LATER.
>> YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH EACH POINT AND BE SURE TO EXPRESS THE SPECIAL CONDITION.
[LAUGHTER] I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF 22Z-004 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.
THE SPECIAL CONDITION IS WHAT? DO I HAVE TO SAY IT?
>> YES, IT HAS TO BE EXPRESSED.
WHAT IS THIS SPECIAL CONDITION?
>> NEXT PAGE IS SPECIAL CONDITION.
>> IT'S NEXT AND THAT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN.
>> IT'S ACTUALLY WRITTEN SOMEWHERE.
>> PART OF THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE INCLUDES WHAT? THEY PROPOSED THIS SPECIAL CONDITION IS.
SPECIAL CONDITION FOR THE PROPERTY IS THE LOCATION OF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS, NO EXPANSION OF STRUCTURES IS PROPOSED.
DUE TO THAT SPECIAL CONDITION, THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STRICT TERMS OF THESE REGULATIONS WOULD IMPOSE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP ON THE APPLICANT.
THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE HARDSHIP IS NOT SELF-IMPOSED.
THE HARDSHIP IS NOT BASED SOLELY ON FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, CONVENIENCE, OR INCONVENIENCE.
THERE ARE NO CONDITIONS THAT ARE ALLEGED TO BE SPECIAL, BUT ARE ACTUALLY COMMON TO MANY PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DOES NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT UPON THE FUTURE OR CURRENT USE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES FOR PURPOSES FOR WHICH THEY ARE ZONED.
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OR SERVICES IN PUBLIC HEALTH,
[00:10:02]
SAFETY, MORALS, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.MORALS, THE DEGREE OF VARIANCE ALLOWED FROM THESE REGULATIONS IS THE LEAST THAT IS NECESSARY TO GRANT RELIEF FROM THE IDENTIFIED UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE USED TO CIRCUMVENT OTHER PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS OF THESE REGULATIONS THAT COULD BE USED FOR THE SAME OR A COMPARABLE EFFECT.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THESE REGULATIONS IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE.
>> THANK YOU. NOW I CAN GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR A VOTE, PLEASE.
>> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS?
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT THERE ARE ANY REAL ISSUES HERE.
IF THE APPLICANT IS HAPPY WITH THE SMALLER LOT, I THINK THAT IS CERTAINLY AND IT'S NOT THAT MUCH SMALLER THAN THE REGULATIONS REQUIRE.
I THINK THAT THERE'S NO REAL ISSUE HERE.
>> I THINK WE MUST VOTE, WE CAN CURVE PRETTY MUCH.
IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS?
>> BILL, ARE YOU GOOD? JUST CALLING FOR THE VOTE.
>> THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO GO AND CALL FOR THE VOTE NOW, WITH SHOW HANDS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR GRANTING IT.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY NEW BUSINESS? ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANT TO BRING UP ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE NEXT MEETING? STAFF, WE'RE GOOD.
>> WE'RE GOOD. JUST TO LET YOU KNOW WE HAVE HAD A CASE SUBMITTED FOR THE AUGUST MEETING.
>> OH, BILL HELPING YOU MAKE IT BACK ON THE NEXT ONE.
I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR SHOWING UP TODAY AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. CLOSED.
>> HE IS DONE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.