[00:00:01]
I'D NOW LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.[Zoning Board of Adjustments on April 5, 2023.]
IT IS 3:30 PM.HOW ABOUT ATTENDANCE ROLL CALL, PLEASE?
>> ALREADY BOARD MEMBER BUCAVA.
>> BOARD MEMBER HOLLOWAY, ALTERNATE.
>> BOARD MEMBER FAGAN, ALTERNATE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM 3, CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
HEARING NONE. ITEM NUMBER 4, APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS? CLEMENT MOVE TO APPROVE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. DO I HEAR A SECOND?
>> MOTION AND A SECOND HAS BEEN MADE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES ALL IN FAVOR.
SAME SIGN FOR WHATEVER. [OVERLAPPING].
>> YEAH, IT'S UNANIMOUS IN THEIR MIND.
>> NO PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVED.
>> NEW BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARINGS.
WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL OUR FIRST CASE?
THIS IS A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST.
SIX PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT, TWO OF THOSE RETURNED, ONE IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING ADDITION WITHIN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK IN A COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
THE PROPOSED SUBURB REDUCTION IS FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF FIVE FEET TO ZERO FEET.
THE APPLICANTS JUSTIFICATION CAN BE FOUND ON PAGES 2,3, AND 4 OF YOUR STAFF REPORT.
THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY [NOISE], THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANTS SHOWING THE PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION, AND THESE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT TO BETTER DETAIL AT HIS REQUEST.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THAT CONCLUDES OUR REPORT.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?
>> I'D LIKE TO. I'M SORRY. I GOT IT.
I'D LIKE TO BACK UP A LITTLE BIT AND LOOK AT A PICTURE, PLEASE. ONE MORE.
THAT ONE. THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, I ASSUME IS THE REAR OF THE BUILDING THAT EXISTS CURRENTLY.
IS THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT TAKEN FROM THE EXACT SAME SPOT?
>> THOSE ARE THE APPLICANTS PICTURES THAT HE PROVIDED?
>> I'LL ASK HIM WHEN HE COMES UP.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE BUILDING [INAUDIBLE] RESPONSE.
THEY'RE SUGGESTING THAT IF THE BUILDING IS PERMITTED A FIRE RATED WALL, IT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
>> THAT IS JUST SOMETHING THAT THEY DO ANYTIME A CONSTRUCTION TAKES PLACE CLOSER THAN FIVE FEET TO A COMMON LOT LINE AND THE MORE THE CLOSER YOU ARE TO A COMMON LOT LINE, THE MORE RESTRICTIVE IT GETS.
>> HOW MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE IS THAT?
>> I COULDN'T SPECULATE ON THAT.
>> BUT IT IS SPECIFIC TO PROXIMITY?
>> NO DO THEY HAVE ANY COMMENT? THE HEIGHT OF THAT. IS THAT SPECIFIED IN THE CITY CODES AND REGULATIONS?
>> THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING? THAT IS PER THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS ADOPTED BY THE BUILDING DIVISION.
[00:05:01]
>> IF THIS FENCE IN THIS PICTURE, IS THAT THE PROPERTY LINE?
>> THAT IS WHAT WE ASSUME TO BE THE PROPERTY ON.
YES. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAWINGS? [BACKGROUND] YES, SIR. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I DO HAVE ONE MORE. I'M SORRY.
WERE THERE ANY COMMENT THAT WERE RETURNED EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE?
>> WE CAN LOOK AT THOSE MORE SPECIFICALLY AND TELL YOU WHAT THOSE COMMENTS WERE EXACTLY IF YOU GIVE US A MINUTE.
>> ONE COMMENT WAS RECEIVED IN FAVOR AND A WRITTEN COMMENT HAS BEEN HERE OVER 17 YEARS, VERY CLEAN PROPERTY AND GOD-FEARING MAN.
THAT CAME FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 1727 61ST STREET.
>> WHAT WAS THE ADDRESS ON THAT, CATHERINE?
>> THE OTHER COMMENT WAS IN OPPOSITION.
IT SAYS, KEEP DISTANCES EVEN UNSAFE.
PROPERTY ADDRESS, IT'S THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 1923, 61ST.
>> CATHERINE, DO WE KNOW WHERE THAT IS IN COMPARISON TO HIS PROPERTY?
MR. RUDER'S PROPERTY IS AT 1811 61ST STREET.
1923 IS TO THE SOUTH AND IT IS THREE LOTS TO THE SOUTH.
>> IT'S NOT THE BUILDING DIRECTLY ADJACENT?
>> IT'S NOT DIRECTLY ADJACENT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THE STAFF? THEN WE'LL MOVE ON.
I'D LIKE AT THIS TIME OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL HEAR FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER.
WOULD YOU PLEASE APPROACH, STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN-IN, PLEASE?
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS JASON RUDER.
I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 1811 61ST STREET, WHICH I'M ASKING FOR A GRIEVANCE BILL TO MY PROPERTY LINE.
I'VE BEEN THERE NOW 17 YEARS AS I SAID.
IF THERE'S ANY NOT UNDERSTANDING EXACTLY WHAT I'M DOING, I PRINTED OUT A PHOTO FOR EVERYBODY TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT ADJACENT LINES ARE.
IF YOU-ALL WOULD LIKE TO GET A COPY, I GOT SEVEN COPIES HERE FOR EVERYBODY IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT. YOU-ALL LIKE TO SEE IT/.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME. WOULD YOU-ALL CARE TO SEE THESE AS WELL? CAN I BRING THEM AROUND TO YOU-ALL? YOU GOT THEM.
IT'D BE ONE EACH ONE GET ONE, ONE. THANK YOU.
WHAT YOU-ALL SEE HERE IS, THIS IS THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY LINE RIGHT HERE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, I HAVE FOUNDATION BACK HERE ON THIS ONE.
THIS ONE HERE I HAVE A BULKHEAD ON.
MY BULKHEAD ONLY GOES SO FAR TOWARDS THE BEHIND MY BUILDING IS AND IT ONLY GOES TO THE FENCE LINE RIGHT THERE.
THAT'S THE MOST SECURE PROPERTY LINE THAT I HAVE TO BUILD ONTO.
ANYTHING ELSE IF YOU TAKE A LOOK TO THE LEFT PICTURE, THERE'S NO BULKHEAD THAT'S JUST RUBBISH AND STUFF I GET FROM HURRICANE IKE; BROKEN CONCRETE TO STOP MY FOUNDATION FROM GOING AWAY, BUT THE SECURE PART IS TO THE RIGHT IS ANOTHER REASON I'M TRYING TO BUILD ON RIGHT THERE.
ANOTHER REASON I WOULD LIKE TO BUILD RIGHT THERE IS SO I CAN LEAVE THE OPEN AREA SO PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY SEE GALVESTON'S BAY OF WHAT IT IS.
IT SEEMS LIKE MOST CORPORATIONS WOULD PROBABLY COME IN THERE AND NOT THINK OF THAT AT THE SAME TIME, AND JUST BUILD A MONSTROSITY OF WHATEVER THEY'D LIKE TO DO,
[00:10:01]
BUT I DON'T LOOK AT IT LIKE THAT.I'VE BEEN HERE AT THE SHOP SINCE I WAS A KID, SINCE 1986.
I WAS 12 YEARS OLD AT THE ORIGINAL SHOP THAT I FIRST STARTED LEASING IN WHICH I LOST DURING HURRICANE IKE, BUT MY WHOLE LIFE IS THAT SHOP.
THAT'S WHERE I LEARNED HOW THE SHRIMP, THAT'S HOW I'VE LEARNED HOW TO FISH, AND EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE IT'S BEEN TAUGHT TO ME FROM RIGHT THERE.
I GREW UP IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOWN THE STREET, WHICH IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE LEFT FAR BACK.
I'VE LOVED DOING IT AND I ALSO LIKE TO TAKE CARE OF THE PROPERTY.
I'M ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT DRIVE INTO GALVESTON WHEN YOU FIRST SEE IT.
I REALLY MAINTAIN MY PROPERTY VERY WELL RECENTLY.
IF YOU-ALL JUST SEE THE PICTURES THIS PAST WEEK, I JUST HAD IT ALL PAVED, ALL TOWED RIGHT, STRIPED, EVERYTHING PERFECT, JUST A BEAUTIFIED GALVESTON, PERIOD.
I GET THERE EVERY MORNING ABOUT 4:35 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.
I'M VERY ADAMANT ABOUT NOT JUST TAKING CARE OF MY PROPERTY, BUT EVEN MY PROPERTIES ADJACENTS TO ME, JUST TO KEEP THE TRASH OFF OF GALVESTON. IT'S GALVESTON.
IF YOU LOOK TO THE RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE HOW PRETTY THE VIEW IS OUT THERE.
WHY NOT LEAVE THAT OPEN TO US AND TO PEOPLE THAT COME DOWN? IT'S JUST REALLY NICE.
I JUST NEED TO BUILD MY COOLERS BECAUSE I HAVE NO MORE SPACE.
IT'S REALLY HARD FOR ME BECAUSE I JUST HAD THESE LITTLE FREEZERS THAT KEEP GOING OUT ON ME, WHICH IT IS WHAT IT IS, BUT IT WOULD MAKE THINGS A WHOLE LOT EASIER.
AT THE SAME TIME, I COULD ALSO EMPLOY MORE EMPLOYEES.
THEY EXPAND MY BUSINESS, WHICH IS ALSO GOOD FOR GALVESTON BECAUSE THEY SPEND THEIR MONEY DOWN HERE IN GALVESTON AS WELL TOO.
I'M JUST ASKING FOR THE GRACE OF GOD, THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED.
I'M NOT TRYING TO BUILD A 20-FOOT STORY BUILDING OR ANYTHING.
I'M JUST ASKING FOR THE FIVE FEET SO I CAN FIT MY WALK-IN COOLERS AND FREEZERS THERE.
THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING, BUT I DO LOVE GALVESTON.
I'VE TAKEN CARE OF WHAT I SEE AND WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SEE AT THE SAME TIME.
I THINK THAT'S A BIG THING TO GALVESTON AND BRINGING BUSINESS HERE TOO AT THE SAME TIME.
AS A BAIT SHOP, I THINK I KEEP IT REALLY CLEAN AS A BAIT AND SEAFOOD MARKET.
I LIKE TO SHINE ON THAT WHERE PEOPLE COME ON, IT MAKES ME EXCITED.
YOU HAVE GOT A REALLY NICE PLACE AND THAT MAKES ME HAPPY.
I'M ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS YOU SEE WHEN YOU COME INTO GALVESTON.
WHY NOT MAKE GALVESTON BEAUTIFUL.
I'M JUST ASKING FOR THE EXTRA FIVE FEET AND THAT'S ALL.
I APPRECIATE YOU-ALL'S TIME AND YOU-ALL HEARING ME. THAT MEANS A LOT.
I THANK YOU-ALL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TOO.
THANK YOU-ALL. IF YOU-ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, JUST LET ME KNOW AND I CAN EXPLAIN IT BETTER TO YOU.
>> DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.
>> JUST ONE MORE QUESTION. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO BUILD ANY OTHER DIRECTION. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT BECAUSE THERE'S NO BULKHEAD TO THE RIGHT OF ME, MA'AM.
>> WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO INSTALL A BULKHEAD?
>> AT ABOUT $300,000, $400,000 FOR A BULKHEAD.
>> YEAH. MAYBE IN ANOTHER 25-YEARS.
IF HAS NOT MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY POURING IN IT.
>> IS THAT LITTLE STRIP OF LAND THAT YOU'D LIKE TO BUILD ON BEING USED FOR ANYTHING ELSE?
>> NO, MA'AM. AT THE MOMENT IT'S NOT BEING USED FOR NOW, BUT MY TANKS THAT I STORE BACK THERE, MY BAIT TANKS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, THAT'S THE ONLY THING IT'S BEING USED FOR.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE? SURE.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT STRUCTURE, WHAT BUILDING IT'S GOING TO BE.
IS IT GOING TO BE THE SAME ONE STORY CANINE ADDITION TO WHATEVER IT IS NOW?
>> IT'LL BE ONE STORY AT APPROXIMATELY AT 14 FEET JUST SO I CAN PUT MY DIFFERENT THINGS ARE TALLER, I CAN STACK MY TRAPS AND STUFF IN THERE.
THE SIDEWALL, IT WILL ALL BE A CENTER BLOCK.
I'M LOOKING AT BUILDING A FULL CENTER BLOCK WALL, WITH A FIREWALL AND THEN ALSO NOT JUST A FIREWALL, BUT ALSO A FIRE ROOF THAT I THINK THE GUIDANCE IS LIKE THE THIS SIDE SHOULD BE FOUR FEET FOR A FIREPROOF ROOF, A FIRE-RETARDANT ROOF AT THE SAME TIME.
SO THAT IS ALSO INTO THE PLAN AT THE SAME TIME.
I WOULD HAVE HAD THAT PLAN, BUT THEY DREW ALL OF THEM THINGS THAT WERE JUST $5,000 TO $10,000 HEAVY.
[INAUDIBLE] TAKE THE FIRST BABY STEP AT GETTING IT, BUT ALL THAT WILL BE FIREWALLS.
IT WILL BE COMPLETE FIREWALLS WITH FIRE ROOF AT THE SAME TIME. YES, MA'AM.
[00:15:04]
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU-ALL FOR YOU-ALL'S TIME. I APPRECIATE YOU.
>> I MAY HAVE BEEN A LITTLE PREMATURE, BUT WE'RE ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW.
I BELIEVE IF YOU WANT TO COME UP AND SPEAK, IT'S GOING TO BE ONE AT A TIME, YOU'LL COME UP, SPEAK TO THE MIC, STATE YOUR NAME, AND SIGN THE SLIP OF PAPER UP THERE.
IS THAT CORRECT? YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
I'LL START HERE. IS THERE ANYONE ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK TO THIS?
WHEN A SPEAKER IS SPEAKING THROUGH A TRANSLATOR, THEY ACTUALLY GET SIX MINUTES.
>> SHE'S HERE ON BEHALF OF JASON RUDER.
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE CASE.
SHE IS IN SUPPORT OF JASON RUDER'S REQUEST.
>> SHE ALWAYS VISITS THE SHOP AND HOW GOOD HE TAKES CARE OF HER ALL THE TIME.
>> HE SAYS THAT HE DESERVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND HIS BUSINESS TO BETTER SERVE THE FOLKS WHO PATRONIZE BUSINESS.
>> THAT HE KEEPS IT PROPER CLEAN AND HE'S VERY ATTENTIVE TO THE CUSTOMERS.
>> SHE'S BEEN ATTENDING THE BUSINESS FOR MANY YEARS AND SHE LIKES THE BUSINESS BECAUSE OF ALL THE AMOUNT OF PARKING AND THE GREAT LOCATION THAT IT'S IN.
>> SIR, SHE'S ASKING FOR THAT YOU GUYS APPROVE HIS REQUESTS, THAT SHE'S BEEN IN HERE OVER 40 YEARS AND SHE WAS JUST EXPLAINING WHERE SHE CAME FROM.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF JASON'S REQUEST.
>> PLEASE GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO EXPAND HIS BUSINESS SO THAT HE CAN RUN HIS BUSINESS ACCORDING TO HOW A BUSINESS SHOULD BE RUN.
>> SHE'S WRITING HER ADDRESS DOWN.
>> ANYONE ELSE ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM?
[00:20:02]
>> ALL RIGHT. NOW WE GO TO THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM.
I SEE YOUR HAND UP THERE, SIR.
I'VE BEEN WITH HIM SINCE THE BEGINNING.
JASON'S BEEN IN THE BAKING BUSINESS ALL HIS LIFE.
HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEASE THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY 17 YEARS AGO, AND I PREPARED THE LEASE FOR HIM, HELPED HIM THE FIRST FEW MONTHS BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY HIRED HELP.
HE BORROWED $50,000 FROM HIS MOTHER.
HE CONVINCED HER THAT HE COULD DO THIS SUCCESSFULLY, AND HE DID.
HE PAID HER BACK FULLY WITHIN ONE YEAR.
HE HAS HAD MANY COMPLIMENTS FROM PEOPLE COMING BY, THANKING HIM FOR WHAT HE'S DONE HERE IN THIS SHOP.
I'VE HELPED HIM WITH THE SIGNS, I HAVE A SIGNS COMPANY.
HE'S BEEN, LIKE I SAID, VERY SUCCESSFUL AND APPRECIATIVE OF THE HELP HE HAS BEEN GIVEN FROM NOT ONLY THE CITY, BUT OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AS WELL.
I JUST WANTED TO PUT IN MY TWO CENTS. THANK YOU.
>> WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE OVER HERE ON THIS? ONE ALL THE WAY IN THE BACK.
>> MY NAME IS ALEX CRUZ, A TRUE GALVESTONIAN, BOI.
I STARTED WITH JASON AFTER IKE.
IT WAS JUST A TIN BUILDING SELLING SHRIMP AND FISH.
[LAUGHTER] I WORKED WITH HIM FOR SIX YEARS.
PRIOR TO THAT, MY GRANDFATHER HAD MANY CLUBS.
HE WAS THE INVENTOR OF THE MARGARITA.
WORKING WITH JASON, I STAYED WITH HIM FOR SIX YEARS AND I LOVED THE ENVIRONMENT, THE FAMILIES WERE HAPPY, KIDS WERE HAPPY, THEY WERE EXCITED TO GO FISHING.
GUYS THAT HADN'T SEEN THEIR BROS IN MANY YEARS WERE EXCITED TO GET TOGETHER TO GO FISHING.
IT WAS A VERY HAPPY ENVIRONMENT, FAMILY-ORIENTED ENVIRONMENT.
THEN AT TIMES, I GET OUT THERE WHEN IT WAS SLOW, I GOT THERE CLEAN THE PARKING LOT, TAKE A BUCKET, AND I EVEN WALK UP AND DOWN 61ST STREET PICKING UP ALL THE CIGARETTE BUTTS JUST TO KEEP IT CLEAN BECAUSE I TAKE PRIDE IN MY ISLAND AND I TAKE PRIDE IN JASON'S BUSINESS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. YES, SIR.
I GUESS THAT'S GREEN. HECK, I DON'T KNOW.
[NOISE] I'M A LITTLE BIT OF COLORBLIND.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS RICKY MORALES, A LONG TERM BOI, A BUSINESSMAN ON THE ISLAND FOR ABOUT 30 YEARS.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF JASON RUDER, WHO IS REQUESTING TO HAVE A VARIANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW HIM TO EXPAND HIS BUSINESS AND OFFER MORE SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY, WHICH WOULD BE A GREAT ACCESS TO GALVESTON.
HIS BUSINESS HAS GROWN IN POPULARITY AND IT'S A GREAT PLACE TO RELAX WITH THE VIEW OF OFFATT'S BAYOU RIGHT THERE.
I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THAT REQUEST THAT WILL ALLOW HIM TO GROW HIS BUSINESS AND FULFILL HIS VISION FOR THE GROWTH HERE ON GALVESTON ISLAND. THAT'S IT.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT. WHO'S NEXT? YES, SIR.
>> HOW ARE YOU ALL DOING? I'M GARY CAGLE, OWNER OF HURRICANE ELECTRIC HERE IN GALVESTON, BOI AS WELL.
BEEN KNOWING JASON FOR MANY YEARS AND LOTS OF GOOD TIMES AND GOOD FAMILY.
I'M DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM HIM ON ENGLISH BAYOU.
[00:25:02]
MY HOUSE FACES WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW ACROSS THE BAYOU.THAT VIEW HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS SPECTACULAR.
SO BY HIM TRYING TO KEEP IT TO THE BACK OF THE BUILDING AND KEEP UNSTOPPED IN THAT VIEW IS A WONDERFUL THING.
I JUST WANT TO STAY ON HIS BEHALF THAT ALL THE TIME I'VE SPENT WITH HIM AND OVER THERE, IT'S BEEN NOTHING BUT GREAT TIMES.
I THINK HE SHOULD HAVE THAT BLESSING ON EXPANDING HIS BUILDING AND HIS BUSINESS.
>> HAVE A GOOD DAY. THANK YOU.
>> THAT A GODDESS. I'M CAPTAIN CODY DAN.
I WORKED FOR A C-STAR BASE, GALVESTON.
I TAKE PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES FISHING HERE IN GALVESTON.
EVERY TIME I GO TO JASON SHOP, HE JUST ASKED ME WHAT I NEEDED AND YOU DON'T CHARGE ME FOR NOTHING.
I'VE TAKEN 3,500 PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES FISHING.
ABSOLUTELY FREE, HE JUST SAYS WHO YOU'VE TAKEN AND HOW MUCH YOU NEED, AND IF I DON'T SAY IT A LOT ABOUT HIS CHARACTER NOTHING DOES.
SO SHARP'S ALWAYS CLEAN, HE'S A GREAT GUY, AND HOPEFULLY YOU ALL CAN DO SOMETHING FOR HIM. I'LL APPRECIATE IT.
NOT WILL NEVER SPEAK IN PUBLIC.
I'M LIKE A NERVOUS WRECK, SO I'M LIKE SHAKING ALL OVER.
SO JUST TO LET YOU KNOW BUT I'LL DO IT FOR HIM. THANK YOU GUYS.
>> HOW'S IT GOING? I'M JESSE POTS, LOCATED AT 2,200 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300, AND I'M APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER LOCATED AT 1813 61ST STREET, WHO IS OPPOSED TO THIS REQUESTED VARIANCE.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
CANDIDLY, YOU HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THIS ISSUE WITHIN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS, PREVIOUSLY OPTING TO REJECT MR. ROUTERS APPLICATION FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE.
TODAY WE'RE HERE TO DECIDE THE EXACT SAME ISSUE AND NOTHING AT ALL HAS CHANGED SINCE YOUR PREVIOUS JUDGMENT.
BY VOTING TO ALLOW THIS VARIANCE TODAY, YOU'D BE SETTING A BAD PRECEDENT THAT ENCOURAGES CITIZENS OF GALVESTON TO RESUBMIT VARIANCE REQUESTS WITH SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME APPLICATION AND HOPES THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS WILL CHANGE THEIR MINDS ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS.
THAT'S NOT A PRODUCTIVE USE OF ANY OF OUR TIME.
THE REASON FOR THE APPLICANTS VARIANCE REQUEST IS THAT HE DOESN'T WANT TO PAY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A CONFORMING BULK HEAD ON HIS PROPERTY.
SECTION 13.401B OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION STIPULATES THAT THE BOARD MAY GRANT A VARIANCE ONLY IF THE BOARD MAKES A DETERMINATION IN WRITING THAT ALL OF THE FOLLOWING SIX CRITERIA ARE DEMONSTRATED.
ONE, THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IS ROOTED IN SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY THAT DO NOT GENERALLY EXIST ON OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
TWO DUE TO SET SPECIAL CONDITIONS THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STRICT TERMS OF THESE REGULATIONS WOULD IMPOSE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP ON THE APPLICANT.
THREE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTERESTS AND THAT IT DOES NOT ALLOW APPLICANTS TO IMPAIR THE APPLICATION OF THESE REGULATIONS FOR AND I'M JUMPING TWO SUBSECTION BE THE MOST RELEVANT PORTION HERE "HARDSHIPS BASED SOLELY ON FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, CONVENIENCE, OR INCONVENIENCE." FOUR THE DEGREE OF VARIANTS ALLOWED FROM THESE REGULATIONS IS THE LEAST THAT IS NECESSARY TO GRANT RELIEF FROM THE IDENTIFIED UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
FIVE, THE VARIANCE SHALL NOT BE USED TO CIRCUMVENT OTHER PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS OF THESE REGULATIONS THAT COULD BE USED FOR THE SAME OR A COMPARABLE EFFECT.
SIX, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THESE REGULATIONS IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE.
NONE OF THESE CRITERIA ARE MET HERE.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY HAS A CONFORMING BULKHEAD THAT DID NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE.
IF THE BOARD ALLOWS A VARIANCE HERE, THIS WILL SET THE PRECEDENT THAT INDIVIDUALS WHO OWN PROPERTY BY THE WATER ESSENTIALLY HAVE FREE REIGN TO DO WHAT THEY WANT AND DON'T NEED TO INSTALL A BULKHEAD.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE BOARD SHOULD REJECT THE APPLICANTS REQUESTED VARIANCE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE FROM THIS SIDE OF THE RANDOM?
>> YES, MA'AM I CAN SEE HER BEHIND THEM.
>> MY NAME IS MELLIN MEDIN I OWN BRONCO BURRITOS, AND GALVESTON ON 49, 17 BROADWAY.
AS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WITH LIMITED SPACE
[00:30:03]
AND DIFFERENT RESTRICTIONS FOR OUR LIMITED SPACE THAT WE DO HAVE, I DO APPRECIATE THAT HE'S TRYING TO KEEP IT LOW PROFILE, NOT TRYING TO BLOCK ANY OF THE OTHER VIEWS THAT HE HAS.I'VE BEEN DISESTABLISHMENT MANY TIMES AND HE'S JUST DONE A WONDERFUL JOB WITH THE PEOPLE, WITH THE COMMUNITY.
HE SAID HE'S ALWAYS WILLING TO HELP OTHERS AND GIVE A HAND TO THE COMMUNITY AND THOSE THAT ARE DISABLED.
AGAIN, I'M JUST HERE AND SUPPORTIVE HIM AND SMALL BUSINESSES IN GALVESTON.
IT'S TOUGH AND PUTTING A $250,000 BULKHEAD AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S ON THE AGENDA MOST DAYS.
LET'S JUST MAKE A SPACE THAT WE CAN HAVE AVAILABLE FOR BUSINESS, PERIOD.
I JUST WANT TO DO BUSINESS, I WANT TO DO IT, I WANT TO GO HOME, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.
CLOCK IN CLOCK OUT, GO HOME MAKE IT EASY FOR HIM.
I HAVE THE BUSINESS ON 60 PASS STREET AS WELL.
BEEN KNOWING HIM FOR ALL HIS LIFE.
HAD BEEN DOING A GREAT JOB AND YOU TRY TO IMPROVE HIS BUSINESS, AND I DON'T SEE HOW COME HE HAD A HARD TIME WITH THE CITY.
I'M RIGHT BEHIND HIM, 100 PERCENT, WHATEVER I CAN DO.
I'M RIGHT BEHIND HIM. THANK YOU.
>> AT THIS TIME THEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME.
>> I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL DUE TO THE FOLLOWING; THE SPECIAL CONDITION THAT EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY THAT DOES NOT GENERALLY EXIST ON OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT AND THAT SPECIAL CONDITION IS THAT CURRENTLY WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IS TO BUILD ON THE ONLY AVAILABLE AREA FOR BUILDING EXPANSION CURRENTLY.
SO DUE TO A SPECIAL CONDITION, THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STRICT TERMS OF THESE REGULATIONS WOULD IMPOSE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS ON THE APPLICANT.
THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE HARDSHIP IS NOT SELF-IMPOSED IT'S NOT BASED SOLELY ON FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, CONVENIENCE OR INCONVENIENCE.
THERE ARE NOT 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 ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE USE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES FOR PURPOSES FOR WHICH THEY ARE ZONED, PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OR SERVICES, AND PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY, MORALS, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.
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 COMPARABLE EFFECT AND BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THESE REGULATIONS IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE.
>> YOU'VE ALL HEARD THE MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> WE HEARD THIS ISSUE BEFORE IN LIGHT OF THE SUPPORTERS SAID THAT HE'S HAD IN THE FACT THAT HE HAS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WHO HAS BEEN HERE A LONG TIME, HE'S NOT ASKING FOR MUCH.
THIS WHOLE PROCESS CENTERS AROUND THE SPIRIT OF THESE REGULATIONS, IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT THIS BOARD IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, AND I THINK WHEN YOU VIEW IT UNDER THOSE GUIDELINES, KEEPING THAT IN MIND AT LEAST,
[00:35:02]
THAT THE SPIRIT OF THESE REGULATIONS WOULD BE WELL-SERVED, AND NOT DETRIMENTAL IS A SMALL THING THAT HE'S ASKING AND NOT DETRIMENTAL TO ANYBODY AROUND HIM.NOBODY HAS COMPLAINED ABOUT THAT, LIKE THE LAST TIME, AND THAT'S MY FEELING ABOUT IT.
THAT'S THE WAY I LIKE TO LOOK AT IT.
>> CASES LIKE THIS ARE ONES THAT MAKE ME WISH I WAS MAYBE ON THE PARK BOARD OR THE WARS BOARD OR SOMETHING EASY.
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A POPULAR AND SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR ME, BUT I DON'T SEE WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS PROVEN IN A SPECIAL CONDITION.
IT'S CERTAINLY NOTHING DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER BUSINESS BUILT ON 61ST STREET ON THE WATER.
THEY'RE ALL REQUIRED TO HAVE BULKHEADS.
THEY ALL HAVE THE LIMITATIONS OF LIMITED ACCESS AREA.
I DON'T SEE THAT THERE'S A SPECIAL CONDITION HERE THAT MERITS GRANTING A VARIANCE.
MY SECOND POINT IS THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER PREVIOUSLY OBJECTED, AS MENTIONED BY HIS REPRESENTATIVE WHO'S HERE TODAY, AND CONTINUES TO OBJECT TO HAVING A BUILDING BUILT THAT CLOSE TO HIS PROPERTY.
I THINK HE HAS A RIGHT TO BE HEARD BECAUSE THIS WAS BUILT AND CONSTRUCTED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WAS THIS SEPARATION.
TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, WE ARE GOING BACK ON THE CITY'S COMMITMENT TO THAT PROPERTY OWNER, THAT THERE WOULD BE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS.
FINALLY, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION AND THAT SPECIFICALLY PRECLUDED FROM BEING A PART OF THE DECISION THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE.
AS I SAID, IT'S A DIFFICULT POSITION, ONE THAT WE ARE OCCASIONALLY IN.
BUT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO OPPOSE THIS REQUEST FOR THOSE REASONS.
I DON'T THINK THE APPLICANT HAS MET THE BURDEN OF PROVING A SPECIAL CONDITION.
IT WILL HAVE AN EFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
IT DOES APPEAR TO PRIMARILY BE A FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION THAT'S DRIVING THIS REQUEST TO DO FOR THE VARIANCE RATHER THAN TO EXPAND ON AVAILABLE LAND. THANK YOU.
>> I GOT TO TALK. EVEN UNDER THE ADA, WHICH IS A FEDERAL LAW, YOU ARE EXEMPT FROM MAKING SOME SPECIAL CHANGES TO YOUR PROPERTIES IF IT'S A BURDENSOME CHANGE AND I THINK TO SAY TO A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, WE'LL JUST BUILD A LARGER BULK HEAD, IT'S A LITTLE CAVALIER OF US.
I THINK WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY, FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO A BILLIONAIRE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO SOMEBODY THAT'S A SMALL BUSINESS PERSON.
>> I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD TO SOMETHING THAT BILL SAID, WHILE THE NEIGHBORING BUSINESS OWNER DID OBJECT THE LAST TIME WE HEARD THIS CASE, HE STATED SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS, HE DIDN'T JUST RECITE THE REASONS THAT ARE IN THE REGULATIONS AND HIS OPINION THAT THEY WEREN'T ALL BEING MET BECAUSE A LOT OF THOSE REQUIRE A LOT MORE FACTS THAN THAN WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
WHAT HE DID OBJECT TO WAS THAT HE WAS AFRAID OF THE FIRE HAZARD.
OUR APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT HE WILL BUILD A FIREWALL, AND EVEN IF THAT WERE A VALID OBJECTION RIGHT NOW FROM THE NEIGHBOR, WHICH HE DIDN'T OBJECT TO IT, HE'S TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING HE CAN THAT HE'S FINANCIALLY ABLE TO DO TO GROW HIS BUSINESS.
[00:40:01]
LIKE SUSAN SAID, EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT, AND ONE OF OUR GUESTS STATED THAT OR MAYBE IT WAS BILL THAT EVERYBODY HAS TO FOLLOW THE RULES AND DO THE SAME THING.WELL, IF THAT WERE TRUE, THEN THIS BOARD WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY.
WE'RE HERE TO GRANT VARIANCES BASED ON INDIVIDUAL CASES, NOT THE WHOLE.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND. THANK YOU.
>> IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
>> I KNOW I CAN'T VOTE, THANK YOU, BUT I THINK WHAT BARBARA JUST POINTED OUT WAS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE BUILDING DIVISION IS GOING TO REQUIRE A SPECIAL MITIGATION FOR THE PROXIMITY OF THE WALL OR THE SETBACK.
BECAUSE IF THEY GO TO ZERO LOT LINE, THEN THEY HAVE TO BUILD A FIREWALL.
THAT, TO ME, MITIGATES THE ISSUE OF PROXIMITY IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER RECOURSE THAN PERHAPS THE ADJACENT LANDOWNER WOULD HAVE A CAUSE FOR ACTION OR FOR COMPLAINT.
BUT BECAUSE THE BUILDING DIVISION SAID, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS, YOU HAVE TO MITIGATE WITH A FIREWALL.
I THINK THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE WHEN YOU ALL CONSIDER THE CASE AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GRANTING OF VARIANCE. THANK YOU.
>> I WAS GOING TO WAIT TO HEAR FROM EVERYBODY ELSE FIRST.
WELL, I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS MUCH SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY ON ANY OTHER CASE BEFORE.
IT REALLY MEANS A LOT FOR A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER.
ALSO BEING WORKING IN CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECTURE, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT'S NEXT.
DISAPPROVAL WON'T BE THE FINAL ACT BECAUSE AFTER THIS, HE NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THE PERMITS AND ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE.
HE'LL STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH A LOT MORE THAN JUST IT'S APPROVED AND GO AHEAD AND BUILD IT.
I DEFINITELY THINK THAT THERE'LL BE OTHER THINGS ON THE WAY THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO CONSIDER.
BUT IT'S A UNIQUE CASE AND LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S NOT ONE ANSWER FOR ALL.
IT'S A TOUGH CASE FOR US, ESPECIALLY SEEING IT TWICE HERE.
BUT I DEFINITELY SEE WHAT'S DIFFERENT, HOW THIS CASE IS DIFFERENT, AND WHAT MAKES IT SPECIAL CONDITION.
IT MAY NOT BE AS CLEAR AS SOME OF THEM, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A BUILDING THAT'S GOING TO BE TWO-STORY AND ABSTRACT EVERYBODY AND IT'S A LUXURY THING.
IT'S HELPING THE SMALL BUSINESS CONTINUE ITS WORK.
I THINK THAT I WILL SUPPORT AT THIS POINT.
>> THANK YOU. BILL. I THINK YOU'D BETTER GO FOR IT.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY, SIR.
>> THANKS. THERE'S A MOTION MADE.
>> THERE'S A MOTION MADE AND THE SECOND WE'VE HAD OUR DISCUSSION.
AT THIS TIME, I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AS STATED, RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. CATHERINE.
>> MOTION FAILS. THE MOTION HAS TO HAVE FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES.
THE COMMISSION COULD MAKE ANOTHER MOTION OR IT COULD REMAIN AS FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES.
>> AT THIS TIME, THE MOTION HAS FAILED?
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK AT THIS POINT, IS THERE A WAY FOR ANOTHER DISCUSSION AND MAYBE PUTTING IT FOR ANOTHER VOTE NEXT TIME, IS IT AN OPTION?
>> THE COMMISSION CAN MAKE ANOTHER MOTION AT THIS MEETING.
>> THERE CAN BE ANOTHER MOTION AT THIS TIME MADE.
>> IT WOULD BE THE MOTION TO DEFER.
>> ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE COULD BE A MOTION
[00:45:03]
TO DEFER SO THAT WE CAN HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION?>> THAT'S POSSIBLE. TYPICALLY, A MOTION TO DEFER IS FOR A SPECIFIC REASON IF YOU WERE SEEKING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
TYPICALLY, WE WOULD ASK FOR WHAT THE REASON FOR DEFERRAL IS.
IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER MOTIONS, THE CASE WOULD REMAIN AS FAILED DUE TO LACK OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES.
>> IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION AT THIS TIME? HEARING NONE, THEN THE MOTION HAS FAILED. NEXT CASE.
>> THE NEXT CASE IS 23Z-00323011 LUNAS.
THIS IS IS A LOTTERY UNLOCKED DEPTH VARIANCE REQUEST, 18 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, SEVEN OF THOSE RETURNED, ALL SEVEN AND OPPOSITION.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE LDR, ARTICLE III RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY R1 ADDENDUM REGARDING MINIMUM LOT STANDARDS INCLUDING LOT DEPTH AND LOT AREA IN ORDER TO DIVIDE ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS.
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SITE PLAN SLASH SURVEY IN EXHIBIT B FOR PROPOSED LOT RECONFIGURATION.
THE LAST STANDARD REQUIREMENTS IN THE R1 ZONING DESIGNATION IS 5,000 SQUARE FEET FOR A LOT AREA AND 100 FEET FOR A LOT OF DEPTH.
AGAIN, IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE LOT AREA BE REDUCED ON LOT 15 FROM 5,000 SQUARE FEET TO 4,432 SQUARE FEET.
THE LOT DEPTH OF BOTH LOTS FROM 100 FEET TO 80 FEET AND 67 FEET RESPECTIVELY.
PLEASE NOTE THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF YOUR REPORT.
THIS IS THE AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN SLASH SURVEY PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
THESE ARE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> WE GET TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS NOW BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING ASKED. SORRY.
>> YES THAT IS WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION RIGHT QUICK.
WE HAD 18% OUT, I SEE THAT, AND WHAT DID YOU SAY?
>> ALL OPPOSED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURE, THAT ONE.
THE LOT DIRECTLY ACROSS APPEARS TO BE PLATTED, OR AT LEAST IT'S BUILT ON SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT THIS HOUSE IS BUILT ON.
IS THAT LOT ACROSS THE STREET PLATTED THE SAME AS THIS ONE?
>> WE'VE GOT TO LOOK INTO THAT.
I WILL SAY THOUGH, THAT THIS LOT WAS REPLATTED IN 2019.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY TWO LOTS, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE THEY'RE LOOKING TO GO BACK WITH IN THIS CASE, THE EXACT CONFIGURATION THAT WAS PRIOR TO 2019.
IT USED TO BE TWO LOTS, THEY DID A MINOR PLOT TO SUB-DIVIDE THE LAND OR TO CONSOLIDATE THE LAND INTO ONE PARCEL, AND NOW THEY ARE WANTING TO RE-PLOT THE LAND AGAIN TO TWO PARCELS.
>> THERE WERE TWO LOTS THERE PREVIOUSLY?
>> I DON'T UNDERSTANDING WHY YOU REPLAT TWO LOTS INTO ONE LOT.
>> SOME FOLKS MIGHT WANT TO HAVE A LARGER SITE YARD AND SOMETIMES IF YOU WANT TO DO SOME FORM OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE SO-CALLED VACANT LOT.
[00:50:05]
SOMETIMES WE WILL NOT ALLOW THAT UNLESS THERE IS OUR PRIMARY STRUCTURE, SO YOU CONSOLIDATE IT TO IN ORDER TO HAVE ONE LOT SO YOU CAN DO MORE AND OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WITHIN THAT LOT.THAT'S USUALLY THE REASON WHY.
>> IS THE PLAN TO REPLAT IT INTO TWO LOTS, WOULD IT BE THE SAME TWO LOTS THAT IT WAS BEFORE IT WAS PLATTED INTO ONE?
>> IT USED TO BE TWO LOTS, IT'S ONE, THEY WANT TO GO BACK TO TWO.
DO ANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT OPPOSE IT SAY WHY?
>> WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK INTO THOSE NOTICES THAT WERE SENT IF YOU GIVE ME A MINUTE.
>> GENERALLY SPEAKING, FROM HAVING READ THOSE NOTICES, THE CONCERN OF THE RESIDENTS THAT WERE NOTIFIED IS MOSTLY CENTERED AROUND THE BUILDING LINES THAT ARE BETWEEN THE LOTS AND THE DECK THAT WAS BUILT.
BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY CLAIM TO BE A VIOLATION, WHICH IT MAY BE A VIOLATION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS, BUT IT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
WE COULD READ THOSE COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD.
>> THE FIRST ONE COMMENT MADE IS BASED ON LIMITED INFORMATION PROVIDED WITH THIS PROPOSAL I DO NOT SUPPORT APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE.
SECOND ONE DID NOT PROVIDE A COMMENT.
LAST ONE, THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE VIOLATION THAT THE REPLATTING WILL CREATE THE PROPERTY AT 23011 WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF TARRAMORE DEED RESTRICTIONS IF REPLATTED, PLEASE SEE ATTACHED, AND THEY PROVIDED THE PLANS.
>> THANK YOU. THE LINE WITH THE LATITUDE LONGITUDE NOTATIONS ON IT, THAT'LL BE THE NEW PROPERTY LINE?
>> CAN SOMEBODY POINT THAT OUT?
>> THE VIOLATION THAT THE RESIDENTS ARE SAYING IS THE DECK THAT WAS BUILT AS YOU SEE, YOU SEE A TEMPLE BUILDING LINE.
THEY'RE SAYING THAT IT WAS BUILT OVER THE TEMPLE BUILDING LINE.
NOW, THE CITY REQUIRE ONLY A THREE FOOT SIDE YARD STEPBACK AND OF COURSE, WE DO NOT ENFORCE THE DESCRIPTIONS.
>> THAT APPEARS TO BE THE BIG OBJECTION.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THE STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP TO THE MIC?
>> I BELIEVE WE OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING YET, DO WE? WE'RE NOT GOING TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL AFTER WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT?
>> GO AHEAD, SIR. SPEAK YOUR NAME.
I AM A CURRENT PARTNER OWNER IN 23011 LUNES. THAT'S WHAT I SAID.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE GOING TO READ THIS BECAUSE I'M HAVING THE SAME JITTERS.
THANK YOU FOR THE CONSIDERATION.
WE HAVE BEEN LONG-TIME RESIDENTS IN TERRAMAR AND VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE PURCHASED THE HOME, I BELIEVE LAST YEAR, AND MY PARTNER AND I, WE COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE LOT WAS, HOW IT WAS CONSTRUCTED.
[00:55:02]
WE BELIEVE THAT THE PRIOR OWNER POTENTIALLY JOINED THE LOTS TOGETHER BECAUSE OF THE THE DECK THAT EVERYONE IS REFERRING TO HERE.THAT THERE'S NO DOUBT IN MY MIND AFTER LOOKING AT THE HOME, THE DECK WAS ADDED AFTER THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.
IT IMPEDED ON THE SAID PROPERTY LINE THAT YOU ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT AND I THINK POSSIBLY IN ORDER TO SELL IT TO US, THEY HAD THAT JOINING TAKE PLACE SO THEY CAN MAKE THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY.
OUR INTENT WOULD BE TO REMOVE THAT DECK ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE HOME TO BRING IT BACK INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S BUILDING LINES AND CODES ALONG WITH TERRAMAR, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO BUILD ANOTHER HOME ON THE SMALLER LOT, WHICH IS LOT 15, PRIMARILY SO THAT THE TWO FAMILIES COULD RESIDE DOWN THERE AT THE SAME TIME WITHOUT, I'M PUTTING OUT QUOTES, "KILLING EACH OTHER," AND TRYING TO SAVE A GREAT FRIENDSHIP FROM WIVES AND KIDDOS THAT TEND TO GET A LITTLE RAMBUNCTIOUS.
STAYING IN ONE HOUSE IS BECOMING DIFFICULT AND ALSO SHARING THAT HOME AT THE SAME TIME AND WORKING OUT THE SCHEDULE, I'M SURE ALL THESE ARE GREAT PROBLEMS TO HAVE BY THE WAY, AND I AM FULLY AWARE OF THAT, BUT WE ARE NOT PART OF THE RENTAL POOL.
THAT'S ANOTHER COMPLAINT THAT WE TYPICALLY HEAR ON THE WEST END.
OUR HOUSE HAS NEVER BEEN RENTED.
IT'S ONLY FOR FAMILY USE AND WE SIMPLY JUST REQUEST TO BUILD ANOTHER SMALL HOME ON LOT 15.
AGAIN, REMOVING THAT DECK ON OUR EXISTING HOME TO BRING IT BACK INTO COMPLIANCE.
I THINK THAT SAW THE COMMENTS I HAVE.
I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING THAT PLAN.
MY FATHER-IN-LAW AND I ARE ALSO BUILDERS ON THE WEST END, SO WE'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
WE RECOGNIZE SOME FACES HERE FROM THE PAST, SO PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK US ANY QUESTIONS.
>> WE'RE BASICALLY TALKING ABOUT 568 SQUARE FEET?
>> YES, MA'AM. AGAIN, WE COULD POSSIBLY, IF WE REMOVE THE DECK, WE COULD SQUEEZE THOSE LINES A LITTLE MORE TO THE EAST AND INCREASE THAT SIZE TO ROUGHLY, WHEN I CUT IT OUT, THE MOST I COULD GET OUT OF IT IS 47-4,800 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS STILL BELOW THIS 5,000 LAW THAT WE IMPLEMENTED.
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, I DON T THINK THERE'S NO WAY TO GET IT TO 5,000.
I CAN ANSWER ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION.
THE HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET, VERY GOOD FRIEND OF OURS, NEIGHBOR.
THEIR HOUSE WAS BURNED DOWN SEVERAL YEARS BACK AND THEY ACTUALLY OWN BOTH THOSE LOTS AND SO IT IS BUILT, IT ENCUMBERS.
THEY BASICALLY JOINED THE TWO LOTS TOGETHER AS WELL.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS CONSIDERING, YOU HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION.
>> I'M VICTOR, I'M CRYSTAL CLEAR.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE LOT ACROSS THE STREET IS NOW WHAT WOULD BE THE SMALLER LOT ENCUMBERED BUT ORIGINALLY WAS PLOTTED FOR TWO LOTS AS WAS YOURS?
>> THAT'S CORRECT, DAVE. THE HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET ORIGINALLY WAS BIASED TO THE EAST A LITTLE MORE, WHICH WOULD BE TOWARDS THE UPPER RIGHT CORNER OF THAT.
ONLY AFTER THAT HAD BURNED DOWN THAT THEY COME BACK AND SAY, LET'S BUILD IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR TWO LOTS AND SO THEY JOINED THEM TOGETHER AND DID EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS LOT.
AGAIN, WE'RE JUST ASKING TO RETURN IT TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORIGINALLY INTENDED USE FOR.
>> ONE MORE QUESTION. THE TWO LOTS, THE SMALLER LOT DIDN'T MEET THE LDRS BUT THE LDRS DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE?
>> TERRAMAR WAS BUILT, THOSE LOTS STANDARDS WERE NOT THERE.
WE BUILT MANY HOMES DOWN ON THOSE SMALLER LOTS IN THE CUL-DE-SAC, AND IT'S ACTUALLY SOME AREAS OF TERRAMAR WHICH YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW ACTUALLY HAVE A FIVE-FOOT BUILDING LINE RATHER THAN A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE.
BUT A LOT OF THE WATER LOTS BECAUSE OF VIEWS, THEY CREATED THE 10 FOOT SETBACKS ON EITHER SIDE.
THE 10 FOOT SETBACK ALONG WITH THE RADIUS ON THE FRONT IS WHAT GENERATES THE LACK OF SPACE.
BUT AGAIN, ARCHITECTURALLY, WE COULD WORK AROUND THAT CURVE AND ACTUALLY BUILD A NICE SMALL HOME RIGHT THERE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS CASE.
[01:00:03]
IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK, LET ME KNOW.COME ON UP. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, SIGN IN.
>> THOMAS HAYES, 23003 LUNES STREET.
I'M TWO HOUSES DOWN FROM THE HOUSE IN QUESTION ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET.
EVEN THOUGH I AM AWARE OF THE FACT THAT DEED RESTRICTION NOT ENFORCEABLE BY THE CITY OF GALVESTON, I UNDERSTAND THAT COMPLETELY, BUT OUR CONCERN AND THE CONCERN OF THE OTHER NEIGHBORS WHO ARE OPPOSING THIS, IS THAT BY ALLOWING A SMALLER LOT IS GOING TO SET A PRECEDENT WHERE OTHER PEOPLE WITH TWO LOTS CAN NOW RE-PLOT THEIR PROPERTY AND THEN PUT IN ANOTHER SMALLER HOUSE, THEREBY OVERWHELMING THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN MOST OF THESE CANALS.
THAT'S BIG CONCERN THAT WE ALL HAVE.
>> APPARENTLY MY OPPOSITION DIDN'T COME THROUGH BECAUSE I DIDN'T HEAR MY COMMENT SO I CAN GIVE THIS TO YOU NOW IF YOU WANT.
MY NAME IS MARK HAMLIN, 22915 LUNES, ABOUT FOUR DOORS DOWN.
I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT MOVING THE DECK.
THAT'S THE CONCERN OF SEVERAL OF US AROUND THERE AND THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
I KNOW OTHER NEIGHBORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WOULD LIKE TO BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THIS WOULD SET A PRECEDENCE FOR THEM TO GO TOWARDS OUR HOA TO TRY TO GET APPROVAL AND PROBABLY HAVE TO GET IT BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE HAS IT.
YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? BUT MY OTHER CONCERN IS NOT ONLY THE DECK, BUT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR DOCK 10 FOOT BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PROXIMITY TO THE HOUSES IF YOU'RE TRYING TO GET A BOAT IN AND OUT.
IF YOU'VE GOT TWO OPPOSING BOAT DOCKS, CAN MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO GET THEIR BOATS OUT.
BECAUSE YOU MIGHT RUN INTO SOMEBODY ELSE'S BOAT OR THEIR DOCK AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
THAT'S REALLY MORE MY CONCERN THAN THE DECK BECAUSE THAT'S HARD TO MOVE. IT'S IN THE WATER.
THAT'S PART OF THE REASON I BROUGHT THAT UP HERE BECAUSE I PUT THAT ON OPPOSITION.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE.
AT THIS TIME, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I'LL BRING IT BACK HERE TO US AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
EVEN THOUGH I'M TIRED FROM THE PREVIOUS MOTION, BUT I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL DUE TO THE FOLLOWING THE SPECIAL CONDITION THAT EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY, THAT IT IS NOT GENERALLY EXIST ON OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
THAT SPECIAL CONDITION IS THAT THIS WAS ORIGINALLY TWO LOTS AND HE JUST WANTS TO PUT IT BACK TO TWO LOTS.
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 AND THAT THE HARDSHIP IS NOT SELF-IMPOSED.
IT'S NOT BASED SOLELY ON FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, CONVENIENCE OR INCONVENIENCE.
THEY'RE NOT CONDITIONS THAT ARE ALLEGED TO BE SPECIAL, BUT ARE ACTUALLY COMMON TO MANY PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
THERE WERE THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DOES NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT UPON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE USE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES FOR PURPOSES FOR WHICH THEY'RE ZONED, PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY, MORALS, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.
THE DEGREE OF VARIANTS THE LAB FROM THESE REGULATIONS IS A PLACE 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 COMPARABLE EFFECT AND BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THESE REGULATIONS IS OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE. AMEN.
[01:05:03]
>> YOU'VE ALL HEARD THE MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> WE NOW HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YES, SIR.
>> I'M GENERALLY AN AGREEMENT WITH A PROVEN THIS MOTION.
I WOULD MUCH PREFER TO SEE THIS LOT RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL PLAT.
THAT THAT GOES BACK TO HOW IT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED.
BY MY CALCULATION THERE SHOULD BE ENOUGH FOR 10 FOOT ON EACH SIDE FOR THE BOAT DOCK TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT WITH THE RE-PLOT.
IT ALSO WOULD QUITE HONESTLY CREATE A SITUATION WHERE IT WOULD REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF THE DECK AT THIS POINT.
I DON'T MEAN TO CAST ASPERSIONS ON ANYONE, BUT AT THIS POINT, THE REMOVAL OF THE DECK IS AN OPTION ONCE THIS IS APPROVED.
ALTHOUGH CURRENTLY THE SETBACK IS, AND THAT'S ANOTHER POINT.
THE SETBACK CURRENTLY IS I BELIEVE, FOUR FOOT EIGHT INCHES FROM THE FENCE LINE.
I BELIEVE THERE'S A FIVE FOOT SETBACK IN THE CITY REQUIREMENTS NOW WITHOUT RESPECT TO THE TERM OR BEACH REQUIREMENTS.
REALLY HE DOESN'T REPLANTING IT TO THE WAY IT'S DRAWN NOW DOESN'T MEET THIS FIVE FOOT SETBACK THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IF HE WERE PROPOSING A NEW HOME.
SO WHILE I'M NOT A OPPOSED TO THIS, IN THEORY, I AM OPPOSED TO IT AS IT'S DRAWN.
MY THOUGHT AT THIS POINT IS TO VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION TO APPROVE AND THEN MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TIME TO REDRAW THE PLATE AND COME BACK WITH ONE THAT SHOWS THE NEW PLOTTED LINE, WHICH TENDS TO MEET ALL OF THE PREVIOUS REQUIREMENTS OF TERM OR BEACH AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY LAID OUT AND BUILT.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
>> NO OTHER DISCUSSION THEN AT THIS TIME, WE'LL VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THE VARIANCE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
AGAIN, THE MOTION HAS FAILED. BILL.
>> I'VE MOVED THAT. WE DEFER THE APPLICATION.
I'M TRYING TO DECIDE IF ONE MONTH OR TWO MONTHS IS ENOUGH.
BUT I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND PUT SOME PRESSURE ON THE APPLICANT. I MOVE.
WE DEFER THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR ONE MONTH TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO ADJUST LOT SIZE AND PROPERTY LINES TO MORE CLOSELY MEET THE ORIGINAL PLATTING OF THE PROPERTY.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR DEFERRAL AND YOU ALL HEARD THE REASON.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. THEN ALL IN FAVOR OF THE DEFERRAL RAISE YOUR HAND.
>> NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THAT DEFERRAL IS TO MAY 3RD.
I'M WILLING TO AMEND MY MOTION TO SAY 3RD MAY.
I JUST WANTED IT TO BE ON THE RECORD THAT THE NEXT MEETING DATE.
STAFF CAN VISIT WITH YOU AFTER THE MEETING.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE HERE UNDER DISCUSSION ITEMS, CONFLICT OF INTERESTS, PROCEDURES.
>> WE DO. KARINA, CAN I GET THE MOUSE?
[01:10:01]
CAN I GET THE MOUSE. THANK YOU.THERE IS A NEW [OVERLAPPING] JUST GIVE ME A MINUTE.
>> SOLOMON SPLITTING THE BABY.
>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
>> I VISIT WITH YOU AFTER YEAH.
>> BUT CATHERINE, SHOULD WE WAIT?
IF YOU'RE EVER DECLARING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THEN THERE IS A FORM THAT NEEDS TO BE FILLED OUT AND PUT ON FILE WITH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
IF YOU KNOW AHEAD OF TIME THAT YOU'LL HAVE A CONFLICT, YOU'LL GO TO OUR WEBSITE WHICH HAS GALVESTON.TX.GOV AND YOU'LL WANT TO GO TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S PAGE, WHICH IS UNDER GOVERNMENT.
ONE OF THE ITEMS LISTED THERE IS CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
THEN THE LAST ITEM IS THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM SO YOU WOULD FILL THAT OUT.
WHAT DID IT DO THERE? I'M SORRY. THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE ON FILE.
I'M CLICKING ON THE WRONG LINK.
IT'S CALLED FAR FORM FOR CITY OFFICIALS AFFIDAVIT OF ABSTENTION OF VOTE AND SO YOU'LL FILL THIS OUT.
THE CASE THAT YOU HAVE, THE CONFLICT WOULD GO HERE AND THEN YOU WOULD INDICATE THE REASON FOR YOUR CONFLICT.
TECHNICALLY, CONFLICTS ARE IF YOU HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, IN THE CASE IS BEING HEARD.
THAT'S DEFINED AS 10% OF YOUR YEARLY INCOME.
IT'S NOT LIKELY THAT YOUR LOVER THAT WILL EVER OCCUR.
IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT YOU'LL HAVE AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
THE LAST ITEM THAT'S IF YOU HAVE SOME RELATIONSHIP TO THE CASE THAT THE PUBLIC MIGHT SEE AS BEING A LITTLE TOO CLOSE.
IT'S YOUR COUSIN, IT'S YOUR NEIGHBOR, IT'S YOUR BEST FRIEND, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
YOU WOULD PUT YOU TO CLICK THAT OFF AND THEN YOU JUST PUT IN WHAT THE RELATIONSHIP IS.
SIGN IT, THESE HAVE TO BE NOTARIZED.
BUT UNTIL SHE GETS THAT OFFICIALLY COMPLETED, THEN YOU COULD GO TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE BEFORE THE MEETING AND THEY'LL NOTARIZE IT FOR YOU.
WE JUST WANT THE COMMISSION TO KNOW THAT THERE'S THIS FORM OUT THERE AND YOU CAN GET IT FILLED OUT AND TAKE CARE OF BEFOREHAND.
>> IF WE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS, WE FILL OUT THIS FORM AND WE CAN'T VOTE, CORRECT?
>> WHAT IS IT LIKE AN ABSTENTION OR IT'S JUST NO VOTE?
>> IT'S AN ABSTENTION. WE WOULD ACTUALLY ASK THAT YOU COME OFF THE DIET SO YOU DON'T PARTICIPATE.
>> CAN ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVES CAN COME UP?
>> THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE ALTERNATES.
>> WELL, THANK YOU. CATHERINE, IS THAT IT?
>> I GUESS THE ONLY REASON YOU ABSTAIN IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO ABSTAIN THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN ABSTAINING WITH THE CONFLICT OF INTERESTS.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? LIKE? IS IT BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHEN THERE'S BEEN AN ABSTENTION, WHICH MEANS THAT THERE HAS TO BE FOUR YES VOTES WHEN THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOMEBODY THAT COULD TAKE THE PART OF THE PERSON THAT IS ABSTAINING.
>> IF YOU ARE ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE, AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THEN THAT IS YOUR VOTE IS ABSTENTION.
AT THAT POINT THE ALTERNATE DOES NOT COME IN.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? I WOULD JUST LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT AND THANK ALL OF YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
THIS ACTUALLY IS PROBABLY, IF NOT ONE MAYBE THERE WAS ONE OTHER SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT WENT LONGER THAN THIS, BUT THIS IS THE LONGEST MEETING I'VE EVER BEEN IN HERE.
BUT I'D LIKE TO THANK EVERYONE FOR THEIR ATTENTION AND THEIR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS AND VERY GOOD.
BUT ANYWAY, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
[01:15:02]
AT THIS TIME WE ARE ADJOURNED.>> THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.