ALL RIGHT, SO GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. [00:00:03] IT IS NOW PROBABLY 3:31 OR SO, AND I'LL CALL THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER. [Zoning Board of Adjustments on March 6, 2024.] WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6TH, 2024. ATTENDANCE, PLEASE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM NUMBER THREE. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. DOES ANYONE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OF ANY OF THE CASES THAT WE'LL HEAR TODAY? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM LAST YEAR. I MOVE APPROVAL. I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF MINUTES. ANY DISCUSSION? THEN ALL IN FAVOR? WE'RE JUST RAISING HANDS. ALL RIGHT, ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN, AND THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. ITEM FIVE IS PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS IS THE TIME FOR ANYONE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON AGENDA ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NON AGENDA ITEMS. ANYONE? ALL RIGHT, THERE WE GO. ITEM SIX. NEW BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARINGS. FIRST CASE, PLEASE. ALRIGHTY. SO FIRST CASE 24Z-001. THIS IS 4226 KENT STREET. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE STAFF REPORT HAS THE ADDRESS INCORRECT. HOWEVER PUBLIC NOTICE WAS GIVEN OFF OF 4226 KENT. SO THEREFORE PUBLIC NOTICE WAS CORRECTLY DONE. SO THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARTICLE THREE DISTRICT YARD LOT SETBACK ADDENDUM FOR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. THERE ARE 34 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT. NINE OF THOSE RETURNED. ALL NINE OF THOSE IN OPPOSITION. NOTE THAT THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS PROVIDED BY ANY CITY DEPARTMENTS OR OUTSIDE UTILITIES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM ARTICLE THREE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ADDENDUM IN ORDER TO REDUCE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 20FT TO 17.5FT DUE TO AN ERROR MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE COVERED FRONT PORCH OF THE STRUCTURE ENCROACHES APPROXIMATELY 2.5FT BEYOND THE REQUIRED MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK. I WILL NOTE THAT IT ACTUALLY IS NOT COVERED. IT'S AN OPEN PORCH. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT ERROR. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 12.401 OF THE LDRS FRONT YARD SECTION MAY BE REQUESTED WHERE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF ANY TWO OR MORE LOTS IN THE SAME BLOCK DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, OR IF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF THE ADJACENT LOT DOES NOT MEET THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A FOR EXAMPLES OF OTHER STRUCTURES ON THE SUBJECT. BLOCK CONSTRUCTED WITH LESSER SETBACK, INCLUDING THE ONE DIRECTLY ADJACENT. SO IN THIS CASE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST IS TO GO FROM A 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO A 17.5FT FRONT SETBACK, WHICH WOULD ACCOUNT FOR THE ENCROACHMENT MADE IN THE DURING CONSTRUCTION. PLEASE ALSO NOTE OUR SPECIAL EXCEPTION NOTES FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. SO HERE WE HAVE ON THE LEFT THE SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY SHOWING THE 17.5FT DISTANCE AND THE RESULTING 2.5FT ENCROACHMENT OF THE, THE DECK AND THEN ADJACENT THE ADJACENT STRUCTURE HAVING A 14.6FT SETBACK FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS LESS THAN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. WE HAVE A PHOTO FOR REFERENCE OF THE DECK THAT'S ENCROACHING SLIGHTLY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE A PHOTO LOOKING NORTH ALONG THE LINE OF THE ENCROACHMENT. THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, AND THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY. SO, DANIEL, WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THESE COMPARATIVE PROPERTIES? THE ONES AT 4222 AND 4218, ARE THEY OUT OF COMPLIANCE? I MEAN, WHAT IS WHAT DOES THAT TELL US? I'M NOT SURE THAT I CAN ANSWER THAT. I DON'T KNOW OFFHAND WITHOUT LOOKING INTO IT. WHEN THOSE STRUCTURES WERE BUILT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I WILL JUST NOTE THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN THIS CASE IS BASED OFF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY BEING CLOSER, THEY HAD THE OPTION OF, YOU KNOW, A PATTERN OF OR THE ADJACENT. [00:05:05] SO THEY MEET BOTH CRITERIA. WELL, THEY CAN ONLY I MEAN, THEY ONLY NEED TO MEET ONE, BUT THEY HAVE TWO OPTIONS TO GO TO. YES. THANK YOU. ANYONE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALL RIGHT. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? NO APPLICANT. OKAY. THEN I GUESS AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. LET ME THINK. THIS IS GREAT. SO IT IS WHATEVER TIME IT IS 3:37, AND I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISH TO COME UP AND SPEAK TO THIS CASE? SEEING NO ONE, THEN I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD HERE FOR A MOTION. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS REQUEST. BECAUSE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF THE ADJACENT LOT DOES NOT MEET THE FRONT YARD REQUIREMENT OF THESE REGULATIONS. THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE VALUE AND USE OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, NOR WILL IT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. ALL RIGHT, I'D SECOND THAT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. THEN ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL OPPOSED. SAME SIGN AND THE MOTION IS CARRIED. ALL RIGHT. SECOND CASE PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS 24-002. THIS IS 17427 BRISTOW. THIS IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE REAR SETBACK. PER GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE THREE FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. THERE ARE 40 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT. FIVE OF THOSE WERE RETURNED. FOUR OF THOSE WERE OPPOSED. ONE WAS. NO COMMENT. THERE WERE NO ONCE AGAIN, NO OBJECTIONS FROM ANY CITY DEPARTMENTS WHO WERE NOTIFIED SHOWING THE STAFF REPORT, NOR WERE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS OR CONCERNS FROM PRIVATE UTILITIES WHO WERE ALSO NOTIFIED. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM ARTICLE THREE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ADDENDUM IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED REAR SETBACK FROM 10 FOOT TO 6 FOOT, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED BUILDING PERMITS WHICH SHOW PART OF THE REAR DECK AND STAIRS ENCROACHING APPROXIMATELY FOUR FOOT INTO THE MINIMUM TEN FOOT REAR SETBACK. THIS WILL ENCROACH INTO A FIVE FOOT AERIAL EASEMENT SHOWN ON THE SURVEY NOTE. HOWEVER, THEY FILED RECORDED RELEASE OF EASEMENT FROM 2009 WAS PROVIDED BY CENTERPOINT ENERGY IN A CASE THAT AERIAL EASEMENT IS ACTUALLY ABANDONED AND NO LONGER LEGALLY EXISTS. THIS HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR YOUR REFERENCE IN THE STAFF REPORT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SECTION 12.401 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, REAR YARD EXCEPTION MAY BE REQUESTED WHEN THE REAR YARD SETBACK OF ANY TWO OR MORE LOTS IN THE SAME BLOCK DO NOT MEET THE REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A FOR THE APPLICANT SUBMITTAL SHOWING WHERE THOSE EXCEPTIONS ARE LOCATED. SO IN THIS CASE, THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT WOULD BE FROM 10 FOOT TO 6 FOOT. PLEASE NOTE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. SO THIS IS A SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING SOUTH TOWARD THE GULF OF MEXICO AND THE BEACH, AND HERE WE HAVE A VICINITY MAP SHOWING WHERE IT'S LOCATED ON THE BLOCK. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT SUBMITTAL POINTING OUT SOME OF THE EXISTING ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE TEN FOOT REAR SETBACK THAT THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED, AND IT'S ALSO PROVIDING YOUR STAFF REPORT FOR CLOSER EXAMINATION. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH ACROSS THE STREET, PROPERTY TO THE EAST AND THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I HAVE A QUESTION. SURE. I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS, ACTUALLY. SO THIS STRUCTURE HAS NOT BEEN BUILT YET. CORRECT. IT IS NOT BEEN BUILT YET. OKAY. THANK YOU, AND FOR DONNA WHAT WHAT SIGNIFICANCE IS IT THAT UTILITY EASEMENT HAS BEEN ABANDONED WITH REGARD TO THE CITY REGULATIONS? [00:10:14] [INAUDIBLE] TYPICALLY WHEN THE TYPICALLY WHEN THE EASEMENT HOLDER IN THIS CASE CENTERPOINT DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE REQUEST. THAT'S HOW STAFF MOVES FORWARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NO OBJECTION FROM THE EASEMENT HOLDER. RIGHT, BUT WHAT SIGNIFICANCE DOES IT HAVE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE? IT DOES NOT. WE PROVIDE THAT FOR REFERENCE BECAUSE THE SURVEY SHOWS THAT EASEMENT THERE, BUT IN REALITY THE EASEMENT NO LONGER EXISTS. OKAY. JUST WE WANTED TO CLEAR THINGS UP, BUT THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE IS REALLY WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO. OKAY, YEAH, IT JUST CONFUSED ME A BIT BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK WE HAD OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS. NO WE DON'T. YEAH. WE WERE JUST TRYING TO CLEAR THINGS UP. THANK YOU. QUESTION. DO WE HAVE A SURVEY OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES SHOWING, OTHER THAN THAT, THAT 200 FOOT AERIAL SHOT WITH A LINE? THAT'S ALL THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. SO THAT WAS THE APPLICANT. WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHETHER THAT'S TRUE OR NOT. RIGHT, THE APPLICANT, I BELIEVE, IS IN THE AUDIENCE AND MAY BE ABLE TO SPEAK WITH THAT. I BELIEVE THAT THE SUBMITTAL THAT WAS PROVIDED WAS, WAS ESSENTIALLY TO SCALE, BUT YEAH, YOU MIGHT POSE THOSE QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT. OKAY, IS THE APPLICANT HERE? I'M SORRY. OH, OKAY. GOOD. YEAH. OKAY. GOOD. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALL RIGHT. NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. IS THE APPLICANT IN THE ROOM? THERE HE IS. PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME. SIGN IN, PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS RYAN GANNON. I AM THE APPLICANT REQUESTING THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION. AS MISTER LUNSFORD TOLD YOU, HE'S BEEN HELPING ME ALONG THE WAY. WHEN I SUBMITTED THE BUILDING PERMIT, I WAS THROWN THIS CURVE BALL THAT I WAS NOT GOING TO BE AWARE OF. FIRST, I DID CONTACT CENTERPOINT AND SPEAK WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE THERE ABOUT THE AERIAL EASEMENT THAT MY STAIRCASE WAS HANGING OVER, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. THE DECK'S NOT PROTRUDING, IT'S JUST THE STAIRCASE TO GET UP TO THE DECK. SO ONCE I WELL, FIRST, ONCE I WAS ABLE TO GET THAT RELEASE OF EASEMENT FROM 2009 MY NEXT STEP WAS TO COME TO TALK WITH YOU GUYS ABOUT IT. I DID GO OUT TO MY LOT EARLIER TODAY BEFORE I DROVE IN TO THIS MEETING. I RECENTLY HAD MY SURVEY COMPANY RE-STAKE EVERYTHING SO I COULD WALK IT OFF PROPERLY BECAUSE WHEN I HAVE SOMEONE MOW IT, THEY SOMETIMES MOVE THE STAKES. SO I HAD EVERYTHING WHERE IT WAS. I WALKED THE TEN FEET AND YOU KNOW, I SAW EVEN MULTIPLE OTHER HOMES THAT I DIDN'T SCALE WERE ALSO EXCEEDING THAT TEN FOOT SETBACK, THE ONE RIGHT NEXT DOOR. THE NEXT ONE OVER THAT AND THE NEXT ONE OVER THAT. SO I MEAN, IT'S VISIBLE THAT IT WOULD NOT BE JUST ME EXCEEDING THESE. IT'S MOST OF THE HOMES ON THAT STREET THAT ARE DOING THAT. SO MY FIRST TIME DOING THIS. SO LIKE I SAID, MR. LUNSFORD DID HELP ME AND I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT I MIGHT NEED TO GET SURVEYS OF OTHER PROPERTIES, SO I DID JUST SCALE IT. I'M A BUILDER BY TRADE, SO I DO UNDERSTAND HOW TO SCALE THINGS, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S KIND OF AN APPROXIMATION BASED OFF THIS VICINITY MAP. I DON'T LIVE IN THE GALVESTON AREA, SO IT WAS MORE CHALLENGING FOR ME TO GET ON SITE UNTIL TODAY, BUT BUT YES, I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE MY REQUEST IS, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS OR ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS MAY HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION. SO DO YOU HAVE THE PROPER SETBACK FROM THE FRONT? YES. SO YOUR BUILDING IS RIGHT ON THE EXACT LINE. CORRECT. LIKE, YES, IT'S THE 20 FOOT IS OKAY ON THE FRONT. IT'S THE REAR. YEAH, AND LIKE I SAID, I MEAN, IT'S JUST THAT THE STAIRCASE IS JUST HANGING OVER IT. THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY OF MY STRUCTURE. I GUESS THAT'S PROTRUDING THAT TEN FOOT REAR SETBACK. IT'S JUST THE DUE TO THE LOT SIZE, AS YOU CAN MAYBE TELL, IT'S KIND OF SMALL. THAT'S JUST THE ONLY ACCESS TO THE HOUSE, AND WITH WHERE SEPTIC HAS TO GO, THERE'S REALLY JUST NOT ANOTHER PLACE TO PUT THE STAIRCASE, I GUESS. SO I HOPE THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION. ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? I HAVE ONE, YEAH, SURE. THANK YOU. OKAY. I'M LOOKING AT THE LAYOUT. HAVE YOU TRIED AT ALL TO REORIENT THE STAIRCASE? YES, MA'AM. THE REALLY ONLY OPTION FOR ME IS GOING TO PROBABLY BE TO SHRINK MY ALREADY PRETTY SMALL DECK BY THAT THREE AND A HALF TO FOUR FEET. [00:15:04] THE DECK IS CURRENTLY TEN FEET. I WOULD HAVE TO JUST SHRINK IT FOR WHAT THAT STAIRCASE IS PROTRUDING OVER THAT REAR SETBACK. I COULD UNDERSTAND WHERE IT COULD BECOME AN ISSUE IF THERE WERE ANY TYPE OF ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES OR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, BUT AS WE DISCUSSED AT THE BEGINNING THERE ARE NO EASEMENTS BACK THERE AND THERE, AND I MEAN, I VISIBLY SEE THERE'S NO UTILITIES ON THE BACKSIDE OF ANY OF THESE HOMES. SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHERE MR. LUNSFORD KIND OF GUIDED ME AND TOLD ME THE STEPS AND THE PROCESSES TO ASK FOR THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION, BECAUSE IT LOOKS TO ME I MAY BE MISINTERPRETING THIS PLAN, BUT IT LOOKS AS THOUGH YOU HAVE A SIX FOOT SETBACK ON THE WEST SIDE, AND A TEN--I MEAN, A SIDE SETBACK AND THEN A TEN FOOT ON THE EAST. MAYBE I'M ORIENTED WRONG. WHICH DOCUMENT ARE YOU LOOKING AT? I'M SORRY. I'M LOOKING AT THIS PLAN. OKAY. YEAH. CAN YOU BRING THAT UP, DANIEL? IS IT IN THE--WE UNFORTUNATELY DON'T HAVE IT INCLUDED IN THE POWERPOINT. SO WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PRESENT IT, BUT I CAN PROVIDE A COPY OF THE IMAGE TO THE APPLICANT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S THE. I'M JUST LOOKING AT THIS. AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY? NO, THIS ONE? THANK YOU. OR DO YOU ALL, DO YOU ALL SEE THAT? ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE SAME THING? I'M LOOKING AT THE SIDE. WHAT IS THE REQUIRED? DANIEL, WHAT'S THE REQUIRED SETBACK ON SIDE SETBACKS? BY THE CITY'S STANDARDS, IT IS THREE FOOT THREE FEET. CORRECT. BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE GOT SOME WIGGLE ROOM HERE. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. MAYBE FROM THE SIDE, BUT IT'S FRONT TO BACK THERE. THERE IS NO WIGGLE ROOM. RIGHT, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IN ORDER TO RELOCATE YOUR STAIRS, CAN YOU JUST PUT IT ON THAT ONE? THAT'S WHERE MY WATER LINE IS GOING TO GO ON THE SIDE OF THE HOME. WELL, THAT'S NOT PART OF THE CASE. RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? NO? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IT IS NOW 3:49. IF SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK TO THIS. YES, MA'AM. PLEASE COME UP, STATE YOUR NAME, SIGN IN, AND I OWN 17431 BRISTOW, SO I'M DIRECTLY, I LIVE NEXT TO THE LOT. THERE'S LOTS ALREADY SMALL. I'M SORRY. I UNDERSTAND THAT GALVESTON ABOUT BUILDING HOMES, ETC, BUT THIS LOT WAS. HE KNEW THE SIZE OF THE LOT WHEN HE PURCHASED IT. SO BUILD THE HOUSE TO SCALE. IF YOU HAVE TO TAKE AWAY YOUR BACKYARD OR YOUR DRIVEWAY, THEN DO SO, BUT THOSE STAIRS ARE GOING TO ENCROACH ALREADY ON MY LOT. ON YOUR LOT. YEAH, TELL US MORE ABOUT ENCROACHING ON YOUR LOT. BECAUSE I JUST FEEL LIKE IT'S ALREADY SMALL. THERE'S LOT SMALL; MY LOT IS SMALL, AND I JUST DON'T WANT IT BEING EXTENDED SO IT DOESN'T ENCROACH ON YOUR ACTUAL LOT. OH, I REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS. OH, WE CAN'T ASK HER TO COMMENT. OH, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I JUST DON'T WANT IT TO BE EXTENDED. JUST MY THOUGHTS. WHAT WAS HER ADDRESS AGAIN? 17431 BRISTOW. [INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU. YEAH. I'M JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED. [INAUDIBLE] YES, MA'AM. SORRY. APOLOGIES. NO. I'M FINE. [00:20:02] GO AHEAD, SIR. I'M JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE STATEMENT ABOUT HOW IT WILL BE ON HER LOT, BECAUSE IT WILL NOT BE ON HER LOT. IT'S MY LOT. SO THAT'S ALL I WOULD SAY TO THAT REQUEST, I GUESS, RESPECTFULLY. NOT QUITE SURE HOW IT'S GOING TO AFFECT HER ACTUAL LOT WHERE HER HOME IS AT. SO THAT'S KIND OF ALL I'VE GOT ON THAT. THANK YOU. WELL, WHILE YOU'RE UP THERE. YEAH, AS LONG AS YOU'RE UP THERE YOU MIGHT HAVE NOTICED IN OUR PREVIOUS CASE THAT THERE WAS A LAND SURVEYOR WHO HAD SURVEYED THE FRONT. LOTS OF THE HOUSES FOR COMPARISON, AND I'M NOT SEEING THAT IN YOUR CASE. I'M SEEING AN APPROXIMATION. YOU KNOW, WORDS THAT SAY LOOKS AS THOUGH OR LOOKS AS IF. YES, MA'AM. THAT'S NOT IN MY MIND. CONVINCING. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS A SURVEY THAT SAYS EXACTLY HOW MUCH THESE STRUCTURES ARE IN NONCOMPLIANCE OR NON-COMPLIANT WITH OUR CITY REGS, AND THAT'S MY SITUATION HERE. WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, I'M GOING I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. YES, MA'AM. SO I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT, OKAY? I DO UNDERSTAND, AND TRUST ME, HAD I KNOWN THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS GOING TO BE REQUIRED, I DEFINITELY WOULD HAVE DONE IT. IT'S MORE CONVINCING IF YOU HAVE, LIKE A STAMP. YEAH. NO, I UNDERSTAND, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHY I WENT OUT THERE TODAY TO DOUBLE CHECK EVERYTHING, BUT OBVIOUSLY I CAN'T SEND YOU THE PICTURES RIGHT NOW THAT I TOOK TODAY, BUT RIGHT. OKAY. YES, MA'AM, I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. MAY I, MAY I BE SEATED? YES. OKAY. I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAD OTHER QUESTIONS. YES. YOU MAY. I DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE ELSE IS GOING TO SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC HEARING, SO I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 354 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION. ARE WE ALLOWED TO ASK ANY MORE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? YEAH, I MEAN, DURING DISCUSSION. OKAY. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO ASK IT BEFORE SO THAT I CAN HAVE A BETTER FEEL FOR THE MOTION. SO YOU SAID THAT FOUR PEOPLE. HOW MANY PEOPLE SENT BACK OPPOSITIONS? THERE WERE THERE WERE FOUR THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION. ONE WAS WITH NO COMMENT. IT WAS JUST RETURNED, BUT THERE WERE FOUR. OKAY, AND DID ANYBODY ELSE SAY WHY OR THEY JUST SAID OPPOSED? I BELIEVE THAT'S IN THE COMMENT REPORT OR. DO YOU HAVE THAT? YEAH. WE CAN PULL THEM UP. OKAY. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE IN HERE. NO. OURS DOESN'T EVEN SAY THERE WAS ANY OPPOSITION. I BELIEVE THE FOURTH ONE MIGHT HAVE BEEN. YEAH. THIS IS THE FOURTH ONE RIGHT HERE. THAT WAS JUST PROVIDED EARLIER JUST NOW. OKAY, SO IF YOU'D LIKE, I CAN READ THOSE. SO, YES, THOSE ARE ALL ALL THREE ARE OPPOSED AND THEN ONE IS NO COMMENT. SO SOME OF THE COMMENTS ARE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO THIS EXCEPTION. NO. I'M SORRY I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. YEAH. WE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO THIS EXCEPTION WAS THE COMMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IF IT STARTED. I'M SORRY. THE WRITING ISN'T VERY LEGIBLE. ANOTHER OPPOSITION OPPOSED AS IT BLOCKS MY NEIGHBOR'S BEACH VIEW, AND THE LAST ONE IS OPPOSITION. WE ALL NEED TO ABIDE BY THE SAME RULES, AND THAT'S ALL. CAN WE PASS THAT OVER TO THE FOR THEM TO PASS AROUND AND LOOK? YES. THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] [00:25:32] NO COMMENT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S SORT OF IN OKAY WITH IT, HE SAID. I'M OKAY WITH THAT. OKAY, SO IT'S NOT REALLY A NO COMMENT, RIGHT? [INAUDIBLE] READY TO PROCEED? OKAY. SO ANYTHING ELSE FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT, THEN I'LL ASK FOR A MOTION AGAIN. I'LL GO. I MOVE THAT WE GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED REAR SETBACK, BECAUSE A REAR YARD EXCEPTION WHERE THE REAR YARD SETBACK OF ANY WAIT A MINUTE IT'S NOT, YEAH OF ANY TWO OR MORE LOTS IN THE SAME BLOCK. THEY DON'T MEET THE REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS EITHER, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS EXCEPTION WILL BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. ANY DISCUSSION? YEAH. I'LL DISCUSS. OH. YOU GO. NO. GO AHEAD. WELL I THINK THAT THE COMMENT THAT HAVING TO REDUCE THE DECK SIZE TO EIGHT FEET IS A LEGITIMATE ONE, THAT AN EIGHT FOOT DECK IS SORT OF INSIGNIFICANT. I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND YEAH, IT'S A SMALL LOT, SO IT'S A LOT TO DEAL WITH. SO YOU HAVE TO SQUEEZE THINGS IN HOWEVER YOU CAN. RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I DIDN'T SAY THAT BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT SAID THERE'S AN OR SO I THOUGHT IT COULD BE EITHER OR ONE OR THE OTHER. [INAUDIBLE] OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO HEAR WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE THINKS BEFORE WE MOVE. SO IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO DISCUSS, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR. I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE MEASUREMENTS ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES BECAUSE, I MEAN. ONE OF THE COMMENTERS WAS RIGHT WE SHOULD I MEAN, HOLD EVERYBODY TO THE SAME STANDARD. SO IF WE EXPECT TO SEE A SURVEYOR'S REPORT. OKAY FROM ANOTHER CASE, I DON'T THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE TO ASK THE SAME OF THIS APPLICANT. I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT THE ACTUAL NUMBERS ARE, AND MAYBE IT SUPPORTS THE MOTION YOU MADE, BUT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE VOTING FOR IT WITHOUT KNOWING. I AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK WE DID. DIDN'T WE LEARN THAT WE CAN I CAN WITHDRAW THIS AND WE CAN MAKE A MOTION FOR A DEFERRAL. [INAUDIBLE] IF STAFF MAY. YEAH, WE TYPICALLY LEAVE IT UP TO THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE WHAT THEY THINK, YOU KNOW, PROVES THEIR CASE, AND WE JUST ADVISE THEM ON WHAT, YOU KNOW, THOSE, THOSE STANDARDS ARE, BUT WE LEAVE THAT UP TO THEM, BUT OTHERWISE DON IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, AND SO WHEN YOU GET, DO YOU LOOK AT THE SUBMISSION AND YOU SAY, YEAH, THIS IS GOOD? [00:30:02] WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A, YOU KNOW, HARD CHECKLIST OF, YOU KNOW, TICK THESE BOXES AND THIS IS A GOOD SUBMITTAL OR NOT. SO WE ESSENTIALLY LEAVE IT UP TO THE APPLICANT. WE JUST ADVISE THEM AND DIRECT THEM TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, AND THEY CAN PROVIDE WHAT THEY FEEL IS CORRECT. OKAY. TYPICALLY IF I MAY ADD TYPICALLY A SITE PLAN SUCH AS WHAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED, WHICH IS WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER A SITE PLAN IT'S AN ACCEPTABLE FORM OF DOCUMENTATION AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATION? AS TO THE LOCATION OF THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE, BUT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN HERE THAT SHOWS. I MEAN, NOT THAT I DON'T TRUST HIM AT ALL, BUT, I MEAN, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING TO SUPPORT WHAT THE APPLICANT IS SAYING. YEAH. THAT'S WHY THE AERIAL SUBMITTAL DOCUMENT THAT YOU HAVE, THAT'S TYPICALLY DEEMED A SITE PLAN, AND, YOU KNOW, AS DANIEL AND DONNA BOTH HAVE SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, A SURVEY IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION. I'M SORRY, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING. I THINK THE THING, THE, THE AERIAL DOCUMENT SHOWS THE UP TO SCALE TO THE APPLICANT'S ABILITY, WHAT THOSE ADJACENT HOMES ARE, WHERE THOSE ADJACENT HOMES ARE CURRENTLY SITUATED. YEAH. WHAT WE DON'T SEE IS THE ACTUAL HOW MANY FEET. YEAH. I JUST ALL I SEE IS A BIG ARROW. I DON'T SEE ONE OF THEM LOOKS MUCH SMALLER, AND I MEAN, IT'S JUST. IS THAT A TREE OR WHAT IS THAT I MEAN. WELL, I HATE TO JUST USE MY OWN INTERPRETATION BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE. I MEAN, I MEAN, IT'S JUST [INAUDIBLE]. THIS ONE. THIS ONE? [INAUDIBLE] SO IT IT DOES SAY IT SAYS WITH EACH OF THE ARROWS, THE DECK OR WHATEVER, IT'S DESCRIBING WHAT IT IS, AND G IVEN THE TENOR THAT I'M PICKING UP RATHER THAN HAVE A MOTION VOTED DOWN, I WOULD PREFER TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION AND DEFER UNTIL YOU CAN GET WHATEVER MAKES EVERYBODY ELSE FEEL COMFORTABLE. SO I WITHDRAW MY MOTION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO AT THIS TIME, THOUGH, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL. DO I HEAR A SECOND? OKAY. OKAY. I MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER BECAUSE THERE'S INSUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT ON, I MEAN, THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT ABOUT ADJACENT PROPERTIES OTHER THAN TO SAY IT LOOKS AS IF AND THAT'S I MEAN, I BELIEVE HIM, BUT I NEED MORE EVIDENCE, NOR MORE DOCUMENTATION. I'M SORRY, ADRIEL. [INAUDIBLE] I WITHDREW IT. SHE WITHDREW IT. [INAUDIBLE] WHICH I THINK I JUST DID. [INAUDIBLE] NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE A DETERMINATION. FIRST WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH. [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S US, RIGHT? THAT'S APRIL 3RD. SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. MAY I ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF? SO IF THIS WHAT WOULD THE APPLICANT NEED TO PRESENT? OR MAYBE IT'S FOR US. I MEAN, WHAT OTHER OPTION BESIDES AN AERIAL VIEW IS THERE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS? [00:35:07] WELL, THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE. IT IS NOT, YOU KNOW, ALWAYS EASY TO GET ON OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY AND ACTUALLY MEASURE STUFF. SO THAT'S ONE HINDRANCE THAT ALL OF OUR APPLICANTS ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF FACE, BUT THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE UP TO THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT. YOU HAVE INDICATED TO THE APPLICANT THAT SOME ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION IS NEEDED. YEAH, AND AS DONNA MENTIONED, I THINK THAT BEING SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE AT THE NEXT MEETING WOULD PROBABLY BE HELPFUL. SPECIFICALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE TO SEE WHAT? TO SEE WHAT THE APPLICANT IS CONTENDING IS AN ENCROACHMENT ON ACROSS THE, YOU KNOW, THE LEGAL BORDERS OF THIS OF THE PROPERTY. [INAUDIBLE] IF OTHER PROPERTIES NEED A VARIANCE, I'D LIKE TO SEE PROOF OF THAT. [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT. NO IT'S NOT. WELL, HE JUST SAID IT WAS. SO YOU GUYS NEED TO GET TOGETHER AND FIGURE IT OUT. LET'S CLARIFY. [INAUDIBLE] I DIDN'T. [INAUDIBLE] I SAID I HAVE INADEQUATE INFORMATION TO MAKE A DETERMINATION. THAT'S WHAT I SAID. SO THE QUESTION IS, THE QUESTION IS. [INAUDIBLE] IT'S THAT THE AERIAL VIEW DOESN'T SHOW ANYTHING. I MEAN, I CAN'T TELL WHAT THESE LITTLE SHADOWS ARE. THEY COULD BE TREES, I DON'T KNOW. THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. I'VE LISTENED TO OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, A LOT OF THESE CASES, AND I'VE NEVER SEEN ONE PRESENTED WHERE SOMETHING WASN'T PRESENTED TO SHOW THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE. I MEAN, HE'S BASING HIS WHOLE CASE ON THE FACT THAT THESE PROPERTIES ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE. I DON'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT. SO I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION. THAT'S I MEAN, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WORDS THAT I NEED TO SAY THAT ARE CORRECT, BUT THAT'S THE GIST OF IT, AND HE DID SAY THAT BASED ON TODAY'S VISIT, THERE MAY BE MORE HOUSES THAT YOU HAVEN'T EVEN MAPPED ON THIS YEAR. SO MAYBE NEXT IT WILL BE CLEARER AND IT WILL HAVE MORE OF THOSE IDENTIFIED. SO IT CAN GET SOME CLARIFICATION HERE. [INAUDIBLE] SO SPEAKING OF EVIDENCE, I THINK FROM OTHER CASES WE'VE SEEN, THERE HAVE BEEN PICTURES TAKEN A SIGHT LINE DOWN A STREET. IT'S STILL NOT UP TO US TO TELL HIM WHAT TO FIND. I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO BE HELPFUL SO THAT HE HAS SOME--HE'S THE BUILDER. I'M SAYING MY EXPERIENCE IS THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER INSTANCES IN WHICH THERE'S BEEN A PICTURE TAKEN WITH THE SIGHT LINE DOWN OTHER PROPERTIES. SO THAT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT IN THE PAST. IS THAT CORRECT? OR IT'S BEEN SUFFICIENT FOR US TO MAKE A DECISION IN THE PAST? I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. WELL, WE'VE MADE DECISIONS BASED ON PICTURES LIKE THIS. LOTS OF THINGS. OKAY, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. I WAS GOING TO SAY YES. IF WE SEE A HOUSE THAT HAS AND IT SAYS SIX FEET AND THIS HOUSE ASKING FOR FIVE FEET, AND WE ARE LIKE, OH, OKAY, IT'S BEEN DONE. SIX FEET HERE IS FIVE. SO IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL. WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS THAT IN THIS CASE, WE DON'T HAVE EXACT EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE'RE COMPARING TO. WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT, YEAH, THERE IS A LINE THERE, AND MOST MANY HOUSES HERE ARE BEYOND THE LINE. SO I THINK WE JUST NEED MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION ON THE, THE EXCEPTIONS THAT OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT AT THIS SCALE THE MARGIN OF ERROR IS PRETTY BIG. YOU KNOW, I WORK WITH AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY, I DO ESRI, YOU KNOW, ARCMAP ALL THE TIME. I MEASURE STUFF, AND I KNOW WHAT MY MARGIN OF ERROR IS, AND AT THIS SCALE, IT'S, YOU KNOW, NOT SOMETHING I HAVE A LOT OF [00:40:08] CREDENCE IN MAKING A DETERMINATION BASED ON. A PARCEL LAID OVER AN AERIAL AND RECTIFIED. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME KIND OF UNCERTAINTY ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, AND AT THIS SCALE, I FIND THAT TO BE GREATER THAN THE QUESTION AT HAND. THANK YOU. SO LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIGURE OUT WHERE WE ARE. SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL, AND A SECOND WE HAVE THE MOTION FOR DEFERRAL CONTAINS THE DATE, AND IT'S OUR NEXT MEETING APRIL 3RD. I BELIEVE IT IS CORRECT AND DONNA, HAVE WE SATISFIED WHAT WE NEED OR HAVE WE SATISFIED IN THE MOTION ABOUT. [INAUDIBLE] ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ALL THERE. [INAUDIBLE] OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THERE WE ARE. IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, THEN, ALL IN FAVOR OF DEFERRAL, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. WE WILL DEFER THE NEXT MEETING. ALL RIGHT. ITEM SEVEN, DISCUSSION ITEMS BEFORE WE CONTINUE. DONNA, DON'T WE NEED A VOTE ON THE FIRST MOTION? OH, BECAUSE IT WAS WITHDRAWN, I UNDERSTAND. SORRY ABOUT THAT. DISCUSSION ITEMS. THE APPLICANT HAVE A QUESTION? WE'LL PROBABLY GET TO HIM. OH, OKAY. GO AHEAD. YEAH, SO THE ONLY ADJUSTMENT TO THE MEETING SCHEDULE, AS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, WAS THE TIME. THAT WAS AN ERROR. IT WAS PREVIOUSLY NOTED THAT IT THAT THE MEETING TIME WAS 4 P.M., AND IT'S BEEN CORRECTED TO NOW, SAY, 3:30 P.M.. THAT'S GOOD, AND I'M REALLY NOT GOING TO WORRY ABOUT YOU GUYS. WELL, I KIND OF WILL, BUT AFTER SEPTEMBER'S MEETING. THERE WE GO. [CHUCKLING] I'M TERM LIMITED. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT THEN WE'LL STAND ADJOURNED. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.