[00:00:02]
IT'S 3:30 P.M. WEDNESDAY,[Zoning Board of Adjustments on February 5, 2025.]
FEBRUARY 5TH, 2025.WELCOME TO THE GALVESTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5TH, 2025.
THIS MEETING IS RECORDED AND AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
PLEASE SPEAK CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONES.
ATTENDANCE HAS BEEN TAKEN AND IT'S ON THE SIGNING SHEET.
QUORUM HAS BEEN PRESENT, AND WE HAVE TWO MISSING TODAY, RIGHT?
>> NO. WE HAVE ONE VACANCY AND THEN ONE ABSENCE, CAROL HOLLOWAY.
>> PLEASE NOTE THAT I'M ATTENDING VIRTUALLY, PLEASE.
>> THAT IS DAVID FINKLEY EX-OFFICIAL.
>> AN CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR ANY OF THE CASES TODAY? NONE. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS FOR THE MINUTES FROM LAST TIME? ACTUALLY, WE HAVE TWO SETS OF MEETING MINUTES TO APPROVE.
DO WE HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS FOR THE MINUTES? THIS IS FOR THE PAST TWO MEETINGS.
>> YOU DON'T NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
YOU CAN JUST STATE THAT THEY'RE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.
>> MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 4, 2024 APPROVED AND JANUARY 8, 2025 APPROVED.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AGENDA ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS? I SEE NOBODY.
NEXT IS, WE'LL START WITH NEW BUSINESS AND CASE24Z-015.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO REDUCE A FRONT YARD SETBACK.
THERE ARE 20 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT NONE THOSE WERE RETURNED.
THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS OR COMMENTS RETURNED FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS OR PRIVATE UTILITIES.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM ARTICLE 3 ADDENDUMS IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO 18.4 FOOT.
IN 2022, A HOUSE WAS MOVED ONTO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH PROPER PERMITS AND A SITE PLAN APPROVED AT THAT TIME, WHICH CONFORMED TO THE CITY STANDARDS.
HOWEVER, DURING THE SITING, THE HOUSE WAS PLACED FURTHER NORTH UNPLANNED, RESULTING IN A FRONT SETBACK ENCROACHMENT OF THE STAIRWAY ONLY, WHICH WE DISCOVERED DURING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REVIEW.
NOTE ALSO THAT THE ENCROACHING SIDE DECK HAS BEEN REMOVED IN ORDER TO ENSURE SIDE SETBACK INFORMANTS.
WE'LL SEE THAT ON THE SITE PLAN SHORTLY, BUT THAT'S BEEN RESOLVED.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 1.6 FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION DEVIATION FROM THE REGULAR 20 FOOT SETBACK.
IT'S CLOSE TO THE FRONT SETBACK, BUT NOT QUITE THERE.
PLEASE NOTE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL IN THE STAFF REPORT.
PLEASE ALSO NOTE THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION.
I WILL NOTE IN THE CASE OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, EITHER IT CAN BE GRANTED WHEN THE ADJACENT STRUCTURE DOES NOT CONFORM, IT CAN MEET THE ADJACENT STRUCTURE OR IF THERE IS NO PATTERN ON THE STREET, THEN IT COULD MEET ANY ONE OF THOSE.
THIS IS A SUBJECT PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE WE HAVE A AERIAL OF CHARLIE STREET SHOWING THE APPLICANT'S HOUSE THERE, AND THEN THE HOUSE ADJACENT WITH THE STAIRCASES MORE OR LESS IN ALIGNMENT.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE A FEW PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE HOUSE ADJACENT.
ONCE AGAIN, SHOWING THE PROXIMATE ALIGNMENT OF THE TWO HOUSES, AND ALSO AN OVERALL PHOTO OF CHARLIE STREET LOOKING WEST AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFFS REPORT.
>> THANK YOU. DOES THE COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> WHEN YOU SAID THE PHOTO SHOWING APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? ARE YOU SAYING THAT IT'S SHOWING THAT ONE ON THE SAME BLOCK IS FURTHER OUT THAN THE ONE THAT'S UNDER DISCUSSION?
>> THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION STATES THAT THE HOUSE IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE HOUSE DIRECTLY ADJACENT.
BUT WE DON'T GO OUT THERE, OF COURSE, ON PEOPLE'S PRIVATE PROPERTY AND REALLY MEASURE THINGS.
[00:05:03]
THAT'S WHY I SAY APPROXIMATE.>> IF THEY'RE OVER, THEN THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR IS PROBABLY OVER.
>> YOU CAN SEE IN THAT UPPER PHOTO RIGHT THERE, THERE'S A YELLOW LINE THAT SHOWS HOW THEY WOULD ALIGN RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 24Z-015 IS OPEN AND THE STAFF REPORT IS MADE A PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT TODAY? NO. THE APPLICANT IS NOT PRESENT.
IN THAT CASE, IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS? NO. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 24Z-015 AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE REQUEST WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE VALUE AND USE OF ADJACENT AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
A PROPER MOTION FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
WELL, TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, YOU JUST HAVE TO FIND ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING, IT WILL NOT AFFECT ADVERSELY THE VALUE AND USE OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OR WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THE MOTION MAKER FOUND BOTH TO BE THE CASE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANYTHING TO DISCUSS? IN THAT CASE, WE'LL ASK FOR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES.
CASE NUMBER 25Z-001 STAFF REPORT, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS ANOTHER SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
THERE WERE 20 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT TO ONE RETURN THAT ONE OPPOSED.
NOTE THAT ONCE AGAIN, THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM EITHER CITY DEPARTMENTS OR PRIVATE UTILITIES.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK STANDARDS TO REDUCE IT FROM 20 FOOT TO 15.9 FOOT.
IN 2023, THE APPLICANT RECEIVED PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, AN ERROR IN EITHER THE DESIGN OR THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE RESULTED IN THE HOUSE BEING LOCATED 4.1 FOOT BEYOND THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK.
THIS WAS DISCOVERED DURING THE CO REVIEW ONCE AGAIN.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION BASED ON THE ADJACENT STREETS AND PROPERTIES HAVING NO SET PATTERN OF SETBACKS.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 4.1 FOOT DEVIATION FROM THE FRONT SETBACK.
PLEASE NOTE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVAL STANDARDS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
PLEASE ALSO NOTE THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION.
THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO PROVIDED QUITE A BIT OF INFORMATION ABOUT OTHER PROPERTIES ON THE STREET AS PART OF HIS SUBMITTAL. WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
HERE IN THE UPPER PART OF THE SLIDE, WE HAVE SWARTZ DRIVE, SWARTZ ROAD SHOWING THE VARIOUS SETBACKS, THE EXISTING STRUCTURES SHOW.
ALSO A PHOTO LOOKING ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STREET AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET LOOKING EAST DOWN SCHWARTZ FROM EIGHT MILE ROAD.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST,
[00:10:03]
THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT.>> THANK YOU. THE COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? NO. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25Z-001 IS OPEN AND THE STAFF REPORT IS MADE A PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IT.
>> WELL, THE PICTURES SHOW THAT SOME OF THE HOUSES ARE LOT FURTHER CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN MINE IS.
I'M FOUR FOOT ON MY STEP, I CAN'T MOVE MY HOUSE.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO QUESTIONS.
THAT'S ALL AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THAT'S ALL YOU CAN HAVE A SIT.
>> SIR, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS A QUESTION FOR YOU IF YOU COULD COME BACK TO THE PODIUM.
>> WHEN THE HOUSE WAS SET BY A SURVEYOR, DID YOU USE A CERTIFIED SURVEYOR?
>> YES, SIR. I USE THE SAME SURVEY THAT DID THE FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD SURVEY.
>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? WE DON'T. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25Z-001 IS CLOSED AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.
WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION FIRST AND THEN DISCUSS, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION IN JUST A MINUTE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION?
>> [INAUDIBLE] A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
>> NOW WE ARE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.
>> NO I HAVE [INAUDIBLE] A LOT OF THESE THAT COME IN, OH, IT WAS SURVEYED IN THE WRONG SPOT.
ARE SURVEYORS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY TO GO OUT AND DO THE WORK? THAT SEEMS TO HAPPEN A LOT.
MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER CAN DISCUSS.
>> AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE A SURVEY PROGRAM OR ENDORSES ONE.
MOST OF THESE PROFESSIONALS, CERTIFIED ENGINEERS, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN WAY OF GETTING THEIR CERTIFICATIONS, THEIR TRAINING AND WHATNOT.
WHEN THE CITY GET CERTIFIED PLANS FROM THESE PROFESSIONALS, WE ACCEPT IT AS PROPER AS CORRECT.
THE HOMEOWNER OR THE APPLICANTS, IF THEY DISCOVER THAT THERE'S AN ISSUE THAT CAUSES DAMAGE TO THEM IN SOME WAY OR FORM, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THEIR PRIVATE ISSUE WITH THEIR SURVEYOR, ENGINEER OR WHOMEVER.
IT IS VERY RARE THAT THE CITY WOULD GO AFTER OR CERTIFIED ENGINEER, LET'S SAY, OR SURVEYOR UNLESS THERE'S SOME DAMAGE THAT THE CITY CAN'T HAVE UNDONE OR CAN'T MOVE FORWARD WITH.
[00:15:03]
BUT USUALLY WHEN PLANS COME IN AND THEY'RE CERTIFIED, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THOSE PLANS OR DOCUMENTS HAVE SOME INSURANCE BACKING IT THAT EITHER THE CITY COULD GO AFTER, IF IT'S A THING WITH THE CITY OR IF THERE'S A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL THAT PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL CAN THEN GO AFTER.>> I KNOW THAT THE CITY I WAS, CAN APPROVED LIST OF PEOPLE THAT CAN COME OUT AND CHECK YOUR BACKFLOW PREVENTER ON YOUR SPRINKLER SYSTEM.
MAYBE IT AS A RECOMMENDATION THE CITY SHOULD HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF CERTIFIED SURVEYORS THAT DO QUALITY WORK IN THE CITY.
>> CAN I COMMENT ON THAT? SURE. ABSOLUTELY. THE STATE IS THE GOVERNING BODY THAT PROVIDES LICENSURE FOR SURVEYORS.
THEY ARE COMBINED UNDERNEATH THE STATE OF TEXAS, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING, AND LAND SURVEYORS.
I HOLD MY ENGINEERING LICENSE THROUGH THE STATE.
THE CITY DOES NOT MAINTAIN A SEPARATE SYSTEM FOR THE PURPOSES THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED IN CONFLICT WITH THE CREDENTIALS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE STATE.
BACKFLOW PREVENTERS ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT, BUT PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS ARE CERTIFIED BY THE STATE.
IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE FOR US TO OVERSEE THAT AND JUST ALLOW THE STATE TO DO THAT.
I WILL SAY THAT, IN LISTENING TO MISS FAIRWEATHER, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH HER THAT, YES, THESE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS THEY ARE HELD TO A STANDARD OF CARE.
THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE FOR ERRORS AND OMISSIONS.
IN THE CASE, THE CITY WOULD NOT GO AFTER THIS FOR HARM OR DAMAGES, BUT IT WOULD BE THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER THAT WOULD SEEK REPARATIONS UNDERNEATH THAT INSURANCE POLICY.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WAS THE PROBLEM WITH THE SURVEY OR WAS THE PROBLEM WITH THE BUILDER WHEN IT GOT BUILT? I DON'T KNOW. THE SURVEY JUST IS THE LAND ITSELF, I THINK.
>> THE SURVEYOR HAS TO SURVEY THE PROPERTY, AT LEAST WHERE IT SITS ON THE PROPERTY.
>> BUT THERE IS NO BUILDING WHEN THEY SURVEYED IT, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WELL, THEY MARKED WHERE IT GETS BUILT?
>> THE THE CORNERS OF THE BUILDING SHOULD BE LOCATED BY THE SURVEYOR.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION.
>> [INAUDIBLE] I JUST WANTED TO TALK.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND.
WE HAD THE DISCUSSION, SO NOW IT'S TIME FOR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME. ABSOLUTELY.
>> WELL, ABSOLUTELY. I'M ALWAYS HAY TO CHIME IN, IT RELATES TO PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING OR LAND SURVEYING SINCE THAT'S RIGHT AT MY ALLEY.
>> THANK YOU AND ONE THANK THE APPLICANT FOR ATTENDING.
MOTION APPROVED. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TODAY OR THAT'S IT? THAT'S IT. THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
>> Y'ALL HAVE A GREAT AFTERNOON. THANK YOU.
>> THANKS, DAVID.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.