GOOD AFTERNOON. IT'S 3:30 P.M. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5TH, 2025.
[Zoning Board of Adjustments on March 5, 2025.]
[00:00:07]
WELCOME TO THE GALVESTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF MARCH 5TH, 2025.THIS MEETING IS RECORDED AND AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
PLEASE SPEAK CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONES.
SIGNING SHEET SOMEWHERE AROUND HERE. OKAY, EVERYONE SIGN IN AND WE HAVE TWO MEMBERS ABSENT TODAY, BUT WE STILL HAVE QUORUM. OKAY. IS THERE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR ANY OF THE CASES TODAY? OKAY, I SEE NONE. OKAY. ANY CORRECTIONS FOR THE MEETING MINUTES FROM LAST TIME.
OKAY, I SEE NONE, SO THE MEETING. THE MEETING MINUTES WILL BE ADOPTED AS PRESENTED.
NO MOTION IS NECESSARY. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AGENDA ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS? OKAY, MOVING ON TO OLD. ACTUALLY, WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE HAVE AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING A DISCUSSION ITEM.
OKAY. BUT IF YOU'LL ALL JUST BEAR WITH ME. SO WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING NEW TODAY.
A POWER OF THE COMMISSIONS THAT HAS NOT BEEN EXERCISED BEFORE.
SO WHAT THIS IS, IS A CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY FROM ONE NON-CONFORMING USE TO ANOTHER.
SO A NONCONFORMING USE IS ONE THAT WAS LEGALLY ESTABLISHED BUT IS NO LONGER ALLOWED.
IT'S COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS GRANDFATHERED. THE TECHNICAL TERM IS NONCONFORMING.
NONCONFORMING USES ARE PERMITTED TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE.
BUT THIS POWER OF THE COMMISSION OR THE BOARD ALLOWS THE OWNER TO CHANGE FROM ONE USE THAT IS NONCONFORMING TO ANOTHER USE THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED. OKAY. SO THEN IT GOES ON TO GIVE US SOME GUIDANCE ABOUT THAT SO THE OWNER CAN REQUEST A CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY FROM ONE NONCONFORMING USE TO ANOTHER.
AND THAT'S GOING TO BE DETERMINED BY STAFF. IF THIS CHANGE FROM ONE USE TO ANOTHER USE IS IN THE SAME OR MORE RESTRICTIVE USE CLASSIFICATION. SO THAT WILL BE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
DO YOU SEE THAT IT IS TODAY? SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO DETERMINE.
THAT'S LIKE AN EVENT CENTER TO A PRIVATE CLUB.
SO NURSERY WHOLESALE, IT'S MORE INTENSIVE OF A USE YOU MIGHT GET BE GETTING LARGE DELIVERIES.
SO AGAIN, THAT'S THE UP TO THE STAFF TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION AND IT WILL BE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
GETTING A LITTLE FAR. OKAY. SO THE NEXT ITEM THAT WE WERE GIVEN IN OUR PARAGRAPH IS THAT IT SHALL NOT BE LATER CHANGED TO A LESS RESTRICTIVE CLASSIFICATION OF USE.
AND THE PRIOR, LESS RESTRICTIVE CLASSIFICATION SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN ABANDONED.
AND WHAT THIS REALLY MEANS IS NO TAKE BACKS. ONCE YOU'VE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS, THAT OLD USE NO LONGER EXISTS, NO LONGER LEGALLY VIABLE. YOU CAN'T GO BACK TO IT.
SO YOU CAN'T CHANGE YOUR MIND AFTER YOU'VE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS. SO ONCE THIS CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE, THE FORMER USE CANNOT BE RETURNED TO. AND THE GOAL OF ALLOWING FOR THIS IS TO GRADUALLY MAKE THE PROPERTY CONFORMING THROUGH TIME.
SO YOU'RE LESSENING ITS NON-CONFORMING IMPACTS.
[00:05:01]
SO DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCESS? OKAY. SO, WE INCLUDED A MOTION GUIDE IN YOUR PACKET AS WE TYPICALLY DO.SO, WE CAN GO THROUGH THE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION FOR THIS KIND OF REQUEST.
THAT WORDING IS KIND OF SMALL ON THE SCREEN. BUT IF THE COMMISSION WAS MAKING A MOTION FOR APPROVAL, IT WOULD BE YOU NEED TO HIT THESE THREE POINTS.
AND THESE LAND USE TERMS ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDED FOR YOU IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE LATER CHANGED TO A LESS RESTRICTIVE CLASSIFICATION OF USE.
AND THE PRIOR USE OF CURRENT LAND USE SHALL BE ABANDONED.
SO THIS IS NOTING THAT EACH ONE OF THESE THREE POINTS HAS BEEN MADE IN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL, AND THAT THAT LAND USE TERMINOLOGY WILL BE INCLUDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
OTHER POSSIBLE MOTIONS ARE MOTION FOR DENIAL.
DEFERRAL IS ALWAYS AN OPTION. SO THESE ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR MOTION GUIDES.
YOU MAKE A DEFERRAL TO A SPECIFIC MEETING DATE FOR A SPECIFIC REASON.
OKAY. SO THAT IS A REVIEW OF THIS. IT'S NOT A NEW POWER.
IT'S BEEN IN THE LDR SINCE THEY WERE ADOPTED IN 2015.
IT'S JUST THE FIRST TIME IT'S BEEN EXERCISED.
OKAY. IN THAT CASE, WE ARE MOVING TO NEW BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARINGS.
CASE 25-002, PLEASE. OKAY, SO THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY FROM ONE NON-CONFORMING USE TO ANOTHER.
PUBLIC NOTICE IS SENT WERE 33 RETURNED, TWO IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION.
NO RESPONSES FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS OR PRIVATE UTILITIES.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY FROM ONE NON-CONFORMING USE TO ANOTHER SPECIFICALLY FOR MULTIFAMILY, WITH THREE UNITS TO DUPLEX, NEITHER USE IS CURRENTLY PERMITTED IN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY R-1 ZONING DISTRICT.
HOWEVER, SECTION 12.401 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS LDR ALLOWS THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO APPROVE SUCH A CHANGE IF THE PROPOSED USE IS OF A MORE RESTRICTIVE CLASSIFICATION. IN 2015, THE CITY ADOPTED THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND IMPLEMENTED A CITY WIDE REZONING.
AS PART OF THE REZONING, THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA WERE DESIGNATED AS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY R1, WHERE MULTIFAMILY USES ARE NOT ALLOWED. SINCE THE PROPERTY'S MULTIFAMILY USE WAS LEGALLY ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE ZONING CHANGE, IT IS CONSIDERED LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING, COMMONLY KNOWN AS GRANDFATHERED, AND ALLOWED TO CONTINUE OPERATING.
PROPERTY CURRENTLY CONSISTS OF THREE UNITS. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES COMBINING TWO OF THEM INTO ONE, REDUCING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS FROM 3 TO 2.
SINCE DUPLEX IS A MORE RESTRICTIVE CLASSIFICATION THAN MULTIFAMILY.
THE BOARD HAS THE DISCRETION TO GRANT THE REQUEST.
THE FOLLOWING ARE CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANTING OF THE CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY.
TWO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE LATER CHANGED TO A LESS RESTRICTIVE CLASSIFICATION OF USE, AND THREE THE PRIOR USE OF MULTIFAMILY SHALL BE ABANDONED.
AND WE HAVE SOME PICTURES. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. NOTING THAT THE WORK IS TO CHANGE FROM THREE DWELLINGS TO TWO, AND WE HAVE THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, AND THE SUN WAS IN MY EYES. BUT THIS IS THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST.
AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. THANK YOU.
AS THE COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THE CURIOSITY QUESTION, IS IT NECESSARY? AND THIS IS JUST PURELY CURIOUS FOR THEM TO CHANGE THIS FROM MULTIFAMILY TO DUPLEX IN ORDER TO DO THE WORK, OR COULD THEY JUST CHANGE IT TO DUPLEX AND RENT IT AS A DUPLEX?
[00:10:04]
WELL, I MEAN, YES, THEY WOULD NEED TO DO THIS BECAUSE IF THEY MADE THAT CHANGE, IT WOULD BE AN ILLEGAL CHANGE.OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
IS THERE A TIME FRAME ON WHEN THIS HAS TO HAPPEN OR WITH THE CHANGE IF IT'S GRANTED, IS THERE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE WORK TO BE COMPLETED? NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. ONCE IT'S GRANTED, IT'S BEEN GRANTED.
SO WE'RE NOT, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, ARE THEY TECHNICALLY IN VIOLATION ONCE IT'S GRANTED, OR IS THERE A AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THEM TO GET THE WORK DONE TO CONVERT TO THE DUPLEX? WELL, THIS WILL GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO CONVERT TO THE DUPLEX.
THEY HAVE A PERMIT PENDING. WE'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO APPROVE IT BECAUSE IT'S A NONCONFORMING USE.
THANK YOU. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 20. CASE 25Z-002.
AND STAFF REPORT IS MADE A PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN. SAMMY HUIN WITH DUBLIN INVESTMENTS LLC.
OKAY. YES, YES. SO WE ARE REQUESTING TO CONVERT IT FROM A THREE UNIT TO A DUPLEX, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS. WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING ON THIS PROJECT AND TO GET IT TO HOPEFULLY HELP BEAUTIFY THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT VERY GOOD LOOKING.
SO, WE PURCHASED IT AS AN INVESTMENT PROPERTY.
AND WE ARE PLANNING TO PUT THE WORK IN THERE AND MAKE IT MAKE IT A BEAUTIFUL HOME.
OKAY. DOES COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? AND NO QUESTIONS. I THANK YOU AND YOU CAN BE SEATED.
IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. SIGN IN AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES LIMIT.
HI, MY NAME IS MARTHA COREY AND I LIVE AT 3220 AVENUE P, AND I AM THIS PROPERTY ACTUALLY IS ABUTS A THE ALLEY AT 33RD IN BETWEEN AVENUE P AND OF COURSE 0 AND A HALF. AND SO THAT IS HOW I ACCESS MY PROPERTY, AS IS EVERYBODY THAT IS ON OUR BLOCK AND IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PROBLEM WITH THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE LAST 25 YEARS, IT HAS BEEN ONE PROBLEM AFTER THE NEXT, IT HAS HAD, I KNOW FIVE OWNERS SINCE 2015. I AM A WIDOW.
I LOST MY HUSBAND THREE YEARS AGO AND AT ONE TIME, AT ONE POINT IT GOT SO HEATED BECAUSE THE OCCUPANTS OF THIS PROPERTY WOULD USE THE ALLEY AS THEIR DRIVEWAY AND PARKING SPOTS, BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY ONE PARKING SPOT IN THE FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY.
THAT WOULD BE 3228, WHICH I THINK IS THE PHOTO THAT SHE HAD THAT HAD THE SUN.
[00:15:03]
COTTAGE THAT IT WAS FOR THAT PROPERTY. BECAUSE WHO'S GOING TO BUY THE HOUSE ON THE CORNER WITH NO GARAGE? YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE THAT RENOVATED THE HOUSE ON, WELL, THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF IT.I THINK THEY PROBABLY RAN OUT OF MONEY AND IT'S FOR SALE.
SO AND I KNOW THE HISTORY OF THAT COTTAGE, AND IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A NEIGHBORHOOD NUISANCE.
AND WHEN THINGS GET SO HEATED WHERE YOU HAVE TO CALL THE POLICE WHEN YOU FEEL THREATENED BY PEOPLE WHO FEEL LIKE YOU KNOW WHO ARE RENTING THIS PROPERTY AND FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT'S THEIR RIGHT TO PARK IN THE GARAGE TO IN THE ALLEY, TO PUT THEIR TRASH IN THE ALLEY WHEN THEIR TRASH BELONGS ON THE STREET AND THEY DON'T COMPLY. IT SHOULD BE NOTHING MORE THAN A SINGLE RESIDENCE.
I'M CONCERNED THAT IF YOU CHANGE THIS TO A DUPLEX.
I NOTICED ON THE SIDE BEFORE I CAME DOWN TO THE HEARING ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, HE HAS THREE BREAKER BOXES THERE, AND THERE IS WORK GOING ON RIGHT NOW. AND GUESS WHAT? THERE'S TRASH IN THE ALLEY. SO I JUST FEAR IT'LL BE ANOTHER HEATED ISSUE ONCE AGAIN.
I THINK THE THREE MINUTE LIMIT IS OVER, SO THE THREE MINUTE LIMIT IS OVER.
YES. THANK YOU. DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY. WELL THANK YOU, YES.
MY NAME IS ALEXANDER O'BRIEN. I LIVE AT 3226 AVENUE P, AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT IN THE STAFF REPORT, THERE'S A PICTURE AT THE BOTTOM AND YOU CAN SEE 3220, WHERE MARTHA LIVES AT, 3226 WHERE I LIVE OUT IN THE HOUSE ON THE CORNER, WHICH IS ALSO ABANDONED AND NOT MUCH WORK GOING ON, WHICH IS THEN 3228 .
WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK OUR DESIRE WOULD BE TO SEE THIS GO TO A SINGLE FAMILY AT SOME POINT, I.E., AS STAFF SAID, TO MAKE IT TOTALLY CONFORMING.
AND IF THIS IS ON THE PATH TO MAKING IT CONFORMING AT SOME POINT, THEN WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
THE BUILDER HAS SPENT SOME SIGNIFICANT MONEY ALREADY ON PAINTING AND PUTTING IN INVESTMENTS IN THE PROPERTY, REPAIRING THINGS. SO IT WENT FROM A COMPLETE EYESORE TO NOT RIGHT NOW.
AND SO I'M NOT NECESSARILY SAYING I'M IN SUPPORT OF, OF THIS REQUEST NECESSARILY, BUT ANYTHING WE COULD DO TO GET IT TO, AT SOME POINT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. SO BEING AS OPPOSED TO MULTI-FAMILY, A DUPLEX WOULD BE FAR BETTER.
AND WE ALSO APPRECIATE PEOPLE COMING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND PUTTING MONEY INTO HOMES OR SO.
SO AGAIN, OUR HOPE WOULD BE THAT THE FUTURE RESIDENTS ASSUMING THIS MIGHT BE A RENTAL PROPERTY, BUT THE FUTURE REFERENCE, RESIDENTS WOULD BE AS RESPECTFUL OF THAT PART OF THE OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD AS SOME OF THE OTHER HOMES ARE.
BUT AGAIN, LIKE THE IDEA THAT AT SOME POINT THIS MIGHT MOVE FROM NOW FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO DUPLEX, AND THEN MAYBE FROM MULTI-FAMILY TO DUPLEX TO SINGLE FAMILY AT SOME POINT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?
[00:20:04]
OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25Z-002 IS CLOSED AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? SO NOW I USUALLY TALK LOUD ANYWAY. OKAY. I MEAN, THIS SEEMS LIKE AN IMPROVEMENT TO ME.GOING FROM MULTI-FAMILY TO DUPLEX. OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN'T GO TO SINGLE FAMILY ON THIS RIGHT NOW, BUT I WOULD MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHALL OPERATE AS A DUPLEX, WHICH IS A MORE RESTRICTIVE CLASSIFICATION OF THE USE THAN MULTIFAMILY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE LATER CHANGED TO A LESS RESTRICTIVE CLASSIFICATION OF USE, AND THE PROPERTY'S USE OF MULTIFAMILY SHALL BE ABANDONED.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY.
OKAY. OPEN FOR DISCUSSION NOW.
YEAH. THIS IS A POWER THAT'S GIVEN TO THE BOARD BY THE LDRS.
AND IT WOULD BE UP TO THE APPLICANT TO DECIDE TO SEEK THIS APPROVAL.
I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO STATE, BECAUSE I ACTUALLY AM HEARING SOME COMMENTS BEHIND ME.
AND SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, THIS IS AN APPLICANT DRIVEN REQUEST WITHOUT THE REQUEST FOR THE CHANGE TO A DUPLEX. THE PROPERTY WOULD REMAIN AS A MULTI-FAMILY.
CORRECT. SO THIS BOARD DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THE MULTIFAMILY DESIGNATION TO A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL. THAT'S NOT THE POWER OF THE BOARD.
SO I JUST WANT THE AUDIENCE TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
RIGHT. OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE CAN DISCUSS? IF THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO DISCUSS LET'S VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES.
THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, FOR ATTENDING. WE HAVE ONE MORE CASE.
OH. OKAY. CASE 25Z-003, STAFF REPORT, PLEASE.
SO, 25Z-003. THIS IS AT 1222 103RD STREET. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE THREE FOR RESIDENTIAL RESTRICTED SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
THERE WERE 15 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT TO RETURN. BOTH OF THOSE IN FAVOR.
IN JANUARY 2025, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A BUILDING PERMIT FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION SHOWING A PRO STRUCTURE WELL PAST THE TYPICALLY REQUIRED 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK FOR R ZERO ZONING. NOTE THAT THE AIRPORT HOME SITE SUBDIVISION WAS ESTABLISHED LONG BEFORE CURRENT SETBACKS EXISTED.
ALSO NOTE THAT PRIOR TO 2022, REZONING THAT HAPPENED TO R0.
THE AIRPORT HOMESITE SUBDIVISION WAS ZONED R1 MODIFIED, WHICH HAS NO REQUIRED MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK, SO WHEN THEY CHANGE THE REZONING FROM R1 TO R0 IN 2022, A 20 FOOT SETBACK AUTOMATICALLY KICKED IN.
AND SO, UPON RECEIVING REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CITY STAFF, THE APPLICANT OPTED TO PURSUE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO MATCH THE EXISTING SETBACK OF THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH PER LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
[00:25:05]
OR MORE LOTS IN THE SAME BLOCK DO NOT MEET THE FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS, OR IF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF THE ADJACENT LOT DOES NOT MEET THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS.AND MORE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT A SO SETBACK REQUIREMENT IN THIS CASE WILL BE 20 FOOT FOR R ZERO, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SETBACK OF 12 FOOT TO MATCH THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, WHICH WOULD BE A VARIANCE OF EIGHT FOOT.
PLEASE NOTE THE APPROVAL STANDARDS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AND THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION.
AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. SO THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO ALIGN THE STRUCTURE WITH THE 12 FOOT MARK, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY LEVEL WITH THE HOUSE TO THE, I BELIEVE, THE NORTH. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE ONCE AGAIN THE SITE PLAN FOR COMPARISON.
AND THEN HERE WE HAVE A OVERALL VIEW OF THAT PARTICULAR PART OF 103RD STREET SHOWING HOW THE HOUSES LINE UP, UP AND DOWN AND ADJACENT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE HOUSE, I BELIEVE TO THE LEFT WOULD BE THE NORTH HOUSE THAT THEY'RE WANTING TO ALIGN WITH.
AND THEN A PHOTO OF 103RD STREET LOOKING NORTH AND THEN THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. THANK YOU.
DOES THE COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25Z-003 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 IN. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MATTHEW WALLER.
AND LET ME SIGN THIS REAL QUICK.
I BELIEVE MR. LUNSFORD COVERED ALL THE INFORMATION THAT I'D PRETTY MUCH JUST GO BACK OVER.
BUT WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SETBACK.
JUST TO MATT, ADD ONE OTHER THING TOO, I'D LIKE TO MENTION IF WE WERE TO COINCIDE WITH THE CITY SETBACK IN THE FRONT, IT WOULD PUT US REAL CLOSE TO THE TIE BACKS WITH THE BULKHEAD, SO THAT COULD CREATE A CONFLICT LATER ON.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NONE. THANKS. OKAY. IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? OKAY, I SEE NONE. OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25-003 IS CLOSED, AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
LET'S SEE. BECAUSE THE REQUEST WILL NOT AFFECT ADVERSELY THE VALUE AND USE OF ADJACENT AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. SECOND. OKAY. OUR DISCUSSION. OKAY. NO DISCUSSION. THAT CASE WILL VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU.
I THINK THAT'S IT, RIGHT? OKAY. MEETING ADJOURNED.
IT'S 4 P.M.. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.