[00:00:02] OKAY. IT'S 3:31 JUNE 4TH, 2025. WELCOME TO THE GALVESTON ZONING [Zoning Board of Adjustments on June 4, 2025.] BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF JUNE 4TH, 2025. THIS MEETING IS RECORDED AND AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. PLEASE SPEAK CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONES. WE HAVE THE ATTENDANCE ON THE SIGN IN SHEET FOR EVERYBODY. OKAY, WE HAVE ONE. WE HAVE BARBARA ABSENT TODAY, BUT A QUORUM IS PRESENT. IS THERE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR ANY OF THE CASES TODAY? I SEE NONE. OKAY. NEXT IS APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES. WE HAVE TWO TO APPROVE THIS TIME. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MEETING MINUTES FROM APRIL 9TH? OKAY. NO CORRECTIONS AS A THOSE MEETING MINUTES WILL BE ADOPTED. ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 7TH, 2025? OKAY NONE. IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AGENDA ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS? I SEE NONE. WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEW BUSINESS CASE NUMBER 25Z-011, PLEASE. THIS IS 9306 VISTA BELLA. IT'S A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARTICLE THREE DISTRICT YARD LOT AND SETBACK ADDENDUM FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY R-1 ZONING DISTRICT TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. PUBLIC NOTICE HAS SENT 14, ONE RETURNED, ONE IN FAVOR. THE THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS. THERE WAS A COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WHICH IS LISTED FOR YOU IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. NO OBJECTION FROM PRIVATE UTILITIES. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM ARTICLE THREE ADDENDUM. IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 3FT TO 0FT TO ALLOW FOR AN HVAC PLATFORM. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 12.401 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION MAY BE REQUIRED IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE REQUESTED IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, A CORNER LOT OR LOTS OPPOSITE OR ADJOINING PERMANENT OPEN SPACES, INCLUDING PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS. IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION BECAUSE THE LOT ADJOINS A PERMANENT OPEN SPACE. THE ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE EAST IS OWNED BY ARTIST BODE AND IS DEED RESTRICTED AS PERMANENT OPEN SPACE. ARTIST BODE IS A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT HAS A MISSION TO PROMOTE AWARENESS AND PRESERVATION OF COASTAL MARGINS AND THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT. PLEASE NOTE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, ALONG WITH INFORMATION ABOUT SPECIAL EXCEPTION, THE APPROVAL STANDARDS, AND THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION. AND WE HAVE SOME PICTURES. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THE LOUVERED PORTION ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS THE HVAC PLATFORM THAT IS ENCROACHING THE SETBACK. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE SURVEY. IT SHOWS THAT THE HVAC PLATFORM GOES UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN YELLOW. AND THEN THE PERMANENT OPEN SPACE THAT ADJOINS IT IS OUTLINED IN BLUE. AND THIS IS A PICTURE FROM TITMAN LOOKING BACK TOWARDS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OVER THAT OPEN SPACE. AND THEN THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST, EAST AND SOUTH. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE ONE. I HAVE A QUESTION HERE WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS THE SURVEY, THAT ONE THERE. IT LOOKS AS THOUGH THIS HOUSE WAS DESIGNED TO MEET THE PROPERTY LINE. IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT? THE THIS THIS HVAC PLATFORM WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED AS IT WAS PERMITTED. AND THE APPLICANT'S HERE AND HE CAN ADDRESS HOW THAT HAPPENED IN THE FIELD. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? [00:05:08] WHEN WAS THIS HOUSE BUILT? OH, IT'S VERY RECENT CONSTRUCTION. AND THIS ENCROACHMENT WAS UNDER WAS DISCOVERED DURING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PROCESS. OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR WE'RE GOOD TO MOVE ON. OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25Z-011 IS OPEN AND STAFF REPORT IS MADE APART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN ALSO AS WELL. GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS ZACH DAVIS, I'M THE OWNER OF KEEPSAKE CUSTOM HOMES. I'M THE APPLICANT REQUESTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM ARTICLE THREE. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE AERIAL VIEW, THIS LOT IS REALLY LONG. AND THE ARCHITECT, WHEN HE PLACED IT ON THE LOT THE FRONT OF THAT OF THIS HOUSE LINES UP WITH THE FRONT OF THE OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THEN WHAT HE ALSO WORKED TO DO WAS LINE UP THE BACK OF THE HOUSE WITH THE OTHER BACKS OF THE HOUSES DOWN THIS SAME ROAD, SO IT LOOKS AS GOOD AS IT CAN FROM THE FRONT AND THE BACK. SO TO DO THAT, IT LOOKS A LITTLE SHIFTED WHERE IT'S NOT FOLLOWING THE CUL DE SAC. SO WHEN WE CONSTRUCTED THIS, WE BUILT THIS PER PLAN. THE MECHANICAL PLATFORM WHERE IT IS, IS WHERE IT WAS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. BUT WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO WAS MAKE IT LARGER. WE'VE GOT TWO AC CONDENSERS UP THERE AND A GENERATOR. SO I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS. WE WERE DOING THE BEST WE COULD TO ACCOMMODATE THE AC CONDENSER AND THE GENERATOR, AND KEEP THE CLEARANCE AWAY FROM EACH OTHER, NOT TO VOID THE WARRANTY AND HAVE THEM PERFORM AS AS INTENDED. AND SO THE ARCHITECT ALSO DESIGNED IT TO BE SCREENED WITH LOUVERS. AND IF YOU GO TO ANOTHER ONE OF THE SLIDES WHERE YOU'VE GOT THE PHOTOS, IT SHOWS THE LOUVERS AROUND. SO THE FRONT RIGHT CORNER OF THE HOUSE WHERE IT'S FOUR FEET TALL, THIS IS THE ITEM IN QUESTION. SO WHAT WE DID WAS IF WE HAD BUILT IT PER PLAN, THE SIZE THAT WE SUBMITTED FOR THE PERMIT, IT WOULD LOOK IDENTICAL TO THIS, ONLY THAT FRONT UPPER SECTION OF LOUVER THAT GOES ALONG THE FRONT PLANE OF THE HOUSE WOULD JUST BE A COUPLE FEET BACK. AND SO THAT'S THE CORNER THAT'S ENCROACHING ON THE THREE FOOT SIDE SIDE SETBACK. AND THEN WHAT WE ALSO DID WAS THOSE LOUVERS ALSO MATCHED THE LOUVERS ON THE GROUND LEVEL TO MAKE IT ALL LOOK AS GOOD AS POSSIBLE. SO ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD BE GRANTED IF IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE VALUE OR USE OF ADJACENT OR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, OR BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. SO MY OPINION, PERSONALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY IS THAT THIS DOES NOT. WE'VE MATCHED IT THE LOUVERS WITH THE BOTTOM. AND ALSO DID THAT ARCHITECTURALLY TO MAKE IT LOOK CORRECT, BUT ALSO TO SCREEN MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SO THAT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AREN'T LOOKING AT AC CONDENSERS OR GENERATORS. SO THAT WOULDN'T THAT WOULDN'T ADVERSELY AFFECT THE VALUE. THANK YOU. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT? I HAVE A QUESTION. NOW I SEE THAT THIS LOT HAS BEEN BUILT UP WITH A RETAINING WALL. YES, MA'AM. THAT WAS DONE BY THE DEVELOPER BEFORE THE HOMEOWNERS PURCHASED THE LOT. RIGHT. IS ALL OF THIS IMPROVEMENT INSIDE THE RETAINING WALL? IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RETAINING WALL. AND THEN ONE, IT'S CONTAINED WITHIN THAT FOOTPRINT? YES. SO THE RETAINING WALL FOLLOWS THE PROPERTY LINE? I BELIEVE SO. I COULDN'T TELL BY LOOKING AT THE. I THINK IT'S IT'S PRETTY CLOSE. ONE OF THE I THINK THE ONLY COMMENT EVERYBODY COMMENTED NO OBJECTION. [00:10:01] PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTED NO OBJECTION WITH COMMENTS. AS LONG AS THE APPLICANT DOES NOT EXTEND ANYTHING BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE, THERE ARE NO CONCERNS WITH THE REQUEST. WHICH IT DOES NOT. RETAINING WALL IS INDICATED ON THE SURVEY. IT'S VERY LIGHTLY SHADED. BUT IT IS LABELED BRICK WALL. AND I SAW THAT. YEAH. IT IT FOLLOWS THE PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING AT THE EASEMENT AND I COULDN'T TELL WHOSE EASEMENT THAT WAS. YEAH SO THAT EASEMENT IS ON THE ARTIST BODE PROPERTY. OKAY. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE IT'S A CITY WATER LINE. IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OH, WE DO HAVE ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS HANDED THE HOMEOWNER THIS IN FAVOR OF. AND THEN I ALSO SPOKE WITH ANOTHER NEIGHBOR NAMED WILLIAM STEVENSON AND HE WAS GOING TO SEND THAT IN IN FAVOR OF OR NO CONTEST. I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY HAS RECEIVED THAT. YEAH. SO WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE ADDITIONAL PROPERTY NOTIFICATION IN FAVOR, SO THIS BRINGS THE TOTAL TO TWO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. YES. QUESTION. THIS EXPANSION OF THAT, THAT PLATFORM, WAS IT? THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY DONE BY A WINDSTORM ENGINEER, THE DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE. SO THE EXTENSION AND EVERYTHING WE WENT BACK TO THE ENGINEER AND HAD HIM REDESIGN IT SO THAT IT MATCHES THE ENGINEERING FOR THE HOUSE. SO THEY THEY YOUR WINDSTORM ENGINEER APPROVED THAT? YES SIR, OKAY. I'LL JUST ASK HIM. YEAH. WE DIDN'T YEAH. OKAY. DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS? NO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? OKAY. IN THAT CASE, PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25Z-011 IS CLOSED AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION. GO AHEAD. NO YOU GO. OKAY. I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CASE. CASE NUMBER 25Z-011. IN THAT, THE REQUEST WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE VALUE AND USE OF ADJACENT AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. I'LL SECOND THAT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND. ANYTHING TO DISCUSS? SO, JUST FOR THE RECORD, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THESE CHANGES THAT WERE MAYBE UNINTENDED IN THE ORIGINAL DRAWINGS DO NOT AFFECT THE PROPERTY ADJACENT, BECAUSE THAT IS AN OPEN CONSERVATORY THERE, SO THAT IS MY MY JUSTIFICATION FOR MY VOTE. THANK YOU. AND, MADAM CHAIRMAN, IF I'M READING AND HEARING CORRECTLY, IS THAT GOING TO BE PART OF THE MOTION INCLUDED IN THE MOTION AS WELL, THE JUSTIFICATION PART? MOTION. YES, BUT I LOVE IT WHEN YOU ADDED THE JUSTIFICATION PART AFTER IT WAS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. BUT I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE JUSTIFICATION THAT IT WAS OPEN BASICALLY TO THE CONSERVATION ASPECT ALSO ADDED TO THE MOTION ITSELF. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING? I HAVE A QUESTION, HOWEVER. WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT GUIDED TO HAVE TO DO IT THAT WAY. YOU JUST WOULD PREFER IT THAT WAY. SO THERE WAS A MOTION, RIGHT? IT WAS SECONDED. RIGHT. AND THEN IT WAS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. RIGHT. THE MOTION WAS BECAUSE IT DID NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. RIGHT. AND THEN PART OF THE DISCUSSION ADDED THE AND I JUST LIKE THAT BECAUSE IT DISTINGUISHES THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WHICH I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD BEFORE FROM ANY OF THE OTHER CASES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THIS BODY WHEN WE'VE HAD A SPECIAL [00:15:01] EXCEPTION. SO I WAS WONDERING IF THAT COULD BE ADDED TO THE MOTION AS WELL, BECAUSE WE'VE NEVER HAD THIS TYPE OF DISTINCTION, AT LEAST AS FAR AS I CAN RECALL. I'M NOT QUITE SURE, CATHERINE, IF YOU CAN RECALL SOMETHING LIKE THIS. BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ADDED. BUT OKAY, THAT'S WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. SO WHAT DO WE DO WITH THAT? I MEAN, IT'S YOU CAN JUST ADD THE COMMENT TO THE MOTION. IT'S JUST I HAVE TO AGREE TO IT I MADE THE MOTION. SO DO YOU AGREE? I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE TO IT. I'D HAVE TO RESTATE THE MOTION BECAUSE I THINK AMONG BECAUSE SUSAN SECONDED IT, SHE SECOND MY MOTION AS I STATED IT, SHE MAY NOT WANT TO SECOND THE MOTION THAT'S CHANGED. SO DO WE TAKE THE MOTION OFF THE TABLE AND RESUBMIT A MOTION? THIS IS DISCUSSION AND IT WAS JUST A COMMENT FROM MY SIDE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADD ANYTHING. YOUR MOTION WAS TOTALLY APPROPRIATE THE WAY IT WAS MADE. IT'S JUST AS UNUSUAL TYPE. SO YOU KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE A THING. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO I GUESS WE'RE NOT ADDING THAT TO THE TO THE MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION WE HAVE A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO CASE 25Z-013. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS AT 1804 65TH STREET AND THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LOT WIDTH DEPTH AND AREA. THERE ARE 33 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT TWO RETURNS BOTH THOSE IN OPPOSITION. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE THREE ADDENDUM IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, DEPTH, AND SQUARE FOOTAGE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HOLDS TWO IDENTICAL STRUCTURES BUILT IN 2024, SPACED EQUALLY ON THE LOT. YOU CAN SEE THOSE HERE ON THE SCREEN. THE APPLICANT WISHES TO REQUEST A VARIANCE TO REPLACE EACH STRUCTURE ON A SEPARATE LOT. PLEASE ALSO SEE THE SITE PLAN PROPOSED REPLAT AND EXHIBIT A OF THE STAFF REPORT, AS WELL AS A SUMMARY OF THE VARIANCES. THE PARCEL IN QUESTION IS ONE HALF OF AN ORIGINAL BAYOU SHORE WHEELER SUBDIVISION LOT. SO THE EXISTING LOT IS ALREADY LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING IN REGARDS TO LOT LENGTH AND DEPTH. THERE ARE FEW, IF ANY, LOTS IN THE VICINITY THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN SUBDIVIDED FURTHER THAN ONE HALF OF THE ORIGINAL LOT. BUT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WOULD THEN PUT EACH HOUSE ON ITS OWN SEPARATE LOT. SO THE VARIANCE WOULD BE A LOT WITH THE VARIANCE OF OF 25FT NORMALLY BE REQUIRED 50FT OF WIDTH, A LOT LENGTH DEPTH OF 72.5FT, WHICH IS KIND OF EXISTING. AND A LOT AREA OF 687.5FT², WHICH THAT WOULD THESE VARIANCES WOULD APPLY TO EACH PARCEL. THOSE PROPOSED PARCELS WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE. PLEASE NOTE THE VARIANCE REQUEST REQUIREMENTS IN OUR STAFF REPORT. PLEASE ALSO NOTE THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND NARRATIVE IN THE STAFF REPORT. AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE IN ADDITION TO THESE PHOTOS SHOWING THE TWO HOUSES AS THEY SIT TODAY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE IN THE UPPER LEFT, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION PROPOSAL, RATHER, AND BASICALLY THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DIVIDE THIS LOT EQUALLY RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A THREE FOOT SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ON ALL SIDES OF BOTH HOUSES. WE ALSO HAVE KIND OF AN OVERLAY OF THE PROPOSAL WITH OUR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY. AND THEN FINALLY WE HAVE THE APPLICANT'S LOT HIGHLIGHTED, SHOWING THE OVERALL SUBDIVISION AND THE RESPECTIVE EXISTING LOT SIZES. YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE A FEW THAT ARE SMALLER, MANY THAT ARE THE SAME SIZE, AND A GOOD NUMBER THAT ARE THE ORIGINAL FULL SIZE LOTS FROM THAT SUBDIVISION. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND HERE WE HAVE A PHOTO LOOKING NORTHWEST UP THE STREET, LOOKING SOUTHEAST DOWN THE STREET AND LOOKING SOUTHWEST DOWN THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, JUST TO SHOW KIND OF THE URBAN CHARACTER OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE A QUESTION. DID YOU SAY THE ORIGINAL LOT WAS SMALLER THAN NORMAL? NO, IF YOU LOOK ON THIS MAP HERE YOU CAN SEE HOW THOSE. THERE'S THE LONGER LOTS ON BOTH SIDES, THOSE ARE ORIGINAL LOTS FROM THAT SUBDIVISION THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SUBDIVIDED. AND SO YOU CAN SEE THE HIGHLIGHTED LOT IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND IT IS IT IS HALF OF ONE OF THE ORIGINAL LOTS. IT WAS SUBDIVIDED AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST. OKAY. SO IT WAS CUT FROM EAST TO WEST. SO SO THE ORIGINAL THE EXISTING LOT IS A NORMAL LOT SIZE. [00:20:05] IS THAT CORRECT? EVEN THOUGH IT WAS CUT FROM. WELL, YEAH ONCE AGAIN, IF YOU CAN KIND OF COMPARE. IT'S VERY HARD TO SEE. I'M SORRY, BUT I THINK SHE WAS REFERRING TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF SAYING IT WAS LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING. YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. METZGER. IN THIS PARTICULAR PART OF TOWN A LOT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE AT LEAST 25, AT LEAST 50 FOOT WIDE, AT LEAST 100 FOOT LONG, AND AT LEAST 2500FT². SO IT DOES NOT CURRENTLY MEET THOSE STANDARDS. IT'S LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING. AND THEN OKAY. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, THE THE THE LOT DEPTH IS 72.5FT, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT IT IS. YEAH. OKAY. GREAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. YEAH. TURN YOUR MICROPHONE. WE KEEP GETTING A LOT OF THESE THINGS WHERE I FEEL LIKE THE CITY'S DEPARTMENTS ARE FAILING TO FOLLOW THE CITY CODES AND REGULATIONS WHEN THEY GIVE OUT, LIKE, A BUILDING PERMIT. THIS HAS ALREADY GOT A STRUCTURE BUILT ON IT. I MEAN, IT'S KIND OF LIKE GETTING THE CARRIAGE BEFORE THE HORSE, YOU KNOW? YOU GET A LOT APPROVED FOR THE SIZE OF IT AND THEN SUBMIT A BUILDING PERMIT AND GET THAT APPROVED. IT'S PERMISSIBLE TO BUILD ON A NONCONFORMING LOT. SO THESE TWO HOUSES WERE BUILT IN CONFORMANCE WITH OUR REGULATIONS. SO I MEAN, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE GET A LOT OF THAT WHERE THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE CITY GOVERNMENT DO NOT FOLLOW THE REGULATIONS. OKAY. IT'S JUST MY OPINION. MY OPINION. YEAH, I WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION. I HAVE A QUESTION, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE QUESTION THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DECIDING UPON TODAY IS THE SUBDIVISION OF A PLAT, RIGHT? WELL, IT'S NOT A SUBDIVISION OF A PLAT. IF IT'S GRANTED, IT WILL RESULT IN A SUBDIVISION. RIGHT? YEAH. THE QUESTION IS, IS THERE A SPECIAL CONDITION THAT SUPPORTS THE REQUESTED VARIANCES? BECAUSE IN MY ESTIMATION HERE, I DON'T SEE IT. I DON'T SEE WHERE WE HAVE A PROPOSED PLAT LINE OR PLAT REVISION. GENERALLY WHEN WE SEE A REPLAT, WE SEE THE ORIGINAL PLAT, AND THEN WE SEE HOW IT'S GOING TO BE DIVIDED. AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, DANIEL, THAT THERE'S A LINE, THERE'S AN ARROW SAYING IT'S GOING TO BE DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THESE TWO HOUSES, BUT WE DON'T SEE THAT AS A DRAWING. DON'T WE USUALLY SEE THAT? I THOUGHT, I MEAN, I'M ACCUSTOMED TO SEEING HOW IT'S GOING TO LOOK AFTER IT'S SUBDIVIDED. WE DON'T REQUIRE THAT SOMETHING BE PROVIDED BY A SURVEYOR AT THIS POINT. SO A SITE PLAN THAT'S PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT THAT DESCRIBES WHAT THE CONDITION IS GOING TO BE IS SUFFICIENT. OKAY. NOW, MY. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? NO, I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE CURRENT SURVEY. IT HAS COMMENTS, PROPOSED LOT DIMENSIONS ONLY. SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE THE SAME. SO I GUESS IT'S JUST GOING TO BE IN HALF. OKAY. SO I MEAN I GUESS MY CONFUSION WAS OR IS TWO HOUSES ARE BUILT ON ONE LOT, WHICH IS KIND OF UNUSUAL. AND WHEN PERMITTING WAS INITIATED ON THIS, THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, WAS THERE EVER AN EXPRESSION OF SUBDIVIDING THE LOT? OR I MEAN, HOW HOW IS IT THAT YOU CAN BUILD TWO HOUSES ON ONE LOT WHEN GENERALLY THE CHARACTER OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS THERE'S ONE RESIDENCE PER LOT. SO THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR A MAIN STRUCTURE AND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. SO YES, THEY LOOK EQUAL. AND THAT MAY BE THE CASE. THE ONLY CONSIDERATION FOR FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS THAT IT BE SMALLER IN SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN THE OTHER HOUSE. SO THEY MAY LOOK IDENTICAL, ONE OF THEM IS TECHNICALLY SMALLER IN SQUARE FOOTAGE. THESE HOUSES WERE PROPERLY PERMITTED. YES. THAT'S WHY I'M WONDERING WHY WE'RE HERE. BUT THAT THAT'S THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE IS SUBDIVIDING IT. OTHERWISE, THIS WOULD NOT BE BEFORE US TODAY. THE QUESTION IS SUBDIVIDING THE PARCEL. THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO SUBDIVIDE THE PARCEL. THANK YOU. SO IT'S SUBDIVIDING ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS, RIGHT? AND THIS LOT IS IT PINNED AND SURVEYED FOR THE DIVISION ON THE LOTS. [00:25:07] IT'S OUR SURVEYOR PINS IN PLACE TO DISTINGUISH THE DIVISION BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS. NO, THE SUBDIVISION HASN'T OCCURRED. SO THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING THIS VARIANCE IN ORDER TO FACILITATE A SUBDIVISION. THIS IS CRAZY THE WAY THIS WORKS. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25Z-013 IS OPEN AND THE STAFF REPORT IS MADE APART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN FOR RECORD. HI, MY NAME IS LAURA WARD. I REPRESENT NEW ELITE HOMES, WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE LOT AND THE HOMES. JUST TELL US MORE ABOUT YOUR REQUEST, PLEASE. PUBLIC SPEAKING IS NOT MY STRONG SUIT, SO I'VE PREPARED SOMETHING. MAY I READ IT? THANK YOU. AS A LICENSED REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR OVER 30 YEARS AND A LONG TIME SUPPORTER OF GALVESTON, I SPEAK TO YOU TODAY AS SOMEONE WITH DEEP PERSONAL ROOTS IN THIS COMMUNITY AND HAVE LIVED ON AND OFF THE ISLAND FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS. AND GALVESTON IS MORE THAN JUST A PLACE OF WORK. IT'S A PLACE I LOVE, IT'S HOME, AND LIKE MANY OF YOU, I PLAN TO RETIRE HERE. OUR SHARED COMMITMENT TO THIS ISLAND IS WHAT BRINGS ME HERE. AND WITH THIS VARIANCE, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO JUST THAT BY INTRODUCING QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT ALIGNS WITH THE CHARACTER AND THE NEEDS OF BAYOU SHORES AND THE ISLAND AT LARGE. I BROUGHT DOCUMENTATION TODAY TO DEMONSTRATE CLEARLY THAT THIS REQUEST WILL BRING MORE VALUE TO BAYOU SHORES AND GALVESTON AS A WHOLE, WITH MINIMAL IMPACT ON ITS SURROUNDINGS. OUR INTENTIONS ARE ROOTED IN RESPECT FOR THE ISLAND AND THE BELIEF THAT THOUGHTFUL, RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT CAN SERVE BOTH CURRENT RESIDENTS AND FUTURE RESIDENTS FOR GENERATIONS. BAYOU SHORES WAS ORIGINALLY PLOTTED IN 1929. THE CURRENT CHARACTERISTICS OF BAYOU SHORES SUGGEST THAT ORIGINAL INTENT WAS TO CREATE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A MIX OF HOUSING OPTIONS. THE AREA FEATURES A VARIETY OF HOME STYLES, INCLUDING MID-CENTURY COTTAGES, BUNGALOWS, AND ELEVATED BEACH HOMES. STRICT VACATION HOME REGULATIONS HAVE LED TO A PREDOMINANCE OF FULL TIME RESIDENTS, PRESERVING THE AREA'S PEACEFUL ATMOSPHERE. THIS VARIANCE BRINGS MORE VALUE AND TWO TWO MORE FAMILIES WITH HOME OWNERSHIP TO BAYOU SHORES WITH MINIMAL IMPACT ON ITS SURROUNDING. A NEIGHBORHOOD PREDOMINANTLY COMPOSED OF HOMEOWNERS IS VALUED MORE THAN ONE DOMINATED BY RENTERS. IT BRINGS PRIDE OF OWNERSHIP, NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY, LOWER TURNOVER AND VACANCY RATES, STRONGER CODE COMPLIANCE, HIGHER SCHOOL PERFORMANCE ENGAGEMENT, AND LOWER CRIME RATES. AND AND THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE ARE HOPING TO BRING TO BAYOU SHORES BY, BY GETTING BY REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE. I HAVE BROUGHT WITH ME TODAY FIVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I WENT AND AND TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS OF BAYOU SHORES AND, AND HAD SOME TEMPLATE LETTERS ALREADY PRINTED UP AND, AND GOT THEM TO SIGN IT. AND I HAD THEM PUT THEIR ADDRESS AND SOME OF THEM PUT THEIR PHONE NUMBERS FOR THE BOARD, I ALSO BROUGHT WITH ME PICTURES OF OF WHAT THE WHAT THE HOMES ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE COMPLETED. THE BUILDER IS A, A CUSTOM HOME BUILDER. AND HIS, HIS WORK IS IMPECCABLE. IT'S IT'S REALLY AMAZING. I'M VERY HONORED TO BE A PART OF HIS HIS VISIONS FOR BAYOU SHORES, FOR GALVESTON. HE HE HE'S BUILDING MORE THAN THAN JUST THESE IN GALVESTON. AND AND HE WAS ISSUED TWO PERMITS TO BUILD ON, ON THE LOT AND THE REQUIREMENT WAS THAT ONE BE ONE FOOT SMALLER THAN THE OTHER. [00:30:04] HE WAS ALSO ISSUED TWO ADDRESSES, BUT WAS NOT INFORMED THAT THE LOT WOULD NEED A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO TO DEED THESE HOMES SEPARATELY IN ORDER TO SELL THEM SEPARATELY. SO WITHOUT THE VARIANCE THESE HOMES WILL NOT GO TO A FAMILY, THEY WILL GO TO AN INVESTOR AND THAT WILL DEEM THEM RENTAL PROPERTIES FOR THE DURATION OF THE LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND THAT IS NEVER GOOD FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD. AND BAYOU SHORES IS HAS BEEN PLOTTED SINCE 1929 IT HAS REAL HISTORY BEHIND IT. AND I'VE DONE A LOT OF STUDYING ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS IS TRANSITIONING FROM OLD TO NEW. AND THERE'S, THERE'S NEW CONSTRUCTION GOING ON IN THERE AND, AND AND WE'RE JUST HAPPY TO BE A PART OF IT, BUT WE ARE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE A QUESTION. I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THAT WHEN THE PERMITS WERE LET FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, THERE WAS NO EXPECTATION THAT THIS LOT WOULD BE SUBDIVIDED. IT IS SO OUT OF SCALE WITH THE 6300 SQUARE FOOT LOTS SURROUNDING IT. I MEAN, THIS IS HALF OF A HALF IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR. AND TO ME, IT IS TOTALLY OUT OF SCALE WITH WHAT YOU SEE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT IS CHARACTERISTIC. SO WHEN YOU'RE MAKING THESE STATEMENTS THAT IT BLENDS INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I TOTALLY DISAGREE. IT IS NEW CONSTRUCTION. THAT'S CORRECT. BUT IT'S SO CLOSE TOGETHER. I MEAN, IT'S YOU COULD REACH ACROSS AND WASH THE OTHER HOUSES WINDOWS HONESTLY. I DON'T I'M JUST AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND HOW ANYONE THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO SUBDIVIDE THIS LOT. CAN YOU GIVE US SOME INDICATION OF THE THOUGHT PROCESS? I REALLY WISH THAT I COULD. WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING IS THAT HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE KNOWN GALVESTON'S POLICY BEFORE HE BOUGHT THE LOT AND BEFORE HE BUILT, BECAUSE I CAN PROMISE YOU THAT IF HE HAD ANY INDICATION THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUBDIVIDE THE LOT, HE WOULD NOT HAVE CUSTOM BUILT TWO AMAZING HOMES ON IT. SO THAT THOUGHT THAT THAT KNOWLEDGE OR THAT THOUGHT NEVER HE HAD NO IDEA THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUBDIVIDE THESE LOTS, AND THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE FROM GALVESTON. I, I HAVE A COMMENT. YOU CAN'T PLEAD IGNORANCE OF THE CODES AND REGULATIONS. OKAY. I MEAN, THEY'RE WRITTEN. YOU PLAN TO DO SOMETHING YOU YOU NEED TO DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE AND FIND OUT WHAT THE REAL RULES ARE FOR THE PROPERTY. OKAY. THAT'S JUST MY ONLY COMMENT. YES, SIR. YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T THROW THAT BACK AT US ABOUT. OH, HE DIDN'T KNOW. NO, SIR, I OKAY, I UNDERSTAND SHE ASKED ME TO TO BASICALLY GUESS WHAT WAS GOING THROUGH HIS MIND AND THAT WAS MY BEST GUESS, SO I APOLOGIZE. I'M NOT I'M REALLY NOT TRYING TO PLEAD IGNORANCE. I'M I'M A REAL ESTATE BROKER AND I HAVE BEEN FOR OVER 30 YEARS. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION AND RESPECT IT, HOWEVER THE VARIANCE IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WILL BRING MORE GOOD AND IT WILL HAVE VERY MINIMAL IMPACT ON ON IN A NEGATIVE WAY IF YOU DO ISSUE THIS VARIANCE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT WILL NOT, IT WILL. IT WILL NOT PREVENT ANYONE FROM BEING ABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITH THEIR, THEIR LOTS OR IT DOESN'T IT JUST IT BRINGS MORE GOOD THAN, THAN NEGATIVITY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS? I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. I THINK IT SETS A PRECEDENT. IF YOU APPROVE THIS [00:35:06] I GUESS I'M RESPONDING TO THEIR STATEMENT. THANK YOU. YEAH, I THINK WE'RE GOOD. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25Z-013 IS CLOSED AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION FOR DENIAL DUE TO THE FOLLOWING, THERE'S NOT A SPECIAL CONDITION ON THE PROPERTY, THE HARDSHIP IS SELF-IMPOSED, THE HARDSHIP IS BASED SOLELY ON FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS CONVENIENCE OR THAT'S ENOUGH. AND THE REQUEST I DON'T THINK THE REQUESTED IMPACT OR VARIANCE WOULD HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I THINK THAT'S IT'S THE VARIANCE IS BEING USED TO CIRCUMVENT OTHER PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS OF THE REGULATIONS THAT COULD BE USED FOR THE SAME OR COMPARABLE EFFECT. SO IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE BUILDER TO KNOW WHAT THE REGULATIONS WERE AND TO ABIDE BY THEM WHEN HE BUILT. AND IT'S NOT UP TO US. I MEAN, SOMEBODY IS. OH, THAT'S THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH. I'LL STOP THERE. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANYTHING TO DISCUSS NOW. ANY COMMENTS? ANYTHING FOR THE BOARD? OKAY. ANYTHING. WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS. YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING EARLIER. SAY IT. IT SETS A PRECEDENT. THERE'S THERE'S SINGLE LOTS LIKE THIS ALL OVER THE PLACE. YOU KNOW, AND AND SOMEBODY COMES IN, PLEADS IGNORANCE TO THE CODES AND THE REGULATIONS. GOT TO TAKE EXCEPTION TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT THE CITY'S DOING. SO I DON'T WANT THAT TO STAY ON THE. I'M JUST. I'M JUST SAYING. OKAY. LIKE I SAID, THEY GOT THE THE THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. OKAY. SO IF IF THE INTENTION OF SUBDIVIDING THIS WAS NOT CLEAR, THEN NOTHING WAS WRONG UP TO THE POINT WHEN THEY DECIDED TO. LET ME PUT SOME CLARIFICATION HERE, I THINK I THINK WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY MAYBE, IS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE SUBDIVIDED THE LOT FIRST IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHATEVER VARIANCE, OR THEY COULD HAVE GOT OR OR LAWS THAT WERE ON THE BOOKS AND THEN STARTED THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS RATHER THAN DO IT THE WAY THAT THEY DID. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES. UNLESS THEY WERE NOT OPEN ABOUT THE FINAL GOAL. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? AND WE'VE SAID IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS OR ACTUALLY OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID IN COMMENTS, IF WE HAVE THE REGULATIONS, YOU KNOW, WHY DON'T WE ABIDE BY THEM? AND SO HERE'S A CLEAR REGULATION. AND WE JUST NEED TO ABIDE BY IT. IT'S. YEAH, THE THE ONLY COMMENT THAT I WOULD MAKE IN REGARDS TO SOMEONE BRINGING UP THE WORD PRECEDENT IS THAT IT PRECEDENT DOES NEED TO BE ADHERED TO IN THIS CASE. LIKE, LIKE I SPOKE ABOUT IN AN EARLIER MEETING AND THAT IF WE GRANT THIS VARIANCE OR IF THIS VARIANCE IS GRANTED, IT'S GOING TO OPEN THE DOOR FOR OTHER DEVELOPERS TO JUST BUY LOTS OF ANY SIZE. AND, YOU KNOW, SEPARATING THE 2, 3, 4 OR 5 LOTS WITH THESE, YOU KNOW MINIMUM SQUARE FOOT TYPE DWELLINGS FOR PROFIT. AND WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE AT THAT POINT? AND I THINK THIS CASE IS AN IMPORTANT CASE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR SETTING THAT PRECEDENT, NOT JUST FOR THIS GOVERNING BOARD OF FIVE MEMBERS AND THE ONE ALTERNATE BUT FUTURE BOARDS, YOU KNOW, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE YEARS FROM NOW. AND THOSE DEVELOPERS CAN REFLECT BACK ON THIS CASE. IF YOU DID IT HERE, WHY DON'T YOU DO IT THERE? AND SO SO THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT CASE TO DISCUSS REGARDING THAT WORD PRECEDENT, [00:40:02] BECAUSE I THINK THIS SETS A VERY DANGEROUS ONE. IF IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY OR THE PROPERTY SIZES OR THE ZONING CODES, IF THIS WAS, YOU KNOW, THE HEIGHTS IN HOUSTON OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHERE THIS IS COMMON. WE WOULD PROBABLY BE DISCUSSING THIS AND THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE. BUT IT'S NOT JUDGING BASED ON THE MAP THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS. BUT THOSE AREN'T EAST TO WEST. THOSE ARE NORTH TO SOUTH. YOU KNOW, AND THEY DON'T AREN'T ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER, THEY MORE LIKE, ABUT EACH OTHER. AND IF THIS WAS A CASE OF AN ABUTMENT WHERE YOU HAVE TWO HOUSES BACK TO BACK I THINK THIS WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE APPROPRIATE OF A SUBDIVIDING, BUT IT'S NOT. IT'S AN EAST TO WEST, WHICH LIKE I SAID, IS NOT COMMON FOR THIS AREA, WHICH IS WHY I WOULD... I AGREE BECAUSE THESE LOTS I MEAN, FOR AN ISLAND, THESE ARE VERY LARGE LOTS. AND THEY TAKE UP THE WHOLE LOT. VERY LARGE LOTS. LOOK AT LOOK AT THOSE THE PARCELS ON THE MAP. AND YOU CAN SEE HOW LARGE THESE LOTS ARE. AND THIS ONE WOULD BE A SUBDIVISION OF A SUBDIVIDED LOT. I MEAN, WE'RE GETTING DOWN TO WAFER THIN, RIGHT? I MEAN IT'S LIKE THIS WIDE, WHICH IS SO OUT OF CHARACTER IF WE'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE ISLAND. AND LIKE I SAID, IT BEGS THE QUESTION INTO WHAT WE DON'T KNOW IS I'D LIKE TO TAKE EVERYBODY. YOU KNOW, I, YOU KNOW, GIVE I TRUST EVERYONE UNTIL YOU GIVE ME A REASON NOT TO. AND SO I TRUST WHAT THE REAL ESTATE AGENT IS SAYING AND THAT, YOU KNOW, PRIVATE FAMILIES WOULD BE BUYING THESE LOTS. BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE. AND WHEN YOU GET LOT SIZES THIS SMALL, LIKE I SAID, ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER, NOT ABUTTING EACH OTHER WITH THESE SMALL PROPERTY LINES, YOU KNOW, NOW, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT LET'S HOPE THAT THE NEIGHBORS GET ALONG. BUT IF THEY DON'T, AND YOU STEP ONE ONE INCH TO THE SIDE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE IT BEGS A QUESTION IT OPENS THE DOOR FOR A LOT MORE DIFFICULTIES DOWN THE ROAD. LIKE I SAID, IF THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT, LIKE ON THE MAP WHERE THEY'RE MORE OF, LIKE BACK TO BACK I PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE MUCH OF A PROBLEM WITH THE, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, AT THE END OF THE DAY IT ALSO COMES DOWN TO QUALITY OF LIFE WITH, YOU KNOW, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WHEN YOU ARE A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH IS YOUR REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. AND THAT IS JUST NOT AFFORDED HERE. NOT WITH THIS TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION AND NOT WITH THIS TYPE OF SUBDIVISION. NEITHER ONE OF THOSE FAMILIES WOULD HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY AT ANY TIME. AND THAT'S ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, I THINK, POINT TO CONSIDER WHEN LOOKING AT SUBDIVIDING LOTS IN THIS TYPE OF MANNER. I AGREE. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND. THE MOTION IS FOR DENIAL. YES. IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR, YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF THE DENIAL. SO ALL ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. AND I THINK THAT'S ALL WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:14 P.M.. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.