[Zoning Board of Adjustments on January 7, 2026.]
[00:00:04]
GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME TO THE GALVESTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF JANUARY 7TH, 2026. 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 HERE'S THE SIGN IN.
OKAY. WE HAVE ABSENT JAMES TODAY BUT. JAMES FAGAN HAS ACTUALLY RESIGNED FROM THE BOARD, SO THE POSITION IS VACANT.
OKAY, OKAY. SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. A QUORUM IS PRESENT.
IS THERE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR ANY OF THE CASES TODAY? OKAY. NONE. APPROVAL. ACTUALLY, WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT.
IS THERE? YEAH. THERE AREN'T ANY MINUTES ON THIS AGENDA.
WE'LL HAVE MINUTES AT THE FEBRUARY MEETING. IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AGENDA ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS OR NON AGENDA ITEMS? OKAY, I SEE NONE.
MOVING FORWARD WITH OLD BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARINGS.
OKAY. CASE 25Z-019, PLEASE. THIS IS OLD BUSINESS.
IT'S 1410. SEAWALL. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
ARTICLE 10 HEIGHTENED DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE REGARDING BILL 2.
LINE AND PARKING LOCATION IN A COMMERCIAL HEIGHTENED DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE.
IN ORDER FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, THE BOARD REQUESTED INFORMATION ABOUT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE FORMER LOCATION AND INCREASED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING LOCATION IN THE FOOTPRINT FOOTPRINT REQUIRED BY THE HEIGHTENED DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE REGULATIONS.
THAT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED AND HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE BOARD IN YOUR PACKET ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT, WHICH LISTS THE REQUESTED VARIANCES. AND THEN WE HAVE THE SAME PHOTOS WE HAD AT THE LAST MEETING.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT LOCATION A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY AND A SITE PLAN.
WELL, THIS IS ACTUALLY THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AND THEN THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25Z-019 IS OPEN AND THE STAFF REPORT IS MADE.
A PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN FOR THE RECORD.
MY NAME IS JUSTIN PRUITT. I'M WITH WILSON, CRIBBS AND GARIN AND WE REPRESENT THE THE FRANCHISE E WHOSE RR LLC EFFECTIVELY THE DENNY'S THE DENNY'S FRANCHISE RESTAURANT.
I HAVE A PACKAGE HERE FOR THE MAYBE TOO MANY HERE, BUT THERE SHOULD BE 10 AND I'LL KEEP ONE.
THANK YOU. SO WE APPRECIATE BEING ABLE TO COME BACK AND EXPAND ON WHAT WE PRESENTED LAST TIME.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, I MEAN, THE THE ASK IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE'S OUR CLIENT HAS BEEN HERE ASKING FOR AN APPEAL AND IT WAS ADMINISTRATIVE DISCUSSION BEFORE THAT APPEAL AND THEN LAST MONTH'S MEETING.
THE REQUEST IS EFFECTIVELY TO BUILD THE DENNY'S IN THE SAME LOCATION IT WAS BEFORE IT BURNED.
AND WHATEVER AVENUE WE CAN WORK WITH THE CITY TO GET THAT YOU KNOW, PERMISSION, THEN WE DO THAT.
SO HERE IT'S A VARIANCE. SO JUST BACKGROUND. DENNY'S, YOU KNOW, HAS BEEN UP AND OPERATING AT THE SITE FOR, FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. SUBSEQUENT TO THE OPERATION, THE CITY INSTITUTED THE HDDZ-ZONE, WHICH IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE THAT THAT WOULD BE AT PLAY WOULD BE THAT, YOU KNOW, ON THE SITE THERE THAT THE STRUCTURE, IF IT WERE TO CONFORM WITH THE CODE, WOULD HAVE TO COME DOWN AND BE FLUSHED A 0 FOOT SETBACK ALONG SEAWALL BOULEVARD AND THEN HAVE A 60% LOT COVERAGE ON THE FRONT, ON FRONTING SEAWALL BOULEVARD. SO BECAUSE THAT REQUIREMENT WAS THERE, OBVIOUSLY THE STRUCTURE DIDN'T SATISFY THE CODE.
SO IT'S A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. AND THEN OCTOBER 2023, THE STRUCTURE BURNED.
AND THEN WHICH STANDARD CODE? YOU KNOW, IN CODE, WHEN DEALING WITH NON-CONFORMING USES, THERE'S A PROVISION THAT REQUIRES, YOU KNOW, IF A COST TO REBUILD EXCEEDS 50% OF THE STRUCTURE, THEN, YOU KNOW, THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT THAT STRUCTURE,
[00:05:02]
THOSE THOSE COSTS WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBJECT TO THE NEW RULES.THE NEW THE NEW CONSTRUCTION MUST BE SUBJECT TO THE NEW RULES.
WE OUR CLIENT WORKED WITH THE CITY, AND THE INITIAL PHASE OF RECONSTRUCTION, THE VERTICAL, I WOULD SAY, FROM THE SLAB UP DID NOT CROSS THAT 50% THRESHOLD.
AND SO CONSTRUCTION STARTED WHILE WHILE CONSTRUCTION WAS THERE, IT WAS DISCOVERED AND UNRELATED TO THE FIRE, THAT THE FOUNDATION THE SLAB WAS WAS NOT WOULDN'T SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION.
SO WORK BEGAN ON THE ON THE SLAB. THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION FROM THE CITY WAS THAT THAT SLAB, THE VALUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION, THE REHAB ON THE SLAB, SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE REHAB FOR THE VERTICAL STRUCTURE, AND SO THEREFORE THE CONSTRUCTION WAS STOPPED AND THE NONCONFORMING USE ON THE STRUCTURE WAS PULLED.
SO THEREFORE THAT ANY CONSTRUCTION, THEN ON ANY REPAIR, ANY RECONSTRUCTION ON THE SITE, ON THAT, ON THAT PARTICULAR STRUCTURE WOULD HAVE HAD TO SATISFY THE HDDZ REQUIREMENT TO, YOU KNOW, 0 FOOT SETBACK AND 60 FOOT LOT COVERAGE. WE APPEALED THAT DECISION AND BACK IN JULY I BELIEVE AND THAT AND THIS BOARD UPHELD THE CITY'S DETERMINATION. THEREFORE EFFECTIVELY THE NONCONFORMING USE WAS REMOVED FROM THE SITE.
SO NOW AGAIN, IF YOU SAW IN THE PICTURES THE STRUCTURE STILL STANDS.
I MEAN, THAT NOT STANDS, BUT THE CONSTRUCTION STILL STANDS, YOU KNOW, UNFINISHED.
AND SO IN ORDER TO MOVE ON, WE IF WE'RE GOING TO BE IN THIS LOCATION AT THE, AT THE, AT THE SITE, THE ORIGINAL SITE OF THE STRUCTURE, WE WOULD NEED A VARIANCE.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS. THAT WOULD BE VARIED FROM THAT REQUIREMENT, THE 60 FOOT LOT COVERAGE. AND THEN EFFECTIVELY THE 0 FOOT SETBACK HERE.
I THINK IT'S 59.5 EFFECTIVELY 60FT SETBACK TO BE IN THE SAME LOCATION.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. SO IN YOUR PACKET, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND.
AND THIS THIS MAY SEEM REDUNDANT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO WALK THROUGH YOU KNOW, WHERE WE ARE NOW.
AND IN THE COURSE OF OUR OF OUR VARIANCE REQUEST, HOW WE GET THERE.
AND I KNOW LAST TIME AND YOU'LL SEE IT IN THE, IN THE APPLICATION THAT WE HAVE, WE'VE CALLED A NEW EFFECTIVELY A NEW PROVISION OF THE STATE CODE TO YOU. AND THAT SEEMED TO BE THAT THAT HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD BEFORE.
YOU KNOW, HOW THIS VARIANCE REQUEST TIES TO THIS NEW PROVISION IN THE STATE CODE.
SO THE FIRST 2 PAGES OF YOUR PACKET THERE, THERE'S THERE'S A LOT OF HIGHLIGHTS ON IT. THESE ARE YOUR EXISTING VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS FROM YOUR OWN CODE. AND YOU KNOW THEY LAY OUT ALL THE, ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR YOU TO APPROVE A VARIANCE.
SO SECTION 13.01 OF YOUR CODE HAS ALL THE APPROVAL STANDARDS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WE HAVE TO MEET THAT EFFECTIVELY THAT IT CAN'T BE PROHIBITED BY 12401 C OF YOUR CODE, WHICH IS THE SECOND PAGE.
I BROUGHT THAT FOR YOU. AND IF YOU'LL SEE ON THAT SECOND PAGE, 2012401C, THE PROHIBITED ACCESS BUT YOU CAN'T DO IS THAT YOU CAN'T APPROVE A VARIANCE THAT WOULD PERMIT A USE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. PROHIBITED. WELL, YOU DON'T. THE USE IS NOT AT ISSUE HERE. IT'S THE STRUCTURE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO YOU'RE NOT PROHIBITED FROM GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THAT? IT WOULD ALLOW A PARTICULAR SITE IMPROVEMENT THAT'S AUTHORIZED ONLY SPECIFIC ZONING DISTRICTS. THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE. A VARIANCE WAS STATED OR IMPLIED TIME LIMIT.
THAT WOULDN'T BE HERE. THAT WOULDN'T BE THE CASE HERE.
OR APPROVE VARIANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW AN ACTION OR PROHIBITED.
IT'S NOT PROHIBITED UNDER STATE LAW. ALTHOUGH YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE TODAY, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO PUT CONDITIONS ON THE VARIANCE THAT MAYBE WOULD HELP SATISFY, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE CODE REQUIREMENTS THAT MAY BE MISSING IF WE WERE TO IF YOU GRANT THAT SETBACK REQUIREMENT ON THE 1ST PAGE, THE 13401, THE GENERAL, THIS IS WHAT'S IN OUR APPLICATION, WHAT WE RESPONDED TO IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. WHAT'S IN YOUR WHAT'S IN THE PACKET. NOW THAT I MEAN YOU HAVE TO WE HAVE TO AS AS THE APPLICANT, WE HAVE TO SATISFY THESE, YOU KNOW, THESE REQUIREMENTS THAT THAT THE VARIANCE IS ROOTED IN SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THAT ON THE PROPERTY THAT DON'T EXIST IN OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
ALL UTILITIES ARE TO WHERE THE SLAB IS NOW. REQUIRING THAT SLAB TO MOVE.
IT WOULDN'T WORK HERE. SO THE CONDITIONS ARE THE WAY THE UTILITIES ARE DESIGNED ON THE SITE AND THE WAY THAT THE THE HOTEL IS DESIGNED ON THE EDGE OF THE SITE, THAT THOSE, THOSE 2, THOSE TWO WILL NOT WORK TOGETHER WITHOUT A COMPLETE, YOU KNOW, REDO OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF.
AND THEN BECAUSE OF THE SPECIAL EXISTENCE, THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE TERMS WOULD IMPOSE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND THAT ATTRACT STATE LAW. THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PROVISION IN STATE LAW. AND I AND YOU'LL SEE IT ON THE 3RD PAGE OF YOUR, OF YOUR PACKET THERE THAT WHAT YOU'RE ABLE TO DO.
IF IT'S NOT CONTRARY, IF THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, LITTLE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS OBSERVED.
[00:10:04]
SO THE WAY THAT YOUR CODE FLESHES THAT AUTHORIZATION OUT IS THAT YOU SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IN ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE, WE HAVE TO MEET ALL THESE REQUIREMENTS AND YOU LIST THEM OUT HERE. SO WE WOULD SAY THAT UNDER OUR POSITION IS THAT WE SATISFY THE TRADITIONAL I'M GOING TO CALL THOSE THE TRADITIONAL VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR MANY YEARS.AND WE SAY THAT IT WOULD BE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND THAT IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
IT'S NOT SELF-IMPOSED. WE DIDN'T START THE FIRE.
WE DIDN'T HAVE THE WE DIDN'T MAKE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION TO REMOVE THE NON-CONFORMING STATUS, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE AREN'T QUOTE UNQUOTE SPECIAL, BUT THEY'RE COMMON. THIS IS NOT COMMON. THE FIRE, THE NON-CONFORMING STATUS AND THE THE STRUCTURE AND THE UTILITY THAT'S NOT COMMON TO TO TO THE SITES ON, ON ON THE SEAWALL BOULEVARD. AND IT WOULDN'T HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON THE FUTURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. WE HAVE WE DON'T HAVE THEM HERE, BUT THE OWNER OF THE HOTEL WANTS THIS STRUCTURE TO BE BACK AND RUNNING BECAUSE IT HELPS HIS BUSINESS OUT. AND I THINK MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT THERE IF YOU LOOK AT STAFF REPORT, THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION FROM ANY DEPARTMENT IN THE CITY THAT WOULD THAT NO ONE OPPOSES THE VARIANCE.
SO THAT'S THE WHAT I WOULD CALL THE TRADITIONAL VARIANCE STANDARDS. WE WOULD SAY THAT WE HAVE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP DUE TO THE FACT DUE TO THE FIRE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION TO REMOVE THE NON-CONFORMING STATUS. AND NOW WE'RE AT A STANDSTILL.
SO AGAIN, THE SAME SHEET THAT HAS THE 211 019 AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD ON TOP, WHAT THE WHAT THE LEGISLATURE ADDED WAS THE SUBSECTION B1 AND THE EFFECT AND THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE IN ADDING THAT SUBSECTION IS TO ADDRESS WHAT I, IN OUR INTERPRETATION IS LIKE. THIS SITUATION RIGHT HERE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE TO COMPARE THAT, WHAT WOULD BE A SUBSECTION 3, WHAT A VARIANCE IS SUPPOSED TO BE, AND THEN THE AND THEN THE AUTHORITY THAT THE THAT THE STATE HAS GIVEN FOR THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO CONSIDER. IF YOU COMPARE THAT LIST WITH WHAT YOUR STANDARDS ARE FOR VARIANCE, YOU'LL KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT QUITE THE SAME. IT'S THERE'S A MORE OF A GENERAL AUTHORITY THAT THE STATE HAS GRANTED.
AND THEN FOR FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON, WHICH IS WHICH IS NORMAL.
YOU'VE LISTED HOW TO LIKE FLESH OUT WHAT WHAT AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IS.
AND THERE'S MANY, MANY PROVISIONS THERE WE HAVE TO MEET.
AND THOSE ARE FOUND NOT NECESSARILY IN THE STATE LAW, BUT THEY'RE FOUND IN CASE LAW OVER TIME, WHERE THERE'S BEEN ISSUES ALL OVER THE STATE WHERE PEOPLE HAVE CHALLENGED DETERMINATIONS, GRANTING OF VARIANCES AND MAYBE DENIAL OF VARIANCES, AND THEY'VE, YOU KNOW, GONE TO COURT.
AND THEN SO DEPENDING ON THE COURT HOLDING, THAT'S WHERE IN YOUR CODE THAT YOU HAVE, I MEAN, YOU'RE AN APPLICATION WHERE YOU HAVE WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE FOR VARIANCE. THAT'S WHY THOSE THERE'S EXTRA ONES THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY EXPRESSLY LISTED IN THE STATE LAW, THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM. AND THOSE ARE FINE. WHAT THE STATE WHAT THE LEGISLATURE DID THOUGH IS BECAUSE IN YOUR LIKE, YOUR PROVISIONS FOR VARIANCE ARE NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO BE UNIFORM WITH LEAGUE CITY OR WITH LUBBOCK OR WITH DALLAS.
SO IT DEPENDS ON THE CITY OF WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE FOR VARIANCE.
AND SO IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES, THE LEGISLATURE ADDED THIS SUBSECTION B1, AND SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO WAS ADDRESS THE ISSUE ABOUT FINANCIAL HARDSHIP BEING A ONE OF THE STANDARDS TO CONSIDER WHEN CONSIDERING UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP FOR A VARIANCE.
AND I THINK WE MENTIONED LAST TIME THAT LIKE IT'S BEEN WHAT I WOULD SAY IS LIKE THE GOLDEN RULE FOR ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. I, YOU KNOW, WE COULDN'T COME IN AND SAY, IT'S JUST IT'S JUST COST TOO MUCH MONEY FOR US TO SATISFY YOUR CODE.
WE THAT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THAT'S NOT ALLOWED.
THAT'S NOT A STANDARD TO APPLY. BUT THE LEGISLATURE WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE SPECIFICALLY.
AND THAT'S WHY THEY ADDED THIS SUBSECTION B1 WITH ALL THE WITH THE FIVE DIFFERENT VERSIONS HERE.
AND YOU'LL SEE AFTER THAT, AFTER THAT YOU'LL HAVE 2 PAGES, ONE STAPLED AND ONES.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE ONE THAT'S STAPLED YOU'LL SEE THERE'S THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH AUTHORS, THE SPONSORS, A STATEMENT OF INTENT. AND IT TALKS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW THERE'S DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON, YOU KNOW, AN APPLICANT GOES TO ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, DIFFERENT CITIES. THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ARRAY OF DIFFERENT STANDARDS THAT ARE APPLIED. NO CONSISTENCY. AND SO BUT THAT LAST SENTENCE IN THAT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH IS, I THINK, WHAT WOULD BRING THIS PROVISION RIGHT INTO PLAY, INTO OUR REQUEST. SO IT SAYS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN SOME CITIES, ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL REASONS ARE NOT CONSIDERED A HARDSHIP, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MAJOR REASONS A PERSON WOULD APPLY FOR A VARIANCE.
AND SO THEN TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, THE BILL SETS OUT A NUMBER OF TERMS THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ZBA MAY CONSIDER AS AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, INCLUDING THE FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN CODE, CERTAIN ORDINANCES, AND WHETHER COMPLYING WITH THE SPECIFIC ORDINANCE WILL RESULT IN THE STRUCTURE BEING OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH ANOTHER REQUIRED ORDINANCE.
[00:15:02]
JUST TO SAY THAT THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE AND ADDING THAT IS THAT THEY YOU KNOW, THERE WAS THERE'S HOLDING, YOU KNOW, THE STATE LAW HOLDING AND STATE LAW. THERE'S THERE'S COURT HOLDINGS ABOUT YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW, COME AND SAY IT'S JUST COST TOO MUCH MONEY FOR ME TO, TO COMPLY. THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE A STANDARD.THERE'S HOLDINGS THAT DO THAT. THE LEGISLATURE OVERRODE THOSE HOLDINGS.
IS A IS A IS A MAJOR PORTION OF WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING ARE VARIANTS TO DO IS THAT THIS IS THIS IN ADDITION TO THE TRADITIONAL VARIANTS, YOU KNOW, STANDARDS THAT WE THAT WE THAT WE, YOU KNOW, OUR POSITIONS, WE SATISFY THOSE THAT WE HAVE.
THE LEGISLATURES AUGMENTED THE ABILITY FOR YOU TO CONSIDER WHAT OTHER IMPACTS THIS HAS THAT WOULD CREATE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND HEAR FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IS AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD THAT'S APPLIED IN B1.
SO SPECIFICALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT SUBSECTION B1, IT SAYS IN EXERCISING ITS AUTHORITY UNDER SUBSECTION A.3, WHICH IS VARIANCES, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING AS GROUNDS TO DETERMINE WHETHER COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE, AS APPLIES TO A STRUCTURE THAT IS A SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL, WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, AND THEN WE WOULD FOCUS ON 1AND 5 HERE, THAT THE FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE, AS SHOWN ON THE MOST RECENT APPRAISAL ROLL CERTIFIED TO THE ASSESSOR FOR THE MUNICIPALITY UNDER THE APPLICABLE TAX CODE.
SO, I MEAN, WE UNDERSTAND THAT. AND YOUR CITY ATTORNEY RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THERE'S A COUPLE OF WORDS HERE THAT, THAT THAT AGAIN, OUR POSITION IS THAT THEY DEFINITELY APPLY.
THEY MAY NOT. WE'LL SEE. SO THE FIRST THING IS THAT IT SAYS WHEN UNDER A.3 THE BOARD MAY CONSIDER OUR POSITION IS THAT IT'S NOT A DISCRETIONARY THING LIKE YOU MAY OR MAY NOT TAKE IT. AND THE REASON WE SAY THAT IS THE SAME, SAME REASON, IF YOU LOOK AT SUBSECTION A, THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD, THE BOARD JUST MAY AND IT LISTS OUT, YOU KNOW, SPECIAL APPEALS, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND VARIANCES.
AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY CITY THAT SAYS THAT THERE'S A DISCRETIONARY ABILITY FOR THE FOR THE BOARD OF ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO CONSIDER VARIANCES. I THINK THEY WOULD TAKE THAT AS A AS AN AUTHORIZATION, BUT A LIMITATION ON WHAT THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WOULD DO.
SO THAT'S OUR INTERPRETATION OF MAY. IT COULD IT COULD BE DISCRETIONARY.
WE JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE. WE THINK THAT SAME KIND OF WORD IS HERE.
AND THAT'S THAT'S TO BE ARGUED IF WE DON'T GET APPROVED.
THE LAST PORTION SAYS IT'S APPLIED TO A STRUCTURE THAT'S SUBJECT TO APPEAL.
THAT'S CONFUSING, I THINK I THINK THAT'S JUST BAD DRAFTING FROM THE LEGISLATURE.
AND IT'S IT'S SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON ON A VARIANCE GRANT.
THE QUESTION WOULD BE ARE THEY DOES DID THE LEGISLATURE MESS UP AND THINK THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT APPEALS? WE DON'T THINK SO BECAUSE SUBSECTION B RIGHT ABOVE IS DIRECTED TO THE APPEAL PROCESS AND THE CONSIDERATIONS THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SHOULD HAVE TO THOSE.
THAT'S WHY WE THINK B1 IS FOR VARIANCES. MAYBE NOT.
WE DON'T KNOW. AND THEN SUBSECTION 1 AGAIN WE BROUGHT THIS UP LAST TIME TOO, WHICH I THINK IS CORRECT, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE WAY THIS IS DRAFTED, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE, YOU KNOW, ALL THE APPRAISAL ROLES AND WE HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE IS.
AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE IT BURNED DOWN. AND SO I MEAN IT COULD BE.
SO THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO INTERPRET THAT ONE.
IT COULD BE THAT THAT WERE PROHIBITED FROM DOING SUBSECTION.
OUR POSITION IS WE DON'T THINK THOSE EITHER ONE OF THOSE ARE CORRECT. WE THINK WHAT IT MEANS IS THE MOST THE MOST RECENT APPRAISAL ROLL WITH THE STRUCTURE THERE, WHICH WOULD BE IN OUR I THINK WE PROVIDED THAT IN OUR APPLICATION TO YOU.
AND WHEN THE SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION THAT THERE'S I THINK 2023 HAS THE VALUE.
I THINK IN OUR, IN OUR SUPPLEMENTAL, I DON'T KNOW I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE. LET ME SEE.
OKAY. WELL, I WAS GOING TO SAY I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THAT THE GCAD SHEET THAT'S THERE THAT THAT HAS THE NO, THAT'S FINE. THE BECAUSE THE WAY IT DIVIDES IT OUT AND I AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THE, THE REASON FOR THIS BUT THE WAY THAT G CAD SO I THINK IT'S IN 2024, YOU HAVE NO VALUE. YOU HAVE YOU HAVE VALUE FOR AN ASPHALT PAVING.
SO IT WOULD BE 20, 23. SO THAT SHOULD BE ON PAGE 9 OF YOUR PACKET.
[00:20:06]
NONE OF OUR PACKET OF THE OF THE ZBA PACKET. IF YOU LOOK THERE YOU'LL SEE ON ACTUALLY I'M WRONG.IT'S ON PAGE 11. THERE'S A VALUE THERE OF THE BUILDING.
AND THIS IS THE LAST TIME. THIS IS THE LAST CERTIFIED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE THERE. AND YOU SEE THE TOP OF THE PAGE ON THE RIGHT SIDE. GCAT VALUE THE STRUCTURE AT $524,260. WELL, I'M SAYING THERE'S A DISCREPANCY IS IF YOU LOOK TO THE WHERE IS IT? ON. YEAH. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ON PAGE 9, THERE IT IS ON THE SECOND, ON THE NEAR THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE ON THE PROPERTY VALUES.
THE IMPROVEMENT NON HOME SITE VALUE IS LISTED AT 3789.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHY THE DISCREPANCY IS THERE.
THE REASON I'M POINTING THAT OUT TO YOU IS JUST THAT. SO USING WHEN OUR INTERPRETATION OF SUBSECTION B1 WOULD BE THAT THIS IS THE MOST RECENT APPRAISAL ROLL WITH A STRUCTURE VALUED. WE HAVE 2 DIFFERENT VALUES READING THIS, READING THIS APPRAISAL.
AND WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT IN THE WAY MOST FAVORABLE TO THE CITY WOULD BE, WE TAKE THE HIGHER VALUE BECAUSE THAT'S A HIGHER STANDARD FOR US TO MEET, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT WE'D HAVE TO HAVE SHOW YOU THAT THE COST TO CONFORM AT LEAST EXCEEDS 50% OF THE $524,000 VALUE.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. THAT'S THE BASIS FOR FOR THE, YOU KNOW, FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND WHY WE'RE BRINGING IN THIS ADDITIONAL THING. AND IT'S NOT AND THIS ISN'T AN ISSUE THAT I THINK THAT THE CITY IS AT FAULT OR ANYTHING.
EVEN IN YOUR PACKET, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE WAY THAT YOUR YOUR MOTIONS ARE STRUCTURED INCLUDES HARDSHIP, FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. AND THOSE THINGS ARE, YOU KNOW, GETTING ADJUSTED BY CITIES ALL THE TIME.
THAT'S WHY IT MAY SEEM LIKE IT'S WE'RE BRINGING SOMETHING BRAND NEW. IT IS A FAIRLY NEW STATUTE.
SO AGAIN, I THINK OUR POSITIONS WE'VE MET THIS WITH THE TRADITIONAL VARIANCE STANDARDS THAT WE'VE YOU KNOW, NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, THIS NEW AUGMENTED PORTION OF THE STATE CODE, AND WE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE UMAY AND THE APPEAL, THE MOST RECENT APPRAISAL. WE STILL FEEL LIKE THIS IS THIS KIND OF ISSUE IS WHAT THE LEGISLATURE IS TRYING TO GET AT WHEN IT ADDED THIS PROVISION FOR YOU TO CONSIDER.
SO WHAT ARE THE VALUES? THEN AGAIN, IF THE STANDARD IS 50%, WE HAVE TO SHOW YOU THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE HERE, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT OUR 60, IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE CODE, WE'D HAVE 0FOOT SETBACK AND 60% LOT COVERAGE.
IT'S BEEN THE INTENT TO BUILD IT IN THE SITE WHERE IT WAS.
AND SO ALL OF OUR NUMBERS ARE BASED ON THE THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE AT THE, AT THE SITE.
IT IS NOW SAY THAT AGAIN. SO THE INTENT. SO THE INTENT FROM THE BEGINNING, EVEN AFTER THE FIRE WAS TO REBUILD THE STRUCTURE IN THE SITE, THAT IT WAS JUST TO REBUILD THE STRUCTURE AND THE CODE THAT.
SO SUBSECTION B1 OF OF 211 019 B1. THE NEW PROVISION IN THE STATE LAW SAYS THAT. YOU KNOW WHAT? AGAIN, OUR POSITION IS THAT YOU'VE BEEN GRANTED AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AS PART OF AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
AND THE STANDARD THAT THE STATE HAS PUT ON. THAT IS NOT JUST US TO SAY THAT WE CAN DETERMINE WHATEVER FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP DETERMINATION IS THE COST OF COMPLIANCE TO THE CODE.
WHAT PART OF THE COST IS CONSIDERED PART OF THE HDDZ? WELL, IT WOULD BE, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE WE HAVE TO SUBMIT PLANS TO THE CITY OF A STRUCTURE THAT SATISFIES ALL, ALL, ALL PARCELS, ALL PORTIONS OF THE CITY CODE.
SO AND THAT'S AND THAT'S THE BASIS WE USE. WHAT WOULD WE HAVE TO DO TO IN THIS CASE BUILD A STRUCTURE THAT SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE, WHICH WOULD BE 0 FOOT SETBACK AND 60 FOOT LOT COVERAGE.
THAT'S WITHOUT A VARIANCE. IF WE DID THAT, THEN WE WOULD SATISFY THE CODE.
SO HERE AGAIN WHY THERE WAS CONFUSION LAST TIME IS ALL THE ESTIMATES WE HAVE.
THEY DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT KIND OF THAT KIND OF STRUCTURE OR DESIGN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BECAUSE THE INTENT OF OUR, OF OUR CLIENT IS TO BUILD THE STRUCTURE AS IT WAS BEFORE THE FIRE, BECAUSE AGAIN, AGAIN, THE WAY THE TIMING, WE WERE IN A NON CONFORMING USE.
SO WE HAD TO BUILD THE EXACT SAME WAY THAT THAT'S THE STRUCTURE AND STANDARD WE WERE UNDER.
SO WHEN THE NON CONFORMING STATUS GOT REMOVED THEN NOW OUR OBLIGATION IS TO SATISFY EVERY PORTION OF THE CODE WHICH AGAIN MOVE THAT STRUCTURE DOWN, REDESIGN IT SO THAT WE HAVE 60 60% LOT FRONTAGE COVERAGE AND ZERO FOOT SETBACK WHICH WE HAVE NOT.
WE HAVE NO PLANS FOR THAT, NO DESIGN FOR THAT.
[00:25:06]
AND YOU'LL SEE THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT ESTIMATES THERE. 1 ESTIMATE IT IS AGAIN, BECAUSE WHAT THE PLANS WE'VE HAD HAS BEEN TO BUILD AT THE CURRENT LOCATION, AND THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT, A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE PRESENTED IN JULY AND THEN NOW IT'S INCREASED, BUT IT'S NOT MUCH SO THAT THE, THE AVERAGE, THE ESTIMATE TO CONSTRUCT THE CONSTRUCT, THE STRUCTURE IN ITS, IN ITS FORMER LOCATION, IN THE DESIGN THAT MET THE CRITERIA FROM WHAT IT WAS BEFORE THE FIRE WOULD BE ABOUT 1.146 MILLION.THAT'S RESTRUCTURING, REBUILDING IT AT THE LOCATION.
IT WAS IN THE SAME DESIGN IT WAS BEFORE. NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ESTIMATED COST AGAIN IN OUR IN OUR ADDENDUM THAT WE PROVIDED TO YOU THE. ESTIMATED AGAIN THESE ARE ESTIMATE DESIGN COSTS AND THEY'RE ONLY THE ESTIMATED DESIGN AND PREPARATION THE DESIGN ENGINEERING SITE PREP COST TO SATISFY THE HDDZ . SO TO MOVE THAT STRUCTURE AND REDESIGN IT AND BUILD IT AT WILL NOT DESIGN IT BUT BUILD IT, BUT TO PUT IT SITE PREP AT THE SOUTHERN LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IS ESTIMATED TO BE ABOUT $1.37 MILLION.
AND SO AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE A COST ESTIMATE FOR CONSTRUCTION. BUT ASSUMING IT'S EVEN IN THE BALLPARK OF WHAT IT WOULD HAVE COST TO BUILD THE LOCATION, THEN YOU ADD THOSE TWO TOGETHER AND YOU HAVE $1.146 PLUS $1.37 MILLION.
AND IF THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE AT 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE IS 262,000, THEN WE MORE THAN WE EXCEED THE COST OF THAT OF THAT VALUE BY MORE THAN 400%. AND SO AGAIN, THOSE ARE ESTIMATES.
AND EVEN IF OUR OF OUR CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE WAS OFF AND IT COST US NO MORE TO DO THAT, AND MAYBE OUR DESIGN AND ESTIMATE, THE POINT IS WE WOULD BE AT LEAST 100% MORE OF THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE ON THE MOST RECENT APPRAISAL ROLL.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SO YOU'RE NOT ANTICIPATING ANY PRE-CONSTRUCTION GENERAL CONDITIONS OR SITE WORK WITH THE STRUCTURE AT THE ORIGINAL SITE. IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT CORRECT? CHRIS? YOUR ESTIMATES. THAT'S CORRECT.
ANYTHING THAT'S LISTED ON THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS? NO. WHAT YOU HAVE. YEAH. BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE SITE WORK.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE PRE-CONSTRUCTION COSTS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE INSURANCE.
ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE LISTING AS. WHAT THE GENERAL CONDITIONS.
RIGHT. THOSE ARE ALL APPLICABLE TO EITHER SITE.
YOU WILL INCUR THEM. YOU WILL INCUR GENERAL CONDITIONS.
WHAT WE ASKED, I THOUGHT LAST TIME WAS WHAT WAS SUMMARIZED IN OUR INTRODUCTION TODAY WAS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COST BETWEEN THE SITE, THE ORIGINAL SITE AND THE HDDZ SITE.
SO WHAT YOU CAN DO IS YOU CAN AGAIN OUR AGAIN THIS ESTIMATED COST CONSTRUCTION COST WOULD BE.
SO THE WAY WE LABEL THIS A1 IS EXISTING LOCATION COSTS.
AND THEN NEW DEVELOPMENT PRECONSTRUCTION COSTS.
SO THE WAY. SO AGAIN OUR ONLY ESTIMATE WE CAN USE IS BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A NEW STRUCTURE DESIGNED IS JUST SAY IF YOU USE THE CONSTRUCT THE CONSTRUCTION COST, THE EXISTING LOCATION COST, EVEN IF IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME AT THE NEW LOCATION, THEN WE WOULD JUST SAY THAT YOU HAVE 1.145, YOU KNOW, EFFECTIVELY 1.14 MILLION TO CONSTRUCT A STRUCTURE THAT SATISFIES ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE HDC IN THE NEW LOCATION. THAT VALUE IS MORE THAN 50% OF THE MOST CURRENT APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE. OH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE APPRAISAL.
YES, I THINK A MORE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IN JULY WE DETERMINED AS A BODY THAT THIS IS NOT A RECONSTRUCTION. IT'S A NEW BUILD.
THAT WAS DETERMINED ON JULY 9TH. SO FROM THERE, ALL OF THIS IS A NEW BUILD.
WHETHER YOU BUILD IT AT ITS ORIGINAL LOCATION OR YOU BUILD IT IN COMPLIANCE WITH HDDZ, EITHER SPOT IS A NEW BUILD. SO YOU WILL INCUR PRE-CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
YOU WILL INCUR GENERAL CONDITIONS, COSTS YOU WILL INCUR SITE WORK.
WHAT WE ASKED YOU FOR FROM LAST MONTH WAS WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NEW BUILD ON THAT
[00:30:03]
ORIGINAL SITE AND A NEW BUILD ON A COMPLIANT SITE.THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING FOR AND I DON'T SEE IT HERE.
SO THIS SO WHAT WE'RE APPLYING IS THE STANDARD THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED UNDER THE STATE LAW, WHICH IS THAT WE TAKE 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE MOST APPRAISED, THE MOST RECENT APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE.
AND SO AND AGAIN, I THINK IT WAS CLEAR THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE ESTIMATES TO YOU ON THOSE.
AND THESE ARE ESTIMATES. ANY EVEN OUR LOWEST ESTIMATE HERE, WE ARE MORE THAN 100% OF THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE, WHICH, WHICH EFFECTIVELY IS 200, 300% MORE THAN, THAN THE 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE.
SO USING THE NEW STATE LAW STANDARD THAT'S BEEN GRANTED TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO CONSIDER FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, THAT'S THE STANDARD WE'RE USING. AND AGAIN, WITH ESTIMATED COSTS, IT'S MORE THAN 50% OF THE MOST RECENT CERTIFIED APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE.
AND SO THE AND SO THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU.
AND EVEN IF WE WERE TO TAKE OUT COST ON THE, YOU KNOW, SAY ON THE $1.145 MILLION, SAY, HALF OF THAT IS, YOU KNOW, YOU SAY, I THINK THE WORD YOU USED LAST TIME WAS SUNK COST OR ALL THAT STUFF.
AND THE STANDARD THAT THEY'VE PUT HERE IS THAT WE TAKE THE MOST RECENT CERTIFIED APPRAISAL VALUE, WHICH AGAIN, IN OUR IN OUR POSITION WOULD BE THAT IT'S EITHER 0 FROM 2025 OR WE LOOK AT WHEN THERE WAS A STRUCTURE VALUE HERE, AND WE USE THE HIGHER THOSE VALUES AND EVEN AT THE MOST CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE ON WHAT CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE, WE EXCEED 50% OF THAT VALUE. AND SO ALL THAT WOULD DO IS THAT WE MEET TRADITIONAL STANDARDS FOR VARIANCE.
AND WE SET AND WE AND WE MORE THAN EXCEED THE STATE'S THRESHOLD THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU.
AND SO THAT'S THAT'S PART OF OUR REQUEST AND THAT'S WHY THAT'S THERE. AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST MEETING. AND WHAT THE SAME THING THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TODAY IS TO CONSIDER THAT AS PART OF YOUR, AS PART OF YOUR CONSIDERATION ON GRANTING THE VARIANCE.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO. WE DO HAVE WE DO HAVE I MEAN, WE HAVE OUR CONSTRUCTION, OUR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND THE THE FRANCHISE OWNER HERE.
IF YOU'D LIKE ANY BUSINESS QUESTIONS OR QUESTIONS. MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, MISS HOLLOWAY, ABOUT THE VALUATION THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ALSO OR. CAN CAN CAN ONE OF OUR MEMBERS COME UP AND ADDRESS SOME ISSUES.
IS THAT FINE? OKAY. YES. CHRIS. OH, CHRIS. HELLERMAN. MY COMPANY IS CORNERSTONE FC SERVICES.
I'M THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR PARTNERING WITH THE FRANCHISEE.
THIS SPREADSHEET HERE IS I'LL SPEAK TO THE GENERAL CONDITIONS.
THESE ARE ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR THE ADDITIONAL TIME.
APPROXIMATELY 3 MONTHS TO CLEAR THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS WHAT SOMEBODY, IF THEY CAME IN BRAND NEW, WANTED TO BUILD A NEW DEVELOPMENT.
THESE ARE THE COSTS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT TO START FROM SCRATCH.
YOU HAVE WE'RE NOT CUTTING AND PASTING A BUILDING HERE.
YOU'RE ERASING EVERYTHING AND YOU'RE STARTING FROM SCRATCH.
SO THAT'S WHAT THESE YOU ASKED FOR, THESE SPECIFIC COSTS.
THEY DO NOT COUNT ANYTHING THAT IS REPRESENTED IN THE, THE CONCEPT OF MY APOLOGIES FOR USING THE WORD REBUILD. I KNOW IT WASN'T CALLED THAT, BUT THE REBUILD COST.
WE'RE READY TO START. IN ESSENCE, TODAY. REBUILD, ALL OF THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION WORK HAS BEEN DONE, ALL OF THE APPROVALS, ALL OF THE DESIGN. WE'RE READY TO GO.
THAT I DON'T HAVE THAT. YOU SAID YOU JUST YOU HAVE.
YOU'RE READY. YOU'VE DONE IT. YOU KNOW HOW MUCH IT COST? WE HAVE PAID. YES. HOW MUCH DID IT COST? I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
[00:35:04]
YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES.WE NEED TO COMPARE SIMILAR COSTS. HOW MUCH WAS YOUR PRE-CONSTRUCTION AND YOUR GENERAL CONDITIONS COST FOR THE ORIGINAL SITE? YOU SAID YOU'VE ALREADY DONE IT. CORRECT. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION.
AND HERE YOU'RE GIVING US AN ESTIMATE. IS THIS ANYTHING LIKE WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY EXPERIENCED OR INCURRED? THE ESTIMATE FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS IS SIMILAR, BUT IT IS MORE BECAUSE MORE I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE ASKING FOR. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE ASKING FOR IN IN DECEMBER.
THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED TO KNOW WAS WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COST.
BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A BUILDING, YOU HAVE A NEW BUILD.
WELL, THESE ARE THE DIFFERENCES IN THE COSTS OF WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.
NO, NOT THE DIFFERENCES. THESE ARE THE ACTUAL NOT ACTUALS, BUT PLANNING UNIT ESTIMATES.
RIGHT. IF IF IF TODAY YOU SAID YOU'RE APPROVED AND MOVE FORWARD.
OUR BUILDING COSTS LOOK LIKE EXISTING LOCATION BUILDING COSTS.
THAT'S TODAY. THAT'S JUST A BUILDING. THAT'S THE BUILDING.
THAT'S JUST THE STRUCTURE. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.
BUT THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY OF THE PREP WORK, DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU'VE ALREADY INCURRED.
AND WHAT I WANT TO KNOW FROM YOU IS WHAT HAVE YOU ALREADY SPENT? IF YOU HAVE A SLAB THERE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD ON? NO, THEY HAVE NO SLAB.
THERE WAS A SLAB. OH, SO YOU DON'T HAVE ONE? NO, THEY HAVE NOTHING.
IT'S A NEW BUILD. YEAH. BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE SLAB ON THE EXISTING BUILDING.
NO, IT'S THE FOUNDATION IS LISTED THERE IN LINE 3.
THIS WAS THE LAYOUT. THIS THIS ORIGINAL EXISTING LOCATION BUILDING COSTS WAS THE FORMAT THAT WE PRESENTED IN THE COMMUNICATION TO THE CITY THROUGHOUT LAST YEAR BEFORE, I'M SORRY, 2024, BEFORE THE WORK WAS REQUIRED TO STOP.
THIS WAS THE ONE THIS WAS THE I DON'T RECALL HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT, BUT IN DEALING WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, THESE WERE THE THESE WERE THE COSTS THAT THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR WITH CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE, FOR THE NEW BUILDING. BUT YOU AGREE THAT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE NOT THE ONLY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT.
RIGHT. WELL, CORRECT. BUT I THINK IN, IN THE FOR THIS EXERCISE, THE, THE QUESTIONS WERE WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES IN WHAT HAS TO BE DONE VERSUS WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE? I THINK THAT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING. THEN WE WERE ASKING FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TOTAL COST OF THE ORIGINAL SITE, DEVELOPING THE ORIGINAL SITE VERSUS THE SITE THAT'S COMPLIANT WITH HDDZ.
IF I YOU'VE GIVEN US IS YOU'RE STACKING THE DECK HERE.
YOU'RE NOT TELLING US WHAT YOUR PRE-CONSTRUCTION PRE CONSTRUCTION COSTS WERE FOR THE EXISTING SITE.
YOU'RE JUST GIVING US THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE NEW SITE SO WE CAN'T COMPARE.
LIKE THE ORIGINAL SITE, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE THE PROXY FOR WHATEVER DIFFERENCE WE'RE LOOKING AT, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU'RE TELLING US YOU HAVE A HARDSHIP, BUT THE HARDSHIP SHOULD NOT EXCEED 50% OF THE PROXY VALUE OF THE ORIGINAL SITE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.
THAT'S THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE WE'RE LOOKING AT.
YOU'RE TELLING US YOU HAVE A HARDSHIP, BUT THE HARDSHIP IS IN MOVING 60FT.
THAT'S ALL THE HARDSHIP IS, IN MY ESTIMATION.
SO WHAT IS THE COST? THERE'S THERE'S AN INCREMENT.
THERE'S AN INCREMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN THE COST.
YES. OKAY. SO IF I SAID IT WAS APPROXIMATELY $60,000, WOULD THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION? NOT IF IT'S 1.37 MILLION. WELL, THAT'S A DIFFERENT THAT'S A DIFFERENT PROJECT ENTIRELY.
I DON'T I CAN'T I DON'T KNOW, I HAVE TO SEE THE NUMBERS.
I HAVE TO SEE THE NUMBERS. I DON'T SEE HOW YOU HAVE A LANDSCAPING IRRIGATION DESIGN COST ON THE NEW DEVELOPMENT WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A COMPARABLE ONE ON THE, YOU KNOW, EXISTING SITE.
[00:40:07]
ALREADY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, BUT THIS, THIS LAYOUT FOR EXISTING LOCATION BUILDING COSTS WAS THE CONSISTENT SPREADSHEET DATA THAT WE HAD PROVIDED TO THE CITY FROM THE FROM THE OUTSET OF THE DISCUSSION. SO THERE WASN'T ANY ATTEMPTS TO, TO MISLEAD OR TO TO NOT HAVE US PROVIDE ANY OF THE INFORMATION SO THAT THAT WASN'T THE CASE. I THINK IT WAS JUST BY KEEPING IT CONSISTENT.YOU KNOW, THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE YOU DEVELOPED WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING DEVELOPED A A1.
THE SITUATION HAS CHANGED BECAUSE WHAT YOU GET, WHAT YOU GIVE US AN A1 IS STRICTLY A BUILDING AND ITS COMPLETION, RIGHT? THERE'S NO SITE WORK. THERE'S NOTHING.
CORRECT. THAT'S THE WELL, THINGS HAVE CHANGED.
THAT'S WHY WE DECIDED THIS IS A NEW BUILD. THIS IS A COMPLETELY NEW BUILD.
I'M JUST. I JUST BUILD IT SO THE THE. THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU ALL ANYMORE. SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, DONNA.
SO AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT WHEN WE CAN GIVE A VERY AND AND I'M GETTING REALLY CONFUSED LISTENING TO ALL THIS.
SO EVEN IF WE ADDED $200,000 MORE TO THE COST OF THEIR EXISTING BUILDING, OR THEY'RE WANTING TO REBUILD AS YOU THOUGHT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO, THAT'S STILL A CAN QUALIFY AS A HARDSHIP BECAUSE IT'S WAY MORE THAN 50% OF THE COST OF THE HIGHEST ESTIMATE FOR WHAT THE BUILDING HAD BEEN.
IS THAT AM I THINKING ABOUT THAT IN THE RIGHT WAY? DOES IT? WELL. AND OF COURSE, AS AN INDEPENDENT BODY I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY THIS TO THE BEST SO THAT THE COMMISSIONERS CAN COME UP AGAIN WITH THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT AND DIRECTION. THE THERE IS NO STRUCTURE THAT'S THERE.
AND AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE IF THE HOME, LET'S JUST SAY IT'S A HOUSE WAS PARTIALLY DESTROYED. AND IN ORDER FOR THEM TO REBUILD THAT PORTION TO TO THE CURRENT CODE WHETHER OR NOT THE COST OF THAT WOULD EXCEED LIKE THE 50% THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, SOMETIMES WE SEE THOSE TYPES OF ISSUES THEY COME WHEN WE HAVE AN EXISTING BUILDING CODE WITH AN HISTORIC STRUCTURE, THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT'S ONE WAY OF LOOKING AT IT.
THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE IS TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ENSURE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE IN A NEW BUILD? AS OPPOSED TO A1 AND A2? YOU KNOW, SOME CAN BE ESTHETICS, SOME CANNOT BE ESTHETICS.
I MEAN, WHERE WHERE DO YOU CROSS THE LINE WITH WHAT IS A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AS TO I LIKE IT, I WANT IT, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE IT. SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT THE BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER.
WE HAVE NOT HAD A SITUATION LIKE THIS BEFORE, CLEARLY.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. OR THAT IT'S OF THEIR OWN MAKING.
IT IS REALLY WHETHER OR NOT BECAUSE OF THE CODE, IT IS TRULY, TRULY PROHIBITED FOR THEM TO DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO EITHER RESTORE OR MAINTAIN SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY ON THE GROUND.
BASICALLY SOMETHING THAT IS THERE OR. I'M TRYING TO THINK OF SOME OTHER ISSUES THAT COULD EVEN
[00:45:06]
BE COMPARABLE TO THIS ENCROACHMENTS MAYBE COULD BE ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY BUILT A HOME AND FOOTINGS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE AND WOULD BE COST PROHIBITIVE TO TRY AND MOVE A BUILDING BACK, AND FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THE SURVEYORS WERE OFF BY HALF A FOOT.YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT THE APPLICANT'S MAKING THE VARIANCES SUCH AS THAT.
BUT AGAIN, THAT'S A STRUCTURE THAT'S IN PLACE.
AS YOU SPOKE. YOU TALKED ABOUT CODE. AND THERE'S THE BUILDING CODE, WHICH IS ONE THING.
AND THEN THERE'S THE LDR, WHICH IS ANOTHER THING.
AND IF THEY BUILD THEIR BUILDING NEW CONSTRUCTION AND IT WILL MEET THE CURRENT BUILDING CODE, IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO REVERT TO WHATEVER THE CODE WAS IN THE 60S WHENEVER THIS WAS BUILT.
SO THAT TO ME IS A LITTLE BIT OF APPLES AND ORANGES.
BUT AND THERE ARE ALSO DIFFERENT TYPES OF CODES AND PERMITS THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO GET ANYWAY, NOT JUST CITY CODES AND PERMITS, BUT ALSO PROBABLY COUNTY CODE AND PERMITS.
YEAH. CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT INTERPRETATION? AND THAT IS. YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS NOTHING THERE.
THIS IS COMPLETELY GONE. WE CAN INTERPRET THAT AS JUST A NEW LOT, A NEW BUILD SITE.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS ALREADY DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSIONERS. YES. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO VERIFY THAT.
THAT'S OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR WHOEVER'S AT THE PODIUM. YOU KNOW, WE'VE GONE OVER COSTS AND HARDSHIPS AND CODES AND, YOU KNOW.
CODES AND CASES AND ALL THIS STUFF. YOU KNOW, I KNOW HOW TO READ ALL THIS VERY WELL.
MY CONCERN IN THIS IS IN THE ZONING VARIANCE IN 13,400.
AND THAT IS MY CONCERN. AND I THINK THE CONCERNS OF THE CITIZENS OF THIS, OF THIS CITY, ESPECIALLY THE PEOPLE WHO TRAVERSE UP AND DOWN THE SEAWALL, INCLUDING PEDESTRIANS AND TOURISTS, IS THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY STANDARD AND JUST KIND OF WANT TO KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE DONE ANY RESEARCH OR ANY DEVELOPMENT OR ANY HAVE ANY PLANS ON, YOU KNOW, HOW WOULD THIS BUILDING IF YOU WERE FORCED TO REBUILD THIS BUILDING, YOU KNOW PURSUANT TO THE NEW, YOU KNOW WAY VERSUS WHAT YOU ALL WANT TO DO? HOW CAN THAT POSITIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AFFECT PEDESTRIANS VEHICLE TRAFFIC, SOMEONE VEERING OFF THE ROAD YOU KNOW, HITTING THE BUILDING VERSUS, YOU KNOW, PARKING LOT FULL OF CARS. IS THAT BETTER OR WORSE FOR, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE TRAVERSING UP AND DOWN THE SEAWALL AND GOLF CARTS ON FOOT, ON VEHICLES VERSUS PEOPLE IN THE PARKING LOT? YOU KNOW, THE CUSTOMERS AND THE PATRONS OF THE RESTAURANT, ARE THEY MORE OR LESS SAFE WITH THE BUILDING BACK THERE VERSUS THE BUILDING UP HERE? SHOULD AN ACCIDENT OCCUR, SHOULD SOME TYPE OF NATURAL DISASTER BEFALL US AND THEY'RE OPEN AND THINGS HAPPEN.
IT'S THAT'S MY CONCERN. AND THAT'S WHERE I'M KIND OF BASING MY DECISION ON HERE.
IS, IS IS THIS NEW BUILDING OR DO WE KEEP IT THE SAME? IS THAT BETTER OR WORSE FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY ASPECT OF THIS? AND BECAUSE PUBLIC SAFETY, WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE WALKING UP AND DOWN THESE STREETS OR SITTING THERE DINING YOU CAN'T PUT A DOLLAR AMOUNT ON A, ON A HUMAN LIFE. AND THAT REALLY IS WHERE MY MY DECISION RESTS IS, IS THE SAFETY ASPECT OF THIS.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT I MEAN, YOUR CITY ATTORNEY CAN COMMENT ON THIS, BUT THAT BUT GENERALLY THE THE HEALTH SAFETY WELFARE ISSUE IS, IS MORE OF A, A TERM OF ART. IT DOES ACTUALLY APPLY TO THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL HEALTH AND WELFARE OF RESIDENTS THERE.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ZONING ISSUES, THAT'S MORE REPRESENTED IN THE IN THE PURPOSES AND THE POLICE POWER OF THE CITY AND ZONING PARTICULARLY, YOU HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WAS ADOPTED AND THAT'S SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT AND COMPREHEND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS AS YOU AS YOU IMPLEMENT THAT VISION INTO YOUR ZONING CODE.
SO, SO THE SO THE ANSWER WOULD BE YOUR HDDZ. THE NEW THE NEW CODE PROVISIONS APPLY TO THE SITE, THE NEW OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT ISN'T THAT SHOULD BE THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITY.
SO ANSWER NUMBER 1 IS THAT IF US TO FULLY COMPLY WITH THAT PROVISION OF YOUR CODE, THEN YES, IT WOULD BE IT. BY THE NATURE OF THE REGULATION, IT WOULD BE HEALTH AND SAFETY.
[00:50:01]
THE PART OF OUR VARIANCE THEN CAN GET TO YOUR QUESTION IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT WE STILL DON'T, THAT THAT HAVING THE STRUCTURE REBUILT AT ITS ORIGINAL LOCATION DOES NOT AFFECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. OUR ANSWER WOULD BE IF ON THE PHYSICAL ACTUAL HEALTH AND SAFETY, NO, IT WAS EXISTING IN THAT SITE FOR MANY, MANY DECADES WITHOUT ISSUE. HERE. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THE HEALTH AND SAFETY THE TERM OF ART.WHAT ARE WE GETTING AT? AND THAT'S PART OF WHY I HIGHLIGHTED AND FOR YOU IN 12.401D, THE OTHER POWERS, THAT PART OF WHAT YOU CAN DO IS IF YOU WERE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, I MEAN, AND AGAIN, OUR POSITION IS THAT WE SATISFY THE THRESHOLD THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU UNDER THE NEW STATE LAW. THE NEWER STATE LAW IS THAT WE'VE SHOWN AGAIN, IT'S WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE QUESTIONED AS NEW, BUT WE FEEL LIKE THAT THERE'S A 2 2023 CERTIFIED APPRAISED VALUE THAT SHOWS A VALUE FOR THE STRUCTURE WE EXCEED, WHATEVER THE COST IS, WE EXCEED THAT THAT 50% THRESHOLD AND THAT SHOULDN'T THAT THAT ALONE IS NOT THE BASIS FOR OUR VARIANCE REQUEST.
IT'S A PART OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST. SO THEN THE QUESTION WOULD BE IF YOU WERE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND HAVE A SETBACK AND BUILD ON THE LOCATION, THEN WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THIS? HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE? THE PURPOSE OF THE HDDZ ITSELF, AGAIN, OUR OPINION AND THE STAFF AND YOUR ATTORNEY CAN CAN GUIDE YOU IN THAT.
THE THE INTENT OF THE ZONE, WHICH IT SEEMS TO BE WOULD BE THAT YOU'RE LIKE, IF I'M ON SEAWALL BOULEVARD AND I'M LOOKING LOOKING EAST, NORTH NORTHEAST DOWN SEAWALL BOULEVARD. SO TO MY LEFT, THEN NORTH OF ME IS GOING TO BE WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO SEE HERE, WHICH WOULD BE STRUCTURES DOWN THE BOULEVARD.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS FOR THAT. HEALTH AND SAFETY. ACTUAL HEALTH AND SAFETY COULD BE IT ALSO THE ESTHETIC, THE THE PLACEMAKING OF IT COULD BE THE PURPOSE FOR THAT. NOW IF WE HAVE IT SET BACK THEN WE'RE NOT SATISFYING THAT PORTION OF THE CODE.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE ON THAT. THAT'S PART OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST. YOU COULD THEN TO MEET THAT PORTION, YOU COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO PUT LANDSCAPING ALONG SEAWALL BOULEVARD TO CONTINUE THAT, THAT USE. MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WOULD DO. MAYBE IT'S SOME KIND OF SCREENING A WALL, I DON'T KNOW, BUT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT CONDITIONS ON A VARIANCE REQUEST THAT THAT WILL HELP US TO SATISFY THE PURPOSE OF THE CODE AND GRANTING THE VARIANCE.
AND SO THAT'S I MEAN THAT'S MAY NOT GET TO YOUR ANSWER, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S EFFECTIVELY WHAT WE HEAR IS THAT IT'S NOT WHEN WE SAY HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE CONTEMPLATED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS, AS IMPLEMENTED THROUGH YOUR ZONING CODE, THAT'S, THAT'S CONTEMPLATED THERE AND THEN. SO IT SHOULD BE THAT IF WE SATISFY THE HDDZ OVERLAY DISTRICT, WE ARE WE ARE SATISFYING THE HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITY, OF THE CITY. YOU CAN CONSIDER THAT IN YOUR VARIANCE IN GRANTING THE VARIANCE AND PUT CONDITIONS ON IT THAT COULD MEET, YOU KNOW, THE PURPOSES THAT WOULD THAT WOULD BE THERE.
SO JUST ONE QUESTION. CAN YOU PLEASE REMIND US WHAT IS STILL THERE OR OR WHAT'S THE BENEFIT OF Y'ALL WANTING TO KEEP THAT FOOTPRINT. THE THE INFRASTRUCTURE. SO THE THE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.
THANK YOU. AND IT'S AND WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THIS YET AND AND WE BROUGHT UP LAST TIME.
WE ARE AGAIN WHAT MAKES US ALL SO UNIQUE IS THAT WE ARE OUR PROPERTY, RIGHT? INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY. WE'RE NOT THE PROPERTY OWNERS. WE HAVE A LEASEHOLD INTEREST WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER.
AND SO THAT'S THAT'S A CONDITION THAT THAT COMPLICATES ON THE PRIVATE SIDE, COMPLICATES SOME OF THE ISSUES, IS THAT WE CAN'T IF WE OWN THE PROPERTY AND WE'RE ABLE TO MOVE IT, THERE WOULD BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT HERE. BUT NOW WE HAVE TO WORK AND IT'S WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND, AND THAT ISSUE. SO PART PART OF THAT THAT'S MAYBE TOO TOO CONFUSING.
BUT THE PART OF THAT IS THAT IT'S THE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE THERE.
AND WE HAVE WE HAVE LEASE OBLIGATIONS AND THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
THAT'S PART OF WHAT WHAT IS THERE NOW? WE DID AGAIN, OUR OUR POSITION WAS THAT WE HAD A SLAB ISSUE, A FOUNDATION ISSUE THAT WAS UNRELATED TO THE FIRE.
BUT NOW AGAIN, THE REBUILD WOULD BE IT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SATISFY ALL THE CODE.
ALL THE CODE SPECIFICALLY. THAT'S THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE.
WE BELIEVE WE MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VARIANCE, TRADITIONAL VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS, AND THIS AUGMENTED VERSION IN SUBSECTION B1 ABOUT THE 50% VALUE. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING THAT WE GRANT THE VARIANCE.
AGAIN, TO MAKE THAT VIEW FOR THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY, SOME KIND OF CONTINUITY ON THE WOULD BE THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SEAWALL, THE SOUTH SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY, THEN WE WOULD MORE THAN WILLING TO MEET THOSE.
[00:55:06]
DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS? OKAY. IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE.DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL DUE TO THE FOLLOWING.
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.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DOES NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT UPON 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.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. DISCUSSION, PLEASE.
WELL, YOU KNOW MY POSITION. AND I THINK IT CENTERS AROUND THE INCREASED COST OF COMPLIANCE, RIGHT? WE HAVE INSURANCE. WE SINCE WE LIVE ON AN ISLAND THAT'S HAZARD PRONE, WE ALL UNDERSTAND OUR INSURANCE POLICIES AND WE HAVE A RIDER IN OUR INSURANCE, OR AT LEAST I DO CALLED ICC.
AND IT'S WHAT IT COSTS TO TO REBUILD IN COMPLIANCE.
IF YOUR STRUCTURE IS DESTROYED, WE PAY THAT PREMIUM ALONG WITH OUR OTHER PREMIUMS. RIGHT. IT'S INCREASED COST OF COMPLIANCE. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE.
IT'S WHAT IS THE INCREASED COST OF REBUILDING THIS STRUCTURE IN COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL ORDINANCE? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. I DON'T SEE THAT WE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED CONVINCING EVIDENCE OR CONVINCING INFORMATION TO MAKE ME THINK THAT THAT INCREASED COST OF COMPLIANCE IS 50% GREATER THAN IF YOU BUILT IT. THAT STRUCTURE ON ITS ORIGINAL SITE. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE THE STATE LAW IS ABOUT.
WHAT THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE WAS VALUED AT. I DON'T THINK THAT APPLIES BECAUSE WE HAVE NO STRUCTURE.
WE HAVE NO STRUCTURE. AND WHAT THAT LAW SAYS IT TALKS ABOUT USE.
IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT NONCOMPLIANT STRUCTURES.
IT TALKS ABOUT NONCOMPLIANT USE. THIS IS A COMPLETELY COMPLIANT USE.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AND A COMMERCIAL ZONE.
IT'S EXACTLY YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO THERE'S NO ISSUE OF USE.
IT'S WHETHER THE STRUCTURE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR LOCAL ORDINANCES.
AND BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO WORK WITH NOW.
THIS. I DON'T SEE WHY WE SHOULD NOT EXPECT COMPLIANCE AS OTHER APPLICANTS COMPLY.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT ALL OVER THE CITY THAT COMPLIES WITH OUR ORDINANCE.
WE DON'T HEAR FROM EVERYONE. THEY JUST GO AHEAD AND COMPLY.
AND YOU CAN DRIVE DOWN THE SEAWALL AND YOU CAN SEE THOSE STRUCTURES THAT COMPLY WITH THE HDDZ.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHY WE CAN'T EXPECT THAT HERE.
I HAVEN'T BEEN CONVINCED THAT THIS IS EXTRAORDINARY.
AND TO ME, A BUILDING BURNING DOWN IS RELATIVELY EXTRAORDINARY AND DOESN'T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN.
[01:00:07]
YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THAT'S JUST THE NATURE OF THE OF MY SITUATION, RIGHT? AND I WOULD LOOK AT MY INSURANCE AND I'D GO, INSURANCE COMPANY PAY ME BECAUSE I BUY YOUR PREMIUMS, YOU KNOW, I BUY YOUR INSURANCE, PAY ME TO, TO REBUILD AND ALSO PAY ME TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL BUILDING CODES.THAT'S WHAT MY ICC IS ALL ABOUT. THAT'S WHAT MY INCREASED COST OF COMPLIANCE PREMIUM IS ALL ABOUT.
SO I'M NOT I WOULD NOT BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO NOT COMPLY.
AND SO WINDSTORM AND THINGS LIKE THAT APPLY, LIKE, YOU KNOW, TO BE ABLE TO PUT BACK IN.
SO ANYWAY. I JUST YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE STORM COMPLIANT WINDOWS, RIGHT? I DO, I HAVE TO HAVE STORM COMPLIANT WINDOWS, I FEEL.
I THINK THAT THE FIRE I DON'T THINK THAT MAKES IT A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE.
ALSO, I'M REALLY CONCERNED THAT IT TALKS ABOUT YOU KNOW, FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE. THIS BUILDING WAS BUILT IN 1975.
THERE'S I MEAN, THAT'S JUST CRAZY TO USE THAT AS A BASIS, THAT VALUE ON THE FUTURE COSTS.
EXCEPT THAT'S STATE LAW. WELL, SO BUT THAT'S I DON'T KNOW WHERE I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
AND I ALSO HAVE I ALSO FEEL THAT THIS IS THERE IS NOTHING ON THE SITE THAT'S WORTH ANYTHING REALLY.
BUT YOU ALSO YOU HAD SOME INSURANCE MONEY THAT'S GOING TO HELP YOU WITH THIS, WITH THIS MOVE.
AND I JUST THINK THAT IT'S, IT'S REALLY WHEN YOU GO PAST IF YOU'RE GOING TO SELL THIS EVER RIGHT NOW, IF YOU WERE GOING TO SELL IT, YOU WOULD VALUE IT AS A VACANT LOT, WHICH IS $1 MILLION OR WHATEVER.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU REALLY OUGHT TO YOU NEED TO TAKE IT AS A THE VALUE AS A WHOLE, NOT THE VALUE OF THAT OLD STRUCTURE. I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY THEY THAT'S THERE.
AND I LIKE SAY I VALUE THIS AS A. OR LOOK AT THIS AS A VACANT LOT.
A WHOLE NEW BUILD. CAN WE CAN I SECOND. I SECONDED I'M SORRY I SECONDED THE APPROVAL.
FOR ONE MAIN REASON. AND HONESTLY, IN MY OPINION, I THINK IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON.
I MEAN, WE CAN WE CAN GO BACK AND FORTH ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE COSTS AND THE APPRAISALS AND NUMBERS AND THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER, AND, YOU KNOW, TO WEAR BLUE IN THE FACE. AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN CRUNCHING THEM THIS ENTIRE TIME AS WELL.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES, AND IT'S HERE IN BOTH OF THESE CODES, YOU KNOW, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS A POWER TO, AS HE STATED EARLIER, PLACED UPON CAN PLACE UPON ANY VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION, ANY CONDITION REASONABLE, NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF COMMUNITY WELFARE. AND IN 1341 THE VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON.
THREE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.
I THINK I THINK IF WE PUT THIS, IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS AND THIS BUILDING IS PUT IN A DIFFERENT POSITION RIGHT UP FRONT NEXT TO THAT SEAWALL, WE'RE CREATING BLIND SPOTS ON THE SEAWALL.
AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT THAT EVIDENCE, YOU KNOW, OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, YOU KNOW, PROTOCOLS OR ACCIDENT SCENE RECREATION SPECIALISTS OUT HERE DOING THOSE, THOSE STUFF SO WE CAN ACTUALLY SEE IT.
BUT I THINK IF WE PUT THAT KIND OF LIKE THE SALT GRASS, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF ON THE STRAIGHT PART, BUT IF RIGHT ON THAT CURVE, YOU KNOW, JUST LIKE THAT SEAWALL CHURCH RIGHT NEXT DOOR, IF WE PUT THIS BILL, IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS, AND THEY HAVE TO PUT THAT BUILDING RIGHT THERE, RIGHT UP ABUTTED TO THE TO THE SEAWALL, I THINK WE ARE WE ARE PUTTING THE PUBLIC AT RISK.
[01:05:08]
I MEAN, THAT'S FAR ENOUGH BACK OFF THE ROADWAY.THAT ENSURES THE SAFETY FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE INSIDE THE BUILDING.
THE PEOPLE A LOT OF TIMES WHEN THERE'S, YOU KNOW, EVERY TIME, THIS IS NOT A REGULAR CITY.
THIS IS THIS IS A TOURIST DESTINATION WHERE WE HAVE YOU KNOW, OVERCROWDING OF TOURISTS, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL TIMES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. AND WE'VE ALL SEEN IT WHERE THERE'S LINES OUTSIDE, PEOPLE WAITING OUTSIDE, YOU KNOW, HANGING OUT, WAITING TO GET. I MEAN, IT HAPPENS AT MILLER'S EVERY FREAKING, YOU KNOW, WEEKEND WHERE PEOPLE HANG OUT RIGHT THERE IN THAT PARKING LOT AND AND IN THE OLD SPACE, THERE WAS THAT GREEN SPACE RIGHT IN FRONT WHERE PEOPLE WOULD HANG OUT TO RELAX, JUST 30 OR 40 PEOPLE OUTSIDE WAITING TO GET A TABLE.
AND IF WE IF WE, YOU KNOW, AND THERE WAS NO ISSUES WITH THAT BY NOT APPROVING THEIR VARIANCE, I THINK WE'RE PUTTING THE PUBLIC SAFETY AT RISK, BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO HANG OUT IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. THEY'RE GOING TO HANG OUT IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING, LOOK AT THE SEAWALL. THEY'RE GOING TO WALK ACROSS THE THING. THEY'LL BE CLOSE TO THE DOOR. YEAH, I JUST I JUST THINK THAT PUTTING THIS BUILDING RIGHT, YOU KNOW, ABUTTING THAT PARKING THAT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LIKE THE SIDEWALK RIGHT THERE.
SORRY. I'VE BEEN HEARING ALL MORNING, SO I'M LAWYERED OUT.
BUT I THINK IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS AND THEY HAVE TO PUT THAT BUILDING RIGHT UP AGAINST THE SEAWALL, THAT'S THAT'S A DETRIMENT TO TO OUR COMMUNITY, TO TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY, THE MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE.
AND I JUST, I JUST DON'T THINK AND WE CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE, BUT BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S THAT AGE OLD SAYING IF IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, BROKE DON'T FIX IT.
YOU KNOW, IT'S A BUFFER ZONE FOR THE BUILDING, FOR THE PATRONS, FOR THE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE GOING BACK AND FORTH, PEOPLE HANGING OUTSIDE. I JUST THINK THAT I THINK IT'S SAFER IF WE KIND OF LEAVE IT WHERE IT STOOD.
AND I THINK THE VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON, ON THOSE THINGS.
I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY QUITE THE OPPOSITE, THE VARIANCE.
WE'RE CREATING THAT DETRIMENTAL IMPACT. CAN WE CALL THE VOTE BECAUSE.
YES. I'M SEEING THAT THERE ARE 2 PEOPLE WHO ARE STAUNCHLY ONE WAY.
AND WAIT A MINUTE. CAN I HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH.
EXACTLY. BUT BECAUSE IT IS A CORNER WHEN PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO GET ONTO THE SEAWALL FROM THAT STREET AND THERE IS NO LIGHT, AND IT OBSTRUCTS THE VIEW THAT MAY OBSTRUCT THE VIEW OF DRIVERS, THOSE BLIND SPOTS ALL THE TIME TRY TO GET ON HARBORSIDE ANYMORE.
THESE SIDE STREETS. YEAH, THOSE BUILDINGS. AND I HAVEN'T THOUGHT OF THAT BEFORE LIKE IHOP WAS ON MY MIND BECAUSE I DRIVE THAT WAY.
ALL BRICK HOUSE. YEAH. ALL OF THOSE LIKE. BUT MY ISSUE THERE IS THERE'S NO LIGHT THERE EITHER.
NO, THERE'S ALSO ON A CURVE, BUT IT'S BUT IT'S SET BACK.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE SEAWALL IS IT DOESN'T END UNTIL YOU SEE THE CURVE.
THE SEAWALL EXTENDS COMPLETELY ACROSS THE STREET ONTO THE CURB.
SO THERE IS A SETBACK BECAUSE OF THE SIDEWALKS, RIGHT? BECAUSE OF BECAUSE OF THE EASEMENT. THERE IS A SETBACK, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE COMING OUT.
CAN WILL THAT BLOCK MY VISION? IT SHOULDN'T BECAUSE YOU HAVE THIS EASEMENT.
YOU GOT THIS SETBACK. LOOK AT LOOK AT THAT PICTURE RIGHT THERE.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT. I WISH WE HAD THAT EVIDENCE. YOU KNOW, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT IHOP CAUSES.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS NOW.
SO BACK TO THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL. OKAY. I AND I, TO ADD TO YOUR POINT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS AND AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO ALL THAT, LIKE, HOW ARE WE GOING TO LIKE IT OR NOT? BUT WHAT IF NONE OF THAT HAPPENS AND IT'S JUST A VACANT LOT AND THE BUSINESS IS LOST AND, WELL, WE DON'T KNOW THAT. SO ANYWAYS DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER POINTS TO DISCUSS OR WE CAN VOTE? OKAY, THEN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL THOSE OPPOSED?
[01:10:05]
MOTION FAILED. THANK YOU. IS A IS A FAILURE TO APPROVE A YES OKAY.FAILURE TO APPROVE IS BETTER THAN A DENIAL. OKAY.
LET'S MOVE ON. OKAY. CASE 25Z-020, PLEASE.
CASE 25Z-020, 14142. GRAHAM BEAU AND ADJACENT VACANT PARCEL.
THIS IS A REQUEST A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LOT DEPTH.
THERE WERE 17 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT. 1 RETURN, 1IN FAVOR.
THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS FROM 100FT TO 91.2FT.
LOT DEPTH IS MEASURED AS THE MEAN HORIZONTAL DISTANCE BETWEEN THE FRONT AND REAR LOT LINES.
MINIMUM REQUIRED. REQUIRED. MINIMUM LOT AREAS 5000FT² REQUIRED.
MINIMUM LENGTH 100FT. REQUIRED. MINIMUM WIDTH 50FT.
PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION.
AND THEN WE HAVE PHOTOS. THIS IS THE PROPERTY AS IT STANDS TODAY.
AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. SITE SURVEY. AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED AS WELL AS PHOTOS OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES FROM THE EAST, WEST AND SOUTH.
AND THIS CONCLUDES SOUTH STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25Z-020 IS OPEN AND STAFF REPORT IS MADE. A PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN.
MY NAME IS TITUS HARRIS, AND I'M UPON APPLYING FOR THIS VARIANCE.
OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE JUST TO TELL US A LITTLE MORE? WELL, YEAH, I THINK AS AS SOMEONE ARTICULATED IN HERE ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS TAKE SOME BITS AND PIECES THAT THERE'S COMMON OWNERSHIP OF BOTH OF THESE HOUSES.
IT'S NOT IDENTICAL, BUT IT'S ALL IN THE HARRIS FAMILY.
I OWN 14134, WHICH IS NOT THE ONE THAT'S NOT SUBJECT TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
100% ME. 14142 IS OWNED BY ME AND MY SISTER AND TITUS HARRIS MARITAL TRUST.
SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, KIND OF WONKY, I GUESS, IN THAT RESPECT.
SO WHAT WHAT WE'RE DOING, WHAT WE'RE HOPING TO DO.
THE PURPOSE OF MY BEING HERE AND REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE IS TAKE 14142 AND 14134 FROM HALF LOT FULL LOT FULL LOT FULL LOT HALF LOT.
AND END UP WITH JUST 2 LOTS FORMERLY HAVING BEEN COMPRISED OF A HALF LOT, A FULL LOT AND A HALF LOT.
AND THEN SPLITTING THAT ONE IN THE MIDDLE. THEN 14134 IS A HALF LOT OF FULL LOT AND A HALF LOT.
MY SISTER WILL ULTIMATELY END UP WITH THE 14142 AND I WILL BE GOING FORWARD WITH 14134.
AND I GUESS IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THE SURVEY WORK AND DEVELOPING THE PLAN FOR THE 2 SEPARATE PLATS, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT BEFORE WE COULD PUT THAT INTO EFFECT, WE WERE WE HAD A VARIANCE PROBLEM OR NONCOMPLIANCE PROBLEM.
[01:15:07]
THESE HOUSES MY HOUSE 134 HAD ITS 50TH ANNIVERSARY THIS PAST JUNE.SO IT WAS BUILT IN JUNE OF 1975. MY PARENTS HOUSE 14142 WAS BUILT MAYBE 3 YEARS BEFORE THAT. SO WHEN THESE WERE BUILT AND EVEN MOM'S ADDED ON TO SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES THAT EXISTED AT THAT TIME, I THINK. I THINK TRICORE TOLD ME THAT MAYBE IT WAS 2015, BUT ANYWAY, AT SOME POINT THE SETBACKS OR THE LOT FEET WAS CHANGED.
AND SO NOW WE'RE TRYING TO REPLANT THIS SO THAT IF MY SISTER AND I GET INTO A BIG FIGHT AND START TO NOT TALK TO EACH OTHER AGAIN. NO KIDDING. WE DON'T WANT TO SELL THAT MIDDLE LOT.
RIGHT NOW, IT'S A IT'S A IT'S JUST A LAWN. IT'S JUST GRASS.
SO WE WANT TO MAKE IT REALLY, HONESTLY, NOT NOT I WAS BEING A SMART ALECK ABOUT MY SISTER.
BUT IF MY MY DAUGHTER AND HER SON AND DAUGHTER IN 20 YEARS OR 10 YEARS OR WHENEVER, KIND OF GOT CROSS-THREADED AND 1 OF THEM DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED TO SELL THAT LOT AND POCKET THE CASH, WE, MY SISTER AND I, ARE TAKING A DESIRE TO TAKE A STEP TO MAKE THAT, LIKE, IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE WE'D HAVE 1 CONTIGUOUS, YOU KNOW, 1 LOT THAT HAS 14142 ON IT AND THEN ONE LOT THAT HAS 14134 ON IT, THEREBY KIND OF A PREEMPTIVE STRIKE AGAINST OUR COLLECTIVE NEXT GENERATIONS SO THAT NO ONE'S GOING TO HAVE A MCMANSION STUCK IN THERE.
SO I THINK THAT'S BASICALLY KIND OF WHAT THE GIST OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? HI, MY NAME IS WILLIE. WILLIE? I'M JUST ALREADY MENTIONED.
I'M RIGHT THERE, AND I REALLY APPROVE. WHAT IS THE QUESTION? WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN? THANK YOU. WOULD YOU MIND SIGNING IN AS WELL, PLEASE? OH, I DIDN'T SIGN IN. IT WASN'T UP THERE. I'M SORRY.
YEAH, IT WAS SITTING RIGHT THERE. I THINK WHEN THE PREVIOUS DID THEY TAKE THE MATTER WAS BEING ADJUDICATED, SO TO SPEAK. WELL, WE MADE NOTE. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY.
AND THEN I HAD SUBMITTED THESE TO. AND I THINK I GOT AN EMAIL ACKNOWLEDGING THAT I'D DONE THAT.
OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25Z-020 IS CLOSED AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE SPECIAL CONDITION THAT EXISTS ON THE PROPERTIES IS THAT IT WAS PLATTED BACK IN THE 70S, AND THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE THEM WORK FOR TODAY'S NEEDS.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DOESN'T HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT UPON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE USE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OR SERVICES, AND PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.
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.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU.
DISCUSSION. I THINK IT'S NICE ACTUALLY COMBINING LOTS INSTEAD OF SMALL.
[01:20:04]
YEAH. OKAY. MOVING TO VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY. THAT'S ALL 5 AND MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU.THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WILLIE. THAT'S ALL IT'S 4:50 AND MEETING ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.