[00:00:03]
OKAY[Zoning Board of Adjustments on April 8, 2026.]
WELCOME TO THE GALVESTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.A MEETING OF APRIL 8TH, 2026 IS 3:30 P.M. THIS MEETING IS RECORDED AND AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. PLEASE SPEAK CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONES.
ATTENDANCE SHEET HAS BEEN. EVERYBODY SIGNED AND YOU HAVE IT.
OKAY. QUORUM IS PRESENT AND I THINK WE HAVE ONLY ONE ABSENT TODAY.
OKAY. ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR ANY OF THE CASES TODAY? OKAY, I SEE NONE. NEXT IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
WE HAVE MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 3RD, 2025.
DECEMBER 3RD, 2025 AND JANUARY 7TH, 2026. DO WE HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MEETING MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 3RD, 2025? OKAY, I SEE NONE. WE DO, WE HAVE COMMENTS ON JANUARY 7TH, 2026 MINUTES.
AND WE DO. YES. WOULD YOU LIKE TO POINT THAT OUT, SUSAN? UNDER THE 1ST ITEM SILER AND SCOVILLE ARE SWITCHED ON IN TERMS OF FAVOR AND OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. WE WILL WE'LL MAKE THAT CORRECTION.
SO WILL THAT BE ON THE NEXT MEETING AGENDA FOR APPROVAL AS WELL? OR YOU CAN APPROVE THESE AS CORRECT. OKAY. APPROVED AS CORRECTED.
OKAY. PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AGENDA ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS OR NON AGENDA ITEMS? OKAY.
NONE. NEXT WE'LL MOVE TO NEW BUSINESS CASE 26Z-001. STAFF REPORT PLEASE. THIS IS 3828 AVENUE N 1/2 AND 1516 39TH STREET.
I'M SORRY. THERE WERE 3 RETURNED, 2 IN OPPOSITION.
1 NO COMMENT. NO OBJECTION FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS OR PRIVATE UTILITIES.
THE SUMMARY. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
ARTICLE 3 COMMERCIAL ADDENDUM REGARDING LOT DEPTH.
THE SUBJECT SITE CONSISTS OF 2 LOTS ADDRESSED AS 3828 AVENUE N 1/2 AND 1516 39TH STREET.
THE HOUSE, LOCATED AT 3828 AVENUE N 1/2, ENCROACHES THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE.
THE OWNERS ARE SEEKING A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO REPLAT TO CORRECT THE ENCROACHMENT.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, THERE ARE 2 LOTS BEING CREATED.
THEY ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR EACH. THE 4 1516 39TH STREET.
THE REQUEST IS FROM 100FT TO 64.5FT, AND FOR 3828 AVENUE N 1/2, THE REQUEST IS FROM 100FT TO 80FT.
PLEASE NOTE THE APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR VARIANCES IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AND APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION.
WE HAVE SOME EXHIBITS ON THE SCREEN SO YOU CAN SEE THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH.
THE BLUE LINES ARE THE PROPERTY LINES. YOU CAN SEE HOW THE PROPERTY LINE GOES RIGHT THROUGH THAT HOUSE. THE SURVEY ON THE LEFT OR ON THE RIGHT OF THE SCREEN SHOWS THE PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE TO BE MOVED FURTHER NORTH SO THAT IT DOES NOT ENCOURAGE THE HOUSE.
AND NEXT SLIDE. WE HAVE THESE ARE THE 2 SUBJECT PROPERTIES.
THE HOUSE ON THE LEFT IS THE 1 ON N 1/2 AND THE HOUSE ON THE RIGHT IS THE ONE ON 39TH STREET.
AND THEN I THINK WE HAVE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES. I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE ISSUES WERE WITH THE 2 OPPOSED RETURNS.
LET ME LOOK THOSE UP. OKAY. 1 HAD A COMMENT THAT READS NOT GOOD FOR THE ONES THAT OWN PROPERTIES.
[00:05:01]
AND THE OTHER ONE IS IT WILL CAUSE PARKING PROBLEMS. THERE REALLY IS NO CHANGE IN THE CONDITION. YOU WON'T SEE ANY DIFFERENCE.THEY'RE JUST MOVING THE PROPERTY LINE TO CORRECT THAT ENCROACHMENT. THANK YOU.
QUESTION, IN THE PROPOSED VARIANCES FOR THE LOT DEPTH.
THERE'S 1 SPECIFIED AT 64.5FT FOR 39TH STREET AND THEN 80FT FOR 3828 AVENUE N 1/2.
THOSE ARE LIKE IN DIFFERENT LIKE THEY'RE MEASURED IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.
IS THAT BASED UPON THE WIDTH IS CONSIDERED FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
RIGHT. SO WE ALWAYS TAKE THE FRONT IS WHERE THE ADDRESS IS.
OKAY, SO THE FRONT OF THE SOUTHERN LOT IS ON N 1/2 IN FRONT OF THE NORTHERN LOT IS ON 39TH STREET.
OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
YEAH, I'LL JUST SHOW MY. I'M CONFUSED AT THE THE 2SURVEYS THAT WE'VE GOT AND IT'S GOT LOT 13 AND LOT 14 AND I'M JUST CONFUSED AT WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.
SO, LOT 14 IN THE FIRST PICTURE IS THE WHOLE LENGTHY WHERE THEY'RE ALL TOGETHER, AND THEN LOT 13 IS THIS OTHER LITTLE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT I'M JUST NOT. YEAH.
THAT I'M SEEING THAT LOT 13 IS LIKE A REMNANT SO THAT THE HOUSES ARE ON 2 LOTS THAT ON THIS, THAT THAT LINE ISN'T SHOWN AND I CAN'T, I DON'T KNOW WHY IN OUR PARCEL DATA ON THE, IN THE AERIAL YOU CAN SEE WHERE THAT OTHER PROPERTY LINE IS.
BUT THIS IS A FULL LOT, LOT 14 AND THEN THEY ALSO INCORPORATE A PORTION OF LOT 13.
OKAY. AND THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL. OKAY, NOW I'M CONFUSED.
THANKS. 3 LOTS. NO, NO BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING. EXCUSE ME. WE'RE LOOKING AT 2 RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON 1 PARCEL.
AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN OUR PACKET. OKAY. SORT OF.
THANK YOU. I THINK THERE'S A VERY LIGHT GRAY LINE THERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S KIND OF APPROXIMATELY.
NO, THAT'S THE THAT'S IT. YEAH. IT'S NOT A FLOOD ZONE.
MAYBE WE SHOULD ASK THE APPLICANT AT THIS NOT YET. WE'LL CALL YOU IN A MINUTE, BUT I'M JUST.
OKAY, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT LOT 14 AND LOT 13. I WAS THINKING IT WAS 1 PROPERTY, BUT IT IS NOT. IT'S 2. 2 PROPERTIES. THERE'S CURRENTLY A NORTH SOUTH DIVISION THERE.
OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. GOT IT. SO WE'RE GOING TO MAKE 1, 02, 3, 4 OUT OF 2.
NO. NO. SO THESE. SO IT'S LOT 14. AND THIS PORTION OF LOT 13.
THEY'RE ALREADY INCORPORATED TOGETHER. THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT IT WAS 1 PROPERTY.
YEAH. SO BUT THERE IS ANOTHER PROPERTY LINE FOR SOME REASON NOT SHOWN ON HERE THAT GOES THROUGH.
OKAY. PROPERTY LINE THIS DIRECTION. THANK YOU.
YEAH. SO ON THE SCREEN, THAT'S THE BLUE IS CURRENT.
OKAY. YES. AND IT IS 2 DIFFERENT OWNERS. SO THE FRONT HOUSE AND THE HOUSE ON N 1/2F HAS A DIFFERENT OWNER FROM THE HOUSE AT 15, 16, 39TH. OKAY, OKAY. WOW. I THINK THAT'S ALL WE HAVE.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 26Z-001 IS OPEN AND THE STAFF REPORT IS MADE A PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN FOR RECORD AS WELL.
[00:10:02]
I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. IF YOU CAN, FIRST JUST TELL US IN YOUR OWN WORDS ABOUT THE CASE.YEAH. SO WE HAVE FROM WHAT I BELIEVE WAS ONE PROPERTY WITH 2 STRUCTURES ON IT.
THE FAMILY HAS OWNED THIS PROPERTY FOR A COUPLE GENERATIONS.
IT'S BEEN PASSED DOWN. SO ANA BENAVIDEZ, WHO'S HERE AND THE UNCLE OWN THESE PROPERTIES.
AND SO WE'D LIKE TO STAY AHEAD OF ANY FUTURE PROBLEMS AND GO AHEAD AND SPLIT THIS PROPERTY.
SO EACH PARTY HAS SOLE OWNERSHIP OF LAND AND STRUCTURE.
OH. THANK YOU. DO YOU KNOW WHEN THEY WERE BUILT? JUST ROUGHLY. I'M SORRY, I DON'T. THEY LOOK SO.
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IT WAS IT WAS IT'S 1 PROPERTY FROM THE SURVEYORS HERE.
DUE TO THE COMMERCIAL ZONING, THE DIMENSION REQUIREMENTS ARE.
AND I WITHDRAW THAT. I'M SORRY. I WAS LOOKING AT THE BLUE BOXES AND GOT SCREWED UP.
IT WOULD BE NICE TO LOOK AT IT.
SO THOSE PROPERTY LINES THAT ARE SHOWN IN THE BLUE ARE FROM THE CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT.
RIGHT. DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO. WHOEVER THEY OWNED THAT EVERYTHING WITHIN THE BLUE BOX.
1 FAMILY OWNED AND THEY BUILT 2 DIFFERENT STRUCTURES ON IT.
AND NOW 2 DIFFERENT PEOPLE OWN THEM. I'M SURPRISED YOU WERE.
YEAH, THAT'S KIND OF COMPLICATED. IT'S BEEN PASSED DOWN FOR 2 GENERATIONS, SO.
OKAY. THANK YOU. IT SOUNDS AS IF YOU SAID YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THINGS STRAIGHT.
AND WE'VE NOTICED FROM A SURVEY THAT THIS WAS A PROBLEM, SO WE DECIDED TO STAY AHEAD OF IT.
YEAH. AND WHO OWNS THE NORTH PROPERTY? WALTERS AND [INAUDIBLE] HER UNCLE. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND HE HAS A WRITTEN STATEMENT AS WELL, AGREEING TO THE VARIANCE.
OKAY, SO THIS IS. I'M SORRY. THIS IS AGREEABLE TO BOTH PARTIES.
YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? ARE WE GOOD? WE'RE GOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU CAN SEE.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 26Z-002 IS CLOSED AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MOTION TO APPROVE.
OH, THERE IT IS. ALL RIGHT. SO. YEAH. I'LL I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AND THAT THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT INCREASE THE DENSITY AND INTRODUCE NEW USES OR ALLOW ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES BEYOND WHAT IT ALREADY EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY.
INSTEAD, IT ALLOWS EACH EXISTING RESIDENTS TO BE PLACED ON ITS OWN LEGAL LOT, IMPROVING THE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, AND NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY. AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT DOES NOT ALLOW APPLICANTS TO PREPARE THE APPLICATION FOR SELF-IMPOSED HARDSHIPS. HARSH, ESPECIALLY ON FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, CONVENIENCE OR INCONVENIENCE OR THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE ALLEGED TO BE SPECIAL, BUT THEY ARE ACTUAL COMMON TO MANY PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. I THINK WE LEFT OUT YOUR CHEAT SHEET, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. KARINA KEEPS EXTRAS IN HER BAG SO WE'LL GET THAT.
SO I WAS WINGING IT, YOU KNOW. YEAH, YOU GOT A GREAT START, BUT YOU'VE GOT TO HIT EACH ONE OF THESE POINTS AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE RECORDING. IT WAS HARD.
OKAY, HERE'S A SHEET. HERE WE GO. OKAY. SO. OKAY.
[00:15:05]
YEAH. GOOD DEAL. ALRIGHT. SO YEAH, SO I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL DUE TO THE FOLLOWING.SPECIAL CONDITION EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY DOES NOT GENERALLY EXIST ON OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT IS THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE IS ON THE PROPERTY DO NOT SET WITHIN THE STANDARDS OF THE 2 SEPARATE OWNERS AND THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE THAT RIGHT.
AND SO DO THAT SPECIAL CONDITION, THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STRICT TERMS, THESE REGULATIONS WOULD IMPOSE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP ON THE APPLICANT. THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THAT IS NOT SELF-IMPOSED, IS NOT BASED SOLELY ON FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS.
AND THERE ARE NOT CONDITIONS THAT ARE ALLEGED TO BE SPECIAL. THIS REQUESTED VARIANCE DOES NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE USE OF THE PROPERTIES, WHICH ARE ZONED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES OR PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND MORALS.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE USED TO CIRCUMVENT OTHER PROCEDURES OR STANDARDS OF THESE REGULATIONS THAT CAN BE USED FOR THE SAME OR COMPARABLE EFFECT. AND BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THESE REGULATIONS IS OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE.
PERIOD. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? JUST BECAUSE I HAVE TO BE SPECIFIC WITH THE ORDER, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE MOTION STATED THERE ARE 2 HOUSES TO SEPARATE OWNERS IS PART OF THE REASON FOR THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE THAT 1 PROPERTY IS ENCROACHING OVER A PROPERTY LINE.
CAN WE BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC? ARE YOU TRYING LAWYER, A LAWYER HERE COUNCIL.
I JUST NEED IT FOR THE ORDER. ABSOLUTELY. YES.
EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID. IT'S NOT GOING TO ENCROACH, SO IT'S WRONG, BECAUSE WHAT WE REALIZED HERE IS THAT IT'S 2 SEPARATE PARCELS. I DRAFTED 1 THAT I THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO READ, BUT IT'S NOT CORRECT.
SO YOU JUST HANDED ME A FAKE. SETTING ME UP TO FAIL HERE.
SO WE CAN VIEW THE FUTURE LITIGATION AND IF, IF THAT WAS SECONDED WITH THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, THAT IS ALL I NEED. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. DO WE HAVE A SECOND.
I SECOND? THANK YOU. DISCUSSION. OKAY, THEN WE'LL MOVE TO VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR FOR APPROVAL.
MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. STAFF WILL PROVIDE FORMAL NOTIFICATION OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTIONS WITHIN 10 DAYS. OKAY. CASE 26Z-002, STAFF REPORT, PLEASE. THIS IS 8509 TEICHMAN ROAD. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR THE LOT DEPTH.
PUBLIC NOTICES SENT WERE 17, 0 RETURNED. NO OBJECTION FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS OR PRIVATE UTILITIES.
SUMMARY. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
ARTICLE 3 COMMERCIAL ADDENDUM REGARDING MINIMUM LOT DEPTH.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DIVIDE 1 LOT INTO 5.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS FROM 100FT TO 94.15FT.
THE LOT DEPTH IS MEASURED AS THE MEAN HORIZONTAL DISTANCE BETWEEN THE FRONT AND REAR LOT LINES.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS FROM 100FT TO 94.15FT.
PLEASE NOTE APPROVAL STANDARDS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AND THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION.
AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
YOU MIGHT REMEMBER IT AS THE SITE OF CLEARY'S RESTAURANT.
AND HERE IS THE SURVEY CURRENT SURVEY. THE PROPOSAL IS TO DIVIDE THIS LOT INTO 5 LOTS.
AND WE HAVE. THIS IS THE LOT LAYOUT AND THE LOT LOOKS RECTANGULAR, BUT IT GETS VERY SLIGHTLY MORE NARROW TO THE WEST. SO IT STARTS OUT AT 100FT AND THEN NARROWS DOWN TO 90 SOMETHING FEET.
SO THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE REQUEST IS BECAUSE THE LOT IS A LITTLE BIT OFF OF PLUMB.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MISS GORMAN, SO THE REQUEST IS, AND I UNDERSTAND THE PARAGRAPH YOU READ ABOUT AVERAGING THE AVERAGE LOT DEPTH.
[00:20:08]
BUT IN THE CREATION OF 5 INDIVIDUAL PARCELS, THERE IS A, THERE IS A LOT DEPTH THAT IS LESS THAN THOSE.AND SO WHILE THEY MAY RETAIN THE SAME OWNERSHIP.
NOW IF IN SAID FUTURE THOSE WERE SOLD OFF, WOULD THOSE OTHER LOTS, THEY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THIS PROPOSED VARIANCE BECAUSE THEIR LOT DEPTH WOULD BE LESS THAN THE 94.15.
WELL, THE 94.15 IS THE LOT DEPTH FOR WHAT WILL BE NEWLY CREATED LOT 1, WHICH IS THE NARROW, THE. HOW DO, I SEE THAT AS 93.49 ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE.
SO IT'S 1 OF THE LENGTHS IS 94.81. WE TAKE AN AVERAGE.
OKAY. SO IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO JUST TAKE THE AVERAGE OF THOSE 2? YES. OKAY. THEIR DIFFERING LENGTHS, WE TAKE THE AVERAGE. YEAH. AND THEN THAT THAT DEPTH THEN COVERS THE REMAINING THE OTHER 4 LOTS.
THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? JUST TO CLARIFY, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MINIMUM WIDTH SHOULD BE 40FT, BUT THESE ARE ROUNDING UP TO 40. SOME ARE ALMOST 41. SO THE ONLY THE ONLY VARIANCE REQUEST TODAY IS FOR THE LENGTH THE MINIMUM DEPTH TO THE LOT. SO THE WIDTH IS ACCEPTABLE TO STAFF.
THANK YOU. OKAY. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE FOR STAFF.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 26Z-002 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.
GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M MICHAEL GAERTNER ARCHITECT AND I'M REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER.
IN THIS CASE, SOME OF US HAVE MORE MEMORIES ABOUT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY THAN OTHERS.
AND THE FORMER FAMILY WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN HELPING CLARICE OPENED THE RESTAURANT ORIGINALLY.
SO WE GO WAY BACK WITH WITH CLARICE AND WAS REALLY SAD TO SEE IT CLOSE.
ANYWAY, MANY, MANY, MANY GREAT MEMORIES FROM THERE.
I ONLY HAVE A YEAR TO WEAR THIS SHIRT. IT'S TEXAS A&M CENTENNIAL YEAR AND I'M CLASS OF 76, SO IT'S OUR 50 YEAR REUNION. SO I'M GETTING I'M GETTING ALL THE MILEAGE OUT OF THIS SHIRT THAT I CAN.
SO ANY PEOPLE WHO BLEED BURNT ORANGE. I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE FOR THAT.
THE THIS IS REALLY A PRETTY SIMPLE, SIMPLE CASE.
THE SIZE OF THE LOT JUST PRECLUDES WE CAN'T MAKE THE LOTS ANY DEEPER THAN WHAT THEY ARE.
AND IT'S, IT'S PRETTY REASONABLE, THIS IS CERTAINLY AN AMPLE SIZE.
WE THINK WE'VE STRUGGLED WITH THIS PROPERTY FOR SOME TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST USE OF THE PROPERTY AND AT ONE POINT LOOKED AT OUTDOOR STORAGE LIKE BOATS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SELF STORAGE, MINI STORAGE, AN EVENT CENTER, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. AND EVENTUALLY REALIZED THAT, YOU KNOW, REALLY MORE RESIDENTIAL IS WHAT GALVESTON NEEDS AND WHAT WE WOULD HOPE TO ENCOURAGE. AND SO THE OWNERS DECIDED THAT, YES, THEY WANTED TO PURSUE THAT DIRECTION.
AND THIS JUST MAKES THE MOST SENSE FOR THAT. IT'S, WE FEEL IT'S MOST COMPATIBLE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S GOING ON IN THE, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S NOT GOING TO CREATE PARKING ISSUES, YOU KNOW, NOISE.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE UNSIGHTLY. IT'S WE JUST THINK IT'S A, IT'S A REALLY GOOD FIT.
AND SO I'M REALLY HAPPY TO BE ABLE TO BRING THIS TO YOU TODAY.
AND I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT IT, IF YOU HAVE ANY FOR ME.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I JUST HAVE A CLARIFICATION BECAUSE THIS IS A ZONED COMMERCIAL.
YOU'RE NOT BOUND BY THE RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE BECAUSE YOU'RE WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL ZONE, CORRECT? IF IT WERE AN R-1 ZONE, A RESIDENTIAL LOT WOULD BE 5000FT².
AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS LIKE 4000 SOME.
[00:25:09]
YOU'RE CORRECT. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 26Z-002 IS CLOSED, AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.DO WE HAVE A MOTION? IS IT MY TURN? I'LL MAKE A MOTION BECAUSE I WROTE IT OUT.
THIS ONE'S CORRECT. I THINK IT'S A GOOD ONE FOR YOURSELF HOW YOU DOING? I SCREWED UP THE FIRST ONE. OKAY. I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CASE 26Z-002, AS REQUESTED.
DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITION THAT THE PARCEL IN QUESTION IS IRREGULARLY SHAPED AND CANNOT BE RECTIFIED BASED ON FIXED BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND THAT, AND CANNOT BE RECTIFIED IN ANY OTHER WAY.
THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE HARDSHIP IS NOT SELF-IMPOSED.
THE HARDSHIP IS 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 THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.
AMEN. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.
OKAY. DISCUSSION. ANYTHING? NO, I'LL JUST ADD. I USED TO WORK AT CLARICE. OH, YES. AND I THINK WE MET AT THE RESTAURANT LONG TIME AGO.
YES, I WORKED THERE FOR 5 YEARS. OH, SO IT WAS SAD WHEN THEY CLOSED? OKAY. WELL IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION FOR APPROVAL PASSES. STAFF WILL PROVIDE FORMAL NOTIFICATION OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTIONS WITHIN 10 DAYS FOR THIS CASE. AND I THINK THAT'S ALL WE HAVE FOR TODAY.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:59 P.M..
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.