[Zoning Board of Adjustments on June 3, 2026.]
[00:00:08]
OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3RD, 2026.
WELCOME TO THE GALVESTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING OF JUNE 3RD, 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 WE HAVE TWO MEMBERS ABSENT TODAY.
WE DO HAVE QUORUM, BUT IT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT IF THEY WANT TO DEFER THE CASE THE NEXT MEETING WHEN WE HAVE MORE MEMBERS. SO FOR A MOTION TO PASS, WE'LL NEED ALL FOUR TO BE IN AGREEMENT.
AS THERE ARE FOUR MEMBERS, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AN UNANIMOUS DECISION.
SO THEY CAN MAKE THAT DECISION WHILE WE ARE DISCUSSING THE CASE OR BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH THE CASE? IT IS TYPICALLY UP TO THE APPLICANT. WE USUALLY TALK ABOUT THE CASE AND, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN COME UP.
CATHERINE, ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? BEFORE A MOTION IS MADE. YES. THANK YOU. AND JUST CLARIFICATION, IT ALWAYS TAKES FOUR TO PASS.
SO THE FACT THAT THERE'S ONE PERSON MISSING DOESN'T REALLY.
I MEAN, IT CHANGES THINGS BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY FOUR OF US.
BUT IT STILL WOULD REQUIRE IF.
IT CRIES FOUR. BUT WHEN THERE'S ONLY FOUR, IF THERE WERE FIVE, YOU CAN HAVE A 4 TO 1.
YOU CAN HAVE A 4 TO 2. I'M SORRY. HOW WOULD THAT WORK OUT? NO, IT'S FIVE. 4 TO 1. YOU JUST GET THE OPTION OF HAVING IT ALL.
IT ALWAYS TAKES FOUR. BUT AGAIN, SOMETIMES IT'S EASIER IF THERE'S ONE PERSON THAT SAYS, HEY, THEN YOU HAVE THE OTHER FOUR. OKAY. IS THERE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? NO? OKAY. APPROVAL OF. ACTUALLY, WE HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT.
RIGHT. YEAH. THE MINUTES WILL BE ON THE NEXT AGENDA. OKAY. 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. WE'LL PROCEED. CASE 26Z-004, PLEASE. THANK YOU. SO THIS IS AT 11213 BEARD DRIVE.
AND THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
THERE WERE 40 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, FOUR RETURNED, ALL FOUR OF THOSE IN OPPOSITION.
I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID.
THERE WERE 40 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT. FOUR OF THOSE WERE RETURNED.
ALL FOUR OF THOSE WERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST.
SO THE APPLICANT REQUESTS VARIANCES FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 3, RESIDENTIAL R 1 ADDENDUM REGARDING MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS IN ORDER TO ADD IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING HOUSE. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 11IN AND THE REAR SETBACK TO 7FT IN ORDER TO BUILD A NEW STAIRCASE AND REAR DECK, SEE THE APPLICANTS MILL AND EXHIBIT A OF THE STAFF REPORT AND NARRATIVE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. SO NORMALLY IN R-1 ZONING, THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT WOULD BE 3FT.
SO PLEASE NOTE THE STANDARDS FOR VARIANCES IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND THE STAFF REPORT.
AND ALSO ONCE AGAIN, THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE.
AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE. SO HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING SOUTH.
AND THEN A LITTLE EXHIBIT ON THE RIGHT SHOWING THE AREA WHERE THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE.
VARIANCES ARE REQUESTED, THE AREA OF THE IMPROVEMENTS.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THEN HERE WE HAVE THAT SAME EXHIBIT KIND OF OVERLAID.
NOT EXACTLY ACCURATE, BUT GOOD ENOUGH FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES OVER THE AERIAL IMAGERY.
[00:05:05]
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND HERE WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, TO THE EAST, TO THE WEST, AND THEN LOOKING EAST ALONG THE BACK ROWS OF THOSE HOUSES WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE A QUESTION. DO YOU KNOW WHEN THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT, WAS IT BUILT PRIOR TO THE LDRS? I DON'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN. THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE IT IS, JUST BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT'S LOWER THAN THE EXISTING HOUSES, WHICH INDICATES IT PROBABLY WAS BUILT SOME TIME AGO. AND DID THE PEOPLE THAT OBJECTED SAY WHY THEY OBJECTED OR JUST.
AND THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS AFFECTING THE DRAINAGE. YEAH.
YOU CAN JUST BARELY SEE ON THAT OVERLAY THERE THAT THERE'S A 14 FOOT DE, DRAINAGE EASEMENT, 7FT PER SIDE. SO THAT WOULD MEAN SEVEN FOOT OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON ONE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE THAN SEVEN FOOT ON THE NORTH SIDE.
OKAY. I'M SORRY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE ARE ON THE PICTURE OR ANYTHING.
OKAY. SO THE COMMENTS THAT CAME BACK AND OPPOSED, THOSE WERE JUST LAYPERSON HOMEOWNERS WITH THIS CONCERN ABOUT THE DRAINAGE. BUT IF THERE WAS A LEGITIMATE DRAINAGE CONCERN, WE WOULD HAVE OBJECTIONS FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS AND PRIVATE UTILITIES, WOULDN'T WE NOT? THAT'S CORRECT. OUR CITY ENGINEER DID REVIEW THIS, AND IT WAS HIS DETERMINATION THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DECK, YOU KNOW, THE UPRIGHTS, THE STRUCTURE WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE JUST ON THE EDGE OF THAT EASEMENT AND WOULD NOT AFFECT IT.
OKAY. SO THERE'S NO FACTS ASSOCIATED TO THERE OR ANY TRUTH ASSOCIATED TO THEIR OBJECTIONS.
OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 26Z-004 IS OPEN, AND THE STAFF REPORT IS MADE A PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JULIA BENNETT SHAUN. AND JUST A BRIEF CORRECTION ON THE DRAWING.
YES. SO THE STAIRS ARE ACTUALLY REMAINING ON MOVED, THE SAME STAIRS WOULD GO AROUND TO THE SIDE.
AND THEN ONCE IT GOES AROUND, IT WILL CONNECT AND GO AROUND THE BACK SO THAT THE VIEW CAN BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF, AS IT WAS RECENTLY BLOCKED. AND WE HAVE A GRILL THAT'S BACK THERE AND I DON'T EVEN THINK IT GOES PAST THAT.
SO JUST TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS ANY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION RELATED TO THE STAIRS, I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION FOR THE RECORD.
THANK YOU. AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE, I'M ALSO AVAILABLE.
OKAY. I'LL JUST WAIT FOR HER TO FINISH SIGNING. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? AND AT THIS POINT, I AGAIN WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DEFER THIS CASE TO THE NEXT MEETING, JUST LET US KNOW. I THINK AS FAR AS THE FOUR VERSUS FIVE, WE'RE HERE.
SO NO NEED TO DEFER. ANY QUESTIONS? SO THIS IS AN ADDITION.
YOU'VE NEVER HAD A SLIDE DECK LIKE THIS? CORRECT.
SO YEAH, THE ORIGINAL HOME JUST HAS A DECK FACING THE NORTH.
THE NEIGHBOR OF THE SOUTH PUT UP A WOOD FENCE BLOCKING THAT VIEW.
WE DID THE MEASUREMENTS. WE'RE NO CLOSER THAN 20, 25FT TO ANY NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
[00:10:08]
WE'VE MADE THE SPECS AS SMALL AS WE CAN JUST FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF BEING ABLE TO SIT OUTSIDE AND ENJOY THE GULF BREEZE WITHOUT IT BEING BLOCKED AND TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY THE VIEW. AS YOU MENTIONED, THE HOME IS OLDER, SO THERE'S NOT MUCH WE REALLY COULD DO ABOUT WHERE IT WAS PLACED.WE'RE NOT EVEN LIKE TIED TO THE CITY ON THAT FRONT.
SO IT'S ONE OF THOSE CHALLENGES WHERE WE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE LOCATION, BUT NOT GETTING TO CAPITALIZE ON IT, WHEN OUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY STAY. OKAY. THANK YOU.
DANIEL, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? FOR THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE IS IT ONLY JUST THE EXHIBIT A, WHICH IS JUST THE PLANS? INCLUDE THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE IN THE APPROVAL STANDARDS QUESTIONS ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN AND EIGHT. AND YEAH, THAT SHOULD BE THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE VERBATIM.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS? AND YOU OWN THE HOUSE? YES. HOW LONG? MARCH 2022.
THANKS. AND THE OWNERS BEFORE I THINK HAD IT THE ENTIRE TIME.
SO THEY OWNED IT FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS BEFORE US.
IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YOU CAN BE SEATED. IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? NONE? PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 26Z-004 IS CLOSED AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. AND I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL DUE TO THE FOLLOWING, THAT THE SPECIAL CONDITION THAT EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY IS NOT GENERALLY EXIST OF OTHER PROPERTIES, IS THAT IT'S THE ONLY PROPERTY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DOES NOT HAVE A DECK FACING THE OCEAN AND THE COASTLINE.
THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THAT THE HARDSHIP IS NOT SELF-IMPOSED.
THE HARDSHIP IS NOT BASED SOLELY ON FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, CONVENIENCE OR INCONVENIENCE, AND THERE ARE NOT CONDITIONS THAT ARE ALLEGED TO BE SPECIAL, BUT ARE ACTUALLY COMMON TO MANY PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DOES NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT UPON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES FOR PURPOSES FOR WHICH THEY ARE ZONED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OR SERVICES, AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. THE DEGREE OF VARIANCE ALLOWED FROM THESE REGULATIONS IS THE LEAST THAT IS NECESSARY TO GRANT RELIEF FROM THE IDENTIFIED UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE USED TO CIRCUMVENT OTHER PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS. THESE REGULATIONS THAT COULD BE USED FOR THE SAME OR COMPARABLE EFFECT, AND BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THESE REGULATIONS IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE.
THANK YOU. SECOND. THANK YOU. DISCUSSION? DO WE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? NO, JUST YOU KNOW, IT'S A VERY MODEST HOME AROUND ALL THESE NEWER CONSTRUCTIONS THAT ARE BUILDING HIGHER AND HIGHER.
AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S THE LEAST WE CAN DO TO AFFORD THEM.
I MEAN, THEY PAY PROPERTY TAXES JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. AND YOU'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE BUILDING FENCES AND HIGH HOMES AND CONSTRUCTING A HOUSE THAT WAS THERE BEFORE EVERYBODY ELSE. SO I THINK WE SHOULD GRANT THEM THAT COURTESY. OKAY.
IF THERE'S NOT. YEAH, I JUST AGREE. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU.
THAT'S ALL WE HAVE FOR TODAY. FORMAL NOTIFICATION WILL BE READY WITHIN TEN DAYS. AND IT'S 3:44.
MEETING ADJOURNED. WOO HOO!
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.