* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [1. Call to order and roll call of members] [00:00:06] SIX O'CLOCK. WELCOME TO THE, UH, CITY OF LAKE CITY ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION. REGULAR MEETING FOR THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5TH, 2024. FIRST ITEM, UH, IS CALLED ORDER AND ROLL. CALL OF MEMBERS. KATHLEEN BEIR. HERE. TIM GAN CURRY. HERE. MICHAEL ERSAD IS HERE. RUSSELL MILLER. HERE. ROBERT KLEIN HERE. OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE ANY ALTERNATES. OKAY. [2. Approval of January 4, 2024, minutes] UH, ITEM TWO, APPROVAL OF JANUARY 4TH, 2024 MINUTES. ASSUME EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO READ THROUGH THOSE. WERE THERE ANY COMMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE? WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE? I RECOMMEND APPROVAL. I SECOND IT. ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES FROM JANUARY A SECOND. AYE. AYE. SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. THAT'S, UH, UNANIMOUS. FIVE TO ZERO. OKAY. CITIZENS COMMUNICATION, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE INVITED TO GIVE COMMENTS AT THIS TIME LASTING NOT LONGER THAN THREE MINUTES. DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME UP, DON'T SEE ANY? [4.A. Hold a public hearing and take action on a Zoning Board of Adjustments Application, VA-24-0007, (1010 and 1012 E. Walker St.), variance requests to subdivide a property, which would result in a lot less than 50 feet in width and less than 7,000 square feet in lot area as required by Table 3.3.2. of the League City Unified Development Code (UDC) for properties zoned “RSF-7” (Single-Family Residential 7), legally described as Lot 11 of Division “D” of the Town of League City, generally located along the north side of E. Walker Street, east of Illinois Avenue and west of Reynolds Avenue, with the addresses of 1010 and 1012 East Walker Street in League City, Texas.] SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ITEMS. ITEM FOUR A, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS APPLICATION VA DASH 24 DASH 0 0 0 7 10 10, AND 10 12 EAST WALKER STREET VARIANCE REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A, UH, PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A LOT LESS THAN 50 FEET IN WIDTH AND LESS THAN 7,000 SQUARE FEET IN LOT AREA AS REQUIRED BY TABLE 3.3 0.2 OF THE LEAGUE CITY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE PROPERTY ZONED RSF DASH SEVEN. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SEVEN, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 11 OF DIVISION D OF THE TOWN OF LEAGUE CITY. GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST WALKER STREET, EAST OF ILLINOIS AVENUE, AND WEST OF REYNOLDS AVENUE WITH THE ADDRESSES OF 10 10 AND 10 12 EAST WALKER STREET IN LEAGUE CITY, TEXAS. UH, STAFF. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M CAITLYN KING. I'M A RELATIVELY NEW PLANNER, SO IF I'M A FAMILIAR FACE, IT'S GOOD TO MEET ALL OF YOU GUYS. UM, AS OUR CHAIRPERSON HAD SAID, THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR, UM, A SUBSTANDARD LOT LOCATED OFF OF EAST WALKER STREET, JUST, UM, EAST OF THE INTERSECTION AT ILLINOIS AVENUE. THE REQUEST IS TO CREATE TWO LOTS, THE FIRST OF WHICH WOULD BE 5,600 SQUARE FEET APPROXIMATELY WITH A 36 FOOT WIDE FRONTAGE ALONG EAST WALKER STREET. THE SECOND LOT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 9,700 SQUARE FEET AND WOULD HAVE A 63 FOOT WIDE FRONTAGE. UM, AND JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THE TRACK, THESE HOMES HAVE EXISTED SINCE THE 19, AND THAT DOES PREDATE, UM, THE UDC. SO THEY WERE CREATED, UM, TWO HOMES ON THIS LOT BEFORE ANY RULES EXISTED TO SAY THAT THAT COULD NOT OCCUR. SO THE VARIANCE COMES INTO PLAY ON LOT ONE SPECIFICALLY, WHICH IS BELOW THE 7,000 SQUARE FOOT, UM, AREA MINIMUM. AND THE FI, UH, 50 FOOT WIDE FRONTAGE MINIMUM AS REQUIRED BY R SF SEVEN. UM, THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT LOT TWO, WHICH IS THE LARGER LOT TO THE EAST THAT YOU'RE SEEING, NEEDS TO BE LARGER TO ALLOW A FUNCTIONALITY OF THE LARGE ACCESSORY BUILDING LOCATED IN THE REAR. SO THAT LARGER LOT HAS, UM, AN ACCESSORY BUILDING WHICH IS USED, YOU KNOW, AS A SHED OR FOR STORAGE. UM, IN ORDER TO BACK UP TRUCKS OR LOAD THAT BUILDING, YOU HAVE TO HAVE EXTRA ROOM, UM, TO ACCESS IT. SO THAT LOT DOES NEED TO BE A LITTLE BIT WIDER, UM, AND JUST 'CAUSE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. UM, AS THE LOT EXISTS, THERE IS NOT A WAY TO SUBDIVIDE IT THAT WOULD MEET ALL OF THE RULES, AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE LOT IS 99 FEET WIDE AND IT HAS TO BE, EACH LOT HAS TO BE 50 FEET TO MEET THE RULES BY RIGHT. SO THERE WOULD BE NO WAY THAT HE COULD SUBDIVIDE THIS THAT WOULD MEET THE, THE UDC. AND THEN, UM, WE DID JUST WANNA SHOW YOU GUYS SOME PICTURES. THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN WORKING ON, UM, IMPROVING THESE LOTS AND RESTORING THESE HOMES TO THE HISTORIC, UH, CHARACTER THAT WAS PRESENT. SO, UM, THE FIRST PHOTO THAT YOU SEE IS JUST A VIEW FROM THE STREET THAT SHOWS APPROXIMATELY WHERE THAT LOT WOULD BE SPLIT. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT, UM, YOU KNOW, FROM THE STREET. THE SECOND PICTURE IS THE HOME ON LOT TWO WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE. AND THAT'S GONNA BE THE BIGGER HOME THAT HAS THE ACCESSORY BUILDING IN THE BACK. AND THEN THE PICTURE ON THE BOTTOM LEFT IS GONNA BE THE HOME ON LOT ONE, WHICH IS THE SMALLER LOT WITH A SMALLER HOME. AND THEN THE BOTTOM RIGHT PHOTO IS THE VIEW FROM THE STREET PRIOR TO IMPROVEMENTS. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT, UH, SIGNIFICANT WORK HAS BEEN PUT IN TO, YOU KNOW, RESTORE THESE HOMES TO, UH, ITS HISTORIC CHARACTERISTIC. [00:05:02] UM, AND HERE STAFF'S FINDING THIS IS, UM, WHAT WAS REPORTED IN OUR STAFF REPORT, BUT STAFF DOES, UM, OUR ANALYSIS DOES INDICATE THAT ALL OF THE CRITERIA OR TESTS HAVE BEEN MET. UM, AND THE TWO HOMES HAVE EXISTED ON ONE LOT FOR 60 YEARS. SO THIS IS AN EXISTING, UM, CHARACTERISTIC THAT THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH THIS. SO THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT HIMSELF IMPOSED. UM, THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE UDC, UM, AND SUBDIVIDING. IT WILL ALLEVIATE THIS NON-CONFORMANCE. AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO SUBDIVIDE THIS LOT, UM, WHILE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UDC. UM, AND THE APPLICANT AND OWNER DID PURCHASE THE PROPERTIES WITH THE BUILDINGS ALREADY EXISTING. UM, SO IT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT WAS IMPOSED BY THE APPLICANT HIMSELF. UM, AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TODAY IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM, AND THEN I'M ALSO AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. OKAY, THANK YOU. DID UH, ANYBODY ON THE BOARD HAVE, UH, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? CAN YOU JUST GO BACK TO THE, UH, SLIDE THAT SHOWED, UM, THE BLACK AND WHITE? YES. SO THE LOTS THAT ARE ON THE ADJACENT STREET, THEY'RE ALL 50 FOOT, 50 FOOT 45 6. SO THEY'RE ALL THE, THE MINIMUM. SO THOSE, UM, ARE ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT SUBSTANDARD FROM AREA. UM, SO A SUBSTANDARD THOUGHT ISN'T UNFAMILIAR IN THE AREA. IT IS AN OLDER PART OF TOWN. UM, SO THERE ARE HOMES THAT HAVE EXISTED FOR, YOU KNOW, 50, 60 YEARS. MM-HMM. . MM-HMM. . UM, BUT WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT, UM, THE BACKGROUND OF THIS, UM, IT WAS DONE LIKE A LOT OF THE OTHER, UM, UH, LOTS THAT HAVE TWO BUILDINGS ON THEM THAT ARE IN THE OLD PART OF TOWN WHERE PEOPLE BUILT THEIR HOME ON IT AND THEN THEY BUILT THEIR BUSINESS ON IT AS WELL. AND IT LOOKED LIKE THIS WAS THE OLD BOB'S AC AT ONE POINT WHERE THEY LIVED IN ONE OF THE HOUSES AND THEN HAD THEIR BUSINESS IN IT. SO, UM, SO IT WAS ACTUALLY LIKE A RESIDENT AND A BUSINESS AT ONE POINT, BUT THAT WAS PRETTY COMMON AT THE, AT THE TIME TO DO THAT. SO IT'S 99 FEET WIDE. UM, COULDN'T IT BE DIVIDED INTO 50 FOOT AND 49 FEET AND YOU'RE STILL, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT MAKING IT MORE NON-CONFORMING THAN IT ALREADY IS. YOU'RE YOU'RE ASKING FOR ONE VARIANCE FOR A FOOT. MM-HMM. WAS THAT NOT? SO, UH, THE, THE MAIN REASON OF THIS, UH, THE SPLIT IN LOTS THAT YOU SEE IS TO MAINTAIN THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE BUILDING IN THE REAR. UM, IF WE WERE TO MAKE IT A MORE EVEN SPLIT, THAT BUILDING WOULD BE LESS ACCESSIBLE. AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE'S AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY. SO THE TWO, THE TWO DRIVEWAYS THAT YOU SEE ON THIS IMAGE, THEY ARE EXISTING AND THEY ARE CURB CUTS ON EXISTING WALKER STREET. MM-HMM. . SO IF WE WERE TO MOVE THAT LOT LIE, THOSE CURB CUTS WOULD HAVE TO BE RIPPED OUT AND REPLACED. SO IF WE DIVIDE IT IN THE PROPOSED WAY, THERE WOULD BE NO CONSTRUCTION DONE ON EAST WALKER STREET TO GET ACCESS. IT WOULD FUNCTION AS IT ALWAYS HAS. IF WE MADE IT SMALLER, SOME WORK WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE ON, UM, GETTING ACCESS TO WALKER STREET. BUT AREN'T YOU MAKING IT MORE NON-CONFORMING BY SPLITTING IT INTO LESS THAN ONE IS BIGGER THAN 50 FEET AND ONE IS SMALLER? UM, I THINK ULTIMATELY THAT WOULD BE YOUR DETERMINATION. IF IT IS MORE NONCONFORMING, IT IS TAKING AWAY A, A NONCONFORMITY BY BEING SUBDIVIDED AND SUBDIVIDED IN A WAY THAT MAINTAINS FUNCTIONALITY FOR BOTH LOTS. BUT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A LOT OF THESE LOTS ALSO IN THIS PART OF TOWN WHERE YOU HAVE TWO STRUCTURES ON THEM. AND IF WE START SUBDIVIDING THEM INTO MORE NON-CONFORMING LOTS, YOU COULD RUN INTO ISSUES. I MEAN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT, WHAT IS THAT STREET THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO IT? IS IT ILLINOIS? YES. I CAN'T, I CAN ONLY SEE THE S ON THE SI THINK IT'S ILLINOIS. YES. OH, OKAY. YOU CAN SEE BIGGER THAN ME. NO, I DUNNO. UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE LOTS, I KNOW THAT, WHAT ARE THEY NOT THE RIGHT AREA? 'CAUSE THEY'RE 50 FOOT WIDE, BUT THEY'RE NOT AS DEEP AS THEY NEED TO BE. UM, BUT THERE'S CARS ALL OVER THE PLACE. UH, SOMEBODY HAD BUILT A SECOND STORY ON THE GARAGE AND THE STAIRWAYS WERE OVER THE PROPERTY LINE INTO THE NEIGHBORS. LIKE IF YOU KEEP DOING NON-CONFORMING, IF YOU KEEP PERPETUATING THAT, TO ME, THAT'S MY ISSUE WITH MM-HMM, WITH THIS IS THAT WE'RE MAKING IT EVEN MORE NON-CONFORMING. AND IF IT COMES, WELL, THAT'S REALLY MY BIG, MY BIG PROBLEM , I WILL SAY THE, THE, THE LOTS WILL FUNCTION THE SAME REGARDLESS OF IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S SPLIT, YOU'LL STILL HAVE PEOPLE LIVING IN BOTH HOMES, BUT THEN YOU'LL HAVE SOMEBODY IN THE SMALL LOT THAT'S 36 FEET WIDE. YES, THEY CAN TAKE IT DOWN AND BUILD SOMETHING ELSE, BUT YOU'RE BASICALLY CONDEMNING THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY TO THAT'S REALLY SMALL FROM 50 FEET TO 36 FEET IS THAT'S NOT A COUPLE OF FEET OR A COUPLE INCHES. THAT'S, THAT'S HUGE. AND WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HISTORIC LAKE CITY, EVEN JC LEAGUE, THE LOTS WERE 50 FEET WIDE. BUT ISN'T THAT THOUGH THE [00:10:01] NATURE OF THIS LOT HAS BEEN LIKE THIS FOR 60 YEARS PLUS, RIGHT? RIGHT. SO HOW IS THAT? BUT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN KNOWN BY THE SAME PERSON, BOTH STRUCTURES. RIGHT. AND THAT'S HOW A LOT OF THEM WERE BUILT IS THEY WERE OWNED BY FAMILIES. THEY EITHER PUT A BUSINESS ON IT OR THEY BUILT A SMALL HOUSE. AND BACK WHEN HOUSES WERE SMALL, UM, I LIVED IN ONE THAT WAS 600 SQUARE FEET AND IT WAS A LITTLE HOUSE ON THE BACK THAT THEY HAD BUILT FOR FAMILY MEMBERS TO LIVE BACK THERE. I I GUESS ONE QUESTION RELATED TO THAT IS, IS UH, THE, UH, FRONT SETBACKS AND THE SIDE SETBACKS, BUILD LINES, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU'D HAVE TO REFRESH OUR MEMORY ON WHAT THAT WOULD BE IN THIS AREA, BUT WHAT WOULD THE SIDE LOTS, ESPECIALLY IN THIS CASE BE? YEAH, SO I BELIEVE THE SIDE SETBACKS WOULD BE FIVE FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE LOT LINE. AND AS THAT BUILDING IS CURRENTLY CONFIGURED, IT DOES MEET THOSE SETBACKS. MM-HMM. AND ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD COME IN WOULD HAVE TO MEET THOSE SETBACKS. THIS IS NOT, UM, A VARIANCE ON ANY KIND OF SETBACKS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. ANY COVER, ANYTHING. UM, IT IS JUST THE LOT SIZE. SO ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WOULD STILL BE BEHOLDEN TO THE SETBACKS, IMPERVIOUS COVER, ALL OF THOSE GOOD THINGS. YOU, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE IS A, UM, A, A BUILDING THAT THAT NEEDS ACCESS. WHAT'S THAT BUILDING USED FOR AND HOW FREQUENTLY IS THE ACCESS? AND IS THERE ALTERNATIVE ACCESS SHOULD THE VARIANCE NOT BE GRANTED? UM, IF YOU'RE, OKAY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY THE NATURE OF THE USE, BUT WILL, UH, IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND EVERYTHING. HOW ARE Y'ALL? I'M, UH, WILL HOLT, OWNER OF 10 10, 10 12 EAST WALKER. UM, TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS IT, , WHAT'S THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS, NATURE OF THE, THE OTHER BUILDING THAT, THAT, UH, THE ACCESS IS NEEDED? IT'S A PRETTY BIG STORAGE UNIT. UM, PROBABLY, I MEAN, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S, IT'S BIGGER THAN THE ACTUAL HOUSE ITSELF. UM, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. AT ONE POINT IT WAS A BUSINESS. THEY HAD ACS IN THERE, UM, AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, JUST BACKGROUND ON IT. THE HOUSE FROM TALKING TO THE NEIGHBORS OVER THE YEARS HAS BEEN TWO RENTAL PROPERTIES. IT HAS BEEN ONE SINGLE OWNER, BUT THEY'VE RENTED OUT BOTH. AND OVER THE YEARS THEY'VE KIND OF SELF POURED THESE CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS, DONE THESE THINGS AS TO WHAT WAS MOST FUNCTIONAL FOR EACH HOUSE. UM, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THE THREE OR FOUR FEET IS MINUTE, BUT IT REQUIRES PULLING OUT AN OLD DRIVEWAY, POURING ONE, THREE FEET. AND THEN ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T DO A VERY GOOD JOB TAKING PICTURES OF THESE, THIS BARN, BUT IT'S HUGE. UM, IT'S A HUGE BARN AND WITHOUT THOSE THREE OR FOUR FEET, IT ALMOST BECOMES NOT ACCESSIBLE. UM, AND I DO THINK IT WOULD BE HARD TO PULL YOUR CAR IN AND OUT. YOU MIGHT JUST PARK IT IN YOUR FRONT YARD VERSUS PULLING IT INTO THE BACK. IT'S JUST, IT WOULD BE TOO TIGHT. UM, IS, IS THAT BUILDING SOMETHING THAT YOU REQUIRE FREQUENT ACCESS TO? I WOULD, I MEAN, CURRENTLY, NO, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I REALLY WANT TO KEEP THE SMALL HOUSE IS THE WHOLE FULL BACKGROUND. THE NEIGHBOR SAID IT WAS BUILT IN THE EARLY 19 HUNDREDS. I REALLY TOOK IT DOWN, BROUGHT IT TO THE OLD SHIPLAP, SANDED, SEALED, STAINED. I'VE WORKED IN LEAGUE CITY FOR SOME TIME, UM, REALLY FELL IN LOVE WITH THE HOUSE AND I WANNA KEEP IT. UM, BUT I, TRUTH BE TOLD, CAN'T AFFORD BOTH. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SELL THE ONE WITH THE BARN AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A HARD SALE SAYING, HEY, THIS BARN IS NOT ACCESSIBLE. UM, FIRST THE HOUSE I WANT A VARIANCE ON. I PLAN TO KEEP FOR A LIFETIME, TRUTH BE TOLD, IT'S JUST A REALLY COOL HOUSE. SO YOU'RE KEEPING THE, THE LOT, THAT'S WOULD BE THE NON-CONFORMING LOT? YES, SIR. THAT'S THE PLAN. AT LEAST. I'LL JUST SAY UNDER THE, THE TEST TO ME, GOING FROM A 50 FOOT TO A 36 FOOT LOT, THAT'S NOT A VARIANCE. THAT'S A WHOLE NEW ORDINANCE. UM, IF IT WAS JUST A FOOT OR TWO, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING I COULD DEAL WITH. BUT I THINK GOING FROM 50 TO 36 FEET IS, THAT'S BASICALLY A DIFFERENT LAW. AND THE COUNCIL GIVES US THE ORDINANCE TO DEAL WITH. AND, UM, I THINK THAT'S TOO MUCH. UNDERSTOOD. IF, IF I MAY, I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY THERE'S A [00:15:02] IMAGINARY LINE THAT I'M TRYING TO DEVELOP. I, I GUESS I'M REALLY SLIGHTLY UNSURE AS TO WHY IT WOULD, UM, CAUSE ANY ISSUES WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. I WOULD JUST SAY 50 FOOT TO 36 FEET IS WHAT KIND, WHAT PERCENTAGE IS THAT? 28%? YEAH. THAT'S, THAT'S A LOT. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. UM, A VARIANCE TO ME WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE A FOOT OR TWO BECAUSE IT'S 99 FEET, SO YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY, YOU COULD KEEP ONE LOT AT 50 FOOT AND THE OTHER AT 49 OR 49 AND A HALF AND DO TWO VARIANCES. BUT TO ME THAT'S MORE WHAT OUR FUNCTION IS. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE IT WORK. AND THIS IS STILL VERY, VERY CLOSE TO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN DOWN IN THE OR, WELL, ORIGINALLY WHAT IS WRITTEN DOWN IN THE ORDINANCES. SO YEAH, 28% TO ME IS, IS TOO MUCH. YEAH. UM, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, I WAS TRYING TO BRING IT BACK TO WHERE IT WAS, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO PLAY THIS CARD, BUT I THINK FINANCIALLY SPEAKING, IT WOULD MAKE THE MOST SENSE FOR SOMEONE TO TURN THIS INTO A COMMERCIAL OR SOME KIND OF BULLDOZE IT AND BUILD NEW AND USE IT AS COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL. AND I, I LIKE THE IDEA OF PRESERVING IT. UM, IT'S JUST, I WAS HOPING TO DO THE LOT SUBDIVISION JUST TO MAKE SENSE OF THE OLD 1920S BUILDING. WELL, I THINK THEY'RE PROBABLY MORE 1950S, BUT, UM, AND I LOVE TO SAY OLD BUILDINGS TOO. I JUST THINK THAT YOU'RE, IT'S SETTING THE WRONG IT. AGAIN, WE AREN'T WRITING THE RULES, WE'RE JUST SUPPOSED TO INTERPRET INTO ME. THAT'S, WELL, WE'RE NOT, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT, THAT'S AFFECTING THE RESIDENTIAL ASPECTS OF THIS. IT'S THE COMMERCIAL ASPECTS. IS IT ZONED RESIDENTIAL? THAT METAL BUILDING ZONE? RESIDENTIAL. OH, IT'S ZONED RESIDENTIAL. CORRECT. NO COMMERCIAL COULD FUNCTION IN IT AT ALL. AT ALL CURRENTLY WITHOUT A REASON. YOU'RE CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. SO HOW BIG IS THAT METAL BUILDING? IT'S 54.6 BY 27.2. THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD SIZE. COULD WE SEE THOSE OTHER PICTURES AGAIN? YES, OF COURSE. UM, AND IF I MAY, THE VARIANCE, UM, IT DOESN'T, WON'T SET THE PRECEDENT. ALL, ALL VARIANCES WILL BE CASE BY CASE. RIGHT. UM, SO IF PEOPLE COME IN, IN THE FUTURE, THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY BE SOMETHING THAT IS REVIEWED, UM, BY ITSELF AND WITH ITS OWN UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. RIGHT? RIGHT. BUT I KNOW FINANCIAL HARDSHIPS ARE NOT ANYTHING WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT EITHER. IT CAN BE, WELL, IT CAN BE RIGHT? IT CAN BE STRICTLY FINANCIAL. IS IS THE OUTBUILDING, THE, THE ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE ONE IN THE LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER PICTURE THAT'S IN THE, OH, I'M SORRY. IN THE BACK, UM, CENTER RIGHT? CORRECT. YES, SIR. GRAY BUILDING LOOKS LIKE IT HAS A WHITE SUBARU OR SOMETHING PARKED BY IT. YES. HOW OLD IS THAT STRUCTURE? UM, FROM GALVESTON COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, WHERE I GOT MOST OF THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHEN IT WAS BUILT, IT WAS BUILT AROUND THE SAME TIME AS THE HOME. SO, UM, LATE 1950S. SO IT'S AS OLD AS I AM. IF I MAY, REAL QUICK, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT, UH, IF YOU'LL REMEMBER WHEN WE, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCES AND THE CRITERIA, THERE, THERE ARE ALSO THE OTHER CRITERIA THAT TALK ABOUT THE, THE STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF AN ITEM. SO, YOU KNOW, LIKE, LIKE YOU WERE DISCUSSING, UH, ABOUT THE WIDTH OF THE LOCK PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, SOME THOUGHTS POTENTIALLY THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE, IF A STRICT INTERPRETATION OF KIND OF CENTERING DOWN THE, HOW THAT WILL REACT WITH THE, THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, UM, YOU KNOW, AS WAS MENTIONED WITH THE LARGER HOUSE, WITH THE STRUCTURE IN THE BACK, WITH, YOU KNOW, STRICT INTERPRETATION, IF THEY CAN'T GET ACCESS TO IT, DOES IT MAKE IT LESS FEASIBLE TO UTILIZE AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY GIVEN ITS EXISTING CONDITIONS AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, AS WAS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE CHARACTER, THE, THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA. DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE, UH, HOMEOWNER? WELL, I GUESS I, I DO. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED TAKING DOWN THAT OUTBUILDING? UM, NO, SIR. I, I LIKED THE PROPERTY. THE, I, I LIKED ALL THE CHARACTERISTICS AND I WANTED TO PRESERVE 'EM. SO I, I PLANNED TO KEEP IT, TRUTH BE TOLD. AND, YOU KNOW, JUST LEAVE THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, DESIGNED THE SAME WAY IT WAS BACK WHEN. YES, SIR. OKAY. SO IF, UM, WITHOUT THE VARIANCE, YOU'D ACTUALLY HAVE TO REMOVE THAT DRIVEWAY TO MAKE IT ALL 50, MAKE IT 50 50. UH, YES SIR. 50 49. AND AGAIN, IT JUST IS A SQUEEZE. IT'S [00:20:01] A TIGHT SQUEEZE TO THE BARN IS THE MAIN PROBLEM. AND THAT PUT YOUR SETBACK WRAP ON THE HOUSE FOR THE NEW DRIVEWAY? YES, SIR. OKAY. UM, THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW AT SIX 20. SURE. WE HAVE SOMEBODY YOU WANNA TALK TO THE MIC THOUGH? LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS. NAME YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE MIC. MY NAME IS GEORGE BARBER. I LIVE AT 4 0 8 EL TORO, BUT I HAVE PROPERTY ON, ON ILLINOIS, WHICH ADJOINS THIS, THIS PROPERTY THAT'S CONCERNED. THEY SENT ME A LETTER, I'M A NATIVE BOARD LEAGUE CITY. IT'D BEEN HERE FOR 88 YEARS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY THAT ADJOINS THIS PROPERTY, ALL OF IT BACK, ALL THE WAY BACK TO, UH, THE OTHER STREET, WHICH IS, UH, UH, STEDHAM BELONG TO MY PARENTS OR TO THE FAMILY. UH, AND, UH, YOU ASKED ABOUT, ABOUT THE PROPERTY. THAT PROPERTY WAS THERE IN 1945 BECAUSE THE BALDERAS CAME FROM GALVESTON. THEY LIVED IN THE LITTLE HOUSE THAT, THE LITTLE SMALL HOUSE THERE. UH, SO, UH, THE OTHER HOUSE WAS BUILT A LITTLE LATER, BUT I KNOW THAT, UH, THAT THAT PROPERTY THERE WAS, IT WAS THERE EVER SINCE, UH, 1945. UH, I HAVE NO NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, COUNSEL OR WHAT Y'ALL DO IS STRICTLY UP TO THE BOARD AND WHAT YOU'RE GONNA DO. ALL I ASK IS, YOU KNOW, UH, BE CONSISTENT, BE FAIR TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAD, UH, BECAUSE IF LATER ON, AND I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT THE PROPERTY ADJOINING THERE, IF IT NEEDS TO BE SUBDIVIDED OR WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN TO IT, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO SAVE THE SAVE, UH, UH, I SAY, UH, TREATMENT, RIGHT? YEAH. IT THAT WE DO IT. UH, I HAVE, LIKE I SAID, I HAVE NO PROBLEM AT ALL WITH IT. THEY, Y'ALL DO WHAT Y'ALL HAVE TO DO. AND, UH, AND THAT'S FINE WITH ME. THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. WE HAVE ANY, ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC? DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT. OKAY. UH, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6 22 23. SORRY. ALL RIGHT. UH, FIRST THINGS FIRST, UM, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, THE VARIANCE AND A SECOND I MOTION TO APPROVE IT? I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY. UH, IS THERE ANY DELIBERATION? SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE GOT SOME, UH, THINGS WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT, UH, AS A BOARD. UH, IN MY MIND, THE, THE, THE, I THINK I, I, I AGREE A LOT WITH WHAT KATHLEEN WAS ASKING AS FAR AS, UM, YOU KNOW, SUBDIVIDING THIS THING IN A WAY THAT'S, UM, THAT FAR FROM THE NORM. UH, TYPICALLY WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY WANT TO DO THAT. UM, I THINK THE PART THAT'S GIVING ME A LITTLE BIT OF, UH, UH, DIFFICULTY IS THE DRIVEWAY, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, BECAUSE, UH, IF WE, YOU KNOW, THE WIDTH OF THIS HOUSE, THE EXISTING HOUSE, UM, AND THE SITUATION THAT THE HOUSE IS IN, PLUS THE, THE SITUATION THAT THAT BUILDING IN THE BACK IS IN, UH, THE ACCESS TO ME BECOMES A REAL PROBLEM FOR THIS PROPERTY AND, AND FUNCTIONING THE WAY THAT IT FUNCTIONS. NOW, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT SAID, UH, I COULD SEE THIS THING WITH CARS PARKED ALL OVER THE STREET, UH, ALL OVER THE YARD. NOW LOOKING AT THE PICTURES, THERE ARE CARS PARKED ON THE YARD, . SO MAYBE THAT'S A MOOT POINT. UM, UH, I GUESS SECONDLY, UH, THE WAY, THE WAY THAT I SEE THIS VARIANCE, UM, IT'S NOT REALLY ALTERING THE CHARACTER. IN FACT, I THINK IT'S PRESERVING IT IN SOME WAYS. UM, AT LEAST AS FAR AS THIS SITE IS CONCERNED. UH, I WILL SAY THAT ELSEWHERE YOU WOULD BE DOING THE EXACT OPPOSITE. THIS IS KIND OF A VERY SPECIFIC CONDITION IN THIS SPECIFIC SITE. UH, AND SO IN THAT WAY, [00:25:01] I THINK THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT AS PART OF THIS, UH, DISCUSSION. UM, I THINK IT HOLDS A LITTLE BIT MORE WEIGHT MAYBE THAN, THAN THE, UH, THAN THE STANDARD, UH, WOULD BE IN THIS CASE. YEAH, I THINK I THAT GIVEN THAT THIS IS DEFACTO THE WAY THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN USED FOR MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS, UH, IS AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION. BUT IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE THAT THEY WERE OWNED BY THE SAME PERSON THERE. YOU KNOW, LOTS CAN, YOU CAN OPERATE AS TWO DIFFERENT STRUCTURES, BUT ULTIMATELY IT WAS ONE LANDLORD. SO IF YOU DIVIDE IT NOW INTO THIS SMALL ONE AND SAY MAYBE IT HAS TO SELL THE LITTLE HOUSE AND THERE'S SOMEBODY IN THERE THAT'S, WHY AM I 36 FEET WIDE AND I CAN'T PARK MY CAR? I MEAN, I CAN PARK ONE OR MAYBE TWO IN THE FRONT YARD, THEN YOU'RE HAMSTRINGING A FUTURE PROPERTY OWNER WITH THIS SUBSTANDARD LOT. MM-HMM. . UM, YOU KNOW, ASSUMING THAT EVERYTHING GOES THE RIGHT WAY AND THE HOUSE IS KEPT AND IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. IT'S OWNED BY TWO PEOPLE. UM, CAVEAT MTOR WOULD BE MY RESPONSE TO THAT. HMM. CAVEAT MTOR, I DON'T KNOW THE BUYER BEWARE. YEAH. YEAH. BUT WHEN YOU GET TO THE OLD PART OF TOWN LIKE THIS THAT, I DON'T KNOW, TO ME THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT YOUR HAMSTRINGING THE POSSIBLE FUTURE OWNER OF OF THAT SMALL HOUSE. YEAH. THAT THE HOUSE ITSELF WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO BE 26 FEET WIDE. YEAH. GIVEN THE, AND YOU'D BE BUILD LINE TO BUILD LINE IN THAT CASE. AND IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE WHEN IT'S ONE PROPERTY OWNER AND ONE BIG LOT. MM-HMM. , YOU OPERATE IT AS YOU SEE FIT. I GUESS I DO HAVE ONE THOUGHT AND QUESTION, UM, IS, YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO ACCESS TO THIS, OUTBUILDING SEEMS TO BE THE, THE MAJOR STICKING POINT HERE. WHAT IS THE POSSIBILITY OF AN EASEMENT FOR ACCESS? I DUNNO IF WE CAN REOPEN IT TO QUESTIONS OR NOT, BUT IF I MAY, AND YOU, YOU COULD HAVE AN ACCESS EASEMENT, BUT YOU COULDN'T HAVE ANY KIND OF FENCES THEN, UM, YOU WOULD PUT BOTH PROPERTY OWNERS THEN IF THEY WANTED TO FENCE THEIR YARD, UM, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO KEEP A PORTION OF IT FREE AND CLEAR, UM, FOR ACCESS. BUT IT WOULDN'T PROHIBIT THE SMALLER HOUSE FROM BUILDING THE FENCE LINE 30, YOU KNOW, 36 FOOT WIDE. YEAH. I GUESS IT'D BE AT THEIR RISK, RIGHT? YEAH. IF THEY BUILT IT AND SOMEBODY CAME ALONG AND SAID, NO, NO, I NEED TO GET THERE. YEAH. THEY COULD RIP IT DOWN. DID, UM, SORRY, I GUESS WE CAN HAVE THE, WE CAN HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER COME BACK UP. OKAY. IF HE'S GOT . UM, IF I MAY, UM, I DO APOLOGIZE ABOUT THE VEHICLES AS WERE ME AND ALL MY GUYS. I WOULD'VE TAKEN DIFFERENT PICTURES. UM, AS FOR THE LITTLE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS MAKING IT WORSE, IT, IT'S KIND OF A DIFFICULT QUESTION. IT'S 'CAUSE I'M ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO OWN IT. SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE I, I SEE IT TO BE MORE BENEFICIAL. AND UM, YOU KNOW, THE, AS FAR AS THE CAR BEING IN THE FRONT, UH, THAT DRIVEWAY THAT'S POURED FOR THE LITTLE HOUSE ACTUALLY ALLOWS ACCESS. THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM FOR A CAR ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE TO DRIVE AND PARKED THE CAR ALL THE WAY IN THE BACK, WHICH IS WHERE THE PREVIOUS TENANT HAD ACTUALLY PARKED THE VEHICLE. UM, AND IT, IT, IT DOESN'T APPEAR IT, 'CAUSE THERE'S A BUSH THAT'S OVERGROWN, BUT IT IN THE PAST HAS BEEN USED AS ACCESS TO THE BACK FROM THE LEFT HAND SIDE, WHICH I WOULD NOT BE MESSY. RIGHT. I GUESS IN THAT CASE THOUGH, UM, WE'RE BEHOLDEN TO THE FACT THAT YOU INTEND TO HOLD THE PROPERTY AND NOT KNOCK IT DOWN. RIGHT. SO IF SOMEBODY CAME IN AND, AND BUILT A 25 FOOT WIDE HOUSE, YOU THEN COULD NOT DO THAT. RIGHT. THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THAT'S NECESSARILY THE BEST WAY TO PARK A CAR OR WHATEVER, BUT THAT'S TO SAY THAT IT'S, IT'S A LIMITATION POTENTIALLY. YES, SIR. UM, AGAIN, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK NECESSARILY THAT THERE'S ANY CODE THIS, UH, IN THIS SITUATION AGAINST THAT. UM, IT'S JUST TO, TO SOME OF THE POINTS BEING MADE UP HERE. UM, YOU'RE LIMITING THAT SITE TO BE BASICALLY AS IT IS NOW. YES. FOREVER. YES, SIR. AND, AND THAT IS PART OF THE ORDINANCE THOUGH. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CONDITIONS, YOU KNOW, DOES IT, DOES IT CHANGE THE, I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE EXACT CHARACTER OR WHATEVER YEAH, THE CHARACTER, YOU KNOW, IT WAS CREATED FOR OPENNESS AND LIGHT AND YOU KNOW, LET'S FACE IT. AND THE OLD PART OF TOWN, THERE'S REAL VARIATIONS AND HOW MUCH OPENNESS AND LIFE THERE IS. BUT [00:30:01] WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE TAKING THIS LOT NOW AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE FOREVER CHANGING IT TO 36 FEET WIDE, YOU ARE, UM, CONSTRICTING WHAT WHOEVER OWNS THAT SMALL HOUSE WHERE THEY CAN PARK, WHERE THEY CAN BUILD A FENCE WITH THE NEIGHBORS BEHIND THEM. I MEAN, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THESE ORDINANCES TO PROMOTE OPENNESS AND UM, HAVE SPACE IN BETWEEN. AND, UM, IF YOU'VE EVER LOOKED AT SOME OF THESE HOUSES, I MEAN, MAYBE YOU CAN PUT THE CAR BEHIND IT. IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY COME VISIT YOU, WHERE ARE THEY GONNA PARK? THEY CAN'T PARK ON WALKER. SO IT IS THAT, UM, THE ORDINANCE IN THE BIG PICTURE, IT IS TO KEEP ROOM AND TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU CAN FUNCTION ON YOUR OWN AND THAT YOUR NEIGHBORS CAN FUNCTION TOO WITHOUT HAVING CONSTRICTIONS ON THEM. BUT ISN'T AN UNDUE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON HIM TO WIDEN THAT PROPERTY TO 49 FOOT. 'CAUSE NOW HE IS GONNA HAVE TO REMOVE THE DRIVEWAY IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT. AND NOW THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO BACK WITH TWO STREET CUTS. MM-HMM. IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT. SO THAT'S AN UNDUE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THEM, EXCEPT THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE TO SUBDIVIDE THE LOT EITHER. THAT'S THE WAY IT'S BEEN FOR 60 YEARS. IT COULD REMAIN THAT SAME WAY. I MEAN, I GUESS I, I GUESS I WOULD SAY THAT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO SUBDIVIDE A LOT TOO. UM, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A STRAIGHT LINE. RIGHT? YOU COULD, YOU COULD UH, YOU COULD HAVE AN OFFSET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. CREATE A 49 FOOT FRONTAGE OR, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO IT. CORRECT. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A STRAIGHT LINE DOWN. UM, YOU STILL WOULD FACE THAT 49 FOOT ONE WOULD BE SMALLER, HAVE A SMALLER FRONTAGE REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU CUT IT, WHICH WOULD BRING IT BACK AND YOU'RE GOING TO, 'CAUSE IT'S 99 FEET WIDE, SO THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN . RIGHT. UNFORTUNATELY YOU CAN DO IT EVENLY, BUT I THINK YOU COULD MAKE IT CLOSER AND THEN I WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM. BUT I'VE JUST, YOU KNOW, I LIVE IN THIS PART OF TOWN AND IT CAN BE A REAL PROBLEM WHEN YOU HAVE A SMALL LOT AND EVERYBODY WANTS TO DO THE MAXIMUM THEY CAN DO ON IT. AND, AND THAT DOES END UP INTERFERING WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORS. , DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DELIBERATE DELIBERATION? OKAY. UM, GONNA, WE'VE GOT A MOTION, A MR. MILLER MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED. AND MS. TAM, UH, MS. CAN CURRY HAS SECONDED. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. I GOT TWO, TWO AYES. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? NO I. OKAY. UH, VARIANCE IS DENIED. TWO TO TWO TO THREE. OKAY. UH, ITEM B LOOKS LIKE IT'S BEEN PULLED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. YES. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE PULLED. UM, THEY WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THEIR REQUEST AND BRING IT BEFORE THE BOARD AT A LATER TIME. OKAY. DO WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING? I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING RIGHT NOW TAKEN, NO, NO ACTION NEEDS TO TAKEN PUBLIC HEARING OR ANYTHING. OKAY. [5.A. Consider and take action on the Zoning Board of Adjustments/Building and Standards Commission meeting dates for 2025.] UH, ITEM FIVE, OTHER BUSINESS, UH, CONSIDERING TAKE ACTION ON ZONING AND BOARD ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION MEETING DATES FOR 2025? YES. COMMISSIONERS, UH, AGAIN, THIS IS JUST KIND OF THE YEARLY, UH, HOUSEKEEPING, JUST, UH, ESTABLISHING THE CALENDAR OF REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR OF 2025. UM, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE CALENDAR, THE ONLY REAL, UH, KIND OF DEPARTURE IS JULY, UH, DUE TO THE JULY 4TH HOLIDAY IN WHICH STAFF IS PROPOSING THURSDAY, JULY 10TH. WE HAVE, UH, HAD, UH, DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. SHE DOES INDICATE THERE IS NOTHING ELSE PLANNED FOR THAT DAY. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CALENDAR AS PRESENTED? SO MOVE. I'LL SECOND. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ALL AS OPPOSED. HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES. FIVE TO ZERO. OKAY. UH, ITEM SIX. STAFF COMMENTS. STAFF HAS NONE TONIGHT. OKAY. ITEM SEVEN IS ADJOURNMENT. UH, THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 6 34. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.