[00:00:01] OK, IT'S NOON, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. [DECLARATION OF A QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER] IN ATTENDANCE, WE HAVE BELINDA GAINES. TERRY ROBERTS. JANIE SCHWARTZ AND MYSELF, DANIELLE GRAHAM. MARION GOFF COULDN'T BE HERE. SO I'M GOING TO CONDUCT THE MEETING AS THE FIRST ONE OF THESE I'VE CONDUCTED SO BEAR WITH ME. FIRST ITEM. WELL, SO THAT THE FOUR OF US DOES CREATE A QUORUM. SO WE'LL CALL THE ORDER AT NOON. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A VARIANCE ON A SIDE YARD [PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ACTION ITEMS] REQUIREMENT AT THE ADDRESS OF 1208 AND 1212 HENDERSON ROAD. I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I SECOND IT. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED. OK, SO PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. YOU'RE UP. YES, I'M UP. WE DON'T DO THIS VERY OFTEN. MY NAME'S WALT REEVES. AGAIN, I'M THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR AT THE CITY OF ANGLETON. AND JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS, THIS ROOM IS ALSO THE COURTROOM AND THE COURT IS IT. THERE'S A TRIAL THIS MORNING. THEY RECESSED FOR LUNCH, SO THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE BACK AT 1:45. SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WE CONCLUDE THE BUSINESS LONG BEFORE THAT SO THEY CAN RESUME THE TRIAL AT 1:45. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THIS IS A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD REQUEST. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES TWO LOTS ON HENDERSON ROAD, AND IT'S JUST TO THE WEST OF THE GAS STATION AND CONVENIENCE STORE AT THE CORNER OF HENDERSON AND DOWNING STREET. THE TWO HOUSES ARE EITHER FULLY CONSTRUCTED OR ALMOST FINISHED CONSTRUCTION. WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS THAT WHEN THE LOTS WERE STAKED IN ORDER TO PUT THE FORMS IN FOR THE FOUNDATION, THE CORNERS OF THE LOT WEREN'T PROPERLY LOCATED AND THE FORMS ENDED UP IN THE WRONG PLACE. THE FOUNDATIONS GOT POURED IN THE WRONG PLACE. THE HOUSES HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN THE WRONG PLACE. AND RIGHT NOW, BOTH HOUSES DO NOT MEET THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN. THIS IS NOT A UNIQUE KIND OF VARIANCE. I PROCESS MORE THAN A FEW OF THESE IN OTHER PLACES THAT I WORK. IT HAPPENS FROM TIME TO TIME. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS WAS FOUND NOW RATHER THAN THREE YEARS FROM NOW OR WHEN SOMEBODY WAS TRYING TO SELL THE PROPERTY AND DISCOVERED THAT A LENDER WOULDN'T LEND ON IT BECAUSE THE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING HAPPENS IT CAN'T BE REBUILT WHERE THE HOUSE IS CURRENTLY LOCATED. SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE EASTERNMOST OF THE TWO LOTS. WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS THAT THERE WILL BE AN AMENDING REPLAT TO ADJUST THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS AND THE WESTERNMOST LOT AFTER THE AMENDING REPLAT IS DONE IT WILL NOT NEED A VARIANCE FOR THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. BUT THE EASTERNMOST LOT WILL NOW NEED VARIANCES ON BOTH SIDE YARDS. AND THOSE ARE IN YOUR BACKUP STAFF. LOOKED AT ALL THE CRITERIA THAT ARE REQUIRED UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO GRANT A VARIANCE IN THIS CASE AND FINDS THAT THEY ARE MET AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE AMENDING REPLAT IS DONE. AND I BELIEVE I DID. PART OF MY RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT IT BE, I WANT TO SAY 90 DAYS, AND I FORGET EXACTLY THE NUMBER THAT I WROTE IN THERE, BUT THAT THE AMENDING REPLAT GETS DONE. AND I HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT WON'T BE, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THE PREPARER OF THE PLAN HAS ALREADY PREPARED IT. SO IT'S JUST A MATTER OF THEM SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION AFTER THE VARIANCE IS DONE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. I KNOW THAT THERE'S A REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM WITH THAT. WAS THERE ANYBODY THAT WANTED TO SPEAK REGARDING THIS ISSUE EITHER FOR, I GUESS, FOR FIRST? ANYBODY AGAINST. AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. YOU HAVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING THE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST. YEAH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I SECOND. DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR AYE. [00:05:01] AYE. YOUR POST. OK, SO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. NOW MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE VARIANCE. OK. SECOND. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ALL IN FAVOR AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES VARIANCE WOULD BE GRANTED TO BOTH SIDE LOTS. OK, SO THE NEXT ITEM. VARIANCE ON THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SET BACK AT BLOCK ONE, LOT 59 OF GIFFORD ESTATES, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 128 BALD PRAIRIE. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I NEED TO MAKE A MOTION. I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. OPPOSED. OK, PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS LINDSEY KOSKINIEMI. I'M THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR. WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS AN ITEM CONCERNING A COUPLE DIFFERENT VARIANCE REQUESTS. THE ELEMENTS OF THIS INCLUDE FRONT SETBACK AS WELL AS SIDE YARD SETBACKS. THIS IS THE PROPERTY 128 BALD PRAIRIE IS WITHIN THE MANUFACTURED HOME ZONING DISTRICT. AND THE PROJECT WAS STARTED WITHOUT ACTUALLY A THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING, IN MY OPINION, OF WHAT THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WERE. SO A STOP WORK ORDER WAS ISSUED, AND THE APPLICANT WHO IS HERE TODAY DID SUBMIT AN APPLICATION REQUESTING THE VARIANCES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT. SO IT HAS BEEN STOPPED SINCE JANUARY. AND WE'VE ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH TWO ROUNDS OF AN APPLICATION, ONE OF WHICH EXPIRED. SO ON YOUR ON THE DIAS, I HAVE SUPPLIED SOME IMAGES THAT WE TOOK OF OF THE PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN STOPPED. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE RAFTERS THAT ARE SUSPENDED FROM THE SIDES OF THE STRUCTURE ARE ACTUALLY TOUCHING A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, WHICH DOES NOT MEET FIRE CODE BECAUSE OF THE EXTENT OF THE VARIANCES AND IT NOT BEING A SAFE SITUATION IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVING THE VARIANCE. AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS HERE. WE ALSO HAVE THE CITY'S FIRE INSPECTOR, ROY HERNANDEZ IS HERE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM HIM. OTHER THAN THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT THIS ITEM. I ALSO SHOULD ADD THAT IN ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE, THERE SHOULD BE A COMPELLING REASON, WHATEVER THE BOARD FINDS TO BE A COMPELLING REASON AND SIMPLY WANTING SHADE IS NOT, IN STAFF'S OPINION, A COMPELLING REASON TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND SUPERSEDE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE. YES, STAMPED PLANS ARE REQUIRED. LAPSE IN THE FIRST APPLICATION, BECAUSE WE NEEDED ENGINEERED PLANS. BUT THOSE HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, BUT THEY DO NOT MEET CODE. IS THERE IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WANTED TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST. ALL RIGHT. NOBODY ELSE WISHES TO SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. OPPOSED. OK, SO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. AND WE DO HAVE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A HARDSHIP IN ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE, AND IN MY OPINION, WE DO NOT MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. RIGHT THAT THEY ACCEPT STAFFS. [INAUDIBLE] RECOMMENDATIONS NOT TO APPROVE IT. IF YOU COULD SPEAK INTO THE MICS. [00:10:02] YEAH, I THINK WE MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT YOUR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, NOT TO APPROVE, AND LINDA WAS THE ONE THAT DID THAT. I'LL SECOND IT. ANY DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. SO THIS BOARD HAS VOTED TO ACCEPT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, NOT TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AT 128 BALD PRAIRIE AT THIS TIME. SO THE NEXT ITEM, I'M SORRY, IT'S WAY BACK HERE. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REQUEST ON A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT AND REAR AND SURFACE REQUIREMENTS FOR A RESIDENCE AT [INAUDIBLE] COMMONLY KNOWN AS 209 WEST KIBER, I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION, NO, I DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT FOR THAT DO I? ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. OK, PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES OF THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS FOR A PROPERTY THAT'S MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 209 WEST KIBER. AT THE TIME THAT I DID THE NOTICE FOR THIS, I ALSO INCLUDED A VARIANCE FOR THE MAXIMUM PERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENT. AS IT TURNS OUT, THAT VARIANCE ISN'T NEEDED. SO IT'S JUST A VARIANCE OF THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS. THE EXISTING HOUSE IN THE PROPERTY HAS APPARENTLY BEEN THERE SINCE 1955. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S NOT IN VERY GOOD SHAPE ANYMORE, AND THE OWNERS WOULD LIKE TO PLACE ANOTHER HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY. THE PROBLEM BEING THAT GIVEN THE ORIENTATION OF THE LOT AND ITS SIZE, IT'S IN ORDER TO PLACE ANYTHING ON THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO REQUIRE A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS BASICALLY OVERLAP EACH OTHER. SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT KIND OF STRUCTURE YOU WANTED TO PUT ON THE PROPERTY, IT WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE OF BOTH OF THOSE IN ORDER TO MEET MINIMUM CITY REQUIREMENTS. YOU HAVE THE ANALYSIS ON THE BASIS OF THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS REGARDING THE GRANTING OF VARIANCES. STAFF FINDS THAT THOSE CRITERIA ARE MET AND THAT THERE ARE REASONS TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS LEE GARCIA, MADAM CHAIRPERSON AND BOARD. I AM GOING TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, [INAUDIBLE], WHO ARE HERE IN THE FRONT ROW. I JUST WANT TO KIND OF GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND OTHER THAN JUST WHAT'S WRITTEN IN BLACK AND WHITE. BUT, YOU KNOW, FROM HURRICANE HARVEY, LIKE MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS HERE IN [INAUDIBLE] COUNTY, THEIR HOME WAS DAMAGED QUITE A BIT IN 2017. THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS THROUGH FEMA WERE DENIED BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF REPAIRS. AND THEN, OF COURSE, THEY GOT NOTIFIED THROUGH THE GLO THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE THAT THEY COULD QUALIFY FOR A PROGRAM. SO THEY GOT APPROVED FOR IT. UNFORTUNATELY, SUBSEQUENTLY, THEY WERE TOLD NO COULD NOT BE BUILT BECAUSE THE PLANS THAT THEY UTILIZED FOR THE GLO OFFICE DID NOT FIT THE LOT, MUCH LIKE MR. REEVES WAS SAYING. HOWEVER, THROUGH AN APPEAL PROCESS, MR. AND MRS. [INAUDIBLE] WERE ABLE TO GET THE APPEAL APPROVED AND NEW PLAN WAS CREATED IN ORDER TO BUILD ON THAT LOT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD ALREADY STARTED PACKING AND EVERYTHING ELSE WHEN THE FIRST DENIAL CAME. AND SO AT THIS POINT THEY ARE WHERE WE ARE TODAY, THEY HAVE A PLAN THAT'S BEEN APPROVED BY THE GLO OFFICE. THEY JUST NEED THE VARIANCES, AS DULY NOTED IN THE SUMMARY BY MR. REEVES. ON THE PERSONAL SIDE. ALLOW ME TO SHARE WITH YOU GUYS, LIKE MENTIONED. THE HOUSE HAS BEEN THERE SINCE 55. SO OVER 60 YEARS, THEY HAVE CALLED THIS HOME ADDRESS THEIR HOME. AND WE AS THEIR NEIGHBORS, FAMILY, EXTENDED FAMILY AND FRIENDS WOULD LOVE FOR LEE AND [INAUDIBLE] TO BE ABLE TO LIVE THEIR GOLDEN YEARS IN A HOME THAT IS SAFE, HEALTHY AND COMFORTABLE AT AN ADDRESS THAT THEY HAVE CALLED HOME FOR OVER 60 YEARS. SO WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WAS THERE ANYBODY HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST? THEN I'LL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION. [00:15:03] ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. SO PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, TO ACCEPT THE VARIANCE AT, WAS IT 209 KIBER. OK. I'LL SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION, ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED. OK, SO THE BOARD VOTED TO GRANT THE VARIANCE ON THAT. OK, NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION FOR A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN LIVE OAK AND ARCOLA AND LOCUST. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. SO THIS IS THIS ITEM CONCERNS THE COURTHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT. AND SORRY, CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME OK? YES. SO JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND HERE. THE COUNTY SUBMITTED A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL THIS PAST TUESDAY TO GO TO REZONE FROM COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING A CONSISTENT SET OF REGULATIONS TO APPLY TO THE ENTIRETY OF THE CAMPUS, THE FUTURE CAMPUS. SO WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS WHERE YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN THAT CHURCH WITH THE CONSTRUCTION FENCING AROUND IT. THAT CHURCH WAS GOING TO BE DEMOED AND THAT'S WHERE THE NEW ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IS GOING. THE PLANS CALL FOR A FIVE STORY BUILDING. HOWEVER, UNDER THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT, THEY CAN ONLY HAVE FOUR STORIES HIGH. SO I CAN'T PROVE THIS, BUT URBAN LEGEND HAS IT THAT THE COUNTY BUILT THE COURTHOUSE WITH THE INTENTION OF BEING THE TALLEST BUILDING IN THE COUNTY. AND SO IN KEEPING WITH THAT HISTORY, I MEAN, THAT'S NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S FACTUAL. I MEAN, THAT IS URBAN LEGEND BUT I THOUGHT YOU GUYS MIGHT FIND THAT INTERESTING. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR THIS PROJECT. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. IS THERE ANYBODY PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR? AGAINST. I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED. ANY DISCUSSION NECESSARY BEFORE WE VOTE? I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFFS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THE COURTHOUSE, THE NEW BUILDING. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED. SO THE BOARD IS VOTING TO GRANT HEIGHT REQUIREMENT ADJUSTMENT [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU. YEAH, I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING IF THERE'S NO FURTHER BUSINESS. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. AND SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:19. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.