Galveston Zoning Board defers decision on front-yard setback at 4217 Las Palmas

The Zoning Board of Adjustment for the City of Galveston on Sept. 3 deferred a decision on a special exception request for 4217 Las Palmas after an initial motion to approve failed to receive the four affirmative votes required of the four members present.

The applicant sought an exception to the Galveston Land Development Regulations to reduce the required front setback from 20 feet to 14.3 feet. Staff reported the as-built survey shows the structure was constructed about 3.3 feet past the required front setback; the applicant asked the board to legalize the existing condition rather than alter the house to meet the 20-foot standard.

The request matters, staff told the board, because Section 12.401 of the Land Development Regulations permits a front-yard exception when two or more lots in the same block do not meet the required front yard setbacks. Staff said 37 notices were sent; three responses were in favor and one opposed. Staff also said no city departments or private utilities filed objections.

Staff member Daniel said the applicant identified several nearby nonconforming setbacks and cited examples at 4221 (16 feet), 4227 (14.3 feet) and 4235 (a 10-foot exception approved in 2021). "If you closely, you can see that 14.3 foot is noted as the existing setback at 4227," Daniel said during questions from the board.

James Casey, the builder who spoke for the applicant, told the board he relied on the project engineer and multiple reviews during permitting. "I relied on the engineer to do a site plan... I pushed the house a foot and a half back. And I thought that they would be easy peasy, but that one southern corner encroached," Casey said. He asked the board to allow the exception, saying the work had been reviewed previously by coastal authorities and that making the house conform now would be costly.

Board member Donna expressed concern about the evidence presented by the applicant, saying aerial photos and exhibits can include a margin of error. "I've had a problem with the maps as well... I understand what the margin of error is on these. And it's more than 3 feet," Donna said, urging that the applicant return with more precise documentation.

A board member moved to approve the variance, saying the request "will not affect adversely the value, and use of adjacent neighboring property" and is not contrary to the public interest; the motion was seconded. The motion failed when the board did not reach the required four affirmative votes.

After the failed motion, a subsequent motion to defer the case to Oct. 8, 2025, to allow the applicant to provide more precise information passed. The board noted that with only four members present, any approval would require unanimity of those members.

The case will return to the Zoning Board of Adjustment on Oct. 8, 2025, when staff said the applicant should provide more convincing evidence of the existing setback conditions on the block, including documented surveys for comparable properties and clearer exhibits.

Notes: Staff reported the as-built house encroached approximately 3.3 feet past the 20-foot front setback; the applicant's requested special exception would set the recorded front setback at 14.3 feet. The applicant provided a photo of the property and an as-built survey; staff relied on material supplied by the applicant to identify other nonconforming setbacks in the same block.