Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves reduced front setback for AC platform at 17427 Bristow Drive
Summary
Galveston zoning board granted a special exception to reduce the front-yard setback at 17427 Bristow Drive from 20 to 18 feet so an AC platform that overhangs the build line can remain; one written comment opposed the perception of ignoring zoning rules.
The Galveston Zoning Board of Adjustment on May 7 approved a special exception allowing the property at 17427 Bristow Drive to reduce its front-yard setback from 20 feet to 18 feet so an air-conditioning platform that overhangs the build line by about 1–2 feet can remain.
Donna, planning staff, said 37 public notices were mailed; three were returned (one in favor, one opposed, one no comment). Staff reported no objections from city departments or private utilities. The property previously received a special exception on April 3, 2024, under case 24Z002 to reduce a rear setback from 10 feet to 6 feet.
The applicant, Ryan Gannon, said he was unaware the AC pad exceeded the setback when he obtained a certificate of occupancy, and, upon discovery, found adjacent properties with similar encroachments. He said he initially planned to cut the pad back but applied for an exception after finding that neighboring properties also exceeded the build line.
A commissioner asked how setback lines were determined; staff said the applicant provided the line, and staff verified measurements using the city GIS, noting that GIS measurements are not perfectly precise but are sufficient to verify the encroachment. The board reviewed a staff photo and a survey showing the AC platform over the building line.
One written comment in opposition read, “why have zoning if we ignore the rules?” A commissioner observed that the property has already received prior relief and cautioned that exceptions should address unusual situations rather than repeated nonconformities. Other board members responded that standards for special exceptions differ from variances and noted prior decisions on the property.
A motion to approve the request on the finding that it would not adversely affect the value and use of adjacent property was made and seconded. During a brief vote sequence the board first recorded three votes in favor and one opposed, then later confirmed a final vote of four in favor and one opposed; the motion passed.
The approved exception applies only to the AC platform pad and does not change other aspects of the site plan. Staff attached the applicant’s photos, survey, and the staff report to the case file.
