Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08202009 ZBA Agenda Item 3 Memo To: Zoning Board of Adjustments From: Debbie Scarcella, City Planner Date: August 17, 2009 Re: Staff Report for Docket 09-09 The applicant in Docket 09-09, 3415 Amherst Street, is requesting a special exception under Article12, Section 12-102 (e) of the zoning regulations to acquire PNC status for a potential side yard encroachment. Background Information The new house located at 3415 Amherst Street is covered by a building permit issued in 2008 and an occupancy certificate issued in February 2009. During the course of constriction several surveys were completed---form survey, final survey, and topographical survey--and filed with the City to show compliance with the yard (setback) regulations. (See applicant's exhibits). At each phase of construction, these documents were checked for compliance. The documents indicate that the side yard setbacks complied with the yard (setback) regulations (Table 7-2 of the Zoning Ordinance), in that the side yards were at least five feet each side. In 2009, the adjoining property owner (3419 Amherst Street) had a property survey done. The survey commissioned by the adjoining property owner disputed the applicant's survey as to the location of the east property line and indicated that there was an encroachment of the new house into the eastern side yard. After several rounds of discussion with the adjoining property owner, and after a loss of a potential sale of the new house, the applicant had a survey done by a third party, who verified the applicant's prior survey and indicated no encroachment into the side yard Apparently, the third-party survey did not resolve the dispute. The Chief Building Official suspended the occupancy certificate and a final survey was annotated to reflect the possible encroachment. The applicant, in order to prepare for an eventual sale of the house, decided to apply for the special exception because the comments of the adjoining property owner were having "a serious adverse effect" on the possible sale of the house. It appears that the applicant seeks an "if needed" special exception---it would only apply if an eventual resolution of the boundary dispute indicates the new house encroaches into the eastern side yard. (Note: It is possible that a resolution of the boundary dispute could also affect the overall dimensions of the building site, which could require the owner to seek additional relief from the Board.) 3415 Amherst St Page 1 8-17-09 • Staff Response The applicant does not believe that the original surveys were wrong in establishing the location of the property boundary. The third-party survey also confirmed the property boundary location. The adjoining property owner is just as adamant about the disputed location of the property boundary as indicated by the new pin placed by the surveyor. The correct location of the property boundary is not an issue that the ZBA has the authority to decide. This issue must be resolved between the two parties (or by the courts). However, staff does believe that any side yard encroachment resulting from a resolution of the boundary dispute is within ZBA's authority to resolve. If the property boundary is adjusted per the adjoining property owner's survey, the new house would not comply with the minimum five-foot side yard vile (Table 7-2 of the Zoning Ordinance). There would be an encroachment of 2.4 inches at the front corner of the house, and 9.6 inches at the rear corner of the house. Staff believes that the ZBA has generally the authority to issue the requested special exception as provided for in Section 12-102(e) of the Zoning Ordinance. The ZBA may only issue such a special exception if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: (i) The encroachment was inadvertent and neither misrepresented to the City nor hidden from City officials, (ii) The encroachment will not cause a substantial adverse effect on other persons, and (iii) The encroachment does not create a significant health or safety risk. In addition to the findings listed in 12-102(e), to issue the special exception, the ZBA must find the following as provided in Section 11-102(b) of the zoning regulations: (i) The ZBA has determined the proposed special exception will not cause any significant increase in on-street parking, will not cause any substantial traffic congestion, will not cause any substantial increase in traffic or an unreasonable burden upon utility systems or upon any other public facility or public service, (ii) The ZBA has determined that the proposed special exception will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of [the Zoning Ordinance]; (iii) The ZBA has made any additional findings and determinations required by a specific provision of [the Zoning Ordinance], and (i- ) The special exception has been reduced to writing and includes any conditions prescribed by the ZBA or required by [the Zoning Ordinance] for the special exception in question. If the Board issues the special exception, staff recommends adding special wording to make it clear that: (i) the special exception would only apply if the boundary dispute is resolved to indicate that the new house encroaches into the eastern side yard and; and (ii) the special exception would not cover any changes in the overall dimensions of the building site. 3415 Amherst St Page 2 8-17-09 APPENDIX A-ZONING ORDINANCE § 12-102 Y Section 12-101. Burden of proof. As provided in Article 6, PNC status is an affirmative defense, so it is the burden of the person desiring PNC status to prove, for each non-conforming item: (i) PNC status has been acquired, and (ii) PNC status has not been lost. Section 12-102. Acquiring PNC status. (a) General Rule. An item (defined below) acquires PNC status if: (i) the item was constructed or established in conformance with the zoning ordinance (as applicable at the time); and (ii) after construction or establishment, the item became non- conforming solely because the zoning ordinance was adopted or amended. The item acquires PNC status on the effective date of the ordinance making it nonconforming. Items which can acquire PNC status are: (1) A separately-existing building site. (2) A structure. (3) Some aspect, use or part of such a building site or structure. (b) Work under construction. For purposes of acquiring PNC status, any structure for which all necessary City construction permits have been applied for (by filing complete and effective plans, specifications, applications and all other required items, including fees) prior to a given effective date shall be treated the same as a structure constructed before the effective date, but only if. (i) the applications are eventually granted, and the permits are actually issued (before or after the effective date) and (ii) the structure is completed substantially in accordance with the same plans and specifications filed initially to obtain the permits, within the time allowed by those permits, including any extensions lawfully granted. The ZBA may grant a special exception to allow a partially-completed building to be treated the same as a building constructed before the effective date, but only if all of the building's significant structural elements, including the roof and all load-bearing members, were completed as of the effective date and the building is fully completed within five years thereafter. (e) Other committed work. For purposes of acquiring PNC status, any principal building constructed new or substantially remodeled after a given effective date shall be treated the same as a structure constructed before that effective date, if all of the following criteria are present: (1) Prior site acquisition. The person initially claiming PNC for the building ("applicant") must have acquired fee simple title to the entire building site for the building on or before the ninetieth day preceding the effective date in question. (2) Diligent progress to completion. The applicant must also make, or cause to be made, diligent progress toward the completion of the principal building. Such progress must include both of the following steps: (i) completion of the plans and specifications and the filing (by the applicant) of complete and effective applications for all necessary building permits incorporating such completed plans and specifications, on or before the ninetieth day following the given effective date; (ii) completion of the construction or rernaodelin;;,substantially in Supp. No. 6 CDA:67 12-102 WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE MUNICIPAL CODE accordance with the same plans and specifications filed initially to obtain the necessary City permits, within the time allowed by those permits, including any extensions lawfully granted. In case of non-compliance with side yard regulations based on 10%v of the building site width as stated in the "Yards" table adopted in December 1994: (A) the time to acquire the entire building site is extended through May 31, 1995, and (B) the time to file applications for permits is extended through September 29, 1995 (d) Enlargement of building site and yard. A structure located in a yard (or "setback" area) in apparent violation of Table 7-2 acquires PNC status if. (i) after the 1987 effective date, the building site was enlarged in compliance with City ordinances, (ii) the enlargement of the building site also expanded the yard to include the structure, (iii) the structure was built before enlargement of the site, and (iv) the structure did not violate the yard (or "setback") regulations before the enlargement. The structure acquires PNC status only for non-compliance with Table 7-2. (e) Certain yard encroachments. A structure located in a yard (or "setback" area) in apparent violation of Table 7-2 acquires PNC status if the ZBA issues a special exception granting PNC status. The ZBA may only issue such a special exception if it makes all of the following special findings: (i) The encroachment was inadvertent and neither misrepresented to the City nor hidden from City officials. Exception: This finding is not required if the encroachment commenced before 1970. (ii) The encroach- ment will not cause a substantial adverse effect on other persons. (iii) The encroach- ment does not create a significant health or safety risk. Section 12-103. Losing PNC Status. (a) New principal building. If, after the 1987 effective date, a new principal building is constructed on a building site, PNC status is lost for all PNC items relating to the building site. Exceptions: (i) this does not apply to those principal buildings treated the same as structures constructed prior to a given effective date (see above); (ii) PNC status with respect to a building site dimension is not lost. (b) Conformance is achieved; discontinuation. If a PNC item is changed to conform to this ordinance for an indefinite period or for 180 days or more, PNC status is lost for that item. If a use of property is discontinued for 180 days or more (exclusive of time when actual construction work prevents the use), the use loses PNC status. (c) Loss to casualty, etc. If 51% or more of the replacement cost of a structure is lost to casualty, eminent domain, involuntary demolition or other similar cause, the structure loses PNC status. Exception: This does not apply to a building used for SPR purposes, except as to non-compliance with framed area regulations (i.e., in case of such a 51% or greater loss, PNC status for non-compliance with framed area regulations is lost). For this purpose, "replacement cost" is determined by standard cost levels for similar structures as most recently published by the Southern Building Code Conference International "SBCCI") or similar agency. See, e.g., the SBCCI's internet publication of "Building Valuation Data," which provides average construc- tion costs per square foot, by type of construction and occupancy group, with factors to modify those costs for the Houston area. The ZBA may issue a special exception to Sapp. No. 6 CDA:68 Rebecca and James Shields • 3409 Amherst Background information for Zoning Board of Adjustment West University Place Re: Request for relief by Bardwell Building Company 3415 Amherst August 20, 2009 Tab 1 - Notes on history of dispute Tab 2 - Letter from Gardere Wynne Sewell to our attorney Tom Burton Tab 3 - Letter to Gardere Wynne Sewell response from our attorney n • Notes for hearing on request for variance - West University - August 20, 2009 • 3415 Amherst - spec house built by Bardwell 1. My wife and I have lived in West U for 30 years a. I run a non-profit - JFC that saves abused children. I deal with bullies every day - people who abuse children - so I know a bully when I see one. This might help to explain our tenacity in this case. b. Wife, Rebecca, is the librarian at Incarnate Word Academy and for 18 years before that was at SVDP. c. Very involved with the community - soccer and softball coach - the West U swim team - 2. We are here today because Bardwell Building Co is asking for relief from an existing West University ordinance requiring 60 inches of setback 3. Lawyers tell me that Mr. Bardwell will ask you for what is known as "equitable relief' for violating the city's ordinance a. In order for him to ask for this relief, he has to come here with clean hands. b. This law was passed to protect homeowners like me from having McMansions being built too close to our property. The law was not passed to protect the builders. c. It is our position that Bardwell's hands are not clean. He built his fence on my property and tried to make his problem my problem. Now that that has failed he is trying to make it your problem. We believe expected to get • away with taking our land and passing the problem on to our new neighbors. He almost got away with this strategy save for the fortuitous circumstance of us having to have a survey to refinance our house. Here are the reasons why we think Bardwell knew about the problem. i. jMy surveyor, Mr -Bowles, told Mr Bardwell's surveyor , Mr. 4,Probstfeld ut the p obl the 3.400 b1g6kof Amherst street on Liry1997. manly one of two things occurred f om that notice. 1. Mr. Probstfeldt told Mr. Bardwell of the problem, in which case Mr. Bardwell knew all along about the problem 2. Or Mr. Probstfeldt didn't tell Mr. Bardwell about the problem in which case Mr. Bardwell should look for relief from Mr. Probstfeldt's insurance carrier. 0- &Lk-A"C-4-1 Cv- u 1 3. In either case, Mr. Bardwell should not be coming to you seeking relief. ii. When this started, my wife and I measured the setback of the house to the new fence which was placed incorrectly. Even then we found out that the house was shy of five feet from the Bardwell piv by 3 inches or so. So from the get go, we believe he was trying to take every inch he could. We measured from the stucco - not the slab. iii. The West U 80% rule on house size as a percentage of lot size. 1. Bardwell's lot is 7125 square feet (47.5 x 150) 1 2. 80% of 7125 is 5700 square feet or the maximum size of • the house Bardwell could build 3. The actual size of the Bardwell house is 5640 feet - 60 square feet less than allowed 4. The land Bardwell encroached on is a triangle with a base of .8 feet and a height of 150 feet. One half the base times the height is 60 square feet 5. Although the actual loss of house square footage would be 80% of the 60 feet - or 48 feet - it seems to us more than a coincidence. What builder in West U builds a house smaller than allowed? d. I will show you with facts that Mr. Bardwell has used intimidation and threats of expensive legal action to take our property. e. This is very disturbing to us because we are senior citizens. We know West U senior citizens and Mr. Bardwell's tactics would have frightened them. We believe that innocent homeowners have been cheated out of recovering the value of their land because of Bardwell's reputation in our community of fear and intimidation. 4. In January 2009, we had our house surveyed as a requirement for a refinancing with Bank of America. On the internet I found Matt Probstfeld who charged $500, I found B&B Surveying - (Karl Bowles) who charged $400, which we accepted. 5. When the survey was complete, we noted that the Bardwell fence was built on our lot. We contacted Bardwell. His superintendant (Mike? Not sure of name) said • this happens all the time in West University and the surveyors would work it out. Coincidentally, Bardwell's surveyor is Matt Probstfeldt. 6. I received a commission in the US Army Corps of Engineers and served in a construction engineering battalion in Germany and a facilities engineering unit in Vietnam. I do not claim to be a professional land surveyor but I do know more than the average citizen about surveying. Saying that the surveyors would work it our seemed odd to me. Boundary lines on rectangular lots do not move. 7. Mike called a few days later and told me that our surveyor (Bowles) was being rude. We called Bowles who said he did in fact hang up on Probstfeld but only after Probstfeldt refused to give Bowles any information supporting Probstfeldt's position that the southwest corner of our lot had shifted eight-tenths of a foot to the east. Probstfeldt's entire argument rested on found iron rods in my backyard. Bowles asked for evidence that these rods exist on some recorded document. Failing that, the iron rods do not exist. See paragraph (Le) on page 2 of Burton's June 5th letter to Hutcheson for more details. 8. Bowles told us that Probstfeldt was adamant and that the land now belonged to Bardwell under the rules of adverse possession. This threat really got our intention. We could just imagine our elderly friend on Tangley hearing that from a builder. 9. We engaged a lawyer, Tom Burton, to assist us. Burton wrote a letter (February 4, 2009) to Greenwood King, the realtor of the 3415 Amherst property, putting them on notice that there was a property dispute. • 10. On February 5, Bardwell called us and told us his lawyer would handle this. 2 11. On February 17, Burton called Bardwell and asked for the name and phone • number of Bardwell's attorney. Bardwell refused and told Burton that he planned to sue Shields and Bowles the surveyor. It was a very threatening call. 12. Burton called the general counsel of Greenwood King to inform them of this very troubling phone call. The next day Bardwell called Burton and gave him the name and number of Chris Ryman with Coates Rose. 13. Ryman told Burton that his client (Bardwell) had no case and asked us what amount we would consider selling our slice of our property that Bardwell was trespassing on. Burton asked Ryman to give us an offer. 14. Ryman called back in the first week of April and offered $4,800. Burton told Ryman that that amount was not a serious offer and to come back with another. We rejected the $4,800 because a. Bardwell trespassed on our land and expected us to sell our land to him even though we did not want to sell our land. b. We have no idea what the value of the land will be when we decide to sell c. West U might not want to slice up lots d. Our lender may not want us to slice up our lot e. If our lot is made smaller then a builder who will buy our lot will tell us that our lot lost value because of the 80% restriction on house size to lot size. We have no idea of the magnitude of that lost value. 15. Around mid April, Mike Shaw of Andrews Kurth told us he was replacing Coates Rose but Ryman of Coates Rose was still in contact with Tom Burton. Shaw lasted about 2 weeks but his attitude was that we were simply confused and as • soon as he could explain the issues to us we would understand. He wanted to meet in our backyard to clarify the issues. 16. A week later, Shaw was apparently fired and Ryman came back with an offer of $8,500. We thought this was a ridiculous offer and we responded on April 28th with a counter offer of $100,000 because of all of the reasons listed above. 17. On May 51h, Palmer Hutcheson informed us that he had assumed representation Bardwell Builders in place of Chris Ryman. Thus began what in my opinion are extortion tactics. a. In his very first phone call with my lawyer, Hutcheson said the he was an experienced litigator with 35 years of experience and it would be fun to litigate this case because his client would win but that would cost us a lot of money. Imagine a senior citizen receiving such a phone call from a high powered lawyer. Such are the tactics of Bardwell. b. In an email to my lawyer, Hutcheson threatened to file suit for slander of title and engaging in an expensive battle of experts. To that date the only expert I paid was Karl Bowles for the original survey he performed for $400. 1 also paid Karl to make sure the new fence was being moved to the true property line. c. On June 2nd, a full month later, Hutcheson sent us a 6-page letter with more threats and false accusations. i. Hutcheson accused Bowles of "relying on a mathematical formula to detennine what he believes to be the current location." This is • 3 laughable and Hutcheson had access to the mass of information • from Bowles saying otherwise. ii. Hutcheson referred to an unsigned, undated survey that Bardwell gave him to "prove" that our land had shifted. Time does not permit me to go into the silliness of this survey but Mr. Bowles will give you chapter and verse if you would like his explanation. iii. Hutcheson said that we had acquiesced to the phony property line because we have lived on the property for 30 years and did nothing about moving the property line previously. Hutcheson is either very incompetent or he was trying to pull one over on us by making this claim. I can go into the valid requirements for acquiescence if you want me to. iv. Hutcheson asked for the survey we had made when we purchased our house in 1978 which we do not have. Hutcheson said "I feel confident a copy of their prior survey can and will be easily found should litigation ensue." Why make this threat? v. Hutcheson outright made things up. He has never seen my survey but he claims "despite the fact that the original Shields survey (and I am confident, intervening surveys) undoubtedly placed their western boundary line along the long-established fence line (now evidenced by a new fence placed exactly where the old one was located." The old fence bisected a large tree on the property line, Bardwell's fence was built so that the tree lies entirely on the Bardwell side of the fence. vi. Hutcheson made an oblique threat to Mr. Bowles by saying that Mr. Bowles will not be able to set up a cottage industry attempting to question or cancel all prior surveys in West U. This is ridiculous but Hutcheson apparently was trying to scare us with layers of litigious nonsense. vii. Hutcheson threatened to sue us for slander of title for which substantial damages are recoverable, and loss of a sale for which include substantial damages for carrying costs on financing and attorney's fees. viii. Hutcheson closed this very threatening and fictional account of the issues with an offer to move a small portion of the fence so that I can get in and out of my driveway easier and to pay us the sum of $5,000 so long as we accepted within 3 days. d. On June 5th we responded to Hutcheson's letter i. We pointed out that Hutcheson apparently did not understand the issues regarding the surveys as well as how acquiescence operates in Texas. We detailed these issues in a ten page response. ii. We rejected Hutcheson's offer and countered that in order to move things along we would happily accept service should Bardwell serious want to sue us after trespassing on our land. i 4 e. Sometime in mid June, Hutcheson called Burton and said his client would move the fence to the line defined by Bowles and asked if that would satisfy us. i. Burton said that we would be satisfied but noted that when that happens Bardwell's house would be in violation of the setback requirement. ii. Hutcheson said "why do you give a shit?" iii. We "give a shit" for all of the reasons stated above. f. In June Bardwell cut down the large tree on the property line. He had West U approval for this and moved the fence to the Bowles line. g. Bruce Bardwell told our neighbors that the house was sold and we were concerned that Bardwell would sell the house transferring the setback problem to our new neighbors. h. That is when we contacted Mr. Brown and the city subsequently revoked Bardwell's occupancy certificate which brings us the where we are tonight. i. Bardwell continues to poke his finger in our eye. On August 11, Mrs. Bruce Bardwell, the selling agent for the house at Greenwood King, accosted two of our neighbors and told them that we were demanding $100,000 and were being unfair 5 • GARDERE attorneys and counselors ■ www.gardere.com Direct: 713-276-5713 Direct Fax- 713-276-6713 phutcheson rr gardere.com June 2, 2009 VIA TELEFAX AND PDF EMAIL ATTACHMENT Thomas H. Burton, III Attorney at Law P. O. Box 88330 Houston, Texas 77288 • Re: James and Rebecca Shields Boundary Claim Dear Tom: I have now had the chance to meet with my clients, interview Matthew Probstfeld, review a number of earlier surveys, investigate the history of the ownership of the properties and to perform legal research concerning this dispute and therefore am able to respond to your clients' claims and the most recent "$100,000" demand. The legal and public policy question which you have not addressed in earlier correspondence or in discussions with me, and apparently has been overlooked, is the question of whether a land surveyor should ascertain the correct location of boundary lines by retracing the footsteps of the original surveyor or, instead, by simply relying on a mathematical formula to determine what he believes to be the correct location. The answer to this question is likely to be determinative under the facts as I understand them. 1. The Properties The properties at issue are one 50 foot wide lot and one 47.5 foot wide lot Lots 2A (3409 Amherst Street) and 2B (3415 Amherst Street) - in Block 46, located in a residential subdivision in West University Place, Harris County, Texas. The subdivision was originally created in 1926 by simultaneous conveyance per the original recorded plat. • GARDERE WYNNE SEWEtt t1P 1000 Louisiana, Suite 3400, Houston, Texas 77002-5011 ■ 713.276.5500 Phone ■ 713.276.SS55 Fax Austin ■ Dallas ■ Houston ■ Mexico City .lunc 2, 2009 Page 2 • Originally, Lot 2 was a 97.5 foot wide lot owned by D.A. Franklin, who subdivided it in 1947 by conveying the west 47.5 feet to his wife. James and Rebecca Shields own the east portion of Lot 2, referred to as Lot 2A. In 2007, the Bardwell Building Company (`Bardwell") purchased the west 47.5 feet, referred to as Lot 2B. 11. The Surveys Mr. Bardwell procured an earlier survey from the prior owner, Mr. Westerfield. He thereafter employed Mathew Probstfeld (`Bardwell Surveyor"), a registered professional land surveyor, to survey Lot 2B, 3415 Amherst. Mr. Bardwell's surveyor followed Texas Professional Guidelines retracing the original surveyor's footsteps, locating four monuments previously placed by prior surveyors three iron rods and an "X" in the concrete at the northwest corner of Lot 2B. 1 assume you already have a copy of that survey. The Shields have owned Lot 2A, 3409 Amherst, for many years. The boundary line between Lots 2A and 2B have been well established at least since Mr. D.A. Franklin subdivided Lot 2 in 1947 by conveying the west 47.5' to his wife. Despite the intervening sixty (60) years, where the property line has been established on the ground and recognized or at least continually acquiesced in as accurate by everyone, including the Shields, their refinancing lender hired Deward Karl Bowles ("Shields Surveyor"), a registered professional land surveyor, to conduct an investigative survey of Lot 2A, • presumably because the lender required a new survey. I requested the prior survey when the Shields bought the property from you (which I am positive conflicts with Mr. Bowles' survey) and you responded that the Shields cannot locate that survey. I feel confident a copy of their prior survey can and will be easily found should litigation ensue. Certainly the title company who closed the sale as well as the Shields' lender has a copy, or, at the very least, the surveyor's identity. Mr. Bowles ignored the existing pins, and instead re-set two "pins" or ground monuments located on the south end of the Shields property, allegedly to perfect ninety degree angles - with one "pin" - actually a shallow iron rod sticking out of the ground- being placed several inches inside the existing east fence of the Bardwell property and inside the previously monumented southeast corner of Lot 2B, which had already been pinned by prior surveyors at the existing fence line. I can only assume that Mr. Bowles did so based on mathematical calculations, presumably in order to "true up" the property line of Lot 2A, despite the fact that the original Shields survey (and, I ain confident, intervening surveys) undoubtedly placed their western boundary line along the long established fence line (now evidenced by a new fence placed exactly where the old one was located) when Bardwell purchased Lot 2B from Mr. Westerfield. • 2 l June 2, 2009 Page 3 • III. The Conflict On February 4, 2009, the Shields sent a letter to Bardwell demanding that Bardwell remove a fence that purportedly intruded onto the Shields' property by a distance of 9 inches based upon the Mr. Bowles' survey. Mr. Bardwell, however, maintains the fence is situated along the proper boundary line, as evidenced by at least three surveys, all of which are based upon the then existing ground monuments. The survey given to Mr. Bardwell by Mr. Westerfield was prepared by Mr. Robert LaPlant, a registered public surveyor, October 3, 2001. LEGAL DISCUSSION Land surveying involves the re-establishment of land boundaries based on the detailed inspection - of gathering information through observation, measurements in the field, or documents of record, historical evidence, subdivision plats, and registered land surveys - and data analysis in support of establishing property boundaries. American Congress on Surveying & Mapping (ACSM). There are two essential questions to answer when surveying property boundaries: (1) what is the boundary; and (2) where is the boundary. Essential to the issue at hand is i the "where question," which a surveyor answers by using time-honored mechanics to see F that a client's boundaries are properly monumented without subtracting from the bona • fide rights of an adjoiner. I With regard to boundary dispute cases, Texas provides a long, unbroken line of authority, commencing with Stafford v. King in 1867, which provides a bright line rule. 1867 WL 4587 *1 (Tex. 1867).1 Subsequent cases provide further guidance in ascertaining which survey methodology is appropriate when two competing surveys reach conflicting conclusions as to the location of a boundary line. Stark v. Homuth, 45 S.W. 761 (Tex. 1867)2 and Jones v. Gresham, 963 So.2d 581, 583 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). Texas courts clearly favor consistency in ascertaining boundary lines, especially where a multitude of boundaries have been established in reliance upon a prior survey. Tran v. Macha, 176 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. granted)3; see also, Dykes v. Arnold, 129 P.3d 257 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). Establishing the correct method to survey land is to follow the natural or artificial objects on the ground, unless there are no marked lines; then the surveyor is to consider any evidence tending to show the boundary location. The best evidence is that which is more specific and definite. z Holding that a subsequent boundary survey is not binding where the surveyor assumed the location of the original surveyor's boundary line, rather than follow the lines laid in the ground and which was accepted for twenty years. 3 Judgment reversed by 213 S.W.3d 913 (Tex. 2006). However, this particular point remains good law. • 3 F June 2, 2009 Page 4 • 1. Standard Land Surveying Method Further evidencing the importance of establishing the correct boundary line, Texas demands surveyors adhere to the standards outlined in the Professional Land Surveying Practices Act. 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 663 (2007). This Act states the function of a surveyor is to determine the location of lines run by the original surveyor. Id. at § 663.16. To execute a proper survey a surveyor shall give precedence to the "footsteps of the original land surveyor, the record, the intent as evidenced by the record," and the "proper application of the priority of calls." Id. The prior version of the Act provides that, "it is outside the province of a surveyor to pass on what the original surveyor should have done - he is limited to what [the original surveyor] did, as reflected by the record left," quoting The Land Surveying Practices Act of 1979, Tex. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 5282c, § 2 (2001). The solution to a boundary dispute must be found on the ground by the surveyor and not the application of a strict mathematical formula by a newcomer who willfully ignores prior survey monuments. There are obvious public policy reasons supporting this doctrine, long recognized in Texas. II. Method Applied With Recognized Monuments On The Ground In Hulbert v. Fayard, the court held that where two surveys reach different conclusions, the survey which conforms to the long recognized lines of occupancy, • follows the fixed and established points on the ground, and is made with reference to the recognized monuments prevails. 92 So.2d 247, 249 (Miss. 1957). Similarly, a survey was upheld in Jones v. Gresham when it coordinated the original plat and original monuments with the evidence on the ground, and with the long accepted understanding of the landowners. 963 So.2d at 585. In Jones, as here, the neighbors owned adjoining lots and sought to determine which neighbor owned a driveway situated between the lots. One property owner's surveyor ran his survey by the marked iron pins and old iron bed posts in the ground; it lined up perfectly with the property lines reflected in the original survey. On the other hand, the neighbor's surveyor used monuments that were not in existence at the time the subdivision was originally plotted. His survey also did not coordinate with the original iron pins. In fact, the surveyor argued that some of the pins should be moved beyond the property's understood boundary. The court determined that the survey,- based on the existing pins and posts more closely followed the original survey and thus was the proper surveying method. III. Method Applied When Monuments Are Destroyed There is a well-established line of Texas authority, dating back to the 1800s, that stands for the proposition that where old markers have disappeared and the footsteps of the original surveyor may be difficult to trace, all surrounding facts and circumstances may be considered in order to arrive at the purpose and intent of the surveyor who made the original survey. Stafford v. King, 1867 WL 4587 *1 (Tex. 1867); Taylor v. Higgins Oil & Fuel Co., 2 S.W.2d 288, 300 (Tex. Civ. App.-Beaumont 1928, writ dism'd w.o.j.); 4 June 2, 2009 Page 5 • Angelina County Lumber Co. v. McKnight, 265 S.W.2d 246, 249-50 (Tex. Civ. App.- Waco 1954, writ refd n.r.e.); Steinberger v. Archer County, 621 S.W.2d 838 (Tex. App.- Ft. Worth 1981, no writ); City of Carrollton v. Duncan, 742 S.W.2d 70, 72 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth 1987, no writ); TH Investments, Inc. v. Kirby Inland Marine, L.P., 218 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, writ denied). It is very common for surveys to conflict where they are conducted by different surveyors, especially when a plat fails to mention any physical marker or monument indicating the location of the original survey lines In TH Investments, Inc., the court was presented with this very dilemma. 218 S.W.3d at 201. Here the plaintiff's surveyor employed mathematical calculations to create ninety degree boundary angles, in order to establish a starting point. Id. The surveyor then chose a point that he believed to correspond to his calculations and set out the survey based on this theory. Id. Further, the plaintiff's surveyor rejected a prior survey - though not the original - as "highly unreliable." On the other hand, the defendant's surveyor followed the footsteps of previous surveys and relied on her own previous experience surveying the location at issue. Id at 203. The court found the plaintiff's reliance on turning angles as inappropriate in retracing a survey's boundaries, as well as the fact that one boundary did not correspond with existing lines of adjoining property; and held in favor of the long-established surveying method of investigating and retracing earlier surveys. Id at 207-209. . Tom, your speculation that Mr. Bardwell manipulated these surveys based upon some evil motive are ridiculous and totally unfounded. If Mr. Bowles could simply come in after sixty (60) years and redo (and thus "undo") all prior boundary lines, this would cause an unsettling, disruptive domino effect on every lot on this block. Assuming your surveyor could simply come in and start over and move the southwest corner of the Shields tract 9" over the long-established eastern boundary line of Mr. Bardwell's tract (the neighbor to the west), then each lot owner all the way up and down the block, in order to maintain their respective lot widths (100', 50', 47.5'), would have to re-set their respective southwestern corners 9" onto their western neighbors' properties and all prior surveys and all prior monuments and 60 years of settled boundaries would be totally ignored. Moreover, the neighbors who own Lot 1 to the east of the Shields would presumably be entitled to move their own southwestern corner 9" onto your own clients' property. This ridiculous result would be extremely disruptive and any attempt to litigate such a boundary dispute would necessarily require all lot owners on the block to be joined as necessary parties. Thus Texas case law (and the law of other jurisdictions which we believe any court would consider instructive) disfavors such a scheme. The only downside to this strong and long recognized public policy is that Mr. Bowles will not be able to set up a cottage industry attempting to question or cancel all prior surveys in West University. 5 June 2, 2009 Page 6 IV. Settlement Offer Tom, based on the foregoing analysis, case law, 60 years of acquiescence, and strong public policy, I am confident that if litigation ensues, your client will lose and incur substantial unrecoverable attorneys' fees and expenses in the process. Moreover, the fair market value of a small pie wedge such as that in dispute here is de minimus - and the Shields' demand of $100,000 was totally out of touch with the facts and the law. Please be further advised that Mr. Shields' letter to the realtor amounts to slander of our client's title to his property for which substantial damages are recoverable. We are currently negotiating with a willing seller on the property who is aware of Mr. Shields' claims because of his letter to the realtors, and should this sale fall through, we will sue Mr. Shields for all damages caused thereby. Such damages will include substantial carrying costs on the financing of our client's lot and attorneys' fees. Nevertheless, solely to avoid the obvious expense of litigation, Bardwell Building Company will offer to: (1.) relocate 20-25' of our fence near the front of the lot to make Mr. Shields' drive way access easier and (2.) pay the sum of 55,000.00 to the Shields so long as they accept this offer on or before Friday, June 5, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. and agree to release any and all claims to the Bardwell property and to quitclaim the disputed strip to Bardwell Building Company. I will be leaving out of town early Friday • but Email notification of your clients' acceptance to me directly by 4:00 p.m. will be satisfactory. Yours v truly, J. a er Hutcheson JPH:idh I 6 Thomas H. Burton, III Attorney at Law • P.O. BOX 88330 Tel. 713.741.9301 Houston, Texas 77288 Fax 713.741.9302 email: tburton3(&comcast.net June 5, 2009 VIA FACSIMILE TO 713.276.6713 J. Palmer Hutcheson GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 3400 Houston, YX 77002-5011 Re: Bardwell Builders, spec home on Amherst Street Dear Palmer: Thank you for your response and letter of June 2nd. I have responded in detail below but I wish to point out that it appears that you do not understand the issues regarding the surveys, as well as how acquiescence operates in Texas. Your client's offer is rejected and in order to move things along, I will be happy to accept service on behalf of my clients, should your client seriously wish to sue them after • trespassing on their land. We will of course counter-claim and seek all fees and costs. The following is responsive to your June 2nd letter: The Surveys - 1. Mr. Probstfeld failed to follow the minimum standards for land surveys in the State of Texas as required under the Professional Land Surveying Practices Act - I pointed this out to you while we both looked at the same surveys in our last conversation. a. There is no record instrument for the adjoining property (Shields) shown on Mr. Probstfeld's survey. Surveyors are required to examine the legal descriptions of adjoining property and to reconcile legal descriptions so that they don't leave strips or gores or have descriptions that overlap. There is insufficient evidence that Probstfeldt reviewed the legal descriptions for the lots to the east and west of the Bardwell lot and tried to fit those lots cleanly into the grid of lots out there. (It does appear that he measured off and found rods along Amherst but that isn't sufficient to put the lots within the larger tract cleanly.) In essence, what might be happening on the Probstfeldt survey is that the sum of a number of small errors is appearing on the Probstfeldt survey as the overlap of 9 inches between the Bardwell lot and Shields' lot. b. There is no explanation for why the boundary was changed from the record boundary on Probstfeld's survey. This is required. J. Palmer Hutcheson June 5, 2009 Page 2 of 10 • c. There is no support on the survey for the conclusion he arrived at as to the location of the boundary shown on Probstfeld's survey. This is required. d. Mr. Probstfeld, at one point, claimed that Bardwell owns part of Shields' property by adverse possession. Since they have not paid taxes on any land other than what is in their deed and there is no record instrument for the land they claim they own of Shields, this eliminates the 3, 5 and 10 year statutes for adverse possession claims in Texas. When Bardwell took possession of the property, the description for the property they purchased and own was contained within it (this is shown on the Bowles survey). Since there is no mention of the fence it is presumed by the court that Bardwell was aware that the fence was a fence of convenience, not a designed enclosure. There is no evidence suggesting the fence was erected for any other purpose than as a fence of convenience (the fence existing before it was torn down and a new one constructed). This eliminates the 25 year statute for adverse possession in Texas. Further the new fence is not in the location of the old fence. The old fence was as close to the record boundary (Bowles survey) as it is to the new boundary Mr. Probstfeld shows on his survey according to his own survey. e. Probstfeld claimed that he was "honoring" the existing iron rods at the rear of Bardwell's property. However his survey shows that he did not hold the iron rods in question at the rear of the property as the boundary corners, therefore this assertion is false. There are too many found iron rods in the rear for us to believe it has been accurately surveyed. Some of those are very possibly ones that Probstfeldt put in so the proliferation of them is a sign of compounding confusion rather than accurate work having been done in the past. I suspect you would find that Probstfeldt has done a number of surveys on this property during the course of the builder's work and that the found iron rods in the rear (that they point to as definitive evidence) were put there by them, which is nothing but circular logic. Moreover, the iron rod undoubtedly is the one shown on the survey performed by Probstfeld which he says he found. Mr. Probstfeld has claimed that he "honored" this iron rod because a previous surveyor found it and held it as the property corner. Mr. Probstfeld sent Bowles a copy of this previous "survey" which he says shows the iron rod. There are a number of problems with this. i. The "survey" sent to Bowles by Mr. Probstfeld does not contain a surveyor's seal or signature. There is no date on the survey. The iron rod shown on that survey is not the same iron rod Mr. Probstfeld has found. Suggesting 3 surveyors have used the existing 1/2 inch iron rod as the corner is a patently false statement. The old "survey" sent to Bowles by Probstfeld, done sometime - many years ago, does not indicate it is even a land survey. The old "survey" calls for a 5/8 inch • iron rod at the corner in question, not a 1/2 inch iron rod that has been found by Probstfeld and Arrow Surveying. The recent Probstfeld J. Palmer Hutcheson June 5, 2009 Page 3 of 10 • survey and the survey performed by Arrow surveying do not use the 1/2 inch iron rod in question as the boundary corner. Suggesting the Bowles survey is "wrong" because he does not use the 1/2 inch iron rod as the corner is a ludicrous assertion. it. Nobody knows who set the iron rod, or for what purpose it was set. It does not agree with any of the other evidence that concerns this tier of lots in this block. The iron rod does not agree with the location of improvements or occupation. iii. There is no public record (deed) describing the iron rod as marking the boundary of these tracts of land. The iron rod is of unknown origin. Its location does not agree with other overwhelming evidence (occupation, other pipes, iron rods, street locations, adjoining blocks and adjoining lots, deeds, map record, etc.) as to the location of your client's purported boundary. iv. If Mr. Probstfeld had surveyed the block and the adjoining blocks - as Bowles had before he made a decision as to the location of the boundary in question - he would have realized that there is evidence suggesting that this iron rod was set in error to mark the boundary of Shields' neighbors properties to the South of the subject tracts, NOT the boundary in question. Simply because you find an iron rod does not mean that you have found the boundary corner. That is one reason why we have professional land surveyors. Iron rods are driven in the ground all the time for many different purposes. If a professional land surveyor drives an iron rod in the ground this does not make it the boundary corner. In order for it to be the boundary corner one person has to own all the land on either side of the iron rod when it is driven in. Then the iron rod is either called for in a deed when the now divided property is sold or the seller of the land (who owns the land on both sides of the iron rod) points out the iron rod to the new buyer BEFORE the deed is executed telling the buyer that the iron rod marks the boundary corner. Unless there is some evidence (occupation, fits deed calls, fits map record, fits calls from other evidence found, etc.) supporting this uncalled for iron rod as the boundary corner, then it is nothing but an iron rod of unknown origin. The question becomes, why an iron rod of unknown origin would change you and your neighbor's boundary, when there is no evidence to suggest it is the boundary? f. Mr. Probstfeld has claimed that Bardwell owns part of Shields' land by recognition and acquiescence. There is no evidence to support an implied • agreement of this nature. In order for Shields to acquiesce in something and J. Palmer Hutcheson June 5, 2009 Page 4 of 10 for it to ripen into unwritten rights over a period of time, the following elements must be present: i. A boundary dispute between Shields and their neighbor (sometime in the past), ii. Both the Shieldses and their neighbor were uncertain as to the location of the land described in Shields' deeds (sometime in the past), iii. There is doubt in both Shields and their neighbors mind as to the location of the lands described in Shields' deed (sometime in the past). 2. Mr. Probstfeld has apparently claimed that Bowles "moved" the boundary of Shields' and their neighbor (Wise) to the East 11 years ago when Bowles did a survey on it and created this problem with Bardwell to the West. The bearing along the line in question on Mr. Probstfeld's survey has a bearing of S 00° 24' 30" E and just below it (call South). This is proof positive that it is not Bowles who "moved" the boundary; it is in fact Mr. Probstfeld who did so. 3. The only equity involved is the new fence that was built based on a survey performed by Mr. Probstfeld which Bowles contends is in error. This is in fact shown on the survey Bowles provided to Shields (location of his capped iron rod at the rear corner • of the properties in question and the fence location along the disputed line). Legal Discussion 1. The lots in West University Place are not moving. In 1997, Mr. Bowles sent detailed information to Mr. Probstfeld regarding the 3400 block of Amherst. In that information was the location of two stakes on either end of the southern property line of the block, i.e. in the Wise's backyard and in the Loden's backyard. The distance between those two stakes is exactly the distance required for all of the lots on the block to conform to the legal description of the lots. Mr. Probstfeldt ignored this information he received in 1997 and is now suggesting that the lots on Amherst Street shifted to the east sometime in the past. Pounding iron rods in the ground does not make the ground shift. For you to cite case law suggesting that Mr. Bowles employed mathematical calculations to create ninety degree angles demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge of the issues at hand. Mr. Bowles used sound surveying practices to locate the boundary corners. 2. Saying that Mr. Bowles "could simply come in after sixty years and redo (and thus "undo") all prior boundary lines, this would cause an unsettling, disruptive domino effect" ignores a very obvious fact. My client's house was built in the 1930's, some seventy plus years ago. The Shields' house is parallel to Bowles' property line, not the Probstfeld line. This does create a problem for Bardwell because his house is built parallel to the Probsfeldt line and this "crooked" orientation of the house will likely violate the setback restrictions of West U. The other houses on the street are not so oriented snaking your claim that something would be "undone" ridiculous. J. Palmer Hutcheson June 5, 2009 Page 5 of 10 • 3. Monuments a. Uncalled-for monuments are not to be relied upon in a retracement survey. According to Reast v. Donald, 84 Tex. 648, 19 S.W. 795 (1892), Prichard v. Burnside, (supra, 1945), and several other cases, field notes are not to be located by lines or markers, not called for in the field notes themselves. More specifically, the location of lines and corners of a survey may not be established by artificial marks or objects not called for in the field notes, per hireca Corp. P. Cole, 129 S.W.2d 433 (1939). In Gill v. Peterson, (1935), the court held that artificial marks or objects not described or connected with the original surveyor's work are of no probative value in establishing a corner or line. In fact, where a deed called for a stake upon which a deed's beginning point was based and the stake was not called for in the survey's filed notes, it had no probative force (State v. Egger, 347 S.W.630; 1961). In Rodriguez v. Flores, 403 S.W.2d 172 (1966) an engineer began his survey from an iron pipe in concrete, did not know who put the pipe there or how it was located, so the court held that the pipe was an unestablished point. Clearly, though, markers that are provably, directly connected to the original survey and the original surveyor are excepted. See Weatherly v. Jackson, 98 S.W.2ed 1037 (1937). Such was the case in Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Jones, 158 S.W.2d 541 (1940). Here, it was held that where a person worked with or . accompanied a surveyor when the survey was made, that person may testify as to the marks the surveyor made and the location of the line, even though the marks were not called for in the surveyor's notes. b. Generally, for a monument to be a controlling consideration as evidence, the monument must be called for in the written evidence proving the conveyance or it must have been required by law. A call for a specific survey may also be considered a called for monuments set by that survey. The call for a monument is a call for the spot occupied by the monument as of the date of the written conveyance. A monument to control the intent of a deed must be called for either directly, indirectly by reference, or required by law. A deed may call for an oak tree in the writings, or the deed may call for a map, which in turn calls for an oak tree, or the deed may call for a survey by Jones, and Jones' file notes may call for an oak tree. If the law requires a survey and set monuments, extrinsic evidence may be taken to explain what monuments were set as required by law. One very important fact that is sometimes overlooked is that a call for a monument is in actuality a call for the particular spot occupied by the monument as of the date of the deed. The monument itself is merely a symbol or object to mark the spot. A found monument that is uncalled for or is not referred to has no weight in substantiating that survey unless it can be shown by other evidence that it is occupying the spot of the original monument. • If there is a call for monument that monument if discovered undisturbed and J. Palmer Hutcheson June 5, 2009 Page 6 of 10 uncontradicted by the remainder writings, is conclusive. A deed that calls for bearing and distance but does not call for a monument either direction, indirectly, or by reference, and is not required by law cannot be altered by giving control to a monument found in the vicinity of the bearing ad distance termination. Evidence and Procedures for Boundary Location, third edition 2-3 (1)(2)(iv). 4. Texas Court of Civil Appeals 1900. Where the purchaser of a tract of land bounded by one of the lines of an original survey caused the same to be surveyed at the time of his purchase, he is not bound by the latter survey, when the original boundary line can be located on the ground.... Where the deeds in plaintiffs chain of title called to the east line of the H. survey as the western boundary, but in the survey made at the request of plaintiff, before his purchase, the surveyor stopped at a "rock" before the call of distance was satisfied, for the sole reason that he believed he had reached the h. line, and the plaintiffs deed recited an intention to convey the same number of acres as conveyed by previous deeds in chain of title, there was evidence showing an intention to convey all the land . within the boundaries named in the deed, and the fact that the survey subsequently made, erroneously located the boundary did not preclude plaintiff from obtaining the land up to the exact line of the H. survey. Wiley v. Lindley, 56 S.W. 1001. 5. "Field notes of subsequent surveys by a surveyor, not shown to have had any knowledge of the location of the original lines or corner, are inadmissible to show by their calls for the original surveys the location of the lines and corners thereof." State v. Dayton Lumber Co., 159 S.W. 391, Texas Court of Civil Appeals 6. Field notes of junior survey may be admissible to prove boundaries of senior survey, but relevancy and materiality must be shown." Rose v. Curry, 262 S.W. 192. Texas Court of Civil Appeals 7. I am not suggesting that uncalled for monuments could not be held, what I am suggesting is one must be able to demonstrate some evidence or facts to lead to a rational conclusion that the uncalled for monument does represent the corner. 8. I am only demonstrating that blanket statements like "monuments hold" are ridiculous at best and at worst misleading and dangerous. "Reliance" by the concerned parties on monuments other than the originals have no . bearing on the original boundary. The original boundary never moves. J. Palmer Hutcheson June 5, 2009 Page 7 of 10 Things may occur later that change the legal boundary and that is the subject of a different thread. The following is an article written by Karl Bowles We have heard many arguments from critics over the last few years berating professional land surveyors for not holding existing fences or other evidence of possession as the boundary lines of real property regardless of any other evidence such as calls in deeds describing same. The mere existence of this evidence of possession, even if of unknown nature, is enough to supersede any other evidence of the original boundary and render it irrelevant. These same critics call for "honoring" iron rods, pipes or other objects, merely because they exist and were found somewhere near the corner in question, as the boundary corner. They make these assertions even in a case where these iron rods, pipes and other objects are in direct conflict with all other evidence including the elements contained in deed calls and even if these iron rods, pipes and objects are of unknown origin. These critics hold out this type of evidence as conclusive as to location of boundaries of real property solely on basis of their mere existence or past existence. I find these assertions specious, appealing only to those who would rather rely on a superficial and cursory attempt to locate and evaluate evidence rather than commit themselves to an exhaustive search for the facts that would support a rational and informed conclusion. First, for the purpose of confining this discussion to a local • perspective, we will examine some recent cases that reached the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court level in Texas. In the Supreme Court case (1) Minh Thu Tran v. William Macha, "Neighboring relatives shared the use of a driveway for many years, thinking it belonged to one of them when in fact it belonged to the other. The court of appeals held this mutual mistake and mutual use transferred title by adverse possession." The Supreme Court reversed this ruling stating that under Texas law, adverse possession requires "an actual and visible appropriation of real property, commenced and continued under a claim of right that is inconsistent with and is hostile to the claim of another person. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 16.021(1). The statute requires visible appropriation; mistaken beliefs about ownership do not transfer title until someone acts on them. See, e.g., Bywaters v. Gannon, 686 S.W.2d 593, 595 (Tex. 1985). Thus, there must be adverse possession, not just adverse beliefs. The statute requires that such possession be "inconsistent with" and "hostile to" the claims of all others. Joint use is not enough, because possession must be of such character as to indicate unmistakably an assertion of a claim of exclusive ownership in the occupant. Rhodes v. Cahill, 802 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex. 1990) (quoting Rick v. Grubbs, 214 S.W.2d 9259 927 (Tex. 1948)) (emphasis in original); McDonnold v. Weinacht, 465 S.W.2d 136, 141 (Tex. 1971). " In this case the court of appeals held that "adverse possession" need not be intentional, so long as it is visible, open, and notorious. 176 S.W.3d at 133. The Supreme Court disagreed saying while "It is true that "hostile" use does not require an intention to dispossess the rightful owner, or even know that J. Palmer Hutcheson June 5, 2009 Page 8 of 10 • there is one. See Calfee v. Duke, 544 S.W.2d 640, 642 (Tex. 1976). But there must be an intention to claim property as one's own to the exclusion of all others; mere occupancy of land without any intention to appropriate it will not." In another recent Court of Appeals case (2) Pauline Mohnke v. Wanda Greenwood, not only adverse possession but boundary by acquiescence were claimed among other things. It was asserted that a wire fence the 1967 survey was based on should be given preference in the order of dignity of calls because it was an "artificial object" and thus must be given priority over other evidence. However the Court of Appeals found, as a matter of fact, that the 1927 deed upon which the survey of 1967 relied on did not refer to the wire fence as an artificial object. The 1927 deed contained no calls for monuments, rods or artificial objects, just courses and distances. It was found in this case that the survey prepared in 1967 "did not locate any rods or monuments as the basis of it's survey", that "the 1967 survey set monuments or rods along the existing fence line" and that the "1967 survey was a fence survey, that is, it was based on a fence line." On the claim of adverse possession the court found that there was no evidence presented to suggest the wire fence was anything other than a casual fence. The Court of Appeals pointed to Rhodes v. Cahill, 802 S.W.2d 643, 646 (Tex. 1990); Orsborn v.Deep Rock Oil Corp., 267 S.W.2d 781, 785 (Tex. 1954) which said that "If the fence existed before the claimant took possession of the land and the claimant fails to demonstrate the • purpose for which it was erected, then the fence is a casual fence." Further, the Appeals Court stated that "according to Section 16.021 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, "adverse possession" means "an actual and visible appropriation of real property, commenced and continued under a claim of right that is inconsistent with and is hostile to the claim of another person." TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. Section(s) 16.021 (Vernon 1986). A showing of adverse possession is required under both the ten and twenty-five year statutes of limitations. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. Section(s) 16.026, 16.027 (Vernon 1986)" and that "To establish title through adverse possession, "the possession must be of such character as to indicate unmistakably an assertion of a claim of exclusive ownership in the occupant." Rick v. Grubbs, 214 S.W.2d 925, 927 (1948)." It was argued that the existence of the wire fence, the use of the land for grazing cattle and the planting of pine trees establish hostile possession as a matter of law. However, the Court of Appeals found "these factors alone are insufficient to establish title by adverse possession unless the disputed property was "designedly enclosed" for the claimants use. Rhodes v. Cahill, 802 S.W.2d at 646; McDonnold v. Weinacht, 465 S.W.2d 136, 142 (Tex. 1971); Orsborn, 153 Tex. at 287, 267 S.W.2d at 785." The Court of Appeals stated that "limitation statutes do not contemplate that a claimant of adverse possession can derive aid, in establishing his claim, from an enclosure casually created by third persons in effecting a different purpose of their own, and who are strangers to both the claimant of adverse possession and the true owner of the enclosed land. In such a case, the enclosure, so far as our limitation statutes are concerned, has no more effect than if same had never come into existence. It is thus well-settled that the mere grazing of land incidentally enclosed by a fence created by J. Palmer Hutcheson June 5, 2009 Page 9 of 10 • others cannot support a claim of adverse possession. McDonnold, 465 S.W.2d at 142; Kahanek, 121 S.W.2d at 331." Finally as to the claim of boundary by acquiescence in this Court of Appeals case the court said "In order to establish a boundary by acquiescence; the claimant had to show that the location of the fence was agreed to as a result of a disagreement between the landowners over the boundary line of their respective properties. "The existence of uncertainty, doubt or dispute is essential to the validity of such [an] agreement." Gulf Oil Corp. v. Marathon Oil Co., 152 S.W.2d 711, 714 (Tex. 1941); McAllister v. Samuels, 857 S.W.2d at 778 (holding that without uncertainty as to the true boundary line there can be no boundary by acquiescence)." In this case no such evidence of the existence of any of these matters was presented by the claimant other than the fence itself. The Court of Appeals also said "When there is no doubt as to the true location of the boundary, mere proof of acquiescence in an erroneous line will not support a finding of boundary by agreement. Wall v. Carrell, 894 S.W.2d at 798, citing Kirby Lumber Corp. v. Lindsay, 455 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1970)." The claimant in this case appeared to argue that, because the conflict in surveys performed in 1967 and a later survey that delineated different boundary lines, the "uncertainty, doubt or dispute" element is satisfied. The Court of Appeals stated that "it is fundamental that the doubt or uncertainty must be known to the landowners at the time they agree to the boundary. See, e.g., Kirby, 455 S.W.2d at 738-39; Gulf, 152 S.W.2d at 714; McAllister, 857 S.W.2d at 778." The court also said that "A review of the record reveals no evidence of a misunderstanding or uncertainty as to the true boundary between the adjacent property owners. Without such a dispute, there can be no boundary by acquiescence." It is worth noting that in this Court of Appeals case, payment of attorney's fees by the claimant was upheld. A very recent case before the Court of Appeals, (3) Moore v. Stone, explored another claim of adverse possession and boundary by acquiescence under the 3, 5, 10 and 25 year statutes. This case involved a fence constructed some 50 years prior. In this case the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the lower court who had ruled in favor of the claimant. The Court of Appeals found that there was no evidence presented to suggest for what purpose the fence in question was constructed. The Court of Appeals pointed to the fact that "The Texas Supreme Court has said, "It is well settled that when one enters into possession of land under a deed, his possession is referable to the deed, and it is presumed to be in conformity with it, and is confined to the limits thereof." Harmon v. Overton Ref. Co., 109 S.W. 2d 457, 460, rev'd order of rendition on rehr'g in 110 S.W. 2d 555 (Tex. 1937)." The Court of Appeals went on to state "To claim adjoining land outside the limits of the described . boundaries, the possessor must have actual possession of such additional land of such a character as of itself will give notice of an actual adverse possession. J. Palmer Hutcheson June 5, 2009 Page 10 of 10 • Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. Hart, 340 S.W.2d 775, 781 n. 2 (Tex. 1960); Osborn v. Deep Rock Oil Co., 153 Tex. 281, 267 S.W. 2d 781 (1954)." Thus, to have title or color of title, the deeds of claimant had to include the disputed property within its descriptions. The claimant had stipulated that their deed called for a creek and not the fence as the boundary and since the claimant necessarily admitted that their deeds did not include the disputed property, there was no evidence that claimant had title or color of title that would allow the submission of questions to the jury regarding the 3 year statute of limitations on adverse possession. The Court found the same was true of a claim under the 5 and 25 year statutes. The Court also found that as a matter of fact there was no evidence presented to support a claim of adverse possession under the 10 year statute either because such a claimant must demonstrate that the disputed land was "held in peaceable and adverse possession" and "cultivates, uses, or enjoys the property." As to the claim of boundary by acquiescence the Court of Appeals again reiterated that a boundary by acquiescence must stem from uncertainty, doubt or dispute. They concluded that there was no evidence presented in this case to suggest any of these elements existed to support the contention that such an agreement of this nature had taken place. The Court of Appeals also said "Although acquiescence and recognition may be evidence of an agreement fixing a boundary and may support an inference or presumption that there has been such an agreement, this presumption will not apply when induced by mistake, or when the true boundary is established conclusively by undisputed evidence. Kirby Lumber Corp. v. Lindsey, 455 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1970); Wall, 894 S.W.2d at 798. Further, when there is no doubt as to the true location of the boundary line, mere proof of acquiescence in an erroneous line will not support a finding that such other line is the true line. Id. " In closing, merely because irons rods, pipes and other objects exist, set by subsequent surveyors other than the original surveyor, are not proof of the location of an original boundary or any other boundary. They are only evidence of the subsequent surveyor's opinion as to the location of a boundary. A fence is not proof of a boundary by adverse possession or a boundary by acquiescence solely because it existed or exists. I am not suggesting that such evidence can't be used to determine a boundary. What I am suggesting is that the relevancy of this evidence to the boundary in question must be demonstrated. Thus far, I am not persuaded. Very truly yours, Thomas H. Burton, III Attorney for James and Rebecca Shields cc: clients, file Sallye Clark From: Janet Childers [childersjs@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 9:22 PM To: Sallye Clark Subject: Zoning Board of Adjustments Meeting Aug. 20 3415 Amherst To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in reference to the Zoning Board of Adjustments meeting to be held on Aug. 20 at 6:30. I understand that there is pending at this meeting a matter involving the Bardwell Building Company and a boundary variance request that they have made regarding 3415 Amherst. My family and I have lived in West U for 8 years. Our first home in West U was built by Bardwell (3511 Amherst) and our second and current home in West U was built by Bardwell (3302 Tangley). We chose Bardwell for the second home based upon, among other things, our positive experience in the Amherst house over a seven year period. We have found Bardwell to be a reputable and honest builder and a pleasure to deal with on both occasions. We have been impressed not just with the quality of their work, but also with their consistently good reputation in our community and their ethical standards. I believe that Bardwell would not knowingly violate the building code in West U or elsewhere. I would be very happy to appear before the Zoning Board if that would be helpful to the Board and the City. I have very factual experiences that support the content of this note and my willingness to send it. Very truly yours, Brad Childers 3302 Tangley Road West University, Texas 77005 (713) 668-1460 childersdb@comcast.net 1 ~~,tev~,V 7~os aBO p 2 %Q i Sallye Clark From: G Miertschin [gnmier@swbell.net] Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:36 PM To: Sallye Clark Subject: August 20 Zoning Board meeting Dear Ms. Clark, I am writing in reference to Bardwell Builder's request for an exception to the ordinance requiring a 5' setback on the west side of the home built at 3415 Amherst. I strongly encourage the Zoning Board to deny their request. I have lived at 6024 Fordham since 1976. In 2003 we requested and were granted a zoning variance to remove our garage so that we could build handicap accessible quarters for my parents, for whose care I was solely responsible. In the process of deveoping our plans, I became very congnizant of the details of the West U zoning ordiances and of the reasoning behind them. We worked very carefully to abide by all the space constraints imposed on our 5,000 sq. ft. lot. I understand that the 5' setback is designed not only to help maintain privacy in a densely occupied area, but to allow adequate space for fire fighters, should that ever become necessary. These are not considerations to be lightly disregarded. I am certain that a large developer like Bardwell is fully aware of the ordinances governing new buildings in West U. I think a dangerous precedence is set when someone can violate an ordinance and then be granted an exception because remedial action is inconvenient or expensive. I hope that the Zoning Board will stand firm in upholding the ordinance. This is important to all residents of our community. Gretchen Miertschin 6024 Fordham St. Houston, Tx 77005 713-668-2734 Sallye Clark From: Linda King [Iwking@greenwoodking.com] Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 3:21 PM To: Sallye Clark Subject: Wayne Bardwell Dear Ms. Clark, I am writing to you on behalf of Wayne Bardwell of Bardwell Builders whom I have known both personally and professionally for some 25 plus years. During those years, Wayne has continually been recognized as one of Houston's finest builders and a man of integrity whose homes maintain their value over time. In my recollection the discrepancy on the property at 3415 Amherst regarding its setbacks is the first of its kind of which I am aware. Thank you for your time, Linda King Linda King Greenwood King Properties, Inc. Direct: 713.942.6831 Fax: 713.521.6231 Iwkinq@greenwoodkinq com I 1 Debbie Scarcella From: Sallye Clark Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:39 PM To: Debbie Scarcella Subject: FW: Property Issue at 3415 Amherst not in packets From: Katy Henri [mailto:katyhenri@gmail.com] Sent: Tue 8/18/2009 8:37 PM To: Sallye Clark Subject: Property Issue at 3415 Amherst Dear Madam, I write to you today to show my support for upholding the City of West University Place's zoning ordinance. West University Place was founded on a set of laws and rules of which set this community apart and make it such an attractive place to call home. If the City were to grant the Bardwell Building company a variance in the property issue at 3415 Amherst, it would harm the prestige of living in a respected community such as ours. I urge you to not side with the Bardwell Building Company as they have broken a zoning law. Such violations should not go unnoticed and allowances should not be made for those who violate City Ordinance. I thank you for your time and once again request that you do not allow a variance in this case. Katy Henri 6633 Mercer St. i Debbie Scarcella From: Sallye Clark Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:38 PM To: Debbie Scarcella Subject: FW: 3415 Amherst comments not in packets From: Kristen Wilson [mailto:kwilson97@yahoo.com] Sent: Tue 8/18/2009 11:49 PM To: Sallye Clark Subject: 3415 Amherst comments To Whom it May Concern: I am the owner of 3419 Amherst, which shares a property line with 3415 Amherst. I would like for it to be known that we had an excellent relationship with Bardwell Builders throughout the entire construction of 3415 Amherst. Bill Bosman, the construction manager, was an absolute pleasure to deal with. He was always more than helpful. He gladly answered all of our construction questions, and he kept the construction site in perfect condition. I saw him several times a day checking on his crews, sweeping the street, or tidying up the property. Bill worked very hard at making sure that things went smoothly and keeping us, as neighbors, happy. I would definitely recommend Bardwell Builders to a friend. Sincerely, Kristen Woodcox 1 Debbie Scarcella From: Sallye Clark Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:31 PM To: Debbie Scarcella Subject: FW: Correction to previous email: ZBA docket number 2009-09 not in pkts From: mb_moore@yahoo.com [mailto:mb_moore@yahoo.com]~ Sent: Wed 8/19/2009 5:23 PM To: Sallye Clark Cc: edn@rice.edu Subject: Correction to previous email: ZBA docket number 2009-09 Please note address correction below. On Thu, 8/20/09, mb moore@yahoo.com <mb moore@yahoo. com> wrote: From: mb inoorc(Q)yahoo.com <inb moore@yahoo.com> Subject: ZBA docket number 2009-09 To: sclark@west u.or~z Date: Thursday, August 20, 2009, 3:13 AM To Ms. Clark and the West U. ZBA: I see no reason why Bardwell Builders should be granted an exception. As an experienced builder with a number of houses in West U, he is well aware of the city's building ordinances and setback lines. Whether the encroachment is intentional or not, the homeowners at 3409 Amherst should not be penalized for his encroachment on their property. It seems to me that it would be more appropriate to levy a fine on Bardwell instead. Respectfully, Michelle Babin Moore 3908 Rice Blvd i Debbie Scarcella From: Sallye Clark Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:29 PM To: Debbie Scarcella Subject: FW: 3415 Amherst not in pkts From: Rick Westerfield [mailto:Rick@vlwcpa.com] Sent: Wed 8/19/2009 3:33 PM To: Sallye Clark Cc: bruceb@greenwoodking.com Subject: 3415 Amherst Ms. Clark, I lived at 3415 Amherst from 1992 until July, 2007. To the best of my knowledge, the survey that I provided Bardwell Building during their purchase was accurate; and during the 15 years that I lived in the house, there was never a fence or borderline dispute with either adjacent property. Sincerely, Rick Westerfield Vacek, Lange & Westerfield, P.C. Certified Public Accountants 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1524 Houston, Texas 77046 713-623-2929 (office) 713-623-4436 (fax) Website www.vlwcpa.com Circular 230 Notice: In order for us to comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice that may be contained in this written or electronic communication, including any attachments, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S. federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. i Debbie Scarcella From: Sallye Clark Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:26 PM To: Debbie Scarcella Subject: FW: property issue at 3415 Amherst not in packets From: Dianne Wells [mailto:dianne-wells@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wed 8/19/2009 10:04 PM To: Sallye Clark Subject: property issue at 3415 Amherst Sallye Clark Zoning Board of Adjustments I am writing to voice my support for Jim and Rebecca Shields, who are defending all West University home owners in their case against Bardwell Building Company. By all accounts, this is not the first time that Bardwell has attempted a land grab from West University home owners. They should not be allowed to get away with it this time, or we are all at risk of theft by threat of legal action. No further building permits should be issued to this builder until he rectifies all previous errors. The surveyor, Matthew Probstfeld, should not be allowed to operate in West University, since he has proved himself either incompetent or dishonest. Bardwell should definitely NOT be granted a Special Exception. Mrs. R.G. W-E. Wells 3816 University Blvd. i Debbie Scarcella From: Sallye Clark Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:23 PM To: Debbie Scarcella Subject: FW: Special Setback Exception was not in packets From: Tahil10841@aol.com [mailto:Tahil10841@aol.com] Sent: Thu 8/20/2009 2:36 PM To: Sallye Clark Subject: Special Setback Exception Sallye Clark Zoning Board of Adjustments A meeting has been scheduled to request a Special Exception to the WU construction restrictions for a WU home at 3415 Amherst. The adjoining neighbor of this property, Jim and Rebecca Shields at 3409 Amherst, feel that the contractor, Bardwell Building Company, has not dealt in an acceptable manner with them regarding fence and other issues created by an inaccurate survey conducted by Bardwell on the 3415 Amherst property. Any exception issued should assure that this neighbor's issues are properly addressed to their satisfaction. Thank you for registering our opinion. Tom and Suzanne Hill 3418 Amherst St. 1 ~ Cl"l~p~ i9 zoa 9 37 ~Ju-1!ucc~ww~ P.c«.c. (,ec~ 770 0 s A~~- Nom, CQ„~ A 7 44--ele-Ir • City of West University Place APPLICATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS ("CITY") Address of site: 3415 Amherst Legal description of the site: The West 47.50 feet of Lot Two (2) in Block Forty-six (46) of SECOND ADDITION TO WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE Applicant. Bardwell Building Company } 1 ~ -L? Address: 3019 Ferndale, Houston, Texas 77098 f u`~~ ~~m d Contact: Wayne Bardwell Phone: 713-520-0421 Fax:713-520-5037 Email: aynebardwell@ comcast.net Decision or Action Requested (check one or more and provide requested data): ( ) Appeal. Hear and decide an appeal from an order, requirement, decision or determination made by the Administrative Official. • Is the official's action in writing? ( ) Yes; ( )copy is attached. ( )No, but the action appealed is as follows: • When was the action taken? Note: Appeals must be filed within a reasonable time. Please explain any delay below: • Exact zoning ordinance section(s) involved: • Grounds for appeal: ( X) Special Exception. • Exact zoning ordinance section that authorizes the special exception: 12-102(E) • Exact wording of special exception requested: Request a special exception to acquire pnc status for a side yard encroachment of 2.4 inches at the front corner of the house and 9.6 inches at the rear corner of the house. ( ) Variance. • Exact zoning ordinance section from which a variance is requested: • Exact wording of variance requested: Other Data. Are there drawings or other data? ( )No (X)Yes(list items here and attach them) Narrative, Photos of house, Plat, Exhibits A-K Attached. The applicant has read the State and City reg ati ns attached. Signature of applican Date: I - 6 For Staff Use only Date filed: k j ` Date hear Docket#: y. =rm ~aa-102 0 • BARDWELL BUILDING COMPANY 3415 AMHERST On July 6, 2007, we purchased 3415 Amherst from Richard Westerfield. The legal description of the property is: "The West 47.50 feet of Lot Two (2) in Block Forty-six (46) of SECOND ADDITION TO WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, an addition in Harris County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Volume 538, Page 147, Deed Records of Harris County, Texas." (Schedule A, Owner Policy of Title Insurance, Exh. A) The survey Mr. Westerfield provided to us from Robert A. LaPlant Surveyors, Inc. dated Oct. 3, 2001, confirmed same. (Exh. B) Prior to closing on the lot, we obtained a survey by Probsfeldt and Associates dated June 11, 2007 confirming same. (Exh. C) We then applied for a building permit from the City of West University Place and obtained it on August 31, 2007 ( Exh. D). We submitted the form survey, revised date December 13, 2007 (Exh. E) to the City of West University confirming the same lot size and meeting West University Place set back requirements. The final survey, revised date December 2, 2008 (Exh. F) was submitted to West University Place confirming same with all set backs being met. West University Place granted the Certificate of Occupancy on February 27, 2009 (Exh. G). James and Rebecca Shields have owned the property located at 3409 Amherst for many years. During their ownership, there have been fences separating the Shields lot from our lot, located at the property line as surveyed by three different surveyors. To our knowledge, no claims to ownership of a portion of our lot were ever asserted until the Shields recently had their property refinanced. Their lender used a new surveyor, Mr. Bowles of B & B Surveying, who now claims that our common boundary as fenced for many years is not located in the right place. On February 4, 2009, Thomas H. Burton, attorney to the Shields, owners of 3409 Amherst, contacted us stating that his clients had a new survey for their property contesting the boundary line between the Shields property and our property at 3415 Amherst. At the suggestion of our attorney, we obtained an objective opinion from a 3`d surveyor, Arrow Surveying, dated March 2, 2009 (Exh. H).This survey confirmed our previous surveys. Our surveys are based on a pin that our surveyor believes was placed when this section of West University was initially developed. Additionally, we built the house at 3419 Amherst in 1992 which verified the property line between 3415 and 3419 Amherst (survey dated Oct. 19, 1991, Exh. I). This house has re sold at least twice since and to our knowledge the property line has never been questioned. 0 • Our understanding is that the Shields' surveyor, B & B Surveyors, placed a new pin inside the Southeast corner of our lot, purportedly to correspond with a pin that he had placed several years ago on the east boundary line of the Shields' lot.. By doing so, he is suggesting that all of the side boundary lines on this block be moved an equal amount to the west which would involve the lots to the West of ours as well as possibly the lots on University Boulevard which back to these lots. In an effort to solve this problem and avoid civil litigation, we offered to pay the Shields $8,500 (for approximately 60 sq. ft.) for the small amount of disputed property which we still believed was ours. The Shields rejected this offer (letter, Exh. J). Again, in an effort to solve this problem, we moved our fence off our East boundary line to the location shown by the Shields' survey. This was also not acceptable to the Shields. Shields has told us, and a potential purchaser of the house who walked away on the closing date because of Shields' comments, that, if his boundary line is correct, the house is in violation of set backs on the east side of our property by 2.4" at the front of the house and 9.6" at the rear (survey dated July 20, 2009, prepared to show the boundary claimed by Shields, Exh. K). Our request for a Special Exception will have no effect on the neighborhood as it will not affect street parking and will not cause any adverse effects on other persons on the street. We have built many homes in West University with 3' set backs due to the 3' and 7' rule. We understand that the spirit and intent of set backs is to have separation between dwellings for fire personnel, water run off, etc. and 3415 Amherst still has a minimum of 4' on the east side. We are requesting a Special Exception from the City of West University Place because even though we believed at the time of submission, and continue to believe, that all surveys provided to us were correct and that we abided by all West University Place set back requirements. The comments by the Shields as to the effect of the boundary line dispute are having a serious adverse effect on our ability to sell the house. Since there is no question, per the legal description, that we bought a lot containing 47.5' in the front and rear, we are also attempting to solve this problem without a lawsuit which could require revisions to the property lines on both the Amherst and University sides of the entire block. Respectfully submitted, A /I ll 6"Al C. Wayne Bardwell, President Bardwell Building Company i 34 AMHERST - FAST PROPERTY LINE C NN r." ex~nrrt~. c: M1K r d v yVI,& saROwr~t _ c n4 Y.. - 3x t i.. Jill b 4 lpw4 - o r ~aiae~a~:: x, L PPOBST 'ELD &ASSOCI ~k TES PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS 515NAGI.-.,S-.102 K.ly,7`-774,0 OIf-I2806?9-0094 Pz+e611a29-u333 N A-1, -.t Strt .e s. 80eK O w .em ease _ _ 1''= 20 ' rnJ~.-~-~EasL rs 47' 511' c 0 r=~az;ewl em.a r - Lot 2 7 1 . a a y y - 2-Story Ian Brick K v. g hem - m m car I b Y•4 E rv 6 HLOCK 46 wcsr uNivERSrv P4A~E PO°` ^1 536, Py a-/ lc- *1,1 nee w/vnz r west 4'1.50 L L 5 •,w via. _ r°r ~ Re - - ~ Howes Ixooi ~n,usrw~n i, . ~~Irio ♦irj °e.a o vwm. zzr. vw• a er u. u..n v.ro,a. Fern. eo~erv. oeo r v.^.^~ ••~^~e.e .r.a.i .a.m.er. aom.a. ou.n.a w uw r rNO M n. urr o w..l unewl.rr e.. w onr. v >o , ev a .iN w v .,anen o~ndV,9 r•(suer.r o xe.re. 9r. i/~ ..c.pus. nE.x x,AO eo i..i, e~renr - •i4x . •elseaw 1 ee~............ .r r.., .....o.r o rn• i e e or w E.nne w.n.n one w.r•a w eno ~ e.u ins (n wxl r. Her .noun Then Bardwell R9uildm Co_m y Hereby cetily toot Llle onnve 3415 Amherst Slreel plot curreclly represents Ilse E CF lads lound al the Ilme a! the 7<, F'~ 1WEST 5U FEET DFT110 TWO IN BL-K FDRCC I 51 TY- fNE ul SECOND -N DOU O 51X 4fi) ' - A TIJN TO WEST UN-IVERSITY PEACE, survey mole an Ne grDOnd •YATHCI ]•FR095ffE1L All AD 0 IN N li.%RRIS IPUNTI, TEXAS, ACCORDING i0 unJer my sups visor, and ""Y"' THE NAP AP E EDI .1 IN vOLUNE 53 Ihele we no a " avB5 p; PAt;F I. C8 2 F DIE E DEED RI hE - RECORDS Or HARRIS CDUN % PP.rc'a 6'11/O R 7/1/Z 07 TY encloachmen(s at the Ilme at 9'PO'!SU R4Xyo~ Uate. L.~ ev eed . Illis s vey, a ess mown w .w. r.er.n, ee_ ~r e. w.~ noledumne,wu. Penel No. _ n4tl201C~o•O860 rvL~ 7 L.+ue Shaded X Uela. 6/I6/U7 ~L hl.{'IT IFUr I PI:UHb'CPELIr tl r..r~ w arcs con ° y Let B0)29IIR (5/sl/2~ 7) Jo0 M- _ D6 -OOb - PROBST ,ELD & A SSOCI ' _TES PPO FF_S.SIONAL LAND SURV'GCOR3 I 15NAG- Swit. I02 K.ty,Tw... 77450 Wfi.12818N0034 F..(281)829 1,23, N Amherst Street. 60' R. n. W. seat.. 20 a4e se ° ~ J a. ~ - Ve - - ~o aw :J ° wit oL w z Q ~P N Y z N y h h c I u, Y S IL C m 4 Wood nor ( Form F N \ (Nm^.wew^1 BLOCK 46 1110-.11T-TD w i,Nrveas~-rv P nLE .v°. sae, vg rvcDFt " We,L 4'7..50 of LoL 2 $ xve r+/cvY P Weet 47.50' PzweO v( a um EI s n.voae xv(zo i w..x.uen~l e av(xa Kin. o.a e. vau".. zra. pe s m. 4..J Pue. vi rvmrP Cm ir, .w. er awmu,~ r..."u.u ..^.rc.( .e.m...i. eiem.u e.av~.a a ea. r u. wqr ^in. r w..i unn..xr Pieu. v onr u r maonr ov oyi.unm..un . e... v,~", ur gyn. p z Y vWcu uw a Y eery .e~ iun (r u.vl ur. nci .nc..,. a.ni m.. y ~ " in. ecc > u.. iii. 1t FJ -d-11 B "Id g p ny I hereby -t ly It 1 hJ 3416 A h t St -t _ _ plot wz-b, p Ih ~F 111 - I'll V L - (21 B - -11 fads Iwnb I Ih I 'I ih ~(T- T ,V -I 5 ( u E - r Fz TL'E surrey mn~ Ih g pWWr~ 'D ~ DD RH COONTY IE 5 INC TO urea my p J E R R PAT E EOF RECOFOED E 53e Y F-E 147 OF inE DEED RECORDS of HA-S COUNTY IX Ihere ar no opponent es D. tiill; U7 R--d 12.'13/0'1 enc ocnmenis al Ina lime nl ''1'(!'SD ft3~ w This survey, unless mown or n.. v.vpm. ve.. ee~ v. u.e w. a r.a Tiro a v Ywe. nolea olnerwlse. ~ Panel Nc _ ^932UIf~mOdtl0 rwLw - - j--__~- (r+ne _5Aeded X _ Det. fi_IB/U7 - - M.tlvl I I:U' I Flit I'I:tt l ( ~er~ vJ r ^"ai'^wr e ° ° n illlE ol_lluurimr 5m(e ° e..» x. crf ° _ zelauozaze~~~al zoo~_ 3ab f _ eD3-Doe m.T{r,Dr. D----~~-m U -(D_ ilh. ` Irk!, hI' a r •j Iy 1`, v I 1, I. L .I c 1 E Y C~, 5 s n; I v I z n _ I rn I . I-nf --``.L.E~I kph )1 > ~ylf,~71J'- I G7 U-_---p - `s } I sn >r A671_11161~ LOE I _ v I o r _ k, ;9A -_lL_ K GgA I tE .9)~ c1gB 13 I I IL 1 X 4 R A- --lA lEt 4A 2.13 _ 4c - n„I*:*: "'$4 , 3 0 0 4 A~ 1 - - 1 t~ I I © 1- 1 l aNV..^..r r_rwu x~rrnm'+~'ur-rs -C'v~'•.. _ `t I F~ fn~ tr1y]l . °711 ~~y Lr' C} t~'t 7 . p-- IJB/~ g`~ f~} mlL.f: IJ •1 •.r.`_. IL~ .4 C7-_ _IY-_ IN - ~+'1_ZI~ L~ ~J_ ~-i g j - 13, GSA ` , . (7 C~ , c., u,-4 g --rJ'~ a m A ~ NIT ro c`~:.D.,I m,' v; 7`g 2E}; 5B 60 5A 2A' fl 1j) W v ~6 m ,JSru of ` w 2 117 O ~A i u a-14f~cn~'~ 6 D~ Di We; FR i ~ ~ r lA ~ 1H 413 I. vr: W w - 4, ao i`4 o a ;•.AzA-: SIj g B , 5A 2A ~A _ -I 5H ,uE~}l~ 400 _ - - ` -°19 I A' D [,1~ ( ti 1..k3 dI~1' c aAES p 28 ~B l'~' -f 3f) 6t~ ~A I cn rv- r!o g~ i y3. B°4 18_ -'i Lgg t~-'~`~5Q 38, m r' Z 6A -3A r~_11 (jiw -.1 J~ A W y ° T 1 ~J o tF, dj' W C`7^ G7 1-' BA, a o; _..P q 3I~ [1 ° goo A { I A 21-\:. ~ ..~~A 3B C) 1- cn: I o m 6AYVAtdEF, s c - S d (i N !y.~AI ac} r IFS C 41 mn u,D' 4) 7.H m .~_Au ~'f sa~A`~ °;..,_lr3A ~n ^.Tc at ~[{A IA o'~== - _n ooV °s1 •,uay S _ -1A~ - ~a 5~ 2A. C)(3~~JN iL f Sc th V T~ J.Frv ~d. TB k - su 9A~ 1A~ °qA JQ =1s a nA B GB6 a' jA w'}' ~DIIU) -4 ~r= 5l3_ 1.21 n 5F3 ` - 5E}- - ° 0 ~I~ R u ° - ° u CD v rD n OC m ci, o `2A n :~51~ rZfl 60 u, .313 C~ _~0 b roo - - -~jo -5-A 8P 3 _ - fTl fl 06 ~~3Ael n fiA y.o ~a c iac ' Jd s'n sa J✓ ° n' 11 F] u FC tAu - tvn, n m m [ u, ~eGH r 3~~ A 3 W PI1 D boa ~o so °a ti v 4 A 1; C -I AIS ~}~t 1 t I 2 ° _ - _ ESTCHESTEF lA ° 1 Z g I on- 30 6300 - - A JO 90~r' IA ` 2S .5A 0U T- _ uga 1 u w 9-- 9~ 1~. 2A ; s 2A~r n ~A 5A- Z O 7A• rJA ,-€ig k~ ` °y J f 6~ I- •rl ,~v 0 1B < i2 _ ~a 2B' g _ L C ~ `5U J I 3A ' n o p c~ 1\ r, e 2A o 5 -Bo n It vl ~A c.g -~It .'--2_-B- ~J~- 3B AA 3A o L° _ - - A r3 0, O s_ iu :,a s - C _ _ - - 3Ei m u o .,v - 2A I I A rl 4 U1 u' 0 tr u' A /t iJJ :9C JJ-.rte ~o _ sd- - i3n '~'.IA d 2B 13 . n 1 n N I~ 1>~- ~ Cl ~ll ~ ;.50 I _ - s - R U C C] L IZ rJ iJO ell, e . 2 b ¢ZG IL~ ~ ? I - - Ig 26 _ - IG r G ti ~5f u Ir' v, I ~cU ~I r, • _ ,r. ico - N _ 13 o`` ° °G I to o 2 _ - L I y .A 'U, D• • iS lI, p n 0 o f I Ci-P - , , U 11 , - r n~ _ w I ~In~ _ 1 Z5 a - _ _ E, , ,a \ cr cr, .P L a) v~ v a ~~h .P cD1' -8 Au - ro_,I - yr u~~ G5Q~ ° °d Cf)ItD n 50 Su R f 55i>'0'_ , 19113 _7 c w cn <n o n - Sv , , v cn m I - II I r. N ~ ,I v,3✓~ ~;i" SgFEDWAY -coo ;ad o` - i I - _ _ - ~'I cn r, a''c ;ao - - ,n' _6 { O O BUFFALO 1 ~1 I - 300 s _ - - 1 S _ c 6 l° a °I8 y °1-B 1I 016 _ ~Tj Qr 1 l51{T u rS _ - - - I? U ~~I (~lDF_t BILL Exhibit A DINER POLICY DI T[T-PE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A G.F. No. 2e18002929 Policy No. 175-1032573 ",mount or insurance: $678,500.00 Premium: $3,532.00 Gate of P,~licy: Jiffy 10, 2007 1 Name of Insured: The Barciwefl SuMincg Company 2. The estate or interest in the land that is covered by this poiicy is: Ve simple 3. itle ,o the °_state or interest in the land is insured as vested in: The Bardwell Building Company 4. The land refwrre C to in this Poky is described as Follows: Ts e West 47.50 feet of Lot Two (2), in Block =ort-six (48) of SECOND DDI T ON TO WEST IsP IVER&7Y PLACE, an ade ition in Harris County, Texas, according tc the. map or plat thereof recorded in Voiurne -538, Page 147, Deed Re-Cords of Harris County, i exas. Commonwealth Land i i'ie fn~tirancy Company ^OrM 0 P (Or e'n, ?fit02J2 'B) 8 0 Page 1 ?~lic Nc c-1 J3~5'3 "-l 1A tI J= IY:J 1 J I tt L. t I Ezhibi[ 8 b1) n o 'p ) OIL fOCV" EAST 11 50 rko r~. I a.fDG41 WJ STUF1 T~ Balch d FaNME ~ , e r TyE II'EST _ G 4>. SG' OF ~ tT-. - •knMk BLO GK>n - ' O4a.l'v Em b _ O ~ DEr n O if za LiT I \ ~ o W ~ - - --l E rr.o o,a- Fal' > d I r. gg° c y "1Y 9F.91 I a r ar eu j LcT a Lbr , '4 ~ klCi1AR0 9 WE94EflFl~ v~od.,~dm. I~:Lwu~a~IHa.. v.~hM n VJD P..AN tIaMAT[]fl a.d _ RICE[- B MESTf:Pf IELD :DIK. Y- aSk. v I'_AM,1 i 5I5" !_h011S ii,T. IE- >JDJS i41VEl. ,q. 91, J'tD9bJl ~--~3-__4E_ iN x'E5$) a~ sr Da7E 9E ~LU_,Bb~k=5-5.__i GF M]" al 109'+121E9 Sr.ay ~W ,q. 01 ~fi10 pm. WAI ENSIT'i PLPCE MC 454__. ~;jjY fl 'DJ(~E )aP Ht,TI 1 E^c0 J h W h h ~1cv ~,~dr y v l 9 J ; C k3 A J I 1'W J+N~y\y J ~iaL r w, F WW 'rf f .q.~ p o, J~ . ~c.oo, aJ . ~J y.r ~ F.,s d T~ (A N J ? yry I ¢CiCB P 1JQ ~ r, lcu L,PLANT SUR✓F)OR" IN.C_ 0 E aD4 42, r,J I c TEE- 7 t ~ PvE{' a ao-oea) io-ss.~ ~xhibit D 49 7~ Master Permit Number.: Date Issued: ' Project Address: ? 1 ! fL 2 Contractor: -z~~ All inspections must be called in 24 hours in advanced. 24 hour inspection line: 713-662-5805. The City of West University Place r' Building Inspection Card` c~ - Floodplain Designation: \ ,S INSPECTION TYPE CODE PASS DATE COMMENTS NOTES PIERS PIER v 1 0 7- Required for Building Final As-Built Form Survey FMSV 0.7 Required prior to pouring slab (must have finish floor elevations) Foundation FDTN >1,- ~ - ~ ~ ~6 Required for Building Final FDTN/PIER As-Built Letter FLTR 177 197c) '07 Required prior to framing inspection Windstrapping/storm BDMI I -77i = Required for Building Final Building Height Certification BLDH Required prior to framing inspection Framing FRAM i"''J .5-a(-,-U' Required for Building Final Driveway/Sidewalk Forms FIRMS (/~J S-d-0-0j~ Required for Building Final Fence Letter/Survey FLSV -im j- Required for Building Final Fence Final HGHT -JC & i C7 3-D:?~ Required for Building Final Fire Alarm FALM T 47- )7"i Required for Building Final Energy Compliance ENGY -1 C 1 Required before Bldg Final Building Final BFNL Required for Cert. of Occupancy PLUMBING Plumbing Ground PGRD IL~11U Required for Plumbing Final New Sewer Line PSNW Fr-// -U7 Required for Plumbing Final New Water Line PWNW S 1 ~Required for Plumbing Final Shower Pan PSPN /-),u 717, Required for Plumbing Final Top Out PTOP PtU" -OB Required for Plumbing Final Gas Test PGTS Required for Plumbing Final Plumbing Final PFNL Y 72- -(b, Required for Building Final ELECTRICAL Temporary Pole ETPL 'V / - ~ -U-1' Required for Electrical Final Wall & Ceiling Cover ECVR l 3 Required for Electrical Final Meter Loop & Service EMLS ct,! 57777 Required for Electrical Final Electrical Final EFNL TA) - a-f -7,57 Required for Building Final MECHANICAL Rough In ACVR 'vV Required for Mechanical Final Mechanical Final AFNL 0-a4-C Required for Building Final SITE WORK Area Drains PADN S S-J Required for Building Final Topographical Survey TOPO X110 1-~- Prior to Drainage Final Engineer Drainage Letter DLTR _777- 71 Prior to Drainage Final Drainage Final DFNL 1o J -71 -7) 7 Required for Building Final Cert PVBK Report CPBD ~ 1'110 M _ii Required for Building Final PVBK Final PVBK 7t, /-~,~---Cl Required for Building Final Tree Final TFNL L j -l -~-vg Required for Building Final Water Billing Account Number 7707 Required for Cert. Of Occupany "'It is a Class C Misdemeanor to occupy this building without a certificate of occupancy" "Each day of occupancy being a separate offense- -This inspection card must remain on site through project completion and returned to the Building Depar;mznt with all a ppropriate signatures to receive a certificate of occupancy" ' 11 L o - -I - %S 1 Exhibit F 1'ROBS 1 T,LLD&/ ASSOC FE PRO E,~SIONIAL LAND ~UR\'EYOR-P A M It U 1, S T S T k Ii 1~ -1 J I 2.S1ory .c i West 4'I.:i NOTES: "°tl pin OF -.-TI a ~9 comp.~y i,=, ai ina aoo.e piai Y _ eseis ne ~a,.s ~E iF F - 15••_- Iii iua ne meo ra s. r ~C ST~'R-~~~.~. , _ or no e0 asrs ise ss sneM ~ `o` } "IT 'T .•u. \ - - ~ !IA'1III. tt~I I'A't iH~11-L11~ Exhibit G OLUM) City of NNIest University Place, Texas CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY STRUCTURE (OR PART): HOLDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE: Bardwell Builders ,9ddress. 3415 Amherst (For companies and other entities) Holder is a. ( X ) corporation; Description: ( ) a sole proprietorship of New Residence ( ) a partnership of ( ) other Flood Zone: Shaded X Address: 3019 Ferndale Houston, TX 77098 O See sketch attached Contact Person: Bill Phone. 713-875-5974 Fax. 713-320-5037 AUTHORIZED OCCUPANCY: Subject to all conditions of this Certificate, and subject to Section 6.109, Chapter 6 and the other provisions of the City's Code of Ordinances, and subject to the City's Zoning Ordinance; the Holder of this Certificate (named above) may use and occupy the structure (or part) identified above for (mark one): (1) single-family (detached) residential use only, ( ) single-family (attached or detached) residential use only, ( ) residential use only, not to exceed dwelling units, ( ) public school use only, ( ) other school use, specifically ( ) utility or service use, specifically ( ) light commercial use, specifically ( ) medium commercial use, specifically ( } other (describe): COMMERCLA.L USE: THIS CERTIFICATE ONLY AUTHORIZES THE HOLDER NAMED ABOVE AND THAT PERSON'S SPOUSE, DEPENDENTS, INVITEES AND LICENSEES TO USE OR OCCUPY THE STRUCTURE IDENTIFIED ABOVE, AND ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC USE IDENTIFIED ABOVE. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: (mark those applicable) ( X ) At least 2 off-street parking spaces are required for this occupancy at all times. See Zoning Ordinance. ( ) This Certificate must be posted continuously at a place to which the public has free access (during normal business hours) and such that it is visible from the principal entrance to the building. GENERAL CONDITIONS: This Certificate is not assignable or transferable. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT CONVEY OR EMBODY ANY CONTRACT RIGHT, VESTED RIGHT OR PROPERTY RIGHT. IT IS A REGULATORY DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT, REVOCATION AND SUSPENSION. Words and phrases in this Certificate have the same meanings as in the Code of Ordinances and Zoning Ordinance. NEITHER THE CITY NOR ANY CITY OFFICER, AGENT OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTS, GUARANTEES OR ASSURES ANYONE THAT: (1) ANY STRUCTURE COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE ORDINANCES, RULES OR REGULATIONS OR WITH ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER AGREEMENT, OR (2 ) ANY STRUCTURE IS HABITABLE, SAFE OR FIT FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (3) THAT ANY PARTICULAR INSPECT 10-N OR INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN DONE. Nothing in this Certificate shifts or reduces any obligation of contractors, owners, occupants, and other persons to comply with applicable ordinances, rules and regulations, and those obligations continue in full force and effect, regardless of the issuance of s ate. CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE. B( y Building Official. Date: a /,;Z 7/0 Address: 3800 University Boulevard, ATTN: Chief Building Official, West University Place, Texas 77005. COMERCLA,L USE ONLY: CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, By: Fire Marshall. Date: Address: 3800 University Boulevard, ATTN: Fire Marshall, West University Place, Texas 77005. Form P-105 (3-01) Exh ibis H we5r azsti / iliE Wt Sr ~y (F(6+7.50 FEET OF IOF 2 r 0 II Y K is i. E 45i 47.511' AMFICRST AVENUE I _r _ T U~ry HuW N1F"I G III 16-6-E66-E 1, XVJ F n rl~o- . \ `7^ ~4P_ 03NJ3HJ I'! rd,+ is ~a..F - ~xG NmVaO 95X11 SVX31 NO15r10H o z 6 -moo-L c b v - 5 5~, ~ H001~ WWII _UV() AVMaOUM XOrF ON BOP JSl ZOr 3 0. 1-~ .max )NI 00 `JNIA]NjfK / 19t 7 "e- - 'y,.. t = i ON '3 ~I~'~'-'' ` IJIIC II III 31L1 (13'1 ~--Ij Il ors -1 (7 - Elf, - - t - } -D - 0 I I I ~ 1 ~~I I I j; a - - I,z 0n I ~ _I - - ~oo~ - Lea Ir - I T-1 Exhibit J Thomas H. Burton, LII Attorney at Law Te1. 713.741.9301 P.Q. Boo 88330 Fax 713.741.9362 Houstor,, Texas 77288 email: tburto~l3 _ cb~net April.28, 2009 VM F.4 C~IMIr E X 13 j 890-3908 Christopher ltyn= COATS RUSE 3 Greenway Playa, Suite 2000 Houston, TX 770 Re. Bardwell Builder's, spec home on Amberst Drive Dear Mr. Ryman: This letter is in response to your correspondence and your client's last offer. My clients reject the offer of $8,500 and would make a counter-demand of $100,000, payable within 10 days. Please also forward this letter to your client's insurers). As I stated previously, I believe your client's actions are egregious and done in bad faith. I also believe that your client has significant problems with the set back requirements based upon the errant fence he erected, if my clients are to ignore his past actions and sell their land at this time, they will not do so un?ess they receive considerable compensation. They will have to live with the problems caused by your client and their property will now be diminished forever by a set back line that is no longer parallel to their existing structure. They will also have to deal with refinancing their home again and re platting the lot hi the immediate future. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require further information. Very truly yours, ~r Thomas H. Burton, IU Attorney for James and Rebecca Shields cc: clients, file Exhibit K PROBS-v-ELD&ASSOCL' TES PROFESSIONAL I AND Sl iRVEYORs m i PARK 6k<m~DKI1 I I', VI D] ♦ - I-1- L UdIia29A%IA ♦ FAA pG,-9,- 1 M H E R S T P T I: E E T r ,r 3zsa. a ~ I ' m Sf„~~:, I-T NOTES: • 'YU'FUPROPENTYn.....a~wa wiwW.. w,.~.w w.o u alnQ a°mp~ I pie t , e, r ~ ilia aGO.c .lei a Y - T - f C u^ . _ une a„ne eu ,e su a. ! P GST ~t ar ..a ....e H r.... x,pnr son. ~F E FF I'.7 - - - aVVa en, ee rnme ..sa n. Y o ~ I . Ina of lna au nesc rFUw J1 - - - - _ mm~ea Dine SCR' - M.ITIILW 1'KIIHSI1171.1, OLM) • • City of West University Place A Neighborhood City ® Recycled Paper NOTICE OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING The Zoning Board of Adjustment ("ZBA") of the City of West University Place, Texas ("City") will hold a public hearing in Bill Watson Conference Room of the Municipal Building, 3800 University Boulevard, City of West University Place, Texas 77005, during a meeting set to begin at 6:30 P.m. on August 20, 2009. The hearing may be recessed and continued to a ZBA meeting set to begin at 6:30 P.m. on September 17, 2009. The purpose of the hearing is to provide an opportunity for all persons to be heard in relation to the following matter: Address of the site: 3415 Amherst Street, West University Place, Texas 77005 Legal description of the site: The West 47.50 feet of Lot (2), in block Forty-six (46) of Second Addition to West University Place, an addition in Harris County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Volume 538. Page 147; Deed Records of Harris County, Texas. Docket No.: 2009-09 Applicant: Bardwell Building Company Action Requested: Applicant requests a Special Exception to acquire PNC status for a side yard encroachment of 2.4 inches at the front corner of the house and 9.6 inches at the rear corner of the house. Applicable regulations include the City's Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code and the rules of the ZBA. Additional details on such matters, as well as, the applicable regulations are available for public inspection in the Public Works Center, 3826 Amherst, West University Place, 77005. Any person interested in such matters should attend the hearings. If you plan to attend this public meeting and you have a disability that requires special arrangements at the meeting, please contact the Planning & Development Assistant at 713.662.5843 in advance of the meeting. Reasonable accommodations will be made to assist your participation in the meeting. The Municipal Building is wheel chair accessible from the west entrance and specially marked parking spaces are available in the southwest parking area. Signed: for the ZBA 8-7-2009. Sallye A. Cla , Planning Assistant. 3800 university Boulevard • West 1"niversity Place, Texas 77005-2899 • 713066804441 9 tivmv.westu.org 0 BARDWELL BUILDING CO, THE LODEN MORRIS R MR WOODCOX JOSEPH D & KRISTEN 3019 FERNDALE ST 3421 AMHERST ST PO BOX 272587 HOUSTON TX 77098-2007 HOUSTON TX 77005-3335 HOUSTON TX 77277-2587 RE: 3419 AMHERST SHIELDS JAMES ALBERT WISE SCOTT W SOBIESK PAUL & KELLEY 3409 AMHERST ST 3405 AMHERST ST 3402 AMHERST ST HOUSTON TX 77005-3335 HOUSTON TX 77005-3335 HOUSTON TX 77005-3336 WILLIAMSON JIMMY HILL THOMAS A & SUZANNE OYER JAMES W & PATRICIA V 6624 VANDERBILT ST 3418 AMHERST ST 3410 AMHERST ST HOUSTON TX 77005-3825 HOUSTON TX 77005-3336 HOUSTON TX 77005-3336 RE: 3406 AMHERST HWANG LONG S & JOYCE C GLASSE BETTY J RANKIN ROGER N & NOEL 3424 AMHERST ST 3501 AMHERST ST 3502 AMHERST ST HOUSTON TX 77005-3336 HOUSTON TX 77005-3337 HOUSTON TX 77005-3338 NEWMAN MICHAEL & DEBORAH MC ENANY MICHAEL TAYLOR ADDISON A & JUDY 3424 UNIVERSITY BLVD 3428 UNIVERSITY BLVD 3504 UNIVERSITY BLVD HOUSTON TX 77005-3356 HOUSTON TX 77005-3356 HOUSTON TX 77005-3358 PEAKES ADAM & WAVERLY DORENFELD DAVID L & JOANNE VILLARS THERESA DUBREUIL 3412 UNIVERSITY BLVD 3408 UNIVERSITY BLVD 3402 UNIVERSITY BLVD HOUSTON TX 77005-3356 HOUSTON TX 77005-3356 HOUSTON TX 77005-3356