Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01032002 BSC Agenda Item 7 • • 0 City of West University Place APPLICATION TO BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION STATE OF TEXAS )( TO THE HONORABLE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COUNTY OF HARRIS)( COMMISSION Applicant name: .S f 6,— Mu WO A . I+o r'' v ii-2. Mailing Address: 3']3 Li S i N)c t 8 L v Site Address: 3/3 7 AL boi6r> Site Owner: 0 4v Dp i'l iV f Vone numiter: 7 1 3 6,6 5 4,6 f FT number: 7l 3 (04 S to 7 2. Appeal Requested Please hear and decide an appeal from an order, requirement, decision, determination or interpretation made by the City's Building Official,as follows below. Is the action in writing? ( )YES, copy attached ( )NO,but the action appealed is as follows: M. OfI oN (`Or Ve, 1lchrMr 6- . 1 Af 4c1-, A 1tftc,- D f}-ie_b i — i 2—0 1 1 M .SJ p p o�^l v l- t ii lyi o-i v a , For r-e Atr /ry 1 / When was action taken? Note: Appeals must be filed within a reasonable time. Please explain any delay: Exact Ordinance Provision involved: Grounds for appeal: I — / Signature of Applicant: S ( + Date: 4/ 0 AFFIDAVIT STATE OF TEXAS )( COUNTY OF HARRIS)( � ' 1 s((rM (..,4 ,4. (¢or V P f 2 ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: I,the applicant named in this application have read the contents hereof, and all statements he contained are e and correct. (re) �i Applicant l -11 1`'; '. _— Subscribed and sworn to before me this \L1' '\ day oficicM}\h.1) ( , ,9, , I. ; t JOSIE MARIE OROSCO , \ ?t MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Jbs1 c. 1'VY (,Q CRW—L' o ',, "'' JUNE 22,2005 Notary Public in and for Harris County Texas DATE FILED DOCKET NO. RECEIPT NO. • I Sigmund A. Horvitz 3734 Sunset Blvd. Houston, TX 77005 713-665-6635 December 12 , 2001 Mr. James McDaniel Chairman Building & Standards Commission 3323 Cason Houston, TX 77005 RE : SUPPORT FOR MOTION FOR REHEARING Dear Mr. McDaniel : In my original application I appealed from the building official ' s decision dated 10-8-2001 . In that decision, the building official approved the waste water irrigation system at 3737 Albans . I . The building official ' s formal decision reads : Formal Decision: I find the swimming pool waste water system installed at (3737 Albans) poses no hazard, nuisance or unsanitary condition, therefore in accordance with Chapter 6 Section 6 . 564 it is hereby approved. II . The relevant language of Section 6 . 564 of the City Code reads : Wastewater shall be discharged to a storm sewer when such is available . If none is available special permission is required to discharge into the sanitary sewer. Where space and conditions are such that no hazard, nuisance or unsanitary conditions may occur, swimming pool waste water may be used for irrigation. No other method shall be used unless specifically approved by the Building Official . III . The pool owner testified at the hearing that he irrigates his yard and beds with the pool waste water. The code says that he may do this only if space and conditions are such that no hazard, nuisance or unsanitary conditions may occur. 1 • IV. The building official in his formal decision states that he finds that the swimming pool waste water system installed at (3737 Albans) poses no hazard, nuisance or unsanitary condition, and therefore in accordance with Chapter 6 Section 6 . 564 it is thereby approved. The installed system consists of an open pipe, which is about three feet from and directed toward my property line . Therefore, the building official explicitly approves of an open pipe to serve as a waste water disposal system. Until recently the pool owner routinely discharged his pool waste water and excess water through this open pipe onto my property. The building official implicitly approves of the use of these waters for irrigation by the pool owner who temporarily clamps a flexible hose to the open pipe at the time he pumps waste water or excess water from the pool . (Please visualize the owner' s pool, in the middle of the night after 2-3 days of rain, threatening to overflow. The pool owner must go outside, hook up the flexible hose to the open pipe, and stand there and water his rain-soaked yard, which the pool owner testified is higher than my yard. The hazards, nuisance and unsanitary conditions that may result from this system could be avoided if the pool owner were to permanently attach 15 or 20 feet of pipe to the open discharge pipe and run this extension of pipe to the drain in his driveway. I have even offered to pay for this to be done . ) V. Although Section 6 . 564 in its last sentence gives the building official discretion in approving methods of discharge of wastewater, one cannot by the express terms of that section use wastewater or excess water for irrigation if space and conditions are such that a hazard, nuisance or unsanitary conditions may occur. The building official has no discretion here . The building official cannot approve the use of these waters for irrigation if a hazard ("possibility of loss" ) nuisance ( "a repeated invasion of another' s right" ) or unsanitary ( "unhealthfull" ) conditions may ( "be in some degree likely to) occur. The question of whether or not the arrangement adopted by the pool owner and approved by the building official may result in a hazard, nuisance, or unsanitary conditions is a question of fact . I presented to the Commission (in a written statement and in an oral statement) abundant evidence that this arrangement may produce these prohibited consequences . The building official and the pool owner presented absolutely no evidence to the contrary. (Larry, 2 i • the building inspector, told me that the pool owner told him at one point not to come onto his property again. This, of course, may have made it difficult for the building official to conduct a fair investigation. ) My submitted evidence on the hazards, nuisance and unsanitary conditions that may occur as a result of the temporary arrangement the pool owner employs to handle pool waste water and excess pool water includes : 1 . Statements which the pool owner made to me and to a building inspector. The pool owner said (but these are not his exact words since I am quoting from memory) when I confronted him with the fact that he was discharging waste water onto my property: "It only goes to Sunset" and "You should be glad that I did not allow the pool to overflow into your yard. " Larry, the building inspector, told me the pool owner said to him that "It could not be a big deal because Horvitz has never complained before" . (Again, these are not Larry' s exact words since I am quoting from memory. ) These statements reflect, in my opinion, a cavalier attitude about the use of my property to dispose of his pool waste water and excess water. However, even if the pool owner uses the greatest degree of care in using the temporary system to dispose of pool water, there are many possibilities for something to go wrong. Therefore, through negligence or accident (act of God) the pool owner in using his waste water irrigation system may flood my property again. 2 . My statements . In my written and oral communication with the Commission I stated that : on the occasion that I observed the pool owner flooding my property, the water pounded the base of my garage, streamed across and eroded a section of my un-sodded yard, pooled in my driveway, pooled in my garage, streamed into several of my flower beds, and may have streamed under my pier and beam house and pooled there . (Prior to this occasion I returned home one day and could not explain why my driveway and nothing else around was wet . ) Since I reasonably believe that the pool owner may again flood my property I cannot use a section of my garage for storage and I cannot plant in certain areas of my yard. These are hazards, which I believe are contemplated by Section 6 . 564 . 3 . The statements of Peggy Dunne and Armand Kapp, licensed realtors . These realtors each stated that I have a duty to disclose the presence of the open pipe when I list my property for sale and that this condition may have an adverse effect on the sales price of my property. 3 • i 4 . The statement of Astatki Zikarge, M.D. , an environmental health professional . Dr. Zikarge stated that discharged pool waters that collect and pool in my yard and under my house may create certain public health risks . These pools of discharged water may serve as a breeding medium for the culex mosquito and other disease carrying insects . The culex mosquito carries the viral form of Saint Louis Encephalitis . Irrigation waters can even pool in the pool owner' s yard. A percolation test is needed to determine if irrigation waters will diffuse fast enough into the soil to avoid pooling and the associated public health risks . 5 . The statement of Jose Sison, a home remodeler. Mr. Sison stated that waters that stream and pool under my pier and beam house may cause the house to shift as a result of the expansion and contraction of the ground. VI . The building official presented absolutely no evidence on the issue of whether or not a hazard, nuisance or unsanitary conditions may occur as a result of the temporary character of the pool owner' s waste water irrigation system. (Instead, the building owner testified from a "fact sheet" prepared by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) . However, the building official did not tell the Commissioners that the DEQ says in that "fact sheet" that chlorinated water from pools may be irrigated on the pool owner' s property if the pool owner: 1 . stops adding chlorine prior to irrigating. 2 . holds the water in the pool for at least one week (to reduce the chlorine level) . 3 . ensures that the discharged or irrigated water does not flow off his property. 4 . discharges or irrigates the water in a manner that will prevent nuisance conditions (such as creation of odors, and fly and mosquito breeding conditions) . VII . The pool owner presented absolutely no evidence on the question of whether or not a hazard, nuisance or unsanitary conditions may occur as a result of the pool owner' s waste water irrigation system. VIII . Section 6 . 563 (3) provides that a walkway around the perimeter of a pool may be constructed in the area between 4 • • the pool wall and a lot line if it is designed to avoid water drainage to adjacent property. Therefore, the Code expressly requires a permanent arrangement to avoid rain water and pool water drainage from the pool walk onto adjacent property. I submit that the Code requires a permanent arrangement to prevent water discharges from the pool itself onto adjacent properties . IX. In order for the Commission to refuse to reverse the formal decision of the building official, the Commission would have to disbelieve all of the evidence I have submitted on the only question in this appeal of the building official ' s decision. This question is a question of fact and is : are space and conditions such that a hazard, nuisance or unsanitary conditions may occur as a result of the waste water irrigation system approved by the building official? The Commission must reverse the decision of the building official if the answer to this question is yes . Mr. McDaniel, I request permission to argue orally in favor of my motion for rehearing. I will be available to do so at the January 3 , 2002 meeting of the Commission or at any other time convenient to the Commission. Very truly yours, Sigmund A. Horvitz 5 {, • • Sigmund A. Horvitz 3734 Sunset Blvd. Houston, TX 77005 713-665-6635 December 7 , 2001 Mr. James McDaniel Chairman Building & Standards Commission 3323 Cason Houston, TX 77005 RE : MOTION FOR REHEARING Dear Mr. McDaniel : Last night, the commission heard my application for an appeal of a formal decision of the Building Official . The matter was item 7 . on the agenda of the December 6, 2001 meeting. By this letter, I respectfully request a rehearing for the following reason: The rules of the commission provide, in part, in ARTICLE VII (i) : (4) Presentation by other parties in interest . . . (5) Response by the applicant (limited to issues raised by other presentations, written comments, etc . ) The other parties (Mr. Marks and Mr. Mack) were provided with copies of my written statement (s) prior to the hearing. They, therefore, were each given an opportunity to prepare a response to my statement (s) . Mr. Marks testified that he faxed a written statement to the commission on the day of the hearing. Mr. Mack submitted a written statement to the commission while he testified at the hearing. I never saw either of these statements . Therefore, unlike these parties I was not given a fair opportunity to prepare a response to their written statements . I respectfully request that the commission provide me with copies of the statements of the other parties and rehear the matter at a regularly scheduled meeting of the commission. Very truly your , \') ii/IM Sigmund 4. Horvitz • MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THE DISPOSAL OF CHLORINATED WATER FROM SWIMMING POOLS & HOT TUBS Water from swimming pools and hot tubs often contain high levels of chlorine. Discharging chlorinated pool/spa water into streams, (or irrigation canals, ponds, etc.) is harmful to fish and other aquatic life. This fact sheet was developed by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to provide you with information on management practices that will minimize the impact of chlorinated water discharged from swimming pools and hot tubs. The following `Best Management Practices' apply to water discharged from swimming pools and hot tubs: I. The best option is to discharge chlorinated water from pools and hot tubs to the sanitary sewer (sewage treatment plant). Chlorinated water should not be discharged into storm sewers or surface waters. This is especially true for large pools such as community swimming pools. 2. When discharge to a sanitary sewer is not possible either because it is unavailable or not allowed, then chlorinated water from pools and hot tubs may be disposed on the ground or irrigated on your property under the following circumstances: • Prior to disposing or irrigating the water, shut off the chlorination system if you have one, or stop adding chlorine. • Hold the water in the pool or hot tub for at least one week to reduce the chlorine level. • Discharge or irrigate the water in an area where the water will not flow into a stream or storm sewer. • Discharge or irrigate the water on your property and ensure that it does not flow off your property. • Discharge or irrigate the water in a manner that will prevent nuisance conditions (such as creation of odors, and fly and mosquito breeding conditions). Nuisance conditions occur when water is ponded for a prolonged period. 3. If discharge to a sanitary sewer or land irrigation of chlorinated water from pools or hot tubs is not feasible, the chlorinated water may still be discharged to the ground (where it may reach a stream, ditch, or storm sewer) under the following circumstances: • Prior to discharging the water, shut off the chlorination system if you have one, or stop adding chlorine. • Hold the water in the pool or hot tub for at least two weeks to allow the chlorine to dissipate. • Measure the chlorine level in the pool or hot tub prior to discharging the water. The water should not show any detectable levels of chlorine because chlorine is harmful to fish and other aquatic life even at low concentrations. A longer holding period may be necessary if chlorine levels continue to remain at detectable levels at the end of two weeks. Chlorine measurements can be made with a chlorine test kit (colormetric). • Discharge the water so it does not flow over someone else's property. • Discharge the water in a manner that will prevent nuisance conditions (such as creation of odors, and fly and mosquito breeding conditions). Nuisance conditions occur when water is ponded for a prolonged period. NOTE: Water from backflushing pool filters should not be discharged to a stream, ditch or storm sewer. Back(lush from pool filters must be discharged to the sanitary sewer, on-site septic tank and clrainfield system (if properly designed and adequately sized), or a seepage pit. For further information, please contact the DEQ regional office in your area (refer to map on back). PPD\WC15\WCI5206.doe(5/97, reformatted 4/99) C, { SCHWARTZ PRISE HAED 1 N (TPU) 12. 6 l 15:E6,' . 16:37/N0. 48626996,34 P • • o SCHWARTZ, PAGE & HARDING, L.L.P. 1300 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1400 Houston, Texas 77056 (713) 623-4531 Telefax: (713) 623-6143 TELEFAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET DELIVER TO: Saliye A. Clark FAX NUMBER: 713/349-2704 DATE: December 6, 2001 FROM: David M. Marks RE: Building and Standards Commission NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 3 CONFIRMATION NUMBER: (713) 623-4531 Dear Ms. Clark. Attached is a memorandum to the Commission explaining the facts regarding the Hearing scheduled as Agenda Item 7. I intend to appear at the hearing, although I am uncertain whether I can be there by 6:00 p.m. I would appreciate it if you would provide copies of the memorandum to the commission members for their consideration. Thank you. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE The documents accompanying this facsimile transmission contain confidential or privileged information from the law firm of Schwartz, Page & Harding, L.L.P. The information is intended to be only for the use of the individual or entity named on this transmission sheet. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this faxed information is prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so that we can arrange for the retrieval of the original documents at no cost to you. FROM EHWAET Z PAGE � HARD I N G (T1r.1a 12. 6' 01 15.34; ST. 16 37iNn , 4061699834 P 2 • MEMORANDUM TO: City of West University Place .Building & Standards Commission FROM: David Marks 3737 Albans RE: Appeal regarding swimming pool discharge DATE: December 6, 2001 1 just received the packet of information that was submitted by Mr- Horvitz in connection with the above referenced appeal, and am submitting this memorandum to provide some factual information regarding this matter. * The pool system was constructed in 1996 in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City, Final inspection was performed and a certificate of occupancy was issued by the City in March, 1997. . • The pool has been in continuous operation since completion of construction. No modifications (with the exception discussed below) have been made to the system since installation. • The backwash of the system removes an estimated 100 gallons of water from the pool and discharges the water over a gravel-covered ground area of approximately 200 square feet in .my yard. The backwash process takes approximately 15 minutes. During most months in lHouston, that amount is easily absorbed into the parched earth. The discharge has never been directed onto Mr. llorvitz's property. • The backwash process has been performed 2-4 times a year since installation (mostly during summer) without a single instance of causing problems either on my property or on any of the three properties that share my property lines closest to the discharge. • in June 2001, Tropical Storm Alison pounded the Houston area, dropping over 40 inches of rain over a one-week period, culminating in a 19-inch deluge over a 24- hour period of Friday to Saturday. On the Saturday afternoon following the pounding rains, the rains diminished to intermittent sprinkles for a period, although the weather reports were still warning that the storms would return that evening. My pool runs about 2/3 of the width of my property near the hack fence which separates my property from Mr. )Horvitz property. Since the pool was at the top and therefore had no holding capacity, in order to prevent the threatened return of the rains from flooding Mr. Horvitz's (Sunset properties are lower than Albans properties) or my house (remember, many houses in West 1.T had been flooded that morning, so any measures designed to decrease that possibility seemed reasonable at the time), I pumped down the level of the pool about 1 inch (estimated 500 gallons). Due to the ground saturation, this water flowed down my driveway into the Albans drainage and down Mr. Horvitz driveway into the Sunset drainage. FROM SCHWARTZ PAGE & HARDING (THUM 6' 01 F 1ST. 6:3 ' Nu 4861699834 P • S + To my knowledge, the June, 2001 tropical storm situation is the only time that discharge of water from my pool has ever affected Mr. Horvitz's property. He has not, in any of the documentation submitted,cited any other event where water flowed onto his property. • Mr, Horvitz makes vague claims about flooding under his house,allegedly caused by this discharge. Assuming that his property is approximately 5,000 square feet, the estimated 500 gallons discharged would cover his property with water at the rate of less than 1 pint per square foot. I suspect that the water that covered his property in June 2001 was primarily from the torrential rainstorms that had stopped at about the time I discharged water from the pool. • On the day of the June discharge, I spoke with Mr. Horvitz and explained what I had done and why. He showed me the poor condition of his driveway and garage foundation, which caused water to pool and flow in the wrong directions. IIe acknowledged at the time that if his concrete were not in such poor condition, the water would have flowed unimpeded into the Sunset drainage system. I went to the store and purchased a new broom for Mr. Horvitz to aid him in the removal of the remaining water pools in his driveway. • Noting Mr. Horvitz concerns, I purchased an oversized flexible line and installed fittings on the discharge pipe to enable me to spread the water over a greater area. T have since backwashed the pool twice, and have directed the water to all of the landscaping around the pool as well as the permeable area around the buildings (no adverse affects were suffered by the vegetation as a result of irrigating with the pool water). I believe Mr. Horvitz was at home and working in his yard on at least one of those occasions. I suspect that if Mr. Horvitz had noticed even a few drops of water on his property from my backwash, he would have called out the inspectors and documented the event in detail. Since he provided no information, I have to believe that the system is operating as designed and, contrary to Mr. Horvitz's unsubstantiated claims, his property is not being flooded by the backwash, This is consistent with the findings and conclusions of the City's inspectors. I hope the foregoing is helpful in putting this matter to rest. As a final matter, I wish to address the policy issue raised by this matter. I have a system that was designed and constructed in accordance with the then current City rules and regulations. The City inspected and approved the system when constructed. All of a sudden, without my making any changes to the system, based sole on an event which occurred on the day that the city experienced the worst flooding in its history and other unsubstantiated claims, it becomes the subject of investigation. If I suggested to you that my neighbor's house is over 50 years old and therefore has an out of date electrical system which could cause a fire which could spread to my house, would the city open an investigation, perform inspections, and if it didn't comply with the current code, require it to be updated? I don't believe that is current City policy, and I would suggest that if you followed that course, you would force people who could not afford the cost of updating to sell their homes. Yet, that is analogous to what has occurred with my pool system. I really just don't understand why I am being subjected to this, I sincerely request that you put a stop to this harassment by supporting the decision of your building inspector. Thank you for your consideration.