Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09051990 ZBA Minutes. ' : . • : r ~. . t. i ,, . ~ -- ~ MINUTES FROM ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL HEARING , SEPTEMBER 5, 1990 • The Zoning Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:35 P.M., Wednesday, September 5, 1990, with Anting Chai~man.Ster.ling.Minor, Victor Hansen, Joe Webb, Robert Crain, Robert Heaton and Doris.Marshall present. Fiayne Perry, Chief Building Official, was also present. Members introduced themselves and procedures were explained. Those who wished to be heard were sworn in and legal notices were read. Mr. George Berg, Jr., of 6510 Sewanee, represented Mr. Robert Kendrick in this issue of determining if Mr. Kendrick's building permit for a new residence at 3628 Sunset should be revoked. After the City issued the pe'rmits -to Mr. Kendrick, it was determined that the west 20' of the property was in an easement and thereby violates the Zoning Ordinance. Reinstatement of the permit was requested by Mr. Kendrick due to the following reasons: 1) the public has no right to go on Mr. Kendrick's property, only the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) may; 2) he was granted the building permit and began construction at consid- erable expense to him - he relied on the City's action of issuing the permit and went forth in good faith. He also brought in a copy of the "Grant Clause to the HCFCD': and no portion of the building is actually on the easement, is adjacent only. Mr. Berg feels that if the City did misinterpret the ordinance originally, compensation is due Mr. Kendrick from the City. Mr. Berg also stated that the use of the ordinance is • a violation of Mr. Kendrick's civil rights. Mr. Berg also spoke to Professor John Mix of the UniversiCy of Houston Law Department, who is considered an expert on zoning issues, and the Professor agrees that this we~st 20' is not a public easement and hindrance to Mr: Kendrick will set the City up for damages. Sterling Minor questioned if the administrative action by the City or inclusion of the language of the ordinance is the problem. Mr. Berg _ said that both were a problem. The statute could be a problem if it gives the City the right to such restrictions. Mr. Berg feels the word "public" of an:"exclusive public easement",means the general public, not an agency of the public. Victor Hansen asked if it was originally a building site and Mr. Kendrick told him that one house and garage ~were across three lots. Mr. Kencrick stated that he spent quite a lot of time with Mr. Perry to determine subdivision of the lots, amount of coverage, design process, etc., before.a contract was made to even pur- chase the property. He also consulted with Mr. Perry several times after purchase~of.,the property. Mr. Bob Satterwhite, of 3602 Sunset, wrote a letter in favor of Mr. Kendrick. He felt the neighbors that stirred up this problem to begin with, were "self-serving and selfish ~t best". . Jim Daugherty, City Attarney, represented the City. He reviewed the zoning ordinance Section 5-101-B: exclusive public easement should not be included in the building site. Mr. Daugherty stated that this is ~ not a new interpretation of the ordinance. This is the first time this issue has come up with the ordinance. He asked Mr. Perry when this first came to his attention and Mr. Perry stated that it was 3-5 months ago and subdividing was considered to make two larger lots out of the existing three lots, but this did not happen. r . ~ ' `~ . Several similar sites were discussed that were built on Rice in the early 1980's. They were permitted under a different zoning ordinance. The current ordinance has been in effect since October, 1987. ~ • Mr. Kendrick's plans did go through normal plan checking procedures and easements were discussed then. The 15" overhang on the west side raised questions and Mr. Kendrick was asked to get a release from HCFCD. He advised that HCFCD would not write a letter for that as it was not neces- sary. The permit was issued but a disclaimer is on all building permits issued and it was signed by Robert Kendrick. Mr. Kendrick had piers poured already and support pilings have been in place. Some of the forms have been set. Neighbors began questioning the lot when the piers were poured, but the Zoning and Planning Commis- sion Chairman, Reid Wilson, determined there was no,violation at that time. Section 5-101 Building Sites was later determined to be where the violation was, by a new interpretation. HCFCD is a public entity under control of Harris County. The permit was revoked because the remainder of the lot (east 30') is too small to build on. Mr. Daugherty asked Mr. Perry when the problem became obvious, what could the City do? Mr. Perry said that the building official has the power to revoke a permit. A letter was sent to Mr. Kendrick on August 23, 1990, from Mr. Perry, for Mr. Kendrick to look into the problems that had been brought to light and mentioned also, that the permit might be revoked. Mr. Kendrick came to the Gity with questions and spoke to Mr. Perry and to P.olice Chief Steve Griffith on August 24, 1990. The Chief relayed questions that had been brought to his attention and possible problems to confront. The meeting with Mr. Kendrick, Chief Griffith and Mr. Perry • gave them an opportunity to discuss these things. The City sent a follow- up letter to Mr. Kendiick to let him know what the..City's stand would be: with a 20' easement, the building site would only be 30'. The meeting with the Zoning Board of Adjustment was requested by Mr. Kendrick and he requested'to have the meeting as soon as possible. Since he was leaving town that Sunday, August 26, 1990, the earliest possible date was fo.r•Wednesday, September 5, 1990, to allow ample time for legal notices to be posted and mailed to surrounding residents. A letter of opposition was received from Forrest Daniell, of 3611 Sunset. Several people appeared in person to oppose. Ross Biggers owns three lots across the street from Mr. Kendrick's property. He would like to see two 65' lots instead of 50', 50' and 30'. He feels that Mr. Kendrick should be reimbursed by the City for what he has built so far, but he should not be allowed to continue construction. Teresa Fogler, of 3610 Sunset, supports Mr. Daugherty's (City's) opinion and she brought in let- ters of oppositio~ from Marie Lawrence, of 3514 Sunset, and Mark Evans, of 3601 Robinhood. Murray Fogler, also of 3610 Sunset, stated that the spirit of the ordinance must be upheld. H. I~. Britton, of 3609 Alhans, thinks Mr. Daugherty is correct. Richard Mithoff, of 3423 Sunset, felt ~~~ the easement would not be effective if it's proper use is not maintained. , He also said that a permit is no'guarantee that everything is 1002 legal. . Unfortunately, there was a misunderstanding somewhere. Bob Giles, of ~ 3031~Georgetown, supports Mr. Daugherty's interpretation as well as the idea of`ieimbursement to Mr. Kendrick, but he also feels that construction • should stop. , • ~ , ~ . • ~.. ~ • ~ ~ ,% ~' ' • • Robert Heaton made motion and Joe Webb seconded to close the public portion of the hearing. Motion carried and there was a five minute break. Sterling Minor brought the meeting back to order at 9:30 to discuss the interpretation. The question seems to be the definition of "exclusive public easement". Exclusive means 'being the only one', so the exclusive user of the easement would be the HCFCD. Vic Hansen and Robert Heaton both said that they felt the City had made the correct.interpretation. , Motion was made by Robert Crain and seconded by Robert Heaton to adopt the interpretation of the ordinance made by the city: the west 20' of the property located at 3628 Sunset, is an exclusive public .'. easement and is for• the use of the HCFCD; it cannot be used as part of a building site, as per Section 5-101 B of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of West University Place. Motion carried unanimously. Joe Webb made motion to adjourn and Robert Heaton seconded. Motion carried and the meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. • ~ v; D.ocket No. 90-17 • . II~1~ OIZC TI[~ ZONING '~091RD Or I~DJUS'PMENT Or `Tl~l~ CI'1'Y Or WCST UNIVL'R5I'1'Y PL~11C~, T~X11S IN R~: APPrnL ~Or ~ROD~RT IC~NDRICIC I'ROM 11N 11DMINISTRII'I'IVL; ]\C'rION Or '1'll~ BUILDING OrFICIAL M~MORDIINUUM 11ND U~CISION On SeptemUer.~5, 1990, ~tie above-captioned matter came before tlie 7,oning 'Doa•rd ~ot Adjustmetit of ttie City of West University Place, Texas ("I3oard") sitting in special called session. The appellant, Mr.~RoUert lCendrick, appealed from an adminstrative decision.ot the ~uildiny official. The administrative decision was tl~e r.evocai:i.on oi a bui~.ding permit for a project located at 3G2f3 5unset. n copy ot the administrative decision i:s attached to tlii~ memora~ndum. ~1'I~e central question in the appeal was the interpretation of tl~~e pl~rase 'f~xclusive pub].ic easement" in Section 5-lOa~Q) ted on 1298, p tt~e zoning ~ ordinance of tlie City (Or~inance No. second reading on OcL-ober 12~ 1987). The Duilding Official and • tlte City 1lttorney aryued that the 20-foot lIarris County Flood Control~~~aseme~nt along clleasementound7.he appellantbarguedrthattY was an excl.usive publi it was not a•n "exclusive puUlic easement." I'ollowing~puUli.c notice and a lengtliy public hearinguestion I3oard unanimously deci.clecl tl~at the 20-foot easement in q ^w~s ~n ~~excl.usive publir. easement." 'rhe administrative decisa.on ot• L-l~e Building OtL•icial is therefore AI'FIRM~D• SiGN~D~ and ~~led •in tlie Board's of-tice this lst aaY °~ October , ].9 90 • .~1~t.c~~, ~j~G~,C iairman ~ ... ~ ~L' /~/ Y1~ milla~ AL'test: ,~U,~~z ~i..c .~4'"o t~;(t;f' 5ecretary : lliana Wrigl~t • 3611'.ty:deczUa