Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09161981 ZBA Minutes~J REGULAR MEETING ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 16. 1981 poi The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the"City of iVest University Place convened in regular session at ..the City Hall, September 16, 1981., 7:30 p.m., with the fo1- lowing members present:- Chairman Billings, presiding; rlembers Fougerat and Fro.- men; Alternate members Frahm and Kendrick appointed to sit in the absence of two members. Building .Inspector Perry was also present. Motion by Mr. Kendrick, seconded by Mr. Frahm, .that. public hearing to consider application docketed #81-4 .from Mrs. Kathrine Stokes on Lots 1 ~ 2, Block 3 Rice Court Addition 31.31 Lafayette to designate Lot 2 as a-residential building ite, be opened. Voting Aye: Billings Voting No: None Fougerat .Frahm Fromen Kendrick It was. ascertained from the secretary that notice of .meeting was. posted in the City Hall on Friday, September 11, 1981 and that Notice of Public Hearing was published in The Houston Chronicle on August 28, 1981 and. Notice to Interested Property. Owners mailed on August 28, 1981. Chairman Billings introduced himself and gave-his address. in the city followed by other members, explained the procedure to be followed .and administered an oath to those in the audience desiring to speak on the application. Mr. Dave Edgar identified himself as a friend and neighbor of Mrs,. Stokes speak- ing in her behalf and stated that he had lived at 3121 Lafayette for several years, now lives outside .the city and is a x ealtor. He stated that the house existing. on Lot l was built in 19.31,. that the ordinance (zoning) requiring that structures be three feet off the property line was passed in 1937, that the Stokes' bought the two lots in 1945.: He stated that Mrs.. Stokes spoke with the Inspection Department about the sale of the lots to ascertain if Lot 2 could be built on and afterwards submitted a survey which determined that the existing house is 2.70 ft. from the common side property line between Lots l ~ 2 and that she was advised since the house was not three feet from the property line that Lot 2 was not a buildable lot and she-would have to seek a variance before a permit could be issued to anyone proposing to build on .same.: Mr. Edgar pointed out that if the two lots had been under separate ownership and the owner of Lot 2 applied for a permit to-build, he would not be denied and therefore Mrs. Stokes should not be denied the selling of this lot for a residential building site. During discussion with Mrs. Stokes and bir, Edgar it was ascertained-that a small reflection pool extends onto Lot 2 and a portion of a walk and terrace; that to her knowledge the two-lots had always been under common ownership. The following,communcations were read into the minutes: 102 "I have an invalid and cannot attend the meeting. I am in ..favor of whatever Kathrine Stokes wishes. Jeanette Kroning. 3105 Lafayette." "As I understand it, five inches of ground are involved,. correct? I think the request should be granted.- Marcia L. Draper, 3127 Plumb." Building Inspector Perry stated that the zoning ordinance requires a building to be built three feet from the side property line and this being used as a common building sire under common ownership over the yearsour feeling is that it should go to this Board to make an exception. on the side setback so that the lot could be sold and used as a building site. During further discussion, the applicant was asked if a special provision was made by this Board in granting an exception that no subsequent building con- structed on Lot 2 would be placed no closer than six feet of the existing struc- ture on Lot-l, would this be agreeable? The applicant answered affirmatively. Motion by Mr. Frahm, seconded by Mr. Fromen, that public hearing be closed. Voting Aye: Billings Voting No: N Oze Fougerat Frahm Fromen Kendrick Motion by bor. Kendrick, seconded by Mr. Fromen, that public hearing to con- sider docket #81-5 from James A. Shields on East 50 ft, of Lot 2, Block 46 bVest University Place 2nd Addition 3409 Amherst to allow a deck to remain one foot six inches from the property line, be opened. Voting Aye: Billings Voting No: None Fougerat Frahm Fromen Kendrick The chairman ascertained from the secretary that Notice of Public Hearing was published in The. Houston Chronicle on August 28, 1981 and Notice to Interested Property Owners mailed on August 28, 1981. The following written information was presented by Mr. Shields concerning his application: "FACTS CONCERNING SHIELDS' DECK 3409 Amherst 1. In January 1981, Shields retained Dwight Sherry,. an architect, to design a two bedrooms,, one bath addition to the house at 3409 Amherst. 103 2. During the execution of this design, Sherry called the West University Inspection Department to ask specifically about the location of an outside air conditioning unit. At that time, Sherry also asked about other res- rictions but did not specifically mention the deck. He was told to sub- mit his glands and any descrepances-would be noted at that-review. 3. Sherry designed a deck. in the rear of the house inside the fence and coming to 1?-feet of the property line, The deck is approximately two feet above the ground... 4. On or about July 1, the plans were submitted. to the West University inspection office and approved with some modifications, but the deck was overlooked. 5. Some time around mid-August, the contractor - Travis Enterprises - built the deck as per the plans. ,~, 6. After the deck was built, West University inspector was at the house to check the electrical work and noticed that the deck was closer than 3 feet to the property line. 7. I called Mr. Perry and-asked what. could be done since any modification would. cost me money. He suggested that I should try to apply for a variance to the City ordinance. 8. Although my neighbor could not be here tonight,. he offered to write a state- ment that in no way does he find the deck objectionable. The drainage in the area has not been altered at all and the deck is not visible from any where bu my back yard." Mr. Shields reviewed the written presentation as it concerned the deck, submitted pictures of the deck a.rd plans which were presented to the inspection office and stated that. the approved plans indicated the deck and he assumed since they wer approved it could be built in the manner shown. During discussion with Mr. Shields it was ascertained the manner in which the deck was built, i.e., posts set in concrete at the side towards the property line, that the deck had been an item which was "on again, off again', and that there was pressure from both the contractor and A4r. Shields for fast approval of the plans. In answer to questioning from Mr. Billings as to Mr. Shields' alternatives if the application was denied, Mr.. Shields replied that he had not investigated an al- ternative because he could not imagine that a variance would be denied. He was advised that the burden-of proof is on the applicant to show he is entitled to a variance. Building INspector Perry stated that the zoning ordinance .requires that no struc- ture shall be located closer than three feet from the property line. He said in the haste to get the plans processed and approved he overlooked the deck. He also submitted the building permit issued. for .the remodeling and pointed out that the deck, nor square footage of deck, had been included on the permit as'issued. Motion by Mr. Frahm, seconded by Mr. Fromen, that public hearing be closed. Voting Aye: Billings Voting No: None Fougerat Frahm Fromen Kendrick io4 In considering docket #81-4 from Mrs. Stokes., Board members discussed whether they had authority in the matter, what actually is being requested, i.e., desig- nation of_Lot 2 as a building .site and/or variance of Lot 1 for the side set- back, pre-existing conditions and their influence,. status of separate and common .ownership, and reviewed the zoning ordinance in regard to special ex- ceptions. Motion by Mr. Kendrick, seconded by Mr. Fromen, that predicated on Mrs. Stokes; request that we have no other obligation than to designate Lot 2 as a buildable site since it meets all the requirements spelled out in the ordinance, that due to the fact that the residence located om Lot 1 was apre-existing condition, it would fall under the category of a special exception and be allowed to remain 2.07' from the east property line,. but that we make a special proviso on Lot 2 that says no structure shall be built any cloaser than six feet to the wall now existing of the building on Lot 1. Members discussed-requiring that any condition on the properties be made of re- cord, further discussed authority of the Board, special exceptions and separate and common ownerships. Mr. Billings suggested that the motion be worded as follows: Motion that an exception or variance be granted for Lot 1 on the condition that the applicant agrees that on Lot 2 no structure will be built less than six (6) feet from the existing structure on Lot 1 and no closer than three (3) feet to a property line and 'that such condition be made of record. Mr. Kendrick and Mr. Fromen both accepted this wording. Voting Aye: Billings Voting No: None Fougerat Frahm Fromen .Kendrick Board members reviewed application docketed #81-5 from Mr. Shields specifically discussing the manner in which the deck is constructed and how it could be brought into conformity and responsibility of homeowner, architect, and contractor for correction. Chairman Billings entertained a motion that due to the fact the applicant failed to show undue hardship in not meeting the requirements of the ordinance as far as a variance is concerned that the appeal in doc~Cet #81-5 to allow an outside deck to remain one foot si inches from the property line one East 50 ft. of Lot 2 Block 46 West University Place 2nd Addition 3409 Amherst be denied. Mrs. Fougerat moved the motion. Mr. Fromen seconded the motion. 105 [1 i Voting Aye: Billings Voting No: None Fougerat Frahm Fromen Kendrick Minutes of the regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment on August 19, 1981 were approved as presented. With no further business to come before the Board, upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. __._. Chairman ATTEST: L Secretary