Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06191985 ZBA Minutes185 REGULAR MEETING ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 19, 1985 The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Hest University Place con- vened in regular session at the City Hall on Wednesday, June 19, 1985, 7:36 P. M., with the following members present: Chairman Billings, presiding; members Opal McKelvey, Charles Lusk, Joann Padgett and Charles Crain. After ascertaining that Notice of Meeting had been posted in the City Hall on June 14, 1985, the Chairman introduced himself, stated his address and asked the other Board members to do the same.. The Chairman then ascertained that the Notice of Public Hearing had been published in the Houston Chronicle on June 3, 1985. The Secretary was asked to read the Notice: Notice is hereby .given that the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of West University Place, 3800 University Boulevard, Houston, TX 77005, will hold a public hearing on T~lednesday, June 19, 19$5, at 7:30 P. M., at which time it will hear persons desiring to be heard in connection. with an application docketed number 85-7 filed by George C. Morris III and involves the following property in West University Place, TX: E 50' Lot 6, Block 81, West University Place 2nd Addition, 3402 Nottingham The Chairman then proceeded to swear in_all..individuals present .wishing to speak at the Public Hearing. The first speaker was the applicant, George C. Morris IlI of 3402 Nottingham. rir. Morris explained his reasons for applying for a variance to allow him to build a fence which would extend onto the City street right-of-way. He dis- tributed a handout outlining the benefits of approving the request and showed the Board several pictures of the subject properties in order to sup- port his request. Chris Pappas, of 6139 Bordley, Houston, spoke in support of Mr. Morris' application. He also submitted affidavits from the following homeowners in support of the application: David [J. .and Michelle Hightower, 3323 Sunset Mary Rogers, 3414 Nottingham Mr. and Mrs. Vernon Eaves, 3408 Nottingham James K, Kahlden, 3419 Nottingham Margie and Mike Schwartz, 3324 Nottingham Rosemary Clowe, 3323 Nottingham Mr. and Mrs. R. H. Todd, 3405 Nottingham Chairman Billings read into the record .the following affidavit: My name is David W. Hightower.. I am a resident of the City of West University Place and reside.at 3323 Sunset Boulevard. Page 2 ZBA, dunne 106 19, 1985 It is my understanding that George C. Morris III, who resides at 3402 Nottingham has made application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance. Mr. Morris has advised me that he wishes to erect a chain link fence on the corner of his property in order to have a sufficient contained area for his three(3)young children and family pets. The erection of a chain link fence should not hamper or restrict the use and enjoyment of my property nor the. property of other neighbors residing in the area.. In fact, this will better insure the containment of family pets and the safety of Mr. Morris' young children. Based on the foregoing, I do not object to the variance which Mr. Morris has requested and heartily encourage the. Board to grant Mr. Morris' request. Following further .comments from Mr. Morris, Chairman Billings asked the Board members if they had any questions for the applicant. Ms. McKelvey asked how far off the property line the proposed fence would be. Mr. Morris said that he proposed to locate the .fence approximately 7' into the right of way. Chairman Billings asked about other construction on the property; Mr. Morris said that other than a privacy fence on the other side of the lot and the portholes for. the proposed fence, no work had been done. Mr. Billings also asked when the old fence had been taken down. Mr. Morris said that except for the posts, the old fence had been removed before he purchased the pro- perty. Ms. McKelvey asked if Mr. Morris had reviewed the criteria to be met in order for a variance to be granted. He said that he had not reviewed the require- ments with anyone, but that he understood that granting of a variance was based on a need standard. Chairman Billings said. that because the 'LBA had only been handling fences for a short. time, the members were not as familiar with fencing requirements as they were with other ordinances. He then reviewed the fencing ordinance. Others wishing to speak in favor were invited to do so. Harry Bristol, 3415 Sunset spoke in support of the application. Michelle Hightower, 3323 Sunset, said that although she was confident that the Morris family. would maintain the area, she was concerned about the liklihood of future owners of the property doing the same. Also speaking was Margie Swartz, 3324 Nottingham, who said that they had lived at their current address at the time when the old fence was still in existence and didn't see any reason why the proposed fence couldn't go in the same spot as the old one. Both Ms. Swartz and Ms. Hightower were sworn in before speaking, since they had not been present during the original swearing in. A letter from Mr. and Mrs. Vernon Eaves, 3408 Nottingham, in favor of the application, was read into the record: Regarding request of George C. Morris III to fence in a small area. of WUP City street right-of-way. We have studied the situation and see no objection to granting this re- Page 3 ZBA-June 19, 1985 quest. The area in question is maintained by the Morris family and it could be used to their advantage without interfering with the City street. We favor granting this request. Those wishing to speak in opposition were given the-opportunity. Ben Greene, from the West. University Place Inspection office cited Section 6, Paragraphs 40 and 46 of the Code of Ordinances as reasons for denial of the permit to erect a fence on property not owned by the applicant. After ascertaining that there were no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. After a short break, the Board reconvened to make a decision on the ap- plication. Chairman Billings suggested that the applicant might have. to follow a two-step process in order to build his fence, with the first step being his obtaining a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the second step being his obtaining, c~rmission from the City to use the right- of-way. After some discussion, it was moved by Ms. McKelvey that the variance be denied because literal enf~cement of the ordinance would not cause unnecessary hardship. The motion died for lack of a second. The Board discussed the possibility of granting the Morrises a variance to extend the fence into the right-of-way, but not the full seven feet that was being requested. Ms. Padgett asked if the applicant could possibly approach the City and ask to use the property. In that instance, she suggested, perhaps there would be no need for the ZBA to consider granting a variance. Chairman Billings suggested that rather than just sending the applicant to the City to ask permission to use the right-of-way, the Board might decide to deny the request, but to inform the applicant that if he could get permission from the City to use the right-of-way, he could then request a new hearing. The motion was then entertained. that application docketed 85-7 be denied because the applicant had failed to show a special circumstance and had failed to show an undue hardship would result from literal enforcement of the ordinance. However, if the applicant were to obtain from the City a lease or other right to use the property as proposed, then that would make a special condition and at that point, literal enforcement would create an undue hardship. Chairman Billings made a notion to hold a rehearing after the applicant had obtained a lease or right to use City property from the City Council and had advised the Inspection Department or Chairperson. The granting of a rehearing was concurred by Ms. McKelvey, Mr. Lusk, Joann Padgett and Mr. Crain. The rehearing would be called by the Chair- person at a convenient date. Therefore, at that point, the ZBA, upon re- hearing would grant a variance .upon the introduction of new evidence of the right. to use the property. The determination was to be contingent on the applicant's agreement to remove the fence on demand by the City for any use that the City might have. It was moved and seconded that the de- termination be so rendered. 'The motion carried unanimously. At this point, the applicant was informed of the Board's decision and was. invited to sub- mit a request for a rehearing, which he elected to do at that time. Page 4 ZBA-June 19, 1985 1~8 Minutes from past meetings were considered for approval. The minutes from the 2/15/84 meeting, the 9/19/84 meeting and the 2/20/84 meeting were ap- proved; minutes of the 4/16/83 meeting, the 3/25/85 meeting and the 5/15/ 85 meeting were returned for revisions. The meeting was adjourned at 9:31 P. M. -~~ --~"-_ _~ CHAIRMAN ATTEST: SECRETARY