HomeMy WebLinkAbout10251974 ZBA Minutes~Q
SPECIAL MEETING OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OCTOBER 25, 1974
The Zoning Board of Adjustment convened in special session at the City
Hall on Friday, October 25, 1974, 7;30 p.m., with the following members
present: Chairman Dunn, presiding; Members Casey, Jahns, and Wilkins.
Member Johnson and Alternate Member Wissel were absent.
Mx. Dunn announced that the Board would hold the Public Hearing called
for this date and-.hour to consider an application filed by Mr. Robert
Speers, acting in behalf of Mr. Ralph M. Scott, owner, bearing Docket
Number 74-6.
Mr. Dunn requested that the secretary read the Notice of Public Hearing.
Motion by Mr. Wilkins, seconded by Mr. Casey, that the Pub lic Hearing
was now open to consider application filed by Mr. Robert Speers, acting
in behalf of Mr. Ralph M. Scott, owner of 6414 and 6416 Rutgers, to
allow an existing garage to remain where it is now located, and such garage
extends 1' 11" into the 3' setback created by the approval of an appli-
cation to divide the subject property by the Zoning and Planning Commis-
sion into two lots each 50ft. x 150 ft., each facing Rutgers. (Lot 5,
Block 29, WUP lst Add~a ion)
Voting Aye: Casey Voting No: None
Jahns
Wilkins
Dunn
Mr. Dunn introduced all members of the Board and the secretary.
The Chairman ascertained from the secretary that Notice of Public
Hearing was pub lished in The Houston Chronicle on October 11, 1974, and
that notice was mai led to all property owners within a 200 ft. raidus
of the property on October 11, 1974.
Mr. Dunn reviewed the responsibilities of the Board and administered the
oath to Mr. Speers, Mrs. Dorothy Dungan, real estate person handling the
sale of the property, and Mr. E. Gene Hines, Chairman of the Zoning and
Planning Commission.
The Chairman asked that a power of attorney for Robert T. Speer to act
for Ralph M. Scott be made a part of the minutes.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I, Ralph M. Scott, do hereby grant to Robert T. Speer, a
duly licensed attorney in the State of Texas, a Power of
Attorney limited to all matters relating and p~:rtaining
to the partitioning of the property located at 6414-6416
Rutgers, also known as Lot 5, Block 29, West Unviersity
Place First, Harris County, Texas, including, but not
133
limited to, appearance and application before the City
Council of West University Place, acquiring surveys of
said property for that purpose, and whatever physical
action is necessary to legally sever 6414 Rutgers from
6416 Rutgers.
~s,~
Dated this 4th day of September, 1974..
Mr. Speer stated that when he appeared before the Zoning and.'Planning-
Commission there were basically two ways to approach the subdivision -
with a stright line dividing the property in half or straight back to
=~ the. point where the garage exists and jogging around it; that it seemed
more desirable to the owner and prospective purchasers to have the straight
,~ line division, and that it would also save time as a new survey would
have to be made to jog the line, so he had applied to the .Zoning and
~ Planning Commission for the subdivision and it was granted subject to
meeting all setback requirements and other codes and ordinances of the
city. He said he had then applied to this Board for the exception '~
leave the garage wher it stands - 1' il" into the setback. He called
attention to the plat and said the breezeway and living quarters joined
to the south wall cif the garage would be removed to meet the setback
requirements on the north lot.
During questioning it was brought out that Mr. Speer had contracted to
buy 6414 Rutgers (the north one-half of the property) and another person
has contracted to buy 6416 Rutgers (the south one-half of the property);
that neither sale has been completed because of problems with subdivision
and also tenants at 6416 will have to be given proper time and notice
to move; that the property at one time was offered as:;-a package but be-
cause of financing difficulties it was contracted to two persons contin-
gent on the subdivision; that the garage appears to be the original
structure constructed when the house was built and there v~ould be little
or no difficulty in severing the breezeway from the garage; that the
wall itself is 1`1" into the setback with little or no overhang; that
removal of enough of the garage tt~cae~ the 3 ft. setback would result
in destroying. it for a two car garage as there was no way to move it
over due to the garage apartment attached to the north side of the garage.
(It was pointed out to Mr. Speer that he could no use the garage apart-
went for rental purposes under th Zoning Ordinance and. he said he was
aware of this.)
Mr. Hines, chairman of the Zoning and Planning Commission was asked
if jogging of a property line was a usual procedure. He advised that
in several years he had served on the Zoning and Planning Commission this
had only been done in one instance where a living area (part of a bed-
room) was in the setback and the line was jogged around it so that it
would not need to be torn off. He also stated the requirements for a
minimum lot according to the Zoning Ordinance is that it be a 50 ft.
at the building line and .contain 5,000 squ. ft. Mr.-Hines explained
that the Zoning and Planning Commission granted this subdivision sub-
ject to meeting all setback requirements, building codes and other
ordinances of the city, which is true in granting any sub@ivision, and
until these were met he did not consider that the subdivision was valid.
He stated they discussed with Mr. Speer the various way to dubdivide
the property and the most expedient way to overcome the prob lems; that
~~~
the original application to subdivide was with the straight line and
to avoid having another survey made with a jogged line and to save time
as w~.ll, as we understood time was of the essence, Mr. Speer chose to
submit his application to the Zoning and Planning Commission for the
straight line division and apply to this Board for an exception of
the setback requirement.
Motion by Mr. Casey, seconded by Mr. Wilkins, that the Public Hearing
to consider application from Mr. Robert Speet, acting in 'behalf of Mr.
Robert Scott, owner, of 6+14 and 6+16 Rutgers, to allow an existing
garage to remain where it is now located and such garage extend 1' 1"
into the 3 ft. setback .created by approval of an application to divide
the subject property by the Zoning and Planning Commision into two lots
each 50 ft. x 150 ft., each facing Rutgers. (Lot 5, Block 29, WUP lst
Addition), be closed.
Voting Aye: Casey Voting No: None
Jahns
Wilkins
Dunn
A short recess was declared at this time.
The special meeting was called to order with only the members of the Board
and the secretary in attendance.
The following points were covered during the discussion on the applica-
tion: whether or not the application meets the requirements of an "Appeal"
as it was not routed to them through the usual manner of being denied
a building permit from the Building Inspector; whose needs were being
served in this instance, the owner or the prospective buyer; would it
indeed constitute a hardship on the owner if the application was denied.
Two viewpoints were expressed especially in connection with whether or
not the application constituted an "Appeal" - one, that it did not because
it was not from a denial of a building permit so what was the applicant
appealing from, and the second viewpoint was that the decision of the
Zoning and Planning Commission subdividing the property subject to the
meeting of the ordinances and codes of the city constitued a denial 1.
and right for the owner. to appeal
Motion by Mr. Casey that the variance exception be granted prodded that
the breezeway is brought in compliance with the setback requirements
and the carport is removed and. that the garage roof line would be brought
back into normal alignment.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Motion by Dr. Jahns, seconded by Mr. Wilkins, that the request be denied
on the basis that the elements required for the granting of a variance
exception are not satisfied.
Voting Aye; Jahns Voting No; Casey
Wilkins
Dunn
Motion did not pass because of the requirement of the Board that motions
1
~I
fi
~3
'~
1
can only be passed with a four member vote.
Motion by Mr. Casey that the meeting be recessed until the next regu-
lar meeting of the Board or until arrangements can be made by the chair-
man for the Board to meet with the City Attorney concerning clarification
of certain points in the application., at which time the chairman may
call a special meeting.
Dr. Jahns made the suggestion that the motion be amended by adding
"to give further consideration to this application."
Amendment accepted by Mr. Casey.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wilkins.
Voting Aye: Casey
Jahns
Wilkins
Dunn
Voting No; None
With no further business to come before
motion duly made, seconded and carried,
p.m.
ATTEST;
j
C~~ /
Secretary
the Board at this time, upon
the meeting adjourned at 9;30
~ ,;
~~~
i hairman