Loading...
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