Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02271947 ZPC Minutes15 a t ~INIITES OF REGULAR MEEmING ZONING:. AND PLANNING COA~ISSION THURSDAY'* FEBRUARY'27,1947 . A regular. meeting of the Zoning do Planning Commission was held on .Thursday, February 27,194?, at whidh meeting the fo11o-evng members were present:" H.E. Terry, Chairman ~.$oy Letbetter . O.CKing ~ra.~f.E.Ebering,Seoretary B~eeting was called to order by fir. H.E. Terry, Chairman, who ann.ouna~d a_quarum present s,nd the transaction;of'busin®ss in order. hrs. ~'~.E.Eberling acted as .secretary. Old Business.: Ladin & Lieberman - W.C.Horne merry announced to those present that this question was one that had been carried over from the previous Zoning & Pianning`Commssiors.and involved he violation of the ordinance providing that buildings be placed'3 ft. from the property 1~~The previous Zoning & Planning Coinrnission ha ,approved the placing of a house built for fir. Ladin'of.the firm of''Ladin ~C Lieberman by'Bog1e'& Callaway on the property line, the error having occurred in the survey of three lots owned by l~r.Ladin. 'The-present controversy waa'the result of a protest filed"by Mr~.C.~Iorne over the waiving of the restrictions Without proper; notification to him as the adjoining property owner. ...The present'Zoning & Planning C'ommigsion`attemptpd to .effect a concilation betwaen fir. Ladin and ISr,~,C, Horne. A few days prior 'to this meeting the Commission requested-a letter from ~r.'~m, E. Ladin-and one from I+~r. ~.C.Horne adgising the Commission`as to the progress made.''~e now have repliespfxam these gentlemen, and I will ask that Mr. O.C.~King, member of she Commission, to read these='letters`. . fir. King thenread"letter from Pdr. J.L.Abney, attorney fore~fir.~.C.Horne, dated ' February 26,1947, and letter from Adr. fin. E. Ladin dated February'25,1947: such letters-are attached and made a part ©f the minutes of this meeting. Iulr. Terry then-asked if these gentlemen were present. fir. Lieberman answered in~-the affirmative, stating that he was representing Mr. Ladin,' and 'asked that he be heard. _` He then said that they had made: their best effort to get together-with fir. Horne; but had not been successful. That they were ready to close''a deal with the party why°had purchased the house, that this party has waiting final inspection and approval of the utility connections to move into the house. _He.said he would`'appreciat'e the Zoning & Planning Commission following the ruling of th® pr evous'Comm~sion;`and allowing a final nspecstion and approval of the connection of'the utilities..;: fir. King sail hey thought'it hest, in the absence o`f fir. Horne' to' postpone ,a decision by the Commission, and hear further from fir, Horne 'before taking action, '' fir. Letbetter said that as he understood he stuation;`the final."a$'fer by Mr: Ladin was to purchase from A~r.'Horne 3 ft, of fir. Hornets lot at a price of,300,00 plus. ' the cost of the'survey that Mr, Horne had mad®`. lie s~.id that he thought two business men should haee_gotten together on this deal a longtime ago. 7°here was .some discussion and the final motion was ~sts:de by Bar. Letbetter as follow , seeondea by Bdrs. P/.E.Eberling 7.'hat ~m.E.Ladin, owner; or Bogle & Ca1la~ay,Bulders, be given permission to connect utilities to the house they have erected°on Lot 7, Block 2, Bissonnet Place, sub~ect_ to the u$ual final inspection required by the City of hest University Plao®, and` ..with-the understanding that they leave their :offer open for 3Q days for the purchase 16 _ ,' Minutes of Zoning & Planning Commission m®eting held Feb27,1947 -2- from ~l,C.Horne, of 3 ft. of land at-a price of X300.00 plus the cost of the survey: lt~eide by Mr. Horne, and with.. the -privilegegi~en to Mr. Horne to connect to the `! sewer line .they have laid at their own expense. ' 'Voting: O.C.Kng No. ', ~,~oy Letbetter !.ye. E A[rs~.E.Eberling,,: Aye. H,E.Terry Aye. The City Secreta.ry,, Mr, J.H. Brght,was present and Mr. Terry advised Adr. Lieberman to make application to the; City Secretarq for final inspection in the usual manner. The~Secretary was instructed to'advise Mr.~right by letter of he action of this Commission in .this respect. _ New Business: ~'etiton of Al LTCrystal, ~ttQrney, .for the waiving of restrictions own th®~est side of-~rby give exten~c ing from Plumb Str®e o em erton . fir; Terry stated that this petition was scheduled to be considers y e onng 8c Planning.Commission at this meeting, but that: the Commission had received a ~1®tter from Mr. Frank Campbell Fourmy, attorney and associate of, Mr. Al L.Grystal requesting,that consideration of the. petition be postponed due:-to the zllness of bar. Crys.tal,. tTpon motion bjr ~+Irs. Eberling, seconded, and carried, action on this petition i[as pos poned anti 1 -the next regular meeting of the ,Z oning & Planning Commission, Thursday,, Larch 27,.1947. . ~, Petition of A.B.~Pilliamson, et al for removed of .restrictions on Lots $ and 9 and ~~: parts .of Lots_ 7,and 10, Block 1, Kent lane econ ec.tion. r- .J Mr. Terry read the above .petition submitted by.-Cal4in B.Garwood, Attorney, in letter dated February 13,147. Mr. Garwood was present and stated that he wr~s representing the petitioners. Mr. A,B. ~tilliamson was also .present.. ' ;Mr. Terry asked if any citizens present ~rished to express themselves on'the petition. Mr;W. F.Ghselin asked to say a few words,, and stated that he would lik® to. ask whether or not the adoption of the Zoning. Ordinance over-rode deed restrictions,. He said that deed restrictions to hs.prpperty in the vic~.nity of the lots in, que tion restricted the property to single family dwellings, and he wanted to know whether or not those restrictions were offer-ruled by the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Bing said hQ;. t~iought, that. ryas a question fob the. City Attorney, Mr, Chilton Bryan, to answer..... ~ ' fir, E,L.~i llama of 6648 Buffalo S eedway was reeognized by the. chair and expressed imse f quite emphatically,.,as being; very much..against the action of the 'Coning &.' Planning'Commission in~hearing petitions for, waiving of restrictions set up in the Zoning Ordinance. `Ne stated "it seems that this quibbling is entirely uncalled for" and asked "why. are we continuously brought up here to listen. to petitions to waive' restrictions?" Mr. Chas.L.Cartwright was .then recognized by the chair. and said that he"thought Mr. 9Vi11.iams owed the Commission an apology in his criticism. ;That theft mere a body appointed,ta hear such petitions and were-serving without: pay and as smatter of civic. duty;. i Minutes of Zonin &iPlannin Commission meetin he~.d Feb Z7 1947 ,, 1?,~~ :,^ g g g ~ Mr. Terry then replied to Mr.~illiams by saying that the duty of the Zoning & Planning Commission was to h®ar applications for changes and to pass on changes which are t deemed by the'm~mbers of the Commission 'to be necessary as a result of injury o~ inequality of the law, and stated that the Commission could-not refus® to hear appli- cations for the waiving of restrictions. Mr. King said that it• was his understanding that the Zoning &•Planning Commission ~ could not take any action on this petition at this meeting because the `Coning Ordinanoe required. that public notice must be given. - Mrs. Eberling s aced t~iat it was her understanding"'that-it was not the-duty of the Zoning 8c Planning Commission to call a public hearing, but to only pass recommends- '~ tions on to the City Council, who°in turn would call a public: meeting in the event the Zoning-& Planning Commission recommended the waiving-of a restriction. The matter was referred to t~~e` City Attorney,` fir. Chilton Bryan,: who stated that' ~-- was his .understanding.. Mr. King said that ,in .view of this nterpratation,.':.and in view bf the fact that.. • the petition of A.B,~illiamson, et al_requested the waiving of restrictions in an urea definitely restricted to 'one-family dwellings, he made the motion that the 'petition be denied, and that it be 'referred to the City Commission. Mrs.~berling seconded 'the;motion. Voting as follows: O.C: King Aye ~f~Roy; Letbetter , .. .Aye Mrs.?'~R,Eberling Aye H, E ~ T err3* Aye There is appended to the minutes of this meeting ;and made a part hereof, certain findings of the Commission in connection with and in support of its dena~I of the above petition. - Mrs 'Gareoood gave notice that he would appeal'- this decision. ' Petition. of Ra1~h A. .Palmer. (Contractor), to Sower square feet requirement of house' on Lot 1,` Block 1, Colleg Court, to permit us.g of cot. r.. a mer a ng.pr.-®s~nt, this was discussed with`~him,Nand he was asked to bring to the Commission a plat of his lot,..and information on `the proposed construction, in order that the' Commission could more intelligently render a decision. ' Petition of Charles Broesche for construction of a low two story arc e'on Lot 6A 1ST Addition West University Place (6402 Mercer),. replacing present 1-1 2 car garage which he states is in very bad condition- cost of improvements, ~30~,00. _ > After discussion in which it was brought out that `there was no written ruling pro- , hibting°the con§truction of t~+ro story garages, which was confirmed by letter from Llrs'Louise Lueas,'Asst.City Secretary,'dated 2~26f47; and aft"erdiscussionwith Mr. Broesche, personallyt it was brought out that the proposed construction in this particular instance did not provide for a bath or any plumbing fixtures, ~. 'k .._.,-..f ._. _ ~, ~...~.~.. ~.-- --,~~ ,n _ _ .~ .~. 18' Minutes of meeting of Zoning,& Planning.CommiSSion held`.Feb.27,1947 _, ~, Mr. Ting then ,made the motion„that Adr. B roesche be granted permission to construct a twg"story garage in accordance with sketch submittedprowided alh other building requirements mere met, and with the further provision that Mr. Broesche file an affidavit at the City Hall that the garage room in ques ion xould not be used for living quarters other than as provided in the Zoning Ordinance cowering servants employed. on the premises,. and with the further provision in the motion that-.the City Secretary be instructed o place such affidavit of record with the County Clerk. A4rr, Terry asked the City Attorney,,I~.r. Chilton Bryan, to prepare such an affidavit,. which he said hewould do. Motion seconded by t~,Roy Letbetter. voting: O.C. Kind dye W~oY:Letbetter ,Aye Adrs. ~,E.Eberling Aye R. E. Terry Aye , Petition of J~eS G.Mc~iurt for remodeling permit 'to construct. two story era e on Lat 6, Block 67, .eat- iversty ace econd d ton, 3 2 Plumb treat. This petition was discussed along the lines of the,.previous`applioation for a-two story„garage. Mr. King made reco~mendation that permit_be given for the al. ernations, but -when it uses "pointed out that in this instance .the remodeling p ens called fora a complete set of plumbing fixtures, Mr. Kind withrew his motion and made the motion .than .the Commission defer action until we could talk to-Mr. ~eMurtry in person and secure furtherinformation. The secretary was asked to notify Mr McMurtry to,appea before the Commission at the next regular meeting on March 2.7.,1947. -Action on the following `matters was deferred, and the Secretary requested to write these parties requesting that they 'be present at the regular meeting of the Zoning ~ Planning.,`Commission March 27,1947; H.F~T~aylor -Lot~~in Block 13 West tniversity-First ®ddtion - 100. ft, on Belmont.: and 140 feet on Pittsburg -divide .into two lots - 50 x;140 ft. each - fronting.,on Belmont Street. ~' Raymond I,. MOSes,.associated w~.th Paul ~,Billingsl~ -,Bissonnetand Mercer = Tract 1; Block. 92,;'~Test University S~econd~d~'dition -divide into three lots -duplex on all .three lots. R.H,Schneder -Lot 1, Block 24, West University Place First Addition -Divide into threelots L , Charles War.3~er, 3740 Chaffin - Zot 14, Block 25, b'dest University Place First Addition divide lot into two 50 ft• lotsfrontng'on Duke Street,.. There being no further business t© come before the: meeting, upon motion duly made, seconded and carried,. the meetiltg wa`s adjourned. t _ ~ r/~ __~~" ----~ g~ SECRETAR ,~~ ~~ ~~ ~_ \ y& ;~W k;urold ~.Terry,C:~airman, mooning Commission, ==~st Juiversity ;'lace, hUaStOn,`Y'eXaS. JAS. L. AB N EY LAWYER CHRONICLE BUILDING HOUSTON 2, TEXAS February 26,1947• ..iy deter ~..r.'erry: ::r.~~.-.~ ~:rr,~o t.~s =,;ra.a~;~:t to my attention your letter +~1ti refere::~Ce tU ~..~ ~1~'.~ldl:l~ car~traversy bet1~"Jee;~~ ~-~ .i~udlil =ti`ld irmr. -or~~e i~l co;~.nection a=itii tr:e encroeciment rr;;~tter ,oetYdin~ before >'var ~a~rd. In irie last canfe~°ence ~~r.Ladin off~ared to pay ~~=r. carne ;~ 3vG.GG cash for a three foot strijc and to pay for the colt of ~ survey zt:7d to allow ~=r.~orne to connect ~rit~iout charge to the se~~er line ~~t-:ich +-r.Ladin hid inst~:tlled. %r .hor<Ye made us his best ~ro~osit ion sr~ offer to accept ;~ adG.vG cwsh f'or the three foot strip on condition that the boundary be .alainly marked preferably by a fence ~{na that he ~~ould b~~~:r one-raalf of the cost of the fence. In the hoae of 'bringing tiie parties together, ~iir. ~%:ilton Ury±~n geve up a goon portion of a Sunday afternoon to meet wit'r: ;~ir.Ladin and the writer cnd go over the situation as well :~s tYle actual premises:. 'here seer~_s to be nothing further which can be done. ~~s stated ~,t the outset of the controversy,~.r,horne doffs not t~ant to sell anything. ~:is agreement to reduce his price or negotiate ~~.s solely due to tree good off ices of your board and ~~.r.~ryan. ~:e regrets very mucri thrit he ~ as been seemingly in the ,position of having; e. "r:olc~-up" attitude but h~ w~.~ts me to a-sure you that sucYi is not tYie ce..se; that h;: at no time ~a~s consulted when tare fla.grantly£ negli~;er~t r.:ista.Ke ~,:;w.s mad°e or diseavared until he started tiffs o~~~ri survey; ~ icy that YiG ~xoes Loot ferel that Yie should be forced to sell e.t `.r,3r ,rice. ~r.~~or~:ie joins Vlitri me in thanking you for your food offices in tt; is rriatter. ~ s very truly, t ~[- Ji.'::H J~-S.I~i.~r3~ n u ~} r @ -;r`" . . a~~ WILLIAM 8. LADIN 4} 9 ? 9HYffiOII8 LIEBEHMAN ,~ ,~ IHVIN B. HQABNET i ~ Y 1 ~ a`~ ~ ~' ~ a. x. sT~ascEs • A.HHB6EL B ~ 1 y~ e 1 ~ ~ OHAHTEB 4-EB18 LADIN, LIEBEEMAN & BOAI3NET ATTORNEYS AT I.AW ESPE8608 HIIILDINO HOUSTON 2, TEXAS February 25, 1947 gr. Hal E. Terry, Chairman Zoxixg and Planning Commission City of West University Place Houston, Texas Dear Bar. Terry:. Ix response to year letter of February 23, 1947, please be advised that the writer has been unable to amicably agree with ~. Harxe on the price of the South three feet, (S. 3~) of Lot Six (6) ix Block Two {2) of Bissm~uaett Place ix the City of West University Place, Harris County, Texas. The last offer made by the writer to Mr. Horne was the sum of Three Hundred Dollars (~3U0.00) for the three feet, plus the cost of his survey, and ix addition thereto, Mr. Horne would have the privilege of tapping ix to the sewer line which the writer laid from Brewning Street across the rear fi'o feet (5') of Lots 7, 8, and 9 ix Bissonaett Place. fir. Horne turned. down this offer, and informed the writer, through his attorney, 1-~r. Abney, that he would accept not less than Five Hundred Fifty Dollars (550.00) ix cash for the three feet. The writer has made every xeasoxable effort t• dispose of this matter with gr. Horne, and trust that the Zoning and Planning Commission will see fit to issue its certificate, authori- zing the occupancy of the house ix question. Very truly yours, ~~--rte. ~ . ~ ~--~-.`~. William 'E. Ladix DEL: pb Fiad3.ngs of the Planning and Zoning Board made at tha meeting 'at the Oity Hall of Vest University Place on ~'rida~r, February 28, 1947 in connection with and in support of its denial of the application of H. B, 't~illiamson, fir,, A. B. ~lliamsoa, and Darthula W. Hooker, relieving the propert~r in question from the zoning restrictions of one. family dwellings to business and commercial property -community center - for exceptance to the present zoning ordinance deali~ig with Lots 8 & 9 & parts of Lots• 7 do 1Q, in Block 1 Kent lof t~ City o es - Univ®rsity '~ta'os and being .located oa tY North side of Bellaire Bouievard~ 3u:st hest of the Poor Farm ditch, as f ollevvs.: (i } Becausa the application of the parties in question, .though. purportedly dealing ~itY'i sa exception to the building code - building Ordinance 111 of West. University .Place ?~ did in f aet deal with a c omplate ame nd- ment to such Ordinance and not an exception in that such request moved the `planning. and zoning board to lift the building restrictions an such lots in question from that provided for bg the zoning ordinance referred to above :for -one family dwellings or one family occupaneg to commercial property,.. and hence, such request .was not in fact an ex- ception but in .fact called. for a legislative' aet on the part of the City Commission of Weat University Place. ~2 } Because such application and the efi'eat thereof would be to set up anew commercial and itrial section of West University Place and permit Qommercial building i.n a location ~rhere such is not nom psrmitt®d by the zoning ordinance and .would have the effect of setting up an additional comamercial building area or district not now.. permitted by the ordinance, all of which would ~on- stitute legislative action on the part of such board and not a,~ exception to any section of the building ordinance above" deferred to and hence, any action of the planning and zoning board other than a denial of such application would be void.. Y t3~ Because the proper body~a©orhars.d CitA application should be made is the Hon. ~ ~ Council rather than the planning and zoning board. (4 j Zn the alternative and only in the event. that this board did. in fact have authority: to pass and act.. upon such application then beoause of the ob3ectian of the property owners in the surrounding area,:... (5~ Because to grant the application. would permit an extetztion of non conforming.. use in a residential: one family area in violation of section 3 of the above described zoning ordinance ro~hich would n~onstitute :an exception which .the board had authority to grant, but on the contrary constituted a legislative change of such ordinance. (6) Because there bras no sho~vin~ bg file evidence .adduced before the I~aard'that such property was in any wise affected by any conditions of Yxealth or other- ~tise which would :keep t}a~e same from being used as residential property for: one family occupancy as it is presently zoned. The_ above findings ;clove been made by tha board and entered in the minutes` of the board as apart of the above described wring and action of the board upon such. application. _ _rma~