HomeMy WebLinkAbout06052025 BSC Agenda Item 3 City of
West University Public Works Department
Place p
To: The Building and Standards Commission
From: Chuck Sandifer, Chief Building Official
Date: June 5, 2025
Re: Requesting a variance to rebuild a fence in its current location,which is outside the property
line to encroach 4.8 feet into the city's right-of-way on the west side of the property.
Background Information:
The City of West University Place received a permit to replace a fence that was damaged in July 2024 during
Hurricane Beryl. Upon receipt of the permit application staff noted that the proposed location of the new
fence was beyond the property line and positioned in the city's Right-Of-Way (ROW). Staff informed the
applicant that constructing a new fence beyond the property boundary is prohibited and the new fence must
be in compliance with the current codes.
The applicant submitted a variance request to the Building and Standards Commission(BCS) on February
18, 2025, requesting consideration for their application and permission to replace the fence in its previous
position. In its previous position the fence encroached into the city's ROW 4.8 feet.
Staff notes that in addition to the determination of the BSC,the applicant will still be required to obtain an
agreement from the City Council in order to construct the fence in its previous location.
Applicable Regulations:
• Sec, 74-2. Definitions.
Right-of-way shall mean area on, below, or above a street, sidewalk, alley, waterway, or utility easement in
which a governmental body has a legal interest. The term does not include the wireless telecommunications.
• Sec. 18-201.—Property Lines.
It shall be the responsibility of any person who constructs a fence, or causes it to be constructed, to locate the
fence within the property lines.
• Sec. 70-200.—ROW fees.; (a)
3826 Amherst St. www.westutx.gov
West University Place, TX 77005
713-662-5830
City of
West University Place Public Works Department
In general. Each user shall compensate the city by payment of a ROW fee as provided below. Exception:
This requirement does not apply to telecommunications facilities, to the extent fees are prohibited or
preempted by V.T.C.A., Local Government Code Ch. 283.
Staff Report:
Staff is charged with being stewards of the public domain. As a matter of accountability staff must prohibit
the "granting" of public land for private interest. Staff is bound by the legal regulations and standards that
prohibit permitting a fence beyond the boundaries of the applicant's property.
Staff has conducted a site visit with the City Arborist, Building Inspector, and Assistant Director of Public
Works. Upon the direction of the City Arborist, a fence can be built on the property line without damaging
the existing tree. His recommendation required sections of the fence line to be "hand dug"to protect the
roots but the position of the fence is capable to be in accordance with standards and regulations.
Staff submits that although this fence has been positioned beyond the property line prior to the receipt of the
permit application that it should be brought into compliance at this time. We are at the nexus of a non-
compliant feature and an application to reconstruct said feature, now is the time to most seamlessly bring this
feature into compliance.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the BSC deny the variance request. Staff has received input from the City Arborist who
has determined that the fence can be constructed in a compliant location without damaging the existing tree
and staff is bound to prohibit construction of a fence in the public domain intended for private interest.
Sec. 18-20. Variances.:
a) Generally. The BSC has limited authority to issue variances from ordinances subject to its appellate
authority or quasijudicial enforcement authority.
b) Applications.Any person who is restricted or regulated by the provision of the ordinance in question may
apply for a variance. However, the application must either be signed by the owner of the property
involved or must be accompanied by written proof that the person who does sign has specific authority
from the owner to apply for the variance sought.Applications for variance must be made upon forms
prescribed by the building official, must be complete, must be signed under oath, must be accompanied
by the fee prescribed by the city and must be filed with the building official. The application must
include the following:
3826 Amherst St. www.westutx.gov
West University Place, TX 77005
713-662-5830
City of
West University Place Public Works Department
1) The particular requirement, cited by section and paragraph number, from which a variance is
sought.
2) The nature of the hardship imposed by the requirement.
3) Any proposed condition, alternative method or procedure to be followed in lieu of the
requirement.
4) The effect of the requested variance, upon the city as a whole and upon nearby residents and
properties.
5) The estimated cost, in dollars, of complying with the requirement.
6) Other items required by the building official or the BSC.
c) Handling; notice. The building official shall transmit applications to the BSC, which has sole authority to
issue variances. If the building official determines that an application would possibly have a significant
effect upon other properties or persons, the building official shall attempt to provide notice to such
persons prior to the time when the BSC will consider the variance. Such notice may be given by
publication,posting or mail, as the building official may determine.
d) Permissive factors. In considering a variance, the BSC may take the following into account:
1) Whether the variance will assist in the protection or preservation of historic structure or in the
protection or preservation of old stock housing(as such housing then exists or as it may be
proposed to be remodeled or expanded).
2) Whether the application involves remedial work necessary to bring a structure into compliance
with applicable ordinances.
3) Whether there are other similar circumstances in existence.
e) Mandatory factors. In considering a variance, the BSC shall take the following into account:
1) Whether the applicant has made an earnest, good faith effort to comply with the requirement.
2) Whether the applicant brought the matter to the attention of the city on his own motion, without
intervention or enforcement action by any city official.
3) Whether alternative methods or procedures will achieve the same, or substantially the same, result
as literal compliance with the requirement.
f) Required findings. The BSC may not issue a variance unless it affirmatively finds all of the following:
1) The imposition of the requirement imposes an exceptional hardship upon the applicant. It is the
general intent of this section that financial cost, alone, would not ordinarily constitute an
exceptional hardship.
2) No reasonable and feasible method or procedure is currently available to comply with the
requirement.
3826 Amherst St. www.westutx.gov
West University Place, TX 77005
713-662-5830
City of
West University Place Public Works Department
3) The imposition of the requirement is unjustified because of good and sufficient cause
demonstrated to the BSC.
4) The variance will not introduce or increase any threat to public health or safety.
5) The variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance in question.
6) The variance will not cause a nuisance and will not unreasonably interfere with the use of nearby
property.
7) The variance will not cause a fraud to be worked upon the public or any individual.
8) The variance will not cause an increase in public expenditures or budgets.
9) The variance will not create an irreconcilable conflict with any other ordinance, law, rule or
regulation.
g) Form of variances; conditions; recordation.No variance is effective unless it is in writing and signed by
the duly authorized officers of the BSC. The BSC may impose restrictions or conditions upon
any variance and may require that notice of a variance be recorded in the real property records of the
county, at the expense of the applicant.
h) Effect of variance. Variances do not create any property right or vested right. Variances remain subject to
the regulatory control of the city. When a variance has been issued, the building official may not deny a
permit because of noncompliance with the requirement affected by the variance,provided that all
conditions are complied with. It shall be an affirmative defense, in any proceeding to enforce the
requirement, that a variance was issued to authorize the conduct in question, that the variance has not
been modified or revoked and that all applicable conditions have been fully observed and complied with.
i) Revocation; modification. The BSC may revoke or modify any variance previously issued, provided that
a good faith attempt is first made to notify the person who applied for the variance.
3826 Amherst St. zvww.westutx.gov
West University Place, TX 77005
713-662-5830
• I
OF 3yE57 uryj`figS
City of West University Place
,.
r,
APPLICATION TO THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS ("CITY")
TEXAS
Address of site: -2-1 3 g 7?L) b b 1t .fi tr- --
Legal description of the site: LT ` v
off'14 1 -$ -LI.A5 G tu.(1--r
Applicant: A W L -( 4 U: 1k kw'5
Address: 213 TA-1101) SiYi 1 -H DU 51ev , Th. 't-L D DS-
Contact: ( I I'y 6 1,011 Li.A.vv13
Phone: /; a.'4-1144.59_ ' 5 Fax:
Email Address: C O IA'II e.1/LA)Au'Z.rY1 5 t4L> q of 041. co ry
Decision or Action Requested(check one or more and provide requested data):
( ) Appeal. Hear and decide an appeal from an order, requirement, decision or determination made by the building official (or
other administrative official)of the City.
• Name and title of the administrative official:
• Is the official's action in writing? ( ) Yes; ( )copy is attached. ( ) No, but the action appealed is as follows:
• When was the action taken? Note: Appeals must be filed within a reasonable time. Please explain any delay
below:
• Exact code of ordinance section(s)involved:
• Grounds for appeal:
( ) Special Exception.
• Exact code of ordinance section that authorizes the special exception:
• Exact wording of special exception requested:
( Variance.
• Exact code of ordinance section from which a variance is requested: S-t . • 1 Q- Ik Se-!-' I.1?).' c)--D--S
• Exact wording of variance requested:
Rex Ail%3,i '.0►-, -ro re.\O f zr,Le, iY1 (*).rC C i I Di-6-1\3Y.' ota-V AL P "v f e
Other Data. Are there drawings or other data? ( )No ( es (list items here and attach them)
State of I eXCIS County of 1 I>' tY-t
This,instrument was acknowledged before me on E�vXw (' 20�`,
by cc .-z, ‘1k.t v' .
g1/4,e,�l YODALI SIOMARA GUZMAN
:Notary Public, State of Texas
=�, `Q= Comm. Expires 09-07-2027
_.ntt Notary ID 134544778 ---.-
, Notary Public
*****$500 FILING FEE. PROVIDE ORIGINAL PLUS 15 COPIE' (16 TOTAL) OF ALL SUBMITTALS*****
Signature of applicant: Date: 2 ) 3 / 2 c 2e
For Staff Use only Date filec 51 t •(.J.��te'heard: \ON? 1 ocket#:V�� CS'VODD
Form BSC-102
• •
Dear Members of the Buildings and Standards Commission(BSC),
We, the owners of 2738 Talbott Street, respectfully submit this variance request regarding the position of
our fence. Our request is to rebuild our damaged fence in its current location,where it has stood
for more than 20 years,which is outside our property line in the City's right-of-way. We will
present that granting this variance will allow us to protect a historic tree; cause no harmful impact to the
City or any neighbor; and protect ourselves and our neighbors from an unnecessary risk of hardship.
In the following materials,we address each of the nine variance statutes laid out by the BSC. We have
done our best to answer each question with as much detail as possible,to ensure there is no question that
our request strictly adheres to each requirement. The following materials include:
1) BSC Variance Application
2) Exhibits A and B—Independent reports from certified arborists,Davey Tree and ArborTrue
3) Exhibit C—Background on the position of the fence& letters from prior owners of the property
4) Exhibit D—Property Survey
5) Exhibit E—Letters of support from neighbors
6) Exhibit F—Financial Burden Estimates
Additionally, we encourage you to visit our property to view the tree, easement, surrounding easements,
and fence position for yourself. We believe when you see it in person,you will truly understand the
unnecessary risk that moving our fence 4.8 feet onto our property line would cause,and how our desire
to protect the tree comes at no impact to our city or our neighbors.
As a couple, this is our third home to own in West University. We have lived here for 12 years together,
and Caroline has lived in West University her entire life. We love supporting the community through the
Park Lovers Ball,West University Little League, Cub Scouts, and our local school. We love our lot,
caddy-corner to Whitt Johnson Park. Our home serves as a communal gathering point for friends when
they visit the park, with an"open back door policy"allowing children to enter our yard from the park for
a glass of water or AC break. Our backyard has hosted birthday parties and is home to our beloved
golden retriever Sophie. The stately tree has held swings and multiple pinatas for our children,and
provided endless hours of shade for backyard play in the summer. We love our neighbors, who are like
family to us, and plan to live and raise our children here for years to come.We do not wish to remove
the historic tree,but we also cannot risk damage to our home by building a fence that cuts into the tree's
root zone. All we ask is that we are able to leave our fence where it has stood for 20+years.
We brought this matter to the city on our own volition, without intervention or enforcement. We have
followed all City protocols over the past eleven months, cooperating with the Public Works Director,
City Manager, and Inspector. We have done our due diligence in gathering quotes and opinions from
fence companies and external arborists, at our expense. We have spoken to countless neighbors, secured
a new property survey, and worked to be in complete compliance with all City requests.At this point, we
have put hours of our own time and thousands of our own dollars into this process. We have faith in our
volunteers and elected officials, and we hope the BSC will see our request as a way to preserve our
scenic community, with honesty and transparency. Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Caroline and Edward"Ward"Williams
Page 1 of 1
• •
BSC Variance Application-Williams Family-June 2025
This application is submitted on behalf of the Williams family for a variance from sections of the
City of West University Place Code of Ordinances: Sec. 18-201, which mandates that fences be
located within property lines, and Sec. 18-203,which requires boundary fences to be constructed
immediately along the property line or as close as practicable to it. This variance is sought to
permit an existing residential fence, located at the Williams family's property at 2738 Talbott
Street, to remain in its current position, which includes a partial encroachment upon a municipal
easement or right-of-way, and therefore deviates from the strict placement requirements of Sec.
18-201 and Sec. 18-203. This application will illustrate how affirmative findings for each of the
nine points collectively satisfy the City of West University Place's Buildings and Standards
Commission established tests for the approval of a variance.
This application is substantively supported by detailed arborist reports from the reputable firms
ArborTrue and Davey Tree(Exhibits A&B), a comprehensive History of the Fence which
includes statements from previous owners,the Frew and Athon families (Exhibit C), Site Survey
(Exhibit D),Letters of Support from Neighbors (Exhibit E), and Financial Burden Estimates
(Exhibit F). These documents are incorporated herein by reference and are appended as exhibits
for the Board's review
The Williams family will demonstrate that all requisite criteria for the granting of this variance
are satisfied. The argument will systematically address nine specific points, establishing a clear
and compelling case for approval.
Affirmative Statements Supporting Variance Approval
1)The imposition of the requirement imposes an exceptional hardship upon the applicant.
It is the general intent of this section that financial cost,alone,would not ordinarily
constitute an exceptional hardship.
The requirement to remove or relocate the existing fence to strictly comply with Sec. 18-201
(location within property lines) and Sec. 18-203 (construction along property lines) imposes an
exceptional and unnecessary hardship upon the Williams family. This hardship is not merely
financial but stems from a confluence of unique physical conditions of the property,the long-
standing nature of the fence, and the substantial, detrimental,and largely non-recoverable
impacts that strict compliance would entail.
The unique conditions of the property are most notably characterized by the presence of
significant, mature trees.As documented in the arborist reports from ArborTrue and Davey Tree
(Exhibits A and B),the current location of the fence is intrinsically linked to the preservation of a
valuable, 100-year-old tree. These reports identify the specific tree, its species, age,health, and
substantial contribution to the aesthetic and environmental quality of both the property and the
surrounding neighborhood. The arborists have determined that the fence, in its current alignment,
protects critical root zones; and relocation to achieve strict ordinance compliance would
necessitate destructive trenching or post-hole digging within these zones, leading to irreversible
Page 1 of 11
• •
BSC Variance Application-Williams Family-June 2025
damage, decline, or the outright removal of this irreplaceable natural asset. The loss of this tree
represents an environmental and aesthetic hardship far exceeding simple monetary
considerations. The estimated cost to remove this tree, should its health be compromised by
fence relocation, is greater than$30,000(see Exhibit F: Financial Burden Estimates).
The "History of the Fence" (Exhibit C) further illuminates the nature of this hardship. The fence
was constructed over twenty years and three homeowners ago, and the hardship is not self-
created by the Williams family. The Williams have reasonably relied on the fence's current
location for ensuring the safety of children and pets,providing essential privacy due to the lot's
configuration, and defining a usable yard area made necessary by the property's topography and
the extensive canopy of the tree.
While financial cost alone may not constitute exceptional hardship,the totality of the costs
associated with fence's removal and relocation to comply is significant. These are not speculative
costs but direct consequences: fence demolition, new fence construction in a less desirable and
potentially damaging location, extensive landscaping repair and attempts at tree mitigation
(detailed in Exhibits A and B), possible regrading of the yard, and the substantial costs of
reworking established irrigation and drainage systems. The estimated incremental financial
burden associated with moving the fence to the property line alone starts at$11,000 and could
easily approach$50,000 with engagement of a landscape architect to overhaul the useable yard
space(see Exhibit F).
The hardship is a complex interplay of physical site characteristics,the historical context of the
improvement(including the experiences of prior owners),and the disproportionately negative
impact—both financial and non-financial—that strict ordinance enforcement would precipitate.
The arborist reports are critical in transforming what might be perceived as a mere financial
concern into a demonstrable environmental and aesthetic hardship, with consequent financial
burdens that are unavoidable if the tree is to be protected.
2)No reasonable and feasible method or procedure is currently available to comply with
the requirement.
The Williams family have diligently explored alternatives to the existing fence configuration and
have concluded that no reasonable or feasible method or procedure is currently available to
comply without incurring the exceptional hardship detailed above or creating new, equally
adverse consequences.
The impracticality of relocating the fence is a central finding, heavily substantiated by the expert
opinions contained within the ArborTrue and Davey Tree reports(Exhibits A and B). These
professional arborists have concluded that moving the fence to a location entirely within the
property lines and along the boundary as required by Sec. 18-201 and Sec. 18-203 would
necessitate construction activities directly within the critical root zones of a mature,protected
tree. Such disturbance would inevitably lead to severe stress,decline, and probable death of this
Page 2of11
• •
BSC Variance Application-Williams Family-June 2025
tree, which is a significant asset to the property and the community.An alternative is not
"reasonable" if it merely substitutes one significant hardship(loss of easement use by the City,
which is not currently occurring) for an even greater one(destruction of valuable private
property in the form of mature tree and loss of usable yard space for the Williams family).
The "History of the Fence" (Exhibit C), incorporating statements from previous owners, may
further indicate that the fence was originally sited in its current location for specific,practical
reasons that remain valid today, such as to consciously avoid damaging the then-younger root
systems.
Consideration was given to alternative fence types or materials for the current location. However,
the fundamental issue is the fence's location in relation to the property lines as mandated by Sec.
18-201 and Sec. 18-203 and its encroachment into the easement. Moreover, such alternatives fail
to meet the Williams family's legitimate needs for security for children and pets and reasonable
privacy. This demonstrates that the Williams family have considered various design options in an
effort to meet the minimum requirements,a consideration pertinent to variance requests.
Due to the unique "special conditions" of the Williams property the irreplaceable mature tree,
the lot's specific topography,and the existing layout of improvements there is no practical
"design around" solution that would allow for ordinance compliance without imposing the severe
hardships previously outlined. The arborist reports effectively serve as expert testimony on the
practical limitations imposed by the trees, confirming that construction activities necessary for
fence relocation would violate best practices for tree preservation and are therefore not feasible if
the trees are to be saved.
3)The imposition of the requirement is unjustified because of good and sufficient cause
demonstrated to the BSC
The demand for strict compliance with Sec. 18-201 and Sec. 18-203 of the Code of Ordinances,
necessitating the removal or relocation of the Williams family's fence, is unjustified in this
specific instance due to good and sufficient cause. This cause is primarily evidenced by the
fence's long-standing and uneventful existence, its harmonious integration with the property and
the surrounding environment,and the conspicuous lack of any demonstrable negative impact on
the easement's utility or the broader public interest.
The "History of the Fence" (Exhibit C) is paramount in establishing this good and sufficient
cause. It details that the fence has been in its current location for over twenty years without
incident. During this extensive period,it has not caused any operational problems for the City,
interfered with the intended use of the easement(e.g., utility access or maintenance, if that is the
easement's purpose), nor has it generated complaints from neighboring property owners or City
officials. Indeed,the Williams family has received multiple letters of support from their
immediate neighbors, who attest to the fence's harmonious presence and lack of any negative
impact(see Exhibit E). If the easement is designated for public utilities,the fence does not
Page 3 of 11
• •
BSC Variance Application-Williams Family-June 2025
impede access; for instance, existing gates provide adequate access and utility providers have
historically accessed the easement without issue, while the specific area of encroachment is not
critical for accessing key utility infrastructure.
Exhibit C summarizes prior communications with the City and explains the circumstances that
precipitated the current enforcement action. The current demand for compliance represents a
shift in administrative approach or interpretation, rather than a response to a persistent problem
caused by the fence itself. This context is vital in arguing that the "fault" is not with the Williams
family's fence, which has coexisted peacefully with the easement and property lines.
Furthermore, as will be detailed under point 5,the fence, while technically encroaching and not
strictly on the property line as per Sec. 18-201 and Sec. 18-203, does not violate the underlying
purpose or spirit of these ordinances or general easement regulations. Strict enforcement in this
context would therefore appear to be an unnecessary and punitive measure, serving no
compelling public interest that outweighs the hardship to the Williams family.
The Williams family is acting in good faith by seeking a variance,thereby acknowledging the
City's regulatory authority and seeking a cooperative resolution. They are willing to formally
agree to maintain the fence to a certain standard, ensure unimpeded gate access as necessary or
requested by the City,and execute a hold-harmless agreement for the City regarding the
encroachment. This proactive and transparent approach underscores their commitment to
responsible property ownership and further constitutes good cause for the granting of the
variance.
4)The variance will not introduce or increase any threat to public health or safety.
Granting this variance to allow the Williams family's fence to remain in its current location will
not introduce or create any new,nor exacerbate any existing,threat to public health or safety. The
fence, in its established position and current condition, is demonstrably safe, does not impede
necessary visibility or emergency access, and the associated landscaping, particularly the mature
tree, is professionally maintained and poses no hazard. Leaving the fence in the exact location
it has been for at least twenty years cannot"introduce" or"increase" anything at all,
because the request is effectively asking to maintain the status quo.
The structural integrity and diligent maintenance of the fence are key to this assertion.As can be
attested from its history (including its existence during the ownership of the Frew and Athon
families)and current observation(detailed in Exhibit C),the fence was structurally sound and
maintained in good repair prior to Hurricane Beryl, consistent with the City's requirement that all
fences be so maintained to avoid endangering any person or property(Sec. 18-212).
The fence's location does not compromise public safety with respect to visibility or access (see
Exhibit E and the letter of support from the Weiss family whose driveway is closest to the fence).
It does not obstruct essential sightlines for vehicular traffic, such as at driveway intersections
Page 4 of 11
• •
BSC Variance Application-Williams Family-June 2025
with sidewalks, thereby adhering to the principles of maintaining driveway visibility triangles
(Sec. 18-208(d)).
Critically,the arborist reports from ArborTrue and Davey Tree(Exhibits A&B)provide expert
confirmation that the mature tree located near the fence and with root system within the
easement area is structurally mature and receives regular professional maintenance. These
experts have conducted risk assessments and found the tree as is to pose no undue risk to public
safety. Healthy,well-maintained trees are an asset, not a liability. However,manipulation of the
tree's critical root zone,to comply with this ordinance, would introduce unnecessary risk to the
tree, and in turn to the Williams family's home and their neighbors'homes. Why increase risk.
5)The variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance in question.
Granting the requested variance is not only consistent with,but in certain respects,advances the
fundamental purpose and intent of the City of West University Place's ordinances governing
fence placement(Sec. 18-201 and Sec. 18-203).
The purpose of the City's fence ordinances, including Sec. 18-201 (location within property
lines)and Sec. 18-203 (construction along property lines), generally includes ensuring public
safety, providing for orderly property delineation,maintaining aesthetic standards, and
preventing property disputes. While the fence's current location is a technical deviation from the
strict letter of Sec. 18-201 and Sec. 18-203, its long-standing presence without dispute, its
contribution to the protection of this mature tree, and its otherwise compliant nature(e.g.,
meeting height requirements under Sec. 18-200)demonstrate that the spirit of these ordinances is
upheld. The fence clearly delineates the Williams family's maintained yard,and its encroachment
has not led to disputes or ambiguity regarding property use. This approach is further supported
by the sentiments expressed by the Williams family's current neighbors(Exhibit E)echoing this
appreciation for the existing landscape and its contribution to the neighborhood's character,
reinforcing that the variance aligns with community values. Compliance would negatively
impact the aesthetics of the fence,which exists on a prominent and well-trafficked corner across
from a City park.
Moreover, granting the variance can be seen as aligning with broader City goals related to
environmental stewardship. The fence, in its current location, plays a role in protecting this
mature tree. The trees contribute to the "urban forest" of West University Place, a characteristic
the City values and past BSC discussions reference. By allowing the fence to remain,the
variance supports the preservation of these natural assets, which contribute to neighborhood
aesthetics, property values, and environmental benefits such as stormwater absorption and air
quality improvement. This demonstrates that the variance does not simply break a rule but helps
achieve a balanced outcome when considering multiple, sometimes implicitly stated,City
objectives. The "purpose and intent" of ordinances are not served by rigid enforcement that leads
to a net negative outcome, such as the loss of valuable trees, when a less harmful alternative(the
Page 5 of 11
• •
BSC Variance Application-Williams Family-June 2025
variance)exists that still respects the core function of the easement and the general intent of
property line regulations.
6)The variance will not cause a nuisance and will not unreasonably interfere with the use
of nearby property.
The continued presence of the Williams family's fence in its current, established location will not
cause a nuisance to the public or to any neighboring properties, nor will it unreasonably interfere
with the use and enjoyment of nearby land by other residents.
A significant indicator of this is the complete lack of complaints from neighbors regarding the
fence throughout its over twenty+year history. This positive neighborhood sentiment is strongly
corroborated by the Letters of Support from Neighbors (Exhibit E),wherein adjacent property
owners explicitly state that the fence causes no nuisance and does not interfere with their
property use or enjoyment. This extended period of peaceful coexistence, now actively affirmed
by current neighbors, is strong presumptive evidence that the fence is not perceived as a nuisance
or an unreasonable interference by those most directly affected.
Prior to Hurricane Beryl and when rebuilt in existing location,the fence itself presents an
aesthetically pleasing appearance that is compatible with the character of the Williams family's
property and the surrounding West University Place neighborhood.
The health and maintenance of the associated tree, as confirmed by the arborist reports(Exhibits
A and B), also contribute to the prevention of nuisances. Healthy, professionally cared-for trees
are far less likely to become a source of problems, such as the dropping of excessive deadwood
or encroachment of roots,than neglected ones. This proactive management of the landscape
elements associated with the fence further ensures that they do not negatively impact neighbors
or public areas. This point directly relates to the broader "public interest" criterion for variances;
if no member of the public or adjacent property owner is harmed or unreasonably burdened by
the fence,then the public interest is not adversely affected by allowing it to remain.
7) The variance will not cause a fraud to be worked upon the public or any individual.
This application for a variance is submitted with complete transparency and in utmost good faith,
with no intention whatsoever to deceive or defraud the public,the City of West University Place,
or any individual.
The Williams family is openly and honestly presenting all relevant facts, including detailed
expert opinions from certified arborists(Exhibits A and B),a comprehensive history of the fence
(Exhibit C), letters of support from their neighbors(Exhibit E)for the Board's thorough
consideration. The entire variance process itself is a public one, subject to established
notification procedures and a public hearing, ensuring that all interested parties have an
opportunity to review the application and provide comment. This open process is inherently
antithetical to any notion of fraud.
Page 6 of 11
• •
BSC Variance Application-Williams Family-June 2025
The circumstances giving rise to this variance request, particularly the exceptional hardship
related to the preservation of mature trees and the long-standing nature of the fence
(acknowledged through multiple ownerships), are genuine. They arise from the specific,unique
conditions of the property and its history,not from any calculated attempt by the Williams family
to circumvent City regulations, including Sec. 18-201 and Sec. 18-203, for unfair advantage or
personal gain.
All information provided in this application and its supporting exhibits is accurate and truthful to
the best of the Williams family's knowledge and belief. There has been no misrepresentation of
facts or withholding of pertinent information. The act of formally applying for a variance,
thereby submitting the matter to the City's established review and decision-making process, is
itself a clear demonstration of the Williams family's intent to proceed honestly and in accordance
with due process. This criterion is typically a concern only when there is evidence of deliberate
deception or misstatement in the application or in the history of the structure in question; no such
elements are present here.
On their own motion and without City intervention,the Williams family applied for a permit for
their fence and took this matter to the City's attention. They have been honest, forthcoming, and
transparent in this application.
8)The variance will not cause an increase in public expenditures or budgets.
Granting this variance to allow the Williams family's fence to remain in its current location will
not result in any new or increased public expenditures, nor will it place any additional financial
burdens on the City of West University Place's budgets.
The Williams family is, and will remain, entirely and solely responsible for all costs associated
with the ongoing maintenance, any necessary repairs,or the eventual replacement of their fence.
This is consistent with the general principle that abutting property owners are responsible for the
upkeep of structures on their property (Sec. 18-212)and,to some extent, adjacent street areas,
although the fence is on their property, albeit within an easement. The City will not be asked to
contribute financially to any aspect of the fence's existence.
The fence, in its current and historical location(spanning the ownership of the Frew,Athon, and
Williams families), does not necessitate any additional City services beyond those typically
provided to all residential properties. It does not require specialized inspections(other than what
might occur under normal code enforcement cycles applicable to all properties), increased
maintenance of the public easement by City crews, or any other municipal service that would not
be required if the fence were located entirely outside the easement and strictly on the property
line per Sec. 18-201 and Sec. 18-203.
Indeed, while a more indirect consideration, one could argue that denying the variance and
forcing compliance could potentially lead to the loss of a mature tree. This tree currently
provides certain public benefits at no cost to the City, such as contributing to stormwater
Page 7 of 11
S •
BSC Variance Application-Williams Family-June 2025
management,improving air quality, and enhancing the aesthetic appeal and character of the
neighborhood. While not a direct expenditure,the loss of such benefits could be viewed as a
subtle cost to the community. However,the primary and most direct argument is that the variance
itself imposes no new financial obligation upon the City. This addresses a key concern for
municipalities: that private variances should not translate into public costs. By affirming the
Williams family's full and continued financial responsibility for the fence,this concern is
unequivocally met.
9)The variance will not create an irreconcilable conflict with any other ordinance, law, rule
or regulation.
Granting this variance for the specific locational requirements of Sec. 18-201 (location within
property lines) and Sec. 18-203 (construction along property lines), and the related easement
encroachment,will not create an irreconcilable conflict with any other City of West University
Place ordinances,Texas state laws,or federal regulations. On the contrary, it may serve to better
harmonize various City objectives by allowing for a site-specific solution that respects both
regulatory concerns and unique property characteristics.
The fence itself, in terms of its materials, structural integrity,and height(apart from the specific
issue of its location relative to property lines and within the easement), will comply with all other
applicable building codes as stipulated in Chapter 18 of the City's Code of Ordinances (e.g.,
height per Sec. 18-200, maintenance per Sec. 18-212)and general fence regulations. The
variance sought is narrowly tailored to its location and does not imply a deviation from other
essential safety or construction standards.
Beyond the specific encroachment and property line placement issue, the Williams property and
its use otherwise conform to the zoning regulations applicable to a single-family residential
district within West University Place. The variance will not alter the residential character of the
property or introduce any non-conforming uses.
As previously discussed, allowing the fence to remain in its current location to protect mature,
healthy trees align with broader, often implicit, City goals related to tree preservation and the
maintenance of the "urban forest" character that defines West University Place since 1992.Thus,
the variance can be seen as supporting these environmental and aesthetic objectives without
creating conflict.A variance should not resolve one issue by generating new violations;this
requested deviation is contained and does not trigger a cascade of non-compliance with other
critical rules.
Page 8of11
• •
BSC Variance Application-Williams Family-June 2025
Summary of Variance Justification for Williams Family Fence
Variance Criterion Key Supporting Rationale & Evidence
1)The imposition of the Exceptional hardship due to unique property conditions
requirement imposes an (mature tree vital to property/character—Arborist Reports
exceptional hardship upon Exhibits A&B), impracticality of relocation without tree
the applicant. loss, substantial non-recoverable costs exceeding mere
financial inconvenience (Exhibit F), and long-standing
nature of fence(Exhibit C).
2)No reasonable and Relocation is not feasible without destroying protected
feasible method or mature trees(Exhibits A&B)or rendering yard space
procedure is currently unusable. No alternative design achieves compliance
available to comply with the without incurring exceptional hardship. Historical placement
requirement. by previous owners (Exhibit C: Frew,Athon) suggests long-
standing practical reasons.
3)The imposition of the Long-standing, uneventful existence of the fence without
requirement is unjustified negative impact on easement utility or public interest
because of good and (Exhibit C). Lack of prior complaints, and active support
sufficient cause from current neighbors (Exhibit E). Context from BSC
demonstrated to the BSC Cover Letter may further support.
(ZBA).
4)The variance will not Fence is structurally sound, well-maintained. Does not
introduce or increase any impede visibility or emergency access. Associated trees are
threat to public health or healthy and professionally maintained, posing no hazard
safety. (Exhibits A&B).
5)The variance is consistent Does not materially obstruct the primary purpose of the
with the purpose and intent easement(e.g., utility access). Upholds spirit of fence
of the ordinance in question. ordinances regarding safety/aesthetics. Preserves mature
trees, aligning with City's urban forest values. Current
neighbor support(Exhibit E)supports harmony with
neighborhood character. "Spirit of the ordinance is
preserved".
Page 9 of 11
• •
BSC Variance Application-Williams Family-June 2025
6)The variance will not No history of neighbor complaints(Exhibit C), and active
cause a nuisance and will letters of support from neighbors confirming no nuisance or
not unreasonably interfere interference(Exhibit E). Fence is aesthetically compatible
with the use of nearby and well-maintained. Does not block light/air or cause
property. runoff issues for neighbors.
7)The variance will not Application process is transparent and public. Hardship is
cause a fraud to be worked genuine, not an attempt to circumvent rules for unfair gain
upon the public or any (supported by current neighbor support,Exhibit E).All
individual. information provided is truthful.
8)The variance will not Williams family remain solely responsible for all fence
cause an increase in public maintenance, repair,and replacement costs. No demand on
expenditures or budgets. City services or funds.
9)The variance will not Fence(apart from location) complies with building codes
create an irreconcilable and zoning. Variance aligns with tree preservation goals.
conflict with any other
ordinance,law, rule or
regulation.
Conclusion
The evidence presented comprehensively demonstrates that the Williams family's application for
a variance from Sec. 18-201 and Sec. 18-203 of the Code of Ordinances meets all nine requisite
criteria. The expert arborist reports from ArborTrue and Davey Tree,the detailed History of the
Fence (including relevant experiences of previous property owners,the Frew and Athon
families),the information contained in the BSC Cover Letter,the Letters of Support from
Neighbors,the Financial Burden Estimates, and the unique physical conditions of the property
converge to establish an exceptional and unnecessary hardship that would result from strict
enforcement of these ordinances.
It has been shown that no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist to alleviate this hardship
without causing significant and irreversible harm,particularly to the mature tree that is an
integral part of the property and the neighborhood's character,and without incurring substantial
financial costs. The fence, in its long-standing location,has not compromised public health or
safety, has not interfered with the intended use of the easement or the principles behind property
line delineation as envisioned by Sec. 18-201 and Sec. 18-203, and has not generated any
Page 10 of 11
s •
BSC Variance Application-Williams Family-June 2025
nuisance or unreasonable interference with nearby properties, a history supported by the
experiences of past owners and affirmed by current neighbors. Granting this variance is
consistent with the spirit and intent of the City's ordinances,will not cause any fraud, and will
not lead to increased public expenditures. Furthermore,the variance will not create any
irreconcilable conflict with other laws or regulations.
The Williams family are amenable to discussing any reasonable conditions that the Board may
deem appropriate to further ensure that the variance remains compatible with the public interest
and the character of the community.
Exhibits
• Exhibit A: Arborist Report-ArborTrue
• Exhibit B: Arborist Report-Davey Tree
• Exhibit C: History of the Fence (incorporating statements of Frew and Athon families)
• Exhibit D: Site Survey
• Exhibit E: Letters of Support from Neighbors
• Exhibit F: Financial Burden
Page 11 of 11
•
Exhibit A Arborist Report—ArborTrue
Mario Sakran
ISA Certified Arborist®TX-5095A
ArborTrue, LLC
808 Russell Palmer Road
Kingwood, TX 77339
Re: 2738 Talbott Street Houston, TX 77005 - Relocation of fence
The property owners requested information regarding the impact of moving a fence from its
current location to one closer to the live oak in their backyard (see images below for the current
location of the fence and an approximate location of the new fence). Upon examination of the
tree, the surrounding property, and learning information regarding the fence's placement, it has
been determined that moving the fence closer to the tree would be detrimental to its health.
Some reasons for this include:
The age of the tree -Although the exact age of the tree is unknown, due to its size (see image
below) and the history of local trees, it is potentially seventy or more years old.
The impact of a new fence on the roots of the tree - The installation of a fence would require the
cutting of large roots close to the tree. This would negatively impact the tree's ability to obtain
water and nutrients from the soil and could negatively impact its stability. Cutting the roots would
also increase the likelihood that the tree could develop a fungal infection.
The impact of construction on the tree and the inability to implement an adequate tree protection
zone (TPZ) -The construction of a fence could negatively impact the health of the tree through
issues such as soil compaction, exhaust from equipment, and damage to the tree. Given the
proximity of the fence to the tree, there would be an inability to create an adequate TPZ.
The condition of the tree -The tree showed some minor signs of fungal issues. The movement
of the fence could add stressors which could increase these issues.
Past trimming of the tree by the utility company -The tree has recently had a number of limbs
cut by the utility company (see image below). This resulted in loss of canopy of the tree and a
number of exposed cuts. This has stressed the tree and this would be increased by the
movement of the fence.
The current surroundings of the tree-The tree currently has a weed barrier and rocks around its
base as well as artificial turf nearby (see image below). The weed barrier may currently be
negatively impacting the roots of the tree and the past soil compaction caused by the installation
of the artificial turf could also have had a negative impact. Relocating the fence closer to the
tree would add to these issues.
The presence of Ganoderma fungus on the property - Ganoderma was located on an oak tree
on the property (see image below). This tree is at the corner of Talbott and Wakeforest.
Page 1 of 6
Exhibit A Arborist Report ArborTrue
Ganoderma is a serious buttress rot infection with no current cure. It can enter trees through
wounds in their roots. If the roots of the tree in question were damaged due to movement of the
fence, the likelihood of it contracting Ganoderma would increase.
The reduced protection moving the fence would cause - Moving the fence closer to the tree
would expose more of the root zone of the tree to the surrounding neighborhood and traffic. It
could face negative impacts such as increased pollutants on the root zone.
Similarly, and for the same reasons noted above, the placement of a sidewalk along Wakeforest
would also have a detrimental impact on the tree.
Given these factors, it has been determined that the movement of the fence to a location closer
to the tree would be detrimental to its health.
Thank you,
Mario Sakran
Image: Size of tree and location of new fence (approximately in-line with yellow flag)
��,, yak rJ w ;
f 40
y s
' �' ! fir':.
0;1
i' 6 "0.. ._>
ri
t >9 ,
1 - { f{
....-..., , r.fit , ..:1 '' ! r i
'f, lit r , , T.
fi yy
1. icll ,
at
:.e
r'
Image: Current location of fence
Page 2 of 6
• •
Exhibit A Arborist Report—ArborTrue
\\ -tt.
R� :P�
A ,,,.,,,ei , ' ''''. ,
i.
aie
i
µ 4 z M + T a F t.'
p `�"_: I,,.. a 7 H, .ie"+,,� `i t, huh;
$? F
i:L:et,,,,,,,,„-;',:,,,,,,,,:,
:',:x„,,,;177:1:'
� Y As i�A 4 � 9S g }skk d� brR
R
Image: Prior pruning by utility company
Page 3 of 6
0 !
Exhibit A Arborist Report—ArborTrue
1.1t
4 i ,'a ,,, . per .
s.
; , 0 ,''''-':.0..,it
°fir
yrc
� te'
, \ ,
, .
\, .. w
,
TT ., -: _.ve i.avi 4
,,,,,... .,. -,..7 .:. y
it
. ,,, 0.
. • . .,
...
, .
.. . , li,7 . 'ir .., a-• 1 1
;
% tFs
A
..arer i.,1
I :
Image:Artificial turf and rocks
Page 4 of 6
• s
Exhibit A Arborist Report-ArborTrue
I I I i I I ''
I II I
•
�..
a .s '
0,4111
Image: Ganoderma on a tree on the property
Page 5 of 6
• •
Exhibit A Arborist Report—ArborTrue
'1 i •
A ' AL55 TRAF
,1r )r,yiti r_..
-r� s/ •1t1y '�;
wr3 (.y ,
yi_ , "y ,- i'-
' -1 yaw y �C s A- Q `.�
Y ��
� ,.. rya a ;,:
',--4.41:144.4t4-4.- '44.. - '7/N4,77..A4WV05°.-•b•- ...;
d .4 � 5- iw'
s...,
ikAvit
* 4, . ..
c, 'sr ..I:.r� ,z•
. .. J L . A ...4.4
I .'"fie.
Page 6 of 6
• •
Exhibit B Arborist Report— Davey Tree
DAVEY!?.
3/24/2025
Mr. Ward Williams 2738
Talbott St.
West University,TX 77005
RE: backyard,west side Live oak
To whom it may concern,
A visual inspection was performed on 3/6/2025 of the mature west side live oak, located
in the backyard at 2738 Talbott St. The purpose of the visit was to assess the overall
health of the tree and to determine if installing a new wooden fence(within 6-12" of the
base)could potentially cause future health issues and/or decline of the tree.
Based on a visual inspection, (no climbing or tools used during inspection)the mature
backyard live oak appears to be in fair condition. The base/root flares all appear to be
healthy and intact. No signs of fungal growth or insect activity were found at the base or
on the trunk. The crown has been severely pruned on the west side to maintain electrical
line clearance, creating an imbalance with much of the crown/weight overhanging the
structure and backyard area.A few moderately large dead limbs were present in the
crown, along with minor deadwood.At the time of the inspection, the tree was beginning
to drop old foliage in preparation for spring growth.
The primary concern is the new proposed fence installation within 12"of the base of the
tree and the possibility of health issues in the future.Additional stress created by
fence/structural posts installation could create a compromised tree.
Page 1 of 8
• •
Exhibit B Arborist Report—Davey Tree
The age and current health condition of the tree should be taken into consideration,as
adding additional stress may lead to decline, creating safety and financial concerns for the
homeowners, if the tree were to suffer and need remediation or removal.
The estimated age of the live oak is nearly 100 years old or in excess. With a mature tree
most likely suffering from recent years of hard weather extremes and aggressive pruning,
it could be expected that the possible root cutting needed to install the fence within the
CRZ (critical root zone)would not help the tree's slow recovery process. The hard
freezes of 2021 and 2022 and hard summer droughts of 2023 and 2024 left many trees
(old and young) in the area stressed and forced to replenish growth damaged or lost,
which requires energy and stored nutrients,ultimately creating some degree of stress.
Another factor that should be considered is the aggressive pruning performed in 2024 to
create space for electrical lines and the amount of foliage lost as a result. The pruning
performed has left an imbalanced tree with significant crown weight over the structure
and backyard area. This particular type of pruning has been performed in recent years and
unfortunately will continue. The concern being that additional stress created from the
fence installation could lead to some tree/crown decline over the next 2-5 years, which
would require additional pruning, fertilization, pest management methods to mitigate.
Regardless of possible decline in the future, extra pruning should be performed to help
alleviate the crown imbalance.
A tree health maintenance program would need to be created and performed over the next
3-5 years to help encourage new root growth and prevent pests and fungal issues from
developing, if proposed fence installation should occur.
It would be recommended to perform a Deep Root Fertilization twice a year to help
promote root new growth and encourage good health.A Pest/borer program would also
be recommended during summer months to reduce the chance of attack by wood boring
insects, as the tree would be vulnerable if stressed.
Such a program would come at a cost for the homeowner, as well as the cost for pruning
and if needed, costly removal if the tree declines to the point of becoming hazardous to
humans and adjacent structures.
To preserve the health of a specimen Live oak and to allow for a safe environment for the
residents, any extra consideration involving the new fence placement and possible future
health issues would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Page 2 of 8
• 0
Exhibit B Arborist Report—Davey Tree
Alex Singeltary
ISA Certified Arborist#TX-4059A
The Davey Tree Expert Company
...
V 3 ,
i.'
--.
,'„.,11,,-,
11 --.,,***-. '..V-T.
,,,.. ,.,410,,e..„ 44,10.1'• ,`-'8,,,, , --
1,5.,-.
1„...;.:.‘,-V• '' . "' -`,,' 'i.• *!,-*.;'
,1t"tc.„,..,14:;i;,::-.• ' ,4
rf
,.. 3s1,1,41,..1:,...1,..:;„.,,..1:..',..-.4.,....',. ::‘,
•- - -.1a0 ...1, 4 0,
t of,
) ,
r
. ,,,, , iri • • ,
. _ , , .,. ••4 k .1/4. ,,'' I . Not•-4 oN, , .
• si
• , ..
V 04:4" 0, • :''''' 1
'I --• -:
'o 1111 .I' 11'
• mil'. 1 • . —— I `,
'1
I . 16.
I\
.
••'':11--''''''--- ' $#''4
1.:1'0', ';''.., ' frit, I "—.......a....,--- —
, , -. • ,.
_ -'' -'-..' ..— •-•'..... ...
.
...
Page 3 of 8
• •
Exhibit B Arborist Report—Davey Tree
• *
k
\ . 1 °;:' .410''''4!..-...Tlit'...),.'.*
, s 1 M. VY
tt. .
+y . F /
'.' 4
�y
1
.. 1 f\ ,,,*,:.••••;4,i'44 .: i� WC
„ + ; .., t
iiio,r � � .. / .
• r tiv,t • r •
,ti.,
o Y • Y '" r t. 1 f
, x,.€ .ram' r /r. ,
r.
r
20 4 `y,S
Mf • �-,y ate• 1•"} i_ l• . ' ..,
Page 4 of 8
• i
Exhibit B Arborist Report— Davey TVree q�
'.. -- .•• - r i w i ,ems{ ,- ;y•4 '
1M r A�
•
ar m `,,, k tl. . : •y • ),+} .
--;,,INF.,,,,..
a t y,x` °
-
. ...„i" _ ti ,` 3iZ . +F ** " 7�,. ..,}t? t. -t tiy ` , "Y'"It-, R �e
. Aippowiro
.
%IL . iii. */ Aill, . C,,,: ,*
l .�.,
'ate
w
4.
441\i•
Page 5 of 8
• 0
Exhibit B Arborist Report—Davey Tree
\\\ 7 '-.! ' --;411A, .-7
% A
Cl.
.o=
1,
S.-
,,,,,*." 4*,= *--•' ' .k. ii ===.7===.
-34 .
' 4 I,' -11{0,..•. ,.,le •,' i, '' ***: *
0,:i.,
' • - ' * ...ri. .' . `...:.• 4
\ '--. ..!',.*. *'.,.':.../;',„ ' g.4,4-;-;
1.,
tr,
• 0. it4.*
. .
* ,
, 0
. .
I?I . • '...1
* . ii .
.,rni•*: all• ——i , ;
.dit. aneltall 2 4 ./.
•
,tA
• '
„,- . ,.....
..Z., +`• ' ',.
ft. II
* 4 t............ ......,___,.„,„ , ......,
. , 1,. •
...
...., .o. .i , •
Page 6 of 8
• •
Exhibit B Arborist Report—Davey Tree
. .
..
.. .,,$ 14'
iv
,t,
A k
411I
".•.a-wik7.4,4'.•..e.. V V • .0 ,
.., •1, •,„4.
t , ..! III .* •....„.„:,,7, . < ,. t ; Ili , .,,
, .
•,,, .•00,.. , .1 . .
'4.
. „
, .
. • 7 ,,,,
... .
. .
S',', - ' . - ' . •
,..N.., ,....• ' •
'''t''`'t .' . IL ' . ••• • -----
.,:,,T...•00' --.. .
s- ,.. ,' •,. _ ''''.....:: - - ',•, ,).,,,,o4 .. ...- - -- -‘,-''. ' ' ,• 1.. .,. 4 _..
'.,, ' =-7,,,,,..,,,z:„. '' .''. -.' . . 7,,-, „:„ ,.....,.. .. , -".. : ••....,
U7,11 's:":' - `•l'"*. ''''.'-'i-:-•.'14 1 ' ..,''''
'1`% 7‘,..VV,Z• ,.',".. '1,** S7,x44Z• 74-'W-4, -'. ''''. '.
it
,NS.,,,- s,.. ' 7,,,,4,,..•-•*-, -- .... .... ,----„, ., , - ....
•N'--', k -,',4-X., , - ...... - ' - -, ;,,,.. "44',,
‘_
ee
• , - 4._ _At S 1;''' .: ..
-.-
4k\
,', ' ..'„, -`; - -• ' ' q.: .."'''''''.°'''' 4 „4,,
— .
Vr.:.; : -'164; " , '..,. %.,,, 7•,,..., '' ' ' , "" *
kb. •,, A . ,0,- ...:,.- -,\-,. 0.; -,.. -
kit-- 4. •' %L._ . -, -4*-""'
fo ..„.
, ..
. - ... ... ' •
....t.
.• -4',.. . or 4 ''‘,71-44..-
0-. - lkot.7.,:0;,". .- 44..• _,..iuk, ....
....0,
. s- .,..,44 , " . • .-k...._"4,,3,11; , •••• -, -
- ''t,''• ', '-`,,,,,..c'- ' • '
it • **,',..":•-,•_ ... ••;;;;:;:).
, _ . • „. . •,
• - • -,„.
. - •0.-,
"Ik 1 :Nit,....o.-,',"•-, _
. .,-,!, .. * ' ' -4411*-r- ' '''' k .. • -
40. ...
+YIP'
'''''
.s..•'''' .".k..` ' 411i' -,' - -.4;*".- ': -s,f.,-.,,,-•.P.i :1-' ' - . 1,44
:0. . ..'-'.. 41J,"`. - - ,t-,.......„":,. .--...•!..1i,t.„-:411 t
' ,..1.'!"' - ' , ...T...
.i.
. I;
-, - , . - . , 4 ' • ,, _ , .
N 0
..., - . . .• '-•-.. _ , 1,•:- - '-.. ...".-,„, .
. .
. -. • . _---- - '. -
Page 7 of 8
• •
Exhibit B Arborist Report—Davey Tree
it
L f l s a �
r
b
l w )
t 'tom,,. ' J'
r'
i ., u.
•
' - 1 8 '''t \ ' a, i' 1 1.0, lii 0 * ,
''' k ' i '' 1 tv 'f I _ 4 1,
-s r
�$ yY 4 > - '_tom `, t,
A,t' .C".,i ,rro�... ^ ,,
./" mow --•
F^
w �Y
♦*, "'J.....,,—M
� `xl .
i
/ t "d
Page 8 of 8
•
Exhibit C History of the Fence
History of the Fence
We have owned our home at 2738 Talbott Street since March 2022. Our house sits at the
northwest corner of Talbott Street adjacent to Wake Forest.At all times during our ownership the
fence on the west side of our property has been in the same position. Based on our research,the
fence in question has been in the same location dating back at least 23 years.
During Hurricane Beryl in July 2024,the fence suffered damage, and was blown over by the
winds, necessitating its replacement. In connection with preparing for that work,we followed all
protocols and submitted a permit request to replace the fence in its current location. In that
process, it was determined that the fence has been located 4.8 feet outside the bounds of our
property line, into the City of West University's easement for 23 years. We learned the City
would not approve the permit unless we 1)moved the fence's position 4.8 feet into our backyard,
or 2)obtained a variance from the BSC to allow it to remain in its current position.
When we, and the previous two owners, purchased the home,the survey showed the fence
positioned slightly outside the property line, into the City's right-of-way, on the unused grass
easement. We were each told it was built there decades ago with permission from the City, and
with arborist recommendation, due to the oak tree that sits directly on the property line inside our
backyard. With a circumference of nearly 13 feet and estimated age of 100 years old,this is one
of the oldest trees in the neighborhood, and great lengths have been taken over the years to
protect it. It adds value to our block,and also to the city of West University as a whole—a city
that rightly and historically has placed great value on its trees and green spaces.
There is no sidewalk on this particular corner, nor is there a sidewalk on either adjacent corner
north or south of our block, at Arbuckle or Cason. Furthermore, it is our understanding that the
City has no current plans to construct a sidewalk, or any other improvements, in this location
either presently or in the future. Construction of a sidewalk on the east side of Wake Forest
would require the removal of three additional oak trees, and cause the destruction of our tree, as
further evidenced in the attached arborist recommendation.
The current perimeter around the tree's critical root zone has allowed it to grow safely over the
years, and it has been well maintained and loved by each owner. There is no neighbor negatively
impacted by the fence's position. In short,the fence has stood in its current location without
any issue from neighbors of the City for more than twenty years.
Complying with the City's request to move the fence to the property line presents significant risk
to the tree and to us as homeowners. We retained the opinions of two separate certified arborists,
Davey Tree and ArborTrue.After extensively studying the tree,fence,property, and surrounding
properties, both companies independently submitted strong opinions that constructing a fence on
the property line would cause irreversible harm to the tree at worst, and at best, require extensive
ongoing maintenance and hardship on us as homeowners.
Page 1 of 4
•
Exhibit C History of the Fence
In both attached reports,the arborists noted that the aggressive tree pruning by CenterPoint
Energy following Hurricane Beryl has caused undue stress on the west side of the tree.Adding
more stress to that same side by digging 30-foot fence posts into the roots is unnecessary,
dangerous, and avoidable. There is also risk to spreading Ganoderma fungus by exposing the tree
roots in the digging process. The property line does not provide for a large enough safety
perimeter around the tree, and both arborists strongly advised that building a fence on that line
would be dangerous and should be avoided at all costs.
In addition, our contractor and his fence expert expressed concern over digging posts in and
around the tree roots. This would need to be done with a specialized hand-digging process to
ensure the posts do not hit the tree roots, and require them to position posts around the roots,
rather than evenly placed, causing risk as well as negative aesthetic impact. No fence company
has been able to guarantee their work will not damage the tree in the long term, and all believe it
presents a risk to our home. We—not the city, arborist, or contractor—would be liable if the tree
were damaged in the process.
We understand removing the tree is an option, albeit what we consider to be the worst option. In
addition to being expensive,the larger concern is removing a beautiful oak tree that is special to
our home, and our corner of the neighborhood. Like the previous three owners, our neighbors,
and the City of West University itself, we love the stately tree and do not want to lose it.
The City will only approve the permit to replace our fence in its current location if we obtain a
variance from you,the BSC,to allow the fence to be rebuilt in its current location. We are asking
you to approve this variance,based on the information provided by us,reports from the arborists,
and letters from our neighbors and the previous owners. If approved by the BSC,we will then
apply for an encroachment agreement with City Council. This agreement would allow us to
continue to use that small amount of the City's property, unless a situation arises in which the
city may need use of that land, in which case the use of the land would revert back to the City.
We understand we are requesting the use of the City's property,but what we are really
requesting is to continue using the same exact property that has been used for the past
twenty+years without issue to protect this same tree. Our agreement will require us to forfeit
the land back to the City if any situation arises in which the City does decide to utilize that
property. With this information,this is a no-harm and no-risk situation for the City.
Page 2 of 4
• •
Exhibit C History of the Fence
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Lauren Athon and my family lived at 2738 Talbott from 2017 -2022 then
subsequently sold to the current owners,The Williams family.We lived in the City of West
University for over a decade and were so lucky to raise our small children in
such a wonderful community environment.We respect the diligence the West U Board and
Committees take regarding the upkeep, rules and regulations set forth for tenants in the
neighborhood. It's truly a magical place to live and that is due to the community and the
parameters set in place.
With that said,we wish to write you in regards to the fence location at 2738 Talbott. During
our buying process we inquired with the previous owners (The Frews) about the fence line
location versus the property line -noting that the fence location was, in fact, outside of the
property line.The previous owners communicated to us that the tree in the backyard was
one of the oldest trees in West U and that when the fence was put outside of the property
line in order to keep the preservation of the tree. If the fence was to be on the property line,
it would need to go directly through the tree thus hindering the tree's ability to continue to
prosper. From our knowledge, it seemed that this was a discussion had over multiple
owners. This tree is not only beautiful but provided a backyard for my kids to enjoy and
thrive. It really became a focal point on the property and down Wakeforest. In addition,
there is still plenty of space between the current fence line and the street allowing for
walkers to stay on the grass.
Unfortunately, it seems the fence has come to the end of its life - having endured multiple
decades of use and natural disasters.We graciously ask that you continue to allow the
fence to stay where it is while still allowing the city to keep the preservation of the tree and
what it adds to the property and the city of West U.We hope that you consider this request
and continue to protect the tree.
Sincerely,
Lauren Athon
713.444.8754
Page 3 of 4
• •
Exhibit C History of the Fence
April 8, 2025
To Whom It May Concern:
Recently, Caroline Williams reached out to me regarding an issue with her fence located
at 2738 Talbott Street. For context, my family owned the house at 2738 Talbott Street
from April, 2011 through September, 2017. She asked that I write a letter outlining my
understanding from the discussions I had with the prior owner(who built the fence) prior
to us buying the house.
As I mentioned to Caroline,the fence bordering Wakeforest Ave was in its current position
when we bought the house in 2011. Before we bought the house,the prior owner had
mentioned the fence was situated where it was because of the large tree located in the
backyard.The prior owner also mentioned the city's arborist had told him that the tree was
one of the oldest in the neighborhood. From our conversations about the fence, I
understood the fence was built in a manner to protect the root system of the tree.
During our time owning the house,we never had an issue with the fence (and as a result,
we never had to address the issues Caroline is addressing currently). Given the beauty of
the tree at 2738 Talbott St, and the lack of historical issues with the fence's position, I
sincerely hope the City will take all measures to protect it.
If you have any questions or concerns, or if you would request any clarifications to my
statement, please do not hesitate to reach out.
Sincerely,
J�rf F rew
3780 Jardin St.
Houston,TX 77005
Page 4 of 4
• •
Exhibit D—Survey
.
A,t ' LO, Ten (10), in Block Seeen (7). of BELLE COURT ADDITION, On
Addition In Harris County, Texas. according to the Mop or Plot
Moretti recorded in Volume /52, Pogo 498 of the Deed Records of
Monis County, Texas.
? (LEGEND i ' :si. . C
0 1/2'ROD roue $' '
®1/2•Rao sn
It•:'row/SET )a l il?
*sift'R roue*
POton coo l�u v T R
CORKS
ii0CE POST
— roe CORNER ♦ 4
CONLROLLING
CY MONUMENT
`-�
AM ..•.y nI ,T I. . ,,.., 7<
`c CONonarNR - 3 t
POOL
n COu1PYCN!
IT IRANsr ODDER PAD 20.3
IN cOLUYN
0 POWIK POLE
A UNOCRGtOUIO 7aO
ELECIRIC et N1
OntOttaS N N'
4"ILCCTRme
Thy TELEPHONE
PEDESTAL 6 2 Ed
BL DU.01N0 LINT y'J 0.7"
ALMA
EASEMENTSANET
WY
SSE 50 811 O a -`
EASEMENT W n
0Y CAS PETER N
WY MATO METER ExU
LP UONT POU .,1'
YTUn Q O
LIE CASEMENT 22.1' " if; •
H
1n
OVERHEAD hECtRIC la!
POWER EC
_.aCS._.. ..._.
OyrsNEAD ELECTRIC 'I'; u. TWO STORY
A.
SERVICE lAJ .ti STUCCO
GNAa1 LINK at Ti
10.5'
MOOR-NC(0.S' ,,.
WOE TOPICAL 0
_97_ .8.3 1_28.4 ei_.__._.
IRON MCC[
OARED WIRE
WANE SIOE0 C
WOOD«NCN n
OWE r IENCE ,e.,;
(DOE Or ASPHALT ;'}e
• I
coot O-r MAYO.
NNERt(E WATCNIB:.
CQ ERED'co YE1CR
POCK
l '
STONE
TALBOTT STREET
w000 DECK ,
EXCEPTIONS: M10TE5:
ROM BEARINGS. CASEMENTS AND BURRING LINES ARC By RECORDED PLAT UNl(SS
NOTE:BEARINGS SHOWN ARC BASES OTHERWISE NOTED.
ON WAD 83 TEXAS SOUTH CENTRAL DOSE Ft000 NOTE:According to the r.1.R.Y.No. 48201C0800L, this property does lie
in Zane AC and DOES lie within the 100 year noed sone.
NOTE: this ew1Yey Is mod.'n Me sway Is made In cen'unclkn with the Tnlormollon provided by Title Company.
con:unclion with Ire Use of this survey by an(obey parties and/or for ether parpobm alma Met tabor's
i ermatlon p-ovldea by the own risk and ony lobe nwllrtg lbw other 0ob shag not be the responsibility of the
citert. COG S.ney'n9 Times. undersigned This Is to certify that I Isar.on this date made a careful and accorate
(EC hos not reswrched be sunny on the ground of the subject property. IN.plat hereon le o correct and
land file records ter .,.wrote reproobntoton of 1M prepeNy tines ane dhhenstons or.es lndkoted;be0tbn
s eslstence of we ents, and type Ot bulakps ore as shorn;end EXCEPT AS SHp0N,there ore no.'sable and
reprieve co+e0ante or oppennl onenecnmanle er proNWbne on 0I1.1 ground.
Whir Mcu'blOOCO.
V. C
Drown By: ..:•., R�//''''��* ,`S•OF T
Scala: 1 = 20' Vi,IrV ,:;.-0art4r,
R:gETR41A(NYC E9 J! a S1p
Dots: 02/05/2025 NATHAN ALAN PAVE,
Accepted by' 419 Catty Paso Dr,Ste 210
Cr No.: Houston. 1X lt073 *O
Oclo: N/A P 214349.9485 •R•id 1,,�'
F 2'4 16 \ : ..�1t. ',
v[l CSdr Job N . '2501446__, item teo.a 101'8'942O0 ,p.4dii
Page 1 of 1
• •
Exhibit E Letters of Support from Neighbors
Ridliitki U. Wei ucilie ('. Weis
:1717 A+h'i.kt��
Itr��rtnn. I X. 77t)0C
71 , t,tW7{1)r19
\\0,1 t nivcrsity dotting Board
\\e have had the pleasure of living in West t ini'. rsity for the past twenty-
t' rce s.irs. AV'c"'oh aphrrri;►tt the town, facilities, suplxtrt services,
responsible env mamtgement,and our neighbors. For these past twenty- t`
three'cars we have had four different families move into the property that is
directly behind our house. 2718 Talbott St,the latest being the Williams.
All tour families had.mail ehitdren and v.cre attracted to the property
because t) Whitt Jonson Park is diagonally across the street and 2)the
property has a safe fenced in area Ibr kids and pets. The fence line that
borders this property adjacent to Wakeforest St.has been in its current
location all these years. it was there when we moved in.All the families that
have li'ed there enjoy the fenced area provided as a safe place for their kids
and pets. Now the fence has finally reached its end of useful life. Weather
and age necessitate its replacement. I firmly believe a new fence should be
located on the saute line as the existing fence.it does not inhibit or interfere
with our driveway access or egress vision and there is plenty of grassy area
on the remaining property for dog walkers. I realize this fence line is in the
city right of way.We feel it is only fair that the Williams continue to enjoy
the benefit that others have had all these years.
We strongly support approving the installation of a new fence on the same
line as the existing one.
Sincerely,
. cne
Richard&Lucille Weiss
Page 1 of 7
• •
Exhibit E Letters of Support from Neighbors
SAMANirHA
C)F.AR BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION MEMBERS.
Caroline and Ward ask your permission to do two simple things: (1) protect a magnificent tree.
and (2) keep their fence in the same place it has always been, •
As a former chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, I believe theirs is the sort of situation that
variances exist to rectify. Neither the immediate neighbors nor the city as a whole stand to be
harmed if you grant their requested relief,Quite the opposite—the tree makes the neighborhood
better. Please help them keep it.
Warm regards,
SAMANTHA BRANTLEY
•nineteen•year resident of West University
-former Z€3A chair
Page 2 of 7
• •
Exhibit E Letters of Support from Neighbors
Dear members of Buildings and Standards Commission of the City of West University.
My name is Elizabeth Weaver,and my family and I live at 2715 Talbott Street.I am writing to you on
behalf of my neighbors,Caroline and Ward Williams who live at 2738 Talbott Street.It has been
brought to our attention that the fence along the side of their home facing Wakeforest Street is
technically on city property.White I con understand how in some situations this might present an
issue,I am asking the board to please consider granting the Williams family an exemption.
The Williams'backyard is home to a huge,beautiful 100+year old tree that is a treasure to our
community.The tree's large size and sprawling limbs are truly impressive,and are especially awe-
inspiring to all the children who pass by.It's been a topic of conversation on many of my own
family's walks to school,and it's a wonderful opportunity to witness a child's admiration and
amazement of nature on our own street.Caroline and Ward have been dutiful caretakers of this
tree,even as its roots have caused headaches for them as homeowners-patiently repairing
cracked pipes and misaligned stones caused by the trees shifting roots.The fence has been
standing on city property for the past 15 years(unbeknownst to the Williams)and has not caused
an issue to any of the neighbors.There is no sidewalk or neighbor that the fence's location is
encroaching on.We have lived on the street for nine years,and the only comments I have ever
heard about the Williams fence or yard are compliments about the tree.
One of the beautiful things about our neighborhood is the trees,and I think all residents are aware
of the lengths the city goes to to protect them.The idea of asking the Williams to move the fence
into a location that would be directly over the tree roots seems silly to me,as it would endanger the
integrity of the root system,and be nearly impossible to maintain.The tree's roots would likely
cause the fence to lean or break,and that would be an eyesore to the community.It seems like a
commonsense decision to allow the Williams to replace the existing fence with a new fence of the
same size in the same location.I have spoken to many of my neighbors,and know this sentiment is
shared with most,if not all,residents of Talbott and Wakeforest.
Caroline and Ward are wonderful neighbors and residents.We were excited to welcome them to
Talbott Street when they arrived in March of 2022,and they have been such a positive asset to our
street and lives ever since.As a lifelong resident of West U,Caroline has introduced me to many
people,places,and causes around our tittle city.Whether it's by getting neighbors together for park
playdates,block parties,WULL teams,or service projects,the Williams family fosters such a sense
of community and connectedness,on our street and beyond.I know she and Ward have been
working diligently to resolve this issue using all the proper channels,and I hope the board give
permission for them to replace their current fence,so they can put this issue to bed and get back to
focusing their attention on making our community a better place.
Thank you for your consideration,and please feel free to contact me with any questions or
concerns.
Best,
Elizabeth Weaver
832-622.0597
2715 Talbott Street
Page 3 of 7
• •
Exhibit E Letters of Support from Neighbors
Deal' B.Jildtrig,s.and Sta!id ards Coirlm,ss4on 011,1#/e511).11Vt.t:-w!tv,
Ctvrflt West University tf:11tlertt5Vto Jve ct ett,ly YS
AwLynue.i. rcrn Vud nii CrIrc.,1-1,.e 4,st,i:tairr-s pod their Ityvety \611,0+.. 1u1.0 r,o
rizcorc: sup.lortrIgilleVViii1;irnf Art ttter rief.;ifo to eplocut-14.,..,itF1C ir itt.c.„Uf rent
st.) 11.7-1 The I • .'" rtiftlp‘fortv-tit• r:omplete!:v etttoble lor of; 86theq
r.e;gribofs, 1nd 114.2•7)OLIT fiat!4^uopert. PttinEtt feet free to c tTo10 Ct witti
UW
tf.arth dr questiors.
- •
Pad:arc N-kkl tielAtli
1361.1Vi'ak1rOteSt Avc.
1-iotl5ticn.,IX 774105
306 203 7433
•\-P';;;;-;,A.-
Page 4 of 7
• •
Exhibit E Letters of Support from Neighbors
whom It Concerns,
Thr CC War S ago we lived lust outside of West U.not even 10 minutes}foul where wi?. 'ave now.When
• " ! • ••lise our family with outside play space and friends to make memories with our
• ' ' learned that in such a big city,neighborhood matters,street matters and,
•• • ,.• " • • ii.:hbois matter. We found those neighbors on Talbott Street,We became fast
trienct, • ' • family and have spent countless hours their yard playing safely and
enio}sa,,, • Jams"yard has hosted birthday parties.playdates.football watching parties or
SUnllyC. ha i).vith parents versus kids,and now one of our most cherished events,an
annuo Ctr, night oyster bake We fully support preserving this space for The Williams famity
and our nel, , lo.ts,and we fully support thou variance request to preServe not only their yard and
oak tree,but ,y neighborhood gathering spot and more years of memories for our neighbors and cur
friends.This is the exact space and environment we were seeking three years prior and have found,
on Talbott St oet. The Williams are good neighbors and have always done what is right for their
neighbors and their neighborhood, They have worked hard with the city or this request over the past
year.We hope you will seriously consider their request.
Thank you for your consideration.
Katy and Cott King
2728 Talbott Street
Page 5 of 7
•
Exhibit E Letters of Support from Neighbors
Dear Zoning Board,
My name is Julie Middleton, and I live at 2725 Talbott Street. It
has been brought to my attention that the Williams Family (2738
Talbott Street) has had issues with getting a permit to replace
their side fence that was damaged by the hurricane. My
understanding is that the fence has been located in that spot for
over 15 years, but it has now been determined that its location is
on city property. While I understand the need for residents to
stay within their property line in most situations, I would say
this particular situation is exceptional and worth an exemption.
The Williams' backyard is home to a beautiful, 100+ year old
tree. Moving the fence location to within their property line
would jeopardize the tree's root system, and could cause damage
that might result in the death of the tree. This would be a huge
loss to our community. The current location of the fence is not a
bother to anyone. as there is no city sidewalk or neighbor's
property alongside it. Replacing their current damaged fence
with a fence of the same size in the same location is a simple
solution to protect the tree.
The Williams have been wonderful neighbors and they love our
community — especially the parks and the trees. I know they are
eager to have a proper fence to ensure the safety of their children
and dog while they play in their backyard, and they've been
patiently trying to go through the proper channels to find a
solution that works for everyone. I urge the board members to
grant the Williams family an exemption to protect one of the
beautiful, old trees our neighborhood is known for.
Thank you for your consideration,
Julie Middleton
i
Fiat& r
•
Exhibit E Letters of Support from Neighbors
of the Vf;.',,x-t.„ ,4k ,
Betc»ts, s„,,,ttrr
:ray t
1,1 ff'f, ent.tr,stre4-,'
A\ .1.rt,q1 tfif.carnt. tOrrl, 1.CP
AO' .tIfff,“.! !her rrawItiurwi,q trf, comff-ttm;:rt;;
- • their e",,rfS crtiv atiC 01.e' all bt",At,!),,
Page 7 of 7
Exhibit G Financial Burden Estimates
This outlines the initial financial costs that would be incurred by the Williams family if required
to bring the existing residential fence into strict compliance with City of West University Place
Ordinances Sec. 18-201 and Sec. 18-203. The costs do not include a comprehensive landscape
architectural plan if the tree is removed or the fence is relocated. Significant additional costs
would be expected. These costs are a significant component of the exceptional hardship faced by
the Williams family.
The incremental without this variance costs are broken down into two main categories:
1. Incremental costs associated with the demolition of the existing fence and
relocation/reconstruction of a new fence precisely on the property line. $11,000-$14,000
1. Estimated incremental costs to construct fence on property line: $5,000-$6,000
2. Estimated incremental costs for landscaping, irrigation, and drainage repair:
$4,000-$6,000
3. Estimated incremental tree treatment costs: $2,000
2. Incremental Costs associated with the potential removal of mature trees whose health and
viability would be critically compromised by the fence relocation, as detailed in the
arborist reports (Exhibits A and B). $30,000-$37,000
1. Estimated costs to remove and stump grind: $20,000-$25,000
2. Estimated costs to mitigation costs for 48 inch diameter tree: $10,000-12,000
The above estimates do not include comprehensive landscape architectural plan if the fence was
relocate or the tree was removed. This substantial financial outlay, coupled with the irreversible
loss of valuable,mature tree and the associated aesthetic and environmental benefits, constitutes
a significant and exceptional hardship for the Williams family. These figures do not include the
potential diminution of property value with reduced usable yard space.
Page 1 of 1
City of
West University
Place Public Works Department
NOTICE OF BUILDING & STANDARDS HEARING
The Building and Standards("BSC")of the City of West University Place, Texas("City")will hold a public hearing in
the Municipal Building, 3800 University Boulevard, City of West University Place, Texas 77005, during a meeting set
to begin at 6:00 p.m. on June 5, 2025. The purpose of the hearing is to provide an opportunity for all persons to be
heard in relation to the following matter:
Address of the site: 2738 Talbott St.,Houston,TX 77005
Legal Description: LOT 10 BLK 7 BELLE COURT OF WEST UNIVERSITY,Harris
County,TX
Docket Number: 2025-0001
Applicant: Edward Williams
Action Requested: Requesting a variance from the City's ordinance,Chapter 18,Article 7,
Sec 18-201 —Property Lines and Sec 18-203 —Distance from property
line; common fences to allow a fence in its current location, which is
outside the property line to encroach up to 4.8 feet into the city's right-
of-way on the west side of the property.
Additional Details: A single-family home at 2738 Talbott Street has applied for a variance to
replace an existing fence in its current location. The fence currently
encroaches 4.8 feet into the city's right-of-way on the west side of the
property.
Applicable regulations include the City's Development Regulations, Chapter 18 and Chapter 70 of the Code of
Ordinances, Texas Local Government Code and the rules of the BSC. The application is available on the city's website
at www.westutx.gov. Additional details on such matters, as well as the applicable regulations are also available for
public inspection in the Public Works Center, 3826 Amherst, West University Place, 77005. Any person interested
in such matters should attend the hearing.
If you plan to attend this public meeting and you have a disability that requires special arrangements at the meeting
please contact the Building Official at 713-662-5830 in advance of the meeting. Reasonable accommodations will be
made to assist your participation in the meeting. The Municipal Building is wheelchair accessible from the West and
Southwest entrances and specially marked parking spaces are available in the Southwest parking area.
Signed: Chuck Sandifer,Building Official,for the BSC posted and mailed on or before May 26,2025.
Chuck Scivi4Afer
csandifer@westutx.gov
713-662-5846
3826 Amherst St. www.westutx.gov
West University Place, TX 77005
713-662-5830
WILLIAMS EDWARD IV KREIDER ROBERT& MARIA CURRENT OWNER
2738 TALBOTT ST 2714 TALBOTT ST 2718 TALBOTT ST
HOUSTON TX 77005-3952 HOUSTON TX 77005-3952 HOUSTON TX 77005-3952
CRANE JOHN S& REBECCA F KING CORTEZ E III & KATHRYN LOVER EVELYNE M
2722 TALBOTT ST 2728 TALBOTT ST 2730 TALBOTT ST
HOUSTON TX 77005-3952 HOUSTON TX 77005-3952 HOUSTON TX 77005-3952
2736 TALBOTT ST WEAVER KYLE & ELIZABETH L KEIRNAN MICHAEL P &JOY J
2119 NANTUCKET DR 2715 TALBOTT ST 2719 TALBOTT ST
(C/O 2736 TALBOTT ST) HOUSTON TX 77005-3951 HOUSTON TX 77005-3951
HOUSTON TX 77057-2905
MIDDLETON ISAAC J &JULIE B FIELDS JOHN A HARDY LAWRENCE F& SUZANNE R
2725 TALBOTT ST 2727 TALBOTT ST 2731 TALBOTT ST
HOUSTON TX 77005-3951 HOUSTON TX 77005-3951 HOUSTON TX 77005-3951
OWEN VIVIEN W WORLEY JOAN E WAGNER CHRISTINE & LAWRENCE
3514 GEORGETOWN ST 4012 AMHERST ST %THE FOUST-WAGNER 2007 TRUST
HOUSTON TX 77005-2912 (C/O 2735 TALBOTT ST) 2739 TALBOTT ST
HOUSTON TX 77005-2720 HOUSTON TX 77005-3951
PICOLI ANDREW WILLIAM &GUPTA RIVERS JOSE MAURICIO & LUZ CURRENT OWNER
2724 CASON ST 2726 CASON ST 2732 CASON ST
HOUSTON T X 77005-3936 HOUSTON TX 77005-3936 HOUSTON TX 77005-3936
YUEN GABRIEL PUDUVALLI VINAY K& DEEPA S CURRENT OWNER
2736 CASON ST 2740 CASON ST 2715 ARBUCKLE ST
HOUSTON TX 77005-3936 HOUSTON TX 77005-3936 HOUSTON TX 77005-3931
BISHOP JAMES & MEGAN M
MURPHY BISHOP TRUST CURRENT OWNER SAMUELS BARRY I &CAROLE
2719 ARBUCKLE ST 2721 ARBUCKLE ST 2725 ARBUCKLE ST
HOUSTON TX 77005-3931 HOUSTON TX 77005-3931 HOUSTON TX 77005-3931
HJERPE WILLIAM MASON & DONNA LEE DUGAN HEIDI A WEISS RICHARD & LUCILLE
2729 ARBUCKLE ST 2735 ARBUCKLE ST 2737 ARBUCKLE ST
HOUSTON TX 77005-3931 HOUSTON TX 77005-3931 HOUSTON TX 77005-3931
CHRISTOPHER CHARLES VANCE &
CURRENT OWNER TRACY KAPUR SAHIL K & RADHIKA SAHIL
2724 ARBUCKLE ST 2730 ARBUCKLE ST 2732 ARBUCKLE ST
HOUSTON TX 77005-3932 HOUSTON TX 77005-3932 HOUSTON TX 77005-3932
VESTEWIG ROBERT P PATE STEPHEN P HOTTE MICHELLE
2734 ARBUCKLE ST 2740 ARBUCKLE ST 2803 CARNEGIE ST
HOUSTON TX 77005-3932 HOUSTON TX 77005-3932 HOUSTON TX 77005-3909
STOLTE MICHAEL&ANJELAKA MATHEWS PAUL SAMUEL& NIKKI LYNN GIUFFRE DEAN & CATHERINE
6610 WAKEFOREST AVE 6614 WAKEFOREST AVE 6620 WAKEFOREST AVE
HOUSTON TX 77005-3956 HOUSTON TX 77005-3956 HOUSTON TX 77005-3956
PARKER CHRIS& SONIA
CLAWATER DAVID WAYNE M/M 3811 RILEY
6630 WAKE FOREST AVE (C/O 6634 WAKEFOREST AVE) WATTS WILLIAM P
HOUSTON TX 77005-3956 HOUSTON TX 77005-4324 6636 WAKEFOREST AVE
HOUSTON TX 77005-3956
ZOTOS JOHN &ALEXANDER JAMILE Y LEE EUGENE E & BRIDGITTE S SPANOS POL&OLYMPIA
6624 WAKEFOREST AVE 2807 CARNEGIE ST 2815 CARNEGIE ST
HOUSTON TX 77005-3956 HOUSTON TX 77005-3909 HOUSTON TX 77005-3909
NAYAK &SONS LLC EARTHMAN JOHN A KROLL PATTI K
4111 RUSKIN ST 6605 BROMPTON RD 6611 BROMPTON RD
(C/O 6601 BROMPTON RD) HOUSTON TX 77005-3905 HOUSTON TX 77005-3905
HOUSTON TX 77005-3548
WHITTEN ELEANOR C& ROBERT KEENEY RYAN & CAMERON BELL DEMARCO J
6615 BROMPTON RD 6619 BROMPTON RD 6623 BROMPTON RD
HOSUTON TX 77005-3905 HOUSTON TX 77005-3905 HOUSTON TX 77005-3905
ROCA VICTORIA EPPERSON DAVID R & KARLA E REPPERT TODD R
6625 BROMPTON RD 6629 BROMPTON RD 6536 WAKEFOREST AVE
HOUSTON TX 77005-3905 HOUSTON TX 77005-3905 HOUSTON TX 77005-3954
COOPER KEITH DANIEL STANDLEY MELISSA R &WAYLON D SPEDALE GERALD M &JEANNE H
6530 WAKEFOREST AVE 6545 BROMPTON RD 6539 BROMPTON RD
HOUSTON TX 77005-3954 HOUSTON TX 77005-3903 HOUSTON TX 77005-3903
GIAM PATRICK &JULIE
PATRICK&JULE GIAM REVOCABLE
TRUST
6537 BROMPTON RD
HOUSTON TX 77005-3903