My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
1981-07-15 Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting
LaPorte
>
City Secretary
>
Minutes
>
City Council
>
1980's
>
1981
>
1981-07-15 Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2016 12:06:56 PM
Creation date
3/21/2025 1:36:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Meetings
Meeting Body
City Council
Meeting Doc Type
Minutes
Date
7/15/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />~~ <br />• Minutes, Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting, <br />July 15, 1981, Page 10 <br />Faris: We certainly don't intend to deprive you of the <br />things you intended to have originally. The problem is <br />that what you have out there just doesn't fit into the scheme <br />of things today. We are trying to make a program today that <br />will take care of today's needs. The entire program to take <br />care of everyone's needs is in the mill and is under way. <br />We have not forgotten Lomax. <br />Hutchins: Like you say, if an area of say, 20 acres, were <br />to be subdivided they would have their own deed restrictions, <br />but for those of us sitting on acreage with. our homes right <br />in the middle, don't try to put us under the same restrictions <br />as the rest of La Porte. You just can't do that. <br />Askins: I think the new zoning ordinance, and again I think <br />what is being done tonight should be looked at as a holding <br />pattern, I th-ink the new ordinance is going to have to look <br />at a classification called rural. residential or something of <br />that sort., that will require a lot size of an acre or maybe <br />more. As Gus pointed out, with provisions for barns and for <br />animals that would be different than the rest of the City be- <br />• cause of the nature of the neighborhood. <br />Hutchins: Our minimum lot size was 75' x 100'. <br />Askins: Well., see, the La Porte ordinance requires 60 feet <br />x 100 feet; that's not a great deal of difference. <br />Hutchins: Of course, a lot of developers went through the <br />Board of Adjustments to get a variance on lot size. <br />Askins: I might give you some history on ours, because we <br />had to amend our zoning ordinance several years. ago because <br />as land got higher and higher and has become more valuable, <br />we felt forced to go to smaller lots. Fairmont Park, Sec- <br />tion 1, is much larger than the other sections out there. <br />La Porte has one of the strictest subdivision ordinance prob- <br />ably in Harris County, by what we require. Over the years <br />in order for the developer to build a house.a person can af- <br />ford to buy, lot sizes have gotten smaller. You are getting <br />down to typical lot sizes are going to 60 feet x 110 feet in <br />California. They are going to zero lot lines and lots even <br />smaller than that as land development gets more and more <br />expensive. <br />Hutchins: Well, we are not against subdivisions as such if <br />a developer wants to come in and-build in accordance with <br />La Porte rules and regulations. I don't think anyone here is <br />against that. We are opposed to small houses on this acreage. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.