Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-23-1993 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting ZBOA MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 Members Present: Acting Chairman Sidney Grant, Board Members Charles Christensen, Willie Walker, Alternate Board Members James Zoller, Ruben Salinas Members Absent: Deborah Bernay, Bob Capen City StatT Present: Chief Building Official Mark Lewis, City Attorney Knox Askins, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order by Sidney Grant at 7:00 PM. II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 2, 1993, SPECIAL CALLED MEETING With no additions or corrections, Sidney Grant declared the minutes approved as presented. III. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE ENFORCING OFFICER'S DECISION #A93- 001. APPLICANT IS APPEALING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DETERMINATION THAT THE REMOVAL OF A MOBILE HOME FROM THE PROPERlY WCATED AT 3244 HILLS DALE CONSTITUTED AN ABANDONMENT OF A NONCONFORMING USE. Mark Lewis stated that Mrs. Roy Hicks, the property owner, is appealing the determination made by the Building Official that removal of a mobile home from the property in question constituted abandonment of a nonconforming use. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and is allowed as a pre-existing nonconforming use. Forty-four (44) Public Notices were mailed to property owners located within 200 feet of the tract in question. One (1) notice was returned in favor of the appeal, four (4) were returned in opposition of the appeal. One (1) notice was returned undelivered. Page 2 of 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of 9/23/93 The mobile home in question, has been located on this lot since the 1983 Spenwick/Collegeviewannexation. After the removal of the mobile home from this lot, the owner offered the property for sale. A prospective buyer, who wanted to place another manufactured home on the property, contacted the Inspection office. He based his request on a provision of state law that one time only a mobile home, manufactured prior to 1976, may, on the same lot, be replaced by a manufactured home, constructed subsequent to 1976. The prospective buyer was told he would not be allowed to place a manufactured home on the property. Since the original mobile home had already been removed from the property, state law was not applicable. Subsequently, Mrs. Hicks, the applicant, contacted the City. Mrs. Hicks was informed that two (2) issues were involved in the City's determination. The first issue which is being considered as part of the appeal is whether or not the nonconforming use associated with the property has been abandoned. The second issue which deals with state law, is not an issue for consideration. At this point, Mrs. Hicks expressed her desire to appeal the City's determination. The appeal request was forwarded by the City to the City Attorney's office for review. The Assistant City Attorney, John Armstrong determined the following: . Based on available facts and information, staffs assessments and determinations are correct. . The issue of abandonment of a nonconforming use is regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. An appeal regarding this issue can be made to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. . The jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment extends only to zoning matters. The Board is not empowered to consider any determinations or interpretations regarding state law. The Building Official notified the applicant by letter that the nonconforming use was determined to be abandoned and could not be resumed. This is the determination being appealed by the applicant. Page 3 of 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of 9/23/CJ3 The determination made by the Building Official included consideration of Section 4-202 of the Zoning Ordinance. In summation it states, when a nonconforming use has ceased for a period of ninety (90) calendar days or more, it is considered abandoned and cannot be resumed. Should the issue arise as to whether or not a nonconforming use has been abandoned is a question to be determined by the Board of Adjustment. The ordinance stresses that the property owner has the burden of proving to the Board that the nonconforming use has not been abandoned. During review of the matter, the City established the following facts: · The mobile home which was located at 3244 Hillsdale has been removed from the property. · The last active water account at this address was terminated on February 19, 1993. · Houston lighting & Power Company no longer carries 3244 Hillsdale as an address for electrical service. H.L.& P. was, therefore, unable to establish the date on which the last active service account was terminated. · Mrs. Hicks has been unable to provide the specific date on which the mobile home was removed from the property. Based on these considerations, the Building Official determined that the nonconforming use of the property had ceased; the use, therefore, abandoned. Knox Askins stated that in cases such as this, the standard of proof necessary to make a determination requires some type of evidence to support the decision of the officer. Determination should not be based on state law but rather, did the Building Official interpret the Zoning Ordinance? The burden of proof rests upon the applicant to prove the Building Official did not properly interpret the ordinance. Based on the information provided, staff finds the following: · The nonconforming use, under the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 4-202.4, has been abandoned. Page 4 of 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of 9/'13/93 · The applicant has not proven that the Building Official's assessment is incorrect. · There is not a reasonable difference of ordinance interpretation involved. · Zoning Ordinance regulations are not unreasonable in regards to this matter. · Granting the appeal would afford a special privilege to this property. · Granting the appeal would not be in the best interest of the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan. Based on these facts and considerations, staff recommends denial of Appeal of the Enforcement Officer's Determination #A93-001. Mr. Grant asked Mr. Lewis how he determined the period in time the mobile home was removed from the lot. Mr. Lewis said he had asked Mrs. Hicks if she could provide a date but she could not. Utility records for water service and H.L.& P. 's electrical records were reviewed. The address had been removed from H.L.& Po's service log and there is no longer a record. Water service was discontinued in February. A. PROPONENTS Mr. Grant swore in all of the proponents simultaneously. George A Boyer of 3225 Hillsdale stated he had no objection to having a mobile home on the lot. He noted that, if allowed, the resident should be responsible for keeping the area looking nice and suggested that all mobile home properties be required to have a storage building to keep mower, bicycles, toys, etc. out of view. Page 5 of? Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of 9/23/fJ3 Mr. Zoller asked Mr. Boyer if he knew when the location had been abandoned. Mr. Boyer said the utilities were turned off sometime in February. He stated the people who owned the mobile home rented the lot from Mrs. Hicks and figured that Mrs. Hicks probably wasn't aware the mobile home had been moved. Mr. Grant asked Mr. Boyer to try to remember the last time he saw the mobile home on the lot. Mr. Boyer said the mobile home sat abandoned for awhile before it was actually moved off. However, he had no recollection as to when the mobile home was actually moved. Jack Barfield of 9302 Belfast, presented the Board with seventeen (17) copied public notice forms which he carried through the neighborhood in an attempt to get public opinion. All of the responses were favorable. Mr. Barfield said that the trailer remained at the location after the utilities had been turned off because the people that lived there would come to his house across the street to borrow water. He said they were gone during the day but stayed there at night in the dark. He also said he remembers when the truck came to take the trailer away, but unfortunately does not remember what date that was. (The prospective buyer, Mr. Peterson, is Mr. Barfield's father- in-law.) Mr. Grant asked Mr. Barfield to try to remember the last time he saw the mobile home on the lot. All Mr. Barfield could remember was that it was still very hot outside. Mr. Barfield said that for several months after the utilities were turned off, the people continued to borrow water from him. Page 6 of 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of 9/13/93 Mrs. Roy Hicks, the applicant, addressed the Board. Mrs. Hicks stated that she doesn't live nearby. The last payment she received for lot rent from the people who owned the mobile home was December 31, 1992. She never received another payment from them. They notified her to say they planned to move their trailer out and they would leave the lot clean. She doesn't know when the trailer was moved but thinks it was probably at the end of February or the first of March. After about a month and a half, Mrs. Hicks came to look at the property and found they had left it a mess. She hired Mr. Barfield to clean up the property and to keep it mowed. Her first payment to him for his services was in June of 1993. Mrs. Hicks talked to Mark Lewis on August 2. She talked to him again on September 12, and was told that she would not be allowed to place a mobile home on the lot but that she had the right to appeal. A motion was made by Charles Christensen to deny appeal A93-001. The motion was seconded by Jim Zoller. All were in favor and the motion passed. B. OPPONENTS There were none. IV. STAFF REPORTS There were none. v. ADJOURN Sidney Grant declared the meeting duly adjourned at 8:00 PM. Page 7 of 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of 9/'13/93 Respectfully Submitted, Peggy Lee, Planning Secretary Minutes approved on the 28th day of Sidney Grant, Acting Chairman Board of Adjustment October . 1993. ApPEAL OF THE ENFORCING OFFICER'S DECISION #A93-002 CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING BOARD\OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY: Application No.: A'73 - O()~ Date Received: 9-JI-1..3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant: J11t, jt( v' A ;t,rt )( A ,vJc h:, .J j1/. V X. " Name __ ~L//O {!,;(';:J"Ce),'T L)/<, ~rJ jJQRle )<:.x Address PH (7i3 )1f?j-5~j t I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized to act on my behalf in this matter. Owner*: Rr4"/vJc/o1 /II, /J'1c):{v4/..I1 J /"4'. ./ Name ,;z JI / 0 C!)(1-~S'CE ~f J);<. ,b'A Pc^/-e 1);' PH '- 7/3)L,/?,1-" _f~Jt Address I am appealing the decision regarding or the interpertation of Sect. /b,'~()O.g of the City Zoning Ordinance No. 1501. I am making this appeal in regards to the property .loc~ted r at ;lV/I) C-'f';;-SeEV! J)#., ,h41JO.,Kf(. ')~.x~ 77)"// A~/l, . Street Addr~ss . _ _ __ f . Legal Description (3 ) .j(, J J L, n ~ et -t/ c ~ .{t.)a J!').J sJ; 13 ~ Q-S ( ) Site Plan () Minor Development Site Plan ( ) Major Development Site Plan AlA.. ( ) General Plan A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the following pages of this form. a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request. b) The type of relief I am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.). c) The grounds upon which I am making this request. * If applicant is NOT the owner, he must provide Authorization to act on the Owner's behalf. 9/~o/:;J r Date ----------------------------------------------------------------------- , OFFICE USE ONLY Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes ( ) No ( );1/)4 Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: 10/21/Cf '3 , I Heeting Date: 10/2."J-/C(J I / Applicant Notified of Date: ~~S , Board's Decision: Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: \ PAGE 2 If there is not adequate room on the remainder of this form to list all pertinent information, please feel free to attach an additional letter or any information and exhibits you feel the Board should consider. FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER: C /J ~ , t") /iJ ) (J f l .I) .4 '7 ,,:/ Ak, <; / f .7 ..5 hv'if-"l! Q r!- in) fJ~ ~ , J.. N..I c!I .f n t: /' " p'D)<1e ZNJj?Oltr/<-"'-1' TJ~ A.bt;ve ,fj'e./e~~~(t"d 1~c.R~~C( -I ~ f3"' hJ --;" /-4/~ ~e() ~ C,'/ 01' o~~ 1/V.4IVe ~ #' /JO/ . A,? I/ll/7>"S t;Jurtc": A~)p~~ b. .>A,c//.4;r4/ (;:"'''/~"/(elo.Jt:) TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT: -r R/J~JdlcJrl jt/. /14axilAwl c wrJ r4 If-If' C'/.ei/ PI! A c .1? € c~ J'l.;" "i/~~ 127 Ve 5/ -1J I ~ (i;"/' _~~4~ .4~/~f7 o .4!. I. t) (J /;' .J...,' yIp> oS.!''''' (",,<j? .A' ,w of' 'Z' "'.f (J A -c e./' .4 A.J ~{'L> A/" of ,,4. Cf1J 14h 1?71J~' r.!.A ) 1./ € /: ~/~ ~ GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST: --r- tf( e ~ ,6Ie ~ /; 'v ~ /; ()( 1C 'i t-f t"J ;2 '-r;/. ~ fJ ~ c J.Ie r7 d3 ~ v I / -4 Ie h C' /N e 'r' X h h..s .-4' h (} {#'~t4l? -. f /(e -4 ot' -o~ IV-€' h ~ ".:1 ,/ ~~ C/ f' ,4 C co n~ r/" e ^' ~ 4J f -rx -4 (! 4.... rh 7/i -> .., A // (!J.I' (Je( k G'>'< ","If C, '/7 A-s --;-; ,//., J:/~~J c/ #tt'-Jl 6,/) 7t9a (Jf/?;";~ .4A/c/ C),e/;~/4~ '(!Jr7/~; r't / ;' ~ / .n.':I -,L /'"') \.. .~ In ;?-7~ Y7 I "I? /~ .-:- \...:..;4..>e /;..J' ~ UP \.)Dis?n '-.:4-jf e _,,; V::' "" '//<'if 5 6'/:Hli<y -4;?/i~;.-;ec:':f'" j;:t:; CED/1-'S, / :;:::z~~4(o/~..,,- Iljllllllll_111_1111111 .........................................;.................................................................. ... ............................ .................. . ......'......................:-:-:-:-:-:.;.:<:::::::::::::=;::;:;:::;:::::;:;:::;:;:;:;:;::::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:::::::::::;:::::;:::::::::::::;:;:;:;:;:;=:::::::::;;:;:;:::;::::::::::::.:.;.:............. . .............................. ................. . Reauested By: Mr. Randolph N. Morvant, Jr. Subiect of Anneal: The Enforcement Officer (City Inspector) has determined that a truck owned by the applicant is, under the terms of Zoning Ordinance 1501, a truck tractor and a commercial vehicle. Based on the Inspector's determination, this type of vehicle cannot be parked or stored in a residential zone. The applicant resides at 2410 Crescent Drive, which is located in a R-1, Low Density Residential Zone. He wishes to continue parking this type of vehicle at his home. He is, therefore, appealing this determination. BacImround: On August 10, 1993, City Inspector Robert Stoddard inspected the house located at 2410 Crescent Drive and found two (2) Groman truck tractors and a Gruman trailer parked on the property. The tractors and trailer were not "18 wheel" vehicles but smaller, apparently designed for "in town" deliveries. Based on the color and remnants of the logo, it appears that the vehicles were originally Frito-Lay delivery vehicles. The trailer appeared to be designed to use as a unit with either of the tractors. One of the truck tractors was operable and licensed for operation on the street. The other tractor (which appeared to be the same make and model) was inoperable. Mr. Stoddard spoke to Mr. Morvant, the property owner, and explained the nature of the violation. Mr. Stoddard also, by certified mail, gave Mr. Morvant written notice of the violation. This letter specified that the violation must be abated within ten (10) days. (See Exhibit A) Following his receipt of the letter, Mr. Morvant removed the trailer and the inoperative truck tractor from the property. He, however, continued to drive the operable tractor and park it at his home when not in use. One August 27, 1993, Mr. Morvant was issued a court citation. This citation was dismissed on September 24, 1993. The citation was dismissed to allow Mr. Morvant to file this appeal. The dismissal was also based on Mr. Morvant agreeing not to park or store the truck tractor at his home pending the outcome of the Board of Adjustment appeal hearing. Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report for lO/2B/93 A93-OO2jMorvant Page 2 of 5 Mr. Morvant has apparently registered the operable truck tractor as a pickup truck. Based on this registration, he contends that the Building Inspector is misinterpreting the Zoning Ordinance by considering the vehicle as a truck tractor. He is, therefore, appealing the Inspector's determination regarding this matter. Analysis: Zoning Ordinance Section 11-604.3 empowers the Board of Adjustment to consider appeals to an enforcing officer's determinations. Under the terms of this section, the Board is allowed to grant an appeal only when all three (3) of the following conditions have been satisfied: . That there is a reasonable difference of interpretation as to the specific intent of the zoning regulations or zoning map, provided the interpretation of the enforcement officer is a reasonable presumption and the zoning ordinance is unreasonable. . That the resulting interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated. . The decision of the Board must be in the best interest of the community and consistent with the spirit and interest of the City's zoning laws and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of La Porte. The first issue to be considered is whether or not a reasonable difference of interpretation exists regarding this issue. The applicant contends the truck tractors should be considered as pickup trucks and as such should be allowed to be parked and stored in residential zones. The Inspector's determination regarding this matter was based on the following ordinance provisions: Zoning Ordinance Section 3-100 includes the following definitions: · Truck Tractor: Every motor vehicle designed and used primarily for drawing other vehicles and not so constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and load so drawn. Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report for lO/2i3/93 A93-OO2/Morvant Page 3 of 5 . Commercial Motor Vehicle: Any motor vehicle designed or used for the transportation of persons or property for hire, with a rated carrying capacity in excess of one ton, including every vehicle used for delivery purposes. The trucks in question are clearly truck tractors as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. The vehicles have no beds or other provisions for carrying loads other than a trailer. As noted, at the time of Mr. Stoddard's initial inspection there was also a ''box'' trailer parked on the applicant's property. The trailer (manufactured by Groman) was painted to match the trucks and was clearly designed to be used with either of the trucks as a delivery vehicle. Additionally, the manufacturer's "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) for the trucks is listed as 8,000 to 9,000 pounds. As this is a "rated carrying capacity in excess of one ton", the trucks clearly are commercial motor vehicles as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. It should be noted that this determination is based on the Zoning Ordinance. The manner in which the vehicles are registered is not relevant to the determination. As noted in both of the definitions above, the Zoning Ordinance determines the type or classification of a vehicle based on design and not solely on use. Based on the facts noted above, the Inspector's determination was correct and did not misinterpret the intent of the Zoning Ordinance definitions. The determination that these vehicles cannot be parked in a residential zone was in turn based on two separate Zoning Ordinance provisions. Section 10-300.8 states: · It shall be unlawful for any person to leave, stand or park a commercial motor vehicle ... or a truck tractor on any property zoned for residential use. Section 10-604.7 states: · Off street parking facilities accessory to residential use shall be used solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles. Under no circumstances shall required parking facilities... be used for the storage of commercial motor vehicles ... trailers, trucks, or truck tractors .... Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report for lO/12J/93 A93-OO2/Morvant Page 4 of 5 The fact that there are two separate sections addressing this issue makes clear the intent of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council that the Zoning Ordinance be used as a tool to keep this type of vehicle out of residential zones and residential neighborhoods. The Inspector's determination regarding this matter is correct. There is no misinterpretation of Zoning Ordinance intent. As to the question of whether the Zoning Ordinance is unreasonable regarding this issue, staff would simply note that residential streets are not designed to accommodate truck and trailer traffic. The paved width of Oakhurst Street, the only road into Mr. Morvant's subdivision, is approximately 20 feet. The paved width of other streets in the subdivision is narrower. The second issue to be considered is that of special privilege. Due to the presence of the Port of Houston, Barbour's Cut facility, and the numerous petrochemical plants in the La Porte area, there is a high volume of truck traffic through the City. The City's Inspection Division and Police Department have consistently worked to enforce both the Zoning Ordinance and other trucking related ordinances. In the past, this has involved requiring businesses to relocate from locations not zoned for truck terminals. It has also included requiring individuals to remove trucks from residential zones. Granting this appeal would apply a standard to the applicant that is different than has been used to deal with similar situations in the past. Granting the appeal would, in effect, grant a special privilege to the applicant. The final issue to be considered is the best public interest and the interest of the City's zoning laws and Comprehensive Plan. Based on the considerations discussed above, in staffs opinion, granting this appeal would not be in the best public interest. Nor would it be consistent with the spirit or interest of the City's Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. Conclusion: · The determination of the Enforcement Officer did not misinterpret the Zoning Ordinance regulations that pertain to this matter. · Zoning Ordinance regulations are not unreasonable. · Granting this appeal would convey a special privilege to the applicant. Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report for 10j'lB/Cf3 A93-002/Morvant Page 5 of 5 . Granting the appeal would not be in the best public interest nor would it be consistent with the spirit or intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Staff, therefore, recommends that Appeal to the Enforcing Officer's Decision # A93-002 be denied. Appeals: As per Section 11-610 of Zoning Ordinance 1501: Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Board of Adjustment, or any taxpayer, or any officer, department, board, or bureau of the City of La Porte may present to a court of record a petition for a writ of certiorari, as provided by Vemon's Texas Codes Annotated, Local Government Code, Section 211.011, duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, specifying the grounds of the illegality. Such petition shall be presented to the court within ten (10) days after the filing of the decision in the office of the Board of Adjustment. City of La Porte Established /892 o F LAP 0 R T E, T E X A S ORDINANCE NO. 1501 August 11, 1993 CERTIFIED MAIL ltP 248 439 840 R. N. Morvant, Jr. 2410 Crescent La Porte, Tx 77571-6634 VIOLATION LOCATION: Blk. 11; Lots 2,4; Crescent Shores (2410 Crescent Drive) Dear Mr. Morvant, :H On the 10th of August, 1993, the Inspection Division of the City of La Porte inspected the above referenced property and found it to be in violation of City Ordinance No. 1501. Parkina Commercial Vehicles, Trucks, Truck Tractors, Trailers in a R-1, Low-Density Residential Zone in violation of the provisions of Sect.. 10-300.8 of City Zoninq Ord. #1501. As record owner of the property, you are given notice to abate the violation within 10 days of receipt of this notice. Failure to abate this violation within the specified time will result in further action to insure compliance with the City Ordinance. Further action could include issuance of a formal citation and subsequent prosecution in the Municipal Court of the City of La Porte. If you have any questions or require any information concerning this matter, please contact me at (713) 471-5020 or by writing to the City of La Porte, P. O. Box 1115, La Porte, Tx 77572-1115. Thank you. Sincerely, /); , f': ,/.!-I' / I \l:-f...e....:r L . , ::s:r;:--c(cLc__, '-C( Robert D. Stoddard Inspector Idsw EXH1BW A ~~717.~>[1!-) · \7j)';-+;I-~L'~~~'