Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-24-1994 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting ZBOA MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 24, 1994 Members Present: Chairman Deborah Bernay, Board Members Bob Capen, Willie Walker; Alternate Board Members James Zoller, Ruben Salinas Members Absent: Sidney Grant, Charles Christensen City StatT Present: Planning Director Charles Harrington, Chief Building Official Mark Lewis, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bernay at 7:00 PM. II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 1994, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. With no corrections needed, Chairman Bernay declared the minutes approved as presented. III. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE ENFORCING OFFICER'S DECISION #A93-004 WHICH HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO DENY A PERMIT FOR PLACEMENT OF A H.U.D. CODE MANUFACTURED HOME TO BE LOCATED AT 230 DWIRE, WHICH IS FURTHER DESCRIBED AS BEING LOTS 8 AND 9; BLOCK 7; BAY OAKS SUBDIVISION. THIS APPEAL WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON FEBRUARY 24, 1994. IT WAS TABLED WITHOUT DISCUSSION. THE MOTION TO TABLE SPECIFIED THAT THE APPEAL WAS TO BE BROUGHT UP FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE MARCH 24, 1994, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. Mr. Harrington stated the appeal was requested by Jan Stevenson for the property located at 230 Dwire Drive. The property is located in an R-1, Low Density Residential area. Ms. Stevenson is appealing the decision of the Building Official to deny a permit for the placement of a H.U.D. Code manufactured home on the property. Mr. Harrington recounted all of the facts relevant to this appeal (some of which may be found in staffs March 24, 1994 report on A93-004, attached to these minutes as Exhibit "A"). It is staffs recommendation that this appeal be denied. Page 2 of 10 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of March 24, 1994 Mr. Zoller asked Mr. Harrington to clarify what was meant by the terms "use" and "structure". Mr. Harrington explained that in this case the "use" of the property is single family residential, however, the structure itself is non-conforming. Mr. Harrington added there were 13 notices mailed to surrounding property owners. 4 were returned in favor and 1 was returned in opposition of the appeal. Ms. Stevenson provided 3 additional replies in favor of the appeal on forms that had been copied and submitted by persons living outside the notification area. A. PROPONENTS Chairman Bernay swore in Jan Stevenson. Ms. Stevenson stated that on December 31, 1988, she resided in a H.D.D. Code manufactured home which was situated on Lots 8 and 9; Block 7 of the Bay Oaks Subdivision. Ms. Stevenson stated the home was damaged by fire and she subsequently had the home removed from the property on September 18, 1993. On October 28, 1993, Ms. Stevenson filed application with the City's permit department for a permit to move another H.D.D. Code home onto her lot. On October 29, 1993, Ms. Stevenson's application was denied. On November 24, 1993, Ms. Stevenson filed for an Appeal to the Enforcing Officer's Decision. Ms. Stevenson stated that, other than the fact that placement of another manufactured home on the lot was prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance, she had not been given a reason for the Enforcing Officer's denial of the permit. Ms. Stevenson submitted to the Board, copies of 3 letters sent to her by Mark Lewis regarding her application. These letters were dated October 6, 1993, October 14, 1993, and October 29, 1993. Ms. Stevenson said she does not understand why she can place a modular home on her lot but not a H.D.D. Code manufactured home. She stated she lived in a manufactured home because she could not afford to purchase a modular home or have a home built on her lot. She feels the City of La Porte is discriminating against manufactured homes. Ms. Stevenson asked the Board to overrule the decision of the Enforcing Officer and allow her to place a H.D.D. Code manufactured home on her lot. ,- James R. Keeney, Jr., representing Jan Stevenson, addressed the Board. Mr. Keeney declared that Ms. Stevenson had been denied justice by the City of Page 3 of 10 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of March 24, 1994 La Porte. Mr. Keeney's further comments were directly derived from his "Appeal of Enforcement Officer's Decision to Zoning Board of Adjustment", dated November 24, 1993, and received by the Board on that date. Said "Appeal" is attached to these minutes as Exhibit "B". Mr. Capen asked Mr. Keeney if he was expecting the Board to rule on the constitutionality of the appeal. Mr. Keeney replied that this hearing is the first step they are taking and that it is important to get all of the issues into the record. The appeal from this Board is to a District Court on the Substantial Evidence Rule. Everything you want to get before that Court must be entered into the record at this time. Mr. Harrington addressed Mr. Keeney's statements regarding Section 4-202. The City has no objection to this property being used as a single family residential property. Mr. Harrington noted that the issue before the Board is whether or not the Enforcing Officer made an incorrect interpretation of a non-conforming structure which is Section 4-201 and not Section 4-202. Another issue addressed by Mr. Keeney dealt with accidental damage to structures. Mr. Keeney raised the issue that it doesn't talk about structures being replaced. Mr. Harrington stated that if any non-conforming structure burned to the ground, the City would not allow someone to rebuild a stick built non-conforming structure. Ms. Stevenson's mobile home could have been repaired had it not been too damaged, but it could not be completely replaced. Mr. Zoller asked for help in interpreting the words "rebuild" and "reconstruct". Mr. Harrington replied that the structure could be repaired, rebuilt, or reconstructed, since this type of structure is capable of having repairs done to them. Mr. Capen asked Mr. Keeney if the purpose of his report was to get all the issues into record so it can be taken to court. Mr. Keeney replied that he sincerely hoped that the Board voted to overrule the decision of the Enforcing Officer. - Mr. Keeney asked for a moment of rebuttal to Mr Harrington's remarks. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance is a restriction on property owner's rights Page 4 of 10 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of March 24, 1994 and because it is a restriction on property owner's rights, it shouldn't be taken lightly. He added that the courts say that a Zoning Ordinance should be strictly enforced. It should be literally enforced in favor of validity, but once it is determined to be valid, then the terms must be strictly enforced. If the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission intended to prohibit the replacement of a mobile home, then they should have used the term "replacement". He stated that this was very important since Mr. Harrington had repeatedly used the words "repair" and "rebuild" yet meant "replacement". Mr. D. Brent Wells, attorney for Ms. Stevenson introduced himself to the Board. Mr. Wells wanted to express his concern about the issue raised by Mr. Capen and Mr. Harrington as to whether the Board should give due consideration to constitutional questions and questions of pre-emption by Federal and State Law. He heard Mr. Harrington state that the applicant was free to build a conventional home on the lot. He read Mr. Lewis' letters that are in the record and he has heard him say through those letters that Ms. Stevenson is free to build a modular home on the lot. Mr. Wells stated that there is no legitimate distinction that can be made at this point in the proceedings between a manufactured home on a permanent foundation system and a modular home or a conventional home. Mr. Wells asked why a modular home is perfectly acceptable but a H.U.D. manufactured home on a permanent foundation is not acceptable under this ordinance. He added that the lines that were being drawn between the H.U.D. Code manufactured home and the modular home are not lines that will withstand scrutiny under the constitution of the United States of America. He added that issues of due process and equal protection are not frivolous. They are extremely important and fundamental. He reminded the Board they should not only make their decision in light of local ordinances but also in regards to State and Federal Law. Mr. Wells stated that Federal Law is pre-empted with regard to Building Codes and Standards for manufactured housing and the state statute under the Texas Manufactured Housing Standards Act makes it very clear that a pre-1976 mobile home can and will be replaced by a H.U.D. Code home. The logic of that statute dictates that a H.U.D. Code home manufactured post-1976 should be replaceable by a H.U.D. Code home. In closing, Mr. Wells asked the Board to consider why it is that a modular home is acceptable, but a H.U.D. Code home on a permanent foundation is not. Page 5 of 10 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of March 24, 1994 John Armstrong addressed Mr. Wells' comments. Mr. Armstrong stated that State Law provides that a modular home or what is now called an industrialized home under the Texas Manufactured Housing Act, must be allowed to be located in any area that an R-1 home can be located in. Deed Restrictions imposed by subdivisions can be utilized to exclude such structures. Zoning Ordinances cannot be utilized to exclude such structures. H.D.D. Code homes, either pre-1976 or post-1976 under the Texas Manufactured Housing Act, are allowed to be regulated subject to the Texas Manufactured Housing Act. The City's Zoning Ordinance is written and fully complies with the Texas Manufactured Housing Act and that is why the distinction between the two exists since it exists in State Law. Mr. Armstrong further stated that issues of the Constitutionality of the City's Zoning Ordinance are to be decided by courts with appropriate jurisdiction over such matters. The Board of Adjustment's jurisdiction extends to the four comers of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Porte. Mr. Armstrong recalled when our Zoning Ordinance was being created that the sentiment of most of those involved was to exclude all types of manufactured housing, but State Law allowed modular homes, or what are now called industrialized homes, to be located in R-1 areas. Our current ordinance reflects this requirement. B. OPPONENTS Chairman Bemay swore in Hugh McCulley, owner of Lots 1 and 2 of section 14 on the bayfront in Bay Oaks Subdivision. Mr. McCulley said at the time he bought his home, the Bay Oaks area was in the process of being annexed by the City of La Porte. Mr. McCulley assisted with a part of this process and was assured by representatives of the City of La Porte that if the Bay Oaks Subdivision were annexed, one of the benefits would be the enforcement of zoning laws. It was very important to him that the zoning regulations be enforced since he had invested in a more expensive house on the bayfront. Mr. McCulley said that Ms. Stevenson is only one individual who does not want the zoning to apply to her specific lots. In comparison, Mr. McCulley noted he wanted the zoning to apply to his lots and to all the other lots around him as well. He added the City had spent alot of time, effort, and Page 6 of 10 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of March 24, 1994 money in trying to uniformly and evenhandedly apply the zoning laws. Even though he sympathizes with Ms. Stevenson and the loss she suffered due to the fire, he does not feel it provides a basis for creating a broad exception to the zoning law that applies to all the other residents. Mr. McCulley said he was surprised to see, added to this record, the basic position which he feels may be maintained by the manufacturers of these homes, that any effort to zone them at all is unconstitutional. It is his feeling that the law does not require that they be given that type of interpretation of the zoning laws. Chairman Bernay swore in R.L. Anderson who resides at 127 Dwire Drive, Bay Oaks Addition. Mr. Anderson said he has lived at this location for approximately 50 years. He is very disappointed there are house trailers in his neighborhood. He added they have devalued his property and is against them being allowed to be there. Chairman Bernay swore in Vicki Campise who resides at 102 Dwire. Ms. Campise reiterated that the residents place their trust in the City of La Porte to continue enforcing the zoning. Chairman Bernay swore in Connie Fortune who resides at 402 Bay Oaks. Ms. Fortune said that in her subdivision, 2 trailers have already been removed and replaced with permanent housing. It would be totally unfair to those property owners that have replaced their mobile homes with permanent housing to allow someone else to come in and replace their trailer. Cecil Reed and Rand Valentin signed the Public Hearing sign-in sheet but declined comment. Mr. Capen made a motion to deny Appeal of the Enforcing Officer's Decision #A93-004. The motion was seconded by Jim Zoller. All were in favor and the motion passed. Page 7 of 10 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of March 24, 1994 IV. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE ENFORCING OFFICER'S DECISION #A94-001 WHICH HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO DENY A LICENSE FOR OPERATION OF A MOBILE HOME PARK TO BE LOCATED ON DWIRE DRIVE. THE TRACT IN QUESTION IS DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1-4 AND TRACT 19A; BLOCK 7; BAY OAKS SUBDMSION. THIS APPEAL WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON FEBRUARY 24,1994. IT WAS TABLED WITHOUT DISCUSSION. THE MOTION TO TABLE SPECIFIED THAT THE APPEAL WAS TO BE BROUGHT UP FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE MARCH 24, 1994, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. ,_. Mr. Harrington stated the appeal was requested by Jan Stevenson and listed in her appeal as Lots 1-4; Block 7; Bay Oaks Subdivision and further described as the 200 and 300 Blocks of Dwire Drive. Ms. Stevenson did not include in her appeal, Tract 19A as it is not a part of Block 7, however staff included it in their review since Tract 19A had in the past been referenced by Ms. Stevenson. The property is zoned R-l, Low Density Residential. Ms. Stevenson is appealing the decision of the Building Official to deny a license for the operation of a mobile home park to be located on the property. Mr. Harrington recounted all of the facts relevant to this appeal. (A complete reading may be found in staffs March 24, 1994, report on A94- 001.) It is staffs recommendation that this appeal be denied. Mr. Harrington added there were 21 notices mailed to surrounding property owners. 2 were returned undeliverable; 1 in favor and 4 were returned in opposition of the appeal. In addition, 20 responses were received in opposition of the appeal and were hand delivered on forms that had been copied and submitted by persons living outside the notification area. A. PROPONENTS Chairman Bernay swore in J an Stevenson. Ms. Stevenson wanted to make sure the Board was copied with a packet of information she had submitted to Mr. Harrington on the previous day. She asked the Board to reverse the decision of the Enforcing Officer. Ms. Stevenson asked to have entered into the record what she referred to as Trial Stipulations together with the Exhibits Referred to Therein. She added, Exhibits Rand U have not been included. The exhibits are included as part of these minutes and are listed as Exhibits Page 8 of 10 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of March 24, 1994 A through AA. Mr. Armstrong reviewed the documents and made no objection to their inclusion in the record of the Board, provided that the City's stipulations in the case were also included in the records. Chairman Bernay allowed both Ms. Stevenson's documents and the City's documents to be included in the Board's record. Ms. Stevenson's documents are attached to these Minutes as Exhibit "C", and the City's documents are attached to these Minutes as Exhibit "D". B. OPPONENTS Chairman Bernay swore in Hugh McCulley. Mr. McCulley commented that it was his impression that since there was a court reporter present for the first hearing and not for the second one, quite possibly the manufacturer's of mobile homes are willing to help Ms. Stevenson fight the City's Zoning Ordinance. He added that if this is correct, there will be thousands of people present at the next hearing. Chairman Bernay swore in Don Ralmuto of 203 Bay Oaks Drive. Mr. Ralmuto stated he was a member of the Bayshore Municipal Utility District (Bay M.U.D.), and was in charge of maintenance and operation of the District. He recalls that when Ms. Stevenson bought the lots, she wanted to place a mobile home on them. The policy of the Bayshore Municipal Utility District was the same as the restrictions that had been placed when the District was formed; 1 single resident on 1 lot. He added she applied for a water and sewer connection from the Bay M.U.D. Board. They refused to approve her request because of the restrictions they adopted requiring that each single lot have a separate water and sewer connection. Mr. Armstrong asked Mr. Ralmuto when that policy was formulated by the Bayshore Municipal Utility District. Mr. Ralmuto replied it was formed when they formed the District. This was a policy of the Board of Directors that was adopted in an open meeting. Mr. Ralmuto said this could be verified by checking with Mr. Morris. Mr. Ralmuto reiterated that the District offered one connection per lot as per the policy, however Ms. Stevenson wanted one connection for all the lots. Mr. Armstrong asked Mr. Ralmuto if he could recall the names of the other Board Members for the Bayshore Municipal Utility District. He said he could provide a list of all of the members. Page 9 of 10 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of March 24, 1994 Mr. Capen asked if this matter had previously been taken to court. Mr. Armstrong stated he was named a defendant in the first lawsuit, so he did not represent the City although he assisted as City Attorney in the representation. The matter had gone to the District Court where the City prevailed with both parties filing cross-motions for summary judgement based on a set of stipulated facts. Part of the stipulations were previously introduced during the meeting. Mr. Armstrong added the City of La Porte prevailed in the District Court and Ms. Stevenson then appealed to the Court of Appeals which ruled that she had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and needed to begin the procedure again. She then appealed to the Supreme Court which affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Mr. Zoller questioned a memorandum submitted by Ms. Stevenson dated March 27, 1989, that was written by Joel Albrecht (former Director of Community Development) to Bob Herrera through John Joems. Mr. Armstrong stated that at the time the letter was written, the City was in the process of cataloging and obtaining facts and information relative to applicants for pre-existing mobile homes in Bay M.D.D. for purposes of making determinations on whether or not the mobile homes were lawful pre-existing non-conforming parks. Staff never made a formal determination that this was a lawful pre-existing non-conforming mobile home park. This was part of the registration process. After complete information was obtained, staff review concluded that this was not a mobile home park. In any event, no Zoning Permit was ever obtained by Ms. Stevenson for a pre-existing non-conforming use of her property as a mobile home park. When the initial determination of the zoning use of Ms. Stevenson's property was made it was clear that staffs position was that the property was R-1 and that Ms. Stevenson did not have a lawful pre-existing non-conforming use as a mobile home park. A motion was made by Ruben Salinas to deny A94-001 and to include into the record the City's stipulations that were a part of the judgement from the District Court. The motion was seconded by Willie Walker. All were in favor and the motion passed. Page 10 of 10 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of March 24, 1994 v. STAFF REPORTS There were none. VI. ADJOURN Chairman Bernay declared the meeting duly adjourned at 9:00 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Peggy Lee, Planning Secretary Minutes approved on the 28th day of April , 1994. Deborah Bernay, Chairman Board of Adjustment MINUTES EXHIBIT A ~!~~ Reauested By: Ms. Jan Stevenson, property owner. Reauested For: 230 Dwire Drive, which is further described as Lots 8 & 9; Block 7; Bay Oaks Subdivision. (See Exhibit A) Zonin~: R-1, Low Density Residential (See Exhibit B) Purpose of Anneal: The applicant is appealing the decision of the Building Official to deny a permit for placement of a H.D.D. Code manufactured home on the above described property. Background: The applicant owns the property located at 230 Dwire in the Bay Oaks Subdivision. She also owned and resided in a H.D.D. Code manufactured home that was located on this property. On July 25, 1993, this structure was heavily damaged by fire. The damage to the home apparently was such that the applicant considered it to be unrepairable. Subsequent to the fire, Ms. Stevenson chose to have the home demolished and removed from the property. The City neither required nor recommended this demolition. On October 28, 1993, Ms. Stevenson filed for a building permit to allow placement of a new H.D.D. Code home at 230 Dwire. On October 29, 1993, the permit application was denied by the Building Official. The denial was based on the provisions of Ordinance 1501, Section 4-201. This is the section that establishes regulations for dealing with nonconforming structures. 'l:xHJBIT A Page 2 of 8 Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 3-24-94 #A93-004 Paragraph 3 of Section 4-201 deals with damage to non-conforming structures. This paragraph specifically states that if such a structure is "destroyed by fire or the elements, it may not be reconstructed or rebuilt except to conform with provisions [of the Zoning Ordinance]." Zoning Ordinance Section 11-604 allows appeals to the Board of Adjustment to be filed by "any person aggrieved or by any officer, department or board of the City of La Porte or affected by any decision of the enforcement officer." Paragraph 3 of this section establishes the following criteria on which the Board must base its decision. · 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 of uses similarly situated. · The decision of the Board must be in the best interest of the community and consistent with the spirit and intent of the City's zoning laws and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of La Porte. An appeal should be granted only when all of these conditions have been satisfied. Only these conditions should be considered in deciding the appeal. Analysis: In the appeal application submitted on the applicant's behalf, Ms. Stevenson and her attorney appear to agree with the City's determination that the H.V.D. Code manufactured home located at 230 Dwire was, until its destruction by fire on July 25, 1993, a legally established non-conforming structure. Based on this point of agreement, staff will not, in this report, include the means and documentation by which the structure was determined to be non-conforming. We will however, should the Board request it, be prepared to present this information during the course of the February 27 hearing. Mr. Keeney, in his application letter, raises a number of points on which he bases this appeal. The first of these is a supposed conflict between Zoning Ordinance sections. The sections referenced are as follows: Page 3 of 8 Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 3-24-94 #A93-004 Paragraph 1 of Section 4-202 reads as follows: "Any non-conforming use may be continued in operation on the same land area and on the same floor in a structure or structures which were occupied by the non-conforming use on the effective date of any amendment by which the use becomes non-conforming, but such land or floor area shall not be increased, except that such limitation shall not apply for farming uses." Paragraph 3 of Section 4-201 reads, in part, as follows: "ll a building occupied by non-conforming uses is destroyed by fire or the elements, it may not be reconstructed or rebuilt except to conform with provisions herein. . . . . . " Section 4-202 deals with "use". Section 4-201 deals with "structures". This is an important distinction. There is no conflict between these sections. When looked at as a whole, Section 4-202 includes regulations for continuation, alteration and abandonment of non-conforming uses. It does not deal with the issue of non- conforming structures. Section 4-201 does however, deal with issues pertaining to non-conforming structures including, as noted in the quoted paragraph, accidental destruction of a structure. By quoting this paragraph out of context, the applicant's attorney has attempted to create the appearance of conflict between ordinance sections. There is no conflict. Since the Building Official's decision was specifically to deny a permit for replacement of a non-conforming structure, it will be useful to examine Section 4-201 in a broad fashion rather than focusing on a single sentence. Section 4-201, in Paragraph 2, provides protection for legally established non-conforming structures. Specifically, "subject to all limitations, herein set forth, any non-conforming structure may be occupied and operated and maintained in a state of good repair ...." The H.D.D. Code manufactured home at 230 Dwire was, under these provisions, afforded the status of a protected non-conforming structure from the date of Bay M.D.D. annexation until the July 1993 fire. It is important to note that the Zoning Ordinance does not arbitrarily require elimination of a non-conforming structure if it suffers minor or even fairly significant damage. Page 4 of 8 Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 3-24-94 #A93-004 Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Section 4-201 make provisions for permitting repairs to damaged or deteriorated non-conforming structures. In cases where costs of repair equal less than 50% of the structure's replacement cost, staff is allowed to issue permits in the same manner as for other construction jobs. Even in cases where structures are damaged to the point where cost of repair would exceed 50% of replacement value, there are provisions that allow the Board of Adjustment to consider special exceptions for repairs or renovations. Additionally, if replacement cost of the structure is in dispute, paragraphs 4 and 5 establish guidelines that allow independent, licensed appraisers to resolve the matter. All of these provisions have been placed in the Zoning Ordinance as a means for protecting the rights and interests of the owners of non-conforming structures. It is only in cases such as this one, where a structure is effectively destroyed, that the Zoning Ordinance prohibits replacement outright. The applicant's attorney, in filing this appeal, also referenced a number of other factors. These are by and large issues that the Board of Adjustment is not empowered to consider. While the following portion of this report will deal briefly with each of the concerns that have been raised, it is important to remember that the Board is only given three 'issues to consider. · Interpretation of the Ordinance. · Granting of special privilege. · Upholding the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and thereby, the best interest of the community. Issue number 2 in Mr. Keeney's letter states: ''The ordinance is unconstitutional." Staff and the City's legal counsel take issue and strongly disagree with this statement. The issue of constitutionality is however, not relevant to this request. The Zoning Ordinance clearly charges the Board to make its determination solely on the issue of whether or not the ordinance is reasonable. The Board must base its decision on the issue of "reasonable interpretation" and not on constitutionality. Page 5 of 8 Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 3-24-94 #A93-004 Issue number 3 states: ''The ordinance is preempted by Federal Law." Again, while staff and the City's legal counsel dispute this assertation, it is not an issue to be resolved by the Board of Adjustment. The Board must base its decision on whether or not the zoning regulation in question is reasonable. Issue number 4 states: ''The ordinance is preempted by State Law." Staff and the City's legal counsel also dispute this statement. But again, the Board must base its decision on whether or not the zoning regulation in question is reasonable. As already noted, the Board is given a limited number of specific charges on which to base its decision when considering an appeal. · Is there a reasonable difference of interpretation as to the specific intent of the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map? The answer to this question is no. There is no reasonable difference of interpretation. Section 4-200 of the Zoning Ordinance states: ''The general public, the Planning Commission and the Board [of Adjustment] are directed to take note that non-conformities in the use and development of land and buildings are to be avoided, or eliminated where now existing, wherever and whenever possible.... It shall be the responsibility of the Planning Commission and the Board to assist the City Council in achieving this goal." The intent of the Zoning Ordinance is clear in regards to this matter. Non-conforming structures are ultimately to be removed from the City. · Is the interpretation of the enforcement officer a reasonable presumption and is the Zoning Ordinance unreasonable? The decision of the Building Official was reasonable in that it was clearly based on Zoning Ordinance requirements. Additionally, the ordinance itself is reasonable in that it establishes several provisions to protect the rights and interests of property owners. This is evidenced by provisions for allowing for repair and maintenance of non-conforming structures, even those that have been damaged or allowed to deteriorate. It is only when a non-conforming structure is effectively destroyed that right of continued non-conformity ceases. Furthermore, upholding the Building Official's decision will not prevent the applicant from establishing another home on her property. It will only prohibit placement of another Page 6 of 8 Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 3-24-94 #A93-004 H.D.D. Code manufactured home. The applicant is certainly free to have a conventionally built home constructed on the property. · Will granting the appeal afford a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated? In this case, the answer is yes. Granting this appeal would certainly grant a special privilege to this property. The City of La Porte has consistently dealt with non-conforming mobile and manufactured homes in the same manner. Specifically, non-conforming units are granted (where appropriate) legal non-conforming status until such time as they are destroyed or removed. This stand, which has been upheld by the Board in previous appeals, has been enforced consistently. To grant this appeal would effectively establish a standard that is different than has previously been applied in similar instances. · Will the decision of the Board (to grant or deny) 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? The decision of the Building Official to deny the applicant's permit was clearly in line with Zoning Ordinance requirements. To grant the appeal would be contrary to the letter and intent of the Ordinance. In regards to intent of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and map are components of the Comprehensive Plan and as such, are tools by which the Plan's intent is to be achieved. The Comprehensive Plan itself was developed as a model or guide to promote development of the City in a manner that best serves the interests of the community as a whole. To this end, the plan was subjected to an extensive public review process that included both formal public hearing and informal neighborhood meetings. Subsequent to the 1988 Bay M.D.D. annexation, the Comprehensive Plan was updated to incorporate the newly annexed areas. These plan amendments were discussed and developed during a series of Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. The amendments were formally adopted (following public hearings) in conjunction with the permanent zoning classifications now assigned to the former Bay M.D.D. area. Finally, with the recent adoption of the "Bayfront Master Plan" as a Comprehensive Plan component, the intent of the Plan is once again reaffirmed. Page 7 of 8 Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 3-24-94 #A93-004 The intent, simply stated, is that the Bay Oaks Subdivision is best suited to continue as a subdivision of conventionally built single family homes. Given the extensive and public nature of the Comprehensive Plan development process, staff feels the Plan should be construed as representing the best interest of the community. With this in mind, staff would summarize the key points of this matter as follows: · The Building Official's decision was to deny a permit for replacement of a non-conforming "structure". The decision did not deal with non-conforming "use". · The H.D.D. Code manufactured home was a non-conforming structure. · This structure was afforded protected status until the July 25, 1993, fire. The structure, in the estimation of the applicant, was effectively destroyed by fire. This is evidenced by her decision to have the structure demolished. · The applicant's decision to have the structure demolished was made independently and not at the direction or recommendation of the City. · Issues raised by the applicant's attorney such as constitutionality of the Zoning Ordinance and possible conflict with state and federal law are not matters that the Board of Adjustment is empowered to consider. Therefore, they should not be considered in conjunction with this appeal. · There is no reasonable difference of interpretation as to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or map. · The requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, as they apply to non-conforming structures, are reasonable and should be upheld. · The Building Official properly interpretated the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. His decision is reasonable and should be upheld. · Granting this appeal would afford a special privilege to this property. · Granting this appeal would not be consistent with the best interest of the community, nor would it be consistent with the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. Page 8 of 8 Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 3-24-94 #A93-Q04 Conclusion: Based on the facts and considerations presented above, staff recommends denial of Appeal of the Enforcing Officer's Decision # A93-004. Anneals: 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. MINUTES EXHIBIT B November 24, 1993 '\.w,,~ '''~.'.'' . ~'"'' ....,.... "':li.~',.,..~-D <~ _3' .3__";~ · :;;.,j" ',' i 'ilY" . o'l'",", :,l' .', j ,<\ ,~. ;- ~.i,; . . i',P J . -.:.'.,...a ~~#!II<.~ .~ .itPlliiMi _ '-;~"J'. T;li;r~. ..,""''1""''',''''..,y... ~.r:~" ~ 11 ',.,;1;1'" ..~"- JlUi~ . ~ l: U~ r.. -:. ,,~;. APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION TO ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DELIVER BY MESSENGER Mr. Mark S. Lewis Chief Building Official' City of La Porte La Porte, Texas Dear Sir: Pursuant to section 11-604 of the City of La Porte Zoning Ordinance 1501, an Appeal is hereby taken to the Board of Adjustment of the denial by Mark S. Lewis of the request of Ms. Jan Stevenson for a building permit to place a manufactured home at 230 Dwire Drive. On December 31, 1988, Ms. Stevenson was the owner of two residential lots more particularly described as follows: Lots 8 and 9 in Block 7 in Bay Oaks Subdivision in Harris County, Texas as recorded in Volume 10, Page 9 of the Map Records of said County. Ms. Stevenson was lawfully using such property as the site for a manufactured home which she occupied as her residence. On such day, such property was annexed by and became a part of the city of La Porte. The city of La Porte assigned to the area in which such property was located a zoning designation of "R-1" pursuant to which no use was permitted except "single family dwellings, detached" and "modular housing on a permanent foundation system" (with certain exceptions not material to this Appeal). After such property was annexed, Ms. Stevenson continued to use such property as the site for a manufactured home until September 18, 1993, when the manufactured home situated upon the property was destroyed by fire and removed. On October 28, 1993, within ninety days after such manufactured home was destroyed by fire and removed, Ms. Stevenson filed her application for a permit to move onto the property a "HOD Code Approved Home where a previous HOD Code Home was consumed by fire". A copy of such Application is attached hereto as "Exhibit A". Such application was denied on October 29, 1993. No reason was given for the denial of such application except that such action was in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance 1501 of the City of La Porte. R1124.93 EXHJBlT B The grounds upon which such Appeal is based are as follows: 1. There is a conflict between provisions of the Zoning ordinance. Paragraph 1 of Section 4-202 reads as follows: "Any non-conforming use may be continued in operation on the same land area and on the same floor in a structure or structures which were occupied by the non-conforming use on the effective date of any amendment by which the use becomes non-conforming, but such land or floor area shall not be increased, except that such limitation shall not apply for farming uses." Paragraph 3 of section 4-201 reads, in part, as follows: "If a building occupied by non-conforming uses is destroyed by fire or the elements, it may not be reconstructed or rebuilt except to conform with provisions herein......" In its application to a site for a manufactured home, section 4-201 is in conflict with section 4-202. section 4-202 guarantees to the owner of a site for a manufactured home to continue that use despite amendments to the zoning pattern of the ci ty , but your interpretation of section 4-201 would deprive such owner of such right if a manufactured home which happens to occupy such site is destroyed by fire. Such interpretation fails to appreciate the basic concept of a site for a manufactured home.. It is often anticipated that one manufactured home will, someday, be removed from the manufactured home site, and replaced with another. See, for example, Tex. Rev. civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 5221f, Sec. 4A(a), a state statute which encourages and mandates cities' allowance of replacement of mobile homes with HUD Code manufactured homes. The nature of a manufactured home makes that feasible, whereas it would not be feasible in the case of a home of conventional construction. The manufactured home that happens to be situated on that site for the moment is not significant to the continued non-conforming use of the land. Your interpretation of section 4-201 would result in the illogical and ironic conclusion that a manufactured home could be removed from a manufactured home site without interrupting the right to continue to use that land for such purpose so long as such use was not abandoned, but if the manufactured home which happened to occupy such site was destroyed by fire, the right to use the land for such purpose would be terminated. 2. The ordinance is unconstitutional. First, the ordinance excludes manufactured homes from R-1 zones. Under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Rl124.93 - 2 - united states constitution, an ordinance must have a rational basis. See Horizon concepts. Inc. v. city of Balch sorinqs, 789 F.2d 1165, 1167 (5th Cir. 1986). An ordinance which excludes manufactured homes as a class, without referring to size or appearance, is unconstitutional. See Cannon v. Coweta county, 389 S.E.2d 329 (Ga. Sup. ct. 1990}i Robinson Township v. Knoll, 302 N.W.2d 146 (Mich. Sup. ct. 1981}i Town of Chesterfield v. Brooks, 489 A.2d 600 (N.H. Sup. ct. 1985}i Luczvnski v. Temole, 497 A.2d 211 (N.J. Super. Ch. 1985). Since the ordinance excludes all manufactured homes as a class in certain zones, the ordinance is unconstitutional. Second, the ordinance permits modular housing in R-1 zones while simultaneously excluding manufactured homes. Under the Equal Protection Clause, a municipality must have a rational basis for treating two classes differently. The method by which the structure is transported to the site, the method of construction, aesthetics and the preservation of property values are all unconstitutional reasons for treating modular housing differently than manufactured homes. See Bourqeois v. Parish of st. Tammanv, 628 F.Supp. 159 (E.D. La. 1986}i Geiqer v. Zoning Hearina Board, 507 A.2d 361 (pa. Sup. ct. 1986) i Robinson TownshiD v. Knoll, supra, 302 N.W.2d 146. Even the Supreme Court of Texas has suggested that an ordinance may be unconstitutional if it treats mobile home owners differently. See city of Brookside Villaqe v. Comeau, 633 S.W.2d 790, 796 (Tex. 1982) ("Because all mobile home owners are treated alike under [the ordinance in question], no denial of equal protection is presented"). Negative attitudes and irrational prejudices are not acceptable reasons. for treating manufactured homes differently than modular housing. See City of Cleburne. Texas v. Cleburne Livinq Center, 473 U.S. 432, 446-48, 105 S. ct. 3249, 3258-59 (1985). There is no logical basis for treating modular housing differently than manufactured homes in order to achieve a legitimate goal; therefore, the ordinance is unconstitutional. Third, Paragraph 3 of section 4-201 violates the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution because it is a per se restriction. In addition to looking at the percentage of damage, the city must look at other factors before prohibiting Ms. Stevenson from replacing her manufactured home. Specifically, the City must determine whether Ms. Stevenson's lawful, non-conforming use is a nuisance or is harmful to public health, safety, morals or welfare. See Adcock v. Kinq, 520 S.W. 2d 418, 422-23 (Tex. civ. App. -- Texarkana 1975, no writ). Since Paragraph 3 of Section 4- 201, on its face and as applied to Ms. Stevenson, does not require the City of La Porte to look at other factors before determining whether she may continue her lawful non-conforming use, the ordinance is unconstitutional under Adcock, supra. Rl124.93 - 3 - 3. The ordinance is preempted by Federal law. Federal law prohibits states and cities from regulating the safety and construction of manufactured homes. 42 U.S.C. Section 5403(d). The ordinance permits modular housing in R-1 zones while simultaneously excluding manufactured homes. It is not clear why La Porte treats modular housing differently than HUO Code homes. If modular homes are treated differently because La Porte believes they are safer or built better, then the ordinance is preempted by Federal law. La Porte cannot disguise a safety statute by calling it a zoning ordinance. See Scurlock v. City of Lvnn Haven, 858 F.2d 1521, 1523-25 (11th Cir. 1988). Also, if La Porte's reason for the differential treatment is not safety-related, then, under the analysis stated above, its reason is not constitutional. 4. The ordinance is preempted by State law. The Texas Manufactured Housing standards Act, Art. 5221f, Tex. Rev. civ. stat. Ann., recognizes, incorporates, defers to and implements the aforementioned agenda of Federal preemption. Specifically, HUD Code manufactured homes are given preferred placement status in the face of local installation ordinances to the contrary. Additionally, the modular or industrialized housing which La Porte finds acceptable, while discriminating against HUD Code manufactured housing, is subject to uniform regulation, enforcement, and code compliance pursuant to Art. 5221f-1, Tex. Rev. civ. Stat. Ann. Also enclosed herewith is your printed form entitled "Zoning Board of Adjustment Appeal of Enforcement Officer's Decision" (Exhibit B) and Site Plan prepared by Charles E. Bates (Exhibit C). Pursuant to section 11-604, you are hereby requested to transmit the record upon which this Appeal is taken to the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment is hereby requested to reverse the decision of the enforcing officer and cause to be granted a building permit authorizing Ms. Stevenson to move a manufactured home onto her property in accordance with the application she has previously filed. James R. Keeney, Jr. Attorney for Appellant P.O. Box 134 La Porte, TX 77572 Rl124.93 - 4 - .lJ'1: DOOL..EY TACKABERRY TO: lS1:2~S91S:1 NOU 1. 1993 9:41AM U22S P.02 lILO t2(G -.L Clrl or ~A ~oeTE ~ER~~~ 1PPLIC~~OM FO~ -../ .' I r ': K~C~.wI~L L I 'iLECTltICAL Z(s~m B4CX OF FoaM) *ftUMaIlfG .__....~.....C~dUC._.~_...".._.._~..-.......C...~=~..==~a..~..c=z....a~c~.. XPRO.tiiC-: ADOB.ESS;~.a. ~td/~c:- t1/t/;;l~ ~ott...: !I-q /.2 ~ . )(SUSO!'V1SION: (,..')19"1... CfJ;lJKj BLoa J 7- _ ~ OWNER I S NAME: ".,/:;;'1..:1" , ,g. f\ f(G'.v ~ AJJ",J - ~O~I' !/d fl./'P- ';{ AOOREBSi 4..10? "'fAll~Jc Ik. ~/I~ ?J: .'-t:J.J" 71 _ S~RE&T crT: ~lP .. <:;~,tl: - d~ {~C?~ ~t1Ju.. iK: 1,,, X CON~!,\e'1'oa ~ -...A ADOAESS: ". ........ 1......-..................__.~I...:s"l'REftw.' ." ,,_...r,-,.. "",-'. . . . c:tft' ., , 4. r . -4 . .. ui iNCIUij;R: ... 1"'4_ .. - . -.- OeSIQlE1\: - . _ - ~Dl1ILDJ:1fa I.7SZ: &(1 It...tt.... {JJr:11. SQ,)CrOO':~GEJ Ltl#O u...' S1'~J:%i: n. / X VALUA'rfOtf: ,. &" ~ ~. '. O~~U:i2 votu<: I'~e-.& .../( ')l R4 ~ LI(/.,)'....{..~/Je; 11~~,6(Jd_1..d A4m~J _. dU ,t; r d/~~~ h,sV/D.,J ~1It/~ t!.~~~(' t.lnl~...(!..tJ~.s'U~E~ ~7 r;~~ . . . .....-. ~__Jt..~.._..Q~.....~.....=..~..c._....=Q..a.....a~A~..~................. --lOR CIT~ U8Z ONty-- oc:cu~ Tn>> E "- CONST 1'~9t J't.OOD iONE r- USE tON5: CI.J.J8 JORX .. >>''rORIES AI' SQ. "'. ,. PKG aeQ 1 .. COHH. It-DO. '''AMS QtlU ... exltl: ta.aslW. Al'!ROV", ~ , CHiCDtUlfPaOn:O fOR C~SU1NC2 !'l: DIU: ..... SL'S~I~ CONDI1'tOtf": 14;J J:,~; !AI"'" '" ~~.'../ J j ~~IIl;-4) I:' 4s:.....D1W~~~~ c..v:-+'" -t~ f7"'.J;, l:"(\ ( 4.,a t6~'~) q,-J.)'.s.~fIt~~ lf~JJ J.... . ."".".......~.""..."a.....oa...~...........a..~~~~~.~~.~~ . . P:2RKt1 n2 r . DI.1'I, P~RKI~ NO. ____ · - (~t''rAeJf '1'0 .C'lUu. Pt:J)a'l') .~a.._ca.N......~~~q.....~..~".~~==_......~...~......~.......__*...==.C~M.. Exhibit A October 12, 1993 Mr. Mark S. Lewis Chief Building Official City of La Porte P. O. Box 1115 La Porte, TX 77572-1115 Dear Mr. Lewis: The law simply does not make sense. Please consider this my formal application for a permit to place and install to state standards, a HUD-code manufactured home as a replacement to the manufactured home destroyed by fire at 230 Dwire Dr., La Porte, Texas. Please advise as to the cost of the permit fee, and I will remit to you immediately. The home destroyed by fire was an older HUD-code manufactured home; however, I have been told that I can place a HUD-code manufactured home on a lot in the city unless the area is not appropriate for HUD-code manufactured homes. Please tell me why 230 Dwire is not an appropriate lot for a HUD-code manufactured home since I lived in a HUD-code manufactured home at that location for approximately five years? Thank you, Jan Stevenson 230 Dwire Dr. La Porte, TX 77571 D1: OOCL.EY TACKABERRV TC: lS1~~S91S11 I'f"V 1. 1993 9: 42f:lM U22S P. aJ City of La Porte bilahli.VK'(] J K92 . October 29, 1993 Mrs. Jan Stevenson PO Box 38S La Pone. TX 77571 Rc: Building Permit for 230 Dwire Dear Mrs. Stevenson, J regret that J am not able to grant your requested bui1dillg permit lor placcmcDt of a manufactured home at 230 Dwire Drive. Based on the iDfometion provided in your October 12, 1993 letter, the home which was destroyed was . BUD-code mlP'Ufacturcd home built after 1976. As such the home, based on its location in a R-1 zone. was a legally established nonconforming struClUrC. II. was legally Cit,bl1sHd by Yir1ue of beiDa in place prior to La Porte's 1989 ann=atioD of the former Ba)'lbote Municipal Udlhy DistriQ. However, as the home has been de5troyed, under the terms of the City'1 Zoning OrdiDance, it cannot be replaced with another manufactured home. Additionally, as tho home was I "IIUJ)..(:ode manufactured home- rather than a -mobile home., it iI DOt oIi&ible for replacement under the tClJt1$ of stalC law. Please consider this letter as fomw notice thaI under the prOYisiom of Zoning Ordinanco 1501, Seedon 4-201.3, your request for a building permit to p1ac:c a manufactured home at 230 Dwire OrNe is denied. The proper procedure for appealing this d&t-is:iOD, should you wish to do so, is to petition the Oty's Zoning Board of Adjustment. Sincerely, )1J / ~~-' Mark S. Lewis Chief Building Official xC: Charles Harrington, Direclor of Planning John Armstrong, Assistant City Attorney attachment 1'1'.1\'.~ Ill'). lal"'lh'.T,.'(.I~i;;7L.lll'). (711)"i'I.;N~1 , - . CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION ------~---------------------------------------------------------------- Applicat10n No.: OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received: --~---~------------------------------------------------------~--------~ Applicant: Jan Stevenson Name P. O. Box 385, La Porte, TX 77572-0385 Address- PH: I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized to act on my behalf in this matter. Owner*: Jan Stevenson Name P. O. Box 385. La Porte. TX 77572-0385 Address PH: I am appealing the decision regarding or the interpertation of ~ect. 4-201. 4-202 of the City Zoning Ordinance No. 1501. I am making this appeal in regards to the property located . at 234 Dwire Street: Lots 8 & 9. Block 7. Bav Oaks Subdivision. Volume 10. Street Address Legal Description PaQe 9. Harris County Map Records ( ) Site Plan () Minor Development Site Plan ( ) Major Development Site Plan ( ) 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 up6n which I am making this request. * If applicant is NOT the owner, he ~ provide Authorization to act on the (] I ------------------------------- ------------------------------- . . ~ Applicant's Signature OFFICE USE OILY Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes ( ) No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: Meeting Date: Applicant Notified of Date: Board's Decision: Approved ( ) "Denied ( ) Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: Exhibit B 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: SEE ATTACHED LETTER TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT: SEE ATTACHED LETTER GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST: SEE ATTACHED LETTER CED/1-'87 F:;;r:pr: :.DCi_i::" -:':'.:"~T::R--.--V !5124591511 TC: '0 '. . .' Nl 1. 1993 9:43AM ~225 P.04 . , c. : ".'N .' W'~E .......1..~. . ;..s. 'I,: ---....----..- . -- ,.J ~ \:;,.:J~1tI P. r /I. ,-S ;~.! ,I :~ .to . ~e). ~- ,->/".[ . (I 0'- . ?J-?/ L.t9 fl/2 /o~, -(y.. T ". ~ '. 'I'~' 5(i ." . I. . wesr 10'1.00., ,.... '. ..-'. o..._~. "'t. ~'HOII .,."ltl - ---r~-":"'~.~.- (]) A I<? '<:) BP.'f O~t-J\.p..~ 'iol. 10 P6 ~ ~: ~I U) . . , II I' X fO Nvt> ~,# .u.....s I /..or 8 LDr 8 Lor 7 ~ ~ .u "'I ...._.~- ,a "";;1.14 S/~i.' .J&r 1J,IICk!J lJAC (<. Sir /1;' c t:: r:.z.".JT S'zr 4.u"t: 6- /$ DWIRE STREET (50'R.q..~.) , .,).1' I I I I II i I MOlt, 1~1~ IU'V" HA. ~~1 att~ AOITA&CTID OT IHI ,~.yt'o..; 1.' I' I'~(l"'.. f,. I:; I~ 'MI IIID "... HOOP'PL~III. 0.;.:.:...:......;"'...;.. $TATE Tl/CAS.. .~" .. "t~ . .f.'. . ... ,,.. . ~ . ~'. . ,.f' ! , ~ ~ ~ ~.. < Loti 10 . ~ ~ ". ~ ~ ~ .~ tNlI~' ..f " . .;,. G F. N.O t ~ A ~ C IJC.f ii.;~'l~t.;;;,-~r .....j ;-:.?C>.... ..____.... L..-____-____ -.:!.P~_. _~~.ff.__ Cfj87-/% .._._~._..f?~.J8,/~7 CHA RLt:S'..:' E.' 8ATE'S:~. RE61STcRED PUBLIC SURVEYOR NO. 4110': /110 E. UIit#4JTH, OUR 'ARK, T{XAS 17U.(7JJJ 47"';J5 . .' ....1 : . . . I . ''-. .: ,"1 .~ I'~ .~ . ,. 'I .' .t :' .' 11 . ~. '. ~ . ,".11 .: ~t .' :( . )i .:J '. .1 I ! "i . ; '. ~ . ;1 ..,1 . '~1 .:. " .1, t: . . . J MINUTES EXHIBIT C .<M<._ March 24, [994 Dear Reader: It is very important that you understand the contents of the packet you are about to open. #A94-001 In tonight's meeting, you will find various items that are questionable and these items in question are being backed up by information in this packet.. Background: Following annexation, the City of LaPorte did in fact issue a license to Ms. Stevenson to pursue the business of a mobile home partk. (Copy of License in Packet) Ms. Stevenson had applied for a Mobile Home Park Permit from Harris County and was granted that Class B Permit that authorized the receiving and installation of incoming mobile homes onto spaces that had been approved by permits issued by the County.. The City says that these permits were for flood control purposes, but if you will note, also in the packet, following the permits for Stevenson, there is also a Class B Permit that was issued to Pecan Plantation on Spencer Highway. This is also the very same kind of a permit, and one could wonder, if the City is successful at this attempt to overturn one Permit, might they also try to overturn another? These permits were issued before the annexation by LaPorte on January 1, 1989. It was a requirement by Bayshore Municipal Utility District to see the Harris County Permits before they would place the water and sewer taps, this information is also contained in this packet along with their charges for each lot that had to be connected. In the packet, you will also find an inner-office memo that was issued within the City of LaPorte, that states Ms. Stevenson did in fact have a legal non-conforming mobile home park and the description of what a non-conforming mobile home park is. - ~.~ The City has spent weB ver $50,000.00 in taxpayer's money fighting Ms. Stevenson, and I wonder how much more t . ~wiUing to spend to just keep 2 of the vacant lots from being used that was developed for use only by mobile homes? If Stevenson did not believe the City of LaPorte in 1988, do you think she would have left any of her lots vacant? Of course not, she would have made sure manufactured homes were on each ofthe lots, and that they were never moved., as long as she desired, but the City led her to believe she was okay and that she would be able to use her investment in her own property.. EXHIBlT C .0" 2l2928-B32 4-9- ,19 85 , to who is the owner of .:':- ~... . ~~ 4. The Countl Engineer shall be allowed to periodically ente- onb 'he premises for the purpose 0 inspecting the park for compliance with this.?e~:' _ , ~ ~ '"'i I '~ 2. All mobile homes are securely blocked ~nd tied in accordance with the Mobile Home Manufacturers Association Standards or Standards determined by the County Engineer. '-. 3. An evacuation plan is submitted to the local Disaster Preparedness Authorities. ....... ,. 5. The mobile. home park owner shall place a tag on all incoming mobile homes and in _, ~ti~g,. promptly (within ~ working days) submit.. .the registration number or .other . Identifymg number and mobile home ~ark name and site number to the County Engmeer. - The County Engineer shall inspect all incoming mobile homes during one of his }If!l'indie visiLs to the site to determine if the floor of the mobile home is elevated and all mechanic~l and electrical equipment is either flood proofed or elevated to the proper elevatio;.. ~ .~ \J This permit is issued in consideration of permittee's represe.ntation to Commissioners':':, . . Court of Harris County, Texas that the Mobile Home Park will be operated in strict., ' conformity with plans and speeifications filed with the County Engineer as part of the. . permit application. along with other information whieh may have been filed .with the County Engineer to seeure this permit. The permittee is on notice that failure to comply with the permit will result in enforcement proceedings before Commissioners' . '. Court and/or injunctive action, or both, at the discretion of Commissioners' Court if '.' . .",' the permittee Wlshes to deviate from the plans on file with the County Engineer or from. .'. 'r the conditions of the permit, he must file supplemental plans and/or a written -request ..'. with the Co~~ty Engmeer and secure the County Engineer's approval of the change:.J(t ;~. U th-: County 'E~~n>eer'l~riodic inspections in~~te the permittee is not in <7>mplian~,':" :.. "" he will .request the owner to make the corrections under the penalty of haVIng pel'm1t._~ > '" 5USpended or revoked. > . . - . - . ., - The elevation of the 100 year flood is 2.5 feet above mean sea level and wou1d~ /;:; inundate this park by. lO.O~eet to 12.0~eet. . ..:" The hard copy of this permit shaH be posted in a prominent place on the premises and ;/ . proteett'!d from the elements, it shall confmn permit has issued. . .'. SPECIAL PROVISION: lPini8h@d floor to bft at Itmst 2.5 feet &boTe. ~ 1'Uth'tT'At qrl'ldlllt_ All ~hl'lnft'"Jll l'lnd ftlt'tCtrical including' Air ~~H~i.tminq nnH~" ~ft M at: 1eall't:. 2.5 reet above natural ~de. , "'1 nJ ~ ~ I" ~0J ~ lJ ~ ~~ \~ ~'\J ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ .....J ~ \J . and _ept:ie- ayst.t;o be ~er t:iqht "'hrait f....$6.00. +~p:' 30.00.- $36.00 ~~j'\'~~5eJ?'j;,i;~ tsit:.:py:;. ...' lLEl;ULATlONS OF llAHlllS COUNTY, TEXAS FOR FLOOD PL^IN MA...I\-I^GEMENT DEVELOP,MENT PEIU\llT STATE OF TEXAS )( COUNTY OF HARRIS )( f""~~.:' ;:t~ ')'.1 :~l ~ 1 ~ lJ ~:;/. ~'l~\/)~.' .:~ ~<:" ' PE1<JvllT NUt\l13ER: DATE: ~~~&4(~ l::tf..~[{ljt'~~iU:W;l&:i:aI.4~~j;J~S::-~~- This permit is issued to... '~.",' --:- - " h", ,-. , IS effective immediately and is not tramferable. Construction must begin within one (1) year from the date he1eon. However, if construction has not started at the time a revision in the Flood insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or the Flood Bound~ry Map or Floodway Map, this Permit is void and a new Permit must be obtained. Tlus Permit authorizes the Permittee to develop tile following described property Ul Harris COUIlty, Texas, in strict accordancc with thc plans for dcvelopmcnt filcd with L1le Applica~Wj\J9f)~jlf~oJ~W1 -. nt.'{ tl'd<b SEC-l.1~ EL}~~I)! l. (rr-'IJ'J ,I J. :2~.O [,WJJ<E Dil: Work must not start until this Notice is posted at the building sileo THE PEIU\llTTEE 1'.lUST NOTiFY THE COUNTY ENGINEER WHENEVER WORK IS READY FOR THE iNSPECTiONS REQUIRED 13Y THESE REGULA nONS. FAILURE TO COMPLY WlTH THE REGULATIONS OF HARRiS COUNTY AND THE TERIvlS OF THIS PERMIT WILL RESULT iN LEGAL ACTiO:\. Changes from the Plans and Specifica- tiOIlS OIl file with the County Engi.neer, must be approved by the County Engineer. The County Engineer may make scheduled or unscheduled inspections of the work in progress. Any work which does not comply with the plans and spccific~ti.ons filcd with tile Application must be corrected or this Permit will be suspended or revoked. THE HARD COPY OF THiS PERMiT 1-.1US1 BE POSTED IN A LOCATION PROTEC- " TED FROM WEATHER AND SECURE FROi,l VANDALISM, AND KJ;:PT POST~D UNTIL THE WORK IS CO:VIPLETED. A SET OF 'APPROVED PLANS SUDivlITTED . WITH THEiY\l~~~(tTlQfi Fq!SJH1~ PEl~,\~p-,~l~r~U l3E KEPT ON THE JODSlTE. ~.IO.O ::;j~ \l:.'!~ -,- ;R, a'" .. / ' CI &w:.:.'I. ,'.' i?~ ... , ,,' ~~""~0 Counly Engincer t .x:C:;; r Vl.r';, j r'~',;<l< t " l '" ",. '\ ,,'\J .I~:. ~1.L. o 8 3 7 8~Li"':;::; J:::: JOB SITE COpy '5 HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING OFFICE - PERMIT SECTION PEFr'l I T I nOLI I F:'T' 2 i EPIQ5 PERf'1I T fHJt'1E:ER: 22,::64:::: SUBDIV: BAY OAKS STREET NO: 200 STREET NAME: DWIRE DR SECT: QQ LOT: OOOi 8LK: 07 LAND TYPE: 5 tJOTES: PErm I NG; CON(; I T ICil'I5.i ':Tf-iEY~6:t;f.pkB'E.ffiEt.EK SEEKiNG CLRSS'II PERMITS. 6~~i/81-AMC - ~~****PERMIT RTTACHMENT****** FItHSHED FlOOF: OF ALL t'108ILE Hor'lE5 j,HTHIN PAR:K TO BE A MINIMUM OF 2. 5 FEET ABOVE NATURAL GRADE. ALL ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT(INCLUDING AIR CONDITIONING COMPONENTS) TO BE A MINIMUM OF ~ 0 FEET ABOVE NATURAL GRADE. ALL SANITARY SEWER CONNECTIONS TO BE WATER TIGHT MOBILE HOMES TO BE SECURELY ANCHORED IN ACCOF:DRt/CE j,J I TH t'lAUUFACTUPER'5 I IISTFUCT I OtiS OF, IF NOT AVAILABLE, WITH STATE AND CrnJNTY ENTEF - GENEFAL PF~ - FLOOD RND INSPECTION PF2 - SPECIAL PF:::: - NOTES PF -+ - HEl.J SCREEN 5 HARF:IS COUf..]'T' EI,GINEEi=:ItKi OFFICE - PEF.:t1IT SECT I Ot-J 2 PERMIT INQUIRY 2 EPIQ5 PERMIT NUMBER: 226643 SUE:D I \I: BA'T' OA,;S STREET NO: 20C1 STREET tlAt'lE: DL'lIF:E [:.F: SECT: 00 LOT: 000~ BLK: 07 LAND TYPE: S NOTES: REOU I REi'lEt-nS. MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND FINAL INSPECTIONS ARE ,~~~~:1~~ili~lt{~~i~~~rr8~~II~.Bt~~?~~~ -EXI5TING'1'10BILE 'HO 'lE""FA"RK;2DU<.-j, ... . . -- -~ .~: - - - '---. -- - -r~:..::~?:~:;::;~-::::; . 5 -SfJ,4C:0 t1-Ll {)-(jJ0 7<J Ey: (.s T/.tU~ /YJd 6/ d /0(0/'7 L ~,q-~ Ie.. - A C K NOW lED GEM E ~ T PERMIT ATTACHMENTS a~/;~ ~~ SJGNATURE Df..,;: (/ . ~ULATIONS OF HARRIS COUNTY, TJ6'\S F~ PLAIN MANAGtMENT DEVELO~ PERMIT , TEXAS )( )F HARRIS )( MBER: 2314468 DA~: 03/31/00 s issued to .JANET A STEVENsON . is tediately and is not tTmsferable. Construction must begin 'Nithin one (l) : date hereon. However, if COn.~tIUCtion hIS not suned at the time a revision Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Of the Flood Boundary Map or Floodway Map, . void and , new Permit must be obtained. luthorizes the Permittee to develop the foUowing described property in " Texas.. in strict accordance v.ith the plms for d~elopment filed with the )f this Permit. - SUBr ISION - BAV OAKS SEC-v-J au< -07 LOT-0008 230 DWIRE OR Jt start until this Notice is posted at the building site. TIlE PERMITTEE Y THE COUNTY ENGINEER WHENEVER WORK 15 READY FOR TIlE :; REQUIRED BY THESE REGULATIONS. FAILURE TO COMPLY {EGtJLA TIONS OF HARRIS COUNlY AND THE TERMS OF TIlIS L RESULT IN LEGA_L ACTION. Changes from the Plans and SpecifiC3- with the County Engineef, must be approved by the County Engineer. ;ngineef may mde scheduled or unscheduled inspections of the work in work which does not comply with the plans and specificati~ ftled with :Jr1 must be com:cted or this Permit will be suspended or mokeeL Opy OF TIltS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED IN A LOCATION PROTEC- iVEA TIlER AND SECURE FROM V ANDAUSM. AND KEPT POSTED WORK IS COMPLETED. A SET OF APPROVED PLANS SUBMITTED !'PLICA TlON FOR THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE JOBSITE. .60.03 + ~ ';r).1t:~. 03 -""'. ~ 715 SQ FT '-/ /'/ /~~_ /;_ CT 36602 . ...... ,,~ . ,.... . --.-- f'1/H PAR5< CODE 32 a..A99 11 .- [572-B72 S3 ,to rt i 00 , the permit- he confines .neer under orne owners on the face obile Home y Engineer. Authorities. premises for )mes and in er or other .y Engineer. his perioGic ted and all the proper nmissioners' ~cd in strict , part of the ~d with the ,t failure to nmissioners' ~rs' Court if neer or from tten request thp ~hange. , compliance. lving permit I and would remises and c,ooD PLl\IN ~ NATURAL rCAL CON- BE A MIN . e .---..c.. .. ~ -~. ST A TJO:)iiEXAS COUNTY ffi;'1IARRIS PERMIT NO. la7572~ Bill w. F~AnAr July 19, PERMITTEE 83 Pecan plantaticn w~ M. J!.'J!1es Surveu 1'..E-~E2 CERTIFICATE T~yiuT,",M~f!RfhJWOOR'l' OF HARRIS COUNTY TO CONFORM TO REQU=ENTS OF"tLASS B BUILDING PERMIT The undersigned holder of the captioned Mobile Home Park Permit (whether acting individually or through a duly authorized agent or attorney) does hereby certify to Commissioners' Court of Harris County, Texas as follows: That the undersigned permittee has accepted this Mobile Home Park Permit. That the undersigned permittee is familiar with all plans and specifications and other written material, if any, attached to or filed with Permit Application on me with the County Engineer of Harris County, Texas. That the undersigned permittee acknowledges that the plans, specifications and . other written material filed with the County Engineer with the Permit Application is incorporated by reference and made a part of this Certificate for all purposes. That the undersigned permittee hereby acknowledges {himselO (itselO to be strictly bound to Commissioners' Court to comply with the terms under the above described Mobile Home Park Permit in strict conformity with the plans, specifications and other written material incorporated by reference in this Certificate. 1-/9-R3 . I FllF Copy J BAYSHORE MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 707 SHADY RIVER ROAD LA PORTE, TEXAS 77571 (713) ..(71-5205 : / qgS !~~ 19 ~ y 1 ) REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATION FOR WATER AND SB{ER Tfi~S 1. We suggest you check with the Civic Club of the Addition to determine the restrictions in the addition. 2. If all restrictions are satisfied, we require proof of ownership of property and Harris County perI:lit. f.'_ " ~ _ ~ 3. In order to insure proper sewer & water taps, the District's operator will make them from District's mains to applicant's property line. 4. " The applicant can have his~plumber install water & sewer lines to his property line. However these lines must be inspected and approved by the District before they are covered. 5. The District will then install water meter,& connect to the ,District's water & sewer lines per following schedule of all charges to be paid qy applicant to connect to District's lines. ~ .'.;-"'.\ - ~... ........ $700.00 435.00 (NO BORE) $700.00 435.00 -." ,,,,,,,,,,,':::"" ~.. .-....'.'. '.~....'.Tl",....~~"'""'>-:..-:',~--.__~,.l. -,; SINGLE FAMILY RESIDE~"TIAL">':~~~;""" ,- ,~. 1. CAPITAL CH,ARGES ,,__ . SEI-lER & t.J'ATER TAP FEE " COST TO CONNECT TO WATER & SEWER MAINS (WHEN BORE IS MADE) ~'-. ,_ 950.00 $2,085.00 700.00 "';-;$1_, ~~5. 00 2. COMMERCIAL CAPITAL CHf..RGES SEI~ER & WATER TAP FEE COST TO CONNECT TO WATER & SEWER MAINS (WHEN BORE IS MADE) $2,000.00 435.00 1,' -'fo- TOTAL 950.00 $3,385.00 700.00 $3 ,135'~00 3. H-:JLTIFA}lILY BUILDING (APARTMENTS, CONDOIS OR Tmm!-mUSES) 1. CAPITAL CHARGES $700.00 (TIMES NUMBER.OF UNITS) 2. SEI.J'ER & WATER TAPS FEE $435.00 (TIMES NUXBER OF UNITS) 3:. COST TO CONNECT TO WATER & SEWER MAINS. (h'HEN BORE IS P.ADE) $950.00 (NO BORE) $700.00 " TOTAL $700.00 TIMES NUMBER PER UNITS= $435.00 TIMES NUHBER OF UNITS" (CONNECT TO MAINS) $950.00 or $700.00 4. I1"DUSTRIAL TO BE NEGOTIATED. NOTE: --- \. ~-rnEN APPLICANT IS READY TO COl'-."NECT TO THE DISTRICT t S ~{ATER & _SB-lER LINES ----=--- ALL FEES MUST BE PAID PRIOR TO CONNECTIO~S. "- ).. (/~ . j' 7 /~ IO~ BAYSHORE MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 707 SHADY RIVER ROAD LA PORTE, TEXAS 77571 (713) 471-5205 Ms. Jan Stevenson 258 Dwire La Porte, Texas The Bayshore Municipal Utility District Board of Supervisors have ruled that the following charges will be assessed for your new water and sewer taps for your lots: $2,085.00 2,085.00 1,400.00 for one lot for second lot ($700 capital r~covery charge for the two extra famlly unlts - each) $5,570.00 If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call or write. ~I\... 1) lJ /"'! f. ! Jj~ I I ,1)}lI u nO j{ tv J~ Ill: if' /l ,jl)iJ " ~0 v" if I ArJ1 wis w ffice Manager Bayshore Municipal Utility District --- June 27, 1988 Harris County Engineering Department Permit Section 301 Main Street Houston, Texas 77002-1893 Attention: Hr. .J 0 h n S m i t h R e: ~l'~l~~:'G.Ir~E=:~t~;J~ ~.~~.~,!~it:cZ12 92 S ~E 3 2'rOr'i gi"~~~T~.~. --:-"...-.. ........~-~--------'_.--'-'-._-:.......:::.....22 6 64:3 8 ~1 Ada i t ion) 2..n~3:i;J:~~.fi:.aa:ft;io n)-~' ;.~. '.~~'~~.~~~~?:-~'. h:: .;{1...:t..i;j~~ Dear Sir: ~J;2.1U The above permits were issued to me as follows: 2:~0& B32 on April 9, 1985, for Lots 3 and 4, Block 7 of Bay Oaks Subdivision La~orte, Texas: .~266438 on June 29, 1987 for an addition to my mobile home park,~adding Lot 1, Block 7 of Bay Oaks Subdivision, and the final addition being on April 6, 198~ for Permit 231854B covering Lot 2 of Block 7. At the time I requested the permits, I was operating under the name of J and C Mobile Hone Park. I have now chosen the formal name that I will be using for my park and wish this name to be made a part of your records. P lea sea t t a c h the n am e 0 f Lan- t e ~l~;~J~~~?}~fr~~;JI~J~~:Pa~lti~.~~i ~{:;jj~:=" original permit to replace the na~~ ;f J and C ~obile Home Park. Thank You, ?:~~ 258 ;)wire-,Drive LaPorte, Texas 77571 ~'. ,-~,'.. ,.:4: X!J1 ... c;; c 3: fT1 U'l -i (j ::0 fT1 -i C ::l Z ::l m o m .." -i -I~i~ > ;::;'~I ~ r d", "< l": - I .. ~~lc.g. ~g/!O :; c. '1>:- -.. ....J- ~> 1m ~ ;;.2 c~ . ~ ~ f~ c ~-: 1< ; .:::"::. 1m 0 <III ;- :- 1m ~ -; ';:J :::- ~ ~ co co Q D'. \ ... ... >- n M' :::: .., t.. o ::r ::l en ;: ~- M' =- ~CJ m("):!l XQ~ -i c.~~. ~ : :;. Q Q ~~;;; 0 ~ a.. IT] r::;- o~ o~ '" a. = I,...: o c c ,.... U) M' _ o ::l Cl .., .., t""- en Cl ;-0" ::l ...., ro X to CIl ::l '('T '< -z -z o o N I ~ co \0 W r:=l ::l lH o ro -0 M' -} )0 .:. >-::> Ul Q <! n' Q I :: \"......~ -.Jo 0". t .., Q"\f~ \::;"-' .., n r.; C- O '" N C' C' N ;; ;: ~ ~ ~ i / ( ~ I. C:TY O? LP. ?,ORTE: INTER-OFFICE MEMORtNDUM MARCH 27, 1989 TO: Robert T. .Herrera, City Manager . ~\Q, Developmen~.. FROM: John Joerns, Assistant City Manag r. ,.~ Joel H~ Albrecht, Director of Community THRU: SUBJECT: No Surprise - Mobile Home Complaint Today I received a .complaint concerning a mobile home that was moved on to a lot located at 302 Dwire St. The lot in question is part of Lantern Estates,: a legal non-conforming mobile home qark, oHned by Mrs. Jan Stevenson. There are six (6) registered non-conforming mobile home pa rks in the ne\.;ly 2nn e x ed Ba yl1UD a re a. Three (3) ar e located on DHire Street, one (1) on Bay Oaks and two (2) on Pine Bluff. . .' , ~~:~~~~~.iL.;~~~'';'~ _ . t:fttF~~~~~~~~~.:~~;1:~~la:~~~r~'Dtl~~!' non~~:orm'ln~ use V1~..J1i;~b~:-.cons~dered 's.t9.pped and the~::;~_l~owed~.bY th~~.?~..:2.?..~)?:_0_h~ i pr.oper.ty~'woul~. -._-:t~~k.e precedence ....... In the case of single mobile homes legally ~la~ed on individual lots prior to annexation, they would be classified as non-conforming .structures. These homes may remain in place and used indefinitely until it is removed, damaged or destroyed. If it is removed it can~ot be replaced. If it is da!:1aged more than 50% of the structure v21ue and not approvecj for rebuilding by the Board of Adjustment, it could not be repaired.. . There cu'rrently are two (2) mobile~-home.s in the BayMUD area that fall into the latter caie~ories ~f 'improper placement and damaged' more than 50;::;. Our Code Enforcement Division is -in the process of eliminating these non-conforming structures. . Attached i~ a letter I sent to Mrs. Stevenson last year explaining the effects of annexation to existing mobile home parks. , . ; ., . JJ/JHP.lneb Attachments: (1) Letter dated 7/18/88 to Mrs. Stevenson (2) Complaint received today 3/27/89 MINUTES EXHIBIT 0 VARIANCE REQUEST #V94-003 CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE REQUEST --------------------------------------------A~~l~~~~~~~-~~~~-9~=-~D3-~ OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $100.00 D~te Received: ...3~;l.~-W Receipt No.: 1s/d_ NOTE: This Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision. Applicant: LA f61l -ref" J-"JE1...e'1 ; ~AN . Name I-/r G 1-11"01,4'1 /4' S. Address I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized to act on my behalf in this matter. ')-0 I PH: 41 0 ~ 1.-)... q '8 Owner*: C, L, (;T-e-12- --r Name t4 ~ 0 I /-j 'AY)' lye > ~ l{ Address PH: 4JO;,L7~ I am requesting a variance to Sect. of the City Zoning Ordinance No.1 01. I am requesting this variance for property located at ;:l.. b '<; H-lJJ I ~b S. Street Address Legal Description ( ) Site Plan ~ Minor Development Site Plan (tr? Major Development Site Plan ( ) General Plan A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the follo\~ing pages of this form. a) All facts concerning the matter that has led upto 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. Date Applicant's Signature ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes ( ) No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: Meeting Date: Applicant Notified of Date: Notice to surrounding property owners - Date: Board's Decision: Approved Denied ( Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: PAGE 2 A variance is a "deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance ". The City's Board of Adjustments may NOT grant a variance that does not meet all of the following conditions: 1) The variance must not be contrary to the public interest. 2) Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance must result in a hardship. This hardship must be unique to the property in question. Property that is undevelopable due to its unusual shape, narrowness, shallowness, or topography con- stitutes the primary exampl~ of hardship. Hardships that are financial in nature or due to the owner's actions cannot be granted. 3) Granting the variance must not violate the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. Lf) No variance that allows a use that is prohibited within the Use zone in question may be granted. For example, a variance allowing a commercial use in a residential zone is not allow- able. Please remember it is the Applicant's responsibility to prove that a variance will meet the above conditions. 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: A.v E~;( A\Jt5 A , eI'-JT~\o.,)G6 V.eo~ Au~ A- (c -,s . \)..J 0 L\ '-b ~e {t.J ft+e 7u.. aL.l~ I t0TE"fle ~T.. A t-\ ~R. ~Sl-\', ~ lAJ 0 LU.-b> ~-s U L.:r- IHe- ~~I~t= It-.) \ ~ ESt..H....r .s , N -A"-J ~~Af::7G U' All rtA~u:; 15 ~ 0'\ G <<-A~~l') , 13 LOC.~_S. f? t; f2eSS -r;; 7H-€ fk ()~ e{2. Tj CoI,J~\ ~,~,v (:) t DRI\/~ US-I ~t; I u Ei.Jf~ fi:rt:- ~/1c-(t '1' VI()LA~ The c:;pJ'~i( OP ~t:: tP I-t+I S W'#.J l)ow o IoJe W~ """::> m esT (.Q.A.~I~ f#-t:s. VA-t< I AN~~ D Dc'$ )JOt ~ t.J (~c, ()&""D I N AN cE . PAGE 3 TYPE OF RELIEF B~ING SOUGHT: A ~\Jw rpfhJE ~ OIT OlV ~ A S/i2. e::=c=- T THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST: ,.. \ ~ GI-J J 2.f\J I E"Nc.E ~~L\~ SJ.\~fiT'1 J ~ I"i+E ~I~~~ A L-L O..J..-J ,'f.-j C, A t....J 0=.,~I.A~ b$ ~,:L ~ 7H-e- GE'AJ1f~AL- ~ 8/';/~ {t..J /'.s B-~u..6 ST. 5ftl-E6/ A-v-ovJ So CH-C ex \ '\ ,-- (I A 'I' (.:. T\ 7l-h? pvt5y ;410 1\ A k c::::: o 10 ~ -..J 17< Gt?r 1f?E.P f:fL . I ~ AJo( 0 N c::: r:e.iA~F, <:. '0: b XI, CED/1-'87 Reauested For: ProDerty Zoninl:: o Requested By: Purnose of Reauest: Background: .-- IlftIIR>lllijli~III;) ..... ...................................... 201 Hwy. 146 South, which is further described as Lots 1-4; Block 28; Town of La Porte. (See Exhibit A) General Commercial (GC) Mr. C.L. Poteet, Property Owner To allow construction of a second West "A" Street driveway entrance onto the property in question. The property in question is located at the corner of West "A" Street and the northbound Hwy. 146 feeder. The tract is comprised of four 25' x 125' lots. The 125 foot face of the property parallels West "A" Street. Exhibit A illustrates the location of the building and the configuration of the parking arrangement currently in place. The two driveways that are not highlighted are the drives that were installed when the property was first developed. This driveway arrangement has not proven to be workable. In order to exit the property from either of these entrances, it is necessary for a vehicle to either perform an awkward turnaround or exit against the flow of parking lot traffic. As a result, business customers were routinely exiting the property by driving off the lot, across the grass and onto "A" Street. The drainage swale adjacent to "A" is very gentle and shallow and does not present an obstacle to most vehicles. After a period of time, the applicant asp halted a 17' wide strip of what had become a defacto driveway. The asphalt drive occupies a portion of the space highlighted and identified as "proposed driveway" on Exhibit A. Page 2 of 5 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 4/2B/94 V94-003 After becoming aware of the new driveway, the City informed the applicant that it must be removed. This was based on the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 10-605. Figure 10-3 of this section requires 150 feet of street frontage in order to have two driveway entrances. As noted, the "A" Street face of this property is 125 feet. Mr. Poteet is requesting a variance that will allow him to maintain the second "A" Street driveway. Analysis: Zoning Ordinance Section 11-606 defines a variance as a "deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance granted .., when strict conformity to the Zoning Ordinance would cause an unnecessary hardship because of the circumstances unique to the property ...." This section also charges the Board to grant variances only when it finds that all of the following conditions have been met. 1. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. 2. That literal enforcement of the Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation unique to the specific piece of property in question. "Unnecessary hardship" shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself as distinguished from a hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or caprice, and the hardship must not result from the applicant or property owner's own actions; and 3. That by granting the variance, the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed. The first issue to be dealt with will be hardship. As noted in the background section of this report, the original driveway arrangement has proven to be unworkable. Elimination of the second "A" Street driveway would result in damage to both public and private property as drivers exit across "lawn" area and through the City's drainage swale. The ability to exit at a wide variety of points and angles would result in a potentially unsafe traffic situation of "A" Street and at the feeder road intersection. Placing physical barriers to force vehicles to use only the original drives would result in drivers exiting against Page 3 of 5 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 4/213/94 V94-003 parking lot traffic flow. This would at best, cause inconvenience and nuisance. At worst it could cause a safety hazard. Requiring either of these conditions to persist would appear to result in a hardship for the applicant. In developing this property, the applicant working within the constraints of property size, successfully designed this facility to comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements. He had originally hoped for a second "A" Street driveway. The size, or more specifically the 125' depth of his property, precluded this. The applicant's hardship is a result of strict conformance to ordinance requirements on a relatively shallow piece of property. Given the circumstances of the case, this hardship does appear to be unnecessary. It is not financial or a matter of convenience. The next two conditions to be considered are protection of the "best public interest" and the "spirit of the Zoning Ordinance". Although these are two separate conditions, they are, in terms of this case, closely enough related to be addressed in a single discussion. Figure 10-3 of Section 10-605 establishes the design parameters for "commercial" driveways. In addition to regulating the number of accesses, this section sets the requirements for: · drive width (20'-25') curb return radius (10'-15') clearance from intersection (40' minimum) · spacing between driveways (40' minimum) · percentage of property frontage that can be covered by driveway (40%) · clearance from obstructions (5' minimum) The asphalt drive installed by the applicant, at 17 feet is narrower than allowed by ordinance. If widened to 20 feet, as illustrated on Exhibit A, this drive would comply with all applicable ordinance requirements except for those regarding number of accesses. The second drive, configured in accordance with ordinance requirements would result in a safer and more orderly traffic flow pattern. This result would certainly be in the best public interest. It would additionally, by improving public safety, observe the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Page 4 of 5 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 4/'2B/94 V94-003 If the Board should choose to grant this request, staff would ask that, in the best public interest and in order to observe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance, two conditions be attached. They are as follows: . The driveway be widened to 20 feet. Commercial driveways are often used by more than one vehicle at a time. With this is mind, the minimum 20 feet width established by the ordinance is reasonable and should be observed. . The asphalt driveway should be removed and replaced with a reinforced concrete drive that is finished to match the other drives onto the property. Highway 146 is the major corridor for traffic passing through La Porte. It is the City's chance to put on its best public face and a number of La Porte's most attractive commercial facilities are located on this corridor. Given the high profile location of this property, requiring this driveway to match the other drives onto the property is not unreasonable. Maintaining an attractive appearance in this area is in the best interest of the public. In summation: . Prohibiting a second driveway onto "A" Street would impose a hardship. . The hardship would result from strict conformance with Zoning Ordinance requirements as they apply to a shallow piece of property. . The hardship involves a matter of safety and not convenience or financial considerations. . Improved safety provided by the second driveway would serve both the best public interest and the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. Page 5 of 5 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 4/'lB/94 V94-003 Conclusion: Variance Request V94-003 satisfies ordinance prerequisites. Staff therefore, based on the facts and considerations discussed above, recommends granting this request subject to the following conditions: · Driveway will be located as noted on Exhibit A · Driveway width shall be 20 feet. · Driveway shall be constructed of reinforced concrete. Anneals: 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 Vernon'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. VARIANCE REQUEST #V94-004 APR- 8-94 FRI 8:01 FAX NO. 7134717168 P.01 . , ,.. , . -~, CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING SOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE REQUEST --------------------------------------------A~~li~~~~~~-~~~~--i/:~ol1- Of fICE US. ONLJ:: [ee: Hilil.9.Q Date Re ce i v ed : <J:i.l'=lF ~'/ Receipt No.: ~..s..':i g NOTE: This Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Deci.sion. -~--~-~--~--------------------------------~------------~~~-----~-~----- I am the '!l')-J-.4/Uj--r:S ~/?7~5 N~~ /0 #3 If!~ E,ee V Address / owner of the herein described to act on F4-X PH: 7'70 -2/90 Applicant: property. I have authorized my behalf in this matter. Owner*: fi1- h-A- J-15 #0/111}5 ~rame PH: Address ! am requesting a variance to Sect. Ordinance No. 1501. I am requesting this at ~.3:S CAl!..o 2-1 ~cr~il~r Street Address of the City Zoning variance for property loc~ted Lo~ /<5-r-/7 LbJ-.OC/<- 7)L Legal Description ( ) Site Plan ( ) Minor Development Site Plan ( ) Major Development Site Plan ( ) 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! am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.). c) The grounds upon which I am making this request. * If applicant is NOT the owner, he ~ on the Owner.ls~benalf. M~/9V act __~~M_~_~~_______.~H-~---________~~.H__~~.-_~_~_______-__________~._-__ OFFICE USE ONLY Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes () No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: Meeting Date: Applicant Notified of Date: Notice to surrounding property owners - Date: Board's Decision: Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: J~t!~{C,,~iDK'7\/]3~D :t""2L2CTRI CAL %(SEE BACK OF FORM) 'i!:"'~\>::'';'''' ,?yrr, r.,1i'"""{'~ ~'f"~ ~\'T >>H ':;(Jt;/l:j" ---r- -.--- f :1:?LUMEING CITY OF L~ PORTE PERMIT APPLIC~TION FORM .:JuILDING 1/ ME GiAN I C.lL =======================================================~=================== ?ROJECT ADDRESS: ;<JJ CU.I.! Y.-:;.I // ," ..;- <.., I, LOT il=: /{"!-- /7 7Cf SUBDIVISION: {34 I/H2 0(1--7 pO () BLOCK ~' OWNER'S NAME: /1 f\ - L/ f":- ( L/,/"'_ ';-1 S h 0/11 r- " PHONE i? L/ 70 - 9 _'39.:7 7' ) C(- / 71)- ZIP aDDRESS: STREET CT';'Y ... - ~ CONTR_~CTOR : /1 "r L.J. /V;- M /-:L v'/V7 /5 PH: ( 7 I)) '-I 7{7 - 9' 3C;' ;) ? 'Y'i-/7/J-- ADDRESS: //7? 7 // / / /J k'lc .<' P ;:?/7.-!. 1/ / . I ('_ / ..--1 1/"" ').4. '7 7 ':::;'7/ ST~EET -.,..,.,v I...~;.~ Z"""'" ENGINEER: DESIG~ER: I~ ;J'~: / I ..:; /', V F ;, UCQ 7 ~ 0 ~ C; ~36 9 Su::"DI~-j'G USE: 5;:/( SQ. FCOT.lGE: ) /~ / ~ /' ir STORIES: D~~ ~ '..LUATI ON: J :5 000 DESC2IEE WORK: I I ~~~/ B~ =========================================================================== --~OR CITY USE ONLY-- OCC:UP T'fPE FLOOD ZONE CLASS WORK SQ. FT. CONST-T~E USE ZONE ~ STORIES PKG REQ ~ SPSCIAL CONDITIONS: d~,~5 I [/, ("^~ If' 0"" D DATE:~/7~/1f ~c.k-t.'H. l'A,i ,.,/~ l:vh.,.(t,,,,,/IL, COMM. BLDG. F?LAJ.'lS ONLY - FIRE MARSHAL AP;!?~GVl1L. :~T- i.:- I' : CHEC{ED/APF?ROVED FOR ISSUANCE BY; \ L 0 L.. \,,;1 ~ t_ I j e<./k =========================================================================== .c.SRMIT NO. PERMIT FEE S (ATTACH TO ACTUAL PERMIT) =========================================================================== .?~:::~7~ 3-92 ~: ?E2~!~~;- . :2G/:.:::~-:'. ?:~~~ . - ,.... .~--- ~~~D . ....... ..".",.-.~ ......-.",1. ';'\;:- __"'4 .~-..-..~ ":'I' 9"",, .. r . / '.' !~-". iK : 'f.';;.' ~~ ~.,.l,~ · ,'~..,."..., . .,..-- ..3.".1.... ,~ ,~~ 3-31-94 " "'('I."l;~IOri i~~ -3 -_3~'~ ~ 1=(:.,- """'....,_~."l:.....:.-'-........v-~.,....L I......~ - i"'lr. 1"1 a rk Lel.l,is Ci ty of L.a Porte Building Official Re: 233 Carroll Street This letter is to request an appeal of the denial dated 3-30-94. Further, if opposed by the building inspection department, I would like to request an appeal of the foIl 0(1) i ng : 1. Use of a carport in lieu OT ~ garage In the old sections of La Porte~ 2. Request that lots ~u'x125' be accepted as special lots, per the zoning ordinance, and be allowed a minimum ~ side yard setback al,d 81 SIde yard set back on opposite sidem Minimum drive~J2Y ~jid.th in this sitLlation would be 8' and the drive could abutt the property line. L1Ji 11 i,3,1Ti Her.rick ATLANTIS H 0 M E S 1 ~ C. c- - .- i L.i;' !.',' ...:1:: i...! i } ~ ~::;. ,., !"'ic '"n,_,_ .. ..ii, i.!. " '"' '" ..... . m . . . .... .... . . . 'H' . . ....... n.. _h'_ . . ... .-"1 ',j,..., , ,i" j ..h "; :::, 1''":1'''' h.......... '.'_'h.,.. .. ;...,' ': ",..,".._: .' .... ....,.." '"' . ,""::j; i r """".., :::;, t" ". L t';.'i...! CI"T' ,". L.:..... \1 : \: I.'.: " .'., #;d_ ReQuested For: Pronerty Zonine: ReQuested By: Puroose of ReQuest: ..jack2l'ound: il~tl.IIIIIBI"<)< 233 South Carroll, which is further described as Lots 16 & 17; Block 74; Bayfront Addition. (See Exhibit A) R-1, Low Density Residential Mr. Bill Herrick of Atlantis Homes. A variance is requested to the following provisions of the Zoning Ordinance: Section 5-700, Table B: Residential (side yard) setbacks. Section 10-604.6: Residential garage requirements. Section 10-605.6: Driveway surfacing requirements. Section 10-605, Figure 10-2: Driveway setback requirements. The applicant is proposing to build a house which is to be located at 233 South Carroll. The initial permit request has been denied by staff. The permit was denied for failure to comply with Section 10-605.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. This section states: Every single family dwelling unit hereafter erected shall be so located on the lot so that at least a two (2) car garage, either attached or detached, can be located and accessed on said lot. As illustrated on Exhibit A, the proposed layout does not provide an accessible garage location. It should be noted that the Zoning Ordinance does not require a garage to be built. It simply requires that space for a garage be provided. As noted in the heading section of this report, Mr. Herrick is requesting relief to several provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Herrick, in speaking with staff, has indicated that he is not seeking relief on all the noted items. He has requested them as options. For the purpose of review and analysis, staff, based on Mr. Herrick's information, will address the various aspects of this request as Component I and Component II. These components are illustrated on Exhibit B. (Examples III & IV) Page 2 of 5 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 4/12,/94 V94-004 Component I requests side setbacks of two feet and eight feet and a driveway setback of zero adjacent to side property line. It also requests that gravel be approved as an acceptable driveway jparking surface. Component II requests that space for a two car front yard carport be allowed in lieu of providing space for an accessible garage. Analysis: Zoning Ordinance Section 11-606 defines a variance as a "deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance granted ... when strict conformity to the Zoning Ordinance would cause an unnecessary hardship because of the circumstances unique to the property ...." This section also charges the Board to grant variances only when it finds that all of the following conditions have been met. 1. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. 2. That literal enforcement of the Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation unique to the specific piece of property in question. "Unnecessary hardship" shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself as distinguished from a hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or caprice, and the hardship must not result from the applicant or property owner's own actions; and 3. That by granting the variance, the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed. As illustrated in examples I and II of Exhibit B, a typical "Old La Porte" 50' x 125' building site can be developed in a manner that complies with City Ordinance. The lot width is, however, somewhat limiting as compared with the average sixty foot lot width that is typical in newer subdivision. The applicant's goal, as stated to staff, is to develop moderately priced housing that is attractive and offers the buyer as much house as possible for the money. The means by which he hopes to accomplish this is by either deferring or eliminating garage construction and minimizing driveway cost. "",,_. Page 3 of 5 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 4/'1B/94 V94-004 To this end, the applicant has proposed the scenarios identified by staff as Components I and II. The designation of each of the options are based on the order in which they were listed in Mr. Herrick's letter. Of the two options proposed, staff favors Component I. Component II, by precluding the opportunity for a future garage and additional driveway, would result in a situation where residents would be more likely to park in the street or yard. It would also limit the opportunities for a family to improve the value of the property by construction of a garage. In staffs opinion, Component II is not in the best public interest. It does not protect the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these factors, staff would request that it not be supported by the Board. Component I, by means of setback relief does preserve the ability to construct a future garage. It also allows a greater degree of flexibility (in terms of range of floor plans) with which the lot can be developed. The setback relief (reducing side setback to two feet on one side) requested by the applicant could be accomplished in a manner that would be compatible with zoning intent and also with Building Code requirements. Reducing side setback to two feet would however, require certain design elements in order to satisfy the Building Code. These elements are as follows: · A "zero overhang" roof line or increased setback would be required so the roof at the point of furthest projection would not be closer than two feet to the side property line. This is necessary to maintain minimum fire separation from any possible adjacent structure. · If located less than three feet from the side wall of the home must be a one hour rated fire wall with no window penetrations. These two requirements are Building Code related. They have been referenced here in an effort to avoid confusion or misunderstanding during the construction permitting process. Under the applicant's proposal, the two foot setback on one side is to be counterbalanced by an eight foot setback to the other. This setback would preserve the streetscape appearance of separate detached houses. It would also maintain an access corridor to the rear yard. The applicant is requesting Page 4 of 5 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 4/1B/94 V94-004 driveway setback (adjacent to side property line) be reduced to zero in order to make use of the full eight foot width. This should result in a workable situation if two conditions are observed. . The driveway must be graded in a manner that will not obstruct stormwater drainage. . A two car driveway shall be provided in front of the home, or the driveway shall extend at least 18 feet beyond the rear wall of the home. Zoning Ordinance Section 10-6 requires single family homes to provide two off street parking spaces. Twenty-five feet of single car driveway does not provide this. Eight feet adjacent to the home is adequate for drive passage. It is not adequate to park and open car doors. Eighteen feet is equivalent to standard parking space depth. The one aspect of the driveway proposal that is clearly at odds with zoning intent, is the use of gravel as driveway material. Gravel is a high maintenance surface. If not well maintained, the thin spots certainly do not remain "dust free" as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Gravel tends to scatter and be picked up by lawn mowers, etc. Additionally, the primary reason for requiring a driveway to be setback from a side property line is to allow "type A" drainage. This is drainage from the rear to the front of the property. Although a gravel drive would be porous, it could not be permanently graded to maintain efficient drainage, nor could it be contained and kept off neighboring property. In reviewing Zoning Ordinance requirements as they apply to this request, staff finds the following: · Although a fifty foot wide lot can be developed in conformance with zoning guidelines, the relatively narrowness of the lot limits development options. This does impose a degree of hardship. · Developing attractive moderately priced housing that maximizes usable living area is in the best public interest. · If developed in accordance with the conditions discussed in this report, the Component I proposal can be built in a manner that will preserve the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. Page 5 of 5 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 4/'lB/94 V94-004 . Component II, by precluding construction of a future garage is contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and does not preserve the best public interest. Staff, therefore recommends that the options outlined in Component II not be approved for variance. Conclusion: Based on the facts and considerations noted above, staff recommends approval of Variance Request V94-004, subject to the following conditions: . Side setback shall be reduced to a minimum of two feet, on one side of the property only. No portion of the structure, including roof overhang shall extend closer than two feet from the side property line. . Side setback on the opposite side shall be increased to a minimum of eight feet. · Driveway side setback shall be reduced to zero. · Driveway shall be sloped or graded to provide adequate storm water drainage. . A minimum of two off street parking spaces shall be provided. · The variance shall not supersede any zoning requirement other than those specifically listed herein. · The variance shall not supersede any Building Code requirement. Appeals: 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 Vernon'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. a CARROLL AVENUE _ PO",) ,/~ .."cI......, --- ~ q.o. -. ~ ~ ! l.oI - 1$ !. ~ .. _I ~ . - , I ~ i l.oI - 11 .J: '~ . . tJ: . III ... I I I I ~tr"~' I ~. ~J ....... ........ _I- e 7T I~ I-l - ~~ Jdo'Ml 0QI,l r.:.. ~~ " l.oI - r.> 1J!.GENp . ...., PA:f I'a.rd o ~'" PA:f ~ . """'" Gc:mr II Ill_Gee -.'- -,L- I4OCt> ~ ~1 .II I'. 0tA.tJ LI... /'a.I::t! -x-)(-X- ~ ~ fI!I-lCI! ~ ~TRACTIIJ:a tx:ltJe ~1' 111tE ~AtJ'(. I, ~ B. \tba; a p.qalllnld ~ ~ ad eu-vap' n Iht 5tale of r~. d:> l'<<ebJ ~ 10 rtRST NDRTH'WEST BANK ad TITLE: AGENCY OF TEXAS ~; It.. SlNlI.j _ '" ~ rro:II Qn tt-. q'O.l"d of ttw prq:>lIfly ~ IwMtl (a-d/ot bJ INtM ad I:lo.rd5 Q'I altact.od otw.tl h ~l <:\'d ll'Ot It....... or. tJ::l erctoochnen\s. a-d \l1at d ~~ ere ~ l>erecn end ..QQ. 119 th:llJ ~ the ptq:>erbJ resl crd I 00 ~ C<<tt.J th:It. -=epl cz> l\h::II.n ell' rotated toor...io. II....... a.. ro overlq;f:hJ of ~""....'Ib. lhoo1t eN ro docr~ or c.a1llc:b " \he bo.n:IaIj ~I there ~ t'() ~ of olher ~ or ri1'ts-of""""'P m U. qo.rdl crd !he !l.biad f'l'q:>eI'bJ I>:e <=QM 10 crd lTom tI ~. ~, ;, 16 .. 17 ~ ~ BAYF'RONT ADDITION TO LA PORTE: Ilo tt. ttq:>. ~ ra::aUold h vtllme -L- ~ --2L of ''''' ~ : of HARRIS ~ t__ ' ~ '"I hrn <.n:I ~ lhll ~ ~ of rEIl~. ICl.1i.. ~, ATLA~T1S HOMtS ~t..~~.~. CARR~~L AVENUE: LA PORTE. TEXAS 77'571 dr~. _ 94-30~ea49 ~B.~P.E. ~1...4Id Profeo.oi::rd Er<t- 1-10. 51315 ~t..-od ~ fuovl>p' l-b. 4546 TRANS-STATE INDUSTRIES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS P.O. Box 505 Deel" Par'k, TexQs 77536-0505 OI!l1 <l&1-~2'l ~rpr<:pllrtv h ",. h u.. 100 yea ~ Rch ~ ~ 4820lC0340 G b>t. 09/26/90 : X Zaa_ TSI.H.330 ~XHIBlTA -$ ~ DATE. 02/26/94 ./-7 q;;? T) VARIANCE REQUEST #V94-005 CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE REQUEST ::::::-:::-:::~~----~::~--~~::~::-----------~~~~i~:~~~~:~~~~-~~~~z:~ Receipt No.: rJl_~(_({_ '- NOTE: This Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision. I am the ~fed -roll(~ ~elM ,3,:Joq old . 'C; ~~ Address owner of the herein described to act on PH: 470 -)000 Applicant: property. I have authorized my behalf in this matter. Owner*: ~~ c1.n:W. (:-/ a S Q f:)(57.1e _ Name PH: Address I am requesting a Ordinance No. 1501 at -3, , Street Address variance to Sect. . requestina t~is ',/ ", (;2\' Ifl .Legal p~c. ription -' j rtkJ:sytJ 'CLr L ( ) Site Plan ( ) Minor Development Site Plan ( ) Major Development Site Plan ( ) 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 on the Owner's behalf. Date provide Authorization to I2fc rI J 4l,/!J}!J D V WI , Applicant's Signature act ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes ( ) No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: Meeting Date: Applicant Notified of Date: Notice to surrounding property owners - Date: Board's Decision: Approved ) Denied ( Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: PAGE 2 A variance is a "deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance ". The City's Board of Adjustments may NOT grant a variance that does not meet all of the following conditions: 1) The variance must not be contrary to the public interest. 2) Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance must result in a hardship. This hardship must be unique to the property in question. Property that is undevelopable due to its unusual shape, narrowness, shallowness, or topography con- stitutes the primary exampl& of hardship. Hardships that are financial in nature or due to the owner's actions cannot be granted. 3) Granting the variance must not violate the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. LI) No variance that allows a use that is prohibited within the Use zone in question may be granted. For example, a variance allowing a commercial use in a residential zone is not allow- able. Please remember it is the Applicant's responsibility to prove that a variance will meet the above conditions. 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: JIu. pr Mlrt;t /J.U/a,U1 uy 10 Y-h.lS I11flfff-L /5 'l LJl: FmFmNTi Ihnc) 0fIhAfYi. /1/., -IbC1<1J &d IJchj7J1 -1-0 1M ( j HS-f , {J/7 / iA0 ili{ sf Udl, ( 0 c/o 5S.-tItL ba dc~ tJtu'~- i <, a ,;(0 /2+, ub1i~ %lJtrnVLi. ellufA i~O= %1 ~ ~f:L r;Rf~ ~a~tf @~ '1 i, _~ {J, 0 'fs..J b' ii'. -'it,; ,j4J f(}Jf -leI Jh.P -it ('t -t/I rd #u c, J (J)€1Y10 111: H Con y{7.hItL~1t; w/du- ~ fn{Jsf n!s~dp.lu.JJJ.} f'trv-.ins, (U5/@ j;1~ ;-/~II) ~~ eX dlfAJ!JLtV ~Io (L UjJJ a 5tlIJr)/aliiitxl . > r - w(, , -!-o PAGE 3 TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT: . , UJ I2- W nulr1 r~t?C WJ.JJJV oj ~ ~~WI'U1UM tkd fu (I.YFllJ ~ vI- 0- w)UJ1~ pod.. k ~f /00 sf if If. .Insm -& QZtUlYLuf CULd a sL ---tJuLt l-JtL (vaiLr (lrJe b-e_ CLU (J)~J~d 10 he u)/ilu fit / 1-1- (01 -th -ei1~em,eJ1.1, (5~t aztackc( cUJlf/L p~flJ I)j.~ WlJiJ[ct oJw agwsf t;JvLr 'flu. (lAwcPJ11.Vt;t 'fkxt -fu taiilr LiJ1 t b~ al jM r-f w Ii, 'UYrl& A 57,USL b~ OJf2}/ldcd -In be of !~()sf ~ fl, h7f5m fu h~ tc/.) cjca71JJc~tf = plan) bOY-dlJd Ct'JYl3{d!o:iurJ1 o.HJJf. r/f'tJmJnUt- rn 01 a CU-U) Q/lf~. ~ CED/1-'87 Reauested For: Property Zonin~: Reauested By: Puroose of Reauest: Background: Analysis: <'I........................? ......"arlance..Renuest.....94~O.5... ......... :;:;:;:::;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::n:::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:;:::;:::;:::::::::::::::;:::;::;::::::::=.:.: 3209 Old Hickory, which is further described as Lot 20 and the north ~ of Lot 21; Block 29; Fairmont Park, Section IV (see Exhibit A) R-l, Low Density Residential Dr. Reed Tolles, property owner The variance is requested for the purpose of allowing construction of a backyard swimming pool with a setback of four feet adjacent to the home and a zero setback adjacent to the rear yard utility easement. (See Exhibit B) The home in question is located in the Fairmont Park Subdivision. As illustrated on Exhibit A, the easement located in the rear yard is twenty feet wide. This property is located on the subdivision's perimeter. A pipeline corridor is located adjacent to the rear property line. Due to these factors, the full twenty feet of easement width is located on the applicant's property. Although at its largest point, the rear yard is approximately 41 feet deep, only 21 feet are available as "buildable" area. After subtracting required setbacks, the width remaining for a pool (water area) is approximately 12 feet. The applicants are seeking a variance to allow construction of a pool with a maximum width of 15 feet, 4 inches. Zoning Ordinance Section 11-606 defines a variance as a "deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance granted ... when strict conformity to the Zoning Ordinance would cause an unnecessary hardship because of the circumstances unique to the property ...." This section also charges the Board to grant variances only when it finds that all of the following conditions have been met. 1. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. 2. That literal enforcement of the Ordinance will result In unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, "',,,-. Page 2 of 4 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 4/2B/94 V94-005 shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation unique to the specific piece of property in question. "Unnecessary hardship" shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself as distinguished from a hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or caprice, and the hardship must not result from the applicant or property owner's own actions; and 3. That by granting the variance, the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed. The first issue to be considered is hardship. In typical subdivision blocks, easements are "shared" with half the easement width being located on each side of the common rear property line. The only lots that contain the full easement width are those located on the perimeter of a subdivision or, those backed by features such as drainage easement or pipeline corridors. Additionally, at 20 feet this easement is unusually wide. A more typical easement width is 16 feet. The applicant's rear yard is actually fairly large by subdivision standards. The limiting factors so far as building is concerned are the width of the easement and the fact that the entire easement is located on the applicant's property. These two factors taken together, do appear to constitute a legitimate and unnecessary hardship. The next issue to consider is protection of the "best public interest". A private backyard pool with two exceptions,will have very little impact on the public's interests. The first of these exceptions regards the rear yard utility easement. Should the Board grant this variance, it should be clearly stated that no element of the pool structure should be allowed to encroach into or over the easement. Maintaining this easement in a clear and unobstructed manner will ensure access to underground utility lines. Ensuring the ability to access these lines for maintenance and repair is certainly in the best public interest. The second factor to consider is the interests of the subdivision. Fairmont Park is a deed restricted neighborhood. While the City is not legally empowered to enforce deed restrictions, Zoning Ordinance Section 1-400 requires in cases where private covenants conflict with zoning requirements, the more stringent requirements apply. Furthermore, the Board is charged Page 3 of 4 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 4/2B/94 V94-00S to protect the best public interest. Should the Board grant this variance, staff would suggest that as a condition of approval, the applicant be asked to provide a letter from the Fairmont Park Homeowner's Association, stating their approval of the pool as proposed. Given that this is a variance from normal zoning requirements, requiring the Association letter is a reasonable means of preventing deed restriction conflicts and protecting the public's interest. Finally to be considered is the need to preserve the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. Zoning Ordinance Section 10-304 establishes swimming pool setbacks for the following reasons: . The three foot setback adjacent to utility easements ensures the ability to provide a permanent pool deck that does not encroach into the easement. · The six foot separation from adjacent structures serves two purposes. First, the separation affords a reasonable degree of protection against the possibility of undermining a home's foundation. La Porte's gumbo soil is rather unstable. Excavation walls tend to collapse, especially if subjected to rain. A collapse that takes place too close to a slab invites foundation failure. Additionally, the weight of a building exerts not only downward, but also outward force on the underlying soil. This translates into pressure against the swimming pool wall. The six foot setback requirement is intended to maintain a degree of separation that is adequate to mitigate these factors. The second reason for the setback is to minimize the risk of someone accidentally falling into the water when walking between the pool and building. These requirements are based on the ordinance's stated purpose to "promote the health, safety ... and general welfare of the City (section 1-200)." To this end, staff feels the four foot separation proposed provides adequate safe passageway for persons passing between the house and pool. Four feet should be considered a minimum and staff would request that the Board not allow a lesser degree of separation. As for the structural considerations, staff has met with the applicants and they have indicated their agreement with the following condition. The plans for the pool are to be reviewed and sealed by a registered engineer. The engineer will either state that the excavation and construction can safely take Page 4 of 4 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 4/113/94 V94-005 place as proposed or if not, what steps and precautions are necessary to ensure safe construction and a safe and stable pool structure. In summary: . Strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance will result in an unnecessary hardship. . The hardship results from the unusually large portion of yard taken up by utility easement. . The variance can be granted in a manner that will protect the best public interest. . The variance can be granted in a manner that will protect the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. Conclusion: Variance Request V94-005 satisfies all necessary ordinance prerequisites. Staff therefore, based on the facts and considerations noted in this report, recommends granting this request subject to the following conditions: - . No portion of pool or permanent deck structure shall encroach into the utility easement. · No portion of the pool shall be located within four feet of the adjacent home. Measurement shall be from pool water line to house foundation line. · Prior to permit issuance, the applicants shall submit to the City, a letter of approval from the Fairmont Park Homeowner's Association. · Plans for the pool shall be sealed by an engineer and shall indicate all precautions and design elements necessary to ensure the integrity of the pool and the home foundation. Appeals: 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 Vernon'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 (to) days after the filing of the decision in the office of the Board of Adjustment. SUiiVLY f'LJ\1 TO ALL PAnTIES INTEflESTEO IN PROPEfllY SUI1VEYEO' Proper t y locoted or No, __,___-:?1.o.~ __ O~I!_~~{l>{ \7.ll\,!~_____, In rhe Crt y 0'.. .J~ J"'ott-ff2____.____._..._., Texo 0, described os 'ollows ' ----!&r-M.. ./lQJ;1\\ Ik 9~.JA~C1J IRMf4..P?! -I_tll\ltMDJ~LyAtl~n~Ct(IOrJAn/- _'___'n__ ~_.___________._..__\l1, I\,t.JO.J~?)'r1.,IJ.'N J.A.dflt_,__,-_.._ ....._ '______'_L"_"n _..._.__.__. n.__ ~.___..__.__.____.n___._J\l>,l:t.tt'l;1 .1.o1l~_J .-r"'..i.k'Lnn.._.___....._...____._., on odd; rion to the Cily 01 __..J.A_l':'Qlt!1~._____, Texas, occcrding 10 the _n...._.Iv\.l\~ _. . __'no plor recordod in Volume __~'2.... 01 pooe__jA-___,_M~~__Rocords 01 ~_ u_.______1IAl4tI!'2._..l>>V,.JrY____._._...___n__..' Tcxo~. r:LOOt7 -WoJ~' ~.. \Mxl\? \...\~;I}1tA,J(~ ~re Ml>.f (r-W.tv\) LoM.MVtJlr{~~l!O:l.JO, 4~t?4~1 OolOtJ Mt>,y\!N-7W: ~101/1,It1)tJ0 @ '-0" /~' // ~3 w,., >~ (L ..1 0...... E " .... )- ~. (L ,~ 0... ~."'\ U "j :r: ..\> ~, o -l o {(,o: \('D W) BELFAST DRIVE ';5 .; H ~~ // l : '., I ,10', 'iiu r \%t~(. (\\r,v.r.do rl'iHvc;.,) I'r OfJ'J ;",,,; w' I' ~ tJ i : , ~""ll,-(, r{M7~f\' " ,\ ,'. :-_ ~.::"'S..::I7..!.~4f-4..Q~E :;"=_-=-J2a:On~ - - - ,- --=.\~:\ '~VI":: rI1JJ7lt:JItIOP!J'/;I>__ - \. -"'- - - - - ~~,-'lt~L1(: Ill'l'''' - ./ .!I!.. .. ......... ..n_-J~I,~: I~ ,,' ,- .~ ' 01 I" . ' ". . },) I ~ ILl ~'flILI( 11W'-~ ft" ' ~ ~ /' . i" ' , " I 1'0 . f~ -':;:~n~; ~I~ i, ~ ______--..1 ~.~ lt1~_t~~,!{~ ~ 2 OfI'~' '- (\J .C\. ...: ,. I :;j -'- .,;;-::::t~' , , im , "'f.!' '.'4' t ~ I I~ ';;:--1. ,,,~ 4' I ; en 1,1- 't<\ ,,?'_.--~" '" 0 lv' ~ '" lo~"j , ~e~ 1\1/~'I~',\ I' I ~ .~, N t'": ~ \(' ~ -::> -..:r OJ 1 ~o ,..: - .!\ , -~ ~ ~ o .~- (\J ~ \\) -.2 :s ~ ~ ~ ~:~ f \I' I" fi. ~, @ ,_ _ J :.:: ;.~ A(!I?W IlL;!' I"':",I( I\Z<>\!!I' \:1,1- .l- l\t't~~tJ ,:.Ol,~'.' ':\111'" 1(J(^'no~1 (,,11-11'>'1 ti\<!_ 4 ~\l)(.<\\~ Il't/.\H', I \\"I\'~ I\-.,r. ~ 1l.J..\~rl1, 11:'"\~"1 I'A!;. I, IlW,J f\. 0Ih0...l ,TEXAS REGISTERED PUBLIC SURVEYOR No.4'?z..1-. do hereby certify Ihot the plot shown hereon accurately represents the results of on on the ground survey mode undor my dlree"on ond supervision on-1l~ -I- [d,ItCl_, ond 011 corners ore os shown hereon_ The size, loeollon and type of buildings and improvemenls or. os shown, 011 Improvements beino within the boundaries of Ihe property, set bock Irom the property lines Ihe distances indicated and thot fhe distance from the neorest intersBcting ,freof or rood 15 as !hown on said plot. There or6 no encroochmenfs , conflfcts or protrusions apparent on the ground, except 05 shown. ..:..;,..~J",("':b-" This survey was performed -.fOY. ~rrL~E'E'I?__-rI2L_t.~7..__.___~_~J\II,~&A'?e1:W.J..._({).,____. _..____.__...;'-~.:-';,~'..".~~.,. ", ,; '~('. US EOFTHlS SURVE-y'-FORANY- OT iiER-.-PlIR-POs-i--C;Fi-B-f---Or-HER--PARTI-ESSffALL----eE--A( THE'I;?, . OW N RISK AND THE UNDERSIGNED SURVEYOn IS NOT RESPONSIBLE fOR ANY LOSS RESULTING TH..EREFROM, I :,' ~ \,"t'/\\\ I ~flJ 1/.. "'~1) . ,..\ .,.., EXH'BIT A ," ..~ ,~i:;-i ,I 0 ::d ~ 0 ~ i :>- , <::l ~ 0 ~ , ~g M 0 Ul :::tl:: :;:; > 0 ,.- 0 ~~ Z M ~ 0 <::l :I t'l ~ Q M rn ~ z < ... ~ 53 lf1 tl 0 :a ~tl Z g 0:: ."dn M ~ -~~ '-'0 Z '2 ..., 0 h~ '" n 0 0 :~~ 0:: "'g~ '1l r ~N :>- "~ Z lf1 >< .. .. : 0 0 I ~ l2 ~ .. ~.. ~ tz:l tz:l Co> 0 0 '" :>l 0 R- eo Fl 0 ~ ;1G z ::0 ~ E!! z trl en n tz:l (fJ ~ oJ 0 ~ - 0 oJ :>l 0 t:::l ~ >< ~ trl CO CIl Z (1 M '1:l i ( 9 r ~ ;J> I * 0-3 ~ - 0 I 1 I I I ~n . ! c.> ;: I ~~ ~ 0 0 0. , t 0 , , , * 0 i , I : ! ! I 0 ~ ~a~~m I I i rlilO 1 , I 0 r 11 .. I i 0 ~ii~ I 0 ~ I , I ?o , I ;:l i~~~ ! I 0 0 81m I i ~ , !e~i -- J ~Ia~ n!:l'jg,. .. II Z I ill Ii fl :0 fl n g M .. ;;l z Z " 8 r- III t I Z % ~ I ;iN ("l .. en " III ~ ~C) ,Z III - , r , x f;l.. ,.,rTl Co> "'tIl r-Z c\ ~g: "lrTl p;o !"f't):> ~~r n ~Ul ,... ~ ... ~-o ~~~ rTl ~I~ ~O ,.,~ z...... -< -""Tl ttl:l(l> ,., !;l ;;l...... C::Cl1 I .. ",0 ~ . ;;l 0 (l> "'):> III "2 >-1 0 n ...... en lOiO toJ ~ III ~Bi I ;.. EXHIB'T B. ..... . ~~~_._~.~_.........,----""""'-......~~~......--"'-----~-~----