The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-23-95 Regular Meeing and Public Hearing• ~ OATHS OF OFFICE • • OATH OF OFFICE I, Deborah Bernay , do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully and impartially execute the duties imposed upon me by law as Chairman of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment, and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly or indirectly paid, offered, or promised .to contribute any money or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment. So help me God. Dr. Deborah S. Bernay SWORN TO and subscribed before me, this the 6th day of July, 1995. Peggy Lee Notary Public for the State of Texas • • OATH OF OFFICE I, Willie Walker , do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully and impartially execute the duties imposed upon me by law as a member of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment, and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly or indirectly paid, offered, or promised to contribute any money or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment. So help me God. Willie Walker SWORN TO and subscribed before me, this the 6th day of July, 1995. J Peggy Lee ~„ ~ Notary Public for the State of Texas • • ~. ~EnGY LEE MY COMMIS&ION EXPIRES ~~~,~,.• Septambar 19,1989 s • OATH OF OFFICE I, John Willis . do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully and impartially execute the duties imposed upon me by law as an alternate member of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment, and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly or indirectly paid, offered, or promised to contribute any money or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment. So help me God. f:) ~ )~ Wh/ 1 John Willis SWORN TO and subscribed .before me, this the 6th day of July, 1995. Peggy Lee ~~ P~o~ SEE Notary Public for the State of Texas ~* M'1 Ct1MMISSiON EXPIRES '; `~ ~~tembgr 19,1999 • • ININUTES • MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 23, 1995 Members Present: Chairman Deborah Bernay, Boazd Members Willie Walker, Sidney Grant, Bob Capen,; Alternate Member Jim Zoller, Russell Ybarra Members Absent: Ruben Salinas City Staff Present: Chief Building Official Mazk Lewis, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bernay at 7:10 PM. II. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 26, 1995, MEETING. With no corrections needed, Chairman Bernay declazed the minutes approved as presented. III. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE ENFORCING OFFICERS DECISION (#A95-001) TO DENY A BUILDING PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME TO BE LOCATED AT 1806 ELMWOOD. Mr. Lewis presented staffs report for Appeal of the Enforcing Officer's Decision #A95-001. Twenty-two (22) public notices were mailed to surrounding property owners. Four (4) were returned in favor and none returned in opposition of the appeal. The appeal is requested by Pedro Torres, the property owner, for the property located at 1806 Elmwood. Mr. Torres is appealing the decision of .the Enforcing Officer to deny a building permit to construct a new single family home on an existing slab foundation. A portion of the slab encroaches into a required front setback. Mr. Lewis reported the northeast corner of the slab extends to within approximately 15 foot of the front property line creating a 10 foot setback encroachment. Mr. Torres has had the slab inspected by a licensed engineer, who has certified the slab is in suitable condition to support a single family home. Page 2 of 3 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of March 23, 1995 • Staffs review indicated that granting this appeal would not convey a special privilege nor would it be contrary to the best public interest. However, strict interpretation and enforcement of Zoning Ordinance requirements, as they apply to this request, would be unreasonable. Based on these considerations, staff recommended the appeal be granted, subject to normal City ordinance and building code requirements. A. PROPONENTS Chairman Bernay swore in Pedro Torres. Mr. Torres asked the Board to please consider granting the appeal. Chairman Bernay swore in C.F. Jacob, of 3302 Bennington, Pasadena. Mr. Jacobs owns property adjacent to Mr. Torres. He intends to build a home on his property and feels he would probably face the same problem. He feels that a home being built on the slab would not interfere with anything. B. OPPONENTS There were none. A motion was made by Bob Capen to grant A95-001. The motion was seconded by Sidney Grant. All were in favor and the motion passed. Mr. Grant suggested there was a conflict between the Development Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to setback for cul-de-sac lots. Mr. Lewis stated he would address this with the Planning and Zoning Commission during their annual review process. IV. STAFF REPORTS There were none. • Page 3 of 3 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of March 23, 1995 V. ADJOURN • Sidney Grant motioned to adjourn. Chairman Bernay declared the meeting duly adjourned at 7:32 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Peggy e, Planning Secretary Minutes approved on the 6th day of July .1995. Deborah Bernay, Chairman Board of Adjustment s APPEAL OF THE ENFORCING OFFICERS DECISION #A95-002 CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS DECISION ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- Application No.: -~ OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received: Z.G Applicant: I am the Owner*: ~ Name Address owner of the herein described property. to act on my behalf ~; ~ Name ~al~ yd;aso.~ ~. Address PH : CJ~o-9`/ ~ C-P~. '1ah- 5~ a~ I have authorized in this matter. PH: zl~n-~'b/~ I am appealing the decision regarding Sect ._. of the City- Zoning this appeal in re~p ards to the property a t /~/ 7 Of~8~6,J~~a _~~. or the interpertation of Ordinance No. 1501. I am making located treet Address 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 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 Applic is Signature OFFICE USE ONLY Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attache ? Yes No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: P~;eeting Date: ~ ~ .._,-Applicant ;lotified of .Date: •~- -Board's Decision:. Approved •.,~( ) Denied ( ) _. ... Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: ,. , - . ,.~:.:. • PAGE 2 If there is not adequate room on the remainder of this form to list all pertinent information, please feel free to attach an additional letter or any information and exhibits you feel the Board should consider. FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS ?•1ATTER: TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT: , ~! _ IQ~=~r_'i~~I~/ QL C~dC5~ ThA~T ~f~ ~%~T.i2C ~C~t.r ~L" i[J ~.J C ~VSlwl ~OR.so~'a ~./~ GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST: ~..1c.~ lS [_~'(( 6Va I~' )5 Pr1WG4C.I:~UG ~ /`1~S ~ o,~,~OJ~O~~.rg S'. . ,~ CED/1-'87 ~~ f•y~( ~4.t~. 1 .e1,9-.]~'f'~ ~y• /c~ L' :.) ~ 1'r~ /~//~ /hy ~ ~ i5 #aJ~L. f,-r ~ i t~ /lam/P~7 /1-.~~ / S Cfl?J1'( r YDL t /J ~^)G~i~,o ~~.'' f •tj CITY OF LA PORTE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM BUILDING MECHANICAL *ELECTRICAL *PLUMBING *(SEE BACK OF FORM) PROJECT ADDRESS : f0~1 ~ p~j,'„~Sn~ R~~ LOT # : ~ SUBDIVISION: ~ ,A~ BLOCK # OWNER'S NAME: Ot'G. _~_ i ~. PHONE # 7D-4 f ~ ADDRESS: CONTRACTOR: ADDRESS: ENGINEER: DESIGNER: EET CITY 7S ZIP SL's 1" STREET P.H : ( ) CITY ZIP BUILDING USE: _~ ~.~1 C~'e ~,,p VALUATION: ~~ 8 dd _~ i SQ. FOOTAGE: # STORIES: DESCRIBE .WORK : L f~,~,ic ~y, ~f ,~ ------- --FOR CITY~USE ONLY-- --------- ---------------- -_ ~ " `-_'~ TYPE FLOOD ZONE ~_ CLASS WORK SQ. FT. -~~e:~~r TYPE ~ USE ZONES # STORIES ~_ -~- PKG REQ ~_,mM= BLDG. PLANS ONLY - FIRE MARSHAL APPROVAL: ~"~ DA.TE.: '^ ------,i innonrssan T.'r 117 TSRii~ rrr- nr~ ~/V~CiD b~ Ds~ DATE: ,5-a6 -=~:tAL CONDITIONS D ~~~ QN~ C~) ~~ £ (~ ~ ~_E}Al n ~ ~ A i1w/'T S HIV ~-~ D ~' \ L.~VI l~w - - --~ V i J ~i V VI IQ ~.C,DR Q ~D _~~ ~ ~~z p~iv -------- ---------------~ ____~ ~~i~[~_E~~~~~___________________ ~n~z~~r N0. - PERMIT FEE S (ATTACH TO ACTUAL PERMIT) COMPLETI~S SECTION FOR ELECTRICAL PERM NOTE: Minimum charge on permit(s) is 510.00. Description •_ Charoes No. Fees PERMIT ISSUE FEE S 5.00 1 S 5 00 Outlets, Fixtures,' Lights & Switches . (first 9, flat fee) 2 00 Above Items (all others) . .90 ea. g__ g Washing Machine 1.00 ea. _~ g Dryer / Range 2.00 ea. g Cook Top / Oven / Fan _ 1.00 ea. g '- Oven (commercial) 5 00 A/C, Plug-in Units . ea. 2.00 ea. g g ' Water Heater 2.50 ea. g Dishwasher / Garbage Disposal __ 1 00 ea All Services/Temp. Pole/Temp. Cut-In . . 10.00 ea. g g All Meter Units ~ 5.00 ea. g Reinspection Fee 10.00 ea. g Re-Connection Fee 5.00 ea. g X-Ray Machine 10.00 ea. g Motion Picture Machine 3.00 ea. g Incandescent Signs, cer circuit 4.00 ea. g Gas or Vacuum Tube Signs(per transformer) 4.00 ea. g Electric Welder 2.00 ea. g MOTORS: Up to but not including 1/2 hp 1.00 ea. g 1/2 hp and less than 2 hp 3.00 ea. g 2 hp and less than 10 hp 9.00 ea. g--- 10 hp and less than 25 hp 5.00 ea. g --' 25 hp and less than 100 hp 14 00 '100 hp and less than 150 hp . ea. 1 00 e g 150 hp and over, per hp . a. '.10 ea. g g Permanently connected electric a.pplican otherwise specified sh ll b ces'.and equipment of any nature not a e charged as follows: Up to KW, inclusive 50 e All over 1 KW to 10 KW . a. 90 KW g -- All over 10 KW to 50 KW . .30 KW g g-- All over 50 KW to 100 KW .20 KW g-"- All over 100 KW S10.00 plus .40 KW g --_ ___________________________ TOTAL FEE: g COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR PLUMBING PERMITS Description Charoes No Fees PERMIT ISSUING FEE $10 00 Plbq. Fixtures / Drains / Traps . ~_ 2 50 g~0_ 00 Sewer (new, repair or replacement) . ea, 5 00 ea g _ Cesspool ~ . . 5.00 ea. g g -- Septic Tank / Seepage Pit.or Drainfield W t 10.00 ea. g a er Heater and/or Vent ~ 2.50 ea. _ g Gas Piping System (1-9 outlets) 5 00 Gas Outlets, over 4 •(each outlet) . 1.00 ea. g g Sprinkler, Lawn or Building - (1-4 Heads) 5 00 (Over 4, each head) . I.00 ea. g g Installation, Alteration or Repair of Water Piping and/or Water Treatment Equipment 5.00 ea. g Repair/Alteration - Drainage or Vent 5.00 ea. g Each Vacuum Breaker/Backflow Protection _ Device Installed Subsequent to the Installation of the Piping or Equipment Served: Each One (1-5) 2.50 ea. g Each One (over 5) 1.50 ea. g TOTAL FEE g ~:. - ~•~ • Reauested By: IVir. Timothy Smith, property owner. Requested For. 1217 Robinson Road, which if further described as being Lot 7B; Coronet Estates Subdivision and is zoned R=1, Low Density Residential (see Exhibit A). Zonin R-1, Low Density Residential Purpose of Appeal: The applicant is appealing the decision of the City Inspector to deny a building permit for a residential front yard fence. Background• The tract in question is an approximately 0.80 acre lot in the recently platted Coronet Estates Subdivision. The applicant constructed his home at this location approximately one year ago. At some point within the past few months, the applicant built a new front yard fence. The fence is constructed in a "corral" style and appears to be between 4 & 5 feet in height. The fence was constructed without a building permit and without the City's knowledge. After discovering the new fence, City Inspector Robert Stoddard, contacted the applicant and advised him that the fence could not remain unless it could be shown to comply with City ordinance requirements, and then be properly permitted. .~ ~ ~ Page 2 of 4 Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 7-6-95 #A95-002 On May 26, Mr. Smith submitted a building permit request for the front yard fence. Section 10-502 of Zoning Ordinance 1501 states "in case of large lot residential lots [home sites comprised of one or more acres], six feet (6') perimeter fences are allowed as an accessory use. As noted above, the applicant's property is under an acre in size. Based on these factors, the permit application was denied by City Inspector Debbie Wihnore. Mr. Smith is appealing the permit denial. Analysis: Zoning Ordinance Section 11-603.1 empowers the Board of Adjustment to: Hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the enforcement officer in the enforcement of this ordinance. Ordinance Section 11-604.03 establishes criteria under which an appeal is to be reviewed. The Board is empowered to grant an appeal only when it finds that all three of the following criteria have been satisfied. That there is a reasonable difference or interpretation as to the specific intent of the zoning regulations or zoning map, provided the interpretation of the enforcement officer is a reasonable presumption and the zoning ordinance is unreasonable. That the resulting interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated. The decision of the board must be in the best interest of the community and consistent with the spirit and interest of the City's zoning laws and Comprehensive Plan of the City of La Porte. The first of these criteria is a test of intent and interpretation. Specifically, is there a reasonable difference in interpretation of ordinance intent and; if the enforcing officer's interpretation is reasonable; is the ordinance itself unreasonable? The inspector's interpretation of ordinance was clearly correct. This lot is less than one acre in size. Although it is a sizeable lot, it is enough under one acre that a decision to approve the fence permit would have overstepped reasonable administrative latitude. The next question to consider is whether the ordinance itself is unreasonable. Page 3 of 4 Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 7-6-95 #A95-002 The one acre, large lot designation contained in the Zoning Ordinance does not solely deal with fencing. Homesites falling into the large lot category may also be used to house limited amounts of livestock. Large accessory buildings (up to 2000 sq. ft.) maybe located on large lot residential homesites. The decision to establish one acre as a threshold for these types of activities was not arbitrary, but was based on research into building code requirements (fire separation for agricultural buildings) and inquiries to the State's Agricultural Extension Service (environmental impact of livestock densities). Staff would therefore contend that the ordinance does establish a reasonable standard. As specifically applied to this request however, a strict, narrow interpretation may not be reasonable based upon the following considerations: As originally platted, the Coronet Estates Subdivision was comprised of multi-acre lots and intended for the development of "urban ranchettes". (See Exhibit B) When lot 7 was replatted, it may have been the intent of the developer to preserve the large lot designation of lots 7A, 7B, and 7C. If so, this intent was not communicated to the City. Therefore, as these lots satisfy all requirements for normal residential homesites, the replat was approved as presented. Strict interpretation of the ordinance, serves to place restrictions on this property that would tend to preclude the ranchette character apparently intended by the developer and available to neighboring properties. The homesite is close enough to one acre in size to function in the manner intended by the developer and homeowner while still being maintained in a condition that complies with other applicable City Ordinances. As constructed the fence is primarily an architectural embellishment for the homesite. It complies with applicable regulations regarding fence height and construction materials. Based on these factors, staff feels the first of the ordinance criteria has been satisfied. The second of the criteria to be considered is that of special privilege being granted to the subject tract. As noted in the preceding paragraphs, other similarly situated properties in and near Coronet Estates were developed and or platted to function as urban ranchettes. These properties are eligible for front yard fencing. A number of homes on Robinson Road and other nearby streets have front yard fences. Rejecting this appeal would actually have the effect of denying a privilege to this homesite that is available to other similarly situated properties. Based on these considerations, staff feels that this criteria has also been satisfied. • ~ Page 4 of 4 Boazd of Adjustment Staff Report of 7-6-95 #A95-002 The final consideration is the Boazd's mandate to protect the best public interest and to maintain the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. In regazds to this, staff would note the following: The fence and the applicant's home aze in keeping with the existing and intended chazacter of the surrounded neighborhood. The fence, as constructed will not prevent the applicant from maintaining his property in a manner that complies with applicable City Ordinance. The fence should have no detrimental effect on surrounding homes or properties. Based on these considerations, staff feels that this final criteria has also been satisfied. Conclusion: Based on the facts and considerations noted in the preceding report, staff finds that all ordinance prerequisites have been satisfied. We therefore recommend Boazd's approval of appeal of Enforcement Officer's Decision A95-002. Staff would however note that the fence was constructed without permit. Should the Boazd grant this appeal, a building permit must be obtained by the applicant. Staff would request that it be stipulated as a condition of approval, that the permit be obtained within ten (10) days of the rendering of the Board's decision. Staff would also note that because the fence was constructed without permit, the permit fee, as provided for by the Standard Building Code, will be doubled. Anneals: As per Section 11-610 of Zoning Ordinance 1501: Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Boazd of Adjustment, or any taxpayer, or any officer, department, boazd, 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 Boazd of Adjustment. 130 •oo" 25~-0' 2~ :o. 12~ ~!' ~' p -p ~ ; GA2AGe ~ v tout - N d t'A ~ CJMs R Ei~ ' ' WALK WI-•( ~- ,, _~ C • . Y d" .. rro~s~ =, ... .,.~:..,: ~ .. r2~ ~ --~. -- r i _?5_bt~- _ .~ ..-- ~` GoWG WAtrc • • ~ 1 . OLL C'~OUG 17IC.h/a iq ~ • M v ® ~ _ I3o,ao _ _~ ~ ~ . IkS..KGW.b./- _. ...I`~~_. ..__..~eAl. OTGF~ ... ._-.....-_. __._.._...r_ .. .... ......._....-.-.~ .' RO.P5.1 N SOi.I 20Af~ • • ~ ~ :~~ Q 8035'f Aceas' of l.AUp ovr of LoT 7 6~oUc i G02oNecr FSTAT@S ~ t.~APo2TE ~LoMAX~ •T~ PLOT. PL•AN'~ . SCAIfi . l'„ is 20'-O'.; Residence. ~or~T:i:~ 8y •~H'~~" • .., . . ~..,: ~ ~...~r.. w.a.,ww Nw e.w.r.r.y ~• ••. •' ....,....~......~..~..~_... ADAM.S~.~'~• ~ • ....rr....,....»r.r.rw. ew.e. .r.rwr.r..q.rr..w~.ra.r~.rrwr~DESIGNER • ~ .... le I m N • NI C O: is ,n~''!,~ e Y n `~F :i5~ ic~~ : 1 I .i .t . .~} •~'~<`, m • :i'; •'~ I N I I I 1 I I _1 1 .. I 1 .;;• I 1 .•.i'• •:J• •. I I •tti ••. `!' ..'S+ I ?;~: I I I :. I ,I t p ••;. ' ;fir' • : x• •4•. , , m x• -II ~••~'~• .•• •:'r•; . • 1:'r A'•1 I • •.~1. f nJ. :2 m. T~A• ••r;• .. i f :. yY j I •n,• . ',~ ^~ 1, ':.K:~'.~' •I p :Tj' 't ,00~. ,.wr?L.:g. I L•iq= 1 I v1 •i O N•' I Y - P Z A .••. .' ~: '. '::I:.: q ~il:..tr~'t~'• m I .~;: • .. m •' f '~• ai I • io •O .~'~.' ' m N N N N' p •'a. 4M .y~.. I ~. z ' ~N• ':; 1 ~ :.~. --- - - - `'' _ 'oci N 3 e~~ A m m n c ~~ e :E ~ h. - nn A m O o Nm pN n~ p ~ =<C ~ON = ~9~a~~ n RJ J C g y~3~sj y ~~od~ i mEB; 'g. $~Z ~~. g S - ~ _ ~EEs~~)s ~S~g 33 Ogg t 9 ' ;.~:: ~+.~; .: isil s O • ~ -Y' •1 ;, , s '•1.. '' . + , ..p . v. n'•.•I ':f' % ( 1 ., .. l j v. r ~.., .4.51'.: r + ..j": •,' ~ F'~.k'': '.: ~:: ,. ~; ,.~;9, ::1~;: O .•'v .l: ~•: 1~' ly•'ytiYY ..~` 4'r.r:. f' W W LL~ 1'~ d1 Q S r1+,OCl~~~(1,::a :,i'i.}•Ilf•.riOSl,; 7,: IIVV m M~ : d ~~~'~a+. „fir m £,£ ~•IV..•~•,~. q;l+::.^I.t ~\}ti a ~•~ :.5' '~. '~,.. }..G ~ • ~:: U., ,Y. ;1 :.~ ~'! v; ~ G :'r~ } ic3• .;:~,. ~. ~. it„y.. :.srx .?' f Yr`+ ~{ e Vii: ~'•~ }Y. ', ~} :+' ~.7 •r . ..< ..~: .f •• r . C{}': :;ii• •~~ f.:~.. i t• i:j •, ~~r ~~gg , ra+ .,t .\ . i,Q .~ • ..{.. . n + J.. . e'l flv. •t. .I. " G~~. 3 :9 x~: .~ • • • ~ ~ , •.. • ... •~ EXH1611° B •- t` . ~~'`-~ • is: ~' ' St ~r'::•~. "~~C ~d'~ p.~r7y~6•..•s' V2P` ~l::sr ~TZ r • .S~ tj;] Z 15 V. 'kla9'ki yi .... ~t:•'['."i. . ~~:t '. :'s•. t ~'rd; 114. L~p,'~.`~;:~~' ~11 ~N'~6': '~i':sf":;`~'. it~r~ _ •:, • .,i; ~P~:1r[s:: ;•~!:pg Y:!,; ,s,>r•.?~Rk:,9"r3~Ai•,'•~~;.:;r.: k,?::••. .:i'+ 4 M1~ `~ 4' i mot. .z•..+•+4. +>ti•. •,i y~ ,. !: ; ;,; ., ~: M-• - t.. .r. r i. r •.l .} t 7;r. '•ef 'h .lF SS b:dv 1 •}~::pp qq~ '..~~ :'•I~ ( .>-n.~ ty~ 1 E: . Y•y{ ~ ~..:'.• i '•i7., i.y:.• t:4:~~:ihvLF,i+.-fi':';::y4w-' :~..:. ~~~. j •t 4 :1•f .. ..,r~ n. yJ • IM i.F', .•{~:;il.''~4.j: <i 4Y :f~~%•'l.~I v4 '.11f`.•1... •t n:::~~.,f l i ... :a'r. e..~ ,:sue 'e;yd:G•'?.;~t?~~.~'-&=,:u~~,..,,o- 5': +,rl '.i' '~( s R i.. y~ 1. ^n.,r. t n ..J.•" ~::~.. ~ ;.;ti p L` ,. - 11~~ .;~ J': •'. .r } .S • !. ',1 . ' e:.. ,-} .4 ' :.i.. S'.~'ki•.:.. '•~~~:: .. •'~r.'.:rr.).• •.I~:':.!r:.:; :f,~r~r4'1~• ~.:.. :Y.••~y r+,.,~G: .7:~•.; :i~"il'~~:~•~y: .. iSM.::e;,d;t ' ~M1 ' •'1. • • APPEAL OF THE ENFORCING OFFICERS DECISION #A95-003 JUH-21-95 WED iS:4b~DISPOSAL SYSTEMS , JI~-20~~5. Ttl~ )1:52 • ~ ~ . CITY OE ZONIAG AFP~AL OF SNFO r r r rr.l~ ~~~ ~-~ rrrrr~rr r~~rr YMnww+r~ M~~-~~-rrrrrr~r..rr arrr~~~~~~~r....r.. Appiieante .]~O~VIrC~ ~~,04~ M Addre Y P t e owne~•of the hareiri de Oae a rf : . ~~c~i- ~'j J1n0.T1n . .. kf.' L_ i : .. w'n : .r?s~ .: ,..~..-.... ,.~%i:r:tVk F.:o,e..a:~f,;,, .. t•'.itw~tioi ..,;:3!!Y::.:h.'.:'.i:'~.4 .J. ~ ~r~d'~•~ V `••~~~'-^ •~I~~sin `oppeal'iag• the ~ de•cfsicn ~ regard ~ . $eot. JO ~ S91 of tli0 City Zon _ ~- this sppae3 in regards to t17e grope 4E ~Z3 MdSSa. hlaa r- a :T'r ~' Street Address r~be'd property. I have suthopixed set on my behalf in thi8 mattet~. jrki, i...:%1 ''v": .'u...4'• ,.•.;.~:.:r' r. :~:.-'r':, `iaA:: ~~^~(.".. ..c: .. r .. ... ~' er'~tihe "tati'erpertati~.oa or ~ • '~ • r-~: 6 Ordinance,Ho.. 1501. X am making r laaa$ad • • • 7 1. • Legal Deseription ~ ~SiEe plaq ~ ~~ )Minor Develop n ~ Site Plop Mayor Devo~.opment $ibs Plan .(~ General Plan r A Site Plan o!' the property is atta information requeetiad below on tbs . a) Ail facts oonoernin the matt b) The type of relief ~ am.aeeki a) The grounds upon vhioh,i am m a If epplioahti is NOT the okgep., he on the ~ OWner ~ a baba li'. - . (~. 2~ ~ 5 • ... - D~t~ rrr~~~~~r rv..r~~~~~~~~r arrrra~rr~rrrr OFFICE Site Plan end Autt~vrization (if app Date GrBnao;itted to ti sa oard of Ad Meetietg•Data: 7 ~ / ~ ~ ~pp~ 1 _ P 8oard~s Daoiatagi~ Apprgved Notiae of. Beard Cecisian mailed to d. Also =have 1~.,tted tote ldwipg pages bt thie forol. .that hao led Up to this roquest. ' (setbaeka, let eoveregs, eta.}. . g6 this request. ~ rovide Aat Oriz b~eq ~o ask . gppliaaat~s Signature rrr.rrrrr~~rr~rrr M~.rrtirrarar r~rrrr r ~S OEILY ' oabie} ettoched•? Tea t~Na ( ) ,ant potlfiod aF Date: . . Aenied t )•~ • plie nt/CWner; ' ~ .. , CCTREC F139392569 r , FAX Na 71347~e A PQRTE P. 04 P . 03 a ADJUS'CH6Nr DFFICSR~4 bSCI$ION .~--..~wr rrw rrr~~.~~~~r~r~r~w ~.~~r~~~ •App].iaabi,oa No.:~ sue- ~.~°,~3,. DeEe Reeeived s __GL~/Y~ 1~ . . f.. JUH-21-95 WED 15:46 DISPOSAL SYSTEMS CCTREC 713~3~~,3E9 P. 04 JUN-ai-4S IIEn 0i : Pn gEN71CAL: SUPPL _ zi rrsae r. e~ • . o ma Tx ood. en4~olo a~ ~nr, ~ . Rem~vla'4 -~ waa~n~dar, Jana 21. ~»s ~ ~.. ~ 1~~ . authot~s vw StultnaN to actor rnY behalf In the ' ~ t I~ Ot AldlUBUrent Ibt ma ~pprnval at a . ! :. pall l0 ~ GLY of LePO1Ua ~Q„irk 8 I ~ . manor ota~Q ~ ' y ~ k~OaQ ~t 829 M046Y ~ eryl ml D buid~ ~pprMti Up eioct a reDla06melrt feix:e on t ,.. ~ vltY of Lflt<'vrl+D, Td}~fde• . . ' .. . .•!'.. 'v .. .:fix., ~~~~ '• : i. ~ . (:' `.! ~ :~4 • i ''i . • ` Y ' } • •, ~ ' y1.. ..~L. a'.: .i i. ~l i~.. Y•N•• !`t .: .%IiJwti~. ..` ~.\. . -• . ..... .... ..: ~5•~.4'fi.~'?y~y..c~~.-.. ~....7.C~'5~....: ... • y...{,: ~, •• Y~. r~ '~S. .+i..' .. r. ~ ., v.. - . ' I ..~ ...... ~,V ... . .. :~•;.: w~.: `-~•-J..t,rl :~• 'l,~f••~Me•.-`-e: ~~~ ' Signature . ry~ . .. .. :it i ~. J.UH-21-95•WED iS:47 DI3POSAL~SYSTEMS• CCTREC 7139302569 P. OS JUN-20-95 TUE 11 ~ 53 * FAX N0. 7134'8 P. 05 ' .. ~ Paae a If them is r~oti adegUatm room on bha remainder a~ tihis farm to lisp e11 psrbinenb ieformatiion, pl aee feel free to attach an ~dditionai letter or ety infarmati a and exhSbsts you feat the Board • ariould aoasldel'. • • ~ ~~ FACTS ~ RBLEYANT ~t0 ~ TKIS MATTER: ~p ~ ~ S~ ~ ~.~~ M ' '~ . .... ....•w.r.... ~.R~.'S. nnL.+Y.. 41.. .1~~'.S~4 y. .:5:wr ~~if-. •. •+~yi.~r,.:,~~~v ~t1~ .:r~Ti.: A...~~1'.~: •4.fL•~A+i i=.. e...i•:.'...1 t• G . 4 • ~ ~ TYPE OF AELI~F 9BING SOUGEtTs ~ ~_ O~.vL~ ~nc~,.~J °L~ 0.. ~u- 1 ~ lS~s ue.c~_~~r_--~.~ .. ~ t~~ ~ U~ V ~ `W L .I~Yi1~1 u ' - .. ~ .. ~ ~ ~_ --- - --__ - 1 ~ ctn. o.~ rt o _ y 1- i~~ ''' P i r 1~.l..~Yv1 ~J/~~ ~ ~ Gtr 'G °~'~ r ~• 1Y1.'t l~ •1n ~ . '~e ~~ ~ ~ '~ ~ L s` v r C~ ~. I GApIIbIDS FbR THB RE4UEST: ~ ~.. ~ r ,. ~ , ~• • ~~ ~ ~ . . i i JUN-21-95 WED 15:47 DISPOSAL SYSTEMS #iCCTREC 71393@2568 P.@6 . ~ . - Att~ehment.l Facts Relevant To Thts Matter: ~ - . ~ '. ~On $aturdey, May i3,1g95. unaware that a buildi permit was required to-order to replace an . existing structure on private property, the action taken to remove our e~dsting front yard . fence which had become lnfesbed with termites. m ng It dangerous to keep standing as is. The . ~ existence of this fiance Is evident in photographs loan at different periods In the history of the . r~esidsnce (sue atfieched photographs. ~ .. .. - pn June ?,1995, while in the process of erecting' ~ e replacement fence, which was a little drawn the family, wo noticed a bu5in ~ . • out by an illness ln card fvr.ftobert Stoddard with the inspection . , . :Department in :our.door..~'it;was~upon`calling=fiis:n; ~~ ber~tlst~ws were:=made aware of tFie~fact that front yard fencee~.wera'p'ahibited~in Laporte, :Wh: ` ~, np;that we were replacing an existing ~ ~ . ~ ~ F.'.:.••••• •'~•• •• . .• ~,w••~_-6`•Y•~st~ucfu`re; vie'were as'ked'K we'could~~pro~uce~ ph . . raphlc ®vide'ric~°of~iie fence: We iiver~'`~~so... ~ . ~` .. -' "'`~ -=' =• "told tt~~st= Mr. Stoddard would look• back on a prevlii ''aerial photo taken by the' city to see ff there ~ -~ - was evidence of a fence. A few days later, he calf and informed us that there was no vlslble evidence of the fence on the aerials, but the fact tour lot is shaded by 2 large shade trees In .~ the front yard and that the fence was .painted bro ay not allow for a good .image from the air: • On Monday, June 12 1995, l went tv the Inspecti Department wffh photographic evidence of the old fence and spoke to Mr.-Mark Lewis. 1 also ovided him with a plot of the property and proposed fence replacement (see attachment A) a ~ a rendering of the replacement fence (attachment B). At this time I was Informed that th complaining inspector( Robert Stoddard . was on vacation and that no action would be taloen ~ntil Mr, Lewis could speak to him regarding , this matter. ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ • ~ • . . . Tuesday,.June 20, 1995.In a phone conversation 'Mr: L.evvis, l was~asked if l had~any'dated photographie evidence' of when the old fence was' " ac " ~ ~ light (~pwn. "After answering no to his ' id e f o ~ b "' the only cep essentially; question, he stated that ble ev eni~ that ~ en e had een. . recently removed would be the dated;photas~or a b llding perritit and without either of these he would not approve ~the~ new fence: ~ : " t - - ~~ . 4 ~ ~. . • .. .. ~. ~r - ~. JUH-21-95 WED 15:40 DISPOSAL SYSTEMS ~CCTREC 7139302569 ... ~ i. ~~~~~~ A . .. ;; . . . :.r....' i , ., wy.. . ~ ~ . • .~.a+'.... • .. .i. ..-~.~.iv ..l\. 1. ww~ ~ w4. ~ .. • ~ •.3MV ~. .. . ..y.il' ..~ .. ~i.rY•~ •twi~u: •F' m1 ti ~:~~! it ~~: ~~g •i +~ y ji ~ 1 Y ' j~ 1 ' of 1 1' 1 . ~ 1 1 FFF~~~111 w 1 • r;: ~i 1 ~ ~ i 00 ~ ~ . 1 1 1 . ~ i 1 . 1 • ~ 1 . 1 ~0£ ~ . 1 d~anu~ '. -- --- '~Di ~ . _. ~ { ,. .. i :; a t ~ ~ ~ . i ~. i i +~ i I: ' t~ f' ~• f S e ~ ~~ I: • ~ 1 • ~ ~' ' ~ i ~ P. 0T ;~ .~ [n ~~. li JUH-21-95 WED iS:4B .DISPOSAL SYSTEMS~~ACCTREC 71393@2S6@ . .. • ~" . ' 13 ~~~ ~~~~ i . r 1 P. 0B •; ` . z. •~i^ ~1 ,7 • F•. ~ . ~.~ .. 'A ~. Z . .. ~ ~ . r , 1 ' • '{4 ~ •i • . t ~ 4 i .a t ~ •,~~ y ~.: • .' ! e... JUN-21-95 WED 15:45 DISPOSAL SYSTEMS ,CCT~EC 7139392569 ~P.®i JIIIV-20-85 1'UE 11:51 ~ • ~ ~ :' FAIL N0. 7134'18 P. 02 !~~ n : Mir k L.ew is cITY o6' ~a eon // ~J~.~rr APpc=cagrvn ~ 3ur>GJarJ~rc ~ .. N~c~~uv=cJ~*, ~_ *sL>s atgassaassas:vssoass+~q##srQSSSass~ !`S~ aCaa•roMGgpla 'ROJECx' aDDRSS S: $~ 'MiDFiS :EDiVISYON: `` ,, .~3'C~~ '~ ' vJsJ~ ~ s NJII;~: ~o ~ ~ Slna,~, ~~, 110 4. JTR$S1' ~ ~ .CITY: ' + ' iRESB t ~, .1 .. _ _ .. .~;. .irtiDrNO U$~t 3Q. $OOTAOE:;i . ~ aLt1ATI0Q: DERCliIBS aCR . •~ ~ ' ~ ,,~ ~ 4. .. - ! - i ' •azassaasvazzasasat4s~t4ssalsssaaa.~ss'~s¢gzzama ~ ~ • ~ ~ '~ -~ao$ ct~Y ass oNG CLASJS oT TYFB ~_, f1s8 ~at~~ ~ sTp; M. RJGDC. PLArr,~ ~~+ . ONLY - $iR$ JhrAJ~S1MaL 118p6CQPAJ ~CXBD/~E+F180v~D &'aR stl7lAfC$ eX: 'iCllli~ CoN>DYT=ON3; ''4. ~ ,~, i . , Z L ~.,.~ *J~L.UMBIZtA dE' FORM ~ -"`" ~aaa=P71C~>;~ /alflry=aa~ ON~q#~ . ,..:: •• , •. , - . "' SIP . ~ ~.ry • ~ 9TORt~Sr ~~ '[4. ~p ~ - - ~er- ~ . ~ ~, . sass:ss~ts '+''~ ~__.. 3Q. sT. ~~ ~~ ._ L~>Kii REQ ~_ -~`~~.. OATS' AT$: ~-~ -.-~ 1. /1. ~bv~.tL-~t,L.~ So .mil' ~ ~ .. ;d.y~•~ ~ 1 i/ ~: •:J sssasaas 7aa4aaasseaaa~ss .ice Z i ~{/ . ~ t ' y... "_ , _ ~, ). .. 4: . *~ S; !1R~1#!#Iwe4iO.a a~>;Arra+s##sa ', ~:. 4'R~sas~~az~Ra~Q=3 :. '~ , . ~-~Z a; • !=CG~7Qq OO~a C4ia~ligG *=~41~ (ATTACH TO ACTUAL J?ERNIT) sea~Ra•~#a43riF;i lseasasa~saa • -~ilE•. ' att. .; i . a' I ~i 1 • • Requested By: Doris and David Shamlin, property owners. Requested For. 823 Mossy Drive, which is further described as Lot 355; Block 8; Battleground Estates, Section II. Zonin R-1, Low Density Residential Purpose of Appeal• Applicants are appealing the decision of the Building Official to deny a building permit to allow construction of a residential front yard fence. Bac und• The property in question is a residential homesite located in the Battleground Estates Subdivision. Based on photographs submitted by the applicants it has been established that there was, for a number of years, a "corral" style front yard fence at this location. As far as staff has been able to determine, this was a legally established non-conforming structure that was in place prior to the City of La Porte/City of Lomax incorporation. The original fence has been removed by the applicants, apparently with the intent of installing a comparable replacement. On June 7, City Inspector, Robert Stoddard discovered a new fence at this location. It was under construction, but still incomplete. The original fence had been completely removed and all debris had been removed from the property. There was no sign that there had ever been a previous fence. Section 10-502 of Zoning Ordinance 1501 states that: In the case of large lot residential lots [homesites comprised of one or more acres], six foot (6) perimeter fences are permitted as an accessory use. The applicant's homesite is a fairly typically sized subdivision lot that is comprised of well under one acre. Based on this consideration, Mr. Stoddard informed the applicants that the new fence would have to be removed. • • Page 2 of 3 Boazd of Adjustment Staff Report of 7-6-95 #A95-003 The applicants then provided photos documenting the existence of the previous fence. As noted in a previous paragraph, staff feels the original fence was a legally established non- conforming structure. What has not been established is when this fence was removed. In their application to the Board, the Shamlins state the original fence was demolished on May 13,1995. Staff has no reason to doubt this statement, but we have found no means by which to document it either. Based on. these considerations, the applicant's permit application for construction of a new front yard fence was denied by Building Official Mark Lewis on June 22. The applicants aze appealing this denial. Analysis: In beginning the analysis section of this report it should be noted that. there was an avenue available that would have ~1lowed the applicants to maintain their front yard fence. Under .the terms of Zoning Ordinance Section 4-201.4, a deteriorating non-conforming structure may be repaired and even partially rebuilt. Had the applicants come to the City prior to removing the original fence, a permit could have been issued to allow replacement of up to 50% of the existing structure. A subsequent permit could have been issued at a latter date for the purpose of replacing the remaining portion. As the original fence was not destroyed by "fire or the elements" the non-replacement provision of Section 4-201.3 does not apply. Additionally, as the original fence has been removed, it cannot be determined if it was substandard to the point of invoking the non- replacement provision of Section 10-201.4. Finally, it should be noted that the fence was an accessory structure. It was anon-conforming element of a homesite that otherwise conforms will all applicable R-1 zoning~provisions. Section 4-201.1 states that structures or facilities should not be deemed non-conforming for failure to comply with Section 10, the Special regulation section of the Ordinance. Section 10, in part deals with accessory structures, including fences. It appears to be the intent of this section to have non- conforming accessory structures evaluated with a narrower focus than would be used for a primary non-conforming structure. In other words, regardless of the determination regarding this fence, the primary structure on the property will remain conforming. The overall use of the property will continue to conform with R-1 regulations. Based on these factors and coupled with the fact that there was a means by which the original fence could have been replaced, the primary question becomes this: Did the applicants intend to abandon the right to maintain a front yard fence on this property? Ordinance Section 4-201.7 states, "whether ornot anon-conforming structure has • Page 3 of 3 Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 7-6-95 #A95-003 • been abandoned is a question that will be determined by the Boazd of Adjustment". This paragraph further states "the property owner...seeking to maintain the .non-conforming structure shall have the burden of proving...that [he] did not intend to abandon the structure". If the applicants demonstrate to the Boazd's satisfaction, that they did not intend to abandon the right to maintain a front yazd fence, it will be appropriate to grant this appeal. Conclusion: Staff feels that the applicants acted in error and in ignorance of ordinance requirements. While it does not appear they intended to abandon their right to maintain a front yazd fence, it is their responsibility to demonstrate this to the Boazd. Should the Boazd grant this appeal, it will free staff to issue a permit for a new fence subject to the following conditions. The new fence must comply with all other fencing provisions of Zoning Ordinance and Building Code (as presented in the application, the new fence does comply). The site plan submitted by the applicants indicates there is a backyazd swimming pool. All gates leading into the pool enclosure must be self closing and self latching. All fencing must comply with the provisions of the Standazd Swimming Pool Code. Construction of the new fence was begun without a permit. As provided for by the Standard Building Code, the permit fee for this fence will be doubled. Staff would further request that it be stipulated that a building permit for construction of the new fence be obtained within 10 days of the Boazd's decision. Anneals: As per Section 11-610 of Zoning Ordinance 1501: Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Boazd of Adjustment, or any taxpayer, or any officer, department, boazd, 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. 0 Drivevv~ay . ' ~Q~ ~ ,~ o I V ~~ ro . ~.., ~. ~~ -----------------.R~~ ----=... . T V ~~ ocHiBR A