HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27-1997 Regular Meeing and Public Hearing•
•
MINUTES
Z~NIIVG BOARD OF ADJUSTNIETTT
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27,1997
Members Present Chairman Deborah Bernay, Board Members Sidney Grant, Wr71ie
Walker, Bob Capen, John Willis, Ruben saunas, Rod Rothermel
Members Absent
Cali r Staff Present Director of Planning Guy Rankin, Chief Building Official Art Flores,
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. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE TO NEWLY APPOINTED
ALTERNATE N0.2, ROD ROTHERMEL.
The Assistant City Attorney administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Rothenmel.
III. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE TO ALTERNATE NO.1, JOHN
WILLIS.
The Assistant City Attorney administered the Oath of Office to Mr. VPillis.
TV. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S
DECISION #A97-002 TO ISSUE ZONING PERMIT #9700142 FOR A
BEAUTY SHOP BUSINESS IN AHIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-1)
ZONE. PROPERTY IS KNOWN AS 2757 OLD HIGHWAY 146 (SO.
BROADWAY).
Mr. Flores presented staff's report forA97-002. He reported the applicant, Spero
Pomonis, is appealing the Enforcement Officer's decision to issue a Zoning Permit
for a beauty shop business in an R-3 Zone. The business is located at 2757 Old
Hwy. 146 (So. Broadway), further described by the Harris County Appraisal IhsaYCt
as Tracts 18B and 18F, Crescent View. The applicant's appeal is based on the
provisions of Section 4-202(4) of the Zoning Ordinance, Abandonment of a Non-
conforming UseA. Mr. Flores reported Mr. Pomonis believes the nonconforming
use was abandoned in February,1992, aad opened in August 1995. Mr. Flores noted
the property has held anon-conforming use status for over 20 years. The following
record of events were noted:
1. Prior uses of the property included a bar known as Huber's Zinn, an
automotive sales and repair known as Richard's Auto Repair, a small
engine repair shop, and recently, a permit was issued for a beauty
salon.
Zoning Board of Adjustm~
Mutates of February 27,1997
Page 2 of 5
2. After the bar closed in 1992, Richard's Auto Repair irt>7ized both
parking lots and bw~dings for a car sales business and automotive
repair shoe.
3. In June, 1995, the automotive repair shop was relocated
4. On September 24,1992, Richard's Automotive Repair and Used Car
Sales was granted Special Exception #SE92-003 to allow the use of
the property at 2757 S. Broadway for that business. Ia July, 1995,
this same property was issued a Zoning Permit for a small eng~ae
repair shop.
5. In January, 1997, Br~l and Dorothy Stevens were granted Appeal
#A97-002 for the operation of a beauty salon at 2757 Old Hwy. 146.
6. In January,1997, atoning Permit was issued to Bill and Dorothy
Stevens for a beauty salon known as Studio 7 Hair Care.
Mr. Flores explained there were two issues to be deternrined in making a
decision on this Appeal. First, was the non-conforming use abandoned for
at least 90 consecutive days, and second, did the owner or his representative
intend to abandon the non-conforming use during the period of cessation of
the use.
In conclusion, Mr. Flores noted the current property owners purchased the
property in question and it was zoned R-3 (Higkr Density Residential). It
housed a tenant that had a Zoning Permit to operate at that location. The
tenant remained until Jaauary,1997. The current owners have appeared
before the Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council, and the Board of
Adjustment and in all instances followed proper procedures. They now have
Building and Zoning Permits for the use of the property.
Staff recommended denial of Appeal #A97-002.
Chairrnaa Bernay asked the applicant for his testimonry. Mr. Pomonis stated
that the land owner of the nonconforming use had the burden of proving to
the Board of Adjustment that the nonconforming use did not cease. He
wanted to hear the landowner's testimony prior to his being given. Mr.
Pomonis instructed the Chairman to ask the City Attorney who should give
first testimonry. Mr. Armstrong's response was that the Board of Adjustment
would determrae whose testimony wr71 be heard first. Chairman Benaay
again asked the applicant for his testimony. Chairman Bernay swore in Mr.
Pomonis.
Zoning Board of Adju~
Minutes of Febmary 27,1997
Page 3 of 5
Mr. Pomonis asked the Board to void the proceeding due to lack of
evidence. He noted that staff's report was not sworn testimony. Chairman
Bernay explained that staff prepares background information for the Board
which does not require swearing in of staff. Mr. Pomonis disagreed with that
statement and asked the Board if they would rule on his motion. Sidney
Grant called for a point of order. He noted that Mr. Pomonis is not on the
Board and cannot make a motion. He added, in summary, that Mr. Pomonis
should continue with his testimony and let the Chairman run the meeting.
Mr. Pomonis responded by saying his testimonry relies on what he hears
during the meeting.
For clarification purposes, John Armstrong stated that the Zoning Ordinance
states that the burden of proof is on the individual who wants to maintain
the nonconforming status. However, it is initially up to the appellant to
indicate to the Board of Adjustment information in the appellant's
possession that would define the period of abandonment that the appellant is
alleging. If the issue of abandonment of anon-conforming use is for the
most recent Zoning Permit that was issued, then 90 days prior to January, 30,
1997, should be looked at. If the issue of abandonment of a non-
wnforminguse is for 1992, then time has passed for an Appeal The
applicant should define his reasons for the Appeal.
Mr. Pomonis began his testimony. During the latter. part of January, he
spoke with Richard, of Richard's Automotive Repair, at Richard's new
business located on Fairmont Pkwy. Richard was reluctant to speak because
he did not want to get involved. Richazd had already spoken with Ms.
Stevens earlier in the day. Mr. Pomonis asked Richard when he moved out
of the business on Old Hvvy.146. Richard told Mr. Pomonis he had
completely moved out 18 months ago. Mr. Pomonis then asked Richard if
he knew when Huber's Zinn closed their business. Richard's answer was
that it had been a couple years or more prior to the time he left..
Mr. Pomonis reminded the Board that staff had not provided leases with
dates to substantiate the dates they provided and as a resident of the area, he
knows the buildings were empty for months and maybe as long as a year.
In regard to the small engine repair business, Mr. Pomonis believes it was
never a legally operating business since application was never made with the
State for a sales tax permit nor was filing ever made for an assumed name.
Sidney Grant asked Mr. Pomonis what his purpose was for filing this Appeal.
Mr. Pomonis explained he is a past President of the Bay Colony Property
Owners Association. During the annexation process of the Bayshore
Municipal ut~ity District, the question of what would happen to businesses
that close down under the new zoning was asked He was told by Staff that
Zoning Board of Adjusim~ •
Mutates of February 27,1997
Page 4 of 5
if a business closed for more than 90 days, it would not be allowed to re-
open and the R-3 Zoning would be enforced. That is what he represented to
his community, and he feels a responsibility to see that it is enforced.
Mr. Grant noted that the information Mr. Pomonis presented was only
hearsay. He asked Mr. Pomonis if the Board were acting on an issue that
would affect his personal property, would he want them to act on hearsay.
Mr. Pomonis replied that he would not, however, the Planning staff had only
provided hearsay. Mr. Rankin noted that the information staff provided
came from City records.
Chairman Bernay asked. Mr. Pomonis what time frame he claims the property
was not being used. Mr. Pomonis stated it was during 1993 and 1994.
Sidney Grant made a motion to deny Appeal #A97-002. The motion was
seconded by Ruben Salinas. There was some discussion about receiving
testimony from the current property owner. Sidney Grant made a motion to
table the motion to decry Appeal #A97-002 to receive additional testimony.
Chairman Bernay swore in William B. Stevens, the current property owner.
Mr. Stevens told the Board that he did not have any writxen documentation
to substantiate the continuance of the non-conforming use. Mr. Stevens
stated that he wasn't sure of the exact date that Mr. Huber closed the bar.
Mr. Stevens had approached Richard about who to lease the building from at
2757 Old Hwy. 146. Richard told him that he was leasing the property and
using the building. Mr. Huber had asked Richard not to sub-lease the
property to anyone. Mr. Stevens does not believe the bur~ding was ever
abandoned or was there an intent to abandon.
Chairman Bernay asked Mr. Stevens when he purchased the property and he
replied it was in August, 1996 and at that time both buildings had tenants.
Mr. Caper asked Mr. Rankin if staff believed the building had been
abandoned for more than 90 days, and if not, what proof does staff have to
back them up. Mr. Rankin replied there was no abandonment based on the
follawiag reasons:
• Since 1995, four Zoning Permits have been issued for businesses at
that location; two for each of the buildings.
• In 1992, the Board of Adjustment granted a Special Exception
allowing the expansion of use from the larger bw~ding to the smaller
one.
Zoning Board of Adjustm~
l~nutes of February 27,1997
Page 5 of 5
A. PROPONENTS
There were no others.
B. OPPONENTS
There were none.
Sidney Grant called for the previous question. With no further discussion, a vote
was taken and the motion was approved unanimously. Appeal of the
Enforcement Officer's Decision #A97-002 was denied
V. STAFF REPORTS
Mr. Rankin distributed information to the Board pertaining to new businesses in I.a
Porte, examples of acceptable landscaping, and the proposed 1997 meeting schedule.
VI. ADJOURN
A motion was made by Sidney Grant to adjourn the meeting. Joha W>ylis seconded
the motion. C1~airman Bernay declared the meeting duly adjourned
Respectfully submitted,
P ,
Secretary, Board of Adjustment
Approved on this the °~"~ day of - ,1997.
Deborah Bernay
Cd~ainman, Board of Adjustment
•
•
SPECIAL EXCEPTION #SE97-003
• ~ • CJTY OF LA PORTE
: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST 4,.!
' ------------------~.-- wf :y-
----------------------------------------- APPlication No.. ~'d[~
OFFICE.USE_ONLY: Fee.;._._.:$50..00 Date Received: ~.~- ~'
Receipt No.:
NOTE: This Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision.
Applicant: Moore & Moore_General Contractors
Name - - -
~530 S_-Broadway, La Porte, TX 77571 pH-(281) 471-0145
- ,. - Address
I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized
____.___._~~-__ _.__._.~______ to act on my behalf in this matter.
Owner: Moore & Moore Generate contractors
!Name
___530,_S:, Broadwa~LLa Porte~,_.TX.__77571_. pH;(281) 471-0145
Address
I am requesting a Special Exception to Sect. of the City
Zoning Ordinance No. 1501. I am requesting this Special Exception for
property located at 530 S. Broadwa~,~_La Porte, TX 77571
Address Legal Description
(v)' 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.
4-4-97 ~ -
_ - Date ~ ppl cant's Si ture
~. Pr
OFFICE USE ONLY
Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes (~ No ( )
Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments:
Meeting Date: ~'~.~: 9.[__ Applicant Notified of Date: _._._.______.____
Board's Decision: Approved ( ) Denied ( )
Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: _.___..___.__-_._~
• •
PAGE 2
A Special Exception is a deviation from the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. Before they grant a special exception, The Board of
Adjustments must determine that the exception is not contrary to the
best public interest and will not adversely affect the value or use of
ad joining ~proper.ty.
Special exceptions may be granted for the following items only:
(1) The reconstruction of or addition to a building occupied
by a non-conforming use. Additions cannot extend past
the lot occupied by the original structure or use. The
reconstruction or use cannot prevent the property from
returning to a conforming use.
(2) Deviation of yard requirements under the following cir-
cumstances:
(a) Exceptions to front yard requirements if front yard
setbacks are not met on abutting pieces of property.
(b) Exception to rear yard setbacks if any four (4) lots
within a block do not meet setback requirements.
(c) Exceptions to yard requirements on corner lots.
(d) Exceptions to front yard requirements if existing
front yard setbacks on a block are not uniform.
(3) Waiving or reduction of off street parking and loading
requirements if the Board feels they are unnecessary
for the proposed use of a building or piece of property.
Please remember it is the Applicant's responsiblity to prove
that a Special Exception will meet the above conditions.
If there is not adequate room on the remai.~nder 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:
We are needing to add additional offices_ and_ in _order _to- do
- thatr we_need _t o- add- 10' _6" _to the-North- side-of -our existing
building. The best utilization of our existing offices-and-our -
proposed addition is for-us-to .be able to build on our_ rear------~
_~.rS2gext~C 1ine~ -----.---._-_._-____._._..__._.-._._._--.----__._...._.......---._..._._..._._------_-_--
• •
PAGE
TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT:
We are requesting a special exception so that we may_~__ : ~::: ~~._
construct our off ice add~t ~ on on our rear nronertv_~ine~__ ,~
THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST:
The building we are adding on~ to is built-on the-rear -
property line and_was constructed over 20 xears ago•- We_have-been
located and have owned this property since 1951, and own the lots
_on-both_sides of the alley___This property is presently and has --
been • used as a_ luMber~,ard _-and storage yard for our construction __
company ____--- -------•-- ---__....--•-•---•---_._.__._._.
-____._.Allowing•-us_.this-special..exception _should_•not._.affect_•anx_of ___
the adjacent propertybut will allow us to make _the- best- use of -__
our property_____ _ - --- --•-•-•-~------._.---•
We are also-asking a-special exception to the nondustin.g --`_
-requirement _f or our parking-areas,-since most-of our vehicles are
-pickups-used for construction, parking on the existing hard -
surface is not a problem for us or-our employees. ------__
CED/1-'87
• •
Moore & Moore General Contractors, Inc.
P.O. Box 1517 530 S. Broadway
La Porte, TX 77572-1517 ®~ La Porte, TX 77571
PHONE (281) 471-0145 FAX (281) 471-0601
Apri14, 1997
We are requesting this special exception for the following reasons:
1. The addirion is located on Lot 18 which is one of the two lots the
existing building is on.
2. There are 13 lots in Block 109 that have buildings that do not conform
to the present set back requirements. These are Lots 5 & 6, 7 & 8, 15
& 16, 17 & 18, 25 & 26, and 27-29.
ryan% oore, jr.
Vic resident
\_J
STAFF REPORT APRIL 24,1997
SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST #SE 97-003
REQUESTED FOR: 530 S. Broadway; which is further described as Block 109;
Lots 17,18, Town of La Porte, Texas.
REQUESTED BY: Bryan Moore, Vice-President for Moore & Moore General
Contractors, the property owner.
ZONING: General Commercial (GC)
PURPOSE OF
REQUEST: To allow construction of an office addition with a zero rear
yard setback. Also, consider waiving or reducing off-street
parking and dust-free surfacing requirements.
(See Exhibit A)
Background: Moore & Moore General Contractors and Moore & Moore
Lumber Company are located in Block 109. The proposed
building addition is to be an office addition. Block 109 is
located in a GC zone. Building setback lines in GC zones
are as follows:
Front: 20 feet
Side: 0 feet (Interior side of property)
Rear: 10 feet
The applicant is requesting an exception to allow deviation
from the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The exception is being requested under the terms of Zoning
Ordinance Section 11-605, which allows deviations to yard
requirements in the following circumstances.
• An exception from the front yard requirements
where the actual front yard setback of any
abutting lot does not meet the front yard
requirements.
• A rear yard exception where the actual rear yard
setback of any four or more lots in the same
block does not meet .the rear yard requirements
of these regulations.
• A yard exception on corner lots.
Moore & Moore - #~97-003 •
4/24/97 -Board of Adjustment Meeting
Page 2 of 6
Analysis: The Zoning Ordinance defines a special exception as a
specified enumerated deviation from Zoning Ordinance
requirements. The Board is empowered to grant a special
exception when it finds the following:
• Granting the exception will not adversely affect
the value, or use of neighboring property.
• Granting the exception will not be contrary to
the best public interest.
Regarding this request, the relief being requested is covered
by the terms of the Special Exception Section.
The rear setback of the existing office building,
which is located on Lots 17 and 18, is zero.
There is a roof overhang of approximately
twelve inches (12") into the alley. The
applicant would like to build the proposed office
addition with the setback and overhang.
When considering this request, additional issues should be
addressed. These issues have been listed below:
The alley in Block 109 is considered an "open"
which means the "Public" uses sof the alley
have not been abandoned. The alley contains
utilities; therefore, its chief function is that of a
utility easement.
Moore & Moore - #~97-003 •
4/24/97 -Board of Adjustment Meeting
Page 3 of 6
2. The portion of the alley between Lots 7-16 and
Lots 17-26 is fenced and is currently being used
by the applicant.
3
The existing parking surface does not comply
with current dust-free requirements.
Moore 8c Moore - #~97-003 •
4/24/97 -Board of Adjustment Meeting
Page 4 of 6
4. On-site parking and maneuvering room is
inadequate. The site plan for the entire
property shows fourteen (14) existing parking
spaces. These spaces utilize the S. Broadway
right-of--way for maneuvering room.
Moore & Moore - #~97-003 •
4/24/97 -Board of Adjustment Meeting
Page 5 of 6
Based on Section 11-605 of the City's Zoning Ordinance,
the applicant's request is eligible to be considered for the
rear yard exception and waiver ofoff-street parking
requirements . There is currently eight (8) lots within the
applicant's site which have buildings that do not meet the
rear yard regulations. The issues to consider are impact on
neighboring property and the best public interest. The
requested rear setback reduction should have no impact on
the value or use of neighboring property. The addition
proposed is for an interior lot within the applicant's overall
site.
Also, the addition proposed is relatively small and it does
not appear that granting the requested exception would
adversely impact the adjacent rights-of--way or other
adjacent properties. It does not appear that it would be in
any way contrary to the best public interest.
Conclusion: Based on the facts .and considerations noted above, staff
recommends granting Special Exception #SE 97-003 with
the following conditions.
The terms of Special Exception #SE 97-003 be
noted on the minor development site plan that must
be submitted for this project.
2. The zero rear yard setback be allowed for the
construction of the office addition provided the roof
overhang of the addition does not extend any further
into the sixteen foot (16') alley than the current
building.
3. Upgrade to a dust-free material: Any driveway
entrance and parking area located within the
standard minimum twenty foot (20') front yard
setback.
Moore & Moore - #~97-003 •
4/24/97 -Board of Adjustment Meeting
Page 6 of 6
4. All employee and construction vehicle parking shall
be located within the boundaries of the developed
site. No pazking on the right-of--way will occur.
5. The applicant recognizes existing fence as an
encroachment in the public alley and understands
that the City and other franchised utilities have the
right to enter alley, remove fence as necessary for
the purpose of installation and maintenance of
public utilities. The City and other franchises are
not responsible for restoration to existing
conditions.
Aa eels: 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 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
EXHIBITS
t
i