Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-24-1997 Regular Meeing and Public Hearing• • MINUTES • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF APRIL 24,1997 Members Present Chairman Deborah Beraay, Board Members Sidney Grant, Willie Walker, John Willis, Rod Rothermel Members Absent Bob Capen, Ruben Salinas City Staff Present Director of Planning Guy Rankin, 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 7:03 PM. II. APPROVE THE MINUTES.OF THE FEBRUARY 27,1997 MEETING. With no objections from the Board, Chairman Bernay declared the minutes approved as presented III. CONSIDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION #SE97-003 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICE ADDTITON WTITI A ZERO REAR YARD SETBACK. THIS EXCEPTION IS REQUESTED FOR THE PROPERTY LOC'.ATED AT 530 S. BROADWAY. Art Flores presented staff's report. Mr. Flores explained that the applicant, Bryan Moore, of Moore & Moore General Contractors (the property owner) requested an exception to the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The exception would allow construction of an office addition with a zero rear yard setback. In addition, the applicant requested a waiver or reduction for the off-street parking and dust-free surfacing requirements. Staff recommended approval of the exception with conditions. Chairman Beraay swore in Bryan Moore. Mr. Moore noted the additional office space would be approximately tea feet wide and fifty feet long and the parking area should not be a problem, since there is plenty of room inside the fenced area to park trucks. A motion was made by John Willis to approve SE #97-003 with the follawiug conditions 1. The terms of Special Exception #SE97-003 shall be noted on the minor development site plan that must be submitted for this project. • • Zoning Board of Adjustrnent Minutes of Apn124,1997 Page 2 of 2 2. The zero rear yard setback shall 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 thaw the current building. 3. Upgrade to a dust-free material, arty driveway entrance and parkng area located within the standard minimum twenty foot (20') front yard setback. 4. All employee and construction vehicle parking shall be located within the boundaries of the developed site. No parking on the right-of-way shall occur. 5. The applicant recognizes existing fence as an encroachment in the public alley and understands that the City and other franchised ut~7ities have the right to enter the alley and remove the fence as necessary for the purpose of installation and maintenance of public utslities. The City and other franchises are not responsible for restoration to existing conditions. The motion was seconded by Sidney Grant. All were in favor and the motion passed. IV. STAFF REPORTS There were none. v. AnJouRN Chairman Benaay declared the meeting duly adjourned at 7:11 PM. Respectfully submitted, P~gY Secretary, Board of Adjustment Approved on this the ~ day of 1997. i Deborah B Chairman, Board of Adjustment • • APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER' S DECISION #A97-003 • • CITY OF LA PORTE `:~ •~`' ~•. .. ~- ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ' APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION ~~~~~~ ~' ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Application No.: q7- O 0 3 OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received: - ~' ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant: J .~ Address ~~ ~ ~i v~~\~ c ~\3 ~0 I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized to act on my behalf in this matter. Owner*: G~ N Address ~r. ~~~~ 1 1 _ c I am appealing the decision regarding or the interpertation of Sect. 5~-e20~. / of the City Zoning Ordinance No. 1501 . I am making this peal n.reg s property located ~ ~ I~ ~ 3 Street Address Legal Description (i~ 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)~~ A~11 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 Applicant's Signa ure ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes (/) No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: _ _ P4eeting Date: ( Applicant ?dotified of Date: Board's Decision: Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: • • Appeal Application PAGE 2 APPLICANT'S COMMENTS 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 ;LATTER: •- ~ , TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT: ~~S GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST: r. vLl~pi~~ `! \ ~ L ~ { ii .rte .+~ t~,~•t.~ CED/1-'A7 • • Rreeda E Rogers 210 Pine Bluff St. - La Porte, Tx. 77571 Pager (713) 866-7018 -Home Phone (281) 842-1594 September 5, 1997 REFERENCE: MOBILE HOME REPLACEMENT AT 208 PINE BLUFF STREET Dear Ladies/Gentlemen I am disclosing additional information to let you know exactly how the events in this case have occurred. Last year on March 22 the papers were finalized for the purchase of my home. The property consist of three lots. One lot had a mobile home on it. There were people living in the home until the day before the closing of the real estate transaction. Because of the situation I never got to view the mobile home. I paid an additional $5000.00 on the purchase of the entire property for the mobile home. After the closing, I came to the property to view the mobile home. From the outside it looked all right. The inside was not a safe or healthy place to live. That was only the beginning of the losses that have taken place. The following week the City of La Porte was contacted. I inquired about being able to rep ace the mobile home. City Hall informed me that I could not replace the home unless Igo si eyed a mobile home park. The home was not suitable enough for anyone that I would want to have living so close to my residence. Sometime in the middle of May of 1996 I had the mobile home removed from my property. I have lost all paper work, therefore I can not give you an exact date of the removal. This year in May I was talking with an acquaintance, they informed me that indeed false information had been given to me about the replacement of the mobile home. The next day I called the City of La Porte and spoke with Mr. Flores in the City Planning Department. I explained to him the events that had taken place. Including the fact that the mobile home was gone. He told me that I could put another mobile home back on the lot; as long as I could prove that the mobile home was a 1976 or older model and that the home did belong to me. The following day I called him back and asked him to send me the information about being able to replace the home. I did not want to start plans for replacement without the legal proof because of what I had been told before by the City Hall. Two weeks had gone by and I kept calling for the information. Finally, I went in person. Debbie Wilmore spoke with me at that time and informed me that I could not replace the mobile home because I only had ninety days from the time of the removal of the old home. She also informed me of other stipulations prior to removal. I was upset with what she had told me. She said that I could speak with Guy Rankin. He was not available at the time, but a meeting was set for 1:30pm the next dav. Mr. Rankin also informed me that I would not be able to make replacement. He told me that he would be sending me a letter about his decision and our meeting. At that time I requested again that the information about the replacement law be sent with his decision. Three weeks went by, calling him several • • times requesting the letter. On the 18th of July, i~1r. Armstrong the City Attorney called and said they were going to let me make application. As a final note I must say that a lawyer has been retained. A lawsuit against the previous owner of my house and the Realtors is now in process. This case is separate from the matter in which I am writing about today. I went into the whole Real Estate transaction trusting people. Finally what I would like to say is that my inexperience, being a first time buyer and my trusting faith has gotten my children and myself several heartaches we should have never experienced. Sincerely Brenda E. Rogers GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL THIS THE_~~ Y OF- t~~~~1~~9 NOTARY C~ HARRIS COUNTY COMMISSION EXP. .•_1t604AWW. +.+.•~~OCOGDOC4~000H•WiVJ•. .~ •3 •,t~~ "~- • 1~lA TE?a1Pt? SYl ~'* • +~ . NOTARY P1181.iC ~ •. ~`~ ~ ~ STATE QF TE<AS '•; . `? '~'~ ;* 'r?~'~' . vO?AMiSSiCN t„PIRE3 01-0l~99 . .... •, c:caooeco~oooooonoccoooccxx~, ~ • • . -. ~_. • r O~~li:~ L ~~y :. /. %'%~~~~~ ~.~ -~ fit - o~ ~,~~ forte ~'SXP9 ~~ RECEIVED i~ISi'ECTiONS 8 Building Mechanical *Electrical *Plumbiag (* See back of form) Project Address: ~~~ Pi'c~e_ 1~~~~~~ o~~. Lot: ~'~" Subdivision: ~(~ Q ~T \~\'Q\~.1 ~PinE c31uf-~~ Block • 'R Owner's Name : t` \\ \ ~Ph[one Address : ~~~ ~\~~ ~~.~~~~~ . c,~4 ~T _ ~ /~- ~~~~ 1 Street City ~ Zip Contractor: Phone: Address• Street City Zip Engineer- Designer: Building IIse: K~_es i d e n.cc Sq. Footage: # Stories Valuation : Describe Work : ~ R i rLQ Q_ h ~ MI PhAb, J B J'~-~ rr~ e, d-~4- r-~o l c~c e. w h. o,r,~ e. he rn. y v e a~ ; n R~ h i I o F_ i lh~X a~ t 9 9 (o For City IIse Daly Occupancy Type Flood Zone Class Work Construction Type IIse Zoae ~~ # Stories Commercial Buildings Plans Oa1v-Fire Marshal Approval _ Sq. Ft. Parking requested_ '"'-"-' Date : ~lZ= Checked/Approved for Issuance By: Date: .._.___. _ 9 -- Permit Fee ~ (attach to actual :~~~: ~-n~ ` ' Revised J5/12/96 .u.: ~er.ac- Permit No. - OP4621A1 . ~ ~ c \t"i~' i:; \1`-r >.1~..::'~\a, ,><...~ ~° t\ -C~~ \t \,,,.> >a`?\ \~~p +i\\~~>sv`~Kl.\ 1>>,~ ~`\~>xXi~c~~ i s`~''~? ~. ~~. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSI134`AND CO~UN~TY`AFFt1IRS` ~~4\ ~ \ ~~~ >\ `~ ~~>'~~c~~..~ ~,> ~``~ ; '~`` „ .' DATE OF CERTIFICATE TEXAS ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP \ \~ ` ~.~ ,'~~:~ \~\CERTIFT~A#J'F~~1U1~[B$R,\~ 0$/1$/1997 MANUFACTURED HOME°DOCUMENT OF. TITLE ~ ~' ~ ~ , ~ ~ 3; 0O922p~9.\~ X> ` .t «.> \~ ~., y • INFORIMAO Oi ; MAT BF OB ~ ME Y NOOT RE fi D T THE.EXISTO CE OF A TAX Li~N ~J\~; ~~~~~~b ~'\`~v``.~~~Y''~~\~~" a ~~ MANUFACTURER • : s. ~, >?< ,~,a, ~. M,> r+v` ~,> w . >.r .> . > a. REDMAN IIOfiRES INCORPORATEIi [IA] ~ MODEL'DESIaAT~.TTOId\`:NEV~\Mb~\T~\t>p;;`1~^~ ``~`~,~r,~~~3 ^ ' ~ 2126 MARSHALL DRIVE ~ ,. :: ~ .: - :'. ~ ~, 3~ ~ ;.~' >t~;~~ ~>`~ •_;\~~ Y~ :~\~~~ :t \~~ ~ ;; GRAND PRAIRIE TX 75051 '' °'CgUNTY WI~ERE INSTAL~;~~3.~,R~'~ `a~.>'a' ~: ,'°>~ ,1; o .., . .: , ' DATE OF A4ANUFACTURE L~BEL/SEAL NUMBER ; >: ~ . ~ ?; .. ~~SERIAL NUMBER. ~<\\ ~ \~W~(Gg'~~~>'x 'x~ ~\°~ a`•~' ~•`rYp SINGLE WIDE ~ TXS0570076 ~ ' 901182 ~• i ' ` ~ r ;`\~ 1qQ • ~,~.t a>l; ~2 0~~0 0s ~*' ~• , A > V ~ \ \~ ~ \ ,~\ , DOUBLE WIDE > \ ~ : \\`\ ~`\ . ~~Q ~..i:~a ~ > ~ ~. .>.~' TOTAL ~ ~ '; \ ~-. > ,. \ > ,.- ~\> y~ `1\a\ c>>~"\~~, ~ `"~\'\iP ~>~`'\~~'i~ y`r~\A 720 TRIPLE WIDE :: \` `: \` ~ ~`\ , ~`\\\ ~ ~\~\~ ~\ ~~>.> ~.\ ~ ~ >\ \x S ET > .: OWNER BRENDA E. ROGERS ~ ~ HOME 1S SUBJECT:TO;TFIE F~LI:O ~' l5'ING M YtT~AGE~ SIN ~'O b~,« 210 PINE BLUFF ST. ~ \ ~ ~ ~~;;, , ~~ ~~\~ a ~\;~ \ ~~ ~~,, LAPORTE TX 77571 ~ ~ NOY,~E~J \ ~ ~ ` \ ~ ~ ~ \ 1 - RST ` .2 > \. ~ ~, a a ~\\la > Y,l;~'a> > ~, ,\ > axe ~ ti c ~ ~k .LIEN ~` `>. ~ .\\ o\ \ ; ~ ~ ~ >: >, >' ~' ;; > Relcue ~ `„ ~~ ` ' ;` Licn Signature': lttle;',`` '` ~~<..\~ Datr \•\i:'''.:~ l NOTARY NOTARY STAMP " , \ ~~ • ` ~. ~> \ : ~, ;~: . :: ~ '; .:: ~ ,... :.:.. E:u'I I Oll'NF:It MUti l' SIGN U/x~U111EN'I' OF"1'I'1'LF: IMt\IF:UTATEL 1' UPON KECEII"1' SIGNA"PURE OF OWNER(Sl•'\" ~ ~ NOTARY SIGNATURE'• ` DATE SECOND ~ ' ~; \ \~. ~. :. LIEN \ \ . ~ `. . RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP ~ YES ~ NO \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \~\ ~, sELLER NATIiALIE MANNING ~ , ` \\\ \ >< 2914 OLD II[GHWAY 146 . ' ',' :.~ :~`.> ...::.:':.:... \~...:.;-. ` . \•, 4 ` .\ ..:.::.`o, .: \ ;; ,. LAPORTE, TX 77571 : R~i~iv~ ~`; \ ~ \ \ \ . ..ne > a> .a ~ >, Licn ~ ~ .•.. ...> .. >:. >~ ~\ : $Ig~anlt0~ Y -... ~:.• `>. \' >TlliC ~ `' "\ it. ~Z:i • • > .. c \\\ \~ \ x \ \C > F \ 3 NOTARY ~ NOTARY STAMP ; ` . \ .; . re , ~ >`~ \~ ~~>e y `< ~ 4 , - \ ' `` „?~` LORRY PAUL ANLEY '\~ ~\``' \\`:\''.' \' `\~ ~>\ ~ t` > ~ ~ • ~ ~, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ~ : • ' \ >\\1 ~ \ 1 ~, NOTARY SIGNATURE' ~ ~ , DATEt 3 .. ~. _ _ .._ __....._ _ c ~ c • • STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 25, 1997 APPEAL OF THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION #A97-003 REQUESTED FOR: 208 Pine Bluff; which is further described as Lot 31; Block 7; Pine BluffSubdivision REQUESTED BY: Brenda E. Rogers, property owner ZONTNG: R-I, Low Density Residential PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant has applied for a building permit so that she may bring in a new mobile home to replace a mobile home that was removed sometime in or around May of 1996. The Building Official denied the building permit, having determined that removal of the mobile home from the above described property constituted abandonment of a nonconforming use. The applicant is appealing this determination. BACKGROUND: A mobile home was located on the lot in question, from the time of the 1989 Bay Municipal Utility District annexation, until sometime in or around May 1996. Exhibit A, which is a survey prepared by Texas Land Coordinators, Inc. and dated March 13, 1996, shows a mobile home located on the lot. The property in question has been part of a R-I, Low Density Residential zone since the time of annexation. Mobile and manufactured homes, by Zoning Ordinance requirement, are not allowed to be located outside of licensed mobile home parks. The use of this property as a mobile home site, at the time of annexation, was a legally established nonconforming use. • Board of Adjustment Mtg. 9-25-97 A97-003 -Brenda Rogers Page 2 of 5 • Following the purchase of the property, the applicant states she contacted City Hall and was told she could not replace the mobile home unless it was within a licensed mobile home park. The applicant contends that based on this information and the poor condition of the mobile home, she arranged for the home to be removed from the property. The issue being considered in this case, is abandonment of a nonconforming use. It is the City's determination that given the time that has passed since the mobile home was removed in May, 1996 and the subsequent submittal of an application for replacement of the home on August 25, 1997, the nonconforming use is abandoned and cannot be returned. In talking with Ms. Rogers, she referenced a 1996 conversation with an earlier Building Official, but did not have a date or name. The applicant's subsequent 1997 conversations with staff included Mr. Art Flores, Mrs. Debbie Wilmore and Mr. Guy Rankin. Each staff member explained that the applicant's attempt to persuade the staff of "the applicability of the State Law replacement option" is not valid since the mobile home was not currently on site. There has not been a mobile home on this lot since May, 1996. Following her conversation with Mr. Rankin, the applicant was referred to the City Attorney's office for discussion. In a verbal opinion, Mr. Armstrong, the Assistant City Attorney indicated the following to Mr. Rankin: ^ Based on available facts and information, staffs assessments and determinations are correct. ^ The issue of abandonment of a nonconforming use is regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. An appeal regarding this issue may be made to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. ^ The jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment extends only to zoning matters. The Board is only empowered to consider any determinations or interpretations regarding state law to the same extent that the Building Official is empowered to determine. ^ Mr. Armstrong says that the factual assessments of staff and application by staff of the zoning ordinance to staff s factual assessments are entitled to great weight. The Zoning Board of Adjustment should not substitute its factual determination for those of staff, unless the Board believes that, based upon evidence brought out at the hearing, the fact assessments of staff could not have been concluded by a reasonable individual. The applicant has the burden of proof to show that: (a) physical abandonment, and (b) intent to abandon the use, did not occur with the removal of the home. • • Board of Adjustment Mtg. 9-25-97 A97-003 -Brenda Rogers Page 3 of S The issue is whether the applicant has abandoned utilitzation of the mobile home since the home was removed in May, 1996 and the application for replacement was made in August, 1997. This is the determination being appealed by the applicant. ANALYSIS: Zoning Ordinance Section 4-202 regulates the nonconforming use of property. This section states: A nonconforming use, when abandoned, shall not resume. A nonconforming use is abandoned when land used for an established nonconforming use ceases to be used for a period of ninety (90) consecutive calendar days, and it is determined that an intent to abandon the nonconforming use occurred, as evidenced by an overt act or a failure to act on the part of the nonconforming use landowner or his occupant. Whether or not a nonconforming use leas been abandoned is a question that shall be determined by the Board of Adjustment. The property owner or his representative seeking to maintain the existing nonconforming use shall have the burden of proving to the Board of Adjustment that the use has not been discontinued for a period of 90 consecutive calendar days, and that the owner or his representative did not intend to abandon the nonconforming use during the period of cessation of use of the nonconforming use. The City has established the following facts regarding this matter: ^ The mobile home that was located at 208 Pine Bluff has been removed from the property. ^ No water account at this address exists. ^ Houston Lighting and Power Company records show the mobile home service was terminated on June 1 1, 1996. ^ Ms. Rogers was unable to provide the specific date on which the mobile home was removed from the property. Based on the above considerations, the Building Official has determined that the nonconforming use of this property has ceased. Additionally, based on the date of electric service termination and the applicant's inability to provide the date on which the home was removed, the Building Official has determined that the nonconforming use has ceased for a period of at least 90 days. The use, therefore, is considered abandoned. Board of Adjustment Mtg. 9-25-97 A97-003 -Brenda Rogers . Page 4 of 5 The Board, when considering an appeal, is charged by Section 11-604.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to use the following criteria and only grant an appeal when it is found that all three (3) conditions have been satisfied. ^ That there is a reasonable difference of interpretation as to the specific intent of the zoning regulations or zoning map, provided the interpretation of the enforcement officer is a reasonable presumption and the zoning ordinance is unreasonable. • That the resulting interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated. ^ The decision of the Board must be in the best interest of the community and. consistent with the spirit and interest of the City's zoning laws and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of La Porte. Regarding the specific intent of the zoning regulations, Ordinance Section 4-200 requires that except as necessary to preserve established property rights, specific nonconforming structures, lots or uses, the "Board [of Adjustment] is directed to take note that nonconformities in the use and development of land and buildings are to be avoided, or eliminated where now existing wherever and whenever possible". The applicant's property has, since annexation, enjoyed the full ~ protection of the nonconforming use sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Now, however, with the removal of the mobile home, normal R-l, Low Density Residential restrictions must be applied to the property. It should be noted that the property in question complies with zoning requirements for single family homesites. There is nothing in the ordinance to prevent a conventional single family home from being developed on the property. Based on these considerations, it cannot be construed that the Zoning Ordinance is unreasonable. Regarding the issue of special privilege; the City of La Porte has been very consistent in dealing with the issue of nonconforming mobile homes. The City has strictly observed ordinance requirements which protect the established nonconforming status of existing homes. The City has also, through litigation when necessary, enforced the zoning regulations (as they apply to mobile homes) assigned to a given district. To grant this appeal would vary from this standard and therefore, in effect, grant a special privilege to this property. . The third condition requires that the Board's decision must be in the best interest of the City's zoning laws and Comprehensive Plan. Granting this appeal would clearly not be in the best interest of the Zoning Ordinance, nor would it further the Comprehensive Plan goal or re-establishing the Pine Bluff Subdivision as a neighborhood of single family homes. • • Board of Adjustment Mtg. 9-25-97 A97-003 -Brenda Rogers Page 5 of 5 Finally, the matter of state law must be mentioned. The Board of Adjustment is not empowered to make determinations regarding state law. The only issue being brought before the Board is abandonment of a nonconforming use. CONCLUSION: Based on the information provided, staff finds the following: ^ The nonconforming use, under the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 4- 202.4, has been abandoned. ^ The applicant has not proven that the Building Official's assessment is incorrect. ^ There is not a reasonable difference of ordinance interpretation involved. • Zoning Ordinance regulations are not unreasonable in regards to this matter. ^ Granting the appeal would afford a special privilege to this property. ^ Granting the appeal would not be in the best interest of the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan. Based on the facts and considerations listed above,-staff recommends denial of Appeal of the Enforcement Officer's Determination #A97-003. APPEALS: Per Section 11-6 10 of Zoning Ordinance 150 I 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. ~+ o Z 3/g tr M ~ T/~!- P6S7 R'7 GoRIVL'~ N l~T sy `~ J ~0 ~ J U ~~S.,,r o, 6~G4iN/LA//f, 1 24? ~ ~ 57o¢y ~~ ~ ~ p C lupop FMaMel N ZyL 3nl col.lc. ~ouc, 1.07 s 3/, 3L~3 .. ;, (~ C OG/S 7 9q SCE;-- N- l STOty ,y ' n .F~A„loi' fH /~l.~fJ. L ~1 Zbi ( S. Z.R, -iZ ., ~ s o. ov' ~' . --~- Oq G U~ II4 ~Oe K [ LO7 ? 3 0 z zs'_ M ~r ~I(000 o~~j Y r RxK ~ °NIUL i ^ V' u~ Z77.8o' ', ~ ~ o§ I l14 y iC~v ~ . ~~/g~•wr,E"/gc.Pcc7 W~S~ ~Sd.00' PoI.Ta7 oooTUr~ -~~o~~~ ~Zio~~ p~~vE- Bc~urr ~r~~vt; C3~'R.olwr). Brenda E. Rogers 210 Pine-Bluff DriYG Lots 31, 32 and 33, in Block 7, of PINE BLUFF, a subdivision in Harris County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof, recorded in Volume 572, Page 277,• of the Deed Records of Harris County, Texas. " TEXAS LAND COORDINATORS, IN C. ~ p:; .°.r rE• 997-1585 ~'%: ~5~1i,+,~~o•{r ~ ".11c ~:~: ~V 236629 c. F. ...>. .................:... HC',i3kF((ADAMS ~ : • Dele: 3-1 3-96 1 3-3-KK-96 . ..........~.. . S p.. (9 ~ ~~ yal. Inv. • v~ ESS{ SUR ,TOI1N 13-3-KK-96 I do hereby earthy Ihet Ihle eurvay wee Ihle dey made on the Around al the progeny lepolly daserlbad hereon, (or on the ellsehed eheel), srul Is correct,endTheraererroencroeehmentsunlsesshown,sndwasdonebyme or under my supervlelon, end eonlorme to or eseeede the current slsnderdi ss edopled by the Teeu Boud of Proleulond Lend Surveylnp. Note: There era no nelurel drelnepe eoureee on lhle propsrly. Noto: Tl,ls roperly does r Ile In • Ilood Mserd sons seeordlnp to N.U.D. F.I.A. ~/ ~ f/e~ 0 375 G 4? 8 - 9 d touE A .~ ~~I~ sue.