HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-24-2000 Regular Meeing and Public Hearing
.. ~ ~ '1.'
.-~
. .'
, I _. 1
..
. .i
.:..~ ,
MINUTES
..
; . s.
, I
.NING B'OARD OF ADJUST.NT
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24,2000
Members Present: Chairperson. Sidney Grant, Bob Capen, Willie Walker, Ruben Salinas,
Rod Rothermel, Alternate No.2 George Maltsberger
, ,
MPlllbers Absent Alternate No.1 Charles Schoppe
Ci~ Stat1' Present: Chief Building Official Debbie. W1lmore, Assistant City Attorney
John Annstrong, and Planning Secretary Peggy Lee
I. CALL TO ORDER.
. ,
Meeting called to order by Chairperson Grant at 7:00 PM.
II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 27,2000 MEETING.
Minutes approved as presented.
III. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION
#AOO-OOl WHICH SEEKS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
SWIMMING POOL WITH REDUCED SETBACKS TO ADJACENT
STRUCfURES AND' unUTY EASEMENTS AS PER SECTION 106-89(3)
OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE.
'(REQUEST PREVIOUSLY REFERENCED AS VARIANCE #Voo-oot.)
Chief Building Official Debbie W1lmore preserited staff's report for a request
submitted by Bob Anderson, of Custom Design Pools, authorized representative for
the property owner, Paula Myers. Mr. Anderson is seeking relief from current city
regulations for Swimming pool setbacks in order to construct a pool at 10920
Sycamore Drive South. The applicant originally requested a variance to' 'alleviate the
setbaCk problem, but after staff review, an,d based on required criteria for a variance,
it was determined that the request should be handled as an appeal. .
Mr. Anderson, u:" his application, referenced the Cities of Deer Park and Ijouston as
haVing less stringent setback requirements for swimming pools. Both cities were .
contacted and Mr. Anderson's statements were confirmed. In the near future, staff
may ask the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to consider an
amendment to the. Zoning Ordinance that would reduce ~g pool setbacks.
Public Notices were mailed to.37 surrounding property owners. The City received
four responses in favor of the request, one in opposition, and one was returned
undeliverable.
A. PROPONENTS
Chairperson Grant swore in Bob Anderson, owner of Custom Design Pools.
Mr. Anderson informed the Commission that it is difficult to meet La Porte's'
setback reqUirements for swimming pools, especially when dealing with some
of the smaller lots. ..
-
::" .:
; I
.~.
Zoning Board of Adjus.A
Minutes of Febmary 24:11'0
Page 2of2
.
, Chairperson Grant sWore in George Finley. Mr. Finley told the Commission
he recently purchased a house in Spencer Landing.and intends to have a pool
installed. He will be facing, the same problem as Mr. Ande~on.
,B. OPPONENTS
)
No opposition Was presented.
Motion by Bob Capen to approve Appeal of the Building Official's Decision #AOO-
001. Second by Rod Rothermel. All were in favor and the motion passed.
IV. CONSIDER ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW IN CONNECTION WITH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AcrION
REGARDING #NCSOO-001.
Assistmt City Attorney explained that this ,action is a fo.Ilow-up in regards to any
appeal of the Board's decision on the Flamingo Bay Apts. Mr. Armstrong read the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for NCSOO-001, January 27, 2000 '
(attached).
Motion by Bob Capen to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in
connection with Board of Adjustment action regarding #NCSOO-001. Second by
Ruben Salinas. All were in favor and the motion passed. .
V. STAFF REPORTS
~ere were no staff reports'.
VI. ADJOURN
Chairperson Grant declared the meeting duly adjourned at 7:33 PM.
Peggy ,
Secretary, Zoning Board of Adjustment
, ,sf 9"..
Approv~d .on this --- day of . '/4t.,~
~yf~
Sidney~t
Chairp on, Zoning Board of Adi,ustment
, 2000.
'\
.
.
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
NCSOO-001
JANUARY 27,2000
Upon conclusion of the public hearing of the above-referenced cause, held on January
27, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. at La Porte City Hall, 604 West Fairmont Parkway, during which
witnesses were called and testified, subsequent to being placed under oath, the Zoning
Board of Adjustment of the City of La Porte, Texas, meeting in duly called open session
at La Porte City Hall, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The applicant, Lakeside Center, Inc. ("Lakeside") was proposing to reopen the
Flamingo Bay Apartments, 200 Garfield ("Flamingo Bay"), located within the City of
La Porte, Harris County, Texas.
2. Notices of the public hearing held before the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City
of La Porte, Texas ("the Board") were properly mailed and published, according to
law.
3. Flamingo Bay was built in the mid-1960's, and was occupied until July, 1997.
4. Flamingo Bay ceased to be occupied from July, 1997 until the date of the hearing, a
period close to 2 % years.
5. Lakeside established no evidence of intent in connection with the abandonment of
the property, including establishing no evidence of intent of abandonment prior to
Lakeside's acquisition of Flamingo Bay.
6. Flamingo Bay is Zoned R-3, Multi-family Residential, which is a zoning classification
apropos for apartments.
7. Flamingo Bay has 19 off-street parking spaces. The Zoning Ordinance requires
135. Flamingo Bay proposed to construct an additional 16 off-street parking spaces,
providing a total of 35 proposed off-street parking spaces, or 100 short of Zoning
Ordinance requirements.
8. Flamingo Bay consists of 9 separate buildings. 5 of these existing buildings
significantly encroach on front and/or side and/or rear yard setbacks required by the
Zoning Ordinance, to varying degree. Lakeside made no proposal to alleviate these
encroachments.
9. Flamingo Bay resides on 1.83 acres of land, and has 57 dwelling units, a ratio of 31
dwelling units per acre. The Zoning Ordinance requires a maximum ratio of 27
dwelling units per acre. Lakeside made no proposal to alleviate this excessive (per
Zoning Ordinance) density.
10. The Lakeside proposal, relative' to landscaping, would have satisfied Zoning
Ordinance requirements.
11. Lakeside was, prior to purchasing Flamingo Bay in December, 1999, notified of the
non-conforming aspects of this project.
Zoning Board of Adjustment, .
City of La Porte
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
.
Page 2
02/22/00
12. Numerous problems occurred between nearby residents and former tenants of
Flamingo Bay in the past. Lakeside promised to rectify these problems with security
measures and a proposed neighborhood council.
13. Lakeside purchased Flamingo Bay out of $1,491,842.00 in HOME grant funds. A
budget exists in the amount of $800,000.00 for renovation and/or construction of the
project. Serious questions exist as to whether the budget is sufficient to alleviate
foundation and/or other structural problems, HV AC problems, drainage problems,'
environmental problems, and other code compliance problems.
14. Overwhelming testimony from La Porte citizens and nearby residents of the property
opposed the project as proposed by Lakeside. The testimony came in oral and/or
written form. .
15. The Flamingo Bay renovation is not consistent with the stated goals of the Zoning
Ordinance to eliminate non-conformity where existing.
16. Any conclusions of law which may be deemed findings of fact are adopted as part of
these findings.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Clear evidence in the record shows that Flamingo Bay Apartments have been
abandoned for a period in excess of 180 consecutive calendar days prior to the
application of Lakeside for redevelopment. No substantial evidence of intent
regarding abandonment was put forward by the applicant, or could be reasonably
inferred from the testimony in front of the Board. The Board concludes that
Flamingo Bay Apartments have been abandoned as a matter of law, consistent with
Zoning Ordinance provisions relative to abandonment of non-conforming structures,
and non-conforming lots of record. The Board concludes that Applicant failed to
prove Applicant's intent relative to abandonment of the structures.
2. Section 106-262(h)(2) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of La Porte states:
"...(The) use of the non-conforming structure, when abandoned, shall not resume..."
3. As a matter of Law, the use of Flamingo Bay Apartments, which are non-conforming
structures as defined under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of La
Porte, shall not resume.
4. Any findings of fact which may be deemed conclusions of law are adopted as part of
these conclusions.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CITY OF LA
PORTE, TEXAS, FEBRUARY 24, 2000.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
By:
. .
... :~ i
;
. .. 'I
- (,
.
.
, .
ADMINISTER OATHS OF OFFICE
"
. .
~ :,
.
.
OATH OF OmCE
I, Charles Schoppe , do solemnly swear (or affirm), that
I will faithfully .eXecute .-he d~ties of the office of
Zoning Board of Adjustment , of the City of. La Porte,
Salte of rexas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect
and defend the constitution and laws of the United States and of this
State and the Charter and ordinances of this City; and I furthermore
solemnly swear (or aftirn)) that I have not directly or indirectly paid,
offered, or promised to c6ntnbute any money, or valuable thing, or
promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my
appointmP-nt or the confirmation thereof. So help me God.
~m4~~
Swom to and subscnbed before me this the
June. 2000
1st
day of
,.
.. ~
NOlmy Public U fur the . .
tate of Texas'
;"
'::'
.
.
OATH OF OFFI~
I, GeorQe . Ma 1 tsberQer" , do solemD1y swear (or affirm), that
I will faithfully execu~ the duties of the office of '
7nning Rn~rrt 'OT Adj'I'itMiRt ' of the City of La Porte.
, State of Texas~ and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect
and defend the constitutioD and laws of the Uni~ States and of this
State and the Charter and OImnances of this City; and I furthermore .
solerimJ.y 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 .
apPOhltmP.nt or the confirmation theteof. So help me God.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this the
. June. 2000'
1st
Notary Public in and for the
State of Texas '
day of
.;. ~
~ '!. . ..
.
.
APPEAL, OF, THE ,
BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION
, #AOO~002
~ . :
e.
CITY OF LA PORTE
.
! ..
'"
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION
. '
--------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE USE ONLY: .
Application No..
Date Received:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant:
JAI. ~ ,;'Cd" /J I- (!/ ,'JJ~
9// ~P9~Nsr. ~ 51:
Address
PH: j; J' /'~/-tS3
I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized
.to act on my behalf in this matter.
Owner*:
Name.
PH:
Address'
I am ~pealing the de'cision regarding or the interpertation of
Sect. 11' /06- "iFl ~JJ) ~f the City Zoning' Ordinance No. .1501. . I am making
this appeal in r gards tc} the property located" L r" ~ n J 1<"
at q I , f!!,~ r:p -jt:.n!.e-/" . LlJ-::L-:2' I ~ -,<::' - !2IDtl_
. StreetJ,ddress . r:"J Legal Description
t.J-3 t:}Ac! 71"4:~ /~t; ;JPj~ ~2, ~')r'f'l ..
. ,r .
( ) Site Plah () Min~r D~velopment Site Plan
( ) Major Development Site Plan ( ) General Plan
A Site Pl~n of the property is attached. Also, I have listed .the
information requested, below on the following pages of this form~
~ All facts concer:ning ~he mat~er that has led up '.to this request.
The type of rellef lam' seeklng (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.).
c The grounds upon which I am making this request.
. .
.* If applicant is NOT the owner, he ID.1Lll provide Authorization to act
on the Owner's behalf.
4I&~ C'~~
Applicant's Signature
~ If)... &0
Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"
OFFICE USE ONLY
Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes () No (~
Date transmitted to the' Board of Adjustments:
05 - ,) 6- 0 D
Heeting Date:
oC:,- 0 I~o 0
,Ap~lic~nt Notified of Date:
Board's Decision:
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner:
'; . .;
.t. .~..
i'
=
.
"
.
.
FACTS RELEVANT TO TIllS 'MATTER:
.We have lived at this residence since 1979.We have kept oUr house and yard in excellent
, condition 'during these years. We would never jeopardize the integrity or b~auty of our '
residence or yard by putting anything on it that is not up to par with the alieady well-kept
and maintained condition of our area.
I believe someone objected t9 our having a storage ~ntainer here. We bought it in
January with all good intentions of having it's exterior redone immediately into a more
pleasing look of a storage building. But shortly after we had it delivered, Mr. Childs
underwent an operation that restricted his activity; therefore we got no further with our
project than painting it brown to match our house. .
,
We have, pampas grass growing all along the .boundary of our property visible to the road.
As you know we had a drought last summer and I'm afraid. we neglecte4 the pampas
. grass in favor of watering our garden and other. plants. '
As far as the length of the building is relevant, we own (9) nine lots and two tracts of
other land and the building is not m the least disproportionate with the amount of
property we own. In fact, we have, ample room to add other amenities. .
I believe that when we are finished with our ,"m~e-over", it will be both pleasing to the
eye and completely unrecognizable as a shipping container.
If this is not enough, we will consider putting a fence up to screen ~t from the road.
However, any time we have mentioned fencing our property, our neighbors disagree to
the fencmg, saying the.openness of the land is more ethically pleasing than fencing. We
get along well with our neighbors and agree with them about fencing.
TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT:
, '
We want to appeal the Building O:ffi<;ial' s Decision to have the building, rem~ved. We,
request a public hearing to have the Zoning Board of Adjustment re-evaluate the '
decision.
GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST;
~
We live at ,the end ofa dead end street and it is impossible to see the building except from
Idaho and as I .said before, it will be screened from the road.
I don't think we are hurting anyone's property value by have the building here and after
the outSide has been converted into 'a normal, storage building, it will be an asset to our
property.
.... Iol
! ...
.
.
"
The reason we boughUhe storage container iS,that it is air tight, made of aluminum and is
a greater use for storage than hav~g to build a sto~e house.
I was talking with our'neighbor across the street, the Johnsons~ about the denial of the
Zoning Board for us to have the container on our property. She s8id the people acro'ss the ,
'street had two containers on his property andbad screened them from the road with
latticework, I did not know that Even though we live across the street from him, I did not,
see the containers because they were screened. ' '
We did not know the zoning ordinance prohibited a storage container on a residential
property.' Ifwe had, we would not have ,bought it and had it delivered here at great
expense. I thought as long as you 0WIi. yo~ property, you would be allowed to do what
you wanted with it, as many o1:h:ers have already done.
As an' attorney advised me, you coUld probably be allowed to have anything on your
property-~e only difference between us and ~e others is we got caught I disagree
because if we had known it was against the zoning ordinance, we would not have
bought it and had it placed here.
But to remove it now would entail much expense and time, because we have already
loaded my Mother's things into it. We kept them in storage for a long time, but the
, conditions of the storage places have greatly deteriorated her precious belongings.
So if you will please amend the ordinance, we would greatly appreciate it.
, .
I believe the word- shipping contain~r- has such an ugly connotation with it that you may
have ruled solely on the name. When my parents, Snookey and Elsie Moore, moved he~e
in 1946, we lived on Sens Road in a'converted cow barn. Of course it didn't look like a
cow barn when we moved into it, but when it was built there-it was a cow barn. So if '
someone asked us where we lived" we would say in a house on Sens Road-not in a cow
barn. I believe when we have completed our work on the "shipping container", it will be
referred to as a storage building, with nothing on the outside to suggest it was once a '
shipping container.
Thank.you for your time and patience. ,.
Carol and W. O. Childs Jr.
':.. ~.
.
.
-;; -,
::-
,Staff Report Ju~e 1, 2000
1\..ppeal of Enforcement omcer'~ Decision #A 00-002
Reauested by:
W. O. & Carol Childs, property own~s
- Reauested for:
911 East D Street ,
Block 43; Lots 15-23; and Block 44; Trs. 14A, 29 & 3,2; B~yfront Addition
Back2round:
On February 21, 2000 the City received a report that the residents of 911
East D StI'eet had moved a metal, commerciil shippinj container onto their
property. Staff inve~gated the report on February 22 and found a shipping
contah1er had been moved onto the property without the permission of the
City. 'The -property _ owner asked about a possible permit to keep the
container. She was instructed to talk with the City's building departme~
concerning this matter. The City received a permit application for this
address on 02-24-00.
A telepho~e conversation with the owners indicated they would rebuild the
container so it wouldn't look like a container in order to keep the container. '
However, no plans were provided with the permit submittal. - Staff explajned _
, by telephone and by mail that the use of a shipping container as an accessory
building in a residential (R-1) zone is prohibited by the City's zoning
regulations and a permit would not be approved. A copy of the denied
permit and subsequent letter is attachect for your review. (See Exhibits A &
B),
Staifdenied the permit in February, citing Section 106-741(h) that states it IS
unlawful for any person- to leav~ stand, or park a shipping container on any
property zoned for residential use. Since that time additional zoning
regulation changes have ~ccurred that reinforce the, desires of the Planning
and the Zoning Commission (p&Z) and City Council.
At their OCtOber 11, 1999 meeting, City Council asked the P&Z
Commission to ~ assess and make recommendations regarding zoning
requirements related - to the outside storage of shipping containers. At'their
December 16, 1999 meeting,' P&Z received information from staff
concerning this matter and directed them to make certain changes. - These
,changes were made and at the February 1.7, 2000 - m~eting, P&Z
recommended approval of zoning ordinance changes relating to the use of
shipping containers and fo~arded their comments to City Council for-
consideration.
:. ~
.
.
0;;
Board of Adjustment
, June 1, 2000
#A 00-002
Page 2 of3
The recommendations from P&Z were considered by City Council on March
27, 2000. At that meeting, Council appro~d Ordinance #lSOl-ll, which
incorporated the P&Z recommendations.. This ordinance further restricted '
the use pf shipping containers in La Porte. . One ~hange restricted the outside
storage of shipping cc;mtainel'$ to Heavy Industrial (ID) zones. Another
change allows the use of shipping containers as a "temporary material
storage facility at construction sites" in all zones except R-l, R-2 and R-3.
The1recent changes did not provide staff ~ avenue to approve the request of
this property owner. . In fact, the recommendations and subsequent passage
of these regulation changes,sent a clear message of the desires of both P&Z
and City Council as they relate to the use of shipping 'containers within La
Porte.
Analvsis:
In describing the action of appeal, the Code. of Ordinances states: In
exercising the powers set forth in Section 106-88, the Board of Adjustment
may, in, conformity with the provisio.,.s of this c~pter, reverse or affirm,
wholly ~r Partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or.
determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the PO\Vel"S
of the enforcement officer from whom the appeal is taken. The Board must
find the following in order to grant an appeal. ' , .
a) 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.
There is no question of interpretation as to the specific intent of th~
zoning regulfitions. Recent changes have made regulations more
restrictive as they relate. to the placement and use of shipping
containers within La Porte.
b) That the resulting interpretation will not grant ,a special privilege to one
property inConsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated.
AlloWing this container to remain on this residentially zoned property
would grant a special privilege to this property owner. The container
, was brought onto the property without approval being granted and in
Violation of Section 106-741 (h) and Section 106-751.
", ~
=
Board of Adjustment
June 1, .2000
#A 00-002
Page 3 of3
. Conclusion:
Anneals:,
.
.
c) 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 pl~ of the city.
Past and.recent actions of the Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council have made their desires clear. Each group studies the
iSsues, holds public hearings to receive citizen input and .then make
decisions in the best interest of the commu~ty and are within the
spirit and interest of the city's zoning laws and the comprehensive
plan of the city.
Based on the facts and considerations noted in this report, Staff feels the
Board should deny granting the Appeal of the Building Official's Decision
#AOO-OO2.
As per Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of La Porte:
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 may present to a court of record a petition for a writ of,
certiorari, as provided by V.T.C.A, 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 days after the filing o~ the decision in the
. office of the Board of Adjustment. '
.
.! .
. ..... . .
e.
, EXHIBITS
.e
w. .....
..
,
- -
. ' !
3uJ.14b.g
I
. City 0' La Porte
EjnrblL~h.!d 1892 ... .
.. 0 .. fo)fE & fE U nn if--;,
.. . 1;1) I!J Jrn~:
~EB 24 ZOOa I!Jj
JIe(''ha'ft~c:a1 ' -B1ec:t=:lc:a1 * ~. 1
. (* See AS o!'!aza)
=:. '
. ,
:Lota 1-.5- d. 6.. "
Block. . 4...... -::s
, It:tume.' ~~/'" ~?/,o t,r1'
~7 r 7'
Zip
. .
11:0~ ect. ACId:ru. I
S=d:lT:lS:lOD.1
o.me:'. -....
Ac!d.:'es. I
C,ftjj ,/ s
L~Pot"k .
C:l.1:y
=cmt:ae1:O:' .
, t) RJ "- P. t'"
ltheme.
.'
Ac!c!z'ess.. .0
Stze.t:
C:L1:y
Zip
B:g:b.ee: .
'JJesig:e: .
.ltd.l~'O'e.. :K~B~ Sq~ Faa~.' .. . ~,,/IJ"stcrie.s.-
Va1.....t:ioo... .f~ ' 0 0 n..~.~OZ'I"5'I..~ 1!2 ·
tee IIi 'd.1 i9
1'= C:U:y U... Ca1y . '
Oc:~ 'ZDe S~1-'5\!... n0a4- 0 )( , ~e iron ~. 1'1:. -
. . . . . . .
Ccmst:uct:icm Tn1e: I V-=- u.. zcme' . R - J ,I S~aries ,:.--- >>ar3d.D.g. Z'8fiE'l8St:~
c~~rc:lal ~'l.lil~9S Jll~ n..1.v-J'ue Xanbal AJlP:a-n.1 ..r-rL/ fA . Data. ' ~
Chac:ioec!/App:nrr~ fm :te_ :!!Yo' \::>ENj;~ - <:;;}i'W.~ nate. ~. 9ld tJ
ee:!.' Ccmc!:J. t:lcu ~ 0 - .... , ,... t.(...
. -
Pe:m:L t !to.
-
. ~e=:I.t. :r.. &I ~
10 . e
. ~; fX ~dl'. o-t OtTl.irdtr:~ .
(attach' toe ac~l 1'e:m1
~~-
\))l.. J
'Hcltfi# 000-/33- DOO-' oot?
a-ri'" a/wit
, ....
, -... T ____I Ill- -"1.1) '-1 "'""
r,I.',I'"'' III' · ;"'~I~I:~1 I,OX,.",..'i.- ,. I,,, ~. ,~\,;.-
EXHlelT A
. i. i
. ~
,. .;f;
" "-
-.
.
City of La Porte
Established 1892
. . '~9,2000
Mrs. Carol Childs
911 East D Street
La Porte. Tx 77571
RE~ Building Permit Applic;ation
, Dear Mrs. Childs.
Thank you for the building permit application form. Unfortunately, staff'is unable
to approve the platem~nt of a shipping ~ontainer for use as a storage building. As we
discussed. shipping containers are allowable in commercial and industrial zones but not
in residential zones. For your review, I have enclosed a copy of the city's Zoning'
Regulations. SeCtion #106-i41(h) that prohibits the placement ofa shipping l:ontainer in
. a residential ZODe and your denied.permit application form. ' '.
I recognize the shipping container is already. on site and haS been painted to make
, it more attractive. Please revi~ the enclosed regulation and let me know what you
would like to do. As we discUssed. you have two avenues available to you. The ' first
would be to remove the container from the property. And the second wo~d be to make
application for a Zoning Board of Adjustment public hearing in which you would Appeal
the Building Official's Decision. Please note that the regulation cannot be ~ed by
the Board but they will determine if staff has read it properly.
. .
I have asked Ms. Lisa Gonzalez to suspense her file until I hear back trom you so
I would appreciate hearing back from yOu by 03-17~. If you have any questions. please
, feel free to contact me at #281-471-5020; Ext. 253. . .
Respectfully,
Sd~~"'AJJ;;)
Debbie S..Wllmore
Chief Building Ofticial
Enclosures
xc: Doug K. Kneupper, Director of Planning
Lisa Gonzal~ Community Service Inspector
EXHIBIT B
P.O. Box IllS. La Porte, Texas 77572-1115. (281) 471-5020
'I'
'I' .
L.
..
Items: .
1. Staff Report
2. Copy ofNon-conforming Use Permit'
3. Copy of AppHcatiOll for Exemption from Extended Useful Life
4. Aerial photo ofBlackwellProperty.
S. Copy of the neighbors' commenhl
.
, '(I'
.
'.
StatTReport
Non-Conformance NCUOO-002
Zoning Board of Adjustments
June 1,,~OOO
Ordinance Background ,
The City of-La Porte is mandated to review all non-confonning structures, uses, and lots
as per the City's zoning ordinance section 106-261. .
, , .
''The general public, the PlaniUng and Zoning Commission and the Zoning Board
of Adjustment have been 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." .
, A 'non-confonning use is a use not allowed in a zoning district by the City's zoning
. ordinance. In some cases, the non-confonning use may have been legal' as a pr~sting
non-conforming use. However, the City's CUJ'l"ent zoning ordinance requires that all cases
of non-confonning use be reviewed by the Zoning Board of Adjl,lStment.
These existing non-conforming' uses must now be reviewed by the Zoning Board of
Adjustment. The ~s fQr the review of non-confonning uses is detailed below and is
summarized in the accompanying flow Charts. The Board of Adjustments may decide one
of the following for each of the non-confotming uses brought before the board of
adjus111ients:
1. To exempt the non-confonning use from an extended us~ life and tennination. Based
upon the Owner's application. (This Would allow the non-conforming use to continue)
2. To ~empt the non-conforming use and apply certain conditions as may be necessary to '
ensure reasonable compatibility with swrounding properties and uses.
3. To establish an extended useful life for the , non-conforming use.l
A' The useful life can be no slioi1er then five years and not greater then twenty y~.
At the end of the extended useful life the use tenninates.' .
B. The Board of Adj~ents will use infonnation provided by the property, owner to
detemiine the length of time necessary to recovery the cost of the investment
4. To eStablish an extended useful life for the non-conforming' use as in number 3 above'
and apply certain conditions as inay be necessary to ensure reasonable compatibility
With 'surrounding properties and uses.
1 The Board of Adjustments may recess the public hearing ay any time to allow for additional information '
to.be collected or 10 allow additional time to consider information and testimony presented to the board.
The P.H can be received at an appropriate future board meeting.
1
City of La Porte
Procedural Flow Chart for Extended Useful Lite for a Nonconforming Land Use
.
City of La Porte
Procedural Flow Chart for Exemption from Extended Useful Life of a Nonconforming Land Use
.
~
.'
~
Case Background
.
Location of Non-Conformance 10427 North L Street
Legal Property Description of ~on- . PT LT 420A La Porte Outlots
Conformance
Property Owner Robert and, Kevin Blackwell
Present Zoning Low Density Residential (R-l)
Acreage Under Consid~ation 13.5+ acres
Surrounding Zoning North ,Low Density Residential (R-l)
East Low Density Residential (R-l)
South Low Density. Residential (R-l)
- - West 'Low Density ReSidential (R-l)
Land Use Map Residential
Nature of Non-Conformance:' , .. ' ., Cattle production; hon,e ~tables;
welding shop
The Blackwell family has a 13.5~ acre ,L-shaped parcel Under previous ordinance
provisions the Blackwell family applied for and was issued a permit that recognizes three
non-conforming uses on th~ ,4.5 acre parcel.. These uses were: cattle production, a horse
stable, and a welding shop. The 4.5~ acres parcel in question is outlined on the
, accompanying aerial photo of the Blackwell property. These non-conforming uses were
considered pre-existing uses by previous previsionS.
The, Board of Adjustments should Cons~der, each of 1hese three non-conforming uses
separately and makes a detennination' as to what if any impact these' US'es have upon the
surrounding area and the community as a whole.
The property in question is ,zoned Low Density Residential (R-I).. This is the City: of La
Porte's single family, residential district and as such is limited' in what uses 'are ,allowed.
Among the uses that are allowed, conditional or 'accessory uses in an R-l district are the
following:
" Agricultural production (crops) .
Agricultural production (rabbits, etc)1
, Bed and Breakfml
Breeding'kenne1s (dogs and cats)
Domestic livestoct2 '
Single family housing
Child care (no more then six c:bildnm) ,
Pmb and pJaygrounds ,
Reaeational bui1~ and community ceot~1
Religious institutions
Public or private schools (primary and
secondary)1 ,
Private garage~
Storage ofreaeational vehicles (persoDaI usei
Storage of equipment (personal usei
Home occupatiOnr
Noncommercial greenb.ouses2
Reaeational facilities (personal usei
Boarding or rental (one person max)2dSecondary dwelUng unltsl
1. The use is aDowed upon canditional BpPJUWl of tile p1anniag and zoning c:ommissioD IIld 1he city counciL
. 2. 'Ibis is IIIlCCesBory UBI
4
.
.
The uses in an R-I district support a single family lifestyle with commo~, uses that
enhance the family and its property. The typical single family district would include
churches schools and recreational facilities in ,addition to the family home. '
A more rural lifestyle is characteristic of the Lomax area. In La Porte's zoning ordinance
the single family district has special provisions for large lot residential uses. where as an
accessory use, families living on larger lots (greater then one acre) may raise some
livestOck, such as cattle or horses in accordance to the current zoning ordinance.
Therefore the Lomax area is able to keep its rural flavor within specific limits of the
city's zoning ordinance regarding the large lot and accessory uses. These specific limits
will be discussed later. '
Property Description
The property in question is 13.5+ acres in size. A western parcel is 9.0+ acres in size and
is primarily used for grazing. The eastern parcel is 4.5+ acres andCompris~, several
major structures on the site including a single-family residence a horse sta~le, and a
welding shop. Major fenced off areas include the arena in the southwestern corner of the
site, pastures lands to the east and north of the house, and horse stable and a horse,
exercise area near the stable. In addition, there are several minor outbuildings located
through out the property. The surrounding properties are primarily large Jot single family'
with maybe some domestic livestock for their own use and enjoyment.
5
.
.
First Non-conformity Use: Cattle Production
Background
, Section 106-742 of the City's zoning code states:
(a) Domestic livestock (cattle, horses, hogs, sheep, goats, chickens, and ge~se) are a
permitted accessory use on lots in excess of 43,560 square feet, providetl that all
domestic livestock as defined above be restrained no closer than 25 feet frord property
that is not devoted to the keeping of domestic livestock, and provided further that said
domestic livestock be kept in a concentration that is less than or equal to: :
(1) Two cows per acre.
(2) Two horses per acre.
(3) Two hogs per acre.
(4) Two sheep or goats per acre ,
(b) In any event, the total for the above referenced grazing animals (i.e. sheep, go;ats, hogs,
cows, or horses) shall be cumulative. I
(c) The keeping of livestock or fowl for the purpose of breeding for sale, whether; engaged
in as a primary or accessory activity, shall be considered a conditional use as, specified
by section 106-331, Table A. (in this case no conditional use has been gran~)
1
6
.
.
As per the Blackwell family they have kept cattle on this property, pq.or to the
consolidation of the communities of Lomax and La Porte. 'With this ,use; being in
existence prior to the consolidation it ~asallowed to continue as a non-conformIng use,
under previous zoning provisions. '
The Blackwell family applied for, and was issued a permit that recognized th~ existence
of cattle production, as a non-conforming, use on October 16,1990. In effect this permit
and Standard Industrial Code (SIC) assigned a reconizeduse code that ,the ~lackwells
might exceed the maximum number of animals on the 4.5 2: acres as allowed by the
ordinance. Because the previous ordinance did not provide such features, the permit did
not specify conditions of the non",conforming use, nor did it place a time liniiton this
non-conforming use. The permit did not allow for any expansion or intensification of the
cattle production operation as stated in Section 106-263 of the City's zoning ordinance: '
The Blackwells have on occasion set up a feeder-lot type activity on the 4.5+ atre parcel.
A feeder-lot is an operation where higher than normal concentrations of pattIe are,
confined to small area and are provided with ample feed and water. Thes'e type of
I
operations tend to produce animal waste, insects and noise in excess of w~at would
normally occurif the ordinance provisions were enforced. These operations l~ted for
periods of up to three weeks with the number of cattle ranging between thirty md forty. '
i ,
During a period of observation, dating from January 2000 to present the number of
livestock on the 4.5 + acres parcel has ranged from three to six 'cattle. There were no
signs of over grazing and the property was found to be well maintained and in good
order. . ,
Request for Exemption of Extended Useful Life
The owrier of the property in question has submitted his Application for Exemption From
Useful life Requirement for the cattle operation on May 17, 2000'. This application can
be found at the end of this report. I '
Comments , '
The high concentration of livestock that has been experienced in the past has proven to be
a detriment to surrounding propeJ:ty owners. Cattle at the 2 animals per acre 4ensity by
current ordinances ~hould not be considered a detriment to the Lomax area in geperal.
7
.
.
Options available to the Board
As previously stated, the owners have applied for an exemption from the extend~d useful
life. Mter the Board of Adjustment reviews that case and hears the testimony, tIle
options available are~
1. To exempt the non-conforming use from an extended useful life and tennination.
A. Granting the exemption allows the use to continue. (subject to revocation
provisions of the ordinance)
B.' By not granting the exemption the board now has to consider one of the following
options.. .
2. ' To exempt the non-conforming use from an extended useful life and tennination and
apply certain conditions as may be necessary to ensure reasonable compatibility with
surrounding properties and uses. !
A. Possible conditions:
1) Establish a maximUm niunber of livestock for this site that would be cJmpatible
with the surrounding properties. I
2) Horses should be included in this animal total
3) The prevention of overgrazing I
4) Possible establishment.of setbacks adjacent parcels that do not contain livestock.
8
.
.
5) Possible limitatiOIi of livestock to the 2 animals pet acre. It should b~ noted that
this provision would follow current ordinance provisions. ,
B. By granting this exemption with any conditions requires that the property owner
must comply with these conditions or face an immediate termination qf the non-
conforming use. . : .
3. To establish an extended useful life for the non-conforming use. 2 ,
A. An extended useful life establishes a set period of time for the property owner to
cease operations. The board must weigh the owners investment againSt the tinie
, required for the owner to recoup his investment.. I
B. The property owner should provide the board with proof of their inves~ent into
the property and the length of time necessary to recoup his investment '
, .1
I
4. To establish an extended useful life for the non-conforming Use and apply certain
1 '
conditions as may be necessary to ensure reasonable compatibility with surrounding
properties and uses? ,~
A. Considerations:
Possible considerations would be similar to those listed above.
B. An extended useful life establishes a set period of time for the property oWner to
cease operations. The board must weigh the owners inyestment against the time
required for the owner to recoup his investment. ,
5. As a general concern related to all three non-conforming uses an Unsafe,: ~sightly
conugated metal fence was installed by the Blackwells. The remov~l and the
replacement of this fence with a fence of a more typical construction such 'as barbed
wire or wood is recommended, to be a condition for any action taken by the board.
(Section 106-265(b) allows the Board to impose such conditions as it finds;necessary
to ensure reasonable compatibility with surrounding properties' and uses) ,
Second Non-conforming use: Horse Stables
Background , ,
The horse stables is another, of the non-{X)nforming uses that is under consideration. This
use is not allowed in the Low Density Residential (R-1) district in the current zoning
ordinance. As with cattle production the number oflivestock would exceed the aIl6wable
number of animals per acre (Section 106-742 of the City's zoning code). In additi'on, the
. horse stable is a commercial business being conducted in a residential distri~: which is
not allowed in the zoning ordinance. In general, commercial businesses that ~ly upon
outside traffic for their livelihood are not allowed in residential areas. This is io reduce
the amount of vehicular traffic in the residential area thus making it safer for the family.
2 The Board of Adjustments 'umy recess the public bearing ay any time to allow for additional ~ormation
to be collected or to allow additional time to consider infonnation and testimony presented to th~ bi?ard.
The P.H can be received at an appropriate future board meeting
9
.
.
Bases upon conversation with the property owner, the horse stable in question has, been in'
existence since the 1950's and was in existence at the time of the Lomax anCl La Porte
consolidation it has been allowed to continue as a non-conforming use under La Porte's
. previous zoning ordinance provisions.. . :
The Blackwells applied for and were issued a permit for the horse stable on 09tober 16;
1990. This permitrecogriizes that the Blackwells exceed the two animals' per acre
maximum as established in the zoning ordinance, and to conduct the hotse stable
. . J .
business. Under the current ordinance, this non-conforming use is to be revie~ed by the'
board of adjustment.
This permit does not allow for the expansion or intensification of the' horse staQle. What
it does allow for is the continued use of the horse stable as a business, and to '~xceed the
number of animals per acre limitation (Section 106-263 of the City's zoning o~dinance).
There is also no set limitation on the life span of this non-conforming use. '
During a period of obselVation, dating from January 2000 to present the nUmber of
livestock on the parcel in question has not exceeded the maximum of two anlm~ls per
acre. The property and its structures were founded to be in good order and ;was well
maintained.' There were no signs of excessive manure or other waste materials fOUnd on
10
.
.
,
the parcel in question. The horses were found to be in the pasture, the horse ~table or in
an adjacent parcel.
Request for Exemption of Extended Useful Life
,The owner of the property in question has submitted his Application for Exemption From
Useful Life Requirement for tQe horse stable as a non-confonning use on May, 17, 2000.
The application can be found at the end of this report.
Comments
stair is ~aware of any previous concerns regarding the horse stable operation~.
Options available to the Board
As previously stated, the owners have applied for an exemption from the exten~e~ useful
life. After the Board of Adjustment reviews that case, and hears the testimony, ,the
options available are; , ' , I.
1. To exempt the non-confonning use from an extended useful life and tenninati~n.
A. Granting the exemption allows the use to continue : '.
B. By not granting the exemption the board now has to consider one of the if olIo wing
options.' ' , , ' i
2. To exempt the non-conforming use from an extended useful life and tennwation and
apply certain Conditions as may be necessary to ensure reasonable compatibility with
surrounding propertieS and uses.', '
A. Possible conditions:
1) Establish a reasonable maximum number of livestock 'for this site that; would be
compatible with the surrounding properties. ' 1
2) Cattle should be included in this animal total
3) The prevention of overgrazing , '
, 1
4) Possible establishment of setbacks adjacent parcels that do not contain :livestock.
5) Possible establishment of animal waste management plan. :
6) Possible limitation of livestock to the 2 animals per acre. It should be 'noted that
this provision would eliminate the cattle production as a non-confonni~g use.
7) The possible addition of a twenty-five foot separation for non-livestock
properties.
B. By granting, this exemption with any conditions requires that the property owner
must comply with these conditions or face an immediate tennination of the non-:
conforming use.
3. To establish an extended useful life for the non-confonning use.3. ' :
A. An extended useful life establishes a set period of time for the property! owner to
cease operations. The board must weigh the owners investment against the time
required for the owner to recoup his investment..' . 1
3 The Board of Adjustments may recess the public hearingay any time to allow for additional infortnation to be
collected or to allow additional time to consider information and testimony presented to the board. The]).H can be
received at an appropriate future board meeting ,
11
.
.
B. The property owner should provide the board with proof of ~eir investm'ent into
the property and the length of time necessary to recoup his investment ~
4. To establish an extended useful life for the non-conforming use and apply certain
conditions as may be necessary to ensure reasonable compatibility with surrounding
properties and uses? ,_ ..;
A. Considerations:
Possible considerations would be similar to those "listed above. :
B. An extended useful life establishes a set period of time for the property owner to
cease operations. The board must weigh the oWners investment againSt ~e time
. required for the owner to recoup his investment. '
5. As a general concern related to all three non-conforming uses an unsafe~ unsightly,
corrugated metal fence was installed by the Blackwells. The remov~ and the
replacement of this fence with a fence of a more typical construction such' as barbed
. wire or wood is recommended, to be a condition for any action taken by the board.
(Section I06-265(b) allows the Board to impose such concJitions as it finds: necessary
to ensure reasonable compatibility with surrqunding properties and uses)
Third Non-conforming use: Welding Shop
12
-'
.
.
Background ,
The welding shop is the third non-conforming use under consideration. This ;use is not
allowed in the low density residential (R-1) district. . By its nature a commerci~ welding
operation could pose some risk to the surrounding residents therefore its prohibition from
the residential districts. ':
The welding shop was' in existence prior to the Lomax La Porte consolidatiori. The use at
the time of consolidation was pre-existing and therefore was allowed to cont~nued as a
non-conforming use under the City's zoning ordinance provisions. '
The Blackwells applied for and were issued a permit for the welding shop on O~ber 16,
1990. This permit recognizes the existence of the welding shop on the parcel in' question.
This permit does not allow them to expand the operation nor does it set any t~e limits
upon its useful life (Section 106-263 of the City's zoning ordinance). l,lnder the Current
zoning ordinance the review of this non-conforming use is required. '
. ,
During a period of observation, dating from January 2000 to present staff observed no
welding operations taking place on the parcel in question. The shop doors w~re, closed
and the surrounding area was clean with a well-maintained area.
Request for Exemption of Extended Useful Life'
The owner of the property in question has subrtlitted his Application for Exemption From
Useful life Requirement fqr the welding shop (personal use) as a non-conformihguse on
May 17, 2000. ' '
,I
Comments I
A welding shop for commercial activities should not be allowed in a residential area The
nature of such an activity requires customers to bring the item needing repair to this
location. This would provide too much of a risk for the safety of the surrounding area.
However, if the welding shop is used for personal use then the risk is reduced because
operations are limited to an occasional use as opposed to the regular use of a commercial
facility. '
13
.
.
Options available to the Board
, As previously stated, the owners have applied for an exemption from the extended useful
life. After the Board of Adjustment reviews that case and hears the testi~ony, the
, I
options available are~ '
1. To exempt the non-conforming use from an extended useful life and terminatiqn.
A. Granting the exemption allows commercial welding to continue :
B. By not granting the exemption the board now has to consider one of the following
options. .
2. To exempt the non-conforming use from an extended useful life and tennutation and
apply certain conditions as may be necessary to ensure reasonable compatiQility with
surrounding properties and uses.
A. Possible conditions: " .
1) That the owner has requested that the welding shop be allowed to continue for
personal use only.
2) , That a'paved driveway be required for commercial operations
3) That hours of operation be established
4) That landscaping be required.
14
;-
.
..
B. By granting, this exemption with any conditions requires that the property owner
must comply with theseconditi,ons or face an immediat~ termination of the. non-
, conforming use. , '
3. To establish an extended usefuIlife for the non-confoniling use.4 ,
A An extended useful life establishes a set period of time for the property owner to
cease operations. The board must weigh the owners investment against the time
'. 'required for the oWner to recoup his investment..
. B. The property owner should provide the board with proof of their investment into
the property and the length of time necessBry to recoup his investment '
4. To establish an, extended useful life for the non-conforming use and 'apply certain
, conditions as may be necessary to ensure reasonable amlpatibility ~th surrounding
properties and uses.4 " . ' '.
A. An extended useful life establishes a set period of time for the property owner to
cease operations. The board must weigh the owners investment against the time
required for the owner to ~up his investment. ' ,
B. The property owner must provide the ~oard with proof' of their investment into the
property and the length of time necessary to recoup his investment.
C. Possible Conditions.
3) That upon termination the owner notify the City of its termination
4)' That all signage advertising this non-confol'ining use be removed.
3) That the owner has requested that the welding shop be allowed to continue for
personal use only.
4) That a paved driveway be required, for commercial operations
5) That hours ofo'peration be established
6) That landscaping be required . , ,
5. As a general concern related to all three non-conforming uses an unsafe, urisightly'
corrUgated metal fence was installed by 'the Blackwells. The reinovai and the ,
replacement of this fence with a fence of a more typical consttuctj.on such as barbed
wire 9r wood, is recommended, to be a condition for any action taken by the board.
(Section 1 06-265(b) allows the Board to impose such conditions as it finds necessary
to ensure reasonable compatibility With surrounding properties ind us,es)
4 The Boanl of Adjustments may recess the public hearing ay any time to allow for additional information
to be collected or to allow additional time to consider information and testimony presented to the board.
The P.H ~ be received at an appropriate future boanl meeting
IS
. ..
. -
-.
f . - ,"
.oe:-; CITY OF LA PORT'" 0)
NO~-COI{FORMING USE ,ZONING PERMIT
~ccelveD
'Lo'-.:J -91) ~
. ""'MM. Dev.
PERM!T NO,.
DATE ISSUED October 16, 1990
This permit 1s issued to:. Kevin Blackwell
3usiness or Ow~er Name
10~27 Ro Avpnnp ~
Street Address
Blk OIL 420" L~~_' S 1/2! ~~ ~nr~A n/~~
Leg~1 Description
Type of Use:,
Cat.tle production: welding ~hnp: hn,..s~ ~T-~bl p~ '
Zone
R-I,
SIC Use Categ~ry '0291
'.
ot,the use or occupancy
this
POST IN A CONSPICIOUS PLACE
CED/1-'87
, .
.'
~ L& U5 ~ U 'W
MAY 1 7 2000
. APPUCATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM ErrENDED USEFUL UFE l.J
'CITY OF LA PORTE CODE OF ORD1;NANCES SEe. 106-265
NONCONFORMING BUIIDINGS, STRUCTURES.AND USES
. ,
NAMEOI'~PERiYOWNFJj, ~kYT +.~~~ ./?Js.c J4d#I .
,ADD~<?FPROPERTY: /~f~7. . ~,L.$T L~r7'<-
", IJST NON~ONFbR,MING BUILDINGS, STRpCTURES AND USES:
J1b..Jd · I" sA; f. (ffr3<<iiI fl.1) .
H ~ ,...~ ... ~~ 'T7!J-/i 1.1 4 '
C J(J. 71-/" .J tfJ J".MrlJ...'T/"A,J .
I . . ' .
INPORMATION SUPPORTING CLAIM FOREXEMP'IION:
4ffkh.J. t,"JI/ LlNfI F;'Jl/d fJ- mem.o
10 /fly. Jp.p( ,4L'b2'"t1J,-C 5'r~r,f,/1 ry-f,~ .
U~oL ('iF .S'f}..,d rb~?D{' p~J'Y);-~ w'~Y-L..-
. /s~rl~.. Pr"~0fh J9-~ h",,,,./vs.-eJ. /,,)",:Ji~
SfJ-mwL lnAl-dllly" ~/'JtIC.~ /~6'~. r(!~/l/7il1/~
7k V6L rh"~ f;Or'l'1f:. /N m ybuJ /J-Jlid .
CAlF "rrxm'li? ~J."iP ~Y~7Tk~ rIJ/J.:rl'l,p-e-4
. Sf:e lfJ-/ A-1Tof nlTlPrt.. . .
. .. - '..
PS--- /7-~-4~LJ
DATE'
RBCBIVEO BY: ~,
DATE: 5... '1- OJ
.
~
ro.
of,
, D~@~n\!'l~;
10~2-90
Memo ,1io: Hr. Joel Albrigh1i
From: Kevin L. Blackwell
Sub3ec1i: Use of 'propert7 on oU1i~e1; 420
Mr. Albrigh1i as per our COZlversat10n on 10-2.-90, 'x' would like ,1io make iou
&me 1iha1i one hundred per cen1i (100%1) ot 71fT income is derived. from this
propert7. I lUll selt-empl07ed and 1ihe tollow1ng is a list ot 1ihe'DI8.Dl" W&7s
wi1ch I ~e a living.
1. Commercial, hq baleing.
2. Commera1a1" tractor work (landscaping~ backhoe, construction).
3. CODIIIlercial veid1,ns 'both on. the job and shop' .Iabrication.
4. fte.:l.si,ns ot lj,Telitock for the purpose ot sales. . h the past 7ear and a
Wt II J: have h&.deu JIUmY' 11.. th1Zt7-t:'-~ (35) roping calves.and t~ty' '(20,)
roping ste~s oJll" outlot' 419 and 420 tor the purpose ot. use in rodeos iD the area.
5. The use of the outlot 419 has been used tor the 1'aising of livestock and
,hq since .1950 through 1~90 bJ'iq 'ather and I. Out~ot 4"20 has been' used. _ '
a. horse operation' for the same ped.od ot t1me~ We have been using it since purchasiDl
tt in 1280 tJ:eDl' Jll". Lee, who was in the race horse V1cl l:lvestock business. Mr.
Jesse BeumB,Il and Mr. Red Cheshire owned this propert7 since 1950. Both owned
th1.s propertl' a1nce 12'50. Bot~ of theBe gentl~ have passed on but. their
p.llt 'and the 'UfJe "t thia propert7 lives on. .
,:LdUIL very' concerned: about being. a good 'ne1ghbor and haTe tried .to talk.. to
Ml'. Scott :in the past- few weeks. ' It 'appears. .that he is :lmpossible to
deal' with.! am sOr'q' for the inconv1811ce th:l.lI has caullea. the Oit7. IV
intereat is not ::ln caus:l~ the Cit7 or 7DU%'Belt 8ZJ.7 problems. but feel this
pe1,ce of property should be considered under the Grandfather elause, at thill'
t11lle and also in, the' tliture. . . ,
It I ce.n be "t. tul'ther ast11ltance pleal!le clon't hesitate to contact ,me at
471-6525. TMDka tQr 1OU1' cooperation in this matter.
Binc erel1.
'. .
JCeviD. L. Black.Yell
~ ';
AM~oltheLaPo4.
Zoning Board of Adjustment
. ScheduJed for
June It 2000' .
to Ccmsicler an BxemptioiJ /iom &tmded Use/UJ LIJi: Requizr:meJJts, or an
Bstab/I_"rnmt of IIIJ BnaJded UseiiJJ LiIi: IUJd TetmilJsdo.a of Use ill CODDectiOll
with Existing NoncoDformiDg Uses of Property Located at 10427 N. "11' Street.
. . (Welding Shop, Ho~e SlabJes, Cattle Production) .
.
D ~ ~. ~ U \!J ~\ ~ \1
MAY. 1 7 2000' W .
By J::1. . :=
, .
I have received DOUce .of the above referenced, pub1ic be-,
.'
.~~~
, .
to the conrln".tiQft of the WeJdiDg Shop activities ~r the fOllowing~:
-,
I 'PA'voB. ftluo am , ~tIuoH ._...r.;,;..,~_
~~ ", d!E,:'11:~i>t~ - ,~,~I/a,--"
. .. ,r
I am OPPOSED to 'the continua~ orthe HOI!Ie Stables activities mr the fuDowing te118OIl8:
. I am in FAVOR. of the continua1ion of the Cattle PrOciUc:tion activities tOr the fOIlOwmg a:asons:
F7~?lf:{~~:fk~~f:7/!-rv/ '
V I am OPPOSED to the con~uation of tb:e Cattle p~uc:tioD activities tOr the fbi10wmg a:uons:
'. . .
PDh~y'I..:r: BJ~~II I~ /)~ ~hl/"Jl-Cr:~ BL1JJ'
&N~ _
~,,--, ", ' ~8-r?- T,t-. ?7<S.7 /
. ture City, State, Zip
A Meeting of the La Porte_
'Zoning Board of AdjustmenW'
SchedUled for
.June. It 2000
to CoDSider at1 Exemption /rom &tended Useiid Life Requiremt:llts, or an
Bstablisbmmt of IIIJ ExteJided Useful Life IIIJd TemJiDsdOD. of Use in Connection
with Existing Nonconforming Uses of Property Located at 10427 N. "11' Street
(Welding Sh~p, Horse Stables, Cattle Production)
.
RECEIVED
, PLANNING '
I have a:ceived notice of the above 'referenced public hearing. ,
1 am in FAVOR of the continuation or the Wc;JdiDg Sh~ activities fur the fullowing a:ssons:
,-;e.
~ .
1 am OPPOSED to the continuation of the WeJdiDg Shop activities mr the fOllo,wing reasons:
*.
~ J ~.<<tY ';tD ~;/t~~.. ..H- ~ #~' ~~ "6 ~~-l' 'IC-.'
. ~JI ~ J tb ,i.oU..p( ~ A.~.u~~
1 am in FAVOR. of the continuation of the Home Stables activities fOr the tollowing reasons:
}f~;- ~,/UP ~ ~', ~ LuAuL/
.1 IUD.OPPOSED to the continua~n of the HOlle Stables activities fOr the fOllowing a:asons:
,I 1UD.in. FAVOR. orthe continuation orthe Cattle Production activities for the fonowing reasons: .
!uiiv ~~~ ,a$- //AV-4~ ~d;-A ~"
I am OPPOSED to the continuation of the Cattle Praduc:ticm activities tOr the folJowing ~:
. '" '
:&.'. ,~
~lfli/ ;;, r.E~
y/J;~~
. ..'1. "- ~~
Signature
Iflt?( ..~A.
;d ~ 1; 7 7S:-;l r
, City, State, Zip
.
A ~eedng of the ~ p~.
. Zomng Board of AdJUSUDen
RECEIVED
Scheduled for
, Junelt~oo" ,
to C. '.d ~---'. 4-_ ~____.J_.J FT.~_' F ~I- TI~ . PLANNING
. ODSl er an ..D4empttOD. ~u .Q&IIOUUCU ~l1aw ~ ....'SwtetDeIlts, or an
Bstil6JPzbrnmt of IIIJ Extended Useful LIfe IIIJd TermiD.sdOD. of Use in Connection
with Existing Nonconf~rmiDg'U8es of Property Located at 10427 N. "L" Street
, (Wd~ Shop, Horse'Stables, Cattle Pro~UctiOD)
1 have a:ceived notiCe' of the' above refetenced public heumg.
1 lUll in FA voil of the contiD.~tion of the.We1ctiDg ShoP actiVities for the fOllowing ~:
~. ~~~~ ~ a::l-~ .
0-
1 am OPPO~ to the ,contin1i8.tion or tht; w~ Shop activities for the tollowing reasons:
. '.
~VOJI. oftluo am~tIuo HollIe - activitiea ~-J.e, "
..l..-") Q.Ml. .. A/)~ .1~ ~ ~,
'~dso'~ ~~' -
. .
. 1 am OPPOSED to the continuation of the Home Stable8 activities mr the fullowing reasons: .
1 lUll in PAVOR of the continuation of th~ Cattle Production activities mr the fullowing teIISODS:
~~~~.~~ ~,~heU^to
1 am OPPOSED to the continuation of the Cattle Production actiVities tOr the following reasons:
/ D "33 () AJ, J...~ stM d
Address
4?4T~?7511
, City, tate, Zip
.
. AM~oftheLaPortea
Zoning Board of Adjustment!l'
Scheduled for
June It 2000
REff~~
cfQ.
. PLANNING
to Consider an ExemptiOD. from &tended Useful Life Requkemmts, or an
BstabJJebrnet1t of IIIJ Bxter:zded U.efizl Life IIIJd TerminatiOD. of Use in ConnectiOll'
with Existing Nonconforming Uses of Property Located at 10427 N. "L" Street
(Welding Shop, Horse Stables, C~e Production)
I have a:ceived notice of the above referenced public beA~
I I IUD in FAVOR or the continuation of ~e WeJdiDg Shop activities fOr the fOllowing reasons:
I ~ O~POSBD to the continuation or the we!dDii Shop activities mr the mllowing reasons:
I . .. . .
I am in FAVOR.'orthe continuation of the HOlle S1ables activi .
I am OPPOSED to the continuation of the Home Stables &cti~ties for the toJlowing reasons:,
" . ties mr the fOllowiDg reasons:
I am in FAVOR or the continuation of the Cattle Producti
. .
~ IUD OPPOSED to the,continuation of the Catde Production activities tOr the fOllowing reaso~:
"1 0 f!, 'Felli 1010 JJwiutw~'
fk~t.. ,', ?~----'
c ~~' "i.dkJ ~ ~
$~ ~~~ 175V
.
A Meeting of the La Porte.
Zoning Board of Adjustmea ,
Scheduled for
. JUIle It 2000
Rq~~D
PlANNING
to CoDSider an Exemption /iom Extended Useiid Life Reqluremmts, or an .
Bsttlblisbmmt of IIIi BxterIded Useful Life IIIJd TeD:DinsdOD. of Use ill Connection
with Existing Nonconforming Uses of Property Located at 10427 N. cell'Street
(Welding Shop, Horse Stablei, Cattle Production)
1
I have a:ceived notice of the aboVe teferenc:ed public hearing.
I .; OPPOSED to the continuation of the WeJdiDg Shop activities fOr the fu110wing reasons:
IomjnP~VORoftluo~of~:~fi>rtluo13-
~f?~~4" ,~~~~ ~
I am OPPOSED to the 'continuation orthe Home Stables ~~ties mr the fOllowing ~:
,
I am OPPOSED to the continuation of th~ Cattle Produc~activities tOr the fOllowing reasons: '
llkLl~ ,.W~~ '
N_~
~
'. Signature
~~' W\ L ~
Address
~ {6(""J..~" 1<1 7 7T' 7/
City, State, Zip
.
A Meeting of the La PorteA
Zoning Board of Adjustmedll'
Scheduled for
June It 2000
~D
PlANNING
to CoDSider 'an Exemption from Extended Useiid Life Requkemt:D.ts, or an
BstsbQ.brnmt of IIIJ &tt:D.ded UseJUJ Life IIIJd TemJiDs"tion of Use in Connection
with Existing Nonconforming Uses of Property Located at 10427 N. "11' Street
(WeJding Shop, Horse Stables, Cattle Pro'duction)
I have a:ceived notice of the above referenced public hell",,!
, ,
I. am OPPOSED to the continuation of the WeJdiDg ~ aCtivities mr the following reasons:
. ,
I am in PA ~OR or the continuation or the 'HOlle Stables activities fOr the tOllowing ~ons:
---
I am OPPOSED to the continuation of the HOI8e Stables activities fOr the fOllowing a:asons: .
I am in PAVOR of the continuation or the Cattle Production activities tOr the tollowing reasons:
~~ ~~'[.~'/ ~.
. . f'
I IUI1 OPPO~ to the contin~on of the Cattle Production activities tOr the fOllowing reasons: '
tJ911 ~ fll
Ydt 1; 7'7(;,-71
CitY, State, Zip
A Meeting of the La Porte_' ,
Zoning Board of'Ad~en'"
Scheduled for
June It 2000 _
to Consider an Exemptiol1liom &tended Useiid Life Requkemmts, or an
Bstabll"brnmt of IUl Extended Useful Life IUld Termination of Use in Connection
with Existing Nonconforming Uses of Property LoCated a~ 10427 ~. "L" street
, (Welding Shop, Horse Stables,. Cattle Production)
.
~~~
PLANNING
I have received notice of the above referenced public h,.--ri",&
I 11m in FAVOR. of the continuation of the W~ Shop activities, fOr the tollowing a:~
0'
I am OPPOSB~e ~~uation of the W~ Shop acti~ the ~owipg ~
- ~;(. ~ < h~ .k~,. M.. .44-M,' , ""7
I am OPPOSED to the continuation of the Home Stables activities fOr the following-r;easons: ,.
I im ~VOR. of the conzation.e; Cattle P~OD activities mr the fOllowing reasOns:
JIIJ -4-Co -t: . IGI~ S. . _
I'am OPPOSED to the continuation of the Cattle Producdoa activities mr the fOllowing EelISons:
/J-'o'/ ~A'4L ~4/ ~cf
.4~ ~--IC"tL 77J'~1
City, State, Zip
~ ".....,1Il Cf<'
V2Vco
A Meeting ~the La PortIA
Zoning Board of Adjustmen?'
Scheduled for
J~e It 2000 .
to Ct'II8idfto an Exemption /iom Extmd~ UseIiJ Life llI:quilemmts, or an
, Bstabll.brneIJtoflllJ ~ded UselUl Life IIIJd TermmBtitJIJ ofUsem ~0Il
with Existing NOncoDforming Vses of Property Located at 10427 N. "L" Street
, (Wf'Jding Shop, Horse' S~, Cattle Production)
.
I ~. m:eived DOtice of d:te above refel'el1ced public b-,
, .
I an in FAVOIl of the con.tinua1ion of the WeJdiDg Shop activities fOr the fiiIlowing muons:
'-iZ~ .
II
I
I .; OPPOSED to the contiimation. of the weIdmc Shop.activities tOr ,the fDDowiDg a:uons: '
I an m FAVOR of the continuation of the HOlle Stabb activities tOr the fDJlowiDg reasons:
'~'=- s . .
. .
I ml OPPOSim to the CODOrmaD01Iof the HOlle StUb activities fur the fOIlowiDg muicma:
I an in FAVOR. of the continuatioa. of the Cattle ProcIuc:tioD activities fOr die fi;illowing a:asons:
1~~, '
, ,
I am OPPOSED to the continuation. of the Cattle PmductioD mmties tOr the fOIlowiDg,taSON:
'i, fC.JZ ~Ft!) 0+
Name (pleue print)
?~~
Si
ICf'07 Lo.~Lt4'f ~__l-u:.Dl.. ~.
Address
Lil-P<)t!"-tL '''' 77~71
City, State, Zip
'.
. A Meeting of the La Porte_
Zoning Board of Adjustm~
Scheduled for
, June It 2000
R~IYfcD
51<6' 00
,
PLANNING
, to CoDSider an Exemption Jiom &tended UseJUJ Life Requiremmts, or an
Bstsb.JJJl,!,rnmt,of IIIJ &te.tJded Useiid Life IUJd Tt:rmii1.atioJ1 of Use ~ Connection
with Existing NonconformiDg Uses, of Property Located at 10427 N. "L" Street
(Welding Shop, Horse Stables, Cattle Production)
. ,
I have =eived notice of the above re~ed public hearing. ,
I am in FAVOR of the continuation of the We1diDg Shop activities fOr thefulloWing reasons: .
'1$ ~ ..1 J-- 7$: ~th.....A' ~
..E;Jrt J ~ (Jj7 - r ~ t1 "
." -'" . " , ---. c.
~ '. . ,
.". -' .
."
I am OPPOSED to the continuation or the WehtiDg Shop activities mr the fullowing reasons:
y~
5? ~t:r).
, -
'I am in FAVOR. of the continuation of the Hone Stables activities for the fOllowing reasons:
;rftJ :7 !ft~:!8Y Z~~
~
, .
I am in PAVOR or the continuation or the Cattle Production activities mr the fullowing feISOI1S:
tE-
aA-? t:..-
,BctC...I~,p/! j-ti1-y ~C()-r~/!O:2- UJm"X. ~ cH61L ~(JIf~
Name (please print) , Address '
~P- L~~~ /;p~ /./57)
Signature City, State,
. - ...- ..-. .... '. .
, .
. Zoning'Boanl of Adjustment
. . Scheduled for . "
June 1; 2000
" to Consider an E%emptionfrom Extended UsefUl Life Requ,irements, or an
Establishment of an Extended Useful Life and Termination of Use in Connection
with Existing Nonconforming Uses of Property Located at 10427 N. "L" Street
(Welding Shop, Horse Stable~ Cattle Production)' . . ,
.
J have received notice of the above referenced 'public hearing.
I am in FAVOR of the continuation of the Welding Shop activities for ,the following reasons: .
1. NONE,
I am OPPOSE]) to the continuation of the Welding S~op activities for ~ following reasons:
1. Welding shoo activiti~ if there ever JNClf' any, Wc:re abapdoned 3 years ago when Kevin Blap~111.the welder,
, 1'eSlCj.enl, and ~n the Donc0nt'0rmin2 use permit was Issued to moved 10 East Texas. Zomng uramance
1 501 states ~donmqlt .of,a non conCorming use for D].ore than Iso days requires Kevin BlacKwell to have the
burden o{provmg he did not abandon the non conf~ ' ' .. '.' .
use. The state safes tax folks will verify that no sales taxes were collected from Welding shop, so It could not
have done anI business. Indeed the "mop" bas been used for storage with no visible signs of Shop welding
since lily family and I built our home nexl door in 1990. , " .
, '
2. Kevin BlackWell's nonconforming use permit (attachment #1) plainly states!ust abOve his si~ that ~any
change of the use or occupancy of these premises invaUdates this p'ermit.; The "use" of tlie weld shop , , '
buildjlg clu!nged many years ago. Any ~occu~cy qfthe premises" ~ed when Kevin Blackwell moved to
East Texas 3 years ago ind n~co~ aCtivity, if there was any, sto~Ped ,
, I am in FAVOR of'the continuation of the Hone Stables activities for the folloWing reasons:
1.'NONE
. I am OPPOSED to the continuation of the Bone Stables activiti~ for the following reasons:
1. Please see the attached page.
. I am in FAVOR of the continuation of the Cattle ProdudioD activities for the following reasons:
1. NONE
I am OPPOSED to the continuation ofth~ Cattle ProductiOD activities for the following reasons:
1. Please see thO attached page
Bill Scott
IS02 LOmax School R.d.
Address
u.. Porte" Tx., 77571
l;1'ty,s'ta'te~~.1!:'
Im~ ~ ~ n W~rm
lJU MAY 1 7 2000 ~
By
. '.
, Page 1 of2
Fellow CitiZen and Board of Adjustment Member,
'. I'.~ done my best to COndense 4.,nders arid a file drawer of facts concem'this case In~ a few pages that hit the main
points. I tha'lk you for taking the time to read these facts. I will provide additional facts" a brief video/audio tape presentation
. and aerial photographs at the June 1, 2000' hearing that prove this nbnconfonnlng use3 pennit is invalid and should be
revoked.
Here is what the City's Zoning Ordinance sayS about nonconfonnlng uses.
Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 106, 'Article II, OMsion 9, Section 106-261
The general public, the planning and zoning commission and the board of adjustme!1t are directed to take note that
nonconfonnltles In the us. .nd d.velopm.nt of land and buildings .... ~ be avoid". or..llmlnated wh.... now
e~ng, ~entYe~ and Wh.nev.r p~lbl., except when necessary to preserve property rights, specific structures, lots, or
uses established pnor to the date these regulations became effective as to the property In question, and when necessary to
promote the general welfare and to protect the character of surrounding property. . .
. .
.. H~ are ajust a few of the facts that prove KeVin BhKtwell's nonconfonning use permit is and always has been
mvabd and should be revoked. , ' ,.",'
The following documents are in Kevin B~ll's City. file.
, . I
A Attachment # 2 is a 10-2-90 memo from Communitf DevelQPD)ent Director JoelAlbrecht to Assistant CitY.
Attorney John Armstro~. It states in the last j)8l'I1gl'Bph,' The ,iDffirmation presented to date suggests that Mr.
BIackw~ll's operation is a legal nonCODfoIll1ing use that fiills into the SIC Code Classification 1#.0291. I have asked
Mr. Blackwell to furnish hIlormation as to 50% or more of income being derived from his property." Two
important corrections to page 1 ofMr.. Albrecht's letter ire: ' "
s. The 2 acres containing 11 heifers is actually 1.2 acres as I measured it. . ,
b. The roping ca1fJ'en held .rop~ calves only_ ilfterBob!Jy Blackwell boU2ht the pro~ in 1980, not before.
Kevin B!ackwen CC?nfirmed tbit in one ofhis two, 10-2-90 letters to the ~ity attempting to support his non-
conformmg use claim. . '.
B. Attachment # 3 is John Armstrong's respQDSe to Joel Albrecht In the foUl'tl! ~h Mr. Armstrong states,
"You have indicated that the ~ use of the property fiills under SIC Code Numtier 0291 (Genem1 Farm-
, ~ Livestock S~ties.lfin fact that is the case and if~ has been. so utilized since before
, the ~ge of the ZO~ Ordinance, then it is clear'that Mr. B . I haS a legjtimate ~'non- '
conforming use, not subject to current Zoning Ordinance restrictions. However, I would caution you to .be
sure that the SIC Code assigned to MR. BJaekweU's.property is appropriate..._Before J'OU can be sure
that th.eprope~ gualifies as pr&-existing, nOD-eonfOI"lDUlg, you must satisfy younelf that these two tests
as, established in tile SIC Code have been met." , " ,
, .
It is' also very clear in Mr. Armstrong's directions that if Kevin Blackwell did D~t meet the SIC tests, then he
did not have a non-conform.ing use. Mr. Arms1:ron2 changed the.actual SIC wo~ in his definition of the
tests to,mak:e them easier to meet so I'll give you 1De exact definition from page 30 of the SIC standard.
. .
"0291 General F~ Primarily livestock and .Animal S~ialities ". .
Establi!llhments deriving SO % or more of their total value of sales of ~cultUra1 P-fOducts from
livesto~k. apd animal ~a1ities and their products, but less than 50%' f.iOm the proCiucts of any single
three digIt mdustry group." .
As .y'ou see, Mr. Armstrong's'"or other agricultural prod~ or other incidental revenue sources" is not in the SIC
definition., .' ' , ' _
AttaChment # 4 is Kevin Blackwell's letter I:CSPO~ to Mr. Albracht request for infonnation on compliance
with the SIC 0291 classification and was received b1. tlie City on 10-3-90. The one page letter is the only.
infQrmation he supplied. Kevin Blackwell's own eVl(lence proves did Dot have a nonconforp1in& use. Le~'s lo~k:
He ~ offwitb, "I would like to ma:;;ou aware !hat.one laundred,pereent (100~) ofm! mco!11~ IS ~enved
from this property. I am self-emplo~ the followmg 18 a list of the ~ ways which I m8ke a bymg.
Note: The nonconforming use.permit is for the 4 ~ acres in the south half of outlot 420 ODIy, NOT the outlot 419
he uses below. '
'Of all the items he lists, the only ones generating income from the l!rope~ are the weld shop and horse stalls.
None of the items can be classified under SIC's "livestock and animil speci8lities and their products. Let's look:
"1. Commercial hay baleing." He Commercially baled hay on other peoples property, Dot the' 4 ~ acres which
was grazed short from the multitude of animBls con~trated on it "
. , . " '. Page 2 of2
~ "2. Commercial ~r work ~ping, backhoe, construction)." AU oA Commercial tractor work was
done on other peoples property, not the 4 ~ acres. .
.. ,
"3. Commercial welding both on the job and shgp fabrication" I saw very UUle welding at the shop so most of
the Commercial weldillg must have been done using the weld rig truck; which was used on other peoples
property, not on the 4 ~~acres. " ,
, .
., .
"4. 'Raising of livestock for the p~se of sales. In.the ~ year and a half I have had as many as thirty-five (35)
ropi!tg calves and twenty (20) rop~ steers on outlot 419 and 420 for the ~l:.UPOse of use in rodeos m the area. "
Basically he held ropings where he charged people money to rope hiS liVestock. The rental or sales
income was generated "at a rodeo arena throu2h- Commercial rodeo sports! not from any animal '
, specialities on the 4 % acres... and ~ has never l1ad 55 head of cattle on the 4, ~ acres at the same time.
"5. ... Outlot 420 haS been used as a horse operation for the same period of time. ".. ... His hone ojeration was
renting staDs ad pasture for hones. -Yhis was a Commeriial business. This violates the Zoning
O~Dce for resiilential Zone R-l ad is why he asked to be "~dfatherecl". This does not qualify
under animalspeeiaUties. ad is even strictly forbidden for agncultural exemption for property tues~
Kevin BlackWell ,roved with his own evidence that he DID NOT even remotely qualify under SIC 0291.
He also proved With his own evidence that hii statement of 100% of his income coming from the 4 % aeres
' was completely false. " . , ' .'.. '
, .
I have to speak to Kevin Blackwell's concern in the second"l'~ph about b~ a good neighbour and how
I'-m 4nPossible to deal with. I tolerated numerous ZoninS violations ,on Kevin and Bob6y BlackWell's property
until he moved in II cattle on top of 17 horses and 5 ropmg calves and put the II cattle SO ft. upWind of my front
door where there had not been c&ttle or a violation of the 211ead per acre rule since he installed the slick loose cable'
fence in this area for horses in the mid 80's. In response to my complaint about the flies and ~ell and noise he '
installed a ~ corrugated tin fence against the area where my 2 sons play. The tin fence had jagged holes and .
edf{es and chisel point screws stic1dna -I in. tbro~ it The cable and hog wire fencing in ftont of it was a constant"
inVItation to my 2 Y01J!l8 sons to clim"b and cut-themselves. TetaiJ.us was a constant concern. He then dammed in my
property on the West fence line and tiled a standing water ~~~aint with the City ap'l'lst me when ,over half my
proP.e~ flooded. I can go on and on with this subject but I . this is enough to prove who is the "good
neighbOur" and who is the bully. , , "
The new codified Zoning ordinance section 106-351, LOw Density Residential reads the same as Zoning
Ordinance 1501 which was in effect from Jan. 26, 1987to Nov.6, 1999 :
This section lists tbrough Table A all ~tted uses for residenn8I areas. A DOD-confO~ Use with a' written
~t is not listed anyw4ere in the alloWed uses. lbro~ all of the wordage in this section, sections referenced by
this section and Table A for R-I residential areas, a Written permitted nonconforming use is not mentioned one time.
In faCt, nonconfonningis not mentioned one time. And the City's conCocted ~ oftlie word.P~!s ~ot
mentioned one time. Therefore, by ordinance, Kevin Blackwell's non-conformmg use pemnt IS mvabd man R-I
area. It should not have been written and it should be revoked. '
, .
I will provide more evidence at the hearing, including aerial photos, on why this DOn-conforming permit is invalid
and shoUld be revoked. ' "
Thank you for Y9ur time and consideration,
~
Bill Scott
- .
, n
...
:..
, .
k
~.
i~.
~~
,.~. .
" .
,. ,
-f:\
'"""
"C7ftr~rt1tsWr 4=- J
CITY OF LA P~R~
NON-CONFORMING USE ZONING PERMIT
:';ECEIVED
1!2-r2-9/J 7l6-
. . -.MM. DEV.
.
~
D::-~l.''''''
. _...'..1_
D~TE ISSUED October 16, 1990
"0
:':' .
This permit is issued t-o.: " Kevin Blackwell
3usiness or Owner Name
lOd27 No Avpnl1P T.
Street Address
, 81 k OIL d 20: T.ts. S 1/2: T.~ Pnrt'p n/T.~
, Legal Description
Type of Use:
Cattle oroduction: weldina shop: hor~p ~rnhlP~
Zone
SIC Use Category 0291
R-1
Any change of the use or ~ccupancy of
~errn..t. ~ .
,;. --L lJ#,
wner or roprieto
th?7!>r:!11 is es
?4A '.
, Zonin
~
POST IN A CONSPICIOUS PLACE
,
.'..
.'
.,
i
of'
.'
. A<1J'^CI\M~ ad=z..
..
, CITY OF LA PORTE
INTER-OFFlCB ~ORANDUM
OcrOBER 2, 1990
TO: John Armstrong, Assistant CitY Attorney . '
FROM: ,1oe1 It A1bre~ of ~nmnity Development'
SUBJEcr: ,Blackwell Property ..1
~. Bill Scott has registered a complaint oil the concentration of 11 heifers on the two (2)
~cres adjacent to his house, as well as a complaint regal'ding a building close to his property
line.
. , .
, Our staff, on several occasions yisited the Blackwell property to check out the complaints.'
We found a violation in the building and have asked Mr. Blackwell to eliminate the
violation. Mr. Blackwell took out a building permit aDd is cutting the 'roof overhang baclc:
to ~e required distance. . . ' .' .',' '. _, .
~ . . . . . .
We also found on the property 1,? .horses, 5 roping calves and 11 heifers. The Caives are
, in a small pen located' at the comer of Lomax School Road and North "La Street, the
. heifers are in a two (2) acre pasture south of Mr. Scott's house, 10 horses are in the s~a1Is
of th~ stable and 7 horses are in the large pasture. "
'Today~ ~. Blackwell brought in documentation supporting his legal, non-conforming use
qualification for his property. It included the following: . . ,
1. Letters from persons .renting stables for their horses since 1981. '
2. Letters stating he has been in animal specialties operation since the
purchase of ~e property in 1980.
, .
My review, of his documents re.flect that he has a legal non-confoI'Dling use in the areas of
the stable where there are eighteen (18) stalls, sev.enteen (17) of which are fille(;l. There
are ten (10) horses s'tabled on his premise that never go to pasture, but use the exercise
ring and 'the roping pen for ~ercise and practice.
. Th~ roping calf pen located at the south east comer of the property has held roping calves
since before Mr. Blackwell purchased the property. He did not provide information on the
maximum numbers he has held there. '
Cattle have been raised on thiS property before his purchase of same to the present time.
' ,
~
"
~
. 'i
1"
.
.
. .
Blackwell Property
10:.2-90
Page 2 of~
Section 10-300 of the Zoning Ordinance states. that; "gra7.ini animals shall not be iu ~
concentrations of more than 2 per acre~" Mr. Blackwell', legal non-confo~ status
should over-ride this maximum somewhat, but that number is not for ,staff to dictate, it'
should be for the Board of Adjustm.~nt to determine if requested.
The information presented to date suggests th8:t Mr. Blackwell's operation is a legal non-'
conforming use that fa11s into the SIC Code Classification #0291. I ,have asked Mr.
, ;Blackwell to furnish information as to 50%' or more of income being, derived from this
, property. ': ' ,
1HA/neb
.,
!
.
...
.
.
'., ".&i~...6>'d ~
.J
~ It, . '
i. ;.
. CITY OJ!' LA PORTE
INTER-OFJ!'ICE MEMORANDUM
,OCTOBER 2, 1990
TO:
FROM:
Joel H. Albrecht, Director of Community D~velopment
John D. Armst,rong,' Ass~stant City" Attorney
,SUBJECT: Blackwell Prop~rtYJ Response
Memorandu~ dated October 2, 'l9~0
to ..JoC!l Albrecht's
I am responding to. your memo dated October 2, 199-0.
your memo is attached for your reference.
A c,?py of
I ascertain, based on the facts contained in your memo, .that two
(2) issues ar'e rafsed' regar,ding the Blackwell property.' The
first issue concerns a complaint by Mr. Bill Scott regarding a
building close to Mr. Scott's property' line. You have indicated
to me that the building was recent.l,y buil~ without Mr. Blackwell
tak'ing out a permit" from the. City of La Porte. , You further
indicate ,to me that since 'the complaint was made, Mr. Blackwell
h~s taken Qut a permit,and his bu~lding has been inspected by th~
'City. Based on the City's inspections"Mr. Blackwell has agreed
.~o correct the only deficiency found in the building by cutting
back a roof over-hang to establish the building at the required
set-back distance from Mr. Scott's propC!rty. If all my
assumpt~on$ a~e correct,. it wo~ld seem that,the building, when
conformed to the Ordinance, would then be eligible for a building
permit". . .. . , ,,'
The se~ond issue raised by your memo regards the concentration of
,domesticated' livestock on the Blackwell property. You have.
indicated tO"me that the c'oncentrati,on is in excess of City o~ La
Porte Zoning Ordinance' concentrations, as established in Section
10-300 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, you have also
established in your ~emo .that thes'e domestic livestock have
existed on t~e property prior to the passage of the Zoning
Ordinance.
You have~ indicated that the primary use of the property, falls
under, SIC Code 'Number 0291 (General Farm - Primary Livestock
Specialties). If that in fact is the case, and ,if that property
has been so utilized since before the passage' of the Zoning
Ordinance, then it is clear that Mr. Blackwell has a legitimate
pre-existing, non-conforming use, not subject to current Zoning
Ordinance restrictions.
However, I would caution you to be sure that the SIC Code
as~igned to Mr. Blackwell's property is appropriate. My review
of SIC Code Number 0291 indicates that ,Mr. Blackwell's property
-
,
i.
.~,
. ,
.'
..
.
.
..
"
Blackwell Property
October 2, 1990
Page -2-
needs to derive. fifty per<:en,t (SO,) or more of the total value of
sales from livestock or other agricultural products, or other
incidental revenue sourees..' In ~d~iti9n~ Mr. Bl~ckwell must"
derive less than fifty percent (SO,) of, the' total va1ue of his
sales from agricultural' products of any single 'thre~-digit
industry group. Before you can be sure. that, ~he property
qualifies as pre-exlsting, non-conforming, you must satisfy
yourself that these two test~ as estab~ished in the SIC Code have
,been met.: ' ,
, \
If M~. Blackwell is deriving income from the utiliza~ion of the
prope.rty as contemplated in' SI'C Code Number 02.91, then the fact'
that he and his family utilize the property as their primary
residence. is not of concer.n, since SIC Code Number 0291 clearly
'contemplates that the farm us'e include a, resident owner.
~ . . .
Lf..you have any further questions or comments, or if'I can
clar ify ~Y' memo to you in any fashion,', ~lease' advise.
f
~ ,
,'.
. ...
'\.... i
1.
..,_n ':--'.-.:-...;.__w...w._..:.,_'_.........w.. '~'V~;' .,. ...,~,.-. ..,.~:-.,.~...~~Jrit)l'Qf:~~~.
. -
. .
10-2-90
Memo to:
Mr. Joel Albright
From: Kevin' L. Blackwell
Subject: Use of property on outlet 420
Mr.. 'Albright a.s per our conversation on 10-2-90, I would like to make you
aware that -one hundred . per ~c,ent (100%) 'of my income is derived from this
property. I am self-employed and the following is a list of the many ways
wliich I make a living.
1: Commercial hay baleing. .
2. Commercial tractor work (landscaping, backhoe, co~struction).
'3. COJD!2lercial welding both on the job and shop .:f'aprication. '
4. Raising .01' livestock for,the purpose of .sales... In the past year and a
half, I have had'.,as many as thirty-f~ ve (35) roping calves and twenty (20)
roping steers o~.outlot ~19 and 420 for the purpose of use in rodeos in the'area~'
5. ,The ,use of the outlot 419 has been used ~or the raising of livestock and .
hay' since 1950 through 1990, by my Father and I. ~tJ.qt 420 ha.s been used k:r
a horse operation for the same period of 'time. We have been using it since purchas
~t in 19.80 from Dr. Lee, who was in the race horse and livestock business. Mr.
Jesse Neuman and Mr. Red Cheshire owned this property since i950. - Both owned
this property since 1950. Both of the::se gentleman have passed on but their
~st and the use of this property lives on. . '.
I am very concerned about being a good neighbor and have tried ~o talk to
Mr. Scott in the past few :weeks. It appears that he is impossible to ,
deal with. I am sorry for the in~onvience this has ,caused the City. My'
i~terest is not in causing the City or yourself any problems but feel this
, peice of property should be considered under the Grandfather Clause at this
time and also in the future.
If I can be of further asais~ance please, don't hesitate to contact me at
471-6525. Thanks tor your cooperati~n in this matter.
Sincerely,
. Kevin ~. Blackwell
.
"
..'I ....,.
.-...)-~ .'
" -
~., t ....
",-,", "'....
......./. t ;/'V'~ /.. ,,' ~
~ ,I./d.;,-
;0' C .
.
February 24, 2000
.
.
..
ORIGINAL'
"I
REVISED AGENDA'
A PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA PORTE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WILL BE HELD ON FEBRUARY
.24,2000, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE LA
PORTE CITY HALL, 604 WEST F AIRMONT PARKWAY, LA PORTE,
TEXAS.
f. .... of'
'I.. CALL'TO ORDER
IT. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 27, 2000 ~ETING.
ID. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S
DECISION #AOO-OOI wmCH SEEKS TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIM:MING POOL WITH REDUCED
SETBACKS, TO ADJACENT STRUCTURES AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS AS PER SECTION 106-89(3) OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE. (REQUEST
PREVIOUSLY REFERENCED AS VARIANCE #VOO-OO I.)
A. PROPONENTS
B. OPPONENTS
IV. CONSIDER ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN CONNECTION WITH BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT ACTIONREGARDING#NCSOO-OOI. .
V. STAFF REPORTS
,VI. ADJOURN
.
, MINUTE'S
.
.NING BOARD OF ADJUST&.r
'MINUTES OF JANUARY 27,2000
Members 'Present:. Chairperson Sidney Grant, Bob Capen, Willie Walker, Ruben Salinas,
Alternate No.1 Charles Schoppe'
Members Absent: Rod Ro~ennel, Alternate No.2 George Maltsberger
City Staff Present: Planning Director Doug Kneupper, Chief Building Official Debbie
Wllmore, Lt Carl Crisp, Engineer I Carlos Martinez, Assistant City
Attorney JC?hn Annstrong, and Planning Secretary Peggy Lee
I. CALL TO ORDER.
Meetingwas called to order by Chairperson Grant at 7:00 PM.
II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 28,1999 MEETING.
With no objections from the ~oard, Chairperson Grant declared the minutes
approved as presente~.
III. CONSIDER NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE REQUEST #NCSOO-OOl
WHICH SEEKS TO REINSTATE THE USE OF AN ABANDONED
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND LOT AS PER SECTION 106-
262(H) AND 106-268 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE crn
OF LA PORTE.
Planning Director Doug Kneupper pre~ented staff's report for the request submitted
by Paul Case, Executive Director for Lakeside Center, Inc., for occupation of an
abandoned, nonconfonning structure and lot of record located at 200 Garfield. The
current R-3 zoning is appropriate for a multi-family residential development,
Mr. Kn~pper noted the following during his report
Section 106-261 of the City's Code of Ordinances states that the general
public, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Zoning Board of
Adjustment have been directed to take note that nonconfonnities in the use
and development of land and builc;Jings are to be' avoided, or eliminated
where now existing, whenever and wherever possibl~.
The apartment complex in question was constructed in the mid-60's and was
occupied until approximately July, 1997. At that time, utility service was '
disconnected due to nonpayment of utility fees.
City of La Porte Police records indicate that during the period JanUary 1,
1993 to July, 1997, hundreds of calls were made to the location to deal with
different types of offenses.
Interviews with local residents revealed that parking on Garfield and Forest
Streets created traffic and pedestrian safety concerns. No security fencing
Zoning Boatd of AdjusmA
Minutes of January 27, iJfI'
Page 2 of 11
.
at:ld a lack of ~n-site recreational facilities resulted in children of all ages
playing in the parking areas and the streets.
Mr. Kneupper outlined the aspects of the existing development that are considered
nonconforming wh~ compared to current City development standards: ,
. Parking - There are 85 existing vehicle-parking spaces. . The applicant
proposes 16 additional spaces for a total of 101 parking spaces. Current City
standards would require 135 parking spaces. In addition, 66 of the existing _
spaces are located within public street 'right-of-way. ,Current standards would
require complete and total off-street parking.
Building Setbacks - The City's Zoning Ordinance stipulates minimum
setbacks for this type facility of Front -'25', Side -..20', and Rear - 20'. Five
of the nine existing bUildings encroach, to varying degrees, into setback areaS.
Existing building setQacks are Front -15', Side - 3', and Rear - S'
NUmber of Dwelling Units per ACI'e - There are currently 57 dwelling
units on approximately 1.83 acres of land. This calculates'to a density of 31
dwelling units per ;lcre. Current City standards allow up to 27 dwelling units '
per acre in an R-3 (multi-family residential) zoning district.
Landscaping - There is little to no landscaping presently at :the facility. ,
Current City standards would require 6% of the site to be landscaped with
trees, shrubbery, and groundcover. . In addition, landscaping should be
m~tained in a healthy state.
Mr. Kneupper stated that Section 106-262 of the City's Code of Ordinances
addresses nonconforming structures, and in this case, Paragraph (h), would apply ,
because the structure has been abandoned lon~ than.180 consecutive ~endar
days. The applicant was notified of the n'onconforming aspects of the project. The
following options are available to address each aspect
Parking - Currently there are 85 parking spaces surrounding the complex.
The applicant proposes to construct an additional 16 off-street parking
spaces withiti an area at the southwest com~ of the site making the tqtal 101
parking spaces. Current development standards require 135 spaces for this
type of project. In addition, cun-ent standards require that all parking be off-
street. There is no area within the 1.83 acre site to accommodate additional
parking. An option available to the applicant to achieve the 135 required
'parking spaces requires acquiring additional land from the vacant areas
surrounding this facility. With regard to the use of public right-of-way for
parking, the layout at Flamingo Bay requires parked vehicles to' back into-the
adjacent streets. This would occur on a daily basis and create a traffic safety
issue. The only cure for this non-confonnity would be to acquire enough
adjacent property to accommodate all the parking on-site. ' "
, ,
Zoning Board of AdjUS~
Minutes of January 27, 2000
Page 3 of 11
.
Building Setbacks - As stated earlier, 5 of the 9 buildings encroach into
current req~d setback areas. Physically moving or relocating the b~dings
is not a reasona,ble solution. 'However, setb~ requirements could be
atcomplished by acquiring additional property around the boundary of the
site. On the west side, additional land could be acquired from the property
owner.
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre' - There are currently 57 dwelling
units on a 1.83 acre site. This calculates to a density .of 31 units per acre.
There are two directions available to remedy this nonconfomiity. The first
requires the elimination of 7 dwelling units within the existing 1.83 acre site
which creates a confonning density of 27 units pre acre. The second
alternative would be to gain approximately 12,245 square feet of land and
apply to the 'existing 57 units. This again would create a conforming density
of 27 units per acre.
Landscaping - Current development standards require 6% landscaping.
The site plan submitted by the applicant shows a significant amount of
proposed landscaping estimated to be approximately 12% to 15~o.
Chairperson Grant ~ked Mr. Kneupper if the applicant had submitted a set of
detailed plans for renovation of the project. Mr. Kneupper replied that the
applicant's architect had submitted a schematic plan for renovation. When
Chairperson Grant questioned the condition of the slabs, brick veneer, and .
underground sewer, Mr. Kneupper answered that nothing was submitted that would
indicate the condition of those items. Chaiperson Grant asked if the City's
Inspection Division knew what the exact conditions were. Mr. Kneupper replied
they did not, however, the buildings were not cond~ed to be tom down. under the
City's pangerous Building Program. They were, in fact, detennined to be '
structurally sound. '
Mr. Capen asked who owned the property. Mr. Kneupper answered that to the best
, of his knowledge, the owners were Lakeside Center, Inc.
Chairperson Grant asked everyone in the audience, who intended to address the
Board, to please stand and be swom in. Chairperson Grant simultaneously swore in
everyone that was standing.
A. PROPONENTS
, Ruben Garza, representing Lakeside Center, addressed the Board. Mr. Garza
, stated that before this project was considered, they came to the City and
obtained a letter stating there would be no problem with zoning. He
distributed a copy of that letter to the Board. In addition, representatives
walked the streets in the area in order to infonn residents in the
neighborhood of what they were planning to do.
While addressing the board, Mr. Garza noted the following:
Zoning Board of Adjus~
Minures of January 27. 2i1l!'
Page 4 of'll
.
The structure is structurally'sound.
Lakeside has closed on the property and they are the current owners.
Two environmenn..l reviews were perfonned on the property.
Adding parking spaces, as requested, will be difficult to do.
Setback requirements can't be met.
.Prospective tenants must pass a stringent application process.
Income from property goes back into the project.
Owners are willing to establish an advisory committee with the
neighborhood. '
Mr. Garza answered questions from the Board. The following was noted:
Lakeside is a nonprofit organization.
Funding for the project is a grant from the HOME Progcim;
Grant is in the amount of $1,491,842.
$800,000 is budgeted for construction.
Lakeside worked closely with the City and was never led to belieye
, there were obstacles that could not be overcome.
Lakeside perfonned a neighborhood survey and obtained 31
signatures from people in favor of the project.
Tres Davis, with the State of Texas, sworn in, explained the prQcess for
distribution of funds. Funding for the project is a loan, not a grant, and
income from rental will go to repay the loan, which is financed for 30 years.
If cash flow exceeds operating costs, then the remaining funds are returned
to the nonprofit organization. N9nprofit organizations are exempt by State
Law from paying property taxes. The State was satisfied with the letter
written by the City that indicated this multi-family project was properly
zo~ed ~d there shouldn't be any problems obtaining a 'building permit.
ExeClitive Director for Lakeside. Paul Case. was sworn in by Chairperson
Grant. Chairperson Grant asked Mr. Case how he came to know that La
Porte was in need of affordable housing. Mr. Case answered that he really
didn't know until he came to La Porte and started talking with different
people and getting signatures on 3: petition.,
Mr. Garza introduced Chris Carwile, from Deer Park, Texas. Mr. Carwile is
currently in training to be the manager of the project. Mr. Carwile was '
recently released from the Marines, where he was a Sargent. He also holds a '
black belt in Karate.
,
,Bruce Spitzengle, President of Grant Works, sworn in, addressed the Board. ,
He explained that Grant Works assists nonprofit organizations with
obtaining and administering gt:ant projects. .
Ron Kent, Architect, sworn in, stated that he was hired to provide
architectural services for the project. Mr. Kent answered questions from the
Board. The following was noted:
Zoning Board of AdjUS~
Minutes of JlDuary 27. 2000
Page 5 of 11
.
Mr. Kent proposed constructing a reside1'\tial type roof for the
, structures.
New stairwells, landscaping, gazebo, playground, and security fencing
are proposed.
All units will be brought up to code and ADA compliant. There'will
be new cabinetry throughout and all units will have new air
conditioning and electrical panels.
When asked if the structures had cracked slabs, Mr. Kent replied that the
structural engineer detennined the buildings to be sound. Chairperson Grant
asked about the obvious cracks in the brick veneer and if an underground
sewer inspection had been performed. Mr. Kent replie~ that an uriderground
sewer inspection had not been performed.
Pam O~, of Grant Works, a consultant for the project, was already sworn in.
Chairperson Grant asked about a notification letter that was part of the
environmental report process. Ms. Orr explained, the record of events that
transpired during the reporting period.
Chairperson Grant, for the benefit of the audience, read excerpts frqm the
public notification responses the City receiv~d. All Board Members were
provide,d copies of these letters in their packet.
B. OPPONENTS
Jack Oliphant, sworn in, and wife Patricia ~ave resided at 101 Garfield since
May 1964. When the apartments were occupied, the children who lived there
,were often times unsupervised. Mr. Oliphant recalled making several calls to
the apartment when he was Fire Chief. He also recalled repairs being made
to the foundation. Thefts in the neighborhood and lack of parking were
otherprobl~. '
Jim Philliom, sworn in, resides on Jefferson St. Mr. ~hilli(jm was unaware of
the neighborhood survey that has been talked about. He does appreciate the
fact that the graffiti on the buildings has been painted over, however,
, suggested that the City should secure the buildings, since some of the units
are open. Mr. Philliom questioned whether or not anyone had looked into
the possibility of probl~ with asbestos and lead paints. He suggested the
buildings be tom down and a park built on the land. ,
Sp.ero Pomonis, sworn in, spoke against the project because he believes it is
spot zoning. He would like to see the apartments tom down and single
f.uniJ.y homes built in their place.
Sonny Shepherd, sworn in, resides on the comer of Sylvan and Bayshore.
Mr. Shepherd contacted the Police Dept. and obtained a report of calls made
'I ~.; .... _ . . ___ . __... ..
Zoning Board of AdjuS....
Minutes of January 27, ixJT
Page 6 of 11
.
770 calls to the P.olice Department and from 1996'-1999 there were 270 calls.
Mr~ Shepherd gave the report to the Board of Adjustment Secretary. ,
Fred Muston, swom in, resides at 117 Garfield. Mr. Muston knew a
gentleman by the name .ofB.ob Carpenter that lived at the apartments when .
they were new. Mr. Carpenter showed him. an opening in the adjacent woods
, and beyond that opening was some .old furniture and box springs. When the
p.olice came to the front of the apartments, th.ose who had narcotics would
escape to the woods and remain there until the police were gone. There have
been sewerage anq cltainage problems at this locati.on over the years, as well
as plumbing problenis and fires. Mr. Muston w.ould like to see the
apartments tom down.
, .
Pete Guarino, swom in, resides at 217 E. Garfield. Mr. Guarino doesn't
understand why the City w.ould consider granting appr.oval for this p,roject.
If apartments are needed, they should be replaced with upgraded ones.
,
Pat -Ryan, swom in, resides at 206 Garfield. Mr. Ryan was riot polled by the
applicant and isn't aware of anyone else wh.o was. His concern is the crime
rate. His vehicle and home were broken into when the apartments were
.occupied. He hasn't experienced any problems with theft since they have
been vacant. Mr.,Ryan also described a drug raid he witnessed at the
ap3.rtments. He thinks the proje~ would be bad for the neighborJ1ood and
opposes it.
Nancy Doise, swom in, has resided with her husband at 211 E. Forest for 21
years. Mrs. Doise would rather see a h.ousing complex for senior citizens.
Her daughter lived at the apartments for two months when she was 18 years
old. At that time, there were air conditioning and roach problems. Someone
tried"to break. int.o her apartment and that is why she moved. Young children
played in the streets. Eighteen wheelers were parked along the street. Police,
Fire, and Ambulance calls were numerous.
, Allen Wright, swom in, is a superintendent for Brown & R.oot. He stated
that the renovation could not be performed for $800,000.
Baxter Stanl~y, swom in, resides at 231 Forest. Mr. Stanley was not
c.ontacted about the project. He does not want aff.ordable h.ousing to be
l.ocated down the street fro~ his house. Since the buildings are currently
vacant, this w.ould be a good opportunity for them t.o be tom down.
Steve Valerius, swom in, resides ~t 140 Hazel and has lived in La Porte for
ten years. Mr. Valerius represented himself, as well as the Old Hwy. 146
C.ommittee. It is his .opini.on that this pr.oject is law inc.ome, subsidized ,
housing, backed by H.U.D. and 'is n.ot aff.ordable h.ousing. The c.otp.orati.on's
backgr.ound was researched with the f.oll.owing n.oted:
Zoning Board of AdjUS.
Minutes of JlIllUary 27, 2000
Page 7 of 11
.'
Incorporated by the Secretary of the State of Texas as Lakeside
Center.
Paul Case is the Agent.
Lakeside is a domestic nonprofit corporation in good standing.
Previous name was Lakeside Adolescence, I~c.
Previous name was Gulf Coast Alcohol Abuse Alternative, Inc.
Mr. Valerius stated that based on the representation of their attorney, there
are numerous deficiencies in Lakesid~'s application that can be challenged in
court, which they plan to do if the Board of Adjustment chooses to proceed.
Mr. Valerius stated that this project is not going to happen. Whatever
resources necessary, will be spent to ,contest this matter in court. They have
hired' and reviewed the condition of the building with a HUD Developer and
also another gentleman, who has signifi~t background ir:i the building
business" and is prepared to attest that the buildings can not be renovated for
$800,000. Renovation would, in fact, cost three to four times that amount to
make the 57 units livable. Mr. Valerius believes th,e application has major
implications for property values in the area, which is a serious issue with the
City of La Porte and is very disappointed that the City ever indicated that the
application would be considered. They are not prepared to discuss the
matter, or any compromise, with the Developers. Mr. Valerius stated that
this is a serious crime issue and feels the Developers will say they have
background checks for adults living at the complex, when there is no auditing
in the State of Texas that is effectual in this matter. ,There are serious
deficiencies in the whole application process and how it is that the applicant
was able to receive the down payment for the project and $600,000 of the
taxpayer's money. Mr. Valerius believes the hiring of a Marine indicates the
applicants feel there will be a need for policing of the project. Even if the
tenants pass their test, there will be juvenile delinquents roaming the "
neighborhood and they are not going to let that happen.
Chairperson Grant asked Mr. Valerius ifhe had made an inspection of the
buildings. Mr. Valerius stated he toured the exterior of the buildings with a
friend, who is a HUD Developer in Houston.
Bernard Legrand, who resides in Bayside Terrace, was sworn in by
Chairperson Grant. - Mr. Legrand agrees with the other ~pponents and
believes the applicants should have been ~ore thorough.
Art Kelley, sworn in, has resided at 215 Hazel with his wife, Linda, since
1981. Mr. Kelley would like the Board to stand by zoning. He does not
believe current regulations should be waived for a project that will not ,
generate taxes. l\:fr. Kelley noted that when the apartments were occupied,
there were always children playing in the street, creating a safety h~d. Cars
were always backing out onto Garfield. He also 'thinks the buildings are ugly.
Seth Cottahy, sworn' in, resides at 232 Forest and has lived here for two
years. Mr. Cottahy noted that in addition to resident parking, there would
Zoning Bow of A4iuSue
Minutes of January 27, 2000
Page 8 of 11
.
.also be a need for visitor parking. The ,City has gone to great lengths to
attract nice businesses in hopes of creating a particular vision for La Porte.
Specifically, the Sylvan Beach community, because of its proximity to the
bay, has the best chance of carrying forward that vision. Allowing a
development such as this to ~t in that neighborhood would destroy that
vision. He requested the board deny the reqUest.
Richard Atherton was sworn in by Chairperson Grant. Mr. Atherton has
lived in La Porte for two years. His real estate agent said the City was going
to have the buil~gs tom down. If he had known the, buildings would still
be standing, he would npt have moved here.
Terence Johnson, sworn in, resides at 212 E. Forest. Mr. Johnson moved
here to get away from Houston and to enjoy the bay area. He believes more
could be done to develop the Sylvan Beach area. A multi-family dwelling
shoUld not be built on this site. The property would be better suited for a
park or a senio~ citizen or handicap living facility.
Ruben Garza was given the opportunity to address the stated concerns. Mr.
Garza understands the concerns of the neighborhood. He brought Chris to
the meeting in an effort to show the neighborhood they were serious about
what they were intending to do and how they intended to operate differently;
not because they were' expecting problems. He stated that everyone has
lawyers, but there is,a necessity for affordable housing in this community.
The problems described, are problems of the past. ~. Garza understands
and respects the needs of the residents to maintain the quality of their
neighborhood. He stated that Lakeside did their homework and it didn't
make sense that cracked slabs have been mentioned, yet no one actually went
into the buildings. Lakeside is willing to work with the neighborhood,
compromise, form a committee to oversee the management of the operation,
and put money back,~to the project, not their pockets. He noted that they
have followed the process and done their homework. "Not in my backyard"
is commonly known in affordable housing, and he reminded the Board of a
comment received from the mail out that Chairperson Grant read aloud
referring to "poor people in this country having a right to affordable
housing". Chairperson Grant reminded Mr. Garza that he was trying to be
fair by reading all of the comments, those for and those against and then
asked Mr. Garza if, after hearing the voice of the community, he had reason
for concern. Mr. Garza responded that if he had to do it all over again, he
would have walked the streets himself, speaking to the neighbors. Lakeside
followed the process and worked with the City, and in his opinion, was never
given any indication they would ever be at this juncture. Mr. Garza stated
that this has been a long process, and there has always been an opportunity
to investigate the nonprofit organization. Nonprofits mature and grow, and
there should not be an implication of impropriety. Chairperson Grant asked
Mr. Garza to trust the Board to digest the information and make a fair
judgement. Mr. Garza agreed and thanked the residents.
Zoning Board of Adius.
Minutes ofJanuaty 27, 2000
Page 9 of 11 '
.
. Chairperson Grant read aloud a letter written to him from the City Manager.
Chairperson Grant asked Mr. Kp.eupper if the content of the letter reflected the
scope of discussions the City has had over time with Lakeside. Mr. Kneupper agreed
it was an accurate reflection. . ,
Mr. Kneupper concluded staff's report as follows:
Parking - Staff research concluded that previously, while occupied, vehicles
were using the opposite side of the street along Garfield, Forest, and Oregon
as, parking and that this activity was occurring on a daily basis. This indicated
that additional parking is needed, probably beyond the 16 spaces proposed
, by the applicant. For this facility, 135 on-site spaces should be available for
parking.
, '
Building Setbacks - Gaining compliance in this area would not provide a
measurable benefit. Acquiring additional p!-"operty to meet the building
setback provisions is not recommended
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre - The submitted proposal does
include a playground and recreational amenities along with a new Gazebo,
which would provide some activity centers for the occupants. Current
development standards limit builda~le area or lot coverage to 60%.
, Flamingo Bay has lot coverage of 32%, which indicates there is a sufficient
amount of open space within the site. The number of dwelling units per acre
or density of this site has previously not had an adverse affect on utility
service. For these reasons, reducing the dwelling units per,acre from 31 to
27 is not recommended.
Landscaping - The proposed plan submitted by the applicant shows a
, sufficient amount of landscaping distributed around the buildings and
throughout the site. A recoinmendation would be to include additional
landscaping around buildings #2, #4, and #7 to enhance the appearance
from. the adjacent streets and provide some relief from the setback
encroachment., In addition, all landscaped areas should have a sprinkler
system to ensure healthy, sus~able plants.
Staff recommended the following:
· Require the applicant to provide 135 on-site (off-street) parking spaces.
· Accept the existing building setb~ enct?achments.
· Accept the existing number of dwelling units per acre.
· Accept the applicant's landscape plan as being sufficient to meet CU1Tent City
requirements. Include a provision to provide some landscaping around
buildings #2, #4, and #7. Include a provision to provide irrigation for all
landscaping.
Zoriing Board of AdjUS~
Minutes of January 27, 2000
Page 10 of 11
.
The Board has the aUthority to make the following decisions.
· Affirm the Planning Director's recommendation to require 135 total parking
spaces o~;,.site, or require an amount of parking less than the recommended.
· .Affirm the Planning Director's recommendation to accept the building setbacks
as they currently exist, or require the building setback encroachments to be
_ reduced o~.eliminated.
· Affirm the 'Planning Director's recommendation to accept the n~ber of
dwelling units per acre as currently exists, or require a reduction in the number
of dwelling units per acre.
· Affirm th~ Planning, pirector's recommendation to accept the submitted
landscape plan and require additional landscaping around buildings #2, #4, and
#7 and require irrigation for all landscaped areas, or require other amounts of
landscaping at the Board's discretion.. .
Ruben Salinas inquired about what options the Board would have if the buildings were
found to be abandoned. Chairperson Grant answered that the Board must either
approve staffs recommendations or deny Lakeside's request.
A motion was made by Bob Capen to accept the Planning Director's
recommendation to require ,135 total parking spaces on~site.
The motion was seconded by Ruben Salinas.
In response to questions by Board Member Bob Capen, Assistant City Attorney
John Armstrong noted that the applicant, Lakeside, has submitted a plan that is
nonconforming in the four areas that the City has addre~sed. He stated that in the
event the Board felt the project had been abandoned, Section 106,-262(h)(2) of the
Zoning Ordinance states: "A nonconfonning structure shall be deen:ted abandoned
when the structure ceases to be used for the nonconformity for a period of 180
-consecutive calendar days. The use of the nonconforming structure, when
abandoned, shall not resume." The Board has the power: 1) to allow the use to
continue as applied for, 2) or the use may continue as requested by staff with
modifications, 3) or the Board can say no. '
After a brief discussion, Bob Capen withdrew his motion to accept the Planning
Director's recommendation to require 135 total parking spaces on-site,
, Ruben Salines withdrew his second. The motion was removed from consideration.
A motion was made by Bob Capen to 'deny Nonconforming Structure Request
#NCSOO-001. The motion was seconded by Charles Schoppe. All were in favor and
the motion passed.
Zoning Boatd of Adj~s.
Minutes of January 27, 2000
Page 11 of 11
.
IV. CONSIDER NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE REQUEST #NCSOO-002
WHICH SEEKS TO ENLARGE A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AS
PER SECTION lO6-262(G) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE
CI'IY OF LA PORTE. '
. The applicant withdrew the request.
v. STAFF"{~POR~
There were none.
.VI. ADJOURN
Chairperson Grant declared the meeting duly adjoum~d at 9:30 PM.
Peggy Lee,
Secretary, Zoning Board of Adjustment
Approved on this M.. day 'of F~bruary, 2000.
;l4 - c#1~
Sidney ~ -
Chairperso ,Zoning Board o.f Adjustment
.
.
APPEAL OF 'THE
BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION
#AOO-OOl
,.
CITY OF LA PORTE .
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION
------------------------------------------------------~----------------
OFFICE USE ONLY~
Application .No. :AOO _ 001
Date Received: 02-Zl-00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant: Custom Desiqn Pools
Name
509'Wicklow Dr. - Deer Park, Tx 77536
Address
Bob Anderson
PH:#28l~478-6868
I am the' owner of the herein described property. I have authorized
Bob Anderson to act ,on my behalf in this matter.
Paula Myers
, Name,
10910 Sycamore Dr. So."- La Porte', Tx
Address' 77571
I am appealing the decision regarding or the interpertation of
Sect. of the City,Zoning Ordinance No. 1501. I am making
thi~ appeal in regards to the property located
at 10910 Sycamore Drive South Blk. 38. Lot ,6. Fairmont' Park East,
Street Address Legal Description '
Sect. 4, Ph. 4-B
Owner*:
PH:#28l-867-0942
( ) Site Plan () Minor Development Site Plan
( ) Major Development Site Plan ( ) General Plan
() Other(Back Yard Plot Plan Showing Pool Location)
\ A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the
info'rmation 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 seeki~g (setbacks, lot coverage,' etc.).
c) The grounds upon which I am making t~is request.
* If applicant is NOT the owner, he ~ provide Authorization to act
on the Owner's behalf.
01~2l-00 .
Date
Original Signature on 02/03/00 Applies
Applicant's Signature tion
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
Board's Decision:
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner:
:, ;
.
.
PAGE 2
If there is not'adequate room on the remainder of this form,to
list all pertinent information, please feel free to attach an
additional letter or any information and exhibits you feel the Board
'should consider.
FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER:
SEE SUPPLEMENTAL~ATTACaED
TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT:
SEE SUPPL~~ENTAL ATTACHED
GROUNDS FOR THK REQUEST:
SEE SUPPLEMENTAL ATTACHED
CED/1-'87
'.
.
CUSTOM
DESIGN
g POOLS
-m~ @ ~ 0 w ~rm
illl FEB 04, 2000 l~)!'
BY' I
509 Wicklow Drive, Deer Park, Texas 77536, 00ice (281) 478-6868, Fax (281) 478-4355, Pager (713) 616-9123
To: City Of La Porte Building Deptment
Application for Variance
From: Bob Anderson - Custom Design Pools
Date: 01-13-00
Re: Ref: Allen Herdon'
10910 Sycamore Dr. South
Lot 6 Block 38
Fairmont Park East
Harris County - La Porte, Texas
To whom it may concern,'
Facts Relevant To This Matter:
Mr Herndon bas asked that Custom Design Pools give him an estimate.to build a swimmirtg pool at his residence_in
La Porte at- the above address. Mr. Herndon concern is that by the strict building standards of the City of La Porte, he
would only be able to have a swimming pool that is the width of 3'- (I' oft'the back bedroom and the width 8'- 9" oft'
the kitchen area as shoWn on memo dated 1/13/00 (see attached). "
. ,
Tvoe Of Relief Heinl! SOIU!ht:
Custom Design Pools ~ requesting a variance on behal( of Mr. Herndon with the City of La Porte's building standards
for swimming, pools be relax. Custom Design Pools is requestiDg a variance of 2'- 0" on the back side of the lot not
inCroching the utility easelJ.1Clll and a variance of 1,' - 0" betWeen the house and pool structure. That would put pool
water line 1'-2" from the backeisement and S'..()" from the house. (POOl depth 3'_ 0" to 4'- 0")
The Grounds For The Belief:
This request is well withiD. most City building standards for swimmirtg pOols in Harris County.
Deer Park builcm.gcode allows pool structure to be built right to the easement line and 5' - O~ of the house if the water
depth does not ex=:d 5'- 0". (deepest part ofpool)
City of Houston building code allows pool structUre to be built right up to easement line and 5'- 0" of the house if
water depth does not ex=:d 5'- 0". (deepest part ofpool)
Please find enclosed chec:k for S 100.00 the fee for consideIation ofvariance.
Thank you for your consideration,
Bob Anderson
Custom Design Pools
.
.
Custom Design Pools
'Ibc City of La Porte Building Department ,
Flam: Bob Anderson - Custom Design Pools '
... 1/1MlO
. Rea Ref: Allen Herndon
10910 Sycamore Dr. South
Lot 6 Block 38
, Fainnont Parte East '
Harris County - La Porte, Texas
I D ~'a5 ~ 0 Wi ~ fil"il
Memo
To whom It may Concem,
Mr. ~ has asked that CUstom Design Pools give him an estimate to build a swimming pool at
,his residence In La Pate at the above address. Mr. HerndorI concern Is that by slrict building
staJ IdaIds of La Pate he would only be, able to have a pool that Is the width of 3'-6' off the back of the
bedroom and the width 8'-9" off the kitchen area as shoINn below. Custom Design Pools Is requesting
a variance on behalf of Mr. Herndon with the City of La Porte's building standards for swimming pools
be relax. Custom DesIgn Pools Is requesting a variance of 2'..(1' on the back U.E. and a variance of 1'-
o on the building line. from the residence. That would put the Swimming Pool water line 1'.q for the
back UE and fJ..(1' from the house. This request is well in line with most City's building standards for
swimming pools in the Harris County ar8aS.
Thank You
Bob Anderson
Custom Design Pools
60'
Fence
I&l
. ::J
co
I .
. 0
o I
N"
lD
~"ill; :: :7': :7': :7': :7': :7': :7': :-:-. ;-, ~,7":. : :::::,:::::.7' .1
1:.111' ::, Pool Area by LoPort~::::, :::::::::::.1
1-: ~: :':-,~t9n<;lq~<;l~::,:,: ':::. .:::-:-:-:~' ':-:.:-:':-:-:':-:-:-:'
L:: " ,.".".",.,."""""""", 1'..."""".1
~-- -- listEd,
.
01
I
in
N
III
o
C
III
lL.
III
o
C
Ql
lL.
10910 s,cairiore Dr. Saurth
Lot 6 BlllCk 38
rairmant Par. East
Harris County LaPort.,lelos
. Page 1
.
.
Staff Report February 24, 20~0
Appeal of Enforcement Officer's Decision #A 00-001
Reo'uested by:
Custom Design Pools for Paula Myers, property owner
Reouested for:'
,'V
, 109tO Sycamore Drive South ,
Block 38; Lot 6; Fairmont Park East, "Section 4, Phase 4-B
Back2round:
A swimming pool design proposed by Custom Design Pools, if placed on the
lot in question, would not Comply with current city zoning regulations.. The
design itself does not present a problem; however, this lot's back yard aild its
easement present a problem. The applicant contends amending the size of
the pool is not feasible so, on behalf of the property owner, their original
request to the Board was to ask for a variance to alleviate the problem.
Based on the required criteria for a variation, Staff did not feel we could
support the applicant's original request but felt their request had merit.
We feel amending the applicant's request could allow the reduction in
setbacks. '
Therefore, staff has revised the Meeting Agenda and the report on Variance
Request #VOO-OOl which was included in your packets. This request is now
being addressed in this r~ort as an Appeal of the Building Official's
Decision #AOO-OOl,
The current city regulations for a swimming pool are as follows:
· Measuring from the water's edge of the pool, a 6' setback from any
adjacent structure is needed, '
· Measuring from the water's edge <?f the pool, a 3' setback from a utility
easement is needed,
, .
· Measuring from the water's edge of the pool, as' setback fr~m the side
property lines is needed,
· A deck (walking area) around the pool may abut a utility easement but
may not encroach,
Board of Adjustment
February' 24, 2000
#A 00-001
Page 2 of3
Analvsis:
.
.
The pool proposed by the applicant (See Exhibit A) would comply with the
required side setbacks and the deck placement requirement; however, it
would not comply with the required setback fro~ the house or utility
easement.
c Allow the water's edge of the pool to be 5' off the house instead of the
city's standard 6' setback, (1' reduction) ,
c Allow the water's edge of the pool to be l' -1 ~" off the utility
easement inst~ad of the city's standard'3'set~ack. (1 '-10~" reduction)
In describing the action of appeal, the Code of Ordinances states: In
exercising the powers set forth in Section 1 06-88, the Board of Adjustment
may, in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, reverse or affirm,
wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or
determination as ought to be made" and to that end shall have all the powers
of the enforcement officer from whom the appeal is taken, The Board must
find the following in ,order to grant an appeal,
a) 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.
Current regulations may be unreasonable and/or excessive based on
the typical size of the lots in" today's subdivisions. Stqff did a
telephoT.'e survey of the two cities referenced by the applicant (See
Exhibit B) and found their regulations are less restrictive. The
information will be utilized in evaluating whether current city's
regulations should be reduced
b) That the resulting interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one
property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated.
Should current regulations be changed, the proposed pool placement
wou!d comply with t~ revised setbacks being Considered by the City of
La Porte,
Board of Adjustment
February 24, 2000
, #A 00-001
Page 3 of3
Conclusion:
ADDeals:
.
..
c) 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 ~he city,
, Although the. placement of the pool does not comply with current
setbacks, Staff believes the placement of the pool with the reduced
setbacks proposed by the applicant, would not conflict with the best
interes~ ,of the community and would be consistent with the spirit and
interest of the City is zoning "laws and the comprehensive plan of the
city. '
Based on the facts and considerations noted in this report, Staff feels the
Board may wish to CQnsider granting the Appeal of the Building Official's
Decision #AOO-001. Although staff plans to submit changes to the Planning
and Zoning Commission and City Council, the time involved would delay
this project. If-the Board chooses to grant #AOO-OOl, this action would allow
the applicant and owner to proceed with the construction of the pool at this
time.
As per Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of La Porte:
Any person 9r 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 may present to a court of record a petition for a writ of
certiorari, as provided by Y.T.C,A, 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 days after the filing of the decision in the
office of the Board of Adjustinent. '
.
, EXHIBITS '
.
. SO'-o" '""i--
I l
' 6' CEDAR FENCE ~ROPER1Y UNE
r- aJ I
~ :i .!tN
. -
111 Y ,:a
111
.
10 '" -s"
I
;; D
'.... ,
z OG)O 3"
i . '~Q ~
III I
. I
-
D -
a..
.__. _0_._____ ______
m Ci)
.. in
n
tJ:j C>>
t:::='
~ ..
7'-8" n
..3 tzJ
~' Ii t:::=',
tJ:j ~
Z
n
tJ:j RESIDENCE ~'
'tzJ
2:
n
-=-~ tJ:j
REROUTES
SEWER REROUTE: 1M
GAS UTE: 0 .
ELECI'R REROUTES: 0 BY: -
:,;ENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
AREA: 335 s.F. PER:lMEI'ER: 88
POOL SIZE: X X
DEPTH: II -0 oCr -0 SHAPE: -
DOL .
;.p,M.: lURNCNEA: RS.
STEEL & GUNITE
STEEL: 8 D.C. "lLTII GRADE 80 REIIM
GUNITE: 8
BENCH SFAT TYPE: TAN' LENGTH: 12
BD/at SE'AT TYPE: INSIDB LENrmt: B
STEJI a BENCH FT. 40 ROPE RINGS: -
RAISED BF.W 0: 18 IS2 I..F.
@)
__ _....... ~ ~ AI'CftI ,
WATER FEATURES
SIZE: "8
IIECIC SIZE: 0 U. TYPE: -
M/EImINE TYPE: CDLOR
woao SoF. MB08!'
DECIC-o-DIWN:
EllPMSICIN oIOINIS: - AX
SUDE': -
CHLOAlNAlOR: ow
FILlER:'" s.F. TYPE: D.I.
POOL PUMP lJT'DR:. HJI, E+ CIIAUDGII
IMCKWASH 10:
WATERFALL PIPE: - I..F, MAIN DRAINS: -
SHE'M DESCENT PIPE:
COI
PLASTER SPECIFICAl
PlASrER COLOR:
DIAMOND BIIDH1' PlA5l'ER CDlDIt WB
TILE:
COPING FDCITAGE:
MISC. SPECIFICATIC
__ ----. .. _. ....... 11'1 cu. to
EXHIBIT Ji
.
.
CITY OF LA PORTE
RESULTS OF 02/22/00 TELEPHONE SURVEY,
CITY OF DEER PARK: ' Placement of swimming pools and accompanying decks.
~ No minimum setback from structUres. '
~. A minimum. three-foot (3') from side property lines.
~ ,May abut but may not. encro~ch into ~ utility easement.
CITY OF HOUSTON:
Placement of swimming pools and accompanying decks, '
~ No minimum setback from structures, ,
~ No minimum setback from side property lines.
, ,
~ May abut but may not encroac~ into a utility easement.
~Jerr B
.'
.
FINDINGS OF
FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
#NCS 00-001