Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-01-2000 Regular Meeing and Public HearingOATH OF OFFICE I, George Maltsberger, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of .Zoning Board of Adjustment ,..of the City .of La. -Porte. - State of Texas; 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 -affirm) that I have not directly or indirectly paid, offered, or promised to contribute any money, or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment or the confirmation thereof. So help me God. Sworn to and subscribed before me this the day of Notary Public inand for the State of Texas MINUTES • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF JUNE 1; 2000 Members Present: * Chairperson Sidney Grant, Bob Capen, Willie Walker, Ruben Salinas, Rod Rothermel, Alternate. -No.. 1 Charles Schoppe Members Absent: Alternate No. 2 George Maltsberger QV Staff Present: Director of Planning Doug Kneupper, Chief Building Official Debbie Wilmore, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee I. CALL TO ORDER. Meeting called to order by. Chairperson Grant at 7:00 PM. II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 2000 MEETING. Minutes approved as presented. III. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE TO CHARLES SCHOPPE, ALTERNATE 1. . POSITION. John Armstrong administered the Oath of Office to Charles Schoppe. IV. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE TO GEORGE MALTSBERGER, ALTERNATE 2 POSITION. George Maltsberger was not present for the meeting. V. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION #A00-002 WHICH SEEKS TO ALLOW THE USE OF A SHIPPING CONTAINER AS AN ACCESSORY BUILDING IN A RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE AS PER SECTION 106-89(3) OF, THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE. Chief Building Official Debbie Wilmore presented stafFs report for a request submitted by W.O. and Carol Childs, who reside at 911. E. "D" Street. The applicants are seeking an appeal of the Building Officiars decision to deny a permit that would allow a shipping. container to be located at their residence. On February 22, 2000, staff investigated a report that was received on February 21, 2000, regarding a shipping container that had been moved onto the property at 911 E. "D". At that time, the applicant inquired about getting a permit in order to keep the container and. on February 24, 2000, the City received a building permit application from the applicant. Staff denied the permit based on Section 106-741(h) of the Code of Ordinances. . Mrs. Wilmore noted that on -March 27, 2000, City Council approved Ordinance 1501-II, which adopted additional regulations regarding the outside storage of shipping containers. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of June 1, 2000 Page 2 Thirty-one public hearing notices were mailed to surrounding property owners. Two of the notices were returned to the City undeliverable, one was received favoring the appeal and two were received- in opposition. Staff recommended the Board deny the appeal. A. PROPONENTS Chairperson Grant swore. in Paul Riley, 503 S. Ohio. Mr. Riley stated that three years ago the City granted him permission to place two shipping containers on his property as long as they were hidden from view by a privacy fence. He noted the applicants have taken great measures to make the container blend with their property. Chairperson Grant swore in Mike Westergren, 814 E. "C". Mr. Westergren 'resides next door to the Childs and thinks the container looks fine and is no different from any other type of storage shed. Chairperson Grant swore'in Meredith Wilson, 510 S. Ohio. Mr. Wilson has no objection to the shipping container because it has been upgraded and beautified. Chairperson Grant swore in the applicant, Carol Childs. Mrs. Childs gave the Board a copy of her public notice response, which she read aloud. She also read excerpts from a prepared statement titled, "Facts Relevant to this Matter" (copies are attached to the minutes)'. Mrs. Childs beheves.the Building Official has misinterpreted Section- 106-741(h) of the Code of Ordinances. She believes the term "shipping container" as referred to in -the ordinance is used to transport goods, but once the container is removed from transport, it becomes simply a container. She spoke with several truck drivers and an office worker, all employees of Packard Transport Co., and they concurred that to leave, stand, or park a shipping container in a residential zone would entail removing the container plus the chassig on wheels. They assured her that they would never remove a shipping container from its chassis in order to leave, stand, or park it. She showed the Board pictures of the shipping container. Chairperson Grant had some public safety concerns regarding the history of materials that were hauled in the shipping container. He noted that without proper testing, the possibility of toxic substances present in the container. could not be eliminated. The applicant told the Board that the container was used to haul fittings. Chairperson Grant asked Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong to explain the section of the ordinance that supposedly has. been violated. Mr. Armstrong stated that in addition to.the information provided in the Building Official's report, Section 106-1 of the Code of Ordinances defines shipping containers as "sealable shipping containers, -designed for intermodel transportation, either with or without a permanent affixed chassis, used in intrastate, interstate and international commerce for the shipment of goods and merchandise". He noted the sections of the ordinance referenced by.Mrs. Childs were in effect prior to the most recent changes by Council. L' 46 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of June 1, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Riley approached the Board and commented that the public notice he received was misleading. ' He was "under the impression that he was being asked to- respond in favor or in opposition to the Childs' request to keep the shipping container, when in fact the decision to, be made is whether or not the Building Official interpreted the code properly. B. OPPONENTS. No opposition was presented. The Board discussed the matter then Bob Capen called for the question. Motion by Bob Capen to deny Appeal #A00-002. Motion seconded by Ruben Salinas. The motion carried with all voting in favor of the motion, with the exception of Rod Rothermel, who voted in opposition. VI. CONSIDER "EXEMPTION FROM EXTENDED USEFUL LIFE REQUIREMENTS", OR AN "ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EXTENDED USEFUL LIFE AND TERMINATION OF USE" AND/OR "AMELIORATION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES" AS PER SECTION 1067266(2) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE' CITY OF LA PORTE. Director of Planning Doug Kneupper gave the Board a brief overview of the City's Non - Conforming Uses Ordinance. Robert and Kevin Blackwell are the .owners of the property in question located at 10427 N. 'V' Street. The propertyconsists of approximately 13.5 acres and is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). Nonconforming uses identified at this location are cattle production; horse stables, and a welding shop. The property owner was issued a permit for these uses, under previous ordinance provisions. Mr. Kneupper reviewed with the Board, the information that was included in staff s report for the nonconforming uses. Mr. Kneupper noted that on May 17te .the property owner submitted an application for Exemption from Useful Life Requirements for the cattle production, horse stables, and welding shop: As a condition of any action taken by the Board, staff recommended removal of an unsafe, corrugated metal fence that was installed by the Blackwells and replacement with a fence of more typical construction such as barbed wire or wood. Chairperson Grant suspended the agenda to hear from opponents. B. OPPONENTS _ Chairperson Grant swore in Bill .Scott, 1802 Lomax School Rd. Mr. Scott showed the Board a number of pictures. One picture showed a corrugated rusty metal fence. Another picture was a dated in sequence aerial photograph depicting the increase in activity on the Blackwell property from 1987 until 1993. Mr. Scott distributed a • 40 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of June 1, 2000 Page 4 packet to the Board that contained photographs- and reference documents such as ordinances, memos, letters, etc. (copies are attached to the minutes). Mr. Scott noted that he moved to this location in 1990, after the Lomax area was annexed by La Porte. He stated that, as currently permitted, an unlimited number of - cattle could be placed on the property in question. In the past, there have been up to 45 head of cattle on one acre and this has caused a problem with excess noise, manure, and flies. Mr. Scott introduced- his attorney, Gary Orlando, of Sullins, Johnston; Rohrbach, & Magers. He then read from a brief that was included in the packet he distributed to the Board (included in the minutes). In closing, Mr. Scott played a portion of a tape recording he made of the cattle noise. A. PROPONENTS Chairperson Grant asked all individuals wishing to speak in favor of the continuance of the stated nonconforming uses to stand as he swore in the group simultaneously. Robert Blackwell addressed the Board. His family has been in La Porte since 1890. Mr. Blackwell offered to relinquish use of the welding shop. With regard to the horse stables, he is aware of thirteen other places in the Lomax area that rent horse stables, including Mr. Scott. He added the Blackwells have the only stables that have been properly permitted by the City. Mr. Blackwell stated that there has never been 45 head of cattle on their property at one time, as Mr. Scott indicated. Mr. Blackwell submitted pictures, some showing the drainage problem on Mr. Scotes property. (Copies are attached to the minutes). Jerry Brent, 111 McCarty Lane, has resided in Lomax for 28 years. He doesn't believe the City should have to deal with this matter because he feels it is a personal vendetta. Randa Childers,10614 N. Ave. "L", would like the Blackwell property to remain as it is and added that anyone not wanting to live around animals should consider moving to other areas of town. She spoke -of other locations in the Lomax area that do not appear to .be used strictly as residential, pet nothing is ever done about them. James Brent, leases the home at 10427 N. "L"; the property in question. He noted that the most cattle on the property at one time during the past year has been six. When Mr. Brent was President of FFA in High School; he was grateful to- the people in Lomax who had barns for housing the animals. His education was funded through a rodeo- scholarship and raising animals. He added that his college education would not have been- possible, had these agricultural activities not been allowed. John Hobbs, residing on the southwest corner from Mr. Blackwell, would like the. property to remain as it is. 0 0. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of June 1, 2000 Page 5 Gwen McGee, 10906 N. "L", thinks the matter is a personal vendetta. Ms. McGee described harassment the Blackwells experienced from the Scotts. In regard to Mr. Scotes complaint about the manure pile, she noted that when the pile got too high, the Blackwells would bag it up and offer it to neighbors for their gardens. She added that many FFA and 4-H Members would be unable to raise animals if it weren't for the Blackwells and others like them providing a place in a country environment. Ray Pittman resides at 3806 E. Court, Deer Park. Mr. Pittman rented stalls -from Mr. Scott for one year in 1995. He noted that in 1995 and 1996, there were as many as 11 horses on Mr. Scotes property. During that time there were also three stalls of rabbits that smelled really bad. Mr. Pittman currently rents stalls from Mr. Blackwell. Mike Mostei% 11117 Sunset -Ridge, is a second generation resident of La Porte. He stated that the majority of people in the Lomax area are in favor of keepingthings the way they are. He does not want City ordinances to violate the lifestyles of those who live there. Walter Weaver,10430 N.. "L", resides across the road from Mr. Blackwell and enjoys living there. He agrees with Mr. Scott that the number of cattle on the Blackwell property has dropped over the past three years. Mr. Weaver knows of at least ten places in the area that rent stables. He would like for things to remain as they are now. Paul Riley, 503 S. Ohio, was a former landowner of 10905 "H" Street. Mr. Riley sold. the property, but when first purchased, his intent was to build a house and have a place for his daughter to keep a horse. He appreciates the fact that there are places where youth can raise animals. Victor Rocha, 10410 N. "L", has lived there since 1983 and enjoys the area the way it is. - He lives just south of the. Blackwells and has no complaints. Kevin Blackwell, Rt. 7 Box 722, Jacksonville, Texas, stated that he bought the property in question in 1980. During the period 1980 through 1990, there were never any violations or complaints filed against him. When Mr. Blackwell was growing up he worked for Roy Lee, who eventually sold the place to him. Problems began when Mr. Scott moved next door in 1990. Mr. Blackwell obtained a Nonconforming Use Zoning Permit in 1990 for cattle production, a welding shop, and horse stables. In regard to Mr. Scott's comment about excessive flies, Mr. Blackwell noted that where there are animals there are flies. He noted that, even though a permit was not required, he did acquire one to construct �a fence. Due to complaints about the way the fence looked, he offered to take it down and construct a wooden one, if Mr. Scott would leave him alone. Mr. Blackwell showed the Board photographs of his property and Mr.. Scotts -property. (Copies are attached to the minutes). Motion by Bob Capen to grant Robert and Kevin Blackwell an Exemption from Extended Useful Life Requirements for continuation of cattle production activities at 10427 N. "L" Street. Motion seconded by Rod Rothermel. All were in favor and the motion carried. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of June 1, 2000 Page 6 Motion by Rod Rothermel to grant Robert and Kevin Blackwell an Exemption from - Extended Useful Life Requirements for continuation of horse stable activities at 10427 N.. "L" Street. Motion seconded. by Charles Schoppe. All were in favor and the motion carried.. Motion by Ruben Salinas to grant Robert -and Kevin Blackwell an Exemption from Extended Useful Life Requirements for continuation of welding shop activities for personal use at 10427 N. "L" Street: Motion, seconded by Willie Walker. All were in favor and the motion carried. The Board considered staffs recommendation to require removal of an unsafe, corrugated metal fence that had been constructed by the Blackwells. While a permit was issued for construction of the fence, there has since been standards imposed on construction materials that render the fence.'a'nonconforming structure. Motion by Ruben Salinas to require removal, by Kevin and Robert Blackwell, of a fence deemed nonconforming per Section 106-266(2) of the Code of Ordinances. Motion seconded- by Bob Capen.. All were in favor and the motion carried. VII. STAFF REPORTS There were no staff reports. VIII. ADJOURN Chairperson Grant declared the meeting duly adjourned at 11:10 PM. Respec y submitte , Peggy 149 Secretary, Zoning Board of Adjustment Approved on this day of k—m—,"2000. - JA��r Sidney G Chairperson, Zoning Board of Adjustment RE��E VED . A Meeting of the I.a Porte PLANNING Zoning Board ofAdjustment (Type of Adeeting) . Scheduled for June 1, 2000 (Date of bAcetang): to Consider Appeal of the Enforcement Officer's Decision #A00-002 (Type of Request) I have received notice of the above referenced public hearing. I am in FAVOR of granting this request for the following reasons: r J 8. GL Ste' I am OPPOSED to granting this request for the following reasons: ILIV e (please riat Address f Signature City, Statk Zip Dear Sir or Madam: On February 18, 2000, we had a storage container delivered to our property to be used as a storage building. (See Bill of Lading) On February 22, 2000, we were paid. a visit by a City representative who informed us that they were there acting on a complaint. Lisa, of the City of La Porte stated -that we needed to apply to the City for a building permit On February 24, 2000, we applied to the City of La Porte for a building permit allowing for a storage building to be placed on our property. We soon learned that this was not a permit to allow this structure, but rather a permit to build. Understanding.that a permit. would be needed for the work to convert this aluminum storage container into a utility storage building, we moved forward with the permit process. (See: what appears to be a building permit application.) We received a letter from the City .of. La Porte, dated March 9, 2000, informing us that our permit application had been denied. This denial based on the City's Zoning Regulations, Section # 106-741(h) "prohibiting the placement of a shipping container in a residential zone".. Section 106-742(h), states; "It shall be unlawful for any person to leave, stand, or park a commercial motor vehicle, pole trailer, semi: trailer, shipping container, trailer, truck (other than a light truck as defined herein), or a truck tractor on any property zoned for residential use. Boats or recreational vehicles parked or stored in a rear yard are not subject to the restrictions imposed by this section". We feel that this ruling is wrong. 'In the first place, this container is nothing more than that. The term "shipping container" as it is' referred to in the context of this ordinance is a vehicletcontainer used to transport goods. Once the container is removed from the method of transport, i.e. truck, trailer, ship, barge, etc. it is nothing more than a container. It is clear that this document is referencing readily portable pieces of equipment. To deny a building permit on this basis is simply wrong. Many of what could be classified as portable or container like components are approved and used in construction every day. Some of these components begin portable or modular because it is a convenient way to build. For instance, should a house built of modular transportable components be denied? Or should a pile of lumber on a vacant lot not be viewed as building components but as dead trees for the purpose of denying a permit. Perhaps a mobile home once removed from its system of transport and made permanent should never be allowed to be reclassified as a home, even if it met all the building codes. Back yard sheds, portable by truck, should also need to be forbidden. Even the Denny's Restaurant built as a modular unit containing building components for the purpose should- never have been allowed. If this broad of interpretation of the. ordinance is allowed to stand it then becomes a matter -preference by the individuals within this department. If the intent is to ensure that containers do not become eyesores which detract from area property values, you need to specifically address that issue. I believe we have a uniform building code which could be modified for that specific purpose. It is simply not right to judge something based on what it is referred to, without giving the opportunity to transform it into what it will become. Remember this is only one component not a finished product, hence the need for a permit. If you would like us to submit plans of what is intended, we are in favor of that. We will submit plans for both the building and the fence that will completely obscure the finished storage building from public view. If you want to impose realistic time limits, that will be acceptable as well. As you can tell we are trying to work with the City of La Porte to ease concerns, but please also understand that we are responsible property owners. We do not appreciate being portrayed, on the front page of our local newspaper, as someone trying to pull one over on the City staff. We ask that you rule in our favor to allow the container to stay on our property.. Sincerely, W. O. and Carol Childs 911 East "M LaPorte, TX 77571 RECEIVED FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER: PUNNING 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 beauty of our residence or yard by putting anything on it that is not up to par with the already well -kept and maintained condition of our area. I believe someone objected to our having a storage container 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 neglected 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 in 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 "make -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 it from the road. However, any time we have mentioned fencing our property, our neighbors disagree to the fencing, 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 Official's Decision to have the building removed. 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 of a 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. . • • The reason we bought the storage container is that it is air tight, made of aluminum and is a greater use for storage than having to build a storage 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 said the people across the street had two containers on his property and had 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. If we had, we would not have bought it and had it delivered here at great expense. I thought as long as you own your property, you would be allowed to do what you wanted with it, as many others have already done. As an attorney advised me, you could probably be allowed to have anything on your property —the only difference between us and the 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- container- has such an ugly connotation with it that you may have ruled solely on the name. When my parents, Snookey.and Elsie Moore, moved here 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 yoiir time and.patience. Carol and W. 0. Childs Jr. • Page 1 of 5 City of La Porte, Texas Zoning Board of Adjustment Hearing dated June 1, 2000 Regarding: ' Section 106-266(2) . Application by Kevin and Bobby Blackwell for exemption from a modification or termination of .nonconforming uses on outlot 420/ South '% . Summary. The evidence in this brief will prove the following: 1-. Outlot 420A. was already controlled by City Zoning Ordinance 78�0 when Bobby Blackwell purchased it and 780 did NOT allow the activities Kevin Blackwell later claimed as pre-existing nonconforming uses. 2. Kevin Blackwell himself proved in his letter received by the City Oct., 3,1990 that he did NOT qualify for the' non conforming use permit lie received. 3. The City notified Kevin Blackwell in writing on Nov. 30, 1993; that the use of his property was controlled by Sec. 10-300.10 of Zoning Ordinance'1501 which limited the concentration of large animals to 2 -animals per acre. Kevin Blackwell did not appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment within 30 days as required by Ordinance 1501; Therefore the Chief Building.Official's decision stands and livestock on Outlot 420A is limited to 2 animals per acre. 4. -Under Sec. 106-263(b); the, use of outlot 420A became much more conforming to City Zoning Requirements of 2 animals per acre when Kevin Blackwell moved to East Texas approximately 3 years. • • Page 2 of 5 Note: Zoning Ordinance 780 effective dates, October 4, 1960 - January 26, 1987 Zoning Ordinance 1501 effective dates, January 26, 1987 - November.6, 1999 Zoning.Ordinance 106 effective dates, November 6, 1999 - Present 1. The use of Outlot 420A located in Lomax was already controlled by City Zoning. Ordinance 780 when Robert Blackwell purchased it. A. La Porte annexed Lomax on April 9, 1980 (exhibit A). Bobby Blackwell purchased. outlot 420A on July 25 .1980 (see exhibit ); 3 % months AFTER Lomax was annexed, so the use o� outlot 420A. Was governed by Zoning. Ordinance 780 before Bobby Blackwell bought it. B. City Ordinance 780-PPP, dated July-15, 1981 (exhibit C) stated that the former City. of Lomax would be temporarily classified as R-1 Residential. Outlot 420A went from'temporary to permanent R-1 Residential. C. Ordinance 78Q, Section 620=15 (exhibit D) states that property uses that did not conform to Ordinance 780 had to exist before July 29, 1958 to be considered non -conforming uses. Kevin Blackwell's uses of outlot 420A started in July 1980; 22 years AFTER the deadline. His uses were direct violations of Zoning Ordinance 780,. and NOT non -conforming uses as he claimed. D. Kevin Blackwell's uses were new uses and not a continuation of any old nonconforming uses for the following reasons: 1. Kevin Blackwell's uses were of a different SIC classification than the previous owner. For example Dr. Lee raised race horses where as Kevin Blackwell rented out horse stalls. 2.* Zoning Ordinance 780 section 620-15.2(exhibit D) states, "The Board of Adjustment may grant a change of occupancy from one non -conforming use to another...".Only the Board of Adjustment can grant a change of occupancy" (use); and They did NOT grant Kevin Blackwell a change. 3. Swain v. Board of Adjustment bf City of University Park (433 S.W. 2d 727, 1968) Property owners do not receive any vested rights in non -conforming, uses of previous property owners. McClain v. City of Ennis (340 S.W. 2d 66, 1966) a purchaser of a lot is subject to Zoning Ordinance regulations against his proposed building , although the Zoning Ordinance was adopted after he applied for a building permit. E. Zoning Ordinance 780 Section 43-200, R-1 District Requirements) R-1 did NOT allow the activities Kevin Blackwell later claimed as pre-existing nonconforming uses (exhibit .E). Therefore; Kevin Blackwell's uses were a violation of.City Zoning Ordinance 780, and NOT a nonconforming uses. ' . • Page 3 of 5 F. When Kevin Blackwell asked for` a nonconforming use permit on Oct. 2,1990; outlot 420A was governed by Zoning Ordinance 1501 which replaced Zoning Ordinance 780. Ordinance 1501, Section 11-800(exfiibit F), states "... and that all existing violations of previous zoning ordinances .which would otherwise become non -conforming uses under this Ordinance but shall be considered as violations of this Ordinance in the same manner that they -were violations of prior zoning ordinances of said City of La Porte." or in plain English; a violation of Zoning Ordinance 780 is still a violation under Zoning Ordinance 1501. Conclusion: This proves: 1. - Kevin Blackwell's land uses were NEW under Zoning Ordinance 780 and did NOT pre -date Zoning Ordinance 780. 2. Kevin Blackwell's land uses were NOT nonconforming uses.They were direct violations of Zoning Ordinance 780 and also direct violations of Zoning Ordinance 1501. 3. All of -Kevin Blackwell's claims of a pre-existing non -conforming use are completely false. .2. Kevin Blackwell himself proved, in his letter received by the City Oct. 3,1990 that he did NOT qualify for the non conforming use permit he received. . The following documents are in Kevin Blackwell's City file. A. Exhibit G is -a 10-2-90 memo from -Community Development Director Joel Albrecht to Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong. It states in the. fast paragra h," The information presented to date suggests that Mr. Blackwell s operation is a legal nonconformng use that falls into the SIC Code Classification #0291.1 have asked Mr. Blackwell to furnish information as to 50% or more bf income being derived from his property." Two important corrections to page 1 of Joel Albrecht's letter are: a. The 2 acres containing 11 heifers is actually 1.05 acres as I recently measured it. b. The roping calf pen held roping calves only after Bobby Blackwell bought the property in1980, not before. Kevin Blackwell confirmed this fact in one of his two, 10-2-90 letters to the City attempting to support his nonconforming use claim. B. Exhibit H -is John Armstrong's response to Joel Albrecht. In the fourth paragraph John Armstron states, "You have indicated that the primary use of the property falls under SIC Code. Number �291 (General Farm -Primary Livestock Specialities). If in fact that is the case and if that Property has been so utilised 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, ltre ,would caution -you toe sum that the SIC Code assigned to Mr. Blackwell's property is appropriate.....Before you can be sure that the property qualifies. as pre-existing, non -conforming, you must sadsfy..yourself that, these two tests as established in the SIC Code have been met.91 It is also clear in John Armstrong's directions that if Kevin Blackwell did not meet the SIC tests, then he did not have a non -conforming use. John Armstrong changed the actual SIC wonting in his definition of the tests to make them easier to meet Below is the exact definition from the Standards of Industrial Classification page 30. "0291 General Farms, Primarily livestock and Animal Specialities. Establishments deriving 50 % or more of their total value of sales of agricultural products from livestock and animal specialities and their products, but less than 50% from the products of any single three digit industry group." As you see John Armstrong's "or other agricultural products or other incidental revenue sources" is not in the SIC definition. - � � • Page 4 of 5 Exhibit I is Kevin Blackwell's letter responding to Joel Albracht's request for information on _ _-_ _ compliance with the SIC 0291 classification and was received by the City on 10-3-90. The one page letter is the only information he supplied. Kevin Blackwell's own evidence proves he did not have a nonconformingg use. His letter proves he completely failed to meet even John Armstrong's liberal invention of S C1 standards. Let's look: Kevin Blackwell starts with, "I would like to make you aware that one hundred percent (100%) of my income is derived from this property. I am self-employed and the.following is a list of the many ways which I make a living." Note: The nonconforming use permit is for outlot 420A only, NOT Outlot 419 he uses below. Of all the items he listed; the only items generating income from Outlot 420A were the weld shop and horse stalls and neither one of those can be classified under the definition of SIC 0291 "livestock and animal specialities and their products. Horse Animal specialities as defined in SIC 0291, page 29, requires " primary engagement in the production of horses and other equines. I acquired the entire City file for Outlot 420A including the entire confidential section and there is no evidence that Kevin Blackwell ever provided any evidence concerning the "value of sales" as -SIC 0291 and- John Armstrong required. "l . Commercial hay baleing." He Commercially baled hay on other peoples property, not Outlot 420A which was. grazed short from the multitude of animals concentrated on it. "2. Commercial tractor work (landscaping, backhoe, construction)." All of the Commercial tractor work was done on other peoples property, not on Outlot 420A. "3. Commercial welding both on the job and shop fabrication" I saw very little welding at the shop so most of the Commercial welding must have been done using the weld rig truck; which was used on other peoples property, not on Outlot 420A. "4. Raising of livestock for the purpose of sales. In the past year and. a half, I have had as many as thirty - .five (35) roping calves and twenty (20) roping steers on outlot 419 and 420 for the purpose of use in rodeos in the area." Basically he rented out his livestock forpeople to rope. The primary income wasgenerated at a rodeo arena through Commercial rodeo+sports, not from any animal specialities on outlot 420A and he has never had 55 head of cattle on Outlot 420A at the same time. If these excessive nw%bers of cattle were on outlot 419, then he violated the City Zoning Ordinance. "5.Outlot 420 hbi been used as a horse operation for the same period of time."... His horse operation was renting stalls and pasture for horses. This was a Commercial business. This violates the Zoning Ordinance for residential zone R-1 and is why he asked to be." rand fathered". This does not qualify under animal"specialities and is even strictly forbidden for agricultural exemption for property taxes (see exhibit.n Kevin Blackwell also stated in an October 2, 1990 letter to the. City that he had leased 55 acres ajoining his property for agricultural purposes. This also proves his statement about deriving 100 /o oT his income from this property' to be false. Kevin Blackwell proved with his own evidence that he did NOT even remotely qualify under SIC 0291. He also proved with his own evidence that his statement of 100% of his income coming from "this property" to be completely false. 3. * The City notified- Kevin Blackwell in writing on Nov. 30, 1993; that the use of his property .was controlled by Sec. 10-300.10 of Zoning Ordinance 1501 which limited the concentration of large. animals to 2 animals per acre. .`• M�V V V. V A. Exhibit K is a November 30; 1993 letter from City Chief Building Official Mark Lewis to Kevin Blackwell and his attorney. It states, "..: Section 10-300.10 of the City Zoning Ordinance 1501 specifically allows livestock (as an accessory use) to be pastured on properties of an acre or more in size. However, this section also limits livestock concentration to a maximum of two animals per acre. Concentration limits apply to individual pastures." and on page 2 Mr. Lewis states, "In the future, the City must ask that you observe these concentration limits when housing livestock animals on the property in question. Should these concentration limits be violated, the City will issue a Municipal Court citation for violation of Zoning Ordinance requirements." B. Zoning Ordinance 1501, sec. 11-604, Appeals to the Board of Adjustment, states that an appeal to. the Board of Adjustment of a decision of the enforcement officer must be. made within 30 days. C. Kevin Blackwell never appealed Mr. .Lewis'decision to limit the Blackwell's housing of livestock to 2 animals per acre. Therefore; Mr. Lewis' decision stands. 4. Under -Sec. 106-263(b); the use of outlot 420A has become much more conforming to City Zoning requirements of 2 head per acre after, Kevin,. Blackwell moved.to East Texas approximately 3 years. A. Current Zoning Ordinance 106 section 263(exhibit Q states..."or the nonconforming use or structure may be changed to a use or stricture more conforming to the zoning district in which the nonconforming use or structure is located: For the purposes of this section , the term" more conforming to the zoning district in which the nonconforming use or structure is located" shall mean a less intense use, (per the Standard industrial classification code)..."A nonconforming use or structure so changed shall not thereafter be returned to a nonconforming use or structure., B. The City started a weekly inspection of Outlot 420A in app. January, 2000. Their inspection -proves the numbers of animals have been greatly reduced during that time. I have videos that prove the number of animals on Outlot 420A has been greatly, reduced since Kevin Blackwell moved to East Texas app. 3 years ago. Greatly reduced means from up to 45 animals per acre from 1990 to 1997 down to 0 to app. 4 animals per acre from 1997 to present. Under Current Zoning Ordinance 106, section 266, The only factor in deciding whether to extend .the useful life of a nonconforming use is whether an extension is necessary for the property owner to recoup the current remaining useful investment In the use made prior to the effective date of this zoning ordinance. Kevin Blackwell's investment in the horse stables and feed lot amounted to a pole barn, and_fencing. If he has rented 10 to 15 horse stables over the past 20 years at app. $50 each, he has paid for the bam and fencing many times over and therefore his nonconforming use permit should. be revoked immediately. Just one of. these 4 facts is enough justify revoking Kevin Blackwell's nonconforming use permit. Together they are a mountain of evidence that Kevin Blackwell's nonconforming use permit should be immediately revoked. ORDINANCE NO. 1193 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION ON THE QUESTION OF CONSOLIDATION OF. THE CITY OF LOMAX, TEXAS, WITH THE CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS, HELD IN THE CITY OF LA PORTE ON APRIL 5, 1980. WHEREAS, there was held in the City of La Porte, on the 5th day of April, 1980, an election on the question of consoli- dation of the City of Lomax, Texas, with the City of La -Porte, Texas; and WHEREAS, there were cast at said election for and against such question, the following votes: FOR CONSOLIDATION: 755 AGAINST CONSOLIDATION: 358 as shown in the official election returns heretofore delivered by the Election Judge and officials to the Mayor .and City Commission of the City of La Porte and submitted to the City Commission: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE: Section 1. That said election was duly. called and notice thereof given in accordance with law; thatsaid election was held in the manner required by law; that due returns of said election have been made by the proper officers; that said returns have been canvassed by the City Commission of the City - of La Porte; that a total of 1,113 persons voted at said elec- tion, including persons voting on the regular voting machines, and on the absentee voting machine; that a majority of the qualified voters who voted on said .question have voted for the consolidation of the City of Lomax, Texas, with the City of La Porte, Texas. Ordinance No. 1193, Page 2. Section.2. The City. Commission officially •finds, deter- mines, recites and declares that a sufficient written notice of the date, hour, place and subject of this meeting of the City'Commission was posted at a place' convenient to the public at the City Hall of the City for the time required by law preceding this meeting, as required by -the Open Meetings Law, Article 6252-17, Texas ,Revised Civil Statutes Annotated; and that this meeting has been open to. the public as required by 'law at all times during which this ordinance and• the subject matter thereof has been discussed, considered and formally acted upon. The City Commission further ratifies,- approves and confirms such written notice and the contents and -posting thereof. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED, this the 9th day of April, 1980. CITY OF LA PORTE ` By ._ J. J. MEZA, Mayor ATTEST: Q2. C__��z Act ng ty jC.Lem APPROVED: ty Attorney i r + 5 0 0 3 91 _ ! 0I 7-97-1527. • NOTICE Prepared by IIAL aasU sir of Trur fv uv br I a.yen ontY RerlraW 1•I•rs To rfrcr rM popr l.+nr, llll i Na.1 IParrr, grMI Z in pw4� I n M-n! r I Prcfel err r—firm. rM PrarHrr o) b.. No 'u wlyd l•r ' rq •,., _ wM aU rrerWnrnra 1 1 WARRANTY DEED WITH VENDOR'S LIEN 1 TIIE STATE OF TEXAS ;.. 11/11111 0/1111111 K500311 1 1,00 couNrY OF HARRIs KNOW ALL MEN BY TI{ESE PRESENTS: That I, ROBERT J. BLACKWELL, not joined by my wife as the property herein conveyed.doeo not: constitute any portion of our homestead of the County of Harris and State of Texas for and In consideration of the sum of Ten and no/100 ($10.00) DOLLARS and other valuable consideration to the undersigned paid by the grantee herein named, the recelpt of which is hereby lideloaledged, and the furow.sonsfderslion of The.exeeution by grantee of his one certain promioaoi:y,noto of oven date herewith in the original e{ta prindipal aimi;,gf•$22,509.00, payable to the order of grantor as tbetein apocifio I 1 , - .. A • A i�Tf . sea ry NC IV i y • t^2 c M b V . a ramrorRa anma,,,,uu raa tr�0.[ � MeftiYanf. Wrato.wa MCVrac6 the payment of which note is secured by the vendur s licit herein retained, and is addilionaily secured by a deed or trust of even date herewith to , P. B, DOVER Trustee, have GRANTED, SOLD AND CONVEYED, and by these present. du GRANT, SELL AND CONVEY unto KEVIN L. BLACKWELL / of the County of Harris and State ur Texas "If of •mv y undivided one-half (4) interest in the following documentsreal• property in . Harris County, Texas, to-wil: i 0.4649 acres,of land, being a portion of Outlot 420 of the LaPorte Outlots, a subdivision in the Enoch Brinson Survey, A-5, Harris County, Texas, according to a plat thereof recorded in Volume 6, Page 374 of the Harris County Deed Records and also being a part j of a tract of land described in deed from'dr, Roy A, Lee to. "" PRrMSma Kill,. -anl insisters IRE SYL M11raL dR USE "OPERTrsEGaSEa eRORdR RAU 611041DARa W100Qaaat ro[ "[SC"ua REAL REAL THE STATE OF TEXAS 1 COUNTY OF HARRIS 1 the above is a full true. and correct phototraphrc copy of Ina original raced now in my lawful custody and ppoossession, a the same a recorded in the Official Public Records of Real 14operq in my attics artd Preserved on Microfilm, and hiring Microfilm identification Number u stamped (hereon. I hereby candy on MAR 131991 V ya �1p* ANITA RODEHEAVER 3' og COUNTY CLERK (, HA UNTY, TE1(AASr�' Wily By uty JEFFERY MAR •w U I7-�T=1528 Robert'J.,Blickwll. dated July 25. 1980 and recorded under film code 164-97-0086 in the Harris County Publi'c:.Records..of•Ri' l Property. and being more particularly described as followst,. CONIENCINO at the southwest corner of Outlot.420, said oint being in the north line of North "L" Street (80'I R.O.V . THENCE North 89 56' 02" East along the north:'line of North "L" Street (80 R.O.W.); a distance of 182.741. to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the herein described tract; ' THENCE North 00 02' 80"•East. parallel to the west line of Outlot 420. a distance of 150'.0' to a point for corner. _ THENCE North 89 56' 02" East, a distance of 135.0' to +:point for corner; . THENCE South 00 02' 00" West, a distance of 150.0' to.a point• for corner in the -north line of North L Street (86' R.O.W.); THENCE South 89 56' 02" Want. alongg the noith.line of North "L" Stree�(80'.R.O.W.). a distance of 135.0' to the POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 0.4649 acres of land. - TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above daiatbcd pncynbes, to.etha with all and singular the ri.hta and IPPOlenanoa thereto in areywbe belor4bq unto the cam.rant,, H1 s hero and adans forever; 'and I do hereby bind ' myself, my hobs, cascuton and adrisinistrston to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND all and presider the ram Promise, unto the said grantee ; his hd6s and is ati+i+st. every Pin whomsoever lawfully dallying or to Claim the same or. any part thereof. But It Is eapady wad that the VENDORS LIEN, as wen as the Superior Title in and to the above deredbed pre rdaa. is retained *dad the above' described proptrty. Prembea and bnprovements until the above deaeti4ed ante and an Interest than = am fully paid aaordinx to the face, tenor, effect and roadin. thereof, rrltea thh Deed dub become absolute. This conveyance and the Warranty contained heroin is 'subiiact to a lien contained in a Deed of Trust, dated January 18. 1979. executed aY.Dr... A. Lee and wife Linda Lee to H. E..Dudley. Trustee, to aecura'�ied Deer Pask Bank in the payment of a note in the amount of $83.000.00 dated even date thereaw th. . wmoowmaaiwtar . .�N!Yeeap came EXECUrE D Chia day of•" —' . . A. D. 9 82 Addres+ of Grantee RO ERI ki7(:LY,...... Kevin L. Blackwell ' .. . .............. 10427 North Avenue L LaPorte. TX 77571 ..... ........... f i enl1,�PneeUnnen"fMee"e UNALMO.np"LdaUre OIUUaA'I[f^Um - .wetideEWlaeLIIetalanaauneseuemtmaiq.a[Uietal(awW THE STATE OF TEXAS ll COUNTY OF HARRIS J The show is a lut true. end collect phototaphn: espy at the orrpaa ' record nos in my 4r1u1 custody and ppo0lsea mcm. as Me seem a m,mded in the Oakid Public Rtterds at Red'►.opany m my olike and Reared on Microft and harm{ alc.one id efilkatim Numhmt as stamped - thaemL I hamhy ce.tily on MAR 131991 " e ANITA RODEHEAVER - COUNTY CLERK 8 H5PRITIQUNTY. TEXAS J yM e ty _ ORDINANCE NO. 780-PPP AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE POLICY OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE ' CONCERNING THE- ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS UNDER THE FORMER CITY OF LOMAX 'ZONING ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE. DATE' HEREOF. " BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE: Section 1. The former City of Lomax has heretofore been consolidated with the City of LaPorte. The former City of Lomax had a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The City of La Porte has a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The Planning and -Zoning Commission of the City of La Porte is presently studying the existing City of La 'Porte Zoning Ordinance, with a view 'to recommending substantial changes and revision's. Section'2. Upon its consolidation with the City of LaPorte, the territory of the former City of Lomax came under' the coverage of the City of La Porte Zoning Ordinance, with a temporary classification of "R-1 Residential."' Because of the substantial number of land parcels - involved, and because of the ongoing revision process on the City 'of La Porte Zoning Ordinance, it would .be a duplication of effort by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and an inconvenience to the property owners involved, to 'have individual. hearings on all of the land parcels in the territory of the former City of Lomax, for a permanent zoning classification, prior to the enactment of the new revised City of La Porte Zoning Ordinance. There- fore, the City Council of the City of La Porte, upon the recommendation of the City of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission, -hereby adopts and carries forward, the zoning classifications which were in effect'on the. various parcels of land in -the territory comprising the former City of Lomax, and the same shall have the same zoning classifications as they were classified under' the former City. of Lomax Zoning Ordinance, according to •the following table, to -wit: Ordinance No. g80-PPP , page 2. FORMER CITY OF LOMAX CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS' ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS Residential R-1 Residential Commercial C-Commercial and Apartment District Industrial C-Commercial and Apartment District Section 3. The City Council officially finds, deter- mines, recites and declares that a sufficient written notice of the date, hour; place and subject of this meeting of the City Council was posted at a place convenient to the. public at the City Hall of the. City for the time required by law preceding this meeting, as required by the Open Meetings Law, Article 6252-17, Texas. Revised Civil Statutes Annotated, and that this meeting has been open to the public as required by law at all times during which this ordinance and the subject matter thereof has been discussed, considered and formally acted upon. 'The City Council further ratifies, approves and confirms such written notice and the contents and posting thereof. Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the 1 th day of July , 1981. CITY OF LA PORTE. By. ATTEST: J. J. eza, Mayor '• Aro ty ecretary APPROVED: / City Attorney 9 Article 629=15 NON -CONFORMING USES 1. Any use of property that does not conform to the regulations prescribed in the preceding articles of this ordinance and which shall have been in existence prior to July 29, 1950 , shall be called a noncon- forming use. 2. Any non -conforming use of land or structure may be continued for definite periods of time and subject. -to such regulations as the Board of Adjustment may require for immed- iate preservation of the adjoining property and the ultimate removal of the non -conforming use. The Board of Adjustment may grant a change of occupancy from onenon-conforming use to another, providing the use is within the same, or higher classification as the original non -conforming use;. provided, however, that such change of use and occupancy will not tend to prolong and continue the non -conforming use. A noncon- forming use may be changed to a use authorized in a "B" Commercial or higher -classification use district, without obtaining a permit from the Board of Adjustment, provided it is not a change from a nigher to a lower classification use. A non -conforming use once changed from a lower to a higher classification use shall not be changed to a lower classifica- tion use, and such prior lower classification use shall be considered abandoned. 3. A non -conforming use shall not be extended or rebuilt in case of obsolescence or total destruction by fire or other cause. In case of partial destruction by fire or other causes, not exceeding 50 % of its value, the Building Inspector shall issue a permit for reconstruction. PART Two DISTRICT REGULATIONS ARTICLE THIRTEEN: ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS SECTION 13-100 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROVISIONS - 13-101 The regulritions applying specifically -to use, buildings, bulk, and promises within residential and commercial zoning districts are sot forth in this A:ticlo. Also applying to oach zoning dis- trict are the•regulationa set forth in all other regulatory and definitive articles and sections of this Ordinance.. 13-102 All buildings erected hereafter, all uses of land or buildings established or changed horoaftor, all structural alterations,' enlargements, relocations of existing buildings occurring here- after, shall, in addition to the other rogulations of this Ordi- nano, comply with the rogulatione of the zoning district in which loc_tod, except in compliance with Subsection 6-102 of M$E this 0:•dinnnca. 13-103 A lot of record, which, on the effective date of this Ordinance, has an area or width less than horoiaroquirod, may be used for single-family dwelling or a permitted nonresidential use, un- loss the adjacont.property is under the same ownership and could -be roplatte'd to make conformity possible. SECTION 13-200 "R-1" SINGLE-FAMILY DWELL M AND DUPLEX DISTRICT REGULATIONS 13-201 Use Regulations: In "R-1" Single -Family Dwalling and Duplex District no 1,-nd shall be used and no building shall be orectod for or converted to any use other than: (1) A Single -Family Residence. (2) Duplexes (3) Churches, rectorios, parish houses, and convents in con- juration with schools. (4) Public parks and public playgrounds and nonoomma cial athletic fields. (4a) Public, private, or denominational schools having a curriculum equivalent to a public.olemontary or secondary school, by spacial permit. (5) Golf Course, but not including miniature golf course, driving range, or any forms of commercial amusement. (6) Community club facilities when organized for use of a particular residential development. (7) Fire Stations. 1 (8) Accessory buildings, including a private garage, bona fide servants' quarters not for rent but for-tho use of servants employed on the promises, when dotached from•tho main building and located not loss than eovonty-five (75) foot from the front lot lino, and not less than five (5) feet from any side property line. When the accessory building is directly attached to tho.main building by a breezeway, it shall be considered an integral part of the main building. -The broozoway may be considered a part of the accessory building. When the breezeway extends into the roquirad roar•yard, it, together with the main building and all other accessory building or hui.7Ai+,"n, m."Lv occupy not more than one-third (113) of the entire yard. -35- (9) Telephone exchange facilities, without business offices, storage, or maintenance facilities, except as provided for in Article 1011 (i) of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas. (10) Railroad rights of way and tracks; bridges, signals, and other railroad appurtenances except railroad yards, clas- sification tracts, team tracks, etorago yards, passenger -- stations, freight stations, fueling facilities, fuel oil tanks, roundhouses, repair shape, offices, and do treatment facilities. (11) Electrical facilities and electrical enorgy facilities; transformers; relay and substations; poles and wires; natural gas handling and regulating stations; and private, public utility, and common pipelines subject to the approval required under other ordinances; except'offico buildings, storage facilities, repair and maintenance facilities, and Conerating facilities. (12) Temporary buildings to be used for construction purposos only and which shall be removed upon completion or aban- donment of construction work. Field offices for•tho sale Of real ostrto which shall be roaovod upon request of the Building Inspector. (13) Farme,.truck gardens, orchards, and nurseries for the growing of plants, shrubs, and troos, provided no retail -or wholesale business sales office is maintained on the promises and providod.further that no poultry or livostock other than normal household pots shall'bo housed within one hundred (100) foot of any property linos. (14) Private boat docks and boathouses. (15) Bullotin Boards and signs, illuminated or otherwise, but not of the flashing or intermittent typo, for churches and schools., but not exceeding twelve (12) square foot in area when attached to the building or when erected in the front yard behind a building lino.' Tomporary signs portaininj to the sale or rental of property and not oxcoeding•twclve (12) square feet in area are permitted behind the building - line, but shall be removed by the agent or owners immedi- atoly upon the sale or rental of the promises; provided, • however, that no signs advertising the sale or lease of any procdaea shall advertise the premises for a purpose for which it is not legally zoned.. One largor'sign announcing or describing a legally approved subdivision or develop- ment may be temporarily created on each approved plat or development; provided, however, that such sign ahall not exceed two hundred (200) square foot in aroa; provided, however, that the location of such sign be approved by the Building Inspector; that it shall be placed so as not to - interfere with the occupancy or use of any, lots in the subdivision and that it. -shall be removed i}pon the completion Of Bale of nighty -five (85) per cent of tF(e lots or dwellings in the subdivision.. (16) Such uses as may be permitted by Article Sixtoon Spacial Permits. (17) Roma occupations, as definod in Article. Seven, Definitions, including only the following limitod uses and subject to -the special conditions listed in Itom B of this subsection. -16- A. Uses. (a) Art and craft products. (b) Baking of specialized products. (c) Barber and beauty service. _ (d) Gunsmitheries. (e) Instruction of individual pupilsin music, arts, and crafts. (f) Lamp and lampshade making. . (g) Photography. (h) Sewing, dressmaking, millinery, and drapery . fabrication. (i) Shoe repairing. (j) Sign and display production, but not of an electrical nature or with more than fifty (50) square feet•in area on any side. (k) Occupations and professions such as those of accountants, appraisers, architects, engi- . nears, geologists, geophysicists, attorneys, doctors, dentists, or salesmen. (1) Repair of•radios, television, small appli- ances, instruments, furniture, or small machinery and equipment, but not.automobiles, trucks, or motorcycles. (m) laity use similar to the abovementinned uses and compatible with residential use in this district. B. Special Conditions. �.. (a) Only one employee, not of the resident family, shall be permitted. (b) There shall be no advertising other than one nonilluminated identification sign of not more than three (3) square feet in area, which sign shall be attached flatwise to tho building. (c) There shall be no other display or unen- closed storage of materials or equipment or other exterior indication of the�home occupation which detracts from the paidential character or appearance of the building. (d) Such home occupation shall not generate offen- sive noise, vibration,.smoke, particulate matter, odorous matter, heat; or glaze. (a) Any home occupation involving products as monti- oned above shall be limited to custom production, repairing, or.servicing. 13-202 Specification: In 'OR-1" Single -Family Dwelling and* Duplex District there shall be a living area of not less than one thousand fifty (1,030) square feet; duplexes, not less than one thousand fifty (1,050) square feet per dwelling unit. -17- _ SECTION 13-400 "C" AP:.RTMENT AND COWMCIAL DISTRICT 13-301 Uao_ Rogulationa: In the "C" .Apartment and Commercial District, no land shall be used and no buildinG shall be erected for or converted to.any other use than: (1) :.ny use permitted in the 11R-2" District.- ` (2) Antique and gift shops. (3) Apartments, apartment hotels, hotels, metals, and motor lodges, town houses, row houacs, and patio bounce. (4) Art and crafts, pottery, ceramics, and ornamental cement products. (5) Auction rooms. (6) Automobile, motorcycle or trailer display, sales and rental, including the sale of small trucko when the solo of ouch trucks is not the principal activity. (7) automobile laundries. (8) 1tomobile gasoline service stations, including services customarily incidental thereto. (9) Automobile glass, tire, muffler, and scat cover salon and installation. (10) Automobile parking lots and parking garaged. (11) Automobile trailer dealerships, for example, "U-Haul", only when in conjunction with as automobile gasoline service atation as an accessory use. . (12) Bakeries, confectionery and candy retail sales, with manufacturing and proceaoing pormittod as an accessory use. (13) Battery rebuilding, but not including reclaiming or salva- Sing operations. (14) Blue prints and printing shops. • (15) Bottling works. (16) Bowling alloys. (17) Building material stoiaGo yard, provided such facilities ehall be onclosod.by a screening device as defined in Section 7-171. (18) Buaineaa or commercial school. 1 (19) Carpentry, painting, plumbing or tinsmithing 'shop. _ (20) Cloaning anal dyeing plants, laundry. (21) Creamery, ico cream manufacturing and dairy operations. (22) Dancing or music studios. (22a)Day'Nuroery. (23) Drapery fabrication. (24) Drug Stores, and Pharmacies. (25) En„raving - steel, copper and photo. (26) Farm implement display and sales room: -109- date such notice is mailed to the person, firm or the address of such person, firm or corporation as the same shall appear in the records of the City Secretary relating to the granting of such application. 11 - 700 Penalties for Violations 1. Any person, firm or corporation 'in violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not more than One Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($1,000.00). ci. Each day such violation continues shall constitute a separate 'a offense. 2. In case any building or structure erected, constructed, f"•' reconstructed, altered, repaired, converted or maintained, or any building, structure, or land is used in violation �? of the general law or the terms of this Ordinance, the City of La Porte, in addition to imposing the penalty above provided, may institute any appropriate action or proceedings in court to prevent such unlawful erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, con- version, maintenance or use, to restrain, correct or abate such violation, or to prevent the occupancy of such violation, or to prevent the occupancy of such building, structure or land, to prevent the illegal act, conduct, business or use, in or about such land; and the definition of any violation of the terms of this Ordinance as a �misdemeanor, shall not preclude the City � of La Porte from revoking the civil remedies given it by law in such cases, including collection or reasonable E attorney fees and court costs, but same shall be cumula- tive of and in addition to the penalties prescribed for such violation. RIM 11'- 800 Saving Clause All rights or remedies of the City of La Porte, Texas, are i expressly saved as to any and all violations of any Zoning " Ordinance or amendments thereto,. of said City of La Porte, that have accrued at the time of the effective date of this Ordinance; and as to such accrued violation, the court shall have all the powers that existed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance; and as to such accrued violation, the court shall have all the powers that existed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance; and that all existing violations of previous zoning ordinances which would other- wise become non -conforming uses under this Ordinance but shall be considered as violations of this Ordinance in the same manner.that they were violations of prior zoning ordi- nances of said City of La Porte. FROM: Joel II Albre, SUBJECT. Blackwell. Prod 7. Of Community Development the -concentration- of 11-heifers on the- two (2). "wqa:com�Iaintregardfng_& building close to hisj Troperty, ourgo OMons ted;-.th!kBl;4-weU.propjertyto. check out the..compiaints_ aidhave' asked. Mh Blackwell- to• eliminate the- 0 Mr.'Blackwelltook out a building permit and is cutting the roof overhang back to t 44x-cquired.distance., an-d--i'l heikem lye, calves are r. ..a:- Venld"rated:aL-the-COMerOf Loma-Schoof Road and North- v street; the asturet soutIL of Mr. Scott!S, house, 10 horses are in the: stalls stabr an&-fioises are in t1telarge pasture. e Today, Mr. Blackwell brought in documentation supporting his legal, non -conforming use qualification for his property. it included the following: att6h1i6m persons renting stable's for their horses since 1981. 2. Letters stating he has been in animal specialties operation since the purchase of the property in 1980. MY review of his documents reflect that he has a legal non -conforming use in the areas of the stable where there are eighteen (18) stalls, seventeen (17) Of which are filled. There are -ten (10) horses stabled on his premise that never go to pasture, but use the exercise ring and the roping pen for exercise and practice. The roping calf pen located at the South east comer of the property has held roping calves since before W 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. . BIA&well' Property 2 - _ _ �•.�:-,.,-.=.- .... n�0idinance`� �tate�;-that;_"wane n; alc sh 11 -- �_QOIIICCIIIy Of'IL10rG' LtFzwn ZrD. r aer� "".-_=. � IIot be 1_n _ �*-� —�Ii°- BI'sc%weII s Iegal non -conforming staff . __ _ _::. sfiould over-ade this_ maamum;:somewFat but-. tliat number is not for staff to' dictate, it shourd-be`-fortlieBoard''ofAdliistment`to determine if requested. The information presented to date suggests that Mr. Blackwell's operation is a legal non- conforming use that falls 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. JHA/neb U .iJ CITY OF LA PORTE INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM OCTOBER 2�- 1990 TO noel H.Albrecht-,. Dire ctor• of Community -Development FROM: John D. Armstrong, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Blackwell Property; Response to Jqel Albrecht's Memorandum dated October 2, 1990 r am: res again to your' memo dated':`Oct'otier 2; 1940. A copy of your nema.. is.. attached. for. your—.referencev. .. "- �ascertaizr--based- on- the- facts- conta•fned-in--your memo-, -that-two,.. t (2)- issues. are -.raised, regarding;, the-;. ,Blackwell property. The_ first issue concerns. a. complaint by Mr -a Bill'. Stott regardtiffg a � - -- buildin close to Mr. Scott°s g 9 property line. You have indicated to me that the building.was recently built without Mr. Blackwell ;taking.:out;.a: permit-.froar.the-m4aity_?.:.a€:... La... Porte. You --further.. indicate to- me that since.. the complaint was. made.,.Mr.. Blackwell has.. taken out a permit and. his building- has. been inspected bye the City. Based -on the City's.inspections; Mr. Blackwell has.agreed to: 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 property. If all my assumptions are correct, it would seem that the building, when conformed to the Ordinance, would then be eligible for a building. permit'. The second issue raised by your memo regards the concentration of domesticated' livestock on the Blackwell property. You have indicated to me that the concentration is in excess of City of La Porte Zoning Ordinance concentrations, as established in Section 10-300 of the Zoning Ordinance:. However, you have also established in your memo that these' domestic livestock have existed on the 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. Hover, r would caution youto•_ be sure that the SIC Code _ . assigned to..... Mt.m.Blackwell1-3 - Rrogerty is ,appropriate. My regteta Of SIC' Cods Number 02911 •-indieates--that. Mr-. prope ty Blackwell Property October 2,. 1990 Page -2- _.needs- to derive7fift3"percent (M)_ or. more of. -the total value of sales from•livestock-•'or other agricultural products or other incidental revenue sources. In addition, Mr. Blackwell must derive less than fifty percent (50%) . of the' total value of his sales from agricultural products -of any single three -digit industry group. Before you can be sure thab the property qualifies as pre-existing, non -conforming, you must satisfy yourself that these. two tests as establishedin the SIC Code have —been- met.--_..... . rf-M't. Blackwell is deriving income from the utilization of -the —. __gr4p_erty_as contemplated in SSC Code . Number. 0291, then the fact that he and his family utilize the-'propekty as­thRf ptimary•' residence -•is -not of concern,• since. SIC Code Number 0291•clearly contemplates that the farm use include a resident owner. IE..you 'have any further questions or comments, or if I can cYarify my memo to you in any fashion', please advise. ' is • RE EIVED /D-3-90 COMM. DEV. 10-2-90 Memo to: Mr. Joel Albright From: Kevin L. Blackwell Subject: Use of property on outlet 420 Mr. Albright as per our conversation on 10-2-90, I would like to make you aware that -,one hundred per cent (100%) of -my income is derived frdm this property. I am self-employed and, the following is a list of the many ways which I make a living. 1.' Commercial hay baleing. 2. Commercial tractor work (landscaping, backhoe, cogstruction). 3. Commercial welding both on the job and shop .fabrication. 4. Raising of livestock for the purpose of sales. In the past year and a .half, I have had:as many as thirty-five (35) roping calves and twenty (20) roping steers oYi.outlot 419 and 420 for the purpose of use in rodeos in the area. 5• The use of the outlot 419 has been used for the raising of li,,Yestock and hay since 1950 through 199Q by my Father and I. Out1Qt 420 has been used a$ W horse operation for the same period of time. We have been using it since purchasir It in 1280 from Dr. Lee, who was in the race horse and livestock business. Mr. Jesse Neuman and Mr. Red Cheshire owned this property since 1950. Both owned. this property since 1950. Both of these gentleman have passed on but their'• past and the use of this property lives on. VI,up very concerned about being a good neighbor and have tried to talk'to Mr. Scott in the past few weeks. It appears that he is impossible to deal with. I am sorry for the inconvience this has caused the City. My interest 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 assistance please don't hesitate to contact me at 471-6525. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Kevin .I.. Blackwell • I- Manual for the Appraisal of - Agricultural Land SWbWO06AY Tax Board. 43QWest rank Drive f Bel ling. Suite 100 ..T-e:"'. -78i46-6565 Me bers of the !'.��rd Administrative Staff larvin L. Jones,_ C -m-Spearman- . =an Jim Robinson, Executive Director George F. Bobbitt--;�- oustbn Tim Wooten, Deputy Director of Valuations Ben Munson —Denison Sands L. Stiefer, General Counsel Jim N. Nugent—Amafillo Arthur C. White —Dallas Gerald (Buddy). Winn=Bryan April.1990 : -printing Effe&iv,e March 1988 Amended Fe4r;uary 1990 J i. Milk is processedit is separated into butter, milk, and other dairy cts. Grapes are proces en they are washed, sorted, or crushed. Vegetables wits i are processed when they are washed and packaged- for sale at the wholesale or retail level. • Processing begins when activities occur that enhance the value of primary agricultu- ral products. Milling grain, pasteurizing milk, and ginning cotton constitute process- ing. Packaging products for transport to market would not constitute processing; but packaging them for sale would. Primary Use According to the statute, land must be devoted principally to an agricultural use. If the land is used for more than one purpose, the most important or primary.use must be agricul- ture. For example, pleasure gardening isn't the principal use of residential land. . i Other uses do not prevent land from qualifying if the primary use is agriculture. For ex- ample, land used primarily to graze cattle could also be leased for hunting. Leasing land for.' don hunting is compatible with a primary use of land for grazing cattle. The appraiser must` determine which use is primary. If one of these other uses replaces agriculture as the pri- mary use of land, then the land is no longer principally devoted to agricultural use and can- not qualify for agricultural appraisal; Pages 31 to 33 discuss the effect of changes of use on qualification. Exotic Game The primary use test is particularly important for exotic game since only production for food or other commercially valuable products qualifies. Exotic game is defined to include axis deer, nilga antelope, red sheep, and other 'cloven-hoofed ruminants" not native to Texas. The owner must raise the game to produce human food or tangible products that have commer- cial value, such as leather or hides. Many game ranches also offer recreational hunting ass way of earning income and man- aging a herd of breeding stock Because hunting is recreation, an exotic game ranch devoted solely to hunting could never qualify for agricultural appraisaL A ranch that produces exotic game products and conducts recreational hunts may or may not qualify for special appraisal. Qualification in such a case depends on which use is pri- mary. A chief appraiser should consider all•relevant information to determine the primary use. Relevant questions include: • Are there physical improvements such as high fences to control the herd? • Are there stocking levels to justify the investment and ensure a reasonable future in- come? • Is there a breeding and herd management procedure that emphasizes commercially valuable products (meat or leather) over recreational products (trophy heads)? • Is there an active business plan showing herd size, harvesting schedules, and har- vesting reports? • .Do state or federally approved inspectors supervise slaughter and dressing? Fish Chief appraisers should analyze the raising of fish or fish products using the same stan- dards they apply to exotic game. Commercial fish production. differs from kdeping game fish for purely sporting or recreational purposes. This difference is not necessarily related to the scale of the operation, nor is it related to any intent to produce income or make a profit Rais- ing fish is a qualified agricultural land use when all the elements of a bulk harvest are. present. Taking. fish by individual line is clearly a recreational activity. Horses Land used primarily to raise or keep horses qualifies for agricultural appraisal. Land used primarily to train, show, or race horses, to ride horses for recreation, or to keep or use horses in some other manner that is not strictly incidental to breeding or raising horses does not qualify. Similarly, land -used as a stable, where horses are kept, fed, and cared for, is not being used primarily for an agricultural purpose, unless the stable is incidental to breeding and raising horses g STATE PROPERTY TAX BOARD L,q • City of La Porte Established' 1802 tip: TBxP9 November 30, 1993 Mr. Kevin Blackwell 9'o Walter P. Mahoney, Attorney at Law 3505 Federal Road Pasadena, TX 77504 Re: Livestock Concentrations/10427 North V Street Dear -Mr. Blackwell, •\ First, I would lute to thank you for your prompt response in removing the calves from the pastures adjacent to Lomax School Road. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter. In regards to the future use of this property, your right to continue pasturing animals is protected by ordinance. Section 10-300.10 of the City Zoning Ordinance 1501 specifically allows livestock (as an accessory property use) to be pastured on properties of an acre or more in size. However, this section also limits livestock concentration to a maximum of two animals per acre. Concentration limits apply to individual pastures. As an example, a "large lot residential" homesite of ten acres can be used to pasture a maximum of twenty animals. If the property is segregated into separately fenced pastures, of for instance, eight acres and two acres, a maximum of sixteen animals can be houseTin the ten acre section. A maximum of four animals can be housed in the two acre section. The home owner cannot however claim credit for the full ten acres and house twenty animals in the two acre pasture. I& Kevin Blackwell Page 2 In the future, the City must ask that you observe these concentration limits when housing livestock animals on the property in question. Should -these concentration limits be violated, the City will issue a Municipal Court citation for violation of Zoning Ordinance requirements. Enclosed for your review are. copies of the Zoning Ordinance sections that regulate the pasturing of livestock Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. I can be reached at 471-5020 ext. 259. Once again, thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Mark S. Lewis Chief Building Official MSL/ja Enclosure § 106-262 LA PORTE CODE structure shall have the burden of proving to the board of adjustment in such appeal that the structure or use has not been abandoned for a period of 180 consecutive calendar days, and that the owner or his representative did not intend to abandon the nonconforming structure or use during said 180-day period. (Ord. No. 15014-1, § 5(exh. D), 2-9-98) Sec. 106-263. Nonconforming uses. (a) Continuance of nonconforming uses subject to this chapter. Subject to the provisions of this chapter relating to extended useful life of nonconforming uses, any nonconforming use may be continued in operation on the same land area and on the same floor fn a structure or structures which were occupied by the nonconforming use on the effective date of this ordinance, provided that such land area or floor area shall not be increr}sed, except that such limitation shall not apply for.farming uses. (b) Changing a nonconforming use. Any nonconforming use or structure may be -changed to a use conforming to the regulations established in this chapter for the district in which the nonconforming use or structure is located, or the nonconforming use onstructure m`ay be changed to a use or structure more conforming to the zoning district in which the nonconform- ing use or structure is located. For purposes of this section, the term "more conforming•to the zoning district in which the nonconforming use or structure is located" shall mean a less intense use, (per the Standard Industrial Classification Code). Whether or not a use is more conforming to the zoning district in which the nonconforming use or structure is located is a question to be determined by the planning director, subject to appeal as provided in this division. A nonconforming use or structure so changed shall not thereafter be returned to a nonconforming use or structure. (Ord. No. 1501-Z-1, § 5(exh. D), 2-9-98) Sec. 106-264. Notification of nonconforming status. Owners and occupants of property subject to extended useful life and/or termination of nonconforming status pursuant to this division shall be notified of such status by the planning director of the city. The planning director shall mail written notice, prior to or concurrently with the notice of public hearing pursuant to section 106-266, to all persons having an interest in property (as shown by the tax rolls of the city) where the property is located and to the occupant of each nonconforming use in the city by regular and by certified mail, return receipt requested. The notice shall state that the use is subject to a determination of its extended` useful life and termination requirements and shall specify the procedures for obtaining an exemption from the extended useful life and termination requirements of sections 106-265 and 106-266. (Ord. No. 1501-Z-1, § 5(exh. D), 2-9-98) Sec. 106-265. Application for exemption from extended useful life requirement. (a) Application requirements. An owner or qualified occupant of a nonconforming use or structure may seek an exemption from the extended useful life and termination requirements of section 106-266. The grounds upon which such an exemption may be sought shall be either: Supp. No. 1 CD106:40 .ZONING § 106.2669 (i) that the nonconforming use or structure has no adverse impact upon allowed land now in the district in which it is locattd; or (ii) that the nonconforming.use or structure can be made compatible with such surrounding uses upon compliance with specified conditions. Such owner or qualified occupant shall submit an application to the planningdirector, on a form provided by the planning director, no less than ten woridng days prior to the date scheduled for the public hearing being conducted pursuant to section 106-266. (b) Board rouiew and decision. The board of adjustment shall hold the public hearing pursuant to section 106-266, following the procedures for hearings before the zoning board of adjustment established in the zoning ordinance; and shall consider the application for an exemption from the extended useful life and termination requirements of section 106-266. The owner or qualified occupant shall have the burden of proving the grounds for the exemption sought. Upon conclusion of the hearing, if the board of adjustment finds that the use of the property has no material adverse impact upon the land uses permittdd in the district in which it is located or can be made reasonably compatible with such uses through the imposition of specified conditions, it shall exempt the nonconforming use from the extended useful life and termination requirements of section 106-266, and impose such editions as it finds necessary to ensure reasonable compatibility with surrounding properties and uses, including, but not limited to: W required improvement of (or modifications to) existing improvements on the property, or (if) limitations on hours or nature of operations; and (HO a specified term of years for which the exemption shall be granted. If the boardof 4ustment does not authorize an exemption from the extended useful life and termination requirements of section 106-266, it shall after cbnaidering applicable law, information presented at the hearing and other factors deemed relevant by it, establish an extended useful life period for the nonconforming use in accordance with section 106-266. (c) AppeaL Any person aggrieved by the decision of the board of adjustment or a taxpayer or an officer, department, board or bureau of the city, may appeal the decision in accordance with V.T.CA, Local Government Code 1211.011. Unless properly appealed within ten days of the date the decision is filed in the board of adjustmenVe office, the decision of the board of adjustment is final and incontestable. (Ord. No. 15014-1, # 5(exh. D), 2-9-96) Sec. 106-26& Extended useful life and termination. (a)"Ertended useful life of specific nonconforming uses. Nonconforming uses shall -be terminated at the end of an Mended useful His period established by the board of adjustment in accordance with this section. The extended useful life period to be established shall not be less than five years, nor more than 20 years fiom the effective date of the order of the board Of adjustment, unless the Board determines on the basis of expert appraisal testimony that a greater extended useful life period is necessary to enable the property owner to recoup the current remaining useful investment in the property made prior to the date of the order of the board of adjustment establishing the extended useful life period. The board of adjustment shall hold a public hearing, as required by subsection (b) below, to establish an extended useful life Supp. No. l C13106:40.1 ZONING 1106-267 (c) Extended useful life period. In the event the owner or qualified occupant does not apply for exemption from an extended useful life period, the board of adjustment, at the public hearing, shall establish an extended useful life period based on (() applicable law, (ii) evidence presented at the public hearing and (iii) other factors deemed relevant by the board of adjustment, to allow the owner or qualified applicant to recoup the current remaining useful investment in the use made prior to the effective date of this zoning ordinance, specifically including but not limited to testimony of experts in the field of property appraisal. The extended useful life shall not be for less than five years nor• more than 20 years -from the effective date of the useful life period, unless the board determines upon the basis of testimony from experts in the field of property appraisal presented at the public hearing, that an extension of the useful life period is necessary to enable the property owner to recoup the current remaining useful investment in the property made prior to the date ofthe order of the board of adjustment establishing the extended useful life period. (d) End of extended useful life period At. the • end of the extended useful life period established by the board of adjustment for a particular use, the use shall terminate. (Ord. No. 16014-1, 1 5(exh. D), 2-9=98) gee. 106-267. Revocation of nonconforming use status. Upon the recommendation of the planning director or a motion of the board of adjustment, the board of adjustment shall undertake a review of (i) any nonconforming uses; or 60 any exempted nonconforming uses established pursuant to section 106-265 or 106-266 dud, after a. public hearing and investigation as to the particular use in question, may require the revocation of the use status and the extended useful life period or may order the termination of such use. For purposes of this section- 106-267, a use described in (i) or (ii) above, shall be herein sometimes referred to as a "revocable use." (1) Initiation of reuocation procedure. The board of adjustment shall undertake a review of any revocable use .only upon: (i) its own motion, upon a determination that a reasonable probability of one or more grounds for termination under section 106-267(9) exist; or (ii) a report from the planning director recommending revocation of such revocable use, which shall be based upon a determination that a reasonable probability of one or more grounds for termination under 106-267(3) exist for such recommenda. lion. (2) Board notice, rouiem and decision. Upon its own motion, or upon receipt of the planning director's report recommending the revocation of the status of the revocable use, the board of adjustment shall hold a public hearing to consider revocation of a revocable use. Prior to holding such hearing, the board of adjustment shall provide public notice as follows: a. Written notice of the time and place of a public hearing, by certified marl, return receipt requested and postage prepaid, to all persons having an interest in the Supp. Na 1 CD106:40.3 1 Ems s 1, 5R, °f f / y gi i ^ M1 ^^ T SOUTH HOUSTON, TEXAS 77587 PHONE (713) 946-0830 FAX (713) 946-2074 LOCATION'1t1:C:t' s Co. ru NG HATE. 1 te.L.'Zt. 01 approx. SOLE W.O.#._--------------- NEM HI-91 s� —~ ` A �`-•= -- � F r�-- ` - •.�.r%•� �-�-i a 'fie �' _, , y �i.�--. - � :.fin-���t,•- � • • .i • � t c, . '• w a�� Nr� � '' v"� '7� , �y1'� � t •: € .. E�t�'�+` =�i rM. t• 4 ww�ppNh.'f^t,,. ♦ ? a �• }a .��.(��s- t,.7 'i✓r'E'.�5' 7 t r , rt� T ft, r ' r. ' a� 4 t �S p } r �• "� ' ?v,air€[r ?' } 4 t Ott: ' t j�jI' t . _ � � •I t i � 1yfi� ,i .. r f t�OA �'„ r+r - - `} ' ;' i �`'X' y •aYFf`, VvIg n S .'ten •:+ S {.' iI }q•. p ��nrA . �Dfi. �=iF c � . a' _ f • ° i�FY+7,t`i Flo ::f� �W .Fi :n - � •.-_ {• tt ., .c ``F,,rr"•��fs..�, _ µFt f._� t+++���yyyyyyPv'yyyyy�4`"Js�!��'lex t�f.:�w���iF � . E _ _ < - h 'i',GU t. it�Wi•�.. + Z K • •JUG .16.1990 t� ag � �^ �+f.,i�it.;a•�-`a t ��•;--"�+Sy- 5 s.,;eS,f'�,r�''`�'f��T',x•`ri.Jti-S.i�F,'� ihi,.`},i� �A„r' fry .r ,Y %� � . t �ti';k Y �µ:.'' t ' r ry. F ,rct r• fit; t! �'� F • h r �' ts.,.ils: L•. : Ya }Ms,., :.,."�'/14• 9. T I 4r \Y -"4.7 - "s�' I a 4 '+ ,,,i 'cr -tF ;•. : irttr s=" , i -s, _ o<s, t KT''_ nz",+.'i'. ra>t • /I !lam ' ..,:,n , r t,,.i. .�,:k �' ' . i.. y�.yJ�x' ...+a•,y��' .tµti1, j�'"t i..�.�.1 -iT�- t '{ l�`EY �t��.Y� 't'�:2• .. 1_ t•� .t 'rir1� ;r �#�,y7-- 4,G� p� -y,•�� ..�}rt y ?- -. .,N :L _�]it. l^.i. f s tI-� �� -'Li .r }�.Y'-' �� - }7� *J i. ,'r'1iC.'k'k}:f a��•rNE.9'.A t'�ir J' �T kf -!�] '�1 .. �.� - .,..a\�7 H4+• `� ,>�` i � i` t<:c� C -. � � ,«� ! �i'�i `l,{ ' � •9 ' P .� . - t.� Y ,;7,,;�-`o `I' is 4 rT1^�;-`t 1 �d _ 9>�''7�E'J b 2 .s'T'.' rr<F}. � t " tt +� J � -t �S`rgrw\ > s'yt irf , - i'L•�.. .� ��� .-.tom. h t �j ,t.a. �.�Y s yre� ,Jf. ° .r'`=a'?'�.� 2,1,:� .r ;i-,,.�';.:.T.i ,✓` .•�ti^•• i `�.. r, �. ;:-fit vi>� :� r .'f•-ria'ht`.y®,� 7.t�, ��Aw..I L �.'-�f,;;' Sh R �..-;i:R: �.tii-.- r✓-.1f , Y �:{ai :.: _ ; 'x ''" • �1.'a":,,'r N`�• G iP ..y...?�"�.1 rf +, c:1� 4t " t�fi.y;�, a;}.5_. A+--�,ta7. � t�; i. .� �': P,;. . r.. j",.. Ey'v. J� L - w, i r � F., S w „t . _. _. ��� _,-.s-..r- <ycw,�� ' j' � y . i-� 1• �, „j. a SwHtVyr•,}r�..�'4:.°'Ft .14. N _t ti. .r. Y r,..; J .ti•�s rs':t '�,J'. �1 "��..{:y",�s,4.3 t?{y.«��,e,rra+..St.*ziz; .Y'1'c'Sv'{Y•i .»:L"r t ,(j©� a ,x dt 53i}Fr -��i fit. Kt n• x t{ i Y;� �;'i� ..'.. .t {•..'(!'..<t .ty�N'v.. x,•S:� _ �':,.A. gr „"i'}:^ra, "e..r:7+.iut At; Fti•�,[��•�,.i,�"4k;.a •y 4`.�"t ,�i �.. k.�.�.,, C- t.•"i *."^ s � , i� ��•. �.ti'i+,:' � �. c.7� <� 1. `�.�'1 F- �-nrv^,i'.,+ti :•yL Y�. 5,�..i 7 ��� _f.i:+?. -s y�.. -:4- -t:•� ''::;1.-�,N..'.,� .,~,.t.. fSRt �4'f7 Yam.: t-r, :� .�'rr ,`t')tut.•��j�' F:1 t, �� "-';L�f"f"'i"F�'. '� £�,.,�" C'�.e.r: i�tjyr,?Y-a?., p„ .,,, F �"rr,. _* ;r J1 �+; : ` f:�;a a, t � •€t •�t +l---- -- - `�} .�. � J , �± •� .�'':r.e- �':: •v_ ♦r,.„��- l i��`+,.�,•S'� f1� ! Ti .Nl `' `1„j7 .. M/�i'�' rt,�C-_ p S :� (� ,'`!{�' M�'��L :F'"<' y 1' � �^ ia1tST''^+-n"�� GI'; :... �l 1._`r ! +H. ^�. a T.�S�+„/+Lk k .: •{ 'r1�.x, -, t 'r 4'�.-' S '+ t � `= , }(� a,�.nt >.".,4 e F �.��� t>! �'�� . i II, r;. .15'✓. 3 L �t 4 ., i u :., fmac- �xi� G -st, rr 7 ;fi�; t _i,:,Ff s.ti, r �'`iic. ° l.11 • i, W r �3'z t ✓',�'�t�.., .i M -:: .. y, r� 5'ri,y;a � 85 7.: fi'+-s° �W vtr C7t' � r t - �•- �,,� y , r, p i t t£ g'tt �q,�+'•# °t • •�y� <-� ,..- �u; �. ,t. .-vr,. 1 h 1 ¢-t• �t' _ y'..k? �•-,Y�p✓ +C`1- - i tte �t F "F ne � if' �'1e.Qt at, •w.. r_ ,q,�i {Y' it"•L�t. �.y,, J`'.. S1 t f Kq 1. n �17 �::�,t'. - ..+i�.. �` .-ry�. f na,,,s q. J t4, �:t �rl h � ,. P' ,t �. 1 - -.p,, !• ;' l ^t �r t.. t<r �c q t Y �.^,r✓,y :-' ^+tr'.. i �L t et.l �F • -l:r ."Y7 k''S,-•,•may t (�if'S;�.+�1�M '1 },�, ry, t4�r�g�'�`�� � � t 'Y 7n +.'- "itc .y �' ,B�t .hi - t{i t.+sy,) �t �1i� � }'Rri St C• „�...saf ••t'r Y:nSi �$. •:. _ t 'y'y�. t' ry p� � � ;t - ' - 1 ^, 4t I'.J. r '� s : ^ 'v - �„ i 4 � ' t sb � F�'j}-l! � o �i+ �. w a, X S .j•� ., - � i s t, r st - �,• tS4 . rr y. '' },. r_?. a _.:tt Ffa`'zM1. err ` fr`tl"�y a, ; :. p_ '6 fir' •Hw. F rt e x •- ,� a ri ` jy.� r , . � , r' 164�Y {J� iF�u � 0., i �i .k7•• y tt a 4� � � N.Y � rY �. p- J S�x�4.l ���l'���',}'�,i,I "� �+�i�'W" ra yI . Y� t •� /+�;•Y l� + i �'� ' viw-' •v n Jnl . � _fir. S "� �� - t£f FF n � *..f, y - - �yt, �,°t at:r>t``�?`�X',.t`�- Y d•^ i '."M yX� �'n ^j �. r. �i'_ J "'�.. _ ' ti Yrr � Jt o ..E.�,. Y `ti�i:', :.. trt T .,� ,11' tj�." 4 r, ..� `*w..,, .' �', ryY � x � � • Sn ,, r ;�� ,�� fi �.r - .. r F`., err IeL�p� �''f'�+,y ft. °�» '�'.e �t� ! ;-1 °adj �yt'}�� � a ;t`^��`., �y ! h,.r i i! k`# 3r � Nr t Rr�� r.•t•;: .�•° n�-'i"Ak•t��'��sE� {,.,.�A�9Yf, a `�•-''S�a.a b',<�::�4 • �"� 4 '• . '< +- 1 � � r ;.. `' tJ•,. r°t s�:�rir'�.. ' Q� �,rH,�ra. t'f,'. ,� � is t ; .a -. ,j yt •�. t+J (u•.4- n C -. _, y.. ^ %jY U6, P R i• • %,.� •s�`j+-.� v . v y`.f r 7Jwt+ r ,�Y '„r y +. tif ,.U4 1 t 9 i. - - r,; N c. '•a v t,t y ."�':-a.�.;y�. Ky -ti h.ty- � y+��:'!�s �.+r-: - _ :. _Y'~ s•'4-n;}.y- _. z ^-r �`'�! , •c 'S �",. r d h 4'1� �•` ��44 - y �� i` * 4 •;c�+z•s,;.2':IY -`{�� ! k`'�r�, - - r .•F. T ^•` RWl— ',l .. `: " r 'r _ - F ; 2;-• a > . _ i.-: �'p_��yy,$f. •.?rrt.` `+i;Z...,vlL�~'-1. :'iP4 '3':i?t`,'.�' - - .,-i fii�, �'•.f r� ,i i, ., iY{ ,�-'1r.>, � !y he �•'. t;,-. .. q... .pit ^_ s.,,,c, ' � �..� -�,•f" .. yt � : ry—fi-'fir—i� __.,'.r--_-r:` ,—o-.="�— ,..,�.��.`-i,�`*?" a-� + '-�� , s��11i � ,, �-t�� , �► F`�` 4&.tV.-� txw.~.'fk:r� '�;.��+,r-.: J., kF'•y'�•''i' F --w Fti is-•tr ,„,i• �. rig .,,�.. ' .t f Alt '� - .Rj 4t �L��• l'y � f {i'� r 'r t, •ysu 4: ti i. �� � � a r J.� � �•y,r 5.-, f t _ `r' S i � - '� r ^ `j� r+- a �F'f,r `w +T.�4 J� tp x' �•4 f y r t"w n a, a•. 4 z (, '�_ � `�•y�'�2r#'4' ���. � � "`^ ' `si �`,��r'�'C �`e• �,• .,�s iz, � `;"' rr�°• .e�' P - L.z-..� " ,}- �. � � k � r M ,'.3V"� ,t{��✓ j't�'••�-v Cy �,5.��,� �'_ i ,t '�"' _ r3 � ]T, ! ��a�,4 �, � t�� •.. t C -. ,r,,�. ,�: tr. � '3-s . �. �c't?.i�?�t��r,� �_,. .: "+. .l ry t I'•t� +4 �, r r! kC�r-� ♦ 416 . - .C.T � � Rr ?,�: ��v� t 1h t a .f � r � .:� PJ r g �i. 4 �' xtlr � •F a `�..u. .�. "n.�+ �r+ [Y'G 3�t'� p f. .j F � "�f a•i °C. ,f.s!ta 1,., _ ` In 11y1 ,� S .I t 1Map c Ai, 4{ �L a+. 6. } , +y I1-"I4a4ti• t1;�,-s• ti _s'� �. .t., .r..• Sa ,� J.t•:1�.�.,_ _ •�:� �'_.l��i•f 'rav 7.4v.� E.Ti�lit _�'�e. ���'. �I -s,. > �3� � ;;tom r Y• w� ! � „1,,,2,,T�r��r'i,�rQ. � � t t t •�ip � s � ti•,� ,� . ' - �r � ,*•� .�d.� '1 -I� !�.# '.��t ,�J;�, {�� ";ir ��': ,rT ��•'� , ,-fin .� }•t'� ,F, ��n� t���;•`� °,fit y, •rye r 'x' "fxe �' + n .. n if'`a, �c���+5t ,t 1 y �c v -t �'z+:,y+' '. !' 1�`�' Z�' j� ' :���`jr�f ��itt��l.�i�,^���� ,SFr+d��':�F,�i4t4r�y „�•'�>r �7�� . O � AT 'At N� F"I'lu Yni ELI J' 2inn¥± [ 0 0 i - I- , :I— z ; 0 0 e��.L�24 b&4�,Vd &6,(lL-4tc APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAMS-DECISION #A00-003 CITY OF LA PORTE. ZONING BOARD.OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL OF. -.ENFORCEMENT: OFFICER'S DECISION. ---- ------------pp-------- - ----;----- ---- Application No-.:4 (Do- o d,3 OFFICE USE. ONLY: Date Received: 0. JIQ 0 Op Applicant: ��% /`/^'�'sr�ry N e.c.%:••f .4 L, PH: •�"33G 7 �$/ Address I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized to act on my -behalf in this matter. Owner.#: L' 41VCJPeT,0 iV ,g,,�% laar r'i!� / Name wd"�S /Voo PH: Address. I am. appealing the decision. -regarding or the interpertation of Sect.. J0.6 7-P8 of the -City Zoning Ordinance No. .1'501. I .am making this.appeal in regards to, the property located at 1aC&(s Street Address Le al Description Svb.:� ✓issc� S't�C.':l F,10'" c:ode iv / A//,v9. /n 14,- r y Lvar'.6_ %Pyts�S Site Plan ( ).Minor Development Site -Plan ( ) Major Development Site -Plan:. . ( ) General Plan A Site Plan of the property. -is attached. Also, I'have listed the information requested below on the -following pages of this form. .a) All facts concerning. the matter that has led -up to. this request.. b) The type of relief I am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.). a). The grounds upon which -.:I am making this request. If applicant is NOT.the':owner-, he must provide Authorization to act on -the Owners behalf. Date A licant's Signature OFFICE USE ONLY Site Plan -and Authorization (if applicable) attached? .-Yes (%T No (..) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: / 0/ Meeting Date: Q /aZ o 0 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: w;4A e f/:,.� c��.r,.Ssi.u.0 /Q�/4,4IP _rn% �iuv1 g/LB r.•�.v✓ Lam% R7 P /^' APlP9✓aIle y L p n� L y JO ✓ 7' .� �Q Jr !✓ p r �j�o �s �+ S P o o rA G v TYPE OF RELIEF -BEING SOUGHT: 1 6 I t � � �7 s e in )(P /e ,S I ICJ �� O ✓.S /? C/ S0wy�P�`sf��P G4ti �� .0-V-f *4`10CJs���vr+-� of 4 "F 3 f t, GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST: .� 1 1 J e /7 Les. . r" a/ P S 0." ! w C � � T � � S T / • w 0 � n. Ci /� . u M ¢�� /'�I,„o �kek � l fI♦9.i %,..vPs7•� �,,,, ,�/i.-y /�,v�OP.��j. City of LP _ ;,�7 s�d� Eaacbt.inecr . I,99- SEP 2 0 2.000 �v Building Mechanical *Electrical *Plumbing (* See back of -fora) Project. Address: /05d la h Lanr�;na� /UOI^]�i Lot: Subdivision: SQ-enc th ' Z q i n o 02 Block: 3 L aur; e /�nrl �hSO/7 Phone: ag�_8%% 0JR/ Owner's Name: C1�1 . Address: CJL M LA- P0P,Tr, , % "1757% Street City Zia Zontractor: l�}ilAony ,4 TYAla/I -POO/S• Phone:. Aaares9 /ZJ 7 C-, u I �F Fh e�w a v Lem C��ty, '7"x 77573 Street Engineer: Designer: Building lase- -Re-A.- d'ence — Valuation: City Zip Sq.-Footage: Stories: Describe Work: un 10= For 'City use Only . Type Occupancya Flood,Zoae Class Work ` Sq. Ft. Construction Type Zone �- # Stories �� Parking requested Comme.cial.Buildings Plans OnIY-Fire marshal Approval ,/Y\_Date: _. Checked/Approved for Issuance By: Special Conditions: �C—N�CEb 1°R© OSED `POOL DOES /vor C0MPG ,r Zt--R E ErASA S _XN z nr.—S 0 F 7'f�E- 7Ys CoDE (OF OR bxAIIWCP-S e Permit No. S (attach to actual permit, Revised 03M/94 as Per.ap Q d3- 600.9 �� r!.�. rw�� il�� • ...1 ItMI, iI�:_•ii:l • ��1.1)=i� '•L.._ .7 • Staff Report October12, 2000 of Building Official's Decision #A 00-003 Requested by: Guy and Laurie Anderson, property owners Requested for: 10506 Spencer Highway North ' Block 3; Lot 9; Spencer Landing Subdivision, Section 2 Background: A swimming pool design proposed by Anthony & Sylvan Pools; if placed on the lot in question, would not comply with current city zoning regulations. The applicant_ submitted a site plan showing the location of the proposed pool; however, conflicts with city regulations regarding setbacks .required staff to deny the permit. The applicant amended his submittal to eliminate . two conflicts that dealt with pool deck and equipment placement. However, the remaining conflicts deal with placement of the pool with relationship to the house and utility easement. The applicant believes reducing the size of the pool would leave it inadequate for his family needs. To resolve these issues, he has submitted. for an Appeal of the Building Official's Decision #.A00-003. The current city regulations fora swimming pool are found in Section 106- 748 and 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 of the pool, a 3' setback from a utility easement is needed. • Measuring from the water's edge of the pool, a 5' setback from 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 October 12, 2000 #A 00-003 Page 2 of 3 The pool proposed by the applicant (See Exhibit A for the plot plan and Exhibit B for the survey) would comply with the required side setbacks and the deck placement requirement; however, it would not comply with the required setback from the house or utility easement. The applicant is requesting the following: o Allow the water's edge of the pool to be S' off the house instead of the city% standard 6' setback. (Allow a 1 reduction) .v Allow the water's edge of the pool to be P-6" off the utility easement instead of the. city's standard 3' setback. (Allow a 1 '-6" reduction) Analysis: 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 .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 this subdivision. Staff did a telephone survey of the two cities referenced by the applicant (See Exhibit C) 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 would comply with the revised setbacks being considered by the City of La Porte. Board of Adjustment October 12, 2000 #A 00-003 Page 3 of 3 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 the 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 interest of the community and would be consistent with the spirit and interest of the City's zoning laws and the comprehensive plan of the city. At the February 24, 2000 meeting, the Board considered Appeal of the Enforcement Officer's Decision #A00-001 which addressed a similar swimming pool situation. The Board was able to grant that appeal. Conclusion: Based on the facts and considerations noted in this report, Staff feels the Board may. wish to. consider granting the Appeal of the Building Official's Decision ##A00-003. Although staff plans to submit changes in the zoning ordinance to the Planning and Zoning C-' nnmission and City Council, the time involved would delay this project. If the Board chooses *to grant #A00- 003; .this action would allow the applicant to proceed with the construction of the pool at this time. Appeals: 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 of the decision in the office of the Board of Adjustment. g •a c 4 L�j ii e LIV W,., " � r4l p;T i a A&asca LA7UterwG /V'd P-1% ` SCALE: 1-- 2 LOT 13 LOT 12 LOT 1 N 89.39'52'• W 60.00' 01, I ' 1/2• IRF 6: U.E. S' x 20' A.E. , so c •' o TWO 3 BRK B�R FRAME LOT 8 a at RESIDENCE 4J - 00 >� LOT 10 N N 49.9 O U7 9A Z . S.1 v — — .... • — — — 25' ee.L. CA ;,.• .. ,.. . e•, CO p cm a Gvl 0 S ,89'39'52' E 60.00' `�'� •.•';'':. " SPENCER LANDING NORTH .:.' "' : •. 1 1 SEf /011,N A"N"p"KL�6 N /NL "'�A1N�DC�y[tl4iR tR►(0'W BpImYLL 7. 0/ 111E E GommOR. NM comets b_ful�a an Is M � `CaMrd :q 1L L. a P. f. mmw AD UUM AM YNDCRCIpm W.. we lead AU /eemtl r101 bf Ileleeelele oA p NY w ph � nWp Ile WWn a b IM tLLLIWC EdNICE AS PD! N.Gf:J. Nf4 T1af1iA. eennle d - a b eleell IleleeR rW IINeO V 6—w" eeb ats I:.lee EWed b aw f7 Mod bnee eels Wlmea fe• ao. NM/ LEGAL: LOT a. BLOCK A SPENCER LANDING SUBOMS/ON SEC. 2. P" CODE Na 421 f49. ALR. MARRO DOW" TEXAS LENDER: TRLE COMPANY: OF NO: PLAZA MORTOAG& ITS SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS TEXAS AMERICM 7771E COMPANY BSO-00-1032 PURCHASER: GUY ANDERSON and LAUME ANDERSON ADORESS: 10506 SPENCER LANDING NORTH. LA PORTS TEXAS THE PROPERLY SHOWN HEREON OWE mr— ' i tsDIAR aOaIK A atanElm Nav[>maw IAto :IaNOaa N lMf uAR d l0aa ae IIDKaY (mpry R LIE WITHIN A SPECIAL FL000 HAZARD AREA F 0NP {AIaN! AA'ODPSIOAI aed IEl:A! AW'!�'YV RILC CaagMry INUNDATED BY 100—YGR 000 AND IS V,,•4;1• �` as Iaat al aaaaq NDNDW OELINEATEO OSITLIATEO NIN FIRMCOMMUNITY PANEL ROM. 'tP'Q��'G .'�Eb':9 OI N IlNrloNlwlaAM� oa Dim% E AqE � N ®S.M7 e9�s r DATED A —OR-9R . iI); y • KWA19 1000 . RIGOR► NM m NO RW A ...5...................T..• 1 J. MICHAEL MOORE SURVEYED: 06-20-00 .T•••..•4400........ . - DRAFTED: 06-20-00 . MAP NO. 539 Z �9 � JOB NO. 000119 6nro/c r Texom 10900WiJd1 '�u1eKJ3 - nacn+oAroasT90•i2 - C/ly)974-•s2+9 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 encroach into a 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 encroach into a utility easement. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN CONNECTION WITH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION #NCU00-002- CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS NC000-002 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 1, 2000 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW . Upon conclusion of the public hearing of the above -referenced cause, held on June 1, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. at La Porte City Hall, 604 West Fairmont Parkway, during which witnesses were called and testified, subsequent to be 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. Applicants, Robert and Kevin Blackwell, are the owners of property ("Property") at located at 10427 N. "L" Street, located within the City of La Porte, Harris County, Texas. 2. On May 17, 2000, Robert and Kevin Blackwell 'submitted an application for Exemption from Extended Useful Life Requirements for three current non- conforming uses on said property - cattle production, horse stables, and a welding shop. 3. Notice 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. 4. Property was purchased by Applicants in 1980. James Brent currently leases the home located at 10427 N. "L" Street, the property in question. - 5. Kevin Blackwell obtained- a Non -conforming Use Zoning'permit under previous ordinance provisions which recognizedthe: three-' aforementioned -"non- conforming uses. 6. The three aforementioned non -conforming uses were considered pre-existing uses under said previous ordinance provisions. 7. Property- is Zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, which is a zoning classification for single family dwellings with common uses that enhance the family and its property. 8. Property is located in Lomax area, which is typically more rural, and which said R-1 Zone anticipates large lot residential uses, including. agricultural uses. 9. Property resides on 13.5-acres of land. The western parcel is 9.0 acres in size and is used primarily for grazing. The eastern parcel is 4.5 acres in size, and includes 1) single family residence, 2) a horse stable, and 3) a welding shop. 10. Property's first non -conforming use, cattle production, was in existence prior to consolidation of Lomax and La Porte. As such; it is a valid pre-existing use under previous zoning provisions. 11.' ' During observations conducted between January and May 2000, the number of livestock on the 4.5 acre parcel has ranged from three to six cattle. There was no evidence of over -grazing or facts substantiating claims that applicants confined excessive numbers of cattle to said parcel. 12. Adjoining landowners engage in similar activity and/ or greatly benefit from the applicant's cattle operations. 13. Property's second non -conforming use, horse stables, has been in existence since the 1950's, and was.allowed to continue as a non -conforming use under previous zoning provisions at the time of Lomax -La Porte consolidation. 14: Though the permit issued to Applicants on October 16, 1990 to run -a horse stable allows for a commercial business in a R-1 zone, and for an exception to the two animal per acre limit under current law (§106-263 of La Porte Code of Ordinances), between January and May 2060 applicants . have in fact not exceeded the two animal per acre limit. Furthermore, the property and horse stable structures were in good condition, with no signs of excessive manure or waste. Testimony received from adjoining residents established that the operation of the business had a positive effect on the area. 15. Property's third non -conforming use, a welding shop, was also in existence prior to the Lomax -La Porte consolidation, and was allowed to continue as a non-, conforming use undee previous zoning provisions. 16. Between January and May 2000 no welding operations have been observed . . .taking place on the property., The surrounding area was clean and well maintained. No .complaints were received by the board from surrounding residents pertaining to the. welding shop or its operations. 17. Only one resident, . Bill Scott, has formally objected to Applicant's request for Exemption from Extended Useful Life Requirements. Scott has complained to the Board that Property contains a corrugated ' metal fence, that between 1987 and 1993 there was a substantial increase in agricultural activity, and of the presence of excess noise, manure, and flies..Scott also challenged the legality of applicant's pre-existing uses, based on a claim that said uses. were only begun after Applicant's purchase of Property. O: Planning & Zoning, City of La Porte FINDINGS OF FACT 1,8. Alternatively, overwhelming testimony from. adjoining and local residents of Applicants refuted Scott's claims of increases or excessive activity. Testimony revealed wide community participation, and/or acceptance of agricultural uses. Sufficient evidence was 'also found by the Board substantiating Applicant's position that the current non -conforming uses were and are valid pre-existing uses. 19.. Granting of Applicant's request for Exemption from . Extended- Useful Life Requirements is consistent with the -stated goals of Zoning Ordinance §106-261 to allow for exemption to preserve property rights, lots, and uses established prior to applicable regulations,. and to promote the general welfare and character of the surrounding community. 20. Any conclusions of law which may be deemed findings of fact are adopted as part of.these findings. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Substantial evidence in the record shows that Applicants are entitled to a further non -conforming use exemption from * Extended Useful Life Requirements. Applicants have demonstrated that the three specific non -conforming uses, 1) cattle production, 2) horse stables, and 3) a welding shop, were and are valid pre-existing uses whose continuation is .necessary to preserve property rights and specific structures, and is necessary to promote the general welfare and to protect the character of the surrounding communi_y.. No evidence was received by the Board that demonstrated that any of said non -conforming uses are a detriment to the safety or well being of the surrounding community, or that the purposes of current, applicable zoning* regulations are undermined. Applicants presented to the Board substantial evidence that said non -conforming uses were valid pre-existing . uses allowed to continue under previous zoning ordinance provisions, which evidence was sufficient to overcome opponent's objections. The Board concludes that based on the evidence and testimony received Applicants have shown by substantial evidence that they are entitled to. an exemption from Extended Useful Life Requirements of §106-266 of La Porte Code of Ordinances. 2. The Board concludes that upon the condition that Applicants remove an unsafe, corrugated metal fence, the three aforementioned non -conforming uses are held to have no material adverse impact upon the land uses otherwise permitted in the R-1 Zoned District encompassing Property, pursuant to §106-265(b) of La Porte Code of Ordinances. 3 As a matter of law, the three aforementioned non -conforming uses carried on at Property, which are non -conforming uses as defined under, the terms of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Porte, are -hereby declared by the Board to be O: Planning & Zoning, City of La Porte FINDINGS OF FACT exempt from Extended Useful Life Requirements, subject to any and all conditions contained herein. 4. Any and all 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, LL ,'2000. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CITY'OF LA PORTE, TEXAS SidqT Grant, Chalrean O: Planning & Zoning, City of La Porte FINDINGS OF FACT