HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-23-06 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
Minutes of the Meeting
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2006
Members Present:
Sidney Grant, George Maltsberger, Charles Schoppe, Rod Rothermel, and
Gilbert Montemayor (Alt. No.2)
Bob Capen and Lawrence McNeal (Alt. No.1)
Members Absent:
City Staff Present
Clark Askins, Assistant City Attorney; Masood Malik, City Planner; Peggy Lee,
Secretary.
NOTE: Gilbert Montemayor, Alt. NO.2 was a voting member.
1: CAll TO ORDER.
Chairman Sidney Grant called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 23, 2006, MEETING.
Minutes of the meeting were approved as presented.
3. CONSIDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST #SE06-D03 FOR PROPERTY lOCATED AT
9601 MONTGOMERY LANE, FURTHER DESCRIBED BY THE HARRIS COUNTY
APPRAISAL DISTRICT AS WEST 48' OF lOT 198, BLOCK 11, SPENWICK PLACE, SECTION
2, lA PORTE, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE APPLICANT, TIM E. SCHOOLEY, SEEKS AN
EXCEPTION TO ERECT A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD, PROHIBITED BY THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES. THIS EXCEPTION IS BEING SOUGHT UNDER THE TERMS OF SECTION
106-191(B)(2)(A) OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES.
A. STAFF PRESENTATION
Masood Malik presented Staffs Report. The applicant, Tim Schooley, has requested a
special exception to allow construction of a fence within the front yard setback of property
located at 9601 Montgomery Lane. A fence existed at the site for over 35 years until removal
of the home at 9521 Montgomery Lane. The proposed fence would be situated to join evenly
with the existing fence of the abutting property owner.
16 property owners located within 200 feet of the subject tract were sent notification of the
public hearing. Three responses were received favoring the exception and one was returned
undeliverable.
B. PROPONENTS
Chairman Grant swore in Tim Schooley, 9601 Montgomery Lane. Mr. Schooley noted he has
a 3-yr. old granddaughter and needs the fence for her safety. He also wants the fence to
contain his pets. He plans to install a 6' or 6Y2' cedar fence along the back and sides and a
wrought iron fence in the front.
Chairman Grant swore in Linda Burpee, 9522 Montgomery Lane. Ms. Burpee lives across
the street from the subject property. Mr. Schooley's new home has improved the
neighborhood and the requested fence should not pose a problem. She agrees with Mr.
Schooley that safety/security is a factor. Recently, she has experienced problems with
teenagers/young adults riding motorcycles on her lawn.
C. OPPONENTS
No opposition was presented.
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of March 23, 2006
Page 2
Motion by George Maltsberger to approve Special Exception #06-003 to allow construction of a
front yard fence within the front yard setback of the property located at 9601 Montgomery Lane.
Second by Rod Rothermel. The motion carried.
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Maltsberger, Rothermel, Schoppe, Montemayor, and Grant
Assistant City Attorney, Clark Askins, read aloud from Section 106-196 of the Code of
Ordinances, which addresses Appeals.
4. CONSIDER APPEAL OF AN ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION #A06-D03 FOR
PROPERTY lOCATED AT 303 S.IOWA STREET, FURTHER DESCRIBED BY THE HARRIS
COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT AS lOTS 4,5, S % OF 3, AND N % OF 6, BLOCK 216,
TOWN OF lA PORTE, JOHNSON HUNTER SURVEY, ABSTRACT 35, lA PORTE, HARRIS
COUNTY, TEXAS. THE PROPERTY OWNER, RANDAll W. CERNOSEK, SEEKS
APPROVAL TO REBUilD SECOND FLOOR ON EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AND
ENLARGE FLOOR AREA FROM 480 SQ. FT. TO 720 SQ. FT. PROHIBITED PER SECTION
106-262 (C) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. THIS APPEAL IS BEING MADE UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 106-89(3) OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES.
A. STAFF PRESENTATION
Masood Malik presented Staffs Report. The applicant, Randall Cernosek, has appealed the
enforcement officer's decision regarding construction of a two story detached garage at
property he owns at 303 S. Iowa. The existing detached garage was a two story
nonconforming structure with the garage height exceeding the principal one story structure.
The second story of the garage was removed in August 2005 and a carport was added to the
front. Mr. Cernosek would like to rebuild the second floor and roof of the existing garage and
carport and enlarge the area of the nonconforming structure from 480 sq. ft. to 720 sq ft.,
extended over the carport. He has estimated the cost to rebuild the second floor to be less
than 50% of the total cost. City Staff contends the cost exceeds 50% of the total cost.
16 property owners located within 200 feet of the subject tract were sent notification of the
public hearing. Four responses were received favoring the appeal.
Mr. Maltsberger noted the estimate should be based on the replacement cost for two stories
rather than one; therefore the cost to rebuild would not exceed 50%.
B. PROPONENTS
Chairman Grant swore in Randy Cernosek, of 514 S. Blackwell and owner of 303 S. Iowa.
Mr. Cemosek wants to rebuild the second story of a garage that had been damaged by the
elements. The proposed height is 20' from ground level to the ridge of the roof. The height
of the principal structure is 18', According to Mr. Cernosek, the construction cost to replace
the second story is estimated at $7,996.80, based on the ACE 2003 Construction Cost
Guide. He showed photographs depicting the existing structures, as well as a view of the
surrounding properties. Mr. Cernosek discussed options available to him.
Mr. Cernosek answered questions from the Board. He wants to enhance the existing
structure. The second floor will be used for storage.
C. OPPONENTS
There were none.
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of March 23, 2006
Page 3
Motion by Rod Rothermel to approve Appeal of the Enforcement Officer's Decision #A06-003,
allowing the applicant to rebuild the second floor of the existing detached garage and enlarge
the second floor from 480 sq. ft. to 720 sq. ft., extended over the carport located at 303 S. Iowa
Street. Second by Charles Schoppe. The motion carried.
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Maltsberger, Rothermel, Schoppe, and Grant
Montemayor
Assistant City Attorney, Clark Askins, read aloud from Section 106-196 of the Code of
Ordinances, which addresses Appeals.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Mr. Malik reported the following:
. Two minor subdivisions will be located along S. Broadway adjacent to the golf course
. Lakes at Fairmont Greens, Section 1, will be located along Wharton Weems Blvd @ SH 146
. Fire Station #2, Spencer Hwy. adjacent to Baker Jr. High - Grand Opening last week
· Police Dept. site plan under review
. Bay Area Blvd. scheduled to open mid-April
. Widening of Sens Rd. estimated to begin early 2007
6. BOARD COMMENTS
Mr. Montemayor inquired about training.
7. ADJOURN
Chairman Grant adjourned the meeting at 6:45 PM.
Submitted by,
Peggy
Secretary, Zoning Board of Adjustment
Approved on this :J. 7 day of
~
,2006.
#V06-002
VARIANCE
FOR
DETACHED GARAGE AT 728 S. CARROLL STREET
EXHIBITS:
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
STAFF REPORT
EXHIBIT A - AREA MAP
EXHIBIT B - SECTION 106-741, ACCESSORY
BUILDINGS, USES AND EQUIPMENT,
SECTION 106-835, FIGURE 10-2, CURB
AND DRIVEW A Y CRITERIA,
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF THE
CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES
EXHIBIT C - PUBLIC NOTICE RESPONSES
CITY OF LA PORTE
ZONJNG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
VARIANCE REQUEST
Application No.:
OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $150.00 Date Received:
Receipt No.:
Note: This Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision
#- /106- 00;(
3 - ;'7- 0-6
]6 Oc2 S"
Applicant:
R DbEr& ~ K JeidJ1 g R/ii
Name
73IJ 5 C/9Jf/ZLJ//
Address
cJ?;- ?9~-/~/~
Phone
I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized
to act on my behalf in this matter.
Owner*: R.o bf"d'}L /(/li6-tA E (0" tt
Name
Address
Phone
I am requesting a variance to Sect. of the City Zoning regulations Chapter 106 of the
Code of Ordinance. , /
I am requesting this variance for property located at 7 d ~ ;{ 1'0 "-~ C /; /&e.tJ II
J ~ Dj L D r Street A.ddress } /J _J
A.O~--S Ljd) lJ~ 'l5V'Ito 1:) 1<\. d~ JOAYlf!.t)).)-l:.. "to J...A ro~
Legal Description
() Site Plan
( ) Major Development Site Plan
( ) Minor Development Site Plan
( ) General Plan
A Site Plan ofthe property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the
following pages ofthis form.
a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request.
b) The type ofreliefI am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.).
c) The grounds upon which I am making this request.
· Ifapplkant ~ ~~;h;h;~: mu~ proTIde Ao~~~S beh~f.
( Dati Applicant's ignature
Office Use Only
Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes 0 No 0
Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments:
Meeting Date:
Applicant Notified of Date:
Notice to surrounding property owners- Date:
Board's Decision:
Approved ()
Denied ( )
Notice of Boards Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner:
2
A variance is a" deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance." The City's
Board of Adjustments may NOT grant a variance that does not meet all of the following
conditions:
1) The variance must not be contrary to the public interest.
2) Literal enforcement ofthe Zoning Ordinance must result in a hardship. This hardship
must be unique to the property in question. Property that is undevelopable due to its
unusual shape, narrowness, shallowness, or topography constitutes the primary example
of hardship. Hardships that are financial in nature or due to the owner's actions cannot
be granted.
3) Granting the variance must not violate the spirit ofthe Zoning Ordinance.
4) No variance that allows a use that is prohibited within the Use zone in question may be
granted. For example, a variance allowing a commercial use in a residential zone is not
allowable.
Please remember it is the Applicant's responsibility to prove that a variance will meet the
above conditions.
Ifthere 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 TillS MATTER:
6,EE .4i-t/lCl/J1E.A.Jt
3
FACTORS:
Acquired property at 730 S. Carroll approximately two (2) years ago and enclosed the bottom of
the 882 square foot structure that was built on pilings. Tried to make one of the 8' openings a
garage without disturbing the oak tree growing by the driveway that existed prior to our
acquiring the property. Due the extreme entry angle, the garage is not very easily accessible and
seldom used. Also, due to the small square footage of the structure there is no storage space
upstairs. In January-2006, we acquired the property at 728 S. Carroll with the purpose in mind
to demolish the dilapidated structure and build a multi-bay garage with storage on the second
floor. The structure was demolished February-2006 at a cost of$3,700.
TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT:
We ate petitioning the Zoning Board of Adjustment for variances in three (3) areas:
.1) Adjust the height requirement from 20' to 25' which will meet the present height of the
structure at 730 S. Carroll Street
. 2) Allow the new structure to have 1,435 sq. ft. of floor space to allow for the inclusion of a
four (4) care garage with ample storage on the second floor.
3) Allow for the construction of a 41' driveway to service the four (4) car garage
THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUESTS:
Due to the small square footage (882 sq. ft.) of our present residence at 730 S. Carroll Street and
the inadequacy of the one (1) accessible garage bay, 'Ye believe that our variance requests are
well in line with the interest of the neighborhood. As a 32-year veteran of the Houston Fire
Department (HFD) I am required to work 24-hour rotating shifts. While my schedule requires
me to be away from home when my wife departs and returns from work. it is my intention to
secure our premises with a fence around and between the structures to allow for her security
when leaving and arriving home. Additionally, we intend to make the structure aesthetically
pleasing for the present neighborhood and possibly stimulate new interest in rehabilitating
present structures or building new ones in our neighborhood. The allowance of these variances
will ensure our ability to park our vehi~les and boat behind garage doors and not add to the
unsightly parking of vehicles, boats and trailers in driveways and yards as is presently done.
Thank you in advance for considering our requests and for your civic work on this committee.
Staff Report
April 27, 2006
Reauested by:
Reauested for:
Location:
ZoniUl~:
Back2:round:
Variance Request #V06-002
Robert & Krista Britt, Property Owners
Height of the detached garage, floor area, and width of driveway
728 South Carroll Street
(Block 22; Lots 45 & 46; Bay Front Addition, Town of La Porte)
Low Density Residential (R -1 )
The applicant owns a house at 730 S. Carroll Street, described as Lots 43 & 44, Block 22,
Bay Front Addition to La Porte. The Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) record
shows that the house was built in 1996 and has a living area 882 sq. ft. The applicant
enclosed the bottom area and tried to make an opening for the garage without disturbing
existing trees located nearby the drive at this property. The narrow approach and no
storage area available make it unusable. Recently, the applicant purchased adjoining
property at 728 S. Carroll Street, described as Lots 45 & 46, Block 22, Bay Front
Addition to La Porte. The house had a living area of 760 sq. ft. and was built in 1955 as
per HCAD. The applicant demolished the dilapidated structure and now proposes to
build a multi-bay garage with storage on the second floor.
The applicant is requesting variances in three areas; height, floor space, and width of the
driveway along South Carroll Street.
Height - As per Section 106-741(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, a detached garage may
be 20' in height, or equal the height of the principal structure, whichever is less. The
height of the primary structure at 730 S. Carroll is approximately 25'. The applicant is
requesting to adjust the height requirements from 20' to 25', which will meet the
height of the principal structure.
Floor Area - As per Section 106-741(e)(1), no accessory building or carport garage
for single-family dwellings shall occupy more than 25 percent of a rear yard, nor
exceed 1,000 square feet of floor area. Here, the applicant is requesting to allow 1,435
sq.ft. of floor space for inclusion of four car garage with an ample storage on the
second floor.
Driveway - As per Section 106-835, Figure 10-2, Curb and Driveway Criteria,
Residential Districts, driveway width requirement is 12' to 25'. The applicant is
seeking a 41' driveway width to serve the four car garage.
Zoning Board of Adjustment
April 27, 2006
#V 06-002
Page 2 of3
Analvsis:
Section 1 06-1 92(b )( 1), in the Code of Ordinances, defmes a variance as a deviation from
the literal provisions of the chapter which is granted by the Board when strict conformity
to the chapter would cause an unnecessary hardship because of the circumstances
unique to the property on which the variance is granted
Except as otherwise prohibited, the board is empowered to authorize a variance from a
requirement when the board finds that all of the following conditions have been met.
.:. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the best public interest.
.:. That literal enforcement of the chapter will result in unnecessary hardship because of
exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or
exceptional physical situation unique to the specific piece of property in question.
"Unnecessary hardship" shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself
as distinguished from a hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or
caprice, and the hardship must not result from the applicant or property owner's own
actions; and
.:. That by granting the variance, the spirit of the chapter will be observed
The Board is charged with determining if the applicant's variance request to above
sections of the ordinance is reasonable and whether all of the above conditions were met.
To determine if granting the applicant's request would be contrary to the general public,
it should be noted that the home and garage shall be consistent in design and that the
development of the property may not create a problem with adjoining properties.
Adjoining properties are also single-family residential.
When looking at the next test, the variance may still observe the spirit of the law, if one
considers the spirit is to ensure uniformity and property maintenance throughout the City.
There is already some degree of property irregularities at various sites in this
neighborhood; therefore, it does not appear that the applicant's request will create a
negative impact to the property or the surrounding area.
The final test is the most difficult and involves unnecessary hardship. Staff does not find
the applicant's request meets the physical hardship test, as there is nothing unique about
his property.
Conclusion:
Variance Request #V06-002 seeks relief for proposed two story detached garage. The
circumstance, however, for the requested variance needs to be re-evaluated in that the
request is not due to physical hardship imposed by the uniqueness of the property in
question. In addition, the property needs to be replatted as one lot with one HCAD
account to declare the accessory use in a side yard for the principal structure.
Zoning Board of Adjustment
April 27, 2006
#V 06-002
Page 3 of3
While the reasons for the variance relating to the size of the building do not strictly
conform to "physical hardship relating to the property itself' the building's intended use
to store multiple vehicles and ample storage space on the second floor may be taken into
consideration when rendering a decision.
While recognizing the circumstances associated with the property, the Board could
consider:
. Allowing the building to be 25' in height, in excess of the 20' allowed by
ordinance, permit new structure to have 1,435 sq.ft. to accommodate intended
private storage of cars with ample storage on second floor, and allow a 41'
driveway to service car garage (variance granted).
. Disapprove additional height of the detached garage, floor area in excess of
1,000 sq.ft., and keep maximum driveway width 25' as permitted in residential
districts (variance denied).
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
Acijustment, 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 Acijustment.
#V06-002
728 & 730 S, CARROLL
~ 106~741
LA PORTE CODE
DIVISION 2. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES AND EQUIPMENT
Sec. 106-741. General provisions.
(a) No accessory buildings, uses or structures shall be erected or located in any required
yard other than the rear yard except:
(1) A detached private garage as defined, may be permitted in side yards, provided:
a. It complies with all the requirements of this section;
b. It shall be five feet or more from side lot lines; and
c. The side yard does not abut a street right-of-way.
(2) Accessory buildings built on a skid foundation, no larger than 120 square feet and no
more than one story in height may be located in utility easements in required rear
yards, except that they may not be located closer than three feet from a side or rear
property line or closer than six feet from any other structure.
(b) Accessory buildings, uses and structures shall not exceed 15 feet in height, shall be
three feet or more from all lot lines, shall be six feet or more from any other building or
structure on the same lot, and shall not be located upon any utility easement.
(c) Private garage structures with vehicular access doors facing public alleys, as defined in
the public improvement construction policy and standards, shall be 20 feet or more from the
alley right-of-way. Detached garages located in rear yards of corner lots shall be set back a
minimum ten feet from the property line abutting the side street right-of-way.
~.. (d) Detached private garages, as defined, may be 20 feet in height, or the height of the
principal structure, whichever is less.
(e) Floor area.
(1) Generally. No accessory building, or carport garage for single-family dwellings shall
occupy more than 25 percent of a rear yard, nor exceed 1,000 square feet of floor area.
(2) Large lot residential only. Accessory buildings in single-family residential large lots
may not exceed 2,000 square feet of floor area. Accessory buildings with a floor area in
excess of 1,000 square feet must be located at least 30 feet from any property line and
30 feet behind the rear of the primary structure.
(f) No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one detached private garage
or carport structure for each dwelling.
(g) Wind generators, for producing electricity or other forms of energy shall not be located
in any yards other than the rear yard and must be set back 150 feet from all ~roperty lines or
the height of the structure, whichever is greater.
CD106:82
:~HtBn
ZONING
~ 106-835
FIGURE 10-2
CURB AND DRIVEWAY CRITERIA, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
(R-1, R-2, R-3, MH)
Driveway
V Drive width
Curb return radius
Distance from intersection
Spacing between driveway
Distance from side lot line
Intersecting angle
Approach grade
For concrete drives only:
a. Material
b. Expansion joint
c. Curb (if applicable)
Obstruction clearance
Requirements
12' to 25'
2' to 5'
25' min. *
10' min.
3' min.
90
5% max.
Min. 4" thickness
wI 6x6-6/6 W.W.M.
At property line
Curb disappearing at
property line
Min. 3' from poles,
hydrants, etc.
* This. distance shall be measured from the intersection of property lines common with street
right-of-way lines.
FIGURE 10-3
CURB AND DRIVEWAY CRITERIA
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
(CR, NC, GC, BI, LI, HI)
Driveway Criteria Requirements
Commercial Industrial
Drive width
Curb return radius
Distance from intersection
Spacing between driveways
Number of accesses
% of property frontage
Intersecting angle
Approach grade
Expansion joint
20' to 25'
10' to 15'
40'*
40' min.
1/80'; 21150'
40%
90
5% max.
At prop. line
CD106:95
30' to 40'
10' to 15'
40' min. *
40' min.
1180'; 21150'
40%
90
5% max.
At prop. line
A Meeting of the La Porte
Zoning Board of Adjustment
(Type of Meeting)
to Consider
Scheduled for
April 27, 2006
(Date of Meeting)
Variance Request #V06-002
(Type of Request)
I have received notice of the above referenced public hearing.
R of granting this reques for the following reasons:
I am OPPOSED to granting this request for the following reasons:
""'-1
,,"'. /'
7;2~
LC>\
~ _ C4,'YY(jf(
Ad~ss
t/d'iL -~ 7)( 7 7J 7/
City, State, Zip/ .
~HIBn' C
A Meeting of the La Porte
0, r",r~\/FD
.~ t. t,-,.~, n ~;~... ' ... ,... '
Zonin~ Board of Adjustment
(Type of Meeting)
~. "'"
',106
Scheduled for
~-'DT'
>-1 Q
DI
I (
April 27 , 2006
(Date of Meeting)
to Consider
Variance Request #V06-002
(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:
I-t wJR ~~A~. -tik- ~
I am OPPOSED to granting this request for the following reasons:
Rt1t'lCf-r f3reitt Jf(-
~Print)-)
rgnarore
7dO 0. C/J/UtO)/
Address
lJl- fIllfc I X. 77S7/
City, Sdte, Zip
A Meeting of the La Porte
Scheduled for
RECEIVED
APR 1 7 2006
PLANNING DEPr
Zoning Board of Adjustment
(Type of Meeting)
April 27, 2006
(Date of Meeting)
to Consider
Variance Request #V06-002
(Type of Request)
I have received notice of the above referenced public hearing.
I in FA VO R of granting this request for the following reasons:
~
~
I am OPPOSED to granting this request for the following reasons:
,....'"...~
~r'~ Alx-:Si!.()//
. J~_;;::tJ'b'" print).
cJS) G?D<1Y>A/O(l At 0 Z-~
Signature
~ (/ J\ (];u-r() II 9,
/ Address
f.-O- POt-fe>, r7 7 7 57/-S-P~
City, State, z1p -
RECEIVED
A Meeting of the La Porte
APR 1 8 2006
Zoninl!; Board of Adjustment
(Type of Meeting)
PLANNING DEPI
Scheduled for
April 27, 2006
(Date of Meeting)
to Consider
Variance Request #V06-002
(Type of Request)
I have received notice of the above referenced public hearing,
I =@_ring dlli requ",' fu, the following 'eawn"
;-f/'-i )4/:1/ V~~/d.."'Ar- tV-//J b e-~~~
)? e..l ..II?'.r 4.~,,!!p -I -
I am OPPOSED to granting this request for the following reasons:
Awe Rtt:,H/)/
Name (please print) '"
#- s ~0-------
19I1ature
7P7
.
s: ~/;U&.:1
Address ..
,.t,. A..r~~ 1 ~
City, State,tzip
77 S""7/
#A06-002
APPEAL OF THE BUILDING
OFFICIAL'S DECISION
EXHIBITS
A. Staff Report
B. Location Map
C. Application
D. Sections 106-262(h) (1), City's
Code of Ordinances
Staff Report April 27 , 2006
Appeal of Building Official's Decision #A 06-002
ReQuested by:
ReQuested for:
Back2round:
Andrew J. Mehring, Property owner
628 North Sth Street
Lots 3 & 4, Block 331; Town of La Porte
The applicant is appealing the Building Official's Decision to apply Code
of Ordinances Division 9, Nonconforming Buildings, Structures, and
Uses, Sections 106-261, 106-262 to the existing building at 628 N. Sth
Street. The City's 1989 official zoning map, identifies the property in
question as General Commercial (GC) zone. Later, the property was rezoned
to Business Industrial (BI) in conjunction with the rezoning of nearby
property along Barbour's Cut Boulevard and that same zoning classification
remains in place. Although the property is zoned Business Industrial, the
existing residential building predates the zoning classification. The structure
and use are simply identified as "pre-existing, non-conforming" and this use
may continue as long as the building and use are not abandoned.
The current owner purchased the property in May, 200S. Total land area is
6,2S0 sq. ft. (0.143 ac.) with a one story frame building and living area of
1,104 sq. ft. As per HCAD, the present structure was built in 19S5. On
11-16-0S, the City official identified roof work being performed without a
City permit. The applicant was informed of a zoning issue for this
property. As the property is zoned business industrial, single-family
residential is not permitted.
The City records show that 628 North Sth Street was not in use from October,
2001 to November, 200S. This nonuse was in excess of 180 days. The
City's Zoning Ordinance Section 106-262(h) (1) states: "A non-conforming
use shall be deemed abandoned when the use ceases to be used for the non-
conformity for a period of 180 consecutive calendar days. The non-
conforming use, when abandoned, shall not resume." The abandonment
determination is based on the following:
a) The Electric Company record shows no meter or an account on this
address. Normally, the account ceases after six months of inactivity.
b) The City's Water Department record shows the water service terminated
from 10-16-2001 until latest request on 11-09-200S.
;:,vH,"~'Rll 1:....1
~.flI,_.R....... iJ. .r...
Board of Adjustment
04/27/06 - #A 06-002
Analvsis:
If a building or facility is constructed in accordance with the development
standards, ordinances or policies that are in effect at that time, any changes
or modifications in the City's development standards would create a
situation commonly referred to as "pre-existing nonconforming". Section
106-262 of the City's Code of Ordinances addresses non-conforming
structures. In this case, paragraph (h) would apply because the structure
has been abandoned longer than the 180 consecutive calendar days.
In accordance with the Section 106-262(h)(3), the applicant has been
notified of the non-conforming aspects and abandonment of this particular
property via certified mail. It is further added that the owner seeking to
maintain such nonconforming use or structure may appeal the decision to
the board. It is the responsibility of the owner to provide proof to the
board that the structure or use has not been abandoned for a period of 180
consecutive calendar days and the abandonment was not intentional.
The applicant's contention is that the property was not abandoned for 180
days under his ownership. In addition, the size of the lot limits the type of
business/activities permitted for this particular property in the business
industrial zone. Staff has discussed the regulations and informed that a
denied permit may initiate the appeal process for consideration by the
Zoning Board of Adjustment. Therefore, he has chosen to make use of the
appeal avenue and his appeal application precedes this report. The applicant
is requesting he be allowed to continue the use of this non-conforming
structure/use because his intention for purchasing this property was to
remodel the house and lease it. Staff has found no record of a document
that previously granted permission for any remodeling, renovation or
improvement of this property.
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 diffirence 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.
Board of Adjustment
04/27/06 - #A 06-002
Conclusion:
. Section 106-261 states that nonconformities in the use and
development of land and buildings are to be avoided, or eliminated
where not existing, wherever and whenever possible, except when
necessary to preserve property rights.
Current regulations are written in a clear manner that allows the
enforcement officer to understand the intent of City Council as it relates
to nonconforming structures and uses. These regulations have been in
effect since the January 26, 1987 adoption of Zoning Ordinance #1501
(Chapter 106).
b) That the resulting interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one
property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated.
. Section 106-262(g) states that, "A structure that is nonconforming may
be altered, remodeled or otherwise improved but not enlarged, unless
the board of adjustment determines that such enlargement will not
result in an increase in the degree of nonconformity with the
regulations and development standards of the district in which it is
located. "
Current regulations show consistency in the enforcement of the
regulation and ensure no "special privilege" to anyone property.
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.
. Section 106-262 (h) (2) states that, "A nonconforming structure shall
be deemed abandoned when the structure ceases to be used for the
nonconformity for a period of 180 consecutive calendar days. The use
of the nonconforming structure, when abandoned, shall not resume."
Staff believes the request conflicts with the intent of the regulations
and would not be in the best interest of the community or be consistent
with the spirit and interest of the City's Zoning Laws and the
Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Based on the facts and considerations noted in this report, Staff feels the
request does not comply with the intent of the City's nonconforming
structure regulations.
Board of Adjustment
04/27/06 - #A 06-002
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.
#A06-002
628 N. 5th St.
~liI-,~~~
':~t~.~".t;,_~' ~.~ ~,o.'j'~ m
CITY OF LA PORTE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION
Application No.: f\f'h - DDj-
OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $150.00 Date Received: "3f'110-ciC>0
Applicant:
fl-ttJte;,-.) J. M~~ r t'n ~
Name
911 t< r'chV'AIe.. Lit . ..llo~!op/, 7"7tJ!a-z.-
Address
PH: 2g/~'1&~ ~SIY9
I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized
to act on my behalf in this matter.
Owner*:
Name
PH:
Address
I am appealing the decision regarding or the interpertation of Sect. '2..& 2 (h) ( .3) of
the City Zoning regulations Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances. I am making this
appeal ~I~artto ~~proS+rty located at: _l?Jl k. ??\ '. LOts 3,~
Street Address . Legal Description
( ) Site Plan
( ) Major Development Site Plan
( ) Minor Development Site Plan
( ) General Plan
A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below
on the following pages of this form.
a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request.
b) The type of relief I am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc. ).
c) The grounds upon which I am making this request.
* If applicant is NOT the owner, he must provide Authorization to act on the Owner's
behalf.
3/~&
/D e
c
~--- -./
Applicant's SignatuV
--------------------------------------
OFFICE USE ONLY
Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached?
Yes ( ) No ( )
Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments:
Meeting Date:
Applicant Notified of Date:
Board's Decision:
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner:
"
. ..J
,~H:18n~ C
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 TInS MATTER:
'1 pwrJ,aseJ ~lS ~eJY+-'y ,r(pre5f~l1u n~e (/\$ r'{s(~Vl:hGVL
1 V\ tJ\~ 7.00 ~ . r 'NOS Intorl'Y\ed()~ +h\ ~ -2(YV\\"'-j i S<)\A;(.
bY\ \ \ U~-' taoC) by 0.~y bw\d~YL~ \Y\sptchv 101Y\""'~ ~~ftt".
t!\y \ ~t(J(\;+~6V\ \ V\ ?If\.Y chClS\ ~~ f-h\ 'S ?(,6 pfJ" ry \N a. ~ {-c
f .ljVtod-e...,\ ~e. h()tJ\se.. ) 'on~ rt- lA~ +0 C-D~e.) ci.r0 \eQsC.
~+ ,
TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT:
I O-XV\ Y-eCC\)...e.s+;~ .~- -th\'S ryO p6v+-y k
__ ___. re:\wV\d ~o \ ~<\ . stJus
tf \)< ( - -ex, <;+ l (\3 (\DY\GD\'\-\-OY rVH~ ?Y"O p<-Yty ~
GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST:
T\i. ~reYty wUtS not Ct~uul\do-Y1(d f~( I q,o ctct~S WideV'
my oWl1ex-sh\'p. ?Y\ ~~ 3lcl~s of- trus PYope('~
~e. DCGu-pi ((~ r(s \ c\.~f\tlOj ~()eyh~s / bo+h of VJhlch
~e. r(~ f'/.. l 'Jh Yl3 r'Orcl) h~(\YM \ Y\9' ~. ~d l-h6V\) i\~
s\ ze- at ~e..lo+ ~YJ ~+VlA0-kv-Q. g(eGJ-'~ lnyClt-, r ~~
-I-yr.)<:: of- b1JlSW5S M {~ 6U-U.fy tk. 9'<<>\?eKh"J .
S:\CPShare\INSPECfION DIVISION\Standanl Forms\ZONING APPEAL OFFICERS DEe.doc REVISION 10/21/03 Rye
ZONING
~ 106-262
into compliance with this chapter, or other codes and ordinances of the city. The burden of proof
in showing that the structure's repair cost does not ~xceed 50 percent of the replacement cost
of such structure rests upon the owner of such structure.
(e) Determination of replacement cost. In determining the replacement cost of any noncon-
forming structure, the cost ofland or any factors other than the nonconforming structure itself,
shall not be included.
(f) Repairs and alterations. Repairs and alterations may be made to a nonconforming
building or structure; provided, that no external alterations shall be made except those
required by law or ordinance, unless the building is changed to a conforming use. No additional
dwellin'g units shall be added where the nonconforming use results from there being more
dwelling units on the lot than is permissible in the district in which the building is located.
(g) Enlargement to nonconforming structure. A structure that is nonconforming may be
altered, remodeled or otherwise improved, but not enlarged, unless the board of adjustment
determines (pursuant to section 106-191) that such enlargement will not result in an increase
in the degree of nonconformity with the regulations and development standards of the district
in which it is iocated.
(1) Submission of schedule to eliminate nonconformity. The applicant shall present to the
board of adjustment a schedule for elimination or substantial reducti~n of the
. nonconformity over a reasonable period of time not to exceed 20 years, or setting forth
the reasons why such action is not reasonably possible;
(2) Approval of schedule by board of adjustment. The board of adjustment shall review and
make any revisions found necessary to ensure that priority is given to elimination or
reduction ~fthose nonconformities that have significant adverse impacts on surround-
ing properties, and which can reasonably be ameliorated taking into account the effect
of the configuration of the lot arid the location of existing structures and the 'cost of
eliminating or substantially reducirig such nonconformities.
~ Abandonment of nonconf~rming use or nonconforming structure.
(1) A nonconforming use shall be deemed abandoned when the use ceases to be used for
the nonconfonility for a period of 180 consecutive calendar days. The nonconforming
use, when abandoned, shall not resume.
(2) A nonconforming structure shall be deemed abandoned when the structure ceases to be
used for the nonconformity for a period of 180 consecutive calendar days. The use ofthe
nonconforming structure, when abandoned, shall not resume.
(3) When it has been determined by the enforcement officer that a nonconforming use or
structure has been abandoned, notification shall be made by certified. mail to the owner
(as shown on the certified tax rolls) of the abandoned nonconforming use or struCture.
The owner or his representative seeking to maintain such nonconforming use or
structure may appeal the enforcement officer's decision to the board of adjustment. The
property owner or his representative seeking to maintain the existing nonco~orming
Supp. No. 1
CDI06:39
7\KH:'Bfl