Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBOA Minutes 2009-09-22 Regular State of Texas )( City of Friendswood )( Counties of Galveston/Harris )( September 22, 2009 )( Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Friendswood Zoning Board of Adjustment that was held on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 7:00 PM at Friendswood City Hall Council Chambers, 910 S. Friendswood Drive, Friendswood, Texas,with the following present constituting a quorum: Chairman Greg Hughes Vice Chairman Steve Knis Regular Member Ronald Dyer Regular Member Delwyn Kendrick Regular Member David O'Brien Alternate Member Mike Czarowitz Alternate Member Glen Grayban City Attorney Bobby Gervais Building Official Frank Manigold Staff Liaison Sharon Parks Planning&Zoning Liaison Mark McClain Alternate members Carol Thelen and Linda Thornton were absent from the meeting. 7:00 PM—REGULAR SESSION Chairman Greg Hughes called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. The Oaths of Office will be given at the next regular meeting to regular members Greg Hughes, Steve Knis and Mike Czarowitz. Boardmember Dyer suggested waiting until the end of the meeting to appoint a chairman and vice chairman for the period ending July 2011. Chairman Hughes called the meeting to order to conduct a hearing on an appeal from a determination by the Building Official regarding construction of a fence beyond the front building line for the property located at 700 N. Clear Creek Drive, Lot 16, of the Friendswood Forest Subdivision. He further stated there was a hearing on this application last month, so there has already been public input, but noticed that the City had resent the letter to the residents for this hearing, so he asked if anyone else would like to speak for or against this application. No one spoke. Dick Gregg spoke on behalf of the applicants, Ann and Jedd Gulledge and stated last time he addressed the variance and the interpretation of the ordinance, but now he has added the de minimus language and the special permanent exception language. He stated there is a permit for the gate and the columns that go with the gate. This is the issue of what is in the front yard besides that which is legally and properly constructed according to the permit. Boardmember Kendrick stated he understood that Mr. Gregg said the fence was cyclone and wood fence. My understanding from the last hearing that the part across the front is barbed wire. Mr. Gregg stated it is wood and some cyclone and some barbed wire. Chairman Hughes stated he remembered from the last hearing that on the side it was chain length or wood and there was some dispute as to exactly what ran across the front or how many times it had been upgraded. Our oldest drawing showed a wire and post fence. Boardmember O'Brien wanted to know if the size of the lot was 1.627. Mr. Gregg stated yes and it was roughly the same size fence but a little taller. Repairs have taken place over a long period of time due to storm damage. With major repairs there is a much more attractive fence. There was additional discussion with the boardmembers and Mr. Gregg regarding the de minimus issue and the size of the lot. Boardmember Knis stated a large lot is two acres and above and this lot is 1.627. He was asking about the ambiguity of the definitions. Boardmember O'Brien addressed the de minimus issue under these circumstances. He stated that de minimus was stated earlier that it would have a minimum or insignificant effect and wanted to know if that was correct. Mr. Gregg stated there is no detriment to the neighbors, no benefit to the applicant, and no harm to this kind of provision. Although the lot does not meet the size of the lot in the ordinance, it does meet the spirit of the ordinance and we meet that. Boardmember O'Brien inquired as to the interpretation of the Zoning Board and the cubic content. Boardmember Kendrick commented earlier repairs and maintenance were brought up and the previous fence had been some barbed wire, some wood, and some chain length, but he could not recall where that was located. He stated he was looking under repairs and maintenance (e) and repairs of any portion of a non-conforming structure work may be done in any period in thirty- six consecutive months under ordinary repairs or replacement of non-baring walls, but then we get down to the cubic content existing when it became non-conforming shall not be increased, would this new fence have enlarged the cubic content. Mr. Gregg stated not to any large extent. Chairman Hughes stated he did not interpret that to be the wood material itself. He stated he thought that meant the enclosed space. Mr. Kendrick stated he read it to be structure and interprets the footprint of the current fence is larger in terms of cubic, meaning three dimensional,that this one is larger. Chairman Hughes made reference to the last meeting and now that we are having this discussion, there appears to be some ambiguity in the statute. Mr. Kendrick stated to Mr. Gregg that he referenced earlier about doing repairs to a fence made out of barbed wire or cyclone fence and then replace that with columns and aluminum, it would seem to be like an upgrade, not a repair. Mr. Gregg stated that it was an upgrade, but when you repair something the ordinance does not say you can not make it better. Boardmember Kendrick stated that when you repair something, you normally restore it to its original state. Mr. Gregg stated that when something is functionally obsolescent, there nothing that says you can not take advantage of modem technology and use better materials. Boardmember Dyer asked if the stone columns were lighted at the top; is there power to them. Mr. Gulledge stated only two gate columns. Boardmember Dyer inquired asking if there was a permit for the electrical power. Mr. Gulledge stated there was a permit. Chairman Hughes asked if there were anymore questions or comments. He stated that there is a reasonable difference in interpretation as to repair and replacement. He stated he thought the Board had the authority to grant the request under an appeal or the special exception if the Board can come to a consensus. Boardmember Kendrick stated he did not think there was an ambiguity and that it is quite clear what it says. He stated that he was bothered by the fact the applicant chose to disregard or ignore the order from the City to discontinue the work and chose to go ahead with it and come to appeal to this Board to give credibility or authorization for what he has already done, so he was opposed to granting his request. Boardmember O'Brien inquired as to whether or not the fence was continued to be built after it was red tagged. Mr. Gregg stated Mr. Gulledge did not know he needed a permit, so Mr. Gregg gave a brief history of the fence and how the permits were obtained and reiterated the circumstances that were mentioned in the meeting last month. Boardmember O'Brien stated he thought that the request could be granted under the special exception. Boardmember Knis stated he would like to consider that the volume is the volume enclosed by the fence that this would be an interpretation of the verification that the volume enclosed by the structure, add that to the de minimus because the fence is five or six foot higher, so he was inclined to accept the argument. Boardmember Dyer asked Frank Manigold after the stop order citation was issued, was the building of the fence continued. Mr. Manigold stated yes. The only thing that was issued was the permit for the columns. There was additional discussion regarding the stop order on the fence, whether or not the building continued, and the definition of repairs and repairs or a new structure. Boardmember Knis asked if each request: appeal, variance and permanent special exception need to be voted on. City attorney Gervais stated voting on them one at a time, but if the applicant get his request granted, then it is not necessary to vote on the others. Mr. Gregg stated he thought the applicant was confused on the issue and did not try to put anything over on the City. He is trying to deal with it in a straight forward and a good faith way. Mr. Kendrick said it was not clear in his mind what a repair is. Boardmember O'Brien stated the way he interpreted the law was you can not fence your front yard and you can not violate the 25 foot set back. Chairman Hughes summarized the three standards: the appeal, variance and the permanent special exception. Boardmember Knis made the motion that a permanent special exception for the fence based on interpretive authority where the question is the volume enclosed, is it the volume of the fence or the structure or the volume enclosed by the structure, plus any de minimus where you would consider the height of the fence difference compared to the original. Boardmember O'Brien seconded based on his previous discussion of the overall picture. Chairman Hughes asked for a vote on the motion. The motion failed 3-2 with Boardmembers Kenrick and Dyer opposed. Chairman Hughes stated that State law requires a super majority of the Board for a motion to pass. He asked for any other motion. No one made a motion, so Chairman Hughes made the motion that the Board grant a variance on the basis of the confusion of the interpretation of the literal enforcement of the provisions based on unnecessary hardship. Boardmember Knis seconded the motion. The motion failed 2-3with Boardmembers Dyer, Kendrick and O'Brien opposed. Chairman Hughes asked if anyone would like to make a motion regarding the administrative review. No one made a motion, so Chairman Hughes made the motion that the Board grant the application on the grounds of administrative review that there being a difference of interpretation as to the intent of the regulations here that the resulting interpretation would not grant a special privilege and that the decision would be in the best interest of the community consistent with the spirit and interest with the City's zoning laws. Boardmember Knis seconded the motion. The motion failed 2-3 with Boardmembers Dyer, Kendrick and O'Brien opposed. Chairman Hughes stated the application was denied on all three grounds. The minutes will approved at the next meeting. Chairman Hughes asked for appointments for a chair or vice chairman. He stated everyone was eligible to be chairman, except him and Boardmember Knis could not be eligible as vice- chairman. Boardmember Dyer stated he would accept as chairman. Boardmember Kendrick made the motion to nominate Boardmember Dyer as chairman and Greg Hughes as vice chairman. Boardmember OBrien seconded. The vote was unanimous. A motion was made and approved to adjourn at 8:30 PM. Greg Hughes f Chairman Attest: Sharon Parks ZBOA Staff Liaison