Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1972-02-17 Regular 345, MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIENDSWOOD CITY COUNCIL February 17, 1972 A Regular Meeting of the Friendswood City Council was held at the City Hall at 7:30 p.m, on February 17, 1972, with the following members present: Mayor Edward F. Stuart Councilman Ronald Hamil Councilman Ralph Lowe Councilman Richard Haken Councilman Ralph Gonzalez Councilman William Patton Councilman James Mager With a quorum present, and none absent, the following business was transacted: READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of a Regular Meeting of Feb, 3, approved as presented. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE MAYOR 1 . Letter from the Church of the Nazarene thanking the Council for action on their request , 2. Galveston County Mayors & Councilmen's Association will meet in LaMarque at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 23, PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 1 . Request from Republican precinct chairman for use of City Hall for May 6 primary. 2. Request from Library Board for appointment of replacement for Tom Woods on Board, and recommending Paul Fitzgerald for the position. 3, Request from School Board for endorsement of Bond Program by Council . DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 1 . Water and Sewer Dept. - Mr, Cline reported that there have been very few red, water calls' recently, 2. Streets/Drainagef Engineering Dept, - Tom Heaney reported that street work had been at.a minimum because, of the rain. He has prepared the field notes for the, Attorney on the additional ROW on Greenbriar and corrected property line description. for Van Bockel annexation (making the property contiguous to other property, for annexation.) He discussed drainage on Merrywood and overall drainage, i ,e, cleaning out of drains and gutters throughout the City. 3. Police Department - Chief Wright reviewed operation of the Humane officer and court procedure for offenders; procedure for making public and enforcing the "junk car" ordinance; government grants for riot control equipment; dispatching service; ordinance ,requiring street numbers. COUNCIL REPORTS 1 , Councilman Mager called attention to the Rev. 2,1972 Budget (Mr, Cline reported that 97,6%.of the 1971 taxes have already been collected) . He briefly reviewed the January financial report. 2, Councilman Hamil said that he has had no reply from his HUD application Tor a parks and recreation grant, 3. Councilman Lowe reported on a situation where a house is proposed to be built below the 22ft, flood line, and suggested that signs might be placed at appropriate spots indicating that areas beyond that point are below the flood line. It was agreed that these signs should be put up. 3. Councilman Patton presented maps showing water and sewer lines drawn in in color for Cauncil reference. He also proposed an ordinance against Utility lines being installed across private property, Specifically, reference was made to lines within subdivisions which would eventually become the City's responsibility, but would afford no access by the City personnel for working .on these lines. la. Councilman Hamil also made a report on his visit to the Truss Plant regarding their violation of the zoning ordinance. He stated that they were told by him that they could (a) apply for rezoning (b) move to .another location, of (c) shut down. The City Attorney stated that he had told Mr. -Tuttle's lawyer that they are in violation of the ordinance and must comply." A letter to this effect.will be sent to the plant from the Administrative Official . In the discussion„ Councilman Haken .cited Sec. 13 of the ordinance as designating the Board of Adjustment to .consider violations. Mrs. Ivy Fossler, Chairman of the Board of Adjustment, concurred with this and other designations as set forth in the ordinance. SPECIAL REPORT - Area Sewage Treatment Plan (Ralph Somers) ' Mr. Somers reported that negotiations for a contract with Clearwood Improvement District have reached a dead-end; he read a letter he has written to Clearwood regarding this fact, and asked that Council put their stamp of approval on his actions and authorize copies to .be sent to various interested entities including the Texas Water Quality Board. MOTION: (Gonzalez) That Council concur with this letter and that copies be sent to those shown on the original for copies, along with a letter of transmittal from the Mayor. Second: Patton Vote: Unanimous Copies of the proposed agreements and letter from Mr. L3Anch of Clearwood are to accompany the Mayor and Mr. Somers' letters. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1 . Benson Request for Rezoning - Mr. Ray Nelson, Chairman of the Planning Commission, explained the Commission's attitude toward this particular situation, but stated that Mr. Benson had never specifically and officially requested a change in zoning from the Commission for the particular piece of property in question. 2. Baseball Association Proposal - Representatives from the Association pre- sented plans and a proposal for concession stand, storage room, and rest rooms for the park area used for baseball , and stated that with volunteer work, purchase of materials, and contract work for foundation and brick, that they could construct the building for $4,200. . Councilman Lowe asked if they could arrange for construction funds and if they would be willing to take over the job, to comply with City building regulations, and after approval of the City Building Inspector, accept the City's check for $4,200 as full reimbursement. He was told that they would accept these terms. MOTION: (Lowe) To accept the proposal from the Friendswood Baseball Assn. to reimburse them $4200 for construction of rest room, storage space, and concession stand at the Little League Park, to be paid when the project is completed and approved by the City Building Inspector. Second: Gonzalez Vote: Unanimous 3. Revision #2 to the Budget (As discussed in Council Reports) MOTION: (Mager) That Revision #2 of the 1972 Budget be approved Second: Haken Vote: Unanimous 4. Library Board Appointment 7, MOTION: (Gonzalez) That Mr. Paul Fitzgerald be appointed as replacement for Mr. Tom Woods on the Library Board. Second: Mager Vote: Unanimous 5. Use of Cit� H.all -for -May 6 Re ublican primarL MOTION: (Mager) That permission be given to this request Second: Haken - Vote: Unanimous 6. Endorsement of School Bond Program MOTION: (Lowe) That Council endorse the school program and commend the school officials for a well-organized program. Second: Patton Vote: Unanimous NEW BUSINESS C� Order and Notice of Cit Election - April 1 Mayor Stuart read the Order and Notice of City Election, designating Mr. Jim Shore as Election Judge. Mr. Shore is to be contacted for his agreement to serve. ORDINANCES 1 . Seed, Zones - An ordinance drawn up by Chief Wright is to be reviewed by the attorney and posted for reading at the next Council Meeting. 2. Do Ord dinance (Revised) - Councilman Gonzalez will make copies available for workshop consideration. 3. Heating and Air Conditioning Ordinance - Councilman Hamil said that due to the length of this ordinance, a thorough study should be' made by the next Council , and decision for passage. 4. Water Deposit Requirements - The City Attorney stated that he would draft such an ordinance for workshop by the Council . 5. Annexation of School and Van Bockel Property - The Attorney stated that 2 4 new pets ti ons wou Id ::, ;`'; be, necessary, •and, that annexation hearings would be necessary; that the hearing can be published as soon as the new petitions are received; that ten days after publication, the hearing can be held and the first reading of annexation ordinance held the same night. He asked for Council authorization to publish notice of the hearing when he receives the petitions. MOTION: (Mager) To authorize the City Attorney to publish notice of hearing on annexation of the High School and Van Bockel property. Second: Haken Vote: Unanimous First Reading - Ordinance #164 - Anti-Littering Ordinance Second Reading - Ordinance #163 - Auxiliar Police Force WARRANTS MOTION: (Mager) To approve G&A Warrants 1729 through 1762 M&O Warrants 967, 969 through 983 Second: Patton and Interest & Sinking Warrants 119 and 120 Vote: Unanimous ADJOURNMENT Motion made and seconded that the meeting adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 12;00 M. 77 Bo ie C, enry; ity cretary APPROV D: Edward F. Stuart, Mayor i ODY K. JERDEN ATTORNEY AT LAW 1026 HOUSTON BANK do TRUST BUILDING 1010 JEFFERSON HOUSTON. TEXAS 77002 228-0717 January 27, 1972 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Friendswood, Texas 109 Willowick Drive Friendswood, Texas 77546 Re: Friendswood Zoning Ordinance; Regulation of location of churches Gentlemen: A review of Texas case law concerning the exclusion of churches from residential districts reveals that the question was determined by the Supreme Court of Texas on November 15, 1944 in its opinion concerning the City of Sherman vs. Simms, et al, 183 SW2nd, P. 515. The facts in the cited case show that the City of Sher- man had a comprehensive zoning ordinance enacted under the authority of Vernon 's Annotated Civil Statutes, Article 101la- 1011h. Under the provisions of the ordinance churches were ex- cluded from dwelling and apartment districts (residential) and their erection permitted only in local retail, commercial and manufacturing districts. A challenge of the ordinance was in- stituted by a congregation named the Church of God, through its Pastor, Reverend H. L. Simms. . The church had instituted the use of a structure located in a residential district for public wor- ship. The use of the questioned structure as a church began some time after the enactment of the zoning ordinance and there- after the church made application for a certificate of zoning compliance which was denied by the building inspector on the grounds that the proposed use of the structure did not comply with the zoning ordinance of the City of Sherman since it would be a non-conforming use of property in a residential district. A Honorable Mayor and City Council January 27, 1972 In the ensuing court action the church was perpetually enjoined and forbidden to use the structure for any purpose other than residential purposes. The church appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court ' s judgment and dissolved the injunction. In reviewing the Court of Civil Appeals, the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the Civil Appeals holding and in essence stated: 1. In the exercise of police power, arbitrary and discriminatory regulations will not be upheld, but only such regulations as are reasonable and have a substantial relation to health, safety, morals or general welfare of the com- munity will be sustained. 2 . The power of a municipality to establish zones is a police power and its exercise cannot be extended beyond the accomplishment of purposes rightly within the scope of that power. 3. A zoning ordinance, which excluded churches from residential districts and relegated them to business and industrial districts, was arbitrary and would not be enforced. 4. A city's fire, health and sanitation regulations, so far as reasonable and applicable, may be en- forced as to a structure in a residence district used for church purposes, regardless of zoning, and the right to use such premises is subject to issuance of the requisite certificate of occupancy showing compliance with such regulations. A careful review of the language of the Supreme Court and of the quotations cited in the opinion would indicate that the construction of churches in residential communities might be -2- i Honorable Mayor and City Council January 27, 1972 prohibited by proper deed restrictions, but not by zoning regula- tions. Regulations, so far as reasonable and applicable to the structure and use involved (buildings, fire, sanitary and heath laws) may be enforced. If there are any further questions on this matter, please contact me. Respectfully submitted, Ody K. erden , Corporation Counsel f � OKJ:tb cc: Mayor and each Councilman All members of Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission Board of Adjustment L.B. Cline i .01111Y.-Op-SHERMAN v. SIMMS 183 S.W.2d 415 I Borden M. Seaberry, of Weatherford, for n-1 3, t al.' defendants in error. CITY OF SHERMAN v. SI,MMS e le S.,ied No. A-256 .nd NT . Irs, CKMAN, Commissioner. W.J. HI supreme Court of Texas. There is in effect in the City of Sherman Iselves." ng judg- Nov. 15, 1944.1 'a comprehensive zoning ordinance enacted ragraphs -625 under authority of Vernon's Annotated M.nicipal corporations C Civil Statutes, Arts. 101la-1011 1. Under y to this the exercise of Police Power, arbi- In will the provisions of the. ordinance churches Lnd each and discriminatory regulations 6 welling and apartment kilr)* , are excluded from d ;al to the upheld, but only such regulations as 4��-t bt districts and their erection permitted only hth Dis- sonable and have a substantial re- C, rea in local retail, commercial and manufactur- " ecitation to health, safety, morals, or general la-,,on ing districts. A congregation named The ror bond w.*iiare of the community will be sus- A to the dent, Rev. Church of God, of which respon e pastor and the other re- H.L. Simms, is the59,Ver- MB Municipal corporations 0-601 spondents are the trustees, began the use of A municipality to es-' a structure located in the residential district 1, reads The power of a `P11 zones is a police power and its ex for public worship. Section 13 of the or d the ac- dinance provides, in substance, that no I tri r in per- cannot be extended beyond ly within structure in use at the time of the adoption al of C,-,mplishment of purposes right entitled c scope of that power. Vernon's Ann: of the ordinance shall be changed in its use 0� Appeals (7jv.St. art. 1011a. until a certificate of occupancy and com pliance shall have been issued by the build L municipal corporations C-625 ing inspector. The structure in which re-- :citations Zoning ordinance, which excluded spondents began conducting their religious i the ac- (°-,:rchcs from residential districts and rel- services was not being used as a church or he -hove c;,-ited them to business and industrial dis7 place of worship at the time the ordinance cof tnc-s, was arbitrary and would not be en was adopted, and no certificate of oc ;:.rccd. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1011a I mal cupancy and compliance has been issued to jpp., them. On-April 8, 1943, they made ap- plication for such certificate, which appli 4. h1u alcipal corporations le-597, 603 statute, A city's fire, health, and sanitation reg- cation was denied by the building inspector is the %tations, so far as reasonable and appli- on April 29, 1943, on the ground that the the ren- cable,' may be enforced as to a structure proposed use of the structure "does not s of law, ,.n residence district used for church pur- comply with the zoning ordinance of the luestions ­scs, regardless of zoning and'right to City of Sherman as this would be non- -t, if the ing use of the property in a resi- 1;1c such premises is subject to issuance of confirm e facts." roquisite certificate of occupancy showing dential district." Thereafter, upon the 137 Tex. c;x-i-pliance with such regulations. Ver- amended petition of the City of Sherman, can's Ann.Civ.St. arts. -101la-1011h. the original petition having been filed April 28, one day before the application for tions are ion than certificate was denied, the respondents were he actual Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fifth perpetually enjoined and forbidden to use ig of the Supreme Judicial District. the.structure for any purpose other than for n to the residential purposes. -From that order the )articipa- Action by the City of Sherman against respondents prosecuted an appeal to the 241, L Simms and others to enjoin the use Court of Civil Appeals at -Dallas, which 't on the i Qf property in violation of a zonng.or- up to its court reversed the trial court's judgment 4_,aace. To review a judgment of the and dissolved the injunction. 181 S.W.2d Court of Civil Appeals, 181 S.W.2d 100, 100 102. ltvcr-,ing 4 judgment granting an injunc Writ of error was granted for the pur= I LOl, the plaintiff brings error. pose,o f reviewing the question of the au Judgment of. Court of Civil Appeals.af- ihoriiy'of the city 'to exclude churches from residential districts and relegate G(orge L. Hamilton, of Sherman, for, them'to business and industrial districts. in error. Having taken the case under -submission W. F. Bane of Dallas, A.'B. Curtis and and considered the arguments and briefs k I, Ca,mp, both of Fort Worth, .and of the parties, we are now well satisfied 77777777 Tex. 183 SOUTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES with the holding of the Court of Civil Ap- the exercise of that power arbitrary and peals on that question. discriminatory regulations will not be up- c pr v.­ Respondents do not question the an- held, but only such regulations as are he iing or- reasonable and have a substantial relation J thority of the city to enact zoi dinances neither do they attack th is par- to the health, safety, morals or general wet- a"­1 to ticular ordinance generally, but bring into fare of the community. The statutory an. *ac u thority under which the City of Sherman provision with reference in question only the eeded in enacting the ordinance in to churches. Their position is stated in the PrOc question expressly limits its power to these al e e opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals as follows: named purposes, as is reflected by the open- A;i ing language of Art. 1011a of Vernon's rat be "The gist of appellants' several points of Annotated Civil Statutes as follows: error is that the aforesaid zoning or (4) 4- "For the purpose of promoting health, 'r dinance, prohibiting use of this property case x residential district of Safety, morals, or the general welfare of Civil for a church in the 1­ community, the legislative body of Sherman, is- arbitrary, discriminatory and the "Itct t violative of both Federal and State Consti- cities and incorporated villages is hereby ed to regulate tutions, Texas Art. 1, Sec. 19, Vernon's empower "Thi U. S. Amendments 1 and 14. In an annotation under the heading, '4 5. Ann.St.; "Ilant Otherwise stated, appellants challenge the Zoning Regulations As Affecting Churches, restriction as having no real or tangible re- in 138 A.L.R. 1287, it is stated on page 1288 tion ai lation to the public health, safety, morals or that: therefore void." "In the relatively few cases in which 4 general welfare, and The authorities on the question presented the question has been considered, the view :.t 'Cate Foundation has has consistently been taken that an ad are few. The Russell Sage f published a text by Mr. Edward M. Bassett ministrative application of a zoning or }lave Ir - entitled "Zoning" in which will be found dinance which operates to exclude the erec- an interesting history of the development tion of church buildings in residence dis- of the law of zoning in this country. From tricts is invalid, either as violative of the and hc, that text at page 70, we quote: due process and equal protection clauses of In abo 'Federal Constitutions, or as he bui "When in 1916 the framers of the Great- the state and er New York building zone resolution were being an arbitrary or unreasonable enforce nitted tncasur discussing what buildings and uses should ment of the ordinance." be excluded from residence districts, it did We have been referred to no authority 11articu e re- with ul not occur to them that there was th (neither have we discovered any), other possibility that churches, schools, Lccn r. motest than those covered by that annotation, of and hospitals could properly be excluded which the cases most directly in point are: cAler I from any districts. They considered that Roman Catholic Bishop v. Hill, 59 Nev. attempt residential 231 90 P.2d 217, and State ex re fire, he these concomitants of civilized resid, 1. Synod life had a proper place in the best and most of 'Ohio v. Joseph, 139 Ohio St. 229, 39 no red. open localities." N.E.2d 515, 524, 138 A.L.R. 1274. . From i'lle an And from the same text at page 200 we the opinion in the case last cited we copy involve, Ictit, al quote: this language: nuance "Practically all zoning ordinances allow And we further conclude that cupanc) churches in all residence districts. It the administrative act of respondents in " would be unreasonable to force them into refusing a permit to erect a church in the Th e business districts where there is noise and residential district, there being no adequate versed where land values are high, or into dense showing that this exclusion of the church ce of the public health, such re cc districts (in cities which have es- was in furtherance r,-Cessa tablished several kinds of such districts). safety, morals or the public welfare, was that the numerous arbitrary and unreasonable and in viola- 0'e des( Some people claim teing t churchgoers crowd the street, that their an- tion of relator's rights under the State and tomobiles line the curbs, and that the music Federal Constitutions." and preaching disturb the neighbors. Com- [2,3] With this conclusion all the V.A.C.; .1 munities that are too sensitive to welcome available authorities seem to agree. It churches should protect themselves by pri- to must not be overlooked that the power to The j vate restrictions." establish zones is a police power and its The justification for zoning rests exercise cannot be extended beyond the ac- in the police power of municipalities. In complishment of purposes rightly within Ty, C t .y CITY OF SAN ANGELO v. SITAS rail nd the scope of that 183 s.w.2d 417 TeL 417-t bt. up- p power. To exclude verses the as are churches from residential districts does not remands the cause thereto with al c relation promote the health, the safety, the morals is affirme Judgment re the trial court and 2ral wet- or the general welfare of the community, d. ructions, tory au- and to relegate them to business and man- Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court. >herman ufacturing districts could conceivably result ante in in imposing a burden upon the free rim ht to worship and, in some instances, in prohibit- to these w 1e open- ing altogether the exercise of that right. T XEY NUMBER SYSTEM rernon's An ordinance fraught with that danger will not be enforced. health, (4] The other questions arising in the fare of case are correctly decided b od of Civil A Y the Court e- CITY OF SAN ANGELO et al. v. SITAS. y Appeals, and as our opinion with,re- hereby spect thereto we adopt the following from No. A-68. that court's opinion: .eading, "This is not to say, Supreme Court of Texas. however, that a a- April 26, 14. .urches, pellants' occupancy may be without regul ;e 1288 tion. In Sec. 13 of the ordinance in tion are valid municipal re ques- Rehearing Denied Dec.6,1944. which respective of zoning: P quiremets i* i, Municipal corporations Ga661(() e view remises shall be used or occupied nor The legislature has paramount and un- p in ad- changed in use or occupancy until certi- restricted authority over the streets of a 1g or- ficate of occupancy and compliance shall cityas highways a ,c_ have been issued b the building ins ecto public hi hwa s and by virtue of y this authority, it may authorize the placing s_ stating that such use or change in use com, of obstructions which might otherwise be f plies with all the buildingg deemed nuisances. c rye and health laws * *, ' fire, sanitary u"br as In above application for permit(Itall ade to cs ours.) 2. The clpal corporations '661(I) .force- the building inspector, defendants are com- over the s gis ature may delegate its .mitted to an observance of all regulatory authorities and vest in them such authority is of a city to the municipal measures of the city, and incident to their and control as might be thought best f other particular use- further compliance there- the Y other with under ordinance or otherwise having subds. 16, 18, 19,24. or v g Rev.St.1925, art. 1175, tn, of been prevented by injunction. On the t are: other hand, there is evidence that, in the tr Nev. attempted use a 3• Municipal corporations ezz,693 p ppellee's laws relative to Statute empowering synod fire, health, sanitation etc. g" g_ re ulate all street and sidewalk nobol str nd o '9, 39 pored. are being' i �' From able and applicable regulations, so far as reason- tions and the erection of signs or billboards to the structure and use does not contemplate that ever COPY invoIred, may be enforced of a street or sign erected over absidewalk tent , and to that ex- appellants' rights e are subject to is is to be condemned as a nuisance per se, al- that suance of thnamed certificate of oc- though it might result in private injury in is in cupancy. n the "Thesome cases. Rev.St.I925, art. 1175, subds. judgment appealed from is _ 16' I8' 19' 24' luate versed and injunction dissolved. re lurch parties should be allowed to comply Appellant 4. Municipal corporations 'g93 :alth, such requirements allowed Sec. with In adopting ordinance relating the was - necessar 13 as may be erection of signs over sidewalk, the ocity yand !iola- the described property for church purposes; the erection of all appropriate to their use of of San Angelo did not attempt to prohibit andbeing F qu Stedthereby entitled to the permit re- regulate and control ceta rta in signs, and°no but to license, Otherwise and in event of non- sign so licensed can be regarded as a the compliance, the provisions of Art. 1011h, sance. Rev.St.1925, art. 1175 su It V'e to would thereupon become avail- 18, 19, 24. nui- able to the City bds. 16, ? y of Sherman." s The judgment of the5. Municipal corporations C=821(8) peals Court of Civil Ap- Where city ordinance which dissolves the injunction 183 S.NV. 1e- maintenance of certain signsrowhi Prohibited the TEx.DEc.1832d-27 183 S.FY.2d-9 prO' �G -